A note on the Bamberger Gunthertuch

Paul Stephenson

The Gunthertuch, a Byzantine silk now housed in the treasury of Bamberg Cathedral, was discovered, during restoration work on 22 December 1830, in the grave of Gunther, Bishop of Bamberg (1057-65). Bishop Gunther had acquired the silk in Constantinople during the great pilgrimage of 1064-5, on which he died (23 July 1065). He may have worn it during his trek through Palestine, where he attracted the attention of robbers because of his ostentatious display of wealth. The silk shows an emperor wearing the stemma and carrying the labarum, mounted on a white horse. He is flanked by two women wearing walled crowns: these are clearly tychai who personify cities. The tychai have bare feet, since they, and the citizens they represent, are the emperor’s douloi. They wear ankle-length transparent gowns, over which are worn opaque coloured tunics in blue (left) and green (right). The colours of their tunics are all that distinguish the tychai, who are mirror images of each other, except for the tokens they offer the emperor: she on the right offers what appears to be a stemma (this part of the silk is badly damaged), and she on the left a crested crown, a tiara or toupha. The classic interpretation of the silk, its production and meaning, like that of Basil’s psalter illumination, was provided by A. Grabar, who maintained that it, like the illumination, should be associated with Basil II’s celebrations following his victory in Bulgaria. Until recently this attribution seemed certain. However, in 1993 G. Prinzing (“Das Bamberger Gunthertuch in neuer Sicht,” Byzantinoslavica 54, 218-31) advanced a compelling alternative: he associated the production of the Gunthertuch with the victory celebrations held to mark John Tzimiskes’ victory over the Rus and Bulgarians in 971. It is always tricky to associate objects with specific events, and wise art historians would counsel against it. However, historians love events, and are always seeking to illuminate them to the fullest. With that in mind, I offer a summary of Prinzing's findings, and some further observations.

Upon his reentry into the city, the emperor Tzimiskes enjoyed his splendid triumphal victory celebrations. Leo the Deacon and Skylitzes provide interlocking, if contradictory, accounts of the celebrations, and provide the crux of Prinzing’s argument. According to Leo, Tzimiskes rode a white horse behind a wagon containing an icon of the Virgin and the Bulgarian imperial regalia, in particular two crowns. Behind the emperor rode Boris, the deposed Bulgarian tsar. Upon reaching the Forum of Constantine, the emperor was acclaimed before Boris was symbolically divested of his imperial regalia. Then the procession moved on to Hagia Sophia where Boris’ imperial crown was given to God, and the former tsar was given the Byzantine rank of magistros. Thus, his authority and the symbols of it were absorbed within the imperial hierarchy, and the independent realm of Bulgaria was absorbed into the Byzantine oikoumene. Although several details in Leo the Deacon’s account are ignored or contradicted by Skylitzes, three points are certain. First, John Tzimiskes rode a white horse during the procession. Second, the Bulgarian imperial regalia played a central role in the triumphal ceremony, and this contained two crowns. Third, both authors explicitly state that the second crown was a tiara, which as we have already seen is identical with the toupha. The Gunthertuch shows a triumphant emperor sitting astride a white horse being handed two crowns: one (mostly lost) a stemma, the other a tiara or toupha.

A further subject of considerable importance is the identity of the two tychai, that is the identity of the cities they personify, who are shown handing the emperor the two crowns. Schramm, and afterwards Déer, saw the tychai as personifying the Old and New Romes. Grabar argued for the personification of Constantinople and Athens, where Basil II celebrated his two victories; a solution which need no longer detain us. Prinzing, suggested that both tychai represent only Constantinople, and more particularly the two political factions, the Blues and the Greens, who would have acclaimed the victorious emperor, Tzimiskes, upon his entry into the city. It is indeed striking that the two tychai are identical, and wear similar robes, one blue and the other green. Still, Prinzing invites further comment, and it strikes me that we can find an additional solution to the identification of the two tychai in the accounts of Tzimiskes’ Bulgarian campaigns offered by Leo the Deacon and Skylitzes. The figures may represent the two principal Bulgarian strongholds, Preslav and Dristra, the capture of which ensured Tzimiskes’ victory over the Rus and annexation of Bulgaria. Preslav was the capital of the Bulgarian realm, where dwelt the Bulgarian tsar. However, the fate of Bulgaria lay with Dristra, where the Rus under Svyatoslav had established control, and Tzimiskes therefore laid a siege. Leo the Deacon and Skylitzes provide detailed accounts of the fight for Dristra, which show remarkable similarities. It seems that both authors have drawn from a common source, perhaps an official account of the episode which was produced for Tzimiskes on his triumphant return to Constantinople. Leo, writing shortly after the events he decribes, places greater emphasis on Tzimiskes’ abilities as a general, recounting how he rallied his troops after the heroic death of a certain Anemas, and personally led a renewed assault on the Rus. Skylitzes omits the emperor’s final charge, but emulates Leo in recounting how suddenly a wind storm, divinely-inspired, heralded the appearance of St. Theodore the Stratelate mounted on a white steed. This deus ex machina signals the defeat of the Rus, and brings an end to the narrative for both Leo and Skylitzes. The appearance of the martyr, and consequent victory, confirmed the legitimacy of Tzimiskes’ protracted campaign in Bulgaria, and was seen to absolve him for his role in the murder of his predecessor, the emperor Nikephoros Phokas. God was on Tzimiskes’ side.

To mark his victory Tzimiskes revived the Roman practice of renaming cities: Preslav was renamed Ioannoupolis, after the emperor himself. Lead seals discovered during excavations in Preslav prove that the city thus renamed was placed under the command of Katakalon protospatharios and strategos. Furthermore, a second city was renamed Theodoroupolis, and we have the seal of a certain Sisinios who was appointed as strategos. The identification of Theodoroupolis has been debated, but given the location of the miracle it seems likely that we can trust Leo the Deacon, who states plainly that it was Dristra. The act of renaming cities confirms that Tzimiskes had determined to use his victory to maximum political advantage in Constantinople. His victory in Bulgaria, and in particular the divine intervention, confirmed his legitimacy. It is possible that the tychai in the silk, produced to mark this victory, personified the two principal cities captured and renamed during the victorious campaign: Preslav-Ioannoupolis, and Dristra-Theodoroupolis. This is merely possible. Ultimately, however, it is impossible to identify the exact occasion for which the silk was made.

Paul Stephenson, February 2004; revised December 2006