article

An early portrait relief of Sultan Mehmet II

Christopher Eimer

the fall of constantinople on 29 May 1453 the relief brought Sultan Mehmet II (1432-81) from The relief has been cast with a flan approxi- obscurity to renown, forming the foundation of mately ninety-one millimetres in diameter in a an empire that flourished for five centuries and copper alloy consisting largely of bronze.4 The continues to define his reputation as ‘Mehmet portrait is encircled by the Latin titles, magnvs. the Conqueror’.1 Mehmet had become leader of princeps. et. magnvs. amiras. svltanvs. dns. the Ottoman Turks two years earlier, and while mehomet. (Great prince and great emir, Sultan no reliable image from that seminal period was Master Mehmet), and accords in style and tech- previously thought to exist, a group of portraits nique with mid-fifteenth Italian medals.5 The were taken in his later years. Exceeding that of one significant difference is the absence of any most of his western contemporaries by number image or lettering on the reverse side, which as well as by genre, this body of material has would usually include references to the sitter’s been the subject of enduring interest, providing achievements and sometimes an artist’s signa- a valuable insight into this remarkable Muslim ture. The integrity of the workmanship has been figure. preserved, with surfaces free of chasing and It is against this background that an subsequent enhancement. A specimen in lead, unknown bronze relief of Mehmet emerged in emerging remarkably soon after the bronze, has December 2000 (fig. 1).2 Undated and unsigned, clearly been cast from the same model (fig. 2).6 it is referred to here as the Magnus Princeps The bronze relief has been produced by the relief on account of the sitter’s opening title. sand-casting process, as can be seen from the Bearing a strikingly youthful portrait and one speckling across both sides of the flan, and its clearly predating the iconography formerly surfaces similarly betray residual evidence of its known, it is not based on any recognisable wax model in the form of small dark deposits. model or prototype. When it was published in The remnant of a guidance line beneath the The Medal in 2003, its commission was specu - word mehomet, employed by the artist to latively sourced to a third party rather than to position the lettering, is another legacy of the Mehmet himself. The work itself was attributed model and is similarly evident on the lead relief, to the Dalmatian sculptor and medallist Pietro which is believed to be a trial or proof.7 There da Milano (fl.1430-75), whose medals, dateable is light natural wear across Mehmet’s portrait, to the 1460s, formed the basis for the chronolo- consistent with the intervening centuries, but gy for that study.3 the surfaces of the bronze relief remain as they Given Mehmet’s propensity for self-rep- left the artist’s workshop, revealing a cast of fine resentation, the absence of evidence to support quality and surfaces that retain their original the commission of the relief by a third party bronzed, reddish-brown patina. and the youthfulness of its profile, the discov- Mehmet’s profile faces left, while his torso, ery has the potential to shed light on a period truncated below the shoulders, is three-quarters of the sultan’s life from which little evidence turned. He wears a turban of a notably skimpy has survived. Set amid the political turbulence form, revealing a shaven area at the rear of his between Muslim and Christian in the eastern head, suggesting that its entire area was shorn. Mediterranean during the 1440s and 1450s, with The size of the turban is in marked contrast to a focus on Constantinople, the present study is those in the sultan’s later medallic portraits, further informed by the prevailing culture of where it covers his entire head. the Ottoman court as well as the character and Within the crown of the turban is a patterned disposition of Mehmet himself, twelve years old woven cap of lace. Included in the cap’s decora- on his first accession as sultan in 1444. tive design is a cursive inscription in Arabic that

4 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

1. Attributed to Pietro represents the Alhamdullilah or acclamation of Neatly drilled piercings on both the bronze da Milano: Mehmet II, praise to God (fig. 3).8 It appears at both the front and the lead relief avoid masking any of the c.1451-53, bronze, 91mm., and the rear of the cap, encircling its central lettering and facilitate the perpendicular align- collection of the author. motif. Projecting somewhat incongruously ment of the portrait. Their identical application (Photo: Andrew Smart of from the rear of the cap is a feather or plume, suggests that they were applied by the same A.C. Cooper Ltd, London) while emerging from beneath the turban are hand and were integral to the design.10 Seen tightly-formed side-locks, which continue to a side by side, the reliefs reveal no differences 2. Attributed to Pietro da full but narrowly formed beard and moustache. in the modelling of the portrait other than Milano: Mehmet II, c.1451- Mehmet wears a heavily patterned kaftan with those attributable to variances of metal flow 53, lead, 91mm., collection four fastenings and a sable-like, fur-trimmed during casting. The consequence is a seemingly of the author. collar, beneath which is another garment of gaunter profile on the lead, whilst on the bronze indiscernible form.9 the beard appears thicker and an errant flow of

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 5 article

3. Detail of fig. 1.

4. Medallion of Commodus, AD189-190, bronze, 40mm., British Museum.

metal conjoins the O and M of mehomet. 2003 study linked its various stylistic elements The Magnus Princeps portrait is sufficient - to Pietro’s medallic work for the French court ly characterised to suggest that it is based on of René d’Anjou in the 1460s.13 Prior to this, a direct sitting, which is likely to have been Pietro had enjoyed a twenty-year career as a given in Edirne (Adrianople), the Ottoman sculptor and established master in Dubrovnik capital until the court moved to Constantinople (Ragusa), working, for example, on reliefs for after its fall in 1453. The portrait is stylistically the Rector’s Palace.14 By the late 1440s he had based on a Roman imperial prototype found become a celebrated artist, receiving commis- on coins and medallions (fig. 4).11 It is unclear sions not only from the city state but its whether the artist responsible for any original wealthy citizens. Dubrovnik was an important drawing also prepared the wax model, but the intermediary between the Ottoman Empire and skill and subtlety in the modelling would appear Naples, providing open and friendly channels to exclude the hand of an eastern artist or one of communication, with artists frequently unschooled in relief modelling. migrating between the two. In the early 1450s The Renaissance portrait medal had evolved Pietro’s help was solicited as the director for the in the late 1430s, largely under the influence triumphal arch of the Castel Nuovo in Naples of Antonio Pisano (c.1395-1455), the celebrated by king Alfonso V of Aragon (1396-1458), Italian draughtsman, painter and medallist more which was to be the largest sculptural project widely known as Pisanello.12 Over the following undertaken in Italy. Alfonso had been ‘simulta- decade and beyond, medal-making studios and neously pleading’ for the services of the Italian workshops established themselves on the Italian sculptor Donatello (c.1386-1466), indicating peninsula, three hundred miles to the west of the ‘substantial fame’ that da Milano had now the Ottoman capital, in places such as Mantua, achieved, having his own Neapolitan workshop Florence, Naples and Ferrara, where the facture and team.15 of the Magnus Princeps relief must almost With a chronology that places the Magnus certainly have occurred. Princeps relief at much the same time as Pietro da Milano’s arrival in Naples, his celebrity could attribution explain why its commission had gone to a figure In attributing the relief to Pietro da Milano, the seemingly unassociated with medallic portrai-

6 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

5. Costanzo da Ferrara: Mehmet II, c.1475-78, bronze, 123mm., National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 7 article

6. Bellini: Mehmet II, c.1480, oil on canvas, 69.9 x 52.1cm., National Gallery, London.

ture. It has been speculated that Pietro was youthful beard’ and ‘proudly raised’ head.17 ‘directed’ by Pisanello, but the position he had By way of contrast, a portrait medal of now attained suggests it unlikely that he would Mehmet by Costanzo da Ferrara (c.1450-1525), have joined the latter’s workshop.16 In any case, as known from a single casting in bronze, reveals mentioned below, political considerations further a sitter in his early to mid-forties with a broad distance Pisanello’s hand in the making of the neck, hunched posture and somewhat wizened relief of Mehmet. features (fig. 5).18 This artist is believed to have Although Pietro da Milano’s circumstances are visited Constantinople in the mid-1470s, when sufficient to explain the means by which he might Mehmet was in his mid-forties, and the genera- have received such a commission, the character- tional contrast with the Magnus Princeps relief istics that have linked his signed medals to the is further apparent from the ‘lumpy’ equestri- Magnus Princeps relief are not unique to his hand, an figure on its reverse side. Costanzo’s medal while the medals used to make such comparisons has been subject to various interpretations, but are insufficient in quality of cast to draw a firm it leaves no doubt that the Magnus Princeps conclusion with any safety. An unequivocal attri- portrait was taken at a far earlier period of bution to this or another artist hand thus awaits. Mehmet’s life.19 These physical changes are confirmed by a courtier’s eye-witness account of iconography the sultan from the late 1470s, which describes The more conspicuous features of the Magnus a large man with a small, fat neck, aquiline nose Princeps profile, which are notably absent from the and red beard.20 later portraits of Mehmet, are the leanness of face, The process of physical change seems to have narrowness of neck and erect posture, suggesting begun in Mehmet’s mid-twenties, when in 1458 someone in their late teenaged years or early to Giacomo de’ Languschi (fl.1435-60), the Venetian mid-twenties. These determinants align with an emissary at the Ottoman court, observed the early, though undated, eye-witness account of twenty-six-year-old’s ‘well-built’ proportions as the young sultan, which refers to his ‘just-grown being of ‘large rather than medium stature’.21 In

8 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

7. Bertoldo di Giovanni: middle age, Mehmet would suffer from ‘morbid on drawings prepared during the artist’s sojourn Mehmet II, c.1480, bronze, corpulence’ and ‘inherited gout’, and he had in Constantinople (fig. 8).27 The chronology is 94mm., British Museum. ‘considerable difficulty in riding’.22 Although uncertain, but the sultan’s death in 1481 and subject to an uncertain degree of restoration, the commercial opportunity that it presented the celebrated portrait in oil by Gentile Bellini may have been the reason for utilising a sketch (c.1429–1507), taken in the late 1470s following as the basis for this medal. The occasion also the artist’s visit to Constantinople, provides elicited a reworking of Costanzo’s medal dated an element of concordance with the Magnus 1481, which is known through examples cast in Princeps profile (fig. 6), the ‘mature ruler’s thin bronze and lead (fig. 9).28 face and distinctive nose’ distantly echoing ‘the Finally, a medal produced some years after physiognomy of the youth’ on the bronze relief.23 Mehmet’s death is based on a sketch or drawing Other images of Mehmet II, produced in the of the Magnus Princeps portrait and is associat- last decade of his life, present varying degrees ed with a certain Jean Tricaudet, whose name of similarity with the Magnus Princeps portrait. appears on the reverse side (fig. 10). The medal A watercolour by an unknown hand, featuring is known from a number of examples, but the the sultan smelling a rose,24 and another in chronology is rendered uncertain by the exten- the same medium, by or after Costanzo, both sively chased surfaces of all those examined by of which are thought to date to the 1470s.25 the present author. However, it is thought to A medal of Mehmet by the Florentine artist belong to the sixteenth century or later. With Bertoldo di Giovanni (d. 1491) carries an alle- elements of pastiche in the characterisation, the gorical reverse relating to his conquests (fig. Tricaudet portrait has the virtue of highlighting 7).26 Bertoldo is believed not to have visited the integrity and naturalism in the modelling of the Ottoman capital but to have worked from the bronze original.29 drawings supplied by the court, producing his dignified profile in the late 1470s. A medal of the commission Mehmet signed by Gentile Bellini may be based In the absence of any design or inscription on

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 9 article

8. Bellini: Mehmet II, c.1481 or later, bronze, 94mm., British Museum.

9. Costanzo da Ferrara: Mehmet II, 1481, bronze, 121mm., British Museum.

10 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

10. Unknown artist and workshop: Mehmet II, 16th century, bronze, 84mm., F.R. Kunker, Osnabruck.

the reverse of the relief and of an artist’s signa- ing the chronology, the strategic and political ture, the study published in 2003 attributed it to importance of Constantinople to the Ottomans Pietro da Milano whose dateable medals belong was such that placing the bronze relief a decade in the 1460s. The study speculated that it may or more after its fall, and yet with Mehmet’s have been an unsolicited gift to the sultan from imperial status entirely absent from the titula- a French patron, who hoped thereby ‘to curry ture, creates further difficulties, particularly for favour and secure advantageous relations’ or to an object intended to ‘curry favour’ or have a present ‘an artist’s talent’, enticing ‘Mehmed to diplomatic function. Indeed, in such circum- fill in the blank reverse with an image of his stances, one would also have expected a suitably choosing’.30 Unwavering from the attribution epigraphic reverse, for the medals of Mehmet’s or chronology, another scholar suggested the contemporaries were generally made with two relief may have been ‘produced in the course sides, regardless of their function. of the gift-bearing embassies that the sultan Whilst placing the Magnus Princeps relief in exchanged in the mid-1460s’, or ‘cast for him the 1460s, when Mehmet was in his thirties, the around that time by an artist residing at the 2003 study refers to the physical characteristics Neapolitan court’.31 of the profile as those of a ‘youthful sultan’, In fact, the procedure for producing a medal, ‘executed early in Mehmed’s reign’, showing the which changed little over the centuries, was for ruler as a ‘young adult’, and offering the ‘most alterations to a design to be effected in a draft reliable indicator of Mehmed’s appearance in sketch or model without the need to produce a his youth’.33 The earlier chronology that this relief in metal, thus avoiding unnecessary time suggests fully concurs with the iconographic and expense.32 This makes the suggestion that overview, as well as the titulature surround- the medal is half-finished unlikely. Regard- ing Mehmet’s portrait, which closely aligns

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 11 article

with an Ottoman treaty with Venice dating to in his late adolescence, it would help foster an 1446, in which he is styled ‘Magnus Princeps et ‘acute interest in the memetic power of portrai- Magnus Amiras, Sultanus Mehomet Bey’.34 The ture and verisimilitude’.38 portrait medals of Mehmet made after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 all include a reverse politics and culture complete with imagery and inscription and an Mehmet was born in 1432 in Edirne, the third imperial form of address that omits Magnus son of Sultan Murat II (r.1421-51) and Sitt Princeps and Magnus Amiras. Huma Hatun (d.1449). His ascent occurred With the iconography and inscription indi- against a declining Byzantine empire, which cating a date from a period of Mehmet’s life had dominated the eastern Mediterranean for earlier than has been hitherto suggested, it more than a millennium, protected trade routes, becomes increasingly difficult to assign the and formed a line of defence for the Christian commission of the bronze relief to a third party. west against Islam. Constantinople, the great Not only was Mehmet little known beyond eastern capital of the Roman Empire founded Ottoman court circles prior to the conquest, by Constantine the Great (272-337) and for the there is no evidence to suggest the availability at last millennium that of Byzantium, had over the any time of a reliable model or prototype upon centuries ‘fuelled the fires of apocalyptic fears which a portrait might be independently based. and expectation’.39 The ancient city of fabled A medal purporting to be of Mehmet, but splendour had been a ‘bone in the throat of conjured from an artist’s imagination or based Allah’, and one to which to which Mehmet’s on an unknown sitter, illustrates the difficulty great-grandfather Bayezid I (r.1389-1402) had of working without an accurate representation unsuccessfully laid siege in the 1390s, as had (fig. 11).35 The detailed modelling of the Magnus his father Murat II in 1422.40 Its importance Princeps portrait and its depth of characterisa - to the Ottoman Turks, both strategically and tion provide a sense of engagement between symbolically, was thus imprinted upon Mehmet artist and sitter. Another element closely asso- from an early age. ciating the medal with the interests of Mehmet Forming a small principality in north-west is the presence of the Alhamdulillah within his Asia Minor and western Turkey, the Ottoman patterned lace cap.36 These various points of Turks were one of several dynastic Muslim reference not only indicate an early chronology clans to emerge in the late thirteenth century but directly link the commission of the Magnus and increasingly demonstrated a hunger for Princeps relief to Mehmet himself. It confirms territorial gain in their ongoing holy war against what is known of his interest in self-representa- ‘infidel Christianity’.41 As Ottoman power tion, which can now be seen to have had earlier progressively grew, an international conference, origins than was previously recognised. convened in 1438 at Ferrara in central Italy by Mehmet’s ascent in the 1440s had occurred Pope Eugenius IV (r.1431-1447), sought a recon- amid political turbulence in the eastern Mediter- ciliation of the eastern and western churches ranean, where the Byzantine capital of Constan- and a universal crusade against this ambitious tinople had long been the focus of Ottoman entity. 42 This gathering attracted much interest. interest. These elements were to synthesise Among its principal delegates, soliciting help in Pisanello’s remarkable medal of John VIII from the west, was John VIII, whose territories, (1392-1448; fig. 12).37 The representation of including Constantinople, were most under the Byzantine emperor reflects the division Ottoman threat. Also present were antiquaries between east and west, and Muslim and Chris- and artists, including Pisanello who document- tian. With iconography of this sort absent from ed some of the exotically dressed delegates, Mehmet’s own culture, the medal of John VIII including John VIII and his entourage, in a graphically demonstrated the opportunity that series of drawings.43 the medallic form offered for titular recogni- Shortly thereafter Pisanello produced his tion and self-representation. At a critical period medal of John VIII, one of the earliest examples

12 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

11. Attributed to a follower of Marco Guidizani: A fictitious or unknown man, c.1460-70, bronze, 61mm., Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.

12. Pisanello: John VIII Palaeologus, c.1438-40, bronze, 104mm., British Museum.

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 13 article

of this type of work. The striking profile of Following his ‘frustratingly brief reign as a the Byzantine emperor, who is seen wearing a teenager’, Mehmet’s self-aggrandisement would tall conical crown with a distinctive upturned begin to express itself in titular form, as when brim and pointed front, was coupled with an he was co-signatory with his father of the equestrian figure of the emperor on the reverse. afore-mentioned Ottoman treaty with Venice in The encircling Greek titles affirmed his position February 1446.51 On his mother’s death in 1449, as ‘King and emperor of the Romans’ (as the the tomb inscription that the Ottoman prince is inhabitants of Constantinople were known).44 said to have commissioned, with its references The despatch by John VIII of embassy officials to the ‘Homonym of the Prophet’ and ‘Noble and envoys to Venice and Rome in early 1442 is Lord’, is such that one might take him ‘for a one of the means by which this representation sultan in his own right’.52 of Murat II’s adversary, cast in both bronze and The conquest of Constantinople was perceived lead, may have been distributed within Italy.45 as the realisation of a prophecy, which had A specimen is thought to have found its way to broad appeal within the Islamic world. By the the treasury in Constantinople.46 As Ottoman late 1440s a sense of ‘apocalyptic urgency’ and incursions increasingly imperilled Byzantine what was referred to as ‘End Time’ and the ‘Last territory, Pisanello’s medal tacitly expressed Hour’ had reached new levels of permeation.53 ‘hope for Christian victory in the East’ and was The death of John VIII in 1448 and succession as novel in its format as it was startling in its in 1449 of his brother Constantine XI (1405-53) iconography.47 had given the capture of ‘New Rome’ renewed vitality, with prophecies being made by skilled ascent of the ottoman prince practitioners at the Ottoman court.54 Among the In Spring 1444 the twelve-year-old Mehmet was ‘visions’, following the death in 1451 of Murat II appointed regent of the province of Rumelia and Mehmet’s second accession to the Ottoman under the supervision of his father’s trusted throne, was the belief that the new sultan would grand vizier Chandarli Khalil Pasha (d. 1453), rule the world like ‘Alexander the Two-horned’.55 scion of an illustrious Turkish family. Murat’s Like many of his western contemporaries, the celebrated victory in November 1444 at Varna, youthful Mehmet ‘cultivated’ Alexander the eastern Bulgaria, demonstrated the increasing Great as a role model.56 power of this Muslim clan and he then ‘resolved to abdicate’ in favour of Mehmet, who, not yet image and identity thirteen years of age, would ‘become the sole If Bellini was able to ‘conjure up living beings’ in ruler of the Ottoman state’ under the guidance paintings such as his representation of Mehmet of his father’s vizier.48 Hugely ambitious, though in oil, artists such as Pisanello demonstrated vastly inexperienced, the young sultan was the symbolic possibilities offered by medallic encouraged by his accession at Edirne in late art and showed how much nearer to reality an 1444 to wield increasing authority and become artist could come when employing the spatial a ‘law unto himself both by land and by sea’.49 relief of cast metal.57 Roman imperial coinage However, having come under the influence of a provided the stylistic prototype for those military faction planning an ill-advised attempt wishing to have their portrait fashioned in this on Constantinople, he was deposed by Murat, manner by Pisanello and his fellow medallists. who was persuaded to return to power in 1446. In much the same way it enabled the ambi- Whilst he now remained in the shadow of tious Ottoman prince and self-appointed heir his father, Mehmet’s removal from the Ottoman to Constantinople to be pictured as king of the throne seems to have done little to dent the Romans in the ‘most worthy’ fabric of bronze.58 fourteen-year-old prince’s confidence. Over the The success of Pisanello’s medal of John following five years, he served in a relatively VIII thus saw other contemporaries following minor role in Manisa as an emir or governor of suit, and there was ample opportunity for such western Anatolia, ruling it as a virtual fiefdom.50 work to reach the Ottoman court, carried by

14 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

merchants, emissaries and antiquaries along sultan.65 Given his predisposition, a description well-established trade routes running east from of Mehmet ‘donning a talismanic shirt, richly the Italian peninsula. An Ottoman sketchbook embroidered with verses of the Koran and the bearing truncated profiles of medallic form and names of God as a magical protection against thought to date to the late 1440s, its cover deco- bad luck’ prior to the final assault on the Byzan- rated with Mehmet’s imperial cypher or tughra, tine capital on 29 May 1453 may not be entirely may well be a manifestation of that influence.59 fanciful.66 One of the most abundant medals, cast Offering ‘protection and prophetic blessing’ in many dozens, if not hundreds, was that of for both viewers and wearers, talismans Sigismondo Malatesta (c.1417-68), executed in represented a deeply embedded culture at the the late 1440s by Matteo de’ Pasti (fl.1440-67), Ottoman court and displayed an iconography master medallist to the Riminese overlord.60 It and variety of type, shape and form that is represented one of the means through which bewildering.67 A talismanic sword ‘decorated Sigismondo chose to communicate his interests with protective inscriptions’ is attributed to the to ‘subjects, allies, and enemies’,61 another being ownership of Mehmet,68 while his grand vizier, various classically inspired literary works, of Mehmet Pasa, would wear a ‘magic square to which Mehmet is believed to have been a recipi- protect himself’.69 The talisman could also be ent.62 The extent of their relationship is not clear, an item of clothing worn close to the skin that but correspondence from Sigismondo dating to sought to ‘preserve the health and safety of the the early 1460s remarks upon Mehmet’s appre- wearer’, and among the earliest is a shirt also ciation of portrait sculpture and his desire to thought to have been owned by Mehmet.70 commission the services of Matteo de’ Pasti.63 Commissioned for personal use and seemingly Matteo never reached the Ottoman court, thus not subject to multiple casting for commercial denying Mehmet a portrait medal from his or other purposes, the Magnus Princeps relief hand, but the request is significant in revealing almost certainly remained within Mehmet’s his continuing interest. private domain. Whatever the manner of its The carefully placed piercing on the Magnus deployment, it subscribed to a form that was Princeps relief facilitated the perpendicular as displayable as it was wearable, and one alignment of Mehmet’s portrait, which was entirely compatible with that assemblage of perhaps intended to be displayed upon the talismanic material attributed to his ownership. walls of his private apartments or in the library Bertoldo di Giovanni’s depiction of the elderly that he had begun to build in the late 1440s sultan wearing an object hanging from his neck during his governorship in Manisa.64 It is here appears to indicate Mehmet’s propensity for that the young sultan, fluent in Turkish, Greek displaying such objects, whatever this particu- and Slavic, would inform himself on matters lar representation is intended to be (see fig. 7).71 of history, philosophy, geography and military For the heir to an imperial legacy, whose own engineering, along with other interests that less than distinguished lineage could scarcely included mathematics, theology, astronomy be contemplated in the same breath as that of and poetry in books and manuscripts acquired Constantine the Great, the symbolic opportunity from both the east and the west. provided by the medallic form would continue Following his accession to the throne on the to interest Mehmet. Made some twenty years or death of his father in 1451, and now entirely his more after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, own master, he could develop the hugely ambi- Costanzo’s medal powerfully conveys a ‘sense tious plans for the taking of Constantinople that of the ruler who seized Constantinople for the would be brought to fruition over the following Ottomans’ (see fig. 5).72 Referred to as an ‘intel- two years. Underscored by the failed attempts ligent appreciator’ of Pisanello’s work, Costanzo of his immediate forebears, the importance to adopted the equestrian figure of John VIII on the Ottomans of this venture had been instilled the master’s medal for that of Mehmet, but from an early age in the young and superstitious changed its direction from right to left, bringing

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 15 article

it into line with the sultan’s iconography.73 In a he was already considering himself a sultan personality as ambitious as he was superstitious, and attempted to ‘set up a government of his it expresses an unbending desire of ‘reversing own’, might be seen as a terminus post quem.79 the eastward march of Western rulers’, with However, it was only when the young prince eyes cast yet further afield to Rome.74 acceded to the Ottoman throne for the second A similarly appropriate use of symbolism is time, in February 1451, that he felt able to evident in the Latin epigraphy surrounding the ‘proclaim his success over his brothers and equestrian portrait on Costanzo’s medal: hic. rivals’.80 Now nineteen years old, an age not belli. fvlmen. popvlos. prostravit. et. vrbes. discordant with the Magnus Princeps portrait, (This man, the thunderbolt of war, has laid low the following two-year period presents the most peoples and cities). Here Mehmet seems to be compelling window for its commission and one drawing a comparison with his great-grandfa- that accords with the diverse evidence. ther Bayezid I (r.1389-1402), who was known The medallic portrait had revived a Roman by the name of the Thunderbolt (Yildirim) on imperial model, enabling Mehmet to assume the account of the speed with which he could move role of ‘universal sovereignty’.81 The ‘self-con- his troops. Bayezid had ‘recognized the necessi- fidence’ that led to his early commissioning ty for the conquest of Constantinople and the of horoscopes and his eagerness to patronise complete destruction of East Rome’ and had those with other skills, whoever they may be placed the Ottoman dynasty on a firm foun- and ‘regardless of their origin’, concur with dation.75 It was after him that Mehmet would his inclination towards medals.82 This would name his own son and successor Bayezid II have resonated with the antiquary and epigra- (1447-1512). In successfully fulfilling his plan phist Cyriacos of Ancona (1399-c.1452), whose for Constantinople, Mehmet would himself be professed goal was that of ‘reviving things long compared to a thunderbolt by his own chroni- dead and forgotten’.83 Present at the Council of cler Kritovoulos, ‘burning, ruining and destroy- Ferrara in 1438 and well-travelled across the ing everything’.76 eastern Mediterranean, Cyriacos is said to have been welcomed at the Ottoman court of Murat overview II in the mid-1440s and is likely to have had Mehmet’s youthful ambition would find resolu- knowledge of a suitable workshop in Italy for tion on the death of his father in 1451, which the modelling and facture of the relief.84 provided him with the means and the freedom Mehmet’s deep-seated interest in self-rep- to launch an audacious attack on Constantino- resentation is likely to have been sparked by ple. The fall of the Byzantine capital on 29 May Pisanello’s medal of John VIII, to which the 1453 redefined the geo-political landscape of Magnus Princeps relief can be seen as a form the eastern Mediterranean and was a personal of riposte. This is a further example of the success for the twenty-one-year-old Mehmet, broader influence of Pisanello’s medal, not only who ‘rode on the tremendous prestige of that ‘on the proliferation of the form itself but on feat’.77 The portrait medals that followed recog- other mediums’, which even today continues nised his achievement through the imagery and to be reassessed.85 As desirous as it might have epigraphy on their reverses and the portrait been for the greatest medallist of his generation with titles that include an imperial acclamation to have been the hand modelling Mehmet’s – but omit Magnus Princeps and Magnus Amiras portrait, Pisanello’s association with the medal – on the other. Titulature, a constituent element of the Ottoman’s adversary is likely to have of the medallic portrait, was widely used by the rendered such a proposition unworkable. Ottomans to legitimise their authority.78 The artist responsible for the Magnus Princeps If the fall of Constantinople can be seen relief, though yet to be definitely identifed, as the terminus ante quem for the commis - produced a portrait of striking verisimilitude. sion of the Magnus Princeps relief, the period The virtuosity is apparent in the modelling of following Mehmet’s deposition in 1446, when its textural elements, in, for example, the sensi-

16 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

tive handling of the kaftan’s fur-trimmed collar years by Pisanello’s medal of the Byzantine or the turban and its folds of cloth. The facial emperor, Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472), the demeanour conveys a sense of earnest resolve, Latin patriarch of Constantinople, expressed yet possesses none of the swagger of Costanzo’s renewed fears for the Christian west immedi- post-conquest medal. Free of orientalist stere- ately following the city’s fall. He declared that otyping or generic stylisation, it is among the ‘much danger threatens Italy, not to mention earliest relief portraits of an identifiable Muslim other lands’ and recalled the manner with figure. which the fabled city of ‘splendour and glory’ With an innate interest in medallic portrai- had been ‘despoiled, ravaged and completely ture ‘seeded in childhood and nurtured with sacked by the most inhuman barbarians, by the time’, Mehmet found in the genre symbolic fiercest of wild beasts’.91 possibilities not available in Muslim culture or The Magnus Princeps relief is testament to tradition.86 Mehmet developed a broad interest an imperial vision and self-belief that deliv- in iconography, but it is the medallic portrait ered Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks and relief that provides the most accessible means brought Mehmet II to international promi- of assessing his open-minded attitude to such nence. work at a remarkably early period of his life, while casting light on other aspects of his character. acknowledgments Though seemingly unrepresented by a Philip Attwood, Peter Barber, Andrew Burnett, Vesta portrait, his son Bayezid II is widely celebrated Sarkhosh Curtis, Robert Elderton, Cornell Fleischer, in astrological terms as ‘the prophesied ruler of Stephen Scher, Geoffrey Schott and Elizabeth the age’.87 The ‘courtly cultivation of the stars’ Watkins have kindly read manuscript drafts of this had prophetically hailed the fall of Constantino- paper and provided helpful comments, for which I ple fifty years earlier, but this divinatory science am very grateful. The work also owes much to the was far from unique to the Ottoman court.88 A advice and support of my wife Missi, without whom century later, at the court of Queen Elizabeth I it would not have seen the light of day. (1533-1603), the ‘visionary plans’ of Dr John Dee (1527-1608) similarly attempted to bring about the ‘apocalyptic unity of mankind’.89

conclusion Murat II recognised in his chosen successor the self-same ambition that occasioned his own assault on Constantinople two decades earlier, and, while he had been mistaken in the belief that the twelve-year-old Mehmet was ready to take the reins of power in 1444, that confidence would soon be vindicated. Possess- ing supreme political intelligence and military genius comparable to that of Constantine the Great, the precocious teenager would claim the Roman emperor’s legacy as his own, realising that the capture of Constantinople would confer upon him the ‘prestige and authority necessary to create an empire’.90 Reprising the very warnings given by John VIII fifteen years earlier at the Council of Ferrara in 1438 and memorialised over the intervening

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 17 article notes

1. Franz Babinger, has a weight of 165g., It aligns itself again National Gallery of of the Renaissance’, Mehmed the Conqueror a diameter that varies with the Latin as one Art, 1987), pp. 263-81; pp. 98-9. and his time, Bollinger between 90.74mm. and arrives at MEHOMET’. also n. 58 below. 16. Syson and Gordon, series, xcvi (Prince- 91.49mm., and a depth The Alhmadulillah 12. George Francis Hill, Pisanello, p. 233 ton, NJ, 1978). of between 2.85mm. also occurs in woven Corpus of Italian (‘directed by 2. Collection of the and 3.30mm. An x-ray and embroidered medals of the Renais- Pisanello’). For stylistic author. Formerly, fluorescence test indi- textiles and other sance before Cellini differences between Christie’s auction, cated a composition objects; my thanks (London, 1930), pp. the Magnus Princeps Rome, 13-14 December of lead (89.58%), tin to David Sulzberger 18-19; Roberto Weiss, relief and Pisanello’s 2000, ‘Monete, (9.39%), silver (0.18%) for helpful discussion Pisanello’s medallion of fully attributed medals, medaglie, decorazioni and antimony (0.15%); in this regard. the emperor John VIII in both the portraiture e libri di numismatica’, see n. 4 above. The 9. Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, Palaeologus (London, and the epigraphy, lot 696 (of twelve medal was formerly at p. 13, confirms the 1966); G.F. Hill, see, for example, Hill, different medals). The Spink auction, London, kaftan’s authentic Renaissance medals Corpus, nos 19-23. auction contained 24 January 2008, ‘An style and design, and from the Samuel H. 17. Babinger, Mehmed the several hundred important collection draws parallels with Kress collection at the Conqueror, pp. 423-4, Renaissance and of Renaissance medals those pictured in National Gallery of Art citing Seyyid Lokman, later medals, many and plaquettes’, lot later portraits of the (London, 1967), p. 7; Personal descriptions accompanied by their 132; this collection is sultan. The heavily Stephen K. Scher, ed., of the house of Osman. original tickets, indicat- believed to have been patterned kaftan may The currency of fame, Lokman was Ottoman ing a period of acqui- formed in 1900-1928 be seen to constitute exh. cat. (New York, court historian from sition c.1880-1920. by Count Alessandro ‘an essential part of 1994), pp. 43-4; Pollard, 1569 to 1597. No identifiable source Contini-Bonacossi the presentation of Renaissance medals, 18. Known from a single was stated in the (1878-1955), Palazzo self’; Suraiya Faroqhi, pp. 2-3; Luke Syson casting in bronze catalogue, nor divulged Capponi, Florence, ‘Introduction, or why and Dillian Gordon, 123mm. in diameter: by the auction house from which source and how one might Pisanello: painter to Hill, Corpus, no. 321; following a request. Samuel H. Kress want to study Ottoman the Renaissance Court Hill, Renaissance 3. Susan Spinale, acquired many objects, clothes’, in Suraiya (London, 2001). medals, no. 102; Julian ‘Reassessing the mostly now in the Faroqhi and Christoph 13. Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, Raby, ‘Pride and so-called “Tricaudet National Gallery of K. Neumann, eds, pp. 11-12, draws some prejudice: Mehmed medal” of Mehmed II’, Art, Washington; Ottoman costumes affinity between the the Conqueror and the The Medal, 42 (2003), information commu- from textile to identity epigraphy on the Italian portrait medal’, pp. 3-22. Spinale, p. 19, nicated by the auction (Istanbul, 2004), Magnus Princeps in Pollard, Italian n. 15, notes that Luke house. Other objects pp. 15-48, at p. 16. portrait of Mehmet medals, pp. 171-94, Syson had inde- from this collection are 10. The position of the and Pietro da Milano’s at pp. 176-8; Scher, pendently suggested in the Uffizi Gallery, piercing of both the signed medal of René The currency, no. 21; Pietro da Milano as the Florence, having been bronze and the lead d’Anjou and Jeanne de Pollard, Renaissance possible creator of the acquired directly from specimen has avoided Laval dated 1462 (Hill, medals, no. 145; medal, while leaving the Contini-Bonacossi masking any of the Corpus, no. 52). She Caroline Campbell the question open. estate in the 1990s. letters, while enabling also draws a stylistic and Alan Chong, eds, 4. The bronze relief has 7. The softness of lead the portrait to hang connection between Bellini and the East, a weight of 184g., a generally made it perpendicularly. The the configuration of exh. cat. (London, diameter that varies unworthy for courtly piercing is a common Mehmet’s portrait and 2005), no. 16, pp. between 90.13mm. and exchange, though it manifestation of the that of Pietro’s undated 71-2; Gulru Necipoglu, 91.45mm., and a depth could serve for an Renaissance medal, portrait of Ferry II de ‘Artistic conversations of between 3.1mm. artist’s proof, in which but it was frequently Lorraine (Hill, Corpus, with Renaissance and 3.6mm. An x-ray ‘a medallist would applied with little no. 56; Spinale, ‘Reas- Italy in Mehmed fluorescence test indi- most probably cast regard to the lettering sessing’, p. 11, fig. 10). II’s Constantinople’, cated a composition of the first example of or the alignment of 14. Vladimir Gvozdanovic, Muqarnas. An annual bronze (90.61%), tin a medal and use that the portrait; see Luke ‘The Dalmatian works on the visual cultures (5.58%), lead (2.73%) version as the model’; Syson, ‘Holes and of Pietro da Milano of the Islamic world, and iron (0.50%). This John Graham Pollard, loops: the display and the beginnings 29 (Boston and was conducted at the Renaissance medals: and collection of of Francesco Laurana, Leiden, 2012), pp. University of Oxford’s the collection of the medals in Renaissance Arte Lombarda, nuova 1-81, at fig. 17a. Research Laboratory National Gallery of Art, Italy’, Journal of serie, 42/43 (1975), pp. 19. Julian Raby writes that for Archaeology and Washington, i, Italy Design History, xv, 4 113-23; Stanko Kokole, Costanzo’s portrait History along with the (Washington, 2007), (2002), pp. 229-44, ‘Cyriacos of Ancona gives ‘a sense of the test referred to in n. 6 pp. xvii, xxiii. See at pp. 231-6. and the revival of ruler who seized below; the help of Dr also Aimee Ng, The 11. See, for example, John two forgotten ancient Constantinople’; Scher, Brian Gilmour is grate- pursuit of immortality. Cunnally, The role personifications in The currency, p. 89. fully acknowledged. Masterpieces from of Greek and Roman the Rector’s Palace of J.M. Rogers notes that 5. Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, the Scher collection coins in the art of the Dubrovnik’, Renais- it has been described p. 19, n. 11, quoting of portrait medals Italian Renaissance sance Quarterly, xlix, as ‘young and robust’, Luke Syson, then (New York, 2017), p. (Ann Arbor: University 2 (1996), pp. 225-67; but ‘to this writer the curator of medals at 23; also n. 58 below. of Pennsylvania, Nicole Riesenberger, reverse is more the the British Museum: 8. Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, 1984), and Cornelius ‘King of the Renais- case’; Campbell and ‘there is no doubt that p. 10: ‘the Arabic script C. Vermeule III, sance: art and politics Chong, Bellini, p. 88. this is a fifteenth-cen- is positioned so that, ‘Graeco-Roman Asia at the Neapolitan 20. Necipoglu, ‘Artistic tury cast, whose fabric on rotating the [relief] Minor to Renaissance court of Ferrante I, conversations’, p. 6, and patina are entirely by ninety degrees, as Italy: medallic and 1458-1494’, doctoral citing the journal consistent with a date if to begin the Latin related arts’, in J. thesis, 2016 ( https:// of the Venetian in the 1460s’; report inscription from its Graham Pollard, ed., drum.lib.umd.edu/ adventurer Giovanni of January 2001. proper orientation, Italian medals. Studies handle/1903/18255), Maria Angiolello 6. Collection of the li-llah aligns itself with in the History of Art, pp. 97-101 and passim. (1451-c.1525) in I. author. The lead relief the word MAGNVS. xxi (Washington, D.C.: 15. Riesenberger, ‘King Ursu, ed., Historia

18 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 article

Turchesca (Bucharest, porary casts in bronze Imperator Turcorum medals, no. 1; Pollard, 381. Weiss, Pisanello, p. 1909), pp. 122-3. and others produced 1478’, is similarly Renaissance medals, 19, describes the distri- 21. Babinger, Mehmed the latterly in bronze and worded, using the no. 1; Scher, The bution as ‘plentiful’. Conqueror, p. 112, with lead; Hill, Corpus, same form of address; currency, no. 4; Syson Julian Raby, ‘A sultan reference to Giacomo no. 322; Necipoglu, Diana Gilliland and Gordon, Pisanello, of paradox: Mehmed de’ Languschi. ‘Artistic conversations’, Wright and Pierre A. pp. 31-35ff.; Weiss, the Conqueror as a 22. Babinger, Mehmed fig. 17b; Raby, ‘Pride MacKay, ‘When the Pisanello’s medallion. patron of the arts’, the Conqueror, pp. and prejudice’, fig. Serenissima and the 38. Emine Fetvaci, ‘From Oxford Art Journal, v, 230-32, 243, 333. 6; Campbell and Gran Turco made love: print to trace: an 1 (1982), pp. 3-8, at 23. Spinale, ‘Reas- Chong, Bellini, nos the peace treaty of Ottoman imperial p. 4, suggests it was sessing’, p. 13. See 17, 18, and pp. 72-3. 1478’, Studi Veneziani, portrait book and its ‘known in the Levant’. also Campbell and 29. Specimens of the liii (2007), pp. 262-77. western European 46. Campbell and Chong, Chong, Bellini, no. Tricaudet medal are 35. Hill, Corpus, no. 1201; models’, The Art Bellini, p. 87. 23, pp. 78, 70. cast in silver and Necipoglu, ‘Artistic Bulletin, xcv (2013), 2, 47. Robert Glass, ‘Filarete 24. Ottoman Court artist: bronze and vary in conversations’, fig. pp. 243-68, at p. 253. and the invention Mehmed II smelling diameter between 9; Raby, ‘Pride and 39. Kaya Sahin, ‘Constan- of the Renaissance a rose, c.1475-80, 83 and 85mm. The prejudice’, pp. 173-4; tinople and the end medal’, The Medal, 66 watercolour on paper, workshop(s) is not Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, time. The Ottoman (2015), pp. 26-37, at 39 x 27cm., Topkapi known. Hill, Corpus, fig. 12; Campbell and conquest as a portent p. 26. See also Tanja Sarayi Museum, no. 1202; Raby, ‘Pride Chong, Bellini, no. 15. of the Last Hour’, L. Jones, ‘Crusader Istanbul (H2153, and prejudice’, fig. 4; The medal is 61mm. in Journal of Early Modern ideology: Pisanello’s fol. 10r.); Campbell Spinale, ‘Reassessing’, diameter and known History, xiv (2010), pp. medals in the and Chong, Bellini, figs 5-8. Spinale (p. from a small number 317-54, at pp. 317-18. Guanteri chapel in p. 91 and fig. 35. 12) suggests that ‘Jean of examples cast in Details of the events Verona’, The Medal, 25. After Costanzo (di Tricaudet acquired a bronze and lead. Stylis- that would happen 66 (2015), pp. 4-12. Moysis) da Ferrara: cast’ of the original tic elements suggest during the period 48. Babinger, Mehmed Mehmet II, c.1478-80, relief, but the absence the 1460s or later and before the end, as well the Conqueror, pp. watercolour and gold of any direct casts of school or follower of as further proof about 31-2, 41, 511. on paper, c.1478, 26 the Magnus Princeps the medallist Marco the nearness of the 49. Babinger, Mehmed x 21cm., Topkapi relief suggests this to Guidiazini (fl. 1454-62). Last Hour, are provided the Conqueror, p. Sarayi Museum, be unlikely. Similarly, The titulature on by prophecies found 58. For example, he Istanbul (H2153, the divergence of the this unsigned medal, in divinatory treatises; had independently fol. 145v); Campbell Tricaudet portrait from though blundered and Sahin, ‘Constan- conducted naval raids and Chong, Bellini, that of the relief is inaccurate, makes it tinople’, p. 345. on Venetian territory. p. 90 and fig. 34. great enough to rule clear that the portrait 40. Roger Crowley, 50. Babinger, Mehmed 26. Hill, Corpus, no. 911; out a direct casting, yet is intended to represent Constantinople: the last the Conqueror, p. Hill, Renaissance close enough to suggest Mehmet the Conquer- siege, 1453 (London, 61. For a broader medals, no. 248; the source to have or. However, the 2013), p. 139. discussion of these Necipoglu, ‘Artistic been a sketch or draft absence of a reliable 41. For Ottoman origins, provinces or sanjaks, conversations’, fig. 17c; of the original design. sketch has resulted in a see, for example, see Colin Imber, Pollard, Renaissance The Tricaudet medal portrait conjured from Cornell Fleischer, The Ottoman Empire medals, no. 282; Raby, is believed to have the artist’s imagination ‘Ancient wisdom (2002), pp. 177-215. ‘Pride and prejudice’, been first published or loosely based on and new sciences: 51. Necipoglu, ‘Artistic fig. 8; Scher, The by Theophile Marion an unknown sitter. prophesies at the conversations’, p. 6. currency, no. 39, pp. Dumersan, Histoire It subscribes to an Ottoman court in the 52. Babinger, Mehmed the 126-8; Campbell and du Cabinet des Orientalist stereotype, fifteenth and early Conqueror, p. 60. For Chong, Bellini, pp. 76-7. Médailles, Antiques characterised by sixteenth centuries’, in details of the peace A few contemporary or et Pierres Gravées features notable for Falnama: the book of treaty document, early casts have been (Paris, 1838), G4. their blandness, and omens (Washington, see n. 34 above. noted; see n. 71 below. 30. Spinale, ‘Reas- which in form, shape DC, 2009), pp. 232-42. 53. Sahin, ‘Constan- 27. Mehmet is styled sessing’, p. 12. and expression are 42. Joseph Gill, The Council tinople’, p. 345. MAGNI SVLTANI 31. Necipoglu, ‘Artistic detached from the of Florence (Cambridge, 54. Fleischer, ‘Ancient F MOHAMETI conversations’, p. 21. confirmed representa- 1959). The Council wisdom’, p. 235; IMPERATORIS (Of the 32. See Luke Syson, tions of Mehmet II. moved from Ferrara Babinger, Mehmed great sultan Mehmet, ‘Designs on posterity: The portrait is further to Florence in 1439. the Conqueror, pl. X, emperor) on this drawings for medals’, compromised by a 43. Syson and Gordon, fig. a. For a listing of medal; Hill, Corpus, no. in Mark Jones, ed., cap and turban that Pisanello, pp. 29-34. apocalyptic sources 432; Hill, Renaissance Designs on posterity cannot be linked to 44. Kritovoulos of Imbros, and the identification medals, no. 144; (London, 1994), pp. authentic Ottoman History of Mehmed of Mehmet II as the Necipoglu, ‘Artistic 219-75, at p. 234. dress. The reverse the Conqueror, trans. ‘Antichrist’, see Necipo- conversations’, fig. 17d; 33. Spinale, ‘Reassess- finds its inspiration Charles T. Riggs, glu, ‘Artistic conver- Pollard, Renaissance ing’, pp. 12, 13. in Pisanello’s medal (Princeton, 1954), p. sations’, n. 1 and 3. medals, no. 165; Raby, 34. Babinger, Mehmed the of Leonello d’Este and viii. The term ‘Roman’ 55. Ahmet Tunc Sen, ‘Pride and prejudice’, Conqueror, pp. 43-4; the parallels being was in common ‘Astrology in the fig. 7; Campbell and Necipoglu ‘Artistic widely drawn between usage to describe the service of the Empire: Chong, Bellini, nos 19, conversations’, p. 66, Mehmet II and Greeks (Byzantines) knowledge, prognos- 20, and pp. 74, 93-5. n. 98. The treaty is Alexander the Great in of Constantinople, tication, and politics Several contemporary in the Venetian State the decades following which was itself at the Ottoman court, or early casts have Archives, VSA, Pacta the fall of Constantino- frequently referred to 1450s-1550s’, online been noted, as well Secreta, ser. 2, no. 230. ple; Hill, Corpus, no. as the New Rome. dissertation, Faculty as a number that A further treaty with 30; Syson and Gordon, 45. Donald M. Nicol, of the Division of are of poorer quality Venice in 1478, but Pisanello, pp. 89-90. Byzantium and Venice: the Humanities, and later production; now headed ‘Pax cum 36. See n. 8 above. a study in diplomatic Department of Near see n. 71 below. Domino Mohamet 37. Hill, Corpus, no. 19; and cultural relations Eastern Languages and 28. Known from contem- Hill, Renaissance (Cambridge, 1988), p. Civilizations, Universi-

THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019 19 article

ty of Chicago, Illinois, Renaissance medals, ‘From prayer to characteristics, there 84. Babinger, Mehmed the August 2016 (https:// nos 27-9; Scher, protection: amulets is no apparent reason Conqueror, suggests www.academia. The currency, p. 14. and talismans in the to question the that Cyriacos was edu/28241235/), pp. Matteo de’ Pasti was Islamic world’, pp. veracity of Bertoldo’s ‘personally acquainted’ 173, 237. Among the a pupil of Pisanello. 33-4; Francesca Leoni, representation. with Murad II and the more prominent of 61. Joanna Woods-Mars- ed., Power and protec- 72. Julian Raby in Scher, Ottoman court, having such practitioners at den, ‘How Quattro- tion. Islamic art and the The currency, p. 89. enjoyed an audience the Ottoman court, cento princes used supernatural, exh. cat. 73. Hill, Corpus, p. 80. with the sultan in and a protégé of Murad art’, Renaissance (Oxford: Ashmolean 74. John Freely, The Grand 1444, and includes II and Mehmet II, Studies, iii, 4 (1989), Museum, 2016). Turk: Sultan Mehmet other references was Abd al-Rahman pp. 387-414, at p. 390. 68. Palace of gold & light. II conqueror of Constan- to Mehmet II and al-Bistami (1379-1454), 62. Anthony D’Elia, Pagan Treasures from the tinople and master of Constantinople, some a ‘highly-regarded virtue in a Christian Topkapi, Istanbul an empire (New York, of which are yet to authority on prophetic world: Sigismondo (Washington, DC: 2009), p. 59, citing the be corroborated; pp. tradition, mysticism Malatesta and the Corcoran Gallery eye-witness account of 29-30, 44-5, 496-7. and occult cosmology’; Italian Renaissance of Art and Topkapi the Venetian emissary, For further discussion Fleischer, ‘Ancient (Cambridge, MA, Sarayi Muszesi, 2001), Giacomo de’ Langus- of Cyriacos in this wisdom’, p. 233. 2016), p. 27. no. A6 (TSM 1/375). chi, who reports that context, see Edward 56. Julian Raby, ‘Mehmed 63. The correspondence Mehmet’s sword is ‘Mehmet burns with W. Bodnar and Clive the Conqueror’s Greek remarks upon the 100cm. in length; no the desire to rule’. Foss, Cyriac of Ancona: Scriptorum’, Dumbar- sultan’s appreciation date is provided. 75. Paul Wittek, edited life and early travels ton Oaks Papers, xxxvii and knowledge of 69. Heather Coffey, by Colin Heywood, (Cambridge, MA: (1983), pp. 15-34, at pp. portrait sculpture; ‘Between amulet and The rise of the Harvard University 18-19: Latin contem- Julian Raby, ‘Pride devotion. Islamic Ottoman Empire Press, 2015), p. 303; poraries who were and prejudice’, pp. miniature books in (London and New Raby, ‘Pride and witness to the siege 175-6, 187; Necipoglu, the Lilly Library’, in York, 2012), p. 164. prejudice’, p. 172. of Constantinople, ‘Artistic conversations’, Christiane Gruber, ed., 76. Kritovoulos of Imbros, 85. Scher, The or who met Mehmet p. 17. Matteo de’ Pasti The Islamic manu- History of Mehmed, currency, p. 46. afterwards, ‘testify was arrested by the script tradition: ten pp. 172, 178. 86. Raby, ‘Pride and to his interest in Venetians en route centuries of book arts 77. Cemal Kafadar, prejudice’, p. 178. ancient history, and in to Constantinople in Indiana University Between two worlds: 87. Sen, Astrology, p. 201. particular the history in the belief that he collections (Bloom- the construction of Babinger, Mehmed of Alexander the Great’. was a spy, and he ington, IN, 2010), the Ottoman state the Conqueror, p. 379, See J.M. Rogers in never reached the pp. 78-115, at p. 80. (Berkeley, CA, and refers to Beyazid’s Campbell and Chong, Ottoman capital. 70. Palace of gold & London: University of ‘iconoclastic zeal’, Bellini, p. 82, regarding 64. J.M. Rogers in light, no. A7 (TSM California, 1996), p. 18. having had ‘all the Mehmet having Campbell and Chong, 13/408). Mehmed’s 78. Hasan Colak, ‘Tekfur, many paintings in ordered the ‘principal Bellini, pp. 80-82. talismanic shirt is fasiliyus and kayser: his father’s palace sources for the life of The sultan’s Greek 135cm. in length; no disdain, negligence and sold cheaply in the Alexander the Great’. Scriptorum, which date is provided. appropriation of Byzan- Istanbul bazaar’ 57. John Monfasani, included items in his 71. Babinger, Mehmed tine imperial titulature following his death. George of Trebizond: a collection to which the Conqueror, p. 385, in the Ottoman world’, 88. Sen, Astrology, p. biography and a study he had a ‘sincere believes Bertoldo’s in Marios Hadjianasta- 567; Ahmet Tunc of his rhetoric and logic divotione’, provides portrait medal of sis, ed., Frontiers of the Sen, ‘Reading the (Leiden, 1976), p. 188, another context in Mehmet ‘to have been imagination: studies stars at the Ottoman referencing Bellini’s oil which the Magnus copied’ from that by in honour of Rhoads court: Bayezid II painting of Mehmet. Princeps relief could Bellini, but provides no Murphey (Leiden and (r.886/1481-918/1512) 58. Within the genre have been displayed; evidence. He further – Boston, 2015), pp. and his celestial of the Renaissance Julian Raby,‘Mehmed and no less puzzlingly 5-28, at p. 5. For the interests’, Arabica, lxiv medal, ‘bronze was the Conqueror’s Greek – suggests that the treaty with Venice, (2017), pp. 557-608. the favoured metal Scriptorum’, pp. 5-6. ‘crescent suspended see n. 34 above. 89. Francis Yates, The and Latin the favoured 65. For Mehmet’s by a chain from the 79. Babinger, Mehmed the occult philosophy in language’, providing superstition, see, for sultan’s breast’ is ‘a Conqueror, p. 58, where the Elizabethan age ‘a natural connection example, Raby, ‘A pure invention on it is further suggested (London, 2001), p. 88. with the medallions sultan of paradox’, p. Bertoldo’s part, proving that at this time the 90. Halil Inalcik, The and sestertii of the 3. He also had mystical that he was never young sultan had Ottoman Empire. The Roman Empire’; leanings during his in Istanbul’; p. 386. ‘arrogated to himself classical age 1300-1600 Vermeule, ‘Graeco-Ro- teenage years, and, Bertoldo is believed the right of coinage’. (London, 2000), p. 22. man Asia Minor’, p. as an adult, sought to have worked 80. Rhoads Murphey, For parallels between 261 and passim. See advice and reassurance from a drawing sent Exploring Ottoman Constantine the also n. 7 and 11 above. from a shadowy court to Florence from sovereignty: tradition, Great and Mehmet 59. Topkapi Sarayi astrologer Ak-Semse- Constantinople, having image and practice in the Conqueror, see Museum, Istanbul meddin (d. 1459), in produced a medallic the Ottoman imperial Speros Vryonis Jr, (MS Hazine 2324g); whom he ‘believed portrait that in depth household 1400-1800 ‘Byzantine Constan- Raby, ‘Pride and implicitly’; Kritovoulos of character and sense (London and New tinople and Ottoman prejudice’, p. 172; of Imbros, History of of refinement sets it York, 2008), p. 79. Istanbul: evolution in Unver Suheyl, Fatihin Mehmed, p. 23, f. 55. quite apart from that 81. Halil Inalcik, The a millennial imperial Cocukluk Defteri. Un During the siege of by Bellini. Further- Ottoman Empire: the iconography’, in Irene cahier d’enfance du Constantinople he more, seen against classical age 1300-1600 A. Bierman, Rifa’at Sultan Mehemmed seized upon the sight Mehmet’s superstitious (2000), p. 57. A. Abou-El-Haj and le Conquerant ‘Fatih’ of blackbirds and the nature, the talis- 82. For ‘self-confidence’, Donald Preziosi, eds, (Istanbul, 1961); David waxing of the moon as manic culture at the see Fleischer, ‘Ancient The Ottoman city Roxburgh, ed., Turks: a portents of relevance; Ottoman court and wisdom’, p. 233; and its parts: urban journey of a thousand Crowley, Constan- the objects attributed for ‘regardless of structure and social years, 600-1600 tinople, pp. 173-86. to his ownership, as their origin’, Sen, order (New York, (London, 2005), pl. 232. 66. Crowley, Constan- well as the Magnus ‘Astrology’, p. 306. 1991), pp. 13-52. 60. Hill, Corpus, nos tinople, p. 205. Princeps bronze relief 83. Kokole, ‘Cyriacos of 91. Freely, The Grand 184-6; Pollard, 67. Christiane Gruber, and its particular Ancona’, p. 248. Turk, p. 57.

20 THE MEDAL No. 74, 2019