SubsidiaBalcanica, Islamicaet Turcica, 3TheOttoman City and ItsPartsUrban Structure and Social OrderEditedbyIRENE A. BIERMANRIFA' AT A. ABOU-EL-HA]DONALD PREZIOSIiSTP1NBUL BiLGtUNIVERSITY LIBRARlAristide D. Caratzas, PublisherNewRochelle, NewYorkThe OttomanCityandItsParts:Urban StructureandSocial OrderCopyright 1991 by Aristide D. Caratzas, PublisherAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any formwithout thepermissionin writing of thepublisher.Aristide D. Caratzas, Publisher30 Church Street, P.O. Box 210New Rochelle, New York10802Library of CongressCataloguing in Publication DataEdited byIreneA. Bierman, Rifa'at A. Abou-EI-Haj, Donald PreziosiIncludes bibliographical references and index1. City planning-Turkey-History.2. Citiesand towns, Islamic-Turkey-History.3. Architecture, Ottoman.I. Bierman, Irene A. II. Abou-El-Haj, Rifa'at A. Ill. Preziosi, Donald.NA9229.0871991307.76'09561-dc20 91-10731CIPISBN: 0-89241-473-1PRINTEDIN THEUNITEDSTATESOFAMERICAContentsPartI: THECITY AS A WHOLEIntroduction:The Mechanisms of UrbanMeaning 3Donald Preziosi1. Byzantine Constantinople&Ottoman Istanbul: Evolution in aMillennialImperialIconography 13Speros Vryonis, Jr.2. TheOttomanization of Crete 53Irene A. Bierman3. Power and Social Order: TheUses of the Kanun 77Rifa' pi A.Abou-El-HajPARTII:' THECITY ANDITSPARTSIntroduction: Power. Structure, andArchitecturalFunction 103Donald Preziosi4. Administrative Complexes. Palaces. andCitadels: Changes intheLoci of Medieval Muslim Rule 111JereL. Bacharach5. Facades inOttoman Cairo 129Olka Bates6. The Ottoman Sultan's Mosques: Icons of Imperial Legitimacy 173HowardCraneGlossary 245Index 253ContributorsRifa'at Ali Abou-El-Haj Ottoman historian and Professor of History,California State University, Long BeachJere L. Bacharadt Professor ofIslamic History, University ofWashington, SeattleUlkii Bates Associate Professor of Art History, Hunter Collegeof the City University of New YorkIrene A. Bierman Associate Professor of Islamic Art History, UCLAHoward Crane Islamic art historian and Professor of Art History,Ohio State UniversityDonaldPreziosi Professor of Art History, UCLASperosVryonis, Jr. Professor of Greek Civilizationand Culture andDirector of the AlexanderS. Onassis Center forHellenicStudies, New YorkUniversityPreface"The presumption is that meaning intheurban environment is not completely con-tainedin the structures themselves that comprise that environment, but israther acomplexfunctionof interrelationsamongobjects, users, andtheirhistorical circum-stances."Thesewordshavetheir origins ina positionpapercirculatedin advance ofa conference entitledPower and Structure in the IslamicUrbanArts, sponsored inMay. 1984 by the Gustave E. von GrunebaumCenter for Near EasternStudies, the Art History area of the Department ofArt, Design, & ArtHistory, andtheSchool of Architectureof theUniversityof California, LosAngeles. During thedays of that conference, a large groupof art and architec-tural historians, historians, architects, cityplanners, andsociologistsmet toconsider the manyways inwhich the urbanenvironment was employedtosignify andsustainspecifically Islamic ideas andvalues of statecraft, politicallegitimacy, religiousunity, andsocial andeconomicpower. Theparticipantswere asked to address the question ofhow Islamiccities and their partsengendered and sustained such values, and how suchvalues might be "legible'in Islamic architectural foundationsand structures.The present volume isone product ofthat conference, and consistsofessayscommissioned subsequent totheconferenceona morefocussed themeof the historical relationships between political power and specificallyOttomanIslamic urbanstructure.Rather than publishing a traditional volumeof conferenceproceedings, the editors projected athematicallyunifiedvol-ume madeupof essaysbyseveral scholars whoseresearchintotherelation-ships between Ottoman political power andurban structure provides a multi-disciplinary picture of thecurrent state of ourknowledge of the subject.Theresultant collectiveventureis madeupof six essaysbyhistorians andart andarchitecturalhistorians of theOttomanworld whichpresent overlap-ping insights intothesocial history of theOttoman city and its parts. Manyofthe subjects takenup belowin each studyreappear in different ways in all six,andeachessay further illuminates, andis intumilluminatedby, the others.UrbanStructure and Social Order is dividedintotwoparts: considerationsof theOttomancityas awhole [part One] andinits component parts[part Two].viii PrefaceEach partis preceded by an introductory sectionwhichidentifies commonlyaddressedthemes, andindicates thespecific ways inwhichthe conclusionsand insights of each essay augment and resonate with those of the others.Many people helped to make this volume possible--some because theyhelpedbringabout theoriginal conferencewhichinspired thepresent study,and somebecause of theiradvice andcounselonthedesign andproductionofthis book. The editors would like to thank Professor George Sabagh,Director of thevonGrunebaumCenterforNearEasternStudies; ProfessorNikkieKeddie of UCLA;and Dr. HeathLowry,Director of the InstituteforTurkishStudies, Washington, D.C.,whichawarded a publication subventionfor the volume.Inaddition. special thanks gotoProfessor Speros Vryonis, jr., Director oftheAlexander S. Onassis Center for HellenicStudies, New York University,for his ongoing advice and encouragement;Mr. JonathanFriedlander; RobertH. Gray, former deanof the UCLACollege ofFineArts; UCLAVice-ChancellorElwinSvenson; Susan Sims andEmikoTerasaki; andEthel SaraWolper for makingthe Glossary andCarel Bertramfor makingthe Index.Special thanks must be given to Grace Wax. Caroline Kent.and ShannonW.Morris for typingthismanuscript. We would also liketothankProfessorsMartinKrampenof theHochschule der BildendeKunste,Berlin, and JanetAbu-Lughod of theSchool of Social Research. whose theoretical and criticalcontributionstothis workatits outset helpeddefinethevolume'sthematicunities. Themanycontributors tothe1984conferencehelpedus inunder-standingtheextraordinarydiversity andcomplexity of urbandesign andhis-toryinthelarger Islamic world. Finally. wewishtothank JohnEmerichofthe Press for his ongoing encouragement and unfailinglygood advice inbringingthis project to completion.In all thetransliterations, wetriedtofollowthesystem adoptedbyIslamAnsiklopedisi. The most notable exceptions were: For the Arabicayn, weadoptedthesymbol' as in'Ali; forhamzah, weadoptedthesymbol' as inDar al-'Imarah.IRENE A. BIERMANDEPARTMENT OFART HISTORY,UCLARIFA' AT A. ABou-Er.-HA]DEPARTMENT OFHISTORY, CALIFORNIASTATE UNIVERSITYAT LONG BEACHDONAlD PRFZIOSIDEPARTMENT OFART HISTORY, UCLAPart ITHE CITY AS A WHOLEI have neither desires nor fears[Kublai Khandeclared].and my dreams are composedeither by my mind or bychance.Cities also believe they are the workof the mindor ofchance[Marco Poloreplies]. but neither theone nor theother suffices to hold up theirwalls. You take delightnot in a city's seven or seventy wonders, but in theanswer it gives to a question of yours.Or thequestion it asks you, forcing youto answer. likeThebes through the mouth of the Sphinx.-Italo Calvino, Invisible CitiesIntroductionThe Mechanisms ofUrban MeaningDonald PreziosiIf youweretovisit the Athenian Akropolis toexaminethegreat architec-tural remains of classical Greece, youwould most likely comeupon a curiousanomalyinthesymmetrical compositionof thelarge gatewaycoveringthewesternend of theAkropolishill, a building known as thePropylaia. As youwalk through the Propylaia, youmay noticethat thedoorandflanking win-dows of a room behind theleft(north)portico donot align themselves withtheintercolumnialspaces of that portico. Thisbizarreasymmetryis at oddsnot onlywiththedoorsof thecentral portion of the PropylaialeadingontotheAkropolis platform, but in fact also withthealignments of all such archi-tectural membersin otherclassical colonnaded structures.Theasymmetrical facade belongstoachamber knowninantiquityas thePinakotheka, or picture-gallery, referred to by the ancient traveller Pausanias ashousingpicturessignificant toAthenianhistoryandmythology. Shouldyouattempt to find a spot wherethechamber's door and windows might appear intheir canonicallyclassical position (betweenthefronting columns), youwilleventuallyfindyourself at the centerof the forecourt of the UvshapedPropylaia,downonthezigzag rampleading steeply uptothe Propylaia plat-form.That spotis atthe centerof theramp, andat thecenterof theforecourt.Directly ahead,to theeast, youcan look through the large central doorway ofthePropylaiaupontotheAkropolis platform. If youwerestandingat thispoint in thelatter part of the5thcentury B.C., youwould see directly aheadof youthrough themain Propylaiaentrance thegreat chryselephantinestatueof the Athenapromakhos, the patronof the Athenianstruggleagainst thePersians half a century earlier: the .head of this massive goldandivorystatuewould dominate theviewintothe Akropolis. If youweretoturnaround, inthedirection of the gaze of that statue, youwould then see on the far westernhorizontheisland of Salamis, thesiteof theAtheniannaval victoryagainstthe Persian fleet.4 Donald PreziosiThis entire tableauorchestratedby thePropylaiaandbythe statueofAthena is nothing less than a theater of memory, ortheatron:a place where thevisible becomeslegible. It is theobverse of the ancient Greek theater, for thespectator is at thecenter of theorchestra, not onone of thetiers of seats. Thecentralpoint of this historical panorama transforms the spectator, theindivid-ual subject, into thevery site for theproduction of meaning, where theindi-vidual gazeandperspective isthe "measure"of things. Byliterallyplayingwiththeperceptualexpectanciesof thesubject, it putsthat subject into theonlyplacewherethearchitectural compositionof thePropylaiaas awholewould grammatically"read" within thecanons of classicism;It shouldbe recalledthat the claimto exclusiveor decisive success atSalamis was hotly disputedby Sparta, whoseforces played a majorrole inthePersiandefeat. Forthose with eyes toreadit, thetableau mounted by Athensattheentrancetoits most sacred religious sanctuarywould haveconstituteda powerful and provocative political statement-a textmade up of ideologicalimagery, composed by the Athenian state to legitimize and reinforceits claimsto theleadership of all theHellenes.!IICitiesandtheirparts worktoengender, reflect, legitimize, andsustain thelivedrealities of socialgroups. Theyaccomplishthisbyestablishingcertaindistributionsof individuals and objects; surfacesandboundaries; visibilitiesandocclusions, over spaceandtime andindynamicallychangingarrange-mentsthat sustain therelationships in which individuals and groups are caughtup.While cities afford opportunities for action and interaction, they also con-strainbehaviorthroughthe fabricationof conventionallyappropriatestagesfor interactionorseparation. Urbanstructures acquire significationthroughactiveusage, andtheir meanings changeaccordingtopositionandperspec-tive, intentionandcircumstance. Thus, thecomplexset of associations pro-jected byagivencity-sayIstanbul-may beradically different tomembersof different classesorreligiousorethniccommunities, ortomembers of thesame groupsat differenthistorical periods, orunder changed political circum-stances.The relationshipof the individual historical subjectto suchurbanrealities isinvariably highlycomplex. Individuals aremorethanpassive "consumers"ofurbanimageryandstructure: citiesarenot "read"as if they were texts orpaintings. Rather, theyare reckonedwith in the dual sense of thatphrase-simultaneouslycopedwithand thought with.2At thesametime thattheindividual subject must copewitha prefabricatedurbanfabric, heorshemust think(with) it in order to fabricate a lived relationshiptoits affordancesandconstraints. Touse a citymeanstoactivelyunderstand its material, logi-. cal, andsemanticorders: toplay its gameaccordingtoconventionally estab-lished rules and protocols.The Mechanisms of UrbanMeaning 5A city's geometricandtopologic economies operate as grids of certainties:networksof predictability andpredicationfor thestaging of behavioral rou-tines,andepisodic frameworks forinter-personal contact andavoidance. Inthis sense, an urbanstructureis a matrix of ideological instruments for creat-ingandsustaining astory-shapedworld. Thesub-text of that story-shapedworld is the fluctuating dynamic ofsocial power.A city is neverneutral: the urbantabric is a device for tracking, measuring,controlling, and predicting behaviors over space and time. The realities it tab-ricates and maintains are invariably fictive-an ideologically-investedperspec-tiveontheproper social realities of individuals, groups, andclasses. Inthissense, thereis nocity whichis not in someway a utopicfiction-or, moreaccurately, a matrix of varied and often conflicting fictions.sFrom such a perspective, ideology may beconstrued as a fixed set of posi-tions or places for the social subject to inhabit, both physicallyand metaphori-cally. A given ideologyestablishesandmaintains a particular form of subjec-tivity-aperspectivefromwhichgivenlivedworlds cohereandappearordered, legitimate, and natural.'Ideologyandurbanstructurearenot external toeachother, as might beassumed werewetoconstrueliterally theassertion that what a city"repre-sents' is power. Cities andtheir parts exemplify, embody, andexpress powerrelations, tobesure, but at thesametime theyenforce, perpetuate, andengender relations of power. At the same time that we inhabit a city, it inhab-itsus. As wecome tounderstandmorefully thenatureof the"images ofcities"5 that socialized individuals toform, itbecomes moreclearly apparentthatoneof the principal functions of cities is precisely toengender"images"of themselves, therebyprovidingthe means whereby life-worldsandtheirimagery (which is tosaytheirideologies) canbereckonedwith. Inthisregard, the history of building may be understood as the ongoing, dynamical-ly changing, and frequently contradictory generation ofideological imagery.fIIITheessayscomprising this interdisciplinary volume areeach concernedinvarying ways withthemeans wherebyparticular historical cities withintheOttoman worldestablishedtheir ownregimes of legibility-the ways in whichcities made manifest the signs andemblems of power relations, and thewaysinwhich they employed architectonicand othercues as to howthey were tobe "reckoned with" by their inhabitants. Each study, speciallywrittenfor thisvolume, provides aslant or perspective ontheproblemof howOttomancities orchestrated meaning, deployed relations of power, and constructed andembodied particular ideologies.Each essaywas writtenwithina framework defined by these questions, andeachof thehistorians, art historians, andarchitectural historians contributingtothisjointproject presentsaperspectiveon the social historyof the6 Donald PreziosiOttoman city-the multiplefoci necessary for assembling a realistically com-plex picture of that history. Each of these perspectives overlaps withtheoth-ers, illuminates them, and is in turnilluminated by them. It has been our jointunderstanding thatany adequate understandingof social history is necessarilya collective endeavorthat transcends the capacities arid programmmatic inter-ests of individual disciplines or discourses.Thefollowingessaysshouldberead inthat spirit-aspartial andinmanycases deliberately overlapped perspectivesonthe issues at hand. The many sub-jects addressed below-historiesof architecturalformation, statepatronage,andthehistories of social, religious, political, and legal institutions-reappearin different ways ineach study, and link togetherimportant facetsof the rela-tionship ofIslamic power and urban formation.PartOne, devoted totheOttoman city as a whole, includes essays by twohistorians andanart historian. Chapter1, bySperos Vryonis, jr., considerstheprocesses by whichtwoimperial personages (ConstantineandMehmed)respectively gave formand substance to the imperial capitals ofConstantinople and Istanbul. In Chapter 2, Irene Biermanexamines the waysin which 17th-centuryOttomanconquerors andsettlers transformedaVenetian merchant city (Herakleion) intoan Ottoman provincial capital, andsignalled itsnewlyIslamic status bythe orchestrationof architectural formsinheritedfromVenetianandnativeGreekfoundations: the citybecameasmall-scale reflection of theimperial capital ofIstanbul. Chapter 3, by Rifa'atA. Abou-El-Haj, focuses onthe changeinthesocial uses of Ottomanlaw(the kanun) inregulating life in Istanbul and elsewhere, and therebyillustratesthe complexmechanismsbywhichOttomanurbanstructuresandfounda-tions originated and were perpetuated.Vryonis considersthe site of Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul as themedium-material of imperial iconography, anddiscusses thenature of the siteitself, the almost daernonic personalities of Constantine and Mehmed, and thevalorizationof thesite bythe joining together of site andpersonality inthephysical creationof a"super-city.' Constantinebrought toByzantiumtheRomanEmpire, Christianity, andGreekculture; Mehmedbrought toConstantinopleIslam andtheSultanate (tobefollowedeventuallybytheCaliphate).AccordingtoVryonis, the riseof the twosuccessive imperial capitalsentaileda9-foldintegrationof thepolitical powersamassed byConstantineand MehmedThese processes are described as irnperialization, sanctification,rnandarinization, literalization, militarization, demographization, thesauriza-tion, monumentalization, andsacralization, or ceremonialization, Vryonisargues that both Constantine (in 330) and Mehmed (in 1453) used similar orequivalent means inconstructingthefoundationsof their respective imperi-urns, andthat inanumber of respects, bothrulershadambiguousattitudestowardthe cultures theyreplaced-paganGreekcultureandByzantineChristianculture, respectively. Inbothcases, aprocess of sanctificationThe Mechanisms of Urban Meaning 7purged, eliminated, andtransformed such elementsinthe newimperialiconography.Vryonis considers suchprocessesas examples of atranslatioimperii, andhedetails manyof the ways thiswas accomplishedbybothConstantineandMehmed. What is important here-in connection withthe general subject ofthevolume-is theimplicationthat theestablishment of animperial urbanstructureentailedinbothhistorical instancesafundamental reorientationuponanexisting orsurviving material infrastructure-boththeurbanstruc-ture as awhole andtherelativedispositionanddeployment of its variouscomponent parts. Inother words, itmay besaid that each imperial foundercreated new conditions of legibility within the urban infrastructure. Whilethemost obvious and familiar example of such translationes was the conversion ofthe great churchof the Haghia Sophia into an Islamic mosque through palpa-bleandsignificant architectonic renovationsboth internallyandexternally,the process may be seen in every facet of urban life, and onevery scale. Thisis evident in a widevariety of "rewritings"of portionsof thevisual environ-ment. A good example is thegreat porphyrycolumn set upin theForumofConstantine, crowned by a statue of the ruler in the attitude of Helios, hold-ingaglobuscrucifixinone hand. Placedbeneaththebase of thecolumnwerevarious significant Christianrelics, aswell as the paganPalladiumbrought fromRome. Theentirestructurerepresents anamalgam of paganandChristianpracticesandformations, all of whichwere ineffect trans-formed toconstituteasanctificationof thenewpolitical order. Thenewimperial capital materializedontheBosphorusasamicrocosmof theChristianimperial macrocosm, transformingandsubsumingthesigns andrelics of theoldGreco-Romanorder. Whatwas accomplished ona colossalscale inthenewChristianimperial capital reflectedtransformationstakingplace throughout the Greco-Roman world on a microcosmic scale duringtheprevioustwocenturies. Thismay beseen intheongoingtransformations ofGreek pagan temples and shrines into sites of Christian worship: a transforma-tioninvolving, in many cases, the simple conversion of a pagan temple into aChristian church by the closing off of the old east entrance, the openingof anentrance at thewesternend, andtherefitting of theinteriorwithan altar onthe east end, often accompanied by the erectionof an apsidal wall behindthealtar table.Ina similar fashion, Christians intheWest convertedoldurbanbasilical forms once used for commercial or civic offices into churches.Inall cases, suchtranslationesinvolvedthetransformationof older urbanimagery intostructuresmeant tobe"read" instrikingly different ways: thesignificance andconnotationsof theurbaninfrastructure werechanged,andineffect "rewritten.' Constantineand Mehmed werefascinated by aspects ofthecultural traditionstheyreplaced andtransformed. Bothrulers saw them-selvesas straddling twoworlds, andbothappear tohave seenthemselves aspersonalities large enoughto subsume thelegacies of the old and neworders.Vryonis's essay argues stronglythat theimperialiconographyestablished by8 Donald Preziosieach foundercannot be adequately understood without a consideration of theinseparability of urban form and the orders of urban life.Theessay by Bierman(Chapter 2)extends some of Vryonis's majorcon-cerns intoa provincial context:theworld of Ottoman Crete. Conquered bytheOttomansinthe 17thcentury, the island hadfor four centuries beenoccupiedbythe Venetians. Their capital of Candia(present-day Herakleion)was itself a miniatureversion of the Venetian imperial capital onthe Adriaticinthat it replicatedseveral of its keyarchitectural monuments inapproxi-mately the same relationshipsto each other. ThusVenetian Candia containeda Piazza San Marco, a Basilica San Marco, aCampanile, andagovernor'spalace corresponding tothe positionoccupied by the Palazzo Ducale relativeto its associatedbuildings in Venice. Moreover, just as the great civic and reli-gious centerof Venice frontedona major thoroughfare(the Canal Grande),sodidtheequivalentcomplexinCandiaopenontothemajorland gate ofthat city. Equivalent foundationsweremadeinthesecondmajorVenetianCretancity to the west, Rethymnon (Retimo).InCandiaandRethyrnnon, the GreekOrthodoxstructures permittedwithinthe urban core were rendered invisible, marginalized behind the mon-umental Venetian urban core. TheOttoman conquest of the islandresulted inan eradication of Latin Christian institutions and foundations and the deporta-tionof the Venetian andWesternpopulationsbacktoEurope. Biermandetails how the Ottoman conquerors remodeled all Venetian and many Greekstructures in the city of Candia into institutions ofMuslim function.Archival andarchitectural evidence suggeststhatthetransformation of theVenetianpolitical andreligious infrastructure involvedmaterially minor, butsymbolically major remodellings. Threeitems appear to have been sufficientlyexpressive of Islarnicization in the transformation of Latin Christian churches:theerection of anOttoman-styleminaret built over thefoundationsof anolderLatinbell-tower; theinstallation of a chronogramplaqueonthefrontfacades of former churches; and the establishment of a graveyard withcharac-teristic Ottoman tombstones adjacent to the newcami. Apart from the interiorreplacement of Christian furniture by minbars and qiblas, these three alterationstootherwiseuntransformedstructures sufficiently signalled Islamic religioushegemony.Biermanobserves anapparentanomalyinthis transformational process inthesiting of theSultan's Mosquein Candia. Incontrast toImperial Istanbul,where theGreat Churchof Constantinople, theHaghiaSophia, was trans-formedintotheAyaSofia Cami (the great mosqueof the conquerorMehmed), inCandiathe sultan's camiwas sited ontheruins of a Franciscanmonastery, near the eastern gate of the city: the old Basilica San Marcoin theurbancenter was convertedtothemosqueof theGrandVezir. Bierman'sexplanationof thisanomalygives us an insight intotheprocess ofOttomanizationitself: thenewSultan's mosquestoodononeof thehighestpoints withinCandia, at apositionwhere itsdistinctiveOttomanoutlinesThe Mechanisms of Urban Meaning 9would have beenvisible for manymiles bothonland and at sea. Thissitingsuggests that theconquerorsmay have beenconcerned withorchestrating theurban structureof Candia as a whole as a miniatureecho of the great imperialcapital onthe Bosphoros, whereimperial mosques standing onthe major hillsof thecitywere visible far out tosea toanyapproachingtraveller. Candiathus wouldhave beenrenderedlegible as anOttomanandIslamic city fromfar and wide.Thisexternal legibility was complemented by a system of internal legibility,withthe foundation of numerouscamis, tekkes, sebiihanes, mescids, andothercharacteristicallyOttoman Islamic institutions, often transforming (or standingin positions in the city overlying) prominent Venetian foundations. The 17th-centuryOttomantravellerEvliya Celebi observedthat while the entireMuslimpopulationof Khania(Haniye)andRethymnon(Retmo) couldbeaccommodated inthreecamis, twicethat number wereinitially built ineachcity. Vryonis observed, in connectionwiththeimperial foundationofConstantinople, thatmany civic andreligious structures werebuilt,far morethan would have beenimmediately required by the small initial population ofthat city.Bierman argues that the deliberate creation of a distinctively Ottoman "sky-line"intheprovincial cities of Crete resonates withtheiconographicpro-grammeevident intheimperial capital of Istanbul and in other great cities oftheempire. Yetby themid-17thcentury, patternsof patronageandinstitu-tional support withintheempirehad cometo be different from those charac-teristic of earlier times. She suggeststhat despite thevisual prominencegivenexternally in theCretan cities totheSultan's camis, these foundationsdid notincludecomplexes serving as major centers withinthe cities, nor did theyinfactsignal the exercise of extraordinaryphilanthropicgenerosity(as theywouldinthecapital andelsewhere). Indeed, sheobserves that insomeinstances, theSultan'scamishadnocongregationonCrete, andinonecase(Sultan Ibrahim's Cami), it served as a gunpowder magazine.Such anomalies suggest that on17th-century Cretethe Sultan's cami was an"empty"signrepresentingsultanicpower assuch: actual political and.ecomonic power lay elsewhere, and was expressed in the strong patronage ofthemosques of theGrandVezir, thePasa households, andtheValide Sultan,aswell asinfoundations endowed by the original conquerors andtheirprogeny. Thus, whilethe connotative functions of Sultanic power were tena-ciously maintained, their denotativefunctions had radicallychanged.Thecomplexhistorical nature of thesechangesinpowerandpatronagewithin the Ottoman Empire, legible in the architecture and urban structureofprovincial Crete, are equally legible inIstanbul itself inconnectionwiththesocial uses of theOttoman law(kanun), as discussed in great detail by Abou-EI-Haj(Chapter 3). His essayexamines changes to, and augmentations of, thecomplex body of legal regulations during the period1600-1800,and indicatesthe ways in which such changes reflect importantshifts in social and econom-10 Donald Preziosiicrelations. Such changesareembodiedinthe provincial microcosmofpatronageandinstitutional foundationandsupport onCrete, where, asBierman has shown, the signs of Sultanic power become increasinglyempty.Byattendingclosely tothecontent and social functions of thekanun andwhat becamean associated literature(such as thenasihatnameler), wemay beabletounderstandthespecificnatureof thepatronage of Ottomaninstitu-tions andfoundations duringthe period1600-1800. Abou-El-Haj'sstudyindicates quiteclearly that while the form of thekanun remains constant dur-ingthis period, its social usagesandpractical referents shift, oftenverydra-matically. What onceweretheinstrumentsofdomination (throughsurplusextraction), thekanun of the sixteenth century and the nasihatnameler (politicalpolemics of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies), are refitted and enteredintothe discourse over modernconstitution-makinginthenineteenthandtwentieth centuries. Thus the rights of the sipahis, once spelled outin some ofthenasihatnameler, are used anachronisticallyto annotate and explicate the six-teenthcenturykanun. Such anomalies betweenformationandreferencearethemselves echoedinthefindingsof bothVryonis andBiermanintheirresearch intothehistory of urban structureand its changing ideological con-notations.All threeessays inthis section exemplify and reinforce this historical speci-ficity. Taken together, thestudies byVryonis, Bierman, andAbou-EI-Hajoffer complementary and partly-overlapping insights intoOttoman urban andsocial history, highlighting byturnstheinternalandexternal dimensions ofthathistory. In sodoing, theydemonstratetheinterdependenceof architec-tural, urban, and social questions, not only inspecifically Ottomancontexts,but morebroadly. Not least of the implications to bedrawn from this sectionis onewhichis strongly methodological: that thewriting of social history inits fullest sense necessarily involves theintegrationof many different lines ofresearch-fromthe historyof art andarchitecturetothe historyof legal,political, andsocial institutions. Animportant corollarytothisis that thewriting of social history works against thegrain of disciplinary specializationandfragmentationas a multidisciplinary andcollective enterprise: adialogueamong histories and historians.NOTES1. A discussion of this examplenuy befound in D. Preziosi, "Reckoning withtheWorld: Figure, Text &Traceinthe Built Environment," Americal'lJOflrl'lal ofSemiotics,vol. 4, nos. 1-2(1986): 1-15, andin idem., (Between Power &Desire: The Margins oftheCity) inGlyph Textual Studies I: Demarcatil'lg the Disciplil'les (Philosophy, Literature,Art)(1986): 237-253.2. The notionof "reckoning" with urbanstructureis developed intheessays citedinthepreviousnote. Theviewing position describedaboveis what might betermedanal'lamorphic point, fromwhichvisual anomaliesandambiguitiesdissolve, and aThe Mechanisms of UrbanMeaning 11canonically proper tableauorperspective locksintoplace. Suchphenomena are char-acteristicof many planned foundationsinvariouscultures: as I. Biermanargues belowinChapter 2, Ottoman foundationsonCrete present equivalent "canonical"tableauxof thewholecitythat areemblematicof OttomanIslamichegemony. Theliteraturedealingwithaspects of thisphenomenon(often underthe headingofgenius loci) isquite large; auseful introductionmaybe foundin C. Norberg-Schulz, MeaninginWestern Architecture (New York: Praeger, 1975), esp. 427-434, with references.See alsoidemGeniusLoci (New York: Rizzoli, 1980).3. On therelationships between architectureandideology, see M. Tafuri, Theories&Historyof Architecture, (NewYork: Harper & Row, 1976), esp, 61-73; idem.,Architectureand Utopia(CambridgeMA: MITPress, 1976), 150-169. Onutopias vs.heterotopias, see M. Foucault, "Of OtherSpaces," Diacriticsvol. 16, No.1, Spring1986, pp. 22-27.4. Onideologyas engendering"positions"forsubjectstoinhabit, see R. Coward& J. Ellis, Language&Materialism, DevelopmentsinSemiology& the Theory of theSubject, (London&Boston: Routledge&Kegan Paul, 1979), esp. 71-82. Ideology,according totheauthors, puts individuals at theimaginary center of a social structure,makingthe subject theplace where ideological meanings are realized. Ideologyachieves such closures byfixing the relationshipbywhichthe individual representshimself inhis world of objects (p. 74). From sucha perspective, all architectonicfor-mations worktoengenderideological imagery: for anexampleof the operationsofsuchmechanisms, see n. 2 above, andChapter 2(Bierman)below.5. The classic study of urbanimagery is K. Lynch, The Image of the City (CambridgeMA: MITPress, 1960). Lynch's researchintothe waysinwhichurbaninhabitantsdevelop "images" or cognitivemaps of their environments hasgiven rise toaverylargebody of researchintothesubject overthepast quarter-century. Auseful intro-duction tokeyissues is R.M. Downs&D. Stea, eds.,Image&Environment:CognitiveMapping&Spatial Behavior (Chicago: Aldine, 1973). See also, A. Renier, ed., Espace etrepresentation(paris: Les Editions dela Villette, 1982), esp. 123-184,andM. Krampen,Meaningin the UrbanEnvironment (London: Pion, 1979), esp. Part 2(93-307), whichrecounts a series of empirical studiesonwhattheauthor termsthe"psychosemiology"of architecture.6. Thissubject is takenupinvariouswaysbya number of authors inthepresentvolume; inPart One,particularly byVryonis (Chapter I), whodiscusses the waysinwhich theimperial rulersof Constantinople-Istanbul employed theurban siteitself toorchestrateideological imagery, and byBierman(Chapter2), whoshows howtheseimperial practices werereflectedin a provincial comerof the Ottomanempire, theislandof Crete. InPart Two,the detailed mechanismsof thesepractices areoutlinedby all threeauthors-interms of the shiftingloci of Muslimrule in administrativecomplexes (Bacharach); inthe "Ottomanizing"facades of buildingsinCairo(Bates);andbyCrane under the umbrellatermof "iconsof imperial legitimacy" in themosquesof theOttoman Sultans inIstanbul andelsewhere.1Byzantine Constantinople&Ottoman IstanbulEvolution ina Millennial Imperial IconographySperosVryonis,Jr.Whenthe semi-legendary Byzas ostensibly foundedthe first Greekcity ontheBosphorus, Byzantion(traditiondates it to667B.C.), hechose a siteofunrivaledgeographicalexcellence, situatedas it was at the junctureof twolandmasses andtwoseas. But evenafter the rebuildingof thecityalongRomanlines by Septimius Severus in196A.D. it remaineda small provincialemporiumof nopolitical importance. Yet its naturalmilitary security(sur-rounded onthreesides by thesea), maritime advantages(sheltered deep har-bor), continental hinterlands (the richagricultural areas of ThraceandBithnia), andproximitytothegreat sea routes andlandhighwayslinkingEuropeto Asia and thelands northof the Black Sea to the lands south of theMediterranean, all renderedthesmall cityof Byzantionpotentiallymoreblessedthanthe three Mediterraneansuper-cities of Rome, Antioch, andAlexandria. Later Byzantine and Ottoman writers praised thegeographical, asindeed the climatic, virtues of the site as particularly suited to be therecepta-cle of imperium. Thisbrings us tothefirst of thethreecomponentsof thispaper, the site itself, whichis totheimperial iconography and style what themedium-material is to an architect, sculptor, or painter. Thegeographical siteand its physical topographyremainedconstant factors intheevolutionof theByzantine and Ottoman capitals to a degree that the land itself was historicallyandmysticallytransformedbecauseit inheritedfirst Athens, Rome, andJerusalem, thenMecca, Damascus, and Baghdad. Noothergeographical sitewas so constituted as to be able toreceive and to renew all these elements. Itbrings us totheEnglish studentof AsiaMinor, Sir William Ramsay, andhispreoccupationwiththeconcept of thesanauslocus, theabiding sanctity of agivenandwelldefined geographical site, thegeographical spot which, oncesacralized, retains "forever" its holy character.The secondelement is that of thedaemonicpersonalities of thefoundinggenii: in thefirst instance Constantine the Great,in the second Mehmed theConqueror.' Inbothcases, thetwoimperial capitalsemerged first as acts ofconscious re-foundations (bothurban and imperial), ona grandiose scale, bymen of ruthless genius whose vision was ecumenical and focused oneternity.Constantineand Mehmed wereabsorbed intotherhythms of long-lived and14 Speros Vryonis,Jr.vital imperial traditions; their re-foundations constitutemajor historical reori-entationswithlongevityandwithimperial successors (Constantius II,TheodosiusII,Justinian I, Bayazid II, Selim I, and Snleyman I) whoextendedandconsummatedtheact of imperial creationinConstantinople-Istanbul. Acursoryexaminationof thepersonalities andcharacter of thefirst Christianemperorand the first Muslim sultan torule onthe Bosphorus is in orderandof intrinsic interest.Because of theheroic stature of both men, and the absolutely fundamentalnatureof their roles in founding imperial cities and empires, within a centuryof their respective deaths theyenteredthegoldenrealmof historical myth.Constantinebecame theideal of Byzantinemonarchs andwasreckoned,along withhis mother Helen, a saint inthe Byzantine church. The figure ofMehmed was transmuted intothe image of the just and pious sultan, reveredby bothhis GreekandTurkish subjects for his justice and benevolence, andbyMuslims as endowedwitha peculiarly religious aura. Undoubtedlythesetransformed imperial and sultanic types played an important role in the impe-rial iconographyof thecity long after thedeath of their prototypes, but his-torical mythobscures their real role in the very act of creation of the imperialiconographyof Constantinople-Istanbul. Constantine's principal biographerandcontemporary, Eusebius of Caesarea, has writtenanunblushing encomi-umwhichis at the same time a frankly Christian apologia. As such the VitaConstantinii must be balanced by thehostile writings of Zosimus. Inthecaseof Mehrned, we havecontemporaryaccounts fromGreeks (especiallyCritobulus, but alsoDucas and Chalcocondyles), Ottomans(Tursun Bey), andItalians (particularly Angiollelo); oncemoretheruler is seenthroughmorethan one prism.Throughtheprismatic views of thedisparate sources thestudent of theseeras may see beyond thelater "romantic"encrustations and glimpse intothehistorical personalities of bothrulers and, having thus glimpsed at theirper-sonalities the student can better interpret their historical acts. The first charac-teristics shared bybothmenthat emerge froman analysisof theirhistoricalacts are supreme political intelligence and military genius, an absolutely lethalcombination. Coupledtothese areinexhaustibleenergy(psychological andphysical)and never-faltering determination. Before proceeding toany furtherdelineationof their personalitytraitsoneshouldmakeaninitial probe toascertain theirmotive force.Later Greek andOttoman authors certainly sawas a motive force religion and the hand of God, and it is true that in their life-timesConstantineandMehmedwereintimatelyinvolvedwithreligionatboth intellectual and institutional levels. Thetruthof thematter, however, isto be foundelsewhere. Thepagan authorZosimus wroteof Constantinethathebecamearrogant, "whenhehad attainedtothesole authority,"andthatfurther, he "gave himself uptothe unrestrainedexerciseof hispower."Finally, Zosimusaccused Constantineof "aspiring tothesovereignty of thewholeworld"2 Amongtheworld conquerorsto whichhis Christian biogra-Byzantine Constantinople andOttomanIstanbul 15pher Eusebius compared him was Alexander the Great, sayingof Constantine:That heconquerednearlytheWholeWorld. Butouremperor beganhisreign atthetime of life at whichtheMacedonian died, yet doubled thelength of his life, andtrebled the length of his reign. And instructing his army in themildand soberpreceptsof godliness, hecarried his arms as far as theBritons, andthenationsthatdwell inthevery bosom of theWestern ocean. He subdued likewiseall Scythia, though situated inthe remotest North, and divided into numberlessdiverse and barbarous tribes. HethenpushedhiseonqueststotheBlemmyansandEthiopians, onthe veryconfines of theSouth; nor did hethinktheacquisitionof theEasternnationsunworthyhis care. Inshort, diffusingtheeffulgenceof his holy lighttotheends of the whole world, eventothe most distant Indians, the nations dwellingon the extremecircumferenceof theinhabited earth,hereceived thesubmissionof all therulers, governors, and satraps ofbarbarous nations, whocheerfullywelcomed andsalutedhim, .sendingembassies andpresents, andsetting the highest valueonhisacquaintanceandfriendship; insomuchthat theyhonoredhimwithpictures andstatues in theirrespectivecountries, andConstantine alone of all emperors was acknowledged and celebrated by all.3Critobulus, biographer andcontemporaryof Mehrned, ontwooccasionscompares Mehmed withAlexandertheGreat. Inthefirst heremarks thatitwould be unjust for the deeds of others,...pettyas theyareincomparisonwithyours, [that they] shouldbebetterknownandmore famed before men because done by Greeksand inGreek history, while youraccomplishments, vast as theyare, andinnowayinferiortothoseof AlexandertheMacedonian, or of thegenerals andkings of his rank, should not be set forthinGreektothe Greeks, norpassedontoposterityfor the undyingpraiseandgloryof yourdeeds.fHecontinues:Whenhe becameheir toagreat realmandmaster of manysoldiersandenlistedmen, andhadunderhis power alreadythelargest andbest parts of bothAsiaandEurope, hedidnot believe that thesewereenough forhim nor was hecontent withwhat hehad:instead heimmediately overranthewhole world inhis calculationsandresolved toruleit inemulation of theAlexandersand Pompeys andCaesars andkingsand generals of their sort.sInoneof theversions of the chronicle of George Sphrantzes thereis specificreference to Mehmed's fascinationwith the cult of Alexander:Hewas not without wisdom. Having delved intothecraft of astrologyheloved toreadconstantly. Hereadthelives andaccomplishments of Alexander theMacedonian,Octavius Caesar, Flavius Constantine the Great. Theodosiusof Spain-emperorofConstantinople. And he sought and searched for devices so thathemight surpass all ofthem and so that he might expand theboundaries of his kingdom to thelimits.6Mehmed seemstohavehadampleopportunitytolearnof theexploits ofAlexander theGreat, not onlyfromtheGreekandItalianfamiliars of hiscourt," and from theIskandername, a Turkish poemby Ahmedi whichtreatedthe Persian contents of the Alexander legendf but also from a fifteenth centu-rymanuscript of Arrian's Anabasisof Alexanderinhisownpalace library.?JulianRabyhas recentlyindicatedthat Mehmedfrequentlyreadof16 Speros Vryonis,Jr.Alexander's exploits in Arrian and that the Saray manuscript ofArrian, whichcan be dated to the1460's, is writtenby the same palace scribe whocommit-ted to writing Critobulus' history of'Mehmed.t?It is thus clear that the motiveforce giving directiontothe political intelli-gence and military genius of Constantine and Mehmed was the desire tocre-ate, orperhapstorecreateanecumenical empire. All of theirhistorical actsaretobeunderstoodagainst thebackground of this consumingpassion; theaccomplishmentsof Alexander the Great served bothas the modelto be imi-tated and as the yard stick by whichtheir respective accomplishments weretobe measured. Ifthe one versionof the chronicleof Sphrantzes istobebelieved, Mehmednot onlyhadthemodel of AlexanderincommonwithConstantine, hehadalso as anadditional model theaccomplishments of thefounder of Constantinople, Constantine himselfGiven the unusual nature of the two men'spreoccupations-the acquisitionof massive, unlimited power-theiradditional personal traitsfall intoplace.Thetwomonarchshadconsiderable educationfor thepractical menof statethat theywere, educationthat seemedtobeongoing throughouttheirlives,though interestingly, doubt has been expressed as totheir complete mastery ofliteraryGreek: thefame, as well as muchabout thehistoryof their accom-plishments, has beenvouchsafed to posterity by Greek intellectuals writing inGreek. (As wesaw above, Critobuluswas quitearticulate about thefact thatMehmed'shistoricdeeds wereso great that theydeserved tobe, andindeedneeded tobe, recordedin Greek toreceive theirproperdue.) Bothrulers, tocontinuewiththeirpersonal traits, exhibitedcourage, aninsatiable thirstforglory, vanity, conceit, magnificence, arrogance, suspicion, faithlessness, andjealousy. Thoughthesewere ofteninterspersedwithmercy, kindness, andself-control, oneis left withastrongsense of animpersonal crueltywhicharose fromtheir unbendingdesire to acquiregreat power. ThoughConstantinewas eulogized for his Christianvirtues by Eusebius, and specifi-cally for his paternal and uxorious excellence, he nevertheless did nothesitateto have his wife Fausta murdered in her bath, and to have his son Crispus andhis youngnephewLiciniusexecuted, alongwith otherfriends.t! Yet, withthe passage of hishistorical figureinto the realmof historical legend, heachieved sainthood inthechurch. Mehmed, accordingtothewell-informedTheodore Spandugino, was responsible for the deaths of 873,000 persons dur-ing his longreign.12If weare tobelievethe contemporaryeyewitnessaccounts ofJacopode Promontorio, whowas amongtheadvisors of thesul-tan in thecourt, and also the accounts of Gian-MariaAngiollelo, whoservedinthecourt as a gulam, Mehmed'scrueltyattainedcolossal proportionsanddiabolical refinements.Diverseandhorrible are the punishments, injustices, andcrueltiesof the GrandTurk. Themost usual deathhemetesout toanyonehepleases, whether guilty of anycrime or not, is tomakethemanhe wishesto punish lie down ontheground,a sharplong pole is placed intherectum; with a big mallet heldin both handstheexecutionerByzantine Constantinople andOttomanIstanbul 17strikes itwithall hismight,sothat thepole,knownas a palo, entersthe human bodyand, according toitspath, the unfortunatelingersonor diesatonce. Thenheraisesthepole and plantsit intheground; thustheunfortunate is left "in extremis." Hedoesnot live long.Another horrible cruelty is inflicted ongrave offenders: thevictim stands erect withhis handstied. He causes a two-pronged forkequipped with barbed hooks andaffixedtoa wooden pole tobe rammed into his neck frombehind just below the chin in suchaway that the windpipe isnot touchedand that the pole isat the victim's back.Usually, the prongsprotrudebyfouror fivehand'sbreadthsnear the ears. Thenhishandsareuntied. Eager to save his life, theunfortunateraises himself with bothhandstoescape fromthehooks. For a moment suspended at thehighest point, heinevitablyfalls back. Thiscontinues andsometimesthe unfortunatespends the wholeday orevenas much as two days inthis torment. Then he dies a horrible death....Manyclaimthatthesultanhas peopleburied alive orevendevoured byelephantsandother wild beasts. ButMaster Iacoposays hehas never seensuchacts of cruelty.Theworst, however, is thefollowing: for thespecial punishment of thosewhomheparticularly hates, hekeepsamong his executioners threeor four perfect beasts, whomhepays well andwhom, when hewishestoavengehimself onsomeone, hecauses toeat theperson in question inhis presence until hegives uptheghost. That is themosthideous deaththat has ever beenmentioned. .. .Inshort,if evera ruler has been fearedand dreaded, ruthlessand cruel, this oneis a second Nero and far worse.13Thusthese cosmic architects of world power are what Kantorowicz(in thecase of Frederick II) and Babinger (in the case of Mehmed II) termthe"dae-monic personalities" that do notbehave according to theestablished moralityof a society. Quoting Goethe, Babinger remarks, "Inreality...only the observ-er has a conscience; theman of action is always without one. "14It may seemto some that a consideration of this aspect of the personalities of Constantineand Mehmed is at best tangential toour subject, butin fact it is not. Thecre-ationfirst of Constantinopleandthenof Istanbul 1,130 years later arecos-mogonic in the sense that they are coterminous withthe creation of twovastworlds, andacosmogoniccreationis adaemoniccreation. The erectionoftwosuper-cities, for this is what ConstantinopleandIstanbulwereforthebetter part of a millenniumand a half, was the act of twoworld tyrants, whonot onlymateriallyrealizedtheir colossal vanityinmarble, cement, andbronzein the very act of foundation, but whoalso perpetuatedtheir politicalgenius inamost extraordinaryfashion. Power of thetypethat Constantinehadreunitedinonehandandthemassivepower-empirethatMehmedhadbrought together in his own person had to be centered in a great city.That bothrulers saw in their creation of their super-city a super-human actis profusely illustrated by the sources. According to the Cappodocian historianPhilostorgius(368-430/40), Constantineattributedtheverymarkingout ofthe city's location and of its boundaries to divine intervention:He [philostorgius]says that Constantineinthetwenty-eighth yearof his reignwastracingout thewall onfoot having inhandhis spear. Itseemedtothosewhowerefollowinghimthat hewasextending thesize[of thecity] morethanwas neededandso someone cameuptohim inorder to ask him: "How far, Lord?"andhe, answering18 Speros Vryonis, Jr.explicitlysaid: "Until Hewhoisinfront of me halts," thus clearlyindicatingthatsome heavenly power was walking before him.lsIn theintroduction to thevakif docwnent establishingthe massive Fatih com-plex (mosque, medreses, turbes, etc. of MehmedII), Mehmedspeaks of thetransition andtransmutation of his energies "fromlesser wars tothe mightiestwar,"16referringintheformertohis longwars of conquest and inthelattertotherebuildingof Constantinople-Istanbul. In other words,world conquestculminatesina supremeact:thebuildingof thereceptacle of worldpower,the super-city.Plutarch, inhis lifeof Themistocles, relates thenowfamedconversationbetweentherenowned Themistocles andtheanonymous, insular boor fromthe tiny, insignificant isle ofSeriphos:ThemanfromSeriphos toldhim[Themistocles] that hehadglorynotbecause ofhis own [ability] but because of thecity[Athens]. "Youspeakthe truth," saidThemistocles, "but neither would I have become famous if I were fromSeriphos, norwould you had youbeen an Athenian."17The point of theanecdoteis that fame and glory derive from individual bril-liancewithina powerful political tradition. Inthecase of Themistocles, hisabilities fructified because they had the appropriate large-scale arena: thebirthof the Athenianempire. I wish to state again, at this point, that obviously theactivities of bothrulers have to be interpreted against an even broader histori-cal, political, andeconomicbackground. Ichoosetoconcentrate hereonlyonthepersonality factor, it being understood thatwithout these broaderfac-tors that resulted inthecreation of theByzantine and Ottoman Empires, wecould not fully account for the foundations of Constantinople and Istanbul.Withthis observation we move tothe third area of introductory analysis inthispresentation. Wesawthat thegeographical factor of the peninsula ofByzantion was aconditionthat existed longbeforethehabitationachievedgreat political importance. The area was "valorized"whenthesecond factor,thedaemonicpersonality, joined animperialtraditiontothat peninsulain acreative act of political enormity. Itwas not merely a matter of movingcapi-tals from one spot to another: The Romans had had capitalsat Rome, Milan,andNicomediaandtheOttomans hadhadcapitals at Bursa andEdirne. Infact, thenatureof that peninsula as we saw was unique, unliketheprecedingRomanandOttomancapitals. Oncethetwofounderstransferred imperiumto it and consummated this by the physical creation ofthe super-city, the pre-existing potential of this peninsula was brought into being: it was "valorized."Constantine brought to Constantinople theRoman Empire, Christianity, andGreek culture; Mehmedbrought Islam,thesultanate, andeventuallytherefollowedthe caliphateas well. We arespeakingthenof the momentousdrama of translatioimperii, a drama intwoacts. Wereturntotheconcept ofWilliamRamsayandthe sanctity of a given geographical site. Weare inthepresence of theconsecration of the most sacred political soil inthe history oftheNearEast and Europe in the period from 324 to 1821.Byzantine Constantinople andOttoman Istanbul 19The rise of thetwosuccessive cosmopoleis onthe Bosphorus entailed basi-cally a nine-foldintegrationof thegreat political powerwhichConstantineandMehmedhadamassed: imperialization, sanctification, mandarinization,literalization, militarization, demographization, thesaurization, monumental-ization, sacralization.isImperialization called for the final localization of the head, heart, and senso-ry nervesystem of empire; it thereforeentailedthespecific centralization ofpower about the person of the ruler withinthe super-city. As mentioned ear-lier, imperializationof Constantinople-Istanbul presupposedthe translatioimperii into thesacredpalace. An essential andcomplementaryprocess wasthat of the city's sanctification. In a sense, God and saints became notonly thedefenders of theimperialcapital(and sotheir housesweregenerouslybuiltand lavishly endowed), but theyalso becameresidents of the city themselves.Tombsof martyrs, saints, seyhs, anddivinizedrulerscametobethemostcherished possessions of, and central points around whichrevolvedthe life oftheinhabitantsof cosmopolis. This too, involvedatranslatio, atranslatioofreligious relics which, as aresult of the flowof the centuries, renderedConstantinople andIstanbul a vast religious reliquary. Theincreasing densityof religious objects, churches, mosques, and tombs covered cosmopolis with arichly layered sanctification. Imperium always rests morefirmlyand assuredlywhenit resides next to sanctity,Inasmuch as the cosmopolis constitutes the head and heart of a vast imperialprovincial bodyit must, inorder tocentralize its power, havethenecessarynerve system to articulate its vast body and to force it tomove in consonancewiththedesires of thehead. Thiswas achievedbytheimperial city's man-darinization, that is, thecreation of a huge bureaucracy withits intricate net-work of bureaus, clientele, and memory system (archives)that transmitted theaccumulateddesires (laws)of successiveimperial generationstothefar-flunglimbs of the imperial body, assuring regularity to the entire political and socialprocess of imperium. Mandarinization, as also sanctification, broughtwithitIiteratization, as both processes functioned, and couldfunctiononly, throughthewrittenwordThecanons of imperialization and of sanctification had tobereducedtouniformityonce andfor all, sothat mandarinizationwouldhave a stable basis. As therulers creatededucationalsystems, thereensuedafurther translatio tothecosmopolis of learnedmen, atranslatio of thewrittenmaterials inwhichthevarious wisdoms of the ages wereaccumulated. Thus,literatization created schools and libraries.The super-citywas accordingly thecentralized focus ofscience and knowledge, just as it was ofsanctity.The imperialization of thepeninsula of the Bosphorus necessitated its mili-tarization, for imperial capitals withstronglycentralizedimperiumareveryvulnerable to seizure both from within and without. Thisgave rise to a mili-tarization that is tobe seen in whatonewouldcall the Maginot line mentali-ty. The city's choiceas imperial center was in part dictated by the advantagesof its geographical location. Surroundedon threesides by thesea,20 Speros Vryonis, Jr.Constantine and TheodosiusII placed massive wallsalong the land side, alongwithlesser maritimewalls, so that it remainedthroughout most of its historyanimpregnablefortress. Thuswalls andseawere intendedtoprotect theimperial city from seizure from the outside.It is fascinating to see that oneof Mehmed'sfirst orders tothefirst gover-nor of the city, afterhehadbatteredthewalls withartilleryandcapturedConstantinople, was to rebuild the walls. But imperium was of such a delicateandcoveted naturethat it hadtobeprotected from seizure fromwithinthecity itself; therefore the palace (both ByzantineandOttoman) wasalsoprotected bywalls. Inboththe ByzantineandOttomaninstances thepalacewas protected by extensive military contingents lodged withinthe palace con-fines. Theimperiumlocalizedwithinthesacredspaceof the city wallsenjoyed, further, the protectionof amassiveprovincial structurewhichextensivehostileforces wouldhavetodominatebeforecapturingtheheart,mind, andnervous systemof the center. It wasinthis respect that IbnKhaldunformulated his famous theory that empires decline first at the periph-eries, and onlyafter all else has fallen away does the focal point of imperiumfall captiveto the newconquerors. Suchwas the fate of ByzantineConstantinople, andthefateof OttomanIstanbul was largely, thoughnotcompletely, parallel.Acosmopolis of thistype must also bea megalopolis. Theancient Greekpreferencefor urbanlife is commemorated, but notalwayscorrectlyunder-stood, inAristotle'sfamous dictum: Manis a"politikonzoon," (manis anurbananimal). Ina humanisticfashion, ByzantineauthorsfromLibaniustoTheodoreMetochitesexplainthat man'svirtuesreachthegreatest develop-ment and refinement in great cities, and that they decline in villages and smalltownswherethereis notsufficient rewardand fame. Boththese literati livedinsuper-cities: AntiochandConstantinople.I?Thus acityinwhichthedivineemperorhimself residedcouldbe properly"valorized" onlyif itsdemographyreachedheroicproportionsbythestandards of that day. Thecapital,inwhich theimperiumresided, hadtobea super-city. Thus bothConstantineandMehmedtookgreat caretoeffect atranslauopopuli thatsought tobring not only large numbers of inhabitants for thecapital, but onewhichwould also bringthenobility, artisans, merchants,menof letters, holymen, andvarious ethnicgroups. Thesuper-citywas tobenot only a mega-lopolis, but it was tohave(in additiontothe nobles)theinhabitants whowould feed the capital with specializedskills: bureaucrats, literati, priests, rnul-las, seyhs, dervises. It was thus to be a microcosm of the imperial macrocosm.The similarities of theGreek and Ottoman super-city in this respect are strik-ing. Perhapsthemost attractive aspect ofthecosmopolis was its ethnicandlinguistic variety, most colorfully illustrated in the verse of the twelfth-centuryConstantinopolitan poet, who boasts that he can greet people on the streets ofConstantinople in seven languages (in additiontoGreek) and proceeds to dosoin"Scythian," "Persian," "Latin," "Alan," "Arabic," "Russian:' andByzantineConstantinople andOttoman Istanbul 21"Hebrew. "20Thecitizensweregroupedinsmaller neighborhoods, usuallyabout churches/mosques, withinthirteentofourteenlarger urbanregions.s!ConstantinopleandIstanbul wereforextensive periodsbetweenthefourthandeighteenthcenturies thelargesturbanagglomerate inEuropeandtheNear East.22Theirnperializationof Constantinople-Istanbul brought withit ahighdegree of thesaurization, theaccumulationandcentralization of theempire'seconomicwealth. Theevolutionof bothByzantineandOttomanempiresentailed, atcrucial stages, thetransformation of theeastern worldfrom poly-centrictomonocentric political life, thatis, from a regioninwhichpolitical,economic, andcultural lifewerefocusedinthree or four super-cities(Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople--Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad,Istanbul) toa regioninwhichthese activities wereincreasingly centeredinonesuper-city. Just as imperialization, sanctification, andmandarinizationbrought intheirtrainvarious "translationes,"so thesaurization brought a cen-tralization or concentration of wealth tothe Bosphorus, a "translatioabundan-tiae"--taxes from population, crafts, commerce, agriculture, animal husbandry,theEgyptian grainshipments, andinternational tradefromthe east, west,north, andsouth. Themegalopolis livedandattainedits grandeur fromthetoil of theprovinces. Perhaps thebest illustration of theparasitic character ofthe cosmopolis is to taketwo imperial religious foundations: that of themonasticcomplexof Christ Pantocrator, founded bythe emperor JohnIIComnenus (1118-1143) and his wife Irene in Constantinople, andthat of thevakif of the Fatih complex founded by Mehmed II in Istanbul.The first of these twofoundations(it was of course Christian, but was laterconverted first intoa medrese and thenintoa mosque[as Zeyrek Kilise Cami]in the reignof MehmedII) includedthe monasticchurchof ChristPantocrator, thechurchof TheotokosEleousa, thechapelof theArchangelMichael, dwellings for 89 monks, a xenodocheion, a five-chamberedhospitalwith64 beds, a medical school, a leprosarium,etc. Thehospital, whichhad63medical personnel and103administrative personnel, alsocontainedanoutpatient clinic for citizens whowished to be examined or treated for minorailments. Thetypikon does not give a complete account of all expenses, but itdoes give enoughto illustrate the vast economic wealth on whichthe founda-tionwas based. The expendituresonthe hospital personnel and patients were2,375hyperpers, 216newhyperpers, 17,917kilograms of bread, 39,392kilo-grams of wheat, 5,554liters of wine, 1,110liters of oliveoil, 96,216kilo-grams of woodfor fuel. Moresignificant, however, in terms of theeconomicallyparasitic character of thesuper-city, is the s o u ~ c e of the rev-enues. Of theapproximately117 propertieseither giventothePantocrator,(or fromwhichtheyderivedrevenue) the vast majoritywerein theprovinces: 24villages and25 proasteia, 2fortresses, 1 pronoia, 9episkepseis, 4xenodotheia or hans, 1 salt work, 2 baths, etc.2JTheOttomanexample, the Patih complexof MehmedII, is evenmore22 Speros Vryonis} Jr.impressive. It includedthefollowing institutionswitha total of 496 person-nel: The great mosque(95), an imaret (soup kitchen, 35), a hospital (30), andmedreses (168). Thecomplex fed 1,117 individuals daily (including 160 guestsand794medresestudents,amongothers). Thus weareinthepresenceof ahugeeconomic enterprise affecting large numbersof people. But 83% of theannual income (500,000 aktes, or30,000goldducats in1490) came from its57villages intheBalkandistricts of Corlu, Tekirdag, andKirklarIIi. Theremaining revenues came from the taxes of 12 hammams in Istanbul.>Acorollaryof the axiomthat the super-citylivedparasiticallyoff theprovincesis that the process of thesaurization was reversed as thecosmopolisdeclined and lost its provinces, so that wealth began to flow out of the city.Thetranslatioimperii toConstantinople andIstanbul was thus accompaniedbytheprocesses of sanctification, mandarinization, literatization, militariza-tion, demographization, andthesaurization. Suchanevolutionneededcon-cretizationandspiritualization; it needed formandorder, morpheandtaxis.Thefirst of these twowas acquiredthroughmonumentalization; thesecondwas acquiredthroughsacralization.Imperiumwas monumentalizedfirst inthecreation of the palace, sanctification in the erection of churches, mosques,monasteries, tekkes andshrines. Mandarinizationwasconcretizedinthepalace, aswell as insenatehousesandmunicipal administrativebuildings,whereas literatizationappeared intheschools,medreses, andinthestructuresbuilt tohousetheliterary treasures whicheithermade theirway tothecapi-tal, or werecommittedtowritingthere. Militarizationis most spectacularlyreflectedinthe city'slandwalls, but also inthe palacewalls of Topkapi.Demographization andthesaurization arematerialized inthegreat Byzantinefora and theOttoman bazaars, inthe public loutra and hammams, and finally,inthe great publicboulevardof theMese-DivanYolu. Thelatter, whichretainedthe same location for centuries, led imperial processions and ordinarycitizens alongthemajorchurches,mosques, andmarketplaces of thecity tothe great land walls and thenceto the Europeanprovinces. These then are theelementscommontotheimperial iconographyof ByzantineConstantinopleand Ottoman Istanbul.Forbothsocieties, thesacralization of thesuper-city--theprocess or taxisby whichthe monuments of this land were infused withtheir sacred power--wasconsecratedbytime-honoredceremonial. Inthe tenthcenturytheByzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus warned his son that the cer-emony must be observed:Toneglect this eeremony, andto sentence itas it weretodeath, is tobeleft withaviewof theempire devoid of ornamentand deprived of beauty. If thebody of a manwere not gracefullyformed, anditsmemberswerecasuallyarrangedandinharmo-niouslydisposedone wouldsaythat the result waschaos anddisorder. Thesameistrueof theinstitution of empire; if it benot guided andgoverned byorder,itwill innoway differ fromvulgar deportment in a private person.25Ceremonializationconstitutes the mystical litanyaccompanyingallbasicByzantineConstantinople andOttoman Istanbul 23relations of man to God, of man to man, and of man to nature that transpiredwithinthe formal confines of the super-city. First was thevery act of succes-sionof emperorsandsultans whether achieved peacefully or violently, Thisceremonial of the practical acquisitionof powerwasconsummated bythewearing of the crownor the girding of the sword, appropriate acclamation bysoldiers, blessing of religious men. Above all, it was effected by entryinto thepalace andbysittingonthe throneitself Fromthat moment onwardthemovements and utterances, indeed, the entire life of theruler wereregulatedby ceremonythattransformed himdivinely in theeyes of every member ofsociety. Thetaxis orordoof bothcity andpalace was structuredinconso-nance with this, the first concern of the trans/alia imperii.Thesanctifying functionof thereligious institutionwas equally entrappedwithrigidly orderedceremonial, ceremonial whichbroughtsacralizationtothe life of every individual, not only at all major rites of passage from birth todeath, but also onspecial andspecific occasionsinthereligious calendar aswell as indaily life. Godwas thus brought intothedaily life andactions ofindividuals and so intotheentirety of the citizens' life. Religiousceremoniesand processions infused churches and mosques with a sacred character obviousin such a phenomenonas therightof asylum andin thepractice of incuba-tion. It was in these same structures that the succession of emperors and sul-tans was sanctified andreligious relics andimperial corpses sacralized. TheChristian liturgy, above all, was believed to bring the Godhead, in the form oftheHolySpirit, into thephysical structureof thechurch, where it trans-formedthewineand bread in sucha mannerthatitenabled thecommuni-cant to partake of theGodhead physicallyin an act of sacred cannibalism. Yetbureaucracy, literature, militarylife; economy, eventhepopular life of thepeopleandtheiramusements weretransformed by processions andexercisesthat hadavery specific liturgical character andunitedthemtotheimperialpalace and toGod. Literary compositions were themselves thevehicle of thisliturgization, as were often the painted images of the holy.The imperial processions had as an integral part theformal participation ofbureaucrats, holymen, literati, guildsmen, andotherrepresentatives of thepopulace. Of particular importancewere the games of thehippodrome (withtheirownritual), viewed bothbytheimperial family andthecitizens fromthe stands. Insome ways parallel tothehippodromicactivities of Byzantinesweretheparticipations of thepeoplethroughtheirguilds inIstanbul's greatimperial a/ays called to memorialize the circumcisions of the sultanic offspringor other events, andwhichpassedthroughthe OkMaydan (theformerByzantine hippodrome). At a lower social level, there were the "expeditions"oroutings to thepublic baths. Initiationtotrade corporations, as indeedtherebellions of corporative and other bodies, all had their own ceremonial.Thusthe form and order of the super-city's life were twoinseparable partsof its imperial iconography without either of whichthe other would have nomeaning or existence. The supreme character of this imperial city was reflect-24 Speros Vtyonis, Jr.ed both intheGreekandintheOttomanepithets applied toit. TheGreekauthorsmostoftenrefer toit as TheQueen of Cities, The Ruling City, theSecond Rome, theNew Rome, TheCityGuardedbyGod, EyeandHeartof the World, or Fortuneof the Christians; most conunonly, however, it wassimply called TheCity.26 The Ottomansused twonames derived from Greekusage, Kustantiniyya andStambul.Occasionally theOttomanscalled itNewRome, but they moreoften referred to it as Paytakht-i Saltanat, Dar al-Khalifa(capital city of thesultanate, Domainof theCaliph), Madinat al-Muwahhidin(Cityof theBelieversintheUnityof God), lslambol (Full of Islam), AI-Mahrusa (The Well-Protected), or simply Sehir (The City),27Thefoundation of Constantinople(limitatio, 324) anditsconsecrationon11May330, weresomomentous that ConstantineorderedtheastrologerValens tocast thehoroscopeof thecity's fate, andthereafterset 11 May, asthe date for the annual celebrationof the city'sbirthday. Later traditionattributed muchtoConstantinethat was actually affected by his successors; ineffect, theperiod 326-565represents the period of fundamental formationofthesuper-city. Thefully evolvedmonumental aspect of thecityreflects itsimperialization, for (asDagronhas remarked)Constantinoplehad its institu-tionsbeforeits inhabitants, and its walls and palace beforeits houses. Thisisto say, itwas conceivedof as a plan, a schemetobe implementedIts build-ings didnot result fromprior growthandaccretionof population: It was atrue foundation.28Constantine built the original kernel of whatwas to become, over thecen-turies, avast palacecomplexcoveringover 100,000 squaremeters.s? Inhisreign it was a moremodest, tripartite complex consisting of the famedChalce(a high ceremonialentrancewithvarious halls), theScholae (a groupof build-ings inwhichwerehousedtheimperialtroopsof theslholarii, landidati, andexcubitores), and the complexof the emperor's household, the palace ofDaphne. Under JustinianI, Theopohilus, Basil I, and the tenthcenturyemperors the palacewasvastly expandedtoaccommodateincreasinglyallaspects of imperial court ritual andgovernment. Justinianrebuilt theChalcewitheight arches and a central dome. Theupperparts of thewalls depictedthe victorious wars of the emperorinmosaic, whereasthelower portionswere ornamentedinbrilliant marbles. Above thegreat bronze gateof theChalce(prior toIconoclasm), was themosaic image of Christ, later replacedbya paintedimage. janinhas describedtheChalceas a"veritable"muse-um.30It containedimperial statues, withappropriateverses composed for theoccasionbythephilosopher Secundus, as wellas a statueOf Belisarius, themilitaryarchitect ofJustinian'sglorious reconquista, InthedomewerefoursculptedGorgons takenfromthe temple of EphesianArtemis, andabovethemtwo bronzehorses from the same city.Most strikingin the monumentalizationof imperial powerwere theChrysotriclinosandtheMagnaurasections of thegreatpalace. Theformer,built anddecoratedinthereigns of Justin II (565-578) andTiberius (578-ByzantineConstantinople andOttoman Istanbul 25582), was alargeoctagonal chamberwith16windowsthat brought rays oflightintothecenter of theroomin adazzling manner. Theimperial thronewas set intheapse of the chamber, thehalf dome of whichwasdecoratedwithamosaic representationof the enthronedChrist. Thesymbolismofthrone, mosaics, and light combinedthe conceptsof earthlyandheavenlyimperium, andwhen brought tolife intheimperialceremony performed intheChrysotriclinostotheaccompaniment of musicfromthegoldenorgansandthemechanicaltreewithits singingmetallic birds, theparticipants, bothemperor and beholder, weretransformed.TheMagnaura-amagnificent hall intended primarilyfor thereceptionofforeignambassadors bytheemperor seatedontheThroneof Solomon--hasbeendescribed by the tenth century Latin ambassador, Liudprand ofCremona.Beforetheemperor's seat stood a tree, madeof bronzegildedover, whose brancheswerefilled with birds, also madeof gilded bronze, whichuttered different cries, eachaccording toits varying species. Thethrone itself was so marvellously fashioned that atonemoment itseemed a low structure, andat another it rosehighintotheair. It wasof immense size andguarded by lions, madeeither of bronze or of wood covered overwithgold, whobeat the ground withtheirtails andgaveadreadful roar withopenmouthandquiveringtongue. Leaningupon the shouldersof twoeunuchs Iwasbrought intotheemperor's presence. At myapproachthelionsbegantoroar andthebirdstocryout, eachaccordingtoitskind; butI wasneitherterrified nor surprised,for Ihadpreviously made enquiryaboutall thesethingsfrom people whowerewellacquainted withthem. Soafter I hadthree times madeobeissance totheemperor withmy face upontheground, I liftedmyhead, and behold! theman who just before I hadseen sitting ona moderately elevated seat had now changed his raiment and was sittingonthelevel of theceiling. HowitwasdoneIcould notimagine, unless perhaps hewas liftedupby some suchsort of deviceas weuseforraisingthetimbers of a winepress. Onthat occasion hedid not address mepersonally,sinceevenif hehadwishedtodosothe widedistance betweenus would haverenderedconversationunseemly,but byintermediary of a secretary heenquired about Berengar's doingsandasked afterhis health. Imadea fitting replyandthen, at a nod fromtheinterpreter, lefthis pres-enceandretired to my lodging.31The palace inits fully developed formledout, throughtheChalce, totheAugusteum, theHagiaSophia, the Senaton, the Library, the ForumofConstantine,theHippodrome, andtheportsontheSea of Marmara. It was,accordingly, centrally placed as regards theconstitutive forms andceremoniesof the imperial city.32Directlyinfront of the Chalcetothe east wasthesquare of theAugusteum, surrounded by porticoesonall four of its sides andgracedbyfiveheroic 'imperial statuesatopcolumns: St. Helen, Constantinewithhis threesons andtwonephews, Leo I Eudocia, andTheodosius-JustinianI.Thislatteris themost famous, best-described of thecity's statues,andsurviveduntil thelate fifteenthcentury whentheTurksmelted itdownforthecasting of cannons. Procopius gives us theearliest detaileddescriptionof this work:And onthesummit of thecolumn stands a gigantic bronze horse, facing toward theeast, a very noteworthy sight. Heseems abouttoadvance, andtobesplendidly press-26 Speros Vryonis, Jr.ingforward. Indeedheholdshis leftforefoot inthe air, as thoughit wereabout totakea forward stepontheground beforehim, whiletheother is presseddownuponthestoneonwhich hestands,as if readytotakethenext step; his hind feet heholdsclose together. sothat they maybereadywheneverhedecides tomove. Uponthishorse is mountedacolossal bronzefigureof theEmperor. Andthefigure is habitedlikeAchilles, that is, the costumehewears isknownbythat name. He wears half-boots andhis legs are not covered bygreaves. Also he wears a breastplate in theheroicfashion, andahelmet covers hisheadandgivestheimpressionthat it moves upanddown, anda dazzlinglight flashes forthfrom it. Onemight say, inpoetic speech.thathere is that star of Autumn. And he lookstoward therising sun, directing his course, Isuppose. against the Persians. Andinhisleft handhe holds aglobe, bywhichthesculptor signifiesthat thewholeearthandseaaresubject tohim, yet he hasneithersword nor spear noranyother weapons,but a cross standsuponthe globewhichhecarries. theemblem by which alonehehas obtained both his Empire and his victory inwar. Andstretching forth hisrighthandtowardthe risingsunandspreadingout hisfingers, hecommandsthebarbariansin that quarter toremain at home and toadvancenofurther.33Immediatelytotheeast of theAugusteumwerethepatriarchal residenceand library, and thegreat churchof theHagia Sophia flanked by St. Irenetothe east. Tothe south of the Augusteum was oneof the two senate buildings,ornamentedbystatuesincludingthoseof Zeus of Dodona, Artemis, andAphrodite. andwherethe senators mettocelebrate theNew Year.34Tothenorthof the AugusteumandMilionwastheBasilikewhich housedthefamous statueof Tyche, variouseducational institutions (includingtheso-called University of Constantinople). andwhichwas graced byvarious stat-ues. Of central importance was theBibliotheke or Library which. according toonesource. whenit wasattackedbyfire in 475 contained120.000manuscripts. Rebuilt by JustinII, bytheeighthcentury(26) itwas said tohave housed 36,500 works when it was once more exposed to fire.35Inthe immediatevicinityof thepalaceandthe hippodromewerethefamedbathsof Zeuxippos whichConstantineremodeledandthengracedwitha large number of statues that hehad gathered from pagan sites in AsiaMinor. Greece, and Italy. and whichthe sixth-century poetChristodorushasdescribed 75.36Boththepublic baths andthespectacular hippodromewereessential tothe existence of the Constantinopolitansandfiguredgreatlyintheirconsecrated cycle of daily life. Hereemperors, aristocracy, andtheciti-zens of the cosmopolis gathered to witness and participate in games, spectaclesand shows. Because thehippodromewas located betweenthe palace andthegreatcentral boulevard(the Mese), theimperial retinuehad direct accesstothekathisma from the palace, whereas the citizens occupied the 30 to 40 rowswhichsurroundedthehippodromeonits threesides. Constantineembellished this Severan constructionby bringing heretoolarge numbersofancient statues. By thefifth centurythespina contained an Egyptian obelisk.the serpentine bronze column from Delphi commemorating the Greekvicto-ry over the Persians at the battle of Platea, and otheradornments. The colon-nadedsphendone, orcurveof thehippodrome, had amongthemorefamousByzantine Constantinople andOttoman Istanbul 27statues those of Castorand Pollux, Hercules, theChalcydonian boar, Athena,Scylla andCharybdis, andthefour bronze horses latertakentoVeniceandplaced on thecathedral of St. Mark.J7Just tothenorth of theAugusteum andwest of theHagia Sophiawas theMilion, thepoint of departureof theMese whichled through the foratothegreat land walls andfinallytothe Europeanprovinces.PTheMilionwasmarkedbythedomeof agreattriumphal archrestingonfourlesser arches.Imperiumwas symbolizedbythestatuary groupsof HelenandConstantineholdingthe cross atop the dome, andthe statue ofthe Tyche ofConstantinople. Belowwere statues of Sophia, wife ofJustin II, herdaughter,her niece, andequestrianstatuesof TrajanandTheodosius 11.39Thegreatceremonial boulevardthenledtofive splendidforathat openedupas theMese progressedwestwardtoward theland walls. Thefirst was theforumofConstantine.w a circular colonnaded complexto thenorthwest of the hippo-dromewhichwas dominated bytheporphyrycolumnof thecity's founder.The columnwas fiftymeters in height and crownedwith the statueofConstantineas Helios withaglobuscrucifix intheleft handandalance orscepter intheright. According toa later source, therehad beenplaced underthebase of the column woodfromthe true cross, saints' relics, thebasketwhichhad beenused inthemiracle of theloaves, thecrosses of thetworob-bers, thevase ofperfume, and the pagan Palladium brought from Rome. Thecolumn, the statue, and the sacred objects allegedly placed underneath consti-tutea sanctificationof Constantine's imperium. Thenext market place, themassive Forum Tauri, was also dominated by a tall column atop of whichwasthestatue of Theodosius I set therein 386; relief; onthesides of thecolumncommemorate his victories over thebarbarians. Among thenumerous statuesgracingthis forumwere the four Gorgons fromthe templeof EphesianArtemis. There followedtheForum Amastrianumand thentheForum Bovisin the presentday district of Aksaray. In the latter one saw again the statues ofConstantine andHelen. Thelast great agora tothewest was inthedistrict ofXerolophos, theForum of Arcadius (Avret Pazar), andit was dominated by atall columncarryingthestatueof Arcadius. As withtheother fora, thistoowas surrounded bycolonnaded porticoesandwas lavishly decoratedwithanassortment of statues. TheMesecontinueditscoursetothewalls whichittransectedat theGoldenGate, thetriumphalportalthrough whichEmperorsentered andexitedfrom the city. The Mese and the fora served imperial cere-monies inwhichthe imperiumresident inthe citywascelebratedandinwhichemperor, officials, soldiers, guildsmen, and the populace all played theirclearly definedroles. The shops of merchants andcraftsmen wereestablishedalongthis roadandabout the fora, theguild of theperfumersbeingassignedtothearea of theChalcesothat thearoma of theirgoodswouldbewaftedupward tothequarters of thepalace, andthat of thetanners being banished,because of the offensive odium, to a district outside the city's walls.The role and history of the church of the Hagia Sophia in the city's imperi-28 SperosVryonis, Jr.al iconography are obviously of great importance. They were central to impe-rialization and sanctification, and so thepalace, thepatriarchal residence, thehippodrome, andthebuildings wereinimmediateproximitytothechurch,andthe central Constantinopolitanboulevard, theMese, begannearby. Itremains for us tosay a wordabout a churchthatwas secondinimportanceonlytoHagia Sophia, thechurchof theHolyApostles. It wouldseemthatthechurchwas begunby Constantine, finished by his son Constantius II andcompletely rebuiltby Justinian I, the first consecration having beenconsum-matedin356. Thechurchcame toserve as thesemi-official mausoleum ofemperors intothe eleventh centuryand so was intimately associatedwiththeimperial cult. Most revealing as toits rolein sacralizing imperial authority isthe account whichConstantine's biographer, Eusebius, gives of its erection byConstantine:He also erected his own sepulchral monumentin this church.All these edifices theemperor consecrated with thedesire of perpetuating themem-ory of the apostles of ourSaviour. He had, however, anotherobject inerectingthisbuilding: anobject at first unknown. but whichafterwardsbecame evident toall. Hehad in fact madechoice of this spot in theprospect of his own death, anticipating withextraordinaryfervor of faith that hisbodywouldshare their tide withthe apostles"themselves, andthat heshouldthus evenafter deathbecomethesubject. withthem,of thedevotionswhich should beperformed totheir honor inthis place. Heaccord-inglycaused twelvecoffinstobeset upinthis church. likesacred pillars inhonor andmemoryof theapostolic number, inthecenter of whichhis ownwas placed, havingsix of theirsoneither side of it. Thus,as I said, hehadprovided withardent foresightanhonorableresting placefor hisbodyafterdeath, and, havinglong beforesecretlyformedthisresolution, henowconsecrated thischurchtothe apostles believingthatthis tribute totheir memory would beof nosmall advantagetohis own soul.Nor didGod disappoint him of that which heso ardently expected and desired. Forafter he hadcompletedthe first services of the feast of Easter, andhad passedthissacredday of our Lord ina manner whichmadeit anoccasionofjoy andgladness tohimself andtoall; theGod through whoseaid heperformed all theseacts, andwhosezealous servant he continued tobeevento theend of life, was pleased at a happy timetotranslatehim toa better life.41Constantinehadassumed theepithet isaposiolos (equal totheApostles) andhad associated himself withthe cult of the Apostles as thethirteenthApostle,and superiorto themas is evidenced by his burial in themausoleum-church.In356therelics of theApostle Timothywerebrought fromEphesusanddepositedin the churchof the HolyApostles, andin357relics of theApostles Luke andAndrewfollowed. Thus Constantine's power was sacral-ized by his association withthe Apostles, and the sanctification of the city wasintensified by the physical presence of three of the Apostles rhemselves.ssSuch, in brief, is the monumentalizedform of theimperial iconography ofByzantineConstantinople: Palace, churches, hippodrome, libraries andschools, foraand shops, walls, harbors, and water system. The ceremonial, towhich allusionwas briefly made, mystically transformedthestructuresandinfusedthemwith their meaningandrole inthe imperial iconography:ByzantineConstantinople andOttomanIstanbul 29Graeco-Roman imperium, Christianeschatology, and Greek paideia.The Ottoman conquest of thecity on29 May1453 was a momentous his-torical act its conqueror perpetrated at the same timean act of destruction andanact of recreation. Thethreedaysack of the cityleft it anuninhabitedshamblesinwhichwasheard neitherbeast norfowl, only the cries of thedyingwereaudible. ThoseConstantinopolitanswhosurvivedthefrightfulslaughter, some 60,000, were takenoutside thecity to the tents of theOttoman anny as slaves of theOttoman soldiery.P Mehmed hadallowedhistroopsa three-day period of intensivepillage (yagma)claimingfor himself thewalls andthebuildingsonly.Butinthis respect heestablished his claims onthe physical structureof Constantinoplefromthe first moment that heentered theconquered and desolate city:Descending[Mehmed] totheGreat Churchandhavingdismounted fromhis horseheenteredandwas overcomeby the sight [of the churchof the HagiaSophia].Cominguponone ofthe Turks, whowassmashingone of those marble slabs, heasked theTurk for what reasonhewas destroying thefloor. Thelatterreplied, "Onbehalf of theFaith [Islam]." He [thesultan]stretchingout hisarmstruck theTurkwiththe swordsayingthis: "Thetreasure andenslavementsufficefor you [plural].The buildings of the city belong tome." The tyrant had repented over the agreement[to allowthesoldiers tosack thecity], witnessing[now] thetreasurestakenaway andthemass enslavement. Having draggedtheTurkbyhis legs,theythrewhimoutsidehalf dead. Thesultansummonedone of their pollutedpriestsandhe, havingbeensummoned, ascendedthepulpit andcalled out their accursedprayer. Andthis sonoflawlessness, theforerunner of Antichrist, havingascended theholyaltar performed hisprayer.44Clearlythesultanwas willingtopart withthetreasures andinhabitantsoftheimperial city, andto allow them to betaken by his soldiers. The buildingsandthewalls, however, werehis andhewould nottoleratetheir alienation,or as inthis case, their destruction. The first monument which Mehmed thenclaimedwas thegreat church of Hagia Sophia, thepivotal center of imperialsanctificationinByzantinetimes. Shortlyafter dispatchingthe vandalizingTurkish soldier, he performed therehis first official act in the city: the Muslimprayer. Bythat veryact he Islamizedthe most famous churchinChristendom, wherecountless Byzantine emperorshad been consecrated andcrowned, andmadeof it thecentral mosqueof the City.45Before departingfor Edime, he orderedthemilitarygovernor of thecitytorepair thegreatwalls, tobuild a newcitadel there(Yedi Kule),andtocreate forthesultan apalacenorth of theForumTauri (Eski Saray). Thus heplanned immediatelyfortheessential monumentalization of thenewtranslatioimperii: Palace(resi-denceof imperium), mosqueof AyaSofya(residenceof sanctity), andthewalls bothdelimitinganddefendingthe imperium of Istanbul. OnareturntriptoIstanbulintheautumn of 1455, hefoundall threemajorworkscom-pleted; by1457hehadhisofficials drawupthe document establishing thevakif(religious economic foundation) of Aya Sofya.4630 Speros Vryonis) Jr.In1459 Mehmed seems tohave takena crucial decision intherebuildingof the imperial capital and at that time he revealed his plans:Commandoj the Sultantoall able persons, tobuildsplendidandcostly buildingsinsidethe City.Thenhe calledtogether allthe wealthyandmost ablepersons intohispresence,thosewhoenjoyedgreat wealthandprosperity, andorderedthemtobuildgrandhouses inthe City, wherever eachchose tobuild. Healso commanded themtobuildbaths andinns andmarketplaces, and verymanyand verybeautiful workshops, toerect places of worship, andto adornandembellishthe Citywithmanyothersuchbuildings, sparing noexpense, as eachmanhad themeans andtheability.f?Having previously secured the walls, converted Aya Sofya into a (ami, builtthe citadel of Yedi Kule, andbegunthebedestanin1456, thesultannoworderedthe powerful andthe wealthyto undertake the buildingof thenahiyes (large urbanunits that were self-contained) in various parts of the city.His summonsto the powerful andwealthy to take an active role in the build-ing of thecityrecallsConstantine's summonsof theRomannobilitytothenewlyfoundedConstantinople. Thenahiyecenteredabout alargemosqueand a large market area and contained many smaller neighborhoods(mahalles)each usually centeredabouta smaller mosque. The sultan set theexample forthehigh officials by undertakingto build boththe mosque complex of Fatih-Sultan Pazar and the new palace on the easternmost acropolis of the city:TheSultanhimself selected thebest siteinthemiddle of the City, andcommandedthemtoerectthereamosque whichin height, beauty, andsize should viewiththelargest and finest of the templesalreadyexistingthere. Hebade them select and pre-parematerialsfor this, thevery best marblesandother costly polished stonesas well asanabundanceof columns of suitablesizeand beautyplus iron, copperandlead inalargequantities, andevery other needed material.Healsogave orders for the erectionof apalaceonthe point of oldByzantiumwhichstretchesout intothe sea-a palacethat shouldoutshineall andbemoremar-velous than thepreceding palaces in looks, size, cost, and gracefulness.Furthermore he orderedthemtoconstruct manyveryfine arsenals toshelter theshipsand their furnishings, andtobuild verystrong, largebuildings for thestoring ofarms, cannon, andothersuchsupplies. He also orderedmany other similarthings tobedonetobeautify the Cityandtobeuseful tothepublicas well as tobenecessaryand valuableinhis wars and fighting. And in order that all this should bedone speedi-ly, heset over thework his most experienced and energeticcommanders. Now itwashis plantomake the Cityineveryway thebest supplied andstrongestcity, as it usedtobelong ago, inpower and wealth, glory, learning, andtrades, andinall theprofes-sionsand all sortsof good things, as well as inpublic and privatebuildings and monu-ments.48TheFatihmosque complex, whichwasbegun in1463andfinished in1471, contained a mosque, 16medresses, ahospice, a han, ahospital, achil-dren's school, abookstore, andaccommodationsfor thepersonnel of themedreses. We have already seen what were its incomes and expenses.s? Nearby,andprovidingrevenuesfor theFatihcomplex, weretheSultanPazan, theSarradjhane, anda bath. In this matterthewholeof Istanbul, thatis thepartByzantine Constantinople andOttoman Istanbul 31withinthewalls, was built upsothatbythereignof SuleymanI ithad13nahiyes and 219 mahalles.50Of these mahalles, 30% came into being during thereign of Mehmed II;192 cami andmascid were also erected during his rule.51He also, significantly, removed the palace from the region north of the ForumTauri totheAcropolis ontheeastern tip of the peninsula, thus withdrawingthe imperial residence from immediate contact with the city's daily life.The new imperial city was fundamentally monumentalized under Mehmed,but there wereyet further extensions anddevelopments, particularly- inthereigns of Bayezid II, Selim I, and Suleyrnan I.Very muchas inthereigns ofConstantine'ssuccessors, so inthe sultanates of Mehmed'ssuccessors the citywas furtherand greatly developed. Bayezid II, Selim I, and Suleyman I eachbuil