ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 AdmirAtions in Pen And Brush: russiAn sources on istAnBul And the monuments of the hiPPodrome Yuri PYatnitskY / saint PEtErsBurG Constantinople, or istanbul, the city on the banks of the Bosphorus has always had a special signiicance in Russian politics and culture. It inspired sincere admiration and great respect. There is little wonder why written Russian sources called the city „tsargrad“, which could be interpreted both as „the imperial City“ and as the „Emperor of Cities“. According to Russian texts, the magniicence of Constantinople, the capital city of the Byzantine Empire and the liturgy in Hagia sophia, its main cathedral made such an impression on the envoys sent by Prince Vladimir in the 10th century that they envisaged they were in Paradise, not on Earth. Their fascination with the Byzantine church services contributed to Orthodoxy being chosen as the oficial religion of Russia. Since 988, the time when the people of kievan rus’ were baptized its politics, religion, and especially culture were all closely tied to Byzantium. russia maintained intensive trade, ecclesiastical, and diplomatic relations with Constantinople, which was visited by various strata of russian society: merchants, priests and monks, oficials and the military, and also many pilgrims „to the Holy Places“. The Russian people were particularly profound in their piety (and certainly still are) and all of them, regardless of the purpose of their visits to Constantinople tried to pay their respect to the Orthodox objects of veneration abundantly present in the capital of Byzantium. the travellers often recorded their journey in writing, describing the viewed holy places and relics and it eventually led to the creation of a speciic genre of Old Russian literature, the so-called pilgrims’ travels. For scholars, the notes left in the 11th–15th centuries by russian travellers have long been a valuable and important source on the history of Constantinople, its topography and historical monuments1. One of the speciic characteristics of Old Russian pilgrims’ travels is their active interest speciically in ecclesiastical antiquities and holy relics; the Hippodrome, however, was mentioned only briely. For example Anthony of Novgorod, an archbishop who visited Constantinople around the year 1200, gave a detailed description of the relics in various churches but the Hippodrome was noted as the location of one of the churches: „Near the Hippodrome, there is the Church of the Great Martyr Euphemia which holds her cofin set in silver; St George lies in the same church“2. 321 the monument most-described by the visitors to the Byzantine capital, especially in the 14th and 15th centuries was the column with the statue of the Emperor Justinian i on horseback located near the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia; descriptions are remarkably thorough and accurate3. In Russia, the statue of Justinian was known not only from pilgrims’ texts. In the beginning of the 15th century theophanes the Greek, a famous Byzantine artist who worked in Moscow and other russian cities depicted the Hagia sophia and the statue of Justinian on horseback at the top of the column on a loose leaf of parchment. The Russian patron, who requested this drawing, Epiphanius the Wise asked theophanes to make it such „that I can place [it] at the beginning of a codex and, remembering your work and looking [at it], imagine that I am in Tsargrad“4. This original miniature by theophanes has not survived but it played an important role in russian art: precise copies and versions of it were used for decorating illuminated Old Russian manuscripts; also, the image of this Byzantine monument became a part of the composition in some Russian icons of „The Protection of the Holy Mother of God“. The example i provide here is a novgorod icon of the 15th or early 16th century from the state Russian Museum in St Petersburg (Fig. 1)5. the somewhat detailed descriptions of the Hippodrome left by the russian travellers began to appear especially in the mid-14th century. The most interest shown to the monuments of the Hippodrome was by the o-called „russian anonymous“, whom scholars usually associate with Basil kaleka a priest and an artist who later became the archbishop of novgorod6. All pilgrims’ travels of 14th–15th centuries paid particular attention to the serpent Column, which was believed to possess apotropaic powers: it protected Constantinople from snakes. It was said that snake venom was sealed in the column and if somebody within the city walls was bitten by a snake, touching the column would heal him. another monument at the Hippodrome usually mentioned in the notes is the Obelisk of theodosius with particular attention given to the construction of the obelisk: „There is a column on a foundation there and the foundation is the height of three people. There are four marble supports on this foundation and a column is placed on these supports, which are sixty sazhens high and three sazhens wide, a single stone, with no joints. Would you not be surprised, O man, who it was that built it and what kind of people these were? “7. interest in the ancient monuments of Byzantium had not ceased after 1453, when Constantinople was taken over by the turks, became the capital of the Ottoman Empire and renamed Istanbul. For the period of the 15th–17th centuries, the most valuable sources for Fig. 1. Detail 322 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 Fig. 1. Icon „The Protecting Veil of the Mother of God“ Novgorod School, end of 15th –early16th century. The State Russian Museum, Saint-Petersburg 323 the history of the Byzantine monuments of Constantinople are texts and drawings of contemporary Istanbul left by the Western European travellers. as chance would have it, one of these sources – a 16th century stammbuch of Ludophus stockheim happened to be kept in St Petersburg in Russia. Since only a few experts are familiar with it, I would like to provide some information on it in this article. the stammbuch is a small memorandum book: it includes numerous drawings, among which there are several images of the ancient Constantinopolitan monuments. The size of the book is 16 х 12 cm; it consists of 232 watercolours on paper. The half-leather binding is not original; it bears the traces of the gold stamping on the spine. The Stammbuch is kept now in the Department of Rare Books of the Hermitage Library (Inv. no. 152891). It was transferred to the library in 1949 from the State Exchange Fund and during the 19th and irst quarter of the 20th centuries (according to the inscriptions on the binding) it has been kept in several private German collections in kiel, Hamburg, and reetz8. The manuscript consists of two sets joined together, probably at the time of binding. To the irst set, the Stammbuch itself belong the leaves numbered 1–82 and 151–213, which are the watercolour drawings depicting the coats of arms, ladies and noble men, genre scenes, and views of Venice. The notes and mottos are often added to the drawings. Some of them dated from 1592–1594. The name of the owner of the book: Ludophus Stockheim is mentioned several times. In 1592, Ludophus Stockheim was a student of the Faculty of Law at Padua University in Italy and earlier, in 1585 – at the University of Helmstedt in Germany. He died in 1596. the second set is more relevant to our subject. On the leaves numbered 84–150 and 217–230 are watercolour drawings of various Oriental people and costumes and the monuments of Constantinople as well. Except one, these leaves do not bear any notes but they have inscriptions in pencil added in the 19th or 20th century matching the drawings with ones in the Stammbuch from the Landesbibliothek in Kassel. As the Russian scholar Mikhail Muryanov showed in his work published in 1975, the book in the Landesbibliothek kassel that relates to the second part of the Hermitage manuscript is the Manieren- oder Türkenbuch 4 ms. his. 31: the manuscript on 159 paper leaves illustrating a journey to Budapest, Istanbul, Egypt, Crete, Syria, Palestine, and Italy. It is dated to the last quarter of the 16th century. The question on how these two manuscripts are connected still lingers: it is possible that one of them served as a model for the other one or that both copies were created at the same time9. Five watercolours from the second part of Ludolphus Stockheim’s Stammbuch provide very interesting clues about the condition of the ancient Byzantine monuments of istanbul at the end of the 16th century: the Obelisk of Theodosius (leaf 114), the Pyramid of Constantine (leaf 115), the Column of Constantine on the Forum (leaf 118), the Column of Theodosius in the Seraglio (leaf 119) and the Serpent Column (leaf 136). Despite their somewhat schematic nature, the watercolours are rather precise in showing even the details of the monuments. 324 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 Three of these watercolours depict monuments of the Hippodrome (Figs. 2–4). the image of the still undamaged serpent Column with a three-headed snake with open jaws is of special interest; a fragment of a Canon and an inscription made in Munich on December 2nd 1594 are written to the right of the image of the Serpent Column. The date indicates that the drawing was made earlier. The Obelisk of Theodosius is shown on a wide stone platform. The Pyramid of Constantine judging from the watercolour, had already suffered considerable damage by the end of the 16th century, especially on its right side. Two other watercolours depict two columns located in different parts of Istanbul (Figs. 5, 6). One of them, known as the Burnt Column or the Column of Constantine on the Mese Forum, is shown with the same eight sections that could still be seen today. the Column of Constantine attracted travellers during the second half of the th 15 –17th centuries because it was located across from the Elchi-Khan (the Ambassador Fig. 2. Watercolour „The Obelisk of theodosius“ from Ludolphus Stockheims’ Stammbuch (leaf 114), end of 16th century. The State Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg Fig. 3. Watercolour „The Serpent Column“ from Ludolphus Stockheims’ Stammbuch (leaf 136), end of 16th century. The State Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg 325 Fig. 4. Watercolour „The Pyramid of Constantine“ from Ludolphus stockheims’ Stammbuch (leaf 115), end of 16th century. The state Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg Fig. 5. Watercolour „The Column of Constantine“ from Ludolphus stockheims’ Stammbuch (leaf 118), end of 16th century. the state Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg Сourt), a special building for foreign envoys. In 1646, all foreign ambassadors and residents were ordered to settle in the districts of Galata and Pera, while the Elchikhan was handed over to the representatives of vassal states of the Porte: Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania and Ragusa. the column in the second Hermitage watercolour is the Column of theodosius in the Seraglio: the Sultan’s palace. This watercolour shows that the artist who painted it was part of a foreign mission granted an audience with the Sultan. It was then that he could have seen this ancient Byzantine monument standing on the site of the turkish ruler’s palace (Fig. 6). there is interesting evidence from the 16th century that the turkish sultans occasionally used the ancient Hippodrome for its original purpose. In 1582, Sultan Murad III lavishly celebrated the circumcision of his son Mahomet. The Hippodrome was chosen as a place for a very special spectacle in the manner of ancient circus performances. Two castles symbolising the Muslim and Christian fortresses were built 326 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 opposite the Sultan’s platform. At irst, the sides exchanged rapid canon ire, then the Muslim garrison lunched a sortie from its fortress; as soon as it reached the Christian fortress, the walls of the latter collapsed and four pigs ran out of it. After that, three lions were led into the Hippodrome and they were given to tear the ifth pig, which was specially brought from the Austrian embassy. European ambassadors watching this spectacle from their seats perfectly understood both the joke and the subtle hint10. after Constantinople became the capital of the Ottoman Empire, russians did not stop visiting the city. The intensive trade and diplomatic relations between Moscow and istanbul of the 16th–17th centuries are well documented. Besides, russian envoys often came to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who continued Fig. 6. Watercolour „The Column of to live in istanbul, to discuss church theodosius“, from Ludolphus stockheims’ matters. Istanbul was on the road to the Stammbuch (leaf 119), end of 16th century. The Holy places – Mount athos, Palestine and state Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg Jerusalem, Mount sinai, which russian pilgrims continued to visit. The itineraries of the special missions sent by the russian tsar for delivering alms to the Oriental patriarchs and renowned Orthodox monasteries also went through Istanbul. Since the 16th century, a considerable number of the documents and descriptions of the travels of Russian people and missions to the Orient have been preserved. One part of them is written in the traditional genre of Old russian travels that focus on the description of the Orthodox churches and monuments; the other part differs both in structure and genre. The changes were relections of the new political situation. The relations between Orthodox Russia and the Sublime Porte were complicated; the Turks (often not unreasonable) suspicion of foreigners; the intrigues of various groups at the turkish court, as well as among the Orthodox population of the turkish Empire did not encourage the „tourist viewing of the landmarks“ of Istanbul. although russian travellers on duty and missions were formally recommended to „describe the customs of the countries they visited“, which they did but did not give any special attention to the ancient historical monuments. The oficial documents 327 basically consisted of political news, reports on the economic condition of the country, the structure and state of the armed forces, and church matters. For example, the wellknown and important Descriptions of a Journey to the Orient by Vasily Pozdnyakov, who travelled in 1558–1561 to deliver alms from Tsar Ivan the Terrible11, or the similarlytitled travels by Tryphon Korobeynikov, who in 1593–1594 travelled to deliver money on the occasion of the birth in 1592 of Tsarevna Theodosia, daughter of Tsar Theodore Ivanovich and Tsarina Irina Godunova (Tsarevna Theodosia was the granddaughter of tsar ivan the terrible)12 do not include descriptions of the churches and monuments of Istanbul. Likewise, the author of the fascinating Description of the Turkish Empire compiled in the second half of the 17th century by an unknown russian captive perhaps a Muslimconvert, paid no attention to the antiquities. He concentrated on the geo-military and topographic statistical descriptions and he spoke about istanbul only from this perspective, noting just its fortress walls, cannons, and harbours13. two works left by Piotr tolstoy, a russian diplomat of the late 17th – early 18th century are very interesting to compare. A personal diary of his journey across Europe in 1697–1699 is illed with vivid and colourful descriptions of cities, art, monuments and the lifestyles and customs of various peoples14. The oficial Description of the Ottoman Empire written in 1702–1703 for the Emperor Peter the Great shines a light speciically on the inner life of the Empire under the rule of Sultan Mustafa II (1695–1703). It begins with the words: „The spirit of the Turkish nation stands proud, noble, and in love of glory“15. This work by Tolstoy is a very important historical source of the early 18th century but again: one does not ind any description of ancient monuments there. Following traditions of the Posol’ski prikaz – the Ambassadorial Department in Moscow (a predecessor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs), such matters as daily customs, lifestyle, and architectural landmarks should not be mentioned in departmental reports about oficial visits and diplomatic missions. This gives an even greater importance to one literary source of the mid-17th century. It is the famous work by Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo concerning a visit of the Patriarch of Antioch Makarius to Moscow. The original Arabic copy is kept in St Petersburg, in the collection of the Manuscripts Department of the Oriental Institute of Russian Academy of Science. The Patriarch Makarius went to Russia in 1653 to get inancial assistance from Tsar Aleksey Mikhailovich. A son of the Patriarch, Archdeacon Paul of Aleppo was a member of the mission and kept a detailed diary of the journey. The diary contains very interesting information describing the road of the Patriarch from aleppo to Moscow through Istanbul and it also includes notes on the monuments of Constantinople. On the 20th of October 1653 the travellers arrived in istanbul where they thoroughly examined all the churches and ancient ruins they could, including the Hippodrome and its monuments. Upon special permission from the Sultan Mohammed, the Patriarch and his companions visited the Hagia Sophia and the Sultan Ahmed Mosque: „after that we 328 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 walked around the square, or the place for public celebrations of Constantinople that is famous throughout the world. It is called At-Meidan, that is the Hippodrome and it is situated across the mosque. We saw a wondrous pyramid on a stone pedestal called Nev Dikilli Taş – the new upright stone [the Obelisk of Theodosius – Yu.P.]. It is made out of a single piece of stone, has four sides, is reddish grey colour; its four sides have some kind of signiicant signs or images and resemblances of animals hewn, that all are philosophical words [hieroglyphs – Yu. P.]. The pyramid is mounted on four bronze cubes and beneath them there is a cube of white marble in a single piece, which has the length, width and height in 14 spans on each side of the square and decorated with carved images of people that are different on each side. The height of the pyramid from its base to its tip, that is, the height of the column with the pedestal is as great as the height of the minarets of Sultan Ahmed Mosque. A stone’s throw from this pyramid, there is a pillar made out of thick bronze, twisted in three braids similar to three intertwined serpents or dragons; at the top there are three serpent heads with open mouths, looking towards the three parts of the city; one head is lack its lower jaw. People say that the late Sultan Osman smashed it with his mace and that this pillar alone served the guarded the city against an invasion of snakes from the time of the Emperor Constantine and they speak of the time when one head was broken off that, the parts of the city that it faced was immediately looded with snakes, but they do not do any harm, as a historical occurrence. One stone’s throw further stands a second pillar built of stone and called Dikilli Taş“16. among the other monuments seen by the Patriarch of antioch and his suite were the Column of Constantine commonly called „the burnt column“, and the Column of Hadrian. Paul of Aleppo wrote: „This column rises so high into the sky that it is dificult to look at it; it has cracked from ire and is tied with iron hoops for this reason. People say that certain Jews told one Sultan of the Osmanlis that the Greek Emperors hid treasures in it and its is why the Sultan ordered it set on ire, and it cracked. Fearing it would fall down during the night, it was tied around with iron from top to its bottom. The Greeks told us that this Dikilli Taş or column is the same one that was erected by the Emperor Constantine the Great, placing beneath its base twelve skulls and some relics of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Then, we went further to look at the pillar at Avret-Bazar or the Women Market. This column is the greatest of all that we mentioned, made out of white marble with carved images of crosses, angels, and holy fathers from its tip to its base. It is hollow inside“17. During the irst quarter of the 18th century a character of the notes made by pilgrims to the Holy places changed again: they became more secular and the language more colourful and literary. Information appears to be more diverse with frequent small details and personal opinions. The Notes by the Old Believer ivan Lukyanov from 1701–1702, the monks Makariy and sylvester from 1704, and the priest of the russian ambassadorial church in Istanbul Andrei Ignatiev from 1707–1708 have wonderful 329 information about Turkey and its capital. However, the most important source on the subject is the daily notes of the russian pilgrim, the ethnical ukrainian Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky (1701–1747). He lived „in foreign lands“ for almost twenty-four years and visited many places in Europe and the Orient. His detailed descriptions comprised four monumental volumes, but even more important is the fact that Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky was a talented artist, who left remarkably accurate drawings of many monasteries and churches. Out of 148 of his presently known drawings, ive are associated with Constantinople: the drawings of Hagia sophia, Cistern with 1001 columns and three drawings of other monuments on one leaf, that are combined into a single artistic composition against a shared hilly background (Fig. 7). The latter drawing deinitely represents the Hippodrome, since it features the Obelisk of theodosius and the serpent Column. the third monument is supposed to be the Fig. 7 Drawing by Vasilii Pyramid of Constantine, but the Column of Grigorovich-Barski depicting three Constantine is depicted instead18. The Obelisk of monuments of Constantinople, 1744, theodosius is shown with reliefs on its pedestal, from his book „stranstvovaniya po and a note states: „A quadrangular column, svyatim mestam Vostoka s 1723 po 1747“. Sankt-Petersburg, 1886. erected by Theodosius, the Greek Emperor“. The Part iV, between pages 374–375, Serpent Column had already lost its three heads; an saint-Petersburg inscription over the Column in Barsky’s handwriting says: „the bronze column“. the words „a column built of pieces, with iron hoops“ accompany the drawing of the Column of Constantine. These drawings were made by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky in 1744, when, according his own account, he „walked around and examined the ancient buildings by the Greek Emperors and the famous columns that there are in Tsargrad, [...] and saw the beauty and arrangement of the city, and harbours for various ships, and the peoples’ customs“19. Grigorovich-Barsky gave a thorough description of the Christian churches that existed at the time, and also provided a list of ancient Byzantine churches that were converted into mosques. As for the Hippodrome, he said he would give a detailed description of it later. These pages of description did not survive in the manuscript. It is possible however that Grigorovich-Barsky did not even write them. His drawings of the Hippodrome’s monuments, which are dated, hold an important place in the pictorial 330 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 story of Istanbul. A few years earlier, in 1737–1738, John Bell (1691–1780) went on a journey from St Petersburg to Istanbul – a diplomatic mission on the request of the Russian ViceChancellor, Count Andrei Osterman. At the time Russia was at war with the Ottoman Empire and according to the turkish law, none of the russian citizens „could set his foot on the land of the Sultan“. in his Report on the Travel he wrote: „The city of Constantinople is so well known that my time describing would be spent fruitlessly. For this reason, I shall mention only the most remarkable things I noticed while I was there“20. among the most important monuments John Bell describes are Hagia sophia and the Hippodrome: „From the St Sophia I went to the Hippodrome called At-Maidan by the Turks. In ancient times the Greeks trained their horses there and it is used for the same purpose today. It has the look of an extremely expanded, oblong quadrangle, in the middle of which stands a very ine marble obelisk. To its side, there is a bronze pillar twined around with a snake, about 10 feet height, rather damaged by time. [...] On a big street, a short distance from the Hippodrome there is another very old monument, speciically an wide and high column called the Burnt Column because it was damaged during ire that occurred nearby and it has cracks at numerous spots. [...] This column is made of porphyry and is about 60 feet tall“21. this description makes clear that the serpent Column was already damaged and apparently lost the three heads as well, which corresponds with the drawing made by Vasily Grigorovich-Barsky a few years later. There is a rumour that thieves stole the serpents’ heads to sell them for scrap metal one night at the beginning of the 18th century22. During the 18th–19th centuries, political relations between russia and turkey were extremely tense. Continual wars for dominion over the Black Sea, the Caucasus, the Principalities off the Danube and the lands on the northern shores of the Black Sea were waged in the second half of the 17th century. For a better understanding of how complicated the situation between two Empires was, one could list the years of russo-turkish wars: 1676–1681, 1686–1699, 1710–1713, 1735–1739, 1768–1774, 1787–1791, 1806–1812, 1828–1829, 1853–1856, 1877–1878. it was the russian diplomatic mission in istanbul that played a large role in restoring relations between the two empires. During the dificult period of the 1790s, the famous russian military commander Prince Mikhail kutuzov, who would go on to defeat Napoleon was appointed the Russian Ambassador to the Sublime Porte. In 1792, Sultan Selim III received him in Istanbul with exceptional honour. In order to please the Prince all French who expressed sympathy with the French Revolution were deported and russian trading ships were given the right of free navigation in the archipelago23. it is precisely due to the skilful diplomacy of the russian Embassy that the treaties were signed in 1798 and 1805: Russia guaranteed Turkey military aid against France but 331 obtained the right to use the Straits for her warships. The staff of the military expeditions, diplomatic missions, and embassies often included topographers and artists „to draw the views of the sites“. there is no doubt that the goal was set for military purposes, but it also led to the creation of remarkable illustrative materials, which needs to be found and made available to scholars. One of the men whose work we appreciate today was Gavriil Sergeev (1770s– 1816). In the 1790s he served as a topographer at the Russian Embassy in Istanbul. He did not receive any special training in art but for many years he worked as a military topographer in the General Staff developing skills in watercolour- and drawing techniques. His numerous watercolours featuring views of the cities and towns of Central russia, the Caucasus, Moldavia, Karelia, the Baltic and Finland are well known23. The works he made in Persia and Turkey are less widely-known. I succeeded in inding several watercolours of Gavriil Sergeev in the Hermitage collection with views of Istanbul that he painted from life in 1793–1795. One of them, which I would like to publish here, is a watercolour with an image of the Hippodrome (Fig. 8). Its dimensions are 41.2 х 71 cm; the date and signature are in the bottom right corner: „Painted by Gavriil Sergeev, 1795“, and the title „View of the main square of the Hippodrome in Constantinople with the remained on it antiquities made from the Mosque of Sultan Ahmed“25. Fig. 8. Watercolour „View of the Hippodrome, the main square in Constantinople, made from the place near the Sultan Ahmed Mosque“ by Gavriil Sergeev, 1795. The State Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg 332 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 the watercolour shows the traditional sultan’s procession for friday prayers. In this case the sultan goes to the aya Soia Mosque, formerly the main cathedral of the Byzantine Empire. However, the Sultan’s procession serves only as a ruse for depicting the Hippodrome. The janissaries and Muslim clergy meeting the Sultan on horseback and his entourage near the mosque are depicted in the distance and serve as background for the three carefully painted ancient monuments of the Hippodrome. It is exactly the monuments that are central to this painting. To add liveliness to the work following tradition of romantic landscape painting, the artist included several genre scenes in it. Carts with women and merchants rushing towards them are shown on the left; the picturesquely arranged Turkish band is on the right. The watercolour quite precisely reproduced the Byzantine reliefs on the pedestal of the Obelisk of Theodosius. It is worth noting that the representation of the Pyramid of Constantine entwined in plants explains the character and causes of the destruction of the stonemasonry of this monument. in the late 17th – very beginning of the 18th century, the watercolours with views of istanbul painted by Gavriil sergeev were used as models for the russian engravers Elisei Koshkin, Mikhail Ivanov, and Andrei Kazachinsky. The engravings illustrated a book by Heinrich von Reimers, a native of Estland (now a part of modern Estonia) and an oficial at the Russian Embassy in Istanbul. In 1793, Heinrich von Reimers prepared a book about the monuments and people of Constantinople, which was published in st Petersburg in two parts in 180326. One of the engraved illustrations is entitled „Atmeidan or the Hippodrome. The main square in Constantinople“. The engraving, which I reproduce here (Fig. 9), is kept in the Hermitage collection (Inv. no. 5860). It was done by Elisei Koshkin and Mikhail Ivanov and based on Gavriil Sergeev’s original drawing. Curiously, the engravers did not understand the relief representations on the pedestal of the Obelisk of theodosius in the sergeev’s drawing and depicted them as Egyptian hieroglyphs similar to those that decorate the Obelisk itself. The watercolours Gavrril Sergeev drew from life and to a lesser degree the engravings produced from them with views of istanbul are a rich but little-known source of the end of the 18th century. The book by Heinrich von Reimers could be regarded as one of the irst works in the genre designated as romantic Russian literature on the Orient. This genre became very popular in Russian literature of the 19th century and there is no doubt that it had its stylistic inluences in French literature primarily by F. R. de Chateaubriand’s „Travels“ in the Orient27. However, the texts of the Old russian pilgrims from the holy places had no less signiicance. The books of Russian travellers of the 19th century are typically written in a beautiful literary, elegant, and imaginative language; they demonstrated the remarkable knowledge of their authors about both ancient and church history. Several similar works were published in the 1830s, not without reason. 333 Fig. 9. Etching „Atmeidan, or Hippodrome, the main square in Constantinople“ by Elisei Koshkin and Mikhail Ivanov after watercolour by Gavriil Sergeev, 1803. The State Hermitage Museum, saint-Petersburg In 1829, Russia and the Ottoman Empire signed the Peace Treaty of Adrianople, which gave independence to Greece and strengthened Russia’s inluence on the Balkans and Palestine. Sometime later, in 1833 Sultan Mahmud II asked Russia for aid to ight the rebelling Egyptian Pasha Muhammad Ali. Russian troops commanded by General nikolai Muraviev encamped at hunkiar iskelesi, a suburb of Istanbul and a leet led by Vice Admiral Mikhail Lazarev stayed at anchor off the Turkish capital. The presence of Russian military forces equipped to defend the Sultan Mahmud II played an important role in settling the conlict. These political events certainly inspired Russian society to have a deep interest in Turkey and its history. In 1830, Andrei Muraviev brother of General Nikolay Muraviev, travelled to the famous sites of the Turkish Empire. His voyage was described in detail in his book Journey to the Holy Places in 1830 published in Saint Petersburg in 1832. The book made a huge impression on russian society and was so popular that throughout the course of the 19th century it survived ive editions28. Unlike many travellers, Andrei Muraviev preferred not to talk about the modern political and economic conditions of the places he visited as he said: „I wished to forget the present for the past“. But at the same time, Muraviev gave up the strictly archaeological descriptions of ancient monuments 334 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 explaining that: „Enough travellers before me have already described the remains of Byzantium; but I will not keep silent about those impressions which the famous ruins made on my heart. [...] Everyone has his own feelings, his own way of thoughts and therefore something new and interesting could be expressed in their stories when they see the great monuments“29. The idea that individual emotional experience is unique and precious became a fact of life in Andrei Muraviev’s writing, and he managed to ind a literary form it to express his personal feelings and thoughts: the reason that made his book so attractive and popular30. Despite his attitude toward the famous monuments of Istanbul, Andrei Muraviev could not completely pass them by in silence. So, he wrote about the Hippodrome: „Four columns, or rather, four remains of columns that once decorated the squares of Tsargrad, now stand on its narrow streets blackened by the smoke of frequent ires and from the distance scarcely discernable from the burnt chimneys and minarets. The statues of gods and kings have fallen from their heights, the names of the founders are effaced from the pedestals and they themselves were barely able to stand to serve as witnesses of better times. The Column of Arcadius was [...] decorated from bottom to the top with bas-reliefs depicting his victories over the Scythians. Only its enormous pedestal survived and serves as a dwelling for a poor Turk, who declared himself the heir to the glory of the two Emperors [arcadius and theodosius – Yu. P.], opening his shelter to the curious for a fee. There are still preserved a few marble steps in this hollow piece, and graven angels and eagles could be seen on it. The monument to Arcadius stood in the middle of the Avrat-Bazaar, or the Women’s Market until 1635 but after being damaged by frequent ires and earthquakes, it was demolished [...] to avoid its dangerous collapse. Another column, devoted to the Emperor Marcianus has a Corinthian cornice, is called Kyz-tashi - „maiden“ because it was dedicated to Venus [...]. Among the lourishing cypresses of the Seraglio, the column of Theodosius is still seen from the sea erected by him to commemorate his victory over Athanaric, the king of the Goths but it is unreachable for foreigners who are behind the palace walls, some of them once were part of the most ancient walls of Byzantium. However, the most remarkable of all due to glory of its founder is the Column of Constantine the Great known as the „burnt column“. [...] Not far from the Column of Constantine stretches the famous race track – the Hippodrome. [...] Only two orphaning obelisks are left in the Hippodrome out of all the luxury with which it was gradually beautiied by the Emperors [...]. The large obelisk built from brick was once covered with bronze; it was erected by Constantine Porphyrogenetes. A smaller one [obelisk – Yu. P.] made entirely from a single piece of granite and engraved with hieroglyphs stands on four bronze spheres; its pedestal is decorated with bas-reliefs on all sides depicting Theodosius, his wife and children on the throne with its whole court and also the games and trophies for the winners.[...] Between these obelisks, three bronze serpents formed a tripod brought 335 from the Delos Temple of Apollo31; but Mahomet II, according to a legend broke its apex with his heavy sceptre and now the gigantic, knotted and coiled serpents reach only half of their height. This story however, appears to be ictitious, for Mahomet appreciated art. [...] The loud cries and cheers of the Hippodrome have died out. A morbid emptiness now reigns over the forgotten race track. Only occasionally, a proud Ottoman horseman on a ierce Arabian horse rides like a whirlwind to the obelisks and the lonely clattering of the four hooves that for a moment break the solemn silence, lets one even feel all the more the lost purpose of this hippodrome“32. In 1849–1850, Andrei Muraviev made his second journey to the Orient, which he wrote about in epistolary form. The title of the book, „Letters from the Orient“ relects this. It has absorbing descriptions of the Hagia Sophia, old churches and mosques of istanbul but the Hippodrome was not mentioned this time33. Avraam Norov (1795–1869), another writer-pilgrim to the Holy Land, also paid a little attention to the Hippodrome. He visited Constantinople in 1835 and 1861. Despite sincerely admiring the charming view of istanbul from the sea, both times avraam norov rushed to leave the city as quickly as possible. He wrote that it was unbearable painful to see the „the vestiges of the greatness of Byzantium profaned“. He did not even go to see the Hagia Sophia Cathedral during his irst visit in 1835, which is highly unusual for an Orthodox writer. Avraam Norov went to the famous church only in 1861 and left it „with a broken, unsettled heart [...]. My way path took me through the Hippodrome; I stopped to look at the preserved Egyptian obelisk of Thutmose III and at the remains of a bronze serpent-shaped column that once supported the famous gold tripod of the Temple of Delphi, dedicated to Apollo after the Battle of Plataea. It has been described by Herodotus, Diodorus and Pausanias“34. there was another reason for the russian travellers to avoid the Hippodrome. Its monuments were the most easily approachable for anyone, and with a few exceptions, foreign visitors to the Turkish capital always mentioned the Hippodrome. As General Nikolai Muraviev said in his book „The Russians on the Bosporus in 1833“, „the descriptions of the famous travellers with their remarkable richness would outshine everything I could say about the wondrous things [about the Hippodrome – Yu. P.] and for this reason I am not talking about them“35. In 1843, the prominent artist-brothers Grigory and Nikanor Chernetsov on their return from a journey around the Mediterranean, spent a month and a half in istanbul, making drawings of the city. These watercolours and drawings in pen and sepia are now kept in the State Russian Museum in St Petersburg. A small part of them was published in a catalogue of the exhibition held in 1999 but regrettably those with the views of the Hippodrome were not on the display36. It is worth mentioning that the Chernetsov brothers kept detailed notes during their voyage around the Mediterranean. the manuscript, in which they gave the colourful descriptions of istanbul and its antiquities is also kept in the State Russian Museum (Inventory no. А-132/3) and still awaits publication. 336 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 istanbul’s charm has impressed as well members of the russian imperial family during their visits to the capital. The Grand Duke Constantine Nikolaevich, son of the Emperor Nicholas I came to Istanbul in June 1845. He did not only visit the ancient monuments but he also drew many panoramas and views of the city himself, including ones of the Hippodrome and Hagia Sophia. Until the Bolshevik Revolution they were kept in the Marble Palace in st Petersburg and now are in the state archive of russian Federation in Moscow (Fond 722, opis’ 1, delo 916).37 ivan Berezin, professor at the University of Kazan put the Grand Duke’s presence in Istanbul to good use when he joined the Grand Duke’s escort to see the city’s antiquities. He described those days in detail and his text about the Hippodrome contains interesting observations: „The wide square of A-Meidan lies in front of the mosque [Sultan Ahmed Mosque – Yu. P.] – the ancient Hippodrome, where during the times of Byzantium the games were held and the square itself was surrounded by porticoes and decorated with statues and beautiful works of art; now, only the Obelisk of Theodosius, the Delphic Column and the Column of Constantine remained. The irst of them, brought to Rome from Thebes and from there to Byzantium during the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, is a 60 foot tall granite monolith completely covered with hieroglyphs and supported by four bronze cubes, which rest on a high marble pedestal covered with crude Byzantine bas-reliefs, depicting the Emperor Theodosius and his family and a Greco-Latin inscription about the times during the construction of the obelisk. The Delphic Column consists of three intertwined bronze serpents, without the heads; on this column, which was brought to Tsargrad by Constantine the Great once stood the Delphic Tripod. The column bearing the name of Constantine Porphyrogenitus is also an obelisk, 94 feet high composed of granite slabs was in the past covered with gilt bronze sheets [...]. The Column is leaning and threatening to fall, this is particularly evident from the shadow it casts on a sunny day. The European travellers are eager to take off pieces from each of these ancient monuments hoping to brag at home that they were in Constantinople, as though they can not ind any other proof for their travels!“38 On his Mediterranean voyage in 1845, the Grand Duke Constantine Nikolaevich invited the famous Russian artist Ivan Aivazovsky. The artist was fascinated by Istanbul and wrote in a letter to his friend Count Zubov: „Perhaps, there is nothing more magniicent in the world than this city, there you forget about both Naples and Venice“. aivazovsky made many drawings and sketches of istanbul, including the Hippodrome and some of them he later used for his oil paintings. Two albums with Turkish drawings by aivazovsky are kept in russian state archive of Literature and art in Moscow39. In 1846, he created one of his best paintings: „View of Constantinople by Moonlight“. today it is kept in the state russian Museum40. It was so renowned that he made many copies and variations of it, including one for the Turkish Sultan. Ivan Aivazovsky visited the Turkish capital several times: in 1857, 1858, 1868 and 1874. It could be said that he was the most famous artist in Turkey and „an enraptured 337 admirer of Istanbul“. He painted over 30 works for the Sultan’s Dolma Bahce palace and was awarded with the turkish orders of „Medjidie“ of the 2nd class and „Osmanie“ of the 3rd class. there is a curious episode in the „illustrative history“ of istanbul, represented by the Russian miniaturist Ivan Zakharov (1816–?), a graduate of the Imperial Academy of Art. In December 1849 he happened to be in Istanbul and decided to paint a portrait of the Sultan. This was impractical, since the requests from many foreign artists were not honoured even of the famous artist Karl Brullov. Ivan Zakharov, however, was a venturous man. For a month he studied the Sultan’s Friday processions to the mosque and was then able to paint the portrait. the artist was introduced to the sultan through the Vizier and then painted miniature portraits of the Sultan’s children on order of the Sultan himself. Ivan Zakharov became a kind of celebrity in istanbul because of this and in one of the palaces he even openly exhibited the portraits of the Sultan’s family and the vistas of Istanbul. The works included views of the Hippodrome and its surroundings. according to contemporary European and Turkish newspapers, it was the irst art exhibition in the capital of the Ottoman Empire. In 1850, Ivan Zakharov returned to St Petersburg and held an exhibition in the Passage on nevsky Prospect where the paintings and drawings he made in turkey, Greece, and Italy were shown. In 1854, Ivan Zakharov published the irst part of his „travel notes“ with a detailed description of his adventures in istanbul41. After 1860, the artist’s name disappeared from public records and the fate of his „turkish paintings and drawings“ is unknown as well. It is possible that an unsigned watercolour in the collection of the Hermitage with an image of one of the courtyards of the seraglio could be attributed to Ivan Zakharov. A focused search of the collections of Russian museums should help ind the „Turkish“ works of this intriguing artist. at the end of the 19th century information about the Byzantine monuments of istanbul began to appear in connection to the activities of Russian scholars. During the last two weeks of August in 1884, the 6th archaeological Congress was held in Odessa and the famous Russian Byzantinist Nikodim Kondakov participated in it. At the time he was a professor of the Novorossiysky University in Odessa. He presented a paper entitled „the Byzantine churches and monuments of Constantinople“ based on several of his travels to Istanbul. Kondakov went there in both 1880 and 1883 but his scholarly visit was in spring-summer of 1884. He went there with other Russian scholars throughout the course of which he prepared his lecture for the archaeological Congress. Besides Nikodim Kondakov, other members of the group included Theodore Uspensky and Vasily Vasilevsky, both professors of the Novorossiysky University; the photographer Jean-Xavier Raoult, thе artist Aleksandr Krasovsky and the watercolourist Emile Villiers de Lisle Adan. There is a reason other than N. Kondakov’s research to value the travels of 1884. It was then that the idea to establish the russian archaeological institute in Constantinople, 338 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 a scholarly institution specializing in the study of Byzantine monuments was born. the members of the group set themselves the goal of surveying the most important monuments within the ancient coastal and offshore walls of the Byzantine capital documenting them with accurate photographs, drawings and watercolours. The scholars’ main motive was the absence of detailed research on the topography of Constantinople, the fragmentary and contradictory, or even the complete absence of materials on a large number of the monuments. They clearly understood the immediate need to study the remains of ancient Constantinople. as nikodim kondakov wrote in his research, „it would hardly be possible to ind a more suitable place for the true research of the Christian Orient anywhere than the ancient capital of Byzantium. [...] We are sure that in time, the research on the ancient Byzantine capital will stand alongside studies of the pagan and ancient Christian Roma, and by the fruitfulness of its results will hold one of the most important places in the studies of the mediaeval antiquity in general and the Christian Orient speciically“42. Grasping the scale and dificulty of such research, Kondakov realistically wrote in the preface of his book, which he called the „notes“ that: „if the result of this note will be only the clear suggestion on how much is yet to be done on the subject and what could be the subject of such scholarly research, the main goal of the note will be reached“43. a considerably revised and expanded version of the paper was completed by nikodim kondakov on 20th May of 1886 and published in the 3rd volume of the Proceedings of the Congress under the same title: „the Byzantine churches and monuments of Constantinople“. The work was 230 pages long and the same year and practically at the same time, it was published as a separate book, for which the russian archaeological society awarded on May 30th 1887 Nikodim Kondakov with Great Gold medal44. Most of the text the scholar devoted to the churches of the Byzantine capital and the monuments of the Hippodrome were only briely mentioned in the context of the topography of Constantinople. In this regard, the illustrations in his book: the photographs by raoult, the watercolours by Villiers and the drawings by krasovsky are much more informative. They were all made in spring of 1884 and relect the condition of the monuments at the time. Jean Raoult took a splendid picture of the Hippodrome (Fig. 10): the not-restored Pyramid of Constantine could be seen in the foreground and further the remains of the Serpent Column and the Obelisk of Theodosius. kondakov wrote in the book: „Going from St Sophia through the Hippodrome, by the Obelisk of Theodosius, the Serpent Column, and the Pyramid of Constantine Porphyrogenetes and on the left, leaving the marvellous Mosque of Ahmed that stands on the site of the Augusteon, you come to the long and ugly barracks of Temir Khan, closing the Hippodrome plaza from its south-west side“45. An exquisite watercolour by Villiers represents the Column of Theodosius the Great in the Seraglio (Fig. 11) about which Kondakov wrote that „probably, all routes from the sea, all environs of the palace and the quarters of the city themselves were once richly 339 Fig. 10. The Hippodrome, photograph by J.-X. Raoult, 1884. Lithography from N. kondakov’s book „Churches and Monuments of Constantinople“, Odessa, 1886 Fig. 11. Watercolour „The Column of Theodosius“ by E. Villiers, 1884. Lithograph from N. Kondakov’s book „Churches and Monuments of Constantinople“, Odessa, 1886 340 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 decorated with monuments. And though all that remains of them now is the famous Column of Theodosius with the inscription “Fortunate reduce ob devictos gothos” on it, standing in front of the entrance to the Yeni Seraglio on the east, it is the place where one could expect discoveries and inds“46. In 1915, Nikodim Kondakov returned one more time to the description of the monuments of Constantinople. At irst, the magazine „Svetil’nik“ serially published his study „The Antiquities of Constantinople. A scholarly popular essay“. After that it was issued as a separate 50-pages book with black and white and some colour illustrations. N. Kondakov used the illustrations from his 1886 book, supplementing them with splendid colour illustrations of the mosaics from Kakhrie-Dzhami. The publication of the book in 1915, during the World War I was not accidental. In 1914, Turkey went into the war on the side of Germany and austria-Hungary that led a blockade of the Black Sea Straits for the Russian warships. In connection to this, in the spring of 1915 after dificult diplomatic negotiations, Russia, France, and England signed the straits Agreement. under this agreement, russia was to seize the straits and Constantinople, which would join the russian Empire47. To prepare public opinion the tsarist government encouraged the publication of books about Istanbul. the study by nikodim kondakov was one of these publications despite the fact that the prominent russian scholar primarily emphasised the educational aspect of his book. He wrote: „in our time, which is a sort of epoch of travels and all kinds of excursions, a literary essay on the antiquities of Constantinople does need any excuses for its publication especially at present when all Russia is awaiting the restoration of Tsargrad and discovering for her its monuments of art and history“48. this time kondakov included a considerably long passage about the Hippodrome though he wrote about it with a negative and rather grumbling tone: „One’s eyes could not believe that this dusty square surrounded by ugly barracks on the right and the stone grille of the Ahmed Mosque on the left is the most important monument of magniicent Tsargrad. On a hot windy day a walk through this desert to look at its ruins is a real feat, [...]. The ground of the square is made of broken bricks and stones, and that the monuments went into the ground the whole two sazhens gives one an idea of how high it grew since the times of Justinian. The irst of these monuments, a granite obelisk with hieroglyphs [...] is still intact. The second one, the famous Serpent Column, which once decorated the Temple of Delphi [...] only a headless stump can be seen now; it stands in a pit, which was dug to expose the column down to its pedestal [...]. The third monument is even more unsightly, the pyramidal Column of Constantine Porphyrogenetes that once was covered in barbaric taste with bronze plates that were torn off by the Latins and strangely survive to this day. The rest of the setting of the Hippodrome with its marble seats disappeared long ago and over the whole square there is only a lonely Byzantine sarcophagus standing in a corner and which is now used as a pool. But if excavations ever become possible in the Muslim capital, they will likely start here and 341 then a whole lot will be disclosed – both good and bad. So far, the circus with its whole complicated history is represented only by the bas-reliefs on the pedestal of the obelisk [of Theodosius – Yu.P.] and frankly, is represented in the way it deserves to be: a crude and barbaric imitation of an antique bas-relief reminds us perfectly of the barbarous natures revealed in this circus“49. As early as the second half of the 1880s, the idea to establish “the Russian scholarly institute” in Istanbul circulated among Russian scholars and also diplomats. Such an institution called the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople (RAIC) was in fact ceremonially opened in Istanbul on February 26th of 1895. With the help of the Russian Embassy the Institute obtained a unique privilege, namely the right to conduct archaeological excavations on the territory of the Turkish Empire. The work of the RAIC was very active and had many purposes. One of the declared research goals of the institute was to study „on site the topography, the monuments, and the works of art, chiely in Constantinople, Thesalonica and Mount Athos“50. Boris Panchenko, a researcher of raiC began the fundamental survey of the topography of Constantinople in the 1900s. During the 1909–1910 construction of a railroad track in Istanbul, numerous architectural and sculptural pieces were found. When the RAIC learned about the inds, it obtained permission from the Turkish authorities to work at the spots and to study the unearthed antiquities. The result of these works was a monograph by Boris Panchenko prepared for publication: „The Description of the Antiquities (Architectural Fragments and Foundations) Discovered during the Construction of the Second Track of the Railroad on the Territory of Constantinople in 1909–1910“. Due to the outbreak of the World War I this plan was not realized and the work has been preserved only in a manuscript, unfortunately with some pages having been lost. at present, the manuscript is kept in the archives of the academy of sciences in st Petersburg. It consists of over 250 leafs of the handwritten text with original photographs of architectural details, plans and drawings glued to the volume leafs51. Despite the absence of a few pages, which destroys the wholeness of the text, Panchenko’s monograph presents enormous scholarly interest and undoubtedly, has to be published. The irst part of the research was concentrated on the topography of the Quarter around the Church of st Eugene with an analysis of the ancient plans and a reconstruction of the streets’ directions. The second part included a description of the artefacts found and their scholarly analysis. Panchenko dated the architectural fragments to the 4th–12th centuries and attributed them to various structures, to the ancient Church of the Virgin among others where later in the 11th or 12th century, the Church of St Demetrios was built. the photographs preserved in Panchenko’s manuscript are priceless for identifying the original architectural pieces that were handed over to the Ottoman Museum (presently the Archaeological museum) in Istanbul. Compiled together with the text written by Boris Panchenko such research would be a valuable addition to the history of the archaeological study of Constantinople-istanbul at the beginning of the 20th century. 342 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 Boris Panchenko also took an active part in other projects. In 1911, he worked with materials of T. Preger on the topography of the Byzantine capital and the following year published an article in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift52. In 1912, a ire in the centre of the Turkish capital exposed the ruins of the Great Palace and gave a unique opportunity to take measurements, make drawings of and photograph the remains of these Byzantine structures. The preliminary results of his works were presented by Panchenko on the 1st of December 1913 at the annual Institute meeting in his talk „The recent archaeological works in istanbul“53. after complicated negotiations with the turkish authorities, raiC was able to obtain the permission for test excavation and in July 1914, Boris Panchenko, the artist nikolai kluge and the young scholar aleksey Bashkirov, temporary assigned to the Institute performed test excavation on the land owned by Ali Effendi. These works are mentioned in the oficial „Report of the RAIC for 1914“, the survived manuscript of which was published only in 199154. it says that for the excavations „the Institute chose over ifty spots especially important for the plan and cross-sections of the Byzantine structures that were discovered in the area of the Kaba Sakal Mosque in Istanbul. [...] Starting the works immediately [after getting permission – Yu.P.], the Institute was able to continue them for exactly two weeks. In the middle of July the political situation became so tense that the work had to be stopped at just as it was beginning. The trenches were dug at the entrance to the complex of the Byzantine buildings known before the ire as „house of Ali Effendi“ and presently owned by Jemal Bey and along the northern walls of the irst two chambers and part of the third one, revealed traces of the ancient loor, destroyed by the Turks on its whole length. This way, it was possible to get the height of the vaults of the lower lat necessary for the cross-section drawing of structure. The ruined wall (across the trench) which ran from the north-east to south-west was unearthed at the entrance. [...] The photographs recorded the important [archaeological – Yu.P.] stages of the works. [...] Several stamped bricks, conirming the existence of a royal building from the 5th or even the 4th century were removed from the walls“55. The same 1914year remains of a Byzantine church were discovered during the construction of a movie theatre and the church was identiied as the famous Church of Chalkoprateia56. The artefacts found during the oficial excavations the RAIC were handed over to the Ottoman Museum. However, the Institute did not miss the opportunity to acquire antiquities found by the owners of some private lands. For example, in July and August 1912 eight marble fragments „found on the place of the ire in Constantinople to the south of the St Sophia and the Hippodrome“ were bought from Charkunian. They included amongst others: a small marble head of the Mother of God, an image of a horseman and a hunting scene. Two other reliefs were acquired from the same man in October of 191357. Today, the greater numbers of the pieces bought in 1912–1914, some of which are reproduced here (Fig. 12) are kept in the Hermitage collections. 343 Fig. 12. Marble fragments from Constantinople. Excavations by The Russian Archeological Institute in Constantinople, 1910s. The State Hermitage Museum, Saint-Petersburg unfortunately, the studies on the topography of istanbul, which started successfully, had to be ceased in 1914 because of the World War I. The works of the Russian scholars in the capital of Turkey were interrupted for many years. Certain activities were observed only in the 1920s when the political situation had changed. However, the RAIC was not re-established and the russian science practically lost its previously high positions giving way to the Western European scholars. One should state with regret, that the Western European scholars did not consider the works of the RAIC of the 1900s, both for objective and for subjective reasons. The artist nikolai kluge who lived in istanbul wrote about this in his letter to theodore Uspensky of December 28th 1927: „You probably know about Curzon’s excavation of the Hippodrome in Constantinople. In May 1928, he is planning the excavation of the Augusteon. If the materials collected by B. A. Panchenko near the Sultan Ahmet Mosque (plans and photographs) are still in the Institute, they would be very useful“58. Regretfully, World War I and the following Bolshevist Revolution in Russia interrupted works on the study of topography, churches and monuments of Constantinople so successfully led by some Russian scholars. In the 1920s when the political situation had changed there were some Byzantine studies produced by Viktor Lazarev, nikolai Brunov and Mikhail Alpatov in Istanbul. Nevertheless for various reasons, the Russian Archaeological Institute 344 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 was not re-established. Russian Byzantine studies in Istanbul were practically stopped and Western-European and American scholars replaced them. In the last few years, attempts have been made to revive the activity of Russian scholars in Istanbul. However, we should be realistic and realize that today to restore the former priority the Russian study had before is practically impossible. We are far behind our Turkish, Western European and American colleagues. The process of integrating the Russian science into the Constantinople subject is a complicated and lengthy process that requires well-informed cadres and substantial inancial support. Meanwhile, the materials and achievements of russian scholars of the last centuries remain either unpublished or hardly accessible to foreign scholars. To reveal this heritage and make it available to the international scholarly community is a real goal. In such aspect, the present article could be treated as the irst step. In 1984, the American scholar George Majeska published ive Slavonic texts of „travels“ in parallel with the English translations and excellent commentaries making them more accessible to the Western scholars: G. majeska. Russian Travellers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Washington DC, 1984. 2 Путешествие новгородского архиепископа Антония в Царьград в конце 12-го столетия. С предисловием и примечаниями Павла Савваитова. Санкт-Петербург, 1872, столбец 165 („У Подромия есть церковь святыя мученицы Еуфимии: то же и гроб ея тощь, сребром окован; в той же церкви святый Георгий лежит“). 3 G. majeska. Russian Travellers..., pp. 29, 35, 135–137, 185, 237–240; 4 В. Н. Лазарев. Этюды о Феофане Греке. – In: ВBр, 7, 1953, с. 246. 5 Из коллекций академика Н. П. Лихачева. Каталог выставки. Санкт-Петербург, 1993, с. 176–178 № 392. About the statue of Justinian in Old Russian texts and icons see: О. А. Белоброва. Статуя византийского императора Юстиниана в древнерусских письменных источниках и иконографии. – In: О. А. Белоброва. Очерки русской художественной культуры XVI–XX веков. Москва, 2005, с. 47–55 (the article was published at irst time in 1960 in Byzantina xponika). 6 this and three other shorter descriptions of the Hippodrome have been included in: G. majeska. Russian Travellers..., pp. 250–258. 7 Ibidem, pp. 184–185. 8 Музеум книги. [Каталог выставки Государственного Эрмитажа]. СанктПетербург, 2002, с. 18, № 3. 9 М. Ф. Мурьянов. Штамбух Лудольфа Штокгейма. – In: ТГЭ, XVI. Сaнкт Петербург, 1975, с. 66–72. 10 В. Теплов. Представители европейских держав в прежнем Константинополе. Исторический очерк. Санкт-Петербург, 1890, с. 48. 1 345 Хождение купца Василия Познякова по Святым местам Востока. 1558–1561 гг. – in: Православный Палестинский Сборник, VI. Санкт-Петербург, 1887. 12 Хождение Трифона Коробейникова. 1593–1594 гг. – in: Православный Палестинский Сборник, IX. Санкт-Петербург, 1889. 13 Описание Турецкой империи составленное русским, бывшим в плену у турок во второй половине XVII века. – in: Православный Палестинский Сборник, X. Санкт-Петербург, 1890, с. 20–27 14 Путешествие стольника П.А. Толстого по Европе 1697–1699. Москва, 1992. 15 Русский посол в Стамбуле. Петр Андреевич Толстой и его описание Османской империи начала XVIII в. Москва, 1985, с. 37. 16 Павел Алеппский, архидиакон. Путешествие Антиохийского патриарха Макария в Россию в половине XVII века. Москва, 2005, с. 27. The handwritten diary of Paul of aleppo was kept in the library of the antioch Patriarchate and given by the Patriarch Gregory IV to the Russian Tsar Nicholas II in 1913. The manuscript is now in St Petersburg. 17 Павел Алеппский, архидиакон…, с. 28. 18 Странствования Василья Григоровича-Барского по святым местам Востока с 1723 по 1747 г. Часть 2. Санкт-Петербург, 1886, таблица между с. 374 и 375. 19 Странствования Василья Григоровича-Барского по святым местам Востока с 1723 по 1747 г. Часть 2. Санкт-Петербург, 1886, с. 375. 20 Белеввы путешествия чрез Россию в разные Асиятския земли, а именно: в Испаган, в Пекин, в Дербент и Константинополь. Перевел с французского Михайло Попов. Санкт-Петербург, 1776, с. 221. 21 Ibidem, с. 232. 22 К. Базили. Очерки Константинополя. Часть 2. Санкт-Петербург, 1835, с. 277. 23 B. Теплов. Русские представители в Царьграде. 1496–1891. СанктПетербург, 1891, с. 48, 72. 24 В. Д. Соловьев. Русские художники XVIII–XX веков. Днепропетровск, 1994, с. 151; J. Kuurne. Sergejevin Suomi. Helsinki, 1994, p. 5–96. 25 the original signature reads: „Р[исовал] Г[авриил] Сергеев. 1795“ and the title of the drawing: „Вид в Константинополе главной площади Ипподрома с оставшимися на оной древностями, снятый от мечети Султана Ахмеда“. state Hermitage, Western Drawings Department, Inv. No. 43887. 26 h. von reimers. Reise der Russisch-kaiserlichen ausserordentlichen Gesandtschaft an die Othomanishe Pforte im Jahr 1793. Drei Theile vertrauter Briefe eines Ehstländers an einen seiner Freunde in Reval. St. Petersburg: In der schnoorschen Buchdruckerei, 1803. Th. 1, 2. 27 f. chateaubriand. Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem… et de Jérusalem à Paris. Paris, 1811. 11 346 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 А. Н. Муравьев. Путешествие ко святым местам в 1830 году. Части 1–2. Санкт-Петербург, 1832. 29 А. Н. Муравьев. Путешествие…, Часть 1, с. 185, 34. 30 Н. А. Хохлова. Андрей Николаевич Муравьев – литератор. Санкт-Петербург, 2001, с. 177–178. 31 Cited according to the original text. Probably, it is an error of the edition and Andrey Murav’ev wanted to tell about Temple of Apollo in Delphi. 32 А. Н. Муравьев. Путешествие…, Часть 1, с. 35–38. 33 А. Н. Муравьев. Письма с Востока в 1849–1850 годах. Часть 1. СанктПетербург, 1851, с. 1–71; Часть 2. Санкт-Петербург, 1851, с. 329–417. 34 А. С. Норов. Иерусалим и Синай. Записки второго путешествия на Восток. Санкт-Петербург, 1878, с. 4–5. 35 А. Н. Муравьев. Русские на Боспоре в 1833 году. Из записок Н. Н. Муравьев (Карского). Москва, 1869, с. 347. 36 Художники братья Чернецовы и Пушкин. [Каталог выставки. Государственный Русский музей]. Санкт-Петербург, 1999, № 117, с. 248–252. 37 А.Н. Сидорова. „Путешествиев Царьград, Константинополь и Стамбул“ великого князя Константина Николаевича в 1845 году. – in: Россия-Восток. Контакт и конфликт мировоззрений. Сборник научных статей в двух частях. Часть II. Санкт-Петербург, 2009, с. 106–125. 38 И. Березин. Посещение Цареградских достопримечательностей, во время пребывания в Константинополе Его Императорского Высочества Великого Князя Константина Николаевича в 1845 году. – in: Журнал Министерства Народного Просвещения. Часть LXXXII. Санкт-Петербург, 1854, с. 97–98. 39 Иван Константинович Айвазовский. Живопись, рисунки, акварели из музеев Санкт-Петербурга. Каталог выставки. Санкт-Петербург, 2000, № 15, 19, 20, 27. 40 Иван Константинович Айвазовский. Живопись…, с. 44 № 15. 41 И. Д. Захаров. Путевые записки русского художника, собранные во время путешествия по России, Турции, Греции, Италии и Германии. Санкт-Петербург, 1854. 42 Н. П. Кондаков. Византийские церкви и памятники Константинополя. Одесса, 1886, с. II. 43 ibidem, с. VI. 44 И. В. Тункина. Материалы к биографии Н. П. Кондакова. – in: Никодим Павлович Кондаков. 1844–1925. Личность, научное наследие, архив. К 150-летию со дня рождения.[Сборник статей] Санкт-Петербург, 2001, с. 22. 45 Н. П. Кондаков. Византийские церкви…, с. 129–130, таблица 8. 46 ibidem, с. 107, таблица 7. 47 В. С. Васюков. „Главный приз“. С. Д. Сазонов и соглашение о Константинополе и проливах. – in: Российская дипломатия в портретах. Москва, 1992, с. 355–372. 28 347 Н. П. Кондаков. Древности Константинополя. Научно-популярный очерк. Москва, 1915, с. 1. 49 Ibidem, с. 14. 50 Ф. И. Успенский. Основание Русского Археологического Института в Константинополе. – In: Е. Ю. Басаргина. Русский Археологический Институт в Константинополе. Очерки истории. Санкт-Петербург, 1999, с. 177. 51 Архив Академии наук в Санкт-Петербурге, фонд 116, опись 1, дело 215. 52 Th. Preger, B. Pantcenko. Studien zur Topographie Konstantinopels, IV. – In: BZ, 21, 1912, S. 461–471. 53 Архив Академии наук в Санкт-Петербурге, фонд 127, опись 1, дело 109, лист 41, 42. 54 Ф. И. Успенский. Отчет о деятельности Археологического Института в Константинополе в 1914 году. – In: Е. Ю. Басаргина. Русский Археологический Институт в Константинополе. Очерки истории. Санкт-Петербург, 1999, с. 214–218. 55 Ibidem, с. 216–217. 56 Ibidem, с. 217. 57 Архив Академии наук в Санкт-Петербурге, фонд 127, опись 1, дело 43, листы 39–40, 47. 58 Архив Академии наук в Санкт-Петербурге, фонд 116, опись 2, дело 164, лист 15 оборот. 48 348 ACTA MUSEI VARNAENSIS VIII-1 ВъЗХИТА, ВъПЛъТЕНА С ПЕрО И чЕТКА: рУСКИ ИЗВОрИ ЗА ИСТАНБУЛ И ПАМЕТНИцИТЕ НА ХИПОДрУМА. ЮРИй ПяТНИЦКИй / САНКТ-ПЕТЕРБуРГ В статията за пръв път комплексно се разглеждат руски писмени и изобразителни извори от ХІІ–ХІХ в., посветени на паметниците на Константинопол – Истанбул, столицата на Византийска, а от 1453 г. на Турска империя. Сред писмените извори най-важно значение има така наречената „поклоническа литература“ – записки на руски пътешественици-поклоници по Светите места. През различни хронологични периоди поклониците са отделяли различно внимание на описание на паметнците на града. Най-важни и подробни са текстовете от ХІV–ХV в., публикувани навремето от Джордж Мажеска с прекрасни коментари. Сред ранните изобразителни извори трябва да отбележим миниатюри с изображение на събора Света София, възхождащи към оригинала на знаменития иконописец Теофан Грък, а също така и руски икони „Покров Богородичен“ с изображение на Света София и конна статуя на император Юстиниан І (527–565). Руските поклоници от ХVІ–ХVІІ в. по-скъпернически описват монументите на Истанбул, което е свързано както с характера на самите пътувания и личните качества на поклониците, така и с политическата обстановка в столицата на мюсюлманската държава, където турците са следили бдително чужденци– иноверци. За ХVІ в. по-ценни са западноевропейските изобразителни извори, преди всичко рисунки на членовете на официалните дипломатически мисии и посолства. В статията се рзглежда един от тези източници, който се съхранява в библиотеката на Държавния Ермитаж и е практически неизвестен на специалистите. Това е бележник (штамбух) на студента Ludolphus Stockheim, където рисунките са датирани в периода1592–1594 г. На отделни листи са представени прочутите древни колони и обелиски на Константинопол, в това число и тези, които се намират на Хиподрума. Най-интересно изображение е на Делфийския триножник, който по това време още не е изгубил своята горна част с трите змийски глави. От ХVІІ в. до нас е стигнало подробно описание на Хиподрума, направено от Павел Алепски, член на делегацията на Антиохийския патриарх Макарий, посетил Истанбул по пътя за Русия. От ХVІІІ в. са интересни рисунки на монументите на Хиподрума, направени през 1744 г. от поклоник-украинец Васили ГригоровичБарски, и през 1793–1995 г. от художник-топограф Гавриил Сергеев, член на дипломатическата мисия на Михаил Кутузов. 349 През ХІХ в. започва нов етап в художествените анали на паметниците на Константинопол – Истанбул, където преобладават описания на светски пътешественици, а самите текстове придобиват романтичен характер. Следва да се споменат имената на Авраам Норов, Николай и Андрей Муравьови, Иван Березин. В същото време се появяват поредици от картини и рисунки на художници – пътешественици, такива като братята Григори и Никанор Чернецови (1843 г.), Иван Айвазовский, великия княз Константин Николаевич (1845 г.), Иван Захаров (1849–1850 г.). През 1880-те години се провежда активно научно изучаване на древните паметници на Истанбул от руските учени, преди всичко от Никодим Кондаков, който през 1886 г. издава монография „Византийските църкви и паметници на Константинопол“ с рисунките на Александър Красовски и Емилий Вилье дьо Лиль-Адан, и със снимките на Жан Ксавье Раулт. Към тази тема Никодим Кондаков се е върнал още веднъж през 1915 г., издавайки книга „Старините на Константинопол“. Нейната поява е била пряко инспирирана от политическата ситуация и англо-френско-руско споразумение, предвиждащо включването на Цариград и Проливите в пределите на Руската империя. Още през 1895 г. е бил открит Руски Археологически Институт в Константинопол (РАИК), който активно се е занимал с изучаване на византийските паметници на бившата столица на Византия. През 1900–1914 г. Борис Панченко, научен секретар на Института, е готвил монография за топографията на Константинопол. Част от тази работа е била книгата му за разкопките на близките до Хиподрума территории през 1909–1910 г., която поради Първата световна война е останала в ръкопис и още чака публикация. През 1900-те гадини РАИК е предобил дребни мраморни фрагменти, намерени по времето на различни строителни работи близо до Хиподрума, които от 1931 г. се съхраняват в Държавния Ермитаж в Санкт-Петербург. Те са описани в заключителната част на статията. 350