Greek dedicatory epigram of the Great Church of Antioch built by Constantine under the supervision of his praet. prefect Fl. Constantius
source date: 325/327 AD
edition published: 2020-03-27
availability: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Malalas’ text (Chron. 13, 17, p. 250 Thurn)

Χριστῷ Κωνστάντιος ἐπέραστον οἶκον ἔτευξεν, Οὐρανίαις ἁψῖσι πανείκελα, πανφανόωντα, Κωνσταντίου ἄνακτος ὑποδρήσσοντος ἐφετμαῖς· Γοργόνιος δὲ κόμης θαλαμηπόλον ἔργον ὕφανε.

Text emended by Mitchell 2019 (see commentary below)

Χριστῷ Κωνσταντῖνος ἐπήρατα οἱκί’ ἔτευξεν Οὐρανίαις ἀψῖσι πανείκελα παμφανοῶντα, Κονσταντίου ἄνακτος ὑποδρήσοντος ἐφετμαῖς, Γοργόνιος δὲ κόμης θαλαμηπόλος ἔργον ὕφανε.

This epigram, preserved by the manuscript O, Cod. Bodleianus Baroccianus 182, presents a series of philological problems: we propose the text of Malalas, according to Thurn 2000, and the edition proposed by Mitchell 2019.

(by Mitchell 2019, p. 181)

“Constantine constructed the lovely dwellings for Christ, resembling in every way the vaults of heaven, resplendently gleaming; Constantius acted according to the commands of the ruler; Gorgonius, the comes and cubicularius, accomplished the work.”

“Constantin construisit pour le Christ de splendides salles, qui brillent sous tous les aspects comme les voûtes célestes; tandis que Constantius travailla selon les ordres de son seigneur, Gorgonius, comte e cubiculaire, acheva les travaux.”

“Costantino costruì per Cristo splendidi ambienti, che risplendono simili in ogni aspetto alle volte celesti; mentre Constantius operava secondo gli ordini del suo signore, Gorgonius, comes e cubicularius, realizzava l’opera.”

This famous epigram has been preserved by Malalas (Mal., Chron., 13, 17, p. 250 Thurn). The historian transcribed these verses from an inscription that, according to him, was related to the conclusion of the Great Church of Antioch building works by Constantius II. These works had begun under his father Constantine (in 325 AD according to Malalas, in 327 AD according to Jerome and Theophanes: cf. Mal., Chron., 13, 03, p. 244 Thurn; Hier., Chron. a. 327, p. 231 Helm; Theoph., Chron., A.M. 5819, p. 28 De Boor; discussion in Woods 2002, pp. 202-203, with nt. 22; Brandt 2018; Mitchell 2019, p. 182) but the church was dedicated in 341 AD by Constantius II (Socr., HE 02, 08; cf. Athan., De Syn. 25; Soz., HE 03, 05; Theoph., Chron., A.M. 5833, p. 36 De Boor; Jerome records the dedication under 342 AD, Hier., Chron. a. 342, p. 235 Helm, but see Mitchell 2019, p. 182). So Malalas – or possibly his source – must have copied the inscription before 526 AD, when the Great Church was destroyed by an earthquake.

Therefore our small composition was originally chiselled on a monumental slab, perhaps joined to the wall or close to the gate of Antioch’s Great Church. The habit of recording epigraphic texts is typical of late antiquity historians and Byzantine chroniclers; in particular they transcribed compositions which they deemed to be of literary value. Malalas collected 25 epigrams, making an “epigraphic anthology” of inscriptions now lost, some of which were only mentioned through a summary of the contents without any text (see Downey 1935; Agusta-Boularot 2006). Even the transcription of the texts was not always autoptic, so they are frequently approximate and are often without precise information about the buildings or the subjects mentioned.

The text of Malalas’ epigram refers to three subjects: Constantius, who constructed the Great Church (v.1); another Constantius (v. 3) who supervised the building works, according to the instructions of the ruler (i.e., the first Constantius); and Gorgonius (v. 4), comes, who accomplished the work. Since the first edition of Malalas’ Chronographia by E. Chilmead (Oxford 1691), scholars have often emended the first Κωνστάντιος (l. 1) in Κωνσταντῖνος, because of the references in the sources to Constantine as the founder of the Great Church of Antiochia, which was only completed by his son Constantius II (cf. Müller 1839; Preger 1891; Merkelbach, Stauber in SGO 04, 20／03／03; Agusta-Boularot 2006, pp. 127-129, nr. 23).

However, a recent study by David Woods radically questioned previous editions (Woods 2005, pp. 54-62). According to him, the two “Constantians” of verse 1 and 3 should be identified respectively with Constantius II, Augustus, and Constantius Gallus, Caesar from 351 to 354 AD. Coins and inscriptions always refer to Gallus by calling him only Constantius and the comes Gorgonius (v. 4) is to be identified with the homonymous praepositus sacri cubiculi mentioned by Ammianus (Amm. 15, 02, 10), who had great influence during Gallus’ reign. Finally, the subordinate relationship between two “Constantians” seems more appropriate for the relationship between Constantius II and Gallus Caesar, rather than between Constantine and his legitimate son. Clearly this chronology would exclude that the inscription refers to the great Church of Antioch, which was dedicated by Constantius II in 341 AD. Woods, moreover, does not translate θαλαμηπόλον (v. 4) as the more common praepositus sacri cubiculi (i.e. Gorgonius’ office), but as a reference to a “shrine or chapel” donated by Gorgonius in a church (“the comes Gorgonius carried out the work of a servant of the shrine”: Woods 2005, p. 59). The author identifies this church with the martyrium of St. Babila in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, which was constructed during Gallus’ reign: “the obvious suggestion is that Gorgonius had this inscription erected within this martyrum” built by Constantius Gallus on Constantius II’s request (Woods 2005, p. 60).

Agosti (2005, pp. 23-29, nr. 7) prefers the traditional interpretation of θαλαμηπόλος as a praepositus sacri cubiculi, due to the lack of attestations in the Christian world confirming the meaning of θάλαμος as “chapel, shrine”. However, he argued that in the context of the epigram this word (θαλαμηπόλον in Malalas’ text), referred to Gorgonius’ office, would have been more correct in the nominative (θαλαμηπόλος).

Feissel (2016, pp. 1229-1230) rejects the solution of Woods and prefers to replace in the text the first Constantius with Constantine and to identify the second one with Constantius II. According to Feissel, the subordinate position of Constantius II can be understood if the inscription was prepared before the death of Constantine, that is before 337 AD. Also Sozomen, precisely in relation to the building of the Church of Antioch, writes that Constantius operated under the instructions of his father (Soz., HE 03, 05, 01). A dating of the inscription between 333 and 337 AD would match this solution.

Finally, Mitchell’s recent contribution and philological reconstruction (2019, pp. 180-184) has led him to add these verses to the catalogue of inscriptions concerning praetorian prefects. Mitchell deeply emends the text and restores the first verse with Κωνσταντῖνος (Constantine). The scholar excludes the possibility that Constantius at v. 3 could be Constantius II, a fully-fledged regent subordinated to another regent. He suggests this figure could be a high-ranking official, higher than the comes Gorgonius. This high official can be identified as the pretorian prefect of Constantine, Flavius Constantius (PLRE I, p. 225, for his career see PPRET 12). He is attested in office from December 324 to June 327 AD at the same time that the construction of the Great Church of Antioch began. During the work, Constantius must have had a significant role: Constantine, probably absent, entrusted supervision to his powerful prefect, as already occurred for other military structures in Aila (PPRET 14). This duty confirms the prefect’s involvement in all kinds of building programs, military or religious, and his position as “Constantine’s plenipotentiary in the East” after the defeat of Licinius (Mitchell 2019, pp. 183-184). Our epigram ought therefore to be dated in 325/327 AD, when work on the Great Church began and Flavius Constantius was in office as praetorian prefect. Flavius Constantius carried out this work with the assistance of the comes Gorgonius (PLRE I, Gorgonius 2, p. 398), whose office Mithchell restores as θαλαμηπόλος (v. 4), in the nominative case, praepositus sacri cubiculi, suggesting the identification of this official with the cubicularius mentioned by Ammianus (Amm. 15, 02, 10) and related to Constantius Gallus (PLRE I, Gorgonius 3, p. 398).

According to Mitchell, the new interpretation of the epigram, which makes no reference to Constantius II, implies that the Church was completed before the death of Constantine, while it is unclear why the dedication was postponed until 341 AD (Mitchell 2019, p. 184).

The structure of the epigram also lends itself to a slightly different interpretation: Flavius Constantius could be the praetorian prefect who started the building following the orders of Constantine in the years 325/327 AD; Gorgonius would be the praepositus, still active according to Ammianus Marcellinus in 353 AD (Amm. 15, 02, 10), who completed the work in 341 AD; the latter had the inscription drawn up.

Müller 1839, p. 104 Preger 1891, nr. 111 IGLS 03,1, 832 Thurn 2000, p. 250 SGO 04, 20／03／03 Woods 2005, p. 55 Agosti 2005, p. 23 Mitchell 2019, p. 181

PH 242914 TM 760901

Agosti G., Miscellanea epigrafica I. Note letterarie a carmi epigrafici tardoantichi, MEG, 5, 2005, 1-30 Agusta-Boularot S., Malalas épigraphiste? Nature et fonction des citations épigraphiques dans la Chronique, in Agusta-Boularot S., Beaucamp J., Bernardi A.-M., Caire E. (éd. par), Recherches sur la Chronique de Jean Malalas, II, Paris 2006, 97-135 Brandt H., Konstantin der Grosse und der Kirchenbau im syrischen Antiochia, ZPE, 206, 2018, 144-148 Chilmeadus E., Johannis Antiocheni cognomento Malalae Historia Chronica, Oxonii 1691 Downey R.G.E., References to Inscriptions in the Chronicle of Malalas, TAPhA 66, 1935, 55-72 Feissel D., L’épigraphie d’Orient, témoin des mutations de l’empire constantinien, in Brandt O., Fiocchi Nicolai V., Castiglia G. (a cura di), Acta XVI congressus internationalis archaeologiae christianae, Romae (22-28.9.2013): Costantino e i Costantinidi. L'innovazione costantiniana, le sue radici i suoi sviluppi, Pars II, Città del Vaticano 2016, 1221-1234 Mitchell S., Constantine, Flavius Constantius praef. praet., and the Great Church at Antioch, ZPE, 210, 2019, 180-184 Müller K.O., Antiquitates Antiochenae: commentationes duae, Göttingen 1839 Preger T., Inscriptiones Graecae metricae ex scriptoribus praeter Anthologiam collectae, Lipsia 1891 Thurn H., Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, Berlin 2000 Woods D., Eusebius on Some Constantinian Officials, Irish Theological Quarterly, 67, 2002, 195-223 Woods D., Malalas, “Constantius”, and a Church-Inscription from Antioch, VChr, 59, 2005, 54-62

The praetorian prefect was a supervisor of the construction of the Great Church of Antioch.