CONSTANTINOPLE (BYZANTIUM, ISTANBUL)

Constantinople (modern Istanbul), "Constantine's City" (Lat. Constantinopolis ), sometimes Byzantium or simply "the City." This article deals with Constantinople (1) as a center of Church history, (2) in its relations with Rome, (3) its break with Rome, (4) as a center of monasticism and (5) as a center of art and archeology.

Early History

The importance of the site of Constantinople as a center of communications and the advantages of its excellent harbor, the Golden Horn, were recognized as early as the seventh century b.c., when Greek merchants founded the colony of Byzantion. As a small commercial city it survived into Roman times.

THE FOUNDING OF CONSTANTINOPLE

On becoming the sole emperor constantine i, the great (306–337), transferred the imperial capital from Italy to the eastern part of the empire for greater administrative and military efficiency. As a result of his conversion to Christianity, he preferred to build a new capital that would be Christian from the beginning, rather than occupy a city with old pagan associations. After considering several sites, he chose Byzantium, since it was not a major city and so could be "refounded" and given a new name, "the city of Constantine." The account of the founding written by Bishop eusebius of caesarea, Constantine's adviser and biographer, describes the construction of a number of churches, which were supplied with costly copies of the Scriptures specially prepared in Eusebius's scriptorium in Caesarea. Other sources indicate that Constantine had to take into account that many of his subjects were still pagans and the dedication ceremonies (330) included traditional pagan rites as well as Christian services.

The history of the Church at Constantinople was inevitably colored by the city's being the imperial residence and by the consequent propinquity of the bishop and the emperor. The see inescapably became involved in disputes with other major churches over questions of precedence and authority. A late legend, dating apparently from the early seventh century, attributed the founding of the Church at Byzantium to the Apostle andrew. This claim cannot be verified, and its late origin suggests that it arose at the time of the controversy between Rome and Constantinople over the title of "ecumenical patriarch" as used by the patriarch of Constantinople. It is thought that someone at Constantinople, wishing to place the see of the capital among the apostolic foundations and thus raise it to the same level as Rome in this respect, fabricated the legend. The actual situation at the time of the founding of the city is shown by canon six of the Council of nicaea i (325), which confirmed the traditional authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea over the see of Byzantium.

THE STRENGTHENING OF THE CHURCH IN CONSTANTINOPLE

The controversy over arianism involved Constantinople in tension with the other major churches and had special significance at the capital because of the Emperor constantius ii's Arian leanings. Toward the end of the Arian troubles, gregory of nazianzus was installed (381) as bishop in order to direct the restoration of orthodoxy, and the Council of Constantinople I in 381 (later acknowledged as the second ecumenical council) was convoked by theodosius the great in order to complete the restoration of religious unity. The Nicene doctrine of the nature of Christ was confirmed and apollinarianism was condemned. The creed called Niceno-Constantinopolitan, once thought to have been promulgated at this council, probably originated earlier. The status of Constantinople was elevated by canon three, which decreed that the bishop of Constantinople should have "precedence of honor" after the bishop of Rome "because Constantinople is new Rome."

As patriarch of Constantinople, john chrysostom (398–407) encountered political and ecclesiastical difficulties,

which led to his condemnation at the Synod of the oak, followed by his exile and death. Canon 28 of the Council of chalcedon (451) indicates that between 381 and 451 Constantinople had extended its jurisdiction over the Dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and that the see of the imperial capital was engaged in a series of hostilities with antioch and alexandria, its natural ecclesiastical rivals in the East. Antioch, by the support it gave to nestorianism and monophysitism, provided opportunities for attacks on its own power, while Alexandria brought more strength to its resistance to the capital. The frequent and extended visits of ecclesiastical prelates to the capital led to the formation of a permanent "resident synod" (synodos endemousa ), which became characteristic of this patriarchate and served both the patriarch and the emperor in the preparation of policy and the issuing of decrees concerning ecclesiastical problems.

Relations With Rome

Relations between Constantinople and Rome were conditioned at an early date by the extension of power of the Constantinopolitan see and by the influence of its patriarch with the emperor. The activities of the patriarch of Constantinople must be viewed in the light of the theory of the nature of the office of the Christian Roman emperor, formulated in the time of Constantine the Great. According to this theory, which was designed to replace the political theory of the pagan Roman Empire, the Christian emperor was conceived to be the vicegerent of God on earth, divinely chosen for office and ruling by divine inspiration and by virtue of his position responsible for the spiritual as well as the material welfare of his subjects. The competence and right of the sovereign to control or intervene in ecclesiastical affairs was in due course challenged by the Church, but the patriarch of the imperial residence, whether he was considered a partner of the emperor or only an adviser, could on occasion claim authority and jurisdiction, political or spiritual, which the other ancient sees, especially Rome, were unable to accept. Thus the acacian schism, separating East and West from 484 to 519, arose when Pope felix iii felt it necessary to excommunicate the Patriarch Acacius for the henoticon or formula of union issued by the Emperor Zeno.

REIGN OF JUSTINIAN (527–565)

This was one of the most brilliant periods in the history of Constantinople and established a new era in Byzantine civilization. justinian i sought to complete the process inaugurated by Constantine and Theodosius and to perfect the life of a Christian Roman Empire in which religion, intellectual culture, art, social life, and government were integrated into one harmonious whole under a benevolent emperor who was the all-powerful father of his people and the responsible head of both Church and State. Constantinople was the center in which this achievement was to be realized. In the religious sphere, Justinian's constant preoccupation was the restoration of orthodoxy and the suppression of heresy and paganism. The emperor pursued his goal with autocratic vigor, and in an effort to solve the Monophysite problem, which constituted a breach in both the spiritual and the political unity of the empire, applied himself to theology and ended by issuing unilateral legislation on points of doctrine without consulting the Church, an action that exceeded the most liberal interpretation of his powers. Justinian endeavored to impose his will on Popes agape tus, silverius and vigilius. Silverius was deposed, while Vigilius was brought to Constantinople and treated with physical violence. The Council of constantinople ii (fifth ecumenical council, 553) was convoked by Justinian to settle the question arising out of the Monophy-site problem, as to whether the three chapters, condemned by Justinian in a personal edict in 543, should be condemned, along with their authors, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyr and Ibas of Edessa, for their Nestorian sympathies. At the emperor's behest the council condemned the chapters and anathematized their writers.

A new source of difficulty between Constantinople and Rome arose over the use of the title "ecumenical patriarch" by the patriarchs of Constantinople. In existing Greek usage, the term "ecumenical" had a restricted sense, but Pope gregory i protested against the patriarchs' use of the title because in the West it would be taken as a claim to universal jurisdiction. This controversy continued for some years, but the patriarchs did not discontinue the use of the title. monothelitism, growing out of Monophysitism, caused further estrangement between the East and the West, in the course of which Pope martin i and maximus the confessor were arrested by order of the Emperor constans ii, taken to Constantinople and tried for treason. The pope was banished and died from cold and hunger (655).

In 680 the Council of constantinople iii (sixth ecumenical council) was convoked by the Emperor con stantine iv to settle the Monothelite heresy. The Dogmatic Decree issued by the council reaffirmed the definition of Chalcedon with an additional statement certifying the reality of the two wills and the two operations in Christ. This was followed by the Trullan Synod (692), so called from its meeting in the trullus or domed chamber of the imperial palace. It is also referred to as the Quinisext, for its task was to draw up disciplinary decrees on clerical marriage, clerical dress, age of ordination and the like, to supply the canonical measures not handled at the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils (553 and 680). The legislation of this council served to emphasize the difference between Eastern and Western practice.

ICONOCLAST CONTROVERSY (725–843)

This controversy produced tension between the popes, who supported further the traditional use of images as orthodox, and the iconoclast emperors and patriarchs, who sought to abolish sacred images as promoting idolatry (see iconoclasm). Further cause for discord was the rivalry between Rome and Constantinople for the ecclesiastical control of Illyricum, southern Italy and Sicily, over which from the fifth to the ninth century the See of Constantinople gradually extended its jurisdiction.

PHOTIUS AND THE GREEK SCHISM

The Photian schism was once thought to be the beginning of the definitive schism between the East and the West, but recent research has tended to show that the breach between the East and the West under the Patriarch photius (858–869, 877–886) was not permanent, that a recognized schism came about only gradually and that the date when the schism became complete is not easy to establish. Relations between the East and the West at this time reflect the effect of the accumulation of the successive points of difference between Rome and Constantinople, combined with the increasing difficulty of effective communication, as fewer people in the East had a competent knowledge of Latin, while at the same time fewer people in Rome possessed an accurate knowledge of Greek. Thus official correspondence was sometimes not interpreted correctly.

The personal history of the future patriarch Photius was typical of the Constantinople of his day and his appointment illustrates the way in which the affairs of the patriarchate were conducted at that time. A member of a wealthy and distinguished family (his uncle tarasius had been patriarch, 784–806), Photius was one of the most learned and cultivated men of his time, a leader in the intellectual and literary revival then taking place in Constantinople. His contributions to scholarship were important. Photius had also shown unusual talents as a diplomat and civil servant. Others of similar background had been called to the patriarchal throne because of their personal prestige and their experience of practical affairs. In the East this was not considered an undesirable practice; but the appointment of such men to the highest ecclesiastical posts seemed strange to the West. Thus, when the emperor michael iii deposed the patriarch ignatius in the course of a quarrel between conservative and moderate elements in the Church, the emperor chose Photius to succeed him, as a man capable of reconciling the discordant groups. Photius was a layman and had to proceed through the necessary series of ordinations in six successive days. When the deposition of Ignatius seemed irregular, Pope nicholas i had additional reason not to recognize Photius as patriarch. Ignatius's friends carried their complaints to Rome. The question of the filioque was raised; and the case became further complicated by an important administrative question, namely whether the newly established Church of bulgaria should come under the jurisdiction of Rome or Constantinople. The controversy, protracted and complex, illustrates the way in which the pope was obliged to deal with two powers, the patriarch and the emperor, whereas the patriarch and the emperor had to deal with only a single agent, the pope. Several councils were held in Rome (863, 864, 869,879) and in Constantinople (859, 861, 869–870, 879–880). The Council of Constantinople IV (869–870) the eighth ecumenical council, confirmed the sentence of the Council at Rome in 869 that anathematized Photius. Ignatius was reestablished as patriarch; but he died in 877 and Photius once again was appointed patriarch and was recognized by Pope john viii. At a Photian Council at Constantinople in 879–880 the papal legates apparently accepted Photius and annulled the action of the council of 869–870. If the Photian schism did not create a lasting breach between the East and the West the part played by Photius certainly hastened the final schism—he was the first Eastern theologian to bring an accusation that the filioque was an innovation—and it is appropriate that his name is attached to the episode.

PATRIARCHAL STATUS

The careers of Ignatius and Photius illustrate the relations between patriarch and emperor. The patriarch had great power; in the middle of the seventh century he controlled 419 bishoprics, in the early ninth century, more than 500. At the same time, the patriarch often had to defer to the emperor. While a patriarch who had public opinion behind him could when necessary oppose an emperor very effectively, the imperial office could employ constraints that the Church could not always withstand. Under the best conditions, the collaboration of emperor and patriarch could be a harmonious partnership; but emperors might be tyrannical and patriarchs might be servile or contentious. It was possible for heretics such as nesto rius, men with heretical tendencies such as acacius and iconoclasts to be patriarchs.

Break With Rome

After the time of Photius, relations between the East and the West further deteriorated. The patriarchate of mi chael cerularius (1043–59) has traditionally been taken as the time of the final breach (1054), but recent research has shown that this year did not witness a permanent break and that the final schism developed gradually. Cerularius, a civil servant ordained late in life, brought to the duties of patriarch the strict mentality of the bureaucrat and a strong will that did not defer to the emperor's views. Violently anti-Latin, the new patriarch inaugurated a systematic attack on Latin usages, such as use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, fasting on Saturdays and the like. When the Latin churches in Constantinople refused to adopt Greek usages, Cerularius closed them, caused a violent letter to be sent to Rome, and instituted further anti-Western propaganda which included some exaggerated and abusive charges.

CONTINUED HOSTILITIES

Pope leo ix sent three legates to complain to the emperor and reprove the patriarch, their leader being Cardinal Humbert, who disliked the Greeks as strongly as Cerularius disliked the Latins. The Emperor constan tine ix attempted to act as conciliator but failed. The legates took the unusual step of entering Hagia Sophia just before the singing of the liturgy and laying on the altar a bull excommunicating the patriarch and his followers (but not the emperor). When the contents of the bull became known in the city, there were riots, which the imperial troops put down only with difficulty. After the legates left for Rome, a synod met at Constantinople and anathematized them. Though the synod was careful not to involve the pope, it was later believed in the East that Cerularius had answered the attack on himself by excommunicating the pope. The crisis was taken more seriously in the West than in the East. But political negotiations between the emperor and the Roman See continued, and the evidence indicates that neither the East nor the West looked upon the episode as the beginning of a permanent schism.

CRUSADES

The crusades aggravated the hostility of the patriarch and the Greek people toward Rome. The motives of the crusaders were suspected and their behavior seemed offensive. The emperors made efforts toward conciliation, but the patriarchs did not support these. Feeling became so strong that there was a massacre of Latins in Constantinople in 1182. This was answered by corresponding but much more extensive violence when the members of the Fourth Crusade captured Constantinople in 1204 and pillaged the city for three days. It was the memory of this, more than anything else, that confirmed the breach between Constantinople and Rome. The Byzantine government in exile, with the Greek patriarchs, resided at Nicaea and the Latins, under a Latin patriarch, occupied the principal churches and monasteries of Constantinople. From the beginning of the Latin occupation Pope innocent iii attempted to conciliate the Greeks and procure their obedience with as little disturbance of the hierarchy as possible, but the Greeks had no desire for compromise. The patriarchate returned to Constantinople when the city was recaptured by the Byzantines in 1261.

During the remaining years of Byzantine rule in Constantinople the patriarchs joined with the emperors, who in order to secure political and military support against the Turkish threat were seeking union with Rome. At the councils of lyons (1276) and florence (1439) the Church of Constantinople recognized the supremacy of the Roman See, but these actions were only accepted by a very small portion of the Byzantine clergy and people. A council, which met in Hagia Sophia in 1450, condemned the union with Rome and deposed the prounion patriarch. Emperor Constantine XII caused the union to be proclaimed again in Hagia Sophia in December of 1452, but again only a few accepted it, and the city was captured by the Turks on May 29, 1453.

Monastic Establishments

A major influence in the political and religious life of Constantinople was the large number of monastic establishments, each with its particular rule. The extant documents preserve the names of 325 monasteries of men and women in the capital between the years 330 and 1453, though some of these may represent the refounding of an existing establishment under a new name. In 1453, when the capital had shrunk to a shadow of its former size, 18 monastic establishments were still active.

INFLUENCE

The monks had a powerful influence on the religious life of the people, for example, in the iconoclast controversy, in which they strongly defended the use of icons. As a rule the monks had a lively sense of independence and could become fanatical when they considered that they must resist unjust actions of ecclesiastical authority. Some of the monasteries, such as the studion, were important centers of scholarship and the preservation of manuscripts.

PATRIARCHAL SCHOOL

Along with the university founded by Constantine the Great, there was a patriarchal school, first attested in the seventh century, which offered instruction not only in theology but in secular learning as well. When reorganized by Photius, this school was divided into various branches, which met at different churches in the city.

Art And Archeology

Recent archeological activity in Istanbul has stimulated popular interest in the art of imperial Constantinople and the corpus of known monuments has largely increased. Exploration of the area of the imperial palace has brought to light important mosaics, as well as valuable topographical information. The work of the Byzantine Institute of America in uncovering and restoring mosaics and frescoes in hagia sophia (Holy Wisdom) and elsewhere has added new chapters to the history of Byzantine art. A definitive study of the structure and architectural history of Hagia Sophia, carried out by R. L. Van Nice, is nearing publication. Research on many aspects of the history and antiquities of Constantinople is in progress at the Center for Byzantine Studies of Harvard University at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, D.C., and at the Institut Français d'Études Byzantines in Paris.

CHURCHES

Numerous churches, as well as other buildings, including a palace, were constructed after the refoundation of the city by Constantine. Extant sources for 11 centuries of the history of Constantinople record the names of 485 churches. The oldest surviving is the Basilica of St. John Baptist Studium, built c. 463. The most important, still standing, is Justinian's great Church of Hagia Sophia. Constructed on a new plan and at a scale never before attempted, it was the greatest church then existing in the world. Contemporary literary accounts of the original construction and decoration by Procopius of Caesarea and Paulus Silentiarius have been preserved. Procopius, who watched the building being constructed and may have been present when it was dedicated, described its effect on the worshipper: "Whenever anyone enters this church to pray, he understands at once that it is not by human power or skill, but by the power of God, that this work has been so beautifully executed. And his mind is lifted up toward God, feeling that He cannot be far away, but must especially love to dwell in this place which he has chosen." Procopius's description is part of his panegyrical account of Justinian's buildings both at Constantinople and throughout the empire, in which we can perceive that the construction of churches and public buildings was one of the main functions of the emperor, illustrating the sovereign's benevolent role as father of his people. Other churches of Justinian still standing are the church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus and the church of St. Irene. Another great undertaking of Justinian's, the church of the Holy Apostles, was destroyed after 1453, but its plan and decoration are known from literary descriptions by Constantine of Rhodes and Nikolaos Mesarites. Some idea of the richness of this church can be gained from St. Mark's at Venice, which was modeled on it in plan and decoration.

SECULAR ARCHITECTURE

The imperial palace facing the Augustaeum, the public square on which Hagia Sophia stood, was begun by Constantine the Great following the quadrangular plan of the Roman fortified camp, exemplified by the palaces at Spalato and Antioch. As at Antioch and Thessalonica, the juxtaposition at Constantinople of the palace, the hippodrome and the "great church" brought together the three places in which the emperor performed his ceremonial functions, both political and religious. In time the palace was enlarged by the addition of public halls, banquet rooms, private chambers, chapels, churches, gardens and a polo field, until it became one of the largest and most magnificent structures in the world of that time. The fortification walls of Constantinople, in large part preserved, give an excellent idea of Byzantine skill in masonry construction and military engineering.

THE ARTS

Constantinople was famous not only for its buildings and their decorations, but for the luxury articles of all kinds which were manufactured in the city and exported throughout the world, the city being one of the most important trading centers of its time. As the largest and most luxurious city in the world in Byzantine times, the Paris of its day, Constantinople possessed both a taste for the work of skilled artists and craftsmen and the wealth to attract them to the city. The spirit of the capital was expressed in a fondness for magnificence and display, and a love of color. Gold mosaic and gold cloth were much in use. Constantinople and Antioch were the two centers for the manufacture of gold and silver Eucharistic vessels and altar furnishings. The workshops of the city—often established in the palace under direct imperial patronage and supervision—produced the finest jewelry and other objects such as book covers inlaid in gold and silver or enamel and ivory, as well as richly illustrated books and figured silks. Icons of all sizes, metal, painted or mosaic were produced. The coins struck at the imperial mint in Constantinople are important both as examples of contemporary art and iconography and as portraits of imperial personages; notable collections are in the British Museum and at Dumbarton Oaks. The illustrations and ornamentation of the manuscripts, both secular and religious, produced at Constantinople, are one of our richest sources for the purpose and methods of Byzantine art.

Byzantine art as it developed in Constantinople illustrates the way in which the capital brought together the artistic traditions of the other great cities of the empire, notably Antioch and Alexandria, and transformed them into a new and distinctive manner, which often went back to the works of classical Greece and Rome for its inspiration. Byzantine Christian art is full of classical motifs and genre scenes in the antique fashion. It was a unified art that was at the same time secular and religious, decorative and didactic. As an official art, centered on the glorification of God and the emperor, Byzantine art found its finest expression in Constantinople.

The iconoclast controversy had two effects on the artistic activity of the capital: a revival of the classical style and the development of a popular style, centered in the monasteries, which flourished alongside the official, imperial art. Thus the end of the iconoclast ban on religious art was followed by a new golden age in the art of Constantinople, from the ninth through the 12th century.

The artistic influence of the capital radiated throughout the world; it is now especially familiar in the early art and architecture of the Slavic lands, whose whole culture was so dependent upon Byzantium, and in the work of the Italian painters, such as cimabue, Duccio, Cavallini, giotto, and mantegna, who were familiar with Byzantine work and developed a close affinity with its spirit and style.

See Also: byzantine empire; byzantine theology; byzantine civilization; byzantine art; byzantine literature.

Bibliography: g. becatti et al., Enciclopedia dell'arte antica, classica e orientale (Rome 1958—) 2:880–919, with useful bibliog. r. janin, Dictionnaire d'histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, ed. a. baudrillart et al. (Paris 1912—) 13:626–768; Constantinople byzantine: Développement urbain et répertoire topographique (Paris 1950); Les Églises et les monastères, v.3 of La Géographie ecclésiastique de l'empire byzantin, pt. 1 (Paris 1953). g. every, The Byzantine Patriarchate, 451–1204 (2d ed. London 1962). g. downey, Constantinople in the Age of Justinian (Norman, Okla. 1960). f. dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew (Cambridge, Mass.1958); The Photian Schism (Cambridge, Eng. 1948). s. runciman, The Eastern Schism (Oxford 1955). j. ebersolt, Constantinople: Recueil d'études (Paris 1951); Constantinople byzantine et les voyageurs du Levant (Paris 1918). j. beckwith, The Art of Constantinople (London 1961). a. grabar, Byzantine Painting, tr. s. gilbert (New York 1953); L'Empereur dans l'art byzantin (Paris 1936). j. a. hamilton, Byzantine Architecture and Decoration (2d ed. London 1956). c. a. mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul (Washington 1962); "The Byzantine Inscriptions of Constantinople: A Bibliographical Survey," American Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951) 52–66.

[g. downey]