Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη ΙΔΡΥΜΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΟΣ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΣΜΟΥ
z
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Αναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΑΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΒΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΓΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΔΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΕΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΖΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΗΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΘΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΙΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΚΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΛΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΜΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΝΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΞΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΟΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΠΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΡΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΣΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΤΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΥΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΦΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΧΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα ΨΑναζήτηση με το γράμμα Ω

Patria of Constantinople

Συγγραφή : Marinis Vasileios (4/3/2008)

Για παραπομπή: Marinis Vasileios, "Patria of Constantinople", 2008,
Εγκυκλοπαίδεια Μείζονος Ελληνισμού, Κωνσταντινούπολη
URL: <http://www.ehw.gr/l.aspx?id=10936>

Patria of Constantinople (4/5/2009 v.1) Πάτρια Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (29/5/2011 v.1) 
 

1. Introduction

Patria is a literary genre dedicated to the history, topography, monuments, and legends of a city. It originates in the work of Kallinikos of Petra (3rd century AD) who wrote on Rome. Although writers of the 5th and 6th centuries deal with cities in the provinces, such as Tarsos, Nicaea, and Miletos among others, after the 6th century the genre focuses exclusively on Constantinople.1

"Patria of Constantinople" (Πάτρια Κωνσταντινουπόλεως) is a conventional name for a corpus of texts belonging to this genre and devoted to Constantinople. The collection as it has survived comprises the following texts:2 The Patria of Constantinople by Hesychios Illustris; the Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai (“brief historical notes”) from the 8th century; the Narration of the Construction of Hagia Sophia written probably in the 9th century; the Patria of ca. 995; the so-called “topographical recensions”; and finally a post-Byzantine text, the “Miraculous Story” on the column of Xerolophos in Constantinople.3 The interrelationship between those texts, especially between the Parastaseis and the Patria of the 10th century, is very complex.4

Although the Patria provides crucial information about the city, facts and fables are frequently combined (and confused), thus diminishing its worth as a historical source. On the other hand, Patria offers an insight into the mentality of some parts of the population of Constantinople and is a testimony for the city's transition into the medieval city.

2. Patria of Hesychios Illustris

Hesychios of Miletos was a pagan historian, active in the 6th century AD. His work Chronike Historia (Χρονικὴ ἱστορία), now surviving only in fragments, was a universal history starting with the Assyrian king Bel and ending with the death of emperor Anastasios I in 518. A part of this work, dealing with the history of the city of Byzantion up to the time of Constantine I, was revised and incorporated in the Patria of the 10th century. In this text, historical facts and legends are creatively combined.5

3. Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai

The Parastaseis syntomoi chronikai, the best-studied patriographic text, is an anonymous work. The Parastaseis includes information about a great variety of topics with sections dedicated to the sights of Constantinople, such as churches, statues, and the Hippodrome and its monuments. The text of the Parastaseis is known from a single manuscript now in Paris (Par.gr. 1336) dating to the 11th century. The reduction of the text is generally placed in the 8th century.6 That it survives in only one manuscript, in combination with the fact that the text is at places corrupt and difficult to understand, indicates that the Parastaseis might have been an unfinished compilation of various sources put together by an unknown editor or editors, and as such it probably presents an intermediary stage in the patriographic tradition.7 The intermediary nature of the text is reflected in the lack of any stylistic and thematic unity as some subjects, such as the Hippodrome, are included more than once.

In the Parastaseis there is a predilection towards “wonders” and heavy reliance on hearsay. The style of the entries is highly didactic and there are references to “philosophers” and “lovers of knowledge” who were the only ones capable to understand and appreciate the deeper significance of the monuments in the city, a meaning that was often arcane. Related to this presumed esoteric meaning of ancient art is a marked suspicion towards pagan statues, which indicates a change in the mentality of the people of Constantinople.8

Scholarly opinions on the Parastaseis vary. Its language has been characterized as “an idiotic prose, where we look in vain for any sort of order, chronological or logical...”9 It has also been considered as “a kind of tourist's guidebook to the curiosities of Constantinople,”10 although this has been correctly doubted as the text, at least in its present form, fails to contextualize the information it offers into the wider urban fabric of Constantinople.11 Others consider it as “a product […] of a sort of local history society,”12 a group of self-fashioned “philosophers.” Finally, its contents have been interpreted as “a political pamphlet directed against the cult of Constantine I that was being developed under the Iconoclast emperors and their successors” alerting to the malicious miraculous powers of pagan statues.13

The Parastaseis is often used as a source of the Byzantines’ response to antique statuary, although the peculiarities of the text and its reception are usually not taken into consideration.14 Extensive parts of the Parastaseis, in an abbreviated and simplified form, were incorporated into the so-called “Anonymous of Treu,”15 dated to the 10th century.

4. Narrative of the Construction of Hagia Sophia

The Narrative offers a fictionally coherent and frequently preposterous chronicle of the construction of Hagia Sophia by the emperor Justinian I, with one section dedicated to the repairs of Justin II.16 It also includes a description of the liturgical implements (such as the ambo), vessels, and relics in Hagia Sophia. The composition of the original version has been dated to the second half of the 9th century.17 The text of the Narrative was slightly enlarged and incorporated in the Patria of 995.

The Narrative contains several factual errors. For example, the architect Ignatios replaces Anthemios and Isidoros, the two actual architects of the building. A consistent theme is that God, who communicated the plan of the building to Justinian through an angel, inspired the work. God shows his favor for the new building through several interventions and angels even offer advice on technical matters. There is also an effort to connect Hagia Sophia with biblical prototypes, especially the Temple of Jerusalem. The technical vocabulary of the author is fairly precise.18

The Narration was translated in other languages including Latin, Slavonic, and Ottoman, a testimony to the story's popularity.19

5. The Patria of the 10th century

The Patria of Hesychios, large amounts of the text in Parastaseis, and the Narration, were incorporated in the Patria of the 10th century.20 In opposition to the Parastaseis, however, the Patria survive in more than 60 manuscripts, which present some variety in style, organization, and content. Furthermore, the Patria is a much larger work, containing 20 chapters not found in the Parastaseis, as well as additions to the other works it incorporates.

The most interesting and fairly homogeneous part consists of several notices dedicated to various foundations and buildings of Constantinople, both religious (churches, monasteries) and secular (palaces, aristocratic villas). There is a tendency towards systematic chronology, with the mention of the reigning emperor at the time of construction and other chronological indications. Apart from these, in terms of content the Patria of the 10th century blur the line between fact and fiction.

The Patria could be considered as one of the final stages of the patriographic literature of the capital.21 Despite variations, the corpus was not substantially modified after the 10th century.

6. The “topographical recensions”

At some point during the 11th century an editor or editors systematized the entries of the Patria according to itineraries.22 Judging from the number of surviving manuscripts (only seven), this new reduction was not very popular. The most successful of these recensions was dedicated to Alexios I Komnenos. According to Dagron, these recensions indicate a significant change, since they are presented as “official” and “objective” works on the history and monuments of Constantinople, written by members of the imperial court, in opposition to the informal style of the Parastaseis or the Patria.23

7. The “Miraculous Story” on the column of Xerolophos in Constantinople

This text, which dates to the 16th century24 and was written by a certain John Malaxos,25 provides a highly fanciful history of the column of Xerolophos. Located on the seventh hill of Constantinople, this historiated column, of which just the pedestal survives today, was originally part of the Forum of Arkadios (constructed c. 400).26

The story begins with Byzas and ends with Leo VI. The principal actor, however, is Septimius Severus: according to the “Miraculous Story,” he put in the sculptural decoration of the column the future history of Constantinople until the appearance of the “antichrist,” revealed to him through a certain “philosopher and astrologist John.” Thus, Malaxos wanted to convey through “Miraculous story” the idea that Constantinople's destiny was beyond the control and the power of its emperors and inhabitants, but rather it had been decided even before its foundation.27

The “Miraculous Story” presents the traits of the patriographic tradition: the sources are confused and manipulated in order to serve the goals of the author; fact is fused with fiction and legend; and the result is, above all, a work of the author's imagination.

1. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 9-13.

2. Patria Constantinopoleos, Preger Th. (ed.), Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum I-II (Leipzig 1901-1907, repr. New York 1975).

3. Dagron, G. - Paramelle, J., "Un text patriographique. Le 'récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos' (Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)", Travaux et Mémoires 7 (1979), pp. 491-523.

4. See the careful analysis in Cameron, A. - Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984), pp. 2-9; Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (ΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑ 8, Bonn 1988).

5. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 23-29; Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (ΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑ 8, Bonn 1988), pp. 38-39.

6. Cameron, A. - Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984), pp. 17-29. See also the review of this by A. Kazhdan in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 80 (1987), pp. 400-403, arguing for a late-8th or early-9th c. date; Cameron, A., "Byzantium and the Past in the Seventh Century. The Search for Redefinition", in J. Fontaine - J. N. Hilgarth (eds.), Le septième siècle, changements et continuités (London 1992), p. 257, n. 18; and Berger A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (ΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑ 8, Bonn 1988).

7. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 30-31.

8. Mango, C., Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe-VIIe siècles). (Travaux et Mémoires Monographies 2, Paris 21985), p. 60. For a different interpretation, see James, L., "'Pray Not to Fall into Temptation and Be on Your Guard': Pagan Statues in Christian Constantinople," Gesta 35 (1996), pp. 12-20.

9. Pargoire, J., review of Preger's edition in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903), p. 334.

10. Mango, C., "Antique Statuary and the Byzantine Beholder," Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 (1963), p. 60; Mango C., Byzantium. The Empire of New Rome (New York 1980), p. 80.

11. Cameron, A. - Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984), pp. 29-31.

12. Cameron, A. - Herrin, J., Constantinople in the Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai (Leiden 1984), pp. 53.

13. Kazhdan, A., "Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai", in A. Kazhdan (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 3 (New York - Oxford 1991), p. 1586.

14. James, L., "'Pray Not to Fall into Temptation and Be on Your Guard': Pagan Statues in Christian Constantinople", Gesta 35 (1996), pp. 12-20; Bassett, S., The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople (Cambridge 2004), with further bibliography, especially by the author.

15. Treu, M. (ed.), Excerpta Anonymi Byzantini ex codice Parisino Suppl. Gr. 607 A (Ohlau 1880).

16. Marichal, R., "La construction de Sainte-Sophie de Constantinople dans l'Anonyme grec (Xe siècle?) et les versions vieux-russess", Byzantinoslavica 21 (1960), pp. 238-259; Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 191-314; Vitti E., Die Erzählung über den Bau der Hagia Sophia in Konstantinopel (Amsterdam 1986).

17. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 265-269.

18. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 280-281.

19. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), p. 195.

20. Pseudo-Codinus, Patria Constantinopoleos, Preger Th. (ed.), Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum II (Leipzig 1907, repr. New York 1975), pp. 151-209; Dagron G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 48-53; Berger A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (ΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑ 8, Bonn 1988).

21. Dagron G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 50-51.

22. Preger, Th. (ed.), Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum II (Leipzig 1907, repr. New York 1975), xv-xviii, pp. 290-313.

23. Dagron, G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 51-53; Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos (ΠΟΙΚΙΛΑ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΝΑ 8, Bonn 1988), pp. 87-148.

24. Dagron, G. - Paramelle, J., "Un text patriographique. Le 'récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos' (Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)", Travaux et Mémoires 7 (1979), p. 492.

25. Dagron, G. - Paramelle, J., "Un text patriographique. Le 'récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos' (Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)", Travaux et Mémoires 7 (1979), pp. 508-509.

26. Janin, R., Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire topographique (Paris 21964), pp. 439-440.

27. Dagron, G. - Paramelle, J., "Un text patriographique. Le 'récit merveilleux, très beau et profitable sur la colonne du Xérolophos' (Vindob. Suppl. Gr. 172, fol. 43v-63v)", Travaux et Mémoires 7 (1979), pp. 491-504; Dagron G., Constantinople imaginaire (Paris 1984), pp. 74-77.

     
 
 
 
 
 

Δελτίο λήμματος

 
press image to open photo library
 

>>>