Another gate was the Porta Atalou (Πόρτα Ἀτάλου).[105] It was adorned with the statue of Constantine the Great and the statue of Atalus, after whom the gate was named. Both monuments fell in the earthquake of 740. The presence of the statue of the founder of the city upon the gate, the fact that the damage which the gate sustained in 740 is mentioned in close connection with the injuries done at the same time to the Column of Arcadius on the Xeropholos,[106] and the lack of any proof that the gate stood in the Theodosian Walls, are circumstances which favour the view that it was an entrance in the Wall of Constantine. From its association with the Xerolophos one would infer that the Gate of Atalus was situated on the Seventh Hill, in a position corresponding to one of the later Theodosian gates on that eminence. That the Palaia Porta—Isa Kapoussi, beside the Mosque Isa Kapou Mesdjidi—was a Constantinian gate is beyond dispute.[107] But a difficult, and at the same time important, question occurs in connection with it. Was it the Porta Aurea mentioned in the _Notitia_ as the gate from which the length of the city was measured? What renders this a difficult question is the fact that the Porta Aurea of the Theodosian Walls—the celebrated Golden Gate which appears so frequently in the history of the city, and which is now incorporated in the Turkish fortress of the Seven Towers (Yedi Koulè), under the name Yedi Koulè Kapoussi—was already in existence when the _Notitia_ was written.[108] That being the case, the presumption is in favour of the opinion that the Golden Gate at Yedi Koulè is the Porta Aurea to which the _Notitia_ refers; and this opinion has upon its side the great authority of Dr. Strzygowski.[109] On the other hand, the distance from the Porta Aurea to the sea, as given by the _Notitia_, does not correspond to the distance between Yedi Koulè and the head of the promontory, the latter distance being much greater. To suppose that this discrepancy is due to a mistake which has crept into the figures of the _Notitia_ is possible; but the supposition is open to more than one objection. In the first place, such a view obliges us to assume a similar mistake in the figures which that authority gives for the breadth of the city, seeing they do not accord with the breadth of the city along the line of the Theodosian Walls. But even if this objection is waived, and the possibility of a double error admitted in the abstract, the hypothesis of a mistake in the figures before us is attended by another difficulty, which cannot be dismissed so easily. How comes it that figures condemned as inaccurate because they do not accord with the size of Constantinople under Theodosius II., prove perfectly correct when applied to the dimensions of the city under its founder? How come these figures to agree completely with what we learn regarding the length and breadth of the city of Constantine from other data on that subject? This cannot be an