[440] Esq. top. p. 76; Archaeological Supplement to vol. xviii. of the Proceedings of the Greek Syllogos of C.P. p. 9.
[441] Türkisches Tagebuch, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, Turcograecia p. 190.
[442] The question thus raised presents serious difficulties. That some building [*] in the neighbourhood of Kefelé Mesjedi was known by the name of Aetius[♰] is undoubted. It was a cistern (Du Cange, i. p. 96), and formed one of the landmarks by which the church of S. John in Petra, situated in this quarter of the city, was distinguished (Du Cange, iv. p. 152 ἔγγιστα τοῦ Ἀετίου). But while that is the case, Gyllius (De top. C.P. iv.), who explored this part of the city in 1550, does not mention any Byzantine church that answers at all to Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius, unless it be the Chora. That Gyllius should have overlooked so beautiful a monument of Byzantine days as the church of Aetius, if different from the Chora, is certainly very strange. But it is not less strange to find that Gerlach does not speak of the Chora. Can the difficulty thus presented be removed by the supposition that Gerlach refers to the Chora under the name of Aetius? The position he assigns to the church of Aetius in relation to the church of S. John in Petra and to the palace of Constantine (Tekfour Serai) favours that view, for he places the church of Aetius between S. John and the palace, exactly where the Chora would stand in that series of buildings. Looking towards the north-west from the windows of a house a little to the east of the Pammakaristos, Gerlach says 'Ad Occasum, Boream versus, Prodromi μονὴ est, olim πέτρα; longius inde, Aetii μονὴ; postea, Palatium Constantini' (Turcograecia, p. 190). On the other hand, Gerlach's description of the church of Aetius differs in so many particulars from what holds true of the Chora, that it is difficult, if not impossible, to believe that in that description he had the latter church in mind. Unless, then, we are prepared to admit grave mistakes in Gerlach's description, we must either assume an extraordinary failure on his part and on the part of Gyllius to notice a most interesting Byzantine monument, directly on the path of both explorers in this quarter of the city, or regret the disappearance of an ancient sanctuary that rivalled the Chora in splendour.
[*] It was probably the ruined cistern with twenty-four columns arranged in four rows of seven pillars each, near the mosque Kassim Aga, a short distance above Kefelé Mesjedi. Gerlach associates it with the church of Aetius.
[♰] Tagebuch, pp. 455-56; cf. Crusius, Turcograecia, p. 190. In the documents associated with the Synod of 536 in Constantinople the cistern of Aetius serves to identify the monastery of Mara (Mansi, viii. cols. 910, 930, 990). Cf. Banduri, iii. p. 49; v. p. 106.
[443] There is some uncertainty as to the identity of Manuel. Some authorities distinguish Manuel the general from Manuel the uncle of Theodora, on the ground that the former is said to have died of wounds received in battle during the reign of Theophilus (see Leo Gramm. p. 222). But it would be strange for different Manuels to reside near the cistern of Aspar, and to convert their residences into the monastery of Manuel in that vicinity. For other reasons for the identification see Bury, Eastern Roman Empire, Appendix viii. p. 476.
[444] Theodore Balsamon, vol. i. p. 1041; Canon VII. of the Synod of Constantinople held under Photius.
[445] Theoph. Cont. p. 433, μονὴ τοῦ Μανουήλου.
[446] Cedrenus, ii. p. 487.
[447] Scylitzes, in Cedrenus, ii, p. 738.