Constantinople: From Byzantium to Istanbul

Constantinople: Istanbul’s Historical Legacy by Stéphane Yerasimos is an English version of a book that was published in French in the year 2000. The English version was published by the German publisher Könemann in 2006 (hardcover) and 2007 (paperback). It was also published by the German publisher H. F. Ullmann (which took over Könemann when it went out of business) in 2008 (paperback) and 2012 (hardcover).

Oddly enough, the book provides no information about the author. Here is a brief biography:

Stéphane Yerasimos (1942-2005) was born into a Greek family that lived in Istanbul, Turkey. He grew up in Istanbul and studied architecture there. He grew up with two languages: Greek and Turkish. In the middle of the 1960s, he immigrated to France where he became a scholar who specialised in urbanisation, the history and the development of the city. He became a professor at the French Institute of Urbanisation at the University of Paris VIII. The language of his new country became his third language. Most of his books and articles were written in French. He lived and worked in France for the rest of his life, except for a five-year period (1994-1999) during which he was Director of the French Institute of Anatolian Studies, which is based in Istanbul. His life was cut short by cancer.

When we know his personal and professional history, we can understand why he wanted to write a book about the city where he was born; a city which is known by three names:

** The first name is Byzantium. This city was founded by Greek pioneers, perhaps with assistance from Thracian settlers, around 680 BC.

** The second name is Constantinople. This city was founded by the Roman emperor Constantine in AD 330 and named after him. At first it was the new capital of the whole Empire. From 395, when the Roman Empire was divided between East and West, it was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, known today as the Byzantine Empire.

** The third name is Istanbul. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople in 1453, they changed the name of the city. Istanbul was the capital of the Ottoman Empire until it was dissolved shortly after World War One. Today Istanbul is no longer a capital, but it is the largest city in the Republic of Turkey which was established in 1923.

This book is huge and heavy. The format is large (27.5 x 32 cm) and there are 400 pages. When you browse through the pages, it seems impressive. The pictures are fabulous. Unfortunately, the text cannot measure up to the high standard of the illustrations. As a result, this volume is a bit of a disappointment.

Following a brief introduction – “Capital of Two Empires” - the main text is divided into three parts and nine chapters. Here is the table of contents:

PART ONE: CONSTANTINOPLE

* Chapter I – Nova Roma: The New Rome
* Chapter II – From the Iconoclast Controversy to the Latin Empire
* Chapter III – The End of the [Byzantine] Empire

PART TWO: THE EARLY OTTOMAN EMPIRE

* Chapter IV – Bursa: The Birthplace of Ottoman Art
* Chapter V – Edirne: On the Way to the Empire

PART THREE: ISTANBUL

* Chapter VI – The New Capital of the Ottoman Empire
* Chapter VII – The Golden Age
* Chapter VIII - The Decline of the [Ottoman] Empire
* Chapter IX – Reforms Before the Fall

At the end of the book we find the following items: a map of the Byzantine Empire at the death of Justinian; a map of the Ottoman Empire; a map of historical monuments in Istanbul; a chronology; a glossary; an index; a bibliography; and picture credits.

I have mixed feelings about this book. On the positive side I can say it is lavishly illustrated with pictures, drawings, and maps. All illustrations are in colour. Almost every monument mentioned in the text is shown in an illustration.

I like, in particular, the presentation of the Chora Church, known today as the Kariye Mosque, pp. 138-151.

On the negative side I have to mention three points:

(1) When you look at the table of contents, you can see there is a problem with the structure of the book. Part two (about the first two capitals of the Ottoman Empire) does not belong here, because this is a book about Constantinople and/or Istanbul. Since it is here, and since it is quite long, the title is somewhat misleading.

Consider the picture on the front and back covers of the book. You might think it shows a monument in Constantinople. But this is not the case! It shows the inside of a mosque in another place, the Selimiye Mosque in Edirne. In chapter VII “The Golden Age” the author uses ten pages to present this mosque, which is not located in Istanbul (pp. 270-279).

In part three about Istanbul the author covers one mosque after another. There are a few exceptions where other types of monuments are presented, but not many:

Topkapi Palace, pp. 210-242; Dolmabahçe Palace, pp. 360-366; the water supply, pp. 296-297; a sidebar about Sűleyman the Sultan, pp. 258-259; and a sidebar about Sinan the architect, pp. 274-275. At the end of chapter VII there are six sidebars about six different topics: calligraphy, illumination and miniatures, bookbinding, pottery from Iznik, textiles, and carpets.

If you ask me, too much space is devoted to Islamic mosques, while too little space is used on other monuments. The proportions are unfortunate.

[For more information about the water supply, a most interesting topic, see The Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople by James Crow, Jonathan Bardill, and Richard Bayliss (2008).]

(2) There are serious problems with the text (and the chronology). The text is mostly descriptive; it gives the dimensions of each monument. The author almost never tries to analyse or interpret the monuments that he covers in the book. One example is the long section about Topkapi Palace which runs for more than 30 pages. On page 239 the text suddenly stops. There is no conclusion; no attempt to evaluate the whole complex.

In addition, there are many statements which are unfortunate or simply wrong. Here are some examples:

** The chronology at the end of the book is flawed: it says Constantine was emperor 324-337. It should be 306-337; it says Constantinople was founded in 324. In fact Constantine announced his plan to build a new capital in that year, but Constantinople (Nova Roma) was not dedicated until 330; it says Christianity was adopted as state religion in 392. It is more accurate to say 391-392; it says the Crimean war took place 1853-1855. It should be 1853-1856 (as stated in the text on page 361); it says Orham Gazi was sultan 1326-1359. It should be 1324-1362.

** The text claims “Constantine declared Christianity the state religion” (page 12). This is not true. This did not happen until the reign of Teodosius I (379-395). Nevertheless the message is repeated on page 79: “Christianity, declared a state religion by Constantine, became…” Both statements are refuted by the chronology. The author contradicts himself.

** The text claims Constantine was emperor 324-337 (page 25). The same mistake appears in the chronology. In fact Constantine was emperor from 306 to 337.

** “When Constantine the Great made the fateful decision in 323 AD to move the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium…” (page 79). The year 323 is wrong. The decision was announced in AD 324, and the author knows it. On page 27 he explains that Constantine’s victory over Licinius took place in September 324 and that his decision to build a new capital was announced a few weeks later, in November of the same year, which is true.

** On page 76, the author mentions a person called Narses, an army commander of Justinian. This name is correct. On page 41 the author mentions a person called Marses, also an army commander of Justinian. This name is false. If you turn to the index, you will see a reference to Narses on page 76. There is no reference to the false name (Marses) on page 41.

[For more information about this man and his career, see Narses: Hammer of the Goths by L. H. Fauber (1990).]

** On pp. 81 and 82 the author mentions an emperor called Maurikios. In the chronology at the end of the book this emperor is called Maurice. The author may use the Greek name Maurikios or the French name Maurice, but I think he should be consistent.

** Emperor Michael VIII Paleologos is mentioned several times. When did he rule?

--- 1258-1282 according to page 131
--- 1259-1282 according to page 85
--- 1261-1282 according to the chronology at the end of the book
The author is inconsistent. It seems the correct answer is that Michael was emperor of Nicaea 1259-1261 and emperor of Constantinople 1261-1282.

** The new church – Nea Ekklesia – built 876-880 is mentioned on pp. 83-84. The author tells us that it “is shown on a map of the city dating from the 1580s.” After this he adds that it was destroyed in 1490. This account raises a question: if it was destroyed in 1490, how can it appear on a map that was made in the 1580s? The map is from the 1480s. It is the so-called Vavassore woodcut of Istanbul made by the Italian Giovanni Andrea Vavassore, published in Venice in 1520.

** The Sűleymaniye Mosque complex is mentioned two times. When was it completed? On page 262 the author says: “The entire complex was completed in the year 1558.” But on page 275 he mentions “the Sűleymaniye Mosque complex in Istanbul, completed in 1557.” The author is inconsistent. As far as I know, the first date (1558) is correct.

** The famous mosaic, which shows Justinian and his court, appears on pp. 10-11. The caption (on page 12) reads: “Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527-565). The emperor with his train: (from right to left) two deacons, Archbishop Maximian, the emperor, patricians, bodyguards. Mosaic [on the] north wall of the apse of the presbytery of San Vitale, Ravenna, before 547.”

The order of the figures given is unfortunate. Here is what it should be (again from right to left): two deacons; Archbishop Maximian; a high official (Narses?); Emperor Justinian; a high official (Belisarius?); a high official; six bodyguards.

What about the date? The mosaic on the opposite wall, which shows Empress Theodora and her court, appears on page 41. This time the caption says “ca. 547.” The mosaic in the dome of the apse appears on page 12. But this time the caption does not give a date. The church was dedicated in 547 or 548. Therefore it is unfortunate to say “before 547” and better to say “ca. 547.” Again we can see that the author is inconsistent.

** On page 30 the author says: “Next to the Column of Constantine, which commemorated the founding of the city, is the Hippodrome.” This is nonsense. These two monuments are not located next to each other. The Hippodrome is located southeast of the Column. They are about one km apart. If you look at the map of the city, pp. 382-383, where the Column is marked letter I and the Hippodrome is marked letter F, you can see that his statement is false. The author was born and raised in Istanbul. How can he make such a statement?

** On page 30 the author gives a long and detailed presentation of the Egyptian obelisk in the Hippodrome. Most of what he says is false. He thinks there are two Egyptian obelisks in the Hippodrome, which is false. The illustrations in the book show only one, because there is only one. Having presented the first obelisk and the second obelisk, he continues: “The third major monument in the Hippodrome…”

Here are the facts:

Obelisk # 1 was moved to Alexandria by Constantine ca. 330 and then moved to Rome by his son Constantius in 357 (in order to mark his visit to the city). In 1588 it was re-erected next to St. John Lateran where it still stands today.

Obelisk # 2 was moved to Alexandria by Constantius ca. 350 and then moved to Constantinople by Theodosius in 390. It was erected on the spina of the Hippodrome where it still stands today.

The author’s first words about the obelisk are also false. He talks about “the Egyptian obelisk originally erected by Thutmose III in front of the temple of Karnak in commemoration of his crossing of the Euphrates in 1471 BC.”

The obelisk was commissioned by Thutmose III, but he died before it was erected and inscribed. His grandson Thutmose IV had the monument erected and inscribed.

** The Egyptian obelisk in the Hippodrome is described as “Constantinople’s oldest surviving monument” (page 30). However, the author uses a similar expression to describe the Column of Constantine, also known as the Burnt Column or Cemberlitaş: “this pillar is today the oldest surviving monument in the city” (page 27).

Once again we can see that the author is inconsistent. Both monuments can hardly be the oldest. Which one has the honour? The obelisk is older than the column.

(3) While I like the illustrations in this book, I have to complain about one of them: the missorium of Theodosius, which appears on page 72. The original item has a diameter of 74 cm. But the picture in the book has been reduced to a diameter of only 9 cm. It is almost impossible to see the details.

Why is this picture so small? The plate, which shows a personified image of India, which appears on the very next page, has a diameter of 20 cm. This is a large book. Each page can accommodate an image with a diameter of 24 cm. There are 400 pages. Why is the picture of the missorium of Theodosius so small?

The author describes the ancient object in the following way: “In 388, Emperor Theodosius commissioned a considerably larger missorium (with a diameter of 74 cm/29 in) to be made in honor of the tenth anniversary of his accession to the throne…”

Theodosius was born in Spain in 347. He ruled 379-395, as the author says on page 26 (on page 30 he says 345-395, which is false). But the missorium dates from 388, and therefore it cannot mark the tenth anniversary of his accession to the throne, which was in 389. The missorium marks the beginning of his tenth year as emperor, which the Romans called decennalia. It seems the author is not aware of this Roman practice.

For more information about the missorium of Theodosius, see the first chapter of Silver and Society in Late Antiquity by Ruth E. Leader-Newby (published in 2004).

How many stars does this book about the historical monuments of Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul deserve? When I look at the illustrations, I think it deserves four or five stars. When I look at the text, I think it deserves only two stars. When I look at the book as a whole, I think I have to settle for three stars.

* * * 

 Stéphane Yerasimos,

Constantinople: Istanbul's Historical Legacy,

H. F. Ullmann, paperback 2008, hardcover 2012, 400 pages
 

* * *

 

Theodosius: The Empire at Bay

Theodosius: The Empire at Bay by Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell is not only a biography of the Roman emperor who ruled 379-395. It is also a general history of the Roman Empire from the death of Valentinian in 375 and the battle of Adrianople in 378 to the Vandal conquest of North Africa in 429-430 and beyond.

The book was published by B. T. Batsford in the UK in 1994 and by Yale University Press in the US in 1995. It was reprinted by Routledge in 1998. On the back cover of the US version from 1995 the authors are presented in the following way:

“Stephen Williams, until recently head of public relations at English Heritage, is the author of a widely acclaimed biography of Diocletian. Gerard Friell works for English Heritage as archaeological inspector for northwest England and Hadrian’s Wall.”

The main text is divided into four parts and 12 chapters. Here is a brief overview:

** Part I – The Crucible – chapters 1-5

** Part II – The Changed Background – chapters 6-8

** Part III – Confrontation – chapters 9-10

** Part IV – The Unravelling – chapters 11-12

Some chapters follow a chronological line, while others cover selected themes. In many chapters the focus is on political and military affairs, but in chapters 4 and 9 the focus is on religious affairs, the transition from Paganism to Christianity.

At the end of the book there are five appendices, notes with references and additional comments, a bibliography, and an index.

The text is illustrated by 19 photos (placed in a block between pp. 128 and 129) and four maps (pp. 172-175). The illustrations are well-chosen, but it is a shame they are all in black-and-white. Perhaps the most important illustration is # 1, which shows the missorium of Theodosius from 388. This item is presented in the text on page 67.

The reign of Theodosius I was in several ways a turning point in the history of the Roman Empire. He was the last emperor who ruled the whole empire, east and west. When he died in 395, the empire was divided between his two sons: Honorius, the younger son, was given the west with the capital Rome and Milan and later Ravenna. Arcadius, the elder son, was given the east with the capital Constantinople (today Istanbul). During his reign, Christianity was adopted as the official state religion. The transition took place in several stages: a minor step in 381, the major step in 391, and the final step in 392.

Williams and Friell got some good reviews. On the back cover of the paperback version there are excerpts from several reviews of the hardcover version; all highly positive:

** Thomas S. Burns, American Historical Review: “One cannot help grappling with historical issues while reading this book. Nonspecialists will find much here to reward their efforts.”

** Choice: “A model of clarity and organization… A rare work, in that it is valuable to students and scholars at all levels.”

** R. Bruce Hitchner, History: “A coherent narrative of the crisis-ridden years of the late fourth century, as well as a useful general discussion of the society, institutions, and structures of the late empire.”

** Dallas Morning News: “Theodosius I was a towering figure in the history of the late Roman Empire and the early church… Williams and Friell offer a fascinating portrait.”

** H. A. Drake, Catholic Historical Review: “A book with many useful things to say about a pivotal period in Roman relations with Germanic peoples.”

I understand the positive reviews and I agree with them. I like in particular chapters 4 and 9 where the focus is on religious affairs.

In chapter 4 “Catholic Ascendancy” the authors describe the rise of Christianity. As they point out, this new religion was divided into several fractions or denominations even before it was adopted as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Most Pagan religions tolerated other religions, but each Christian fraction insisted on being absolutely right and rejected all others as false.

In chapter 9 “Contra Paganos” the authors describe how Christianity was adopted as the official religion of the Roman state, step by step. As they point out, Theodosius did not always follow a consistent line. In some cases he was quite tolerant, but in others he insisted on orthodoxy. They discuss the reasons for this.

Theodosius: The Empire at Bay is a great book about an important emperor, but I have to mention a few things which bother me. I am going to mention them, even though they are minor flaws:

(1) On page 20 the authors mention Julius, who was Master of the Army in the East, and they want to give us his title in Latin: “Magister Militum per Oriens.” This title is wrong. The correct title is Magister Militum per Orientem.

(2) On page 111 the authors mention the traditional Roman network of clients and patrons and they want to give us the technical term in Latin: “clientelia.” This word is wrong. The correct word is clientela.

(3) On page 129 the authors mention Eugenius, who was Chief Secretary to the Emperor, and they want to give us his title in Latin: “Magister Scriniorum.” This title is wrong. The correct title is Magister Scrinorum.

(4) On page 171 – the last page of the last chapter – they authors write: “Theodosius has been called the Great, but principally in gratitude for his establishment of Unam Sanctam Catholicam Apostolicam Ecclesiam.” The five Latin words are given is the accusative. Why? There is no reason for this. Therefore the authors should have used the nominative: Una Sancta Catholica Apostolica Ecclesia.

(5) In notes 25 and 27 on page 216 the authors refer to an ancient source: “Eunapius, Vita Antonius.” The name Antonius is wrong. The correct name is Antoninus. In addition, there is something wrong with the Latin construction “Vita Antonius.” In English we will say “The life of Antonius.” In Latin we must say Vita Antoni. But, as I have explained, the name Antonius is wrong. They should say “The life of Antoninus.” In Latin this becomes Vita Antonini.

Eunapius wrote a book known as The Lives of the Philosophers. Several philosophers are presented in this book, but there is no separate book about Antoninus; the passage to which the authors refer on page 122 (about removing the floor) appears in chapter 472 of the book about the philosophers.

(6) At the end of chapter 2 – on page 35 – there is a quotation from the ancient author Themistius, which is marked with note # 55. The notes for chapter 2 are placed at the end of the book, on pp. 200 and 201, but if you look closely, you will see that there are only 54 notes here: note # 55 is missing!

It seems the authors are not really familiar with Latin. The question is: Can you write a biography about a Roman emperor if you do not know Latin? Yes you can, and it may even be a great biography, but if you want to use Latin words from time to time, you should at least consult someone who knows this language before sending your manuscript to the printer. Williams and Friell did not do this.

Why do they use Latin words from time to time? I think they want to make the account look more authentic; they want to bring us closer to the original sources. The intention is good, but the result is unfortunate. Just when want to make it better, they get it wrong, and in this way they make it worse! I wish they had simply stayed away from the Latin words. If they had done this, they would have avoided most of the flaws mentioned here.

PS. The transition from Paganism to Christianity is the subject of AD 381 by Charles Freeman (hardcover 2008, paperback 2009). Unfortunately, Freeman believes the turning point is the year 381, while it is more appropriate to place it ca. ten years later, in 391 and/or 392.

* * * 

Stephen Williams and Gerard Friell,

Theodosius: The Empire at Bay,

B. T. Batsford, 1994, Yale University Press, 1995, 238 pages

* * *