The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII

Author(s): Alice-Mary Talbot

Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 47 (1993), pp. 243-261
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291680 .
Accessed: 21/10/2014 09:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 The Restoration of Constantinople
under MichaelVIII
ALICE-MARY
TALBOT

15 August 1261, the feastday of the Dormition of the Virgin, Michael VIII Pa-
On laiologos made his triumphal entry into Constantinople,restoring Byzantine rule
there after 57 years of occupation by French and Italian Crusaders.' As he made his
stately procession through the streets of the city which he was viewing for the first time,
he must have been dismayed by the ruinous condition of the capital which had under-
gone grievous destruction during the previous decades.
Even before the arrival of the Crusaders at Constantinople in 1203, the city had
suffered extensive damage in its recent past, having been twice ravaged by fires in the
1190s.2 During the initial siege of July 1203, stones from Crusader catapults rained
down on the Blachernai Palaceand a batteringram broke through the fortificationwall.
Most serious, on 17 July Crusader soldiers torched houses adjoining the wall along the
Golden Horn, and the flames spread from the Blachernairegion along the shore as far
as the Evergetes monastery.3Furtherdestructionwas caused by a Greek mob which tore
down Latin houses near the sea walls, including the Amalfitan Pisan quarters.4The

This article represents an expanded and revised version of a paper read at the ByzantineStudies Con-
ference held in Brookline, Mass., in November 1991. I wish to thank my colleagues who commented on
earlierversionsof this paper, especiallyRobertOusterhout,as well as Henry Maguire,Alexander Kazhdan,
and Franz Tinnefeld. Because this paper ventures into the unfamiliarrealms of Byzantineart and archi-
tecture, I am particularlyindebted to my art historicalfriends who provided me with much advice and
bibliography.Their assistanceis acknowledgedin the appropriatefootnotes.
'The basic monograph on Michael VIII is D. J. Geanakoplos,EmperorMichaelPalaeologusand the West,
1258-1282: A Studyin Byzantine-Latin Relations(Cambridge,Mass., 1959). The book has been translated
into modern Greek under the title 0Oa'TOXQdTWQ MLXa?X FIa•aoX6yog xat fl Anotg, 1258-1282: tLXkTr]
r6t
LTov BVudvTLvo-AaTLVLX6ov oxtGEmv (Athens, 1969).
2Niketas Choniates (Historia,ed. J. van Dieten [Berlin-NewYork, 1975], 445.29 [hereafter Nik. Chon.])
mentions a fire that destroyed the northern region of Constantinopleduring the first reign of Isaac II
Angelos (1185-95). The fire of 1197 is known only from the iambicpoem of ConstantineStilbespreserved
in Venice, Marc. gr. 524; cf. J. Diethart, "Der Rhetor und Didaskalos KonstantinosStilbes,"Ph.D. diss.
(Vienna, 1971), 103;J. Darrouzes,"Notes de litteratureet de critique,"REB 18 (1960), 186; A. M. Schnei-
der, "Brinde in Konstantinopel,"BZ 41 (1941), 386 (hereafter,Schneider,"Brinde").
3Nik. Chon. 545.45-50. Schneider, "Brinde," 386f. On the events of 1203 and 1204, see also C. M.
Brand, Byzantiumconfrontsthe West,1180-1204 (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 234-69 (hereafter, Brand,
Byzantium).
4Nik. Chon. 552.77-84.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
244 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

worst disaster occurred in August 1203, when a company of Crusaders plundered a

mosque outside the walls, near the shore of the Golden Horn, and then set fire to it and
other buildings.5 The flames spread rapidly to the south and cut a wide swath across
the eastern half of the city as far as the Sea of Marmara. The fire narrowly missed Hagia
Sophia and the Hippodrome, but did destroy the Myrelaion church, part of the Mese,
and the Forum of Constantine.6 In the vivid words of Choniates, who lost his own palace
in the conflagration,7 "porticoes collapsed, the elegant structures of the agorai toppled,
and huge columns went up in smoke like so much brushwood."8
During the difficult months of the joint reign of Isaac II and his son Alexios IV
(1203-4), while the Latin army camped outside the walls, the Byzantine emperors were
hard pressed to pay the debt owed to the Latins by Alexios IV. Consequently, Isaac was
forced to confiscate sacred vessels and precious icon revetments, which he melted down
for bullion to hand over to the Crusaders.9 The Greeks were also responsible for the
destruction of one of the most famous monuments of the city, for a Constantinopolitan
mob smashed the great 30-foot-tall bronze statue of Athena in the Forum of Constan-
tine, possibly the work of the sculptor Phidias, in the belief that the goddess was beck-
oning to the Latin armies. During these months Western soldiers looted and burned
churches and palaces in the city's suburbs.'0
The final capture of Constantinople by the Crusaders in April 1204 led to yet fur-
ther devastation, for after their entrance into the city Latin soldiers set a fire near the

5Nik. Chon. 553-554. According to Choniates, the mosque, which was called the Mitaton, was located
on the northern side of the city, on a slope leading down to the sea, near the church of St. Irene in the
district of Perama. R. Janin (Constantinoplebyzantine[Paris, 1964], 258, hereafter cited as Janin, CP byz.)
concludes, without solid evidence, that this mosque was the one that had only recently been built by Isaac
II Angelos (1185-95) as a friendly gesture toward Saladin; cf. Letter of Innocent III (1210) in PL 216, col.
354B and the 13th-century Arab historian Abu Shama, Kitabal-Rawdatayn,tr. Barbier de Meynard in Recueil
des historiensdes Croisades.Historiens orientaux, IV (Paris, 1898), 470-71. By coincidence, another mosque,
located at the Praitorion, had been destroyed by a Byzantine mob in 1201; cf. Nik. Chon. 525.20-21. The
best summary to date of evidence on the mosques of Constantinople is to be found in Janin, CP byz. 257-
59, but there is need for further investigation of the subject.
61 am most grateful to Thomas F. Madden, a graduate student at the University of Illinois, Urbana-

Champaign, who kindly gave me permission to read his unpublished paper "The Fires of the Fourth
Crusade in Constantinople, 1203-1204: A Damage Assessment." A shortened version of this article is
scheduled to appear in ByzantinischeZeitschrift.Madden's research provides extremely useful clarifications
of the extent of the destruction caused by the three fires of 1203-4, and my article has benefited greatly
from his conclusions.
For the fire at the Myrelaion, see C. L. Striker, The Myrelaion (BodrumCami) in Istanbul (Princeton, N.J.,
1981), 28-29. Although Choniates states that the fire "did not spare the Hippodrome" (Nik. Chon. 555.51),
excavations at the Hippodrome in 1927 discovered no evidence of any burned layer; see S. Casson, Prelim-
inary Reportupon the Excavations carriedout in the Hippodromeof Constantinoplein 1927 (London, 1928), 3-8.
7Nik. Chon. 587.4-6.
8Nik. Chon. 553.14-556.64. Eng. tr. by H. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniates
(Detroit, Mich., 1984), 303f (hereafter, Magoulias, Choniates).Schneider, "Brinde," 387.
9Nik. Chon. 551.65-552.71 and 555.69-556.73. Georgii Acropolitaeopera, ed. A. Heisenberg (Leipzig,
1903), I, 6.22-7.1 (hereafter, Akrop.).
10Nik. Chon. 558.47-560.6. On the identity of the statue of Athena, cf. R. Jenkins, "The Bronze Athena
at Byzantium,"JHS 67 (1947), 31-33, and "Further Evidence Regarding the Bronze Athena at Byzantium,"
BSA 46 (1951), 72-74. The fact that the statue survived the fire of August 1203 demonstrates that the
Forum of Constantine, although surrounded by flames, was not entirely destroyed, contrary to the evidence
of Nik. Chon. 555.49.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 245

Evergetes monastery that spread along the Golden Horn to the Droungarios Gate."
The destruction caused by three major fires in the course of thirteen months was exten-
sive; the Crusader eyewitness, Geoffrey Villehardouin, commented that "more houses
had been burnt in that city [of Constantinople] than there are in any three of the great-
est cities of the kingdom of France."12 Although the accusation of Constantine Stilbes, a
thirteenth-century metropolitan of Kyzikos, that the Latins burned thousands of
churches3 is surely a gross exaggeration, there can be no doubt that many must have
been irreparably damaged in the flames. The most recent assessment of damage, by
Thomas Madden, concludes that one-sixth of the area of Constantinople was ravaged
by fire, and between one-sixth to one-third of the city's buildings were destroyed.
After the fall of the city on 13 April, French and Venetian soldiers began a looting
spree that lasted for days. They plundered the homes of private citizens, palaces, and
churches; with no regard for the sanctity or artistic quality of the liturgical vessels of
"schismatic" Christians, they smashed the objects to extract the precious gems or melted
them down for gold and silver, or used them as ordinary dishes. Likewise they stripped
icons and church furniture of their precious metal revetments, and broke up the altar
of Hagia Sophia.14

THE LATIN OCCUPATION OF CONSTANTINOPLE (1 204-61)

It is likely that the number of Latins who settled permanently in Constantinople

after 1204 was relatively small. Villehardouin states that the army which attacked the
Byzantine capital numbered only 20,000 (against a population which he estimated at
400,000 or more),'5 and after the capture of Constantinople many of these Crusaders
dispersed to lands conquered in Greece. Villehardouin also stresses that in military en-
counters subsequent to their establishment in Greece and Constantinople the Crusaders
were constantly outnumbered.'6 At the same time the sources give the impression that
substantial numbers of Greeks, especially courtiers, nobility, and higher clergy, left the
capital to go into exile,7 and that the Latin authorities freely permitted their depar-
11Nik. Chon. 570.33-35. Schneider, "Brdnde," 387.
12E. Faral, La Conquetede Constantinople(Paris, 1939), II, ch. 247 (hereafter Villehardouin, ed. Faral) and
Joinville and Villehardouin:Chroniclesof the Crusades,tr. M. R. B. Shaw (Baltimore, Maryland, 1963), 92 (here-
after, Villehardouin, tr. Shaw).
13J. Darrouzbs, "Le memoire de Constantin Stilbes contre les Latins," REB 21 (1963), 81, no. 76 (here-
after, Darrouzes, "Stilbes").
14Nik. Chon. 573f. Letters of Pope Innocent III sharply criticized the looting by the Crusaders; cf., esp.,
PL 215, col. 712B: "nec imperiales suffecit divitias exhaurire, aut diripere spolia majorum
pariter et mino-
rum, nisi ad ecclesiarum thesauros, et, quod gravius est, ad ipsarum possessiones extenderitis manus ves-
tras, tabulas argenteas de altaribus rapientes, violatisque sacrariis, iconas, cruces et reliquias aspor-
tantes
..
5Villehardouin, ed. Faral, ch. 251; tr. Shaw, 93. Robert of Clari
(The Conquestof Constantinople,tr. E. H.
McNeal [New York, 1966], 71 [hereafter, Robert of Clari, tr. McNeal]) states that the French
deployed only
700 knights against 100,000 Byzantine horsemen! See also p. 76.
16Villehardouin, ed. Faral, chs. 347, 348, 350, 419, 429, 431, 459, 462, 482; tr. Shaw, 119, 137, 140, 149,
150, 155. Robert of Clari (tr. McNeal, 99) writes: "the Greeks ... had still a hundred times as many men
under arms as the French had
....
7References to the flight of Greeks from Constantinople-Villehardouin, ed. Faral, ch. 246, tr. Shaw,
91: "All the Greeks who could manage to do so followed him [Mourtzouphlos] in his
flight"; ed. Faral, ch.
266, tr. Shaw, 98: "About this time [May 1204] certain Greek nobles of the highest rank left Constantinople,

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

ture.18 We should also remember that a sizable percentage of the population (perhaps
one-third, according to Madden's estimate) had been left homeless as a result of the
three fires that swept the city in 1203-4, and were thus more likely to flee. As a result
Constantinople became seriously depopulated.
Some abandoned mansions and houses were taken over by the Crusaders; in the
words of Villehardouin, "Everyone took quarters where he pleased, and there was no
lack of fine dwellings in that city. So the troops of the Crusaders and Venetians were
duly housed. They all rejoiced ... that those who had been poor now lived in wealth
and luxury." 19
At least 20 churches and 13 monasteries are known to have come under Latin con-
trol.20 To give a few examples, Hagia Sophia became the cathedral of the Latin patri-
arch, the Blachernai church and the Mangana monastery came under the control of
French canons, while Benedictine monks from Venice occupied the Pantepoptes and
Peribleptos monasteries, and the Knights Templar took over the Xenon of Sampson.21
Constantine Stilbes reports that the iconostasis from the chapel of this hospice had holes
cut in it and was used as a cover for the patients' latrine.22 One must also assume that
the monastery now called Kalenderhane Camii was inhabited by Franciscan friars, on
the evidence of the frescoes of St. Francis which were discovered in the chapel excavated
at the southeast corner of the church.23
There is limited evidence that the Latins removed some structural elements from
abandoned or damaged churches for reuse in the churches which they took over. Thus,
we know from a letter of Pope Innocent III that the new Latin patriarch Thomas Mo-
rosini took marble columns from the church of the Anastasis "for the decoration of the
altar (ad ornatumaltaris)"of Hagia Sophia.24 One interpretation of the letter of Innocent

and a great number of them crossed over the straits to that part of the empire on the borders of Turkey."
Robert of Clari, tr. McNeal, 77: [in July 1203] "the emperor [Alexios III] fled from the city with as many
people as he could take with him"; p. 100: [after the fall of the city in April 1204] all the Greeks had fled
and no one was left in the city but the poor people." Niketas Choniates describes the departure of his family
together with other refugees (Nik. Chon. 589), and that of the patriarch John X Kamateros (593.56-60).
He also comments that the Byzantines who escaped with Alexios III in 1203 were mostly nobles who had
pursued a military career (612.46-47). Cf. also George Akropolites (Akrop. 10.13-14), who states that it
was members of the most distinguished families who fled the captured capital.
18Cf. Akrop. 10.10-13; Nik. Chon. 631.8. Robert of Clari, tr. McNeal, 101: "those who wanted to go
went away and those who wanted to do so stayed, and the richest of the city went away."
19Villehardouin, ed. Faral, ch. 251; tr. Shaw, 92-93.
20R.Janin, "Les sanctuaires de Byzance sous la domination latine," REB 2 (1944), 134-84, supplemented
by E. Dalleggio d'Alessio, "Les sanctuaires urbains de Byzance sous la domination latine (1204-1261),"
REB 11 (1953), 50-61.
21T. S. Miller, "The Sampson Hospital of Constantinople," ByzF 15 (1990), 128-30.
22Darrouzbs, "Stilbes," 83, no. 89.
23C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, "Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Second Preliminary Report,"
DOP 22 (1968), 190-92; "Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul: Fifth Preliminary Report (1970-74),"
DOP 29 (1975), 313.
24Epist. XI.76 of Innocent III to Morosini, PL 215, col. 1392c: "Ab impetitione vero clericorum Sanctae
Anastasis super columnis marmoreis quas de ipsorum ecclesia ad ecclesiam Sanctae Sophiae transtulisse
diceris ad ornatum altaris, te reddimus absolutum." Madden suggests that the pope, confused by the simi-
in
larity of names, may have intended to refer to the nearby church of St. Anastasia, which was destroyed
the second fire, rather than to the Anastasis which evidently survived the fire.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 247

could be that the columns taken from the church of the Anastasis were small ones,
removed perhaps from the templon or a gallery, and were used to construct a baldachin
over the altar. The Byzantine altar of Hagia Sophia already had a baldachin, described
by Robert of Clari as follows: "Around the altar were columns of silver supporting a
canopy over the altar which was made just like a church spire."'25Choniates states, how-
ever, that the Crusaders destroyed the altar and baldachin for the precious metal,26 and
thus the next Latin patriarch may have found it necessary to erect a new baldachin with
marble columns.
The Latin church authorities also apparently did some rearrangement of the litur-
gical furnishings to better accommodate the needs of the Latin rite. Nikephoros Kallis-
tos Xanthopoulos asserts, for example, that at the church of the Virgin of Pege, just
outside the land walls of Constantinople, the arrangement of the altar was changed
during the period of Latin occupation to conform with Latin rituals.27 Xanthopoulos
also remarks that the spring water at Pege lost its miraculous healing powers during the
period of Latin profanation. Pachymeres relates that after the Byzantine recovery of
Constantinople in 1261, the emperor Michael "restored to its previous condition the
entire church [of Hagia Sophia] which had been altered by the Italians in many aspects.
And placing in charge the monk Rouchas ... he rearranged the bema and ambo and
solea."28Pachymeres' remarks about the need for the Byzantines to rearrange the bema,
ambo, and solea suggest that the Latins may have built a choir screen projecting into
the nave in order to enlarge the space for the clergy and to accommodate the choir. The
erection of such a barrier might have necessitated the use of marble columns, slabs, and
the like taken from other churches.29
The Latins also apparently undertook another major work of construction at
Hagia
Sophia. When they discovered the perilous condition of the structure of the building,
which had been weakened over the centuries by earthquake tremors, the decision was
made to construct a series of flying buttresses to shore up the walls of the church. E. H.
Swift has theorized that this work was carried out by French engineers or
architects.30
It seems, however, that the new Latin conquerors were not sufficiently numerous to

25
Robert of Clari, tr. McNeal, 106.
26Nik. Chon. 573.14-18 and 648.32-34: "They pulled down the ciborium of the Great Church that
weighed many tens of thousands of pounds of the purest silver and was thickly overlaid with gold" (trans-
lation of Magoulias, Choniates 357). Elsewhere Choniates reports that the Crusaders removed the silver
revetment from the bema railing, the pulpit, and the gates [of the
templon?], and other adornments (Nik.
Chon. 573.20-574.23).
27Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, TO1 o(aopmL(o o'Lxo Tijg v
-fElt ovJdoEoWg Kwvo(TCavTLvov'Tn6EtL
Zwoo866orHUqyfjg,ed. A. Pamperis (Vienna, 1802), 63: 9oTOXiT TonE?ta.... aTLVLXt6g
It should be noted that the church of the Virgin at Pege1tis not included in the lists of churches
6•8LEXevaotXIOh.
known to
have been under Latin control, as established by Janin and Dalleggio d'Alessio note
(see 20, above), unless
it is to be identified with the "monastery of the Panaghia" mentioned in a letter of Innocent IV of
1244
(see Dalleggio d'Alessio, 61).
28Georges Pachymeres.Relations historiques,ed. A. Failler with French tr. by V. Laurent (Paris,
1984), I,
233.8-11 (hereafter, Pachymeres, ed. Failler).
291 am very grateful to Dr. Christine Smith of Florence
who discussed this question with me and made
very helpful comments on ways in which the Latins might have altered the church furnishings.
30E. H. Swift, "The Latins at Hagia Sophia," AJA 39 (1935), 458-74;
idem, Hagia Sophia (New York,
1940), 86-88, 111-19.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
248 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

occupy and/or maintain all the houses and churches of the capital.3" The derelict
buildings became inviting targets for vandalism, both officially authorized and
otherwise. Bronze and lead were removed from roofs and melted down,32 while
wooden houses were torn down for firewood.33 Once roofing materials were removed,
buildings became extremely vulnerable to the elements and must have deteriorated
rapidly.
Much of the damage to the buildings of Constantinople should be attributed not to
deliberate vandalism, but to neglect or what we would today call "deferred mainte-
nance," since it was surely in the interests of the Crusader rulers to preserve the capital
which they had inherited. But they were chronically short of funds, and hence could
not afford to repair the already aging and decaying buildings. For example, the subur-
ban church of St. John the Theologian at Hebdomon fell into ruin and by 1260 was
being used as a stable. The remains of Basil II, who was buried there, had been removed
from his tomb and dumped unceremoniously in a corner of the church.34 The Nicaean
emperor John III Vatatzes reportedly saved several churches from being dismantled for
the sake of their valuable building materials; by sending money to the Latins he pre-
vented their destruction of the churches of Blachernai, Rouphinianai, and St. Michael
at Anaplous. He also granted funds for the restoration of the church of the Holy
Apostles, which had been seriously damaged in an earthquake.35 Not only houses and
churches were damaged or fell into ruin, but also the monumental sculptures which
adorned the Hippodrome and fora of Constantinople. Niketas Choniates devoted a
special essay, usually called the De Signis, to a description of the bronze statues which
were pulled down by the Crusaders and melted for coinage. Among the masterpieces
destroyed were a Herakles attributed to the fourth-century B.c. sculptor Lysippos, and
monumental figures of Hera, Paris, and Helen.36 The anti-Latin diatribe of Constantine
Stilbes repeated many of the charges made by Choniates in his History and in the De
Signis.37

31Cf., for example, Robert of Clari, tr. McNeal, 101: "And many [houses] they [the Crusaders] found
and many they took and many were left [empty], for the city was very large and populous."
32R. L. Wolff, "Politics in the Latin Patriarchate of Constantinople, 1204-1261," DOP 8 (1954), 278, and
note 142. Marino Sanudo, Fragmentum,ed. C. Hopf, Chroniquesgrico-romanes(Berlin, 1873), 171: "[Baldwin
II] vendidit et distribuit quasi totum quod habebat in Constantinopoli, discooperiendo palatia plumbea et
vendendo."
33NicephoriGregoraebyzantinahistoria, Bonn ed. (1829), I, 81.8-11 (hereafter, Gregoras, Hist.).
34Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 175.12-26.
35Addition of Theodore Skoutariotes to George Akropolites, ed. Heisenberg (Akrop.), 287.20-28.
36Nik. Chon. 647-55; cf. A. Cutler, "The De Signis of Nicetas Choniates: A Reappraisal," AJA 72 (1968),
113-18, and E. Mathiopulu-Tornaritu, "Klassisches und Klassizistisches im Statuenfragment von Niketas
Choniates," BZ 73 (1980), 25-40. The most recent article on antique statuary in Constantinople is by S.
Guberti Bassett, "The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople," DOP 45 (1991), 87-96. From
Choniates' description it is impossible to determine the period of manufacture of these statues, which may
have ranged in date from the Hellenistic to the late Roman era.
Michael Hendy has assigned a group of coins, termed by him "Latin imitative coinage," to a mint in
Constantinople under Latin occupation; cf. M. F. Hendy, Coinage and Money in the ByzantineEmpire, 1081-
1261 (Washington, D.C., 1969), 191-223. The excavators of Kalenderhane Camii discovered 23 scattered
coins of the type attributed by Hendy to the Latin emperors; cf. C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban, "Work at
Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul," DOP 29 (1975), 318.
37Darrouzes, "Stilbes," 50-100.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 249

RESTORATION OF THE CITY BY MICHAEL VIII

Thus, when Michael VIII entered Constantinople in 1261 he had to face the reality
that the capital was a desolate, depopulated city that was only a shadow of its former
glory. In the words of Gregoras, "the Queen of Cities was a plain of desolation, full of
ruins . . . , with houses razed to the ground, and a few (buildings) which had survived
the great fire. For raging fire had blackened its beauty and ornamentation on several
occasions when the Latins were first trying to enslave (the City)."38Sheep grazed in the
precincts of the Stoudios monastery,39 and there was plenty of land available within the
city for the planting of grain.40 Thus the reconstruction and repopulation of the capital
was one of the emperor's most pressing concerns throughout his reign.

The Wallsof Constantinople

Michael's pride in his recovery of Constantinople in 1261 was soon manifested by
his issue of a new type of gold nomisma, whose obverse depicts an aerial view of the
capital, schematically represented by a circular wall flanked by eighteen towers arranged
in six groups of three each. Rising from among the towers is a bust of the Virgin orans.41
And indeed the repair of the fortifications proved to be one of the emperor's top prior-
ities; the walls were in such bad condition that even when the gates were closed it was
easy to get in and out of the city.42 As a temporary measure, Michael immediately or-
dered that the height of the sea walls (which were lower than the land walls) be increased
approximately two meters by the addition of wooden screens covered with leather
hides; time did not permit construction with stone and mortar.43Some ten years later,
in preparation for an anticipated attack by Charles I of Anjou, Michael had a second
line of maritime walls built so that they matched the double fortifications of the land
walls.44Clearly the Crusader attacks of 1203 and 1204 had made the Byzantines aware
of the vulnerability of their maritime defenses.

38Gregoras, Hist., I, 87.23-88.5. Cf. also Gregory of Cyprus' lament on the destruction of Constanti-
nople (LaudatioMichaelis Palaeologi, PG 142, cols. 373D-376c).
39Gregoras, Hist., I, 190.11-12.
40Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 251.19-23.
41 P.
Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London, 1982), 290f; GeorgiiPachymerisde Michaele et AndronicoPalaeologis
libri tredecim,Bonn ed. (1835), II, 494.2-7 (hereafter Pachymeres, Bonn ed.). The reverse of the coin shows
Michael VIII kneeling, supported by St. Michael (who stands behind him) and crowned (or blessed) by
Christ. For detailed discussion of the iconography of this coin, see A. Cutler, "The Virgin on the Walls,"in
his Transfigurations:Studies in the Dynamicsof ByzantineIconography(University Park, Pa., 1975), 111-41, esp.
111-15.
42Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 215.26-27.
43Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 251.6-14, 251.26-252.1-2. A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople.The
Wallsof the City and adjoining Historical Sites (London, 1899), 188.
44Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 469.8-10. A chrysobull of Michael VIII issued some time between 1267
and 1271 also refers to his reconstruction of the walls; cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkundendes ostrom-
ischen Reiches von 565-1453, pt. 3 (1204-1282), rev. P. Wirth (Munich, 1977), 99, no. 1941a.
W. Mfiller-
Wiener (Bildlexikonzur TopographieIstanbuls [Ttibingen, 1977], 314 [hereafter, Muller-Wiener, Bildlexikon])
doubts, however, that the second line of sea walls was ever built, while van Millingen (ByzantineConstanti-
nople, 189) concludes that no trace remains of these walls because they were of poor construction or only
temporary in nature.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

ThePalaces
Another of Michael's immediate concerns was where he should live. Even before he
entered Constantinople he had ordered his general Alexios Strategopoulos to start re-
furbishing the imperial palaces in preparation for his arrival.45He selected for his prin-
cipal residence the Blachernai Palace, which had been the preferred abode of the Kom-
nenoi and Angeloi and of the Latin emperor Baldwin II, but was not able to move in
immediately because of the appalling condition in which the Latins had left it. For not
only had the complex been damaged by catapulted stones during the siege, but in the
course of the Latin occupation the walls had become blackened with smoke and soot
from poorly controlled fires and lamps, and the palace needed thorough cleaning and
repainting.46 During the renovation, which may have required as much as ten years,47
Michael lived at the Great Palace which was also seriously dilapidated, although a num-
ber of its buildings, especially the churches, continued to be usable. Following the basic
restoration of the Blachernai Palace, the emperor embarked upon an ambitious deco-
rative program for its vestibule. In 1281/2 he commissioned frescoes of the Byzantine
victory over the Angevins at Berat; he also planned a sequence of paintings depicting
earlier events of his reign, but died before this second series could be executed.48 K.
Manaphes has proposed that Michael also established a library in a wing of the newly
restored Blachernai Palace.49His evidence is a manuscript of theological florilegia now
in Paris (Par. gr. 1115), whose colophon (fol. 306v) states that the manuscript was copied
by a certain Leo Kinnamos in 1276, "during the reign of Michael VIII and his wife
Theodora," and "deposited in the imperial library."50
It has been suggested by some scholars that the palace now known as Tekfur Saray
should also be assigned to the late thirteenth century, more specifically to the reign of
Michael VIII. A. van Millingen5' was the first to propose the identification of Tekfur
Saray with the "house of the Porphyrogennetos" mentioned by Kantakouzenos as exist-
ing by 1328.52 Mtiller-Wiener hypothesizes that it was constructed between 1261 and
Gregoras' vita of his uncle John of Herakleia preserves the interesting information that in his youth John
was one of the laborers who worked with bricks and mortar to build or repair the walls of Constantinople
during the reign of Michael VIII; cf. V. Laurent, "La personnalit6 de Jean d'H6racl6e (1250-1328),"
Hellenika 3 (1930), 303-4, and "La vie de Jean, metropolite d'Heraclee du Pont," 'AQX. H6vt. 6 (1934),
39.23-24.
45Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 215.10-11.
46Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 219.5-9; Gregoras, Hist., I, 87.20-23.
47 Miller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 224.

48Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 649.30-651.4; Eng. tr. C. Mango, TheArt of theByzantineEmpire:312-1453,
Sourcesand Documents(Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972; repr. Toronto, 1986), 246 (hereafter, Mango, Art). S.
Runciman's article on the "Blachernae Palace and its Decoration" (in Studies in Memoryof David TalbotRice
[Edinburgh, 1975], 277-83) makes no mention of the fresco program commissioned by Michael VIII.
49K. A. Manaphes, At v KwovotravrtvoUa6XtPtptXoOeixat abTroxQarTOQLXatat aJTartaQQXtLXXat M Qt
v aag
TWovwVatc
( XQLt Waa0X g (1453) (Athens, 1972), 55-57.
For GreekXeLQOYQ6d0•) tg
text and English translation of this colophon, see J. A. Munitiz, "Le Parisinus Graecus 1115:
50o
Description et arriere-plan historique," Scriptorium36 (1982), 55-56. Although Munitiz is suspicious of the
historical validity of the colophon, its authenticity has been accepted in a recent study by A. Alexakis
("Some Remarks on the Colophon of the Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115," Revue d'histoiredes textes22 [1992],
131-43, esp. 143).
51A. van Millingen, Byzantine Constantinople(London, 1899), 109-10.
52John Kantakouzenos, HistoriarumLibri IV, Bonn ed. (1828), I, 305.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 251

1271 at the same time that the nearby Blachernai Palace was being restored,53 whereas
Mango proposes a date sometime between 1261 and 1291, identifying the "Porphyro-
gennetos" with Constantine Palaiologos, Michael's third son, born in 1261.54 It is pos-
sible that this is the palace where he was confined under house arrest in 1293 by
Andronikos II.55 Other architectural historians, however, argue that Tekfur Saray
must be placed in the following century on stylistic grounds: Richard Krautheimer
dates the structure to the first third of the fourteenth century,56 while G. M.
Velenis and R. Ousterhout present more detailed evidence for its construction after
1350.57

Hagia Sophia
Another pressing consideration for Michael in 1261 was the restoration of Hagia
Sophia in preparation for his coronation. He had already been crowned at Nicaea in
1259, but was anxious to be crowned a second time in Constantinople since he was all
too conscious of his delicate position as a usurper. As mentioned above, the emperor
commissioned a monk named Rouchas to prepare the cathedral for its return to the
Byzantine rite, presumably removing church furniture added by the Latins, and restor-
ing the ambo, solea, and bema to their original positions.58 Pachymeres adds that the
emperor "reconstructed other parts [of Hagia Sophia] with imperial funds. Then he
restored the holy sanctuary to a more glorious state with (gifts of) sacred textiles and
The basic refurbishing was completed very quickly in time for Michael's cor-
vessels."''59
onation in the autumn of 1261, but beautification of the cathedral must have continued
throughout his reign.60 In 1265-66, for example, the patriarch Germanos III ordered
the manufacture of a peplos depicting Michael as the "new Constantine" which hung
between two porphyry columns at the west end of the church.6'1 The emperor in turn
commissioned a representation of the three patriarchs named Germanos which was

53 Mtiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon244.
54C. Mango, "Constantinopolitana,"JDAI 80 (1965), 335-36, and idem, ByzantineArchitecture(New York,
1975), 275.
55Pachymeres, Bonn ed., II, 161.11-12: Tv 8' GE6Xv av v &TRadUra
ixiv xacr
ovy•XELoug (3aoLXLXv•
oL•xLtdOV Wv oa)Otf xuEOLgyvvot.
56R. Krautheimer and S. Curc'i, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture,4th ed. (Harmondsworth,
1986), 448.
57G. M. Velenis, 8tax606ouoTorT Bu1(avTLVi txLTexTovt•xl, 1 (Thessalonike,
'EovLvel(0cTOU E0TELXOI
1984), 102-3, 106 note 2 and esp. 165 note 1; R. Ousterhout, "Constantinople, Bithynia and Regional
Developments in Later Palaeologan Architecture," in The Twilightof Byzantium,ed. S. Cur'id and D. Mouriki
(Princeton, 1991), 79.
58Cf. note 28, above.
59Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 233.11-13. Michael's restoration of Hagia Sophia was also praised by Manuel
Holobolos (Manuelis Holoboli orationes,ed. M. Treu [Potsdam, 1906], 85.14-86.10 [hereafter Holobolos, ed.
Treu]) in an oration traditionally dated 25 December 1261, but now reassigned by R. Macrides to 1267
("The New Constantine and the New Constantinople-1261?" BMGS 6 [1980], 19 [hereafter, Macrides,
"New Constantine"]).
60A chrysobull of Michael VIII, probably to be dated to 1272, enumerates the donations made
by the
emperor to Hagia Sophia; cf. D.J. Geanakoplos, "The Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople from the
Latins in 1261," Continuityand Discontinuityin ChurchHistory, ed. F. F. Church and T. George (Leiden,
1979),
104-17, repr. in D. J. Geanakoplos, Constantinopleand the West(Madison, Wis., 1989), 173-88.
61Pachymeres, Bonn ed., II, 614.9-15; Macrides, "New Constantine," 22-25.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

displayed to the right of the Horaiai Pylai or "Beautiful Doors.''62It is unclear whether
this work of art was a mosaic, fresco, or textile. It has further been suggested by art
historians such as J. Beckwith, O. Demus, and R. Cormack that the exquisite Deesis
mosaic panel in the south gallery of Hagia Sophia was created at the behest of the
emperor as a kind of thank offering soon after his entry into Constantinople. Cormack
also raises the possibility that there was a small donor figure (presumably Michael VIII)
in the lower part of the panel, which has long since been destroyed.63

The Mosque
Fortification walls, palace, cathedral: these were logical priorities for Michael as he
planned his program of restoration. It is more surprising to discover that within a year
of the Byzantine recovery of the capital he had built a new mosque in Constantinople,
perhaps to replace the Mitaton mosque burned down by the Crusaders in August 1203
or the Praitorion mosque destroyed by a mob in 1201. The Arab historian al-Maqrizi
relates that in 1262 the emperor himself showed an envoy of the Mamluk ruler Baybars
(1260-77) the newly constructed mosque, and the sultan subsequently sent gifts of gold
candelabra, embroidered curtains, censers, carpets, aloes-wood, amber, and rosewater
for use at the mosque.64 Unfortunately al-Maqrizi gives no indication of the location of
the new mosque. The rapid construction of this Muslim place of worship must be linked
with the intensive diplomatic negotiations between Michael VIII and Baybars immedi-
ately following the Byzantine reconquest of Constantinople; these discussions resulted
in a treaty (in 1261 or 1262) guaranteeing free passage through the straits for vessels

62This phrase refers either to the west door of the church or the south door of the vestibule; cf. R.
Macrides, "New Constantine," 25 note 62.
63J. Beckwith, The Art of Constantinople:An Introductionto ByzantineArt (Greenwich, Conn., 1961), 134; O.
Demus, "The Style of the Kariye Djami and its Place in the Development of Palaeologan Art," in The Kariye
Djami, 4. Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its IntellectualBackground, ed. P. Underwood (Princeton,
N.J., 1975), 144f. R. Cormack, in his article "Interpreting the Mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul," Art History
4.2 (1981), 145-46, states his belief that the panel "was an imperial commission in 1261; it celebrated the
reconsecration of S. Sophia as the Orthodox cathedral after the expulsion of the Latin clergy and formed
part of the redecoration of the church at the coronation of Michael VIII Palaiologos." In footnote 52 of
his article he refers to a "forthcoming" article co-authored with E. Hawkins, entitled "The Deesis Mosaic
and Late Byzantine Art," but to the best of my knowledge this article has never appeared. I should note
that it seems unlikely that a mosaic panel of such high quality could have been created during the two or
three month period that elapsed between Michael's arrival in Constantinople on 15 August 1261 and his
coronation sometime that autumn.
It should also be pointed out that some art historians, following Thomas Whittemore (The Mosaics of
Haghia Sophia at Istanbul. Fourth Preliminary Report. WorkDone in 1934-1938. The Deesis Panel of the South
Gallery [Oxford, 1952], 26-28), prefer to date the Deesis mosaic in the late 11th or 12th century.
64E. Quatrembre, Histoire des sultans mamlouksde l'Egypteicrite en arabepar Taki-eddinAhmed-Makrizi,pt. 1
(Paris, 1837), 177. See also Janin, CP byz., 259. A text similar to that of al-Maqrizi was recently published
un
by M. M. Tahar in an article entitled "La mosqu6e de Constantinople t l'6poque byzantine d'apres
manuscrit arabe (BN de Paris)," Byzantiaka 11 (1991), 117-27. This article should be used with caution,
however, since Tahar does not seem to be aware of the Maqrizi passage published by Quatrembre, nor of
M. Canard's article of 1937 (see following footnote), nor does he make any allusion to the mosque burned
in 1203.
The mosque built at the instigation of Michael VIII may be the one about which the patriarch Athanasios
I complained in a letter of the early 14th century; cf. A. M. Talbot, The Correspondenceof Athanasius I,
Patriarchof Constantinople(Washington, D.C., 1975), ep. 41.23-26 and note on p. 350.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARY TALBOT 253

transporting Mamluk merchants and envoys to the Crimea.65 One of the concessions
that Michael gained in return was the appointment of a Melkite patriarch in Egypt.66

Public Works
Michael was praised by court orators for restoring all kinds of public buildings and
facilities; unfortunately their language is extremely generalized and perhaps given to
rhetorical exaggeration. Thus Manuel Holobolos spoke of his "beautification of public
buildings, hippodromes ... a teeming marketplace, theaters, law courts, streets, stoas,
a multitude of baths and old age homes everywhere,"''67 while Gregory of Cyprus alluded
to his construction of hospices and hospitals.68 The emperor is also known to have
founded a secondary school in the old orphanage of St. Paul.69 In ca. 1270 Michael
reconstructed the Kontoskelion port on the Sea of Marmara, surrounding the harbor
with enormous stones, dredging it to increase its depth, building shipsheds, and placing
iron gates at the entrance to the complex.70 The harbor of Kontoskelion, identified by
R. Janin with the port of Theodosios,7 was located at the southwesternmost point of
the area destroyed by the fire of August 1203, and may have been damaged in the
flames.

TheMonasteries
and Churches
Historians and orators alike praised Michael in fulsome but vague terms for his
restoration of the churches and monasteries of the capital,72but, with the exception of

65 M. Canard, "Un trait6 entre

Byzance et l'Egypte au XIIIe siecle et les relations diplomatiques de Michel
VIII Paleologue avec les sultans Mamluks Baibars et Qala'un," in Melanges Gaudefroy-Demombynes (Cairo,
1937), 209-12. Cf. the comments of Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 237.1-239.5.
66A1-Maqrizi, ed. Quatrembre, 177, reports that "Lascaris [Michael VIII] d6puta vers le sultan, afin de
lui demander un patriarche pour les chr6tiens Melkites. On nomma a cette dignit6 Reschid-Kahhal (l'ocu-
liste), qui fut envoy6 vers l'empereur grec, accompagn6 de l'6mir Fares-eddin-Akousch-Masoudi et de plu-
sieurs 6veques. Lascaris les combla d'honneurs et de pr6sents.... Akousch repartit pour l'Egypte, accom-
pagn6 du patriarche dont il vient d'etre fait mention." According to V. Grumel, La Chronologie(Paris, 1958),
444, Gregory I, Melkite patriarch from 1243-63, was succeeded by Nicholas I from 1263-76. It seems
likely that the Rashid Kahhal of Maqrizi is to be identified with Nicholas, and that the date of the beginning
of his patriarchate should be moved to 1262.
67Holobolos, ed. Treu, 58.31-37.
68Laudatio Michaelis Palaeologi, PG 142, col. 377c.
69Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 369.27-29. Cf. S. Mergiali-Falangas, "L'6cole Saint-Paul de l'Orphelinat a
Constantinople: Bref apergu sur son statut et son histoire," REB 49 (1991), 237-46, and A. Failler, "Pachy-
meriana Nova. 3. L'6cole Saint Paul de l'Orphelinat," REB 49 (1991), 190-93.
70Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 469.23-471.1. This passage contains a puzzling phrase (lines 25-26), ag-
yUQov XY6VbyEctPak6Vra,interpreted by V. Laurent as meaning that they deepened the harbor "en yjetant
de l'argent fondu," surely an impossibility. CCyQoog xTr6g usually means quicksilver or
mercury, also illog-
ical in this context. H. Ahrweiler has suggested to me the emendation of agyvgov to agytov,
meaning
"potter's clay."
C. Mango reports that two great towers of the harbor wall, which probably date to the early
Palaiologan
era, survived until the end of the 19th century; cf. his Le ddveloppementurbain de Constantinople(IVe-VIIe
sicles) (Paris, 1985), 39-40 and note 15.
71Janin, CP byz., 228-29.
72Gregoras, Hist., I, 88.14-15: vug TE nE dTTELV, o ek_0g xTura( r(6xeoctav;Gregory of
O ZtiL•TW
Cyprus, Laudatio Michaelis Palaeologi, PG 142, col. 377c: Oev vacbv
txCavTracoVTX ~ig Pway(0[Wv tvotxoboiat(
&xov
oTTOV 8J O xat T TCv (ovrtoilTqQCv xat
. OX.
d.oxijTilCov.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
254 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

Hagia Sophia, we have little specific information on which churches required restora-
tion and the extent of the repair work. Holobolos mentions the need to shore up church
foundations, or provide new circuit walls or new roofs of tile or lead, or replace stolen
furnishings and sacred vessels; he also specifically cites the Holy Apostles and Blacher-
nai churches as being repaired by Michael.73Pachymeres adds that Michael established
clergy at both these churches and assigned them choirs of paid singers.74
The emperor took particular interest in two monasteries, which he restored and
provided with typika.One of them was the monastery of St. Demetrios of the Palaiologoi,
probably located on the Golden Horn near Seraglio Point.75 This monastery, which had
been founded by his ancestor George Palaiologos in the mid-twelfth century, was virtu-
ally destroyed during the Latin occupation.76 Since it was a foundation closely connected
with his family, it is understandable that Michael was especially concerned with its re-
vival as a functioning institution.
A second monastic establishment restored by Michael was also a foundation of the
Palaiologos family, first built by his grandfather the megas doux Alexios." This was the
monastery on Mt. St. Auxentios near Chalcedon, probably originally dedicated to Sts.
Peter and Paul, but rededicated by Michael Palaiologos to his patron saint, the archangel
Michael, and provided by him with a typikon.78 Like St. Demetrios, this monastic complex
had fared badly during the period of the Latin Empire.79 The date of its restoration
cannot be established precisely but was probably about 1280.80 The monastery's close
ties with its second founder are demonstrated by the fact that even after Michael's death
and the repudiation of the Union of Lyons by the Council of Blachernai in 1283, the
hegoumenosof St. Michael maintained a pro-Unionist policy.8'
Although there is no firm proof, it is likely that Michael was also a major benefactor
of the monastery of the Theotokos Peribleptos, since he was portrayed there in a now
lost mosaic panel with his wife Theodora and son Constantine the Porphyrogennetos.
All three figures were represented as standing on cushions and carrying scepters in
their right hands. Michael held the akakiain addition.82 Cyril Mango has suggested that

7 Holobolos, ed. Treu, 86.11-25.

74Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 369.25-27.
75R.Janin, La giographie ecclisiastiquede l'empirebyzantin,I; Le siege de Constantinopleet le patriarcatoecume-
nique, 3: Les iglises et les monasteres(Paris, 1969), 92-94 (hereafter Janin, EglisesCP). The typikonwas pub-
lished by H. Gr6goire, with a partial French translation, in "Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi De vita sua,"
Byzantion 29-30 (1959-60), 447-74.
76Gr6goire, "Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi," 463.
77Cf. A. A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgileskichrukopisej1 (Kiev, 1895), 772; poem to St. Michael, ed. P. N.
Papageorgiu, "Zwei iambische Gedichte saec. XIV und XIII," BZ 8 (1899), 676.69-72 (hereafter Papageor-
giu, "Gedichte").
78R.Janin, Les iglises et les monasteresdes grands centresbyzantins(Paris, 1975), 47-48. The typikon,which
survives in part, was published by Dmitrievskij (see previous note), pp. 769-94.
9
79Papageorgiu, "Gedichte," 677.73-74: XQ6vog 8' ta 00v& 7'o AauTvot / Ta6avvov TLov uf
7604L KwvoravT(ov.o
s80Thisis the date suggested by Janin, Les 9glises et les monastkresdes grands centresbyzantins(as in note 78),
48, and J. P. Thomas, Private Religious Foundationsin theByzantineEmpire(Washington, D.C., 1987), 249.
s81George Metochites, Historia dogmatica,I, 77,
ed. A. Mai, Patrum nova bibliotheca8 (Rome, 1871), 102.
82The mosaic panel and its inscriptions are described by J. Leunclavius in his Annales SultanorumOthman-
idarum (Frankfurt, 1596), 137, and by C. DuFresne DuCange, Familiae Augustae Byzantinae (Paris, 1680),
233, who also includes an engraving. See also Mango, Art, 217; Janin, EglisesCP, 218-22.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 255

the mosaic of the Tree of Jesse in the cloister (described by the traveler Clavijo) may also
have been installed during Michael's reign.83
There is a slight possibility that Michael VIII commissioned the redecoration of the
diakonikonof Kalenderhane Camii, dated by C. L. Striker and Y. D. Kuban to the "early
Palaiologan period."84 The sole surviving mosaic panel is of the emperor's patron saint,
the archangel Michael, and thus might seem to provide support for a linkage with Mi-
chael VIII; this argument is weakened, however, by the fact that angels were commonly
portrayed in pastophoria decoration and the Michael panel is not in a prominent loca-
tion.85
To the best of my knowledge, no existing Byzantine source discusses Michael's plans
for a burial site, although it seems logical that he would have been concerned to desig-
nate one of the churches he restored as a mausoleum for himself and members of the
Palaiologan family, as John II Komnenos had done, for example, at the Pantokrator
monastery. It is possible that he intended to be buried at one of the above-mentioned
churches; one of the most likely candidates is the church of the Holy Apostles, which
he is known to have restored, and in front of which he erected a great column topped
with a statuary group of himself and St. Michael, discussed in the final section of this
paper. Michael's emphasis on his identification with Constantine I, who was the first
emperor buried at the Holy Apostles,86 also supports this hypothesis.87 It may also be
that death (at the age of about 57) surprised him before he had an opportunity to make
plans for his tomb. In any case, at the time of his death in 1282 (while on campaign in
Thrace) he was so unpopular because of his policy of Union with the Latin church that
he was refused the customary funeral rites of the Greek Orthodox church and was
unceremoniously laid to rest in the monastery of Christ the Savior in Selymbria.8 It was
only after he died that his wife, Theodora Palaiologina, commissioned the construction
of the church of St. John the Baptist at the Lips monastery which was intended as a
mausoleum for members of the Palaiologan family; her typikon,however, conspicuously
omitted any mention of a tomb there for Michael.89

ChurchesConstructedbyPrivate Patrons
A few members of the imperial family and the nobility also became engaged in the
gigantic task of reconstructing the city in the years immediately following its recovery.
There is no evidence, however, that this patronage was linked to Michael's rebuilding
program; these private architectural commissions seem to have been the result of un-

83Mango, Art, 218. The passage from Clavijo runs as follows: "Outside the body of the church was a
cloister beautifully adorned with different pictures, among which was represented the Tree of
Jesse, of
whose line the Holy Virgin Mary was descended; and this was of mosaic work so
marvellously rich and well
wrought that he who has seen it will not see anything so marvellous elsewhere."
84Striker-Kuban, "Work at Kalenderhane Camii," 192.
85This observation was made by R. Ousterhout. See p. 254, above and note 106, below, on the emperor's
special devotion to the archangel Michael.
86See final section of this article also for discussion of Michael VIII as the "new Constantine."
87The suggestion that Michael VIII may have wished to be buried at the Holy Apostles was made by
Robert Ousterhout in a private communication.
88Pachymeres, Bonn ed., II, 107.14-16.
89A. M. Talbot, "The Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII," DOP 46
(1992), 303.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

connected initiatives, on the part of individuals who were particularly concerned with
the construction or restoration of monasteries, in the hope that such pious works would
help ensure the salvation of their souls.
For example, sometime between 1261 and 1266 Maria, the sister of Michael VIII
and wife of Nikephoros Tarchaneiotes, who took the monastic name of Martha,90
founded the convent which came to be called Kyra Martha.9'
In 1261 the original one-story monastic building of the Panagiotissa convent was
constructed by an unnamed individual, probably the father-in-law of George Akropol-
ites.92 In 1266 another story was added and the artist Modestos decorated the church
with pictures, perhaps in mosaic.93
The owner of the Souidas manuscript who left an invaluable record of his building
activity in Constantinople under Michael VIII, identified by Kougeas as George Akro-
polites, records his restoration of a church of the Virgin which was dedicated in 1267.94
George Akropolites was definitely responsible for the reconstruction of the monas-
tery of the Anastasis in the 1260s or 1270s.95 As George's son Constantine recorded,
"after the conquest of Constantinople by the Italians it [the monastery] was once more
reduced to ruins and almost completely destroyed, so as to have no expectation of re-
construction."96 One example of the damage caused by the Latins was the aforemen-
tioned removal by the patriarch Thomas Morosini of marble columns from the church
to decorate the altar of Hagia Sophia.97 Akropolites described his restoration of the
church as follows:
Since I did not think it right to neglect it .. . , I undertook the restoration, or rather
reconstruction, of this church totally and with all my soul and spared no expense....
Therefore I spent a considerablesum of money to restore the fallen blocks of the holy
structure, and properly braced and stabilizedthe roof, which was supported as it were
on unstable (trusses) ... and was in imminent danger of collapse.... I paid a salaryof
1,000 gold pieces, which was counted out and weighed, to the men who excavated the
dirt and cleared the area of debris, both the foundations and their surroundings....
Specially assigned secretariesrecorded in detail on paper the gold pieces delivered to
the supervisorsof the project, as is customaryfor those who undertake large projects.

9OProsopographischesLexikonder Palaiologenzeit,9 (Vienna, 1989), no. 21389; A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch

einer Genealogieder Palaiologen, 1259-1453 (Speyer, 1938), no. 22. Janin (EglisesCP,324) dates the founda-
tion to the 4th quarter of the 13th century, but provides no evidence for this late date.
9 V. Laurent, "Kyra Martha. Essai de topographie et de prosopographie byzantine," EO 38 (1939), 296-
320; Janin, EglisesCP, 324-26.
92D. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contributionto ByzantineProsopography(London, 1968), 83; S. Kougeas, "'O
FE6)QyLOg 'AxQonoX(rqlgxnt9-Q
toI HaQlto(vov XCbbLXog Too3 oU(,ba (cod. Parisin. graec. 2625)," Byzantina
Metabyzantina1.2 (1949), 61-74, esp. p. 62.
93Cf. Kougeas, "'O 'AxQo3ToX(?1)g,"62, 73f.
F6Q•yLtog
94Ibid., 62f.
95PaceJanin (EglisesCP 21), who dates the reconstruction to the 4th quarter of the 13th century, the
monastery was clearly restored sometime between the recovery of Constantinople in 1261 and the death
of George Akropolites in 1282. The construction work took place while George's son Constantine
was a schoolboy, but unfortunately Constantine's date of birth is unknown. He became logothetestou
at
genikou in 1282, and thus may have been born ca. 1250-60. His father had assumed the same position
age 29.
96H. Delehaye, "Constantini Acropolitae, hagiographi byzantini, Epistularum manipulus," AnalBoll 51
(1933), 279.
97Cf. note 24 above. As noted in the same footnote, it is possible that the columns were removed from
the church of St. Anastasia, rather than from the Anastasis church.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 257

When informed at the end of a year that the construction had already cost 16,000 gold
pieces, Akropolites said that he no longer wanted any record kept of the expenses, "for
I do not give this (money) to man, I offer it to God Who gave (it to me)."98
Another wealthy patron of the early Palaiologan era was the general Michael Glabas
Tarchaneiotes, who apparently ca. 126399 made the initial restoration of the Pammak-
aristos monastery, which had suffered unspecified damage during the Latin occupa-
tion;100he and his wife Maria-Martha were to continue their patronage of the monastery
for almost a half-century. The decoration of the complex all seems to date from the
reign of Andronikos II: the frescoes on the south exterior wall of the naos were prob-
ably painted in the 1290s,101 ca. 1300 Glabas commissioned for one of the buildings in
the complex a series of (now lost) history paintings depicting his military campaigns in
the Balkans,102 and shortly after 1310 Maria erected a parekklesion decorated with mo-
saics as a memorial to her recently deceased husband. Glabas also founded, at an un-
known date, a hospital for the indigent, perhaps as part of the Pammakaristos complex;
either he or his wife Maria (who continued to support the hospital after his death)
commissioned for the xenon an image of Christ surrounded by angels.103 In addition,
Glabas is known to have restored or founded the monastery of the Theotokos Atheni-
otissa at Constantinople.104
The limited group of buildings commissioned in Constantinople by aristocratic pa-
trons or members of the imperial family under Michael VIII pales in comparison to the
churches and monasteries newly constructed or restored under his son, Andronikos II,
by such ktetorsas Theodora Palaiologina (monasteries of Lips, Sts. Kosmas and Damian),
Theodora Raoulaina (Aristeine), Theodore Metochites (Chora), Nikephoros Choumnos
(Theotokos Gorgoepekoos), Irene Choumnaina (Christos Philanthropos), and Michael
Glabas Tarchaneiotes and his wife Maria-Martha (Pammakaristos). Of course the reign
of Michael was less than half the length of his son's, but it also seems that during the
1260s and 1270s members of the elite were preoccupied with the basic tasks of restoring
imperial rule in Constantinople, with religious conflict over the Union of Lyons (1274)
and the Arsenite schism, and with the threat from Charles I of Anjou. The long rule of
Andronikos II was evidently more tranquil and conducive to patronage of literature
and the arts.105
98Delehaye, "Constantini Acropolitae," 279f.
99 H.
Belting, C. Mango, and D. Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoesof St. Mary Pammakaristos(Washington,
D.C., 1978), 12 and notes 42-43. Although J. Ebersolt and A. Thiers, Les 9glises de Constantinople(Paris,
1913), 229, 275, suggest that the naos of the monastery was built by Glabas, Mango (op.cit., 3) dates the
main church to the 12th century on both architectural and historical grounds.
1l?Cf. epigram no. 237 of Manuel Philes (Manuelis Philae carmina, ed. E. Miller, II [Paris, 1857], 243.63-
65) and the Trinity College Document, ch. 26 (cited in Belting-Mango-Mouriki, St. Mary Pammakaristos,41:
"whose luxuriant beauty withered and disappeared altogether because of the evil conduct of the Italians.")
101Belting-Mango-Mouriki, St. Mary Pammakaristos,108.
102They are known from epigram no. 237, ed. Miller, Manuelis Philae carmina, II, 240-55. Cf. Belting-
Mango-Mouriki, St. Mary Pammakaristos,12f.
103Philes, epigram no. 98, ed. Miller, Manuelis Philae carmina, I, 280-82. The only clue to the date of
foundation of the xenon is that Philes, writing probably in the early 14th century, states that Glabas estab-
lished the xenon "long ctLpyv O'tOpxEv 6agt'ootQdtwQ, / 3tvotYLV 6doag
ago"(JTd.at): Jd.at
I3doELg(p. 280, vv. 3-4). E1/on.ayXvCpag
104A. Failler, "Pachymeriana altera," REB 46 (1988), 80, 83.
?05Cf. the remarks of Ousterhout in his article "Constantinople, Bithynia, and Regional Developments,"
75 (cited note 57, above).

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

St. Michael'sColumn
It was probably toward the end of his reign that the emperor Michael decided to
erect an extraordinary monument celebrating his restoration of the Byzantine capital.
In front of the main door of the church of the Holy Apostles he commissioned the
construction of a tall column surmounted by a very large bronze statue of the archangel
Michael; at the feet of the angel was the kneeling figure of the emperor holding a model
of the city of Constantinople in his hands and offering it to the archangel, his patron
and namesake,106 for protection. No trace of the column survives today; our informa-
tion on the monument comes solely from the histories of Pachymeres and Gregoras,107
from a poem at the beginning of Michael VIII's typikonfor the monastery of St. Michael
on Mt. St. Auxentios,'0s and from the accounts of travelers.109 The sole pictorial image
of the monument is found in an early fifteenth-century schematic drawing of Constan-
tinople by the Florentine priest Cristoforo Buondelmonti who includes a sketch of the
column (apparently constructed of stone drums) next to the Holy Apostles. Only one
manuscript of the drawing (Venice, Marc. XIV 25) shows a figure atop the column,
although Buondelmonti's text and the inscriptions on the various manuscripts of the
drawing indicate that the figures of the angel and emperor were still in situ when he
saw the column.-0
106The Byzantines viewed the archangel Michael as a special royal patron of all the emperors, but ob-
viously emperors named Michael were specially devoted to him; cf. N. Teteriatnikov, "The Devotional
Image in Pre-Mongol Rus," in Christianityand the Arts in Russia, ed. W. C. Brumfield and M. M. Velimirovid
(Cambridge, 1991), 33.
'07Pachymeres (Bonn ed., II, 234.16-22) describes the statuary group when recounting the destruction
caused by the earthquake of 1296: xat 6x'eos akxo0g V8Q(aLgroO &QXLorQa-rlyov, 6 tit xtovC68oug iRv
6'QELtoptvog to~ g 6bag 6' aXwv t6v &vaxta MtLXath• -rv 7n6kLv tovra u~pooav-
&vao•rttaTog, o- v vbq(ag xat i~avd x?xe(vp
artrtyvra xat -rv taOnig vaUxaxyv btLrQtnovra, 6otoL'Tog e•Xag -r~p[3aCotkE7u6kLg,
6 ritvyt'iv x4egakitV&waLQFrat, 6i -TWvXetFLQv Q
to0) XQatrovrog Etoxoa(vet, xat 3!bg yVlyv a31pw(tovoL.
For English translation, see Mango, Art, 245-46. Gregoras (Hist., I, 202.8-13) also describes the statue in
the context of the damage caused to it by the earthquake: xat toftov XQ6vovovvt4W yevto0aL
vTo•ottbv
OELORbV T)V RdVU yFOCGTWV, U'0?1 iv T)V REydk(XV
7RokkactL RonXXo0 t6v eydk(ov v6wv o tv
6&
OLXL•V•, Fm xovog
L &
knen3T6)XEoav,o t 6LEQQqdyov. tnEnT)bxet
L vVQ6 oTOf)V6)TOV&a'ywv avnoo-r6Xwv 6anoroe
?ro MtLXa~hk &v89tdvTa &Xat,
MtLXah PaotkEg 6 Hakatok6yog, O
6 6T fg
&QXLOTQga•lYOU ' KwvoravrLvo•n6kewg
6 bg oxl aRog, inEoxeaao
6v auOLg'Av8(6vLxog taoLkeg, Cvov unag, dxO
x~e rTexat
tyxpatlg tysy6vet.
avWort1lwoe.
'08Papageorgiu, "Gedichte," 676.54-55: nQbg rofto yd~ a xat xCwv o3 tQeLt/ va~p nasoErtog wtov
Since the poem, which prefaced the typikonfor the monastery of St. Michael, mentions
oo?xiv 'A3oo6cXn v.
the column of St. Michael, and the typikonis usually dated ca. 1280, the column must have been constructed
before 1280.
'09AnArmenian pilgrim of the 14th-15th c.-S. Brock, "A Medieval Armenian Pilgrim's Description of
Constantinople," REArm n.s. 4 (1967), 87: "outside [the Holy Apostles] stood a high column, on top of
which is elevated, in bronze, the angel Gabriel, and Constantine the King."
Zosima the Russian deacon (1419-20)-G. Majeska, Russian Travelersto Constantinoplein the Fourteenth
and Fifteenth Centuries(Washington, D.C., 1984), 184-86: "In front of the great church doors [of the Holy
Apostles] stands a very high column. A terribly large angel stands on the column, holding the scepter of
Constantinople in its hand. Emperor Constantine stands opposite it, holding Constantinople in his hands
and offering it to the protection of this angel."
The Florentine priest C. Buondelmonti (ca. 1414-22)-J. P. A. van der Vin, Travellersto Greeceand Con-
stantinople,2nd ed. (Leiden, 1980), 668: "Pres de l'6glise des Saints-Ap6tres se dresse la cinquieme colonne,
dont le sommet porte un ange de bronze et Constantin a genoux."
"0G. Gerola, "Le vedute di Costantinopoli di Cristoforo Buondelmonti," SBN 3 (1931), 268f, 275f. The
Constanti-
plate of the Venice drawing is found between pp. 252 and 253; see also van Millingen, Byzantine
nople, frontispiece (cited note 51, above).

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 259

The column of St. Michael has attracted little attention to date, although it is a
monument that should be of considerable interest to art historians."' For in commis-
sioning a work of such large scale the emperor Michael was clearly reviving a genre of
monumental art which was characteristic of the early centuries of Byzantium. Columns
such as those of Constantine I, Theodosios I, and Justinian were familiar landmarks of
the capital throughout its history, but after the early seventh century the tradition of
constructing honorific columns seems to have fallen out of favor.'"2Niketas Choniates
reports that Andronikos I planned to erect a bronze statue of himself on a column,"3
but apparently he was deposed before the project came to fruition. In the case of Mi-
chael VIII's monument, not only is the construction of the column remarkable for the
late thirteenth century, but also the manufacture of an over life-size bronze statue is
unparalleled in Byzantium for this period. Cyril Mango has recently concluded that the
last firmly documented Byzantine bronze statue was a gilt bronze equestrian figure of
Niketas, a cousin of the emperor Heraklios, erected atop the Tetrakionion in the Forum
of Constantine in the early seventh century.14 Hence it seems clear that Michael VIII
was deliberately reviving a late Roman sculptural form when he commissioned the
statue group, with the important distinction that the thirteenth-century sculpture fo-
cused not on the emperor, but on the image of the archangel, with the emperor reduced
to a kneeling figure at his feet.
Because of the unique character of this statue group as a work of late Byzantine
sculpture, it has been suggested that in fact the emperor may not have commissioned a
new creation, but that the group was fabricated from old statues, a Nike, for example,
being reworked into the figure of the archangel.115 It does indeed seem doubtful that a
Byzantine artist of the early Palaiologan period would have had the technical ability to
cast such a statue; but it is possible that the original model could have been sculpted by
a Greek, who then called on the expertise of a Western craftsman to produce the fin-
ished bronze version. Or a team of Western sculptors and bronzecasters might have
been invited by the emperor to combine their efforts. If indeed Michael turned to the
West to find suitable artists, Italy seems to be the most likely source,"116although even
there relatively little bronze sculpture was executed in the late thirteenth and early
fourteenth centuries. But some works were being made in this medium, in Orvieto,17

"'"A. Grabar, in L'empereurdans l'art chr"tien(Paris, 1936), 111 and 177f, and J. Ebersolt, in Les arts
somptuairesde Byzance: Etude sur l'art imperial de Constantinople(Paris, 1923), 131, discussed the sculpture
group briefly, but did not dwell on the implications of its manufacture in the late 13th century.
"2janin, CP byz. 73, states that Justinian I was the last emperor to have an honorific column erected in
his honor, but C. Mango has found evidence that shortly before his overthrow the emperor Phokas (602-
610) erected a column of marble drums just east of the church of the Forty Martyrs. He evidently planned
to place his statue atop the column, but was forestalled by death. Cf. C. Mango, Le diveloppementurbain de
Constantinople(IVe-VIIesiecles) (Paris, 1985), 31; ChroniconPaschale, Bonn ed. (1832), I, 698.20-699.2; Ni-
kephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, EcclesiasticalHistory, 8.32 (PG 146, cols. 121B-D).
"3Nik. Chon. 332.35-37.
114C. Mango, "Epigrammes honorifiques, statues et portraits a Byzance," in Aphieromaston Niko Sborono
1 (Rethymno, 1986), 30. The bronze statues of the empress Irene and her son Constantine VI described
in the Patria (Scriptoresoriginum Constantinopolitanarum,ed. T. Preger, pt. 2 [Leipzig, 1907], 181-82 note 56,
and 278 note 202) are not otherwise attested.
115Henry Maguire and Dale Kinney first made this suggestion to me.
116I am greatly indebted to Christine Smith and Debra Pincus who suggested parallel monuments in
Italy and provided pertinent bibliography.
"17A. F. Moskowitz, The Sculptureof Andrea and Nino Pisano (Cambridge, 1986), 2-3.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 RESTORATIONOF CONSTANTINOPLEUNDER MICHAELVIII

in Perugia,"8 in Venice,"9 and most notably the life-size seated statue of St. Peter in the
Vatican, attributed to Arnolfo di Cambio and dated to ca. 1285-1300.120 A few decades
later, in the early 1330s, Andrea Pisano prepared the wax models for the south doors
of the Baptistery in Florence, which were then cast in solid bronze by a bell founder
summoned from Venice.121 Thus the technology was available in Italy, if the Byzantine
emperor was willing to pay for it.
In rendering himself offering a model of the city to his patron saint, the emperor
was surely imitating the mosaic in the vestibule of Hagia Sophia that depicts the em-
peror Constantine presenting a model of the newly constructed city of Constantinople
to the Virgin Mary.'22Michael, as the restorer of the Byzantine capital, was anxious to
stress the parallel between the original founder of Constantinople and himself, its sec-
ond founder; he relished the epithet of the "new Constantine" as we have already seen
on the peplos donated by Germanos III to Hagia Sophia.123 Michael was also called "6
vtog KovorcaxvR'vog" by orators,'24 in inscriptions,'25 in colophons and marginal notes on
manuscripts,'26 and on lead seals.'72 And is it sheer coincidence that Michael gave the
name Constantine to his third son, born shortly after his triumphal entry into Constan-
tinople in 1261?128
As decades passed, confusion seems to have developed over the identity of the two
figures in the statue group atop the column. An anonymous Armenian traveler of the
fourteenth or fifteenth century thought the archangel was Gabriel, and called the em-
peror Constantine. The fifteenth-century Russian pilgrim Zosima and the Florentine
Buondelmonti made the same mistake about the identity of the emperor.'29 One sus-
pects that Michael Palaiologos, who so longed to be compared with Constantine the
Great for his work in reconstructing Constantinople, would not have been upset by this
popular misconception.

"8E.g., the Fontana Maggiore of Nicola and Giovanni Pisano, dated to 1278; cf. K. Hoffmann-Curtius,
Das Programmder Fontana Maggiore in Perugia (DOsseldorf, 1968).
the bronze doors at San Marco, one of which bears an inscription stating that it was made by the
l9E.g.,
Venetian goldsmith Bertucius; cf. O. Demus, The Churchof San Marco in Venice(Washington, D.C., 1960),
181.
120A.M. Romanini, Arnolfo di Cambio, 2nd ed. (Florence, 1980), 181, and plates 206-9; M. Salmi, "IlI
problema della statua bronzea di S. Pietro nella basilica vaticana," in Commentari11 (1960), 22-29.
121Moskowitz,Sculpture, 7-8, 177-80.
122See, for example, J. Beckwith, The Art of Constantinople:An Introductionto Byzantine Art (Greenwich,
Conn., 1961), 97 and fig. 123. One coin type of Michael VIII also represented him holding a model of a
city; cf. P. Grierson, Byzantine Coins (London, 1982), 302, no. C14.
123Cf. above p. 251 and note 61. Pachymeres relates that Germanos was the first to proclaim Michael as
"the new Constantine"; Pachymeres, ed. Failler, II, 391.5-12.
124Cf.Gregory of Cyprus, LaudatioMichaelis Palaeologi, PG 142, cols. 345, 384D.
125Leunclavius,Annales SultanorumOthmanidarum,137, and DuFresne DuCange, FamiliaeAugustaeByzan-
tinae, 233 (cited note 82, above).
126For an example of this epithet in a colophon, see, for example, the text of the colophon of Par. gr.
1115 in Alexakis, "Some Remarks," 131 (cited note 50, above). For marginal notes, see Ph. Evangelatou-
Notara, XktXoyi XQovoX0oyfqltvWv XXr•LVtvxbV•xMOV ty' at. (Athens, 1984), 88,
no. 290;
"O'le6LO4kdT(OV"
100, no. 335.
127E.g.,G. Zacos and A. Veglery, ByzantineLead Seals, 1.3 (Basel, 1972), no. 2756bis.
128Pachymeres, ed. Failler, I, 247.16-17.
129Cf. note 109, above.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ALICE-MARYTALBOT 261

CONCLUSION

After Michael VIII regained control of Constantinople in 1261, he faced several

monumental tasks in addition to his normal responsibilities for the conduct of foreign
and domestic policy: moving the central government administration back to the capital,
and repopulating and restoring a city devastated by fire, neglect, and the ravages of war
and foreign occupation.'30 Although some private patrons contributed to the recon-
struction of Constantinople through the rebuilding of damaged churches and monas-
teries or the erection of new structures, these seem to have been modest endeavors. It
was the emperor who initiated and paid for the major works of rehabilitation: the walls;
the Kontoskelion harbor; the Blachernai Palace; the churches of Hagia Sophia, the
Holy Apostles, and Blachernai; and the monastery of St. Demetrios. Michael's emphasis
was clearly on the repair or reconstruction of essential urban facilities (walls, harbor),
landmark structures intimately connected with the emperor (the Blachernai Palace),
and the principal churches of the city, which were focal points of worship, pilgrimage,
and imperial ceremonial. Almost all of his endeavors involved the restoration or re-
building of previously existing structures; significantly the only firmly attested brand-
new construction was the column of St. Michael commemorating his renovatio of the
capital.'3' It should be noted that virtually all the structures whose rebuilding is specifi-
cally cited by the sources were situated in parts of the city unaffected by the great fires
of 1203-4. This is in part due to the fortunate circumstance that the three fires, as
devastating as they were, spared the city's most important buildings, which were dam-
aged rather by the assaults of siege weapons, and by deliberate vandalism, poor main-
tenance, outright neglect, or abandonment. Only Holobolos' very generalized allusion
to Michael's "beautification of public buildings, hippodromes... marketplace, theaters,
law courts, streets, stoas,. . . baths and old age homes"'132 suggests that the emperor also
engaged in rebuilding the urban amenities located in the region north and south of the
Forum of Constantine which was evidently totally razed by the fire of August 1203.
Thus, it would seem that Michael's primary goal was to restore the major buildings of
the capital to their pre-1204 condition; once this phase of reconstruction was
complete,
there would be a shift to a new trend, under his son, Andronikos II, of private commis-
sions, often on a deluxe scale, for the construction/renovation and decoration of
churches and monasteries.

Dumbarton Oaks

130
Ironically, at the same time that Michael was devoting his efforts to the repairs of the damage caused
by Crusaders, he was promoting a religious policy that favored unification with the Latin church.
13 The mosque may also have been a new construction, or may have been built on the ruins of an
old one.
132See note 67 above.

This content downloaded from 206.192.68.71 on Tue, 21 Oct 2014 09:31:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions