Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T12:24:15.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chalke gate, the construction of the past, and the Trier ivory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Leslie Brubaker
Leslie Brubaker*
Affiliation:
Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The vestibule to the Great Palace of the Byzantine emperors was called the Chalke (ή Χαλκῆ = bronze) gate, a name that the twelfth-century historians George Kedrenos and John Zonaras explain as deriving from the bronze roof-tiles but which their contemporary Niketas Choniates ascribed to its great bronze doors. Which, if either, of these attributions is correct is a moot point: by the time they were recorded, the name Chalke had been attached to the structure for over half a millennium.

Type
Short Notes
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 23 , 1999 , pp. 258 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1999

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

1. Kedrenos: ed. Bonn, I, 656-657; Zonaras: ed. Bonn, III, 154; Choniates: ed. Bonn, 582. The primary study of the gate remains Mango, C., The Brazen House. A study of the vestibule of the imperial palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen 1959)Google Scholar; on the name of the vestibule, see esp. 21-22. The primary study of the Chalke portrait of Christ is the now rather outdated Frolow, A., ‘Le Christ de la Chalcé’, Byzantion 33 (1963), 107–120 Google Scholar. Tognazzi, I. Zervoù, ‘Propilei e Chalké, ingresso principale del Palazzo di Costantinopoli’, in Bonfioli, M., ed., Bisanzio e l’Occidente: arte, archeologia, storia. Studi in onore di Fernanda de Maffei (Rome 1996), 33–59 Google Scholar adds nothing of relevance to this study.

2. For early texts mentioning the Chalke, see Mango, The Brazen House, 26-30; for Prokopios, see note 22 below.

3. See Mango, The Brazen House, 34.

4. Vita Basilii (= Theophanes Continuaras, book 5), 31: ed. Bonn, 259-260; the English trans, is taken from Ihor Ševčenko’s forthcoming edition and translation of the text, which I thank Professor Ševčenko for providing me in typescript.

5. See Mango, The Brazen House, 34-35; a concise history of the monument (also written by Mango) appears in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1 (1991), 405-406.

6. E.g. in Ravenna under Theodoric and in Rome under Pope Zacharias: see pp. 267-268 below.

7. For the sources, see below; for a mid-twentieth-century handbook following this account, see e.g. Vasiliev, A. A., History of the Byzantine Empire 1 (Madison 1952), 258 Google Scholar.

8. E.g. ibid.: ‘The destruction of this icon caused a riot, in which the main participants were women’.

9. On which see my ‘Image, audience, and place: interaction and reproduction’, in Ousterhout, R. and Brubaker, L., eds., The Sacred Image East and West, Illinois Byzantine Studies 4 (Urbana 1995), 204–220, at 206-211Google Scholar; Cormack, R., ‘Women and icons, and women in icons’, in James, L., ed., Women, men and eunuchs (London 1997), 24–51 Google Scholar. See also the balanced account of Kazhdan, A. and Talbot, A.-M., ‘Women and iconoclasm’, BZ 84/85 (1991/92), 391–408 Google Scholar.

10. Reference in note 7 above.

11. Auzépy, M.-F., ‘La destruction de l’icône du Christ de la Chalcé de Léon III: Propagande ou réalité?’, B 40 (1990), 445–492 Google Scholar.

12. Gouillard, J., ‘Aux origines de l’iconoclasme: Le témoinage de Grégoire II?’, TM 3 (1968), 243–307 Google Scholar, the passage appears at 292-295; Mango, The Brazen House, 113-115; Auzépy, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 451.

13. On the Antiphonetes icon, see the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium 1, 439-440 and, esp., Mango, The Brazen House, 142-148 (here too discussion of the text tradition linking the Antiphonetes image with the Chalke).

14. Ibid., 115.

15. Auzépy, M.-F., La vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Etienne le Diacre. Introduction, édition et traduction, Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs 3 (Aldershot 1997), 100–101 Google Scholar, trans. 193-194; eadem, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 451-452; Mango, The Brazen House, 115.

16. Mango, C. and Scott, R., eds., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813 (Oxford 1997), 559–560 Google Scholar; Auzépy, ‘L’icòne du Christ de la Chalcé’, 452-462; Mango, The Brazen House, 113. Baldwin, B., ‘Theophanes on the Iconoclasm of Leo III’, B 40 (1990), 426–428 Google Scholar concerns the epithet sarakenophron only.

17. On which see Stein, D., Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites und seine Entwicklung bis in die 40er Jahre des 8. Jahrhunderts, Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 25 (Munich 1980), 153–157 Google Scholar.

18. For Nikephoros, the instigation of Iconoclasm is marked by the forced retirement of the patriarch Germanos: Mango, C., Nikephoros, Patriarch of Constantinople, Short History, CFHB XIII, Dumbarton Oaks Texts 10 (Washington DC 1990), 130–131 Google Scholar.

19. These and other contemporary texts that fail to mention the Chalke incident are listed in Auzépy, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 461.

20. Ibid., esp. 462-472.

21. Ibid., esp. 476-492.

22. Buildings I.x.11-20 (ed. Loeb VII, 84-87); see also Mango, The Brazen House, 30-34.

23. Cameron, A. and Herrin, J., eds., Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 10 (Leiden 1984)Google Scholar; on the date, Ševčenko, I., ‘The Search for the Past in Byzantium around the Year 800’, DOP 46 (1992), 279–293 Google Scholar; Kresten, O., ‘Leon III. und die Landmauern von Konstantinopel’, Römische Historische Mitteilungen 36 (1994), 21–52 Google Scholar.

24. Caps 32, 33, 44a, 77, 78, 80 (Cameron and Herrin, The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, 94-95, 120-123, 158-159). The tenth-century Patria, a work related to the Parastaseis, claims that the Chalke also supported a statue of the emperor Maurice (582-602) and his family above an image of Christ, but this passage is missing from the earlier text: see Ibid., 62-63 and commentary 174-175. As Mango, The Brazen House, 111-112 remarked, ‘it may be asked whether Maurice would have placed the statues … above the icon of Christ, had the latter already been in existence. These considerations … make it somewhat doubtful that the image of Christ could have been set up before the seventh century.’ Mango and Scott, The Chronicle ofTheophanes Confessor, 415 note 17.

25. Auzépy, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 450; Gero, S., Byzantine Iconoclasm during the reign of Leo III, with particular attention to the Oriental sources, Scriptorum christianorum orientalium 346, Subsidia 41 (Louvain 1973), 113–115 Google Scholar; Mango, The Brazen House, 122-124. For another description that may pertain to the Chalke, found in a letter from the patriarch Germanos to Thomas of Claudiopolis, see p. 268 below.

26. See my ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’, Morphologie sociali e culturali in europa fra tarda antichità e alto medioevo, Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 45 (1998), 1215-1254.

27. On the Patria account of an ‘icon of Jesus Christ as God and man’ under the statue of Maurice and his family: see note 24 above.

28. Mango and Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 410.

29. Ed. de Boor, 148; see also Mango, The Brazen House, 111 note 11.

30. Ibid., 109-111; Mango and Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 415 note 17. For a good account of the development of the story, see Wortley, J., ‘The legend of the emperor Maurice’, Actes du XVe Congrès international d’Etudes byzantines 4 (Athens 1980), 382–391 Google Scholar.

31. See my ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’, esp. 1248-1254.

32. Ibid., 1231-1234; and pace Speck, P., Kaiser Konstantin VI. Die Legitimation einer fremden und der Versuch einer eigenen Herrschaft (Munich 1978), 608–609 Google Scholar.

33. Trans. Mango, The Brazen House, 111.

34. Duchesne, L., ed., Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire 1 (Paris 1886, repr. 1955), clxii-clxvi, ccxxiv-ccxxvGoogle Scholar.

35. ‘Fecit autem a fundamentis ante scrinium Lateranensem porticum atque turrem ubi et portas ereas atque cancellos instituit et per figuram Salvatoris ante fores ornavit … in superioribus super eandem turrem triclinium et cancellos aeros constuxit, ubi et orbis terrarum descriptione depinxit atque diversis versiculis ornavit’: Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis 1, 432; trans, from Davis, R., The Lives of the Eighth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis). Translated with an introduction and commentary, Translated texts for historians 13 (Liverpool 1992), 44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. Krautheimer, R., Rome, Profile of a City, 312-1308 (Princeton 1980), 121 Google Scholar; Ward-Perkins, B., From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy AD 300-850 (Oxford 1984), 175 Google Scholar.

37. MGH SLR, 337; discussion in Mango, The Brazen House, 26; and Johnson, M.J., ‘Toward a History of Theodoric’s Building Program’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988), 91 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Chalke had, of course, acquired great importance when Agnellus wrote, but whether or not this affected his account is unknown.

38. On this passage, see Mango, The Brazen House, 112, and Auzépy, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 446-448, Auzépy notes that as Leo praised the apostles, the prophets, their writings, and the cross at the beginning of his law code (the Ekloga), his commission of a representation of this group is not particularly surprising.

39. Stein, Der Beginn des byzantinischen Bilderstreites, 70-74 argued that Germanos was referring to the Chalke, a thesis countered by Cameron and Herrin, The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, 175.

40. On Artabasdos, see Speck, P., Artabasdos, der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren: Untersuchungen zur Revolte des Artabasdos und ihrer Darstellung in der byzantinischen Historiographie (Bonn 1981)Google Scholar; on Artabasdos and Zacharias, see Bertolini, O., ‘I rapporti di Zaccaria con Costantino V e con Artavasdo nel racconto del biografo del papa e nella probabile realtà storica’, Archivio della società romana di storia patria 78 (1955), 1–21 Google Scholar (repr. in his Scritti scelti di storia medioevale 2 [Livorno 1968], 463-484) and Noble, T.F.X., The Republic of St. Peter. The birth of the papal state, 680-825 (Philadelphia 1984), 49 Google Scholar.

41. See Bertolini, ‘I rapporti di Zaccaria con Constantino V’, and Noble, The Republic of St. Peter, esp. 49-56.

42. Volbach, W.F., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, 3rd ed. (Mainz 1976), no. 143, 95–96, pl. 76Google Scholar. The literature on the panel is vast. Mango, The Brazen House, 104-105 provides a summary of earlier views on the meaning of the panel, as do Holum, K. and Vikan, G., ‘The Trier ivory, Adventus ceremonial, and the relics of St. Stephen’, DOP 33 (1979), 115–133 Google Scholar. The style of the panel is best summarised by Wessel, K., ‘Studien zur oströmischen Elfenbeinskulpturen’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Griefswald 3 (1953/54), 12–15 Google Scholar and Spain, S., ‘The translation of relics ivory, Trier’, DOP 31 (1977), 281–304 Google Scholar, esp. 286-294; the best reproductions appear in Schnitzler, H., Rheinische Schatzkammer l, Tafelband (Dusseldorf 1957), pls. 1–5 Google Scholar. More recent discussions include Weber, W., ‘Die Reliquienprozession auf der Elfenbeintafel der Trierer Domschatzes und das kaiserliche Hofzeremoniell’, Trierer Zeitschrift 42 (1979), 135–179 Google Scholar; Wortley, J., ‘The Trier ivory reconsidered’, GRBS 21 (1980), 381–394 Google Scholar; Wilson, L.J., ‘The Trier Procession ivory. A new interpretation’, Byzantion 54 (1984), 602–614 Google Scholar; and Speck, P., ‘Weitere Überlegungen und Untersuchungen über die Ursprünge der Byzantinischen Renaissance, mit einem Nachtrag: Der Trierer Elfenbein und andere Unklarheiten’, Varia 2, Poikila Byzantina 6 (Bonn 1987), 253–283, esp. 275-278Google Scholar.

43. The best technical description of the ivory appears in Delbrück, R., Die Consular-diptychen und verwandte Denkmäler 1 (Berlin 1927-1929), no. 67, 261–270, esp. 261-264Google Scholar.

44. E.g. Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 125 and note 62; Weber, ‘Die Reliquienprozession’, 136 note 3. Though images identified by inscription as Christ Chalkites, which do not appear before the twelfth century, show a standing figure rather than a bust (Mango, The Brazen House, 135-142), no Byzantine representation aimed at archaeological accuracy: the Trier portrait may be a ‘shorthand’ reference to such a standing figure, or it may indicate that the iconography was changed over time. In any event, that there were at least two images of Christ associated with the Chalke by the Komnenian period has been suggested by Mango: Ibid., 134-135.

45. Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 115-133.

46. The major dissenting voice is that of Wilson, ‘The Trier Procession ivory’, who attempts to identify the empress as Eudoxia, wife of Arcadius, directing the procession of relics to the shrine of St. Thomas at Drypia. The evidence is not compelling.

47. Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 132-133.

48. Mango and Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, 135-136 (at year 427/8, for the 421 date see Holum, K., ‘Pulcheria’s crusade and the ideology of imperial victory’, GRBS 18 [1977], 163 note 46)Google Scholar; Wortley, ‘The Trier ivory reconsidered’.

49. Holum, K., Theodosian empresses. Women and imperial dominion in late antiquity (Berkeley 1982), 104 note 115Google Scholar.

50. Ibid., 108; Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 131.

51. On the church: Janin, R., La géographie ecclésiatique de l’Empire byzantine I, 3: Les églises et les monastères, 2nd ed. (Paris 1969), 139–140, 301-304Google Scholar. On the accounts of the 439 translation, see Wortley, ‘The Trier ivory reconsidered’.

52. Apart from Wortley and Speck, the authors cited in note 42 above (and virtually all of the earlier bibliography discussed by them) opt for a date in the fifth to seventh century.

53. Beckwith, J., Early Christian and Byzantine art (Harmondsworth 1970), 172 note 8Google Scholar; Spain, ‘The translation of relics ivory’, 286. The Trier ivory does not appear in the three most recent handbooks’. Rodley, L., Byzantine art and architecture, an introduction (Cambridge 1994)Google Scholar; Lowden, J., Early Christian & Byzantine art (London 1997)Google Scholar; Mathews, T.F., The art of Byzantium (London 1998)Google Scholar.

54. Spain, ‘The translation of relics ivory’, 283-288.

55. Ibid., 290-293.

56. Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 121 note 40 and 122 note 43 dissect Spain’s comments on insignia, which in their opinion ‘provide no evidence for precise dating of the piece’ although they adduce general parallels with regalia depicted in fifth- and sixth-century works.

57. Delbriick, Die Consulardiptychen, 261.

58. Spain, ‘The translation of relics ivory’, 287. Reproductions of these works appear in Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten, nos. 51, 52, 48.

59. Spain, ‘The translation of relics ivory’, 292-293.

60. See Cutler, A. and Oikonomides, N., ‘An imperial Byzantine casket and its fate at a humanist’s hands’, Art Bulletin 70 (1988), 77–87 CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Maguire, H., ‘The art of comparing in Byzantium’, Art Bulletin 70 (1988), 88–103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, both with earlier bibliography.

61. Corrigan, K., ‘The ivory scepter of Leo VI: a statement of post-iconoclastic ideology’, Art Bulletin 60 (1978), 407–416 Google Scholar and Cutler, A., The hand of the master. Craftsmanship, ivory and society in Byzantium (9th-llth centuries) (Princeton 1994), 138, 200-201, 220Google Scholar.

62. Cutler, The hand of the master, 220 nicely contrasts the style of the casket with that of the ‘sceptre’.

63. Cutler and Oikonomides, ‘An imperial Byzantine casket’, 81.

64. Enlarged reproductions that clearly show the depth of cutting appear in Effenberger, A. and Severin, H.G., Das Museum für spätantike und byzantinische Kunst (Mainz 1992), no. 122Google Scholar; for the top, Cutler, The hand of the master, fig. 158b.

65. See the references in note 60 above.

66. See the references in note 61 above.

67. So too Wortley, ‘The Trier ivory reconsidered’, on textual grounds. Speck, ‘Das Trierer Elfenbein’, 275-278 dates the ivory to ca 900 because he believes that ‘aus allgemein historischen Überlegungen’ it must post-date 843 but pre-date the refurbishing of the Chalke under Romanos Lekapenos (920-944). He finds no stylistic parallels. It should be noted that while portraits of living emperors are invariably bearded in the ninth century, portraits of ‘historical’ emperors such as Constantine need not be: see, e.g., the Khludov Psalter (Moscow, Historical Museum, gr. 129, f. 58v; Ščepkina, M.V., Miniaturi Khludovskoi Psalt’iri [Moscow 1977])Google Scholar.

68. So Delbrück, Die Consulardiptychen, 262; Holum and Vikan, ‘The Trier ivory’, 133.

69. See Mango, C., ‘Eudocia Ingerina, the Normans, and the Macedonian dynasty’, Zbornik Radova 14/15 (1973), 17–27 Google Scholar; repr. in idem, Byzantium and its image (London 1984), essay XV.

70. E.g. the marriage of Eirene and Leo IV in 768, or Michael III and Eudokia in 855. On the chapel see Janin, Les églises et les monastères, 489-490; Guilland, R., Études de topographie de Constantinople Byzantine I, Berliner Byzantinische Arbeiten 37 (Berlin 1969), esp. 188–189 Google Scholar. On the ceremonies, see the Book of Ceremonies, chapter 50: ed. Vogt II, 16-23; and, for discussion, Guilland (as above), 319; Mango, C., ‘The church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople and the alleged traditions of octagonal palatine churches’, JÖB 21 (1972), 193 Google Scholar; idem, ‘The church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus once again’, BZ 68 (1975), 390; both repr. in idem, Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot 1993), essays XIII and XIV.

71. Ed. Bonn, 354-355; see Mango, The Brazen House, 121-123; Auzépy, ‘L’icône du Christ de la Chalcé’, 455-456.

72. Trans. Mango, C., The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, Sources and Documents in the History of Art (Englewood Cliffs 1972), 157 Google Scholar.

73. See, most recently, Markopoulos, A., ‘The rehabilitation of the emperor Theophilos’, in Brubaker, L., ed., Byzantium in the ninth century: Dead or alive? (Aldershot 1998), 37–49 Google Scholar; H. Maguire, ‘The heavenly court’, in idem, ed., Byzantine court culture front 829 to 1204 (Washington DC 1997), 250-251; and the classic remarks in Mango, The Brazen House, 131-132.