1

21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, 2006 Panel VII.2: In the palace (co-ordinator Lynn Jones) Maria Cristian CARILE Università degli Studi, Bologna, Italy, and University of Birmingham, UK

Constantinople and the Heavenly Jerusalem?: through the imperial palace

‘… ἄπελθε εἰς τὸ Βυζάντιον καὶ βλέπεις δευτέραν Ἱερουσαλήμ, τήν Κωνσταντινούπολιν’

‘… go to Byzantium and you will see the new Jerusalem, Constantinople’

(Life of St. Daniel the Stylite, 10)1

Jerusalem, the Christian religious centre holding major monuments of the Christian faith,

demonstrations of Christ’s death and resurrection, and holy sanctuaries, received great attention

from Christian emperors from the age of Constantine onwards. However in 446, when the passage

to Jerusalem was dangerous, St. Daniel was sent to Constantinople instead. In the life of St. Daniel,

St. Symeon the Elder himself, dressed as an old man, spoke the words quoted above, defining

Constantinople as the second Jerusalem. The sixth-century text clearly expresses the value of

Constantinople as a second Jerusalem, a new Jerusalem.2

The aim of this paper is to analyse two lines of thought that develop in a parallel way and

merge together in the definition of the meaning of Constantinople during Late Antiquity: the image

of Constantinople as a second or new Jerusalem and that of Constantinople as a heavenly Jerusalem.

The urban development of the city created a symbolic topography that affected the meaning of the

city itself, making it, as we shall see, a new Jerusalem. The meaning of Jerusalem in Christianity

involves different connotations that need to be considered before we attempt to clarify their

relationship to the image of Constantinople. The difference between the historical Jerusalem, the

new Jerusalem, and the heavenly Jerusalem is an extremely important distinction that, as we shall

see, will be critical for the comprehension of Constantinople. Constantinople’s relationship with the

meaning of Jerusalem revolves around the symbolic identification of the imperial palace as a

heavenly Jerusalem, a crucial point that was long ignored and will be addressed here.

1 H. Delehaye, Les saints stylites, Subsidia Hagiographica 14 (Bruxelles-Paris, 1923), 12. 2 This has been already noticed: G. Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451 (Paris, 1974), 409 n. 3; C. Frugoni, Una lontana città: sentimenti e immagini nel medioevo (Torino, 1983), 50; A.M. Orselli, "Simboli della città cristiana fra tardoantico e medioevo", in F. Cardini, ed., La città e il sacro (Milano, 1994), 419-450; C. Angelidi, Pulcheria. La castità al potere (Milano 1996), 62-63; P. Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Paris 1985), 92 n.55; A.M. Talbot, "Pilgrimage in the Byzantine Empire:7th-15th Centuries. Introduction" and P. Maraval, "The Earliest Phase of Christian Pilgrimage in the Near East (before the 7th century)" both in DOP 56 (2002), 60 and 70; A.M. Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi" in Uomo e spazio nell’Alto Medioevo. Atti della L Settimana di Studi del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 4-8 aprile2002) (Spoleto 2003), 865-866.

2

CONSTANTINOPLE AS A SECOND OR NEW JERUSALEM

Describing Constantine’s building activity in the Holy Land, Eusebius interprets the intentions of

the emperor.3

‘New Jerusalem was built at the very Testimony to the Saviour, facing the

famous Jerusalem of old, which after the bloody murder of the Lord had

been overthrown in utter devastation, and paid the penalty of its wicked

inhabitants. Opposite this then the Emperor erected the victory of the

Saviour over death with rich and abundant munificence, this being perhaps

that fresh new Jerusalem proclaimed in prophetic oracles, about which long

speeches recite innumerable praises as they utter words of divine

inspiration.’ Eusebius, De Vita Constantini, III, 33.1-2 (trans. Av. Cameron and S.G. Hall, 135)

The Holy Sepulchre was meant to symbolize the new Jerusalem. It was the symbol of Christ’s

victory and at the same time the symbol of a new city: Jerusalem, the city that sacrificed the

saviour, was now adorned and rebuilt by Constantine and Helena to create a new geography of

monuments and sanctuaries commemorating the victory of Christianity. Thus Jerusalem itself

became the new Jerusalem, a city-temple on earth celebrating the glory of God. Later the building

activity of the empress Eudokia, wife of Theodosius II, contributed new sanctuaries to the

development of the Christian topography of Jerusalem.4

According to the life of St. Daniel, Constantinople, the Second Rome, became the Second

Jerusalem in the sixth century. In a process of reduplication and multiplication that is common

during Late Antiquity, I will argue that Constantinople acquired the same religious value as

Jerusalem in the Christian faith.5

This is due to the progressive creation of holy places within the capital and to the symbolic meaning

they acquired.6 When Egeria, in her journey back from the Holy Land, visited Constantinople in

3 EUSEBIUS, De Vita Constantini, III, 25-44: Winkelmann, ed., Eusebius. Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantins (De Vita Constantini), Die griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte (Berlin 1962), 94-102; Av. Cameron, S.G. Hall, tr. and comm., Eusebius. Life of Constantine (Oxford, 1999), 132-138. 4 E.D. Hunt, Holy Land Pilgrimage in the Late Roman Empire (AD 312-460) (Oxford 1982), 238-239; K. Holum, Theodosian Empresses. Women and Imperial Dominion in Late Antiquity (Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 1989), 218-219. 5 For an interesting point on the association of Constantinople and the new Jerusalem as from the reference in the Life of St. Daniel, see: R. Ousterhout, "Sacred Geographies and Holy Cities: Constantinople as Jerusalem" in A. Lidov, ed., Hierotopy. Studies in the Making of Sacred Spaces. Material from the International Symposium (Radunitsa – Moscow 2004), 70. 6 G. Dagron, "Constantinople. Les sanctuaires et l’organisation de la vie religieuse" in Actes du XIe Congres international d’Archéologie Chrétienne (Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble et Aoste 21-28 septembre 1986) (Roma-Città del Vaticano 1989), II, 1069-1085; Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi", 860-871.

3

384, she was impressed by the number of churches and martyria in the city.7 The Notitia Urbis

Constantinopolitanae (425) lists only fourteen churches within the city. However, Christine

Angelidis points out that the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae does not take into account the area

between the Constantinian and the Theodosian walls, nor does it consider the martyria as churches

or places of worship; thus the text is not reliable in this respect.8 During the fifth century, the

successors of Constantine embellished the city with many additional buildings. An important aspect

of this policy was the building of new churches and monasteries, many patronised by the members

of the imperial house - and especially by women of imperial rank such as Pulcheria, Verina,

Ariadne, Juliana Anicia9 - as well as by non-imperial aristocrats.10

The new foundations were accompanied by translations of relics that sanctified the churches

themselves and the city, creating a web of holy places within the cityscape, with high symbolic

value in the development of the cult of saints. The importance of the translation of holy relics is

expressed in fifth-century texts, attributing to Constantine the Great the translation of relics of the

apostles Timothy, Andrew, and Luke into the church of the Holy Apostles.11 The textual evidence is

not consistent, attributing the translation variously to Constantine the Great or to his son

Constantius II; however, modern scholarship is almost unanimous in attributing it to Constantius II

in 356 and 357.12 Here it is important to stress that the attribution to Constantine of the translation of

relics and of the building of a number of churches in the capital is an idea of fifth-century authors

and was assumed in later literature.13 In this way the building activity of the Theodosian dynasty

and of Justinian was justified as a perpetuation of a tradition of church foundations inaugurated by

7 EGERIA, Itinerarium, 23.7-9: P. Maraval, ed., Égérie. Journal de voyage (Itinérarie) et lettre sur la B.se Égérie (Paris 1982), 232-233. 8 Angelidi, Pulcheria, 73; R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique d l’empire byzantine, I, Le siége de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique, III, Les églises et les monastères (Paris, 1969), XII. For a survey on the churches that were probably built in the fourth century: Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 388-409. 9 For the patronage of women of imperial rank in the fourth and fifth centuries, see: L. Brubaker, "Memories of Helena: patterns in imperial female matronage in the fourth and fifth centuries" in L. James, ed., Women, men and Eunuchs. Gender in Byzantium (London and New York, 1997), 52-75; L. James, Empresses and Power in Early Byzantium (Leicester 2001), 148-163; L. James, "The empress and the Virgin in early Byzantium: piety, authority and devotion" in M. Vassilaki, Images of the Mother of God. Perception of the Theotokos in Byzantium (Aldershot 2005), 150-152. 10 Aurelianus, praefectus praetorius and consul in 400, built a church dedicated to St. Stephen: Angelidi, Pulcheria, 72-73 (with bibliography). Kyros, praefectus praetorius in 426 and 439-441, built a church dedicated to the Mother of God: C. Mango, "Constantinople as Theotokoupolis" in M. Vassilaki, ed., The Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art (Milano, 2000), 17-25 (esp. 19). 11 For a discussion supporting a possible translation at the time of Constantine: C. Mango, "Constantine’s Mausoleum: Addendum", BZ, 83 (1990), 434. It should be noted that the seventh-century Chronicon Paschale anticipates the translation while speaking about Constantine’s funeral, then records the translation of Timothy’s relics in 356 and the one of Luke’s and Andrew’s in 357: Chronicon Paschale, s.a. 337, 356 and 357: PG, XCII, 717 e 733; M. Whitby and M. Whitby, trans. and comm., Chronicon Paschale. 284-628 AD (Liverpool 1989), 33 n. 101-102. 12 For a discussion on textual evidence and earlier scholarship see: Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 405-406 (405 n. 2); C. Mango, "Constantine’s mausoleum and the translation of relics", BZ 83 (1990), 52-54 and 434. 13 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 390-391; C. Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe-VIIe siècles), Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Monographies 2 (Paris 1990), 35-36.

4

Constantine himself. Notwithstanding, the translation of relics into the Holy Apostles was

mentioned in late antique texts as the first translation of relics into Constantinople and as one of the

first translations in Christianity.14 Late antique authors stress that Constantine (or Constantius II)

was responsible for bringing the bodies of the apostles into the church designated also for imperial

burials, which created a symbolic association between the emperor and the apostles,15 and honoured

the imperial city by providing it with an apostolic heritage. This translation was followed by a

number of others that combined to reshape the image of the city, and to enhance the meaning of the

Christian capital, making it, as Dagron and Orselli have argued,16 into a new Jerusalem. Relics

ensured the power of the city and protected it.17 The relics worked with the churches in

Constantinople, to sacralize the cityscape and convey the idea that the city was transformed into a

sanctuary,18 thus into that new Jerusalem identified in the life of St. Daniel.19

Relics of martyrs, of prophets and of the passion, were transferred to Constantinople from

the reign of Constantius II. In 360 relics of St. Pamphylos were translated from Antioch for the

dedication of the church of Hagia Sophia;20 in 406 the relics of the prophet Samuel were brought to

the same church in a procession leaded by Arcadius.21 In 415 for the inauguration of the Theodosian

building of Hagia Sophia, the relics of the prophet Zachariah and Jacob, Joseph’s son, were brought

from Palestine.22 Pulcheria was responsible for finding the relics of the forty martyrs from Sebaste,

which were located in the church of St. Tyrsos during the patriarchate of Proklos (434-446),23 as

well as for the translation of the relics of St. Lawrence and of the prophet Isaiah.24 Probably during

the reign of Leo I (457-474) and his wife Verina the maphorion of the Virgin was brought to

14 Mango, "Constantine’s mausoleum", 52. 15 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 406-407: Dagron outlines the ambiguity of Constantine’s burial into the Holy Apostles. The emperor’s aim was to be considered as a thirteenth apostle as well as to be assimilated to Christ. 16 Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 409; Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi", 864-865. 17 With reference to Rome, see: S. MacCormack, "Loca Sancta: The Organisation of Sacred Topography in Late Antiquity" in R. Ousterhout, ed., The Blessing of Pilgrimage (Urbana and Chicago 1990), 19-20. 18 This image is expressed by Socrates while speaking about a procession through the city at the time of Theodosius II: Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica, VII.22, 17-18: G.H. Hansen, ed., Sokrates. Kirchegeshichte, Die griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte. Neue Folge 1 (Berlin 1995), 370. For the ceremonial of translation and its meaning in Constantinople, see: K. Holum and G. Vikan, "The Trier Ivory, Adventus Ceremonial, and the Relics of St. Stephen", DOP 33 (1979), 115-133; L. Canetti, Frammenti di eternità. Corpi e reliquie tra Antichità e Medioevo (Roma 2002), 148-163. 19 For a reflection on the space in the life of St. Daniel, see: M.Kaplan, "L’espace et le sacré dans la Vie de Daniel le Stylite" in M. Kaplan, ed., Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident. Études comparées (Paris 2001), 199-217. 20 J. Ebersolt, Constantinople. Recueil d’études d’archéologie et d’histoire (Paris 1951), 5. For a summary of the translations of relics into Constantinople during Late Antiquity, see: H. Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyres, Subsidia Hagiographica 20 (Paris 1933), 55-57; Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d'Orient, 92-100. 21 In 411 the relics were translated into a church dedicated to the saint at the Hebdomon: Chronicon Paschale, s.a 406 and 411: PG, XCII, 784 e 786; Whitby and Whitby, trans. and comm., Chronicon Paschale, 60 n. 201, 62 n. 209. 22 For a discussion on the attribution of these relics see: Angelidi, Pulcheria, 76-77. 23 Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, IX.2: C. Hansen, ed., Sozomenos. Historia Ecclesiastica. Kirchengeschichte, IV (Turnout 2004), 1060-1067. 24 Holum, Theodosian Empresses, 137: with sources.

5

Constantinople and housed in the complex of the Theotokos Chalkoprateia.25 According to

Prokopios in the new church of the Holy Apostles Justinian embellished the tomb of the saints with

great splendour, ascribing to them their deserved honour.26 Following Prokopios, Justinian built or

rebuilt thirty-three sanctuaries in Constantinople, and was particularly anxious to gather relics.27

The martyrs’ sacrifices witnessed salvation in the name of Christ, thus their relics had a high value

as a real testimony to the Christian faith. Relics of the prophets connected Constantinople with

biblical history and thus with the Holy Land. Old Testament relics as well as passion relics acquired

an important role in this context: they were part of the whole story of salvation, from the beginning

of the world to the culminating crucifixion of Christ, the son of God.28 In the doctrinal disputes of

the fourth and fifth centuries, relics of the Virgin Mary had an enormous weight as evidence of the

human nature of Christ, particularly after the council of Ephesus (431), where the role of Mary as

the ‘bearer of God’ (Theotokos) was recognized.29

Old Testament builders had a certain influence in the association of Constantinople with

Jerusalem, especially Solomon, the king who built the great Temple of the God of Israel in

Jerusalem. The direct reference to Solomon in the inscription of the church of Hagios Polyeuktos

which was founded by Juliana Anicia, grand-daughter of Valentinian III,30 as well as the words

pronounced by Justinian himself in the legends of the Patria,31 indicate that the imperial house was

aware of following Solomon’s model, and we may see this as another indication of the attempt to

link Constantinople with the new Jerusalem. The link between Hagios Polyeuktos and Solomon’s

temple was clearly intended from the start and this association was also, at least by the ninth

century, extended to Hagia Sophia. These monuments and especially the motivation behind their

patronage contributed to making Constantinople into a second Jerusalem, a new Christian capital

and a temple of Christianity on earth.

25 Angelidi, Pulcheria, 81-83; Av. Cameron, "The Early Cult of the Virgin" and Mango, “Constantinople as Theotokoupolis” both in Vassilaki, ed., The Mother of God, 3-15 and 19-20. 26 Procopius, De aedificiis, I. IV.22: H.B. Dewing, ed. and trans., Procopius. Buildings (London 2002, first published 1940), 12-13. 27 Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d'Orient, 96-97; Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople, 32. 28 The Byzantine calendar starts from Adam and Eve. 29 I. Kalavrezou, "Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou", DOP 44 (1990), 166-168. 30 The inscription is recorded in the Greek Anthology, I, 10; R.M. Harrison, A Temple for Byzantium. The Discovery and the Excavation of Anicia Juliana’s Palace-Church in Istanbul (Austin, 1989), 33-41; R. M. Harrison, "Discovery and Background" in R. M. Harrison, ed., Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, I, The Excavations, Structures, Architectural Decoration, Small Finds, Coins, Bones, and Molluscs (Princeton 1986), 5-7. 31 On the sentence attributed to Justinian, see: Av. Cameron, ed. and trans., Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem Iustini Augusti minoris (Oxford 1976), 204-205 (commentary); G. Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire. Études sur les recueils des “Patria” (Paris 1984), 207-208, 303-313; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, 125, 129, 220, 365 n.58.

6

NEW JERUSALEM: FUTURE JERUSALEM OR HEAVENLY JERUSALEM?

The homology of Constantinople with Jerusalem requires a reflection on the meaning of the holy

city. Jerusalem was the city of the Temple, the house built by Solomon for God where, in the

Hebraic tradition, Melchisedek sacrificed to God.32 It is the holy city elected by God, which honours

God in the temple, and represents the spiritual and political core of the people of Israel.33

Paradoxically, that city did not recognize Christ as the son of God, thereby becoming the location of

Christ’s death and resurrection, and thus, particularly from the fourth century, the holy city of

Christianity. Meanwhile, in AD 70, it underwent great destruction with the razing of the Temple.34

This city was the historical Jerusalem, a real city with an urban plan and a community of citizens,

which was nonetheless of crucial importance as the political and religious capital of the Jews.

In the Christian perspective, Jerusalem was regarded as the omphalos, the centre of the world,35 and

Golgotha, where Christ was crucified in the same place as Adam’s burial and directly above his

head,36 created a link in Jerusalem between Christ’s death and the beginnings of the human history.

Jerusalem was therefore the theatre where the most important events of humanity played themselves

out, and it thus had a great cosmic significance. This is well expressed by Ezekiel and Isaiah, who

prophesized the coming of a future Jerusalem, intended as a holy city holding a holy temple, house

of the God of Israel.37 The temple, where God was glorified on earth, is tightly connected to the

concept of the new Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the holy city because it held the holy temple of God

and at the same time was extremely important as the historical capital of Israel. The temple image

affects the image of Jerusalem because the concepts of city and temple merge together in the image

of Jerusalem itself, regarded as the city of the temple in the Scriptures.38 Its peculiarity is to be the

city of God and, by extension, his temple and residence, on earth. The prophetical books, especially

Ezekiel, add an eschatological value to the image of Jerusalem that is retained and augmented in the

New Testament. In the New Testament the meaning of Jerusalem is amplified: from Matthew

32 B. Khünel, From the Earthly to the Heavenly Jerusalem. Representation of the Holy City in Christian Art of the First Millennium, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte. Supplementhefte 42 (Rom – Freiburg – Wien 1987), 23-28. 33 R. Bonfil, "Gerusalemme Umbilicus Mundi" in Cardini, ed., La città e il sacro, 47-52. 34 For a story of the city of Jerusalem, see: A.J. Wharton, Refiguring the Post-classical City. Dura Europos, Jerash, Jerusalem and Ravenna (Cambridge 1995), 85-100. 35 Golgotha, and by extension Jerusalem, were considered as a omphalos from the middle of the fourth century onwards: Khünel, From the Earthly, 88. 36 F. Parente, "La conoscenza della Terra Santa come esperienza religiosa dell’Occidente cristiano dal IV secolo alle Crociate" in Popoli e paesi nella cultura Altomedievale. Atti della XXIX Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (23-29 aprile 1981) (Spoleto 1983), 238-242. 37 Isaiah, 1:26, 2:1, 60: 1-22; Ezekiel, 40-48. For a discussion on the meaning of the prophecies on Jerusalem, see: Khünel, From the Earthly, 34-39. 38 This was noticed before by Bianca Khünel: Khünel, From the Earthly, 39-43. The earthly Jerusalem has a bipolar aspect: positive in the eschatological value always attached to it in the Old Testament, negative for becoming the city of crucifixion, the place which does not recognise the son of God: E. Morini, ‘Gerusalemme per il cristianesimo’ in P. Magnanini, E. Poli, E. Morini, edd., Ebraismo. Terzo quaderno (Bologna 1996), 129-149, 133-134.

7

(24:30-31) to the Revelation of John (21-23) Jerusalem acquires a new feature that is not earthly but

totally heavenly.39 The New Testament reveals a tension around the image of the kingdom of God,

which is only clearly stated to be the new Jerusalem in the Revelation of John, where it is

specifically identified as the heavenly Jerusalem, the residence of God. In the Revelation it is the

place where God dwells among the elect and which can be seen only in heavenly visions or at the

time of last days. It is a bright kingdom of light, the walls of which are made of precious stones and

where there is no temple, being itself a temple. It holds the major features of a city, the walls and

the city-doors; however its function is that of the heavenly residence of God. Thus the earthly

character of the future Jerusalem of Ezekiel and Isaiah is in contrast with the heavenly Jerusalem of

John. However there is a constant ambiguity and interrelationship between the two.

As we have seen, in Eusebius’ words the historical Jerusalem was transformed into a new

Jerusalem by Constantine. The monuments celebrating the glory of Christ on earth are thus, to

Eusebius, the actualization of the earthly future Jerusalem of the prophets. Eusebius celebrates the

work of Constantine as an achievement of the great glory of God on earth, a monument of Christ’s

victory and the heavenly kingdom.40 Eusebius’ new Jerusalem is the celebration of the historical

place where the story of salvation took place, it is the holy place where the presence of Christ is real

and evident through the monuments celebrating his death and resurrection. This new Jerusalem has

the dimension of the most holy place on earth and should not be confused with the apocalyptic

heavenly Jerusalem.41

In this context, does the homology Constantinople-new Jerusalem expressed in the life of St.

Daniel refer to the future Jerusalem or to the heavenly Jerusalem? The new city of Jerusalem with

the complex of the Anastasis became a model that was copied and reproduced in medieval cities to

recall the historical Jerusalem, the archetypal place of salvation.42 In this sense Constantinople was

regarded as a new Jerusalem: it became the reduplication of the historical city of salvation through

the gathering of holy relics and the power that the relics bestowed to the city and the basileia.43 As

from the time of Constantine onwards the historical Jerusalem became a new Jerusalem, celebrating

Christ’s victory over death in its monuments, so Constantinople, equally framed for its sacred

39 The influence of the Revelation of John is here assumed, the scholarly debate on the subject notwithstanding. The influence of the text has been for long discarded, however nowadays it seems to be confirmed: literary as well as artistic documents seem to have been inspired by the text, although it was not included in the redaction of the Septuagint. See: J. Engemann, "Images parousiaques dans l’art paléochretién" and N. Thierry, "L’Apocalypse de Jean et l’iconographie byzantine" both in R. Petraglio, ed., L’Apocalypse de Jean. Traditions exégétiques et iconographiques (IIIe-XIIIe siècles). Actes du colloque de la Fondation Hardt, 29 février - 3 mars 1976 (Genève 1979), 73-107 and 319-320. 40 Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini, XVIII.3; P. Maraval, tr. and comm., Eusébe de Césarée. La théologie politique de l’Empire chrétien. Louanges de Constantin (Triakontaétérikos) (Paris 2001), 208. 41 Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi", 862-863. 42 R. Ousterhout, "Loca Sancta and the Architectural Response to Pilgrimage" in Ousterhout, ed., The Blessing of Pilgrimage, 108-124; Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi", 861-863: with extensive bibliography. 43 Orselli, "Lo spazio dei santi", 864-867 and nn.

8

geography, became a locus of Christian worship and a goal of pilgrims. The sentence from the life

of St. Daniel is important to us because it reveals that by the sixth-century the sanctity of

Constantinople was such that it could be perceived as a new Jerusalem.

Constantinople was not only the imperial capital, rather it was the capital of the Christian empire,

the emperor of which was the minister of God on earth.44 This bestowed a particularly high value on

Constantinople that exceeded the political importance of the city and incorporated a symbolic

meaning with a deep religious connotation. Constantinople underwent great changes during the first

centuries after its foundation by Constantine.45 A new geography of sanctuaries and holy relics

affected its meaning and gave it the character of a temple celebrating Christianity on earth.46

Following Eusebius and the life of St. Daniel, it is clear that Constantinople could be experienced as

a second Jerusalem, a reduplication of Eusebius’ ‘future Jerusalem’ achieved by Constantine in the

earthly Jerusalem with the building of the Holy Sepulchre. Constantinople became a city-temple, in

this respect also it was a second Jerusalem. However we will now see that one of its monuments,

the imperial palace, bears features that go beyond its character of the new or the future Jerusalem.

THE PALACE AS A NEW JERUSALEM OR AS HEAVENLY JERUSALEM?

The increased importance of the city of Constantinople as a new Jerusalem involved

substantial changes in the imperial palace. The palace of the emperor was sacralised by the presence

of holy relics and the incorporation of churches.47 In 420 or 421, the empress Pulcheria was

responsible for the translation of the holy hand of St. Stephen from Jerusalem into a chapel

dedicated to the saint, which was located somewhere within the complex of Daphne in the imperial

palace.48 Some years later she built a chapel dedicated to the Theotokos Protoktistos (‘first

founded’) in the same area of the imperial palace.49 Under Zeno (474-5 and 476-491) a gospel of

Matthew that was believed to have been copied by St. Barnaby was brought into St. Stephen of

44 Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini, VII.12; Maraval, tr. and comm., Eusébe de Césarée. La théologie, 208. In the sixth century the deacon Agapetus described the nature of the basileia of Justianian: Agapetus the deacon, ΕΚΘΕΣΙΣ ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΝ ΠΑΡΑΙΝΕΤΙΚΩΝ, 37, 46, 61: PG, LXXXVI, 1176, 1177, 1181; B. Cavarra, trans., Ideologia politica e cultura in Romània fra IV e VI secolo (Bologna 1990), 34, 35, 38. 45 Mango, Le développement urbain de Constantinople. 46 J.F. Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship. The Origins, Development, end meaning of Stational Liturgy, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228 (Roma 1987), 257-259. 47 C. Mango, "The church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus at Constantinople and the alleged tradition of octagonal palatine churches", JÖB 21 (1972), 193, reprint in C. Mango, Studies on Constantinople (Aldershot 1993), essay XIII, 193. 48 Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique, 473; Holum, Theodosian empresses, 103-104; on St. Stephen’s relics and the cult of relics in the palace of Constantinople, see: I. Kalavrezou, "Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult of Relics at the Byzantine Court" in H. Maguire, ed., Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington 1997), 53-79; on the cult of St. Stephen in the late antique Africa, see: V. Saxer, Morts, martyres, reliques. En Afrique Chrétienne aux premiers siècles. Les témoignages de Tertullien, Cyprien et Augustin à la lumière de l’archéologie africaine, Théologie Historique 55 (Paris 1980), 245-279. 49 Holum, Theodosian empresses, 143.

9

Daphne.50 Justin II (565-578) built many chapels around the Chrysotriklinos, where holy relics were

sheltered.51 Fragments of the holy cross were believed to have been housed in the palace since

ancient times. According to a legendary account, Helena, mother of Constantine, sent part of the

true cross to Constantinople.52 Other fragments of the cross were brought to the court of Theodosius

II.53 Justin II is responsible for collecting parts of the true cross as well as for distributing them as

gifts, making Constantinople a centre of diffusion for the holy relic: in 574 he brought to

Constantinople a huge fragment of the cross, before held at Apamea in Syria, and later he gave a

fragment of the cross and other relics to St. Redegonda of Poitiers.54

Since the time of Constantine, the emperor prayed in the palace. Eusebius reports that the emperor

worshipped God praying in the secret rooms of his palace.55 Probably the palace with its chapels

and churches soon became the location for specific stops, which were followed by prayers to God

during the development of the imperial ceremonies, which are described in the tenth-century text of

Constantine Porphyrogenitos.56

Thus the multiplication of churches, an important aspect of late antique urban development,57 did

not affect only the city, but also the imperial palace. There the increasing number of churches and

chapels gave evidence of the Christian faith of the emperor and proved the centrality of the

Christian cult in imperial life. Moreover, the chapels and churches of the palace held holy relics,

with which the emperor and his court came into contact on a daily basis. Relics such as Moses’ rod

and the trumpets from the fall of Jericho connected the imperial house with pre-Christian times,

emphasizing the eternal legitimacy of the Christian emperor.58 Christ’s relics, from the cross

50 Ebersolt, Constantinople, 18; Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique, 473; Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient, 96. 51 Moses’ rod was housed in the chapel of St. Theodore, near the Chrysotriklinos: Ebersolt, Constantinople, 22. For the Chrysotriklinos, see: R. Janin, Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et repertoire topographique (Paris 1964), 115-117; W. Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Byzantion – Konstantinupolis – Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen 1979), 231; A. Kazhdan, ‘Chrysotriklinos’, ODB, I (Oxford 1991), 455-456. 52 A. Frolow, La relique de la vrai croix. Recherches sur le développement d’un culte (Paris 1961), 73. This is certainly a later invention, since the first association of Helena, mother of Constantine, with the finding of the true cross is recorded in 395 in Ambrose’s In obitu Theodosii, 40-49. For the importance acquired by the figure of Helena, especially in regard to the display of women of imperial rank, in the late fourth and fifth centuries, see: Brubaker, "Memories of Helena ", 52-75; on the same subject, but with a different point of view: J.-M. Spiesier, "Imperatrices romaines et chrétiennes" in Mélanges Gilbert Dagron (Paris 2002), 594-602. 53 Frolow, La relique de la vrai croix, 73 and 170 (cat. 16). 54 Frolow, La relique de la vrai croix, 73 and 179 (cat. 33). 55 Eusebius, De vita Constantini, IV.17 and 22.1: Winkelmann, ed., Eusebius. Über das Leben, 126 and 128; Cameron, Hall, tr. and comm., Eusebius. Life of Constantine,159-160. Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini, IX.11; Maraval, tr. and comm., Eusébe de Césarée. La théologie, 137. 56 G. Dagron, Empereur et prêtre. Étude sur le ‘césaropapisme’ byzantin (Paris 1996), 106-115. 57 G. Dagron, "Le christianisme dans la ville byzantine", DOP 31(1977), 6-8. 58 On Moses’ rod: A. Pertusi, "Insigne del potere sovrano e delegato a Bisanzio e nei paesi di influenza bizantina" in Simboli e simbologia nell’alto medioevo. XXIII Settimana di Studio del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (3-9 aprile 1975) (Spoleto 1976), 515-516; Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, 106-107, 114, 224; A. Carile, "La sacralità rituale dei ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΣ bizantini", in F. Cardini and M. Saltarelli, ed., Per me reges regnant. La regalità sacra nell’Europa

10

fragments and nails to Christ’s sandals, reinforced the connection of the emperor with Christ and his

victory over death. The link between the emperor and Christ, emphasized by the passion relics,59

connected the emperor to God, establishing a chain of power: God, through his son Christ,

legitimated the power of the Byzantine emperor over the world.

In the late fourth century, the palace became the privileged seat of the emperor, a permanent

residence with a unique character contrasting sharply with the temporary imperial palaces of the

great late antique cities. The multiplicity of the late antique imperial residences was linked to the

necessity for the emperor to move across the empire and to manifest his presence where it was

needed.60 Until the fourth century the imperial palace was the imperial residence where the emperor

was residing: even if it was a temporary residence, it was the palatium, the palace of the emperor.61

Under Theodosius I (379-395), however, the palace of Constantinople acquired the status of unique

imperial residence. The emperor continued to travel across the empire, but he resided in

Constantinople for long periods of time and transformed the city into an imperial capital where the

palace was his residence. In the Latin panegyric of Pacatus in praise of Theodosius, the author

emphasizes the emperor’s visibility in the city. In contrast with the previous Roman emperors, who

lived walled in their palaces with no regard for their people, the author notes that Theodosius, ‘after

performing the holy rites in his palace’ (imperial ceremonies), used to meet the people of the city

and to show himself in public audiences.62 This seems to be represented in the base of Theodosius’

obelisk in Constantinople, which shows a public appearance of the emperor with his court.63 From

the kathisma, the imperial balcony of the hippodrome that was linked directly to the main buildings

of the palace, the emperor manifested himself to the people of the city in the hippodrome, which

was the privileged place for the public appearance of the emperor and for the communication with

the people through the members of the city factions.64

medievale (Siena, 2002), 84. On the trumpets from the fall of Jericho: Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire, 248 n. 162, 301. On the significance of the Biblical relics in the imperial ceremonial: Dagron, Empereur et prêtre, 114-115, 224. 59 Passion relics were particularly linked to the imperial house: Maraval, "The Earliest Phase of Christian Pilgrimage", 70; L. James, "Dry bones and painted pictures: relics and icons in Byzantium" in A. Lidov, ed., Eastern Christian Relics (Moscow 2003), 49-50. 60 For a survey on the imperial journey in the fourth century, see: Dagron, Naissance d’une capitale, 78-86. 61 Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, 53.16,6: ‘Thus even when the emperor is residing somewhere else, the palace where he is staying is still called palatium’ (J.W. Rich, ed., Cassius Dio. The Augustan Settlement. Roman History 53-55.9 (Warminster 1990), 45). 62 Panegirici Latini, XII, 21: E. Gallettier, ed. and trans., Panégyriques Latins, III (Paris 1955), 87-88. 63 On the iconography of the obelisk’s base, see: G. Vespignani, Il circo di Costantinopoli Nuova Roma (Spoleto 2001), 103-108. On the obelisk of Theodosius in the hippodrome of Constantinople: G. Bruns, Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel (Istanbul 1935); Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 191-192; Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 64-71. 64 For the symbolic role of the hippodrome in Late Antiquity and Byzantium, see: A. Carile, "Costantinopoli nuova Roma", in Cardini, ed., La città e il sacro, 214-215; Vespignani, Il circo di Costantinopoli, 81-125. For the kathisma, see: Janin, Constantinople byzantine, 188-189; R. Guilland, Études de topographie de Constantinople byzantine (Berlin - Amsterdam 1969), 462-498. For the city factions, see: Al. Cameron, Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium (Oxford, 1976).

11

From Arcadius (395-408) onwards the emperor resided almost continuously in the palace of

Constantinople. The palace was a separate entity within the city, linked to it only by means of the

kathisma, which was like a window displaying the basileia to the community of Constantinople.65

In the palace of the emperor strangers were rarely admitted. It was continuously guarded by troops

of special soldiers, called candidati. During Late Antiquity the palace of Constantinople acquired

the status of holy abode of the emperor, becoming what in the fourth-century an anonymous

panegyrist labelled a ‘sacred residence’, the greatest features of which were, in the words of

Eusebius, its holiness and impenetrability.66

In the sixth-century praise for Justin II, the court poet Corippus called the palace a divine

Olympus, a heavenly abode of shining light.67 The presentation of the palace as a divine kingdom

ultimately gave the imperial palace the features of the heavenly kingdom of God. The heavenly

character of the imperial residence finds parallels in Byzantine imagery. From the fourth century,

the correspondence between the heavenly court of God and the imperial court is well represented in

the figure of the candidati, dressed in white tunics.68 As in the heavenly court of God the elect

surrounding him are dressed in white, and so are the guards of the imperial palace.69 They represent

on earth the militia Christi that surrounds God in the heavenly kingdom.

The correspondence between the heavenly and imperial kingdoms also appears in Christian

monumental art. While unfortunately the decoration of late antique imperial palaces is lost,70 some

sanctuaries of the Christian faith have survived and give evidence for the interrelationship between

65 For the palace of Constantinople, see: Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon, 229-237. For the role of the palace in the in the display of the imperial power, see: A. Carile, "La prossemica del potere: spazi e distanze nei cerimoniali di corte", in Uomo e spazio nell’Alto Medioevo. Atti della L Settimana di Studi del Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto, 4-8 aprile2002) (Spoleto 2003), 602-645. 66 Panegirici Latini, IX, 16.5: E. Gallettier, ed. and trans., Panégyriques Latins, II (Paris 1952), 137. Eusebius, De laudibus Constantini, prologue. 4; P. Maraval, tr. and comm., Eusébe de Césarée. La théologie, 78. 67 Corippus, In Laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, III.180-185: Cameron, ed. and trans., Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem, 66, 106, 188. A little further in the same passage Corippus emphasizes this idea stating that the embassy at the court of Justin II believed the Byzantine palace to be another heaven (Corippus, In Laudem Iustini Augusti minoris, III.244: Cameron, ed. and trans., Flavius Cresconius Corippus. In laudem,, 67, 107, 188). Obviously the use of a certain ‘pagan’ lexicon should not mislead the reader, being the late antique Christian imagery full of old fashioned metaphors of pagan origins that are nonetheless utilized in Christian contexts. 68 R. Guilland, "Candidat" in P. Wirth, ed., Polychronion. Festschrift Fr. Dölger (Heidelberg 1966), 210-225, reprint in R. Guilland, Titres et functions de l’Empire byzantin (London 1976), essay II. On the value of the white tunic of the candidati and of the heavenly court, see: S. Labarre, "Le vêtement dans La vie de Saint Martin (IVe siécle). Signe social et valeur symbolique" in F. Chausson, H. Inglebert, edd., Costume et société dans l’Antiquité et le haut Moyen Age (Paris, 2003), 149-150. 69 It should be noted that the Visio Dorothei draws a direct homology between the imperial palace officers and the court of God, utilizing precise terms indicating dignities in the description of the heavenly court. On this subject: J. Bremmer, "An Imperial Palace Guard in Heaven: the Date of the Vision of Dorotheus", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 75 (1988), 82-88; E. Livrea, "Ancora sulla visione di Doroteo", ΕΙΚΑΣΜΟΣ 1 (1990), 145-156. 70 This was emphasized by Ćurčić: S. Ćurčić, "Late-antique palaces: the meaning of urban context", Ars Orientalis 87(1993), 67.

12

the two realms. Royal and imperial symbols of power heavily affect Christian iconography.71 This is

evident in the representation of Christ in the fifth-century mosaics of Rome: for example, in the

apse of the church of Santa Pudenziana (402-417) Christ is set on a jewelled throne. A few decades

later in the scenes from the life of Christ of the church of Santa Maria Maggiore (432-440), a bright

jewelled throne is again the seat of the infant Christ. This pattern in the representation of Christ

continues and effects also the representation of the Virgin. In a late sixth-century Sinai icon, the

Virgin Mary appears set upon a throne and surrounded by the warrior saints George and Theodore,

in a scene that recalls the representation of an empress in the court.72 Again the throne is bright and

encrusted with precious stones.

The archaeological findings from the imperial residence of the horti Lamiani on the Esquiline in

Rome show the abundant use of gold and precious stones in the decorations of the furniture and

probably of a throne.73 The residence was used by the emperor and by the members of the imperial

family from the first until the fourth century.74 Unfortunately very little of the decoration and the

furniture of late antique residence survives, however the horti Lamiani is extremely important as

evidence of ancient imperial palace decoration, and allows us to connect the encrusted throne

depicted in the mosaics and icon mentioned above with certainty to an imperial context.

The image of the throne of God belongs to the representations of God in the Scriptures,75 although

its depiction as a jewelled throne bears undoubtedly imperial features. The throne is an element of

capital importance in the representation of royalty and is one of the major imperial attributes.76

The throne is also a central element in the saints’ visions of the kingdom of God. In the vision of St.

Maura, in heaven the saint sees a throne with a white cloth and a wreath as manifestations of God.77

In the third century, God manifests himself on a throne amidst his court in the vision of Saturus in

71 This was clearly demonstrated since the important work of André Grabar, nevertheless it is contested by Thomas Mathews: A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art Byzantine (Paris 1936); T.F. Mathews, The Clash of Gods. A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art (Princeton 1993, revised edition), 3-22. 72 R. Cormack, "Icon of the Virgin and Child Between Archangels Accompanied by Two Saints", in Vassilaki, ed., The Mother of God, 262-263: with earlier bibliography. 73 M. Cima, "Il ‘prezioso arredo’ degli horti Lamiani" in M. Cima, E. La Rocca, edd., Le tranquille dimore degli dei: la residenza imperiale degli Horti Lamiani (Venezia 1986), 122-127. 74 M. Cima, "Dagli scavi dell’Esquilino all’interpretazione dei monumenti" in Cima, La Rocca, edd., Le tranquille dimore, 42-43. 75 See for instance the description of God upon his throne in: Isaiah, 6; Ezekiel 10; Daniel, 7:9; Revelation, 4:2 and 7:10. 76 Grabar, L’empereur, 196-200; A. Pertusi, "Insigne del potere sovrano e delegato", 501 and n. 48 (with earlier bibliography); A. Kazhdan, L. Bouras, "Throne" in ODB, III (Oxford 1991), 2082-2083. For the suppedaneum as an attribute of the Byzantine throne, see: K. Wessel, "Insignien" in RbK (Stuttgart 1979), 450-455. 77 Maura and her husband Timothy were martyred in Thebaide in the third century: BHG, II, 1849; BHG. Novum auctarium, 1849d; S. Kur, "Timoteo e Maura" in Bibliotheca Sanctorum, XII (Roma 1969), 496-497. For the vision of the throne in the third-century life of St. Maura, see: Passio SS. Timothei et Maurae, 18 in Acta SS. Maii, I, 744; K. Baus, Der Kranz in Antike und Christentum. Eine religious geschichtliche Untersuchung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung Tertullians (Bonn 1940, reprint 1965), 214-215; G. Hellemo, Adventus Domini. Eschatological Thought in 4th century Apses and Catecheses (Leiden – New York – København – Köln 1989), 107.

13

the Passio Perpetuae.78 The fourth-century vision of Dorotheos gives further evidence for the image

of God as a king and of his bright court in the palace.79 Later in the vision of St. Martha, mother of

the stylite St. Simeon the younger (late sixth or early seventh century) the saint sees a throne in the

middle of a marvellous palace in heaven.80 In Late Antiquity the image of the throne of God is

widespread in visual representations as well as in written accounts of saints’ vision, showing its

centrality in the early Byzantine imagery.81

The vision of Dorotheos adds important details for the visualization of the kingdom of God. Beside

the representation the court of God, the text describes at length the heavenly kingdom, giving a very

detailed image and making the text an important element for the comprehension of late antique

imagery. The kingdom of God has the form of a bright dwelling with walls, guarded gates,

porticoes and courtyards. The heavenly kingdom is a palace where God manifests himself among

his heavenly followers. This representation of the heavenly kingdom is modelled on that of an

imperial palace. And everything is bright, the brightness and the abundance of shining light being

one of the central features of the heavenly kingdom. In the third-century vision of Saturus the

kingdom of god is a place encircled by radiant walls. In the Scriptures the bright light is one of the

most important features of the representation of God and divine settings.82 In the imperial residence

in Rome mentioned earlier, gold and jewels covered the furniture.83 From archaeological evidence

as well as from written accounts, it is clear that late antique palaces were made of shining marbles

and precious stones, the most important feature of which was their shining power.84

78 Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, 11-12: H. Musurillo, ed., The Acts of the Christian Martyrs (Oxford 1972), 120-121. For the third-century vision of Saturus, see: J. N. Bremmer, "The vision of Saturus in the Passio Perpetuae" in F. G. Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen, ed., Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: studies in ancient cultural interaction in honour of A. Hilhorst (Leiden 2003), 55-73: with translation and previous bibliography. 79 For the vision of Dorotheos, see: A. Hurst, O. Reverdin, J. Rudhardt, Vision de Dorothéos (Cologny – Genève 1984); A.H.M. Kessels and P.W. Van Der Horst, "The vision of Dorotheus (Pap. Bodmer 29) edited with introduction, translation and notes", Vigiliae Christianae 41 (1987), 313-357; E. Livrea, review of Vision de Dorothéos. ed. et trad. par A. Hurst, O. Reverdin, J. Rudhardt (Cologny – Genève 1984), Gnomon 58 (1986), 687-711; Bremmer, "An Imperial Palace Guard ", 82-88; E. Livrea, "Ancora sulla visione di Doroteo", 145-156; J. Bremmer, "The Vision of Dorotheus", in J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst, edd., Early Christian Poetry. A Collection of Essays (Leiden – New York – Köln 1993), 253-261; J. Bremmer, The Rise and Fall of the Afterlife (London – New York 2002), 128-133. 80 For the vision of St. Martha, see: Vita S. Martha, 17: P. Van Den Ven, La vie ancienne de S. Syméon Stylite le jeune (521-592), II, Traduction et commentaire. Vie grecque de sainte Marthe, mère de S. Syméon, Subsidia Hagiographica 32 (Brussels 1962), 206. 81 Grabar, L’empereur, 196-198. For the ‘sacred centrality’ of the throne in the imperial context, see: A. Carile, "La prossemica del potere", 612 and 617-618. 82 For some examples, see: Exodus, 24:14; Psalm, 18:7; Ezekiel, 8:2; Matthew, 24:27; John, 1; Revelation, 4 and 10. 83 See n. 73. 84 The attention for the brightness of the palace is a topos from ancient times – as in the Homeric description of the palaces of Menelaos and Alcinous (Homer, Od., IV, 43-46; VII, 81-133) - however Roman and late antique palaces were clad in marbles and precious stones that gave them a particularly bright appearance. This can be seen, for instance, in the residence of Nero in Suetonius (Suetonius, Vit. Caes.(Nero), VI, 31), in the palace of the Persian kings in Apuleius’ De Mundo (Apuleius, De Mundo, XXVI), as well as in the poetical descriptions of palaces in Claudian and Sidonius Apollinaris (Claudian, Carmina, 9, 49-85: palace of Venus; Sidonius Apollinaris, Carmina, II, 418-423 and XI, 14-33: palaces of Aurora and Venus).

14

Thus the representation of the kingdom of God is based on the representation of an imperial palace.

As the kingdom of God was a heavenly reality, separated and far from the earthly dimension and

free only for a few saints who could experience it in their visions, the imperial palace of

Constantinople was separated from the city by a walled enceinte. Through the Chalkè gate the

entrances to the palace were determined by a strict selection.85 The imperial residence was guarded

by special troops, which, as we have seen, were strongly reminiscent of the heavenly guard. Its

structure was a series of buildings, connected by means of halls, porticoes, and gardens, where the

imperial ceremonies developed and which led to an inner reception hall where the emperor

manifested himself to his court.86 In Late Antiquity only the unique residence of the emperors, the

palace of Constantinople, bore these features. Later the heavenly character of the imperial palace

was consolidated. The tenth-century accounts of Liutprand of Cremona and De Caerimoniis give

evidence that an aura of mystery was embedded in the imperial reception, giving it mystical traits

that emphasized strongly its character of divine manifestation.87

The transformation of Constantinople into a new Jerusalem, indeed a ‘future Jerusalem’,

which was achieved by means of the modelling of the cityscape and the gathering of holy relics,

effected also the palace of the emperor. The palace was however the theatre for a more conspicuous

change. The representation of the heavenly kingdom of God as an imperial palace invests, in turn, a

heavenly character to the palace of the Byzantine emperors. The attribution of imperial elements to

the representation of Christ and the image of the heavenly kingdom of God as an imperial palace

reveal a direct homology between the imperial palace and the heavenly kingdom. This concept

seems to have been common in late antique thought, since it is reported in saintly visions, in court

poetry and late antique literature.88 Thus in Byzantine imagery the palace was seen as the residence

of the emperor, but also as a antitype of a heavenly residence.

Constantinople was not only a new Jerusalem: it had an heavenly character too, for it held the

imperial palace, a heavenly Jerusalem. The heavenly kingdom of God, which was envisaged in the

New Testament and appeared in the Revelation of John, seems to be symbolized in the imperial

85 For the Chalkè gate, see: C. Mango, The Brazen House. A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople (Copenhagen 1959). 86 For the value of the portico as a longitudinal element that became increasingly important in late antique palatial architecture, especially with regards to the development of the imperial ceremonial, see: I. Baldini Lippolis, La domus tardoantica. Forme e rappresentazioni dello spazio domestico nelle città del Mediterraneo (Bologna 2001), 112-113. For the garden as an element of the Byzantine palaces, see: H. Maguire, "Imperial Gardens and the Rhetoric of Renewal" in P. Magdalino, ed., New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th centuries (Aldershot 1994), 181-197; A.R. Littlewood, "Gardens of the Palaces" in Maguire, ed., Byzantine Court Culture, 13-38. 87 For the mystical features of the imperial manifestations with reference to the texts of Liutprand of Cremona and Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, see: A. Carile, "La prossemica del potere", 620-621. 88 For instance, as we have seen, in the visions of Dorotheos and Saturus, in the poetical work of Corippus, but also in Eusebius, where the heavenly kingdom is portrayed as an imperial palace (Eusebius, De Laudibus Constantini, I,2).

15

palace of Constantinople. The Byzantine emperor is the minister of God on earth: as he mirrored the

power of God on earth, his court mirrored the court of God, and his palace the heavenly residence

of God.

Chapels and churches in the palace were shrines for the holy relics which ensured and radiated their

power on the basileia. St. John Chrysostom expresses the homology imperial palace-heavenly

Jerusalem in a description of God as a king, set upon his throne in a vestibule, amidst his court of

angels and saints. The passage draws an imperial audience hall as the setting for the heavenly

appearance of God: the holy vestibule is located in heaven and God as a king is set ‘on the throne of

that unspeakable glory, and angels, and archangels standing by Him, and the tribes of the saints’.89

The heavenly palace is ‘the city of God’. The text as well as the lexicon used make a direct

reference to an imperial context, with which St. John Chrysostom was thoroughly familiar.90

From the ninth century onwards the mutual correspondence between the imperial and the

heavenly court has been demonstrated in artistic objects as well as in literary sources.91 Here we

have argued that the development of this idea started in Late Antiquity, and concerns the conception

of the palace of the Byzantine emperors as a reflection of the heavenly kingdom of God, indeed a

heavenly Jerusalem.

89 P. Schaff, ed., A Selected Library of the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, X, Saint Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, G. Prevost, trans. (Oxford 1888), 8. 90 John Chrysostom, In Matthaeum Homilia, 2.1: PG, LVII, 23. 91 H. Maguire, "The Heavenly Court" in Maguire, ed., Byzantine Court Culture, 25-62.