Art and Archaeology in Byzantium and Beyond: Essays in honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou 9781407356488, 9781407353906

Citation preview

Art and Archaeology in Byzantium and Beyond Essays in honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou Edited by

Dionysios Mourelatos B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 4 6

2021

Art and Archaeology in Byzantium and Beyond Essays in honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou Edited by

Dionysios Mourelatos B A R I N T E R NAT I O NA L S E R I E S 3 0 4 6

2021

Published in 2021 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 3046 Art and Archaeology in Byzantium and Beyond ISBN  978 1 4073 5648 8 paperback ISBN  978 1 4073 5390 6 e-format doi  https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407356488 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library © the editors and contributors severally 2021 Cover image  based on the Panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai (copyright: Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai), processed and designed by Elias Kouris. The Authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. Links to third party websites are provided by BAR Publishing in good faith and for information only. BAR Publishing disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third-party website referenced in this work.

BAR titles are available from: Email Phone Fax

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, ox2 7bp, uk [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Of Related Interest

Archaeology of a World of Changes. Late Roman and Early Byzantine Architecture, Sculpture and Landscapes Selected Papers from the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies (Belgrade, 22–27 August 2016) – In memoriam Claudiae Barsanti Edited by Dominic Moreau, Carolyn S. Snively, Alessandra Guiglia, Isabella Baldini, Ljubomir Milanović, Ivana Popović, Nicolas Beaudry and Orsolya Heinrich-Tamáska BAR International Series 2973

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2020 Lucid Transformations The Byzantine–Islamic transition as reflected in glass assemblages from Jerusalem and its environs, 450–800 CE Tamar Winter

BAR International Series 2946

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019 Proceedings of the XXth International Congress on Ancient Bronzes Resource, reconstruction, representation, role Edited by Philipp Baas

BAR International Series 2958

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019 Hadrianopolis IV Early Byzantine mosaics and frescoes from northwestern central Turkey Sami Patacı and Ergün Laflı

BAR International Series 2928

Oxford, BAR Publishing, 2019

For more information, or to purchase these titles, please visit www.barpublishing.com iii

Contents

Preface ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ vii Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti: Researchers, Professors, Colleagues..................................... 5 1. A  Brief Survey of the Monumental Painting of Chalke in the Dodecanese from the Early Christian Period to the Beginning of the Period of the Knights (1309)................................................................................... 13 Maria Z. Sigala 2. A Royal Panel at Sinai. Contribution to the Study of Byzantine-Georgian Artistic Relations................................... 21 Dionysios Mourelatos 3. I nterpretative Approaches On the Anthropomorphic Depictions of the Holy Trinity in Byzantine Monumental Painting........................................................................................................................... 29 Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou 4. T  he Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri on Naxos (First Half of the 13th Century?)............................................................................ 43 Theodora Konstantellou 5. T  he Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art: the Case of an Unknown Depiction in St George at Karynia, Mesa Mani, Peloponnese (1281)................................................... 55 Anna Takoumi 6. ‘ Byzantine’ Saints in Georgian Monuments: Routes of faith – Routes of Art...................................................... 73 Nikolaos Fyssas 7. D  onors, Funerary Inscriptions and Portraits in 15th-Century Constantinople................................................... 81 Nicholas Melvani 8.  The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece......................... 89 Georgios D. Tsimpoukis 9. Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia.................... 103 Eleni G. Manolessou 10.   ‘Lions Frighten Wild Beasts…’: An Inscribed Marble Arch of the Middle Byzantine Period from the Chalkis Region, Euboea, Greece........................................................................................................................113 Giannis Vaxevanis 11. ‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’: Byzantine Architectural Sculptures from Patmos................................................. 135 Konstantia Kefala 12.  Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace ...................................... 147 Maria Kontogiannopoulou 13. Τhe Plough in the Byzantine Material Culture compared to its Western medieval counterpart..................... 157 Sophia Germanidou 14.  Traces of Weaving Activity at Halassarna/Kardamaina, Kos/Greece. Preliminary Remarks.......................... 165 Smaragdi Arvaniti 15. Western Influence on Palaeologan Coins................................................................................................................ 173 Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová 16.  Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople. The Basilica or Basileios Stoa.................................... 181 Dimitris Chatzilazarou 17.  Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople: Aspects of Theatre in Late Antiquity...................................... 195 Christina Papakyriakou 18.  The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa at Bačkovo........................................................................................................................... 209 Penelope Mougoyianni 19.  Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani during the Thirteenth Century............................................................. 219 Angeliki Mexia 20.  The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb: Testimonies for a Lost Sinai Church......................................... 231 Georgia Foukaneli 21.  Bosphorus-on-Thames: Neo-Byzantine Architecture in Victorian London ....................................................... 241 George Manginis Contributors.................................................................................................................................................................... 249 Copyright of the Photos.................................................................................................................................................. 251 v

Figure P.1. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Mystras.

Preface The present volume is dedicated to both professors of Byzantine Art and Archaeology at the University of Athens — Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou (Fig. P.1). In honour of their long term collaboration (see introductory text by P. Petridis), their students decided to organize a conference after their retirement: this took place in 2014 at the University of Athens (see introductory text by the organizing committee of the conference). This volume is, in its larger part, the proceedings of this conference. For the realization of this book numerous reviewers served with their constructive remarks to improve the papers of this volume. Many thanks are owed to them. Dr. Doniert Evely offered significant help, improving the English texts. Finally, I would like to warmly thank the members of the organizing committee of the above mentioned conference for their assistance at different stages in the preparation of this book. The book consists of 21 papers, which represent the width of the research interests of both professors; they have been divided into four units and each unit is set in chronological order. The first unit is dedicated to Byzantine and Post-Byzantine painting, including papers on wall-paintings and icon paintings: it is made up of eight offerings. The second unit contains four papers: their theme is Byzantine sculpture, showcasing examples from different regions of the Byzantine Empire. The third unit concerns material culture (coinage and minor arts); it has three papers. The fourth and final unit concerns architecture and topography in Byzantium and beyond; with six papers, it tackles matters of topography in Byzantine cities and pilgrimage sites, and investigates aspects of Byzantine architecture and its perception. Overall this volume offers new perspectives on familiar topics, as well as new material for discussion. We trust and believe that it successfully represents the collaboration and the range of interests of the honorary professors. Most of all, it is an offering from their grateful students to acknowledge the help, support and advice so unstintingly received. Dionysios Mourelatos

vii

Introduction The idea of organizing one conference to honour two professors may seem unusual, but it merely reflects the esteem they jointly enjoy in the hearts of their students. Further, given their long cooperation in numerous research projects, undergraduate and postgraduate seminars, and postgraduate and doctoral theses, the resolution is actually quite logical and appropriate. Their collaboration started when they first met at the University of Athens as assistants to Professor N. Drandakis and joined his research in the Mani during the late 1970s. Later in the early 1980s, the pair started their own joint research program in Epidauros Limira. However their partnership blossomed fully when they collaborated as co-directors in the excavation of the settlement of Early Christian Halasarna (modern Kardamaina) in Kos, that began in 1985 (Fig. I.1). This was followed by another similar project, the survey and excavations being undertaken by the Hellenic Mission in South Sinai since 1998 (Fig. I.2). In the framework of these projects they gave numerous of their students the chance to participate and acquire formative research experiences and memories.

Figure I.1. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou, Kardamaina, Kos.

Numerous indeed are the students who have participated in their research projects, excavations, seminars and outings, benefitting from their generous and sharing spirits and minds. Because of the enormous number of students they have taught in the almost forty years of their careers, we were compelled to invite to the scheduled conference only those

Moreover, they organized together educational excursions (Fig. I.3) and undergraduate and postgraduate seminars.

Figure I.2. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Nikolas Fyssas, Dionysis Mourelatos, Sinai.

1

Introduction

Figure I.3. Educational excursion, Ag.Achileios, Prespes.

it attracted hundreds of attendees in January 2014 at the central building of the University of Athens. A great success (Figs. I.4 & I.5), it was a fitting celebration and display of esteem.

who had had at least one of them as their supervisors, although mostly it turned out they had studied with both. The conference was entitled “Perceptions of Byzantium: Tradition and Ruptures”. With almost 40 lectures given,

Figure I.4. University of Athens, reception of the conference in honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou.

2

Introduction

Figure I.5. University of Athens, reception of the conference in honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou.

This volume — the majority of its papers were presented at this conference — is another and more permanent way to demonstrate our respect and to acknowledge our professors’ stimulating academic input. It is dedicated to them both from all their students. The organizing committee Smaragdi Arvaniti Charikleia Diamanti Nikolaos Fyssas Theodora Konstantellou Dionysios Mourelatos Anna Takoumi Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou

3

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti: Researchers, Professors, Colleagues

Prologue It is a time-honoured tradition in university institutions – when the administrative machine obliges teachers to cease work once they have reached a certain tally of years – that sooner or later the time will come when they will be themselves honoured by those who benefited most from their years in office, namely their students. It is considered that there is no greater pleasure for older academics than for their juniors to take up their mantles, to follow their teachings on the paths laid down, not blindly obedient to their laws, but because they whole-heartedly believe in such an approach to research and life. But in fact what greater joy is there for the students than to reciprocate in kind, even in the simplest of ways, for the succour they have received, by publicly expressing their gratitude by word and deed?

Figure P.1. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou, Saint Mark, Venice.

….. Lay stronger foundations now, So that war cannot destroy them. Dig deep. So what if many have forgotten you. One day, they too will remember The weight you carry on your shoulders like Atlas, Patience! Build the castle of society, wise man!4

Maria-Aphrodite Panagiotidi-Kesisoglou and Sophia Kalopissi-Verti (Fig. P.1) were jointly honoured in 2014 by a conference organized1 by their students. They now present in this volume their scientific contributions as a just recompense for what they have learned from the two in the lecture-room and in the field. At the same time, an honorary volume has been published for the first in 2014,2 while another has being published very recently for the second,3 thus completing the circle of respect and gratitude.

(from the translation by Evelyn Kritikos) Without a doubt in the forty or so years of their teaching careers, the honorees have imparted knowledge, but so much more have they sculpted souls, tirelessly and selflessly. They dug deep indeed – literally and metaphorically – not only on the excavation sites, but also with the souls of their students, to establish therein a solid foundation of science. And they lifted many a heavy weight – in truth and in metaphor again – even after their retirement, as they both remain active in research as well as in tutoring.

In searching for a topic and approach that perfectly epitomises the two professors, I think that above all such must reflect their most obvious quality: that of the teacher and the mentor. The lyrics of a moving poem by Kostis Palamas, dedicated to the Master, automatically spring to mind. This poem, while perhaps a little high-flown for our own down-to-earth lyrical measures, nonetheless perfectly captures those qualities that we could hope to recognize in many university teachers and certainly in our two honorees:

As students Starting from quite separate backgrounds, and being of different temperaments (and therefore happily complementary), Maria Panayotidi and Sophia Verti, after completing their first course of study at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, carried on their development in two different “schools” of Byzantinology. MP followed the French way, having as her teacher André Grabar; whilst SV continued on a German one – or, more

Chisel souls, once more, teacher! ….. Build your castle, wise teacher! The Scientific Meeting at Athens (January 30-February 1, 2014) held in honour of the Emeritus Professors of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Sofia Kalopisi-Verti and Maria PanagiotidiKesisoglou: their students at the Faculty of History and Archaeology speak on and dedicate to them subjects on the theme of Perceptions of Byzantium. Tradition and ruptures. 2  Petridis, Foskolou 2014. 3  Diamanti, Vassiliou 2019. 1 

K. Palamas, To the Master. The poem has been set to music by H. Stasinos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xewvPW4dIxo) and by V. Tsantilas (https://soundcloud.com/vasilis_tsantilas/the-teacher). 4 

5

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

Figure P.2. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Mani.

lasted from 1976 to 1983. The fruit of this study and also of their more general involvement with the monumental painting of the Mani region was a series of joint6 and individual articles.7 It also saw the first generation of students, following in their footsteps in the field of Byzantine monumental painting.

precisely, in German – with Professors Claus Wessel and Hans Georg Beck in Munich and then Beat Brenk in Basel, where she also took a postgraduate course. Maria Panayotidi was awarded a doctorate by the University of Paris with her thesis Les monuments de Grèce depuis la fin de la crise iconoclaste jusqu’à l’an mille and Sophia Kalopissi received her doctorate from the University of Munich with a dissertation on Kirche der Hagia Triada bei Kranidi in der Argolid (1244). Ikonographische und stilistische Analyse der Malereien.5

This cooperative research was to continue in 1985 when they undertook, together with other colleagues in the Department of Archaeology and Art History, excavation at ancient Halasarna, in the coastal settlement of Kardamaina on Kos: here an ancient sanctuary and the early byzantine settlement that succeeded it, had been desecrated by the attempt to build a hotel. Though deeply experienced as connoisseurs of Byzantine art, but with little prior and direct experience of excavation practices, they undertook not only the excavation but also the training of students in what was a difficult situation in many ways. They were initially confronted not only with the prejudice of the local community and even aggression on the part of the owners of the plot, but also with the management problems attending a multi-facetted enterprise. That they triumphed is made manifest by the fact that they ran and still run, thirty-five years on, this successful excavation: this has covered most of the now expropriated plot of land; study and the publication of architecture and small finds proceeds apace.8 This last stage is taking place under the aegis of a

As researchers Their paths eventually crossed at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, where Sophia Kalopissi first worked as a curator at the Archaeological School, and Maria Panayotidi was hired as a curator after serving four years at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. From 1982 to 2001, they were promoted up four teaching grades. These two up-and-coming Byzantine scholars were united by their love for Byzantine painting, under the influence of a very important researcher in Byzantine art, the then Professor of Byzantine Archaeology at the University of Athens, Nikolaos Drandakis. Their first joint field research, along with other colleagues at the department with whom they served until their retirement, was the recording and study of Byzantine and post-Byzantine monuments in the Mani and Epidaurus Limira, under the direction of Nikolaos Drandakis (Fig. P.2). Their participation in the research program 5 

Drandakis et al. 1978; Drandakis et al. 1979; Drandakis et al. 1980; Drandakis et al. 1981; Drandakis et al. 1982; Drandakis et al. 1983. 7  Kalopissi-Verti 1984; Kalopissi-Verti 1994; Kalopissi-Verti 2003; Kalopissi-Verti 2005; Panayotidi 2005 ; Panayotidi 2006; Kalopissi-Verti 2008-9; Panayotidi 2008-9; Panayotidi 2012. 8  To date, an archeological guide has been published (Alevras, KalopissiVerti, Panayotidi 2006 and Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2010), excavation reports (Alevras et al. 1985  ; Alevras et al. 1986  ; Alevras 6 

Kalopissi Verti 1975.

6

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

Figure P.3. University excavation, Kardamaina, Kos (1996).

research project9 led by the co-director of the excavation and their inseparable friend, Professor Emerita Georgia Kokkorou- Alevras. From an educational point of view, their most important contribution in this field was the education in the field of hundreds of students who received their first excavation baptism in Kardamaina (Fig. P.3). From the days of those pioneers in 1985, to whom I have the honour to belong, down to today’s active students, much has changed in the excavation methods. And yet nothing has changed one iota: not in the patience with which these teachers took us through our steps in learning our field-craft, not in managing the harmonious coexistence of often different characters, not in enduring our craziest plans, and always conducted in that uplifting spirit of enthusiasm with which we could outface the exhausting rhythms of excavation.

During their time working on all of the above research projects, yet another common goal was to unite the two collaborators and friends: the creation of a truly original work, a tool for all architects, archaeologists and historians of Byzantine architecture and sculpture: the Multilingual Illustrated Dictionnary of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture Terminology, or the “Glossary” as they spoke of it. This titanic work was published in 2010 by the University Publications of the University of Crete, after thirty years of hard labour and with the participation of a select group of collaborators. Unique of its kind, the Glossary, was honoured by the Academy of Athens (Fig. P.4). In its more than seven hundred pages, one can search for terms in nine languages, ​​with many terms illustrated by photos or by original architectural drawings (to the number of 835 images).11

The next joint research effort of Maria Panayotidi and Sophia Kalopissi was to undertake excavations in Sinai in 1998: in Gebel Musa (Holy Summit), where a three-aisled basilica of Justinian’s time is being excavated, and also to the southeast of the fortification walls of the monastery of St. Catherine. Leading a group of students, they excavated and studied in adverse conditions – and not only those of the climate – the traces of the Byzantine presence in the area.10

In the forty years or so – since their careers began until their receipt of the title of Emeritus Professors, their research interests have not been limited merely to the four main research projects that I have outlined above and to yet other, if smaller ones, such as the Byzantine presence in Georgia.12 The books, dozens of reports, talks and articles touch on a variety of aspects of Byzantine material culture. First of all comes the monumental painting of the Middle and Late Byzantine periods (Fig. P.5), in all its aspects: iconography, stylistic analysis, study of workshops, the social position of and level of literacy among painters, study of donors and the phenomenon of sponsorship, and relationship between donors and painters. But also grist to their mill were painting, sculpture, ceramics, architecture and epigraphy. Their output overall is an indispensable reference point for scholars in any specialty.

et al. 1987; Alevras et al. 1990) and articles (Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 1995; Alevras, Kalopissi, Panayotidi 1995-6; KalopissiVerti 1998; Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2001). Recently a volume was published with the proceedings of a conference, held in Kos (Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2020) 9  Programme «THALES» of the operational program Education and Lifelong Learning. 10  The fruits of this effort are the publications: Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi et al. 2002; Kalopissi, Panayotidi 2010b.

11  12 

7

Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2010a. See Panayotidi, Kalopissi-Verti 2014.

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

Figure P.4. Academy of Athens, receiving a prize for their book on the terminology of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture.

Figure P.5. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou.

As teachers

only in the classroom but also in the educational trip, in the museum, at the very monument itself, whose correct comprehension and the revelation of whose secrets they were communicating to the neophytes (Figs. P.6, P.7).

If the scholars trained in the excavations they led number in the hundreds, and very many are those who wrote dissertations under their guidance on very different topics, then the students who listened to the two professors in lectures, seminars and on educational excursions will be in their thousands. And all this despite their many internal and external university obligations. Whether it concerns painting or architecture, small finds (like textiles or ceramics) or any other area of ​​Byzantine material culture they have dealt with and taught to their students, the ceremonies and mysteries of initiation took place not

Many of their students took up field archaeology and have staffed the ranks of the Archaeological Service; some in positions of responsibility. Others followed their examples more closely and have won, with their support, a teaching role either in secondary or tertiary education, as philologists, historians and archaeologists. Remembrances of their lectures, visits to monuments and, most of all, discussions had in person remain evergreen in 8

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

Figure P.6. Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou in the Chora monastery (Constantinople).

Figure P.7. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti in an educational excursion.

their memory. But most of all, they uphold the passion for teaching that they inherited, for the diffusion of knowledge and the search for the historical truth: skills and attitudes to which they were guided – be it in the classroom, the office or the excavation storeroom – through dialogue and often disagreement, all parts of a liberating, if at times painful, process of self-knowledge.

Ultimately, the thing that their students never forget is the almost maternal affection with which they forgave our mistakes and rashness. As colleagues During the years in which I was happy serving as a colleague of Sophia Kalopissi and Maria Panayotidi, in the very Faculty from which I graduated, I continued to learn from them on a daily basis. This time, however, it was not knowledge I got from them. Or rather, not scientific or academic knowledge. Rather I was taught the administrative duties of a faculty member: one of the main aspects that concerned me was the proper functioning of

But those younger generations of students both boys and girls, the colleagues who will enter the professional arena in the years to come, they too – and despite the uncertainties in the profession they have chosen – insist on recording the thanks of their own for encouragement and help received. 9

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti the Faculty, as an autonomous and self-sufficient unit, just as they had known and served it faithfully since the 1980s. I learned from them and from other worthy colleagues that one should not shy away from administrative responsibilities even though they do steal valuable time from research; I learned to strive to improve infrastructure. I also learned from them that one’s responsibilities and concerns on schedules and teaching obligations do not stop at the way out of the classroom and are not limited to the preparation and presentation of the lesson, but continue in the office, hallway, library, wherever the student may seek out advice or support from his teacher.

Alevras et al. 1987: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1987, 325–355. Alevras et al. 1990: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω), κατὰ τὰ ἔτη 1988 – 1990’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1990, 342–367. Alevras et. al. 1995: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία –Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία,‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Κωακὰ Ε΄(1995), 141–184.

At other times, with their words but more often than not simply by their own example, they have taught me that one should turn a deaf ear to the sirens of safely following the majority opinion and not to be afraid to stand up for one’s beliefs. But equally, I have observed them back down to preserve the cohesion and harmony of our working space.

Alevras et al. 2001: Αλευρά- Κοκκορού, Γεωργία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Σημαντώνη-Μπουρνιά, Ευαγγελία (eds.), Ιστορία – Τέχνη – Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Α΄ Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο. Κως, 2–4 Μαΐου 1997 (Δημοσιεύματα Περιοδικού «Αρχαιογνωσία» 1), A t h e n s 2001.

Epilogue

Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 1995– 6: KokkorouAlevras, Georgia, Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia and Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Excavations at Kardamaina (ancient Halasarna) in Kos’, Αρχαιογνωσία 9 (1995– 1996) 313– 335.

I will close this short text with a remark that has nothing to do with work, but to an element of character they hold in common: modesty. An essentially unpretentious way of life is what those of us fortunate to have worked with them experienced and will remember. At moments of triumph in their academic careers, when they enjoyed, as they still do, international honours and decorations, when the professional body of Byzantine archaeologists and historians of art rewards them for years on end with high positions on their most important academic bodies, such as the Christian Archaeological Society to which they devote and dedicate a lot of time, and both the Greek and the International Committee of Byzantine Studies, Maria and Sophia walk with absolute modesty and reverence for God.

Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2006: KokkorouAlevras, Georgia, Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia and Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Maria, Kardamaina – Ancient Halasarna on the Island of Kos: A Guide. The Sanctuary of Apollo and the Early Christian Settlement at Kardamaina (Ancient Halasarna) on the Island of Kos, Athens 2006. Alevras, Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2020: ΚοκκορούΑλευρά, Γεωργία, Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, Παναγιωτίδη-Κεσίσογλου, Μαρία, Όψεις της ιστορικής διαδρομής ενός αρχαίου δήμου από την προϊστορική έως και την πρώιμη βυζαντινή περίοδο, Kos 2020.

But also with wisdom. And here I will paraphrase the poet a little, hoping that you will share with me this exhortation that is a supplication too:

Diamanti, Vassiliou 2019: Charikleia Diamanti, Anastasia Vassiliou (eds.), Ἐν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες. Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Oxford 2019,

Build the palace of society, wise ladies twain!! Platon Petridis Professor of Byzantine Archaeology Faculty of History and Archaeology National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

Drandakis et al. 1978: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Ε.Δωρή, Σ.Καλοπίση, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘ Έρευνα στη Μάνη’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1978, 135– 182, tables 114– 130. Drandakis et al. 1979: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Σ.Καλοπίση, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘ Έρευνα στη Μάνη’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1979, 156– 214, tables 114– 131.

Literature Alevras et al. 1985: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία,‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίδα 1985, Χρονικά, 1–18.

Drandakis et al. 1980: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Σ.Καλοπίση, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘ Έρευνα στη Μεσσηνιακή Μάνη’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1980, 188– 246, tables 131–147.

Alevras et al. 1986: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1986, 298–330.

Drandakis et al. 1981: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Ε.Δωρή, Σ.Καλοπίση, Β.Κέπετζη, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘ Έρευνα στη Μάνη’, Πρακτικά 10

Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti Αρχαιολογικής 267–304.

Εταιρείας

1981,

449–578,

Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2010a: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia and Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Maria, Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture Terminology, Herakleion 2010.

tables

Drandakis et al. 1982: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Ν.Γκιολέ, Ε.Δωρή, Σ.Καλοπίση, Β.Κέπετζη, Χ.Κωνσταντινίδη, Μ.Κωνσταντουδάκη, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘ Έρευνα στην Επίδαυρο Λιμηρά’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1982, 349–466, tables 222–248.

Kalopissi-Verti – Panayotidi 2010b: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia and Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Excavations on the Holy Summit (Jebel Musa) at Mount Sinai: Preliminary Remarks on the Justinianic Basilica’, in Sharon E. J. Gerstel and Robert S. Nelson (eds.), Approaching the Holy Mountain. Art and Liturgy at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Turnhout, Belgium 2010, 73– 106, figs. 20– 39, plans 1–2.

Drandakis et al. 1983: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος σε συνεργασία με Σ.Καλοπίση, Μ.Παναγιωτίδη, ‘Έρευνα στην Επίδαυρο Λιμηρά’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1983, 209– 263, tables 169–178.

Panayotidi 2005: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Monumental Painting in the Churches of Mani– a means of expression and communication’, in P.Kalamara, N. Roumeliotis and A. Mexia (eds.), Tales of Religious Faith in Mani (Network of Mani Museums 2), 85–97, Athens 2005.

Kalopissi-Verti 1975: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, Die Kirche der Hagia Triada bei Kranidi in der Argolis (1244). Ikonographische und stilistische Analyse der Malereien (Miscellanea Byzantina Monacensia 20). Munich, 1975 (PhD thesis).

Panayotidi 2006: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Παρατηρήσεις για ένα τοπικό εργαστήρι στην περιοχή της Επιδαύρου Λιμηράς’, Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 27 (2006), περίοδος Δ΄, 193–206.

Kalopissi-Verti 1984: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, ‘ Ἡ «Σπηλιὰ τῆς Ἁγίας Mαρίνας» στὴ Λαγκάδα τῆς Ἔξω Mάνης’, in Ἀμητός. Στὴ μνήμη Φώτη Ἀποστολοπούλου, 162– 190, Athens 1984.

Panayotidi 2008–2009: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Σχολιάζοντας τους ζωγράφους. Μερικά παραδείγματα τοιχογραφιών από τη Μάνη’, in Euaggelia Eleutheriou and Angeliki Mexia (eds.), Πρακτικά Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη Βυζαντινή Μάνη, Sparta 2008– 2009, 221–232.

Kalopissi-Verti 1994: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, ‘Ο ναός του Αρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ στον Πολεμίτα της Μέσα Μάνης (1278)’, in V. Katsaros (ed.), Αντίφωνον. Αφιέρωμα στον καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη, Thessaloniki 1994, 451–474. Kalopissi-Verti 1998: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανική λίθινη μήτρα κοσμημάτων από ανασκαφή στην Καρδάμαινα της Κω’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Κ΄ (1998), Περίοδος Δ΄, 245–252.

Panayotidi 2012: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Observations on a Local Workshop in the region of Epidaurus Limira’, in I.Stevovic (ed.), ΣΥΜΜΕΙΚΤΑ Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 40th Anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade 2012, 75–289,

Kalopissi-Verti 2003: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Epigraphic evidence in Middle-Byzantine churches of the Mani: Patronage and art production’, in M. Aspra-Vardavaki (ed.), Λαμπηδών. Aφιέρωμα στη μνήμη της Nτούλας Mουρίκη, vol. 1, 339– 354, Athens 2003.

Panayiotidi-Kesisoglou and Kalopissi-Verti 2014: Panayiotidi-Kesisoglou, Maria and Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia (eds.), Medieval Painting in Georgia, local stylistic expression and participation to byzantine Oecumenicity, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Athens 2014.

Kalopissi-Verti 2005: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Patrons and Craftsmen in Mani during the Byzantine and PostByzantine period’, in P.Kalamara, N. Roumeliotis and A. Mexia (eds.), Tales of Religious Faith in Mani (Network of Mani Museums 2), 98– 109, Athens 2005.

Panayotidi et al. 2002: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, – ΚαλοπίσηΒέρτη, Σοφία – Φύσσας, Νικόλαος – Μαγγίνης, Γεώργιος – Φουκανέλη, Γεωργία, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ στὴν Ἁγία Κορυφὴ τοῦ Ὄρους Σινᾶ (Gebel Musa). Προκαταρκτικὰ Πορίσματα.’ Πρακτικὰ Συνεδρίου «Τὸ Σινὰ διὰ μέσου τῶν αἰώνων», Ἀθῆναι 25–28 Νοεμβρίου 1998, Σιναϊτικὰ ᾽Ανάλεκτα Α´, (2002), 69–90, εἰκ. 1–12.

Kalopissi-Verti 2008– 9; Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, ‘Επιγραφικές μαρτυρίες από τη βυζαντινή Μάνη’, in E. Eleftheriou and A. Mexia (eds.), Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη βυζαντινή Μάνη, Καραβοστάσι Οιτύλου, 21– 22 Ιουνίου 2008, Πρακτικά, 89– 97, Sparta 2008– 2009.

Petridis, Foskolou 2014: Πετρίδης, Πλάτων και Φωσκόλου, Βίκυ (eds.), Δασκάλα. Απόδοση τιμής στην Καθηγήτρια Μαίρη Παναγιωτίδη-Κεσίσογλου, Athens 2014.

Kalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi 2001: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ταφικὸ συγκρότημα στον παλαιοχριστιανικὸ οικισμὸ της Αλάσαρνας (σημ. Καρδάμαινας) στὴν Κω’, Ιστορία–Τέχνη– Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Athens 2001.

11

1 A Brief Survey of the Monumental Painting of Chalke in the Dodecanese from the Early Christian Period to the Beginning of the Period of the Knights (1309) Maria Z. Sigala Abstract: In this article we present the remnants of ten layers of wall paintings on the island of Chalke, dating from the 6th c. to 1309. They are found in a hermitage and four chapels. Three Early Christian layers survive at Kellia, an ascetic settlement. St Adrias, a middle- Byzantine chapel, and Palarniotis or Taxiarches Michael Panormites, a late -Byzantine chapel, were also of monastic use. Most of the surviving wall- paintings are poorly preserved, with features common in the provinces of the Byzantine Empire and sometimes archaic. They are valuable though, both because they include Early Christian murals, which are rare, as well as the best preserved intact 11c. iconographic program in the Dodecanese, and because they date the chapels they decorate. This in turn dates “kyphes”, the huts found near the chapels, and makes it possible to talk about hamlets and monastic settlements on the island of Chalke. Στη Χάλκη σώζονται τριάντα ένα (31) τοιχογραφικά στρώματα, που χρονολογούνται από τα μέσα του 6ου έως και τον 19ο αιώνα, σε είκοσι δύο εκκλησάκια (22) και σε κατάσταση από πολύ κακή έως πολύ καλή. Αδιάγνωστα σπαράγματα τοιχογραφιών σώζονται σε επτά (7) ακόμα εκκλησάκια. Στο χρονικό διάστημα που καλύπτει το παρόν άρθρο, κατατάσσεται ο ζωγραφικός διάκοσμος ενός σπηλαιώδους ασκηταριού, ενός κτιστού κελλιού και τεσσάρων μικρών ναών, με ένα ή δύο ζωγραφικά στρώματα το καθένα. Στα μέσα του 6ου-αρχές 7ου αιώνα χρονολογούνται οι τοιχογραφίες του σπηλαιώδους Ασκηταριού στα Κελλιά, και στα μέσα του 7ου αιώνα και γύρω στα 700 αντίστοιχα, τα δύο στρώματα τοιχογραφιών στο κτιστό κελλί στην ίδια θέση, στην είσοδο του σπηλαιώδους Ασκηταριού, στα βόρεια παράλια της Χάλκης, όπου είχαν εγκατασταθεί μοναχοί ήδη από την παλαιοχριστιανική εποχή. Στη μεσοβυζαντινή περίοδο ανήκουν πέντε (5) στρώματα τοιχογραφιών σε τρία εκκλησάκια στο εσωτερικό του νησιού: στον Άι Αντριά στου Άι Αντριά το Βουνό, στον Άι Σάββα (ή Πανορμίτη) στα Κοίλα και στον Άι Νικήτα στην Αμαλή. Καλύτερα διατηρούνται οι απλοϊκές λαϊκότροπες τοιχογραφίες του δευτέρου στρώματος του Άι Αντριά, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα μοναστικής εγκατάστασης, που αποτελούν και το καλύτερο σωζόμενο εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα του 11ου αιώνα στα Δωδεκάνησα. Στον Άι Σάββα (ή Πανορμίτη) στα Κοίλα σώζονται σπαράγματα από δύο μεσοβυζαντινά στρώματα, από τα οποία το δεύτερο χρονολογείται γύρω στα 1200. Τα λιγοστά σπαράγματα από το πρώτο στρώμα του Άι Νικήτα στην Αμαλή χρονολογούνται κατά πάσα πιθανότητα στον 12ο αιώνα. Τα προγράμματα και των τριών ναϋδρίων είναι αρχαϊκά. Και στα τρία σώζονται σταυροί, κυρίως ζωγραφιστοί αλλά και έγγλυφοι στον αρχικό σοβά, που έχουν μάλλον αποτροπαϊκό χαρακτήρα. Πολύ ενδιαφέροντα είναι τα χαράγματα πλοίου και σκηνής ψαρέματος στον Άι Σάββα στα Κοίλα. Η υστεροβυζαντινή περίοδος στα Δωδεκάνησα καλύπτει μόνο τον 13ο αιώνα, εφόσον το 1309 τα νησιά, πλην ελαχίστων, καταλαμβάνονται από τους Ιππότες του Αγίου Ιωάννη της Μάλτας και, επομένως, ξεκινά για αυτά η περίοδος της Ιπποτοκρατίας. Στο 13ο αιώνα ανήκουν δύο ζωγραφικά στρώματα της Χάλκης: το δεύτερο του Άι Νικήτα στην Αμαλή, που έχει χρονολογηθεί γύρω στα 1230–1260, και το πρώτο του Ταξιάρχη Μιχαήλ του Πανορμίτη στην Πλαγιά, γνωστού και ως Παλαρνιώτη στου Άι Νόφρη το Βουνό, που παρουσιάζει κοινά στοιχεία με μνημεία του δεύτερου μισού και κυρίως του τέλους του 13ου αιώνα. Πρόκειται και εδώ για μοναστική, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, εγκατάσταση.

13

Maria Z. Sigala Παρά τον αποσπασματικά σωζόμενο διάκοσμο των μνημείων μπορεί κανείς να διακρίνει τόσο κοινά χαρακτηριστικά με άλλες περιοχές στην περιφέρεια της αυτοκρατορίας, όσο και επιχωριάζουσες προτιμήσεις στην εικονογραφία. Η χρονολόγηση των ναών, με βάση τον αποσπασματικά σωζόμενο τις περισσότερες φορές τοιχογραφικό διάκοσμο, βοήθησε και στη χρονολόγηση των κυφών, των πέτρινων καλυβιών στην ύπαιθρο της Χάλκης που βρίσκονται κατά κανόνα κοντά στα εκκλησάκια, στην ίδια, πάνω-κάτω με αυτά εποχή. Keywords: Dodecanese, Chalke, wall-paintings, Early Christian, Middle-Byzantine, Monasticism, Asceticism.

On the island of Chalke, thirty-one layers of wall paintings survive, dating from the mid-6th to the 19th century, distributed between twenty-two chapels. They are mostly poorly preserved.1

un-datable head, high up on the rock, above the entrance to the cave, which probably belonged to a cell that has collapsed. Three painted chapels belong to the Middle-Byzantine period: Ais Adrias on Ais Adrias’ mountain (10th century), Ais Savas at Koila (11th century?) and Ais Niketas at Amali (12th century).

Most important amongst them are undoubtedly the mid6th to early 7th century wall-paintings of Ascetario, a cave hermitage at Kellia.2 They depict the young Christ Emmanuel between the Archangels Michael and Gabriel who present to him martyrs, the two surviving on his right offering a wreath and a gospel (Fig. 1.1). Τheir importance lies both in the rarity of Early Christian wallpaintings in Greece and especially so in the Dodecanese,3 and in the raising of the question of the existence of Asceticism in the islands of the Aegean already in the Early Christian Era.4 There are many references in the above wall-paintings to Italian monuments, mainly in Ravenna.5 To the middle of the 7th century is dated the first layer of wall-paintings in the ‘built cell’ at Kellia, set at the entrance to the above mentioned Ascetario, on archaeological grounds combined with the iconographic features of the surviving full-length colossal warrior saint (Fig. 1.2a). To around 700 is dated the classical head of the apostle Andrew, from the second layer in the same cell6 (Fig. 1.2b), which resembles mostly that of the archangel in the church of Drosiani on Naxos (7th century),7 but also that of the same apostle in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome (705–707).8 The scanty fragments of wall paintings in the ‘built cell’ are as important lyas those in the Ascetario, not only for their rarity but also for the proof they provide for the use of the site as a place for reclusion, at least till the 8th century. To the same group of wall paintings belongs an isolated, unidentified and

Figure 1.1. Ascetario at Kellia.

Unidentified remnants of wall paintings exist in seven more chapels. Sigala 2009, 151–156, 157. 3  For the surviving Early Christian wall-paintings in the Aegean Islands, see Sigala 2009, 153 f. 31, 158 f. 70; Mastoropoulos 2007, 67–68; Drosoyianni 1998. 4  Sigala 2009, 157; Sigala forthcoming. 5  Affinities with the wall-paintings of Rome have been observed apropos the Early Christian wall-paintings of Naxos. Chatzidakis 1989, 10. 6  Sigala 2009, 156–157. 7  Drandakis 1988, pl. V. 8  Nordhagen 1968, 5, 15, pl. VI, IX. 1  2 

Figure 1.2. Built Cell at Kellia: a. Warrior saint (first layer). b. Head of St Andrew (second layer).

14

A Brief Survey of the Monumental Painting of Chalke in the Dodecanese from the Early Christian Period a donor in the Dodecanese. In the conch of the prothesis, a cross incised into the mortar has partly destroyed the angel depicted there. The wall-paintings have been dated with some uncertainty, and without any reference to their two different layers, to the beginning of the 11th century,10 due to their archaic iconographic program: except for the Annunciation, only figures are depicted,11 St Andrew, the patron saint, is depicted in the conch of the apse12 and frontal hierarchs13 are present both in the sanctuary and the nave. Stylistically, the two layers are quite close and can be compared to wall-paintings of ca. 1000 in the Mani.14 Amongst their main characteristic features are the big red spots on the cheeks, the wide red-brown shadows on one cheek and one side of the neck, the dominant linearity, the big, wide-open, ecstatic eyes, the straight line which joins the two inner corners of the eyes and defines the upper part of the nose. These features generally appear also in 10th-century wall-paintings.15 If the well preserved second layer dates to the beginning of the 11th century, that obviously gives an even earlier date for the first layer and the chapel itself.

Figure 1.3. Ais Adrias on Ais Adrias’ mountain (first layer): a. St Andrew. b. St Basil and unknown saint.

The importance of the monument, in spite of the simple and ‘popular’ character of its wall-paintings, is profound. It preserves a small sample of 10th century or even earlier wall-paintings in the Dodecanese (first layer). It also preserves, almost intact, a Middle-Byzantine iconographic program, presenting archaic features (second layer).

Figure 1.4. Ais Adrias on Ais Adrias’ mountain (second layer): a. The Annunciation. b. An archangel.

To around 1100 or even a bit later could be dated the first of the two layers of wall-paintings in Ais Savas (or Panormites) at Koila, which also bears a tripartite bema. From this layer, the sketch of the Pantokrator (Fig. 1.5a) is preserved at the front of the apse, a remnant from the presentation of the Deisis, which is found in this position from the 11th century onwards.16 Aniconic decoration consisting of crosses painted and incised in the plaster is also preserved both in the sanctuary and in the nave. It is either an archaic program,17 or more probably an apotropaic decoration made by the artisan who prepared the plaster.18

Ais Adrias (St. Andrew), with a tripartite bema, most probably a small monastic establishment,9 is full of wallpaintings, on two different layers. Fragments of the first layer are preserved in the southern side of the sanctuary. Τhey comprise a foot underneath the Angel of the Annunciation of the second layer in the lower part of the vault, and the remnants of two frontal figures on the wall– the one on the left holding a gospel being a hierarch. The first layer probably also includes the full-length figure of Saint Andrew in the conch of the apse (Fig. 1.3a), revealed in 1998 underneath a later wall, and two halflength figures in medallions, on the northern half of the front of the apse, the one on the left being the hierarch Basil (Fig. 1.3b).

Katsioti 2002, 114–115. See, also Myriokephala Monastery on Crete (beginning of 11th century) and St Mercourios on Corfu (1074/5). Panayotidi, 1986, 87–88, 100–101. 12  Although archaic, the depiction of the patron saint in the conch of the apse survived in provincial churches till the 13th century. Here, like in St Mercurios in Corfu, it is full-length in the semicircular wall (Vokotopoulos 1971, 154. 155, 171, 172), and not half-length and praying in the conch of the apse, as is usual elsewhere. Chatzidakis & Bitha 1997, 66, pl.15 and 147 pl.6. 13  Not co-officiating. Chatzidakis 1960, 92–99. 14  St Panteleimon at Pano Boularioi (991/992), St Peter at Palaeochora, St Philippe at Korogonianika, St Niketas at Kipoula. Panayotidi 1986, 86; Drandakis 1995, 371, 376 pl.10, 377 pl.11, 378 pl.12, 383 pl.20, 60, 61, 62, 64 pl.4, 346 pl.5,7, 347; Panayotidi 2008/9, 223 pl.XI, 39, 40. 15  Drandakis 1995, 61 pl.7, 62 pl.8, 64, 365, 376 pl.10. 16  Mouriki 1974, 93. 17  See Episkopi at Euritania. Panayotidi 1986, 77. 18  On similar crosses, see Acheimastou 1989, 50. Crosses incised in plaster appear also in St Georgios (and Pachomios) at Apeiranthos on Naxos (unpublished). 10  11 

The second layer covers almost all the chapel, in two zones, forming the earliest nearly intact iconographic program in the Dodecanese. Apart from the Annunciation (Fig. 1.4a) in the southern barrel vault of the sanctuary, both in the sanctuary and in the nave only figures are depicted: hierarchs, angels and saints — medical, warrior and female — mainly full-length, but also half-length in medallions, arranged in two zones. Underneath a conch in the northern wall of the sanctuary, a female donor is probably portrayed, perhaps the oldest known depiction of 9 

Sigala 2013, 95; Sigala forthcoming.

15

Maria Z. Sigala

Figure 1.5. St Savas at Koila: a. Sketch of the Deisis (first layer). b. Diaconicon - St Nicholas (second layer).

Figure 1.7. St Niketas at Amali; a. A hierarch. b. The angel in the conch on the north wall of the sanctuary c. St John the Baptist.

with fragments of wall-paintings, very poorly preserved, as well as crosses incised by finger in the original mortar, both on the north and on the south wall of the main church. The two layers are clearly discernable on the northern wall of the nave. From the first layer survive fragments of scenes on the southern vault of the nave and of saints on the walls. In the sanctuary, most probably to the initial programme of decoration belong remnants from the Ascension in the vault, a figure in a medallion and a deacon on the northern wall, and a decorative pattern, consisting of spirals, in the lower parts of the front of the southern apse. Since the second layer has been dated to the 13th century, we consider it quite probable that the first should be dated to the 12th century.

Figure 1.6. St Savas; Graffitti of a boat, digitally processed by Dr. Ch. Diamanti.

The second layer also presents archaic features, like the depiction of the Deisis at the front of the apse on top of the earlier one, and of frontal busts of hierarchs in the conches of the diaconicon (Fig. 1.5b) and of the prothesis. It also comprises remnants of the Ascension in the vault of the sanctuary, decorative triangles, the one inside the other, underneath the conch of the diaconicon, the sketch of a full-length angel on the northern vault of the nave, traces of a destroyed scene and the sketch of a female saint on the western wall. The frontal bust of St Nicholas on a red ground, the only figure preserved well enough to allow stylistic remarks, plus a few iconographic features, date these wall-paintings to ca. 1200.19

The second layer of wall-paintings in St. Niketas belongs to the Late Byzantine period, which in the Dodecanese lasts only one century, 1204 to 1309, when most of the islands were brought under the rule of the Hospitaller Knights. Nevertheless, the majority of the orthodox churches remained entirely byzantine in character.20 The surviving fragments of the second layer show that, in the sanctuary, the Deisis was depicted in the front of the two apses (St John the Baptist is preserved on the right), angels in the diaconicon, the prothesis, as well as in a small conch on the northern wall, scenes in the vault, hierarchs and a deacon on the walls (Fig. 1.7).

Of special interest are, apart from the crosses painted and incised on and in the plaster, two graffitti with boats (Fig. 1.6), the one most probably presenting a fishing scene.

In the nave, saints were depicted on the walls and most probably scenes on the vault. Only unidentified fragments are now preserved.

To the Middle-Byzantine period also belongs the first of the two layers in St Niketas at Amali, a twin-apsed church

As for the style, the eyes are big, round or almond-shaped; the line surrounding them extends towards the temples; the pupils are big, round and dark. The fingers of the archangel are thin and sinewy. Although line plays an important role,

19  Similar features appear in monuments dating from the end of the 12th till the first decades of the 13th century. See Katsioti & Archontopoulos 2000, 380, 381; Konstantinidi 1990, 160 pl.3; Acheimastou-Potamianou 1994, 88 pl. 61 (red ground) and 108 pl. 84, 86 (drapery).

20 

16

Kollias 1994, 123.

A Brief Survey of the Monumental Painting of Chalke in the Dodecanese from the Early Christian Period

Figure 1.9. Taxiarches Michael o Panormites (or Palarniotes): a. The deacon Romanos the Melodist. b. St Nicholas.

Figure 1.8. Taxiarches Michael o Panormites (or Palarniotes): The northern wall of the nave.

outlining the facial characteristics, the painting, made of light green shadows and wide brush-marks, shows a tendency toward plasticity. The figures are gentle and calm with a sense of monumentality. The background is deep blue. The inscriptions are calligraphically written. They have been dated around 1230–1260.21

On the northern wall, from West to East, are presented the warrior saints Niketas and Georgios on horseback (Fig. 1.8), riding eastwards, as well as a standing archangel, on a pedestal, a spear in his hand. The figures are modelled in warm ochre, with redbrownish outlines, (Fig. 1.10), thin light green shadow usually placed on the left cheek and left side of the neck, but also in other nude parts of the body, very few highlights, big eyes, all on a deep blue ground. This style is close to monuments like St George at Kouneni Chanion on Crete (1284),24 St George Vardas at Apolakkia on Rhodes (1289/90)25 and Panaghia (Virgin Mary) “stis Yallous” on Naxos (1288/89).26 It dates the wall-paintings to the second half of the 13th century and more precisely towards the end of it.27

To the 13th century is also to be dated the first layer of Palarniotis or Taxiarches Michael o Panormites, most probably a small monastic establishment.22 Full-length saints are preserved in the lower part of the walls, both in the sanctuary and in the nave, separated by red vertical bands, and a register with medallions above them (Fig. 1.8). The decoration of the vault has vanished. In the sanctuary, in the conch of the diaconicon, which is surrounded by a black plait on a white ground, the deacon Romanos the Melodist is depicted (Fig. 1.9a). On the walls, frontal hierarchs, St Nicholas (Fig. 1.9b) and most probably St Basil on the northern, and two unidentified hierarchs on the southern wall, are depicted. Three of them, under the influence of the co-officiating hierarchs, wear multi-crossed chasubles. On the upper, narrow register of the walls, there are hierarchs in medallions, three on the southern, and probably initially three on the northern wall. The space between the medallions is decorated with black or deep red spiral motifs. Over the window of the southern wall there is a painted “icon” of one more hierarch.23

To sum up, the surviving wall-paintings on Chalke, from the Early Christian Period to 1309, are partly found in churches with monastic use. In the Middle-Byzantine period, the best-preserved iconographic program, the second layer of St Andrias (beginning of 11th century), consists almost entirely of saints, whilst almost from the same period, St Savas, from the surviving decoration, has only one scene depicted (the Deisis) together with aniconic, most probably apotropaic, decoration. Generally, in the painting preserved on Chalke, iconographic and stylistic features can be detected that are held in common with other parts of the Empire. From the Middle Byzantine period onwards, the painting presents lots of archaic features, like the depiction of the Deisis on the front of the apse and “hierarchs – icons” in the sanctuary. These survive till the 13th century, when on Rhodes and elsewhere, the Deisis has consolidated its place in the conch of the apse, and the hierarchs, as a rule, are already co-officiating. On Chalke, as generally on the islands, already since the Early

On the southern wall of the main church, from East to West, there are presented the Enthroned Virgin Mary between standing Angels, damaged by hammering and greatly destroyed by the opening of a much later window there, and also St Constantine, frontal, holding a scepter with a cross, and the sketch of St Helen, bearing imperial vestments and standing on a pedestal. Katsioti 2000, 279, pl. 95. Sigala 2013. 23  On “icons” of hierarchs together with officiating ones, see, Lazarev 1967, pl. 351 (Backovo, mid-12th century).

Lassithiotakis 1962, 41, 51, pl. 22. 2, 3 and 23.2,3. Kephala 2015, 167, 219, fig. 115, 116. 26  Drandakis 1989, 102, pl. 5. 27  Katsioti 2000, 283.

21 

24 

22 

25 

17

Maria Z. Sigala Literature Acheimastou- Potamianou 1989: Αχειμάστου- Ποταμιάνου, Μυρτάλη, ‘Άγιος Ιωάννης ο Θεολόγος στ΄ Αδησαρού’, in ΝΑΞΟΣ, Athens 1989, 50–57. Acheimastou-Potamianou 1994: Αχειμάστου-Ποταμιάνου, Μυρτάλη, Βυζαντινές Τοιχογραφίες, Athens 1994. Chatzidakis 1960: Χατζηδάκης, Μανόλης, ‘Βυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες στον Ωρωπό’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Α΄ (1959), Athens 1960, 87–107. Chatzidakis 1989: Chatzidakis, Manolis, ‘Introductory Notes’, in NAXOS, Athens 1989, 9–16. Chatzidakis & Bitha 1997: Χατζηδάκης, Μανόλης & Μπίθα, Ιωάννα, Ευρετήριο Βυζαντινών Τοιχογραφιών Κυθήρων, Athens 1997. Drandakis 1988: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, Οι παλαιοχριστιανικές τοιχογραφίες στη Δροσιανή της Νάξου, Athens 1988. Drandakis 1989: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Παναγιά «στης Γιαλλούς» ’, ΝΑΞΟΣ, Athens 1989, 100–104. Drandakis 1995: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινές Τοιχογραφίες της Μέσα Μάνης, Athens 1995. Drosoyianni 1998: Δροσογιάννη, Α. Φανή, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικές τοιχογραφίες στην Εκατονταπυλιανή της Πάρου’, Η ΕΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΠΥΛΙΑΝΗ ΚΑΙ Η ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΟΣ, Πρακτικά επιστημονικού Συνεδρίου (15–19 Σεπτεμβρίου 1996) υπό την αιγίδα του Οικουμενικού Πατριάρχου κ.κ. Βαρθολομαίου, Paros 1998, 55–84. Katsioti 2000: Κατσιώτη, Αγγελική, ‘Επισκόπηση της μνημειακής ζωγραφικής του 13ου αιώνα στα Δωδεκάνησα’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 51/52 (1996– 97), Μέρος Α΄ - Μελέτες, Athens 2000, 269–302. Katsioti & Archontopoulos 2000: Κατσιώτη, Aγγελική & Αρχοντόπουλος, Θεόδωρος, ‘Το παρεκκλήσι της οικογένειας των Αρμενόπουλων στη Ρόδο και η τέχνη του 12ου αιώνα στα Δωδεκάνησα’, Ρόδος 2400 χρόνια, ΥΠΠΟ 2000, 375–386.

Figure 1.10. Taxiarches Michael o Panormites (or Palarniotes): St Niketas on the northern wall of the nave.

Byzantine period, a special preference can be observed for the worship of the angels, who occupy prominent places inside the church. A preference can also be detected for specific saints, like Kerykos, who is depicted at Kellia (6th– 7th century), in St Andrias (11th century) and later on, in Enniameritissa (1367)28.

Katsioti 2002: Katsioti, Angeliki, ‘The earliest wallpaintings of St George at Plakoto, Malona on Rhodes. Remarks on the eleventh-century art in the Dodecanese’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΓ΄ (2002), 105–120.

More than any contribution, poor or not, they make to the history of Byzantine painting, the study of the wallpaintings of Chalke has allowed the dating of the chapels themselves, plus the dating of the ‘kyphes’,29 the humble huts which are found near them. This fact makes them a precious instrument in the effort to understand the society and the history of the island more broadly.

Kephala 2015: Κεφαλά, Κωνσταντία, Οι τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αιώνα στις εκκλησίες της Ρόδου, Χριστιανική Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία- Εθνικό Κέντρο Τεκμηρίωσης (ηλεκτρονική έκδοση), 2015. Kollias 1994: Κόλλιας, Ηλίας, Η μεσαιωνική πόλη της Ρόδου και το παλάτι του μεγάλου Μαγίστρου, Athens 1994. Konstantinidi 1990: Κωνσταντινίδη, Χαρά, ‘Ο Άγιος Μάμας στον Καραβά Κούνου Μέσα Μάνης (1232) ’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί Ι΄(1990), 141–165.

Sigala 2000, 361 pl. 21, 362. Ioulitta and Kerykos are also especially venerated in Kastoria. 29  Sigala. 2019. 28 

18

A Brief Survey of the Monumental Painting of Chalke in the Dodecanese from the Early Christian Period Lassithiotalis 1962: Λασσιθιωτάκης, Κωνσταντίνος, ‘Δύο εκκλησίες στο νομό Χανίων’, Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 2 (1960/61), Athens 1962, 9–56. Lazarev 1967: Lazaref, Victor, Storia della Pittura Bizantina, Torino 1967. Mastoropoulos 2007: Mastoropoulos, St. Georgios, NAXOS: Byzantine Monuments, 2007. Mouriki 1974: Μουρίκη, Ντούλα, ‘Οι βυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες των παρεκκλησίων της Σπηλιάς Πεντέλης’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Ζ΄(1973–74), Athens 1974, 79–119. Nordhagen 1968: Nordhagen, Jonas, The Frescoes of John VII (A.D. 705–707) in S. Maria Antiqua in Rome, Rome 1968. Panayotidi 1986: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘La peinture monumentale en Grèce de la fin de l’ Iconoclasme jusqu’ à l’ avènement des Comnènes (843–1081) ’, Cahiers Arheologiques 34 (1986), 75–102. Panayotidi 2008/9: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Σχολιάζοντας τους ζωγράφους’ in Ε. Ελευθερίου-Α. Μέξια (επιμ.), Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη Βυζαντινή Μάνη, Πρακτικά, Sparta 2008/9, 221–232. Sigala 2000: Σιγάλα, Ζ. Μαρία, ‘Η Παναγία Οδηγήτρια ή Εννιαμερίτισσα στη Χάλκη της Δωδεκανήσου (1367)’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 55 (2000), Μέρος Α΄- Μελέτες, Athens 2004, 329–381. Sigala 2009: Σιγάλα, Ζ. Μαρία, ‘Τα Κελλιά της Χάλκης Δωδεκανήσου. Η χρονολόγηση των τοιχογραφιών και η σημασία τους’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Λ΄(2009), 149–158. Sigala 2013: Σιγάλα, Ζ. Μαρία, ‘Μοναστικές εγκαταστάσεις στη Χάλκη της Δωδεκανήσου κατά τη Μεσοβυζαντινή και την Υστεροβυζαντινή περίοδο’, Πρόγραμμα και Περιλήψεις Εισηγήσεων και Ανακοινώσεων, 33ο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης (17–19/5/2013), Athens 2013, 95–96. Sigala 2019: Sigala, Z. Maria, ‘The “Kyphes” of Chalke. A Primitive Type of Medieval Housing in a Small Island of the Dodecanese’, in Charikleia Diamanti and Anastasia Vassiliou (eds.), Εν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες, Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honor of Sophia Kalopissi -Verti, Archaeopress Archaeology 2019, 25–38. Sigala forthcoming: Sigala, Z. Maria, ‘Hermits, monks and Nuns on Chalke the small island of the Dodecanese’, in Byzantine Greece: Microcosm of Empire?, Proceedings of the 46th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies in Birmingham, 23–25 March 2013, [forthcoming] Vocotopoulos 1971: Vocotopoulos, L. Panayiotis, ‘Fresques du XIe siècle a Corfu’, Cahiers Arheologiques 21 (1971), 151–180.

19

2 A Royal Panel at Sinai. Contribution to the Study of Byzantine-Georgian Artistic Relations Dionysios Mourelatos Abstract: The present paper presents a panel depicting St. George and a Georgian king. It should not be considered as an “icon”, an object of piety, but rather as a “royal panel”. It was a gift from King Davit of Georgia, possibly to the Georgian monks of the monastery of Sinai direct, or to a monastery in Jerusalem whence it later ended up at Sinai, where there was also a strong Georgian monastic community. In addition, the iconographical motifs in the king’s clothing are analysed, as are the motifs in the armor of St. George, in relation to the content of the two extensive inscriptions on the painting (one in Greek and one in Georgian). Στην παρούσα μελέτη εξετάζεται ένας «πίνακας» που απεικονίζει τον Άγιο Γεώργιο και έναν Γεωργιανό βασιλιά. Θεωρείται ότι δεν πρόκειται για λατρευτική εικόνα αλλά για ένα «βασιλικό» δώρο εκ μέρους του βασιλέα Δαυίδ της Γεωργίας, ενδεχομένως στους γεωργιανούς μοναχούς του Σινά ή κάποιου μοναστηριού στην Ιερουσαλήμ, όπου επίσης υπήρχε ισχυρή γεωργιανή κοινότητα μοναχών. Επιπλέον αναλύονται τα εικονογραφικά μοτίβα του ενδύματος του βασιλέα αλλά και στην πανοπλία του αγίου Γεωργίου σε συνδυασμό με τις δύο εκτενείς επιγραφές του πίνακα (μία στα ελληνικά και μία στα γεωργιανά). Keywords: Sinai, icons, medieval Georgian painting, Byzantine icon painting, royal panel, Byzantine iconography, motifs in painted clothing, Byzantium, text and image.

This paper sets about answering a series of questions arising from a royal panel at Sinai. Should we use the term ‘icon’ for a panel with a royal portrait, especially when that person is one of the dominant figures in the picture, or not? If not, what was the original use and placement of such panels? What is the function of the inscriptions and the figures represented in such panels? Is the use of motifs accidental or intentional? Finally, do the figures and ornaments complement each other here? How may the interrelation of figures and ornaments help us interpret the panel? This panel (Fig. 2.1) at Sinai represents Saint George on the left, turning towards the center, where a Christ figure making a blessing is depicted on a small scale at the top of the icon.1 There is a Greek inscription on the upper left side that identifies the holy figure as Saint George, acting as intercessor, who is represented in military garb. His shield, standing on the lower left side, is decorated with a Kufic inscription in the center and the motif of the crescent, used in a decorative arrangement around a star: it forms a focus of interest. On the right, a king is represented in a frontal pose. He wears a crown and a Byzantine royal garment2 and he holds a labarum and a scroll. His 1  Soteriou 1956–58, fig.152, 131–132; Patterson Ševčenko 1993–94, 160, fig.5; Eastmond 1998, fig.43, 67–70. 2  For the Byzantine imperial iconography, see Grabar 1971 and Wessel 1976, cols. 722–853.

Figure 2.1. Panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

21

Dionysios Mourelatos garment is decorated with valuable stones, while on his chlamys there are ornamental motifs that include that of the crescent and at least one cross and another to-date unidentified ornament.3 On the upper right side, there is a Greek inscription in capital letters that names the king as ‘Pious emperor of all the East, Bagratounianos’.4 The position of this inscription is the symmetrically the equal of the inscription that names Saint George.5 Moreover, there is a more detailed Georgian inscription between the two main figures that names the king as ‘king of the Abxazetians, Kartlians, Ranians, and K’axetians’.6 The main purpose of this paper is to interpret the role of the figures, the motifs and the inscriptions in this panel and draw some concluding remarks on such royal panels. The first matter for enquiry is the definition of the character of this panel, its function. Was it purposed for cult, public or personal usage? Was its function commemorative or dedicatory? The exploration of the original use and placement of such a peculiar panel is more easily undertaken if we compare it with similar panels known from Byzantine culture, because there are apparent in it Byzantine features, like the style of Saint George’s face7 (Fig. 2.2) and the royal garments of the king. Such panels that represent emperors are known in Byzantium from the 10th century onwards.8 A remarkable difference is, however, noticed between the panel in Sinai and these Byzantine (or Byzantinizing) panels. The size of the royal figure (Figs. 2.1 and 2.3) is equal to that of the saint. This might be explained by its later date and therefore the use of a more sophisticated ideology in a multicultural environment concerning the identity of royalty. Furthermore, the figure of the Georgian king is represented in connection to Saint George. In the panel

Figure 2.2. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

See fig. 6. Rhoby 2010, 60–63. According to Rhoby 2010, following the transcription by V. Benesevic at the beginning of the 20th century, 60: πιστό[ς] βασιλ[εύς] πάσ[ης] ἀνατολ[ῆς] ο Πανγκρατονιανός. 5  According to Rhoby 2010, following the transcription by V. Benesevic at the beginning of the 20th century, 60: [Γε]ώ[ργιος]. 6  Kldiasvili 1989, 107–128. 7  For similar modeling in Kakopetria and Asinou, see Stylianou 1985, 64, fig.25, 116, fig. 57 and 118, fig.58. 8  Such panels are dated to the middle or the second half of the 10th century. An ivory plaque from Dumbarton Oaks, dated about the middle of the 10th century, that represents an emperor, has been identified as Constantine the Great, Leo VI or Constantine VII (see Goldsmidt – Weitzmann, 1979, 47; Jeffrey Anderson, in Evans–Wixom 1997, nr. 139, 202–203.), another ivory plaque in Paris, where Christ is depicted in the center crowning a royal couple, Romanos and Eudokia (see Goldsmidt –Weitzmann 1979, 52–53), an ivory plaque from Berlin, where Leo VI is depicted as being crowned by the Virgin Mary (see Goldsmidt – Weitzmann 1979, 35; Cutler 1994, 76, 131, 142, 195–7, 203, 208, 235, 238, 251; Ioli Kalavrezou, in Evans–Wixom 1997, nr. 307, 469.), and an ivory plaque from the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, where Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos is represented being proclaimed Roman Emperor by Christ (see Goldsmidt –Weitzmann 1979, 35; Kalavrezou–Maxeiner 1977, 307–25. Cutler 1994, 24–5, 27, 106, 198–9, 203–5, 210, 211, 220, 233–5, 238, 251; Cutler 1995, 605–10). For the practice of the use of imperial images in Byzantium see Magdalino–Nelson 1982, especially for the beginnings of the 12th century, 124–130. See in detail Mourelatos in press. Also for the portraits and the self–portraits of the painters in Byzantium, see in Kalopissi–Verti 1994. 3  4 

Figure 2.3. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

22

A Royal Panel at Sinai

Figure 2.4. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

from Sinai the Georgian king is depicted wearing a crown and holding a labarum. On his garment are represented flower ornaments along with the motif of the crescent and of the cross. Furthermore, there are the two inscriptions.9 Both the portrait and epigrams add to the complexity of this sophisticated panel (Figs. 2.4 and 2.5). Recent scholarship considers epigrams on icons as a verbal expression of the act of prayer and the depiction of the holy figures the visual equivalent.10 It should, therefore, be considered that the function of an epigram or an inscription in the case of a royal panel is equally or even more significant than the visual aspect. Consequently, the use and content of the inscriptions cannot be ignored and should be considered along with the visual information.

Figure 2.5. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

overlordship. It has been considered therefore that this panel is dated between 1104 and 1118.12 The usage of the term ‘Arabs’ in Byzantine written sources to mean the Turks is common.

The more detailed Georgian inscription (Fig. 2.4) on the panel of Sinai painted between the two main figures names the king as ‘king of the Abxazetians, Kartlians, Ranians, and K’axetians’. Furthermore, the Greek inscription, that is no longer readable, says (after the recent reconstruction by A. Rhoby) – ‘You have subdued…..the Arabs and other Magicians….powerful Davit…your power over the Daemons’.11 The first part of this inscription (after this reconstruction) probably refers to a victory over the Arabs. It is attested that in 1118 the title of the king of Armenians was added to the titles of the Georgian kings, after the conquest of Lori. Therefore this panel has to be dated between 1104, after the abolition of the kingdom of Kakhety and the addition in his title the king of the Kakhetians, but before the acquisition of the Armenian

The usage of the term of the ‘entire East’ in the Greek inscription (Fig. 2.5) remains to be further explored, especially because it was used later by Davit’s successors, Giorgi III and Lasa Giorgi (Giorgi IV). Is therefore the Greek inscription with the capital letters a brief interpretation of the Georgian more detailed inscription or is there another added value in this title? What is the meaning of the concept of ‘the East’ in different contexts? Coins from the reign of Malik Muhammad, who reigned in Sivas from 1134 to 1142, attest the use of the term Anatoli in connection to his authority – ‘The Grand malik of the entire Rhomania and the East, Muhammad’, in Greek.13 However the idea of the East can be also found in the Arabic titles of the Great Seljuqs, in particular during the reign of the Sultan Sanjar, a contemporary of Malik Muhammad, who reigned from 1118 to 1157.14 Sanjar’s

9  Both portrait and epigrams add to the complexity of this sophisticated panel. For the function of epigrams and inscriptions in works of art in Byzantium, see Rhoby 2011, especially 319 and 326 and Papalexandrou 2001, 283. Papalexandrou notes that clearly the inscriptions were important for both patron and beholder; the inscriptions indicate an interactive understanding by the contemporary audience. For the portraits and the self–portraits of the painters in Byzantium, see in Kalopissi– Verti 1994 and specifically for the two portraits in this hexaptych in Kalopissi–Verti 1994, 134–136. 10  Nelson 2010, 120–137. 11  Rhoby 2010, 61–62.

Eastmond 1998, 70. Shukurov 2001, 264; ο μ[έγας] μελήκις πάσης Ρωμανίας και Ανατολής μαχαμάτης. 14  Shukurov 2001, 270–272. 12  13 

23

Dionysios Mourelatos Persian title contains the clause ‘the king of the East and the West’. This term has been interpreted15 as the lands to the east of Sivas, namely Malatya, Cilicia and Syria. However, it has been also thought that the use of the term ‘East’ could also be considered in a more abstract sense, even in this Seljuq cultural and political context. Furthermore, the addition of Anatoli to Muhammad’s title has been considered a result of the amalgamation of the Byzantine and Seljuq title-making models. It seems that is common for Georgian kings to add to their titles their new conquests, especially in official circumstances that represent the state, like in the case of issuing a coin.

a supplementary position. However, it is much more reasonable to find Saint George in a panel that reflects Georgian royal ideology, since he was the patron of the country.19 It is interesting to note here a reference from the Georgian chronicle Kartlis cxovreba, where an icon of Saint George is mentioned; in this reference king Constantine III of Ap’xazeti (899–915/6) prayed before this icon in the eastern Georgian cathedral of Alaverdi after his victory in Heret’i.20 His successor, Giorgi II (915–959) promoted his cult even more and ordered hymns and sermons from Ioane Minchi on Mount Sinai.21 The representation of the warrior saints in Georgia and more particularly in Svaneti seems, however, to follow the iconography of the Byzantine models of the 10th to 12th centuries. The predominant position of Saint George after the 11th century was probably due to the important role attained by this saint within the united Georgian kingdom. In the reign of Davit II, one of military expansion, Saint George became the patron of the army and the official saint of the state. Moreover, in the Georgian chronicle he is described as the heavenly leader of king Davit at the battle of Didgori (1121) which led to a victory over the Seljuqs.22

In a Byzantine context, the term ‘πάσης ἀνατολῆς’ (the entire East) is not strictly defined, as is proved by the text of Alexias, written by Anna Komnene, that mentions:16 ‘Your scepter is extended from the Adriatic Sea to the entire East and alongside the great Asia’. It is clear that in this context the definition of the East (ἀνατολή) is a very abstract one. Furthermore, in the typicon of Petritzou, dated to 1083, are mentioned17 three chrysobulls concerning the possessions in the East, namely one about the district of Anion, the second about the district of Tais, and the third about the district of Tzourmere. Even in this bilingual context at Backovo the term ‘Anatoli’ (East) reflects even regions in Georgia and Armenia. The title of ‘the entire East’, therefore, in Greek and consequently in a multicultural context under the influence of the Byzantine culture may be interpreted as of one who claims the lordship of different regions in the Middle East and Caucasus, even perhaps all these regions. The above examination of the title-making habits among the Seljuqs and the Georgians, the perception that the term East had for the Byzantines and the selection of the terms for the titles of this king on this panel, along with the bilingual inscriptions, indicates its multicultural environment. Furthermore, the existence of these inscriptions also indicate that this panel was destined for public display, probably in a secular context, and made probably not in an environment close to the Georgian king himself. It looks like the inscriptions and the portrait reflect a perception of his kingdom, rather than a personalized perception of himself.

The decorative motifs displayed by both figures are also of particular importance. First, the shield of Saint George (Fig. 2.6): there is an antique tradition of placing inscriptions on shields that was continued in the medieval Mediterranean world, as is evident from the iconography of the warrior saints. Greek inscriptions are however exceptional. More often the shields are decorated with an ornament reminiscent of Kufic script that runs around the rim of the shield. Although the function of such inscriptions remains unclear, we may consider that the use of a script that imitates the Kufic one is a reference to the main rival army of the Byzantines during that period, the Muslims.23 Stylianou24 has suggested that the Byzantines may have attempted to create an independent heraldic tradition to rival the western practice of the Crusaders, who were present in the region from the 11th century onwards. A cross25 set on a crescent26 is depicted on a shield of one of the soldiers kneeling before the Tomb of Christ after his resurrection, as seen at Ateni.27 The use of this motif at Ateni and later in Asinou (Cyprus),28 both in the borderzone between different cultures, argues perhaps that this motif was produced in a multicultural context as result

Of equal importance to the figure of the king and the inscription is the other figure represented on this panel, namely the figure of Saint George (Fig. 2.2). The selection of Saint George would be an odd one in a purely Byzantine context,18 for a panel of this category, since it is Christ who is the bearer of the imperial power; Christ is also represented here, for sure, but he is clearly depicted in

Eastmond, 1998, 70. Thomson 1996, The book of K’art’li, 267. 21  Schrade 2001, (note 22), 171–173. 22  Schrade 2001, 175–176 23  Grotowski 2010, 242–243. 24  Stylianou, 1982, 139–140. 25  For the motif of the Cross, see Grotowski 2010 (note 31), 244–246. 26  Grotowski 2010, 236–237, footnote 421. 27  For the dating of Ateni, see Mouriki 1981, 728–731. See a detail in Virsaladze 1984, 99. 28  Stylianou 1985, 137–138. On Saint George’s shield on a fresco in the narthex of the church of the Virgin in Asinou on Cyprus a cross set on a crescent is depicted. 19  20 

Oikonomides 1983, 201–202. Reinsch & Kambylis 2001, XIII 12,6 lines 71–71, 415–416; τὰ ὑμέτερα σκῆπτρα ἐξ αὐτοῦ δήπουθεν τοῦ Ἀδριαντικοῦ πελάγους καὶ ἄχρι πάσης ἀνατολῆς καὶ κατὰ μῆκος τῆς μεγάλης Ἀσίας, ἔνθα τὰ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὁρίσματα ἦν. 17  Petit 1904, 7.60, lines 12–14, 54; Χρυσοβούλλια τρία περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ κτημάτων ἡμῶν, ἤγουν τὸ μὲν ἓν τοῦ μέρους τοῦ Ἀνίου, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον τοῦ Ταΐς, καὶ τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ Τζούρμερη. 18  See though for the interrelation between imperial image and warrior saints in Byzantium even in the 11th century in Magdalino & Nelson 1982, 158–160. 15  16 

24

A Royal Panel at Sinai

Figure 2.7. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. Figure 2.6. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

evil and snakebite. As a result of this function there is association of the moon with dragons.32 An interpretation of the motif of the entwined dragons in Islamic art is provided by Mesopotamian metal work and manuscripts of the 13th century which show the juxtaposition of the entwined dragons with solar or lunar symbols within an astrological context. The lunar emblem is given a specific designation by its association with a pair of entwined dragons. The juxtaposition of the lunar emblem and the entwined dragons provides a graphic expression of a specific astronomical phenomenon known also from other representations in Islamic art. The earliest Islamic example of the motif of the entwined dragons is found on the coins of Qara Arslan (1109–1144), Artuqid ruler of Diyarbakr. 33 It seems thus that at least in this context an Eastern provenance of the motif is more probable.

of cultural interactions between the Islamic, Byzantine, Crusader and Georgian cultures29. It seems that the use of this combined motif symbolized the East. However, in the case of this panel the four crescents that surround a star (Fig. 2.6) are probably used in order to underline the superiority of the Saint in the East or over the ‘East’, as is attested by his miracles, for example in the case of an Arab who attempted to destroy a mosaic image of St. George, and was killed for his sacrilege. The mosaic was said to have depicted the saint in full military dress.30 Furthermore, as mentioned, he is described as the heavenly mentor of king Davit at the battle of Didgori.31 His image, consequently, at least in this region is strongly connected to the victory against the Muslims. The source(s) of this motif seems to be mostly ‘Eastern’ in character. The lunar emblem (crescent) has been interpreted as a prophylactic or talismanic device against

The existence of the crescent both on the shield of Saint George and on the garments of the king (Fig. 2.7), in this latter case along with the symbol of the cross34 (Fig. 2.8) denotes the importance of the motif for the interpretation of this panel. The hypothesis that Saint George replaced the pagan moon God of the old Georgian pantheon,35 his

29  The Byzantines and the Turks were the main rivals in this region, the Crusaders were a military presence in the region that inspired traditions connected to the army and the Georgians were a new power in the Middle East. 30  Aufhauser 1913, 8–12. 31  See above note.

Azarpay 1978, 364. Azarpay 1978, 365–366, fig.5 (367). 34  The symbol of the cross signifies Christendom and was also used as apotropaic symbol on shields and lavarum. See Grotowski 2010 (note 31), 243–244. 35  Schrade 2001 (note 29), 171. 32  33 

25

Dionysios Mourelatos to that of the crescent, on the royal garment that strongly recalls that of the dragons36, as mentioned above.37 All the above mentioned elements (the figures of Saint George and king Davit, the inscriptions and the motifs on the shield of the saint and on the royal garments) may be considered to represent the intermingling of a number of traditions, religious, local, visual and literary. It is, nevertheless, a cultured perception of these traditions. We should consider that the bilingual inscription, the Byzantinetrained or even Constantinopolitan painter, the knowledge of the Byzantine imperial traditions and ceremonial practices, the Georgian perceptions of the Eastern or Islamic motifs, under perhaps Crusader influence, place the creation of this peculiar panel in a context where all these traditions could have interacted. The connection between Sinai and Georgia is long attested.38 The Georgian royal chronicle mentions that king Davit39 sent gifts to Mount Sinai and money for the erection of a monastery. It is usually considered that this panel was also sent by Davit along with the other gifts to Sinai.40 The presence of Georgians is also attested on Mount Sinai by the numerous manuscripts41 found there, but also by a significant number of icons with bilingual inscriptions, dated mostly in the late 11th century.42 This bilingual panel considered a work of a Constantinopolitan painter is best seen as a gift sent to Sinai by Davit. It is, however, difficult to accept that such a panel would be made in a strictly Georgian context. It may be better argued that it was created in a multicultural context, one where Byzantines, Georgians, Muslims and Crusaders were in close contact. The Byzantine painter’s inspirations or instructions, given by an educated scholar, reflect the increasing status of the Georgian king Davit in the ‘East’, but the artist was also familiar with the use of symbols both in the Crusader and Islamic worlds. Georgian royal imagery is certainly inspired in many cases by the imperial Byzantine and consequently it is also influenced by the Byzantine imperial ideology.43 Such panels had also an analogous function in both milieux, being purposed for public display, probably not in a church or chapel like the imperial portraits in the monumental art, but in secular buildings or places. The earliest example of the motif of the crescent combined with the cross, both depicted, if separately, in this panel, is located at Ateni, where a variant of this motif is depicted, namely that of a cross over a crescent, symbolizing probably the religious, cultural and political conflict between Islam and Christianity.

Figure 2.8. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

Figure 2.9. Detail of the panel with Saint George and a Georgian King at Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai.

In conclusion, we could deduce that this panel was created in the Holy Land or even Sinai, perhaps after 1121

special veneration in Svaneti and his relation to the dragon as a dragon-killer in the Christian iconography on the one hand and the relation of the crescent-moon to the dragons in ‘Eastern’ iconography on the other, together make tempting a hypothesis that the connection between Saint George and the motif of the crescent may be of Georgian inspiration, regardless as to its original meaning. Moreover there is another figural element (Fig. 2.9), probably supplementary

These dragons have the shape of a snake. It seems that the dragons were used as figural element on shields in the West from 11th century onwards, see Grotowski 2010 (note 31), 246–247. 38  Kldiashvili 2008, 190–191. 39  In the Life of David IV it is mentioned that he erected a monastery in Sinai and sent there gold and other valuable goods. See Mouriki 1990, 39. 40  Eastmond 1998, 70. 41  Aleksidze et al. 2005. 42  Galavaris, 2009. Sotiriou 1956–1958, 115–132. 36  37 

43 

26

Eastmond 1998, 220.

A Royal Panel at Sinai (the victory at Didgori) by a Constantinopolitan-trained painter, when Davit could be proclaimed as king of the entire East by the polyglot and literate Georgian monks of Jerusalem. It was then sent to Sinai for public display in a secular place within the monastery, or it may have been ordered from the start by the Georgian monks of Sinai for the same intended purpose.

Kalavrezou-Maxeiner 1977: Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Ioli, ‘Eudokia Makrembolitissa and the Romanos ivory’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31 (1977), 305–25. Kalopissi-Verti 1994: , Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Painters’ Portraits in Byzantine Art’, Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, ser. 4, 17, 129–142. Kldiasvili 1989: K’ldiasvili, Darezan, ‘L’icone de saint Georges du Mont Sinai avec le portrait de Davit Agmasenebeli’, Revue des Etudes georgiennes et caucasiennes, 5, 1989, 107–128.

Literature Primary literature Aufhauser 1913: Aufhauser, Joannes (ed.), Miracula S. Georgii, Leipzig, 1913.

Magdalino-Nelson 1982: Magdalino, Paul - Nelson, Robert, ‘The emperor in Byzantine Art of the twelfth century’, Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982), 123–183.

Kldiashvili 2008: Kldiashvili, Darejan Synodikon of the Georgian Church at the Monastery of St.Catherine on Sinai, Tbilisi 2008 (Georgian Monastic Synodika 1).

Mourelatos (forthcoming): Mourelatos, Dionysios ‘Donor Portrait in Middle Βyzantine Portable Icons and Panels. Self- and hetero-perception of donors in Middle Βyzantine Portable Icons and Panels’, in a volume edited by Dr. E.Ragia in Social profiles in Byzantium.

Petit 1904: Typicon de Gregoire Pacourianos pour le monastere de Petritzos, Backovo, en Bulgarie, ed. Louis Petit, Saint Petersburg 1904. Reinsch – Kambylis 2001: Annae Comnenae, Alexias, ed. Diether R. Reinsch -Athanasios Kambylis, Berlin-New York 2001.

Mouriki 1981: Mouriki, Doula, ‘The formative role of Byzantine art on the artistic style of the cultural neighbors of Byzantium’, Jahrbuch der Osterreichisches Byzantinistik 31. 2 (1981), 728–731.

Secondary literature Aleksidze et al. 2005: Aleksidze, Zaza et al., Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St.Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai, Athens 2005.

Mouriki 1990: Mouriki, Doula, ‘La presence géorgienne au monastère du Sinai, comme elle est attestée par ses icons’, in Doula Mouriki (ed.), Συμπόσιο γιά τίς σχέσεις της βυζαντινής και της γεωργιανής τέχνης, υπό την αιγίδα της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Αθήνα, Ιούνιος 1990, Athens 1990, 39–40.

Azarpay 1978: Azarpay, Guitty, ‘The eclipse dragon on an Arabic frontispiece-miniature’, in Journal of the American Oriental Society 98(4) , Oct. – Dec., 1978, 363–374. Cutler 1994: Cutler, Antony, The hand of the master. Craftmanship, ivory, and society in Byzantium (9th– 11th centuries), Princeton 1994.

Nelson 2010: Nelson, Robert, ‘Epigrams on Icons’, Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, ed. Liz James, 120–137. Patterson- Ševčenko 1993–94: Patterson Ševčenko, Nancy, ‘The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons’, Δελτίον Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας (=Deltion Christianikis Archaeologikhs Etaireias), 4th ser., 17, 1993–94, 157–164.

Cutler 1995: Cutler, Antony, ‘The date and Significance of the Romanos ivory’, in Doula Mouriki et al. (eds.), Byzantine East, Latin West, Princeton 1995, 605–10. Eastmond 1998: Eastmond, Antony, Royal Imagery in Medieval Georgia, Pennsylvania 1998.

Oikonomides 1983: Oikonomides, Nicolas, ‘Les Danishmendides entre Byzance, Bagdad et le sultanat d’Iconium’, Revue Numismatique 25 (1983), 189–207.

Evans– Wixom 1997: The Glory of Byzantium, Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, eds. Helen C. Evans-William D. Wixom, New York 1997.

Papalexandrou 2001: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘Text in context: eloquent monuments and the Byzantine beholder’, Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry, 17:3, 259–283.

Galavaris 2009: Galavaris, George, An Eleventh Century Hexaptych of the Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai, (ed. Dionysis Mourelatos), Venice-Athens 2009.

Rhoby 2010: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekte der Kleinkunst, Wien 2010.

Goldsmidt – Weitzmann 1979: Goldsmidt, Adolph –Weitzmann, Kurt, Die Byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, Berlin 1979.

Rhoby 2011: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Interactive inscriptions: Byzantine works of Art and their beholders’ in A. Lidov (ed.), Spatial Icons. Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, Moscow, 317–333.

Grabar 1971: Grabar, André, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin, Paris 1971. Grotowski 2010: Grotowski, Piotr, Arms and Armour of the warrior saints, Leiden 2010.

27

Dionysios Mourelatos Schrade 2001: Schrade, Brigitta, ‘Byzantium and its eastern barbarians. The cult of saints in Svaneti’, in Antony Eastmond (ed.), Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, Burlington 2001, 169–198. Shukurov 2001: Shukurov, Rustav, ‘Turkoman and Byzantine self-identity. Some reflections on the logic of the title-making in twelfth- and thirtheenthcentury Anatolia’, in Antony Eastmond (ed.), Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, Burlington 2001, 259–276. Soteriou 1956–1958: Soteriou, George & Maria, Εικόνες της Μονής Σινά, 2 vols., Athens 1956–58. Stylianou 1982: Stylianou, Andreas & Judith, ‘A Cross Inside a Crescent on the Shield of St. George, WallPainting in the Church of Panagia Phorbiotissa Asinou, Cyprus,’ Κυπριακαὶ Σπουδαί 46 (1982), 133 –140. Stylianou 1985: Stylianou, Andreas & Judith, The Painted Churches of Cyprus, Athens 1985. Thomson 1996: Thomson, W. Robert, Rewriting Caucasian History: The Medieval Armenian Adaptation of the Georgian Chronicles - The Original Georgian Texts and the Armenian Adaptation, Oxford 1996, The book of K’art’li. Virsaladze 1984: Virsaladze, Tinatin, Rospisi atenskogo Siona, Tbilisi 1984. Wessel 1976: Wessel, Klaus, ‘Kaiserbild’, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst 3, Stuttgard 1976, cols. 722–853.

28

3 Interpretative Approaches On the Anthropomorphic Depictions of the Holy Trinity in Byzantine Monumental Painting Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou With gratitude to the Ηonorees, who as teachers always teach and inspire, and as people always embrace and encourage Abstract: This paper deals with few anthropomorphic compositions of the Holy Trinity in the Byzantine monumental painting, dated from the end of 12th century onward. The depictions are studied on the basis of the Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, according to an exact distinction that is made between the mode of self-existence of the immanent Holy Trinity (Theology) and the way Ιt appears to creation (Divine Economy). These particular compositions are interpreted as conventional attempts to render and present the Holy Trinity in an Orthodox way. They are classified in two types, the horizontal and the vertical axis. The iconographic variety in the rendering of Trinity compositions attests not only to the personality of their conceivers, but mainly to the absence of a crystallized iconographic type. In any case, Byzantine society remained very skeptical toward in such compositions, that is why the symbolic representations of the Holy Trinity never went out of use. Στη βυζαντινή μνημειακή ζωγραφική διασώζονται ευάριθμες παραστάσεις αγίας Τριάδας στον τύπο της συμβατικά λεγόμενης ανθρωπόμορφης, χρονολογημένες από τα τέλη του 12ου αιώνα και εξής. Πρόκειται για σκηνές που αφορμώνται από τις θεολογικές έριδες της εποχής, προκειμένου να εκφράσουν εντονότερα και ευκρινέστερα δογματικές θέσεις της ορθόδοξης πίστης. Μετά το 1204, η θεματική τους εντάσσεται στο πνεύμα της αντιπαράθεσης ανατολικής και δυτικής Εκκλησίας. Οι συνθέσεις αυτές διατάσσονται οριζοντίως ή καθέτως στον χώρο, τονίζοντας ευκρινέστερα την τριαδικότητα των υποστάσεων και την ισοτιμία του Υιού προς τον Πατέρα (οριζόντιος άξονας) ή προβάλλοντας περισσότερο την Μοναρχία του Πατρός ως αιτία των άλλων δύο υποστάσεων, μέσα από την ενότητα των θείων προσώπων (κάθετος άξονας). Η διαφορετική εικονογραφική απόδοση όλων των σωζόμενων παραστάσεων καθιστά μοναδική και ξεχωριστή την καθεμία, αποκαλύπτοντας την ατομική πρωτοβουλία και την προσωπικότητα των εμπνευστών τους. H ποικιλία των συνθέσεων, ακόμα και μέσα σε κοινό περιβάλλον (Καστοριά), μαρτυρά την απουσία ενός αποκρυσταλλωμένου εικονογραφικού τύπου, δηλαδή την έλλειψη μιας κοινής πηγής δημιουργίας προτύπων. Κάθε παράσταση συνδυάζει επιλεκτικά και με ξεχωριστό τρόπο, μεμονωμένα γνωστά εικονογραφικά στοιχεία παλαιότερων εποχών, στοχεύοντας σε μια εμφατική ομολογία της ορθόδοξης πίστης. Οι μνημειακές αυτές σκηνές αποτελούσαν κατ’οικονομίαν δημιουργίες, μέσω των οποίων οι χορηγοί τους απαντούσαν σε αιρετικές αμφισβητήσεις της εποχής τους. Ωστόσο, παρέμειναν στο στάδιο του πειραματισμού, γιατί εύκολα μπορούσαν να προκαλέσουν δογματικές παρερμηνείες. Οι ανθρωπομορφικές τριαδικές παραστάσεις συνυπήρχαν παράλληλα με τις επικρατούσες συμβολικές (Ετοιμασία του Θρόνου, Φιλοξενία του Αβραάμ) και ιστορικές απεικονίσεις της αγίας Τριάδας (Βάπτιση). Σε κάθε περίπτωση, η βυζαντινή κοινωνία παρέμεινε αρκετά επιφυλακτική στην εικαστική απόπειρα περιγραφής του Απερίγραπτου. Keywords: Byzantine monumental painting, anthropomorphic Holy Trinity, orthodox doctrine, religious controversies.

29

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou 3.1 Introduction and objective1

existence of the immanent Holy Trinity (Theology) and the way Ιt appears to creation through Ιts energy (Divine Economy), without entailing any fission of the Triune God; this distinction does not exist in Western theology.6

Byzantine monumental painting preserves few depictions of the Holy Trinity of the type conventionally referred to as the anthropomorphic; they date from the end of 12th century onward. The preserved anthropomorphic compositions of the Holy Trinity in manuscripts and in one church of the Middle Byzantine period attest to the theological concerns of the Byzantines regarding this topic.2 However, the symbolic representation of the Triune God with the themes of the Hetoimasia (Preparation of Throne) and the Hospitality of Abraham, and the historical representation of the Baptism scene continued to be depicted and remained the dominant choice throughout the Byzantine period.

The unique and Triune God has one essence, one power, and one will.7 The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct hypostases, yet they are entirely unique and truly divine by means of His essence. Each hypostasis bears its own and the whole essence, therefore it is all of God and not a part of Him. Each divine person of the Holy Trinity is distinguished from the other on the basis of their hypostatic attributes; the unbegotteness (τὸ ἀγέννητον) of the Father, the begotteness (τὸ γεννητὸν) of the Son, and the procession (τὸ ἐκπορευτὸν) of the Holy Spirit from the Father. Therefore, God the Father as uncaused cause constitutes the one and only cause (αἰτία) and principle (ἀρχὴ) of the two other hypostases-effects of the Holy Trinity (Monarchy of the Father).8 The Holy Spirit, with regard to its eternal existence, proceeds (ἐκπορεύεται) from the God-Father and rests (ἀναπαύεται) in the Son.9 In the act of Divine Economy, the Holy Spirit proceeds (πέμπεται) from the Father through (διὰ) the Son into the world.10

The preserved monumental examples of the anthropomorphic Holy Trinity require an explanation, an investigation of the framework within which the theme was created. Based on the Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine and through a study of the individual iconographic features of each representation, though not here aiming at an exhaustive presentation, we will trace and highlight the iconographic modes used by the Byzantines for rendering the theme of the Holy Trinity.

Coming now to the investigation of this iconographic theme, we should clarify from the very beginning that, according to the patristic tradition, any attempt to render the Holy Trinity in painting is conventional and refers to the Divine Economy.11 But how can the Holy Trinity be depicted anthropomorphically and in an Orthodox way?

3.2 The eastern Orthodox theological context According to the Church Fathers, the ontological distinction between the uncreated God as the only true Being and the created beings constitutes the basis of all theological discussions.3 The Triune God is Uncreated and the only real Being, who created the world from ‘out of not being’ (ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος) because of His endless love and kindness towards His creation.4 God is infinite and incomprehensible by means of His essence, but at the same time He does communicate with the created world through His energies.5 The Greek Fathers distinguish between the mode of self-

3.3 Τhe dynamic interaction between theology and art: (non-)depicting the God Father In Jesus Christ’s words ‘whoever has seen me, has seen the Father’ (John 14.8-11) lies the key point for interpreting the anthropomorphic depiction of the Holy Trinity, since they define the framework for the depiction not of the Father Himself, but of the Son, as an image (Cf. Colossians 1.15) and imprint of the Invisible God the Father.12 The incarnated Logos of God is the one that reveals the Holy Trinity to the world and, therefore, in Him can be seen God the Father.13 The Byzantine artists certainly avoided

My warm thanks are extended to those who kindly provided me with photographs: Ioannis Sisiou, archaeologist of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Kastoria (Figs. 3.2– 3.3, 3.5–3.6), and Nikoletta Pyrrou, archaeologist of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Rethymno, Crete (Figs. 3.4, 3.7–3.9), who also generously put at my disposal her as yet unpublished article concerning the frescoes of the church of Saint Stephen at Drakona, Crete. I would like also to thank warmly Evangelia Pantou, Director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia, for allowing me to take my own photo (Fig. 3.10) and to Dr. Michalis Kappas, archaeologist of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Messenia, for facilitating access to the church of Taxiarches at Kastania and allowing me to take my own photo (Fig. 3.1), while works of restoration and conservation were continuing inside the church. I am grateful to the anonymous readers for their comments, and to Dr. Nikolaos Xionis and Dr. Marina Kolovopoulou, Assistant Professors of Faculty of Theology (University of Athens), for their valuable suggestions on an earlier draft of this article. Finally, I am especially indebted to Dr. Nikos Melvani, who translated the Greek text into English. 2  Linardou 2004; Michael 2004. For experimental depictions of the Holy Trinity during the early Christian period, see Gioles 1981, 105–106; Michael 2016. 3  Cf. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius III, VI.66 (p. 167). Matsoukas 2007, 21–23, 31–36, 203–206; Louth 2013, 33–40. For the different way of viewing God and creation in Western theology, see Xionis 1999, 16–22, 34–40. 4  Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation of the Word of God, 3.15–19 (p. 270); Athanasius the Great, Against the Heathens, 42.18–24 (p. 190). 5  Basil the Great, Epistle 234, col. 869B: ‘His energies descend to us, but His essence remains inaccessible’. Xionis 1999; Matsoukas 2007, 118–128; Martzelos 2013, 149–157. 1 

John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith ΙΙ, 59 (ΙΙΙ, 15), 85–86 (p. 98); Radovic 1973; Matsoukas 2007, 43–63; Xionis 2018, 48–77, with rich patristic references and previous secondary literature. 7  For the definition of the terms essence (ουσία), nature (φύση), hypostasis (υπόσταση)-person (πρόσωπο), and their different way of understanding in Western theology, see Xionis 1999, 55–87; Martzelos 2013; Xionis 2007, 109–150; Louth 2013, 27–29. 8  Martzelos 1999; Radovic 1973; Xionis 2018, 105, 171. 9  John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Ι, 7 (1,7), 21–24 (p. 158, 160); Gregory Palamas, Oration II, 74.2–4 (p. 146); Martzelos 1999; Xionis 2018, 105, 171. 10  John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Ι, 8 (Ι,8), 204– 206 (p. 178); Gregory Palamas, Oration II, 77.15–18 (p. 148). 11  Cf. Scouteris 1992, 257–271. 12  Athanasius the Great, Oration on Matthew 11.27, col. 217C. 13  Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians II, col. 320AB; Theodore the Studite, Epistle to Plato, col. 504B, who mentions that the veneration of the image of Christ is the worship and glorification of the Holy Trinity. Martzelos 1998; Kornarakis 1998, 267–275. Cf. the revelation of the God during the Baptism of Jesus Christ: Matthew 3: 16–17; Mark 1: 10–11; Luke 3: 21–22; John 1: 32–33. 6 

30

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity a repetition of their portrayal of Christ, identical to His human form, to indicate the Father, since such a choice would impede the viewer from discerning the uniqueness of each person/hypostasis and would lead to a sabellianic type of misinterpretation of the Trinitarian God. Thus, the iconographic type of the Ancient of Days is selected, as it appeared in Old Testament visions.14 This type underlines mainly the eternity of the Logos, homoousios of the Father and of the Holy Spirit,15 and it conventionally refers to the theologically implied person of the Father. The eternal existence of God and the consubstantiality of Father and Son was attempted in a mature way to be rendered also in the art of 7th/8th centuries, as shown in the encaustic icon of Sinai monastery.16 Further, the testimony of posticonoclast miniatures is revealing:17 in the Sacra Parallela of Saint John of Damascus (Par. gr. 923, f. 40r, first half of 9th century),18 and in the Dionysiou lectionary (gr. 587m, f. 3v, third quarter of 11th century), the Ancient of Days is depicted in the place of the God-Father.19

understanding the cross nimbus lies in the words of Lord (John 14.16–26) and functions as a constant reminder to the entrant to the church that the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, revealed to the world the Triune God (cf. John 17). The one and the same mandorla emphasizes precisely the consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιον), equality (ισότητα), and perpetual existence (ἀϊδιότητα) of the persons depicted of the Divinity (Trinitarian doctrine). In this way, the work of Divine Economy is underlined and the Orthodox dogma is expressed artistically as a response to the various heresies of the time: the Son and Word of God, revealed un-incarnate to the prophets of the Old Testament, with time took into His divine substance the human nature, revealing to the world the Triune God and ascended again to the right of God (dyophysite Christological doctrine).20 3.4.1 Representations on a horizontal axis The position for the Incarnate Son to the right of the Father is based on Holy Scripture (Psalms 109.1) and renders artistically a historic fact, i.e. the vision of the first martyr Stephen (Acts 7.55–56).21 With the horizontal arrangement of two figures on the same throne and the depiction of the Holy Spirit in the form of dove between them or in the hand of one of them, the three distinct hypostases are more clearly emphasized. The composition is included in one and the same mandorla emphasizing precisely the consubstantiality (ὁμοούσιον) of the Divinity. Although the anthropomorphic rendering of the vision of Stephen constituted a solid iconographic basis for a horizontal layout, the varying position of the Holy Spirit-Dove in each example attests that there was no single established iconographic model.

These miniatures function as visual commentaries to the text. However, the introduction of the theme in monumental painting in churches from the 12th century onwards calls for a different explanation, one within the framework of the systematic organization of the decoration with specific meanings and symbolisms and with direct reference to the historical events of each time. 3.4 Depicting anthropomorphically the Holy Trinity: interpretative approaches Based on the preserved examples in Byzantine monumental painting, in this section the anthropomorphic compositions of the Holy Trinity are presented and interpreted on the basis of their classification on a horizontal or vertical axis. Common characteristics of these images are the cruciform haloes of all three persons of the Holy Trinity, as well as their inclusion within a common mandorla. The key for

In the east domical vault of the south portico of the church of Aï-Strategos (Taxiarches) in Kastania at Exo Mani (Messenia), 1194, the figure of the Father is taller than the Son (Fig. 3.1), an iconographic feature which should be connected with the dispute regarding Christ’s phrase

14  Lafontaine-Dosogne 1968; Gioles 1990, 74–75; Sisiou 2007, 537–547; Skotti 2010, 453–471. 15  Gioles 1990, 73. 16  The Incarnate Word with the inscription Emmanuel is depicted with iconographic features that refer to the eternity of the Ancient of the Days and to His dominance as Pantocrator: Sotiriou 1956–1958, 10, fig. 8–9 and 1958, 23–25; Galavaris 1990, 93, 137 (Fig. 3.3); Gioles 1990, 76 and note 24, where this composition is juxtaposed to frescoes in churches in Cappadocia, which are part of the same painterly spirit. 17  On the iconoclastic controversy and its impact on the Byzantine painting, see indicatively Grabar 1957; Kornarakis 1998; Brubaker and Haldon 2001; Brubaker 2012; Panayotidi 2013, 98–101. 18  The text of Saint Basil the Great (‘The Father, the beginning of everything…the Son, the perfect image of the invisible God’) is referred in accordance to the depiction of the vision of the first-martyr Stephen (Acts 7:55–56). Gioles 1990, 70–71 notes 5–7, with references to the patristic passage; Sisiou 2007, 541. For the manuscript, see Weitzmann 1979, 190, pl. CIX; Evangelatou 2008, 113–197. 19  The depiction of the Ancient of Days on a vertical axis in the place of the Father with Christ Emmanuel in His arms forms the initial Greek letter ‘theta’ (Θ) [‘Θεὸς’ =God] of the sentence ‘Νο one has ever seen God’ and functioning as a visual rendering of the passage of John 1.18. Pelekanidis et al. 1973, 164 (fig. 191); Walter 1985–1986, 181–190. Cf. the scene of the Prayer of Jesus Christ in the same manuscript (fol. 34v), where the Father is depicted in the type of the Ancient of the Days (Pelekanidis et al. 1973, 173 (fig. 212). For the manuscript, see Weitzmann 1969, 239–253; Masuda 1990.

Figure 3.1. Messenia, Exo Mani, Kastania, church of Taxiarches, south portico: The Holy Trinity, 1194.

20  21 

31

Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians II, col. 320AB. See above, note 16.

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou (John 14, 28): ’the Father is greater than I am’.22 The dispute referred to the equality between Father and Son, which was dealt with in the Councils of 1166 and 1170, was interpreted in accordance to the Trinitarian Orthodox dogma, i.e. the Monarchy of the God-Father.23 The image from Kastania, a few years later, appears to reflect directly this concern. Moreover, the depiction of the Son together with the Holy Spirit-Dove permits one to consider the figure of the Father separately as the one and only cause and principle of the two other hypostases-effects, Son and Holy Spirit, stressing His position as uncaused cause.24 Τhe depiction of the Holy Spirit-Dove in the hand of Christ is selected also as an iconographic solution in order to render the mission of the Holy Spirit through (διὰ) the Son within the world (Divine Economy),25 a fact that historically took place during Pentecost, a scene also illustrated in the corresponding west domical vault of the portico of the church in Kastania.26 An equivalent iconographic parallel is found in the later Munich Serbian psalter, f. 146v (second half of 14th century), which illustrates the first passage of David’s Psalm 109 (110):1, with the difference that the painter depicted the right side of the God-Father as the left one, in accordance with the beholder’s point of view.27 The image of the Holy Trinity in the Kastania church attests to the intention of its creator to take a position in a clear and explanatory manner regarding the concerns of his time, which imply a scholarly environment that may have been formed around the erudite bishop of Methone, Nicholas (d. ca. 1165).28 This prominent bishop participated in the councils that took place in Constantinople under Manuel I Komnenos and left a rich philosophical and theological oeuvre.29 To this scholarly environment should be also attributed the representation of the dead Eucharistic Christ in the church of Panagia Samarina, Messenia (end of 12th century).30

Figure 3.2. Kastoria, church of St George (Omorfoklessia), esonarthex: The representation of the Holy Trinity included in the scene of the Pentecost, c. 1270–1280.

The trinity composition in the church of St George (Omorfokklesia) near Kastoria (c. 1270–1280) has been rendered in an entirely extraordinary and rare way; a three-headed representation of the Holy Trinity in a triple mandorla is preserved as part of a Pentecost scene (Fig. 3.2). The composition is captioned IC XC, whereas all three heads bear a crossed nimbus.31 It is a three-headed figure, which concisely indicates the One God in Trinity, in terms of the consubstantiality and the unity of His three persons into one God, indicated by the one body, as well as in terms of the distinction between the three hypostases, which is expressed with the three heads. The rendering of the Father slightly taller and in the iconographic type of the Ancient of Days, His enthroned position which recalls a Pantokrator in combination with the protruding head of Emmanuel, refer to the combination of the attributes of Christ, known already from the encaustic icon at Sinai Monastery (7th/8th centuries). Although the chronological distance between these two examples is great, it is however indicative of the search for a painterly way to express these deep dogmatic truths.

22  Although Nikolaos Drandakis (see Drandakis 1994, 131–134, figs 1–2) dated the frescoes to the end of 13th century, he was the first who interpreted the image of the Holy Trinity in accordance to the dispute about the equality between God-Father and Son. See also Kappas 2018, 207–224, where older views dating the church in the 13th century (Drandakis 1976; Kappas 2016) are revised, as are those regarding the Latin interpretation of the anthropomorphic composition of the Holy Trinity. According to the newly discovered painted inscription (Kappas 2018, 221–222, fig. 13), the frescoes were completed in 1194, i.e. during the rule of Isaac II Angelos. 23  See generally Sakkos 1968; Babić 1968, 373–374; Gioles 2004, 276. 24  See above, note 7. 25  Based on the distinction between Theology and Economy, I had been developing the above interpretation in my oral presentation as well (Tassoyannopoulou 2014), supporting the Orthodox character of the image instead of the Latin one (filioque). Dr. Michalis Kappas (Kappas 2018, 220–221) mentions, by mistake, that I argued that the Orthodox position was the procession (εκπόρευση) of the Holy Spirit through the Son, whereas I had in fact spoken about the mission (πέμψη) of the Holy Spirit to the world (Economy). 26  For the depictions of the Pentecost and other frescoes of the south portico, see Drandakis 1976, 233–234; Kappas 2018, 200. 27  Strzygowski 1906, pl. XXXVII.85. 28  The topic has been analytically studied as a part of my PhD thesis, under the supervision of Prof. Emerita Sophia Kalopissi-Verti (University of Athens). 29  Angelou 1981, 143–148; Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein 1985, 163; Magdalino 2002, 332–333, 465. 30  The figure of Christ lies directly on the altar cover, which has the shape of a sheet: Grigoriadou-Cabagnols 1970, 178, 182, 196, figs 4–6; Konstantinidi 2008, 77–79, 173, fig. 9, who dates the fresco before the year 1191.

According to Melina Païsidou, the composition expresses the reciprocal circumincession of the trinitarian God, the 31  Païsidou 2001, 373–394; Kissas 2008, 46; Bogevska 2012, 154–157, figs 9–10; Kalopissi-Verti 2012, 48.

32

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity consubstantial and indivisible, but also the differentiation of its three substances, as well as the procession of the Holy Spirit solely from the Father.32 She argues that the choice of this iconographic type constitutes an Orthodox response to Latinophile dogmatic interpretations of the 13th century, mainly after the Unionist Council of Lyons (1274).33 In addition, as Melina Païsidou has pointed out, the layout of the Omorfokklesia image, which was not widely disseminated, was susceptible to several misinterpretations, especially in areas, where the heresy of Bogomilism was already gaining ground.34 According to their teachings, Bogomils consider that the three substances – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – are fused into the God-Father of Good. In fact, they view Him with a human form emitting the Son and the Holy Spirit as rays from both sides of His head, as energies returning to the Father.35

Figure 3.3. Kastoria, church of Saint Nicholas of Tzotza, sanctuary: The Holy Trinity, 1360–1380.

In my opinion, it is very likely that, exactly because this heretical teaching was widespread in the region, the person who conceived the Omorfokklesia image tried to respond to Bogomils, by rejecting the Bogomil image of the radiation and instead suggesting a visual layout clearly and discernibly depicting the three distinct hypostases of the One God. In fact, in combination with the scene of the Pentecost, the integral will and energy of the trinitarian God in the world is clearly stated, since one action of His is performed simultaneously by all three persons of the Holy Trinity.36 In support of the above arguments, we point out that in the later depiction of the three-headed angel in the representation of ‘Wisdom has built her house’ (Proverbs 9,1) in the katholikon of Hilandar monastery (1321/2),37 the three-headed figure is captioned as a trinitarian entity (Η ΤΡΙCΥΠΟCΤΑΤΟC ΜΟΝΑC), in order to underline the concept of the trinitarian God. In any case, the Omorfokklesia image is unique and unusual in the Byzantine monumental painting.

ΠΑΡΑΚΛΗΤΟΝ ΠΝ[ΕΥΜ]Α (The Advocate Spirit), all three of them are also accompanied by the inscription IC XC (Jesus Christ). The trinitarian image is accompanied by the Virgin dressed as a queen to the right of Christ and John the Baptist with the prophet Daniel to the left of the Ancient of Days, thus forming the theme of the so-called ‘Royal Deesis’. The entire composition is captioned as Η ΑΓΙΑ ΤΡΙΑC (the Holy Trinity). As Ioannis Sisiou has argued, the rendering of Christ as a king in Byzantine imperial dress in accordance to his inscription reflects the political aspirations of the Serbian ruler Dušan in the area at the time, mainly after the annexation of Kastoria by the Serbian kingdom, whereby he is promoted as the Orthodox successor monarch of the area.39 He believes that it would have been painted immediately after the crowning of king Dušan in 1346, and he does not exclude the influence of contemporary Palamite teaching, which was particularly popular in the region of Kastoria, in shaping this composition.

A peculiar and meaningful case is the representation at Saint Nicholas of Tzotza (1360–1380) where the Holy Trinity is combined with the Royal Deesis in a unique way (Fig. 3.3).38 The Ancient of Days is depicted seated on a shared throne blessing with His right hand, on which the Holy Spirit is balancing in the form of a dove. At His left the Son in rich imperial garments is blessing with His right hand, whilst in His left he is holding an open gospel, displaying the passage of Matthew 25, 34. Although the three persons are captioned as Ο ΠΑΛΕΟC ΤΩΝ ΗΜΕΡΩΝ (The Ancient of the Days), Ο ΒΑCIΛΕΥC TΩΝ BΑCΙΛΕΒΩΝΤΩΝ (the King of the Kings) and ΤΟΝ

Within this framework, we can moreover add that the placement and the inscription of the Holy Spirit as Advocate is not accidental. The Holy Spirit-dove is painted in the hand of the Father and turns it markedly toward the Incarnate Logos, since He implored the Father to grant ‘another Advocate to be with you forever. This is the Spirit of Truth…’ (John 14, 16-17)’. The Holy Spirit, which proceeds only from the Father rests eternally on the Son and Word of God (Theology) and through Him it is sent to the universe (Economy). In fact, the inscription ‘Advocate’ which accompanies the Holy Spirit constitutes a direct indication of the historically achieved appearance of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the day when the evangelical preaching of the apostles started. The Serbian ruler Dušan seems therefore to have presented himself as the successor king of the kingdom, the ambitious lord of the Balkans, apostle and defender of the Orthodox faith as well.

Païsidou 2001, 386–387. Païsidou 2001, 390–392. 34  Païsidou 2001, 392. 35  Païsidou 2001, 392, with a concise presentation of the trinitarian teaching of Bogomilism. 36  For the distinction between essence and energy according to patristic thought and their different perception in Western theology, see Xionis 2007, 137–150; Martzelos 2013, 149–157. 37  Païsidou 2001, 385, fig. 14; For the dating of the monument and its frescoes, see Marković 1998, 221–242; Toutos and Fousteris 2010, 177–190. 38  Sisiou 2001, 511–536, with earlier bibliography. For the restoration and the conservation of the wall paintings of the church, see Sarigiannidou 2015. 32  33 

A further iconographic peculiarity is the triple inscription IC XC which accompanies the figures of the Holy Trinity. This inscription should be viewed within the same 39 

33

Sisiou 2001, 526, 534.

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou

Figure 3.4. Crete, Selino, Sklavopoula, church of Christ: The Holy Trinity, second half of 14th century.

framework as the depiction of the crossed nimbus, as mentioned above, in order to highlight the decisive role of the incarnate Son in the apparition of the other two hypostases of God. However, the uniqueness of the three hypostases is not cancelled, since the painter at the same time also includes the names of all three persons. This practice is known in the art of Kastoria and can be compared by analogy with the examples of the Omorfokklesia (Fig. 3.2) and Koumbelidike (see below and Fig. 3.5). In the church of Christ at Sklavopoula Selinou (second half of 14th century) in Venetian Crete, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove is represented between the heads of the other two figures, covering the upper part of the gable end of the east wall of the sanctuary (Fig. 3.4).40 This is the known iconographic type, which later prevailed in Post-Byzantine period. The placement of the composition in the area of the sanctuary must be connected with the enactment of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist there, which is performed with the sacrifice of Christ and the intercession of the Holy Spirit and is offered to the Triune God. It is worth noting here that the symbolic representation of the Holy Trinity, i.e. the Hospitality of Abraham, is not omitted, but is found in the west wall of the church, above the entrance.41

Figure 3.5. Kastoria, church of Panagia Koumbelidike, esonarthex, vault: The Holy Trinity, c. 1260–1280.

vertical axis lies hagiographically in the passage of John 1, 18: ‘No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, He who is nearest to the Father’s heart (κόλπος), has Him known’. According to the Fathers, the Greek word ‘kolpos’ is used to render the depth of the invisible and unspeakable divinity, which has no dimension and no end,42 but also for the genuine eternal hypostatic birth of the Son from God.43 This dogmatic truth was treated visually also by the miniaturist of Dionysiou manuscript gr. 587 (third quarter of the 11th century), by depicting in the initial letter theta (Θ) of the word ‘Θεόν’ (God) in the gospel passage John 1, 18 with the combination of the figure of God-Father in an oval-shaped mandorla sitting on an arc and the Son-Emmanuel in His arms. A later epigram in codex 524, fol. 1r., of the Marciana Library (second half of the 13th century)44 describes in a similar way this trinitarian subject, in a manner resembling that of the Koumbelidike.

3.4.2 Representations on a vertical axis Aligning the figures on a vertical axis emphatically states the Monarchy of the Father, since the Father is depicted in significantly larger scale as the cause of the other two hypostases, holding in His arms or in front of His chest the Son and through Him also the Holy Spirit-dove. At the same time, the Orthodox dogma of the emission of the Holy Spirit into the world by the Father through the Son is expressed in Byzantine painting. The shared mandorla around the figures emphasizes in a clear manner the unity and consubstantiality of the three figures, i.e. the single Trinitarian God. The basic idea of representations on a 40  41 

In the church of the Panagia Koumbelidike, the representation of the Holy Trinity is depicted in an oval-shaped mandorla in the vault of the inner narthex of the church Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, II, 29.1–6; Athanasius the Great, Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, col. 453C. 44  Labrou 1911, 6, no 4 (f. 1a): ‘Εἰς Τριάδα ἁγίαν εἰς τὸν πατέρα τῶν ἡμερῶν καθήμενον ἐπὶ θρόνου καὶ φέροντα ἐπὶ κάλυκος τον τε Χριστὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς’. 42  43 

Maderakis 1990, 750–751. Maderakis 1990, 751

34

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity (c. 1260–1280).45 The crossed nimbus of the Father is flanked by the inscription ‘ΙC XC O ΘC ΗΜΩΝ; the names of the persons of the Holy Trinity, (Ο ΠΑΤΗΡ ΥΙΟC / KAI ΠΝΕΥΜΑ ΤΟ ΑΓΙΟΝ), are inscribed below (Fig. 3.5). The whole composition has a particularly striking effect on the entrant, because of its size. It is a succinct visual statement of the Monarchy of the Father, i.e. the emphasis on the Father as the timeless and cause of the other two hypostases. The image has been interpreted in various ways: initially as an expression of the filioque, but later as a visual rendering of the dogma of Circumincession (περιχώρησις). As Chrysanthi Mavropoulou-Tsioumi has stated, referring to all previous opinions expressed, the composition is in no way intended as an emphasis on the procession of the Holy Spirit, but rather constitutes a simple depiction of the Trinitarian God, pointing out that in the Vienna manuscript there is a Greek text directly below the miniature in question, referring to the attributes of the Holy Trinity according to the Orthodox dogma.46 Maderakis, as Stefanou previously, interpreted the Koumbelidike image as a representation of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father through the Son.47 Τhe interpretation of the image as an artistic expression of the ‘doctrine of Circumincession’ cannot be supported, since it contradicts the Orthodox Christian approach, as it does not constitute a dogma for the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, it is an official position of the Roman Catholic Church, established in the Council of Florence (1442).48 In this context, Gerstinger was the first to connect the Kοumbelidike image with the so-called ‘doctrine of Circumincession’. However, the term circumincession was used by the Church Fathers by necessity and in a specific conceptual framework: first, in Christology, in order to describe the union of the two natures of Christ without confusion, without division, and without separation, and then by extension in the Trinitarian doctrine, in order to explain more clearly that the three persons of the one God bear one and the same divine essence.49

Figure 3.6. Pološko, church of Saint George, dome: The Holy Trinity, 1343–1345.

other images, with the depiction of one common mandorla, which surrounds all three figures. The composition, like the other examples following the vertical axis pattern, is based hagiographically on the gospel passage of John 1.18. Of great interest is the iconographic peculiarity of the extended left leg of the Father with the raised foot, which indicates the moment it is about to be set on the ground. This movement of the foot, immediately perceptible by the viewer because of the figure’s large size, expresses the dominance and omnipotence of the Trinitarian God. Indeed, in combination with the inscription IC XC // Ο ΘEOC ΗΜΩΝ (Jesus Christ // Our God) implies the commissioner’s intention to emphasize their Orthodox faith in the Triune God against any heretic beliefs,50 such as for example the heresy of the Bogomils, which had dominated the region of Macedonia and more widely the northern part of the Balkans.

From the iconographic point of view, the depiction of the three persons in a distinctive manner and the oversize figure of the Father in relation to the other two persons of the Holy Trinity, which are depicted much smaller, does not permit reading the composition as a mutual circumincession in terms of their essence, since it does not refer to their equality as consubstantial. In fact, by contrast, this clear difference in the size of the figures is an iconographic rendering of the Monarchy of the Father as the Οne and only cause of the other two hypostases – effects. Without, though, implying that the smaller size of the figures of the Son and the Holy Spirit is indicative of a lower degree of deity comparatively to the Father. The consubstantiality of the figures is symbolized, as in the

In the central medallion of the dome of Saint George at Pološko (1343–1345) is depicted the Holy Trinity with the inscription ΚΥΡΙΟΣ ΣΑΒΑΩΘ (Lord Sabaoth) (Fig. 3.6).51 According to Ioannis Sisiou, the representation reflects the 50  Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium, quaestio ΧΧVIII, col. 361D: ‘Μονὰς γὰρ ἐν Τριάδι, καὶ ἐν μονάδι Τριάς ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν’. Cf. the hymn, based on Isaiah 9.1–6, which is chanted at Great Compline during Lent, see Horologion, 206–207: ‘Μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεὸς, γνῶτε ἔθνη καὶ ἡττᾶσθε. Ὅτι μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεὸς…Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν, αὐτὸν ἀγιάσωμεν, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται ἡμῖν φόβος. Ὅτι μεθ’ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεὸς…’ [God is with us, know it you nations and be submissive. For God is with us…The Lord, our God, Him shall we bless, and only Him do we fear. For God is with us…]. Of great interest is the inscription on the liturgical roll of the Ancient of Days, based on Isaiah 44.6, in the church of Saint Nicholas of Rodias, Arta (beginning or middle of the 13th century). For a color plate, see Papadopoulou 2002, 68, fig. 75. 51  Babić 1978, 163–178; Ristovska 2010, 69–71, figs 38–39; Sisiou 2011, 325–327.

Mavropoulou-Tsioumi 1973, 85–89; Bogevska 2012, 144–146, fig. 1; Kalopissi-Verti 2012, 47–48. For the dedicatory inscription and the patron of the church, see Papamastorakis 2003; Sisiou 2008, 245–262. 46  Mavropoulou-Tsioumi 1973, 85–86, with extensive references to the older interpretation of the subject as a statement of the filioque, based on analogous images in manuscripts. 47  Maderakis 1991, 134–135. 48  Tsigkos 2015, 39. 49  For the use of the term circumincession (perichoresis) in the patristic texts, see Tsigkos 2015, 31–42; Xionis 2018, 222–236. 45 

35

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou

Figure 3.7. Crete, Xylomachairi near the Preveli monastery, church of Saint George, sanctuary: The Holy Trinity, second half of 14th century.

political aspirations of Serbian ruler Dušan in the area and the intense hesychastic influences of Palamas’ teaching, i.e. the two principal factors of the time operating in the broader area of the Archbishopric of Ohrid.52 In the case of the Pološko church, the Holy Trinity itself is depicted with the three persons painted in a clear and direct manner in the dome, a position where the Pantokrator is most commonly depicted.53

source (Acts 7, 55–56) and to innovate with the Trinitarian anthropomorphic image on a vertical axis in the scene of the vision of the first martyr Stephen in order to emphasize the Orthodox character of the composition58 (Fig. 3.8). The Throne of Grace, a theme of western origin, was introduced into the art of the Eastern Mediterranean in regions where the Byzantines co-existed with the Latins for long periods, such as Rhodes and Cyprus.59 In Crete, in a different historical-political environment, where papal propaganda and Latin religious policy further provoked the outbreak of anti-Latin sentiments, especially

The depiction of the Holy Trinity in Venetian Crete is interesting: the dominant iconographic type is the depiction of Christ in front of the chest or in the arms of the Father, who holds Him, whereas the dove between Them is shown emerging from the lips of the Father, emphatically declaring its procession exclusively from Him.54 The variations observed concern mainly the rendering of the figure of Christ: as Emmanuel in Saint George at Xylomachairi near the Preveli monastery (second half of the 14th century) where the composition is inscribed as ΑΓΙΑ ΤΡΙΑC (Fig. 3.7),55 and in Saint Stephen at Drakona (third quarter of 14th century), Kissamos (Fig. 3.8),56 or as Crucified, in the western type of the Holy Trinity, known as the Throne of Grace, in the church of the Panagia at Roustika (1381/2 or 1391), Rethymnon (Fig. 3.9).57 In the Saint Stephen at Drakona, the conceiver of the composition chose to deviate from the text of his Sisiou 2011, 321–347. For the depiction of Christ Pantokrator on the dome, see Gioles 1990, 56; Papamastorakis 2001, 61–79. 54  Maderakis 1991, 145–146. 55  Maderakis 1990, 754; Maderakis 1991, 145–146, where he dates the composition to the second half of the 14th century. 56  Maderakis 1990, 754–759 (middle of 14th century); Pyrrou 2021 57  Maderakis 1990, 713–724; Spatharakis 2001, 184–185, 198–206; Pyrrou 2021. 52  53 

Figure 3.8. Crete, Kissamos at Chania, Drakona, church of St Stephen the Protomartyr, south wall: The vision of saint Stephen the first martyr, third quarter of 14th century. 58  59 

36

Pyrrou 2021. Maderakis 1990, 725–747; Archontopoulos 2010, 189.

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity

Figure 3.9. Crete, Rethymnon, Roustika, church of Panagia: The Holy Trinity accompanied by angels, 1381/2 or 1391.

in the countryside, it is noteworthy that the artist found a way, even in a theme of western origin, to adapt it to his needs, mainly with the emphasis on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. This choice and its interpretation attests to the blending process, within which a painted subject from a specific theological and cultural environment was adopted and interpreted through the prism of Orthodox Christian teaching.

theology and was not imported from Western art, as Viktor Lazarev had noted long ago.60 The ongoing christological and trinitarian discussions of the 13th and 14th centuries, seen against the background of the disputes concerning the Union or not of the two Churches, offered a fertile ground for depicting more representations of the theme in monumental painting. Although each representation on a horizontal or vertical axis preserves its own peculiar characteristics, yet theological and iconographic standards forming a common basis are discernible in all of them. These standards prove to be embedded in the Byzantine tradition, deeply assimilated by the ecclesiastical body and flexibly capable of always preserving its Οrthodox confession. However, they remain unique, with regard to their iconographic layout, reflections of personal initiatives of those who conceived them. Of course, this variety in the rendering of Trinity compositions, even within the same geographic environment (see above the case of Kastoria), attests not only to the personality of their conceivers, but mainly to the absence of a crystallized iconographic type.

3.5 Conclusions Taking into consideration the fact that the symbolic and the historical representations of the Holy Trinity never went out of use and that the equivalent anthropomorphic images are very few, it becomes evident that the theme was not widely adopted in Byzantine monumental painting. Τhe outbreak of the christological disputes from the 11th and especially the 12th centuries triggered the appearance of iconographic themes related to these matters, since doubts about Christ’s two natures alter His truth and by extension the trinitarian doctrine itself. Within this framework, the representation of the anthropomorphic Holy Trinity as a better explanatory way of rendering it also makes its appearance, at a time gradually characterized by the humanization of art. The divinity of Christ, which is often challenged, is highlighted and understood in a more attractive way when the Incarnate Logos is depicted on the same throne, next to or in the arms of the human-like God-Father (in the type of the Ancient of Days), underlining their consubstantiality and their equality. Therefore, all the above-mentioned examples from the Middle Byzantine period certainly constitute valuable testimonies that the subject of anthropomorphism originates in the quests of Byzantine society itself as an expression of the Οrthodox

Being aware that the depiction of the Holy Trinity could cause various misunderstandings, mainly with regard to the person of the Father, one wonders whether and how the subject was painted in churches of Constantinople and in areas under its direct influence. The wall paintings of the Perivleptos monastery in Mystras, as direct reflection of the art of Constantinople at the time, can provide the answer. In the Prothesis of the Perivleptos (1360–1370) 60 

37

Lazarev 1970, 249–262; Sisiou 2007, 54.

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou liberates the three hypostases in space and therefore it is not formed a steady and established image of the Holy Trinity. In this way, not only did the Byzantines of the Metropolitan tradition position themselves in the various theological matters of their time, but above all suggested to the faithful entering the church that they should conceive of the Trinitarian God within the mystery of ecclesiastical life, exactly in the spirit of patristic teaching. The manuscript Par. gr. 1242 might seem to corroborate the above argument; in the miniature, fol. 123v, John VI Kantakouzenos is portrayed twice as emperor and as monk with the name Joasaph (1370–1375). Joasaph holds in his left hand a scroll with the inscription ‘Μέγας ὁ θεὸς τῶν Χριστιανῶν’’ [Great is the Lord of Christians] and shows with his right hand in the upper part of the composition, where the scene of the Hospitality of Abraham is represented.63 The choice of the symbolic representation of the Triune God (Hospitality of Abraham) testifies to the theological concerns and preferences of Byzantine court, avoiding the problematic and misunderstanding anthropomorphic composition of the Holy Trinity.

Figure 3.10. Mystras, Monastery of Panagia Perivleptos, katholikon, Prothesis: The Old of the Days, the Holy Spirit and Christ as High Priest accompanied by angels as deacons (Heaven Liturgy), second half of 14th c.

In Venetian Crete, the essential differences in the Trinity doctrine between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church came to the fore. The inclusion of the anthropomorphic Holy Trinity in the sanctuary, where the sacrament of Holy Communion is celebrated by the Grace of the Holy Spirit, can be considered as a direct response to the Latin Church.64 Indeed, in the Latin areas, the local population, mainly in the countryside, did not hesitate to express its dogmatic beliefs, by even tackling western themes, such as the Throne of Grace.

the dogma of the Holy Trinity is expressed with a different visual concept (Fig. 3.10). In the semi-dome, the Ancient of Days is depicted on a vertical axis between two Cherubim, standing in an oval-shaped mandorla, His feet touching the medallion with the Holy Spirit as a dove, and below, in the semicylinder, is Christ as High Priest officiating among two choirs of angels.61 The composition is accompanied by the angels of the Heavenly Liturgy and a hymn that is chanted instead of the Cherubic hymn during the Great Entrance in the Liturgy of the Great Saturday.62 They avoided an isolated composition in a common mandorla, which surrounds the three hypostases and directs the viewer to the one and only reading of the revealed Holy Trinity as one God, playing a crucial role in the unity of the image. Instead, they have chosen to incorporate the three holy figures into a liturgical subject. This is an essential difference, since the absence of a common mandorla

Among the very few preserved inscriptions, those of the composition in the Panagia Koumbelidike (Jesus Christ Our God, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) are of special interest. The word ΗΜΩΝ makes the image a confession and at the same time a manifesto of the faith, distinct from any other; i.e. it expresses a clear position in the theological disputes, heresies, and schismatic views which were intensified at the time because of the conflict between eastern and western perceptions and traditions. In fact, the inscription Our God summarizes the entire Eastern Orthodox tradition, by functioning in a unifying manner at a time when the Byzantine Empire was already experiencing the fragmentation of its body and a deep division. With the word ΗΜΩΝ the ‘divided’ human of the late Byzantine world is differentiated from anything non-Orthodox, thus invoking the common faith as the main expression of his collective identity, that of the Byzantine citizen in the empire and of the loyal citizen in the Heavenly Kingdom. The monumental representations of the so-called anthropomorphic Holy Trinity were creations of a fluid reality and echoes of the questions of Byzantine society, which was trying to find responses to the heretical

Dufrenne 1970, 14, fig. 62; Papamastorakis 2001, 147–151; Emmanuel 2015, 409–410; Emmanuel 2017, 391. For an analysis of the hymn within the context of the intellectual fluorescence of the Palaiologan period, see Albani 2004, 231, 244, pl. 72b. Ioannis Sisiou argues that this hymn influenced the iconography of the Holy Trinity–Royal Deesis in the church of Saint Nicholas of Tzotza in Kastoria, see Sisiou 2001, 531–532; Spatharakis 1996, 293–310. For the church of Perivleptos, see recently Louvi-kizi 2019, with previous bibliography. 62  Maderakis 1990, 765; Emmanuel 2015, 409–410. 61 

63  64 

38

Spatharakis 1976, 135–136, figs 87–89. Gioles 2004, 273–276; Kalopissi-Verti 2012, 41–56.

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity controversies within itself, and, at the same time, to survive claims and threats from both the East and the West, through procedures of self-consciousness, selfdefense, and the safeguarding of its identity, by opposing anything foreign that attempted to assert itself. Besides, Byzantine society remained very skeptical toward any visual attempts to describe the Indescribable.

Horologion: Ὡρολόγιον τὸ μέγα περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν αὐτῷ Ἀκολουθίαν, ed. Αποστολική Διακονία της Ελλάδος, Athens 72016.

Literature

John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith II: Jean Damascène, La foi orthodoxe 45–100, texte critique de l’édition par B. Kotter (PTS 12), traduction et notes par P. Ledrux, (Sources Chrétiennes 540), Paris 2011.

John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith I: Jean Damascène, La foi orthodoxe 1–44, texte critique de l’édition par B. Kotter (PTS 12), traduction et notes par P. Ledrux, (Sources Chrétiennes 535), Paris 2010.

The Old and New Testament passages are from the critical editions of the Septuaginta and Novum Testamentum Graece respectively, available online on the Scholarly Bible Portal of the German Bible Society: https://www.academicbible.com/en/online-bibles/about-the-online-bibles/. Primary Literature

Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium, quaestio ΧΧVIII: Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium, quaestio ΧΧVIII, Patrologia series graeca 90, cols 360–364.

Athanasius the Great, Oration on Matthew 11.27: Athanasius the Great, Oration on Matthew 11.27, Patrologia series graeca 25, cols 208–220.

Theodore the Studite, Epistle to Plato: Theodore the Studite, Epistle to Plato, Patrologia series graeca 99, cols 500–505.

Athanasius the Great, Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea: Athanasius the Great, Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea, Patrologia series graeca 25, cols 416–476.

Secondary Literature Albani 2004: Αλμπάνη, Τζένη, ‘Ψάλατε συνετώς. Απεικονίσεις ύμνων σε υστεροβυζαντινά τοιχογραφικά σύνολα’, in Ι. Κακούρης, Σ. Χούλια, Τζ. Αλμπάνη (eds.), Θωράκιον. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Παύλου Λαζαρίδη, Athens 2004, 231–244 (with an English summary, p. 245–246).

Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians II: Athanasius the Great, Against the Arians II, Patrologia series graeca 26, cols 145–321. Athanasius the Great, Against the Heathens: Athanase d’Alexandrie, Contre les Paїens, texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes par P. T. Camelot (Sources Chrétiennes 18bis), Paris 31983.

Angelou 1981: Angelou, Athanasios, «Nicholas of Methone: The Life and Works of a Twelfth Century Bishop», in M. Mullett and R. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the Classical Tradition, Birmingham 1981, 143–148.

Athanasius the Great, On the Incarnation of the Word of God: Athanase d’Alexandrie, Sur l’Incarnation du Verbe, introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et index par C. Kannengiesser (Sources Chrétiennes 199), Paris 1973.

Archontopoulos 2010: Αρχοντόπουλος, Α. Θεόδωρος, Ο ναός της Αγίας Αικατερίνης στην πόλη της Ρόδου και η ζωγραφική του ύστερου μεσαίωνα στα Δωδεκάνησα (1309–1453), Rhodes-Athens 2010 (with an English summary, 254–259).

Basil the Great, Epistle 234: Basil the Great, Epistle 234, Patrologia series graeca 32, cols 368–372.

Babić 1978: Babić, Gordana, ‘Quelques observations sur le cycle des Grandes Fêtes de l’église de Polosko (Macédoine), Cahiers Archéologiques 27 (1978), 163–178.

Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses: Grégoire de Nysse, La Vie de Moïse ou Traitè de la Perfection en matière de vertu, introduction, texte critique et traduction par J. Daniélou, (Sources Chrétiennes 1), Paris 31968.

Babić 1968: Babić, Gordana, ‘Les discussions christologiques et le décor des églises byzantines au XII siècle. Les évêques officiant devant l’Hetoimasie et devant l’Amnos’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 2 (1968), 368–386.

Gregory of  Nyssa, Against Eunomius ΙΙΙ: S.G. Hall, Gregory of Nyssa Against Eunomius Book Three (Translation), in Gregory of Nyssa Contra Eunomium III. An English Translation with Commentary and Supporting Studies, Proceedings of the 12th International Colloquium On Gregory Of Nyssa (Leuven, 14-17 September 2010), ed. J. Leemans and M. Cassin, Leiden 2014, 42–234. The translation follows the Greek text of Gregorii Nysseni Opera, Contra Eunomium Liber III (Vulgo III et XII), ed. Wernerus Jaeger, Leiden 1960.

Bogevska 2012: Bogevska, Saška, ‘The Holy Trinity in the Diocese of the Archbishopric of Ohrid in the second half of the 13th century’, Patrimonium 10 (2012), 143–173. Brubaker 2012: Brubaker, Leslie, Inventing Byzantine Iconoclasm, London 2012.

Gregory Palamas, Oration II: Γρηγορίου Παλαμά, Λόγοι Αποδεικτικοί Β΄, in Γρηγορίου Παλαμά Συγγράματα, eds. B. Bobrinsky, Π. Παπαευαγγέλου, J. Meyendorff, Π. Χρήστου, Thessaloniki 32010, 78–153.

Brubaker and Haldon 2001: Brubaker, Leslie and Haldon, John, Byzantium in the Iconoclast era (ca. 680-850): the sources. An annotated survey, Aldershot 2001.

39

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou Grabar 1957: Grabar, André, L’Iconoclasme Byzantin. Dossier Archéologique, Paris 1957.

Drandakis 1994: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘ Ὁ Πατὴρ μείζων μού ἐστιν’ (Ἰωάν. 14, 28)’, in Ροδωνιά. Τιμή στον Μ.Ι. Μανούσακα, Rhethymnon 1994, v. 1, 131–134 (reprinted in Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη Μάνη και Λακωνία, ed. Ch. Constantinidi Athens 2009, vol. 1, 571–576).

Grigoriadou-Cabagnols 1970: Grigoriadou-Cabagnols, Helen, ‘Le décor peint de l’église de Samari en Messénie’, Cahiers Archéologiques 20, 177–196. Kalopissi-Verti 2012: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Aspects of Byzantine Art after the Recapture of Constantinople (126-c.1300): Reflections of Imperial Policy, Reactions, Confrontation with the Latins’, in J.-P. Caillet and F. Joubert (eds.) Orient et Occident mediterraneens au XIIIe siecle. Les programmes picturaux. Paris 41–64.

Drandakis 1976: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Ἔρευναι εἰς τὴν Μεσσηνιακὴν Μάνην’, Πρακτικὰ Ἀρχαιολογικής Ἐταιρείας 1976, 213–252 (reprinted in Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη Μάνη και Λακωνία, ed. Χ. Κωνσταντινίδη Athens 2009, vol. 2, 159–198). Dufrenne 1970: Dufrenne, Suzy, Les programmes iconographiques des églises byzantines de Mistra, (Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques IV), Paris 1970.

Kappas 2018: Kappas, Michalis, ‘Νεότερα για τον ναό του Άϊ-Στράτηγου (Ταξιάρχη) παρά την Καστάνια της Μεσσηνιακής Μάνης’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, series Δ΄- vol. 39, 207–223 (with an English summary, 223–224).

Emmanuel 2015: Εμμανουήλ, Μελίτα, ‘Το εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα του καθολικού της Μονής Περιβλέπτου στον Μυστρά και το ζήτημα του κτήτορα’, in V. Katsaros and A. Tourta (eds.), Αφιέρωμα στον ακαδημαϊκό Παναγιώτη Λ. Βοκοτόπουλο, Athens 2015, 407–415 (with an English summary, p. 416).

Kappas 2016: Kappas, Michalis, ‘Approaching Monemvasia and Mystras from the outside: the view from Kastania’, in Sh. E. J. Gerstel (ed.) Viewing Greece. Cultural and political agency in the medieval and early modern Mediterranean, Turnhout 2016, 147–181.

Emmanuel 2017: Εμμανουήλ, Μελίτα, ‘Η ζωγραφική στον Μυστρά των Καντακουζηνών και των Παλαιολόγων’, in G. Xanthaki-Karamanou (ed.), Byzantium in the Palaeologan Era: Relations between the East and the West and the Origin of Modern Hellenism, (Research Institute of Byzantine Culture, series 11), Athens 2017, 381–407.

Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein 1985: Kazhdan, P. Alexander and Wharton Epstein, Ann, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Berkeley, Los Angeles and London 1985. Kissas 2008: Κίσσας, Σωτήρης, Ομορφοκκλησιά. Οι τοιχογραφίες του ναού του Αγίου Γεωργίου κοντά στην Καστοριά, Belgrade 2008.

Evangelatou 2008: Evangelatou, Maria, ‘Word and Image in the ‘Sacra Parallela’ (Codex Parisinus Graecus 923)’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62 (2008), 113–197.

Konstantinidi 2008: Κωνσταντινίδη, Χαρίκλεια, Ο Μελισμός (Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών/Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 14), Thessalonki 2008.

Galavaris 1990: Galavaris, George, ‘Early Icons from the 6th to the 11th Century’, in Konstantinos A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai. Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Athens 1990, 91–101.

Kornarakis 1998: Κορναράκης, Ι. Κωνσταντίνος, Η θεολογία των ιερών εικόνων κατά τον όσιο Θεόδωρο το Στουδίτη, Katerini 1998.

Gioles 2004: Γκιολές, Νικόλαος, ‘Εικονογραφικά θέματα στη βυζαντινή τέχνη εμπνευσμένα από την αντιπαράθεση και τα σχίσματα των δύο εκκλησιών’, in I. Kakouris, S. Choulia and J. Albani (eds.), Θωράκιον. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Παύλου Λαζαρίδη, Athens 2004, 263–281 (with an English summary 282–284).

Lafontaine-Dosogne 1968: Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline, ‘Théophanies-Visions auxquelles participent les prophètes dans l’art byzantin après la restauration des images’, Synthronon. Art et archéologie de la fin de l’Antiquité et du Moyen Âge. Recueil d’études par André Grabar et un groupe de ses disciples, (Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques), Paris 1968, 135–138.

Gioles 2003: Gioles, Nikolaos, ‘Christologische Streitigkeiten im 12. Jh. und ihr Einfluss auf das ikonographische Programm in dieser Zeit’, in M.Aspras-Varvadakis (ed.), Λαμπηδών. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη της Ντούλας Μουρίκη, Athens 2003, vol. 1, 265–276.

Lazarev 1970: Lazarev, Victor, Russian medieval Painting, Moscow 1970 (in Russian). Linardou 2004: Linardou, Kalliroe, Reading two Byzantine Illustrated Books: The Kokkinobaphos Manuscript (Vaticanus graecus 1162 and Parisinus graecus 1208) and their Illustration, Unpubl. PhD, University of Birmingham.

Gioles 1990: Νικόλαος Γκιολές, Ο βυζαντινός τρούλος και το εικονογραφικό του πρόγραμμα (μέσα 6ου αι.-1204), Athens 1990 (with a German summary 227–241).

Labrou 1911: Λάμπρου, Π. Σπύρος, ‘Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524’, Nέος Ελληνομνήμων 8/1 (1911), 3–59.

Gioles 1981: Γκιολές, Νικόλαος, Η Ανάληψις του Χριστού βάσει των μνημείων της Α΄ χιλιετηρίδος, published Ph.D., Athens 1981.

Louth 2013: Louth, Andrew, Introducing Eastern Orthodox Theology, London 2013.

40

Interpretative approaches on the anthropomorphic depictions of the Holy Trinity Louvi-Kizi 2019: Λούβη-Κίζη, Ασπασία, Η φραγκική πρόκληση στον βυζαντινό Μυστρά: Περίβλεπτος και Παντάνασσα (Πραγματείαι της Ακαδημίας Αθηνών, τ. 74), 2 v., Athens 2019.

Michael 2004: Michael, M. Georgia, The origins of the iconography of God the Father and the Holy Trinity in byzantine illuminated manuscripts 850–1200, Unpublished Master of Philosophy, University of Birmingham, October 2004.

Maderakis 1991: Μαδεράκης, Ν. Σταύρος, ‘Θέματα της εικονογραφικής παράδοσης της Κρήτης’, Θεολογία 62/1 (1991), 104–162, available online: http://www. ecclesia.gr/Greek/press/theologia/material/1991_1_6_ Maderakis2.pdf. [last visit: 10.9.2017]

Païsidou 2001: Παϊσίδου, Μελίνα, ‘Η ανθρωπόμορφη Αγία Τριάδα στον Άγιο Γεώργιο της Ομορφοκκλησιάς Καστοριάς’, Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Σωτήρη Κίσσα, Thessaloniki 2001, 373–392 (with a French summary, 393–394).

Maderakis 1990: Μαδεράκης, Ν. Σταύρος, ‘Θέματα της εικονογραφικής παράδοσης της Κρήτης’, Θεολογία 61/4 (1990), 713–777, available online: http://www.ecclesia. gr/Greek/press/theologia/material/1990_4_13_ Maderakis1.pdf. [last visit: 10.9.2017].

Panayotidi 2013: Panayotidi, Μaria, ‘Iconoclasm’, in Anastasia Drandaki, Demetra Papanikola-Bakirtzi, and Anastasia Tourta (eds.) Heaven and Earth. Art of Byzantium from Greek collections, Athens 2013, 98–101.

Magdalino 2002: Magdalino, Paul, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180, Cambridge 2002.

Papadopoulou 2002: Παπαδοπούλου, Ν. Βαρβάρα, Η Βυζαντινή Άρτα και τα μνημεία της, Athens 2002.

Marković 1998: Marković, Miodrag, ‘The Original Paintings of the Monastery’s Main Church’, in G. Subotić (ed.) Hilandar Monastery, Belgrade 1998, 221–242.

Papamastorakis 2003: Παπαμαστοράκης, Τίτος, ‘Η αφιερωματική επιγραφή του ναού της Παναγίας Σκουταριώτισσας και Ακαταμαχήτου (Κουμπελίδικης) στην Καστοριά’’, in Λαμπηδών. Αφιέρωμα στην μνήμη της Ντούλας Μουρίκη, Athens, v. ΙΙ, 597–608.

Martzelos 2013: Martzelos, D. George, ‘The Significance of the Distinction between Essence and Energies of God according to St. Basil the Great’, in C. Athanasopoulos and C. Schneider (eds.) Divine Essence and Divine Energies. Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy, Cambridge 2013, 149–157.

Papamastorakis 2001: Παπαμαστοράκης, Τίτος, Ο διάκοσμος του τρούλου των ναών της Παλαιολόγειας περιόδου στη βαλκανική χερσόνησο και την Κύπρο (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, αρ. 213), Athens 2001. Pelekanidis et al. 1973: Pelekanidis, M. Stylianos et al. (eds.), The Treasures of Mount Athos. Illuminated manuscripts, vol. 1: The Protaton and the monasteries of Dionysiou, Koutloumousiou, Xeropotamou and Gregoriou, (The Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies), Athens 1973.

Martzelos 1999: Martzelos, D.George, ‘Die Anfänge und die Voraussetzungen des Filioque in der theologischen Überlieferung des Abendlandes’, Orthodoxes Forum 13/1 (1999): 31–45. Martzelos 1998: Martzelos, D.George, ‘Die dogmatischen Grundlagen der Orthodoxen Ikonlehre’, Επιστημονική Επετηρίδα Θεολογικής Σχολής (new series)/Τμήμα Θεολογίας. Τιμητικό αφιέρωμα στον ομότιμο καθηγητή Αντώνιο-Αιμίλιο Ταχιάο 8 (1998), 265–281.

Pyrrou 2021 (forthcoming): Πύρρου, Νικολέττα, ‘Οι τοιχογραφίες του ναού του Αγίου Στεφάνου στη Δρακώνα Κισσάμου και ο σπάνιος βιογραφικός κύκλος του επώνυμου αγίου’, Deltion of Christian Archaeological Society s. 4, vol. 42 (2021), forthcoming.

Masuda 1990: Masuda, Tomoyuki, Η εικονογράφηση του χειρογράφου αριθ. 587μ της Μονής Διονυσίου στο Άγιον Όρος (unpublished Ph.D.), University of Thessaloniki 1990. Available online, URL: http://thesis.ekt.gr/ thesisBookReader/id/1453#page/1/mode/2up [last visit: 10.9.2017].

Radovic 1973: Ράντοβιτς, Αμφιλόχιος, Το μυστήριον της Αγίας Τριάδος κατά τον Άγιον Γρηγόριον Παλαμάν, (Ανάλεκτα Βλατάδων 16), Thessaloniki 1973. Ristovska 2010: Ristovska, Ana, L’église SaintGeorges de Pološko (Macédoine): Recherche sur le monument et ses peintures murales (XIVe siècle), unpublished PhD, École Pratique des Hautes Études, Paris 2010.

Matsoukas 2007: Ματσούκας, Α. Νίκος, Θεολογία, κτισιολογία, εκκλησιολογία κατά τον Μέγαν Αθανάσιον. Σημεία πατερικής και οικουμενικής θεολογίας (Φιλοσοφική και Θεολογική Βιβλιοθήκη 46), Thessaloniki 2007.

Sakkos 1968: Σάκκος, Ν. Στέργιος, ‘Ο πατήρ μου μείζων μου εστίν’ . Έριδες και σύνοδοι κατα τον ΙΒ΄ αιώνα (published Ph.D.), Thessaloniki 1968.

Mavropoulou-Tsioumi 1973: Μαυροπούλου-Τσιούμη, Χρυσάνθη, Οι τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αιώνα στην Κουμπελίδικη της Καστοριάς, Thessaloniki 1973.

Sarigiannidou 2015: Sarigiannidou, Chara, The Church of Hagios Nikolaos tou Tzotza in Kastoria, Ministry of Culture and Sports/Ephorate of Antiquities of Kastoria, Kastoria 2015.

Michael 2016: Michael, M. Georgia, Imaging Divinity: the ’Invisible’ Godhead in Early Christian Art c.300-c.730, unpublished PhD, University of Birmingham 2016.

41

Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou Επιστημονική Συνάντηση προς τιμήν των ομοτίμων καθηγητριών του Εθνικού και Καποδιστριακού Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών κ. Σοφίας Καλοπίση-Βέρτη και Μαρίας Παναγιωτίδη-Κεσίσογλου, 30-31/1- 1/2/2014, Athens 2014.

Scouteris 1992: Scouteris, Constantine, ‘Image, Symbol and Language in Relation to the Holy Trinity. Some Preliminary Remarks’’, St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 36 (1992), 257–271. Sisiou 2011: Σίσιου, Ιωάννης, ‘Ο Άγιος Νικόλαος του Κυρίτση στην Καστοριά και ο Άγιος Γεώργιος στο Pološko’, Symposium Niš I Vizantija IX, Niš 2011, 321–347.

Toutos and Fousteris 2010: Toutos, Nicolaos and Fousteris, George, Corpus de la peinture monumentale du Mont Athos, 10e–17e siècle, (Academie d’ Athènes/Centre de Recherche d’Art Byzantin et Postbyzantin), Athènes 2010 (in Greek).

Sisiou 2008: Σίσιου, Ιωάννης, ‘Το εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα στον τρούλο της Παναγίας Κουμπελίδικης και ο κοιμητηριακός χαρακτήρας του ναού’, Symposium Niš I Vizantija VI, Niš 2008, 245–262.

Tsigkos 2015: Τσίγκος, Βασίλειος Α., Περιχώρησις. Θεολογικό περιεχόμενο του όρου και οι εφαρμογές του κατά τη Δογματική της Ορθοδόξου Εκκλησίας, Thessaloniki 2015.

Sisiou 2007: Σίσιου, Ιωάννης, ‘Ο Παλαιός των Ημερών ως ξεχωριστή εικονογραφική σύλληψη του ζωγράφου Ονουφρίου στην Καστοριά’, Recueil des Travaux de l’ Institut d’ Études Byzantines XLIV (2007), 537–547.

Walter 1985–1986: Walter, Christopher, ‘The Date and Content of the Dionysiou Lectionary’, Deltion of the Christian Archaeological Society, series 4, vol. 13 (1985–1986), 181–190.

Sisiou 2004: Σίσιου, Ιωάννης, ‘Οι καστοριανοί ζωγράφοι που μετακινούνται βόρεια κατά το πρώτο μισό του 14ου αι.’, Symposium Niš I Vizantija ΙI, Niš, 295–309. Available online, URL: http://www.nisandbyzantium. org.rs/doc/zbornik/Pdf-II/Ioanis.pdf [last visit: 10.9.2017].

Weitzmann 1979: Weitzmann, Kurt, The Miniatures of the Sacra Parallela Parisinus Gaecus 923, Princeton 1979. Weitzmann 1969: Weitzmann, Kurt, ‘An Imperial Lectionary in the Monastery of Dionysiou on Mount Athos. Its Origins and its Wanderings’, Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes 7/1 (1969), 239–253 (repr. in Kurt Weitzmann, Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels, Variorum Reprints, London 1980, no XII).

Sisiou 2001: Σίσιου, Ιωάννης, ‘Μία άγνωστη σύνθεση στον Άγιο Νικόλαο Τζώτζα Καστοριάς: Συνένωση δύο σημαντικών θεμάτων, της βασιλικής Δέησης και της Αγίας Τριάδας’, Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Σωτήρη Κίσσα, Thessaloniki 2001, 511–534 (with an English summary, 535–536).

Xionis 2018: Ξιώνης, Νικόλαος, Περὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὅτι καὶ Θεὸς καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν, Athens 2018.

Skotti 2010: Σκώττη, Τερψιχόρη-Πατρίτσια, ‘Η Ὅρασις τοῦ προφήτου Δανιήλ (Δν. ζ΄, 1-14) στη βυζαντινή τέχνη’, Ανταπόδοση. Μελέτες βυζαντινής και μεταβυζαντινής αρχαιολογίας και τέχνης προς τιμήν της καθηγήτριας Ελένης Δεληγιάννη-Δωρή, Αθήνα, 453–469 (with an English summary, 470–471).

Xionis 2007: Ξιώνης, Νικόλαος, Προλεγόμενα θεολογικής ανθρωπολογίας. Προχριστιανική, ετερόδοξη και ορθόδοξη θεώρηση του ανθρώπου ως προσώπου, Athens 2007. Xionis 1999: Ξιώνης, Νικόλαος, Ουσία και ενέργειες του Θεού κατά τον άγιο Γρηγόριο Νύσσης, Athens 1999.

Sotiriou 1956-1958: Sotiriou, George and Maria, Εικόνες της Μονής Σινά/Icônes du Mont Sinaï, vol. 1: plates, Athens 1956, and vol. 2: text, Athens 1958. Spatharakis 2001: Spatharakis, Ioannis, Dated Byzantine Wall Paintings of Crete, Leiden 2001. Spatharakis 1996: Spatharakis, Ioannis, ‘Representations of the Great Entrance in Crete’, in Studies in Byzantine Manuscript Illumination and Iconography, London 1996, 293–335. Spatharakis 1976: Spatharakis, Ioannis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Byzantina Neerlandica 6), Leiden 1976. Strzygowski 1906: Strzygowski, Josef, Die Miniaturen des serbischen Psalters der königl. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München, Wien 1906. Tassoyannopoulou 2014: Τασσογιαννοπούλου, Κυριακή, ‘Ιδεολογία και τέχνη: παραστάσεις ανθρωπόμορφης Αγίας Τριάδας’, ανακοίνωση στην τριημερίδα «Προσλήψεις του Βυζαντίου: παράδοση και τομές».

42

4 The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri on Naxos (First Half of the 13th Century?) Theodora Konstantellou Abstract: This study explores the funerary representation of a woman in the church of Agioi Anargyroi outside the village of Kato Sagri on Naxos. The composition belongs to the first layer of wall paintings and occupies the lunette on the south wall. Ιn the middle of the lunette, there are fragments of a depiction of the Archangel Michael. To the left of the archangel, a woman is depicted standing, and turned towards him. Both the monumental size of the Archangel Michael, and the Dormition of the Virgin of the second layer of painting, bespeak the funerary character of the scene. This paper examines this representation and concludes that it can be dated in the first half of the 13th century. The paper also discusses matters pertinent to the social group to which this unknown woman may have belonged, namely that of the affluent landowners of the island, probably the local archontes. Στη μελέτη εξετάζεται η ταφική παράσταση μιας γυναίκας στον ναό των Αγίων Αναργύρων έξω από τον σημερινό οικισμό Κάτω Σαγκρί στη Νάξο. Η σύνθεση ανήκει στο πρώτο τοιχογραφικό στρώμα της εκκλησίας και καταλαμβάνει το τύμπανο του νότιου τοίχου του κυρίως ναού, σε θέση όπου συνήθως παριστάνονται σκηνές από τον χριστολογικό κύκλο. Είναι σήμερα ορατή στα σημεία όπου έχουν καταπέσει τμήματα από τη σκηνή της Κοίμησης της Παναγίας, που κάλυψε την παράσταση κατά τη δεύτερη φάση τοιχογράφησης (π. 1275–1300). Στο μέσο του τυμπάνου διατηρείται αποσπασματικά η μορφή του αρχαγγέλου ΜΙ[ΧΑΗΛ]. Αριστερά του εικονίζεται η ανώνυμη γυναίκα σε μικρότερη κλίμακα και ελαφρά στραμμένη προς τον αρχάγγελο. Η μνημειακή απεικόνιση του αρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ και κυρίως η κάλυψη της παράστασης από την Κοίμηση της Παναγίας δείχνουν τον νεκρικό προσανατολισμό της σύνθεσης. Η ποιότητα της ζωγραφικής, η περίοπτη θέση της παράστασης και η προσεγμένη ενδυμασία της εικονιζόμενης γυναίκας θα μπορούσαν να θεωρηθούν ως στοιχεία ενδεικτικά της οικονομικής της επιφάνειας και της υψηλής κοινωνικής της θέσης. Στην παρούσα μελέτη εξετάζονται τα διαθέσιμα δεδομένα και προτείνεται μια χρονολόγηση της παράστασης στο πρώτο μισό του 13ου αιώνα. Επιπλέον αναζητούνται μαρτυρίες για την κοινωνική ομάδα στην οποία πιθανότατα ανήκει η ανώνυμη γυναίκα, αυτή των πλούσιων γαιοκτημόνων του νησιού, πιθανότατα των τοπικών αρχόντων. Keywords: Late medieval period, Naxos, burial portrait, female costume, social identity, social status. Death, a shocking and violent event in the course of human life, alongside the anxiety for posthumous salvation fuelled the production of a significant number of texts, objects, inscriptions and images in the Byzantine world.1 Funerary representations in churches or especially designed burial chapels for that purpose – a prerogative mainly of those who could undertake the execution of

Acknowledgements. The study of the depiction of a female donor in a rural church on Naxos, requires the use of methods and knowledge that the two honorees, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou, have brought to light through their research. It was thanks to them that I started being interested in the mural paintings of Naxos. In this small study I hope the results of their expertise, as well as their patience, perseverance and great generosity with their students can all be discerned. My thanks are due to the archaeologists Dr Penelope Mougogianni, Dr Nikos Mastrochristos, Prodromos Papanikolaou and to Professor Vassileios Marinis, all of whom have read the text and provided valuable observations and corrections. My understanding of the costume of the depicted woman would not have been possible without the helpful suggestions of archaeologist Katerina Mylopotamitaki and Professor Maria Parani. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Emeritus Ephor of Antiquities, Dr Charalambos Pennas for granting me permission to study and publish the paintings of Agioi Anargyroi; and also to the anonymous reviewers for their very useful suggestions.

On the subject of death and life hereafter, its iconography and related practices in Byzantium, see indicatively Walter 1976, 113–127; Ivison 1993; Dennis 2001, 1–7; Constas 2006, 124–145; Patterson Ševčenko 2009, 250–272; Cvetković 2011, 27–44; Rapp 2012, 267–286; Betancourt 2015, 177–205; Gerstel 2015, 151–169 and in particular 165–169; Marinis 2016; Weyl Carr 2018, 127–150. 1 

43

Theodora Konstantellou such an initiative – hold a special place in this context.2 In these representations, the deceased individuals would be portrayed with the attributes of their earthly identity, that is, according to the values of their social group, to the resources of their financial standing, and to their marital status. Occasionally other attributes related to their gender and age would also be included.3 This study examines the funerary depiction of an unknown woman recently brought to light in a rural church on Naxos. More specifically, matters of iconography, dressing style and of dating will be considered in this discussion. Approaching such subjects via a funerary depiction will hopefully bring to the fore all relative evidence pertaining to medieval concepts on death, alongside those reflecting the social identity of an anonymous woman and her position within the local insular society.

the south exterior wall of Agioi Anargyroi.12 The addition of this last and the opening made for communication between it and the central church probably destroyed the arcosolium, as well as part of the south wall of the church of Agioi Anargyroi itself. Two layers of wall-paintings are visible in the central church today.13 The representation examined belongs to the first one. From the latter and presumably the same phase of wall paintings have been preserved today a small part of an image, possibly of an archangel, on the south wall of the sanctuary and that of a possible female saint on the lower register of the south wall of the nave. The composition under discussion occupies the lunette of the south wall of the nave and is visible in those places where parts of the Dormition of the Virgin from the second layer have fallen off (Fig. 4.2). In the middle of the wall, a small fragment of the archangel’s face, his halo and part of the white ribbon that fastens his hair may be seen in place (Fig. 4.3). There is also a section of his wing on the right, the staff which he holds diagonally on the left, and a small fragment of his garment adorned with pearls. The titulus MI preserved above and to the left of the figure identifies him as the Archangel Michael (ΜΙ[ΧΑΗΛ]).

4.1 The funerary composition The fresco was discovered in the church of Agioi Anargyroi, the central component in a complex of three churches, situated approximately one km away to the north-east of the village of Kato Sagri4 (Fig.4.1). The church belongs to the single-nave, domed type without narthex, and was probably built in the Middle Byzantine period (second half of the 11th/early 12th centuries)5 or presumably later if we take into account the possible dating of the first fresco layer in the first half of the 13th century.6 In the next phase, at the north-east corner of the church there was added that of Agia Marina, a small single-aisled domed church, with a square plan.7 This addition was made either during the Middle Byzantine period,8 or more plausibly later in the 13th century based on the chronology of other known examples belonging to the same type.9 Though far from certain, it is possible that the church of Agia Marina was built to house a tomb. The deep blind arch of the southern wall hints at such a purpose, i.e., an arcosolium, according to Professor Stavros Mamaloukos.10 A burial may have taken place in a possible arcosolium, for whose existence the lower parts of the pilasters located on the outside of the south wall of the church of Agioi Anargyroi also argue.11 At some other undefined period a new annex, the singleaisle vaulted church of Agios Andreas, was attached to

To the left of the archangel is preserved a fresco fragment depicting a standing laywoman (Figs. 4.2, 4.4). The upper torso survives still in place. The painting from the woman’s face has severely flaked off. Only a part of her eye survives, whose pupil shows how her gaze is directed at the Archangel Michael, as well as her lips and her diminutive chin. There is also a small portion from the brown base layer of the painting (proplasmos) and also shading in a red colour at the face’s contour, especially below the chin.14 The anonymous woman is depicted at a smaller scale than that of the archangel, according to the traditional pictorial formula of humans juxtaposed with holy figures;15 she turns slightly towards the archangel and makes probably a gesture of prayer with her hands. On the basis of the arrangement of the preserved figures, we can justifiably suggest that another image existed to the right of the archangel,16 in the most important position

2  For the typology of the funerary representations and the way in which the figures of the deceased are represented, see principally Velmans 1971, 134–148; Thierry 1992, 582–592; Semoglou 1995, 5–11; Papamastorakis 1996–1997, 285–304; Brooks 2002; Weißbrod 2003; Tsiorou 2014, 105–198, 225–235; Brooks 2014, 317–332. 3  Papamastorakis 1996–1997, 285–304; Brooks 2002; Tsiorou 2014, 232–233. 4  For the building history of the complex and the architecture of the churches, see Mamaloukos 2006, 49–60; Aslanidis 2017, 364. 5  Mamaloukos 2006, 57; Aslanidis 2017, 364; Aslanidis 2018, 318. 6  See pages 49–50 below. 7  Mamaloukos 2006, 51–52, 55–56, 59. 8  Mamaloukos 2006, 57. 9  Aslanidis 2017, 447–448. 10  Mamaloukos believes that the church had a funeral character from the outset; see Mamaloukos 2006, 55. 11  Pennas 2001–2004, 205; Mamaloukos 2006, 55, for the mention of yet another example of an arcosolium in the same position, from the church of Agia Anna in Kato Potamia on Naxos. For the existence of arcosolia on the outside of the south and north walls of the churches, see Brooks 2002, 28–30.

Mamaloukos 2006, 54, 55, 56, 57–58. The wall-paintings are unpublished. For a brief commentary, see Pennas 2005, 960; Konstantellou 2019, 345–346 and passim. 14  In several funerary representations there exists a difference in the stylistic rendering of the faces of the sacred persons and of the deceased, see Papamastorakis 1997, 71, with further literature. The poor state of conservation of both the woman’s and the archangel’s face in this particular case does not allow any further comparison. 15  Despite the developments encountered in the iconography of donors and supplicants in the Late Byzantine period, and in particular their relationship to the depicted holy figure (Velmans 1971, 121–123), this pictorial device will remain in use in the Late Byzantine period as well; see Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 27. The same iconographic type also characterizes the rest of the donor/supplicants portraits in the Naxian churches (Konstantellou 2019, 128). 16  Examples with similar arrangement are known in other areas from the Middle and Late Byzantine period. See e.g. the depiction of Michael Asen II (1246–1256/7) with his mother Irene on either side of the Archangel Michael on the west façade of the church of Taxiarches in Kastoria (mid 13th century), Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 30, 94–95. The same holds true for examples of the Byzantine period in Cappadocia [Karanlɩk 12  13 

44

The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri, Naxos

Figure 4.1. Naxos, the Agioi Anargyroi complex, plan (Mamaloukos 2006, fig. 3).

Figure 4.2. Naxos, Agioi Anargyroi, lunette on the south wall, first layer: funerary composition; second layer: the Dormition.

45

Theodora Konstantellou Despite the fragmentary state of the figures depicted and the absence of any epigraphic evidence, the existing iconographical data are sufficient to allow speculation about the function of the composition and, in particular, of its funerary character. 18 This view is supported by the depiction of the unknown woman with the Archangel Michael, whose capacity as a psychopompos – an assistant to people in the time of their death – and close relation to funerary matters was widely acknowledged in Byzantine society.19 The depiction of the woman in supplicatory gesture is also often encountered in burial portraiture and probably indicates the involvement of the portrayed person in the production of the funerary images while s/ he was still alive.20 In this case, the funerary character of the representation is corroborated by the subsequent placement of the scene of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary over the first. The same holds true for the depictions of the healing Saints Panteleimon and Ermolaos on the east and west side of the intrados in this second layer of painting (c. 1275–1300).21 However, we cannot assess whether that wall was equipped with an arcosolium because it has been destroyed. It would be tempting, nevertheless, to associate this representation with the possible arcosolium unearthed during the excavation on the exterior of the same wall.22 Be that as it may, room for a burial, as noted above, was available in the small church of Agia Marina.23

Figure 4.3. Naxos, Agioi Anargyroi, lunette on the south wall, first layer: funerary composition, the Archangel Michael.

Of particular interest is the location of the composition under consideration in the lunette of the south wall of the nave. It may be suggested here that the choice of this wall was not random, but rather dictated by the possible presence of the exterior arcosolium. However, the prominent placement of this scene, in a place where the development of the Christological cycle would most likely have begun with the Nativity, departs from the standard practice. It is generally acknowledged that the funerary depictions of donors – and their depictions in general – 18  The evaluation of any depiction as funerary requires the examination of the following criteria: the accompanying inscriptions, the direct or indirect connection to a sepulchral configuration, the specific iconographic details of the persons depicted and the character and orientation of the broader pictorial programme in which the scene belongs. See on this, Tsiorou 2014, 105–198, 225–235. 19  The Archangels Michael and Gabriel together with Christ and the Virgin are the most frequently depicted figures in funerary representations, see Brooks 2002, 119–120; Tsiorou 2014, 226, 228, 229. For the role of the Archangel Michael as a psychopomp, see Danielou 1957, 68–82, 95, 105; Meinardus 1978, 166–168. There are certainly cases where the Archangel Michael is the patron saint or the namesake saint of donors, as in the case of Michael Asen II with his mother Irene at the Taxiarches in Kastoria (mid 13th century), see above footnote 16. 20  Brooks 2014, 322, 325. For this type of depiction of the donors, see most recently Frances 2018. In the majority of the donor panels in Naxos the secular figures of the patrons are represented as supplicants to the patron saint (Konstantellou 2019, 128–129). In two cases [Theotokos tou Dimou outside the village of Apeiranthos (1280/1), Agios Georgios at Pano Marathos (1285/6)], the figures are presented upright with hands crossed on their chest, as is regularly encountered in the depictions of deceased individuals. See Acheimastou-Potamianou 2007, 20 and pl. 20c; Konstantellou 2019, 134. For this type of illustration of deceased individuals, see Semoglou 1995, 5–11. 21  For the dating of the last layer of wall-paintings to the last quarter of the 13th century, see Konstantellou 2019, 345–346. 22  See above page 44. 23  See above page 44.

Figure 4.4. Naxos, Agioi Anargyroi, lunette on the south wall, first layer: the unknown female donor.

in the composition that of the woman’s husband, if not of a divine figure.17 kilise (third quarter of the 11th century), Karabaş kilise (1060/61)], see on this, Jolivet-Lévy 2002, 438, 439. For the possibility of portraying an unmarried woman see below page 7. 17  See for example the cases in which Archangel Michael presents the secular individuals to the enthroned Virgin with Child (Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 99, fig. 85; Papamastorakis 1996–1997, 294–295).

46

The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri, Naxos would occupy the lower registers of the fresco decoration. In the same way their tombs were mainly placed in places of secondary importance, such as the western part of the church and in particular the narthex.24 The depiction of the woman in the lunette could be seen as indicative of her elevated social standing and her or her family’s25 desire to secure her a place near the dome – symbol of the celestial sphere – therefore near the image of the Pantocrator.26 Such a choice could possibly be used to express that she herself was already ‘optimistic’ about her possibilities of being admitted to the Heavenly Jerusalem.27

in the same red colour and decorated with horizontal and vertical double stripes. Finally, a noteworthy component is what appears to be a fine chain: a small portion of this is visible in her hair on the right side, but is more clearly distinguishable on the other side, where it looks to fall behind the earring and to continue at the height of the shoulder, following the latter’s profile. This particular type of clothing, which combines dress and mantle, corresponds very closely to standards of dress that were common in Byzantine women’s wardrobe, as the relevant pictorial evidence reveals. The span of these styles ranges from the 11th to the 15th centuries.32 The collar – if indeed it is a collar rather than a simple scarf wrapped around the neck of the donor – corresponds to a type with horizontal folds, already known in the 11th century and used by both genders.33 Although this type seems to have gone out of fashion in the Late Byzantine period,34 depictions of male and female donors or supplicants from Naxos and Paros35 indicate the local continuity of it. The same type of collar in Naxos is also worn by the male donor in the church of Agios Georgios of Diasoritis (12th century?),36 the male donor dressed in costly clothes in the church of Agios Ioannis the Theologian at Avlonitsa (1230–1240?) near the village of Kato Sagri,37 the pair of donors from the church of Agios Georgios at Pano Marathos (1285/6)38 (Fig. 4.5) and finally the female donor in the church of Agios Georgios at Melanes (14th century?).39

4.2 The dress of the female figure The special care taken in the portrayal of the woman is also reflected in her clothes.28 She wears a light red dress and over the latter a maroon mantle, whose hem is marked by a red band in a lighter tone. This is fastened at the top of the chest with a small hoop.29 The folds on the left of the mantle are rendered as a cluster of black brushstrokes. It is difficult to identify with certainty the articles of clothing at her neck and on her head. The neck is covered either by the high collar of her dress with its horizontal folds, or by a band of thin fabric probably attached to the back of her hat. After being wrapped around her neck several times, it was either let to fall down her back or firmly reattached to the head cover.30 The same fabric might have covered her hair too. Two more possibilities arise here regarding her hair: it could have been covered by a fabric cap in red, or that she had had it dyed to the same reddish colour.31 Her earrings are easily distinguished; they are in the form of a simple hoop. The high rectangular hat she wears is also in a relatively good state of preservation: it is perhaps fashioned from some stiff material or from a fabric with inner reinforcement. Interestingly enough the hat is also rendered

The most interesting part is the woman’s presumed head covering. As far as I am aware, no other female donor has ever been portrayed wearing anything close to this either in terms of shape, colour or ornamentation. Overall, wearing a hat seems to have been a popular choice to complement the female attire of a woman of some rank in the 11th and 12th centuries.40 During the 11th century, only one type of hat is known, the one with the trapezoid form.41 In the

Rather rarely do the donors appear in the apse, see Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 27. Regularly the funerary portraits appear in blind arches above arcosolia, see Papamastorakis 1996–1997, 285–304, passim. On the location of funerary monuments and sub-floor burials in Byzantine churches, see Brooks 2002, 18–30; Marinis 2009, 147–166. 25  The funerary scenes were executed posthumously by members of the deceased’s family (Brooks 2002, 153–157). In a number of cases the donors designed their sepulchral monuments when they were still alive, see Papamastorakis 1996–1997, 290, 293, 296, 303; Brooks 2002, 157– 159. Specifically on the role of women in the foundation and decoration of burial monuments, their own or of their family members, see Brooks 2014, 317–332. 26  A special place, specifically on the western wall above the door of the church, is ocupied by the funerary depiction of a dead girl in the church of Agios Georgios of Diasoritis, outside the village of Chalki (third quarter of the 11th century), see Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 82–85. 27  On the fate of the soul after death in Byzantine thought, see Marinis 2016. 28  The clothes illustrate elements of identity, gender and social status for the persons wearing them and the same holds true for the funerary portraits, see Brooks 2002, 71–87; Kalamara 2019, 290–309. 29  This way of securing the mantle seems to have spread from the end of the 10th century; see Parani 2003, 73. 30  It is a custom that appears in the 12th century and continues into later times. Rarely does the scarf constitute an independent article of clothing; see Bitha 2009, 277–278, with examples. 31  The preference for the red and yellow colours was a marker of refined aesthetics, see Bitha 2000, 444.

32  For the layering of garments, a practice known from the 9th century which continued in the later times, see indicatively Bitha 2009, 270; Bitha 2012, 182. 33  Kalamara 1995, 44–46; Kalamara 2004, 276; AcheimastouPotamianou 2016, 30. 34  This particular detail of costume does not appear in the published depictions of supplicants and donors in the churches of Crete, the Peloponnese, Rhodes, the Dodecanese and Kythera. For illustrations, see indicatively Milopotamitaki 1987a, 139–150; Milopotamitaki 1987b 110–118; Bitha 2000, 429–448; Bitha 2002, 44–50; Bitha 2009, 270–296; Bitha 2012, 181–202. For a similar type of collar see Makris 2019, 67. 35  See the supplicant at Protoria of Naoussa in Paros (13th century). See on that Mitsani 1999, fig. on pages 7, 8. 36  Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 30. For a different dating of the scene in the end of the 13th century, see Konstantellou 2019, 128 footnote 770, 332–223. 37  The wall-paintings are unpublished. For the depiction of the donor, see Acheimastou-Potamianou 2007, 20; Mastoropoulos 2006, 122 and fig. 40 on page 80. For the dating in the third or fourth decade of the 13th century, see Konstantellou 2019, 129 footnote 778, 338. 38  See most recently Konstantellou 2019, 127–234. 39  The wall-paintings are unpublished. 40  Emmanuel 1993–1994, 118–119; Parani 2003, 78; Kalamara 2004, 274. Unlike men’s hats, those of women do not exhibit any particular diversity in their shapes, which is probably due, according to Kalamara’s opinion, to the one-dimensional social role assigned to women, see Kalamara 2004, 274. 41  Kalamara 1995, 35–36; Emmanuel 1993–1994, 118–119; Parani 2003, 78; Kalamara 2004, 274.

24 

47

Theodora Konstantellou On Naxos, women wearing hats are depicted in the group of sinners from the scene of the Second Coming in the Church of Agios Georgios of Diasoritis outside Chalki, and in two donor portraits. In the first case (early 12th century?),49 the hats follow the fashion trends of the time, as they are shown with rising upper parts and are adorned with narrow decorative bands, arranged vertically. The hat of the depicted supplicant in Agios Georgios at Pano Marathos (1285/6) has a similar shape, has been rendered in black and brown colour and is adorned with diminutive circular elements (Fig. 4.5).50 The second female supplicant in Agios Georgios at Melanes (14th century?)51 wears a rectangular, low hat, in a light brown colour, adorned with a grid pattern. The red colour of the hat of our lady, although known in male headgear,52 was not detected in any of the above examples. The hitherto presented information could lead us to conclude that the hats, in use by aristocratic women in Middle Byzantine period, remained in vogue for longer in certain areas, and especially in Naxos. It is certainly difficult to ascertain whether the use of hats then was still employed as a sign of a glorious lineage and special status, or whether their use was widespread amongst other social groups. Generally though the wearing of a hat conferred prestige and was an indication of superior social and economic standing.

Figure 4.5. Naxos, Agios Georgios at Pano Marathos (1285/6), unknown female donor.

12th century, another low hat with vertical sides appears, which is relatively similar to the one worn here.42 In the Late Byzantine/ Medieval period, the majority of female donors are represented with their hair completely or partially covered by kerchiefs in various shapes, by veils in varying texture and by wimples in some cases combined with a cap beneath.43 From the 14th century, the noble women, when they do not cover their heads with scarf or veil, wear crowns imitating the contemporary female imperial crowns.44 Although hats of various types are not so frequently represented in female depictions, they appear to have been in vogue mainly in the periphery of the Empire45. From the Aegean area come typical depictions of donors from Kythira,46 Samos47 and Ikaria.48

The representation of the fine ‘chain’ decorating the hair of the donor can be considered as an accessory employed for beauty’s sake, but also meant to advertise her financial well-being. This sort of ‘chains’ hanging vertically, which usually were fastened to the edges of women’s headgear, seem to have been copying the imperial crown’s prependoulia. Their use in the female portraits of the Late Byzantine period is frequent. 53 Finally, of particular interest are the monochrome fabrics, and especially the preference for red ones in various tones, which the female donor sports. The preference for monochrome fabrics seems to have gained ground in the Late Medieval/Late Byzantine period, and especially in areas under Latin domination.54 Several studies have shown that the red colour was employed often to indicate expensive clothes and that it was worn by people of social standing.55 Maria Parani has shown that the red colour was used in the bridal veil,56 while Sarah Brooks in her studies on Late Byzantine funerary portraits has shown that that colour was frequently used in the depictions of deceased

42  This is the white and unadorned, rectangular low hat worn by the wife of the protospatharios Vasileios in the Lectionary Codex 60 of the Monastery of Koutloumousiou (1169, f. IV). See Pelekanidis, Christou, Mavropoulou-Tsioumi and Kadas 1973, fig. 295 on page 240, 451; Emmanuel 1993–1994, 119; Parani 2003, 78. 43  See indicatively Parani 2003, 78; Mylopotamitaki 1987a, 147; Mylopotamitaki 1987b, 117; Bitha 2000, 444; Bitha 2002, 49. 44  Parani 2003, 79–80. 45  To my knowledge there has not been so far any study dedicated to the depiction of women’s hat in the Late Byzantine/ Medieval period. Generally for their use at this time, see Emmanuel 1993–1994, 119; Bitha 2009, 275, 277–279; Katsafados 2020, 25, 27. Low trapezoidal hats or diadems are worn by the three women depicted in the well-known Procession scene of the icon of the Virgin Hodegetria in Constantinople in the Vlacherna Monastery at Arta (shortly after 1284), see Parani 2016, 125. 46  This is the female supplicant from Agios Dimitrios at Kampianika (mid 13th century), see Bitha 2009, 275, 277–279. 47  This is the female supplicant in Agios Georgios of Drakaion (first layer wall-paintings, from the last decades of the 13th century), see Mitsani 1998, 92. 48  It is a female supplicant from the church of Agios Ioannis the Forerunner in Kasoikia on Ikaria (14th century). Mitsani 1995, 723, pl. 222b.

Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 27–28, pls. 103–104. See most recently Konstantellou 2019, 132–133. 51  The wall-paintings are unpublished. 52  Parani 2003, 68; Kalamara 2004, 274; Parani 2016, 120. 53  Parani 2003, 80. For further examples, see Tsigaridas 2016, fig. 271, 272, 319, 396; Karamaouna, Peker and Uyar 2014, 233–234. 54  Whether this preference may be related to economic circumstances or is the result of specific aesthetic choices is not easy to define see Kalamara 2012, 178. 55  Brooks 2002, 75–78. The red colour refers, inter alia, to the concept of power according to the Byzantine historiographic sources; see most recently Panou 2019, 199–208. 56  Parani 2000, 202. 49  50 

48

The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri, Naxos women, again linking the colour to the female wedding costume.57 Conversely, in some depictions this particular colour was used to indicate that the female wearing it had died as an unmarried single woman.58 Nevertheless, it may also be suggested that in this case the red colour was used to highlight her portrait and to attract the attention of the devotees at this high vantage point. In this way, she would have secured the necessary prayers for her posthumous salvation, as well as admiration, at every mass or other service taking place in the church. 4.3 The dating of the composition The fragmentary preservation state of the fresco makes it difficult to date. The dating of the second layer that covered the funerary scene to the last quarter of the 13th century does provide a terminus ante quem for the first layer.59 Little chronological evidence was deduced from the unknown women’s portrait, as the analysis above showed. Her depiction at a smaller scale than that of the archangel is customary for the Middle Byzantine period, but the practice continued well into the Late Byzantine period as well. Most of the details in her attire hark back to the Middle Byzantine period, but the pictorial evidence from the clothes of other female donor or supplicants portraits of the Late Medieval period in Naxos suggests that the tastes did not change drastically. Indeed, the systematic preference that we observed for certain items by both genders, such as the hat and the collar with the horizontal lines, could argue that this was a local fashion trend that probably developed during this time.

Figure 4.6. Naxos, Panagia at Archatos, first layer (mid 13th century?): Saint Irene?

fashioning them was also in use in 13th century wallpaintings.61 The face of the archangel can be compared to that of Saint Irene (?) from the first layer of wall-paintings in the church of Panagia in Archatos (mid 13th century)62 (Fig. 4.6). In both cases the flesh is rendered in warm ochre. A reddish-pink colour is used to highlight a small part of the nose area and the fold over the upper eyelid. The green shading starts from the nose’s interior, outlines the eyelid and highlights the contour of the face in both cases. Dense white brushstrokes indicate the light that falls on the bridge of the nose and under the eye-sockets. In general, we could argue that this skilful way of representing all these various features would result in a painterly and vivid rendering that would have enhanced the sense of plasticity and volume in the flesh, as is the case in the depiction of the female saint from Archatos. It is also interesting to note that in contemporary frescoes we can observe the frequent extension of the line of the canthus of the eye to the face’s contour.63

The shape of the hat should probably guide us to a second half of the 12th century date, since the trapezoid form which prevailed in the 11th century was followed by the appearance of the rectangular hat in the middle of the next century. The rendering of some elements, such as the placing of the hat on top of the delicate fabric that probably covered her hair, is reminiscent of the corresponding pattern of putting the imperial crown over a veil in the depictions of female empresses during the Late Byzantine period.60 Furthermore, the fine chains dangling at the sides of her hair, and the preference for monochrome fabrics could all be considered as an indication for a later rather than an earlier dating. These features should point to a dating between the middle of the 12th and the first half of the 13th centuries.

Based on this analysis, we may date the funerary composition to the 13th century, probably in the first half of it as the scene was covered beneath the Dormition of the Virgin in the last quarter of the same century. A slightly

Likewise, the small part preserved from the depiction of the Archangel Michael limits our ability to analyse the stylistic rendering of the figure. The presence of a line bordering the angel’s face, as well as his large and staring eyes, usually argue for a dating in the 11th century. However, these features, as well as an analogous way of

61  The large staring pupils of eyes are encountered in other mural painting on the island, dating from the 13th to the 14th centuries, see Kostarelli 2013, 213. 62  For the dating of the wall-paintings in the middle of the 13th century, see Panayotidi 1994a, 557; Panayotidi 1994b, 417, 438; Konstantellou 2019, 144. The same depiction has been dated in the end of the 11thearly 12th centuries, mainly on the basis of stylistic comparisons with the form of the archangel from the first layer of wall-paintings from the church of Agios Nikolaos outside Kato Sagri, see on that, AcheimastouPotamianou 1992, 343; Mitsani 2000, 100, and note 53; Drossoyianni 2004, 343. However, the artistic means used in the case of Agia Eirini at Archatos are richer leading to a more vivid coloristic effect. This should probably indicate a later date. 63  Kostarelli 2013, 212–213.

57  Brooks 2002, 75–78; Brooks 2014, 320, 323. She believes that the red colour in the deceased women states marriage to Christ in death. 58  Brooks 2014, 322, 323. 59  For the dating of the last layer in the last quarter of the 13th century, see Konstantellou 2019, 345–346. 60  Parani 2003, 30.

49

Theodora Konstantellou earlier dating cannot be ruled out either. The quality of execution indicates the work of a competent painter working on Naxos at that time.

of donors of a certain economic and social status in the Naxian countryside. Recently, Myrtali AcheaimastouPotamianou attributed the erection of the church and the wall-paintings of the first layer (second half of the 11th century) in the church of Agios Georgios of Diasoritis outside the village of Chalki to the endowment by a wealthy individual, possibly a military official with landed property.64 The richly dressed supplicant in the narthex (of the 12th century?) could be identified as the landowner of the wider area, while another prominent and contemporary figure Ioannis protospotharios, also contributed financially to the narthex’s decoration in order to secure the salvation of his soul.65

4.4 The social identity: a lady in the Naxos countryside? In the first half of the 13th century probably, either a woman when alive – either in her own right or with her husband – or a family member after her death decided to build (?) and decorate the small church of Agioi Anargyroi. A possible arcosolium in the same church or in the auxiliary church of Agia Marina attached to the northeast corner of Agioi Anargyroi may have served as the actual burial place for the unknown woman or for the couple, rather than any cemetery. The funerary scene examined above may have had a central role in the mural decoration of the first layer. These features demonstrate that that church was a private church built on their own property.

The patronage of donors of a certain economic standing is manifested by the good-quality wall-paintings that date in the last decades of the 12th and the first decades of the 13th centuries. These paintings are encountered in the church of Panagia Kaloritissa or Kaloritsa (first quarter of 13th century),66 in the church of Panagia Drosiani (late 12th century or early 13th centuries)67, in the church of Agios Georgios Diasoritis (late 12th to early 13th centuries), in Agios Nikolaos outside Kato Sagri (second layer: 1230– 1250)68 and in the nearby church of Agios Ioannis the Theologian at Avlonitsa (first phase: 1230–1250).69

The anonymous woman has been depicted according to the established social values and current pictorial conventions of the time; as a wife (as it was most probably the case), holding the second most important position in the composition, i.e., to the left of the archangel, dressed in an outfit that covers all her body parts following the norms defined by female morality and rendered in a smaller scale than the saintly figure. However, she probably secured for herself the important place she has in the church for her representation. Likewise, her own choices may lay behind the clothes she is seen wearing that reflect her refined taste and social status. These clothes could be thought to express the local fashion of the social group she belonged to. With such a commission she not only satisfied her personal anxieties regarding her afterlife, but also her need to display posthumously her standing and prestige, at least until the covering up of the funerary scene by that of the Dormition some decades later (c. 1275–1300). Despite the fact that the funerary scene was repainted, one thing is evident here, namely that the second patrons of the church respected her personality as the image chosen to replace hers, the Dormition of the Virgin, was of a relevant subject matter. Besides, the Virgin Mary is the most familiar saintly figure to which medieval women would relate to in their private devotional practices.

The aforementioned wall-paintings confirm that in the first decades after the conquest of the island by the Venetian Marco I Sanudo (c. 1213)70 the artistic production in the countryside maintained a fairly high level of quality. The few fragments that have survived in situ from the aforementioned fresco decorations – mainly because they were covered by later paintings, as in the case of Agioi Anargyroi – do not allow us to study them thoroughly. They do indicate, however, the existence of donors who had the financial resources to entrust the renovation of their churches to painters who were familiar with the new trends in monumental painting. It would be tempting to assume that some of the above donors were the offspring of important Byzantine families, great landowners, or even officials.71 At any rate more information regarding this social group exists for the second half of the 13th century.72 Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 129, 130–131. Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 30–31. 66  This is the now detached figure of a court official from the southern apse of the two-apse chapel, see Panayotidi 1991, 293; Panayotidi 1994a, 554–555; Panayotidi 1994b, 417. 67  The third layer of the second depiction of the Deesis from the eastern apse of the church dates in the end of the 12th century, see AcheimastouPotamianou 1992, 147. 68  Drossoyianni 2004, 343–351. 69  Drossoyianni 2004, 343–351. 70  See Panayotidi 1991, 294–295; Panayotidi 1994a, 554–555; Panayotidi 1994b, 417; Drossoyianni 2004, 343–351; Acheimastou-Potamianou 2007, 14–15. For a comprehensive view, see most recently Konstantellou 2019, 336–341. 71  On patronage at this time, see Mitsani 2004–2006, 395–398, 400, 414–418; Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 28–30, 129–133; Panayotidi, Konstantellou 2018, 257–282 passim. 72  Kostarelli 2013, 265; Konstantellou 2019, passim and in particular 297–304. Recently this material was discussed within the context of the donor’s origins and political views who were active on Naxos in the second half of the 13th and early 14th centuries (Kountoura-Galake 2015, 64  65 

This state of affairs, as well as the ability to choose a competent painter, lead to the conclusion that the anonymous woman was a wealthy individual, enjoying social standing of some prestige and that she had a matching set of sensibilities and ambitions. We should probably assume that the only donors who possessed the above characteristics and who wished to record details of their personal lives in the rural churches at that time would have belonged to significant, landowning families who had acquired their wealth via their landed estates. Although the written sources do not provide any information on the social organization of the island neither in the Byzantine period nor in the early years of Latin rule, archaeological evidence does document the activity 50

The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri, Naxos Literature

On the basis of the above, it is safe to assume that, as in other areas under Latin domination,73 the local archontes or some of them at least74 remained on the island after the establishment of the rule of Sanudo and kept their landed property under circumstances and conditions that are unknown to us. 75 Such would have been the case for the woman and her family in the church of Agioi Anargyroi. Besides, cultural attitudes similar to those of the female donor at Agioi Anargyroi were manifested in Naxos during the Byzantine era by members of the powerful and elite classes. Thus, in the 11th century a certain Anna, probably a relative of one of the officials mentioned in the wellknown inscription at Protothronos in Chalki, was probably buried in the north-west chapel of the episcopal church, according to the sepulchral inscription on the north wall.76 Around the same time, the deceased daughter of a possibly local military official, as noted above, was probably interred in the well-known church of Agios Georgios of Diasoritis outside Chalki.77

Αcheimastou-Potamianou 1992: ΑχειμάστουΠοταμιάνου, Μυρτάλη, ‘Η βυζαντινή τέχνη στο Αιγαίο’, Το Αιγαίο. Επίκεντρο ελληνικού πολιτισμού, Athens 1992, 132–160. Αcheimastou-Potamianou 2007: Αχειμάστου-Ποταμιάνου, Μυρτάλη, ‘Ἡ μνημειακὴ ζωγραφικὴ στὰ νησιὰ τοῦ Αἰγαίου κατὰ τὸν 13ο αἰώνα. Ἡ περίπτωση τῆς Ρόδου καὶ τῆς Νάξου’, Ἡ Βυζαντινή τέχνη μετὰ τὴν τέταρτη Σταυροφορία, Διεθνές Συνέδριο, Ἀκαδημία Ἀθηνῶν 2004, P.L. Vocotopoulos (dir.) Athens 2007, 13–30. Αcheimastou-Potamianou 2016: Αχειμάστου-Ποταμιάνου, Μυρτάλη, Άγιος Γεώργιος Διασορίτης της Νάξου. Οι τοιχογραφίες του 11ου αιώνα, [Δημοσιεύματα Αρχαιολογικού Δελτίου, 106], Athens 2016. Aslanidis 2017: Ασλανίδης, Κλήμης, Βυζαντινή Ναοδομία στη Νάξο. Η μετεξέλιξη από την παλαιοχριστιανική στη μεσοβυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική, [Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών - Βυζαντινά Μνημεία 17], Thessaloniki 2017.

The depiction of this unknown woman in the church of Agioi Anargyroi, together with the other depictions and inscriptions of the donors and supplicants encountered in the churches of Naxos, offer a comparative body of information on various aspects of rural medieval society, on which the written sources are silent.78 The systematic recording, documentation and analysis of this data will showcase a world of individuals each of whom had a different set of social attributes, financial abilities and personal histories; a group of people, experiences and perceptions that will help compose an original and much more comprehensive history of the island’s Late Medieval society.

Aslanidis 2018: Aslanidis, Klimis, ‘The Evolution from Early Christian to Middle Byzantine Architecture on the Island of Naxos’, in Jim Crow, David Hill (eds.), Naxos and the Byzantine Aegean: Insular Responses to Regional Change, [Norwegian Institute at Athens, vol. 7], Athens 2018, 311–337. Betancourt 2015: Betancourt, Roland, ‘Prolepsis and Anticipation: The Apocalyptic Futurity of the Now, East and West’, in Michael A. Ryan (ed.), A Companion to the Premodern Apocalypse, [Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition, 64], Leiden 2015, 177–205. Bitha 2000: Mπίθα, Ιωάννα, ‘Ενδυματολογικές μαρτυρίες στις τοιχογραφίες της μεσαιωνικής Ρόδου (14ος αι. -1523). Μια πρώτη προσέγγιση’, Ρόδος 2400 χρόνια. Η πόλη της Ρόδου από την ίδρυση της μέχρι την κατάληψη από τους Τούρκους (1523). Διεθνές Επίστημονικό Συνέδριο. Πρακτικά, v. Β΄, Athens 2000, 429–448.

141–161; Zarras 2016, 53–78; Kountoura-Galake 2019, 163–185). These views, as well as the evidence from the churches regarding the agency, social status and origins of the donors throughout the 13th century, will be the subject of a separate study. 73  Manuel Mourmouras is a similar example of a Byzantine archon who financed the erection and decoration of the Agia Triada at Kranidi (1244) in the Frankish principality of Morea, see Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 34, 64– 65, with previous literature. 74  It cannot be ruled out, of course, that some of the local archontes preferred to flee, a reaction known from other areas that came under Latin rule. See Maltezou 1993, 140–145; Maltezou 2016, 19; KountouraGalake 2015, 145–146. 75  David Jacoby, considering the general reconciliation policy of the first Duke, Marco Sanudo I, towards the local residents and due to the small numbers of the new settlers, suggested that the local Greeks were included in the new feudal system that was imposed. Little is known about the land-holding system applied to the island during the early period (Jacoby 1971, 284). See in particular Jacoby 1971, 271–293; Slot 1982, 45–50; Koumanoudi 2010, 66–80 and especially 76–80; Maltezou 2016, 8–35. 76  Chatzidakis 1973–1974, 78; Panayotidi, Konstantellou 2018, 271. 77  Acheimastou-Potamianou 2016, 82–85, 131–132. 78  The key publications on this matter are the following: Dimitrokallis 1962, 706–711; Mastoropoulos 1983, 121–128; Mitsani 2004–2006, 391–430; Pennas 2009, 149–185; Zarras 2016, 53–78; KountouraGalake 2019, 163–185. See also Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 86–91, 109 and passim; Acheimastou-Potamianou 2007, 2; Kostarelli 2013, 57–68, 260–266; Gerstel, Kalopissi-Verti 2014, 204, 207–208; Gerstel 2015, 58, 66, 81, 101, 133, 138, 166–167; Konstantellou 2019, passim and in particular 297–304. It should be noted, however, that several dedicatory inscriptions and portraits of donors and supplicants remain unpublished.

Bitha 2002: Mπίθα, Ιωάννα, ‘Ενδυματολογικές συνήθειες στην ιπποτοκρατούμενη Ρόδο (1309–1522)’, Αρχαιολογία 83 (Ιούνιος 2002), 44–50. Bitha 2009: Mπίθα, Ιωάννα, ‘Ενδυματολογικές μαρτυρίες στα βυζαντινά Κύθηρα’, Η΄ Διεθνές Πανιόνιο Συνέδριo Χώρα Κυθήρων, 21–25 Μαΐου 2006, Πρακτικά, v. Ι: Αρχαιολογία – Αρχιτεκτονική – Φυσικό Περιβάλλον, Cythera – Athens 2009, 270–296. Bitha 2012: Mπίθα, Ιωάννα, ‘Η γυναικεία ενδυμασία της περιόδου της Φραγκοκρατίας’, in Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou (ed.), Η γυναίκα στο Βυζάντιο. Λατρεία και τέχνη, Athens 2012, 181–202. Brooks 2002: Brooks, T. Sarah, Commemoration of the Dead: Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration (Mid 13th to mid 15th centuries), Unpublished Ph.D., New York University 2002. 51

Theodora Konstantellou Brooks 2014: Brooks, Sarah T., ‘Women’s Authority in Death: The Patronage of Aristocratic Laywomen in Late Byzantium’, in Lioba Theis, Margaret Mullett, Margaret Grünbart (eds.), Female Founders in Byzantium, [Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Bd.60/61], Vienna 2014, 317–332.

Jolivet-Lévy 2002: Jolivet-Lévy, Catherine, ‘Culte et iconographie de l’archange Michel dans l’Orient byzantin : le témoignage de quelques monuments de Cappadoce’, in Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, Études Cappadociennes, London 2002, 413–446. Kalamara 1995: Kalamara, Paraskévé, Le système vestimentaire à Byzance du IVe jusqu’ à la fin du XIe siècle, Lille 1995.

Chatzidakis 1973–1974: Χατζηδάκης, Μανόλης, ‘Ἐπιτάφια χρονολογημένη ἐπιγραφὴ στὴν Πρωτόθρονη Νάξου’, Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 7 (1973–1974), 78.

Kalamara 2004: Καλαμαρά, Παρή, ‘Νέα στοιχεία στο βυζαντινό βεστιάριο του ενδέκατου αιώνα’, in Christina Angelides (ed.), Το Bυζάντιο ώριμο για αλλαγές. Επιλογές, ευαισθησίες και τρόποι έκφρασης από τον ενδέκατο στον δέκατο πέμπτο αιώνα, [Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Διεθνή Συμπόσια 13], Athens 2004, 269–286.

Constas 2006: Constas, Nicholas, ‘Death and Dying in Byzantium’, Byzantine Christianity, in Derek Krueger (ed.), Minneapolis: Fortress 2006, 124–145. Cvetković 2011: Cvetković, Branislav, ‘The Living (and the) Dead. Imagery of Death in Byzantium and the Balkans’, Ikon. Centar zaikonografske studije 4 (2011), 27–44.

Kalamara 2012: Καλαμαρά, Παρή, ‘Η βυζαντινή γυναικεία ενδυμασία’, in Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou (ed.), Η γυναίκα στο Βυζάντιο. Λατρεία και τέχνη, Athens 2012, 171–180.

Danielou 1957: Danielou, Jean, The Angels and their Mission According to the Fathers if the Church, Baltimore 1957.

Kalamara 2019: Kalamara, Pari, ‘Le vestiaire byzantin comme témoin de l’ identité culturelle des Byzantins ainsi que de la réalité politique de l’ Empire’, in Charikleia Diamanti, Anastasia Vassiliou (eds.), Ἐν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες. Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia KalopissiVerti, Oxford 2019, 290–309.

Dennis 2001: Dennis, George T., ‘Death in Byzantium’, Dumbarton Oaks Paper 55 (2001), 1–7. Dimitrokallis 1962: Δημητροκάλλης, Γεώργιος, ‘Χρονολογημένες βυζαντινὲς ἐπιγραφὲς τοῦ ΙΓ΄και ΙΔ΄ αἰώνα ἀπὸ τὴ Νάξο’, Επιθεώρηση Τέχνης 90 (Ιούνιος 1962), 706–711.

Kalopissi-Verti 1992: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth- Century Churches of Greece, Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1992.

Drossoyianni 2004: Drossoyianni, Phane A., ‘Α ‘palimpsest’ wall and related paintings at Naxos’, Θωράκιον. Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη του Παύλου Λαζαρίδη, Athens 2004, 341–354.

Karamaouna, Peker, Uyar 2014: Karamaouna, Nota, Peker, Nilüfer, Uyar, Tolga B., ‘Female Donors in Thirteenthcentury Wall Paintings in Cappadocia: An Overview’, in Lioba Theis, Margaret Mullett, Margaret Grünbart (eds.), Female Founders in Byzantium, [Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Bd.60/61], Vienna 2014, 231–242.

Εmmanuel 1993–1994: Εmmanuel, Μelita, ‘Hairstyles and Headdresses of Empresses, Princesses, and Ladies of the Aristocracy in Byzantium’, Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 17 (1993– 1994), 113–120. Frances 2018: Frances, Rico, Donor Portraits in Byzantine Art. The Vicissitudes of Contact between Human and Divine, Cambridge 2018.

Katsafados 2020: Katsafados, St. Panayotis, ‘The Eagle from the Apse of the Church of Saint-George in Karinia (1281). Puzzling Heraldry, Defaced Inscriptions, and Odd Iconographic Choices in Inner Mani after the Second Council of Lyon’, Museikon 4 (2020), 9–92.

Gerstel 2015: Gerstel, Sharon, Rural lives and landscapes in late Byzantium: art, archaeology, and ethnography, Cambridge 2015.

Konstantellou 2019: Κωνσταντέλλου, Θεοδώρα, Ένα «εργαστήριο» ζωγραφικής στην ύπαιθρο της Νάξου (τέλη 13ου-αρχές 14ου αιώνα): κοινωνικός χώρος και εικαστική δημιουργία, Unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2019.

Gerstel, Kalopissi-Verti 2014: Gerstel, Sharon, KalopissiVerti, Sophia, ‘Female Church Founders: The Agency of the Village Widow in Late Byzantium’, in Lioba Theis, Margaret Mullett, Margaret Grünbart (eds.), Female Founders in Byzantium, [Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Bd.60/61], Vienna 2014, 195–212.

Kostarelli 2013: Κωσταρέλλη, Αλεξάνδρα, Η μνημειακή ζωγραφική το 14ο αιώνα στη Νάξο: τα ακριβώς χρονολογημένα μνημεία, Unpublished Ph. D., University of Ioannina 2013.

Ivison 1993: Ivison, Eric Addis, Mortuary practice in Byzantium: an archaeological contribution, Unpublished Ph.D., Birmingham University 1993.

Koumanoudi 2010: Κουμανούδη, Mαρίνα, ‘Οι Λατίνοι στο Αιγαίο μετά το 1204: Αλληλεξαρτήσεις και διαπλεκόμενα συμφέροντα’, Άγκυρα 3 (2010), 43–85.

Jacoby 1971: Jacoby, David, La féodalité en Grèce médiévale. Les «Assises de Romanie», sources, application et diffusion, Paris–La Haye 1971. 52

The Funerary Representation of a Lady in the Church of Agioi Anargyroi Outside Kato Sagri, Naxos Kountoura-Galake 2015: Kountoura-Galake, Eleonora, ‘Decoding Byzantine Churches on Naxos in the Early Palaiologan Period: Motivations and Inevitable Necessities’, in Stephanos Efthymiadis et al. (eds.), Pour une poétique de Byzance. Hommage à Vassilis Katsaros, [Dossiers Byzantins, 16], Paris 2015, 141–161.

Milopotamitaki 1987b: Mυλοποταμιτάκη, K. Αικατερίνη, ‘Η βυζαντινή γυναικεία φορεσιά στη βενετοκρατούμενη Κρήτη’, Κρητική Εστία 1 (1987), 110–118. Mitsani 1995: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, ‘Ικαρία, Κοσοίκια, Ναός Αγίου Ιωάννη, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 50 (1995), Χρονικά Β2 , 722–723. Mitsani 1998: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, ‘Βυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες στη Σάμο: Άγιος Γεώργιος Δρακαίων και Παναγία Μακρινή Καλλιθέας’, Η Σάμος από τα βυζαντινά χρόνια μέχρι σήμερα, Πρακτικά Συνεδρίου, Πυθαγόρειο 28–30 Απριλίου 1995, v. Α΄, Athens 1998, 85–142.

Kountoura-Galake 2019: Kountoura-Galake, Eleonora, ‘Women Living on Palaiologan Naxos: the Epigraphic Evidence’, in Eleonora Kountoura-Galake, Ekaterini Mitsiou (eds.), Women and Monasticism in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean: Decoding a Cultural Map, [Section of Byzantine Research, International Symposium 23], Athens 2019, 163–185.

Mitsani 1999: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, Συλλογή βυζαντινῶν καί μεταβυζαντιῶν ἐργων Νάουσας Πάρου, Athens 1999.

Makris 2019: George Markis, ‘Lay Authority and Meaningful Portraiture on Mount Papikion, Thrace’, Gesta 58/1 (Spring 2019), 55–75.

Mitsani 2000: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, ‘Η μνημειακή ζωγραφική στις Κυκλάδες κατά το 13ο αιώνα’, Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 21 (2000), 93–122.

Maltezou 1993: Maltezou, Chryssa, ‘Les Grecs de la mer Égée pendant la période de la latinocratie’, in Pedro Bádenas, José María Egea (eds.), Oriente y Occidente en la Edad Media. Influjos bizantinos en la cultura occidental. Actas de las VIII Jornadas sobre Bizancio, Vitoria-Gasteiz 1993, 137–150.

Mitsani 2004–2006: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, ‘Ἡ χορηγία στὶς Κυκλάδες ἀπὸ τὸν 6ο μέχρι τὸν 14ο αἰῶνα: Ἡ μαρτυρία τῶν ἐπιγραφῶν’, Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Bυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 52 (2004–2006), 391–430.

Maltezou 2016: Μαλτέζου, Χρύσα, ‘Ο Περικλής Γ. Ζερλέντης και ο ‘φεουδαλισμός’ στη Νάξο’, Φλέα 49 (Ιανουάριος-Μάρτιος 2016), 8–22.

Panayotidi 1991: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Les peintures murales de Naxos’, Corsi Ravenatti 38 (1991), 281–303.

Mamaloukos 2006: Μαμαλούκος, Σταύρος, ‘Η αρχιτεκτονική του συγκροτήματος των Αγίων Αναργύρων στο Κάτω Σαγκρί Νάξου’, Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 27 (2006), 49–60.

Panayotidi 1994a: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Η εκκλησία της Γέννησης στο μοναστήρι της Παναγίας Καλορίτισσας στη Νάξο. Φάσεις τοιχογράφησης’, in V. Katsaros (ed.), Αντίφωνον. Αφιέρωμα στον καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη, Thessaloniki 1994, 540–559.

Marinis 2009: Marinis, Vasileios, ‘Tombs and Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople’, Dumbarton Oaks Paper 63 (2009), 147–166.

Panayotidi 1994b: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Τοιχογραφίες της Νάξου’, in I. Κ. Promponas and S. E. Psarras (eds.), Πρακτικά του Α΄ Πανελλήνιου Επιστημονικού Συνεδρίου με θέμα: ‘H Νάξος δια μέσου των αιώνων’, Φιλώτι 3–6 Σεπτεμβρίου 1992, Athens 1994, 415–424.

Marinis 2016: Marinis, Vasileios, Death and the Afterlife in Byzantium. The Fate of the Soul in Theology, Literature, and Art, New York 2016.

Panayotidi, Konstantellou 2018: Panayotidi, Maria, Konstantellou, Theodora, ‘Byzantine Wall Paintings of Protothronos at Chalki, Naxos (10th-11th c. phases). Images, Function and Historical Context’, in Jim Crow, David Hill (eds.), Naxos and the Byzantine Aegean: Insular Responses to Regional Change, [Norwegian Institute at Athens, vol. 7], Athens 2018, 257–282.

Mastoropoulos 1983: Μαστορόπουλος, Γεώργιος, ‘Ἄγνωστες χρονολογημένες βυζαντινές ἐπιγραφές 13ου και 14ου αἰώνα ἀπὸ τὴ Νάξο καὶ τὴ Σίκινο’, Ἀρχαιολογικὰ Ἀνάλεκτα ἐξ Ἀθηνῶν 16/1–2 (1983), 121–132. Mastoropoulos 2006: Μαστορόπουλος, Γεώργιος Σ., Νάξος. Το άλλο κάλλος, Athens 2006.

Panou 2019: Panou, Eirini, ‘Colour in Byzantine Historiography (13th–15th centuries)’, Byzantina Symmeikta 29 (2019), 195–230.

Meinardus 1978: Meinardus, Otto, ‘Der Erzengel Michael als Psychopompos’, Oriens Christianus 62 (1978), 166–168.

Papamastorakis 1996–1997: Παπαμαστοράκης, Τίτος, ‘Επιτύμβιες παραστάσεις κατά τη μέση και ύστερη βυζαντινή περίοδο’, Δελτίον τῆς Xριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας (1996–1997), 285–304.

Milopotamitaki 1987a: Μυλοποταμιτάκη, Κ. Αικατερίνη, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στις τοιχογραφημένες παραστάσεις κτητόρων–αφιερωτών της Κρήτης’, Ειλαπινή. Τόμος τιμητικός για τον καθηγητή Νικόλαο Πλάτωνα, v. Α΄, Irakleion 1987, 139–150.

Papamastorakis 1997: Papamastorakis, Titos, ‘Ioannes ‘redolent of perfume’ and his icon in the Mega Spelaion Monastery’, Zograf  26 (1997), 65–73.

53

Theodora Konstantellou Parani 2000: Parani, Maria, ‘Byzantine Bridal Costume’, Δώρημα. A Tribute to the A. G. Leventis Foundation on the Occasion of Its 20th Anniversary, Nicosia 2000, 185–216.

Τsigaridas 2016: Τσιγαρίδας, Ευθύμιος, Καστοριά. Κέντρο Ζωγραφικής την εποχή των Παλαιολόγων (1360–1450) [Εταιρεία Μακεδονικών Σπουδών], Thessaloniki 2016. Tsiorou 2014: Τσιώρου, Κωνσταντίνα, Νεκρικές επιγραφές και προσωπογραφίες της μεσοβυζαντινής και υστεροβυζαντινής περιόδου (μέσα 9ου-μέσα 15ου αιώνα): η βυζαντινή περιφέρεια, Unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2014.

Parani 2003: Parani, Maria, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious Iconography (11th-15th Centuries) [Τhe Medieval Mediterranean, 41], Leiden – Boston: Brill 2003. Parani 2016: Parani, Maria, ‘The Joy of the Most Holy Mother of God the Hodegetria the One in Constantinople’: Revisiting the Famous Representation at the Blacherna Monastery, Arta’, in Sharon E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing Greece: Cultural and Political Agency in the Medieval and Early Modern Mediterranean, [Studies in the Visual Cultures of the Middle Ages, 11], Turnhout 2016, 113–145.

Velmans 1971: Velmans, Tania, ‘Le portrait dans l’art des Paléologues’, Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues: actes du colloque organisé par l’Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines à Venise en Septembre 1968, Venezia 1971, 93–148. Walter 1976: Walter, Christopher, ‘Death in Byzantine Iconography’, Eastern Churches Review 8 (1976), 113–127.

Patterson Ševčenko 2009: Patterson Ševčenko, Nancy, ‘Images of the Second Coming and the Fate of the Soul in Middle Byzantine Art’, in Robert J. Daly (ed.), Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity, Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, 2009, 250–272.

Weißbrod 2003: Weißbrod, Ursula, ‘Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes...’. Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und ihr Dekor (11. bis 15. Jahrhundert). Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Höhlenkirche Kappadokiens, [Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 5], Wiesbaden 2003.

Pelekanidis, Christou, Mavropoulou-Tsioumi, Kadas 1973: Πελεκανίδης, Στυλιανός Μ., Χρήστου, Παναγιώτης Κ., Μαυροπούλου-Τσιούμη, Χρυσάνθη, Καδάς, Σωτήριος Ν., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Όρου, Σειρά Α΄ Εικονογραφημένα Χειρόγραφα. Παραστάσειςεπίτιτλα-αρχικά γράμματα, v. Α΄, Athens 1973.

Weyl Carr 2018: Weyl Carr, Annemarie, ‘Narrating Time after Death in Byzantine Art’, in Helen Saradi, Aikaterini Dellaportas, Theoni Kollyropoulou (eds.), Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου «Όψεις του Βυζαντινού Χρόνου», 29–30 Μαΐου 2015, Athens 2018, 127–150. Ζarras 2016: Ζarras, Νektarios, ‘Identity and Patronage in Byzantium: Epigraphic Evidence and Donor Portraits of Naxos’, in Christos Stavrakos (ed.), Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art, Wiesbaden 2016, 53–78.

Pennas 2001–2004: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Κάτω Σαγκρί, Ναός Αγίων Αναργύρων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 56–59 (2000–2004), Χρονικά Β1 , 204–205. Pennas 2005: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Κάτω Σαγκρί, Ναός Αγίων Αναργύρων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 60 (2005), Χρονικά Β2 , 960–961. Pennas 2009: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Βυζαντινή παράδοση και τοπική κοινωνία στην έδρα του Δουκάτου της Νάξου. Η μαρτυρία των μνημείων’, in Nikos Moschonas, Lilly Stylianoudi (eds.), Το Δουκάτο του Αιγαίου. Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης ΝάξοςΑθήνα 2007 [Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Σπουδών, Διεθνή Συμπόσια 23], Athens 2009, 149–185. Rapp 2012: Rapp, Claudia, ‘Death at the Byzantine Court: the Emperor and his Family’, in Karl-Heinz Spiess, ImmoWarntjes (eds.), Death at Court, Wiesbaden 2012, 267–286. Semoglou 1995: Semoglou, Athanasios, ‘Contribution à l’ étude du portrait funéraire dans le monde byzantin (14e–16e siècle)’, Zograf  24 (1995), 4–11. Slot 1982: Slot, Βen J, Archipelagus turbatus. Les Cyclades entre colonization et occupation ottoman c. 1500–1718, Leiden 1982. Thierry 1992: Thierry, Nicole, ‘Le portrait funéraire byzantine’, Ευφρόσυνον. Αφιέρωμα στον Μανόλη Χατζηδάκη, v. 2, Athens 1992, 582–592. 54

5 The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art: the Case of an Unknown Depiction in St George at Karynia, Mesa Mani, Peloponnese (1281)* Anna Takoumi Abstract: Based on the Byzantine art and texts, this paper attempts to investigate the framework of the reception of the Maccabees᾿ martyrdom and its assimilation by Byzantine society, by highlighting its historical, theological, and political context. The solid faith of the Maccabee martyrs in the One God, the incomparable defense of their traditions until their death and their unconditional belief in the resurrection of the dead constitute precisely the framework that validates their veneration, through which they emerge as spiritual models par excellence for all humans. In the church of Karynia in Mani, the placement of the Maccabees and the way they are represented express the special veneration they enjoyed in the area, whereas their role in the iconographic program alludes to the message of the Resurrection. From the time of the Latin conquest onward, they were further transformed into models of the defense of the Orthodox faith against the Latins. Στο βόρειο τοίχο του κατάγραφου ναού του Αγίου Γεωργίου Καρύνιας στη Μέσα Μάνη (1281) απεικονίζονται σε δύο ζώνες οι μορφές των αγίων Ελεαζάρου, Σολομωνής και των επτά παιδιών της, γνωστών ως Μακκαβαίων, οι οποίοι μαρτύρησαν στην Αντιόχεια επί Αντιόχου Δ΄ του Επιφανούς (175–164 π.Χ.), υπερασπιζόμενοι την ιουδαϊκή τους πίστη (Β΄ Μακκαβαίων 6:18–7:41, Δ΄ Μακκαβαίων). Στη βάση της ενότητας Παλαιάς και Καινής Διαθήκης (Θεία Οικονομία), το μαρτύριο τους θεωρήθηκε χριστιανικό και εντάχθηκε στο εορτολόγιο της 1ης Αυγούστου. Οι Πατέρες της Εκκλησίας με τις ομιλίες τους, εστιασμένες στο θεολογικό μήνυμα της ακλόνητης πίστης των Μακκαβαίων στο Θεό, έδωσαν το έναυσμα της διάδοσης της τιμής τους σε Ανατολή και Δύση. Οι άγιοι αναφέρονται και σε μια πλειάδα κειμένων ποικίλου περιεχομένου, όπου ανάλογα με τις συνθήκες κάθε εποχής προβάλλονται ως πρότυπα υπεράσπισης της ορθής πίστης. Οι απεικονίσεις τους σε έργα μικροτεχνίας, χειρογράφων και μνημειακής ζωγραφικής συνιστούν μαρτυρίες της πρόσληψής τους στην τέχνη, σύμφωνα με τα χαρακτηριστικά γνωρίσματα κάθε περιόδου. Μεταξύ αυτών, στα χειρόγραφα εντυπωσιάζουν οι ποικίλες απεικονίσεις τους σε ολοσέλιδες μικρογραφίες, στο περιθώριο του κειμένου ή σε πρωτογράμματα. Στο διάκοσμο των ναών, η επιλογή και η θέση των παραστάσεων τους εναρμονίζονται με το εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα και τον κοιμητηριακό χαρακτήρα των εκκλησιών. Στην Λακωνία, η τιμή αυτών των αγίων θα πρέπει να είχε εισαχθεί κατά την περίοδο δράσης του οσίου Νίκωνα, εποχή δραστικών αλλαγών και έντονων ανακατατάξεων. Η καθιέρωση της τιμής τους στη συνείδηση των κατοίκων της περιοχής διαπιστώνεται όχι μόνο από την τέχνη, *  It is a happy occasion for me to publish this article in a volume dedicated to the Professors Emeritae Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria Panayotidi, who have highlighted various aspects of the art of the Mani. I dedicate my paper to them, with gratitude for the guidance and inspiration I received from them. The iconographic program of the church has been studied as a part of my Doctoral thesis. My research led me into the identification of the Maccabees’ figures in Karynia, which was first presented in the Conference of 2014 in honor of Professors Emeritae Sophia KalopissiVerti and Maria Panayotidi. Four years later (2018), the theme of the Maccabean martyrdom was presented in relation with the presence of Jewish community in Byzantine Lacedaemon at the 38th Annual Symposium of Christian Archaeological Society in collaboration with Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou (Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2018). My warm thanks are extended to Evangelia Pantou, Director of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia, for the permission to publish and photograph

(Figs. 5.1–5.3) the church of Karynia, to Dr Marina SolomidouIeronymidou, Director of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus, for the permission to take my own photographs (Figs. 5.5–5.6), and to those who kindly provided me with photographs: Dr. Lorenzo Riccardi (Fig. 5.4); Blago Fund, especially Nenad Kunisevic, member of Board of Directors (Figs. 5.7–5.8); Assistant Professor Hirofumi Sugawara, Kanazawa University, Japan (Fig. 5.9); Professor Miodrag Marković, University of Belgrade, Serbia (Fig. 5.10). A part of my research was carried out in the Library of the Jewish Museum of Greece (Athens) with the kind assistance of Anastasia Loudarou, researcher of the Museum and PhD candidate (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki). Finally, I am especially indebted to Dr. Angeliki Mexia (Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia) and Giorgos Filotheou, (Department of Antiquities, Cyprus) for their multifaceted assistance with churches in Mani and Cyprus respectively, to the anonymous readers for their comments, and to Dr. Nikos Melvani for the translation of the Greek text into English.

55

Anna Takoumi αλλά και από την μανιάτικη προφορική παράδοση, σύμφωνα με την οποία η αγία Σολομωνή θεωρείται ως ‘αγία των ψυχών’. Οι Μακκαβαίοι έγιναν διαχρονικά σημείο αναφοράς στην συνείδηση των πιστών για τη δύναμη της πίστης τους και τη θυσιαστική της υπεράσπιση. Η σθεναρή αντίστασή τους λειτουργούσε ως μέτρο σύγκρισης, κυρίως σε περιόδους κρίσεως, με άξονα την ορθή χριστιανική πίστη, το κύριο δηλαδή συνεκτικό στοιχείο της Βυζαντινής Αυτοκρατορίας. Keywords: Karynia, Peloponnese, Byzantine art, Maccabean martyrdom, resurrection, defense of the Orthodox faith.

5.1 Introduction The church of Saint George in the small settlement of Karynia at the foot of Mount Saggias, Mesa Mani in the Peloponnese, is a small single-nave barrel-vaulted church, typical of the architectural type commonly found in Mani.1 To the south it is abutted by an annex. The monument dates from the year 1281, according to the extant painted inscription above the arched opening of the masonry templon.2 Another long inscription on the north wall includes personal names accompanied by their job titles, as well as scattered mentions of the word ‘field’ (χωράφιον). A full-scale portrait of a couple and another one of a figure of smaller scale are depicted in the north and in the west walls respectively.3 The simple and concise iconographic program of the church has been presented partially in studies by scholars of the Byzantine art of Mani.4 The portraits of saints in the church include nine Old Testament personages, known as Maccabean martyrs, who are arranged in two rows at the west end of the north wall; Solomone, her seven sons, and Eleazar, known in Byzantine tradition as the holy Maccabees (Fig. 5.1). In the upper register, from west to east, the bust of saint Solomone (Η/Α/Γ/ΙΑ // CΩ/ΛΟ/ΜΩ/ ΝΗ) is represented in a panel defined by a thick red band (Fig. 5.2). Next to her, in a separate panel are the busts of the elderly Eleazar ([O ΑΓΙΟς // Ελεάζ]Ạ/Ρ/Ọ[ς]) and of the two older brothers, Avivos and Antoninos ([O ΑΓΙ/] Ο(ς) // [Α]/ΝΤΩΝΙΝΟC). The lower register contains the figures of the remaining five brothers, in full frontal poses, holding the martyrs’ cross (Fig. 5.3). They are Gourias ([O ΑΓΙΟς] // ΓΟΥ/ΡΙ/Α/ς), Eleazar, Eusebonas ([O AΓΙΟς] // Ε[Υ]/CΕ/ΒỌ/Ṇ(ας)), Samonas (Ο/Α/ΓΙ/Ο(ς) // CΑΜ [ONAC]), and Markellos ([O AΓΙΟς] // ΜΑΡ[κελλος]).

Figure 5.1. Greece, Peloponnese, Mesa Mani, Karynia, church of St. George, western part of the north wall: the scene of the Descent into Hell (vault) and the Holy Maccabees in two rows (below).

The names of the saints correspond with those in the Synaxarium of Constantinople.5 The Maccabees’ martyrdom has for years been a fertile domain of research conducted by scholars from various fields. Their unpublished depiction in St George at Karynia gives us an opportunity to investigate in this article the framework of the theme’s reception and assimilation by Byzantine society on a local, as well as

1  For a first presentation of the church with regard to the consolidation and restoration work, see Etzeoglou 1973–1974, 419, 420, fig. 273c; Kounoupiotou-Manolessou and Etzeoglou 1977, 477; Etzeoglou 1983, 466. 2  Kalopissi-Verti 1992, 106. 3  For a proposed reading of all the inscriptions in the Karynia church, see Katsafados 2015, 54–62. 4  Drandakis 1986, 685, 688, 689, 692, 693, 697; Drandakis 1988, 73, 74, 76; Kalopissi-Verti 1994, 470–471; Drandakis 1998, 22; Kalopissi-Verti 1999, 195; Kalopissi-Verti 2005, 104; Panayotidi 2005a, 94; Panayotidi 2005b, 204–205; Panayotidi 2008–2009, 227–228; Diamanti 2012, pls 45b and 46a; Gerstel 2015, 62, fig. 44.

Synaxarium of Constantinople, col. 859. The names of some of the sons are slightly different in Dionysius of Fourna, Painter’s Manual (first half of 18th century), 161. 5 

56

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art were forced into martyrdom because of their refusal to comply with Antiochus’ policy directed against the Jewish faith and customs. Moreover, they openly declared that they were not afraid of death (2 Macc 7:2), because God who had brought them to life, would resurrect them (2 Macc 7:9; 7:11; 7:13; 7:23; 7:29; 7:36). Eleazar, one of the primary Scribes (2 Macc 6:18; 6:24)8, was the first to be martyred, followed by the seven brothers by order of age (2 Macc 7:1–42), from the eldest to the youngest, and lastly, their pious mother, who constantly encouraged them during their martyrdom (2 Macc 7:20–30; 4 Macc 8:3; 16:1; 8:4). This policy of Antiochus IV, which triggered the Jewish rebellion against him, the so-called Maccabean revolt, has been studied within the framework of the Hellenistic cultural environment of the time.9 This was a very important phase of the Second Temple Period (160s ΒC–70 AD), characterized by deep internal transformations and the formation of new beliefs, such as the belief in the resurrection of the body, which in 2 Maccabees is presented for the first time in close conjunction with the martyrdom for the Law, since only those who sacrifice themselves for the Law will be resurrected.10

Figure 5.2. Peloponnese, Mesa Mani, Karynia, church of St. George, detail of fig. 5.1: saint Solomone.

The Christian Church had always considered the sacrifice of the Maccabees as the expression of their faith in Christ and included them in the Christian calendar with their feast day on August 1.11 The brave act of the Maccabees when faced with their imminent martyrdom was based on their faith in the one God, who strengthened them with His grace, as was the case with all ‘just’ (δίκαιοι) people of Old Testament times possessing a clean spirit.12 The Christian character of the Maccabean martyrdom is based precisely on the idea of unbroken unity between the Old and New Testaments, the work of the one and only Triune God (Cf. John 1:1–5; 1:14; Hebrews 1:1–2). The Son and Word of God which was revealed in an incorporeal way, was incarnated with time, as the ultimate fulfillment of the Law and the prophets (Cf.

Figure 5.3. Peloponnese, Mesa Mani, Karynia, church of St. George, detail of fig. 5.1: Gourias, Eleazar, Eusebonas, Samonas, and Markellos.

wider scale, by highlighting its historical, theological, and ideological context. With the texts as our guide, we will trace the polysemantic character of the Maccabees’ martyrdom and its passage from Hebrew to Byzantine literature and art.

AD. From the very rich bibliography, see indicatively Dupont-Sommer 1939; Elliott 2001, 790–792; Nickelsburg 2005, 256–261; Rajak 2016. On various issues of the Book, see DeSilva 2006, xi–xliv, with a critical presentation of older bibliography; Xeravits and Zsengellér 2007. Also, for a combined presentation of themes of 2 and 4 Maccabees with previous bibliography, see Signori 2012, 1–36. 8  In 4 Maccabees 5:4 he is mentioned as a priest. 9  Judas, the son and successor of the leader of the revolt, the priest Mattathias (167–165 BC), attacked the Seleucids with such rigor, that he was characterized as a maccabeus (the term is originated from the Hebrew word maqqebeth), which is meant hammer, see Nickelsburg 2005, 68. Although the martyrs are not related to the Maccabean revolt, they are conventionally known under the same epithet because of the inclusion of their martyrdom into the Books of Maccabees. For the Maccabean revolt, see Bickermann 2007 [1979]; Hengel 1981 [1974]; Tcherikover 1999; Nodet 2005; Collins 2005; Cohen 2006, 29–50; Grabbe 2010; Zarras 2012, 184–94. 10  Momigliano 1975, 86–87; Van Henten 1997; Kaïmakes 2007, 155– 175, especially 169–171; Van Henten and Avemarie 2005, 45–49, 64– 76; Nickelsburg 2005, 106–10; Assmann 2012, 39–59; Palantza 2013, 573–574. For a general investigation into the subject with earlier bibliography and mention of research tendencies today, see Elledge 2017. 11  Synaxarium of Constantinople, cols 859–860; Acta Sanctorum Augusti I, 5–7. 12  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 912A; John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, col. 618: Τίμια γὰρ τὰ σώματα, ἐπειδὴ πληγὰς ἐδέξαντο ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἰδίου Δεσπότου, ἐπειδὴ στίγματα βαστάζουσι διὰ τὸν Χριστόν. Cf. Ignatios of Antioch (the Theophoros), Epistola ad Magnesios, 8.2 (p. 100).

5.2 Τhe context of the Maccabean martyrdom: the textual evidence The elderly Eleazar and the seven brothers with their mother suffered martyrdom in Antioch during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 ΒC). According to the two main sources for their martyrdom, the Old Testament Βooks 2 Maccabees (6:18–7:41)6 and 4 Maccabees,7 they It is one of the four Books with the same title, but an independent work in terms of its content, author, time, place, and purpose. 2 Maccabees, dated in the late 2nd or 1st centuries BC (probably between 104–63 BC), is composed by an anonymous author as a condensation of a five-volume history (now lost), which was written by one Jason of Cyrene. The Book was written in Greek with the exception of two epistles at the beginning of the book (1.1–10a and 1.10b–2.18), which were originally written in Hebrew. Among the rich bibliography, see Zeitlin and Tedesche 1954; Goldstein1983; Doran 2001; Helyer 2002, 158ff.; Schwartz 2008; Zarras 2012, 199–202. 7  It is a philosophical-theological treatise, which on the occasion of the martyrdom deals with ‘the supremacy of the reason over the passions’. It is written probably in the 1st century AD or between late 1st and mid-2nd 6 

57

Anna Takoumi Matthew 5:17; John 1:45). In this context, the salvation of humans is no longer connected with the faith in the Law, but in Jesus Christ, who renewed all humanity with His Passion and Resurrection, introducing it to a new model of life in contrast to the faithful adherence to the Law.13

not to yield to fear.23 The conviction, faith, and bravery of Solomone were, according to the Fathers, unparalleled and superior even to those of Abraham.24 It seems furthermore that the model of saint Solomone occupied an important place in the religious conscience of the Byzantines not only as a consolation for women and mothers,25 but also as an example of absolute faith in God.26 It is very interesting to note here the ecclesiological approach of the topic by the Fathers, who liken mother Solomone to the Church, due to her faith in God and to the sacrifice of her children.27

The martyrdom of saints had been recognized since the early centuries in Christian literature, mainly in cases of imperial persecution.14 Later, however, the validity of the holy Maccabees’ feast was challenged, based on the fact that they were martyred before Christ;15 this prompted the Fathers in the 4th and 5th centuries to highlight with their homilies the value of the Maccabees’ sacrifice, by crucially contributing to the establishment of the Maccabean martyrs’ feast into the Christian calendar16 and to its spread in the East and in the West.17 The solid faith of the Maccabee martyrs in the One God, the incomparable defense of their traditions until their death and their unconditional belief in the resurrection of the dead constitute precisely the framework that validates their veneration, through which they emerge as martyrs of Christ before the realization of His incarnation18 and as models of penitence and fasting, because of their refusal to eat pork and meat sacrificed to idols.19 Thus, they are spiritual models par excellence for all humans;20 Eleazar for priests, because he offered himself as a sacrifice to God,21 the seven brothers for youth, because they chose the spiritual benefits of the afterlife over the material ones,22 and Solomone as the true mother who, in accordance with the model of Christian virtue, inspired her children to be martyred, by encouraging them

The liturgical festival, which had already been consolidated in Constantinople in the 10th century, according to the Synaxarium of Constantinople28 and the Typikon of the Great Church,29 was gradually organized around this axis. The epistle reading (Hebrews 11:33–40) and the gospel reading (Matthew 10:16–22) for the day, as well as the hymns of the feast contain this exact theological message.30 Indeed, on the same day the immersion of the Holy Cross31 was also performed, which, according to the euchologion of Patmos of the early 13th century, took place in memory of the Maccabee martyrs.32 Moreover, the litany of the Holy Cross in Constantinople33 which had been performed 23  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 916C: ‘Οὐ γὰρ πἀσχοντας ἠλέει τοὺς παῖδας, ἀλλ᾽ἠγωνία τὸ μὴ παθεῖν’. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300, VI, col. 1380: ‘nec solum non terrebatur, sed etiam exhortabatur’; John Chrysostome, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, col. 621, γ´: ‘οὐ τὸ τεκεῖν ποιεῖ μητέρα, ἀλλὰ τὸ θρέψαι καλῶς’; John Chrysostome, In sanctos Maccabaeos IΙ, col. 625–626, β´: ’ὅντως μήτηρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν, ὅντως ἐκεῖνοι γνήσιοι παῖδες αὐτῆς, οὐ διὰ τὴν συγγένεια τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὴν κοινωνία τῆς ἀρετῆς’. See also Ziadé 2007, 244–246, where she comments on the characterization of saint Solomone as a true mother. 24  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 916C: ‘ὢ τῆς Ἀβραμιαίου θυσίας ἐκείνης εἰ μή τι τολμητέον, καὶ μεῖζον!’; John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, col. 620; See also Ziadé 2007, 246–253, where the author comments on the perception of saint Solomone as ‘virile’; For an interpretative suggestion on the origin of this model of the saint, see Pavlovskis-Petit 2005. 25  Basil the Great, Epistula VI, 2.10–19. 26  Gregory of Nyssa, In quadracinta martyres, col. 785C; Theodore of Stoudion, Oration on his mother, 6.214–218 (p. 78), praises her ascetic life, toward which she urged her entire family, by promoting her as a worthy successor of saint Solomone and the prophetess Anne. 27  John Chrysostome, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, col. 622; Augustine, Sermon 301, I, col. 1380. Cf. the hymn in Menaion of August, 284: ‘Ἀγάλλου, Σολομόνη, ὁρῶσα τοὺς ἑπτὰ κλάδους συνακμάσαντας τοῦ νόμου τοὺς καρπούς˙ ἐξ ὧν τρυγῶσα ἡ ἄμεμπτος Ἐκκλησία, τοὺς ἐν χάριτι λατρείας τρέφει καθ’ ἡμέραν ὡς μήτηρ ἡμᾶς’; Ambrose of Milan, De Iacob et vita beata II, 12.53: 9–11 (p. 486) and 12.57:6–9 (p. 492). 28  Synaxarium of Constantinople, cols. 859–60, where all martyrs are mentioned by name, unlike 2 and 4 Maccabees, where only Eleazar’s name is mentioned. Patristic and hymnographic texts also mention the name of Solomone. Of special interest is the origin and introduction of the names of the saints in the Synaxarium of Constantinople. On this, see Berger 2012, 109, 114–115. 29  Patmos, Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, Ms 266, 9th–10th centuries (Dmitrievskij 1965, vol. I, 99); Jerusalem, Monastery of the Holy Cross, Ms 40, 10th century (Mateos 1962, 356–357). 30  Cf. the troparion (Mateos 1962, 356–357), the kontakion ‘Maccabees… martyrs before the time of the martyrs’ (Menaion of August, 287) and other hymns (Menaion of August, 287 and 293). See also the canon of Andrew of Crete (Menaion of August, 281). See also the canons in Follieri 1980, vol. I, 470 and Proiou 1980, vol. XII, 1–11. 31  Synaxarium of Constantinople, col. 860: ‘βάπτισις τῶν τιμίων καὶ ἁγίων ξύλων’; Patmos, Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, Ms 266, 9th–10th centuries: ‘βάπτισις τιμίου ξύλου’ (Dmitrievskij 1965, vol. I, 99; Mateos 1962, 356–357). 32  Dmitrievskij 1965, vol. 2, 166. 33  Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, II.8 (pp. 538–541) had mentioned the progression of the Holy Cross in

13  See indicatively Romans 7:4–6; 10:5–13; 2 Corinthians 3:6–18; Galatians 3:11; John of Damascus, Expositio fidei orthodoxae II, 96 (IV, 23), 69–83 (p. 282); Nicholas Chamaetos Kabasilas, De Vita in Christo, I,1,1–5. 14  Deléani 1989, 189–213; Rouwhorst 2005, 81–96; Ziadé 2007, 87–103; Frend 2008; Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2009, 25–27; Van Henten 2010, 359– 377. 15  Cf. Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 912A; Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300, II, col. 1377. 16  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, cols. 911–934; John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, cols. 617–624. John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos II, 623–626; Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300, cols 1376– 1380; Ambrose of Milan, De Iacob et vita beata, ΙΙ, 10.42–12.58; Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 301, cols 1380–1385. For individual subjects of the homilies of saints Ambrose and Augustine of Hippo, see DeSilva 2014, 287–293 and Brown Tkacz 1995, 59–78 respectively. For a general overview of the patristic homilies, see Ziadé 2007; Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2009, 29–63. 17  Vinson 1994, 166–192; Pizzolato and Somenzi 2005; Ziadé 2007; Hahn 2012, 79–104; Berger 2012, 105–109; For the relics and for the basilica of the martyrs in Antioch, see Schatkin 1974, 97–113; Mayer and Allen 2012, 90–94. On the relics of saint Solomone in Constantinople, see Berger 2012, 105–109; Melvani 2017, 139. The relics of saint Solomone are now in the church of St George of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate at Constantinople. 18  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 913C; col. 932A: ‘θεὸς ἦν ὁδηγὸς τῶν τοιοῦτων ἄθλων’; Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300, IV, col. 1379: ‘Ipsum martyres in manifesto confessi sunt, quem tunc Machabaei in occulto confessi sunt’. 19  Athanasios, archbishop of Alexandria, Sermo de Patientia, col. 1304D. 20  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, cols 932D–933A; John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, col. 622; Augustine, Sermo 300, VI, col. 1379: ‘Nemo ergo dubitet, fratres mei, imitati Machabaeos’. 21  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 913C; col. 929Β: ‘νῦν δὲ καὶ τελεώτατον θῦμα προσάγων ἑαυτὸν τῷ Θεῷ’. 22  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 929Β: ‘οὕτω τῆς νεότητος οἱ παῖδες οὐ ταῖς ἡδοναῖς δουλεύσαντες, ἀλλὰ τῶν παθῶν κυριεύσαντες... καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀπαθῆ ζωὴν μεταθέμενοι’.

58

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art on the same day already since the 10th century, would have bestowed a particular brilliance on the religious celebrations of the day, emphasizing in a special way its theological content. All the hymnography of August 1st, with the harmonious alternation among stichera, kontakia, and apolytikia of the Maccabees and of the Holy Cross, appears to reflect exactly the passage of the Homily of Gregory of Nazianzos: ‘[we must] praise them because they died according to the Cross [of Christ]’.34

interesting aspects of the private use of relics in the 11th century, we should however remark here that Mytilenaios, in search of a characteristic high standard for comparison, draws from the case of the Maccabees, by likening their true faith, albeit sarcastically, to the supposed ‘great’ faith of this man. Yet, this choice actually attests to the establishment of the veneration of the saints and the recognition of the importance of their martyrdom, on a theological level, in the conscience of Byzantines during the time of Christopher, i.e. in the 11th century.

The martyrdom of the Maccabees is mentioned in other Byzantine texts of varied subject matter. What I am suggesting here is a preliminary classification of Byzantine texts in relation to their context: a. historiographic,35 b. philological,36 c. Psalm hermeneutics,37 d. theological,38 e. theological-philosophical,39 f. politico-theological regarding the heavenly and earthly kingdom and peace,40 g. defenses of the Christian faith and of the orthodox dogma,41 and h. polemical texts against the Latins.42

5.3 The visual evidence The earliest known depiction of the holy Maccabees is encountered in the ivory reliquary from Brescia (last quarter of the 4th century); on the short right side, in the upper register, the middle scene represents seven figures in flames.44 Their presence among scenes of the Giving of the Mosaic Law to Moses and of the miracles of Christ explains and confirms the unbroken unity between the Old and New Testament.45 In fact, the entire ivory decoration of the reliquary with the harmonious arrangement of its scenes, i.e. the confrontation of the Law with the life in Christ visually renders in a concise way the unity of the two Testaments as a vessel of the one and unified revelation of God to the world. This ecclesiastical view is promoted and passionately endorsed during these first Christian centuries as the fulfillment of the messianic expectation of the Old Testament world.

Of special interest is a reference to the Maccabee martyrs in a poem of Christopher Mytilene (c. 1000–c. 1050).43 The author, in order to satirize the exaggerations of an obsessed collector of relics of saints, juxtaposes his ‘great’ faith with that of the Maccabees. Apart from the Constantinople after it was taken out of the imperial treasury. See also the Canonarion of festivals (Κανονάριον) of the Sinai monastery, 9th–10th centuries, where the veneration of the Holy Cross took place on the 31st of July, the eve of August 1 (Dmitrievskij 1965, vol. I, 220). For a short comment on the feast, see Cotsonis 1994, 26–27. 34  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 913Β: ‘ὅτι κατὰ τὸν σταυρὸν, ἐπαινετέοι, καὶ τῆς ἐκ τῶν λόγων τιμῆς ἄξιοι’. 35  John Malalas, Chronographia, VIII, 263–264 (p. 206, 15–22). 36  In response to a question from a monk named Gregory regarding the position of the word ‘δὲ’ in the beginning of the Homily of Gregory of Nazianzos, John Mauropous sent him a letter explaining that ‘δὲ’ is a linking word: John Mauropous, Epistula 116, 10–17 (p. 59); Karpozilos 1982, 127. 37  Eusebios of Caesarea, Commentaria in Psalmos, col. 948; Michael Psellos, Poemata, 750. 38  Origen (Commentary on John, 1, 18, 103) was based on the confession of the Maccabees for the argumentation regarding the creation of man by God from non-being. For this matter, see Palantza 2013, 572; Michael Psellos, In locum Matthaei (10.16), 147–154 (p. 90). 39  Contemplating the death of man as an inevitable fact and the different life span assigned by God to each human, Michael Glykas (Quaestiones in sacram scripturam, 37.3, p. 442) alludes to the confession of the Maccabees for overcoming their fear ahead of death, since all people will die when their time comes. 40  Interpreting a passage from the Psalms, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (Interpretatio in Psalmos, col. 1433C) remarks that the Old Testament Books of Kings and Maccabees teach us that human governance (τοπαρχίες) was not able to secure peace. 41  In the Life of Michael the Synkellos 24.27–31 (p. 96) the defenders of the icons and the correct faith are compared with the Three Youths and with the Maccabees; Theodore of Stoudion, Epistola XXI, col. 1185A. See also the funerary oration of Nicholas Mesarites to his brother John, whom he praises for the struggle to preserve the correct Orthodox faith: Epitaphios 52.32–34 (p. 67–68); Constantine Acropolites (Sermo in s. martyrem Theodosiam, 235–238, p. 129), praises the sacrifice of the saint for the icons and the defense of the correct faith, by comparing her with the Maccabees. 42  In addressing the father of a young man who perished in the siege of the Acrocorinth, Michael Choniates (Epistula 101, p. 151) compares the young man with the Maccabees and the Latins with Antiochus. About two centuries later, during the time of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), Markos Eugenikos, Epistula 13, 167–168), metropolitan of Ephesus, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople mentions that the Orthodox Christians should not be inferior to the Maccabees in terms of their confession of faith. 43  Christofer of Mytilene, Poem 114, 37–39 (p. 244). For the translation of the medieval Greek poem into moderm Greek, see Moniou 2017, 291.

In the monumental painting, the earliest known representation of the saints is found in the southwest pilaster of the presbytery of Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome (first half of 7th century).46 It is a uniform composition, the work of a competent artist from the East, who rendered the full figures of the seven brothers and their spiritual father Eleazar around saint Solomone, against a neutral background; Saints Solomone and Eleazar are the only personages with captions in the entire scene (Fig. 5.4). The free body postures and the arrangement of the youths in space are linked with the painterly spirit of late antiquity. However, the figure of saint Solomone, the only haloed one, is highlighted by occupying the central axis, since she is depicted strictly frontal, a tendency characteristic of the art of the Byzantine East in this period. The form of the composition with the emphasis on the figure of the female saint, surrounded by her children and by Eleazar, essentially promotes her crucial role as a mother, an ideal model of family conduct and

44  Mc Grath 1965, 257–261; Watson 1981, 288. For all the opinions concerning the identification of the figures, see recently Brown Tkacz 2002, 210–211. 45  Without overlooking the fact that each reliquary was decorated according to the needs and perceptions of its time and place, we mention here that the combined depiction of scenes from the Old and New Testament is a typical theme for reliquaries during this time, Noga-Banai 2008, 152. 46  Nordhagen 1990, 166, 175, 202–208, 308, with earlier bibliography; Andaloro 2016, 184, figs 7 and 9 in p. 186, fig. 13 in p. 189.

59

Anna Takoumi life,47 and attests to the great veneration she received, in accordance with patristic texts in the East and West. From this period up until the 12th century no other monumental representations of the Maccabees were preserved, according to the available evidence.48 However, miniatures in manuscripts and portable icons, within the framework of the illustration of patristic homilies and menologia, confirm the interest of the Byzantines in the illustration of the saints and their martyrdom.49 In these miniatures the variety of the depictions of the figures is impressive, ranging from full page to borders around texts and to initials, where they are rendered mainly in a uniform composition either at the time of their martyrdom, often in particular detail, or as frontal figures in paratactic layout, side by side. From the 13th century onward, the preserved representations of the Maccabean saints in churches increase in number. In the church of Saint George at Karynia, Mesa Mani the figures of holy Maccabees are found in the west end of the north wall of the church (Figs. 5.1–5.3). Saint Solomone wears the typical female dress frequently found in frescoes in churches in Mani, dating from the end of the 10th century (Fig. 5.2).50 Her arms raised in intercession, which can be compared to two miniatures in Codex Par. Coislin 239, fol. 43v και 44v (late 11th–12th centuries),51 seem to illustrate in a painterly way a passage from the homily of Gregory of Nazianzos: ‘with her hands extended, she exclaimed in a loud voice: I thank you, holy Father, …You have gathered the fruit of my loins [her seven children] and I have become a mother more holy than all mothers’.52 Eleazar is depicted at an advanced age wearing a chiton and himation, and holding a scroll (Fig. 5.1), typical elements of the iconography of prophets and apostles. The seven youths (Figs. 5.1, 5.3), who wear the typical courtly dress of martyrs and hold a small martyr’s cross, are not differentiated by age. The garments, as well as their frontal and paratactic arrangement can be compared to the

Figure 5.4. Italy, Rome, church of Santa Maria Antiqua: the Holy Maccabees.

miniature in Codex Athos, Panteleimon 6, fol. 53R (late 11th century).53 The iconographic layout of the subject departs markedly from the older Early Christian one, in accordance with the principles of Byzantine monumental art after Iconoclasm. The figures of the holy Maccabees in St George at Karynia, adjusted to the available surface of the wall, have the same height and are depicted frontally, paratactically, with separate captions for each name, as contained in the Synaxarium of Constantinople. Unlike the older composition in Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome (Fig. 5.4) and the manuscript illuminations, where only saints Solomone and Eleazar are identified, in the church of St George all figures of the Maccabean saints are captioned with their names, as unique personages, in accordance with the usual practice of post-Iconoclastic art.

As C. Hennesy (2008, 91–98, 109–110) has stated, the images are a source of strength, not of fear or warning; On the Byzantine Family, see Brubaker and Tougher 2013. 48  According to Christopher Walter (1980, 257–259) and Leslie Brubaker (2001, 21–22), the Life of Tarasios contains a description of monumental images of the holy Maccabees and, hence, there was at least one 8thcentury example in Constantinople. Contrary to this opinion, Stefanos Efthymiadis (1981, 238, 239), based on the text of the Life, has argued that the description of these images concern the group of saints, who suffered martyrdom after the Incarnation of Christ, and consequently, the identification with the Maccabees must be excluded. 49  On menologion icons, see for example the Sinai diptych, second half of 11th century: Sotiriou 1956–1958, vol. 1: fig. 133, vol. 2: 119–120; Galavaris 1990, 100, 149 fig. 17. On manuscripts see indicatively Galavaris 1969; Patterson-Ševčenko 1990; for a concise survey of these manuscripts, see Berger 2012, 111. 50  Cf. the unidentified female saint in St Panteleemon at Epano Boularii, first layer, 991/2 (Drandakis 1969–1970, 450, fig. 16; Drandakis 1995, 375 plan 9) and in the Holy Anargyroi at Kipoula, 1265 (Drandakis 1995, 334, color pl. XIV, fig. 78); Saint Kyriake in the narthex of Aï-Strategos at Epano Boularii, second layer, second half of 13th century (Drandakis 1995, 466) and in St Panteleemon at Ano Boularii, second layer, end of 13th–beginning of the 14th centuries (Drandakis 1969–1970, 457, fig. 19; Drandakis 1995, 388, fig. 27). 51  Galavaris 1969, 247, pl. XXΧVIII, fig. 211–212. 52  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, cols 925C. 47 

The figure of saint Solomone is differentiated from the male ones, which are depicted next to her, not only by a thick red line that frames it, but also with the position of her hands, which express her crucial role at the time of the martyrdom and her intercession to Christ the Savior. However, the placement of all figures in two registers on the same side of the wall guarantees the unity of the composition. The entire representation is thus harmoniously incorporated into the lowest register of the 53 

60

Galavaris 1969, 209, pl. XXVIII, fig. 144.

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art church, the established location of figures of saints in the Byzantine art after Iconoclasm. Indeed, the placement of the figures at the west end of the north wall of the church is not accidental, since it matches theologically with the scene of the Descent into Hell, which is depicted directly above, in the vault (Fig. 5.1). The commissioner responsible for the iconographic program of the church conveyed the theological message of the hope for the resurrection of the saints, as expressed during their martyrdom, in the most perceptible and direct way by depicting the martyrs below the resurrected Christ, the victor of death. In this way, it is stated that the resurrection hoped for by the martyrs of the Old Testament was realized in the New Testament by Christ the Savior.

in the south arm of the vault, whereas in the lunette of the west wall is the Crucifixion. Moreover, the supplications of a couple of supplicants depicted on the north wall, to the east of the Maccabees, and of one more supplicant male figure of smaller scale painted at the feet of the archangel Michael in the west wall are addressed to the saints, whose register begins and ends with the composition of the Deesis on the templon. This prayer to the saints to intercede with the Savior Christ for the salvation of humanity is expressed in a hymn by the hymnographer Kosmas,58 whereas the miniaturist of Codex Gr. Oxford Bod. Lib. 103, fol. 47R (11th–12th centuries) rendered it in a painting.59 The above elements also confirm the funerary character of the church, as also attested by the medieval tombs in the surrounding area, serving the burial needs of this small settlement. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the theological contents of the seventh and eighth days, i.e. of the resurrection and the afterlife, have been preserved in the popular piety of the inhabitants of Karynia until today, since saint Solomone is characterized as ‘the saint of the souls’. Thus, it is no coincidence that even the modern cemetery is also dedicated to her.60 It becomes clear that the theological connection between the resurrection and soteriological anticipation with the martyrdom of the holy Maccabees, mainly in the person of saint Solomone, survived in the mentality of the inhabitants, proving exactly the power of tradition through the centuries. In addition, it is noteworthy that that the term ‘macabre’’, which is probably derived from the word maccabeus, is given a meaning related to death.61

The Resurrection of Christ affected the entire human race and renewed it, by giving it anew the ability to be likened to God, i.e. to come into full communion with Him (θέωσις). This new reality, once given to man, is summarized in terms of its meaning in the concept of the seventh day of the week, Sunday (Κυριακή ημέρα).54 Sunday is referred to as the seventh day or seventh century and is aligned with the day of the coming of the Lord and of his eternal reign on the eighth day, or the eighth century.55 These two days or centuries are directly related to each other in terms of their theological contents, since the renewed man after the Resurrection of Christ (the seventh day) is able, through church life and communion with God, to enjoy the benefits and the beatitude of the afterlife (the eighth day) during his lifetime. This theological context can also explain the parallelism by saint Gregory of Nazianzos of the Seven Maccabean brothers with the seven days,56 since they prefigured the resurrection, hoping to enjoy the benefits of the afterlife. This parallelism of saint Gregory inspired later Christopher Mytilenaios (11th century) to record this theological message in a verse couplet.57

Within this funerary context the dedication of the catacombs of Kato Paphos in Cyprus62 to Saint Solomone, as well as that of a small church with a crypt in its interior (Fig. 5.5) in the Koma tou Yalou (9th/10th centuries)63 should be interpreted. The defaced frescoes of the church at Koma tou Yalou do not permit the identification of scenes and inscriptions of the saints, which would confirm this dedication. However, a fresco of later date with saints Solomone ([C]OΛ[ΟΜΩΝΗ]) and Eleazar (c. 1500) in the church of Panagia Kanakaria at Lythrangomi (Fig. 5.6)64 at a short distance from the church at Koma tou Yalou, today in the Turkish-occupied part of the island, confirms evidently the establishment of the saints’ veneration in Cyprus already in the 9th/10th centuries, if not earlier.

The arrangement of the scenes in the west part of the church introduces the worshiper to the comprehension of this theological message. Opposite the scene of the Descent into Hell is depicted the scene of the Entry into Jerusalem Ignatios of Antioch (the Theophoros), Epistola ad Magnesios, 9.1 (p. 102). 55  John of Damascus, Expositio fidei orthodoxae I, 15 (ΙΙ,1), (p. 222, 16–21): ‘λέγονται μὲν οὖν ἐπτὰ αἰῶνες τοῦ κόσμου τούτου…Ὄγδοος δὲ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων’; John of Damascus, Expositio fidei orthodoxae II, 96 (ΙV, 23), (p. 284, 94–98): ‘ὁ ἐπτὰ ἀριθμὸς πάντα τὸν παρόντα χρόνον δηλοῖ… Καὶ ὁ θεήγορος Δαυὶδ περὶ τῆς ὀγδόης ψάλλων περὶ τῆς μελλούσης μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν καταστάσεως ἔψαλλε’. On the theology of the eight day, see generally Staats 1972; Filias 2010. 56  Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV, col. 916Α: ‘τῶν πατρίων ἐθῶν ἀκριβεῖς φύλακες ἀριθμὸς τῶν παρ᾿ Ἑβραίοις ἐπαινουμένων, τῷ τῆς ἑβδοματικῆς ἀναπαύσεως μυστηρίῳ τιμώμενος, ἒν πνέοντες, πρὸς ἒν βλέποντες, μίαν ζωῆς ὁδὸν εἰδότες, τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ Θεοῦ θάνατον’; Cf. van Esbroeck 2001, 135 and note 11, where he states that Solomone’s Syriac name, Shamȗnit, means eighth. In addition, an Arab-Georgian tradition is also attested (Georgian Sinaitic MS 62, fol. 120–9; Tbilissi A-95, 482–491), according to which the mother, addressing her children ahead of the martyrdom compared them one by one with each of the seven days of creation. 57  Follieri 1980, vol. II, 390: ’ Ἐξ ἑβδόμης πέμπουσι παίδων ἑπτάδα, // ἀρθρέμβολα, φλὸξ καὶ τροχοὶ πρὸς ὁγδόην’; Cf. the first hymn of the canon (Follieri 1980, vol. I, 470) and the sticheron (Follieri 1980, vol. I, 467), which are also mentioned in the Menaion of August, p. 288. 54 

58  Menaion of August, 279: ‘Ὤ μητρὸς Ἁγίας! τῆς τετοκυίας τὸν ἰσάριθμον τῆς ἐβδομάδας ἀριθμὸν. Ἀλλ’ ἱκετεύομεν ὑμᾶς Μακκαβαῖοι, σὺν τῇ μητρὶ ὑμῶν Σολομονῇ, καὶ τῷ σοφῷ ἰερεῖ Ἐλεαζάρῳ, ὅταν παραστῆτε Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ… ἐκτενῆ ἱκεσίαν ποιήσατε ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος’. 59  The martyrs are depicted interceding with the Virgin and John the Baptist to Christ the Savior: Galavaris 1969, 232, pl. LIV, fig. 278. 60  Saïtas 2009, 377, 381, figs. 40.14–15, 40.25, 40.28–29. 61  Du Cange 1954, 161; Simpson and Weiner 1989, vol. IX, 148 (entry macabre). 62  The decoration is preserved mostly in the apse: Young 1978, 91–111; Stylianou 1997, 349–50; Gioles 2003, 176. These catacombs are also linked with the legend of the Seven Sleepers, see Berger 2012, 119. 63  Papageorghiou 1976, vol. 3, 411–414; Gioles 2003, 87. 64  Megaw and Hawkins (1977, 158, fig. 131) identified only the male figure with Eleazar, based on an inscription, but not the female saint.

61

Anna Takoumi

Figure 5.5. Cyprus, Famagusta District, Koma tou Yialou, church of Saint Solomone: interior view to the east and to the entrance to the crypt.

Figure 5.6. Cyprus, Famagusta District, Lythragomi, church of the Virgin Kanakaria: saints Solomone and Eleazar.

Since the subject of the Maccabee martyrs as an iconographic choice in funerary churches reveals its theological affinities with the expectation of the resurrection and the salvation of souls, it is painted very close to relevant resurrection themes and to the portraits of donors. One more example is found in the burial church of the Holy Trinity in Sopoćani in Serbia (1260–1265), the mausoleum of the Nemanja. Here too, the busts are depicted in roundels in the west part of the naos, more specifically in the west lunette of the west arch (Fig. 5.7): Solomone (Fig. 5.8) and Eleazar are depicted at the springing of the arch (in the north and south end respectively) with their hands extended to the seven brothers, who are painted along the arch.65 The depiction of saints in medallions is widely known in Byzantine art, whereas analogous examples of the Maccabees are preserved in manuscript painting.66 Opposite the roundels of the Maccabees are the scenes of the Dormition of the Virgin in the west wall, the Crucifixion and the Descent into Hell in the south and north walls respectively, above the register of the supplicant figures of the Nemanja family, who

Figure 5.7. Serbia, Ras region, Sopocani monastery, church of the Holy Trinity, nave, western tympanon of the western arch: the Holy Maccabees.

address the enthroned Virgin and Christ.67 It is a wellcomposed iconographic program, in absolute accordance with the funerary use of the church, which expresses the

65  For a drawing of and comments on the representation, see Nikolić 1970, 73–75; Drewer 1991–1992, 260–261. 66  Cf. cod. Paris, Coislin 239, fol. 37v, 11th–12th centuries, (Galavaris 1969, 247, pl. XXXVII, fig. 206).

67  Djurić 1967, figs XVI, XIX, XXVII, LIV. Pictures of the founders and of all the frescoes of the church are also available online: http://www. srpskoblago.org/Archives/Sopocani/exhibits/digital/western-pn,ktitorscnp/index.html [last visit: 17.9.2019].

62

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art

Figure 5.8. Serbia, Ras region, Sopocani monastery, church of the Holy Trinity, nave, western tympanon of the western arch : Saint Solomone.

Figure 5.9. Bulgaria, Veliko Tarnovo, church of Forty Martyrs, narthex: the Maccabees’ martyrdom.

expectation of the resurrection of the deceased and the request for intercession for their salvation to the Virgin and to the saints. The choice of the representations of the holy Maccabees among the host of saints and their combined depiction with scenes of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ in two churches distant from one another, at Sopoćani and in the Mani, of royal and local patronage respectively, but within a relatively short chronological span attest on one hand to the assimilation of the theological content of the composition and on the other to the spread of the theme from Constantinople in the Late Byzantine period as well.

its individual iconographic elements, it exhibits a special dynamic in terms of the rendering of the figures. The placement of saints Eleazar and Solomone at the ends of the composition and their movements toward the children accurately express their anxiety for the children not to show cowardice in the face of their imminent martyrdom. The intense gestures of the brothers to each other make them appear as if they are conversing, whilst the subtle smile of the first to his brothers, which reflects their joy and their boldness before their martyrdom, thanks to their absolute faith in God, focuses primarily on the theological message of the martyrdom and not on the depiction of the tortures, elements dexterously handled by the Astrapades painters and their workshop.

Three more representations of the saints, with a different approach, are preserved in the narthexes of some churches within the framework of the illustration of the Menologion. In the church of the Forty Holy Martyrs in Tarnovo, Bulgaria, their martyrdom is depicted in a concise manner (c. 1240), as indicated by the wheel at the right end of the scene (from the beholder’s point of view), whereas the composition is captioned in Old Slavonic (Fig. 5.9).68 Although the martyrdom as a scene offers the artist the possibility to paint it in a variety of ways, in this specific case it is rendered with simplicity, without the details describing the tortures in the texts.

In the case of Dečani, the figures of the saints are depicted in the north wall of the narthex, since Salomone and Eleazar stand in the center of the composition behind the seven youthful Maccabees.71 The figures are not strictly frontal, but turned slightly facing each other with their hands in conversation position. Some hold a cross, although the inscription has been destroyed. The composition can be compared with examples from illuminated manuscripts.72 The introduction and eventually the establishment of the veneration of saints in a region appears to be closely connected with specific historical circumstances, as in the case of the remote location of Mani. In the church of Karynia, the choice of the Maccabean representation and the way it was incorporated into the overall visual program shows knowledge of its theological background and its assimilation into the local tradition through the centuries. Two churches of the second half of the 12th century, dedicated to Saint Solomone according to the

In two more cases, in the churches of Saint George at Staro Nagoričino (1316–1318) and in the Ascension at Dečani (1348–1350), the figures are shown shortly before their martyrdom. In the first mentioned case, the saints, each holding a cross, are rendered in full body and turned in three-quarters view facing toward the viewer’s right, one behind the other (fig. 5.10).69 The group is led by Eleazar, who was sacrificed first, followed by the brothers, shown as children of the same height, and last by Solomone. The representation is accompanied by a caption in Greek. Although the composition can be compared with similar ones in manuscripts,70 in terms of

12th century (Patterson Ševčenko 1990, 141, fig. 4B9). 71  Djurić 1995, 417 (no 1.VIII), 433 (no 1.VIII), fig. T IX.4a. Mijović 1973 (323, drawing 44, no VIII.1) erroneously identified the figures with the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus. 72  Cf. Alexandria, Greek Patriarchate 35 (303), fol. 99r, second half of 11th century (Patterson Ševčenko 1990, 46, fig. 5F12); Oxford, Bodl. Lib. Cod. Roe 6, fol. 159v, 13th century (Galavaris 1969, 234, pl. CI, fig. 448).

Mijović 1973, 256, fig. 12. Mijović 1973, 283, plan 9.VIII.1; Todić 1993, 81. 70  Cf. London, Brit. Mus. Cod. add. 24381, fol. 41v, 1088 (Galavaris 1969, 227, pl. XIII, fig. 95); Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cod. Gr. 1528, fol. 131v, 68  69 

63

Anna Takoumi

Figure 5.10. Staro Nagoričino, church of St George, narthex: the Holy Maccabees.

oral tradition, provide us with valuable testimonies for the veneration of the saints by the local community during the middle Byzantine period. One of them is at Triantafyllia73 and the other, known as Soulani, at Eremos (second half of 12th c.),74 only a few meters west of the cross-in-square church of Saint Barbara (third quarter of 12th c.). The name Soulani should be considered as a corruption of that of Solomone, according to the popular practice of the inhabitants of Mani of paraphrasing names.75

Christian faith, i.e. the main binding force, absolutely necessary for the political unity and the cultural unity of Laconian society.77 Thus, it is very reasonable and unsurprising that the Maccabee martyrs were particularly and primary promoted during this period to the local Christians in order to strengthen their faith and secondary to their fellow Jews as models of the correct faith and way of life. From the time of the Latin conquest onward, the Maccabean martyrs were further transformed into models of the defense of the Orthodox faith against the Latins. The preserved testimony of Michael Choniates, who likens the death of a youth in the battle of the Acrocorinth to that of the Maccabees and the harshness of the Latins’ deeds to the conduct of Antiochos,78 permits one further reading of the composition of this period within the historical context. About two centuries later, during the time of the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439), Markos Eugenikos, metropolitan of Ephesus, in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople mentions that the Orthodox Christians should not be inferior to the Maccabees in terms of their confession of faith.79 The choice of representing the Maccabee martyrs in the church of Karynia, which was erected in 1281, a few years after the Unionist Council of Lyons (1274), could also be viewed within this context, as a reaction to the unionist policy of Michael VIII and a

Confirmed historical data of the 10th c., which outline a score of problems in the wider area of Lakedaimonia because of the heathens and foreign Pagans, Slavs, and Jews, support the opinion that the veneration of the holy Maccabees was introduced probably during the time of saint Nikon (second half of 10th c.). It was the main period of a broader reorganization, de-escalation of problems, and strengthening of the Christian faith in the region also through the promotion of the cult of specific saints such as Kyriaki and Leo, bishop of Catania (Sicily).76 The particular veneration of specific saints was an additional medium for the reinforcement of the Mexia 2011, vol. 1, 297 and vol. 2, 192 (catalogue, no 59). Mexia 2011, vol. 2, 85 (catalogue, no 27). In addition, the dating of the church in the beginning of the 14th century proposed by Ν. Drandakis (Drandakis 1974, 130) can be challenged based on the style of the few preserved frescoes (Mexia 2011, vol. 1, 300). 75  Cf. Agetria (Αγήτρια) instead of Hodegetria (Οδηγήτρια), see Drandakis 1995, 223. 76  Anagnostakis 2012, 101–137; Anagnostakis 2018, 196–218; Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2018; Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2019, 81–99. 73  74 

77  Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2018, 107–108; Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2019, 93. 78  See above, note 42. 79  See above, note 42.

64

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art statement in defense of the Orthodox faith. Thus, in the reign of Michael VIII, the ktetor of the church of Karynia recognized the current imperial power as it is testified by the inscription and the depiction of the coat of arms of the Palaeologean dynasty, the eagle in the semicircular wall of the Bema.80 At the same time, he expressed his opposition to the unionist policy of Michael VIII by choosing the depiction of the Maccabee martyrs. Corresponding messages are reflected in an analogous way in the church of Panaghia Chrysaphitissa at Chrysapha (1289/90). The donor of the church, Michael, who is entitled kyr (Sir),81 recognized the imperial power of Andronicos II Palaiologos, son of Michael VIII, through the depiction of the eagle in the lower part of the southeastern pilaster.82 However, he expressed his anti-unionist attitude by choosing the depictions of the eucharistic leavened bread (enzymos artos) on the Holy Altar and the figure of saint Arsenios, patriach of Constantinople.83 In a time of tribulation and religious controversies between unionists and anti-unionists, the kyr Michael prays in the Mother of God asking to be guided by the correct faith, according to the dedicatory inscription.84

holy Maccabees in the Byzantine, as well as in the postByzantine period.85 In the church of Karynia in Mani, the placement of the Maccabees and the way they are represented express the special veneration they enjoyed in the area, whereas their role in the iconographic program alludes to the message of the Resurrection, with which their martyrdom has been indisputably connected, already since the time of the Old Testament Books of the Maccabees and of the patristic homilies. The links between the Maccabean representations and churches of a funerary character certainly represent a consolidated perception. It is traceable from early Christian times, the Brescia reliquary being an early sample, up to the monumental decorations of the Late Byzantine period with the churches of Sopoćani and Karynia as characteristic examples. From the iconographic point of view, although the preserved examples from art do not display any developments in the rendering of the subject, it is worth noting the individual differentiation of the figures concerning their layout in specific compositions, menologia, icons, manuscripts, and the minor arts, expressing the flexibility of the iconographic scheme. The dissemination of the preserved representations of the martyrs throughout the Byzantine period, in combination with the multitude of manuscripts, permit one to attribute the spread of the theme to the great artistic center of Constantinople.

5.4 Conclusions The material that has been explored in this paper leads to some further thoughts. The conscious attitude of the Maccabees was considered a life model for the practice of the faith and its defense until the end, constituting a complete prototype for spiritual life. The values, principles, and their consistent implementation by their natural mother Solomone and their spiritual father Eleazar render their conduct an example of family life, worthy of imitation by every Christian. In the Byzantine texts, Solomone is exceptionally praised for her admirable behavior, i.e. her encouragement to her children to suffer martyrdom, as proof of her full devotion to God. This is also the main reason her figure is juxtaposed with that of the mother Church. The faith of these preChristian martyrs was praised to such an extent that it was a measure of comparison and a constantly recurring theme, as is variably stated in a plethora of texts from all genres of Byzantine literature. Although the surviving works of art are few, they attest, in combination with the texts, to the uninterrupted and diachronic veneration of the

In the society of 13th-century Mani the choice of depicting the Maccabees essentially constituted a political act, since it expressed the stance of its patrons within contemporary reality, by expressing their antiUnionist beliefs, probably also their hostility toward the policy of Michael VIII. Thus, we understand that the meaning of the theme was enriched with the passage of time in accordance with the historical circumstances, without however losing its basic theological content. It is worth noting that according to Byzantine perception, the Maccabee martyrs never acquired the military character of warriors, which was developed mainly in western European societies.86 The Maccabees was a diachronic reference point in the conscience of the faithful because of the power of their faith and its sacrificial defense. Their firm resistance functioned as a measure of comparison especially during times of crisis. Therefore, we understand that the same fractional relationship is in force at all times, whereby the occasional heterodox and followers of other religions (Jews, Latins etc.) alternate in the place of the numerator, whereas the denominator, which is the correct faith, remains always the same.

80  For the iconographic program of the church, see Takoumi 2020. Specific representations such as of the Virgin Mary the «Pantanassa» in the apse, the Virgin Mary the «Vlachernitissa» of the Deisis in the northern part of the templon, saint John the Theologian, saint Demetrius «from Thessaloniki», and the saint George the «Diasorites», testify to the ktetor’s intention to be connected with the cultural milieu of Constantinople, as well as to the role of Monemvasia as a gateway for new artistic themes and stylistic trends in Peloponnese. 81  Albani 2000, 27. 82  The representation of the eagle is still unpublished. For a color plate see Anagnostakis 2017. 83  Drandakis 1982–1983, 351, 354–355, fig. 15. Albani 2000, 47, 50–51, figs. 13, 16, 18, color pl. 2. 84  Drandakis 1982–1983, 342–343. Albani 2000, 28.

85  Karagianni 2003, 259; Païsidou 2002, 260–1; Koukiaris 2019, 82, 235, 332, 417. 86  Berger 2012, 119–121.

65

Anna Takoumi Literature

Ignatios of Antioch (the Theophoros), Epistola ad Magnesios: Ignace d’Antioche, Lettres. Texte grec, introduction, traduction et notes, éd. P. Th. Camelot (Sources Chrétiennes 10), Paris 21951.

The passages of the Old and New Testament are based on their critical editions which are available online by the German Bible Society: https://www.academic-bible.com/ en/online-bibles/septuagint-lxx/read-the-bible-text/ [last visit: 9.9.2017].

John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I: John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos I, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 50, cols. 617–623.

Primary Literature

John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos II: John Chrysostom, In sanctos Maccabaeos II, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 50, cols. 623–625.

Ambrose of Milan, De Iacob et vita beata: Ambroise de Milan, Jacob et la vie heureuse, introd., texte et critique, trad. notes et index par G. Nauroy (Sources Chrétiennes 534), Paris 2010.

John Malalas, Chronographia: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. L. Dindorfii, (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), Bonn 1831.

Athanasios, archbishop of Alexandria, Sermo de Patientia: Athanasios, archbishop of Alexandria, Sermo de Patientia, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 26, cols 1207–1310.

John Mauropous, Epistula 116: Ioannis Euchaitorum metropolitae quae in codice vaticano graeco 676 supersunt, eds J. Bollig and P. de Lagarde, Gottingae 1882.

Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300: Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 300, in Patrologia cursus completus, series latina 38, cols 1376–1380.

John of Damascus, Expositio fidei orthodoxae I: Jean Damascène, La foi orthodoxe 1–44, texte critique de l’édition par B. Kotter (PTS 12), traduction et notes par P. Ledrux, (Sources Chrétiennes 535), Paris 2010.

Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 301: Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 301, in Patrologia cursus completus, series latina 38, cols 1380–1385.

John of Damascus, Expositio fidei orthodoxae II: Jean Damascène, La foi orthodoxe 45–100, texte critique de l’édition par B. Kotter (PTS 12), traduction et notes par P. Ledrux, (Sources Chrétiennes 540), Paris 2011.

Basil the Great, Epistula VI: Saint Basile. Lettres, éd. Yves Courtonne, vol. Ι, Paris 1957. Christofer of Mytilene, Poem 114: The Poems of Christopher of Mytilene and John Mauropous, eds F. Bernard and C. Livanos (Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 50), Cambridge, Mass., and London 2018.

Life of Michael the Synkellos: The Life of Michael the Synkellos, text, translation, and commentary by Mary B. Cunningham (Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations, 1), Belfast 1991.

Constantine Acropolites, Sermo in s. martyrem Theodosiam: Sophia Kotzabassi, Das hagiographische Dossier der heiligen Theodosia von Konstantinopel (Byzantinisches Archiv 21), Berlin – New York 2009, 123–140.

Marcus Eugenicus, Epistula 13: L. Petit, Marci Eugenici Metropolitae Ephesi opera anti-unionistica 10/2 (Concilium Florentinum documenta et scriptores, series A), Rome 1977, 167–168.

Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae: Constantini Porphyrogeniti Imperatoris De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo, ed. J.J. Reiskii, (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae), vols 2, Bonn 1829–1830.

Menaion of August: Μηναῖα τοῦ ὅλου ἐνιαυτοῦ, vol. 6, Ρώμη 1901–1902.

Dionysius of Fourna, Painter’s Manual: Διονυσίου τοῦ ἐκ Φουρνᾶ, Ἑρμηνεία τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Ζωγραφικῆς Τέχνης, ed. Α. Papadopoulos- Kerameus, Athens 1997.

Michael Glykas, Quaestiones in sacram scripturam: Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Γλυκᾶ. Εἰς τὰς ἀπορίας τῆς Θείας Γραφῆς, επιμ. Σωφρονίου Ευστρατιάδου, Athens 1906.

Eusebios of Caesarea, Commentaria in Psalmos: Eusebios of Caesarea, Commentaria in Psalmos, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 23, cols. 948.

Michael Psellos, Poemata: Michaelis Pselli poemata, ed. Leendert G. Westernik, Stuttgart 1992.

Michael Choniates, Epistula 101: Michaelis Choniatae. Epistulae, ed. Foteini Kolovou, (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 41), Berlin-New York 2001.

Michael Psellos, In locum Matthaei (10.16): Michael Psellus Theologica, eds John M. Duffy and Leendert G. Westernik (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, vol. II), Munich-Leipzig 1992.

Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV in Machabaeorum laudem: Gregory of Nazianzos, Oratio XV in Machabaeorum laudem, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 35, cols. 911–934.

Nicholas Chamaetos Kabasilas, De Vita in Christo: Nicholas Cabasilas, La Vie en Christ, éd. M.-H. Congourdeau, (Sources chrétiennes 355), vol. I, Paris 1989.

Gregory of Nyssa, In quadracinta martyres: Gregory of Nyssa, In quadracinta martyres, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 46, cols. 733–788.

66

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art Assmann 2012: Assmann, Jan, ‘Martyrdom, Violence, and Immortality: The Origins of a Religious Complex’, in Signori 2012, 39–59.

Nicholas Mesarites, Epitaphios: Der Epitaphios der Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes, in August Heisenberg, Quellen und Studien zur spatbyzantinischen Geschichte, ed. H.-G. Beck, Variorum Reprints, London 1973 (no art. II.II, pp. 3–96).

Berger 2012: Berger, Albercht, ‘The Cult of the Maccabees in the Eastern Orthodox Church’, in Signori 2012, 105– 123.

Origen, Commentary on John: Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean, éd. Cécile Blanc, vol. 1, (Sources chrétiennes 120). Paris 1966, 56–207.

Bickerman 2007 [1979]: Bickerman, Elias, The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, in Studies in Jewish and Christian History. A New edition in English including the God of the Maccabees by E.J. Bickerman, (intr. by M. Hengel, ed. by A. Tropper), (Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity 68/2), vol. 2, Leiden-Boston 2007, 1025–1149 (= revision of Elias Joseph Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees. Studies on the meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt, (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 32), Leiden 1979).

Synaxarium of Constantinople: Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constaninopolitanae, Propylaeym ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, ed. H. Delehaye, Brussels 1902 (repr. Louvain 1954). Theodore of Stoudion, Epistola XXI: S. Theodori Stouditae, Liber II, Epistola XXI, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 99, cols. 1180–1185. Theodore of Stoudion, Oration on his mother: Teodoro Studita Catechesi-epitafio per la madre. Testo in parte edito per la prima volta, introduzione, traduzione e indici, ed. A. Pignani (Hellenica et Byzantine Neapolitana 22), Naples 2007.

Brown Tkacz 1995: Brown Tkacz, Catherine, ‘The Seven Maccabees, the Three Hebrews and a Newly Discovered Sermon of St. Augustine (Mayence 50)’, Revue des Études Augustiniennes 41 (1995), 59–78.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio Psalmi LXXI: Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Interpretatio Psalmi LXXI, in Patrologia cursus completus, series graeca 80, cols 1428–1441.

Brown Tkacz 2002: Brown Tkacz, Catherine, The Key to the Brescia Casket: Typology and the Early Christian Imagination (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité 165/Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series, vol. 14), Paris 2002.

Secondary Literature

Brubaker 2001: Brubaker, Leslie, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium. Image as exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nanzianzus, 2nd edition, Cambridge 2001.

Albani 2000: Albani, Jenny P., Die byzantinischen Wandmalereien der Panagia Chrysaphitissa-Kirche in Chrysapha/Lakonien, (Christliche Archäologische Gesellschaft/Hefte zur byzantinischen Archäologie und Kunst nr. 6), Athen 2000.

Brubaker and Tougher 2013: Brubaker, Leslie and Tougher, Shaun (eds), Approaches to the Byzantine Family (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Studies, 14), Farnham and Burlington 2013.

Anagnostakis 2012: Αναγνωστάκης, Ηλίας, ‘Μονεμβασία – Λακεδαίμων: Για μια τυπολογία αντιπαλότητας και για την Κυριακή αργία στις πόλεις’, in Τ. Kiousopoulou (ed.), Οι βυζαντινές πόλεις (8ος-15ος αιώνας). Προοπτικές της έρευνας και νέες ερμηνευτικές προσεγγίσεις, Rethymnon 2012, 101–137.

Cohen 2006: Cohen, J.D. Shaye, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2nd edition, Louisville-London 2006. Collins 2005: Collins, J. John, Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture. Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 100), Leiden 2005.

Anagnostakis 2018: Αναγνωστάκης, Ηλίας, ‘Από την προφορική ή κειμενική αφήγηση στη μνημειακή απεικόνιση: Τρία βυζαντινά παραδείγματα του όψιμου Μεσαίωνα’, in St. Kaklamanis and A. Kalokairinos (eds.), Χαρτογραφώντας τη δημώδη λογοτεχνία (12ος17ος αι.), Πρακτικά του 7ου Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου Neograeca Medii Aevi, Irakleio 2017, 71–84.

Cotsonis 1994: Cotsonis, A. John, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications), Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 1994. Deléani 1989: Deléani, Simone, ‘Une typologie du martyre chrétien: la ‘Passion’ des frères Maccabées et de leur mère selon saint Cyprien’, Figures de l’ancien Testament chez les Pères, Strasbourg 1989, 189–213.

Anagnostakis 2018: Αναγνωστάκης, Ηλίας, ‘O χρόνος στον Βίο του Νίκωνος Μετανοεῖτε: ἤγγικε γὰρ’, in H. Saradi, Aik. Dellaportas and Th. Kollyropoulou (eds.), Όψεις του βυζαντινού χρόνου. Πρακτικά Διεθνούς Συνεδρίου, May 29–30 2015, Athens 2018, 196–218.

DeSilva 2006: DeSilva, A. David, 4 Maccabees. Introduction and Commentary of the Greek Text in Codex Sinaiticus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden and Boston 2006.

Andaloro 2016: Andaloro, Maria, ‘Dall’ Angelo ‘Bello’ al padri della chiesa della ‘parete palinsesto’, in M. Andaloro, G. Bordi, and G. Borganti (eds.), Santa Maria Antiqua tra Roma e Bisanzio, Milano 2016, 180–189.

DeSilva 2014: DeSilva, A. David, ‘Ambrose’s Use of 4 Maccabees in ‘De Jacob et Vita Beata’: Some 67

Anna Takoumi Drewer 1992: Drewer, Louis, ‘Saints and their Families in Byzantine art’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, series 4, vol. 16 (2009), 259–270. Available online, URL: https://ejournals.epublishing.ekt.gr/index. php/deltion/article/view/4697 [last visit: 9.9.2017].

Correctives’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 22/2 (2014) 287–293. Diamanti 2012: Διαμαντή, Καλλιόπη, Οι τοιχογραφίες του Αγίου Δημητρίου (1286) στις Κροκεές της Λακωνίας και το εργαστήριο του ανώνυμου ζωγράφου. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της πρώϊμης παλαιολόγειας ζωγραφικής στη Λακωνία, Tripolis 2012 (with a French summary, 203–212).

Du Cange 1954: Du Cange, Charles Du Fresne, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, vol. IV, Graz 1954 (reprinted from the first edition of 1883–1887).

Djurić 1967: Djurić, J.Vojislav, Sopoćani, Leipzig 1967.

Dupont-Sommer 1939: Dupont-Sommer, André, Le Quatrième livre des Machabées. Introduction, traduction et notes (Bibliothèque de l’École des Hautes Études, Sciences historique et philologique, 274e), Paris 1939.

Djurić 1995: Djurić, J.Vojislav (ed.), Mural Painting of Monastery of Dečani. Material and Studies, (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Monographs Book DCXXXII/Department of Historical Sciences Book 22), Beograd 1995.

Efthymiadis 1998: Efthymiadis, Stephanos, The Life of the Patriarch Tarasios by Ignatios the Deacon (BHG 1698). Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottomn Monographies, vol. 4), Ashgate 1998.

Dmitrievskij 1965: Dmitrievskij, Aleksej, Opisanie liturgitseskich rukopisej, vols 3, Hildesheim 1965. Doran 2001: Doran, Robert, ‘2 Maccabees’, The Oxford Bible Commentary, eds J. Barton and J. Muddiman, Oxford and New York 2001, 734–750.

Elledge 2017: Elledge, D. Casey, Resurrection of the Death in Early Judaism, 200 BCE – CE 200, Oxford and New York 2017.

Drandakis 1969–1970: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Άγιος Παντελεήμων Μπουλαριών’, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών 37 (1969–1970), 437–458 (reprinted in Drandakis 2009, vol. 1, 1–38).

Elliott 2001: Elliott, J. David, ‘4 Maccabees’, The Oxford Bible Commentary, eds J. Barton and J. Muddiman, Oxford and New York 2001, 790–792.

Drandakis 1982–1983: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Παναγία η Χρυσαφίτισσα (1290)’, Πρακτικά Α΄ Τοπικού Συνεδρίου Λακωνικών Μελετών (Μολάοι, 5–7 Ιουνίου 1982), Πελοποννησιακά Παράρτημα (1982– 1983), 337–401, with a French summary, 401–403 (reprinted in Drandakis 2009, vol. 3, 303–396).

Etzeoglou 1973–1974: Ετζέογλου, Ροδονίκη, ‘Στερέωση μνημείων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 29/2.2 (1973– 1974), 418–420. Etzeoglou 1983: Ετζέογλου, Ροδονίκη, ‘Αἱ ἐργασίαι τῆς Ἐφορείας Βυζαντινῶν Ἀρχαιοτήτων Πατρῶν εἰς τὴν Λακωνίαν κατὰ τὰ ἔτη 1973–1974’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί 7, Σύμμεικτα (1983), 460–468.

Drandakis 1986: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στις τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αιώνα που σώζονται στη Μάνη’, Proceedings of the 17th International Byzantine Congress, Washington, 3–8 August 1986, Major Papers, New York 1986, 683–721 (reprinted in Drandakis 2009, vol. 1, 429–467).

Filias 2010: Φίλιας, Ν. Γεώργιος, Η έννοια της «όγδοης ημέρας» στη λατρεία της ορθόδοξης εκκλησίας. Συμβολή στην ιστορία και θεολογία της λατρείας, Athens 2010.

Drandakis 1988: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στις τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αι. που σώζονται στη Μάνη’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί 9 (1988), 70–74, with a French summary: 75–76 (reprinted in Drandakis 2009, vol. 2, 775–761).

Follieri 1980: Follieri, Enrica, I calendari in metro innografico di Cristoforo Mitileneo (Subsidia Hagiographica, 63), 2 vols, Bruxelles 1980. Frend 2008: Frend, H.C. William, Martyrdom and persecution in the early church: a study of a conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus, Cambridge 2008.

Drandakis 1995: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες της Μέσα Μάνης, (Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρειας, nr. 141), Athens 1995 (with a French summary: 485–502).

Galavaris 1969: Galavaris, George, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus, (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, number 6), Princeton and New Jersey 1969.

Drandakis 1998: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Δυτικές επιδράσεις στις μανιάτικες τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αιώνα’, 18ο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης. Πρόγραμμα και περιλήψεις εισηγήσεων και ανακοινώσεων, Athens, May 1998, 21–22 (reprinted in Drandakis 2009, vol. 2, 765–766).

Galavaris 1990: Galavaris, George, ‘Early Icons (from the 6th to the 11th Century)’, in Konstantinos A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai. Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Athens 1990, 91–101.

Drandakis 2009: Ch. Constantinides (ed.), Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη, Μάνη και Λακωνία, (Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί. Περιοδικόν σύγγραμμα της Εταιρείας Λακωνικών Σπουδών, Παράρτημα 17), v. 1–4, Athens 2009.

Gerstel 2015: Gerstel, E.J. Sharon, Rural Lives and Landscapes in Late Byzantium. Art, Archaeology, and Ethnography, New York 2015. 68

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art Karagianni 2003: Καραγιάννη, Φλώρα, “Ο ζωγραφικός διάκοσμος του Αγίου Αθανασίου Κουστοχωρίου Ημαθίας και η σχέση του με το καστοριανό εργαστήρι”, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, series 4/24 (2003), 257–265 (with an English summary: 266). Available online, URL: https://ejournals. epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/deltion/article/view/4156 [last visit: 9.9.2017].

Gioles 2003: Γκιολές, Νικόλαος, Η χριστιανική τέχνη στην Κύπρο, Nicosia 2003. Goldstein1983: Goldstein, A. Jonathan, II Maccabees. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Doubleday 1983. Grabbe 2010: Grabbe, L. Lester, An Introduction to Second Temple Judaism. History and Religion of the Jews in the Time of Nehemiah, the Maccabees, Hillel and Jesus, London and New York 2010.

Karpozilos 1982: Καρπόζηλος, Απόστολος, Συμβολή στη μελέτη του βίου και του έργου του Ιωάννη Μαυρόποδος, (Δωδώνη, παράρτημα αρ. 18), Ioannina 1982.

Hahn 2012: Hahn, Johannes, ‘The Veneration of the Maccabean Brothers in Fourth Century Antioch: Religious Competition, Martyrdom, and Innovation’, in Signori 2012, 79–104.

Katsafados 2015: Κατσαφάδος, Σ. Παναγιώτης, Βυζαντινές επιγραφικές μαρτυρίες στη Μέσα Μάνη (13ος–14ος αι.), Athens 2015.

Hengel 1981 [1974]: Hengel, Martin, Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period, transl. by John Bowden, first one-volume edition, Philadelphia 1981 (= first English edition in 2 vols., Philadelphia 1974).

Koukiaris 2019: (Αρχιμ.) Κουκιάρης, Σίλας, Μηνολόγια και μαρτυρολόγια στην μνημειακή ζωγραφική του ελλαδικού χώρου, Thessaloniki 2019 (with an English summary, 473–476). Kounoupiotou-Manolessou and Etzeoglou 1977: Κουνουπιώτου-Μανωλέσσου, Ελένη και Ετζέογλου, Ροδονίκη, ‘Αἱ ἐργασίαι τῆς Ἐφορείας Βυζαντινῶν Ἀρχαιοτήτων εἰς Λακωνίαν κατὰ τὰ ἔτη 1971, 1972’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί 3/ Σύμμεικτα (1977), 458–480.

Hennesy 2008: Hennesy, Cecily, Images of Children in Byzantium, Farnham-Burlington 2008. Helyer 2002: Helyer, L.R., Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period, Illinois 2002.

Mateos 1962: Le Typicon de la Grande Église (Ms. SainteCroix no 40, Xe siècle). Introduction, texte, critique, traduction et notes par Mateos, S.I. Juan, vol. I: Le cycle des douze mois, Rome 1962.

Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 2009: Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel, Christian Memories of the Maccabean Martyrs, New York 2009. Kaïmakes 2007: Καϊμάκης, Δημήτριος, Θέματα παλαιοδιαθηκικής θεολογίας, Thessaloniki 2007.

Mayer and Allen 2012: Mayer, Wendy and Allen, Pauline, The Churches of Syrian Antioch (300–638 CE), LeuvenParis-Walpole 2012.

Kalamara, Roumeliotis and Mexia 2005: Kalamara, Pari, Roumeliotis, Nikos and Mexia, Angeliki (eds.), Tales of religious faith in Mani (2, Network of Mani Museums), Athens 2005.

Mc Grath 1965: Mc Grath, L. Robert, ‘The Martyrdom of the Maccabees on the Brescia Casket’, The Art Bulletin 1 (1965), 257–261.

Kalopissi-Verti 1992: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in ThirteenthCentury Churches of Greece, (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini, Band 5), Wien 1992.

Megaw and Hawkins 1977: Megaw, H.S. Arthur and Hawkins, J.W. Ernest, The Church of the Panagia Kanakariá at Lythrankomi in Cyprus. Its Mosaics and Frescoes, (Dumbarton Oaks Studies XIV), Washington, D.C. 1977. Melvani 2017: Melvani, Nicholas, ‘The Monastery of Stoudios in the 15th Century’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 67 (2017), 129–142.

Kalopissi-Verti 1994: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, ‘Ο ναός του Αρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ στον Πολεμίτα της Μέσα Μάνης (1278)’, in V. Katsaros (ed.), Αντίφωνον. Αφιέρωμα στον καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη, Thessaloniki 1994, 451–474.

Mexia 2011: Μέξια, Αγγελική, Βυζαντινή Ναοδομία στην Πελοπόννησο. Η περίπτωση των μεσοβυζαντινών ναών της Μέσα Μάνης, 2 vols, (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, 2011.

Kalopissi-Verti 1999: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Stylistic Trends in the Palaeologan Painted Churches of the Mani, Peloponnese’, in A. L. Batalov (ed.), Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo Vizantija I drevnjaja Rus’ K 100-letnju Andreja Nikolaeviča Grabara (1896–1990), St. Peterburg 1999, 193–209.

Mijović 1973: Mijović, Pavle, Ménologe. Recherches iconographiques, redacteur D. Bošković, Institut Archéologique, Monographies 10, Beograd 1973.

Kalopissi-Verti 2005: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Patrons and Craftsmen in Mani during the Byzantine and PostByzantine period’, in Kalamara, Roumeliotis, and Mexia 2005, 99–109.

Momigliano 1975: Momigliano, Arnaldo, ‘The Second Book of Maccabees’, Classical Philology 70/2 (April 1975), 81–88.

69

Anna Takoumi Pavlovskis-Petit 2005: Pavlovskis-Petit, Zoja, ‘The Manly Mother of the Maccabees: Virgilian Influence Upon «De Martyrio Maccabaeorum»’, Classica et Mediaevalia. Revue danoise de philologie et d’histoire 56 (2005), 225–242.

Moniou 2017: Χριστοφόρου Μυτιληναίου, Στίχοι Διάφοροι, εἰσαγωγή, μετάφραση, σημειώσεις Μονιοῦ, ’Ι. Δήμητρα (Βυζαντινά Λογοτεχνήματα 1), Athens 2017. Nickelsburg 2005: Nickelsburg, W.E. George, Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Misnah. A Historical and Literary Introduction, Minneapolis 2005.

Pizzolato and Somenzi 2005: Pizzolato, F. Luigi and Somenzi, Chiara, I sette fratelli Maccabei nella chiesa antica d’Occidente (Studia Patristica Mediolanensia 25), Milan 2005.

Nikolić 1970: Nikolić, Radomir, ‘Les medaillons de Sopoćani’, Saopštenja/Communications 9 (1970), 73–75 (in serbian with a French summary) available online: http://www.heritage.gov.rs/latinica/ saopstenje_9_1970.php [last visit: 8.9.2017].

Proiou 1980= Proiou, Alkistis, Analecta hymnica greaca e codicibus eruta Italiae inferioris, vol. XII: Canones Augusti, Rome 1980. Rajak 2016: Rajak, Tessa, ‘The Fourth Book of Maccabees in a Multi-Cultural City’, in Yair Furstenberg (ed.), Jewish and Christian Communal Identities in the Roman World, Leiden 2016, 135–150.

Nodet 2005: Nodet, Étienne, La crise maccabéenne. Historiographie juive et traditions bibliques, Paris 2005. Noga-Banai 2008: Noga-Banai, Galit, The Trophies of the Martyrs. An Art Historical Study of Early Christian Silver Reliquaries, Oxford and New York 2008.

Rouwhorst 2005: Rouwhorst, Gerard, ‘The Emergence of the Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs in Late Antiquity’, in J. Leeman (ed.), More than a Memory. The Discourse of Martyrdom and the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity, Leuven, Paris, and Dudley, MA 2005, 81–96.

Nordhagen 1990: Per Nordhagen, Jonas, Studies in Byzantine and Early Medieval Painting, London 1990. Païsidou 2002: Παϊσίδου, Μελίνα, Οι τοιχογραφίες του 17ου αι. στους ναούς της Καστοριάς. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της μνημειακής ζωγραφικής της Δυτικής Μακεδονίας, Athens 2002.

Saïtas 2009: Saïtas, Yannis, ‘The Cemeteries of Mani in Medieval and Later Periods: A First Contribution’, in W.G. Cavanagh, C. Gallou and M. Georgiadis (eds.), Sparta and Laconia from Prehistory to Pre-Modern’, Proceedings of the Conference held in Sparta, 17–20 March 2005, (British School at Athens, Studies 16), London 2009, 371–385.

Palantza 2013: Παλάντζα, Αλεξάνδρα, ‘Τα κύρια σημεία της θεολογίας των Βιβλίων των Μακκαβαίων’, in πρωτ. Γεώργιος Φανερός και αρχιμ. Ευ. Καρακουλάκης (eds.), Οιακοστρόφιον. Τιμητικός τόμος σεβασμιωτάτου μητροπολίτου Σύρου-Τήνου κ. Δωροθέου Β΄ επί τη δεκαετηρίδι της αρχιερατείας αυτού (2001–2011), Athens 2013, 569–577.

Schatkin 1974: Schatkin, Margaret, ‘The Maccabean Martyrs’, Vigiliae Christianae 28/2 (1974), 97–113. Schwartz 2008: Schwartz, R. Daniel, 2 Maccabees, Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature, Berlin and New York 2008.

Panayotidi 2005a: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Monumental Painting in the Churches of Mani- a means of expression and communication’, in Kalamara, Roumeliotis, and Mexia 2005, 85–97.

Signori 2012: Signori, Gabriela (ed.), Dying for the Faith, Killing for the Faith. Old-Testament Faith-Warriors (1 and 2 Maccabees) in Historical Perspective, Brill’s Studies in Intellectual History 206, Leiden and Boston 2012.

Panayotidi 2005b: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Village Painting and the Question of Local «Workshops»’, in J. Lefort, C. Morrisson and J.-P. Sodini (eds.), Les Villages dans l’Empire byzantin (IVe–XVe siècle), (Réalités Byzantines 11), Paris 2005, 193–212.

Simpson and Weiner 1989: Simpson, J.A. and Weiner, E.S.C., The Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford 1989.

Panayotidi 2008–2009: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Σχολιάζοντας τους ζωγράφους. Μερικά παραδείγματα τοιχογραφιών από τη Μάνη’, in Evangelia Eleutheriou and Angeliki Mexia (eds.), Πρακτικά Επιστημονικού Συμποσίου στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη Βυζαντινή Μάνη, Sparta 2008–2009, 221–232.

Sotiriou 1956–1958: Sotiriou, Georgios and Maria, Icônes du Mont Sinaï/ Σωτηρίου, Γ. και Μ., Εικόνες της Μονής Σινά (Collection de l’Institut français d’Athènes, 100), Athènes/Αθήναι 1956 (vol. 1: plates) and 1958 (vol. 2: text). Staats 1972: Staats, Reinhart, ‘Ogdoas als ein Symbol für die Auferstehung’, Vigiliae Christianae 26 (1972), 29–52.

Papageorghiou 1976: Papageorghiou, Anastasios, ‘Recently Discovered Wall-Paintings in 10th–11th Century Churches of Cyprus’, Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Bucarest 6–12 Septembre 1971, Bucarest 1976, 411–414.

Stylianou 1997: Stylianou, Andreas and A. Judith, The Painted Churches of Cyprus. Treasures of Byzantine Αrt, 2nd edition, Nicosia 1997.

Patterson Ševčenko 1990: Patterson Ševčenko, Nancy, Illustrated Manuscripts of the Metaphrastian Menologion, Chicago and London 1990.

Takoumi 2020: Τακούμη, Άννα, Η πρόσληψη των ιστορικών συνθηκών στην τέχνη της Πελοποννήσου 70

The Ιmage of the Ηoly Maccabees in Byzantine Literature and Art International Conference on the Deuterocanonical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9–11 June 2005 (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, vol. 118), Leiden-Boston 2007.

κατά την υστεροβυζαντινή περίοδο με βάση τη μνημειακή ζωγραφική, τις επιγραφές και τις παραστάσεις των δωρητών: η περίπτωση της Λακωνίας (1204–1348), (Unpublished doctoral thesis), National and Kapodistian University of Athens, Greece, 2020.

Young 1978: Hatfield Young, Susan, ‘Iconography and Date of the Wall Painting at Ayia Solomoni, Paphos, Cyprus’, Byzantion 48 (1978), 91–111.

Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2018: Τακούμη, Άννα και Τασσογιαννοπούλου, Κυριακή, ‘Οι ‘άλλοι’’ Εβραίοι στην βυζαντινή κοινωνία και τέχνη. Ανιχνεύοντας το αποτύπωμά τους στην Λακεδαίμονα’, στο 38ο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης. Πρόγραμμα και περιλήψεις ανακοινώσεων, Αθήνα 11–13 Μαΐου 2018, Athens 2018, 107– 108, available online, URL: https://eproceedings. epublishing.ekt.gr/index.php/chae.

Zarras 2012: Ζάρρας, Θ. Κωνσταντίνος, Ιστορία των χρόνων της Καινής Διαθήκης, 515 π.Χ.–135 μ.Χ., Athens 2012. Ziadé 2007: Ziadé, Raphaëlle, Les martyrs Maccabées: de l’histoire juive au culte chrétien. Les homélies de Grégoire de Nazianze et de Jean Chrysostome (Vigiliae Christianae, Supplements 80), Leiden-Boston 2007.

Takoumi and Tassoyannopoulou 2019: Takoumi, Anna et Tassoyannopoulou, Kyriaki ,‘Entre Constantinople et périphérie: Saint Léon, évêque de Catane, particulièrement vénéré en Laconie, Péloponnèse’, in Ch. Diamanti and A. Vassiliou (in collaboration with Sm. I. Arvaniti) (eds.), Ἐν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες. Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Oxford 2019, 81–99. Tcherikover 1999: Tcherikover, Victor, Civilization and the Jews, Peabody 1999.

Zeitlin and Tedesche 1954: Zeitlin, Solomon and Tedesche, Sidney, The Second Book of Maccabees, New York 1954.

Hellenistic

Todić 1993: Todić, Branislav, Staro Nagoričino, Beograd 1993 (with French summary, 223–232). Van Esbroeck 2001: Van Esbroeck, Michel, ‘The Saint as a Symbol’, in S. Hackel (ed.), The Byzantine Saint, Crestwood and New York 2001. Van Henten 1997: Van Henten, Jan Willem, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People, A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, v. 57), Leiden 1997. Van Henten 2010: Van Henten, Jan Willem, ‘The Reception of Daniel 3 and 6 and the Maccabean Martyrdoms in Hebrews 11: 33–38’, in J. Dijkstra et al. (eds.), Myths, Martyrs and Modernity. Studies in the History of Religious in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, Leiden-Boston 2010, 359–377. Van Henten and Avemarie 2005: Van Henten, Jan Willem, and Avemarie, Friedrich, Martyrdom and Noble Death. Selected Texts from Graeco-Roman, Jewish and Christian Antiquity, London and New York 2005. Vinson 1994: Vinson, Martha, ‘Gregory Nazianzen’s Homily 15 and the Genesis of the Christian Cult of the Maccabean Martyrs’, Byzantion 64 (1994), 166–192. Walter 1980: Walter, Christopher, ‘An Iconographical Note’’, Revue des Études Byzantines 38 (1980), 255–260. Watson 1981: Watson, Caroline Joslin, ‘The Program of the Brescia Casket’, Gesta 20 (1981), 293–298. Xeravits and Zsengellér 2007: Xeravits, G. Géza and Zsengellér, József (eds.), The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology, Papers of the Second 71

6 ‘Byzantine’ Saints in Georgian Monuments: Routes of Faith – Routes of Art Nikolaos Fyssas Abstract: In a few cases of Georgian iconographical programs, the depiction of saints who flourished in the broader Orthodox spiritual commonwealth, but whose veneration was limited to a local level, can serve as a key for further interpretation of the spiritual and cultural milieu of their patrons and artists, of political/‘national’ perceptions and of the migration of artists and patterns between Byzantium, Georgia and the coasts of the Black Sea. This is the case with the depiction of the Athonite holy Fathers in Petritzi/Bachkovo, Axtala and Zarzma, of Saint Hilariōn Ivēr in Zarzma and Ubisi, of Saint Athanasios Daimonokatalytēs – as identified in the present article – in Ači, and of Saint Stephanos the Confessor in Nabaxtevi. The cases are not identical, and their interpretations may vary from the rather political to the more spiritual, while some of them (Ači, Nabaxtevi) may reveal new traces for the itineraries of the artists. Στις περιπτώσεις αγίων η τιμή των οποίων ιστορικά περιορίστηκε σε στενά γεωγραφικά όρια, η απεικόνισή τους σε μνημεία απομακρυσμένα από τις εστίες της τοπικής αυτής τιμής υποδηλώνει την ύπαρξη πολιτιστικών σχέσεων, συχνά αμάρτυρων από άλλες πηγές, και αποτελεί ένδειξη για τους πνευματικούς προσανατολισμούς του χορηγού, ή/και για την καλλιτεχνική παράδοση του ζωγραφικού συνεργείου. Στην περίπτωση της Γεωργίας, ακόμη και οι μεγάλοι Ίβηρες άγιοι, που διέλαμψαν όμως στον βυζαντινό κυρίως χώρο, δεν φαίνεται να απεικονίστηκαν ευρύτερα, μολονότι επέδρασαν σημαντικά στο θρησκευτικό βίο της χώρας. Για παράδειγμα, οι ιδρυτές της αθωνικής Μονής Ιβήρων (όσιοι Ευθύμιος και Γεώργιος) και της ιβηρικής μονής στην Κωνσταντινούπολη (όσιος Ιλαρίων) εικονίζονται πρωτίστως σε μνημεία που χαρακτηρίζονται για την εικονογραφική τους πρωτοπορία και για την καλλιτεχνική τους σχέση με τα επιτεύγματα του ευρύτερου βυζαντινού κόσμου. Αυτό συμβαίνει επί παραδείγματι στα καθολικά των Μονών Θεοτόκου στην Αχταλία (1205–1216), Σωτήρος στη Ζάρζμα (πρώτο μισό – μέσα 14ου αι.) και Αγίου Γεωργίου Ουμπίσι (μέσα – τρίτο τέταρτο 14ου αι.). Παράλληλα, οι απεικονίσεις στη Γεωργία δύο καθαρά «βυζαντινών» αγίων, των Αθανασίου Τραπεζούντος του Δαιμονοκαταλύτη (στο ναό του αγίου Γεωργίου στο Άτσι, τέλη 13ου αι.) και Στεφάνου Σουγδαίας (στο ναό της Θεοτόκου στο Ναμπαχτέβι, 1412–1431), η τιμή των οποίων αναπτύχθηκε στα στενά γεωγραφικά όρια του χώρου όπου έδρασαν, αποτελούν σημαντικές ενδείξεις για τις προσλαμβάνουσες των χορηγών και την κινητικότητα καλλιτεχνικών προτύπων και συνεργείων στα παράλια του Εύξεινου Πόντου. Της δραστηριότητας αυτής κορυφαίο και κατεξοχήν τεκμηριωμένο παράδειγμα παραμένει το έργο του Κωνσταντινουπολίτη κυρ Μανουήλ Ευγενικού στην Τσαλέντζιχα (1384–1396), παράλληλα με την παραδιδόμενη από τις πηγές καλλιτεχνική δημιουργία του Θεοφάνη του Έλληνα στη Θεοδοσία (Κάφφα) της Κριμαίας, κατά την μετακίνησή του από την Κωνσταντινούπολη προς τα ρωσικά εδάφη (πιθανόν στη δεκαετία του 1370, πριν το 1378). Keywords: Georgia, Black Sea, iconography of saints, artistic mobility, Axtala, Zarzma, Ubisi, Ači, Nabaxtevi. evidence of cultural contacts, as a sign of the spiritual orientation of the donor and/or for the artistic traditions of the workshop of the artists responsible.

Depictions of saints only honored at some limited and local level, when appearing in monuments far away from the centers of their veneration, should be considered as

73

Nikolaos Fyssas In the case of Georgia (Iberia),1 even the famous national saints, who flourished abroad, in Byzantium, but had a considerable influence on the religious life of their motherland, are not that frequently depicted in the country: Saints Euthymios2 and Geōrgios,3 the holy Athonite Fathers of the Iverōn Monastery,4 and Saint Hilariōn Ivēr,5 the founder of the Georgian Monastery in Constantinople,6 are rarely depicted. When they are, it is in monuments distinguished for their progressive iconography and for their artistic relation with the best examples of the broader Byzantine world. The earliest surviving example of their depiction is traced to around 1083 AD, in the funeral chapel of the Petritzi Monastery in Bachkovo (Bulgaria),7 the well-known Georgian monastic foundation.8 But in historical Georgia, these saints are found for the first time in the murals of the cross-in-square domed katholikon of the Mother of God Monastery in Axtala (now in Armenia).9 Research dates the murals to between 1205–1216,10 connecting this activity with the conversion of the local ruler Ivane Mxargrżeli from the Armenian Gregorian to the Georgian Orthodox Church.11 The iconographical program of the monument seems to serve the principles of this – both religious and national – choice. In the apse (the vault is not preserved), there are depicted the Mother of God, the Communion of the Apostles and holy Prelates; the hierarchs belong to hagiographical traditions of the West, the East and Armenia as well, thus expressing an unusually broad and ecumenical selection of sanctity. The lower zone of the west arm is dedicated to Georgian saints exclusively – a unique example in medieval Georgian art, indicative of profound self-consciousness for the national spiritual tradition: here are depicted (Fig. 6.1) Saint Hilariōn Ivēr between the Athonite fathers Euthymios and Geōrgios,12 and the enlightener of Georgia Saint Nino,13 along with local Georgian monastic saints.14

Figure 6.1. Axtala Monastery of the Mother of God. Katholikon, west wall: Saint Hilariōn Ivēr in the middle, between the Athonite holy fathers Saints Euthymios and Geōrgios, ca. 1205–1216.

A few Greek inscriptions may reveal if not the origins, then the models, the artistic orientations and training of the master-artist; the style and technique of his painting seem to slightly differ from the high Georgian mural examples of the era, while the relevant similarities to Comnenian works of art indicate that he might have been trained in a center of Byzantine culture, although not in Constantinople.15

1  Professors Maria Panayotidi–Kesisoglou and Sophia Kalopissi–Verti have played a significant role in the familiarization of Greek Byzantinists with Georgian medieval art and for the development of cordial and productive collaboration between scholars of the two countries (see typically, Maria Panayotidi–Kesisoglou and Sophia Kalopissi–Verti (eds), Medieval Painting in Georgia, local stylistic expression and participation to Byzantine Oecumenicity, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Athens 2014). The author is personally indebted to them for their long– life motherly support and collaboration, and for their encouragement to get involved into the study of Georgian art during postgraduate studies as well. The present article is an outcome of this fruitful process. 2  Zateišvili 1995. 3  Lolašvili 1989. 4  For the first period of Iverōn Monastery: Lefort etc. 1985; Martin– Hisard 1991. 5  Martin–Hizard 1981; Tchkoidze 2011. 6  For the Georgian Monastery: Tchkoidze 2011, 190–193, 205–211. 7  Bakalova 1977; Bakalova etc. 2003, 74–77, fig. 12, pl. 55. 8  For the early history of the monastery: Lomurin 1981; Gautier 1984; Panayotidi 1992. 9  Lidov 2014. Also Fyssas 2014, 128–130. 10  Lidov 2014, 348–349. 11  Lidov 2014, 340–348. 12  Lidov 2014, fig. pp. 144, 149. 13  Lidov 2014, fig. p. 156. 14  Lidov 2014, fig. pp. 144, 147.

A century later the holy Athonite Fathers and Saint Hilariōn are visible once more in Georgia, this time in the cross-in-square domed katholikon of the Monastery of the Transfiguration in Zarzma.16 Saint Hilariōn (Fig. 6. 2), especially, is depicted in a par excellence prominent place, on the semicircle drum over the west entrance.17 The donor portraits indicate a high patronship for the murals of Zarzma. There are depicted the Catholicos (=Patriarch) of Georgia Ekʽvtʽime III (1310–1325) along with the Jaqeli brothers Sargis (+1334) and Quarquare (+1361), the rulers of the Samcʽxe region; 15  Lidov 2014, 433–451. In pp. 450–451, the work of the chief master is ascribed to a possibly Armenian–Chalcedonian artist, who was trained in a bilingual (Greek–Armenian) milieu. 16  Fyssas 2012, 61–69. Additionally: Velmans 1977, 220; Mouriki 1981, 747; Fyssas 2014, 137–138. 17  Fyssas 2012, 31–32, 66–68.

74

‘Byzantine’ Saints in Georgian Monuments

Figure 6.3. Ubisi Monastery of Saint George. Katholikon, drum over the south entrance: Saint Hilariōn Ivēr, middlethird quarter 14th century.

Ubisi is characterized by its unusual iconographical program, composed round a trinitarian composition of perfect Orthodoxy in the higher part of the semi-vault;24 the iconography of the apse is further enriched with the insertion of the Last Supper in the semi-cylinder, between the two panels of the Communion of the Apostles, thus emphasizing the eucharistic character of the program as well.25 Such iconographical experimentations can be traced in other rare examples of the broader orthodox artistic commonwealth as well, expressing a mature conception of the theological tendencies of the era, although no exact parallels to Ubisi can be traced. Furthermore, the analysis of the different compositions confirms that the painters were aware of the most progressive iconographical language of this era.26

Figure 6.2. Zarzma Monastery of the Saviour. Katholikon, drum over the west entrance: Saint Hilariōn Ivēr, first half middle 14th century.

they were the brothers of the spouse of Alexios II of Trebizond (1297–1330), while their other sister was the mother of Georgi V the Brilliant (1314–1346), king of Georgia. Apart from the Mother of God, the Communion of the Apostles and the officiating holy Hierarchs in the apse, there exists in Zarzma an extended Christological cycle, Old Testament scenes as prefigurations of the Mother of God, while the entire south arm of the church is occupied by a Mariological cycle. In the altar, between the officiating hierarchs, instead of the Amnos there is depicted the Anapesōn (=Sleeping Emmanuel), the first known example in Georgia.18

From the stylistic point of view, the Ubisi murals belong to a workshop with a strong artistic unity and with an astonishing consistency in the conception and implementation of the work. They are also characterized by high level of the artistic principles, by elegant and refined figures, by balanced compositions, and represent the evolution of the second Palaiologan style in the middle or the third quarter of the 14th century; the painters do not however seem aware of the new way of handling light and space, which characterizes the most progressive creations of the third quarter of the century.27

The vivid Byzantine conception of the iconographical program matches the progressive and high quality style of the murals. The Zarzma frescoes seem to introduce the so-called second Palaiologan style in Georgia19 and are generally dated to the period of the ministry of Catholicos Ekʽvtʽime,20 although they could be dated slightly later, if not round the mid-14th century. 21

A selection of Georgian saints is further traced in a polyptychon of the 14th century, now in Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai, depicting the Deēsis and saints in three rows; the lower one comprises several saints, exclusively Georgian, including the Holy Athonite Fathers and Saint Hilariōn, in the exact same iconographical type as he is represented in Zarzma and Ubisi.28 It should be noted that in Bachkovo and Axtala the representation of Georgian saints seems to project a certain feeling of national self-confidence, in these cases justified by the geographical position of the monuments: the Petritzi Monastery is a spiritual foundation of Georgians abroad, while Axtala is an advanced vanguard of Georgian

From the same artistic milieu as Zarzma, but representing a further step of evolution, the single-spaced vaulted katholikon of Saint George Monastery in Ubisi (Imeretia)22 was embellished with murals that constitute a significant example for the Palaiologan art and demonstrate its spread into the periphery. It may be not a coincidence that in Ubisi we meet Saint Hilariōn Ivēr (Fig. 6.3), represented according to the iconographical model already established in Zarzma and in the same place: on the semicircle drum over the main (south) entrance. 23 Lordkipanidze 1977, 180. Mouriki 1981, 747. 20  Burčulaże 2006, 199. 21  Fyssas 2012, 66–68; Fyssas 2014, 137. 22  Fyssas 2012; Burčulaże 2006. Additionally: Mouriki 1981, 749; Velmans 1981, 94–100; Velmans – Alpago–Novello 1996, 137–139, 145–147, 160–163; Fyssas 2014, 138–140. 23  Burčulaże 2006, 161–164, fig. 62; Fyssas 2012, 84–93, 295–296, fig. 86. 18  19 

Fyssas 2012, 131–138. Also Velmans 1981, 94–100. Fyssas 2012, 138–140. 26  Fyssas 2012, 174–175, 181–184, 199–202. 27  Fyssas 2012, 333–334. Burčulaże 2006, 199, has dated the Ubisi frescoes in the first quarter of the 14th century. 28  Beneshevich 1925, 43, fig. 23; Mouriki 1990, 40. 24  25 

75

Nikolaos Fyssas Orthodoxy in Armenian anti-Chalcedonian territories. The Sinaitic polyptychon seems to express an analogous principle at work, with its zone of exclusively Georgian saints. All this propagation of the national sanctity seems less needful for a commissioner residing in Georgia, and might be more reasonable to an emigrant, needing to preserve his ‘national’ identity.

workshop, connecting Ači to the religious and artistic activity in the state of the Great Comnenes. One of the most important Georgian monuments for the history of Byzantine art is undoubtedly the katholikon of the Monastery of the Saviour in Calenjixa, painted by the Constantinopolitan master kyr Manouēl Eugenikos under the patronage of the ruler Vameq Dadiani (1384–1396).36 The stylistic tendencies of Calenjixa are later to be discerned in the church of the Mother of God in Nabaxtevi as well.37 The murals of this ruined single-vaulted chapel were painted – according to the donor portraits – during the reign of the king Alexander I of Georgia (1412–1442) with the donation of the dignitary Kʽucʽna Amirejibi, between 1412–1431.38 The iconographical program consisted of the Virgin, the Communion of the Apostles and holy Prelates in the apse, and several compositions, as the Anapesōn39 and the Hospitality of Abraham. Stylistically, the murals belong to the same expressionistic tendency as Calenjixa, therefore in the scholarly literature the monument is ascribed to a supposed cycle of disciples of Eugenikos, while the coexistence of Georgian and Greek inscriptions, mostly in the altar area, is generally attributed to the iconographical models that were followed.40

The above examples from Georgian monuments demonstrate representations of national saints, who flourished in the broader Byzantine lands. A parallel phenomenon, indicative of a common tradition of piety, on the one hand, and of a mobility of artistic models and workshops round the Black-Sea coasts, on the other, is the representation of lesser, but clearly ‘Byzantine’, saints in Georgian monuments. In the fortress of Ači, in the Guria region, in the southwest of Georgia, the frescoes of the small church of Saint George are dated by the scholars in the late 13th century.29 The murals, with inscriptions in Georgian and Greek, do not reflect the Palaiologan artistic tendencies of the era and were commissioned by some unknown noblemen, depicted as donors – most probably from the ruling family of Guria. Research has focused mostly on specific iconographical characteristics, as is the case of a row of worshiping Angels in the apse, analogous to the zone of worshiping Angels in the vault of Hagia Sophia in Trebizond.30 However, we can trace a much clearer iconographical parallel in the Chapel of Prophet Elias in Vazelōn Monastery (Trebizond, late 13th –14th centuries), where a zone of worshiping Angels is unfolded in the semi-cylinder of the apse,31 indicating that in this matter the Georgian monument is not an unicum, but follows iconographical principles diffused within the Empire of Trebizond.

Nevertheless, the existence of bilingual inscriptions and the style of the murals may refer to another fact: Georgia is neighbor to the medieval commercial cities of Theodosia (Caffa)41 and Sugdaia (Sudak, Sourozh)42 in the Crimea. Surprisingly, the patron saint of Sugdaia, Saint Stephanos the Confessor,43 is depicted in Nabaxtevi44 – this being most probably the only surviving Byzantine mural representation of him. Since Theodosia and Sougdaia played the role of gateway communities from the Mediterranean and the Black Sea to the North, we can argue for a separation of Nabaxtevi from the milieu of a ‘school of Calenjixa’ and for its connection rather with the migration of artists round the Black Sea: the Constantinopolitan masters Feofan Grek in Theodosia (most probably in the 1370s, but before 1378)45 and Manouēl Eugenikos in Calenjixa are the two best known and well documented of the many unknown painters who undoubtedly trod the same paths.

In Ači, special attention should be also paid to the representation of a certain ‘Saint Athanasios of Trebizond’, among the holy Prelates in the apse. 32 Research has identified this figure with Saint Athanasios the Athonite, thus revealing a possible connection between Ači and Athos.33 But he is pictured as a holy hierarch, not a monastic, and we should better identify him34 with Saint Athanasios Daimonokatalytēs, Metropolitan of Trebizond in the 9th century.35 The center of his veneration has been identified as the Monastery of Saint Phōkas tou Diaplou in Trebizond, and his fame was limitedly diffused in the East beyond the borders of the state of Trebizond. The depiction of a local saint of the Trebizond Empire in neighboring Guria indicates the hagiographical preferences of the donors, and/or for the traditions and models of the artistic

In summation, in the middle-ages Christian Orthodoxy was the leading ‘ideology’ which connected the 36  For the monument, mainly: Lordkipanidze 1992 and Belting 1979. Additionally: Velmans 1988; Fyssas 2010, 79–80; Fyssas 2014, 141–142. 37  For the monument, mainly: Lordkipaniże 1973; Lordkipanidze 1992, 147–170. Additionally: Alibegashvili 1979, 60–62; Mouriki 1981, 751; Fyssas 2010, 80–81; Fyssas 2014, 142–143. 38  Alibegashvili 1979, 60–62. 39  Lordkipanidze 1977. 40  Lordkipaniże 1973, 73. 41  Khvalkov 2017; Ponomarev 2000. 42  Nystazopoulou 1965. Additionally: Baranov 1994; Vinogradov and Dzhanov 2004. 43  For his life and veneration: Bozoyan 2006; Mogarichev etc. 2009. 44  Lordkipaniże 1973, 35, pls 17b, 18a. 45  Lazarev, 1953, 245–246, 248; Alpatov 1990, 21.

29  For the monument, mainly: Iosebidze 1989; Fyssas 2010, 45–49. Additionally: Velmans 1981, 90–91; Fyssas 2014, 134–135. 30  Iosebidze 1989, 31. 31  Bryer and Winfield 1985, vol. I. 289–294, vol. II, tab. 218a. 32  Iosebidze 1989, pls 33b, 43. 33  Iosebidze 1989, 48–49. 34  Fyssas 2010, 47–48. 35  For his life and veneration: Rosenqvist 1996, 206–215; Bryer and Winfield 1985, vol. I, 320.

76

‘Byzantine’ Saints in Georgian Monuments different states and ethnical entities of the broader Byzantine commonwealth. Religious worship was identical throughout this world, although the languages varied; visual arts, oriented to the achievements of Constantinople – the Orthodox New Jerusalem – were a common connecting link, and were perceived as one and the same language, albeit with multiple local idioms. Due to the frequent lack of written sources, research often relies only on style and iconography, not only to date, but also to explain the diffusion of artistic trends in the periphery, and – furthermore – in order to trace the routes of such a diffusion, by ascertaining the background of donors and artists as well. Tracing peculiarities of the iconographical programs and patterns often plays a key role in this procedure. In this framework, the selection of seldom-depicted saints and their role in the iconographical programs should be considered as representing the spiritual orientation of the donor and/or for the background of the artists. This seems to be the case of the examples studied in the present article.

connection further reveals the exact artistic orientation of donors and painters in both monuments.

The Georgian saints of Athos and Constantinople are not included in the several iconographic programs preserved in Georgia; but they are exceptionally depicted in Bachkovo, Axtala, Zarzma, Ubisi and on the Sinai polyptychon, thus further underlining the pioneering role these monuments may have played in their environs.

Literature

The murals of the funeral chapel at Bachkovo are artistically a metropolitan-Byzantine example. The monastery itself was founded as a clearly Byzantine spiritual entity, but on the base of an almost belligerent Georgian separatism: thus the depiction of the ‘national’ saints, who achieved the balanced amalgamation of Byzantine principles and Georgian traditions, is to be taken as a pictorial expression of this ‘national’ conscience. The same feeling of national self esteem and pride seems to be a key for understanding the iconography of the Sinai polyptychon as well, a work that could be connected with the activity of the Georgian expatriates in Byzantium and their relations with the motherland.

Bakalova 1977: Bakalova, Εlka, Bachkovskata kostnitsa, Sofiȋa 1977.

The case of the depiction of Saints Athanasios of Trebizond in Ači and Stephanos of Sugdaia in Nabaxtevi is a characteristic example of how an iconographicalhagiological element can broaden our interpretation of remote monuments. Thus, Ači should be connected with the spiritual and artistic traditions of the Trebizond state, while Nabaxtevi demonstrates a broader artistic circulation in the Black Sea rather than being an offshoot of Calenjixa and Manouēl Eugenikos. In all these cases, the selection of ‘foreign’ Saints in the iconographical programs of the Georgian monuments is but an importation of ‘foreign’ piety, an injection of outside principles, which serves as a direct reference to the broader spiritual and cultural horizons of the Orthodox commonwealth and to the formative role of its Byzantine center.

Alibegashvili 1979: Alibegashivili, V. G., Svetskiĭ portret v gruzinskoĭ srednevekovoĭ monumentalnoĭ zhivopisi, Tbilisi 1979. Alpatov 1990: Alpatov, Mikhail, Feofan Grek, Moskva 1990.

Bakalova etc 2003: Bakalova, Εlka – Kolarova, Vera – Popov, Petar and Todorov, Valentin, The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Monastery, Plovdiv 2003. Baranov 1994: Baranov, I. A., ‘Torgovo-remeslennye kvartaly vizantiĭskoĭ Sugdei’, Byzantinorossica 1, Moskva 1994. Belting 1979: Belting, Hans, ‘Le peintre Manuel Eugenikos de Constantinople en Georgie’, Cahiers Archéologiques 28 (1979), 103–114. Beneshevich 1925: Beneshevich, V. N., Pamȋatniki Sinaȋa, arkheologichesie i paleograficheskie, vol 1, Leningrad 1925.

Axtala underlines the same paradigm, but in a reverse direction. The Armenian ex-Gregorian Ivane Mxargrżeli embraced Georgian Chalcedonian Orthodoxy not in its restricted national framework, but in its universal perspective: through the Georgian, he adopted Byzantine Orthodoxy – just as the Georgian saints of Athos and Constantinople did. The style and iconographical program of the monument further underlines this orientation.

Bozoyan 2006: Bozoyan, Azat, ‘La Vie arménienne de saint Ėtienne de Sougdaia’, in C. Zuckerman (ed.), La Crimée entre Byzance et le Khaganat Khazar, Centre de recherches d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 25, Paris 2006, 87–108. Bryer and Winfield 1985: Bryer, Antony and Winfield, David, The Byzantine monuments and topography of the Pontos, Washington D.C., Dumbarton Oaks 1985.

Zarzma, first, and Ubisi, following, introduce the mature Palaiologan style and iconography into Georgia. This import seems to be symbolically marked by the exceptional place of Saint Hilariōn Ivēr in their iconographic programs, thus highlighting not only the immediate connection between the two monuments, but their connection to the Georgian sanctity of Constantinople as well. Such a

Burčulaże 2006: Burčulaże, Nana, Ubisis monasteris xatebi da kedlis mxatvroba me-14 s, Tʽbilisi 2006. Fyssas 2012: Φύσσας, Λ. Νικόλαος, Οι τοιχογραφίες της Μονής Ουμπίσι και η Παλαιολόγεια ζωγραφική στη Γεωργία, Unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2012.

77

Nikolaos Fyssas Fyssas 2014: Fyssas, Nikolaos, ‘Monumental Painting in Medieval Georgia from the Golden Age of Queen Thamar until the Fall of Byzantium: Tradition and Artistic ‘Oecumenicity’’, in Maria. PanayotidiKesisoglou, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti (eds), Medieval painting in Georgia, Local stylistic expression and participation to Byzantine Oecumenicity, Athens 2014, 123–146.

Surozhkogo v kontekste istorii Kryma ikonoborcheskogo vremeni, Simferopol’ 2009. Mouriki 1981: Mouriki, Doula, ‘The formative role of byzantine art on the artistic style of the cultural neighbors of Byzantium – Reflections of Constantinopolitan Style in Georgian Monumental Painting’, Actes XVI Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Wien 1981, JÖB 31/2 (1981), 725–757.

Gautier 1984: Gautier, Paul, ‘Le typicon de sébaste Grégoire Pakourianos’, Revue des Études Byzantines 42 (1984), 5–145.

Mouriki 1990: Mouriki, Doula, ‘La présence géorgienne au Sinaï d’ après le témoignage des icônes du monastère de Sainte-Catherine’, in Βυζάντιο και Γεωργία. Καλλιτεχνικές και πολιτιστικές σχέσεις, Συμπόσιο, Πρόγραμμα, κατάλογος ομιλητών και περιλήψεις ανακοινώσεων, Αμφιθέατρο του Πολεμικού Μουσείου, Αθήνα, 9–11 Ιουνίου 1990, Athens 1991, 39–40.

Iosebidze 1989: Iosebidze, Dz., Rospis’ Ači, Tbilisi 1989. Khvalkov 2018: Khvalkov, Evgeny, The Colonies of Genoa in the Black Sea Region: Evolution and Transformation, New York 2018.

Nystazopoulou 1965: Νυσταζοπούλου, Μαρία, Ἡ ἐν τῇ Ταυρικῇ Χερσονήσῳ πόλις Σουγδαία ἀπὸ τοῦ ιγ΄ μέχρι τοῦ ιε΄ αἰῶνος, Athens 1965.

Lazarev, 1953: Lazarev, N.Victor, ‘Etudy o Feofane Greke [I]: Biografȋa Feofana Greka; Rospisi Spasa Preobrazheniȋa v Novgorode’, Vizantiĭskiĭ Vremenik 7 (1953), 244–258.

Panayotidi 1992: Παναγιωτίδη Μαρία, ‘Η εικόνα της Παναγίας Γλυκοφιλούσας στο μοναστήρι του Πετριτζού (Bačkovo) στη Βουλγαρία’, in Ευφρόσυνον. Αφιέρωμα στον Μανόλη Χατζηδάκη, v. 2, Athens 1992, 461–463.

Lefort etc. 1985: Lefort, Jacques – Oikonomidès, Nicolas and Papachrysanthou, Denise with the collaboration of Métrévéli, Hélène, Archives de l’Athos XIV. Actes d’ Iviron I, Paris 1985.

Panayotidi-Kesisoglou and Kalopissi-Verti 2014: Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Maria and Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia (eds.), Medieval Painting in Georgia, local stylistic expression and participation to byzantine Oecumenicity, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens – Department of Archaeology and History of Art, Athens 2014.

Lemerle 1977: Lemerle, Paul, ‘Le typikon de Grégoire Pakourianos (Décembre 1083)’, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantine (Paris, 1977), 115–91. Lidov 2014: Lidov, Alexei, The wall paintings of Akhtala Monastery, History, iconography, masters, Moscow 2014. Lolašvili 1989: Lolašvili, I., Mtʽacmindelisa, Tʽbilisi 1994.

Cʽxovrebai

Giorgi

Ponomarev 2000: Ponomarev, A. L., ‘Terittoriȋa i naselenie genuėzskoĭ Kaffy po dannym bukhgalterskoĭ knigi-massarii kaznachejstba za 1381–1382 godov’, Prichernomorie v sredine veka 4 (2000), 118–190.

Lomurin 1981: Lomurin, N., Petriconis kʽartʽuli monastris istoriisatʽvis, Tʽbilisi 1981. Lordkipaniże 1973: Lordkipaniże, Inga, Nabaxtevis mxatvroba, Tʽbilisi 1973.

Rosenqvist 1996: Rosenqvist, Jan Olaf, The Hagiographic Dossier of St Eugenios of Trebizond in Codex Athous Dionysiou 154: A Critical Edition with Introduction, Translation, Commentary and Indexes (Studia Byzantina Upsaliensia, 5 No.) Uppsala 1996, 206–215.

Lordkipanidze 1977: Lordkipanidze, Inga, ‘Emmanuel dormant dans certaines peintures murales géorgiens’, Atti del Primo Simposio Internazionale sull’arte georgiana (ed. G. Ieni), Milano 1977, 180–256.

Tchkoidze 2011: Tchkoidze, Eka, Ένας Γεωργιανός προσκυνητής στον βυζαντινό κόσμο του 9ου αιώνα: ο Άγιος Ιλαρίων ο Γεωργιανός, Αθήνα 2011.

Lordkipanidze 1992: Lordkipanidze, Inga, Rospis’ v Tsaledjikha. Khudozhnik kir Manuil Evgenikos i ego mesto v gruzinskoĭ srednevekovoĭ monumental’noĭ zhivopisi, Tbilisi 1992.

Velmans 1977: Velmans, Tania, La peinture murale byzantine à la fin du Moyen Âge, Paris 1977.

Martin-Hizard 1981: Martin-Hizard, Bernardette, ‘La pérégrination du moine géorgien Hilarion an IX siècle’, Bedi Kartlisa 39 (1981), 101–138.

Velmans 1981: Velmans, Tania, ‘L’image de la Déisis dans les églises de Géorgie et dans le reste du monde byzantine’, 1ère partie, Cahiers archéologiques 29 (1980–1981), 47–102.

Martin-Hisard 1991: Martin-Hisard, Bernardette, ‘La vie de Jean et Euthyme et le statut du monastère des Ibères sur l’Athos’, Revue des Études Byzantines 49 (1991), 67–142.

Velmans 1988: Velmans, Tania, ‘Le décor de l’église de Calendzikha. Quelques schémas rares: la Vierge entre Pierre et Paul, la procession des anges et le Christ de Pitié’, Cahiers Archéologiques 36 (1988), 137–160.

Mogarichev etc. 2009: Mogarichev, Îu. M. – Sazanov, A. V – Stepanova E. V. and Shaposhnikov, A. K. Zhitie Stefana

78

‘Byzantine’ Saints in Georgian Monuments Velmans – Alpago-Novello 1996: Velmans, Tania – Alpago-Novello, Adriano, Miroir de l’invisible: peintures murals et architecture de la Géorgie, 6e–15e s., Paris 1996. Vinogradov and Dzhanov 2004: Vinogradov, A. Îu. and Dzhanov, A. V., ‘Grecheskie nadpisi Sugdei’, Sugdeĭskiĭ sbornik 1, Kiev-Sudak 2004, 13–35. Zateišvili 1995: Zateišvili, I. ,‘Zhitie blazhenykh otsov našikh Iovane i Ėptvime i izvestie dostoĭnogo zhitel´stva ikh, napisannoe ubogim Giorgiem ieromonakhom’, Simvol 34 (1995), 357–374, and 36 (1996), 281–298.

79

7 Donors, Funerary Inscriptions and Portraits in 15th-Century Constantinople Nicholas Melvani Abstract: Some inscriptions and portraits in Constantinople provide information about patronage in the Byzantine capital in the 15th century. The only extant funerary portrait is Tomb G in the outer narthex of the Chora church. The identity of the portrayed person is not known. An epigram by Mark Eugenikos attests to a portrait of John VIII Palaiologos in the monastery of Mangana, whereas two poems by Bessarion refer to a portrait of Manuel II Palaiologos. Other epigrams, apparently commissioned to be inscribed on tombs, mention funerary portraits of prominent aristocrats in various monasteries. This evidence shows that burial practices in late Palaiologan Constantinople continued traditions known from earlier times, whereas imperial portraits remained an effective medium for the promotion of imperial ideology. Ένας μικρός αριθμός επιγραφών και προσωπογραφιών στην Κωνσταντινούπολη παρέχει πολύτιμες μαρτυρίες σχετικά με τη χορηγία στη βυζαντινή πρωτεύουσα κατά το 15ο αι. Το μοναδικό σωζόμενο ταφικό πορτραίτο βρίσκεται στη μονή της Χώρας: ο λεγόμενος τάφος G στον εξωνάρθηκα φέρει αταύτιστη μορφή, η οποία πιθανώς ανήκε σε μέλος κάποιας από τις οικογένειες Μετοχίτη, Ασάνη, Ραούλ ή Καβάκη. Τα επιγράμματα του Μάρκου Ευγενικού συμπληρώνουν το κενό που προκαλεί η έλλειψη μνημείων του 15ου αι.: ένα από αυτά μαρτυρεί την ύπαρξη προσωπογραφίας του αυτοκράτορα Ιωάννη Η΄ στη μονή του Αγίου Γεωργίου των Μαγγάνων, ενώ μερικά από τα επιγράμματα προορίζονταν να αποτελέσουν επιτύμβιες επιγραφές και αναφέρουν την ύπαρξη ταφικών προσωπογραφιών. Πρόκειται για επιγράμματα που αναφέρονται στον τάφο του Δημητρίου Λεοντάρη στη μονή της Πέτρας, στον τάφο του Ισαάκιου Ασάνη και της εγγονής του στη μονή του Χριστού Φιλανθρώπου και στους τάφους μελών της οικογένειας του Δημήτριου Τζαμπλάκωνα στη Μονή των Ξανθοπούλων. Η καταγραφή των ταφικών μνημείων της Παμμακαρίστου από τον Ιωάννη Μαλαξό το 16ο αι. περιλαμβάνει και το αρκοσόλιο με την επιτύμβια επιγραφή της Θεοδώρας Καντακουζηνής, χήρας του Αλεξίου Γ΄ Μεγάλου Κομνηνού, στο βορειοανατολικό τμήμα του περίστωου. Τέλος, στο δομηνικανό μοναστήρι των Αγίων Παύλου και Δομήνικου, μεταξύ των λατινικών επιτύμβιων επιγραφών, έχει εντοπιστεί μία επιτύμβια πλάκα με ελληνική επιγραφή, η οποία αναφέρει την Άννα Δούκαινα Πετραλιφήνα. Το διαθέσιμο υλικό δείχνει ότι τα χαρακτηριστικά των αριστοκρατικών ταφών σε μοναστήρια, όπως είναι γνωστά από την πρώιμη παλαιολόγεια περίοδο, επιβίωσαν μέχρι και τις τελευταίες βυζαντινές δεκαετίες. Τα σωζόμενα επιγράμματα του Μάρκου Ευγενικού και του Γεωργίου Σχολαρίου μαρτυρούν ότι οι επιτύμβιες έμμετρες επιγραφές και οι ταφικές προσωπογραφίες ακολουθούσαν τα πρότυπα των ταφών του 14ου αι. στη μονή Χώρας και την Παμμακάριστο. Παράλληλα, δείχνουν ότι αριστοκρατικές πρακτικές , όπως τα διπλά και τα ομαδικά πορτραίτα και οι ταφές σε οικογενειακά μαυσωλεία διατηρήθηκαν και το 15ο αι. στην Κωνσταντινούπολη. Οι μαρτυρίες για τον Άγιο Γεώργιο των Μαγγάνων δείχνουν ότι τα αυτοκρατορικά πορτραίτα εξακολούθησαν να είναι βασικό μέσο προώθησης της αυτοκρατορικής ιδεολογίας. Keywords: Constantinople, 15th century, Byzantine epigraphy, Byzantine epigrams, Byzantine portraits, monasteries of Constantinople, John VIII Palaiologos, Manuel II Palaiologos, Chora monastery. itself for the last time.1 Modern scholarship has illuminated several aspects of the intense economic activity that

The end of the 14th and the first years of the 15th centuries mark the beginning of the final phase of Constantinople’s Byzantine history. After an eight-year long blockade from 1394 to 1402, the Treaty of Kallipolis with the Ottomans in 1403 gave the Byzantine capital the chance to reorganize

1 

81

Dennis 1967, 72–88; Harris 2012; Necipoğlu 2009, 184–232.

Nicholas Melvani characterizes this half-century,2 whereas the numerous inscriptions referring to repairs to the fortification walls attest to noteworthy construction activity.3 Written sources, especially archival material, often mention the incessant concern of emperors and aristocrats to rebuild and preserve imperial and private religious foundations. Epigraphic sources and artistic, as well as archaeological evidence, confirm that the activity of patrons in the churches and monasteries of Constantinople remained intense until the eve of the Ottoman conquest. The only extant funerary portrait from 15th-century Constantinople is located in the Chora monastery, best known for its role in the so-called Palaiologan Renaissance of the 14th century.4 The arcosolium designated as Tomb G in the west wall of the outer narthex is the last funerary monument in Chora.5 The back wall of the niche is decorated with a wall painting depicting the Virgin and Child and a figure dressed in a black brocaded gown (Fig.7.1). The Italian Renaissance elements of the painting led Paul Underwood to date the tomb towards the middle of the 15th century: the attempt at implementing the laws of two-point perspective in the rendering of the ground and the furniture, the way the ornament follows the tubular drapery on the dress of the deceased, as well as the bright colours and three-dimensional drapery on the Virgin’s right leg betray contact with 15th-century Italian art. However, the identification of the deceased, which would facilitate dating the tomb with greater precision, is highly problematic, since neither inscription nor other evidence provides any indications. The only fact known about the patrons of Chora after the 14th-century restorer Theodore Metochites, is that members of the Raoul and Asanes families were buried in the monastery at some time after 1330.6 Both families are well attested in the 15th century, but by the middle of the 15th century members of the Kabakes family claimed ownership of the monastery, based on their relation to the Metochites family.7 In fact, members of the Kabakes were also related by marriage to the Raoul.8 At the same time, the Metochites family itself remained active, although its exact relation to the monastery at this late period remains unclear.9 Therefore, the arcosolium could have belonged to a member of any of these families.

Figure 7.1. Chora Monastery, Outer narthex, West wall, ‘Tomb G’: Funerary portrait with the Virgin and Child.

poem from the collection of epigrams of the great 15thcentury scholar Mark Eugenikos concerning the monastery of Saint George of Mangana, which had been founded in the 11th century by Constantine IX Monomachos.11 The epigram contains clear references to the repairs carried out in the monument by the emperor John VIII Palaiologos (1425–1448):12 Ἀψίδας εὐπαγέας χρόνος ἐνθάδε λῦσε παλαιός, ἀλλὰ ῥ’αὐτὰς ἀνέγειρε διαπρεπέως ἀραρυίας …………………………………………………………. ἔμπνουν εἰκόνα παμβασιλῆος στῆσεν ἐαυτόν, Old time destroyed these well-built vaults but [the emperor] rebuilt them splendidly ……………………………………………… he erected a lively royal image of himself The word ἐνθάδε in the first line indicates that the epigram was composed to be displayed within the monument. Moreover, the phrase εἰκόνα παμβασιλῆος στῆσεν ἐαυτόν is probably an allusion to a portrait of John. What follows is a vivid description of the imperial portrait, which in all likelihood was accompanied by a portrait of John’s wife Maria.13 The emphasis on the imperial insignia, mainly the crown and the imperial costume, is complemented with references to Constantine the Great. Therefore, the epigram is the text of an inscription, which accompanied an imperial portrait. Only ruins remain from the monastery of Saint George of Mangana, thus there is no further evidence that could help reconstruct the composition and locate it within the main church with any degree of precision.14

This is the only surviving monumental portrait from 15thcentury Constantinople. However, the evidence from literary sources, especially epigrams, makes up for the lack of material evidence.10 A characteristic example is a Oikonomidès 1979; Matschke – Tinnefeld 2001, 158–220. Meyer–Plath – Schneider 1943, 123–144; Philippides 2016. 4  For the art of Chora, see in general: Underwood 1966; Ousterhout 1987; Brooks 2004b. 5  Underwood 1959; Underwood 1966, 292–295; Brooks 2004b, 29–30. 6  Brooks 2004b, 29. For the Raoul family, see Fasoulakis 1973 and Burke 2014. For the Asan: Bozhilov 1994. 7  Underwood 1966, 286. For the Kabakes family, see Keller 1957; Fasoulakis 1973, 83–85. 8  For example, Demetrios Raoul Kavakes (Bacchielli 2007). 9  Ganchou 1994, 247–262; Laurent 1957. 10  See Brooks 2006 for a methodological model on the use of epigrams in studying painted decoration. 2  3 

11  Mango 1976, 355, 363–365; Kidonopoulos 1994, 39–41. For Mark, see Mamone 1954; Tsirpanlis 1974; Mineva 2004; Constas 2002. 12  Mamone 1954, 572. 13  For a recent discussion of imperial portraits during the Palaiologan period, see Hilsdale 2014, 248–263, 288–316 and Melvani 2018, 256. 14  For the remains of the church, see Demangel–Mamboury 1939, 19–37; Bouras 1976; Müller–Wiener 1977, 136–139. The imperial portrait may

82

Donors, Funerary Inscriptions and Portraits in 15th-Century Constantinople The close links between John VIII and the monastery of Mangana are attested in other sources as well.15

tower has recently been identified with a small building now housing a neighbourhood mosque, known as the Kasım Ağa Camii.21 Based on the examination of old photographs (taken before the mosque was restored in the 1970s), Neslihan Asutay-Effenberger has ascertained that four arcosolium niches once existed in the west wall of the monument. Thus, the tomb with the portrait and at least one of the two epigrams, must have been situated in this part of the building.

A portrait of John’s father Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425) is attested in another imperial monastery, the Komnenian Pantokrator, founded in 1118–1136 by John II Komnenos (1118–1143) and his wife Eirene: two epigrams by the famous scholar Bessarion describe a set of textiles destined for the tomb of Manuel, commissioned in 1435 by the emperor’s son Theodore II Palaiologos of Mistras. These were adorned with double portraits of Manuel and his wife Helena in secular and monastic dress (πέπλοις διπλοῖς ἐν σχήματι κοσμικῶν καὶ μοναστῶν: with double veils in the forms of laypeople and monastics)16. Double portraits in funerary contexts were very common during the Komnenian and early Palaiologan periods and Manuel’s images show that the popularity of this iconographic scheme persisted until the 15th century. The decoration of the so-called Tomb of Tornikes in the Chora monastery (dated ca. 1330) is the best-known example still extant in Constantinople17.

A similar case concerns the monastery of Christ Philanthropos, founded by Alexios I Komnenos (1081– 1118).22 Again, the epigrams of Mark Eugenikos are our main source for burials within the monastery in the 15th century, since the monument has not survived.23 Thus, according to one of the poems, the monastery housed the burials of members of two great Late Byzantine families, the Asanes and the Philanthropenoi: the tomb of Isaakios Asanes was adorned with a portrait (‘ἀλλὰ τί μοι, βέλτιστε, σωμάτων τύπους’ – ‘imprints of bodies’) of the deceased accompanied by his granddaughter, who was the daughter of Isaakios’ son-in-law, George Doukas Philanthropenos.24 The epigram was evidently destined to be inscribed on the tomb (‘εἰς τάφον τοῦ Ἀσάνη κυροῦ Ἰσαακίου καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐγγόνης, ἐν τῇ μονῇ τοῦ Φιλανθρώπου’: ‘on the tomb of Isaakios Asanes and his granddaughter in the monastery of Philanthropos’) and contains biographical data on both Isaakios and his granddaughter. Several textual sources mention that the families Asanes and Philanthropenos were linked by marriages and it is also known that the patriarch Joseph II, a descendant of the Philanthropenoi, renovated the monastery at his own expense.25 Moreover, another epigram by Eugenikos was commissioned for an icon of Saint Theodosia offered to the monastery by Joseph II himself.26 Thus, it appears that in the 15th century the monastery was actually a family monastery, as well as a family mausoleum of the Philanthropenoi and their relatives, the Asanes (Asen).27

Other 15th-century epigrams provide even more information concerning contemporary tomb monuments and their decoration. Those referring to the monastery of Saint John of Petra, an 11th-century foundation that became one of the leading monasteries of Palaiologan Constantinople, are characteristic examples.18 Two epigrams by Mark Eugenikos were written for the tomb of Demetrios Leontares:19 the title of one of them (‘Στίχοι εἰς τάφον κυροῦ Δημητρίου τοῦ Λεοντάρη ἐν τῇ μονῇ τῆς Πέτρας’: ‘Verses on the tomb of Demetrios Leontares in the monastery of Petra’) implies that it was inscribed on the tomb of Leontares, which was situated in Petra. Moreover, the epigram addresses the viewer of the tomb and mentions the portrait of the deceased (‘Ζητεῖς, θεατά, τὸν μέγαν Λεοντάρην,/ἐκεῖνον αὐτόν, οὗ βλέπεις τὴν εἰκόνα;’ – ‘Are you searching, beholder, for the great Leontares, whose image you are looking at?’). The author praises the virtues of Leontares, in accordance with the well-established principles of funerary epigrams (e.g. line 5: ‘τὸν ἐν μάχαις ἄτρεστον ἀσπιδηφόρον’ – ‘the intrepid shield-bearer in battle’). Demetrios Leontares was one of the most prominent dignitaries of Manuel II Palaiologos (1391–1425); according to a short chronicle, he died in 1431 and was interred in the chapel occupying the ground floor of the bell tower of the monastery of Petra.20 The bell

One more Constantinopolitan monastery is mentioned in a similar context: two epigrams by Mark Eugenikos contain references to tomb monuments in the so-called monastery of the Xanthopouloi, which had been founded in the 14th century and which appears frequently in the sources during the last Byzantine decades.28 The epigrams describe the tombs of members of the Tzamplakones family. Both epigrams mention funerary portraits; in fact, the one referring to the children of Demetrios Tzamplakon alludes to a group burial accompanied by a group portrait (‘Εἰς τάφον τῶν τέκνων κυροῦ Δημητρίου τοῦ Τζαμπλάκωνος

have been comparable to that of John’s grandfather (John V Palaiologos) in the Haghia Sophia (Teteriatnikov 2013; Mango 1962, 74–76). It is even possible that the word αψισι in the epigram may actually refer to the surface of a vault, just like the one in the Haghia Sophia. Alice–Mary Talbot has offered a similar interpretation of the poem: Talbot 2004, 300–301. 15  An anonymous oration in praise of John and a hymn by Mark Eugenikos mention John’s frequent visits to the monastery: Lambros 1926, 292–308; Mineva 1996. 16  Lambros 1926, 281–283; Melvani 2018, 248–250. 17  Weissbrod 2003, 130–134; Brooks 2004b. 18  For the monastery, see Malamut 2001. 19  Mamone 1954, 574. 20  Hunger 1969, 128; Schreiner 1975, 647; Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, no. 14676; Barker 1969, 278–279, 342–344,

351–358. 21  Asutay–Effenberger 2008. For the Kasım Ağa Camii, see also Müller– Wiener 1977, 164–165. 22  For the monastery, see Melvani 2016; Stanković 2011, 55–64; Janin 1953, 539–544. 23  Mamone 1954, 573–574. 24  For these personages, see Bozhilov 1994, 348–350. 25  Dujčev 1961. 26  Mamone 1954, 575. For Joseph, see also Gill 1964, 15–34. 27  Nikolić 2012. 28  For the monastery, see Janin 1953, 393; Balfour 1979, 279–286.

83

Nicholas Melvani ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ μονῇ’ – ’On the tomb of the children of Demetrios Tzamplakon in the same monastery’, line 24: ‘πατὴρ ἀνιστόρησε τῶν παίδων τύπους’ – ‘[the] father had the images of the children painted’).29 The Tzamplakones, who had played a leading role in 14th-century events, especially during the civil wars, were still active in 15thcentury Constantinople.30 Their members are attested in this late period holding crucial offices and they appear to have been patrons of the monastery of the Xanthopouloi, which they used as a mausoleum, in accordance with Palaiologan customs. Interestingly, the monastery also enjoyed the patronage of the prestigious Notaras family; in fact, two members of the family were buried there, apparently not far from the burials of the Tzamplakones.31 The site of the monastery has not been identified, but Nektarios Zarras has recently suggested that a pair of icons in the collection of the Greek Institute in Venice may have originally belonged to the family chapel of the Notarades in Constantinople.32 If this is correct, they must be attributed to a chapel within the monastery of the Xanthopouloi.

Figure 7.2. Sarcophagus of Theodora Kantakouzene, Grand Komnene, in the Pammakaristos monastery.

wall of an arcosolium niche. It appears that the portrait of Alexios I was intended as a direct allusion to the genealogy of the Grand Komnenoi, since Theodora was the wife of Alexios III Grand Komnenos. In 1390, when Alexios III died, Theodora returned to Constantinople and died there shortly before 1406.37

An additional funerary monument of the late 14th or early 15th centuries is known exclusively through the testimony of a written text, this time a post-Byzantine work. The monastery of the Virgin Pammakaristos, a monument of the Komnenian period, is known mainly for the chapel added in the early 14th century by Maria Tarchaneiotissa in memory of her husband Michael Glabas Tarchaneiotes.33 The text is a description of the monastery by Manuel Malaxos written in 1578, when the building was the seat of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.34 Malaxos includes an account of the tombs in the Pammakaristos, among which figures a sarcophagus at the north part of the perambulatory (Fig. 7. 2), which he attributed to Theodora Kantakouzene, based on the accompanying funerary inscription:

The Dominican monastery of Saints Paul and Dominic in the Genoese quarter of Pera constitutes a separate chapter in the late history of Constantinople.38 The monastery was the principal burial ground of members of the most prominent families of the Genoese community.39 A large number of tomb slabs is dated to the 15th century: they are mainly tomb slabs from the church’s floor, covering burials. Most of the slabs bear short Latin funerary inscriptions recording the names of the deceased and the dates of their death, accompanied by their coats of arms and, in a few cases, funerary portraits. The inscriptions mention the names of several well-known families that played leading roles in Constantinople’s economic life, often in collaboration with Greek merchants. An undecorated slab with a Greek inscription is of particular importance. According to the inscription, the tomb belonged to a woman named Anna Doukaina Petraliphina:40

έκοιμήθη ἡ εὐσεβεστάτη καὶ θεόστεπτος δέσποινα / τῆς Τραπεζοῦντος κυρᾶ Θεοδώρα αὐγούστα ἡ Μεγάλη Κομνηνὴ ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἀοιδήμου βασιλέως Τραπεζοῦντος Ἀλεξίου τοῦ Μεγάλου Κομνηνοῦ. ἐν ἔτει ςω. the most pious and God-crowned Lady of Trebizond Theodora Augusta the Grand Komnene, wife of the Emperor of Trebizond of blessed memory, Alexios the Grand Komnenos, died in the year 6....35

[Ἐ]κοιμήθη ἡ δούλη τοῦ/[Θ(εο)ῦ Ἄ]ννα Δούκενα ἡ Πετ/ [ραλ]ιφήνα, ἐν ἔτει ςπ../.. [ἰ]ν(δικτιῶνος) β´ ἐν μηνὶ ὀκτ(ω) βρίῳ/ η´. The servant of God Anna Doukaina Petraliphina died in the year 68.., during the second indiction, in the month October 8.

This information is corroborated by German visitors, who, at approximately the same time, published drawings of the sarcophagus.36 Malaxos also adds that the tomb included the image of an eagle, a monogram of the Palaiologoi, and a mosaic portrait of Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118), which may have been part of the decoration of the back

37  For Theodora, see Nicol 1968, 143–146. For her tomb, as well as other tombs in the monument, Effenberger 2007b. She is represented with her husband Alexios III on the foundation chrysobull of the Athonite monastery of Dionysiou: Cutler 2009. Archival documents confirm that Theodora constantly supported monasteries and churches in Constantinople, by donating money for the upkeep of monastic foundations: Miklosich – Müller 1862, 394–395. Thus, she may have been responsible for construction at the Pammakaristos as well. 38  See Westphalen 2007; D’Alessio 1936; Cramer–Düll 1985. For a history of the convent, see Melvani 2017. 39  Düll 1983; Ivison 1996, 91–92; D’Alessio 1942. 40  Laurent 1936, 220–222.

Mamone 1954, 573. Theocharidis 1959; Estangüi–Gomez 2014, 315–317. 31  Acconcia Longo 1977–79; Matschke 1997, 798–800. 32  Zarras 2013, 241–242. 33  Hallensleben 1963–64; Mango 1978; Effenberger 2007a. 34  Schreiner 1971, 224; Schreiner 2001; Mango 1978, 30. 35  Translation by Cyril Mango (Mango 1978, 41). 36  The evidence is examined in Effenberger 2007b, 191–195. 29  30 

84

Donors, Funerary Inscriptions and Portraits in 15th-Century Constantinople The person in question is unknown from other sources and the only available information on her is the date mentioned in the inscription. Based on the sole preserved digit, as well as on the indiction and the month, it can be dated between the years 1393 and 1468.41 Nothing can be said about the identity of the deceased woman, except that she was the descendant of two families with a long history, but not well documented during this late period.42 She was possibly married to a member of a Genoese family, which could explain the presence of her funerary monument in the Dominican monastery.

at the Mangana and Pantokrator monasteries demonstrate that even within the context of the reduced empire the traditions of imperial iconography and ideology remained alive. Thus, the texts offer invaluable insights into the relations between late Palaiologan patrons and the monuments of Constantinople during the last decades of Byzantium. Some of the great aristocratic families, such as the Philanthropenoi and the Tzamplakones, were able to continue their support toward religious foundations, but their primary concerns were apparently their burials and the construction of their tombs. These tombs were usually situated in niches created in narthexes, perambulatories, chapels, and other funerary annexes, all of which were standard features of Palaiologan architecture.45 In fact, archaeological investigations in the Chora, Lips, and Pammakaristos complexes have determined that open archways and other areas were gradually blocked after the middle of the 14th century in order to form arcosolium niches to accommodate additional tombs. The inscriptions and portraits attested in the sources analysed above were displayed on tombs like the ones detected in these monuments. As Sarah Brooks has shown, the audiences viewing these texts and images normally belonged to the same elites as the patrons and comprised a relatively small circle of aristocrats who shared the same literary and scholarly interests.46 Thus, although the absence of building inscriptions is hardly a surprise, given the stagnation of building activity during this final phase of Byzantine history, the inscriptions are an important body of evidence, albeit indirect, regarding the continuous demand for painters to execute the portraits alluded to in the epigrams. This evidence may provide one of the keys to one of the greatest mysteries of Byzantine art history, namely the activity and output of painters in Constantinople during the last years of Byzantium.

Although the available evidence is limited compared to earlier periods, the inscriptions and epigrams reveal that architectural activity was continued in the 15th century, albeit limited to repairs and a few additions to already existing monuments. Very little survives of monumental painting, but it is obvious that the form and decoration of tomb monuments still followed the models known from earlier centuries of aristocratic burials in monasteries.43 Indeed, the iconography of tomb decoration adhered to the well-established types of funerary portraits, including group portraits. The decoration was accompanied by verse inscriptions, composed by the most prominent scholars of the time, such as George Scholarios, Bessarion, and Mark Eugenikos, who wrote funerary epigrams, just as Manuel Philes had in the early Palaiologan period and Theodore Prodromos in the Komnenian period.44 The decoration of these funerary monuments provides evidence concerning the artistic activity of the time: references to one mosaic composition and to the sculptural decoration of a sarcophagus are of particular importance. The surviving arcosolium in the Chora monastery indeed shows that during this time, which coincided with the early Italian Renaissance, clear influences from Italy were visible. Moreover, the funerary epigrams are a source of historical information, since they reveal various aspects of important religious foundations of the time, including some whose history is not well documented in other sources. They also allude to members of the great aristocratic families of Constantinople, such as the Leontares, Philanthropenoi, Asanes, and Tzamplakones, often within the framework of dynastic alliances, even with Latin families. These families continued the traditions of previous generations, whereas new families, such as the prominent Notaras, also appear in similar contexts, emulating traditional aristocratic practices. The few attested imperial portraits of the period

Literature Acconcia Longo 1977–79: Acconcia Longo, Augusta, ‘Versi di Ioasaf ieromonaco e grande protosincello in morte di Giovanni Notara’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici 14–16 (1977–79) 249–279. Asutay-Effenberger 2008: Asutay-Effenberger, Neslihan, ‘Das Kloster des Ioannes Prodromos tes Petras in Konstantinopel und sein Bezug zu Odalar Kasım Ağa Camii’, Millennium 5 (2008) 299–326. Bacchielli 2007: Bacchielli, Franco, ‘Di Demetrio Raoul Kavàkis e di alcuni suoi scritti (con due lettere inedite di Gemisto Pletone)’, Unomolti 1 (2007) 129–187.

41  The date 1483 proposed by Laurent and Ivison as an additional option should be dismissed, since the church was converted into a mosque in 1475. 42  For Late Byzantine members of the Doukas and Petraliphas families, see Polemis 1968, 165–166. 43  See Brooks 2004a; Melvani 2013, 72–75. 44  See e.g. Mango 1995. In the 15th century, cardinal Bessarion also composed funerary epigrams, some of which may have been intended as inscriptions. For example: Lambros 1930, 172. The collections of epigrams in Rhoby 2009, Lauxtermann 2003, and Rhoby 2014 include several samples of the genre from the Middle and Late Byzantine periods with abundant commentary on their literary qualities. For the visual apsects of inscribed poetic texts, see Drpić 2016.

Balfour 1979: Balfour, David, Politico-historical works of Symeon, archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/17 to 1429), Vienna 1979.

45  46 

85

Ousterhout 2000, 245–246. Brooks 2002, 129–135.

Nicholas Melvani Barker 1969: Barker, John, Manuel II Palaeologus (1391– 1425): a study in late Byzantine statesmanship, Rutgers 1969.

Drpić 2016: Drpić, Ivan, ‘Chrysepes Stichourgia: The Byzantine epigram as aesthetic object’ in Brigitte M. Bedos-Rezak and Jeffrey F. Hamburger (eds.), Sign and Design: Script as Image in Cross-Cultural Perspective (300–1600 CE), Washington, D.C. 2016, 51–69.

Bouras 1976: Bouras, Charalambos, ‘Τυπολογικές παρατηρήσεις στο καθολικό της μονής των Μαγγάνων στην Κωνσταντινούπολη’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 31 (1976) Α’–Μελέται, 136–151.

Düll 1983: Düll, Siegrid, ‘Unbekannte Denkmäler der Genuesen aus Galata’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 33 (1983) 225–238 and 36 (1986), 245–256.

Bozhilov 1994: Bozhilov, Ivan, Familijata na Asenevci (1186–1460), Sofia 1994.

Dujčev 1961: Dujčev, Ivan, ‘A propos de la biographie de Joseph II, patriarche de Constantinople’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 19 (1961), 333–339.

Brooks 2003: Brooks, Sarah Tyler, Commemoration of the Dead: Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration (mid-thirteenth to mid-fifteenth centuries), PhD. Diss., Institute of Fine Arts, NYU, 2003.

Effenberger 2007: Effenberger, Arne: ‘Zur Restaurierungstätigkeit des Michael Dukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes im Pammakaristoskloster und zur Erbauungszeit des Parekklesions’, Zograf 31 (2007), 79–94.

Brooks 2004a: Brooks, Sarah Tyler, ‘Sculpture and the Byzantine Tomb’, in Helen C. Evans (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power, 1261–1557, New York 2004, 93–104.

Effenberger 2007: Effenberger, Arne, ‘Zu den Gräbern in der Pammakaristoskirche’, Byzantion 78 (2007), 170–196.

Brooks 2004b: Brooks, Sarah Tyler, ‘The History and Significance of Tomb Monuments at the Chora Monastery’, in Holger Klein and Robert Ousterhout (eds.), Restoring Byzantium: The Kariye Camii in Istanbul and the Byzantine Institute Restoration, New York 2004, 23–31

Estangüi-Gomez 2013: Estangüi-Gomez, Raùl, ‘SaintSauveur de Chôra. Un monastère catholique à Constantinople dans le troisième quart du XIVe siècle’, Estudios Bizantinos 1 (2013), 140–197.

Brooks 2006: Brooks, Sarah Tyler, ‘Poetry and Female Patronage in Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration: Two Epigrams by Manuel Philes’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006), 223–248.

Estangüi-Gomez 2014: Estangüi-Gomez, Raùl, ‘Les Tzamplakônes, Grands propriétaires fonciers à Byzance au 14e siècle’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 72 (2014) 275–329.

Burke 2014: Burke, Ersie, ‘Surviving Exile: Byzantine Families and the Serenissima 1453 – 1600’, in I. Nilsson and P. Stephenson (eds.), Wanted, Byzantium: The Desire for a Lost Empire, Uppsala 2014, 109–132.

Fassoulakis 1973: Fassoulakis, Stergios, The Byzantine Family of Raoul-Ral(l)es, Athens 1973. Ganchou 1994: Ganchou, Thierry, ‘Le mésazon Démétrius Paléologue Cantacuzène a-t-il figuré parmi les défenseurs du siège de Constantinople (29 mai 1453)?’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 52 (1994), 245–272.

Constas 2002: Constas, Nicholas, ‘Mark Eugenikos’, La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, Turnhout 2002, vol. 2, 411–475. Cramer – Düll 1985: Cramer, Johannes – Düll, Siegrid, ‘Baubeobachtungen an der Arap Camii in Istanbul’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 35 (1985), 295–321.

Gill 1964: Gill, Joseph, Personalities of the Council of Florence, and other essays, Oxford 1964.

Cutler 2009: Cutler, Anthony, ‘Legal Iconicity: the Documentary Image, the Problem of Genre, and the Work of the Beholder’, in Colum Hourihane (ed.), Byzantine Art: Recent Studies; Essays in Honor of Lois Drewer, Princeton 2009, 63–79.

Hallensleben 1963–64: Hallensleben, Horst, ‘Untersuchungen zur Baugeschichte der ehemaligen Pammakaristos-kirche, der heutigen Fethiye Camii, in Istanbul’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 13–14 (1963–64), 128–193.

Dalleggio D’Alessio 1936: Dalleggio D’Alessio, Eugenio, ‘Familles latines de Péra au temps des Paléologues, d’après les inscriptions funéraires d’Arab-Djami’, Echos d’Orient 35 (1936), 413–420.

Harris 2012: Harris, Jonathan, ‘Constantinople as City State, c.1360–1453’, in Jonathan Harris, Catherine Holmes, and Eugenia Russell (eds.), Byzantines, Latins and Turks in the Eastern Mediterranean World after 1150, Oxford 2012, 119–140.

Dalleggio D’Alessio 1939: Dalleggio D’Alessio, Eugenio, Le Pietre Sepolcrali di Arab Giami, Genoa 1942.

Hunger 1969: Hunger, Herbert, Johannes Chortasmenos (ca. 1370–ca. 1436/37), Briefe, Gedichte und kleine Schriften, Vienna 1969.

Demangel – Mamboury 1939: Demangel, Robert – Mamboury, Ernst, Le quartier des Manganes et la première région de Constantinople, Paris 1939.

Ivison 1996: Ivison, Eric, ‘Latin tomb monuments in the Levant 1204–ca.1450’, in P. Lock and G. Sanders (eds.), The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford 1996, 91–106.

Dennis 1967: Dennis, George T., ‘The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403’, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 33.1 (1967), 72–88. 86

Donors, Funerary Inscriptions and Portraits in 15th-Century Constantinople Janin 1953: Janin, Raymond, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin. Ι. Le Siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat Oecuménique. 3: Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1953.

späten Byzanz’, in L. Balletto (ed.), Oriente e Occidente. Tra Medioevo ed età moderna. Studi in onore di Geo Pistarino, vol. 2, Genoa 1997, 787–812. Matschke – Tinnefeld 2001: Matschke, Klaus–Peter and Tinnefeld, Franz, Die Gesellschaft im späten Byzanz: Gruppen, Strukturen und Lebensformen, Cologne, Weimar, and Vienna 2001.

Keller 1957: Keller, A., ‘Two Byzantine Scholars and their Reception in Italy’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 20 (1957), 363–370. Kidonopoulos 1994: Kidonopoulos, Vassileios, Bauten in Konstantinopel, 1204–1328: Verfall und Zerstörung, Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- und Sakralbauten, Mainz 1994.

Melvani 2013: Melvani, Nicholas, Late Byzantine Sculpture, Turnhout 2013. Melvani 2016: Melvani, Nicholas, ‘The Duplication of the Double Monastery of Christ Philanthropos in Constantinople’, Revue des Études Byzantines 74 (2016) 361–384.

Lambros 1926; Lambros 1936: Lambros, Spyridon, Παλαιολόγεια και Πελοποννησιακά 3, Athens 1926 and 4, Athens 1930.

Melvani 2017: Melvani, Nicholas, ‘Dominicans in Byzantium and Byzantine Dominicans: Religious Dialog and Cultural Interaction’, in S. Pedone and C. Monge (eds.), Domenicani a Costantinopoli prima e dopo l’impero ottomano. Storia, immagini e documenti d’archivio ,Florence 2017, 33–50.

Laurent 1936: Laurent, Vitalien, ‘Inscriptions grecques d’époque romaine et byzantine’, Echos d’Orient 35 (1936), 220–233. Laurent 1957: Laurent, Vitalien, ‘Le dernier gouverneur byzantin de Constantinople: Démétrius Paléologue, grand stratopédarque († 1453)’, Revue des Etudes Byzantines 15 (1957), 196–206.

Melvani 2018: Melvani, Nicholas, ‘The Tombs of the Palaiologan Emperors’, Modern Greek and Byzantine Studies 42 (2018), 237–260.

Lauxtermann 2003: Lauxtermann, Marc, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, vol. 1, Vienna 2003.

Meyer-Plath – Schneider 1943: Meyer-Plath, Bruno and Schneider, Alfons Maria, Die Landmauer von Konstantinopel, Berlin 1943.

Malamut 2001: Malamut, Elisabeth, ‘Le monastère Saint Jean-Prodrome de Petra de Constantinople’, in Michel Kaplan (ed.), Le sacré et son inscription dans l’espace à Byzance et en Occident, Paris 2001, 219–234.

Miklosich – Müller 1862: Miklosich, Franz and Müller, Joseph, Acta et diplomata Graeca medii aevi sacra et profana, vol. 2, Vienna 1862.

Mamone 1954: Mamone, Kyriake, ‘Μάρκος ο Ευγενικός, βίος και έργον’, Θεολογία 25 (1954) 377–404, 498–575.

Mineva 1996: Mineva, Evelina, ‘Eine unedierter Kanon des Markos Eugenikos über die Heilung Johannes’ VIII. Palaiologos’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 46 (1996) 325–338.

Mango 1962: Mango, Cyril: Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul, Washington, D.C. 1962.

Mineva, Evelina, Το υμνογραφικό έργο του Μάρκου Ευγενικού, Athens 2004.

Mango 1976: Mango, Cyril, ‘Les monuments de l’architecture du XIe siècle et leur signification historique et sociale’, Travaux et Mémoires 6 (1976), 351–365.

Wolfgang Müller-Wiener, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul bis zum Beginn des 17. Jahrhundert, Tübingen 1977. Necipoğlu 2009: Necipoğlu, Nevra, Byzantium Between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire, Cambridge 2009.

Mango 1978: Mango, Cyril, ‘The Monument and Its History’, in H. Belting, C. Mango, and D. Mouriki (eds.), The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul, Cambridge, Mass. 1978, 1–42.

Nicol 1968: Nicol, Donald, The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus), ca. 1100–1460, Washington, D.C. 1968.

Mango 1995: Mango, Cyril, ‘Sépultures et épitaphes aristocratiques à Byzance’, in G. Cavallo and C. Mango (eds.), Epigrafia medievale greca e latina: ideologia e funzione: atti del Seminario di Erice, 12–18 settembre 1991, Spoleto 1995, 99–117.

Nikolić 2012: Nikolić, Maja, ‘Ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων προμήθεια – vizantijski arhonti XV veka i religiozne zadužbine. Dva primera’, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 49 (2012), 365–385. Oikonomidès 1979: Oikonomidès, Nicolas, Hommes d’affaires grecs et latins à Constantinople (XIIIe–XVe siècles), Montreal 1979.

Matschke 1981: Matschke, Klaus-Peter, Die Schlacht bei Ankara und das Schicksal von Byzanz, Berlin 1981.

Ousterhout 1987: Ousterhout, Robert, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington D.C. 1987.

Matschke 1997: Matschke, Klaus-Peter, ‘Personengeschichte, Familiengeschichte, Sozialgeschichte: Die Notaras im 87

Nicholas Melvani Ousterhout 2000: Ousterhout, Robert, ‘Contextualizing the Later Churches of. Constantinople: Suggested Methodologies and a Few Examples’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000), 241–250.

Underwood 1966: Underwood, A. Paul, Kariye Djami, New York 1966. Weissbrod 2003: Weissbrod, Ursula, “Hier liegt der Knecht Gottes”: Gräber in byzantinischen Kirchen und ihr Dekor (11. bis 15. Jahrhundert): unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Höhlenkirchen Kappadokiens, Wiesbaden – Mainz 2003.

Polemis 1968: Polemis, Demetrios, The Doukai: a Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, London 1968.

Westphalen 2007: Westphalen, Stephan, ‘Pittori greci nella chiesa domenicana dei Genovesi a Pera (Arap Camii). Per la genesi di una cultura figurativa levantina nel Trecento’, in A. R. Calderoni Masetti, C. Dufour Bozzo, and G. Wolf (eds.), Intorno al sacro Volto. Genova, Bisanzio e il Mediterraneo (secoli XI–XIV), Venice 2007, 51–62.

Philippides 2016: Philippides, Marios: ‘Venice, Genoa, and John VIII Palaeologus’ Renovation of the Fortifications of Constantinople’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 56 (2016), 377–397. Rhoby 2009: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, Vienna 2009. Rhoby 2014: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein, nebst Addenda zu den Bänden 1 und 2, Vienna 2014.

Zarras 2013: Zarras, Nektarios, ‘Η παλαιολόγεια εικόνα του Χριστού εν δόξη με τους αποστόλους στο Μουσείο του Ελληνικού Ινστιτούτου της Βενετίας’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 34 (2013), 239–252.

Schreiner 1971: Schreiner, Peter, ‘Eine unbekannte Beschreibung der Pammakaristoskirche (Fethiye Camii) und weitere Texte zur Topographie Konstantinopels’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971), 217–248. Schreiner 1975: Schreiner, Peter, Die byzantinischen Kleinchroniken (Chronica Byzantina Breviora), vol. 1, Vienna 1975. Schreiner 2001: Schreiner, Peter, ‘John Malaxos (16th Century) and his Collection Antiquitates Constantinopolitanae’, Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, (ed. N. Necipoğlu), Leiden 2001, 203–214. Stanković 2011: Stanković, Vlada, ‘Comnenian Monastic Foundations in Constantinople: Questions of Method and Historical Context’, Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011), 47–73. Talbot 2004: Talbot, Alice-Mary, ‘Monasticism in Constantinople in the Final Decades of the Byzantine Empire’, in Sümer Atasoy (ed.), 550th Anniversary of the Istanbul University International Byzantine and Ottoman Symposium (XVth Century), Istanbul 2004, 295–308. Teteriatnikov 2013: Teteriatnikov, B. Natalia, ‘The Mosaics of the Eastern Arch of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople: Program and Liturgy’, Gesta 52 (2013), 61–84. Theocharidis 1959: Theocharidis, Georgios, Οι Τζαμπλάκωνες. Συμβολή εις την βυζαντινήν μακεδονικήν προσωπογραφίαν του ΙΔ΄ αιώνος, Thessaloniki 1959. Tsirpanlis 1974: Tsirpanlis, N. Constantine, Mark Eugenicus and the Council of Florence. Α Historical Re-evaluation of his Personality, Thessaloniki 1974. Underwood 1959: Underwood, A. Paul, ‘Palaeologan Narrative Style and an Italianate Fresco of the Fifteenth Century in the Kariye Djami’, Studies in the History of Art, Dedicated to William E. Suida on his Eightieth Birthday, London 1959, 1–9. 88

8 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece Georgios D. Tsimpoukis Abstract: The illustration of the Revelation of John in Eastern Orthodox monumental painting was spread in the Post-Byzantine period. Although the majority of the Revelation cycles are preserved in the monasteries of Mount Athos, nevertheless individual cycles can be found in other areas of Greece, as for example in the region of Agrafa, in Drama and in the Aegean islands (e.g. Rhodes, Lesbos, etc.). In this paper, the iconographic cycle of the Spelia monastery in the region of Karditsa (Thessaly), a work of an unknown painter completed immediately after 1737, will be presented, so that its importance for the evolution of the iconographic theme under discussion can be assessed. Η μονή Σπηλιάς, αφιερωμένη στην Κοίμηση της Θεοτόκου, είναι χτισμένη σε ένα έξαρμα βράχου, νότια του χωριού Κουμπουριανά Καρδίτσας. Ο χρόνος ίδρυσης της μονής είναι άγνωστος, ωστόσο terminus ante quem για την ύπαρξή της αποτελεί πατριαρχικό σιγίλιο του 1677 που την καθιστά σταυροπήγιο, αναφέροντας ότι ένας μοναχός με το όνομα Ανανίας είχε πρόσφατα οικοδομήσει ένα ναό αφιερωμένο στην Κοίμηση της Θεοτόκου. Οι έξι παραστάσεις από τον κύκλο της Αποκάλυψης του Ιωάννη, που αποτελούν το αντικείμενο του παρόντος άρθρου, κοσμούν τον ανατολικό τοίχο του εξωνάρθηκα στο νέο καθολικό της μονής, το οποίο κτίστηκε το 1737 και διακοσμήθηκε με τοιχογραφίες λίγο αργότερα. Αν και ο κύκλος σώζεται αποσπασματικά, το γεγονός ότι η αφήγηση ξεκινά με το πρώτο κεφάλαιο, στο χώρο νότια της εισόδου που οδηγεί στον κυρίως ναό, και ολοκληρώνεται με το εικοστό δεύτερο κεφάλαιο, στο χώρο βόρεια της ίδιας θύρας, υποδηλώνει ότι η διήγηση εκτεινόταν και στις – χαμένες σήμερα – τοιχογραφίες των υπόλοιπων τοίχων του εξωνάρθηκα. Από την εξέταση των έξι παραστάσεων, που εικονογραφούν τα κεφάλαια α΄, στ΄, κ΄, κα΄ και κβ΄ του προφητικού κειμένου, διαπιστώνει κανείς ότι ο ανώνυμος αγιογράφος ασφαλώς γνώριζε την εικονογραφική παράδοση που είχε διαμορφωθεί στο Άγιον Όρος μέχρι και το πρώτο μισό του 18ου αιώνα. Ωστόσο, οι αθωνικές παραστάσεις δεν αποτέλεσαν το μοναδικό πρότυπό του, αφού στο έργο του μπορεί κανείς να διακρίνει και επιδράσεις από εικονογραφημένα χειρόγραφα, όπως, παραδείγματος χάρη, την Αποκάλυψη του Σικάγου. Ανεξάρτητα από το ζήτημα των εικονογραφικών προτύπων, αξιοσημείωτη είναι η επιλογή των ιθυνόντων μοναχών της μονής Σπηλιάς να συμπεριλάβουν την Αποκάλυψη στο εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα του καθολικού, καθώς είναι γνωστό ότι το θέμα αυτό στην ορθόδοξη Ανατολή διαδόθηκε από το 16ο αιώνα και μετά, κυρίως στο Άγιον Όρος και μόνο σποραδικά σε άλλα μέρη της τουρκοκρατούμενης Ελλάδας. Το ενδεχόμενο η επιλογή αυτή να οφείλεται σε επίδραση του συγγραφέα της Ερμηνείας ιερομόναχου Διονυσίου, ο οποίος εγκαταβίωνε στο Άγιον Όρος διατηρώντας παράλληλα επαφές με τον τόπο καταγωγής του, το Φουρνά Αγράφων, δε φαίνεται αρκετά πιθανό, αφού, σε εικονογραφικό επίπεδο, οι έξι σωζόμενες παραστάσεις της μονής Σπηλιάς δε φαίνεται να σχεδιάστηκαν με βάση τις οδηγίες της Ερμηνείας. Σοβαρές πιθανότητες, σύμφωνα με τη δική μας – μέχρι σήμερα – έρευνα, παρουσιάζει το ενδεχόμενο ο Αναστάσιος Γόρδιος να ήταν εκείνος που επεσήμανε στους ιθύνοντες της μονής Σπηλιάς την αναγκαιότητα εικονογράφησης της Αποκάλυψης του Ιωάννη. Η σημαντική αυτή πνευματική μορφή των Αγράφων, γύρω στα 1717–1720, είχε συντάξει το «Σύγραμμα περὶ Μωάμεθ καὶ κατὰ Λατείνων», ένα υπόμνημα για τα κεφάλαια στ΄ (στίχοι 1–6), ιβ΄ και ιγ΄ της Αποκάλυψης, στο οποίο υποστήριζε ότι ο Αντίχριστος θα παρουσιαζόταν και θα δίωκε την Εκκλησία «ὑπὸ τὴν μορφὴ δύο θρησκειῶν καὶ δύο προσώπων, τοῦ τε Μωάμεθ καὶ τοῦ Πάπα». Παράλληλα, ο φωτισμένος ιερομόναχος, ο οποίος αποδεδειγμένα είχε σχέσεις με μοναστήρια

89

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis της Θεσσαλίας, κατείχε κεντρικό ρόλο σε εκκλησιαστικές υποθέσεις που αφορούσαν στην περιοχή των Αγράφων, ενώ συχνά τον συμβουλεύονταν για διάφορα θεολογικά και δογματικά ζητήματα, ακόμα και για θέματα εικονογραφίας, αρκετά πρόσωπα, μεταξύ των οποίων και ο Διονύσιος ο εκ Φουρνά. Συνεπώς, δε θα πρέπει να θεωρηθεί απίθανο το υπόμνημα στην Αποκάλυψη, αλλά και η ίδια η εμβέλεια της προσωπικότητας του Αναστάσιου Γόρδιου, να έπαιξαν κάποιο ρόλο στην επιλογή της Αποκάλυψης για τη διακόσμηση του νέου καθολικού της μονής. Keywords: 18th century, Thessaly, Karditsa region, Spelia monastery, Revelation. Scene 1 (Rev. 1: 1–2). The opening scene of the Apocalypse cycle at Spelia monastery (Fig. 8.1) introduces the main characters of the narrative: (above) the Ancient of Days, who revealed to John what was going to happen, (right) the author of the Revelation, leaning on a low seat and holding an open codex, and (left) an angel revealing to John the content of his prophetic book. An accompanying inscription at the lower part of the wall painting draws its content from the first two verses of the first chapter (Rev. 1: 1–2): ‘Α ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΙΩ(ΑΝΝΟΥ) ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥ | ΟΣ ΕΜΑΡΤΥΡΗΣΕ ΤΟΝ ΛΟΓΟΝ’.

The Spelia monastery* is built on a rock-outcropping, south of the village Koumpouriana in the Karditsa region of Thessaly.1 The exact foundation date of the monastery is unknown,2 however a terminus ante quem is a 1677 patriarchal sigillium which makes it a stauropēgion, adding that Ananias, a monk of the monastery, had recently erected a church dedicated to the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Koimēsis).3 The monastery consists of two churches unequal in size and is surrounded by a fortified enclosure which hosts the cells of the monks. The smaller church, dedicated to the Assumption, was the older katholikon of the monastery, built as a single-aisled Athonite-type church and painted in the late 17th century. The larger church, abutting onto the north side of the old katholikon, is the current principal church of the monastery, dedicated to the Life-Giving Spring (Zōodochos Pēgē). It is a four-columned cross-insquare Athonite-type church,4 built in 1737 and painted a little later. On the west side the narthex and the exonarthex can be found, which were built at a later phase.

The illustration of the first two verses of the Revelation introductory chapter – at least according to the hitherto known examples of monumental painting – is a pictorial unicum since, as it is well known, painters almost always begin their narration from the ninth verse of the first chapter, as also noted in the Hermēneia of Dionysius from the village of Phournas.6 Moreover, it is worth noting that one such – verse by verse – illustration of the prophetic book is the rule in all three 17th to 18th-centuries manuscripts adorned with miniatures of the Revelation, namely the Chicago Revelation, the Tyrnavos Revelation and the Skopelos Revelation;7 in particular, depictions of God blessing amidst circular clouds or holding an orb are often found in the first chapter of the Chicago Revelation (f. 4v, 6v, 12r, 17r, 19v, 24r).

The six scenes from the Revelation of John, which are the subject of this paper, date immediately after 1737 and adorn the east wall of the exonarthex of the new katholikon.5 Although the cycle is incomplete, the fact that the narration begins with the first chapter, at the area south of the entrance leading to the nave, and ends with the twenty-second chapter, at the area north of that door, makes it highly likely that the narration would have been extended in the now lost frescoes of the remaining three walls of the exonarthex in a clockwise direction, beginning at the middle of the east wall in the south, moving to the west, then north and back to the east wall.

Scene 2 (Rev. 1: 9–20). Unlike the previous depiction, the narration of the rest of the verses of the first chapter is done in the usual way (Fig. 8.2). In the upper part, amidst circular clouds, the anonymous painter of the Spelia monastery depicts Christ in white garments (Rev. 1: 13). From his mouth a sharp two-edged sword (Rev. 1: 16) emerges, around his right hand there are seven stars (Rev. 1: 16), while Christ is surrounded by seven golden lampstands (Rev. 1: 12). The Theophany is monitored by the ecstatic John (bottom left) who rests on a low seat with the eagle, his symbol, beside him, as in the previous scene.

*  I owe special thanks to the archaeologist Mrs. Krystallo Mantzana, the head of the former 19th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities, who granted me license to study and publish the cycles of the Revelation of John in the monasteries of Spelia and Petra at Agrafa, Greece. 1  On the Spelia monastery, see Iezekiēl 1928, 138–140; Mantzana 1992, 29–30; Sdrolia 2007, 100; Sdrolia 2012, 73–74. 2  It has been argued that the place where the Spelia monastery now stands used to be a monastery of the Virgin Mary referred to as ‘Gradistion’ by a document issued by sebastokrator Stephanos Gavriēlopoulos in 1328. See Bees 1949, 79–96. Cf. Nicol 1963, 54, n. 12; Ferjančić 1974, 173; Hild et al. 1987, 40. 3  Spanos 2007, 129–140. 4  Nikonanos 1997, 152, n. 555. 5  On the Revelation scenes in the Spelia monastery, see also Tsiourēs 2008, 48–49, 366–371.

Hermēneia, 129, § 44. For a detailed bibliography about these three illuminated manuscripts of the 17th–18th centuries, i.e. (a) Ms. 931, known as ‘Elizabeth Day McCormick Apocalypse’, which is kept in Chicago University Library, (b) Ms. 40, which is kept in Tyrnavos Municipal Library, and (c) some sheets of a manuscript, coming from the monastery of St. Dionysius in Skopelos island, which are now in a private collection, see Tsimpoukēs 2013, 55–56. 6  7 

90

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece

Figure 8.1. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 1: 1–2.

The two rocky mountains with low vegetation on both sides of the Evangelist and the sea below are used by the painter as a connotation of Patmos island (Rev. 1: 9).

depictions in the monasteries of Dionysiou (after 1553) and Xenophōntos (1632–1654).8 Scene 3 (Rev. 6: 9–17). After the glorification of God and the Lamb of Mount Zion by the twenty-four elders (Rev. 4–5) and the opening of the first four seals of the ‘book

As far as both the choice of the iconographic elements and their position in the scene are concerned, it can easily be concluded that the painter of the Spelia monastery follows the tradition established in Mount Athos from the mid-16th century onwards (Fig. 8.3), especially the corresponding

On the Revelation cycles in the monasteries of Mount Athos, see Tsimpoukēs 2013. 8 

91

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis

Figure 8.2. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 1: 9–20.

sealed shut with seven seals’ (Rev. 6: 1–8) – scenes not preserved today – the painter continues his narration with the opening of the fifth seal (Rev. 6: 9–11). This scene (Fig. 8.4) takes place at the altar of the heavenly church of God, under which the souls of the martyrs lie. With the opening of the fifth seal, the martyrs call on God to hasten the Last Judgment and restore justice and the triumph of the Good. The response of God to the martyrs has a double meaning: first a white robe is given to each of them as a recognition of their contribution, then all the martyrs are asked to be patient for a little while, until the plan of God is completed.

The number of angels engaged in the clothing of the martyrs and their pose, the form of the altar, the way the souls of the martyrs are represented, even the clouds in the lower part of the painting, all bear witness to the fact that the anonymous painter of the Spelia monastery was aware of the Athonite wall paintings (Fig. 8.5) in the monasteries of Dionysiou (after 1553), Xenophōntos (1632–1654) and Docheiariou (1676–1700). Moreover, the remarkable effort of the anonymous painter to depict, in the upper part of the same fresco (Fig. 8.4), some of the consequences of the disruption of the universe caused by the opening of the sixth seal (Rev. 6: 12–17), namely the darkening of the 92

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece

Figure 8.3. Dionysiou monastery, Mount Athos. Rev. 1: 9–20.

Scene 4 (Rev. 20: 1–3). The representation of the imprisonment of Satan for a thousand years (Fig. 8.6), described in the twentieth chapter of Revelation (Rev. 20: 1–3), is a particularly interesting scene. In the upper section, Christ is represented in a semicircular cloud, blessing with the right hand and holding an orb in the left, while underneath, between rocky mountains with low vegetation, an angel is driving Satan into the abyss by a chain.

sun and moon by dense clouds, supports the view that this specific scene is reminiscent of the Athonite cycles of the 16th and 17th centuries. It would have been very instructive to have seen the narration of the remaining chapters of the Revelation, from the seventh to the nineteenth, but the complete destruction of the frescoes on the south, west and north walls of the exonarthex deprives us of this possibility. Returning to the east wall, the painter of the Spelia monastery completes the story of the prophetic book with three more scenes, which correspond to the twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second chapters of the Revelation.

The addition of Christ in the upper section, the pose of the angel and the way the abyss is depicted significantly differentiate the wall painting of the Spelia monastery 93

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis

Figure 8.4. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 6: 9–17.

from the three Revelation cycles existed in Mount Athos at that time, namely in the monasteries of Dionysiou (after 1553), Xenophōntos (1632–1654) and Docheiariou (1676–1700), making it clear that the anonymous painter of the Spelia monastery drew his inspiration here from a different model.

monasteries is once again identified in the last but one scene of the Spelia monastery cycle (Fig. 8.7). The conversation of John with the angel (Rev. 21: 9–10) in the upper part, the representation of the New Jerusalem as a castle seen from above, the domed buildings within the holy city and the three angels who guard the gates, all testify that the anonymous painter was aware of at least one of the three Athonite representations (Fig. 8.8), without reproducing any one of them exactly.

Scene 5 (Rev. 21: 1–27). A greater similarity with the representations of the aforementioned Athonite 94

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece

Figure 8.5. Xenophōntos monastery, Mount Athos. Rev. 6: 9–11.

The representation in the Spelia monastery, is, so far, the only attempt in monumental painting to illustrate the last chapter of the Revelation, as both previous painters on Mount Athos and their peers elsewhere used to conclude their cycles with the previous chapter (Rev. 21: 1–27), as suggested by the Hermēneia of Dionysius. The only exception is a much later representation from the Athonite monastery of Xēropotamou (1783), in which the careful observer can discern, embedded in the representation of the twenty-first chapter, the illustration of some verses from the twenty-second chapter, namely the river of the water of life (Rev. 22: 1), the tree of life (Rev. 22: 2) and

Scene 6 (Rev. 22: 1–5). The last scene in the Spelia monastery cycle (Fig. 8.9) is of particular interest. The anonymous painter, wishing to illustrate the first five verses of the twenty-second chapter of the prophetic book (Rev. 22: 1–5), depicts again the New Jerusalem, focusing this time on some other features of the holy city: the river of the water of life, which springs out of the throne of God and the Lamb (Rev. 22: 1), the tree of life (Rev. 22: 2), which nourishes and heals its residents, and God (Rev. 22: 5), who gives them divine enlightenment. John, always accompanied by his symbol, stands at the right side of the scene watching what the angel is pointing to. 95

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis

Figure 8.6. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 20: 1–3.

the divine presence (Rev. 22: 5).9 Our research to date has identified the source of the anonymous painter of the Spelia monastery in a corresponding depiction in f. 181v of the Chicago Revelation (Fig. 8.10), in which the same iconographic elements (Fig. 8.9), i.e. the throne of God, the river, the tree of life and John are placed in the same position. However, a future publication of more – unknown

9 

today – Revelation cycles may determine the iconographic source more accurately. From the brief presentation of the six scenes of the Apocalypse cycle that preceded, it can be argued that the anonymous painter of the exonarthex of the Spelia monastery certainly knew the iconographic tradition that was formulated and employed on Mount Athos until the first half of the 18th century, since both the choice of specific iconographic elements and the way these elements

Tsimpoukēs 2013, 460.

96

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece

Figure 8.7. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 21: 1–27.

are arranged in space make the imitation quite obvious.10 It cannot be argued, however, that the Athonite cycles were the only source of the painter since, as already noted, representations from illustrated manuscripts, unknown to Mount Athos, e.g. the illustration of some verses from the

last chapter of the Revelation (Rev. 22: 1–5), found their place in the iconographical program. However, research conducted in the Spelia monastery, as in other monasteries of Agrafa, in order to locate old manuscripts which could have been used by the anonymous painter, has not yielded any results.11

10  I. Tsiourēs considers that the Revelation scenes in the Spelia monastery may be indirectly affected by the representations of the Dionysiou and Docheiariou monasteries in Mount Athos, which the anonymous painter might have come across through monumental paintings elsewhere or representations in illuminated manuscripts. See Tsiourēs 2008, 370.

11  In 1928, the metropolitan of Thessaliōtis and Phanariophersala Iezekiēl, after a tour of the monasteries of Agrafa, states that old manuscripts were nowhere to be found. See Iezekiēl 1928, 135.

97

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis

Figure 8.8. Docheiariou monastery, Mount Athos. Rev. 21: 1–27.

Regardless of the question of the iconographic sources used by the Spelia painter, which is always open to research, the choice of the monks in the Spelia monastery to include the Apocalypse in the iconographic program is remarkable, since, as it is well known, the illustration of the last book of the New Testament in the Orthodox East become popular from the 16th century onwards, especially on Mount Athos and only sporadically is encountered in other areas of Ottoman-occupied Greece.12

in his Hermēneia a separate chapter, which explains in some detail how the Revelation of John should be illustrated.13 It is doubtful, however, that the selection used to illustrate the Revelation in the Spelia monastery was due to the influence of the Hermēneia, since, with regard to the iconography, the six surviving representations of the Spelia monastery do not seem to match the guidelines of Dionysius.14 According to our own research, it is highly likely that it was Anastasios Gordios who pointed out the necessity

It is known that Dionysius, who lived as a monk at Karyes, Mount Athos, whilst maintaining at the same time contacts with his hometown in the Agrafa area, devotes

For a detailed bibliography, see Tsimpoukēs 2013, 286–289. About the influence of the Hermēneia on the Revelation wall paintings of Mount Athos, see Tsimpoukis 2017.

13  14  12 

Tsimpoukēs 2013, 47–56.

98

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece

Figure 8.9. Spelia monastery, Agrafa. Rev. 22: 1–5.

related to the area of Agrafa and often dispensed advice on various theological and doctrinal issues, even iconographic themes, to several persons, among them Dionysius, the author of Hermēneia.19 Therefore, it should be considered likely that both the commentary on the Revelation and the fact that Anastasios Gordios’ opinion carried great weight played a role in the selection of the Apocalypse of John for the decoration of the exonarthex of the new katholikon.

for the illustration of John’s Revelation to the monks of the Spelia monastery. This important intellectual figure of Agrafa,15 circa 1717 to 1720, published the ‘Script about Mohammad and against the Latins’,16 a commentary about chapters 6 (verses 1–6), 12 and 13 of the Apocalypse, which argued that the Antichrist would come to pursue the Church ‘in the form of two religions and two people, namely Mohammad and the Pope’.17 Moreover, this enlightened monk, who clearly had relations with several monasteries of Thessaly, such as the monastery of Dousikou,18 held a central role in ecclesiastical matters

Regardless, however, of the person who inspired the theme, the presence of a Revelation cycle in the iconographical program is quite reasonable: on the one hand, the Book of Revelation has an eschatological meaning, offering Christians refuge, solace and hope for a quick redemption from their enemy, namely the Ottomans; on the other hand,

About the contribution of Anastasios Gordios to the life of Agrafa, see Karanasios 2005, 47–59. 16  Original title: «Σύγγραμμα περὶ Μωάμεθ καὶ κατὰ Λατείνων». 17  Argyriou 1969, 305–324; Cf. Argyriou 1979, 370–372; Argyriou 1982, vol. Ι, 390–452. 18  Sophianos 2005, 33–46. 15 

19 

99

Karanasios 2005, 53.

Georgios D. Tsimpoukis

Figure 8.10. Chicago University Library, Ms. 931, fol. 181 v. Rev. 22: 1–5.

this choice is directly related to the historical conditions that were emerging in the region of Agrafa during the 18th century, when the Spelia monastery and the Petra monastery (1789) were also decorated with Revelation cycles.20 In particular, the region of Agrafa was the most important refuge of persecuted Greeks and the safest base for the Christian armed groups called Klephtes and Armatoloi. Furthermore, the Spelia monastery, because of its strategic position, played an important role during the

liberation struggle of the Greeks, and in 1867 was used as a base of the Revolutionary Government.21 The village of Koumpouriana, like the rest of Thessaly, rebelled in January 1878 and was freed finally from the Ottomans on May 24, 1881, when the Ottoman Empire was forced to sign the agreement conceding Thessaly in Greece.22 Since then, the monastery of Spelia stands in its beautiful setting, welcoming those visitors willing to share its secrets. Iezekiēl 1928, 133–134, 139; Vasileiou 1964, 6–10. For the history of this period in Thessaly, see Vasileiou 1964, 6–10; Grivellas 1992, 10; Zarkadas 1996, 29–30, 42–43; Sdrolia 2012, 15–22. 21 

About the Revelation scenes in the Petra monastery, see Tsiourēs 2008, 44–46, 353–357, fig. 362–363; Tsiouris 2014, 27–50. Tsimpoukis 2019.

20 

22 

100

 The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John in the Spelia Monastery at Agrafa, Greece Literature

Καρδίτσας: Αρχαιότητες, Ναοί, Νεότερα Μνημεία, Karditsa 2007, 100.

Argyriou 1969: Αργυρίου, Αστέριος, ‘Ο Αναστάσιος Γόρδιος και το σύγγραμμά του Περί Μωάμεθ και κατά Λατείνων’, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Στερεοελλαδικών Μελετών 2 (1969), 305–324. Argyriou 1979: Αργυρίου, Αστέριος, ερμηνείες στην Αποκάλυψη κατά της Τουρκοκρατίας’, Επιστημονική Θεολογικής Σχολής του Αριστοτελείου Θεσσαλονίκης 24 (1979), 359–380.

Sdrolia 2012: Σδρόλια, Σταυρούλα, Οι τοιχογραφίες του καθολικού της Μονής Πέτρας (1625) και η ζωγραφική των ναών των Αγράφων του 17ου αιώνα, Volos 2012. Sophianos 2005: Σοφιανός, Δημήτριος, ‘Ο Αναστάσιος Γόρδιος και οι σχέσεις του με τη Μονή Δουσίκου – Αγίου Βησσαρίωνος’, in Κ. Tsiolis (ed.), Ο Αναστάσιος Γόρδιος και η περιοχή των Αγράφων, Πρακτικά ημερίδας, Μεγάλα Βραγγιανά, 25 Ιουλίου 2004, Athens 2005, 33–46.

‘Οι ελληνικές τους χρόνους Επετηρίς της Πανεπιστημίου

Argyriou 1982: Argyriou, Asterios, Les Exégèses grecques de l’Apocalypse à l’époque turque 1453–1821. Esquisse d’une histoire des courants idéologiques au sein du peuple grec asservi, Thessaloniki 1982.

Spanos 2007: Σπανός, Βασίλειος, ‘Ένα σιγίλιο για την Μονή της Θεοτόκου των Κουμουριανών της Αργιθέας, 1677’, Θεσσαλικό Ημερολόγιο 52 (2007), 129–140. Tsimpoukēs 2013: σιμπούκης, Γεώργιος, Η Αποκάλυψη του Ιωάννη στη μνημειακή ζωγραφική του Αγίου Όρους, Athens 2013.

Bees 1949: Bees, Nikolaos, ‘Καταστατικόν γράμμα της μονής της Θεοτόκου εν τω σπηλαίω του Γραδιστίου: Απελύθη εντολή του Σεβαστοκράτορος της Θεσσαλίας Στεφάνου Γαβριηλοπούλου’, Byzantinischneugriechische Jahrbücher 18 (1945–1949), 79–96.

Tsimpoukis 2017: Tsimpoukis, Georgios, ‘The Influence of the Hermēneia of Dionysius of Fourna on the Revelation Wall-paintings of Mount Athos’, in Y. Bobrov (ed.), Mount Athos – the Light of the Orthodox Christianity: Interaction of Cultures, International Conference, Post Prints, Saint Petersburg, 5–7 October 2016, Saint Petersburg 2017, 283–296.

Ferjančić 1974: Ferjančić, Božidar, Tesalija u XIII i XIV veku, Belgrade 1974. Grivellas 1992: Γριβέλλας, Λάμπρος, ‘Άγραφα: Συνοπτική Ιστορική Ανασκόπηση’, Άγραφα: Εκκλησίες & Μοναστήρια – Αρχαιολογικοί χώροι – Παραδοσιακά κτίσματα (ed. V. Tsantilas), Karditsa 1992, 10–11.

Tsimpoukis 2019: Tsimpoukis, Georgios, ‘The Iconographic Cycle of the Revelation of John at Petra Monastery (1789) near the Village of Katafygio in the Region of Karditsa, Greece’, in Ch. Diamanti and A. Vassiliou (eds.), Ἐν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες: Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Oxford 2019, 141–153.

Hermēneia: ∆ιονυσίου του εκ Φουρνά, Ερµηνεία της Ζωγραφικής Τέχνης, υπό Α. Παπαδόπουλου-Κεραµέως, Saint Petersburg 1909. Hild et al. 1987: Hild, Friedrich – Koder, Johannes – Σπανός, Κωνσταντίνος – Αγραφιώτης, Δημήτριος, ‘Η Βυζαντινή Θεσσαλία’, Θεσσαλικό Ημερολόγιο 12 (1987), 11–112.

Tsiourēs 2008: Τσιουρής, Ιωάννης, Οι τοιχογραφίες της μονής Αγίας Τριάδος Δρακότρυπας (1758) και η μνημειακή ζωγραφική του 18ου αιώνα στην περιοχή των Αγράφων, Athens 2008.

Iezekiēl 1928: Ιεζεκιήλ Θεσσαλιώτιδος και Φαναριοφερσάλων, ‘Αι μοναί της Πίνδου (Α΄)’, Θεολογία 6 (1928), 133–144.

Tsiouris 2014: Tsiouris, Ioannis, ‘Some Remarks on the Wall-paintings in the Lite of the Petra’s Monastery Katholikon (1789)’, Matica srpska journal for fine arts 42 (2014), 27–50.

Karanasios 2005: Καρανάσιος, Χαρίτων, ‘Η συμβολή του Αναστάσιου Γόρδιου στην κοινωνική και πνευματική ζωή της περιοχής των Αγράφων βάσει των επιστολών του’, in Κ. Tsiolis (ed.), Ο Αναστάσιος Γόρδιος και η περιοχή των Αγράφων, Πρακτικά ημερίδας, Μεγάλα Βραγγιανά, 25 Ιουλίου 2004, Athens 2005, 47–59.

Vasileiou 1964: Βασιλείου, Παναγιώτης (Πάνος), Τα Άγραφα (Γεωγραφία, ιστορία, τέχναι, σχολαί, μοναστήρια κ. λ. π.), Athens 1964.

Mantzana 1992: Μαντζανά, Κρυσταλλία, ‘Στοιχεία Αρχιτεκτονικής και Αγιογραφικής’, in V.Tsantilas (ed.), Άγραφα: Εκκλησίες & Μοναστήρια – Αρχαιολογικοί χώροι – Παραδοσιακά κτίσματα, Karditsa 1992, 16–34.

Zarkadas 1996: Ζαρκάδας, Θωμάς, Το χωριό Καταφύγι Αγράφων: Ιστορία – Ήθη – Έθιμα – Παραδόσεις, Athens 1996.

Nicol 1963: Nicol, Donald, Meteora: the rock monasteries of Thessaly, London 1963. Nikonanos 1997: Νικονάνος, Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινοί ναοί της Θεσσαλίας από το 10ο αιώνα ως την κατάκτηση της περιοχής από τους Τούρκους το 1393, Athens 1997. Sdrolia 2007: Σδρόλια, Σταυρούλα, ‘Βυζαντινά και Μεταβυζαντινά Μνημεία νομού Καρδίτσας’, in Ε. Tsagkaraki (ed.), Οδοιπορικό στα Μνημεία του Νομού 101

9 Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia Eleni G. Manolessou Abstract: The paper presents a number of unknown Middle Byzantine architectural sculptures, which are on display in the Archaeological Museum of Sicyon (Corinthia), the Byzantine Vassilika. They include parts of architraves and cornices, as well as capitals and small pillars. Their precise provenance is mostly unknown, and their decoration includes common Middle Byzantine motifs, e.g. palmettes, scrolls, crosses, birds etc. In general, they may be compared to similar parts from other areas of Corinthia (Ancient Corinth, Acrocorinth Castle, Nemea, Zemeno) and from Athens. A comparison with their Corinthian counterparts may lead to conclusions concerning the activity of local workshops and the artistic production in the region during Middle Byzantine times. This is of particular importance, as these sculptures constitute evidence for Byzantine Vassilika’s prosperity; this evidence is crucial, given that no information justifying the town’s regal name survives. Στη μελέτη παρουσιάζονται γλυπτά αρχιτεκτονικά μέλη μεσοβυζαντινών χρόνων, που εκτίθενται σήμερα στο Μουσείο της Σικυώνας. Το Μουσείο στεγάζεται σε λουτρική εγκατάσταση της υστερορωμαϊκής περιόδου, στην παρυφή του Αρχαιολογικού Χώρου της Αρχαίας Σικυώνας, δίπλα στο χωριό Βασιλικό (βυζ. Βασιλικά) της Κορινθίας. Η Σικυώνα αναφέρεται σπάνια στις πηγές της πρωτοβυζαντινής και μεσοβυζαντινής περιόδου. Με την ονομασία της Βασιλικά εμφανίζεται για πρώτη φορά τον 13ο αιώνα, όταν στην αραγωνική εκδοχή του Χρονικού του Μορέως αναφέρεται ότι ο Γουλιέλμος Βιλλεαρδουίνος έκτισε το κάστρο της. Φαίνεται ότι ήταν η σημαντικότερη πόλη της καστελλανίας Κορίνθου μετά την Κόρινθο κυρίως κατά τον 14ο αιώνα και έως την κατάληψή της από τους Τούρκους περί τα μέσα του 15ου αιώνα. Έκτοτε, η πόλη παρήκμασε. Οι αρχαιολογικές ενδείξεις για την παρουσία κτηρίων βυζαντινών χρόνων στην περιοχή του Βασιλικού είναι ελάχιστες και δεν τεκμηριώνονται επαρκώς. Περισσότερο γνωστή είναι η βασιλική της Κάτω Σικυώνας, που ανέσκαψε τη δεκαετία του 1930 ο Αναστάσιος Ορλάνδος. Στην περιοχή του υψιπέδου, όπου είχε αναπτυχθεί η αρχαία Αγορά της Σικυώνας, έχουν εντοπιστεί έως σήμερα δύο ναοί σε ερειπιώδη κατάσταση. Ο κεντρικός ναός του οικισμού, η Αγία Τριάδα, φαίνεται ότι κτίστηκε στη θέση παλαιότερου, βυζαντινού ναού, όπως δείχνουν τα μέλη που είναι ενσωματωμένα σε αυτήν και άλλα, που περισυνελέγησαν από τον Αλέξανδρο Φιλαδελφέα και εκτίθενται στο Μουσείο. Άλλοι ναοί βυζαντινών χρόνων δεν διατηρούνται στον οικισμό. Στα μεσοβυζαντινά μέλη που εκτίθενται στο Μουσείο περιλαμβάνονται κυρίως τμήματα επιστυλίων τέμπλων, κοσμητών, κιονόκρανα και πεσσίσκοι. Μολονότι είναι καταγεγραμμένα σε βιβλία εισαγωγής του Μουσείου, για τα περισσότερα από αυτά δεν υπάρχουν ενδείξεις για τoν αρχικό τους τόπο εύρεσης. Πολλά είναι αποκεκρουμένα και δείχνουν ίχνη δεύτερης χρήσης. Η διακόσμησή τους, εκτός από ορισμένες εξαιρέσεις, όπως και τα τεχνοτροπικά τους χαρακτηριστικά, εντάσσονται στα γενικά ρεύματα της γλυπτικής τέχνης της μεσοβυζαντινής περιόδου. Κοσμούνται με τα συνήθη θέματα της βυζαντινής γλυπτικής, όπως ανθέμια, σταυρούς, πτηνά, βλαστούς κ.ά. Γενικά, τα μέλη μπορούν να παραβληθούν με ανάλογα μέλη που προέρχονται κυρίως από την Κορινθία (Αρχαία Κόρινθο, κάστρο Ακροκορίνθου, Νεμέα, Ζεμενό) και την Αθήνα.

103

Eleni G. Manolessou Από τη μελέτη και το συσχετισμό τους με ανάλογα μέλη της Κορινθίας είναι δυνατό να συναχθούν ορισμένα συμπεράσματα ως προς τη δραστηριότητα τοπικών εργαστηρίων ή τη μετακίνηση συνεργείων, ως προς την εισαγωγή μελών και γενικά την καλλιτεχνική γλυπτική παραγωγή της περιοχής της Σικυώνας κατά τη βυζαντινή εποχή. Το τελευταίο αυτό στοιχείο αποκτά ιδιαίτερη βαρύτητα αν ληφθεί υπόψη ότι τα γλυπτά αυτά αρχιτεκτονικά μέλη αποτελούν ενδεχομένως μάρτυρες της ακμής της βυζαντινής πόλης των Βασιλικών, για την οποία δεν έχουν σωθεί σημαντικές ενδείξεις που να δικαιολογούν την ονομασία της. Keywords: Middle Byzantine, sculpture, Corinthia, Sicyon, Vassilika, architectural sculptures, local workshops. 9.1 Introduction

Thematibus (10th century), considers Sicyon as one of the most important cities in the Peloponnese.

The present study offers an overview of the most distinctive architectural members of the Middle Byzantine period which are preserved in the museum of Sicyon (Corinthia): it attempts both to date them more precisely and to place them in the overall context of the period/ area through a comparative study of corresponding parts from other areas. After an overview of the historical data on Sicyon, the paper proceeds to a description and dating of the architectural members preserved until today, first those housed in the Museum of Sicyon and then in situ, followed by a discussion of their decoration and some general conclusions.

Sicyon appears under its new name, Vassilika, in the mid13th century, as the Aragonese version of the Chronicle of the Morea reports that Geoffroi de Villehardouin built the castle of Vassilika.6 From this time onwards, this castle, located where now is the modern village of Vassiliko, constitutes an important centre in the castellania of Corinthia, though less important than Corinth itself, and is mentioned in several 14th- and 15th-century documents.7 In 1446, the historian Laonikos Chalkokondyles mentions that Sultan Murad II conquered Vassilika, razed it to the ground and enslaved its inhabitants.8 Several travellers, from the 15th to the 19th centuries,9 visited Vassilika on their way to and from Corinth, and describe the scarcity and poverty of its houses and its ruined churches.

9.2 Sicyon in history Sicyon, modern-day Vassiliko, lies on a plateau to the north-west of Corinth, near Kiato, the second largest modern city in Corinthia. The land between the plateau and the coast is a fertile plain, renowned since antiquity for the richness of its soil, as witnessed by the very name Sicyon (land rich in cucumbers and/or melons).

The Byzantine architectural remains from the area are not numerous. Near the port of Vassilika, modern Kiato, Anastasios Orlandos excavated,10 during the 1930s, an Early Byzantine basilica, which he dubbed “Basilika of Lower Sicyon”.

To the west-northwest of modern Vassiliko, excavations have uncovered part of the Hellenistic city of Sicyon,1 which was built in 303 BC by Demetrius Poliorcetes and renamed New Sicyon. References to Sicyon in Byzantine sources are scarce. It is first mentioned as a bishopric in 343–344 AD (held by the prelate Hermogenes “de Siceono”).2 Around 530 the name New Sicyon is listed in Hierocles’ Synecdemos.3 And in the so-called «Notitia of the Iconoclasts» (Paris gr. 1555A) in the form «Σικύου».4 The emperor Constantine Porphyrogennitus,5 in his De

As for Upper Sicyon, in the 1920 it was excavated by Alexander Philadelpheus, who uncovered the ruins of an ancient temple and discovered traces of its use during the Early Byzantine period, such as graffiti of crosses, fragments of a mosaic floor and other sparse remains.11 In recent years, the surface-geophysical survey of the University of Thessaly,12 in collaboration with the former 37th Ephorate of Prehistorical and Classical Antiquities, the Institute for Mediterranean Studies and the University of York, as well as the excavations of the Archaeological

The work in this paper was inspired by Professors S. Kalopisi-Verti and M. Panagiotidi-Kesisoglou, who were the supervisors of my thesis, and taught me most of what I know of Byzantine sculpture and archaeological methodology. Thanks are also due to I. Manolessou and X. Simou for assistance with practical matters. The copyright of photographs nos 1–9 belongs to the Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia/ Ηellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports (© EAC/HMCS). Photograph no 10 courtesy of Dr D. Athanasoulis. 1  Lolos 2011, 279–282 and references therein. 2  Ιn the list of bishops participating at the Council of Sardica, modern Sofia (Σύνοδος Σαρδικῆς) in 343 AD; Mansi 1759, 46.47; Kordosis 1981, 260, 355; Avramea 1997, 170; Lolos 2011, 81. 3  Hierocles, Synecdemus 646.8 (ed. Ηοnigmann 1939, p. 18); Kordosis 1981, 260; Avramea 1997, 170. 4  Notitiae Episcopatuum 3, 735 (ed. Darrouzès 1981, p. 244); Kordosis 1981, 260, 355; Avramea 1997, 170; Lolos 2011, 82. 5  Const. Porphyrogennitus, De Thematibus Ι.6.5 (ed. Pertusi 1952, p. 90); Kordosis 1981, 260–261.

Chronicle of the Morea, Aragonese version, § 216 (ed. Morel-Fatio 1895, p. 49); Bon 1969, 104 n. 1, 476, 481; Kordosis 1981, 103, 196; Peppas 1993, 168; Lolos 2011, 85. 7  Bon 1969, 270, 481; Kordosis 1981, 110–111, 135 n. 16, 198–203; Peppas 1993, 6, 21, 25, 168–169; Lolos 2011, 85–88. 8  Kordosis 1981, 103, 120, 202; Lolos 2011, 88, 287. 9  Bon 1969, 481–482 and n. 6; Kordosis 1981, 138; Lolos 2011, 5. On the churches mentioned by 19th-century travellers, see Kordosis 1981, 187–198 and n. 207, 378; Lolos 2011, 291–292, 384. 10  Orlandos 1933, 81–90; Orlandos 1954, 219–231; Orlandos 1969, 148–176. 11  Philadelpheus 1926a, 46–48; Orlandos 1937, 96; Avramea 1997, 170; Lolos 2011, 286–287. 12  http://extras.ha.uth.gr/sikyon (accessed 4–5–2021). 6 

104

 Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia Society at Athens under Yannis Lolos, have brought to light important evidence concerning Byzantine presence in Vassilika and its general area, such as the traces of a basilica with several construction phases, in the archaeological site of Ancient Sicyon. No building dated exclusively to the Byzantine period has yet been discovered in Vassiliko, therefore assumptions as to the position, size and type of a settlement on the plateau remain hypothetical. To the south-west of Vassiliko, there are preserved traces of a wall and a massive tower,13 with successive medieval phases. The centre of the settlement is dominated by the church of Hagia Triada, dated to the post-Byzantine period. Around the beginning of the 20th century, according to the testimony of Philadelpheus,14 the village cemetery had developed by the church, and he had also observed traces of a Byzantine church now lost. Nowadays, a number of other churches,15 dated to the modern period, and bearing no traces of previous Byzantine use, are to be found in Vassiliko.

Figure 9.1. Museum of Sicyon. Ionic capital with integrated impost block.

under arcs, interwoven with a scroll bearing palmettes, and finishes, underneath, in a bead-and-reel decoration. Its under surface still preserves a decoration of two circles surrounding lattices. Parallels to this architectural member, with respect to style and motifs, can be found in capitals of the early 11th century from Ainos18 and Pherae,19 in a hitherto unpublished cornice fragment embedded in building wall in the monastery of Vlacherna in Elis,20 and in an ionic capital with integrated impost block from Corinth.21

9.3 Sculpted members from Sicyon A number of sculpted architectural members on display in the courtyard of the museum of Vassiliko bear witness to the development and continuity from Early Byzantine Sicyon to Byzantine Vassilika. The museum is housed in the Roman baths restored by Anastasios Orlandos,16 to the north of the city’s ancient Agora. The following discussion will focus on the pieces dated to the Middle Byzantine period, which are presented in chronological order.

The lattices on the under surface are to be met in similar architectural members, mainly from the 10th–11th centuries, from Corinth (Basilica of Kodratos),22 Acrocorinth castle (unpublished), and from the Church of Taxiarchis at Larissi near Sofiko (unpublished), but also in monuments much further off, such as Panagia Krina in Chios.23

Of special interest is an Ionic capital with an impost block (upper surface 0.56 × 0.26 m, h. 0.215 m, diam. 0.20 m), of unknown provenance, bearing a decoration of a scroll and a three-leaf palmette sprouting from an urn between lotus leaves (Fig. 9.1). This decoration follows Late Roman and Early Byzantine motifs (scrolls on the one hand, and three-leaf palmettes, lotus leaves, and urn on the other) which continue to decorate sculptures during the Middle Byzantine period, and which are combined here in an original composition. On the basis of an overall comparison with members bearing similar decorative motifs,17 technical and stylistic characteristics, this member should probably be dated to the end of the 9th century.

Part of a cornice (0.32 × 0.175 m, h. 0.15 m) (Fig. 9.3), bearing a relief of acanthus alternating with split palmettes, decorated with drilling and probably with filledin background brings to mind a corresponding decoration of sculptural parts from the second half of the 10th century and mostly of the 11th century. More specifically, comparisons can be drawn with sculpted architectural parts from the Panagia of Hosios Loukas24 (second half of the 10th century), with a capital from the screen of the katholikon of Hosios Loukas25 (beginning of the 11th century), with a lintel from Hagioi Anargyroi in Kastoria26 (mid-11th century), and with the crowning frieze of a capital from Constantinople27 (late 11th century).

A dating between the 10th and the 11th centuries could be assigned to a fragmentary, two-part templon architrave (0.95 × 0.285 m, h. 0.155 m), of unknown provenance (Fig. 9.2). On the front side it bears a decoration of crosses

Dennert 1997, 49–50, 191, no. 105, pl. 19,105. Dennert 1997, 50, 191, no. 106, pl. 19, 106. 20  Dr D. Athanasoulis, Director of the Ephorate of the Cyclades (personal communication). 21  Scranton 1957, 115–116, no. 123, pl. 30,123 (ΑΜ 383). 22  Vanderheyde 2008, 354 fig. 4. 23  Pennas 2008, 448–449, fig. 1, ΙΙ–ΙΙΙ, 3. 24  Bouras 1980, 84, 96, 111, fig. 139, 141, 154, 184. 25  Grabar 1976, pl. XXIVa-b; Bouras 1980, fig. 156; Dennert 1997, 15, 181, no. 16a, pl. 4,16a. 26  Grabar 1976, 61–62, no. 46, pl. ΧΧΧΙΙa-b. 27  Dennert 1997, 160, 219, no. 340, pl. 60, 340. 18  19 

13  Peppas 1993, 168– 169, pl. 31, fig. 31, 31a-b; Lolos 2011, 213, 214– 216, fig. 4.6, 4.37–4.40. 14  Philadelpheus 1926b, 23. 15 A. Orlandos (Orlandos 1935a, 45) mentions a, nowadays lost, church of Hagia Barbara. 16  Orlandos 1935b, 75–83. 17  E.g. Soteriou 1924, fig. 29; Skarmoutsou-Dimitropoulou 1998, 295, pl. 118a-c; Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 90, no 125; Ivison 2010, fig. 25a; Büyükkolanci- Öztaşkın 2010, 47, no. 12.

105

Eleni G. Manolessou

Figure 9.2. Museum of Sicyon. Fragmentary two-part architrave.

Figure 9.4. Museum of Sicyon. a) Capital. b) Unidentified architectural member (lintel or slab?).

A short and much-damaged fragment from a templon architrave (0.435 × 0.275 m, h. 0.135 m) bears a relief decoration of palmettes under arches33 and a high-relief rosette (Fig. 9.5). The motif is usual during the 11th and 12th centuries in templon architraves from all over Greece, such as Hosios Loukas,34 Athens,35 Hosios Meletios,36 Metamorphosis from Monastiraki37 in Aitoloakarnania, Thessaly,38 the Peloponnese and especially Corinthia (Nemea, monastery of Panagia of the Rock),39 Tegea,40 the Mani41 etc.

Figure 9.3. Museum of Sicyon. Part of a cornice.

In the early 20th century, a capital bearing relief decoration of an open palmette (0.315 × 0.215 m, h. 0.215 m) (Fig. 9.4a) was salvaged by A. Philadelpheus28 from the old cemetery of Vassiliko, behind Hagia Triada. The capital may have come from the Byzantine church which stood earlier in the location of Hagia Triada. Its characteristic motif occurs in similar sculptural members from Athens29 and other areas,30 and is to be dated to the 11th century.

One Museum exhibit is a part from an architrave (0.92 × 0.34 m, h. 0.13 m), bearing a relief decoration of heartshaped leaves enclosing palmettes, alternatively inverted and upright (Fig. 9.6). Practically identical are a number of unpublished architectural members from Zemeno, Corinthia. Their technique indicates a 12th century dating and opens the possibility that they could be products of the same workshop. The motif recalls architectural members

A fragment from an unidentified architectural member (architrave or slab?) (0.25 × 0.165 m, th. 0.10 m) bears a trademark decoration of Athenian sculpture, the representation of a vine, with linearized leaves and grapes (Fig. 9.4b). It is comparable to two Middle Byzantine architraves now at the Byzantine Museum in Athens.31 The motif is common in the decoration of templon colonnettes and mullion capitals during the 11th–12th centuries.32

On the decorative motif, see Buchwald 1995. Grabar 1976, pl. XXVa-b. 35  Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 119, no. 158. 36  Orlandos 1939–40, 101, fig. 49. Grabar 1976, 102–103, n. 85, pl. LXXVc-d, LXXVIc. 37  Vanderheyde 2005, 60, no. 82, fig. 72. 38  Bouras–Bouras 2002, fig. 247. 39  Manolessou 2019, 28–31, fig. 2a-b. 40  Bouras–Bouras 2002, fig. 375β. 41  Drandakis 2002, e.g. fig. 1–2,6, 64a–b, 122–125, 233, 236 et al. 33  34 

Philadelpheus 1926b, 23, no. 17, fig. 17β. Dennert 1997, 149, no. 299, pl. 53, 299a; Bouras 1985–86, 47, 49, fig. 14. 30  Dennert 1997, no. 296, pl. 53,296. 31  Bouras 1985–86, 56–57, 59, fig. 37; Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 99 no. 138. 32  See Vanderheyde 2005, 65–66, no. 91, fig. 81a. 28  29 

106

 Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia

Figure 9.5. Museum of Sicyon. Part of an architrave.

Figure 9.6. Museum of Sicyon. Part of an architrave.

of the 12th century, with similar decoration, from Argos (unpublished) and from Hagios Dimitrios of Katsouris,42 Arta.

a cross under arch, while on either side a lattice of bands creates rectangular frames enclosing an eagle, palmetteshaped acanthuses, scrolls with pomegranates and peacocks drinking from the fountain of life (Fig. 9.8). The architrave is comparable, from the point of view of motifs and technique, with similar fragments datable to the 12th century from Corinth,45 from Nemea (monastery of Panagia of the Rock)46 and from nearby Zemeno (unpublished), but also from other areas, e.g. Attica.47

Two templon posts bear a typical 12th century relief, that of a scroll, and are decorated with crosses at their tops. The low relief cross decoration of one of them (h. 0.98 m, 0.18 × 0.16 m) (Fig. 9.7a) recalls a similar screen post fragment from the monastery of Areia43 in Argolis, while the scroll is identical to that of a corresponding templon post from Acrocorinth castle (unpublished). The technique of the other templon post (h. 0.85 m, 0.16 × 0.145 m) (Fig. 9.7b) presents similarities with that of architectural members from the monastery of Zerbitsa.44

Apart from the architectural members now exhibited in the Museum of Sicyon, there is one further architectural member still remaining in situ, embedded in the wall of the belfry of Hagia Triada. Although unidentified and fragmentary, it could be attributed to a door frame. It depicts animals running: more specifically, from left to right, a dog, a goat, a lion and at the edge an animal lying on the ground (Fig. 9.9). This item is unique in Corinthia. The representation of animals on doors and window

The Museum also holds an architrave fragment (1.00 × 0.26 m, h. 0.12 m), transported there from the diakonikon of Hagia Triada of Vassiliko, in the wall of which it was embedded. It is decorated in the centre by Vanderheyde 2005, 48, no. 60, fig. 53. Bouras–Bouras 2002, fig. 73. 44  Bouras–Bouras 2002, fig. 156.

Scranton 1957, 120, no. 159, pl. 33,159. Athanasoulis et al. 2015, fig. 19. 47  Bouras–Bouras 2002, figs. 270, 291.

42 

45 

43 

46 

107

Eleni G. Manolessou

Figure 9.7. Museum of Sicyon. a-b) Two screen piers.

108

 Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia

Figure 9.8. Museum of Sicyon. The central part of an architrave.

Figure 9.9. Church of Hagia Triada, Vassiliko. Architectural member embedded in the wall of the belfry.

frames and in altar-screen architraves is observable from the 9th–10th centuries on, and continues during the 11th12th centuries.48 The motifs, the stylistic details in the representation of elements such as fur and tails, as well as the height of the animal relief as compared to corresponding parts from other areas, indicate a late 12th century dating.49 One could perhaps entertain the hypothesis that the animal representations of the sculptural member constitute a blended depiction of a number of Aesopic fables,50 a theme relatively rare but attested in Byzantine sculpture.51 However, no specific fables quite fit the combination of animals depicted, and, given the rarity of Aesopic themes, the possibility that we are dealing simply with a decorative motif remains the more likely one. The form of the lion resembles, as to its representational details, a lion from an impost embedded as a corbel of the roof (Fig. 9.10) at the katholikon of the monastery of Vlacherna in Elis, dated to the Late Byzantine period. Figure 9.10. Katholikon of the monastery of Vlacherna, Elis. Corbel depicting a lion. 48 Cf. the door frame of Hagioi Anargyroi, Kastoria, 11th century (Grabar 1976, 62, no. 46, pl. XXXIIa-b). Compare further the Middle Byzantine door frames in Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 96–99, nos 135–138. On the apotropaic nature of animal decorations in door frames of Byzantine churches see Grabar 1976, 59. 49 Cf. Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 153, 181, nos 209, 251; Bouras–Bouras 2002, fig. 376c. 50  Perry 132 “Dog presumes to Chase a Lion”. 51  Cf. Drandakis 1985; Pallas 1960–61.

9.4 Conclusions The architectural members examined should be dated mainly between the late 9th and the 12th centuries. The provenance of most of them is unknown, but it is believed

109

Eleni G. Manolessou that they originate from Vassiliko and the surrounding area. They constitute witnesses to the existence of a Middle Byzantine phase of city churches which have not survived to the modern period.

Μουσείου’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας περ. Δ΄ ΙΓ΄ (1985–1986), 39–77. Bouras–Bouras 2002: Μπούρας, Xαράλαμπος – Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Η ελλαδική ναοδομία κατά τον 12ο αιώνα, Athens 2002.

Their decoration, with few exceptions, as well as their stylistic characteristics conform to the general trends of sculptural art of the Middle Byzantine period. Of special interest are those isolated members whose closest parallels occur in contiguous areas of Corinthia, such as Corinth and the Acrocorinth castle, Zemeno, but also further off, such as Elis (monastery of Vlacherna). This is a definite indication of the same workshops, local or mobile, at work, and of contacts between important production centres of the area during the Byzantine period. In other cases, importation of members from Athens cannot be ruled out. This view gains support from the examination of the architectural members’ material: in some cases, this could be identified as Pentelic marble (e.g. Fig. 9.4a-b); but in general, most examined members seem to be made of marble or limestone. Corinthia has no marble deposits. The soil of the Sicyon area consists of sandy marls, sandstone and a small conglomerate in a marl matrix, while in the area to the south are deep marine deposits comprising marls, marly limestones and conglomerates.52

Buchwald 1995: Buchwald, Hans, ‘Chancel Barrier Lintels decorated with carved arcades’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), 233–276. Büyükkolanci– Öztaşkın 2010 : Büyükkolanci, Mustafa – Öztaşkın, Gökçen Kurtuluş, ‘Parapet slabs and templon architraves from St. Jean church, on display in Selçuk-Efes Museum”, Pammukale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 7 (2010), 39–49. Darrouzès 1981: Darrouzès, Jean, Notitiae episcopatuum ecclesiae constantinopolitanae (Géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin 1), Paris 1981. Dennert 1997: Dennert, Martin, Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle. Studien zu Typologie und Chronologie, Asia Minor Studien 25, Bonn 1997. Drandakis 1985: Δρανδάκης, Β., Νικόλαος, ‘Ὁ ναὸς τῆς Μεταμορφώσεως στὴ Νομιτζὴ καὶ τὰ ἀνάγλυπτα ἐπιθήματα τῶν κιόνων του’, Δώρημα στὸν Ἰωάννη Καραγιαννόπουλο, Βυζαντινὰ 13,1 (1985), 597–632.

The present research, inevitably fragmentary due to the poor condition of preservation of the material, contributes towards a fuller picture of the level of artistic development in a lesser known Byzantine city, involving both common and original decorative motifs. Thereby, it also offers new evidence on the evolution (influences, motifs etc.) of Middle Byzantine sculpture in Corinthia.

Drandakis 2002: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινὰ γλυπτά τῆς Μάνης, Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 222, Athens 2002. Grabar 1976: Grabar, André, Sculptures byzantines du Moyen Âge II (XIe–XIVe siècle), Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques XII, Paris 1976. Honigmann 1939: Honigmann, Ernst, Le Synekdèmos d’Hiéroklès et l’Opuscule géographique de Georges de Chypre, Bruxelles 1939.

Literature Athanasoulis et al. 2015: Αθανασούλης, Δημήτρης et al., Ιερά μονή Παναγίας του Βράχου στη Νεμέα Κορινθίας. Αποκατάσταση-Αναστήλωση, Athens 2015.

Ivison 2010: Ivison, Eric, ‘Kirche und religiöses Leben im byzantinischen Amorium’, in Daim, Falko – Drauschke, Jörg (eds.), Byzanz, das Römerreich im Mittelalter, Teil 2,1 Schauplätze, Mainz 2010, 309–343.

Avraméa 1997: Avraméa, Αnna, Le Peloponnèse du IVe au VIIIe siècle. Changements et persistances, Byzantina Sorbonensia 15, Paris 1997.

Kordosis 1981: Koρδώσης, Μιχαήλ, Συμβολὴ στὴν ἱστορία καὶ τοπογραφία τῆς περιοχῆς Κορίνθου στοὺς μέσους χρόνους, Βιβλιοθήκη Ἱστορικῶν Μελετῶν 159, Athens 1981.

Bon 1969: Bon, Αntoine, La Morée franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205–1430), Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 213, Paris 1969.

Lolos 2011: Lolos, A. Yannis, Land of Sikyon. Archaeology and History of a Greek City-State, Hesperia Supplement 39 (2011).

Bouras 1980: Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Ὁ γλυπτὸς διάκοσμος τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Παναγίας στὸ μοναστήρι τοῦ Ὁσίου Λουκᾶ, Βιβλιοθήκη τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 95, Athens 1980. Bouras 1985–86: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Κατάλογος ἀρχιτεκτονικῶν μελῶν τοῦ Βυζαντινοῦ Μουσείου, ἄλλοτε στὶς ἀποθῆκες τοῦ Ἐθνικοῦ Ἀρχαιολογικοῦ

Manolessou 2019: Μανωλέσσου, Γ., Ελένη, ‘Βυζαντινὰ γλυπτὰ ἀρχιτεκτονικὰ μέλη στὴ μονὴ Κοιμήσεως Θεοτόκου τοῦ Βράχου Νεμέας’, Πρακτικὰ τοῦ 3ου Συνεδρίου Κορινθιακῶν Σπουδῶν «Ἱστορικά Κορινθιακὰ Μοναστήρια» (Κόρινθος, 6–8 Μαΐου 2016), Corinth 2019, 25–64.

Papanikolaou et al. 1995, 6. www.oasp.gr/taxonomy/term/573 (accessed 4–5–2021).

Mansi 1759: Mansi, Dominicus, Joannes, Sacrorum conciliorum nova, et amplissima collectio, vol. 3, Frolence 1759.

52 

110

 Middle Byzantine Architectural Members from the Museum of Sicyon (Vassiliko) in Corinthia Philadelpheus 1926b: Φιλαδελφεύς, Ἀλέξανδρος, ‘Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Συλλογὴ Σικυῶνος (ἐν τῷ σημερινῷ χωρίῳ Βασιλικῷ)’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 10 (1926), Παράρτημα, 17–23.

Morel-Fatio 1895: Morel-Fatio, Alfred, Libro de los fechos et conquistas del principado de la Morea, Genève 1885. Orlandos 1933: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ Σικυῶνος’, Πρακτικά τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 1933, 81–90.

Scranton 1957: Scranton, Robert, Mediaeval architecture in the central area of Corinth, Corinth XVI, Princeton, N. J. 1957.

Orlandos 1935a: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Οἱ σταυρεπίστεγοι ναοὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν Μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Α΄ (1935), 41–52.

Sculpture byzantine 2008: Ch.Pennas – C.Vanderheyde (eds.), La sculpture byzantine VIIe–XIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes, 6.–8. septembre 2000, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 49, Athens 2008.

Orlandos 1935b: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος,, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ Σικυῶνος’, Πρακτικά τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 1935, 73–83. Orlandos 1937: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ Σικυῶνος τοῦ 1937’, Πρακτικά τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 1937, 94–96.

Skarmoutsou-Dimitropoulou 1998: ΣκαρμούτσουΔημητροπούλου, Κωνσταντίνα, ‘Μαλαγάρι, Μονή Αγίου Νικολάου’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 53 (1998) Χρονικά Β1, 295.

Orlandos 1939–40: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Ἡ μονὴ Ὁσίου Μελετίου καὶ τὰ παραλαύρια αὐτῆς’, Ἀρχεῖον Βυζαντινῶν Μνημείων Ἑλλάδος Ε΄ (1939–40), 35–118.

Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999: Σκλάβου-Μαυροειδή, Μαρία, Γλυπτά του Βυζαντινού Μουσείου Αθηνών. Κατάλογος, Athens 1999.

Orlandos 1954: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ Σικυῶνος’, Πρακτικὰ τῆς ἐν Ἀθήναις Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 1954, 219–231.

Soteriou 1924: Σωτηρίου, Ἀ. Γεώργιος, ‘Ὁ ἐν Θήβαις βυζαντινὸς ναὸς Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 1924, 1–26.

Orlandos 1969: Ὀρλάνδος, K. Ἀναστάσιος, ‘Συμπληρωματικὴ ἔρευνα εἰς τὴν βασιλικὴν τῆς Σικυῶνος’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Βυζαντινῶν Μνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος ΙΒ΄ (1969), 148–176.

Vanderheyde 2005: Vanderheyde, Catherine, La sculpture architecturale byzantine dans le thème de Nikopolis du Xe au début du XIIIe siècle (Épire, Étolie et Sud de l’Albanie), Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique, Supplément 45 (2005).

Pallas 1960–61: Πάλλας, Ι. Δημήτριος, ‘Βυζαντινὸν ὑπέρθυρον τοῦ Μουσείου Κορίνθου, ἁπλῶς αἰσώπειος μύθος ἢ τὸ Συναξάριον τοῦ Τιμημένου Γαδάρου;’ Ἐπετηρὶς Ἑταιρείας Βυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν 30 (1960– 1961), 413–452 (=Δημήτριος Ι. Πάλλας, Συναγωγή μελετών Βυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας [Τέχνη-ΛατρείαΚοινωνία], Β΄, Athens 1987–1988, 420–459).

Vanderheyde 2008: Vanderheyde, Catherine, ‘Les sculptures découvertes lors des fouilles de trois églises byzantines à Corinthe: un témoignage en faveur d’une occupation continue de la ville du VIIe au XIIe siècle?’ Sculpture byzantine 2008, 341–357.

Papanikolaou et al. 1995: Papanikolaou, Dimitris, Logos, Evangelos, Lozios, Stylianos, Sideris, Christos, Neotectonic map of Greece (scale 1:100.000), Sheet: “Corinth”, Athens 1995. Pennas 2008: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Νέα στοιχεία αποκατάστασης και ερμηνείας του τέμπλου της Παναγίας Κρήνας στη Χίο’, Sculpture byzantine 2008, 447–465. Peppas 1993: Πέππας, Ἰωάννης, Μεσαιωνικὲς σελίδες τῆς Κορινθίας καὶ Μορέως, Athens 1993. Perry: Perry, Ben Edwin, Aesopica: A series of texts relating to Aesop or ascribed to him or closely connected with him the literary tradition that bears his name, vol. 1, Greek and Latin texts, Urbana 1952. Pertusi 1952: Pertusi, Agostino, Constantino Porfirogenito, De thematibus. Introduzione-testo critico-commento (Studi e testi 160), Vatican 1952. Philadelpheus 1926a: Φιλαδελφεύς, Ἀλέξανδρος, ‘Ἀνασκαφαὶ Σικυῶνος’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 10 (1926), 46–50.

111

10 ‘Lions Frighten Wild Beasts…’: An Inscribed Marble Arch of the Middle Byzantine Period from the Chalkis Region, Euboea, Greece Giannis Vaxevanis Abstract: The study deals with a large, inscribed marble arch in the collection of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea which most likely comes from Chalkis or its broader environs. Hellenistic or more likely Roman in origin, it underwent during the Middle Byzantine period a new treatment on one (and thereafter its main) side, where a rich decoration with zoomorphic, vegetal and geometric motifs was carved and a metrical inscription added, in which the role of the judiciary is extolled. The iconographic and mainly the stylistic analysis, in combination with other criteria, such as epigraphical, demonstrate the close connection the arch had with sculptures of the so-called ‘Theban workshop’ and lead to its dating to the end of the 9th century. The impressive decoration of the arch in combination with the metrical style of the inscription it bears, indicate the prominent social position and high level of literacy of the sponsor who undertook the cost of the construction of the secular or, most likely, the ecclesiastical building from which the arch originates, at a time when Chalkis is emerging as an important administrative center of the theme of Hellas. Η μελέτη πραγματεύεται ένα μεγάλων διαστάσεων μαρμάρινο ενεπίγραφο τόξο το οποίο παρέδωσε το 2009 στην Εφορεία Αρχαιοτήτων Ευβοίας κάτοικος της Χαλκίδας, υποστηρίζοντας ότι αυτό αποκαλύφθηκε τυχαία κατά τη διάρκεια χωματουργικών εργασιών στην Αγία Ελεούσα, μικρό σύγχρονο οικισμό στα βορειοανατολικά της πόλης. Το αρχιτεκτονικό μέλος που ανήκει στους ελληνιστικούς ή το περισσότερο πιθανό στους ρωμαϊκούς χρόνους, κατά τη διάρκεια της μεσοβυζαντινής περιόδου δέχτηκε νέα επεξεργασία, οπότε στη μία –και κύρια πλέον όψη του– λαξεύτηκε πλούσιος διάκοσμος και χαράχθηκε η ακόλουθη μεγαλογράμματη επιγραφή: † Λέοντες ἐκφοβοῦσι θῆρας ἀγρίους † οἱ δ’αὖ δικασταὶ τοὺς κακῶς δεδρακότας [†] Πρόκειται για επίγραμμα σε βυζαντινό δωδεκασύλλαβο μέτρο, πρωτότυπη πιθανώς σύλληψη ενός ικανού επιγραμματοποιού, το οποίο εξαίρει το έργο των δικαστών παρομοιάζοντάς τους με λιοντάρια που εκφοβίζουν άγρια θηρία. Ο γλυπτός διάκοσμος του τόξου αποδίδει εικαστικά με τον πιο εύγλωττο τρόπο το περιεχόμενο της επιγραφής καθώς περιλαμβάνει τις μορφές δύο αντωπών λιονταριών που επιτίθενται σε ένα μικρό θηρίο. Η όλη σύνθεση, που συμπληρώνεται από λιτό φυτικό και γεωμετρικό διάκοσμο, παρουσιάζει ομοιότητες ως προς την τεχνική και την εικονογραφία με τα γλυπτά του λεγόμενου «θηβαϊκού εργαστηρίου», το οποίο, με αφετηρία τα γλυπτά σύνολα των ναών του Αγίου Γρηγορίου στη Θήβα (872/3) και της Παναγίας Σκριπούς στον Ορχομενό (873/4), άσκησε σημαντική επίδραση στη γλυπτική του ελλαδικού χώρου. Οι ομοιότητες αυτές, σε συνδυασμό με άλλα κριτήρια, όπως επιγραφικά, οδηγούν στη χρονολόγηση του τόξου στα τέλη του 9ου αιώνα, επιβεβαιώνοντας παράλληλα τις ήδη εξακριβωμένες αυτή την περίοδο στενές επαφές της Εύβοιας με την γειτονική Βοιωτία και σε καλλιτεχνικό επίπεδο. Η μνεία της επιγραφής στην απόδοση της δικαιοσύνης υποδεικνύει την προέλευσή του γλυπτού, είτε από δημόσιο οικοδόμημα, όπου έδρευαν κρατικοί αξιωματούχοι με δικαστικές αρμοδιότητες, είτε από κτήριο εκκλησιαστικού χαρακτήρα που είναι και το πιο πιθανό. Οι μεγάλες διαστάσεις του τόξου και ο εντυπωσιακός του διάκοσμος, σε συνδυασμό με το λόγιο ύφος και τη σωστή ορθογραφία της επιγραφής, είναι ενδεικτικά της υψηλής μόρφωσης και της εξέχουσας κοινωνικής θέσης του παραγγελιοδότη που ανέλαβε τη δαπάνη για την ανέγερση του κτηρίου από το οποίο προέρχεται το γλυπτό: πιθανότατα πρόκειται για ανώτερο κρατικό ή εκκλησιαστικό αξιωματούχο της Χαλκίδας, ο οποίος ήταν επιφορτισμένος με δικαστικές αρμοδιότητες. 113

Giannis Vaxevanis Το εξεταζόμενο μαρμάρινο τόξο αποτελεί ένα σπάνιο παράδειγμα της βυζαντινής γλυπτικής όπου είναι άμεση η διαδραστική λειτουργία κείμενου και εικόνας. Στην περίπτωση που, σύμφωνα με τον ιδιώτη που το παρέδωσε στην Αρχαιολογική Υπηρεσία, προέρχεται πράγματι από τη Χαλκίδα ή την ευρύτερή της περιοχή, αποτελεί μια ακόμα σημαντική μαρτυρία για την ανάδειξης της πόλης στα τέλη του 9ου αιώνα σε σημαντικό διοικητικό και εκκλησιαστικό κέντρο του θέματος της Ελλάδος, όπου ισχυροί τοπικοί άρχοντες αναπτύσσουν σημαντική οικοδομική δραστηριότητα, ανάλογη με εκείνη στην οποία προβαίνουν την ίδια περίοδο ανώτεροι αξιωματούχοι τόσο στη γειτονική Βοιωτία –με βάση τα λαμπρά παραδείγματα των ναών του Αγίου Γρηγορίου και της Παναγίας Σκριπούς-, όσο και σε άλλες περιοχές του ελλαδικού χώρου. Keywords: Middle Byzantine period, Chalkis (Euboea), Byzantine sculpture, architectural sculptures, inscriptions, administration of justice.

Back in 2009 a large, inscribed, marble arch was presented by a local citizen of Chalkis to the 23rd Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities (currently the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea).1 This individual claimed that the arch was discovered by chance in the mid-1990s without any other associated architectural remains during earthworks in a marshy area near Hagia Eleousa, a hamlet roughly three kilometres northeast of Chalkis. Indeed, a 2009 survey by the Ephorate of the site he indicated as the arch’s find spot did not confirm the presence of any other finds, such as scattered ceramics, that could testify to its archaeological nature.2 This fact in conjunction with the long period –more than ten years– before he presented the arch to the Archaeological Service, raises doubts about its actual find spot. However, the arch has to be connected to Chalkis and its broader environs: its sheer size would have rendered moving it any distance from its original location very difficult.3 The arch, of interest as much

for its inscription as for its impressive relief decoration, is discussed in this article, a small token of my gratitude to the two much-loved teachers honoured in this volume, Professors Emerita Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou and Sophia Kalopissi-Verti. The arch is carved out of a single rectangular slab of greyblue marble and weighs more than one and a half metric ton, based on its measurements: 2.10 m long, 0.95 m tall, and up to 0.50 m at its thickest point; the arched opening spans 1.30 m, while its sagitta is 0.65 m [Figs. 10.1–10.4]. It is in quite good condition, with a few chips on the edges of its top surface and on the upper part of the side with the relief decoration, which is also interrupted by a large diagonal crack. Based on the form and decoration of the arch, two distinct periods of use can be surmised. During the first period [Fig. 10.4], both sides of the arch were visible, since they are both decorated in similar plain relief: the semi-circular edges of the arch are ornamented with an Ionic crosssection frame consisting of two successively receding fasciae which are crowned by a projecting moulding (kymation) composed of a cyma reversa and a cavetto.4 A similar projecting moulding ran both horizontally and vertically along the top and the two lateral edges of either side of the slab, thus forming a three-sided rectangular frame within which the arched opening is inscribed.5 On either side of the arch, beyond the raised frame, there are two narrow, vertical bands that would have been inserted in the wall and ensured that the block was held firmly in place.6 They are roughly carved, as are the two narrow lateral sides of the arch; in contrast, its top surface has been smoothed flat.

I would like to extend my warmest thanks to Eugenia Gerousi and Pari Kalamara, successive Directors of the Ephorate, for granting me permission to study and publish the arch in question. This article would not have been completed without the very pertinent points raised and significant support offered by Georgios Pallis, Lecturer at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. I am also indebted to my colleague Aikaterini Tsaka, who kindly granted me access to her unpublished MA thesis (Tsaka 2006). Drawings of the arch were made by the Ephorate’s draughtsperson Despina Christou, whom I would also like to thank. For a brief discussion of the sculpture, see Gerousi et al. 2009, 511–512, fig. 78 (Ι. Vaxevanis). While this study was underway the arch was also included in Georgios Pallis’ article about inscriptions in Μiddle Βyzantine churches (Pallis 2016, 391–392, 399, fig. 1). 2  In Hagia Eleousa no Byzantine antiquities had previously been found, although an extensive cemetery for the ancient town of Chalkis with particularly important finds has been discovered there (3rd–first half of the 1st centuries BC) (Ritsonis 2001; cf. Chairetakis and Boukaras 2015, 42). However, it should be noted that archaeological evidence of an agricultural nature from the Byzantine period in the wider vicinity of Chalkis is not unknown; two small rural settlements of the Middle and Late Byzantine periods have been excavated in the 1990s in the region of the Lelantine Plain, to the northeast of Chalkis, near the villages of Dokos and Aphrati (the ‘Angelou’ and ‘Korovesis’ plots respectively); they remain largely unpublished, but glazed ceramics and amphorae from the former have been published in Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999, 32, no. 11, 42, no. 26 (Ν. Μichalou-Αlevizou) and Waksman et al. 2018, 1112, 1120–1121, nos. 40–44, respectively. In the same area, on the outskirts of the village of Phylla, an agricultural settlement with a wine press and storage rooms of this very date also came to light (the ‘Papageorgiou’ plot) (Gerousi et al. 2010, 1019–1020, figs. 12–16 [P. Gani]). On the dense habitation of the Lelantine Plain during the period of the Western rulers and the fortified monuments of that period, see lately Kalamara 2017, 541, with the relevant bibliography. 3  Ιn this article, for ease of reference, I shall use the term ‘Hagia Elousa’ arch, putting it in quotation marks. 1 

The inner fascia of the frame is 0.06 m wide, the outer fascia is 0.05 m, while the width of the moulding is 0.07 m. It should be noted that the dimensions of the individual decorative features of the arch relate only to the side with the relief decoration now visible; after its transfer to the storeroom of the Ephorate, the block was placed in such a way that its other side is not currently accessible. 5  Only a few vestiges survive of the horizontal moulding on the side with the relief decoration, while the one on the other side of the arch is preserved in better condition. The width of the former is 0.05 m. 6  The two unworked vertical bands taper off towards the bottom: on the side with the relief decoration the right-hand band is 0.125 m wide at its lower end and 0.14 m wide at the top, whereas the left-hand one measures 0.105 m and 0.115 m wide at the bottom and top respectively. 4 

114

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’

Figure 10.1. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch, Roman period (?) (first use) and late 9th century (second use).

Figure 10.2. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch. Roman period (?) (first use) and late 9th century (second use) (drawing by Despina Christou).

The lack of archaeological context makes it impossible to date this first period of use of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch securely; it is also unclear what sort of building it came from. Monolithic arches of this kind, often made of bluish marble, just like the arch in question, had been in common use since Hellenistic times, and became widely popular above all in the Roman period.7 They were mostly used in monumental entrances or in small arcades and invariably have a similar pattern of decoration to that of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, although in most cases their arched frames are surrounded by three rather than two fasciae and their spandrels are adorned with carved rosettes.8 Therefore, the arch in question could well have originated from an impressive building in Chalkis or its environs, built in Hellenistic or more likely in Roman times, when on the archaeological evidence the town was flourishing and splendid monuments were being erected there.9

The text reads as follows: † ΛΕΟΝΤΕC ΕΚΦΟΒΟΥCI ΘΗP ̣ẠC̣ ΑΓΡΙΟΥC † ΟΙ Δ AY ΔΙΚACΤΑΙ TOΥC ΚΑΚΩC ΔΕΔΡΑΚΟΤΑC̣ [†] † Λέοντες ἐκφοβοῦσι θῆρας ἀγρίους † οἱ δ’αὖ δικασταὶ τοὺς κακῶς δεδρακότας [†] Lions frighten wild beasts and judges, for their part, (frighten) evil-doers. The words are not separated by spaces and are spelled correctly, without a single error; there are no abbreviations, accents or breathings. The carving is particularly elaborate and the capital letters are carefully incised; the script is clear and legible. All of the capital letters have the same height (0.04 m) and are regularly spaced. The following letters are worth noting: A (alpha), with a slanted horizontal bar, Δ (delta), with a projecting lower bar, E (epsilon) and C (sigma), which are crescent-shaped, the former crossed by a bar extending its full width, Θ (theta) and O (omicron), which are angular, almost rhomboid and with the horizontal bar of the former extending beyond its circumference, K (kappa), with two side arms shaped like an open rhomboid at a short distance from the vertical line, N (nu), with a small slanted line between the two verticals making it look rather like an H (eta), and Y (upsilon), shaped like a V with a small horizontal bar just above the point. Nearly all the letters, as well as the arms of the crosses, terminate in small triangular serifs.

The arch in question was reused during the Middle Byzantine period. At that time it was reworked on only one of its sides, which thus became the front face: a carved majuscule inscription and elaborate relief decoration featuring zoomorphic, vegetal and geometric motifs were added then [Figs. 10.1–10.2, 10.5–10.7]. The inscription is an epigram composed in dodecasyllables, which is the dominant metre of the inscriptional epigrams of the Middle Byzantine period.10 It extends along the outer fascia of the arched border, beginning on the left. A small incised Greek cross precedes the text, while a second one, which would probably have marked its end is not now preserved because of some abrasion at the bottom right-hand side of the arch; a third identical cross, incised over the apex of the semi-circular opening, bisects the text into two symmetrical and self-contained halves, each consisting of twelve syllables, in accordance with the metre of the inscription.

It has not as yet been possible to locate the text of the inscription in either the corpus of Byzantine literature or the epigrams appearing in inscriptions on sculpture or other media in Byzantine art.11 Therefore, although the matter merits further scholarly study by a philologist, it is very feasible that this is an original composition by an epigrammatist, who composed it at the behest of the patron of the building in which the arch was reused.12 In this case, the metrically,

See chiefly, Bruneau and Llinas 1970, with numerous examples, mainly collected from Delos and Athens. See also, Audiat 1970, 34, fig. 20, pl. 7, 50 ff., fig. 35, pls. 11, 13, 76 ff., figs. 54–56, pls. 15–16; Broneer 1973, 106, 128, pls. 39:d, 74:a; Stefanidou-Tiveriou 1995, 26–29. 8  Bruneau and Llinas 1970, 161–163. 9  On the topography and monuments of Hellenistic and Roman Chalkis, see Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995, 33–39; Chairetakis and Boukaras 2015, 43–55. 10  Rhoby 2012, 734–735; Drpić and Rhoby 2019, 432. 7 

11  Rhoby 2009; Rhoby 2010a; Rhoby 2014; Rhoby 2018, where a comprehensive catalogue of epigrams on sculpture and other media of Byzantine art has been collected. 12  In general, on epigrammatists in Byzantium, see Rhoby 2012, 748–749.

115

Giannis Vaxevanis

Figure 10.3. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch. Top and side view, Roman period (?) (first use) and late 9th century (second use) (drawings by Despina Christou).

Figure 10.4. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch. Drawing of the front face during the Roman period (?) (first use) (drawing by Despina Christou).

as well as prosodically, correct dodecasyllables indicate that the epigrammatist was particularly accomplished, as he was well aware of the prosodic rules of the ancient iambic trimeter on which the dodecasyllable structure is based,13 bearing in mind that in the Middle Byzantine period most verse inscriptions are not prosodic.14

judge,15 and also feature frequent lion similes, which mostly present them as animals that are the symbols of strength par excellence.16 The deterrent tone of the metrical inscription is also related to a series of epigrams inscribed near the entrances or the sanctuaries of Middle Byzantine

As to the content of the epigram, it praises judges who confront evil-doers, comparing them to lions that frighten wild beasts. It is admonitory in character, cautioning those engaging in punishable acts that they will have to face justice. The epigram seems to recall the Book of Psalms and other Old Testament texts, which are dominated by the concept of justice dispensed by God, the righteous

15  See for example the passage 2 Maccabees 12:41 and Psalms 7/8, 25/26, 34/35 and 42/43, among others (Rahlfs 19658, vol. 1, 1131, vol. 2, 5–6, 24, 33–35, 44; Pietersma and Wright 2007, 517, 550, 559, 563–564, 568). Τhe idea of justice is also prominent in Psalm 117/118, 19 and 20, which is often inscribed on church lintels (see below, p. 124), and in Psalm 64/65, 5–6: “ἃγιος ὁ ναός σου, θαυμαστὸς ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ” (holy is your shrine, admirable in justice) (Rahlfs 19658, vol. 2, 65; Pietersma and Wright 2007, 578); the latter is cited in mosaic floor inscriptions of the Early Byzantine period and in the inscription in the apse of the church of Saint Eirene in Constantinople (second half of the 8th century) (Felle 2006, 77–78, no. 79, 81–82, no. 87, 235, no. 506, with collected references). 16  See for example, passages such as: ‘...ὡσεὶ λέων ἕτοιμος εἰς θήραν...’ (…like a lion eager for prey…) (Psalm 16/17:12); ‘...ὡς λέων ἁρπάζων καὶ ὠρυόμενος’ (…like a lion that ravens and roars…) (Psalm 21/22:14); ‘λέων θήραν ἐνεδρεύει...’ (A lion lies in wait for prey…) (Sirach 27:10); ‘...ὡς λέοντες ὠρυόμενοι ἁρπάζοντες ἁρπάγματα...’ (…like roaring lions catching prey…) (Iezekiel 22:25), and many more (Rahlfs 19658, vol. 2, 13, 20, 428, 808; Pietersma and Wright 2007, 554, 557, 741, 963).

13  On the Byzantine dodecasyllable, see Lauxtermann 1998; Rhoby 2011a. 14  Lauxtermann 2013–2019, vol. 1 (2013), 271–272; Drpić and Rhoby 2019, 432. I would like to warmly thank the classical philologist Dimitrios P. Papanikolaou for his comments on the metre of the epigram.

116

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’

Figure 10.5-10.6. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch (detail). The two lions, late 9th century.

churches, in which worshippers are instructed to enter the sanctuary ‘in awe’ and to receive Holy Communion ‘trembling’.17 As research has shown, these epigrams are similar in content to one by Theodore of Stoudios, inscribed inside the basilica of Saint John the Baptist in the Stoudios Monastery in Constantinople (c. 886): it warns his fellow monks that the bema is a place of fear and dread, which only the chaste among them can enter to partake of the Holy Communion.18 In employing the word βῆμα (the ‘altar space’ but also the ‘tribunal’ of the Last Judgment), Theodore is probably making an indirect reference to the Last Judgement, thus bestowing on similar epigrams an additional, eschatological dimension.19

Figure 10.7. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea. Inscribed marble arch (detail). The beast, late 9th century.

the spandrels, two confronted lions are ready to attack a smaller animal, the beast, which is occupying the upper part of the arch, facing the right-hand lion.20 The lions have robust bodies and are depicted as standing on bent hind legs, with their front legs touching the moulding of the arcuated border. They sport manes made up of flameshaped strands of hair, which positively identify them as males, and tails with thick, leaf-like tips that curl over their backs. Apart from their aggressive pose, their menacing demeanour is intensified by their gaping mouths, from which long, pointed tongues emerge.

The relief decoration on the arch visually reinforced the content of the epigram [Figs. 10.1–10.2, 10.5–10.7]. On

17  For example, the inscription at the basilica of Saint John the Theologian in Selçuk, near Ephesus, probably from the 8th or early 9th centuries: ‘Φόβῳ πρόσελθε πύλην τοῦ Θεολόγου· τρόμῳ λάμβανε τὴν θείαν κοινωνίαν· πῦρ γάρ ἐστιν· φλέγει τοὺς ἀναγίους’, ‘Approach the gate of [the church of] of the Theologian in fear; receive Holy Communion tremblingly; for it is a fire, it burns the unholy’ (Rhoby 2014, 733–734, no. TR111, with collected references). See also, Lauxtermann 2003–2019, vol. 1 (2013), 246–247, for the English translation and a slightly different reading of the epigram, and 352 (Appendix VIII, nos. 102–105), where inscriptions with related content (‘protreptic verse inscriptions’) have been gathered. I would like to thank Professor Marc Lauxtermann of Oxford University for his valuable advice on this subject. For one more comparable verse inscription on the templon closure slab at Akhisar (Thyateira) in Asia Minor (c. 10th century), see Pallis 2013a, 770–771, and 781, no. 14. 18  ‘Φρικτὸν τὸ βῆμα τοῦτο καὶ πλῆρες φόβου, ναὸς Θεοῦ φωτεινὸς, ἁγνοῖς ἁπτέος. Πρόσελθε θείως, καὶ μεθέξεις ἀξίως· πῦρ γὰρ τὸ δῶρον τοὺς ἀναξίους φλέγον’, ‘This bema is a place of fear and full of dread, a temple of God in light, touchable to the pure. Enter in godly manner and you will commune as worthy; for the gift [the Eucharist] is a fire that burns the unworthy’ (Speck 1968, 195–197, no. XLIV). 19  Both Studites’ epigram and the other ‘protreptic verse inscriptions’ go back to the hortatory verses of the Horologion (Lauxtermann 2003–2019, vol. 1 [2013], 247).

The beast, whose tongue is also projecting from its open mouth, has a frightening appearance, which further emphasises the scene’s content: a ferocious battle is raging between the lions and the wild animal that is standing up to its fierce attackers. The identification of the latter is not 20  The upper part of the arch where the beast is depicted is enclosed by two crescent-shaped incisions –the one on the left-hand side only partially survives because of the large crack at that point. It is unlikely that a second beast, facing the lion on the left spandrel, was depicted here, as the space available is limited.

117

Giannis Vaxevanis possible, mainly because the rear-end is abraded. It has a long head, rounded at the left side, with short little ears, and an elongated, flat body with a horizontal strip running along the top, which probably demarcates a spine. Its body is covered with a row of four small, incised circles, while its hindquarters are filled at least with four small dots. The shape of its body together with its scary look bring to mind a reptile, in particular a crocodile,21 or even a fantastic creature, mostly likely a dragon.22 However its short ears indicate that it most probably is a mammalian quadruped. Ιn identifying the animal as a quadruped, the small semicircular carving visible on the back of its body, which may indicate the upper part of a leg, and the fractured rectangular protrusion at the front of its body, which could correspond to two short front legs, could potentially be useful.

Figure 10.8. Italy, Cividale del Friuli, Museo Cristiano. Arch of the canopy of the baptismal font of patriarch Kallistos of Aquileia (735-756), end of the period in office of the patriarch.

The animals depicted on the arch are surrounded by simple plant and geometric ornamentation. Under each lion appears a simplified basket-shaped plant motif with a long, thin stalk from which two foliated half-palmettes emerge, each enclosing a small triangular calyx out of which grow free-winding stems terminating in sketchy, spear-shaped flowers. On the left-hand side of the relief the hind legs of the lion are planted among the stems of the foliate motif and thus two of these stems are separated from the remainder and seem to be almost independent supplementary decoration. Moreover on the plant motif on the right-hand side of the relief, the sculptor did not manage to fit all the decoration into the space available and thus had to leave out the back of the foliated halfpalmettes.

with smaller animals.24 When in pairs, they are usually arranged on either side of a central motif, such as a tree of life or a foliate cross.25 However, the image of confronted lions attacking another animal is not particularly common in Middle Byzantine sculpture.26 Nonetheless, it occurs in a series of canopies intended mainly for altars and baptismal fonts, but also for funerary monuments or reliquary installations, in northeast Italy [Fig. 10.8]27 and the eastern Adriatic coast (Croatia and Montenegro) 24  For some typical examples, see Pazaras 1977, 71, no. 36, pl. ΧΧ (panel from Thessaloniki, 10th century); Kounoupiotou-Manolessou 2008, 229, no. 10, fig. 10 (panel from Chalkis, 10th century); Milanova 2008, fig. 3 (panel from Bulgaria, late 10th–early 11th centuries); Varalis and Tsekes 2008, 365–370, fig. 5 (re-used panel in the church of Saint John Prodromos in Argos, where the two quadrupeds have been identified as lions, second half of the 11th century). See also, the architraves attributed to the so-called ‘Samarina workshop’, active in the Peloponnese during the late 12th-early 13th centuries (Pallis 2006, 94–95, figs. 1, 5, 8, with earlier bibliography) and the examples mentioned in notes 93 and 94 below. For a catalogue of depictions of lions on Byzantine architectural sculptures, see Bouras and Bouras 2002, 560–562, 565. 25  For some typical examples, see Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1982–1983, 102– 103, fig. 6 (lintel from Athens, 9th–10th centuries); Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 110–111, no. 151 (panel from Athens, 10th century). See also the panel from Argos on which two confronted lions stand on either side of some foliate ornament resembling the basket-shaped plant motif of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, first half of the 9th century (Athanasoulis and Vassiliou 2016, 114, no. 121 [G. Tsekes]). 26  For one example, see the panel from Chalkis with two lions seizing two hares (12th century) (Kounoupiotou-Manolessou 2008, 229–230, no. 11, fig. 11). In general, for the depiction of confronted animals on Byzantine architectural sculpture, see Bouras and Bouras 2002, 565–566. For a general discussion of the iconography of confronted lions or other animals on either side of a motif, see Brenk 1966, 199 ff. 27  The closest iconographical parallel amongst the canopies in Italy is the octagonal canopy of the baptismal font of Patriarch Kallistos of Aquileia (737–756) from the basilica of Santa Maria Assunta at Cividale del Friuli, now in the town’s Museo Cristiano, dated to the end of the patriarch’s period in office [Fig. 10.8] (Brenk 1976, 208, pl. 89; Tagliaferri 1981, 210–214, nos. 315–321, pls. LXXXV–LXXXVI, with collected earlier references). For other examples, see Tagliaferri 1981, 188–189, nos. 282–283, pls. LXXI–LXXIII, 254, no. 379, pl. CXVIII and 273–276, nos. 409–412, pls. CXXXVI–CXXXIX. For canopies in Italy of the same period with quite similar decoration, but with the depiction of other animals or birds on the spandrels, see Tagliaferri 1981, 320–322, nos. 486–487, pl. CLXVIII; Scortecci 2003, 56–63, no. 10, pls. IV–VI; Betti 2005, 189–191, no. 121, pl. LX.

The foliate decoration of the arch is completed by two smaller motifs in the lower parts of the spandrels, which are also schematically depicted; they comprise a long flat stalk terminating in a small trefoil. The ornamentation of the arch is finished off in the inner fascia of the arcuated frame with a simple interlace pattern with eyelets (chain scroll), formed of a single band of equal width. Turning now to the iconography of the arch, lions are particularly popular on architectural sculptures in Middle Byzantine churches, either alone23 or engaged in combat

21  See the representations of crocodiles on the wooden ceiling-beams of the katholikon of the Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai (548– 565) (Forsyth 1973, 8, pls. LXVIII:1, LXIX:2) and in the miniatures in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem, cod. Taphou 14, fol. 313r, second half of the 11th century) (Weitzmann 19842, 73, pl. XXVII:92) and again in the Cynegetica of Oppian (Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, cod. gr. Z. 479, fol. 52r, middle of the 11th century; Smyrna, Evangelical School, B 8, fol. 41, 11th century, and Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, cod. gr. 2736, fol. 45r, middle of the 16th century) (Kádár 1978, 105, pls. 177:2, 224:1; Spatharakis 2004, 3–5, 149–151, figs. 110, 232). 22  In general, for depictions of dragons in Middle Byzantine art, see Tsaka 2010. 23  For some typical examples, see Pazaras 1977, 69–70, nos. 34–35, pls. ΧΙΧ–ΧΧ (panels from Thessaloniki, 10th century); Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 109, no. 150 (panel from Athens, 10th century). See also the examples mentioned in notes 93 and 94 below.

118

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ centuries.31 The numerous canopies from these two areas that bear the similar iconographical layout with the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch raise problems on the origin of its artistic models, especially given the absence of canopies with similar decoration from the Greek mainland, in which the depiction of animals is rare.32 Stylistically the decoration of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch is in low relief and is highly stylized. The animal figures are stiff and lack three-dimensionality, their anatomical details being depicted by a network of incised lines. Pear-shaped incisions are used for the eyes of the two lions and for the musculature of the upper part of their hind legs, while small circles and dots decorate the body of the unidentified animal. Indicative οf the schematic and flat rendering of the decoration is the way the lions’ paws have been rendered like the teeth of a serrated chisel. The outlines of the lions’ bodies have been cut in straight-edged relief and their individual anatomical details, such as the flowery tips of their tails, the flame-shaped strands in their manes and their ears, lack definition and are rounded off. As in the case of the foliate stems, the carving is deep, irregular or ovoid in section, and casts a darker shadow. Small differentiations in the way the details are rendered enliven the somewhat clumsy execution, which may point to different hands being responsible for the execution of the sculpture; for example, the half-palmettes and calyxes of the foliate motif on the right are more linear and sketchily rendered than those of the one on the left; and then again, the mane of the left-hand lion is thick and bushy and very different from the more linear appearance of the one on the right.

Figure 10.9. Montenegro, Kotar, Cathedral of Saint Tryphon. Canopy arch, early 9th century.

[Fig. 10.9],28 adjacent areas whose sculptural production has close affinities within the broader framework of official Byzantine art.29 The arches of these canopies, which are dated from the early 8th to the early 9th centuries, frequently have the same iconographical layout as the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch with confronted animals in the spandrels (quadrupeds, most often lions, fantastic creatures, such as griffins, or even birds, usually peacocks) attacking other smaller animals occupying the upper part of the arches. Moreover, in the above-mentioned examples, the lions and the smaller animals they are attacking are sometimes depicted, as on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, with their tongues sticking out, indicating the fierceness of the combat being waged. In addition, further similarities with the arch under discussion include the foliate motifs on the lower parts of the arches, the rich foliate or geometric decoration on the arcuated borders, and the inscriptions that most of them have, though these are placed on the upper parts of the arches and not around the arcuated borders.30 Lions in combat with other animals are also found in later examples of canopies from Italy and the Adriatic coast (10th-11th centuries), but with some variations in the overall arrangement compared to those of the 8th and 9th

The relief decoration on the arch under discussion features linear and simplified animal figures typical of 9th–10th centuries Byzantine sculpture.33 The inclusion of chain scroll is another common feature in this period,34 while freescrolling foliate stems are also used as marginal motifs, filling in the undecorated surfaces of several surviving 31  For examples from Italy, see Dufour Bozzo 1966, 83–87, nos. 50–53, pls. LXIII–LXVI: 82–85; Bertelli 2002, 390–391, no. 491, pl. CLVIII (Α. Di Gregorio). For examples from Zadar in Croatia, see Petricioli 1981; Jakšić 2007; Maraković and Jurković 2007, 365–366, fig. 12. 32  For an example of an arched slab that probably belonged to a canopy on which the one of its spandrels is also adorned by a lion, but whose sculptural decoration has a completely different arrangement from that of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, now in the Archaeological Museum of Tripoli in the Peloponnese (12th century), see Fundić 2009, 141 ff., figs. 1–4. For a list of canopies of the Middle Byzantine period from the Greek mainland, see the exhaustive study of Jelena Bogdanović (Bogdanović 2017, passim and Table 5). On motifs common to the sculpture of Italy and Byzantium, see for example, Grabar 1963, 93–94, where the similarities between the sculptural decoration of the church of the Panagia Skripou (873/4) –which has close affinities with the ‘Hagia Eleousa arch, as will be discussed below– and Italian sculpture are pointed out. 33  For similarly depicted animals in sculpture of that period, see Orlandos 1937, 137, no. 11, fig. 9 (panel from Smyrna with two confronted griffins, 8th–9th centuries); Βüyükkolanci 2008, 73–74, nos. 3–4 (panels from Ephesus with lions and a griffin in combat with other animals, 9th century). 34  For some typical examples, see Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1982–1983, figs. 1–12 (lintels from Athens, 9th–10th centuries); Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 83, no. 114 (capital from Athens, 9th century). It is worth mentioning that similar chain scroll are to be found in sculptures of the same period from Italy; see for example, Tagliaferri 1981, 243, no. 362, pl. CX. On the chain scroll ornament in general, see Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 139–140, with collected bibliography.

28  Jakšić 2014, 590–592, 598, figs. 2:a–c, 5:a–c, 7:d, where a remarkable number of inscribed canopies preserved in Dubrovnik and Prevlaka in Croatia and in Kotor and Ulcinj in Montenegro have been assembled; they are dated by the author to the beginning of the 9th century and attributed to the same sculpture workshop. See also, Bogdanović 2017, 105–106, 108, 123–124, and Table 5, with extensive bibliography, and Stevovic 2017, 49–67, figs. 2–3, where the canopy from Ulcinj is dated to between 720 and 741, while its decoration has been, like the inscription on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, interpreted with reference to Old Testament texts. On another quite similar example from the church of Archangel Michael in Martinići in Montenegro (9th century), see Korać 2001, 78 ff., figs. 71–78. In general, for a list of more than forty stone canopies which have been recovered along the Adriatic littoral dating from 9th to 11th centuries, see Bogdanović 2017, 103–108, Table 5 and map 4. 29  Sheppard 1984; Stevović 2001–2002; Bogdanović 2017, 103, 107– 108. See also the canopy of Bishop Mauritius at Novigrad in Istria in Croatia, which has quite similar decoration with the other canopies of the eastern Adriatic coast and is attributed to a workshop from Friuli in Italy (around the 780s) (Jurković 1995; Maraković and Jurković 2007, 359–360, fig. 1). 30  For the carved decoration of the canopies and the inscriptions they bear, see Bogdanović 2017 104, 117 ff., and Table 7.

119

Giannis Vaxevanis reliefs of this period.35 However, more specifically, both in technique and in iconography the arch under discussion shows strong similarities with the relief decoration of two very important churches in Boeotia, a region not far from Euboea: Saint Gregory the Theologian in Thebes and the Panagia Skripou in Orchomenos. Both these churches were constructed, according to their foundation inscriptions, with funds donated by high-ranking officials and members of the local aristocracy, the basilikos kandidatos Basileios and the basilikos protospatharios and epi ton oikeiakon Leo, and only one year apart respectively (872/3 and 873/4).36 The extensive relief decoration of both these impressive monuments displays common iconographical and stylistic trends and therefore has been acknowledged as the product of a single workshop, which is known in the scholarly literature as ‘Theban’, since it is considered to have been based in Thebes, an important administrative and trade centre for Central Greece and the capital of the theme of Hellas from the end of the 9th century onwards.37

art,41 it developed new decorative motifs and stylistic trends contributing decisively to the revival of this art in the countryside of Greece. Its blossoming can be linked with the revitalization of ecclesiastical architecture in general observable in that period as part of systematic efforts by the central authorities (both state and Church) to restructure the Greek provinces.42 Comparing the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch with the sculptural decoration of the two important monuments of Saint Gregory and Skripou and with other sculptures belonging to the same artistic milieu, brings out their close affinities in style and technique. Typical links between them are, for example, the way in which the relief of the outlines, with the pronounced, vertical section, can be found alongside more rounded carving,43 or the way that the individual anatomical details of the animals are rendered using networks of incised lines or small circles.44 Turning to the iconography of the arch, animal figures often form part of the repertoire of the ‘Theban workshop’. Although lions are not particularly frequent, felines are often represented, either alone or in combat with other animals, usually in roundels incorporated in lush foliate decoration. They appear in sculptures from the churches of Saint Gregory and the Panagia Skripou,45 as well as on other sculptures connected to the ‘Theban workshop’ in Thebes itself and elsewhere.46 Τwo typical examples from Thebes are the parts of two late 9th-century architraves (Figs. 10.10–10.11): it is characteristic that the quadruped which is depicted on one of them (Fig. 10.11), is not easy to be identified, just as with the beast on the ‘Hagia Eleousa” arch.47

A large number of sculptures both in Thebes itself 38 and in the rest of Boeotia,39 as well as in numerous areas of Central and Southern Greece, such as Phthiotis, Thessaly, Attica, Euboea and the Peloponnese, have close affinities with the sculptural decoration of the churches of Saint Gregory and Skripou.40 These widely distributed works, which in general are dated by scholars to the late 9th or early 10th centuries, i.e. after the building and decoration of the two Boeotian churches, demonstrate the significant influence the ‘Theban workshop’ had on marble carving in the countryside of Byzantine Greece; under the direct influence of official Constantinopolitan 35  For some typical examples, see Pazaras 1977, 58–59, no. 24, fig. 4, pl. XIV (panel from Thessaloniki, second half of 9th–10th centuries); Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 93, no. 129 (part of an architrave from Athens, 10th century). 36   Sotiriou 1924; Sotiriou 1931; Grabar 1963, 90–99, pls. ΧΧΧΙΧ–XLIII; Megaw 1966; Panayotidi 1969, 100–108, pls. 53–61; Oikonomides 1994; Papalexandrou 1998. For the latest excavation evidence demonstrating that Saint Gregory was originally of a similar size to Skripou, see Koilakou 2014, 403–404, fig. 2:a; Koilakou 2018. 37  On the ‘Theban workshop’, see especially Papalexandrou 1998, 220–233; Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 167–171, 186–200; Pallis 2015. Cf. the remarkable concluding remarks on the workshop’s activity by the Professor Emerita Maria Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, to whom this volume is dedicated (Panayotidi 1969, 100 ff.). On the importance of the town of Thebes during the Middle Byzantine period, see Savvides 1988, and more recently, Koilakou 2013, with earlier bibliography. 38  Dozens of reliefs from Thebes belonging to the same artistic milieu are today kept in the storerooms of the Ephorate of Boeotia or have been reused in the city’s more recent churches (Sotiriou 1924, 15, 25, figs. 22, 45; Orlandos 1939–1940, 126–129, figs. 7–9; Grabar 1963, 95, pl. XLIII:2; Megaw 1966, 18, note 44, pl. 5:e; Manolessou et al. 1988, 99–102, pl. 73:α [Ch. Koilakou]; Koilakou 1997, 110, pl. 52:στ; see also the double-sided panels mentioned in n. 43 below). A large number of previously unpublished sculptures from Thebes with similar stylistic and iconographical tendencies are included in Eleni Manolessou’s thesis on the city’s Byzantine sculpture (Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 167–171, 186-200, vol. 2, passim). On the numerous Byzantine churches and monasteries of Thebes, see Koilakou 2014. 39  Sculptures associated with the ‘Theban workshop’ have been noted at the monastery of Saint Nicholas near the village of Ypsilanti (Megaw 1966, 19, pl. 3:g-h, 5:b) and in the church of Saint Athanasios in the village of Kokkino (Lazaridis 1973, 288; Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 106– 108, nos. B15–B17). 40  On the geographical spread of sculptures associated with the ‘Theban workshop’, see especially, Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 191 ff.; Pallis 2015.

With regard to the arch’s plant decoration, the long, freeflowing stems emerging from the calyxes of the basketshaped plant motifs recall similar foliate ornament, mostly of ivy leaves, filling empty spaces on several sculptures 41  On the Constantinopolitan prototypes of the ‘Theban workshop’, see Megaw 1966, 25–27; Papalexandrou 1998, 226–227; Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 167–168; Pallis 2015, 803. 42  Μegaw 1966, 20–23; Bouras 2001, 67–82. 43  See for example, the double-sided panel from the church of Saint Gregory (872/3), now in the Archaeological Museum of Thebes (Cormack and Vassilaki 2008, 216–217, 426, no. 186 [M. Skordara]; Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 36–38, no. Α37, with collected bibliography) and the two comparable double-sided panels with two confronted peacocks and other birds (late 9th century), one of which is also exhibited in the Archaeological Museum of the city (Cormack and Vassilaki 2008, 215, 425–426, no. 185 [N. Kontogiannis and Α. Tsaka]; Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 134–136, no. Β48, with collected bibliography), while the other is now lost and is known only from the publication of Josef Strzygowski (Strzygowski 1894, 11, pl. III:2–3). Part of a panel from Thebes (Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 133–134, no. Β47), might be associated with the latter. 44  See for example, Megaw 1966, pls. 1:b, 2:a–c, 4:d–e (church of Skripou, 873/4). See also, the double-sided panel from the church of Saint Gregory mentioned in the previous note. 45  See for example, Sotiriou 1924, figs. 21, 23 (church of Saint Gregory, 872/3); Grabar 1963, pls. XL:1–2, XLI:5; Megaw 1966, pls. 1:b, 2:a, c; Cormack and Vassilaki 2008, 214–215, 425, no. 183 (E. Dafi) (church of Skripou, 873/4). 46  See for example, the part from a late 9th-century architrave from Argos (Megaw 1966, 20, pl. 5:c). Cf. Varalis and Tsekes 2008, 361. 47  Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 188, vol. 2, 121–123, nos. Β33-B34.

120

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’

Figure 10.12. Thebes, Archaeological Museum. Part of a marble corner cornice with incised foundation inscription from the Church of Saint Gregory the Theologian, 872/3.

Figure 10.10. Thebes, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia. Part of an architrave with a feline, late 9th century.

Figure 10.11.Thebes, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia. Part of an architrave with a quadruped, late 9th century.

Figure 10.13. Orchomenos, Boeotia, Church of the Virgin Skripou. Incised foundation inscription, 873/4.

by the ‘Theban workshop’, which, however, are more mannered and display a greater horror vacui.48 Finally, the reliefs of this workshop occasionally feature chain scroll, though it is rendered quite differently from that on the arch under examination.49 The ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch displays a series of common features with the churches of Saint Gregory and the Panagia Skripou beyond the stylistic and iconographic similarities shared with their sculptural decoration. As in the case of the arch from Euboea, both these Boeotian monuments also boast an incised inscription in verse –though dedicatory in character– (Figs. 10.12–10.13),50 with that of Skripou being particularly noteworthy, as it is in essence a long laudatory poem in twelve high-quality hexameter verses –a meter which is hardly ever used

for inscriptional epigrams.51 It was composed in honour of the founder of the church, the high-ranking imperial official protospatharios Leo, and it is conspicuous for its erudition and sophisticated language, being full of words and metaphors taken from ancient texts, especially the works of Homer.52 As has quite rightly been argued, Leo must have been a wealthy landowner from Boeotia, who had made a career in Constantinople, where he obtained the honorific titles that are mentioned with pride in the inscriptions on the church.53 At the same time he presumably commissioned the composition of the metrical inscription from a high skilled epigrammatist, who must have been closely allied with the scholarly circles of the capital, where the employment of Homeric hexameters had been re-discovered during the second half of the 9th century.54

48  See for example, the group of panels from Thebes listed in n. 43 above. Similar, but more accomplished plant motifs appear in the sculpture in the North Church of the Monastery of Constantine Lips in Constantinople (see for example, Mango–Hawkins 1964, figs. 17, 24–26). Moreover, its slightly later, high-quality sculptural decoration (907/8), which has been associated with the ‘Theban workshop’ (see n. 41 above), includes plant motifs with long flat stalks ending in small trefoils (Mango–Hawkins 1964, figs. 24, 26, 30, 31–32), quite similar to the ones in the lower parts of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch. 49  See for example, the fragment of a sarcophagus slab from the church of Saint Gregory, 872/3 (Sotiriou 1924, 17–18, fig. 28; Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 39–41, no. A39; on three other parts of the same slab, see Koilakou 1995, 82, pl. 37α; Koilakou 2018, 578). See also, two parts of architraves from the church of Skripou, 873/4 (Megaw 1966, 29–30, pl. 1:c–d). 50  The metrical inscription from Saint Gregory is now exhibited at the Thebes Archaeological Museum. Part of the same incised inscription,

but in prose, can be seen on two blocks incorporated into the walls of the small 19th-century church of Saint Basil, built on the remains of Saint Gregory (Sotiriou 1924, 1–2, figs. 3–5; Manolessou 2011, vol. 2, 38–39, no. A38). On the external walls of Skripou, apart from the metrical inscription, there are three other dedicatory inscriptions in prose, which are not incised but sculpted in high relief (Sotiriou 1931, 153–157, figs. 37–40; Oikonomides 1994, 481–485, pls. I– IV; Papalexandrou 1998, 111–155, figs. 41–51). On the metrical inscriptions of the two churches, see also Rhoby 2014, 319–324, no. GR98, pl. XLII, 366–368, no. GR 117, pl. 48, with a wealth of earlier references. 51  Rhoby 2012, 737 ff.; Drpić and Rhoby 2019, 432–433. 52  Papalexandrou 1998, 141–155. Cf. Rhoby 2011b, 319–320, and passim; Rhoby 2012, 737–740; Rhoby 2017, 273–275. 53  Oikonomides 1994, 485 ff.; Papalexandrou 1998, 312 ff.; Bevilacqua 2011. 54  Prieto–Domínquez 2013; Papanikolaou 2019.

121

Giannis Vaxevanis Furthermore, the overall style of the capital letter-forms used in the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch’s inscription is closely related to those appearing in the incised dedicatory inscriptions at both Boeotian monuments (Figs. 10.12– 10.13):55 the letters are high and elongated in shape with sharp endings, while the use of small triangular serifs on almost all their vertical and horizontal bars is systematic.56 Α comparison between most of the letters in the above inscriptions, such as the Δ (delta), the C (sigma), the E (epsilon), the O (omicron), the K (kappa) and the N (nu), is telling as regards the uniformity it reveals,57 even though there are some differences in their technical execution.58 Furthermore, the absence of accents and breathings, superscript letters and ligatures, common features of inscriptions before the year 1000,59 is also characteristic of the inscriptions in question.

Figure 10.14. Thebes, archaeological site of Church of Saint Gregory the Theologian. Marble arch.

also be noted that in the two Boeotian monuments can be observed the use of a variety of stones other than white marble for their sculptural decoration, as for example the local grey limestone from which the architectural sculptures of Skripou have been executed and which is comparable with the grey-blue marble of the arch under discussion.63

Another common feature linking the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch –Hellenistic or more possibly Roman in origin and reused in the Middle Byzantine period– with the churches of Saint Gregory and Skripou is the extensive redeployment of ancient architectural members and the avid and careful incorporation of a vast amount of spolia in their walls. This practice, widely observed in Byzantine times,60 is not unsurprising in the two Boeotian monuments, given the wide availability of ancient building materials in Thebes and Orchomenos.61 Tellingly, at the archaeological site of Saint Gregory a large marble arch, similar in shape and general form to the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, is still visible: it was probably placed above the door of the burial chamber formed in the south aisle of the church, which presumably contained the tomb of the founder (Fig. 10.14).62 It should

As can be surmised from all of the above, the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch shares numerous iconographic and stylistic features with the sculptures associated with the ‘Theban workshop’. Furthermore, the close connection of the arch under examination here with the exactly dated monuments of Saint Gregory and Skripou in neighbouring Boeotia (872/3 and 873/4 respectively) suggest a slightly later date of it, most propably in the late 9th century.

55  On the similarities between the incised inscriptions of the two Boeotian monuments in terms of both the overall style of the letter-forms and the technique, see Papalexandrou 1998, 151–152. 56  On the morphology of Byzantine script between the 6th and 10th centuries, see mainly Orsini 2015. On the use of serifs, see Kalopissi– Verti 2016, 258–259, with extensive bibliography. 57  However, there are differences in the form of some individual letters, notably the A (alpha), which on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, as well as at Saint Gregory, is given a slanted horizontal bar, quite different from the alpha with a broken cross-bar, which is extensively used at Skripou. The inscription on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch also differs from those of the two Boeotian monuments in its B (beta) and L (lambda). 58  The termination points of the letters in the inscriptions from the churches of Saint Gregory and Skripou are highlighted by drilling holes, a technique which is absent from the inscription of the arch under discussion. 59  Kalopissi–Verti 2016, 255, and n. 2, with comprehensive bibliography. 60  On the phenomenon of reusing spolia in Byzantine church architecture, which is open to manifold interpretations, see lately Mexia 2019, and n. 5, with comprehensive bibliography. 61  As has been emphasised, the particularly extensive use of ancient building material in Skripou reflects the high level of education of the church’s founder and his personal interest in the glorious ancestral past of Orchomenos (Papalexandrou 1998, 250ff.; Papalexandrou 2001a; Papalexandrou 2003). On the use of ancient spolia in the masonry of Saint Gregory, see Koilakou 2018, 575. The above-mentioned fragment of a sarcophagus slab (see n. 49 above), which comes from the same church, is actually also a reused Roman sculpture, as testified by the relief decoration on the back. See also, the above-mentioned double-sided panel from Thebes with two confronted peacocks and other birds which is associated with the ‘Theban workshop’ (see n. 43 above): it has also been recycled as it has an ancient inscription on one of its narrow sides. 62  Sotiriou 1924, 8, fig. 2; Koilakou 2018, 573. The arch’s dimensions are: L. 1.80 m, W. 0.60 m, H. 0.91 m, with a span of 1.08 m.

In Chalkis itself, besides the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, the Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea’s sculpture collection includes parts of two late 9th-century marble architraves,64 which have been associated with the ‘Theban workshop’ (Fig. 10.15).65 Furthermore, two unpublished fragments of

Figure 10.15. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea, Karababas Fortress sculpture collection. Part of an architrave, late 9th century. 63  Papalexandrou 1998, 158, 160, 221, and passim; Manolessou 2011, vol. 1, 60, 64, 190. 64  Giannopoulos 1924, 98–100, fig. 11. 65  Sotiriou 1924, 16, fig. 25; Panayotidi 1969, 109–110, pl. 62:a–b.

122

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ have extended beyond mere trade into the realm of art; the evidence of these sculptures is particularly pertinent in this respect. Turning now to the Middle Byzantine reuse of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch, the fact that the inscription and the sculptural decoration are only on one side indicates that, unlike in its original use, it was placed in such a way that only the decorated side was visible, as the arch’s main face. Therefore, any idea of its having been employed in an arcade, a possibility in its original setting, does not seem particularly valid, especially as its size and general mainly form does not fit the morphology of Middle Byzantine arcades based on what we know of surviving examples mainly from church architecture.69 Taking into account the other known cases in which arches were used in church architecture during the Middle Byzantine period, the size of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ sculpture also makes it unlikely that it was used for example in a propylon or in a canopy, both of which are relatively small-scale constructions.70 On the contrary, the arch’s significant dimensions and the equally significant width of its span, capable of bridging a wide opening, suggest that it was most probably employed in a monumental entrance to an impressive building. Τhe considerable width of the roughly carved vertical bands at the sides, which would have been set into the thick walls of a large and imposing structure, lead to the same conclusion.71 To what sort of building then would this large architectural member be well suited? Does the reference to justice being meted out in the inscription denote a possible home on a court building? This possibility is extremely attractive, since our knowledge of Byzantine public buildings, especially in provincial centres, is extremely limited and all the more so when it comes to their sculptural decoration.72 In that case, it should be noted that one would expect the arch to come from a secular building in Chalkis, the main urban centre of the region, rather than being connected with the hamlet of Hagia Eleousa, where the arch is said to have been found.

Figure 10.16. Chalkis, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea, Karababas Fortress sculpture collection. Parts of two marble screen colonettes, late 9th century.

octagonal marble colonettes in the same collection, most probably parts of the same templon,66 reminiscent of the style of the same atelier (Fig. 10.16). Interestingly, the sides of the taller colonette terminate in squares enclosing small flowerheads similar in execution to the plant motifs on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch; moreover, the facets of the colonettes are decorated with chain scroll ornament, also similar in shape and execution to that on the arch under discussion. These additional marble sculptures, though limited in number and of unknown provenance, are particularly important as they are the only witnesses to late 9th-century church sculpture from the Chalkis area, given the otherwise complete absence of ecclesiastical monuments in the town and its surroundings at that time.67 During this period Chalkis –Euripos in Byzantine sources– was one of the main ports through which goods from and to Thebes, the capital of the theme of Hellas, were traded.68 Connections between these major urban centres must

Τhe administration of justice in Byzantine provinces during the period when the themes were configured as civil and military regions, that is from the last third of the 8th century See for example the configuration of porticos or peristyles in that period (Bouras and Bouras 2002, 363–364; Chatzitryphonos 2004, 109–137). 70  On Middle Byzantine propyla, see Bouras and Bouras 2002, 365– 367. On the propylon of Skripou, see Sotiriou 1931, 123–124, fig. 6. Concerning the existence of a propylon in the church of Saint Gregory, which has recently been disputed, see Koilakou 2018, 575–576, and n. 48. On the different types of Middle Byzantine period canopies (altar canopies, baptismal canopies etc.), their shape and size, see Bogdanović 2017, 46 ff. 71  The use of the arch over a gate in a fortification wall should also be excluded on the grounds of the content of the inscription. On inscriptions on fortifications, see Rhoby 2016a. 72  Bouras 2002, 524–525. Information on the appearance of buildings used by judicial officials in provincial Byzantium is extremely limited and what little evidence we have refers only to the Constantinopolitan courts of justice (Koukoules 1955, vol. 6, 44 ff.; Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 119 ff.). 69 

66  Both colonettes and the one of the architraves are exhibited among other sculptures in the Karababas Fortress collection in Chalkis. 67  For a review of Byzantine-period monuments from Chalkis, see Triantafyllopoulos 1990, and more recently, Kontogiannis 2012; Kalamara 2015. 68  Gerolymatou 2008, 158–159, with earlier references. For ceramic evidence, see more recently Skartsis and Vaxevanis 2017, 597, 603–604; Waksman et al. 2018.

123

Giannis Vaxevanis on, seems to have been the preserve of civil magistrates, who operated under the supervision of the strategos. The latter appears to have been responsible for examining criminal offences occurring in his province.73 Αfter the end of the 10th century, the krites or praetor emerged as the most important judicial official of the theme and, alongside the strategos, held one of the two most powerful posts.74 This chief magistrate, who was assisted in his duties by a multitude of other administrative and even fiscal officials, such as notarioi, protonotarioi, praktores, anagrapheis and apographeis,75 might be expected to have been based in the capital of the theme of Hellas, namely Thebes, where, according to the existing evidence, the strategos was stationed.76 However, the presence of civil magistrates with judicial responsibilities in Chalkis during the 9th century, when it became an important administrative and economic centre of the theme of Hellas, cannot be ruled out. Characteristic in this way, although at a much later period, is the presence in Euripos of the megas doux and praetor of Hellas and Peloponnesos, Eumathios Philokales; in 1092 he offered considerable relief to Hosios Christodoulos and his fellow monks from Patmos who had taken refuge in Euripos after being compelled to abandon their island due to Turkish attacks.77 From the sources of Hosios Christodoulos’ life we also learn that when the hosios composed his Testament in Euripos a few days before his death (March 16, 1093), it had to be validated by seven important church officials of the town because of the substantial estates involved. Furthermore, one day before Hosios Christodoulos’ death, he also drew up the Codicil, signed this time by five witnesses, four of whom were simple priests and one was both priest and notary of Euripos.78 Although this occasion belongs to a somewhat later period, when the theme of Hellas had merged with that of the Peloponnesos79 and after important changes had been made in the administration of the themes,80 yet it still indicates the importance of the town of Euripos in the regional government of Central Greece.

appeals.81 Euripos, one of the most important towns in the theme of Hellas, could very likely have been the seat of one of these local courts. Ηigh-ranking officials are already known to have been based in Euripos since the town became the naval base for the theme of Hellas with significant mercantile activity as the main port in the Aegean for nearby Thebes.82 These members of the local aristocracy, rich in funds and land, would have been expected to engage in substantial building projects, both secular and ecclesiastical, just as the local officials in neighbouring Boeotia apparently did, judging by the splendid examples of Saint Gregory and Skripou, and as can also be seen elsewhere in the Greek provinces.83 Although no monumental buildings survive from 9thcentury Euripos,84 the tendency of local aristocrats to fund such projects is indicated by a now lost 9th–10th centuries inscription, also in archaic-style verse, which mentions the restoration of the coastal road between Euripos and Eretria underswitten by the protospatharios Theophylaktos.85 Bearing in mind the considerable number of inscriptions on stone in Middle Byzantine churches,86 it could also be argued that the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch belonged to a church building. The practice of constructing monumental entrances by reusing Roman marble arches, by no means unknown in Middle Byzantine church architecture,87 supports the above view. Moreover, the sculptural decoration of church doors often includes inscriptions, which frequently have a similar cautionary character to that of the arch in question, preparing the faithful for the holy space they are about to enter.88 A typical example is the citation on church lintels of Psalm 117/118, verses 19 and 20, where justice is once again referred to with the doors of the church being characterized as ‘gates of justice’ through which the ‘righteous’ enter.89 Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 291. Kontogiannis 2012, 30, and n. 5, with the relevant bibliography. Cf. Triantafyllopoulos 1990, 170, and n. 38; Kalamara 2015, 58, fig. 64. 83  During the uneasy period of the 9th century, the presence and activity of high-ranking officials can also be attested, for example in Athens (Theocharis 2013), in Aegina (Kalopissi-Verti 2016) and on Samos (Gerousi 2012), amongst others. 84  The architectural remains in Chalkis, just as in other fortified towns in the Empire, come from partially surviving buildings of usually small size and haphazard construction, crammed into densely packed urban blocks (Kontogiannis 2012, 31, 33–34; Kalamara 2015, 60). On the buildings and the planning of Byzantine towns in general, see mainly Bouras 2002; Bouras 2012. 85  Rhoby 2014, 225–227, no. GR55, with collected references. 86  Pallis 2016; Pallis 2020, 148–152. 87  On two 12th-century examples from Attica, the churches of Christ in Megara and of the Panagia Gorgoepekoos in Athens, see Bruneau – Linas 1970, 141, pl. 26; Bouras and Bouras 2002, 44–48, 230–231, figs. 23–24, 256–257, 447; in the latter monument, Roman arches are reused on all three entrances. On the morphology and the general form of Byzantine church door openings, see Bouras and Bouras, 2002, 414–417; Mamaloukos 2012, 3–4, 5–26; Mamaloukos 2015. 88  Pallis 2013b, 28–29; Pallis 2016, 399–400; Pallis 2020, 149. 89  “Ἀνοίξατέ μοι πύλας δικαιοσύνης· εἰσελθὼν ἐν αὐταῖς ἐξομολογήσομαι τῷ Κυρίῳ. Αὓτη ἡ πύλη τοῦ Κυρίου, δίκαιοι εἰσελεύσονται ἐν αὐτῇ” (Open to me gates of righteousness; when I enter in them, I will acknowledge the Lord. This is the gate of the Lord; righteous ones shall enter in it) (Rahlfs 19658, vol. 2, 130; Pietersma and Wright 2007, 606). For a compilation of the inscriptions in which the psalm is mentioned, see Feissel 1984, 225–226; Felle 2006, passim; Pallis 2016, 390. 81  82 

In the major urban centres of the Empire, lower courts headed by local administrators tried civil as well as criminal cases; the krites of the theme would then hear Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 42–46. Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 287–294. I would like thank Andreas Gkoutzioukostas, Assistant Professor of Byzantine History at the Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, most warmly for his valuable advice. 75  Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 289–291. 76  Savvides 1988, 34. 77  Vranoussi 1966, 119 ff.; Vranoussi 1980, 6–7, 51–55; Karlin-Hayter 2000, 565. On Eumathios Philokales, one of the ablest officials from the reign of the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (1081–1118) and his presence in the theme of Hellas and Peloponnesos, see Bon 1951, 197–199, no. 48; Skoulatos 1980, 79–82, and Kourmpetis 2000, 158, and n. 12, with extensive bibliography. For the seal of Eumathios Philokales of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection (ca. 1118), see also https://www.doaks.org/ resources/seals/byzantine-seals/BZS.1955.1.3249. 78  Miklosich and Müller 1890, 81–90, nos XX:I–II; Karlin-Hayter 2000, 594–601. It is also worth noting that immediately after the saint’s death copies of the Testament and Codicil were endorsed by the kouropalates and praetor of Hellas and Peloponnesos, Bardas Hikanatos (Vranoussi 1966, 124; Vranoussi 1980, 56–57). 79  Savvides 1988, 35–36. 80  Gkoutzioukostas 2004, 293–294. 73  74 

124

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ The possibility of the arch in question having been set in a church building is further supported by the iconography of its relief decoration. Images of animals –whether alone or locked in combat– appear relatively frequently in the sculpted decoration of marble doorframes of Middle Byzantine churches which generally symbolise the transition to the heavenly realm.90 Their depiction is often considered to be apotropaic in nature and they are thought to function as talismans with magical potential in their own right and radiating protective powers.91 Lions, which have a special place among them, being principally perceived as symbols of power and the guardians par excellence of the animal kingdom,92 are often depicted on doorframes and lintels,93 or even in wooden door panels.94 The crosses which accompany the inscription of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch are also usually carved on the sculptural decoration of church doors as apotropaic and protective signs.95 Their presence accentuates the sacredness of the space being entered, at the same time as preventing evil getting in through the openings.96

pertaining to civil law, could come under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts.97 From the 9th century onwards, Euripos seems to have become one of the most important ecclesiastical centres in Euboea. Ιn a listing of order of precedence (τάξιν προκαθεδρίας, Notitia 3) of the early 9th century, it is attested as the seat of a bishop belonging to the metropolis of Athens, like the other bishoprics of the island.98 In the same century the names of two bishops of Euripos are recorded: Theodore I, who in 869–870 participated in the council convened in Constantinople to condemn Photios, and Theophylaktos, who ten years later (879) took part in the council, again held in Constantinople, which restored Photios to office.99 Two more ecclesiastical officials of Euripos can be noted in the 10th century, while in the subsequent centuries their number is greatly increased.100 One should note here that the Church’s involvement in justice is also linked to the institution of asylum and the right of miscreants to seek refuge in a church when fleeing legal persecution.101 Therefore, if the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch did indeed originate from a church building, the verse inscription could be directed at those who had committed criminal offences and intended to seek asylum there, although our knowledge of this practice in Byzantine themes is very limited.102

Another argument in favour of the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch having belonged to a church building is the fact that in Byzantium private disputes, sometimes even those 90  Similar qualities are attributed to griffins and other fantastical animals, which are also often depicted on openings in churches (PapatheofanousTsouri 1993, 97–98). On the sculptural decoration of doorframes of Middle Byzantine churches, see Bouras and Bouras, 2002, 529–530. On the symbolism of the doors and entranceways into churches in general, see Frazer 1973; Spieser 1995. Animals also occur equally often on marble templon screens which mark the boundary between the nave and the sanctuary (Pallis 2013a, with extensive bibliography). 91  Talbot Rice 1975; Maguire 2000; Drandakis 2002, 333–334; Dauterman Maguire and Maguire 2007, 58–96; Ševčenko 2011. In particular, on the apotropaic character of the sculptural decoration on lintels, see Pallas 1960. 92  This belief is based on the popular conviction that lions sleep with their eyes open, as stated in the Physiologus; on the diverse symbolisms attached to lions in general, see Favreau 1996, 536 ff.; Tsaka 2006, 14 ff.; Manolessou 2014, 447–449; Bogdanović 2017, 119–120. 93  For depictions of lions on door jambs, see for example, Pazaras 2001, 56, figs. 69, 71–72, drawing 21 (katholikon of Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos, end of the 10th–middle of the 11th centuries); Voyadjis 2011, 108–109, figs. 1:στ, 9 (church of the Metamorphosis at Alepospita in Lamia, end of the 12th century). For some typical examples on lintels, see Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1982–1983, 104, fig. 9 (lintel from Athens, 10th century); Drandakis 2002, 60, fig. 98, 148–150, fig. 229, 173, figs. 268– 270, 310, figs. 456–457 (lintels from churches in the Mani, 11th to 12th centuries). See also the lintel mentioned in n. 25 above. 94  See, for example, the door from the church of Saint Nicholas at Ohrid, now in the National History Museum at Sofia, dated to between the 12th and 14th centuries (Dauterman Maguire and Maguire 2007, 71, fig. 64, and n. 46, with the relevant bibliography). Similarly marble slabs with depictions of lions are sometimes placed above church entrances, as, for example, over the south entrance of the katholikon of the 11th-century monastery of Hosios Loukas in Boeotia (Grabar 1976, 55, no. 44, pl. ΧΧΙ:d). Lions are also frequently depicted in the sculptural decoration of doors in Western churches: a typical example is the tympanum over the west portal of the cathedral of Jaca in Spain (c. 1090), where two confronted lions are accompanied by four verse inscriptions, one of which is rather similar in style to that on the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch: “The lion knows to spare the man who prostrates himself, and Christ knows to pardon the man who prays” (Favreau 1996; Kendall 1998, 62–63, 125 ff., 230, no. 61:b, fig. 12, with the English translation of the inscription and earlier bibliography). For other Western examples, see Favreau 1991. 95  On the use of the crosses on inscriptions, often surrounded by tetragrams, see Rhoby 2013; Pallis 2016, 392, 394, 398; Rhoby 2017, 276–277. More especially, on the presence of crosses on lintels, see Pallas 1960, 433 ff. 96  For the same reason crosses were often carved on the sculptural decoration of church windows (Pallis 2020, 149).

If the above arguments are correct and the arch really does come from a Byzantine church building, the epigram could have been addressed to the faithful entering the church, and been aimed at preventing them from contemplating any criminal or even spiritual misconduct. Therefore, the deterrent character of the inscription could take on eschatological connotations: while judges ought to dispense earthly justice following the example of the ultimate righteous judge in heaven, believers should conduct themselves virtuously, aspiring not only to justice on this earth but also to the promised heavenly justice, which is to be restored on the day of the Last Judgement.103 In this case, the arch’s inscription could be connected to a high-ranking official in Euboea charged with judicial responsibilities, who also undertook the task of erecting the church or other ecclesiastical building from which the arch comes. The monuments of Saint Gregory and Panagia Skripou are again indicative of the kind of church buildings, impressive in their size and decoration, that Christofilopoulos 1948. Cf. Angold 1995, 148 ff., and passim. The bishopric of Euripos was detached from the metropolis of Athens only in the second half of the 13th century, when it was upgraded to a metropolis, with all the other sees of the island as suffragans (Michalaga 2017, 561–562). 99  Themelis 1951, 434–437; Michalaga 2017, 565, 574 (Table Α). 100  Michalaga 2017, 565, 574 (Table Α). 101  On the Byzantine institution of asylum, see especially Macrides 1988; Paidas 2003–2004. 102  For an example of the implementation of asylum in the Peloponnese in the beginning of the 9th century, see Anagnostakis – Lambropoulou 2008. 103  On the similarly eschatological content of the epigram of Theodore of Stoudios, see p. 117 above. 97  98 

125

Giannis Vaxevanis were sponsored by high-ranking officials of the theme of Hellas in that period. The possibility that a powerful churchman of the period conscious as much of earthly as the eternal concept of justice was responsible for the whole building programme, including the arch, should also not be overlooked.

relief decoration, even though simplified and linear from a stylistic point of view, testifies to the skills of the workshop which undertook its execution and which was familiar with the sculptures adorning two of the finest 9th-century monuments, Saint Gregory and Panagia Skripou, both reflecting the increasing prominence of the local aristocracy in that century. Whoever authorized the production of the arch under discussion must have been a local representative of the secular or perhaps even the ecclesiastical hierarchy of 9th-century Euripos that had the necessary means for the construction of the monumental building to which the large arch belonged. At the same time his choice of a particularly distinguished sculptural workshop for the execution of the arch’s decoration reflects his refined taste and desire to impress his contemporaries.111 Finally, the close affinities of the arch with the sculptural decoration of the two Boeotian monuments enrich our knowledge of the output and influence of the ‘Theban workshop’ in Euboea and add as well as the field of artistic production to the other well attested connections between the two regions, bearing in mind that Euripos from that period onwards became one of the main ports of call in the Aegean for nearby Thebes.

Τhe complete absence of any archaeological context for the ‘Hagia Eleousa’ arch ultimately makes its secure attribution to either a secular or a church building difficult; nevertheless, as set out above, an ecclesiastical connection appears to be the stronger of the two possibilities.104 The arch’s impressive relief decoration, echoing in its imagery the rich in meaning content of the metrical inscription, remains a rare example of a Byzantine decorated architectural member in which text and image interact directly.105 The placing of the monumental arch in an eminently visible position projected the message conveyed by the metrical inscription to any literate person entering the building; for the illiterate beholder the message’s pictorial dimension with its lions and their quarry would have made the meaning clear.106 The close connection of text and image leaves no room for doubt that the arch’s relief decoration and metrical inscription were specifically designed for it, apparently on the orders of the person who commissioned the building from which the sculpture originated.107

Literature Anagnostakis and Lambropoulou 2008: Anagnostakis, Ιlias and Lambropoulou, Αnna, ‘Μία περίπτωση ἐφαρμογῆς τοῦ βυζαντινοῦ θεσμοῦ τοῦ ἀσύλου στὴν Πελοπόννησο: Ἡ προσφυγὴ τῶν Σλάβων στὸ ναὸ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ἀνδρέα Πατρῶν’, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 14 (2008), 29–47.

The scholarly style of the metrical inscription on the arch is indicative of the epigrammatist’s skills –if, as argued above, the inscription is indeed an original creation– as well as of the commissioner’s high level of literacy, wealth and elevated social status.108 Τhe arch’s imposing

Angold 1995: Angold, Michael, Church and Society in Byzantium under the Comneni, 1081–1261, Cambridge – New York 1995.

It should also be noted that the provenance of the arch from a monastery or monastic complex cannot be excluded, although there are no known Middle Byzantine monasteries either in Chalkis or in the surrounding area. For a list of the monasteries on Euboea, see Themelis 1965. 107  Inscriptions are seldom linked to the architectural sculptures that they accompany (Pallis 2016, 398–399). For two rare examples of sculptures both originating in Asia Minor –a slab from Akhisar (possibly 8th century) and part of an architrave from Ödemiş, Yenide Köy (10th century)– with inscriptions succinctly referring to their zoomorphic decoration, see Rhoby 2014, 524–525, no. TR6, pl. 87 and Pallis 2013a, 780, no. 9, respectively. On the interaction between epigrams and works of Byzantine art in general, see Maguire 1996; Rhoby 2010b; Rhoby 2011b; Drpić and Rhoby 2019. 105  Many scholars have questioned how people of the period –mostly illiterate ones– perceived the epigrams and inscriptions in general, especially as these were often placed in spots where could barely see, let alone peruse them easily, such as when, for example, they appear on altars or very high up on buildings. As it has been emphasized, inscriptions were created not only to transmit information, but also have a symbolic meaning: to impress the beholders –when they are long and elaborate, having monumental appearance– or to function as decorative elements or powerful magical signs, etc. (Lauxtermann 2003–2019, vol. 1 [2013], 272–273; James 2007; Rhoby 2012; Rhoby 2017; Rhoby 2020, 113). On inscriptions that were intended to be read aloud to commemorate and pray for the dead, see Papalexandrou 2001b; Papalexandrou 2007. 106  The likelihood of the iconographical programme of the arch having been created by members of the workshop who carried out its sculptural decoration or even by the epigrammatist who composed the metrical inscription seems more remote even though it can not be excluded. 107  For some thoughts on the literacy of artists in Byzantium, based on a painter’s workshop in late 10th-century Mani, see Panayotidi 2003. 108  On the tendency of patrons to display their rank and social status through epigrams, which were often characterised by meticulous metre and sophisticated language, see Rhoby 2016b. 104 

Αravantinos and Κountouri 2014: Αravantinos, Vasileios and Κountouri, Elena (eds.), 100 χρόνια αρχαιολογικού έργου στη Θήβα: Οι πρωτεργάτες των ερευνών και οι συνεχιστές τους, Συνεδριακό κέντρο Θήβας, 15–17 Νοεμβρίου 2002, Athens 2014. Athanasoulis and Vassiliou, 2016: Athanasoulis, Demetris and Vassiliou, Anastasia (eds.), Βυζαντινό Μουσείο Αργολίδας: Κατάλογος μόνιμης έκθεσης, Athens 2016. Audiat 1970: Audiat, Jean, Le Gymnase (Exploration Archéologique de Délos faite par l’École Française d’Athènes XXVIII), Paris 1970. Bertelli 2002: Bertelli, Gioia (ed.), in contribution with Corrente, Marisa, Di Gregorio, Angela, Favia, Pasquale and Pani Ermini, Letizia, Le diocesi della Puglia centro-settentrionale: ‘Aecae’, Bari, Bovino, Canosa,‘Egnathia’, ‘Herdonia’, Lucera, Siponto, Trani, Vieste (Corpus della Scultura Altomedievale XV), Spoleto 2002. Betti 2005: Betti, Fabio, in contribution with Bazzucchi, Giorgio, Pani, Gian Giacomo, and Pani Ermini, Letizia, La diocesi di Sabina (Corpus della Scultura Altomedievale XVII), Spoleto 2005. 126

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ Bevilacqua 2011: Bevilacqua, Livia, ‘Committenza aristocratica a Bisanzio in età macedone: Leone protospatario e la Panagia di Skripou,’ in A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo: i committenti, Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi Parma, 21–26 settembre 2010, Milan 2011, 411–420.

Chatzitryphonos 2004: Chatzitryphonos, K. Evangelia, Το περίστωο στην υστεροβυζαντινή εκκλησιαστική αρχιτεκτονική: Σχεδιασμός – λειτουργία (Ευρωπαϊκό Κέντρο Βυζαντινών και Μεταβυζαντινών Μνημείων, Μελέτες 1), Thessaloniki 2004. Christofilopoulos 1948: Christofilopoulos, P. Anastasios, ‘Ἡ δικαιοδοσία τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν δικαστηρίων ἐπί ἰδιωτικῶν διαφορῶν κατὰ τὴν βυζαντινὴν περίοδον’, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών 18, 192– 201.

Bogdanović 2017: Bogdanović, Jelena, The Framing of Sacred Space. The Canopy and the Byzantine Church, New York, NY 2017. Bon 1951: Bon, Antoine, Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu’en 1204 (Bibliothèque Byzantine, Études 1), Paris 1951.

Cormack and Vassilaki 2009: Cormack, Robin and Vassilaki, Maria (eds.), Byzantium: 330–1453 (exh. catalogue), London 2009.

Bouras 2001: Bouras, Charalambos, Βυζαντινὴ καὶ μεταβυζαντινὴ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ στὴν Ἑλλάδα, Athens 2001.

Dauterman Maguire and Maguire 2007: Dauterman Maguire, Eunice and Maguire, Henry, Other Icons: Art and Power in Byzantine Secular Culture, Princeton, N.J. – Oxford 2007.

Bouras 2002: Bouras, Charalambos, ‘Aspects of the Byzantine City, Eighth–Fifteenth Centuries’, in Α. Laiou (editor-in-chief), Ch. Bouras, C. Morrisson, N. Oikonomides and C. Pitsakis (scholarly committee), The Economic History of Byzantium: from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century (Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXXIX), vol. 2, Washington, D.C. 2002, 497– 528 [Greek edition, ‘Ἀπόψεις τῶν βυζαντινῶν πόλεων ἀπὸ τὸν 8ο ἕως τὸν 15ο αἰώνα’, Οἰκονομικὴ ἱστορία τοῦ Βυζαντίου. Ἀπὸ τὸν 7ο ἕως τὸν 15ο αἰώνα, vol. 2, Athens 2006, 193–230].

Drandakis 2002: Drandakis, B. Nikolaos, Βυζαντινὰ γλυπτὰ τῆς Μάνης (The Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 222), Athens 2002. Drpić and Rhoby 2019: Drpić, Ivan, and Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Byzantine Verses as Inscriptions: The Interaction of Text, Object and Beholder’ in W. Hörandner, A. Rhoby and N. Zagklas (eds.), A companion to Byzantine Poetry (Brill’s Companions to the Byzantine World 4), Leiden – Boston 2019, 430–455.

Bouras 2012: Bouras, Charalambos, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινὲς καὶ ὑστεροβυζαντινὲς πόλεις ἀπό τὴν σκοπιὰ τῆς πολεοδομίας καί τῆς ἀρχιτεκτονικῆς’, in Τ. Kiousopoulou (ed.), Οι βυζαντινές πόλεις (8ος–15ος αιώνας): Προοπτικές της έρευνας και νέες ερμηνευτικές προσεγγίσεις, Rethymno 2012, 1–14.

Dufour Bozzo 1966: Dufour Bozzo, Colette, La diocesi di Genova (Corpus della Scultura Altomedievale IV), Spoleto 1966. Favreau 1991: Favreau, Robert, ‘Le thème iconographique du lion dans les inscriptions médiévales’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 135/3 (1991), 613–636.

Bouras and Bouras 2002: Bouras Charalambos and Bouras, Laskarina, Ἡ ἑλλαδικὴ ναοδομία κατὰ τὸν 12ο αἰώνα (Σειρὰ Δ΄, Βυζαντινὰ Μνημεῖα), Athens 2002. Brenk 1966: Brenk, Beat, Tradition und Neuerung in der christlichen Kunst des ersten Jahrtausends: Studien zur Geschichte des Weltgerichtsbildes (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien III), Vienna 1966.

Favreau 1996: Favreau, Robert, ‘Les inscriptions du tympan de la cathédrale de Jaca’, Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et BellesLettres 140/2 (1996), 535–560.

Broneer 1973: Broneer, Oscar, Topography and Architecture (Isthmia, Excavations by the University of Chicago under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens II), Princeton, N.J. 1973.

Feissel 1984: Feissel, Denis, ‘La Bible dans les inscriptions grecques’, in Cl. Mondésert (ed.), Le monde grec ancient et la Bible (Bible de tous les Temps 1), Paris 1984, 222–231. Felle 2006: Felle, Antonio Enrico, Biblia Epigrafica: La sacra scrittura nella documentazione epigrafica dell’ ‘orbis christianus antiquus’ (III–VIII secolo) (Inscriptiones Christianae Italiae Subsidia V), Bari 2006.

Bruneau and Llinas 1970: Bruneau, Philippe and Llinas, Christian, ‘Les cintres de marbre a Délos’, in Audiat 1970, 139–166. Βüyükkolanci 2008: Βüyükkolanci, Mustafa, ‘Quelques examples des plaques de parapet des VIIe–XIIe siècles provenant de Saint-Jean à Έphèse’, in Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008, 71–79.

Forsyth [1973]: Forsyth, H. George, ‘Introduction to the Architecture’, in G.H. Forsyth and K. Weitzmann, with I. Ševčenko and Fr. Anderegg, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Church and Fortress of Justinian: Plates, Ann Arbor 1973, 5–10.

Chairetakis and Boukaras 2015: Chairetakis, Yannis and Boukaras, Kostas, ‘Χαλκίς, η μητρόπολη της Εύβοιας’, in Kalamara et al. 2015, 30–55.

127

Giannis Vaxevanis Kádár 1978: Kádár, Zoltán, Survivals of Greek Zoological Illuminations in Byzantine Manuscripts, Budapest 1978.

Frazer 1973: Frazer, Margaret English, ‘Church Doors and the Gates of Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 145–162.

Kalamara 2015: Kalamara, Pari, ‘Εύριπος – Negroponte – Eğriboz: μια πόλη-κάστρο, σημαντικό λιμάνι’, in Kalamara et al. 2015, 56–70.

Fundić 2009: Fundić, Leonela, ‘Βυζαντινά αρχιτεκτονικά μέλη στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Τριπόλεως’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 30 (2009), 141–148.

Kalamara 2017: Kalamara, Pari, ‘The Settlements of the Middle and Late Byzantine Period in Euboea’, in Tankosić et al. 2017, 537–558.

Gerolymatou 2008: Gerolymatou, Maria, Αγορές, έμποροι και εμπόριο στο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12ος αι.) (National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research, Monographs 9), Athens 2008.

Kalamara et al. 2015: Kalamara, Pari, Kosma, Maria, Boukaras, Kostas and Chairetakis, Yannis, Χαλκίς – Εύριπος – Negroponte – Eğriboz: Η πόλη της Χαλκίδας, Athens 2015.

Gerousi 2012: Gerousi, Evgenia, ‘Two 9th-century Lead Seals from the Area of the Byzantine Quarter at Pythagoreion, Samos’, Studies in Byzantine Sigillography 11 (2012), 125–132.

Kalopissi-Verti 2016: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Reconsidering a Byzantine Inscription from Aegina’, in Stavrakos 2016, 253–278.

Gerousi et al. 2009: Gerousi, Evgenia, Kontogiannis, D. Νikos and Dafi, Evangelia, ‘23η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 64/Β:1 (2009), 477–512.

Karlin-Hayter 2000: Karlin-Hayter, Patricia, ‘Christodoulos: Rule, Testament and Codicil of Christodoulos for the Monastery of St. John the Theologian on Patmos’, in J. Thomas and A. Constantinides Hero, with the assistance of G. Constable, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ ‘Typika’ and Testaments (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35), vol. 2, Washington, D.C. 2000, 564–606 (no. 24).

Gerousi et al. 2010: Gerousi, Evgenia, Kontogiannis D. Νikos and Dafi, Evangelia, ‘23η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 65/B:1 (2010), 1013–1033. Giannopoulos 1924: Giannopoulos, I. Nikolaos, ‘Χριστιανικὰ καὶ βυζαντινὰ γλυπτὰ Χαλκίδος’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1 (1924), 88–119.

Kendall 1998: Kendall, B. Calvin, The Allegory of the Church:  Romanesque Portals and their Verse Inscriptions, Toronto – Buffalo – London 1998.

Gkoutzioukostas 2004: Gkoutzioukostas, E. Andreas, Η απονομή δικαιοσύνης στο Βυζάντιο (9ος–12ος αιώνες): Τα κοσμικά δικαιοδοτικά όργανα και δικαστήρια της πρωτεύουσας (Byzantine Texts and Studies 37), Thessaloniki 2004.

Koilakou 1997: Koilakou, Charikleia, ‘1η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 52/B:1 (1997), 109–128. Koilakou 2013: Koilakou, Charikleia, ‘Byzantine Thebes’, in J. Albani and E. Chalkia (eds.), Heaven and Earth: Cities and Countryside in Byzantine Greece, Athens 2013, 180–191.

Grabar 1963: Grabar, André, Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle) (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie d’Istanbul XVII), Paris 1963.

Koilakou 2014: Koilakou, Charikleia, ‘Η συμβολή των ανασκαφών στην έρευνα των βυζαντινών ναών της Θήβας’, in Aravantinos and Kountouri 2014, 397–438.

Grabar 1976: Grabar, André, Sculptures byzantines du Moyen Âge, vol. 2: XIe – XIVe siècle (Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques XII), Paris 1976. Jakšić 2007: Jakšić, Nikola, ‘Il caso dell’arconte Dobronà e del proconsole Gregorio’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 13/1 (2007), 137–145.

Koilakou 2018: Koilakou, Charikleia, ‘O ναός του Αγίου Γρηγορίου Θεολόγου στη Θήβα. Νεότερα στοιχεία’, in Μ. Korres, St. Mamaloukos, K. Zambas and F. Mallouchou-Tufano (eds.), Ἥρως κτίστης: Mνήμη Χαράλαμπου Μπούρα, vol. 1, Athens 2018, 569–580.

Jakšić 2014: Jakšić, Nikola, ‘A Ninth-century Stonecutting Workshop in Southern Dalmatia’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 20/2 (2014), 590–601.

Kontogiannis 2012: Kontogiannis, D. Νikos, ‘Euripos – Negroponte – Eǧriboz: Material Culture and Historical Topography of Chalkis from Byzantium to the End of the Ottoman Rule’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 62 (2012), 29–56.

James 2007a: James, Liz (ed.), Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, Cambridge – New York 2007. James 2007b: James, Liz ‘And Shall These Mute Stones Speak?’, in James 2007a, 188–206.

Korać 2001: Korać, Vojislav, Martinići: ranosrednjovekovnog grada, Beograd 2001.

Jurković 1995: Jurković, Miljenko, ‘Il ciborio di Novigrad (Cittanova d’Istria)’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 1 (1995), 141–149.

128

ostaci

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ Koukoules 1955: Koukoules, Phaidon, ‘Δικαστήρια καὶ ποιναί’, in Βυζαντινῶν βίος καὶ πολιτισμός (Collection de l’Institut Français d’Athènes 90), vol. 6, Athens 1955, 44–72.

Mango and Hawkins 1964: Mango, Cyril and Hawkins, Ernest J.W., ‘The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) at Istanbul: Additional Notes’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), 299–315.

Kounoupiotou-Manolessou 2008: KounoupiotouManolessou, Eleni, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινά γλυπτά με ζώα από τη συλλογή γλυπτών στο τζαμί της Χαλκίδας’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 29 (2008), 221–232.

Manolessou 2011: Manolessou, G. Eleni, Μεσαιωνική γλυπτική της Θήβας και συμβολή στη μνημειακή τοπογραφία της πόλης, 2 vols, Unpublished PhD dissertation, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Philosophy, Department of History and Archaeology 2011.

Kourmpetis 2000: Kourmpetis, Dimitris, ‘Η στάση του Ραψομάτη στην Κύπρο επί Αλεξίου Α΄ Κομνηνού (περ. 1091–1093)’, Βυζαντιακά 20 (2000), 153–195.

Manolessou 2014: Μanolessou, G. Eleni, ‘Δυτικά γλυπτά από τη Θήβα’, in Αravantinos and Κountouri 2014, 439–453.

Lazaridis 1973: Lazaridis, Pavlos, ‘Βυζαντινὰ καὶ μεσαιωνικὰ μνημεῖα Βοιωτίας’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 28/B:1 (1973), 284–293.

Manolessou et al. 1988: Manolessou, Eleni, Koilakou, Charikleia, Pantelidou-Alexiadou, Aikatereni, GiniTsofopoulou, Eleni and Chalkia, Evgenia, ‘1η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 43/B:1 (1988), 82–105.

Lauxtermann 1998: Lauxtermann, Marc, ‘The Velocity of Pure Iambs: Byzantine Observations on the Metre and Rhythm of the Dodecasyllabe’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998), 9–33.

Maraković and Jurković 2007: Maraković, Nikolina, and Jurković, Miljenko, ‘‘Signatures’ in the Stones – The Legacy of Early Medieval Elites on the Territory of Modern Croatia’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 13/2 (2007), 359–374.

Lauxtermann 2003–2019: Lauxtermann, D. Marc, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien XXIV/1– 2), 2 vols, Vienna 2003–2019.

Megaw 1966: Megaw, Arthur Hubert Stanley, ‘The Skripou Screen’, Annual of the British School at Athens 61 (1966), 1–32.

Lauxtermann and Toth 2020: Lauxtermann, D. Marc and Toth, Ida (eds.), Inscribing Texts in Byzantium: Continuities and Transformations. Papers from the Forty-Ninth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxon – New York, NY 2020.

Mexia 2019: Mexia, Angeliki, ‘The Synthesis of the Façades of the Church of St John at Keria in Mesa (Inner) Mani: The Role of the Marble Spolia built into the Walls’, in Ch. Diamanti and A. Vassiliou, in collaboration with S. Arvaniti (eds.), Ἐν σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες: Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Oxford 2019, 183–202.

Macrides 1988: Macrides, Ruth Juliana, ‘Killing, Asylum, and the Law in Byzantium’, Speculum 63 (1988), 514–517 [repr. in R.J. Macrides, Kinship and Justice in Byzantium, 11th–15th Centuries (Variorum Collected Studies Series 642), Aldershot, Hampshire – Brookfield, Vermont 1999, no. X].

Michalaga 2017: Michalaga, Despoina St., ‘A Short Overview of the History of the Church on Euboea (Negroponte)’, in Tankosić et al. 2017, 559–576.

Maguire 1996: Maguire, Henry, Image and Imagination: The Byzantine Epigram as Evidence for Viewer Response, Toronto 1996.

Miklosich and Müller 1890: Miklosich, Franz and Müller, Joseph (eds.), Acta et diplomata manasteriorum et ecclesiarum orientis (Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana 6), Vienna 1890.

Maguire 2000: Maguire, Henry, ‘Profane Icons: The Significance of Animal Violence in Byzantine Art’, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 38 (2000), 18–33.

Milanova 2008: Milanova, Albena, ‘La production d’un atelier de sculpture en Bulgarie byzantine à la fin du Xe ou au début du XIe siècle’, in Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008, 163–181.

Mamaloukos 2012: Mamaloukos, Stavros, ‘Observations on the Doors and Windows in Byzantine Architecture’, in R. Ousterhout, R. Holod, L. Haselberger (eds.) and A. Thourson Jones (associate ed.), Masons at Work: Architecture and Construction in the Pre-Modern World, Centre for Ancient Studies, University of Pennsylvania, PA, October 2012, 1–38 (http:// https://www.sas.upenn. edu/ancient/masons/edited_papers/mamaloukos.pdf).

Oikonomides 1994: Oikonomides, Nicolas, ‘Pour une nouvelle lecture des inscriptions de Skripou en Béotie’, Travaux et Mémoires 12, 479–493 [repr. in N. Oikonomides, Social and Economic Life in Byzantium (ed. by E. Zachariadou), (Variorum Collected Studies Series 799), Aldershot, Hampshire – Burlington, Vermont 2004, no. XXVII].

Mamaloukos 2015: Mamaloukos, Stavros, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στη διαμόρφωση και την κατασκευή των ανοιγμάτων των θυρών στη βυζαντινή αρχιτεκτονική’, in V. Κatsaros and Α. Tourta (eds.), Αφιέρωμα στον ακαδημαϊκό Παναγιώτη Λ. Βοκοτόπουλο, Athens 2015, 115–126.

Orlandos 1937: Orlandos, Anastasios K., ‘Χριστιανικὰ γλυπτὰ τοῦ Μουσείου Σμύρνης’, Αρχείον των

129

Giannis Vaxevanis Βυζαντινών Μνημείων της Ελλάδος 3 (1937) 3, 128–152 [repr. Athens 1999 (The Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 186), vol. 1].

Panayotidi 2003: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Οι γραμματικές γνώσεις των ζωγράφων. Ένα παράδειγμα σχετικού προβληματισμού από τη Μάνη’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 24 (2003), 185–194.

Orlandos 1939–1940: Orlandos, Anastasios K., ‘Γλυπτὰ τοῦ Μουσείου Θηβῶν’, Αρχείον των Βυζαντινών Μνημείων της Ελλάδος 5 (1939–1940), 119–143 [repr. Athens 1999 (The Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 187), vol. 2].

Papalexandrou 1998: Papalexandrou, Amy, The Church of the Virgin of Skripou: Architecture, Sculpture and Inscriptions in Ninth-Century Byzantium (PhD dissertation, Princeton University, Department of Art and Archeology), Ann Arbor, Michigan 1998.

Orsini 2015: Orsini, Pasquale, ‘Scritture epigrafiche e scritture librarie a Bisanzio (secoli VI–X)’, in M. Maniaci and P. Orsini (eds.), Scrittura epigrafica e scrittura libraria: Fra Oriente e Occidente (Studi e Ricerche del Dipartimento di Lettere  e  Filosofia 11), Cassino 2015, 1–13.

Papalexandrou 2001a: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘Conversing Hellenism: The Multiple Voices of a Byzantine Monument in Greece’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies 19/2 (2001), 237–254. Papalexandrou 2001b: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘Text in Context: Eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder’, Word and Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 17/3 (2001), 259–283.

Paidas 2003–2004: Paidas, D. S. Constantine, ‘Εἰς αὐτὸ τὸ καὶ ἀγγέλοις αἰδέσιμον φονίως εἰσελαύνουσν ἱλαστήριον: Παραβιάσεις των διατάξεων περί ασύλου στις ιστοριογραφικές πηγές του ενδεκάτου αιώνα’, Βυζαντινά Σύμμεικτα 16 (2003–2004), 47–62.

Papalexandrou 2003: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘Memory Tattered and Torn: Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine Hellenism’, in R.M. Van Dyke and S.E. Alcock (eds.), Archaeologies of Memory, Malden, MA – Oxford 2003, 56–80.

Pallas 1960: Pallas, I. Demetrios, ‘Βυζαντινὸν ὑπέρθυρον τοῦ Μουσείου Κορίνθου: ἁπλῶς αἰσώπειος μῦθος ἢ τὸ Συναξάριον τοῦ Τιμημένου Γαδάρου;’, Επετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπουδών 30 (1960), 413–452 [repr. in D.I. Pallas, Συναγωγή μελετών βυζαντινής αρχαιολογίας (Τέχνη – Λατρεία – Κοινωνία), vol. 2, Athens 1987–1988, 420–459, no. 19].

Papalexandrou 2007: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘Echoes of Orality in the Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium’, in James 2007a, 161–187. Papalexandrou 2010: Papalexandrou, Amy, ‘On the Shoulders of Hera: Alternative Readings of Antiquity in the Greek Memoryscape, in A. Stroulia and S. Buck Sutton (eds.), Archaeology in Situ: Sites, Archaeology, and Communities in Greece (Greek Studies: Interdisciplinary Approaches), Lanham, Maryland 2010, 53–74.

Pallis 2006: Pallis, Georgios, ‘Νεότερα για το εργαστήριο γλυπτικής της Σαμαρίνας (τέλη 12ου–αρχές 13ου αι.)’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 27 (2006), 91–100. Pallis 2013a: Pallis, Georgios, ‘Inscriptions on Middle Byzantine Marble Templon Screens’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106/2 (2013), 761–810.

Papanikola-Bakirtzis 1999: Papanikola-Bakirtzis, Demetra (ed.), Βυζαντινά εφυαλωμένα κεραμικά: Η τέχνη των εγχαράκτων (exh. catalogue), Athens 1999.

Pallis 2013b: Pallis, Georgios, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικὴ ἐπιγραφὴ ἀπὸ τὸν Ἐλαιώνα τῶν Ἀθηνῶν’, Γραμματείον 2 (2013), 27–31.

Papanikolaou 2019: Papanikolaou, Dimitrios, ‘Ὁ ἐπιγραμματοποιὸς τῆς Παναγίας Σκριποῦς καὶ συναφεῖς τάσεις τῆς κλασσικῆς φιλολογίας κατὰ τὸν 9ο αἰῶνα μ.Χ.’, Τριακοστό Ένατο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τέχνης, Πρόγραμμα και περιλήψεις εισηγήσεων και ανακοινώσεων, Αθήνα, 31 Μαΐου – 1 Ιουνίου 2019, Athens 2019, 149–150.

Pallis 2015: Pallis, Georgios, ‘Η διάδοση της τεχνοτροπίας των γλυπτών του λεγόμενου ‘θηβαϊκού εργαστηρίου’ (β΄ μισό 9ου αι.). Μερικές παρατηρήσεις’, in Α. Mazarakis Ainian (ed.), 4ο Αρχαιολογικό Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας, Πρακτικά επιστημονικής συνάντησης, Βόλος, 15.3–18.3 2012, vol. 2, Στερεά Ελλάδα, Volos 2015, 803–810.

Papatheofanous-Tsouri 1993: Papatheofanous-Tsouri, Evangelia, ‘Ξυλόγλυπτη πόρτα τοῦ καθολικοῦ τῆς μονῆς Κοιμήσεως Θεοτόκου στὴ Μολυβδοσκέπαστη Ἰωαννίνων’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς 132 (1993), 83–106.

Pallis 2016: Pallis, Georgios, ‘The ‘Speaking’ Decoration: Inscriptions on Architectural Sculptures of the Middle Byzantine Church’, in Stavrakos 2016, 389–403. Pallis 2020: Pallis, Georgios, ‘The House of Inscriptions: The Epigraphic World of the Middle Byzantine Church’, in Lauxtermann and Toth 2020, 147–161.

Pazaras 1977: Pazaras, Theocharis, ‘Κατάλογος χριστιανικῶν ἀναγλύφων πλακῶν ἐκ Θεσσαλονίκης μὲ ζωομόρφους παραστάσεις’, Βυζαντινά 9 (1977), 23–95.

Panayotidi 1969: Panayotidi, Maria, Le monuments de Grèce depuis la fin de la crise iconoclaste jusq’à l’an mille, PhD dissertation, 2 vols, Paris 1969.

Pazaras 2001: Pazaras, Theocharis N., Τα βυζαντινά γλυπτά του καθολικού της μονής Βατοπεδίου, Thessaloniki 2001.

130

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008: Pennas, Charalambos and Vanderheyde, Catherine (eds.), La sculpture byzantine: VIIe–XIIe siècles, Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquités byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes, 6–8 septembre 2000 (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 49), Athens 2008.

Rhoby 2012: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘The Meaning of Inscriptions for the Early and Middle Byzantine Culture. Remarks on the Interaction of Word, Image and Beholder’ in Scrivere e leggere nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto, 28 aprile – 4 maggio 2011 (Settimane di Studio della Fondazione Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo LIX), vol. 2, Spoleto 2012, 731–757.

Petricioli 1981: Petricioli, Ivo, ‘Ciborij iz zadarske crkve sv. Tome’, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 3/11 (1981), 163–168.

Rhoby 2013: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Secret Messages? Byzantine Greek Tetragrams and Their Display’, ArtHist–Papers 1 (2013) (htp://09.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/ art-hist/index.php?id=72).

Pietersma and Wright 2007: Pietersma, Albert and Wright, Benjamin G. (eds.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations traditionally included under that Title, New York – Oxford 2007.

Rhoby 2014: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein nebst Addenda zu den Bänden 1 und 2 (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 474,Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 35, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 3, I–II), 2 vols, Vienna 2014 (https://www.scribd.com/document/402371656/ Andreas-Rhoby-Byzantinische-Epigramme-auf-SteinBand-3–1-Wien-2014-pdf).

Prieto-Domínquez 2013: Prieto-Domínquez, Oscar, ‘On the Founder of the Skripou Church: Literary Trends in the Milieu of Photius’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 53 (2013), 166–191. Rahlfs 19658: Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.), Septuaginta, id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, 2 vols, Stuttgart 1965 (1st edition 1935).

Rhoby 2016a: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Tower, stablished by God, God is protecting you: Inscriptions on Byzantine Fortifications. Their Function and Their Display’, in Stavrakos 2016, 341–369.

Rhoby 2009: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 374, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 15, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 1), Vienna 2009.

Rhoby 2016b: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Methods of Selfrepresentation in Byzantine Inscriptional Epigrams: Some Basic Thoughts’, in E. Santin and L. Foschia, L’épigramme dans tous ses états: épigraphiques, littéraires, historiques, Lyon 2016, 263–275.

Rhoby 2010a: Rhoby, Andreas, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst nebst Addenda zu Band 1 ‘Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken’ (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 408, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 22, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 2), Vienna 2010.

Rhoby 2017: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Text as Art? Byzantine Inscriptions and their Display’, in I. Berti, K. Bolle, F. Opdenhoff and F. Stroth (eds.), Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages (Materiale Textkulturen 14), Berlin 2017, 265–283. Rhoby 2018: Rhoby, Andreas, in contribution with Rudolf Stefec, Ausgewählte byzantinische Epigramme in illuminierten Handschriften: Verse und ihre ‘inschriftliche’ Verwendung in Codices des 9. bis 15. Jahrhunderts (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 504, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 42, Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 4), Vienna 2018.

Rhoby 2010b: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘On the Interaction of Word and Image in Byzantium: The Case of the Epigrams on the Florence Reliquary’, in P.Ł. Grotowski and Sł. Skrzyniarz (eds.), Towards Rewriting? New Approaches to Byzantine Archaeology and Art, Proceedings of the Symposium on Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Cracow, September 8–10, 2008 (Series Byzantina VIII), Warsaw 2010, 101–115.

Rhoby 2020: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Inscriptions and the Byzantine Beholder: The Perception of Script’, in Lauxtermann and Toth 2020, 107–121.

Rhoby 2011a: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Vom jambischen Trimeter zum byzantinischen Zwölfsilber: Beobachtung zur Metrik des spätantiken und byzantinischen Epigramms’ Wiener Studien 124 (2011), 117–142.

Ritsonis 2001: Ritsonis, Angelos S., Στέφανος θαλλοῦ χρυσοῦς, Athens 2001. Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1995: Sapouna-Sakellaraki, Efi, Chalkis: History–Topography and Museum, Athens 1995.

Rhoby 2011b: Rhoby, Andreas, ‘Interactive Inscriptions: Byzantine Works of Art and their Beholders’, in A. Lidov (ed.), Spatial Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, Moscow 2011, 317–333.

Savvides 1988: Savvides, G. C. Αlexios, ‘Η βυζαντινή Θήβα, 996/7–1204 μ.Χ.’, Ιστορικογεωγραφικά 2 (1988), 33–52.

131

Giannis Vaxevanis Scortecci 2003: Scortecci, Donatella, La diocesi di Orvieto (Corpus della Scultura Altomedievale XVI), Spoleto 2003.

‘Inscriptions: Their Contibution to the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art’, Ioannina, June 26–27, 2015, Wiesbaden 2016.

Ševčenko 2011: Ševčenko, Nancy  Patterson, ‘Eaten Alive: Animal Attacks in the Venice Cynegetica’, in I. Anagnostakis, T.G. Kollias and E. Papadopoulou, Ζώα και περιβάλλον στο Βυζάντιο (7ος–12ος αι.) / Animals and Environment in Byzantium (7th–12th c.) (National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute for Byzantine Research, International Symposium 21), Athens 2011, 115–135.

Stefanidou-Tiveriou 1995: Stefanidou-Tiveriou, Theodosia, Τὸ μικρὸ τόξο τοῦ Γαλερίου στὴ Θεσσαλονίκη (The Library of the Archaeological Society at Athens 151), Athens 1995. Stevović 2001–2002: Stevović, Ivan, ‘Byzantium, Byzantine Italy and Cities on the Eastern Coast of the Adriatic: The Case of Kotor and Dubrovnik’, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta 39 (2001–2002), 165–182.

Sheppard 1984: Sheppard, Carl D., ‘Pre-Romanesque Sculpture: Evidence for the Cultural Evolution of the People of the Dalmatian Coast’, Gesta 23/1 (1984), 7–16.

Stevovic 2017: Stevovic, Ivan, ‘Emperor in the Altar: An Iconoclastic Era Ciborium from Ulcinj (Montenegro)’, in E. Moutafov and J. Erdeljan (eds.), Texts – Inscriptions – Images, Art Readings, Thematic annual peer-reviewed edition in Art Studies in two volumes 2016, vol. 1: Old Art, Sofia 2017, 69–87.

Skartsis and Vaxevanis 2017: Skartsis, Stefania S., and Vaxevanis, Giannis, ‘Η Χαλκίδα κατά τους μεσοβυζαντινούς χρόνους και την εποχή της Λατινοκρατίας: η μαρτυρία της κεραμικής (9ος–15ος αι.)’, in Tankosić et al. 2017, 593–612.

Strzygowski 1894: Strzygowski, Josef, ‘Inedita der Architektur und Plastik aus der Zeit Basilios’ I (867– 886)’, Βyzantinische Ζeitschrift 3 (1894), 1–16.

Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1982–1983: Sklavou-Mavroeidi, Maria, ‘Ομάδα υπερθύρων του Βυζαντινού Μουσείου’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 11 (1982–1983), 99–108.

Tagliaferri 1981: Tagliaferri, Amelio, Le diocesi di Aquileia e Grado (Corpus della Scultura Altomedievale X), Spoleto 1981. Talbot Rice 1975: Talbot Rice, Tamara, ‘Animal Combat Scenes in Byzantine Art’, in G. Robertson and G. Henderson (eds.), Studies in Memory of David Talbot Rice, Edinburgh 1975, 17–23.

Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999: Sklavou-Mavroeidi, Maria, Γλυπτά του Βυζαντινού Μουσείου Αθηνών: Κατάλογος, Athens 1999. Skoulatos 1980: Skoulatos, Basile, Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade. Analyse prosopographique et synthèse (Université de Louvain, Recueil de Travaux d’Histoire et de Philologie, 6e série, fascicule 20), Louvain 1980.

Tankosić et al. 2017: Tankosić, Žarko, Mavridis, Fanis and Kosma, Maria (eds.), An Island Between Two Worlds: The Archaeology of Euboea from Prehistoric to Byzantine Times, Proceedings of International Conference, Eretria, 12–14 July 2013 (Papers and Monographs from the Norwegian Institute at Athens 6), Athens 2017.

Sotiriou 1924: Sotiriou, A. Georgios, ‘Ὁ ἐν Θήβαις βυζαντινὸς ναὸς Γρηγορίου τοῦ Θεολόγου’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς (1924), 1–26.

Theocharis 2013: Theocharis, Yannis, ‘An Imperial Protospatharios and Strategos of Hellas in Athens’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 185 (2013), 192–194.

Sotiriou 1931: Sotiriou, G. Maria, ‘Ὁ ναὸς τῆς Σκριποῦς τῆς Βοιωτίας’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίς (1931), 119–157. Spatharakis 2004: Spatharakis, Ioannis, The Illustrations of the ‘Cynegetica’ in Venice: Codex Marcianus Graecus Z 139, Leiden 2004.

Themelis 1951: Themelis, Chrysostomos, archmandrite, ‘Δύο Θεόδωροι ἐπίσκοποι Εὐρίπου’, Θεολογία 22 (1951), 434–445.

Speck 1968: Speck, Paul (ed.), Theodoros Studites: Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände (Supplementa Byzantina 1), Berlin 1968. 

Themelis 1965: Themelis, Chrysostomos, bishop of Thaumakos, Εὐβοϊκὴ μοναστηριολογία, Athens 1965.

Spieser 1995: Spieser, Jean-Michel, ‘Portes, limites et organization de l’espace dans les églises paléochrétiennes’, Klio 77 (1995), 433–445 [repr. as ‘Doors, Boundaries and the Use of Space in Early Christian Churches’, in J.-M. Spieser, Urban and Religious Spaces in Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium (Variorum Collected Studies 706), Aldershot, Hampshire – Burlington, Vermont 2001, no. XV].

Triantafyllopoulos 1990: Triantafyllopoulos, D. Demetrios, ‘Χριστιανικὴ καὶ μεσαιωνικὴ Χαλκίδα: Ἀνασκόπηση τῆς νεώτερης ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἒρευνας’, in Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο «Η πόλη της Χαλκίδας», Χαλκίδα, 24–27 Σεπτεμβρίου 1987, Athens 1990, 163–228. Tsaka 2006: Tsaka, Aikaterini, Ένζωδες παραστάσεις της μέσης βυζαντινής περιόδου: Συμβολική και διακοσμητική λειτουργία, Unpublished MA thesis, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Philosophy, Department of History and Archaeology 2006.

Stavrakos 2016: Stavrakos, Christos (ed.), Inscriptions in the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine History and History of Art, Proceedings of the International Symposium 132

‘Lions frighten wild beasts…’ Tsaka 2010: Tsaka, Katerina, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στις απεικονίσεις του δράκοντος σε παραστάσεις της μεσοβυζαντινής τέχνης’, in S.I. Arvaniti, A. Georgiou, N.D. Kontogiannis, E. Barmparitsa, G. Pallis and K. Tsaka (eds.), Antapodosi: Studies in Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Archaeology and Art in Honour of Professor Helen Deliyianni-Doris, Athens 2010, 473–494. Varalis and Tsekes 2008: Varalis, Yannis and Tsekes, Georgios, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινά γλυπτά από την Αργολίδα’, in Pennas and Vanderheyde 2008, 359–373. Voyadjis 2011: Voyadjis, Sotiris, ‘Ο γλυπτός διάκοσμος του ναού Μεταμορφώσεως Σωτήρος στα Αλεπόσπιτα Λαμίας’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 27 (2011), 101–114. Vranoussi 1966: Vranoussi, L. Era, Τὰ ἁγιολογικὰ κείμενα τοῦ ὁσίου Χριστοδούλου ἰδρυτοῦ τῆς ἐν Πάτμῳ μονῆς: Φιλολογικὴ παράδοσις καὶ ἱστορικαὶ μαρτυρίαι (Δωδεκανησιακὴ Ἱστορικὴ καὶ Λαογραφικὴ Ἑταιρεία, Αὐτοτελῆ Δημοσιεύματα 2), Athens 1966. Vranoussi 1980: Vranoussi, L. Era (ed.), Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου. Vol. 1, 2 parts: Aὐτοκρατορικά, Athens 1980. Waksman et al. 2018: Waksman, Sylvie Yona, Skartsis, S. Stefania, Kontogiannis, D. Nikos, Todorova, P. Evelina, and Vaxevanis, Giannis, ‘Investigating the Origins of two Main Types of Middle and Late Byzantine Amphorae’, Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21 (2018), 1111–1121 (http://doi. org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.12.008). Weitzmann 19842: Weitzmann Kurt, Greek Mythology in Byzantine Art (Studies in Manuscript Illumination 4), Princeton, N.J. 1984 [1st edition, 1951].

133

11 ‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’: Byzantine Architectural Sculptures from Patmos Konstantia Kefala Abstract: This paper aims to present seven architectural sculptures (epistyles or cornices, templon piers and relief slabs) preserved on Patmos. They are all dated to the 11th and 12th centuries, are decorated with popular motifs of the marble sculpture of this period and are probably connected with the two principal construction phases of the monastery of Saint John the Theologian: the first phase coincides with the establishment of the monastery by the Blessed Christodoulos and the second was completed after the return of his disciples from Euboea, who translated his holy relics to Patmos and revived the monastic community in the early 12th century. Some of them may belong to the original templon of the catholicon which was hastily constructed with the available building material under the supervision of Christodoulos himself, while others reflecting the influence of contemporary Constantinopolitan sculpture possibly belong to the second, better planned construction phase of the 12th century. Στο ιερό νησί της Αποκάλυψης, την Πάτμο, έχουν διατηρηθεί μέχρι σήμερα ευάριθμα θραύσματα αρχιτεκτονικών γλυπτών της βυζαντινής περιόδου. Πρόκειται για τρία τμήματα επιστυλίων, έναν πεσσίσκο και δύο θωράκια τέμπλων που βρίσκονται αποτεθειμένα στο Μουσείο της μονής του Αγίου Ιωάννη του Θεολόγου ή εντοιχισμένα στο καθολικό, στην κιονοστήρικτη ανοικτή στοά του εξωνάρθηκα και στο προαύλιο του μοναστηριού. Σε αυτά συμπεριλαμβάνονται ακόμα ένα θωράκιο κι ένα τμήμα επιστυλίου τέμπλου, που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν αντιστοίχως ως πλάκα αγίας Τράπεζας και ως ανώφλι θύρας στον ναό των Αγίων Γεωργίου, Κωνσταντίνου και Σώζοντος των Απορθιανών στη Χώρα. Στο μοναστήρι φυλάσσονται, τέλος, δύο πολύ γνωστά, εξαιρετικά δείγματα της μεσοβυζαντινής γλυπτικής: η κατά χώραν σωζόμενη σαρκοφάγος του οσίου Χριστοδούλου και η ενεπίγραφη πλάκα ψευδοσαρκοφάγου ενός αταύτιστου πρωτοσπαθάριου. Τα παραπάνω γλυπτά ανήκουν χρονολογικά στον 11ο ή στον 12ο αιώνα και διακοσμούνται με θέματα κοινά στη μαρμαρογλυπτική της περιόδου αυτής, όπως πεντάφυλλα ανθέμια μέσα σε συνεχόμενους κύκλους, ρόδακες, φυλλοφόρους σταυρούς, ακανθοειδή ανθέμια εναλλασσόμενα με άνθη λωτού κ.ά. Ορισμένα ή όλα από αυτά, εάν δεν μεταφέρθηκαν στην Πάτμο από αλλού, είναι πολύ πιθανό να προέρχονται από τα τέμπλα που διακοσμούσαν το καθολικό του πατμιακού μοναστηριού ή το παρεκκλήσι της Παναγίας σε κάποιο από τα διαδοχικά οικοδομικά προγράμματα του συγκροτήματος, του 11ου και του 12ου αιώνα. Άλλωστε στο νησί δεν έχουν εντοπισθεί άλλα μεσοβυζαντινά μνημεία, ενώ και σύμφωνα με το πρακτικό του απογραφέα Νικολάου Τζάντζη, όταν ο όσιος Χριστόδουλος κατέπλευσε στην ἔρημον καὶ παντάπασιν ἄνικμον νήσο βρήκε μόνον ένα εὐκτήριον πενιχρὸν ἐπ’ὀνόματι τοῦ τιμίου Θεολόγου στη θέση όπου υψωνόταν κατά τα παλαιοχριστιανικά χρόνια η θρυλούμενη βασιλική. Δεν θα ήταν απίθανο κάποια από τα σωζόμενα γλυπτά να ανήκαν στον ναό αυτόν που προϋπήρχε στην περιοχή όπου ο όσιος Χριστόδουλος έκτισε το μοναστήρι. Η ύπαρξη τέμπλου στο καθολικό της μονής Πάτμου, ήδη από την εποχή της ίδρυσής της, πιθανώς υποδηλώνεται στην Υποτύπωση του οσίου Χριστοδούλου, στο σημείο όπου περιγράφεται το τελετουργικό της ενθρόνισης του εκάστοτε νέου ηγουμένου με την παραλαβή της ποιμαντικής ράβδου ἔνδον τῶν ἱερῶν κιγκλίδων πρὸ τοῦ ἁγίου θυσιαστηρίου. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, τα λιγοστά αυτά δείγματα αρχιτεκτονικής γλυπτικής προσθέτουν τη μαρτυρία τους για την τέχνη και την ιστορία της ιεράς νήσου. Keywords: Architectural sculpture, templon, Patmos, Dodecanese, Monastery of Saint John the Theologian, Hosios Christodoulos, Middle Byzantine period, 11th century, 12th century.

135

Konstantia Kefala

Figure 11.1. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, exonarthex arcade: templon pier.

‘Ὅρα μονὴν κύκλωθι μὲν εὖ περιειλημμένην τοῖς τείχεσιν, ἔνδοθι δὲ πολλοῖς σεμνυνομένην τοῖς καλλωπίσμασι, ναοῦ τε κάλλος ἀμήχανον, ἔνθεν τῇ τῶν μαρμάρων στιλπνότητι περιαυγαζόμενον, ἐκεῖθεν τοῖς ἐκ τῶν θείων εἰκόνων χρυσοφαέσιν ἀμαρύγμασι πυρσευόμενον’ (Behold a monastery surrounded by fair walls and, within, rejoicing in many ornaments, and the incredible beauty of the church, its interior bright with the sheen of marble, set alight by the glint of gold from the holy icons).1 It is with these encomiastic words that Athanasios of Antioch describes the monastery of Saint John the Theologian on Patmos circa 1156. Although the rhetoric of his description seems at odds with the architectural simplicity of the catholicon,2 it reflects the admiration of contemporaries for the great achievement of the Blessed Christodoulos and his followers. Today, the catholicon of the monastery and associated chapels are decorated with wood-carved sanctuary screens dated to the 17th and 19th centuries,3 but it is almost certain that the earlier marble screens, whose stylobates are still preserved in situ, date from the original building phases of the monastic complex.4 The uninterrupted continuity of the monastic community and the successive restorations during the following centuries have resulted in their disappearance; their elements were either dispersed or destroyed. In this paper, the presentation of certain architectural sculptures scattered on the island

Seven marble architectural sculptures from templa, occasionally mentioned but essentially unknown in the relevant bibliography, have been recorded on Patmos.5 A templon pier of white marble (81 × 23 cm) embedded in the masonry, stands out amongst the Early Christian spolia ̶ probably relics of the imposing basilica which formerly stood on the site6 ̶ that have been incorporated into the arcade of the exonarthex of the Patmian monastery (Fig. 11.1). It bears, in shallow relief, a decoration of eight incised circles in a vertical row,7 containing concave rhomboid ornaments with inscribed crosses and with slender, schematized darts between the circles. The motif of interlacing or intersecting circles is symmetrical and highly suitable for the elongated surface of piers; due to its perfect implementation, it was very common in Byzantine sculpture, particularly during the 11th century.8 Intersecting circles with inscribed crosses decorate a series of architectural sculptures in some Middle Byzantine churches of Mani.9 Also, a close affinity in design is observable between the templon pier under discussion and specimens from the churches of Saint John the Theologian at Lakki on Leros10 and Panagia Spiliani on Nisyros,11 and an epistyle fragment from Kos,12 all dated to the end of

Vranousi 1966, 61–62; Vranousi 1980, 78. I would like to extend my sincerest thanks and appreciation to my beloved colleagues and friends Anna Maria Kasdagli, Eleni Manolessou and Giorgos Pallis for their remarks on the text and, most importantly, for sharing their in-depth knowledge of the subject with me. I am also deeply grateful to the Abbot of the Monastery and Patriarchal Exarch of Patmos, Kyrillos Pentes for facilitating the study of the material and especially to my dear friends Euthymia Faliera and Yiannis Melianos for their kind support. 2  The catholicon of the monastery belongs to the cross-in-square type of the four-column variant, Bouras 1988, 26–27. 3  Orlandos 1970, 61–62, fig. 43; Koutelakis 1986, 26–27, pl. 7b, 34b, 32–33, pl. 11a, 47b; Bouras 1988, 33, 48–49 (figs.15, 16), 50–51 (pls. 18, 19, 20). 4  Orlandos 1970, 61–66; Bouras 1988, 28; Voyadjis 2012, 28.

Bouras 1988, 28, 364 (note 4); Voyadjis 2012, 28, 38–40; Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 137. 6  Orlandos 1970, 11–18. Kefala 2020, 375–379. 7  Sotiriou 1931, 141–142, fig. 19–20;Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 1987, 175, pl. 294b. 8  Orlandos 1951, 193, fig. 8, 197, fig. 12; Bouras 1980–1981, 167, pl. 33a; Pennas 2000, 7–9, n. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11; Bouras, Bouras 2002, 156– 158, fig. 170. 9  Militsi-Kechagia 2012, 109 (fig. 2), 115. 10  Orlandos 1948, 217–218, fig. 163; Firatli 1969, 151–166, figs. 21, 22, 27–30; Barsanti 1988, 290–291, pl. IX.1; Bouras, Boura 2002, 250–251, fig. 285; Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 124–125, fig. 7; Marki 2006, 84– 85, fig. 14. 11  Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 130–131, fig. 15. 12  Militsi 2008, 437, fig. 5.

may, perhaps, contribute to a partial and hypothetical reconstruction of their original layout.

1

5 

136

‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’ the 11th century.13 The same chronology could be arguably proposed for the Patmian sculpture. The fragment of a relief marble slab (81 × 39 cm) is incorporated in the masonry of a modern proskynetarion in the south part of the monastic courtyard14 (Fig. 11.2). On its surface a bipartite strip forms a rectangle and, in the middle of its narrow sides, twists into circles containing eight-leaved rosettes, cut with a drill.15 Within this frame, a lozenge formed by a triple fillet contains an eight-leaved rosette with heart-shaped petals,16 a developed form of the pattern of the Early Christian chrisma, since it is composed of four intersecting lines. The design of a lozenge within a rectangle, bearing the monogram of Christ inside a wreath or plain circle derives from Early Christian sculpture17 and evolves through the Middle Byzantine period, ending as a rosette inside the rhomb.18 The simplicity of the execution, the low relief against the smooth background, the neat and precise contours, the looped fillet and the type of the elegant rosette with its symbolic character and chrismatic implications are features that support the dating of the panel in the 11th century.19

(a)

A rectangular relief slab (86 × 60 cm) of unknown origin, on display in the museum of the Patmian monastery20 (Fig. 11.3), is decorated with a foliate Latin cross with ‘teardrops’, on a three-stepped base.21 The tendrils springing from the base bear five- and seven-lobed leaves and pomegranates, symbolizing fertility and plentitude, a frequent Early Christian theme.22 Pomegranates as decorative elements are encountered on a 7th-century panel from the Acropolis of Athens,23 on some of the slabs on the drum of the dome of the church of Panagia at Hosios Loukas Monastery in Boeotia dated to the 10th century,24 on a 10thcentury panel set in the phiale of the Great Lavra monastery at Mount Athos25 and, finally, on an extremely interesting panel now kept in the Bode Museum in Berlin, which has been redated from the 7th26 to the 11th–12th centuries.27 The motif is even rarer in the centuries following: it decorates

(b) Figure 11.2a-b. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, courtyard: relief slab.

13  The same motif is also encountered on some piers of the templon of Panagia Krina on Chios (Pennas 2008, 457, fig. 20). See also: Orlandos 1948, fig 166. 14  Bouras 1988, 364 (note 4); Voyadjis 2012, 42, 45. 15  Dimitrakopoulou-Skylogianni 1985–1986, 166; Ousterhout 1991– 1992, 47, 49, figs. 3, 4. 16  The heart-shaped petals of the rosette are relatively rare and are mostly encountered in panels of the first half of the 6th century, see for example the panel of the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens (Pazaras 1977, 42, no. 12, pl. VII, 12b) or another one from the basilica of ‘Kolokytha’ at Nissi Lasithiou (Tsigonaki 2000, 1152–1153, fig. 11). See also: Marzolff 2006, 95, fig. 10b. 17  Pallas 1950, 233–249. 18  Dimitrakopoulou-Skylogianni 1985–1986, 157. 19  Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1992, 543–548. 20  Bouras 1988, 364 (note 4). 21  Talbot-Rice 1950, 72–81; Ericsson 1968, 149–150; Flemming 1969, 88–115; Frazer 1973, 148. 22  Strzygowski 1902, 90–91, fig. 20a; Pelekanidis 1988, 95–96, pls. 65a, 67. See also: Lavin 1967, 104, fig. 25; Weitzmann 1979, 63–64, fig. 13. 23  Sotiriou 1937, 178–179, fig. 10. See also, Frantz 1965, fig. 14. 24  Weitzmann 1935, pl. ΧΙΧ, 105; Bouras 1980, 27–29, figs. 17, 24. 25  Grabar 1963, 97–98, pl. XLV. 3; Bouras 1975–1976, 95–96, pls. 47, 48; Bouras 1980, 31, fig. 29. 26  Bréhier 1936, 62, pl. VIII.ΙΙ. 27  Effenberger et al. 2008, 36 (G. Mietke).

Figure 11.3. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, Museum: relief slab.

137

Konstantia Kefala the 12th-century marble proskynetarion again in the church of Panagia at Hosios Loukas Monastery in Boeotia,28 the capital of an octagonal colonette from Thebes dated to the 11th–12th centuries,29 some cornices of the North Church in the monastery of Christ Pantokrator in Constantinople (1118–1124)30 and the slab with the dedicatory inscription of Areia Moni in Nauplion (1149).31 The pomegranate motif was particularly favored in the Dodecanese and features on a 6th-century templon pier, now on display in the Archeological Museum of Kastellorizo,32 and on a mullion impost of the Archeological Collection of Telos dated to the 11th or 12th centuries.33 The sharpness of the relief, the schematization and symmetry of the design and an obvious sense of archaism of the execution, could well support the dating of the panel to the 11th century;34 such a date is also indicated by the stylistic affinity between the panel and a slab from an 11th-century pseudosarcophagus from Veroia,35 particularly in its technique and in the arrangement of the tendrils.36 Stylistic similarities are also remarked between the specific Patmian relief and some capitals from Didyma, on the opposite shore of Asia Minor, dated to the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th centuries.37

Figure 11.4. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, catholicon: epistyle or cornice fragment.

Figure 11.5. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, Museum: epistyle or cornice fragment.

mid-11th century,41 the epistyles of the Episkopi on Skopelos (1078)42 and of the church of Taxiarches in Lokris dated to the 12th century,43 certain cornices in the kellion (cell) of Ravdouchou at Mount Athos dated to the 11th century44 and of the church of Saint Demetrios in Arta of the 12th century,45 as well as the aforementioned 12th-century proskynetarion of Panagia at Hosios Loukas Monastery in Boeotia.46 Although the ubiquity of the Patmian epistyle’s decorative motif is not helpful for assigning a precise dating and chronological classification, the close affinity of its technique with some Constantinopolitan reliefs dated to the first half of the 12th century,47 such as certain cornices at the Pammakaristos monastery (Fethiye Camii),48 at the monastery of Chora (Kariye Camii)49 and at the Kalenderhane Camii50 and, most importantly, its astonishing resemblance to a cornice in the North Church of the monastery of Christ Pantokrator (Zeyrek Camii) support its dating to the 12th century.51

An epistyle or cornice fragment (118 × 11 cm), serving as the lintel on a small door in the north wall of the catholicon leading to a hidden sacristy (Fig. 11.4), preserves on its underside two rectangular slots for the fitting of piers, that probably were added in a posterior use of the cornice, since the slots have destroyed part of the original decoration.38 Its beveled face bears a row of acanthus palmettes alternating with lotus flowers. It is clear that the piece belongs together with two other fragments with identical width (79 × 11 cm, 43 × 11 cm) and decoration, today exhibited at the museum of the Monastery (Fig. 11.5). The ancient Greek decorative theme of acanthus palmettes, also frequent in Early Christian times,39 was repeatedly used during the Middle Byzantine period in Constantinople and elsewhere.40 We mention some potentially related examples, such as a lintel with projecting cornice from the church of Saints Anargyroi in Kastoria dated to the

Apart from the sculptures preserved inside the monastery, two further architectural members from templa were

Bouras 1980, 105–109, figs. 174, 176; Bouras, Bouras 2002, fig. 244. Manolessou 2011, 214–215, no. B138. 30  Mathews 1976, 96, figs. 10.40, 10.41. 31  Feissel, Philippidis–Braat 1985, 308–309, pl. XII, fig. 2; Bouras, Bouras 2002, 589. 32  Stampolidis, Tassoulas, Filimonos-Tsopotou 2011, 72, no. 20 (E. Papavassiliou). 33  Stampolidis, Tassoulas, Filimonos-Tsopotou 2011, 298, no. 77 (Ε. Papavassiliou). 34  For analogous vegetal decorations, see Grabar 1963, pl. XLΙΙ. 4, 9; Peschlow 1972, 176, pl. 43, figs. 1–4. 35  Pazaras 1988, 23, no. 7. 36  Poulou-Papadimitriou 1998, 345–348, figs. 8, 18. 37  Peschlow 1975, 216–217, 219, pl. 40.1–3; Dennert 1997, 124, 210, no. 269, pl. 48. 38  Voyadjis 2012, 28, fig. 12. 39  Xyngopoulos 1925, 118; Kramer 1998, 47–48, pl. 11.8–9. 40  Paschalis 1925, 29–34; Orlandos 1929, 366; Orlandos 1955–1956, 57– 58, fig. 37; Firatli 1990, 124–125, no. 236, pl. 75-figs. 236a, b, pl. 76-fig. 237; Bouras, Bouras 2002, 70–71, figs. 51, 542; Mexia 2006, 116–117, figs. 1, 2; Androudis 2012, 132–133, figs. 1–6. 28 

Orlandos 1938, 20–21, figs. 12, 13; Grabar 1976, 61–62, no. 46, pl. XXXI, b, d; Moutsopoulos 1992, 304–307, fig. 298. 42  Xyngopoulos 1956, 185, fig. 4. 43  The templon of the church has been dated to the first half of the 12th century (Sythiakaki-Kritsimalli 2006, 133), but, according to other opinions, a dating to the second half of the same century seems more probable (Varalis 2016, 165–166). 44  Pazaras 2006, 143–144. 45  Orlandos 1936b, 63, fig. 6; Vanderheyde 1997, 703, fig. 15a; Vanderheyde 2005, 47–48, no. 58, 59, pl. XXV- figs. 51, 52. 46  Bouras 1980, 106–107, figs. 174, 176, 179; Bouras, Bouras 2002, 216–219, fig. 244. 47  Buchwald 1964, 158–159; Naumann, Belting 1966, 62, 70; Hjort 1979, 232–234, figs. 26–27, 37–40; Firatli 1990, 124–125, no. 236, pls. 75, 236 a–b. 48  Mango, Hawkins 1964, 329; Belting, Mango, Mouriki 1978, pl. 10.93. XI, 3b; Dennert 1998, 126, pl. 41.15. 49  Buchwald 1964, 156; Grabar 1976, 131–133, no. 131, pl. CVIIb. 50  Hjort 1979, 234, fig. 38. 51  Hjort 1979, 270, figs. 96–97. See also Oates 1960, 223–231.

29 

41 

138

‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’

(a)

Figure 11.7. Patmos, Church of Saints George, Constantine and Sozon: double sided altar screen panel (side carved in the Middle Byzantine Period).

(b)

clumsy and coarse execution of the palmette recalls an epistyle from the church of Pantokrator at Monastiraki in Vonitsa dated to the 11th century55 and, notably, the relief decoration of a Middle Byzantine ambo from Pergamon,56 while the leaves inserted between the interlocking circles are also encountered in some epistyles from Leros dated to the end of the 11th century.57 Furthermore, the form of the Maltese cross presents similarities with analogous examples of the 11th century,58 which date could be also proposed for the sculpture under discussion. In the same church in Chora, a marble double-sided panel (93 × 80 × 2.5 cm) was reused as an altar slab in the sanctuary of the south chapel (Fig. 11.7). Close examination of both sides proves that it was, in fact, an Early Christian altar screen panel decorated with a tendril ending in an ivy leaf (Fig. 11.8). In the Middle Byzantine period part of the slab was trimmed off around the edges so that the rest could be fitted into a templon; it was then carved on the formerly plain side. In its third and last phase of use, the decoration of the slab was partly effaced, so that the smoothed surface could better serve its function as an altar slab in the postByzantine church.59 Although the relief has been totally removed, it is clear that the decoration consisted of a foliate

(c) Figure 11.6 a-c. Patmos, Church of Saints George, epistyle or cornice fragment.

reused in the post-Byzantine church of Saints George, Constantine and Sozon in the neighborhood of Aporthiana in the medieval settlement of Chora. An epistyle or cornice fragment (149 × 11 cm) (Fig. 11.6a, 11.6b, 11.6c) has been used as a lintel in the inner door leading from the narthex to the south chapel of the church complex. Its decoration consists of a Maltese cross,52 flanked by five interconnected roundels (rotae sericae) encircling five- and seven-leaved palmettes; dart-like stylized lotus leaves issue from the interlacing knots.53 The motif is very common in Middle Byzantine sculpture, particularly in architraves or cornices of the 10th and the 11th centuries.54 The relatively

XXXIV-fig. 72, 69, no. 89, 90, pl. XL-figs. 89, 90; Papadopoulou 2008, 237–238, no. 6, fig. 6. 55  Vocotopoulos 1980–1981, 363, pl. 109a; Vanderheyde 2005, 60, no. 82, pl. XXXIV, fig. 72. 56  Peschlow 1994, I: 259, II: pl. 150.14. See also the palmettes on an epistyle from Thebes, dated to the 11th century, Manolessou 2011, 184– 185, no. B103. 57  Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 126, fig. 9, 127, fig. 11, 129, fig. 13. 58  Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999, 149, no. 203. 59  See for example: Mango, Ševčenko 1973, 248, pl. 50; Sheppard 1969, 65–71, figs. 8–10; Peschlow 1972, 176, pl. 43, figs. 1–4; ΑD 30 (1975), Β2, (Ch. Pennas), 308–309, pl. 210c.

Kavvadia-Spondyli 1989–1990, 204–205; Florakis 2005, 43, no. 21. Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 129, fig. 13. 54  Orlandos 1937, 149 (fig. 22), 150 (fig. 24); Orlandos 1939–1940, 163– 164, fig. 9. Grabar 1963, 92, pl. ΧΧΧΙΧ. 3; Vocotopoulos 1975, pl. 18c; Peschlow 1990, 238, pl. 43.6; Poulou-Papadimitriou 1998, 349–350, fig. 24; Drandakis 2002, 9 (fig. 14), 116–117 (fig. 187); Grabar 1976, 46, no. 24, pl. XIIb; Vanderheyde 2005, 13–14, no. 1, pl. Ι-fig. 1, 60, no. 82, pl. 52  53 

139

Konstantia Kefala at Sykamia66 and the Cave of the Apocalypse,67 no other Middle Byzantine monuments have been yet discovered on Patmos. Moreover, according to the official record of the apographeus Nikolaos Tzantzes, at the time when the Blessed Christodoulos arrived at the completely deserted island (ἔρημον καὶ παντάπασιν ἄνικμον νῆσον), he only found a single very poor chapel dedicated to the ‘Holy Theologian’ (εὐκτήριον πενιχρὸν ἐπ’ὀνόματι τοῦ τιμίου ἐκτισμένον Θεολόγου) on the site that in Early Christian times was dominated by the great and imposing basilica of the beloved disciple of Christ.68 The existence of a templon screen in the catholicon of the Patmian monastery from its earliest phase could be implied in the Hypotyposis of Hosios Christodoulos in the passage where the ritual of the enthronement of the new abbot is described, even though the specific phrase may also just theoretically refer to the defined stages of the ceremony: ‘Εἶθ’οὕτως λήψεται τὴν ποιμαντικὴν ῥάβδον ὁ ἱερεύς, ἔνδον τῶν ἱερῶν κιγκλίδων πρὸ τοῦ ἁγίου θυσιαστηρίου κειμένην, καὶ τῷ εἰς ἡγουμενείαν προκριθέντι ταύτην ἐγχειρίσει, καὶ τοῦτον ἀσπάσεται’ (Thus, then, the priest will take the crosier within the sacred enclosure before the holy altar, will hand it to the elect, and will then embrace and kiss him).69 The catholicon of the monastery was from the very beginning a building without ambitious intentions, since its founder gave priority to the urgent erection of the fortification which would secure the survival of the monastic community, that was constantly threatened.70 However, the opinion that the sculptures decorating the catholicon were all spolia and that apparently nothing was made especially for it71 ought perhaps to be reexamined under the light of the new elements presented here: the slab from the church of Saints George, Constantine and Sozon, carved on the reverse of an Early Christian screen panel, offers an eloquent testimony of in situ work, taking advantage of the abundant ruins of the basilica that still existed on the holy site.72 It could, therefore, along with the epistyle fragment of the same church, belong to the original templon of the catholicon which was hastily constructed with the available building material. According to the written sources, all the members of the monastic community without exception participated to the construction of the monastery, while Christodoulos himself lifted the stones with his own hands and labored on it, despite his age (χερσὶν οἰκείαις τοὺς λίθους ἐπεφορτίζετο, καὶ γήρᾳ κάμνων).73

Figure 11.8. Patmos, Church of Saints George, Constantine and Sozon: double sided altar screen panel (side carved in the Early Christian period).

Latin cross with ‘teardrops’,60 framed by a pair of molded bands interlacing at the middle of each side.61 From the base of the cross sprang unfolding acanthus semi-leaves that probably ended in a pinecone or simplified ivy leaf.62 The interlaced frame is typical of Middle Byzantine slabs, while the plasticity in the unfolding foliate ornament recalls a pseudosarcophagus slab from Hagia Triada at Kaloxylos on Naxos, dated to the late 11th or the early 12th centuries. The style of the Patmian panel also fits this dating.63 In conclusion, all the architectural sculptures of Patmos described above belong to the 11th and 12th centuries, are decorated with very popular and common motifs of the marble sculpture of this period and, unless transported to the island from elsewhere, they probably derive from the two principal construction phases of the foundation of the monastery of Saint John the Theologian and its chapels: the first phase coincides with the establishment of the monastery by the Blessed Christodoulos64 and the second was initiated and completed after the return of his disciples from Euboea, who translated his holy relics to Patmos and revived the monastic community in the early 12th century.65 This argument is supported by the fact that, apart from the small church of Saint John the Theologian

About the specific motif in Byzantine sculpture: Orlandos 1936a, 26. Orlandos 1955–1956, 62, fig. 43; Farioli Campanati 1982, 286–287, figs. 3, 4, 5; Mango, Ševčenko 1973, 276–277, figs. 153, 154; Dimitrakopoulou, Skylogianni 1985–1986, 166–167, fig. 16; Pennas 1992, 157–195; Pennas 2000, 24–25, no. 32–33, 32–33, no. 48; Pazaras 2001, 25–29, figs. 16, 18, 20; Koutelakis 2002, 156–157, fig. 1; Bouras, Bouras 2002, 193–194, fig. 210α, 255–257, fig. 293; Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002, 122–125, figs. 4–5. 61  A typical Middle Byzantine motif, Sotiriou 1960–1961, 110–111, pl. 49.2; Θησαυροὶ Ἁγίου Ὄρους 1997, 268–269, no. 6.1; Chalkia 1996– 1997, 363, 365, fig. 9; Grammenos, Knithakis 1994, 187–188, no. 500 (326), pl. 63; Kounoupiotou-Manolessou 2008, 223, no.2, fig. 2; MilitsiKechagia 2012, 108, fig. 2. 62  About the symbolic significance of the leaved cross, Talbot Rice 1950, 72–81. 63  Mastoropoulos 1994, 438, figs. 1, 3; Pennas 2000, 32–33; Mitsani 2004–2006, 400, 417, n. 20; Pallis 2009, 256, fig. 7. 64  Vranousi 1980, 39–40; Bouras 1988, 26–27; Voyadjis 2012, 89. 65  Vranousi 1980, 55–58; Bouras 1988, 27; Voyadjis 2012, 89–93. 60 

In contrast, the epistyle with the acanthus palmettes seems a product of more skilled workmanship and possibly belongs to the second, calmer and better planned construction phase of the 12th century, since it also strongly reflects the Kollias 1989, 33. Kollias 1986, 36–37. 68  Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou 1980, 39. 69  Voinis 1884, 91–92. 70  Orlandos 1970, 47, fig. 31; Bouras 1989, 140–141; Voyadjis 2012, 93. 71  Bouras 1988, 27; Bouras 1989, 140; Voyadjis 2012, 87. 72  For the reuse of marble sculptures during the Middle Byzantine period, Sodini 1995, 289. 73  Voinis 1884, 127; Vranousi 1966, 52. 66  67 

140

‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’ and could very likely be the product of a Koan workshop.77 It ought to be mentioned that marble quarries existed on the island of Kos during the Early Christian times,78 and that they supplied the surrounding area and islands with marble and ready-made architectural sculptures.79 The question of the origin of the material and the provenance of the workshops or the sculptors that worked on Patmos remains open. Nevertheless, the probably itinerant artisans responsible for the sculptures examined here, based in important artistic centers,80 undoubtedly contributed with their work to the establishment of this prominent and emblematic Orthodox monastery.

Figure 11.9. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, Museum: pseudosarcophagus slab of a protospatharios.

Rhodes, March 2015 Literature Androudis 2012  : Androudis, Pascal,   ‘Chapiteau de la crypte de la basilique de Saint Démétrios à Thessalonique avec emblèmes de la famille des Paléologues’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΛΓ΄(2012), 131–140. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka 1987: Ασημακοπούλου-Ατζακά, Παναγιώτα, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών ψηφιδωτών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος, ΙΙ, Πελοπόννησος ‒ Στερεά Ελλάδα, Thessaloniki 1987. Balducci 1936: Balducci, Hermes, Basiliche protocristiane e bizantine a Coo (Egeo), Pavia 1936.

Figure 11.10. Patmos, Μonastery of Saint John the Theologian, Hosios Christodoulos’ chapel: sarcophagus of the Blessed Christodoulos.

Barsanti 1988: Barsanti, Claudia, ‘Scultura anatolica di epoca mediobizantina’, in Claudia Barsanti, Alessandra Guiglia Guidobaldi, Antonio Iacobini (eds.), Milion. Studi e ricerche d’arte bizantina. Atti della giornata di Studio, Roma, 4 dicembre 1986, Roma 1988, 275–306.

influence of contemporary Constantinopolitan sculpture. It is probably to be associated with the foundation of the chapels of Panagia and Hosios Christodoulos, during the first decades of the 12th century.74 It would be of great interest to accurately classify and in total evaluate the sculptures detected on the island of Patmos, but this does not seem readily possible given their dispersion and fragmentary conservation. What can be assumed, though, is that all these pieces may once have belonged either to the small church that, according to Nikolaos Tzanzis’s record, Hosios Christodoulos found at the place where he erected his monastery, or to the catholicon and chapels of the monastery he and his successors built.

Belting, Mango, Mouriki 1978: Belting, Hans, Mango, Cyril, Mouriki, Doula, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. Mary Pammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul, Washington, D.C. 1978. Bouras 1975–1976: Bouras, Laskarina, ‘Some Observations on the Grand Lavra Phiale at Mount Athos and Its Bronze Strobilion’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Η΄ (1975–76), 85–96. Bouras 1980: Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Ὁ γλυπτὸς διάκοσμος τοῦ ναοῦ τῆς Παναγίας στὸ μοναστήρι τοῦ Ὁσίου Λουκᾶ, Athens 1980.

Finally, two other exceptional examples of 11th-century marble sculpture preserved on Patmos must be named: the pseudosarcophagus slab of an anonymous protospatharios exhibited in the monastery museum75 (Fig.11.9) and the monolithic sarcophagus of the Blessed Christodoulos in his burial chapel76 (11.10). The latter is stylistically associated with certain relief slabs from Kos, dated to the 11th century,

Bouras 1980–1981: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Τὸ τέμπλο τῆς Παναγίας Κρίνας καὶ ἡ χρονολόγησή της’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Ι΄ (1980– 1981), 165–179.

Orlandos 1970, 79, fig. 60; Bouras 1989, 141; Voyadjis 2012, 30–37. Farioli Campanati 1982, 288–289, n. 20; Farioli Campanati 1984, 167–170, pls. XLIII–XLV, figs. 1, 2, 9; Fiaccadori 1984, 171–173, fig. 9; Pazaras 1988, 51, no. 74, pl. 59; Bouras 1988, 28, 52 (fig. 22). 76  Marava-Chatzinikolaou 1957, 24, fig. 57; Orlandos 1970, 89–92, figs. 31, 68, 69; Pazaras 1988, 51–52, no. 75, fig. 60 a, b; Bouras 1988, 28, 50 (fig. 18); Voyiagis 2012, 31 (fig. 19), 37 See also, Gautier 1967, 235–238.

77  Balducci 1936, 51, fig. 44; Mastoropoulos 2001, 340, fig. 27; Militsi 2004, 280; Militsi 2009, 122–123, fig. 6, 78  Poupaki 2011, 121–125. 79  Militsi 1996–1997, 346, 349; Militsi-Kechagia 2008, 259; Militsi 2009, 127–128; Sodini 2010, 223–248. 80  Kavvadia-Spondyli 1989–1990, 213–215; Buchwald 1995, 243, 247, 254; Vanderheyde 1997, 707–709; Vanderheyde 1998, 765–775.

74  75 

141

Konstantia Kefala Bouras 1988: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ’, in Αθανάσιος Κομίνης (ed.), Οἱ Θησαυροὶ τῆς Μονῆς Πάτμου, Athens 1988, 25–53.

Feissel, Philippidis-Braat 1985: Feissel, Denis, PhilippidisBraat, Anne, ‘Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance, III. Inscriptions du Péloponnèse (à l’exception de Mistra)’, Travaux et Mémoires 9 (1985), 267–395.

Bouras 1989: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Ἀρχιτεκτονικὰ ζητήματα τοῦ μοναστηριακοῦ συγκροτήματος τῆς Πάτμου’, Ἱερὰμονὴ Ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ Θεολόγου, 900 Χρόνια ἱστορικῆς μαρτυρίας (1088–1988), Πάτμος 22–24 Σεπτεμβρίου 1988, Πρακτικὰ τοῦ Διεθνοῦς Συμποσίου, Athens 1989, 137–145.

Fiaccadori 1984: Fiaccadori, Gianfranco, ‘Epigraphe bizantina da Patmos’, Studi di storia dell’arte in memoria di Mario Rotili, Naples 1984, 171–173. Firatli 1969: Firatli, Nezih, ‘Découverte d’une église byzantine à Sébaste de Phrygie. Rapport préliminaire’, Cahiers Archéologiques 19 (1969), 151–166.

Bouras, Bouras 2002: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος, Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Ἡ ἑλλαδικὴ ναοδομία κατὰ τὸν 12ο αἰώνα, Athens 2002.

Firatli 1990: Firatli, Nezih, La sculpture byzantine figurée au Musée Archéologique d’Istanbul, Paris 1990.

Bréhier 1936: Bréhier, Louis, La sculpture et les arts mineurs byzantins, Paris 1936.

Flemming 1969: Flemming, Johann, ‘Kreuz und Pflanzenornament’, Byzantinoslavica 30 (1969), 88–115.

Buchwald 1964: Buchwald, Hans, ‘The Carved Stone Ornament of the High Middle Ages in San Marco, II’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft 13 (1964), 137–168.

Florakis 2005: Φλωράκης, Αλέκος, Παλαιοχριστιανικά και βυζαντινά γλυπτά της Τήνου. Οι καταβολές της τοπικής μαρμαρογλυπτικής, Athens 2005.

Buchwald 1995: Buchwald, Hans, ‘Chancel Barrier Lintels Decorated with Carved Arcades’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), 233–276.

Frantz 1965: Frantz, Alison, ‘From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19 (1965), 187–205.

Chalkia 1996–1997: Χαλκιά, Ευγενία, ‘Στοιχεία για την παλαιοχριστιανική και βυζαντινή Ίμβρο’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΙΘ΄(1996– 1997), 351–368.

Frazer 1973: English Frazer, Margaret, ‘Church Doors and the Gates of Paradise: Byzantine Bronze Doors in Italy’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 145–162. Gautier 1967: Gautier, Paul, ‘La date de la mort de Christodule de Patmos (mercredi 16 mars 1093)’, Revue des Études Byzantines 25 (1967), 235–238.

Dennert 1997: Dennert, Martin, Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle. Studien zu Typologie und Chronologie, Asia Minor Studien 25, Bonn 1997.

Grabar 1963: Grabar, Αndré, Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle), Paris 1963.

Dennert 1998: Dennert, Martin, ‘Zum Vorbildcharakter justinianischer Bauplastik für die mittelbyzantinische Kapitellproduktion’, Spätantike und Byzantinische Bauskulptur, Symposium Mainz 1994, (Hrsg. Urs Peschlow, Sabine Möllers), Stuttgart 1998, 119–131.

Grabar 1976: Grabar, Αndré, Sculptures byzantines du Moyen Age, II (XIe–XIVe siècle), Paris 1976. Grammenos, Knithakis 1994: Γραμμένος, Δημήτριος, Κνιθάκης, Γιάννης, Κατάλογος των αρχιτεκτονικών μελών του Μουσείου Θεσσαλονίκης, Thessaloniki 1994.

Dimitrakopoulou–Skylogianni 1985–1986: ΔημητρακοπούλουΣκυλογιάννη, Νικολέττα, ‘Ανάγλυφα θωράκια από το Βυζαντινό Μουσείο’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΙΓ΄ (1985–1986), 157–180.

Hjort 1979: Hjort, Øystein, ‘The Sculpture of Kariye Camii’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 33 (1979), 199–289. Katsioti, Papavassiliou 2002: Κατσιώτη, Αγγελική, Παπαβασιλείου, Ελένη, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινή γλυπτική στη Λέρο και τη Νίσυρο’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΓ΄ (2002), 121–148.

Drandakis 2002: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινὰ γλυπτὰ τῆς Μάνης, Athens 2002. Ericsson 1968: Ericsson, Kyra, ‘The Cross on Steps and the Silver Exagram’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 17 (1968), 149–164. Effenberger et al. 2008: Efenberger, Arne et alles, The Museum of Byzantine Art in the Bode Museum, Munich–Berlin–London–New York 2008.

Katsioti, Mastrochristos 2012: Katsioti, Angeliki, Mastrochristos, Nikolaos, ‘The Wall Paintings of Saint Constantine at Missochori. New Evidence Concerning Middle Byzantine Nissyros, Greece’, Zograf 36 (2012), 65–74.

Farioli Campanati 1982: Farioli Campanati, Raffaella, ‘Quattro sarcofagi mediobizantini in Italia’, Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi 2 (1982), 283–296.

Kavvadia-Spondyli 1989–1990: Καββαδία-Σπονδύλη, Αριστέα, ‘Γιὰ δύο κιονόκρανα στὴν Καρύταινα’, Πελοποννησιακὰ ΙΗ΄(1989–1990), 196–224.

Farioli Campanati 1984: Farioli Campanati, Raffaella, ‘Una lastra marmorea a Patmos e la tipologia dei sarcofagi mediobizantini a pannelli’, Studi di storia dell’arte in memoria di Mario Rotili, Naples 1984, 167–170.

Kefala 2020: Κεφαλά, Κωνσταντία, ‘Το τάμα ενός τριβούνου. Παλαιοχριστιανική αφιερωτική επιγραφή από την Πάτμο’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΜΑ΄ (2020), 365–379.

142

‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’ Mastoropoulos 2001: Μαστορόπουλος, Γεώργιος, ‘Ταύτιση (;) του επί του όρους Δικαίου της Κω μονυδρίου Αρσενίου του Σκηνούρη (11ος αι.)’, in G. Kokkorou-Alevras, A. Laimos, E. SimantonisBournia (eds.), Ιστορία-τέχνη-αρχαιολογία της Κω, Α΄Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο, Κως, 2–4 Μαΐου 1997, Athens 2001, 333–356.

Kollias 1986: Κόλλιας, Ηλίας, Πάτμος, Βυζαντινή Τέχνη στην Ελλάδα. Ψηφιδωτά, τοιχογραφίες, Athens 1986. Kollias 1989: Κόλλιας, Ηλίας, ‘Σχεδίασμα της αρχαιολογίας και τέχνης της Καλύμνου από τα παλαιοχριστιανικά χρόνια μέχρι το τέλος της Ιπποτοκρατίας (1522)’, Κάλυμνος. Ελληνορθόδοξος ορισμός του Αιγαίου, Athens 1989, 23–50.

Mathews 1976: Mathews, Thomas, The Byzantine Churches of Istanbul, A Photographic Survey, Pennsylvania ‒ London 1976.

Kounoupiotou-Manolessou 2008: ΚουνουπιώτουΜανωλέσσου, Ελένη, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινά γλυπτά με ζώα από τη Συλλογή γλυπτών στο Τζαμί της Χαλκίδας’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΘ΄ (2008), 221–232.

Mexia 2006: Μέξια, Αγγελική, ‘Δύο μαρμάρινες διακοσμητικές πλάκες στον Μυστρά’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΖ΄(2006), 115–124.

Koutelakis 1986: Κουτελάκης, Χαράλαμπος, Ξυλόγλυπτα τέμπλα της Δωδεκανήσου μέχρι το 1700, Athens ‒ Ioannina 1986.

Miklosich, Müller 1890: Miklosich, Iosephus Müller, Franciscus, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacra et Profana, v. VI, Acta et Diplomata Monasteriorum et Ecclesiarum Orientis, t. III, Diplomata et Acta Monasterii Sancti Ioannis Theologi in Patmo Insula, Vindobonae 1890.

Koutelakis 2002: Κουτελάκης, Χάρης, ‘Δύο βυζαντινές μαρμάρινες ψευδοσαρκοφάγοι στη βρύση του χωριού Κουμέικα Σάμου’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΓ΄(2002), 155–162. Kramer 1998: Kramer, Joachim, ‘Bemerkungen zu den Methoden der Klassifizierung und Datierung frühchristlicher oströmischer Kapitelle’, in Urs Peschlow, Sabine Möllers (eds.), Spätantike und byzantinische Bauskulptur, Symposium Mainz 1994, Stuttgart 1998, 43–58.

Militsi 1996–1997: Μηλίτση, Ευαγγελία, ‘Μαρμάρινοι παλαιοχριστιανικοί άμβωνες από την Κω’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΙΘ΄ (1996– 1997), 341–350. Militsi 2004: Μηλίτση, Ευαγγελία, ‘Μαρμάρινες μεσοβυζαντινές ψευδοσαρκοφάγοι στην Κω’, Χάρις Χαίρε, Μελέτες στη μνήμη της Χάρης Κάντζια, v. Α΄, Athens 2004, 277–290.

Lavin 1967: Lavin, Irving, ‘The Ceiling Frescoes in Trier and Illusionism in Constantinian Painting’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967), 97–113.

Militsi 2008: Μηλίτση, Ευαγγελία, ‘Τμήματα μεσοβυζαντινών τέμπλων από την Κω’, in Charalambos Pennas, Catherine Vanderheyde (eds.), La sculpture byzantine VIIe–XIIe siècles, Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquitiés byzantines et l’École francaise d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000), BCH supplément 49, Paris 2008, 421–445.

Mango, Hawkins 1964: Mango, Cyril, Hawkins, Ernest J.W., ‘Report on Field Work in Istanbul and Cyprus’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 18 (1964), 319–340. Mango, Ševčenko 1973: Mango, Cyril, Ševčenko, Ihor, ‘Some Churches and Monasteries on the Southern Shore of the Sea of Marmara’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 27 (1973), 235–279. Manolessou 2011: Μανωλέσσου, Ελένη, Μεσαιωνική γλυπτική της Θήβας και συμβολή στη μνημειακή τοπογραφία της πόλης, unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2011.

Militsi-Kechagia 2008: Μηλίτση-Κεχαγιά, Ευαγγελία, Παλαιοχριστιανική γλυπτική Κω. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της αρχιτεκτονικής γλυπτικής στην Κω κατά την παλαιοχριστιανική περίοδο (4ος–7ος αι.), unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2008.

Marava-Chatzinikolaou 1957: Μαραβά-Χατζηνικολάου, Άννα, Πάτμος, Athens 1957.

Militsi 2009: Μηλίτση, Ευαγγελία, ‘Μεσοβυζαντινά γλυπτά από την ανασκαφή στο καθολικό της Παναγίας των Καστριανών στο Παλαιό Πυλί της Κω’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Λ΄ (2009), 119–128.

Marki 2006: Μαρκή, Ευτέρπη, ‘Γλυπτά της μεσοβυζαντινής επισκοπής Κίτρους’, Δώρον, τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Νίκο Νικονάνο, Thessaloniki 2006, 79–87.

Militsi-Kechagia 2012: Μηλίτση-Κεχαγιά, Ευαγγελία, ‘Άγιος Νικόλαος στο Καμπινάρι Πλάτσας στη Μάνη. Παρατηρήσεις στο γλυπτό διάκοσμο του τέμπλου’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΛΓ΄ (2012), 105–118.

Marzolff 2006: Marzolff, Peter, ‘Lechonia. Ein mediterranes Schicksal’, Δώρον, τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Νίκο Νικονάνο, Thessaloniki 2006, 89–99. Mastoropoulos 1994: Μαστορόπουλος, Γεώργιος, ‘‘Μαΐστρος ο Κόητος’, ένας μαρμαράς του ΙΒ΄ αι. στη Νάξο’, Αντίφωνον, Αφιέρωμα στον καθηγητή Ν. Β. Δρανδάκη, Thessaloniki 1994, 436–443.

Mitsani 2004–2006: Μητσάνη, Αγγελική, ‘Η χορηγία στις Κυκλάδες από τον 6ο μέχρι τον 14ο αιώνα. Η μαρτυρία των επιγραφών’, ΕΕΒΣ ΝΑ΄(2004–2006), 391–446. 143

Konstantia Kefala Moutsopoulos 1992: Μουτσόπουλος, Νικόλαος, Εκκλησίες της Καστοριάς, 9ος–11ος αι., Thessaloniki 1992.

Papadopoulou 2008: Παπαδοπούλου, Βαρβάρα, ‘Το βυζαντινό τέμπλο του ναού της Αγίας Θεοδώρας στην Άρτα’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΚΘ΄ (2008), 233–246.

Naumann, Belting 1966: Naumann, Rudolf, Belting, Hans, Die Euphemia-Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken, Berlin 1966.

Paschalis 1925: Πασχάλης, Δημήτριος, ‘Χριστιανικὴ Ἂνδρος (Andros sacra)’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Β΄ (1925), 18–43.

Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou 1980: ΝυσταζοπούλουΠελεκίδου, Μαρία, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου, Β΄, Δημοσίων λειτουργῶν, Athens 1980.

Pazaras 1977: Παζαράς, Θεοχάρης, ‘Κατάλογος χριστιανικῶν πλακῶν ἐκ Θεσσαλονίκης μὲ ζωομόρφους παραστάσεις’, Βυζαντινά 9 (1977), 23–95.

Oates 1960: Oates, David, ‘A Summary Report on the Excavations of the Byzantine Institute in the Kariye Camii: 1957 and 1958’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960), 223–231.

Pazaras 1988: Παζαράς, Θεοχάρης, Ανάγλυφες σαρκοφάγοι και επιτύμβιες πλάκες της μέσης και ύστερης βυζαντινής περιόδου στην Ελλάδα, Athens 1988.

Orlandos 1929: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Ὁ Ταξιάρχης τῆς Λοκρίδος’, Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Bυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν ΣΤ΄ (1929), 355–368.

Pazaras 2001: Παζαράς, Θεοχάρης, Τα βυζαντινά γλυπτά του καθολικού της μονής Βατοπεδίου, Thessaloniki 2001.

Orlandos 1936a: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Ἡ παρὰ τὴν Ἄρταν μονὴ τῶν Βλαχερνῶν’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Β΄ (1936), 3–50.

Pazaras 2006: Παζαράς, Θεοχάρης, ‘Βυζαντινά γλυπτά από το κελί του Ραβδούχου στο Άγιον Όρος’, Δώρον, τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Νίκο Νικονάνο, Thessaloniki 2006, 135–146.

Orlandos 1936b: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Ὁ Ἅγιος Δημήτριος τοῦ Κατσούρη’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Β΄ (1936), 57–69.

Pennas 1992: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Ταξιάρχες Δράμας’, Η Δράμα και η περιοχή της. Ιστορία και πολιτισμός, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Δράμα 24–25 Νοεμβρίου 1989, Drama 1992.

Orlandos 1937: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Χριστιανικὰ γλυπτὰ τοῦ Μουσείου Σμύρνης’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Γ΄ (1937), 128–152.

Pennas 2000: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, Μελέτη μεσοβυζαντινής γλυπτικής. Νάξος-Πάρος, Athens 2000.

Orlandos 1938: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Τὰ βυζαντινὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Καστορίας’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Δ΄ (1938), 1–210.

Pennas 2008: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Νέα στοιχεία αποκατάστασης και ερμηνείας του τέμπλου της Παναγίας Κρήνας στη Χίο’, La sculpture byzantine VIIe– XIIe siècles. Actes du colloque international organisé par la 2e Éphorie des antiquitiés byzantines et l’École française d’Athènes (6–8 septembre 2000), BCH supplément 49, Athens 2008, 447–465.

Orlandos 1939–1940: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Ἡ Μητρόπολις τῶν Σερρῶν’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Ε΄(1939–1940), 153–166. Orlandos 1948: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Βυζαντινὰ γλυπτὰ τῆς Ρόδου’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος ΣΤ΄ (1948), 215–221.

Pelekanidis 1988: Πελεκανίδης, Στυλιανός, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών ψηφιδωτών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος, Ι, Νησιωτική Ελλάς, Thessaloniki 1988.

Orlandos 1951: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Ἡ ’Πισκοπὴ τῆς Σαντορήνης’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Ζ΄ (1951), 178–214.

Peschlow 1972: Peschlow, Urs, ‘Neue Beobachtungen zur Architektur und Ausstattung der Koimesiskirche in Iznik’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 22 (1972), 145–187.

Orlandos 1955–1956: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, ‘Βυζαντινὰ μνημεῖα τῆς Ἂνδρου’, Ἀρχεῖον τῶν Bυζαντινῶν Mνημείων τῆς Ἑλλάδος Η΄ (1955–1956), 3–67.

Peschlow 1975: Peschlow, Urs, ‘Byzantinische Plastik in Didyma’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 25 (1975), 211–257.

Orlandos 1970: Ορλάνδος, Κ. Αναστάσιος, Ἡ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ καὶ αἱ βυζαντιναὶ τοιχογραφίαι τῆς μονῆς τοῦ Θεολόγου Πάτμου, Athens 1970.

Peschlow 1990: Peschlow, Urs, ‘Materialen zur Kirche des H. Nikolaos in Myra im Mittelalter’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 40 (1990), 207–258.

Ousterhout 1991–1992: Ousterhout, Robert, ‘Some Notes on the Construction of Christos Ho Pantepoptes (Eski Imaret Camii) in Istanbul’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας ΙΣΤ΄ (1991–1992), 47–56.

Peschlow 1994: Peschlow, Urs, ‘Der mittelbyzantinische Ambo aus archäologischer Sicht’, Θυμίαμα στη μνήμη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα, τόμος Ι: Κείμενα, τόμος ΙΙ: Πίνακες, Athens 1994, 255–260.

Pallas 1950: Πάλλας, Δημήτριος, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικὰ θωράκια μετὰ ρόμβου’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 74 (1950), 233–249.

Poulou-Papadimitriou 1998: Πούλου-Παπαδημητρίου, Ναταλία, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικά και μεσοβυζαντινά αρχιτεκτονικά γλυπτά από την Αναία’, in Stylianos Lampakis (ed.) Η βυζαντινή Μικρά Ασία (6ος–12ος αι.) [Ε.Ι.Ε./ΙΒΕ, Διεθνή Συμπόσια 6], Athens 1998, 354–358.

Pallis 2009: Πάλλης, Γιώργος, ‘Χριστιανικά γλυπτά από το Επάνω Κάστρο της Άνδρου’, Εὔανδρος. Τόμος εἰς μνήμην Δημητρίου Ι. Πολέμη, Andros 2009, 251–267. 144

‘Inside the Holy Chancelli’ στην πρωτοβυζαντινή Κρήτη’, Creta romana e protobizantina, Atti del Congresso Internazionale (Iraklion, 23–30 settembre 2000), v. III.2, Padova 2000, 1147–1159.

Poupaki 2011: Πουπάκη, Ειρήνη Α., Κωακοί λίθοι και κωακή λιθοξοΐα. Η χρήση των λίθων της Κω στην αρχιτεκτονική, γλυπτική και κατασκευή επιτυμβίων, ενεπίγραφων μνημείων και τέχνεργων. Αρχαϊκή-παλαιοχριστιανική περίοδος. Η σημασία της για την οικονομία του νησιού, unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2011.

Weitzmann 1935: Weitzmann, Kurt, Die byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. und 10. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1935.

Sheppard 1969: Sheppard, Carl D., ‘Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs’, Art Bulletin 51 (1969), 65–71.

Weitzmann 1979: Weitzmann, Kurt, Age of Spirituality. Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, New York 1979.

Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1992: Σκλάβου-Μαυροειδή, Μαρία, ‘Δύο θέματα της παλαιοχριστιανικής γλυπτικής τον 11ο αιώνα’, Ευφρόσυνον, Αφιέρωμα στον Μανόλη Χατζηδάκη, v. 2, Athens 1992, 543–548.

Vanderheyde 1997: Vanderheyde, Catherine, ‘Les reliefs de l’église Saint-Donat à Glyki (Épire)’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 121 (1997), 697–719.

Sklavou-Mavroeidi 1999: Σκλάβου-Μαυροειδή, Μαρία, Γλυπτά του Βυζαντινού Μουσείου Αθηνών, Athens 1999.

Vanderheyde 1998: Vanderheyde, Catherine, ‘Deux exemples de sculpteurs locaux et itinérants en Grèce au XIe siècle’, Τόποι. Orient-Occident 8/2 (1998), 765–775.

Sodini 1995: Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘La sculpture médiobyzantine: le marbre en ersatz et tel qu’en lui même’, in Cyril Mango, Gilbert Dagron (eds.), Constantinople and Its Hinterland, Papers from the Twenty-Seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies (Oxford, April 1993), Aldershot 1995, 289–311.

Vanderheyde 2005: Vanderheyde, Catherine, La sculpture architecturale byzantine dans le thème de Nikopolis du Xe au début du XIIIe siècle (Épire, Étolie-Acarnanie et Sud de l’Albanie), Paris 2005.

Sotiriou 1931: Σωτηρίου, Μαρία, ‘Ὁ ναός τῆς Σκριποῦς στὴ Βοιωτία’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 1931, 119–157.

Varalis 2016: Βαραλής, Ιωάννης, ‘Η γλυπτική του 12ου αιώνα στην Άνδρο: Ζητήματα προέλευσης και εργαστηρίων’, in G. Pallis (ed.), Η βυζαντινή Άνδρος (4ος–12ος αιώνας). Νεότερα από την αρχαιολογική έρευνα και τις αποκαταστάσεις των μνημείων, Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Αθήνα 20 Μαρτίου 2015, Andros 2016, 155–171.

Sotiriou 1937: Σωτηρίου, Γεώργιος, ‘Ἡ βυζαντινὴ γλυπτικὴ τῆς Ἑλλάδος κατὰ τὸν 7ον καὶ 8ον αἰῶνα’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 70 (1937), 171–184.

Voinis 1884: Βοΐνη, Κυρίλλου ἱεροδιακόνου, Ἀκολουθία ἱερά τοῦ ὁσίου καὶ θεοφόρου πατρὸς ἡμῶν Χριστοδούλου τοῦ θαυματουργοῦ, Athens 1884.

Sotiriou 1960–1961: Σωτηρίου, Μαρία, ‘Τὸ καθολικὸν τῆς μονῆς Πετράκη Ἀθηνῶν’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Β΄ (1960–1961), 101–129.

Vocotopoulos 1975: Βοκοτόπουλος, Παναγιώτης Λ., Ἡ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ εἰς τὴν δυτικὴν Στερεὰν Ἑλλάδα καὶ τὴν Ἤπειρον ἀπὸ τοῦ τέλους τοῦ 7ου μέχρι τοῦ τέλους τοῦ 10ου αἰῶνος, Thessaloniki 1975.

Sodini 2010: Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘Η χρήση μαρμάρου και πέτρας (7ος–15ος αιώνας)’, in A. Laiou (ed.), Οικονομική ιστορία του Βυζαντίου από τον 7ο έως τον 15ο αιώνα, v. Α΄, Athens 2010, 223–248.

Striker, Kuban 1971: Striker, Cecil L., Kuban, Y. Doğan,’Work at Kalenderhane Camii in Istanbul. Third and Fourth Preliminary Reports’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971), 251–258.

Vocotopoulos 1980–1981: Βοκοτόπουλος, Παναγιώτης Λ., ‘Ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Παντοκράτορος στὸ Μοναστηράκι Βονίτσης’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας Ι΄ (1980–1981), 357–377.

Stampolidis, Tassoulas, Filimonos-Tsopotou 2011: Stampolidis, Nicholas Chr., Tassoulas, Yorgos, Filimonos-Tsopotou, Melina (eds.), Islands off the Beaten Track. An Archaeological Journey to the Greek Islands of Kastellorizo, Symi, Halki, Tilos and Nisyros, Athens 2011.

Voyadjis 2012: Βογιατζής, Σωτήρης, Η οικοδομική ιστορία της Ιεράς Μονής Αγίου Ιωάννου Θεολόγου Πάτμου, Thessaloniki 2012. Vranousi 1966: Βρανούση, Έρα, Τὰ ἁγιολογικὰ κείμενα τοῦ Ὁσίου Χριστοδούλου, ἱδρυτοῦ τῆς ἐν Πάτμῳ μονῆς. Φιλολογικὴ παράδοσις καὶ ἱστορικαὶ μαρτυρίαι, Athens1996.

Strzygowski 1902: Strzygowski, Josef, ‘Καισαριανή. Συμβολαὶ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν τῆς ἀρχαιοτέρας χριστιανικῆς τέχνης ἐν Ἑλλάδι’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 1902, 53–95.

Vranousi 1980: Βρανούση, Έρα, Βυζαντινὰ ἔγγραφα τῆς μονῆς Πάτμου, Α΄, Αὐτοκρατορικὰ, Athens 1980.

Talbot-Rice 1950: Talbot-Rice, David, ‘The Leaved Cross’, Byzantinoslavica 11 (1950), 72–81.

Xyngopoulos 1925: Ξυγγόπουλος, Ανδρέας, ‘Τὸ ἀνάγλυφον τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς Βόλου’, Ἐπετηρίς Ἑταιρείας Bυζαντινῶν Σπουδῶν Β΄ (1925), 107–121.

Τhesauroi tou Agiou Orous: Θησαυροὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Ὄρους, exhibition catalogue, Thessaloniki 1997².

Xyngopoulos 1956: Ξυγγόπουλος, Ανδρέας, ‘Ὁ ναὸς τῆς Ἐπισκοπῆς Σκοπέλου’, Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφημερίς 95 (1956), 181–198.

Tsigonaki 2000: Τσιγωνάκη, Χριστίνα, ‘Εισηγμένα αρχιτεκτονικά γλυπτά και τοπικά εργαστήρια 145

12 Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace Maria Kontogiannopoulou Abstract: Near Evros river, to the south of the village of Prangi the complex of a Byzantine monastery was excavated, with its katholikon, a vaulted single-nave church, decorated with a marble altarscreen. The remaining parts of the altarscreen result in the reconstruction of its original form as a colonnade altarscreen or portico of six pillars, and capitals, an architrave, and two closure slabs. According to its excavators, the monastery was founded in the late 13th century and was abandoned towards the end of the Late Byzantine period or in the early years of the Ottoman period. The sculptures of Prangi have, so far, been dated from the 11th to the beginning of the 13th century. However, a date between the late 11th and the early 12th century would be more precise, according to their decorative patterns, and technique. Νοτίως του χωριού Πραγγί, στη θέση Πανωκκλήσι ή Γνηματούδια κοντά στον δρόμο που οδηγεί από το Διδυμότειχο στο Πύθιο, ανασκάφτηκε πριν τριάντα περίπου χρόνια το συγκρότημα μίας βυζαντινής μονής. Ήρθαν στο φως το καθολικό της μονής, ένας μονόχωρος θολοσκεπής ναός, και δύο μικρά, επίσης μονόχωρα, παρεκκλήσια. Το καθολικό διέθετε μαρμάρινο τέμπλο, από το οποίο διατηρούνται, τμήμα του στυλοβάτη, ορισμένα από τα στηρίγματα με δύο κιονόκρανα, το μεγαλύτερο μέρος του επιστυλίου και τμήματα δύο θωρακίων. Μόνο ο στυλοβάτης διασώθηκε στην αρχική του θέση. Από τα υπόλοιπα μέλη, τα περισσότερα βρίσκονται στην αποθήκη του Μουσείου Διδυμοτείχου, ενώ τα θωράκια έχουν περιληφθεί στη μόνιμη έκθεση του ίδιου Μουσείου. Τα διασωθέντα στοιχεία του τέμπλου επιτρέπουν την αναπαράστασή του ως ενιαίου με έξι πεσσίσκους με συμφυείς κιονίσκους και κιονόκρανα, επιστύλιο και δύο θωράκια. Από τα τμήματα του τέμπλου κοσμούνται, με φυτικό διάκοσμο τα κιονόκρανα και το επιστύλιο, ενώ τα θωράκια με γεωμετρικό διάκοσμο και σταυρούς. Κιονόκρανα και επιστύλιο είναι πολύ καλώς επεξεργασμένα, εμφανίζουν μεταξύ τους συγγένεια ως προς το διάκοσμο και την εκτέλεση και είναι δυνατό να συσχετιστούν με τα γλυπτά της Κωνσταντινούπολης του τέλους του 11ου ή των αρχών του 12ου αιώνα. Συγγενικά μεταξύ τους είναι τα όχι ιδιαίτερα προσεγμένης τεχνικής δύο θωράκια με το γεωμετρικό διάκοσμο. Η επιλογή των συγκεκριμένων κοσμημάτων τα συνδέει με την παράδοση του 11ου αιώνα. Η μονή ιδρύθηκε, σύμφωνα με τους ανασκαφείς, Χαράλαμπο Μπακιρτζή και Κώστα Τσουρή, στο τέλος του 13ου αιώνα και εγκαταλείφθηκε προς το τέλος της υστεροβυζαντινής περιόδου ή στις αρχές της οθωμανικής κυριαρχίας. Τα γλυπτά που απαρτίζουν το τέμπλο του Πραγγιού έχουν έως τώρα χρονολογηθεί από τον 11ο έως και τις αρχές του 13ου αιώνα. Η τοποθέτησή τους στο τέλος του 11ου ή στις αρχές του 12ου αιώνα θα ήταν, κατά την άποψή μου, περισσότερο ακριβής, καθώς σε αυτήν οδηγούν τα διακοσμητικά τους θέματα και η κατεργασία τους. Keywords: Byzantine Thrace, byzantine architectural sculpture, marble altarscreen, byzantine sculpture decorative patterns, byzantine workshops.

The village of Prangi* lies close to the Evros river and the Greek-Turkish border, half way between Didymoteichon and Pythion (map 1). Some thirty years ago a Byzantine monastery was excavated south of the village, at the site

called Panokklesi or Gnematoudia (Fig. 12.1).1 It included the katholikon, a vaulted single-nave church, as well as two small single-nave chapels. A paved court bordered with panels extended to the west of the katholikon, while the monastery was protected overall by a stone-made precinct. According to the excavators, Charalampos

* I would like to thank Mr Ioannes Kanonides, (then) Head of the (former) 15th Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities for granting me permission to study and publish the altar-screen. Thanks are also due to members of staff of the Ephorate, at the Didymoteichon Museum, for their valuable help during my research there.

Bakirtzis 1978, 327 ff;Bakirtzis 1994, 204, 205, 207; DautermannMaguire 1997, 38–39, n. 4; Dennert 1997, 107, n. 219, pl. 39; Ousterhout– Bakirtzis 2007, 154ff; Kontogiannopoulou 2014, n. 1–8, pl. 1. 1 

147

Maria Kontogiannopoulou

Figure 12.1. Prangi, Monastery ground plan.

Bakirtzis and Kostas Tsouris, the monastery was founded in the late 13th century and was abandoned towards the end of the Late Byzantine period or in the early years of the Ottoman period. This dating was exclusively based on excavation evidence since no written sources, concerning the monastery, have survived. The katholikon was decorated with architectural sculptures, such as cornices, door frames and window sashes.2 It was also adorned with liturgical furniture, as the remaining parts of the marble altar-screen indicate.3 The stylobate4 (Fig.12.1) is relatively well preserved.5 On its upper surface traces of mortises are visible; vertical supports would have fitted into them. Two of the supports are preserved almost complete (Figs. 12.2a and 15.2b);6 they are small rectangular-sectioned pillars with similarly-shaped jambs. A part of an integrated octagonal colonette remains on one of these pillars. A fragment from a third pillar also survives, but without a jamb. Two impost capitals (Figs. 12.3a and 12.3b) with a flat abacus and octagonal gorgerin also belong to the altarscreen.7 The architrave (Fig. 12.4) was articulated, like the stylobate; it is reconstructed from several fragments but is missing its extremities.8 Its profile is composite, bevelled with mouldings. Two rectangular closure slabs, partly

(a)

(b)

Figure 12.2a-b. Pillars with integrated colonettes.

reconstructed today, (Figs. 12.5a and 12.5b), completed the altar-screen.9 Only the stylobate remains in situ. The closure slabs are exhibited at the Archaeological Museum of Didymoteichon, while the other remaining parts of the altar-screen are kept in the Museum stores. The members of the altar-screen were briefly mentioned in the excavation reports,10 whilst one of the capitals was included in the exhibition The Glory of Byzantium and was also discussed by Martin Dennert in his study of the Middle Byzantine capitals.11

2  Bakirtzis 1994, 207, for a photograph of a carved stone cornice fragment from the architectural decoration of the church. See also, Ousterhout– Bakirtzis 2007, 158, for a photograph of glass window sash fragments. 3  Bakirtzis 1978, 327–239, drawing on p. 328, pls 157α–δ, 158α; Ousterhout–Bakirtzis 2007, 155 and figure on the same page, 157 and figure on the same page; Dautermann-Maguire 1997, 38–39, n. 4. Dennert 1997, 107, n. 219, pl. 39. 4  For all the English terms used here in relation to the Byzantine altar screen, see Κalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi-Kesisoglou 2010, 320 figure 625. 5  Bakirtzis 1978, 327–239, drawing on p. 328, pl. 157α; Ousterhout– Bakirtzis 2007, 155 and figure on the same page. 6  Bakirtzis 1978, 239, drawing on p. 328. 7  For one of the capitals, see Bakirtzis 1978, 329, pl. 158α; Bakirtzis 1994, 205; Dautermann-Maguire 1997, 38–39, n. 4; Dennert 1997, 107, n. 219, pl. 39; Ousterhout–Bakirtzis 2007, 157 and figure on the same page, lower left. The second capital is unpublished. 8  Bakirtzis 1978, 329, pl. 158β; Bakirtzis 1994, 204; Ousterhout–Bakirtzis 2007, 157 and figure on the same page, lower left. Its material has not been identified, therefore conclusions with regards to its provenance cannot be drawn.

The reconstruction of the Prangi altar-screen’s original form is facilitated by the survival of the stylobate in situ across the opening of the sanctuary apse. The mortises denote two door openings, one at the centre, corresponding to the sanctuary door and another to the north for the 9  Bakirtzis 1978, 329, pl. 157β;Ousterhout–Bakirtzis 2007, 157 and figure on the same page, upper left. Bakirtzis 1978, 329, pl. 157γ; Ousterhout–Bakirtzis 2007, 157 and figure on the same page, upper right. 10  See note 3. 11  See note 7.

148

 Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace

(a)

(a)

(b) Figure 12.3a-b. Capitals.

Figure 12.4. Architrave.

prothesis door. The lower intercolumnar spaces north of the sanctuary door and north of the prothesis door would have been screened with closure slabs. So far, the altar-screen’s appearance is typical.12 However, the stylobate does not survive south of the sanctuary door and this confuses the issue. Although this part of the altar-screen would have been expected to be symmetrical to the one north of the

(b) Figure 12.5a-b. Panels.

sanctuary door,13 the general asymmetry of the church’s interior, exacerbated by the bulky buttresses, results in a narrower southern half and precludes such a solution. It is most probable that the southern part of the altar-screen included only two intercolumnar spaces with two closure

For general issues concerning Middle Byzantine altar-screens, see Bréhier 1940, 48–56; Lasareff 1964–1965, 117–143. Delvoye 1966, 922 ff; Chatzidakis 1973, columns 326–353; Chatzidakis 1976, 333–366; Grabar 1976, 28 ff; Epstein 1981, 1–28; Walter 1993, 203–228; Walter 1993, 251–267; Spieser 1999, 131–164; Ćurčić 2000, 134–142; Lidov 2000, 713–717; Bouras – Boura 2002, 446 ff. and 526 ff. Gerstel 2006, 135–161; Kalopissi-Verti 2006, 107–132; Vanderheyde 2007, 77–98, fig. 1–29. For the inscriptions on Middle Byzantine altar-screens, mainly on the architraves, see Pallis 2013, 761–810; Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 150ff, with a typology of the Middle Byzantine templa in northern and central Greece (Thessaly), Melvani 2015, 305ff, with a brief presentation of the Middle Byzantine marble altar-screens of the monasteries on Mount Athos. Kontogiannopoulou 2016, 880. 12 

13  Openings in front of parabemata in all Middle Byzantine altar-screens are of a similar configuration, including those in single-nave churches. For example, the altar-screens of Mount Papikion, near Prangi, as in the case of the excavated monastery katholikon in the Kerasia village, near Komotini, see Zekos 1989, figs 2, 3; Zekos 1998, 752.

149

Maria Kontogiannopoulou associated holes or fittings. Similarly, no traces of fittings for hangings could be seen. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of the features mentioned above were fitted onto the altar-screen using alternative methods, probably with the use of mortar.16 One of the dating criteria used by the excavators for the katholikon was the style of sculpture, which they attributed to the 13th century.17 This dating begs for revision, at least with regard to the altar-screen. The vertical supports are quite similar to the ones on the altar-screen in the Rabdouchos Cell on Mount Athos, dating to the 11th century.18 The pillars are decorated on their front with a geometric ornament, very popular in the Early Christian period, but in this case simplified and executed in low relief, almost incised.19 This decorative pattern is frequently encountered in Middle Byzantine sculpture, especially on pillars and sanctuary jambs, for example at the katholikon of the Vatopedi Monastery20 and at the two churches of the Hosios Loukas Monastery.21

Figure 12.6. Stylobate reconstruction.

slabs and a single pillar between them (Figs. 12.6 and 12.7), but lacked any door opening for the diakonicon.14

The two capitals are similar in shape and decoration. On each side two large acanthus leaves culminate into a trefoil, while below emanate small acanthus-like palmettes. The low relief matches the carving technique of the veins of the acanthus leaves. Decoration is dense, well-designed and skilfully executed. In shape and decoration, these capitals resemble late 11th to early 12th-centuries Constantinopolitan examples, as the one in Koça Mustafa Paşa Camii22 (Fig. 12. 8) and another reused in the 14th-century chapel of the Pammakaristos Monastery.23 The very high quality of the Prangi capitals makes plausible their attribution to a late 11th–early 12th centuries Constantinopolitan workshop.

The two pillars with jambs correspond exactly to the prothesis opening. The third pillar, without any jamb, must have been part of the southern section of the altar-screen. The two capitals, with gorgerins slightly wider than the surviving colonette, must have fitted on top of the supports framing the sanctuary gate; these supports do not survive but could have been similar to the existing ones. The narrowest closure slab fits the northernmost intercolumnar space of the altar-screen, whereas the other slab must have fitted into the southern section. Two methods have been used in joining the Prangi altar-screen parts: mortises carved into the stylobate and the architrave for fitting vertical supports and mortar for securing slabs. The proposed reconstruction results in the type of colonnade altar-screen or portico,15 equal to the inner width of the church and reaching a height of 2.90 m. It was mainly decorated on the side facing the congregation and was furnished with iconostasis doors, at least on the prothesis opening as can be concluded by the presence of mortises on the pillar sides. The Prangi altar-screen does not seem to have included epistyle or despotic icons or lamps, as the largely surviving architrave lacks any

The architrave’s upper register features the well-known motif of alternating acanthus-like palmettes and lotus flowers, whereas the lower register is decorated with a composite interlace. Carving is both dense and carefully executed, similar to the capitals, although drilling is used more on the architrave. Such motifs are frequently encountered in Byzantine sculpture.24 Similar vegetal decoration appears on a late 11th-century capital at the chapel of the Pammakaristos Monastery25 and on the 12thcentury proskynetarion in the Church of the Theotokos at

14  Byzantine church architectural design after the Iconoclasm normally included two identical or almost identical areas on both sides of the horizontal axis of the church, one for prothesis and the other for diakonicon. From the 12th century, though, and especially from the 13th century onwards a tendency for less symmetry is observed and a downgrading or even a deformation of the diakonicon can be seen, mainly in small churches. Thus, in some churches, such as Saints Anargyroi at Kastoria, the basilica of Servia, and the Dormition of Theotokos at Kalambaka, a solid wall was erected between sanctuary and the diakonicon. In these cases there are no traces of a diakonicon screen. That probably occurred as a result of the fact that the Little Entrance procession had already lost its importance, see further Bouras – Boura 2002, 359. Also Κarayianni – Mamaloukos, 95 ff. 15  For the form of the Middle Byzantine altar-screen, see footnote 12. For a typology of the Middle Byzantine altar-screens in northern and central Greece (Thessaly), see Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 150ff. Also, Kontogiannopoulou 2016, 880.

16  For liturgical furniture of marble Byzantine altar-screens in northern and central Greece, see Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 150ff. 17  See note 3. 18  Pazaras 2006, 135–146. 19  For similarly-decorated Early Christian architectural members, especially pillars, and for the origins of this ornament see Orlandos 1954, 515, figures 473, 474, 479.2–6 and 481, with examples. 20  Pazaras 2001, 36, fig. 30. For the Middle Byzantine altar-screens on Mount Athos, see recently Melvani 2015, 305 ff. 21  Stikas 1970, fig. 122, pl. 179. See also Boura 1980, fig. 135. 22  Dennert 1997, 105ff, n. 216, pl. 39. 23  Dennert 1997, 118ff, n. 251, pl. 45. 24  The door frame of the lite in the Church of the Theotokos in Hosios Loukas is a superb example, see Boura 1980, 110, fig. 181 and 64 ff. with more examples. For the origin of the ornament, see Soteriou 1924, 21. Also Boura 1975–1976, 241; Pazaras 1988, 101;Diamantis 1992, 252. 25  Dennert 1997, 118ff, n. 251, pl. 45.

150

 Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace

Figure 12.7. Altar-screen reconstruction.

David, a cruciform interlace and a Solomon’s knot.32 Ivy leaves and palmettes fill in the spaces between geometric ornaments. Comparable slabs were widely used in Byzantine altar-screens during the late 10th and, mostly, the 11th centuries.33 Similarly-decorated panels appear at the dibela of the katholikon of Vatopedi Monastery, at Saint Sophia in Kiev, at the Protaton and at the Rabdouchos Cell. Furthermore, a capital from Serçicler in Asia Minor shares similarities with the slabs of Prangi, including the cruciform interlaces.34

Figure 12.8. Constantinople. Κoça Μustafa Paşa Camii. Capital.

The two rectangular frames in the second slab enclose a Latin cross with knots, formed of an interlace and another cross conjoined with a rectangle and similarly ending in knots.35 Rectangular frames appear frequently on 11th and 12th-centuries panels and enclose single ornaments as well as complex decorative arrangements.36 Similar geometric crosses appear on an 11th-century capital from Κuşadasi (New Ephesus) in Asia Minor37 and on panels of the phiale at Grand Lavra Monastery (Fig. 12.9).38 Cross-shaped interlaces adorn late 10th-early 12th-centuries sculptures at Hagia Irene in Constantinople,39 at Saint Nicholas

Hosios Loukas.26 The lower register interlace was often used in late 11th and early 12th-centuries sculpture, as on some capitals from Asia Minor,27 on the well-known Torcello slabs28 and on two slabs in the Hosios Loukas Monastery.29 The architrave seems to be contemporary with these works and its superb craftsmanship also betrays a Constantinopolitan workshop. The two slabs are closely associated in both decoration and technique. The first is decorated with the pentaomphalon or ‘five loaf’ ornament, featuring a central lozenge and four interlacing circles.30 The lozenge encloses a lemniskos31 weave, whereas the circles surround a rosette, a Star of

About the Star of David and the Solomon’s knot in Byzantine art, see Meinardus 1975–1976, 96 ff., with numerous examples. 33  For example on the phiale at Grand Lavra Monastery, see Grabar 1976, 68–69, n. 62, pl. XXXIX, and on the altar-screen and windows of the Hosios Loukas katholikon, see Grabar 1976, 50ff, n. 44, pl. XXIa. 34  For the Vatopedi panels, see Pazaras 2001, 25ff, drawings 7β, 8β and 9β, figs 9, 11, 17, 19, 21 and 23. For sculptures at Saint Sophia in Kiev, see Grabar 1976, 83ff, n. 76, pl. LIXb–c. For the Protaton altar-screen and its date, see recently in Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 294ff, nos 144– 184, pls 21–22. For the Rabdouchos Cell, see Pazaras 2006, 374, fig. 5. For the Serçicler capital, see Grabar 1976, 43, n. 13, pl. ΙΧd. 35  For the Latin cross in Byzantine sculpture, see Sheppard 1969, Marble Slabs, 66, footnote 11; Boura 1980, 48, figs 49–50. Also, Pazaras 1988, 117. 36  Eleventh-century examples include a panel in Hosios Loukas at Aliveri, Euboea, see Grabar 1976, 60–61, n. 45, pl. ΧΧΙΧa. Twelfthcentury examples include the altar-screen panels of the Hosios Meletios Monastery katholikon in Megara, Attica, see Grabar 1976, 102–103, n. 85, pl. LXXIVc,d and Saint Panteleimon at Nerezi, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, see Sinkević 2000, fig. XXXIV. 37  Dennert 1997, 87, n. 184, pl. 33. 38  Boura, 1975–1976, pl. 48, 47b, 48b. See also, Kontogiannopoulou 2014, nos 209–210, pl. 26ε. 39  Grabar 1976, 39, n. 6, pl XVIe. 32 

Bouras – Boura 2002, 218, fig. 244. Dennert 1997, 68ff, n. 147, 149 and 154, pls 26, 27 and 28 respectively. 28  Grabar 1976, 115–116, nos 112, 113, pl. XCI. See also Polacco 1976, 138ff, nos 85–86. 29  Boura 1980, 98ff, figs 163, 164. 30  The term appears in documents, see Miclosich-Müller, 1860–1890, 3, 56. The ornament that probably has its roots in woodwork (Pallas 1950, 233–249, with examples of early Christian marble panels) can be seen in several 5th-century sculptures and mosaic floors (Boura 1980, 90–91, Dimitrakopoulou – Skyloyianni 1985–1986 157 ff, and Κavvadia – Spondyli 1989–1990, 200, footnote 1). The pentaomphalon became very popular in Byzantine sculpture, mostly on panels, such as the ones at the choirs of the katholikon of the Vatopedi Monastery, see Pazaras 2001, 25 ff., drawings 7β, 8β, 9β, fig. 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23. See also Bouras – Boura 2002, 558, for more examples. It was also widespread among the epistyles, such as the one at the Vatopedi katholikon, see Pazaras 2001, 28, fig. 3, 4. Also, Boura 1975–1976, 240; Boura 1980, 90–91. 31  Meinardus 1975–1976, 97 ff.; Bouras – Boura, 557, footnotes 244, 245 with the bibliography. 26  27 

151

Maria Kontogiannopoulou

Figure 12.9. Mount Athos. Monastery of Megisti Laura. Phiale. Panels.

in Bari40 and at the Church of the Theotokos in Hosios Loukas.41 Almost identical crosses appear on two sculpted members, near Larissa, Thessaly, both of a late 11th-early 12th-centuries dating, a capital from the katholikon of an excavated Byzantine monastery in Metsiares at Kokkino Nero42, (Fig. 12.10) and a now-missing panel from the Monastery of Saint Demetrios at Stomion.43 The range and execution of these decorative ornaments, with compartments incorporating geometric or vegetal patterns or crosses enriched with various supplementary motifs, correlates the two Prangi closure slabs with each other and with other works of 11th-century sculpture.44 Similar to the previously-discussed capitals and architrave, the low relief decoration combines the carving technique with drilling; however, ornamentation on both slabs lacks assuredness in execution and appears somewhat clumsy. They were carved by an inadequately-skilled workshop which was, however, aware of the latest developments in taste.

Figure 12.10. Kokkino Nero near Larissa. Metsiares. Katholikon of an excavated Byzantine monastery. Capital.

as well and were probably made by a workshop active in the wider area. All the Prangi sculptures date between the late 11th and the early 12th centuries45 and were probably gathered in the late 13th century from various unidentified churches and assembled into the Prangi altar-screen.46 By combining superior and more naïve sculptures of an earlier date, a liturgical structure was created, reflecting 13th-century preoccupations. This is the only possible explanation for the asymmetrical layout of the altar-screen, which would have been unthinkable in earlier centuries.47

The vertical supports and capitals of the altar-screen in Prangi were probably a product of the same workshop and were destined for the same project. They share the same material, a white marble of good quality, which reminds one of Proconnesian, and are similar in manufacture. The architrave is a high quality work, too, but I am uncertain as to whether it could be attributed to the workshop which executed the vertical supports and the capitals. Furthermore, it has been carved out of local stone. It is most probable that it was made in situ by an itinerant group from Constantinople. Finally, the panels can be associated with each other, but are both of inferior quality in relation to the other reliefs. They are of local Didymoteichon stone

Altar-screens assembled from mismatched materials or spolia were not unheard of in Byzantium, especially 45  Middle Byzantine Didymoteichon became a wealthy commercial and cultural centre thanks to its geographic position near Constantinople, particularly in 12th century when its bishopric was upgraded to an autocephalous archbishopric, see Κοgiannopoulou 2015A, 110 ff. Also, Κοgiannopoulou 2017, 28–29. For Byzantine Thrace in general, see also Papoulia, Μeraklis, Symeonidis, Κοrres, Chatzopoulos, Chidiroglou 1994, 151–210. For the architectural production in Middle Byzantine Thrace, including Didymoteichon, its connections with the art of Constantinople and the existence of local workshop, see Ousterhout 2011, 489 ff. For Middle Byzantine sculpture in Thrace related to Constantinople, see Orlandos 1933, 20 ff, Sinos 1985, passim, Zekos 1989, 677–693, Ousterhout – Bakirtzis 2007, passim. Also, Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 363. 46  In the reign of Andronikos II Paleologos, Didymoteichon became a metropolis, see Κοgiannopoulou 2015A, 110 ff. Also, Κοgiannopoulou 2017, 28–29. 47  For the Middle Byzantine altar-screen form, especially those of the northern and central Greece, see recently Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 113ff.

Grabar 1976, pl LIVb. Boura 1980, figs 49, 50. 42  Kontogiannopoulou 2015. 43  Soteriou 1928, 366, fig. 16 on p. 365. See also Sythiakaki 1999, 433– 434; Sythiakaki-Kritsimalli 2010, 139–140. 44  For a systematic analysis of defining features of 11th and 12th-centuries sculptures, see Grabar 1976, ff and Sodini 2008, 7 ff. 40  41 

152

 Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace in Constantinople, even in periods of plenty when such works radiated luxury,48 while at the same time reflected a scarcity of materials. Those altar-screens, however, expressed a concern to enhance not only the beauty of a monument but also its dignity, by rooting it in the glorious past.49 The practice continued in the Late Byzantine period, when newly quarried marble or stone was rare.50 So, at the end of the 13th century the marble altar-screen of the Taxiarches church in Drama, eastern Macedonia was built from collected Middle Byzantine elements.51

Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, περ. Δ΄, τ. Η΄(1975–1976), 85–96. Boura 1980: Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Ο γλυπτός διάκοσμος του ναού της Παναγίας στο μοναστήρι του Οσίου Λουκά, Athens 1980. Bouras – Boura 2002: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος– Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Η ελλαδική ναοδομία κατά το 12ο αι., Athens 2002. Bréhier 1940: Bréhier, Louis, ‘Anciennes clôtures de choeur antérieures aux iconostases dans les monastères de l’ Athos’, Atti del V Congresso Internazionale di Studi Bizantini (Roma 20–26 Settembre 1936), Roma 1940, 48–56.

Despite the poor economic state of Late Byzantium, in the first years of the reign of Andronikos II Paleologos (1282– 1328), thanks to the stable political context, Didymoteichon and its surrounding area became one of the most wealthy territories in the Southern Balkans, mostly thanks to agricultural production that was improved then.52 So, the spoliation of older, motley materials into an altar-screen reflects the economic and social realities of the late 13th century in Constantinople and its hinterland. Gathering the various sculptures of different dates and matching them up to build the Prangi altar-screen reflects the enthusiasm of the unknown patron of the Prangi monastery, a citizen, perhaps, of Byzantine Didymoteichon, who might have pursued through this initiative his own social recognition and advancement.53 Thus, the Prangi altar-screen exemplifies the ways in which current circumstances consume, mediate and transform the past into what is bequeathed to the future.

Buchwald 1985: Buchwald, Ηans, ‘Chancel Barrier Lintels Decorated with Carved Arcades’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), 233–276. Chatzidakis 1973: Chatzidakis, Manolis, ‘Ιkonostas’, in K. Wessel–M. Restle (eds.), Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, Stuttgard 1973, columns 326–353. Chatzidakis 1976: Chatzidakis, Manolis, ‘L’ évolution de l’ icone aux 11e–13e siècle et la tranformation du templon’, XVe Congrés International d’ études byzantines, III, Art et Archéologie, Athens 1976, 333–366.

Literature

Ćurčić 2000: Ćurčić, Slobodan, ‘Proskynetaria Icons, Saints’ Tombs and the Development of the Iconostasis’, The Iconostasis, Origins-Evolution-Symbolism, Moscow 2000, 134–142.

Bakirtzis 1978: Μπακιρτζής, Χαράλαμπος, «Πραγγί. Ν. Έβρου. Βυζαντινά, μεσαιωνικά και νεότερα μνημεία ανατολικής Μακεδονίας και Θράκης», Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 33 (1978), Β΄ 2, Χρονικά, 327–329, pls 157–158.

Dadaki 1998: Δαδάκη, Σταυρούλα, ‘Αναστήλωση του τέμπλου στο ναό Ταξιαρχών Δράμας’, Η Δράμα και η περιοχή της. Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Πρακτικά Β΄ Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης, Δράμα 18–22 Μαΐου 1994, Drama 1998, 287–293.

Bakirtzis 1994: Μπακιρτζής, Χαράλαμπος, «Βυζαντινή Θράκη (330–1453)», Θράκη, Athens 1994, 151–209.

Dautermann-Maguire 1997: Dautermann-Maguire, Εunice, ‘Fragment of a Colonnette Capital,’ in Helen Evans (ed.), The Glory of Byzantium, Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era. AD 843–1261, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 1997, 38–39, n. 4.

Bouras 1975–1976: Bouras, Laskarina, ΄Some Observations on the Grand Lavra Phiale at Mount Athos and its Bronze Strobilion’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς

Delvoye 1966: Delvoye, Charles, ‘Cancelli’, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst I, Stuttgard 1966, 922 f.f.

48  Such screens are known to have existed in Constantinople since the Early Christian period, with the Hagia Sophia screen being the supreme example; for its description by Paul the Silentiary, see Fayant and Chuvin (eds) 1997, 104–107 (lines 673–719). Sources mention such altar-screens in Middle Byzantine churches as well: Christ the Saviour, New Church, Virgin of the Pharos, Christ Panoiktirmon by Michael Attaleiates and the Pantokrator Monastery. See Chatzidakis 1973, lines 331–332; Grabar 1963, 107;Epstein 1981, 6ff. Such altar-screens have not survived since they were stripped of their precious materials either in trying times or during pillaging events. See also Sodini 2002, 129 ff. 49  Sodini 2002, 145. 50  Sodini 2002, 142. 51  Pennas 1973–1974, 850–853, draw. 8 on p. 852, pl. 638, 639. Also, Pennas 1975, 308–309, pl. 210 α–δ; Pennas 1992, 157–195; Dadaki 1998, 287–293; Pazaras 2002, 480, footnote 113. For a date to the late 11th and the early 12th centuries, see Kontogiannopoulou 2014, 313–314. 52  For the architecture of Byzantine Thrace, see Ousterhout 2011, 489 ff. 53  Kontogiannopoulou 2004, 52–53.

Dennert 1997: Dennert, Μartin, Mittelbyzantinische Kapitelle, Asia Minor Studien 25, Bonn 1997. Diamantis 1992: Διαμαντή, Καλλιόπη, ‘Βυζαντινά γλυπτά σε εκκλησίες του Νέου Μυστρά’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί ΙΑ΄ (1992), 240–273. Dimitrakopoulou-Skyloyianni 1985–1986: Δημητρακοπούλου-Σκυλογιάννη, Νικολέττα, ‘Ανάγλυφα θωράκια από το Βυζαντινο Μουσείο’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, περ. Δ΄, τ. ΙΓ΄ (1985–1986), 157–172. Epstein 1981: Epstein, Ann Wharton, ‘The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis’, 153

Maria Kontogiannopoulou Jοurnal of the British Archaeological Association CXXXIV (1981), 1–28.

Έργο Θεσσαλίας και Στερεάς Ελλάδας, 2012–2014, Από τους προϊστορικούς στους νεώτερους χρόνους, Βόλος 26.2–1.3.2015 (under publication).

Fayant & Chuvin 1997: Paul le Silentiaire, Description de Sainte-Sophie de Constantinople, ed. M. Chr. Fayant and P. Chuvin, Die 1997, 104–107 (lines 673–719).

Kontogiannopoulou 2016: Kontogiannopoulou, Maria, «Παρατηρήσεις σε μαρμάρινα μεσοβυζαντινά τέμπλα στη βόρεια Ελλάδα και στη Θεσσαλία», in Dejan Dželebdžić, Stanoje Bojanin (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Belgrade 22–27 August 2016, Thematic Sessions of Free Communications, Belgrade 2016, 880.

Gerstel 2006: Gerstel, E. J. Sharon, ‘Αn Alternate View of the Late Byzantine Sanctuary Screen’, in Sh. E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Thresholds of the Sacred, Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, Washington D.C. 2006, 135–161.

Kontogiannopoulou 2017: Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Αναστασία, ‘Πόλη και πολιτική αντιπαράθεση στο Βυζάντιο τον 14ο αιώνα, Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο προς τιμήν του ομότιμου καθηγητή Γεωργίου Βελένη, Θεσσαλονίκη, Αμφιθέατρο Αρχαίας Αγοράς 4–7 Οκτωβρίου 2017, Περιλήψεις ανακοινώσεων, Thessaloniki 2017, 28–29.

Grabar 1963: Grabar, André, Sculptures Byzantines de Constantinople (IVe–Xe siècle), Paris 1963. Grabar 1976: Grabar, André, Sculptures byzantines du Moyen Âge II (XIe–XIVe siècle), Paris 1976. Kalopissi-Verti 2006: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘The Proskynetaria of the Templon and Narthex: Form, Imagery, Connections and Reception’, in Sh. E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Thresholds of the Sacred, Architectural, Art Historical, Liturgical, and Theological Perspectives on Religious Screens, East and West, Washington D.C. 2006 , 107–132.

Lasareff 1964–1965: Lasareff, Victor, ‘Trois fragments d’ épistyles peintes et le templon byzantine’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, περ. Δ΄, τ. Δ΄(1964–1965), 117–143. Lidov 2000: Lidov, Alexei, ‘The Iconostasis: the Current State of Research’, The Iconostasis, Origins-EvolutionSymbolism, Moscow 2000, 713–717.

Κalopissi-Verti, Panayotidi-Kesisoglou 2010: ΚalopissiVerti, Sophia and Panayotidi-Kesisoglou, Maria (eds.), Multilingual Illustrated Dictionary of Byzantine Architecture and Sculpture Terminology, Herakleion 2010.

Meinardus 1975–1976: O. F. A. Meinardus, ‘The Hexagram or the Magen David in Byzantine Art’, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, περ. Δ΄, v. Η΄(1975–1976), 96–100.

Κarayianni-Mamaloukos 2009: Καραγιάννη, Φλώρα– Μαμαλούκος, Σταύρος, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στη διαμόρφωση του διακονικού κατά τη μέση και την ύστερη βυζαντινή περίοδο, Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας, περ. Δ΄, τ. Λ΄(2009), 95–102.

Melvani 2015: Melvani, Nicholas, ΄The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barriers on Mount Athos:Templon and Iconostasis, in Petridis, Platon–Foskolou, Vassiliki(eds.), Δασκάλα, Απόδοση τιμής στην καθηγήτρια Μαίρη Παναγιωτίδη – Κεσίσογλου Athens 2015, 305–335.

Kavvadia-Spondyli 1989–1990: Καββαδία-Σπονδύλη, Αριστέα, ‘Για δύο κιονόκρανα στην Καρύταινα’, Πελοποννησιακά ΙΗ΄ (1989–1990), 197–224.

F. Miclosich–J. Müller, Acta et Diplomata Graeca Medii Aevi Sacraet Profana, 1–6, 1860–1890, 3, 56.

Kontogiannopoulou 2004: Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Αναστασία, Η εσωτερική πολιτική του Ανδρονίκου Β΄ Παλαιολόγου (1282–1328). Διοίκηση-Οικονομία, (Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και Μελέται 36), Thessaloniki 2004.

Orlandos 1933: Ορλάνδος, Αναστάσιος, ‘Τα βυζαντινά μνημεία της Βήρας’, Θρακικά 4 (1933), 3–34. Orlandos 1954: Ορλάνδος, Αναστάσιος, Η ξυλόστεγος παλαιοχριστιανική βασιλική της μεσογειακής λεκάνης, Β΄, Athens 1954.

Kontogiannopoulou 2014: Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Μαρία, Τα μαρμάρινα τέμπλα στη βόρεια Ελλάδα και στη Θεσσαλία κατά τη μέση βυζαντινή περίοδο. Κατασκευή – Μορφή – Διάκοσμος (unpublished PhD thesis), University of Athens 2014 (https://www.academia.edu or https://www.didactorica.gr/eadd/?locale=en )

Ousterhout – Bakirtzis 2007: Ousterhout, Robert – Bakirtzis, Charalampos, Vera and its Monuments, The Byzantine monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, Thessaloniki 2007. Ousterhout 2011: Ousterhout, Robert, ‘The Byzantine Architecture of Thrace: The view from Constantinople’, in Charalambos Bakirtzis, Nikos Zekos and Xenophon Moniaros, (eds.), Byzantine Thrace, Evidence and RemainsProceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Thracian Studies in memory of Angeliki Laiou, Komotini, 18–22 April 2007, (Byzantinische Forschungen Internationale Zeitschrift für Byzantinistik, XXX), Amsterdam 2011, 489–502 and 839–843.

Kontogiannopoulou 2015A: Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Αναστασία, Τοπικά Συμβούλια στις βυζαντινές πόλεις. Παράδοση και εξέλιξη (13ος–15ος αιώνας)(Ακαδημία Αθηνών – Κέντρο Ερεύνης του Μεσαιωνικού και Νέου Ελληνισμού), Athens 2015. Kontogiannopoulou 2015B: Κοντογιαννοπούλου, Αθ. Μαρία, «Βυζαντινά γλυπτά από την περιοχή του ανατολικού Κισσάβου Λάρισας», 5ο Αρχαιολογικό 154

 Observations On the Altar-Screen of the Late Byzantine Church at Prangi, Thrace Pallis 2013: Pallis, Georgios, Inscriptions on Middle Byzantine Marble Templon Screens, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106.2 (2013), 761–810.

Sinos 1985: Sinos, Sefan, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira), München 1985. Sodini 2002: Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘Marble and Stoneworking in Byzantium, Seventh–Fifteenth Centuries, in Ag. Laiou (ed.), The Economic History of Byzantium from the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. 1 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies XXXIX), Whashington D.C. 2002, 129–146.

Pazaras 1988: Παζαράς, Θεόδωρος, Ανάγλυφες σαρκοφάγοι και επιτάφιες πλάκες της μέσης και ύστερης βυζαντινής περιόδου στην Ελλάδα, Athens 1988. Pazaras 2001: Παζαράς, Ν. Θεόδωρος, Τα βυζαντινά γλυπτά του καθολικού της Μονής Βατοπεδίου, Thessaloniki 2001.

Sodini 2008: Sodini, Jean-Pierre, ‘La sculpture byzantine (VIIe–XIIe siècles): acquis, problèmes et perspectives, in Ch. Pennas – C. Vanderheyde (eds.) La sculpture byzantine, VIIe–XIIe siècles, Actes du Colloque International organise par la 2ème Éphorie des Antiquités Byzantines et l’École française d’ Athènes, 6–8 septembre 2000, BCH Supplément 49, Athènes 2008.

Pazaras 2002: Παζαράς, Ν. Θεόδωρος, ‘Η γλυπτική στη Μακεδονία κατά την παλαιολόγεια περίοδο, Διεθνή Συμπόσια για τη Μακεδονία, Β΄ Συμπόσιο, Η Μακεδονία κατά την εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Θεσσαλονίκη 14–20 Δεκεμβρίου 1992’, Thessaloniki 2002, 471–504. Pazaras 2006: Παζαράς, Ν. Θεόδωρος, ‘Βυζαντινά γλυπτά από το κελί του Ραβδούχου στο Άγιον Όρος’, Δώρον, Τιμητικός Τόμος στον καθηγητή Νίκο Νικονάνο, Thessaloniki 2006, 135–146.

Spieser 1999: Spieser, Jean-Michel, ‘Le développment du templon et les images des Douzes Fêtes’, Bulletin de l’ Institut Historique Belge de Rome 69 (1999), 131–164.

Pallas 1950: Πάλλας, Δημήτριος, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικά θωράκια μετά ρόμβου’, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 74 (1950), 233–249.

Stikas 1970: Στίκας, Ευστράτιος, Το οικοδομικόν χρονικόν της μονής Οσίου Λουκά Φωκίδος, Athens 1970.

Papaggelos 1987: Παπάγγελος, Ιωακείμ, ‘Η σημασία του όρου «τέμπλον» κατά τους 11ον – 13ον αι.’, 7ο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και τέχνης, Πρόγραμμα και Περιλήψεις Ανακοινώσεων, Αθήνα 24–26 Απριλίου 1987, Athens 1987, 65–66.

Sythiakaki 1999: Συθιακάκη, Βασιλική, ‘Νομός Λάρισας. Στόμιο. Μονή Αγίου Δημητρίου, 7η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων, Περιοδείες – καταγραφές – εντοπισμός μνημείων’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 54 (1999), Β΄1, Χρονικά, 433–434.

Papoulia, Μeraklis, Symeonidis, Κοrres, Chatzopoulos, Chidiroglou 1994: Β. Παπούλια, Μ. Μερακλής, Χ. Συμεωνίδης, Θ. Κορρές, Κ. Χατζόπουλος, Π. Χιδήρογλου (eds.), Βυζαντινή Θράκη, Komotini 1994, 151–210.

Sythiakaki-Kritsimalli 2010: Συθιακάκη-Κριτσιμάλλη, Βασιλική, ‘Τα γλυπτά του καθολικού της Μονής Αγίου Δημητρίου στο Στόμιο (Τσάγεζι)’, in Στ. Γ. Γουλούλης – Στ. Τ. Σδρόλια (eds.), Άγιος Δημήτριος Στομίου. Ιστορία – Τέχνη – Ιστορική γεωγραφία του μοναστηριού και της περιοχής των εκβολών του Πηνειού, Larissa 2010, 123–154.

Pennas 1973–1974: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Ναός Παμμεγίστων Ταξιαρχών, Δράμα, Ν. Δράμας, 1973/4, Βυζαντινά-μεσαιωνικά μνημεία ανατολικής Μακεδονίας και Θράκης’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 29 (1973/4), Β΄3, Χρονικά, 850–853, plan 8 on page 852, figs. 638, 639.

Soteriou 1924: Σωτηρίου, Γεώργιος, ‘Ο εν Θήβαις βυζαντινός ναός Γρηγορίου του Θεολόγου’, Ἀρχαιολογική Ἐφημερίς 63 (1924), 1–26. Soteriou 1928: Σωτηρίου, Γεώργιος, ‘Βυζαντινά μνημεία Θεσσαλίας ΙΓ΄ και ΙΔ΄ αιώνος, Η μονή της Παναγίας και του Αγίου Δημητρίου παρά το Τσάγεζι (Κομνήνειο – Κονομειό)’, Έπετηρίς Εταιρείας Βυζαντινών Σπου­ δών E΄ (1928), 348–375.

Pennas 1975: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Βυζαντινάμεσαιωνικά μνημεία ανατολικής Μακεδονίας και Θράκης’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 30 (1975), Β΄2, Χρονικά, 308–309, figs. 210 α-δ. Pennas 1992: Πέννας, Χαράλαμπος, ‘Ταξιάρχες Δράμας’, Η Δράμα και η περιοχή της, Ιστορία και Πολιτισμός, Επιστημονική Συνάντηση, Δράμα 24–25 Νοεμβρίου 1989, Πρακτικά, Drama 1992, 157–195.

Vanderheyde 2007: Vanderheyde, Catherine, ‘The Carved Decoration of Middle and Late Byzantine Templa’, Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeshichte 5 (2007), 77–98, fig. 1–29.

Polacco 1976: Polacco, Renato, Sculture paleochristiane e altomedioevali di Torcello, Torcello 1976. Sheppard 1969: Sheppard, D. Carl, ‘Byzantine Carved Marble Slabs’, The Art Bulletin LI (1969), 65–71.

Βογιατζής 2019: Σ. Βογιατζής, Το καθολικό της Ιεράς Μονής Μεγίστης Λαύρας στο Άγιον Όρος. Ιστορία και αρχιτεκτονική, Αθήνα 2019

Sinkević 2000: Sinkević, Ida, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi, Architecture, Programm, Patronage, Wiesbaden 2000.

Walter 1993: Walter, Christopher, ‘A New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier’, Revue des Études Byzantines 51 (1993), 203–228. 155

Maria Kontogiannopoulou Walter 1993: Walter, Christopher, ‘The Origin of the Iconostasis’, Eastern Churches Review III (1971), 251–267. Zekos 1989: Ζήκος, Νικόλαος, ‘Αποτελέσματα ανασκαφικών ερευνών στο Παπίκιον Όρος’, First International Symposium for Thracian Studies, Byzantine Thrace, Image and Character, Komotini, May 28th–31st 1987, Amsterdam 1989, 677–693, pls CCLVI–CCLXXX. Zekos 1998: Ζήκος, Νικόλαος, ‘Νομός Ροδόπης. Παπίκιον Όρος, 12η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων, Εργασίες αναστήλωσης-συντήρησης’, Ἀρχαιολογικὸν Δελτίον 53 (1998), Β΄3, Χρονικά, 752.

156

13 Τhe Plough in the Byzantine Material Culture compared to its Western medieval counterpart Sophia Germanidou Abstract: The plough was a seminal invention that transformed human history and formed an integral part of the technological, economic and societal changes in the medieval world. An interdisciplinary and cross-cultural approach to the archaeology, textual documentation and iconography of the implement is the subject-matter of the present study, further debating on the two different mechanic types that Byzantines and the Latins were using. Η έρευνα του μεσαιωνικού αγροτικού εργαλειακού εξοπλισμού παραμένει ακόμη σε πρώιμο στάδιο. Το «συμμετρικό ή ελαφρύ» άροτρο, η αρχαιότερη και βασικότερη «μηχανή» οργώματος και συνεπώς, εξασφάλισης καλλιεργήσιμης γης, δεν έχει ακόμη αποτελέσει πεδίο αυτόνομης μελέτης, παρά τις πληροφορίες που μπορούν να αποδώσουν γραπτές, εικαστικές, ανασκαφικές, εθνογραφικές και γλωσσολογικές μαρτυρίες. Στο παρόν άρθρο επιχειρείται μια στοιχειώδης προσέγγιση των σχετικών πηγών βυζαντινής εποχής, προκειμένου να διαφωτιστεί η λειτουργία, τα κατασκευαστικά μέρη, ο τρόπος και ο τόπος όπου λάμβανε χώρα αυτή η κομβική γεωργική δραστηριότητα. Αναφέρονται επιγραμματικά οι πολύ ενδεικτικές μικρογραφίες χειρογράφων (Οκτάτευχοι, Μηναία, Ομιλίες Γρηγορίου Ναζιανζηνού, Κυνηγετικά, Έργα και Ημέρες Ησιόδου κτλ.) και τοιχογραφίες (η τιμωρία του παραυλακιστή στη Δευτέρα Παρουσία) όπου απεικονίζεται το άροτρο. Σε τυπικά, διαθήκες και αρχεία επισημαίνεται ότι το άροτρο, ειδικά τμήματά του, όπως το υνί, έχουν ενισχυθεί με σίδηρο, και γι' αυτό αποτελούν αντικείμενα αξίας. Πολύ σπάνια είναι τα ανασκαφικά ευρήματα, συνήθως τμήματα σιδερένιων υνιών από χώρες των Βαλκανίων. Ενδιαφέροντα στοιχεία προκύπτουν από τη σύγκριση με το «ασύμμετρο ή βαρύ» άροτρο που χρησιμοποιήθηκε στη Δύση, τύπος διαφορετικός από αυτόν που εφαρμόστηκε καθολικά σχεδόν στο Βυζάντιο. Τρεις ήταν οι επαναστατικές προσθήκες στην κατασκευή του, οι οποίες και επέφεραν εντυπωσιακά αποτελέσματα στη γεωργική παραγωγή της μεσαιωνικής Ευρώπης: μία κάθετη λεπίδα (coulter) που έκοβε κάθετα το χώμα, μία ξύλινη σανίδα στα πλάγια του μηχανήματος (mouldboard), που ανακάτευε το χώμα και απομάκρυνε τα χόρτα και οι τροχοί (wheels) που επέτρεψαν ευκολότερη μετακίνησή του. Η αλλαγή της μορφής του κλασικού αρότρου έχει αποτελέσει μεγάλο ζήτημα έρευνας στη δυτική βιβλιογραφία, καταλήγοντας στις εξής διαπιστώσεις: α) δεν υφίσταται η αγγλο-σαξονική ή σλαβική καταγωγή του β) οι Ρωμαίοι σίγουρα είχαν χρησιμοποιήσει προοδευτικές κατασκευές άροσης αλλά όχι την ολοκληρωμένη μεσαιωνική μορφή που γνωρίζουμε μέσα από πλούσιο εικονογραφικό και ανασκαφικό υλικό γ) η χρήση του πρωτοποριακού δυτικού αρότρου πρέπει να διαδόθηκε κατά τον 10ο αιώνα. Το βασικό ερώτημα, που αποτελεί και την αφορμή της σύντομης μελέτης, είναι εάν οι Βυζαντινοί γνώριζαν ή καλύτερα, γιατί δεν χρησιμοποίησαν τον δυτικό τύπο αρότρου. Οι κλιματικοί και γεωμορφολογικοί λόγοι που έχουν ήδη προταθεί, θεωρούμε ότι δεν αρκούν για να τεκμηριώσουν την απουσία του στα εδάφη του ελλαδικού χώρου και της Μικράς Ασίας. Αντιθέτως, πιθανόν πιο περίπλοκοι πολιτισμικοί, κοινωνικοί, πολιτικοί και οικονομικοί λόγοι να συντέλεσαν στην απόρριψή του –χωρίς ωστόσο να θεωρείται δεδομένη η έλλειψη καινοτομίας ή τεχνολογικής προόδου εκ μέρους των Βυζαντινών. Ο David Jacoby είχε επισημάνει ότι η χρήση του ασύμμετρου αρότρου θα είχε επεκταθεί στα λατινοκρατούμενα εδάφη δυτικά της Πελοποννήσου, προσφέροντας έτσι μια ώθηση στην εκ νέου προσέγγιση του ζητήματος, αν και δεν παρέχονται αρκετές ενδείξεις για να ενισχυθεί αυτή η υπόθεση. Καταλήγοντας, γίνεται λόγος για την ανάγκη διεπιστημονικής προσέγγισης όχι μόνο του εν λόγω θέματος αλλά γενικότερα του υλικού πολιτισμού του Βυζαντινού αγρότη σε αντιδιαστολή με τον αμεσότερο Λατίνο ανταγωνιστή του. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο θα διαφωτιστούν πτυχές της μεσαιωνικής κοινωνίας και να επαναπροσδιοριστούν εικονογραφικές ιδιαιτερότητες και ευρήματα της τέχνης και της αρχαιολογίας. 157

Sophia Germanidou Keywords: plough, material culture, medieval technology, iconography, light-archaicsymmetrical (Byzantine) type, heavy-pioneering-asymmetrical type (Western). The plough (British English) or plow (American English) was a seminal invention that transformed human history and formed an integral part of the technological, economic and societal changes in the medieval world without, however, it having received any particular scholarly attention. An interdisciplinary approach1 to the archaeology of the implement was hindered by the fragmentary or scarce excavated finds, the disputed or underestimated iconography, the scattered or recondite textual references, and the disregarded or circumstantial ethnographic and linguistic parallels. The purpose of the present essay is to provide, in brief, a rudimentary survey of the plough’s mechanism, typology and of the repercussions of its use initially and mainly in the Byzantine world, but also in a restricted comparison on a cross-cultural basis with what is conventionally termed the ‘West’ during the Middle Ages.

‘Byzantine’ plough and the medieval, heavy, asymmetrical ‘western’ plough (Fig. 13.1a,b). The symmetrical type, the sole-ard or scratch type, is as old as agriculture itself, originating from prehistoric Middle-East kingdoms, and marking the passing of the nomadic food-gathering and hunting societies to the establishment of settled life. It was well-adjusted to the Mediterranean semi-arid soil and climate, with its hot, dry summer and wet winter, because it helped retain surface moisture, but it was unsuitable for the heavy, and so resistant, soils of northern Europe. Early depictions of the light, symmetrical plough are found in mosaic pavements from Cherchell, Algeria (3rd century)4 and Argos (second half of the 6th century).5 A number of mid-Byzantine representations are found in manuscript miniatures,6 especially in the Octateuchs, the Book of Job, where it is erroneously or very schematic represented, the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus, the Cynegetics, the Typika and Menea (The Labours of the Months,),the unique portrayal of the sumptuously dressed female personification of Earth with an ard on her head in Bari Exultet I7 and the attribution of a mythological allegory in a marble capital of the church of Transfiguration of Christ in Nomitsi, the Messinian Mani (Fig. 13.2).8 The invariable character of the ploughing scenes in the Byzantine iconography is striking in the case of the setting, but distinguished in the details of the plough type, the garments of the farmer and the surrounding landscape. The plough depiction varies from an abstract and generalized outline, almost sketch-like representations to close-to-realism versions. Technically improved models are also highlighted, such as the ploughshares that are manufactured from a single piece of iron and not attached by a separate ‘ring’ to a wooden core.9 The ploughman’s ‘work-uniform’ includes a mantle with long sleeves, a cap, and skin-tight leggings. There is a principal concern for depicting the place where the plough was worked, outside the city walls or in the open, in the fields. Nonetheless, in artistic terms, the Byzantines remained conformists and didn’ t adopt the agricultural innovation in their painting. Maybe it was still considered a ‘novelty’, something restricted to a regional basis and, as attested in visual evidence, not favoured.

The function of the plough is the tilling of the earth in preparation for sowing. It cuts the soil into furrows and at the same time, it crumbles and aerates it, destroys the weeds, helps moisture to the surface, and eventually increases the fertility of fallow lands, expands cultivated fields and increases labour productivity. More than a tool or an implement, we prefer to classify it as an archaic ‘machine’, the archetype of ‘proto-industrialism’, considering it as the first application of a power not purely reliant on human muscle in the agricultural landscape. It was adopted whenever it met specific prerequisites:2 availability of large, domesticated animals to pull the plough, sufficient population density, appropriate ecology and topology of the land, advanced metal provision which made otherwise wooden tools harder, more effective and longer-lasting; and, above all, the presence of a primary standardized and semi-commercialized peasant economy, based on relatively solid social relations and stable political circumstances. Last but not least, populations that could consume the extra plough-produced crops, such as wheat, barley, rye, was the key-factor of its enduring use, a feature archetypically portrayed in the Genesis narration and in the depictions on Adam and Eve becoming farmers (Gen. 3:20) and Cain as tiller of the ground (Gen. 4:20).3 The plough consisted of three essential parts: the beam, to which a stilt with a handle was attached and to which the draught animals, usually a pair of oxen, were harnessed, and the share, which performed the main action. Besides the regional variations, we distinguish two basic types, differentiated in mechanical, geographical, chronological and cultural terms; the archaic, light, symmetrical

In the illustrated manuscripts of Hesiod’s Works and Days, dated to the Late Byzantine period, diagrams of Bérard 1935, 113–142. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka – Pelekanidis 1987, 53–65, pl. 20, 21β, 23γ. 6  For a detailed account: Liveri 2000, 276–278; Papadaki-Ökland 2009, fig. 75, 80, 81 (Job); Spatharakis 2004, 86–87, fig. 52 (Cynegetics). 7  Micunco 2011, 91–95 (where the past bibliography). 8  Drandakis 2002, 122; Drandakis 1985, 616, 630, fig. 23. Probably a parallel occasion to this myth and consequently, of a similar, even more schematic plough, is to be found on a column capital in the church of Saint Nicholas, in Charia of the Laconian Mani (fig. 13.3). I thank Angeliki Mexia for assisting me on locating the particular scene. 9  See Brokalakis 2014, 354 for detailed description and relevant finds. 4  5 

The need for an interdisciplinary approach to the archaeology of (agricultural) material culture has been already stressed but not yet fulfilled: Mihail 1986, 179–189; Parani 2003, 199–203; Hamilakis – Anagnostopoulos 2009, 65–87. For an overview of the ‘archaeology of the tool’: Murphy – Poblome 2012, 197–217. 2  Pryor 1985, 727–743. 3  Weitzmann – Bernabò, 2, 1999, fig. 97, 105. 1 

158

Τhe Plough in the Byzantine Material Culture compared to its Western medieval counterpart

(a)

(b) Figure 13.1. Diagram (a) of the light, symmetrical plough used in Byzantium (b) of the heavy, asymmetrical plough used in the West.

159

Sophia Germanidou the demon, using the tip of the very realistic sole-ard.12 Judging from the examples in iconography, it is difficult to place the Byzantine plough portrayed into a definite typology. There is an underlying diversity for example in the attribution of the stilt – ranging from totally vertical, to vertical with a short, straight or slightly bent component, and most importantly, in the form of the share, which is even more evident in the excavated finds. The physical remains of Byzantine ploughs add to our knowledge, but they are very scarce. Excavations in the Balkans, such as in Dinogetia in Romania, and again in Asia Minor, such as in Pergamon, and finally in Greece, such as in Nemea, Olympia and in Panakton of Boeotia, have all yielded pieces of iron ards, dated from the Early Christian period to the 14th century.13 On the other hand, a wide variety of Byzantine textual sources14 refer to the plough, which however concentrate on three main aspects of its use that are repeated in a stereotypical fashion: a) its symbolic meaning as a beloved, recurring allegory in the patristic literature and in the Lives of Saints, b) the repeated yet significant reference to iron plough-parts, mainly the tip of the ard, as stressed in wills and monastic inventories, dated after the mid-12th century and c) the legal disputes imposed by the violation of the field boundary limits or the theft of ploughs or shares, as recorded in the legislation, e.g. The Farmer’s Law.15 Interesting information can be obtained from Geoponica, the only Byzantine treatise dedicated to agriculture, compiled however from ancient sources. We read that the tilling of the earth can be done with the hoe or that the ard of a plough should be heavy (made from iron?), pulled by a pair of oxen, or for even better results, by four.16

Figure 13.2. Marble capital, church of Transfiguration of Christ in Nomitsi, Messinian Mani, second half of 11th century.

In the asymmetrical type, the introduction of three crucial functional parts17 permitted the sudden expansion of cultivation and fertility: an iron coulter, a vertical blade fixed in the front of the ploughshare that cut the soil vertically, and a wooden mouldboard, which turned the cut sods aside for a controlled disposal of weed waste, while creating a deep furrow allowing for the absorption of manure substances and efficient drainage. Thus, a more effective, labour-saving, heavy plough, whose

Figure 13.3. Marble capital, church of Saint Nicholas in Charia, Laconian Mani, second half of 11th century.

the plough-components are preserved with their current terms:10 γύης (beam), ἰστοβοεύς (yoke beam), ἐχέτλη (stilt), ἔλυμα (share-beam or just beam), ὑνίς (ploughshare), βούκεντρον (goad),the last a wooden accessory for controlling the yoked animals, wielded in the left hand. They reflect, in all probability, the actual model of the plough, and not a conventional or traditional delineation of the artefact. We believe that this is also the case in the mural painting of the plough.11 The after-death punishment of the sinning-farmer who crossed the boundary line of the field (παραυλακιστής) is frequently depicted in LateByzantine scenes of the Last Judgment, as a visual warning against agricultural crimes. The typical motif includes a violent prod being administered to the damned figure by

12  Mouriki 1975–1976, 150; Gerstel 2002, 211–216. 213; Gerstel 2015, 109, fig. 79. I thank Nikoletta Pyrrou for providing me a coloured photograph of the particular scene. For a relevant curse on an architectural member of the 6th century, from Ancient Messene, see: Bardani 2002(1998), 89–90. 13  For an account of agricultural implements found in the Balkans and in Greece, see in general: Mihail 1986, 179–189; Ostuni 1986, I, 286–288, II, 783–788, 923–924; Parani 2003, 199–201; adding Rheidt 2002, 627 (Pergamon); Volling 2002(1998), 196–207 (Olympia). 14  For a brief overview: Bryer 1986, 67; Harvey 1989, 122–124; Parani 2003, 200–201. For agriculture as a skilled occupation cherished by the monastic elite: Teall 1971, 38. 15  Ashburner 1910, 105; Ashburner 1912, 93. Koder 2020, 76–77. 16  Beckh 1944(1895), 65, Book B (cap. 23), 98 Book C. 17  For a selected bibliography chosen from the numerous studies dedicated to the plough in medieval Europe: Manning 1954, 58–62; Sawyer –Hilton 1963, 90–100; White 1962, 41–47; White 1967, 51–57; Fussell 1966, 177–186; Pryor 1985, 727–743; Henning 1987, 48–57; Reigniez 2002, 77–87; Fowler 2002, 182–204; Riguax 2005; Andersen –Jensen –Skovsgaard 2013, 1–54. For the farming techniques in the medieval West: Astill –Langdon 1997.

10  Selected bibliography: Derenzini – Maccagni 1970, 65–93; Kaplan 1992, 48–50; Derenzini 1995, 447–454; Paribeni 1995, 411–434; Liveri 2000, 276–278; Bryer 2002, 45–80. 11  See for example the extra-sized plough in Deçani, c. 1340; Popović – Marjanović-Dušanić – Popović 2016, 63.

160

Τhe Plough in the Byzantine Material Culture compared to its Western medieval counterpart to agricultural tradition, technological conservatism, lack of innovative motives, though these arguments are not really convincing. David Jacoby had put forward an alternative interpretation, proposing the use of the heavy, asymmetrical plough in the south-west lands of Latin-occupied Greece, such as in Methoni, during the first half of the 14th century.23 If so, it seems that the procedure of transmitting the ‘new’ (better/different) plough model, adapting it to the conquered lands took a period of time but that it was finally successful. However, not enough evidence is yet gathered to support this hypothesis.

more progressive models were also wheeled, was used in the west and north European lands. There were many regional and chronological variations in the shape of the asymmetrical plough, but the bow-ard was the most popular type with a curved, bow-like beam, used at least from the Roman times. The long-lasting arguments about its Anglo-Saxon, Slav or Germanic origin are by now rejected but the issue remains alive.18 Roman authors remarked, in a rather confusing way, on the types current during their period, insinuating possible attempts at a primitive wheeled model.19 Whatever the plough-model achieved in the Late Roman times, it was certainly of extreme effectiveness. In a characteristic quotation the apologist Tertullian commented in his treatise Of the Soul on the changes brought about in the landscape by the inventive interference of humans, so attesting to the prosperity that was achieved by the acceleration of the systematic deforestation for agricultural causes.20

The resolution of this pivotal debate would help elucidate the collective psychology and the material culture of the Byzantine peasantry; theirs was a massive population, but one which is the least able to express itself in archaeological and historic scholarship, in view of the fact that agricultural technology was the concern of people who read little and wrote even less.

The transition to the heavy plough was gradual, but seemed to have been accomplished and widely adopted with the additions of the coulter, the mouldboard and the wheels, from the 10th century onwards, resulting in an unprecedented growth in productivity. The earliest depictions point to its breakthrough in the mid-Middle Ages, presenting distinctive differences when compared to the relevant Byzantine scenes: more people participate in the act, clothing is heavier and more protective against the harsh weather conditions that prevailed during the ploughing season, though the scenes are not lacking a sense of humour. Medieval asymmetric-plough components, either shares or coulters, were preserved in peat-bogs or in hoards of ironworks, suggesting, as Florin Curta noted, that they were not being stored exclusively according to their function but probably as payments of tribute or debts, as objects capable of being treated as valuable items of exchange, indicative of the economic power of the elite classes.21

Primary Literature Ashburner 1910: Ashburner, Walter, ‘The Farmer’s Law’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 30(1910), 85–108. Ashburner 1912: Ashburner, Walter, ‘The Farmer’s Law (Continued)’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 32(1912), 68–95. Beckh 1944(1895): Beckh, Henricus, Geoponica sive Cassiani Bassi scholastici de re rustica eclogae, Stuttgart 1944 (Lipsiae 1895). Waszink 2007: Waszink, Jan Hendrik, Tertullian. De anima, Olms 2007. Koder 2020: Koder, Johannes, Nomos Georgikos. Das byzantinische Landwirtschaftsgesetz, Wien 2020. Secondary Literature Aitken 1956: Aitken, Robert, ‘Virgil’s Plough’, Journal of Roman Studies 46(1956), 97–106.

Ever since Anthony Bryer published his study on Byzantine agricultural implements, a question has remained – was the progressive asymmetrical plough of the medieval West unknown to the Byzantines?22 And if so, were there reasons besides the obvious ones, namely the different geomorphology of the soil and climate conditions, that imposed such reluctance to accept it? It is true that the Byzantines used developed and specialized hand tools with iron fittings that could have been utilized in a supplementary and more affordable way instead of the plough. It could be that they knew of the pioneering wheeled model but failed to utilize it, due to cultural, social, economic, political parameters, i.e. adherence

Amouretti 1986: Amouretti, Marie-Claire, Le pain et l’huile dans la Grèce antique, Paris 1986. Andersen –Jensen –Skovsgaard 2013: Andersen, Thomas Barnebeck – Jensen, Peter Sandholt – Skovsgaard, Christian Stejner, ‘The heavy plough’, Discussion Papers on Business and Economics 6 (2013), 1–56. Asimakopoulou-Atzaka – Pelekanidou 1987: Asimakopoulou-Atzaka, Panagiota – Pelekanidou, Elli, Σύνταγμα των παλαιοχριστιανικών δαπέδων της Ελλάδος (Πελοπόννησος-Στερεά Ελλάδα), II Thessaloniki 1987.

Astill––Langdon 1997, 182–186. Gow 1914, 249–276; Aitken 1956, 97–106; Amouretti 1986, 81–93; Oleson – Sheerwood 1998, 99–105; Decker 2009, 89–91; Shaw 2013, 120–123. 20  …most pleasant farms have obliterated what were once famous wastelands; cultivated fields have subdued forests; sandy deserts are sown; rocks are planted... Waszink 2007, 30.3, 112. 21  Curta 2011, 318–320. 22  Bryer 2002, 107–108. 18 

Astill––Langdon 1997: Astill, G. Grenville – Langdon, John (eds.), Medieval Farming and Technology, Leiden 1997.

19 

23 

161

Jacoby 2013, 223–224.

Sophia Germanidou Bardani 2002: Bardani, N. Boula, ‘Παλαιοχριστιανικές επιγραφές Μεσσήνης’, Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Μεσσηνία, Αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο. Πρακτικά του Διεθνούς Συμποσίου, Athens 2002 (1998), 82–98.

J. Contreni – S. Casciani (eds.), Word, image, number: communication in the Middle Ages, Florence 2002, 205–217. Gerstel 2002: Gerstel, Sharon., Rural Lives and Landscapes in Late Byzantium Art, Archaeology, and Ethnography, Cambridge UK 2015

Bérard 1952: Bérard, Jean, ‘Mosaique inédit de Cherchell’, Mélanges d’ archéologie et d’ histoire de l’ École française de Rome 52 (1935), 113–142.

Gow 1914: Gow, A.S.F., ‘The Ancient Plough’ Journal of Hellenic Studies 34(1914), 249–275.

Brokalakis 2014:Brokalakis, Yorgos, ‘The stability of Byzantine tools’, in A. van Gijn – J. C. Whittaker– P. C. Anderson, (eds.), Explaining and exploring diversity in agricultural technology, Oxford 2014, 352–354.

Hamilakis – Anagnostopoulos 2009: Hamilakis, Yannis – Anagnostopoulos, Aris, ‘What is Archaeological Ethnography?’, Public Archaeology: Archaeological Ethnographies 8(2009), n. 2–3, 65–87.

Bryer 1986: Bryer, Antony, ‘Byzantine Agricultural Implements: The Evidence of Medieval Illustrations of Hesiod’s Works and Days’, British School at Athens 81(1986), 45–80.

Harvey 1989: Harvey, Allan, Economic Expansion in the Byzantine Empire, 900–1200, Cambridge – New York 1989. Henning 1987: Henning, Joachim, Südosteuropa zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Berlin 1987.

Bryer 2002: Bryer, Antony, ‘The means of agricultural production: muscle and tools’, in A. Laiou (ed.),The economic history of Byzantium: from the seventh through the fifteenth centuries, v. I, Washington D.C. 2002, 101–113.

Jacoby 2013: Jacoby, David, ‘Rural exploitation and market economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese’, in S. Gerstel (ed.) Viewing the Morea. Land and People in medieval Peloponnese, Washington D. C. 2013, 213–276.

Curta 2011: Curta, Florin, ‘New remarks on early medieval hoards of iron implements and weapons’, in J. Henning, A. Leube, F. Biermann, (eds.), Frühgeschichtliche Zentralorte  in Mitteleuropa. Studien  zur  Archäologie Mitteleuropa.  Internationale Konferenz und Kolleg, Bonn 2011, 309–332.

Kaplan 1992: Kaplan, Michel, Les hommes et la terre à Byzance du Vie au Xle siècle propriété et exploitation du sol, Paris 1992. Liveri 2000: Λιβέρη, Αγγελική, ‘Βυζαντινά γεωργικά εργαλεία και μηχανές’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 21(2000), per. D., 275–286.

Decker 2009: Decker, Michael, Tilling the hateful earth: agricultural production and trade in the Late Antique East, Oxford – New York 2009.

Manning 1964: Manning, H. William., ‘The Plough in Roman Britain’, The Journal of Roman Studies 54(1964), 54–65.

Derenzini 1995: Derenzini, Giovanna, ‘I disegni nei manoscritti delle Opere e i Giorni di Esiodo: problemi della tradizione iconografica e testuale’, in A. Iacobini – E. Zanini (eds.), Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio. Convego international di L’ arte profana a Bisanzio, Roma 1995, 447–454

Micunco 2011: Micunco, Giuseppe, Exultet I di Bari. Parole e immagini alle origini della letteratura di Puglia, Bari 2011. Mihail 1986: Mihail, Zamfira, ‘South-east European ethnolignuistic convergences’ (in the field of agricultural implements)’, Revue des Études Sud-Est Européenes XXIV (1986), n. 2, 179–189.

Derenzini – Maccagni 1970: Derenzini, Giovanna – Maccagni, Carlo, ‘Per la storia degli attrezzi agricoli. Una tradizione iconografica nei codici esiodei?’ Le machine. Bollettino dell’Istituto italiano per la storia della tecnica 6–7(1970), 65–93.

Mouriki 1975–1976: Mouriki, Doula, ‘An Unusual Representation of the Last Judgement in a Thirteenthcentury Fresco at St. George near Kouvaras in Attica’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 8 (1975–6), per. D, 145–171.

Drandakis 2002: Drandakis, Nikolaos, Βυζαντινά γλυπτά της Μάνης, Athens 2002. Drandakis 1985: Drandakis, Nikolaos, ‘Ο ναός της Μεταμορφώσεως στη Νομιτζή και τα ανάγλυπτα επιθήματα των κιόνων του’, Δώρημα στον Ι. Καραγιαννόπουλο, Βυζαντινά 13 (1985), 599–632.

Murphy –Poblome 2012: Murphy, Elizabeth –Poblome, Jeroen, ‘Technical and Social considerations of tools from Roman-period ceramic workshops at Sagalassos (southewest Turkey): not just tools of the trade?’ Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 25.2 (2012), 197–217.

Fowler 2002: Fowler, Peter, Farming in the first millennium AD, Cambridge UK 2002. Fussel 1966: Fussel,   George Edwin, ‘Ploughs and ploughing before 1800’, Agricultural History 40(1966), n. 3, 177–186.

Oleson – Sheerwood 1998: Oleson, P. John –Sheerwood, N. Andrew, Greek and Roman technology: A sourcebook. Annotated Translations of Greek and Latin Texts and Documents, London – New York 1998.

Gerstel 2002: Gerstel, Sharon, ‘The sins of the farmer illustrating life and death in medieval Byzantium’, in 162

Τhe Plough in the Byzantine Material Culture compared to its Western medieval counterpart Weitzmann – Bernabò 1999: Weitzmann, Kurt –Bernabò, Massimo, The Byzantine Octateuchs, v. 2, Princeton NJ 1999.

Ostuni 1986: Ostuni, Giustina, Les outils dans les Balkans du Moyen Âge à nos jours, Paris 1986. Parani 2003: Parani, Maria, Reconstructing the reality of images: Byzantine material culture and religious iconography 11th–15th centuries, Leiden 2003.

White 1962: White, Lynn, Medieval technology and social change, Oxford 1962.

Pryor 1985: Pryor, F. L., ‘The invention of the plough’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 27(1985), n. 4, 727–743. Papadaki-Ökland 2009: Papadaki-Ökland, Stella, Byzantine Illuminated manuscripts of the book of Job: A preliminary study of the miniature illustrations. Its origin and development, Brepols 2009. Paribeni 1995: Paribeni, A., ‘Raffigurazioni di strumenti agricoli in un manoscritto di Esiodo nella Biblioteca Ariostea di Ferrara’, in A. Iacobini – E. Zanini (eds.), Arte profana e arte sacra a Bisanzio. Convego international di L’ arte profana a Bisanzio, Roma 1995, 411–434. Popović – Marjanović-Dušanić – Popović 2016: Popović, Marko – Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja – Popović, Danica, Daily Life in Medieval Serbia, Belgrade 2016. Rees 1979: Rees, Sian, Agricultural implements in Roman Britain, Oxford 1979. Reigniez 2002: Reigniez, Pascal, L‘ outil agricole en France au Moyen Âge, Paris 2002. Rheidt 2002: Rheidt, Klaus, ‘The Urban Economy of Pergamon’, in A. Laiou (ed.), The economic history of Byzantium: from the seventh through the fifteenth centuries, v. I, Washington D.C. 2002, 623–629. Rigaux 2005: Rigaux, Dominique, Le Christ du dimanche, histoire d’une image médiévale, Paris 2005. Sawyer – Hilton 1963: Sawyer, Peter Hayes – Hilton, Rodney Howard, ‘Review article: Technical determinism: the stirrup and the plough’, Past and Present 24(1963), 90–100. Shaw 2013: Shaw, Brent, Bringing in the sheaves. Economy and metaphor in the Roman world, Toronto 2013. Spatharakis 2004: Spatharakis, Ioannis, The illustrations of the Cynegetica in Venice, cod. Marc. gr. Z139, Leiden 2004. Teall 1971: Teall, L. John, ‘The Byzantine Agricultural Tradition’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 25 (1971), 35–59. Volling 1998(2002): Volling, Thomas, ‘Early Byzantine Agricultural Implements from Olympia (5th/6th Centuries AD)’, Πρωτοβυζαντινή Μεσσήνη και Ολυμπία: αστικός και αγροτικός χώρος στη Δυτική Πελοπόννησο, Athens 1998(2002), 99–105.

163

14 Traces of Weaving Activity at Halassarna/Kardamaina, Kos/Greece. Preliminary Remarks.♦ Smaragdi Arvaniti Abstract: The excavations carried out at Kardamaina, Kos by the University of Athens, have brought to light the remains of a Hellenistic temple dedicated to Apollo, along with an array of lesser structures related to the shrine, as well as a settlement with a lifespan from the late 4th to the mid-7th centuries AD. This paper aims primarily to record the finds related to the manufacture of textiles, such as loomweights and spindle whorls and to restore the image of everyday life in a coastal settlement of the early Christian period. Issues such as the differentiation in types, the dimensions and weight of the loomweights, the type of the loom, the quality of the fabric, the number of looms needed and dating will be discussed. I will attempt to highlight the textile activity in Kardamena and I will argue whether these finds reflect an organized craft installation or an individual household activity. Οι ανασκαφές που πραγματοποιήθηκαν στην Καρδάμαινα της Κω υπό την εποπτεία των Καθηγητριών του Παν/μίου Αθηνών Σοφίας Καλοπίση – Βέρτη, Μαρίας Παναγιωτίδη – Κεσίσογλου και Γεωργίας Κοκκορού- Αλευρά έφεραν στο φως τα ερείπια ενός ναού των Ελληνιστικών χρόνων αφιερωμένου στο θεό Απόλλωνα, αρκετά κτίσματα που συνδέονται με τη λειτουργία του, καθώς και τα ερείπια ενός οικισμού με διάρκεια κατοίκησης από τον 4ο έως τα μέσα του 7ου αι. μ.Χ. Μεταξύ των πλουσίων ευρημάτων περιλαμβάνονται και αντικείμενα της καθημερινής ζωής που σχετίζονται με την κατασκευή υφασμάτων και ενδυμάτων. Η παρούσα δημοσίευση αποτελεί τμήμα ευρύτερης έρευνας που έχει ως στόχο να καταγράψει τα αντικείμενα αυτά και να αποκαταστήσει την εικόνα της καθημερινής ζωής σ’ έναν παραλιακό οικισμό της παλαιοχριστιανικής περιόδου. Στο συγκεκριμένο άρθρο θα επιχειρηθεί η ανάδειξη της υφαντουργικής δραστηριότητας στην Καρδάμαινα μέσα από την παρουσίαση και τη μελέτη των υφαντικών βαρών και των σφονδυλίων και θα συζητηθεί εάν αφορά οργανωμένη βιοτεχνική εγκατάσταση ή μεμονωμένη οικιακή δραστηριότητα. Τα ζητήματα που θα μας απασχολήσουν αφορούν στο κατά πόσο οι διαφοροποιήσεις στο σχήμα, τις διαστάσεις και το βάρος των αγνύθων σχετίζονται με καθαρά τεχνικά ζητήματα, όπως το είδος του αργαλειού και την ποιότητα ή το είδος του υφάσματος ή μπορούν να συνεισφέρουν και στη διαμόρφωση της εικόνας της οργάνωσης της τοπικής κοινωνίας του οικισμού. Ένα σημαντικό, επίσης, ζήτημα που τίθεται είναι η χρονολόγησή τους, καθώς το υλικό κατασκευής και η τυπολογία είναι κατά το πλείστον κοινά διαχρονικά. Keywords: Kardamaina /Kos, loomweights, spindle whorls, early Christian, household activity. ♦ 

I would like to thank Professors Emeritae Sophia Kalopissi–Verti, Maria Panayotidi- Kesisoglou and Georgia Kokkorou–Alevra, directors of the Kardamena excavation, for their valuable advice and kind permission to study the material unearthed. I would like, also, to express my warmest thanks to my colleague archaeologist George Gavalas, for helping me understand and categorize the material under study. His PhD, unfortunately still unpublished (Gavalas, 2014) is a valuable tool for the researcher into loomweights and spindle whorls.

165

Smaragdi Arvaniti Loomweights and spindle whorls are finds of great importance for textile production research. They reveal everyday activities because they are associated with the operation of the warp-weighted standing loom and yarn processing. These small items make up one of the most common groups of artifacts, recovered in many archaeological excavations. They have been found at settlement sites of both urban and rural character, as well as in cemeteries as part of the funerary gifts, or in temples as votives mainly to the goddess Athena Ergane, protector of handicrafts and craftsmen.1 Their importance is considerable because all other evidence of textile activity, such as bone and wood, has been lost since they were made of organic materials. Regrettably they have not attracted scholarly attention for a long time. However, in recent years they have become a focus of interest, especially in publications of excavated material.

It consists of two vertical uprights, a horizontal warp beam, a shed rod, a heddle rod and weights. The warp threads are tied to the horizontal beam at the top and hang down vertically towards the ground. It uses a system of holding the warp threads parallel under tension by tying them in small bunches to weights made of clay, stone or metal.7 The weights are attached to the ends of the warp threads, then are grouped together and tied so that the spun threads cannot untwist. The warp-weighted loom is used in a nearvertical position. So, the fabric is woven at around waist to upper torso height (for the convenience of the worker) and then pushed up towards the top of the loom. This also allows the weaver to walk back-and-forth while working, and in that way wider cloth can be woven.8 This procedure is very tiring for the weaver, who must stand all the time and has to push up the weft against gravity.9

This paper examines technical issues such as typology, dimensions and quality as factors related to the organization of the weaving activity and, through them, attempts to document the textile production in the area.

The loomweights – αγνύθες (λεῑαι or λαιαί) – are the weights used to keep the warp threads taut in a standing loom. There are usually one or two suspension holes by which threads were attached either directly or on small sticks or rings that have been passed through these holes.10

14.1 The weaving technique In order to appreciate the existence of different types of loomweights and the quantity found in an excavation, it is necessary first to discuss both the importance of weaving activity and the operation of the loom itself. In the preindustrial society of the Byzantine Empire until the 10th century, weaving and the manufacture of textiles were very important activities within the household economy in which producers were also consumers.2 Loomweights found in houses constitute proof of the existence of a household workshop and of a daily economic activity. A larger amount of loomweights may indicate a primitive craft activity, as a supplement to the household income. Changes appeared in the larger production centers and started as early as the 11th century.

They come in a variety of types. The basic ones are pyramidal, discoid/lentoid, conical and doughnut-shaped. They are almost undatable by themselves, because types remain diachronically the same with but minor variations focused on quality. And since they cannot easily be destroyed, they are re-used through the years.11 Typology is not a secure criterion for their provenance either, since the specific forms were widely disseminated, although the loomweights themselves seldom travelled far. No sensible chronological development of the shapes is noted, nor does shape appear to play a specific role in the weaving process or serve a practical purpose.12 Usually different types coexist in the same contexts. There is but a single – so far – example of chronological differentiation; among the material unearthed in Athens – Pnyka, the pyramidal ones are found in layers earlier than those with the conical: they are dated between the end of 4th century and the beginning of 3rd AD.13 Davidson argues that typological evolution is often influenced by local customs,14 while Tsigonaki, taking into account the excavated material form Crete – Eleftherna, claims that in the same undisturbed layer she found different types of loomweights.15

Since Neolithic times, the loom was the main weaving tool. It was used at least till the Byzantine period, but practically in its essential parts remained almost unchangeable till recently.3 The most common type was the standing warpweighted loom, which was used widely until the 2nd century AD and more rarely until the 7th century.4 By the mid-12th century, as the needs in quality and quantity were more demanding, other types of looms appeared, like the horizontal loom, which made the loomweights unnecessary.5 The standing/warp-weighted loom is a small-sized and simple structure, which can be easily moved about and placed at a convenient slant against a wall in a room or a yard.6 These basic characteristics indicate that it could be readily used as part of the household activity.

The method of manufacturing loomweights is not standardized. The differentiation in shapes has to do For a general description of this type of loom, see Crowfoot 1936–7; Hoffmann 1964, 323; Wild 1970, 68; Koutsoubou 2012, 579–580. 8  More about construction and function of the standing loom in: Tsigonaki 1994, 158–160. 9  Kalamara, 2005, 52; Davidson – Thompson 1943, 67. 10  Davidson – Thompson 1943, 68. 11  Davidson, 1952, 146 12  Sofianou, 2012, 78. 13  Thompson 1934, 474 ff. 14  Davidson – Thompson, 1943, 69 15  Tsigonaki 1994, 92. 7 

1  Sofianou, 2012, 77; Tzouvara-Souli 1983, 16; Chaniotis 2005, 96; Koutsoubou 2012, 580; Miszk, 2013, 303. 2  Sofianou 2011, 430. 3  Kalamara 2005, 52; Tzachilli 1997; Barber 1990, 93. 4  Davidson – Thompson 1943, 70–71. 5  For the horizontal loom, see: Gavalas 2014, 20–24. 6  Sofianou, 2011, 422; Kalamara 2005, 54.

166

Traces of Weaving Activity at Halassarna/Kardamaina, Kos/Greece Preliminary Remarks strictly with aesthetics and has no practical use. The homogeneity and the density of the cloth and therefore the quality of weaving are further influenced by the good balance of weights. Consequently, it is not possible to use together loomweights of greatly differing weights, as the downwards pull on the warp threads must be uniform. In the same loom one can use weights of different shapes, but of similar weight.

perishable materials. The wide differentiation of types is also explained by the use of various items as spindle whorls, such us a large perforated astragalus.21 Αnother reason that explains the small number of finds is that some of these items have not either been recognized as such or they have originally been used for another purpose, such as buttons,22 and need to be re-examined for secondary usage. Their shape is mainly conical, with one side flat or slightly convex in profile, but also biconvex, spherical, and flattened spherical ones are known.23

Loomweights of different weights are used depending on the kind of textile desired. The heavy and bigger ones are used for the woolen textiles, tapestry and for dense textures in general, while the smaller and lighter ones suit linen and silk textiles, or for the production of accessories. Given that fact, the existence of groups of loomweights of different calibers indicates the existence of more than one loom or of one loom used to produce a range of fabrics. It is not easy to define the exact number of loomweights needed for a loom. It depends on the size of the loom, the quality and the size of the textile, the weight of the loomweights etc.

Loomweights and spindle whorls were not exported. They were of local production, intended for local consumption. Archaeological evidence indicates that they were made as a secondary product of kilns intended for firing other items such as bricks and tiles. They can never have been a hugely important item of manufacture, for the demand was relatively limited. 14.2 The Halassarna material

Davidson and Thompson having studied the material coming from Pnyka, dated to the Classical and Hellenistic periods, concluded that for a textile of 1.80 m in width, about 70 loomweights are needed.16 These calculations, however, neither apply to all periods nor all types of looms.17 The number (150) of loomweights that has been gathered in the Hellenistic settlement of Halara, Phaistos in Crete led the researchers to assume the existence of a loomweightproduction workshop, while the 450 loomweights found in the Bronze Age West House in Santorini has been seen as indicating a weaving workshop.18

The excavations carried out at Kardamaina, Kos by the University of Athens, have brought to light the remains of a Hellenistic temple dedicated to Apollo, along with an array of lesser structures related to the shrine, as well as a settlement with a lifespan from the late 4th to the mid7th centuries AD. Two terrifying earthquakes in 469 and 554 caused major destructions and brought big changes in the character of the settlement itself. The decline of life at coastal settlements came with the Arabic expansion in the middle of the 7th century.24 All the aforementioned elements are very valuable when trying to restore the everyday life at the settlement of Kardamaina. An archaeological context can be interpreted as containing the remains of a loom when the quantity of loomweights uncovered is numerous enough and if they are arranged in a way that recalls how they would have been on a working loom. The amount of whorls recovered do not act as an indicator of a household or specialized level of production, but with the loomweights this is the case.

Loomweights often bear decoration; either signs, symbols and letters, or engraved, impressed, and painted iconographic representations, which serve as the mark of the manufacturer of the weight, for decorative purposes or it is related to the votive nature of the artifact.19 Decorative motifs can be valuable for issues of dating and provenance. Spindle whorls – σφονδύλια – are artifacts of a small size, often made of bone, stone or clay, bearing a hole in the center in order to slotted onto the spindle. The whorls provided weight, stability and momentum to the spindle in use. While spinning, the factors affecting the quality of the thread produced are the weight, the diameter of the spindle whorl, the quality and nature of the raw fibers, the spinning technique and the skill of the spinner. In this, the weight of the whorl is the most crucial factor and must be appropriate to the weight of the yarn to be spun.20 A light spindle gives fine thread and a heavy one gives thicker thread.

Most (60) of the loomweights are made of clay with only seven of stone, mainly marble. The majority are almost intact and quite elaborate. The clay is fine, clean with small limestone inclusions. Comparing their clay to that of the locally-made amphoras, we can deduce that the loomweights too were made in a local workshop.25 Given Tsigonaki 1994, 167. Davidson 1952, 172. 23  Tsigonaki 1994, 167; Tzachili 1997, 142 pp; Angelkou 2012, 196–7, 389–395. 24  More information concerning the history of the area and the excavation in: Katzia 1984; Alevras et al. 1985; id. 1986; id. 1987; id. 1990; Kalopissi-Verti 1991; Alevras et al. 1995; Kokkorou-Alevras e.a. 1995– 6; Didioumi 1999; Alevras et al. 2001; Kalopissi-Verti – Panayotidi 2001; Kokkorou-Alevras 2001; Militsi 2001; Alevras – Kokkorou 2009; Kokkorou et al. 2010; Diamanti 2010; Poulou-Papadimitriou – Didioumi 2010; Brouskari 2011; Poupaki 2011; Kokkorou-Alevras et. al. 2016. 25  Diamanti 2010. 21  22 

Spindle whorls are the only finds associated with the spinning process, as they are mainly made of nonDavidson – Thompson, 1943, 69 pp; Tsigonaki 1994, 160. Tsigonaki 1994, 160. 18  Stillwell 1948, 268; Tzachili 1992, 142; Tsigonaki 1994, 161. 19  Sofianou, 2012, 80; Miszk, 2013, 303; Márton et.al. 2008, 9–11. 20  For spindle whorls, see Crewe 1998; Barber 1991. 16  17 

167

Smaragdi Arvaniti that no traces of metal have been found in the suspension holes, we can conclude that they were either attached directly to the warps or through the intermediary use of wooden rods. Taking into consideration the stratigraphical data of the excavation and after comparison with broad parallels from different sites of Greece, the pieces could date to any time between the 3rd century BC and the 5th century AD. More specific parallels occur in Hellenistic/Roman and early Christian levels, between the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. Only the pyramidal ones were exclusively seen in Hellenistic levels. Six different types have been identified at Kardamaina:

Figure 14.1. Discoid loomweight, 1st century AD.

1. Discoid with both faces flat and two small suspension holes. Diam.: 8.5 cm, weight: 170 gr.26 (Fig. 14.1) 2. Discoid elliptical, with both faces flat and two small suspension holes. Diam.: 9 cm, weight: 170 gr. Stamped on both sides. (Fig. 14.2). 3. Discoid with both faces convex / loaf-shaped, bearing a small suspension hole at the center. Diam.: 7 cm, weight: 170 gr. Around the hole, four shallow impressions.27 (Fig. 14.3) 4. Truncated pyramidal loomweight with suspension hole on the upper side. Height: 8.1 cm, weight: 100 gr. Stamped on the one side with a finger ring. The impression shows a figure, probably a man, wearing a head covering and holding a stick, first half of 4th century.28 (Fig. 14.4) 5. Pinched–fig-shaped loomweight with two suspension holes. Height 3.1 cm, dimension of the base: 4.5 × 4 cm, weight: 60 gr. Stamped on both sides. We can distinguish an impression of a woman’s head.29 (Fig. 14.5) 6. Doughnut-shaped, with a big central suspension hole. Diam.: 8 cm, diam. of hole: 2.8 cm, weight: 150 gr. (Fig. 14.6). Early Christian period. The specific item might be confused with a spindle whorl, but its dimensions are far too large.

Figure 14.2. Discoid elliptical loomweight, 2nd century BC – 1st century AD.

Most are discoid, followed by the doughnut-shaped ones. There is no great variety in shape, size and weight with all belonging to a medium caliber. We can distinguish three basic groups of discoid ones according their diameter: a) 4–5 cm, b) 6–7 cm, c) with the majority at 8 cm. The pyramidal ones are in height 7–8 cm. Loomweights weigh either between 100 and 190 gr or can come in a slighter version of 30 to 50 gr. The biggest one was 10 cm high and weighed 250 gr. Figure 14.3. Discoid concaved / loaf-shaped loomweight, 2nd century BC – 1st century AD. 26  Robinson, 1959, 39, pl. 50, G162; Davidson 1952, 162–3; Davidson – Thompson, 1943, 79. 27  Robinson, 1959 Vol. V, pl. 50 G 162, 39. 28  Arch. Text. Newsletter, 47, 7–8, second half 5th – first half 4th century BC; Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum, 1st–2nd centuries AD. 29  Davidson – Thompson 1943, 83, 85, fig. 34, no. 61, 63; Davidson 1952, no. 1126, pl. 75.

Five of them are decorated with incised letters: Φ and Ε; others are stamped. We can recognize a petal motif, a woman’s head and the figure of a man. Usually the designs are so schematic that they hardly can be identified. 168

Traces of Weaving Activity at Halassarna/Kardamaina, Kos/Greece Preliminary Remarks

Figure 14.4. Truncated pyramidal loomweight, second half 5th – first half of 4th century BC.

Figure 14.7. Elliptical loomweight made of marble, late Hellenistic – early Christian period.

As far as the stone loomweights are concerned, their form is simple: usually utilizing a perforated pebble-like stone that are abundant close to river beds or at the seaside. We cannot confirm their use at a standing loom. They might, perhaps, have been used as weights with a horizontal loom with paws to hold the warp bundle down. Also, their being found near the temples may argue their use as counterweights for hanging up chalks in the temples. According Poupaki, the marble ones found in Kardamaina are dated to the early Christian period.30 A marble lentoid weight with two suspension holes on the upper side (diam.: 9 cm, weight: 300 gr.) is presented here as an example (Fig. 14.7). Only five spindle whorls were retrieved from the excavation. They are objects of small to medium size, with a hole in the center, by which they are attached to the spindle, which would have been approximately 30–45 cm in length. The whorls are usually conical and biconical, with the exception of a small discoid and flat one. As it has been already discussed, their scarcity is not a clear indication of the amount of spinning activity undertaken, because some of other materials and forms must be reexamined. We present as an example a spindle whorl with a small projection as a handle, weighing 60 gr.31 (Fig. 14.8).

Figure 14.5. Pinched–fig-shaped loomweight, 2nd century BC – 1st century AD.

The preliminary conclusions to be drawn from the study of the Kardamaina material concerning the weaving activity are the following: Surprisingly few loomweights and spindle whorls were recovered, given the large area excavated. The small number of these items has led us to conclude that production of textiles was limited to the household level and that no greater craft activity, let alone large-scale Figure 14.6. Doughnut-shaped loomweight (?), early Christian period.

30  31 

169

After Poupaki 2011. Gavalas 2014, 1st century BC – 1st century AD.

Smaragdi Arvaniti out if the looms were scattered throughout the settlement or confined to some neighborhoods, thus giving a clearer picture of the distribution of the activities in the settlement. The history of the Byzantine loom has not yet been written. Surviving pictorial representations of Byzantine looms and documentary evidence do not provide a clear idea of the complexity of the actual looms that produce the textiles known, especially the sophisticated ones. The study of loomweight shapes and decorative motives in itself does not provide us with complete and safe results concerning the sort of weaving practiced. Here, it is very important to further demonstrate the level of the textile production to calculate the role played in the economic activity. Further, the above identifications of loomweights and spindle whorls in the archaeological material do not exhaust all possibilities for the same. There is no standard or norm for these items against which potential pieces may be examined. As we have already mentioned, the use of some items must be re-examined, in case they were exploited for quite different purposes, such as fishing weights, weights for hanging lights etc. The frequency with which they were recovered as singletons or in small groups prevents us from viewing them as casual deposits. The reasons for decorating and stamping weights, also, still remain unclear.

Figure 14.8. Spindle whorl, 1st century BC – 1st century AD.

industry, can be attested. Output was sufficient to meet the needs of the inhabitants. Furthermore, lack of all traces for an organized workshop – such as large quantity of loomweights, molds, traces that indicate the existence of special place for the installation of looms – constitute further proof of a household economy. The dispersion of the loomweights in different houses and rooms tells the same story.

Future study of such material groups in similar contexts may necessitate revision of some of the above conclusions or lead us to alternative ones. Therefore, more research should be undertaken, and their detailed description and publication encouraged.

In the settlement of Halasarna there exist the common categories of loomweights found in all structures, and throughout all their use, except for the conical ones (which are Hellenistic alone). Taking into consideration their weight and size we can conclude that they were producing mainly textiles for everyday needs, perhaps a linen fabric or a light woolen one. The existence of smaller and lighter weights also reveals the manufacture of clothing accessories like scarves, bands, etc. From the amount of loomweights found, we can estimate the existence of at least ten looms.

Literature Alevras et al. 1985: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία,‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Αρχαιολογική Εφημερίδα 1985, Χρονικά, 1–18. Alevras et al. 1986: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1986, 298–330.

As far as dating is concerned, the difficulties have already been identified above. Unfortunately, even in Halasarna where there is a fairly clear stratigraphy, because of the destructive earthquakes and the continuous movement of the soils due to the weather and construction activities, the layers are not uncontaminated. We observe that most of our findings were found in the layers of late Hellenistic to early Christian times. Certain types were also found in late Hellenistic / Roman layers, with only the pyramidal sort in pure Hellenistic strata. The majority dates to between the 3rd century BC and the 5th century AD, which coincides with the flourishing of the Hellenistic era and the first early Christian settlement. This is also some indication for the re-use of older items.

Alevras et al. 1987: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1987, 325–355. Alevras et al. 1990: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω) ’, κατὰ τὰ ἔτη 1988–1990, Πρακτικά Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1990, 342–367.

We can thus conclude that the early Christian settlement in Kardamaina operated at the level of the household economy. Matters that need to be still clarified are a more accurate dating of the loomweights, which will provide a more refined picture for the researcher, as well as to find

Alevras et. al. 1995: Αλευρά, Γεωργία– Καλοπίση, Σοφία –Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία,‘Ανασκαφὴ στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω), Κωακὰ Ε΄(1995), 141–184. 170

Traces of Weaving Activity at Halassarna/Kardamaina, Kos/Greece Preliminary Remarks Alevras et al. 2001: Αλευρά-Κοκκορού, Γεωργία – Λαιμού, Άννα – Σημαντώνη-Μπουρνιά, Ευαγγελία (eds.), Ιστορία – Τέχνη – Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Α΄ Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συνέδριο. Κως, 2–4 Μαΐου 1997 (Δημοσιεύματα Περιοδικού «Αρχαιογνωσία» 1), Athens 2001.

Kalopissi-Verti 1991: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Kos tardoantica e bizantina nelle scoperte archeologiche (dal IV secolo al 1314) ’, XXXVIII Corso di cultura sullʼarte ravennate e bizantina, Ravenna 15/20 Marzo 1991.

Alevras 2009: Αλευρά-Κοκκορού, Γεωργία, ‘Συστηματική ανασκαφική έρευνα και έρευνα επιφανείας στην αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω. Απολογισμός εικοσαετούς δραστηριότητας’, in: Χρ. Λούκος – Ναπολέων Ξιφαράς – Κλεάνθη Πατεράκη (eds.), Ubi dubium ibi libertas, τιμ. τόμος για τον Καθηγητή Νικόλα Φαράκλα, Rethymnon, 2009.

Kalopissi-Verti – Panayotidi 2001: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, ‘Ταφικὸ συγκρότημα στον παλαιοχριστιανικὸ οικισμὸ της Αλάσαρνας (σημ. Καρδάμαινας) στὴν Κω’, Ιστορία–Τέχνη– Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Athens 2001. Katzia 1984: Κάντζια, Χάρις, ‘Τὸ ιερὸ του Απόλλωνα στὴν Αλάσαρνα της Κω’, Αρχαιολογικό Δελτίον 39 (1984), Μελέτες, 140–162.

Barber 1990: Barber, E.J.W. Prehistoric Textiles: The Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Reference to the Aegean, Princeton , 1990.

Kokkorou-Alevras 2001: Κοκκορού-Αλευρά, Γεωργία, ‘Πανεπιστημιακὴ ανασκαφὴ στo Ιερὸ του Απόλλωνα στην Καρδάμαινα (αρχαία Αλάσαρνα της Κω)’, Ιστορία–Τέχνη– Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Athens 2001, 91–105.

Barber 1991: Barber, E.J.W, Prehistoric Textiles, Princeton 1991. Brouskari 2011: Μπρούσκαρη, Έρση, Συμβολὴ στὴν ιστορία και την αρχαιολογία της Κω κατὰ την παλαιοχριστιανικὴ περίοδο: η βασιλική του πρεσβυτέρου Φωτεινού στὴν Καρδάμαινα, Athens 2011.

Kokkorou et. al. 2010: Κοκκορού-Αλευρά, Γεωργία – Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία – Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, Καρδάμαινα. Αρχαία Αλάσαρνα. Οδηγός, Athens 2010. Kokkorou-Alevras et. al. 2016: Kokkorou-Alevras, Georgia, Grigoropoulos, Dimitris, Diamanti, Charikleia, Koutsoumpou, Maria, ‘Maritime Connections of Halasarna on Cos from Prehistory to Late Antiquity: A View Based on the Pottery and Other Finds’, in K.Höghammar, B. Alroth, and A. Lindhagen (eds.), Ancient Ports. The Geography of Connections, Proceedings of an International Conference at the Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, 23–25 September 2010, Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 34, Uppsala 2016.

Chaniotis, 2005: Chaniotis, Angelos, ‘Inscribed Instrumenta Domestica and the Economy of Hellenistic and Roman Crete’, in Making, Moving, and Managing. The New World of Ancient Economies, Z.H. Archibald, J.K.Davies & V. Gabrielsen (eds.), Oxford, 2005, 92–116. Crewe 1998: Crewe, Lindy, Spindle Whorls. A study of form, function and decoration in prehistoric Bronze Age Cyprus, Studies in Mediterranean Arcaeology and Literature Pocket-Book 149, 1998. Crowfoot 1936–7: Crowfoot, G.H., ‘Of the Warp– Weighted Loom’, British School of Athens, Suppl. 8 (1936–37), 36–47.

Koutsoumbou 2012: Κουτσουμπού, Μαρία, ‘Μια ενεπίγραφη αγνύθα από τη Συλλογή Γιαμαλάκη στο Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο Ηρακλείου και τα Ωσχοφόρια’, in P.Adam-Velenis-K.Tzavanari (eds.), Δινήεσσα. Τιμητικός τόμος για την Κατερίνα Ρωμιοπούλου, Thessaloniki, 2012, 579–585.

Davidson, 1952: Davidson, G.R., The Minor Objects, Corinth II, Princeton 1952, 146–176, pl. 74–79. Davidson – Thompson 1943: Davidson, R. Gladys– Thompson, Dorothy Burr, ‘Small Objects from the Pnyx’: I, Hesperia Suppl. VII (1943).

Márton et.all 2008: Márton, András – Megaw, Ruth – Megaw, J. Vincent, ‘Decorated loomweights in the collection of Classical antiquities of Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, Hungary’, Archaeological Textiles Newsletter 47(2008), 7–11.

Diamanti 2010: Διαμαντή, Χαρίκλεια, Εντόπια παραγωγή και εισαγωγή αμφορέων στην Αλάσαρνα της Κω (5ος– 7ος αι.), Athens 2010.

Miszk, 2013: Miszk, Lukasz, ‘A few comments on loomweight decoration’, Studies in ancient art and civilization 17, Krakov 2013, 303–306.

Gavalas 2014: Γαβαλάς Ι. Γιώργος, Σφονδύλια και υφαντικά βάρη από την Αμοργό. Συμβολή στη μελέτη της αρχαίας κλωστικής και υφαντικής στις Κυκλάδες, unpublished Ph.D., University of Ioannina 2014.

Militsi 2001: Μηλίτση, Ευαγγελία, «Παλαιοχριστιανικὸς οικισμὸς Κεφάλου: πρώτα συμπεράσματα από την έρευνα των πρόσφατων ανασκαφών», Ιστορία–Τέχνη– Αρχαιολογία της Κω, Athens 2001, 277–290.

Hoffmann 1964: Hoffmann, Marta, The Warp-weighted Loom, Studies in the History and Technology of an Ancient Implement, Studia Norvegica 14, Oslo 1964.

Poulou-Papadimitriou – Didioumi, 2010: PoulouPapadimitriou, Natalia and Didioumi, Sophia, ‘Nouvelles données sur la production de l’atelier céramique protobyzantin à Kardamaina (Cos –Grèce)’,

Kalamara 2005: Καλαμαρά, Παρή, ‘Βυζαντινά υφάσματα: τεκμήρια τεχνολογικών κατακτήσεων’, Αρχαιολογία 96 (September 2005), 52–57. 171

Smaragdi Arvaniti in S.Menchelli, S. Santoro, M. Pasquinucci and G. Guiducci (eds.), LRCW3. Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean. Archaeology and Archaeometry. Comparison between Western and Eastern Mediterranean, Oxford 2010, 741–749. Poupaki 2011: Πουπάκη, Ειρήνη,  Λίθινα αγγεία, χειρόμυλοι και άλλα τέχνεργα από το Ιερό του Απόλλωνα και τον παλαιοχριστιανικό οικισμό, Athens 2011. Sofianou, 2011: Sofianou, Chrysa, ‘Loomweights: Use and Manufacture at Trypitos, Siteia’, in: ΣΤΕΓΑ: The Archaeology of Houses and Households in Ancient Crete, Hesperia Supplement 44, Princeton 2011, 421–430. Sofianou, 2012: Sofianou, Chrysa, ‘The loomweights of the Hellenistic settlement of Trypitos, Siteia’, in: Zimi E. and Tzachili I. (eds.), 2012, 77–84. Stillwell, 1948: Stillwell, N. Agnes, The Potters’ Quarter, Corinth 15.1, Princeton 1948. Thompson 1934: Thompson, Homer Armstrong, ‘Two centuries of Hellenistic Pottery, Hesperia 3 (1934), 311–476. Tzachili 1992: Τζαχίλη, Ίρις, I., ‘Μικροαντικείμενα της Ανασκαφής του Ακρωτηρίου’, Ακρωτήρι Θήρας: Είκοσι Χρόνια Έρευνaς 1967–1987, Athens, 1992, 139–145. Tzachili 1997: Τζαχίλη, Ίρις, Υφαντική και Υφάντρες στο προϊστορικό Αιγαίο 2000– 1000 π.Χ., Herakleion 1997. Tzachili 2012: Tzachili, Iris, ‘Introduction: Weaving, Dress and Technical Developments in Roman-era Greece’, in: Zimi – Tzachili (eds.), 2012, 16–18. Tzouvara-Souli 1983: Τζουβάρα- Σούλη, Χρυσηίς, ‘Αγνύθες από το Νεκυομαντείο του Αχέροντα’, Δωδώνη ΙΒ΄(1983), 1–43, πίν. 1–10. Tsigonaki 1994: Τσιγωνάκη, Χριστίνα, ‘Πήλινα υφαντικά βάρη και σφονδύλια’, in Ελεύθερνα, τομέας ΙΙ, 2. Ένα ελληνιστικό σπίτι (σπίτι Α) στη θέση νησί, in A.Kalpaksis – A.Furtwängler – A. Schnapp et al. (eds.), Rethymnon 1994, 158–167, σχ. 37–38. Zimi – Tzachili 2012: Zimi, Eleni and Tzachili, Iris (eds.), Textiles and Dress in Greece and the Roman East: A Technological and Social Approach. Proceedings of a Conference held at the Department of History, Archaeology and Cultural Resources Management of the University of Peloponnese in Kalamata in collaboration with the Department of History and Archaeology of the University of Crete on March 18–19, 2011, Athens 2012.

172

15 Western Influence on Palaeologan Coins1 Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová Abstract: The Palaeologan coins represent a rather complicated topic. At this time, a number of numismatic types appeared that had no analogues in Byzantium. The present article focuses on the analysis of the features whose origin can be found in the coinage of Western Europe. These influences were reflected both in iconography and in some cases in legends. Some influences of Western iconography on Byzantine coins can be traced even in previous periods, but it was the first time under the Palaelogan dynasty when these influences became long-term and started to gradually dominate the iconographic repertoire. The first such influences started to appear on Palaeologan coins already in 1261 and they became definitely more spread after 1304. After 1367 the western style predominates. The article discusses various issues that were definitely influenced by Western models and puts them in context with the political and economic development in the Mediterranean during the Palaeologan period. Οι δυτικές επιρροές ξεκίνησαν να εμφανίζονται στα βυζαντινά νομίσματα ήδη στην εποχή πριν το 1261, αλλά κατά την περίοδο των Παλαιολόγων η σημασία των συγκεκριμένων επιρροών αυξήθηκε σημαντικά και στην ουσία το Βυζάντιο αποδέχονταν για πρώτη φορά στην διάρκεια της μακραίωνης ιστορίας του την εικονογραφία, τα βάρη και τα ονόματα νομισμάτων άλλων κρατών σε τόσο μεγάλο βαθμό. Το άρθρο εστιάζεται στην εικονογραφία, χωρίς να παραλείπει επίσης τα βάρη και τις ονομασίες των νομισμάτων που μπορούσαν να είχαν επηρεαστεί από την δυτική νομισματοκοπία. Το άρθρο τονίζει και την προβληματική μελέτη ορισμένων εικονογραφικών στοιχείων για την προέλευση των οποίων είχαν εκφραστεί ποικίλες θεωρίες (όπως το κρινάνθεμο ή ο φτερωτός αυτοκράτορας). Μελετώντας τις δυτικές επιρρόες στην εικονογραφία των νομισμάτων των Παλαιολόγων δύναται να εκφραστεί το συμπέρασμα ότι τα δυτικά στοιχεία εμφανίζονταν ήδη στην πρώτη φάση της νομισματοκοπίας των Παλαιολόγων (1261–1304), αλλά ο ρόλος τους δεν ήταν σημαντικός και κυρίαρχος και είναι σχετικά προβληματική η μελέτη τους. Κατά την δεύτερη φάση (1304- περ.1367) εμφανίστηκαν νομίσματα στα οποία οι δυτικές επιρροές ήταν περισσότερο εμφανείς – όπως ήταν το βασιλικόν, το πολιτικόν και το τορνέσιον παραδείγματα που μπορούν να εκτιμηθούν ως άμεσα εμπνευσμένα από τα δυτικά νομίσματα. Η Τρίτη φάση (περ.1367–1453) αποτελεί στην πραγματικότητα τον επίλογο της βυζαντινής νομισματοκοπίας και στην συγκεκριμένη περίοδο κόβονταν τα επονομαζόμενα σταυράτα, η εικονογραφία των οποίων αποτελεί περίπτωση εκτροπής από την βυζαντινή εικογραφία γενικότερα. Eίναι φανερό ότι περισσότερη επιρροή άσκησαν τα νομίσματα των κρατών που ήταν ανταγωνιστικά έναντι του Βυζαντίου στον γεωπολιτικό χώρο της ανατολικής Μεσογείου. Διακρίνονται κυρίως οι επιρροές των βενετσιάνικων, των φλωρεντίνικων και των φραγκικών νομισμάτων. Η εικονογραφία των βυζαντινών νομισμάτων της εποχής των Παλαιολόγων δείχνει ότι σταδιακά με την πάροδο του χρόνου αυξάνονται οι δυτικές επιρρόες και απλουστεύεται η τεχνοτροπία. Η αποδοχή δυτικότροπων θεμάτων και η εισαγωγή καινούργιων νομισμάτων μαρτυρεί την δυνατή οικονομική θέση των δυτικοευρωπαϊκών κρατών στην Μεσόγειο και την προσπάθεια του Βυζαντίου να τα ανταγωνιστεί. Keywords: Palaeolog – coins – Western coins – basilikon – Western influences – deniers – politikon – stauraton – fleur-de-lis. Postgraduate Seminar under the title ‘Το Βυζάντιο τον 14ο αιώνα: συρρίκνωση και εξέλιξη, αντιπαλότητες και ακτινοβολία / Byzantium during the 14th century: contraction and development, strife and outreach’. My focus has since shifted towards Western influences on Late Byzantine coinage. The preliminary results of my research were published in 2012 in the Czech scholarly journal Parrésia: ‘Západní vlivy v ikonografii mincí z období dynastie Palaiologů,’ Parrésia VI (2012), 187–204.

1  I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to both Professors to whom this volume is dedicated. The present article represents a developed and modified version of a seminar essay entitled ‘Εικονογραφία των νομισμάτων του 14ου αιώνα – παράδοση και νεωτερισμοί / Iconography of 14th century coins – Tradition and Innovation’ which I prepared under the supervision of Professor Sophia Kalopisi-Verti in 2010 and presented at an one-day workshop during the ‘Nikos Oikonomides’ Interdisciplinary

173

Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová Western influence on Palaeologan coins appeared soon after the accession and consolidation of that dynasty on the imperial throne and can be traced for the duration of the era. During the reign of Andronikos II (r. 1282–1328) western influence on Byzantine coinage was relatively strong. It was in all probability in 1304 that the minting of a new silver coin named basilikon (pl. basilika) started (Fig. 15.1). Its iconography was largely influenced by the grosso (ducato) (Fig. 15.2) which had been struck in Venice since the period of doge Enrico Dandolo (r. 1192– 1205).2 The silver coin was eventually called the ducat (ducatus argenteus) and the term later became a name for the Venetian gold coins.3 The iconography of this Venetian coin was in turn influenced by the iconography of 11th and 12th-centuries Byzantine coinage;4 remarkably, 14thcentury Byzantium emulated western iconography which actually had had Byzantine origins.

Figure 15.1. Basilicon of Andronikos II Palaeologos, struck after 1304.

The Byzantine basilikon was also called doukaton in written sources.5 The adoption of Latin names for Byzantine coins was not an isolated phenomenon and other instances are known.6 On the obverse of the Venetian coins, Saint Mark was accompanied by the doge and Christ was depicted seated on the throne on the reverse. Christ enthroned also appeared on the obverse of the Byzantine coin, but the shape of the throne had gradually evolved into a simple seat.7 On the reverse, two emperors holding a patriarchal or simple cross (later a labarum) replaced Saint Mark and the doge, but the similarities with the Venetian grosso are evident.8 The iconography of basilika was later enriched by other subject matters and several new symbols.

Figure 15.2. Grosso of Jacopo Tiepolo Doge XLIII, 1229–1249.

The Venetian grosso influenced the Byzantine coin’s weight and purity of metal,9 as well as its iconography. It is noteworthy that it also inspired coins minted in other Western European states and in various islands of the Eastern Mediterranean.10 Western influences also appear on copper and silver alloy coinage, for example the so-called tornesion (Fig. 15.3), a name harking back to the deniers tournois.11 The deniers also influenced coins in other states and imitations have been excavated as far north as presentday Ukraine.12 Deniers tournois struck by various Western states established after 1204 circulated in the 13th-century

Figure 15.3. Tornesion of Andronikos II Palaeologos.

East Mediterranean.13 On the reverse of certain of these Byzantine coins, a cross was encircled by an inscription. This particular iconography originated in 9th-century Frankish deniers (Fig. 15.4).14 Inscriptions encircling crosses also appear on coins struck in Venice during the 12th and 13th centuries.15

DOC V, 142; Stahl 2000, 16; Dimov 2012, 25–37. DOC V, 25. 4  Stahl 2000, 18–19; Touratsoglou–Baker 2002, 205. 5  Numismatists refer to notary records of the period and argue that the term ‘doukaton’ can be sometimes read as ‘basilikon’, Morrisson 1996, 151–162; DOC V, 50. 6  Grierson 1976, 108–109, 315; Penna 2003, 381. 7  DOC V, Pl. 31/504–508, s. 510–527; Bendall-Donald 1979, 66–67 (5, 6). 8  DOC V, Pl. 31/504 and 509; Bendall-Donald 1979, 64–65 (4), 66–67 (6). 9  Laurent 1952, 56; DOC V, 50; Penna 2004, 316. 10  Ives 1954, 13–28; Metcalf 1995, 291. 11  DOC V, 51; Penna 2003, 380. 12  On finds of Western European denars in the region of the Old Rus‘, see Janin 2009, 84–86; Zaharova 2013, 4, 19–22; for an example of imitation of a Western European denar found in Russia, see Zaharova 2013, 22 (no.12); Потин 1962, 183–211. 2  3 

The cross-encircled-by-an-inscription formula could also appear on issues called politikon (pl. politika), a coinage of two denominations in billon and copper, the second of

13  Metcalf 1960, 42–44; Metcalf 1995, pl.39 (Achaia), pl. 41 (Athens), pl. 42 (Lepanto), pl. 44(Frankish Greece) or Schlumberger 1878, pl. III (Antioch), pl. IV (Tripoli), pl.VI–VIII (Cyprus), pl. XII (Achaia) and others. 14  Whitting 1973, 238, among others, stresses the Frankish origins of the iconography. 15  Stahl 2000, 16.

174

Western Influence on Palaeologan Coins

Figure 15.4. Charlemagne, silver denier, 8th-9th centuries.

Figure 15.5. Anonymous politikon.

which is cup-shaped (Figs. 15.5 and 15.6).16 The name is associated with the inscription on the coins (ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ or ΤΟ ΠΟΛΙΤΙΚΟΝ). Certain issues carried the name of a particular emperor whereas others were anonymous.17 The meaning of the word ‘politikon’ in this instance, the motivations behind the coin’s issue and the rate it was traded at in relation to other Byzantine coins remain unclear.18 Certain scholars have argued that these coins were minted in times of urgency, for example during political tribulations when a shortage of circulating coins was foreseeable.19 Numismatists suppose that the Byzantine politika could be also have been struck as a counterparts to the Frankish deniers tournois which were widespread in the Eastern Mediterranean.20 It has also been argued that the word ‘politikon’ is strongly reminiscent of the terms BVRGENSIS and PVBLICAΕ COMMODITATE, which appeared on Frankish and Italian coins.21 Certain subject matters appearing on 14th-century politika were rather unusual and their interpretation remains conjectural. This is the case, for example, of three keys (Fig. 15.5) arranged vertically: such iconography is completely unusual and has no parallels either in Western Europe or in older Byzantine coinage;22 one or two keys can be found on papal coins since Mediaeval times till today, but their arrangement is different.23 The symbolism of the keys on papal coins has been related to the words of St. Peter referring the keys of kingdom of Heaven.24 The precise interpretation of the three keys on Byzantine coins remains obscure.

Figure 15.6. Anonymous politikon.

Greece.28 The image occurred not only as a single motif on politikon coins, but also as a detail on some trachea from Thessaloniki in the period of Andronikos II, where the figure of the emperor holds a ‘model’ of the city in the shape of a triple-towered castle.29 At some point the iconography of the castle changed and it became a ‘gabled castle’ as found on the coins struck in Thessaloniki and on issues of politikon coinage.30 There has been expressed an opinion on a possible relation between the gabled castles and influence of the Montferrat dynasty, as Andronikos II’s wife came from that family and had an influence in Thessaloniki.31 Examples of city models depicted as castles can be found also in the period of Ioannes V in the hands of Anna of Savoy; it has been proposed that in that latter case the depiction could be actually a schematic drawing of the St. Demetrios basilica.32 Images of tripletowered castles were most probably inspired by Western coinage; however the precise coin-prototype is difficult to identify without any ambiguity as there is not enough strong evidence on circulation of some of the possible prototypes in Greece.33 In the view of N. Kontogiannis, it seems that most probably the 13th-century Thessaloniki coins depicting triple-towered castles had their source of inspiration in Hohenstaufen Italy, possibly being related to the idea of renovatio of the East Roman empire in the period of Theodore Doukas (r. 1215–1230), whose policies centred on the figure of Frederick II Hohenstaufen (r. 1220–1250) and who had aspirations to present himself as a successor of the Byzantine emperors.34

As a Western influence on the design of politikon coinage can be considered the depiction of a building,25 which originally was a temple façade but later mutated into something looking more like a castle (Fig. 15.6).26 The triple-towered castle with a gate indicated had appeared already on 13th-century Thessaloniki coins27 and it could also appear on coins struck in Frankish territories in

DOC V, 194–197; Bendall 2008, 254–255. Grierson 1982, 313. 18  DOC V, 52; Bendall-Donald 1979, 178–179. 19  Whitting 1973, 247. 20  Bendall 2008, 255. 21  DOC V, 52; Penna 2003, 380–381. 22  Lianta 2009, 43; DOC V, 90. 23  See for examples Berman 1991, 56–63 (e.g. no.196, no.213, no.228, no.244, no.255, no. 269, no.284). 24  Matthew 16:19; Berman 1991, 17. 25  DOC V, 194–195; Bendall – Donald 1979, 184–187. 26  Metcalf 1960, 38 (Fig.1). 27  Kontogiannis 2013, 713–719. 16  17 

Μetcalf 1995, 252–286. DOC V, 159; Kontogiannis 2013,726; Bendall – Donald 1979, 216, 224. 30  Kontogiannis 2013, 726–727. 31  Kontogiannis 2013, 727. 32  Morrisson 2003, 181. 33  Kontogiannis 2013, 727–738. 34  Kontogiannis 2013, 739–742. 28  29 

175

Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová In general, Byzantine coins circulating in international trade networks during this period found it hard to compete against western equivalents.35 At this difficult economic juncture, the emperor Ioannes V Palaeologos (r. 1341– 1391) tried to introduce a new gold coin, the florin. The fiorino d’oro was the earliest gold coin of Florence and was first minted in the mid-13th century.36 The Byzantine florin is a very rare coin: known from only one published specimen in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris, its authenticity was doubted in the past.37 Its iconography was inspired to a large extent by the Florentine gold coin.38 Saint John was depicted on the one side of both coins; on the Byzantine florin he was further identified by the inscription Πρόδρομος (Forerunner). On the other side, the Florentine coin had a fleur-de-lis and the Byzantine carried the image of the emperor.39

Figure 15.7. Stavraton of John V Palaeologos, struck ca. 1367–1391.

Ioannes V introduced also another new coin, the staurata (sing. stauraton) in the seventh decade of the 14th century (Fig. 15.7).40 From that point onwards, the stauraton became the most valuable Byzantine coin.41 It was sometimes referred to in sources as hyperpyron argyron and in reality it replaced the gold hyperpyron which had dominated Byzantine coinage since the time of Alexios Komnenos (r. 1081–1118), before ceasing to be struck during the fifth decade of the 14th century.42 The stauraton was a very heavy coin, reaching 8.5 gr in early issues, a weight greater than any Western European coin in circulation at the time.43 The iconography of the staurata was greatly influenced by western imagery, so that their style departed entirely from coins theretofore struck in Byzantium. On the one side, the bust of Christ Pantokrator was depicted; on the other side, the bust of the emperor was encircled by two lines of inscriptions with his name and titles. The emperor was depicted in linear, geometric fashion and bore no resemblance to how he appeared on earlier Byzantine coins. The two-line inscription around his bust was typical of 13th and 14th-centuries Western European coins. P. Grierson argued for the influence of gigliato coins (Fig. 15.8) struck in Naples and Provence, which circulated into the Aegean sea region and whose imitations were common in the Asia Minor. 44 A similar design can be found also on coins struck in the eastern Mediterranean sites under the Crusaders (e.g. on Cyprus)45 and schematic helmeted busts encircled by a legend could appear on Crusader coins from Antioch.46 Grierson expressed an

Figure 15.8. Gigliato, struck in Napoli 1309–1343.

opinion on the possible relation between the name of the Byzantine coin which is related to word σταυρός and the reverse type of gigliato which bore a depiction of cross.47 He also stressed the fact that the term stauraton appeared in written sources dated prior to the introduction of the earliest known examples of type stauraton, as the term appeared in treaties between duke of Crete and emir of Aydin in 1337 and later in 1353. These two documents provided evidence for an amount equivalent in stavraton and in gigliati.48 He proposed that most probably the stavraton coin was related to the double gigliati from Provence which weighed about the same.49 The appearance of staurata until the final days of the Byzantine Empire50 did not change significantly; the novelties sometimes introduced were limited to details or to the inscription.51 Byzantine coins of the Palaeologan era also feature many motifs which did not originate in western iconography, but conformed to the traditional subject matter of Byzantine coinage. Furthermore, some innovative motifs seem unrelated to western coin iconography and instead may reflect personal choices or regional traditions. In certain instances, the origins of motifs have not been explained so far and their study is quite difficult.

35  For example, Nikolaou 2001, 195; A.L. Ponomarev mentioned in his work that the development and changes in the weight of coins during the 14th century were related to the attempts of Byzantium to adapt its coins to foreign coinage, see Ponomarev 2008, 17–37; Ponomarev 2009, 25–42, 76. 36  Grierson 1976, 163. 37  For the history of research, see DOC V, 193. 38  Blanchet 1910, 81–83. 39  DOC V, 48, 193. 40  Metcalf 2003, 19. 41  Contemporary sources mention it as ‘hyperpyron argyron’ and ‘stauraton’; see Grierson 1995, 1060; Cutler 1964, 237–240. 42  DOC V, 47. 43  DOC V, 201. 44  Grierson 1999, 16; DOC V, 28–31. 45  See Metcalf 1995, pl. 30– pl. 34 46  Metcalf 1995, pl. 16.

The fleur-de-lis motif (an abstract lily flower) is of particular interest. It first appeared on Palaeologan coins DOC V, 31. DOC V, 29–30; Grierson 1995, 1061. 49  DOC V, 31; Grierson 1995, 1061–2. No samples of double gigliato have preserved, but based on various mentions in the written sources, P. Grierson concludes that their existence is plausible. 50  Penna 2004, 320. 51  DOC V, 201–202. 47  48 

176

Western Influence on Palaeologan Coins

Figure 15.10. Trachy of Andronikos II Palaeologos, Thessaloniki, 1282–1328.

Figure 15.9. Trachy of Michael VIII, Thessaloniki, 1261–1282.

issued by Michael VIII (r. 1259/61–1282), but its use in Byzantine coin iconography remained limited throughout (Fig. 15.9).52 The first instance in which the fleur-de-lis appeared on Byzantine coins predates 1261; it was used at the Empire of Nicaea in relation to the veneration of Saint Tryphon.53 This very old symbol was not only used in European art and coinage, but also in the Islamic world, where it appeared on a late 7th / early 8th-centuries lead seal and later was also employed on coins.54 By around the year 1000, the fleur-de-lis was used on coins struck for the Holy Roman emperor Otto III (r. 996–1002) and it proliferated on 12th-14th-centuries coins minted in present-day Italy, France, Belgium and Germany.55 It is therefore significant that the symbol could have been used on coins struck in Byzantine areas under Frankish rule.56

Similar problems are encountered when investigating the origins of the image of the winged emperor on Palaeologan coins (Fig. 15.10).60 The iconography was uncommon in earlier centuries, however it appeared on 13th-century Byzantine coins in connection to the mint of Thessaloniki.61 In the 1950s, T. Bertelè suggested a German origin for the winged ruler, as it appeared on Central European coins, for example on 12th and 13thcenturies issues.62 His theory was followed by other researchers.63 More recently, scholars have argued for a Byzantine origin for the iconography and have associated it with angels and with the connection of the Byzantine emperor with Heaven.64 In addition, M. Pomero connects the image of the winged emperor to the changes in the hierarchy at the court, with an increase in the power of the aristocracy and a decline in the perception of the Emperor as a mimesis of Christ on Earth.65

In the first instance, it seems strange that the coins of the emperor who liberated Constantinople from its Latin overlords feature a symbol generally associated with western coinage. I. Touratsoglou argued in an article that the use of the symbol by Michael VIII could betray his cautious policy and diplomacy towards western states and could also be connected to his efforts and plans for the unification of the eastern and western Christian Churches.57 C. Morrisson argued that the fleur-de-lis was in essence inspired by Florence, which used the symbol as its emblem and on its coins.58 R. Ousterhout proposed that the use of the symbol in Byzantine iconography was not exclusively connected to western prototypes, but rather continued the iconographic tradition of coins struck in the mint of Nicaea.59 In short, the associations of fleur-de-lis iconography exemplify the complexity of symbols used on Palaeologan coinage and the variety of opinions with regards to their origins.

Western influences are detectable in the economy and politics around the Mediterranean, namely the predominance of Italian and other Western merchants, as well as the control and exploitation of areas around the eastern end of the basin by rulers of Western European origin. In addition to these two main reasons, Adrien Blanchet also emphasized in 1910 the marriage of Byzantine emperors with Western European aristocrats which strengthened further the cultural infiltration of Western Europe into Byzantium between the 13th and 15th centuries.66 Byzantine merchants had to counter the rising power of their Italian competitors who were granted by the Byzantine emperor concessions improving their position.67 Foreign coins, mainly those struck in Italian states, circulated all over the eastern Mediterranean due to commercial and political circumstances and exerted

60  DOC V, 67–68; Bendall – Donald 1979, 48 (20), 210 (11), 212 (12), 216 (20), 226 (33 and 34), 238 (9). 61  Morrisson 2003, 185. 62  Bertelè 1951, 52–88; DOC V, 68. 63  Among others: DOC V, 68. 64  Morrisson 1995, 194–195; Papadopoulou–Morrisson 2013, 85; Morrisson 2003, 185–186. 65  Pomero 2008, 181–182. 66  Blanchet 1910, 78–90. Anna of Savoy was not the only Latin aristocrat who married a Byzantine emperor of the Palaeologan dynasty. The second wife of Andronikos II originated from Montferrat and so did the wife of Ioannes VIII. The first wife of Andronikos III was born into the Brunswick family. 67  Grierson 1982, 276–278; Laiou 1973, 131–135; Nicephorus Gregoras, 683–684; Chrysostomides 1970, 268, 272.

DOC V, 92. P. Grierson mentions that ‘the use of the lily other than as an adjunct of St. Tryphon on a silver trachy was confined to Thessaloniki’; Braun von Stumm 1951, 45–46, 49, 52. 53  On aspra trachea of Theodoros II Laskaris (r. 1254–1258) struck in Magnesia, a fleurs-de-lis accompanied the figure of Saint Tryphon (DOC IV, part 2, p. 520); Laurent 1958, 426. 54  Mayer 1933, p.19, 22–24; Grabar 1973, 97–98 (fig. 21). 55  Braun von Stumm 1951, 46, 49, 52. 56  Metcalf mentions that coins bearing fleurs-de-lis were struck in 13thcentury Athens but stresses that their style is more Italian, see Metcalf 1960, 46. 57  Touratsoglou 1971, 192–193. 58  Morrisson 2003, 184. 59  Ousterhout 2009, 164–166. 52 

177

Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová strong influence on local coinage.68 It can be surmised that these particular coins were the predominant inspiration for western elements on Byzantine coins of the period. Certain western influences had appeared on coins minted in Thessaloniki since the 13th century and so the discussion remains open.69

significant power in a range of areas. Most eloquent is the case of the last Byzantine coins, the staurata, that depicted the Byzantine emperors in a completely Western style. The iconography of late Byzantine coins expressed in visual ways the new conditions and situations which the empire faced: Byzantium had definitely more intense contacts with the Western culture than before and the Byzantine coins gradually lost their significance as the main media of exchange in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Palaeologan coinage falls into three phases.70 The first started with Michael VIII’s entry into Constantinople in 1261 and concluded in 1304, by which time the new silver coin, the basilikon, had been introduced. The minting of the basilikon characterises the second phase which concludes in 1367. The third phase, typified by the stauraton, ends with the fall of Constantinople in 1453.

Literature Catalogues: DOC IV: M.F.Hendy, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection IV (1081–1261), Washington 1999.

The study of western influences on Palaeologan coins allows one to reach certain conclusions as to their periodization. Western elements appear during the first phase, but they are hardly dominant or important and their interpretation is conjectural (as in the case of the fleur-delis). In the second phase, coins with more evident western influences emerged, like the basilikon, the politikon and the tornesion, all of them directly inspired by western prototypes. The third phase is not just the last chapter of Byzantine coin production but also the epilogue of Byzantine imperial history altogether. The staurata diverge from Byzantine iconography, western styles predominate and the variety of configurations featuring the emperor is limited.

DOC V: P.Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection V (1258–1453), Washington 1999. Primary sources: Nicephorus Gregoras: Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, II, ed. L. Schopen, Bonn 1830. Secondary literature: Baker 2015: Baker, Julian, ‘Money and Currency in Medieval Greece’, in Nickiphoros I. Tsougarakis – Peter Lock (eds.), A Companion to Latin Greece, 217–254.

Western influences on the iconography of Palaeologan coins increase with the passage of time, while simultaneously the style becomes generally simplified. The greatest influence was apparently exerted by coins issued by states which were in contact with Byzantium within the eastern Mediterranean geopolitical sphere, consequently they reflect Venetian, Florentine and Frankish coinage styles. Furthermore, it is remarkable that for the first time in its long history Byzantium adopted in earnest the iconographies, weights and names of coins issued by other states. There had been instances of Byzantine coins reflecting certain outside influences,71 but the appearance of Byzantine coinage had never been so decisively altered by foreign inspiration as in the Palaeologan period. Up to that point it was Byzantine issues that were avidly imitated. The infiltration of western-style iconography betrays the dominant economic position of Western European states and Byzantium’s efforts to challenge it.

Baker 2010: Baker, Julian, ‘Τα βενετικά νομίσματα’, in Chryssa Maltezou (ed.), Βενετοκρατούμενη Ελλάδα: Προσεγγίζοντας την ιστορία της, τόμ. Α’ – La grecia Durante la Venetocrazia. Approccio alla sua istoria, vol.I, Atene–Venezia 2010, 277–293. Baker 2009: Baker, Julian, ‘Νομίσματα, νομισματοκοπία και νομισματοκοπεία στις μεσαιωνικές Κυκλάδες, 13ος–15ος αιώνας – Monete, Monetazione e zecche nelle Cicladi medievali, 13o–15o secolo’, in Nikos G.Moschonas – M.G. Lily Stylianou (eds.), Το δουκάτο του Αιγαίου. Πρακτικά Επιστημονικής Συνάντησης (Νάξος – Αθήνα 2007) – Il Ducato dell’Egeo, Atti dell’Incontro di Studio (Nasso – Atene 2007), Atene 2009, 333–385. Bendall – Donald 1979: Bendall, Simon –Donald, Paul J., The Later Palaeologan Coinage, London 1979. Bendall 2008: Bendall, Simon, ‘Palaeologan Billon Tornese’, Spink’s Numismatic circular, CXVI, October 2008, no.5, 252–256.

The intense adoption of Western models has to be understood as a sign of increased political and economic influence of Western hegemons in the Eastern Mediterranean, where the Western coins circulated on a large scale and the hegemons of Western origin gained

Berman 1991: Berman, Allen G., Papal Coins, New York 1991. Bertelè 1951: Bertelè, Tommaso, L’imperatore alato nella numismatica bizantina, Roma 1951.

Baker 2015, 219, 232–236; Baker 2009, 333–385; Baker 2010, 277–293; Touratsoglou–Baker 2002, 222–227. 69  Morrisson 2003, 186. 70  Lianta 2009, 9; DOC V, 40–42. 71  For example, 8th-century silver milliaresia bear Islamic influences, see Miles 1960, 189–218; Whitting 1970, 158–163. 68 

Blanchet 1910: Blanchet, Adrien, ‘Les Dernières Monnaies dʼor des Empereurs de Byzance’, Revue Numismatique 14 (1910), 78–90. 178

Western Influence on Palaeologan Coins Braun von Stumm 1951: Braun von Stumm, Gustave, ‘L’origine de la fleur de lis des rois de France au point de vue numismatique’, Revue Numismatique, 5/13 (1951), 43–58.

Lianta 2009: Lianta, Eleni, Late Byzantine Coins 1204– 1453 in the Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford, London 2009. Mayer 1933: Mayer, Leo Ary, Saracenic Heraldry. A survey. Oxford, 1933.

Chrysostomides 1970: Chrysostomides, Julian, ‘Venetian commercial privileges under the Palaeologi’, Studi Veneziani XII (1970), 267–356.

Metcalf 2003: Metcalf, David Michael, ‘The Palaeologan Coinage in the East Mediterranean World’, in Nikos G.Moschonas (ed.), Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο – Χρήμα και Αγορά στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Χαλκίδα, 22–24 Μαϊου 1998, Athens 2003, 15–23.

Cutler 1964: Cutler, Anthony, ‘The Stavraton: Evidence for an Elusive Byzantine Type’, The American Numismatic Society – Museum Notes (1964), 237–244.

Metcalf 1995: Metcalf, David Michael, Coinage of the Crusades and the Latin eastin the Ashmolean Museum Oxford, London 1995

Dimov 2012: Dimov, Georgi, ‘Problemi na vizantijskoto sreb’rno monetosechene. Prichinite za pojavata na vasilikona pri Andronik II Paleolog (1282 – 1328)’, Istorija, 1, Sofija, 25–37.

Metcalf 1960: Metcalf, David Michael, ‘The Currency of Deniers tournois in Frankish Greece’, The Annual of the British School at Athens vol. 55 (1960), 38–59.

Grabar 1973: Grabar, Oleg, The Formation of Islamic Art, Yale University Press 1973.

Miles 1960: Miles, George C., ‘Byzantine Miliaresion and Arab Dirhem: Some Notes on Their Relationship’, The American Numismatic Society – Museum Notes IX (1960), 189–218.

Grierson 1982: Grierson, Philip, Byzantine Coins, London 1982. Grierson 1976: Grierson, Philip, Monnaies du Moyen Age, Friburg 1976.

Morrisson 1995: Morrisson, Cécile, ‘L’empereur ailé dans la numismatique byzantine: un empereur ange’, Studii şi cercetări de Numismatică XI (1995), 191–195.

Grierson 1995: Grierson, Philip, ‘Les premiers stavrata: pièces byzantines ou pieces provençales?’, Bulletin de la Société française de numismatique (1995/5), 1060–1063. Grierson 1999: Grierson, Philip, Byzantine Coinage, Dumbarton Oaks 1999.

Morrisson 1996: Morrisson, Cécile, ‘Les noms de monnaies sous les Paléologues’, Geschichte und Kultur der Palaiologenzeit, (ed.W. Seibt), Vienna 1996, 151–162.

Zaharova 2013: Numizmaticheskie nahodki X– XVII vekov, iz arheologicheskih kollekcij Gosudarstvennogo Vladimiro-Suzdal’skogo muzejazapovednika – KATALOG, (ed. O. Ju. Zaharova), Vladimir 2013.

Morrisson 2003: Morrisson, Cécile, ‘Τhe Emperor, the Saint, and the City: Coinage and Money in Thessalonike from the Thirteenth to the Fifteenth Century’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003) – Symposium on Late Byzantine Thessalonike, 173–203.

Ives 1954: Ives, Herbert Eugene, The Venetian Gold Ducat and Its Imitations, New York 1954.

Nikolaou 2001: Κ.Νικολάου, Γιόρκα, Η ‘Οικουμενικότητα του Βυζαντινού νομίσματος’, in J.Albani (ed.), Ώρες Βυζαντίου, Έργα και Ημέρες στο Βυζάντιο – Το Βυζάντιο ως Οικουμένη. Βυζαντινό και Χριστιανικό Μουσείο, Οκτώβριος 2001 – Ιανουάριος 2002, Athens 2001, 195–201.

Janin 2009: Janin, V.L., Denezhno-vesovye sistemy domongol’skoj Rusi i ocherki istorii denezhnoj sistemy srednevekovogo Novgoroda, Moskva 2009. Kontogiannis 2013: Kontogiannis, Nikos D., ‘Translatio imaginis: assimilating the triple-towered castle in late Byzantine coinage’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106/2 (2013), 713–744.

Ousterhout 2009: Ousterhout, Robert, ‘Byzantium between East and West and the origins of Heraldry’, in C.Hourihane (ed.), Byzantine Art: Recent studies, Tempe 2009, 153–170.

Laiou 1973: Laiou, Angeliki E., ‘The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan Period: A Story of arrested development’, Viator 4 (1973), 131–151.

Papadopoulou–Morrisson 2013: Papadopoulou, Pagona – Morrisson, Cécile, ‘Symbols of Power, symbols of Piety: Dynastic and Religious Iconography on Post-iconoclastic Byzantine coinage’, in Michael Grünbart, Lutz Rickelt, Martin Marko Vučetić (eds.), Zwei Sonnen am Goldenen Horn? Kaiserliche und patriarchale Macht im byzantinischen Mittelalter, Akten der internationalen Tagung vom 3. bis 5. November 2010, Teilband II, Byzantinistische Studien und Texte (Band 4), Munster 2013, 75–98.

Laurent 1952: Laurent, Vitalien, ‘Le basilicon, nouveau nom demonnaie sous Andronic II Paléologue’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift XLV (1952), 50–58. Laurent 1958: Laurent, Vitalien, ‘L’emblème du lis dans la numismatique byzantine: Son origine. A propos d’une monnaie inedited de Michel VIII Paléologue’, in Harald Ingholt (ed.), Centennial Publication of The American Numismatic Society, New York 1958, 417–427.

Penna 2004: Penna, Vaso, ‘The Final Phase of Byzantine Coinage: Iconography, minting and circulation’, in 179

Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová Sümer Atasoy (ed.), 550th Anniversary of the Istanbul University International Byzantine and Ottoman Symposium (XVth Century),30–31st May 2003, Istanbul 2004, 309–324. Penna 2003: Πέννα, Bάσω, ‘Χρήμα και Αγορά στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων (13ος–15ος αι.)’, in Nikos G.Moschonas (ed.), Διεθνές Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο – Χρήμα και Αγορά στην εποχή των Παλαιολόγων, Χαλκίδα,22–24 Μαϊου 1998,Athens 2003, 373–383. Pomero 2008: Pomero, Margherita Elena, ‘L’iconografia dell’imperatore pteroforo nella numismatica bizantina: line interpretative’, Bizantinistica X (2008), 157–184. Ponomarev 2008: Ponomarev, Andrey L., ‘Krizis, kotorogo ne bylo: denezhno-finansovai͡a sistema Vizantii v konce XIII – seredine XIV v., chast’ I’, Vizantiĭskiĭ vremennik 67–92 (2008), 17–37. Ponomarev 2009: idem, ‘Krizis, kotorogo ne bylo: denezhno-finansovai͡a sistema Vizantii v konce XIII – seredine XIV v., chast’ II’, Vizantiĭskiĭ vremennik 68–93 (2009), 25–47. Potin 1962: Potin. V. M., Nahodki zapadnoevropejskih monet na territorii drevnej Rusi i drevnerusskie poselenija, Numizmatika i epigrafika 3 (1962), 183–211. Schlumberger 1878: Schlumberger, Gustave, Numismatique de l’Orient latin, Paris 1878. Stahl 2000: Stahl, Alan M., Zecca – The mint of Venice in the Middle-Ages, Baltimore 2000. Touratsoglou 1971: Touratsoglou, Ioannis, ‘A Contribution to the lily-type issues of Michael VIII Palaeologus’, Αρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον 26 (1971), 189–193. Touratsoglou – Baker 2002: Touratsoglou, Ioannis, – Baker, Julian, ‘Byzantium of the Venetians, Greece of the ‘Groossi’’, in. Chryssa A.Maltezou – Peter Schreiner (eds), Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), Atti del Colloquio Internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di RaymondJoseph Loenertz o.p.Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000, Venezia 2002, 203–227. Whitting 1973: Whitting, D. Philip, Byzantine Coins, London 1973. Whitting 1970: Whitting, D. Philip, ‘Iconoclasm and the Byzantine Coinage’, University of Birmingham Historical Journal XII (1970) 2, 158–163.

180

16 Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople. The Basilica or Basileios Stoa1 Dimitris Chatzilazarou Abstract: The quadriporticus Basilica or Basileios Stoa, one of the most important buildings of Constantinople, hosted prominent functions and activities of public life: the Schools of higher education, the Public Library, the Courts and the Temple of Tyche. Justinian constructed the Basilica Cistern under its courtyard. The re-examination of written sources and topographical evidence suggests that the monument was constructed upon a strong and high stone-foundation. A great staircase of 72 steps enhanced the impressive façade of the northern portico, which had a direct visual relation to the passage of Bosphorus and the ancient Acropolis. The separate construction of the north portico during the Hellenistic period, which was later transformed to a Roman Agora, is argued. The Basilica is identified with the ancient Agora of Zeuxippos which was integrated by Constantine into the newly-designed Imperial monumental center as a symbol of the transition from Byzantion and old Rome to the New Rome-Constantinople. Η Βασιλική ή Βασίλειος Στοά υπήρξε η έδρα των Παιδευτηρίων, της δημόσιας Βιβλιοθήκης, των Δικαστηρίων και του Τυχαίου της Κωνσταντινούπολης. Βρισκόταν στη 4η Ρεγιώνα της Πόλης απέναντι από την Αγία Σοφία και επάνω από την Βασιλική Κινστέρνα. Πρόκειται για ένα τετράστωο οικοδόμημα με μεγάλο αύλειο χώρο σύμφωνα με την περιγραφή του Προκοπίου, στο υπέδαφος του οποίου ο Ιουστινιανός οικοδόμησε την Κινστέρνα κατά το πρώτο έτος της βασιλείας του. Το μνημείο παραμένει μέχρι σήμερα στο περιθώριο της έρευνας του μνημειακού κέντρου της Κωνσταντινούπολης εξαιτίας των δυσχερειών στην αποκατάσταση των μορφολογικών στοιχείων, της οικοδομικής ιστορίας και της λειτουργικής χρήσης του. Μέσα από μία νέα προσέγγιση της τοπογραφικής θέσης και των γραπτών μαρτυριών αναδεικνύεται η ανέγερση του βόρειου τμήματος της Βασιλικής επάνω σε μία πολύ ισχυρή λίθινη θεμελίωση εξαιτίας της κλίσης του εδάφους (πλαγιά λόφου) στο σημείο που οικοδομήθηκε. Το στοιχείο αυτό επιτρέπει την αποκατάσταση μίας μεγάλης κλίμακας με 72 σκαλοπάτια στο μέσο της βόρειας όψης, η οποία υπήρξε η κύρια όψη του μνημείου. Η κατανόηση της αρχιτεκτονικής της μορφής υποδεικνύει ότι η Βασιλική δεν οικοδομήθηκε στο πλαίσιο του Κωνσταντίνειου προγράμματος, αλλά υπήρξε τμήμα της μνημειακής παρακαταθήκης του αρχαίου Βυζαντίου που παρέλαβε και αξιοποίησε ο Κωνσταντίνος. Προτείνεται η οικοδόμηση αρχικά μίας Ελληνιστικής Στοάς με εντυπωσιακή πρόσοψη προς την Ακρόπολη, την κάτω πόλη του Βυζαντίου και κυρίως προς το νότιο άνοιγμα των Στενών του Βοσπόρου, η οποία θα επιδείκνυε την οικονομική ευρωστία και πολιτική δύναμη της πόλης. Μία σειρά από στοιχεία υποδεικνύουν την μορφολογική συγγένεια της Στοάς του Βυζαντίου με την Ελληνιστική Στοά της Ακρόπολης της Λίνδου. Η Στοά αυτή κατά την Ρωμαϊκή περίοδο μετατράπηκε σε κλειστή αγορά με εμπορικό χαρακτήρα κυρίως, ενώ το πολιτικό κέντρο του Βυζαντίου παρέμεινε στην παραδοσιακή αρχαία αγορά, το Στρατήγιο, κοντά στον Προσφοριανό λιμένα. Ο Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος μαζί με τον Ιππόδρομο και τις Θέρμες του Ζευξίππου ενσωμάτωσε στο νέο μνημειακό κέντρο της Πόλης του την αρχαία Αγορά, η οποία ανακαινίστηκε από τον Κωνστάντιο και σύντομα μετονομάστηκε σε ‘Βασίλειος Στοά’, ονομασία που χρησιμοποίησε για πρώτη φορά στο περιβάλλον των γραπτών πηγών ο ρήτορας Ιμέριος και αργότερα οι κλασσικίζοντες συγγραφείς του 6ου αιώνα. Keywords: Basilica, Basileios Stoa, Monumental center, Constantinople, Byzantion, Constantine, Agora, Zeuxippos. the summer of 2012. I am most grateful to the Getty Foundation and the Council of American Overseas Research Centers for the selection and funding of my project. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the organizers of the Program, Professor R. Ousterhout and Dr. A. Greenwood. This research was conducted as part of my Ph.D. dissertation: Chatzilazarou 2016, chapters 3 and 4.

1  I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my Professors Maria Panagiotidi-Kesisoglou and Sophia Kalopissi-Verti for their continuous support and guidance in my academic endeavors. This paper was supported by the 2012 Getty Research Exchange Fellowship Program for the Mediterranean Basin and Middle East, which was entitled ‘Vision and Visual Culture in Byzantium’ and held at Constantinople during

181

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

Figure 16.1. The interior of the Basilica Cistern.

The dimly lit interior of the Basilica Cistern, now called Yerebatan Sarayi, forms today one of the most impressive visual experiences of Byzantine Constantinople for the visitor of the modern City (Fig. 16.1). According to John Malalas2 and the Chronicon Paschale,3 the Cistern was constructed during the first year of Justinian’s reign in order to store the abundant water provided by the Emperor Hadrian’s Aqueduct. During the Byzantine period, the Cistern was not a tourist attraction and had only a functional use as it was constructed under the courtyard of the Basilica, after which it was named. Although the Basilica Cistern is considered today a visual landmark of Byzantine civilization, it never constituted part of Byzantium’s visual culture in the past. However, the monument above the Cistern, the Basilica or Basileios Stoa, was one of the most important buildings of the monumental center and of the visual culture of Constantinople (Fig. 16.2).

Figure 16.2. The eastern part of Constantinople (plan of the author).

στοὰ10 and Βασιλικὴ στοὰ11 meaning Royal or Imperial Portico. In Latin it was called the Basilica.12 It was situated north of the eastern part of the Mese Street in the Regio IV of the City.13 The most important monuments of Constantinople were erected around the Basilica; to the north was the church of Theotokos Chalkoprateia, to the northeast the church of Hagia Eirene, to the east the church of Hagia Sophia, to the southeast the Augustaion, the Milion and the Baths of Zeuxippos and to the south the Hippodrome. In fact, the Basilica along with the Hippodrome virtually defined the boundaries of the western part of the monumental core of Constantinople. In spite of the significance of the Basilike Stoa for social and political life, it remains perhaps the most neglected historical monument of the city’s monumental center.

Byzantine writers inform us that the Basilica hosted the institutions of higher education,4 the Public Library,5 the Juridical Court6 and the Temple of Tyche7 of early Constantinople. Greek textual sources refer to the monument as Βασιλικὴ,8 Βασίλειος στοὰ,9 Βασιλέως

Malalas, Chronography, 364.39–41 (XVIII.17). Chronicon Paschale, 619.1–3. 4  Socrates, Church History, 188.3–8 (ΙΙΙ.1.9–10). Simocattes, History, 20.21–21.4. Xanthopoulos, Church History, 436D-437A. 5  Zosimus, New History, 127.6–7 (III.11). Cedrenus, History, 616.4–10. Zonaras, History, 130.15–131.8. 6  Novellae Justiniani, 402.32–403.1 and 408.15–21 (Neara 82). Procopius, Anecdota, 92.11–13 (14.13). Procopius, De Aedificiis, 43.6–8 (Ι.11). Lydus, De Magistratibus, 156.19–21 (ΙΙΙ.65). Agathias, History, 84.15–17 (ΙΙΙ.1). Menander Protector, 40.8–11 (fragm. 1). Palatine Anthology, ΙΧ.660. 7  Socrates, Church History, 206.12–13 (ΙΙΙ.11). Hesychius, Patria, 6.9–11 (15). Palatine Anthology, ΙΧ.697. Suidae ΙΙΙ, 325.1–3 (M201). Xanthopoulos, Church History, 496C. 8  This was the most common name of the monument from the 5th (earliest reference: Socrates, Church History, 188.3–8 and 206.12–13) to the 14th centuries (latest: Planoudea Anthology, 106, no 66–67 and Xanthopoulos, Church History, 436D-437A and 496C). 9  Novellae Justiniani, 402.32–403.1 and 408.15–21. Procopius, Anecdota, 92.11–13 (14.13). Agathias, History, 78.10–12 (ΙΙ.29) and 84.15–17 (ΙΙΙ.1). Menander Protector, 40.8–11 (fragm. 1). 2 

The most important visual description of the Basilica can be found in the Buildings of Procopius: ‘κατὰ τὴν βασιλέως στοάν … αὐλή τίς ἐστιν ὑπερμεγέθης, περιμήκης μὲν καὶ εὔρους ἱκανῶς ἔχουσα, ἐν τετραπλεύρῳ δὲ περίστυλος οὖσα, οὐκ ἐπὶ γεώδους ἐδάφους τοῖς αὐτὴν δειμαμένοις, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πέτρας πεποιημένη. στοαί τε τὴν αὐλὴν περιβάλλουσι τέσσαρες, κατὰ πλευρὰν ἑκάστην ἑστῶσαι. ταύτην τε οὖν καὶ τῶν στοῶν μίαν, ἥπερ αὐτῆς τέτραπται

3 

10  Zosimus, New History, 127.6–7 (III.11). Procopius, De Aedificiis, 43.6 (Ι.11). Lydus, De Magistratibus, 156.19–21 (ΙΙΙ.65). Simocattes, History, 20.21–21.4. 11  John of Antioch, fragments, 426.7–10 (234). 12  Codex Theodosianus, XV.1.50. Notitia Urbis, 232, V.8. Codex Justinianus, VIII.11.21. 13  Notitia Urbis, 232, V.5–15.

182

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople No material remains of the monument exist today. The only excavation that took place in the area of the Basilica was conducted in its courtyard during the year 1934 on the occasion of the construction of houses on Yerebatan Street.20 Large rectangular slabs were found between 0.9 m and 1.7 m deep and according to Mamboury they were the actual pavement stones of the courtyard. The Swiss scholar, based on the finds of the excavation, concluded that the whole surface of the Cistern was a rectangular paved inner courtyard around which a zone of now lost buildings was erected. His conclusions confirm Procopius’ testimony. During the same excavation a vaulted construction retaining the zone of buildings to the north of the Cistern was found in the adjacent Salkim Soğüt Street.21 This discovery led Mamboury to the conclusion that the Basilica was directly adjacent to the church of Theotokos Chalkoprateia. He also estimated that the floors of the two buildings differed in elevation by about 12 m. The Basilica was erected on the north slope, between the first and the second hills of Constantinople (Fig. 16.5). The orientation of the monument was developed at rightangles to the longitudinal axis of the Hippodrome and in parallel to the contour lines of the north slope of the second hill. As a result the long south portico of the monument was founded on the natural ground surface, while the floor of the long north portico was about 4 m above the ground level due to the gradient of the slope (Fig. 16.6A). Therefore the construction of the north portico required the erection of high and very long foundations which could only bridge this difference (Fig. 16.6B).

Figure 16.3. The excavated area of the Basilica according to Procopius (plan of the author).

πρὸς ἄνεμον νότον, ἐς βάθους μέγα τι χρῆμα κατορύξας Ἰουστινιανὸς βασιλεύς, ἀποβαλλομένοις τῇ περιουσίᾳ κατὰ τὰς ἄλλας ὥρας τοῖς ὕδασιν ἐς θέρος ἐν ἐπιτηδείῳ θησαυρὸν ἔθετο’.14 The author states that the Basilica was a very wide rectangular quadriporticus which surrounded a wide open courtyard. According to Procopius’ description, excavations were executed only under the south Portico and the courtyard of the Basilica implying that the other three porticoes, the northern, eastern and western ones were not disturbed (Fig. 16.3). The Chronicon Paschale confirms that Justinian: ‘Ἐποίησε…καὶ τὸ μεσίαυλον τῆς βασιλικῆς Ἴλλου κινστέρναν μεγάλην’.15 The rectangular, elongated Cistern16 measures 138 m in length and 64.6 m in width (Fig. 16.4). It practically reproduced the shape and the orientation of the Quadriporticus Basilica at a slightly smaller size. Thus, the other three porticoes continued to rest ‘ἐπὶ πέτρας’,17 as Procopius states and not on the roof of the Cistern. Soon we will re-examine the meaning of this ambiguous expression which Dewing and Downey translated as ‘living rock’.18 Guilland and Mango following Procopius’ description estimated that the original dimensions of the Basilica were about 150 m (length) by 70 m (width).19

In my opinion the testimony of Procopius: ‘…οὐκ ἐπὶ γεώδους ἐδάφους, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πέτρας πεποιημένη’22 – translated as ‘not set upon a foundation of earth…but built upon living rock’ – refers to these strong foundations which were constructed at the time. The translation of this passage by Dewing and Downey reveals the limitations of topographical research based on the translation of ancient texts. In Greek the word ‘πέτρα’ has a double meaning: it may mean ‘stone’ or ‘rock’. The translators preferred to translate the word as ‘living rock’. But, as we have seen, the existing variation in elevation, which they ignored, not only prevented the erection of the north part of the Basilica on the rock, but also demanded the construction of high foundations. We should keep in mind that the Basilica Cistern is the largest covered cistern of Constantinople, with a total capacity of about 72,000 cubic meters and a total surface of about 9,000 square meters.23 It required 336 columns of about 8 m high to support the roof. If the ground was rocky, the excavation of the ‘living rock’ to 138 m in

Procopius, De Aedificiis, 43.6–17 (Ι.11). Translation Dewing-Downey 1961, 91: ‘At the Imperial Portico…there is a certain very large court, very long, and broad in proportion, surrounded by columns on the four sides, not set upon a foundation of earth by those who constructed it, but built upon living rock. Four colonnaded stoas surround the court, standing one on each side. Excavating to a great depth this court and one of the stoas (that which faces toward the south), the Emperor Justinian made a suitable storage reservoir for the summer season, to contain the water which had been wasted because of its very abundance during the other seasons’. 15  Chronicon Paschale, 619.1–3: ‘made the central court of the Basilica of Illus a great cistern’. 16  Crow-Bardill-Bayliss 2008, 127, 215–216, fig. 9.1–9.2. Müller-Wiener 1977, 285, fig. 323. 17  Procopius, De Aedificiis, 43.11–12 (Ι.11). 18  Dewing-Downey 1961, 91. 19  Guilland 1954, 102. Mango 1959, 49. 14 

Mamboury 1936, 274. Mamboury 1936, 274. Bardill 1997, 78, no. 46. Probably the same retaining wall was mentioned by Schneider 1936, 24 and Kleiss 1965, 166–167 (fig. 4). 22  Procopius, De Aedificiis, 43.10–12 (Ι.11). 23  Crow–Bardill–Bayliss 2008, 127. Müller-Wiener 1977, 285, fig. 323. Tonguç 1990, 13. Additionally, see Mamboury–Wiegand 1934, 54–71. 20  21 

183

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

Figure 16.4. The area around the Basilica Cistern.

length and 8 m in depth would render the construction of the Cistern not only a huge technical work which could never be accomplished during the first year of Justinian’s reign,24 but also an unprofitable project which could be constructed more easily and at a lower cost on earthy soil. It seems reasonable that with the phrase ‘ἐπὶ πέτρας πεποιημένη’, meaning ‘constructed on stones’, Procopius implies the strong and high stone-foundations of the Basilica. It is also very possible that in these deep

foundations there already existed underground empty spaces for storage or commercial use, the integration of which facilitated the construction of the Cistern (Fig. 16.6C-D). Such a circumstance would justify Justinian’s choice of the Basilica courtyard for the construction of the Cistern. Important evidence concerning the architectural plan and the decoration of the Basilica is provided by the Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, a source from the middle of the 8th century. In the description of the first Spectacle, that of a huge statue of an Elephant which was placed in the Basilike Stoa, it is mentioned that: ‘Ἐν γὰρ τῇ αὐτῇ

As recorded by Malalas, Chronography, 364.39–41 (XVIII.17), Chronicon Paschale, 619.1–3 and Theophanes, Chronography, 176.24–27.

24 

184

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople

Figure 16.5. The Basilica between the first and the second hills.

Figure 16.6. The high foundations of the Basilica and the Cistern (plan of the author).

185

Dimitris Chatzilazarou χρυσορόφῳ Βασιλικῇ τὸν ἐλέφαντα παραμένειν εἰς θέαμα ἐξαίσιον· ὅρον γὰρ εἶναι πρὸ τοῦ μέρους τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν τῶν οβ΄ ἔλεγον·’.25 In the Patria of the 10th century it is repeated: ‘ὅρος δὲ ἦν πρὸ τοῦ μέρους τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν’.26 A large, external, monumental staircase, which is used as a topographical indication, was located in one of the four sides of the building. Additionally, the golden decoration of the roof of the Basilica, mentioned in the Parastaseis and the Patria,27 is confirmed by a law of the year 440 in the Codex Justinianus which refers to the monument as the ‘Basilicam inauratam et marmoribus decoratam…’.28 The law also informs us that the monument was decorated with luxurious marbles. Without a doubt, the Basilica and in particular its north side was a very impressive construction, as it was erected upon its high, strong and 150 meter–long foundations. Inevitably, the most functionally and morphologically appropriate site to reconstruct the high staircase stood in the middle of the north portico of the Basilica29 (Fig. 16.7). The 72 steps mentioned in the Parastaseis would provide access to this portico from the lower level of the Chalkoprateia. At the same time this monumental staircase would enhance the impressive façade of the north portico of the Basilica. In fact, if we allow for an average height of approximately 17 cm for each one of the 72 steps, the total would amount to 12.24 meters, which  accords well with the 12 meters proposed by Mamboury30 for the actual difference in elevation.

Figure 16.7. The Monumental Center of Constantinople (plan of the author).

of the 5th century, Socrates mentions that: ‘Ἰουλιανὸς δὲ αὐξηθεὶς τῶν ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει παιδευτῶν ἠκροᾶτο, εἰς τὴν βασιλικὴν, ἔνθα τότε τὰ παιδευτήρια ἦν’.32 Mango re-dated the establishment of the Basilica before the middle of the 4th century, using this piece of information as terminus ante quem.33 Socrates informs us also that in the year 362 the emperor Julian: ‘θυσίας δὲ ἐπετέλει τῇ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως Τύχῃ δημοσίᾳ ἐν τῇ βασιλικῇ, ἔνθα καὶ τὸ τῆς Τύχης ἵδρυται ἄγαλμα’.34 According to Socrates’ testimony, which has never been disputed by any researcher, the Schools and the Tychaion of Constantinople had already been established in the Basilica by the middle of the 4th century.

In the Patria, the location of a statue of Theodosius the Great, which stood at the opposite side of the Basilica, between its southeastern corner and the Milion was described as: ‘ὄπισθεν τῆς Βασιλικῆς πλησίον του Μιλίου’.31 This testimony clearly confirms that the front view of the Basilica was its northern façade. But why was this huge and expensive building constructed on the slope of the hill facing north while the monumental center of Constantine’s City was developed toward the east and the south? Before we try to answer this crucial question, let us examine what other information is provided by Byzantine sources about the existence of the Basilike Stoa on the monumental stage of Constantinople.

Specifically, two more testimonies confirm that the Tychaion of the City still existed in the Basilica during the 6th century. Hesychius when describing the foundation of ancient Byzantion by Byzas confirms: ‘Ῥέας μὲν κατὰ τὸν τῆς βασιλικῆς λεγόμενον τόπον νεών τε καὶ ἄγαλμα καθιδρύσατο, ὅπερ καὶ Τυχαῖον τοῖς πολίταις τετίμηται’.35 Also Theodorus τριcέπαρχοc renovated and embellished the temple of Tyche according to an epigram of the Palatine Anthology which was inscribed in the apse of the Basilica: ‘Ἔπρεπέ σοι, Θεόδωρε, Τύχης ἐϋκίονα νηὸν/ἔργου κοσμῆσαι θαύματι τοσσατίου/δῶρά τε κυδήεντα πορεῖν χρυσασπίδι Ῥώμῃ,/ἥ σ’ ὕπατον τεῦξεν

The oldest testimony about the existence of the monument refers to the reign of Constantius. The Church historian 25  Parastaseis, 40.14–16 (37). Cameron–Herrin 1984, 99: ‘For in the same golden-roofed Basilica they say the elephant lived, an extraordinary spectacle. They said there was an enclosure in front of the area of the seventy-two steps’. Translation modified by the author: ‘For in the same golden-roofed Basilica they say the elephant remains an extraordinary spectacle. It set the boundary in front of the area of the seventy-two steps’. 26  Patria, 172.2–3 (41): ‘It set the boundary in front of the area of the steps’. 27  Patria, 171.16–17 (41). 28  Codex Justinianus, VIII.11.21: ‘The Basilica which is decorated in gold and marble…’. 29  Mango 1959, 44 argued that the staircase was constructed at the northeast corner of the monument. See below no. 44. 30  Mamboury 1936, 274. 31  Patria, 171.14–15 (40): ‘…behind the Basilica, near the Milion’.

Socrates, Church History, 188.3–8 (ΙΙΙ.1.9–10): ‘Julian, during his adolescence was taught by the teachers of Constantinople in the Basilica, where the Schools were at that time’. 33  Mango 1985, 26. Initially Mango 1959, 49 dated the construction of the Basilica to the early 5th century, following Guilland 1954, 98. 34  Socrates, Church History, 206.12–13 (ΙΙΙ.11): ‘offered sacrifices to Tyche of Constantinople publicly in the Basilica where the statue of Tyche was erected’. 35  Hesychius, Patria, 6.9–11 (15): ‘He established a temple and a statue of Rhea in the so called place of the Basilica, which has been honoured by the citizens as the Tychaion’. 32 

186

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople καὶ τρισέπαρχον ὁρᾷ’.36 Alan Cameron37 proved that this Theodorus is identical with Theodorus Teganistes who became prefect of the City three times during the reign of Justin I. The temple of Tyche not only survived until the first quarter, maybe the middle, of the 6th century, but it was also renovated and embellished by the most important dignitary of the City. Furthermore Theodorus boasted about this restoration by inscribing an epigram in the apse of the Basilica.

proposition has been generally accepted45 and has led to the consideration of the Augustaion as an Agora or Forum of Constantinople, his viewpoint has not satisfied all the parameters posed by the sources and the archaeological evidence.46 The identification of the ‘Great Quadriporticus Agora’ still remains an open issue for the topographical research.47 At this point we should consider a very interesting detail in Zosimus’ account. While his narration refers to the past, as the writer uses two verbs in the past tense: ‘οὔσης δὲ ἐν τῷ Βυζαντίῳ μεγίστης ἀγορᾶς τετραστόου’48 and ‘ναοὺς ᾠκοδομήσατο δύο’,49 between these two verses he refers to the portico with the numerous steps using the present tense: ‘κατὰ τὰς τῆς μιᾶς στοᾶς ἄκρας, εἰς ἣν ἀνάγουσιν οὐκ ὀλίγοι βαθμοί’.50 This apparently inconsistent but spontaneous description gives life to his narration. Also it provides a direct impression that Zosimus is vividly sketching a portico which his contemporary readers could actually see. The fact that Zosimus feels the need to differentiate this specific portico with the staircase implies that all the other porticoes also existed and were still visible. Thus, his grammatically paradoxical description presents to his contemporary readers a quadriporticus monument with a great staircase which still existed in their time. What did not exist anymore was its function or use as an Agora.

Our case becomes extremely interesting thanks to a reference of the pagan writer Zosimus to Constantine the Great in which he mentions that: ‘οὔσης δὲ ἐν τῷ Βυζαντίῳ μεγίστης ἀγορᾶς τετραστόου, κατὰ τὰς τῆς μιᾶς στοᾶς ἄκρας, εἰς ἣν ἀνάγουσιν οὐκ ὀλίγοι βαθμοί, ναοὺς ᾠκοδομήσατο δύο, ἐγκαθιδρύσας ἀγάλματα, θατέρῳ μὲν μητρὸς θεῶν Ῥέας, …ἐν δὲ θατέρῳ Ῥώμης ἱδρύσατο Τύχην’.38 Zosimus’ reference attributes three main characteristics of the Basilica, the quadriporticus form, the great external staircase and the temple of Tyche, to a monument unknown to us, the ‘Great Quadriporticus Agora’ of ancient Byzantion. The identification of this monument has aroused controversy among the researchers of Constantinopolitan topography. Ducange39 proposed that this monument is to be identified with the Augustaion, which in his opinion was a Forum of ancient Byzantion. Schneider40 and Guilland41 argued instead that the ‘Quadriporticus Agora’ pre-existed in the place of the Basilike Stoa.42 Mango43 following Ducange argued that the Agora overlapped partly with the later Augustaion, but initially occupied a broader area which included the Milion and the east end of the Mese Street.44 Despite the fact that Mango’s

Now we may return to our main question and attempt to answer why the predominant and most impressive façade of the Basilica faced towards the north, while the monumental center of Constantine’s City was developed to the east and the south of the monument. In our opinion there is only one satisfactory answer. The quadriporticus known as Basilica or Basileios Stoa was not constructed by Constantine the Great or his successors during the re-planning and the urban expansion of Constantinople. Actually, what happened was the exact opposite. The City inherited and integrated into the newly-designed Imperial monumental center one of the greatest and most impressive monuments of ancient Byzantion, the ‘Great Quadriporticus Agora’. And as it should be expected the monument was built facing the plain, where ancient Byzantion was built, and also towards the Acropolis to the north (Fig. 16.8).

36  Palatine Anthology, ΙΧ.697. Paton 1958, 387: ‘It beseemed thee, Theodorus, to adorn the columned temple of Fortune (Tyche) by such a wonderful work, and to give splendid gifts to Constantinople, city of the golden shield (Rome with the golden shield), which made thee consul and sees thee for the third time prefect’. All translations in parentheses are the author’s. 37  Cameron 1976, 269–286. 38  Zosimus, New History, 88.16–89.2 (ΙΙ.31). Ridley 1982, 38: ‘There was in Byzantium a huge forum consisting of four porticoes, and at the end of one of them, which has numerous steps leading up to it, he (Constantine) built two temples. Statues were set up in them, in one Rhea, mother of the gods…and in the other, the statue of Fortuna Romae (Tyche of Rome)’. Translation modified: ‘There was in Byzantium a Great Quadriporticus Agora, and at the edges of one portico, which has numerous steps…’. 39  Ducange 1680, I, 70. 40  Schneider 1939, 23–26. 41  Guilland 1954, 97. 42  This proposal was accepted by researchers as Bauer 1996, 218–220 and Schlange-Schöningen 1995, 101–102. 43  Mango 1959, 42–47. 44  This proposal presupposes that the Tetrastoon-Augustaion initially extended to the east side of the Basilica in order to explain why the staircase was defined in the text of Parastaseis as part of the latter. Mango 1959, 44 argued: ‘if, therefore, the flight of many steps mentioned by Zosimus and the temples of Rhea and Fortuna were at the north-east corner of the Basilica, then they could also be described as being at one end of the Augustaion, so that the argument in favour of placing the Tetrastoon over the Cisterna Basilica loses some of its cogency’. This proposal has no archaeological, topographical or historical foundation. It is a logical assumption in an attempt to bridge the gap between the Augustaion and the Basilica and to explain why the position of the steps was defined in connection to the Basilica. But a very important road, which probably pre-dated the foundation of Constantinople, used to pass

between the Augustaion and the Basilica leading from the east side of the Hippodrome to the Acropolis of Byzantion. It intersected the Mese Street at the Milion, see Berger 2000, 163 and pl. 1. Possibly the direction of this road is indicated by the conduit which was discovered by Firatli– Ergil 1969, 209–210, fig. 1. The pavement of the road was found during Schneider’s excavation in the atrium of St. Sophia: Schneider 1941, 4 and pl. 1. 45  Janin 1964, 59–60; Speck 1974, 92–94, 106; Müller-Wiener 1977, 248, 283; Dagron 2000, 420, no. 11; Bassett 2004, 20–24; Cassanelli 2008, 15–22; Anadol 2010, 58. 46  Dagron 2000, 426 points out that the Tetrastoon is vaguely identified with the Basilica in written sources. 47  Berger 1987, 24–28. Berger 1988, 417–422. Barsanti 1992, 129. 48  Zosimus, New History, 88.16–17: ‘There was in Byzantium a great quadriporticus agora’. 49  Zosimus, New History, 88.18: ‘he built two temples’. 50  Zosimus, New History, 88.17–18: ‘at the edges of one portico, which has numerous steps leading up to it’.

187

Dimitris Chatzilazarou that it refers to the buildings of the monumental center of Constantinople not with their familiar and widely used names, but with their ancient or archaic appellations. The description of the passage of the flames leaves no room for misunderstanding.54 The fire started at the Chalke Gate and from there it leaped successively to Hagia Sophia, to the Senatus at the Augustaion, to the Agora of Zeuxippos and finally to the Baths of Zeuxippos. The Agora of Zeuxippos cannot be identified with the Augustaion, as the writer clearly differentiates the two edifices by stating that the fire was transmitted from the Senatus at the ‘Augustus’ Panegyris’ to the Agora of Zeuxippos. And the only quadriporticus building adjacent to the Augustaion was the Basilica.55 The construction of the Agora of Zeuxippos and especially the erection of the north portico on the hill slope appears to have been a deliberate choice for the citizens of ancient Byzantion. Their purpose was the construction of a very impressive building with a monumental façade facing the Acropolis, the city and especially the south opening of the sea passage of the Bosphorus where the visual axes of the north portico converge (Fig. 16.9).56 This majestic monument would visually impose the political strength and the economic prosperity of the independent and powerful Byzantion to friendly or hostile ships, sailing across the Bosphorus and the Propontis, at the time when

Figure 16.8. The monuments of Ancient Byzantion (plan of the author).

Zosimus’ grammatically paradoxical description derives from his nostalgic effort to locate the Temple of Tyche not in relation to the topography of contemporary Constantinople during his time, as Socrates51 and Hesychius52 did, but according to the topography of pagan Byzantion. This is why, although his description was showing the quadriporticus Basilica to his contemporary readers, he used the ancient appellation of the monument instead, where the Tychaion had been constructed and where it still existed at the time.

the Augustus’ Panegyris, from which it proceeded to the Agora called Zeuxippus after king Zeuxippus…’. 54  Lydus describes the destructive results of two separate fires together. The best description is provided by the Chronikon Paschale, 621.17– 622.15. Mango 1993, Addenda, 1 correctly restitutes the text of the Chronikon Paschale, 622.12–13: ‘and Hagia Eirene [and the Basilica] which was erected by Illus the Isaurian…’ according to the references of the Chronikon Paschale, 619.1–2 and Theophanes, Chronography, 176.24–27. For the events, see Greatrex 1997. 55  Mango 1959, 46, no. 55, focused on Lydus’ phrase: ‘ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰουλιανοῦ Γερουσίαν, ἥν καλοῦσι Σενᾶτον κατὰ τὴν Αὐγούστου [Πανήγυριν]’ and translated it: ‘Market (or fair) of Augustus’, arguing that even in Lydus’ time the Augustaion-Tetrastoon remained a public space-Agora of Constantinople. The fact that Lydus mentions right next to the ‘Αὐγούστου [Πανήγυριν]’ the actual Agora: ‘ἐπὶ τὴν ἀγοράν, ἥν καλοῦσι Ζεύξιππον’ was passed over. Moreover Mango’s translation of the term ‘Augustus’ Panegyris’ is not precise. An inscription of the Sebasteion of Ancyra is instructive: ‘ἔτ[ι] πολλ[οὺς] τόπους ἀν(έ)[θηκ]ε ὅπο[υ] τὸ Σεβαστῆόν ἐστιν καὶ ἡ παν[ή]γυρις γείνεται καὶ ὁ ἱπποδρόμος.’ in Dittenberger 1905, 203, no 533. The term ‘Panegyris’ in the context of Imperial Cult refers to the celebrations in honor of the Emperor. About the relation of the Hippodrome to the celebrations, see Gros 1996, 229–231. Lydus, Mensibus, 163 (IV.86) mentions Imperial celebrations in the Augustaion: ‘Τῇ Πέμπτη τοῦ Ὀκτωβρίου μηνὸς οἱ ῥεγεωνάρχαι καὶ σεβαστοφόροι ἐχόρευον ἐν τῷ Γουστείῳ, οἷον, ἐν τῷ ὀψοπωλείῳ, εἰς τιμὴν Τιβερίου· τὸν δὲ τοιοῦτον τόπον νῦν οἱ ἰδιῶται Αὐγουστεῖον καλοῦσιν’. In fact the term: ‘Αὐγούστου [Πανήγυρις]’ indicates the public space where imperial celebrations used to take place, that is the Augustaion. About the displacement of the imperial title ‘Sebastos’ by ‘Augoustos’ in the Greek East, see Salway 2007. 56  Polybius, Histories, IV.43.7–44.5 describes the strong sea currents in the south opening of the Bosphorus: ‘…πλὴν ὅ γε ῥοῦς τὸ τελευταῖον ὁρμήσας ἀπὸ τῆς Βοὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸ φέρεται τὸ Βυζάντιον…’. When ships were sailing to Chalkedon the strong currents pushed them towards Byzantion: ‘ἀλλ’ ὅμως εἰς τὴν μὲν βουληθέντα καταπλεῦσ’οὐ ῥᾴδιον, πρὸς ἥν δέ, κἄν μὴ βούλῃ, φέρει κατ’ ἀνάγκην ὁ ῥοῦς’. This parameter, which was very important for the naval and economic prosperity of Byzantion, also reveals the strategic significance of the city’s peninsula and the direct visual connection of the north portico to the sailing ships.

The most certain confirmation that the ancient Agora is identified with the Basilica comes from a passage of John Lydos, where he lists the buildings of the City’s monumental center which were damaged by the conflagration of the Nika Riot: ‘…ἀρχῆς δὲ λαβόμενον τὸ πῦρ ἐκ τῶν τῆς αὐλῆς εἰσόδων, εἶτα ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἱερόν, ἐξ οὗ ἐπὶ τὴν Ἰουλιανοῦ [γερουσίαν] – ἣν καλοῦσι σενᾶτον κατὰ τὴν Αὐγούστου [πανήγυριν – ἀφ’ ἧς ἐπὶ τὴν] ἀγοράν, ἣν καλοῦσι [Ζεύ]ξιππον ἀπὸ Ζευξίππου βασιλέως… τὸ γὰρ δημόσιον βαλανεῖον Σεβήρειον ἀπὸ Σεβήρου… παρωνόμασται…τῶν δὲ τηλικούτων σωμάτων [εἰς πῦρ] μεταβαλόντων…’.53 The importance of this passage is Socrates, Church History, 188.4 (ΙΙΙ.1.9–10) and 206.13 (ΙΙΙ.11). Hesychius, Patria, 6.9 (15). 53  Lydus, De Magistratibus, 162.21–163.16 (ΙΙΙ.70). Bandy 1983, 245– 247: ‘…the fire got its start at the gates of the court. Then from there it spread to the First Temple. From the latter it leapt to the Council-House of Julian called Senatus after the Assembly Hall of Augustus. From this it proceeded to the forum called Zeuxippus after King Zeuxippus … As for the public bath, it was named Severeum after Severus … When structures of such grandeur had been turned into flames…’. Translation modified: ‘From the latter it leapt to the Council-House of Julian called Senatus at 51  52 

188

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople The transformation process of the monumental portico of Byzantion into a quadriporticus is in keeping with the architectural evolution of the Greek Agora during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. During that era the free-standing porticoes in the Agoras of the Greek Cities were expanded with the addition of lateral porticoes or other monumental buildings which framed and isolated the perimeter of the public spaces.61 Gradually, the open space of the Greek Agora was transformed into a closed quadriporticus, a process driven by social, political and religious concepts. In practice, this evolution seems to have served to define and isolate the commercial activities from the political functions in such ancient public spaces.62 The Agora of Zeuxippos in Byzantion looks to have hosted mainly commercial activities,63 which were once located, along with the political activities, in the Ancient Agora of the City, namely the Strategion near the Prosphorianos port. The simple quadriporticus form of the Agora of Zeuxippos which did not incorporate other buildings and the wide courtyard remind us of similar Commercial Agoras of the Hellenic world, such as the Tetragonos Agora of Ephesus, the Roman Agora of Athens, and the South Agora of Miletus. The Agora of Zeuxippos ranked in size amongst the great Agoras64 of the rich Greek cities in Asia Minor. The terminus ante quem for the completion of the transformation process of the free-standing north portico into a quadriporticus is set by the building activity of Emperor Severus, according to John Malalas65 and the Chronicon Paschale.66 When Severus constructed the Hippodrome and the Thermes, the Quadriporticus of Zeuxippos was already standing in the monumental foreground of ancient Byzantion.

Figure 16.9. Aerial view of Constantinople and the Bosporus strait.

this nautical city controlled the sea passage of Bosphorus and the commercial route to the Black Sea.57 In my view, the monumental character of the north portico, its high, strong foundation, the impressive façade with the great staircase and especially the direct visual relation to the passage of the Bosphorus indicate the separate construction of the portico during the Hellenistic period when similar daring monumental porticoes were erected by Pergamon and other rich Greek cities in Asia Minor.58 The closest known parallel to the portico of Byzantion can be traced in the Hellenistic Stoa of the Acropolis of Lindos on the island of Rhodes, in terms of architectural form, morphological elements and especially in terms of the central monumental staircase. The façade of the Stoa of Lindos59 was dominated by a central monumental staircase which bridged the gap between two different ground levels, while at the same time its view from the sea was greatly impressive. A really solid foundation, with underground barrel-vaulted rooms, formed a wide plateau in front of the Stoa. Wings projected from both edges of the portico (Fig. 16.10). They provide a visually very effective model for the restoration of the temples of Rhea and Tyche at the edges of the north portico of Byzantion, according to Zosimus’ description. It seems plausible that during the 3rd century BC, when Byzantion and Rhodes were competing to dominate the commercial sea routes, this competition was also expressed in the field of monumental architecture.60

The identification of the Basilica with the Roman Agora of Zeuxippos67 allows us to re-evaluate certain testimonies about the pagan past of the area of Zeuxippos which probably have seemed irrelevant until today. These testimonies, now integrated in the environment of the ancient Agora, acquire a new and essential meaning. There are references οὖν Βαβυλωνίων ἤ τὰ Μεμνόνεια τὰ ἐν Σούσοις τείχη τοῖς Περσικοῖς οὔτε εἶδον, οὔτε ἄλλων περὶ αὐτῶν ἤκουσα αὐτοπτούντων· τὰ δὲ ἐν Άμβρώσῳ τῇ Φωκικῇ ἐν τε Βυζαντίῳ καὶ Ῥόδῳ, ταῦτα γὰρ δὴ τετείχισται τὰ χωρία ἄριστα, τούτων Μεσσηνίοις ἐστὶν ἐχυρώτερον’. 61  Coulton 1976, 173–174; Evangelidis 2010, 188–193 and 292–293. 62  Coulton 1976, 174–177; Evangelidis 2010, 193–196 and 293. 63  As reflected in the law of the Codex Justinianus, VIII.11.21. 64  Martin 1951, 392–408, 421–431. Müller-Wiener 1995, 175–179. Chatzilazarou 2016, 287–288. 65  Malalas, Chronography, 221.62–76 (ΧΙΙ.20). 66  Chronicon Paschale, 494.12–495.6. 67  This identification also explains the key position of a cistern of Justinianic date for the understanding of an aqueduct of Hadrianic date, as Crow–Bardill–Bayliss 2008, 17 pointed out: ‘the association of the Basilica Cistern with the Hadrianic line provides key evidence for understanding the topography of the water supply system within the city’. Recently, Ward, 2018, 192–205, suggested a southern route for the Hadrianic line. Additionally, see Ward – Crow – Crapper 2017, 349–356 and Crow, 2018, 224–225. Ward 2018, 197–198, also recognizes Basilica Cistern as ‘a critical factor in determining the route followed by the Aqueduct of Hadrian’ (the proposal of Crow – Bardill – Bayliss 2008, 114–117, figure 2.2 and maps 12–15 for the Hadrianic line was followed in figures 16.2 and 16.8). The Hadrianic Aqueduct probably supplied a Nymphaeum in the area of the Roman Agora. Evidently the ‘Nympheum’, which is mentioned by the Notitia Urbis, 232, V.8–9 right next to the Basilica, was rather part of the Hadrianic line.

Russell 2017, 104–113. Coulton 1976, 67–71; Winter 2006, 57–59. 59  Dyggve 1960, 217–297, pl. VI.H, VI.Ο and fig. VI.24. See also Coulton, 1976, 61 and 251–252. A cistern also existed in the substructure of the platform in front of the Stoa of Lindos. 60  On the competition: Polybius, Histories, IV.46.6 – IV.52.10. Hesychius, Patria, 9.9–10 (20). Oberhummer – Miller – Kubitschek 1897, 1131– 1136; Bréhier 1938, 1504–1505; Marinescu 1996, 409–413; Russell 2017, 93–98. Additionally Marinescu mentions three events during the late 3rd century BC, whereby Byzantion along with Rhodes contributed as intercessors to the relief of military tensions between Greek cities. Gyuzelev 2008, 177 mentions the place name ‘Ῥοδίων περίβολοι’ in the territory of Byzantion. Also Pausanias, Description of Greece, 4.31.5 draws an analogy between the walls of Byzantion and Rhodes: ‘Τὰ μὲν 57   58 

189

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

Figure 16.10. The monumental façade of the Hellenistic Stoa of Lindos.

in textual sources to ancient statues68 donated or erected in the Basilica during the Hellenistic and Roman periods and also references to pagan shrines69 and cults located in the Basilica and the surrounding area which were incorporated into the monuments of Byzantion and Constantinople. In my opinion all these narrations echo vague memories of the pagan past of the Agora of Zeuxippos later integrated into the Christian environment of the Basilike Stoa.

illustrate the integration of the monument into the Imperial Centre, its functional renewal or its lavish decoration.74 It seems that while the quadriporticus was acquiring the glamour of an imperial monument at the same time it was renouncing its functional destination as an agora. The transference of the Tychaion75 from the Political Agora, the Strategion, to the Agora of Zeuxippos depicts in a symbolic way the transference of the city’s centre of gravity from the ancient public space to the new imperial core of Constantinople. The selection of the Agora and specifically of the north portico constituted the ideal choice in terms of greatness, tradition and history. The orientation of the portico towards the old, pagan Byzantion at the same time divorced it from the new centre of Christian Constantinople. The relocation of the Tyche of Byzantion as the Tyche of New Rome-Constantinople in the AgoraBasilica conferred a symbolic sense of continuity on the monument, the town and the citizens. This symbolic message was not in opposition to the rapidly growing Christian character of Byzantium’s visual culture.

The transition from the Agora of Zeuxippos to the Basilike Stoa constitutes an important visual aspect of the transformation of ancient Byzantion into New RomeConstantinople. The case of the now lost Basilica illustrates the assimilation of the ancient monumental legacy within the newly designed and constructed Imperial centre of Constantinople.70 When Constantine the Great decided to establish his own City on the actual site of Byzantion’s peninsula, he incorporated the Circus,71 the Agora and the Baths of Zeuxippus72 into his town-planning. This decision was the easiest, fastest and most convenient way to develop his own Imperial Centre, as the functions of these monuments were in harmony with his intentions. The sole exception was the commercial character of the Agora of Zeuxippos. The Imperial will gradually transformed its functional character by hosting in the ancient quadriporticus the institutions of higher education, the Public Library, the Juridical Court and the Tychaion of the city. The change of the name of the edifice from Agora to Basileios Stoa or Basilica is sufficiently recorded in the textual sources of the 4th and 5th centuries.73 It may

Constantine the Great used a conciliatory approach towards the Greek population of Byzantion, showing not only religious tolerance but also respect for the traditions of the city.76 As the new founder, through a highly symbolic act, he transformed the ancient Agora of Zeuxippos into the visual merging point between the Roman legacy and the traditions of Byzantion. Here not only Tyche of Rome met the Greek goddess Rhea, but also the Greek Agora

68  Trophies: Hesychius, Patria, 13.5–8 (31); Statues of Byzas and Phidaleia: Hesychius, Patria, 14.9–15 (34); Opitz 1934, 573. Planoudea Anthology, 106, no 66; Łajtar 2000, 35–36, no 8Α–Β; Statue of an Elephant: Parastaseis, 40.9–41.9 (37). Patria, 172.1–11 (41); Bassett 2004, 172. The chariot of Helios: Parastaseis, 41–42 (38). Patria, 172.16–173.3 (42). 69  Sanctuary of Rhea: Hesychius, Patria, 6.9–11 (15); Sanctuary of Zeus: Souda IV, 335.2–3; Altar of Zeus: Hesychius, Patria, 15.13–16.6 (37); Opitz 1934, 574. Sanctuary of Hekate: Hesychius, Patria, 7.2–3 (15); Sanctuary of Dioscuri: Zosimus, New History, 88.10–13 (ΙΙ.31); Hesychius, Patria, 16.1–5 (37). 70  Chatzilazarou 2018, on the formation of the monumental center of Constantinople. 71  Malalas, Chronography, 245.74–76 (XIII.7). Chronicon Paschale, 528.4–6; Zosimus, New History, 88.10–15; Sozomenus, Church History, 52.11–13 (II.3.5). 72  Malalas, Chronography, 246.5–9 (XIII.8). Chronicon Paschale, 529.5– 7. The testimony of the sources concerning the original construction of the Circus and the Baths by Severus is neither yet confirmed nor rejected by archaeological research; see Bardill 2004, 67–69, 116–117. Bardill 2010, 93–94; Mango 2003, 599–606; Mango 2010, 37–38. 73  Chatzilazarou 2016, 299–315. The Basilica as Agora: Libanius, autobiography, 100.14–18 (35) and 106.12–15 (46). Themistius, Oratio IV, 83.12–13 (58c). The Agora as the seat of the Lawcourts and Schools:

Themistius, Oratio XXI, 43.19–44.7 (260b–c). The monument was called ‘Basileios Stoa’ for the first time by Himerius, Oratio XLI, 175.155–159. 74  Themistius, Oratio IV, 83.12–13 (58c): ‘…καὶ τὴν βασίλειον ἀγορὰν ὥσπερ καλύπτραν διαπλέκων χρυσῷ καὶ μορίοις’. Codex Justinianus, VIII.11.21: ‘Βasilicam inauratam et marmoribus decoratam…’. Basilicorum libri LX, LVIII.12.21, 2674.6–9: ‘[Ἡ] βασιλικὴ κεχρυσωμένη καὶ μεμαρμαρ[ωμέν]η…’. 75  Tyche at Strategion: Marcellinus Comes Chronicon, 97.15–17 (year 510). Patria, 184.5–6 (II.61). Berger 1988, 409–410. Wilkinson 2010, 181–185 connected four epigrams of Palladas (Palatine Anthology, IX.180–183) to the transference of the Tychaion of Constantinople to the Basilica by Constantine. But it is not certain whether the epigrams are referring to the Tychaion of Byzantion or of Alexandria, see Gibson 2009, 618–622, no 49. 76  Constantine did not take advantage of the magnificent site of the traditional cult center of Byzantion, the ancient Acropolis, for the construction of his Palace, as Mohammed the Conqueror did eleven centuries later. The ancient temples of Aphrodite, Artemis and HeliosApollon, see Malalas, Chronography, 221.72–222.78 (ΧΙΙ.20), remained intact but without income, see idem, 248.56–59 (ΧΙΙΙ.13). Theodosius transformed them in ‘καρουχαρεῖον’, ‘ταβλοπαρόχιον’ και ‘αὐλὴν οἰκημάτων’, see idem, 267.75–82 (ΧΙΙΙ.38).

190

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople met the Roman Basilica, while Greek Education (Παιδεία) encountered Roman Justice. In the heart of Constantinople the ancient Agora of Zeuxippos was transformed into the Royal portico and at the same time into a very powerful visual symbol of the transition from Byzantion and old Rome to the New Rome-Constantinople.

Novellae Justiniani: Corpus Juris Civilis, III, Novellae Justiniani, ed. Schoell R. – Kroll G., Berlin 1895. Palatine Anthology: Anthologie Grecque, ed. Waltz P., Ι–ΧΙΙ, Paris 1928–1970. Parastaseis: Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum, ed. Preger Th., Ι, Leipzig 1901, 19–73.

Literature Primary Sources

Patria: Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum, ed. Preger Th., ΙI, Leipzig 1907.

Agathias, History: Agathiae Myrinaei historiarum libri quinque, ed. Keydell R., CFHB 2, Series Berolinensis, Berlin 1967.

Planoudea Anthology: Anthologie Grecque. Anthologie de Planude, ed. Aubreton R. – Buffière F., ΧΙΙΙ, Paris 1980.

Basilicorum libri LX: Basilicorum libri LX. Series A, Volumen VII. Textus librorum LIII–LIX, ed. Scheltema H. J. – Van der Wal N., Groningen 1974.

Procopius, Anecdota: Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, III, Historia Arcana, ed. Haury J. – Wirth G., Leipzig 1963.

Cedrenus, History: Georgius Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, ed. Bekker I., Ι, CSHB, Bonn 1838.

Procopius, De Αedificiis: Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, IV, De Αedificiis libri VI, ed. Haury J. – Wirth G., Leipzig 1964.

Chronicon Paschale: Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf L., Ι, CSHB, Bonn 1832.

Simocattes, History: Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae, ed. de Boor C., Leipzig 1887 [Stuttgart 1972].

Codex Justinianus: Corpus Juris Civilis, II, Codex Justinianus, ed. Krueger P., Berlin 1892.

Socrates, Church History: Socrates Kirchengeschichte, ed. Hansen G. C., Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, NF 1, Berlin 1995.

Codex Theodosianus: Theodosiani Libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis, II, ed. Mommsen T., Berlin 1905.

Sozomenus, Church History: Sozomenus Kirchengeschichte, ed. Bidez J. – Hansen G. C., Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, NF 4, Berlin 1995.

Hesychius, Patria: Scriptores originum constantinopolitanarum, Ι, ed. Preger Th., Leipzig 1901, 1–18.

Suidae III: Suidae Lexikon, III, ed. Adler A., Leipzig 1933.

Himerius, Orationes: Himerii Declamationes et Orationes, ed. Colonna A., Rome 1951.

Themistius, orations:Themistii Orationes quae supersunt, ed. Schenkl H. – Downey G. – Norman A. F., Ι–ΙΙΙ, Leipzig 1965–1974.

John of Antioch, fragments: Ioannis Antiocheni, fragmenta quae supersunt omnia, ed. Mariev S., CFHB 47, Series Berolinensis, Berlin–New York 2008.

Theophanes, Chronography: Theophanis Chronographia, Ι–ΙΙ, ed. de Boor C., Leipzig 1883–1885 [Hildesheim 1963].

Libanius, autobiography: Libanii Opera, Ι, ed. Förster R., Leipzig 1903.

Xanthopoulos, Church History: Nicephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Church History, PG 146.

Lydus, De Magistratibus: Ioannis Lydi De Magistratibus Populi Romani, ed. Wünsch R., Leipzig 1903.

Zonaras, History: Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae Historiarum libri XVIII, ed. Büttner-Wobst Th., III, Bonn 1897.

Lydus, De Mensibus: Ioannis Laurentii Lydi Liber de Mensibus, ed. Wünsch R., CSHB, Leipzig 1898.

Zosimus, New History: Zosimi, Historia Nova, ed. Mendelssohn L., Leipzig 1887 [Hildesheim 1963].

Malalas, Chronography: Ioannis Malalae Chronographia, ed. Thurn I., CFHB 35, Series Berolinensis, Berlin– New York 2000.

Secondary Sources

Marcellinus Comes Chronicon: Marcellini V.C. Comitis Chronicon, ed. Mommsen T., Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Auctorum Antiquissimorum 11, Chronica minora 2, Berlin 1894, 37–108.

Anadol 2010: Anadol, Çagatay (ed.), From Byzantium to Istanbul, 8000 years of a capital. Catalogue of Exhibition (Sakip Sabanci Museum, 05.06 – 04.09.2010), Constantinople 2010.

Menander Pretoctor: Blockley R. C., The History of Menander the Guardsman, Liverpool 1985.

Bandy 1983: Bandy, C. Anastasius (transl.), Ioannes Lydus, On Powers or the Magistracies of the Roman State, Philadelphia 1983.

Notitia Urbis: Notitia dignitatum accedunt Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae et Latercula Provinciarum, ed. Seeck O., Berlin 1876 [Frankfurt–Main 1962].

Bardill 1997: Bardill, Jonathan, ‘The Palace of Lausus and Nearby Monuments in Constantinople: A Topographical 191

Dimitris Chatzilazarou Study’, American Journal of Archaeology 101 (1997), 67–95. Bardill 2004: Bardill, Jonathan, Constantinople, Ι, Oxford 2004.

réelle et imaginaire. Autour de l’œuvre de Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires 22.1 (2018), 35–54.

of

Coulton 1976: Coulton, John James, The Architectural Development of the Greek Stoa, Oxford 1976.

Bardill 2010: Bardill, Jonathan, ‘The Architecture and Archaeology of the Hippodrome in Constantinople’, in Pitarakis 2010, 91–148.

Crow–Bardill–Bayliss 2008: Crow, James – Bardill, Jonathan – Bayliss, Richard, The water supply of Byzantine Constantinople, London 2008.

Barsanti 1992: Barsanti, Claudia, ‘Constantinopoli: Testimonianze archeologiche di età Constantiniana’, in Bonamente G. – Fusco F. (ed.), Constantino il Grande dall’ antichità all’ umanesimo, Colloquio sul Cristianesimo nel mondo antico (Macerata, 18– 20.12.1990), Ι, Macerata 1992, 115–150.

Crow 2018: Crow, James, ‘The Imagined Water Supply of Byzantine Constantinople’, in Constantinople réelle et imaginaire. Autour de l’œuvre de Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires 22.1 (2018), 211–235.

Brickstamps

Dagron 2000: Dagron, Gilbert, Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Greek transl.: H γέννηση μιας πρωτεύουσας. Η Κωνσταντινούπολη και οι θεσμοί της από το 330 ως το 451, Loukaki M. (transl.), Athens 2000.

Bassett 2004: Bassett, Sarah, The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, Cambridge 2004. Bauer 1996: Bauer, Franz Alto, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz am Rhein 1996.

Dewing–Downey 1961: Dewing, Henry Bronson – Downey, Glanville (transl.), Procopius, VII, Buildings, London–Cambridge Mass. 1961.

Berger 1987: Berger, Albrecht, ‘Die Altstadt von Byzanz in der vorjustinianischen Zeit’, Varia 2, Poikila Byzantina 6, Bonn 1987, 9–30.

Dittenberger 1905: Dittenberger, Wilhelmus (ed.), Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae, Supplementum Sylloges Inscriptionum Graecarum, II, Leipzig 1905.

Berger 1988: Berger, Albrecht, Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Poikila Byzantina 8, Bonn 1988.

Ducange 1680: Ducange, Charles, Constantinopolis Christiana seu Descriptio urbis Constantinopolitanae qualis extitit sub Imperatoribus Christianis ex variis scriptoribus contexta & adornata, libri quatuor, Paris 1680.

Berger 2000: Berger, Albrecht, ‘Streets and Public Spaces in Constantinople’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000), 161–172.

Dyggve 1960: Dyggve Ejnar, Lindos. Fouilles de l’Acropole 1902–1914 et 1952. Le Sanctuaire d’Athana Lindia et L’Architecture Lindienne, I, III, Berlin– Copenhagen 1960.

Bréhier 1938: Bréhier, Louis, ‘Byzantion’, in Dictionnaire d’Histoire et de Géographie Ecclésiastiques 10 (1938), 1501–1511. Cameron 1976: Cameron, Alan, ‘Theodorus τριcέπαρχοc’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17 (1976), 269–286.

Evangelidis 2010: Ευαγγελίδης, Βασίλειος, Η Αγορά των πόλεων της Ελλάδας από τη Ρωμαϊκή κατάκτηση ως τον 3ο αι. μ.Χ., Thessaloniki 2010.

Cameron – Herrin 1984: Cameron, Averil – Herrin, Judith (eds.), Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century: The Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai. Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 10, Leiden 1984.

Firatli – Ergil 1969: Firatli, Nezih – Ergil, Tülay, ‘The ‘Milion’ Sounding’, Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Yilliği 15–16 (1969), 208–212. Gibson 2009: Gibson, A. Craig, ‘The Alexandrian Tychaion and the Date of Ps.-Nicolaus Progymnasmata’, The Classical Quaterly 59 (2009), 608–623.

Cassanelli 2008: Cassanelli, Roberto et als, Byzance, Constantinople, Istanbul, Paris–Milan 2008.

Greatrex 1997: Greatrex, Geoffrey, ‘The Nika Riot: A Reappraisal’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 117 (1997), 60–86.

Chatzilazarou 2016: Χατζηλαζάρου, Δημήτριος, Η Βασίλειος Στοά και η σύνθεση του μνημειακού κέντρου της Κωνσταντινούπολης. Τοπογραφία, λειτουργίες, συμβολισμοί [The Basileios Stoa (Royal Portico) and the Formation of the Monumental Centre of Constantinople. Topography, Functions and Symbolisms], Unpublished Ph.d., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 2016 (https://www. didaktorika.gr/eadd/handle/ 10442/38058).

Gros 1996: Gros, Pierre, L’architecture Romaine du début du IIIe siècle avant J.C. à la fin du Haut Empire, 1. Les Monuments Publics, Paris 1996. Guilland 1954: Guilland, Rodolphe, ‘La Basilique, la Bibliothèque et l’Octogone’, Mélanges d’Histoire Littéraire et de Bibliographie offerts à Jean Bonnerot, Paris 1954, 97–107. [Reprinted in Guilland R., Études topographiques de Constantinople byzantine, ΙΙ, Berlin–Amsterdam 1969, 3–13].

Chatzilazarou 2018: Chatzilazarou, Dimitrios, ‘Le centre monumental de Constantinople, espace de synthèse des traditions urbaines gréco-romaines’, in Constantinople

192

Visualizing a Lost Monument of Early Constantinople Oberhummer–Miller–Kubitschek 1897: Oberhummer, Eugen – Miller, Julius – Kubitschek, Wilhelm, ‘Byzantion’ in Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertum-swissenschaft 3 (1897), 1116–1158.

Gyuzelev 2008: Gyuzelev, Martin, The West Pontic Coast, Between Emine Cape and Byzantion During the First Millenium BC, Burgas 2008. Janin 1964: Janin, Raymond, Constantinople byzantine. Développement urbain et répertoire topographique, Paris 1964.

Opitz 1934 : Opitz, Hans Georg, ‘Die Vita Constantini, Des Codex Angelicus 22’, Byzantion 9 (1934), 535–593.

Kleiss 1965: Kleiss, Wolfram, ‘Neue Befunde zur Chalkopratenkirche in Istanbul’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 15 (1965), 149–167.

Paton 1958: Paton, William Roger (transl.), The Greek Anthology, III, London–Cambridge Mass. 1958. Ridley 1982: Ridley, T. Ronald (transl.), Zosimus. New History, Byzantina Australiensia 2, Canberra 1982.

Łajtar 2000: Łajtar, Adam, Die Inschriften von Byzantion, Bonn 2000.

Russell 2017: Russell, Thomas, Byzantium and the Bosporus. A Historical Study, from the Seventh Century BC until the Foundation of Constantinople, Oxford Classical Monographs, Oxford 2017.

Mamboury 1936: Mamboury, Ernest, ‘Les Fouilles Byzantines à Istanbul et dans sa banlieue immédiate aux XIXe et XXe siècles’, Byzantion 11 (1936), 229– 283.

Pitarakis 2010: Pitarakis, Brigitte (ed.), Hippodrom/ Atmeydanı. İstanbul’un Tarih Sahnesi-A Stage for Istanbul’s History, Catalogue of Exhibition, Ι, Pera Museum Publication 39, Constantinople 2010.

Mamboury–Wiegand 1934: Mamboury, Ernest – Wiegand, Theodor, Die Kaiserpaläste von Konstantinopel: zwischen dem Hippodrom und dem Marmarameer, Berlin 1934. Mango 1959: Mango, Cyril, The Brazen House. A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, Kopenhagen 1959. Arkæologisk-kunsthistoriske Meddelelser edgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 4.4.

Salway 2007: Salway, Benet, ‘Constantine Augoustos (Not Sebastos)’ in J. Drinkwater – B. Salway (eds.), Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected. Essays presented by Colleagues, Friends & Pupils. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies suppl. 91, London 2007, 37–50.

Mango 1985: Mango, Cyril, Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe–VIIe siècles), Travaux et Mémoires du Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, Monographies 2, Paris 1985 [Paris 1990 and 2004].

Schlange-Schöningen 1995: Schlange-Schöningen, Heinrich, Kaisertum und Bildungswesen in Spätantiken Konstantinopel, Stuttgart 1995.

Mango 1993: Mango, Cyril, (ed.), Constantinople, Aldershot 1993.

Studies

Schneider 1936: Schneider, Alfons Maria, Byzanz. Vorarbeiten zur Topographie und Archäologie der Stadt. Istanbuler Forschungen 8, Berlin 1936.

on

Schneider 1941: Schneider, Alfons Maria, Die Grabung im Westhof der Sophienkirche zu Istanbul. Istanbuler Forschungen 12, Berlin 1941.

Mango 2003: Mango, Cyril, ‘Sévère et Byzance’, Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles – Lettres 147 (2003), 593–608.

Speck 1974: Speck, Paul, Die Kaiserliche Universität von Konstantinopel, Byzantinische Archiv 14, Munich 1974.

Mango 2010: Mango, Cyril, ‘A History of the Hippodrome of Constantinople’, in Pitarakis 2010, 36–43.

Tonguç 1990: Tonguç, Leyla, The Basilica Cistern (Yerebatan Sarayi) and the other Cisterns of Istanbul, Key to Turkey Tourism Publications, I, Constantinople 1990.

Marinescu 1996: Marinescu, A. Constantin, Making and Spending Money along the Bosporus: The Lysimachi Coinages minted by Byzantium and Chalcedon and their Socio-cultural Context. PHD, Columbia University 1996.

Ward – Crow – Crapper 2017: Ward, Kate – Crow, James – Crapper, Martin, ‘Water-supply infrastructure of Byzantine Constantinople’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 30 (2017), 175–195.

Martin 1951  : Martin, Roland, Recherches sur l’agora grecque: études d’histoire et d’architecture urbaines, Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, no 174, Paris 1951.

Ward 2018: Ward, Kate, An Engineering Exploration of the Water Supply System of Constantinople, unpublished Ph.d., University of Edinburgh 2018 (https://era.ed.ac. uk/handle/1842/33033?show=full).

Müller-Wiener 1977: Müller-Wiener Wolfgang, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, Byzantion – Konstantinupolis – Istanbul bis zum Beginn d. 17. Jh, Tübingen 1977.

Wilkinson 2010: Wilkinson, W. Kevin, ‘Palladas and the Foundation of Constantinople’, Journal of Roman Studies 100 (2010), 179–194.

Müller-Wiener 1995: Müller-Wiener Wolfgang, Griechisches Bauwesen in der Antike, Greek transl.: Η αρχιτεκτονική στην Αρχαία Ελλάδα, Schmidt-Douna Μ. (transl.), Thessaloniki 1995.

Winter 2006: Winter, E. Frederick, Studies in Hellenistic Architecture. Toronto–Buffalo–London 2006. 193

17 Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople: Aspects of Theatre in Late Antiquity* Christina Papakyriakou Abstract: Theatrical spectacles (ludi theatrales) formed an inseparable part of social life in Constantinople throughout Late Antiquity. Written sources inform us on various occasions when theatrical performances were taking place; texts also refer to the only theatrical feast of the annual calendar known, the feast of Brytae. Citizens of the capital enjoyed, at least until the end of the 6th century, all the kinds of theatrical performances known at that time, from the adaptations of ancient tragedies, in the form of pantomime or not, to the scenic performances, often improvisations, where all kinds of performers participated. The most valuable archaeological evidence on theatrical spectacles is the consular diptychs that depict scenes related to theatre in the capital. Four buildings described as “theatres” are mentioned in Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae, one of them being the amphitheatre of the city. One theatre and the amphitheatre were located on the acropolis hill, while another theatre is mentioned in Sycae and one perhaps in the neighbourhood of Vlachernae. Θεατρικά δημόσια δρώμενα λάμβαναν χώρα στην Κωνσταντινούπολη σε όλη τη διάρκεια της ύστερης αρχαιότητας. Αυτά πλαισίωναν, μαζί με άλλες εκδηλώσεις, τις αυτοκρατορικές τελετές, όπως τον εορτασμό των στρατιωτικών νικών, τους γάμους της αυτοκρατορικής οικογένειας, την ανέγερση μνημείων με αυτοκρατορική χορηγία. Στο πλαίσιο του εορταστικού ημερολογίου γνωρίζουμε ότι θεατρικά δρώμενα πλαισίωναν τα Βρυτά, ετήσια γιορτή πιθανότατα συνδεδεμένη με την εποχή της άνοιξης. Σκηνικά θεάματα ήταν υποχρεωμένοι κατά τον 6ο αι. να παρουσιάσουν στον λαό της πόλης και οι ύπατοι κατά τη διάρκεια της ετήσιας θητείας τους. Το περιεχόμενο των θεατρικών θεαμάτων που παρακολουθούσαν οι κάτοικοι της Κωνσταντινούπολης κατά την ύστερη αρχαιότητα είναι δύσκολο να προσδιοριστεί με ακρίβεια και άπτεται του ευρύτερου ζητήματος των «μορφών» του θεάτρου κατά την εποχή αυτή. Αξιοποιώντας τις πληροφορίες των γραπτών κειμένων και των υπατικών διπτύχων καταλήγουμε στο συμπέρασμα ότι τα θεατρικά δρώμενα συνίσταντο, κυρίως, αφενός σε παραστάσεις ὀρχηστῶν/ὀρχηστρίδων –δηλαδή ηθοποιών/χορευτών-χορευτριών που υποδύονταν με συνοδεία μουσικής ρόλους που συνδέονταν, κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, με τους αρχαίους τραγικούς μύθους– και, αφετέρου, σε παραστάσεις μίμων· αυτές περιελάμβαναν μια ποικιλία σκηνικών δρώμενων, όπως κωμικές σκηνές, χορό και τραγούδι, ακροβατικά, ανέκδοτα και φάρσες επί σκηνής. Στους μίμους ανήκαν και οι υδρόμιμοι, οι οποίοι εκτελούσαν χορευτικές παραστάσεις στο νερό, όπως γνωρίζουμε ότι συνέβαινε στη γιορτή των Βρυτών. Το θέατρο της Κωνσταντινούπολης δεν έχει εντοπιστεί ανασκαφικά. Στη Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae (5ος αι.) αναφέρονται τέσσερα κτήρια ως θέατρα, ενώ καταγράφεται ένα theatrum maius και ένα theatrum minor. Η σύγχρονη έρευνα τοποθετεί το θέατρο της πόλης του Βυζαντίου της περιόδου των Σεβήρων στο βορειοανατολικό τμήμα της ακρόπολης. Τα άλλα θέατρα αναφέρεται στη Notitia urbis ότι βρίσκονταν στο προάστιο των Συκεών και στην 14η συνοικία. Τα θεατρικά θεάματα ήταν ιδιαίτερα δημοφιλή στην πρωτεύουσα μέχρι τουλάχιστον το τέλος του 7ου αι., όπως γνωρίζουμε από τις σχετικές αναφορές των αποφάσεων της 7ης Οικουμενικής Panayotidi. I am deeply grateful to Prof. Panayotidi for her guidance, the fruitful collaboration and her warmest support during my work. I am indebted to Mrs. Angeliki Antonakou for proofreading the English text.

The theme of the present article falls into a wider frame of research on public spectacles in the East during Late Antiquity, which was the topic of my doctoral thesis conducted under the supervision of Prof. Maria

* 

195

Christina Papakyriakou Συνόδου σε αυτά, ενώ έχουν καταγραφεί στις πηγές παροδικές απαγορεύσεις των σκηνικών θεαμάτων, που οφείλονταν κυρίως στα φαινόμενα αστικής βίας που συνόδευαν ενίοτε τα λαοφιλή αυτά δρώμενα. Keywords: Constantinople, Theatre, Late Antiquity, Ludi scaenici, Public spectacles, Pantomimus, Mimus, Consular diptychs. ‘While the Prefect of the City Constantius was watching the theatrical games (ludos theatrales) in the middle of the day, the Greens prepared secret ambushes against the opposing Blues in the theatre itself. ....The seating of the theatre tottered and creaked.....For the imperial city wept for more than three thousand citizens lost to stones and swords, to the crush of spectators and the waters of the stage.’1

the parties (δήμοι).5 The violent incidents of 499 and 501 led Emperor Anastasius to abolish the feast of the Brytae and to exile the four dancers (τοὺς ὀρχηστάς) of the demes,6 thus depriving the cities of the empire of ‘the best of the dancing’ (τῆς καλλίστης ὀρχήσεως).7 We do not know whether these measures led also to the actual end of the Brytae feast. The dancers, however, returned to the capital city, but only after the people of Constantinople demanded it from Justin I.8

The above excerpt from Comes Marcellinus’ Chronicle that refers to the clashes between the Blues and the Greens in 501 AD is also the only written testimony for the performance of ludi scaenici inside the actual theatre of Constantinople throughout Late Antiquity. From John of Antioch’s Historia chronikē and John Malalas’ Chronographia we also learn the name of the feast (πανήγυρις) during which the violent clashes of 501 AD took place: it was the feast of the Brytae.2 The Brytae feast (Βρυτά) of Constantinople had distinct similarities, according to Greatrex and Watt, with the May festival in Edessa (Syria) and the Maiuma, the wellknown feast mainly celebrated in Antioch (Syria).3 The Brytae feast included most probably similar performances with common roots — possibly from Syria — that were celebrated in the theatres of the empire in the afternoon or in the evening [παννυχίδες (pannychides)], including theatrical performances mainly involving water — that are suitable for tetimimi (υδρόμιμοι). They were very popular, particularly in the East, throughout Late Antiquity.4 We do not know which time of year the Brytae feast was celebrated in the capital. It was possibly an annual spring feast since the name refers to the blossoming of the earth. The same feast is mentioned again in 499 AD when clashes had burst out earlier among

Apart from the Brytae feast, theatrical spectacles formed a regular part of imperial celebrations, such as war victories, weddings or the erection of honorary monuments, such as that of Eudoxia in 403 AD when ‘clapping and public spectacles (took place) by dancers and mimes…. as it was customary then during the erection of emperors’ images’.9 In 416, the prefect Ursus organized theatrical spectacles and chariot races in honor of Theodosius II following the emperor’s victory over Attalus10 and a few years later (421) the same emperor celebrated his wedding to Eudokia in the city’s circus with chariot races and theatrical spectacles.11 In 582, Mauricius’ wedding to Tiberius’ daughter Constantina was celebrate, including similar spectacles where different kinds of musicians and mimes took part.12 John of Antioch, Historia chronikē fr. 309: ‘Ότι ἐπὶ Ἀναστασίου ὁ τὴν ὕπαρχον ἀνύων τῆς πόλεως Ἠλίας τοὔνομα τὴν τῶν καλουμένων Βρυτῶν ἑορτὴν ἐπιτελῶν, ὡς οὔπω πρότερον γέγονεν, ὑπὸ τινος βασκανίας αἴτιος πολλῶν ἐγένετο φόνων. τῶν γὰρ ἀθροισθέντων ἐς δείλην τοῦ δήμου ἅμα ξίφεσι κατ’ἀλλήλων ὡρμηκότων, πολὺς ἦν τῶν ὀλλυμένων ὁ τρόπος. ‘During the reign of emperor Anastasius the prefect of the city who had the name Helias celebrated the feast that bore the name Bryta; and because of an evil eye he became responsible for so many murders that never happened before. For as the members of the parties were gathered in the afternoon, they attacked each other with swords; and the massacre was big’. 6  Malalas, Chronographia 16.4: ... ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀγανακτήσας πολλοὺς ἐκόλασεν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν μερῶν καὶ ἐξώρισεν καὶ τοὺς τέσσαρας ὀρχηστάς τῶν μερῶν. ‘The emperor grew angry and punished many from both factions, and also exiled the factions’ four dancers.’. On the dates of the events related to Brytae see Cameron 1973, 231, 234. 7  See n.2 above. 8  Malalas, Chronographia 17.8: καὶ τὰ μέρη ἔκραζον ζητοῦντες τοὺς ὀρχηστάς...καὶ παρέσχεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἑκάστῳ μέρει τὸ αἰτηθέν. ‘…and the factions chanted requests for dancers….The emperor granted each faction what it had asked for.’ 9  Sozomenus, Eccl. Hist. 8.20: κρότοι τε καὶ δημώδεις θέαι ὀρχηστῶν τε καὶ μίμων …. ὡς ἔθος ἦν τότε ἐπὶ τῇ ἀνακλήσει τῶν βασιλικῶν εἰκόνων. ‘clangs and public spectacles by dancers and mimes ... as was the custom then during the erection of imperial statues’. 10  Chronicon paschale p. 573; Dagron 1974, 266. 11  Chronicon paschale p. 578: Τούτῳ τῷ ἔτει γάμους ἐπετέλεσε Θεοδόσιος Αὔγουστος λαβὼν γυναῖκα Ἀθηναΐδα τὴν καὶ Εὐδοκίαν....καὶ ἐπετελέσθη ἱππικὸν τῶν αὐτῶν γάμων...ὁμοίως καὶ θέατρον τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἱππικοῦ. ‘In this year Theodosius Augustus celebrated nuptials, taking as his wife Athenaïs who was also called Eudocia…, and chariot races were performed in celebration of the same nuptials…, and likewise also a theatrical spectacle in the same Hippodrome’. (transl. M. Whitby). 12  Theoph. Simokattes, Historia Ι.10: ...θέατρον ἦν τοῦ βουλομένου παντὸς ἑστιᾶσαι τὰς ὄψεις, αὐλοί τε καὶ σύριγγες καὶ κιθάραι περιελάλουν 5 

Marcell.com. p. 33, 111 (501 AD). John of Antioch, Historia chronikē fr. 309: ‘Ότι ἐπὶ Ἀναστασίου.... Κωνστάντιος ὁ ἄρχων τῆς πόλεως τὴν αὐτὴν ἐπιτελεῖν τῶν Βρυτῶν πανήγυριν βουλευσάμενος ὁλίγου διώλεσε τὸν ἅπαντα δῆμον, ποικίλοις διαφθαρέντα τρόποις, ὡς τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ λοιποῦ χηρῶσαι τῆς καλλίστης ὀρχήσεως τὰς πόλεις. ‘During the reign of Emperor Anastasius....Constantius the prefect of the city, who also wished to celebrate the feast of Brytae, almost destroyed the entire population which was massacred in various ways. Consequently, the emperor from then on deprived the cities of the best of the dancing’. Malalas, Chronographia 16.4: ‘Ότι ἐπὶ Κωνσταντίνου τὸ ἐπίκλην Τζουρούκκα ἐπάρχου τῆς πόλεως ἐγένετο ἀκαταστασία. θεωροῦντος δέκιμον τοῦ αὐτοῦ Κωνσταντίου ἐπάρχου τῶν λεγομένων Βρυτῶν ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ ἐπανέστησαν ἀλλήλοις τὰ μέρη ἐν τῷ θεάτρῳ, καὶ πολλοὶ ἐπνίγησαν ἐν τοῖς ὕδασι καὶ ἐτραυματίσθησαν καὶ ξιφήρεις ἀνῃρέθησαν... ‘When Constantius, surnamed Tzouroukkas, was city prefect, a disturbance took place. While Constantius the prefect was watching the afternoon session during the festival known as the Brytai in the theatre, the factions set on each other in the theatre. Many were drowned in the water, wounded or killed in fighting with swords….’. 3  From verb βρύω = I am plentiful, I grow plentifully; I am overwhelmed by fruits (Liddell / Scott). On the festival of Brytae (τῶν Βρυτῶν), see Greatrex / Watt 1999. See also Malineau 2002, 174–176. On Maiuma, see Roueché 1993, 188–189; Mentzou-Meimare 1996; Belayche 2004. 4  On tetimimi (υδρόμιμοι) see below p. 199. 1  2 

196

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople that throughout Late Antiquity audiences in the theatres of the Eastern Roman Empire were attending performances inspired by the classical repertoire of Greek and Roman tragedy and comedy, as well as the more recently introduced performances of pantomimus and mimus. The quantity and variety of the terms used in written sources referring to actors and dancers in the theatre of Late Antiquity reflect the fluid boundaries among the kinds of acting that different actors were serving (tragedy, comedy, pantomime, mime, dance, recitation); in fact, they reflect more the absence of specific ‘kinds’ of theatrical acting with defined characteristics and, consequently, the difficulty of describing them textually. The servants of theatre are generally described as θεατρικοί (theatrikoi),17 θυμελικοί (thymelikoi), σκηνικοί (skēnikoi),18 οἱ περὶ τὴν σκηνὴν (oi peri tēn skēnēn), οἱ περὶ τὴν ὀρχήστραν (oi peri tēn orchēstra), οἱ τὰ σκηνικὰ μετερχομένοι (oi ta skēnika meterchomenoi).19 More specifically they are referred to as ὀρχησταί (orchēstai) [ὀρχηστρίδαι, ὀρχήστριαι (orchēstridai, orchēstriai)], τραγωδοί (tragōdoi), παντόμιμοι (pantomimoi), ὑποκριταί (hypokritai), μίμοι (mimoi), θαυματοποιοί (thaumatopoioi), ἀκροβᾶται (akrovatai), χορευταί (choreutai), γελωτοποιοί (gelōtopoioi).20

Sponsoring ludi scaenici was also part of the consul’s annual duties. According to Justinian’s novel no. 105, each consul was expected to present to the people of Constantinople two days for chariot races, one for beast hunting (πάνκαρπον, silva), one for beast fighting (venationes) and one for theatrical spectacles. 13 The amount of gold that was spent by the consuls in the 6th century reached 144,000 solidi.14 How much the people of Constantinople loved theatrical spectacles is clearly evident when someone reads the speech John Chrysostom addressed to the clergy, in only the first year of his appointment as patriarch in the capital (399/400), with the eloquent title Πρὸς τοὺς καταλείψαντας τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ αὐτομολήσαντας πρὸς τὰς ἱπποδρομίας καὶ τὰ θέατρα (‘To those who abandoned church and defected to chariot races and theatres’).15 The ‘theatres of mimes’ (θέατρα τῶν μίμων) and the ‘dances on stage’ (οἱ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ὀρχήσεις) continued to be a beloved spectacle for the people in Constantinople at the end of the 7th century, a fact that led to its strict conviction, along with venationes, by the Ecumenical Council in 692 with the sentence of defrocking for clergymen and excommunication for lay people.16

We should further notice two parameters that characterise the theatre in Late Antiquity. The first one is that up to the middle of the 3rd century theatrical plays were no longer performed on stage in the traditional, classical way. From that time on the theatrical performance no longer ‘follows’ the theatrical text. 21 The second parameter is the inclusion of theatrical performances (ludi scaenici) in the program of public spectacles along with the other Roman spectacula of venationes and ludi circences.22

What sorts of theatrical spectacles were the citizens of Constantinople attending? What precisely were the ‘public spectacles of dancers and mimes’ (δημώδεις θέαι ὀρχηστῶν τε καὶ μίμων)? To answer this question we have to turn to the wider theme of the theatre in Late Antiquity. The study of written sources and archaeological finds attests to the fact

As far as the classical theatrical types of ancient tragedy and comedy are concerned, it is worth noting — beginning with tragedy — that there is no specific evidence that ancient Greek tragedy survived as an autonomous theatrical performance after the 3rd century. It seems that already from the 1st century AD the chanting parts of the plays were sung separately, accompanied by contemporary

ἀνειμένον ὁμοῦ καὶ ἐπαγωγόν, πολλοί τε τῶν θαυματοποιῶν πανημέριοι τὰς σφῶν αὐτῶν εὐτραπελίας τοῖς φιλοθεάμοσιν ἐθριάμβευον, οἳ τε ἐπὶ σκηνῆς λοιδορούμενοι οἷς ἂν ἐθέλοιεν μετὰ μεγίστης ἁμίλλης τὰς γελωτοποιοὺς δραματουργίας οἷα περὶ σπουδαίου τινὸς τοῦ πράγματος ἐπεδείκνυντο, ἱππικοί τε ἐτελοῦντο ἀγῶνες, καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς εἱστία τοὺς ἐν τέλει ἐν τῆι τῶν βασιλέων οἰκίᾳ. και οὕτως ὁ περίδοξος ἐκεῖνος κατεπέπαυστο γάμος. ‘Flutes, pipes, and lyres sounded, carefree and at the same time seductive; all day long numerous conjurors paraded their individual diversions before the eager spectators; actors who abuse whomever they wish presented their humorous plays with the keenest rivalry as though in some serious business; chariot-races were performed, and the emperor entertained men of rank in the royal dwelling. In this manner that illustrious marriage was brought to a conclusion’. On the description of mime theatre in the texts of Late Antiquity see below pp. 198–199. 13  Novellae Iustiniani 105: Quintum quoque faciet processum qui ad theatrum ducit, quem pornas vocant, ubi in scena ridiculorum est locus tragoedis et thymelicis choris, et spectaculis universis atque auditibus apertum est theatrum. ‘The course of the fifth procession is directed to the theatre called adorna, where comedy, tragedy, concerts by musicians, and all kinds of performances take place’. 14  Procopius, Hist. Arcana 26, 12–13. 15  Patrologia Graeca 56, 263–270. 16  Rallēs / Potlēs Β΄ 424–427: Καθόλου ἀπαγορεύει ἡ ἁγία αὕτη καὶ οἰκουμενικὴ σύνοδος, τοὺς λεγομένους μίμους, καὶ τὰ τούτων θέατρα... καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ σκηνῆς ὀρχήσεις ἐπιτελεῖσθαι. Εἰ δέ τις τοῦ παρόντος κανόνος καταφρονήσει, καὶ πρός τι ἑαυτὸν τῶν ἀπηγορευμένων τούτων ἐκδῷ, εἰ μὲν κληρικὸς εἴη, καθαιρείσθω, εἰ δὲ λαϊκός, ἀφοριζέσθω. ‘This holy and ecumenical synod totally forbids the so–called mimes and their performances….it also forbids dancing on stage to take place. In case anyone despises this and gives himself to any of those forbidden things he will be defrocked, if he is a clergyman, and he will be excommunicated if he is a layman’.

Socr. Scholasticus, Eccl. Hist. 7. 13. According to Zonaras’s interpretation of canon 51 of Trullo Ecumenical Synod ‘scēnē is the pretence and the acting; thus those who are acting and imagine themselves as being sometime servants, sometime masters, sometime generals and lords are called scēnikoi’ (Rallēs / Potlēs Β΄, 425). 19  Novellae Iustiniani 123.44. 20  Asterius of Amaseia, Hom.1, To the rich man and Lazarus 5.4,3. In the Latin texts we read the terms ‘thymelicus–a’, ‘pantomimus’, ‘saltator– saltatrix–saltatricula’, ‘mimus–mima’, ‘histrio–ionis’. 21  Easterling / Miles 1999, 97; Huskinson 2002–3, 137. On the presentation of theatrical performances in the hippodrome of Constantinople, see Dagron 2011, passim. 22  How different theatre in the 4th century was from ancient classic theatre is apparent in the words of Julian, the last pagan emperor: ‘No priest must anywhere be present at the licentious theatrical shows of the present day, nor introduce one into his own house; …Indeed if it were possible to banish such shows absolutely from the theatres so as to restore to Dionysus those theatres pure as of old, I should certainly have endeavoured with all my heart to bring this about’ (transl. Wright, II, p. 335). Τοῖς ἀσελγέσι τούτοις θεάτροις τῶν ἱερέων μηδεὶς μηδαμοῦ παραβαλλέτω μήτε εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν εἰσαγέτω τὴν ἑαυτοῦ... Καὶ εἰ μὲν οἶόν τε ἧν ἐξελάσαι παντάπασιν αὐτὰ τῶν θεάτρων, ὥστε αὐτὰ πάλιν ἀποδοῦναι τῷ Διονύσῳ καθαρὰ γενόμενα, πάντως ἂν ἐπειράθην αὐτὸ προθύμως κατασκευάσαι (Julian, Ep. 89b, 304B, p. 172). 17  18 

197

Christina Papakyriakou music. However, at least until the end of the 2nd century people in theatres had the chance to watch excerpts (διασκευαί)23 of classical theatre, as well as complete versions of them, while there is literary and epigraphical evidence about the writing of new theatrical plays in the late 2nd century.24 Gradually, the theatrical performance of tragedies was transformed into a succession of excerpts read or sung by a tragedian — τραγωδός (tragicus cantor) — who played the guitar or was accompanied by a guitar player. The tragedian wore a long-sleeved dress and a mask, while walking in high shoes (cothurni).25

θεαμάτων),32 while during the 5th century the character of the so-called orchēstai significantly varied. Apart from their inclusion in the system of the parties (demes), it was during that time that they assumed a greater freedom, both in regard to the repertory as well as the stage performance, while they adopted many aspects of the mime theatre, such as the emphasis on erotic stories.33 In the new system of organisation the dancers were the first in the hierarchy of the scaenici. One of the consequences of this new system was that all performers were placed under the control of the central administration. This fact influenced the theatrical profession in various ways. Already at the beginning of the 5th century emperors had subsumed the profession of scaenicus into the hereditary obligatory services (munera), a decision that led performers to abandon their traditional mobile way of life and to settle down in a particular city.34 The initiative of the city prefect to provide four dancers to the four parties of Constantinople (‘he provided the four parties of Constantinople with four dancers’)35 is construed within this context, as are the decisions of Emperors Anastasius and Justin I to dismiss and then repatriate the dancers for the Brytae festival we mentioned above.36

Comedy is not often mentioned in Late Antique texts. We cannot tell with certainty what idea contemporary authors such as Libanius, John Chrysostom or Choricius had about comedy performances. It is considered though beyond a doubt that Late Antique comedy performance had nothing to do with the way Aristophanes’ plays were performed in ancient Greece. The better authors — at least Libanius — did have a general idea of the way Menander’s plays were performed on the stage.26 Nevertheless, the presentation of only selected excerpts of ancient comedies on theatre stages during the 4th century cannot be excluded.27

The theatre of mime is considered to be the successor to ancient comedy, just as pantomime is considered to be the successor to tragedy.37 During Late Antiquity, the theatre of mime was significantly enriched so that it included other forms of entertainment as well, such as dancing and singing, acrobatics,38 practical jokes. It is worth noticing that mimes are also referred to in the texts as γελωτοποιοί (gelōtopoioi),39 θαυματοποιοί (thaumatopoioi),40 and παιγνιῶται (paigniōtai).41 Further, within the intermingling of different forms of theatre during this period, the theatre

As far as the theatre of pantomime (παντόμιμος) is concerned — the form of entertainment that is considered to be the successor to tragedy in Roman times and involved through dancing the dramatization of ancient myths28 — it suffered many and considerable changes between the 3rd and 6th centuries, so that entertainers who performed this tragic rhythmic dance are described more frequently in contemporary texts29 as ὀρχησταί [(παντόμιμοι) ὀρχησταί30] (‘pantomime dancers’). This term covered a wide range of entertainers, male and female dancers (ὀρχηστρί(δ)αι),31 who, most probably, were not exclusively connected with the rhythmic dancing performance of ancient tragic myths. The pantomimos orchēsis (παντόμιμος ὄρχησις) seems to have flourished in the civic centres of the East and was described as ‘the most pleasant among the spectacles’ (ἤδιστον

Libanius, Or. 64, A reply to Aristides on behalf of dancers 27. Robert 1930, 118. On the texts referring to pantomime dancers (παντόμιμοι ὀρχησταί) between the 4th and the 6th centuries, see Molloy 1996, 62–64. 33  The text of Procopius of Gaza is very eloquent on the matter: (Panegyric of Anastasios 18.1–5): ἄρρενες γὰρ παῖδες, ὥσπερ τὴν ἰδὶαν εἰς γυναῖκας ἀμειβόμενοι φύσιν, γυναῖκες ἤθελον εἶναι τῷ σχήματι καὶ διεκλῶντο τοῖς μέλεσιν, ἀντὶ γλώττης κινοῦντες τὴν χείρα καὶ δῆμον ὄλον πρὸς ἀσελγῆ θέαν ἐκμαίνοντες. ‘Young boys, changing their gender so to speak, were trying to look like women; they were dancing with languid movements replacing the voice with gestures, and this immoral spectacle was agitating all the people’. 34  Codex Iustinianus XI. 41, 5 (409). 35  Malalas, Chronographia 15.12: καὶ παρέσχε εἰς τὰ τέσσαρα μέρη Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ὀρχηστάς… μικροὺς τέσσαρας . ‘For the four factions of Constantinople he provided four young dancers…’. 36  See above p. 196. 37  Bieber 1961, 227. Basic bibliography on mime: Theocharidis 1940; Bonaria 1965; Wiemken 1972; Molloy 1996, 81–85; Webb 2008, 95–138. On the iconography of mime: Bieber 1939; Dunbabin 2004; Dunbabin 2016, 114–137. On the prosopography of mime: Stefanis 1988. 38  On the depictions of acrobats in Byzantine art with emphasis on the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, see Kepetzi 2014. 39  Beacham 1999, 9–11. In the text of Porphyrius’s martyrium, it is written that he was a mime and jester: ‘Ότι οὖτος ἦν μίμος και γελωτοποιός (Synaxarium p. 48). See also Novellae Iustiniani 105. 40  Θαυματοποιοί continued in later times to be called the performers of various impressive shows like dancers, acrobats, magicians etc. (Stefanis 1988, 182; Koukoules Γ΄, 256 κ.ε.) 41  Rallēs / Potlēs Γ΄ 415: Σκηνικοὶ καὶ μῖμοί εἰσιν…. οἱ παιγνιῶται, οἱ δούλους καὶ στρατιώτας καὶ γυναῖκας καὶ ἕτερα πρόσωπα μιμούμενοι. ‘Scēnikoi and mimes are… the actors, those who imitate servants and soldiers as well as women and other persons’. 32 

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32, To the People of Alexandreia 94. Jones 1993. 25  Easterling / Miles 1999, 96; Péché / Vendries 2001, 42. Tragedy as a literary and theatrical genre is mentioned in Late Antique texts as well as the tragic actors (τραγωδοί), who are mentioned together with the other performers (ὑποκριταί, μίμοι), without further clarification (Libanius, Or. 64, A reply to Aristides on behalf of dancers 73, 98; Choricius, Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes 29.2, 32.2;. Procopius, De bellis 5.18). 26  We cannot rule out the possibility that in using the terms κωμωδία, κωμωδοί (kōmōdia, kōmōdoi) or κωμωδίας ὑποκριταί (kōmōdias hypokritai), Libanius is referring to the contemporary theatre of mime: Libanius, Decl. 22.1.17. 27  Neiiendam 1992, 115. 28  Basic bibliography on pantomime: Weinreich 1948; Rotolo 1957; Slater 1995; Jory 1996; Molloy 1996; Jory 2001; Benz 2000; Garelli 2007; Hall / Wyles 2008; Webb 2008; Slater 2010; Dunbabin 2016, 85–113. 29  Cf. Libanius, Or. 64, A reply to Aristides on behalf of dancers; Julian, Misopogon; Malalas, Chronography; Procopius, Hist.Arcana; Choricius, Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes; Anthologia Palatina. 30  Julian, Misopogon 351D. 31  ‘Saltatrix’ is the Latin term. Women always participated in pantomime as members of the choir or even as secondary performers in the scene (Webb 2002, 287). 23  24 

198

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople of mime influenced that of pantomime (performances with multiple actors, participation of female performers), but it was also influenced by it. It seems that in Late Antiquity dancing became the basic activity in mime performances, while male and female mimes adopted the long and luxurious dresses of the dancers. The distinctive characteristic of mime performances throughout Late Antiquity was the comic feature. Mimic art finally ‘has nothing artful, it attracts the common people only by irrational laughter’.42 Theatrical spectacles of the 6th century almost exclusively involved mime performances.43 They were largely improvised stage performances, which included a vast repertory, from single acting to more complex dramatic enactments, usually of everyday life, but also of ancient myths,44 aiming to entertain an audience who was more interested in a bawdy sense of humour, a raunchy show and music.45 In fact during the 5th and 6th centuries most scaenici (σκηνικοί) — the term used in legislation to describe anyone, male or female, who performs on stage — were performing a wide variety of roles that covered the full range of acting (θεατρίζειν), from the tragic rhythmic dance of pantomimus to the improvised mimic plays (παίγνια), where a strong satirical character and erotic/sexual themes prevailed, according to Procopius’ — perhaps — exaggerated report.46

as countermeasures to civic unrests caused by the Blues at major civic centres. 49 To these cases we should add the temporary banning of the Brytae feast — the theatrical festival par excellence of the capital — by Anastasius I in 502, as a result of the clashes between the demes that led to the death of the emperor’s illegitimate son.50 Regarding the prosopography of the scaenici in Constantinople we are familiar with some of the figures, such as the mime Porphyrius who was punished by Julian in 362 when he embraced Christianity.51 In 486, four of the best known dancers of the time (ὀρχησταί) arrived in the city: Autokyonas, the so-called Karamallos, and Rodos, the so-called Chryssomalos, both from Alexandria; Helladios from Emessa and Margaritis Katzamys from Cyzicus. The dancers were given to the four demes by the prefect Longinus since their famous predecessors had retired.52 The Greens fans demanded a dancer named Karamallos from Alexandria in 520 AD, while the Blues asked for someone named Porphyrius also with Alexandrian origins.53 We are furthermore informed that in the 6th century the Greens had a dancer named Asterius.54 From the female scaenicae of the 6th century the name of Theodora, the later well-known empress, who was a mime, has come down to us.55 Her sisters Komitó and Anastasia,56 the mother of Antonina, wife of Belisarios, and perhaps Antonina herself were engaged in the same occupation as well, according to Procopius.57 The names of two female dancers of the 6th century, Helladia58 and Chryssomallou59 are also known to us. The editors of the relative epigrams in Planudes’ collection assume that epigrams nos. 283 and 285 written by Leontius Schlolasticus refer to the female dancers Rhodokleia and Anthoussa, who were performing in Constantinople in the 6th century.60 The performers are praised for their physical grace, but mostly for their agility surpassing those of the Muses and Graces.61 Stefanis, however, enlists them among the fictitious or people of questionable historicity, and he does not propose any dates for them.

Tetimimi also belong to mimes. This is the term used by modern scholars to describe actors who presented theatrical performances in water, either dramatic or involving choreography.47 In the late 5th and the first quarter of the 6th centuries, we find written evidence on the first bans of theatrical spectacles by the emperors, obviously within the frame of the suppression of civic violence, which may be caused by political or economic reasons, but often burst out inside buildings designed to host spectacles. Theatres, which primarily served as civic gathering places, constituted undoubtedly the natural ‘stage’ for every kind of public protest. Furthermore, spectacles that were then hosted there deliberately set out to arouse the spectators’ reactions, thus creating a particularly vivid atmosphere unfamiliar in earlier times. This atmosphere, with the audience vigorously participating during performances, naturally fostered every sort of mass protest. Two cases of banning ludi scaenici are recorded in Late Antique texts, one by Anastasius I48 and the other by Justin I in 524/25 AD, both

17.1 The evidence of the consular diptychs Consular diptychs form the only archaeological finds that depict scenes related to theatre in the capital. On the Malalas, Chronograhpia 17.12. Greatrex / Watt 1999, 21. Malalas, Chronograhpia 16.4. 51  Stefanis 1988, αρ. 2122. 52  Malalas, Chronograhpia 15.12. 53  Malalas, Chronograhpia 17.8. Cameron 1973, 168. 54  Procopius, Hist.Arcana 9. 5. Stefanis 1988, αρ. 465. 55  Stefanis 1988, αρ. 1149. 56  Procopius, Hist.Arcana 9. 8. 57  Procopius, Hist.Arcana 1.11–12. 58  Anth.Plan. nos. 284, 286, 287. Stefanis 1988, 159 no. 829. The editor of Anthologia (p. 300), Stefanis and Cameron (Cameron 1973, 171) presume that it is this Helladia to whom the ivory comb found in Antinoe in Egypt belongs, bearing the inscription Νικᾶ ἡ τύχη Ἑλλαδίας καὶ Βένετων Ἀμὴν (‘The fortune of Helladia and the Blues triumphs’) and which is exhibited in the Louvre museum. Rutschowscaya keeps her distance from this assumption (Rutschowscaya 2000), while Malineau speaks about two different scaenicae (Malineau 2002, 56–57, pl. VIII, fig. 3). 59  Stefanis 1988, αρ. 2638. 60  Anthousa is described as a guitar player (κιθαριστρίδα). 61  Anth. Plan. nos. 283–288; Garelli 2007, 409–411. 49  50 

42  John Lydus, On powers p. 62: ἀλόγῳ μόνον τὸ πλῆθος ἐπάγουσα γέλωτι, τεχνικὸν μὲν ἔχουσα οὐδὲν. 43  On the theatre in the 6th century, see Malineau 2005. 44  The survival of Homeristae (ὀμηρισταί), the mimes who performed — probably as a farce comedy — episodes inspired by the Homeric epics is testified to in Choricius’s Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes 78 (Μalineau 2005, 156). On Homeristae, see Ηillgruber 2000. 45  Stefanis 1986, 25–26. 46  Procopius, Hist. Arcana 9.11. Cf. Stefanis 1986, 156 (on Choricius’ writings about adultery in the mime theatre); Malineau 2005, 157. 47  G. Traversari was the first who, inspired by an epigram by Martialis, gave the name tetimimi – from Thetis, patron of the genre – to the water entertainers (Traversari 1960, 50–51). The term ‘υδρόμιμος’ was proposed later and adopted by Berlan-Bajard (Berlan-Bajard 2006, 131– 132, 139, 140). 48  Procopius of Gaza, Panegyric of Anastasios 18. 1–5.

199

Christina Papakyriakou

Figure 17.1. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. Anastasius diptych, 517 AD.

Anstasius diptych in the Hermitage (517 AD), 62 two figures are represented (Fig. 17.1) next to the scene with the acrobats. It is supposed to be a scene of comedy, quite a popular motif in iconography. It is already known from the time of Menander (342–292 BC), while later versions are numerous, some of them dated quite late in antiquity. In all of the examples the same scene, that of a young drunken man supported by a servant, is depicted. According to Green, the scene is symbolic of comedy and does not represent an extract from a particular theatrical play.63 The young figure with the tall head-cover that appears in even later examples would be suitable also for a cantor (ἀναγνώστης).64 In the Anastasius diptych in London,65 (517 AD), the lefthand scene has been interpreted as a parody of a Christian ceremony (Fig. 17.2).66 The representation of the symbolic liberation of slaves, a procedure that could have taken place during the inauguration of the new city prefect, has also been 62  St Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, Inv. No. W-263; Delbrück 1929, 125–126 N18, Taf. 18; Bieber 1961, 251, fig. 835; Volbach 1976, 36 no. 19, Taf. 9; Green 1985, 471–472; Webster 1995, 467 6DI 1; Malineau 2002, 83, pl. ΧΙΙΙ, fig. 1; Olovsdotter 2005, 53, no. 11D, pl.11: 3. This diptych has also been attributed to Anthemius (Olovsdotter 2005, 53 n. 253). 63  Green 1985, 472. 64  Webster 1995, 76. On the evolution of this iconography from Hellenistic times onwards, see Green 1985. Delbrück assumes that it could be Teiresias depicted within a scene from Oedipus (Delbrück 1929, 125–126 N18, Taf. 18). Bieber also interpreted the representation as a tragedy scene (Bieber 1961, 251, fig. 835) and much later so did Neiendam (Neiiendam 1992, 114–115, fig. 38), who saw the cothurnus worn by tragic actors in the figures’ footwear. Olovsdotter proposed a scene from Medea instead, in accordance with a similar interpretation given to a theatrical scene depicted on a diptych also in the Hermitage collection (see below) (Olovsdotter 2005, 53 n. 256). 65  London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Inv. 386–1871; Delbrück 1929, 127–131 N20, Taf. 20; Bieber 1961, 251, fig. 836; Volbach 1976, 36 no. 18, Taf. 8; Weitzmann 1979, 98–99 no. 88; Neiiendam 1992, 117–119; Malineau 2002, 82–83, pl. 12, fig. 2; Olovsdotter 2005, 50–52 no. 11Β, pl. 11: 2. 66  Olovsdotter (ibidem) prefers the depiction of the ‘healing of the blind’.

Figure 17.2. Victoria and Albert Museum, London. Anastasius diptych, 517 AD.

suggested.67 We should, however, point out that the central figure of the scenes wears the dress of an athlete or an acrobat, that is a perizoma, while he holds something that could be a palm branch.68 We consider it very likely that a victorious athlete or acrobat is depicted, who celebrates his triumph. The scene on the right, which is now but partially preserved and can be reconstructed thanks to a drawing of the diptych Williamson 1998, 53. It has been interpreted as a sceptre (Neiiendam 1992, 118) or bunch of garlic (Delbrück 1929, 130). 67  68 

200

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople

Figure 17.3. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Anastasius diptych (517 AD).

Figure 17.4. The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg. Part of a diptych. Constantinople (?), 4th-5th centuries.

dated to the 17th century, depicts, according to Delbrück, the punishment of two slaves who are depicted with hands tied behind their backs while being bitten by crabs on the nose.69 According to a more recent interpretation,70 the scene represents a mime performance, where the well-known μωροί φαλακροί (stupidus) are engaged in a particular amusing performance for the spectators.

probable evidence that together with tragōdoi (tragici cantores) — the successors to tragic actors, who read or sung extracts from ancient tragedies74 and were accompanied by a guitar — there existed also the tragic actors [ὑποκριταὶ τραγωδίας (hypokritai tragōdias) or τραγωδίας ὑπόκρισιν μετιόντες (tragōdias hypokrisin metiontes)] who would sing and dance similar extracts.75 As far as the scene on the Paris diptych is concerned, Neiiendam sees Phaidra, her nurse and Hippolytus, or Helekra accompanied by Orestes and Pylades. Incidents from mythology were particularly loved in the theatre of Late Antiquity and were played out as pantomimes,76 as well as in mimes.77

In the contemporary Paris diptych,71 a theatrical scene of three figures is depicted (Fig. 17.3). The figure on the right is seated on a throne. He or she reaches his or her hand forward as a gesture of welcome or farewell toward the next figure nearby and is waving back. A third figure between the two raises up his/her right hand. It is clear that this is a tragedy scene judging from the performers’ appearance that differs from that of the comic actors, pantomime dancers and mimes since they wear high masks (with oncus), richly decorated long dresses and cothurni (ἐμβάτες).72 The presence of tragic actors (ὑποκριταὶ τραγωδίας) in the 6th century, at least up to 526 AD, is well known from Choricius’ text.73 The scene on the Anastasius diptych is

To the left of the above tragedy scene a mime scene is depicted. A parody of the healing of the blind78 or another Christian ceremony is represented according to scholars.79 In the scene two mimes participate, a man and a woman, together with another pair, who belong to the genre of stupidus (μωροὶ φαλακροί). In one part of a diptych (end 4th to 5th centuries) in the Hermitage,80 two theatrical scenes are depicted (Fig. 17.4).

Delbrück 1929,130. Neiiendam 1992, 118–119, fig. 40, 41; Malineau 2002, 83. 71  Bibliothèque Nationale, Cabinet des médailles (Département des Monnaies, Médailles et Antiques), Inv. 40. Delbrück 1929, 131–134 N21, Taf. 21; Bieber 1961, 251, fig. 834a; Volbach 1976, 36–37 no. 21, Taf. 9; Byzance 1992, 54–56 no. 15, fig. 2; Malineau 2002, 82, pl. 11, 12, fig. 1; Olovsdotter 2005, 48–50 no. 11Α, pl. 11: 1. 72  On the clothing of scaenici in Late Antiquity, see Bieber 1939, 641; Molloy 1996, 222; Webb 2008, 61–66. 73  Choricius, Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes 29.2, 32.2. 69  70 

See above, p. 198. Cf. Neiiendam 1992, 119. 76  Molloy 1996, 277–281. 77  Choricius, Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes 78. 78  Delbrück 1929, 134; Olovsdotter 2005, 49. 79  Neiiendam 1992, 121. 80  St. Petersburg, The State Hermitage Museum, Inv. No. W-15; Delbrück 1929, 208–209 N53, Taf. 53; Bieber 1961, 250–252, fig. 833; Volbach 74  75 

201

Christina Papakyriakou

Figure 17.5. Map of Constantinople in the 4th century.

in Verona.86 Bieber considers that the scene may be a depiction of the blinded Oedipus supported by his children, while the other two figures represent his daughters or are members of the choir.87

At the centre of the upper zone the figure of an actor is represented holding a mask in one hand, while raising the other in a greeting gesture. He wears a long-sleeved long dress fastened under the chest with a broad belt and a garment buckled in the front. Two other shorter young actors stand by the leading actor figure, while the head of a third figure is preserved in the right side of the scene also raising his hand.

17.2 The theatre(s) of Constantinople According to the texts, the theatre of the city of Byzantium was among the buildings destroyed by Septimius Severus in 196 AD and reconstructed later by the same emperor.88 In Malalas’ Chronograhpia, the emperor built a theatre on the acropolis hill across from the temple of Aphrodite.89 In the Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae (first quarter of the 5th century) three buildings are described as theatrum (regiones ΙΙ, ΧΙΙΙ, ΧΙV),90 while a theatrum maius and a theatrum minor are mentioned. There is as yet no archaeological evidence for any of these buildings mentioned by the texts.

First Delbrück81 and later Bieber82 saw in the central figure of the above scene a female actress, more precisely one portraying Medea, while in the two lower scale figures they recognized Medea’s children.83 According to the two scholars, the actress waves at the spectators — represented by the figure at the upper corner of the scene — who cheer. However, the presence of a Phrygian pilos on the actor’s / actress’s mask makes his/her identification with Medea rather problematic. Webster claimed that this is a comedy and not a tragedy scene. It shows an actor enjoying the audience’s applause as he takes off his costume and mask after the end of the performance. Webster also postulated that the Phrygian pilos testifies that the actor has just completed the performance of Menander’s Eunuch, or at least, some excerpts of the play.84 Behind the figures, an arch is depicted that most probably represents one of the doors of the theatre’s stage.

Archaeological research has focused on the acropolis hill to locate the Severian theatre (regio I or II), the older theatrical building in Constantinople. The major issue for archaeologists was — and still is — the location of the theatre in relation to the amphitheatre (κυνήγιον), also mentioned in the sources and located on the acropolis, along with the problem of the identification of the theatrum maius and theatrum minor of the Notitia urbis with either of these buildings.

The scene at the lower zone of the same diptych depicts, according to Delbrück and Volbach,85 a dancing group — where also little children participate — that accompanies the theatrical performances. The scene is interpreted in accordance with that on the diptych of Anastasius

According to the most recent scholarly research, the city’s theatre is placed in the region of the co-called column of Claudius Gothicus, at the northeastern part of the acropolis (Fig. 17.5).91 Mamboury proposed that the ruins unearthed in 1913 around the column belonged to the city’s amphitheatre

1976, 50, no. 53, Taf. 28; Webster 1995, 467 6DI 2, 76. 81  Delbrück 1929, 208–209 (Ν53). 82  Bieber 1961, 250–251 fig. 833. 83  Delbrück believes that they are members of the choir accompanying the actor. 84  Webster 1995, 76. 85  Volbach 1976, 50 no. 53.

86 

Delbrück 1929, 208–209 (Ν53). Bieber 1961, 250–251, fig. 833. 88  Herodianus, Historiae sui temporis 3.6,9. 89  Malalas, Chronographia 12.20. The temple of Aphrodite was built by the shore (Zosimus, Hist. nov. 2.30,3). 90  Berger 1997. 91  Mango 2004, 19. 87 

202

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople

Figure 17.6. The acropolis hill of Byzantium – Topkapi palace.

far away from the shore, near the kitchen rooms of the later Topkapi palace.95 Mango’s suggestion followed Berger,96 according to whom some blocks of seats that came to light during the excavation works in the second yard of Topkapi palace in front of the kitchen wing in 1959, and maybe were in situ, belonged to the city’s theatre. The suggestion of Berger, who combined the archaeological finds with the reports of the written sources about the possible location of the theatre and the amphitheatre of Byzantium/Constantinople at the eastern and southeastern side of the acropolis hill respectively, is in accordance with the geomorphological

(κυνήγιον, κυνήγιν) and that this was the theatrum minus mentioned in the Notitia urbis (regio ΙΙ).92 The same scholar later disassociated these ruins from the amph itheatre, which, he rather believed was located at another place and is identified with the theatrum maius of the Notitia Urbis.93 This last point of Mamboury was later adopted by Janin as well.94 Mango in his 1990 edition of his study on Constantinople’s urban evolution suggested as a possible place for the theatre the foot of the hill at the eastern side of the acropolis, not 92  The ruins were a line of consecutive irregular rooms built in front of an elliptic wall. On the other side of the wall there was an arched gallery 5m wide (Mamboury 1936, 235–236). 93  Mambury 1953, 192. 94  Janin 1964, 196–197.

95  96 

203

Mango 2004, 19, pl. I, II. Cf. Barsanti 1992, 24. Berger 1997, 357–360, 353 abb. 1.

Christina Papakyriakou remarks made on the district’s relief by Martiny in 1938, who also had the main written texts in mind.97 However, in the appendix of the revised 1990 edition as released in 2004, Mango had reconsidered: he now suggested the northern part of the acropolis as the most possible site of the theatre, in the region of Claudius Gothicus’ column,98 returning thus to the opinion of earlier scholars.

Choricius, Or. 8, On behalf of the Mimes: R. Förster / E. Richtstieg (eds.), Choricii Gazaei opera, Leipzig 1929, 344 ff.

As far as the theatre of Sycae is concerned, on the opposite shore of the Golden Horn, we know nothing other than that it was renovated by Justinian I.99 It is probably the same building about which Ρetrus Gyllius writes in the middle of the 16th century, located at the foot of the hill, near Honorius’ forum.100

Codex Iustinianus: P. Krüger / T. Mommsen (eds.), Codex Iustinianus, Corpus Juris Civilis, v. IΙ, Berlin 1877.

There is no other reference to the theatre of the regio XIV apart from that in the Notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae. The regio in question is located, according to Berger, in the neighbourhood of Vlachernae.101 The remains of another theatre, perhaps that of Μεσόμφαλον (Mesomphalon) according to Berger, have been unearthed in the region between regiones VII or X, but this is not referred to in the Notitia urbis.102

Herodianus, Historiae sui temporis: K. Stavenhagen (ed.), Herodiani ad excessu divi Marci libri octo, Leipzig 1922 (repr. Stuttgart 1967)

Chronicon paschale: L. Dindorf (ed.), Chronicon Paschale [Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae], Bonn 1832 (Engl. transl. M. Whitby / M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale 284–628 AD, Liverpool 1989).

Dio Chrysostom, Or. 32, To the People of Alexandreia: J. Von Armin (ed), Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae exstant omnia, vol. I, Berlin 1893 (repr. Berlin 1962).

John of Antioch, Historia chronikē: U. Roberto (ed.), Ioannis Antiocheni, Fragmenta ex Historia chronica [Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur Bd. 154], Berlin 2005. John Lydus, On powers: A. Bandy (ed. and transl.), Ioannes Lydus on Powers or The Magistrates of the Roman State, Philadelphia 1983.

In conclusion, it is safe to claim that theatrical spectacles (ludi theatrales) formed an inextricable part of social life in Constantinople throughout Late Antiquity. Citizens of the capital enjoyed, at least until the end of the 6th century, in the theatres and the hippodrome, all kinds of theatrical performances known at that time, from the adaptations of ancient tragedies — in the form of pantomime or otherwise — to the scenic performances — often improvised — where all kinds of performers participated (mimes, acrobats, dancers, clowns). Furthermore, it is beyond doubt that the people of Constantinople enjoyed the most numerous and the most impressive public theatrical spectacles in comparison to the rest of the people in the Eastern Roman Empire, since these events were inextricably linked to the activities of the emperors and prefects, who used to spend huge amounts of money on the spectacle ‘industry’.

Julian, Ep.: J. Bidez, (ed.), L’empereur Julien, oevres completes, t. 1 – 2e partie, Lettres et fragments, Paris1972 (Engl. ed. and transl. W.C. Wright, The Works of the Emperor Julian, II, London: Loeb 1913) Julian, Misopogon: Ch. Lacombrade, L’empereur Julien, oevres completes, t. 2– 2e partie, Discours de Julien empereur, Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1964, 139–199 (Engl. ed. and transl. W.C. Wright, The Works of the Emperor Julian, II, London 1913, Or. VII 420–511). Libanius, Decl.: R. Foerster (ed.), Libanii opera, v.VI, Declamatiiones XIII–XXX, Leipzig 1911 (repr. Hildesheim 1963). Libanius, Or. 64, A reply to Aristides on behalf of dancers: R. Foerster (ed.), Libanii opera, vol. IV, Orationes LI– LXIV, Leipzig 1908 (repr. Hildesheim 1963), 420–498.

Primary literature Anthologia Palatina: P. Waltz (ed.), Anthologie Greque, Première partie, Anthologie Palatine, v. I–IX, Paris 1928–1974.

Malalas, Chronographia: I. Thurn (ed.), Ioannis Malalae, Chronographia [Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35], Berlin 2000 (Engl. transl. E. Jeffreys / M. Jeffreys / R. Scott, The Chronicle of Jonh Malalas, Melbourne 1986).

Anth. Plan.: R. Aubreton / F. Buffière (eds.), Anthologie Greque, tome XIII, Anthologie de Planude, Paris 1980. Asterius of Amaseia, Hom.1, To the rich man and Lazarus: C. Datema (ed.), Asterius of Amasea. Homilies I–XIV, Leiden 1970, 7–15.

Marcell.com.: B. Croke, The Chronicle of Marcellinus, Translation and commentary [Byzantina Australiensia 7], Sydney 1995. Novellae Iustiniani: W. Kroll / R.Schoell, (eds.), Novellae, Corpus Juris Civilis, v. III, Berlin 1895 (Engl. transl. S.P. Scott, The Civil Law, v. XVI, XVII, Cincinnati 1932).

Martiny 1938. Mango 2004, 34. 99  Chronicon pachale p. 618; Berger 1997, 373. 100  Ball / Musto 1988, 216. 101  Berger 1997, 374. 102  Berger 1997, 381. 97  98 

Procopius, De bellis: J. Haury / G. Wirth (eds.), Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, vol. Ι, De bellis libri I–IV, Leipzig 1962. 204

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople Procopius, Hist. Arcana: J. Haury / G. Wirth, (eds.), Procopii Caesariensis opera omnia, vol. IΙΙ, Historia quae dicitur arcane, Leipzig 1963.

Berlan-Bajadr 2006: Berlan-Bajard, Anne, Les spectacles aquatiques romains, Rome 2006. Bieber 1939: Bieber, Margarete, ‘Mima saltatricula’, American Journal of Archaeology 43 (1939), 640–644.

Procopius of Gaza, Panegyric of Anastasios: A. Chauvot (ed.), Procope de Gaza, Priscien de Cesarée, panégyriques de l’empereur Anastase Ier [Antiquitas, Reihe 1, Abhandlungen zur alten Geschichte, Bd 35], Bonn 1986.

Bieber 1961: Bieber, Margarete, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater, Princeton 1961. Bonaria 1965: Bonaria, Mario, Romani mimi, Rome 1965.

Rallēs / Potlēs: G.A. Rallēs / M. Potlēs, Σύνταγμα τῶν Θείων καὶ Ἱερῶν Κανόνων τῶν τε Ἁγίων καὶ Πανευφήμων Ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν Ἱερῶν Οἰκουμενικῶν καὶ τοπικῶν Συνόδων, καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος Ἁγίων Πατέρων, ἐκδοθέν, σὺν πλεῖσταις ἄλλαις τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν κατάστασιν διεπόυσαις διατάξεσι, μετὰ τῶν ἀρχαίων ἐξηγητῶν, καὶ διαφόρων ἀναγνωσμάτων, τόμ. Α΄– Γ΄, Athens 1852 – 1853 (repr. Athens1966).

Byzance 1992: Byzance, L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques francaises, Musée du Louvre, 3 novembre 1992 – 1er février 1993, Paris 1992. Cameron 1973: Cameron, Alan, Porphyrius the charioteer, Oxford 1973. Dagron 1974: Dagron, Gilbert, Naissance d’une capital. Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris 1974.

Socr. Scholasticus, Eccl. Hist.: P. Maraval / P. Périchon, (eds.), Socrate de Constantinople, Histoire ecclésiastique, livres I–VII, Paris 2004–2007.

Dagron 2011: Dagron, Gilbert, L’hippodrome de Constantinople. Jeux, peuple et politique, Paris 2011.

Sozomenus, Eccl. Hist.: J. Bidez / G.C. Hansen (eds.), Sozomenus. Kirchengeschichte, Berlin 1960.

Delbrück 1929: Delbrück, Richard, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkmäler, Berlin / Leipzig 1929.

Synaxarium: H. Delehaye (ed.), Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e Codice Sirmondiano, Propylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum Novembris, Bruxellis 1902.

Dunbabin 2004: Dunbabin, Katherine, ‘Problems in the Iconography of Roman Mime’ Le statut de l’acteurs dans l’Antiquité grecque et romaine, Actes du colloque qui s’est tenu à Tours les 3 et 4 mai 2002, coordonné par Ch. Hugoniot, F. Hurlet et S. Milanezi, Tours 2004, 161–181.

Theoph. Simokattes, Historia: C. de Boor / P. Wirth, (eds.), Theophylacti Simocattae historiae, Leipzig 1887 (repr. Stuttgart 1972).

Dunbabin 2016: Dunbabin, Katherine, Theater and Spectacle in the Art of the Roman Empire, Ithaca and London 2016.

Zosimus, Hist. nov.: F. Paschoud (ed.), Zosime, Histoire nouvelle, t. 1–3, Paris 1971–1989.

Easterling / Miles 1999: Easterling, Pat / Miles, Richard, ‘Dramatic Identities. Tragedy in Late Antiquity’, Constructing Identities in Late Antiquity (ed. R. Miles), London / New York 1999, 95–111.

Secondary literature Ball / Musto 1988: Ball, John / Musto, G. Roland, Pierre Gilles, The Antiquities of Constantinople based on the Translation by J. Ball. 2nd Edition with new introduction and bibliography by R.G. Musto, New York 1988.

Garelli 2007: Garelli, Marie-Hélène, Danser le mythe. La pantomime et sa réception dans la culture antique, Louvain / Paris / Dudley, MA 2007.

Barsanti 1992: Barsanti, Claudia, ‘Costantinopoli: Testimonianze archeologiche de eta Costantiniana’, Costantino il Grande dall’ Antichita all’ Umanismo. Colloquio sul Cristianesimo nel mondo antico, Macerata 18–20 Dicembre 1990 (eds. G. Bonamente / F. Fusco), t. I, Macerata 1992, 115–150.

Greatrex / Watt 1999: Greatrex, Geoffrey / Watt, W. John, ‘One, Two or Three Feasts? The Brytae, the Maiuma and the May Festival at Edessa’, Oriens Christianus 83 (1999), 1–21.

Beacham 1999: Beacham, C. Richard, Spectacle. Entertainment of Early Imperial Rome, Yale University 1999.

Green 1985: Green, J. Richard, ‘Drunk again. A Study in the Iconography of the Comic Theater’, American Journal of Archaeology 89 (1985), 465–472.

Belayche 2004: Belayche, Nicole, ‘Une panégyrie Antiochéenne: Le Maϊouma’, Antioche de Syrie. Histoire, images et traces de la ville antique, TOPOI Suppl. 5 (2004), 401–415.

Hall / Wyles 2008: Hall, Edith / Wyles, Rosie (eds.), New Directions in Ancient Pantomime, New York 2008. Ηillgruber 2000: Hillgruber, Μichael, ‘Homer im Dienste des Mimus. Zur künstlerischen Eigenart der Homeristen’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 132 (2000), 63–72.

Benz 2000: Benz, Lore, ‘Pantomimos’, Der neue Pauly 9 (2000) coll. 274–276. Berger 1997: Berger, Albrecht, ‘Regionen und Strassen im frühen Konstantinopel’, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47 (1997), 349–413.

Huskinson 2002–3: Huskinson, Janet, ‘Theatre, Performance and Theatricality in some Mosaic 205

Christina Papakyriakou Pavements from Antioch’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 46 (2002–3), 131–165.

Olovsdotter 2005: Olovsdotter, Cecilia, The Consular Image. An Iconological Study of the Consular Diptychs, Oxford 2005.

Janin 1964: Janin, Raymond, Constantinople Byzantine. Développement urbain et repertoire topographique, Paris 21964.

Péché / Vendries 2001: Péché, Valérie / Vendries, Christophe, Musique et spectacles à Rome et dans l’occident romain sous la République et le Hautempire, Paris 2001.

Jones 1993: Jones, P.Christopher, ‘Greek Drama in the Roman Empire’, Theater and Society in the Classical World (ed. R. Scodel), Ann Arbor 1993, 39–52.

Rotolo 1957: Rotolo, Vicenzo, Il pantomimo, studi e testi, Palermo 1957.

Jory 1996: Jory, Edward John, ‘The Drama of the Dance: Prolegomena to an Iconography of Imperial Pantomime’, Roman Theater and Society (ed. W.J. Slater), Ann Arbor 1996, 1–27.

Roueché 1993: Roueché, Charlotte, Performers and Partisans at Aphrodisias in the Roman and Late Roman periods, London 1993. Rutschowscaya 2000: Rutschowscaya, Marie-Hélène, ‘Le peigne d’ Helladia’, Études coptes 7, Neuvieme journée d’études. Montpellier 3–4 juin 1999 (ed. N. Bosson) [Cahiers de la bibliothèque copte 12], Paris / Louvain / Sterling 2000, 235–244.

Jory 2001: Jory, John, ‘Some cases of mistaken identity? Pantomime masks and their context’, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 45 (2001), 1–20. Kepetzi 2014: Kepetzi, Victoria, ‘Scenes of Performers in Byzantine Art. Iconography, Social and Cultural Milieu: The Case of Acrobats’, Medieval and Early Modern Performance in the Eastern Mediterranean (eds. Arzu Öztürkmen / Evelyn Birge Vitz) [Late Medieval and Early Modern Studies 20], Turnhout 2014, 345–384.

Slater 1995: Slater, J.William,  ‘The Pantomime Tiberius Iulius Apolaustus’, Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 36 (1995), 263–292. Slater 2010: Slater, William, ‘Sorting out pantomime (and mime) from top to bottom’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 23.2 (2010), 533–541.

Koukoules: Κουκουλές, Φαίδων, Βυζαντινών βίος και πολιτισμός, vols. Α΄– ΣΤ΄, Athens 1947–1955.

Stefanis 1986: Stefanis, Ε. Ιoannis, Χορικίου Σοφιστού Γάζης Συνηγορία μίμων, Introduction, Text, Translation, Commentary, Thessaloniki 1986.

Malineau 2002: Malineau, Violaine, Le théâtre dans l’ Antiquité tardive de la Tétrarchie à Justinien. Histoire des spectacles et des monuments, Paris IV – Sorbonne 2002 (thèse inédite).

Stefanis 1988: Stefanis, Ε. Ιoannis, Διονυσιακοί τεχνίται: συμβολές στην προσωπογραφία του θεάτρου και της μουσικής των αρχαίων Ελλήνων, Rethymno 1988.

Malineau 2005: Malineau, Violaine, ‘L’apport de l’Apologie des mimes de Chorikios de Gaza à la connaissance du théâtre du Vie siècle’, Gaza dans l’Antiquité Tardive. Archéologie, rhétorique et histoire. Actes du colloque international de Poitiers (6–7 mai 2004) (ed. Catherine Saliou), Salerno 2005, 149–169.

Theocharidis 1940: Theocharidis, J. Georgios, Beiträge zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Profantheaters im IV und V Jahrhundert, hauptsächlich auf Grund der Predigten des Johannes Chrysostomos, Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, Thessaloniki 1940.

Mamboury 1936: Mamboury, Ernest, ‘Les fouilles byzantines à Istanbul et dans sa banlieue immédiate aux XIXe et XXe siècles’, Byzantion 11 (1936), 229–283.

Traversari 1960: Traversari, Gustavo, Gli spettacoli in aqua nel teatro tardo-antico, Roma 1960.

Mambury 1953: Mamboury, Ernest, The tourists’ Istantul, Engl.ed. transl by M. Burr, Istanbul 1953.

Volbach 1976: Volbach, Wolfgang Fritz, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters, 3rd. ed. Mainz am Rhein 1976.

Mango 2004: Mango, Cyril, Le dévelopement urbain de Constantinople (IVe – VIIe siècles), Paris 2004 (reprint of the 1990 edition with addenda). Martiny 1938: Martiny, Günter, ‘The great theatre, Byzantium’, Antiquity 12 (1938), 89–93.

Webb 2002: Webb, Ruth, ‘Female entertainers in late antiquity’, Greek and Roman actors. Aspects from an Ancient Profession, (eds. P. Easterling / E. Hall), New York 2002, 282–303.

Mentzou-Meimare 1996: Mentzou-Meimare, Konstantina, ‘Der ‘χαριέστατος μαϊουμάς’’ Byzantinische Zeitschrift 89 (1996), 58–73.

Webb 2008: Webb, Ruth, Demons and Dancers. Performance in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London 2008.

Molloy 1996: Molloy, E. Margaret, Libanius and the Dancers, Hildesheim 1996.

Webster 1995: Webster, Thomas Bertram Lonsdale, Monuments Illustrating New Comedy, Third Edition Revised and Enlarged by J.R. Green and A. Seeberg, London 1995.

Neiiendam 1992: Neiiendam, Klaus, The Art of Acting in Antiquity. Iconographical Studies in Classical, Hellenistic and Byzantine Theatre, University of Copenhagen 1992.

Weinreich 1948: Weinreich, Otto, Epigrammstudien I: Epigramm und Pantomimus, Heidelberg 1948. 206

Ludi Scaenici in Late Antique Constantinople Weitzmann 1979: Weitzmann, Kurt (ed.), Age of Spirituality, Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century, Catalogue of the exhibition at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 19, 1977 through February 12, 1978, New York 1979. Wiemken 1972: Wiemken, Helmut, Der griechische Mimus. Dokumente zur Geschichte des antiken Volkstheaters, Bremen 1972. Williamson 1998: Williamson, Paul (ed.), The medieval treasury. The Art of the Middle Ages in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London 1998.

207

18 The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa at Bačkovo* Penelope Mougoyianni Το my teachers with great affection Abstract: The monastery of the Theotokos of Petritzos was founded by Gregory Pakourianos as a burial place for his brother Apasios and himself. The exact burial place of the Pakourianos brothers has not been a research question in its own right so far. Any reference to the burials is usually made as part of the study of the painted decoration of the surviving two-storey ossuary outside the monastery walls. This paper analyzes the founder’s typikon and the excavated remains of the katholikon. The analysis proposes that the katholikon belonged to the Athonite type with two chapels at the sides of the narthex. It is also suggested that the founders’ tombs were placed within the chapel of St John the Baptist, while the ossuary was reserved as the resting place of the monks. The diverse burial locations of the Pakourianos family and the monks reveal that there was a symbolic manipulation of space, emphasizing the social differentiation between aristocratic founders and the monastic community in 11th-century Byzantine society. Η μονή της Θεοτόκου Πετριτζονιτίσσης, κοντά στο σημερινό Bačkovo της Βουλγαρίας, ιδρύθηκε το έτος 1083 από τον σεβαστό και μέγα δομέστικο της Δύσεως Γρηγόριο Πακουριανό για να στεγάσει τον τάφο του ιδίου και αδελφού του Απασίου. Η θέση των τάφων των Γρηγορίου και Απασίου Πακουριανού, αυτή καθεαυτή δεν έχει απασχολήσει την έρευνα, αλλά κάθε αναφορά στους τάφους γίνεται πάντα σε σχέση με τον σωζόμενο διώροφο κοιμητηριακό ναό και με αφορμή τις περισσότερες φορές την μελέτη του ζωγραφικού του διακόσμου. Έτσι κάποιοι μελετητές, με πρώτο τον André Grabar, υποστήριξαν ότι αυτός ο ναός είναι το ταφικό παρεκκλήσιο των Πακουριανών, ενώ άλλοι, όπως η Elka Bakalova, τοποθέτησαν τους τάφους εντός του καθολικού χωρίς να αναφέρουν συγκεκριμένη θέση. Η πρώτη πηγή για την αναζήτηση της θέσης των τάφων είναι το κτητορικό τυπικό της μονής. Παρά τις αόριστες αναφορές που κάνει ο Γρηγόριος στον τάφο του ιδίου και του αδελφού του, σε ένα απόσπασμα σχετικά με τον ήδη νεκρό Απάσιο γράφει, πως ο χώρος που ενταφιάσθηκε ο Απάσιος βρισκόταν εντός της εκκλησίας, δηλαδή του καθολικού. Αυτή η θέση επιβεβαιώνεται από τα ταφικά έθιμα των βυζαντινών. Από τα αρχαιολογικά τεκμήρια, τα κτητορικά τυπικά και τις άλλες γραπτές πηγές προκύπτει, ότι οι κτήτορες ενταφιάζονταν σε χώρους του καθολικού της μονής που ίδρυαν με δευτερεύουσα λειτουργική σημασία και κυρίως στο νάρθηκα ή σε παρεκκλήσια προσαρτημένα σε αυτόν. Από την άλλη πλευρά τα κοιμητήρια των μοναχών βρίσκονταν εκτός των μοναστικών τειχών και διέθεταν δικό τους παρεκκλήσιο, το οποίο ήταν πολλές φορές διώροφο, όπως της μονής του Πετριτζού. Επομένως, ο σωζόμενος διώροφος κοιμητηριακός ναός ανήκει στο κοιμητήριο των μοναχών της μονής του Πετριτζού, ενώ οι Γρηγόριος και Απάσιος τάφηκαν εντός του καθολικού. Στο τυπικό ο Πακουριανός αναφέρεται πολλές φορές στο καθολικό χωρίς να το περιγράφει. Τις περισσότερες φορές γράφει για μία εκκλησία αφιερωμένη στη Θεοτόκο, άλλοτε κάνει λόγο για άγιες εκκλησίες εντός των τειχών της μονής, ενώ μία φορά αναφέρει πως το καθολικό είναι αφιερωμένο στη Θεοτόκο, τον άγιο Γεώργιο και τον Ιωάννη τον Πρόδρομο. Στον Ιωάννη τον Πρόδρομο ήταν αφιερωμένο και ένα ευκτήριο, το οποίο ο Πακουριανός αναφέρει όταν δίνει οδηγίες για να μνημόσυνα των νεκρών, ενώ παρεκκλήσιο του Προδρόμου αναφέρεται και στο γεωργιανό κείμενο του τυπικού. Η κοινή αφιέρωση του ευκτηρίου και του καθολικού στον * I am grateful to Dr. Mercourios Georgiadis (Marie Curie Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Institute of Classical Archaeology in Catalunia) for every kind of help he offered me at different stages of writing this article, Assistant Professor Stavros Mamaloukos (University of Patras) for his kind permission to use the ground plan of the Great Lavra monastery

from his personal archive, Dr. Eugenia Drakopoulou (National Hellenic Research Foundation) for helping me with unaccessible Bulgarian studies and Ms Mila Adonova (University of Nottingham) for the translation of the Bulgarian texts. I also thank Assistant Professor Georgios Pallis (University of Athens) for reading the first draft of this paper.

209

Penelope Mougoyianni Πρόδρομο, ο όρος ευκτήριο που χρησιμοποιεί, και που είναι ο πιο συνηθισμένος όρος στις πηγές για τα παρεκκλήσια, αλλά και η αναφορά ότι το καθολικό οικοδομήθηκε «εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν καὶ τῶν τριῶν τούτων», οδηγεί στο συμπέρασμα ότι πρόκειται για το καθολικό, αφιερωμένο στη Θεοτόκο με δύο παρεκκλήσια, του αγίου Γεωργίου και του Ιωάννου του Προδρόμου. Κατά τη διάρκεια εργασιών που έγιναν στον παρών καθολικό το 1955 αποκαλύφθηκε η κόγχη της πρόθεσης και μία κόγχη στον βόρειο τοίχο που ανήκαν στο ναό του 1083. Το τριμερές ιερό Βήμα του καθολικού και η πλάγια κόγχη υποδεικνύουν ότι ο ναός δεν ανήκε στους απλούς τρίκογχους ή τετράκογχους, των οποίων το Βήμα έχει μόνο μία αψίδα, αλλά στον αθωνικό τύπο. Η επιλογή αυτού του τύπου μπορεί να ερμηνευθεί από τις στενές σχέσεις που είχαν οι Γρηγόριος και Απάσιος με τη μονή Ιβήρων στο Άγιον Όρος, σχέσεις που διατήρησε η μονή του Πετριτζού και μετά το θάνατο του κτήτορά της. Στα αθωνικά καθολικά τα παρεκκλήσια, κάποια από τα οποία είχαν και ταφική χρήση, τοποθετούνται εκατέρωθεν του νάρθηκα. Εάν, λοιπόν, το καθολικό της Πετριτζονίτισσας ανήκε στον αθωνικό τύπο, τα παρεκκλήσια θα ήταν προσαρτημένα στο νάρθηκα και οι τάφοι των δύο αδελφών θα είχαν τοποθετηθεί εντός του ευκτηρίου του Προδρόμου. Σε αυτό ορίζει ο Γρηγόριος να υπάρχει μόνιμα ιερέας για την τέλεση των μνημοσύνων των νεκρών και αυτό είναι ένα προνόμιο που πρωτίστως ένας κτήτορας θα αναγνώριζε για τον εαυτό του και δευτερευόντως για τους άλλους νεκρούς. Keywords: ktetors’ tombs, ktetorika typika, monastic founders, ossuaries, Athonite type, Iviron monastery, byzantine aristocracy, Middle Byzantine period.

18.1 Introduction

the monastery and not in the ossuary, it was Elka Bakalova7 who substantiated this idea with her thorough analysis.

The monastery of the Theotokos of Petritzos, near modern Bačkovo in Bulgaria, was founded in 1083 by the sebastos and megas domestikos of the West, Gregory Pakourianos, as an offering to the Mother of God for the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation of his soul, and as a burial place for his brother Apasios and himself.1 The exact burial place of the Pakourianos brothers has not been the basis of a separate study so far. Any reference to the tombs is always patchy and usually made as part of the study of the painted decoration of the surviving two-storey ossuary outside the monastery walls.2 André Grabar3 was the first to suggest that the tombs of the Pakourianos brothers lay in the ossuary chapel of the monastery, a hypothesis followed by other researchers4 and which was discussed in detail by Sasha Grishin.5 Although yet other authors6 have claimed that the tombs were located in the katholikon of

18.2 The ossuary as the resting place of the monks Gregory and his brother Apasios were members of the Iberian aristocratic family of the Pakourianoi, and attained pre-eminence in the Byzantine court. Apasios became magister of Antioch and Gregory served in the highest ranks of the Byzantine army. In 1081, Gregory provided military support to Alexios I Komnenos in his claim for the imperial throne. The emperor rewarded him with the office of megas domestikos of the West and one of the principal titles in the Byzantine hierarchy, that of sebastos.8 The megas domestikos probably died in 1086, fighting the Patzinaks near Philippoupolis.9 According to the typikon of the Monastery of Petritzos, written by Gregory in December 1083, three years before his death, the monastery was meant to be populated exclusively by fifty Iberian monks and their abbot,10 and was organized

1  Gautier 1984, l.s. 1924, 174– 216. The motive for saving one’s soul was the main one shared by all lay founders of monasteries, Galatariotou 1987, 91– 95. 2  The monastery of the Theotokos of Petritzos was destroyed in the second half of the 15th or the early 16th century by the Ottoman Turks, and abandoned. It was rebuilt in 1603/1604. From the Middle Byzantine structures and its lavish liturgical equipment, which are mentioned in the typikon (Gautier 1984, l.s. 1672– 1754), all that survived are the icon of the Theotokos Glykofiloussa (Panayotidi 1992), parts of the fortification wall (Ieni 1977, 115; Tschilingirov 2000, 1), and the ossuary. The paintings of the ossuary, executed by the Iberian Ioannis Iviropoulos and his assistants, belong to the classicizing tendency of the last quarter of the 12th century, Panayotidi 1989, 463. For other datings in the 12th century, see Grabar 1928, 55– 86; Ieni 1977, 120– 122. Mavrodinova 1991; Bakalova 2003, 59– 104; Oretskaia 2018. For the proposed date at the late 11th century, see Grishin 1978, 93– 96; Mouriki 1981, 732– 736. For the ossuary see also below p. 3  Grabar 1924, 891; Grabar 1928, 56. 4  Mijatev 1974, 190; Jordan 2000a, 509; Tschilingirov 2000, 1. 5  Grishin 1978, 91– 93. 6  Ieni 1977, 117 (who briefly mentions that the tombs must have been in a chapel annexed to the katholikon). Lemerle 1977, 132 n. 42; Mouriki 1981, 733; Mavrodinova 1991, 1123.

Bakalova 2003, 53– 58; Neli Čaneva-Dečevska (the bibliographic reference in Korunovski 2011, 115 and n. 27) made a different proposal, namely that the tombs of the Pakourianos brothers were located in the two-storey church of the Archangels, which is situated south of the present katholikon, within the walls of the Bačkovo monastery. However, during restoration works in the church of the Archangels no grave was found, Korunovski 2011, 116 n. 35. For more details on the church of the Archangels, see Mijatev 1974, 166– 168, figs. 199– 200, who dated it in the 12th century. 8  In the time of Alexios Komnenos, sebastos was the highest rank in the Byzantine hierarchy, Kazhdan – Ronchey 1997, 229. The megas domestikos was the second highest commander of the Byzantine army, after the emperor; there was one for the armies of the East and one for the West. This rank was created by Alexios Komnenos and Gregory Pakourianos was the first megas domestikos of the West, Guilland 1967, I, 405– 425. 9  For the careers of Apasios and Gregory Pakourianos, see Vasiliev 1935, III, 222– 226; Lemerle 1977, 158– 175; Skoulatos 1980, 112– 115; Garsoïan 1991, 1553; Jordan 2000a, 507– 508; Bakalova 2003, 11– 16. 10  Gautier 1984, l.s. 12– 13, 637– 656; For an English translation of Pakourianos’ typikon, see Jordan 2000a. 7 

210

The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa were not allowed,18 there was a strong desire for the founders and other members of their families to be buried within the monasteries they had established.19 This issue led to a compromise, whereby the burials were placed in spaces of secondary significance in the church during the liturgy. These spaces were the same for all graves within all types of churches and for all ktetors and non-ktetors, for the clergy and the laity alike. During the Middle Byzantine period, these spaces were the side aisles of the naos, the west corner bays of the cross-in-square churches, chapels annexed to the narthex, and in most cases the narthex itself.20 In all cases, the important liturgical spaces, i.e. the sanctuary and the nave, stayed free of burials.21 The clearest exposition of the ktetor’s conception of the special burial place for himself and his family members or his immediate retinue was made by sebastokrator Isaak Komnenos. In 1152, in the typikon of the monastery of Theotokos Kosmosoteira, Isaak wrote that his grave should be moved from the monastery of Chora in Constantinople, where it was perhaps placed in the narthex, and be placed in the narthex of the katholikon at Kosmosoteira.22 For the closest men of his retinue, Leon Kastamonitis and his secretary Michael, Isaak states that they should be buried in the exonarthex of the katholikon.23 At the same time, he categorically denied the burial of any individual in the courtyard of the monastery, with sole exception someone who had donated to the monastery significantly large funds. In the latter case, a burial would have been allowed within the courtyard of the monastery, but outside the katholikon and the narthex.24 Thus, burial within a space of the katholikon was a privilege bestowed only on the ktetor, and extended to his close relatives. The same concept is found in the typikon of Empress Eirene Doukaina for the convent of Kecharitomene at Constantinople, which she founded probably in the early years of the 12th century. Those female members of Eirene’s family who wished to become nuns would be buried according to her wish in the exonarthex of the katholikon.25

after the model of the monastery ton Panagiou at Constantinople, due to Gregory’s close relationship with that particular foundation.11 In his typikon, apart from the regulations concerning the daily life of the monks, the organization of the monastery and its property, Pakourianos was interested, as all ktetors were, in giving his guidance to the monks on how to conduct the commemorations and offer the prayers to ensure the saving of his soul and those of his family members.12 He characterized the whole monastery as koimeterion,13 but he did not specify the exact location of the tombs and he did not describe them. When he refers to the tomb of Apasios, he becomes more explicit. Apasios was already dead when the monastery was founded, but had declared in his will that he should be buried along with his brother in the monastery to be founded by the latter, to whom he left all his land.14 Gregory fulfilled his brother’s wish and moved Apasios’ corpse to the monastery of Petritzonitissa, ἐν τῷ κοιμητήριῳ ἡμῶν (in our koimeterion), as he wrote.15 In a segment of his text regarding Aspasios’ donations to the monastery he was more specific: ‘τὸ Πριλόγκιον κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου διάταξιν (i.e. of Apasios), δεδώκαμεν εἰς τὴν πολλάκις εἰρημένην καθ᾽ἡμᾶς ἐκκλησίαν καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ κοιμητήριον, ἐν ᾧ τέθαπται τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ’.16 According to the typikon, Apasios was buried within the church, i.e. the katholikon. This part of the typikon confirms the burial practices associated with ktetors during the Middle Byzantine period. One of their rights was their burial within the monastery they had founded.17 Although burials within the churches

11  Gautier 1984, l.s. 25– 66. A copy of the typikon of Petritzonitissa was kept at the monastery ton Panagiou, Gautier 1984, l.s. 1860– 1874. The monastery of Theotokos ton Panagiou, known today as Theotokos Mouchliotissa or Mougouliotissa, was located in the modern quarter of Fener in Constantinople, but it is unknown when it was founded. At the beginning of the 11th century (possibly in the first decade) the abbot of Panagiou, Antonios, a disciple of St Athanasios the Athonite, wrote the typikon of the monastery. For the monastery of Panagiou and its history, see Janin 1939, 394– 396; Laurent 1965, 94– 96, no. 1170; Janin 1969, 385– 386; Lemerle et al. 1970– 1982, I, 26– 30; Müller–Wiener 1977, 204– 205; Zacos – Nesbitt 1984, 357, no. 766; Kidonopoulos 1994, 88– 90; Steppan 1995, 80– 83; Bakalova 2003, 18, 165 n. 42; Bouras 2005, 35– 38, 49; Ryder 2009– 2010, 74– 78; Krausmüller 2013, 48. For the association of the typikon of Petritzonitissa with that of Panagiou, see Krausmüller 2013. 12  Gautier 1984, l.s. 1287– 1383. For the special reference to the prayers of the monks, which the ktetors make in their typika, concerning the salvation of their soul and the souls of their family members, see Morris 1984, 117– 122; Galatariotou 1987, 92– 94. These commemorations were one of the ktetors’ rights, Thomas 1987, 254. 13  Gautier 1984, l.s. 19– 24. The main point used by Grishin 1978, 91– 92, for the position of the Pakourianos brothers’ tombs in the ossuary is Gregory’s use of the term koimeterion, arguing for the area of burials outside the monastery walls. However, the term koimeterion has a broader meaning and refers to any space related to the dead, i.e. a sarcophagus, a tomb and even a burial chapel, Babić 1969, 50. 14  Gautier 1984, l.s. 314– 326. 15  Gautier 1984, l.s. 314– 344, 359– 366. For the English translation of the passage, see Jordan 2000a, 525. 16  Gautier 1984, l.s. 339– 344. ‘We have given his aforesaid estate of Prilonkion in accordance with his command to our often-mentioned church and to the burial place in it in which his body, very dear to me, has been buried’, Jordan 2000a, 525. 17  Konidaris 1984, 39– 40.

The cemeteries of the monks are usually found outside the walls of the monastery.26 In the typika a clear separation is made between the space for burying the monks and that 18  Thomas 1987, 255; Emmanouilidis 1989, 215– 223; Marinis 2009, 150. 19  Galatariotou 1987, 96– 97; Morris 1995, 134– 136. 20  Papageorgiou 1982, 447 and n. 47; Teteriatnikov 1984; Bache 1989; Emmanouilidis 1989, 215– 218; Sinkević 1993; Teteriatnikov 1996, 165– 182; Ousterhout 1999, 119– 127; Sinkević 2000, 17– 19; Ousterhout 2002, 5– 17; Sinkević 2002, 82– 85, 89– 90; Popović 2006; Marinis 2009, 149– 161 (where many examples of the Middle Byzantine period and references in the written sources are cited); Marinis 2014, 59– 63, 73– 76, 84– 86. 21  Marinis 2009, 152, 156. 22  Papazoglou 1994, ch. 89– 90. For the English translation of the typikon of Kosmosoteira, see Ševčenko 2000. For the problem of the location of Isaak Komnenos’ tomb, see Ševčenko 1984; Sinos 1985, 55– 59; Ousterhout 1987, 26, 98– 100; Ousterhout 1999, 122– 125, fig. 92; Ousterhout 2002, 13– 15, fig. on page 12; Ousterhout – Bakirtzis 2007, 75– 81. 23  Papazoglou 1994, ch. 107, l.s. 1946– 1957. 24  Papazoglou 1994, ch. 86, l.s. 1632– 1636. 25  Gautier 1985, l.s. 1987– 1993. For the English translation of the typikon of Kecharitomene, see Jordan 2000b. 26  Orlandos 1958, 146– 148; Popović 2013, 181– 182.

211

Penelope Mougoyianni Christ at the Last Judgement, the Theotokos, St George, and St John the Forerunner.37 To St John the Forerunner was dedicated an eukterion, which Pakourianos mentions when he gives his guidelines for the commemorations of the dead,38 whilst the chapel of the Forerunner is referred to in the Georgian text of the typikon.39 The common dedication of the eukterion and the katholikon to St John the Forerunner, the use of the term eukterion, which was the closest term employed in written sources for chapel,40 and the reference that the katholikon was built ‘εἰς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν τῶν τριῶν τούτων’,41 allow us to propose that there was a katholikon with two chapels, one for St George and one for St John the Forerunner.42 Each of these chapels seems to have contained its own sanctuary, since noted in the brebion of the typikon are not only the altar cloths of the Holy Altar of the katholikon,43 but also two complete altar cloths for the other two churches.44

reserved for the tombs of the ktetors, but their location inside or outside the walls was dictated – as Eirene Doukaina and Isaak Komnenos explain in their typika – by the availability of space; both mention that their initial intention was that the monks or nuns should be buried within the monastery walls, but the available space did not allow that. Thus, in the convent of Kecharitomene, Eirene Doukaina founded Ta Kellaraias to serve as a burial chapel for the nuns,27 while the cemetery for the monks of the Kosmosoteira, outside the monastery walls, was surrounded by its own wall and included a chapel.28 The ossuary at Bačkovo belongs to the type of two-storey church typical of cemeteries of monks, which are located close to the monasteries but outside their walls,29 like the church of St Nicholas at the Daphni Monastery near Athens30 and the church of St Luke at the Nea Mone on Chios,31 which are both dated in the 11th century. Both churches had two-storeys and were built a short distance from the monasteries. St Nicholas stands almost 150 m east of the Daphni monastery and St Luke about 200 m west of Nea Mone. The cemetery church of the Petritzos monastery is located approximately 300 m outside the walls and is two-storeyed.32 It was erected in 1083 and shares a similar type of masonry and similar articulation to parts of the Pakourianos katholikon, which were brought to light during the 1955 excavations.33 The separation of the Bačkovo ossuary from the main buildings of the monastery and its architectural type reveal that it was the burial place of the monks of the Theotokos Petritzonitissa, which means that the Pakourianos brothers could not have been buried there. Gregorios Pakourianos, one of the highest officials of the Empire and a close friend of Alexios I,34 would have chosen to be buried along with his brother in a more privileged place within the katholikon, as was usual for aristocratic founders and as he himself mentioned in his typikon.

The positioning of chapels in the katholikon during the Middle Byzantine period was dictated by the architectural type of the church, with two variable factors possible. On one hand its harmonic coexistence within the architectural form, and on other the continuation of the symmetry that characterized Middle Byzantine architecture; for that reason they are found in pairs.45 In the 1955 construction works that took place in the northeast side of the current katholikon, the apse of the prothesis and a conch from the north wall were discovered, which belonged to the church erected by Pakourianos (Fig. 18.1).46 According to the excavation finds, the katholikon of 1083 had a tripartite sanctuary with conches at the side walls. The three-apse sanctuary, its position, as well as the dimensions of the side conch, argue that the church could not belong to the simple triconch or tetraconch type, in which the east wall

Gautier 1984, l.s. 216– 234. The existence of the eukterion of St John the Forerunner has been doubted by Lemerle 1977, 132 n. 42, who argues that the specific part of the text comes from the typikon of the Panagiou monastery; Krausmüller 2013, 43, 49– 63, has shown that Pakourianos copied parts of the regulations concerning the everyday life of the monks from the typikon of Panagiou and changed the order of the different chapters. The same scholar does not exclude the possibility that Pakourianos made changes even to regulations of the Panagiou. Thus, Pakourianos did not just copy the typikon, but it seems that he had read it and chose the regulations that interested him. Moreover, there is no point as a ktetor to mention a building that does not exist. There is no available information for the building complex of the Panagiou monastery and therefore we do not know whether chapels existed or not. We only know that the katholikon was a tetraconch church erected at the beginning of the 11th century, Bouras 2005, 38– 49, fig. 8; Ryder 2009– 2010, 84– 91, fig. 1. 39  Gautier 1984, p. 72 n. 889. 40  For the term eukterion, see Dagron 1989, 1080– 1083; Marinis 2014, 77; Vitaliotis 2014, 93– 95. 41  Gautier 1984, l.s. 228. ‘to the honor and glory of those three’, Jordan 2000a, 523. 42  Gautier (1984, p. 32 n. 228) comments on the specific reference and mentions that it concerned the katholikon of the Theotokos and the two annexed chapels of St George and St John the Forerunner. The same hypothesis is expressed by Grishin 1978, 90– 91, and Spieser 1999, 141– 143, although following a different reasoning. 43  Gautier 1984, l.s. 1730, 1733– 1734. 44  Gautier 1984, l.s. 1731– 1732. 45  Ćurčić 1977. 46  Mijatev 1957. 37 

18.3 The reconstruction of the Katholikon and the position of the tombs

38 

In his typikon, Pakourianos refers to the katholikon a number of times, without describing it. In most cases he mentions a church dedicated to the Theotokos,35 while in some he refers to holy churches within the walls of the monastery,36 and in one instance he notes that the katholikon was dedicated to his guides and intercessors to Janin 1969, 188, 549; Gautier 1985, l.s. 115– 119. Papazoglou 1994, ch. 54, l.s. 1020– 1025, ch. 118. 29  Xyggopoulos 1952, 22– 23; Bouras 1981, 199; Korunovski 2011, 114– 115; Popović 2013, 179– 182. For the liturgical function of monastic ossuaries, see Stanković 2006. 30  Millet 1899, 23– 24; Orlandos 1958, 147– 148, figs. 176– 177; Pallas 1966, 1133; Papaevangelu 1982, 135– 136. 31  Bouras 1981, 197– 200, figs. 175– 185. 32  For the architecture of the ossuary, see Grabar 1924, 885– 891; Mijatev 1974, 190– 192, figs. 239– 242; Ieni 1977, 115– 120; Kolarova 2003. 33  Mijatev 1957; Ieni 1977, 120. 34  Skoulatos 1980, 115. 35  Gautier 1984, l.s. 18– 22, 32– 33, 203– 204, 287– 288, 308– 309, 330, 340, 361, 364, 424, 599– 600, 676, 721, 820, 1155– 1156, 1232– 1233. 36  Gautier 1984, l.s. 247– 251, 287– 288. 27  28 

212

The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa

Figure 18.1. Bačkovo, Monastery of the Theotokos of Petritzos. Ground plan of the excavated parts of the katholikon of 1083 under the present katholikon (after J. Mijatev 1957, fig. 1).

had only one apse,47 but instead to the Athonite triconch type.48

the death of the Petritzonitissa’s ktetor the monastery continued to keep close ties with the Iviron monastery, since two of the Petritzonitissa’s abbots are mentioned as donors to the Iviron monastery.50

The choice of this particular architectural type can be related to the special relations that Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos, as well as other members of their family, had with the monastery of Iviron on the Holy Mountain. In a note of the Synodikon of this monastery, among the names that should be commemorated due to their generous donations, the names of Gregory and Apasios are mentioned.49 In the same text it is confirmed that after

In the katholika of the Holy Mountain there is always a narthex and the chapels are placed in the sides of the narthex already from the Middle Byzantine period (Fig. 18.2).51 Some of these chapels had a burial use. In the north chapel of the Holy Forty Martyrs of Sebaste at the Great Lavra monastery the sarcophagus of St Athanasios the Athonite was placed.52 In the north chapel of the Iviron monastery, which was dedicated to the Archangels and was erected in or after 1005, the tomb of John the Iberian

47  For the triconch churches, see Steppan 1995. For the tetraconch churches, see Bouras 2005, 44– 47 (with previous bibliography). The 12th-century church of St Nicholas at Larymna in Phthiotis is an exception, being triconch with a tripartite sanctuary, which is considered a typological unicum, Bouras 1991. 48  Ieni 1977, 119–120; Ćurčić 2010, 393 (who has not excluded the possibility that builders came to Bačkovo from the Holy Mountain in order to build the katholikon). The preserved katholikon at Bačkovo was erected by the archbishop of Philippoupolis Daniel in 1603/1604 and is also of the Athonite type (Apostolidis 1936, 62, 67– 71; Mijatev 1974, 205– 208, fig. 265; Ieni 1977, 114; Tschilingirov 2000, 1; Messis 2010, I, 367– 368, cat. no. 77, pl. IV. 77, II, plan 162), which means that it must have followed the architectural type of the Middle Byzantine katholikon. A different hypothesis has been proposed by Čaneva-Decevska 1970, who claimed that the katholikon of Petritzos was of the triconch type. According to her, Pakourianos’ church followed the Bulgarian tradition of selecting the triconch type for monastic churches and Bačkovo was one of the earliest examples of this tradition. The churches she examines belong to the triconch type and cannot be related to the ground plan of the Bačkovo katholikon, except for St John the Baptist in Kardjali which is an Athonite type church as Ćurčić 2010, 393, has proved. 49  Each of the two brothers had donated 200 gold coins and Apasios 500 more coins of Romanos IV, seven horses, mules, textiles and a garment. Lemerle 1977, 171 n. 133; Lefort et al. 1985– 1995, ΙΙ, 5, 7 and n. 32, 25; Bakalova 2003, 79– 80. There were important relations between the Iviron monastery and other members of the Pakourianos family, i.e. the kouropalatis Symbatios Pakourianos, his wife Kale and his brother magister Sergios. From 1080 Symbatios and Kale were among the most

generous donors of the monastery. Lefort et al. 1985– 1995, ΙΙ, 8 and n. 37, 31, 33– 34, 150– 156, no. 44, 170– 183, no. 47; Morris 1995, 135– 136; Bakalova 2003, 16, 80. 50  In the third quarter of the 12th century, the abbot of Petritzos, Nicolas, who had visited the Holy Mountain, made a donation to the Iviron monastery, while at an unknown date the abbot of Petritzos, Theophanes, on two occasions gave coins to the Iviron monastery, after the abbot Eugenios had asked him, Lefort et al. 1985– 1995, ΙΙ, 7, 34, 41. These relations were the main reason why the two Iberian saints, Euthymios, one of the founders of the Iviron monastery, and George, abbot of the same monastery, were painted in the ossuary, Bakalova 2003, 74– 80; Mouriki 1981, 736, considered very likely that the Iviron monastery in the Holy Mountain or another Iberian monastery in Constantinople provided the funds for the wall-paintings at Bačkovo. 51  Messis 2010, I, 321. 52  There is no consensus regarding the dating of the chapels in Great Lavra, whether they were built in the time of St Athanasios, which is the most likely hypothesis, or later. Whatever the case, its construction had been concluded by the mid-11th century, before the foundation of Petritzos monastery. For the different opinions about the dating, see Mylonas 1981, 60; Mylonas 1984, 96, 104; Papaggelos 1985, 74; Steppan 1995, 99; Mamaloukos 2001, 206– 207, 282– 283; Messis 2010, II, cat. no. 1, 29, 32 and n. 26.

213

Penelope Mougoyianni

Figure 18.2. Mount Athos, Great Lavra Monastery. Ground plan of the katholikon in the 11th century (courtesy of S. Mamaloukos).

was initially located53 and later, in 1093, the grave of Symbatios Pakourianos was added.54

his typikon mentions that of the two chapels the one related to the dead was the eukterion of St John the Forerunner, because he states that there was always a priest there who would offer the prayers for the dead.56 It is reasonable

Thus, the katholikon of Pakourianos, since it belonged to the Athonite type, would have a narthex, and the chapels of St George and St John the Forerunner would have been annexed at the sides of the narthex.55 Gregory himself in

536. Spieser 1999, 139–143, in his analysis of the text, considered that Pakourianos described only the area of the sanctuary and the templon, and he concluded that the chapels were in the east part of the church, on either side of the sanctuary. This is not confirmed by the excavation at Bačkovo, where the sanctuary stops at the apse of the prothesis and there do not seem to be any remains of a chapel. Moreover, according to the burial traditions of the Byzantines, the tombs of the two brothers, who were lay founders, could not have been placed in the east side of the church, close to the altar. It seems that Gregory, in the specific reference in his text, described different areas of the church and was not restricted to the sanctuary and the templon. For the problem of reconstructing the templon of Petritzonitissa, see Epstein 1981, 21–22; Walter 1993, 214, 217, 222. 56  Gautier 1984, l.s. 1498– 1500. Emperor John II Komnenos also characterized in the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery as eukteria the churches that were used as burial places, the church of the Archangels where the tombs of the Komnenoi rested (Gautier 1974, l.s. 77– 78), and the eukterion of the Medikariou monastery, where the dead from the hospital and the gerokomeion of Pantokrator were buried, Gautier 1974, l.s. 1324–1335. In the 12th century, Theodore Balsamon mentions that the deceased can be buried in the eukteria because no relics of martyrs were placed under the altar in the sanctuary and no opening ceremonies or enthronements were taking place there, Marinis 2009, 152– 153 and n. 36 for Balsamon’s text.

53  Martin-Hisard 1991, 100– 101. There are also issues in the dating of the south chapel of St John the Forerunner at the Iviron monastery, which had a burial crypt. For this matter, see Mylonas 1985, 66, 67, fig. 3; Mamaloukos 2001, 288– 289; Messis 2010, II, cat. no. 3, 45, 48, plan 6. 54  Lefort et al. 1985– 1995, ΙΙ, 8, 34, 155, no. 44:14– 15, 178, no. 47: 12– 13. 55  In the typikon, when Gregory describes the lights in front of the icons of the church, he mentions: ‘Ὀφειλόμενον ἡμῖν ἐστι καθ᾽ἑκάστην ἡμέραν | τε καὶ νύκτα ἀκοιμήτους διατηρεῖν ἔμπροσθεν τῆς εἰκόνος τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου κανδήλας τρεῖς, καὶ ἐν τῷ μεγάλῳ βήματι κανδῆλαν μίαν, καὶ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἁγίου βήματος, ἐν τοῖς καγκέλοις, ἔμπροσθεν μὲν τῆς σωτηρίου Σταυρώσεως κανδῆλαν μίαν, ἔμπροσθεν δὲ τῆς ἁγίας εἰκόνος τοῦ Προδρόμου καὶ βαπτιστοῦ κανδῆλαν μίαν, καὶ ἔμπροσθεν τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου κανδῆλαν μίαν, καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ ἡμῶν κανδήλας τρεῖς’, Gautier 1984, l.s. 885– 891. ‘It is our duty to maintain continuously throughout each day and night three lamps in front of the icon of the very holy Mother of God and one lamp in the great sanctuary on the screen, one lamp before the crucifix of the Savior and one lamp before the holy icon of the forerunner John the Baptist and one lamp before the icon of St. George and three lamps at our tomb’, Jordan 2000a,

214

The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa to assume that this chapel was the resting place for the Pakourianos brothers, because the permanent presence of a priest for the conduct of commemorations would have been a privilege that a ktetor would recognize primarily for himself and secondarily for the rest of the deceased. Its position at one side of the narthex was compatible with the Byzantine funerary rites, which took place in the narthex or the chapels annexed to the narthex, and the commemorative services for the dead monks and the founders in the monasteries.57

ranking official and a close friend of the emperor Alexios Komnenos, such as Gregory Pakourianos, could follow the burial practices of the Komnenian dynasty for himself, his family and the monastic community of his foundation. Literature Primary Sources Gautier 1974: Gautier, Paul,‘Le typikon du Christ Sauveur Pantocrator’, Revue des études byzantines 32 (1974), 1–145.

18.4 Conclusion

Gautier 1984: Gautier, Paul, ‘Le typikon du sébaste Grégoire Pakourianos’, Revue des études byzantines 42 (1984), 5–145.

The privileged position of the tombs of the ktetors, which during the Middle Byzantine period was located always in the west part of the church, the excavated remains of the katholikon and the ties of the Petritzonitissa’s founders with the Iviron monastery, strongly suggest that the restored form of the katholikon of 1083 belonged to the Athonite type. It had a narthex and chapels placed at the sides of the narthex; of these, it was within the eukterion of St John the Forerunner that the tombs of Apasios and Gregory Pakourianos were located, and the ossuary was reserved as the resting place of the monks. This choice was associated with the social status and the ethnic identity of the monastery’s ktetor. Pakourianos was an Iberian in the service of the Byzantine emperors, who founded a monastery exclusively for Iberian monks, and he was influenced by their point of reference in the Balkans, i.e. the Iviron monastery at the Holy Mountain. At the same time, however, he followed the practices of the Byzantine aristocracy, thus reminding visitors to Petritzos that he was one of its most significant members during the 11th century.

Gautier 1985: Gautier, Paul, ‘Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè’, Revue des études byzantines 43 (1985), 5–165. Lefort et al. 1985–1995: Lefort, Jacques et al., Actes d’Iviron, I–IV, Paris 1985–1995. Lemerle et al. 1970–1982: Lemerle, Paul et al., Actes de Lavra, I– ΙV, Paris 1970–1982. Secondary sources Apostolidis 1936: Apostolidis, Κ. Μyrtilos, «Περὶ τῆς μονῆς τῆς Κοιμήσεως τῆς Ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τῆς Πετριτσονιτίσσης», Θρακικά 7 (1936), 51– 82. Babić 1969: Babić, Gordana, Les chapelles annexes des églises byzantines. Fonction liturgique et programmes iconographiques, Paris 1969. Bache 1989: Bache, Florence, ‘La fonction funéraire du narthex dans les églises byzantines du XIIe au XIVe siècle’, Histoire de l’art 7 (1989), 25– 33.

The analysis of the typikon of Gregory Pakourianos is revealing of the mechanisms and the practices employed by the Byzantine aristocrats and high ranking officials concerning the foundation of monasteries as their burial places thrοughout the empire. The ktetors enjoyed the exclusive privilege of choosing not only the position of their own resting place within their monasteries, but also those of their family members and of the monks. Gregory chose for himself and his brother, who had no heirs, to be buried in a special chapel annexed to the narthex of the lavish katholikon, whilst for the monks he provided the ossuary outside the monastery walls. In this way he symbolically used different spaces in order to emphasize the social distinction between aristocratic founders and the monastic community, even after death. By placing his and his brother’s tomb within the katholikon, he connected the centre of the monastic complex with the Pakourianos family and made it a point of reference for himself as a founder. The monastery of the Theotokos of Petritzos must be set in the same context as the monasteries of Kosmosoteira and Kecharitomene founded later by members of the imperial family of the Komnenoi and attests that a high

Bakalova 2003: Bakalova, Elka (ed.), The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Monastery, Plovdiv 2003. Bouras 1981: Bouras, Charalambos, Η Νέα Μονή της Χίου. Ιστορία και Αρχιτεκτονική, Athens 1981. Bouras 1991: Bouras, Charalambos, «Ο Άγιος Νικόλαος παρά τη Λάρυμνα», Αρμός. Τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Ν. Κ. Μουτσόπουλο για τα 25 χρόνια πνευματικής του προσφοράς στο Πανεπιστήμιο, II, Thessaloniki 1991, 1239– 1253. Bouras 2005: Bouras, Charalambos, «Η αρχιτεκτονική της Παναγίας του Μουχλίου στην Κωνσταντινούπολη», Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 26 (2005), 35– 50. Čaneva-Dečevska 1970: Čaneva-Dečevska, Neli, ‘Trikonhalnite cărkvi ot IX– XIV v., po bălgarskite zemi’, Archeologija XII/4 (1970), 8– 21. Ćurčić 1977: Ćurčić, Slobodan, ‘Architectural Significance of Subsidiary Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 36/2 (May, 1977), 94– 110.

57  Bache 1989, 28– 31; Sinkević 2002, 82– 85, 89– 90. For the commemorative services of the dead monastic founders, see Babić 1969, 47– 58.

215

Penelope Mougoyianni Ćurčić 2010: Ćurčić, Slobodan, Architecture in the Balkans: From Diocletian to Süleyman the Magnificent, New Haven 2010.

Kazhdan – Ronchey 1997: Kazhdan, P. Alexander– Ronchey, Sivia, L’aristocrazia bizantina dal principio dell’XI alla fine del XII secolo, Palermo 1997.

Dagron 1989: Dagron, Gilbert, ‘Constantinople, les sanctuaires et l’ organisation de la vie religieuse’, Actes du XIe Congrès International d’Archéologie Chrétienne, Lyon, Vienne, Grenoble, Genève et Aoste, (21– 28 septembre 1986), II, Rome 1989, 1069– 1085.

Kidonopoulos 1994: Kidonopoulos, Vassilios, Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204–1328. Verfall und Zerstőrung, Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan– und Sakralbauten, Wiesbaden 1994. Kolarova 2003: Kolarova, Vera, ‘The Ossuary of the Bachkovo Monastery. Architecture and Architectural Restoration’, in Bakalova 2003, 28– 52.

Emmanouilidis 1989: Emmanouilidis, E. Nikolaos, Tο δίκαιο της ταφής στο Βυζάντιο, Athens 1989.

Konidaris 1984: Konidaris, M. Ioannis, Νομική θεώρηση των μοναστηριακών τυπικών, Athens 1984.

Epstein 1981: Epstein Wharton, Ann, ‘The Middle Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier: Templon or Iconostasis?’, Journal of the British Archeological Association 134 (1981), 1– 28.

Korunovski 2011: Korunovski, Sasho, ‘A contribution to the study of architecture of the monastery church of St. Archangel Michael in Prilep’, Zograf 35 (2011), 111– 118.

Galatariotou 1987: Galatariotou, Catia, ‘Byzantine ktetorika typika: a comparative study’, Revue des études byzantines 45 (1987), 77– 138.

Krausmüller 2013: Krausmüller, Dirk, ‘On contents and structure of the Panagios Typikon: a contribution to the early history of ‘extended’ monastic rules’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 106/1 (2013), 39– 64.

Garsoïan 1991: Garsoïan, G. Nina, ‘Pakourianos’, in Alexander Kazhdan et al. (eds.), The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3, New York– Oxford 1991, 1553. Grabar 1924: Grabar, André, ‘Les églises sépulcrales bulgares’, Izvestia de l’Institut archéologique bulgare I (1924), 103– 135 [= idem, L’ art de la fin de l’ antiquité et du Moyen Age, II, Paris 1968, 881– 895].

Laurent 1965: Laurent, Vitalien, Le corpus des sceaux de l’Empire byzantin, V. 2: L’église, Paris 1965.

Grabar 1928: Grabar, André, La peinture religieuse en Bulgarie, Paris 1928.

Mamaloukos 2001: Mamaloukos, V. Stavros, Το καθολικό της μονής Βατοπεδίου. Ιστορία και αρχιτεκτονική, Athens 2001.

Lemerle 1977: Lemerle, Paul, Cinq études sur le XIe siècle byzantin, Paris 1977.

Grishin 1978: Grishin, Sasha, ‘Literary Evidence for the Dating of the Bačkovo Ossuary Frescoes’, in Elizabeth and Michael Jeffreys – Ann Moffatt (eds.), Proceedings of the First Australian Byzantine Studies Conference, Canberra, 17– 19 May 1978, Canberra 1978, 90– 100.

Marinis 2009: Marinis, Vasileios, ‘Tombs and Burials in the Monastery tou Libos in Constantinople’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 63 (2009), 147– 166.

Guilland 1967: Guilland, Rodolphe, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, I– II, Berlin– Amsterdam 1967.

Marinis 2014: Marinis, Vasileios, Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople. Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries, New York 2014.

Ieni 1977: Ieni, Giulio, ‘Memorie georgiane nel monastero in Bačkovo’, Atti del primo simposio internazionale sull’arte georgiana, Bergamo 28– 30 giugno 1974, Milano 1977, 109–126.

Martin-Hisard 1991: Martin-Hisard, Bernadette, ‘La Vie de Jean et Euthyme et le statut du monastère des Ibères sur l’ Athos’, Revue des études byzantines 49 (1991), 67– 142.

Janin 1939: Janin, Raymond, ‘La topographie de Constantinople byzantine. III. -Études (1918– 1938)’, Échos d’Orient 38/195– 196 (1939), 380– 416.

Mavrodinova 1991: Mavrodinona, Liliana, ‘Sur la datation des peintures murales de l’ église-ossuaire de Bačkovo’, Αρμός. Τιμητικός τόμος στον καθηγητή Ν. Κ. Μουτσόπουλο για τα 25 χρόνια πνευματικής του προσφοράς στο Πανεπιστήμιο, II, Thessaloniki 1991, 1121– 1140.

Janin 1969: Janin, Raymond, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’ empire byzantine. I. Le siège de Constantinople et le Patriarcat œcuménique. III. Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1953.

Messis 2010: Messis, Vasileios, Ναοί Αθωνικού Τύπου, (unpublished PhD, Faculty of History and Archeology, Department of Archeology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki), I– II, Thessaloniki 2010.

Jordan 2000a: Jordan, Robert, ‘Pakourianos: Typikon of Gregory Pakourianos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa in Bačkovo’, in Thomas – Constantinides Hero 2000, 2, 507– 563.

Mijatev 1957: Mijatev, Krōstju, ‘Edna vazna nahodka v Bačkovskija manastir’, Bulletin de l’Institut Archéologique XXI (Sofia 1957), 316– 320.

Jordan 2000b: Jordan, Robert, ‘Kecharitomene: Typikon of Empress Irene Doukaina Komnene for the Convent of the Mother of God Kecharitomene in Constantinople’, in Thomas – Constantinides Hero 2000, 2, 649– 724.

Mijatev 1974: Mijatev, Krōstju, Die mittelalterliche Baukunst in Bulgarien, Sofia 1974.

216

The Tombs of Gregory and Apasios Pakourianos in the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa Millet 1899: MIllet, Gabriel, Le monastère de Daphni. Histoire, architecture, mosaïques, Paris 1899.

Πετριτζού (Bačkovo) στη Βουλγαρία’, Ευφρόσυνον. Αφιέρωμα στον Μανώλη Χατζηδάκη, 2, Athens 1992, 459– 468.

Morris 1984: Morris, Rosemary, ‘The Byzantine Aristocracy and the Monasteries’, in Michael Angold, The Byzantine Aristocracy IX to XIII Centuries, [BAR International Series 221], Oxford 1984, 112– 137.

Papaevangelu 1982: Papaevangelu, Panagiotis, ‘Klosterarchitektur’, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst IV (1982), 102– 136.

Morris 1995: Morris, Rosemary, Monks and laymen in Byzantium, 843– 1118, Cambridge 1995.

Papageorgiou 1982: Papageorgiou, Athanase, ‘The Narthex of the Churches in the Middle Byzantine Period in Cyprus’, in Hadermann-Misguish, Lydie – Raepsaet, Georges – Cambier, Guy (eds.), Rayonnement Grec: Hommages à Charles Delvoye, Bruxelles 1982, 437– 448.

Mouriki 1981: Mouriki, Doula, ‘The Formative Role of Byzantine Art on the Artistic Style of the Cultural Neighbours of Byzantium. Reflections of Constantinopolitan Styles in Georgian Monumental Painting’, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981), 725– 757.

Papaggelos 1985: Papaggelos, A. Ioachim, ‘Ο αρχιτεκτονικός όρος ‘χορός’ και ο όσιος Αθανάσιος ο Αθωνίτης’, Πέμπτο Συμπόσιο Βυζαντινής και Μεταβυζαντινής Αρχαιολογίας και Τένχης. Πρόγραμμα και περιλήψεις ανακοινώσεων, Θεσσαλονίκη 7, 8 και 9 Ιουνίου 1985, Athens 1985, 73– 74.

Müller–Wiener 1977: Müller–Wiener, Wolfgang, Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls, Tübingen 1977. Mylonas 1981: Mylonas, M. Paul, «Ἡ ἀρχική μορφή τοῦ καθολικοῦ τῆς Μεγίστης Λαύρας. Ἀναθεώρηση ὁρισμένων θεωριῶν γιά τήν προέλευση τοῦ τύπου», Αρχαιολογία 1 (Νοεμβ. 1981), 52– 63.

Papazoglou 1994: Papazoglou, K. Georgios, Τυπικόν Ισαακίου Αλεξίου Κομνηνού της Μονής Θεοτόκου της Κοσμοσώτειρας (1151/2), Komotini 1994.

Mylonas 1984: Mylonas, M. Paul, ‘Le plan initial du catholicon de la Grande-Lavra, au Mont Athos et la genèse du type du catholicon athonite’, Cahiers Archéologiques 32 (1984), 89– 112.

Popović 2006: Popović, Marko, ‘Les funérailles du ktitor: Aspect archéologique’, Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London 21– 26 August 2006, I, London 2006, 99– 130.

Mylonas 1985: Mylonas, M. Paul, ‘Notice sur le katholikon d’ Iviron’, in Lefort et al., I, 1985– 1995, 64– 68.

Popović 2013: Popović, Marko, ‘The funerary church of the monastery of Žiča: A contribution to the study of medieval monastic burial in Byzantium and Serbia’, Starinar 63 (2013), 173– 190.

Oretskaia 2018 = Oretskaia, Irina, ‘On the style of the Bachkovo Ossuary frescoes’, Zograf 42 (2018), 37– 54.

Ryder 2009– 2010: Ryder, C. Edmund, ‘The Despoina of the Mongols and Her Patronage at the Church of the Theotokos ton Mougoulion’, Journal of Modern Hellenism 27 (2009– 2010), 71– 102.

Orlandos 1958: Orlandos, K. Anastasios, Μοναστηριακὴ Ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ, Athens 1958. Ousterhout 1987: Ousterhout, G. Robert, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington D.C. 1987.

Ševčenko 1984: Ševčenko Patterson, Nancy, ‘The Tomb of Isaak Komnenos at Pherrai’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 25/2 (Summer 1984), 135– 139.

Ousterhout 1999: Ousterhout, Robert, Master Builders of Byzantium, Princeton New Jersey 1999. Ousterhout 2002: Ousterhout, Robert, ‘Byzantine Funerary Architecture of the Twelfth Century’, Drevnerusskoe iskussto. Rusi i stranii byzantinskogo mira XII vek, St. Petersburg 2002, 9– 17.

Ševčenko 2000: Ševčenko Patterson, Nancy, ‘Kosmosoteira: Typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaak Komnenos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera’, in Thomas – Constantinidis Hero 2000, 3, 782– 858.

Ousterhout – Bakirtzis 2007: Ousterhout, Robert – Bakirtzis, Charalambos, The Byzantine Monuments of the Evros/Meriç River Valley, Thessaloniki 2007.

Sinkević 1993: Sinkević, Ida, ’Middle Byzantine Narthexes with Adjacent Chapels’, Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts 19 (1993), 14– 15.

Pallas 1966: Pallas, Dimitrios, ‘Daphni’, Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst I (1966), 1120– 1133.

Sinkević 2000: Sinkević, Ida, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi. Architecture, Programme, Patronage, Wiesbaden 2000.

Panayotidi 1989: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘The Wall-paintings in the Church of the Virgin Kosmosoteira at Ferai (Vira) and Stylistic Trends in 12th Century Painting’, in Charalambos Bakirtzis (ed.), First International Symposium for Thracian Studies «Byzantine Thrace». Image and Character/ Byzantinischen Forschumgen XIV/2 (1989), 459– 484.

Sinkević 2002: Sinkević, Ida, ‘Western Chapels in Middle Byzantine Churches: Meaning and Significance’, Starinar 52 (2002), 79– 92. Sinos 1985: Sinos, Stefan, Die Klosterkirche der Kosmosoteira in Bera (Vira), München 1985.

Panayotidi 1992: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Η εικόνα της Παναγίας Γλυκοφιλούσας στο μοναστήρι του 217

Penelope Mougoyianni Skoulatos 1980: Skoulatos, Basile, Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade. Analyse prosopographique et synthèse, Louvain 1980. Spieser 1999: Spieser, Jean-Michel, ‘Le développement du templon et les images des Douze Fêtes’, Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 69 (1999), 131– 164 (= idem, Urban and Religious Spaces in Late Antiquity and Early Byzantium, Variorum Collected Series, Aldershot 2001, XVII). Stanković 2006: Stanković, Nebojša, ‘Middle- and LateByzantine Monastic Ossuaries: Architecture, Liturgical Function, and Meaning’, Byzantine Studies Conference Abstracts 32 (2006), 12– 13. Steppan 1995: Steppan, Thomas, Die Athos-Lavra und die trikonchale Kuppelnaos in der byzantinischen Architektur, München 1995. Teteriatnikov 1984: Teteriatnikov, B. Natalia, ‘Burial Places in Cappadocian Churches’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 29/2 (1984), 141– 157. Teteriatnikov 1996: Teteriatnikov, B. Natalia, The Liturgical Planning of Byzantine Churches in Cappadocia, Roma 1996. Thomas 1987: Thomas, John Philip, Private Religious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire, Washington D.C. 1987. Thomas – Constantinides Hero 2000: Thomas, John – Constantinides Hero, Angela (eds.), Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, 1– 5, Washington D.C. 2000. Tschilingirov 2000: Tschilingirov, Asen, ‘Bačkovo’, Enciclopedia dell’arte medievale III (2000), 1– 3. Vasiliev 1935: Vasiliev, A. Alexander (eds. Henri Grégoire – Marius Canard), Byzance et les Arabes, , I– III, Bruxelles 1935. Vitaliotis 2014: Vitaliotis, Ioannis, ‘Το εὐκτήριον, το προσευχάδιον και ο λατρευτικός χαρακτήρας της κόγχης στη βυζαντινή εκκλησιαστική αρχιτεκτονική. Συμβολή στη διερεύνηση ενός ζητήματος ορολογίας και κτηριολογίας’, in Platon Petridis – Vassiliki Voskolou (eds.), Δασκάλα. Απόδοση τιμής στην ομότιμη καθηγήτρια Μαίρη Παναγιωτίδη-Κεσίσογλου, Athens 2014, 91– 120. Walter 1993: Walter, Christopher, ‘A New Look at the Byzantine Sanctuary Barrier’, Revue des études byzantines 51 (1993), 203– 228. Xyggopoulos 1952: Xyggopoulos, Andreas, Τέσσαρες μικροί ναοί τῆς Θεσσαλoνίκης ἐκ τῶν χρόνων τῶν Παλαιολόγων, Thessaloniki 1952. Zacos – Nesbitt 1984: Zacos, George – Nesbitt, William John, Byzantine Lead Seals, II, Bern 1984.

218

19 Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century* Angeliki Mexia Abstract: The present paper focuses on church architecture in the Mesa (Inner) Mani during the transitional era of the 13th century, aiming to designate continuations and alterations compared to the Middle Byzantine period, to detect relationships and influences with adjacent territories, belonging either to the Byzantines or to the Franks. The comparative study shows that the simplified, and totally conforming to the local building methods, architectural trend is strengthened, as the humble barrel-vaulted single-nave buildings pronounce. Churches of higher aspirations certainly continue to be erected, although in these rather complex building programmes several simplifications and improvisations are to be discerned, due perhaps to the limited competence of the local craftsmen or to the economic conditions. Reconstructions or additions to antecedent monuments also occur. The ample artistic activity shows a quite vivid rural society, which builds and decorates ecclesiastical edifices as a visible expression of its piety and taste. Η λατινική κατάκτηση του 1204 σηματοδοτεί για ολόκληρη την Πελοπόννησο μία περίοδο στρατιωτικών αντιπαραθέσεων μεταξύ Φράγκων και Βυζαντινών και συνακόλουθα εδαφικών ανακατατάξεων. Στη χερσόνησο της Μάνης η φραγκική κατοχή αποδεικνύεται βραχύβια, καθώς, μετά την απόδοση του κάστρου της Μεγάλης Μαΐνης στους Βυζαντινούς, κατά το β΄ μισό του 13ου αιώνα, η περιοχή εντάσσεται στον πυρήνα της βυζαντινής διοίκησης που σταδιακά εξελίσσεται στο Δεσποτάτο του Μορέως. Στη μελέτη παρουσιάζονται τα εκκλησιαστικά κτίσματα της Μέσα Μάνης κατά τον 13ο αιώνα, με στόχο να γίνει κατανοητή η ναοδομική εξέλιξη στην περιοχή αυτή τη μεταλλασσόμενη εποχή, να αναδειχθούν οι συνέχειες και οι τομές από την προηγούμενη περίοδο, να ανιχνευθούν οι σχέσεις και αλληλεπιδράσεις με τις όμορες περιοχές είτε ανήκουν στους Βυζαντινούς είτε στους Φράγκους. Η συνολική εξέταση του σωζόμενου μνημειακού αποθέματος καταδεικνύει ότι η απλουστευμένη και προσαρμοσμένη στα ντόπια υλικά και τους τρόπους δομής αρχιτεκτονική έκφραση κυριαρχεί, με μικρά μονόχωρα δρομικά καμαροσκέπαστα κτίσματα, χωρίς μέριμνα για τη διάπλαση και την ανάδειξη των όψεων. Παράλληλα συνεχίζεται και η ανέγερση εκκλησιαστικών κτηρίων υψηλών προθέσεων, αν και κατά την υλοποίηση των σύνθετων αυτών οικοδομικών προγραμμάτων ορισμένα στοιχεία φαίνεται να απλοποιούνται, ίσως εξαιτίας των δυνατοτήτων των ντόπιων τεχνιτών ή και των οικονομικών συνθηκών. Σε σύγκριση με τη μεσοβυζαντινή εποχή, δεν παρατηρείται ουσιαστική εξέλιξη σε θέματα τύπων, μορφών και τρόπων δομής. Τα πρωτότυπα επιτεύγματα, με ελάχιστες εξαιρέσεις, λείπουν και η δημιουργικότητα των τεχνιτών ανιχνεύεται σε παραμέτρους που αφορούν κυρίως αισθητικές αναζητήσεις και επιδιώξεις ή βελτιώσεις ήδη γνωστών τεχνικών. Τα ελλαδικά χαρακτηριστικά της προηγούμενης περιόδου περιορίζονται σε μεμονωμένα αρχιτεκτονικά στοιχεία των υψηλών προθέσεων τρουλαίων ναών, όπου παράλληλα αρχίζει να γίνεται αισθητή η παρουσία των πρώτων δειγμάτων των μορφολογικών επιλογών της υστεροβυζαντινής αρχιτεκτονικής. Δυτικές επιδράσεις ανιχνεύονται μόνο σε ορισμένους κατασκευαστικούς τρόπους, όπως στη λαξευτή τοιχοποιία και στη χρήση πώρινων θολιτών στη θολοδομία, στη διαμόρφωση των παραθύρων με συμφυή με την τοιχοποιία λίθινα πλαίσια.

* The long-lasting pursuit of the honoree professors, concerning the Byzantine monuments of Mani and their interpretation of aspects of the local population’s artistic output, gave the impetus for my research. I

extend to them my sincerest gratitude. I would like to thank the editor of the volume for improving the English text. Footnotes are limited for brevity.

219

Angeliki Mexia Καθώς, λοιπόν, η Μέσα Μάνη χάνει σταδιακά τη δημιουργικότητα των μέσων χρόνων, ανέρχονται στο προσκήνιο, ως κέντρα εκκλησιαστικής αρχιτεκτονικής, η Κάτω και η Έξω Μάνη. Ιδιαίτερα, μάλιστα, κατά τους δύο επόμενους αιώνες στις περιοχές αυτές και κυρίως στην Έξω Μάνη οικοδομούνται πλέον τα ποιοτικότερα έργα, κάτω από την επιρροή της αρχιτεκτονικής του Μυστρά. Η βραχύβια συνύπαρξη των ευάριθμων ετερόδοξων κατακτητών και του ντόπιου πληθυσμού δεν μεταβάλλει την εικόνα και την οργάνωση του αγροτικού και οικισμένου χώρου, με εξαίρεση την ίδρυση ορισμένων κάστρων από τους Φράγκους στα βόρεια και δυτικά της χερσονήσου της Μάνης. Στη συντριπτική τους πλειονότητα τα μνημεία της περιόδου ανεγείρονται σε μία ακτίνα λίγων χιλιομέτρων γύρω από το κάστρο της Μαΐνης στη χερσόνησο Τηγάνι, το κέντρο της βυζαντινής διοίκησης, που εξακολουθεί να συσπειρώνει τον πληθυσμό. Η πλούσια ναοδομική παραγωγή παραπέμπει σε μία αρκετά εύρωστη, αγροτική κοινωνία, που συνεχίζει να κτίζει τους ναούς της, σύμφωνα με την παράδοση του τόπου. Οι χορηγίες, ατομικές ή συλλογικές, υψηλών ή ταπεινών προθέσεων, για την ανέγερση και διακόσμηση εκκλησιών, αποτελούν βασική μέριμνα και επιδίωξη των κατοίκων, μέσο έκφρασης της προσωπικής ευλάβειας και καλαισθησίας τους. Keywords: 13th century, Peloponnese, Mesa (Inner) Mani, church architecture. Following the dispensation of the territories of the fragmented Empire, after the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, the Principality of Achaia was founded in the Peloponnese under the Villehardouins. However, the Frankish penetration in the peninsula was gradual, beginning from the north and the west.1 In Laconia, the Franks encountered fierce resistance for a long time, managing to subjugate the wider region only after the surrender of Monemvasia around the middle of the century.2 In order to effectively control the mountainous passes of southern Taygetos, the Franks built the castles of Passava, seat of the homonymous barony, Lefktro and Grand Magne.3 Their occupation, however, proved to be short-lived. In 1262, after the battle of Pelagonia, William II of Villehardouin ceded to the Byzantines the castles of Mystras, Monemvasia and Grand Magne. Thus, a Byzantine administrative core came into existence in the southeastern Peloponnese, comprising the Mani peninsula. For its reinforcement, the Byzantines immediately undertook concerted military operations, so that their dominance became established and gradually expanded.4

the first quarter of the thirteenth century.5 A Latin bishop is probably appointed after the erection of the castle of Grand Magne.6 When the Byzantines took control over the region, the Bishopric of Maini was granted to the Metropolis of Monemvasia.7 Our knowledge of the thirteenth century churches of the Mani, as well as of its Byzantine monuments over the centuries, is due to the tireless labour of the late Nikolaos Drandakis and his colleagues, professors nowadays at the University of Athens.8 The present paper focuses on church architecture in the Mesa (Inner) Mani during this transitional era, aiming to designate continuations and alterations compared to the preceding period, to detect relationships and influences with adjacent territories, belonging either to the Byzantines or to the Franks.9 Firstly, we cite the most important churches that leave their mark on the landscape by their scale and architecture, and secondly, we are concerned with structural and morphological issues. The domed cross-in-square churches number some eight examples, with special preference for the two-columned/ distyle variant. Although few in comparison with the aggregate of contemporary architectural output, they outnumber the churches of the same type in the region throughout the centuries.

As for church organization, the Bishop of Maini, who prior to the Latin conquest depended on the Metropolis of Corinth, seemed to retain his position, at least during

The church of Episkopi close to the village of Hagios Georgios initiates the building activity on the threshold of the thirteenth century.10 Its erection around 1200 is

1  On the conquest of the Peloponnese by the Franks and the Principality of Achaia, see Bon 1969; Kordoses 1986; Ilieva 1991; Dourou-Iliopoulou 2005. 2  Kordoses 1986, 107– 112, 126– 136, 150– 155, 180, 181; Kalliga 2003, 104– 131. In the Mani until the year 1222, Ioannis Chamaretos conducted the struggle against the Franks. 3  Bon 1969, 502– 509; Bouza – Kontoyiannis 2004, 45– 47. There are different views regarding the location of the castle of Grand Magne, see Avraméa 1998, 58– 59; Burridge 1996, includes in the same fortification network the castle at Vardounia. 4  In 1263/64, sevastokrator Konstantinos, brother of the emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, arrived in the Peloponnese in charge of army troops, while the Byzantine fleet, under the protostrator Alexios Philanthropinos, saw successful action along the south coastline of Laconia. Bon 1969, 120– 135; Zakythinos 1975, vol. 1, 15 et seq., 317– 331; Kordoses 1986, 170– 177; Ilieva 1991, 151– 154; Kalliga 2003, 132– 137.

Kordoses 1986, 130; Kordoses 1987, 41, 65. Kordoses 1987, 41. 7  Zakythinos 1975, vol. 2, 271– 279; Avraméa 1998, 57– 58. 8  Beyond the individual publications of monuments and wall paintings, Drandakis 1986, has studied, as a whole, the Maniot wall paintings of the century. 9  The study is confined to the Mesa Mani, a geographical unity with a cohesive development through the centuries. 10  Bouras – Bouras 2002, 128– 131, with the previous bibliography. The church was initially dedicated to St. George. 5  6 

220

Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century

Figure 19.1. Mesa Mani, church of Vlacherna, north façade.

associated with the powerful local notable Georgios Daimonogiannes.11 The containment of the cloisonné in the dome, the way the red marble ashlars are adjusted to the surfaces and the dense layout of the built-in bowls, especially in the west façade, with their decorative approach and emphasis on variegation, herald the morphological options prevailing from the thirteenth century onward. Constantinopolitan influences, reaching the region through the nearby castle at cape Tigani, identified with the well-known (from the written sources) castle of Maini, the administrative center of the Middle Byzantine period, are discerned, mainly in the quality of the sculptural decoration and the excellent wall paintings, revealing the financial means and pretensions of the donor.12

masonry in conjunction with the absence of windows in the gables. Panagia Odigitria (Agitria) near to the settlement of Hagia Kyriaki shares several analogies with Vlacherna in terms of architectural arrangement, as well as in themes of morphology and construction, so it seems reasonable to suggest a similar dating for its erection.14 The marble pavement, even in its quite simplified rendering, the embellished marble members and the wall paintings reveal the desire of the donors, a clergyman and a layman, to enhance the internal space of the church.15 The semi-complex four-columned type church of Hagios Ioannis at Keria is one of the most imposing monuments in the peninsula. The so far accepted dating of its erection to the first half – mid of the thirteenth century could be shifted to the second half of the century, judging by choices observed in matters of structure and morphology (Fig. 19.2).16 Namely, the recessed brick technique on the arches, the construction of the hemisphere of the dome with voussoirs in concentric rings and impacted ribs in cruciform shape, the formation of the gables at the ends of the north and south arms of the cross with ceramic

In the vicinity of the Tigani promontory, two more churches, Vlacherna and Panagia Odigitria are built, the appellations of which refer to the homonymous pilgrimages in Constantinople. The erection of Vlacherna, following the variation of the simple four-columned cross-in-square, is dated from the first decades of the thirteenth century, as its constructional and morphological features attest (Fig. 19.1).13 The tiny building stands out for its plain, albeit picturesque, style, evident in the application of ashlar

14  Mexia 2011, Α, 311– 312, Β, 9– 12; Bouras – Bouras 2002, 24– 25, favour a date around the end of the 12th century. The choice of the twocolumned variant in Agitria is maybe due to the shortage of columns, which in this particular church are material in second use. At a later time during the 13th century a narthex was added to the west side of the naos. 15  For the marble pavement, see Pinatsi 2018, 476– 478; Drandakis 1995a, 223– 258, studies the wall paintings; Idem 2002, 275– 281, presents the sculptural decoration. 16  For the date around the mid-13th century, see Drandakis 2002, 49– 51, 134– 135; Bouras – Bouras 2002, 186– 187; A later date, perhaps in the 14th century is suggested by Pinatsi 2018, 480– 481.

Papamastorakis 1987, 155– 157. For the wall paintings and the sculptural decoration, see Drandakis 1995a, 151– 212 and idem 2002, 265– 275 respectively. Lately Pinatsi 2018, 478– 479, presented the marble pavement of the church. For the identification of the castle at Tigani with the castle of Maini, see Avraméa 1998, 55– 56. 13  Kappas 2009, A, 142– 143, B, 324– 326. A narthex was added to the west a little later. A date to the late 12th century was generally accepted up to the present, see Bouras – Bouras 2002, 94– 96. 11 

12 

221

Angeliki Mexia

Figure 19.2. Mesa Mani, Hagios Ioannis at Keria, view from southeast.

bowls framed by bricks, as well as the more general arrangement of built-in glazed bowls on the façades and the porous stone carving in the interior, all conform to Late Byzantine practices. The numerous ancient and Byzantine marble spolia built into its walls, variegating the façades and even giving them a triumphal character, constitute a unique case in the Mesa Mani, prominently highlighting the preferences of the unknown donor.17

in its sides, reveals an aesthetic perception embraced also by other nearby Late Byzantine monuments, such as the Sotiras church at Kotrafi.20 Indeed, the plain schist slabs covering the ‘false windows’ recall a craftsman experienced in the Middle Byzantine local tradition of the ‘Athenian dome’, who attempts to combine morphological features of the windows, namely the marble window partitions, as well as of the blind arches of this dome variant, using the local materials available at that time. The construction of the hemisphere of the dome with impacted stone ribs of cruciform shape is seen in the region only once again, in Hagios Ioannis at Keria, while the voussoirs in concentric rings in-between are encountered in Late Byzantine vaults (Fig. 19.4). So, it would be reasonable to propose the redating of the monument at least to the late thirteenth century, if not even later, perhaps after the erection of the church at Keria, an idea also supported by the choice of the distyle cross-in-square typological variant.21

The slender dome of the Sotiras church at Oitylo (Fig. 19.5), with the unusual elongated form of the windows, the arches of which are bordered with a wide brick band of herringbone ornament, the kind and the place of the decorative brickwork on the western façade, dictate, alongside other evidence, a date to the Late Byzantine period, probably from the second half of the thirteenth century, which is in accord with the earlier layer of paintings.18 The absence of features of the Middle Byzantine local architectural tradition in the Asomatos church at Kakovouno (Kita), the erection of which up to now has been placed between the second half of the tenth to the first half of the eleventh centuries, dictates the reconsideration of this early dating (Fig. 19.3).19 The articulation of the drum of the dome, especially the presence of ‘false windows’

Scholars suggest a date to the first half of the eleventh century for the erection of the ambitious building of the Sotiras church at Gardenitsa.22 However, the edifice, both in its individual features and in basic compositional components, diverges from the Middle Byzantine architectural tradition, adopting solutions widespread

Mexia 2019. Drandakis 1995b; Kappas 2016, 12, places the church among the 14thcentury monuments. The portico in the west side is a later addition. For a brief mention of the layers of wall paintings, see Diamanti 2008– 2009, 49. 19  Mexia 2011, Α, 314– 316, Β, 87– 92.

20  For the church at Kotrafi, see Drandakis 1996, 234 no. 456. Between the two monuments, further commonalities concern the rubble masonry from local schist without brick and the vault construction. 21  Since no wall paintings survive to provide a terminus ante quem, the date of the erection of the edifice is by no means definite. 22  Drandakis 2002, 92– 101, with additional bibliography.

17  18 

222

Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century

Figure 19.3. Mesa Mani, Asomatos at Kakovouno (Kita), east façade.

Figure 19.4. Mesa Mani, Asomatos at Kakovouno (Kita), impacted stone ribs of the dome (2004).

in monuments of the Despotate of the Morea.23 For instance, the five-sided middle apse and the three-sided lateral ones, along with the articulation of the drum of the dome, constitute original forms in the region, paralleled in Laconian Palaiologan monuments (Fig. 19.6).24 The kind and the wealth of the external decoration, emphasizing variety and polychromy, reflected mainly on the middle apse, characterizes the architectural trend of

the Palaiologan period. Besides, considering the proposed dating of the earlier layer of paintings to around 1300, we regard the contemporary erection of the whole building as highly probable.25 The source upon which the architect draws his models remains an open question, insofar as the new expressive means used, some of which echo Constantinopolitan preferences, are encountered here quite a bit earlier when compared to the Laconian monuments of the Despotate of the Morea. Plasticity in the articulation of the façades, according to the contemporary trends, is evidenced by the big rectangular propylon with lateral

Mexia 2011, Α, 317– 319, Β, 52– 56. Mexia 2011, A, 101– 102 and 76– 77 respectively. For example, fivesided middle apse and three-sided lateral ones are encountered among the churches of Mystras; furthermore the dome of Gardenitsa is almost identical with that of the Profitis Elias church at Koniditsa, and quite similar also to that of the church of Hagia Varvara at Skoutari. 23  24 

25  Τhe earlier layer of paintings as a whole remains unpublished, for a brief mention, see Diamanti 2008– 2009, 53– 54.

223

Angeliki Mexia

Figure 19.5. Mesa Mani, Sotiras at Oitylo, dome.

Figure 19.6. Mesa Mani, Sotiras at Gardenitsa, east façade.

224

Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century arched openings attached soon thereafter to the west side of the edifice.26

All the monuments have plain exterior surfaces, interrupted by openings of small dimensions. The domes, either turn to original solutions, as in Oitylo and Gardenitsa, or follow the simplified variation of the ‘Athenian dome’, with four windows on the axes alternating with four blind arches on the diagonal sides, an architectural form widespread among the local craftsmen of the twelfth century. The semicircular apse is the standard in single-nave buildings; however, it is also applied to domed edifices using rubble masonry. In almost all the other cases, three-sided apses articulate the eastern side.

The unquestionable common features shared by the Taxiarches church at Glezou and Sotiras at Gardenitsa, in the composition of the façades, specifically the gables of the lateral cross arms, in morphological and structural matters, as well as in the articulation of the interior, combined with the proposed redating of the last, all point, in our opinion, to the need for a re-examination of the erection of the Taxiarches, up to now dated to the second half of the eleventh century.27 The surviving wall paintings, from the second half of the thirteenth century, provide a tangible terminus ante quem.

Windows adhere to types already known from the Middle Byzantine period, deriving either from the local tradition or from the Helladic morphological vocabulary. The apse window of the Profitis Elias church (Fig. 19.7) and the now blind opening in the south wall of Agitria at Hagia Kyriaki are the only exceptions, following a window type spread during the Late Byzantine period. They consist of an integral stone arched frame without windowjambs, shaped on the exterior face of a rectangular opening.31

The only example of transverse-vault single-nave church during the period under examination is that of Profitis Elias, located close to the settlement of Hagia Kyriaki. Erected probably during the first half of the thirteenth century, it displays morphological and structural characteristics pointing to the nearby churches of Agitria and Vlacherna.28

The basic masonry form is rubble masonry, even for a few domed buildings, while its local variant, the so called ‘megalithic’, prevalent throughout the centuries in the landscape of the Mani, is applied in single-nave churches. Cloisonné is now limited to certain cross-in-square churches, sometimes only to parts of their façades, while ashlar masonry is encountered in Vlacherna and in a more careless rendering in Agitria and Profitis Elias.

Far more numerous, with almost 30 examples, is the group of the smaller barrel-vaulted single-nave churches, omitting any consideration for the rendering of their volumes and contours. Frequently, the vaults are reinforced with buttressing arches, while blind arches articulate occasionally the lateral walls. The internal articulation of the east wall with two conches, symmetrical and equal in size, enclosed in a semicircular apse is unusual. The double-apse churches, probably dedicated to two different saints, although known in the region from the tenth century, spread widely during this period, as the monuments of Hagios Georgios at Kato Boularioi, Hagios Nikolaos at Ano Boularioi and Hagios Panteleimon at Kotrafi all testify.29 Morphologically and structurally related to the double-apse churches are the twin-naved ones. The addition, around 1300, of the single-nave chapel of Hagios Ioannis to the south side of the Middle Byzantine church of Hagios Vasilios at Kafiona constitutes a typical example.30

Decorative brickwork enriches the façades of certain domed edifices and the western wall-face of three to four single-nave ones as well, including dentil courses, geometric figures or characters of the Greek alphabet, zigzag, herringbone, diamond and reticulate ornaments (Fig. 19.8). Noteworthy are the pseudokufic elements, the stylized tree and the meander of the Sotiras church at Gardenitsa. The built-in glazed bowls constitute a more favorite form of external decoration in the cross-in-square churches32 and exceptionally so in the single-nave church of Hagia Kyriaki at Marathos. The abundant compositions of the middle apse at Gardenitsa and the gables of Hagios Ioannis at Keria combine all the current trends for variegation.

26  Bouras – Bouras 2002, 105– 106, who consider it as a 12th century addition. An analogous, not so elaborately built, propylon, probably contemporary with the naos, accentuates the west façade of the Asomatos church at Kakovouno. 27  Drandakis 2002, 101– 115. For the proposed reconsideration of the dating, see Mexia 2011, Α, 316– 317, Β, 77– 79. 28  Drandakis 1996, 227 no. 404; Bouras – Bouras 2002, 337; Küpper 1990, I, 140, II, 13, suggests a dating around 1300. 29  Gratziou 2010, 174– 183, summarizes and comments on the so far proposed aspects of their usage. For the referred Maniot monuments, see Drandakis 1996, 232 no. 439, 441, 234 no. 455. Noteworthy is the presence of a contracted porch in front of the south entrance of the church of Hagios Georgios. 30  Drandakis 2002, 157. Communication between the two churches is by means of two arched openings. Although the rectangular annexes in the south side of the churches of Hagios Panteleimon at Kotrafi and Hagios Georgios at Karynia point to twin– naved monuments, the solid south wall with the small communication door of the edifices complicate this classification; nevertheless, the conches in the east wall of the annex of Hagios Panteleimon suggest its use as a chapel, at some point, at least.

In the beginning of the thirteenth century the production of quality marble architectural and liturgical members carries on, continuing the Middle Byzantine tradition. However, gradually the local workshops abandon marble-carving, resorting to carved porous stone and the reuse of earlier material.

31  In Agitria the inner face of the opening is rendered as an exterior one. The frame in both examples forms a slightly pointed segmental arch. For this window type, see Mamaloukos 2012, 32; Kappas 2017, 132– 135. 32  They are missing only from the churches at Oitylo and Kakovouno.

225

Angeliki Mexia

Figure 19.7. Mesa Mani, Profitis Elias close to the settlement of Hagia Kyriaki, apse window.

Figure 19.8. Mesa Mani, Hagia Kyriaki at Marathos, western wall-face with reticulate ornament.

226

Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century

Figure 19.9. Mesa Mani, Asomatos at Kakovouno (Kita), dome window.

Arches are normally semicircular. The few cases of pointed arches are mainly to be ascribed to the material used, as in the Asomatos church at Kakovouno, marking a simplification indicative of inferior constructional level (Fig. 19.9). The arches consist chiefly of porous voussoirs, of different quality in their cutting. Bricks are used in window arches, the recessed brick technique being applied to the windows of the dome of Sotiras at Oitylo and all the openings of Hagios Ioannis at Keria.33 Occasionally, a porous arch surrounded by a cornice from the same material or a double arch from porous voussoirs and bricks are encountered in door openings.

peculiarity.34 In certain monuments, Taxiarches at Glezou, Asomatos at Kakovouno and Sotiras at Gardenitsa, the vault-head arches of the vaults of the cross arms are formed in recession; indeed, in the last two churches this scheme continues quite lower down from the springing of the arches. In general, the comparative study of the thirteenth century monuments of the Mesa Mani shows that the simplified, and totally conforming to the local building methods, architectural trend is strengthened, as the humble small barrel-vaulted single-nave buildings pronounce. Churches of higher aspirations certainly continue to be erected, although in these rather complex building programmes several simplifications and improvisations are to be discerned, due maybe to the limited competence of the local craftsmen or to the economic conditions. Reconstructions or additions to antecedent monuments also occur.35

Vaults made of rubble and roughly hewn stones, combined with vault-head arches from cut porous stone, is the standard form, both in domed and single-nave buildings. In a few cases vaults are entirely constructed of porous voussoirs, among them noteworthy is the barrel-vault of Sotiras at Ano Poula. The impacted ribs in the dome of the churches at Kakovouno and Keria constitute a structural

34  Slightly projecting ribs articulate the dome of the narthex of Hagios Petros at Megali Kastania in Exo Mani, dated to the late 13th century, see Mpouza 2010, 260. 35  For example in the church of Hagios Theodoros at Tsopaka, see Mexia 2011, Α, 304– 305.

33  Recently Kappas 2016, 11, pointed out the application of the technique in Oitylo; for the application of the technique in other Late Byzantine monuments of the Mani, including Keria, see ibid, 15– 16.

227

Angeliki Mexia Compared to the Middle Byzantine period,36 neither substantial development in architectural types, forms and building methods, nor original achievements are to be traced, with minimal exceptions. The creativity of the masons is expressed mainly in aesthetic pursuits or improvements of already known techniques, such as the porous voussoirs in the vaults. The Helladic features of the previous period are now confined to isolated elements of the domed churches, in parallel with the first morphological components of Late Byzantine architecture. So, as the Mesa Mani loses gradually the brilliance it enjoyed in the Middle Byzantine times, so do the Kato (Lower) and Exo (Outer) Mani come to the foreground, as centers of ecclesiastical architecture. In these regions and especially in the Exo Mani, during the next two centuries, the most elaborate buildings are now erected, under the influence of Mystras architectural trends.37

Although church building is not suspended during the first half of the thirteenth century, the increase in the surviving monuments during the second half attests that the recovery of the south Peloponnese by the Byzantines seems to bring relative prosperity not only to members of the local aristocracy, acting as patrons, but also to the peasants, enabling them to donate even their small surplus for the erection and decoration of ecclesiastical edifices.42 Indeed, as repeatedly has been argued, the large, compared to the preceding centuries, percentage of wall paintings now commissioned, especially after 1261, bears witness to an active population, probably strengthened through refugees from the Frankish-held Morea.43 Noteworthy is the fact that the cross-in-square churches of the thirteenth century have wall paintings almost contemporary with their erection. By contrast, the domed edifices of the preceding centuries are decorated with wall paintings only during the presently examined period, as the examples of Hagia Varvara at Erimos and Hagioi Sergios and Vakchos at Kita testify.44 So, it seems that during the Middle Byzantine period the interests are focussed on or even confined to the domain of architecture, with the erection of buildings following the innovative Helladic forms, that impose on the surroundings with their architectural type, their structural quality, their brickwork or sculpted decoration. Instead, during the thirteenth century, as the historical conditions change, the concern of the donors is moving or extending to the internal space of the church, where the wall paintings constitute the main asset for enhancing the edifice. This differentiation in the goals and preferences of the patrons, affecting directly the outcome of their donation, is probably to be associated with their socioeconomic status.

Turning to contemporary Laconian churches,38 there seems to be no substantial interaction between the two regions, with the Mesa Mani still being remarkably self-contained. Only around 1300, in the imposing edifice of Sotiras at Gardenitsa, do the profuse decoration and the quality of the exterior surfaces point to the architectural evolutions in the seat of the Byzantine provincial administration, the castle-town of Mystras. The architectural idiom shaped during this time in the crusader Morea, creatively combining Late Byzantine architectural perceptions with elements of the local tradition and assimilating to various degrees Gothic features,39 exerts no direct influence on the Mesa Mani. Western influences are evidenced only in some building practices, such as ashlar masonry, vaults made of porous voussoirs or also in isolated morphological features, like windows with an integral frame.40

The short-lived co-existence of the heterodox conquerors and the local population does not seem to transform the spatial organization of the Mani, apart from the erection of certain fortifications by the Franks to the north and west of the peninsula.45 The newly-built churches are mostly located in the wider region around the castle of Maini, the administrative center of the Middle Byzantine period, that still continues to attract the population. The ample artistic activity shows a quite vivid rural society, which builds and decorates ecclesiastical edifices, of high or humble pretensions, as a visible expression of its piety and taste.46

As donors for these structures, according to Professor Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, who has systematically studied the abundant available material, there appear members of the local aristocracy, clerics or peasants, acting as individuals or in collaboration with others, usually their families, a pattern that points to the awakening of the individual consciousness.41 Widespread too is the collective patronage schema, with almost universal participation of ordinary people. Moreover, small individual offerings are encountered, in the form of a dedication of a single wall painting. The different socio-economic provenance of the patrons accounts for the variations in scale and artistic value of the churches. Mexia 2011, Α, esp. 336– 346. Kappas 2016. 38  See the catalogue by Drandakis 1996. For the churches of Mystras, see Sinos 2009, 113– 215. 39  Athanasoulis 2013, 142– 151. 40  Imitation of Gothic models is perhaps also apparent in the waterspouts of the dome (unusual by local Byzantine standards) of Sotiras at Oitylo. On western elements in Late Byzantine monuments of the Exo and Kato Mani, see Kappas 2016. 41  Kalopissi-Verti 1992, passim; Kalopissi-Verti 2005, 102– 105; Kalopissi-Verti 2012, 126– 130 and passim. 36 

42  Eadem 1992, 34– 37. On the economy of Late Byzantine Peloponnese in general, see Jacoby 2013. Maltezou 2000, elaborates the impact of the historical conditions on the artistic output of the 13th century. 43  Drandakis 1986, 684; Panayiotidi 2005, 90. 44  Charalabous 2008– 2009, 198– 208 and Panayiotidi 2005, 92– 93 respectively. 45  On the co-existence of Franks and Byzantines in the Peloponnese, see Ilieva 1991, with previous bibliography. 46  For the Late Byzantine village communities of the Greek countryside with multiple references to the Mani, see Gerstel 2015.

37 

228

Church Architecture in the Mesa Mani During the Thirteenth Century Literature

Drandakis 1996: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος, ‘Σχεδίασμα καταλόγου των τοιχογραφημένων βυζαντινών και μεταβυζαντινών ναών Λακωνίας’, Λακωνικαί Σπουδαί 13 (1996), 167– 236.

Athanasoulis 2013: Athanasoulis, Dimitris, ‘The Triangle of Power. Building Projects in the Metropolitan Area of the Crusader Principality of the Morea’, in Sh. E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea. Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington D.C. 2013, 111– 151.

Drandakis 2002: Δρανδάκης, Νικόλαος Β., Βυζαντινά γλυπτά της Μάνης, Athens 2002. Gerstel 2015: Gerstel, Sharon E. J., Rural Lives and Landscapes in Late Byzantium. Art, Archaeology, and Ethnography, New York 2015.

Avraméa 1998: Avraméa, Anna, ‘Le Magne byzantin: problèmes d’histoire et de topographie’, Ευψυχία. Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, Byzantina Sorbonensia 16, Paris 1998, v. 1, 49– 62.

Gratziou 2010: Γκράτζιου, Όλγα, Η Κρήτη στην ύστερη μεσαιωνική εποχή. Η μαρτυρία της εκκλησιαστικής αρχιτεκτονικής, Herakleion 2010.

Bon 1969: Bon, Antoine, La Morée Franque. Recherches historiques, topographiques et archéologiques sur la principauté d’Achaïe (1205– 1430), Paris 1969.

Ilieva 1991: Ilieva, Aneta, Frankish Morea (1205– 1262). Socio-cultural Interaction between the Franks and the Local Population, Athens 1991.

Bouras – Bouras 2002: Μπούρας, Χαράλαμπος – Μπούρα, Λασκαρίνα, Η Ελλαδική ναοδομία κατά τον 12ο αιώνα, Athens 2002.

Jacoby 2013: Jacoby, David, ‘Rural Exploitation and Market Economy in the Late Medieval Peloponnese’, in Sh. E. J. Gerstel (ed.), Viewing the Morea. Land and People in the Late Medieval Peloponnese, Washington D.C. 2013, 213– 275.

Bouza – Kontoyiannis 2004: Bouza, Niovi – Kontoyiannis, Nikos D., ‘Castles in Mani at the time of Byzantium’, in P. Kalamara – Ν. Roumeliotis (eds.), Settlements of Mani, Network of Mani Museums 1, Athens 2004, 44– 49.

Kalliga 2003: Καλλιγά, Χάρις, Η Βυζαντινή Μονεμβασία και οι πηγές της ιστορίας της, Athens 2003.

Burridge 1996: Burridge, Peter, ‘The Castle of Vardounia and defense in the Southern Mani’, in P. Lock – G. D. R. Sanders (eds.),The Archaeology of Medieval Greece, Oxford 1996, 19– 28.

Kalopissi-Verti 1992: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, Dedicatory Inscriptions and Donor Portraits in Thirteenth-Century Churches of Greece, Vienna 1992. Kalopissi-Verti 2005: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Patrons and craftsmen in Mani during the Byzantine and Post-Byzantine period’, in P. Kalamara (ed.), Tales of religious faith in Mani, Network of Mani Museums 2, Athens 2005, 99– 108.

Charalabous 2008– 2009: Χαραλάμπους, Δανάη, ‘Ο τοιχογραφικός διάκοσμος του ναού της Αγίας Βαρβάρας στην Έρημο Μάνης’, in E.P. Eleftheriou – A. Mexia (eds.), Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη Βυζαντινή Μάνη, Καραβοστάσι Οιτύλου, 21– 22.6.2008, Πρακτικά, Sparti 2008– 2009, 197– 212.

Kalopissi-Verti 2012: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia, ‘Collective Patterns of Patronage in the Late Byzantine Village: The Evidence of Church Inscriptions’, in J.-M. Spieser – E. Yota (éds.), Donation et donateurs dans le monde byzantine, Actes du Colloque International de l’Université de Fribourg, 13– 15 mars 2008, Réalités Byzantines 14, Paris 2012, 125– 140.

Diamanti 2008– 2009: Διαμαντή, Καλλιόπη Π., ‘Το έργο της Αρχαιολογικής Υπηρεσίας για τη διάσωση των βυζαντινών μνημείων της Μάνης’, in E.P. Eleftheriou – A. Mexia (eds.), Επιστημονικό Συμπόσιο στη μνήμη Νικολάου Β. Δρανδάκη για τη Βυζαντινή Μάνη, Καραβοστάσι Οιτύλου, 21– 22.6.2008, Πρακτικά, Sparti 2008– 2009, 45– 59.

Kappas 2009: Κάππας, Μιχάλης, Η εφαρμογή του σταυροειδούς εγγεγραμμένου στη μέση και την ύστερη βυζαντινή περίοδο. Το παράδειγμα του απλού τετρακιόνιου / τετράστυλου, v. Α΄, Β΄, Doctoral Thesis, Α.Π.Θ., Thessaloniki 2009.

Dourou-Iliopoulou 2005: Ντούρου-Ηλιοπούλου, Μαρία, Το φραγκικό πριγκηπάτο της Αχαΐας (1204– 1432). Ιστορία, Οργάνωση, Κοινωνία, Thessaloniki 2005.

Kappas 2016: Kappas, Michalis, ‘Cultural Exchange between East and West in the Late-Fourteenth century Mani: The Soteras Church in Langada and a Group of Related Monuments’, in R. Ousterhout, D. Borbonus, E. Dumser (eds.), Against Gravity: Building Practices in the Pre-Industrial World, Philadelphia 2016, 1– 33 (http://www.sas.upenn.edu/ancient/publications.html).

Drandakis 1986: Δρανδάκης, Β. Νικόλαος, ‘Παρατηρήσεις στις τοιχογραφίες του 13ου αιώνα που σώζονται στη Μάνη’, The 17th International Byzantine Congress, Dumbarton Oaks / Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 3– 8 August 1986, Major Papers, New York 1986, 683– 721. Drandakis 1995a: Δρανδάκης, B. Νικόλαος, Βυζαντινές τοιχογραφίες της Μέσα Μάνης, Athens 1995.

Kappas 2017: Κάππας, Μιχάλης, ‘Ένα βυζαντινό οικοδομικό συνεργείο στην περιοχή του Σοφικού Κορινθίας’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 38 (2017), 125– 146.

Drandakis 1995b: Δρανδάκης, B. Νικόλαος, ‘O Σωτήρας του Οιτύλου’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 18 (1995), 79– 88. 229

Angeliki Mexia Kordoses 1986: Κορδώσης, Σ. Μιχάλης, ‘Η κατάκτηση της νότιας Ελλάδας από τους Φράγκους. Ιστορικά και τοπογραφικά προβλήματα’, Ιστορικογεωγραφικά 1 (1986), 53– 194.

Sinos 2009: Sinos, Stefanos (ed.), The Monuments of Mystras. The Work of the Committee for the Restoration of the Monuments of Mystras, Athens 2009. Zakythinos 1975: Zakythinos, A. Denis, Le Despotat grec de Morée, vol. 1, Histoire politique, Paris 1932, vol. 2, Vie et institutions, Athènes 1953, ed. rev. by Chr. Maltezou, Variorum, London 1975.

Kordoses 1987: Kordoses, S. Michael, ‘Southern Greece under the Franks (1204– 1262). A Study of the Greek Population and the Orthodox Church under the Frankish Dominion’, Dodone: Supplement, No 33, Ioannina 1987. Küpper 1990: Küpper, Hanns Michael, Der Bautypus der griechischen Dachtranseptkirche, Amsterdam 1990, v. I, II. Maltezou 2000: Μαλτέζου, A. Χρύσα, ‘Κοινωνία και τέχνες στην Ελλάδα κατά τον 13ο αιώνα. Ιστορική εισαγωγή’, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 21 (2000), 9– 16. Mamaloukos 2012: Mamaloukos, Stavros, ‘Observations on the Doors and Windows in Byzantine Architecture’, in R. Ousterhout, R. Holod, L. Haselberger (eds.), Masons at Work, Philadelphia 2012 (http://www.sas. upenn.edu/ancient/publications.html). Mexia 2011: Μέξια, Αγγελική, Βυζαντινή ναοδομία στην Πελοπόννησο. Η περίπτωση των μεσοβυζαντινών ναών της Μέσα Μάνης, v. Α΄, Β΄, Unpublished Ph.D., University of Athens 2011. Mexia 2019: Mexia, Angeliki, ‘The Synthesis of the Façades of the Church of St John at Keria in Mesa (Inner) Mani: The Role of the Marble Spolia built into the Walls’, in Ch. Diamanti – A. Vassiliou (eds.),Ἐν Σοφίᾳ μαθητεύσαντες. Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia KalopissiVerti, Oxford 2019, 183– 202. Mpouza 2010: Μπούζα, Νιόβη, «Παρατηρήσεις στο ναό του Αγίου Πέτρου στην Καστάνια της Μεσσηνιακής Μάνης», Ανταπόδοση. Μελέτες βυζαντινής και μεταβυζαντινής αρχαιολογίας και τέχνης προς τιμήν της καθηγήτριας Ελένης Δεληγιάννη-Δωρή, Athens 2010, 247– 266. Panayitidi 2005: Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Monumental painting in the churches of Mani – a means of expression and communication’, in P. Kalamara (ed.), Tales of religious faith in Mani, Network of Mani Museums 2, Athens 2005, 85– 97. Papamastorakis 1987: Παπαμαστοράκης, Τίτος, ‘Το εικονογραφικό πρόγραμμα του τρούλου του Αγίου Γεωργίου (Επισκοπής) στην Κίττα της Μάνης’, Αρχαιολογικά Ανάλεκτα εξ Αθηνών 20 (1987), Σύμμεικτα, 140– 158. Pinatsi 2018: Πινάτση, Χριστίνα, ‘Βυζαντινά μαρμάρινα δάπεδα της Μάνης’, in M. Korres, St. Mamaloukos, K. Zambas, F. Mallouchou-Tufano (eds.), Ήρως Κτίστης, μνήμη Χαράλαμπου Μπούρα, Athens 2018, vol. ΙΙ, 471– 487.

230

20 The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb: Testimonies for a Lost Sinai Church Georgia Foukaneli Abstract: In this paper are collected sporadic traces concerning a lost Sinai chapel. Pilgrim accounts of the 14th century as well as a marginal note of a Georgian Sinai Lectionary indicate the chapel’s location in the Prophet Elia’s Valley, in Chorēb, and its dedication to the Mother of God. The donation of two manuscripts, the Georgian Lectionary already mentioned and the Chorēb Gospel, reflects the care of the Sinai monastic community to support the chapel in its liturgical needs. Already destroyed by the 16th century, its memory was preserved for up to a century later in Greek proskynētaria. The remains of a modest construction investigated at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley, considered along with graffiti on the nearby rocks attributed to pilgrims, may belong to the chapel in question, since the site corresponds to the topographical information provided by the written sources. Στην παρούσα έρευνα συλλέγονται και αξιολογούνται τεκμήρια σχετικά με την ύπαρξη σιναϊτικού παρεκκλησίου αφιερωμένου στην Παναγία, το οποίο μαρτυρείται στην περιοχή της κοιλάδας του Προφήτη Ηλία στο Χωρήβ από ημερολόγια προσκυνητών του Σινά του 14ου αιώνα, καθώς και από ελληνικά σιναϊτικά προσκυνητάρια του 16ου και 17ου αι. Στο ναό αυτό φαίνεται ότι δωρήθηκε το γεωργιανό Ευαγγέλιο αρ. 81 (έτ. 1075) της Βιβλιοθήκης της Ιεράς Μονής Σινά, σύμφωνα με παρασελίδια σημείωση του χειρογράφου. Η ενδεχόμενη αφιέρωση του λεγομένου «Ευαγγελίου του Χωρήβ» (Σιναϊτικός κωδ. αρ. 213, έτ. 967), από τον αρχιεπίσκοπο Σινά Μακάριο τον Ε΄ ή ΣΤ΄ (1224 ή 1248/1258), στο ίδιο παρεκκλήσιο αποτελεί ένδειξη της φροντίδας των Σιναϊτών για τις λειτουργικές ανάγκες των μοναχών που εγκαταβίωναν στο χώρο. Αν και φαίνεται ότι ο ναός της Παναγίας είχε πιθανότατα καταστραφεί πριν τον 16ο αιώνα, η μνήμη του διατηρήθηκε για έναν περίπου αιώνα αργότερα σε ελληνικά σιναϊτικά προσκυνητάρια. Σε επιτόπια έρευνα εντοπίστηκαν ερείπια κτίσματος στο νοτιοδυτικό άκρο της κοιλάδας του Προφήτη Ηλία, τα οποία ίσως ανήκουν στο λανθάνοντα ναό της Παναγίας. Η θέση ανταποκρίνεται πλήρως στα τοπογραφικά στοιχεία των γραπτών πηγών, ενώ η ύπαρξη χαραγμάτων στους παρακείμενους βράχους μαρτυρεί τη σημασία του χώρου για τους διερχόμενους προσκυνητές. Ενδεχόμενη ανασκαφική έρευνα θα δοκιμάσει την ισχύ των παραπάνω συλλογισμών, προσδιορίζοντας ακριβέστερα και το χρονολογικό πλαίσιο ύπαρξης του ναού. Keywords: Sinai topography, Sinai pilgrimage, Pilgrim Graffiti, Sinai manuscripts, Pilgrim texts, Lost Monuments. monastic settlements was developed, documented through archaeological remains and written sources.3 Although reduced after the expansion of the Muslim Arabs in the 7th century, monasticism in Sinai has never declined.4 In this paper are collected sporadic traces concerning a lost Sinai chapel, dedicated to the Mother of God, as a small contribution to the reconstruction of the Sinai monastic and pilgrim topography.

The topography of the Sinai desert is delineated by the places of the Old Testamentary Revelations of God: the miracle of the Burning Bush (Exodus, 3.2–5), the Law Giving at the top of the Sinai Mountain (Exodus 19.17–25, 31.18–34), the consolation of prophet Elias (Elijah) in Chorēb during his persecution (Kings III, 19.1–13).1 The Sinaitic Loca Santa emerged as prominent pilgrim destinations from the 4th century and as points of spiritual reference for the Sinai hermits, who had dwelled in the area from at least a century earlier.2 Around Sinai Monastery, founded at the place of the Burning Bush in the 6th century, a net of

39–75, figs. 1–29; Beaux-Boutros 1998, 139–143; Dahari 1998, 144–150; Dahari 2000, 21–23. 3  On the foundation of the Sinai Monastery, see Mayerson 1978, 33. 4  Tοmadakis 1990, 12–17; Dahari 2000, 167–168.

Bordreuil 1998, 116–118. 2  For the early pilgrimage in Sinai, see Amantos 1953, 5–7; Maraval 1985, 304–310. For early monasticism in Sinai, see Finkelstein 1985, 1 

231

Georgia Foukaneli

Figure 20.1. Sinai, Chorēb, the chapel of Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’ and part of the ‘path of the steps’.

A typical pilgrim itinerary in the late Middle Ages led from the valley of the Burning Bush to the Holy Summit of Mount Sinai along the commonly known ‘path of the steps’. On their way, pilgrims first venerated the chapel of Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’, situated by the path (Figs. 20.1, 20.7), and afterwards the building complex with the cave of Prophet Elias, in the valley of the same name (Fig. 20.2, 20.7).5 Sinai tradition, as preserved by Nektarios, archbishop of Sinai and subsequently patriarch of Jerusalem, in his treatise ‘Epitomē tēs Hierokosmikēs Historias’ (1659–1660), and the majority of the pilgrim accounts as well, make mention of only this building in the Prophet Elias valley, consisting of three adjoining chapels: Prophet Elias’ chapel to the south, where the cave itself was – and still is – enclosed, Prophet Elisha’s chapel in the middle and Saint Marina’s to the north.6 Nevertheless, the Tuscan pilgrims Lionardo Frescobaldi and Giorgio Gucci, visiting the Prophet Elias Valley, in 1384, although ignoring the north chapel of the complex (i.e. Saint Marina’s chapel), attest for the existence of two separate and physically opposed buildings at the place: Prophet Elias’ complex and a second one, dedicated to Saint Mary:’Dipoi si trova dove Elía fece la penitenza, ed è divota chiesicciuola. […]Havvi nella detta Chiesa una cappella di Eliseo; dirimpetto a questa si è una chiesa di Santa Maria Uziaca’;7‘[...] una chiesa piccola e bella,

dove Elia ditto fece tre anni la penitenza; [...] E nella detta chiesa è una cappella d’ Iliseo profeta, e dirimpietto alla detta chiesa è un’ altra chiesa di Santa Maria antica, ch’ è una chesetta piccola, bella e divota. E da questa chiesa di Santa Maria insino alla sommità del monte Sinai […] sono III miglia di molto viva erta’.8 Some years later, in 1395, the pilgrim Ogier d’Anglure records Prophet Elias’ complex on his left and a smaller chapel on his right: ‘[…] en montant toujours a mont, a deux chapelles l’ une emprès (sic) l’ autre, et plus grande l’ une que l’ autre, dont la plus petite est a la main destre en montant et est fondée de saincte Marguerite; et l’ autre qui est a main senestre est appellée la chappelle Helie’.9 D’Anglure’s attestation that this second little church was dedicated to St. Margaret has probably arisen as the result of confusion of its dedication with the north chapel of Prophet Elias’ complex, given the merging in the medieval, especially western, hagiography about the traditions for Saint Marina, the martyr of the 3rd century from Pisidia, and Saint Margaret, whose life is not sufficiently documented.10 The adjective ‘Uziaca’ – still enigmatic, although translated ‘of Egypt’ by the editors11 – attributed by Frescobaldi to the dedication of this second church is not confirmed or in any Gucci 1384, 280; ‘[…] a small and beautiful church, where the said Elias for three years did penance; […] And in the said church there is a chapel of Eliseus the prophet, and opposite the said church there is another ancient church of St. Mary, which is a small, beautiful and devout little church. And from this church of St. Mary to the summit of Mount Sinai […] there are three miles of very quick ascent’, BelloriniHoade 1948, 117. 9  Ogier d’Anglure 1395, 49–50. (‘[…] keeping going up the mountain there are two chapels, one next to the other and bigger than the other; the smallest of them is on the right hand, on the way up, and it is founded by Saint Margaret; and the other one, which is on the left hand, is called Elias’ chapel.’) 10  Farmer 1992, 318–319, 322. 11  Bellorini-Hoade 1948, 61; Frescobaldi 1384, 194, note 1. 8 

Braun 1973, 68–70; Dahari 2000, 47. Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 168; for Patriarch Nektarios (1602–1666), see typically Tzirakis 1966; on Patriarch Nektarios’ treatise, probably written in the years 1659–1660, see Manousakas 1947, 291–332; Grossmann 2002. For the Prophet Elias’ complex, see Külzer 1994, 265; Pringle 1998, 59; Dahari 2000, 38–40; Mytiantheos-Koufopoulou 2015, 222–223. The three chapels of the complex are mentioned for the first time in c. 1346 by the traveler Niccolò da Poggibonsi (Niccolò da Poggibonsi 1346, 136). 7  Frescobaldi 1384, 194; ‘Then you find where Elias did penance and it is a devout little church. […] There is in the said church a chapel of Eliseus. Opposite to this is a church of St. Mary of Egypt.’, Bellorini-Hoade1948, 61. 5  6 

232

The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb

Figure 20.2. Sinai, Chorēb, the Prophet Elias’ complex, view from the West.

way explained by either the Sinai tradition or any written source. Furthermore, Frescobaldi, Gucci and – a decade later – the pilgrim Nicola de Martoni (1394) record erroneously that another Sinai chapel, that of the Holy Forty Martyrs, which they also visited, was dedicated to Virgin Mary, ‘Santa Maria della Misericordia’ and ‘S. Maria di Valle Verde’ respectively, while Simone Sigoli, a travel companion of the two first pilgrims, inaccurately attributes the dedication ‘Vergine Maria’ to the chapel on the Holy Summit.12 A chapel of the Virgin situated close to the pilgrim itinerary, apart from the well-known Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’, may therefore have been the cause of confusion about the dedication of the churches. Moreover, in later texts, written in a different cultural milieu, namely in Greek pilgrim guides – proskynētaria – dated to the 16th and 17th centuries, there are also included vague references about an unidentified church of the Virgin in the area. This church is mentioned in the same context with Sinai chapels situated in the Mountain Chorēb, around which hermits had settled over the years: Timios Prodromos, Saint George, Saint Anna, Saint Panteleēmōn, Hagia Zonē and Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’ (Fig. 20.7).13 A posthumous marginal dedicatory note (f. 4r) in the Sinai Georgian Lectionary nr. 81 (a. 1075) provides

additional evidence for a chapel of the Mother of God close to the Prophet Elias’ complex. Written in Arabic, the note is cited here in the Latin translation of G. Garitte: ‘[Hoc] evangelium legavi honoratum (?) ego Iohannes georgianus ecclesiae Genitricis Dei quae (est) in monte / Tūr Sina adiacens Mar Eliae, quae (est) in Chorēb’.14 The donor most probably belonged to the Georgian monastic community of Sinai, as is testified by a great number of liturgical manuscripts preserved in the monastery’s Library and dated at least until the 15th century.15 Therefore the margin note could be dated between the year 1075 and the 15th century. The use of the toponyms ‘Tūr Sinai’ and ‘Chorēb’ in the note follows the Sinai tradition, according to which the term ‘Sinai’ refers to Mount Sinai in general; when used in distinction to the toponym ‘Chorēb’, ‘Sinai’ applies mostly for the higher part of the Mountain, its top being identified with the Summit of the Law Giving or Hagia Koryphē (= ‘Holy Summit’), currently known as Gebel Musa. The toponym ‘Chorēb’, appearing first in the Book of the Kings (III, 19, 8), to identify the location of the Prophet Elias’ cave, describes the mountainous area from the valley of the Sinai Monastery to the level of the Prophet Elias’ valley, approximately (Fig. 20.7).16 It is not by coincidence that the Arabic toponym ‘Gebel Sufsafa’,

12  Frescobaldi 1394, 194; Gucci 1384, 281; Sigoli 1384, 249; De Martoni 1394, 68. For the chapel of the Holy Forty Martyrs, see Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 171–172. The chapel on the Holy Summit was dedicated to the Saviour (Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 168); nowadays it is honored in the name of the Holy Trinity. For the archaeological remains on the Holy Summit, see Panayotidi et al. 2002; Kalopissi-Verti – Panayotidi 2010; Koufopoulos – Myriantheos-Koufopoulou 2010. 13  Anonymous, Ivēron 535 (16th century), 89, 91; Parthenios, Ivēron 845 (a. 1586), 123–124 (for the writer Parthenios, see Kadas 2003, 45); Anonymous, Ivēron 694 (a. 1611), 113; Anonymous, Koutloumousiou 390 (a. 1630), 146–147; for the archaeological remains, see Dahari 2000, 40–44; Mytiantheos-Koufopoulou 2015, 223–226.

14  Garitte 1956, 257–258. Tūr Sina is the Arabic name for Mount Sinai. (‘Me, John the Georgian, I have donated this Holy Gospel to the church of the Mother of God which is on the Mount Sinai, close to Saint Elias, which is in Chorēb’) 15  Aleksidze – Shanidze – Khevsuriani – Kavtaria 2005, 363–364. 16  Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 169: «[...] εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν Κορυφὴν, καὶ εἰς τὸ ἄλλο τὸ ἐπίλοιπον Βουνὸν, ὁποῦ εἴπαμεν Χωρήβ. […] Εἰς δὲ τὸ Ἀνατολικὸν μέρος εἶναι ἡ Κορυφὴ ὁποῦ λέγεται Σινὰ, καὶ Ἁγία Κορυφὴ, ἔνθα ὁ Νόμος ἐδόθη.» (‘[…] on the Holy Summit and on the rest of the Mountain which we have called Chorēb. […] In the eastern part there is the Summit which is named Sinai and Holy Summit, where the Law was given’).

233

Georgia Foukaneli used by local Bedouins and the Sinai Monks, is almost equivalent to the term ‘Chorēb’.17

the Sinai Greek Lectionary nr. 213 (a. 967), known as ‘the Chorēb Gospel’:21

Among the identified Sinai churches dedicated to the Mother of God, two can be considered as located in Chorēb: the chapel of Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’ and Hagia Zonē (Fig. 20.7). Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’, situated by the ‘path of the steps’, might have been plausibly identified as the ‘ecclesia Genitricis Dei’, but in written sources it is constantly specified with the designations ‘tou Oikonomou’ (of the Oikonomos), ‘Engyētria’ (Guarantor) or ‘Damane’ (the Arabic word for Guarantor) recalling the tradition of its foundation.18

+ τὸ παρὸν ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον τῆς / ὑπεραγίας θ(εοτό)κου τοῦ αγίου / ορους τοῦ χωρὴβ∙ ἐτέθη / διαχειρὸς μακαρίου τοῦ / ἁγιωτάτου ἀρχιεπισκό/που τοῦ ἁγίου ὄρους σινὰ∙ / καὶ ἤ της τὸ ἡστερήσει τῆν / θ(εοτό)κον∙ νὰ ἔχει τὰς ἀρὰς τῶν / τιη΄ θεοφορων π(ατέ)ρων22 The notice, in minuscule script, is generally dated in the 12th or 13th centuries, on paleographic criteria; Sinai archbishops with the name Makarios are mentioned in 1224, and in 1258 (or 1248), known as Makarios V and Makarios VI subsequently.23 A hypothetical dedication of the manuscript to a church of the Virgin in Sinai Monastery itself, for example to the katholikon, is contradicted by the fact that the name used by the Sinai monks themselves for their Monastery has never included the term Chorēb: It has been constantly referred as ¨Monē tou Hagiou Orous Sina’ (The Monastery of the Holy Mount Sinai, in Greek), or ‘Deir Tūr Sina’ (Monastery of Mount Sinai, in Arabic).24 Consequently, if the Chorēb Gospel was donated to a church of the Virgin, one other than the katholikon of the Sinai Monastery or any other known church in Chorēb, then, for the same reasons as the Georgian Lectionary it is an interesting hypothesis to correlate it with the lost Chapel of the Mother of God in the Prophet Elias’ Valley.

Although its construction may date to an earlier period, Hagia Zonē is recorded in written sources dating from the 16th century onwards, such as the ‘Epitomē’ and the proskynētarion of Paisios Hagiapostolitēs (1577–1592), a Sinai monk and afterwards metropolitan of Rhodes.19 It is not to be excluded that Hagia Zonē could have been mentioned as ‘chapel of the Mother of God’, since it is dedicated to the Virgin’s Venerable Belt (Zonē), but it is constantly referred as Hagia Zonē in written and oral tradition, as well.20 Although in Chorēb, it is situated in an area far off from the Prophet Elias’ complex, so it does not correspond to the description ‘adjacens Mar Eliae’. Furthermore, all the above mentioned written sources describe clearly the chapel of the Virgin in question, Our Lady ‘of the Oikonomos’ and Hagia Zonē as separate buildings.

In 2008, a survey in the Valley of Prophet Elias in Chorēb located ruins which might have belonged to the church in question.25 In the northwestern part of the Valley, opposite to the Prophet Elias complex and at the starting point of a path which traverses Mount Chorēb, from the Prophet Elias’ Valley towards Hagia Zonē (Fig. 20.7), there have been traced remains of a building in a mound probably formed by its collapse.26 Although not big, it does not appear to have been a humble construction and the walls consist of red granite stones (Fig. 20.3). The building had been privileged with a direct view to the Holy Summit, according to the Sinai custom that small chapels or hermitages face, if at all possible, towards the places of divine revelations: here it would have been oriented eastwards (Fig. 20.4).

Consequently, the marginal note of the Georgian manuscript, an ‘internal’ testimony from the Sinai Brotherhood, most probably dated between the year 1075 and the 15th century, attests to the existence of a Sinai church, honored in the name of the Mother of God and situated close to the Prophet Elias’ complex in Chorēb, which cannot be identified with any other church of the Virgin in the vicinity. Therefore the attestation of Frescobaldi, Gucci and Ogier d’Anglure about a chapel opposite to Prophet Elias and the vague references of Greek proskynētaria to an unknown church of the Mother of God located in the area coincide. The inaccurate references in pilgrim texts (Frescobaldi, Gucci, Sigoli and de Martoni) about the dedication of different churches to the Virgin might be explained as a result of misunderstanding, having as starting point the dedication of that chapel.

21  Harlfinger et al. 1983, 14–16, Taf. 5–9; Weitzmann – Galavaris 1990, 35–39, figs. 60–82, colorpl. II. 22  Harlfinger et al. 1983, 15, Taf. 9; ‘This holy Gospel of the All-Holy Theotokos of the Holy Mount Horeb was dedicated by the hand of Makarios the most holy archbishop of the Holy Mount Sinai. May he who deprives the Theotokos of it have the curses of the 318 Holy Fathers’, Weitzmann – Galavaris 1990, 35. 23  Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 222; for Makarios VI, see also: Amantos 1928, 47 (for the date 1258); Marinescu 2001, 281 (for the date 1248); cf. Harlfinger et al. 1983, 15. 24  Braun 1973, 9–11; Fyssas 2008, 244. 25  The survey was carried out in the frame of the author’s Doctoral research, supervised by Professors Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Maria Panayotidi and Florentia Evangelatou-Notara. The hypothesis for the existence of the chapel has been initially presented in the PhD thesis (Foukaneli 2010, 187–190). In this paper the issue is further discussed. I am grateful to N. Fyssas for his valuable assistance. 26  For the path, see Dahari 2000, 47–48.

Under the same premise may also be reexamined the meaning of the dedicatory note on the last folio (340v) of

17  Finkelstein 1985, 39–41; Hobbs 1996, 119–123; Dahari 2000, 37–49; ‘sufsafa’ in Arabic means ‘willow tree’. 18  Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 201–204; Pringle 1998, 58. 19  Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 168–169; Paisios Hagiapostolitēs 1577– 1592, 157. For Paisios Hagiapostolitēs, see Manousakas 1947, 304–305; Metallinos 1966; Sarmanis 2007. For the archaeological remains at the site, see Finkelstein 1986, 50, 59; Dahari 2000, 42–43. Hagia Zonē is currently known as Farsh Sufsafa. 20  Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60, 168; see also the Sinai proskyētaria: Paisios Hagiapostolitēs 1577–1592, 157; Anonymous, Ivēron 535 (16th century), 91; Parthenios, Ivēron 845 (a. 1586), 124.

234

The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb

Figure 20.3. Sinai, Chorēb, ruins at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley (view from the East) and the beginning of the path towards Hagia Zonē.

Figure 20.4. Sinai, Chorēb, ruins at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley, view from the West, towards the Holy Summit.

been linked to the pilgrimage of Armenians in the Sinai.27 The five crosses fourchées accompanying the graffiti could

On the rocks nearby are preserved Greek and Armenian graffiti, as well as inscribed crosses and the sketch of a man riding a camel (Figs. 20.5, 20.6). Among them, twelve Armenian graffiti, containing names and fragmentary phrases and generally dated in the first millennium, have

27 

235

Stone – van Lintn 1999, 195–203.

Georgia Foukaneli

Figure 20.5. Sinai, Chorēb, graffiti at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley.

Figure 20.6. Sinai, Chorēb, graffiti at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley.

be dated in the 6th–7th centuries.28 The Greek graffiti are damaged, because of the exfoliation of the granite rock. An unpublished acclamation in four lines, in majuscule letters might be dated up to the 9th century, and can be read as following: «Κ[ύρι]ε β/[ο]ήθησον τoῦ δο[ύ]λο[υ] / Ἰω[άννην] πρεσβύτερον» (‘God help the servant, the priest John’) (Fig. 20.5).

places in the Sinai Peninsula; most of them are found on pilgrim itineraries, close to chapels or other spots of veneration.29 Therefore, the concentration of a great number of graffiti at the site could be regarded as an additional argument for the identification of the surveyed ruins with a chapel. The spot corresponds to the descriptions of the pilgrim accounts of the 14th century about a church located to the right of the ‘path of the steps’ on the way from the Sinai Monastery to the Holy

Graffiti containing proper names, invocations, incised crosses and sketches of caravans are traced in several

29  Ševčenko 1966, 257, 263–264, nr. 12, 13; Negev 1977, 73–80; Stone 1982, 25–52; Ovadiah 1985, 77–79, pl. I–III; Kraack 1997, 42–289.

For the dating of the cross fourchée type, see Kalopissi-Verti 1999, 248–249. 28 

236

The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb

Figure 20.7. Mount Sinai, plan of the area ( : Churches;

: Paths).

Summit and opposite to Prophet Elias’ complex. (Fig. 20.7) It is probably the site wherefrom the pilgrim Gucci counted the distance from the valley to the Summit of the Mountain, since the summit cannot be seen from Prophet Elias’ complex itself. Although not easily noticed by someone who follows the path of the steps on his way up to the Holy Summit, pilgrims could visit this church while resting in the Valley or descending from the Summit and taking the path which traverses Chorēb, connecting through its branches the chapels recorded in the Greek proskynētaria of the 16th and 17th centuries; thus, the unknown church of the Virgin which they mention, could be plausibly identified with the chapel recorded in the pilgrim accounts of Frescobaldi, Gucci and Ogier d’Anglure.

the Prophet Elias’ complex and clearly attests that it was dedicated to the Mother of God, information already alluded to in the pilgrim texts. The donation of both manuscripts, the Georgian Lectionary and the Chorēb Gospel, reflects the care of the Sinai monastic community to support the chapel in its liturgical needs. Already destroyed by the 16th century, its memory was preserved for up to a century later in Greek proskynētaria. The remains of a modest construction investigated at the northwestern edge of the Prophet Elias’ Valley, considered along with graffiti on the nearby rocks attributed to pilgrims, may belong to the chapel in question, since the site corresponds to the topographical information provided by the written sources. An excavation at the spot would verify our hypothesis, and also specify the frames of the chapel’s existence.

The lack of evidence about the chapel of the Mother of God in the proskynētarion of Paisios Hagiapostolitēs and the ‘Epitomē’ of Patriarch Nektarios may tell against our hypothesis, since both texts preserve the valuable testimony of their authors, as monks of the Sinai monastic community. The eventual collapse of the chapel before the 16th century may however explain the silence of these texts; on the other hand, the vague references in the Greek proskynētaria may probably derive from a 16th or 17th-centuries elaboration of earlier – but now missing – pilgrim guides.

Primary Literature Aleksidze – Shanidze – Khevsuriani – Kavtaria 2005: Aleksidze, Zaza – Shanidze, Mzekala – Khevsuriani, Lily – Kavtaria, Michael, The New Finds of Sinai, Catalogue of Georgian Manuscripts discovered in 1975 at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai, engl. transl. M. Shanidze, Athens 2005. Amantos 1928: Ἄμαντος, Κωνσταντῑνος, Σιναϊτικὰ Μνημεῖα Ἀνέκδοτα, ἐν Ἀθήναις 1928 (Ἑλληνικὰ, Παράρτημα 1).

To summarize, a chapel dedicated to the Mother of God was evidently standing in the area of the Prophet Elias’ Valley in the late Middle Ages. Pilgrim accounts of the 14th century indicate its location, while the marginal note of the Georgian Lectionary verifies its vicinity to

Anonymous, Ivēron 535 (16th c.): «Ιβήρων 535.22», in Kadas 2003, 32–38, 87–92. Anonymous, Ivēron 694 (a. 1611): «Ιβήρων 694.4», in Kadas 2003, 39–42, 107–117. 237

Georgia Foukaneli Anonymous, Koutloumousiou 390 (a. 1630): «Kουτλουμουσίου 390.2», in Kadas 2003, 56–59, 145–150.

Sigoli 1384: ‘Simone Sigoli, Viaggio al Monte Sinai’, (a c. Antonio Lanza), in Lanza – Troncarelli 1990, 217–255.

Bellorini – Hoade 1948: Visit to the Holy Places of Egypt, Sinai, Palestine and Syria in 1384 by Frescobaldi, Gucci e Sigoli, translated from the Italian by Fr. Theophilus Bellorini O.F.Μ. and Fr. Eugene Hoade O.F.M. with a preface and notes by Fr. Bellarmino Bagatti O.F.M., Jerusalem 1948.

Weitzmann – Galavaris 1990: Weitzmann, Kurt – Galavaris, George, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai. The illuminated Greek manuscripts. Vol. 1: From the ninth to the twelfth century, Princeton – New Jersey 1990. Secondary Literature

De Martoni 1394: Io Notaio Nicola de Martoni. Il Pellegrinaggio ai Luoghi Santi da Carinola a Gerusaleme, 1394–1395, [Paris – Bibliothèque Nationale N. 6521 du Fond Latin], (a c. Michele Piccirillo), Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Maior, vol. 42, Custodia di Terra Santa 2003.

Amantos 1953: Ἄμαντος, Κωνσταντῑνος, Σύντομος Ἱστορία τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς τοῦ Σινᾶ, Θεσσαλονίκη 1953 (Ἑλληνικὰ, Παράρτημα 3). Beaux– Boutros 1998: Beaux, Nathalie – Boutros, Ramez, ‘Ermitages chrétiens autour du Mont Moïse’ in Valbelle – Bonnet 1998, 139–143, figs 89–97.

Frescobaldi 1384: ‘Lionardo Frescobaldi, Viaggio in Terrasanta’, (a c. Antonio Lanza), in Lanza – Troncarelli 1990, 167–215.

Bordreuil 1998: Bordreuil, Pierre, ‘L’ image du Sinaï dans l’ Ancien Testament’, in Valbelle – Bonnet 1998, 116–118.

Garitte 1956: Garitte, Gérard, Catalogue des manuscrits Géorgiens littéraires du Mont Sinaï, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Subsidia vol. 9, Louvain 1956.

Braun 1973: Braun, Jean Mary, St. Catherine’s Monastery Church, Mount Sinai: Literary sources from the fourth through the nineteenth centuries, Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 1973.

Gucci 1384: ‘Giorgio Gucci, Viaggio ai Luoghi Santi’, (a c. Marcellina Troncanelli), in Lanza – Troncarelli 1990, 257–312.

Dahari 1998: Dahari, Uzi, ‘Les lointains monastères du sud du Sinaï’, in Valbelle – Bonnet 1998, 144–150, figs 98–113.

Harlfinger et al. 1983: Harlfinger, Dieter – Reinsch, Diether Doderich – Sonderkamp, Joseph A.M., in Zusammenarbeit mit Giancarlo Prato, Specimina Sinaitica. Die datierten griechischen Handschriften des Katharinen-Klosters auf dem Berge Sinai. 9. bis 12. Jahrhundert, Berlin 1983.

Dahari 2000: Dahari, Uzi, Monastic Settlements in South Sinai in the Byzantine Period. The Archaeological Remains, Jerusalem 2000. Farmer 1992: Farmer, David, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints, with Contributions by R. Calderon, W.D. Cooke, Y. Gorin-Rosen and O. Shamir, Oxford – New York 19963.

Kadas 2003: Καδᾶς, Σωτήριος N., Προσκυνητάρια τοῦ Ἁγίου καὶ Θεοβαδίστου Ὄρους Σινᾶ. Ἀπὸ δέκα ἑλληνικὰ χειρόγραφα 16ου–17ου αἰ., Ἀθῆναι 2003.

Finkelstein 1985: Finkelstein, Israel, ‘Byzantine Monastic Remains in the Southern Sinai’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985), 39–75, pls 1–29.

Lanza – Troncarelli 1990: Pellegrini Scrittori. Viaggiatori toscani del Trecento in Terrasanta, (a c. Antonio Lanza – Marcellino Troncarelli), Firenze 1990.

Foukaneli 2010: Φουκανέλη, Γεωργία, Το προσκύνημα στο Νότιο Σινά (4ος–15ος αι.). Τοπογραφία, Αρχαιολογικά κατάλοιπα και γραπτές πηγές, Unpublished Ph.D. diss., National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens 2010.

Niccolò da Poggibonsi 1346: ‘Fra Niccolò da Poggibonsi, Libro d’ Oltramare’, (a c. Antonio Lanza), in Lanza – Troncarelli 1990, 31–158.

Fyssas 2008: Fyssas, Nicolaos, ‘Moses honoured as patron of the monastery of Sinai’, in Evangelia Chadjitryphonos (ed.), Routes of Faith in the Medieval Mediterranean, History, Monuments, People, Pilgrimage Perspectives, Thessalonike 2008, 243–255.

Ogier d’ Anglure 1395: Le Saint Voyage de Jherusalem du Seigneur d’Anglure, (publié par François Bonnardot – Auguste Longnon), Paris 1878. Paisios Hagiapostolitēs 1577–1592: «Ξηροποτάμου 27.1», in Kadas 2003, 60–67, 151–221.

Gerstel – Nelson 2010: Gerstel, E. J. Sharon – Nelson, S. Robert (eds.), Approaching the Holy Mountain. Art and Liturgy at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai, Turnhout, Belgium 2010.

Parthenios, Ivēron 845 (a. 1586): «Ιβήρων 845.4», in Kadas 2003, 43–47, 119–135. Patriarch Nektarios 1659–60: Πατριάρχου Ἱεροσολύμων Νεκταρίου τοῦ Κρητὸς, Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς Ἱεροκοσμικῆς Ἱστορίας, (ἐπιμ. Παν. Φ. Χριστοπούλου), Ἐν Ἀθήναις 1980.

Grossmann 2002: Γκρόσμαν, Γιάννης, «Οι αραβικές πηγές στην Επιτομή της Ιεροκοσμικής Ιστορίας του πατριάρχη Ιεροσολύμων Νεκταρίου του Κρητός (1661–1669)», in 238

The Chapel of the Mother of God in Chorēb Αστέριος Αργυρίου (ed.), Η Ελλάδα των νησιών από τη Φραγκοκρατία ως σήμερα, Β΄ Ευρωπαϊκό Συνέδριο Νεοελληνικών Σπουδών, [Πρακτικά], Ρέθυμνο 10–12 Μαΐου 2002, τόμ. 1, 151–164.

Negev 1977: Negev, Avraham, The inscriptions of Wadi Haggag, Sinai, Qedem – Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology No 6, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1977.

Hobbs 1996: Hobbs, J. Joseph, Mount Sinai, Cairo 1996.

Ovadiah 1985: Ovadiah, Asher, ‘Greek inscriptions in Deir Rumḥan, Sinai’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39 (1985), 77–79, pls I–III.

Kalopissi-Verti 1999: Καλοπίση-Βέρτη, Σοφία, «Παλαιοχριστιανική λίθινη μήτρα κοσμημάτων από ανασκαφή στην Καρδάμαινα της Κω», Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Κ΄ (1999), Περίοδος Δ΄, 245–252.

Panayotidi et al. 2002: Παναγιωτίδη, Μαρία, – ΚαλοπίσηΒέρτη, Σοφία – Φύσσας, Νικόλαος – Μαγγίνης, Γεώργιος – Φουκανέλη, Γεωργία, ‘Ἀνασκαφὴ στὴν Ἁγία Κορυφὴ τοῦ Ὄρους Σινᾶ (Gebel Musa). Προκαταρκτικὰ Πορίσματα.’ Πρακτικὰ Συνεδρίου «Τὸ Σινὰ διὰ μέσου τῶν αἰώνων», Ἀθῆναι 25–28 Νοεμβρίου 1998, Σιναϊτικὰ ᾽Ανάλεκτα Α´, (2002), 69– 90, εἰκ. 1–12.

Kalopissi-Verti – Panayotidi 2010: Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia – Panayotidi, Maria, ‘Excavations on the Holy Summit (Jebel Musa) at Mount Sinai: Preliminary Remarks on the Justinianic Basilica’, in Gerstel – Nelson 2010, 73–106, figs 20–39, plans 1–2.

Pringle 1998: Pringle, Denys, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Corpus, vol. II, Cambridge University Press 1998.

Koufopoulos – Myriantheos-Koufopoulou 2010: Koufopoulos, Petros – Myriantheos-Koufopoulou, Marina, ‘The Architecture of the Justinianic Basilica on the Holy Summit’, in Gerstel – Nelson 2010, 107–117, plans 1–6.

Sarmanis 2007: Σαρμάνης, Εὐτύχιος, Παΐσιος Ἁγιαποστολίτης, ὁ Ζακύνθιος, μητροπολίτης Ρόδου. Συμβολὴ στὴν ἔρευνα τοῦ βίου καὶ τοῦ ἔργου ἑνὸς λογίου τοῦ ΙΣΤ΄ αἰῶνα, Ἀθήνα 2007.

Kraack 1997: Kraack, Detlev, Monumentale Zeugnisse der spätmittelalterlichen Adelreise. Inschriften und Graffiti des 14.–16. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen 1997.

Ševčenko 1966: Ševčenko, Igor, ‘The early period of the Sinai Monastery in the light of its inscriptions’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20 (1966), 255–264, figs. 1–18.

Külzer 1994: Külzer, Andreas, Peregrinatio graeca in Terram Sanctam, Studien zu Pilgerführen und Reisebeschreibungen über Syrien, Palästina und den Sinai aus byzantinischer und metabyzantinischer Zeit, Frankfurt am Main 1994.

Stone 1982: Stone, E. Michael, The Armenian Inscriptions from the Sinai; with Appendices on the Georgian and Latin Inscriptions by Michel van Esbroeck and Willian Adler, (ed. R. W. Thomson, Harvard Armenian Texts and Studies 6), Cambridge, MA 1982.

Manousakas 1947: Μανούσακας, Ἰ. Μανούσος, «Ἡ ‘Ἐπιτομὴ τῆς Ἱεροκοσμικῆς Ἱστορίας’ τοῦ Νεκταρίου Ἱεροσολύμων καὶ αἱ πηγαὶ αὐτῆς», Κρητικά Χρονικά 1 (1947), 291–332.

Stone – van Lint 1999: Stone, E. Michael –Maarten van Lint, Theo, ‘More Armenian Inscriptions from Sinai’, Ertzetz-Israel 26 (1999), Society of Biblical Literature, 195–203.

Maraval 1985: Maraval, Pierre, Lieux Saints et pèlerinages d’Orient. Histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe, Paris 1985.

Tomadakis 1990: Tomadakis, B. Nikolaos, ‘Historical Outline’, in Konstantinos A. Manafis (ed.), Sinai, Treasures of the Monastery, Athens 1990, 12–17.

Marinescu 2001: Marinescu, Adrian, ‘The Hierarchs’ Catalogue of Monastery St. Catherine in Mount Sinai’, Études Byzantines et Post-byzantines IV (2001), 227–289.

Tzirakis 1966: Τζιράκης, Ε. Nικόλαος ‘Νεκτάριος’, Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ Ἠθικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία τόμ. 9, Ἀθῆναι 1966, στήλ. 396–397.

Mayerson 1978: Mayerson, Philip, ‘Procopius or Eutychius on the Construction of the Monastery at Mount Sinaï: Which is the more reliable source?’, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 230 (1978), 33–38.

Valbelle – Bonnet 1998: Le Sinaï durant l’ Antiquité et le Moyen Âge. 4000 ans d’histoire pour un désert, Actes du colloque ‘Sinaï’ qui s’est tenu à l’ UNESCO du 19 au 21 septembre 1997, (textes réunis par Dominique Valbelle et Charles Bonnet), Paris 1998, 116–118.

Metallinos 1966: Μεταλληνὸς, Δ. Γεώργιος, ‘Παΐσιος’, Θρησκευτικὴ καὶ Ἠθικὴ Ἐγκυκλοπαιδεία τόμ. 9, Ἀθῆναι 1966, στήλ. 1058–1059. Mytiantheos-Koufopoulou 2015: ΜυριανθέωςΚουφοπούλου, Μαρίνα, Βυζαντινά και Μεταβυζαντινά Παρεκκλήσια της Μονής Σινά. Ιστορία και Αρχιτεκτονική. Unpublished Ph.D. diss., National Technical University of Athens, Athens 2015.

239

21 Bosphorus-on-Thames: Neo-Byzantine Architecture in Victorian London George Manginis Abstract: Between the mid-19th century and the outbreak of World War I, a few London buildings wholly or partly copied works of Byzantine architecture. They represent a minority within the stylistic polyphony of Victorian architecture, dominated by neoclassicism and ‘Gothic Revival.› Neo-Byzantine style was reflected either on the decorative details of façades or in the plans and roofing systems. During the 1850s and 1860s, its use was reserved for secular buildings and reference was made primarily to San Marco in Venice. It was first used for church buildings by Dissenters and Primitive Methodists. The Greek Orthodox church of Saint Sophia (1877–1879) as well as the Roman Catholic Westminster Cathedral (1895–1903) moved closer to Constantinopolitan Byzantine style, taking Hagia Sophia as a standard. The neo-Byzantine style was only adopted for a church building by the Anglican majority in 1902, fifty years after it first appeared in the streets of London. Από τα μέσα του 19ου αιώνα έως και το ξέσπασμα του Πρώτου Παγκοσμίου Πολέμου μια σειρά κτηρίων στο Λονδίνο είτε συνολικά είτε σε μεμονωμένα μέρη τους αντέγραφαν έργα βυζαντινής αρχιτεκτονικής. Αποτελούσαν μειονότητα στο πλαίσιο της ρυθμολογικής πολυφωνίας της βικτοριανής περιόδου, όταν κυριαρχούσαν ο νεοκλασικισμός και ο γοτθικός ρυθμός, επενδεδυμένος με αρχαιολογίζουσα ακρίβεια που απηχούσε την «βρετανικότητα». Ο νεοβυζαντινός ρυθμός επηρέασε τόσο τη διακοσμητική των κτηρίων (με τη χρήση ψηφιδωτών και ορθομαρμαρώσεων) όσο και την κάτοψη και στέγασή τους. Κατά τις δεκαετίες του 1850 και του 1860 η χρήση του περιορίστηκε σε κτήρια κοσμικής χρήσης και οι αναφορές ήταν κυρίως σε βυζαντινίζοντα μνημεία της Ιταλίας, όπως η βασιλική του Αγίου Μάρκου στη Βενετία. Ο νεοβυζαντινός ρυθμός χρησιμοποιήθηκε για πρώτη φορά σε εκκλησιαστικά κτήρια δογμάτων εκτός του κυρίαρχου Αγγλικανικού (Διαφωνούντες, Πρωτόγονοι Μεθοδιστές). Εγγύτεροι στα βυζαντινά πρότυπα και ιδιαίτερα στον καθεδρικό της Αγίας Σοφίας στην Κωνσταντινούπολη είναι ο ναός της Αγίας του Θεού Σοφίας στο Bayswater (1877–1879), κτίσμα του John Oldrid Scott για την Ελληνορθόδοξη κοινότητα της βρετανικής πρωτεύουσας, και ο καθεδρικός ναός του Παναγίου Αίματος στο Westminster (1895–1903) του John Francis Bentley, για τους πρόσφατα χειραφετηθέντες Ρωμαιοκαθολικούς της Βρετανίας. Μόλις το 1902 εγκαινιάστηκε ο πρώτος Αγγλικανικός ναός νεοβυζαντινού ρυθμού, σηματοδοτώντας την αποδοχή του αρχιτεκτονικού τύπου από την κυρίαρχη «Υψηλή» Αγγλικανική Εκκλησία πενήντα χρόνια από την εμφάνισή του. Keywords: Victorian architecture, ‘Battle of the Styles,’ neo-Byzantine (style), Greek diaspora, historicism, eclecticism, revivalism, A.W.N. Pugin, J.O. Scott. Between the mid-19th century and World War I, a few buildings erected in the British capital either indirectly alluded to or directly copied works of Byzantine architecture, either using isolated elements or embracing broader principles of design. The adjective ‘Byzantine’ characterises herein architectural features which were sometimes used outside the Roman Empire of Constantinople, but within the area of its cultural influence. The term ‘neo-Byzantine’ denotes structural forms or decorative elements emulating equivalents perceived as Byzantine during the 19th century by the architects who employed them, although today they may not be seen as such. Finally, ‘Victorian’ encompasses the years of Queen

Victoria’s reign (1837–1901).1 The aim of this article is not to trace the genealogy of neo-Byzantine style in London, a task effected by Professor J. B. Bullen in his seminal monograph Byzantium Rediscovered (London, 2003), but to propose a scheme correlating the neo-Byzantine attributes of London buildings with their intended uses within the social context and intellectual preoccupations of the Victorian period. The main questions to be addressed are ‘By and for whom were neo-Byzantine buildings

Mays 2014, 1–5. Two of the projects discussed herein continued into the reign of King Edward VII (r. 1901–1910). 1 

241

George Manginis erected?’ and ‘Why was this particular style chosen for them?’

Saint Pancras ‘New’ Church of 1819–1822 by William and Henry William Inwood (1771–1843 and 1794–1843) are prime London examples of a ‘Gothic Revival’ secularuse building and a neoclassical church respectively. Most architects reflected the general public’s apathy on matters stylistic,9 insouciantly succumbed to the eclecticism of their age, and embraced stylistic promiscuity by working in various styles applied on a multiplicity of buildings, a discord which was the despair of purists.10

The long reign of Queen Victoria marked the apogee of British political and economic supremacy, the age of a global Empire on which the sun never set. Its heart was the riverine city of London, where the convergence of power and capital stimulated a flourishing construction activity in public and private buildings. In contrast to the neoclassical homogeneity of the ‘Georgian’ era,2 the reigns of William IV (r. 1830–1837) and Victoria were characterised by a salmagundi of architectural styles. Predominant among them were a rigorous, archaeologically-inspired neoclassicism and a ‘Gothic Revival’ of varied exactitude. The former was informed by scholarly publications and materialised in ‘Greek Revival’ buildings (a term coined by Charles Robert Cockerell, 1788–1863).3 The latter was heralded in Horace Walpole’s (1717–1797) ‘Gothick’ Strawberry Hill House in Twickenham (1749) and achieved its apotheosis in the Palace of Westminster (approved in 1836, construction 1840–circa 1860), designed by Sir Charles Barry (1795–1860) under the creative tutelage of Gothic’s greatest champion, Augustus Pugin (1812–1852).

The earliest neo-Byzantine construction recorded in Britain is the now-lost Byzantine and Romanesque Court in Crystal Palace, Sydenham (1854) by Sir Matthew Digby Wyatt (1820–1877). A pastiche based on research of published examples from the Byzantine world and on monuments visited in Italy and central Europe, the Court was ‘an affectionate polychromatic anthology of ornamental details’ rather than an archaeologically-correct reconstruction or an effort to emulate aspects of Byzantine building design.11 Wyatt’s guide book to the Court, prepared with John Burley Waring (1823–1875), discussed an intriguing selection of monuments from France, Italy, Greece, and Armenia. Its descriptions betray Romanesque rather than Byzantine influences.12 It was meant to be used as a theme attraction, exotic by definition and in the spirit of the 1851 Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations, for which Sir Joseph Paxton’s (1803–1865) Crystal Palace had been built in the first place.

Side by side with less-frequently-encountered styles, including Italianate, neo-Romanesque, and ‘Jacobethan,’4 neoclassicism and ‘Gothic Revival’ sat uncomfortably next to each other along the street façades of British cities, sometimes even blended into awkward concoctions to the dismay of those supporting an original ‘Victorian’ architecture.5 The cohabitation was not easy and reached a bitter climax in the ‘Battle of the Styles’ that raged during the 1850s and 1860s.6 Although it divided mostly professionals and did not involve the wider public, that ‘battle’ was more than a clash of stylistic choices. ‘Gothic Revival’ referenced British medieval tradition and stressed the country’s island identity despite being sometimes tainted by the suspicion of popish connections (strengthened by Pugin’s conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1834). Neoclassicism embodied ideals of harmony and order, but was often seen as foreign in origin.7 The former prevailed in church and collegiate architecture, whereas the latter was preferred for secular buildings connected to statecraft and the economy, like ministries and banks. Nevertheless, hybrids were attempted and oftentimes the concordance between use and form deviated from militant architectural essentialism and moved into adventurous directions. The Midland Grand Hotel (1865–1873) in front of Saint Pancras Railway Station by Sir George Gilbert Scott (1811–1878), foremost exponent of the ‘Victorian Gothic’ style in opposition to Pugin’s antiquarianism,8 and nearby

The eclecticism of the Byzantine and Romanesque Court encompassed the then better-known monuments of the Italian peninsula which only vaguely reflected Byzantine architectural principles and were exemplified in the 11th / 12th-centuries Cathedral of San Marco in Venice. San Marco had been praised by the art critic and writer John Ruskin (1819–1900) in The Seven Lamps of Architecture (London, 1849) and especially in the second volume of his popular work The Stones of Venice (London, 1853). He was not alone among contemporary scholars, aesthetes, artists, and architects to claim that San Marco typified Byzantium. Therefore, it is unsurprising that neo-Byzantine buildings erected in London during the third quarter of the 19th century referenced primarily Venetian architecture,13 like the façade of Albert Buildings, 49 Queen Victoria Street, 1869, by Frederick J. Ward (Fig. 21.2), the 1864 Mark Lane offices by George Aitchison (1825–1910), and the office building on 123–124 Chancery Lane, probably from the 1860s. A few elements replicate Byzantine originals, like the alternating stone and brick facings, especially around arches, and the banded masonry at the office building on 23–25 Eastcheap, 1861–1862, by the architectural practice of John Young & Son (Fig. 21.1); to 21st-century eyes these examples are much more Romanesque-revival

The ‘Georgian’ era corresponds to the reigns of George I (r. 1714– 1727), George II (r. 1727–1760), George III (r. 1760–1820) and George IV (r. 1820–1830). 3  Turner 2000, 198. 4  The term ‘Jacobethan’ was coined by John Betjeman (1906–1984) in 1933, see Betjeman 1970 (1933), 41. 5  Mays 2014, 10–19. 6  Porter 2011, 95–110, 135–145; Mays 2014, 4–5. 7  Porter 2011, 36–59, 79–93; Mays 2014, 8. 8  Mays 2014, 6–8. 2 

Porter 2011, 112–124. Mays 2014, 21. 11  Bullen 2003, 131–135; Piggott 2004, 102–104, quote from page 102. 12  Wyatt & Waring 1854, 10–46, 46–116; Bullen 2003, 108. 13  Bullen 2003, 108, 117–131; Porter 2011, 69. 9 

10 

242

Bosphorus-on-Thames

Figure 21.1. John Young & Son, Office building, façade, 1861–1862. 23–25 Eastcheap, London EC3, May 2015.

Figure 21.2. Frederick J. Ward, Albert Buildings, façade, 1869. 49 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4, May 2015.

243

George Manginis

Figure 21.3. T. & W. Stone, Primitive Methodist Chapel, façade, 1870. 431 Caledonian Road, London N7, January 2009.

late 3rd-century octagonal mausoleum at Split (now known as the Cathedral of Saint Domnius) are clear and conform to the preference for better-studied monuments in the western part of the Late Antique world, which would no longer today be classified under a Byzantine heading. The chapel was destined for Dissenters, Nonconformist Christians separated from the Church of England, a telling fact if associated with the next religious building, the heretofore-little-known Primitive Methodist Chapel of 1870 at 431 Caledonian Road (Fig. 21.3). A splinter group from the Wesleyan Methodist Church, Primitive Methodists adopted a particularly simple form of ‘Low Church’ worship and insisted on a plain design for their chapels. Designed by the architects T. & W. Stone, this chapel exemplified these principles by steering away from exuberant ‘Gothic Revival’ or neoclassical decorations and adopting buff brick walls enlivened by Greek cross decorative bands (also appearing on adjacent terraced houses), triple round-arched windows separated by castiron colonettes, openings enlivened by alternate red and buff brick voussoirs, and a broken pediment entrance porch. In its earliest steps outside the secular domain, neoByzantine architecture was associated with ecclesiastical buildings of Christian Nonconformist groups which eschewed the uniformity of Anglican ‘Gothic Revival’ and opted for a less-charged style echoing the beginnings of the Christian Church.

(Rundbogenstil) than neo-Byzantine.14 The practical need for a decorative frontage pierced by several large windows in office buildings was well-served by the dense fenestration, polychromy, and rhythm of these façades.15 Abundant natural light seems to have been the main reason behind Sir George Gilbert Scott’s proposed third ‘Byzantine’ design (1860) for the most fervently-debated building in the ‘Battle of the Styles,’ the Government Offices (now Foreign Office) in Whitehall (1863–1874).16 The secular nature of the buildings discussed so far rendered innocuous any extraneous cultural reference in the neo-Byzantine style. However, its perceived heterodox connotations forced its acrimonious banishment from the Anglican Church architectural canon in the 1840s and the 1870s.17 The earliest neo-Byzantine ecclesiastical building in London must have been the Dissenters Chapel in the City of London and Tower Hamlets cemetery, built by Thomas Henry Wyatt (1807–1880), Matthew Digby Wyatt’s brother, and David Brandon (1813–1897).18 Erected in 1849 in the shape of an octagonal mausoleum roofed by a pyramidal tile roof, it was entered through a pedimented entrance porch. The references to Diocletian’s On Rundbogenstil Romanesque-revival architecture in Britain, see Curran 2003, 179–224. 15  Bullen 2003, 138–140. 16  Bullen 2003, 136–141; Porter 2011, 13, 14, 56, 76–77. The Government Offices (Foreign Office) were finally erected in a classicist Italianate style. 17  Bullen 2003, 112, 158–160. 18  The Chapel was demolished in 1967. 14 

The first church to be built in London for which the neoByzantine style was chosen with clear intent is the Greek Orthodox Church (Cathedral since 1922) of Saint Sophia 244

Bosphorus-on-Thames on Moscow Road in Bayswater. Erected between 1877 and 1879, the church was initiated, commissioned, supervised, and used by the increasingly-prosperous Greek community of London from the architect John Oldrid Scott (1841– 1913), second son of Sir George Gilbert Scott and betterknown for following in his father’s ‘Gothic Revival’ footsteps with occasional neoclassical excursions.19 John Oldrid’s creation could not have been more different from the previous Greek Orthodox place of worship, the Church of the Saviour (Christ Church) on London Wall in the City of London, designed by the Greek architect Lysandros Kaftantzoglou (1811–1885) and consecrated in 1849.20 The earlier building exemplified the neoclassicism popular since the 1830s in the new-fangled Greek state, ruled by the Bavarian King Otto (r. 1832–1862). Thirty years later, Saint Sophia moved in a different direction, consciously emulating the name, shape, and decorative scheme of the greatest Byzantine church, the Patriarchal Cathedral of Hagia (Saint) Sophia in Constantinople (532–537). An agreement between architect and building committee was reached by curtailing the original five-dome plan (inspired by San Marco, itself referencing the 6th-century Church of the Apostles in Constantinople) into a less structurally and proportionately ambitious (and more economical) version.21 Scott adopted a ‘Byzantine’ style in the massing of the building, the architectural details, and even in the cladding of the walls in striped brick externally and colourful marble internally. References to Hagia Sophia and other Byzantine churches were overt.22 Scott’s rigorous neo-Byzantinism was shared with (and possibly inspired by) his Greek patrons, many of whom originated in the Ottoman capital, and was informed by his scholarly readings and contact with the Byzantine scholar Edwin Freshfield (1832–1918).23 A copy of Alt-Christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel vom V. bis XII. Jahrhundert, published in Berlin in 1855 and including coloured prints of Byzantine churches in Constantinople, is now kept in the Saint Sophia Treasury and has been connected with Scott; similarities between the book’s plates and the drawings for Saint Sophia, preserved at the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and at the Treasury, corroborate such a connection. The preference for mosaic decoration on the upper registers of the walls and on the vaults and for marble dado below continued into the 21st century over successive decorative schemes and generations of trustees. It testifies to the deliberate adoption of the neo-Byzantine style (Fig. 21.4), connected to the national as well as the religious narratives of the London Greek community.24

Figure 21.4. John Oldrid Scott, Greek Orthodox Church (later Cathedral) of Saint Sophia, interior towards the apse, 1877–1879 and later decoration. Moscow Road, London W2, 2001.

neoclassical Roman Catholic Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory on Warwick Street (erected 1789–1790, apse decorated in the 1870s, Fig. 21.5).25 The designer, John Francis Bentley (1839–1902), is better known for the Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or Westminster Cathedral on 42 Francis Street near Victoria, ‘mother church’ of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, founded in 1895 and inaugurated in 1903.26 The colossal building featured striped masonry and decorative brickwork on the exterior, Byzantinestyle fenestration, domes arranged over a basilica-withtransept ground plan (inspired by San Marco27) as well as basket capitals,28 marble cladding (referencing Hagia Sophia, Fig. 21.6), mosaics,29 and Byzantine-inspired light fittings on the interior.30 The shape and decoration of the Cathedral stressed the antiquity and authority of the Roman Catholic Church, emancipated in 1829 in Britain under the Roman Catholic Relief Act, while differentiating it from the architectural choices of Protestant Christian church builders. It harked back to the pre-schismatic era

Neo-Byzantine mosaic and marble cladding had been chosen a few years earlier for the altar apse of the severely Konialidis 2002, 27, 31. Theodoritos 2002, 23–24, figs 21 and 22. 21  Konialidis 2002, 31, figs 26 and 30; Ferguson 2008, 27–31. 22  Konialidis 2002, 27–39; Ferguson 2008, 29–30. 23  Konialidis 2002, 31, 39. On the revival of Byzantine art scholarship in Britain, see Bullen 2003, 113–117. 24  Konialidis 2002, 27, 39, 43–54.

25  Fuller 1973, 7–8, 44–46; Bullen 2003, 173; on the revival of mosaic decoration, see Bullen 2003, 142–158. 26  Bullen 2003, 173–177. 27  L’Hôpital 1919, 37–62. 28  L’Hôpital 1919, plate XXII. 29  L’Hôpital 1919, 223–258. 30  L’Hôpital 1919, 208–222.

19  20 

245

George Manginis

Figure 21.5. John Francis Bentley (decorative scheme designer), Church of Our Lady of the Assumption and Saint Gregory, apse, 1870s. Warwick Street, London W1, May 2015.

Figure 21.6. John Francis Bentley, Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Westminster Cathedral), north aisle, 1895–1903. Francis Street, London SW1, June 2015.

before 1054 under the leadership of the pope and to this end adopted an ‘ancient’ style. In the Chapel of Saint Andrew and the Saints of Scotland, completed in 1915 and originally funded by the Byzantinist and fervent Roman Catholic Scottish peer John Patrick Crichton-Stuart, Third Marquess of Bute (1847–1900),31 the mosaics designed by Robert Weir Schultz (1860–1951) included a view of Constantinople with Hagia Sophia at its pinnacle (Fig. 21.7).32 Schultz himself had extensively travelled in Greece, documenting Byzantine monuments.33 The panel represented more than a station in Saint Andrew’s travels; it placed the greatest cathedral of a unified Christian Church at the heart of the most important Roman Catholic building in London.

already familiar from Saint Sophia and Westminster Cathedral, like banded brick polychromy, semi-circular arches, and a low dome crowning a cruciform plan (Fig. 21.8), while Arts-and-Crafts elements in the proportions and style of ornament gave it a distinct, ‘modern’ flavour. Christ Church marked the integration of the neo-Byzantine style into the British religious architecture canon. Beginning with secular constructions of exotic (Byzantine and Romanesque Court) or eclectic character (City of London office buildings) during the 1850s, neo-Byzantine style was negotiated for half a century in church architecture. It appeared in isolated elements on the façades of the Caledonian Road Chapel (1870) for Nonconformist Primitive Methodists, matured in the plan, elevations, and decoration of the Church of Saint Sophia on Moscow Road (1877–1879) for a Greek Orthodox community, and became popularised by Westminster Cathedral (1895–1903) for a Roman Catholic congregation. It was finally deemed acceptable for a church of the Anglican majority as late as 1902. The original inspiration was San Marco in Venice, but after the 1870s Hagia Sophia in Constantinople monopolised architectural references as a standard of structural boldness, decorative

The first Anglican neo-Byzantine ecclesiastical building in London was to be consecrated in 1902. Christ Church on 90 Brixton Road, Lambeth, was designed by Arthur Beresford Pite (1861–1934) and incorporated features Macrides 1992, 5. L’Hôpital 1919, 163–167. 33  Stamp 1981, 61–63; Greensted 2010, 51–71. 31  32 

246

Bosphorus-on-Thames

Figure 21.7. Robert Weir Schultz, Constantinople, mosaic, circa 1915. Cathedral of the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Westminster Cathedral), Chapel of Saint Andrew and the Saints of Scotland. Francis Street, London SW1, June 2015.

Figure 21.8. Arthur Beresford Pite, Christ Church, façade, before 1902. 90 Brixton Road, London SW9, January 2009.

247

George Manginis lavishness, and Christian unity. The neo-Byzantine style began as one of the decorative alternatives to the battle between ‘Classicists and Goths,’34 it became associated with manifestations of national and religious identity of dissident and ethnic minority groups, and by the early 20th century had been incorporated into a widely-shared architectural vocabulary.

Stamp 1981: Stamp, Gavin, Robert Weir Schultz, Architect, and his work for the Marquesses of Bute, Mount Stuart 1981. Theodoritos 2002: Theodoritos, Bishop of Nazianzos, ‘History of the Greek Cathedral of Saint Sophia in London,’ in Treasured Offerings. The Legacy of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St Sophia, London, Athens 2002, 21–26.

Literature

Turner 2000: Turner, Jane (ed.), Encyclopedia of American Art before 1914, New York 2000.

Betjeman 1970 (1933): Betjeman, John, Ghastly Good Taste; or, a Depressing story of the rise and fall of English architecture, London 1970 (first published 1933).

Wyatt & Waring 1854: Wyatt, M. Digby and Waring, John Burley, [A Handbook to] The Byzantine and Romanesque Court in the Crystal Palace, London 1854.

Bullen 2003: Bullen, J.Barrie, Byzantium Rediscovered, London 2003. Curran 2003: Curran, Kathleen, The Romanesque Revival: Religion, Politics, and Transnational Exchange, University Park, PA 2003. Ferguson 2008: Ferguson, H.C.S., ‘John Oldrid Scott and the designs of St. Sophia,’ Yearbook of the Greek Cathedral of St. Sophia 2007 (2008) 27–31. Fuller 1973: Fuller, C. Reginald, ‘Steadfast in Loyalty.’ A Short History of Warwick Street Church Formerly the Royal Bavarian Chapel, London 1973. Greensted 2010: Greensted, Mary, The Arts and Crafts movement: exchanges between Greece and Britain (1876–1930), unpublished M.Phil. thesis, University of Birmingham 2010. Konialidis 2002: Konialidis, Zita, ‘The Construction and Early Decoration of Saint Sophia,’ in Treasured Offerings. The Legacy of the Greek Orthodox Cathedral of St Sophia, London, Athens 2002, 27–58. L’Hôpital 1919: L’Hôpital, Winefride de, Westminster Cathedral and its Architect, volume I. The Building of the Cathedral, New York 1919. Macrides 1992: Macrides, J. Ruth, ‘The Scottish Connection in Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies,’ St John’s House Papers 4 (1992) 1–21. Mays 2014: Mays, Kelly J., ‘How the Victorians UnInvented Themselves: Architecture, the Battle of the Styles, and the History of the Term Victorian,’ Journal of Victorian Culture 19:1 (April 2014), 1–23. Piggott 2004: Piggott, Jan, Palace of the People: The Crystal Palace at Sydenham 1854–1936, London 2004. Porter 2010: Porter, Bernard, ‘Architecture and Empire: the case of the ‘Battle of the Styles’, 1855–61,’ British Scholar II.2 (March 2010), 181–196. Porter 2011: Porter, Bernard, The Battle of the Styles. Society, Culture and the Design of the New Foreign Office, 1855–1861, London 2011.

34 

Porter 2010, 183.

248

Contributors Smaragdi I. Arvaniti studied at the Athens University (B.A., M.A., Ph.D.). Her post-doctoral research examines the different policies adopted by local communities in the field of management of cultural heritage. Her interests focus primarily on pottery circulation from 13th cent. onwards, and on the activity of local mural painters in Kynouria/ Peloponnese during 18th c. She is a field assistant in two excavation teams, namely in the early Christian site of Kardamaina (Kos), and in the late medieval fortified settlements in Andros.

Konstantia Kefala is a curator of Byzantine Antiquities at the Ephorate of Antiquities of the Dodecanese. She completed her undergraduate studies and received her MA and Ph.D. degrees in Byzantine Art and Archaeology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Her monograph “Thirteenth Century Wall Paintings in the Churches of Rhodes”, based on her doctoral dissertation, was published as an e-book by the Christian Archaeological Society and the National Documentation Center in 2015. Theodora Konstantellou has received her MPhil and Ph.D. degrees from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Her research interests include: art production and patronage; byzantine epigraphy; the role of texts and writing in visual art; artistic exchange between East and West; the cult of saints.

Georgia Foukaneli (Ph.D. in Byzantine Archeology) is a member of the Hellenic Archaeological Mission of the University of Athens in South Sinai. She has been a scientific collaborator of the National Hellenic Research Foundation and of the Mount Sinai Foundation (Athens, Greece).

Maria Kontogiannopoulou is an archaeologist, and Head of the Department of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Antiquities and Museums of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Drama, Hellenic Ministry of Cultures and Sports. Her area of specialization is byzantine sculpture of northern Greece. Her research interests lie in byzantine and medieval architecture and architectural sculpture.

Nicholas Fyssas (Ph.D. in Archeology) is the curator of the Sinaitic Archive of Monuments at the Mount Sinai Foundation and a member of the Hellenic Archaeological Mission at South Sinai. He specializes in Georgian art, in history and archeology of the Sinai Monastery, in miniature art of the post-byzantine period and in history of the byzantine studies.

George Manginis (Ph.D.) is the Academic Director of the Benaki Museum. He has published and lectured on Cypriot archaeology, Chinese, Islamic and European art, and the Greek and Armenian diasporas. Books: Mount Sinai: A History of Travellers and Pilgrims (2016); China Rediscovered: The Benaki Museum Collection of Chinese Ceramics (2016); Director’s Choice: Benaki Museum (2021); Ceramics from Korea at the Benaki Museum (2021).

Sophia Germanidou holds a Ph.D. from University of Athens, in Byzantine Archaeology and Art. She has worked many years as archaeologist in the Greek Ministry of Culture and has published her dissertation “Byzantine Honey Culture” under National Hellenic Research Foundation. Her publications include many articles in vernacular architecture, hydraulic technology, iconography. She is currently a Marie-Curie Research Fellow in Newcastle-St Andrews Universities, with projects dealing with water management and landscape archaeology.

Eleni Manolessou is a graduate of the University of Athens (Department of History and Archaeology), from which she also holds a Ph.D. (specialization: Byzantine sculpture). She has served, as archaeologist, in the Ministry of Culture, in Athens and Corinth. From February 2018 she works at the Byzantine and Christian Museum of Athens. She has published extensively on Byzantine archaeology and art in periodicals, collective volumes and conference proceedings.

Pavla Gkantzios Drápelová is currently a postdoctoral researcher at the Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Slavonic Studies (Prague). She earned her Ph.D. and Master’s degree in Byzantine archaeology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (both summa cum laude). Pavla received two bachelor’s degrees at the Charles University in Prague. She has participated in various archaeological and research projects in Greece, the Czech Republic and the UK.

Nicholas Melvani received his Ph.D. in Byzantine Archaeology from the University of Athens. His doctoral dissertation has been published as a monograph (Late Byzantine Sculpture, Turnhout 2013). His studies deal with Byzantine sculpture, Byzantine epigraphy, and Byzantine monasticism. He is currently Research Associate at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz.

Dimitris Chatzilazarou was born in Athens, Greece. Undergraduate and postgraduate studies in Archaeology at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens specializing in Byzantine Archaeology. Doctoral Thesis (2016) focused on the formation of the Monumental Center of Constantinople. Archaeologist in the Byzantine Department of the Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture.

Angeliki Mexia is a curator of Byzantine Antiquities at the Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia (Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports), charged with excavations, museums management, field research and restoration projects of 249

Contributors byzantine monuments in the prefecture of Laconia. Her research interests lie in byzantine church architecture and sculpture, especially in the Peloponnese. Her dissertation focused on the Middle-Byzantine church architecture of Mesa Mani.

and Theology (2020) at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He also received his MA and Ph.D. in Byzantine Archaeology from the aforementioned University. Today, he works as an archaeologist in the Hellenic Ministry of Culture.

Penelope Mougoyianni has a BA degree in Archaeology from the University of Athens. She also has a MA and a Ph.D. in Byzantine Archaeology and Art from the same institution. She has published articles in peer reviewed volumes on themes related to Byzantine identity and Byzantine and Norman Southern Italy. Her research interests are also focused on architecture, regional studies, and cultural, religious and political hybridization.

Giannis Vaxevanis studied Archaeology and History of Art at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2001) and he acquired a Master of Arts (2004) in Byzantine Archaeology from the aforementioned University. Since then, he is working as a contract archaeologist in various projects of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports.

Dionysios Mourelatos read History and Archaeology at the University of Athens. He was awarded an M.A. and a Ph.D. (Icon: its placement and function, 2009) in Byzantine art and archaeology at the same University. His publications and presented papers cover icon and monumental painting, minor arts, historiography of Byzantine art, coinage and the history of metallurgy. He teaches or has taught in several universities in Greece and Cyprus. Christina Papakyriakou (Ph.D.) is member of the Laboratory Teaching Staff of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Greece since 2014 (Dept. of History and Archaeology). She conducts her research in the Centre for Byzantine Research at the same university. Her research fields include the study of mosaic pavements, the public spectacles and the interaction between paganism and Christianity during Late Antiquity. She is member of the editorial team of the journal BYZANTINA. Maria Z. Sigala (Ph.D.), a byzantine archaeologist and art historian, works for the Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades, but has worked for almost 20 years as a curator of Byzantine Antiquities in the Dodecanese. Her publications, till now, concern mainly Chalke, the small island of the Dodecanese, which was the subject of her Ph.D. thesis. Anna Takoumi holds a Ph.D. from the University of Athens, Greece (2020). Her thesis examines the perception of historical conditions in the Byzantine monumental painting of Laconia, Peloponnese (1204-1348). Her research interests focuses on the cult of saints, ByzantineJewish relations, as well as the interaction between Byzantine and western art. Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou is currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Byzantine Archaeology at the University of Athens. She has taken part in digitalization programmes and in excavations carried out by University of Athens. Her research interests are focused on the relation between Byzantine ideology and painting, and on the cult of saints. Georgios D. Tsimpoukis was born in Athens in 1977. He studied Archaeology and History of Art (2001) 250

Copyright of the Photos Number of photo Copyright credit Cover photo Preface photo

Designed by Elias Kouris Anna Takoumi

I.1 I.2 I.3 I.4 I.5

Anna Takoumi Dionysios Mourelatos Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti

P.1 P.2 P.3 P.4 P.5 P.6 P.7

Anna Takoumi Sophia Kalopissi-Verti Platon Petridis Sophia Kalopissi-Verti Sophia Kalopissi-Verti Sophia Kalopissi-Verti Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese

1.9 1.10

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9

Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai Saint Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai

3.1

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Messenia (photo: Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou) Ioannis Sisiou Ioannis Sisiou Nikoletta Pyrrou Ioannis Sisiou Ioannis Sisiou Nikoletta Pyrrou

3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

251

Copyright of the Photos 3.8 3.9 3.10

Nikoletta Pyrrou Nikoletta Pyrrou Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia (photo: Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou)

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Stavros Mamaloukos Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Cyclades Theodora Konstantellou Theodora Konstantellou Theodora Konstantellou

5.1

5.4

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia (photo: Anna Takoumi) Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia (photo: Anna Takoumi) Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Laconia (photo: Anna Takoumi) Lorenzo Riccardi

5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10

Ephorate of Antiquities, Cyprus (photo: Anna Takoumi) Ephorate of Antiquities, Cyprus (photo: Anna Takoumi) Nenad Vukicevic Nenad Vukicevic Hirofumi Sugawara Miodrag Markovic

6.1 6.2 6.3

Nikolaos Fyssas Nikolaos Fyssas Nikolaos Fyssas

7.1 7.2 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.10

Nicholas Melvani Heidelberg University Library Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Chalkidiki and Mount Athos Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Chalkidiki and Mount Athos Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Chalkidiki and Mount Athos Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Karditsa Goodspeed Manuscript Collection, [ms931-370], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia

5.2 5.3

252

Copyright of the Photos 9.8 9.9 9.10

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Corinthia Dimitris Athanasoulis

10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5–10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea Despina Christou Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea After Brenk 1966, fig. 89, processed by Giannis Vaxevanis After Jakšić 2014, fig. 3a, processed by Giannis Vaxevanis Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Boeotia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Euboea

11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.9 11.10

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Dodecanese

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10

Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Antiquities of Rhodope Maria Kontogiannopoulou Maria Kontogiannopoulou Maria Kontogiannopoulou Maria Kontogiannopoulou Maria Kontogiannopoulou

13.1 13.2 13.3

Sophia Germanidou Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Messinia Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports, Ephorate of Byzantine Antiquities of Laconia

14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5

Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti Smaragdi Arvaniti 253

Copyright of the Photos 14.6

Smaragdi Arvaniti

14.7

Smaragdi Arvaniti

14.8

Smaragdi Arvaniti

15.1

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. www.cngcoins.com Auction Triton XVIII , lot 1354, auction date 6.1.2015 last accession date on the site 28.2. 2016

15.2

Numismatica Ranieri SRL www.numismaticaranieri.it Auction 7, lot 892, auction date 16.11.2014; last accession date on the site April 2015

15.3

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. www.cngcoins.com Electronic auction 331, lot 423; auction date 23.7.2014; last accession date on the site 28.2.2016

15.4

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. www.cngcoins.com Auction Triton XVIII, lot 1386; auction date 6.1.2015; From the Joseph R. Lasser Collection for the benefit of The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Ex Dix, Noonan, Webb 88 (29 September 2010), lot 1356. last accession date on the site 28.2.2016

15.5

Gerhard Hirsch Nachfolger, www.coinhirsch.de at wildwinds.com Auction 266, lot 2303; last accession date on the site 2.3.2016

15.6

Copy from Bendall – Donald 1979, p.185

15.7

Classical Numismatic Group, Inc. www.cngcoins.com electronic auction 335, lot 686; From the El Cid Collection; auction date 24.9.2014 last accession date on the site April 2015

15.8

Numismatica Ranieri SRL www.numismaticaranieri.it Auction 7, lot 557; auction date 16.11.2014 last accession date on the site April 2015

15.9

Gorny & Mosch, Giessener Münzhandlung, www.gmcoinart.de Auction 225, lot 2771; auction date 14–15 October 2015; last accession date on the site 17.2.2015

15.10

Copy from Bendall – Donald 1979, p.211.

16.1

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.2

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.3

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.4

After Kleiss 1965, 150, abb. 1, processed by Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.5

After Müller-Wiener 1977, Lageplan (detail), processed by Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.6

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.7

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.8

Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.9

Accessible photo on internet, unknown source, processed by Dimitris Chatzilazarou

16.10

After Dyggve 1960, plate VI.H, processed by Dimitris Chatzilazarou

17.1

The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Vladimir Terebenin, Leonard Kheifets

17.2

Victoria and Albert Museum, London

17.3

Bibliothèque Nationale de France

17.4

The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Vladimir Terebenin, Leonard Kheifets

17.5

After Mango 2004, pl. I

17.6

After Martiny 1938, p. 91 processed by Christina Papakyriakou

18.1

After J. Mijatev 1957, fig. 1, processed by Penelope Mougoyianni

18.2

S. Mamaloukos

254

Copyright of the Photos 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9

Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia Angeliki Mexia

20.1 20.2 20.3 20.4 20.5 20.6 20.7

Georgia Foukaneli Georgia Foukaneli Georgia Foukaneli Georgia Foukaneli Georgia Foukaneli Georgia Foukaneli After Τσάμη, Δημητρίου Γ., Τό Γεροντικόν τοῦ Σινᾶ, Θεσσαλονίκη 1988, χάρτης 1, processed by Georgia Foukaneli George Manginis George Manginis George Manginis Greek Orthodox Cathedral of Saint Sophia, London George Manginis George Manginis George Manginis George Manginis

21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8

255

BAR INTERNATIONA L SE RIE S 3046 `The essays address new, largely unknown and not sufficiently published material. As such the volume offers new knowledge and information, thus making welcome contributions to the subject area, namely Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Art and Architecture.’ Dr Nikolas Bakirtzis, The Cyprus Institute

Art and Archaeology in Byzantium and Beyond consists of 21 papers, which represent the breadth of the research interests of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti and Maria PanayotidiKesisoglou, to whom this volume is dedicated. The chapters have been divided into four sections and each is set in chronological order. The first section is dedicated to Byzantine and Post-Byzantine painting, including papers on wall-paintings and icon paintings. The second section contains four papers on Byzantine sculpture, showcasing examples from different regions of the Byzantine Empire. The third section concerns material culture (coinage and minor arts). The fourth and final section concerns architecture and topography in Byzantium and beyond. It tackles matters of topography in Byzantine cities and pilgrimage sites and investigates aspects of Byzantine architecture and its perception. Overall, this volume offers new perspectives on familiar topics, as well as new material for discussion. The book includes abstracts in Greek. Dionysios Mourelatos read History and Archaeology at the University of Athens where he was awarded an MA and PhD in Byzantine art and archaeology. His publications and presented papers cover icon and monumental painting, minor arts, historiography of Byzantine art, coinage, and the history of metallurgy. He has taught at several universities in Greece and Cyprus. Contributors: Smaragdi Arvaniti, Dimitris Chatzilazarou, Georgia Foukaneli, Nikolaos Fyssas, Sophia Germanidou, Pavla Gkantzios-Drápelová, Konstantia Kefala, Theodora Konstantellou, Maria Kontogiannopoulou, George Manginis, Eleni G. Manolessou, Nicholas Melvani, Angeliki Mexia, Penelope Mougoyianni, Dionysios Mourelatos, Christina Papakyriakou, Maria Z. Sigala, Anna Takoumi, Kyriaki Tassoyannopoulou, Georgios D. Tsimpoukis, Giannis Vaxevanis

Printed in England