^{page 92 note 1} Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xl.

Lebeau, eđ St. Martin, vol. 8, 184–196.

Schmidt, W. A., Der Aufstand in Constanlinopel unter Kaiser Justinian, 1854Google Scholar.

Kalligas, P., Περὶ τῆς στάσεως τοῦ Νίκα, in Μελέται καὶ λόγοι (1882), p. 329Google Scholarsqq.

Labarte, , Le Palais impérial de Constantinople, etc., p. 13–15Google Scholar.

Paspatês, A., The Great Palace of Constantinople, (transi. W. Metcalfe), p. 59Google Scholarsqq.

von Ranke, L., Weltgeschichte, ii. 2Google Scholar, p. 23 sqq.

Hodgkin, T., Italy and her Invaders, iii. p. 618Google Scholarsqq.

Bury, J. B., Later Roman Empire, i. p. 340Google Scholarsqq.

^{page 92 note 2} In the Vizantiski Vremennik, i. p. 1 sqq.

^{page 92 note 3} Cancellarins. Justinian was mag. equitum et peditum praesentalis, in A.D. 521. See C. J. L. 5, 8120, 3. Cp. Mommsen, , Chron. Min., 2Google Scholar, p. 41.

^{page 92 note 4} Ed. Mommsen, , Chron. Min., 2, p. 103Google Scholar. It is strange that M. Kalligas, whose study on the Nika revolt is fuller than any other (except Schmidt's), should have entirely ignored the notice of Marcellinus.

^{page 93 note 1} Iam plerisque nobilium coniuratis.

^{page 93 note 2} In the account of Procopras, we find the senator Origen among the rebels; and the property of the senators who supported Hypatius is confiscated. Malalas mentioned the banishment of ‘eighteen illustres and senators’ (omitted in the abridgement of the Baroceianus, but preserved in the Escurial fragment ed. by Mommsen, , Hermes, 6, p. 377Google Scholar, and in Theophanes, p. 185, 1. 30 ed. de Boor). Cp. Panchenko, , O tainoi istorii Prokopiia, in Viz. Vrem., iii. p. 302Google Scholar.

^{page 93 note 3} Bell. Pers., i. c. 24; vol. 1, p. 119 sqq. ed. Bonn.

^{page 93 note 4} B. G., iii. 21, p. 340 ed. Comparetti.

^{page 94 note 1} B. iii., c. 26, p. 265–6 ed. Bonn. The author has been describing the decay of the office of Praetorian Prefect, and, in connexion therewith, the misdeeds of John of Cappadocia. Lydus also notices the Nika in his treatise De Ostentis, § 8, p. 14 ed. Wachsmuth. He is enumerating portents of sedition and civil war; among these he mentions a kite hovering in the air over a crowded theatre, (A.D. 530–1)

^{page 94 note 2} For a description of the career of John the Lydian I may refer to my Later Roman Empire, ii. p. 183–4.

^{page 94 note 3} Ed. Mommsen, , Chron. Min., ii. p. 198Google Scholar, ad ann. 530. I suspect that the false date was due to the circumstance that 530 was Lampadio et Oreste conss. and 532 p. c. Lampadi et Otestis ann. iii.

^{page 94 note 4} Cp. Mommsen, op. cit. p. 180.

^{page 95 note 1} B. 9, 14. Mr. E. W. Brooks most kindly supplied me with an epitome of the passage. It will be included in the forthcoming translation of Zacharias and his Continuator, by Messrs. Hamilton and Brooks.

^{page 95 note 2} μέρη

^{page 95 note 3}

^{page 95 note 4} It is not necessary to go further into the ‘Malalasfrage’ here. See Krumbacher, 's Gesch. der byz. Litteratur, § 140Google Scholar, and my review in the Classical Review, 1897, May.

^{page 95 note 5} Baroccianus 182.

^{page 95 note 6} Hermes, Bd. 6, p. 377 (fragment on Nika revolt).

^{page 95 note 7} Anecd. Paris, vol. 2, 320.

^{page 95 note 8} I omit other chronicles which have to be taken into account in dealing generally with Malalas, but which do not help us for Our present purpose (e.g. John of Nikiu, George Monachus).

^{page 95 note 9} I pointed out (Classical Review, loc. cit.) that Theophanes used three sources; the proof being that he has three introductions, the third of which is the introduction of Malalas. The Paschal Chronicler also used the other unknown source. Gleye proved (against Patzig) that he used the Malalas chronicle.

^{page 96 note 1} The date is given falsely

^{page 96 note 2} So George Monachus, i., p. 528, ed. Muralt. I have not devoted a special section to the notice of this chroniele (cp. the corresponding notices in Leo Grammaticus and Theodosius Melitenus); it is abbreviated from CF,—it contains nothing that is not in CF.

^{page 96 note 3} p. 474, 17, ed. Bonn.

^{page 96 note 4} p. 475, 10.

^{page 97 note 1} So possibly for or perhaps simply ‘Quellenforschung’ has its limits.

^{page 98 note 1} was probably not in the original, in this clause; the excerptor took the word from the description of Belisarius seizing Hypatius and Pompeius ( 476, 11).

^{page 98 note 2} Cp. above § 7, par 2, p. 95.

^{page 98 note 3} There is, at the transition, a curious insertion in P, not found in the other MSS. It does fit into the context; some words must have fallen out:—

‘P:

Somebody seems to be remonstrating with Justinian in the Palace on his indecision.

^{page 99 note 1} need not have been in the original, but may be due to the epitomator who had to make up for the omission of the preceding sentence.

^{page 99 note 2} The Constantinian Fragment mentions the name of the new Praefect of the City, Tryphon; but at the end of the episode.

^{page 100 note 1} Above § 7, (β).

^{page 100 note 2} Cp. Cramer, Aneed. Par., 2, 320

^{page 100 note 3} The notice preserved in the Paschal Chronicle that a certain Antipater, vindex of Antioch (Theupolis), was slain in the Hippodrome, must come from Malalas, and most distinctly points to Antiochene influence in the early part of the eighteenth Book. A purely Constantinopolitan writer would never pick out of 30,000, a person of purely local importance at Antioch; whereas it is just what an Antiochene would do

^{page 101 note 1} Theophanes is cited throughout from C. de Boor's edition.

^{page 102 note 1} Om. codd., restituit de Boor.

^{page 102 note 2} codd. Bieliaev is certainly wrong in suggesting as an alternative emendation (meaning the Golden Hand); Byzantina, i. 132. is certain.

^{page 104 note 1} This is so clear that it is unnecessary to show it in full. But the comparison may be facilitated by the following references:—

Theophanes (de Boor)

^{page 104 note 2} It may be noticed that Cedrênus gives as in Cramer, Anecd. Par. ii. 112; whereas Theophanes has

^{page 104 note 3}

^{page 104 note 4} Ed. Dindorf, vol. 3, p. 271, 8–273, 22.

^{page 104 note 5} P. Sauerbrei, in his study on the sources of the middle part of the history of Zonaras, observed this, and describes the source as optimus ut videtur fons deperditus. De Font. Zon. quaestiones, in Comment. Philol. Jenenses, vol. I. p. 77. This (?) optimtis fons deperditus was also used for the reigns of Leo and Zeno.

^{page 104 note 6} To the effect that all the beauty in the city left by the former great fire (of A.D. 476) was now consumed. Cp. Cedrênus p. 647. Probably both were using a common source. I cannot enter here upon the latest combinations of E. Patzig,—the Leoquelle and the Zwillingsquelle, &c.

^{page 104 note 7}

^{page 105 note 1} p. 272, 5.

^{page 105 note 2} p. 272, 20–26.

^{page 105 note 3} Malal. and Chron. Pasch, have Theophanes, We must infer that was in the original Malalas. But it would be improper to infer that Zonaras must have here used Theophanes; for there it was quite natural that Theophanes and Zonaras should have hit independently on the same synonym.

^{page 106 note 1} p. 272, 29.

^{page 106 note 2} p. 273, 19.

^{page 106 note 3} p. 474, 2–6. The date is also given by Marcellinus.

^{page 106 note 4} Ib. 1,

^{page 106 note 5} Gibbon, Hodgkin, etc. Schmidt rightly distinguished them, and was followed by Kalligas (so too Kanke). The assembly was doubtless held on the eleventh, preliminary to the celebration of the thirteenth. Schmidt, p. 47.

^{page 106 note 6} p. 474, 14.

^{page 106 note 7} ib. 20.

^{page 107 note 1} 474, 20,–475, 10.

^{page 107 note 2} At 475, 8.

^{page 107 note 3} Schmidt places the action of Belisarms on Wednesday, the burning of Chalkê etc., on Wednesday night, the attack on the house of Probus on Thursday (p. 60–1). Thus he follows Chron. Pasch.

^{page 107 note 4}

^{page 107 note 5} Ib.

^{page 107 note 6} p. 123;

^{page 107 note 7} (ib.), in reference to the date cited in preceding note.

^{page 108 note 1} So Gibbon and Mr. Hodgkin. So too Schmidt.

Kalligas does not seem to assume the interval of a night; but he follows Chron. Pasch, in placing the dismissal of Hypatius from the Palace on Sunday. He regards it as a consequence of Justinian's fiasco in the Hippodrome; but he does not seem to observe that he deserts the authority of Procopius, which in such a matter is decisive.

^{page 108 note 2} (Chr. Pasch.). This curious word I believe—must mean, as it is generally taken, in the early hours of the morning before the night is over. It is not given in the Lexicon of Ducange, but Sophocles compares Nov. Test.; Mark i. 35, The closest analogy I can find to the use of which the compound appears to presume, is in the phrase = de die bibere. In the Wasps of Aristophanes means in the hours after midnight.

^{page 109 note 1} Malalas, 476, 21. (So Theophanes).

^{page 109 note 2} It is unnecessary to argue here against the untenable view of M. Paspatês, which has been universally condemned by competent critics. (His mistake was partly due to the confusion of the Augusteum with the Forum of Constantine; a mistake partly derived from Labarte). See my paper in Scottish Review, April 1894, on the Great Palace of Constantinople; Lethaby and Swainson, S. Sophia, p. 7 sqq. Mr. Grosvenor in his recent work on ‘Constantinople’ (2 vols. 1895), a work which has very little archaeological value, adheres to the view of his master, M. Paspatês, as if it were an established and accepted fact. But then he is totally ignorant of the investigations of MM. Strzygovski and Forchheimer on the cisterns of Constantinople.

^{page 109 note 3} This mistake was made by Labarte, and before him by Ducange, who was guilty of a triangular confusion; namely, the senaton of the Forum = the senaton of the Augusteum = the Basilica. This has been fully pointed out by Bieliaev in his important article, Chram Bogoroditzy Chalkopratishoi v Konstantinopolie, in the Lietopis for 1892 of the Hist. Phil. Society of the University of Odessa (Viz. Otdiel. i.); p. 104–5.

^{page 110 note 1} There can be no doubt about the position of the Milium. See Bieliaev's, thorough discussion in Byzantina: Ocherki, etc., ii. p. 92–94Google Scholar; cp. the Odessa, Lietopis, 1892Google Scholar, op. cit., p. 102. This involves a considerable change in the plan of Labarte which Bieliaev inserted in the first vol. of his Byzantina.

^{page 110 note 2} Cp. Bieliaev, , Byzantina, ii. p. 93Google Scholar, note 1.

Ho shows from Constantine Porph., , De Caer. 17, 106, 10, 84Google Scholar (i. ed. Bonn) that in proceeding from the Chalkê to the Milium the Emperor had the Zenxippus on his left, in proceeding from the Milium to the Chalkê on his right; and in one ceremony the Zeuxippus was a station between the Milium and the Chalkê.

^{page 111 note 1} I shall use ‘Forum’ simplicitcr, as Byzantine writers did, for the Forum of Constantine; δ φάρος is regularly used thus, e.g. in Theophanes. For this use cp. Bieliaev in the Odessa, Lietopis, 1894, p. 17Google Scholar.

^{page 111 note 2} Die byzantinischen Wasserbehälter von Constantiriopel, by P. Forchheimer and I. Strzy govski (1893), p. 177–180. Cp. Mordtmann, Esquisse topographique, p. 66–7. Strzygovski falls into error in interpreting a passage of Constantine Porphyrogennetos (i. 165) concerning the second procession on the feast of the Annunciation. He places the Antiforum at the Augusteum, whereas it means of course the approach to the Forum (of Constantine), and he takes the Church of St. Constantine in the Forum for the Church of St. Sophia (p. 179).

^{page 111 note 3} See De Aedificiis, i. 2.

^{page 111 note 4} Banduri, 29. Codinus, 39.

^{page 111 note 5} xv. 3, (iii. p. 340, Dind.).

^{page 111 note 6} Cedrenus, i. 616 = Zonaras, xiv. 2 (p. 257).

^{page 111 note 7} Op. cit. in the Lietopis of Odessa, 1892.

^{page 111 note 8} p. 101.

^{page 111 note 9} Const. Porph., i. p. 169.

^{page 112 note 1} Esquisse top., p. 4. He quotes Antony of Novgorod, the Russian traveller, who says that ‘going towards the Hippodrome [from the Forum] under the covered portico of Eubulus, we meet the Church of the Mother of God, containing the marble table, on which our Lord celebrated the Sacrament.’ Is the portico of Eubulus the north portico of the Mesê? In any case, it is not necessary to conclude that the Church was adjacent to the Mesê. It is enough that the traveller reached it by a street off the Mese.

^{page 112 note 2} Zamietka po voprosu o miestopolozenii Chalkopratiiskago chrama v Konstantinopolie, in the Odessa, Lietopis of 1894, p. 309–316Google Scholar.

^{page 112 note 3} Banduri, 27 sqq.

^{page 112 note 4} Mordtmann, p. 66, cf. his plan.

^{page 112 note 5}

^{page 112 note 6} p. 621.

^{page 112 note 7} The position is discussed by Mordtmann, p. 67. He places it north of the Octagon, but I fail to see the evidence. In any case Gyllius was wrong in seeking it on the western slope of the third hill, near the Véfa Meidani (i. 11, p. 58). Ducange, 's notice does not help us (Descr. Urb. Const., p. 139–40)Google Scholar. The Anonymous (Banduri 53) places the perfume market near the Octagon

^{page 112 note 8} Op. cit. p. 103.

^{page 113 note 1} Const. Porph., i. p. 165.

^{page 113 note 2} p. 169.

^{page 113 note 3} Cp. Ducange, op. cit. p. 145.

^{page 113 note 4} Synaxaria, July 11.

^{page 113 note 5} Mordtmaim, loc. cit., and plan.

^{page 113 note 6} Cedrenus, i. 564.

^{page 113 note 7} Gyllius, p. 127. So Mordtmann.

^{page 113 note 8} Op. cit. p. 170 sqq.

^{page 113 note 9} Cp. Theophanes, p. 239, 9,

^{page 113 note 10} Cp. the account of the fire in A.D. 603, in Chron. Pasch. p. 695: This Arca comes in the Nika riot. In Const. Porph., i., p. 56, the Praetorium is a station between the Forum and the Milium.

^{page 113 note 11} Theoph. p. 267, 31.

^{page 114 note 1} p. 48: Forum; Artopolion; palace of Toxaras; Church of Forty Martyrs; Anemodulion; forum Tauri. Cp. p. 93.

^{page 114 note 2} Vol. i. p. 70 ed. Reifferscheid.

^{page 114 note 3} p. 69. ‘Une citerne à l'ouest de Bin bir dirék, en face du tombeau de Sultan Mahmoud, paraît marquer l'emplacement de l'église des XL. martyrs de Nicopolis.’ Cp. plan.

^{page 114 note 4} p. 368 sqq.

^{page 114 note 5} p. 364 sqq.

^{page 114 note 6} p. 371–2. Nor is there any proof of his statement that the house of Probus was near the Praetorium (p. 372). The texts which he cites—like so many of this antiquarian's citations—are irrelevant. This identification of Paspatês is, I observe, also rejected by Laskin, G., in his paper, Zamietki po drevnostyam Konstantinopolia, in the Vizantiski Vremennik, iii., p. 339Google Scholar. Laskin places the Praetorium between the Augusteum and the Forum, but I do not see how the passage in Chron. Pasch. (loc. cit.) proves that it was on the north side of the Mesê; for this, I suppose, is what he means by saying that it was ‘on the other side of the street' from the Great Palace.—Laskin thinks that the Great Embolos built by Arcadius opposite to the Praetorium (Theoph., p. 74, 23) is the Cherni Veliki Ubol of Anthony of Novgorod. It is noteworthy that Kondakov, (in Vizantiskiia Tserkvi i Pamiatniki Konstantinopolia, 1886, p. 132Google Scholar) identifies this Black Embolos with the But the Embolos of Maurianus was at the other side of the Forum, as is proved by Const. Porph., , de Cer., p. 156Google Scholar (cf. Mordtmann, p. 7). The Black Embolos was near St. Anastasia, which was said to be in the region of Maurianus (S.W. of the Hippodrome), which must be clearly distinguished from the Portico of Maurianus.

^{page 115 note 1} p. 266, 1. (Possibly should be )

^{page 116 note 1} He mentions the but not as burnt. See below.

^{page 116 note 2} Kalligas on the strength of this, neglecting all other topographical data, represents the fire as spreading from the Praetorium to the adjacent Palace of Constantine (Great Palace) p. 340. But his study is useless so far as topography is concerned.

^{page 116 note 3} Schmidt, op. cit., p. 62, thought that the πραιτώριον here meant was that of the Praet, Prefect of the East (Reichsjustizministerium), not of the Prefect of the city; and he is silently followed by Kalligas, p. 344. There is no foundation for this view. It may be noted that Kalligas seems to have used the plan of Schmidt, which is hopelessly astray, but has two redeeming features—the distinction of the Forum from the Augusteum, and the position of the Praetorium (of the Pref. of the city) near the Forum. In the latter point Kalligas deserts his guide.

^{page 117 note 1} Procopius (p. 120) mentions that at the beginning of the revolt the rioters went to the and loosed the prisoners. It was the of the Praetorium. The fact that Procopius does not say that it was burnt down may be reconciled with Malalas by supposing that only a small part was burnt; so that it was food for flames again on Friday.

^{page 117 note 2} The Continuator of Zacharias of Mytilene has a curious notice. He places the burning of St. Sophia after the proclamation of Hypatius and says that it was set on fire (apparently by Justinian's adherents) in order to disperse the people. There is clearly a confusion with the Octagon which was set on fire by the soldiers.

^{page 119 note 1} ‘At night,’ Victor Tonn., cp. above § 4.