The Golden Gate in Constantinople A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I

The Golden Gate in Constantinople: A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I
Author(s): Jonathan Bardill

Source: American Journal of Archaeology , Oct., 1999, Vol. 103, No. 4 (Oct., 1999), pp.
671-696
Published by: Archaeological Institute of America
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/507077
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/507077?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Journal of Archaeology
This content downloaded from

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Golden Gate in Constantinople:
A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I
JONATHAN BARDILL
Abstract pleted under Theodosius II (408-450), the land

It is generally asserted that the Golden Gate in Con- walls were located 1.5 km outside the line of the ear-
stantinople was erected under Theodosius II shortly lier Constantinian defense wall. Among the 10 main
before 413 as an integral part of the landward fortifi-
gates in the fifth-century walls, one is exceptional.
cations of the city, and that the inscription over the
central arch was added when the Gate was decorated The Golden Gate, which stands between the ninth
andIn
following the overthrow of the usurper John in 425. 10th tower of the inner wall, has not just one
fact, an examination of the junction between the opening
Gate but three, the central arch being higher
and the adjoining fortification reveals that the Gate is
and wider than those on either side (figs. 1-3). In
an earlier structure. Although fifth-century pilaster cap-
this respect, the Gate resembles the triumphal
itals adorn the doorframes in the west facade of the
Gate, they are clearly additions to the original monu- of Septimius Severus and of Constantine in
arches
Rome.
ment and cannot be used to date it. The inscription, on Furthermore, the outer facing of both the
Gate and the flanking square towers consists of
the other hand, is not a later addition but is contempo-
rary with the construction of the Gate some time before
blocks of white, Proconnesian marble as opposed to
413; it can therefore only commemorate Theodosius I's
the alternating bands of brick and limestone that
defeat of Magnus Maximus in 388. The monument was
characterize the rest of the fortifications. These mar-
surmounted by a sculptural ensemble representing The-
blethe
odosius I celebrating this victory in a chariot drawn by blocks, which measure about 0.40 m high, 1.87 m
four elephants given to him in 384 or 387 by Shapur III. and 0.95 m thick, are finely claw-dressed and
long,
Erected between 388 and the triumphal procession of
are notjoined with dowels or cramps; rather they are
10 November 391, the Golden Gate was located on the
carefully laid so that the ends of one block fall above
triumphal route that began in the Hebdomon, and it
the centers of the blocks below. The core of the
probably marked the position of a proposed line of for-
tifications. By 413 the monument had been incorpo- structure, into which the facing blocks are not
rated into the land walls. Perhaps at this time the bonded, consists of solid limestone blocks in the
doorframes were inserted into the portals.* lower part of the towers, and of mortared rubble in
the upper part of the towers and the triple arch (fig.
THE DATE OF THE GOLDEN GATE
2).1 Where the western facade of the Gate meets the
Constantinople's impressive double line of fortifi-
inner faces of the towers, the marble blocks are per-
cations stretches for a distance of around 6.5 km fectly bonded, so there can be no doubt that the
from the Sea of Marmara to the Golden Horn. Com- towers are contemporary with the triple arch between
* This paper was written while holding a British Acad- ber 1995. S. Guberti Bassett, 'John V Palaiologos and the
emy Postdoctoral Fellowship at the Institute of Archaeol- Golden Gate in Constantinople," in T6 E2riyvt6ov: Studies in
ogy, University of Oxford. I wish to thank the Turkish Min- Honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr 1: Hellenic Antiquity and Byzantium
istry of Culture and the Director of the Yedikule Museum (New York 1993) 117-33 has argued that the use of spolia in
for permission to examine the Golden Gate in December the outer gate suggests a Palaiologan (mid-13th to mid-15th
1995, and the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara century) date, but the ninth or 10th century would also be an
and the Seven Pillars of Wisdom Trust for financing field- appropriate context for such adornment.
work. I am also grateful to Amanda Claridge, Anthony Cut- 2j. Strzygowski, "Das Goldene Thor in Konstantinopel,"
ler, Zbigniew Fiema, Neil Howard, Amos Kloner, Marlia Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archiiologischen Instituts 8
Mango, Cyril Mango, Betiil Ozden, John Penney, Arthur (1893) 15-16 noted this bonding. But he could not believe
Segal, Mary Whitby, Paul Whiteside, and AJA's Editor-in- that such towers would have been integral with what was orig-
Chief and anonymous reviewers for help and discussion. inally, in his opinion, a freestanding triumphal arch con-
Figs. 2 and 10 are reproduced from the David Talbot Rice structed under Theodosius I. He therefore preferred to be-
Archive, Barber Institute, Birmingham University. Where lieve that the towers had been added when the fortifications
not otherwise indicated, the remaining figures are the au- were built under Theodosius II. Strzygowski's plan (his fig.
thor's. All dates are A.D. unless otherwise noted.
2), which shows the marble towers becoming wider where the
1 SeeJ.B. Ward-Perkins, "Notes on the Structure and Build- fortification wall meets them, has been superseded (see here
ing Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture," in D. Talbot fig. 3). E. Mamboury's erroneous statement that the towers
Rice ed., The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors: Second Report were added in the 14th century (Constantinople Tourists' Guide
(Edinburgh 1958) 67-68. I do not intend to discuss here the [Constantinople 1924] 206) was later corrected (Mamboury,
outer (propylaic) gateway, which was also studied in Decem- Istanbul touristique [Istanbul 1951] 240).
671
American Journal of Archaeology 103 (1999) 671-96

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
672 JONATHAN BARDILL [AJA 103
Fig. 1. The Golden Gate and outer (propy
dosius II.4 Although

them.2 Indeed, excavations in 1927not extensive,
at thethe available
jun ev
the north tower anddence
the wouldgateway
suggest that the revealed
monument was in f t
constructed in
stepped foundation courses the reign
of both of Theodosius
structure I (378-39
exact alignment.3 The
(asJ. original structure
Strzygowski proposed I h
in 1893, but on mistake
described was subjected to
grounds). The acasenumber of alte
for the current dating rests on
three crucial pieces of evidence: the alleged bo
in particular the blocking of the three arche
and the addition of a staircase to the back of the south between the fortification and the south tower of the
tower (fig. 3) -that need not immediately concern us.Gate; the style of the capitals that decorate the jambs
More than a century of scholarly debate has of the doorframes in the west facade; and the in-
reached the conclusion that the monument in its
scription over the central arch. Let us, therefore,
original form is contemporary with the landconsider
walls each of these in turn before looking at the
and is therefore to be ascribed to the reign of Theo-
inadequately exploited literary sources.5
3T. Macridy and S. Casson, "Excavations at the Golden little help in determining its date.
Gate, Constantinople," Archaeologia 81 (1931) 69-70, pl. 38.2. Acclamations in Latin that were painted on the western
4 The more general accounts adopting this date include: face of the Gate, on either side of the central archway,
R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine2 (Paris 1964) 269-70; C. mention Leones iuniores and Cornuti iuniores: see B. Meyer-
Mango, Byzantine Architecture (History of World Architec- Plath and A.M. Schneider, Die Landmauer von Konstanti-
ture, New York 1976) 53; W. Muller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur nopel 2: Aufnahme, Beschreibung und Geschichte (Denkmdiler
Topographie Istanbuls (Tilbingen 1977) 297; R. Krautheimer, antiker Architektur 8, Berlin 1943) 125-26 (no. 9). A. van
Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture4 (rev. by R. Krau- Millingen (as in W.M. Ramsey, "Preliminary Report to the
theimer and S. CurEid, Harmondsworth 1986) 73; C. Wilson Trustees on Exploration in Phrygia and Lyconia," in
Mango, "The Development of Constantinople as an Urban Ramsey ed., Studies in the History and Art of the Eastern Prov-
Centre," The 17th International Byzantine Congress: Main Pa- inces of the Roman Empire [Aberdeen 1906] 267-70) sug-
pers (New York 1986) 124 (reprinted in C. Mango, Studies on gested that these were western troops brought back to the
Constantinople [Aldershot 1993]); C. Mango, Le Dveloppement east by Theodosius I in 391. More recently, however, it has
urbain de Constantinople (IVe- Vl siecles)2 (Paris 1990) 50; A. been argued that these units can only have been transferred
Kazhdan et al. eds., Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (New York from the West to the East in 425 (D. Hoffmann, Das spiitr6-
1991) 858-59, s.v. Golden Gate (C. Mango). mische Bewegungsheer und die "Notitia Dignitatum" 1 [Dfissel-
5 Some other pieces of evidence relating to the Golden dorf 1969] 58-60). If this is correct, the acclamations can
Gate are subject to so much uncertainty that they are of only safely be taken to provide a terminus ante quem of ca.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
1999] A TRIUMPHAL ARCH OF THEODOSIUS I 673
Fig. 2. The western facade of the Golden Gate ca. 1927. (Ph
University)
Junction Golden Gate, and concluded that the two were

In 1933-1934 B. Meyer-Plath and A.M. Schneider bonded and therefore contemporary structures.6
studied the join between the land walls and the This position was repeated in theirjoint work on the
425 for the construction of the Gate. Gate, and if the reliefs could also be associated with a spe-
cific column, the depiction might help to establish a termi-
R. Demangel, Contribution d la topographie de l'Hebdomon
(Recherches franiaises en Turquie 3, Paris 1945) 12-16, nus ante quem for the construction of the Gate. The draw-
pl. II has claimed that a 14.65 m-long drawing of the sec-ings of the reliefs on Arcadius's column (E.H. Freshfield,
ond half of the 16th century in the Louvre Museum (G.Q. "Notes on a vellum album containing some original sketches
of public buildings and monuments, drawn by a German
Giglioli, La Colonna di Arcadio a Constantinopoli [Accademia
di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli, Memorie artist
2, who visited Constantinople in 1574," Archaeologia 72
[1922] 87-104, pls. 15-23) show a freestanding single-
Naples 1952] figs. 24-48) shows the Golden Gate. It is,
arched gate flanked by roofed towers (band 2, east).
however, impossible to be certain about the identification
of the freestanding, single-arched gate that is depicted.
Again, the identification of the gateway is far from certain.
Furthermore, it is also uncertain whether the drawing6 Schneider in A.M. Schneider and B. Meyer, "Die Land-
shows the helical reliefs on the Column of Theodosius I mauer von Konstantinopel: Zweiter Vorbericht fiber
(G. Becatti, La Colonna Coclide Istoriata: Problemi Storici
den AbschluB der Aufnahme (1929-1933)," Sitzungsberichte
Iconografici Stilistici [Rome 1960] 111-50; S. Sande, "Some
der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophische-
New Fragments From the Column of Theodosius," Acta- historische Klasse (1933) 1171. B. Meyer, "Das Goldene Tor
AArtHist Series Altera 1 [1981] 73-78) or those on theinCol-
Konstantinopel," in Mnemosynon Theodor Wiegand (Mu-
nich 1938) 89. Strzygowski (supra n. 2) 15-16 also be-
umn of Arcadius (J. Kollwitz, Ostr6mische Plastik der Theodo-
lieved that structural evidence pointed to the contempora-
sianischen Zeit [Studien zur spitantiken Kunstgeschichte
12, Berlin 1941] 21-22; Giglioli [supra] 15-17; M. McCor-
neity of the fortifications and the marble towers. But he
considered the Golden Gate to be earlier than the walls
mick, Eternal Victory: Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity,
Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West [Cambridge 1986]and49was therefore obliged to deny that the towers were
constructed at the same time as the Gate: see above n. 2.
n. 60). If the gate could be firmly identified as the Golden

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
"- ,
- 18 13 18.3
'1. . ? . . . .40 :: _
150- 5
5 2--3D2
- 302 350 300 53 054 " - 5 :,75- 1
3,03,0.!
10t 30 -547- 350- 780 -354
"--t ... TBM

- .. ... .... ...
Fig. 3. Plan of the G

in Mnemosynon Theod

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Fig. 4. The fortification wall, built of alternating bands

Golden Gate, built of marble blocks
both to bond Turkish

land walls of Constantinople.7 the core and facingrepairs
together, and as make
a
impossible to examine theleveling course (fig. 4). Scholars
junction between agree that this
thesec- fort
fication and the north tower,
tion of walland the
is typical of the staircase added
original construction.8
Until recently,in
to the back of the south tower the accepted
the dates for the
late erection of
Byzantine p
riod masks the join at that
the landpoint (fig.
walls were those 3).
established Only
by E. Weigand, wher
the western face of the curtain wall meets the south which were adopted by Meyer-Plath and Schneider:
tower of the Gate can the junction be studied. ca. 413-439. By 413, Weigand noted, enough of the
The stretch of curtain wall that approaches the fortifications had been completed that a law could
south tower is finely built, consisting of a core of rub- be passed granting use of the towers to the owners of
ble set in mortar, which is faced with small, squared the land on which they stood; and, he argued, the
limestone blocks. After between seven and nine project must have been complete by 439, since in
courses of limestone, a band of bricks five courses that year work is said to have started on the construc-
high penetrates right through the wall, thus serving tion of the sea walls.9 As P. Speck has observed, how-
7Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 44 and 50 ene Tor in Konstantinopel," AM 39 (1914) 7-8. His dating
with pl. 28h. of the land walls was based on the evidence of Cod. Theod.
8 See Ward-Perkins (supra n. 1) 66. C. Foss, "Constantino- 15.1.51 (4 April 413) (T. Mommsen and P.M. Meyer eds.
ple," in Foss and D. Winfield, Byzantine Fortifications: An Intro- [Berlin 1905]) and Chron. Pasch. (L. Dindorf ed. [Bonn
duction (Pretoria 1986) 52-53, 75. The walls near the Golden 1832]) 583 (M. Whitby and M. Whitby trans., Chronicon Pas-
Gate were badly damaged in the earthquake of 553/4 accord- chale 284-628 AD [Translated Texts for Historians 7, Liver-
ing to Theophanes Chronicle A.M. 6046 (C. de Boor ed., Chro- pool 1989]). Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 2-3
nographia 1 [Leipzig 1883] 229; C. Mango and R. Scott trans., thought that work on the land walls was considerably ad-
The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and NearEastern vanced by 413, and that the shell of the structure had been
History A.D. 284-813 [Oxford 1977]) Cf. also Theophanes completed by 422. On Cod. Theod. 7.8.13 (3 March 422),
Chronicle (supra) A.M. 6034 (= A.D. 541/2) 222. see K.G. Holum, "Pulcheria's Crusade A.D. 421-22 and
9 E. Weigand, "Neue Untersuchungen fiber das Gold- the Ideology of Imperial Victory," GRBS 18 (1977) 169.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
ever, the decree in

the Codex
has undergone Theodosianus
extensive repair (probably in the late
the wall "has been built" (extructus
Byzantine period) est),
(fig. 4), very little an
of the junction
work has been finished"
was visible to(conpleto
him. Clearly, only thisopere), a
same small part of
fore proves that the land
the join had been visible to Meyer-Plath
walls had been and Schneide
c
in 1933-1934,
by the time the law was and it was their observation of this
promulgated o
that formed
413.10 Furthermore, anthe inscription
basis for their assertion that the foun
Gate and fortification
commemorating repairs made were bonded.14
to the Davies ex-walls
pressed grave doubts that
earthquake of 447, indicates about their claim,
the butorigi
his short
article
lasted for nine years andseems tomusthave been ignored
therefore by subsequent h
started in 404 or scholarship,405.
early perhaps because
The it was unaccompanied
beginni
struction is very likely by any photograph
to be or illustration
linked that would
with have
dency of Anthemius, helpedwhoto make hisbecame
description of the Praetori
junction more
under Arcadius in 405: the ecclesiastical historian intelligible. The pile of silt was removed during resto-
Socrates ascribes the walls to him as does an ration work undertaken in 1958-1959, and in a brief
inscrip-
tion commemorating repairs made in the later report R. Duyuran expressed his opinion that, al-
fifth
century.1" Work on the fortifications can therefore though the wall and Gate were bonded, the two struc-
be dated to ca. 405-413 and, were Meyer-Plath and
tures had not been built at the same time.15 Although
Schneider correct in their assertion that the Gate the junction of the two walls may now be examined
and walls were bonded, these dates would also be ap-its full extent, it is difficult to obtain a close
along
plicable to the Gate. view of the particular section that was examined first
In their excavation report of 1927, S. Casson by andMeyer-Plath and Schneider, and later by Davies;
T. Macridy declined to enter the controversy thecon-
join is further obscured by vegetation. The fol-
cerning the date of the Gate, on the grounds thatdescription of the junction is based on obser-
lowing
the crucial junction could not be adequately studiedvations and photographs made from ground level.
"owing to the enormous accumulation of earth Below
at the fifth band of bricks in the fortification
this place."12 The situation was the same in wall,
1944,the alternating bands of brick and stone do not
extend as far as the south face of the south tower.
when Davies published the results of his examina-
tion of the join. It appears from his brief account
The last stretch of the wall is constructed of large
that there was a pile of silt obscuring the join limestone
up to blocks that are of about the same height as
the level of the fifth band of bricks in the fortifica-
the marble blocks of the south tower, but that vary
tion wall. This level corresponds to the top of the considerably in length. Mortar beds are clearly visible
18th course of marble in the south tower of the between these limestone blocks, and they are by no
Gate.13 Since the wall above the sixth band of bricks
means as finely squared or dressed as the marble
10 P. Speck, "Der Mauerbau in 60 Tagen," in H.-G. Beckand Their Liturgical Commemoration," Byzantion 51 (1981)
ed., Studien zur Friihgeschichte Konstantinopels (Miscellanea
122-47. Work on the outer wall probably belongs to the
Byzantina Monacensia 14, Munich 1973) 136. early part of the period 405-413.
1 For the nine-year construction period, see W.D.12 Macridy and Casson (supra n. 3) 68.
Lebek, "Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel und ein 1- O. Davies, "The Date of the Golden Gate at Istanbul,"
neues Bauepigram," EpigAnat 25 (1995) 117 (with his JRS
own34 (1944) 74-75. It is clear from p. 75 that the third
edition of the inscription that was found in 1993 on p. 138).and fifth courses of marble that were visible to Davies were
For Anthemius's involvement see Socrates Hist. eccl. 7.1.3 the 21st and 23rd courses. Thus the pile of silt rose to the
(G.C. Hansen ed., Kirchengeschichte [Berlin 1995]); the in- level of the fifth band of bricks, not the fourth, as he
scription in Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 136 claimed (p. 74). It is possible that the lowest band of bricks
(no. 44); J.R. Martindale, Prosopography of the Later Roman was not visible to Davies. The pile, covered by vegetation,
Empire 2 (Cambridge 1980) 93-95, s.v. Anthemius 1. Arca- appears in Macridy and Casson (supra n. 3) pl. 34.1.
dius's efforts to ensure the safety of Constantinople and of 14 See supra ns. 6-7.
his young successor are further illustrated by the appoint- 15 R. Duyuran, "A propos des premiers travaux de res-
ment of the Persian king as guardian to Theodosius, per- tauration de Yedikoule. (Le Chfiteau des Sept Tours),"
haps as early as 402: see G. Greatrex and J. Bardill, "Anti- Tiirkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu Belleteni 208/209 (1959)
ochus the Praepositus: A Persian Eunuch at the Court of 23. For an account of the restorations, see C. Tamer,
Theodosius II," DOP 50 (1996). Since the Golden Gate is 'Yedikule-Altinkapi manzumesinde gerieklestirlen restoras-
part of the inner walls, the date of the outer need not be yon ialihmalari 1958-1970," in I. Kumbaracilar and C.
discussed in detail here. Lebek's reinterpretation of the lit- Tamer, Yedikule (Tuirkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu Yay-
erary sources regrettably ignores the important study of anlari, Istanbul 1995) 45-56.
the texts in B. Croke, "Two Early Byzantine Earthquakes

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
blocks of the Gate. There can be no doubt that these though the angle formed by these two structures is
in fact acute.
blocks were set in position at the same time as the al-
ternating brick and stone was being constructed: theThe limestone block beneath the flanged marble
corner of the second block to be laid, for instance, has
block is L-shaped and turns the acute angle accu-
been carefully cut away to accommodate one of therately to adjoin the marble molding course at the
small limestone facing blocks (fig. 5). foot of the south tower (fig. 9). The moldings
around the foot of the Gate and its towers were
There is, in fact, very little evidence of bonding.16
The ends of almost all of the large limestone blocks never completed, but lines were scored to indicate
of the fortification appear to be flush with the south
where they were to be cut, and short sections (ca. 20
face of the tower. Chips in the limestone blocks cm long) were occasionally carved where two marble
where they meet the tower reveal that the 3rd, 4th,
blocks abut one another (fig. 10).17 One such sec-
7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th courses of marble tion of molding spans the angled limestone block
continue behind the west face of the fortification and the adjoining marble block of the south tower.
wall, although for how far is uncertain (figs. 5, 6). Had the molding been carved across the two blocks
The faces of the marble blocks in the 2nd, 6th, 10th,simultaneously, the Gate and walls would be contem-
11th, 12th, 13th, 18th, 19th, and 20th courses have porary. But, given that the molded marble block falls
been cracked inwards, almost certainly when the lime-
just short of the western face of the fortification, and
stone blocks were pushed up against them (figs. 5-8).
given the evidence from elsewhere along the join, it
These observations leave little doubt that the Gate was seems likely that the original marble block that car-
already standing when the wall was built. That need ried the right-hand half of the molding (and that
not mean that the former was erected considerably would have been largely masked by the fortification
earlier than the latter, although it would be some- if left in position) was removed by the builders of
what surprising if the damage we have noted had the wall. This would have allowed the fortification
been inflicted on a newly built monument. to be bonded into the Gate by the insertion of the
The marble blocks of the 1st, 5th, and 17th courses L-shaped limestone block, on which the molding
happened to end in almost exact alignment with the would then have been roughly completed.
western face of the fortification, and here the blocks The junction at and above the 19th course of
of the fortification can be seen to penetrate the marble, which was examined by Meyer-Plath and
tower. This suggests that such bonding as exists be- Schneider, and later by Davies, is of a different char-
tween the wall and tower was not planned, but under- acter from that below, since the fifth and sixth brick
taken only when it could be easily achieved. It is likely bands, and the stone band between them, extend
that in these three courses the marble blocks in the right up to the south face of the south tower. The
south tower that were to be completely masked by the 21st and 23rd courses of marble in the tower (like
fortification wall were prised out, thus allowing the the molding course) fall just short of the face of the
fortification wall to be bonded in. It may be noted fortification wall. The gaps have been filled with
that the block that enters the south tower at the level
limestone (figs. 7-8). According to Davies, the piece
of the first course of marble is not limestone but of limestone inserted in the 23rd course continues
marble (figs. 5, 9). It is of the same height as the behind the west face of the fortification wall and
marble blocks used in the construction of the Gate "has been tooled where it would show, but where the
and is similarly dressed, but it is considerably curtain wall has been built up against it, it has been
shorter than the other blocks in the Gate (being left rough."'8 There can therefore be little doubt
0.76 m long), and its chipped edges suggest that it that the limestone was inserted when the fortifica-
has been reused. The block has a narrow flange at tion was being built. Meyer-Plath and Schneider,
its left-hand end that forms an obtuse angle with who believed that the Gate and fortification were
the face of the block. This serves to turn the corner built simultaneously, explained these limestone
between the tower and the fortification wall, al- blocks as fillers inserted because the marble blocks
16 On its own an absence of bonding between the Gate mended that towers and walls should not be bonded: Philo
and wall would not necessarily indicate that the two struc- Byz. MIXcfvLxi OVTcrSLg; 5.84.18-23 (Y. Garlan ed. and
tures were of different dates: the towers of the land walls, trans., Recherches de poliorcdtique grecque [Paris 1974] 298 sec-
for instance, are not bonded into the curtain wall. See tion A62-63, and 362).
A.M. Schneider, "The City-Walls of Istanbul," Antiquity 11 17 See Macridy and Casson (supra n. 3) 68-69.
(1937) 464; Foss (supra n. 8) 45. In his compendium of 18 Davies (supra n. 13) 75.
technology, Philo of Byzantium (fl. ca. 200 B.C.) recom-

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
I \St
I 7
5- i
12-
lu?lk
SIRi
Fig. 5. The junction of the Fig. fortifica

tower of the Golden Gate towe(left). Mar
band; number indicates cates marble course 12.
marble cours

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
IXi
'--Of
sum
19-
k
Ra ::
21-:
Fig. 7. The junction of the fortification wall (right) with the south Fig. 8. The junction of the fortification w
tower of the Golden Gate (left). Marble courses 17-23 and fifth brick tower of the Golden Gate (left). Marble cou
band; number indicates marble course 19. cates marble course 21.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Fig. 9. Marble course 1 in the south tower of t

tification wall. Below the latter is the L-shaped
in the Gate were not

tificationquite
were bonded intolong enough
the tower.20 The difficult t
the face of the curtain
removal ofwall.19
marble blocks atThe
this great workma
height is bet-
the Gate, however, is otherwise
ter explained by the desire to of
achieve extreme
a bond rather
quality, and it would than
be difficult
by the to But
desire to save material.21 explain
the very
fitting limestone blocks
fact that as part
the Gate had to beof
damagedthe origin
in order to ac-
ture. Furthermore, as complish
Davies the bonding indicates that the Gate
observed, the was g
have been created by the
built before removal of
detailed plans had been made marble
for the
that would have been adjoining
almost wall. completely obsc
the fortification wall: Itit
is clear
maythat the have
only visible been
bonding between
durin
moval of the marble block in the 21st course that the the two structures occurs where the marble blocks in
end of the adjacent marble block was chipped and the south tower of the Gate happened to end flush
the block below cracked (fig. 8). Davies was of the with, or just short of, the western face of the fortifica-
opinion that the marble that would have been tion wall. Although the blocks in every alternate
masked by the fortification had been extracted for course of marble might have ended in exact align-
use elsewhere, and not to facilitate a bond. On the ment with the face of the fortification, thereby making
other hand, Meyer-Plath and Schneider asserted that it possible to bond the wall into each odd-numbered
some of the small limestone facing blocks of the for- course, this was not the case. In very few cases was it
19 Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 50. cation penetrates the gap.

20 Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 44, 50, pl. 21 Since here, in the upper parts of the towers, the mar-
28h (showing marble courses 19 to 25 in the tower and the ble blocks are a facing to a mortared rubble core, they may
fortification wall from the fifth to the sixth band of brick).have been somewhat easier to remove than those at lower
In the photograph, marble course 25 appears to end in levels, where the core is of limestone blocks: see Ward-
Perkins (supra n. 1) 67-68.
alignment with the face of the fortification wall, but it is
unclear whether the limestone facing block of the fortifi-

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
isting gate."23 Second, the angle formed by the west-

ern face of the wall and the south face of the south
tower of the Gate is acute, whereas almost every-

where else along the Theodosian defenses the tow-
ers and the wall meet at an angle of 900 or more (fig.
3).24 One wonders whether the acute angle would
have been avoided had the Gate and the fortification
been planned and built simultaneously. Mamboury,

however, ascribed the Gate to Theodosius II and sug-
gested that the fortification had been diverted to the
east in order to avoid a hill outside the Golden Gate.25
The structural evidence would therefore appear
to indicate that the Gate and the fortification relate to
two distinct building programs, the Gate belonging

to the earlier. It may be added that there is clearly no
possibility that the Gate is later than the fortifications.
If that were the case, it would have been necessary to
demolish a section of the completed Anthemian in-
ner wall to make way for the Gate. There are, how-
ever, no visible
Fig. 10. Short section of molding indications of
carved such demolition
where two work,
mar-
ble blocks join at the footnor of the work
of subsequent north tower
to fill the gap betweenof
the the
Golden Gate as in 1927. (Photo David Talbot Rice Ar- ends of the breached wall and the new Gate. Al-
chive, Barber Institute, Birmingham University)
though the structural evidence suggests that th
Gate antedates the fortifications, it is as yet unclear
possible to bond the wall into the tower, and in gen- exactly how much earlier it is.
eral the limestone blocks of the fortification wall
were simply butted against the marble blocks of the

Capitals
Gate, which were often cracked as a result. The evi-On the western side of the Gate are four pilaster
dence of the junction is best understood if the Gate
capitals decorated with mask-acanthus foliage (fig.
is assumed to belong to a building project earlier
2). The pair in the southern arch crown the jambs of
than, and distinct from, the construction of the forti-
a doorframe that is still in its original position (fig.
fication. An excavation of the foundations of the 11). A similar doorframe originally occupied the
Gate and wall would almost certainly succeednorthern in re-arch, but when that arch was blocked it was
solving once and for all the question of the relative transferred to the central opening, which was thereby
dates of the two structures. reduced in size considerably.26 A section of jamb of
Two other features of the fortification wall may be the original, larger doorframe that once occupied
mentioned, although their significance is not en- the central archway is still attached to its south side
tirely clear. First, the eastern face of the wall is (fig. 2).
stepped back by about 0.3 m at a distance of about Scholars of Byzantine sculpture generally assume
10 m from the south wall of the south tower of the that the four pilaster capitals are contemporary with
Gate (fig. 3).22 Davies believed that this indicated
the Gate, and (following Weigand, and Meyer-Plath
that "the wall was being aligned on to an already ex-
and Schneider) with the fortifications. The capitals
22 The step is visible in Mfiller-Wiener (supra n. 4) fig. dans sa banlieue immediate aux XIXe et XXe siecles," Byz-
338 (far left). antion 11 (1936) 262.
23 Davies (supra n. 13) 74. 26 Macridy and Casson (supra n. 3) 71. On the grounds
24 The only exceptions appear to be the junction of the of construction technique, Mamboury suggested that the
wall with the south face of tower 8 (which is again a result blocking of the subsidiary arches and the reduction in size
of the diversion of the wall to incorporate the Golden of the central arch was undertaken by Isaac II Angelus
Gate) and with the north face of tower 46. See the plans in shortly before the sack of Constantinople by the Crusaders
Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) figs. 1-3, and the in 1204. See E. Mamboury (M. Burr trans.), The Tourists'
incomplete plans in W. Mfiller-Wiener (supra n. 4) figs. Istanbul (Istanbul 1953) 239. S. Eyice, Son Devir Bizans
330-33. Mimdrisi (Istanbul 1980) 85-86, pl. 136 ascribes the work
25 E. Mamboury, "Les Fouilles byzantines a Istanbul
toet
the 14th century.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Fig. 12. Threshold and pilaster base on the south side of

the south arch of the Golden Gate
The backs of the pilaster bases in the southern arch

have been roughly shaped and fit poorly into the re-
cesses that were built into the western facade of the
Gate (figs. 12, 13). The threshold, pilasters, and cap-

Fig. 11. Pilaster, itals,and
capital, on the other hand, do not
lintel in even meet the
the backs
west fa
south arch of the Golden Gate
of the recesses (fig. 13). The lintel fits poorly up to
the north and south walls of the archway and is not
are therefore adduced as some of the few closely in contact with the end of the molding at the spring-
dated ones from Constantinople, by reference ing to of the vault, despite the fact that this molding
which others can be dated.27 Certainly, comparison projects into the recess (figs.13, 14); the backs of the
with those from the atrium of the second church of capitals are only roughly shaped, with the result that
St. Sophia, dedicated under Theodosius II in 415,28they fit badly up to the north and south walls of the
suggests that the capitals are to be assigned to archway (fig. 14). The awkward fitting of the frames is
around the time of Theodosius II or somewhat later. noticeable from the exterior also, the unfinished ends
There can, however, be no doubt that the door- of the bases, lintel, and capitals being clearly visible
frames are a later addition to the original Gate.29 (figs. 11, 15). The fact that the doorframes are a later
27 R. Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien: Beitraige zu einer Geschichte 29 The doorframes are rightly omitted in the elevation
des spiitantiken Kapitells im Osten vom vierten bis ins siebente of the original western facade of the Gate in Macridy and
Jahrhundert (Studien zur spditantiken Kunstgeschichte 9, Casson (supra n. 3) pl. 42. On p. 71 of the same report,
Leipzig 1936) 44-47 (date: 425-430); W.E. Betsch, The writing of the recesses in which the pilasters are set, the
History, Production and Distribution of the Late Antique Capital in authors noted, "There is no reason at all to suppose that
Constantinople (Diss. University of Pennsylvania 1977) 10 with they were intended for the reception of pillars." Note
n. 6 (date: 412-413); T. Zollt, Kapitellplastik Konstantinopels also E. Mamboury, Byzance-Constantinople-Istanbul: Guide
vom 4. bis 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr mit einem Beitrag zur Untersu- touristiquei (Istanbul 1934) 185 (dating the addition of the
chung des ionischen Kiimpferkapitells (Asia Minor Studien 14, frames to the sixth century, without explanation), and
Bonn 1994) 230-31, nos. 657-60 (date: ca. 412);J. Kramer, Mamboury 1951 (supra n. 2) 240 (dating the addition to
Korinthische Pilasterkapitelle in Kleinasien und Konstantinopel the time of the construction of the land walls). Meyer (su-
(IstMitt-BH39, Tfibingen 1994) 103 (date: no later than 425). pra n. 6) 89 proposed two unacceptable explanations for
28 See A.M. Schneider, Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophien- the position of the frames: they had shifted in an earth-
kirche zu Istanbul (IstForsch 12, Berlin 1941) pls. 15-16. quake, or work on them was incomplete.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Fig. 13. Pilaster on the south

Fig. side ofcapital,
14. Pilaster, theand south arch
lintel on the north of the
side of
Golden Gate the south arch of the Golden Gate
insertion serves to explain why the pilaster bases composer

are of the verses on the Gate had made the
the only part of the Gate on which the moldings have
name Theodosius fit the poetic meter by merging
been completed (fig. 15). the first two syllables to give Theudosius.30 One verse
Since the capitals were an addition to the Goldenon the Gate read, HAEC LOCA THEVDOSIVS DEC-
Gate, they cannot help to establish a date for ORAT
the POST FATA TYRANNI ("Theodosius decorates
original construction of the monument. Given that
this place after the death of a tyrant"); the other,
AVREA SAECLA GERIT QVI PORTAM CONSTR-
they can be dated only in general terms, and that they
may have been old stock or reused, rather than hav-VIT AVRO ("He who builds the gate with gold rules
ing been made specifically for the project, they can-
the golden age").31 The existence of this inscription
not even be used to provide a reliable terminus ante
was finally confirmed in 1889 by Strzygowski. He
quem for the erection of the Gate. noted that in the voussoirs on both sides of the cen-
tral arch of the Gate there remained dowel holes for
Inscription the attachment of the letters of an inscription, which

would
In his commentary on Sidonius Apollinaris, pub- have been cast in bronze and possibly gilded.
In 1893 he published drawings of the positions of
lished in 1652, J. Sirmond cited in a footnote two
Latin verses that had once adorned the Golden the sockets and demonstrated that the letters that
Gate. Sirmond observed that both Sidonius and the had once existed corresponded to those in the two
30J. Sirmond, Jacobi Sirmondi ... opera varia nuncprimum

use of eEv660tog in four inscriptions from the land walls
collecta ... 1 (Paris 1696) 1178 (commentary on Sid. Apoll.,
commemorating repairs under Theodosius II in 447 (Anth.
Carm. 5.354). Pal. 9.690 and three others, all cited by Lebek [supra n.
31 For the inscription, see Meyer-Plath and Schneider 11] 135-37), and in the dedicatory inscription of St. Poly-
(supra n. 5) 125 (no. 8). Compare with Theudosius the euktos in Constantinople (Anth. Pal. 1.10.44).

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Fig. 15. Bases of the pilasters that flank th
verses quoted by Sirmond.32 It who

Arguing against Strzygowski, became
believed that the clea
first verse had been located on the eastern side of Golden Gate had been built under Theodosius I as a
the Gate, and that the second had adorned the freestanding triumphal arch that was later incorpo
outer, western face (fig. 16). rated into the land walls, Weigand observed that the
The "almost universally observed principle that author of the inscription had chosen the word porta
one never mentioned an unsuccessful usurper by ("gate") in preference to arcus ("arch"). He deduced
name"33 makes it difficult to determine whether the that the Golden Gate must have been from the very
emperor named is Theodosius I or II, since both em- beginning a gate in the fortifications of Theodosiu
perors were victorious over a tyrant. Magnus Maxi- II. It followed that the inscription could only refer t
mus, who had overthrown Gratian, was defeated un- the tyrant John, who was defeated in 425.35 The in
der Theodosius I in 388, and a certain ex-primicerius scription, the Gate, and the section of fortifications
notarius namedJohn was defeated under Theodosius in which it stands were therefore dated to shortly
II in 425.34 after 425.36 As we have seen, however, construction
32J. Strzygowski, "Drei Miscellen," RomQSchr 7 terrestre

(1893) de l'ancienne Constantinople et sa Porte doree,
1-3; Strzygowski (supra n. 2) 5, 8-9. Belleten 16 [1952] 268-71). He observed that the Latin in
scription on the east face of the base. of the Egyptian obe
33A. Cameron, "Some Prefects Called Julian," Byzantion
47 (1977) 62. lisk erected in 390 in Constantinople's Hippodrome men
tions a plurality of dead tyrants (EXTINCTIS . . .
34 See J. Matthews, Western Aristocracies and the Imperial
Court A.D. 364-425 (Oxford 1975) 173-182 (on Maximus)
TYRANNIS), presumably Maximus and Victor. Similarly
statue bases
and 379-381 (onJohn); S.I. Oost, Galla Placidia Augusta: A erected in Rome were dedicated "to the extin-
Biographical Essay (Chicago and London 1968) 45-50 guisher
(on of tyrants" (EXTINCTORI TYRANNORUM) (see
Maximus) and 180-89 (on John). For the sourcesMcCormick
con- [supra n. 5] 45 with n. 42, 116-17). Since the
cerning these usurpers, see A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale,
inscription on the Golden Gate refers to the death of only
andJ. Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire 1one tyrant (FATA TYRANNI), Schweinfurth argued that it
(Cam-
bridge 1971), s.vw. Magnus Maximus 39, Fl. Victor must refer to the tyrant John. This argument is, however,
14; and
worthless,
Martindale (supra n. 11), s.vw. Fl. Ardabur Aspar, loannes 6. owing to the constraints of the poetic meter. Is
35 Weigand (supra n. 9) 9. On the use of the termsthe arcus
singularity of TYRANNI any more significant than the
and fornix to describe a triumphal arch, see RE 7 Alplurality
(1939) of FATA? Furthermore, Schweinfurth suggested
that the Golden Gate had been inserted into the existing
464-65, s.v. Triumphbogen (Ehrenbogen) (H. IKihler).
36 It may be added that, in 1952, P. Schweinfurthlandalso
walls in 425. The structural evidence, however, can-
identified the tyrant of the inscription as John ("Le Mur
not be interpreted in this way.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
o 0
0o o 0 000
0 0(
0
0 00o
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
S 0 0 0000 0 0 <<v0 0
o 0000 0 C0 0 0
c,) C
< 0 s "S
o 000
OAR o o
00
00
0
A-H0N
0
0
0
0 OO
0
0t0
0
"00
0, CHIN
8
fqt '.o
0000
0 0 0
CL c CLc
Fig. 16. The dowel ho

on the (a) eastern an
ters requiring attach
Goldene Thor in Konst
Instituts 8 [Berlin 189
of the land walls ceased in 413, and the structural ev- original; and that the verse on the eastern facade,
idence allows no possibility that the Gate was built which mentions decoration, is a later addition. But
after the walls. Thus, if the use of the word porta does that is hardly likely since the original inscription
indicate that the land walls had already been built, would then have given no indication of the name of
the inscription must have been added to the Gate the emperor in whose honor the arch was erected.
more than a decade after their completion. This is The two verses must be contemporary. DECORAT
the solution adopted by Speck, who argues that the and CONSTRVIT can be reconciled when we realize
use of the word DECORAT indicates that the inscrip- that the text does not state that Theodosius deco-
tion commemorated the adornment of the existing rated the Gate, but that he decorated a place (HAEC
Gate following John's defeat. He explains CONSTR- LOCA THEVDOSIVS DECORAT). The text would be
VIT AVRO as a reference to gilding undertaken at that better taken to mean that Theodosius decorated the
time.s7 But if the inscription was added to the Gate in region by building such a splendid gate. Theodosius
425, then it remains to be determined whether the built the Gate, gilding it so lavishly that it could be
Gate was built at the same time as the land walls (ca.
said to be constructed of gold (PORTAM CON-
405-413) or-given that the allegations of a simulta- STRVIT AVRO), and to decorate the region in
neous bond between the Gate and the walls must be which it stood (HAEC LOCA ... DECORAT). Ac-
dismissed-before them. cording to this interpretation the inscription is con-
The assumption that the inscription was addedtemporary
to with the erection of the Gate; there is no
the Gate in 425 is, however, highly questionable.possibility
It of the tyrant being John since he was not
might be suggested that the verse on the western defeated
fa- until 425, whereas the Golden Gate can-
cade of the Gate, which mentions construction, is not have been built any later than 413. The Golden
37 Speck (supra n. 10) 141 with n. 52e.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
Gate would therefore have been built as a free- Golden Gate. The Patria therefore indicates nothing
standing arch by Theodosius I after the defeatmore
of than that the Golden Gate existed before 447.40
Magnus Maximus. The proposed interpretation In 1914 Weigand rightly dismissed the Patria's evi-
raises, of course, the problem of the word porta. dence,
Its although he too misinterpreted it.41 Having
use might be explained away as a poetic usage, butdiscarded Strzygowski's main piece of evidence for
it is not unlikely-and I will return to this dating the Golden Gate to the reign of Theodosius I,
suggestion-that Theodosius I had intended the he argued that the earliest allusion to the Gate oc-
arch to be incorporated as a gate in a line of pro- curred in the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanzae, a
posed fortifications. semiofficial register of some of the major monuments
of Constantinople, which was composed around
Literary Evidence 423/4-427.42 He therefore maintained that it was
In his study of 1893, Strzygowski assigned the con- possible that the Theodosius of the inscription was
struction of the Golden Gate to Theodosius I. He ad-
Theodosius II. The Golden Gate mentioned by the
duced a passage in the Patria ConstantinoupoleosNotitia
(a is, however, said to have been in region 12 of
group of texts assembled around 995) that describes
the city and can therefore only be identified with the
how the emperor Theodosius II ordered the erec- main gate at the southern end of the Constantinian
tion of walls from the Exakionion to the Golden
fortifications.43 Consequently, this text too is irrele-
Gate.8" Assuming that the walls described werevant thefor our purposes.
land walls of Theodosius II, Strzygowski argued thatNevertheless, the first literary allusion to the Golden
the Golden Gate must have existed before the fortifi-
Gate does indeed relate to the reign of Theodosius
cations were built, and that the Gate was the decisive
II, and Weigand referred to it also. In the sixth-
point at which these fortifications began.39 He there- century Chronicle of Malalas, it is recorded that Theo-
fore deduced that the emperor and the tyrant men- dosius II gilded a gate in Constantinople that was
tioned in the inscription were Theodosius I and thereafter known as the Golden Gate:
Magnus Maximus, and that the Golden Gate had
Theodosius [II] also gilded the two bronze doors of
been built as a freestanding triumphal arch to cele-
the Daphnetic gate, after the pattern of the gate
brate the victory over the usurper in 388. When the
he had gilded in Constantinople, which up to the
land walls were built in the early fifth century, he present is still called the Golden Gate; likewise
maintained, the monument was incorporated into that of Antioch the Great is known to the present
the fortifications as a gateway. The text in question, day as the Golden Gate. It was gilded by the consular
Nymphidianos.44
however, has no bearing on the issue of the date of
the Golden Gate. The passage in fact concerns the Weigand argued that the inscription on the
reconstruction of the Land and sea walls in 60 days Golden Gate, with its references to building with gold
by the Praetorian Prefect Constantine after the (CONSTRVIT AVRO), to decoration (DECORAT),
earthquake of 26January 447. One section of the sea and to a golden age (AVREA SAECLA), agreed so
walls that was repaired extended from the Exakio- well with Malalas's testimony that it ought to be asso-
nion, near the southern end of the Constantinian ciated with Theodosius II. In this he was followed by
walls, along the coast of the Sea of Marmara, to the Speck.45 But even if we accept that the inscription
"3 Patria 1.72-73, T. Preger ed., Scriptores originum Con- Konstantinopel," IstMitt 47 (1997) 350-51 tries to recon-
stantinopolitanarum 2 (Leipzig 1907) 150. On this passage, cile Speck's dating of the text with the arguments of Lebek
see A. Berger, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupo- (supra n. 11) 150-53 (on which see supra n. 11).
leos (Poikila Byzantina 8, Bonn 1988) 232-34. 43 See A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople: The
39 Strzygowski (supra n. 2) 3-5. Walls of the City and Adjoining Historical Sites (London 1899)
4() The Patria (supra n. 38) 1.72-73, 150 conflates Con- 21-22, 30-32; Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 24-25.
stantine's repairs in 447 with the earthquake that occurred 44 E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys, R. Scott et al. trans., The Chron-
on 25 September 438: see Croke (supra n. 11) 126-31 icle of John Malalas (Byzantina Australiensia 4, Melbourne
(438 earthquake) and 131-36 (447 earthquake). 1986) 197.
41 Weigand (supra n. 9) 5-6. In general on the text of 45 Weigand (supra n. 9) 2-3; Speck (supra n. 10) 141
the Patria, see G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire: Etudes with n. 52e. Although the Golden Gate in the Constantin-
sur le recueil des Patria (Bibliotheque byzantine 8, Paris ian wall continued to stand long after the erection of the
1984) and Berger (supra n. 38). Theodosian fortifications, it is most likely that Malalas is
42 Weigand (supra n. 9) 6-7. Notitia Urbis Constantinopol- referring to the Golden Gate in the Theodosian wall. On
itanae 13.8, 0. Seeck ed., Notitia Dignitatum (Berlin 1876) the survival of the Constantinian walls, see Mango 1990
239. For the date of the Notitia, see Speck (supra n. 10) (supra n. 4) 24-25.
144-50. A. Berger, "Regionen und StrafBen im frihhen

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
was set up by Theodosius andII likens

when them to he
those that Theodosiusthe
gilded I drove
Golden Gate, this would notinto Constantinople.49
preclude the The existence of the ele-
possibility
that the monument had been phants
builtis confirmed
in anbyearlier
the Patria, pe-
but this text
claims that it it
riod. On the other hand, although was Theodosius
contains II who noth-
erected his
ing that is demonstrably incorrect,46 Malalas's
statue upon the Gate, behind ac-
the elephants.50 Else-
count should not be assumed to be reliable: it would where, in a chapter entitled On Statues, the same
not be surprising to discover that he had mistakenly text states that the elephants had been brought to
ascribed to Theodosius II gilding that was in fact un- Constantinople from the Temple of Ares in Athens
dertaken by his grandfather.47 Furthermore, because by Theodosius II. The allegations regarding the
of its use of the words DECORAT and PORTAM origin of the elephants should, however, almost
CONSTRVIT AVRO, the inscription itself might easily
certainly be disregarded: first, there is no evidence
have been understood to mean that the name Porta that such statues had ever stood near the temple;
aurea (Qvuoci TsinlXc, XQQvoEicl TAkl or 7rQTCa) came
second, the temple had been in ruins since 267
into use after the monument had been gilded. Thus and would probably have been completely buried
Malalas's story may have its origin in an interpreta- by the time of Theodosius II; and third, in this
tion of the inscription itself, and, if so, we cannot chapter of the Patria almost all the statues and
presume that it correctly identifies the Theodosius sculptures in Constantinople are said to have been
named there.
brought from elsewhere, and frequently fantastic
Other literary sources are, I believe, of more bibliographic references are given to bolster such
help regarding the date of the Gate, although they claims.51 The Patria, it has been written, "may be
have received insufficient attention. The chronog- trusted when it says that a given building or monu-
rapher Theophanes (early ninth century) and the ment was there and had certain visible features,
so-called Great Chronographer (8th-11th centu- but all the historical information it offers is ex-
ries), who seems to have consulted Theophanes tremely or dubious and should not be accepted with-
Theophanes' source, refer to a statue of Theodosius out corroboration from more reliable sources.""52
I that fell from the Golden Gate during the earth-Concerning the identification of the emperor whose
quake of October 740.48 Cedrenus (11th century) statue adorned the Golden Gate, the evidence of
describes the Gate as surmounted by four elephants,
Theophanes, the Great Chronographer, and Cedrenus
46 Malalas (supra n. 44) 360 may or may not be right in that the Great Chronographer and Theophanes were draw-
asserting that the Daphne gate in Antioch was gilded by ing on the same source at this point, and that the text of the
one Nymphidianus under Theodosius II. G. Downey has Great Chronographer probably preserves that source more
suggested that this gilding took place when the south wall closely. Mango, on the other hand, believes that the Great
of the city was shifted further south ("The Wall of Theodo- Chronographer was dependent on Theophanes (in Mango
sius at Antioch," AJP 62 [1941] 209 n. 13; A History of Anti- and Scott [supra n. 8] xc-xci). Zonaras Epitome 15.4, T.
och in Syria [Princeton 1961] 452 n. 11). If Evagrius Hist. Biittner-Wobst ed., Epitomae historiarum 3 (Bonn 1897) 263,
eccl. 1.20 (J. Bidez and L. Parmentier eds., The Ecclesiastical writing in the early 12th century, also refers to the top-
History of Evagrius with the Scholia [London 1898]) were pling of the statue.
correct in placing the shift after Eudokia's visit to Antioch 49 Cedrenus, I. Bekker ed., Historiarum compendium 1
in 438, and if Malalas 346 were right to ascribe the work to (Bonn 1838) 567: "Ort oL X'cpuvrEg ot v r T XQvoUi rdQ6r
a Praetorian Prefect named Antiochus Chuzon, then it
poiolt EGVy dv rXdkCt ?EoG6otb yog it3&dg Sg r1v Yr6tvy
would follow that the walls were built in 448 (Martindale ElXoiSaEv. On the context of this entry see Mango in C.
[supra n. 11] 104, s.v. Antiochus 10), hence after Eudokia's Mango, M. Vickers, and E.D. Francis, "The Palace of
retirement to Jerusalem. There is, however, no proof that Lausus and Its Collection of Ancient Statues," Journal of the
the gate was gilded when the wall was shifted. History of Collections 4.1 (1992) 91-92.
47 Downey 1941 (supra n. 46) 207 notes that Malalas oc-
o Patria (supra n. 38) 1.73, 150: xau nruT~iPa3ukEv tU
casionally confuses the two Theodosii, and warns (n. 5) TEXl hUr6 ro0 'Euaxtovtov ?tc'Q XQvoe~i ag- o xat oflhk]y
that this may be the case in the passage concerning the
gilding of the Golden Gate in Constantinople. rtM]oCev
sius a?ro0walls
II] erected 8mov yrcOEv
from T XEc3v-cov
the Exakionion to ("and he [Theodo-
the Golden
48 Great Chronographer 15.6-7, P. Schreiner ed., Die Gate, after which he set up the statue of himself behind
byzantinischen Kleinchroniken 1 (Corpus fontium historiae the elephants"). Speck (supra n. 10) 137 imagines that
byzantinae XII/I, Vienna 1975) 44; Theophanes Chronicle Theodosius erected a column.
(supra n. 8) A.M. 6232, 412. M. Whitby and M. Whitby (su- 51 Patria (supra n. 38) 2.58, 182. On the text's unreli-
pra n. 9), appendix 2, 199 n. 14 state, "There is no confir- ability, see A. Frantz, Agora 24: Late Antiquity: A.D. 267- 700
mation for a statue of Theodosius I (the Great) at the (Princeton 1988) 75, and Dagron (supra n. 41) 128-32.
Golden Gate," and suggest equating the statue mentioned 52 C. Mango, "The Palace of the Boukoleon," CahArch
with that of Theodosius II at the Sigma. They also suggest 45 (1997) 41.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
deserves to be treated more
been reerected. seriously
According to the account ofthan
the cru-
the Patnria.5 sader Robert of Clari, only two bronze elephants re-
Theophanes, who describes the statue of Theodo- mained on the Gate by 1204.59 In short, there can be
sius I as T~i LiTg xarvorig 6roQTlg, leaves little doubt that little doubt that the Golden Gate was crowned with
the imperial statue stood on the top of the Golden the statue of an emperor standing in a chariot drawn
Gate, as Strzygowski concluded. But the elephants, by four elephants. The ensemble would have been
which are said by the Patnia to have been in front of similar to that on the quadrifrons arch of Domitian in
the statue of Theodosius,54 were not, in Strzygowski's Rome.60 The presence of a statue of Victory crowning
opinion, upon the main gate. He observed that the the emperor-which fell in the earthquake of 862, but
Patnia elsewhere describes the animals vaguely as T~rg which was evidently reerected and adorned the Gate
until at least 1648-suggests that the ruler was repre-
x(Volag 76TOQcag ("of the Golden Gate"), " and that
Cedrenus refers to them as 5v Ti x0von In6QTfl,56 sented celebrating a military triumph.61
which could mean "near" rather than "on the In an attempt to confirm that the imperial statue
Golden Gate." He therefore supposed that the ele-
did indeed represent Theodosius I, as our more reli-
phants, acquired by Theodosius II, had stood a con-
able texts would appear to indicate, we may now con-
siderable distance in front of the imperial statue, sider
on which of the two Theodosii was the more likely
top of the marble towers flanking the outer, propy- to have celebrated a triumph in an elephant-drawn
laic gateway.57 There can, however, be no doubt thatchariot. Our sources tell us that Theodosius II was
both the elephants and emperor formed an ensem-informed of John's defeat while he was presiding
ble that adorned the inner Golden Gate, for theover games in the Hippodrome at Constantinople.
group was seen by Hariln ibn-Yahya in the late 9th Thereupon,
or the games were abandoned and the em-
early 10th century, and his description is preserved
peror led the crowd through the arena to a church,
in the Book of Precious Things, a geographical worksinging
of hymns in thanks to God.62 Although we hear
about the same date by Ibn Rosteh: "On the Gate of a victory parade in the hippodrome at Aquileia,
stand five [sic] statues representing elephants and
we do not hear of an imperial triumphal procession
another representing a standing man who restrains into Constantinople.63 The silence of our sources in
the elephants with reins.""58 The imperial statue that
this regard may be significant since, after the death
had fallen in the earthquake of 740 had, it seems, of Honorius in 423 (under whom Rome's last trium-
5" Berger (supra n. 38) 367-68, following Meyer-Plath see de Maria (supra) 247-48 (no. 29), pl. 25. Aurei in the
and Schneider, makes the Golden Gate contemporary with series inscribed Quod viae munitae sunt show an arch (in a
the fortifications, and accepts the testimony of the Patria colonnade) topped by the statue of the emperor standing
in identifying the statue as one of Theodosius II. in a biga of elephants and being crowned by a Victory, and
54 Patria (supra n. 38) 1.73, 150 (quoted supra n. 50). a double arch at the center of a bridge, with similar attic
5 Patria (supra n. 38) 2.58, 182. statuary. See S. de Maria, G. Gualandi, et al., Studi sull'arco
56 Cedrenus (supra n. 49) 567 (quoted supra n. 49). onorario romano (StArch 21, Rome 1979) 24-27 and pl. 4.2-
57 Strzygowski (supra n. 2) 29 and, for the outer gate 3, and de Maria (supra) 269 (no. 58) and pl. 43.4. As de
with flanking marble towers, which he dates to the reign of Maria (supra) 287-88 (no. 74) observes, Cassiodorus Var.
Theodosius II, 16, 17-19. On the outer gate, see supra n. 10.30.1, which refers to bronze elephants in the Via Sacra,
1. Presumably following Strzygowski, Meyer-Plath placed has been doubtfully associated with the Arch of Titus.
no elephants on top of the Gate in his reconstruction l' Theophanes Continuatus, I. Bekker ed. (Bonn 1838)
drawings: Meyer (supra n. 6) pls. 32-34; F. Krischen and T. 197; Scylitzes Synopsis historiarum, I. Thurn ed. (Berlin,
von Liipke, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel 1: Zeichnerische New York 1973) 107; Cedrenus, I. Bekker ed., Historiarum
Wiederherstellung (Denkmiler antiker Architektur 6, Berlin compendium 2 (Bonn 1839) 173; B. de Monconys, Journal
1938) pl. 19; Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) pl. 10. des voyages de Monsieur de Monon ys 1 (Lyon 1665) 455. A
58 M. Izeddin, "Un prisonnier arabe A Byzance au IXe statue described in the Patria as a female figure holding a
siecle: Hairofin-ibn-Yahya," REI (1941-1946) 45. A.A. Vasil- crown and representing the city is perhaps the same: see
iev (H. Gregoire and M. Canard trans.), Byzance et les Arabes Patria (supra n. 38) 2.58a, 182-83 with Berger (supra n. 38)
2: La Dynastie macedonienne (867-959) (Brussels 1950) 368. For depictions of Victory crowning the emperor in an
2.383.
elephant-drawn chariot, see supra ns. 60 and 74. For the
9 P. Lauer ed., Robert de Clari. La Conquite de Constantino- cross that adorned the Golden Gate until it was blown down
ple (Les Classiques fran;ais du moyen age, Paris 1924) 87. in the reign ofJustinian, see Cedrenus (supra n. 49) 675.
io On this arch, built between 83 and 85, see S. de For the gates of Mopsuestia, gilded and set up there under
Maria, Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell'Italia romana (Rome Nicephorus II Phocas, see Scylitzes (supra) 270; Zonaras Epit.
1988) 289-91 (no. 75), pls. 70.1, 70.2, 79.1, 79.2. Note also (supra n. 48) 16.25, 502-503; McCormick (supra n. 5) 170.
a relief of the Severan period that shows an arch bearing 62 Socrates Hist. eccl. 7.23.11-12.
the statue of an emperor drawn in an elephant quadriga: 63 McCormick (supra n. 5) 59-60 with n. 82.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
hardly importance
phal arch was erected),64 the justified such a celebration.68 The second
of triumphal
entries diminished and occasion
victory was on 12 celebrations
October 386, when the em- were
more frequently held in the
peror circus
and his young son,in conjunction
Arcadius, entered the city
following chariot
with the increasingly popular Promotus's defeat of the As
races. Goths.69
earlyTheo-
dosius's
as 400, following the defeat of final triumphal we
Gainas, entry hear
into Constantinople
of cir-
was made onwith
cus celebrations in conjunction 10 November 391, when he returned
Fravitta's trium-
phal entrance into Constantinople;65 itover
to the east following his victory isMagnus
not until
Maxi-
559 that our sources mention another
mus in 388.70 After triumphal
the defeat of Eugenius in 394,
Theodosius
procession into the city.66 But made no such entrance since
despite the he was
decline
in the popularity of theovercome
triumphalby a fatal illness
entrance,during victory
and rac
despite the silence of ourheld at Milan.71
sources regarding an im-
perial triumph in 425, we cannot
Significantly, rule
we also out
know that theI pos-
Theodosius pos-
sibility that Theodosius II elephants
sessed did make a triumphal
for the purpose of drawing his tri-
entrance after John's defeat. It In
umphal chariot. will become
his panegyric clear,
to Theodosius I,
however, that the case for identifying
which was the
delivered during Theodosius's trium-
first visit to
phant emperor upon the RomeGolden
between 13June Gate as Theodo-
and 1 September 389, Paca-
sius I is far stronger. tus speaks of a Persian embassy bringing gems, silks,
The Egyptian obelisk inandthe Hippodrome
"triumphal at Con-
animals for your chariots."72 These
stantinople, which was erected under
animals are certainly Theodosius
elephants,73 such as were used I
in 390, shows, on the northwest side of
to draw the triumphal its
chariot base,
of Pompey Per-
after his
sians and northern barbarians presenting
victory over Domitius gifts
in 81 B.C., of Severus Alex-to
Theodosius I, Valentinian II, Arcadius, and Hono-
ander following his success against the Persians in
rius, who are all enthroned in the box in the Hippo- A.D. 233, and as were decreed by the Senate for the
drome.67 Although we can detect here the begin- triumph of Gordian III after the defeat of Shapur I
nings of the move towards hippodrome-centered in 242.74 Blockley has suggested that Pacatus is refer-
victory celebrations, Theodosius I is nevertheless ring to an embassy sent in the year in which the
known to have entered Constantinople in triumph speech was made and that this embassy should be as-
on three occasions. The first time was on 24 Novem- sociated with the accession of the Persian king
ber 380, when the political and military situation Varahram IV in 389, but there is no firm evidence
64 For the arch, set up in the western part of the Cam- 69 Chron. Marcell. (B. Croke trans., The Chronicle of Marcel-
pus Martius in the vicinity of the Pons Neronianus be- linus [Byzantina Australiensia 7, Sydney 1995]) 386.1; Con-
tween 402 and 408, see de Maria (supra n. 60) 323-24 sularia Constantinopolitana (supra n. 68) 386.2; McCormick
(no. 103), fig. 68; and McCormick (supra n. 5) 118. (supra n. 5) 43, 91.
65 For the circus celebrations and Fravitta's triumph, see 70 Socrates Hist. eccl. 5.18; Zos. 4.50.1; McCormick (su-
R.C. Blockley, The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the pra n. 5) 44-45.
Later Roman Empire: Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus and 71 McCormick (supra n. 5) 45-46, 122.
Malchus 2 (ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and 72 triumphalibus beluis in tua esseda suggerendis Pan.Lat.
Monographs 10) (Liverpool 1983) 108-109 (no. 68), 110- 2.22.5 (C.E.V. Nixon trans., in Nixon and B. Saylor Rod-
11 (no. 74); McCormick (supra n. 5) 49, 92, 118 with n. gers, In Praise of the Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Lat-
167.
ini [Berkeley 1994] 475, 660).
66 On these changes, see McCormick (supra n. 5) 36- 7 H.H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman
64, 91-100. On Justinian's triumph in 559, see McCor- World (Cambridge 1974) 205.
mick (supra n. 5) 67, 208-209. 74 See: Plut. Vit. Pomp. 14.4; SHA Alex. Sev. 57.4, Gord.
67 See S.G. MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiq- Tres 27.9, 33.1-2. The use of the elephant quadriga looks
uity (Berkeley 1981) 56 and pl. 17; S. Rebenich, "Zum The- back to the gilded statue of Alexander drawn by elephants
odosiusobelisken in Konstantinopel," IstMitt 41 (1991) in the great procession of Ptolemy II Philadelphus in Al-
455-59; B. Kiilerich, Late Fourth Century Classicism in the exandria in the 270s B.C: see Scullard (supra n. 73) 124-
Plastic Arts: Studies in the So-Called Theodosian Renaissance 25, 254-59. There is no evidence that Heraclius rode in
(Odense University Classical Studies 18, Odense 1993) 36, an elephant quadriga following the victory over the Per-
38, 41. sians in 628: McCormick (supra n. 5) 72 n. 133; Scullard
68 Zos. 4.33.1; Chron. Pasch. (supra n. 9) 561; Hydatius (supra n. 73) 206. For examples of depictions of elephant-
Chronicle 380 (14 November) and Consularia Constantinopo- drawn triumphal chariots (other than those upon arches,
litana 380 (R.W. Burgess ed. and trans., The Chronicle of Hy- given in n. 60), see Scullard (supra n. 73) 151-52 with pl.
datius and the Consularia Constantinopolitana [Oxford 1993]); 24a, and 256-57 with pl. 24h. Note that on both of the
Philostorgius, Hist. eccl. 9.19 (J. Bidez ed., Kirchengeschichte coins illustrated, a winged Victory hovers above with
[Berlin 1981]); McCormick (supra n. 5) 42 with n. 30. crowns for the riders.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
that such an embassy Given took place.75

the rather haphazard insertion of the Varahr
jambs and
decessor, Shapur III lintels, the introduction of is
(383-388), the doors into the arches is
known to
better explained
two embassies. The first, to as aConstantinople
security measure (perhaps taken
haps announced his when
accession;76
the Anthemian walls were the second
built), rather than as
och in 387, probablypartachieved the partition
of a decorative undertaking.
But if we conclude
menia between the eastern from all this, asand
empire I believe we
the
Pacatus may be referring to either
must, that the sculptural of Vic-
ensemble represented the
tory crowning
sies.78 We may conclude thatTheodosius I as he rode in a chariot
possibly as ea
Theodosius I was inpulled
a by position to
four elephants that he make
had received in 384 a
entry into Constantinople conveyed
or 387, then the Golden Gate was a triumphal arch in
drawn by elephants. Thus,
with flanking he
towers that may
was built have
before the em-
his triumphs of 12 October
peror's triumphal entry of 386 and
386 or 391.79 10
In this case,
391 in this fashion. it would be difficult to imagine that the monument
Conclusion would have been left without any inscription com-
If the testimony of the Patria, which identifies the
memorating the victory and naming the victorious
statue on the Golden Gate as Theodosius II, were ac- emperor. This supports the conclusion reached
above, that the inscription recorded by Sirmond and
cepted, then it might be argued that the sculptural
identified by Strzygowski is better understood as re-
ensemble represented that emperor celebrating the
victory overJohn in 425, and that the inscription was
ferring to Theodosius I and the tyrant Magnus Maxi-
added at the same time. The fifth-century door- mus. It follows that the Golden Gate was a freestanding
monument built quickly between the victory of 388
frames that were inserted into the arches might also
be adduced as evidence for adornment of the Gate and the triumphal entry into Constantinople on 10
under Theodosius II. In that case, it could only beNovember 391. Given that the inscription states that
concluded that the Golden Gate was erected in or Theodosius decorated the place and "built the
before 413, the year in which the land walls weregate with gold" (PORTAM CONSTRVIT AVRO), the
completed. As we have seen, however, the Patria'sarch may have obtained the name Porta aurea soon
after its construction, whereas in fact the monument
historical unreliability is notorious; there is no evi-
dence that Theodosius II made a triumphal entrydid not strictly become a gate until it had been incor-
porated into the land walls.
into Constantinople after John's defeat, and the ac-
counts of Theophanes, the Great Chronographer,
and Cedrenus, taken together with the evidence ofTHE GOLDEN GATE IN CONTEXT
Pacatus, suggest that the sculptural group crowning It was by no means unusual for monum
the Gate represented Theodosius I being drawn byarches, whether triumphal, honorific, or ter
four elephants received from the king of Persia. to be set up beyond the city walls.80 Outside
75 R.C. Blockley, "The Division of Armenia ofJustinian

Between 1the (London 1923) 94; Blockley (supra n. 75) 230.
Romans and the Persians at the End of the Fourth Century
78 Nixon's statement (supra n. 72, 475 n. 73) that Pan.
A.D.," Historia 36 (1987) 230. Blockley suggests that
Lat. 2.22.5 musthis
refer to the embassy of 384, on the grounds
postulated embassy of 389 is also alluded tothat
bySocrates
Claud.Hist.VI eccl. 5.12.2 also mentions precious
Cons. Hon. 69-72. This poem was recited in Rome,
stones, silks, pre-
and elephants is mistaken: Socrates gives no
sumably on 1 January 404 (M. Dewar ed. andsuchtrans.,
details.Pane-
The fact that at Pan.Lat. 2.32.3 Pacatus may
gyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii augusti [Oxford
refer to the1996]
embassy of 387 does not necessarily mean that
xliv). Dewar, however, thinks Claudian alludes at
to2.22.5
thehetreaty
must be referring to 384.
of 387 (110, on 69f.), and this interpretation gains more (supra n. 43) 63, who followed Strzy-
79 Van Millingen
weight from the fact that at line 68 Claudian gowski
has referred
in dating the Gate to the reign of Theodosius I,
to the war with Maximus.
observed, "In corroboration of the date thus assigned to
76 For the embassy of 384, see Socrates Hist. eccl. 5.12.2; the monument, it may be added that the only Imperial
Oros. 7.34.8; Chron. Pasch. (supra n. 9) 563; Chron. Marcell. statue placed over the Porta Aurea was that of Theodo-
384; Consularia Constantinopolitana 384; Hydatius Chron. 384. sius the Great."
77 For the embassy of 387 from Persia to Antioch, see 8s For further examples of extramural arches, see D.
Lib. Or 19.62 and 20.47. This embassy is possibly also re- Scagliarini Corlhita, "La Situazione Urbanistica degli Archi
ferred to by Pan. Lat. 2.32.3 (where Theodosius I is said to Onorari nella Prima Eta' Imperiale," in S. de Maria, G.
have gained the loyalty of the kings of the Eastern frontier), Gualandi, et al. (supra n. 60) 55-72. Also, de Maria (supra
and by Claud. VI Cons. Hon. 69-72. On the embassy of 387 n. 60) 229-30 (no. 3), fig. 11, pl. 5 (Aosta); 231 (no. 4),
and the partitioning of Armenia, see J.B. Bury, History of the fig. 12, pl. 6 (Aquino); 236-37 (no. 9), pl. 15 (Canosa);
Later Roman Empire From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death 325-26 (no. 105) pl. 106 (Capua).

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
on the Via Flaminia, for instance, there

of their location is often were threeit has
unclear. Although
arches. The first was builtbeen suggested
under that the Goldenat
Augustus Gatethe
was set up to
Mil-
vian Bridge, the second atmark
Prima Porta,
the extent probably
of Constantinople's pomerium,inthis
cannot
the first half of the fourth have been the and
century, case, since
the building,
third burial,
at
Malborghetto, possibly as and a monument
cultivation--which to Constan-
were traditionally forbidden
in the ad
tine's victory over Maxentius pomerium-were
Saxa Rubra all undertaken in the area
in 312.81
At Milan, between 350 and 375, a
immediately monumental
outside porti-
the Constantinian walls.86 The
coed street was erected for a distance of 600 m from incorporation of the Golden Gate into the later land
the Porta Romana, and at the end stood an archway walls may provide a clue as to the significance of its
around 12 m high.82 Some extramural arches were, location, particularly given that the inclusion of an
like the Golden Gate, flanked by towers. The triple- extramural arch within a circuit wall is not without
arched Frontinus Gate at Hierapolis in Phrygia parallels. In 129/30 an arch was built in honor of
(dated to the first century A.D.), for instance, pos- Hadrian about 460 m outside the south gate of the
sessed a circular tower on either side and stood city walls of Jerash in Jordan.87 The rough state in
about 150 m outside the city's north gate, to which it the side walls of the arch were left may indi-
which
was linked by a colonnaded street.83 The triple arch
cate that the architects expected that it would shortly
at Gadara (assigned to the second half of the second
be incorporated into a new circuit of walls."8 North-
century A.D.) was flanked by semicircular towers,
west of Lepcis Magna, a monumental arch of the sec-
and may well have been a freestanding monument
ond quarter of the second century was incorporated
into the land wall erected in the third or fourth cen-
outside the city's western wall.84 But although such
parallels give some justification for imagining the The south gate at Tiberias and the Damascus
tury.9"
original Golden Gate as a freestanding, extramural
Gate in Jerusalem were both, like the Golden Gate,
freestanding,
arch with flanking towers, they do not explain why it extramural arches with towers. The
was located as much as 1.5 km outside the Constan-
former, dated to the beginning of the first century
tinian walls and some distance south of the main A.D., was incorporated into the city's fortifications in
street leading into the city. the sixth or seventh century.90 The latter, built in the
Monumental arches indicated territorial bound- first half of the second century, was incorporated
aries of various kinds,85 but the precise significance
into Jerusalem's northern wall at the end of the third
81 See de Maria (supra n. 60) 269 (no. 58), 259-60 (no. M. Wheeler, "The Golden Gate of Constantinople," in R.
47), 243-44 (no. 22), pl. 24. Moorey and P. Parr eds., Archaeologr in the Levant: Essays for
82 D. Caporusso, "Corso di Porta Romana-Via Lamar- Kathleen Kenyon (Warminster 1978) 238-41; C. Arnould,
mora," and D. Caporusso and A. Perin, "Ricostruzione Les Arcs romains deJfrusalem (Freiburg 1997) 219. Although
grafica ipotetica della via porticata nel IV secolo D.C.," No- the area between the Constantinian and Theodosian forti-
tiziario Soprintendenza Archeologica della Lombardia (1984) fications was never considered urban (the Notitia [supra
94-96 and 96-98. Also, D. Caporusso, "Nuovi scavi arche- n. 42] considers only the 12 regions within the Constantin-
ologici in corso di Porta Romana a Milano," Bollettino ian walls to be part of the city) and never seems to have
d'Arte 72 (1987) no. 43, 63-70; de Maria (supra n. 60) been adorned with any monumental architecture (Mango
244-45 (no. 23), fig. 20. 1990 [supra n. 4] 46, 49), nevertheless, building, burial, and
3 See F. d'Andria, D. de Bernadi Ferrero, T. Ritti, and D. cultivation were all undertaken here. For Christian burial
Ronchetta, Hierapolis diFrigia 1957-1987 (Turin 1987) 30. immediately outside the Walls of Constantine, apparently
84 See Hoffmann, "Das Bogenmonument extra muros," in from the fourth century to the time ofJustinian, and for
P.C. Bol, Hoffman, and T. Weber, "Gadara in der Dekapo- a number of suburban villas and churches, see Mango 1990
lis," AA (1990) 216-39; S. Kerner and Hoffmann, (supra n. 4) 46-48. For cultivation, seeJ. Koder, "Fresh Veg-
"Gadara-Umm Qeis: Preliminary Report on the 1991 and etables for the Capital," in C. Mango and G. Dagron eds.,
1992 Seasons," ADAJ 37 (1993) 359-84; A. Segal, From Constantinople and Its Hinterland (Aldershot 1995) 51-53.
Function to Monument: Urban Landscapes of Roman Palestine, 87 On this arch, see A.H. Detweiler in C.H. Kraeling ed.,
Syria and Provincia Arabia (Oxbow Monograph 66, Oxford Gerasa: City of the Decapolis (New Haven 1938) 73-83, 151-
1997) 95-97.
52. See also I. Browning, Jerash and the Decapolis (London
85See A.L. Frothingham, "The Roman Territorial 1982) 104-107.
Arch," AJA 19 (1915) 155-74; W.L. MacDonald, The Archi- 88 See Detweiler (supra n. 87) 81.
tecture of the Roman Empire 2: An Urban Appraisal (New Ha- 89 R.G. Goodchild and J.B. Ward-Perkins, "The Roman
ven 1986) 75-80.
and Byzantine Defences of Lepcis Magna," BSR 21 (n.s. 8)
86 For the Golden Gate indicating the extent of the (1953) 49-51.
pomerium see A.L. Frothingham, "De la veritable significat- 90 See G. Foerster, "Ha-hafirot be'Tveria," Qadmoniot 10,
ion des monuments romains qu'on appelle 'arcs de tri- nos. 2-3 (38-39) (1977) 87-91; Segal (supra n. 84) 86-87.
omphe'," RA 6.2 (1905) 227; O. Davies (supra n. 13) 74;

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
or the beginning of Gate

the to become a gate in a new century.91
fourth fortification wall, the
Gate's huge flanking monument's
towers, location, 1.5its
km beyond the existing
inscripti
ing the word porta, Constantinian
and its walls, would
laterhave been incorpor
dictated by the
the Anthemian walls additional
may area that the emperor desired
suggest thatto be pro-new
tions were already intected.
mind The city walls
when would needtheto encompass
arch culti- w
Indeed, in 384, just vable
four land and years
reservoirs sufficient
before to support con
the
of the Golden Gate began,
population the
in a time of siege.100 Praetori
Whether the bound-
Themistius had asserted in and
ary already existed a hadeulogy that
some other significance
before the
sius I continued in his zealGolden Gate
for was built upon it is uncer-
embellishi
tinople, it would become
tain. It may, however, necessary
be noted that the northern tosec- b
circuit wall.93 tion of the Aurelianic wall in Rome seems
Constantinople was to haveclear
fast. Under Theodosius, land
followed the to
line of the the
earlier southw
customs barrier (the
Forum Tauri was reclaimed from
pomerium, incidentally, the
seems hardly sea,
to have influ- t
ing the new enced
quarter of its course).'0'
Kainopolis.94 Here
naries were established
It may to store
seem surprising that grain
the Golden Gateimpo
was
not located on the southern branch
Egypt.95 The bay remaining to ofthe Constantino-
west o
claimed area was dredged
ple's main street, theout to
Mese.102 The create
Mese's southern
branch is known to have passed from the forumcap
thus bringing Constantinople's harbor
maximum level, for called
itthe Amastrianon
was to the Forumincreased
not Bovis and the
period.96 New aqueducts and underground
Forum of Arcadius, and then through the Constan-
were constructed to tinian
bringGolden Gate water
(the Gate of Satourninos)
to the in re- cit
area of
(modern Bizye Vize),
gion 12 (fig. 17). along
Mango has plausibly suggested thatthe
the Amastrianon
mountains for a distance of was over
located opposite
120 the Murat
km,9
plementing the insufficient supply
Pasa Camii, where a statue of a river godbrough
and the
Hadrianic aqueductfoundations
from of a monumental
the arch region
were discovered of
the end of in 1957-1958.103
Theodosius's reign, The locationthe
of the Forum of Arca-
system o
tribution, dius is known, thanks
like the city's harbor capacity,to the survival of the base of the
its maximum development.98 Thus,
monumental column that adorned althou
it, and it is gener-
clearly an element ofally agreed that the Constantinian
flattery Golden Gate
in Themistius
reflects the city's growing prosperity
should be located near the Isa Kapi Mescidi (the and
If Theodosius I had indeed intended the Golden Mosque of the Gate of Jesus).104 The course of this
91 Arnould (supra n. 86) esp. 150-249 discusses the Interim Report on the Anastasian Long Wall," JRA 10
problem of dating the Damascus Gate. For the construc- (1997) 235-62.
tion of the northern wall, see Arnould (supra n. 86) 210- 98 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 40-42; C. Mango, "The Wa-
12; A. Kloner, "The 'Third Wall' in Jerusalem and the ter Supply of Constantinople," in Mango and Dagron (su-
'Cave of the Kings' (Josephus War V 147)," Levant 18 pra n. 86) 9-14.
(1986) 121-26. 99 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 46 n. 56.
92 Van Millingen (supra n. 43) 64, troubled by the use of 1oo Until Anthemius built the new land walls, the Gate's
the word porta, asked, "Was it built ... to indicate to a suc- flanking towers may have served as accommodation for a
ceeding generation the line along which the new bulwarks small number of troops. Wheeler (supra n. 86), who ac-
of the capital should be built?" cepts Strzygowski's attribution of the Gate to Theodosius
9 Them. Or 18, G. Downey ed., Themistii Orationes Quae I, suggests that the guards would have escorted V.I.P.s into
Supersunt 1 (Leipzig 1965) 320-21, with van Millingen (su- the city.
pra n. 43) 42. For the date, shortly after a campaign 101 See I.A. Richmond, The City Wall of Imperial Rome: An
against Maximus in May/June 384, seeJ. Vanderspoel, The- Account of Its Architectural Development From Aurelian to Narses
mistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty, and Pai- (Oxford 1930) 7-9.
deia from Constantius to Theodosius (Ann Arbor 1995) 210- 102 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 50 writes of "la nouvelle
12. (Vanderspoel wrongly states on p. 212 that Theodosius Porte Dorde, laquelle, pour des raisons qui ne sont pas evi-
"had enlarged the circuit circumscribed by the city wall.") dentes, ne fut pas placee en face de l'ancienne, mais beau-
94 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 18, 45. coup plus bas, pre's du bord de la mer."
95 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 40, 45. l3 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 28, 70; Mango 1993 (supra
96 Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 39-40, 45. n. 4) addenda p. 4. Earlier, these finds had been connected
97 See K. Qei;en (G. Ozur trans.), The Longest Roman Wa- with the Forum Bovis: Miiller-Wiener (supra n. 4) 254.
ter Supply Line (Istanbul 1996) chs. 2-3; J. Crow and A. 104See van Millingen (supra n. 43) 21-22, 30-32;
Ricci, "Investigating the Hinterland of Constantinople: Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 24-25.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
19991 A TRIUMPHAL ARCH OF THEODOSIUS I 693
CISTERN OF z
MOKIOS . AMASTRIANON
FORUM BOVIS
PHILADE
SFORUMOF
GATEOF HARBOUR
OSATOURNINOS F THEODOSIUS
o ST. ANDREW
SIGMA
XYLOKERKOSGATE
FILDAMI CISTERN
D GOLDEN GATE
0 HYPOGEUM
HARBOUR OF THE
GOLDEN GATE
HEBDOMON SEA OF MARMARA

TRIBUNAL
ST.JOHN THE FORERUNNER
COLUMN OF
THEODOSIUS II
0 1000 2000 m
Fig. 17. Sketch plan showing t

the Mese
branch of the Mese is therefore roughly indicated byequivalent of Rome's Campus Martius, an open plain
the modern Cerrahpasa Caddesi.o05 Certainly after
where the troops could muster.107 It is extremely
likely that the triumphal processions of Theodo-
the construction of the land walls, and probably also
before, the street continued westward along the
sius I would have begun at the Kampos,108 for we
same course, passing just south of the church of St.know that the area was already important in the
Andrew (now Koca Mustafa Pasa Camii), and time of Valens (364-378), who was proclaimed em-
through the Xylokerkos Gate (now Belgrat Kapi).106 peror on the Tribunal there109 and is said to have
Thus the southern branch of the Mese passed nearly adorned the structure with statues.110 The Heb-
800 m to the north of the Golden Gate.
domon was also the site of the Iucundianae palace,
The Golden Gate's southerly position-just 400 m which the Theodosian emperors used as a retreat
north of the Sea of Marmara-was almost certainlyfrom the stresses of the city.lll Certainly before 400,
dictated by its original function as a triumphal arch. Theodosius founded a church of St. John the Evan-
It was located on the triumphal route that began in gelist in the Hebdomon,112 and in 392, prompted
the suburb of the Hebdomon (modern Bakirk6y) by the magister officiorum Rufinus, he dedicated a
beside the Sea of Marmara, about 4 km outside the church to St.John the Forerunner there in order to
land walls. Here was the Kampos, Constantinople's house the relic of the saint's head. Before setting
lo5 See Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 28 and, for the route los As van Millingen (supra n. 43) 334.
outside the city, 32-33. 109 Amm. Marc. 26.4.3.
106 See A. Berger, "Das Triton von Konstantinopel," 11( Them. Or (supra n. 93) 6, 123; van Millingen (supra
JOB 40 (1990) 63-67. The street cannot have continuedn. 79) 330;Janin (supra n. 4) 139; R. Demangel (supra n. 5)
this straight course for any great distance beyond the11.
land walls, since it would have had to turn north to avoid
III Rufinus of Aquileia (?) De Vitis Patrum 3.19, Migne
the bay at Rhegion (Kfi;fik Cekmece). PL 73.749;Janin (supra n. 4) 450.
107 See van Millingen (supra n. 43) 328-30; Janin (su- 12 Socrates Hist. eccl. 6.6; Sozom. Hist. eccl. 8.4.
pra n. 4) 447, 450.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
out on his campaign against

monastery), Eugenius
and turned left in
along the street toward
dosius went into the St. MokiosBaptist's
in order to get to the church
Exakionion (at the to
Roman victory and Gateask the
of Satourninos), saint
from where himse
he went on to
forth and fight.113 Hagia Sophia.117 Thus the triumphal road ran from
the Hebdomon, through the
Although only the triumphs of Golden Gate, turned
Basil I foll
campaigns of 873 and north from 879 the coast at are
the Sigma, expressly
and intersected
have begun in the the Hebdomon,
southern branch of the Mese just the rout
outside the
walls of Constantine. We must therefore assume that
likely to have been long-established.114 On
casions Basil reached thisthe
route wasHebdomon
established in or before 388-391,
by cro
Sea of Marmara from when the the triumphal archAsiatic
of Theodosius I suburb
was con-
his arrival in 879 he structed
was on it.118 greeted by the se
all classes of citizens Built to commemorate a Theodosian

carrying floral victory, the
wreat
prayed in the church of
Golden St.
Gate fits John
in well the mon-
with the contemporary Forer
mounted his horse and,
uments accompanied
of Constantinople. On the Mese, between b
Constantine, followed the senators and citizens the Forum of Constantine and the Philadelphion,
along the paved road toward the Golden Gate. WhileTheodosius created the Forum Tauri.119 Inspired by
the emperor stopped to pray at the monastery of the
Trajan's Roman precedent, the emperor set up within
Theotokos of the Abramitoi, the prisoners and spoils
it a column decorated with a helical frieze that pre-
that had been shipped over from Asia to be displayed
sumably illustrated Promotus's victory over the Goths
in the procession were assembled in the meadow inin 386. It had perhaps been erected, even if not
front of the Golden Gate."6 This part of the proces-
carved, in time for the triumphal procession of the
sion departed toward the Chalke Gate of the Great
emperor and his son, Arcadius, on 12 October
Palace. The emperor then left the monastery, passed
386.120 In the following year a statue of Theodosius
through the Golden Gate, reached the Sigma (which was set up in the same forum. This may have been
is known to have been located above the Peribleptos
either the one on top of the column or a nearby
11' Construction: Theodore Anagnostes Hist. eccl., G.C. scription of the route, and hence the route itself, may re-
Hansen ed., Kirchengeschichte (Berlin 1971) 268; Sozom. late to an earlier imperial entrance before their construc-
Hist. eccl. 7.21; Chron. Pasch. (supra n. 9) 564; Patria (supra tion: V. Tiftixoglu, "Die Helenianai nebst einigen anderen
n. 38) 3.145, 260. Theodosius's prayer: Sozom. Hist. eccl. Besitzungen im Vorfeld des frfihen Konstantinopel," in
7.24. The church was partially excavated before its destruc- H.-G. Beck ed. (supra n. 10) 80; McCormick (supra n. 5)
tion: Demangel (supra n. 5) 17-32; T.F. Mathews, TheEarly 210-11 with n. 101. Berger (supra n. 117) 28, associating
Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (Univer- the Sigma with Helena's palace, argues that already in the
sity Park 1971) 55-61; W. Kleiss, "Bemerkungen zur early fourth century there must have been a street linking
Kirche Johannis des Tiufers in Istanbul-Bakirk6y (Heb- the palace to the southern branch of the Mese. The coastal
domon)," in Mansel'e Armakan, Mdlanges Mansel 1 (Ankara road through the Golden Gate to the Hebdomon was also
1974) 207-19. used for religious processions until at least the 10th cen-
114 For 873: Scylitzes (supra n. 61) 137.55-60; tury: R. Janin, "Les processions religieuses i Byzance,"
Theophanes Continuatus (supra n. 61) 269-71. For 878 REByz 24 (1966) 73-74, 79, 80; B. Croke, "The Date and
or 879: Const. Porph. De Cerimoniis appendix to book 1 Circumstances of Marcian's Decease, A.D. 457," Byzantion
(J.J. Reiske ed., De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae 1 [Bonn 58 (1978) 5-9.
1829] 498-502); van Millingen (supra n. 43) 334-35; 119 On the Forum Tauri, see Mfiller-Wiener (supra n. 4)
McCormick (supra n. 5) 154-57, 212-16. 258-65; C. Barsanti, "Il Foro di Teodosio I a Costantinop-
115 By this time the palace in the Hebdomon had been oli," in A. Iacobini and E. Zanini eds., Arte profana e arte
destroyed: McCormick (supra n. 5) 155 n. 87. sacra a Bisanzio (Milion 3, Rome 1995) 9-50; Berger (su-
I1~ For the harbor of the Golden Gate, see van Mill- pra n. 117) 17-24; F.A. Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in
ingen (supra n. 43) 300-301. der Spitantike (Mainz 1996) 187-203; L. Faedo, "Consider-
117 Sigma: Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 50 n. 81. Since, af- azioni sull'Arco di Teodosio a Constantinopoli," Corsi di
ter his coronation in the Hebdomon in 457, Leo I fol- cultura sull'arte Ravennate e Bizantina 43 (1997) 323-45.
lowed a road through cdt 'EXEvLava to the Exakionion, it '12 Theophanes Chronicle (supra n. 8) A.M. 5878 (= A.D.
would seem that the Sigma was located in cat 'EXEvava: see 385/6) 70. Theophanes' date suggests that the column
Const. Porph. De Cerimoniis (supra n. 114) 413-14, 416. It had been erected before the triumphal procession of The-
has been suggested that the Sigma was, in fact, the semicir- odosius and Arcadius on 12 October 386, but Mango 1990
cular entrance hall of the palace of Constantine's mother, (supra n. 4) 43 with n. 36 points out that the date should
Helena: A. Berger " Tauros e Sigma. Due piazze di Costanti- be treated cautiously: the forum itself was not inaugurated
nopoli," in C. Barsanti et al. eds., Bisanzio e l'Occidente: arte, until 393 (Chron. Pasch. [supra n. 9] 565). Cedrenus (supra
archeologia, storia. Studi in onore di Fernanda de' Maffei n. 49) 566 states that the reliefs on the column commemo-
(Rome 1996) 17-28.
rated victories over Scythians and barbarians. For "Scyth-
I 18It has been suggested that, since Leo's itinerary ians" meaning "Goths," see PJ. Heather, "The Anti-Scythian
(above n. 117) makes no mention of the land walls, the de- Tirade of Synesius' De Regno," Phoenix 42 (1988) 152-72.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
probably ceased when

equestrian statue.121 Contemporary withStilicho
thewoncon-
his victory at
struction of the Golden Gate was the erection of the Pollentia in 403. A decision was taken that the quick-
Egyptian Obelisk upon a decorated and inscribed est and cheapest way to strengthen the circular tow-
base on the euripos in the Hippodrome. The Latin in- ers of the gates was to build quadrangular towers
scription suggests that the monolith, having resisted around them. Generally, travertine was used for the
an earlier attempt to set it up, had been forced to new towers and for one or both storeys of the cur-
yield to the omnipotent Theodosius after the defeat tain wall between them.127 But the gates straddling
of Maximus.122 The reliefs on the base, to which I Rome's two most important roads, the Via Flaminia
have alluded above, express the universal authority and Via Appia, were adorned with huge square bas-
of Theodosius and his house. A second obelisk- tions built of marble in their lower parts, and of
that in the Strategium-may have been erected brick in attheir upper. The new curtain wall between
about the same time as part of the creation theof an- of both gates was similarly built with mar-
towers
other new forum,123 and it has been suggested ble below
thatand brick above. The similarities with the
the Column of the Goths, which was constructed on Golden Gate are striking, and extend even to the
the Acropolis (Saray Burnu) using spolia, was also a simple molding that crowns the marble work.128
Theodosian victory monument.124 By 413 the Golden Gate had been incorporated
In contrast to what remains of one of the arches of into the land walls. The walls began on the shore of
the Sea of Marmara, some 300 m west of the Golden
the Forum Tauri,125 the Golden Gate is notably lack-
ing in carved decoration.126 The virtual absence of and, as a result, had to turn to the northeast to
Gate
ornament and the incomplete state of the moldingsjoin the south tower of the Gate (fig. 17). The reason
at the foot of the Gate are perhaps to be explained in
why the fortification could not be started 300 m fur-
part by the speed with which the monument was ther to the east, so as to approach the south tower of
erected, and in part by the fact that the intention the Gate at a right angle, is uncertain, but it may be
was from the beginning to incorporate this triumphal that there were buildings to the southwest of the Gate
arch into a fortification. Such austere design may bethat it was desirable to incorporate within the walls.
seen again in Rome about a decade after the con- It was possibly when the fortifications were built that
the arches of the Gate were fitted with marble door-
struction of the Golden Gate. Following Alaric's inva-
sion of Italy at the end of 401, the Aurelianic wallsframes so that they could be closed off in the event
were subjected to urgent restoration work, which
of attack.129 Whether there is any truth in Malalas's
121 Chron. Pasch. (supra n. 9) 565. See Mango 1990 (su- 126The cornice at the southwest corner of the north
pra n. 4) 43-44 with n. 40; Mango, "Justinian's Equestrian tower is decorated with an eagle, and another block from
Statue (Letter to the Editor)," ArtB 41 (1959) 355 (repr. in the same tower was similarly decorated (Strzygowski [supra
Mango 1993 [supra n. 4] art. 11, 13). n. 2] figs. 10-11). There are also a number of Christian
122 Date: Chron. Marcell. 390.3. The obelisk addresses the signs: note, e.g., the chi-rho monogram within a wreath on
observer thus: Difficilis quondam dominis parere serenis/iussus the cornice above the central archway on the east facade
et extinctis palmam portare tyrannis ("I was once reluctant to (fig. 16); the cross at the northern springing of the south
obey the serene master[s], but was ordered to bear the archway on the west facade (fig. 11); the rho with a crossbar
palm [of victory] after the deaths of the tyrant[s]"). On at northern springing of the north archway and at the
the obelisk, see, e.g., G. Bruns, Der Obelisk und seine Basis southern springing of the south archway on the west facade;
auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel (IstForsch 7, Istanbul and the crosses on scattered blocks.
1935); H. Wrede, "Zur Errichtung des Theodosiusobe- 127 See Richmond (supra n. 101) esp. 109, pl. 9a (Porta
lisken in Istanbul," IstMitt 16 (1966) 178-98; Rebenich Latina); 121, pl. 11 (Porta Ostiensis East); 169, figs. 31-32
(supra n. 67) 447-76. (Porta Pinciana); 180, fig. 16 (Porta Tiburtina); 181-84
123 Notitia (supra n. 42) 6.11-12, 233 refers to Strate- (Porta Chiusa); 187, pl. 18 (Porta Salaria); 215, fig. 41, pls.
gium, in quo est forum Theodosiacum et obeliscus Thebaeus quad- 20-21 (Porta Praenestina-Labicana).
rus. See Mango 1990 (supra n. 4) 43 and Mango 1993 (su- 128 See Richmond (supra n. 101) 30-36 (date of the res-
pra n. 4) art. 10, 19-20. The obelisk was seen by Pierre toration); 121-42, esp. 142, pl. XII (Porta Appia); 191-
Gilles ca. 1544 in the gardens of the Topkapi palace: see P. 200, esp. 199-200 (Porta Flaminia); 257-62 (following
Gilles, De topographia Constantinopoleos et de illius antiquitati- Weigand in ascribing the Golden Gate to Theodosius II).
bus libri quatuor (Lyons 1561) 2.11. 129 Kautzsch (supra n. 27) 45, believing the Gate to be
124 See U. Peschlow, "Betrachtungen zur Gotensdiule in contemporary with the fortifications, argued that the door-
Istanbul," in Tesserae: Festchrift fiir Josef Engemann (JAC frames had to be contemporary with the Gate, on the
Suppl. 18, 1991) 215-28. The column was surmounted by grounds that a gate in a city wall would have required doors.
a statue of Tyche: Mango 1993 (supra n. 4) art. 10, 1-2. The jambs in the arch at Lepcis Magna are believed to have
125 See R. Naumann, "Neue Beobachtungen am Theo- been added when the monument was incorporated in the
dosiusbogen und Forum Tauri in Istanbul," IstMitt 26 land wall: see Goodchild and Ward-Perkins (supra n. 89) 51.
(1976) 117-41; supra n. 119.

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC
696 J. BARDILL, A TRIUMPHAL ARCH OF THEODOSIUS I
statement that Theodosius II gilded the Gate as a metaphor

is un- for the emperor's omnipotence,130
and that
certain: as noted earlier, the assertion may simply re- on the base of the imperial equestrian
statue in
sult from a misinterpretation of the inscription itself.the Forum Tauri described the emperor
Until the construction of the land walls, Theodo- rising from the east like a new sun.131 It is therefore
sius I's isolated triumphal arch, constructed of glis-hardly surprising to find that Theodosius symbol-
tening white marble and gold, flanked by massive ized his eternal authority by having his triumphal
towers, and topped by an imposing sculptural ensem- chariot drawn by elephants--creatures that were be-
ble, dominated the surrounding countryside. Stand- lieved to worship the solar deity and that symbol-
ing 1.5 km outside Constantine's walls, the Golden ized light, life, and victory over death.'32 Nor is it
Gate staked a firm claim to an additional swathe of surprising to find the theme of a Theodosian
land beyond them and was probably intended to in- golden age in the inscription over the central arch
dicate the line of the future fortification wall. Its of the Golden Gate: AVREA SAECLA GERIT QVI
massive, austere bulk was a physical manifestation PORTAM
of CONSTRVIT AVRO.
the city's power and security following the defeat

of the tyrant Maximus. Inscriptions on two major INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY
monuments of the period proclaimed that this UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
happy state of affairs was due to the rulership of The- 36 BEAUMONT STREET
odosius: that on the Egyptian obelisk used the suc- OXFORD OX1 2PG
cessful erection of the monolith after Maximus's defeat ENGLAND
:30 See supra ns. 36, 67, 122. Anth. Pal. 1.10.44.
132 Scullard (supra n. 73) 257-59.
131 On the statue, see supra n. 121. For the inscription,
see Anth. Pal. 16 (Planudean Appendix) no. 65. Cf. also

136.199.110.183 on Wed, 31 Mar 2021 13:48:05 UTC

The Golden Gate in Constantinople A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Golden Gate in Constantinople A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Golden Gate in Constantinople A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Golden Gate in Constantinople: A Triumphal Arch of Theodosius I

Author(s): Jonathan Bardill

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/507077

Archaeological Institute of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

This content downloaded from

Abstract pleted under Theodosius II (408-450), the land

This content downloaded from

Fig. 1. The Golden Gate and outer (propy

dosius II.4 Although

This content downloaded from

Junction Golden Gate, and concluded that the two were

This content downloaded from

10t 30 -547- 350- 780 -354

"--t ... TBM

Fig. 3. Plan of the G

This content downloaded from

Fig. 4. The fortification wall, built of alternating bands

both to bond Turkish

This content downloaded from

ever, the decree in

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Fig. 5. The junction of the Fig. fortifica

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Fig. 9. Marble course 1 in the south tower of t

in the Gate were not

19 Meyer-Plath and Schneider (supra n. 5) 50. cation penetrates the gap.

This content downloaded from

isting gate."23 Second, the angle formed by the west-

tower of the Gate is acute, whereas almost every-

been planned and built simultaneously. Mamboury,

two distinct building programs, the Gate belonging

were simply butted against the marble blocks of the

This content downloaded from

Fig. 12. Threshold and pilaster base on the south side of

The backs of the pilaster bases in the southern arch

Gate (figs. 12, 13). The threshold, pilasters, and cap-

This content downloaded from

Fig. 13. Pilaster on the south

insertion serves to explain why the pilaster bases composer

Inscription the attachment of the letters of an inscription, which

30J. Sirmond, Jacobi Sirmondi ... opera varia nuncprimum

This content downloaded from

Fig. 15. Bases of the pilasters that flank th

verses quoted by Sirmond.32 It who

32J. Strzygowski, "Drei Miscellen," RomQSchr 7 terrestre

This content downloaded from

Fig. 16. The dowel ho

37 Speck (supra n. 10) 141 with n. 52e.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

was set up by Theodosius andII likens

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

that such an embassy Given took place.75

75 R.C. Blockley, "The Division of Armenia ofJustinian