Studies in Armenian Art: Collected Papers 9789004400504, 9004400508

Citation preview

Studies in Armenian Art Collected Papers

Armenian Texts and Studies Editors Valentina Calzolari (University of Geneva) Theo Maarten van Lint (University of Oxford)

Editorial Board Claude Cox (McMaster Divinity School, Hamilton) Nina Garsoïan (Columbia University) Michael E. Stone (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) Robert Thomson† (Oxford University)

volume 2

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/arts

Studies in Armenian Art Collected Papers By

Nira Stone Edited by

Michael E. Stone Asya Bereznyak

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Cover illustration: 16.2 Mosaic floor from Shellal, central part. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Stone, Nira, author. | Stone, Michael E., 1938– editor. |  Bereznyak, Asya, 1980– editor. Title: Studies in Armenian art : collected papers / by Nira Stone ;  edited by Michael E. Stone, Asya Bereznyak. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2019. | Series: Armenian texts and  studies, ISSN 2405-7045 ; volume 2 | Includes bibliographical references  and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019015059 (print) | LCCN 2019016106 (ebook) |  ISBN 9789004400504 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004386853 (hardback : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Art, Armenian. | Illumination of books and manuscripts,  Armenian. Classification: LCC N7274 (ebook) | LCC N7274 .S76 2019 (print) |  DDC 709.566/2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019015059

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 2405-7045 ISBN 978-90-04-38685-3 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-40050-4 (e-book) Copyright 2019 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Preface vii Acknowledgements viii List of Images x Bibliography of Nira Stone xv Introductory Remarks xvii Anna Leyloyan-Yekmalyan Introductory Remarks xx Christina Maranci 1

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript in the National and University Library, Jerusalem 1

2

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers 11

3

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285 25

4

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal (Besor Spring) and the Mosaic Workshop near Gaza 40

5

Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art 49

6

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration 70

7

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts 89

8

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood. A Story of a Woman Pilgrim in Art 105

9

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress 114

10

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration 131

11

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden 148

vi

contents

12

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration 173

13

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts 185

14

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf 213

15

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document 224

16

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem 236 General Index 247

Preface Nira Stone (née Weintraub) was born on 15 October 1938 and died on 26 June 2013. She studied and taught at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, at first in the Department of History of Art and subsequently in the Department of Indian, Iranian, and Armenian Studies. Her guiding lights in the study of Armenian art were Sirarpie Der Nersessian and Emma Korkhmazian. Both of them supported and encouraged her in her scholarly pursuit. This volume gathers the articles that she published in various collections and journals all of which relate to Armenian art, and particularly to Armenian miniature painting. It is a labour of love for me to prepare this book and thus make her contribution to the field of the history of Armenian Art easily accessible. The kindness of a number of people have contributed to this volume. They are acknowledged here. Yana Tchekhanovets urged me to turn Nira’s lecture, “Birds from Heaven,” into an article and graciously assisted both in adding some notes and in writing introductory remarks. This essay is here published for the first time. Christina Maranci and Anna Leyloyan-Yekmalyan wrote appreciations of Nira’s work and I am indebted to them both. I acknowledge a further personal debt to Prof. Maranci, who advised me on various matters relating to Nira’s literary estate. Valentina Calzolari-Bouvier and Theo M. van Lint have been most supportive and have agreed to publish this book in the Armenian Texts and Studies series. Samuel Rausnitz graciously translated one article into English. Asya Bereznyak co-edited the volume with me, providing me with many benefits. A particular appreciation is due for her labours in getting permissions for the images. Sinéad Ward of the Chester Beatty Library and Dr. Amy Landau of the Walters Art Museum both contributed to this Sisyphean task. Dr. Vered Hillel most kindly assisted us on various editorial matters. Ms Patricia Radder of Brill Publishers has been a gracious and understanding editor whose counsel was always wise and kind. May her memory be blessed    ‫יהי זכרה ברוך‬ Michael E. Stone Jerusalem, December 2016

Acknowledgements All the articles, but two, are reprinted here as they were published, by the gracious permission of their publishers. “Remarks on the Mosaic Floor from Shellal and the Gaza Area Mosaic Workshop,” in Jews, Samaritans and Christians in the Holy Land in the Byzantine Period, ed. David Jacoby and Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1988, 207–214 was translated from Hebrew into English by Samuel Rausnitz and is published by permission of Yad Ben Tzvi. The history of the other new article, “Birds in Heaven” is related in the Preface above. Thanks are extended to the Editor of the Revue des études arméniennes for permission to reprint: “An Illuminated Armenian Gospel in the National and University Library, Jerusalem,” REArm 14 (1980), 435–441; “The Peregriantio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285”, REArm 18 (1984), 179–196; “A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress,” REArm 29 (2003– 04), 383–401; “The Transfiguration in Armenian Art,” REArm 32 (2010), 201–213; “The Illumination of non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts,” REArm 33 (2011), 251–281; “A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf,” REArm 33 (2011), 239–250; “An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document,” REArm 34 (2012) 371–384. Thanks are extended to the Society of Biblical Literature for permission to reprint: “The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers,” in Medieval Armenian Culture, ed. Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone, (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 6) Chico: Scholars Press, 1984, 329–342 “Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art,” in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, ed. James C. VanderKam (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 2) Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992, 73–93; to the Editor of Hebrew University Armenian Series for permission to reprint: “Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood: A Story of a Woman Pilgrim in Art,” The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, eds. Michael E. Stone, Roberta R. Ervine and Nira Stone (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 4) Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 221–230; to Aarhus University Press for permission to reprint “The Relationship between Text and Illustration,” in Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, ed. Henning Lehmann and Jos J.S. Weitenberg (Acta Jutlandica LXIX:1, Humanities Series 68), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993, 92–100; to Editions du Zèbre for permission to reprint “Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts,” Apocryphes arméniens: transmission— traduction—création—iconographie, ed. V. Calzolari Bouvier, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Bernard Outtier, (Publications de l’Institut romand des sciences bibliques, 1), Lausanne: Zèbre, 1999, 161–169; to The Australian Association for Byzantine Studies for permission to reprint: “Narrativity in Armenian

acknowledgements

ix

Manuscript Illustration,” in Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of Roger Scott ed. John Burke et alii (Byzantina Australiensia, 16), Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2006, 284–291; and to Mohr Siebeck for permission to reprint “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, eds. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg (Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 227–250. The images in the book are used with express permission of copyright holders. We have strived to maintain the integrity of the original articles by reprinting them verbatim and using the same images selected by Nira Stone. However, when it was not possible to obtain permissions to reproduce the original images, we were bound to remove or replace them. We wish to express our gratitude to the institutions and individuals who have graciously permitted us to reprint the images in this book: to the late Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem, His Beatitude Archbishop Torgom Manoogian; Mashtots Matenadaran, Institute of Ancient Manuscripts, Erevan, and its late directors Prof. Sen Arevshatyan and Hrač‘ya T‘amrazyan; the National Library of Israel, Jerusalem; Mr. Garo Nalbandian of Jerusalem; Bibliothèque municipale de Dijon; Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal; Bibliothèque nationale de France; Charles E. Young Research Library, UCLA (Library Special Collections); Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Prof. Michael Gervers; The Pierpont Morgan Library; The Rector and Scholars of Exeter College Oxford; The British Library Board; The Library of Congress; Israel Museum, Jerusalem; the trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin; The Near East Section of the African and Middle Eastern Division of the Library of Congress; The National Library of Russia; Dr. David Jeselsohn; The Library of the Mekhitarist Fathers, Venice. The editors also wish to express their thanks and appreciation to those institutions who freely share of their collections with those pursuing scholarly research. A full acknowledgement and attribution of images to their respective copyright holders can be found below, in a full list of images, pp. x–xiv.

Images 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3

Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 36r: First Page of the Gospel According to Matthew, The Jewish National University 4 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 3r: Baptism of Christ, NLL 6 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 6v: Entry into Jerusalem, NNL 7 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 15v: Angel and the Holy Women at the Sepulchre, NNL 8 Page with Marginal Heads, Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 12 Macarius, Marcus and a Sick Cub. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 14 Mary the Egyptian. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 17 The Six Brethren Who Found Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 17 Paphnutius Meets Onophrius. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 18 Theophilus and the Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 19 Marcus and Serapion. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 20 Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 21 Pambo and Visitors. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 22 St. Paphnutius, St. Timothy and the Buffalos. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 26 St. Paphnutius and St. Onophrius. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 27 St. Paphnutius and the Old Monk. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 28 St. Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 29 St. Paphnutius and the Four Young Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 30 Mosaic floor from Shellal, upper part. Photo by author 41 Mosaic floor from Shellal, central part. Photo by author 42 Mosaic floor from Shellal, lower left corner. Photo by author 43 Mosaic floor from Shellal, upper left corner. Photo by author 45 Bible of St. Paul folio 231r (ninth century). The Morgan Library 51 The Arsenal Bible (thirteenth century). Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Ms. 5211, fol. 252r 53 Hortus Deliciarum folio 60r 55

images 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 6.10 6.11 6.12 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

xi

Armenian Ms (seventeenth century). Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Ms. 1927, fol. 219b 57 Barberini Codex 1097. Vatican, Latin 587 58 Bible of Stephen Harding (twelfth century). Bibliothèque municipale de Dijon BM MS.14 59 From Chartres Cathedral (thirteenth century) 60 Speculum Virginum (twelfth century). British Library, Arundel 44, fol. 34v 61 Anastasis (twelfth century) 62 Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes, Bronze (1455–57) 64 The Prague Haggada (1526). The Israel Museum 66 Caravaggio’s Judith and Holofernes (1571–1610). Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica (GNAA)/National Gallery of Ancient Art (Rome). 67 Allori’s Judith and Holofernes (1609). Galleria Palatina (Palazzo Pitti), Florence. 68 L. Baskin, Chosen Days (1981). Schilman Collection. 69 Jonah swallowed by a huge Whale. British Library, ms. Add. 21160, folio 292, Pentateuch (Germany, early 14th c.) 73 Keran Gospel of 1272, Opening Page. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 1272) 75 Psalter of Humphrey de Bohn, c. 1370. Oxford, Exeter College, ms. 47 76 Lectionary of Mush, 1204. Matenadaran, ms. 7729 77 The Lives of the Desert Fathers, 1430. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 79 The Kiev Psalter. Leningrad, The Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, MS. F6 80 The Massacre of the Innocents, Armenian, Gospel, 13th century. Matenadaran, ms. 7651 82 Lives of the Desert Fathers, Armenian 1430. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285) 83 Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, Jonah Vomited by the Whale. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 200v 84 Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, The Descent from the Cross and The Entombment. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 193r 85 Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, The Presentation in the Temple. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 58v 87 The Entry into Jerusalem. Matenadaran, ms. 6288 of 1211 88 John and Prochorus. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2563 90 The Annunciation with the Jug. Matenadaran, MS. 6305 93 The Annunciation with the Jug (ms. M 7482, 1378 AD). 94 The Annunciation, with the Virgin starting to spin. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2563 95

xii 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11

images The Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. 6201 98 The Dormition of the Virgin. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 1973 100 The Dormition of the Virgin. Matenadaran, MS. 2743 101 The Entry into Jerusalem. Matenadaran, MS. 6305 103 The Baptism. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2568 104 Mary the Egyptian. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 285, p. 420 109 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus 110 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus from the Theodore Psalter of 1066. British Library BL ADD. 19.352 fol. 158v 111 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus 112 Crucifixion and Initial Page, Missal no. 1, fols. 2v–3r. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 1/number 1561 117 Marginal Illustration, Missal no. 1, fol. 10v. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 1/number 1561 121 Crucifixion and Initial Page, Missal no. 2, fols. 1v–2r. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 2/number 1560 125 Marginal Illumination, Missal no. 2, fol. 12v. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 2/number 1560 127 Annunciation to the Virgin, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374. 133 Annunciation to Zechariah, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374 133 Adoration of the Magi, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374 134 Temptation of Christ, King Gagik Gospels, 11th century. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2556 135 Temptation of Christ 2, King Gagik Gospels, 11th century. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2556 136 Entry into Jerusalem, Awag Gospels. J212, fols. 68v–69r 137 Entry into Jerusalem (Ethiopian), 15th century. Dabra Amuna Marawi Krestos, Tegre, Ethiopia 138 Annunciation at the Well, Anonymous of Siwnik, 13th–14th century. Matenadaran 6305 139 Annunciation (Complex), T‛oros Taronec‛i, 13th–14th century. Glajor Gospel 140 Nativity. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem J1920 141 Jonah cast overboard, Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross, 10th century. Photo by author 142

images

xiii

10.12 Jonah rests under the Gourd, Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross, 10th century. Photo by author 143 10.13 Jonah cast overboard, Lectionary of Het‘um II, 1286. Matenadaran 979 144 10.14 Jonah ejected by the Whale, Lectionary of Het‘um II, 1287. Matenadaran 979 144 10.15 Creation, Getty Bible, 1637–8. Getty Museum 145 10.16 Creation, Grandval Bible, Carolingian, 9th century (Ms. Add. 10546, 5v). British Library 147 11.1 Adam and Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, Woodcut by H. Schedel, 1493. Nuremberg Chronicle 149 11.2 The Six Monks in Search of Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 285 150 11.3 Creation. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 1927, fol. 9v 154 11.4 Biblical Chronology. NLI, MS. Or 155 11.5 The Six Monks in Search of Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 293 158 11.6 Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Rossano Gospel. Diocesan Museum, Rossano Cathedral 160 11.7 Mosaic, St. Vitale, Ravenna, sixth century 162 11.8 Mosaic, Sts. Cosmas and Damianus, Rome, fourth century 164 11.9 Fountain (Tübingen, Germany). Photo by author 166 11.10 Mosaic, Cupola of Atrium, San Marco, Venice, thirteenth century 167 11.11 Pluto and Perséphone. Bibliothèque nationale, Paris 168 11.12 Xačʽkʽar of 881, Armenia. Photo by author 170 11.13 Xačʽkʽar of 1651, Jerusalem. Photo by author 170 12.1 Transfiguration. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2563, fol. 69 174 12.2 Sarcophagus, The Louvre. Photographie Giraudon, Paris. 176 12.3 Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. M6201, fol. 62 177 12.4 Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. M974 179 12.5 Transfiguration. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J1956 182 13.1 The Alexander Romance. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J473 186 13.2 Fantastic Animal, Venice. Mekhitarist Library, V1434, fol. 2r; 2b. Bucephalus. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, J473, fol. 10v 188 13.3 Markos and Serapion. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J285, p. 652 190 13.4 Lion and Satan in Physiologus. Matenadaran, M2890 194 13.5 Mosvēs Xorenacʽi. Matenadaran, M2865 195 13.6 Esayi Nčʽecʽi and his students. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J365 196

xiv 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11 13.12 13.13 13.14 13.15 13.16 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 16.1 16.2

images Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i and his students. Matenadaran M1203 197 David the invincible philosopher. Matenadaran M1746 198 Battle of Avarayr. Matenadaran M1620 199 Gabriel guarding a soul. Matenadaran M1620 201 St. Sargis and his son Martiros. Mekhitarist Library, Venice V3041 203 Monastery of Armaš. Chester Beatty Library, Arm 635 204 Cathedral of Sts. James, Jerusalem. Chester Beatty Library, Arm 634 205 Nersēs Šnorhali instructs Mxitʽar Heracʽi. Matenadaran, M7047, fol. 196v 206 Horse. Private Collection, Los Angeles 207 The Constellation “Virgo”. Matenadaran, M3884 208 Jeselsohn page recto. Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn Private Collection, Switzerland 216 Jeselsohn page verso. Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn Private Collection, Switzerland 217 Ornamental Letters. Mekhitarist Library, Venice V623/3 220 Upper Part. Chester Beatty Library 634 225 The Cathedral of the Sts. James. Chester Beatty Library 634 227 17th century woodcut of the cathedral. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem 229 The Initial. Chester Beatty Library 634 230 St. George. Chester Beatty Library 636 232 Decorated Page. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J1933 234 The Musrara mosaic. Photo by Garo Nalbaldian 240 Mosaic floor from Shellal, central part. Photo by author 242

Bibliography of Nira Stone Books 1 2 3 4

The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers: A Study in Armenian Manuscript Illumination, (CSCO Subsidia Series, 94), Leuven: Peeters, 1997. with Michael E. Stone and Roberta R. Ervine, The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 4) Leuven: Peeters, 2004. with Michael E. Stone, The Armenians: Art, Culture and Religion, Dublin: Chester Beatty Library, 2007. with Michael E. Stone, Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 12) Leuven: Peeters, 2012.

Articles 5 6

7 8

9

10

11

12

with Michael E. Stone, “An Illuminated Armenian Gospel in the National and University Library, Jerusalem,” REArm 14 (1980), 435–441. “The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers,” in Mediaeval Armenian Culture, ed. Thomas J. Samuelian and Michael E. Stone, (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies, 6), Chico: Scholars Press, 1984, 329–342. “The Perigrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem Ms 285,” REArm 18 (1984), 179–196. “Remarks on the Mosaic Floor from Shellal and the Gaza Area Mosaic Workshop,” in Jews, Samaritans and Christians in the Holy Land in the Byzantine Period, ed. David Jacoby and Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1988, 207–214 (in Hebrew; herein translated into English). “Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art.” in “No One Spoke Ill of Her”: Essays on Judith, ed. James C. VanderKam (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature, 2) Atlanta: Scholars, 1992, 73–93. “The Relationship between Text and Illustration,” in Armenian Texts, Tasks and Tools, ed. Henning Lehmann and Jos J.S. Weitenberg (Acta Jutlandica LXIX:1, Humanities Series 68), Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 1993, 92–100. “Apocryphal Elements in Christian Bible Illumination,” Apocryphes arméniens: transmission—traduction—création—iconographie, ed. V. Calzolari Bouvier, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Bernard Outtier, Lausanne: Zèbre, 1999, 161–169. “Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood: A Story of a Woman Pilgrim in Art,” The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, ed. Michael E.

xvi

13 14

15

16 17 18 19 20

bibliography of nira stone Stone, Roberta R. Ervine and Nira Stone (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 4) Leuven: Peeters, 2002, 221–230. with Michael E. Stone, “A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress,” REArm 29 (2003–04), 383–401. “Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration,” in Byzantine Narrative: Papers in Honour of Roger Scott ed. John Burke and et alii (Byzantina Australiensia, 16), Melbourne: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2006, 284–291. “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden,” in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise (Genesis 2–3) and Its Reception History, ed. Konrad Schmid and Christoph Riedweg (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe), Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, 227–250. “The Transfiguration in Armenian Art,” REArm 32 (2010), 201–213. “The Illumination of non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts,” REArm 33 (2011), 251–281. with Michael E. Stone, “A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf,” REArm 33 (2011), 239–250. “An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document,” REArm 34 (2012) 371–384. “Birds from Heaven,” with Foreword by Yana Tchekhanovets, published in the present volume.

Introductory Remarks Anna Leyloyan-Yekmalyan

It is with great emotion and affection that I write these few lines of introduction to this book, which assembles articles by the late Dr. Nira Stone. Of her rich and varied work, I would like here to recall a number of themes and subjects drawn from her foundational book, The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers (1997). The culmination of sustained and fruitful research, this book is the only in-depth study of an exceptional manuscript (Jerusalem 285) which was copied and richly illuminated in Kaffa in 1430 and contains the texts of the Lives of the Desert Fathers. This manuscript’s originality lies partly in its rich illuminations, which include 45 full-page miniatures and numerous marginal miniatures. Most of these have no known exemplars. Nira Stone brilliantly demonstrates the complexity of a study on the art of the handwritten book, which involves various and varied fields of knowledge (history of religions, hagiography, textual traditions, history, history of art, iconography, etc.). The diversity and originality of the subjects treated and a singular method, combining simplicity and efficiency, as well as the complexity of the features studied make this book an indispensable work of reference, a veritable paradigm of iconographic and hagiographical studies. Nira Stone had the great virtue of stressing in her scholarly work the importance of the documents illustrated, their origins and their influences as part of her understanding of art. Broad textual knowledge allowed her to reassess the translation of a text, a religious concept, a dogma, a belief, or a tradition into image. The direct relationship between the text and the image form the foundation of most of her research and her discoveries. She also shared her understanding and thoughts on this subject in several articles such as “The Relationship between Text and Illustration” (1993) and “Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration” (2006). In several studies, Nira Stone demonstrates as well the importance of the apocryphal texts in the illustrations of the Bible and the Gospels. The data she collected from apocryphal texts allowed her to propose a new approach in the study of illustration and iconographic reading of Gospel or other biblical images that are enriched with new elements. Through the light cast by apocryphal texts, she was able to show the legitimacy and deeper symbolic meaning of unusual figures and other elements that previously had been misunderstood or simply ignored. From this line of research, she produced a series of articles and communications devoted to various Gospel and other biblical

xviii

introductory remarks

subjects. Thus she dedicated a series of studies to the iconography of miniatures of the Annunciation, the Baptism, the Transfiguration, the Dormition of the Virgin, the depictions of Adam and Eve, the four rivers of paradise, and even the Garden of Eden. These came to fruition, for example, in her papers on “Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts” (1999), “The Illuminations of the Transfiguration” (2010) and “The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden” (2008). She rightly drew the attention of scholars to the importance of folk and apocryphal traditions, often unknown, in the iconography of Gospel scenes. Highlighting the unusual elements of each of the compositions under examination, she demonstrates the importance of detail in medieval imagery which guides us towards the text, tradition or interpretation, of which the miniature is an “illustration”. Nor is her work limited in any way to biblical manuscripts. Her article “The Illumination of non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts” (2011) highlights a very rich pictorial tradition in Armenian culture, of themes and subjects that sadly, even today, are very little known or studied. Thanks to her great erudition and a singularly exact overview of the material, she opened up and illumined a very broad field of research. Young researchers would be well advised to attend to the future development and deepening of this field in which her article established such firm foundations. Indeed, her curiosity together with her fine intelligence and her great sense of culture give rise to very varied themes: “Notes on the Mosaic Floor from Shellal and the Mosaic Workshop near Gaza” (1988), “Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art” (1992) or “Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood: A Story of a Woman Pilgrim in Art”(2002) are excellent examples. Several studies written in collaboration with Michael E. Stone are the true fruits of a shared passion for the art of the book. Different items such as “An Illuminated Armenian Gospel in the National and University Library, Jerusalem” (1980) or “A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress” (2003/2004) reveal studies both painstaking and profound. This holds true equally for the recent catalogue of the Armenian manuscripts of the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin (2012), as well a jointly written orientation to Armenian art and culture, The Armenians: Art, Culture and Religion (2007) produced for that Library. These are precious supplements to our knowledge of this rich collection of Armenian manuscripts, previously described by Sirarpie Der Nersessian.

introductory remarks

xix

All those who were fortunate enough to know Nira Stone personally will always remember her scholarly generosity and exceptional simplicity. I myself was so privileged. Some of her enthusiasm for the history of art will endure within me. I still remember her advice and encouragement on my work and on stylistic studies of miniatures in particular. The truest tribute that we can pay her now is through our students and young researchers, striving to keep alive the work in those fields of research which Nira so generously opened up….

Introductory Remarks Christina Maranci

It is an honor to offer some prefatory remarks on this volume of work by the late Dr. Nira Stone. The essays here display the great range of Dr. Stone’s interests and expertise. In them, she presents new discoveries, and sheds new light on neglected artistic traditions. A wide knowledge of textual traditions complements a commitment to visual analysis; together producing new insights and raising questions for future scholars to address. To read the following studies is to encounter an erudite, insightful, and deeply curious scholar. Three of the essays, which are written together with Professor Michael Stone, introduce readers to previously unpublished material for the study of Armenian art. A patriarchal bull (gontak) of 1666, issued by the See of St. James in Jerusalem, is discussed with attention to its incipit decoration and iconography. The originality of this document is thrown into relief by comparison with a 1645 bull from Isfahan. In her study of a gospel leaf in a private collection in Switzerland, Dr. Stone provides a thorough description and comparative analysis, and contributes to a strong case for the leaf’s production in seventeenth-century Isfahan. The same sensitivity and skill is brought to a study of a seventeenth-century illuminated gospel in the National and University Library of Jerusalem. In each of these cases, Dr. Stone guides the reader carefully and thoughtfully through various material, artistic, and historical aspects of her subject. In so doing, she provides a critical basis upon which to continue scholarly investigation. Dr. Stone’s studies of Armenian scenes of the Baptism, of Adam and Eve, and of the Transfiguration demonstrate a keen eye for divergences from iconographic convention, and their potential relation to non-biblical textual traditions. Concerning an image of the Entry into Jerusalem in a fourteenth-century manuscript from Siwnik‛, she notes the unusual presence of youths ringing a bell in the tower of the city: a motif that she successfully connects with Armenian folk tradition. Her essay entitled “The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts” is a veritable treasure for doctoral dissertation topic seekers, drawing attention to many lesser-known pictorial cycles to be found in the Armenian artistic repertoire. One will note, for instance, her report of illustrations to Eremia Chelebi Kömürjian’s poem the Jewish Bride, which she noticed in an Armenian manuscript held at the New York City Public Library.

introductory remarks

xxi

Another feature of Dr. Stone’s work is her interest in the often complex relations between text and image. Considering the fascinating case of the haircovered Mary of Egypt, for example, she asks: how does one depict a naked female body in a medieval religious text? In another essay, contained within a volume on Byzantine narrative, Dr. Stone notes the various ways that medieval manuscript painters expressed episodic sequences, considering phenomena such as continuous narrative and the use of multiple pages for a series of episodes. Dr. Stone brings to this problem her vast knowledge of medieval art, including not only Armenian, but also Byzantine and western European traditions. Stylistic analysis was an abiding concern for Dr. Stone, and the power of this kind of work is shown clearly in a number of the essays. In a study of the sixth-century Shellal mosaic and related pavements, she challenges the view of a monolithic workshop based in Gaza. Describing and analyzing the composition and figural treatments of various mosaics of the supposed “Gaza school”, Dr. Stone reveals important distinctions among them. This meticulous visual work forms a central aspect to her oeuvre; style is not pushed to the background of, but rather advances, her argument. In this way, Dr. Stone shows clearly the unique value that visual culture holds for the study of history. In her seminal studies of the Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers (Jerusalem St. James MS. 285), for example, she noted the conspicuous use of white in the pictorial cycle. This point could have been made in passing, as an isolated oddity of the painterly palette. Instead, we find a brilliant argument for the symbolic importance of the color in the context of monastic spirituality, drawing from contemporary historical and religious texts. In her essay on the iconography of the Transfiguration, Dr. Stone presents an equally interesting art-historical problem: how does one visualize the change from human to divine? The answers she explores show keen sensitivity to exigencies of manuscript design and production, to the impact of neighboring visual conventions, and also to the possibility of individual artistic agency and originality. The following essays, thus, reveal Dr. Stone as an agile scholar who was equally able in tackling broad and narrowly focused problems. She was not afraid to cast her net wide and yet clearly relished close concentration on individual images. Her work also demonstrates a self-consciousness about the practice of art history. With regard to the Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers, for example, she reflects on the way in which unique images, with no clear visual precedent, typically compel us to seek out sources and influences. Both intellectually important and historically and visually rich, Dr. Stone’s work forms a

xxii

introductory remarks

major contribution to the history of Armenian art, the point of departure for future study, and an essential bibliography with which to teach. A final word should be said about Dr. Stone as a colleague. I met her for the first time in Louvain-la-Neuve, at the 1996 conference of the Association internationale des études arméniennes (AIEA). I was then an anxious graduate student delivering my first paper. I distinctly remember her laugh echoing through the halls of the conference building, and suddenly felt myself among friends. Her sense of humor was infectious and sometimes irreverent; perhaps a hint of it appears in her essay on Judith, in which she writes that decapitation of a male by female hands “should not be viewed as excessive cruelty but as an efficient, technical means of overcoming an enemy who is physically stronger.” Whether meeting at conferences or at her home with her husband Michael in Jerusalem, I always felt her warmth, kindness, and generosity. Dr. Stone has left to scholarship an immensely rich intellectual legacy, yet the world is smaller and colder for her absence.

Chapter 1

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript in the National and University Library, Jerusalem The manuscript belongs to the Oriental Manuscripts Department of the Library and bears the signature Yah Or 4.1 It is an illuminated Gospel manuscript, complete, stemming from the seventeenth century. It is of fine quality and in a good state of preservation.

Physical Description The manuscript is written on vellum. It is composed of twenty-six fascicles of vellum to which are adjoined, at the beginning, six folios of oriental paper, forming a single fascicle. Each of the vellum fascicles is composed of six sheets which form twelve folios and twenty-four pages. Exceptions are the first, the fourth, the fifth and the twenty-fourth vellum fascicles. The first contains ten folios and its outside sheet has apparently been lost (see below). Originally, it too contained twelve folios. The fourth fascicle is composed of a single sheet (two folios). The fifth has eleven folios and the twenth-fourth has fourteen folios. The manuscript thus contains VI paper end-sheets and 301 folios. The pencilled pagination commences with the first vellum folio. The last three folios have columns ruled upon them, but contain no writing. Each facsicle is marked in the centre of the lower margin of its first and last page with an Armenian numeral indicating its position in the manuscript. These were entered by the original scribe and a few irregularities of their sequence may be observed.

1  The material is published here with permission of the Librarian. For descriptions of other Armenian manuscripts in this collection see Michael E. Stone, “An Armenian Manuscript in the National and University Library, Jerusalem”, REArm NS 6 (1969), p. 57–61 and in Hebrew in Kirjath Sepher XLII (5727), p 269–271; Michael E. Stone and Chana Safrai, “Further Armenian Manuscripts in the National and University Library, Jerusalem”, REArm NS 10 (1973–1974), p. 111–117. In the series of catalogue numbers assigned, the present manuscript is no. 5. Changes in the signature numbers in the Library make the signatures given in the second of the above articles obsolete and catalogue no. 2 now bears signature no. Yah Or 7; cat. no. 3 is now sig. no. Yah Or 6; cat. no. 4 is sig. no. Yah Or 8.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_002

2

Chapter 1

Each page is composed of two columns of writing, each containing usually 23 lines. The overall dimensions of the manuscript closed are 10 cms. wide by 14.3 cms. high by 5.5 cms. thick. The pages measure 9.8 by 3.8 cms. Each column of text is surrounded by a frame composed of five coloured lines. From the outer in these are coloured green, red (sometimes faded), black, gold, black. The total width of this frame is 0.35 cms. The upper margin is 1.3 cms. wide, the outer margin 2.2 cms. wide and the inner margin 0.8 cms. wide. Between the framed columns is a space of 0.3 cms. The actual area of each column is 2.5 by 9.4 cms. (inner area of the frame). Below the text is the Eusebian apparatus which approaches within 0.7 cms. of the bottom of the page in some places. The overall width of the bottom margin is 2.8 cms. No signs of ruling can be observed, but pricking is found in the outer margins of a few folios. The frames referred to in the preceding paragraph were prepared before the writing of the pages. This is evident from the three folios at the end of the manuscript upon which frames are found without the text having been entered. These folios were intended for the colophon as is evident from the first word of the doxology which is found on the first of these folios, at the top of column I. It is with a doxology that the colophons of Armenian manuscripts customarily open. The manuscript is generally in a good state of preservation. Two folios have remnants of threads attached to their outer margins. These perhaps indicate liturgical use, a suggestion borne out by the finger marking on some folios. The ink has rubbed in some instances. The binding is leather over cardboard and may well be original. The binding on the spine has been repaired in modern leather. The leather of the binding is stamped with the design of a cross within a frame of interlace. There are holes in the covers indicating that they originally had metal or other ornaments mounted on them. There are two holes close to one another at about the middle of the outer edge of the front and back covers. These served to anchor pins or ties for holding the book closed. The inside of the covers is lined with a reddish cloth, without any design.

Script The first page of each Gospel is written in ornamental scripts, combining ornithomorphic letters, coloured uncial letters and coloured and gilt miniscule letters. The following patterns may be observed:

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript

3

– Matthew: one line of ornithomorphic letters, two lines of gilt uncial letters, one line of gilt minuscule letters (fol. 36r) (fig. 1.1); – Mark: one line of decorated uncial letters, one line of gilt uncial letters, one line of red uncial letters, one line of gilt uncial letters and one line of red minuscule letters (fol. 111r); – Luke: one line of ornithomorphic letters, one line of red uncial letters with some signs of gold on them, one line of gilt uncial letters, one line of red uncial letters with some signs of gold on them (fol. 160r); – John: one line of decorated uncial letters, two lines of gold uncial letters, one line of gold minuscule letters. In the ornithomorphic and decorated letters red, orange and blue have been employed, as well as gold. The body of the text is written in regular bolorgir (minuscule) script of the style employed in the seventeenth century, in black ink. Two different scribes seem to have been employed in copying the manuscript. The first wrote the second, third, fourth and fifth fascicles: the first fascicle is composed exclusively of miniature paintings. The second scribe, who seems to have been called Petros, wrote the rest of the manuscript. The Eusebian apparatus was written by the same scribes and in the same style. Each verse commences with a coloured capital and each major section is marked by a decorated capital and a marginal ornament in the outer margin.

Headpieces, Marginal Ornaments and Miniatures At the commencement of each Gospel is a major ornamental headpiece (fols. 36r, 111r, 160r, 237r). The first letter of each Gospel is fantastic in form, enlarged and elongated. For Matthew and Luke elaborate ornamental letters are found (fig. 1.1), for Mark it takes on the form of two dogs with intertwined tails and for John that of two birds. The marginal ornaments which may be observed at the beginning of each section of the text are usually purely decorative. They are intricate in design and are generally coloured in shades of blue, green, purple, gold, red and orange. In certain cases, instead of a decorative ornament, a figurative design is found. These are: fol. 40v, John the Baptist, opposite Matt. 3, 1; fol. 92r, Temple, opposite Matt. 24, 1; fol. 156v, Christ, opposite Mark 15,42; fol. 162r, Angel Gabriel, opposite Luke 1, 26.

4

Chapter 1

figure 1.1 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 36r: First Page of the Gospel According to Matthew, The Jewish National University

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript

5

Full-Page Miniatures The text and Canon Tables are preceded by a cycle of full-page miniature paintings. These are: fol. 1r, Nativity, Washing of the Newborn, Adoration of the Magi; fol. 2v, Presentation of Christ in the Temple; fol. 3r. Baptism of Christ (Plate II); fol. 4v, Transfiguration; fol. 5r, Raising of Lazarus; fol. 6v, Entry into Jerusalem (Plate III); fol. 7r, Washing of the Feet; fol. 8v, Christ Proffering Chalice to the Disciples; fol. 9r, Betrayal of Judas; fol. 10v, The Flagellation; fol. 11v, Discourse with the Disciples; fol. 12r, Crucifixion; fol. 13v, The Entombment; fol. 14r, Bearing of the Cross; fol. 15v, Angel and the Holy Women at the Sepulchre (Plate IV); fol. 16r, Christ and the Three Women; fol. 17v, Christ Walking on the Water; fol. 18r, Christ Healing the Leper; fol. 19v, Christ’s Ascent into Heaven; fol. 20r, Descent of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost); fol. 21v, Cross Ornamented with Four Angels Sounding Trumpets; fol. 22r, Deisis. The loss of the outside sheet of fascicle 1 has resulted in the irregularity of succession of folios 10v, 11v, 12r. The miniature paintings are characterized by simplicity both of style and iconography. In spite of the wealth of colour, there is no attempt at naturalism, even a stylized naturalism; there is no attempt to convey depth or perspective although this is typical of Armenian manuscript painting from even earlier periods. The scenes are generally presented on a single plane, the figures are static, there is no movement and the lines are straight. The stance of the figures is awkward in many instances, such as the angel who is either sitting or standing upon the empty tomb (see fig. 1.4). There is no attempt at modelling in the faces of the figures. There are distortions in the proportions of the naked body where different parts of the body are not coordinated at their joints and are even turned in differing directions (so in the Baptism and the Crucifixion)

6

Chapter 1

figure 1.2 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 3r: Baptism of Christ, NLL

(see fig. 1.2). This same phenomenon may also be observed in clothed bodies, such as the angel above the tomb (fig. 1.4). Another example of this tendency is in the Discourse with the Disciples (fol. 11v), where Jesus, painted in profile, is seated on a chair which is en face. In iconography, too, only the essential elements are preserved and the presentation of the scenes is almost symbolic. So, for example, the Baptism represents only Jesus and John the Baptist (fig. 1.2). All other participants are missing, except for a single lamb. The painter felt that, nonetheless, the area was full enough, but he wished to add the traditional, typical trees of Armenian miniatures, and so he added one outside the picture, in the right margin. Similarly, the Entry into Jerusalem lacks the houses, the city walls and even the tree which regularly appear in this scene (fig. 1.3). In the Transfiguration, the three witness of the event sit formally in a row, in frontal position. This is opposed

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript

7

figure 1.3 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 6v: Entry into Jerusalem, NNL

to the predominating form of this scene in Armenian miniature painting from the 11th to the 17th century. An old element which has survived is the scroll which Jesus holds in the scenes of the Betrayal of Judas (fol. 9r) and the Entry into Jerusalem (fig. 1.3). Thus, in spite of rich colours and lavish use of gold, a simplicity of execution and style can be observed which contrast with the richness of many of the paintings of this period. The painter would or could not use the elaborate and sophisticated style of contemporary and earlier paintings. In contrast with the miniature paintings, the Canon Tables, the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus and the headpieces at the start of the Gospels are richly ornamented in a more sophisticated and elaborate style (fig. 1.1). The contrast with the paintings mentioned above is so strong as to suggest that two painters may have been at work. At the start of each Gospel, a full-page portrait of the Evangelist is found. These are: fol. 35v, Matthew; fol. 110v, Mark; fol. 159v, Luke; fol. 236v, John.

8

Chapter 1

figure 1.4 Yah. Ms. Or. 4 (Four Gospels) fol. 15v: Angel and the Holy Women at the Sepulchre, NNL

Following the opening cycle of paintings the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus occurs (fols. 23v–24r) and then ten Canon Tables (fols. 25v, 26r, 27v, 28r, 29v, 30r, 31v, 32r, 33v, 34r). On the last two of these folios the frames for the Tables have been prepared, but the actual text of the Tables has not been entered.

The Text The text of the Four Gospels is apparently complete. A sample of text drawn from Matt. chs. 3–4 was examined. It was collated with Zōhrapean’s edition of the Bible and the variants listed below were noted. In the list, the lemma is always Zōhrapean’s text. The variant is the text of the manuscript and, if the same variant occurs in Zōhrapean’s apparatus, this is signalled by the notation ‘= Z app’. Minor spelling variants are not noted.2

2  Y. Zōhrapean, Astuacašunč‛ Matean Hin ew Nor Ktakaranac‛ [Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments] (Venice 1805).

An Illuminated Armenian Gospel Manuscript

Matt. 3:3 4 9 11 13 14

4:1 4 6 7 8 12 16 18 21 22 25

zc̆anaparh stewoy hamaric‛ik‛ zknin mkrtel asē mkrtel tur ayžm ardarut‛iwns p‛orjel ē zotn greal ē mi barjr meknec‛aw žołovurd i 1o uṙkan zuṙkans ew koč‛eac‛ znosa zhayr žołovurdk‛ bazumk‛

9

] zc̆anaparhs = Z app ] stew = Z app ] hamarik‛ = Z app ] zkni = Z app ] mkrtil ] asēr = Z app ] mkrtil ]~ ] ardarut‛iwn = Z app ] p‛orjeal = Z app ] omits ] otn ] omits ]~ ] + ew = Z app ] žołovur (corruption) ] + i (dittography) ]uṙkann ]zuṙkansn ]omits ]zhayrn ]žołovurd bazum

Scribal Notes and Seals As commented above, the main colophon of the manuscript was never written. There are, however, two short notes by the original scribe of the second part of the manuscript. In one of them his name is preserved, but no further information about him. That one reads (fol. 109r): Petros anaržan yis̆eay ov handipoł Remember Petros the unworthy one, O reader. The other one occurs on fol. 235v. On fols. 23v–24v the signature of one Yakob Galustean and the impression of his seal are to be found, the latter containing the date 1888 in Arabic

10

Chapter 1

numerals. At the start of each Gospel is the illegible impression of another seal in Armenian.

Date On the basis of the script and general character of the manuscript, it may be concluded that it was probably written in the seventeenth century, although a late sixteenth century date is not excluded. No details of its history are known, nor is there any indication of its provenance. Michael E. and Nira Stone

Chapter 2

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers Nira Stone*

I wish to present the manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers of Egypt, manuscript no. 285 of the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem. It was written in 1430 CE in Kaffa in the Crimea in the Monastery of St. Anthony. Its substantial content is parallel to its substantial physical format. It numbers 823 paper pages measuring 2.7 × 18 × 9 cms. The script is a transitional bolorgir-notragir in black ink with the titles and the names of the saints written in red. Each page has 37 lines of writing, in two columns. The book is in a fairly good state of preservation, although it has been repaired at some points and there is worm damage at others. The manuscript contains 38 full or half-page miniature paintings and a further 500 or so small illustrations which decorate the text. These are chiefly heads or groups of heads related to the stories in the corresponding text (fig. 2.1).1 The Crimea was a cross-roads of cultures of the busiest kind in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and formed a meeting point for eastern and western art. The Venetian and Genovese colonies brought with them their Italian character, and Greece and Byzantium made their own contribution, while the Russian proximity also contributed not a little to the contacts between the various cultures and artistic traditions. This was also true of the local Armenian art which, naturally, developed in this well-to-do and firmly established community. There was a very significant Armenian colony there, active in the ferment of international commerce and the Armenians formed a foreign colony second in size only to the Greeks.2 According to the colophon of our manuscript, it was written and illuminated by the monk Thaddeus Avramenc‛ in the monastery of St. Anthony in Kaffa. He tells how he carried out extensive scientific research in order to locate the

* T. Samuelian & M. Stone, eds. Medieval Armenian Culture. (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Texts and Studies 6). Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. 329–342. 1  Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts (Jerusalem, 1967) 2.107–112 (in Armenian). 2  J. L. Lamonte, The World of the Middle Ages (New York, 1949) 625. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_003

12

figure 2.1 Page with Marginal Heads, Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Chapter 2

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

13

most appropriate texts to include in the composition which we now possess. He relates his search for the best texts in Armenian and, when he did not find them, he searched among the Greek texts and copied from them as well. He illuminated and illustrated the whole so that the painting would attract and give pleasure to the reader.3 Now, Armenian texts of the Lives of the Desert Fathers exist in abundance from earlier periods, but not a single copy known to us is illuminated. A search among similar manuscripts in Greek was equally fruitless—no manuscript was found which might have served as an examplar for Avramenc‛’s rich and artistic illuminations, which are highly original and highly creative. This accords with the painter’s own witness in the colophon. The possibility always exists that the copyist of our manuscript copied the colophon and that Avramenc‛, instead of being an energetic researcher was only a very faithful copyist. There is a measure of scholarly disagreement on this point.4 One thing seems quite incontrovertable—he was an extremely talented painter, even if he copied his paintings from some lost exemplars. On this point, one further small detail may be added: in the Library of the Mekhitarist Fathers in Venice there are, still unpublished, a number of pages containing illuminations almost identical to those in our manuscript, where they survive.5 Professor Der Nersessian directed my attention to them and is of the opinion that Avramenc‛ also painted them. Her evidence for this is the accuracy of the copy. Thus, the discomfort of the figure seated on the chair recurs in both manuscripts, a clear indication, in her opinion, that both were painted by the same artist (fig. 2.2). Yet, we may question whether Avramenc‛, so great an artist that he created the total corpus of illuminations in the Jerusalem manuscript, was still able to make copies so slavishly exact as the Venice pages, in which no hint of creativity can be discerned. However, one might postulate one of two things: (1) that his rigorous training as a scribe prepared him for these two seemingly incompatible activities; or (2) that one of his apprentices did it, hinting at the existence of an unknown atelier, a subject to which we will return later. 3  See above, note 1. 4  There are different opinions on this matter. Dr. Der Nersessian expressed to me the view that Avramenc‛ copied not only the paintings but also the whole colophon. Dr. Korkhmazian claims that Avramenc‛ did not copy the paintings, mainly because no possible model has been found. See E. Korkhmazian, The Armenian Miniatures of the Crimea (Erevan, 1978) [in Russian]. Archbishop Bogharian communicated orally that he thinks that the colophon may be authentic and the Avramenc‛ translated the text from a Greek manuscript which was possibly illuminated. 5  These pages, from Ms. no. 1922 of the Mekhitarist Library in Venice will be published soon with a description by S. Der Nesessian.

14

Chapter 2

figure 2.2 Macarius, Marcus and a Sick Cub. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

The originality of the illuminations in our manuscript enhances its intrinsic value while at the same time creating those problems that generally accompany such uniqueness. We often feel some discomfort where we are suddenly confronted by an artistic work that does not belong, at first glance, to any readily recognizable school, style, atelier, or other category. We always tend to search for influences, relationships, exemplars, and so forth, the more so when

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

15

the work of art is not based on any known previous creation which could have served as its iconographic or stylistic exemplar. The paintings of our manuscript were not the work of an amateur or a beginner. These are paintings of highest professional standards, of excellent precision and quality. There is, of course, the outside possibility that among the Greek manuscripts that he investigated one or more were illuminated, upon which he based himself and that these may have since disappeared. This is, of course, at most only a supposition and, in view of the evidence that we now have (or do not have), we assume that Avramenc‛ was in fact a talented and creative painter and he created and executed the illumination of our manuscript. If, indeed, we accept the assumption that Avramenc‛ is actually the originator of these paintings, why did he do it at just that moment of history and no other? Why did Armenian art wait until the year 1430 to illuminate a manuscript of this type? After all, manuscripts of The Lives of the Desert Fathers and similar works were plentiful before, yet none of them was illustrated. Why did artists illustrate Gospels, Psalters and even Menologia and Synaxaria, but not the Lives of the Desert Fathers of Egypt? The creation of a cycle of illustrations clearly indicates the special importance attributed to the text at that particular time and the value seen in making it attractive. From the time of Avramenc‛ on there are rather numerous illuminated manuscripts of this type—before him there are none. The answer may lie in the general social and political unrest of the period. Civil upheavals were not uncommon in the Crimea towards the middle of the fifteenth century.6 The Muslims were already knocking on the gates of Byzantium. The time had come to turn to the world of the ascetic saints. At Mount Athos the Hesychastic movement was flourishing and spreading fast. It summoned Eastern Christians to flee the corrupt world and seek solace in solitude and prayer. Monasticism became an ideological as well as a political aim of many Eastern Christians.7 It may be that this new atmosphere gave artists the incentive to create rich and elaborate illustrations of stories about the famous solitary monks of earlier ages. The fact that a real need was fulfilled is borne out by the numerous later copies of our manuscript, which thus takes on very great importance indeed. Chronologically and artistically our manuscript belongs in many respects to the Palaeologian renaissance which attributed great significance to saints and their icons.

6  D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500–1453 (London, 1971) 260–261. 7  J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Hesychasm: Historical, Theological and Social Problems (London, 1974) chaps. 1, 8, and 9. See also chap. 11 as an example of its influence on art.

16

Chapter 2

Avramenc‛ generally based the portraits in his manuscript on well-known stereotypes (fig. 2.3). In the iconography of the scenes, however, he is quite unique and without predecessors. Moreover, the combination of the scenes and portraits to form the illustrative cycle of Avramenc‛ manuscript is equally new. Nonetheless, although it was thus a unique creation, our manuscript was copied in the succeeding centuries in its complete form at least six times and it provided many iconographic models that became stereotypes for single scenes or parts of them.8 The most prominent of these is the presentation of the luscious garden as the Garden of Eden with the four rivers (fig. 2.4). The rivers flow upwards out of a rocky background and appear later in all copies of the Kaffa manuscript, as well as in another type of manuscript, a Synopsis of Biblical History.9 As to the stylistic affiliations of the manuscript—most Armenian painting in the Crimea followed the Cilician style. Our manuscript, however, forms a clear exception to this and, as we shall demonstrate, it is not alone. Its style we dub Armeno-Crimean.10 On the one hand the Armeno-Crimean style exhibits some well-known characteristics of contemporary Byzantine style: (1) the division of the background in the proportions of one-third to two-thirds (figs. 2.3 and 2.5); (2) the attempt to create realistic pictures as seen in the paintings of the rocky mountains; and (3) the grouping of figures so that they penetrate the depth of the background (fig. 2.6). Indeed, the problem of depth occupied our painter and we can observe another interesting attempt to solve it in his painting of the sea (fig. 2.7). In that painting, he uses a gradual lightening of lines of blue as a technique to give the impression of depth for the sea and its waves. A strikingly similar technique is employed in a fresco of the year 1479—just 49 years later than our manuscript—in the Cathedral of the Assumption in Moscow to represent the depth of the heavens.11

8  9  10 

11 

The copies are: BM Ms. no. add, 27.301: Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem Mss. nos. 23, 228, 268, 293, 410, 971 and 1409; Venice, Mekhitarist Library, Ms. no. 1922. See S. Der Nersessian, The Chester Beatty Library: A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts (Dublin, 1958) 6. Some observations on components of the artistic style in the Crimea are to be found in H. & H. Buschhausen, Armenische Handschriften der Mechitaristen in Wien (Wien, 1981) 43–44. This analysis does not conflict with ours and they do not discuss the manuscripts we have identified as coming from the Armeno-Crimean group. Indeed, they only mention Ms. Matenadaran No. 3863, justly citing it as an example of Italian influence. This composition is known in at least three manuscript copies, one in the Chester Beatty Library and two others in Jerusalem—one in the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate and the other in the Jewish National and University Library.

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

figure 2.3 Mary the Egyptian. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

figure 2.4 The Six Brethren Who Found Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

17

18

Chapter 2

figure 2.5 Paphnutius Meets Onophrius. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

In contrast to its Byzantine aspects, the chief distinguishing characteristic of the style of the manuscript is that it rendered the human form more correctly, gradually moving away from a flat presentation of form. As in other Crimean manuscripts of this group, our manuscript also shows additional signs of simplification of detail and the shortening of the proportions of the figures (fig. 2.8).

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

19

figure 2.6 Theophilus and the Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

The artist, however, goes even further. He tries seriously to give as realistic a description as possible of the figures. Instead of anonymous figures, he attempts to attribute individual traits to each of them. For example, the usual clothing of desert fathers and other saints receives a personal touch when a group of monks appears in turban-like headgear which identifies them as Egyptians (fig. 2.9).

20

Chapter 2

figure 2.7 Marcus and Serapion. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Yet another characteristic of the Armeno-Crimean manuscripts is the generally limited palette. The colors are indeed brilliant, but they are special in character and include many shades of brown, purple, green, yellow and white.12 All these features differentiate the style of our manuscript and its congeners from the bulk of “Cilician-type” Crimean manuscripts. Moreover, the uniqueness of much of its iconography and of its overall illustrative cycle may also be due to its creation in a distinct tradition. We have, indeed, been able to locate a number of other manuscripts which were painted in the Crimea in a style similar to that of our manuscript. This justifies the new conclusion that in Kaffa there was an atelier that painted in this distinct, Armeno-Crimean style. 1. A page that is sewn inside a Kaffa manuscript of the year 1449 (Matenadaran, no. 1203) presents Gregory Tat’ewac’i among a group of disciples or admirers. Dr. Korkhmazian, some time ago, pointed out the stylistic similarity between it and paintings in our manuscript, particularly in the traits of the faces of many of the small marginal figures. The painter of this portrait may have belonged to the same school as

12 

See M. Ilyin, Moscow Monuments of Architecture of the 14th–17th Centuries (Moscow, 1973) 22.

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

21

figure 2.8 Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Avramenc‛ and have come from the Crimea. This is plausible since many of the young Armenians from the Crimea went to Tat’ew to study.13 13 

This new trend in colors may be attributed to the development of new paints in Trebizond. See G. Mathew, Byzantine Esthetics (London, 1963) 153–4. These may have been shipped to the Crimea.

22

Chapter 2

figure 2.9 Pambo and Visitors. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Other clearly Crimean manuscripts which belong to the Armeno-Crimean school are the following: 2. Ms. Matenadaran, no. 7337 of 1352.14 3. Ms. Matenadaran, no. 3863 of 1401.15

14  15 

Korkhmazian, Crimean Miniatures, 66. See also L. A. Dournovo (ed.) Miniatures armeniennes (Erevan, 1969) plate 69. Ibid., plate 24.

The Kaffa Manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers

23

These two manuscripts contain figures similar, among other features, in their stance and form. 4. Ms. Jerusalem, no. 773, a Miscellany from Crimea, has a frontispiece with a portrait of Nersēs Šnorhali, stylistically belonging to the ArmenoCrimean school.16 5. The Venice manuscript pages mentioned above are also evidence that someone carefully copied the manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers which was apparently important when it was painted.17 As we stated, these pages might have been painted by Avramenc‛ himself, or by one of his students. At this time, then, there existed in the Crimea an atelier or school painting in the Armeno-Crimean style. Furthermore, we can discern in its work both eastern and western influences, as indeed we would expect in this area, a crossroads of cultures. Some of these are: 1. The faces of the figures are elongated, their hair is fair and sometimes even their eyes are light. These features give a western rather than Armenian cast to the faces. This phenomenon might be explained in a number of ways. It could indicate that the painter realized that these were foreigners and not Armenians and, even though they were in fact Egyptians, he used as his model the faces of the European foreigners who were in the Crimea at his time. 2. The limited palette is characteristic of Armenian painting from the Crimea while the mountains and the buildings are in Byzantine style. 3. The purple marble looks Italian (fig. 4). 4. The red carved table appears to be Mongol or Chinese in character (fig. 7). 5. There seems to be a Russian connection. The geographical proximity of the Crimea to Russia is reflected in its art as well. Thus there is considerable resemblance between the stance of the figures in Avramec‛’s manuscript and in the paintings of a much earlier, very important artist, Theophanes the Greek, in Moscow.18 This is particularly true of the bent-over figures in the manuscript (fig. 8). We know that Theophanes worked for some time in the Crimea before he moved to Moscow. Perhaps he left an atelier there, or at least a pervasive influence which is still to be felt in the somewhat later Armeno-Crimean style. 16  17  18 

Ibid., plate 52. This manuscript is located in the Library of Manuscripts of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Archbishop Bogharian kindly drew it to my attention. See note 5, above.

24

Chapter 2

6.

Russian proximity is also expressed in a certain similarity between the painting of Avramenc‛ and the Novgorodian school. The influence of this school may be a contributory factor in the sudden popularity of the Lives of the Desert Fathers, for it has a particular penchant for hagiographical icons which provided amazingly descriptive representations of scenes from the lives of the saints.19

Conclusions The conclusions that are to be drawn from the above analysis of the Jerusalem manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers are the following: a. The manuscript has no clear exemplar, Armenian or Byzantine, Eastern or Western. b. The scenes represented are usually directly related to the narratives contained in the text. c. The popularity of this particular cycle of illustrations in the mid-fifteenth century is probably related to the rise of the Hesychian movement in the contemporary Greek Church. This in turn was stimulated, partly at least, by the disruptive political situation at that time. d. The study of at least five other examples of painting from the contemporary Armenian Crimea indicates the probable existence of a distinct atelier of which the Avramenc‛ manuscript is a chef d’oevre. e. The style cultivated in this atelier is quite separate from the more widely known Armenian style of the Crimea, the so-called “Crimean Cilician style,” although it shares certain characteristics with it.20 f. The analysis of the manuscript’s paintings from a stylistic point of view indicates a number of interesting affiliations: western, Byzantine, Mongolian-Chinese, and particularly Russian—both of the school of Theophanes and of the later Novgorodian type. This preliminary analysis suggests that our continuing study of the Kaffa manuscript will illuminate still other unknown aspects of Armenian art in the Crimea.

19  20 

See Ilyin, Moscow Monuments, 43. This matter is the subject of a separate study by the writer which will be completed soon.

Chapter 3

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285 Students of medical history will probably be intrigued by the following description: “… he plunged his fingers into my side and clove it as with a sword, drew forth my liver—and it hurt greatly—and he showed me the sores which were upon it, blackened and infected, and he cleaned it with his hand … and he approached me and set my liver once more into its place completely cured”.1 The narrative of this exciting surgical procedure which was executed in the middle of the Egyptian desert is only one of the many events relayed by a monk St. Paphnutius about another strange monk, St. Timothy by name, who chose to spend his life in the inner desert in the company of a herd of buffalos. This remarkable event is important not only for its intrinsic interest, but also because it is part of the experiences of the monk St. Paphnutius, himself an ascetic living in the same desert. One day he decided to set out and see what other strange individuals he could find in the desert. His personal diary is included in manuscript no. 285 of the Armenian Patriarchate in Jerusalem, containing the Lives of the Desert Fathers, dated 1430, from the Crimea.2 On looking into the manuscript as if it were a picture album, we discover that it contains illustrations of many personalities in different poses and scenes. Each picture has its own heroes, but among them one group of five pictures is particularly noteworthy (see Figs. 3.1–3.5). In these a single individual appears repeatedly. He is bearded, holds a cane and is wearing a monastic habit and a cloak. From an examination of the stories told in the manuscript it emerges that all five pictures illustrate a single literary piece that was translated into Armenian in the twelfth century and eventually entered our fifteenth century document.3 This is very interesting because, from the colophons of Avramenc‛, the creator of our manuscript, it is impossible to determine which literary model he

1  Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, manuscript no. 285, p. 573. 2  N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts (Jerusalem, 1967) 2.107–112 (in Armenian). 3  Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, manuscript no. 285, p. 591; Haranc’ Vark’, (Lives of the Fathers. Constantinople. 1720) 431, col. 1.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_004

26

Chapter 3

Figure 3.1 St. Paphnutius, St. Timothy and the Buffalos. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

used. He says that he copied, added or corrected where needed.4 The manuscript contains an edition of the Lives of the Desert Fathers which, according to Leloir was made in the fourteenth century.5 It was printed in New Julfa in 1641 and again in Constantinople in 1720. A comparison of the text of the printed editions with that of Ms 285 shows that they were not made from it, but from a different copy or copies of the fourteenth century edition. The colophon at the end of the Peregrinatio Paphnutiana sheds some light on its history. It tells that the manuscript was translated in Egypt by “Reverend Gregory, Catholicos of the Armenians”. This took place in the year 1110.6 The views on the identity of Gregory have been varied. One group of scholars would emend the date and so make the translation the work of the well-known translator and editor of hagiographic texts, St. Gregory Martyrophile. Not only was St. Gregory Martyrophile famous for the translation of hagiographic and martyrological texts, but in his profound attraction for these spiritual figures 4  See colophon in ms 285. p. 72–88. 5  L. Leloir, Apophtegmata Partum. Paterica Armeniaca a P.P. Mechitaristis edita (CSCO Vol 353; Subsidia, Vol 42; Louvain: 1974), VI. 6  Ms 285, p. 591, col. 2.

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

27

Figure 3.2 St. Paphnutius and St. Onophrius. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

he even visited Egypt to walk in their footsteps. St. Gregory Martyrophile died in 1105, however, and the colophon places the translation of the Peregrinatio Paphnutiana to 1110. Consequently, it seems more likely that we should avoid emending the date and assume that the work was translated by his nephew, Gregory, whom he consecrated primate over the Armenians of Egypt and who

28

Chapter 3

Figure 3.3 St. Paphnutius and the Old Monk. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

was also styled “Catholicos of the Armenians”. Martyrophile’s visit to Egypt was even earlier, taking place in the year 1076–7, while some even suggest that he visited Egypt a second time, departing before 1087.7 7  The early date is also maintained by H. Ačaṙyan. Anjnanunneri Baṙaran (Dictionary of Personal Names), s.v.; Garegin Katołikos, Yišatakarank’ jeṙagrac’ (Colophons of Manuscripts. Antelias, 1951), p. 283–288 prints a number of colophons of St. Gregory Martyrophile of the years 1101–2 on such works as the translations of the Lives of

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

29

Figure 3.4 St. Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

St. John Chrysostom. St. Gregory Nazianus and St. Stephen of Rome. There is further information about him in other sources; see J. Dashian, Katalog der armenischen Hss. der Mechilaristen-Bibliothek zu Wien (Vienna, 1895) 25b, 26a, 92a, 348b, 565b, et al. See the rich material in the article by Angèle Kapoian-Kouymjian. “Le Catholicos Grégoire II

30

Chapter 3

Figure 3.5 St. Paphnutius and the Four Young Monks. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Gregory, primate of Egypt, is known to have continued his uncle’s work in the translation of hagiographic texts. Consequently, it is difficult to assume that the translator of the Peregrinatio Paphnutiama was any other than him. The translator found it important enough to work on this particular literary group. Like the translator, the painter of our manuscript also thought that this document was of special interest since he devoted no less than five pictures to it, illustrating four incidents. These are experiences of the monk St. Paphnutius. St. Paphnutius Cephalas (9 February), generally known as “St. Paphnutius the Hermit”, was probably born between 301 and 311 CE. He became a follower of St. Anthony the Great and then retired to the desert to live as a solitary and finally joined the community at Scetis, though dwelling apart and in a remote cell. He became the “father of Scetis” and as such is said to have travelled in the inner desert searching for hermits who lived in remote parts and were

  Martyrophile (Vkayasēr) et ses pérégrinations”, Bazmavep 132 (1975) 3–22 (separatim), esp. p. 15–19. She supports the early date and also raises the possibility of Vkayasēr’s second visit.

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

31

unknown to people generally. The result of his travels are two compositions which survive from the tenth century in Coptic: 1. Stories of the Monks of the Desert in which he describes his travels to upper Egypt;8 2. The Life of St. Onophrius the Hermit and Other Hermits9 which describes his journey into the inner desert and is the document that interests us. In addition, a collection of papyrus letters in Greek from that period was discovered. They were written to a certain monk Paphnutius, most likely our hero, and probably formed part of his private archive. In them, sick people ask him to pray for them and to help them recover. In the words of one of these correspondents—Valeria, she depends on his prayers to obtain healing “for by ascetics and devotees revelations are manifested”.10 From this we can learn that St. Paphnutius was also known among the lay people as an ascetic monk living in the desert and that they were in need of his services. The narrative about St. Paphnutius and his many visits to the desert monks received the name Peregrinatio Paphnutiana. It includes five episodes from his meeting with a strange array of characters: the monk Timothy and his buffalos, St. Onophrius, the four old monks, and the four young monks.

Episode I: St. Paphnutius, St. Timothy and the Buffalos Figure 3.1 (p. 26) After a long and eventful journey into the desert, St. Paphnutius finds himself knocking on a cave door waiting for a sign that a monk lives there. While waiting, he hears a noise and looking ahead he perceives a herd of buffalos and in their midst a strange, wild-looking, naked human being with a long beard and long hair which only covered his private parts. After giving the accepted greetings the naked monk who was called St. Timothy told St. Paphnutius how he came to dwell there: After deciding to take up the solitary life he used to weave baskets and sell them to passers-by. A certain woman hermit came to buy baskets. A word here, a glance there—and she moved into his cell where they lived in sin for six months. After six months he had had enough. He left her and fled to the inner desert where he found this cave, a spring and a date palm. Here too he became afflicted in the liver and was cured by a holy man sent by God as described above. 8  9  10 

British Library, ms. or 7029. British Library, ms. or 7027. H. Idris Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (London: British Museum. 1924) 109.

32

Chapter 3

The stories about the visits of travellers to remote monastic cells have certain constant elements. These include a spring of water and a fruit-bearing tree, necessary for sustenance. These are visible in our scene in which there is also a mountain and the cave which has a door on which to knock. Composition From a compositional point of view the scene is carefully organised, divided into two parts with the spring in the middle. While St. Paphnutius is modeled with good proportions, St. Timothy looks strange, perhaps to emphasize his ascetic sufferings. Condition of the Illustration The blue background is rubbed. The Background The background is divided into two parts. The upper two thirds are blue and the lower one third is olive green. Description On the left: an old man stands at the mouth of a cave. From left to right: the cave is modelled with stylized rocks. The stones are in earth colour, blue and white. In the centre there is a black area representing the mouth of the cave and below, a wall in which there is a double door. This is light orange with dark shadowing and brown outlines. The cave is represented to the full height of the painting. Its upper section is brown-red. At its side is a palm tree the full height of the painting. The Palm Tree The palm is painted with great precision: the trunk, with the stumps of the fronds, the “head” with its branches from which heavy bunches of dates hang. The trunk is shadowed brown, and the branches have some green leaves and some yellow leaves and bunches of dates. The Man with the Staff On the other side of the palm tree St. Paphnutius stands—a distinguished figure in a long, brown-red tunic and robe. He is wearing a dark belt with a buckle. On his feet are dark shoes. His head is crowned with a golden halo, his hair and beard are white. He has a pointed beard, divided into three parts. His gaze is directed to the man who is standing at the other side of the painting. Both his hands rest on a tall staff, and his body is bent and inclines forward. At

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

33

his feet there is a stone construction shaped from which a stream springs, bluewhite in colour. This stream reaches the feet of the opposite figure. The Buffalos On the right side of the picture is a herd of six buffalos. The legs of the three lower ones can be seen while only the bodies of the three upper ones are visible. The two lowest, which are innermost, are standing on the ground while the third is floating in the air. The three lower ones have a forward-moving stance. The animals are coloured a brown-shadowed grey, with dark grey outlines. They have laid-back horns and expressive faces with elongated muzzles. Their eyes are very large, painted with a great deal of white, and above them are eyebrows and prominent noses. They have divided, bovine hoofs. The Elongated Figure At the right of the picture is a very long, thin figure, the full height of the picture. This is St. Timothy. His head is adorned with a golden halo which extends beyond the border of the picture. He is quite naked, with knee-length hair and beard. He raises his hands in questioning and looks towards the man at the other side of the picture. At the top of his forehead, in the hair, is a sort of white square or cube, reminiscent of phylacteries. His body is very elongated and its proportions are distorted. Clearly the painter is trying by this means to represent a thin, ascetic body. The hair and beard are painted in the same colour as the shadowing of the cave. This produces the effect of: a. a mandorla framing the body; and b. a counterweight to the bright (light) colour of the rocks on the other side of the picture. The Spring The spring which gushes forth in the centre of the picture gives a fitting weight to the compositional structure. The man and the mass of animals is over against the man and the mass of the cave, while between are the sky, the earth, and the gushing spring. This even attempts to create depth through diangular circumscription.

Episode II: St. Paphnutius and St. Onophrius, Figure 3.2 (p. 27) Further on St. Paphnutius met a wild man girt with a belt of leaves, whose body was covered with hair. St. Paphnutius hid himself fearing that the man was mad, but he proved to be St. Onophrius himself. He told St. Paphnutius that

34

Chapter 3

he had at one time lived in a monastery, but had left it sixty years before and had lived in the desert ever since. Soon after that he blessed St. Paphnutius and died and St. Paphnutius buried him. In this scene too we can recognize some of the elements which were seen in the previous one. A naked man, (although partly covered), a cave (no knocking and no door), a date palm, and a spring of water. In many ways the composition is very similar to the previous one. St. Paphnutius is introduced with the usual attributes, viz. a monastic outfit, a cane and a white beard. St. Onoprius is modeled according to the accepted formula as recorded by Dionysius of Fourna:11 An old man, naked, with long hair and a beard down to his feet. He is tall and skinny like St. Timothy to emphasize the difficult conditions of living in the desert. Composition The symmetrical structure of the composition is also present here. The solitary stands at the mouth of his cave and the frame of the cave serves as a sort of mandorla for him. The cave itself is highlighted by white highlights. The great weight which is given to the right hand part of the picture by the cave and St. Onophrius is offset at the other side by the group of the tree and St. Paphnutius. In order to elevate the figure of the saint, the painter presented St. Paphnutius as bent over, but with an upright head. Over against this, he greatly heightened the tree in order to complete the balance. The tree extends outside the frame of the picture. The Spring Here too a spring arises at the side of the cave and its water flows to the tree. It forms a fine lower frame for this part of the picture. It corresponds largely to the frame of the upper right hand side of the picture which is created by differently coloured rocks. Thus the effect is created not just of two separate bodies, but of a flattened “s”-shaped imaginary line which relates them to one another. St. Onophrius St. Onophrius is represented frontally, with an attempt to paint him standing with one foot forward. His body has distorted proportions. In this scene

11 

Dionysius was born c. 1670 in the village of Fourna in central Greece. He was educated in Istanbul and, at the age of 16 he went to Mount Athos and became a painter. He wrote The Painter’s Manual, a purely technical workshop manual, probably based on an early model. See P. Hetherington (ed.), The Painter’s Manual of Dionysius of Fourna (London, 1974). The observations cited are drawn from p. 60 of this work.

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

35

a very interesting mutual influence can be discovered when the figure of St. Onophrius is examined. The figure is standing in the entrance of the cave-mandorla with hands raised in blessing, leaning a little on one foot. Similar figures may be found elsewhere, especially in Russian paintings.12 The whole story of St. Onophrius, designed to praise the saint, is clearly tendentious. The next two episodes are the meetings of St. Paphnutius with two groups of four monks the first, old monks and the second, young monks.

Episode III: St. Paphnutius and the Four Old Monks Figures 3.3, 3.4 (p. 28–9) One of four old monks finds St. Paphnutius. He brings him to the others and introduces them to him. The story is uninteresting and without any details. Besides the fact that they have been living in the desert for sixty years, they keep everything in secret and even refuse to tell St. Paphnutius their names. But the painter did not want to bore his audience and so he retailed to them the only two dramatic moments in this incident, the moment of meeting and the moment of parting. The Meeting A building and a church on a hill are set, following the written text, on a desert background. “I arrived at the door of a cell which was built on a high place” a cell, not a cave, and a church. This is probably because the painter imagined that where a group of hermits live they would build a church. Also true to the text, “I arose and fell at his feet and prostrated myself to him” is the closed, balanced composition which moves diagonally into the background. The local hermit is placed against the deep blue sky, producing an effect of emphasis. The Parting The same setting, only on the opposite side and a closer-up, picture-like scene. St. Paphnutius is taking his leave and the four old men are blessing him. Composition This picture, like the others, is made of a closed composition. Around the central scene there is some form of frame. This time the picture is divided in a balanced fashion, both vertically and horizontally. Vertically there are three

12 

V.N. Lazarev, A. Rublev and His School (Moscow, 1966) fig. 109 (in Russian). This is only one of many examples.

36

Chapter 3

parts—the sky, the rocky mountain and the building with St. Paphnutius. Horizontally there are the rocky ground with the cave, the line of men, and the rocky mountain which towers above them and closes on the heavens. The Rocks The special white highlighting on the rocks is particularly prominent. The painter succeded in diffusing this so that it forms a frame/halo for the group of holy men. It appears that the moment that is described is the parting of St. Paphnutius from the four, who accompany him a little on his way. St. Paphnutius He is standing to the right of the picture. His arms are folded on his breast and he is somewhat bent over. The painter has encountered some difficulty in giving his face the same expression he had in the three other paintings of this cycle. In all the other paintings his clothing is made up of a brown garment with a greenish-brown cape, but here blue and white are prominent, from shoulder to foot. The Four Old Men In contrast he has painted the four monks very successfully, attempting to give each a different and individual countenance by varying the shape of the hair line, or the form of the beard, or the length of the hair. Their hands, which are raised to their breasts, are represented in different forms. Nonetheless, the painter preserves symmetry even as he creates variety. The first and third figures have short beards and brown robes while the second and the fourth have long beards and light, beige robes.

Episode IV: St. Paphnutius and the Four Young Hermits Figure 3.5 (p. 30) After another day’s travel, St. Paphnutius next discovers a cave near a spring. Many kinds of fruit-trees were there and it was a spot so delightful that it seemed like the Paradise of God. Here again four ascetics live, but they are youths, pleasant and handsome and clothed in sheep-skins. They approach St. Paphnutius, greet him by name and give him fruit to eat. The visitor stays with them for seven days. Seven years before, a man of glorious appearance had guided these well-educated sons of prominent families of Oxyrhynchus to this place. They had been well-instructed “in sciences and studies” and had planned “to learn the pious life of monasticism for six years”. But they were

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

37

still there living the solitary life and meeting only on Saturday and Sunday for prayer and the Holy Mass administered by an angel. St. Paphnutius stayed with them for these services and then left to go back and tell the world about these and other holy people he had met. Composition The picture is divided into two scenes. To the left the youthful angel is standing at the mouth of the cave and offering St. Paphnutius the holy bread and wine of the Mass. A tree separates them and the background is green and blue coloured. To the right are the four young monks, apparently accompanying St. Paphnutius on his way. He is standing more or less in the middle and he provides the connection between the two scenes. There is a wealth of detail which fills all the area of the picture almost as if the painter was overcome by horror vacui. The Right Hand Segment On a background of thick vegetation four young men stand in a row, one behind the other. Their hands are raised to their faces in a gesture of prayer. They all have light, reddish hair and golden halos. They are unbearded and an attempt has been made to give each of them his own individual, youthful countenance. They are clothed in two-piece garments, the upper part being a short cape and the lower a loincloth apparently of leather. The garments are light brown while their belts are dark, and they are wearing sandals. Between them are plants, flowers and bushes. Before are fruit trees and behind them is a large fruit tree used as a frame. All four figures stand as if up in the air, with bushes beneath them. Here there seems to be an attempt to set the four figures on a more internal plane in the picture than that on which St. Paphnutius is placed, and perhaps to make them higher than him. Nonetheless his superiority as an older man is preserved and therefore they are not excessively elongated. The fruit tree that stands behind the last of them forms a tight frame for the whole painting and it follows the contours of the man. In exactly the same way the lines of the cave at the other side follow the shape of the angel’s body. The Left Hand Segment At the other side of the picture, corresponding to the tree on the right, is a cave. Set amidst rocks, it is highlighted in white. The rocks broaden towards the top, exactly like the tree, and at their lower part an opening and a door can be seen, apparently leading into the cave. Parallel to the lines of rocks stands a figure on the same plane as that on which the four young men stand. At its feet there is a group of rocks, greenish in colour and highlighted in white.

38

Chapter 3

The Figure The angel has reddish hair like the four young monks, and a gold halo. He is dressed in a blue garment with a purple robe and on his back are brown wings outlined in gold: he is wearing sandals. The angel is placed so that his face is turned towards St. Paphnutius. In his left hand is a golden chalice and in his right the bread which he is placing in St. Paphnutius’ mouth. St. Paphnutius He is standing in a stance parallel to that of the young man from behind. His arms are held out towards the winged figure, he is a little bent over and does not lean on a staff. He is wearing his usual clothing and has a golden halo. He is standing on a closer plane than the other participants and because he is low in the picture. He is shorter than the other saintly figures. Between St. Paphnutius and the angel there is an upright tree with leaves, branches and a narrow crown. The two figures stand one at each side of the tree, reminding of an ancient composition (Assyria) and this forms in the present picture a separate scene from a compositional point of view. Furthermore, behind St. Paphnutius is a tree which ornaments this segment from the right. The angel’s garments are different from and more ornate than those of the monks. Here again the artist chose to paint the most exciting moment of St. Paphnutius’ visit with the four young monks, the Mass communicated by the angel. This event concludes St. Paphnutius’ pilgrimage and he returns to Egypt where he relates his adventures to his fellow-monks. They “reduced them all to writing and straightaway took them and ran through all Scetis” (see n. 1).

Conclusions Of the many stories of the Egyptian desert fathers, the artist’s eye was caught by the rich narrative of St. Paphnutius. The story was well known and St. Paphnutius was a revered figure in all the Churches. There were, however, others no less revered and other stories no less popular, yet Avramenc‛ himself, or the painter of his model, chose to devote five major scenes to the St. Paphnutius narrative. This had a number of causes. From one point of view, the St. Paphnutius cycle is rich and offers opportunities for varied and different paintings. In opposition to other stories in the text which offer the possibility of only one painting or representation, and which are frequently similar to one another, here there is ample room for the painter to manoeuvre. For example, the unusual painting of the herd of buffalos; or the meeting of St. Paphnutius with the

The Peregrinatio Paphnutiana and Jerusalem MS 285

39

old monks in contrast with his meeting with the young monks which offers the painter the chance of painting figures of different ages. The story so fascinated the creator of the paintings that he presented the whole cycle in detail. Thus, for example, the meeting between St. Paphnutius and the old monk who told him about his companions is treated as a separate scene, while the painter could have combined this meeting with the meeting with the group of old monks. In the scene of the young monks, he has the opportunity to set the scene in a beautiful garden, a rare one in the stories of the desert whose background and location did not offer much occasion for variety of description—just desert, mountains, and wasteland. There is also a variety of reasons for each of them to become an ascetic in the desert: St. Timothy, fornication; St. Onophrius, the search for solitude; the four young monks, curiosity. Within the cycle itself the painter sustains continuity, uniformity, and connection between the scenes. The chief means employed for this is the figure of St. Paphnutius who appears in each of the five scenes as an identical figure, with similar features, clothes, hair and beard. The design and the colours remain the same for St. Paphnutius throughout the cycle. An exception is the case of the meeting with the four old monks in which the familiar figure is changed to some extent. This too may be sheer chance and the colours may have been slightly different and the angle of the head may have caused a certain change in his features and beard. In Byzantine illumination, the technique of tying scenes together by the appearance of a key figure similarly represented in each of them is well known. Jerusalem 285 also uses this technique, even though there are those who would maintain that in the fifteenth century, with the Palaeologian style, it was no longer self-evident, since painters felt themselves to be less restrained. The independence of the artist, even within a narrative cycle, is one of the characteristics that distinguish the Palaeologian style from the Macedonian. In the narrative of St. Paphnutius in our manuscript we can recognise the transition between the one and the other. On the one hand there is continuity between the five scenes, while on the other hand each is independent and can be understood separately. Nira Stone

Chapter 4

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal (Besor Spring) and the Mosaic Workshop near Gaza Nira Stone

Introduction* Many mosaic floors uncovered in the Land of Israel and its surroundings are on display at sites or in museums there. The fate of the mosaic floor in the Shellal church near Gaza, however, is different. This floor was discovered by chance during World War I by the soldiers of an Australian battalion as they dug trenches on a hill overlooking Wadi Shellal (Naḥal Besor). Once the battalion’s chaplain confirmed that it was an archaeological remnant, the floor was considered a spoil of war. It was unearthed, crated, and sent to Australia. This beautiful mosaic is displayed in all its glory on a specially-designated wall in the large War Museum in Canberra, Australia’s capital. However, due to the remoteness of the exhibit’s location, relatively few scholars have managed to see this important floor mosaic up close. Usually scholars rely on drawings and sketches of the mosaic published in a special booklet that discusses the find.1 Upon closer inspection of the floor, it becomes clear that some of the conclusions scholars have reached in the past warrant revision.2 Of special interest is the question of the existence of the various floor-mosaic workshops in the southern region of the Land of Israel, which are often mentioned in the * Thanks are expressed to Shmuel Rausnitz who translated the article from the original Hebrew, and to Christina Maranci and Vered Hillel, whose careful reading was of great benefit (Michael Stone). 1  A.D. Trendall, The Shellal Mosaic (Canberra: 1957). For details about the floor, its history, and a description, see also: M. Avi-Yonah, “Ancient Synagogues,” Ariel, 32 (1973), 29–43; idem, ‘Mosaic Pavements in Palestine’, QDAP, 3 (1933), 42; idem, ‘La mosaïque juive dans ses relations avec la mosaïque classique’, Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque classique: La mosaïque romaine (Paris: 1965), 325–331; idem, “Une école de mosaïque à Gaza au sixième siècle,” (Paris: 1975), 2.373–383; M.S. Briggs, “The Mosaic Pavement of Shellal Near Gaza,” Burlington Magazine, 33 (1918), 185–189; M.J. Lagrange, “La mosaïque de Chellal en Palestine,” RB, 14 (1917), 569–572; A. Ovadiah, Corpus of the Byzantine Churches in the Holy Land (Bonn: 1970), 163. 2  This article is based on the extensive discussion in my unpublished paper, The Shellal Mosaic, Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1974–1975). My thanks to Professor E. Kitzinger with whom I discussed the subject of this article and who encouraged me to publish my assessment. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_005

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal ( Besor Spring )

41

research. The topic is especially relevant in light of much new data on the extent of Christian settlement in this area.

Description of the Mosaic The floor measures 8×15 meters; it constituted the centre part of the floor mosaic of the church’s nave (Figure 4.1). A series of alternating meanders and squares comprises the entire border.3 Within it the central area is divided into inhabited scrolls created by vines sprouting from an amphora situated in the centre of the lowest row. The contents of the medallions in the horizontal rows are images drawn from the animal world—birds, cattle, and beasts of prey. Various items fill the medallions of the central column—fruit baskets, metal utensils, and a caged bird (Figure 4.2). Much has already been written regarding the meanings of these objects.4 This floor largely resembles certain

figure 4.1 Mosaic floor from Shellal, upper part Photo by author 3  A border of this style can be found also at Ma’oz Ḥaim and in the ruins of Susiya, see: V. Tzaferis, “Maoz Hayyim,” IEJ, 22 (1974), 143–144, PL, 26 (A–B); M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (Jerusalem: 1975), 1128. 4  See, e.g., A. Grabar, ‘Un thème de l’iconographie chrétienne: l’oiseau dans la cage’, Cahiers archéologiques, 16 (1966), 9–16; Ø. Hjort, “L’oiseau dans la cage: examples médiévaux à Rome,” Cahiers archéologiques, 18 (1968), 21–32.

42

Chapter 4

figure 4.2 Mosaic floor from Shellal, central part Photo by author

other floor-mosaics in the Land of Israel, namely those of synagogues at Ma’on (Kibbutz Nirim) and in Gaza, and those of the church in Beit Guvrin, and of the Armenian chapel in the Musrara neighbourhood in Jerusalem, and others. Nevertheless this floor-mosaic possesses its own unique qualities.

Style The tendency toward a hardening of the overall form stands out together with emphasis on decorative symmetry, which is, as is well known, one of the characteristics of the art of that era. However, together with this, the floor exhibits a clear tendency to form soft transitions, making little use of bold outlines, and also attempting to produce as naturalistic portrayals as possible.5 Michael Avi-Yonah, in his extensive research on the subject of floor-mosaics, includes the Shellal mosaic among those made in a central workshop in the Gaza region. He associates with this workshop the floors of Gaza, of Ma’on,

5  Regarding the hardening process, see: E. Kitzinger, “Stylistic Developments in the Greek East from the Age of Constantine to the Age of Justinian,” La mosaïque gréco-romaine (Paris: 1965), 341–352.

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal ( Besor Spring )

43

figure 4.3 Mosaic floor from Shellal, lower left corner Photo by author

possibly that of Beit Guvrin, and others.6 But it appears that in spite of the similar iconographic pattern, the Shellal floor differs from these floors in terms of the stylistic treatment of the different animals. Close inspection of the figures themselves and the method of execution reveal the great skill of the artist of Shellal and his singularity in comparison to his contemporaries. For example, the ram (Figure 4.3) is executed in various hues of red, orange, and yellow. The body is illuminated from beneath, whereby the artist endowed it with volume. The upper section of the body is dark, lightening downwards. The upper segment lacks a clear outline—the dark hues of the body filling that role. An outline appears at the bottom of the body, and only there does it delineate the figure and distinguish it from the background. It is evident that the artist drew this figure based on observation and knowledge of the subject: the body is designed according to accurate proportions; the various bones of the body protrude in the correct places; the tail is fat, as befits the type of sheep found in the Land of Israel; and the legs are designed with precision. The only portion that is longer than usual is the neck. The same qualities are found in the depiction of the sheep to the right, as well as the goat to its left. Whereas the sheep appears as if moving, the goat and the ram stand in position, feeding on grass (or grapevine tendrils). The body 6  See the last two articles by Avi-Yonah listed above in footnote 1.

44

Chapter 4

of the goat has no outline (except for the legs); the dark hair that ascends from the lower part of the body performs that task. The colours are darker—various hues of brown—and the technique resembles that of the ram; illumination from beneath and dark hues on the upper segments of the body. The depiction of the body is plastic: the ribs and muscles are shown; also the proportions are accurate. Everything said regarding the goat can also be said of the sheep. Thus this group is illustrated in a most naturalistic way; the animals fill the vine, establishing an equal distribution of weight between themselves and the shoots. When we compare the design of the ram of the Shellal floor and that of the sheep of the Ma’on floor, it is evident that they differ entirely despite representing the same creature. The ram of the Ma’on floor seems flat, illuminated all over and it lacks the movement, the flexibility, the accurate posture and proportions that characterize the ram on the Shellal floor. The difference in design also between the Shellal ram and the hairy hoofed animal fleeing predators that is depicted in the synagogue floor in Gaza is significant, though the technique of the Gaza floor is closer to that of Shellal than to that of Ma’on.7 On the Gaza synagogue floor, the animal appears as a goat without a fat tail, whose muscled, grey body is entirely outlined in black. The segments differ in comparison with the ram of Shellal that is illuminated from below. Both of these phenomena, in addition to the colour, cause the flattening in contrast to the ram of the Shellal floor. One can observe subtle colour transition in the Shellal floor-mosaic—a technique that achieves a natural look—in the third row from the bottom (Figure 4.3): out of both sides of the central medallion pheasants are drawn, their bodies are damaged—only part of the breast of one is visible. Here too, as with the necks and breasts of the peacocks, the artist employed bluegreen colours that create a shining hue. Likewise he used these colours to design the front segments of the cranes that appear in the flanking medallions. Of the crane on the left only one leg has survived, but in the crane on the right the variety of colours is distinguishable. The fifth row features flamingos (Figure 4.4) depicted very attentively. Their presentation is living and realistic, more than those of the floor-mosaics of Ma’on and Gaza. In Shellal, the flamingo is entirely light pink-white, resembling its natural colour. This colour is created by mixing dark-red and yellow tesserae. The great array in the colours of the bird’s body and the incremental transitions achieve plasticity and volume despite the dark outline that completely surrounds it. As with the other fauna, the body of the bird is lit from beneath. Its design is natural; its neck is long and its beak long and crooked at its tip. Its body is slightly elongated, not hunchbacked, and its plumage is 7  See Avi-Yonah in Colloquium, 2 (fn. 1 above), Plates CLXXX, CLXXIX.

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal ( Besor Spring )

45

figure 4.4 Mosaic floor from Shellal, upper left corner Photo by author

unstylized and faces different directions. The bird appears in a natural and relaxed position. The artist significantly invested great diligence and work in this rendering in his attempt to give to the flamingo a realistic appearance. Among other things, this special effort is apparent in distribution of the white rocks on the body of the bird. A dark outline also encompasses the body of the flamingo depicted on the floor of the Gaza synagogue. But its body is lit strongly from the front, resulting in a large white area around which are multicolour shadings. This flattens the figure and produces a truncated and unnatural appearance of the body, as well as its beak and neck. The leopardess and lion of the Shellal floor are the largest of the animals depicted and also possess the most malleable and naturalistic depiction. Here the artist outdid himself, as if he painted these animals based on immediate observation (Figure 4.4)!

46

Chapter 4

It seems that it was in style to paint leopardesses and lionesses, which were present in the territory of Gaza, just after they gave birth. Whereas in the synagogue floor of Gaza the lioness is depicted suckling, the nipples of the Shellal leopardess are pronounced and red—as at the time of nursing. The body of the leopardess is flexible and it features the subtlest of black outlines. Its curvatures are emphasized by the dark hues of the brown colour of its body. Here, too, the lighting originates from beneath and slightly from behind, which achieves malleability and volume of depiction. The bones of the shoulder protrude in the correct spot, and the leopardess’s whole body appears as if in motion. In the posture there is a bit of distortion, for the left legs do not point in the same direction; but this position is actually possible in the case of animals of the feline family. Indeed, the leopardess is the only one shown in such a stance—an additional sign that the artist painted from sight rather than copying from a pattern book. Comparison between the depiction of the Shellal leopardess to those of its kind in other floor mosaics, such as those of Ma’on, suggests that in contrast to the natural depiction of Shellal, a sort of stylized leopard appears in Ma’on, featuring a bold outline and stripes resembling crosses, which does not accord with reality. This phenomenon of style and inclination toward ornamentalism in the depiction of animals is common in the floor mosaic of Ma’on. Here there is also the tendency to round body parts by means of coloured lines (e.g. in the depiction of the hunting dog or the joints of the lions, the rabbits, the sheep, and the bull). The moving shoulder bone of the Shellal animals is designed naturally, contrasting the design method of Ma’on. This phenomenon is so prominent in the mosaics of Ma’on that it appears to be the artist’s method; or else he possessed a pattern book in which the shoulder bone of the animal appeared in this way. All of this strongly contrasts with the Shellal mosaic whose animals’ design is closely akin to those of the floor mosaics of the Gaza synagogue, in which the skeletal motion of the animals is depicted by a series of impressionistic colours (even in the folds of the hunting dog’s skin). The difference in the design and execution of these two animals of prey calls into question the assumption that a single artist worked in both Shellal and Ma’on. Of course, it is possible that a shared atelier existed; but it is clear that the artists were quite different. The same contrasts can be seen in the image of the lion in both mosaics. Even though the image of the lion in the Shellal mosaic lacks the back section of its body, the front part and its head, adorned with the mane, are revealed in all their splendour. It, too, as with most of the animals, is shown here striding forward. One of its legs hangs in the air, and its tongue protrudes as if it is roaring. Also here there is a slight outline in dark brown, and the upper section of the body is darker. Indeed the contrast between the darker colour and the light

Notes on the Floor Mosaic from Shellal ( Besor Spring )

47

parts of the body is greater. The artist attempted to render the lion’s natural colour and illuminate it from beneath in a somewhat impressionistic style. In spite of the lack of the hind section, which makes judgement difficult, it seems that the body of the lion is too short in relation to the other body parts. The mane is stylized—an attempt was made to distinguish it from the face and head; it is a sort of “appendage” to them and does not appear as an integral part. In general it seems that the artist worked from observation of nature, even if the execution was less successful. A comparison of the lion of Shellal and that of Ma’on, reveals both resemblances and differences. The general image and even the facial design are quite similar. In both cases the mouths are gaping, and the expression and mane are similar despite some minor differences. However, in the design of the body there is one great difference: the lion’s body from Ma’on—its ribs, muscles, claws, and the hair of its legs—is rendered with detail and precision which contrasts with the subtle impressionism of the Shellal depiction. All of these are designed theoretically, according to the rules of anatomical drawing, and not as they appear in nature. And again, as with the other animals of the Ma’on floor, the depiction of the lion’s ornamental rounding of the shoulder bone and the folds of skin also appears. Reds, oranges, blacks, and white take the place of the bright brown colours of Shellal. The rabbits that appear in the Ma’on floor mosaic differ radically from those at Shellal. In Ma’on, as with the rest of the animals and even more so, the rabbits look as if they were constructed from circles, the central of which is the shoulder bone. The ears are also rounded in contrast to the pointed ears of the Shellal rabbits. The body of the rabbit of the Ma’on floor is distended in comparison to the malleable body of the Shellal floor example (Figure 4.4). At Shellal, the body of the rabbit is tense and stretched, and its head faces backward in fear. An interesting element in the Shellal floor mosaic, which manifests itself also in this depiction, is the facial expressions of the animals. The artist had the skill to give each of the animals a characteristic appearance and expression: thus, for example, the rabbit appears agitated and fearful, whereas the hunting dog is entirely given over to the chase—its muscles are stretched and its ribs are prominent. A hunting dog appears in the Ma’on floor mosaic as well (Figure 4.4), but its proportions are distorted. Its body is not tense as would fit its stance, and the transition between the hues of its colours is sharp in comparison to Shellal. The synagogue floor of Gaza also presents a similar scene: two lupine animals of prey lunge at an animal similar to a goat. The wolves or dogs are on the whole similar to those portrayed at Shellal but different entirely in the details of their rendering. The general design and motion of tension and stretching are similar. However, whereas those of Gaza possess a thick, hairy tail and a

48

Chapter 4

heavy, fleshy body overall, that of Shellal has a thin tail and a very stretched body, and its ribs and muscles stand out. As with other instances, the difference of lighting is significant: the carnivores of the Gaza floor are lit from the front, whereas that of Shellal are illuminated from underneath. The artist of the Shellal mosaic applied a few greys and browns to the rabbit, whereas he coloured the hunting dog a rough reddish brown. This opposition endows the rabbit with nimbleness and the dog with greater weight. An interesting colour arrangement is featured in these two medallions and the two beneath them: in these two the hunting dog and the flamingo are rendered with similar hues, and in the other pair the grey characterizing the drawing of the rabbit complements the grey colour found in the hump of the fowl.

Conclusion Based on the depiction of the Shellal floor mosaic and its comparison with that of Ma’on, Avi-Yonah’s view that “in the two floors the animals are drawn with the utmost accuracy, however in that of Ma’on they appear more natural and less stylized”8 is unacceptable. In fact the animals of Shellal are depicted with malleability and impressionistically, conveying a naturalistic feeling and emphasizing the flexibility of the depicted animal. The artist used very incremental transitions of colour and by adding effective usage of lighting created malleable, natural volume. In contrast, the animals of the Ma’on floor mosaic are depicted perhaps in a more natural posture, but the volume of their bodies is unnatural. The rabbits, the bull, the deer and the dog appear “voluminous” but without a malleable volume; the elephants, in fact, appear flat, as if stuck on or applied.9 The question arises: Is it possible to categorize the mosaic floors found in the same area as that of Shellal and assign them to a school that was specific to that part of the country? It is difficult to furnish a clear answer regarding this issue. The floors that are known to us from this area were all devised during approximately the same stylistic period. But in spite of the great similarity in terms of their iconographic plan, and even, at first glance, comparable style, it is impossible to determine that they are the products of a single unified school of style, whose origin was apparently one atelier in Gaza. And if indeed there was one central atelier, artists worked there who found a unique expression and for themselves safeguarded the personal quality of their product. 8  M. Avi-Yonah, “The Floor Mosaic of the Synagogue of Ma’on”, Eretẓ Israel 6 (1962–1963), 92. 9  Interesting research using new digital methods for the analysis of floor-mosaics has been carried out, see: C. Dauphin, “A New Method of Studying Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements,” Levant 8 (1976), 113–149. The findings confirm the validity of our hypothesis.

Chapter 5

Judith and Holofernes: Some Observations on the Development of the Scene in Art Nira Stone

In order to present the scene of Judith and Holofernes in art in the context of a seminar on the Book of Judith, I debated where to start and how to continue, and I could have chosen any number of approaches. For the sake of clarity, however, I decided to take a strictly diachronic approach. The dominant way Judith is presented is found from the fifteenth century on—but was this true in earlier ages? We shall examine, first of all, how Judith appears in art prior to the Renaissance.1 I shall not present detailed stylistic or iconographic analyses of the various representations of Judith, but shall try to review the development of the Judith figure and the scenes associated with her action in Christian and Jewish art. Like almost any subject today, that of Judith also has feminist implications, and although they will not be at the forefront of our presentation here, they cannot be ignored. After all, from very early times a female figure is presented as subduing her enemy by decapitation. This should not be viewed as excessive cruelty, but as an efficient, technical means of overcoming an enemy who is physically stronger and, sometimes, a warrior surrounded by guards. Artists were conscious of this in antiquity, as is exemplified in figures like the exultant Menead from the first century CE holding the head of her enemy in her left hand and waving her sword in her right.2 Another interesting fact is that almost all the artists creating Judith up to modern times were men. So when we discuss the ways in which Judith was presented, we should bear that in mind. This is true especially when the feminine emotional approach is taken as seen through the eyes of the male artists. The figure of Judith attracted artists of all generations, not just in the plastic arts. Music and literature, too, are full of Judith. She appears in Jewish Piyyutim of the twelfth century and in the Latin church hymns from the sixteenth 1  This paper forms part of a more extensive ongoing study of mine on the figure of Judith in art. 2  See F. Saxi, “Warburg’s Visit to New Mexico,” Lectures, (unpublished) 1.328; 2, pl. 233b.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_006

50

Chapter 5

century to the present. Operas and particularly operettas have been written, most recently by the Israeli composer Mordechai Seter in 1963. Literature, too, abounds with Judith. From the thirteenth century, for example, we have both an English epic and a High German poem entitled “Judith.”3 In art Judith was constantly presented differently from other heroines of the Bible or the apocryphal literature. The reason was always the following. Although she resembles Jael and Esther more than Deborah, for she did not lead the people, but carried out an act of self-sacrifice and personal courage, still, nothing was demanded of her. She volunteered, initiated the plan, summoned the leaders of the people who came obediently, and she encouraged them. She remained celibate, pure in body as in soul also after the drama was over. These reasons combined to present her as a perfect heroine. The chief ways she was presented in art are: 1. A Christian religious presentation which commenced in the early Middle Ages. 2. A national-patriotic way—in Italian art of the Renaissance period. 3. A national-religious way—in Jewish art from the Renaissance on. 4. The feminine-emotional way—in modern art. The two central points that attracted artists were her self-sacrifice in going to Holofernes’ camp and the courage of the decapitation, and these two themes are dominant in the artistic representation. Christian artists were the first to present the story of Judith in manuscripts from the ninth century, doubtless based upon earlier representations which have been lost. Prior to the ninth century we have only fragments of a fresco in the Church of S. Maria Antiqua in Rome. Medieval Christian artists, like the medieval writers, viewed Judith in terms of Christian symbolism: she represented the fighting Church, Christ’s bride, in the fight against Satan, and also the Virgin crushing the head of the serpent. The artistic descriptions may be divided into four chief types and we shall examine each of these: A. The narrative descriptions of the whole story from beginning to end given on a single page or part of a page. B. Epitomized representations of the moment of the decapitation alone, with or without a servant. C. The expanded version. D. Symbolic appearance of the figure of the heroine Judith in painting or sculpture, holding the sword of victory in her hand.

3  See B. Bayer, Encyclopaedia Judaica, s.v. “Judith.”

Judith and Holofernes

51

figure 5.1 Bible of St. Paul folio 231r (ninth century). The Morgan Library

A

The Narrative Descriptions

1. After the appearance of the badly preserved scene in the Church of S. Maria Antiqua in Rome in the eighth century, the earliest example is a ninth-century Latin manuscript, the Carolingian Bible (figure 5.1).4 Here the story is presented in three registers. The upper presents Judith’s leaving Bethulia and her return there. At the left is the city surrounded by a wall in which the inhabitants accompany Judith and her servant on their way. On the right are the women returning, which concludes all that is related in the lower register. This phenomenon is one of contracted scenes. 4  F.G. Godwin, “The Judith Illustrations of the ‘Hortus Deliciarum,’” Gazette des Beaux Arts 36 (1949) figure 4. This article has been particularly helpful in the present research, and it provides much of the basic information we have used in this paper.

52

Chapter 5

The middle register shows on the right Judith and her servant sitting and waiting for the messenger who has just arrived and who brings her, on the left, to Holofernes who is seated upon a royal throne and looks rather like a Carolingian king, not an Assyrian or Persian one! The lowest register describes, on the left, the moment of the decapitation. Holofernes is inside his gabled Carolingian palace, lying headless on the bed. To his left Judith is seated, still wielding her sword. The servant is seen gathering up the head. On the right, the women return to Bethulia, Judith proudly, with her head high, while the servant, with Holofernes’ head in her hand, looks wonderingly at the arena of the terrible deed. As I have already observed, this return to Bethulia is taken up in the first register and closes a narrative cycle—what is called “a circular story.” In spite of the fact that this is the first known description in a Bible manuscript, it is doubtlessly based upon an earlier representation in which Judith returns to the city, the gates of which are locked and not, as in the picture before us, in which the scenes were contracted so as to save space. The dramatic emphasis here is upon the victorious return of Judith to Bethulia. 2. Since the development we are tracing cuts across borders and styles our example from the tenth century is in a Byzantine manuscript. The differences between this and the Carolingian Bible are minor: a slightly different stance of the figures and a slightly variant style. The conceptual development is common at this time to Western and to Byzantine art, and both are probably based on the same model. 3. The next example is the Greek tenth-century Leo Bible.5 This is one of two isolated Byzantine examples in which Judith approaches her enemy from behind, unperceived. It is a good example of a misunderstood copy of an earlier model. The inhabitants of Bethulia look out, yet Judith is not on the right, where she should be, but below. There she is led by the messenger to Holofernes who is missing from the picture. Judith at once sets about beheading Holofernes who is lying in an odd position and is presented as a young, shaven Greek king. Judith’s return is missing here and below we find a scene entitled by its rubric “The Army of the Children of Israel conquering the Assyrians.” It is interesting to observe how the figures are represented in the terms of the artist’s period. While in the previous example, a Latin manuscript of the Carolingian period, Holofernes was a Carolingian king, here he is a young Greek king, as seemed fitting to the Byzantine painter.

5  Manuscript Vat. Gr. 1, fol. 383, shown in Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” fig. 2.

Judith and Holofernes

53

figure 5.2 The Arsenal Bible (thirteenth century). Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, Ms. 5211, fol. 252r

4. In the eleventh-century Spanish Roda Bible, the first register is a schematic painting of the city, while on the left the citizens accompany the women who are setting forth.6 The remaining registers may be described as follows: The second register, on the left: Judith holding a Carolingian staff sets forth accompanied by her servant; on the right: The conclusion of the narrative, in the fashion of the “circular story.” In the third register: The women before Holofernes who is seated on a royal throne, while in the background is the messenger who is presenting the women to him. In the fourth register, lower right: The moment after the decapitation—Judith is putting the head into a basket, a sword is in her hand, on the bed is the headless body. Finally, in 6  Bibliothèque nationale, Paris ms. lat. fol. 134v; see Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figures 5, 6, and 15.

54

Chapter 5

register two: Judith’s return to Bethulia with the head. Once again, the scenes are held together as a circular story. 5. Sometimes we find unusual representations in certain manuscripts. One of them is the Arsenal Bible (figure 5.2).7 This is a French Crusader Bible of the thirteenth century from Acre. Here the story covers two pages, each of which has three registers divided into smaller scenes. On the first page, from left to right the scenes are: 1. The Assyrians threatening Bethulia. 2. The elders of the city in consultation. 3. The elders summoned to Judith’s house. 4. Judith in Holofernes’ tent. 5. The decapitation. 6. Judith returning victorious with Holofernes’ head. The unusual scenes are numbers 3 and 6. Scene 3 is of great interest. It is divided into two parts. In the first part, at left two of the elders appear, summoned to Judith’s house. Judith is seated at the right in widow’s weeds. In the second part, on the right, Judith appears again, in glorious clothing before setting out for the Assyrian camp. This point is stressed in the book (10:1–5) but rarely appears in art. The transformation of Judith from a woman to an emissary of the people became a symbol of the ability of a widow, a person of inferior social status, to become a heroine and holder of high office.8 Another unusual scene on the same page is that of Judith’s victory, on the lower right (scene 6). Here she stands on a platform, while the elders of Bethulia kneel before her. She is in the stance of an orans, with the head in her left hand. Naturally, the immediate association is of the Virgin standing in just this stance below the scene of Christ’s Assumption to heaven. Judith is presented as a prefiguration of the Virgin and a symbol of the Church, at whose feet all the people are gathered. 6. The next example is from twelfth-century Germany (figure 5.3). This is “The Garden of Delights” or Hortus Deliciarum.9 The manuscript is called “The Feminist” by scholars. In contrast to the preceding, which were all Bibles, this manuscript has two new qualities. First, it is an anthology of selected passages from the Bible, the Church Fathers, and from secular philosophers. The second new quality is the fact that it was composed by a very learned woman, 7  On the Arsenal Bible, see H. Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957) 54–68 and pl. 73. 8  See R.S. Kramer, ed., Maenads, Martyrs. Matrons, Monastics (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 235. 9  See Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” 25–28 and figure 1.

Judith and Holofernes

55

figure 5.3 Hortus Deliciarum folio 60r

herself the student of yet another prominent woman. The author was Herrad of Landsberg who served as the Abbess of the Convent of St. Ottile in Hohenberg in 1167 and whose teacher was the renowned scholar Abbess Relindis. Herrad devoted a good deal of her book to that special woman, Judith. It is not certainly known but it is presumed that she was also the artist who illustrated the manuscript. Here the artist chose two scenes from the life of Judith which were set on a separate leaf, in two registers. The presentation is narrative, but it is very concentrated and might even be characterized as “Narrative-Symbolic.” The first

56

Chapter 5

register is the moment of decapitation, together with the servant, inside the tent. The second is the return to Bethulia. The gates of the city are closed and two citizens are peeking out. At the right the head is already impaled on the wall in order to frighten the enemy. 7. A similar division into two also occurs in a Jewish manuscript of the fifteenth century from Germany.10 This is a manuscript of a Book of Prayers and Varia (Mainz ?), dating from 1434 CE. The description of the story of Judith is divided into two separate pictures on one page, in the part of the manuscript containing the Piyyutim for Hanukkah, including a narrative of Judith’s deeds. We shall soon discuss the relationship between Judith and Hanukkah, in more detail. In the upper picture, the scene is set in the camp of tents. Holofernes is lying on his bed and Judith is beheading him while soldiers sleep on the ground. In the lower picture, Judith returns with her servant to Bethulia, holding the severed head. On one of the towers a head, like that of Holofernes, can be seen. As in the Hortus Deliciarum, so here the artist stresses the characters’ position inside or near the tent. This specific point recurs elsewhere, including another Jewish manuscript which relates Judith to Hanukkah and the Maccabees, a 1470 Ferrara Miscellany.11 8. In this 1470 Ferrara Miscellany, another Jewish prayer book, we find Judith presented close to Judas Maccabeus. This reflects the connection between Judith and Hanukkah. Here too we may observe the delimitation of the presentation of the story. Only one scene is presented, and it is that of Judith waving her sword and beheading Holofernes. 9. The same may be seen in an Armenian manuscript of the seventeenth century from Constantinople (figure 5.4).12 As in the Jewish manuscript, Judith is standing in the tent with her servant, a sword in one hand and the severed head in the other. As in most of the Armenian manuscripts, here too the story of Judith appears as a marginal illumination. Here the absence of Holofernes is notable. The only figures are Judith, the servant and the head. Below we shall see how this branch of the presentation of the story developed.

10  11  12 

The Hamburg Miscellany, in Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. Heb. 37 (Mainz?), 1434 CE fol. 81. The Rothschild Miscellany, Jerusalem, Israel Museum, 180/51, fol. 217. Ferrara, 1470–1480. Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, Ms. 1927, fol. 219b.

Judith and Holofernes

57

figure 5.4 Armenian Ms (seventeenth century). Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, Ms. 1927, fol. 219b

B

The Epitomized Description—the Moment of Decapitation

The moment that caught the imagination of many of the greatest plastic artists was the moment of Holofernes’ decapitation by Judith as a symbol of all the detailed Judith story. This approach starts already in the eleventh–twelfth centuries, when we find an expansion of the description of the Judith story on the one hand, and, on the other, a concentration and epitomizing of the story to the single scene of the decapitation, presenting only Judith with the sword, and Holofernes at her feet. Examples are particularly common in Western art, in sculpture, in stained glass, in manuscripts, and even in tapestries. 1. In the eleventh-century Italian manuscript Codex Barberini we find the first known example that looks as if it was cut out of a larger, more complex

58

Chapter 5

figure 5.5 Barberini Codex 1097. Vatican, Latin 587

scene (figure 5.5).13 It is a copy of a narrative model, like those preceding, but there is a concentration on the moment of the decapitation, with Judith represented laying her sword on Holofernes’ neck. This had been a common subject, it seems, in Byzantine models, and from there it passed to Western art. 2. In the West this symbolic representation was accepted enthusiastically and the scene appears regularly in margins, as in the Armenian example given above, or in the illuminated initial letter of the book of Judith. This latter type of representation was particularly common. Sometimes the letter even represented a tent (figure 5.6).14 3. Although there are many representations of the moment of the decapitation itself, there are even more frequent examples of the following moment,

13  14 

Barberini Codex, Rome, vat. lat 587: see Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figure 3. Bible of Stephen Harding III, fol. 158; Dijon bibl. commun., mss. 12–15: see Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figure 17.

59

Judith and Holofernes

figure 5.6 Bible of Stephen Harding (twelfth century). Bibliothèque municipale de Dijon BM MS.14

when the head is already severed from the body. This could be illustrated in numerous examples down to Donatello’s famous sculpture.15 4. Other rarer scenes are Judith’s immersion and her prayer before setting out. A fine example of her prayer appears in the Cathedral of Chartres in the thirteenth century, in the right portal of the north transept. Here she is kneeling down in prayer (figure 5.7).16 5. There are also other Judith scenes such as her putting on sackcloth, placing dust on her head, and changing her clothes. A good example of these occurs in a Latin Psalter from Munich of the twelfth–thirteenth century.17 The story covers two pages, each of which has three registers divided into smaller scenes. At the top left is a complex scene showing Judith’s preparations to leave Bethulia: her prayer, the servant kneeling beside Judith who is dressed in sackcloth and putting ashes on her head. On the lower left the servant is watching Judith who is praying and immersing herself before going to Holofernes. On the second page, on the right lower one sees Judith’s burial, a very rare scene (the other scenes are their departure, their coming to Holofernes, the murder, and the feast).

15 

16  17 

ExampIes are the following: (a) Rome, vat. lat. 12958: see Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figure 9; (b) Encyclopaedia Judaica 10.454, figure 2; (c) Encyclopaedia Judaica 10.454, figure 1; (d) R. and M. Whittkower, Born Under Saturn (London: Weidenfield and Nicholson, 1963) pl. 48; (e) Donatello’s sculpture which is discussed below. R. Branner, Chartres Cathedral (New York: Norton, 1969), figure 89. See HBC 808.

60

Chapter 5

figure 5.7 From Chartres Cathedral (thirteenth century)

C

The Expanded Description in the Twelfth Century

Concurrent with the concentration of the figure of Judith to one symbolic scene, there also developed a type of representation which expanded the story. This is not a question of registers on one or two pages, but a detailed representation over a number of pages, sometimes as many as seven or more. 1. A good example is the Velislaus Bible, a Czech Picture Book of the Bible which dates from the fourteenth century and has an extensive Judith cycle.18 2. An earlier example of the expanded representation is the Pamplona Bible of 1200.19 In the Pamplona Bible, the story of Judith takes a number of pages. The most interesting of all the scenes is that in which Judith brings the head to the elders of Bethulia. Here Judith appears in a new way, as victor and vanquisher of Satan in the form of Holofernes. The scene describes Judith’s presentation of Holofernes’ head to the elders of the city, all of whom stand above the image of Satan who is falling and declining, and next to him is written the word “Lucifer.” Clear examples of this idea may be found, for instance, in the writings of Rabanus Maurus, in his Expositio in Librum Judith or in the sermons of Bonaventura who calls Nebuchadnezzar Satan, Holofernes his emissary, and Antiochus Epiphanes the serpent.20 In the medieval Christian liturgy, Judith

18  19  20 

We are preparing a much more extended study of this cycle. On the manuscript, see A. Matějček, Velislavova Bible (Prague: Jan Stenc, 1926). F. Bucher, The Pamplona Bibles (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1970) vol. 1, figure 123. M. Friedman, “The Metamorphoses of Judith,” Jewish Art 12–13 (1986–87) 233, nn. 31–32.

61

Judith and Holofernes

figure 5.8 Speculum Virginum (twelfth century). British Library, Arundel 44, fol. 34v

is always mentioned together with other figures who symbolized the weak overcoming the mighty: David, the Maccabees, Jael, Mordecai, and Esther. It is natural that also in art she should stand by these figures. 3. Alternatively she was herself presented as the figure of the Victor trampling Satan underfoot, as did Christ or the Virgin. In the twelfth-century Speculum Virginum, Judith and Jael trample their enemies while Humilitas tramples Superbia. (Note the branches Judith holds, according to Jdt 15:12 [figure 5.8].)21 The interesting presentation of Judith trampling Satan who appears as Holofernes’ head reminds us of other scenes in art which represent this phenomenon, namely, the Harrowing of Hell, in which Christ tramples Satan in Hades as he ascends from Limbo (figure 5.9).22 This phenomenon also appears in the scene of the Baptism in which the painter, either consciously or in unconscious copying, represents Christ’s victory over Satan who is trying to steal

21  22 

London, British Library, Arundel 44, fol 34v (twelfth century): see also E. Greenhill, Speculum Virginum (New York: 1962) 234–235, pl. 12 (non vidi). V. Lazarev, Storia della Pittura bizantina (Torino: Guilio Einaudi, 1967), figure 337. On the early version in Ravenna, see also A.D. Kartsonis, Anastasis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).

62

Chapter 5

figure 5.9 Anastasis (twelfth century)

the baptismal water. Sometimes Satan himself appears, and more frequently there is a misapprehension of the personification of the river.23 It is said that until man is baptized, Satan tries to put the baptism off and to steal the baptismal water, since baptism is a victory over Satan. Ideas of this type may be found in different liturgies and in early Christian writing. In all these liturgies the attempt is to purify the water from Satan and put him to flight.24 In places in which the painter was conscious of the meaning of the scene, he in some instances set crosses into the water to help in the victory over Satan.25

D

The Symbolic Figure—the Sword and the Head

In the period in which Judith was a prefiguration of the Victory over Satan and according to that concept, it was natural that the figure of Judith moved from 23 

24 

25 

J.B. Russell, Satan (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1988), pl. 191. See also S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery (Baltimore: Walters Art Gallery, 1973) figure 200. My study on this feature will be published shortly. Ideas of this type may be found in the writings of Origen. See Russell, Satan, 142–43, n.99; the Latin Catholic liturgy: see J.B. Russell, Lucifer (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1986) 127, n.74; the Armenian liturgy; see Der Nersessian, Walters Art Gallery, 38, 49. Der Nersessian, Walters Art Gallery, figure 143.

Judith and Holofernes

63

its original religious context and became meaningful in a similar, but secular, context. Indeed, the motive of courage shifted the essence of the story of Judith to a new image. The act of decapitation itself became the subject of a new scene: Judith, the sword and the head (or at least one of the two) in her hand. 1. The beginnings of this iconography may be detected in the eleventh century in an Italian Bible where, as a summary of the book, Judith appears with her sword wielded in her right hand and the head in her left.26 Here we should recall the meaning of the different hands in the iconography of Christ who always blesses with his right hand. In the scene of the Last Judgment he blesses those entering Paradise with his right hand and those going to Hell with his left. 2. Although it is possible to present numerous examples from the eleventh and succeeding centuries, we shall pass directly to the fifteenth century, to the Gates of the Garden of Eden, which are the bronze gates made by Ghiberti in Florence in 1450.27 Here Judith stands in a similar position, a sword in her right hand, the symbol of her courage, and the head in her left, the symbol of the evil which has been overcome. Henceforth this becomes a standard image in art for courage and patriotic rebellion. On the doors here shown Judith is next to a panel which describes David’s war against the Philistines. This conjunction with David, both weak people against strong, saviors of their nation, inspired Donatello to make his statue (figure 5.10).28 3. In the Renaissance Judith appears in the work of the greatest artists— Botticelli, Mantegna, Giorgione, Tintoretto and others. We are particularly interested, however, in those who showed the way towards the patriotic presentation of Judith. Donatello added Civic Virtue to all Judith’s usual characteristics. Both this statue and the one that he had done 30 years earlier of David with Goliath’s head at his feet were commissioned by the Medici family in Florence. When they were expelled, the two statues were moved to the main square of the city, where they became symbols of the Florentines’ struggle for independence and freedom. These virtues, then, were also seen in Judith as victor. On the podium of the statue was engraved “Kingdoms fall through Luxury; Cities rise through Virtue: Behold the Neck of Pride severed by the hand of Humility.”

26  27  28 

See Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figure 7. Friedman, “Metamorphoses,” figure 15. Encyclopaedia Judaica 10.454, figure 1.

64

Chapter 5

figure 5.10

Donatello’s Judith and Holofernes, Bronze (1455–57)

This inscription no longer survives, but it is described in contemporary documents. Here the theological tradition of the victory of Humility over Pride is expressed as well as ideals of civic freedom and courage.29 29 

H.W. Janson, The Sculpture of Donatello (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957) 198.

Judith and Holofernes

65

The image of Judith, dressed, trampling the naked body of her enemy takes us back to the image of Christ trampling Satan and of Mary acting in the same way. These images now appear in a new form: Virtues trampling Vices. Holofernes, who is naked and cast down on the pillow, represents Lust while Judith is Humility just as in the illumination from the twelfth century, when Judith and Jael trample their enemies, who look like the Satan of the Resurrection Scene. Between them there is a personification of Humility trampling Lust (the branches that she took in her hand according to 15:12 are interesting in this connection).30 4. Here, in the fifteenth century, we shall pause a little and ask ourselves what happens in Jewish art. So far, we have examined Christian art, but Judith is not just a Jewish woman but also the symbol of the Jewish people—of their victory over their enemies, of their deliverance by a woman but with the help of Israel’s God. In the fifteenth century, together with the patriotic-national development of the Judith figure in Catholic Italy, this figure appears in Jewish art as well. Here too, it is placed in the context of the patriotic dimension of the national revolt for independence, i.e. in connection with the Story of the Maccabees. This book served as the source and basis of a number of midrashim and Piyyutim in the Middle Ages and particularly those for Hanukkah.31 5. A number of Passover Haggadot show Judith also in association with the Passover story, like the Prague Haggada of 1526 (figure 5.11).32 This shows the passage, “Pour out your wrath upon the nations,” positioning Judith alongside Samson on the right, who is carrying the lintels he has uprooted. 6. European Jews in the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries, particularly in Italy, were also open to the nationalist ideas which influenced Gentile society and which were concentrated in the figure of Judith. This figure was taken over by the Jews of that age and that area, the more so for Judith’s association with the period of the Maccabean revolt. The view that she was of the Hasmonean family turned her into a popular figure on Italian Hanukkah candelabra. The figure of Judith sometimes replaces meaningful symbols like the crown of the Torah over the Ark of the Torah.33

30  31  32  33 

Godwin, “Judith Illustrations,” figure 12. See also Kartsonis, Anastasis. Encyclopaedica Judaica 10.460. R.Ch. Wengrov, Haddadah and Woodcut (New York: Shulsinger Brothers, 1967) 65–71. Encyclopaedica Judaica 10.456, figure 6.

66

Chapter 5

figure 5.11 The Prague Haggada (1526). The Israel Museum

The Great Transformation From this point on a great change takes place; the figure of Judith gradually changes direction and a new image alters the fighting figure of the fifteenth– sixteenth centuries. A biblical topic received a secular content: the faithfulness to her people, which had brought about her sacrifice and courage and which had been prominent to this time, became a new sort of faithfulness. Motifs of the triumph of Love affect the woodcuts and the tapestries that were made for the houses of the wealthy. In these works there were presented series of couples, the woman of which carries out a betrayal for the sake of her beloved. Fixed members of these series are scenes with Adam and Eve, with Samson and Delilah, with David and Bathsheba, with Jezebel and Ahab, and with Salome and John the Baptist. To this series of pairs are added outstanding women who endangered their lives for their people, such as Jael with Sisera, Esther with Ahasuerus, Susanna with the Elders, and Judith with Holofernes. These were not sinful women, but women who because of their betrayal of men who trusted them were worthy of being abandoned. Judith was one of this list in spite of explicitly being called righteous and in spite of having yielded herself to no man. Her only offense was to be a woman who dared to kill a man. The chief argument of those who wished to remove Donatello’s

Judith and Holofernes

figure 5.12

67

Caravaggio’s Judith and Holofernes (1571–1610). Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica (GNAA)/National Gallery of Ancient Art (Rome)

Judith from the public square in Florence was that it was not appropriate for a woman to kill a man.34 1. A good example of the change in the image of Judith is the realistic cool and brutal look on Caravaggio’s Judith in his painting of the early seventeenth century. The blood is gushing out of Holofernes’ neck while Judith and her maid, looking like a witch, are watching (figure 5.12).35 2. A personal touch in this direction was supplied by Christofano Allori who in 1609 painted Judith with the head in her hand and the servant by her side.36 However, this picture also reflects the personal story of the painter who fell in love with a local beauty and spent all his money on her. His jealousy and their fights were public knowledge. In the picture, Judith is this woman, whose face is cold and unyielding in spite of the horrible thing she is holding. The head is a self-portrait of Allori himself, whose features express deep pain. The servant is the Italian beauty’s mother (figure 5.13).37

34  35  36  37 

Janson, Donatello, 30. Rome, Palazzo Barberini by Caravaggio (1571–1610). Whittkower, Born Under Saturn, 160–61, pl. 48. Unusual representations of Judith’s story appeared from time to time, like the one from the eleventh century in which Judith looks like the victim and Holofernes’ head like

68

Chapter 5

figure 5.13

Allori’s Judith and Holofernes (1609). Galleria Palatina (Palazzo Pitti), Florence

3. In modern art this process continues, but all this development is limited to Christian art. In Jewish art, Judith never ceased being the figure of faithfulness to her people and of heroism and sacrifice for them. She continued as a heroine of the Feast of Hanukkah beyond the candelabra. Even one of the most modern Jewish artists is faithful to the traditional figure of Judith. The the victor. Note the changed role of Judith’s hands in this painting. See H. Swarzenski, Vorgotische Miniaturen (Leipzig: Karl Robert Langewiesche, 1931) 45.

Judith and Holofernes

69

figure 5.14 L. Baskin, Chosen Days (1981). Schilman Collection

American Jewish painter, Leonard Baskin in “Chosen Days” represented in 1981 various festivals by biblical figures. Esther is Purim, Ruth is Shavuot, and Judith is Hanukkah. The reason is doubtless the continued use of medieval Jewish texts and Piyyutim for Hanukkah which preserved the figure of Judith in the Jewish tradition (figure 5.14).38

38 

See Catalogue of the Schilman Collection of Twentieth-Century American Art (New York: Jewish Museum, 1985) 16, number 5.

Chapter 6

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration Nira Stone

Illumination and texts both occur in manuscripts and there are a number of areas in which students of them face similar problems. Thus, for example, in the study of iconography or style or technique, art historians group manuscripts into types or series, or perceive genetic or geographical groupings. It is intriguing to speculate how such genetic or group relationships perceived in art relate to analogous relationships between text types discerned by textual critics. Or again, issues of codicology, or the history of the book, are shared between the two disciplines. The analysis of the structure of the quire, for example, would not be complete without consideration of how full-page illustrations are introduced into it. There are numerous other aspects of codicological problems that art historians share with text historians. We should not forget that each illustration in Armenian manuscripts, and in the vast majority of other mediaeval manuscripts, is intimately related to some text or another. As today, so then, well-known scenes such as the Crucifixion or the Nativity or the Baptism were readily recognized without text. As today, so then, how many readers would recognize, without the text, an illustration showing Paphnutius in the Garden of Eden or Onophrius and the buffalos— and these are the best known of hagiographical scenes. These illustrations and others, such as those in various sorts of Psalters, are tied to the text that stands at their side and in fact themselves form part of that text. Such paintings are illustrative text and convey a message to the viewer through lines and colours instead of through written words. Illustrations are related to the text of the particular manuscript they are illustrating. But the illustrations, or rather the illustrators, are also related to instructions and models. These instructions and models transmit the fixed rules according to which the artist represented the various individuals and scenes, the iconography of them as related to the text that they are meant to illustrate. We know that there were books of instructions for painters, “Painters’ Manuals”, from quite ancient times. We know too of certain manuscripts which were created as collections of models for painters to follow. One such book of models is known, in Latin, from the 13th century.1 This is an illustrated 1  Sirarpie Der Nersessian, “Le carnet de modeles d’un miniaturiste armenien”, Études byzantines et arméniennes, (Louvain, 1973), vol. 1, p. 665. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_007

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

71

manuscript whose sole purpose was to be used as a model. From the Byzantine area we know the Painter’s Manual of Dionysius of Fourna, written in Greek.2 Dionysius’ Painter’s Manual is not ancient. It was written in 1670 by a certain monastic painter, Dionysius, from Fourna in central Greece, who worked on Mt. Athos. Dionysius reports that he did not compose the text of the Painter’s Manual, but he took it from a number of prior sources and edited it, which shows that in his world a number of such books of instructions were known. It is not unreasonable to assume, indeed, that such books of instructions were common throughout the world of mediaeval art. In this book, Dionysius gives exact prescriptions how to paint various individuals and scenes from the whole range of mediaeval religious art. Let us give two examples: Peter baptizing Cornelius and those with him. Water: Cornelius greyhaired and with a long beard stands naked in it with five others. Peter holds his hand on Cornelius’ head and beside him is a crowd of men and women.3 A Saint crosses the river on dry land and saves his friend from death. A river parted across the middle. On the bank the saint holds his friend by the hand. A little further along the river is a foritified town and between the town and the river is a cavalry leader on horseback looking at the saint; there are soldiers with him.4 As mentioned above, in addition to such books of instructions, books of models have been found. These were more widespread in the West than in the East, but we know that such books existed in the East, though few have survived. One that did reach our hands is an Armenian manuscript which is a pattern book for illustration of the Holy Scriptures (Venice Mechitarists No 1434).5 This manuscript is such a rich repertory of figures and scenes that, although it is Armenian, it throws great light on all parts of the world of Byzantine art. It is of the 16th century and was copied and illustrated by an Armenian painter from Constantinople. He mentions numerous frescoes and mosaics from that area, teaching us that this Armenian collection of examples was probably inspired by the chief Byzantine monumental art of its time. In general, we may add, the direction of interest is the reverse and illustrated manuscripts formed the models of monumental art. Indeed, this book of examples forms, as it were, a complement to the textual descriptions of Dionysius of Fourna. The 2  Paul Hetherington, The ‘Painter’s Manual’ of Dionysius of Fourna, (London, 1974). 3  Ibid., p. 66. 4  Ibid., p. 67. 5  S. Der Nersessian, Études, vol. 1, pp. 665–681.

72

Chapter 6

iconography prescribed in words and drawings was reflected in the illustration of manuscript texts. This illustration was connected both to the pictures/text of the books of examples and also, of course, to the texts themselves, in a complex interrelationship. The dominant type of relationship between text and illustration is where the text and illustration may be regarded as a part of a single creation, composed of both, which serves, predominantly, to transmit meaning. When we consider this relationship between text and image in greater detail, we discover that it is far from a simple matter. One might investigate, for example, how new interpretations or concepts embodied in the text affected the iconography of the illustrations. Or else, one could consider how the selection of the illuminations and their positions in the manuscript reflected existing ideas and whether those ideas cohere with those in the text. A further dimension of this complex set of relationships might be to consider the details of the complementary interaction of these two elements which together form the means of the transmission of meaning. Some of these possibilities which we have mentioned have been studied and some should be investigated and the study of them will contribute both to the history of texts and the history of art. In this paper, however, we have chosen to concentrate our ideas on a single and simple question, that of the physical relationship between text and illustration. We shall look at the variety of such relationships and their implications. Moreover, we shall observe how they bear upon the study of the manuscripts. Not all the examples will be drawn from Armenian art, although all of the types illustrated are to be found in it. An example of the most intimate physical relationship between text and illustration may be found in Jewish and Moslem manuscripts. The Jewish and Islamic micrographic art was a fast developing process. At first we find carpet pages made of words and letters like that from Burgos in Spain from the year 1260.6 This carpet page brings to mind contemporary Moslem mosque art from Toledo, or indeed the wood panels of the 7th century from the al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem. These designs developed into zoomorphic and architectural representations, such as the micrographic frontispiece to the Book of Leviticus. It was painted in Bavaria in the 14th century.7 This type of art reached its peak in the representation of beasts and human figures composed of words which tell the story of the painting, like the figure of Jonah being swallowed by the whale in a Pentateuch, painted, like other manuscripts of this type, in Germany (fig. 6.1). 6  Joseph Gutmann, Hebrew Manuscript Painting, (London 1979), plate 5. 7  Ibid., plate 22.

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

73

figure 6.1 Jonah swallowed by a huge Whale. British Library, ms. Add. 21160, folio 292, Pentateuch (Germany, early 14th c.)

In these examples the text and the illustration are one and the same. We need add nothing more. Another class in the physical relationship between text and painting is formed by the highly decorative letters which occur in nearly all mediaeval manuscripts. From the West, a good example is an English manuscript of the

74

Chapter 6

12th century.8 In the decorative initial we see the Virgin enthroned between St. Jerome and Isaiah at the beginning of Jerome’s Commentary on the Book of Isaiah. Below is a burial scene. Unlikely to be that of the virgin, because of lack of halos, it is probably the death of Paula, a disciple of St. Jerome whose death is described on this page. The decoration is typical of the romanesque style, consisting of leaves, grotesques and abstract motifs, skilfully interwoven with great decorative effect. The next example, an Armenian one, may be described as an architectural monument built of courses of wood (fig. 6.2). This is from the Queen Keran Gospels of 1272 and it presents a rather magnificent architectural structure, the various levels of which are made of the opening words of the text. The structure brings to mind the accepted form of the facade of the Temple with the two pillars, Boaz and Jachin, and the stairs on which the beasts sat at Solomon’s feet.9 In an English Psalter of 1370 we can observe the integration of an illuminated initial letter with a full artistic architectural structure (fig. 6.3). This is the start of Psalm 51 which tells of David’s return from meeting Bathsheba and his prayer to God after being rebuked by the Prophet Nathan. The letter “Q” is magnificent and contains four tiny scenes, while the whole text is set within an impressive architectural structure. Of particular interest here is that the four biblical scenes that are set within the “Q” are not drawn from this Psalm. They represent Eliezer and Abraham, Eliezer and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel, and the shepherds of Gerar. Perhaps the “romantic” element might be thought to relate these four scenes to the text (David and Bathsheba). What is particularly striking, however, are the figures in the two towers. Along them are found musicians with various instruments—harp, fiddle, flute and drum, and these musicians create the atmostphere of music typical of the Book of Psalms. The frame is meant to create the background of the reader’s feelings, his mood, something that will prove significant later. Architecture, interlace, figures and text with an illuminated letter are found at the beginning of the famous Armenian Mush Lectionary of 1204 (fig. 6.4). Moslem and Romanesque influence can be discerned in the interlacing and at first glance we seem to be facing a romanesque manuscript. On this page, four columns covered with interlaces and floral motifs support the rectangle. A loop added to the third column transforms it into the initial “i”. The first letter of the homily is written in uncial script. The decoration is very rich. At the 8  P. D’Ancona and E. Aeschlimann, The Art of Illumination, (London 1969), plate 57. 9  “The Judgement of Solomon” in The Tripartite Mahzor from Sputh, Germany c. 1320, fol. 183. B. Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, (Jerusalem, 1969), plate 33.

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

figure 6.2 Keran Gospel of 1272, Opening Page. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 1272)

75

76

figure 6.3 Psalter of Humphrey de Bohn, c. 1370. Oxford, Exeter College, ms. 47

Chapter 6

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

figure 6.4 Lectionary of Mush, 1204. Matenadaran, ms. 7729

77

78

Chapter 6

centre of the rectangle is a cross adorning a medallion, decorated with lions and (female) sphinxes and intricate interlaces. The spandrels formed by the medallion include various scenes. In the margin is set a double cross, upon a pillar. Inside the pillars a running text may be found. The next instance, which in fact symbolises the first separation between text and illumination, is typified by the commonly found Canon Tables. Here the text is composed of lists rather than a running text. These are set within an architectural structure not unlike that seen in the Mush Lectionary, but there is no direct and close physical relationship between the decorative illumination and the content of the text which functions as a simple frame.10 In Armenian manuscripts there are many illuminated letters. That is well known. There are some instances, however, among the Armenian manuscripts, where these illuminated letters are replaced by figures or by busts. In Jerusalem manuscript 285 of the Lives of the Desert Fathers (Crimea 1430) we find a great range of such instances (fig. 6.5). Busts of various fathers open the stories about them, in place of decorated letters. The figure and the text combine here into a single unit, being connected but not completely merged. A single complex unity is created out of text and illumination, which are still closely related.11 This brings us close to the situation which takes the illumination out of the text itself and sets it in the margins. In addition to decorations, the painter puts whole figures, or even scenes, alongside the relevant text. The painters of Psalters were particularly fond of this type of illumination. It was customary to decorate the text of the Psalter on all sides so as to enrich it with as many visual ideas as possible. Sometimes the illuminations are of scenes taken from the text and sometimes the painter uses other symbols to represent ideas drawn from the text. In one example, the religious experience and firm faith of the Psalmist are expressed visually by setting the words in the mouths of the twelve Apostles and painting them around the margins of the two pages which contain the Psalm. This is to be found in the Greek psalter in the British Museum, ms. No Add. 19.352.12 On the first page of one opening are six seated Apostles: Peter, Paul, John, Matthew and Mark before whom are various visitors. The second page shows the other six and their visitors: Andrew, James, Bartholomew, Thomas with the blacks, and Philip sitting and reading the Psalm. 10  11  12 

Gospel of Prince Vasak (Armenian), thirteenth century, Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, manuscript No 2568. The Lives of The Desert Fathers (Armenian), 1430, Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, manuscript No 285, p. 375. Sirarpie Der Nersessian, L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age, (Paris, 1970), plate 13 (figs. 34,35).

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

79

figure 6.5 The Lives of the Desert Fathers, 1430. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

Another example is a page from the Kiev Psalter, a Russian manuscript of 1397 (fig. 6.6). It was copied from an earlier Byzantine Greek model of the eleventh century, differing from it chiefly in the free and dynamic style of the 14th century. This page illustrates a situation in which the illumination is even further from the written text. It is hard to know to just which part of the text the

80

Chapter 6

figure 6.6 The Kiev Psalter. Leningrad, The Saltykov-Shchedrin Library, MS. F6

illumination is related and indeed, the relationship between the illustration and the text of Psalms is often not evident. For that reason, on certain pages of this manuscript, thin red lines join the illuminations to the words in the text to which they are connected. On the page reproduced there are no such lines, and instead the painter has added his intention on the margin as a note in red ink. The painting is taken

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

81

from the “Fable of the Sweetness of the World” from Joasaph and Barlaam, a popular Christian mediaeval romance. It is related to the verse “O Lord, what is man? A man is like a breath, his days are like a passing shadow” (Ps. 144:3,4). A man is attempting to escape from a unicorn which is the symbol of Death. He climbs a tree and gladly tastes the honey on its branches: he thinks himself secure. The tree represents human life, and its sweet branches are the seductions of this world. Two rodents, however, unbeknown to the man, are gnawing away at the bole of the tree. The black mouse is night and the white one is day. Hell is shown, its jaws gaping, in a cave below the tree of human life. Like Psalters, some Gospel illuminations are very close to the text and follow it word by word, even in physical proximity. A good example of this is a 13th century Armenian Gospel manuscript, the Gospel of the Six Painters, Erevan Matenadaran No 7651.13 The illuminations of this manuscript were copied from a Byzantine manuscript which exists in Florence, and upon the Byzantine manuscript, instructions were written in Armenian for the copyist-painter which were carried out in the Armenian manuscript. The illustration of one opening in the Armenian manuscript is rendered with a lot of drama. On the left is the Crucifixion and the human reaction to it. Observe the Virgin fainting and being supported by the holy women. John is shown weeping (Christ is shown wearing a crown which reveals Western influence). To the right side is an addition of the Armenian painter, who paints small scenes illustrating the text, verse by verse, as it was presented in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 27. From top to bottom we see “darkness over the earth”, the Trinity, an interpretation of Jesus’ cry “My Father, why have you forsaken me!” showing him in the bosom of God the Father; the dead Christ is painted alongside the words “and Jesus expired”. When they see the dead rising and the veil of the temple torn from top to bottom, the centurion and his followers are terrified. Another example of this method may be taken from the Armenian Gospel of the Six Painters of the thirteenth century (fig. 6.7). This manuscript contains paintings attributed to Toros Roslin, but the picture reproduced, “The Massacre of the Innocents”, was originally only drawn in lines and at a later date it was completed, in a rather rough fashion, by Pidzak and a student. It is only a short way from this sort of presentation to the introduction of paintings scattered through the body of the text in a similar way to that of the heads and busts seen before. Such paintings are generally related to the content of the text in which they are situated, but sometimes there is no relationship between them, and they refer to text earlier or later on in the manuscript. Some give portraits of relevant figures. 13 

Idem, Armenian Art, (Special Edition for the C. Gulbenkian Foundation), Pl. 113.

82

Chapter 6

figure 6.7 The Massacre of the Innocents, Armenian, Gospel, 13th century. Matenadaran, ms. 7651

The next example is from a Judaeo-Persian manuscript of the 14th century. This manuscript, known as the Ardashir Book, is an epic about the Bible, which is the Jewish past, just as Firdausi’s creation, the Shahname (10th century) represented the Iranian past.14 The painting we refer to shows a scene from the Book of Esther. Ahasuerus, who has divorced his first wife, Vashti, has ordered virgins to be brought to him from all parts of his kingdom in order to chose a new queen. Ahasuerus is seated on his throne and seven virgins are before him. One of them is serving wine and another beating a tambourine. The illustration is introduced exactly at the relevant text point of the text, even covering part of it. Thus we have reached the problem of the introduction of the illumination into the text. In general, the copyists left blank spaces for the illuminations, as they wrote. They received instructions from the painters as to which sort of illustation would be at that point and accordingly left blank space. The painters on their part had to put their paintings exactly into the inflexible blank space. Sometimes the fit was exact, but on other occasions the painting extended beyond the space left for it and covered part of the text. In Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate No 285 we can see clearly the problem of space left for the painting (fig. 6.8). Another rather good example is the Lectionary copied for King Hethoum II in 1286, Erevan Matenadaran 14 

Gutmann, Hebrew Manuscript Painting, plate 3.

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

83

figure 6.8 Lives of the Desert Fathers, Armenian 1430. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem (MS. 285)

No 979 (fig. 6.9). The powerful style of the painter is evident in a picture of Jonah being cast up by the whale. “The great fish is vomiting Jonah which such force that he is propelled outside the frame encompassing the sea … The diagonals of the composition, together with the prophet’s mantle swept up by the wind, accentuate the movement. Few painters have illustrated this episode in such an original way”.15 The painting of Jonah and the whale leads us to a new level of physical connection between text and painting, and that is the frame. At first glance the frame would seem to be unrelated to the issue of text and illustration. Yet, in fact the frame is a crucial separating or connecting link. The illumination of Jonah and the whale is surrounded by a frame which separates it from the text and turns it into an experience in its own right, connected in some measure or another to the text. The fact that the illustration is a portrait or a scene and occurs on the same page as the text forms a relationship between them in spite of the distance which is created by the frame. In the last examples we are witnesses to the assumption that the original interpretation of the story appears most often in the marginal illustrations and in the minatures inserted into the text, where symbolic interpretation accompanies and at times replaces the narrative scene.

15 

Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Armenian Art, p. 156.

84

Chapter 6

figure 6.9 Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, Jonah Vomited by the Whale. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 200v

From this point, we may proceed to the scene of the Temptation of Christ in the King Gagik Gospel, an Armenian manuscript in Jerusalem.16 Two parts of the story are included as narrative painting in a single composition, like a sort of “comic book”. Indeed, the picture is close to the text, but it could also have 16 

King Gagik Gospel, Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, manuscript No 2556.

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

figure 6.10

85

Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, The Descent from the Cross and The Entombment. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 193r

been presented separately as an independent experience, framed, with two narrative parts. In the next example there is a greater independence given to the painting, taken from the Toros Roslin Lectionary of 1286 (fig. 6.10). This is the Descent from the Cross and the Entombment. The structure of the painting is full and complex. Numerous figures participate in it. In addition to the actual scenes,

86

Chapter 6

additional figures are represented, such as St. John, smiting his hands together in despair and sorrow, and the Three Women at the empty tomb from which Jesus had risen. Here too the method is “comic book”, and the whole is set within an elaborate frame which separates and gives independence to the painting. On this page it appears that the painting is the main thing, while the text is a secondary accompaniment to it. Thus we have arrived at independent paintings on whole, separate pages. These are sometimes connected with adjoining text, and sometimes not at all. They are independent creations. This conception of a separate picture, independent and also separated from the text both physically (by being on a separate page) and in its content, spread in the world of Byzantine manuscripts in the 13th century and crystallized in the 14th century. This phenomonon occurs in Armenian manuscripts as well already in the 13th century. Figure 6.11 is the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple drawn from the Toros Roslin Lectionary of 1286, painted for King Hethoum II. The picture is independent and in no way dependent on text. A particularly remarkable aspect of such independent paintings is that the artist treats human figures as integral parts of the overall composition, not as separate individuals. They serve to produce dramatic effects. This may be observed in the Entry into Jerusalem in an Armenian Gospel of 1211 (fig. 6.12). In the last two examples we may also observe the function of the frame in the painting. This was mentioned before in connection with the Jonah scene which burst through the frame and with the illuminated page on which the text is set within a frame of musicians and their instruments. While in the Jonah scene the frame was a barrier that was broken in order to create a sense of movement and drama, in the Musical Psalter it creates an atmosphere fitting to the Book of Psalms. In the Presentation in the Temple, the frame forms a crown for the painting. The painter wished to fill us with a sense of wonder and amazement at this piece of jewellery that he set before us. In contrast, the painter of the Entry into Jerusalem directes our gaze into the very midst of his picture. He does not set the painting on a pedestal, the frame flows together with the other forms of which the painting is composed. Paradoxically, by this means, he makes the content of the picture spring out at us, and we look at it from within, while we looked at the previous painting, for all its rich ornamentation, from outside. Thus we have reached one end of the winding, tortuous road, ever splitting into side paths and routes which separate from and rejoin the main road— that is the relationship of the illustration and the text. Their relationship is ambiguous as it springs from simultaneous movements towards connection and separation. The main road is the desire of the painter to have his creations independent and connected to the text at the same time.

The Relationship Between Text and Illustration

figure 6.11

Lectionary of King Hethum II, 1286, The Presentation in the Temple. Matenadaran, ms. 979, folio 58v

87

88

figure 6.12

Chapter 6

The Entry into Jerusalem. Matenadaran, ms. 6288 of 1211

Chapter 7

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts Nira Stone

Those involved in the study of Armenian manuscript illumination frequently encounter an interesting phenomenon—pictures occurring in Gospel manuscripts which show scenes from apocrypha or which, while showing scenes from the Gospels, also contain apocryphal iconographic elements. Our attention here will be focused on scenes that occur together with the Gospel text and not on scenes which illustrate apocryphal literature. This phenomenon is widespread in Byzantine manuscripts and particularly in Oriental Christian manuscripts. However, among all these, it is most frequent in Armenian manuscripts. I shall not be able to exhaust this topic here, but I would like to present a number of interesting instances of this phenomenon. Moreover, I wish to draw attention to the question why this high percentage of apocryphal scenes occurs in Armenian manuscripts, rather than in any others.

John and Prochorus The most widespread of all these scenes in Armenian and other manuscripts is that of John the Evangelist and Prochorus. Generally the four Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are shown in portraits as thinking and writing down their Gospels, most often as a frontispiece for the Gospel which bears their name.1 As a frontispiece of the Gospel of John there frequently occurs a painting of John standing and listening to the Gospel which is issuing from a heavenly source (fig. 7.1). At his feet an additional figure is seated, writing down his words. This figure is Prochorus and the whole scene is based on the apocryphal Acts of John by Prochorus his disciple, a work apparently written in the fifth century, which has very little in common with the ancient Acts of John (2nd century). The book is written in the first person and its author presents himself as Prochorus, John’s close disciple. Prochorus relates a story according to which 1  A.M. Friend, “The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts”, Arts Studies 7 (1929), p. 3–29.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_008

90

figure 7.1 John and Prochorus. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2563

Chapter 7

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

91

the Gospel was dictated to him by John, while John was receiving it from God.2 It is interesting to note how widespread was the introduction of this Prochorus tradition into the iconography of the portrait of John the Evangelist. In the painting, John is standing while he receives the Gospel from heaven and is dictating it to Prochorus, who is seated at his feet writing. John either looks at Prochorus or points at him or both (fig. 7.1). In the background are mountains or architectural structures of a type unique to Armenian artists. Though this scene appears in many manuscript traditions, primarily in Byzantine, it is unusually widespread in Armenian art. Fine examples of it may be found in frontpieces of the Gospel of John in the thirteenth-century Armenian manuscript Matenadaran 4823 and in the fourteenth-century Armenian manuscript Matenadaran 6305.3 It is superfluous to add that there is nothing in the Gospel of John which hints at this event. The artists of the medieval Christian East and especially the Armenians liked apocrypal stories and sometimes prefered to illustrate them rather than the ‘official’ versions of events as related in the Gospels. There are many examples of apocryphal stories in Armenian art. In one way or another, the following examples share the subject of the Garden of Eden, with which they have direct or indirect connection. Either the whole scene is apocryphal or apocryphal elements have been introduced into a traditional scene.

The Annunciation at the Well One of these stories is the story of the Annunciation. In the Gospels, the story appears in Luke 1:26–31. An angel was sent to Mary to tell her that she was pregnant with a son who will be Jesus, of whose ‘kingdom will be no end’ (Lk 1:33). In the apocryphal literature this story is magnified and given an even more dramatic flavor. 2  About the Acts of John by Prochorus, see W. Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen in deutscher Übersetzung, t. 2, Tübingen 19895 p. 385–389 (= New Testament Apocrypha, English translation ed. by R. McL. Wilson, t. 2, Cambridge (Mass.) 1991, p. 429–435). About the story of the redaction of the Gospel of John: Greek text edited by Th. Zahn, Acta Joannis, Erlangen 1880, p. 150–158; Armenian version edited by K. C‛rak‛ean Ankanon Girk‛ Aṙak‛elakank‛, Venice 1904, p. 286–289; French translation ot the Armenian version by L. Leloir, Écrits apocryphes sur les apôtres. Traduction de l’édition arménienne de Venise (CCSA 3), Turnhout 1986, p. 401–404. 3  See H. Hakobian, The Medieval Art of Artsakh, Erevan 1991, p. 79. See also A. Mirzoyan, Grigor Tatevatsi and Anonymous Painter of Syunik, Erevan 1987, plate 26.

92

Chapter 7

This story is told in the apocryphal Protevangelium of James, a secondcentury infancy Gospel.4 The Protevangelium of James was extremely popular in Armenia, where its content was transmitted in two main ways, either in rather literal versions5 or as part of a lengthy paraphrase called the Armenian Infancy Gospel.6 It was already known in Armenia in the sixth century, but was banned in 590. It again occurs in the tenth century. The text of the Protevangelium tells the story of the Virgin, how after being entrusted to Joseph she was given the scarlet for making the temple veil and ‘Mary took the scarlet and spun it’ (chap. 10). According to the next section of the work, she takes a pitcher and descends to a well and goes to fill the pitcher with water. She hears a voice addressing her from behind. She looks to the left and to the right, but when she does not see anyone, she is frightened and flees back to her home. The invisible angel who had addressed her at the well, comes to her home and makes his famous announcement to her.7 The story about the meeting by the well does not occur in the Gospel of Luke, but only in the Protoevangelium of James. This story contains two apocryphal elements. First, Mary descends to the well with a pitcher in her hand and an angel addresses her there. She looks right and left but cannot see the angel, so she runs home. Second, Mary is spinning in her house as do all the aristocratic and decent women. This story was a particular favorite of Armenian illuminators and frequently is represented in the context of the Annunciation proper. Some of the paintings describe the moment by the well (fig. 7.2).8 In others, it is when she returns home frightened by the voice and ‘put down the pitcher and took the purple and sat down on her seat and drew out the thread’ (fig. 7.3 and 7.4). This latter apocryphal element, Mary’s spinning, appears in 4  Greek text edited by É. de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques (Subsidia hagiographica 33), Bruxelles 1961; English translation in J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1993, p. 48–67. 5  Three different forms of the Protevangelium in Armenian (BHO 613, 611 and 614), deriving from two independent versions, have been edited by E. Tayec‛i, Ankanon Girk‛ Nor Ktakaranac‛, Venice 1898, p. 237–267; they have been translated into Latin by H. Quecke in É. de Strycker, op. cit., p. 439–473 (see also p. 37 and 355–359). 6  Two forms of the Armenian Infancy Gospel (BHO 617–618) have been edited by E. Tayec‛i, op. cit., p. 1–126 and 127–235. The first part of this composite work, which corresponds to the Protevangelium (Tayec‛i, op. cit., p. 1–29), has been translated by F.C. Conybeare, “Protevangelium Jacobi (from an Armenian Manuscript in the Library of the Mechitarists in Venice)”, American Journal of Theology 1 (1897), p. 424–442; the whole compilation has been translated into French by P. Peeters, Évangiles apocryphes, 2, Paris 1914, p. 67–286; see also É. de Strycker, op. cit., p. 43–44 and 372–373. 7  The story of the Annunciation is told in chap. 11 (É. de Strycker, op. cit., p. 112–117; J.K. Elliott, op cit., p. 61). 8  See A. Mirzoyan, op. cit., plate 35.

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

93

figure 7.2 The Annunciation with the Jug. Matenadaran, MS. 6305

numerous Armenian paintings of the regular Annuciation scene. According to T. F. Mathews it occurs 80% more frequently than in the Byzantine scenes. In his view, it was introduced in order to stress Mary’s status. She is receiving a stranger in her husband’s absence, as a faithful woman fulfilling her household duties.9 9  See T.F. Mathews, “The Annunciation at the Well. A Metaphor of Armenian Monophysitism”, in Medieval Armenian Culture (University of Pennsylvania Armenian Text and Studies 6), edited by T. Samuelian – M.E. Stone, Chico (Calif.) 1984, p. 343–356.

94

figure 7.3 The Annunciation with the Jug (ms. M 7482, 1378 AD)

Chapter 7

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

figure 7.4 The Annunciation, with the Virgin starting to spin. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2563

95

96

Chapter 7

The scene of the Annunciation at the Well is connected with the Garden of Eden. In Patristic literature, both Byzantine and Armenian, the Virgin is the Garden of Eden and she is the pitcher (the Golden Pitcher) which appears in the Annunciation by the Well.10 “To Gregory Narekac‛i Mary is herself the ‘Living Paradise of Delight, the tree of immortal life’.”11 In many paintings of the Annunciation at the Well a palm tree is standing which symbolizes the Garden of Eden and the tree of life. Adam, and so mankind, was expelled from the Garden because of Eve, the first woman, and the course of events starting with the Annunciation to Mary, a second Eve, will return mankind to Eden. Sometimes there are two streams of water coming out of the well in the scene of the Annunciation at the Well. There are differences of opinion as to the meaning of the streams of water. Mathews claims that the two streams, which in one case join into one, symbolize Armenian monophysitism.12 This is possible. In representations of Eden, however, there are often streams of water. These can be the Jordan river and / or the four rivers of Paradise.13 So it is also possible that the two streams of water in the Annunciation are two of the four rivers of Eden and that the well is the well of living water. These are speculations, of course, which cannot be proved or disproved.

The Transfiguration The scene of the Transfiguration is one of the most frequently illuminated of the festal scenes in Byzantine art in general and in Oriental Christian art, including Armenian, in particular. The Transfiguration appears in Byzantine art from the sixth century on. A number of factors may have contributed to this, but the main reason is the character and importance of the event. Inasmuch as it is the moment of Jesus’ transition from an earthly to a heavenly condition, it symbolizes the transition from this world to the world to come. Thus it highlights the aspiration and the desire of every mortal for the transition to the Garden of Eden. In Armenian painting the scene develops in two parallel ways. One resembles that which can be observed in medieval art and reflects the story as it is told in the Gospel. The other is unique to Armenian art. According to the 10  11  12  13 

See T.F. Mathews – A.K. Sanjian, Armenian Gospel Iconography, Washington (D.C.) 1991, p. 136. Ibid. See above n. 9. See N. Stone, The Kaffa Manuscript of the Desert Fathers. A Study of Armenian Manuscript Illumination, Louvain 1997, p. 87–90.

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

97

Gospel in Mt 17:1–13, Mk 9:2–13 and Lk 9:28–36, Jesus took Peter, James and John his brother and went up on a high mountain where he was transfigured: ‘his face shone like the sun and his garments became white as light.’ Moses and Elijah appeared to them; a bright cloud overshadowed them and the voice of God addressed them. The disciples fell on their faces. This scene of the Transfiguration represents a story wholly taken from the Gospels, which generally lacks any apocryphal elements. However, it is possible to find a few apocryphal features in the second, particularly Armenian way the scene developed. This happened in the area of Vaspurakan, where a distinctive school of Armenian art existed. It was unique, presented in the style of this area which is notable for simplicity and for presenting only elements essential for the content of the painting. It may reflect an old tradition, and apocryphal elements unknown to the Gospel story appear in its iconography. Manuscript Matenadaran 6201 (M 6201) of the year 1038 presents us with an abbreviated Transfiguration which is, nonetheless, quite umistakable (fig. 7.5). The painter presents the basic elements which identify the scene for the viewer. Christ is standing on the top of a high mountain. The three apostles are lying on the slopes of the mountain, with their faces visible and they are shading their eyes with their hands. Moses and Elijah are standing in the left part of the picture, to Christ’s right. Moses is wrapped in a shroud. This is unusual but not very surprising. The Bible says that Moses was buried in the valley and his burial place is not known (Deut 34:5–6). That means that Moses was buried like other mortals and did not ascend to heaven alive like Elijah. Therefore, when he arose from his tomb for the Transfiguration, he was wrapped in a shroud. Artistic evidence relating to this is also to be found in a thirteenth-century Crusader icon from Sinai depicting Moses’ burial.14 According to Ismailova who agrees with Zakaryan, Moses symbolizes the world of the dead while Elijah symbolizes the world of the living. Thus Christ appears as king of both the world of the living and the world of the dead.15 She claims that this presentation, which survived only in this area, may have been created before the acceptance of the canonical iconography and may have been based on ancient apocryphal literature dealing with Moses’ burial.16 There is no direct evidence of the existence of ancient Jewish literature about this subject. The reference in Jude 9 may hint at the existence of a Jewish 14  15  16 

See K. Weitzmann, “Thirteenth Century Crusader Icons on Mount Sinai”, Art Bulletin 45 (1963). fig. 15. See T.A. Izmailova, “Le Tetraévangile arménien de 1038”, Revue des études arméniennes 7 (1970), p. 222. Ibid.

98

Chapter 7

figure 7.5 The Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. 6201

tradition that dealt with Moses’ death. The theme of the struggle of an angel and Satan over a dead individual is found in other sources including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Moses, however, does not figure in these texts.17 Similar composition and iconography to M 6201 may be observed in a few more manuscripts. These include M 10780 and M 974 of the eleventh century;18 M 4814 of 1294;19 and M 4806 of 1306.20 In them, too, Christ is standing on the peak of a mountain, with the apostles lying once again on one side on its slope. On the other side Moses stands in a shroud and Elijah behind him. In all of the pictures there are fruit trees on the mountain. Their presence in this scene is unique to Armenian painters and may serve to highlight its connection with 17 

18 

19  20 

See E. Glicker Chazon, “Moses Struggle for his Soul: A Prototype for the Testament of Abraham, the Apocalypse of Esdras and the Greek Apocalypse of Sedrach”, Second Century 5 (1985–1986), p. 151–164. See also J.T. Milik, “4Q Visions de ‘Amram et une citation d’Origène”, Revue biblique 79 (1972), p. 77–97. See V.O. Ghazaryan – S.S. Manukyan, The Treasures of the Book Art in the Soviet Book Collections, Matenadaran, 1: Armenian Manuscripts of VI–XIV Centuries (in Russian), Moscow 1991, plate 67. See T.F. Mathews – A.K. Sanjian, op. cit. (supra, n. 10), fig. 106b. See L. Zakaryan, History of the Miniatures Painting of Vapurakan (in Russian), Erevan 1980, fig. 8.

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

99

Paradise. The mountain and the fruit-bearing trees symbolize the tree of life in Paradise and the world of the transfigured Christ.21

Dormition of the Virgin Together with the scene of the Assumption of the Virgin, the Dormition represents the ascent of the Virgin to Paradise. Armenian painters loved to depict this scene of the Dormition according to the apocryphal story found in the The Assumption of the Virgin.22 In that text the Virgin’s funeral is described. Her bier was carried by the twelve Apostles. Suddenly a Jew named Jephonias fell upon the bier. At that moment an invisible angel appeared and severed his two hands with a sword and the hands remained attached to the coffin. Peter hastened to demonstrate Christ’s greatness to Jephonias. When he asked the Virgin’s forgiveness, Jephonias’ hands were joined again to his body and he confessed Christ’s greatness.23 Most of the illustrations of this story show Jephonias standing in front of the bier with his arms raised and his hands severed. In some cases the severed hand hangs in the air; in others they are stuck to the bier. This probably depended on the version of the story known to the artist. In the scene the angel stands at Jephonias’ side with the sword still in his hands while on the other side stands Peter. Two very good examples come to us from the fourteenth century. One is from Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, manuscript no. 1973 (J 1973) of 1346, “The Mariun Gospels” (fig. 7.6), while the other is from ms. 2743 of the Matenadaran (M 2743), Gospels of the 13th century (fig. 7.7).

Folk Traditions Just like apocryphal stories, folk stories also found their way into religious scenes in Armenian illuminated manuscripts, enriching the fixed canonical 21  22 

23 

See N. Stone, op. cit. (supra, n. 13), p. 87–90. About the very complex tradition of the Dormition or Assumption of Mary see M. Geerard, Clavis Apocryphorum Novi Testamenti, Turnhout 1992, p. 74–96 (“Dormitiones armeniacae”, p. 92–94); M. van Esbroeck, “Les textes littéraires sur l’Assomption avant le Xe siècle” in F. Bovon et alii, Les Actes apocryphes des apôtres. Christianisme et monde païen (Publications de la Faculté de théologie de l’Université de Genève 4), Genève 1981, p. 265– 285; S.C. Mimouni, Dormition et Assomption de Marie. Histoire des traditions anciennes (Théologie historique 98), Paris 1995 (“La tradition littéraire arménienne”, p. 319–344). The story of Jephonias is found, for example, in the story of the Dormition attributed to the John the Apostle, chap. 46; for an English translation see J.K Elliot, op. cit. (supra, n. 4), p. 707.

100

Chapter 7

figure 7.6 The Dormition of the Virgin. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 1973

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

figure 7.7 The Dormition of the Virgin. Matenadaran, MS. 2743

101

102

Chapter 7

iconography. The scene of the Entrance to Jerusalem is very popular and usually has a happy atmosphere. However, there is a very rare example of this scene in which church bells are ringing for the occasion. The illustration is in the fourteenth-century Armenian manuscript from Siwnik‛, M 6305 (fig. 7.8). In this scene, the iconography is the standard canonical representation of Christ’s Entrance to Jerusalem (Mt 21:1–9; Mk 11:1–10; Lk 19:28–40; Jn 12:12–19). Christ, sitting on a white ass (but with no colt even though one is mentioned in the story of Mt 21) is coming to the walls and gates of Jerusalem. Above the walls, towers are visible and in one of them are two bells. A group of elders is waiting at the gate to greet Christ and young boys are spreading their tunics under the ass’ hooves. On the trees above are boys, cutting branches off the tree and spreading them on the road. This is as told in Mt 21:8, and not according to Mk 11:8 where the branches are said to be ‘leafy branches which they had cut from the fields’. The only explanation of this can be found in Armenian folk tradition and especially church rituals. In Armenia there is a flower festival on which the young people bring branches of willow to the church and at midnight the bells ring and the priest makes a blessing. Then the branches are planted in the church yard. It seems that our painter introduced this into the scene due to the association of the tree branches cut by the young people in the story. The artist painted a dark background to mark the night-time as the time of the holiday and placed a young man in the center of the picture to ring the bells he put in one of the towers inside the walls of the city (fig. 7.8).24 This is one of many examples of the mixing of folk traditions into descriptions of biblical scenes.

Satan in the Baptism A folk story may also lie behind another element in a famous scene. This is the Baptism and the presence of Satan in the water of the Baptism in Armenian manuscript illuminations. Satan is not present in the water of the Baptism according to the biblical text. Ps 74:13–14—‘Thou didst break the heads of the dragons on the waters. Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan’—was sometimes applied to the Baptism, though that was obviously not the original intent of the Psalmist. Yet the number of copies of the scene of the Baptism with Satan in them in various guises—snake, dragon, angry fish or demons—is astounding. This element does not usually occur in apocryphal literature. There exist 24 

See A. Mirzoyan, op. cit. (supra, n. 3), p. 36, fig. 18.

Apocryphal Stories in Armenian Manuscripts

103

figure 7.8 The Entry into Jerusalem. Matenadaran, MS. 6305

Armenian folk tales like the one about Satan who wanted to steal the water of the Baptism and came equipped with a jug to collect the water. In ancient art, rivers were often represented by a river-god holding a jug from which the river flowed. Armenian painters may have interpreted the ancient river god as a hostile figure trying to steal the water of the Baptism like in the folktale. They might even have adapted it to accord with their story and tranformed it into a demonic looking Satan. This would explain the extraordinary appearance

104

Chapter 7

of Satan or other demonic creatures in the baptismal water in Armenian art (fig. 7.9).25 From the above examples we can learn that the apocryphal stories held a special place in the hearts of medieval Armenian artists. A general tendency of the Christian East combined with a vivid imagination and a daring character of the Armenian artists to bring a fresh breeze to the medieval conformism in religious art.

figure 7.9 The Baptism. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 2568

25 

This subject is complex and will be the subject of a forthcoming book by N. Stone.

Chapter 8

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood. A Story of a Woman Pilgrim in Art St. Augustine of Hippo had an enlightenment experience in 384 while reading the Epistles of St. Paul. This Western Christian theologian underwent an experience similar to that of a famous and earlier Christian personality, St. Anthony of Egypt, the first monk. He saw the great light when he entered a church and heard words being read from the Acts of the Apostles. Such experiences as these, which led people to conversion, happened not infrequently between the third and the sixth centuries. Those that took place in Egypt and in Syria were recorded in the Apophthegmata, a literary genre that transmits the lives and sayings of the Egyptian Desert Fathers. These collections were meant mainly for the many ascetic monks who flooded the deserts, fighting daily with the devil who tried to prevent them from achieving enlightenment. The stories encouraged them to go on with their way of life. Among these desert ascetics were also women who underwent conversion experiences. Some were mothers, sisters, and wives of the monks in the desert who themselves became nuns in monastic communities or solitary ascetics. Other women chose this way of life for various reasons, just as men did. A few of those who are mentioned in The Lives of the Desert Fathers were prostitutes who, by conversion, repented in order to get closer to the “kingdom” that Eve had lost. One such person was Mary of Alexandria, also called Mary of Egypt. She is widely known in the Eastern Christian world and is sometimes called “the icon of repentance.” As a literary source for the story of Mary the Egyptian we will use the Armenian version of The Lives of the Desert Fathers. There are four illustrations of female figures in the Armenian manuscript of the Lives of the Egyptian Desert Fathers, Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate 285 (henceforth: Jerusalem 285).1 This manuscript was copied and illustrated in Kaffa (Crimea) in 1430 by T‛addeus Avramenc‛, a monk in the Armenian monastery of St. Anthony, a major intellectual center and an important artistic school where many illuminated manuscripts were created. Like most Armenian manuscripts, this manuscript was illuminated in the same tradition that characterized Armenian artists from the sixth to the seventeenth century. 1  For a description of the manuscript, see N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts (Jerusalem, 1962), 2:107–112 (in Armenian).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_009

106

Chapter 8

However, being situated geographically on the Byzantine periphery, it was also influenced culturally by Byzantine civilization, as were the manuscripts of other peoples of the Christian East. The Desert Fathers were solitary ascetics who lived in the Egyptian desert in the period from roughly 250 to 500 CE. Their way of life and ideas paved the way for the foundation of institutional monasticism in early Christianity. Their three main centers, in the Thebaïd, the Nitrian desert, and central Egypt, served as magnets which drew numerous Coptic and other travelers who gathered around the monastic leaders. These disciples, under the guidance of their teachers, created ideas and explanations of various aspects of the religious life that were collected in monastic circles. These teachings were expressed in homilies and records of their sayings or Apophthegmata, which became a literary genre in their own right.2 At first glance it might seem that in the closed and coercive social situation of that period, women would have had no opportunity to go out to a monastery or to the desert. However, a closer examination shows that this was the only way open to a woman who did not wish to surrender to the difficulties of her life and lot, subject to her father, her brothers, or other men, some of whom were known to her and some of whom were strangers, who exploited her socially, as well as sexually. In spite of their inferior status in general society, or perhaps because of it, women’s importance in the monastic setting was greater. Monastic and ascetic women have not been regarded in the past as a separate group, differentiated from the men, and indeed it is impossible to make such a distinction into a matter of principle. Like men, they accepted the monastic life for generally similar motives. They lived their lives in a fashion resembling that of male ascetics. Nonetheless, there is a special attitude towards some of the women in the stories themselves, as in the illuminations and their presentation.3 The female ascetics in Jerusalem 285 are represented, like most of their male counterparts, in iconic portraits. Armenian icons did not survive, because the anti-Chalcedonian position of the Armenian Church did not encourage their

2  For the sources and collections, see R.T. Meyer, Palladius: The Lausiac History (New York & Ramsey, 1964); N. Russell and B. Ward, The Lives of the Desert Fathers (Oxford, 1981). 3–10; B. Ward, The Sayings of the Desert Fathers (Oxford, 1975); and, on the oriental versions, M. van Esbroeck, “Les Apophtegmes dans les versions orientales,” Analecta Bollandiana 93/3–4 (1975), 381–389. 3  See E.A. Clark, “Ascetic Renunciation and Advancement: A Paradox of Later Ancient Christianity.” Anglican Theological Review 63 (1981), 240–257 and R. Ruether, “Mothers of the Church: Ascetic Women in the Late Patristic Age,” in Women of Spirit (New York, 1979).

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood

107

use. Nevertheless, the iconic figures in the manuscript are painted mainly in Byzantine style and iconography. In accordance with the designation of the men as “Desert Fathers,” we shall call the women illustrated in this manuscript “Desert Mothers.” Mary the Egyptian was one of them. The others were Marina, Theodora, and Euphrosyne. These three were all respected pious women who, for their own reasons, wore men’s clothes and lived as male ascetic monks. They were all painted by the Armenian artist in female clothes, from the period before they began monastic life. Mary was different.4 Her story differs from those of the women we have mentioned, since Mary was an ascetic and naked solitary. The story was prevalent in the Middle Ages, in the East and the West alike. Jerusalem 285 relates it, quoted from the mouth of “a Bishop from Jerusalem.”5 Jerusalem 285 has pictures and stories relating to naked men;6 the innovation in Mary’s story is her gender, and this caused a problem. The painter could use the men’s long beards to hide their private parts. For a woman, either he had to paint a proper nude, or he had to find another solution to the difficulty of her nakedness. This led the artists to various and strange resolutions of the problem. The simplest solution was to state that her skin was dark and burned by the desert sun and that she was covered completely in thick hair. The “Bishop from Jerusalem” tells of Father Zosimus, who lived an ascetic and solitary life on the western bank of the Jordan river for thirty-five years. From time to time Zosimus would cross to the eastern bank of the river and wander around in the desert, searching for an eremite who might guide him. One day, as he wandered around in this eastern desert, his gaze suddenly lighted on a strange being who seemed to him not to belong to this world. However, on further examination he saw that it was a human being, whose skin was brown from the heat of the sun, covered completely with hair that grew from the body like a sheep’s fleece. This creature started to flee and Zosimus pursued it, calling to it to stop. Suddenly this figure, a woman, wept and fell into a ditch, saying that she was unable to show herself to him naked. She asked him to throw her his coat, which he did, and he covered his eyes until she was clothed. Later she told him her story. She was born in Alexandria in Egypt and she left her parents’ house and lived a licentious and adulterous life, not for profit,

4  A.T. Bate, “La vie de Sainte Marie L’Egyptienne,” Revue des Langues Romanes 59 (1916–1917), 145–400. 5  See C.A. Williams, Oriental Affinities of the Legend of the Hairy Anchorite, vol. 2 (Illinois, 1925), 107 n. 4. 6  The naked males are Timothy, Onophrius, and Macarius the Roman.

108

Chapter 8

but for pleasure. During this period she boarded a ship that brought pilgrims to Jerusalem, in order to carry on with the sailors and the pilgrims. She continued this conduct when she reached Jerusalem. Once, on a festival day, she was pushed by the great crowd into the basilica (i.e., the Church of the Holy Sepulchre). As she was about to cross the doorway a mighty power prevented her from entering. This happened a number of times and she finally discovered that she was the only one who could not enter the holy place. She hastened to an icon of Mary, the Mother of Christ, and prayed to her, asking permission to touch the Holy Cross. Then she tried again to enter the church, and this time she was able to do so. She even reached and touched the Holy Cross. When she returned to the icon of the Virgin, she asked for guidance in repentance and atonement for her deeds. A great voice commanded her to go across the Jordan. She reached the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the Jordan and there a small boat awaited her. She began to float in it and thus reached the eastern bank of the river. There she lived for forty-seven years. She told Zosimus that at the beginning she had three loaves of bread. When these were finished, she began to eat the grass of the field with her mouth like an animal. Her clothes wore out and she went completely naked. Only hair grew on her body. Zosimus asked to pray with her and was astounded to see that she levitated somewhat above the ground. After the prayer and blessings, she asked him on his next visit, which would be on Holy Thursday, to bring a little of the wine and the Host, so that she could take Communion, something she had not done for a long time. She instructed him to tell nobody of their meeting and, on his next visit, not to cross to the eastern bank of the Jordan, but to wait for her on the western bank. Zosimus did as she requested. On the appointed day he arrived and Mary was standing on the other side of the Jordan. As Zosimus was wondering how one of them would cross, Mary began to walk on the water and quickly crossed the river. They prayed and she partook of the bread and wine. When she finished, Zosimus asked permission to visit her again in a year. She agreed and, making the sign of the cross over the water, she walked across and disappeared. When Zosimus came a year later to visit her, he found her body. He did not succeed in digging a grave for her and, as he looked around helplessly, a lion appeared and dug the grave with its claws. In Jerusalem 285, Mary, like the other women in this manuscript, stands in a posture of blessing, with the palms of both hands turned outwards to the viewer (figure 8.1). Around her head is her hair, arranged as a sort of covering and tied under her chin. From the neck down, her body is covered with hair,

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood

109

figure 8.1 Mary the Egyptian. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. 285, p. 420

like a pelt, and colored reddish bronze. The hair of her head is of the same color and is adorned with a halo. The hair is highly stylized and does not look as if it is growing from her body. Mary’s face is executed with care but her eyes are particularly prominent, perhaps to stress her great spirituality. The artist here presented the naked woman by picking up a detail from the story, that her body was covered with long, thick hair like fleece. He covered

110

Chapter 8

figure 8.2 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus

her whole body with hair, like a pelt from head to foot. Thus, he solved the problem of the presentation of her body, moreover creating an impressive figure, corresponding to the dramatic character of the story. Other examples of the figure of Mary the Egyptian occur as early as the seventh century in Rome, in a fresco in the Church of St. Mary Antiqua. Here only the head and a little of the neck survived. There is enough, however, for us to learn about the painter’s difficulties, for on the neck the remains of hair, like the hair on her head, can be seen.7 In Cappadocia there are several frescoes that describe certain incidents drawn from the story. In Ala Kilise the painting describes the meeting of Zosimus and Mary, when he threw his coat for her to cover her naked body, and the Communion, when Zosimus put the holy bread into her mouth.8 Another example is a fresco in Yilanli Kilise: the first part depicts Zosimus giving Mary the bread and wine as Communion, and the second part shows the burial of Mary. Here Zosimus buries Mary with the help of a lion.9 A scene showing

7  See M. Chatzidakis and A. Grabar, Byzantine and Early Medieval Painting (New York, 1965), fig. 109. 8  See N. Thierry and M. Thierry, Nouvelles églises rupestres de Cappadoce (Paris, 1963), fig 47. 9  Thierry and Thierry, Nouvelles églises, fig. 21.

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood

111

figure 8.3 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus from the Theodore Psalter of 1066. British Library BL ADD. 19.352 fol. 158v

Zosimus throwing the garment to Mary is to be found in the Greek Theodore Psalter of the year 1066 (figure 8.2).10 An Armenian manuscript illuminator of 1348 in Cilicia chose to dress Mary simply in a monastic robe. So did a later artist, in an icon from the Monastery of Dečani in Serbia executed in 1596, probably drawing on an earlier model (figure 8.3).11 Lazarev says that in Georgia, in the twelfth century, in the days of Queen Tamara, there was a tendency to paint saints, and particularly ascetic saints. He relates that in the church of Alathea there is a scene of Zosimus giving Communion to Mary the Egyptian.12 During the revival of the monastic movement in Italy in the fifteenth century, the lives of the Egyptian Desert Fathers became an important subject in art again in Sienna, Pisa, and in Florence. In one of the frescoes in Campo Santo in Pisa, there is a scene showing a monk feeding a kneeling hairy anchorite. It is identified as Anthony and a monk. However, it may be also read as a scene illustrating the story of Zosimus giving Communion to Mary the Egyptian, whose naked body is covered by her very long hair.13 Similar iconography of a scene like this is found in a seventeenth-century fresco in the Monastery of Eleshnitza in Bulgaria (figure 8.4). Here too the 10  11  12  13 

See S. Der Nersessian, L’illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age, vol. 2 (Paris, 1970), fig. 110. See M. Chatzidakis and G. Babi, “The Icons of the Balkan Peninsula and the Greek Islands,” in The Icon (London, 1982), fig. 349. See V. Lazarev, Storia delta pittura bizantina (Turin, 1967), 310. I have been unable to see a picture of this. I saw this picture in the Index of Christian Art in Utrecht, Holland. It is numbered there 04551, photographed from Alinari Collection no. 8826.

112

Chapter 8

figure 8.4 Mary the Egyptian and Zosimus

painter did not contend with the naked Mary, but dressed her in a sort of monastic habit. The picture shows Zosimus giving Mary the bread with his right hand and holding a chalice in his left. Her hair sticks up wildly.14

Conclusions The male ascetics, the Desert Fathers, are represented as they are described in the text—without alteration, even naked or in unbecoming positions. In contrast, the painter was careful to adjust the females’ images in the proper way. This is especially apparent in the case of Mary of Egypt. When the text forced the artist to present her naked, he sought for a detail in the text to help him. The text described her with a pelt covering her body, and so the painter covered her from head to toe with a fur-like cover. As we have shown, different painters chose to describe other moments in Mary’s life, e.g., the meeting with Zosimus who hands her something to wear, receiving Communion, and her burial. These are just a few details from Mary’s very rich life story. From her story we also learn of the special importance of the icon, especially the Virgin’s icon that was customarily placed in the churches,

14 

See G. Chavrukov, Bulgarian Monasteries (Sofia, 1978), fig. 200.

Jerusalem as a Point of Conversion from Sin to Sainthood

113

its power in early Christianity generally and for pilgrims specifically.15 In addition, it is interesting to learn about the special atmosphere on the pilgrim ships. It is noteworthy that all the examples deal with Mary after her conversion. None of the examples used the dramatic moment in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, when the icon of the Virgin Mary caused the enlightenment and conversion that brought her to the desert. This moment did not kindle the artists’ imagination. Likewise, artists did not paint the incident of her walking on water across the Jordan, symbolizing baptism and purification from all sins. The naked woman anchorite being given a garment to cover herself was more interesting. Also appealing, of course, was the result of Mary’s experience, when she becomes worthy to receive Communion, after repenting her sin, and her death. Her death symbolizes her complete sainthood when a lion, the symbol of kingdom, comes and helps to bury her. The lion helping to bury Mary was a common element in the Hairy Anchorite stories.16 We have seen a few examples of how artists solved the problem of illustrating Mary of Egypt. She was a pilgrim prostitute who changed her ways from sin to sainthood as the result of a visit to Jerusalem. Nira Stone

15  16 

See K. Weitzmann, ed., The Icon (London, 1982), 3–10. See Williams, Hairy Anchorite, 106–109. In Campo Santo there is a fresco showing St. Anthony burying Paul of Thebae and two lions helping him. See also A. Goddard-Elliot, Road to Paradise (Reading & London, 1987), fig. 3.

Chapter 9

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress Nira Stone and Michael E. Stone

During a recent visit to the Library of Congress, through the good offices of Dr. Levon Avdoyan, Area Specialist for Armenia and Georgia, we were able to examine two manuscript Missals in the Library’s collection. Avedis K. Sanjian in his Catalogue of Medieval Armenian Manuscripts in the United States catalogued only one of them.1 Some confusion seems to have entered his description, and we felt it wisest to re-catalogue the one manuscript he had studied and to catalogue the second one. At the outset, it should be remarked that the two manuscripts are very similar in their layout, writing and contents. Both contain, basically, the part of the Mass to be said by the celebrant, not that said by the deacons or the clerks. The page format in both is very similar: the ruling and mise en page are virtually identical, and the frames around the texts are drawn in a very similar way. In both, at the place of the memorial, a space has been left to introduce the name of the commissioner, and in both that same name is mentioned in the colophon at the manuscript’s end. Moreover, in Missal no. 1 the name was written, it seems, by the commissioner himself, whose writing and orthography left quite a lot to be desired. All these features indicate that the manuscripts were probably the products of a single scriptorium. The writing is very similar but, on close examination, it is not identical. The first manuscript is much more richly decorated than the second one. They were both written in the same year, 1722. The colophon of the second manuscript mentions a number of geographic names, which are discussed in the notes following the translation of the colophon below. They are all of places in historical Armenia Minor, in the environs of Sebastia and T‛oxat‛. It is reasonable, therefore, to set the origin of Missal no. 2 in that region. Since Missal no. 1 seems to come from the same workshop, it too should most likely be placed there as well. Missal no. 1 was donated to the 1  A.K. Sanjian, 1976, 762. He numbers it [173]. The study of these manuscripts was carried out during Michael E. Stone’s tenure of a Senior Visiting Fellowship at the John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_010

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

115

Church of St. Sargis in T‛axtayłalēn, a place which is not listed in the Armenian toponymic sources. A section of the text on the first three folios was compared. The rubrics of the two manuscripts differ rather substantially. The text of the liturgy itself is basically identical, but there are some variants, mainly but not exclusively orthographic. Thus we observe յանցանս (no. 1 fol. 3v) and յանձանս (no. 2 fol. 2v), յանձանց (no. 1 fol. 3v ii) and անցանց (no. 2 fol. 2v ii). There are a number of like instances, not infrequently involving the addition or omission of initial յ-.

Missal No. 1 1722, T‛axtayłalēn Physical Description The manuscript bears an old library number “Armenian Manuscript no. 1″ and a sticker giving the number 1561. It is composed of 23 folios written in 2 columns generally of 23 lines. Its dimensions are the following: Front cover: 19 cm × 26.6 cm; back cover: 19 cm × 26.7 cm; thickness: 1.7 cm. folios: 18.8 cm × 26.7 cm.; written area with frame: 18.7 cm × 26.7 cm; columns with frame: 5.9 cm × 20 cm. The cover is leather over cardboard. It is badly rubbed with some holes on both the front and back. The cover design, which is poorly preserved, was an “X” blind tooled between the four corners of the manuscript. A double lined rectangle, smaller than the X, is drawn some distance in from the edges of the manuscript, with its corners on the diagonals. On the front, the outer line is 2 cm from the edge, 1.3 cm from the top and 1 cm from the bottom. On the back, the outer line is 1.1 cm from the edge, 2.2 cm from the top and 2.4 cm from the bottom. Inside the back cover, flaps of leather folded over from the cover are glued down. These flaps measure 1–2 cm. Underneath them and covering the whole inner side of the cover, orange fabric has been glued. The inner edge of the fabric has been pasted over the joint of the block with the cover. The edge of the weaving is visible. A similar format is observed within the back cover, except that the edge of the fabric is not present. A stamp reading “Library of Congress” has been impressed into the lower leather flap. The manuscript is composed of two unnumbered fascicles. Both fascicles originally contained six bifolia. The second last folio of the second fascicle has

116

Chapter 9

been torn out. Thus, the first fascicle is of 12 folios while the second is presently of 11 folios. The text concludes on fol. 22r; fol. 22v is blank. The missing folio, which would have then ensued, might have been blank or it might have contained some later colophons. The fascicles are sewn onto three cords that also serve to attach the covers to the block. There are no headbands. The first and last folios are blank and unruled, thus forming end pages. The manuscript is written on oriental paper and its preservation is quite good. There are some finger markings on the lower outside corners of the folios, see particularly fol. 3r. There is some flecking in the outer margin. The ruling is dry point, done from the center of the fascicle, see fol. 22v. There is no indication of pricking and the ruling continues across the intercolumnar space. There are two sets of modern foliation in pencil. We have used that in the lower right corners of the recto pages. The foliation was introduced after the loss of the second-last folio. Writing and Text A full-page miniature on the left and a headpiece and ornamental writing on the right (described below) mark the opening of the text, fol. 2v–3r. Ornithomorphic letters are used in the first line of fol. 3r and at the beginnings of all major sections of the Mass, e.g., fol. 4v. At these points there are marginal paintings (see below). Following the line of ornithomorphic letters, fol. 3r has one line of gold uncial (erkat‛agir) letters, one line of purple bolorgir script and one line of red bolorgir. This folio alone in the manuscript is written across the full width of the page. An ornithomorphic initial and lines of gold, red and purple bolorgir letters mark the commencement of other major sections. A coloured initial signals lesser sections. The body of the script is regular bolorgir in black ink and the rubrics are written by the same hand in a smaller, black bolorgir. The original scribe has made a correction on fol. 7v by pasting a piece of paper over the erroneous text and writing the correct text on it. Layout The text is written within a frame, which surrounds both columns. It is 0.55 cm thick. From the outside in it is composed of a thin purple line, a thicker green line, a thin red line, a gold line, a thin red line and a green line. The inner edges of the columns also have vertical rulings, made up from the inside out of a green line, two red lines and a purple line making a total width of 0.4 cm. The lines of the frame do not always meet exactly in the corners, sometimes falling short of and sometimes overrunning the junction point. Except for fols. 2v–3r, each frame is decorated at the top, bottom and outer side with floral designs.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

117

Illumination Fol. 2v Full-page Illustration of the Crucifixion (Figure 9.1) The illumination is divided into the upper, celestial part and the lower, earthly part. The upper part has two meanings. On one hand, the body of Christ is crucified on the cross and his stigmata indicate his passion. On the other, the background shows the golden sky, stars and disc-like clouds in an inverted row. The clouds are light blue with a white pattern on each. The presence of the orange sun and moon (a usual iconographic element of the scene) emphasizes the celestial region. The lower, earthly part of the sky is dark. The background is a high fence made of geometric pillar-like forms in olive-green and blue. Only Christ’s feet are shown and blood drips from them onto the front of Adam’s skull that is buried at the foot of the cross.2 Thus Adam’s sin is washed away by the blood dripping from the wound in Christ’s side. The lowest area at the bottom of the cross is blue, marking the site of Golgotha. There Adam’s skull is buried

figure 9.1 Crucifixion and Initial Page, Missal no. 1, fols. 2v–3r. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 1/number 1561

2  See M.E. Stone, 2001, 102.

118

Chapter 9

(the Aramaic word Golgotha means “skull”). The area around the cross and skull is light blue in the form of wings.3 The individuals represented standing by the cross all have golden halos surrounded by a red line. On the right side, Joseph of Arimathea is kneeling holding onto the cross with both hands. Joseph has long dark hair and a narrow gold halo, which differs from all the others. He is wearing a purple garment, while behind him there stands a cleric with a tonsure who is wearing a blue, green and orange garment. On the left side of the picture are two women—the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. The Virgin Mary is standing in the foreground while the other Mary stands behind her left side. They are wearing red and blue. The stance of the persons present creates depth and perspective. Christ has a crossed gold halo with a red frame. His head is tilted to the right and his eyes are closed. He is wearing only a blue loincloth and his ribs are visible. Under his right arm is the bright orange sun shaped like a star with gold rays and a bright face. Under his left arm is a half moon, which is also orange and gold at the back. The moon’s face is black and angry. An orange frame surrounds the illustration. On its outer side are clusters of flowers and other vegetative motifs. Fol. 3r First Page of the Text, Opposite the Scene of the Crucifixion (Figure 9.1) Fol. 3v is decorated with a large headpiece and framed by five very thin green and red lines. Two blue peacocks, the birds of Paradise par excellence, stand above the frame with their heads intertwined. Their wings, the crests on their heads and the rear feathers of their open tails are red and blue. The peacocks serve to highlight the celestial character of this part of the composition. The headpiece is enclosed on three sides by a frame made of purple and white stylized forms. The lower part is gold and red, creating an arch. Inside the arch is a large golden chalice. A golden bust of Jesus as a child in an orans stance emerges from the chalice. On both sides are cherubs with large haloed heads and small red wings. Within the headpiece are seven blue, stylized, vegetative scrolls filled with fruits and flowers in red, green, black and blue. The same colors are reflected in the elaborate traditional Armenian ornament in the right margin, composed 3  M. Aławnuni, 1936, 48–50 (in Armenian) cites the following tradition from Hannē Erusałemac‛i, 1782, 207 concerning Golgotha: “There, according to tradition, were placed the head and bones of our forefather Adam, which Noah’s son Shem brought and buried in this place. This is the place where our Lord was crucified and his immaculate blood dripped upon Adam’s head and freed him and all his descendants” (trans. M.E. Stone). See also N. Marr, 1894, 43–44.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

119

of vegetative motifs and a large blue conch. On the outer side of the lower part of the frame and at its corners are ornaments made of plants and flowers that resemble those found throughout the manuscript. It should be remarked that the motif of Christ rising from the chalice symbolizes the redemption through his death and the resurrection.4 That is the significance of the use of wine in the chalice during the Mass and in a Missal, the combination of the symbols is very appropriate. A number of lines of decorative letters, already described, are found below the headpiece. The text here, the Vesting, occurs in Nersoyan, 8–9.5 Fol. 11v, col. 1. Small Headpiece This headpiece marks the opening of a new section of the text. It surmounts the left-hand column. As in the large headpiece on fol. 3r, this smaller example has three blue medallions with flowers, all on a gold background. Marginal Illustrations The margins are empty except for marginal illustrations on fols. 5v, 7r, 8r, 9r, l0v, 14r and 18v. Each of these represents a different part of the Mass and corresponds to the rubrics opposite. Fol. 5v Marginal Illustration This illustration shows a bishop kneeling during mass, grasping a book while a tonsured deacon stands behind holding a golden miter over the bishop’s head. Both wear tunics decorated with flowers and the bishop has a burgundy mantle over it, with a gold collar and cuffs. The bishop is saying the Prayer of St. Gregory of Narek (= Nersoyan, 22–23). Fol. 7r Marginal Illustration A bishop dressed in his ceremonial robes is holding a gold cross in his left hand. Over the floral garment he is wearing a red mantle. He has an omophorion with cross on his front and wears a golden bishop’s miter on his head. This marks the Anarxis (Nersoyan, 34–35 and 36–37). Fol. 8r Marginal Illustration A priest wearing a priest’s headdress is addressing a bearded young deacon wearing a floral tunic and an orarion over one shoulder. The second tonsured young man is wearing an orange tunic and is, perhaps, a sub-deacon. He is 4  Compare Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, John 6:54–56 and 1 Corinthians 11:25, as well as many later sources. 5  See Archbishop T. Nersoyan (trans.), 1950.

120

Chapter 9

clean-shaven. The bishop is wearing a floral gown and a burgundy mantle and an omophorion with three gold crosses. All the faces are painted very carefully. The deacon is holding a book. This illustration marks the Prayer of the Trishagion (Nersoyan, 40–41). Fol. 9r Marginal Illustration A bearded deacon, his hand covered with a golden cloth, is elevating a manuscript bound in gold. He is dressed in floral vestments and wears an orarion with crosses. This is the Gospel reading of the Deacon, which is followed by the Creed (Nersoyan, 46–47). Fol. 10v Marginal Illustration ( figure 9.2) An old bishop with white hair and beard is raising the golden chalice on high against a background of white cloth. He is wearing a burgundy vestment with gold cuffs. Behind him is a young deacon who is beardless and, like the bishop, wears a floral tunic and is holding two flabella. This picture illustrates the celebrant’s prayer in the Great Entrance in the Offertory (Nersoyan, 44–45). Fol. 14r Marginal Illustration A bishop with a short dark beard is holding a gold chalice in his left hand and making the sign of the Cross over the elements with his right hand. This clergyman is wearing a floral tunic and a burgundy mantle with gold collar and gold cuffs. This is the Epiclesis (Nersoyan, 70–71). Fol. 18v Marginal Illustration A celebrant is raising a gold chalice and the communion wafers. He is wearing a burgundy mantle over a floral garment and a stole with five crosses. He has a gold collar and cuffs. This is set at a Prayer pronounced by St. John Chrysostom (Nersoyan, 90–91). The actual distribution of the Communion is given in Nersoyan, 88–89. Colophons On fol. 16v, col. 2 we read, as part of the memorial lists in this section of the service: Յիշեա տ[է]ր եւ զհոգի ծառայիցս քո (in the original hand)

Remember, O Lord, also the soul of me, your servant,6 6  The word “servant” is actually in the plural.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

121

figure 9.2 Marginal Illustration, Missal no. 1, fol. 10v. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 1/number 1561

and then the continuation is in another rough notrgir hand with uncultivated orthography: գալուստին ա[ստուա]ծ լուսավոր է իւրուն հոգին ամէն

Galust. God is illuminator of his soul. Amen.

122

Chapter 9

The same hand has written the main colophon. This suggests that the manuscript was prepared in a (probably monastic) workshop and the place for the commissioner’s name was left blank. The commissioner subsequently wrote his own name on fol. 17v and also added the colophon on fol. 21r, cols. i–ii. He writes in different ink from the scribe of the manuscript. The date and place names are given in Galust’s hand, and so refer to his time, and not necessarily to that of the copying of the text of the manuscript, though it was probably close. Main colophon of Galust, fol. 21r, i–ii: յիւշայտակ7 է խորհուրդայտեդրըս. ջաղացտեղցի խօսրօվի որդի գալստին հիշատակ. ւ դուռն սուրբ սարքիսի որ է թախտայղալէն ով ոք պատարաք / col. ii / մատուցանէ մէկ բերան ասէհ ա[ստուա]ծ ողորմի գալուստի հոգուն` մէկ հայր մերոյ երկինք ասէհ. գրեցաւ թվին ՌԾՀԱ սեկդեհմբերի ամիս Ի օրն. զգորձս ձեռաց մի անտես առներ. ամէն.

This Missal is a memorial of Xōsrōv from J̆ałac’teł’s son Galust, as a memorial in the Church of St. Sark‛is which is in T‛axtayłalēn. Whoever offers a mass, say a “God have mercy” for the soul of Galust. Say one “Our father (who are in) heaven”. It was written in the year 1171 [A.E. = AD 1722], on the twentieth day of the month of September. Do not neglect the work of my hands. Amen. Observations As noted above, the script and orthography of the colophon are uncultivated. The writer appears to have been a Western Armenian speaker. Observe Sark‛is, with k‛ē and not gim and the non-reduction of Galust in the genitive form in one instance. The genitive/dative հոգուն is to be found in various forms of medieval Armenian. The spellings ասէհ (twice); յիւշայտակ, հիշատակ, սեկդեհմբերի and զգորձս are not usual. As for the two place names: J̆ałac’teł, the birthplace of Galust’s father Xōsrōv, is in Siwnik‛, in the region of Naxc̆avan. This shows nothing, of course, about the place in which the manuscript was copied. T‛axtayłalēn has not been identified. Churches of St. Sarkis are too numerous for this detail to serve as a geographical indication. 7  The ւ is written above the line. This is probably not a correction, but perhaps an old way of representing a diphthong. It may be observed, for example, in the signature of King Hethum published by L. Alishan, 1901.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

123

Missal No. 2 1722, Region of Sebastia (?) This Missal is not mentioned in Sanjian’s catalog of the Armenian manuscripts.8 It is marked as Armenian manuscript no. 2, no. 1560. It is very similar to the preceding manuscript and the general points of comparison are given above. Physical Description The manuscript has 1 + 20 + 1 folios written in two columns of 22 lines. Its dimensions are the following: Front cover: 20.4 cm × 28.3 cm; back cover: 20.3 cm × 28.2 cm; thickness: 0.9 cm. folios: 20.1 cm × 27.9 cm; written area with frame: 15.2 cm × 21.5 cm; column not including frame: 6.4 cm × 20.3 cm. The cover is leather over cardboard. A rectangle of stamped paper measuring 18.2 cm × 25.6 cm has been pasted onto the outside of the front cover, 1.5 cm from the edge and 1.2 cm from the top. The rear cover is similarly adorned, the rectangle of stamped paper there measuring 18 cm × 25.9 cm, being 1.3 cm from the top and 0.9 cm from the edge. Inside the front cover is a bifolium of crinkled, brown paper, roughly cut. Its left-hand folio is pasted down as a lining of the cover, while its right-hand folio forms a flyleaf. Inside the rear cover a bifolium of different, older paper is similarly mounted. This older paper is not identical with the paper upon which the manuscript has been written. The edges of this bifolium have been carefully trimmed unlike those of brown paper at the beginning of the manuscript. The fascicles are: one bifolium of crinkled brown paper, 2 fascicles of five bifolia, and a final bifolium of a different, older paper. Fascicle 1 is sown through five holes and fascicle 2 is sown through seven holes. The manuscript has been rebound and restored in the past. In particular, the lower outer corners of the pages, which were worn thin through handling, have been patched. Paper strips have been pasted at the folds of the bifolia to strengthen them and there are some similar patches elsewhere in the manuscript. The manuscript was trimmed in the course of rebinding and the edges

8  A.K. Sanjian, 1976. The Library of Congress manuscripts are described on pp. 762–779. The Library has acquired some further Armenian manuscripts since Sanjian’s catalogue was prepared.

124

Chapter 9

have been reddened. There are some stains, and heavy finger soil at the lower right corners of the recto pages. The ruling is dry point and is visible in the intercolumnar space. No sign of pricking is evident. The foliation is modern and is in the lower right-hand corner of the recto folios. The flyleaves are not numbered and there are no fascicle numbers. The text is written within a frame, which, on the whole, resembles the frame of Missal no. 1. There is an outer frame made of a thin purple line, 1.6 cm from the outer edge, 1 cm from the top and 3.1 cm from the bottom. Within this there is a complex rectangular frame 0.8 cm wide. This is composed, from the outside in, of a thin red line, a thicker green line and two gold lines between which there is a blue line that has faded at many points. Then comes a thicker green line, and red and purple lines. The same design is observed in the ruling of the inner ends of the lines down the intercolumnar space. Writing and Text The text is the Missal and, as in Missal no. 1, mainly the celebrant’s part of the service. The script is black bolorgir. It is somewhat larger than the writing in Missal no. 1, but resembles it considerably. Generally, the rubrics and the colophon are in smaller black bolorgir, by the same hand. There is some illuminated lettering. The text begins with a large, ornamental, illuminated initial and a line of ornithomorphic letters (fol. 2v). This is followed by a line of gold uncial (erkat‛agir) letters, a line of red bolorgir script and then the body of the text commences in black bolorgir. On this page alone of the manuscript, the writing extends to the full width of the page. Sections start with coloured initial letters, sometimes gold, occasionally with the rest of the first line in red bolorgir. At a number of points in the manuscript, some sort of marginal ornamentation and an ornithomorphic letter mark major subdivisions. A list of such instances will be found below. On fol. 13v there is a correction in notrgir at the foot of the page. Decoration Fol. 1v–2r Full-Page Painting and Highly Decorated Opening Page (Figure 9.3) The first opening resembles that of the other manuscript, yet, despite the similarity there are some interesting differences between them. Fol. 1v has a fullpage representation of the Crucifixion. The first thing that meets the eye is the absence of background. The painter left the background empty and very light olive green in color. Only the region where Christ’s body touches the sky is painted gold and the blue clouds around it are more natural than the stylized

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

125

figure 9.3 Crucifixion and Initial Page, Missal no. 2, fols. 1v–2r. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 2/number 1560

disc-like clouds in Missal no. 1. The sun and moon are painted on them, the moon on Christ’s left and the sun on his right painted in gold with a red frame. They are in the reverse position in the other manuscript. Christ is wearing a blue loincloth. The blood is pouring from the stigmata in his hands and the lance-wound in his side. It runs only down to his loincloth. The cross is connected directly to the ground with nothing around or under it. Joseph of Arimathea is holding the cross and looking up to Christ. He is young and has long hair. Behind him are two men, the first is young with long hair and behind him is an older man with white hair and beard. The men are dressed in blue, purple, green, red and grey. By the other side of the cross stand two women, the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. Both are dressed in red and blue. The figures here seem to stand on the foreground and do not add any depth to the painting. The frame is purple-white with a geometric motif. There are no floral clusters on the outside of the frame as are found in Missal no. 1. On the facing page there is a large headpiece measuring 12.5 cm × 11 cm. The overall impression is that it is very similar to the headpiece in Missal no. 1. The clipea (6 cm long) is in the same style, only in this manuscript it is empty.

126

Chapter 9

It is painted in black and grey and not in gold as in the first Missal. An orange frame surrounds the largest area of the headpiece and it contains vegetative scrolls with gold in them, full of floral motifs. Two peacocks with their necks intertwined stand on top of the frame. There is red and gold on their blue tails. Their wings are red. In the upper right and left corners there are decorations outside the frame. In the right-hand outer margin is a large Armenian traditional decoration, 23.5 cm long. The Marginal Decorations There are three types of decorations, the forms of which are very regular. The first, on fols. 8v, 13v and 15v, is a red and pink bird with a long tail, perhaps a peacock, standing on a flowering plant. The flowering plants vary somewhat. The second type is a small church building and is found on fols. 4v and 12v. The church on fol. 12v differs from that on fol. 4v since its upper part is made of a traditional Armenian decoration (figure 9.4). The third type is a small traditional Armenian decoration and occurs on folios 7r, 11r, 15r, 17v and 19v. Whenever there is an illumination in the margin, the written section opposite starts with an ornithomorphic letter. These decorations occur at the following points in the text: fol. 4v Prayer of Gregory of Narek (= Nersoyan, 22–23) fol. 7r Enarxis (= ibid., 34–35) fol. 8v Prayer with Open Arms (= ibid., 42–43) and the Nicean Creed (= ibid., 46–47) fol. 11r Prayer of the Offertory (= ibid., 58–59) fol. 12r Offertory, b. Anamnesis (= ibid., 66–67) fol. 13v Prayer of Humble Access (= ibid., 68–69) fol. 15r The Special Intercession (= ibid., 76–77). At the top of the second column on this folio is a later sketch of a hand, with two fingers extended in blessing. fol. 16v Prayer of Inclination (= ibid., 84–85) fol. 17v Prayer of Fraction (= ibid., 88–89) fol. 19v Prayers of Thanksgiving (= ibid., 96–97) Colophons On fol. 15v in the memorial part of the service, we read in the original hand: Յիշեա տէր եւ զհոգի ծառայիս քո սահակին (the last word in red).

Remember, O Lord, also the soul of me, your servant Sahak.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

figure 9.4 Marginal Illumination, Missal no. 2, fol. 12v. Library of Congress, Armenian MS no. 2/number 1560

127

128

Chapter 9

Main colophon on fol. 20v, col. ii, by the original scribe: Փառք ամենասուրբ երրորդութեանն հօր եւ որդւոյ եւ հոգւոյն սրբոյ այժմ եւ միշտ եւ յաւիտեանս յաւիտենից ամէն. Որ ետուր կարողութիւն աւարտման խորհրդագիրք սուրբ պատարագիս Ընդ որս զայս մահտեսի սինանի որդի սահակս ցանկացայ զայս ոսկէզարդ խորհըրդս եւ ետու յիշատակ Պիսկենու սուրբ աննայ անուամբ կոչեցեալ վանուց սուրբ աստուածածնայ տաճարին անդ մնասցէ: Ով սրբազան հայրք աղաչեմ եւ պաղատեմ առ տէրութեան ձերոյ. Յորժամ պատարագ մատչի յիշման արժան առնէք զմեղապարտ սահակս զհայրն իմ եւ զմայրն իմ եւ զկենակիցս իմ յիշելով մաքրափայլ աղօթս ձեր եւ դուք վարձս ի քրիստոսէ առնուցուք. եւ ձերին սուրբ աղօթիւքն տէր աստուածն ամենայնի մեզ մեղաւորացս ողորմեսցի ամէն: Սա եդաւ ի թվին ՌԾՀԱ ամին մարտէ Ե օրն ով ոք յիշէ յիշեալ լինի Հայր մեր որ ձեռամբ մեղապարտ մարզվանցու տէր եղիայ երիցու սխալ բանիցս կամ ամօթիւ զձեր ոտացն հող եւ փոշի չեմ զանունս յիշելու:

Glory to the all-holy Trinity, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, now and always and forever and ever. Amen. You who gave the ability of completion of the Missal of the holy Mass. In exchange for this I, Sahak son of mahdesi9 Sinan desired this gold-adorned Missal (i.e., to be written) and I gave (it) as a memorial to the Church of the Holy Mother of God of the monastery named St. Anna in Piskeni. There let it remain. O holy fathers, I pray and beseech your reverences, when the mass is offered make worthy of memory me, sinful Sahak, my father and my mother and my spouse, by remembering (them) in your pure prayers and you will receive10 reward from Christ. And through your holy prayers, may the Lord God of all have mercy on us sinners. Amen. This was placed in the year 1171 [A.E. = 1722] on the 5th day of March. Whoever remembers (us), will be remembered. “Our Father who …”. (The Missal was written) by the hand of the sinner, Reverend Elia, priest, Marzvanc’i. For my erroneous words I stand ashamed as earth and dust of your feet. I am un(worthy) of the remembrance of my name.

9  10 

Title of pilgrim to the Holy City of Jerusalem. Or: may you receive.

A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress

129

Geographical Notes Piskeni is a village in Armenia Minor, in the region of Sebastia, in the province of Eutokia. The monastery of St. Anna is mentioned in the Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenian and Adjacent Territories11 as being near T‛oxat‛, while the Church of the Holy Mother of God was in that monastery. Sahak son of Sinan mahdesi was the commissioner. The name Sinan, deriving from Arabic, is not common.12 The priest, Revered Ełia of Marzvan was the scribe. Marzvan (Theodosiopolis) is in historical Armenia Minor, near Sebastia. In medieval times it housed a scriptorium.13 As noted above, this accumulation of details points to the origin of Missal no. 2 in Armenia Minor, in the environs of Sebastia. It should be noted that in Missal no. 1, the only identified geographical name (the commissioner’s father’s place of origin) was in Siwnik‛. That, however, does not indicate anything about the manuscript’s origins. Note on Flyleaf On folio 1r a piece of green paper has been pasted over some writing. With the assistance of Ms Yasmeen Khan of the Conservation Department of the Library of Congress, photographs were prepared without removing the green paper. They made it possible to read the underlying text. It is a liturgical fragment relating to vesting. For that reason it was written before the beginning of the Mass. No reason could be discerned for the pasting of paper over it. It is in the notrgir script, quite different from that of the scribe of the manuscript. 1. զորս սր օրհնելով օրհնեցի. եւ զաղքատս. սրյ լցուցից [հացիւ 2. երիցանց. զգեցուցից զփրկութիւն. եւ սբք սր 3. ցնծալով ցնծասցեն: 4. Անդ ծագեցից եղջիւր ի դաւիթ. պատարագ արարից զճրագ 5. օծելոյ իմոյ: 6. թշնամեաց սր զգեցուցից զամօթ. եւ ի վերայ սր ծաղքեսցի 7. սրբութիւն իմ: փառք հօր եւ որդւոյ : եւ քարոզէ սարկաւագն 8. եւ եւս խաղաղութեան: [զտէր աղաչեսցուք.] 9. խնդրեսցուք հաւատով միաբանութեամբ ի տեառնէ. զի 10. զողորմութեան զշնորհս իւր արասցէ ի վերայ մեր 11. ամենակալ տէր աստուած մեր կեցուսցէ եւ ողորմ[եսցի 12. եւ ասասցեն ԲԺան տր ողորմեայ 11  12  13 

T‛. X. Hakobyan, S.T. Melik‛-Baxs̆ean and H.X. Barsełyan, 1986, 1.282 (in Armenian). See H. Adjarian, 1972, 4.521 (in Armenian). T‛. X. Hakobyan, S.T. Melik‛-Baxs̆ean and H.X. Barsełyan, 1991, 3.730–731.

130

Chapter 9

Very Rev. Krikor vardapet Maksoudian identified the piece as a prayer “read by the celebrant at the beginning of the Liturgy when he is vesting inside the vestry” (see also Nersoyan, 6–9). He notes that it quotes from Psalm 131 (132), 15–18. Thus it is appropriate that it be written before the beginning of the Mass proper. In addition, faint mirror script letters were discerned, written on the obverse of the green paper, but nothing coherent can be made out of them, and they clearly have nothing to do with the manuscript.

Bibliography Ačaṙyan, H., 1972. Dictionary of Armenian Proper Names. Beirut: Sevan Press, (in Armenian). Alishan, L., Hayapatum: Patmic̆‛k‛ ew Patmut‛iwnk‛ Hayoc‛ (Armenian History: Historians and Histories of the Armenians). Venice: Mechitarist Press. Aławnuni, M., 1936. Traditions of the Holy Places in the Holy Land. Jerusalem (in Armenian). Erusałemac’i, Yovhannēs (Hannē) vardapet, 1782. History of Jerusalem. Constantinople (in Armenian). Hakobyan, T‛.X., Melik‛-Baxšean, S.T. and Barsełyan, H.X., 1986. Dictionary of Toponymy of Armenia and Adjacent Territories. Erevan: Erevan State University. 4 vols, (in Armenian). Marr, N. (ed.) 1894. Collections of the Fables of Vardan. St. Petersburg. Nersoyan, T., Archbishop (trans.) 1950. The Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Apostolic Church. New York: Delphi Press. Sanjian, A.K., 1976. Catalogue of Medieval Armenian Manuscripts in the United States (University of California Publications, Near Eastern Series, 16). Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California. Stone, M.E., 2001. Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Chapter 10

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration Nira Stone

Armenian art in general and Armenian manuscript illustrations in particular were brought to the attention of the western world through travellers’ reports published from the seventeenth to the early twentieth century. In their reports these visitors, who were often scholars, dealt mainly with architectural monuments. During the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries western historians of art discovered the treasures of Armenian manuscript illumination that were first brought to their attention by pioneers like Frédéric Macler, Garegin Hovsepian, Sirarpie Der Nersessian and others.1 Thanks to them it is possible today to become familiar with and to study Armenian manuscripts in libraries, monastic and private collections in Armenia and around the world. This paper discusses manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. The same phenomena, however, can also be found in non-biblical manuscripts such as hagiographic or profane works. Armenian artists tended to use narrative means to illustrate the texts in the manuscripts. By 1950, Kurt Weitzmann had showed how this was done in manuscript illumination. He drew his conclusions from Byzantine Greek manuscripts.2 However, when we examine Armenian manuscript painting, we discover that narrative illustrations appear as early as the first surviving illuminated Armenian manuscripts. Before we proceed to examine this phenomenon, it is necessary to define the term ‘narrative’ and to discuss what a narrative illustration might be. The Oxford English dictionary offers various definitions of ‘narrative’, of which the following seems most relevant to our discussion: ‘Narrative Line—a consecutively developed story, also in painting.’ Narrative illustration is a painting or a series of paintings that illustrate a story known from an existing text or from 1  In the past decades there have been a number of major exhibitions of Armenian art, and the work of the preceding century has been summarized in two general books: J.M. Thierry, P. Donabédian & N. Thierry, Armenian Art (New York 1989) and S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Art (London 1978). In the spring of 2005 a symposium was sponsored by the Association Internationale des Etudes Arméniennes in Salzburg, Austria, presenting an overview of research into Armenian art in the twentieth century. E.J. Brill will publish the proceedings of this symposium. 2  K. Weitzmann, ‘The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations’ Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination ed. H.L. Kessler (Chicago 1971) 247–70.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_011

132

Chapter 10

oral tradition. The picture may appear side by side with the text, or it might be placed somewhere else in the manuscript; as a frontispiece at the beginning of the codex or in one of its sections. A third possible layout of text and illustration occurs where one manuscript exhibits an illustration of a text or a form of a text that actually exists in a different manuscript. A good source of examples occurs in the illustration of the Old and the New Testaments. Armenian painters, and others in the eastern Christian world, sometimes preferred to illustrate Bible stories with pictures of stories related in some degree to the apocrypha (such as the scene of St John and Prochoros)3 or from everyday life. We shall examine some paintings which exemplify the representation of narrativity and analyse the techniques used by the painters to express it.

A Sequence of Scenes in All of Which the Same Figure or Figures Appear The Nativity Three out of the four oldest known Armenian illustrations, which some scholars think to be of the tenth and others of the sixth century AD, exhibit narrativity presented through a sequence of scenes in which a specific person appears. All three deal with the Nativity of the Virgin described in Lk 1:2. The first scene is the annunciation by the angel Gabriel to the High Priest Zechariah that he and his wife Elizabeth are going to have a son [Fig. 10.1].4 Next is the annunciation to the Virgin by the archangel Gabriel that she is going to have a child [Fig. 10.2].5 In the third scene the archangel Gabriel is standing behind the Virgin’s throne while mother and child are receiving the three Magi who came bearing gifts (Lk 1:10–1; Fig. 10.3).6 In each of these scenes the angel Gabriel is present, standing in a prominent area in white clothes and with large wings. The figure of Gabriel ties the pictures together into a narrative sequence. 3  See, for example, Matenadaran M7737. The scene is discussed in N. Stone, ‘Apocryphal Elements in Christian Bible Illumination’ Apocryphes arméniens: transmission, traduction, création, iconographie ed. V.C. Bouvier, J.-D. Kaestli & B. Outtier (Lausanne 1999) 161–2. 4  L.A. Dournovo, Armenian Miniatures (New York 1961); M2374 is illustrated on page 35. It is the First Etchmiadzin Gospel of the sixth or tenth century. The manuscript is dated to 989, but the miniatures we are discussing were inserted later and may be older. On the manuscript, see also K. Weitzmann, Die armenische Buchmalerei des 10. und beginnenden 11. Jahrhunderts (Amsterdam 1970); Der Nersessian, Armenian Art 72–9. 5  Der Nersessian, Armenian Art 33. 6  Der Nersessian, Armenian Art 37.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

133

figure 10.1 Annunciation to the Virgin, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374

figure 10.2 Annunciation to Zechariah, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374

134

Chapter 10

figure 10.3 Adoration of the Magi, Etchmiadzin Gospels, 6th century. Matenadaran M2374

Temptation of Christ, King Gagik Gospels7 One of the more famous instances is the story of the Temptation of Christ (Lk 4:1–13) in the renowned King Gagik Gospels, preserved in the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The story has three parts and is presented in three scenes. The first temptation is described by a single illustration showing Satan bringing Jesus to the desert after fasting for forty days. He is telling him to prove that he is the Son of God by changing the stones to bread [Fig. 10.4]. The second and third parts of the story are both physically located on another page. A single frame connects the two paintings, each of which has a different content. In the second temptation Satan takes Jesus to the roof of the Temple in Jerusalem and dares him to fall to earth, but Jesus refuses. The third picture depicts Satan bringing Jesus to a high mountain and promising him rule over the whole world if he denounces his God. Jesus refuses [Fig. 10.5]. Two figures appear in all these three scenes, which are indeed three parts of one story, Satan and Jesus. Only the background changes. It is interesting to realize that in the first two scenes, the angel Gabriel and Satan are presented in human

7  B. Narkiss & M.E. Stone, Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem (Jerusalem 1979), fig. 46; N. Bogharian, Grand Catalogue of St James Manuscripts (Jerusalem 1977), vol. 8, 2458 (in Armenian) describes the manuscript.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

figure 10.4

135

Temptation of Christ, King Gagik Gospels, 11th century. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2556

form, but with wings—a feature already known from a sixth-century mosaic in San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna.8

Displaying the Different Parts of the Story over Two Pages The Entry into Jerusalem Another way of describing a story with multiple parts is to spread it over two pages as a single continuing scene. The first example of this technique is the 8  On this representation of Satan, see M.E. Stone, Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington 2002) 17–20 and further references there.

136

Chapter 10

figure 10.5

Temptation of Christ 2, King Gagik Gospels, 11th century. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2556

fourteenth-century painter Awag’s representation of Christ’s entry to Jerusalem [Fig. 10.6].9 Instead of putting all the events related to this incident on to one very crowded composition, Awag continued it without any explanation on the following page. Jesus, on the white ass, is approaching the gates of Jerusalem with a crowd following him. He is shown the way by an elderly man who is pointing in the correct direction. The man’s pointing hands take the viewer across to the next page where the scene continues. There, some youths are watching the procession from a tree, where they cut branches to put in Christ’s path. In the last part of the scene, one of four welcoming elders is raising his hands towards the guests as if to help them cross over to the next page where the gate to Jerusalem is open and ready to welcome them. Through this specific arrangement the illuminator underscores the dynamic and narrative aspect of Christ’s arrival. A fifteenth-century Ethiopian manuscript can help us get a sense of how this effect was achieved in other eastern Christian manuscripts.10 The painter 9  10 

Matenadaran M212, fols 68 and 69. See L. Zak‛arean, ed., Avag. Haykakan Manrankarč‛ut‛yun (Yerevan 1984). Entry to Jerusalem from Ethiopic Ritual for Passion Week, fols 1v–2v, as seen in M.E. Heldman & S.C. Munro-Hay, African Zion: The Sacred Art of Ethiopia (New Haven 1993), 189 and catalogue no. 89.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

figure 10.6

137

Entry into Jerusalem, Awag Gospels. J212, fols. 68v–69r

uses the same technique but adds more spectators, such as the young ladies looking out the window and a mother holding a baby in her arms [Fig. 10.7].

Sequential Narrative Concentrated in a Single Picture This method is the opposite of the technique discussed in section 2, of spreading the narrative over two pages. Instead, many incidents, all the parts of a single narrative, were crowded into one picture. Apocryphal Accounts of the Annunciation This technique is often found in illustrations of apocryphal accounts of canonical texts such as the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary.11 The Gospel of Luke (1:26–35) provides the story of the Annunciation. An angel was sent to the Virgin Mary to tell her that she was pregnant with a son who will be called Jesus, of whose ‘kingdom there will be no end’. When the angel came into her room she was frightened as he foretold Jesus’ birth.

11 

L.A. Dournovo, Miniatures arméniennes (Yerevan 1967) fig. 61.

138

Chapter 10

figure 10.7

Entry into Jerusalem (Ethiopian), 15th century. Dabra Amuna Marawi Krestos, Tegre, Ethiopia

In the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James, a second century infancy gospel, the story is given an even more dramatic flavour.12 This text relates how Joseph gave Mary scarlet thread to make the temple veil and ‘Mary took the scarlet and spun it’ (chapter 10). According to the next section she takes a pitcher and descends to a well to fill it with water. She hears a voice addressing her from behind. She looks to left and right, but when she does not see anyone, she becomes frightened and flees back to her home. The invisible angel, who had addressed her at the well, comes to her home and makes his famous announcement. The story of the meeting by the well does not occur in the Gospel of Luke, but only in the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James. 12 

The Greek text was edited by E. de Strycker, La forme la plus ancienne du Protévangile de Jacques. SubHag 33 (Brussels 1961); English translation in J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford 1993) 48–67.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

139

figure 10.8 Annunciation at the Well, Anonymous of Siwnik, 13th–14th century. Matenadaran 6305

There are two apocryphal elements of this narrative that do not appear in the gospel text: a) Mary at the well hears the voice of the invisible angel and returns home [Fig. 10.8]. b) Mary sits in her room spinning thread, as did all aristocratic and decent women [Fig. 10.9]. Armenian artists often depicted these moments to illustrate the canonical story of the Annunciation. They illustrate the appearance at the well or her return home to spin and receive the annunciation. The visit to the well is often represented in a symbolic way by painting only a well or a pitcher or both. This is only one of many examples in which Armenian artists prefer an apocryphal story to illustrate a canonical text. This occurs 80% more frequently than in the comparable Byzantine scenes.13

13 

This choice is related to the Armenian Christology as shown by T. Mathews, ‘The Annunciation at the Well: A Metaphor of the Armenian Monophysitism’ Medieval Armenian Culture ed. M.E. Stone & T.J. Samuelian (Chico Calif. 1984) 343–56.

140

Chapter 10

figure 10.9 Annunciation (Complex), T‛oros Taronec‛i, 13th–14th century. Glajor Gospel

The Nativity (Lk 2:1–20, Mt 2:9–12), Painted in Cilicia in 1591 [Fig. 10.10]14 This picture is typical in that it depicts all the details related in Lk 2:1–11. a) The Virgin Mary has just given birth in a manger situated in a cave. The manger is identified as such by an ass and an ox, while the infant is wrapped in a cloth. b) Outside the cave are shepherds sleeping in the field, as they guarded their livestock. An angel suddenly appears, telling them about the birth of the Messiah and the ‘glory of the Lord shone around them’ (Lk 2:9). The sudden appearance of the angel is not visualized, but sometimes it is evoked by the astonished gestures of the shepherds. Many angels appeared after which the shepherds rushed to see the miracle and went to tell other people (Lk 2:15–18).

14 

Menologium of 1591, Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate J1920; see Narkiss-Stone, Armenian Art Treasures fig. 138.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

141

figure 10.10 Nativity. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem J1920

c)

When king Herod heard about this, he called three kings and sent them to investigate its truth. They went following a star that started to shine in the east. When they arrived they bowed and gave the Child presents from their treasures. The pointing fingers of two of the kings take us through the picture from lower right to upper left and upper right (to the star and the newborn child, an additional detail provided by Matthew 2:1–11. Meanwhile, as Joseph is watching, two midwives are giving the Infant Jesus his first bath, a precursor of his Baptism. This wonderful narrative, combining material from different Gospels, is created in one picture presented on a single page that is made up of at least eleven parts.

Narrative in Architectural Ornamentation These various techniques which we have described are partly determined by the imperatives of the manuscript page with its fixed borders. They were, however, also used in other media, and very strikingly in architectural sculpture.

142

Chapter 10

figure 10.11 Jonah cast overboard, Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross, 10th century. Photo by author

Jonah The Church of the Holy Cross on the island of Aghtamar in Lake Van in present-day Turkey15 is one of the outstanding examples of tenth-century Armenian art. It is a cruciform building with an umbrella roof. The outer walls of the church are adorned with narrative scenes and portraits. These stories, sculptured in low relief, include scenes drawn from the Old and the New Testaments, portraits of kings and prophets, the hunt and scenes in vegetative medallions. The artist included every detail of the story of Jonah from the Old Testament [Fig. 10.11]: God summoned Jonah to go to the city of Nineveh and announce impending doom to its inhabitants. Jonah was afraid and escaped to Tarsus by boat. The sea was very stormy and the sailors drew lots to see whose fault it was. The lots singled out Jonah. He told them to throw him into the sea and so save themselves from the storm, which they did. The storm died down and God sent a whale which swallowed Jonah and kept him alive in its stomach for three days and three nights. Jonah prayed and promised to do what God asked of him. Then the fish cast Jonah up at Nineveh. Jonah went to the king of Nineveh and called on him and the people to repent. The king ordered them to do so and he himself sat on the ground and repented. God forgave them. Jonah then built a hut outside the city and God provided him with the cool shade of a gourd vine [Fig. 10.12].

15 

There are quite numerous studies and analyses of this renowned church. See, for example, S. Der Nersessian, Aght‘amar: Church of the Holy Cross (Cambridge Mass. 1965); H. Vahramian & S. Der Nersessian, Aght‘amar (Milan 1974) figs 21–2 and 29.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

143

figure 10.12 Jonah rests under the Gourd, Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross, 10th century. Photo by author

The artist chiselled all the wonderful details of the sail on the boat and the scales of the big and small fish in the sea. The figure of the seated king, his clothes and hat, are all carved very delicately. A Short Version of the Jonah Narrative The story of Jonah is often illustrated in Armenian art because it was regarded as a prefiguration of the Anastasis, i.e. the Descent of Jesus into Hades, after his Crucifixion and entombment, where he stayed for three days, just as Jonah did in the whale. A beautiful example of the scene of Jonah in a Lectionary, Matenadaran manuscript M979 of the year 1288, and formerly attributed to T‛oros Ṙoslin, is now dated to 1286 by A. Matevossian and attributed to a scriptorium related to the royal court of Cilicia.16 This is an example of a story presented in two parts that were placed on different pages, not necessarily close to the text that they illustrate. This technique is described in section 2 above. In the first part the sailors of a boat in a stormy sea are casting Jonah into the whale [Fig. 10.13]. The second part is on another page. In a calm sea, Jonah is being cast forth by the fish into the space out of the framed picture [Fig. 10.14]. The description is short but very dramatic, especially the depiction of the forceful ejection of Jonah out of the fish. So forceful is his movement that it breaks through the frame of the picture into the margins of the page.17 16  17 

S. Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century. DOS 31 (2 vols Washington 1993). See N. Stone, ‘The Relationship Between Text and Illustration’, Armenian Texts: Tasks and Tools ed. H.J. Lehmann & J.J.S. Weitenberg (Aarhus 1993) 92–100, especially p. 99.

144

Chapter 10

figure 10.13 Jonah cast overboard, Lectionary of Het‘um II, 1286. Matenadaran 979

figure 10.14 Jonah ejected by the Whale, Lectionary of Het‘um II, 1286. Matenadaran 979

The ‘Comic Book’ Technique Finally, the so-called ‘comic-book’ technique involves the presentation in rows of a sequence of paintings describing all the elements of the narrative. Illustrations of Genesis Illuminated Armenian manuscripts of the Bible often include a detailed illustration of the Genesis stories of the creation of the world and of Adam and Eve. The Getty Bible of 1673 provides a characteristic representative of this

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

figure 10.15

145

Creation, Getty Bible, 1637–8. Getty Museum

technique.18 It is a narrative in painting of chapters 1 and 2 and part of chapter 3 of Genesis, represented by the following paintings [Fig. 10.15]. The Creation of the World God sits on His throne in the upper left corner. He is in the process of the creation of the world. This is described in the 6 medallions on the right. DAY 1 In the beginning God created the heavens the earth and then he created light and separated it from darkness. DAY 2 The sky and the water above and below it. This is the firmament that separated ‘water from water’. DAY 3 The earth, plants and trees. 18 

V. Nersessian, The Bible in the Armenian Tradition (Los Angeles 2001) 10.

146

Chapter 10

DAY 4 The sun and moon and stars. DAY 5 The sea dwellers and birds. DAY 6 Animals and creatures on earth and man—Adam. The sixth day interests the artist most intensely. The first six days appear in six medallions but he left most of the space for the last detail belonging to the sixth day, the creation of Adam, which the artist described in a secondary narrative composed of six parts: The Story of Adam and Eve This formula is the most common in the Armenian illustrations of Creation. While in many non-Armenian manuscripts the artist concentrated on the Fall—the sin and the punishment as in the Carolingian manuscript we shall describe below, here we have the complete story. The depiction of God follows the iconography of the adult Jesus. He is shown not as an old man but with long brown hair, a beard and a moustache and dressed in blue and purple, He sits on a throne against an architectural background. In the four corners of the throne there are the symbols of the four Evangelists: a human (Matthew), a lion (Mark), an ox (Luke), an eagle (John).19 God is blessing with his right hand and creating with his left. The ensuing scenes are as follows: 1. The creation of Adam—God wears dark brown instead of the purple. 2. The creation of Eve. 3. Eve takes an apple from the serpent and gives one to Adam. 4. Adam and Eve dressed in vegetative loincloths (fig-leaves) are cursed by God. Adam is pointing to Eve as the one to blame. 5. God expels Adam and Eve. Outside, he is showing them the seraph-angel that guards the closed door of Paradise. 6. Heads of the descendants of Adam as are described in the rest of the Adam story. This ‘comic-book’ technique was, however, not an Armenian invention. It can be traced back to Late Antique illumination and can be found in the description of creation in Carolingian Bibles of the ninth century and elsewhere [Fig. 10.16].20 This way of painting the creation story was, however, particularly 19 

20 

This formula is rather common in Armenian art. See, for example, P. Donabédian, ‘Le Tympan du monument à deux Xač‛k‛ars d’Ełegis’ REArm 14 (1980) 393–413; M.E. Stone, ‘The Orbelian Family Cemetery in Ełegis, Vayoc‛ Jor, Armenia’ Commemoration Volume for Jos J.S. Weitenberg ed. U. Bläsing, J. Dum-Tragut & Th. M. van Lint (in press). See, for example, British Library, MS Add. 10546, fol. 5v.

Narrativity in Armenian Manuscript Illustration

figure 10.16

147

Creation, Grandval Bible, Carolingian, 9th century (Ms. Add. 10546, 5v). British Library

favoured by Armenian illustrators who sometimes copied it from earlier illuminations. We have illustrated the main representative techniques used to express narrativity in Armenian art and especially in manuscript illuminations. By the use and development of these techniques, Armenian artists were able to express the movement of events in narrative incidents. In spite of being on the periphery of Byzantium, Armenian artists created a most important and diverse art in the Middle Ages. The elaboration of the movement of the story was a significant part of this process. For Armenia, the Middle Ages spanned from the sixth century to the eighteenth century, while their inventiveness and artistic creativity continued throughout this period.

Chapter 11

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden Nira Stone

Throughout history scholars and artists sought to discover or portray what paradise really looked like. Artists loved to describe the ideal Garden of Eden as a place where they might plant the best fruit of their imagination.1 Sometimes the Garden of Eden was presented as a beautiful garden such as might be found in the grounds of this worldly house (fig. 11.1), while on other occasions it is a wondrous, heavenly Garden. The sources according to which the Garden of Eden is presented are not uniform. The chief source, of course, is the Book of Genesis, according to which artists described the Garden of Eden as the site of the Creation events and particularly of the sin of Adam and Eve. Adam, Eve and the serpent by the Tree of Knowledge are among the scenes most favoured by artists of all generations, although other scenes drawn from the same story often occur. Generally, the main elements of the scene are trees and flowers and, sometimes, a spring of living water. Indeed, the four rivers of Paradise are not a standard element of the iconography of this scene, although their role in the literary sources is prominent. The literary sources for the descriptions of the Garden of Eden include Gen 2:10, Revelation 22:1–3, and the story about six Egyptian desert fathers who set out to find the Garden of Eden from Lives of the Desert Fathers, while the so-called Biblical Chronology or Short History of the Bible forms a further rich iconographic source.2 We studied the experiences of these six monks in search of Paradise as it is told in the 15th century Armenian manuscript J285, which was written and illustrated in the Armenian monastic intellectual centre of St. Anthony in the Crimea (fig. 11.2).3 This manuscript was compiled, copied and illustrated by the monk Thaddeus Avramenc‘, a gifted scholar and artist. He tells us about six inquisitive monks among the desert fathers who decided to find out what paradise really looks like. They set forth, travelled for six years and underwent various experiences and vicissitudes en 1  See, for example, the tryptich “The Garden of Earthly Delights,” oil on wood by Hieronymus Bosch (1505–1510) now in the Prado, Madrid. 2  Below we shall discuss this work, which has not yet been published. Descriptions of manuscript copies of it may be found in Der Nersessian, Library, 3–7 and Stone, Manuscript, and for manuscripts that have not yet been described, see the list in n. 16 below. 3  The Story of the Six Fathers in Jerusalem J285, pp. 640ff. See n. 13 below.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_012

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

figure 11.1

149

Adam and Eve and the Serpent in the Garden of Eden, Woodcut by H. Schedel, 1493. Nuremberg Chronicle

150

figure 11.2

Chapter 11

The Six Monks in Search of Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 285

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

151

route. They turned eastward and passed numerous obstacles until they came to “the terrible mountain.” For a period of six months they circumvented it until they came to a place where the perfumes of Eden became noticeable.4 Here an angel appeared who informed them that the Garden of Eden was on the top of the mountain, but that they were to remain where they were, at the entry to the Garden of Eden, until the Day of Judgment. They had come so close to their goal that it made a great impression upon them and they decided to inform all those who had stayed behind about it. One of their number was sent back in order to relate all of God’s wonders. He arrived and was summoned to St. Nerses Shnorhali in order to tell his tale, and St. Nerses, according to the text, recorded this story in his Commentary on Genesis,5 from which we learn a few conventions of the character of paradise. St. Nerses Shnorhali was a revered Armenian religious poet and Catholicos who lived in the 12th century (1102–1173). According to the Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers, then, he wrote a Commentary on Genesis but in fact such work has never been found. St. Nerses Shnorhali’s presence in the scene identifies the story as Armenian and maybe Armenia as Paradise. This identification, however, is speculative and speculation is not our subject, so we should rather examine more distinctive characteristics of Paradise as described here 1. The fragrance of Paradise resembles perfume. 2. Ordinary, earthly people cannot enter Paradise before the Day of Judgement. On the one hand, this leaves a fertile field for speculation open and so the speculation must go on. On the other, there are exceptions such as Enoch and Elijah. Moses died and the place of his burial remained unknown. 3. Paradise is situated on a “terrible Mountain.” Already in the fourth century St. Ephrem Syrus mentions that Paradise is located on a mountain or a high place, Thus he says in Hymns on Paradise: “Paradise is on a great height …”. And this tradition is found not just in the writings of St. Ephrem Syrus, but in many other sources.6 However, just to look for 4  Goddard-Elliot, Road, 131–137. 5  We are familiar with a number of St. Nerses’ writings. One collection of them is to be found in a manuscript which was copied and illustrated in Kaffa, in the Monastery of St. Anthony in 1432 by the painter and copyist K’ristosatur (Ms. Vienna Mechitarist 543): see Buschhausen, Handschriften, 122. In spite of this, we have not found a commentary on Genesis among his writings, nor any mention of the trip of the monks to the Garden of Eden. See further Thomson, Bibliography, s.v. The search after the Garden of Eden, however, is a common theme in many religions and cultures and it also occurs in Armenian writings. 6  Ephrem Syrus, Commentary (sect. 3, § 4) and see also n. 18, below; Id., Hymns; Murray, Symbols, 306–310.

152

Chapter 11

a mountain or a high place as the location of paradise is not enough because not every mountain is paradise. We need a further characteristic by which to recognize Paradise, and that additional identifying mark is the four rivers. The four rivers of Paradise are the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Gihon and the Pishon. They are first listed in Gen 2:10–14. They are conceived as flowing from the Garden of Eden towards the four corners of the earth in the four directions of the compass. The assertion that a spring of living water existed in the Garden of Eden is readily understandable to us today. In mythological terms we would say that these are waters of life, drinking water, water of purification and so forth. A question that worried people in ancient time was not the very existence of water sources in the Garden of Eden, but why does the Bible specify four sources. Moreover, people asked why are these particular four rivers mentioned and not others? Their names—the Euphrates, the Tigris, the Gihon and the Pishon, without mention of the Nile—naturally suggest that the description originated in Mesopotamia and not in Egypt, which fits with other aspects of the intellectual world of Ancient Israel and of the early chapters of Genesis.7 Medieval theologians were entranced by the number four, which they invested with allegorical and mystical significance. The particular meaning attributed to it varied. For example, the four rivers were seen to correspond to the four letters of Adam’s name in Greek, which indicate Anatole, Dusis, Arktos and Mesembria (the four winds and the four directions). Another interpretation related them to the four elements: air, earth, fire, and water. A third view proposed by St. Augustine, suggested that the rivers symbolised the Four Evangelists and the four virtues.8 In general, in Christian thought the Garden of Eden was a symbol of the Church. The rivers were the Four Evangelists. As a source of life they sometimes flow from the figure of Christ or of the Lamb (fig. 11.8, below). The four rivers are related to the Cross, as is clearly shown in Sant’ Apollinaire in Classe in Ravenna,9 and to the blood and water flowing from Christ’s left side in the Passion narrative. The rivers are also represented as personified river dieties in late medieval art (see fig. 11.10 below). 7  See Anchor Bible Dictionary article by Alexander, Geography, § C 2, in general. Alexander suggests that the rivers flow from north to south in the biblical account, but provides ample evidence for their correlation with the four corners of the world in Second Temple Jewish literature and subsequently. 8  The virtues were originally a Stoic list, but quickly found a home in Christian writing and thought. At the end of this paper we cite part of a medieval Armenian colophon in which the number four is extolled and its typology developed. 9  See Grabar, Byzantinum, pl. 148.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

153

In art, if the four rivers appear, they serve to locate whatever scene is being represented in the Garden of Eden or in a closely related context. Their function is to indicate just this. The four rivers do not appear in all the scenes involving the Garden of Eden, but mainly in representations of those events relating to human conduct. In these scenes it was important for the artist to stress the four rivers as a source of life in the world, intending, of course, eternal life in the World to Come. The Gospel and the Cross achieve exactly this. In Armenian art, in the scenes representing Paradise there are a number of distinctive elements connected with the four rivers. In Armenian scenes of Adam and Eve with the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge, which are sometimes full page, but often inserted into the text or margins, the absence of the four rivers is noteworthy. In the equivalent scene in Byzantine and Western art, the four rivers are often shown. This is true of the scene on its own, or in the “comic-book” style narrative representation of the Creation. This can be seen in the example illustrated (fig. 11.3).10 These “comic book” representations are intriguingly comparable with a much earlier European manuscript of the Carolingan period, the ninth-century Grandval manuscript. In it the creation story is presented using a similar iconography, technique and style to the Armenian “comic” type illustrated in fig. 11.3. Yet in the Grandval representation of Adam and Eve and the Tree, four rivers run out of the base of its trunk.11 The contrast is striking. As opposed to the types of illumination mentioned above, in the Story of the Six Monks (fig. 11.2) and in the initial illustration in the Biblical Chronology (fig. 11.4), the Garden of Eden is presented without Adam, Eve, the serpent or any other elements drawn from the biblical narrative. This is interesting because of the meaning attributed to the Garden in certain medieval Armenian texts, where it becomes a central symbol without any specific connection with the Genesis stories. A very telling example is the colophon by Hetum Bayl (Haython the Historian) in the manuscript he copied in the year 1293 in Cilicia. In his colophon Hetum Bayl says: “The Four Gospels are also the real rivers flowing from Eden, … In the new creation, the source is the Lord coming out of the unlimited sea of the Father, born eternally…. the garden planted by God is the Virgin full of graces, from which was born our Lord for a limited time, to irrigate the reasoning plants of the new creation, the apostles and preachers of

10  11 

See also J1933, fol. 7v, 1645; Getty Bible Ms Ludwig 1.14, fol. 2v, 1637–38; M204, fol. 1 lv, 17th century; M206, fol. 3v, 1318: illustrated in Brown, Manuscripts. Moutiers-Grandval Bible, France (Tours), ca. 840, BL Add. Ms. 10546, fol. 5v.

154

figure 11.3

Chapter 11

Creation. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 1927, fol. 9v

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

figure 11.4

155

Biblical Chronology. NLI, MS. Or

the Word.” And he continues to develop the typological exegesis in a number of directions, including the psychological.12 The illustrated Story of the Six Desert Fathers is first found in the Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate 285 of the year 1430) and at least eight later copies of that manuscript survive. No models prior to the Kaffa manuscript are known, and the scene might have been created by Thaddeus Avramenc‛, its scribe and illustrator.13 This type of presentation of the Garden of Eden resembles one found in another manuscript, the Biblical Chronology, an unpublished, heavily-illuminated work of which copies are found in the National Library in Jerusalem, the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin and the Patriarchal Library in Jerusalem (this latter copy is not illustrated).14 Thaddeus’ illustration mentioned above is based on Gen 2:10: “A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers.” They were the Pishon, the Gihon, the Tigris and the Euphrates. The picture abounds with features. The painter has introduced a whole complex narrative sequence into one scene, not omitting a single necessary detail, and yet avoiding the overcrowding which threatens such undertakings. 12  13  14 

Ajamian, Colophon. On this manuscript, see N. Stone, Kaffa Lives. See n. 3 above. See n. 2 above for some further details.

156

Chapter 11

The left-hand side of the picture is the most complex. The “terrible mountain,” upon which five of the monks remained, may be seen with the Garden of Eden or Paradise on its summit, empty of human inhabitants. In the Garden of Eden there are a number of stylized plants, trees and flowers. Some of the trees bear fruit, while others are only decorative. There are flowers at their feet. Along the width of the ground of the garden are four blue, serpentine lines, which descend vertically into holes in the rocks. These are the four rivers of Paradise. Thus, in this manuscript the “terrible mountain” upon which the fragrant garden is located and the four flowing rivers are two characteristics that serve to identify the real paradise, which the six monks have reached. The presentation of the four rivers here is worthy of further attention. The four rivers which seem at first glance to be flowing upwards from the ground to the heights of the mountain, in a completely unnatural fashion, have aroused a good deal of interest.15 This, however, has been the commonly accepted interpretation.16 I have proposed a different reading of the flowing of the rivers.17 These rivers are not represented as flowing upwards from below in an unnatural fashion but are flowing down from above. They are not flowing to the Garden of Eden but out of the midst of the Garden in exact agreement with the text of Gen 2:10–14. There it says that each river surrounds or reaches a different part of the world, in order to circumscribe the world with its different treasures and to water it. The Book of Genesis says that the rivers went out of the Garden of Eden, separated into four and flowed around the world. The problem that exegetes and geographers faced in the Middle Ages was also encountered by the painters. In order for the rivers to flow as described in Genesis, because of geographical imperatives they would have had to cross one another and traverse oceans and seas. In 1430 Thaddeus Avramenc‛ found a visual solution to this problem and created a model for the artists who followed him. He painted the rivers descending underground into the depths of the earth and there they are set into the appropriate order to surround the whole earth and re-emerge. An earlier literary source may be found in the Syriac Commentary on Genesis by Ephrem Syrus (306–373) who writes, “Because Paradise is on a great height, the rivers are swallowed up again and they go down to the sea as if through a tall water-duct and they pass through the land which is under the sea into this

15  16  17 

See Der Nersessian, Library, 3–7. See ibid, 6. See N. Stone, Kaffa Lives, 88 and also n. 121.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

157

land” (2:6).18 Ephrem’s description of the rivers is clearly the same concept as is represented visually by Avramenc‛. It is possible that the painter Thaddeus painted the four rivers in this way because he had seen it in a model that has not survived. It is also possible that he knew a literary description like Ephrem’s and himself invented its pictorial representation. The monastery of St. Anthony in Kaffa where Thaddeus worked was a well-known intellectual centre. In the colophon of Jerusalem 285 Thaddeus says that in order to create this manuscript he read and studied a range of philosophical and theological sources.19 Thus it is more than likely that he knew a description like Ephrem’s from his studies and invented the graphic interpretation of it. Indeed, in medieval Armenian literature we find descriptions based upon this conception. For example, Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i (fourteenth century), in his poem On the Creation of the World says that “the waters (i.e., of the rivers) run down from the mountain and pass through valleys and openings. They enter the cavities of the earth and run underneath mountains.”20 This interpretation was transmitted to subsequent generations by painters such as Yovhannēs son of Čenupēk in his copies of The Lives of the Desert Fathers and in the other copies of that work, which was copied at least 8 times down to 1710. Thus it may be observed, for example, in the Lives of 1652 (J293 fig. 11.5) and of 1710 (Jer. 268), as well as in the Biblical Chronology, the oldest known manuscript of which is dated 1601 and which was copied at least twice more.21 Yovhannēs, son of Čenupēk lived in Amida at least in the years 1582–1617 and painted a copy of Jerusalem 285 in the year 1615. He was a painter, copyist and binder of great talent and renown. People came from great distances to bring him manuscripts to copy, bind or restore. Through this work, Yovhannēs gained broad familiarity with and knowledge of older exemplars and he drew upon 18  19  20  21 

Translation by E. Mathews in Mathews/Amar, Works, 101, quoted by permission. Ephrem’s works were widely known. See N. Stone, Kaffa Lives, 185–187. See Yovhannēs T‛lkuranc‛i, “On the Creation of the World”, stanza 72 (Bogharian, Poetry 82); Stone, Creation, 63. The list of the manuscripts of the Lives of the Desert Fathers referred to is the following: (a) in the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, nos. J23 (1625), J228 (1651), J971 (1623), J410 (1631), J293 (1652), 268 (1710), and also 1409 (a few scenes only, undated); (b) in the Mechitarist Library in Venice, no. 1922 (1593); (c) in the British Library, no. Add. 27301 (1615); (d) in the Matenadaran in Erevan, no. 789 (1633). The manuscripts of the Biblical Chronology are: (a) Chester Beatty Library, Dublin 551 (1601); (b) the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, no. 627 (not illustrated) (1621); (c) Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem no. Or. Var4° 1 (1693).

158

Chapter 11

figure 11.5

The Six Monks in Search of Paradise. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, MS. 293

them as was necessary for illumination, as he records in his own colophons.22 Thus, when in 1601, Yovhannēs was asked to illuminate a copy of the Biblical Chronology,23 he needed a picture of the Garden of Eden. He did not hesitate to use as a model a manuscript that he remembered, which had been brought to him for restoration. This older manuscript was the famous Kaffa manuscript of The Lives of the Desert Fathers (Jerusalem 285) of 1430. We know that Jerusalem 285 was already in Amida in 1593. Yovhannēs copied and illuminated a manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers at that time and he says in the colophon that he was asked to make an exact copy of a manuscript of Lives of the Desert Fathers that had been brought from Jerusalem.24 This was Jerusalem 285. Unfortunately, Yovhannēs’ copy of 1593 has not survived, or at least its present location is unknown to us. It was previously Ms no. 9 in the collection of the Church of S. Karapet (Prodromos) in Caesarea in Turkey.25 Fortunately, Yovhannēs copied Jerusalem 285 a second time when 22  23  24  25 

Der Nersessian, Library, 4. Descriptions of manuscript copies of it may be found in n. 21 above, and see there also for manuscripts that have not yet been described. See N. Stone, Kaffa Lives, 190. Ibid, 35.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

159

it was brought to Amida again in 1615. This second copy is located today in the British Library (Add 27301).26 When we compare the scene of the Six Monks in the Garden of Eden in BL Add 27301 with one of a number of isolated pages, which the late Sirarpie Der Nersessian found in the Mechitarist monastery at San Lazzaro in Venice,27 we are led to suspect that these pages may derive from the copy made by Yovhannēs in 1593 (previously no. 9 in the Church of St. Karapet in Caesarea). The similarity between the trees on the Venice page and the trees in the British Library copy is astounding. A similar measure of resemblance exists between the picture of the Garden of Eden in the Biblical Chronology and the Garden of Eden on the Venice page. Principally because in both of them the Garden of Eden is painted on a golden background, which is not found in the original of 1430, we may infer that the same hand and the same mind were responsible for the design. The use of a gold background and the design of the trees evoke possible Moslem influence, which may be explained by the fact that, as Yovhannēs said, his student Asian assisted him in the illumination of the Biblical Chronology and he was very familiar with Persian, Arabic and Turkish art.28 In any case, in 1601 Yovhannēs of Amida or his assistant Asian copied the Garden of Eden according to Thaddeus’ conception expressed in the Jerusalem 285, which had been brought to him for restoration. By that time, Yovhannēs had his own copy of Jerusalem 285 and did not need to consult the original directly. Thus a possible way out of this maze presents itself. The Venice pages may really derive from the manuscript copied by Yovhannēs in 1593, which previously was kept in Kayseri (Caesarea) in Turkey and which are now preserved as Venice, Mechitarist manuscript no. 1922. Whether this identification is exact or not, these pages are to be registered in Yovhannes’ corpus together with the second copy of the Lives of the Desert Fathers made by him in 1615, now British Library Add 27301, and the Chester Beatty Biblical Chronology no. 551, which he copied in 1601. In all three manuscripts the Garden of Eden is represented in a very similar fashion.

26  27  28 

Conybeare, Catalogue, 209–215. Venice Mechitarist Ms 1922; see also N. Stone, Kaffa Lives, figs. 80–87, particularly fig. 80. Because of the great similarity between the loose pages and their model, Jerusalem 285, Sirarpie Der Nersessian in a personal communication opined that they might have been part of another copy of the Lives of the Desert Fathers made by Thaddeus Avramenc‛ (see colophon in N. Stone, Kaffa Lives, Appendix A). However, a careful examination of the pages and also a comparison with the next illustration lead us to think otherwise.

160

Chapter 11

figure 11.6

Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, Rossano Gospel. Diocesan Museum, Rossano Cathedral

Illustration of the Ten Virgins The four rivers play a role as an identifying element from early times on also in other contexts than the scenes of Adam and Eve or Paradise on its own.29 One example from the 6th century Rossano Gospels are the four rivers marking paradise in the Parable of the wise and the foolish virgins (fig. 11.6).30 Here a full scene of the story of the virgins appears, showing them knocking on the gates of Paradise. The foolish virgins remain outside while the wise ones enter. The site is characterized as Paradise by the four rivers, which are flowing with blue water, refreshingly, and by water on the ground. Until now we have dealt with the four rivers of paradise described in Gen 2:10–14. The second, although later, literary source for paradise is Rev 22:1–3: Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city. On either side of the river is the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit … Nothing accursed will be found there any more. But the throne of God and of the Lamb will be there and his servants will worship him. 29  30 

Fevrier, Fleuves, especially p. 194. See Grabar, Byzantium, pl. 231.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

161

As early as the fourth century the four rivers appear in art according to the description in Rev 22:1–3 and not that of Genesis 2. The four rivers of paradise are not only used to water Paradise and the world after creation. In this first role, in art they are interpreted as the carriers of the Gospel, the new teaching of Christ. The iconography then develops under the influence of Revelation, and the image of Christ as king and teacher as well as shepherd appears together with his symbolic image of a lamb. The rivers appear early, in the fourth century, connected with the scene describing the giving of the Law by God to Peter in the presence of Paul, called the Traditio Legis. In the wall mosaic from the mausoleum of Santa Constantina in Santa Constanza in Rome, we find a typical Roman imperial composition of the Traditio Legis. In place of the emperor, Christ is standing on a raised place with Peter and Paul at his sides. At his feet the four rivers of Eden flow from the hillock upon which he is standing and by them, two lambs at each side. These might be symbols of the evangelists, or perhaps of the rivers. At the two ends of the picture stand palm trees with fruit, behind buildings in the form of chapels. As we shall see, this composition became very widespread on objects and buildings belonging to the world of funerary art, as indeed does this mausoleum itself. Imperial iconography combined with Christian content including the four rivers was used to describe the Glory of Christ and the cross on the fourth century sarcophagus of Sextus Petronius Probus.31 Christ in majesty is shown standing and holding a cross just as the emperor in his official effigies holds the lance. The apostles on either side make a gesture of veneration. In a sixthcentury apse mosaic from San Vitale in Ravenna, the four rivers are used to describe the kingdom of Christ and as carriers of his spiritual strength (fig. 11.7).32 Here we find Christ between two archangels and Sts. Vitalis and Ecclesius. The four rivers flowing from the Christ’s throne serve here as a conventional iconographic element. A similar theme is to be observed on a tombstone inside the Priscilla catacomb. This presents again the human figures in the scene of the Traditio Legis, while at their sides are small lambs and Christ standing upon a mountain from which the four rivers flow forth.33 In the scene shown on the Rinaldo sarcophagus from Ravenna, Christ is seated upon a royal throne with the Law in his hands while the rivers issue from the throne, exactly as is written in Revelation.34 At his two sides are 31  32  33  34 

The sarcophagus of Sextus Petronius Probus illustrated in Grabar, Iconography, pl. 108. Grabar, Byzantium, pl. 147. Fevrier, Fleuves, pl. 4. See Grabar, Byzantium, pl. 290.

162

Chapter 11

figure 11.7

Mosaic, St. Vitale, Ravenna, sixth century

figures presenting him with crowns. Palms in fruit stand at the two sides and contribute to the pastoral atmosphere. Then comes a change, which is to be observed on the Constantius sacrophagus from Ravenna. This sarcophagus presents a similar scene to the preceding, but with different representations of the leading characters.35 In place of human figures, lambs appear, according to the verse “the water of life flowing from the throne … and of the lamb.” The description here continues that of the new Garden of Eden and the New Jerusalem, which is the bride and the dwelling place of the Holy Lamb. The pastoral tendency is even stronger in this instance and a mountain from which the four rivers flow replaces the throne, and on the two sides of the Holy Lamb are two lambs, which are facing him, replacing the venerating human figures in the previous example. On the silver cover of a reliquary from Pola there is an interesting combination of the scene Traditio Legis, which appears in the upper register, and beneath it, the lamb on the Throne of Glory from which rivers flow. To the side are Apostles and saints set on the background of a city. This city is comparable

35 

See Grabar, Byzantium, pl. 291.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

163

with the city in the description of the Garden of Eden in the Revelation of John. Thus, this silver reliquary unites the two scenes.36 A final fourth-century example is a wall painting in the catacomb of Sts Peter and Marcellinus in Rome. In the upper register we find the enthroned Christ between Peter and Paul. In the lower register the Divine Lamb stands on a mountain from which the four rivers spring between (left to right) Sts. Gorgonius, Petrus Marcellinus and Tiburtius. Above the Lamb is an inscription “Iordanis.” An apse mosaic floor from the eleventh or twelfth century from Salonika, Oratory of Christ Latomus strengthens the relationship between the rivers of the Garden of Eden. This presents the scene of Traditio Legis in the presence of Ezekiel and Habakkuk instead of Peter and Paul.37 Christ is seated upon a royal throne in the form of a rainbow in the cloud in the midst of a round mandorla. All around are the symbols of the evangelists. On his two sides are Ezekiel and Habakkuk, so it seems. At Christ’s feet is a mountain from which the four rivers flow, and above the rivers to our left is a personification of the Jordan river, in the water of which Christ is bathing his feet. Here we have not just the inscription IORDANES close to the four rivers, but the very figure of the Jordan itself. So far, the four rivers according to the vision of the new Garden of Eden in the Revelation of John have been found on tombstones, reliquaria, sarcophagi and in catacombs. Consequently, we may assume that this is not by chance. These are burial places in which emphasis is put upon art that represents the possibilities of eternal life for the believer and the depiction of the four rivers of Eden serves this end. It is possible that these early examples of the rivers of Eden that appear in funerary art from the fourth century on—and the above are such—were indeed the source of the iconography of the rivers and that subsequently the iconography spread to other contexts in other periods. The figure of the lamb, which represents Christ occurs on a fourth-century mosaic in Rome, in the Church of Sts. Cosmas and Damianus, which presents the scene in a fashion that is almost identical with the Constantius sarcophagus from Ravenna (fig. 11.8).38 The Holy Lamb is standing upon a hill from which four rivers flow. At his two sides are two more lambs. We can also observe that above the scene there is the inscription “Iordanes.” On the basis of this inscription we may assume that above the scene was to be found a representation of the river Jordan. The connection between the Jordan and the

36  37  38 

Fevrier, Fleuves, pl. 3. See Grabar, Byzantium, pl. 141. Fevrier, Fleuves, pl. 1.

164

Chapter 11

figure 11.8 Mosaic, Sts. Cosmas and Damianus, Rome, fourth century

four rivers of Eden arouses a new association. Living water, the Jordan, is naturally related to the Baptism of Christ. In addition to the Jordan, there is another familiar element, the mountain upon which the Holy Lamb is standing. It is notable that it is stylized and seems designed to have eight faces. The eight sides are opened spread out in order to show them. From each of the four corner sides one of the four rivers of Eden flows. Let us examine this mountain further. It is reminiscent of an element connected with the baptism, the octagonal baptismal font that appears in all forms of Christian art at a later period. If we wish to follow in the footsteps of philosophers and scientists of antiquity, we can mention the view that was entertained then about the symbolism of geometrical forms. The development of the octagonal baptismal font is connected, both symbolically and theologically, with the laying of a circle over a square, a circular font over a square font. The four-sided square of the font symbolizes the four elements—earth, fire, air and water, the four winds and the four seasons—these are the “earthly” elements. Over against them the circle of the font symbolizes perfection, heavenly, the absence of corners and ends, absence of beginning and end, the heavenly world and the Garden of Eden. The unification of the two geometric forms and of these two concepts brought the octagonal shape of the baptismal font into being. The human being, who is being purified from all earthly sins in the heavenly spiritual waters of purification, enters into it.39 Thus we have reached the octagonal baptismal fonts from which the four rivers of the Garden of Eden flow and the structure in which the baptismal font is placed, the baptistery. Early octagonal fonts may be observed in Ravenna and in San Ambrogio in Milan. This, however, is an extensive subject in its own

39 

See Hughes, Heaven, 91 for a plan and further details.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

165

right to which another paper should be devoted. Here, we must return to the four rivers of Eden. We started in the 15th century and then boldly jumped back to the 4th century to see the beginnings of this development. In order to satisfy or even challenge our curiosity, let us return to the later period to consider a few developments, which are just the tip of an unresearched iceberg. In the fourteenth century Lorenzo Maitani produced the scene of the Temptation in the Cathedral of Orvieto.40 The scene is represented on the background of the Tree of Knowledge. Here there is an interesting combination of the tree which grows by an octagonal water source (cf. Psa 1:3, etc.), from the corner sides of which four rivers issue. The octagonal water source brings to mind the baptismal font and the relationship between the four rivers and baptism. In the French painting in the Bedford Book of Hours (ca. 1423), the Expulsion from the Garden is pictured. Inside the walled garden, the gate of which is guarded by the armed cherub, Adam and Eve eat the apple. Note the octagonal Gothic building surmounting the well from which the four rivers of Paradise issue to irrigate the quarters of the world.41 The fountain in the early sixteenth-century triptych, “Garden of Earthly Delights” by Hieronymus Bosch is also pictured as an octagon, this time a fountain basin, in the middle of which is an upright pipe fountain from which four streams emerge.42 Strikingly similar fountains may still be observed in many places in Europe. Figure 11.9 shows one in Tübingen, Germany. Jan van Eyck’s greatest masterpiece is the altar front in the cathedral at Ghent, Belgium, entitled “Adoration of the Lamb” (1432). In the large centrepiece he painted a choir of angels surrounding the sacrificial lamb on the altar. Below that, in the earthly realm, the faithful and the clergy chant their doxologies before an eight-sided fountain into which, from a metal shaft surmounted by an angel of salvation, the waters of baptism pour. Here the traditional elements—the lamb, the octagonal font and the four life-giving rivers—are used in a new context.43 A different representation of the four rivers may be seen in the Genesis mosaic on the cupola of the atrium of the Basilica of San

40  41 

42  43 

Hughes, Heaven, 83. Hughes, Heaven, 61. Hughes (p. 85) also reproduces a French manuscript miniature illustrating Augustine’s City of God in which God shows Death to Adam and Eve (fifteenth century). To God’s left is a square tower (“the one source”) from which the four rivers spring, and their channels are visible. See above, n. 1. See Hughes, Heaven, 90.

166

figure 11.9

Chapter 11

Fountain (Tübingen, Germany) Photo by author

Marco in Venice (thirteenth century). Here the four rivers of Eden are presented, personified as four river gods (fig. 11.10). The four rivers, moreover, could move from heaven to hell. A fresco by Giotto Bondone in the Capella Scrovegni (Padua) painted before 1309 depicts the Last Judgement. In general the rivers of the Garden of Eden are not among

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

167

figure 11.10 Mosaic, Cupola of Atrium, San Marco, Venice, thirteenth century

the fixed attributes of the scene of the Day of Judgment. The only river that appears in this painting is the river that flows from Christ’s throne to Hell on the left and which carries with it those condemned to Hell. This river is generally painted in red and black, two threatening colours of fire and darkness. In the infernal region, however, it divides into four streams. Opposite, it is true, Paradise appears, but it is only the place where the righteous souls dwell and does not include the usual features of the Garden of Eden, except for a few trees or flowers. Another extraordinary migration of the four Edenic rivers may be seen in an illustration to Ovid in a French manuscript in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France (fig. 11.11).44 This shows the entrance to Hell where Pluto and Persephone are enthroned, and at their feet a fearsome, three-headed Cerberus. From the base of the throne of the infernal couple four rivers flow. Of course, here they symbolize the waters of the rivers of the Underworld, but the traditional number of those rivers was five, while our picture shows four rivers. Clearly, the artist took the attribute of the four rivers, which belongs to the Garden of Eden, moved it to the Underworld and inverted its meaning. In spite of the fact that the four rivers do not appear in the scene of the Day of Judgment itself, they do appear in scenes related to the Day of Judgment. As we said before, this is due to their connection with the understanding of life after death or eternal life after the Day of Judgment. We shall mention a final aspect of the role of the four rivers in art. As discussed briefly above, the image of the rivers brought to the artists’ minds and to those of the viewers, the main symbol of Christianity—the Cross. The symbolism of the Cross played many roles and aroused many associations, but they are connected predominantly with eternal life and redemption. The fourfold nature of the Cross was correlated with the four rivers. The four rivers were the waters of eternal life and in some formulations, of rebirth through the water of baptism.

44 

Hughes, Heaven, 193.

168

Chapter 11

figure 11.11

Pluto and Perséphone. Bibliothèque nationale, Paris

An example of this is to be found on a fifth- or sixth-century ivory book cover preserved in Milan’s Archeological Museum, probably attached latterly to a more recent manuscript.45 It forms a dyptich and on one of the two parts in the middle square can be seen a large cross. The cross stands on a hill on which flow four rivers and thus the Cross, the source of life, functionally replaces Eden, or is the Edenic river (Gen 2:10) from which the four rivers of life-giving water derive. The 11th century Harbaville triptych is in the Louvre in Paris.46 Its central panel depicts a cross, a tree that connects life and death. Two cypresses are inclined towards the cross, while their fruits touch it. This life-giving tree is the Tree of Life and at its foot we may observe four trees representing the four rivers of paradise.47 Thus the cross on the Harbaville triptych in fact conveys the same ideas as the Milan cover, made half a millennium earlier.

45  46  47 

Grabar, Byzantium, 289. Underwood, Life, pl. 48, n. 225. Underwood, Life, 98–99.

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

169

Another formulation of this concept is to be found in San Giovanni in Laterano in Rome, in a large early Christian mosaic showing the Cross at the centre of the world.48 The large cross at the world’s centre symbolizes Christ and the crucifixion and is immersed in a stream that comes forth from the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove. The inscription “Iordanes” is vertically alongside the cross, identifying the stream issuing from the dove. This stream divides into four, the four rivers, the names of which are written alongside them, which likely represent the Four Gospels, flowing out to the world. The dove is the Holy Spirit, and God the Father surmounts the whole. The Cross is the Tree of Life and its central axis is aligned with another small Tree of Life inside the walled Garden of Eden with animals and plants. An angel with a sword guards the entrance to the Garden of Eden. On the Tree of Life is a phoenix—the symbol of Christ. Thus the tree reflects the structure of the Cross above which is the Divinity. Notably, among the animals are four sheep, two flanking the Cross on each side, as in Sts. Cosmas and Damianus in Rome, and elsewhere. These representations of the Cross as the Tree of Life in Eden with rivers flowing from its base bring to mind another type of representation of the Cross. In the Armenian tradition, the Cross plays a particularly central role in Christian symbolism and, from earliest time, the Armenians set up stone crosses or embedded them in the walls of their churches. One of the earliest self-standing stone crosses, called Khatchkars, is that of the year 881 (fig. 11.12). This very early stone cross exhibits a striking similarity to the ancient Milan book cover. Because they are both rather old, and despite their geographical separation, it is interesting to compare them.49 The Armenian cross is set in the centre of Paradise, symbolised by the series of (significantly) four leaves on both sides of its base, and two fruits in the two upper corners, the heavenly fruit of life. Thus both crosses bear symbols of Eden. The Milan cross is on a rise of a hill (Eden) with four rivers flowing from it base. The Armenian cross is at the centre of Paradise, where the Tree of Life stood, and its four arms may represent the four rivers, flowing in the four directions. At the four sides of this cross are signs of the four river of paradise just as the four rivers flow from the roots of the Milan cross.50 A very pleasing example with which to close this paper’s pilgrimage can be found in an Armenian stone cross dated 1651 in the Armenian Quarter in Jerusalem (fig. 11.13). We started with the search for paradise by a group of Armenian monks. We returned to the first centuries to see how paradise was 48  49  50 

Cook, Tree, pl. 46. Azarian/Manoukian, Khatchkar, no. 14, p. 20. Grabar, Byzantium, 289.

170

Chapter 11

figure 11.12 Xačʽkʽar of 881, Armenia Photo by author

figure 11.13 Xačʽkʽar of 1651, Jerusalem Photo by author

The Four Rivers that Flowed from Eden

171

described in early Christian art. After going around the world we return to Armenian art to conclude our journey. The Jerusalem Armenian cross of 1651 summarizes the subject. It presents a description of Paradise with most of the features of the Garden. The different parts of the large cross symbolize these main features: A. The whole of the upper two parts of the large cross is the Tree of Life with the two bunches of fruit. B. The lower part of the tree is surrounded by rich vegetation with all these rich and exotic plants symbolizing paradise. C. The horizontal arm of the cross is laden with fruit and the ends of all four arms have “horns.” Each of the arms symbolizes one of the four rivers of Paradise. These provide the water necessary for the Tree of Life and for all the vegetation in Paradise and around the whole world. Above we quoted from the colophon of Hetum Bayl and it is fitting to conclude with his characterization of the four rivers of Paradise: Those [the four Gospels] are also the real rivers flowing from Eden, … Then separated into four rivers, the evangelist preachers of God gave to the universe [the privilege] to drink the water of immortality, by which they cooled the ardent heat and extinguished the flame of sin and made the valleys of the rivers flourish in faith and deeds and fashioned part of the soul as divine paradise, …51

Bibliography Ajamian, S., The Colophon of the Gospel of Hethum ‘Bayl’, in: S. Ajamian/M.E. Stone (eds.), Text and Context: Studies in the Armenian New Testament, Atlanta 1994, 1–13 Alexander, P.S., Art. Geography and the Bible (Early Jewish), The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2 (1992) 977–988 Azarian, L./Manoukian, A., Khatchkar (croci di pietra), (Documenti di Architettura Armena 2), Milano 1969 Bogharian, N., Poetry of Yovhannēs T‛lkuranc‛i Տաղագիրք Յովհաննէս Թլկուրանցւոյ. Jerusalem 1958 (in Armenian) Brown, M.P., Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts: A Guide to Technical Terms, Los Angeles 1994 Buschhausen, H./Buschhausen, H., Armenische Handschriften der Mechitharisten in Wien, Vienna 1981 51 

Ajamian, Colophon, 9.

172

Chapter 11

Conybeare, F.C., A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London 1913 Cook, R., The Tree of Life: Image for the Cosmos, New York, 1974 Der Nersessian, S., The Chester Beatty Library: A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts, Dublin 1958 Fevrier, P.A., Les quatre fleuves du Paradise, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 32 (1956) 179–199 Goddard-Elliot, A., The Road to Paradise, London 1987 Grabar, A., Byzantium: From the Death of Theodosius to the Rise of Islam, transl. by S. Gilbert/J. Emmons (The Arts of Mankind), London 1966 Grabar, A., Christian Iconography: A study of its Origins, Princeton 1969 Hughes, R., Heaven and Hell in Western Art, London 1968 Mathews, E.G. Jr./Amar, J.P., Selected Prose Works of Ephrem the Syrian (Fathers of the Church 91), Washington 1994 Murray, R., Symbols of Church and Kingdom, Cambridge 1975 Stone, M.E., An Armenian Manuscript in the National and University Library Jerusalem, REArm 4 (1967) 57–61 Stone, M.E., John of T‘lkuran On the Creation of the World, St. Nersess Theological Review 10 (2005) 51–75 Stone, N., The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers: A Study in Armenian Manuscript Illumination (CSCO Subsidia 94), Louvain 1997 Thomson, R.W., A Bibliography of Classical Armenian Literature to 1500 A.D. (Corpus Christianorum), Turnhout 1995 Underwood, P., The Fountain of Life in Manuscripts of the Gospels, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 43–115

Chapter 12

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration Nira Stone

The scene of the transfiguration is one of the most frequently illuminated of the festal scenes. This is true of Byzantine art in general, and of Oriental Christian art, including the Armenian, in particular. The Transfiguration appears in Byzantine art from the sixth century on, while intriguingly it becomes widespread in the West only in the middle of the fifteenth century. A number of reasons for its widespread distribution might be proposed, but the main reason is the character and importance of the event. Inasmuch as it is the moment of Jesus’ transition from an earthly to a heavenly condition, it symbolizes the transition from this world to the world to come. Thus it highlights the aspiration and the desire of every mortal for the transition to the Garden of Eden. This event may be compared in many respects to baptism in which there is a clear move from a bodily and sinful state to a pure sinless state very close to the divine. Indeed, the scene of Baptism is almost as widespread as the Transfiguration and the two scenes contain similar iconographic elements. Artists who wished to present the Transfiguration encountered one great problem, which was not found in other scenes, including the Baptism. This is: how to paint the change from bodily to divine? How can one convey that event to a viewer? This was the artists’ technical problem and different artists chose different, and fascinatingly varied ways of approaching it. This special artistic aspect of the scene is the subject of this paper. The fixed iconography of this scene, as it was painted in Byzantine art and in Armenian manuscripts from Cilicia, is familiar (fig. 12.1).1 It is the following: Christ, in a white garment, is standing on top of a mountain or on the top of the middle mountain of three. He is set in a mandorla and is blessing with his right hand and holds a scroll in his left hand. At his sides are a young Moses on the right and an old Elijah dressed in sheepskin on his left. Beneath them are Peter, James and John, in different poses. Peter, on the left, is standing on one knee and pointing at the spectacle; James is turning around in wonder, and

1  Typical is the scene of the Transfiguration from the Gospel of Queen Keran; Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate, no. 2563, fol. 69.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_013

174

Figure 12.1

Chapter 12

Transfiguration. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J2563, fol. 69

John is falling down on his face. In the Paleological period, the drama of the scene was enhanced by the apostles lying full length from the mountain. We must examine the basis upon which artists formulated this scene in the fifth and sixth centuries and what were the iconographic forebears of this particular presentation of the event of the Transfiguration. Conceptually, it is clear that the Revelation at Sinai provided inspiration for them, but we may still inquire about iconographic model.

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration

175

The most obvious source is to be sought in Roman art. There is a scene in which an important personage (usually the emperor) is changing from earthly to a heavenly being, or is going over into the world to come. Such descriptions are to be found on Roman coins and sarcophagi. One interesting example is a Roman coin of Septimius Severus on which there is a being ascending to heaven, in an apotheosis of the sun.2 These attempts represent supernatural or heavenly nature by means of a cloud or an animal, which carries the human figure to heaven.3 The spectators fall on the earth from the impact of the vision. Christian artists could well have translated these scenes into their style. The cloud that symbolized the divine and the spiritual4 could have developed into the mandorla around Christ’s body. Another possible source are funerary scenes on sarcophagi. Here the figure of the deceased is shown in a medallion (compare the mandorla) borne up by angels to heaven, while the spectators fall to the earth (fig. 12.2).5 Alternatively the deceased are represented, with their souls about to ascend to heaven, and beside them are two standing figures (compare Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration). At the base of the medallion is a Dionysiac scene, of young men gathering grapes or treading them. They are preparing wine. Such Bacchanalian scenes appear also on a Jewish sarcophagus.6 In this case, Judaism forbade the representation of the deceased in a medallion and therefore the Temple candelabrum replaced it.7 Nonetheless, the meaning is clear: the soul of the deceased is en route to the world to come or to eternal life, which is symbolized by the seasons of the year or the preparation of the wine, the drink of eternal life. The overall structure here reminds us of the Transfiguration where the prophets take the place of the seasons and the apostles take the place of the three Dionysiac youths. There is also a conceptual background to the adoption of the structural plan of the scene. Since it contains a number of elements that represent eternal life, the seasons of the year (renewal) and the wine, perhaps the first Christian artists saw in this a suitable exemplar to represent the sublime scene of the Transfiguration, which also indicates future eternal life. 2  Cast of a coin of Septimius Severus. 3  Elijah ascending in his fiery chariot is a common theme in art, compare the fifteenth century icon shown in V. Laurina and V. Pushkariov 1980, pl. 132 and the similar scene ibid., 152. 4  See K. Weitzmann 1982, 38. 5  See E. Panofsky 1964, fig. 126. 6  See ibid., fig. 127. 7  Sarcophagus fragment from Museo Nazionale delle Terme, third century.

176

Chapter 12

Figure 12.2

Sarcophagus, The Louvre. Photographie Giraudon, Paris

This structure served as a pattern for another scene, the ascent to heaven, as may be found as early as the sixth century in the Rabula Codex and later in the eleventh century Armenian manuscript from Mughni.8 The structure was so intimately connected with this scene that in an Arabic manuscript from Florence we find the scene of Christ’s ascent to heaven while at the bottom is an exact copy of the three apostles from the Transfiguration, amazed at the vision. Here the apostles’ figures replace the spectators of the ascent.9 The most famous sixth-century example is the mosaic from St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai. Here the Byzantine formula was fixed, with the two lateral apostles standing on their knees, while the central one is lying on his front.10 In St. Catherine’s, at the foot of Mt. Sinai, down to the present day the Transfiguration is the second most important feast. Scholars think that the church was originally dedicated to the Transfiguration and only later was it changed to become a church of St. Catherine. St. Catherine’s Monastery is built on the traditional site of the burning bush, a scion of which is still shown there. The burning bush and the Transfiguration are very similar, both being revelations of divinity, and the revelation of God on Mount Sinai resembles Christ’s revelation on the Mount of the Transfiguration. In both cases the events are difficult to describe in painting. In the Transfiguration the difficulty is the metamorphosis of Christ, the cloud and the voice. 8  9  10 

See D.T. Rice 1963, fig. 25 and L.A. Dournovo 1969, fig. 11. See G. Millet 1916, 220–221, fn. 2, fig. 185: footnote no. 5. The Florence Arabic manuscript is Biblioteca Laurentiana Med. Pal. 387, fol. 46r. See J. Galy 1979, fig. 119.

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration

Figure 12.3

177

Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. M6201, fol. 62

In Armenian painting the scene develops in two parallel ways. One resembles that which can be observed in Byzantine art, while the other is unique to Armenian art. In the area of Melitene, where a distinctive school of Armenian art developed, a special version of the Transfiguration also developed. It was unique to the style of this area, which is notable for simplicity and for the presentation only of those details essential to transmit the content of the painting (fig. 12.3).11 Ms. Matenadaran M6201 of the year 1038 presents us with an abbreviated Transfiguration that is, nonetheless, quite clear. The painter presents the basic signs of recognition in order to tell the viewer what the scene is. Christ is standing on the top of a high mountain. The three apostles are lying on the slopes of the mountain, with their faces visible and they are shading their eyes with their hands. Moses and Elijah are standing on the left part of the picture, to Christ’s right. Moses is first and he is wrapped in a shroud. This presentation is based on the ancient interpretation in the Jewish apocryphal literature, which deals with Moses’ burial. This tradition says that Moses was buried like other

11 

See V. Ghazarian 1991, 47, fig. 64.

178

Chapter 12

mortals, and did not ascend to heaven alive like Elijah.12 Therefore, when he arose from his tomb for the Transfiguration, he was wrapped in a shroud.13 According to Izmailova, Moses symbolizes the world of the dead while Elijah symbolizes the world of the living. Thus Christ appears as king of both the world of the living and the world of the dead.14 Ms M6201 of the year 1038 witnesses to the existence of a school of manuscript illumination in this style in the eleventh century in the area between Melitene and the Taurus mountains. It seems to have drawn on ancient traditions and perhaps on models from Cappadocia and from Syria. We note the structure of the faces with large, round eyes, an elongated nose and a small mouth. This was typical of early examples.15 The parchment is light and there is no background. Only Christ’s figure is enveloped in bright clouds. There are two trees, laden with fruit, on the mountain. A similar composition may be observed in M10780, another manuscript of the same period.16 Here too Christ is standing on the peak of a mountain, with the apostles lying in the same posture on the slope of the mountain, this time to Christ’s right. On his left stand two figures, one Moses in a shroud and the other, Elijah. Here however, there are additional iconographic elements. In both pictures there are big trees on the mountain. Mathews commented that the presence of trees in this scene is unique to Armenian painters and that it may serve to stress for the viewer the connection between this scene and Paradise.17 As in the previous painting, the trees bear fruit and symbolize the tree of life in Paradise, which is related to the world of the transfigured Christ. The high mountain is also related to Paradise, as may be seen also in other, literary sources.18 Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i says that it is a mountain higher than the whole world. The important new element is the hand of God, which comes forth from the heavens and sends out rays that touch each of the participants in the scene. The radiant heavenly hand demonstrates the presence of God, as in the Baptism. God’s hand rarely appears in this scene and as far as we know this is one of three or four instances, all in Armenian art.19

12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 

See S. Loewenstamm, 1976, 142–157. See R. Stichel 1978, 669–673. T.A. Izmailova 1970, 221–222. See L.A. Dournovo 1961, figs. 23, 33–39. See Ghazarian 1991, 49, fig. 67. It is dated to the tenth century by Malkhasyan, 199–200. Th. F. Mathews and A.K. Sanjian 1991, 95–96. See N. Stone 1997, 81–90; eadem, “Four Rivers” (forthcoming). See Mathews and Sanjian 1991, fig. 106b.

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration

Figure 12.4

179

Transfiguration. Matenadaran, MS. M974

Manuscript M4814 of the year 1294 belongs to the Armeno-Oriental school, which Sirarpie Der Nersessian identified together with L.A. Dournovo.20 In addition to the special structure of the visage, the following elements appear: a tree with fruit, Moses in a shroud, together with Elijah on Christ’s right, while the apostles are bunched together at his left. Here, however, the apostles are kneeling and facing the viewer and Christ, while one of them looks sideways. All three cover their eyes with their hands. Mathews argues that this Armeno-Oriental school is part of the East Christian tradition.21 The resurrected Moses symbolizes the resurrection of Jesus. The tree symbolizes paradise where Adam will be reconstituted. Moses and Elijah witness that Jesus is the same, in the past, present and future, which are unified in Armenian and Syriac sources.22 A new, important iconographical element appears here, the mandorla which surrounds Christ’s body.23 Manuscript M974 of the eleventh century is also considered to belong to the early Armeno-Oriental school (fig. 12.4). In it Cappadocian influence can be clearly discerned in the figures and the colours.24 In a group of various scenes is a Transfiguration, on the left side of the page. This time the figures

20  21  22  23  24 

S. Der Nersessian apud Dournovo 1961, 6. See Mathews and Sanjian, 96. See Mathews and Sanjian, 96, notes 15, 16. See O. Brendel 1924, 5–24. See Izmailova 1970, 214–218 see also Dournovo 1961, fig. 61.

180

Chapter 12

are in their familiar position, at the top of a mountain. Moses and Elijah are at Christ’s two sides, while below them are the astonished apostles. As we said before, here a sort of halo encompasses not just the figure of Christ, but also part of the figures of Moses and Elijah. The mandorla, which is a halo surrounding the whole body, is painted on purpose in a colour which Dournovo calls one of “the variants of Armenian purple.”25 Here the painter has ignored the text of the New Testament where it says that Christ’s clothes became white, and he coloured the cloths as he liked. The mandorla is reminiscent of clouds as in M6201. The use of the mandorla serves to resolve one of the problems which the painters faced and which we mentioned above, viz., how to represent the moment of the Transfiguration itself. The use of a cloud or of a cloud-like shape was most convenient and it joins the hand of God, which we already observed above in M10780 as a means of expressing this idea. The cloud or cloud-like shape is used in the sixth century in a wall mosaic in the church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome.26 Here the scene represents the verse Num 14:10. The Israelites are about to stone Moses and his defenders, Joshua bin Nun and Caleb ben Jephunneh, and the “glory of the LORD appeared at the tent of meeting to all the people of Israel.” That is to say, there was an irruption of the divine so as to save the three victims of the attack. Similarly, the artist used the mandorla to describe the divine, which surrounded Christ and his apostles and defended them. The mandorla, therefore, also received the role of representing the divine in the Transfiguration. In the sixth-century mosaic to which we referred, the hand of God appears from heaven and sends rays of light to the figures in order to highlight the divine presence, just as we found in M10780. So far, then, we can say that in the eleventh century we find an early and distinctive form of the Transfiguration in manuscripts of the Armeno-Oriental school. It is characterized by special iconographic features of the figures, by the trees, and by Moses in a shroud. Together with all these, we observe elements starting to appear that are shared with Byzantine iconography, viz., the mandorla, the hand of God and the vertical stance of the figures. These eleventh-century Armenian representations of the Transfiguration form a separate group in iconography and style within the Armenian tradition. It is true that various elements of this group are drawn from different sources, but their combination is uniquely Armenian. 25  26 

Durnovo, 60. See A. Grabar 1966, fig. 159.

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration

181

Alongside this distinctive stream of artistic tradition, Armenian artists also continued to create scenes of the Transfiguration that were based on the adoption of elements of the Byzantine structure.27 Although, from time to time we find certain elements that are typical only of Armenian Transfigurations and exhibit individual initiative or an unusual model, the general structure is consistent. The problems discussed above were not solved by the adoption of the Byzantine structure. The issue remained of how to represent Christ’s metamorphosis. The adoption of the mandorla helped, but the problem of the colour persisted. What colour would best serve the purpose of the mandorla? In the Matt. 17:2 it says, “and he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light” and then the text adds that “a bright cloud overshadowed them” (Matt 17:5). In accordance with this description the natural colour for the figure of Christ should be white, perhaps with gold to signify the shining like the sun. However, no colour is mentioned for the cloud that enveloped them. The Trebizond Gospels are of the eleventh century.28 They constitute an excellent example of an Armenian artist who painted the scene with great delicacy and feeling. The presentation of Christ and his Apostles is appropriate to that of the period. The figures are expressive, the lines of the mountain are rounded and soft, as if the painter had seen Mount Tabor and was painting it. Only on the top of the mountain are three rough peaks that symbolize the three tabernacles which the Apostles set up. Christ’s garments are white, in accordance with the Gospel texts. The Armenian artists, like others, concentrated on the attempt to convey the event by means of the mandorla or the cloud (fig. 12.5). In Constantinople in the year 1000 the artist who created an ivory dyptich attempted to paint a cloud in the shape of a half-moon, just as in the example of the apotheosis of the sun.29 In an eleventh-century icon from Shemokmedi in Georgia, the artist drew a line around the participants in the event and for the rest, makes do with the gold background. Gold is an excellent colour for solving heavenly problems.30 Armenian artists of the 13th century (mainly from Cilicia) and thenceforth, took over the Byzantine gold and some times used it to paint the mandorla

27  28  29  30 

See S. Der Nersessian 1978, fig. 105. See ibid., fig. 78. See Weitzmann 1982, fig. 38. See S. Amiranashvili 1971, fig. 74.

182

Figure 12.5

Chapter 12

Transfiguration. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J1956

The Illuminations of the Transfiguration

183

around Christ on the background of the blue of the sky, occasionally it is accompanied by gilt rays of light.

Conclusion The scene of the Transfiguration was very important to Armenian illuminators.31 It appears in most manuscripts where the festal scenes are painted. Alongside the Byzantine-style Transfiguration scene, Armenian artists developed a unique local version.

Bibliography Amiranashvili, S. 1971 Georgian Metalwork, From Antiquity to the 18th Century. London and New York: Hamlyn. Brendel, O. 1944 “Origin and Meaning of the Mandorla.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 6 Ser., XXV: 5–24. Der Nersessian, S. 1978 Armenian Art: East and West. Paris: Arts et Metiers graphiques. Devrikian, V. 2006 Transfiguration and the Feast of Vartavar. Yerevan. Dournovo, L. 1961 Armenian Miniatures. New York: Abrams, 1969 Miniatures arméniennes. Yerevan: Hayastan. Galey, J. 1979 Sinai. Givatayim, Israel: Massada Publishing. Ghazarian, V. 1966 Matenadaran. Moscow: Kniga. Grabar, A. 1966 Byzantium. London: Thames and Hudson. Izmailova, T.A. 1970 “Le Tetraévangile arménien de 1038.” REArm 7: 203–240. Laurina, Vera and Pushkariov, V. 1980 Novgorod Icons, Oxford & Leningrad: Phaidon & Aurora Press. Loewenstamm, S. 1976 “The Death of Moses,” in Studies on the Testament of Moses, ed. G.W.E. Nickelsburg. Missoula: Scholars, 1976, 142–157. Malkhasyan, A. 2007 Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Mashtots Matenadaran, vol. 3 (Yerevan: Yerevan University Press,), col. 200 (in Armenian). Mathews, T.R., and Sanjian, A.K. 1991 Armenian Gospel Iconography: The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Millet, G. 1916 Recherches sur l’Iconographie de l’Evangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles. Paris. 31 

See the recent publication by V. Devrikian 2006. His chief interest complements the present article as he stresses the liturgical dimension of the feast. He gives a rich assemblage of images but does not stress the iconographic dimension.

184

Chapter 12

Panofsky, E. 1964 Tomb Sculpture; Four Lectures on Its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini. New York: H.N. Abrams. Rice, D.T. 1963 Art of the Byzantine era. New York: Praeger. Stichel, R. 1978 Una Rappresentazione Armena della Transfigurazione di Cristo. Atti del Primo Simposio Internationale di Arte Armena. Venice. Stone, N. 1997 The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers: A Study in Armenian Manuscript Illumination (CSCO Subsidia 94). Louvain: Peeters. Weitzmann, K. 1982 The Icon. London.

Chapter 13

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts Nira Stone*

Emma Korkhmazian (1930–2009) In Memoriam

∵ In this paper we shall discuss the research done in recent decades on illuminated non-biblical Armenian manuscripts (thus also excluding Gospels). The period designated by “recent” is unclear, and we have considered this quite carefully. Is it during the last year, the last fifty years or the last hundred years? The scope of the assigned topic and the indefiniteness of the chronological limits have led us to select only a few subjects and examine them within realistic limitations.1 From antiquity, Armenian writers, scholars and scientists were pioneers in their fields. They expressed Armenian creativity in the areas of lyric poetry, law, liturgy, hagiography, medicine, magic, veterinary science, hippiatry, pharmacology, astrology, astronomy, music and history—and this list is far from exhaustive. These and other areas of literature, learning, art and science were transmitted in manuscripts and often accompanied by illustrations.2 Our brief is to survey the types of non-biblical paintings and to present what is known about them, with indication of possible further directions of research.

*  This paper originated in a presentation made at a workshop of the AIEA held in Salzburg, Austria on 11–13.4.2005. 1  The extent of this study has also been governed by the limited bibliographic resources available to me, predominantly in Western languages, which do not cover the earlier part of the twentieth century. 2  See R. Kévorkian and J.-P. Mahé, 1985, especially. 67–68.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_014

186

Chapter 13

Profane Literature The Alexander Romance (Figure 13.1) Probably the most famous example of profane literature in Armenian is The Alexander Romance of Pseudo-Callisthenes. This very popular book, telling tales of Alexander’s life and exploits, was first translated from Greek into Armenian in the fifth century and there are at least 80 surviving manuscripts. It is illuminated with very interesting illustrations.3 Pseudo-Callisthenes has attracted the attention of scholars repeatedly over the past century. Among the first was Frédéric Macler in his book L’Enluminure arménienne profane

Figure 13.1

The Alexander Romance. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J473

3  The most recent critical text was edited by Simonian, 1989.

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

187

in 1928. Numerous scholars followed him, including Hasmik Simonian (1975, 1979 and 1989), Cecilia Arslan Veronese (1992), Christina Maranci, (2003– 2004), and Giusto Traina (1996).4 Dickran Kouymjian wrote studies of it in 1992–1993 and graciously made available to me his exhaustive article in the forthcoming Weitenberg Commemoration Volume.5 Most recently two wonderful volumes have been published by Dickran Kouymjian, Giusto Traina, Carlo Franco and Cecilia Veronese Arslan. One volume is a facsimile of Venice, Mekhitarist Library, ms. V424, and the other, an introduction, an analysis of the miniatures and reproductions from other illustrated manuscripts of Pseudo-Callisthenes. This latest work is very welcome and it summarizes most of what can be said about The Romance of Alexander.6 Books of Models The existence of an Armenian book of models (manuscript V1434) was first mentioned by Père Łevond Ališan in 1896 in a three-installment article in Bazmavēp.7 This is manuscript V1434 of the Library of the Mekhitarist Fathers in Venice, perhaps dating from the fifteenth century (figure 13.2). Later it was noted by Macler in 1928,8 but it was Sirarpie Der Nersessian who wrote substantial studies of it in two articles published in 1968 and 1969.9 For the historians of Western art there has never been any problem in having books of models and books of models were familiar in Western art from early times.10 However, only from as late as the twelfth century is there evidence for the existence of such works in the Byzantine realm.11 In 1962, D.J.A. Ross showed that a couple of twelfth century pages in a Latin manuscript (Vatican Lat. 1976) derived from Byzantine models. Already in 1961 Kurt Weitzman had demonstrated that certain Saxon evangelist portraits were copied from a contemporary Byzantine model that he thinks was an icon.12 In 1974 P. Hetherington published the “Painters Manual” of the Greek monk Dionysius of Fourna, a seventeenth-century prose description of models for manuscript

4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 

Simonian, 1979; Simonian, 1989; Simonian, 1976; Veronese Arslan, 1992; Maranci, 2003–4; Traina, 1996. Kouymjian, 1992–3. Traina, Franco, Koumjian and Veronese Arlsan, 2003. This work also includes all the kafas (poetic explanations) of Khatchadour. Ł. Ališan in Bazmavēp 1896, 289–293, 385–397 and 446–450. Macler, 1928. Der Nersessian, 1968; Der Nersessian, 1969. An example is the Wolfenbüttel manuscript; see Der Nersessian, 1973, 665–672. See Ross, 1962 and Der Nersessian, 1973, 673. Weitzmann, 1971, 223–250.

188

Figure 13.2

Chapter 13

Fantastic Animal, Venice. Mekhitarist Library, V1434, fol. 2r; 2b. Bucephalus. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, J473, fol. 10v

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

189

painters in which he drew on earlier Byzantine iconographic sources.13 This influenced both painters and art historians. A nice discovery was the use in Armenian manuscripts of the system of models (figure 13.3), which was demonstrated by Der Nersessian in two articles written in 1968 and 1969.14 There she showed that V1434 is made up of two parts, the first of which is on parchment and is older than the second, later part, which is on paper.15 This manuscript included models drawn from Byzantine sources, and itself served as a model for Armenian artists. A good example is the Alexander Romance of 1536 (J473) that was illustrated by Catholicos Grigoris of Ałt‘amar.16 (See figure 13.2.) In an article written in 1981, Mari Laura Testi Cristiani suggested that this manuscript was intended for private use or to be placed in a shop, where customers might order pictures, consulting the book of models.17 The Jewish Bride This is a most unusual manuscript, a story written by Eremia Chelebi Kömürjian of Constantinople (1637–1695), who was a prolific writer both in Armenian and in Turkish.18 It survives in various languages and a manuscript of it in ArmenoTurkish is preserved in the Spencer Collection in the New York Public Library (Armenian manuscript no. 5) and was published in 1981 by Avedis K. Sanjian and Andreas Tietze.19 This manuscript has numerous illustrations that have never been studied. The story is of an Albanian baker who fell in love with a Jewish girl. She converted to Christianity and the purpose of the tale is to establish the superiority of Christianity over Judaism. This is one of Eremia Chelebi’s numerous compositions; another, which I have seen in a manuscript copy in the Library of the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, is the “Story of the Great Fire in Constantinople,” which is also illustrated. Doubtlessly, there exist further illustrations of historical or imaginative stories that remain to be studied.

13  14  15 

16  17  18  19 

Hetherington, 1974. See note 9 above. Throughout we use the system of sigla devised by B. Coulie and adopted by the Association Internationale des Etudes Armeniennes. The main sigla are M = Matenadaran; J = Jerusalem; V = Venice; and W = Vienna. The full list is set forth in Coulie, 1994 and on the AIEA web site. Bogharian, 1967, vol. 2, 460–466. Testi Cristiani, 1981. Bardakjian, 2000, 59–63. Sanjian and Tietze, 1981.

190

Figure 13.3

Chapter 13

Markos and Serapion. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J285, p. 652

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

191

Hagiography Manuscripts containing the sayings and lives of the fathers, martyrs and saints are extremely popular in the Armenian tradition, existing in many copies, the vast majority of which are not illustrated. Moreover, few scholars have published research on these hagiographic illuminations in Armenian or, indeed, in any other eastern Christian art. Those who have done so include Fédéric Macler (1930), Helmut Buschhausen (1981, 1986 and 1988), Hugo Buchthal (1963) and Sirarpie Der Nersessian (1958).20 Indeed, when I commenced my doctoral thesis, no major work in this area existed in a Western language. It was for this reason that I decided to dedicate my research to Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate no. J285, written in 1430, which contains almost 823 pages, sixty full- or half-page illustrations and about 500 small illuminations— marginal scenes and others (figure 13.3). I received much encouragement, guidance and information from Dr. Emma Korkhmazian in Erevan and from Prof. Sirarpie Der Nerssesian in Paris, who also provided me with unpublished material. I published several articles on this manuscript and associated issues, and a few years later, in 1997, I published a book dedicated to it.21 In Italy there are famous hagiographic pictures in various media (not only in manuscripts) that have been discussed by Achenbach (1944), Martin (1951) and Callman (1957).22 Helmut Buschhausen wrote an article about the Jerusalem manuscript (J285) in 1986 and again, in 1988, he studied the relationship between the manuscript and the painted cassoni boxes, in which he mentions the fact that this is the first illuminated Armenian manuscript of the Lives of the Desert Fathers.23 Previous publications and research on illuminated manuscripts of the Lives of the Desert Fathers were mainly about manuscripts in Greek and Latin. They mention Jerusalem J285 in the context of other artistic traditions, in such works as J.R. Martin on The Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus (1954), J. and M. Sotirov on Mount Sinai icons (1958) and Kurt Weitzmann’s works of 1971 and 1982.24 There exist nine copies of Jerusalem J285, which were all discussed in my book.25 Most are in Jerusalem, but there is one in Venice, one in the British 20  21  22  23  24  25 

Der Nersessian, 1958; Buchthal, 1963; Buschhausen and Buschhausen, 1981; Buschhausen, 1986; Buschhausen, 1988, 816; Macler, 1930. Stone, N., 1997. Achenbach, 1944; Martin, 1950; Callmann, 1957. See note 20. Martin, 1954; G. and M. Sotirou, 1958; Weitzmann, 1971; Weitzmann, 1982a; Weitzmann, 1982b. Pace Rapti, 2001–2. These are Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate nos. J23, J228, J971, J410, J293, J268, J1409; Venice V1922; LOB (British Library) add. 27301 and Erevan, Matenadaran

192

Chapter 13

Library and one in the Matenadaran. These copies are all later than Jerusalem J285 and were written between 1593 and 1710. Indeed, the study of the relationship of these later copies to their original is fascinating, and I shall resume it soon. One of the methodological highlights of my analysis was to isolate new or changed iconographic and stylistic elements, and to attempt to explain them in light of the historical and religious contexts and movements of the period in which the manuscript was created. Mutatis mutandis, a similar undertaking was carried out independently by Mathews and Sanjian in their study of the Gladzor Gospels.26 Liturgical Manuscripts The Hymnal—Šaraknoc‘ Among the liturgical books used by the Armenians, the distinctive illustrative cycle of the Hymnal or Šaraknoc‘ is noteworthy. In recent years, the Hymnal has been the object of systematic research being carried out at Halle in Germany. As a result, important articles were written in 1995 by Hermann Goltz (on its illumination) and by Armenuhi Drost-Abgarjan (on its text).27 Goltz presents the different types of illuminations in the fully-illustrated Hymnal and describes the cycle of marginal and large miniatures. The Maštoc‘—Ritual There is a completely unstudied tradition of illustration of the Maštoc‘, the book containing the liturgies for the sacraments and other special occasions, to be used by priests. This includes scenes like the building of a Church, the interment of a bishop and other similar illustrations. With Michael Stone I am working on two such manuscripts, one in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin and the other in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. Doubtless, much more remains to be done. The Physiologus The Physiologus is a collection of Christian allegories. Composed originally in Greek, it was translated into Armenian in the late-fifth or early sixth centuries,

26  27 

M789. I am informed by Prof. L. Chookaszian that there may be an incomplete copy in Seattle, WA. Mathews and Sanjian, 1991. Robert F. Taft wrote on the place of the Hymnal in the Armenian liturgy (Taft, 1998). See further, Drost-Abgarjan, 1995; Goltz, 1995. See also Drost-Abgarjan and Goltz, 1987. A full description of another copy, Chester Beatty Library Arm 621 will appear in Stone and Stone, forthcoming.

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

193

and existed also in Latin and other languages from an early date. The Armenian text was published by N. Marr and later studied by Xač‘ikyan and Arevšatyan.28 Gohar Muradyan has recently finished a new edition of the text, completing the work of a research group at the Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies in 1997–8. Dr. Muradyan has informed me that in all the manuscripts she has examined there is only a single illumination, a marginal picture in ms Matenadaran 2890 (1719). It shows a lion being hunted by a demonic figure resembling a four-legged rooster (figure 13.4). In Chapter 2 Appendix 2–16 of Dr. Muradyan’s edition and translation we read, “the hunter Satan will come, find him (i.e., the sinner who is compared with the lion) unready and kill him.” In the picture the lion’s rear right foot is caught by the rooster-Satan. Motifs from the Physiologus, however, penetrated Armenian art much earlier. In an article about a fifteenth-century Armenian Gospel in the Boston Public Library, Sirarpie Der Nersessian observes that the motif of the pelican appears in it.29 She describes the motif’s connection to the resurrection or crucifixion in that the pelican bites pieces from its breast or side to feed and revive its dying young. From the fifteenth century on, she says, it forms, “an integral part of the Crucifixion in Armenian manuscripts,” and this motif derives from the Physiologus.30 However, a much earlier illustration of this motif is known, from the scene of the Baptism in the Eǰmiacin Gospels no. 1 (M2374), dated usually to the latter part of the first millennium. History of the Armenians and Historical Events The most renowned historian of Armenia is Movsēs Xorenac‘i and his work has had extensive scholarly attention over the past couple of centuries. For our purposes, questions of authenticity and date may be laid aside. Xorenac‘i is only one of numerous Armenian historians and most often, if their works are illustrated, it is with a portrait of the author usually at the beginning. An example of this is the picture of Movsēs Xorenac‘i, Prince Sahak Bagratuni and the commissioner, Nersēs Gnuni in M2865 of 1567 from Xizan (figure 13.5). To the best of my knowledge, such authors’ portraits have not been studied systematically and no monographic study has been devoted to them. However, 28  29  30 

Muradyan, 2005 is the most recent edition. The history of research with bibliography appears on pp. 3–6. Der Nersessian, 1950 and Der Nersessian, 1973, 687–8. “In similitude to Christ the pelican pierced his side and fed his young. Christ pierced His side and redeemed us with His blood” is the title under the illumination in the manuscript (Der Nersessian, 1973, 683–694, especially 687–88).

194

Figure 13.4

Chapter 13

Lion and Satan in Physiologus. Matenadaran, M2890

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.5

195

Mosvēs Xorenacʽi. Matenadaran, M2865

numerous examples are reproduced in published collections of Armenian miniature paintings and in exhibition catalogues. Indeed, such portraits also exist of other authors of books, not only of historians. One type is of the monastic teacher with his students at his feet. These include well-known pictures of Vardan Aygekc‘i (M7006 of the seventeenth century),31 Yesayi Nč‘ec‘i (J365 of the thirteenth century) and Grigor Tatewac‘i (M1203 of 1449) with their students (figures 13.6 and 13.7).

31 

This manuscript contains many authors’ portraits.

196

Figure 13.6

Chapter 13

Esayi Nčʽecʽi and his students. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J365

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.7

Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i and his students. Matenadaran M1203

197

198

Chapter 13

Another type of author’s portraits are pictures of David the Invincible Philosopher (M1746 of 1280 [?]), of St. Mesrop Maštoc‘ (M5996 of 1725), of Dionysius the Areopagite (J324, 14th century), Grigor Xlatec‘i (M3714 of 1419), Grigor Magistros (M6988 of 1763–4) and many others. They are often presented in a style and stance similar to Evangelist portraits (so David the Invincible Philosopher in figure 13.8).

Figure 13.8

David the invincible philosopher. Matenadaran M1746

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

199

I am not familiar with extensively illustrated narratives of ancient history, or illuminated copies of works such as Xorenac‘i’s History of the Armenians or Pawstos’ Epic Histories. A much beloved theme, however, is the battle of Avarayr, which is quite often painted, such as in a copy of Ełišē’s work in M1920 of 1569. The scene also occurs in liturgical books in connection with the feast of the St. Vardananc‘ martyrs, such as in a Hymnal copied in the seventeenth century (Vienna Mekhitarist WI89) (figure 13.9). Indeed, in this instance, the question remains open whether the battle picture was created in a hagiographical context or an historical one. Above we mentioned the illustration of more recent historical stories and tales, such as Eremia Chelebi’s History of the Great Fire in Constantinople. Finally, in a seventeenth-century manuscript of the historian Aṙak‘el of Tabriz, we find a schematic diagram of the Ottoman dynasty, presented as a coiled snake with the founder of the dynasty at its head. Amulets and Apotropaic Writings There exist rather numerous Armenian amulets on rolls, containing text and pictures. These amulet rolls, sometimes very long, comprise a combination of

Figure 13.9

Battle of Avarayr. Matenadaran M1620

200

Chapter 13

magical and apotropaic prayers and formulae, with poems by Grigor Narekac‘i and Bible extracts serving a magico-medical function, as well as magical formulae, lists of angelic names, and so forth. One magical picture in a codex is from Venice, Biblioteca Marciana VEB cod. Or. 95 (= 210), f. 111r. In addition to amulet rolls, there exist “amulet books” in the form of codices that resemble the rolls in content and illustration. Certain of the images and symbols also occur on metal plaques, rings, metal apotropaic seals designed to be hung around the neck, and so forth. The oldest of the rolls is dated to the fifteenth century, and they continued to be produced down to recent times, the latest of them being printed rather than hand-copied. Armenian magic and apotropaic texts have been little studied, and we know of only four pieces of research in Western languages. Some work has been done in Armenia, particularly by A.A. Odabashyan, in the context of ethnographic and anthropological research and documentation and a corpus of texts has appeared.32 In 1986 the late Frédéric Feydit published the texts of a group of amulet rolls (hmayils), nearly all from the Mekhitarist library in Venice.33 He presents a substantial number of texts and he gives many reproductions of illustrations found in the rolls at the end of his book. He carries out no analysis, however, of the art itself, or of its interaction with the textual material. Two further pieces of research have been available to us. The first is Yoav Loeff’s thesis written at the Hebrew University, in which he publishes four texts from the oldest hmayil scroll in the holdings of the Matenadaran, Scroll no. 115 dating to 1428. Although he reproduces the six pictures found in this scroll, again artistic analysis is lacking. The second is our own detailed description of a number of hmayil scrolls in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, which will be included in the catalogue of the hitherto unpublished Armenian holdings of that library (figure 13.10). In that Library, too, is a hmayil-book, and we have shown clearly the interrelation between its illustration and that of the hmayil scrolls.34 Finally, Gabriella Uluhogian discusses the sequence of the pictures in the amulet scrolls in an article on a hmayil in Sofia, Bulgaria. Her discussion is very brief, but it is the first in the literature we have surveyed. Her comparative material is drawn from the Venice collection and she is able to reach some 32  33  34 

The recent corpus of texts is Harutyunyan, 2006. Feydit, 1986. Loeff, 202. Loeff is preparing a monograph based on this thesis. See also, Stone and Stone, forthcoming. On a different usage of the same iconography see the apotropaic plaque published in Stone, M.E., 2001–2. [Russell 2001 appeared after completion of this article.]

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.10

Gabriel guarding a soul. Matenadaran M1620

201

202

Chapter 13

preliminary but important conclusions from the sequence of the pictures. Much more work needs to be done on this topic.35 Two typical scenes are the archangel Gabriel guarding a soul (Feydit, figs. 9 and 57) and St. Sargis the General and his son Martiros (figs. 13.11 and 13.12). Patriarchal Bulls Little attention has been paid to the decoration of Bulls (kondaks) issued by various Patriarchal and Catholicosal Sees. We cannot analyse these in detail, except to say that usually the top of the Bull presents a picture relating to the issuing See and to the first part of its text, which usually deals with the special virtues and privileges of that See. These pictures are sometimes of great historical interest, as is the one of the old building of the now-destroyed monastery of Armaš in the Chester Beatty Library. In addition, they sometimes represent in a concentrated form the iconography that evokes the particular sanctity and importance of the issuing See. Two of our examples are drawn from the Chester Beatty Library and the third is a modern Bull issued by the late Catholicos Vasken I, on 26 June 1985. Chester Beatty Arm 635 is a Bull from Armaš issued on 20 May, 1803. This bull (kondak) was issued on the occasion of renovation work done at the Armenian monastery in Armaš. Of special interest is the second section that depicts the life of the surrounding village, of the church and the church itself (figure 13.12). Chester Beatty Arm 634 is a Patriarchal Bull from Jerusalem (seventeenth– eighteenth century). It presents a detailed architectural description of the Armenian St. James Cathedral in Jerusalem and an assembly of the major iconography of the See of the Saints James (figure 13.13). On a contemporary Bull of Catholicos Vazken 1 the cathedral of Eǰmiacin is in the centre, flanked by the peaks of the greater and lesser Masis, below which is the coat of arms of The Catholicos of All Armenians. This is, therefore, the same pattern as was discerned in the Constantinople and Jerusalem kondaks. Science including Astronomy, Astrology, Medicine and Veterinary Medicine Medicine and Veterinary Medicine After translating the medical books of the Greeks and Syrians, the Armenians also specialized in pharmacology and veterinary science. Medical manuscripts were illustrated, though not much has been written about these pictures. One picture is from a manuscript of the year 1644 (Matenadaran M7046) which is a Miscellany containing the poem “On the Heavens and their Adornment”. This 35 

Uluhogian, 1984, especially p. 607.

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.11

St. Sargis and his son Martiros. Mekhitarist Library, Venice V3041

203

204

Chapter 13

Figure 13.12

Monastery of Armaš. Chester Beatty Library, Arm 635

was written by Nersēs Šnorhali at the request of the famous physician and astronomer Mxit‘ar Herac‘i (figure 13.14).36 With the use of horses in battle and their general economic significance, hippiatry was of very great importance. A central work in Armenian is the translation of Faraj’s work on the topic, edited and annotated by Babken Chookassian in 1980 and recently translated and studied by Jasmine Dum-Tragut.37 (figure 13.15).

36  37 

See Teaṙn Nersēsi Šnorhalwoy Č‘ap‘aberakank‘ (Venice: S. Lazar, 1830), 281–302 and see Bogharian, 1971, 236–37. Dum-Tragut, 2005.

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.13

Cathedral of Sts. James, Jerusalem. Chester Beatty Library, Arm 634

205

206

Figure 13.14

Chapter 13

Nersēs Šnorhali instructs Mxitʽar Heracʽi. Matenadaran, M7047, fol. 196v

Astronomy and Astrology (Figure 13.16) The signs of the Zodiac were known to the Armenians and were important both for astronomy and for astrology. Here we give a picture of the sign of Virgo as an example. In addition there are works in the field of the calendar, that in their complexity are in the borderland between text and illustration. They will not be discussed here. Concluding Remarks I am very conscious that the survey I have given is incomplete. However, it is also evident that the field of Armenian non-biblical manuscript illustration

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

Figure 13.15

Horse. Private Collection, Los Angeles

207

208

Figure 13.16

Chapter 13

The Constellation “Virgo”. Matenadaran, M3884

has been little studied in the past century. In addition to the areas that I have enumerated, there are further aspects that I have not addressed at all. One is the illustration of apocryphal texts and the introduction of apocryphal motifs into Bible, particularly Gospel illumination. In addition, the representation of kings and notables, particularly in dedication pages of manuscripts (and for example in relief on the Church of Ałt‘amar)

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

209

is worthy of a special study that cuts across the somewhat artificial biblical / non-biblical distinction. Moreover, marginal decorations frequently contain human figures, representing various trades and professions, such as have been assembled, though not analysed.38 A similar situation exists in relation to the representation of secular figures in various types of illumination. Much could be learnt of social, technological and economic history, as well as of artistic development and tradition, through the study of these elements. Another aspect I have passed over is the particular tradition of Armenian Catholic book production and illumination. A especially luxurious example is the Book of Laws, Chester Beatty Library Arm 623. Others doubtless exist. It is clear that the investigation of these and other similar aspects of manuscript illumination remain on the list of desiderata.

Bibliography Achenbach, G. 1944 “An Early Italian Tabernacle”, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944), 129–152. Bardakjian, Kevork B. 2000 A Reference Guide to Modern Armenian Literature 1500–1920, Detroit (Wayne State University) 2000. Bogharian, N. 1967 Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, 11 vols.; Jerusalem (St. James Press) 1967. In Armenian. 1971 Armenian Writers, Jerusalem (St. James Press) 1971. In Armenian. Buchthal, Hugo 1963 “Some Notes on Byzantine Hagiographical Portraiture,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 47 (1963), 81–90. Buschhausen, Helmut 1986 “Studien zu den ersten illustrierten Haranc‘ Vark‘ in der Handschrift Jerusalem, Bibliothek des armenischen Patriarchats Sowrb Hakob, cod. 285),” Classica et Mediaevalia: Studies in Honour of Joseph Szövérffy, eds. I. Vaslef and H. Buschhausen, Washington and Leiden (E.J. Brill) 1986, 1–15. 1988 “Die illustrierten armenischen Haranc‘ Vark‘ und Cassoni,” Quinto Simposio Internationale di Arte Armena, Venice (San Lazzaro) 1988, 816. Buschhausen, Helmut and Buschhausen, H. 1981 Armenische Handschriften der Mechitaristen in Wien, Vienna (Mekhitarist Press), 1981. Callmann, E. 1955 “A Quattrocento Jigsaw Puzzle,” Burlington Magazine 99 (1957), 149–155. Coulie, Bernard 1994 Répertoire des manuscrits arméniens. Liste des sigles utilisés pour désigner les manuscrits, Leiden (AIEA) 1994.

38 

Guevorkian, 1978.

210

Chapter 13

Der Nersessian, Sirarpie 1950 “An Armenian Gospel of the Fifteenth Century”, Boston Public Library Quarterly (January 1950), 3–17. 1958 The Chester Beatty Library: A Catalogue of the Armenian Manuscripts, Dublin (Hodges Figgis & Co.) 1958. 1968 “Copies des peintures byzantines dans un carnet arménien de ‘modèles’”, Cahiers Archéologiques 18 (1968), 111–120. 1969 “Le carnet de modèles d’un miniaturiste arménien”, Armeniaca—mélanges d’études arméniennes, Venise (San Lazzaro), 1969, 175–183. 1973 Armenian and Byzantine Studies, Louvain (Imprimerie Orientaliste) 1973. Drost-Abgarjan, Armenuhi 1995 “Personen- und Ortsnames im Theophanie-Zyklus des armenischen Sharaknoc‘ (Kanones I–XIII)”, Chutik Halleakan: Kleine Sammlung Armenologischer Untersuchungen, W. Belz and A. Drost-Abgarjan, eds., Halle (Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg) 1995, 89–100. Drost-Abgarjan, Armenuhi and Goltz, Hermann 1987 “Sharaknoc‘ = Buch der Scharakane”, Handēs Amsoreay 101, 1–12 (1987), 333–365. Dum-Tragut, Jasmine 2005 Kilikische Heilskunst für Pferde: Das Vermächtnis der Armenier, Hildesheim. Zurich, NY (Olms). Feydit, Frédéric 1986 Amulettes de l’Arménie chrétienne (Bibliothèque arménienne de la Fondation Calouste Gulbenkian), Venice (San Lazzaro) 1986. Geuvorkian, Astghik 1978 The Crafts and Mode of Life in Armenian Miniatures, Yerevan (Hayastan) 1978 [in Armenian]. Goltz, Hermann 1995 “Zur Systeme der Illuminierung des Sharaknoc‘,” Chutik Halleakan: Kleine Sammlung Armenologischer Untersuchungen, W. Belz and A. Drost-Abgarjan, eds., Halle (Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg) 1995, 102–52. Harutyunyan, Sargis 2006 Հայ Հմայական եւ Ժողովրդական Աղոթքներ Armenian Incantations and Folk Prayers, Erevan (Erevan University Press) 2006. Hetherington, P. 1974 The “Painters Manual” of Dionysius of Fourna, London (Saggitarius) 1974. Kevorkian, R. and Mahé, J.-P. 1985 Le livre arménien à travers les âges, Marseilles 1985. Kouymjian, Dickran 1992–3 “Armenian Iconography: A New Approach”, JSAS 6 (1992– 3), 201–222. Loeff, Yoav 2002 Four Texts from the Oldest Known Armenian Amulet Scroll: Matenadaran 115 (1428) with Introduction, Translation and Commentary (M.A. Thesis; Hebrew University of Jerusalem), 2002. Macler, Fédéric 1928 L’Enluminure arménienne profane, Paris (Geuther) 1928. 1930 “Arménie et Crimée,” Paris (Geuther) 1930, 347–376. Maranci, Christina 2003–4 “Word and Image in the Armenian Alexander Romance”, JSAS 13 (2003–4), 19–28. Martin, J.R. 1950 “The Early Illustration of The Sayings of the Fathers”, Art Bulletin 32 (1950), 291–295. 1954 The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, Studies in Manuscript Illumination, 5, Princeton (Princeton University Press), 1954.

The Illumination of Non-Biblical Armenian Manuscripts

211

Mathews, T.F. and Sanjian, A.K. 1991 Armenian Gospel Iconography: The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel, Washington, DC (Dumbarton Oaks) 1991. Muradyan, Gohar 2005 Physiologus: The Greek and Armenian Versions With a Study of Translation Technique, Hebrew University Armenian Studies 6, Leuven-ParisDudley, MA (Peeters) 2005. Rapti, I. 2001–2 Review of N. Stone, The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers, Revue des etudes arméniennes 28 (2001–2), 440–442. Ross, D.J.A. 1962 “A Late Twelfth-Century Artist’s Pattern-Sheet,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtald Institutes 25 (1962), 119–128. Russell, James R. 2001 A Preliminary Report on an Armenian Magical Manuscript Recently acquired by the Armenian Library and Museum of America, Watertown, Mass: pamphlet, Watertown (ALMA) 2001. Sanjian, Avedis K. and Tietze, Andreas 1981 Eremya Chelebi Kömürjian’s Armeno-Turkish poem “The Jewish Bride”, Budapest (Akadémiai Kiadó), 1981. In English and Turkish. Simonian, Hasmig 1976 Medieval Armenian Kafas (X–XVI Centuries) Erevan (Academy of Sciences) 1976. In Armenian. 1979 “The Armenian Translation of the History of Alexander of Macedon and Its Recensions,” PBH 1 (1979), 113–28. In Armenian. 1985 The History of Alexander of Macedon: the Armenian Recensions, Erevan (Armenian Academy) 1989. In Armenian. Sotiriou, J. and M. 1958 Icônes du Mont Sinai, Athens 1958. Stone, Michael E. 2001–2 “Three Armenian Objects in Jerusalem”, Revue des études arméniennes 28 (2001–02), 501–507. Stone, Michael E. and Stone, Nira Forthcoming Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, HUAS 12, Leuven (Peeters) 2011 (forthcoming). Stone, Nira 1997 The Kaffa Lives of the Desert Fathers, CSCO Subsidia Series, 94; Leuven (Peeters) 1997. Šnorhali, Nersēs 1830 Տեառն Ներսէսի Շնորհալւոյ Չափաբերականք, Venice (San Lazzaro) 1830. Taft, Robert F. 1998 “The Armenian Liturgy: Its Origins and Characteristics”, in Treasures in Heaven, Armenian Art, Religion and Society, Papers delivered at the Pierpont Morgan Library, 21–22 May 1994, T.F. Mathews and R.S. Wieck, eds., Princeton (Princeton University Press) 1998, 13–31. Testi Cristiani, Maria Laura 1981 “Taccuino Armeno di Modelli: Problemi e Prospettive di Storiografia Critica”, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Armenian Art, Venice (San Lazzaro) 1981, 551–568. Traina, Giusto 1996 “Lo Pseudo-Callistene armeno. Nota introduttiva”, Ars narrandi, Scritti di narrative antica in memoria di Luigi Pepe, Perugia (Edizioni scientifiche italiane) 1996, 133–150.

212

Chapter 13

Traina, Guisto with Franco, C., Kouymjian, D. and Veronese Arlsan, C. 2003 La Storia Di Alessandro IL Macedone: Codice Miniato Armeno Del Secolo XIV, 2 vols.; Padua (Aldo Ausilio Editore) 2003. Veronese Arslan, Cecilia 1992 Tra Bisanzio e l’Armenia: Le Miniature del codice 424 della Biblioteca dei Padri Mechitaristi a Venezia, (PhD thesis), 1992. Uluhogian, Gabriella 1984 “Un Rotolo Manoscritto inedito del Museo Storico di Sofia,” Atti del Terzo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Armena, Venezia (San Lazzaro) 1984, 605–614. Weitzmann, K. 1971 Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, Chicago (University of Chicago) 1971. 1982a “The Icons of Constantinople”, The Icon, K. Weitzmann, ed., New York (Knopf) 1982, 11–89. 1982b “The Icons of the Period of the Crusades”, The Icon, K. Weitzmann, ed., New York (Knopf) 1982, 201–237.

Chapter 14

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf Michael E. Stone and Nira Stone

Opening of the Gospel of John, New Julfa (?), Mid-17th Century, perhaps by Hayrapet This single leaf is to be found in the Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn Collection in Zurich, Switzerland. It was acquired a few years ago from an antiquarian in Vienna and was previously in the library of Prof. Anton C. Schaendlinger, Professor of Oriental Studies in Vienna. Physical Description and Text The single leaf has been written on both sides, the recto containing the headpiece and the opening verses of John 1, and the verso holding the continuation of the text. The page has been cut out of a copy of the Bible.1 It has been trimmed at the top but is otherwise in a fine state of preservation. A folio number written by the original scribe, is in the top, right-hand corner, շիզ, i.e., 526. At the foot of the verso folio, in the left-hand corner, is “2921.” in somewhat old-fashioned Western numerals. This is doubtless an accession or other such number of the page in a Western context. This might be taken as an indication that the page was removed from its manuscript some time ago. Dimensions (see below on these divisions of the headpiece) The page measures 26.5 cm h × 19.3 cm w. On the recto, the field above the inverted “U” is 3.5 cm h × 13.7 cm w. The right and left strokes of the “U” are 13.7 h cm × 10.4 cm w and the frame surrounding this ornament is 0.4 cm wide. There are two lines of ornamental script (ornithomorphic or bird letters), in frames against a coloured background. The first line is 13.7 cm at its widest point and 1.9 cm high; the second is 13.6 cm at its widest point and 2 cm high. On the verso the dimensions of each column of writing are 21.8 cm h (including the Eusebian apparatus) × 5.9 cm w.

1  This is inferred from the folio number, 526, which is too large for a Four Gospels in this dense format of text.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_015

214

Chapter 14

Contents The leaf contains the opening of the Gospel of John. The recto has John 1:1–8a and verso has John 1:8b–49. The text has been collated against that of Zohrabian’s Bible (1805).2 The following variants were observed, none of any major significance, except for the omission in 1:46. The notation “= Zapp” indicates that the variant occurs in the apparatus of Zohrabian’s edition. 1:2 1:2 1:6 1:9 1:15 1:17 1:22 1:29 1:38 1:40 1:41 1:42 1:45 1:46

կեանք ] կեանքն կեանք ] կեանքն յովհաննէս ] յօհաննէս գալոց ] գալոցն Յովհաննէս ] Յօհաննէս and similar in 1:28, 1:32, and 1:41 Մովսիսի ] Մովսէսի ճշմարտութիւնն ] ճշմարտութիւն = Zapp տարցուք ] տացուք = Zapp գառն ] գառնն = Zapp սոքա ] նոքա = Zapp սիմովնի ] սիմօն and similar in 1:41, 1:42 զմեսիայն ] զմեսսայն քս ] քսն Յովնանու ] յօնանու Յովսեփայ ] յօսէփայ Ասէ --- նազարեթէ ] omit by homoeoteleuton

Material The page is of a light cream-coloured parchment, rather fine. No signs of hair follicles can be seen, though a difference in texture between the hair and meat sides can be felt. It is 1.3–1.4 mm thick. The page has been trimmed at the top, at least, for elements of the illumination and marginal ornament are missing. The front and bottom margins may also have been trimmed. Layout No signs of pricking can be observed, though they may have been lost in the course of the trimming. No horizontal ruling may be observed. Vertical ruling, from head to tail, may be observed at 2.2. 8.2. 9.7 and 15.7 cm from the left-hand edge of the recto side. Thus, the page was ruled in preparation for text written in two columns, though the recto was written, as often in decorated opening 2  Zohrabian 1805.

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf

215

pages, in a single column on the whole width of the written area. The verso side is divided into two columns of writing. Each column is 6 cm wide. On the vertical rulings mentioned above is drawn a frame from head to tail made up of coloured lines, 2 mm wide in total. The order of the lines composing the frame on the left hand side is thin blue, red, blue, gold, blue, black and green. At the right-hand end of the lines, the same colours may be observed from the inside outwards. The inter-columnar space is 1.1 cm, divided into two by a thin blue line. In these “intercolumnar columns” are “Frankish” verse numbers in red (see below). Binding Nothing can be said about the binding, which is missing, and presumably the inner edge of the sheet has been trimmed. The remains of one hole cut for the sewing may be seen at 3.7 cm up from the tail of the page. Layout and Numbering; Artist, Place and Date Recto (Fig. 14.1) The recto, the opening page of the Gospel text, is composed of a major headpiece (xoran), which takes up about two-thirds of the area. It is described below. Two lines of ornithomorphic script follow this, set in oblong frames and written on a coloured background (see below). A marginal ornament extends to almost the full height of the right-hand margin. Below the two rectangular frames containing ornithomorphic script are two lines of much smaller, but still large uncial script (erkat‘agir), one in blue and the second in gold. The first letter, as often is the case, is the Evangelist’s symbol, the eagle, with a Gospel book in its beak. This letter is enlarged and painted in colours. The text of the second line is somewhat shorter than half the length of the blue line. It is centred and the space at the beginning and end is filled with an ornament made up of two vertical dots and a curved horizontal line with a hook at the end. These elements are orientated right to left in the blank area before the gold letters and left to right in the area following them. These lines are separated from the lower frame by a blank area. In the margins references to relevant biblical verses are given. Then the text in formal minuscule (bolorgir) commences. The first letter is an uppercase ayb in gold, followed by a line of script in purple, one in red and the two lines of script in black ink. Verso (Fig. 14.2) On the verso the text is written in two columns. The start of new sections is marked by a decorative letter, usually ornithomorphic, and a marginal

216

Figure 14.1

Chapter 14

Jeselsohn page recto. Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn Private Collection, Switzerland

ornament. The first line of the text of each section is written in gold and the second is red. The writing throughout is fine bolorgir (formal cursive) in a style typical of the time and place.3 3  Compare Stone, Kouymjian and Lehmann 2002, 446–447 showing Venice V1865 of 1647, a Bible copied in Constantinople, of which the writing and layout resemble the contemporary New Julfa manuscript, though the marginal ornaments differ in style.

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf

Figure 14.2

Jeselsohn page verso. Dr. David and Jemima Jeselsohn Private Collection, Switzerland

217

218

Chapter 14

Numbering—Eusebian Apparatus The text is supplied, as is usual in copies of the Gospels, with the Eusebian apparatus, a system intended to facilitate location of corresponding sections in the four Gospels. In the present case, one can observe the Eusebian sections marked in the inner vertical margin by Armenian minuscule letters between two lines which have tiny hooks at the end. The corresponding sections of the other Gospels are marked with small letters in the lower margin. Numbering—European In the inner margin the European chapter and verse numbers are indicated. The chapter number is written identically with the Eusebian section number, but it is subscribed by a gim in red, indicating the word glux, i.e., chapter (literally: head, cf. Latin caput). The letter ֆ “f” follows this, super- and subscribed by similar hooked lines. It is short for ֆռանկաց “of the Franks,” i.e., Latins. Then the verse numbers follow in the margin on the recto written in red. On the verso, they are written in the intercolumnar space. At the beginning of each European verse, a red asterisk is found in the text. This is not necessarily a proof that the manuscript is of Armenian Catholic origin, however, and these “Frankish” notations are found in undoubtedly Armenian Apostolic manuscripts. For example, in the manuscripts of 4 Ezra we find a notation in the title “Third Ezra, which is Fourth (i.e., Ezra) of the Fr[anks] (Ֆռ).” Some of these manuscripts have Frankish numbers in the margins, just as the Jeselsohn page does, and in some instances these numbers continue throughout the manuscript. This notation is found in M351 1619 Lwow; J19334 New Julfa (Isfahan) 1645; M201 1660 New Julfa; J1934 1643–6 New Julfa; J1928 1648 unknown provenance. To them we must add the title page Matthew in V623(3), 492r (1648) in which the whole numbering system and layout are very similar to the Jeselsohn page (see below).5 Observe that all these manuscripts come from the first part of the seventeenth century, mostly from the 1640’s, and four of the six are from New Julfa and one is of unknown provenance. It has been observed that in the case of 4 Ezra, the Polish text is close to that of New Julfa.6 There was considerable Catholic missionary activity in New Julfa at this time, and influence

4  We use the system of notation for manuscripts accepted by the Association internationale des etudes armeniennes, see Coulie 1994 and at http://aiea.fltr.ucl.ac.be/aiea_fr/home _french.htm. 5  An image of this page was kindly made available by M. Arakelian of the Matenadaran in Yerevan. His counsel was helpful at a number of points. 6  Stone 1979, 17.

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf

219

of the accepted Western chapters and verses is not surprising.7 Western influence also may be discerned in the frescos of the main sanctuaries there, and elsewhere.8 Shah Abbas I established the Armenian suburb of New Julfa in Isfahan at the beginning of the 17th century to encourage the Central Asian trade.9 Date and Provenance We conclude that the page is most probably from New Julfa (Isfahan, Iran) and dates to the middle of the seventeenth century, perhaps from the 1640’s. It was painted by Astuacatur or Hayrapet, and most likely by Hayrapet. These are known painters of whom we have considerable detailed information.10 We were able to compare this page with several similar pages.11 These are: – Matenadaran M6783 Gospel, (New Julfa), CE 1649 & 1669, scribes Yakob & Kirakos, miniaturist Hayrapet. – Ēǰmiacin ET16 Šaraknoc‘, Isfahan, CE 1654, unknown master. – Venice, Mekhitarist Library V623/3 Bible, Persia, CE 1648, scribes Tēr Gaspar & Yovhanēs, miniaturist Hayrapet. – Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate J2350 Gospel, New Julfa, CE 1653, scribe Yovhannēs vardapet, miniaturist Astuacatur. – Matenadaran M262 Gospel, New Julfa, AD 1661, scribe and miniaturist [Barsegh the monk]. To these we may add: – Jerusalem. Armenian Patriarchate J1933 Bible, New Julfa 1645, scribe Astuacatur dpir, miniaturist Hayrapet dpir.12 From comparison of these pages with the Jeselsohn page, the latter seems most closely to resemble Venice V623/3 and J1933 in general aspect and style. These two manuscripts are also Bibles and have the Frankish verse numberings, as do the other manuscripts discussed above (see: Numbering), and the Jeselsohn page. The appearance and detail of the framed lines of bird letters in V623/3 are almost identical (see fig. 14.3), while those in J1933 are very similar. 7  8  9  10  11  12 

Ghougassian 1998, esp. 125–156. Carswell 1968. See Ghougassian 1998, especially 17–70. The Iranian Armenian trade is described in Baghdiantz McCabe 1999. Arakelian, forthcoming. This information was kindly communicated by Mikayel Arakelian of the Matenadaran, Yerevan. Fol. 8r is illustrated in Der Nersessian 1978, 235, fig. 179. Bogharian 1973, 448; on page 461, in describing J1934, he regards it too as very like the xorans of J1933 and so to Hayrapet’s work.

220

Chapter 14

Figure 14.3

Ornamental Letters. Mekhitarist Library, Venice V623/3

From this we learn that the painter may well have been Hayrapet, who was the painter of the Venice and Jerusalem Bibles. M6783 is also by Hayrapet, but it is a less richly decorated page and from a Gospels manuscript, not from a Bible. Its decoration is simpler and less detailed. M. Arakelian is of the view that the painter of the Jeselsohn page was either Hayrapet or Astuacatur.13 Decoration14 The decoration of the recto is painted in blue, green and red, with liberal use of gold leaf. These colours are used throughout the ornamentation. It comprises a headpiece, surmounted by a field with decorative elements, the arch in the centre of the headpiece with its distinctive decoration, the ornamental writing in frames, and the marginal ornament. The headpiece is made up of an inverted U-shaped decorative area of which the elements are the following: 1. The inverted U, its borders and patterns. The inverted U-shaped design is in complex geometric pattern. It is divided into three elements, the left and right “legs” which run to the very top of the design, and the “cross bar” that connects them to one another. The left and right ‘“legs” have a geometric grid, formed of equal squares bordered by double blue lines. Inside each square is another square, turned 45 degrees, so as to form a diamond shape, with its corners at the centre of each side of the outer square. Inside the diamond is a floral ornament made of alternate blue 13  14 

In his forthcoming doctoral thesis on the art of New Julfa (Isfahan), Arakelian gives details of these two painters. The dimensions of the illuminations are given above.

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf

2.

3. 4.

221

and green leaves flanking a red flower. The triangles at the four corners are filled with a floral design. The background is gold leaf. The crossbar of the inverted U has an architectural design with the decoration forming a green cross in the centre. The cross is made by the decorative interlace. In the area between the left and right horizontals of the “U”, below the crossbar, is an oriental arch with a thick, green border. Spandrels, arch, and inner space. Two birds are painted on a green background in the spandrels of the oriental arch. The birds, which are en face, are painted in red, pink and white and have elongated tails. It is possible that they are peacocks. Inside the arch, the background remains unpainted. In this area within the arch is a floral decoration in red. It resembles a floral centrepiece on a table and is made of vegetable produce including grain and fruit.

Decorations above the Inverted “U” 1. The corner decorations. There are two decorations in the marginal area above the top horizontal of the ‘“U”. These decorations fill the corners formed by the vertical ruling and the upper horizontal of the inverted “U” and do not extend into the right and left margins. The colours used include blue, green and red on a gold leaf background. The outer edges of these ornaments are bordered by the horizontal lines that run from the head to tail of the page and also form the outer and inner borders of the text (see on the verso, where this is clear). 2. The chalice. In the centre of this area is a cup (a chalice?) or a curved bowl on a foot, in which is a floral decoration. The stylized floral decoration is colourful, with red leaves. The vessel might represent a chalice, and therefore Christ, compare V623 (3) 492r, which has a medallion showing Christ in this position and J1933 where there is a lamb, also a symbol of Christ. The floral composition framed by the red leaves seems to evoke a countenance with a crown surmounted by a vertical, green branch. However, a similar but not evocative, floral arrangement may be observed in J2350 fol. 37r and elsewhere. 3. The peacocks. The two peacocks are facing tail to tail, with their heads turned back to look in the direction of the chalice with the flowers. In V623 (3) there are two winged angels in this position and in J1933 two sixwinged seraphs. The peacocks are associated with the Paradisical state. The marginal ornament reaches from the head of the page to below the writing. The very top has been lost in trimming, so it is uncertain whether it was topped by a cross, as often, or not. It is made up of an elaborate series of rounded

222

Chapter 14

elements above of one another, some of which resemble one of the marginal ornaments on the verso side. Very similar ornaments form an upper and lower series, with a single ornament of red, blue and gold linking them. Certain of the elements have blank spaces inside, some painted over with white paint, and others have a floral element, composed of two blue leaves, topped by a red flower.15 The general aspect of these floral motifs evokes a stylized human face. Similar ornaments are to be found in various manuscripts.16 The Ornamental Writing. The upper frame opens, as we have observed, with an enlarged bird letter, symbol of John and so an eagle, holding a book (Gospel) in its mouth. The background of this frame is gold and the letters are in red, green and blue. Spaces are filled with little floral ornaments, of two leaves and a pointed flower, in green, brown and blue. The lower frame is gold letters on a blue background. Some vegetative fillers in gold have been introduced and faint white markings have been used to fill any remaining empty spaces in the background. This horror vacui is very marked. In particular, this frame of gold letters on blue, with golden floral fillers and white marks in the background resembles that observed in V623/3.

Bibliography Arakelian, Mikayel forthcoming Doctoral Thesis on the Art of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century, (Hebrew University: Jerusalem). Baghdiantz McCabe, Ina 1999 The Shah’s Silk for Europe’s Silver: The Eurasian Trade of the Julfa Armenians in Safavid Iran and India (1530–1750), (UPATS, 15; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Bogharian, Norayr 1973 Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, vol. 6, (Jerusalem: St. James Press) in Armenian. Carswell, John 1968 New Julfa. The Armenian Churches and Other Buildings, (Oxford: OUP).

15 

16 

The white spaces serve in single ornaments for writing section numbers. Their presence in the full-page ornament suggests that it was composed of a number of section ornaments, one put on top of the other. See V623/3 492r, CBL 620, fol. 8r; LOC Missal, two different places. Such full-length ornaments are found in manuscripts from much earlier than the mid-17th century and continue later. For example, a similar design from Toxat (Eutokia) from 1696–7 is preserved in the Museum of St. John’s Church in Southfield, Michigan, USA, ace no. 1988.269, illustrated in Mathews and Wieck 1994, 43 and Catalogue no. 85. There are many examples of more or less similar full-length marginal ornaments, found in connection with decorated initial pages that are worthy of a separate study.

A Handsome Armenian Gospel Leaf

223

Coulie, Bernard 1994 Répertoire des manuscrits arméniens. Liste des sigles utilisés pour désigner les manuscrits, (Leiden: AIEA). Der Nersessian, Sirarpie 1978 Armenian Art: East and West. (Paris: Arts et Metiers graphiques). Ghougassian, Vazken S. 1998 The Emergence of the Armenian Diocese of New Julfa in the Seventeenth Century, (UPATS, 14; Atlanta: Scholars Press). Mathews, Thomas F. and Roger S. Wieck 1994 Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Illuminated Manuscripts, (New York: The Pierpont Morgan Library). Stone, Michael E. 1979 The Armenian Version of IV Ezra, (UPATS, 1; Missoula: Scholars Press). Stone, Michael E., D. Kouymjian and H. Lehmann 2002 Album of Armenian Paleography, (Aarhus: Aarhus University Press). Zohrabian, Johannes 1805 The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, (Venice: Mechitarist Fathers) in Armenian.

Chapter 15

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document Nira Stone

While working on the catalogue of Armenian manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, I came across a document that was very interesting but not completely unusual in Armenian tradition. This is a Patriarchal Bull issued by the See of the Sts. James in the 17th century, about 1666.1 It is a scroll of which one incomplete sheet and only the very top part of a second sheet survive. Most of the first sheet is a painting. The surviving text provides no clue as to the author of the Bull or as to the date. The date given is based upon the script and the seal.2 The surviving parts of the scroll are well preserved. It is written on yellow oriental laid paper. The size of the written area of sheet 1 is 18 × 30.3 cm and of sheet 2 is 20 × 32 cm. The initial letter is a fantastic, decorated ini. The rest of this line is in bird letters in a frame, followed by a line of red, uncial (erkat‘agir) letters, a line in large red bolorgir (formal minuscule) and the fourth is in purple notrgir (informal minuscule). The first line of the text is in crimson uncial letters and the body of the document is in a clear, black notrgir, with red capitals.

The Seal It would be beyond the scope of this paper to present the fairly schematic structure of such Bulls (gontaks), but features like a picture of the main sanctury of the issuing See and two angels carrying a seal are common. The seal here has a rich iconography, which is described in the forthcoming catalogue. It uses formulae common on seals of the mid-seventeenth century, perhaps of the time of Patriarch Ełiazar Aynt‘abc‘i (about 1666). Our attention, however, will focus on the decoration of the scroll, particularly on the lavishly decorated initial letter of the text.

1  CBL 634. See the full description in Stone and Stone, 2012, 175–184. On the dating, see there. 2  The first sheet is 106 cm long × 46.8 cm wide, and the second sheet measures 20 cm long × 46.8 cm wide.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_016

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

Figure 15.1

225

Upper Part. Chester Beatty Library 634

Upper Part The upper part of the first page is illustrated with scenes from the life of Christ and the Cathedral of the Sts. James (Fig. 15.1). An architectural structure is topped by a four-lobed arch. The arch is made of traditional Armenian vegetative decoration in gold, purple, orange, blue and brown. Within it is the scene of the Ascension in two parts. One is a mandorla with an inscription of God’s name Է “HE IS” written as a bird letter projecting gold rays. Below, in a second, larger mandorla is the scene of Jesus’ ascension. He is wearing a single purple drape and the stigmata are visible. He has a golden halo and around

226

Chapter 15

him are disc-like clouds. This presentation is clearly indebted to Western influence. Below is a green mountain, apparently the Mount of Olives (compare Matthew 24:3), on which a pair of shoes lies. The shoes are Christ’s iconographic symbol, as he left them before ascending to heaven. In the corners created by the arch, the spandrels, there are also scenes. The right-hand scene is an apocryphal version of the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary.3 She is sitting outside the entrance to her house wearing purple and blue, while her head is covered with a white scarf and a golden halo. She is holding a scarf and raises her hand as a gesture of surprise. Next to her is an open book. A curtain with a design of red roses covers the entrance to her house. In the right corner there is a green angel holding a bouquet of white lilies, the Virgin’s symbol. This is the other part of the Annunciation and its iconography is Western in style. Through the clouds on the upper left of the Virgin, a large bird, the Holy Spirit, is sending golden rays towards her. In the architectural structure there is an arch made of colourful vegetation. Within it, are scenes of the Crucifixion on the right and the Rising of Jesus from the Tomb on the left. In the Crucifixion, against a background of trees, Christ, wearing a loin-cloth, hangs from a black cross with his monogram in gold on its top. He has a halo and his head is turned to the side. Blood is pouring from his stigmata and from the wound in his side. Adam’s skull and bones are visible under the cross and the blood is washing them clean.4 It is located on a hill, which is Golgotha. On both sides of the Cross stand large candlesticks with burning candles, which may represent the two thieves, crucified with Christ (Mark 15:27). The left-hand scene depicts Jesus rising from his tomb, which is symbolised by a white sarcophagus on the ground. Over it, within a white mandorla with golden rays, Christ hovers in a round row of disc-shaped clouds. He is wearing a blue loin-cloth and a red drape creates a background. Christ is holding a large staff topped by a golden cross and a purple flag, itself emblazoned with a gold cross. His right hand is raised; his body is depicted with the ribs showing and with slightly bent knees.

3  See Nira Stone, 1999, 161–169. 4  Aławnuni, 1936, 48–50 (in Armenian) cites the following tradition from Yovhannēs (Hanna) vardapet 1807, 207 concerning Golgotha: “There, according to tradition, were placed the head and bones of our forefather Adam, which Noah’s son Shem brought and buried in this place. This is the place where our Lord was crucified and his immaculate blood dripped upon Adam’s head and freed him and all his descendants”. See also Marr, 1894,43–44. See for a further example, the illumination in Stone and Stone, 2003–4, 193–211.

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

Figure 15.2

227

The Cathedral of the Sts. James. Chester Beatty Library 634

The Cathedral (Fig. 15.2) This part of the scroll is 40 cm high and 33 cm wide and has its own frame composed of an architectural structure with two columns supporting a square roof with curtain-like corners, filled with golden, stylized plants on a black background. Large blue pillars on the two sides, with orange capitals and bases,

228

Chapter 15

continue the architectural form. On the columns, there is a design of black and grey scrolls and the roof is purple. The cathedral stands inside this frame. This is a detailed painting of the Cathedral of the Sts. James in Jerusalem. It is named for James the son of Zebedee and James the brother of Christ, the first bishop of Jerusalem. It is built on the spot where traditionally the head of St. James the first bishop of Jerusalem is buried. A white angel with orange wings in the upper left corner of the roof holds a purple cloth upon which lies the head of James the son of Zebedee crowned with a golden halo. A man dressed in blue and purple with a golden halo stands on the right-hand side pointing with his right hand to the Cathedral. He is holding a long staff with a round, blue banner in his left hand. This is perhaps James, brother of Christ, though many features of his iconographical presentation are those of Christ himself. The building is presented as a typical cruciform, centralised church. The painting depicts the front, western entrance as well as the lateral, southern entrance. The western entrance to the cathedral, which is still the main access, has three arches and today an iron grille in the foreground, marking the entrance to the narthex. This grille is not represented in the painting. The perspective with which the door in the middle arch is painted, leads the eye into the church. On the right side of the wall, there is a large wooden semantron, and an iron one, used to summon the congregation to church. The entrance door in the middle is small and served as a secondary entrance at the time when the main entrance was in the southern wall. On that side are the three large arches of the original narthex that were subsequently blocked and create the present chapel of Holy Ēǰmiacin, at which time the western entrance became the main one. In the 17th century woodcut (Fig. 15.3), which is drawn from a different angle, you can see those three original arches.5 On the left side of the roof, we can see the small Chapel of St. James in orange and crimson, with an open door. Further to the left are the stairs and a door to the inside. The roof is flat and on it there is a raised oblong area, in the middle of which is a round roof with a drum. On the drum are three windows and five blind arches on columns. The dome, which is coloured blue, has a circular opening at the top to allow for the future resurrection and ascension of the saints, as does the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In the right-hand wall is an entry door for the clergy. This painting is a quite accurate representation of the cathedral much as it looks today and, apparently, as it looked when it was painted. 5  The wooden block belongs to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and the print I photographed was made by the late director of the Printing Press, Mr. Ara Kalaydjian and is in my possession.

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

Figure 15.3

229

17th Century Woodcut of the Cathedral of St. James. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem

The artist painted flowers and birds on the scroll on both sides of the Cathedral, which are very similar to such motifs in Armenian manuscripts. Below the building are two angels holding up the seal of the Bull, discussed above.

The Ornamented Letter Below the elaborate painting comes the text of the Bull itself. The first letter is a very richly ornamented letter ini, 35 cm long, on a gold background. It reaches almost all the way to the end of the surviving text. The painter’s purpose was not just to decorate the first letter of the text but by it to convey a message to the reader, which reinforced the content of the document. The practice of painting a very elaborate letter at the beginning of a paragraph or a work is not unusual in medieval manuscripts. To the contrary, we

230

Figure 15.4

Chapter 15

The Initial. Chester Beatty Library 634

can observe it in both Western and Eastern manuscripts. Often this letter is decorated in such a way that it includes whole scenes, usually, but not always related to the text next to them. Other times, the letters are only decorated, without any scene. One might assume that different Christian cultures would create similar ornamental initials, since the function is similar. On examination, however, we find that this is only partly true. Cultural, religious and geographic reasons often create important differences. In the Jerusalem Bull, the unusally elaborate letter is made from a complicated scene made of several elements (Fig. 15.4). First comes a human figure dressed in red and green with large blue wings, dark hair and a golden halo. He holds a very long black spear in his two hands with which he is stabbing the head of a long, fearsome, winged green dragon. This is the Evangelist Matthew and he is not holding a book but has a cross (apparently the top of the spear)

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

231

in his right hand. The spear reaches the dragon’s head and by its disposition, the head ties the initial letter to the line of bird-letters in a frame with which the text opens. Overall, from head to tail, the parts of the dragon are tied together by the colour green. The green of the monster’s body draws the eye of the onlooker all the way down to the end of the scene. Additional coherence is achieved by the use of green for the garment of the Evangelist holding the spear, as for the adjoining cloud. Painted below one another down the dragon’s body are a brown eagle holding a grey and red book in its beak, a lion, and a bull holding a book in its forelegs. The two books have crosses on them and represent the Gospels. Exigencies of composition have led to Matthew (the man) holding a cross not a book and the omission of the book from the bull (Luke). The man is the symbol of Matthew, the eagle is John, the lion is Mark and the bull is Luke. They all have wings.6 The winged man, i.e., Matthew, is portrayed in the pattern of an angel or one of the warrior saints, such as St. George or St. Theodore, defeating Satan or the satanic dragon (Fig. 15.5). His large spear is impaled in the dragon’s head. The eagle is brown with brown wings. It is holding the dragon’s neck with its beak. The lion, coloured dark yellow with purple wings, is seizing the dragon with its mouth and paws. The bull is grey with orange wings and horns and it is holding the dragon’s tail with its body. Thus the image represents the four evangelists killing the satanic dragon, and, in other terms, the Gospel vanquishing Satan. The dragon resembles a snake with a fearsome head and mouth, and big eyes. Its mouth is open and in it there are two red circles, perhaps representing fire coming out of its maw. It has orange wings, of which one is visible as is one short leg, apparently ending in clawed toes. The other wing and leg are not represented. The dragon has scales the whole length of its body. The winged dragon or serpent is common in scenes of the Temptation of Adam, based on an exegesis of the curse in Gen 3:14.7 At the end of the dragon’s tail is a scene of a dark grey boat. In its centre stands a church with a cross on its grey dome. On the right, there is a large gold cross and on the left, a pole topped by a red banner. Flowers are painted in-between all of these. It is possible that the boat is inspired by Noah’s Ark, which in many cases serves as a symbol of the wood of the Cross, an intepretation strengthened by the cross the boat carries and by that surmounting the Church upon it. It is very possible that the flowers hint at Paradise and redemption. Perhaps the 6  See Cross and Livingstone, 1974, 487 s.v. “Evangelist”. 7  See, for example, Jerusalem Hymnal no. 1667 (1529 CE) 58v.

232

Figure 15.5

Chapter 15

St. George. Chester Beatty Library 636

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

233

Church, borne by the salvific Ark, evokes the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Golgotha and redemption through Christ’s Cross. A letter of this size (35 cm) is very unusual and the scenes in it show the ability and creativity of the artist. That it decorates a Bull issued by the See responsible for the Dominical Holy Places is a basic statement of the victory of the Gospel and the Christian faith over Satan. It is interesting to compare this letter with the initial letter of the text of the Bible in Jerusalem, manuscript no. 1933 of the year 1645. (Fig. 15.6) The manuscript was copied in Isfahan and donated to St. James by Nikolayos in 1661.8 This means it was in Jerusalem roughly at the time of copying of the Bull. Here the letter ini, from “In the beginning” (Gen 1:1) bears a basic resemblance to and shares some specific details with our complex letter. It is a representation of a father receiving inspired Scripture. The long stroke of the ini is made up of a father, with a son on his knees. The father is holding a thick book with leather covers and reddened edges in a cloth. Above, is a dove with a halo representing the Holy Spirit. According to Armenian tradition, the first verse translated into Armenian comes from the Book of Proverbs 1:2. Six verses later in that chapter, we read: “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction” (Prov. 1:8). This might well be the intent of the image, that the father, who receives Scripture, should teach it to his offspring. However, in Freer Gallery 56.11 fol. 243 a rather similar incipit is found to the Gospel of St. John. The manuscript was copied in Cilicia at the Monastery of Gṙner in 1263. The beginning of John is deliberately formulated on the basis of the beginning of Genesis, and both books commence with “In the beginning …” Consequently, John also starts with ini. This ini very much resembles that in the 17th century manuscript, Jerusalem 1933. Here the dove perches on the book which is held up by a man holding a child. That man is standing on the shoulders of a second human figure, while the curved right-hand stroke of the ini is composed of yet a third man. Because this image is older than that in J1933 by several centuries, the interpretation of the ini in J1933 offered above might be a secondary valuation of what was originally a statement of the inspiration of Scripture that was given to humans. As distinct from Freer 56.11, J1933 is a whole Bible and therefore, this initial is surmounted by a headpiece with God the Father in the centre and blue streams issuing from his hands, which represent the blessing and inspiration streaming forth. His fingers are in the position of blessing. On the left is the dove in a mandorla and on the right, Christ. We must reserve discussion of the images surmounting the headpiece for a later time. Thus, the initial letter of 8  See Bogharian, 1973. 6, 455.

234

Figure 15.6

Chapter 15

Decorated Page. Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem MS. J1933

this Bible echoes the theme that is set in the headpiece, but in a this-worldly form, with the inspiration concretized in the book of the Bible and to be transmitted from generation to generation. In the initial letter of the Freer manuscript, the red-clad, unbearded Christ on the knees of the Father is reaching out with his right hand and grasping a dragon-serpent which, as in the Jerusalem Bull, forms the curved righthand line of the ini. The serpent is trodden underfoot by the divine figures,

An Embellished Initial in a Jerusalem Document

235

presumably in accordance with the Christian understanding of Psalm 74:13– 14 = Arm 73:13–14: “You divided the sea by your might; you broke the heads of the dragons in the waters. You crushed the heads of Leviathan.” This verse formed the basis for the introduction of a serpent under Christ’s feet in scenes of the Baptism. In Jerusalem 1933, then, we have an iconographic formulation of the same idea as the Baptism scenes, that the revelation of the divine will conquer Satan. On the basis of some such image, the painter of the Jerusalem Bull has elaborated his statement or re-statement of the same idea, also embodying it in the first letter of his text.

Bibliography Aławnuni, Mkrtič‘ 1936 Սուրբ Երկրի Սրբավայրերուն Աւանդութիւնները Traditions of the Sacred Places of the Holy Land (Jerusalem: Sts James Press). Bogharian (Połarean), Norayr 1973 Grand Catalogue of St. James Manuscripts, vol. 6 (in Armenian), (Jerusalem: Sts James Press). Cross, F.L. and E.A. Livingstone 1974 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Marr, N. (ed.), 1894 Collections of the Fables of Vardan (St. Petersburg: Skorokhodov Press) Stone, Nira and Michael E. Stone 2003–4 “A Pair of Armenian Manuscript Missals in the Library of Congress,” REArm 29 (2003–4), 193–211. Stone, Michael E. and Nira Stone 2012 Catalogue of the Additional Armenian Manuscripts in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. (Hebrew University Armenian Series, 12; Leuven: Peeters). Stone, Nira 1999 ‘Apocryphal Elements in Christian Bible Illumination’, in CalzolariBouvier, V., J.-D. Kaestli, and B. Outtier (eds.) in Apocryphes arméniens: transmission—traduction—création—iconographie (Lausanne: Zèbre), 161–69. Yovhannēs (Hanna) vardapet 1807 Գիրք Պատմութեան Սրբոյ Եւ Մեծի Քաղաքիս Աստուծոյ Երուսաղէմիս եւ Սրբոց Տնօրինականաց Տեղեաց Տեառն Մերոյ Յիսուսի Քրիստոսի Book of the History of this Holy and Great City of God, Jerusalem and of the Dominical Sites of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Constantinople, 1807, repr. of the original edn 1782).

Chapter 16

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem Nira Stone Foreword by Yana Tchekhanovets

The Armenian mosaics of the Byzantine period discovered in Jerusalem have been long a focus of the Armenian art studies. Mosaic art, practically unknown in ancient churches of Armenia, provokes endless discussions regarding the claimed “national Armenian” symbolism of the compositions, its connection to the Armenian theological heritage, and even the possible identification of Armenian fauna species. The first to refer to the mosaics of the Holy Land with the Armenian inscriptions as representatives of local, Palestinian artistic tradition, both in style and in content, was Nira Stone. Unfortunately, her research, presented at the General Conference of the Association internationale des études arméniennes in Trier in 1984, was never published. In recent decades, due to the extensive archaeological study of the region, the corpus of the mosaics of the Holy Land and Jordan has constantly increased, numbering today hundreds of examples. In recent research, the opinions expressed in Nira Stone’s lecture, proposing a once revolutionary view of the problem, have become a consensus in the field. Therefore, we considered it appropriate to publish the lecture, supplied with some updates and relevant bibliography concerning the sites mentioned, given in the footnotes, in this posthumous collection of her papers.1 Yana Tchekhanovets Jerusalem, 2016

Hidden behind the innocent-looking entrance to an early twentieth-century apartment building in Jerusalem lies one of the most beautiful floor-mosaics in Israel, and certainly the best preserved. It is situated in the Musrara quarter

1  I am most grateful to Dr. Yana Tchekhanovets who, on reading this paper, both encouraged its publication and undertook to update the notes and bibliography. All the notes in the article are her work. I am happy that this further specimen eruditionis of Nira’s is published. Another unpublished paper, sadly less complete than this, on the Armenian tradition of the portrait of St. John Chrysostom, is posted online at http://apocryphalstone.com (Michael Stone).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2019 | doi:10.1163/9789004400504_017

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem

237

of Jerusalem, about 300 m. north-west of the Damascus Gate, outside the walls of the Old City. On it is an Armenian inscription. Recent discussion on this floor has brought me to wish to share some thoughts about it with the learned audience here gathered. The mosaic is popularly known in Jerusalem as “the Armenian Mosaic” or “the Bird Mosaic,”2 and the land on which it is situated now belongs to the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem. Indeed, an Armenian doorman collects donations for its preservation and upkeep.3 The mosaic was uncovered in 1894 at which time there was an upsurge of building in the area in which it lies.4 2  Mr. Garo Nalbandian, photographer, of Jerusalem kindly made the image given below available to the Editor. 3  This is no longer the case and access is gained by application to the Armenian Patriarchate (2016). 4  Anon., “New Discovery of Armenian Antiquities in Jerusalem,” Nor Dar 134 (1894), 1–2 (in Armenian); C. Schick and F.J. Bliss, “Discovery of a Beautiful Mosaic Pavement with Armenian Inscription, North of Jerusalem,” PEQ 26 (1894), 257–261. P.-M. Séjourné, “Chronique palestinienne,” RB 3 (1894), 628; K. Owsepian, “Mosaik mit armenischer Inschrift im Norden Jerusalems,” ZDPV 18 (1895), 88–90; H. Guthe, “Mosaiken mit armenischer Inschrift auf dem Oelberge,” MN DPV 1 (1895), 53; A.S. Murray, “The Mosaic with Armenian Inscription from near the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem,” PEQ 27 (1895), 126–127; F.J. Bliss and A.C. Dickie, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1849–1897 (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1898), 253–259. See also M.E. Stone and D. Amit, “The New Armenian Inscriptions in Jerusalem,” Cathedra 83 (1997), 27–30 (Hebrew); M.E. Stone, “A Reassessment of the Bird and the Eustathius Mosaics,” in M.E. Stone, R. Ervine and N. Stone (eds.), Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land (HUATS, 4; Louvain: Peeters, 2002), 204–219. Further research in the area, carried out years later, and especially the recent series of salvage excavations of the IAA in the 1990s–2000s, uncovered the other parts of an extramural ‘monastic quarter,’ an agglomeration of ecclesiastical institutions, maybe the largest in Jerusalem, of which the ‘Bird Mosaic’ was probably an integral part. Altogether, four monasteries have been discovered in the new series of excavations, with residential units that most probably served local monks and pilgrims, three small churches, three bathhouses, and household units: kitchens, ovens, water cisterns and channels. Numerous tombs were integrated into the monastic complexes, in hewn and built crypts. The construction activity at the site started in the middle of the fifth century, and continued without gap until the eighth-ninth centuries. See E.L. Sukenik and L.A. Mayer, The Third Wall of Jerusalem (Jerusalem and London: Magnus Press, 1930); D.C. Baramki, “Byzantine Remains in Palestine: A Small Monastery and Chapel outside the ‘Third Wall,’” QDAP 6 (1938), 56–58; S. Ben-Arieh, “Excavations along the Third Wall in Jerusalem” Qadmoniot 6 (1973), 111–113; V. Tzaferis, A. Onn, N. Feig, Y. Rapuano and S. Wechsler, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall,” ESI 10 (1991), 130–133; D. Amit, S. Wolff and A. Gorzalczany, “Jerusalem, the Third Wall (Area D),” ESI 13 (1993), 80–83; E. Shukron and A. Savariego, Jerusalem, the Third Wall (Area C). ESI 13 (1993), 78–79; V. Tzaferis, D. Amit and N. Sarig, “A Byzantine Painted Tomb North of Damascus Gate, Jerusalem,” Atiqot 29 (1996), 71*–75* (Hebrew, Eng. summary 112–113); M.E. Stone, “Three Observations on Early Armenian Inscriptions from the Holy Land,” in R. W. Thomson et al. (eds.), From Byzantium to Iran: Armenian Studies in Honour of Nina Garsoïan (Atlanta: Peeters, 1997), 417–424; R. Abu Raya, Jerusalem, the Third Wall. ESI 18 (1998), 84–87; D. Amit

238

Chapter 16

After its discovery a room was built around it and it was usually kept locked, which was fortunate, for thus its preservation was guaranteed. The sources mention other important discoveries in this area outside the city walls at that time that were simply destroyed by builders. Some scholars seem to think that the floor is a puzzle because its population is made up exclusively of birds. We suggest that this is not a puzzle at all and we will show many parallels to it. Moreover, we suggest that the Armenian inscription is not the key to the iconography of the mosaic, because of and not despite its similarities to other Byzantine, Palestinian products. During the period from the fourth to seventh centuries, probably all Palestinian towns and villages paved their churches and synagogues with mosaics. Usually they were of a very pedestrian character, simple work with plain geometrical designs. Sometimes, however, they were much more elaborate, forming important compositions with plants, animals and human figures. In Israel alone there are remains, better or less well preserved, of about seventy such floor mosaics belonging to churches and synagogues, as well as to private houses.5 Seven of these are floors with Armenian inscriptions. Most of them were discovered during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This means that about 10% of all the known floor mosaics from Israel have Armenian inscriptions.6 In my husband’s work on pilgrim inscriptions and graffiti, he and S. Wolf, “An Armenian Monastery in the Morasha Neighborhood”, in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 293–298; V. Tzaferis, N. Feig, A. Onn and E. Shukron, “Excavations at the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem Old City,” in H. Geva (ed.), Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000), 287–292; Z. Adawi, “Jerusalem, near the Third Wall,” HA-ESI 117 (2005), online edition; A. Reem, Jerusalem, the Third Wall. HA-ESI 121 (2009), online edition; I. Zilberbod, Jerusalem, “Shivtei Yisrael Street” HA-ESI 123 (2011), online edition. 5  To date (2016), hundreds of mosaic floors have been discovered in Israel, Gaza Strip and Jordan (the provinces of ancient Palaestina Prima, Secunda and Tertia, and Arabia). The bibliography on mosaic pavements of the region is enormous; to mention only the main studies on the subject: M. Avi-Yonah, “Mosaic Pavements in Palestine,” QDAP 2–4 (1933–1935), 136–181; A. and R. Ovadiah, Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel (Rome: Peeters, 1987); and recently R. Hachlili, Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues and Trends (Leiden: Brill, 2009); A. Maddan, Corpus of Byzantine Church Mosaic Pavements from Israel and the Palestinian Territories (Colloquia antiqua, 13; Louvain: Peeters, 2014); R. Talgam, Mosaics of Faith, Floors of Pagans, Jews, Samaritans, Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land (Jerusalem and Pennsylvania: Yad Ben-Zvi Institute, Penn State University Press, 2014). For Jordan, see M. Piccirillo, The Mosaics of Jordan (Amman: American Center for Oriental Research, 1993). 6  Naturally, this statistic has changed: moreover, since the lecture was prepared in 1984, two more floors with Armenian inscriptions have been discovered: see the next note.

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem

239

has also emphasised the large number of Armenian inscriptions among them, being the second most common after Greek. The two findings are apparently related. They both serve to highlight the role of the Armenians in early Byzantine, Palestinian Christianity. The floor mosaics specifically indicate the probable existence in the past of a large number of Armenian churches and other buildings around the city.7 In a city subject to the vicissitudes of war and conquest, as is Jerusalem, it is a miracle that any floors survived at all. Those that we do know probably represent a mere fraction of what once existed. Most of the floor mosaics date from the fifth or sixth century, and there is no reason to think that the Armenian floors are exceptions to this rule. There is no precise information available about the beginning of Armenian ecclesiastical construction in Jerusalem. Some evidence survives, however, showing that Armenians were present in the Holy Land as early as the mid-fourth century. We know that some of these Armenians were pilgrims or emissaries of the Armenian Church.8 The role of Armenians in early Palestinian monasticism is also well known. However, it is the pilgrims whose presence probably occasioned the construction of hostels, as well as churches and chapels. My lecture today will focus on the Musrara mosaic, which survived in perfect condition (fig. 16.1). Above the border is an inscription in Armenian the translation of which reads: For the Memory and Redemption of all the Armenians Whose Names God Knows On the basis of the iconography and the style of the design, the floor is dated to the sixth century. The indications of palaeography do not contradict this. It 7  In addition to the monastic complex in Musrara, a large Armenian monastic complex dated to the Byzantine and the Early Islamic period, was discovered on the summit of Mount of Olives. The material finds related to the early Armenian presence in Jerusalem were found on the slopes of the Mount of Olives and Mount Scopus to the east of the city, in the Mamila neighbourhood to the west, and the City of David to the south. For overview, see Stone, “Reassessment” (2002); and also M.E. Stone, “The Oldest Armenian Pilgrim Inscription from Jerusalem”, Sion: Bogharian Memorial, Volume 71 (Louvain: Peeters, 1997), 340–350; M.E. Stone, D. Amit, J. Seligman and I. Zilberbod, “New Armenian Inscription from a Byzantine Monastery on Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem”, IEJ 61/2 (2011), 230–235; M.E. Stone, D. Ben Ami and Y. Tchekhanovets, “Armenian Graffito from the City of David, Jerusalem”, REArm (in press). See also M.E. Stone, “A Reassessment of the Bird and Eustathius Mosaics,” in The Armenians in Jerusalem and the Holy Land, eds. M.E. Stone, R.R. Ervine, and Nira Stone (Hebrew University Armenian Series 4; Leuven: Peeters, 2002) 203–219. 8  M.E. Stone, “Holy Land Pilgrimage of Armenians before the Arab Conquest.” RB 93 (1986), 93–110.

240

Chapter 16

Figure 16.1

The Musrara mosaic Photo by Garo Nalbaldian

was probably the floor of a funerary chapel, as the inscription states.9 The mosaic floor was discovered in an area where other burial caves were found and together with some bones and oil lamps (now in Turkey). Another Armenian inscription on a stone slab is mentioned in early reports. The whole area north of the Damascus Gate is known for its ancient graveyards.10 Mosaic floors of this kind are abundant in Israel as was mentioned before, and they are found all over the country, mainly in three centres: in the north near Beit Shean (ancient Scythopolis), Tiberias, etc.;11 in the centre, i.e. 9 

10  11 

For discussion see Stone, “Reassessment,” (2002), 212–213, 215, and M.E. Stone, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaeae Palaestinae (CIIP), vol. I/2, no. 812, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 122– 123. For use of a similar formula in Greek inscriptions of Byzantine Jerusalem, see L. Di Segni in CIIP I/2, nos. 793, 794, 819, 854, 869, 1084. Stone, “Reassessment,” 210–211. M. Avi-Yonah, “Mosaic Pavements at el-Hammam, Beisan”, QDAP 5 (1936), 11–30; D. Bahat, “A Synagogue at Beth-Shean,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1981), 82–85; M. Dothan, “The Synagogue in HammathTiberias,” in Levine (1981), 63–69; L.I. Levine, “Contextualizing Jewish Art: The Synagogues

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem

241

Jerusalem, Beit Guvrin (ancient Eleutheropolis), etc.;12 and in the south in the extended environs of Gaza.13 The general pattern of our mosaic very much resembles that of other floors in the southern part of Israel. Examples of similar floors are the church floor of Shellal (Fig. 16.2)14 and Beit Guvrin (ancient Eleutheropolis) and synagogue floors from Gaza15 and Nirim (Ma’on).16 The floor measures about 4 × 6 m. It has a rectangular field enclosed within a plaited border. Above the border is the Armenian inscription. In the apse there is a secondary mosaic. It is also symmetrical, featuring in the centre a handsome, double-handed chalice. It is full of fruit and, unlike in the main field, it is surrounded by flowers. It also includes four birds. The main field is divided into medallions made of vine-scrolls. These sprout out of an amphora that is partly covered by an elaborate acanthus. A pair of peacocks flank the amphora. Each of the medallions is populated by a bird. The birds are arranged symmetrically and only the medallions on the central vertical axis differ in content. In addition to birds they have a kantharos,

12 

13 

14 

15  16 

at Hammath-Tiberias and Sepphoris,” in R. Kalmin and S. Schwartz (eds.), Jewish Culture and Society under the Christian Roman Empire (Louvain: Peeters, 2003), 91–131. The most elaborate mosaic pavements of the Beit Guvrin region were discovered in Beit Loya, and recently in Kh. Midras. See J. Patrich and Y. Tsafrir, “A Byzantine Church Complex at Horvat Beit Loya,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 265–272; and in A. Ganor, A. Klein, R. Avner and B. Zissu, “Excavations at Horvat Midras in the Judaean Shephelah 2010–2011: Preliminary Report,” in G.D. Stiebel et al. (eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region V (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2009), 200–214 (Hebrew), respectively. A. Ovadiah, “The Mosaic Workshop of Gaza in Christian Antiquity,” in D. Urman and Flesher (eds.), Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 367–372. W.M.F. Petrie, “The Shellal Mosaic,” Ancient Egypt 2 (1922), 97–99; P.H. Henderson, “The Shellal Mosaic in the Australian War Memorial: Style and Imagery”, Fourth Year Honors Thesis (Canberra: Australian National University, 1985); N. Stone, “Remarks on the Mosaic Floor from Shellal and the Gaza Area Mosaic Workshop,” in: D. Jacoby and Y. Tsafrir (eds.), Jews, Samaritans and Christians in the Holy Land in the Byzantine Period Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1988), 207–214 (Hebrew); A.D. Trendall, The Shellal Mosaic, and other Classical Antiquities in the Australian War Memorial (Canberra: Australian War Memorial, 1964), 13–14. A. Ovadiah, “The Synagogue at Gaza,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed (Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society, 1981), 129–132. S. Levy, L.Y. Rahmani, A.S. Hiram, M. Avi-Yonah et al. “The Ancient Synagogue of Ma’on (Nirim),”; M. Rabinowitz Bulletin III (Jerusalem; Hebrew University, 1960), 6–40. See also the mosaic discovered in 1970-s in Kissufim: R. Cohen, “A Byzantine Church and Its Mosaic Floors at Kissufim,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed (Jerusalem; Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 277–282.

242

Figure 16.2

Chapter 16

Mosaic floor from Shellal, central part Photo by author

baskets, and a bird in a cage. Leaves and clusters of grapes fill empty spaces, almost as if a reflection of horror vacui. Among the characteristics of this period are the trend towards rigidity of the general compositional grid, symmetry, and stiffness in decoration. Here these features are particularly prominent. The birds in the first two columns are identical with those in the last two. All of them stand face to face, except for one pair in the fourth row, which is tail to tail, and another in the fifth row where the two birds face in the same direction. Sometimes the artist presented the same bird twice, or both the male and female of the same species (such as the chicken and the rooster). The colours keep their original brilliance—reds, yellows, greens, black, and white may be observed. The quality of workmanship is very high; the birds are quite true to nature, the leaves and the grapes are shaped in two colours so as to create depth or movement. The colours of the amphora succeed in giving a good impression of gold and silver. In order to give a general idea of the different styles of similar floors, we should compare the Bird Mosaic with the floor of the church from Shellal near Gaza and the synagogue floor from Nirim, in the same area. It is obvious that the Shellal artist described the animals with plasticity and impressionism that create a feeling of naturalism, of flexibility of the object described. The

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem

243

animals at Nirim, on the other hand, have unnaturally bloated bodies, some quite balloon-like (wild hare), others as flat as paper (elephants). Under no circumstances can we share the feeling of some scholars that the Shellal mosaic is “less finely detailed”. To the contrary. If we compare these two examples with our mosaic, we immediately see that it shares with Shellal a delicate, natural look, in contrast to Nirim. This, and the discovery of other floors similar in style and iconography leads us to think that they may be products of an artistic school that created floors along the main travel route Jerusalem-Eleutheropolis-Gaza (Orpheus mosaic). Floor mosaics with this pattern of inhabited scrolls appear quite often in churches and synagogues in Palestine (see: Gaza, Ma’on, Shellal, Beit Guvrin, Khirbed ‘Asida, Kyria Maria, Jerash and others).17 As in other places, the chief axis of the Musrara mosaic has occasioned a great deal of scholarly debate and discussion. The reason, of course, is the eternal question “what is the meaning of the objects?” i.e. iconography.18 We art historians usually refuse to accept the supposition that a mediaeval or Byzantine artist found these particular shapes or objects attractive and for this reason he included them in his composition. This issue is especially related to the question of how much artistic freedom the Byzantine artist had, and how much of his own creativity was allowed to appear in his artistic work. But let us say that the artist did not have such freedom. The actual objects may have been included in certain pattern books for mosaic floors. From these he may have been free to choose according to the differing circumstances. In the case of our floor, like in that of other mosaic floors from Israel, attention is drawn to the main axis by several means: (1) different items are placed in the central medallions; (2) almost all the birds are presented heraldically, turned towards the central axis; 17 

18 

As was shown by recent research, the inhabited vine-scroll is one of the most popular motifs in the mosaic art of the Holy Land, especially common in the centre and south of the country, but also in Galilee, Caesarea, and Arabia. The appearance of the motif is dated as early as the fifth century, but becomes especially popular in the sixth century: see Hachlili (2009), 111–147, and Table VI-1a, 123; Talgam (2014), 86–96, 198–200. According to Talgam (2014), 434, the bilateral layout that emphasises the axis of the composition, was typical for Palaestina. At first, the vine-scrolls enclosed animals, birds, and various objects; from the middle of the sixth century human figures start to appear, often forming related compositional rural or hunting scenes, becoming especially popular in the region of Roman Arabia. For numerous examples from Jordan, see Piccirillo (1993), 164–165, 176– 187, 232–241, 296. See Gervase Mathews, Byzantine Aesthetics (London: John Murray, 1963), especially 38–47 on different levels of valency in Byzantine iconography.

244

Chapter 16

(3) the thin end of the branch that frames the medallion and the opening in that frame are oriented towards the centre; and (4) the leaves and clusters of grapes are arranged symmetrically so as to draw the viewer’s attention towards the centre. A central axis exists in mosaics in which there is no narrative (such as found at Kyria Maria), or in those in which there is an uneven number of vertical columns of medallions. This may be observed in such instances as Ma’on, Gaza, Beit Guvrin and Shellal. The objects along the central axis have no Jewish or Christian symbolic meaning. The same objects appear in other church and synagogue floors and they all have predecessors in pagan villas or other buildings. This includes baskets of fruit, mistakenly identified by one recent scholar as bread and then given a religious meaning! Let us not forget that these floors were made after the edict of 427 CE that forbade including religious subjects in mosaic floors to avoid sacrilege when they were trodden upon. So, we can safely assume that the objects on the floors were decorative. The one object that is usually excluded from this category is the bird in the cage. Much ink has been spilled over this, but nobody dares to admit that it may simply be a subject, included in the pattern books, that was favoured by the artist. Most interpreters think that it is a symbol of the soul in the body, while the symbol of evil is the eagle that threatens it. Others think that the eagle is a symbol of Christ, the saviour of man, who will conquer Hell and free the imprisoned souls. These are all possible assumptions, which one may choose to accept or reject. In any case we must not forget that this motif appears in synagogues as well as churches and as long as we do not find other explicitly religious symbols, why should this particular image be symbolic? Or, if it is symbolic of the imprisoned soul in the body, then it is not specifically Armenian, as is claimed in a recent study. The same applies to the eagle. We should bear the Roman eagle in mind; the imperial eagle was a favourite motif in the Byzantine empire. In a mosaic floor from Madeba it even replaces the amphora as a starting point for the vines. It also occurs in churches—(Beit Guvrin and Wadi Kelt),19 as well as in synagogues (Yafi’a). Apart from the central axis, the medallions of this mosaic contain only birds. It has been suggested that birds have a special significance in an Armenian religious context. According to this view they represented the dead in their risen state, a view derived from early Armenian theological writings. In Armenian theological texts, birds may well have a special significance. However, what is debatable is whether any such meaning can be assigned to the birds on the Musrara floor mosaic, as some students have suggested. Birds 19 

Avi-Yonah (1932), 300.

Birds from Heaven in Heavenly Jerusalem

245

appear in other Armenian mosaics on the Mount of Olives. On those mosaics, together with the birds other objects occur such as fish, fruit and a lamb. Even though these most likely also figure with symbolic meaning in Armenian theological writings, would we wish to claim that they all have a specifically Armenian significance? Such mixtures of types of living creatures are found in a number of other mosaic floors. On the other hand, we have bird mosaics that are definitely not Armenian in churches in Ein Karem, Beit Guvrin, Kyria Maria, and even in Tripolitania (Sabratha) where we also find a bird in a cage. They also occur in synagogues such as Ein Gedi20 and Khirbet Susiya.21 Birds have spiritual meaning in Judaism and it could be maintained that this is why they appear on synagogue floors. The same is true of Christianity and church floors, including Armenian floor mosaics. Thus we can observe in the same general geographic area many examples of birds similar to those in the Bird Mosaic and featuring on floors that are not Armenian. The birds and their use in the Musrara floor have no specific characteristic that can be identified as Armenian. The only clue to this floor’s Armenian affiliation is the Armenian inscription that surmounts it. Even here, its formulaic phrases are shared with other inscriptions in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and even Nabatean. From the inscription itself we could draw numerous inferences, some of which have already been drawn by scholars in the past.22 One such is that this was the chapel of St. Polyeuctos, a view that is based on the largely unreliable List of Anastas Vardapet.23 Another is that it was a monument to the unknown Armenian soldiers killed in some war; or to Armenian pilgrims (soldiers of Christ) who died on the way to, or in, Jerusalem. The only definitive conclusion that we may draw about such matters is that this floor mosaic was commissioned by Armenians. It is most likely that the inscription celebrates donors of this chapel, perhaps a group of pilgrims, too numerous to name individually (oral communication of Dr. Leah DiSegni).24 The style as well as the iconography resemble other floors and probably appertains to a school of local artists, Jewish, Greek, Armenian or other, who provided floors to order for religious as well as secular buildings, embellishing them with the appropriate inscription in Greek, Hebrew, or indeed in Armenian. The identity of the artist remains 20  21 

22  23  24 

D. Barag, Y. Porat and E. Netzer, “The Synagogue at ‘En-Gedi,” in Levine (1981), 116–119. S. Gutman, Z. Yeivin and E. Netzer, “Excavations in the Synagogue at Horvat Susiya,” in Levine (1981), 123–128. For an overview of synagogue mosaics, decorated with vine scrolls, see Talgam (2014), 326–329. For overview, see Stone (2002). A.K. Sanjian, “Anastas Vardapet’s List of Armenian Monasteries in Seventh-Century Jerusalem.” Le Muséon 82, no. 3–4 (1969), 265–292, especially p. 288. See also note 8 above.

246

Chapter 16

unknown unless he leaves an inscription with his own name in it.25 None such have survived for the artists of the Armenian floors.26 Consequently we can safely classify this floor within the general corpus of Christian and Jewish mosaic floors from the fifth and sixth centuries that are characterised by the inhabited scroll design.27 In this case it is, as is evident from the inscription, an Armenian Christian floor in the world of Byzantine Palestinian Christianity. There is nothing in the iconography that marks out this floor as distinctively Armenian among the numerous similar floors from this area. The recently published theory that early Armenian literary sources, based on Zoroastrianism where bird symbols appear in abundance, were the source of the birds in our mosaic seem to us far-fetched. This theory would have great weight were the floor situated in Armenia, where the Sassanian empire ruled for centuries, and Iranian influence was pervasive. Jerusalem is not in Armenia, however, and in Jerusalem and neighbouring areas we find other non-Armenian bird mosaics belonging to the local tradition. We might take the grapevine as another example. Was not the grapevine a basic decoration in much of the art of the ancient world, and was it not adopted by the Jewish and Christian artistic traditions? It is found on sarcophagi, wall paintings and floor mosaics all over Christian Byzantium. Grapes and grapevines came to this part of the world from Mesopotamia and Palmyra and Syria, certainly not from the Persian Gulf or Armenia. Even if the grapevine may have received an Eucharistic significance in some Christian contexts, nothing here makes that Armenian. We know that ateliers where sarcophagi were mass-produced did exist, and these sarcophagi were decorated with grape-vines and other motifs, while the central medallion was left empty for an image of the deceased, or for a Christian cross or a Jewish candelabrum. Both the Old and New Testaments are full of grape-vine imagery and there is no need to rely on Armenian tradition and make the mosaic grape-vine on the Musrara floor specifically Armenian. It is a part of local tradition in style, and it is a part of local tradition in content. And what is true of the grape-vine is true of the birds. When we study mosaic floors in Israel, it is impossible to disregard the geographical-stylistic context. Style and iconography are intertwined and originate from the same sources be they Greek, Jewish or, indeed, Armenian. 25 

26 

27 

See the list of the mosaicists known from the inscriptions of the Arabian sites by Piccirillo (1993), 47. The Eustathius mosaic preserves the name of the commissioner and his brother, but not of the artisan. The Armenian mosaic of Reverend (Tēr) Yakob discovered on Mount of Olives was definitely renovated by an artisan who didn’t know Armenian. See Stone (2012), CIIP I/2, no. 837. See Talgam (2014), 328–329.

General Index This Index includes all proper names and also chief subjects dealt with in the text of this book.* Abbreviated Bible (Biblical Chronology) 148, 153, 155, 157 Abbreviated Bible manuscripts of 157, 159 Abraham, patriarch 74 Abu Raya, R. 237 Ačaṙyan, H. 28, 130 Achenbach, G. 191 Acts of John 89 Acts of John written by Prochorus 89, 91 Acts of the Apostles 105 Adam, patriarch 66, 96, 179 Adam and Eve 148, 153 Adam and Eve with Serpent, four rivers in scene 153 Adam and Eve, expulsion of 165 Adam and Eve, scene xviii, xx, 160 Adam, name of 152 Adam’s skull in Crucifixion, blood washes  117, 226 Adawi, Z. 238 Adoration of the Magi, scene 5, Fig. 10.3, 134 Aeschlimann, E. 74 Aghtamar, Church of the Holy Cross 208 Aghtamar, island 142 Ahab, king 66 Ahasuerus, king of Persia 66, 82 AIEA 218 Ajamian, Sh. 155 al-Aksa Mosque, Jerusalem 72 Aławnuni, M. 118, 226 Alexander Romance 186, 189 Alexander, P.S. 152 Ališan, Ł. 187 Allori, Christofano 67 altar front 165 Amar, J. 157 Amida, Turkey 158–159

Amiranashvili, S. 180 Amit, D. 237, 239 amphora 241 amulets 199 amulet (hmayil) book 200 amulet scrolls 200 amulet scrolls, in Chester Beatty Library  200 amulet scrolls, in Sofia 200 amulet, Matenadaran Scroll 15 200 Anastasis 143 angel 37, 38, 92, 137, 140, 151 Angel and Women at the Tomb, scene 5 angel, form of 135 angel, invisible 138, 139 angel, white 228 angels, carry deceased to heaven 175 animals, natural style in representation of  43 Annunciation, scene xviii, 91, 93, 96, 226 Annunciation to the Virgin, narrative of 137 Annunciation to Zechariah Fig. 10.2, 133 Antelias 28 Anthony of Egypt, St. (the Great) 30, 105, 111 Antiochus Epiphanes, called serpent 60 Apocrypha xvii apocryphal texts and traditions, illustration of 206–208 Apophthegmata Patrum 105 apostles, kneeling, in Transfiguration 179 apostles, recumbent, in Transfiguration 178 apostles, three, in Transfiguration 177 Apostles, twelve 78, 162 apotheosis of the sun 175 apotropaic writings 199 Arabia, Roman 243 Arak‛el of Tabriz 199

*  The names of all those collections which graciously gave permission to publish their images are set forth in the Acknowledgements. Names of authors in the bibliographies appended to certain chapters are not included.

248 Arakelian, M. 218–220 Arevšatyan, S. 193 Ark, Torah 65 Armenia Minor 114 Armenian art, Western discovery of 131 Armenian flower festival 102 Armenian manuscript illustration, apocryphal elements in 91 Armenians in the Holy Land 239 Ascension, scene 176 Ascension, scene, Western influence in 225, 226 ascetic monks 105 Asian, assistant of Yovhannēs of Amida  159 ass, white 102 Assumption of the Virgin, book 99 Assumption of the Virgin, scene 99 Assyrians 52, 54 Astucatur, painter 219 ateliers, of mosaic craftsmen 246 Athos, Mt. 15 Augustine of Hippo, St. 105, 152, 165 author portraits 195 Avdoyan, Levon 114 Avi-Yonah, Michael 40–44, 48, 238, 240, 244 Avner, R. 241 Avramenc‛, Thaddeus 15, 16, 23, 25, 105, 148, 155–157, 159 Avramenc‛, Thaddeus, editorial method of  26 Babi, G. 111 Bacchanalian scene 175 Baghdiantz-McCabe, Ina 219 Bahat, D. 240 baker, Albanian 189 Baptism, scene xviii, xx, 5, 61, 173 baptismal fonts, octagonal 164 Barag, D. 245 Baramki, D.C. 237 Bardakjian, K. 189 Barsegh the monk, scribe and painter 219 Barsełyan, H.X. 129 Baskin, Leonard, Chosen Days 69 Bate, A.T. 107 Bathsheba 66, 74 Battle of Avarayr, picture of Fig. 13.9, 199

General Index Bearing of the Cross, scene 5 beasts of prey 41 Bedford Book of Hours 165 Beit Guvrin 41–43, 241, 244, 245 Beit Guvrin, mosaic in 42, 241, 243, 244 Beit Loya, mosaic in 241 Beit Shean (Scythopolis) 240 Bell, H.I. 31 bells 102 Ben Ami, D. 239 Ben-Arieh, S. 237 Bethulia 51, 52, 54, 56, 59 Betrayal of Judas, scene 5 Bible, Books of Gen 2 161 Gen 2:10 148, 155 Gen 2:10–14 152, 156, 160 Gen 3:14 231 Num 14:10 180 Deut 34:5–6 97 Ps 2:3 165 Ps 74(73):13–14 102, 234 Ps 144:3–4 81 Prov 1:8 233 Matt 2:9–12 140 Matt 17:1–13 97 Matt 17:2 180 Matt 17:5 180 Matt 21:8 102 Matt 21:3–9 102 Matt 26:28 119 Matt 27 81 Mark 9:2–13 97 Mark 11:1–10 102 Mark 11:8 102 Mark 14:24 119 Luke 1:26–31 91 Luke 1:26–35 137 Luke 1:33 91 Luke 2:1–11 140 Luke 2:1–20 140 Luke 2:9 140 Luke 2:15–18 140 Luke 4:1–13 134 Luke 9:28–39 97 Luke 19:28–40 102 Luke 22:20 119 John 1 213 John 1:1–1:8a, 1:8b–49 214

General Index John 6:54–56 119 John 12:12–19 102 1 Cor 11:25 119 Jude 9 97 Revelation, Book of 163 Rev. 22:1–3 148 Bible passages 200 Biblical Chronology: See Abbreviated Bible bird in a cage 242 bird in a cage, meaning of 243 Bird Mosaic, Jerusalem 237, 242 Bird Mosaic, birds of, not specifically Armenian 245 Bird Mosaic, date of 239 Bird Mosaic, not chapel of St. Polyeuctos  245 Bird Mosaic, not dedicated to unknown soldiers 245 Bird Mosaic, provenance of symbolism 246 birds 41 birds, in spandrels 221 birds, meaning of 244 bishop, image of 119, 120 Bläsing, U. 145 blessing, position of 173, 233 Bliss, F.J. 237 blood, drips on Adam’s skull 117, 226 boat, carrying a church 231 boat, relief sculpture of 143 Bogharian, Archbishop N. 11, 13, 23, 25, 105, 134, 157, 189, 204, 219 Bonaventura, St. 60 Bondone, Giotto, fresco by 166 Book of Models (Pattern Book) 187 Bosch, Hieronymous 148, 165 Botticelli, S. 63 Bovon, F. 99 branches, willow 102 Branner, R. 59 Brendel, O. 179 Briggs, M.S. 40 Brill Publishers vii Brown, M.P. 153 Bucher, F. 60 Buchthal, H. 54, 191 buffaloes 31, 33, 38 bull (animal), symbol of St., Mark, with a book 231 bull (document) xx

249 Bull of Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem  224 Bull, Chester Beatty Library 634 201 Bull, Chester Beatty Library 635 201 bulls, decorative pattern of 201 Burgos (Spain) 72 burial caves, Jerusalem 240 Buschhausen, H. 191 Buschhausen, H. & H. 16, 151, 191 busts 78 Byzantium 11 Č‛rak‛ean, K‛. 91 Caesarea 243 Caleb ben Jephunneh, biblical figure 180 Callman, E. 191 Calzolari-Bouvier, Valentina vii, 132 Campo Santo, Pisa, frescoes 111 Canberra 40 candelabrum 175, 246 candlesticks with candles 226 Canon Tables 78 Capella Scrovegni 166 Cappadocia 178 Cappadocia, influence of 179 Caravaggio, M.M da 67 Carolingian manuscripts 153 Carswell, J. 219 cassoni boxes, painted 191 Cathedral, of Sts. James, Jerusalem 225, 227, 228 Cathedral, of Sts. James, Jerusalem, picture  201 Cathedral, of Sts. James, southern entrance  228 Cathedral, of Sts. James, western entrance  228 Cathedral, of Sts. James, woodcut of 228 Cathedral, of the Assumption, Moscow 16 cattle 41 cave 34–37 Central Asia, trade 219 Cerberus 167 chalice 38, 120, 221 Chapel of St. James, Jerusalem 228 Chatres, Cathedral 59 Chatzidakis, M. 110, 111 Chavrukov, G. 113 Chazon, Esther Glickler 98

250 cherubs 118 Chester Beatty Library, Dublin vii, 16, 155, 201, 224 Chookaszian, Babgen 204 Christ 3, 134, 136 Christ, Ascension or Assumption of, scene  5, 54 Christ, and Three Women, scene 5 Christ, coloured clothes of, in Transformation  180 Christ, crucified 117, 118, 125 Christ, Crucifixion of, scene 5, 81, 124 Christ, enthroned 163 Christ, figure of 226 Christ, Healing of Leper, scene 5 Christ, Life of, scenes from 225 Christ, offering chalice to disciples, scene 5 Christ, on mountain 177, 178, 180 Christ, rising from chalice 118, 119 Christ, temptation of 134 Christ, Walking on Water, scene 5 Christ, wearing a crown 81 Christ, white garments of 173, 180 Christ, wound in his side 117 Christ’s Entry to Jerusalem, scene 102, 135 Christology, Armenian 139 church, image of 126 Church of, Ala Kilisse, Cappadocia, frescos in  110 Church, of Holy Mother of God, Piskeni 128 Church, of San Giovanni in Laterano, Rome, mosaic in 169 Church, of San Marco, Venice 165 Church, of San Vitale, Ravenna 161 Church, of Sant’Appolinare in Classe, Ravenna 152 Church, of St. Karapet, Caesaria, Turkey 158 Church, of St. Maria Maggiore, Rome 180 Church, of St. Mary Antiqua, Rome 110 Church, of St. Sargis, T‛axtayłalēn (Siwnik‛)  115, 122 Church, of Sts. Cosmas and Damianus, Rome  163, 169 Church, of the Holy Cross, Aghtamar 142 Church, of the Holy Sepulchre 108, 113 city 162, 163 City of God by St. Augustine 165 civic virtue 63, 64

General Index Clark, E.A. 105 cloud 180 clouds, disc-like 117 codicology 114 codicology, groupings, geographical or genetic 70 Cohen, R. 241 colophons and scribal notes 9 colours 220 columns 215 Communion 108, 111, 112 composition 32, 34, 35, 37, 86 Constantinople 25, 216 Constantius sarcophagus, Ravenna 162, 163 conversion 105 Conybeare, F.C. 92, 159 Copts 105 Costantina Santa, mausoleum, mosaic 161 Coulie, Bernard 189, 218 Creation of the World, illustrations of 143 Creation, “comic book” style 153 creativity, of Armenians 185 Crimea 11, 25, 105 Crimea, Armenians in 11 Crimea, atelier in 23, 24 Crimea, state of, fifteenth century 11, 15 cross 246 Cross with Four Angels 5 Cross, F.L. 231 cross, double 78 cross, functions as Eden 168 cross, in centre of the world 169 cross, Tree of Life 169 cross, wood of 108 crown, symbol 65 Crucifixion, scene 193, 226 D’Ancona, P. 74 Damascus Gate, Jerusalem 237, 240 Dashian, J. 29 Dauphin, C. 48 David the Invincible Philosopher, portrait  Fig. 13.8, 198 David, king 66, 74 David, king, war against Philistines 63 David, with Goliath’s Head, statue by Donatello 63 Day of Judgement 151, 167

251

General Index de Strycker, E. 92, 139 deacon 120 deacon, tonsured 119 Deborah 50 decapitation 56–58, 63 decorative letters and script 73, 116, 215 Deisis, scene 5 Delilah, biblical figure 66 demon 102, 104 Der Nersessian, Sirarpie vii, xviii, 13, 16, 62, 70, 71, 78, 83, 111, 131, 132, 142, 143, 148, 156, 158, 159, 179, 180, 187, 188, 191, 193, 219 Descent from the Cross, scene 85 Descent into Hades, scene 143 Descent of the Spirit, scene 5 Desert Fathers 105 Desert Mothers 107 devil 105 Devrikian, V. 180 Dickie, A.C. 237 Dionysiac scene 175 Dionysius of Fourna, Painter’s Manual 34, 71 Dionysius the Areopagite, portrait Fig. 13.3, 198 Discourse with the Disciples, scene 5 DiSegni, L. 240, 245 Donabédian, P. 131, 145 Donatello 58, 63, 66 Dormition of the Virgin, book 99 Dormition of the Virgin, scene xviii, 99 Dothan, M. 240 Dournovo, L.A. 132, 137, 176, 178–180 dove, as Holy Spirit, symbolic 169, 233 dragon, dragon-serpent 102, 234 dragon, winged 230 Drost-Abgarjan, Armenuhi 192 Dum-Tragut, J. 145, 204 eagle, Roman 244 eagle, symbol of St. John, holding a book 231 eagle, threatening, meaning of 244 Ecclesius, St. 161 Eden 19, 36, 99, 152, 153, 156, 163, 164, 169, 173, 178 Eden on mountain 178 Eden, Gates of 160

Eden, painting of 96, 148 Eden, perfumes of 151 Eden, six monks seek 148 Eden, trees and flowers in 148 Eden, water in 148 Egypt 27, 105, 152 Egyptian Desert Fathers 111 Egyptians, headgear 19 Ein Gedi, synagogue mosaic, birds in 245 Ein Karem, bird mosaics in 245 elders, wicked 66 Elia, priest of Marzvan, scribe 128 Ełiazar Aynt‘abc‘i 224 Eliezer, servant 74 Elijah 97, 151, 178, 179 Elijah, painted as old man 173 Ełišē vardapet 199 Elizabeth, wife of Zechariah 132 Elliot, J.K. 92, 99, 139 enlightenment experience while reading  105 Enoch, patriarch 151 Entombment, scene 5, 85 Entry into Jerusalem, scene xx, 5, 6, 89; 88, Fig. 6.12 Ephrem Syrus, St. 145, 151 Ephrem Syrus, St. Commentary on Genesis  156 Ephrem Syrus, St. Commentary on Genesis 3.4  151 Ephrem Syrus, St. Hymns on Paradise 151 Epistles of St. Paul 105 Ervine, R.R. 237, 239 Esther, queen 50, 66 Etchmiadzin, picture of 201 Euphrates, River 152, 155 Euphrosyne, ascetic woman 107 Eusebian Apparatus 7, 218 Eusebius, Epistle of 8 Eustathius mosaic 246 evangelist portraits 3, 7 Eve, matriarch 66, 105 Eve: See also Adam and Eve eyes, round 178 Ezekiel, prophet 163 fabric 116 faces, structure of 178

252 Fall, sin and punishment 145 Faraj, work of on hippiatry, translated 204 father instructs son 233 Feig, N. 237 Fevrier, P.A. 160, 161, 163 Feydit, F. 200 figures 78 Firdausi, Persian author 82 fish, angry 102 flabellum (ritual fan) 120 Flagellation, scene 5 Florence, city 63, 111 folk stories 99 four corners of the world 152 four elements 152, 164 four Evangelists 152 four rivers 153, 156, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 168, 171 four rivers, and the Cross 152 four rivers, four trees represent 168 four rivers, in Hell 166, 167 four rivers, intersection of 156 four rivers, purpose of depiction of 163, 167 four rivers, symbolize four Evangelists 153, 169 four seasons 164 four Virtues 152 four winds 152 four, numeral, meanings of 152 Franco, Carlo 187 Franks 218 fresco of Traditio Legis 163 Friedman, M. 60, 63 Friend, A.M. 89 fruit of life 169 fruit tree 32, 99 fruit trees, in Transfiguration scene 98, 178, 179 funerary scenes, apotheosis in 175 Gabriel, angel 3, 132, 134 Gabriel, guarding a soul, picture Fig. 13.10, 201 Galilee 243 Galust, commissioner 122 Galustean, Yakob 9 Galy, J. 176 Ganor, A. 241

General Index Garden of Earthly Delights by Hieronymous Bosch 148, 165 Garden of Eden, Gates of, book 63 Garden of Eden: See Eden garden, scene 39 garments 37 Gaza 40, 46, 47, 241, 243 Gaza, mosaic 42 Gaza, mosaic workshop in 40, 48 Gaza, mosaic, style of 44, 46–48 Geerard, M. 99 Genesis mosaic in San Marco 165 Genesis, Book of 148 Geva, H. 238 Ghazarian, V.O. 98, 178 Ghent, Belgium 165 Ghiberti, L. 63 Ghougassian, V.S. 219 Gihon, River 152, 155 Giorgione 63 glory of the Lord 180 God, depiction of 145 God, hand of 178, 180 God, name of, “HE IS” 225 God, Throne of 160 Godwin, F. 51–54, 58, 59, 63, 65 Golgotha 117 Goltz, Hermann 192 Gorzalczany, A. 237 Gospel illustration, apocryphal elements in  89 Gospels, European versification of 218 Gospels, text of 8 Gospels, title pages of 2–3 Grabar, A. 41, 110, 152, 160–163, 168, 180 Grandval 153 Greece 11 Greenhill, E. 61 Gregory Martyrophile, St. 26 Gregory Martyrophile, St., visits Egypt  28–30 Gregory Narekac‛i 96, 119 Gregory Nazianus, St. 29 Gregory Tat‘ewac‘i 20 Gregory, Catholicos 26 Gregory, primate of Egypt 27, 30 Grigor Magistros, portrait 198 Grigor Narekac‘i, prayers by 200

General Index Grigor Tat‘ewac‘i and students, picture of  195 Grigor Xlat‘ec‘i, portrait of 198 Grigoris, Catholicos of Aghtamar 189 Guthe, H. 237 Gutman, S. 245 Gutmann, Joseph 72 Habakkuk, prophet 163 Haberville tryptich 168 Hachlili, R. 238, 243 hagiographic illuminations 191 Hairy Anchorite, topos of 113 Hakobian, H. 91 Hakobyan, T.X. 129 Halle, Germany 192 halo 180 Hanukkah, festival 56, 65, 68, 69 Harrowing of Hell, scene 61 Harutyunyan, S. 200 Hayrapet, artist 213, 220 headpiece 213, 215, 219 headpiece (xoran) 118, 119, 125, 126 headpiece, design of 220–221 Hebrew University of Jerusalem vii Hell 63, 81 Henderson, P.H. 241 Herod, King 141 Herrad of Landsberg 55 hesychasm 15 Hetherington, P. 71, 187, 189 Hethum, King 122 Hetum Bayl, colophon of 153, 171 hill, cross on: See mountain 169 Hillel, Vered vii, 40 hippiatry 204 Hiram, A.S. 241 Histories, illumination of 193 Hjort, Ø. 41 Holofernes 49, 52–54, 59, 60, 66, 67 Holofernes, absence of from scene 56 Holofernes, decapitation of 50, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58 Holofernes, trampled by Judith 65 Holy Ēǰmiacin, Chapel of, Jerusalem 228 Holy Spirit, as bird (dove) 226, 233 Holy Thursday 108 horror vacui 222, 241

253 Hughes, R. 165 Hymnal – Šaraknoc‘, illumination of 192 hymns 49 iconographic model 174 iconography 6, 48, 70, 243 iconography, groupings, geographical or genetic 70 iconography, instructions books 71 illuminated letters 78, 124 illustration, forms part of texts 70 illustration, introduction of into text 82 illustration, removed from text 78 image and text: See Text and Image imperial iconography 161 Infancy Gospel, Armenian 92 influence, Byzantine 105 inhabited scroll design 246 Isaiah, prophet 74 Isfahan xx, 233 Israelites 180 Izmailova, T.A. 97, 178, 179 Jaboby, D. 241 Jacob, patriarch 74 Jael, biblical figure 50, 61, 66 J̌ałac‘teł, father of Galust 122, 173 James, apostle 97 James, brother of Christ (uncertain) 228 Janson, H.W. 64, 67 Jephonias, apocryphal figure 99 Jephonias, hands of severed 99; Fig. 7.6, 100; Fig. 7.7, 101 Jerash, mosaic 243 Jerome, St. 74 Jerusalem 25, 136, 240 Jerusalem, ‘monastic quarter of’ 237 Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate xx, 16, 155 Jerusalem, stone cross of 1651 171 Jeselsohn, David 213 Jeselsohn, David and Jemima, Collection  213 Jesus 97 Jesus, bust of 118 Jewish Bride (book) xx, 189 Jezebel 66 Joasaph and Barlaam, illustration of 9–80

254 John Chrysostom, St. 29, 236 John Chrysostom, St., Prayer by 120 John Climacus, Heavenly Ladder 191 John the Baptist, St. 66 John the Baptist, St., scene 3 John W. Kluge Center 114 John, Evangelist, symbol of 215 John, St., and Prochorus, scene 89; Fig. 7.1, 90, 132 John, St., evangelist 7, 86, 91, 97, 173 John, St., evangelist, portrait of, additional figure in 89 Jonah and Whale, scene 83; Fig. 6.1, 73; Fig. 6.99, 84; Fig. 10.11, 142 Jonah, painting of 143 Jonah, prophet 72, 142, 143 Jonah Resting on Gourd Fig. 10.12, 143 Jordan, River 96, 108, 113, 169 Jordan River, personification of 163 Joseph of Arimathea, image of 118, 125 Joseph, husband of Mary 138, 141 Joshua bin Nun 180 Judas Maccabaeus 56 Judith xxii, 49, 53–55, 62, 63, 66, 67 Judith, (English epic) 50 Judith, (High German poem) 50 Judith, and the Maccabees 65 Judith, as prefiguration of victory over Satan  62 Judith, as prefiguration of Virgin 54 Judith, burial, scene 59 Judith, Christian representation of 50 Judith, deeds of 50, 56 Judith, feminine emotional representation of  50 Judith, figure, development of 49 Judith, figure, male artists represent 49 Judith, in fresco in S. Maria Antiqua church  50, 51 Judith, in Jewish art 68, 69 Judith, in music 49–50 Judith, Jewish national development of 65 Judith, painting by M.M. da Caravaggio 67 Judith, painting by Christofano Allori 67 Judith, prayer, scene 59 Judith, representation of, in art 50 Judith, represents the church militant 50 Judith, scenes 59, 61

General Index Judith, scenes of, in Carolingian Bible 51 Judith, statue by Donatello 63, 66 Judith, story, epitomization of 57 Judith, sword 63 Kaestli, J.D. 132 Kaffa xvii, 11, 105, 157 Kaffa, Armenian atelier in 20 Kalmin, R. 241 kantharos, drinking cup 241 Kapoïan-Kouymjian, A. 29 Kartsonis, A.D. 61 Kessler, H.I. 131 Kévorkian, R. 185 Khatchadour, kafas of 187 khatchkar: See also stone cross 169 Khirbet ‘Asida, mosaic 243 Khirbet Midras 241 Khirbet Susiya, synagogue mosaic, birds in  245 Kirakos, scribe 219 Kissufim, place 241 Kitzinger, E. 40, 42 Klein, A. 241 Kömürjian, Eremia Chelebi xx, 189 Korkhmazian, Emma vii, 13, 20, 191 Kouymjian, D. 187, 216 Kramer, R.S. 54 Kristosatur, scribe and painter 151 Kyria Maria, bird mosaics in 245 Kyria Maria, mosaic 243–245 Lagrange, M.J. 40 Lamb 6, 161–164 lambs, symbolic 161 Lamonte, J.L. 11 Landau, Amy vii Last Judgement, scene 63 Latins 218 Laurina, V. 175 Lazarev, V. 61, 111 leather cover, with tooled design 116 Lehmann, H.J. 143, 216 Leloir, L. 26, 91 leopard 46 Leviathan 102, 234, 240 Levine, L.I. 245 Leviticus, Book of 72

General Index Levy, S. 241 Leyloyan-Yekmalyan, Anna vii Library of Congress 114 Life of St. Onophrius the Hermit 31 Lives of the Desert Fathers 31 Lint, Th.M. van vii, 145 lion 193 lion, representation of 46, 47, 78, 113 lion, symbol of Luke 231 List of Anastas Vardapet 245 liturgical manuscripts 192 Lives of the Desert Fathers 13, 24–26, 148, 155, 157, 158 Lives of the Desert Fathers, copies of 157 Livingstone, E.A 231 Loeff, Yoav 200 Loewenstamm, S. 178 Louvre, Paris 168 Lucifer 60 Luke, St. portrait 7 luminaries 117, 125 Lwow 218 Ma’on (Kibbutz Nirim), mosaic 41, 42, 44, 46–48 Macarius the Roman, naked ascetic 107 Macarius, Marcus, and a Sick Cub, scene  Fig. 2.2, 14 Macedonian style 39 Macler, F. 131, 186, 187, 191 Maddan, A. 238 Magi, three 132 Mahé, J.P. 185 main axis of mosaic, techniques 243, 244 main sanctuary of See issuing Bull 224 Maitani, Lorenzo 165 Maksoudian, Krikor vardapet 130 Malkhasyan, A. 178 mandorla 33, 173, 179, 180, 226, 233 manger 140 Mantegna 63 manuscripts discussed Arabic, Bibl. Laurentiana Med. Pal. 387  176 Barberini vat. Lat. 587 58 BL ms. Add. 719.352 78 BL ms. Add. 10546 153 BL ms. Add. 21160 73

255 BL ms. Add. 27301 16, 157, 159, 191 BL ms. Add. 10546 145 BL Arundel 44 Speculum Virginum 61 BL ms. or. 7027 31 BL ms. or. 7029 31 Boston Public Library Gospels 193 Chester Beatty Library, 551 157, 159 Chester Beatty Library, 621 192 Dijon bibl. comm. mss. 12–15 58 Etchmiadzin ET16 219 Ethiopian, Ritual for Passion week 136 Freer Gallery 56.II 233 Getty Ludwig 1.14 Getty Bible 143, 144, 153 Haggadah of Prague 65 Hamburg Staats- & Univ. Bibl. Heb 37  56 Hortus Deliciarum 54, 56 Israel Museum 180/51 Ferrara 56 Jerusalem NLI Yah Or 8 (olim or. var. 4° 1)  2, 157 Jerusalem Patriarchate J23 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J228 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J268 16, 157 Jerusalem Patriarchate J285 25, 39, 78, 82, 102, 107, 108, 148, 155, 157–159, 191, 192 Jerusalem Patriarchate J293 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J324 198 Jerusalem Patriarchate J410 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J473 189 Jerusalem Patriarchate J627 157 Jerusalem Patriarchate J773 23 Jerusalem Patriarchate J971 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1409 16, 157, 191 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1667, Hymnal  233 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1920, Menologium  140 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1927 56 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1928 218 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1933 153, 218, 219, 221, 233 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1934 218 Jerusalem Patriarchate J1973, Mariun Gospels 99 Jerusalem Patriarchate J2350 219

256 manuscripts discussed (cont.) Jerusalem Patriarchate J2556 King Gagik Gospels 84, 134 Jerusalem Patriarchate J2563 Queen Keran Gospels 173 Jerusalem Patriarchate J2568 Prince Vasak Gospel 78 Jerusalem Patriarchate, Queen Keran Gospel 74 Jeselsohn Collection, Bible leaf 213 Judaeo-Persian, Ardashir Book 82 Kiev Psalter 79 Library of Congress, Missal no. 1 1561  115 Library of Congress, Missal no. 1 1561, codicology of 115–116 Library of Congress, Missal no. 2 1560  123 Library of Congress, Missal no. 2 1560, codicology of 123 Matenadaran M201 218 Matenadaran M204 153 Matenadaran M206 153 Matenadaran M212 Awag Gospels 136 Matenadaran M262 219 Matenadaran M351 218 Matenadaran M789 157, 192 Matenadaran M974 98, 179 Matenadaran M979 King Hethum Lectionary 82, 83, 85, 86, 143 Matenadaran M1203 20 Matenadaran M1746 198 Matenadaran M1920 199 Matenadaran M2374 Etchmiadzin Gospels 1 132, 193 Matenadaran M2743 99 Matenadaran M2865 193 Matenadaran M2890 193 Matenadaran M3714 198 Matenadaran M3863 16, 22 Matenadaran M4806 98 Matenadaran M4814 98, 179 Matenadaran M4823 91 Matenadaran M5995 198 Matenadaran M6201 97, 177, 178, 180 Matenadaran M6305 91, 102 Matenadaran M6783 219

General Index Matenadaran M6988 198 Matenadaran M7046 201 Matenadaran M7337 22 Matenadaran M7651, “Gospel of Six Painters” 81 Matenadaran M7737 132 Matenadaran, Lectionary of Muš 74 Mughni Gospels 176 New York Public Library Spencer Collection 5 189 Pamplona Bible 60 Paris, Bibl. de l’Arsenal 5211 54 Roda Bible 53 Rossano Gospels 160 St. John’s Church, Southfield MI ace no. 1988.269 222 Vat Gr 1 (Leo Bible) 52 Vat Lat 1976 187 Vat Lat 12958 59 Velislaus Bible 60 Venice Biblioteca Marciana 200 Venice Mekhitarist V424 187 Venice Mekhitarist V623/3 218, 219, 221, 222 Venice Mekhitarist V1434 187, 189 Venice Mekhitarist V1865 216 Venice Mekhitarist V1922 13, 16, 157, 159, 191 Vienna Mekhitarist W189 199 Vienna Mechitarist W543 151 manuscripts, physical description of 2 Maranci, Christina vii, 40, 187 marginal ornaments 3, 118, 124, 126, 209, 216, 221, 222 Marina, ascetic 107 Mark, St., portrait of 7 Markos and Serapion Fig. 2.7, 20 Marr, N. 118, 193 Martin, J.R. 191 Mary Magdalene 125 Mary Magdalene, haloed, by the cross 118 Mary of Alexandria (or: of Egypt) 110–112 Mary of Alexandria, covered with pelt  109 Mary of Alexandria, levitation of 108, 113 Mary of Alexandria, naked ascetic xxi, 105, 107

General Index Mary of Alexandria, representations of  110–112 Mary of Alexandria, St., crosses river on dry land, scene 71 Mary of Alexandria, story of 107–108 Mass, liturgy of 38, 114, 115 Massacre of the Innocents, scene 81; Fig. 6.7, 82 Matějček, A. 60 Matevossian, A. 143 Mathews, E. 157 Mathews, G. 21, 243 Mathews, T.F. 93, 96, 98, 139, 178, 179, 192, 222 Matthew, St. depicted as warrior saint 231 Matthew, St., picture of 230 Matthew, St. portrait of 7 Mayer, L.A. 237 medallions, with birds and animals 241 medical works, illustration of 201 medical works, translated into Armenian  201 Medici family 63 Mekhitarist Library, Venice 200 Melik‛-Baxšean, S.T. 129 men, naked ascetics 107 Menead 49 Mesopotamia 152 Mesrop Maštoc‛, St., picture of 198 Meyendorff, J. 1 Meyer, R.T. 105 micrographic art 72 micrographic carpet pages 72 Milik, J.T. 98 Millet, G. 176 Mimouni, S.C. 99 minuscule (bolorgir) script 215, 216 Mirzoyan, A. 91, 92 Missal 119 models, used by Armenian artists 187 Monastery, of Armash 201 Monastery, of Dečani 111 Monastery, of Eleshnitza, Bulgaria 111 Monastery, of St. Anna, Piskeni 128, 129 Monastery, of St. Anthony, Kaffa 11, 105, 148, 157 monastery, of St. John the Baptist 108 Monastery, of Tat‘ew 21

257 monastic teacher and students, picture of  195 Monasticism 15 mosaic of Traditio Legis 163 Mosaic, Tēr Yakob 246 mosaics, Armenian 236 mosaics, Armenian inscriptions on 239 mosaics, depict living creatures 245 mosaics, floor 239 mosaics, in towns and villages of Holy Land  238 mosaics, with Armenian inscriptions 238 Moses, as young man 173 Moses, death of 98 Moses, in shroud 97, 177–179 Moses, on Sinai 174 Moses, prophet 97, 151 Moses, resurrected, symbolizes Christ 179 Mount of Olives 226, 239 Mount of Olives, Armenian mosaics on  245, 246 mountain 99, 164, 173 mountain, Eden on 151 mouse, black 81 mouse, white 81 Movsēs Xorenac‘i, picture of 193; Fig. 13.5, 195, 199 Muradyan, Gohar 193 Murray, A.S. 237 Murray, R. 151 Museo Nazionale delle Terme 175 musicians 74 Musrara quarter, Jerusalem 236 Musrara Mosaic 243 Mxit‛ar Herac‛i and Nersēs Šnorhali, picture of 204 Naḥal Besor (Shellal) 40 naked monk 31, 33, 34 naked woman, representation of 109, 112 Narkiss, B. 74, 134, 140 narrative illustration, techniques of 131, 132, 135, 137, 141, 145 Nathan, prophet 74 National Library of Israel (NLI) 16, 155 National War Museum, Canberra 40 Nativity, scene 5, 140; Fig. 10.10, 141 naturalistic representation 44–46

258 Naxčavan, region 122 Nebuchadnezzar, called Satan 60 Nersēs Gnuni, picture of 193 Nersēs Šnorhali, St., poet and Catholicos  151 Nersēs Šnorhali, poem On the Heavens 202, 204 Nersēs Šnorhali instructing Mxit‛ar Herac‛i  Fig. 13.14, 206 Nersessian, V. 144 Nersoyan, T. 119, 120 Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies  193 Netzer, E. 245 New Julfa (Isfahan) 26, 213, 216, 219 New Julfa and Poland, relations between  218, 219 New Julfa, Western influence in 219 Nikolayos, scribe 233 Nile, River 152 Nineveh, city 142 Nineveh, king of 142 Nirim (Ma’on), mosaic in 241–243 Nitria, desert of 105 Noah’s Ark 231 non-Biblical manuscripts, illumination of  185 Novgorod, school of 24 nuns 105 Obolensky, D. 15 octagonal building in Paradise 165 octagonal fountain 165 octagonal water source 165 Odabashyan, O.O. 200 omophorion 120 Onn, A. 237 Onophrius, St., Life of 31 Onophrius, St., naked ascetic 31, 33–36, 39 orans position 54, 118 orarion 120 Oratory of Christ Latomus, Salonika, mosaic in 163 Origen 62 ornamental initial letter, exceptional 229, 230 ornithomorphic letters 116, 124, 126, 215, 222, 223

General Index Orpheus mosaic, Jerusalem 243 Orvieto, cathedral of 165 Ottoman dynasty, diagram of 199 Outtier, B. 132 Ovadia, A. 40, 238, 241 Ovadia, R. 238 Ovid 167 Oxyrhynchus  36 P‛awstos Buzand 199 page layout 116 Painter’s Manual of Dionysius 187 painter’s manuals 70, 71 palm tree 32, 96, 162 Pambo and Visitors Fig. 2.9, 22 Panofsky, E. 175 Paphnutius Cephalas, St. 30, 32–38 Paphnutius, St., and the four Old Monks, scene 29 Paphnutius, St., and the four Young Monks, scene 29 Paphnutius, St., and the Old Monk, scene  28 Paphnutius, St., description of 25 Paphnutius, St., Letters to 31 Paradise, scene 160 Paradise: See Eden parchment 214 Passion narrative 152 Patriarchal Bulls 201 Patrich, J. 241 pattern books 71 Paul, Apostle 163 Paul, flanks Christ 161, 163 Paula, disciple of St. Jerome 74 peacocks 118, 126, 221, 241 peaks, three, in Transfiguration 180 Peeters, P. 92 pelican, bites its breast 193 Peregrinatio Paphnutiana 25–27, 30, 31 Peter baptizing Cornelius, scene 71 Peter, Apostle 71, 97, 99, 173 Peter, flanks Christ 161, 163 Petrie, W.M.F. 241 pharmacology 201 Philistines, David’s war against 63 phoenix, symbol of Christ 169 Physiologus, illumination of 192

259

General Index Piccirillo, M. 238, 243, 246 pilgrims, Armenian 239 pillar 78 pillars before the Temple, Boaz and Jachin  74 Pisa 111 Pishon, River 152, 155 Piskeni, village 129 pitcher 138 pitcher, golden 96 Piyyutim (hymns) 49, 56, 65, 69 plasticity of rendering 242 Pluto and Persephone, enthroned in Hell  167 Poland and New Julfa, relations between  218, 219 Porat, Y. 245 portraits 16 Presentation in the Temple, scene 5; Fig. 6.11, 87 priest, image of 119, 120 Prochorus 91 prostitutes, conversion of 105 Protoevangelium of James 92, 138 Psalms, Book of 74 Psalters, illumination of 78 Pseudo-Callisthenes 186, 187 Pushkariov, V. 175 Rabanus Maurus, Expositio in Librum Judith  60 rabbit 47 Rabula Codex 176 Radder, Patricia vii Rahmani, L.Y. 241 Raising of Lazarus, scene 45 Rapti, I. 191 Rapuano, Y. 237 Rausnitz, Shmuel 40 Rebecca, matriarch 74 Reem, A. 238 Relindis, Abbess 55 Reliquary from Pola 162 representations of kings and nobles 208 resurrection of dead 81 Rice, D.T. 176 Rinaldo sarcophagus 161 Rising of Jesus from the Tomb, scene 226

Ritual (Maštoc‘), illumination of 192 river god 103, 166 river, personification of 62 rivers, four 96, 148, 152 rodents 81 Roman Arabia 243 Ross, D.J.A. 187 Ruether, R. 105 ruling 214 ruling, dry point 116, 124 Russell, J.B. 62 Russell, J.R. 200 Russell, N. 105 Russia, influence of 24 Russian painting, similarity to 34 Safrai, Chana 2 Sahak Bagratuni, Prince, picture of 193 Sahak, son of mahdesi Sinan 128 saints 162 Salome 66 Samson, judge 65, 66 Samuelian, Thomas J. 11, 139 Sanjian, A.K. 96, 98, 114, 123, 178, 179, 189, 192, 245 sarcophagus 226 Sargis Pidzak, painter 81 Sarig, N. 237 Satan 60–62, 98, 134, 193, 234 Satan as demonic four-legged rooster 193 Satan in Baptism, scene 102, 103 Satan in baptismal water, story of 102–105 Satan, trampled by Christ 65 Savariego, A. 237 Saxi, F. 49 scarlet thread 92, 138, 139 Scetis, place 30, 105 Schaenlinger, Prof. Anton C. 213 Schick, C. 237 Schneemelcher, W. 91 Schwartz, S. 241 scientific works 201 scriptorium 114 scroll, Jesus holds 7 seal impression 9 Sebastia (Sivas) 114 Sebastia (Sivas), region of 129 Séjourné, P.M. 237

260 Seligman, J. 239 semantron 228 Septimus Severus, coin of 175 seraph 146, 221 serpent 148 Seter, Mordechai 50 Sextus Petronius Probus, sarcophagus of 161 Shah Abbas I 219 Shellal (place) 40 Shellal, mosaic xxi, 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 241–244 Shellal, mosaic, style of 43, 44, 46 Shem, son of Noah 118 shepherds 140 shepherds of Gerar 74 shoes, iconographic symbol of Christ 226 Short History of the Bible: See Abbreviated Bible Shukron, E. 237 Sienna, Italy 111 Simonian, H. 186, 187 Sinai revelation and Transfiguration, similarity of 176 Sinai, Moses on 174 Sisera, biblical figure 66 Siwnik‛, region 102, 122, 129, 139 Six Monks in Eden, scene 159 sky 117 snake 102 Solomon, Judgement of, scene 74 Solomon, king 74 Sotirou, J. and M. 191 souls ascend to heaven 175 sphinx 78 spinning 92 spring of water 31, 33, 34, 36, 152 St. George 231; Fig. 15.5, 232 St. Ottile, Convent of (Hohenberg) 55 St. Paul, Epistles of 105 St. Sargis the General and Martiros 201 St. Theodore 231 stars 117 Stephen of Rome, St. 29 stereotypes 16 Stichel, R. 178 Stiebel, G.D. 241 Stoic virtues 152 stone crosses, Armenian 169

General Index Stone, Michael E. 2, 11, 114, 118, 134, 135, 139, 140, 145, 192, 216, 218, 237, 239, 240, 246 Stone, Nira vii, xvii–xxii, 96, 99, 132, 143, 148, 155, 156, 157–159, 178, 200, 226, 236, 237, 239, 241 Story of Adam and Eve, paintings of 145 Story of the Great Fire of Constantinople 189, 199 Story of the Six Monks 153, 155 stream 32, 42 streams, two 96 Sts. Peter and Marcellinus, Tomb of 163 style 5, 18, 19 style, “narrative-symbolic” 55 style, Armeno-Crimean 16, 20, 23 style, Byzantine 24 style, Cilician-type 20 style, of Melitene area 177, 178 style, outlines used in 43–45 style, Palaeologian 15, 39, 174 style, Romanesque 74 stylistic analysis xxi sub-deacon, image of 119 Suikenik, E.L. 237 Susanna, biblical heroine 66 Swarzenski, H. 68 sword 52, 99 Symbol of the Sign Virgo 206; Fig. 13.16, 208 Symbols of Four Evangelists 145 Syria 105, 178 T‛oxat‛, place 114 Tabor, Mount 180 Taft, Robert T. 192, 243, 246 Tarsus, city 142 Taurus mountains 178 Tayec‛i, E. 92 Tchekhanovets, Yana vii, 236 Temple, scene 3 Temple, veil of 92 Temptation of Christ, scene 84, 134, 165; Fig. 10.4, 135 Tēr Gaspar, scribe 219 terrible mountain 156 Testi Cristiani, M.L. 189 text and illustration xvii, xxi, 24, 70

261

General Index text and illustration, form one creation 72 text and illustration, function of the frame  83 text and illustration, illustration dominant  86 text and illustration, physical relationship between 72 text and illustration, relationship between  70, 80 text and illustration, separation, gradual 78 text, influence of, on iconography 72 Thaddeus Avramenc‛: See Avramenc‛, Thaddeus The Ten Virgins, scene 160 Thebaïd 105 Theodora, ascetic 107 Theophanes the Greek 23, 24 Theophilus and the Monks Fig. 2.6, 19 Thierry, J.M. 110, 131 Thierry, N. 110, 131 Thomson, R.W. 151, 237 three kings, Magi 141 Three Women 86 Throne, of Glory 162 throne, of Virgin 132 Tiberias 240 Tieze, A. 189 Tigris, River 152, 155 Timothy, St., and the Buffalos, scene 26 Timothy, St., naked ascetic monk 31, 33, 39, 107 Tintoretto, Jacopo 63 Toledo (Spain) 72 Toros Roslin, painter 81 Toros Taronec‛i, painter Fig. 10.9, 140 Toxat (Eutokia) 222 Traditio Legis, scene 161, 162 Traina, G. 187 transfiguration from earthly to heavenly 175 Transfiguration, abbreviated scene 177 Transfiguration, mosaic of, St. Catherine’s monastery, Sinai 176 transfiguration, representation of 173 Transfiguration, scene xxi, 5, 96, 97, 173 Transfiguration, scene, Armenian interpretation of 96 Transfiguration, scene, Byzantine structure of  180 Transfiguration, scene, popularity of 96, 173

transport to heavens, cloud or animal 175 Trebizond Gospels 180 Trebizond, new paints from 20 Tree of Knowledge 153 Tree of Life 171, 178 tree, symbolizes Eden 179 trees 6, 165 trees and flowers 156, 166 Trendall, A.D. 40, 241 Tripolitana (Sabratha), bird in a cage in 245 Tsafrir, Y. 241 two angels carrying seal 224, 229 two figures and tree 38 Tzaferis, V. 41, 237 Uluhogian, Gabriella 200 uncial (erkat‘agir) script 215 Underwood, P. 168 unicorn, symbol of Death 81 Urman, D. 241 Vahramian, H. 142 Valeria, correspondent of St. Paphnutius 31 van Esbroeck, M. 99, 105 van Eyck, Jan 165 Vardan Aygekc‘i and students, picture of  195 Vashti, queen 82 Vaspurakan, region 97 veil of the Temple 138 Veronese, C.A. 187 veterinary science 201 Vices, trampled by Virtues 65 Vienna, city 213 vine-scroll, inhabited, motif 243 vine-scrolls 241 Virgin Mary 54, 74, 91, 92, 96, 99, 137, 138, 140 Virgin Mary, fainting 81 Virgin Mary, funeral of 99 Virgin Mary, haloed, by the cross 118 Virgin Mary, icon of 108, 113, 125 Virgin Mary, nativity of 132 Vitalis, St. 161 Wadi Kelt 244 Walters Art Gallery vii Ward, B. 105 Ward, Sinéad vii

262 warrior saints 231 Washing of the Feet, scene 5 Washing of the Newborn, scene 5 water of life 160, 162 Wechsler, S. 237 Weintraub, Nira vii Weitenberg, J.J.S. 143 Weitzmann, K. 97, 113, 131, 132, 180, 187, 191 well 92, 138 well, of living water 96 Western iconography 226 white 180 white ass 102, 136 white highlighting 34, 36, 37 white lilies, symbol of the Virgin 226 white, garments 97 white, meaning of xxi Wieck, R.S. 222 Williams, C.A. 107, 113 Wilson, R. McL. 91 wine, drink of eternal life 175 Wise and Foolish Virgins Fig. 11.6, 160 Wittkover, R. and M. 59, 67 Wolff, S. 237, 238 women who killed men, attitudes to 49, 66, 67 women, ascetic 105, 106 women, ascetic, portraits of 105 women, social situation of 105 World to Come 153

General Index Xač‘ikyan, Levon 193 Xač‛k‛ars 169; Figs. 11.12, 11.13, 170 Xizan, place 193 Xōsōv, grandfather of Galust 122 Yafia, place 244 Yakob, scribe 219 Yeivin, Z. 245 Yesayi Nč‘ec‘i and students, picture of 195 Yilanli Kilisse, Cappadocia, frescos 110 Yovhannēs (Hanna) vardapet 226 Yovhannēs Erznkac‘i, poet 178 Yovhannēs of Amida, painter 159 Yovhannēs T‘lkuranc‘i, On the Creation of the World 72 157 Yovhannēs, scribe 219 Yovhannēs, son of Čenupēk, painter 157 Yovsēp‘ian (Hovsepian, Owsepian), Garegin Catholicos 28, 131 Zak‘aryan: see Zakaryan Zakarian, L. 98, 136 Zechariah, High Priest 132 Zilberbrod, I. 239 Zilberbrod, U. 238 Zissu, B. 241 Zōhrabean, J. 8, 214 Zosimus, ascetic in Trans-Jordan 107, 108, 110–112 Zurich 213