Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-06T19:26:08.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Date of the Studius Basilica at Istanbul

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Cyril Mango*
Affiliation:
Exeter College, Oxford

Extract

It was at Istanbul, more man thirty years ago, that I first had the privilege of meeting Sir Steven. It seems appropriate, therefore, that in honouring him on his approaching 75th birthday I should take as my subject a monument of that city.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright ©The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The only historian to have grappled with the difficulty is Marin, E., De Studio coenobio Constantinopolitano (Paris, 1897), pp. 68 Google Scholar, but he was misled by the Suda scholion (on which see below) and does not even refer to the Anthology. A. van Millingen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople (London, 1912), p. 36 n. s, is content to note the contradiction. Ebersolt, J. and Thiers, A., Leséglises de Constantinople (Paris, 1913), p. 4 n. 1 Google Scholar, also take refuge behind the Suda scholion. Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, I/3, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), pp. 430ff Google Scholar. has avoided the whole question.

2. In particular, the capitals of the nave and narthex have been used to date a series of other monuments, including the churches of St. Demetrius and the Acheiropoietos at Thessaloniki. See Kautzsch, R., Kapitelistudien (Berlin-Leipzig, 1936), pp. 126ff Google Scholar. Cf. also Vickers, M., ‘Fifth-century Brickstamps from Thessaloniki’, ABSA 68 (1973), 292.Google Scholar

3. I am grateful to Professor Cameron for having allowed me to read his study in typescript.

4. Ed. A. Adler, IV (1935), p. 438.

5. MPG, CXL, 573ff. Halkin, Cf. F., Inédits byzantins d’Ochrida, Candie et Moscou (Brussels, 1963), pp. 147ff.Google Scholar, who edits from cod. Achrid. soaportionof this text relating to a certain candlebearer named Marcian.

6. Constantinopolis Christiana (Paris, 1682), lib. IV, p. 103.

7. (Constantinople, 1892), pp. 17–18.

8. The Marcian episode, which happened in the reign of Michael III and Theodora (842–56), is described as being ‘recent’, : Halkin, Inédits, p. 148. On the other hand, Pantoleon’s text is found in manuscripts of the tenth/eleventh centuries, e.g. Sinaiticus 497 and the Menologium of Douai Abbey. On the latter see Halkin, F., ‘Un manuscrit grec inconnu: le Ménologe de Douai Abbey, près de Reading’, Scriptorium, VII (1953), 51ff Google Scholar. Beck, H.-G., Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzant. Reich (Munich, 1959), p. 636 Google Scholar, is content to date Pantoleon not later than the twelfth century.

9. Ed. Festugière, A.-J., Vie de Théodore de Skykéôn, I (Brussels, 1970), pp. 58, 80, 139, 155 Google Scholar. This church was so well known at the time that Germia was popularly called Oi .

10. On Nakoleia see Monumenta Asiae Minoris antiqua, V (1937), pp. xxvff., gaff. On Germia see Honigmann, E., ‘Pour l’atlas byzantin’, B, XI (1936), 541ff.Google Scholar, who believes it was at Yürme, some 30 km. south-east of Sivrihisar. There existed in this village a five-aisled Byzantine basilica of unusually large proportions (about 40 m. long) which, if Honigmann’s identification is correct, would have been the church of St. Michael. Its ruins are described by Crowfoot, J. W., ‘Notes upon Late Anatolian Art’, ABSA 4 (1897–8), 86ff.Google Scholar

11. I hope to show elsewhere that Theophanes had little to do with the composition of the Chronicle that bears his name, but that is immaterial for our present purpose.

12. Up to the accession of Heraclius, the A.M. of Theophanes is reckoned from the previous September. See Grumel, V., ‘L’ année du monde dans la Chronographie de Théophane’, EO, XXXIII (1934), 396ff.Google Scholar

13. Anagnostes, Theodoras, Kirchengeschichte, ed. Hansen, G. C. (Berlin, 1971), p. 108, §384.Google Scholar

14. Vita S. Theodori Studitae, MPG, XCIX, 145, where it is said that the name Studius corresponds to Euprepios in Greek! Cf. Nicephorus Callistus, MPG, CXLVII, 68.

15. On the earlier Studius, see Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale (Paris, 1974), pp. 26863 Google Scholar.

16. Nov. Just. 59, 6.

17. This document, which contains very few chronological indications, merely says that such pious men as founded churches or monasteries at Constantinople obtained from Marcellus abbots and other personnel for their communities: Dagron, G., ‘La Vie ancienne de S. Marcel l’Acémète’, AB, LXXXVI (1968), 298 Google Scholar, §13. Cf. idem, ‘Les moines et la ville’, Travaux et mémoires, IV(1970), 237.

18. Chronicon Paschale, 594 (CSHB).

19. stylitae, Vita S. Danielis in Delehaye, H., Les saints stylites (Brussels-Paris, 1923), p. 69 Google Scholar.

20. Comes, Marcellinus, MGH, Auct. ant., XI/2, 8485 Google Scholar; Chronicon Paschale, p. 591. Ebersolt, Cf. J., Sanctuaires de Byzance (Paris, 1921), p. 80.Google Scholar

21. It had allegedly come from Cilicia and was brought to the vicinity of Constantinople in the reign of Valens, but refused to be budged from a village near Panteichion because of the emperor’s heresy. Theodosius I deposited it at Hebdomon, but it does not appear to have attracted much veneration. See Theodoros Anagnostes, op. cit., p. 83, §268.

22. See Nau, F., ‘Notes sure les mots …’, ROC, XI (1906), 200, 21516 Google Scholar. The story is probably apocryphal, but it is quite ancient and may be regarded as reflecting normal practice or, at any rate, a situation that was not altogether unusual.