The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in ... · PDF fileThe Palace of Lausus and Nearby...

The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in Constantinople: A Topographical StudyAuthor(s): Jonathan BardillReviewed work(s):Source: American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 101, No. 1 (Jan., 1997), pp. 67-95Published by: Archaeological Institute of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/506250 .

Accessed: 15/02/2013 15:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Journal of Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:45:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aia

http://www.jstor.org/stable/506250?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in

Constantinople: A Topographical Study JONATHAN BARDILL

Abstract

The Palace of Lausus in Constantinople is generally identified with the rotunda and adjoining hall excavated to the northwest of the Hippodrome by Duyuran in 1951 and Naumann in 1964. An examination of the literary sources and of neglected archaeological evidence, however, suggests that Lausus's palace remains undiscovered, closer to the Forum of Constantine and on the opposite side of the Mese. This relocation necessitates a reconsideration of the positions of monuments known to have been close to the palace. We cannot be certain that the rotunda was built at the same time as the hexagon of the Palace of Antiochus, despite the fact that both structures contain similar cramped blocks of ashlar. The church of St. John in the Diippion cannot have been founded in the rotunda or adjoining hall, and it probably stood closer to the Milion and St. Sophia. The "Pal- atio ritondo di Costantino" of the Braun and Hogen- berg panorama does not seem to relate to the structures northwest of the Hippodrome.*

LOCATION OF THE PALACE OF LAUSUS

In 1939, frescoes depicting the life and martyr- dom of St. Euphemia were discovered to the northwest of the Hippodrome in Istanbul. When Schneider conducted excavations there in the summer and au-

tumn of 1942, he revealed a hexagonal hall preceded by a semicircular portico (fig. 1).1 During later excavations by Duyuran in 1951-1952, a column base

bearing the inscription "Of Antiochus the praepositus" was found in situ in the portico.2 This discov-

ery securely identified the monument as the Palace of Antiochus, in which a church of St. Euphemia was later established, probably when relics of the saint were transferred to Constantinople from Chalcedon in 680.3 The construction of the palace can be safely assigned to about 402-439, when the eunuch Anti- ochus is known to have served in the Great Palace.

Using the stamped bricks recovered during the excavations in conjunction with the literary sources, we may suggest that it was probably built after 429.4

A number of literary sources, which are examined in detail below, suggest that the Palace of Lausus stood no great distance from the Palace of Antiochus. When Palladius dedicated his Lausiac History to him in 420, Lausus was the Grand Chamberlain (praepositus sacri cubiculi) of Theodosius II. By 422, he had been replaced in the post by one Macrobius, but he

possibly held the position again in 431, when he was at least recommended for it by Cyril of Alexandria,

* I wish to thank the British Academy, Linacre College, and the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford for their support; Albrecht Berger, Cyril Mango, and AJA's anonymous reviewers for reading and commenting on earlier versions of this paper; and Michael Vickers, Dimitris Plantzos, and IdaJohansen for advice. I am also grateful to Nubar Ham- partumian and LizJames for permission to reproduce figs. 7 and 8, to the Deutsches Archaologisches Institut in Is- tanbul for figs. 3, 9, and 13, to the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge, for fig. 14, to Alison Wilkins for drawing figs. 1 and 9, and to Robert Wilkins and Susan Hurst for preparing the photographs.

The following abbreviations are used: Guilland R. Guilland, Etudes de topographie de Con-

stantinople byzantine I-II (Berliner by- zantinistische Arbeiten 37, Berlin 1969).

Mango 1959 C. Mango, The Brazen House: A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Arkaeologisk-kunsthis- toriske Meddelelser 4.4, Copenhagen 1959).

Mango 1990 C. Mango, Le developpement urbain de Con- stantinople (IVe-VIIe siecles)2 (Travaux

et memoires du Centre de recherche d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, Collkge de France Monographies 2, Paris 1990).

Mango 1993 C. Mango, Studies on Constantinople (Var- iorum Collected Studies, Aldershot 1993).

'See A.M. Schneider, "Grabung im Bereich des Eu- phemia-Martyrions zu Konstantinopel,"AA 58 (1943) 255-89 for the first discoveries.

2 R. Duyuran, "Second Report on Excavations on the Site of the New Palace ofJustice at Istanbul," IstArkMiizYzll 6 (1953) 75.

3 The church of St. Euphemia is said to have been in -d 'Avt6rtou according to the Synaxarion of Constantinople (ed. H. Delehaye, 47-49, 811-13). On the date of the translation of the relics, see A. Berger, "Die Reliquien der Hei- ligen Euphemia und ihre erste Translation nach Konstan- tinopel," Hellenika 39 (1988) 311-22.

4 The evidence for the length of Antiochus's career and the dating of his palace is discussed by G. Greatrex and J. Bardill, "Antiochus the Praepositus, a Persian Eunuch at the Court of Theodosius II," DOP 50 (1996, forthcoming).

American Journal of Archaeology 101 (1997) 67-95 67



68 JONATHAN BARDILL [AJA 101

Mese ?a...c;- ? " ... ... ... -

--- ,

it ... "

" j """2 , ..!.

/. ?? ,s'

~~~~Rotun d-a ---- - ,

//, IvkL :.s? .

XA

.. ... :

,r ,, !

!-4 i '~ 1 ?\

Palace of -

"••.Antiochus

Ib? /• .."?~

'

% it

/

/'

//00 50 100 Metres

: ~? i ,: , i.,

' ... . .. ,''

:'

Fig. 1. Plan of the discoveries made at the northwest corner of the Hippodrome in Istanbul between 1939 and 1964. (A. Wilkins, after W. Muiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls [Tiibingen 1977] pl. 109)

and perhaps also in 436. A letter from Firmus, bish-

op of Caesarea, which was probably sent to the Lau- sus with whom we are concerned, refers to his great wealth and large mansion.5 It was here, and near the

porticoes flanking the Mese (or "Middle Street"),6 that Lausus displayed the collection of antique stat-

uary for which he is best known. The assemblage included an Athena from Lindos by Skyllis and Di-

5 On Lausus, see J.R. Martindale, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 2: AD 395-527 (Cambridge 1980) s.v. Lausus, LAVSVS 2, and Lausus 3.

6 Cedrenus (Historiarum compendium, ed. I. Bekker, I, 616) indicates that statues were displayed in the porticoes along the Mese: "[The fire] also destroyed the porticoes on either side of the street Mese and the excellent offerings of Lau- sus: for many ancient statues were set up there" (trans. C.

Mango, "The Literary Evidence," in C. Mango, M. Vickers, and E.D. Francis, "The Palace of Lausus at Constantinople and Its Collection of Ancient Statues,"Journal of the History of Collections 4 [1992] 91 [Cedrenus B]). A variant text of the Patria (II, 36 [G], ed. T. Preger, Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum II) describes the statues as in the palace and facing the thoroughfare.



1997] THE PALACE OF LAUSUS AND NEARBY MONUMENTS IN CONSTANTINOPLE 69

poinos, the Knidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, the Sa- mian Hera of Boupalos, Lysippos's Eros, Pheidias's

Olympian Zeus, Lysippos's Kairos, and numerous sculptured beasts. Pheidias's 12.5-m-high statue of Olympian Zeus was presumably under cover, which

suggests that Lausus's palace was extremely large.7 Vickers and Francis have suggested that Lausus arranged his statues in a meaningful program: Lysip- pos's tiny figures of Eros and Kairos were positioned to Zeus's right and left, respectively, his colossal statue

towering above them. The message, they suggest, was the power of Virtue over Love and Chance.8

In support of this interpretation, we may refer to the illustration on folio 6v of the early sixth-

century codex of Dioscorides in Vienna.9 Here, Ani- cia Juliana is depicted, like the Olympian Zeus, in a rigid, frontal pose, seated on the sella curulis. The figures that flank her are identified as personifica- tions of her virtues: on her right hand sits Magna- nimity (Myakotwuxita), who holds a large pile of

gold coins to her chest, and on her left sits Prudence

(4p6vroitq). These three figures dwarf a tiny winged

cupid, who stands toJuliana's right and presents her with the codex. He, too, represents a facet of her personality: Desire of the Lover of Building (160oq [T]fj; DthoKrioOu), the Lover of Building being Juliana herself. Juliana, inspired by Prudence, takes just a handful of coins from Magnanimity and scatters them onto the codex to satisfy her Desire. A female figure representing the Gratitude of Art ([E6]xa[p]totia teX-

vyv) prostrates herself atJuliana's feet. The position- ing of the tiny cupid on the right hand of the large, seated, forward-facing, rigid figure is clearly part of the same tradition as the composition of statues in

Lausus's palace.Just as Lausus's composition implied the victory of Virtue over Love and Chance, so in the manuscript illustration, Juliana's magnanimity and prudence govern her desire for building.'0

There is a consensus among scholars of Constan- tinopolitan topography that Lausus's palace is to be identified with the structures discovered between Antiochus's hexagonal hall and Divan Yolu (which follows the course of the ancient Mese). Here, Duy- uran uncovered a rotunda with a semicircular entrance portico," and when Naumann excavated the area in 1964, an adjoining great hall, 52.5 m long and 12.4 m wide, was revealed (fig. 1).12 In fact, Naumann was reluctant to conclude that the rotunda and adjoining hall were part of the Palace of Lausus,13 and Janin was also cautious, suggesting that his residence might have been further to the west.14 Nevertheless, this identification has gained acceptance in the works of Krautheimer, Mfiller-Wiener, and Berger.15 In a recent study of Lausus's collection of antique statu- ary, Mango has stated, "Though not absolutely certain, this identification is extremely likely on the basis of such topographical information as is available to us"'6 The topographical information is slight, but what little there is, when considered in conjunction with two neglected archaeological discoveries, would suggest that the Palace of Lausus was elsewhere, and is yet to be discovered.

Cistern of Philoxenus and St. Aquilina The first clue to the location of the palace is pro-

vided by the 11th-century chronicler Cedrenus (His- toriarum compendium, ed. I. Bekker, I, 564),7 who asserts that the Cistern of Philoxenus got its name,

7 M. Vickers and E.D. Francis, "The Arrangement of the Statues," in Mango et al. (supra n. 6) 93.

8 Vickers and Francis (supra n. 7) 95-96. 9 The codex was made for Anicia Juliana to commem-

orate the dedication of her church of the Theotokos at Honoratoi. Folio 6v is conveniently reproduced in color in R.M. Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium: The Discovery and Excavation of Anicia Juliana's Palace-church in Istanbul (Lon- don 1989) pl. 173.

10 EAA 1 (Rome 1958) 394-96, s.v. Anicia Giuliana (C. Bertelli). The figural arrangement is standard, and the frame consisting of two large, interlaced squares (inscribed within a circle) creates an effect similar to traditional architectural settings. Perhaps the most strikingly similar scene appears on the famous silver missorium of Theodosius I, which depicts Theodosius enthroned between Valentin- ian II and Arcadius, beneath a structure consisting of four columns supporting an arcuated pediment; see the discussion in S.G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1981) 214-21. The missorium and the manuscript illustration have been discussed together by P.C. Berger, The Insignia of the Notitia Dignitatum (New York 1981) 175-83. See also J. Trilling, "Myth and Metaphor at the Byzantine

Court: A Literary Approach to the David Plates," Byzantion 48 (1978) 253.

11 Duyuran (supra n. 2) 78-80. 12 See R. Naumann, "Vorbericht iiber die Ausgrabung-

en zwischen Mese und Antiochus-Palast 1964 in Istanbul"' IstMitt 15 (1965) 135-48.

13 N. Dolunay and R. Naumann, "Untersuchungen zwischen Divan Yolu und Adalet Sarayi 1954," IstArkMiizYzll 11-12 (1964) 137: "Die ursprfingliche Annahme, es k6nnte sich um einen Teil des hier vermuteten Lausos-Palast han- deln, der zwischen Philoxenos-Zisterne (Binbirdirek) und Mese (Divan Yolu) gelegen zu haben scheint, ist kaum zu begriinden." Cf. Naumann (supra n. 12) 143.

14 R. Janin, "Notes de topographie et d'histoire," REByz 23 (1965) 256-57.

15 R. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architec- ture4 (Harmondsworth 1986) 71, fig. 30; W. Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tiibingen 1977) 238-39; A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (Poi- kila Byzantina 8, Bonn 1988) 286.

16 Mango (supra n. 6) 89. 17 Translation in Mango (supra n. 6) 91 (Cedrenus A).



Theotokos in D he Chalkopratera

Scale of metres s.o

0 50 100 150 200 250

C.

\cC

Senate House o

),

Cistern of

;'

Basilca 1/o

[

Philoxenus e

,•~.~

YerebatantSarayi

St. Aquilina? Q g o

/

4' Forum of Constantine

O

Gate? Palace of Lausus % Octagon and House of Symmachus? St. Theodore of Sphoracius Patriarchal Li .Palace?

Cemetery Hypogeum Divant

Yolu (Mese or Regia)

SS " Camii S air Augusta

i- Binbirdirek Hesagon

SChalke? Sate House

Antiochus Baths of Zeuxippos

04%

Qrb~~IbO`QI "s~ '\

Fig. 2. Plan of the Byzantine remains between the Chalke and the Forum of Constantine. (J. Bardill)

0

z

z r(

F-




meaning "hospitable," because it supplied water to hostels (4evoSocsia) in tr" Aa6oou, that is, in the immediate vicinity of the Palace of Lausus. The roughly contemporary Patria Constantinoupoleos (I, 63, 67, ed. T Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum II) asserts that the Cistern of Philoxenus was built

by a magister of that name who was one of the 12 sen- ators that Constantine the Great brought from Rome when he founded Constantinople. In recension C of the Patria, the Cistern of Philoxenus is placed near the Forum of Constantine (ed. T Preger, 300), and the Synaxarion of Constantinople refers to a church of St. Aquilina cv Toig q iXoevou rriloiov toO (p6pou, that is, in the vicinity of the Cistern of Philoxenus, close to the Forum of Constantine (ed. H. Delehaye, 429, 465 [Sa], 748). The texts therefore suggest that both the Cistern of Philoxenus and the church of St. Aqui- lina were close to the Forum of Constantine, although it is unclear on which side of the Mese they lay. The Palace of Lausus, to which the cistern provided water, was probably not very far away.

The location of the Forum of Constantine is not in doubt, for the battered remains of the emperor's porphyry column still stand (fig. 2).18 The forum'is known to have been circular or oval, but its exact dimensions are unfortunately unknown. During the laying of drains in Divan Yolu in 1931, some large foundations were discovered about 75 m east of the column. Their identification is open to question, since Mamboury provided no details of their construction, although he himself believed that they related to a gate in the pre-Constantinian city walls.19 The location of the discovery is shown on a plan made by Mamboury, which I publish here for the first time (fig. 3).2o0 If these foundations do indeed relate to a gate in the ancient walls, the Forum of Constantine can have extended no more than 75 m on either side of the column.

Numerous scholars- e.g.,Janin, Naumann, Mfiller- Wiener, Berger, and Mango2- have followed the French zoologist and classicist Pierre Gilles (d. 1555)22 in identifying the Cistern of Philoxenus with

18 On Constantine's column, see Mango 1993, chs. 2 (= C. Mango, "Constantinopolitana,"Jd180 [1965] 305-36, but

lacking addendum), 3, and 4 (= C. Mango, "Constantine's Porphyry Column and the Chapel of St. Constantine," Aaer'ov rtlq Xpoanav1K'jq Ap azo)aoy1Kjq Eraipeia; ser. 4, 10 [1981] 103-10). On Constantine's forum, see Mango 1990, 25-26.

19 See E. Mamboury, Istanbul touristique (Istanbul 1951) 61. Mango has argued that the walls often attributed to Severus had in fact been built much earlier- perhaps before 400 B.C.-- and that they were demolished by Severus in A.D. 193-195/6 and rebuilt along the same course between 240 and 250 (Mango 1990, 13-15).

20 Other remains shown on Mamboury's plan may be briefly mentioned. The hypogeum was found in 1940 dur-

ing the construction of a hotel, and four stamped bricks of the sixth century were found in situ (E. Mamboury, brick-

stamp notes [property of Cyril Mango], "Parages du Pr6toire. Mese"). Other funerary remains were found at the Forum in 1929-1930 (Mamboury, "Les mystires de la Colonne

Brul6e," HlsEpayu'va roy 0' AzEOvoqS BvUavrIVoAoY)Ko6V 2vve6piov 1 [Thessaloniki, 12-19 April 1953 (1955)] 275-80) and in 1963-1964 (N. Firatli, "Short Report on Finds and

Archaeological Activities outside the Museum," IstArkMiiz- Yzll 11-12 [1964] 207-209; and W. Kleiss, Topographisch- archdologischer Plan von Istanbul: Verzeichnis der Denkmdler und Fundorte [Tiibingen 1965] 9, no. 45). See also Mango 1990, 15. The columns to the southwest of Constantine's column are erroneously labeled as "Arcades chalinariques." They are evidently the same as those mentioned in Mam- boury, "Les fouilles byzantines A Istanbul et dans sa ban- lieue imm6diate aux XIXe et XXe siecles," Byzantion 11 (1936) 254, where they are wrongly described as "sur la droite de la rue." Mango, misled by this description, concluded that the columns extended westward from the base of Constantine's column itself (Mango 1993, ch. 4 [see supra n. 18] 106, 108, fig. 1). Notes of David Talbot Rice in the

Barber Institute, Birmingham University, describe the discovery of part of this colonnade in January 1928. It is recorded there that the column bases were identical to some reused in the nearby Atik Ali

Papa Camii. The identifica-

tion of this portico poses some problems. At first sight it would appear to form part of the colonnade that flanked the Mese on the south side. It is unlikely, however, that the colonnades bordering the Mese would have continued through the middle of the forum. Mamboury's plan suggests that the interaxial span of the columns was about 2.5 m, whereas WE. Betsch, The History, Production and Dis- tribution of the Late Antique Capital in Constantinople (Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1977) 174 has suggested that the columns of the Mese were as much as 5 m apart. In this con- text, note also the remains of sixth-century shops discovered by Naumann (supra n. 12) 145-46 beside the Mese, and two short sections of wall found near the fountain of Atik Ali

Papa Camii that may also be associated with

such shops: Mamboury, "La nouvelle citerne byzantine de Tchifte Serail," Byzantion 11 (1936) pl. 17.

21Janin (supra n. 14) 257; and R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine: Developpement urbain et repertoire topographique2 (Paris 1964) 207-208 (although rightly noting another can- didate, the first alternative discussed infra); Miiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 280, pl. 263; Dolunay and Naumann (supra n. 13) 137; Naumann (supra n. 12) fig. 5; Berger (supra n. 15) 617; Mango (supra n. 6) 90; and C. Mango, "The Water Supply of Constantinople," in C. Mango, G. Dagron, and G. Greatrex eds., Constantinople and Its Hinterland (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 3, Aldershot 1995) 16.

22 P. Gilles, De topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius an- tiquitatibus libri quatuor (Lyons 1561) 131-32 (trans. J. Ball, The Antiquities of Constantinople [London 1729] 162-63). Gilles's identification was not based on any superior knowledge. Gilles also knew a smaller cistern to the west discussed infra.



. . . . . . .

........

. .

wzI

. . . . . . ............................

..................

Air-

Fig. 3. E. Mamboury's plan of discoveries made near the Column of Constantine. (Deutsches Archiiologisches Institut, Istanbul, neg. R17531)

C4

0 z H

z

0- t-




the subterranean Cistern of One Thousand and One Columns (Binbirdirek), which measures 64.0 x 56.4 m and is located about 200 m east of the Column of Constantine, on the south side of the Mese, and

immediately to the west of the Palace of Antiochus

(fig. 2). The undecorated basket capitals and the masons' marks in this cistern suggest a sixth-century date (although the few brickstamps that have so far been published appear to date to the fifth cen-

tury).23 For this reason, it has been suggested that the man after whom the cistern was named was perhaps Flavius Theodorus Philoxenus, consul of 525.24

The Binbirdirek cistern is generally identified with the Cistern of Philoxenus simply because it is the best-known cistern beside the Mese. It is a significant, though neglected, fact that there are at least two other cisterns in this region.

The first is a subterranean cistern located west of

Binbirdirek, between Boyaci Ahmet Sokagi and Pi-

yerloti Caddesi (fig. 3).25 It is substantially smaller than the Binbirdirek, measuring 42.5 x 25 m inter-

nally. It contains 32 columns with Corinthian capitals and high impost blocks. The capitals do not appear to have been reused, and both they and the cistern have been dated to the first quarter of the fifth cen-

tury.26 This cistern does not seem to be mentioned in the literary sources.

The second cistern was apparently open to the

air, and located to the northwest of Binbirdirek, on the northern side of the Mese (fig. 2).27 Part of its eastern wall can still be seen on the west side of Ba- biali Caddesi (fig. 4). It was first published by J.B. Ward-Perkins in a well-known study of Early Byzan- tine masonry styles, where it was suggested that it

might be a section of the fortifications of Severus.28 Later excavations showed it to be the eastern wall of a huge cistern.29 This wall was traced for 90 m, and the interior was excavated to a depth of 14 m

from the top of the surviving walls, without the bot- tom being reached. The cistern was therefore sub-

stantially larger than Binbirdirek. The bricks

(340-370 mm square x 40-50 mm thick) are ar-

ranged in bands of about five courses (ca. 0.35 m high) that alternate with bands of mortared rubble (ca. 1.04 m high) faced with around seven courses of

small, squared, limestone blocks (ca. 200-250 mm

long x 120-150 mm high).30 Alternating bands of brick and stone were probably in use in Constantin-

ople in the late fourth century, for parts of the terrace walls near the Forum of Theodosius I, which was inaugurated in 393 (ed. L. Dindorf, Chron. Pasch.

565), were of stone-faced, mortared rubble with brick bands five courses high.31 But it is the masonry of the Land Walls (completed by April 413)32 that ap-

23 The earliest firmly dated basket capitals are the highly decorated ones from the church of St. Polyeuktos of 518-527 (R.M. Harrison, Excavations at Saraphane in Is- tanbul 1 [Washington, D.C. 1986] 417). For the masons' marks, see K. Wulzinger, "Die Steinmetzzeichen der Bin-bir-direk," BZ 22 (1913) 459-73. Six identical or similar marks have been noted in sixth-century monuments: EW. Deichmann, Ravenna: Hauptstadt des spdtantiken Abendlandes. Kommentar 2 (Wiesbaden 1976) 206-30.

For the brickstamps, see K. Wulzinger, Byzantinische Bau- denkmaler zu Konstantinopel: Auf der Seraispitze, die Nea, das

Tekfur-Serai und das Zisternenproblem (Mittelmeer-Linder und Orient, Sammlung Kunstwissenschaftlicher Studien 1, Han- over 1925) 38. Mamboury (supra n. 19) 256 once mentioned brickstamps dating between the mid-fifth and the early sixth century and suggested that these could be used for dating the cistern. From his notes, however, it seems that all the bricks were associated with remains outside the cistern in the area bounded by Divan Yolu, Klodfarer Cad- desi, Piyerloti Caddesi, and Dostluk Yurdu Sokagi. The same remains were apparently noted by C. Emereau, "Notes sur les origines et la formation de Constantinople: Les grands centres historiques de la ville," RA 1925, 1-25 (as indicated by Kleiss [supra n. 20] 7, no. 10, but not by Milller- Wiener [supra n. 15] 283, pl. 321). Emereau, who was followed byJanin (supra n. 21) 19 and plan II (= Mango 1990, fig. 3), wrongly identified these walls with part of the Sev- eran fortifications (on which, supra n. 19).

24 Berger (supra n. 15) 617; Mango (supra n. 6) 90; Mango (supra n. 21) 16. On this personality, see Martin-

dale (supra n. 5) s.v. Philoxenus 8. 25 It appears in Miiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) pl. 321, cis-

tern F713; and in Kleiss (supra n. 20) 10, no. 73. For descrip- tions, see P. Forchheimer and J. Strzygowski, Die byzantinischen Wasserbehdlter von Konstantinopel. Beitrdge zur Geschichte der byzantinischen Baukunst und zur Topographie von Konstan-

tinopel (Byzantinische Denkmaler 2, Vienna 1893) 60-61, 210; and K. Wulzinger, "Byzantinische Substruktionsbauten

Konstantinopels," AA 28 (1913) 388-90 (the brickstamp in

fig. 15 appears to date to the fifth century). This cistern was known to Gilles (supra n. 22) 131-32 (= trans. Ball 162-63).

26 Betsch (supra n. 20) 50-59, figs. 2-6. 27 Miller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 283, pl. 321, cistern F7/7

but omitted on 232, pl. 263.

28J.B. Ward-Perkins, "Notes on the Structure and Build-

ing Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture," in D. Talbot Rice ed., The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors: Second

Report (Edinburgh 1958) 62-63. 29 N. Firatli, "Recent Important Finds in Istanbul," Ist-

ArkMiizYzll 15-16 (1969) 192-93, figs. 4-6. 30 The measurements were taken by Ernest Mamboury

on 21 August 1936 and are recorded in a notebook in the Deutsches Archiologisches Institut in Istanbul.

31 See Miiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 260-61 with area D (label omitted) on pl. 294.

32 The completion of the Land Walls is indicated by the words extructus est and completo opere in Codex Theodosianus 15.1.5. C. Pharr's translation is inaccurate, suggesting that the wall had not been completed when the decree was made.




.... . ........

....................! iii ....

Fig. 4. Eastern wall of the Cistern of Philoxenus on Bablili Caddesi. (Photo J. Bardill)

proximates most closely what can be seen in the wall of the cistern. Typical fifth-century work in the fortifications consists of bands of stone about 1.5 m high (10 courses) alternating with bands of brick about 0.42 m high (five courses), which penetrate right through the core.33 The technique continued to be used in Constantinople until at least the middle of the fifth century. In Stoudios's basilica of St. John (ca. 450),34 the brick bands are similar in height (five courses 0.43-0.44 m) to those in the Land Walls but occur more than twice as frequently, thus substan-

tially reducing the amount of stone used in the facing (each stone band consists of three courses, 0.60 m high).35 The church of the Theotokos in the Chalkoprateia (Copper Market), which is possibly to be ascribed to Verina (ca. 457-484) rather than to Pulcheria (ca. 414-453),36 is built wholly of brick (10 brick courses to 0.91 m; mortar beds 0.055 m thick) upon two courses of greenstone blocks.37 By the sixth century, pure brick masonry with occasional courses of greenstone had become the norm in Constantinople.38 This cistern can therefore be

See P. Speck, "Der Mauerbau in 60 Tagen," in H.-G. Beck ed., Studien zur Friihgeschichte Konstantinopels (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 14, Munich 1973) 135-43. Mango 1990, 49 has recently alleged that the walls were not com- pletely finished until about the middle of the fifth century. 3 Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 66; C. Foss, "Constanti- nople," in Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications, an Introduction (Pretoria 1986) 52-53, 75 styles [A], [B], and [Cl].

34 For the date of the construction of St. John, see U. Peschlow, "DieJohanneskirche des Studios in Istanbul: Be- richt fiber diejiingsten Untersuchungsergebnisse,"Jahrbuch der Osterreichischen Byzantinistik 32.4 (1982) 429-34; and Mango 1993, Addenda p. 6. Prof. Peschlow generously al- lowed me to see drawings of the stamped bricks that he recovered from the church.

5 Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 70-71. 36 Mango 1993, Addenda p. 4. 7 T.E Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Ar-

chitecture and Liturgy (London 1971) 28, pls. 17, 19-20. For the greenstone, see E Dirimtekin, "Le Skevophylakion de Sainte-Sophie," REByz 19 (1961) 390-400, pls. 1-4.

38 We have far too few closely dated Constantinopoli- tan monuments in this period to determine whether there

was a tendency for the proportion of stone to brick to be reduced as the fifth century progressed. The large proportion of stone in the Land Walls may be an exceptional case in the early fifth century, and indeed, already in the second church of St. Sophia, which was dedicated on 10 October 415 and was therefore a contemporary of the Land Walls (Chron. Pasch. 572), the proportion of stone to brick was much less than in the Land Walls and St.John of Stou- dios (stone bands 0.52 m high [three courses], brick bands 0.56 m high [six courses]); see Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 64. The wall behind the propylaeum of the second church of St. Sophia is certainly contemporary with the propylaeum and does not relate to the first church of Constan- tius. Mathews (supra n. 37) 16 incorrectly states that the wall is of "pure brick masonry" and is "quite different from the alternation of brick and stone in the Land Walls which we have come to accept as characteristically Theodosian." For sixth-century brick with occasional courses of greenstone, see Harrison (supra n. 23) pls. 30, 39, 71-73 (St. Poly- euktos); Mathews (supra n. 37) pl. 26 (SS. Sergius and Bac- chus); Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 71-72; and R. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia: Architecture, Structure and Liturgy ofJustinian's Great Church (London 1988) 67-70, esp. 68, pl. 84 (St. Sophia);




placed with a degree of certainty in the first half of the fifth century. It is possible that it is to be identified with the Cisterna Theodosiana, which, according to the Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae (VI, 8, ed. O. Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum) compiled ca. 423-427, existed in Region Five (north of the Mese and east of the Forum of Constantine).39 If so, our cistern would have to have been constructed before 427. In the woodcut of ca. 1530-1550 ascribed to the Venetian

cartographer Giovanni Andrea Vavassore (fig. 5), and in that published in G. Braun and E Hogenberg's Civitates orbis terrarum of 1572 (fig. 6), both derived from a lost original of ca. 1480, the overgrown cistern can perhaps be seen immediately below (or east

of) Constantine's column, on the right hand (or north) side of the Mese.40

Despite current scholarly opinion, the Binbirdi- rek Cistern, which is about 200 m east of the Col- umn of Constantine, can hardly be identified with the Cistern of Philoxenus, which is said to have been near the Forum. For this reason, Strzygowski and Guilland rightly rejected the identification,41 al-

though the latter provided no justification for his

suggestion that the Cistern of Philoxenus was in fact to the north of the Mese, nor for his assertion that the Palace of Lausus was to the south.42 Both of the cisterns we have mentioned are closer to the Forum of Constantine than the Binbirdirek cistern and are,

therefore, better candidates for the Cistern of Phi- loxenus. For memory of it to have been preserved in our texts, Philoxenus's cistern must have been a

large and, probably, highly visible structure, which

suggests that it should be identified with the cistern west of Babiili Caddesi. Since the structural tech-

nique suggests a construction date in the first half of the fifth century, and since the Notitia may indicate a date before 427, it cannot have been built by Flavius Theodorus Philoxenus, consul of 525. The individual who ordered its construction may rather have been the magister officorum named Philoxenus who is attested in the first half of the fifth century.43 This would agree nicely with the assertion of the Patria (I, 63) that the cistern was built by a magister named Philoxenus, even though the same text places him in the fourth century rather than the fifth. The Cistern of Philoxenus was therefore located north of the Mese, and west of Babiili Caddesi, and the church of St. Aquilina, which is known to have stood close to both the cistern and the Forum of Constan- tine, may have been located between the two of them.44

Street Leading from the Mese to the Copper Market The second clue to the location of the Palace of

Lausus is provided by Constantine Porphyrogenitus's 10th-century Book of Ceremonies. It is recorded there

U. Peschlow, Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul: Untersuchungen zur Architektur (IstMitt-BH 18, Tiibingen 1977) 215-23 with fold- ers (St. Eirene); S. Casson, Preliminary Report upon the Ex- cavations Carried Out in the Hippodrome of Constantinople in 1927 on behalf of the British Academy (London 1928) 20-21, with figs. 30-31; and Casson, Second Report upon the Exca- vations Carried Out in and near the Hippodrome of Constanti- nople in 1928 on behalf of the British Academy (London 1929) 6-7 (Baths of Zeuxippos). This technique is attested under Justinian by Procopius (ed. H.B. Dewing, Aed. 1.2).

39 For the date of the Notitia, see Speck (supra n. 32) 144-50. Marcellinus Comes (ed. T Mommsen, in trans. B. Croke) states that in 407 a very large cistern was built next to the porphyry column in the Forum of Constantine. Since it was clearly in Region Six and subterranean (sub plateae transitum or "under the street-crossing"), it cannot be identified with the cistern beside Babiali Caddesi, which was in Region Five and above ground. For platea designating the Mese, see R. Guilland, "La Mese ou Regia. 'H M'onl, ~l 'Plyia," in Actes du VIe Congres des etudes byzantines (Paris 1948) 2 (1951) (reprinted in Guilland II, 69-79) 177.Janin (supra n. 21) 210 is certainly correct in suggesting that Mar- cellinus cannot be referring to the Yerebatan Sarayi, which was constructed by Justinian. Krautheimer (supra n. 15) 238 ascribes the Yerebatan Sarayi to the fifth century, presumably on the basis of the 98 acanthus capitals. C. Mango, however, explains these as "outdated builder's stock" (Byzan- tine Architecture [History of World Architecture, Milan 1978]

68). More recently, Betsch (supra n. 20) 134, 233-34 has suggested that the capitals are in fact Justinianic.

40 On the Vavassore woodcut, see Mango 1990, 9; C.L. Striker, "The 'Coliseo de Spiriti' in Constantinople," in O. Feld and U. Peschlow eds., Studien zur spdtantiken und byzantinischen Kunst (EW Deichmann gewidmet) 1 (Rbmisch- Germanisches Zentralmuseum Forschungsinstitut ffir Vor- und Fruihgeschichte Monographien 10.1, Bonn 1986) 14-15; and for a systematic discussion of the monuments depicted, A. Berger, "Zur sogenannten Stadtansicht des Vavassore," IstMitt 44 (1994) 329-55 (where this cistern is not noted).

41 Forchheimer and Strzygowski (supra n. 25) 170-71; and R. Guilland, "Le Palais de Lausus," Hellenika 17 (1962) (reprinted in Guilland II, 32-35) 99.

42 Berger (supra n. 15) 617-18 retains the generally accepted identification of the Binbirdirek with the Cistern of Philoxenus, but realizes that rtd <Ptlo?vou must have applied to an area extending as far as the Forum of Con- stantine to account for the church of St. Aquilina being described as Av roiK 0toSivou r •hloiov To0 (p6pou. He fails, however, to account for the cistern itself being described by the Patria as near the Forum of Constantine (ed. Preger, 300).

43 See Martindale (supra n. 5) s.v. Philoxenus 2. 44 R. Janin, La giographie ecclesiastique de l'empire byzantin

1: Le siege de Constantinople 3. Les eglises et les monasteres (Paris 1969) 17, however, places St. Aquilina to the south of the Mese.



it ,

r ?rr l1

wig

'd?

rsit I w~,3? Yl~l

t It

44b

rr

Fig. 5. Detail of G.A. Vavassore's panorama of Constantinople (ca. 1530-1550), looking west from the Hippodrome and St. Sophia, down the Mese toward the Column of Constantine. Arrow indicates cistern on Babiali Caddesi.

0 z oz t



IC' ;L &JLP

IIc lb %Q~ti ?~r ?? ???40 .. Mb

. sepav? ?? . -???--r~ ~P410 Sf ;S

r qp

?? Y cf~p51r zMb a a "so

%b lk OP. 00 40.~.)

??r ~ ,?. 31r ~ r? I ?? 4.o

"Wo .,dd?

Fig. 6. Detail of G. Braun and E Hogenberg's panorama of Constantinople (Civitates orbis terrarum, 1572), looking west from the Hippodrome and St. Sophia, down the Mese toward the Column of Constantine. Arrow indicates cistern on Babiali Caddesi.

rD

H

0

z

z

0 z

z H 0.

z H

z H z. 0

?d




(I, 39 [30], ed. A. Vogt) that during the Feast of the

Annunciation, the imperial procession made its way from St. Sophia to the Forum of Constantine by way of the Milion45 and the Mese. Returning from the Forum, the cortege passed down the Mese as far

as zrI Aaaoou and then turned left into the nearby portico that led to the narthex of the church of the Theotokos in the Chalkoprateia (Copper Market).

Fortunately, the ruins of this church have been found

immediately to the northwest of St. Sophia (fig. 2).46 In bad weather, the cortege went to and from the Forum of Constantine under cover of the portico flanking the Mese, and the ceremony was conducted inside the Senate House. Since Cedrenus (I, 565) tells us that the Senate House was on the north side of the Forum, it is likely that the company used the

portico on the north side of the Mese. On the return

journey, we are told that the emperor and his reti- nue passed down the same portico as far as rdt Aaaoou, where they turned toward the Copper Mar- ket. The most natural deduction from the Book of Ceremonies is that the Palace of Lausus was located to the east of the Forum of Constantine, on the north side of the Mese, beside the turn leading to the Cop-

per Market. This conclusion was reached long ago by Bieliaev, and the merits of his case were seen by Bury.47 Guilland, however, inferred from this text that the Palace was on the south side of the Mese,

opposite the street leading to the Copper Market.48 One piece of topographical evidence, however, led

Bury to doubt that the Palace of Lausus might be to the north of the Mese. According to the Synaxa- rion, the church of St. Euphemia was ?v ToiS 'Avt6bXou Kai ntjaoiov t Ov Aa6aoou, that is, in Antiochus's palace or its vicinity, close to Lausus's palace or its vi-

cinity (47-49, 811-13). This evidence constitutes one of the chief reasons for accepting the identification of the ruins immediately north of the hexagonal hall of Antiochus's palace as the Palace of Lausus. But the degree of proximity that can be deduced from these words is uncertain. It must be pointed out that two areas of the city are referred to as rtd 'AvTt6Xou. The first, which is mentioned here, was beside the Hippodrome, and the second was on the Golden Horn. The second is also referred to in the Synaxarion (ed. Delehaye, 191), since the church of St. Elissaios was located there.49 It seems likely, then, that the words zhiraiov 0roi Aaaoou were re-

45 On the Milion, see Mango 1959, 47-48, 174-79. The colossal columns in the Augustaion discussed by Mango are depicted in a Turkish illustration of 1586. See G. Ne- cipoglu, "The Life of an Imperial Monument: Hagia Sophia after Byzantium," in R. Mark and A. Qakmak eds., Hagia Sophiafrom the Age ofJustinian to the Present (Cambridge 1992) fig. 115 (black-and-white); and M. And, Istanbul in the 16th Century: The City, the Palace, Daily Life (Istanbul 1994) 42 (color). The tall stone structure west of the four columns is, I presume, the water tower built on the site ofJustinian's equestrian statue that is described by Gilles. The illustration suggests that the columns did not relate to the Milion, since the Milion stood to the west of the Augustaion. I am

grateful to Cyril Mango for bringing this illustration to

my attention. Remains in the vicinity of the Milion are shown on the plans in E. Mamboury, "Un nouvel element pour la topographie de l'antique Byzance," AA 49 (1934) 57-58; A.M. Schneider, Byzanz: Vorarbeiten zur Topographie und Archiologie der Stadt (IstForsch 8, 1936) pl. 10 (by Mam- boury); C. Mango, "Le Diippion. Etude historique et topographique," REByz 8 (1950) folder opposite p. 160; Mango 1959, figs. 36-38 (and described on pp. 184-88 by Mam- boury); W. Kleiss, "Neue Befunde zur Chalkopratenkirche in Istanbul," IstMitt 15 (1965) 150, fig. 1; and N. Firatli and T Ergil, "The 'Milion' Sounding," IstArkMiizYzll 15-16 (1969) 199-212. These remains are not shown in Milller-Wiener

(supra n. 15) pl. 263, although the sounding by Firatli and

Ergil is noted on p. 216 and some walls are shown on pl. 323. Some unpublished photographs of Firatli's sounding are to be found in the Sarachane archive of R. Martin Harrison, which is now stored in the Institute of Archaeol- ogy, Oxford (neg. nos. 4/2/7-23). Further finds made in the

area in 1926 are noted by E Dirimtekin, "The Milion (Mi- liurum, Aureum) [sic]," Ayasofya Miizesi Yzllz4z 8 (1969) 47.

46 See Kleiss (supra n. 45); W. Kleiss, "Grabungen im Be- reich der Chalkopratenkirche in Istanbul 1965," IstMitt 16 (1966) 217-40; and Mathews (supra n. 37) 28-33. The identification of the ruins cannot be doubted, since we know that the relics of Zacharias were kept in the crypt of the

chapel of St. James near the church's atrium, and since C. Mango, "Notes on Byzantine Monuments," DOP 23-24 (1970) 369-72 (reprinted in Mango 1993, ch. 16, with addendum) reports a fresco showing the slaying of Zacharias in the octagonal substructures north of the atrium of the church. Mango 1993, Addenda p. 4 rejects the sources at-

tributing the church to Pulcheria, and ascribes it to Ve- rina. The remains of the terrace wall between the church and Yerebatan Sarayi were discovered during the construction of a house on the upper terrace beside Salkims6giit Sokagi in August 1934. Part of the retaining wall and a barrel vault were destroyed. The vault was divided into rooms lit by windows that overlooked the church (Mam- boury, brickstamp notes, "Edifice entourant la citerne basilique." See also Mamboury 1936 [supra n. 20] 274).

47J.B. Bury, "The Nika Riot,"JHS 17 (1897) 112-13. 48 Guilland (supra n. 41) 33. 49 See Janin (supra n. 21) 310-11; and Janin (supra n.

44) 110-11. It has been suggested that Seyh Murad Mes- cidi may be St. Elissaios (E.A. Ivison, "The Seyh Murad Mescidi at Constantinople," BSA 85 [1990] 87). St. Elias was also in this area, however: seeJanin (supra n. 44) 137-38; and K.N. Ciggaar, "Une description de Constantinople tra- duite par un pelerin anglais," REByz 34 (1976) 211-67 (an earlier version of the anonymous description of Constan-




quired to differentiate "t 'Avrt6Xou beside the Hip- podrome from rat 'Avrt6Xou on the Golden Horn. The Synaxarion therefore indicates little about the

precise location of the Palace of Lausus, except that it was much closer to the Palace of Antiochus beside the Hippodrome than it was to r•i 'Avrit6ou on the Golden Horn. One is certainly not justified in infer-

ring from this indication that the Palace of Lausus was right beside the Palace of Antiochus, although it must have been very close.

Further evidence, the interpretation of which is more problematic, may corroborate what I have deduced above. According to Cedrenus (I, 616) and Zo- naras (Epitomae historiarum, ed. T. Biittner-Wobst, III, 130-31),50 the fire of 475 started in the Copper Mar-

ket, consumed two porticoes, the Basilica with its

library, the porticoes on either side of the Mese, the Palace of Lausus with its collection of statues, and the Forum of Constantine. Clearly the fire spread southwest from the Copper Market, consuming both the Basilica, which can be located with certainty above the Yerebatan Sarayi cistern (fig. 2),51 and, apparently, the portico-lined street linking the Copper Market to the Mese.52 When the flames had reached the Mese, they were fanned westward to the Forum of Constantine, and in the process destroyed Lausus's collection of statues. If this interpretation is correct, the Palace of Lausus was located to the west of the

street linking the Mese to the Copper Market, and to the east of the Forum of Constantine. Guilland, however, attempted to argue from these accounts that the Palace of Lausus was close to the Basilica and its library, and on the south side of the Mese.53

It should by now be clear that if the position of the street leading from the Mese to the Copper Mar- ket can be established, this will have important im-

plications for the location of the Palace of Lausus.

Berger once attempted to reconstruct the early street

system of Constantinople on a grid of rectangles mea-

suring about 130 x 120 m aligned with the axis of the Hippodrome. He assumed that the street mentioned in the Book of Ceremonies that linked the Cop- per Market and the Mese (his street E) would have

passed right next to the atrium of the church of the Theotokos and close to the northwest flank of the Yerebatan Sarayi, thus intersecting the Mese opposite the great hall discovered by Naumann (assumed by Berger to be the Palace of Lausus).54 However, two modern streets-Alay Ko6kii Caddesi and the more easterly section of Qatalgegme Sokagi - are almost perpendicular to the axis of the Yerebatan Sa-

rayi, of the church of the Theotokos in the Copper Market, and roughly parallel to the axis of the Hippo- drome and the ancient streets that must have flanked it (fig. 2).55 These roads may therefore still follow the original line of the Byzantine street linking the

tinople than that published by Mercati in 1936). We read (43): In loco Antiochi in via Blachernes est aecclesia sancti Heliae

prophetae, et est in ipsa de melote eius. 50 Mango (supra n. 6) has shown that Cedrenus and Zo-

naras were here drawing ultimately on Malchus. 51 Mango 1959, 48-51 and A. Cameron, "Theodorus

Tptaonapxor," GRBS 17 (1976) 269-86 (reprinted with ad- ditional note in A. Cameron, Literature and Society in the

Early Byzantine World [Variorum Collected Studies, Lon- don 1985] ch. 16). The Basilica Stoa already existed in Re-

gion Four by ca. 425 (Notitia V, 8, p. 176.24-27). Just two

years after the fire of 475, the Basilica Stoa was restored

by one Illos (John of Antioch fr. 211 = FHG 618). For the construction of the cistern below "the central court of the basilica of Illos" in 528, which required the destruction of the southwest portico of the Basilica, see Procop. Aed. 1.11.12-15; Malalas, Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, 435-36; Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, anno mundi 6020, 176.24-27; Chron. Pasch. 619; and Cedrenus, I, 645. Illos is also mentioned at Chron. Pasch. 622, where a reference to the Basilica Stoa must have dropped out (judging by com-

parison with Theophanes, A.M. 6024, 181.27-30 and Ced- renus, I, 647, on which see Mango 1993, Addenda p. 1). He is also known to have built a church of St. John the Baptist close to the Palace of Antiochus (Patria III, 33, 211; and Ciggaar [supra n. 49] 257 [16]). It appears to have been on the south side of the Mese.

52 R. Guilland, "La Basilique, la Bibliotheque et I'Octo- gone"' Melanges d'histoire litteraire et de bibliographie offerts ci

Jean Bonnerot (Paris 1954) (reprinted in Guilland II, 3-13) n. 35 plausibly suggested that the two porticoes belonged to the street linking the Mese to the Copper Market. North- east winds are common in Constantinople (cf. Mango 1959, 56, n. 128).

53 Guilland (supra n. 41) 98-99. 54 A. Berger, "Die Altstadt von Byzanz in der vorjustin-

ianischer Zeit," Poikila Byzantina 6 (1987) 18. 55 A street running down the western flank of the cir-

cus was discovered during the excavations northwest of the Hippodrome. See Naumann (supra n. 12) 135; and

Berger (supra n. 54) 29, street D. The street that was discovered by Schneider in front of the atrium of the Theodo- sian St. Sophia (A.M. Schneider, Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul [IstForsch 12, 1941] 4 and plan 1) is perhaps part of the same one found behind the Is- tanbul Archaeological Museum (Miller-Wiener [supra n. 15] 50). Albrecht Berger has suggested to me that the ruins behind the museum may relate to the Baths of Alexander. The street may have continued along the eastern flank of the Hippodrome; see Berger (supra n. 54) 29, street A. The substructures on Cemal Nadir Sokagi, which probably date to the sixth century in their earliest phase, also share the same axis. Since the Binbirdirek and the two lesser-known cisterns close to it share the same alignment, it is possible




Mese and the Copper Market. If so, Berger's street E would have to be shifted about 50 m further west and would have intersected the Mese about 30 m west of the apse of the great hall discovered by Naumann.

Some important archaeological finds made in Qa- talgegme Sokagi during the laying of Istanbul's drain-

age system in April 1929 help to support this suggestion. Macridy reports the discovery of three

aligned column bases, apparently in situ, on a marble

stylobate, with an interaxial span of about 2.38 m. The stylobate was about 2.50 m below modern

ground level, and it and the bases rose to a combined

height of 1.20 m.56 The bases are shown clearly in a photograph taken by W. Sender (fig. 7). Many marble architectural fragments were also found: cornices, architraves, and capitals. One section of cornice was sketched in Macridy's brief report. It has

recently been illustrated in a catalogue of figured Byzantine sculpture in the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, where its provenance and date of entry into the museum are said to be unknown.57 The cornice was dated by Macridy to the end of the fifth century and by Firatli to the second half of the fifth or the first half of the sixth century. A date at the beginning of the fifth century should not, perhaps, be ruled out, for blocks from the monumental entrance to the atrium of the second St. Sophia, which was dedicated in 415 under Theodosius II (Chron. Pasch. 572), display similar sharply cut acanthus, designs between modillions, and palmette chains.58 One of Sender's

photographs shows two fragmentary capitals among the debris (fig. 8). Both- one of which displays soft

acanthus (which Betsch believes to have been produced only between ca. 400 and 425), and the other of which has mask acanthus-are similar to those from St. Sophia.59 The former, at least, is clearly too small to have been associated with the bases, which must have supported massive columns about 0.70 m in diameter at the foot.

According to Macridy, the discoveries in Qa- talgegme Sokagi were made near former prisons, and it was possible to enlarge the trench cut for the drains

only because there was a small square at a road junction. Schneider's archaeological plan of the city indicates that the discovery was made at the junction of Qatalgegme Sokagi and Ba? Musahip Sokagi,60 whereas Kleiss's revised version puts the findspot further to the northeast, at the junction of Qatalgegme Sokagi and Molla Fenari Sokagi.61 Berger, who located the column bases according to Schneider's plan, believed that they related to an otherwise unattested street (his street F) to the west of, and parallel to, the street leading to the Copper Market (his street E).62 It is surprising that the discoveries were omitted from the plans in the standard topographical dictionary of the city by Mfiller-Wiener,63 since his

copy of a sketch made by Mamboury at the time of the excavation is in the Deutsches Archiiologisches Institut in Istanbul, and this confirms that Kleiss's

topographical plan shows the correct location of the column bases (fig. 9).64 The three bases have

roughly the same northeast-southwest orientation as Alay K6okii Caddesi and the more easterly half of Qatalgegme Sokagi, which provides strong support for the suggestion that these modern streets

that BabiAli Caddesi indicates the position of an ancient street running in the same direction. Such a street would replace Berger (supra n. 54) 29, street E

56 T. Macridy in M. Schede, "Archiologische Funde: Tiirkei," AA 44 (1929) 357-58.

57 See N. Firatll, La sculpture byzantine figurie au Musie

archiologique d'Istanbul (Paris 1990) 133-34, pl. 83 (no. 263). 58s For comparative material, see Schneider (supra n. 55)

pls. 2.1, 14.1, 21.1-2, 22.1-3, and 27.1. 59 The upturned capital on the right shows soft acan-

thus. Cf. Schneider (supra n. 55) pls. 12.2 and 25.2-3. In the opinion of Betsch (supra n. 20) 189-93, this type (which he calls crowded acanthus) was produced only between 400 and 425. The fragmentary capital lying upon the cornice block displays mask acanthus. Cf. Schneider (supra n. 55) pls. 14.2 and 15-16. The Deutsches Archiologisches Institut in Istanbul has a number of photographs by Sender of these discoveries (negs. 2243-2253, 2680, and two other prints).

60 Schneider (supra n. 45) 92, no. 9.

61 Kleiss (supra n. 20) 7, no. 9. 62 Berger (supra n. 54) 18, n. 42. 63The discoveries should appear in Miiller-Wiener

(supra n. 15) pl. 263 (p. 232) and in pl. 321 (p. 283). 64 In response to my query about the location of the

prisons mentioned by Macridy, Cyril Mango kindly examined the detailed street map of ca. 1920 made for insur- ance companies by one Pervitich, where they are shown near the junction with Molla Fenari Sokagl. A sketch among Mamboury's papers on brickstamps ("Terrain Vague en face du Bilyiik Zaptiye") shows a shaded area in this location but does not indicate the nature of the remains discovered. On the same plan, Mamboury recorded two parallel walls on the west side of Ticarethane Sokagi in which he found two bricks bearing fifth-century stamps. The walls are described, and the brickstamps recorded on two sheets in the archive headed "Edifice de la Rue Ticarethane." Mam- boury also suggested that the nearby Turkish bath (Aci ha- mam) was built on Byzantine remains.




Also::::::

:::::40,5A i:? :::i

:_:::::i:.7 777. .......... . . . . . . .. . . . .................................. . . . . . . -.~::::::MIT,~ . . . . . . ..... air::;:: Mai. i:: ji :?:::: ? ~? :? :-Y::::::Ili;86~ri~i~i` i;:::. :- :? _ _. . .. ........: ::

-ii~~ii~i~i~~i~:i'::ii~jii~i' ~ i iiiii-i '. i i - i~i~~a~il::-... .... ...~::?

. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 1i~::: IS . ... ..- i~~iij iiiliij~_:j~iijj:i iig `:':~j:i: ::: o f t-~:_~:::---'~:::: :'::::---:- :::i? -iCB'iii~i: k~i~ii~l~ i:?...................8:i i'iiiiii~iiiiii'ilr~ii"Nibs.ll

X, ?i-ii::i:i~iiii iiiiiiiti i . . .. ...

UAW;s M PT::::: iii~i . . . . . . . . . . . .-:: ::::::i~?:'~-::::::: i?: : I ~ L ?I _- --lrrx?il:://:::::::/ ::::::-/:::::j/j/:~:::/:,:

Fig. 7. Column bases found in Qatal;e?me Sokagl in 1929. (Photo W. Sender, David Talbot Rice Archive, Barber

Institute, Birmingham University)

P';:::-?::--:' -:i~~i-i-:iiii(i~i~aiti:':::::' i::':::::':::::- ...........ii-i ~:~:.IX::ii~i--i-~jeij-~:i;~_i . -i--'X--i-'-5~ -::::::-::--:::::---:;:--:: ~ X~II 111 1~~11~-1- Alk

V .11::::i:::::::::': e:i li:iilii'ii

iiii; i;i-;~i--i-' 'i-?_;--_:: ::: ::ii~iiii-iiiiiiiiii~Ilk: PO Wiii~ii

1Aili~--i-::i:i::i:: 'i:ii~i~~~~ 2Eiiii~i

-ai?'--mv. ?~va?.

Fig. 8. Capitals and cornice in the excavation in Gatalgegme Sokagl in 1929. (Photo W. Sender, David Talbot Rice Archive, Barber Institute, Birmingham University)



A B

Molla 250Fenari

Camii

0.70 - 1.20

-1.11 1 035- 0.965

0.955

0.865- 0.91 0.83

0.165- 0•12

1

--N

310

0 10 20 Metres

*;3 ?Ci il

Fig. 9. Plan of the discoveries made in Qatalgegme Sokagi in 1929. (W. Miiller-Wiener, after E. Mamboury, redrawn by A. Wilkins, courtesy Deutsches Archiologisches Institut, Istanbul)

00

z

z

I0. ? r:

FZ




still follow the path of the Byzantine colonnaded way leading from the Mese to the Copper Market. Indeed,

Mamboury, Schneider, and Kleiss all associated the remains with the portico-lined street leading to the Copper Market or with the facade of a monumental building that opened onto that street.65 A very tentative proposal for the identification of the

building to which this facade belonged is made below. If, leaving the Copper Market, the street continued the same course downhill toward the Golden Horn, it would have passed close to the Strategion and would have reached the shore at the east end of the Neorion and Prosphorion harbors.66

Conclusion I therefore propose that the open cistern west of

Babiîli Caddesi, which is probably depicted in the

panoramas of Vavassore and Braun and Hogenberg, is the Cistern of Philoxenus, and that it was built

by the magister officorum Philoxenus in the fifth century. It is probably also the Cisterna Theodosiana of the Notitia, and, if so, must have been built before 427, under Theodosius II (408-450). I also suggest that Alay K6okii Caddesi and the more easterly half of atalgegme Sokagi indicate the approximate alignment of the ancient colonnaded street linking the Mese and the Copper Market. The indications in our literary sources as to the location of the Palace of Lausus would be best satisfied by placing it on the north side of the Mese, between the cistern and the colonnaded street. The church of St. Aquilina may also be located on the north side of the street, between the cistern and the Forum of Constantine.

PALACE OF LAUSUS IN RELATION TO NEARBY MONUMENTS

Only a very few of the monuments known to have existed in Constantinople can be placed on the map with absolute certainty, and as a result the re- mainder can be located only in general terms, according to their proximity to these known points. The relocation of a single monument whose position was formerly considered fixed inevitably necessitates a reconsideration of the distribution of nearby monuments. In a number of accounts, the Palace of Lau- sus is mentioned in association with monuments the exact locations of which elude us. Before considering these accounts, however, it is convenient to discuss the location of the Octagon.

Speck has argued that the Octagon should be identified with the Temple of Tyche and also with the gate erected by Theodore in the Basilica, and that the Octagon cum temple cum gate was located along the southeast side of the Basilica, close to the Au- gustaion and the Milion.67 Cameron, however, has shown that these were three distinct monuments, and that Speck's argument for locating them all southeast of the Basilica is unacceptable.68 Where, then, was the Octagon? The Patria tells us that the Octa- gon was "near the Basilica" (III, 31), and Theodore Lector indicates that it was beside the Mese (ed. G.C. Hansen, Epitome 404).69 Bury, unfortunately, did not realize that the Octagon was beside the Mese, and placed it west of the Basilica, along the road leading to the Copper Market.70 The Octagon is not mentioned among the buildings destroyed in the fire of 475, which spread southwestward from the Copper

65 Mamboury 1936 (supra n. 20) 254; Schneider (supra n. 45) 92, no. 9; Kleiss (supra n. 45) 167.

66 See Mdiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) pl. 600. Albrecht Berger has suggested to me that the street may have desig- nated the border between Regions Four and Five. It was presumably the street that led to the Strategion. Mango has suggested that the Strategion may have been located near the main post office in Sirkeci (Mango 1990, 70). If this is correct, there would presumably have been a street leading westward from the colonnaded way to the Strat- egion (Mango 1990, 71, not alluding to the Qatalgegme remains, but nevertheless retracting his hypothetical street on plan II). Berger, however, has suggested to me that the Strategion (in Region Five) might now be shifted further east, closer to the colonnaded street and the Topkapi Sa- ray walls. Alternatively, a street following the alignment of Babidli Caddesi (see above, n. 55) may have passed close to Mango's proposed location for the Strategion.

67 P. Speck, Die kaiserliche Universitdt von Konstantinopel (ByzArch 14, Munich 1974) 92-107. The limits of the Au- gustaion have been discussed by Mango 1959, 42-47, whose account must now be supplemented: see E Dirimtekin, "The

Augusteum," Ayasofya Miizesi Yzlliz 8 (1969) 32-33, 80 (discovery in 1962 of a colonnade 4.75 m inside the southern wall of the enclosure of St. Sophia, terminating 1.80 m from the western wall of the enclosure; on attested columns in this area, see supra n. 45); and S. Eyice, "Sur l'archeologie de l'edifice dit 'Arslanhane' et de ses environs," IstArkMiiz- Yzll 11-12 (1964) 141-46, pls. 4-6 (walls toward east end of Augustaion discovered in 1937; cf. Mango 1959, 42 with n. 36). During the laying of drains south of St. Sophia in November 1935, a mass of masonry was discovered standing to about 1 m above the ancient ground level. This was located on the immediate right upon leaving the precinct of St. Sophia by the south gate, not far from an iron in- spection cover over the drains. Mamboury identified the remains with the base of the equestrian statue ofJustinian (Mamboury, brickstamp notes, "Le Forum Augusteon. La Colonne de Justinien" and "Augusteon").

68 Cameron (supra n. 51) 271-73. 69 Cf Theophanes A.M. 5967, 121.8-11. The significance

of Theodore Lector is noted in Mango 1959, 49, n. 69. 70 Bury (supra n. 47) 117-18.




Market, in the process damaging the Basilica and,

apparently, the colonnaded street leading to the Mese

(Cedrenus, I, 616; Zonaras, III, 130-31).71 This omission may not be significant, but if it is, it follows that the Octagon should be sought to the south of the Basilica, where it would have been protected from the flames by the large, open courtyard of the Ba- silica itself.

There is some further evidence that may support this conclusion. According to the Chronicon Paschale

(622), the fire of Friday, 16 January 532, began at the Praetorium of the Praetorian Prefect72 and was

spread by a north wind to the Baths of Alexander, the Hospice of Eubulus, St. Eirene, the Hospice of

Samson, and the porch of the Basilica.73 It does not seem to have been appreciated that the fire could not have spread to the Basilica directly from the Hos-

pice of Samson, which can be located with certainty between St. Sophia and St. Eirene (fig. 2).74 But St.

Sophia, which we would expect to have provided the

bridge, had already burned on the night of 14 Jan- uary or on 15 January (Chron. Pasch. 621-22), when the Chalke, the portico of the scholarii, protectores, and candidati, the Augustaion, and the nearby Sen- ate House had also been destroyed.75 Theophanes (Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor, anno mundi 6024, 184.24-27) is the only author who apparently links

the burning of St. Sophia with the fire of Friday, 16

January, but this may result from the author's desire to resolve such topographical inconsistencies by re-

organizing the order of events.76 If the porch of the Basilica was indeed ignited by a fire spreading from the Hospice of Samson, then we would have to conclude that the porch was on the northeast or southeast side of the Basilica, and that the Octagon was, as it had been in 475, protected from the flames to the south of the Basilica, since it was not destroyed until 17January (Chron. Pasch. 622-23). As far as we know, the Basilica was not damaged further on 17

January, when the fire spread from the Octagon westward down the Mese (Chron. Pasch. 622-23), which

may also indicate that the Octagon was on the south side of the Basilica.77

We may now turn to the accounts that mention the Palace of Lausus in relation to nearby monuments. It is recorded that in a riot during the reign of Phocas (602-610), "the Mese was burnt from the

palace of Lausus, and the praetorium of the city prefect, as far as the Treasury opposite the Forum of Constantine of blessed memory" (Chron. Pasch. 695).78 This passage led Mango and Janin to write that the Praetorium was between and almost equi- distant from the Palace of Lausus and the Forum of Constantine.79 But the text might equally suggest

71 The possible significance of the omission of the Oc- tagon in accounts of this fire was noted by Guilland (supra n. 52) 106-107.

72 For the Praetorium of the Praetorian Prefect, see Mango 1993, Addenda pp. 1-2. There were three Praetoria in Constantinople (Mango 1990, 71). Unfortunately, Bury (supra n. 47) 113-14, 116 confuses them. We are perhaps to conclude from Theophanes' failure to mention the burning of the Praetorian Prefecture north of St. Eirene that he did not know of it and that this ignorance in part explains his reorganization of the order of the burning of the various buildings. On the Praetorium near the Portico of Domninus, which is attested in 395 but was shortly afterward replaced by the church of the Forty Martyrs, see Berger (supra n. 15) 310, 319-21, 442-44.

73 On the Baths of Alexander, see supra n. 55. There is no doubt that a reference to the porch of the Basilica must be restored to the text of the Chronicon Paschale, judging by comparison with Theophanes, A.M. 6024, 181.27-30 and Cedrenus, I, 647. See Mango 1993, Addenda p. 1. Guil- land (supra n. 52) 101 incorrectly states that Cedrenus is the only author who mentions the porch of the Basilica, and unnecessarily suggests that the reference is in fact to the Senate House in the Augustaion.

74 Procop. Aed. 1.2.14-15. For remains in this area possibly relating to the hospice, see Peschlow (supra n. 38) 140-205.

75 Malalas (474-75), who wrongly mentions these buildings on 13January (when only the Praetorium of the City Prefect burned), is, however, reliable concerning the fire

at the Hippodrome, which he links with events that Chron. Pasch. 621 places on 14January (where the day ends at fipt; &ca~tpac). This Senate House was east of the Augustaion, and to be distinguished from that north of the Forum of Constantine (Mango 1959, 56-60).

76 Theophanes' information that 5 years, 11 months, and 10 days had passed when Justinian's new church was dedicated on 27 December 537 (A.M. 6030) would suggest a date of Friday or Saturday, 16-17 January, for the destruction of St. Sophia (depending on whether the day of destruction itself was being counted). But we cannot be certain that this time span was not calculated on the basis of an erroneous date for the destruction. The date of the dedication seems to be reliable (cf. Marcellinus Comes A.D. 537).

77 The Chronicon Paschale (622-23) states that the Octa- gon "is between the Basilica of the Skindressers and the public portico of the Regia" (the Regia being the section of the Mese between the Chalke and the Forum of Con- stantine), but unfortunately the interpretation of this is uncertain. Guilland (supra n. 52) 105-106 has suggested that we should understand "between the Basilica, the quarter of the Skindressers and the public portico of the Re- gia." If so, this too would indicate that the Octagon was to the south of the Basilica.

78 Translation of M. Whitby and M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale 284-628 AD (Translated Texts for Historians 7, Liverpool 1989).

79 Mango (supra n. 45) 156; Janin (supra n. 21) 168.




that the Palace of Lausus and the Praetorium were either beside one another or on opposite sides of the Mese, and that the fire spread from these two

buildings westward to the Treasury.80 Unfortunately, Theophanes (A.M. 6055, 239.6-10) does not clarify the situation. His chronicle states that as the new

city prefect, Andrew the ex-logothete, approached the Praetorium from the Chalke, he was met by the Green faction at the Palace of Lausus. This seems to indicate that the Praetorium was further west than the Palace of Lausus, but equally it would not contra- dict the suggestion that the two were beside or opposite one another. We shall see later that there is some evidence that a monument other than the Prae- torium may have stood immediately to the west of Naumann's great hall. If the Praetorium was south of the Mese, this may mean that the preferred location is close to the Forum of Constantine.81

Two pieces of evidence may suggest that the Prae- torium was on the south side of the Mese. We know from Malalas (Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorf, 474) that it was set alight during the Nika riots on Tuesday, 13January 532. Many nearby monuments, however,

including the Octagon, St. Aquilina, and the Palace of Lausus, were not destroyed until Saturday, 17Jan- uary (Chron. Pasch. 622-23; Theophanes A.M. 6024). Since all three were to the north of the Mese, their survival would be explained if the Praetorium was on the opposite side of the street.82 The fire of 475

spread southward from the Copper Market toward the Mese, damaged the Basilica, and then spread westward along the Mese, destroying Lausus's collection of statues and stopping only having reached the Fo- rum of Constantine (Cedrenus, I, 616; Zonaras, III, 130-31). The Praetorium is not listed among the

damaged buildings, which may indicate that it was on the south side of the Mese.83 The accounts of this fire, however, are possibly not detailed enough for us to be certain that the omission is significant.

The Chronicon Paschale (622-23) describes the dev- astation during the Nika riots on Saturday, 17 Jan- uary. Soldiers "set alight the Octagon, and as a result of this fire the region around St. Theodore near the house of Sphoracius was burnt, except for the vaulted

building of the holy church. But the entire Portico of the Silversmiths, and the house of Symmachus, the former consul ordinarius, and St. Aquilina, as far as the arch of the other portico of the Forum of Con- stantine, was burnt." Evidently referring to the same fire, Theophanes (A.M. 6024, 184.14-17) mentions the destruction of the Palace of Lausus: "The porticoes from the arch of the Forum to the Chalke were burned, and also the shops of the silversmiths and the whole palace of Lausus were destroyed by fire." The Chronicon Paschale clearly indicates that the fire spread from the Octagon westward down the Mese toward the Forum of Constantine. It seems likely, then, that the burned buildings are listed in a rough order from east to west along the Mese: Octagon, St. Theodore of Sphoracius, Portico of the Silver- smiths, the house of Symmachus, St. Aquilina, Fo- rum of Constantine. Indeed, we have seen that the

Synaxarion refers to the church of St. Aquilina as being v Toiq aDtkoEvou nkjloaiov ToO (p6pou (429, 465 [Sa], 748), and the proximity of St. Theodore of

Sphoracius and the Octagon is also suggested by the Patria (II, 93). In recension C of the Patria (ed. Preger, 292-93), the buildings west of the Milion are listed in the following order: St. John the Theologian, St. Theodore of Sphoracius, the Octagon, the Palace of Lausus, the Forum of Constantine, and the Sen- ate House. Unfortunately, there is no indication in either the Chronicon Paschale or the Patria as to which

buildings were to the north of the Mese and which to the south, although, given that both texts associate the Octagon and St. Theodore of Sphoracius, it seems highly likely that the latter, like the former, was on the north side of the Mese.84 Lydus (Mag. III, 70, ed.

81 In their commentary on the Chronicon Paschale, Whitby and Whitby (supra n. 78) recognize that this passage may indicate that the Palace of Lausus was opposite the Praetorium, but they assume that the former was on the south side of the Mese (n. 327). They point out that Mango adduced no evidence for placing the Praetorium on the south side of the Mese (n. 407). They also place the Praetorium at the east end of the Mese (ns. 210, 353, and 407), though without providing any evidence.

81 We know from Constantine Porphyrogenitus's Book of Ceremonies (I, 88 [79]) that the Praetorium of the City Prefect was closer to the Forum of Constantine than to St.John of the Diippion (which, we shall see, was near the starting gates of the Hippodrome), for when the emperor proceeded down the Mese to St. Romanus on Palm Sun-

day, he was hailed first by the Blue faction at the Milion, then by the Greens at St.John, and then again by the Blues at the Praetorium.

82 Theophanes (A.M. 6024, 184.14-17), apparently believing that the other monuments on the Mese ought to have been destroyed during the fire at the Praetorium, conflated the details of the conflagrations of 13 and 17 January.

3 Albrecht Berger, however, has suggested to me that the prytaneum that is listed in the Notitia (VI, 9) as being in Region Five (north of the Mese) may be the same as the Praetorium of the City Prefect.

84 Berger (supra n. 15) 282 also places St. Theodore of Sphoracius on the north side of the Mese.




two IV- quil Now. wo ro, -q. :sZk '.Z g

ON xo?x?: !R qr :e.g I M?:x . ...... .......... ... .... . .... . ... ... io M2

At W-M film ......... . OW N .]?X0.A 4z.. TA ..... . . . . . . .

V . .... . ....... . . ... ......... > 5z. NO M?F

... .. ........ gn . .... .. ..... . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...... ... . . .... . . ..... .... ..... ... ...

Or' I I?ji . ... . . ..... . . .. . ..... . OU T ........... WIN

a-is

d1i.All , &V ... ..... . 'gu ....Malmo 'hg A Nov W11

Fig. 10. Alternating brick and stone in the first phase of the great hall (exterior of the east end of the south wall). (PhotoJ. Bardill)

R. Wuensch, trans. A.C. Bandy) states that buildings on both sides of the Mese were destroyed during the Nika riots, but has apparently conflated details of the various fires.

We have seen that St. Aquilina was near both the Forum of Constantine and the Cistern of Philoxenus. Since the Chronicon Paschale mentions the destruction of the house of Symmachus before the burning of St. Aquilina, we may suggest that the former was beside or opposite the Palace of Lausus or possibly that, by the sixth century, the Palace of Lausus had

passed into the ownership of Symmachus.85 It may also be suggested that the Portico of the Silversmiths, which was apparently destroyed before the house of Symmachus, and was therefore further to the east, was located in the colonnaded way leading from the Mese to the Copper Market (although it could, of

course, equally have been beside the Mese itself). If so, St. Theodore of Sphoracius and the Octagon may be placed east of the street leading from the Mese to the Copper Market. This presents the pos-

sibility that the fifth-century monumental facade found in Qatalge?me Sokagi relates to the mansion of Sphoracius or to the atrium of his church of St.

Theodore, which is known to have been magnifi- cently rebuilt after a fire, possibly that of 465.86 The Patria (II, 93) places the Octagon near the bazaar of spices and St. Theodore of Sphoracius. Perhaps this bazaar, too, was located in the street leading to the Copper Market.87

DATE AND IDENTITY OF THE ROTUNDA

AND GREAT HALL

We may now return to consider the date and identification of the rotunda and great hall to the northwest of the Hippodrome, which can no longer be identified with the Palace of Lausus. The longitu- dinal axis of the great hall is misaligned with that of the rotunda (fig. 1),88 which may indicate that the rotunda and hall were squeezed into a plot that was too small (perhaps after the hexagon had been built),

85 Mango (supra n. 6) 90 suggested that Lausus's palace might have passed into the hands of Flavius Theodorus Philoxenus.

86 See C. Mango, "Epigrammes honorifiques, statues et portraits A Byzance," A(~pptolpa orovNirco ffJopdvo 1 (1986) (reprinted in Mango 1993, ch. 9) 25-28.

87Janin (supra n. 21) 95 asserts that the Portico of the Silversmiths was between the Forum of Constantine and the Palace of Lausus. But this cannot be deduced from Chron. Pasch. 622-23 and Theophanes, A.M. 6024.

88 Naumann (supra n. 12) 138-39.




" i ri ;

:r " L -F i iiiii'iiiii '" -- ~ I: _' iiiiiiiiiiiiii&~ :-w iia ~: '? L~il~: ::l`,i-?a~asa~aa~8~1ae~~-~~ :: ~:~i~4%8~g~Q~S~F

:: ; ?n , i i ?1.T : i :f_ 5 -C.. ~gtg~li:

~ b:::. .9. .'.

?''' ~I

j : i:e _:H: i:: r_

~i":;-d i: :j 'I-

$ ~ 0-i~.--:-_-- I

.r

i: _~:-:-:i:-~~ ~-w--l----:: ::::ir -~~-~" - ""; :-i-i:-,::: :-'~~ii~ii .: a:::: ::~:: -::-:--~ iiiii~c~~~ii .::::~::-: :::-::-::-:r

-~;?i~-iii~_ . iiiiiii:iisf~?_::ii--,i h:X::-::-:::'::i:

.. :~:.:-:::::::::::::::: ''?i-:i:ìiiig""~ -: :--.i- j

Is~aa~.liiiii:i?iiiiiiiiii-iii8? s;::::-::.i::-::-:i:::::iji:::i:

?-??-;::: :: :: --:-::- ::::: :~ :: ::::::-:-;- -----::~: ~~;""::'':-''I:':':'-':~":~I':~: ii'ii;lli'iljiiijiii~~i:i ?_-------- -::-_----_ . .... - : _-_:: _ :-::-: Fi:i::: :::?::::::?::-i:-::-:-:-:-:-:i?:-\:i-?:n iiiiiiiiiiiiia-:ilii--i:iiii-:iiiii _ .. _ -:ii:i i i .- :i:::_::_i:_- _ -:i:-i--: -:;::-:::::_:- ::::::-:i:::-::j:::? ::::i-,I,: i-~ -------::---:-::--- : :-- 'i'~_a-r :-_~?i-F-:::~~-'::i: :i-;iili:i:::::" :. i. ::?:ii::i?:: '1'`::'"'"-:';-:;---I-I--i-:l'i~i~~-:-:' ----i--:--::_---_-:-i j--i:i:-i:i:i:?8i:a:-_-:-:-:?:-? :::::?:: -:: -:::::::-:j::::::j:::::,i: :::,:::::::::,:,,. :::::: ::,:,::i:-~:-:-:::- ::::?:? iiili:iii i:i:::: :::::_,:,,:.,:_:_:_:-:-; .x's-u._ i ~i:ii~s~iii::i,-,~i:;~iii-i~~i:i:-i ::?:;::::::~:-:''i--i~o-i:i:::i-i-ii-i-: _ :__:_- _ ~--I::::: (:::j:: :-?:_:::--:::i-:::_~:-::-: -:::'-:-:-- iiiiiiii~~i:iliili iiiidi i:':\::':j::':':':22:i::::::::_i--~~ii-~ :-i~i.ii'i:~~i~i__iji~iiji~jfjii-j-~~j:j iiEiiiii iiiiiiiiiii-iiiiii~iiigii:::i -ii::-i:i i:_:i-:- :::-.:: ::-:_-:: _r ::::-:-:-:-"""~.i:~i:e;i:ii~i:::i ~2~~i-i:-i.~':f'-''-ir-i:-i-i cii-iiciiiiiiiiii:i~i;iig -- --- '. ::: .. :::2::::i::i::i::::: :::

:::::::::::-:1. -i:--i- iii~i:iii-i-:iii-iii:iiiiii:iiii ii-i-ii:--:- - --';:D :-::::::: : ::::::::: ?:::::j::j:?:::::::1:::j::::1: :::::::::::::::::::':':--- -i'_ii:i-i-:i5i-ii-i-:iiiiiiiiiii:ii-ii ?::-l-:::::-a:-,-::::-i-:i-i-i-~:-i~~l iii-i:--i-::ii:-i-il--:ii--_-i::i;-~:::- .:i::i:?: ?:::::-:::-: :_-:_:? .~--??:-::;:-:-::: -::::: -:::;::::-I:~:---::: : iii~ii;iiiiii:isiiiiiii-ii:~~:--:l--::-- ~'~'ai!;:?-:i.~-:.ii:qiii:Si?:i::ii: I__ j~ii___:i::__:i:iii:i~i ::iiii_:i:jii~~_iiiii-ii~-,iiBi-~- -:i~-_: :-i:i:i-iii-i-i:i-i:::i-lii:-:ii:.i-ii?::::::-::::::::::;;:: 'i:iiii-_::-i::i::-i-i::-i:_:i:r,~i--i- ----- ::::::;:~::-::::-::-:- :--:::::::::::--;i:iTii::ii,:ii:-::-;:g '_::_.::~i:_:;i--:::;:?_i:::i:i~ii- :- :::-::-:-: : : : ::: -: -:i::-:::: ::--~-:::: : :: ::::::::::i:-~:::_ :::: :::::-:::::-:::-:-:::::-::::--:-:::::::: ~_:,-_g:

::::---:':v-:-:::-:::::::::::-::::~:::: ':'E:i-i----~:. ::j:::::_-::il~ ::::-?.:::-:- ::-: : ----::--: '::: ::--?-:-::-I-??~:;: -::::':::::::::-:::--:_:_~:-::':~:"` ~:::::: ::::::-i-ii--:i?--i-i:ilz~i:i;_i;~~illij ~::_~-:_i:i-i.-::::l::: ::::-:-~: -:::----:__?:::-::-_::- _:::-jl~:-:--i:::: :I:~::: -::::j::i

Fig. 11. View of the exterior of the north niche of the hexagonal hall of the Palace of Antiochus. (Photo J. Bardill)

or that the hall was a later addition to the rotunda.89

Considering the misalignment, and the absence from the great hall of the cramped ashlar that occurs in the surviving lower parts of the rotunda, Torelli Lan- dini has suggested that the hall was a later addition.90 The earliest construction phase of the great hall displays bands of brick about five courses high alternating with bands of mortared rubble faced with about six courses of small, squared blocks. The stone bands are about twice as high as the brick bands (fig. 10).91 The technique, which is similar to that used in the Cistern of Philoxenus (fig. 4) and the Land Walls, may be ascribed to the fifth century. In Antiochus's hexagon, however, the small stone fac-

ing blocks are arranged in bands 0.90 m high (four courses), and the brick bands are 0.80 m high (nine

or 10 courses) (fig. 11).92 This evidence might be taken to suggest that the hall is not contemporary with the hexagon.

Considering that the rotunda and hexagon are both constructed in their lower parts of cramped blocks of limestone, Torelli Landini has suggested that they are contemporary and both the work of Antiochus. The hall, it is argued, was added after Antiochus's property came into imperial hands ca.

439.93 This is an attractive hypothesis, but the structural similarities of the hexagon and rotunda do not allow us to be certain about their contemporaneity. Large, carefully cut blocks of gray limestone 0.35-0.50 m in height are used for the lower parts of the walls of the hexagon (fig. 11). These blocks are bound to-

gether with iron cramps encased in lead,94 a tech-

89 Dolunay and Naumann (supra n. 13) 137: "spiiter, als der grosse Saal angefiigt wurde," Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 69 observed that the hall related to "a different and almost certainly later phase."

90o E. Torelli Landini, "Note sugli scavi a nord-ovest dell'Ippodromo di Istambul (193911964) e loro identifica- zione," Storia dell'arte 68 (1990) 19.

91 Naumann (supra n. 12) 139, pl. 39.2.

92 R. Naumann and H. Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche am

Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken (IstForsch 25, Berlin 1966) 35-36; Torelli Landini (supra n. 90) 18-19.

93 Torelli Landini (supra n. 90) 19. For the date at which Antiochus entered the clergy, see Greatrex and Bardill (supra n. 4).

94 Naumann and Belting (supra n. 92) 35-36. Ward- Perkins (supra n. 28) 69 does not mention the cramps.




4:_ r-:..-:::. :: :s y"NNE:

.... ...... ...... . . I . . .......... . . . .. . . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . &INS:i_:~i-:ii_ -?---:--

............::?i i i- --

NMI

.... ........ii ~ : .:.. i - i- _: . - :--~---- - wt:?:: -i: --iiii iiiiiiii ..", ..... .. ... ....

'~iiiii~:--" ~ -;-iii-i~- _~ : : :: :::::::: :-i~iiii-M Y ~ i- PAO RP:~:-:~----ii-,_:':i-ir -ii

mows,:::: : -:--:-i- :- ::::: i~--i:il~-::-- j ::l-~~:i-?: :::_~:~i~:?:- i,--'-......... .-iL~

_:i~:- _::,,iii~i: -::-~i~~i- i~ii:- i ...._ :?:::: .::::::-::-'::-::-:-'~::i,- .-:?:::':'''::::':.::

::-":--. ..... ..~ aii

ii-:-_:ii:i~s~iiiiii~iii..........-:

Md :.:-...-:::: ::"?":'-. . . . . . . . . .-i-

fW

-iiiii i~ia: : 'l-_ii - i ..........: - -ii~~i~:a~ b~iiiii............?:

Fig. 12. Cramped limestone blocks of the rotunda to the north of the hexagonal hall of the Palace of Antiochus. (PhotoJ. Bardill)

nique that was also employed in the adjacent rotunda excavated by Duyuran (fig. 12).95 The similarity in the technique does not prove that the two structures are contemporary, for Byzantine builders were ex-

tremely conservative. In Constantinople, the use of

cramped blocks can be traced back to the fourth cen-

tury in the bases of the monumental arch of Theodo-

sius I at the Forum Tauri (modern Beyazit).6 An- other early use is at the so-called Aqueduct of

Valens,97 which Mango has suggested may in fact be the Aqueduct of Hadrian.98 The technique continued to be used in the fifth century, when it was

employed for the construction of the rotunda near the Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii).99 In the sixth cen-

95 See Duyuran (supra n. 2) 79: "The straight wall [at the back of the portico] was built with blocks of pale grey limestone containing shells. The blocks were well cut and carefully united with iron clamps as in the Martyrion [i.e., the Palace of Antiochus]. The height of the blocks varies between 40 and 42 cms. and the length between 80 and 120 cms." Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 69 gives a smaller height for the blocks: "The circular hall is built of good limestone masonry, claw-dressed and laid in mortar in courses averaging 32 cm. high."

96 R. Naumann, "Neue Beobachtungen am Theodosius- bogen und Forum Tauri in Istanbul," IstMitt 26 (1976) 127; Milller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 263, pl. 298.

97 Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 65. 98 Mango 1990, 20; Mango (supra n. 21) 12. 99 R. Naumann, "Der antike Rundbau beim Myrelaion

und der Palast Romanos I. Lekapenos,' IstMitt 16 (1966) 203 and pl. 39.1. Seven courses of ashlar (ca. 0.40-0.55 m high x ca. 1.20-1.50 m long, forming a wall up to 6.10 m thick) rose to a height of 3.3-3.4 m above the sill of the north door (and hence above the interior floor level). Both D. Talbot Rice, "Excavations at Bodrum Camii 1930. The Messel Expedition," Byzantion 8 (1933) 167 and Ward-Perkins (supra n. 28) 70 assigned the ashlar to a first phase and the alternating brick and stone to a second. This is un- necessary, since the Land Walls and the hexagon of An-




tury,100 as a result of the reduction in the employ- ment of stone after the fifth century, the technique was necessarily restricted to load-bearing piers,101 foundation courses,'02 and cornices.103 Given that

cramped blocks were in continuous use in Constan-

tinople in the Early Byzantine period, the technique tells us nothing definite about the relative dates of the rotunda and the hexagonal hall: the rotunda may have been built as part of Antiochus's palace or it

may not, and it may even have been constructed in the fourth century rather than the fifth. It should be noted that in one respect the structures of the

hexagon and rotunda are distinct. Duyuran writes that the sigma-plan portico of the rotunda "was built with courses of yellowish rubble stone and bricks. There were five rows of bricks, and each course was 42 cms. thick."'04 This is quite different from the

high brick and stone bands used in the upper parts of the walls of Antiochus's hexagon (fig. 11). The

differences in the thicknesses of these bands, however, need not necessarily be indicative of different periods of construction: different thicknesses of brick bands were in use during the same period.105 In the absence of published brickstamps from the rotunda, its portico, and the great hall, the dates of these structures relative to the hexagon of Antiochus remain uncertain, and their identification as another part of Antiochus's palace, although plausible, cannot be proved.

ST. JOHN IN THE DIIPPION AND THE MENAGERIES

In his booklet on the urban development of Con-

stantinople, and in a short paper summarizing some of its conclusions, Mango has asserted that the church of St. John in the Diippion was founded in the rotunda discovered by Duyuran (which he wrongly identified as part of the Palace of Lausus).'06 Mango noted that Pierre Gilles, who explored Constanti-

tiochus show the two techniques in use simultaneously. The identity of this rotunda is uncertain. C.L. Striker, The

Myrelaion (Bodrum Camii) in Istanbul (Princeton 1986) 7-11 and supra n. 40, 14-15 objects to Naumann's suggestions. C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312-1453 (Sources and Documents in the History of Art, Englewood Cliffs 1972) 46-47 and Mango 1990, 59 suggests that the rotunda

may be the Museum of Muselius, known from the Greek

Anthology 9.799-801 to have been near the Philadelphion, a square that in Naumann's opinion (209-11) was located near the Myrelaion. Also known to have been at the My- relaion is the Chrysokamaron (Patria III, 112), not to be confused with the Christokamaron at the house of Mousele (Patria III, 112a). See Berger (supra n. 15) 517, 597. Note also the foundations of St.John of Stoudios (ca. 450) (Pesch- low [supra n. 34] 430) and of the pre-Justinianic mauso- leum at Ephesos (H. H6rmann, DieJohanneskirche [Ephesos 4.3, Vienna 1951] 194, pls. 39.2, 39.3, and 42.1-4).

100 G. Hellenkemper Salies, "Die Datierung der Mo- saiken im GroBen Palast zu Konstantinopel," BJb 187 (1987) 282-83 has wrongly asserted that it is in the Palace of An- tiochus that the technique makes its last appearance in

Constantinople, and that therefore the courses of cramped blocks in the Peristyle and Apsed Hall of the Great Palace should also be assigned to the fifth century.

101 St. Sophia: W. Emerson and R.L. Van Nice, "Hagia Sophia: The Collapse of the First Dome," Archaeology 4 (1951) 101 with fig. 10; M. Ramazanoglu, "Die Baugeschichte der Sophien-KircheJustinians," Studi bizantini e neoellenici 8 (Atti dello VIII Congresso internazionale di studi bizantini 2, 1953) figs. 11, and 23-24; Mainstone (supra n. 38) 67, 186, and pl. 84. Procopius's assertion (Aed. 1.1.51-53; trans. Mango [supra n. 99] 76) that these blocks were joined together by pouring molten lead into the interstices must be a misunderstanding of the use of lead to seal iron cramps linking the blocks. However, H.B. Dewing (Procopius, vol. 7 [London 1940] 24-25, n. 1); G. Dagron, Constantinople imag- inaire: Etudes sur le recueil des "Patria" (Bibliotheque byzantine 8, 1984) 237; Mainstone (supra n. 38) 186; Mango (supra

n. 99) 76, n. 100; C. Mango, "Byzantine Writers on the Fab- ric of Hagia Sophia," in Mark and Qakmak (supra n. 45) 44; and L.E. Butler, "Hagia Sophia's Nave Cornices as Ele- ments of Its Design and Structure," in Mark and Qakmak (supra n. 45) 69, n. 37 have seen it as a muddled description of the sheets of lead discovered at the springing of arches (Emerson and Van Nice [supra] 100-101, fig. 10; L. Butler, The Nave Cornices of Hagia Sophia in Istanbul [Diss. Univ. of Pennsylvania 1989] 36) that are described by Paul the Silentiary, Description of St. Sophia, lines 476-80 (ed. P. Friedliinder, trans. Mango [supra n. 99] 83). In support of the suggestion that Procopius is, in fact, referring to lead- set cramps is the account of the Diegesis (13, ed. T. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum I), a largely fictional account of the building of St. Sophia of the seventh to ninth centuries, which describes the use of iron cramps to link the blocks of the piers.

102 St. Polyeuktos: Harrison (supra n. 23) 21-22, 412-13 (where it is suggested that the cramps were of wood in this case), pls. 30, 32, and 55; Harrison (supra n. 9) 55, pls. 52 and 59. Basilica beside Kalenderhane Camii: C.L. Striker and Y.D. Kuban, "Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istan- bul: Third and Fourth Preliminary Reports," DOP 25 (1971) 255.

103 Butler, in Mark and Qakmak (supra n. 101) 61-69. It is possible, although not to my knowledge demonstrable, that cramps were used to join the blocks of the infrequent leveling courses of stone in sixth-century brickwork. For cramping in the sixth century, note also John of Ephesos, Church History 3.24 (trans. Mango [supra n. 99] 125).

104 See Duyuran (supra n. 2) 79. 105 See supra n. 38. 106 Mango 1990, 59, n. 46: "EIglise, dedice d'abord A

saint Phocas et ensuite A saint Jean, rnparie, semble-t-il, par Romain ler, aurait pu se trouver dans la rotonde con- vertie, avec acces du c6te de la Mese' C. Mango, "The De- velopment of Constantinople as an Urban Centre" The 17th International Byzantine Congress. Main Papers (New York 1986, reprinted in Mango 1993, ch. 1 with addenda) 127-28. There




nople between 1544 and 1550, visited a menagerie near the Hippodrome that housed lions, and was informed by the citizens that it had been established in the church of St. John the Theologian.'07 From a Turkish text, we also know that a menagerie was located between the Palace of Ibrahim

Papa and

the Firuz Aga Camii. Mango therefore assumed that the two menageries were identical and argued that the former church of St.John was located along the west flank of the Hippodrome, just south of Firuz

Aga Camii, hence on the site of Duyuran's and Naumann's excavations.08s

Mango also suggested that this menagerie is de-

picted in a Turkish miniature of 1537-1538 by Ma-

trakql Nasuh (fig. 13)109 and in a view of 1574 in the Freshfield Album (fig. 14).110 Both depict the Hippo- drome from the northwest and show a massive build-

ing close to St. Sophia. From the more detailed rep- resentation in the Freshfield view, it is clear that wooden porticoes with single-pitch roofs had been built up against a marble-reveted brick building that was falling into disrepair."' In fact, a menagerie

that housed lions near the Hippodrome is known to have been damaged in an earthquake in 1510. The edifice is identified as Pars Aedificii S. Sophiae, ubi nunc leones servantur ad Hippodromi latus Septentrionale, which suggests that it was so close to St. Sophia that the artist considered it to have once belonged to the church. It clearly stands on the circus's east flank, a conclusion that is also suggested by the Turkish miniature, where the building is shown some distance to the east of the Firuz Aga Camii. It follows that this menagerie cannot be identified with the menagerie south of Firuz Aga Camii mentioned in the Turk- ish text, as Mango suggested."2 Despite the inaccu- racies in the two views,"3 the building evidently stood north of the carceres (starting gates) or close to the northeast corner of the Hippodrome. Hence, there were two menageries in this part of the city in the 15th and 16th centuries, one near St. Sophia, the other on the opposite side of the Hippodrome, between the Palace of ibrahim Pa?a and the Firuz

Aga Camii.114 The menagerie visited by Gilles could have been either of these, but given that he describes

is no textual evidence to indicate a link between St. John and the Palace of Lausus. Although the Patria (II, 35-36) contains juxtaposed discussions of the Palace of Lausus and the church of St. John, this indicates nothing more than that the two buildings were in the same locality. In fact, recension C of the Patria mentions the following monuments between the Milion and the Forum of Constan- tine: St. John the Theologian of Diippion, St. Theodore of Sphoracius, the Octagon, and the Palace of Lausus (ed. T Preger, 292). Why discuss the Palace of Lausus quite in-

dependently of St.John if the two were in reality the same

building? 107 Gilles (supra n. 22) 124 (= trans. Ball, 153): Constan-

tinopolitani dicunt eam [the church of St. John the Theolo-

gian] esse, ubi iam leones Regis stabulantur, vicinam Hippodromo, &foro Cupedinis sito prope Sophiam, olim Augustaeo appellato. Cf. P. Belon, Les observations de plusieurs singularitez & choses memorables, trouvees en Grece, Asie, Iudee, Egypte, Arabie, & autres pays estranges (Paris 1554) 73 ("I1 y a un lieu en Con- stantinoble, ou le grand Turc fait garder des bestes sauvages, qui est une eglise antique, tout ioignant l'Hippodrome").

108 Mango (supra n. 45) 158-59. 109 See the color reproduction in And (supra n. 45)

26-27. 110 See the color reproduction in And (supra n. 45)

58-59. For discussion of other drawings in the Freshfield Album, see Mango 1993, ch. 2, 305-15.

111 The marble revetment is noted by E.H. Freshfield, "Some Sketches Made in Constantinople in 1574," BZ 30 (1929-1930) 522; and And (supra n. 45) 59. For the earthquake, see Mango (supra n. 45) 159.

112 Mango 1959, 155 with n. 35; Mango 1990, 59, n. 46. 113 There is another view of the Hippodrome from the

west, of the same period, by Pieter Coecke van Aelst (1502-1550). See EW.H. Hollstein, Dutch and Flemish Etch- ings and Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450-1700 4 (Amster-

dam n.d.) 198-99. Blocks 13 and 14 of the woodcut show, from north to south, a street leading east, a mosque on the far (east) side of the Hippodrome, the Obelisk of Theodosius, the Serpent Column, the Obelisk of Constan- tine, and the portico of the Sphendone. It should be noted that in block 12, which depicts a wedding procession, there is a wooden house with a tower that looks similar to the wooden structures shown lining the street in the Freshfield view. There is a complete set of van Aelst's woodcuts in the Print Room of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

114 There was another menagerie established in the Tek- fur Sarayi, which the Turks referred to as the Palace of Constantine. This housed elephants, giraffes, and other docile creatures. See, e.g., Belon (supra n. 107) 73 ("Lon veoir les ruines d'un palais moult antique, que le vulguaire nomme le palais de Constantin. Le Turc y faict nourrir ses Elephants, & autres bestes doulces");J. von Betzek, Ge- sandtschaftsreise nach Ungarn und in die Tiirkei imJahre 1564/65 (ed. K. Nehring, Munich 1979) 31; H. Dernschwam, Tage- buch einer Reise nach Konstantinopel und Kleinasien (1553/55) (ed. F Babinger, Munich 1923) 53. The division of the sav- age and docile animals is also suggested in the account of d'Aramon: "I1 y a encore certain lieu ofi l'on monstre plusieurs bestes sauvages qui sont fort bien gardees et en- tretenues comme lyons, lyonnes, loups cerviers, loups sauvages, chatz sauvages, lyppartz, onces, asnes sauvages, au- struches en quantite. En un autre endroict, se void une certain beste que les ungs appelent un porc marin, les autres boeuf marin .. . En ce lieu mesme, y a deux elephans, grands merveilleusement." SeeJ. Chesneau, Le voyage de Mon- sieur d'Aramon Ambassadeur pour le Roy en Levant (ed. C. Schefer, Recueil de voyages et de documents pour servir A l'histoire de la geographie 8, Paris 1887) 35-38. The Tek- fur Sarayi is identified as "Palatio di Costantino" on Vavassore's panorama.




VA

W•'. -

iJ

7~ :%•,,i

Ii ....1:

i d~AL

I $~

Fig. 13. Matrakpl Nasuh's view of the Hippodrome, menagerie, and Firuz Aga Camii from the northwest (1537-1538). (Deut- sches Archiiologisches Institut, Istanbul, neg. KB 02600)

;.:~sp:~~d~:il$L_: ~~ihi'i;ib3iir'''''' ::-i:a:_-'i:j:?iiji?i~~si~bd~Dl~;i~: `B~;:*ili~~ ~:-::?;:~~:i:::2-::-:-::::-:'j::::::::-i ::S:.-X:~ZTii:~ -:i::l:l:~-l:I:~~i:i:-l:--::~-:,iI-:-_: ?L:i:i:-i-i---i--i i-i- iiiiiiiiiiiii::i::_- ..:.. ::-:-:::---:::_s: ;iii:i=i':i;iiiai`:;iiiiiii:lis:?l::-: i?--?iic ,-:i:::i-:,iB-X::;iil_&i~:l:i6iliii~j -i:i-iii:iii~i:i-iiiiiii-iiiijiiiiiiii?- i:i:i:i-i:i:i:i-i-i' i:'ii?i:i?:::?iiiiiiiiiisiiiiil:iiiiiii~ i::-:-_--:-:c-i-ll:li ::i::::::::::::::: -iiiiiii ?.~,.~ -~'i;i~%iiiiiili-iFif:'aiijlilil i i-ii:ii::iiiiiiiiiiiii;i-iiiijiii :li-ili-i-.i:i-iiiiii ::i'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii-.: ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii?i:i?i:i-iii:i i:i i-i.i:iii ili:i'i:i:i-i-i-i-i-i`-i:i-i:i-i-iiiiiii ii:_''-''':i:i:ici:i:i-i- -~::i::i:il:-l:-:xi-::~ iiii~i:l~'i~~--iiiiii ?i:Xi--Diii-?:liili:.l~ii~jiii~_::i:-: ':::':' -:': ::: -?:::i:i-:i:i-i: --ia :;:~~_il~:~:~'-:?::-ili:ii:i-:li.::i-: :i-l:i:-::'j-si:iii:iiiiiiliiiiiii;liiji --:-c;::i::li::ii:ii::i-.:-~- :i:-:ii::i:-l:-i~i iiiiiiiiiiiii:ii:ii~iliiiiiii:i ::::::: :-~ _ _::-i::._::-l:-:-i::-:::i:::c,?l?:::_-i- ::_::r:: :::::::::::::I::::::::::::::::::::::,:i: ~ii~i~i~w~~ii~~~~,~: ?:;?:? iiiii-i:ii:l:sr _i:::::c-::li::-,i::i :'l??i;iiiiiii:i'-'-'i':i:iiiai:,:6'i'ii :;?-~':ii-iliii-liiiii-i- ?i~--~?CI::!~f"~:D'-i- ~a~a ::::::,,:;,,:,:_:::i:;.:-:: i:. li:l:-:::-i:i:ia:-:,-:,-_-i'.i~ti:"s?i:~iiil~iiii~iiii:il'~ii:~;'-:i~iiiiiiiiiii - iiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiii.iiiiiii.ili'i' ':-::: :' :-:-:-:::':.:'.:':::':':':::':':: ::::':' ''''''-':'-':'-'-':'''-''':'''$i':': I":'''''''''''-'"'i':'i''':'- i'i i: :iciii:i:i-i-i:i:i-iii:i-i-isi:i-i:iii :i?iii:iiiii-i::i:iiiiiii 'i:-`l:j?:'~;:~a':i'?i:~-~:~E:iiiiiiiiii i--iii iiiiiii?iiiiiiiiiii:-~iiiiiiciiiiii?iii;

siii:i:-iiiii:iii--i:i-iiiii:iii:iiiii: i:i?iii-i:i-i:i iii-- .:::.: i:i iii ::. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :-.. :::-:::::i:::i:.:i:i:i:::::i:i:;i:::i:i: 'i'lTlii?ii:iiiii:z~-iiii-i ::::::::'''-'''-''":'-:::-::':::':':::' ;i'iiii-,ii;ilriiiiii'::?i-ii-ii-iiiiii iliiiiiij-ii-iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~ijii:.ii-i: iiiiiiiiiiiii:?j?i:~?_iii;lii::~.:l?:9~; 'i.iii--ii-~li.~.`~~ :i?j:~l~-~:~;.~I~I il :II -:-?--:'~;':-::- :~::i:~j::i-::~::::::j::i::.::::::j:::::

::: : : .:.:.:??:.::::: ::::::::-:::: :,,,,:,:,:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii';:ii:iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:ili;iii:-i-i:i-i-i-ir-r-ili.iii-iii-i:i-i:i.;ii:'i:'?: ii:iiiiiiii:i'::?;i_::::.ii:i:iiiiiii_ iiisii:ii:i:ii-iiiiiiiiiiii .iiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiii-iiiiiiiiiii:iii ;i :?il:-~?l:g:i:-i:iliii:ir i:i-iii:iii:i :li i.i:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i i?:-::::::-:2::: :::::::::::::::?: :::::::::.j.i:iji?iiiiliij:i:iij-i:jliijdi:i?:ilili:i:iiiii!li ijjjiij:iii-jij iiiliii-iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii:?-i::::liii(i?iii?ii-iiiiiii'iili:?:: :::l:?:::::?::i:1:i:I:i:l:ij:i:i:::i:l:: :i:_'i:i:iiil':::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ::: :: :::::::: ::: ::: ::: ::~i::-~:--::--- ---:~:-i-:i:l:li:'-'r""'::'::'::':j::::

~''jliii!ii:::::.liiiii ~s6:iis:i~i-'ii:~k~iji:;j:;lj:~iiji--~ I~j~:~::::~,--:i~~;~j~.;;i-i?ii..:~'--:: Bi-~s~as::j:-:?:~-:iw~i? - I;:il:i: l?i..:'~:.-':iiil:iii:.::--:-i :: ::::::::::::::: ::: '::::::::::::: ::: :::'::: :::': :::: ::: ::: :::::::::::':::::::::::::::::: ::::::'-''' '''-:- '-''':-.'-:-'? :':':':''-''''''' :'::":''' '':-':--':- ::.:::'::: :': :':':::':-:':-:.:.:::-:::-':": ::.:::.: :::::::::i:. -:-::1:::::::::::i:::::::,:?:i::::::::::

:::::::::::: ::::::: :i:::::j-j::::::::: :::::i::l:::::::::::i i'?'?''i'?-i?.'z'B-~-B;~I::iiii-~i:i ?:::::::j::i:ii:-:::i:- i::l:-l:j:l:::':-l:lB_:l:.i:-li--:::i:l .j.;:i'ii:iiiliii:-ii.::-i_::i-i::::i.:: . ::::::i::::::::::r:: :j::ii:::i: I~i-:i-.i~i ~~; ~:i;?~~li:.t~''''';''''''-'''''''''''''~

i:i:i:iii(iiiliii::i:i:ii:iii: iii iili::::_:ili:i:i:i__-i:_i???i;':?:'i?'j i'ii-i:iiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiii i?iii:iajii:iii:i:i:i-iii:i i:iiiii:i:i~iiii:ii:i'i:iii:iiliiii:i? iiiii'iiiiiiiiiiii iii ii iiiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iii;ii~ii:-:i:::::- ::::::i::::: i:l-:,I:-:._i,:?:ii liiiiii~~;.iijiiijiiiiiiiiiiiia~.i-i-i:i iiiBii-iiiiiiiiii-i?iiiiiiiiin.iiiiil i? i:iiiii:iii:i:iiiiii:::i?i'i "-?";"; -;'''''''''iiiiip_:-i-;iiiiii iiiiiii:iili~iiiiiiiiiiii-ii-:~ii:i ii:i-i:i-iii-i::i?i--?iiiiiii:iii:iiiii: iiiiiiiiiiii;iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~i e??-ll~l_:,,l~ta?--,,.,?- ;o;r --r: i:-::;i'i::1::::::jl:jj~_i:::j:::::i::~i

ii'"?i~iiiii:iii;i~'-iil::al:-:-:~i-:l ::;;:i~~;i~:'i:-_xi:r:~-;:::ii~;_:__ ic:?i'?ii?l?~??:;?:?: iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiii-iiiiiiiiiiiiii iiii":::::_:i:::- ;i:ii?-:'ii:a???-?_~'i.l?i~?''ii:i:::i ..:.:: :iiiiiciiiii:iiiii:::i:::::i:i:i:i:i:ii: i~i.i?ii~iiiii:.i,,?i~:':.:i::. ::iiiiiiiiiliiiiii;iii:iii:iili:il:ii-ii -ii~:iiiii::i~~iilai-iidili-ii~i'iiiii i:i-i--i-i;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiill?j iiiiii:ii:i-iiiii-ii:i3i :i~~:,~-~:?~~~~g i~i~:i:g~i~--~l~ :i::-:l;::::::::-:;:?_:- :::l::.::::i:i::,?:?I:'?:l-:?'','.l~iia :::::-:::?::::;:::i;::::l:l:~~:l-:-i:_. .......... ...,:~i~8-~ a'i;i:~i:i~~i;~:iif~i;i:::-::j::?:.::l: :::l:i:_:l::j: :::::i::iii:::::j:::i:;:~:-.-ifii':i"l?; ::::: siiiiiiiiiiliiiii:iiiiiiiiiie:i::i:ii ii:. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:ili:i:iiiii:i~:i:i:i? ':':':-:':':':':::::':::::::::::::::::: :: :i:i:i:i:::i:i~i:-i:i:i:::i:::::::!i.zii iiiiiiiiiiil:iiiiili:xii:ii.-iiiiiiiiii .i?i:iijijiiijii-i:i-i:i:::.iiiil:lii?- ~.:-~iii---i-i~iii:?i~i~i i:--i:-i:l-:t?:l:i?:;~~-ii'ii:ti'iiiii".

:?????::-?::?::-~~~?:;:;-:-::-:i":': ~.; ;'~.~~~ia~~l:-8iri~-:~~-I-~8~:~ iiilii-i?ii-iiiiiirii?iil:ii-ii-i::::?: ::;:;:i:iiiii::ii:i:_-':'i:;:'i:.:~i;li:~i:iliiiiiii;::iiiii:i-ii-iii?i'i;'" -;~iiiiiiiii':ii::l?' ::? Si~i~iiiiii:i:iPii:i':iiii:iii:iii

le~e~g-~ai:IB- i'''~''~'':ill~"'":~lilii;iiii-l iiiiIi:iiil:iiiiii:iiBiiii';l'il'l'i:i .iiiiiicisi:iiii,,:i:1::,rl i-ic;:-iii :i:I::?i:zii:i~~iiii'i:li::Eii:iiiii ::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::.:I:i::::::::::::::::::::::' ':::':':":;: ::: ::

l'''''li.'i?;?:'.-.la.':'.:'.I:.:.:. ii-:iiiii?i?aiai?i?ii:i-ii???~i:,,:.,, :-::iiii~iiiiiiisirci~~?.iii iii i::::iiiii?ii-iiii ...:-:: ii-ii;iiiiiIi':iiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiaii''?:'.''~'::iiiiiiii.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiii i:_i-:iiiiii'i'ii'--jii-.iiiiii "'-"';""-"""''""-''~'::;-'i:l'~ 'i:i?iL"?'??~~~l~i~i~~i iiii'iiiiiirli:iiiiiii;ii-li:-i:iiiiiii iir'i'ii:ijiliii'lili::_iiiii:i:iiiliil: :: ::2::: :::::::::::::: ::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::: ...-. :::: :: :::: ::: . .. i: :: :::::: ::::::: ::: ::::::: ::: :: ::: :::::::: ::::1 :: -'l:;:':i:i-iii:i:i:iii-i:iiiii:iiii iiiiiiii:ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ii::iiiiill?i:i:c:i:i:::::i-i:ri-:i:?ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiii:iij-iiiii:iii i:i:iiii'ii?.ilii`'i?ii?liiiii?iii;;iii

''''''::;'''''':";''''''' ~::''14f:~~I ::::::::::j:::::::::::::::::: ::i: ii:ii-i--:--:'d',i--:i:i::'-::-_-,'_:- -- in :: . : ?: :?:::::-t::?:::: :::;::iiiiiiijiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iigii;i':~il:Fo;l-"-li-I-;-i:::;s-;;: --i-:;:::::_-:-: 'iii:iiii'iii:iIi'iiiiiiiiiiiiiii':'"''''''''''''"'''''''''''''ii.j.;- :ii~i:;:-:::::i- il:-_-::-ili:l

??i-

'i':i.-.~i':~'-i~5i':~:;iiiii.~i'.iiiii ~

:il:::,::::::::::: ':iii:ii-iicil::',i - -iL - i""

-iii:::i-il:-:i-ii:li iiiii?:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis:ii ':''-:':-. -:'::ll-i:8iiiii~~:i:i:i .. i6i-i:~iii:.i i9`~i:i::::::::-i-~:-j:-:.:a:i?l :?:_-::n:_:i:::i:il:i:8::;~_:_-:i:l:-i:

iigi~;ii :::::::::::::::::: s i:;,~sli ,?-?:iiiIIi;;???:;?~il:?~8:?`t:~l~r?:?~- -"sai~llllllFj?i,; ?~-,:?dlli~~" ?:i:--?::::i:i'i'ii;?'!?lii~:?i:i:iiiii ili;~i~i~~fili~21

:;'''?~--. :iA~g~LI. ?i?~ 19811-.i?i~ -iiiiiii'B:ili-ilGi~iii:iii-;ai:i?li- :::::::::::::::::::::':::':':':ii:iiii?i iii:ii?-f;.;iii'i ::::::::::::::::- ::-:::::::?:':::::-:::-:::::-:::::-::::: ::: : i::.... : ..:..:: iiiiii~iil-ii---iì:i?ii:--t;~iii:isi: :iiliiiiiii-:iiiiiiiiiiiii'iisil.liii,~ iiiiiii iiii~iiiii 8:::-:::i:;'i:\:1:a:::j::-::::: i::, :::;::::::::::i:::::j:::ni,:,i:j::::: i::?:\:::sg-:_:_::::::::j::i:::j::::l:: :i_;:::::: :?-:::--:;::-:: ::::.::::::::--.:~~:i::::(::~ii:liiiii:j

:~:::::j:::::ii:::I:a:i:-'-':i':::i;:i'S :;::Bc:':::i:i_~l:lj::::i:li;i:ii:iili:::?i-i:i'i'iiiiiziìiii;:ii~?.:i:liiiii 'liii-iiiiiiiii:i~iiii'iiiiiiiii::c:::: IZiiiiiil:::::i-:-a;iiil:i:iiil:iii: ?I:i::?:::i:i:i:l:i:i:i:ii r;:i~:ii:iiiiii?iiiial;:-i:i.i::-i-i " -:'"`~- '`""' '"-;i;:.?r?:L? .I_,;.??*??ri"

Fig. 14. View of the Hippodrome, St. Sophia, and menagerie from the northwest (1574). (Freshfield Album, Trinity College, Cambridge MS O.17.2 p. 45 [f. 20], courtesy Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge)




it as sito prope Sophiam, olim Augustaeo appellato, it is much more likely that he visited the one depicted in the two views we have discussed.

If Gilles was correctly informed that the menagerie he visited had been founded in the church of St. John of the Diippion, then the Freshfield and

Matrakgi Nasuh views depict this church. The name

Diippion was given to the area close to the Diippia, or carceres, of the Hippodrome."115 Here, the em-

peror Phocas (602-610) is said to have built a church of St. Phocas, which was completed by Heraclius

(610-641) and renamed St. John the Theologian."116

According to the Patria (II, 35 with variant G), the church stood "at the Milion" or "beyond (or above) the carceres of the Hippodrome.""'7 Nicetas Chon- iates (Historia, ed.J.L. van Dieten, 235-38) suggests that the church overlooked the Milion,"8 and the

Synaxarion (ed. Delehaye, 70, 82, 151, 305-306, 437, 598, 810, 836, 855-56, 866) describes it as "near St.

Sophia." Unfortunately, these indications are in- sufficient to determine the exact site of the church, but it would seem that the location suggested by Mango and Guilland, at the western end of the carceres on the south side of the Mese, is too far from

the Milion and St. Sophia."9 We can at least be sure that St. John's was not founded in the rotunda excavated by Duyuran, since the latter seems to have fallen into ruins at an early date. The mausolea that were attached to the hexagonal hall of Antiochus's

palace (fig. 1) were probably built shortly after 680, when the relics of St. Euphemia were apparently transferred to Constantinople.120 Since one of these mausolea was built over the ruins of the rotunda, the latter can no longer have been standing at the time. The rotunda was later converted into a cistern. 121 It therefore seems impossible that the church of St. John, which is known to have been re-

paired as late as 1402, was located in the rotunda. It also seems unlikely that the church would have been founded in the great hall discovered by Nau-

mann, whose apse faces west and whose sixth-century form has been associated with dining halls, such as the lost Triclinium of the 19 Couches in the Great Palace and the Consistorium of Leo III in the Lat- eran Palace at Rome.'22 During the Byzantine period, this was converted into a cistern, and an ir-

regular polygonal cistern was built between the rotunda and the Mese using the same structural tech-

115 Berger (supra n. 15) 279. Both Berger and Guilland have suggested that the Hexahippion that is attested under Anastasius (Malalas, 394-95 and Chron. Pasch. 608) should be identified with the Diippion, and that therefore the Patria's (at any rate doubtful) etymology of the name

Diippion is certainly wrong. See R. Guilland, "La Premiere Porte. To spoT'60upov. Le Dihippion. Tb AtinnItov, 't

Auntiou. LEglise de St.-Jean-le-Theologien du Dihippion.

6 dyitoq 'IodwVVrjq Tou Aur•iou," EpetByz 20 (1950) 34 (re-

printed in Guilland I, 393-410). 116The church of St.John contained chapels of St. Pho-

cas and St. Tryphon. See the Synaxarion of Constantinople 70, 836 (St. Phocas) and 150-51, 437 (St. Tryphon).

117 T'V vabOV TOD dyiou (kIKai TV V T(vO Mt•i(p or ?v TO

u81rt0i0T a'vv v&OsV T&ÔV

KayKXXO•V TOu iDrno8poPiou.

118 Choniates' account of the battle of Saturday, 2 May 1182 is translated in Mango 1959, 94-95. Empress Mary's troops occupied St. Sophia, the Patriarchal Palace, the Au-

gustaion, the Milion, and the otherwise unattested church of St. Alexius. The emperor's men left the Great Palace

early on Saturday morning, reached St. John in the Diip- pion apparently without resistance, climbed onto the roof, and fired down on the enemy outposts at the Milion and St. Alexius. Guilland (supra n. 115) 37-39 and Mango (supra n. 45) 156-57 concluded from this that St.John must have been south of the Mese, for, had it been to the north, the

imperial troops would have had to have crossed enemy lines and could not have taken the church without a struggle. Mamboury (supra n. 45) 56-59, however, referring to the same source, placed St. John's north of the Mese.

119 Guilland (supra n. 115); Mango (supra n. 45); Mango 1959, 96, n. 106. Janin (supra n. 44) 266 has questioned the location. Another piece of evidence, which is difficult to interpret, should also be mentioned. John Meliodones,

who restored the church in 1402, was granted as a reward "all the land opposite stoas of the holy church ... from the ascending street as far as the public stoa" (7ntavra Tv

'oto'rov '6ntov 'TOv 7ttVTIKp' TciV GTov TODO Osou vaoO

8tatKsJIVOV . . . wRo ToO eivxpM6pou itU pt KI KaTa TfTL 87l0oo0ou OToaq). See E Miklosich andJ. Miller, Acta et dip- lomatagraeca medii aevisacra etprofana 2 (Venice 1862) 495-96. The area of land was apparently delimited to the north or south by the "public stoas" of the Mese, to the east by the entrance hall of the church, and to the west by the "as-

cending street." One possibility is that the "ascending street" is the street that led from the Copper Market to the Mese, and hence that the church of St. John was located to the north of the Mese and south of the Basilica. This, however, would require us to believe that John was granted an ex-

tremely large plot of land. Berger (supra n. 15) 279-80 states, without discussion, that the church was between the carceres and the Mese, and just east of Firuz Aga Camii.

120 On the date of the translation, see Berger (supra n. 3).

121 Naumann and Belting (supra n. 92) 53, fig. 16. 122 Three exedras were added to either side of the fifth-

century apsidal hall using pure brickwork with occasional leveling courses of stone (Naumann [supra n. 12] 139-42, pl. 38.3). This technique, as we have seen, appears not to have emerged until the sixth century. Such halls with niches have been associated with dining rooms by R. Krautheimer, "Die Decanneacubita" in W.M. Schumacher ed., Tortulae: Studien zu altchristlichen und byzantinischen Monumenten (Romische Quartalschrift fuir christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte, Suppl. 30, Rome 1966) 195-99. Brick vaulting was added at a later stage (Naumann [supra n. 12] 143-44, figs. 3-4). Later still, the hall and rotunda were converted into cisterns (Duyuran [supra n. 2] 79; Naumann




nique (fig. 1).123 Unless the church stood where the Firuz Aga Camii was later erected, it was probably to the north or east of the carceres, closer to the Milion and St. Sophia, although we cannot be certain on which side of the Mese it lay.124

St. John's must therefore have stood close to the site of the menagerie visited by Gilles and shown in the Freshfield view and in the Turkish miniature. It is clearly possible that the menagerie was established inside the church. The menagerie, however, despite being a most imposing structure, does not look very much like a church (although it might be

argued that the church had been set up in a preex- isting secular building). Furthermore, we cannot take it for granted that the locals were correct when they informed Gilles and other visitors that the menagerie had been established in a former church of St.

John. A woodcut published in Hartmann Schedel's Liber chronicarum of 1493 apparently depicts the destruction by lightning in 1490 of Basil I's church of the Nea, which had been converted into a gunpowder depot by the Turks (fig. 15).125 It shows the view from the Sea of Marmara across the site of the Great Pal- ace and Hippodrome toward St. Sophia. A church

of John the Baptist is visible between the Obelisk of Theodosius I in the Hippodrome and the Col- umn ofJustinian in the Augustaion.126 We need not

put any faith in the depiction of the architectural form of the building, for all the churches in the view are shown in a very similar fashion.'127 The bulk of the building identified as St. John the Baptist suggests that it was probably the same building shown in the two views we have just discussed.'28 Whether the artist was correct in believing that the building had originally been a church dedicated to St. John is a different matter. It may be noted that St. Eirene is misidentified as a church of St. John Chrysostom, since the Turks misinformed visitors to the church that it contained his tomb.'129 It is conceivable that Gilles and the artist of the Liber chronicarum woodcut were similarly misinformed as to the identification of the Byzantine building that had been turned into a menagerie. We should therefore be cautious about

using their evidence for locating St. John in the

Diippion. By the beginning of the 17th century, another menagerie had been established, and Mango has shown that this was probably located in the church of Christ at the Chalke (the vestibule of

[supra n. 12] 144-45). A thick wall constructed using the recessed brick technique typical of the 11th or 12th century was erected across the site of the portico. The remains of this wall have been traced for about 20 m: see Duyuran (supra n. 2) 78, n. 5 and pl. 2; Naumann and Belting (supra n. 92) 17, fig. 1. The wall is not shown on Naumann's plan (supra n. 12) fig. 1.

123 Naumann (supra n. 12) 144-45. 124 It is unclear how much open ground there was be-

tween the carceres and the Mese. S. Miranda, Les palais des empereurs byzantins (Mexico City 1965) 58-59 has argued that the carceres were close to the Mese, since no remains were found during the erection of the fountain of Kaiser Wilhelm II (completed in 1898). How far north of the fountain the carceres were in fact located is uncertain. The engraving of the Hippodrome by Panvinio (possibly a frag- ment of the Vavassore panorama [Mango 1990, 9]) shows no open ground between the carceres and the Mese (although this may not be reliable), and Miranda made the suggestion that the cochlias found close to the Mese in 1934 (Mamboury [supra n. 45] 52) provided access to the carceres. (Concerning access to the Hippodrome by means of the Chalke of the Hippodrome, see Mango 1959, 28.) It is clear from Naumann's plan (supra n. 12) 147, however, that extending the Hippodrome so far to the north creates problems. It has been necessary for Naumann to incor- porate into the carceres some of the remains discovered during the British excavations in 1927-1928 (see the two reports by Casson, supra n. 38) and the remains of two circular structures found in 1952 (Mango 1959, 20, 184-88). All of these, however, probably belonged to the Baths of Zeuxippos. Naumann places the Diippion in the remain- ing wedge-shaped space south of the Mese. Mango 1959, 38-39 believed that the cochlias related to the Baths of

Zeuxippos and has recently made further comments on the size of the Hippodrome (Mango 1993, ch. 10, 17-18). Mfiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 232, pl. 263 located the carceres close to the fountain. Remains of the west flank of the Hippodrome have been traced no further north than the fountain; see R. Duyuran, "First Report on Excava- tions on the Site of the New Palace ofJustice at Istanbul," IstArkMiizYzll 5 (1952) 35-36, pls. 1, 6-9; Duyuran (supra n. 2) fig. 2; and Mamboury's plan in Mfiller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 69, pl. 47 (on which a curious change of direction is shown). Other remains relating to the Hippodrome are discussed in E. Mamboury and T Wiegand, Die Kaiserpaldste von Konstantinopel: Zwischen Hippodrom und Marmara-Meer (Berlin 1934) 39-53. Mamboury's map to accompany this work appears in Schneider (supra n. 45) pl. 10. Note also the recent discoveries mentioned in M.-H. Gates, "Archae- ology in Turkey," AJA 99 (1995) 250-251.

125 See Mango 1959, 180-82. 126 In 1490, the Column of Justinian, although still

standing, no longer carried the equestrian statue that is shown in the engraving. See C. Mango, "Justinian's Eques- trian Statue," ArtB 41 (1959) 351-56 (reprinted in Mango 1993, ch. 11) and Mango 1993, ch. 10, p. 6.

127 Although it appears to be a rotunda surmounted with a dome, we cannot equate it with the rotunda discovered by Duyuran and Naumann, since this had probably fallen into ruin by the seventh century (see above, p. 92).

128 If it is not the building known from the Freshfield Album and the Turkish miniature, then it must be the church of Christ at the Chalke.

129 See the account of Cosimo Comidas de Carbogano in V. Ruggieri ed., Descrizione topografica dello stato presente di Constantinopoli arricchita di figure (Rome 1992) 28-29.




IN

Jw !a

Omn

Fig. 15. View of the Hippodrome from the southeast in Hartmann Schedel's Liber chronicarum (1493)

the Great Palace). Nevertheless, visitors continued to be told that it had been founded in a church of St. John.130

Two other suggestions have been made as to the

original function of the building in which the me-

nagerie was founded: the Baths of Zeuxippos13t (which were located southwest of the Augustaion and ceased to function as early as the eighth century, when they were converted into a prison)132 and the Patriarchal Palace133 (apparently located between

130 Mango 1959, 154-69. The Turkish miniature shows the menagerie in the church of Christ at the Chalke to the east of St. Sophia and south of the first gate of the

Topkapi palace (Bib-1 Hfimiyfin). The building shown has a dome and two or three semidomes, and therefore cor-

responds to the menagerie described by Gugas Indjidjian (Mango 1959, 160). Mango, however, was cautious, and

pointed out (179-82) that the building might also be identified with the Nea church of Basil. But the illustration of the menagerie in the first edition of Indjidjian's work makes the identification with the church of Christ at the Chalke practically certain; see Eyice (supra n. 67) 143.

Mango has suggested that the church was a quatrefoil: C.

Mango, "A Note on Panagia Kamariotissa and Some Im-

perial Foundations of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries at Constantinople," DOP 27 (1973) 132 (reprinted in Mango 1993, ch. 20 with addendum); and Mango (supra n. 39) 128. The building in the Turkish miniature that corresponds

to the menagerie in the Freshfield view is wrongly equated by Miller-Wiener (supra n. 15) 71, pl. 49, and 81 with the

menagerie in the church of Christ at the Chalke, which is shown in the Indjidjian illustration. Another example of the misidentification of a monument in this period is the Tekfur Sarayi (a Palaiologan building), which was believed to be the Palace of Constantine (Porphyrogenitus); see supra n. 114.

131 The identification has been proposed by WL. Mac- Donald, "Roman Experimental Design and the Great

Church;' in Mark and Qakmak (supra n. 45) 12, fig. 7 and accepted by And (supra n. 45) 63. For the location of the Baths of Zeuxippos, see Mango 1959, 37-42, 184-88. For the collection of sculpture in the Baths, see most recently S. Guberti Bassett, "Historiae custos: Sculpture and Tradi- tion in the Baths of Zeuxippos," AJA 100 (1996) 491-506.

132 Mango 1959, 41; Mango 1990, 60. 133 The identification has been proposed by Miranda




St. Sophia and the Augustaion and abandoned by the Patriarch in 1454).134 Of these two possibilities, the latter must be considered the more likely because of the Patriarchal Palace's proximity to St. Sophia. Since, however, we cannot judge from the surviving views exactly where the menagerie stood, for the time

being the identification of the massive Byzantine building in which it was established remains an

enigma.

"PALATIO RITONDO DI COSTANTINO

It remains to mention another mysterious monument in the area under consideration. Braun and

Hogenberg's panorama of 1572 shows, at the northwest corner of the Hippodrome, a structure identified as the "Palatio ritondo di Costantino" (fig. 6). The

huge semicircular building, which is concave toward the Mese, is formed from superimposed arcades whose arches are flanked by columns on the facade. The arcade at ground level is hidden by a wooden portico with a single-pitch roof that has been built

up against it. The same structures can be seen in the panorama of Vavassore (fig. 5, where the anno- tation is lacking) and also in the manuscript of Lam- bert Wyts in Vienna.'35 Berger has recently identified the ruins (which appear to stand on the site

excavated by Schneider, Duyuran, and Naumann) as the church of St. Euphemia, which was founded in the Palace of Antiochus.36 This, however, is unlikely, for Antiochus's domed hexagonal hall with its sigma- plan portico concave toward the southwest cannot have looked anything like the ruins shown.137 The rotunda excavated by Duyuran would have looked more like the ruins depicted, but, as we have seen, it had probably long disappeared by the 16th century. If it was located west of the great hall excavated by Naumann, it would have stood close to where the street leading to the Copper Marketjoined the Mese, and close to one of the locations we have proposed for the Praetorium (which may suggest that the Prae- torium was not directly opposite the Palace of Lau- sus, but to the southwest of it). One possibility is that this exedra was an integral part of the colonnaded shopping mall that flanked the Mese on its southern side.'38

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

36 BEAUMONT STREET

OXFORD OX1 2PG

ENGLAND

[email protected]

(supra n. 124) 29-30; and A. Pasadaios, O 7rarplapXt1K6 o[KOg rov oycoo1epVlKo6 Op6vov (Thessaloniki 1966) 63-65. We may also note the suggestion made by Freshfield (supra n. 111) 522 that the building is the church of St. Stephen of the Hippodrome, on which see Janin (supra n. 44) 474.

134 For the location of the Patriarchate between St. Sophia and the Augustaion, see Mango 1959, 51-56; E Di- rimtekin, "Le local du Patriarcat a Sainte Sophie," IstMitt 13/14 (1963/1964) 113-27; and R. Cormack and E.J.W Haw- kins, "The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul: The Rooms above the Southwest Vestibule and Ramp," DOP 31 (1977) 199-202 (date and identification), 247-51 (function). These rooms must represent only a fraction of the Patriarchal complex (cf. Mathews [supra n. 37] 101, n. 53). Dirimtekin (supra n. 67) 33 believed that the views discussed here were useless for determining the location of the Patriarchal Palace. When he excavated the area southwest of St. Sophia in 1963 and found buildings of the Turkish period, but no evidence of the Patriarchal Palace, he concluded that it must have been northwest of St. Sophia. The Palace was moved to the church of the Holy Apostles in 1454 (Janin [supra n. 44] 45). See also R. Janin, "Le palais patriarcal de Constantinople byzantine," REByz 20 (1962) 131-55; and Pasadaios (supra n. 133) 25-75, pls. 1-3.

135 For a color reproduction of the Wyts manuscript illustration, see And (supra n. 45) 57.

136 Berger (supra n. 40) 340. 137 See the reconstruction of Antiochus's palace in Nau-

mann and Belting (supra n. 92) 39, fig. 7. 138 Another possibility is that the ruins related to a

theater, amphitheater, or hippodrome. John Sanderson, who visited Constantinople in 1594, writes: "At the end of this place [the Hippodrome], towards the Sofia, ar also to be seene certayne ruins of a great circle of a theator which was ther, where the people satt to see the playes and pastims that ther weare shewed. Nowe it is a place wherein the lions and other animalls of the Great Turke ar kept." He goes on immediately afterward to describe the Binbirdirek cistern, giving the impression that it was directly below the "theator." See W. Foster ed., The Travels of John Sanderson in the Levant 1584-1602 with His Autobio- graphy and Selections from His Correspondence (The Hakluyt Society 67, ser. 2, London 1931). It may be, as Mango (supra n. 45) 158 suggested, that Sanderson's theater was simply the ruin of the carceres, as shown in Panvinio's engraving. Support for this may be d'Aramofn's reference to "l'hipo. drome ... avec la forme de theatre et arene" (Chesneau [supra n. 114] 29).



Date post:	28-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hatruc
View:	225 times
Download:	5 times