1312

Elena N. BoeckDePaul University

удк: 94(495.02):091(456.31)

JUSTINIAN’S COLUMN AND HISTORICAL MEMORY OF CONSTANTINOLE IN THE VATICAN MANASSES MANUSCRIPT

This article explores an important chapter in the visual memory and historical legacy of a key imperial monument of Constantinople, the bronze equestrian statue of the emperor Justinian. The sixth-century sculpture survived pillages of the Fourth Crusade to become a centerpiece of Constantinople’s identity.1 Celebrated in the tenth century as one of the wonders of Constantinople, it was re-imagined in western romances and Crusader narratives. The horseman’s Justinianic identity was restored during the Palaiologan period, when the monument became a centerpiece of impe-rial renovation efforts. Though it was destroyed by the Ottomans after the capture of Constantinople in 1453, its international renown outlived the physical monument. This study investigates how and why the bronze equestrian monument of Justin-ian was remembered in late-medieval Slavic images of Constantinople by focusing particularly on an illustrated history that was produced for Tsar Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria (Vat. Slav. 2) in the mid-fourteenth century.

The city of Constantinople had been a key intellectual, ideological, spiritual, and visual space of power for the Orthodox Slavs for centuries by the time that the Vatican Manasses manuscript was illustrated for Ivan Alexander ca. 1345. Although we are familiar with the many references to Constantinople in an array of sources in-cluding the Slavic pilgrimage narratives and the Russian Primary Chronicle, its visu-alizations have not been closely analyzed. This study investigates how the equestrian monument was re-imagined in the Vatican Manasses manuscript, which exhibits heightened interest in the equestrian monument as a symbol of Constantinople.2

Because Constantinople was the signifier of Byzantine imperial and spiritual su-premacy, it is not surprising that visual transcription and occasional transposition of Constantinopolitan “places of power” was deployed by some foreign rulers in the construction of their theater of legitimacy (Venice, Paris, Kiev, just to name a few).3

1 These themes are explored in a monograph which I am completing, The Forgotten Colossus: Memories of Justinian’s Bronze Horseman in Constantinople and Beyond. It is devoted to the biography of the equestrian monument, its changing identifications and its perceptions by various pre-modern audiences. 2 On the Vatican Manasses visual narrative, see E. Boeck, Imagining the Byzantine Past: The Perception of History in the Manuscripts of Skylitzes and Manasses (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming 2015). The manuscript was recently fully published in a color facsimile edition, Synopsis chroniki: Codex Vaticano Slavo 2, eds. A. Dzurova and V. Velinova (Athens: Militos Editions, 2007). 3 See E. N. Boeck, “Simulating the Hippodrome: Expertise, Appropriation and the Performance of Power in St. Sophia of Kiev,” The Art Bulletin 91/3 (2009): 283-301.

Among the extensive corpus of fresco painting produced in Serbia during the reign of Stefan Dushan, both Constantinople and Thessaloniki were represented: Constantinople

of the issues comprised in the papers that bring new light to the history of Macedonia, Balkans and Europe.

Taken as a whole, the Proceedings from the International Symposium “Days of Justinian I” reflect the importance and the necessity of continuous study and presentation of the Byzantine and Medieval cultural-historical heritage, as a permanent feature and richness of the cultural diversity of Europe. The realization of this book would not have been possible without the devoted efforts of the Organizing Committee and the commitment and professionalism of the members of the International Editorial Board, for which we express our sincere gratitude. The dedication in the end goes to Justinian I,who remains infinite inspiration and motivation not only for the past, but to the present and the future generations of researchers.

Mitko B. Panov

1514

However, in order to engage in a dialogue with the Constantinopolitan spaces of power, one had to first understand their significance. Arjun Appadurai has identi-fied “specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for … ‘appropriate’ consumption…4 The acquisition of “specialized knowledge” diminished the intellectual distance be-tween foreign rulers and their Byzantine rivals. The acquisition and display of distant knowledge about Constantinople was carefully used by Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria, who attempted to elevate himself above his rivals and contemporaries.5 The Vati-can Manasses manuscript is thus keenly attentive to the hallowed topography of the imperial capital.6 But how did it deploy “specialized knowledge” in its discursive re-presentation of Constantinople?

One compelling, but poorly preserved, image in the Vatican Manasses manu-script embraces two storied monuments of the imperial capital. It constructs a visual shorthand for the imperial topography of Constantinople. Although the hallowed center of Constantinople is represented in a single image, the ideological valances of this representation of the imperial capital reinforce the manuscript’s broader mes-sage about the transfer of empire (translatio imperii) to Bulgaria.

Hagia Sophia is celebrated in an image dedicated to the reign of its great imperial builder, the sixth-century emperor Justinian I (fol. 109v).

appears in the Church of the Archangels in Lesnovo, and Thessaloniki - in the frescoes of Decani. For the historical context see J. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 87, 91, 288, 292. For the discussion of the decora-tion of Decani, description of the St. Demetrios cycle, as well as for illustrations, see M. Pupin, Manastir Dechani (Belgrade: Srpska Kraljevska Adademija, 1941), part 2, 58-59, plates CCXCV, CCXCIX. See also A. Cutler, Transfigurations: Studies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975), 128.

Post-Byzantine representations of Constantinople carried political overtones, such as the images of a siege of Constantinople (either of the Akathistos hymn or of 1453) that, for instance, appear on the exteriors of several sixteenth-century monasteries in Romania. For introduction and bibliography see O. F. A. Meinardus, “Interpretations of the Wall-Paintings of the Siege of Constantinople in the Bucovina,” Oriens Christianus 56 (1972): 169-183. An unusual visualization of the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 in the sixteenth-century Russian Great Illuminated Chronicle Compilation should also be noted. See O. I. Podobedova, “Povest’ ‘Ovziatii Tsar’grada ot krestonostev’ v 1204 godu v interpretatsii russkogo miniati-urista vtoroi poloviny XVI v.,” in Actes du XVe Congrès international d’Études Byzantines II, Art et Archéologie. B (Athens: 1981), 639-48. 4 A. Appadurai, “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 38.5 For an extensive and thorough recent discussion of Bulgarian-Byzantine cultural relations from the ninth through the fifteenth centuries, see D. I. Polyviannyi, Kul’turnoe svoeobra-zie srednevekovoi Bolgarii v kontekste vizantiisko-slavianskoi obshchnosti IX-XV vekov (Ivanovo: Ivanovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2000).6 For an introduction to the discussion of Constantinople in Bulgarian historical sources, see V. Gjuzelev, “Konstantinopel in der Geschichte der Bulgaren während des Mittelalters (7. bis 12. Jahrhundert),” in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. L. M. Hoffmann (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 191-201.

[Figure 1] In the text, the pivotal importance of the Great Church is revealed a few pages prior, in the opening sentence of the lengthy text for his reign: on folio 105v, the reader learns that Justinian ‘created the greatest church of Holy Sophia, that is of the Divine Wisdom’.7 On the left side of the visual field the viewer beholds a seated emperor and two standing figures (a woman, presumably the empress Theo-dora, and a turbaned man).8 The rest of the composition is dedicated to the celebrated Constantinopolitan landmarks: on the right, we behold the nearly finished Hagia Sophia, as a bent-over worker carries a heavy load up the stairs to the church. The building is surmounted by a tall and prominent dome; the adjacent caption identifies it as ‘the Holy Wisdom’ (Sviataia Sofiia).9

Although this visualization only crudely approximates the celebrated structure, it clearly emphasizes its most central and renowned architectural element: the dome. The prominence of the painted church correlates with the textual praise for the build-ing at the beginning of Justinian’s reign, and its ebullient celebration at the end of his narrative as ‘the sun’ to the ‘stars’ of other churches.10

The central space of the composition, however, is reserved for another Constan-tinopolitan landmark - a tall column, which is surmounted by a charging imperial rider. In our image both the horse and the rider are represented as a highly dynamic pair: the horse is charging with a front and a back leg extended off the pedestal,

7 Vat. Slav. 2, fol. 105v; Srednebolgarskii perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavian-skikh literaturakh (Sofia: 1988), 162.8 The woman and the turbaned man make direct eye contact and the woman gestures towards him.9 The only other Bulgarian caption, ‘Tsar Ioustinian’ appears in the upper register of the left side of the visual field. The inscription is positioned by the head of the imperial rider and thus can be referring to the seated emperor, the statue or both.10 Srednebolgarskii perevod, 164.

1514

However, in order to engage in a dialogue with the Constantinopolitan spaces of power, one had to first understand their significance. Arjun Appadurai has identi-fied “specialized knowledge as a prerequisite for … ‘appropriate’ consumption…4 The acquisition of “specialized knowledge” diminished the intellectual distance be-tween foreign rulers and their Byzantine rivals. The acquisition and display of distant knowledge about Constantinople was carefully used by Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria, who attempted to elevate himself above his rivals and contemporaries.5 The Vati-can Manasses manuscript is thus keenly attentive to the hallowed topography of the imperial capital.6 But how did it deploy “specialized knowledge” in its discursive re-presentation of Constantinople?

One compelling, but poorly preserved, image in the Vatican Manasses manu-script embraces two storied monuments of the imperial capital. It constructs a visual shorthand for the imperial topography of Constantinople. Although the hallowed center of Constantinople is represented in a single image, the ideological valances of this representation of the imperial capital reinforce the manuscript’s broader mes-sage about the transfer of empire (translatio imperii) to Bulgaria.

Hagia Sophia is celebrated in an image dedicated to the reign of its great imperial builder, the sixth-century emperor Justinian I (fol. 109v).

appears in the Church of the Archangels in Lesnovo, and Thessaloniki - in the frescoes of Decani. For the historical context see J. Fine, The Late Medieval Balkans, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 87, 91, 288, 292. For the discussion of the decora-tion of Decani, description of the St. Demetrios cycle, as well as for illustrations, see M. Pupin, Manastir Dechani (Belgrade: Srpska Kraljevska Adademija, 1941), part 2, 58-59, plates CCXCV, CCXCIX. See also A. Cutler, Transfigurations: Studies in the Dynamics of Byzantine Iconography (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975), 128.

Post-Byzantine representations of Constantinople carried political overtones, such as the images of a siege of Constantinople (either of the Akathistos hymn or of 1453) that, for instance, appear on the exteriors of several sixteenth-century monasteries in Romania. For introduction and bibliography see O. F. A. Meinardus, “Interpretations of the Wall-Paintings of the Siege of Constantinople in the Bucovina,” Oriens Christianus 56 (1972): 169-183. An unusual visualization of the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 in the sixteenth-century Russian Great Illuminated Chronicle Compilation should also be noted. See O. I. Podobedova, “Povest’ ‘Ovziatii Tsar’grada ot krestonostev’ v 1204 godu v interpretatsii russkogo miniati-urista vtoroi poloviny XVI v.,” in Actes du XVe Congrès international d’Études Byzantines II, Art et Archéologie. B (Athens: 1981), 639-48. 4 A. Appadurai, “Introduction: commodities and the politics of value,” in The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, ed. A. Appadurai (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 38.5 For an extensive and thorough recent discussion of Bulgarian-Byzantine cultural relations from the ninth through the fifteenth centuries, see D. I. Polyviannyi, Kul’turnoe svoeobra-zie srednevekovoi Bolgarii v kontekste vizantiisko-slavianskoi obshchnosti IX-XV vekov (Ivanovo: Ivanovskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2000).6 For an introduction to the discussion of Constantinople in Bulgarian historical sources, see V. Gjuzelev, “Konstantinopel in der Geschichte der Bulgaren während des Mittelalters (7. bis 12. Jahrhundert),” in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, ed. L. M. Hoffmann (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2005), 191-201.

[Figure 1] In the text, the pivotal importance of the Great Church is revealed a few pages prior, in the opening sentence of the lengthy text for his reign: on folio 105v, the reader learns that Justinian ‘created the greatest church of Holy Sophia, that is of the Divine Wisdom’.7 On the left side of the visual field the viewer beholds a seated emperor and two standing figures (a woman, presumably the empress Theo-dora, and a turbaned man).8 The rest of the composition is dedicated to the celebrated Constantinopolitan landmarks: on the right, we behold the nearly finished Hagia Sophia, as a bent-over worker carries a heavy load up the stairs to the church. The building is surmounted by a tall and prominent dome; the adjacent caption identifies it as ‘the Holy Wisdom’ (Sviataia Sofiia).9

Although this visualization only crudely approximates the celebrated structure, it clearly emphasizes its most central and renowned architectural element: the dome. The prominence of the painted church correlates with the textual praise for the build-ing at the beginning of Justinian’s reign, and its ebullient celebration at the end of his narrative as ‘the sun’ to the ‘stars’ of other churches.10

The central space of the composition, however, is reserved for another Constan-tinopolitan landmark - a tall column, which is surmounted by a charging imperial rider. In our image both the horse and the rider are represented as a highly dynamic pair: the horse is charging with a front and a back leg extended off the pedestal,

7 Vat. Slav. 2, fol. 105v; Srednebolgarskii perevod khroniki Konstantina Manassii v slavian-skikh literaturakh (Sofia: 1988), 162.8 The woman and the turbaned man make direct eye contact and the woman gestures towards him.9 The only other Bulgarian caption, ‘Tsar Ioustinian’ appears in the upper register of the left side of the visual field. The inscription is positioned by the head of the imperial rider and thus can be referring to the seated emperor, the statue or both.10 Srednebolgarskii perevod, 164.

1716

while the emperor raises both arms in the air, his cape billowing from the speed of his steed. It is notable that the representation of the equestrian monument is com-pletely extra-textual. The column was not even mentioned in the Manasses text.

The close visual relationship between the Great Church and the imperial monu-ment in our image took on particular importance in connection with the contempo-rary discourse about the imperial topography of Constantinople.11 The equestrian monument most likely assumed its greatest prominence as a storied place following the Byzantine re-conquest of Constantinople in 1261, as indirectly confirmed by Byzantine textual testimonials.12 It is hard to argue that this monument would have become such a powerful site of past glory, memory, and nostalgia if not for the dra-matic despoliation of the city by the crusaders.13

This celebrated monument, a triumphal column with a monumental bronze impe-rial rider, stood adjacent to the Great Church - in a forum called the Augustaion.14 Medieval observers and modern scholars have attributed various identities to the imperial horseman, but the sum of evidence speaks in favor of Justinian I.15 The

11 See R. S. Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constantinople,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23 (1999): 67-101. 12 In the course of the Byzantine period three Byzantine authors wrote extensively about the equestrian monument: Procopius during Justinian’s life-time, Georgios Pachymeres in the late thirteenth century and Nikephoros Gregoras in the fourteenth century. See C. Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” in Studies on Constantinople, ed. C. Mango (Aldershot and Brookfield:Variorum, 1993), 3. See also Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church,” 71. For the translation of Procopius’s and Pachymeres’ descriptions of the monu-ment see C. Mango’s The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 110-13. At least part of the reason for Pachymeres’ interest in the statue is the damage it suffered from a wind-storm, and the reverent treatment the broken realia received: “This object [the statue] had lasted intact to my own times; once, however, there blew a wind of extraordinary violence so that two of the feathers fell down and these appeared to be very much larger than they are seen [from the ground] adorning [the statue’s] head. These [two feathers] are preserved to this very day in the treasury of the Church.” Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 113. The treasured status of the statue’s broken pieces and their preservation in the Hagia Sophia underscores the intimate connection between the Church and the horseman.13 R. S. Nelson, “Tales of Two Cities: The Patronage of Early Palaeologan Art and Architecture in Constantinople and Thessaloniki,” in Manuel Panselinos and His Age. Byzantium Today 3 (Athens: Ethniko Hidryma Ereunon, Institouto Vyzantinon Ereunon, 1999), 136-137.14 The equestrian monument has attracted considerable attention. For its discussion, histori-ography, and a brief consideration of the Manasses miniature, see A. Cutler, “The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates. A Reappraisal,” American Journal of Archaeology 72/2 (1968): 114-115. See also the excellent analysis of Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” 1-8 and C. Mango, “Justinian’s Equestrian Statue (Letter to the Editor),” in Mango, Studies on Constantinople, 1-16; J. Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider of the Augustaion,” Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Yilligi 2 (1987): 141-152. See also F. W. Unger, “Ueber die vier Kolossal-Säulen in Constantinopel,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 2 (1879), 131-37.15 See P. W. Lehmann, “Theodosius or Justinian? A Renaissance Drawing of a Byzantine Rider,” Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 39-57; Mango’s response “Justinian’s Equestrian Statue (Letter to the Editor),” and Lehmann’s answer to Mango’s criticism in The Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 357. See also J. Barker, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire (Madison: University

Manasses image unambiguously identifies the monument as ‘Tsar Justinian’, for the caption nearly touches the head of the regal rider. A remarkable survivor of the Cru-sader occupation of Constantinople, the imperial rider rose to particular prominence in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, in part on account of perceptions of his ominous behavior, in part because it featured in imperial renovation efforts.16 De-stroyed after the city’s fall in 1453, it has only been preserved in verbal and visual memories.17

By the age of Ivan Alexander this landmark had become a prominent symbol of the city’s celebrated imperial past. The fourteenth-fifteenth century narrative en-counters with the equestrian monument by foreign visitors of widely differing back-grounds and interests, including Russian pilgrims and European adventurers, reveal the hold that the equestrian emperor exercised upon their imagination of Constan-tinople.18 The attention that was lavished upon this monument by Slavic pilgrims is particularly instructive, for it appears to have frequently structured their itineraries and memories of the City.19

of Wisconsin Press, 1966), 290-293; G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire: Études sur le recueil des “Patria” (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984), 209, 261; Cutler, “The De Signis,” 114.16 For instance, the Byzantine historian Nikephoros Gregoras described in considerable de-tail the restoration of the monument under the emperor Andronikos II in 1317. He repeatedly emphasizes the monument’s marvelous nature, its singularity in the urban fabric of the city, and underscores the alarm of Andronikos II following the fall of the cross off the rider’s orb. The orb’s hasty restoration corroborates medieval testimony that the object had magical power, signifying world dominion. In his description of the monument Johann Schiltberger noted: “At one time the statue had a golden apple in the hand, and that meant that he had been a mighty emperor over Christians and Infidels; but now he has no longer that power, so the apple has disappeared.” J. Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, trans. J. B. Telfer (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 80. For corroboration of this attribution in the Ottoman tradition, see Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 141, note 1. For an introduction to Palaiologan restoration efforts in Constantinople, see Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constantinople,” 69-71.17 Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” 6. J. Raby is a little more hesi-tant. He suggests that Mehmed had the statue destroyed before the 1456 Belgrade campaign (“Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 145, 148) or that Mehmed might have tried to preserve at least the statue’s fragments and perhaps even repair it (“Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 149).18 J. Schiltberger, for instance, puzzled over its materials and technique: “I asked a burgher of the city [Constantinople] of what this statue was made; he told me it was of bronze, and that both the horse and the man was entirely of one casting. Some people of the country say that it is of leather, and yet it must have stood there quite a thousand years; had it been leather, it would not have stood so long, it would have rotted.” Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, 80.19 The texts are translated and discussed by G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984), 237-40.

1716

while the emperor raises both arms in the air, his cape billowing from the speed of his steed. It is notable that the representation of the equestrian monument is com-pletely extra-textual. The column was not even mentioned in the Manasses text.

The close visual relationship between the Great Church and the imperial monu-ment in our image took on particular importance in connection with the contempo-rary discourse about the imperial topography of Constantinople.11 The equestrian monument most likely assumed its greatest prominence as a storied place following the Byzantine re-conquest of Constantinople in 1261, as indirectly confirmed by Byzantine textual testimonials.12 It is hard to argue that this monument would have become such a powerful site of past glory, memory, and nostalgia if not for the dra-matic despoliation of the city by the crusaders.13

This celebrated monument, a triumphal column with a monumental bronze impe-rial rider, stood adjacent to the Great Church - in a forum called the Augustaion.14 Medieval observers and modern scholars have attributed various identities to the imperial horseman, but the sum of evidence speaks in favor of Justinian I.15 The

11 See R. S. Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constantinople,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23 (1999): 67-101. 12 In the course of the Byzantine period three Byzantine authors wrote extensively about the equestrian monument: Procopius during Justinian’s life-time, Georgios Pachymeres in the late thirteenth century and Nikephoros Gregoras in the fourteenth century. See C. Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” in Studies on Constantinople, ed. C. Mango (Aldershot and Brookfield:Variorum, 1993), 3. See also Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church,” 71. For the translation of Procopius’s and Pachymeres’ descriptions of the monu-ment see C. Mango’s The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453: Sources and Documents (Toronto, Buffalo, London: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 110-13. At least part of the reason for Pachymeres’ interest in the statue is the damage it suffered from a wind-storm, and the reverent treatment the broken realia received: “This object [the statue] had lasted intact to my own times; once, however, there blew a wind of extraordinary violence so that two of the feathers fell down and these appeared to be very much larger than they are seen [from the ground] adorning [the statue’s] head. These [two feathers] are preserved to this very day in the treasury of the Church.” Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 113. The treasured status of the statue’s broken pieces and their preservation in the Hagia Sophia underscores the intimate connection between the Church and the horseman.13 R. S. Nelson, “Tales of Two Cities: The Patronage of Early Palaeologan Art and Architecture in Constantinople and Thessaloniki,” in Manuel Panselinos and His Age. Byzantium Today 3 (Athens: Ethniko Hidryma Ereunon, Institouto Vyzantinon Ereunon, 1999), 136-137.14 The equestrian monument has attracted considerable attention. For its discussion, histori-ography, and a brief consideration of the Manasses miniature, see A. Cutler, “The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates. A Reappraisal,” American Journal of Archaeology 72/2 (1968): 114-115. See also the excellent analysis of Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” 1-8 and C. Mango, “Justinian’s Equestrian Statue (Letter to the Editor),” in Mango, Studies on Constantinople, 1-16; J. Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider of the Augustaion,” Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Yilligi 2 (1987): 141-152. See also F. W. Unger, “Ueber die vier Kolossal-Säulen in Constantinopel,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 2 (1879), 131-37.15 See P. W. Lehmann, “Theodosius or Justinian? A Renaissance Drawing of a Byzantine Rider,” Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 39-57; Mango’s response “Justinian’s Equestrian Statue (Letter to the Editor),” and Lehmann’s answer to Mango’s criticism in The Art Bulletin 41 (1959): 357. See also J. Barker, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire (Madison: University

Manasses image unambiguously identifies the monument as ‘Tsar Justinian’, for the caption nearly touches the head of the regal rider. A remarkable survivor of the Cru-sader occupation of Constantinople, the imperial rider rose to particular prominence in the first quarter of the fourteenth century, in part on account of perceptions of his ominous behavior, in part because it featured in imperial renovation efforts.16 De-stroyed after the city’s fall in 1453, it has only been preserved in verbal and visual memories.17

By the age of Ivan Alexander this landmark had become a prominent symbol of the city’s celebrated imperial past. The fourteenth-fifteenth century narrative en-counters with the equestrian monument by foreign visitors of widely differing back-grounds and interests, including Russian pilgrims and European adventurers, reveal the hold that the equestrian emperor exercised upon their imagination of Constan-tinople.18 The attention that was lavished upon this monument by Slavic pilgrims is particularly instructive, for it appears to have frequently structured their itineraries and memories of the City.19

of Wisconsin Press, 1966), 290-293; G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire: Études sur le recueil des “Patria” (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1984), 209, 261; Cutler, “The De Signis,” 114.16 For instance, the Byzantine historian Nikephoros Gregoras described in considerable de-tail the restoration of the monument under the emperor Andronikos II in 1317. He repeatedly emphasizes the monument’s marvelous nature, its singularity in the urban fabric of the city, and underscores the alarm of Andronikos II following the fall of the cross off the rider’s orb. The orb’s hasty restoration corroborates medieval testimony that the object had magical power, signifying world dominion. In his description of the monument Johann Schiltberger noted: “At one time the statue had a golden apple in the hand, and that meant that he had been a mighty emperor over Christians and Infidels; but now he has no longer that power, so the apple has disappeared.” J. Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, trans. J. B. Telfer (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), 80. For corroboration of this attribution in the Ottoman tradition, see Raby, “Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 141, note 1. For an introduction to Palaiologan restoration efforts in Constantinople, see Nelson, “The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constantinople,” 69-71.17 Mango, “The Columns of Justinian and His Successors,” 6. J. Raby is a little more hesi-tant. He suggests that Mehmed had the statue destroyed before the 1456 Belgrade campaign (“Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 145, 148) or that Mehmed might have tried to preserve at least the statue’s fragments and perhaps even repair it (“Mehmed the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider,” 149).18 J. Schiltberger, for instance, puzzled over its materials and technique: “I asked a burgher of the city [Constantinople] of what this statue was made; he told me it was of bronze, and that both the horse and the man was entirely of one casting. Some people of the country say that it is of leather, and yet it must have stood there quite a thousand years; had it been leather, it would not have stood so long, it would have rotted.” Schiltberger, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, 80.19 The texts are translated and discussed by G. P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984), 237-40.

1918

For instance, the mid-fourteenth century visitor Stephen of Novgorod, opened his narrative of Constantinople with a description of this monument.20 Due to its chronological overlap with the age of Ivan Alexander, this account deserves to be quoted in full:

During the Holy week we came to Tsargrad and went to the Holy [Sviataia] Sofia. And this is what we saw: there stands a re-markably marvelous column, its thickness and height and beauty make it possible to see it from afar from the sea, at the top of the column sits Justinian the Great on a horse, remarkably marvelous, as if alive, dressed in the Saracen armor, it is terrifying [grozno] to see him; and in his hand he holds a large golden apple, and atop the apple there is a cross, and the right hand he stretches to the south, in the direction of the Saracen land, towards Jerusalem. There are many other columns standing in the city made of stone [called] marble, and there are a lot of writings on them.21

The nexus of power between the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian statue became so strong that the two monuments were paired in other Russian works as well.

A Russian icon-type features the Great Church and the imperial rider as an impor-tant pair of landmarks that together symbolize Constantinople. It has been convinc-ingly argued that the first representations of the equestrian statue in Russia appeared in the form of book illustration. A famous Byzantine artist, Theophanes “the Greek” (active ca. 1378-1405) was asked to paint this statue by a Russian church hierarch and painter, Epifanii the Wise. The latter quoted his request of Theophanes in a let-ter to an acquaintance: “Paint for me the so-called Justinian sitting on a horse and holding in his right hand a copper apple (people say, that its size is so great, that it is possible to pour two and a half buckets of water into it); and paint all of these fore-mentioned things on a book leaf.”22 Epifanii noted that this image became known and widely copied by Russian icon-painters: “There was great use from this leaf and for other Moscow icon-painters, since many copied it for themselves, competing with each other and borrowing from each other.”23 For Epifanii the representation of the Hagia Sophia in conjunction with the equestrian statue came to stand for the city of Constantinople, it became his memory landmark which signified the physical city. Epifanii intended to use this image thusly: “…so that I could put it in the begin-ning of the book, and remembering your work and looking at this church, I could

20 A. Cutler has previously noted this. Cutler, “The De Signis,” 114, note 17. 21 This passage has been previously translated in Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 237.22 The letter, Poslanie Epifaniia Premudrogo Kirilly Tverskomu (ca. 1415) was republished in V. N. Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 7 (1953): 245-46. It is also extensively quoted in Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,” 117. My translation of this and the following quote (which strives to be as direct as possible) differs somewhat from C. Mango’s more poetic translation in The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 257, 258.23 Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246; O. A. Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo im-peratora Iustiniana v drevenrusskikh pis’mennykh istochnikakh i ikonografii,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 17 (1960): 117.

imagine that I am in Tsargrad.”24 The shorthand for Constantinople that coalesced in the correlation between the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian statue is similar to the conceptualization of the city in the Manasses miniature.

[Figure 2] Though the image that was created by Theophanes “the Greek” no longer exists, the pairing of the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian monument as visu-alization of Constantinople is preserved in a number of Russian icons of the Eleva-tion of the Cross and the Intercession of the Mother of God from the late fifteenth through seventeenth centuries.25

The Manasses illustration of the equestrian monument participated in these dia-logues by creating a legible signifier of the imperial city for a mid-fourteenth century viewer. The miniature transcribed the particularly pertinent features of the imperial site of power, and translated the cultural and architectural concept of Constantinople to the Slavic consumer. For Ivan Alexander precise visualization of Constantinople also took on an ideological dimension. The extra-textual addition of a prominent

24 The text is reproduced in Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246; Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,”118. Epifanii offered this image the highest honor, for he integrated the iconography of the Hagia Sophia and the bronze horseman into preface minia-tures to the four gospels: “… as a painter, I decided to represent this in four aspects, and we placed this temple in our book in four places: 1. at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, where [there is] Justinian’s column and the representation of the Evangelist Matthew; 2. at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark; 3. before the beginning of the Evangelist Luke and 4. before the beginning of John’s good news…” The text is reproduced in Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246. Juxtaposition of the Evangelists with Justinian’s landmarks here suggests that for Epifanii Constantinople constituted both a sacred city and an eternal city.25 O. A. Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,” 114-123. For good color illustrations see I. A. Shalina, Relikvii v vostochnokhristianskoi ikonografii, (Moscow: Indrik, 2005), figs. 92, 93; M. S. Flier, “Envisioning the Ruler in Medieval Rus’: The Iconography of Intercession and Architecture,” in Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrwoski, ed. B. J. Boeck, R. E. Martin, and D. Rowland (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2012), fig. 1.

1918

For instance, the mid-fourteenth century visitor Stephen of Novgorod, opened his narrative of Constantinople with a description of this monument.20 Due to its chronological overlap with the age of Ivan Alexander, this account deserves to be quoted in full:

During the Holy week we came to Tsargrad and went to the Holy [Sviataia] Sofia. And this is what we saw: there stands a re-markably marvelous column, its thickness and height and beauty make it possible to see it from afar from the sea, at the top of the column sits Justinian the Great on a horse, remarkably marvelous, as if alive, dressed in the Saracen armor, it is terrifying [grozno] to see him; and in his hand he holds a large golden apple, and atop the apple there is a cross, and the right hand he stretches to the south, in the direction of the Saracen land, towards Jerusalem. There are many other columns standing in the city made of stone [called] marble, and there are a lot of writings on them.21

The nexus of power between the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian statue became so strong that the two monuments were paired in other Russian works as well.

A Russian icon-type features the Great Church and the imperial rider as an impor-tant pair of landmarks that together symbolize Constantinople. It has been convinc-ingly argued that the first representations of the equestrian statue in Russia appeared in the form of book illustration. A famous Byzantine artist, Theophanes “the Greek” (active ca. 1378-1405) was asked to paint this statue by a Russian church hierarch and painter, Epifanii the Wise. The latter quoted his request of Theophanes in a let-ter to an acquaintance: “Paint for me the so-called Justinian sitting on a horse and holding in his right hand a copper apple (people say, that its size is so great, that it is possible to pour two and a half buckets of water into it); and paint all of these fore-mentioned things on a book leaf.”22 Epifanii noted that this image became known and widely copied by Russian icon-painters: “There was great use from this leaf and for other Moscow icon-painters, since many copied it for themselves, competing with each other and borrowing from each other.”23 For Epifanii the representation of the Hagia Sophia in conjunction with the equestrian statue came to stand for the city of Constantinople, it became his memory landmark which signified the physical city. Epifanii intended to use this image thusly: “…so that I could put it in the begin-ning of the book, and remembering your work and looking at this church, I could

20 A. Cutler has previously noted this. Cutler, “The De Signis,” 114, note 17. 21 This passage has been previously translated in Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople, 237.22 The letter, Poslanie Epifaniia Premudrogo Kirilly Tverskomu (ca. 1415) was republished in V. N. Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 7 (1953): 245-46. It is also extensively quoted in Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,” 117. My translation of this and the following quote (which strives to be as direct as possible) differs somewhat from C. Mango’s more poetic translation in The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 257, 258.23 Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246; O. A. Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo im-peratora Iustiniana v drevenrusskikh pis’mennykh istochnikakh i ikonografii,” Vizantiiskii Vremennik 17 (1960): 117.

imagine that I am in Tsargrad.”24 The shorthand for Constantinople that coalesced in the correlation between the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian statue is similar to the conceptualization of the city in the Manasses miniature.

[Figure 2] Though the image that was created by Theophanes “the Greek” no longer exists, the pairing of the Hagia Sophia and the equestrian monument as visu-alization of Constantinople is preserved in a number of Russian icons of the Eleva-tion of the Cross and the Intercession of the Mother of God from the late fifteenth through seventeenth centuries.25

The Manasses illustration of the equestrian monument participated in these dia-logues by creating a legible signifier of the imperial city for a mid-fourteenth century viewer. The miniature transcribed the particularly pertinent features of the imperial site of power, and translated the cultural and architectural concept of Constantinople to the Slavic consumer. For Ivan Alexander precise visualization of Constantinople also took on an ideological dimension. The extra-textual addition of a prominent

24 The text is reproduced in Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246; Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,”118. Epifanii offered this image the highest honor, for he integrated the iconography of the Hagia Sophia and the bronze horseman into preface minia-tures to the four gospels: “… as a painter, I decided to represent this in four aspects, and we placed this temple in our book in four places: 1. at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, where [there is] Justinian’s column and the representation of the Evangelist Matthew; 2. at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark; 3. before the beginning of the Evangelist Luke and 4. before the beginning of John’s good news…” The text is reproduced in Lazarev, “Etiudy o Feofane Greke,” 246. Juxtaposition of the Evangelists with Justinian’s landmarks here suggests that for Epifanii Constantinople constituted both a sacred city and an eternal city.25 O. A. Belobrova, “Statuiia vizantiiskogo imperatora Iustiniana,” 114-123. For good color illustrations see I. A. Shalina, Relikvii v vostochnokhristianskoi ikonografii, (Moscow: Indrik, 2005), figs. 92, 93; M. S. Flier, “Envisioning the Ruler in Medieval Rus’: The Iconography of Intercession and Architecture,” in Dubitando: Studies in History and Culture in Honor of Donald Ostrwoski, ed. B. J. Boeck, R. E. Martin, and D. Rowland (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2012), fig. 1.

2120

representation of Justinian’s column to the symbolically charged imperial space fits well into the broader context of Ivan Alexander’s ambitions. While Justinian had actively reshaped the architectural landscape of Constantinople/New Rome, Ivan Al-exander deployed his knowledge of Constantinople to elevate his capital, Turnovo.

On folio 91 of our manuscript, the translator and scribe made a powerful inser-tion that rhetorically transferred Constantinople’s status as the imperial capital to Ivan Alexander’s Turnovo,26 thereby articulating the tsar’s initiation of a new trans-latio imperii to Bulgaria.27

[Figure 3] An interpolation elevating Turnovo as the new Rome was inserted

into the translated Manasses text within the reign of Theodosios II. At this point in the original Greek verbal narrative, Constantine Manasses had passionately be-moaned the terrible fate that befell the old Rome, which had lost its imperial status and submitted to the barbaric yoke.28 In the Greek text a brief encomium in honor of the twelfth-century emperor Manuel I Komnenos followed with a celebration of his new Rome (Constantinople).29 The Byzantine emperor Manuel was completely ignored in the Bulgarian translation.

26 All Bulgarian translations feature this digression.27 M. Kaimakamova separately arrived at a conclusion about translatio imperii. However her argument, as well as the evidence, is quite different: she sees it as a response to Byzantine eccle-siastical challenges to the independence of the Bulgarian church. Further see Kaimakamova, “Turnovo – New Constantinople: The Third Rome in the Fourteenth-Century Bulgarian Translation of Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike,” in The Medieval Chronicle IV, ed. E. Kooper (Amsterdam – New York: 2006), 91-104; M. Kaimakamova, Vlast’ i istoriia v srednovekovna Bulgariia VII – XIV vek [Power and history in medieval Bulgaria VII – XIV centuries] (Sofia: Paradigma, 2011), 238-299.

28 Srednebolgarskii perevod, 151-52.29 This digression is usually interpreted as an attempt by Constantine Manasses to curry the emperor’s favor, since his patron, the sebastokratorissa Irene, had been exiled shortly after the chronicle’s composition. For further discussion of the politics of the encomium by Manasses see A. Dzurova, “The Illustrated Middle Bulgarian Translation of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses from 1344-1345 (Vat. Slavo 2),” in Synopsis chroniki: Codex Vaticano Slavo 2, eds. A. Dzurova and V. Velinova (Athens: Militos Editions, 2007), 263-64.

Instead, following the fall of the old Rome, the translator ebulliently celebrated the good fortune of Turnovo as the new Tsargrad (literally ‘the imperial city’) in his version of the imperial encomium. The text (fol. 91r) deserves to be quoted in full:

And this happened to the old Rome, but our new Tsargrad blos-soms30 and grows, strengthens and rejuvenates. May it grow until the end [of days], and oh tsar, who rules over all, having inherited this [meaning Rome], shining and luminous tsar, great lord and accomplished victor, Ivan Alexander, the most refined, descen-dant of the Bulgarian tsar Asen, a tsar [Ivan Alexander] who is the meekest and most merciful and monk-loving, a provider for the poor and the great tsar of the Bulgarians, may his dominion measure countless years [literally suns].31

This ambitious declaration unequivocally elevated Turnovo as the new Rome, and therefore the new imperial capital. The encomium consciously articulated that Ivan Alexander had taken over the eternal empire and was now its sole custodian. The text also indicated that the Bulgarian tsar was worthy of this singular honor because of his perfect virtues and glorious origins as the scion of the founder of a renewed Bulgarian kingdom.

This inserted verbal encomium on fol. 91r was then visually validated on the verso of the page. Here the viewer beholds a rip in the fabric of the manuscript’s presentation of time. The previous image had featured Honorious and Arcadius (fol. 90), emperors of the late fourth-early fifth centuries, but on fol. 91v the divine coro-nation of Ivan Alexander is carried out in the presence of the prophet David. David stands to the left of the tsar who is being crowned by an angel hovering above his right shoulder. The caption tells us that Ivan Alexander is the Tsar, i.e. the emperor.

The visual device of positioning a patron next to a saint, or a donor next to Christ or the Virgin, in order to connect the patron to the ever-present Biblical nar-rative, appears in Christian art from its early days.32 Ivan Alexander, as it seems, craved the repeated sweetness of such anachronism and anatopism (i.e. ‘spatial inconsistency’).33 As Giles Constable observed “anachronism and anatopism kept

30 The Bulgarian word is doit, P. A. Syrku suggests that it should be read as tsvetet; when translated it most closely approximates ‘blossoms.’ P. A. Syrku, Vremia i zhizhn’ patriarkha Evfimiia Ternovskago (Saint Petersburg: 1898), 143, note 2.31 A section of this text is briefly quoted in I. Andreev, “Knizhovnata traditsiia i ideiata za treti-ia Rim,” in Velichieto na Turnovgrad: sbornik, ed. A. Popov (Sofiia: Izd-vo na Otechestvenia Front, 1985), 279-282. This passage has been also translated into English by Kaimakamova, “Turnovo – New Constantinople,” 91-104.32 See the excellent discussion by N. Patterson Sevcenko, “Close Encounters: Contact be-tween Holy Figures and the Faithful as represented in Byzantine Works of Art,” in Byzance et les images, eds. A. Guillou and J. Durand (Paris: La documentation Française, 1994), 255-85. For a recent discussion of this image see E. Bakalova, “Za edna miniatiura ot khronikata na Konstantin Manasii,” in Bulgarsko srednovekovie: obshchestvo, vlast, istoriia: sbornik v chest na prof. d-r Miliiana Kaimakamova, (Sofia: 2012), 590-607.33 Definition and discussion of these terms is provided by G. Constable. His discussion is based on the work of L. Réau. See G. Constable, “A Living Past: The Historical Environment of the Middle Ages,” Harvard Library Bulletin 1/3 (1990): 62.

2120

representation of Justinian’s column to the symbolically charged imperial space fits well into the broader context of Ivan Alexander’s ambitions. While Justinian had actively reshaped the architectural landscape of Constantinople/New Rome, Ivan Al-exander deployed his knowledge of Constantinople to elevate his capital, Turnovo.

On folio 91 of our manuscript, the translator and scribe made a powerful inser-tion that rhetorically transferred Constantinople’s status as the imperial capital to Ivan Alexander’s Turnovo,26 thereby articulating the tsar’s initiation of a new trans-latio imperii to Bulgaria.27

[Figure 3] An interpolation elevating Turnovo as the new Rome was inserted

into the translated Manasses text within the reign of Theodosios II. At this point in the original Greek verbal narrative, Constantine Manasses had passionately be-moaned the terrible fate that befell the old Rome, which had lost its imperial status and submitted to the barbaric yoke.28 In the Greek text a brief encomium in honor of the twelfth-century emperor Manuel I Komnenos followed with a celebration of his new Rome (Constantinople).29 The Byzantine emperor Manuel was completely ignored in the Bulgarian translation.

26 All Bulgarian translations feature this digression.27 M. Kaimakamova separately arrived at a conclusion about translatio imperii. However her argument, as well as the evidence, is quite different: she sees it as a response to Byzantine eccle-siastical challenges to the independence of the Bulgarian church. Further see Kaimakamova, “Turnovo – New Constantinople: The Third Rome in the Fourteenth-Century Bulgarian Translation of Constantine Manasses’ Synopsis Chronike,” in The Medieval Chronicle IV, ed. E. Kooper (Amsterdam – New York: 2006), 91-104; M. Kaimakamova, Vlast’ i istoriia v srednovekovna Bulgariia VII – XIV vek [Power and history in medieval Bulgaria VII – XIV centuries] (Sofia: Paradigma, 2011), 238-299.

28 Srednebolgarskii perevod, 151-52.29 This digression is usually interpreted as an attempt by Constantine Manasses to curry the emperor’s favor, since his patron, the sebastokratorissa Irene, had been exiled shortly after the chronicle’s composition. For further discussion of the politics of the encomium by Manasses see A. Dzurova, “The Illustrated Middle Bulgarian Translation of the Chronicle of Constantine Manasses from 1344-1345 (Vat. Slavo 2),” in Synopsis chroniki: Codex Vaticano Slavo 2, eds. A. Dzurova and V. Velinova (Athens: Militos Editions, 2007), 263-64.

Instead, following the fall of the old Rome, the translator ebulliently celebrated the good fortune of Turnovo as the new Tsargrad (literally ‘the imperial city’) in his version of the imperial encomium. The text (fol. 91r) deserves to be quoted in full:

And this happened to the old Rome, but our new Tsargrad blos-soms30 and grows, strengthens and rejuvenates. May it grow until the end [of days], and oh tsar, who rules over all, having inherited this [meaning Rome], shining and luminous tsar, great lord and accomplished victor, Ivan Alexander, the most refined, descen-dant of the Bulgarian tsar Asen, a tsar [Ivan Alexander] who is the meekest and most merciful and monk-loving, a provider for the poor and the great tsar of the Bulgarians, may his dominion measure countless years [literally suns].31

This ambitious declaration unequivocally elevated Turnovo as the new Rome, and therefore the new imperial capital. The encomium consciously articulated that Ivan Alexander had taken over the eternal empire and was now its sole custodian. The text also indicated that the Bulgarian tsar was worthy of this singular honor because of his perfect virtues and glorious origins as the scion of the founder of a renewed Bulgarian kingdom.

This inserted verbal encomium on fol. 91r was then visually validated on the verso of the page. Here the viewer beholds a rip in the fabric of the manuscript’s presentation of time. The previous image had featured Honorious and Arcadius (fol. 90), emperors of the late fourth-early fifth centuries, but on fol. 91v the divine coro-nation of Ivan Alexander is carried out in the presence of the prophet David. David stands to the left of the tsar who is being crowned by an angel hovering above his right shoulder. The caption tells us that Ivan Alexander is the Tsar, i.e. the emperor.

The visual device of positioning a patron next to a saint, or a donor next to Christ or the Virgin, in order to connect the patron to the ever-present Biblical nar-rative, appears in Christian art from its early days.32 Ivan Alexander, as it seems, craved the repeated sweetness of such anachronism and anatopism (i.e. ‘spatial inconsistency’).33 As Giles Constable observed “anachronism and anatopism kept

30 The Bulgarian word is doit, P. A. Syrku suggests that it should be read as tsvetet; when translated it most closely approximates ‘blossoms.’ P. A. Syrku, Vremia i zhizhn’ patriarkha Evfimiia Ternovskago (Saint Petersburg: 1898), 143, note 2.31 A section of this text is briefly quoted in I. Andreev, “Knizhovnata traditsiia i ideiata za treti-ia Rim,” in Velichieto na Turnovgrad: sbornik, ed. A. Popov (Sofiia: Izd-vo na Otechestvenia Front, 1985), 279-282. This passage has been also translated into English by Kaimakamova, “Turnovo – New Constantinople,” 91-104.32 See the excellent discussion by N. Patterson Sevcenko, “Close Encounters: Contact be-tween Holy Figures and the Faithful as represented in Byzantine Works of Art,” in Byzance et les images, eds. A. Guillou and J. Durand (Paris: La documentation Française, 1994), 255-85. For a recent discussion of this image see E. Bakalova, “Za edna miniatiura ot khronikata na Konstantin Manasii,” in Bulgarsko srednovekovie: obshchestvo, vlast, istoriia: sbornik v chest na prof. d-r Miliiana Kaimakamova, (Sofia: 2012), 590-607.33 Definition and discussion of these terms is provided by G. Constable. His discussion is based on the work of L. Réau. See G. Constable, “A Living Past: The Historical Environment of the Middle Ages,” Harvard Library Bulletin 1/3 (1990): 62.

2322

events alive and inserted them into the contemporary current of life,”34 they also allowed Ivan Alexander to reinforce his unique relationship with the divine world, which was emphasized so prominently in his patronage.35

This iconographic formulation of divinely-dispensed coronation ties together the two Manasses illustrations discussed in this study. It also interconnects with the ideological thrust established by the miniatures at the beginning and end of the man-uscript, which frame the visual narrative with representations of abundant bestowal of divine grace upon the tsar and his progeny (fols. 1v and 205r). The image of Con-stantinople also contributes to the manuscript’s overarching structure: the succession of empires that began with the Egyptian empire (identified as the first empire) and culminating with the “final” empire of Ivan Alexander. Constantinople contained venerable architectural spaces and potent symbols of the eternal empire, which the tsar craved to appropriate as tangible signs of his own new Rome.

Conclusion

In the Vatican Manasses manuscript Constantinople was transformed through acts of reception, re-presentation, and discursive adaptation.36 The Vatican Manasses image of the City reinforced Ivan Alexander’s ideological relationship with the Byz-antine empire. The Constantinople that was manufactured in the Vatican Manasses manuscript aligns closely with conceptualization of the Byzantine empire and con-struction of Byzantine history created in the manuscript’s overarching visual narra-tive. For Ivan Alexander Byzantine history was literally remade. There is nothing subtle about his claims upon the Byzantine empire; in fact, the entire manuscript forms a long argument for the tsar’s succession to the imperium. Understanding and appropriating Byzantine history were integral to a comprehensive program of elevating Ivan Alexander and his realm onto the stage of world politics, and Con-stantinople was a key element in the attempted, but ultimately unsuccessful, transfer of the empire to Turnovo.

34 Constable, “A Living Past,” 63.35 E. Bakalova, “Society and Art in Bulgaria in the 14th Century,” Byzantino-bulgarica VIII (1986): 17-72.36 A good discussion of transformations through reception is found in Bettina Bergmann, “Greek Masterpieces and Roman Recreative Fictions,” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 97 (1995): 82.

Miguel Pablo Sancho GómezUniversidad Católica San Antonio (Murcia, España)

удк:94:355.422(495.02)"563-551"

THE BYZANTINE BALKAN PATH IN THE GOTHIC CAMPAIGNS OF 536 AND 551

Introduction

There are plenty of works about Justinian in recent historiography, and even older ones have retained their significance.1 Some of them focus closely on the wars; other ones, surprisingly, avoid dealing with such an important subject as the foreign wars, or pay little attention to it.2 Other authors made valuable works about the written sources of Justinian reign,3 but monographic works about the Sixth Century Byzantine Army are scarcer, probably because the great breadth of the subject and the varied approaches to it, not to mention the strikingly different borders of the Empire, each with own enemies, organization and policy. Concern-ing the army in Justinian times, starting with the classic work of T. Teall4 we can follow the trend by W. E. Kaegi5 useful studies, before reaching Ch. Dagron and G. Ravegnani.6 Meritorious specialists about Byzantine Army can throw addi-tional light with their overall works,7 and we need to mention here the carefully documented Osprey Warrior Series by S. MacDowall.8 Of course other general

1 A. A. Vasiliev, Justin the First. An Introduction to the Epoch of Justinian the Great. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950); J. W. Barker, Justinian and the Later Roman Empire, (Madison & London: 1966); A. Cameron, Continuity and Change in Sixth Century Byzantium, (London: 1981); M. Maas, (Ed.), the Age of Justinian, (Cambridge: 2005).2 J. Moorhead, Justinian, (Harlow: 1994); J. A. S. Evans, the Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine Empire, (Westport: 2005).3 Among others M. Maas, John Lydus and the Roman Past. Antiquarianism and politics in the age of Justinian, (London and New York: 1992); R. D. Scott, “Malalas, The Secret History, and Justinian’s Propaganda,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 39 (1985): 99-109.4 J. L. Teall, “the Barbarians in Justinian’s Armies,” Speculum, 40(2), (1965): 294-322.5 W. E. Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest 471-843. An Interpretation, (Amsterdam: 1981).6 G. Dagron, “Ceux d’en face. Les peuples étrangers dans les traités militaires Byzantins,” Travaux et Mémoires 10 (1987): 207-232 ; G. Ravegnani, Soldati di Bisanzio in età giustinia-nea, (Roma: 1988).7 T. G. Kolias, Byzantinische Waffen, (Wien: 1988); D. Nicole and A. McBride, Romano-Byzantine Armies, 4th-9th Centuries, (Oxford: 1992).8 S. Macdowall and S. Embleton, Late Roman Infantryman, 236-565, (London: Osprey Publishing, 1994); S. Macdowall and C. Hook, Late Roman Cavalryman, 236-565, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1995); S. Macdowall and A. McBride, Germanic Warrior, AD 236-568, (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 1996).