Constantine’s Great Palace in the Patria: Textual Layers and the Early Palatial Topography of Constantinople

This article examines Patria 1.59-60, the most extensive list of buildings attributed to Constantine within the Great Palace and separates the textual layers that the notice combines. The procedure is philological rather than architectural. Each lemma of the transmitted Greek is tested against the earliest independent attestation of the institution, name, function, or structure it denotes, and the result is left open where no such attestation survives. The fourth-century palace is largely concealed beneath later construction and the modern city, while its most detailed written accounts belong to the Middle Byzantine period. Modern reconstructions have therefore tended to combine evidence produced across several centuries and to project the named spaces of the tenth-century palace back to Constantine. The analysis compares Eusebius, the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, Malalas, the Chronicon Paschale, the Patria, and the De Ceremoniis by separating the chronologies of institutions, names, functions, and architectural settings. It shows that Patria 1.59-60 is not an inventory of a Constantinian building programme. The passage gathers guard units, fiscal offices, workshops, gates, churches, halls, and baths whose independent attestations range from the fifth to the ninth century. Its attributions express Constantine's place in the historical memory of the palace rather than construction history of every named space. Once these retrospective attributions are separated into chronological layers, the original palace can no longer be recovered as a detailed architectural plan. A more secure reconstruction identifies an upper-terrace residence with a controlled entrance, a principal representative hall, and protected access to the imperial box in the Hippodrome. The Constantinian palace is therefore best understood as a system of movement and regulated visibility. This model preserves the value of later sources while limiting the claims that can be made from them.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Gephyra
Published
2026-09-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.37095/gephyra.2028817
Primary Topic
Historical and Religious Studies of Rome
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Constantine’s Great Palace in the Patria: Textual Layers and the Early Palatial Topography of Constantinople

Hüseyin SALİKOĞLU
Gephyra
Historical and Religious Studies of Rome
article

Constantine’s Great Palace in the Patria: Textual Layers and the Early Palatial Topography of Constantinople

Hüseyin SALİKOĞLU
article en

Abstract

This article examines Patria 1.59-60, the most extensive list of buildings attributed to Constantine within the Great Palace and separates the textual layers that the notice combines. The procedure is philological rather than architectural. Each lemma of the transmitted Greek is tested against the earliest independent attestation of the institution, name, function, or structure it denotes, and the result is left open where no such attestation survives. The fourth-century palace is largely concealed beneath later construction and the modern city, while its most detailed written accounts belong to the Middle Byzantine period. Modern reconstructions have therefore tended to combine evidence produced across several centuries and to project the named spaces of the tenth-century palace back to Constantine. The analysis compares Eusebius, the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae, Malalas, the Chronicon Paschale, the Patria, and the De Ceremoniis by separating the chronologies of institutions, names, functions, and architectural settings. It shows that Patria 1.59-60 is not an inventory of a Constantinian building programme. The passage gathers guard units, fiscal offices, workshops, gates, churches, halls, and baths whose independent attestations range from the fifth to the ninth century. Its attributions express Constantine's place in the historical memory of the palace rather than construction history of every named space. Once these retrospective attributions are separated into chronological layers, the original palace can no longer be recovered as a detailed architectural plan. A more secure reconstruction identifies an upper-terrace residence with a controlled entrance, a principal representative hall, and protected access to the imperial box in the Hippodrome. The Constantinian palace is therefore best understood as a system of movement and regulated visibility. This model preserves the value of later sources while limiting the claims that can be made from them.

GephyraVol. 31
Muğla University (TR)
Sustainable cities and communities
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Historical and Religious Studies of Rome
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.