¹ Macr., Sat. II. 4.

² Fabius Planciades Fulgentius, Exp.serm.ant. 54.

³ Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (1971), 261–2, 273–4Google Scholar; and cf. V.Aurel. X. I: ‘frivola haec fortassis cuipiam et nimis levia esse videantur, sed curiositas nihil recusat’.

⁴ V.Heliogab. XXIX. 1–2 (trans., here and elsewhere, D. Magie). Turcan, R., Héliogabale et le sacre du soleil (1985), 178 and fig. 27Google Scholar, claims to find the scene represented on a cameo in the Bibliothèque Nationale.

⁵ V.Heliogab. XXIII.I. For elephant-drawn chariots in triumphal contexts, see Plut., Pomp. XIV.4; Fuchs, G., Architekturdarstellungen auf römischen Münzen der Republik und der frühen Kaiserzeit (1969), pl. 8, nos 99–100Google Scholar (these two references courtesy of Ann Kuttner); Zonaras XII.27. In the context of the present article, the solar symbolism of the elephant should perhaps be noted: Turcan, R., Les sarcophages romains à représentations dionysiaques (1966), 466Google Scholar.

⁶ Syme, R., Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 192–202Google Scholar; Momigliano, A., Quinto contributo alla storia degli studi classici e del mondo antico (1975), 78–81Google Scholar.

⁷ Toynbee, J. and Perkins, J. Ward, The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations (1956), 109–17Google Scholar.

⁸ V.Heliogab. II, XXXIV, XXXV.

⁹ Most recently by Turean, R., ‘Héliogabale précurseur de Constantin?’, BAGB (1988), 38–52Google Scholar. More generally, the V.Heliogab. is widely regarded as a tract against (Christian) intolerance: Pietrzykowski, M., ‘Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal’, ANRW II. 16.3 (1986), 1809Google Scholar; Frey, M., Untersuchungen zur Religion und zur Religionspolitik des Kaisers Elagabal (1989), 11–12Google Scholar.

¹⁰ V.Heliogab. 11.1. On Helena's reputation, see Turean, op.cit. (n. 9), 47–8, also pointing out that her residence, the Sessonan Palace, had been the scene of Heliogabalus' debauches.

¹¹ V.Heliogab. XIII–XIV.

¹² V.Heliogab. XVIII.4; Jul., Caes. 336a; Zos. II. 32.1, 34.2.

¹³ V.Heliogab. VI.7.

¹⁴ V.Heliogab. XV.7. Barnes, T. D., Early Christianity and the Roman Empire (1984), V.71Google Scholar, denies any allusion to Constantine — apparently because he thinks the story about Elagabalus is true. But that would make the allusion all the more pointed. Constantine: Zos. II. 29.5, with Paschoud's note.

¹⁵ V.Heliogab. III.4, VI.7–VII.5. Turean, op. cit. (n. 9), 45, points out that Herodian and Dio Cassius do not support the V.Heliogab. ‘Le rédacteur tendancieux n'a grossi et multiplié ces exemples de cleptomanie cultuelle que pour suggérer au lecteur d'évidentes analogies.’ Constantine: Eus., V.C. III.54.

¹⁶ V.Heliogab. III.4, VI.9.

¹⁷ Procop., BG 1.15. 11–14; Barnes, op. cit. (n. 14), V.68. On Constantine's porphyry column see Müller-Wiener, M., Bildlexihon zur Topographie Istanbuls (1977), 255–7Google Scholar, to be corrected and supplemented by reference to Mango, C., ‘Constantinopolitana’, JDAI 80 (1965), 306–13Google Scholar, and ‘Constantine's porphyry column and the chapel of St. Constantine’, Δελτ. Χϱϰ. Έτ. 10 (1980–1981), 103–10Google Scholar. The relics are listed by Karamouzi, M., ‘Das Forum und die Säule Constantini in Konstantinopel: Gegebenheiten und Probleme’, Balkan Studies 27 (1986), 222Google Scholar, n. 19. With Müller-Wiener's photograph of 1880/90 compare mine of 1989 (pl. IX).

¹⁸ ‘Constituent et columnam unam collocare ingentem, ad quam ascenderetur intrinsecus, ita ut in summo Heliogabalum deum collocaret, sed tantum saxum non invenit, cum id de Thebaide adferre cogitaret.’

¹⁹ Hartke, W., Römische Kinderkaiser. Eine Strukturanalyse römischen Denkens und Daseins (1951), 342–3Google Scholar.

²⁰ See e.g. Amm.Marc. XVI. 10.14 on the ‘elatos … vertices qui scansili suggestu consurgunt / elatos … vertices scansili suggestu concharum’ admired by Constantius at Rome; Becatti, G., La colonna coclide istoriata (1960), 99–101Google Scholar, on the column of Theodosius at Constantinople.

²¹ Kyriakidis, S. P., ’Ἱστοϱιϰὰ σημειώματα’ 17 (1962), 234Google Scholar, ridiculously suggested, on the basis of the Tabula Peutingeriana's somewhat distorted depiction of the porphyry column, that the shaft was encased in a wooden structure which contained a staircase.

²² ‘Haec columna porphyretica non gradibus pervia est, sed solida. Itaque falso tradit Fulvius antiquarius coclide esse’: Gyllius, P., De topographia Constantinopoleos, et de illius antiquitatibus (1562), 141Google Scholar.

²³ Chron.Pasch. 1.528 (Dindorf) says Constantine's porphyry column is λίϑου ϴηβαίου. For the HA's interest in marbles and their decorativeness, see also V.Alex.Sev. XXV.7 (contradicting the passage from the V.Heliogab. here discussed).

²⁴ Discussing a papyrus that mentions the transportation of a monolithic column measuring 50 Roman feet (14.69m), Peña, J. T., ‘P.Giss. 69: evidence for the supplying of stone transport operations in Roman Egypt and the production of fifty-foot monolithic column shafts’, JRA 2 (1989), 127, 130–1Google Scholar, has shown that shafts of this size are very rare in Roman architecture, and were probably never made of porphyry (though there was a ‘great Theban column’ (cf. n. 23) bearing a bronze statue of Tiberius at Antioch: Ioan.Mal. X.233).

²⁵ Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (1972), 2.85–90Google Scholar.

²⁶ Delbrueck, R., Antike Porphyrwerke (1932), 24–6Google Scholar; Dworakowska, A., Quarries in Roman Provinces (1983), 95–7Google Scholar. For an up-to-date general account of the quarries, see Klein, M. J., Untersuchungen zu den kaiserlichen Steinbrüchen an Mons Porphyrites und Mons Claudianus in der östlichen Wüste Agyptens (1988)Google Scholar; also (especially for its photographs) Fuchs, G., ‘Die arabische Wüste (Ägypten) und ihre historische Bedeutung von der Vorgeschichte bis in die Römerzeit’, Antike Welt 19.4 (1988), 15–30Google Scholar.

²⁷ Delbrueck, op. cit. (n. 26), 91–3, pls 35–7.

²⁸ ibid., 144.

²⁹ Giuliani, C. F. and Verduchi, P., L'area centrale del Foro Romano (1987), 174–7, 187Google Scholar, and figs 233, 262.

³⁰ Kählcr, H., Das Fuenfsaeulendenkmal fuer die Tetrarchen aufdem Forum Romanum (1964)Google Scholar. The four columns that bore the imperial statues seem to have been almost 20 m high. My thanks to Ann Kuttner for drawing my attention to the Diocletianic remodelling of the Forum Romanum.

³¹ Herodian v. 3.5; C. Augé and de Bellefonds, P. Linant, ‘Elagabalos’, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae 3 (1986), 1.705–8, 2.542Google Scholar.

³² Mattingly, H., Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum 5 (1950), 560Google Scholar, nos 197–200; Usener, H., ‘Sol invictus’, RhM 60 (1905), 470–1Google Scholar.

³³ Aurel. Vict., Caes. XXIII. 1–2; V.Heliogab., passim.

³⁴ To it we may add the Column of the Goths, if it is indeed Constantinian: Mango, C., Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IV^e–VII^e siècles) (1985), 34Google Scholar. Barsanti, C., ‘Note archeologiche su Bisanzio romana’, Milion 2 (1990), 45–9Google Scholar, tentatively assigns the column to Claudius Gothicus.

³⁵ For references, see above, n. 17.

³⁶ Mango, C., Δελτ.Χϱ. Άϱϰ. Έτ. 10 (1980–1981), 104Google Scholar.

³⁷ References collected by Karamouzi, op. cit. (n. 17), 226, n. 29.

³⁸ ‘Nicagoras of Athens and the Lateran obelisk’, JHS 107 (1987), 51–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁹ ‘Obelisks between polytheists and Christians: Julian, ep. 59’, in Polyphonia Byzantina. Studies in Honour of W. J. Aerts (1991).

⁴⁰ As e.g. by Constantius, or at least his Prefect of Rome Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, according to Ragona, A.'s analysis, ‘I tre indubbi segni di riconoscimento dell' obelisco di Costanzo II nel mosaico del Circo di Piazza Armerina’, Cronache di Archeologia 23 (1984) [1988], 127–8Google Scholar, of the ‘Lateran’ obelisk's orientation when it was set up in the Circus Maximus.

⁴¹ Amm. Marc. XVII. 4.12–13.

⁴² See below, p. 130, on a statue of Rhea-Cybele.

⁴³ On which see Jul., ep. 59.

⁴⁴ Bernand, A., Pan du désert (1977), 70–3Google Scholar; cf. Kraus, T., Röder, J., and Müller-Wiener, W., ‘Mons Claudianus — Mons Porphyrites. Bericht über die zweite Forschungsreise 1964’, MDAI(K) 22 (1967), 196Google Scholar. Our knowledge of this lost inscription is defective and its interpretation controversial. Bernand's commentary is best ignored. Χάλασις can perfectly well allude to the lowering of columns: cf. D. Dimitrakos, (1949–51), s.v. ϰαλῶ (4). Bernand's attempts to deny the reference to a Christian project in Jerusalem are groundless. Unfortunately Eus., VC III. 34, says of the Anastasis church no more than that it was adorned (the latter phrase rendered by Bernand ‘de partout’). Work was far from complete at Constantine's death: Kretschmar, G., ‘Festkalender und Memorialstätten Jerusalems in altkirchlicher Zeit’, in Busse, H. and Kretschmar, G., Jerusalemer Heiligtumstraditionen in altkirchlicher und frühislamischer Zeit (1987), 43–4Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Eus., VC III.29 (trans. E. C. Richardson, amended).

⁴⁶ Humphrey, J. H., Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing (1986), 129Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Dagron, G., Naissance d'une capitate: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (1974), 39–40Google Scholar; but also Averil Cameron and Herrin, J. (eds), Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century; the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (1984), 35Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ On the road, see Klein, op. cit. (n. 26), 18–20.

⁴⁹ Kraus, T. and Röder, J., ‘Mons Claudianus. Bericht über eine erste Erkundungsfahrt im März 1961’, MDAI(K) 18 (1962), 113Google Scholar and pls XXIII, XXVI; Kraus, Röder and Müller-Wiener, op. cit. (n. 44), pl. XLIb; Fuchs, op. cit. (n. 26), 23, pl. 16.

⁵⁰ Peña, op. cit. (n. 24), 127.

⁵¹ Ward-Perkins, J. B., ‘Nicomedia and the marble trade’, PBSR 48 (1980), 24–7Google Scholar. I am grateful to Caroline and Oliver Nicholson for comment on this point.

⁵² Ward-Perkins, J. B., ‘Columna divi Antonini’, Mélanges d'histoire ancienne et d'archéologie offerts à Paul Collart (1976), 345–52Google Scholar.

⁵³ Geo.Monach., p. 500 (de Boor); Preger, T. (ed.), Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum (1901–1907), 257Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Const.Porph., Caer. 11.42; du Cange, C., Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae graecitatis (1688), 1311Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Anna Comnena VII.2.4.

⁵⁶ Delbrueck, op. cit. (n. 26), 144. Granted the length of his reign, his passion for porphyry, and the stylistic argument adduced by Delbrueck, Diocletian is certainly the strongest candidate.

⁵⁷ Ward-Perkins, op. cit. (n. 51), 26.

⁵⁸ With Ammianus' account (XVII.4.13–14) of the Lateran obelisk's thirty years and more of tribulation on the way into exile, cf. Ward-Perkins's estimate, with reference to the transportation of a giant monolithic column from Egypt to Rome in the second century, that ‘allowing for the hazards of seasonal shipping and for the time needed for the actual quarrying and dressing of one of these huge monoliths, one would have had to reckon on at least two years between ordering and delivery’ (op. cit. (n. 52), 351). This is perhaps some measure of the changes that had come about in the empire since its Golden Age.

⁵⁹ Chron.Pasch. 1.528 (entry s.a. 328 but of more general import); Theoph., Chron., p. 28 (A.M. 5821 = A.D. 329: Grumel, V., Traité d'éludes byzantines 1: La chronotogie (1958), 95–6, 240Google Scholar); Dagron, op. cit. (n. 47), 39–40 (placing of statue on column in 330).

⁶⁰ On the Tabula Peutingeriana see Dagron, op. cit. (n. 47), 57; Weber, E., Tabula Peutingeriana, Codex Vindobonensis 324 (1976), 22Google Scholar; Harley, J. B. and Woodward, D. (eds), Cartography in Prehistoric, Ancient, and Medieval Europe and the Mediterranean (1987), 238–42Google Scholar. On reverence for the column see also Philostorgius, HE 11.17.

⁶¹ Sande, S., ‘Some new fragments from the column of Theodosius’, AAAH 1 (1981), 1–78Google Scholar (with earlier bibliography); Mango, op. cit. (n. 34), 43 (‘Il ne s'agit passeulement d'une imitation, mais d'une copie qui n'aurait pu être réalisée qu'a l'aide d'un dessin exécuté à Rome: cas unique, si je ne me trompe, dans toute l'histoire de l'art byzantin. Le motif de cette duplication est évident: Théodose, espagnol d'origine, était censé descendre de Trajan. Tout en exprimant sa légitimité, ses monuments proclamaient en même temps sa romanité.’); ibid., 45. But smaller, more practical porphyry columns continued to be erected, as for the empress Aelia Eudoxia's silver statue in 403 (Socrates, HE VI. 18), following the example of the 'low porphyry column’ set up for Helena by Constantine (loan.Mai. XIII. 321). And elements of a later fifth-century honorific column (of Leo I?) recently discovered in the Topkapi Sarayi do reveal the influence of Constantine's porphyry column, especially in the design of the shaft: Peschlow, U., ‘Eine wiedergewonnene byzantinische Ehrensäule in Istanbul’, in Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet 1 (1986), 21–33Google Scholar.

⁶² Becatti, op. cit. (n. 20), esp. 84–5; also John Rufus, V.Petri Iberi (ed. Raabe, R., Petrus der Iberer (1895)), 62Google Scholar (Oxyrhynchus), 73 (Alexandria).

⁶³ Philostorgius, HE 11.17 (to what extent paraphrased by Photius?). Cf. Socrates, HE 1.17: Constantine places part of the True Cross in Theodoret, HE 1.34.3: , [sc. ; Chron.Pasch. 1.573: ; and Hesychius (probably sixth-century) ap. Preger, op. cit. (n. 53), 17: . At this its first occurrence, the phrase δίϰην ήλίου is clearly unrelated to the view that the statue was one of Apollo; but it is quoted by later exponents of this identification, e.g. Preger, op. cit. (n. 53), 174 (late tenth century: Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (1988), 50–85, 187–96Google Scholar), Leo Grammaticus (early eleventh century) 87 (Bekker) and Geo. Cedrenus 1.518. These last two sources assert that the statue was a Pheidian work from Athens; and Frantz, A., The Athenian Agora XXIV: Late Antiquity: A.D. 267–700 (1988), 76Google Scholar, follows Overbeck in suggesting that it may have been Pheidias' Apollo Parnopius from the Acropolis. See rather Preger, T., ‘Konstantinos-Helios’, Hermes 36 (1901), 457–62Google Scholar. Mango, op. cit. (n. 34), 44, suspects Cedrenus had access to an early source on the monuments of Constantinople; but here he merely follows the earlier chroniclers: cf. Preger, op. cit., 460.

⁶⁴ loan.Mal. XIII. 320. Cf. Chron.Pasch. 1.528: and likewise Geo. Monach., p. 500.

⁶⁵ Anna Comnena XII.4 (trans. E. R. A. Sewter, with adjustments); and cf. (e.g.) Zonaras XIII. 3.25–6.

⁶⁶ e.g. Dagron, op. cit. (n. 47), 38; and the very uncritical article of DiMaio, M., Zeuge, J. and Zotov, N., ‘Ambiguitas Constantiniana: the caeleste signum Dei of Constantine the Great’, Byzantion 58 (1988), 333–60Google Scholar, esp. 354–7, with bibliography.

⁶⁷ An exception is Alan Cameron, who kindly showed me a draft of his forthcoming Constantinople: Birth of a New Rome, and whose views on the statue are briefly mentioned in Cameron and Herrin, op. cit. (n. 47), 217, 264. These latter, while sensitive to the evolutionary approach, are less sceptical about the possibility that the statue was indeed of Apollo: 36, 216–17, 219, 243, 263–4.

⁶⁸ See below, pp. 128–9.

⁶⁹ See above, n. 63.

⁷⁰ Ed. Preger, op. cit. (n. 53), 19–73 (repr. in Cameron and Herrin, op. cit. (n. 47), 56–164).

⁷¹ Parastaseis 68: following the repunctuation suggested by Cameron and Herrin, op.cit. (n. 47), 262. Theodoret and Eusebius do not of course say anything of the sort.

⁷² Parastaseis 38.

⁷³ loan.Mal. XIII. 322; Chron.Pasch. 1.530. A fourth-century cameo in the cathedral treasury of Kamień Pomorski (formerly Cammin), Poland, perhaps preserves a depiction of this statue: Calza, R., Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287–363 d.C.) (1972), 235 and pl. LXXXI.286Google Scholar (repeating Bruns's misguided suggestion that the cameo represents the statue on the porphyry column). The Tyche is helmeted not turreted, but this type is well attested under Constantine, at least as a bust: Toynbee, J. M. C., ‘Roma and Constantinopolis in late-antique art from 312 to 365’, JRS 37 (1947), 137Google Scholar, n. 17; Kent, J. P. C., ‘Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis medallions at the mint of Rome’, in Carson, R. A. G. and Kraay, CM. (eds), Scripta Nummaria Romana: Essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland (1978), 105–13Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Cameron and Herrin, op. cit. (n. 47), 172, 216–17, 242, 264.

⁷⁵ See below. Parastaseis 56 cryptically remarks that the statue on the porphyry column was reverenced ‘as the Tyche of the city’.

⁷⁶ John of Ephesus, HE III. 3.14. On confusion of polytheist and Christian iconography, cf. also Severus of Antioch, hom. 72, pp. 83–4 (Brière); Ioan.Mal. IV.79.

⁷⁷ Haftmann, W., Das italienische Säulenmonument (1939). 52–5Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Note Kyriakidis's defence of Malalas, , ʿEλληνιxά 17 (1962), 225–31Google Scholar, against Karayannopulos, I., ‘Konstantin der Grosse und der Kaiserkult’, Historia 5 (1956), 351–2Google Scholar. Melchior Lorck's drawing (1561) of the relief on the porphyry column's base indicates that Constantine was there too represented wearing a radiate crown: Delbrueck, op. cit. (n. 26), 141–5 and pl. 68; Fischer, E., Melchior Lorck (1962), 28, 84Google Scholar. For caution regarding the genuineness of Lorck's drawing: Mango, , JDAI 80 (1965), 308–10Google Scholar; Karamouzi, op. cit. (n. 17), 224–6.

⁷⁹ loan.Mal. XVIII.487; Theoph., Chrno., p. 126 (earliest literary reference to globe, but not for that reason incredible pace Karayannopulos, op. cit. (n. 78), 354, who omits to note that the late-fourth–early-fifth-century Tabula Peutingeriana represents the statue in its original state, holding a globe and a spear); Anna Comnena XII.4. For a bronze statuette in Copenhagen that may reflect the appearance of our statue see Stutzinger, D. in Spätantike und frühes Christentum. Ausstellung im Liebieghaus, Museum alter Plastik, Frankfurt am Main (1983), 507–8Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Alföldi, A., Die monarchische Repräsentation im römischen Kaiserreiche (1970), 228–38, 257–63Google Scholar; Weinstock, S., Divus Julius (1971), 42–5, 382–4Google Scholar. Cf. the statue of Trajan on his column: Becatti, op. cit. (n. 20), pl. 3. Diocletian's statue on his column at Alexandria was in military attire: Fraser, op.cit. (n. 25), 2.89.

⁸¹ Alföldi, M. R., ‘Die Sol Comes-Münze vom Jahre 325’, in Mullus. Festschrift Theodor Klauser (1964), 10–16 and pl. 3Google Scholar.

⁸² Apollo=Helios: Jul., or. XI. 1443b; Müller-Rettig, B., Der Panegyricus des Jahres 310 auf Konstantin den Grossen (1990), 334–8Google Scholar. Sol with radiate crown and globe, and associated with Mithras: Merkelbach, R., Mithras (1984), pls 49, 139, 168Google Scholar. Sol's whip, and the crossing circles of the zodiac and the celestial equator on the globe in pl. 168 (and cf. Ulansey, D., The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries (1989), 47–9, 95–9Google Scholar), provide further parallels — with Constantine's spear, and with the cross on the globe referred to by Nicephorus Callistus, HE VII.49 (PG 145.1325), though this was probably a later addition.

⁸³ Mango, C., Byzantium and its Image (1984), V.57, n. 13Google Scholar, noting also a relief of Apollo with radiate crown and (probably) spear from Roman Asia Minor: Kantorowicz, E. H., ‘Gods in uniform’, PAPhS 105 (1961), 383Google Scholar and fig. 36.

⁸⁴ Toynbee and Ward Perkins, op. cit. (n. 7), 72–4, 116–17, pl. 32 On the basis of an inscription recorded in middle Byzantine sources and which can hardly be genuine (Dagron, op. cit. (n. 47), 38–9), Reinach, T., ‘Commentaire archeologique sur le poème de Constantin le Rhodien’, REG 9 (1896), 73Google Scholar, n. 1, maintained that ‘dans la pensée de Constantin, la statue représentait le Christ, non l'empereur’.

⁸⁵ Dothan, M., Hammath Tiberias. Early Synagogues and the Hellenistic and Roman Remains (1983), 39–43, 66–7, 68–70Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Pace Dothan, op. cit. (n. 85), 68, 88.

⁸⁷ Maier, J., ‘Die Sonne im religiösen Denken des antiken Judentums’, ANRW II.19.1, 346–412, esp. 387Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Seyrig, H., Scripta Varia (1985), 447Google Scholar.

⁸⁹ See the passage from Socrates, HE, quoted above, n. 63.

⁹⁰ e.g. the pun Anthelios-Anelios mentioned by Anna Comnena — a ‘Volkswitz in späterer Zeit, als wohl der Glanz des Goldes verschwunden war’ (Preger, op. cit. (n. 63). 458).

^90a cf. Eus., De laudibus Constantini XI.3.

⁹¹ Eus., De laudibus Constantini II.

⁹² Jul., Caes. 336ab (trans. W. C. Wright). This idea too seems to have matured over the years, into the story that Constantine sought baptism because of his feelings of guilt for the murder of his son and wife: Zos. 11.29.3–4 (from Eunapius), rejected by Soz., HE 1.5. Cf. Paschoud, F., Cinq études sur Zosime (1975), 34Google Scholar: ‘dès la seconde moitié du IV^e siècle, une légende anticonstantinienne est tout élaborée; si elle n'apparaît pas avant, c'est par manque de sources’.

⁹³ Eus., VC IV.58–60 (implicitly admitting the surprise caused by the arrangement), 71; and cf. Krautheimer, R., Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture (1986 ⁴), 69–70Google Scholar; Dagron, op. cit. (n. 47), 401–9; Mango, op.cit. (n. 34), 27, 35.

⁹⁴ See e.g. Barnes, T. D., Constantine and Eusebius (1981), 36–7, 48Google Scholar, dismissive as ever of evidence for non-Christian aspects of Constantine; Grünewald, T., Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda in der zeitgenössischen Uberlieferung (1990), 50–61, 96–7, 130–1Google Scholar; Müller-Rettig, op. cit. (n. 82), 330–8. Note especially the occurrence on the Arch of Constantine of the Sol-Helios and quadriga image discussed above: L'Orange, H. P., Das spätantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen: 284–361 n.Chr. (1984), 53Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ TAM 3(1).45: Since there is no room on the base for a statue of Helios as well, Constantine and Helios are unambiguously identified. The date is not ‘intra 310 et 324 p.Chr.n.’ but 324, when Constantine became sole ruler of the East as well as the West, or very soon afterwards, while the new emperor's religious policies were still quite diplomatic. The Antiochene solidi are the closest analogy: Alföldi, op. cit. (n. 81); P. M. Bruun, RIC 7 (1966), 685, no. 49. Christopher Jones kindly points out that Helios Pantepoptēs is also attested on an inscription from Gerasa: Jones, A. H. M., ‘Inscriptions from Jerash’, JRS 18 (1928), 173Google Scholar, no. 42 ( does not seem to be applied elsewhere to the Sun’).

⁹⁶ Delbrueck, R., Spätantike Kaiserporträts (1933), 56Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ Eus., VC IV.15, 16 (trans. E. C. Richardson, amended).

⁹⁸ L'Orange, op. cit. (n. 94), 53.

⁹⁹ Gascou, J., ‘Le rescrit d'Hispellum’, MEFRA 79 (1967), 609–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Socr., HE 1.18, says Constantine replaced cult-statues of the old gods with images of himself.

¹⁰⁰ Zos. II.31.2–3, with F. Paschoud's note ad loc. The so-called ‘orans’ posture to which Zosimus refers might be adopted in prayer to the many gods as well as to the one: E. von Severus, RAC 8.1141, 1158; J. and L. Robert, Bull. (1968), 535 (references courtesy of Christopher Jones).

¹⁰¹ Above, p. 122.I owe this comparison to Ann Kuttner.

¹⁰² It should be noted that the porphyry column was even more semantically neutral (in religious terms) than its statue. Perhaps it was to compensate for this that so many stories grew up about holy relics buried beneath it.

¹⁰³ Eus., VC III.54.

¹⁰⁴ On the lessened intensity of middle Byzantines' contact with the figure of Constantine, note the interesting recent observations of Mango, C., 10 (1980–1981), 110Google Scholar, and Kazhdan, A., ‘“Constantin imaginaire”: Byzantine legends of the ninth century about Constantine the Great’, Byzantion 57 (1987), 249Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Cameron and Herrin, op.cit. (n. 47), 15. I prefer this view to that of Kazhdan, op.cit. (n. 104), 250: ‘The Parastaseis is a work of burlesque, a bouffonade, a parody; if the author occasionally cites real names and real monuments, his factual information is perverse and playful.’

¹⁰⁶ The earliest literary sources recognized hitherto were all of the fifth century: above, n. 63.