Theodorus "triseparchos" [Greek] Cameron, Alan Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Fall 1976; 17, 3; ProQuest pg. 269

Theodorus tptCE1tUPXOC 

Alan Cameron 

XCORDING TO LEMMATA in the Palatine (AP) and Planudean 
(AP1) Anthologies, the two following epigrams were originally 
inscribed on different parts of a roplc, an arch of some sort, in 

the Basilica in Constantinople: 
'" , • .1. ~ , \ a' '" " .1 E'Tpa71'OpOLC a'f'tCL 71'O"LV I7EOOWpOC eyELpac 

"e" '\ \, • -a~ LOC EC'TL 71'O"LV Kat 'TE'Tpa'TOV 7JVLOXEvcaL. 

AP 9.696. lemma: elc [~v add. Plan.] arp'iScx €v 
Tfi {JCXCLALKfi Ell Bu,cxV'Ttcp. 

"E ' a '''' T I " \ 71'PE71'E COL. I7EOOWpE. VX7JC EVKLOVa V7JOV 

" - ()' , epyov KOCI-'7JcaL aVl-'a'Tt 'ToccanOV 

'" - '" , - '''' 'P' owpa 'TE KV07JEV'Ta 71'OpEtV XpVCaC71'WL Wl-'TI • 
., , ff -I: \ I f -7J c V71'a'TOV 'TEV~EV KaL 'TpLCE71'apxOV opf!-. 

AP 9.697 lemma: Elc ['TO add. Plan.] E'TEPOV 

p.£poc rijc cxirrijc arp'iSoc. 

Also relevant is the lemma to AP 9.779, informing us that its epigram 
was inscribed Elc ['T~V add. Plan.] fMctv 'TOU dJpoAoytov 'TOU Elc ~v 

roptoa ~v KELfLlv7Jv [K. om. Plan.] Elc ~v BaCLALK~v. The close agreement 
of AP and APl in all three lemmata makes it probable that all three 
stood in the common source of both AP and APl, the late ninth or 
early tenth-century anthology of Constantine Cephalas. Like many 
other lemmata referring to monuments in Constantinople, they were 
no doubt composed by Cephal as himself (or his epigraphist colleague 
Gregory of Campsa) in situ when copying the inscriptions.1 The 
information they supply may be reckoned a reliable guide to the inter­
pretation of the epigrams. Who, then, was Theodorus, what was this 
arptc in the Basilica, and when and where did he build it? 

The Basilica was a large square enclosed on each side by a portico~ 
the one facing SE being known as the Royal Portico, pactA/we c'Toa. 

Much of the area seems to have served as a sort of university campus; 
public lectures were given here, and Julian established a library 

1 I shall be attempting to define the activity of Cephalas and Gregory more closely in my 
forthcoming Studies in the Greek Anthology. 

269 



270 THEODORUSTPIEEflAPXOE 

(unfortunately destroyed by fire as early as A.D. 476); there were also 
book shops and law courts.2 

All the translators render T£Tpa,m5potc wp'ict <four colonnades' or the 
like. And even so expert a topographer and art historian as Cyril 
Mango supposed that the poem commemorated the building of the 
four enclosing porticoes of the Basilica.3 But wplc simply does not mean 
portico or colonnade: in an architectural context it means either an 
arch or a vault. A vault is of course very different from an arch, but 
(as Downey observed) "it is plainly the idea of curvature which deter­
mined the use of the word.'" Curvature is not the dominant feature 
of a portico, and to the best of my knowledge wplc is never so used. 

The word T€Tpa1TOpoc seems to have been coined by Nonnus,6 who 
often uses it to mean little more than four: e.g. of a team of four 
horses (Dion. 36.432), crossroads (Dion. 26.368), and the Cross (Metab. 
19.31). An anonymous epigram of ca 498 (AP 9.656.21) uses it of the 
four winds. More relevantly, in his ecphrasis of S. Sophia of 563, Paul 
the Silentiary has T£Tpa,m5potcw E</>' wpl8£cct (529) and T£Tpa,m5potc 
cnpaict (560) of a cupola or vault supported on a fourfold arch of 
stone, and the very phrase T£Tpa,1TOPotC wp'iCt (722)-no doubt taken 
directly from our epigram, conspicuously inscribed in a central area 
of the city-of a fourfold silver arch supporting an altar table. All three 
lemmata refer to just one wplc, and we should probably conclude 
that what Theodorus built was one fourfold arch.6 

That is not quite the end of the matter, however. The lemmata 
state that 9.696 and 697 were inscribed on different parts of the same 
monument. Yet 697 has nothing about an arch; it is wholly concerned 
with the beautification of a temple of Tyche. Surprising though this 

I Most of the relevant sources are assembled (not very accurately) by R. janin, Con­
stantilWple by{antinel (Paris 1964) 157~, and R. Guilland, in Melanges d'histoire littbaire ... 
J. Bonnerot (Paris 1954) 97-107=Etudes de topographie de Constantinople by{antine II (Berlin/ 
Amsterdam 1969) 3-13. See too Cyril Mango, The Bra{en House (Copenhagen 1959) 48-51, 
and P. Speck, Die kaiserliche Universitiit von Konstantinopel (By{Arch 14, Munchen 1974) 93f 
[hereafter, SPBCK]. 

3 Mango, op.cit. (supra n.2) 49, though elsewhere (p.51) he remarks that "the apsis 
mentioned in the Palatine Anthology could have been an exedra." 

'G. Downey, "On some Post-Classical Greek Architectural Terms," TAPA 77 (1946) 28. 
5 See W. Peek's Nonnos-Lexilwn s.v.; -TrOpoc compounds are espedally common in 

Nonnus and his school: A. Ludwich, Beitrage {ur Kritik des Nonnos von Panopolis (Konigsberg 
1873) 104, lists 21 examples in Nonnus. 

• It is well known that Niketas Choniates refers to the Milion as a 'huge arch' (rije 
lA~lCTTJe lD{Ii&e) while going on to refer to its 'arches' in the plural (Taie lD{Iicw TOO M..>J.ov), 
pp.307.7 and 308.20 Bonn. 



ALAN CAMERON 271 

might seem, in fact it strikingly bears out the reliability of the lem­
mata. For a temple of Tyche in the Basilica is securely attested. 
Zosimus (2.31.2) describes how at one extremity of one of these 
porticoes, at the top of a long flight of steps, Constantine built two 
temples, in which he placed statues: one of Rhea, the other the 'Tyche 
of Rome'. Hesychius confirms a temple of Tyche Ka'TO: 'T6v r¥ic #an}.tKijc 
}.€yOfL€VOV 'T01TOV (Patria Cpoleos, p.6,9f), though he (mistakenly?) 
identifies it with the temple of Rhea.7 Then there is Socrates' account 
of the public sacrifices offered by Julian Jv rfi #act>..tKfi lv8a 'TO r¥ic 
TVXTJc i8pv'Tat aya}.fLa (HE 3.11). 

P. Speck has recently erected a substantial hypothesis on the assump­
tion that Theodorus' arch is the temple of Tyche. "Jedenfalls scheint 
es sieher," he remarks (p.102), "dass der Tempel der Tyche nach dem 
Umbau eine Struktur aufwies, die eine Vierzahl erkennen liess, und 
im iibrigen, wie zu vermuten ist, ein Zentralbau war." He then pro­
ceeds to identify the temple with the chief university building of the 
city, the Octagon, which, following fairly general scholarly opinion 
this time, he further identifies with the so-called 'Tetradisios Embolos'. 

The identifications of the arch, temple and Octagon are not only 
implausible in themselves; there is nothing whatever to be said in 
their favour beyond a very approximate coincidence in location. 
There is really nothing in either shape or function that they have in 
common. It is possible, for example, that (as Speck suggests) the 
Octagon was so called because of an eight-sided cupola resting on 
Theodorus' four columns. But prima facie a building known as the 
Octagon ought not to be "eine Struktur ... die eine Vierzahl erkennen 
Hess." The temple was apparently conspicuous for its pillars (evKlova 
vTJOV, 697.1), suggesting the traditional temple form. And while it is 
not impossible that a disused temple might have been transformed 
into an educational institution, 9.697 does not suggest either a disused 
temple or an educational institution. 

In what sense, moreover, can Theodorus have built a temple 
unanimously attributed to Constantine? A closer look at 697 lends no 
support to the assumption that he either built or rebuilt the temple. 
All he is said to have done is to 'decorate' (KocfLijcat) the temple 
'with the wonder of such a work'. The 'work' (lpyov) is evidently the 
c1plc on which both epigrams were engraved. 

7 On the question of these two temples see most recently G. Dagron, Naissance d'une 
capital: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 Ii 451 (Paris 1974) 43f, 373-74. 



272 THEODORUSTPIEEllAPXOE 

What was the function of this arch? Let us look more closely at 
696. EyetpHv is a natural and common enough word for 'erect' or 
'build', but Eyetpew 7T6AtV is an odd phrase, not helped by the adverbial 
phrase T. wptct. Theodorus did not 'build' the city with his arch, he 
beautified or improved it. This sort of inscriptional poetry is highly 
formulaic,s of course, but it was not difficult at least to find the right 
formulae. Furthermore, it is the 7T6AtV Theodorus did not build 
rather than the al/J'ict he did that carries the emphasis of the line and is 
the object of the verb Eyetpet. Brunck's 7T1)A7JV solves both awkward­
nesses: it was a gate that Theodorus built with or in the form of a 
fourfold arch. 7T1JA7JV was corrupted from the 7T6AtV in the following 
line. 

Presumably this gate gave access to the Basilica. It was also ap­
parently so close to the temple of Tyche that it could be said to adorn 
it. How closely can we fix the location of the temple? The 'long flight 
of steps' at the top of which Zosimus places it must have been on the 
north side of the Basilica, towards or at its NE corner, where the 
ground drops steeply-and more steeply still (it appears) in Byzantine 
times.9 He states quite specifically that it stood at the end or corner of 
one of the porticoes (KaTu TUC rijc iLta.c C'TOa.C aKpac, 2.31.2). We may 
conjecture, then, that gate and temple adjoined each other at the NE 
corner of the Basilica. 

Speck, however, wants his temple/arch/Octagon outside the Basilica 
(pp.lOlff). His location turns on an elegant combination of the lemma 
of AP 9.779 with Malalas, p.479 Bonn. The epigram commemorates 
the restoration by Julian, city prefect in 566, of a stolen sundial, which 
the lemma (quoted above) locates by what must be our arch/gate. 
Malalas mentions a sundial "between the Augustaion and the Basilica" 
which in 536 was moved to the newly restored Chalke, the vestibule 
of the Great Palace. Speck identifies the two sundials and accordingly 
moves the arch 'by' (elc) which it stood to the same location between 
the Basilica and the Augustaion, the courtyard to S. Sophia.1o 

This is ingenious but very insecure. In the first place the last couplet 
of the epigram, 

" \ 8' A' 8' f , OVTLva CV"7J eVTa I.J tK7JC povov 7JVtOxevwv 
... 'J, \' "~ ~, evpev OVl\tavoc XepCLV aowpOOOKOtC. 

8 As illustrated passim in L. Robert's Epigramm£s du Bas-Empire, Hel/enica IV (Paris 1948). 
• See Mango, op.cit. (supra n.2) 44. 
10 For the Augustaion see Mango, op.cit. (supra n.2) 42-47. 



ALAN CAMERON 273 

HIt had been stolen, and Julian, riding in the seat of Justice, recovered 
it with incorruptible hands," 

implies that its sundial had been removed illegally and recovered 
by the fearless forces of the law. The transference of Malalas' sundial 
from one place to another was evidently official-nor does Malalas 
even imply that it was unpopular. The very fact that they are assigned 
different locations merely reinforces the impression that there were 
two different sundials. And even if Speck were right, we could hardly 
assume with any confidence that the 'stolen' sundial was replaced 
exactly in its original place. The area where he places his Octagon 
complex was completely ravaged by fire during the Nika revolt in 
532, and it is hardly likely that the looted site was left empty for 30 

years. 
The temple, as we have seen, is securely placed at the NE corner 

of the Basilica, and the lemmata to 9.696-97 put the arch 'in' the 
Basilica. And since EV+ dat. and ELC+ acc. are interchangeable in Byzan­
tine Greek, there is no ground for supposing that the ooplc ... ELC ,,",V 
BactAtK~V of the lemma to 9.779 implies anything different. Speck 
quite rightly points out that EV in topographical references often means 
'in the neighbourhood of' rather than 'in' or 'inside'-but naturally 
this only applies if the monument to be located stands nearer the 
second place mentioned than anywhere else. Speck's thesis is precisely 
that his Octagon complex stood well away from the Basilica, equi­
distant between the Basilica, the Augustaion and the Milion (see his 
diagram, p.106). By no extension of language could this have been 
described as EV rfj BactAtKfj. 

We come now to the question of date. Editors and topographers 
alike have so far assumed without a qualm that Theodorus' consul­
ship (697.4) fell in 399-and one scholar can even date all three of his 
urban prefectures (7ptcbrapxov, loc.cit.) , to 398, 408 and 409.11 Thus 
our arch would be dated firmly to the very end of the fourth or 
beginning of the fifth century. 

All fantasy. In the first place, Mallius Theodorus, consul in 399, is a 
man whose career and activities happen to be particularly well known 
to us. Not only is he mentioned many times in the letters of his friend 
Symmachus and in the constitutions of the Theodosian Code; we are 
fortunate enough to possess a panegyric written in honour of his 

11 Guilland, Etudes (supra n.2) II 3-not surprisingly citing no sources. 



274 THEODORUSTPIEEllAPXOE 

consulate by Claudian, which carefully enumerates all the posts he 
had held up to 399. Apart from a short spell as governor of Macedonia 
when a young man, all his official life was spent in the Western 
provinces, and his writings, of which a treatise on metre has survived, 
were in Latin.I2 It was customary at this period for one consul of each 
year to be chosen in the western half of the Empire and the other in 
the east, and Theodorus was indisputably western consul. He never 
held the prefecture of Rome, and it is out of the question that he ever 
held the prefecture of Constantinople even once, much less three times. 

Speck realized that the sixth cer1tury was indicated and even found 
the right Theodorus. But he failed to take account of three other 
epigrams in the Anthology which permit the arch to be dated to 
within a year, more than a decade (and an important decade) earlier 
than Speck's own suggestion. 

First AP 1.97-98, originally inscribed in a church (V716C 97.1) in Con­
stantinople (lemma 97, EV rfj M€Al77J; 98, EV TijJ aihijJ T67T<p): 

N ' "'~ , T , " TJoc €yw KvotCTOC .LOVCTtVotO avaKTOC, 
, t ~ £\ I~ ~ ,r \ " 

Kat JL V1TaTOC O€OOWPOC, 0 KapT€poc, 0 Tptc V1Tapxoc, 
"{} 'Q \~ ,., Q \~ 
av €TO Kat tJaCtl\TJt Kat Vt€t 7TaJLtJactl\TJOC, 
'T ... ....." , 
.LOVCTLVLavcp, CTpaTLTJC TJYTJTOpL 7TaCTJC. 

'E • A , , T , Q \ ~ pyov 0PCfC 7T€pt7TVCTOV .LOVCTtVOV tJactl\TJoc 
'T A {} , I 
.LOVCTtVtaVOV T€, JL€yac €V€OC CTpaTLapxov, 

AaJL7T6JL€VOV CT€P07TfjCtV aJL€Tp~TOtO JL€TaAAOV' 
A , JC\' ~ , ,~ .., \ ., 

TOVTO KaJL€V o€OOWPOC aOLOLJLOC, OC 7TOl\tV tpTJV 
, , '.J... Q'Q " • .&~ , 

TO TP'TOV aJL'f'LtJ€tJTJK€V €XWV V7TaTTJwa TLJLTJV. 

The lemma to 1.97 puts the church EV rfj M€MTTJ. In the tenth 
century there was a gate called M€MTTJ which led off the Augustaion 
into the main boulevard of the Mesel3 (in which case EV would have 
to be taken in the sense <in the neighbourhood of'), but even though 
the lemma too is no doubt taken from a tenth-century location, it 
may be doubted whether this is the same place. This whole area 
was razed to the ground in 532, and it is unlikely that Theodorus' 
church (built, as we shall see, in the year 520) could have survived. 

11 See now PLRE, Theodorus Z7. 
13 See the debate between P. Waltz, By~antion 13 (1938) 183f, and A. Vogt, ib. 194f, 

with Mango, op.cit. (supra n.Z) 8Z-83. B. Stumpo's proposal (L'Epigramma a Costantinopoli 
tiel secolo VI dopo Cristo [Palermo 19Z6] Zl) to emend to M~A'T''7I is inadmissible, as also his 
claim that the lI'OAtc of 98.5 "non ... si debba riferire a Costantinopoli" (p.121 n.6). This is 
put beyond question by 9.697.3, which Stumpo did not take into account. 



ALAN CAMERON 275 

Translators all render p.ETaAAov in 98.3 'metal', and Mango, glos­
sing the line Ha resplendent mass of metal," concludes that Hthe word­
ing of this epigram [i.e. 1.98] is so vague that it is impossible to tell 
what is meant beyond the fact that it was probably a bronze statue." 
In fact he is inclined to identify what he goes on to call HTheodore's 
group of statuary" with statues of Justin I and seven of his relatives 
recorded in front of the Chalke by the Parastaseis (Patria Cpoieos, 
p.58.8-11 Preger14). It is most unlikely that these statues survived the 
Nika riot, as Mango supposes. More probably Justinian put them 
there after the rebuilding of the Chalke; it is natural that he should 
wish so to commemorate the family of his uncle and predecessor. 
Nor is there anything in 1.98 to suggest a statue. The £pyov ... 'JOVCTt­

vov of98.1 is surely the same as theV1]oc ... '/ovcTlvOlO of97.1, namely 
the church. That this is indeed the case can be confirmed by a proper 
interpretation of fLETaAAov, namely 'marble'. Compare for example, 
Anon. AP 7.363.1, TVP.{lOC EvyAv7TTOlO p.ETaAAov, Agathias, J-list. 5.9.2, 

p.174.14 Keydell, 7TOtKtAia p.ETaAAwv E'1TtKocp.~cac, and especially AP 
1.10.60-63, originally inscribed in Anicia Juliana's recently excavated 
church of S. 'Polyeuctus: 

TOLxoL 8' aVTL7TlpYj{}Ev ap.ETp~TOtCL KEAEV{}OLC 
{} , \ ~ 'r I '\ \ EC7TECtoVC I\Etp.wvac aVE~WCct.VTO p.ETaI\l\WV, 

".I.. ' '{}' , "{l'{} I OVC 'f'VCLC av Yjcaca P.ECOLC EVL EV ECL 7TETPYJC 
, \... ... \ ayl\aLYjV EKI\E7TTE ••• 

«The opposite walls in innumerable paths are clothed in marvellous 
meadows of marble, which Nature made to flower in the depth of 
the stone, hiding their glory ... " 

It is clear enough beneath the fancy imagery that the walls were 
reveted with variously coloured marble. So too, surely, Theodorus' 
church. It is perhaps more than coincidence that both poets used 
the same epithet ap.€TpYjToC, especially in view of the fact that S. 
Polyeuctus was completed (probably) in 527,15 only seven years 
(as we shall see) after Theodorus' church. Juliana's poet may well 
have had our epigrams in mind. We need not doubt, then, that both 
97 and 98 celebrate the same church dedicated to Justin I and Justinian. 

Now for Theodorus. A common enough name, to be sure, but 
Theodori who held the city prefecture of Constantinople three times, 

l' Mango, op.cit. (supra n.2) 83. 
16 C. Mango and I. Sevcenko, DOPapers 15 (1963) 245. 



276 THEODORUSTPIEEllAPXOE 

won a consulate, and beautified the city are scarcely to be multiplied 
more than is necessary. It may seem surprising that hitherto no one 
has proposed this hardly audacious identification. The reason is 
partly, no doubt, because later editors have been misled by Bois­
sonade's misinterpretation of 1.98.5: H erat tunc Theodorus tertium 
consul,"16 an observation duly translated into French and German 
respectively by Waltz and Beckby. But quite apart from the explicit 
TP~C v7Tapxoc in 97.2, this is virtually ruled out on stylistic grounds 
alone: TO TplTOV must be taken with aJUP'fJ'fJT]KEV, not lxwv. We must 
surely accept that all four poems celebrate the activity of the same 
Theodorus during his third tenure of the prefecture of Constantinople. 
1.97-98 at least must have been written between 520, when Justinian 
was promoted magister militum praesentalisP and at any rate April 
527, when he was crowned co-emperor with Justin (only Justin is 
described as emperor in the poems). The arch was presumably built 
during the same period. 

Under the impression that it was the consulship Theodorus held 
three times, Waltz and Beckby identify him with the Theodorus 
consul in 505, and then identify this man with Flavius Theodorus 
Philoxenus, consul in 525, assuming that he must have held his third 
consulate in a year unknown (as though it were possible for a man to 
have been ordinary consul in a year unknown when the consular 
Jasti survive entire). But the consuls of 505 and 525 are of course quite 
certainly two different persons-neither of whom can possibly be our 
Theodorus. The consul of 505 is again the western consul18 of the year, 
and with Italy now an Ostrogothic kingdom, there is not the remotest 
chance that a westerner could have been prefect of Constantinople. 
And the consul of 525, though he does bear the name Theodorus, was, 
as usual at the period, known by the last of his names, Philoxenus.19 

Indeed, we are fortunate enough to possess a diptych commemorating 
his consulate, signed (as one would have expected) 'Philoxenus'. 

Ie Quoted in F. Diibner's edition ad loco It may be observed that Paton (LCL), while 
avoiding this mistake, is equally wrong to translate "Theodorus, who, glorifying the city, 
thrice protected it by his consular office." H. Gregoire alone ("Notes epigraphiques," 
Byzantion 13 [1937] 174 n.l) saw the truth and found the right Theodorus. 

17 cf E. Stein, Histoire du Bas·Empire II (Paris 1949) 230, for A.D. 521; for 520 cf Collectio 
Avellana (CSEL 35) 230, a letter of Pope Hormisdas received in Constantinople on 18 July 
520, referring to filii vesm magistri militum Vitalianus et lustinianus, and Victor Tonn., s.a. 
520, lustinianus ... ex candidato magister militum. 

18 PLRE II, Theodorus 63. 
It PLRE II, Philoxenus 8. 



ALAN CAMERON 277 

When then was our Theodorus consul? Suffect consuls had long since 
lapsed by the reign of Justin, if indeed they had ever existed at Con­
stantinople.20 There is only one possible explanation. Theodorus 
never held the ordinary consulate at all, but an honorary consulate, 
a distinction invented in the fifth century and common in the sixth 
and thereafter. Holders counted as exconsules (&1TO V1T<XTWV) just as if 
they had held the consulate proper, and sometimes they even styled 
themselves V1T(tTOC tout court: for example, the sixth-century poet 
Macedonius, who is always called V1TaTOC but certainly never held an 
ordinary consulate.21 

What we want then is an ex-consul called Theodorus who was city 
prefect some time between 520 and 527. And if we turn to the year 
524 in the Chronicle of John Malalas, we find that in that year Justin 
appointed city prefect a certain Theodorus Teganistes &1T6 v1TaTwv.22 

His prefecture is confirmed by two laws in the Code of Justinian, 
attesting a Theodorus in office between 13 February 524 and 1 Decem­
ber 526.23 It would be surprising if this were not the Theodorus of the 
poems.24 

Moreover, we learn from a fragment of Malalas preserved in the 
Excerpta de Insidiis25 that a Theodorus was city prefect in 520 as well. 
Since we know that our Theodorus held the prefecture no fewer than 
three times, it seems reasonable to assume that this is one of his other 
tenures of the post. 

10 I will not repeat the bibliography on suffect and honorary consuls given in GRBS 17 
(1976) 183 nn.11 and 12. 

21 Averil and Alan Cameron, "The Cycle of Agathias," ]HS 86 (1966) 17. 
n Malalas, pA16.19 Bonn. 
13 Cod.lust. 2.7.26,9.19.6. P. Krueger, apparently unaware of the prefecture of Theodorus 

attested by Malalas and the epigrams under discussion, emended 'Theodorus' in both 
places to 'Theodotus'. assuming that the laws were addressed to Theodorus' immediate 
predecessor in office. Theodotus Colocynthius. J. B. Bury (A History of the Later Roman 
Empirel II [London 1923] 22 n.3). apparently unaware that 'Theodorus' is the reading of the 
MSS, suggested on the evidence of Malalas (but not the poems, which he did not cite) 
'emending' Krueger's 'Theodotus' back to 'Theodorus'. 

U It may be added that Wiegand's suggestion (mentioned by P. Waltz. Anthologie 
greeque I [Paris 1928] 122) that our Theodorus is the Theodorus to whom Agathias dedicated 
his Cycle 40 years later must be rejected (on this Theodorus see Cameron. op.cit. [supra n.21] 
23). as too Stumpo's attempt Cop.cit. [supra n.13] 121) to identify him with the Theodorus of 
AP 1.36: on this Theodorus (who is to be distinguished both from the Theodorus of the 
poems under discussion and Agathias' dedicatee) see Cameron, op.cit. (supra n.21) 22. with 
R. C. McCail.JHS 89 (1969) 93. He is probably the Theodorus of some silver stamps from 
the reign of Justin II: see E. Cruikshank Dodd, DOPapers 18 (1964) 244. 

15 FrA3. ed. de Boor (1905) p.170.28 (ef Th. Mommsen, Hermes 6 [1872] 375). 



278 THEODORUSTPIEEnAPXOE 

In this connection we must look at yet another poem in the An­
thology which must surely be referred to our Theodorus, on a statue 
of Justin erected by one of the numerous ports in Constantinople: 

", ~ •• __ \ ~ ., a 1<:;' " 
.J. OUTO 'TTap atyta/\otCtV £yw u£oowpoc tnrapxoc 

~ ,l.. ,,, __ \ • T I Q \ ~ 
c77Jca 'ra£wov aYa/\JLa .J.OVCTWCP ~aCt"TJ" 
" ,l.. , • \ I r , I __ \ I 0'rpa Kat £v "LJL£V£CCW £7]V 'TT£'raaL£ ya/\7]V7JV. 

AP 64. lemma: Elc C'M1A7]V 'TOU aOrou i.e. Uustinian, subject of the 
preceding poem: a mistake] EV 'Tip Atp.Evt. 

The only schol,ar to discuss this poem, Pere Janin, assumed that the 
Justin here named is Justin II, and that this is the harbour which he 
founded and named after his wife Sophia.26 But there is nothing what­
ever in the poem to support this view. There is no suggestion that Justin 
has founded the harbour in question: merely that Theodorus erected 
a statue of him in or by a harbour which already existed. And since 
the harbour founded by Justin II was named after Sophia, one might 
have expected Sophia herself to have been named in a poem which 
commemorated her harbour-especially since, being the dominant 
partner in what was de facto a joint reign,27 she is so often mentioned 
in epigrams commemorating the activity of Justin II (e.g. AP 1.2, 
9.657,779, 810: cf. 1.11). Moreover, since we do know of a Theodorus 
who was prefect of Constantinople at least twice under Justin I, it 
seems hard to resist concluding that this is indeed our Theodorus 
once more. There is no mention of a third prefecture here nor of a 
consulate, so it must be one of his earlier prefectures and presumably 
before the award of his honorary consulate (the prominence accorded 
the title of consul in three out of four epigrams dating from the third 
prefecture certainly bears out the supposition that it was a newly won 
distinction, of which Theodorus was still very proud). The reference 
to Justin sets a terminus post quem of July 518, when Justin came to the 
throne. And the terminus ante quem is 522, for from 522 till he was 

J8 "Topographie de Constantinople byzantine. Le port Sophien et les quartiers environ­
nants," EtByZ 1 (1943) 118-19: the mistake was made implicitly by F. Jacobs (Animadv. in 
epigrammata Anth. Graee. III.I [Leipzig 1802] 265), and is repeated again by R. Guilland, "Les 
ports de Byzance sur la Propontide," Byzantion 23 (1953) 186 n.3. See now Averil Cameron, 
"Notes on the Sophiae, the Sophianae and the harbour of Sophia," Byzantion 37 (1967) llf. 

n See Averil Cameron, "The Empress Sophia," Byzantion 45 (1975) 9£. 



ALAN CAMERON 279 

succeeded in 524 by Theodorus, a certain Theodotus Colocynthius, 
'the Pumpkin-man', held the prefecture.28 

It might seem the obvious thing to assign API 64 to 520 and the other 
four to 524-526. Since the four months between 1 December 526 (when 
Theodorus is last attested in office) and Justinian's coronation on 4 

April 52729 (by which a certain Asterius was prefect)30 scarcely leave 
time for Theodorus to be deposed, reappointed and deposed again, 
524-526 would have to be his last prefecture before Justinian's corona­
tion-and so his third. The year 520 would then be his second. 

This might be the case. But first we must take a closer look at the 
mentions of Justinian in 1.97-98. Note that the only tide given him 
(beneath the poetic terminology) is magister militum (MUM) praesen­
talis. Now at Justin's accession in 518 Justinian was a mere candidatus, 
a member of the emperor's guard. By April 519 he was comes, and by 
the following summer MUM praesentalis. A rapid rise, but there was 
still far to go: by January 521 he was ordinary consul and then in 
turn (though no dates are known) patrician, nobilissimus and finally 
Caesar.31 Now honorific inscriptions may not invariably give a man's 
whole cursus, but they never omit his highest tide or office. Theo­
dorus left no one in doubt that he was not only city prefect for the 
third time but now consul (if only honorary) as well. If the ambitious 
and jealous Justinian had gained his consulate, celebrated with the 
greatest pomp and most extravagant games on record, by the time 
Theodorus built his church we may be sure that Theodorus' poet 
would have had the tact to record the fact. It is an argument from si­
lence, but a particularly eloquent sort of silence. For example, the fact 
that Justinian is styled only 'com(es) , mag(ister) eq(uitum) et p(editum) 

18 Malalas p.416.8, Procop. Anecd. 9.37f. Bury and Krueger mistakenly took CodJust. 
2.7.26 to refer to Theodotus, but as we have seen (n.23 above), the MSS. reading is 'Theo­
dorus' and should certainly be retained. 

u Bury, op.cit. (supra n.23) 23. 
30 Malalas p.422.3, Theophanes p.173.12 de Boor. The Greek text of Malalas gives the 

bare name Asterius, but the Church Slavonic version translated by M. Spinka and G. 
Downey (Chicago 1940) p.132, adds that he was a patrician, ex-referendary and city prefect. 
Probably to be identified with the ;7Tapxoc Asterius attested by a glass weight standard 
published by G. Schlumberger, REG 7 (1895) 15 no.31, corrected by H. Gregoire, BCH 31 
(1907) 326. All the other weight standards in this collection seem to attest sixth-century 
prefects, and nos. 9 and 10 in Schlumberger's series (p.8) attest ;7Ta.pXO' called Theodorus and 
Theodotus, almost certainly our Theodorus and Theodotus the Pumpkin-man. 

31 The Caesarship has often but (in my judgement) unnecessarily been doubted: see A. A. 
Vasiliev,justin the First (Cambridge [Mass.] 1950) 94-95. For all details of Justinian's early 
career see PLRE II, Justinianus 7. 



280 THEODORUSTPIEEllAPXOE 

praes(entalis). et c(onsul) o(r)d(inariusY on his consular diptychs is 
rightly taken to indicate that he was not yet a patrician in January 
521. In the Theodorus epigrams the highest claims made for Justinian 
are that he was Justin's (adoptive) son (on this see further below) and 
MUM, a purely military office also held by others. 

I suggest that the epigrams (and so the church) must be dated before 
Justinian's consulship and yet after his promotion to MUM, that is to 
say, to the year 520. If so, then the 520 prefecture recorded by Malalas 
would be Theodorus' third, and 524-526 would have to be a fourth. 
The prefecture of API 64 would still be his second, but since Justin 
(named in the epigram) did not come to the throne till 9 July 518, it 
could hardly have begun later than 518 (and possibly in the preceding 
reign). The first prefecture must have fallen under Anastasius. 

Now Speck, while correctly identifying the Theodorus of the epi­
grams with Theodorus Teganistes, dates his building activity to the 
mid 530's, after the Nika revolt. This he was bound to do, since the 
Octagon which he identified with Theodorus' arch was totally de­
stroyed in 532. If Theodorus' arch had been destroyed in 532, its epi­
grams would not have survived.32 He therefore infers that one of his 
three prefectures fell after 532, relying on the mention of a BE68wpov 
TTaTplKLoV TOV ETTlKA7Jv KoAoKvv87Jv TOV Kai €TTapxOV in connection with 
justinian's rebuilding of S. Sophia in the eighth or ninth-century 
Diegesis ofS. Sophia (Patria Cpoleos. p.89.3, cf. p.92.1). But this is surely 
Theodotus the Pumpkin-man rather than our Theodorus. Theo­
dorus' third tenure of office ended in 522.33 

There is no escape from the conclusion that Theodorus' arch was 
built between 520 and 522. It must, then, like his church. have escaped 
destruction in 532. And if it stood where suggested above at the NE 
corner of the Basilica, it might well have been beyond the reach of 
the flames. According to Theophanes (p.181.29 de Boor) and Cedrenus 
(1.647 Bonn) only the TTPOCKL6vLOV or TTpOCK7]VLOV of the Basilica was 
burnt. Speck assumes that this means the whole Royal Stoa (p.95). 
But the word surely implies only some sort of forecourt, not the 

31 Of course the panels carrying the epigrams might have survived the fire, but hardly 
till the tenth century, and the lemmata show that they were copied in situ. 

aa 696.2, czf,&C €CT' 1TO'\'V Ka~ TlTpaTov ~V'OX£Vf:W, Speck assumes (p.I02) to imply a fourth 
prefecture, certainly in error, since the other poem on the same monument mentions 
only three (697.4); in 696.2 Theodorus' fourfold arch is said, feebly enough, to merit a 
fourth prefecture for him as a reward. There was a fourth prefecture. as we have seen, but 
even that terminated in 526/7. 



ALAN CAMERON 281 

whole of the main portico of the Basilica. The Octagon, as our earliest 
evidence makes clear, stood between the Basilica and the Mese, much 
closer to the Mese than Speck's diagram implies.34 In fact it is prob­
ably to be placed between the Mese and the west portico of the 
Basilica. Thus it is not surprising that it was caught by a fire that 
swept down the Mese while the Basilica was left relatively unscathed. 

What more can we glean about the career and personality of 
Theodorus himself? In 520 he was appointed prefect after serious riots 
had been quelled by soldiers with much loss of life. After this, reports 
Malalas, EcpLAullJ1]CC1.JI TO: fL€P1] [the circus and theatre partisans], 
8€KLI-'OJI (hWPOVJlTOC brapxov 8€oSWpov. Whatever the puzzling 
8€KLI-'OJI O€WPOVJlTOC may mean,35 the implication is that Theodorus' 
appointment played some part in calming the rioters. In 524 as well 
Theodorus was appointed at a time of disorder, after his predecessor 
in office, Theodotus Colocynthius, had been deposed and nearly 
executed for dealing with the crisis too harshly. It seems a fair guess 
that it was precisely because he was known to be a good man in this 
kind of situation that Theodorus was appointed; a popular man, a 
man the people trusted, whose authority they had respected during 
three earlier tenures of the office. Also, we may suspect, a wealthy 
man, able to provide the best in the way of entertainment. 

A few years later in 532 still more terrible riots occurred, culminat­
ing in the notorious Nika revolt, which almost cost Justinian his 
throne. The people were clamouring for the deposition of the un­
popular city and praetorian prefects, Eudaemon and John the Cap­
podocian.36 It is interesting to note that the man chosen to replace 
Eudaemon as city prefect was a certain Tryphon, TOV aO€AcpOV 8€Oowpov 
a1TO €1TCXPXWJl1T6A€Wc.37 This can only be our Theodorus yet again. And 
surely his brother Tryphon was appointed at this desperate moment 
for much the same reasons as Theodorus himself in 520 and 524. 

Two other points of historical interest emerge. First, as is well 
known, Procopius represents Justinian as de facto ruler of the Empire 
even before he became Augustus (cf Bell. Vand. 1.9.5), and in his 
Secret History actually numbered the years of Justinian's reign from 
the accession of Justin. This view has generally been accepted, though 

U Theodore Lector, p.l13.13 Hansen, and Chron.Pasch. I p.6Z1.Zzf Bonn; cf Mango, 
op.cit. (supra n.2) 49 n.69, as well as Speck, 103f. 

35 See Appendix II. 
36 See A. Cameron, Circus Factions (Oxford 1976) 279. 
37 Chron.Pasch. I p.621.14 Bonn. 



282 THEODORUSTPI~EllAPXO~ 

it might be argued that in retrospect Procopius exaggerated Jus­
tinian's power at this stage. But the prominence accorded to Justinian 
in 1.97 and 98 provides valuable contemporary confirmation of his im­
portance during the reign of Justin. Theodorus' church was perhaps 
intended to be known as the 'church of Justin' (97.1), but it was clearly 
dedicated equally to Justin and Justinian (cf. 97.3, c;,v(JeTo [sc.8e68wpoc] 
Kat /1anAfj, Kat vU, 1Tap,/1anAfjoc), even though Justinian had not as yet 
been accorded any title that formally marked him out as heir ap­
parent. There appears to be no parallel for the dedication of a church 
to a reigning emperor,38 and it is even more remarkable that a private 
citizen should have been included in the dedication. 

Second, Justinian's adoption. Scholars have been curiously reluctant 
to accept what the derivative name clearly implies, namely that 
Justin legally adopted his nephew long before his own accession (the 
fact that some sources continue to refer to him as Justin's nephew is no 
objection). Diehl and Stein,39 for example, insist that the adoption 
did not take place till immediately before his coronation in 527, on 
no evidence whatever. 1.97.3, written as early as 520, unequivocally 
styles Justinian vii, 1Tap,/1ac,Afjoc, 'son of the great emperor'. And while 
it is true that emperors often addressed close colleagues and senior 
ministers as 'my son', it would have been a very different matter so to 

style a likely successor in a formal public inscription before his adop­
tion. The epigram merely confirms what was in any case the inevit­
able assumption, and helps to explain why no source mentions the 
adoption. It was a fait accompli before ever the question of Justinian's 
succession arose. 

Theodorus' wealth and public-spiritedness are attested by the 
extravagant building activity commemorated by the five epigrams 
in which he proclaimed his munificence to posterity. There is, more­
over, just a hint that he may have been a self made man, a nouveau 

as R. Janin, Les Eglises et les ntenIlsteres (Geographie ecc/esiastique de /'empire by{. pt.l: Le 
siege de Constantinople et Ie patriarcat oecumbtique III.2 [Paris 1969]) 331, includes only the 
following unhelpful and inaccurate notice: "On possede deux epigrammes du patriarche 
Sophrone de Jerusalem [!] sur une eglise, plus probablement un simple oratoire, dedie a 
Justin I"' et a son neveu Justinien par Theodore, qui fut trois fois prefet de la ville et trois 
consul [!]. Rien ne permet de dire quel etait Ie vocable de ce sanctuaire, d'ailleurs a moitie 
profane, puisqu'il renfermait Ie • monument fameux (lpyoll '1r£piTrVCTOII),. des deux empereurs 
offert par Theodore." The lpyoll is in fact the church: Ipyoll is a standard term for 'building' 
in inscriptions. cf. L. Robert. He/latka IV (1948) 12 n.l. 

18 e.g. Stein, op.cit. (supra n.17) II 240; RE 10 (1919) 1326; C. Diehl.justinien et la civilisation 
by{antine au VI" siele (Paris 1901) 6. 



ALAN CAMERON 283 

riche. Malalas gives him the sobriquet 'TT)'ravicT'Y}c. The meaning of 
the word is clear enough: 'TTryavic'T'T]c is a collateral form of 'Ta'Y'T]v ic'T'T]c , 
just as T'Y}yavi{w is of'Ta'Y'T]vi{w ,"0 'to fry' (one of Aristophanes' lost plays 
is called Ta'Y'T]vic'Tat). Now of course in Theodorus' case the name may 
just be a joke or a slander, but these Byzantine sobriquets often do 
allude to a man's (present or former) occupation (Peter the Fuller, for 
example). It may be that Theodorus did start off life in this lowly 
profession before making the fortune he was so anxious to share with 
his fellow citizens.U 

A. H. M. Jones emphasised the lack of a "tradition of ostentatious 
munificence" among the aristocracy of Constantinople.!12 In general 
it is certainly true that the burden of providing games and building 
and renovating public works fell mainly on the emperors, but there 
were exceptions.43 One such, it seems, was Theodorus, a Byzantine 
success story: fish-frier to prefect of the city, consul and millionaire. 

&0 cf. LSj S.v. 

&1 For other examples of men rising from the working classes to positions of wealth and 
power in the fifth and sixth centuries, cf. A. H. M. jones, The Later Roman Empire III (Oxford 
1964) 159 n.68. 

u Jones, op.cit. (supra nAl) II 706, 709. 
U jones (in company with most other historians) did not use the Anthology, thus mis­

sing a large number of epigrams commemorating such acts of private generosity and public 
advertisement. 

ApPENDIX I: 'Tp&cE'1TapxOC 

Evidently, TpLCE1rapxoc means 'three times prefect' (cf TPLc Vrrapxoc in 1.87.2). 
In the early empire E7rapxOC seems to have been the standard Greek equivalent 
for praefectus in all its senses (cf H. J. Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions 
[Toronto 1974] 138-40), though by the late empire E7rapxOC and Vrrapxoc are 
used interchangeably for at any rate the city and praetorian prefectures: 
cf F. Dolger, BZ 40 (1940) 180f, and L. Robert, Hellenica IV (1948) 45f. 

TptcE7rapxOC appears to occur only once elsewhere in extant literature, at APl 
73, applied to Aurelian, consul in A.D. 400: 

oVTOC 0 KocIL~cac VTraTWV (}pOvov. OV TptcE7rapxOV 
, '1 Q _ \ - r , __ \ , , 

Kat 7raTEpa fJaCV\."EC EOV KaI\Ecavro ILE'YtCTOt. 

Xpt$CEOC Z EC'T'T'JKEV Avp7J'\tav6c' 'Tc) 8( lpyov 
- Q \- ~ ., r, , ., a 

'T'"fJC fJOVI\7JC, '/C avroc EKWV KaTE7raVCEV aVLac. 

1 i.e. (presumably) princeps senatus; cf. Synesius, De provo 92A, 1ro).,apX"1cac I(a~ f3ov).~c 

ap,ac. 
S For the formula, see my article forthcoming in Byzantion 47 (1977), and for golden 

statues, my Porphyrius the Charioteer (Oxford 1973) 214-22. 

3 It would be nice to know what these 'woes' of the Senate were and how Aurelian 
'assuaged' them. 



284 THEODORUSTPIEEllAPXOE 

S. Mazzarino insisted (Stilicone [Rome 1942] 350, followed by S. Nicolosi, II 
"De providentia" di Sinesio di Cirene [Padova 1959] 59-60) that Tp,dfrapxoc must 
refer to three tenures of the same (i.e. for Mazzarino, the praetorian) prefecture. 
LSJ too assumed a reference to three tenures of the same (but for them the 
city) prefecture. 

But compare the case of Petroni us Maximus, consul in 433 and 443 and finally 
emperor in 455, who is styled '1111 praefectus' on CIL VI 1197 (cf 'post qua[tt]uor 
praefecturas' on CIL VI 1198). The four comprise two praetorian and two city 
prefectures (the latter of course at Rome: for all the sources, A. Chastagnol, 
us Fastes de la prefecture de Rome au Bas-Empire [Paris 1962] no. 127, pp.281-86). 
Then there is Florentius, recorded on 3 April 449 as 0 P.eyaAOfTpEfrECTaTOc afT() 
• I 1\ • , • • I ,. • (A C 'l at IT I EfrapxWV fTOl\EWC KaL afrO EfrapxWV frpaLTWPLWV TO EKTOV cta ona. c. . 
pp.149, 176). Obviously this must mean six tenures of the two prefectures 
combined, not six of each. He is attested as PUC in 422 and as PPO three times 
between 428 and 445 (sources in Jones, op.cit. [supra n.41] III 82 n.33, and PLRE 
II, forthcoming). A less spectacular case is Fl. Hypatius, consul in 359, who, 
according to Ammianus (29.2.16), posteritatem mirandis actibus praeftcturae 
geminae decoravit. These two prefectures were incontestably one urban (of 
Rome, 378) and one praetorian (Chastagnol, Fastes no.82, pp.204-(6). 

Anything but clear cut, by contrast, are the 'triplices praeftcturae' credited to 
a certain Syagrius by Sidonius Apollinaris (Epp. 7.12). Presumably one of the 
two Syagrii, both westerners, whose parallel and contemporary careers were 
crowned with the consulships for 381 and 382 respectively. As might have 
been expected, it is quite impossible to disentangle their careers with any de­
gree of certainty; the two most recent attempts are by J. R. Martindale, 
Historia 16 (1967) 254-56, and A. Demandt, BZ 64 (1971) 38-45. Martindale 
reckoned that Sidonius' man was the consul of 382, PUR in 381, PPO (ofItaly) 
in 382 "and prefect for a third time at some later date" (p.255). Demandt pro­
posed a slightly different distribution of offices, but all that concerns us here 
is his suggestion that the triplices praefecturae refer, not to three different 
prefectures, but to one tenure of a 'three-fold' prefecture. It is true that the 
prefecture of Italy (for Demandt held by the consul of 381) was known in full 
as the prefecture 'Italiae, Illyrici et Africae', but each of the three great prefec­
tures was similarly composite (that of 'the Gauls', for example, embraced 
Spain and Britain, even if they were not included in its official title). Nor 
would 'triplices praeftcturae' be a very natural way of saying what Demandt 
wants it to say; 'triplex praeftctura' might have been so construed, but not 
necessarily, in view of Ammianus' 'gemina praeftctura', certainly referring to 
two different prefectures, one of them again that ofItaly. The other examples 
collected here strongly suggest that Syagrius too held three separate prefec­
tures, however identified and distributed. 

Aurelian's three prefectures have caused a lot of headaches too. But now (a) 
that A. H. M. Jones has disposed of the once popular notion of' collegiate pre­
fectures' URS 54 [1964] 78-89), and (b) that all three do not have to be assumed 
to be different tenures of the same prefecture, nothing stands in the way of 



ALAN CAMERON 285 

Jones' own solution, which does less violence than any other to the relatively 
abundant sources: PUC 393-394, PPO Orientis 399 and again in 414-416 (for 
all sources see now PLRE, Aurelianus 3, pp.128-29, withJRS 54 [1964] 81). It 
should be noted that the Chron.Pasch. s.a. 414/5 quite correctly for this date 
styles Aurelian oic E7Tapxoc 'TWV tEPWV 7TpaL'TWptwv Kal. 7Ta'TptKtoC (the title patri­
cian is first attested for him by Cod.Theod. 7.7.4 of September 415). The urban 
prefecture here omitted is not in doubt (PLRE p.128). 

Theodorus' case is very straightforward. It is quite clear from 7TO'\W .•• 
'T€'Tpa'Tov ~vLOXEucaL at 9.696.2 and 7TO'\LV ... 'TO 'Tpt'TOV ap.¢n{3€{37JKEV at 1.98.4-5 
that all three of his prefectures were urban. 

ApPENDIX II: 8€K£f-L0V (}ewpovV'TOC 

There are two passages where this puzzling phrase occurs. First Malalas, 
fr.39 (Exc. de Insid. p.168.26f de Boor): €7T1. KWVC'TaVTLVOV 'TO €7TLK,\7JV T'OvpovKKa 

" A ',\ [50 I] '" 'll A ~ I A' A E7Tapxov 'T7JC TTO EWC EYEVE'TO aKa'TaC'TaCLa. UEWPOVVTOC OEKLP.OV 'TOV aV'TOV 
KWVC'TaV'TLVOV [LOV cod.] €7TfXpXOV 'TWV '\EY0P.€VWV BpU'TWV EV'Tep OEa'TPcp €7TaV€C'T7Jcav 
&M7}'\o£c 'Ta P.€P7J EV'Tep OEa'Tpcp. Second, Malalas, fr.43 (p.170.26): Kal. t7T7TLKOV 

, ~ 1\ ' " • ~ I \ '{;,\ll , • A 

YEVOP.EVOV OEV1.7JC C'TaCLV E7TOL7Jcav O£ 07Jp.O'Ta£, KaL E~E UOV'TEC OL C'Tpa'TLW'TaL 
1TO'\'\OVC a7T€K'TELVav. P.ETeX TaiiTa Eq)£'\£W07JCfXV Ta P.€P7J, O€KLP.OV OewpOVV'TOC 
E7Tapxov €!)EOOWpOV, Kal. 7Tat'oVTEC KOLvfj ap.q,OTEpO£ €fij'\Oov €K 'TOU OEa'TpOV 
(='hippodrome: in the context). 

Nothing to do with the tenth race since the first incident took place in the 
theatre, nor with the gate LJ€K£P.OC somewhere in the palace area (R. Guilland, 
Etudes de topographie de Constantinople by{antine I [Berlin/Amsterdam 1969] 
131-32). The clue is provided by the version of the first incident in the Chronicle 
of Marcellinus s.a. 501 (Chron.Min. II, 95.26f): Constantino (so S: -tio, TUR) 
praefecto urbis ludos theatrales meridiano tempore spectante pars in eodem spectaculo 
cerealis parti adversae caeruleae occultas praeparavit insidias. We know that public 
games were suspended for lunch (see Porphyrius the Charioteer [Oxford 1973] 
209-10, where I omitted to cite Malalas, fr.43). The tenth hour, namely 
3:00/4:00 p.m. (depending on the season), would have been an appropriate 
moment to resume, and it might be suggested that the noun understood was 
{3aLov, 'race', i.e. something like 'the 3:00 o'clock' (sc. race) in our own usage. 
The term might have spread to the theatre after the great amalgamation of 
public entertainments in the fourth and fifth centuries (see A. Cameron, 
Circus Factions [Oxford 1976] 215f). 

Some such sense as 'presiding at the afternoon session' would suit both the 
afternoon reference (OEL,\ijc) in fr.43 and the 'meridiano tempore spectante' of 
Marcellinus. 

ApPENDIX III 
PREFECTS OF CONSTANTINOPLE FROM 512 TO 542 

507- Plato (presumably the same man as the prefect of 498: Bury, op.cit. 
512 [supra n.23] 437 n.4; Stein, op.cit. [supra n.17] II 178; PLRE II, plato 3) 



286 THEODORUSTPI£EllAPXO£ 

? Theodorus Teganistes I 
518? Theodorus Teganistes II 
520 Theodorus Teganistes III 
522/4 Theodotus Colocynthius 
524/6 Theodorus Teganistes IV 
527 Asterius 
531 Eustathius (ef A. Cameron in By{antion 47 [1977], forthcoming) 
532 Eudaimon (deposed during the Nika riot) 
532 Tryphon (Eudaimon's successor) 
535 Patricius (subscr. to Justin. Nov. 22, 17 March 535) 
537/9 Longinus (Stein, op.cit. [supra n.17] II 803) 
542 Longinus II 

Justin. Nov. 82.1 of 539 appoints as senior judges some men distinguished by 
their experience, their tenure of high office or their longevity (7TO>.VXpovlctJ 'Tp,{3fj) , 
naming first Plato, lLaKpov E7T' rijc 7To>',apxlac S,avVcaV'Ta xpovov Ka, Sk E7T' 'TWV 
8p6vCJJv EKElvCJJv YEVOILEVOV. It looks as if this must be the plato who was prefect 
in 498 and 507-512, who need not have been more than about 35 in 498 and so 
not necessarily out of his 70s by 539. But another Plato with two more recent 
prefectures cannot be ruled out. The other judge named is a certain Victor, a 
lawyer who had held office in Greece and Alexandria Ka, 7TpOC yE rijc 7To>',apxlac 
TJ')'7JcaILEVov. This prefecture will presumably have fallen during our period. 
The title of Nov. 166 (521/2 or 529) calls Demosthenes, who was PPO in 521/2 
and 529, a7To E7TapxCJJv rijc {3an>.lSoc 7TO>'ECJJC Ka, a7To inra'TCJJv, implying a city 
prefecture that might well have fallen somewhere between Theodorus' first 
three tenures, though PLRE II (Demosthenes 4) assumes that it was honorary. 
Menas, PPO in 528/9, is described in const. 'Summa' of 529 as "ex praefecto 
huius almae urbis," again taken by PLRE (Menas 5) as an honorary prefecture. 

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON 

May, 1976