Papers by Bernard Bernards
Aya Sofya Mosque should be secularised and turned into a museum because of 'its historical signif... more Aya Sofya Mosque should be secularised and turned into a museum because of 'its historical significance as a unique architectural monument of art' and to 'cause humanity to gain a new institution of knowledge'. 1 So after more than nine hundred years of functioning as an imperial church and almost five hundred years as an imperial mosque, Hagia Sophia was given a new function in the new Turkish Republic. In my paper, I will first provide an overview of the changes to the building that started already in the middle of the 19th century. These were in keeping with efforts to preserve the history of the building. I will then argue that the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a museum reflects both the increasing interest in Byzantine history and philhellenism of the Western world and the modernising aims of the Turkish Republic and its search for a national identity. Finally, I will offer some perspectives on the current situation of Hagia Sophia. The position of the building as a secular museum is controversial in the conservative-Islamic government of under the current prime minister Recep Erdogan. Very recently, the vice-prime minister even called for the reconversion of the building into a mosque. The central question in this essay is: how was the Byzantine and Ottoman past used by both American scholars and the officials of the new Turkish Republic and how did these usages come together in the secularisation of Hagia Sophia? The Byzantine Institute of America and its founder Thomas Whittemore played an important role in the secularisation of the building. Extensive publications have been produced on the Byzantine Institute of America's research on the mosaics of Hagia Sophia (e.g. Nelson, Teteriatnikov) and its preliminary reports, mainly published in the 1940's, are a valuable source of information as well. Research on the motives for the Turkish Republic is not as extensive, at least not outside the Turkish language. Altinyildiz relates the changes of Hagia Sophia with the modernising goals of the Turkish Republic. I will argue in this essay that both the secularisation of the state and the demand for a common history of the nation play an important role.
The central question of this research is: to what extend does Constantine present himself as a tr... more The central question of this research is: to what extend does Constantine present himself as a traditional Roman emperor? Chapter one will look at Constantine’s representation through
buildings and iconography. The subject of the first paragraph is Constantine’s building activity in Rome. His appropriation of Maxentius’ buildings will be discussed, most notably
the Basilica Nova and the Temple of Venus and Roma, as well as Constantine’s own building activity: the Thermae Constantinianae and his restoration of the Circus Maximus. The second paragraph of this chapter discusses Constantine’s representation through the iconography on the Arch of Constantine. It will be argued that Constantine is placed in the tradition of his renowned predecessors by the use of a traditional iconography on the Arch
and by the re-use of decorative panels from the second century. The second chapter provides an analysis of Constantine’s coinage. Firstly, it is placed in the context of the Tetrarchs and of Maxentius. In the second paragraph, Constantine’s portrait is discussed. It will be argued that his portrait was modelled to resemble the portraits of Augustus and Trajan and that it had a distinctly different style than the Tetrarchs. The third paragraph considers the influence of Sol on the reverse side of Constantine’s coinage and the probable reference it makes to a ‘golden age’. Also a concise overview of the other themes on the reverse sides
of Constantine’s coinage will be given and these themes will be placed in their proper context. In the conclusion both chapters will come together and some final remarks will be made on the themes that can be viewed both on coinage and by looking at Constantine’s building activity.
Uploads
Papers by Bernard Bernards
buildings and iconography. The subject of the first paragraph is Constantine’s building activity in Rome. His appropriation of Maxentius’ buildings will be discussed, most notably
the Basilica Nova and the Temple of Venus and Roma, as well as Constantine’s own building activity: the Thermae Constantinianae and his restoration of the Circus Maximus. The second paragraph of this chapter discusses Constantine’s representation through the iconography on the Arch of Constantine. It will be argued that Constantine is placed in the tradition of his renowned predecessors by the use of a traditional iconography on the Arch
and by the re-use of decorative panels from the second century. The second chapter provides an analysis of Constantine’s coinage. Firstly, it is placed in the context of the Tetrarchs and of Maxentius. In the second paragraph, Constantine’s portrait is discussed. It will be argued that his portrait was modelled to resemble the portraits of Augustus and Trajan and that it had a distinctly different style than the Tetrarchs. The third paragraph considers the influence of Sol on the reverse side of Constantine’s coinage and the probable reference it makes to a ‘golden age’. Also a concise overview of the other themes on the reverse sides
of Constantine’s coinage will be given and these themes will be placed in their proper context. In the conclusion both chapters will come together and some final remarks will be made on the themes that can be viewed both on coinage and by looking at Constantine’s building activity.