Le palais impérial d’Antioche et son contexte à l’époque de Julien. Réflexions sur l’apport des sources littéraires à l’histoire d’un espace urbain

Julian’s Misopogon was posted in Antioch, according to Malalas’ Chronography, “outside of the palace, at the Tetrapyle of the Elephants, near the Regia”. A few years earlier, the sophist Libanios described the palace and its surroundings in his speech In praise of Antioch. The aim of this article is to bring to light the contribution of the literary sources to the knowledge of the palace district during the third quarter of the 4^th century. The first part is devoted to the study of the name “New (city)” which is, in the Late Antiquity, the name of the island where the palace is located. In the second part, the sources relating to the palace and its surroundings, and to the other buildings in the island are systematically analysed: the Tetrapyle of the Elephants, the Regia, the palace itself, the Romanesia Gate, the Campus, and the circus. The circus was excavated, and is still partially visible. However, the archaeological excavation could not date the building. The textual evidence shows that a hippodrome did exist on the island during the reign of Theodosius I, but gives no indication on the date of its construction. The specific contribution of the written sources is to allow the study of the meanings that are attached to the components of the urban space and the way they are embedded in the collective memory and used in the construction of a civic identity. These aspects are explored in the third part of the article. The proximity of the Campus to the palace shows the importance of the military function of the emperor, particulary when in residence in Antioch. The Tetrapyle might have been devoted to the posting of imperial pronoucements, and on the opposite side of the palace, the Romanesia Gate, through which the emperor goes to the Campus, might have been a favoured place for petitioners. The toponyms “Tetrapyle of the Elephants”, “Regia”, “Campus” and “Romanesia Gate” have a clear Roman and Imperial flavour. In such a context, the assessments of Libanios and Malalas concerning the hellenistic date of the urbanization of the island or the attribution of the ornam-entation of the Romanesia Gate to Seleucos must be taken as testimonies of the self-representation of the Antiochenes in Late Antiquity, not as sources about the pre-Roman history of the Island.