Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:16:27.296Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Representations of Constantinople in Hartmann Schedel’s World Chronicle, and Related Pictures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Albrecht Berger  and
Jonathan Bardill
Albrecht Berger
Affiliation:
Berlin and Oxford
Jonathan Bardill
Affiliation:
Berlin and Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Liber chronicarum that was written by the humanist Hartmann Schedel (1440–1514) from Nuremberg, and which appeared in 1493, is one of the most sumptuous printed works of the fifteenth century, largely because of its wood-cut illustrations by Michael Wolgemut and Wilhelm Pleydenwurff. Among these wood-cuts there is a panorama of Constantinople on fol. 129v and 130r(fig. 1) that is repeated later in the chronicle three times in a slightly simplified form with small variants. The panorama appears where the chronicle describes the foundation of Constantinople by Constantine the Great, although the text also gives some information about the history of the city until the conquest by the Ottomans in 1453. Since the account is of little interest and contains a number of incorrect details, we will confine ourselves to an analysis of the illustration.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 22 , 1998 , pp. 2 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The authors are grateful to Achim Krümmel and Urs Peschlow for advice (see ns. 23, 26), and Jonathan Bardill wishes to thank the British Academy for its support.

1. Schedel, H., Liber chronicarum (Nuremberg 1493)Google Scholar; German version by G. Alt (Nuremberg 1493). On the chronicle, see: Sprengler, G., Hartmann Schedels Weltchronik (dissertation, Munich 1904)Google Scholar; Rücker, E., Die Schedelsche Weltchronik (Munich 1988)Google Scholar. On the wood-cuts, see: Loga, V. v., ‘Die Städteansichten in Hartmann Schedels Weltchronik’, Jahrbuch der kgl. preufßschen Kunstsammlungen 9 (1888), 93–107, 184–196 Google Scholar; Sladeczek, L., Albrecht Durer und die Ilustrationen zu Schedels Weltchronik (Baden-Baden 1965)Google Scholar. A facsimile edition with commentary: Kreuer, W., Imago Civitatis. Stadtbildsprache des Spätmittelalters (Ludwigsburg 1993)Google Scholar, who discusses Constantinople on 82–87 but makes some wrong identifications. On representations of Constantinople: S. Eyice, İstanbul’un en eski iki gravürü’, Antik Dekor 21 (1993), 34–39.

2. It is repeated on fol. 249r, 274r and 290r, in the last instance with the inscription Italia.

3. A correct account of the conquest can be found on fol. 249r.

4. As, e.g., in the French miniatures of the codices Par. Bibl. Nat. 6487 and 9087, which are both reproduced in Müller-Wiener, W., Die Häfen von Byzantion — Konstantinupolis — Istanbul (Tübingen 1994)Google Scholar, pis. 1.2 and 2. Kreuer, Imago civitatis 84 sq. prefers a date after the conquest, believing, amongst other things, that the crescent in the coat of arms with crosses is a Turkish symbol.

5. That Constantinople was nearly empty in the last decades before 1453 is proved by a number of sources. See Schneider, A.M., ‘Die Bevölkerung Konstantinopels im XV. Jahrhundert’, Nachrichten der Akad. der Wiss. in Göttingen, phil,-hist. Kl. 4 (1949), 233–244.Google Scholar

6. On these walls, see Meyer-Plath, B. — Schneider, A.M., Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, II (Berlin 1943), 100–102.Google Scholar

7. On the problem of the original form, see Strube, C., Die westliche Eingangsseite der Kirchen von Konstantinopel in der justinianischen Zeit (Wiesbaden 1973), 131–138.Google Scholar

8. Guilland, R., ‘La chaîne de la Corne d’Or’, EEBS 25 (1955), 88–120 Google Scholar (= Études de Topographie de Constantinople byzantine [Berlin and Amsterdam 1969], II 121–146).

9. Leonis Diaconi Historiae, ed. C.B. Hase (Bonn 1828), 78 sq. The mention of the Bosphorus and the fact that the Asiatic fastening point is called katantiperas are arguments for its existence: see Wulzinger, K., Byzantinische Baudenkmäler zu Konstantinopel (Hanover 1925), 39–42 Google Scholar; and contrast Guilland, ‘La chaîne’ 90. On the terminology of pera and antipera see Berger, A., Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Poikila Byzantina 8 (Bonn 1988)Google Scholar, 140 sq. The representation of two chains is also stressed by Eyice, ‘Gravümü’ 37.

10. Wulzinger, Baudenkmäler.

11. Kreuer, , Imago civitatis 85 Google Scholar, tries to identify two buildings as the Dominican church of St. Paul and the church of St. George.

12. See Loga, v., ‘Städteansichten’ 184 Google Scholar; Sprengler, , Weltchronik 25 Google Scholar; Müller-Wiener, W., Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls (Tübingen 1977), 31 Google Scholar; Kreuer, Imago civitatis 84, who speaks about an ‘unknown prototype’ without giving further details.

13. Gerola, G., ‘Le vedute di Costantinopoli di Cristoforo Buondelmonti’, Studi bizantini e neoellenici 3 (1931), 247–279 Google Scholar; Thomov, T., ‘New Information about Cristoforo Buondelmonti’s Drawings of Constantinople’, B 66 (1996), 431–453 Google Scholar; Manners, I.R., ‘Constructing the Image of a City: The Representation of Constantinople in Christopher Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum Archipelagi ’, Annual of the Association of the American Geographers 87/1 (1997), 72–102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Schedel’s dependence on Buondelmonti is denied by Schneider, , ‘Die Bevölkerung Konstantinopels’ 242 Google Scholar, but without detailed argumentation.

14. This must in fact be the column that was erected by Michael Vili Palaie-logos after 1261. The sculpture on its top showed him giving a model of the city to the archangel Michael, cf. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 406; Mango, C., Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot 1993), X 11 Google Scholar. The monastery of John Prodromos en te Petra is shown flanked by a pair of columns in the two manuscripts in Florence (Biblioteca Laurenziana, Plut. XXIX, 25; Biblioteca Nazionale, II, II, 312).

15. This church whose full name was Sts. Peter and Paul, lay in the Pisan concession, i.e. somewhere close to the Yeni Cami of today. It is mentioned from the 12th century onwards and was finally transferred to the Florentines in 1439, see Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin, première partie: le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat œcuménique, III Google Scholar. Les Églises et les Monastères (Paris 21969), 573 sq. On the location of the Pisan concession, see Janin, R., Constantinople byzantine (Paris 2 1964), 100–102 Google Scholar, and Berger, A., ‘Zur Topographie der Ufergegend am Goldenen Horn in der byzantinischen Zeit’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 45 (1995), 161–163.Google Scholar

16. The building is best seen in Urbin. 277a.

17. See Berger, ‘Ufer’, 158. On Notaras, see Trapp, E., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Paläologenzeit VIII (Wien 1986), no. 20730 Google Scholar. Only this version contains the spires of the gate of St. Barbara in the sea wall (the later Topkapi Gate on Seraglio point), although it is shown much too far to the west, and the bridge over the upper Golden Horn with the adjoining paper mill built by the Ottomans (Kagithane). Another view, which is based on Buondelmonti and shows the city as it would have looked in the early Ottoman period, has been published by Manners, ‘Constructing the Image’, 76, 87.

18. Berger, A., ‘Zur sogenannten Stadtansicht des Vavassore’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 44 (1994), 329–355.Google Scholar

19. On this, see below, pp. 19–20.

19a. On this, see below, pp. 18–19.

20. It is probably identical with the Islamic sanctuary of Eyüp on the upper Golden Horn, see Berger, ‘Stadtansicht’, 347.

21. d’Essling, Prince, Les Livres à Figures vénitiens I (Paris 1907), no. 342-354 Google Scholar; on the chronicle in general, Krümmel, A., Das ‘Supplementum Chronicarum’ des Augustinermönches Jacobus Philippus Foresti von Bergamo (Herzberg 1991).Google Scholar

22. fol. 82r. The same wood-cut has also been used to represent Epidauros, Mitylene, Gaeta, Pisa, Utica, Civitavecchia, and Porto Venere; even Thebes in a later edition: see Krümmel, ibid., 130–132.

23. fol. 52r. The same picture was also used to represent Naples in 1490 and 1492, and Gaeta and Euboea in 1503. We wish to thank Achim Krümmel for information about the later editions of Foresti’s chronicle.

24. See v. Loga, ‘Städteansichten’ 186; Göllner, C., Turcica. Die europäischen Türkendrucke des XVI. Jahrhunderts I (Bucarest 1961), nos. 56 and 80 Google Scholar.

25. See Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 150.

26. We wish to thank Urs Peschlow for this suggestion.

27. Berger, A., ‘Der Langa Bostani in Istanbul’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 43 (1993), 467–477.Google Scholar

28. Other sources in Schneider, A.M., ‘Brände in Konstantinopel’, BZ 41 (1941), 389 Google Scholar. The number of victims is extremely high for a fire, and is probably much exaggerated, even taking into account the explosion of the Nea (see below in the commentary on the Destruct<i>o antiqua). On the loss of human lives in fires, see also Madden, T.F., ‘The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople’, BZ 84/85 (1991/92), 85–88.Google Scholar

29. See Mango, C., Studies on Constantinople, X 7 Google Scholar and XI 13. — On the statue, see Stichel, R.H.W., Die römisene Kaiserstatue am Ausgang der Antike (Rome 1982) 105–112.Google Scholar

30. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 248 sq.

31. Ubi antiqua columna ymaginem Consta<n>tini imperatoris habebat. fulgur et horrìdus impetus ne dum partem eius deiecit. — German version: Dan der tonerslag plitzen vnd vngest me wetter hat nicht allein einen teil der sewln des pilds des kaiser Constantini ernider geworffen.

32. Raby, J., ‘Mehmet the Conqueror and the Byzantine Rider of the Augustaion’, Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Yilliği 2 (1987), 141–152 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Mehmet the Conqueror and the Equestrian Statue of the Augustaion’, Illinois Classical Studies 12.2 (Fall 1987), 305–313. See also Mango, C., Studies on Constantinople, X 6 Google Scholar. Angiolello calls the statue that of St. Augustine as a result of misunderstanding the name of the square: see Reinhard, J., Edition Angiolello, de J.M. I (Besançon 1913), 48 Google Scholar. On this problem, see also Mango, C., The Brazen House (Copenhagen 1959), 180.Google Scholar

33. Stichel, Kaiserstatue 111.

34a. See C. Mango, The Brazen House, 87–92.

34. The buttresses are those attached to the south-east wall, which were possibly erected under Andronicus II in 1317, but which may be Ottoman. See Mainstone, R., Hagia Sophia (New York 1988), 26, 102–105 Google Scholar, pls. 24, 26, 129.

35. On the minarets, see Nice, W. Emerson-R.L. van, ‘Hagia Sophia and the First Minaret Erected After the Conquest of Constantinople’, American Journal of Archaeology 54 (1950), 28–40 Google Scholar, and G. Necipoğlu in: R. Mark-A.. akmak (eds.), Hagia Sophia from the Age of Justinian to the Present (Cambridge 1992) 202–209. In April 1573, Selim II commissioned a brick minaret (presumably the extant one at the south-east corner), and proposed the demolition of a wooden minaret. Emerson-van Nice (33) suggested that the wooden one was the Byzantine bell-tower at the west end of the church. In fact, it seems that the original south-east minaret was of wood. Mehmed Aşik, writing long after the demolition of the wooden minaret by Selim II, states that one minaret at the east end was the work of the Conqueror, the other of Selim II (Necipoğlu, 209). Thus the north-east minaret was built by the Conqueror. Emerson-van Nice ascribed the north-east minaret to Bayezid II on no firm evidence (31, 38).

36. Janin, La géographie, 384.

37. Mango, The Brazen House, 155; Janin, ibid. 264 sq.; Bardili, J., ‘The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in Constantinople: A Topographical Study’, AJA 101 (1997), 90 Google Scholar. The precise location of the menagerie is unclear, but if the dome immediately to the left of Hagia Sophia’s dome in Vavassore’s panorama is intended to represent the menagerie, then it was, apparently, west of Hagia Sophia, and on the north side of the Mese.

38. Nasûh al-Matraqî: Denny, W., ‘A Sixteenth-Century Architectural Plan of Istanbul’, Ars Orientalis 8 (1970), 49–63 Google Scholar. Freshfield Album: Freshfield, E.H., ‘Some Sketches made in Constantinople in 1574’, BZ 30 (1929/30)Google Scholar, pl. II.

39. Mango, C., Le Développement urbain de Constantinople (Paris 1985/2 1990), 59 Google Scholar n. 46.

40. This traditional identification is wrong: see Bardili, ‘The Palace of Lausus’, 67–89.

41. Bardill, ibid. 89–94.

42. On the preservation of the hippodrome in early Ottoman times see Gyllius, P., De topographia Constantinopoleos (Lyon 1561)Google Scholar, 91 sq. For the reconstruction, see Wiegand, Th., ‘Der Hippodrom von Konstantinopel zur Zeit Suleimans d. Gr.’, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlichen Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 23 (1908), 1–11 Google Scholar. — See Berger, A., ‘Bemerkungen zum Hippodrom von Konstantinopel’, Boreas 20 (1997), 5–15.Google Scholar

43. As suggested by Mango, , The Brazen House, 180 Google Scholar; Bardill, ‘The Palace of Lausus’, 93. The sources about the destruction of the Güngõrmez Kilisesi are collected by Konyah, İ.H., İstanbul Saraylan (Istanbul 1943)Google Scholar, 18 sq.

44. Carbognano, C.C. de in Ruggieri, V. (ed.), Descrizione topographica dello stato presente di Costantinopoli arichiata di figure (Rome 1992)Google Scholar, 28 sq.; see Bardill, ibid. 93.

45. Majeska, G.P., Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 19 (Washington D.C. 1984), 37, 183 Google Scholar, 374 sq.

46. Brock, S., ‘A Medieval Armenian Pilgrim’s Description of Constantinople’, Revue des études armeniennes N. S. 4 (1967), 81–102.Google Scholar

47. Majeska, Russian Travelers, and Brock ibid.

48. It is probably also the convent of Ouaranas mentioned by other sources, which was founded originally in the early fifth century. On this, see: Janin, , La géographie, 158 Google Scholar, 184 sq., 217; Berger, Untersuchungen, 422 sq.

49. Mango, The Brazen House, 158–162.

50. On this, see Necipoğlu, G., Architecture, Ceremonial, Power. Topkapi Palace in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (New York 1991).Google Scholar

51. It is shown in its original form with an upper storey, which was demolished only in 1867. See Necipoğlu, ibid. 37–40.

52. Mamboury, R. Demangel-E., Le quartier des Manganes (Paris 1939), 19–37.Google Scholar

53. Kömürcüyan, Eremya Çelebi, İstanbul Tarihi — XVIII asirda İstanbul, translated by Andreasyan, H.D. (İstanbul 1952), 5 Google Scholar; İnciciyan, G., XVIII asirda İstanbul, translated by Andreasyan, H.D. (İstanbul 1976), 58.Google Scholar

54. Necipoğlu, Architecture, Ceremonial, Power, 204 and plates 22b, 31b.

55. Janin, La géographie, 298–300; 66, 340, 345 sq. On its location, see Berger, Untersuchungen, 381–388.

56. Berger, Untersuchungen, 388; but cf. A. Berger, ‘Zur Topographie der Ufergegend’, 349.

57. Berger, Untersuchungen, 376–378.

58. See Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 37–40.

59. On this fire, see Wiegand, E. Mamboury-T., Kaiserpaläste von Konstantinopel (Berlin 1934)Google Scholar, preface; A.M. Schneider, ‘Brände’, 401.

60. On fol. 23r, 44v, 61r, 110r, and 194v.

61. On the history of this map, see Miller, K., Die Weltkarte des Castorius genannt Die Peutingersche Tafel (Ravensburg 1887), 6–14 Google Scholar; Weber, E., Tabula Peutingeriana. Codex Vindobonensis 324 (Graz 1976), 9 Google Scholar sq.; Bosio, L., La Tabula Peutingeriana (Rimini 1983), 14 Google Scholar, 87 sq.

62. Konrad Ceitis may already have been in possession of the map when he stayed in Nuremburg in 1491, hence at the time Schedel’s chronicle was being produced there. In 1493, after the appearance of the Latin version of the chronicle, Ceitis was contracted to improve Schedel’s chronicle. This work, however, was never undertaken. See Newald, R., Probleme und Gestalten des deutschen Humanismus (Berlin 1963), 194.Google Scholar