1. The Christian writers attributed the choice of the position to a divine guidance. According to Sozomen, Eccl.Hist. 2.3, Constantine had initially chosen Troy, due to its symbolic value for the Romans (hometown of Aeneas). The works of the new fortifications of Troy had already started, when God appeared in Constantine’s dream and asked him to chose another location, probably less closely connected to the empire’s pagan past
2. Philostorgius, Eccl.Hist. 2.9.
3. Dagron, G., Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 21984), p. 33; see also «Chronological table».
4. St. Mocius, a priest in macedonian Amphipolis, was arrested during the persecutions of Diocletian and was submitted to torture (fire, amphitheatre with wild beasts), but God always protected him and he remained unscathed. Finally he was sent to the city of Byzantium, where he was decapitated.
5. Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l'Empire byzantin I: Le siège de Constantinople et le Patrircat Œcumenique, tome iii: Les églises etles monastères (Paris 21969), pp. 354-5. Dagron, G., Naissance d'une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris 21984), p. 395. Supposedly Constantine built a church in his honour, where he transferred the relics of the saint, probably in an effort to restitute his memory and to stress the fact that the persecutions of the Christians were a thing of the past. See also Sozomen, Eccl. His. 8.17. For later sources related to the cult of St. Mocius as well as the erection of his church on a former pagan temple see Patria, Preger Th.(ed.), Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitarum, v. Ι (Leipzig 1901), p. 19.
6. Socr. Schol., Eccl. Hist. 1.16. The church of the Holy Apostles was situated on the site of the present-day Fatih Camii. Doubts have been formulated as to whether this was actually a church or simply a mausoleum. According to descriptions, the interesting point was that in the building were placed sarcophagi made of porphyry, which were representing the tombs of the Apostles, whereas one among them was destined for the burial of the emperor, who thus wanted to be considered as one of the apostles.
7. Dindorf, L. (ed.), Chronicon Paschale (Bonnae 1832), also in English translation by Whitby, M. and Μ., Chronicon Paschale 284-628 A.D. (Liverpool 1989).
8. Dindorf, L. (ed.), Ioannis Malalae Chronographia (Bonnae 1831). See also Jeffreys, E., Jeffreys M., Scott, R., The Chronicle of John Malalas (Sydney 1986).
9. Preger, Th. (ed.), Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, v. I-II (Leipzig 1901), particularly the “Parastaseis syntomai chronikai” and the “Patria Constantinopolitarum” by Hesychios. See also Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire : études sur le recueil des Patria (Paris 1984).
10. The earliest such effort was by Lathoud, D., ., “La consécration et le dédicace de Constantinople”, Echos d’ Orient 23 (1924( p. 289-314 and 24 (1925) p. 180-201. Next came the description by Janin, R., Constantinople Byzantine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique (Paris 19642 ) p. 18-19, 23-26 and finally the landmark book for the study of Late Antiquity by Dagron, G., Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 a 451 (Paris 1974).
11. This is the column Çemberlitaş which still stands today in the homonymous area on the central street Divan Yolu. The column suffered extensive damage by a fire and was supported with iron rings. The statue of Constantine is not extant, whereas the column itself has been under restoration for several years
12. For this statue as well as for the identification of Constantine with Sol Invictus see Preger, T., “Konstantinos-Helios”, Hermes 36 (1901), p. 457-469
13. Odahl, C.M., Constantine and the Christian Empire (London-New York 2004), p. 243-244 and fn. 21.
14. Although it has become the issue of an extensive scholarly debate, the article 16.10.1 of the Theodosian Code, which constitutes the only testimony on the anti-pagan legislation of Constantine himself, speaks clearly of a ban on sacrifice for private purposes, in an effort to reduce superstition. Sacrifices were allowed only in cases when public buildings were damaged by naturaldisasters and thus there was need for figuring out the gods’ will for the common welfare
15. It is indicative that this date was adopted by a contemporary important exhibition on Byzantine Art, which is now running in the Royal Academy of Arts in London(http://www. royalacademy.org.uk/exhibitions/byzantium/about/ ) as well as the guidebook of the exhibition, edited by Robin Cormack and Maria Vassilaki, Byzantium 330-1453, in which are featuring more than 100 prominent Byzantinists.
16. The date of 324 was first proposed by A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine empire, 324-1453 which was published for the first time in the ‘20s and has been ever since translated in several languages