The mistaken identification of the Hebdomon began with the scholar Gyllius and was later strongly supported by the vast learning and authority of Du Cange. Because these two men were among the most respected students of Byzantine history and topography, their opinion carried great weight. As a result, their error quickly became widely accepted and repeated by later writers, often without careful re-examination of the evidence.
Early Criticism by Valesius
The mistake did not go unnoticed. Valesius, a careful and critical scholar, strongly denounced the theory in his annotations to Ammianus Marcellinus. He demonstrated that the identification proposed by Gyllius and Du Cange was entirely inconsistent with the most obvious geographical and historical facts. According to Valesius, the evidence against their position was so clear that the error should never have survived serious scrutiny Sofia Daily City Tours.
Yet, despite his strong objections, the authority of Gyllius and Du Cange proved more influential than the strength of Valesius’ arguments. Their reputation gave the mistaken theory a kind of artificial life, allowing it to persist long after it should have been abandoned. For this reason, the incorrect view continued to be accepted by many scholars until comparatively recent times.
Renewed Challenges in the Nineteenth Century
In the nineteenth century, the error was again challenged. Unger, in his important work Quellen der Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte, published in 1878, rejected the traditional view and defended the correct location of the Hebdomon. Although Unger did not discuss the issue at great length, his position was clear and based on sound reasoning.
Later, Schlumberger, in his detailed study of the Emperor Nicephorus Phocas, also recognized the truth of the matter. By carefully examining the historical and geographical evidence, he avoided the mistake of earlier scholars and placed the Hebdomon where the sources truly indicate it belonged.
Why the Error Must Be Examined
Under these circumstances, it may seem tempting to ignore the arguments of Gyllius and Du Cange and focus only on establishing the correct conclusion. After all, the truth of the matter can be demonstrated clearly without dwelling on earlier mistakes. However, such an approach would be unsatisfactory.
The great authority of Gyllius and Du Cange, as well as the immense services they rendered to the study of Constantinople, demand respectful consideration. Moreover, the extraordinary persistence of the error they supported makes it necessary to examine how such a mistaken position was argued and why it proved so influential for so long The Hebdomon An Important Suburb of Constantinople.
Gyllius and His Method
Gyllius was the first to develop the incorrect theory in a systematic way. He entered the discussion with confidence and relied heavily on textual interpretation rather than on careful measurement of distances and physical geography. This method led him to conclusions that seemed plausible on paper but could not withstand comparison with the actual layout of the city and its surroundings.
Du Cange, relying on Gyllius and adding his own formidable learning, reinforced the error rather than correcting it. Once their combined authority stood behind the theory, it became difficult for later scholars to challenge it, even when the evidence clearly pointed in another direction.
The history of this mistake serves as a valuable lesson in historical scholarship. Even the greatest authorities can be wrong, and their errors can endure for generations if not carefully examined. The case of the Hebdomon shows the importance of returning to original sources, respecting geographical facts, and being willing to question long-accepted opinions.
