Vol. Viii. 2010 Full Text

SERIES BYZANTINA
TOWARDS REWRITING?
SERIES BYZANTINA
Studies on Byzantine and Post -Byzantine Art
VOLUME VIII
TOWARDS REWRITING?
New Approaches to Byzantine Archaeology and Art
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM

ON BYZANTINE ART AND ARCHAEOLOGY
CRACOW, SEPTEMBER 8–10, 2008
Edited by
Piotr Ł. Grotowski and Sławomir Skrzyniarz
THE POLISH SOCIETY OF ORIENTAL ART

CARDINAL STEFAN WYSZYŃSKI UNIVERSITY
JAGIELLONIAN UNIVERSITY
THE PONTIFICAL UNIVERSITY OF JOHN PAUL II IN CRACOW
Warsaw 2010
SERIES BYZANTINA
GENERAL EDITORS:
Waldemar Deluga
Michał Janocha
EDITORS OF THE VOULME:

Piotr Ł. Grotowski
Sławomir Skrzyniarz
EDITORIAL ADDRESS:
Institut of History of Art
Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University
ul. Wóycickiego 1/3
PL 01-938 Warszawa
wdeluga@wp.pl
Cover design, typhographic project, illustrations editing and typesetting by Paweł Wróblewski
Continuation of the series published by the NERITON Publishing House
Cover Illustration: Virgin Mary; glassware decoration, from catacombs in Rome, 4th c. AD;
N. P. Kondakov, Ikonografia Bogomateri, St. Petersburg 1914, p. 77
Title Page Illustration: Female pendant (kolt), gold with enamels. Kievan Rus’, late 11th-early 12th c. AD,
National Museum, Cracow
© Copyright by Waldemar Deluga, Piotr Ł. Grotowski, Sławomir Skrzyniarz
ISBN 978-83-928399-2-7
Printed by Sowa - Druk na Życzenie

www.sowadruk.pl
tel. (48 22) 431 81 40
Contents
Preface (Piotr Ł. Grotowski) ......................................................................................................... 7
PART I: ATTITUDE
Alexander Musin, Russian Medieval Culture as an “Area of Preservation”

of the Byzantine Civilization ........................................................................................................ 11
Athanassios Semoglou, L’éloquence au service d’archéologie. Les « enfants aimés »

de Theodore Métochite et sa bibliothèque dans le monastère de Chora ................................... 45
Liliya M. Evseeva, Liturgical Drama as a Source of Monreale Mosaics ................................... 67
Alexei Lidov, Spatial Icons. A Hierotopic Approach to Byzantine Art History ......................... 85
PART II: INTERPRETATIONS
Andreas Rhoby, On the Interaction of Word and Image in Byzantium:

The Case of the Epigrams on the Florence Reliquary ............................................................... 101
Tassos Papacostas, Byzantine Rite in a Gothic Setting:

Aspects of Cultural Appropriation in Late Medieval Cyprus .................................................... 117
Piotr Ł. Grotowski, Defining the Byzantine Saint – Creating a Message in Orthodox Art ......... 133
Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Fourteenth-century Regional Cretan Church Decoration:

the Case of the Painter Pagomenos and his Clientele ............................................................... 159
Maja Kominko, Constantine’s Eastern Looks:

The Elevation of the Cross in a Medieval Syriac Lectionary ..................................................... 177
PART III: DISCOVERIES
Maja Petrinec, Metal Objects of Byzantine Origin in Medieval Graves from Croatia ............ 197
Kristina Lavysh, Finds of Byzantine Glass and Ceramics on the Territory of Belarus:
Well-Known and New Facts ...................................................................................................... 213
Mirosław P. Kruk, On some Objects in the National Museum in Krakow

and Question of their Origin: Athos or other Monasteries?...................................................... 231
Nils Stadje, Die byzantinische und osmanische Keramik von Agios Elias und Palaiochori
Zaverdas auf der Plaghia-Halbinsel in Nordwestgriechenland. Ein Vorbericht ...................... 251
PART IV:CONTRIBUTION TO THE STUDIES ON BYZANTINE ART –
– PAST AND FUTURE
Waldemar Deluga, Die Lemberger Forschung zur Kunst der orthodoxen Kirche ................. 267
Michał Janocha, Serge Averintsev. Byzantinologie dans la perspective humaniste .............. 283
Anna Michalowska, Matthew Savage, Daniel Terkl, DiFaB - Digital Research Archive
for Byzantium ........................................................................................................................... 293
Preface
In his dialogues Timaeus (23b–25d) and Critias (108e–109c, 113c–121c), Plato retells the sto-
ry told by priests from the temple of Neith in Sais to Solon when he visited Lower Egypt. Accord-
ing to the legend, the rich and prospering Kingdom located on the island of Atlantis ('Atlantˆj
nÁsoj) that nine thousands years before the time of Solon had ruled over the western part of the
Mediterranean was destroyed in a series of catastrophes. While attacked by brave Athenians,
the island was sunk during one day and night after numerous earthquakes and floods.
Already ancient writers could not decide whether Plato’s words should be read as an
historical account or as an allegorical figure1. Despite the never-ending discussion con-
cerning the real or imaginative character of the island, Atlantis became an important myth
connecting popular culture with Mediterranean antiquity. Therefore, to use it as metaphor
in relation to Byzantium may not seem improper.
Byzantium, like Atlantis – a once-great civilization with fabulous culture created in its capi-
tal surrounded by colorful walls and washed by the waves of the sea – disappeared half a millen-
nium ago. Its traces, monuments, precious vessels, books or icons appear from time to time, just
like fragments of the buildings of the city covered by the Ocean are washed ashore. A modern
scholar involved in the matters of its culture is similar to a man walking along the shore trying
to reconstruct the shape of a real building on the basis of its collected pieces. On the one hand,
there is a chance that he may find additional evidence if he keeps walking far enough, but on the
other, there is a risk that already known objects may disappear, taken by the waves of the time.
The seashore where the “Byzantine island” was once erected is especially rough even in modern
times. Wars, riots, and revolutions still take away memories of the past, unattended treasures
disappear in the pockets of thieves and merchants. New generations of researchers appear on
the shore. Some of them follow the paths set by their antecessors; the others give prevalence to
the arising questions over traditional methods of interpretation.
There is a rule that every generation of historians write their own history, focusing on
problems different from those dealt with by the past generations and leaving aside ques-
1 Plato’s story was treated as historically valuable for example by Crantor, who visited the temple in Sais.
A moderate attitude is presented by Olimpiodorus, Gorg. 46,6 (ed. Westerink, p. 240) and Proclus (76.1–195),
whereas, according to Strabo, Geographika II 102 (ed. Radt, p. 248, 250), Aristotle rejected the account as a
Plato’s invention, see NESSELRATH 2005, 161–171 and Introduction to Proclus, Commentary, 60–84.
8 Preface
tions their antecessor deemed crucial. They try to use new methods, new tools and new
approaches – they try to look directly at the ruins of Atlantis, through the surface of the
Ocean. What will they manage to see? An outline of the battlements and colourful walls of
the underwater city or merely a reflection of themselves and their own times?
***
In order to give an answer to the question how Byzantine Art History will look in the future,
we will have to wait. However, what we can do now is to put before the audience the collected
papers presented at the International Symposium Towards Rewriting? New Approaches to
Byzantine Art and Archaeology, organized by the Faculty of Church History of the Pontifical
Academy of Theology in Cracow and the Institute of Art History, Jagiellonian University in
Cracow, held on September, 8–10, 2008, and attended mostly by scholars of the younger gen-
eration. We decided not to divide texts on art history and archeology into separate sections as
we deeply believe that close cooperation between the two disciplines is inevitable and modern
Byzantine scholars should use as much evidence delivered by their colleagues as possible. The
volume was instead divided – just like the conference itself – into three parts: Attitudes, Inter-
pretations and Discoveries. The authors of the papers included into the first two sections tried
to look under a different angle (sometimes using new methods or assumptions) in order to find
out answers for issues still unresolved. It is on the reader to assess whether they managed to do
it and whether their theories appear verifiable. The third part focuses on the objects unknown to
the broader audience – not only new archaeological finds, but also unpublished artifacts stored
in museums. At the end of the volume we added three texts under headline Contribution to the
Studies on Byzantine Art – Past & Future, presenting issues connected with the history of Byz-
antine Art History and a project recently undertaken by a group of art historians from Vienna.
P. Ł. Grotowski
Olympiodorus, Gorg.:
Olympiodori, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. L. G. Westerink, (Bibliotheca scriptorum Graecorum
et Romanorum Teubneriana) Leipzig 1970.
Plato, Critias. Timaeus:
Plato, Timaeus. Critias. Cleitophon, translation R. G. Bury, (Loeb Classical Library) Harvard 1929.
Strabo, Geographica:
Strabons, Geographika, ed. S. Radt, Bd. 1. “Porlegomena, Buch I–IV: Text und Übersetzung”, Götingen 2002.
Proclus, Commentary:
Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus, vol. 1. “Book 1: Proclus on the Spocratic State and Atlantis”,
translated with an introduction and Notes H. Tarrant, Cambridge 2007.
NESSELRATH 2005:
Heinz G. Nesselrath, “Where the Lord of the Sea grants Passage to sailors through the deep-blue mere no
more: The Greeks and the Western sSas”, Greece & Rome, II Series, 52 (2005), No. 2 (October), p. 153–171.
Part I:
Attitude
Series Byzantina VIII, pp. 11–44
Russian Medieval Culture

as an “Area of Preservation”
of the Byzantine Civilization
Alexander Musin
Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian
Academy of Sciences, Saint-Petersburg
In the pages of his book on European history, Norman Davies wonders in what way the
world would have been changed if Russia had grown under the leadership of the Novgorod
Republic rather than under the Muscovite government so different from the former. As
a conclusion, he writes: “In any case, medieval archaeology offers no clue”.1 But what would
Byzantine studies have been if we could evaluate its civilization based on information pro-
vided by the archaeology of Novgorod and other Russian medieval sites? E. L. Keenan
wrote that Novgorod is “the only medieval town in the Eastern Christian world to have
been excavated”2. This ran contrary to the opinion of his colleagues Byzantinists who must
have been at least baffled by that statement. Certainly, Constantinople is better studied,3
but not better excavated, we must add. Novgorod, indeed, is the only medieval urban centre
in the Eastern Christian world that has been excavated intensively and continuously since
the 1930s. However, voluminous Byzantine evidence has been obtained also from Staraya
Ladoga, Staraya Russa, Pskov, Tver etc.
A new research project is challenging the long-held and widespread opinion also ex-
pressed by E. L. Keenan: “Novgorod had a Western orientation (an inescapable oxymo-
ron!), whereas Kyiv and the Middle and Lower Dnepr cities looked to the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean”.4 The project mentioned is intended for studying medieval Russian towns
in the context of the Byzantine civilization and, vice versa, the Byzantine civilization in
the light of the material remains excavated in Northern Russia. Guided by the first ap-
1 DAVIES 1996, 327.
2 KEENAN 2005, 15.
3 KEENAN 2005, 15.
4 KEENAN 2005, 19.
12 Alexander Musin
proach until now, the scholars have been focusing their attention predominantly on the re-
lations between Novgorod and European countries. The early period (9th–11th centuries) of
Novgorod’s history is often considered as part of the history of Vikings while the European
connections of the town in the 13th–15th centuries are sometimes regarded exclusively in the
light of its participation in the Hanseatic League trade.5 However, Russian history from its
very beginnings actually took another course orienting it towards Byzantium. Thus in the
Primary Russian Chronicle (Povest’ Vremennych Let) the “route from the Varangians to
the Greeks” is mentioned rather as leading “from the Greeks to the Varangians”.6 (fig. 1:1)
Obviously, such specification reflects the priorities and hierarchy of values of the medieval
people challenging the traditional scholarly views on this issue.
It would not be just to assert that Russian-Byzantine connections have not been a sub-
ject of scientific researches. In recent years, humanistic studies in various branches have
yielded the results attesting that Medieval Rus’ preserved in amazing completeness the
synchronous section of the Byzantine civilization of the 9th–15th centuries, which for the
Russians served as a cultural model. By force of the regularities of development of a cul-
tural periphery, the Old-Russian milieu was preserving unique paragons of the Byzantine
material and spiritual culture. This fact allows us to obtain in a number of cases a consist-
ent chronological and stadial picture of diverse aspects of the Byzantine civilization es-
sentially modified afterwards in the Empire proper. The Greek sources themselves offer
us no such possibility.
In Old Russia, a number of translated Byzantine writings were widespread, the Greek
originals of which have not survived. Many of these contain extremely valuable informa-
tion on the history and culture of Byzantium, especially on the literary activities of the
Studios Monastery in Constantinople from the last quarter of the 9th to the first quarter of
the 10th century. The poor state of preservation of this segment of the Byzantine literature
is most probably due to a number of factors, including the ousting of the early texts by the
menology of Metaphrast in the second half of the 10th century. The pre-Metaphrast ver-
sion of menology is preserved only in the form of Chetya Mineya (hagiographical reading
dedicated to the months of particular saints) of the 12th century translated into Old Russian
at the scriptorium of St Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod. The absence of books dedicated to
July and August in this collection of writings is to be explained by the fact that the respec-
tive two volumes were sent from the Studios Monastery to Italy instead of Russia. Today
these books are known as the Byzantine codices Vaticanus gr. 1667 and Vaticanus gr. 1671
(Grottoferata monastery collection).7
Old Russian parchment prayer-books of the 13th–14th centuries with the texts of litur-
gies of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom contain a significant number of Greek prayers
5 RYBINA 1992, 193–205; GAIMSTER 2001, 67–78.
6 POVEST Proem. (ed. Svierdlov, p. 8)
7 AFINOGENOV 2007, 17–18; AFINOGENOV 2006, 261-83 22-28; CANART 1982, 22–28.
Russian Medieval Culture 13
translated from unknown originals. The changes in the Byzantine liturgical practice have
resulted in the replacement of these prayers by new ones or their sinking into complete
oblivion. Numerous archaic features of old liturgical texts were preserved at the periphery
of the Byzantine Empire. Old Russian sources perhaps are the single ones that have re-
tained a special Byzantine form of the Prothesis addresses to God the Father. These were
composed in Constantinople as a Prothesis of John Chrysostom’s liturgy replaced later in
the Greek liturgical service by the prayer of Basil the Great. In addition, Eastern Slavic
prayer-books contain the prayers which presumably had appeared in the liturgy of John
Chrysostom not later than 11th–12th centuries. Possibly, these texts are connected with the
monastic liturgical practice of one of the Constantinople monasteries. Not only parch-
ment prayer-books have preserved unique prayers of the extinct Greek liturgical practice.
Among the birchbark documents recovered in Novgorod we find examples reflecting the
peculiarities of the Byzantine Orthodox rituals practised by the Old-Russian Church but
forgotten today. Thus birchbark document no. 727 dated to the early 13th century contains
unusual prayers of the introduction to the Easter service including quotations from Psalms
106 (107) and 117 (118).8
We must be reminded that for many years, studies of the Byzantine-Russian cultural
interactions have been focused almost exclusively on the elite ecclesiastic culture or on such
masterpieces of art as objects of luxury, sacral architecture and icon-painting.9 Not much
attention was paid to artefacts of daily life found during regular excavations. Due to the
lack of new publications on such materials in European languages (very often in Russian,
too!), the extraordinary finds from excavations in northern towns of Russia have remained
unknown to Byzantinists.10
At the same time, European scholars note that the general involvement of the Byzantine
archaeology into Byzantine Studies is far from being satisfying.11 This is for several reasons.
Partly it is the fact that “the everyday life of ‘ordinary people’ after the seventh century
has been almost entirely neglected”.12 Another reason is the poor state of preservation of
archaeological layers in the East Mediterranean where the medieval deposits have been
at many sites removed almost completely in order to reach the more ancient ones (Clas-
sical Antiquity!). Very often these levels are badly disturbed by continuous occupation of
the sites. In the process of unfolding the story of everyday Byzantine life,13 archaeological
evidence has been playing a fairly modest role. Byzantine Studies until now are lacking
a reliable regional chronology of pottery and other small-size finds from the Eastern Medi-
8 MUSIN 2003, 102–24.
9 AINALOV 1932; LASAREV 1967; ONASCH 1969.
10 For rare exceptions see: THOMPSON 1967; YANIN 1985, 647–67; KOLCHIN 1989.
11 SODINI 1993, 139–84.
12 SECULAR BUILDINGS 2004, 18–20.
13 OIKONOMIDES 1990, 205–14; EVERYDAY LIFE IN BYZANTIUM 2002; BYZANTINE HOURS
2001; RAUTMAN 2006.

14 Alexander Musin
terranean centres.14 In the hope of correcting that imbalance, the scholarly community is
in expectation of results of a number of important excavations, e.g. those of the “Amorium
research project” (since 1987).15
The situation in Russia is quite different. Large-scale excavations at the Russian settle-
ments mentioned above allow us to study artefacts from well-dated stratigraphic contexts.
Archaeological finds of Byzantine minor objects dated to 750–1450 from these Russian
sites constitute an outstanding collection of objects of the daily life of a medieval family
in urban estates (fig. 1: 2) This assemblage is of extreme value for studies of the middle
and late phases of the Byzantine civilization due to a number of factors: 1) almost perfect
preservation of both durable and organic materials; 2) basically undisturbed chronological
sequences, 3) precise dendrochronological dates of the recovered artefacts confirmed by
finds of seals and coins, and 4) possibility of comparative studies of the finds with the use
of written sources, particularly birchbark documents. Of essential importance is the fact
that most of the finds, especially those from Novgorod and Staraya Russa, can be dated pre-
cisely to within a range of 10 to 40 years (fig. 1: 3).16 This allows us to use Byzantine objects
from Russia as the basis for dating similar items found within the Byzantine territory.
Meanwhile, the social and anthropological mechanisms of the cultural exchange be-
tween medieval Russia and Byzantium have been frequently neglected. Analysis of excavat-
ed objects of everyday life from northern cities of Russia is promising to change this situa-
tion. Discoveries of Byzantine objects in Russia allow us to demonstrate the intensity and
evolution of the cultural exchange and shed light onto the material culture of the ordinary
people who were representatives of the Byzantine civilization outside the Empire. Thus the
presence of Greek-speaking persons in northern towns of Russia is attested by graffiti as
well as by the material culture in general (fig. 2: 30; fig. 3).17 Archaeological investigations
in Novgorod have first revealed the remains of an icon-painting workshop of the late 12th
century. There, a painter, a priest of Greek origin, was perfecting his professional skills
gained still in Byzantium (fig. 4: 1, 2).18
Moreover, it is exactly the archaeological finds from Russian cities that have brought
to light the earliest known examples of certain categories of Byzantine artefacts and mas-
terpieces of art. These include, for instance, replicas of much-venerated Constantinopoli-
tan icons, some types of reliquary crosses, belt buckles and steatite staurothekai (icons-
reliquaries) discussed below in this article. Russian finds show that the fact of the good
preservation of Byzantine imports in peripheral areas of the Empire noted by scholars for
14 SANDERS 2004, 163–93.

15 GILL 2002; AMORIUM REPORTS II 2003.
16 TARABARDINA 2001a; TARABARDINA 2001b, 99–108.
17 MUSIN 2006c, 296–306; FRANKLIN 2002.
18 KOLCHIN, КHOROSHEV, YANIN 1981.
Fig. 1: 1 - Location of towns in Northern Russia in relation to the main centers of Mediterranean
area; 2 - Plan of estates from Troitsky site in Novgorod: perimeter layout. Reconstruction drawing by
G. Borisevich; 3 - Photograph of the area of excavated yard in Novgorod and cross-section through
the surfaces of a street showing levels from 11th to 14th centuries (Photo: S. Orlov)
16 Alexander Musin
the Early Byzantine period, holds true also for the Middle Byzantine period.19 In any case,
Mediterranean objects found in Russia will be helpful for updating and refining the chro-
nology and the scheme of spatial distribution of minor objects and pottery imported from
the Byzantine regions to Medieval Rus’.
Today, a number of categories of Byzantine items recovered from archaeological depos-
its of Russian medieval towns have already been partially investigated. Some of the artefacts
can be easily identified as markers of the Mediterranean culture imported from the East. In
some cases however, Russian researchers have difficulties in their studies, particularly in
identification of Byzantine objects of the everyday life. Here it is appropriate to enumerate
the major groups of Byzantine items from the archaeological layers of Russian medieval
towns. The first group comprises Byzantine glass vessels – both items of luxury and those
for ordinary use viz. lamps (figs. 2: 10, 11), beads, finger-rings, and especially bracelets.20
Noteworthy is the outstanding collection of such objects from Ryurikovo Gorodishche near
Novgorod, dating from the 10th–15th centuries which numbers over 200 fragments of glass-
ware. That site played an important role in Russian medieval history as the administrative
residence of Novgorod princes. The majority of finds come from the area excavated here
in 1980–1989 where the remains of a princely tower-chamber from the 12th–15th centuries
have been uncovered.21 Quantitative spectral analysis of the samples has shown that 40%
of them are made from the plant-ash glass smelted with the use of ash produced from salt-
marsh plants in workshops of Byzantium, Syria or Egypt.
As the Mediterranean antiquities are concerned, very important research has been car-
ried out on glass from Amorium (1987–1997), particularly on bracelets (1307 fragments).
Unfortunately, only part of the finds studied come from sealed and securely dated archaeo-
logical contexts. The well-elaborated typology of these glass specimens is based on the rela-
tive chronology of the city (from mid-9th century to ca. 1071). A similar situation pertains
for Sardis. Here, several hundreds of glass bracelets dated to a wide range from the late 10th
to the 13th or 14th century have been recovered. However, it is often impossible to define
more precisely the period of popularity of particular types.22 More fruitful possibilities for
archaeological analysis are found in Novgorod where over 17,000 glass bangles have been
uncovered. The majority of the bracelets come from the contexts dated from the early 1100s
to the 1350s with a distinctive peak around the 1230s. Part of these specimens evidently
were manufactured in the Mediterranean World (fig. 2: 25). In Tver, the chronological peak
of the distribution of bracelets belongs to the end of the 13th century suggesting that the
popularity of that type of glass articles had survived in Russia. Possibly, the Novgorod finds
will expand the typology and chronology of Mediterranean bracelets (based now on the
19 MANGO 2003, 119–40; IN SEARCH OF A LOST BYZANTIUM 2007.
20 SHCHAPOVA 1998; THOMPSON 1967, 92–93.
21 PLOKHOV 2007, 166–75.
22 GILL 2002, 79–98, 183–219, 259; LIGHFOOT 2005, 173–81; SALDEM 1980, 98–101.
Amorium chronology) beyond the end of the 11th century. In a similar way, also the chronol-
ogy of various sub-groups of glass objects may be updated and refined. It is absolutely clear
that the advances of the Russian archaeology are not necessarily applicable to the Byzantin-
istics, at least not to all the territories of the Empire, but in many aspects the comparative
studies seem to be very promising.
The second group of finds consists of boxwood combs manufactured in the Eastern
Mediterranean. In Novgorod, these examples are dated to the late 10th century (classes 2b
according to Ljubov Smirnova; fig. 2:2). Imported wooden combs were not simply objects
of prestige. According to a number of scholars, these objects may have been part of the
Byzantine metropolitan clerical fashion. Therefore the introduction of the boxwood combs
in Novgorod may be linked with the conversion of the urban elite to Christianity. However,
more evidence is needed to prove this hypothesis. Later, the decorative motifs of the Byzan-
tine combs influenced the production of simpler bone artifacts in Novgorod in the 11th–13th
centuries (class 2a according L. Smirnova).23 In the cultural respect, as early as its initial
period of history, Novgorod already demonstrates its ability of “the primary borrowing”24
not only from Scandinavia but also from Byzantium.25
The third group of Byzantine artefacts yielded by excavations in Russia is composed of
amphorae of four different types. Each type has its intrinsic chronology based on differ-
ences in the shape and manufacturing technology. For instance, the so-called ‘Trabzon’
type (or Ganos-4 type according to an alternative classification) can be subdivided into
six variants corresponding to the phases of its development. This division is based on
materials found in Russia and dated respectively to 1060–1110, 1025–1075, 1075–1100,
1110–1150, 1130–1140 AD and the following period (figs. 2: 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16).26 The sec-
ond group of amphorae belongs to the so-called ‘Triglia’ type. It has four phases of de-
velopment dated respectively to 970–1010, 1000–1100, 1130–1150 and 1150–1200 AD.
(fig. 2: 5, 13, 19). The numbers of amphorae of this type seems to have decreased signifi-
cantly after the capture of Asia Minor by the Seljuks in the end of the 11th century. After
1204, amphorae of that kind completely disappeared in Russia. The other two groups of
amphorae include the small ‘Chian’ type that was widespread around 1030–1180 and
amphorae with the stamp ‘SSS’ dated to the 12th century. The latter group was possibly
imported from the Holy Land during the period of the Latin Kingdom.27
There is an alternative Russian typology of Byzantine amphorae, which divides these
vessels into 10 major groups with the relative chronology spanning the period from the
23 SMIRNOVA 2007, 298–334; SMIRNOVA 2005, 142, 199, 243–47, 314, 315, 317.
24 FRANKLIN, SHEPARD 1996, 315.
25 SMIRNOVA 2005, 318.
26 VOLKOV 2006, 145–59: VOLKOV 2005, 145–63; GUNSENIN 1993, 193–201.
27 VOLKOV 1996, 90–103.
18 Alexander Musin
Fig. 2. Common chronology of Byzantine artifacts from Towns in Northern Russia, 10th–15th centu-
ries (drawing by G. Kuznetsova and V. Steganceva):
1 – reliquary cross, bronze, Ladoga, 920s; 2 – simple comb, boxwood, Novgorod, the end of 10th
century (class 2b according to L. Smirnova); 3 – belt-buckle, bronze, Ladoga, middle of 10th century;
4 – glazed pottery, Novgorod, since the end of 10th century; 5 – amphora, “Triglia” type, phase 1
(970–1010 AD, according to I. Volkov); 6 – amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 1 (1060–1110
AD, according to I. Volkov); 7 – amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 2 (1025–1075 AD, ac-
cording to I. Volkov); 8 - amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 3 (1050–1110 AD, according to
I. Volkov); 9 – model of Jerusalem Temple, wood, Novgorod, end of 11th century; 10 – lamp, glass,
Novgorod, since 11th century; 11 – hook of lamp, bronze, Novgorod, since 11th century; 12 - cross-pen-
dant, krokeit, Novgorod, since 11th century; 13 – amphora, “Triglia” type, phase 2 (second half of the
11th century, according to I. Volkov); 14 – amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 4 (1090–1110
AD, according to I. Volkov); 15 – amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 5 (1110–1150 AD, ac-
cording to I. Volkov); 16 – amphora, “Trabzon = Ganos 4” type, phase 6 (second half of 12th century,
according to I. Volkov); 17 – pilgrim ampoule from Thessalonica, lead, Novgorod, since 1135 AD;
18 – pilgrim spoon, pewter, Holy Land (?), Novgorod, around 1150 AD; 19 - amphora, “Triglia” type,
phase 4 (1150–1200 AD, according to I. Volkov); 20 – pilgrim reliquary (staurotheke) with stone
inlays from Holy Places, steatite, Novgorod, around 1160 AD; 21 – pilgrim reliquary, steatite, Berlin
collection, (?); 22 – icon-pendant, steatite, Novgorod, 1160–1180 AD; 23 – cross-pendant, nacre,
Novgorod, Pskov, around 1160–1170 AD; 24 – icon of Crucifixion, wood, Staraja Russa, first half of
13th century; 25 – bracelets, glass, Novgorod, marked peak around 1250s; 26 – cross-pendant with
stones and wood from Holy Land, steatite, Novgorod, Pskov, around 1230s AD; 27 – cross-pendant
from Holy Land, steatite, Novgorod, around 1230s AD; 28 – container for baptism ceremony, silver,
Novgorod, 1260-1280 AD; 29 – pilgrim badge from Thessalonica, lead, Novgorod, 1270s AD
30 – brick with ex-voto marine graffito and Greek inscription ηωa[νν]η[ς], Novgorod, 1352 AD
31 – girdles for monks, leather, Novgorod, 12th–15th centuries; 32 – turned wooden vessels,
Novgorod, after 1250s
Fig. 3. Brick with ex-voto marine graffito and Greek inscription ηωα[νν]η[ς],
Novgorod, Assumption church at Volotovo field, 1352 AD
(KP-14; Museum of Art Culture of Novgorod Distrcit, Novgorod)
20 Alexander Musin
late 10th to the mid-12th century.28 It is recognized that the analysis of amphora materials
from Novgorod of this period is so far only in its “infancy”. The development of some am-
phora groups, including those of the ‘Chian’ type, continued until the 14th century. We have
grounds to suppose that the vessels from Chios were imported owing to the wine trade. The
change of the system of trade at the end of the 13th century and the leading role of Italian
merchants in the factorial trade led to the replacement of amphora containers by wooden
stave-built vessels (kegs) well known among medieval archaeological finds.29
It must be noted that besides the amphorae, in Novgorod and Staraya Russa, still other
types of Eastern ceramics have been found. They amount to over 200 fragments from at
least 80 vessels (fig. 2: 4) dated to the 10th–15th centuries.30 In addition, a rich collection of
fragmentary Eastern pottery, so far unpublished, has been collected at Ryurikovo Gorod-
ishche near Novgorod. According to the classification presently proposed, there are four
major classes of pottery from the Mediterranean region. These are further subdivided into
series, groups and types according to the presence of additional decoration and its relation
to the glaze on the vessel (complete absence of additional decoration, decoration above
the glaze, under it or within the glaze layer), by the techniques of decorating (painting, en-
graving, relief etc.) and by the type of the clay (faiences, semi-faiences, majolica and semi-
majolica). It is noteworthy that in the 13th–14th centuries, the importation of pottery from
Syria and Egypt, which was very popular in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, comes to
end while pottery from Byzantium continued to arrive.
The fourth group of Byzantine artefacts includes the so-called objects of private devo-
tion. Generally, these are easily identified as Byzantine imports. Most commonly, it is per-
sonal pendants or items pertaining to pilgrimage and bearing Christian signs and images
which without doubt may be attributed as markers of the Byzantine culture. The archaeo-
logical contexts from which these objects have been recovered allow us to reconstruct the
position of their owners in the social hierarchy and to determinate the role of these items in
the popular culture of Russian urban centres.31 The abundance and diversity of the group
under consideration and its wide distribution among different social strata suggest that the
Byzantine tradition of the use of devotional objects was flourishing in medieval Russia.32
Among the items of 1100–1300 AD connected with pilgrimage, the most important finds
include cross-pendants made of steatite and nacre (fig. 2: 23, 26, 27; fig.5), pewter spoons
(fig. 2: 18), pilgrims’ flasks (fig. 2: 17; fig.6), wooden models of the Jerusalem Temple (fig.
2: 9), and steatite staurothekai with inlays of limestone from Holy Places and fine pieces
of wood symbolizing parts of the Holy Cross (fig. 2: 20; fig.7) etc. Staurothekai are of par-
28 KOVAL 2005, 500–08.

29 COMEY 2007, 165–88.
30 KOVAL 2006, 161–92; KOVAL 2000, 127–39.
31 MUSIN 2004, 137–51.
32 MUSIN 2006a, 251–52.
Fig. 4. Archaeological finds from iconpainter workshop, Novgorod, end of 12th century.
1 – wooden board for icon painting; 2 – cover for an icon of St. Nicholas, bronze
(Novgorod State Museum, Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
ticular interest: until now we have no reliable dates for two similar objects from collections
kept in Berlin (provenance unknown, fig. 2: 21) and the Hermitage (from excavations of the
Imperial Archaeological Commission in Chersonese, 1895).33 The Novgorod example found
in the Posolsky Excavation in 2006 is dated to 1160–1180. It is the only inlay known with
a limestone insert in a steatite case suggesting us in what way staurothekai were actually
used. The limestone from Palestine was regarded by the medieval Christians as milk of the
Mother of God and its pieces were very often brought from particular places of Gethsemane
near Jerusalem.34 Some cross-shaped objects of similar purpose (fig. 2: 27) have not pre-
served the limestone inserts although one of the examples contains a very small fragment
of wood evidently once regarded as a “piece of the Holy cross”. That object was recovered
from the Nutniy Excavation and is dated to the 1230s (fig. 8).35 It is of interest that present-
day Russian pilgrims bring from Jerusalem reliquaries in the form of tiny copies of the Holy
Cross and stones from visited places conforming to the tradition arisen in the 12th century.
They also bring from the Holy Land peculiar cases which contain fragments of limestone
from holy places along with little bottles of water from the Jordan River and oil from the
Holy Sepulchre. The use of steatite as the primary material for objects of Christian devotion
and pilgrims’ souvenirs was not limited to staurothekai only. Steatite was used for mak-
33 KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER 1985, pl. 1; ZALESSKAYA 2005, 29–35, fig. 1.
34 SUMMA, Die XVIII Januarii (ed. Bourassé, col. 707–709), MARIA NEL CULTO CATTOLICO 390–93;
ARRIGHINI 1954, 316–19
35 GAYDUKOV 1992, p. 106; fig. 77: 2.
22 Alexander Musin
ing cross-pendants of a special form attested in Novgorod,

Pskov etc. and dated back to the end of the 12th century.36
Similar crosses were found in Bulgaria, Asia Minor, the
Holy Land and Greece; their chronology often is not reli-
ably established or covers a fairly wide chronological span
(fig. 9).37 Thus, the Russian finds may be helpful in proving
their dates and lead to the final rejection of their attribu-
tion to the Late Classical period.38
The pilgrims’ souvenirs probably were manufactured
at Crusaders’ settlements where Latin craftsmen may Fig. 5. Cross-pendant, nacre,
Novgorod, around 1160-1170 AD
have been working side by side with Greek masters and (Novgorod State Museum,
adopting certain Byzantine artistic traditions. Thus, it is Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
quite possible that crosses from nacre found in Novgorod
(1160–1180), Pskov (second half of the 12th century), Smo-
lensk (late 12th century), Ryazan (turn of the 12th and 13th centuries), Kiev (12th–13th centu-
ries) and Chersonese (first half of the 13th century) 39 were manufactured in 1150–1175 AD
in the Crusaders’ castle of Atlit in the Holy Land (near modern Haifa, Israel) among the
mixed ethnic milieu (fig. 5).40 It is noteworthy that this type of cross-pendants is not found
in excavations in Western Europe suggesting that they were produced specially for pil-
grims of the Orthodox tradition. Furthermore, pilgrims’ badges with the representation
of St Demetrios attested in the Novgorod cultural layers of the 1260s were made mostly in
Thessalonica around 1204–1224. They demonstrate a joint tradition of European crafts-
men and the iconography pertaining to the Byzantine cults of local saints (fig. 2:29; fig. 10).
Pilgrimage objects, such as a lead flask with the representation of St Demetrious are widely
known,41 but only the Russian examples from Novgorod are reliably datable: they are found
in cultural layers dated after 1135. The latter date is very close to that of the records of the
late 11th –early 12th century about the miracle of appearance of Holy Myrrhon on the shrine
of St Demetrious (fig. 6).
This is reminiscent of the worship of St Nicolas in Bari, Italy, in 12th–13th centuries.
In Italy and outside it, only few pilgrims’ badges with the representation of that saint are
36MUSIN 2006b, 163–222.

37DIRIMTEKIN 1962, 161–85 ; TZAFERIS 1975, 5;52. pl .7, fig. 4; GOUGH 1985, 28–29; HARRISON
1986, nos. 626, 628, fig. 427, 429; TOTEV 1990, 123–38 ; CRADLE 2000, 141; LASKARIS 2000, 63, 58–59,
137, 195; КОRAĆ 2001/2002, 103–46.
38 CATALOGUE 1965, p. 20, 24, tab. XXIV, No. 52.12.90.
39 GROZDILOV 1962, 72. fig. 58, 7; MUSIN 1999, 92–110; GOLOFAST, RYZHOV 2003, 217, fig. 22;23;
YASHAEVA 2005, 201; MUSIN 2006, 189–90.

40 JOHNS 1997, 15–17, 119–20, 147, 149, pl. LX, fig. 2.
41 BAKIRTZIS 1990, 140–49, fig. 48–54.
Fig. 6. Pilgrim ampoule from Thessalonica, lead, Novgorod,

(Novgorod State Museum, Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
found and these are just of uncertain date.42 Investigations carried out in Novgorod at the
Nikolsky (St Nicholas) Excavation in 2007 have yielded two badges depicting a saint iden-
tified as St Nicholas (fig. 11). A further three examples were found in the same town at the
Nerevsky Excavation in 1960 and at the Fedorovsky site in 1996.43 The entire assemblage
is dated to 1160–1280. Thus, finds from Russia with their certain stratigraphy allow us
to draw some general conclusions on the archaeology of pilgrimage whereas the previous
studies of the changeable pilgrims’ fashion were based almost exclusively on Byzantine and
Russian written sources.44
Byzantine materials from Russia can help us to update the chronology of worship of mir-
acle-working icons from Constantinople and elucidate the evolution of their iconographical
types. They also demonstrate the distribution and particular features of that tradition. For
instance, the earliest known Byzantine double-sided icon of the Hodegetria, with Christ
the Man of Sorrows on the back, has been found at Kastoria. It is dated to the end of the
12th century, probably reproducing a type that was popular in the centre of the Empire.45
Meanwhile the steatite and wooden replicas of icons of the identical type from Novgorod
(fig. 2: 22) and Staraya Russa (fig. 2: 24) suggest that the Constantinople miracle-working
iconography appeared in the Northern Europe around 1170 AD.
42 ANDERSSON 1989, 103–05; WENTKOWSKA VERZI 2000, 423–32.

43 SEDOVA 1981, 62–63, fig. 20: 5–6; 21.
44 MAJESKA 1984; MAJESKA 2002, 93–108.
45 MOTHER OF GOD 2000, 484–85, no. 83.
24 Alexander Musin
Furthermore, the evidence from the excavations in

Russia allows us to reconstruct the activities of craftsmen
from Constantinople after the seizure of the city by the
Crusaders in 1204. The excavations show that in 1210–
–1230 Byzantine artisans worked in Kiev, Vladimir and
Novgorod.46 Obviously, the Byzantine aesthetic traditions
and the craftsmen themselves were transformed within
the Russian milieu. Thus, Krokean stone (krokaetis lithos,
lapis lacedaemonicus) — a type of green stone from the
Peloponnesus – was used originally in Rome and Con-
stantinople for opus sectile in floor mosaics of churches,
but in Russia, where the floor decoration was not in such Fig. 7. Pilgrim reliquary (stau-
a demand, that species was used as early as the 11th century rotheke) with stone inlays from
Holy Land, steatite, Novgorod,
for manufacturing pectoral crosses (fig. 2: 12).47
around 1160 AD
The excavations in the abovementioned Russian cities (Novgorod State Museum,
help us to establish more precisely the chronology and the Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
distribution of reliquary crosses 48 (fig. 2: 1) and objects
of everyday life, particularly belt buckles. Some of the lat-
ter in the ninth and tenth centuries were made in bronze
openwork, other examples bear representations of gryph-
ons 49 (fig. 2: 3) etc. Archaeological materials also illustrate
the activities of a Greek icon-painter whose workshop was
excavated in Novgorod.50 Information on various types of
turned wooden vessels from Novgorod possibly may be
used in studies of the chronology of Byzantine ceramic
pottery of the 11th–14th centuries. Indeed, the evolution of
the forms of vessels, both ceremonious ones and those for
ordinary use, ran parallel for wooden and ceramic ware
(fig. 2: 32).51
In Novgorod, archaeologists have also found liturgical Fig. 8. Cross-pendant with
objects. These include, for example, spoons for communion stones and wood from Holy
Land, steatite, Novgorod,
(11th–12th centuries), a container for baptismal rituals with around 1230s AD
the Slavic inscription ‘Maslo’ (Holy Oil) and ‘Myro’ (Holy (Novgorod State Museum,
Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
46 ZHARNOV, ZHARNOVA 1999, 451–61.
47 GROSSMÄCHTIGES NOWGOROD 2003, 130–1, no. 91–92, 94.
48 PITARAKIS 2006; KORZUKHINA, PESKOVA 2003.
49 MIKHAYLOV 2005, 209–18; LIGHTFOOT M. 2003, 81–103.
50 GROSSMÄCHTIGES NOWGOROD 2003, 164–65, no. 124–31.
51 KOLCHIN 1989, 45, 57, 61; THOMPSON 1967, 97–101.
Myrrhon; 1260–1280; see fig. 2: 28; fig. 12). In general,

among the objects excavated in Russia there are numer-
ous finds which demonstrate the material culture of the
medieval clergy and monkhood and elucidate for us its
evolution.
Fig. 9. Cross-pendant from Primarily, noteworthy are leather monks’ girdles and
Holy Land, steatite, Novgorod, analabos/paramans/paramands embossed with im-
around 1160–1180 AD
(Novgorod State Museum, ages of the Twelve Christian feasts (12th–15th centuries):
Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov) Annunciation, Nativity, Meeting in the Temple, Baptism,
Transfiguration, Resurrection of Lazarus, Entry to Jeru-
salem, Crucifixion, Resurrection as the Descent “ad infer-
nos”, Ascension, Pentecost and Assumption (fig. 2: 31). In
the middle of the 19th century, girdles of that type were
first discovered during excavations in the Moscow Krem-
lin and in Smolensk (fig. 13). Afterwards, similar finds
were made during the reconstruction of the crypts of the
Great Monastery of the Caves (Pechersky Monastery) in
Kiev; in the 20th century, a series of examples came from
excavations in Novgorod (early 13th century; fig. 14) and
Tver (early 14th century).52 Today, a number of bronze
stamps for embossing girdle icons are known. One of them
comes from Grodek, Poland (fig. 15),53 the other are in
the Museum collection of the Kiev Orthodox Theological
Academy and include both examples of leather girdles and
a stamp with a depiction of the Feast of the Ascension for
their manufacturing.54 Over 100 known girdles and their
fragments are included into a catalogue now prepared for
publication by me and my colleague from Kiev Timur Bo-
brovskiy.55
Fig. 10. Pilgrim badge from Thes- The belts of the type under consideration have been
salonica, lead, Novgorod, 1270s always regarded as a purely Russian invention unknown
AD (Novgorod State Museum,
in the Byzantine world. Moreover, this type of girdle has
Novgorod; S. Toropov)
close parallels in Russian medieval theological literature.
Strangely enough, until today none of the scholars did pay
any attention to this fact although the texts and the arte-
52 GLORY OF BYZANTIUM, 305–06, no. 208.
53 MH/A/3057, 22 x 25 mm x 4 mm. Cerkiew 2001, VI, 106; fig. 24; no I.58.
54 PETROV 1913, tab. s7–8.
55 BOBROVSKIY, VORONTSOVA 2003, 88–95.
26 Alexander Musin
facts in question are known since the mid-19th century.

Indeed, it has proved that the present author was the first
to suppose that comparison of the two groups of sources
may be helpful in resolving the problem of changing and
evolution of the monastic dress of the Eastern tradition.
In one of the homiletic works of Cyril of Turov (sec-
ond half of the 12th century) describing different at-
tributes of the monkish dress and their symbolic mean-
ing, that author writes about a “girdle of Schema with
feasts” symbolizing the co-crucifixion of a monk and his
subordination to Christ: “Пояс же - крестьныя смерти
осужение, ею же Адама обожи, за нь же связан водим
быст, по писанию: есть поясан правдою, и истиною
обит в ребра своя; - и по сему образу скимный, с праз-
Fig. 11. Supposed prototype
дьники, пояс, от Адама и до Арона, и обою закону for pilgrim badge from Bari,
Христомь съвьршен”.56 This passage may baffle those Italy, lead, Novgorod, 1180s
AD (Novgorod State Museum,
scholars who know nothing about archaeological finds Novgorod; photo: M. Petrov)
of such girdles, i.e. the examples with embossed images
of feasts mentioned above. Gerhard Podskalsky was the
first to suggest that Bishop Cyril was telling about special
holiday belts worn by Russian medieval monks in days of
Great Feasts of the Christian calendar.57 Simon Franklin
joined this opinion and translated the complicated Sla-
vonic text as “The girdle of the monastic habit for feast
days is in this image: and thus it is from Adam to Aaron,
and to the fulfilment of both laws in Christ”.58 Konstantin
Akent’ev also agrees with that opinion and writes in his
commentary for a Russian translation of Podskalsky that
medieval archaeology knows nothing about such kind of Fig. 12. Container for baptism
monastic clothes (sic!) and “girdles of the monastic habit ceremony, silver, Novgorod,
1260–1280 AD (Novgorod State
for feast days” are to be compared to special leather gir- Museum, Novgorod; photo:
dles worn by monks-deacons of the Studios Monastery S. Toropov)
in Constantinople. The latter girdles became a subject of
56 CYRIL OF TUROV II [fol. 610r] (ed. Еремин, p. 359).

57 PODSKALSKY 1996, 516–17.
58 FRANKLIN 1991, 92.
Fig. 13. Monastic girdle, burial of princess Eudoxia, †1407, Moscow, Kremlin
(Museum of Moscow Kremlin)
Fig. 14. Monastic girdles, burial of abbots, 1220–1240, St.George

monastery, Novgorod (Archive of the Institute of the History of Mate-
rial Culture, Saint-Petresburg)
acute discussions in the middle of the 11th century between the monks and the so-called
“white” deacons of the Holy Great Church of Saint Sophia.59
Thus, it is clear that the modern researchers of the Byzantine and Russian literature
know nothing of the remarkable archaeological finds of girdles with icons representing
Christian feasts. The unclear passage of Cyril of Turov is therefore interpreted wrongly as
mentioning the common tradition of wearing mythic belts in the days of feasts. But then,
still another document seems to be inexplicable for us viz. that on the Constantinopoli-
tan monastic tradition of wearing special leather girdles with stamped representations of
Christian feasts. That source goes back to the early 11th century and it has been published
59 AKENT’EV 1996, 516–517; NICЕTAS STETHATOS, Είς τήν ζώνην στουδιτων διακόνον, 1-5 (ed. Dar-
rouzes 486–94).
28 Alexander Musin
Fig. 15. Matrix stamp for embossing monastic girdles, 12th–13th centu-
ries, Grodek, district Hrubieszów, Poland (Photo: M. Wołoszyn)
at least twice in 1869 60 and in 2001.61 It is the famous Typikon (Ecclesiastical Statute) of
Patriarch Alexis Studitos which he composed specially for a monastery founded by him. The
original Greek text has not survived but its Slavonic translation made at the second half of the
12th century in Novgorod is housed today in the Manuscript Department of the State Histori-
cal Museum in Moscow (GIM, the so-called Synodal Collection, SIN.330).62 In folio 223 v., we
find a special article on monastic clothes where among other interesting records it is written:
“И пояс же по обычаю усниян буди по подражанию рожденных женами паче всех иже
убо мнишеского жития яве древний образ бысть а великых скымник иконы воображе-
ны по обычаю да имеют а малоскымным да будет прост” that may be translated as: “And
according to the tradition, leather girdles should be used in imitation of John the Baptist who
demonstrated the ancient example of monastic life, and monks of the Great Schema should
have [a girdle with] icons represented according to the tradition, and for those of the Small
Schema [the girdle] should be simple [i.e. without icons]”. Here it is helpful to regard the
aforementioned “represented icons” as iconographic representations of Christian feasts on
girdles of the type known from archaeological excavations of Old Russian sites. At least, we
have so far no other evidence to illustrate the monastic ritual under consideration.
60 GORSKIY, NEVOSTRUEV 1869, 263–64.
61 TIPIKON [fol. 223v] (ed. Пентковский, p. 384).
62 SVODNYI KATALOG 138 (ed. Шмидт 159–61).
If the hypothesis proposed is correct, we have to explain why these circumstances have
eluded inter alia the historiographical studies of Evgeniy Golubinskiy — one of the most
prominent historians and archaeologists of the Russian Church. In the end of the 19th
century, that scholar must have been well acquainted both with the examples of leather
girdles with icons of feasts from archaeological excavations and with the passage on the
habit of monks of the Great Schema with “represented icons” from the Novgorodian Stu-
dios Typikon of the 12th century.63 Nevertheless, he interpreted the “icons represented” on
girdles of Great Schema monks as “sewn or embroidered images of crosses” on their hab-
its. Why did this gifted historian miss such an important historical discovery? Only one
explication of this fact seems possible and this holds true for other scholars who have mis-
understood the medieval text on monastic girdles. All of them were under influence of the
contemporary customary monastic dress that bore representations of the Golgotha crosses
and of Cherubs in the upper part of a special habit of the so-called “velikoschimniks” or
monks of the Great Schema of the 19th–20th centuries. Studies of ecclesiastical books and
of the evolution of monastic dress in the Russian tradition suggest that the ritual of taking
monastic vows changed drastically after the important reforms of the 14th–15th centuries
and again after those of the 17th century, especially for the monks of the Great Schema.64
The latter part of the monkhood was withdrawn from the ordinary canon of monastic life
which fact was specially stressed by the new appearance of their habit. Accordingly, the
traditional elements of the monk’s dress, such as the leather girdles with representations of
the Great Christian Feasts, went out of use in the 15th–16th centuries. Thus the prominent
historians and philologists were misled by the unhistorical approach to predominant con-
temporary notions of monastic life and dress.
It is obvious now that Russian monastic belts with icons of the Twelve Feasts were of
Greek origin expressing no Slavonic peculiarities. This fact leads us to reject the hypothesis
about the appearance of the monastic tradition of wearing girdles with icons of the Great
Feasts only in the end of the 14th century under the impact of the Byzantine Hesychasm.65
Indeed, there are no real proofs of the influence of that monastic mystical movement upon
the medieval Russian art, ideology and culture and, anyway, the tradition under considera-
tion much earlier origins. On the other hand, contrary to the views of some scholars, the
medieval Greek and Russian monastic “girdles with representations of feasts” and “girdles
with icons” have nothing to do with the monastic festive habit nor with the liturgical belts
of monks-deacons of the Studios Monastery in Constantinople. Our research has succeeded
in demonstrating that the Russian monastic literary tradition preserved quite a number
of Byzantine ecclesiastic written monuments lost over centuries in the Metropolis itself.
63 GOLUBINSKIY 1997, 676.

64 INNOKENTIY 1899; PALMOV 1914.
65 YAKOVLEVA 2005, 74–87.
30 Alexander Musin
Russian archaeological evidence can provide us with a series of material attributes of the
monastic dress mentioned by Byzantine writers but as yet unknown in the Mediterranean.
The same materials can help us to trace the development of the ecclesiastic clothes
of the Eastern tradition. Among archaeological leather items related with the monastic
habit, in addition to belts, there are a number of other rectangular objects bearing identi-
cal stamped icons. The icons however are peculiarly arranged on these objects not hori-
zontally, as on girdles, but vertically. On the basis of their positions in monks’ graves and
a characteristic system of ribbons (encircling the chest and shoulders like a shoulder strap
or a body chain of the Late Classical period) these objects were indentified as “paramans/
paramands” of Russian monks. This identification does not run contrary to the contem-
porary tradition which knows the same type of monastic attributes but without depictions
of feasts. The modern paramands are made of a special textile or leather with four straps
fixed with a cross on one side and with a rectangular piece of textile with a representation
of the Golgotha Cross on the other. It is of importance that the present-day Greek monastic
tradition does not use a similar attribute. At least two finds of that type of monastic items
are known at present: one from the Moscow Kremlin (1395) and another from excava-
tions in Novgorod (1410–1430; figs. 16, 17).66 These attributes of monastic habit seem to
have been in use only for a short period — from the second half of the 14th century to the
first half of the 15th century. Numerous other leather articles found during excavations of
monastic burials are attributed to the same time span. These items evidently served to
a similar purpose as those described above. They include two straps connected by a leath-
ern cross — the analabos of the Eastern tradition.
Here it is proposed that the paramans/paramands of the 14th–15th centuries with rep-
resentations of Christian feasts should be regarded as purely Russian innovation of that
period reflecting the evolution and changes it the monastic life and rituals. The new type
of Russian paramands was a traditional analabos that combined in se the customs of
decoration of the monastic girdles by representations of Christian feasts and the ancient
paramans/paramands/scapulars. The latter were reduced in the course of the evolution
from a wide apron covering the chest and the back to a small rectangular piece of textile
or leather. Thus the really functional element of the everyday clothes became a rudiment
with symbolical meaning, the process having been attested only for the Russian monastic
tradition. This hypothesis is confirmed by the evidence of Russian medieval prayer-books
concerned with the ritual of taking of monastic vows. These sources include particularly
a manuscript of the ancient scriptorium of the Cathedral of St Sophia in Novgorod (NLR.
Soph. 1056. f. 43) kept now in the National Library of Russia (Saint Petersburg). There, we
find a passage explaining the meaning of analabos and describing the very items that we
know from archaeological excavations — a rectangular piece of leather with a representa-
66 Н-81-Тр-VI-6-466; КП 33560/А96-531; 65 cm х 31/34 cm; 95 mm x 31/34 mm.

Fig. 16. Analabos, burial of princess Maria, †1395, Moscow, Kremlin; 1 – photo, 2 - drawing
(after E. Jakovleva)
tion of the Great Christian feasts. We do not know similar examples in any earlier or later
prayer-books. The particular attention paid in our book to the element under consideration
and its detailed description are explainable by the fact that it was a novelty in the period
when the text was written i.e. in the mid-14th century.
Russian evidence offer us the rare possibility not only to establish the stages of the
development of monastic habit in the Eastern tradition but also to propose a more or less
precise and reliable chronology of these changes. So far little research has been devoted to
this subject and these are sometimes fairly contradictory to each other especially where the
modern monastic customs are concerned.67 J. Patrich refuses to identify the ανάλαβος with
the scapular of the Latin tradition, suggesting to call the former by a new term “shoulder
strap”, while the scapular is called apron by him. As a proof he refers to the miniatures from
manuscripts of the 11th century from Constantinople where monks wear shoulder straps
67 INNEMÉE 1992, 90–133; PATRICH 1995, 210–20.

32 Alexander Musin
Fig.17. Analabos, 1410–1430, Troickij

excavation, Novgorod (Novgorod State
Museum, Novgorod; photo: S. Toropov)
(analabos) with numerous knots and aprons (scapulars) beneath theirs mantles. Today,
the monastic practice does not use such aprons but beginning with the 11th–12th centuries,
paramans/paramands are mentioned implying clothes worn under a mantle. The Russian
examples demonstrate the final evolution of analabos/shoulder straps and paramans/
paramands/apron in the non-Greek milieu at the periphery of the Byzantine civilization.
The result was the appearance of a single item combining shoulder straps with a derivative
of scapular. In the Russian tradition that item received the name of paramans/paramands
whereas its function and origins are rooted in the primary analabos or shoulder straps.
In the Russian Orthodox Church, the technical term analabos describes today a special
attribute of the Great Schema monk’s habit suspended both front and back from the shoul-
ders in the form identical to the ancient apron/scapular of the historical Byzantine and
modern Latin traditions but deco-

rated with embroidered Golgotha
crosses and images of Cherubs. In
any case, the present-day Great
Schema should not be confused
with that of the 9th–14th centuries
arisen before a deep reformation
of monastic statutes, rituals, dress
and everyday life.
K. C. Innemée paid special at-
tention to the Oriental monastic
tradition of the Medieval Near East,
especially that of St Pachomius. Af-
ter analysis of the vocabulary of the
everyday monastic life, the scholar
compared it with archaeological
items found during excavations of
Egyptian monasteries. There, no
shoulder straps were attested. In-
deed, the latter would have been
more appropriated to the more Hel-
lenistic tradition of St Anthony. The Fig. 18. Saint Sophia icon, Annunciation cathedral,
Pachomian tradition is character- Kremlin, Moscow, 1425–1450 AD (after LIFSHITS 1986)
ised by an unusual triangular apron
which may be confronted with the
term derma. It is probable that the apron (thorakeion/thorakisterion) of the Anthonian
tradition described in written sources by the Latin term Schema habitus was referred to by
Pachomian monks using the Greek word analabos. This fact aroused a historical confusion.
The abovementioned author tries to attract, although without much success, the late me-
dieval and Russian evidence for his own explication of the issue. In any case, the custom of
wearing monastic aprons/scapulars/paramans/paramands has a long history stemming
from the Near East and finishing in Eastern Europe. Thus, a retrospective analysis based
on the Russian materials appears to be promising to clarify the history of monastic habit of
the Eastern tradition.
Another aspect of the studies here presented is concerned with one of the most mys-
terious icons among the Russian holy representations, viz. the Novgorod version of the
Holy Wisdom or Saint Sophia. The cult of Saint Sophia was attested in Old Rus’ as early
as the middle of the 11th century when three remarkable cathedrals dedicated to it were
34 Alexander Musin
Fig. 19. Coins with the representation of Saint Sophia, 1420-1490, Novgorod; 1 – cooper, 2 - silver
(after GAYDUKOV 1992)
built in Kiev, Novgorod and Polotsk in imitation of the Church of the Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople. Today it is not always possible for us to realize adequately the impor-
tance of that medieval cult. Its spread was related with certain events of the turn be-
tween the 12th and 13th centuries and the person of Archbishop Anthony, – the famous
Russian pilgrim to Constantinople of that period according to the Novgorod Chronicle.68
The icon of Saint Sophia where the Holy Wisdom is represented as an enthroned Angel
flanked by Mother of God and John the Baptist in the group of the Deësis with Christ
in a circle above and an image of Hetimasia in the upper part of the composition is first
attested in the period of 1425–1475 (fig. 18). The first strictly dated image appears on
the frescoes of the Archbishop’s Palace (Faceted Palace) in the Kremlin of Novgorod.
The palace was built in 1433 and the frescoes seem to be synchronous with it. The early
date of the extraordinary iconography is furthermore proved by Novgorodian coins with
a representation regarded as Saint Sophia (fig. 19).69 The beginning of their minting is
dated to the 1420s. Thus, the iconography under consideration must have appeared long
before the beginning of the 15th century.
Apart from its dating, there is another problem linked with the iconographical sources
and origins of that icon. The hypothesis about its western origins proposed by Archpriest
68 KHOROSHEV 1998, 5–25; GIPPIUS 2007, 20.

69 GAYDUKOV 1993, 76–79; YANIN 2004, 64–69.
George Florovskiy and Metro-

politan Anthony (Mel’nikov),
as it seems, must be rejected as
unhistorical.70 Also the suppo-
sition that this iconography de-
rives from the Balkan frescoes
with an allegorical represen-
tation of the biblical scene of
the so-called “Banquet of Wis-
dom” (cf. Proverbs, 9) or from
images of Christ as the Angel
of the Great Council occasion-
ally influenced even by the
Hesychasm,71 finds no proof in
its historical context, painting
materials and iconographical
subjects. Meanwhile, similar
representations of crowned
and enthroned Angels in im-
perial dress with an image of
the Holy Trinity above their
heads are well known in fres-
coes of the 11th–14th centuries
from Nubian excavation in
Old Dongola and Faras carried
out by the Polish expedition
(fig. 20).72 This fact possibly
suggests that the Novgorod
Fig. 20. Fresco with the representation of a crowned Angel in
version of the icons of Saint imperial dress, 12th–13th centuries, Old Dongola, Nubian
Sophia continues the ancient (after MARTENS-CZARNECKA 2001)
iconography of the period of
the Macedonian and Komnenos dynasties of the 10th–12th centuries. That tradition would
then have only been preserved at the periphery of the Byzantine World (Russia and Nubia)
although transformed or completely forgotten in the centre of the civilization. The renais-
sance of ancient iconography in Novgorod of the 14th–15th century is possibly explained in
terms of the local ecclesiology and administrative ecclesiastic reforms of that period.
70 FLOROVSKIY 1932, 485–500; ANTONIY 1986, 67.
71 LIFSHITS 1986, 138–50; GUKOVA 2003, 197–220; BRYUSOVA 2006.
72 MARTENS-CZARNECKA 2001, 252–84.
36 Alexander Musin
Conclusions
Excavations of Russian northern sites have yielded remarkably rich material evidence
of the Byzantine culture of the 9th–15th centuries. Quantitatively, the assemblage of imports
found in Russia constitutes only a tiny part of all the objects recovered from urban deposits.
The spatial distribution of the imported items is characterized by their distinctive clustering
around the estates of local elite and medieval clergy. The artefacts of Byzantine provenance
found in Russia are outstanding in terms both of their rarity and their excellent quality,
moreover providing us with a reliable chronology. They supplement essentially the informa-
tion, often unique, preserved in Russian Christian art and literature. Similar examples have
not survived in the Mediterranean, these Russian finds will allow us therefore to update and
refine the chronology and the scheme of spatial distribution of such objects thus supplement-
ing our wider knowledge about Byzantine civilization. Hence the studies of the Byzantine
civilization through the archaeological excavations in Northern Russia, and based on the en-
tire universe of the Medieval Russian culture, seem to be extremely promising. Certainly, the
Byzantine archaeological materials from Northern Russia cannot be equally representative
as those from the Eastern Mediterranean. Archaeological layers in Russia are able to yield us
only some disperse cultural elements which are unlikely to shed light onto the everyday life of
Byzantine society. Nevertheless, these elements are often exceptionally informative provid-
ing us with essential and reliable evidence of the Byzantine civilization.
Of primary importance is the preservation in Old-Russian cultural evidence of those
elements of the Byzantine civilization which have not survived for us in Mediterra-
nean sources. The major methodological principles of the new studies demand further
discussion so as to undertake in the future a systematic description of the “lost Byzantium”.
Among the priorities must be an interdisciplinary approach to the issue under considera-
tion based on a comparison of various types of information and categories of sources, par-
ticularly archaeological. Today the main task is unification and comparison of information
on different kinds of imports, synchronization of their dating and mapping of their distri-
bution in all the territories concerned. So far only some isolated studies of archaeological
artefacts from different Byzantine regions have been conducted. Today’s urgent task is to
unify the finds within a single comparative research project in order to reveal the entire
impact of the Byzantine civilization on peripheral, particularly Russian, cultures.
The research project proposed here merits international recognition on a level with
the study of the material culture of ‘proper’ Byzantine sites. The most important tasks
include a comparative analysis of the Russian assemblage of Byzantine daily objects and
small-size finds, and of those from the Eastern Mediterranean. Organization of an in-
ternational expert group within the frame of a long-term research project seems to be
a good idea for fulfi lling that task.
Another important objective for future research would be an investigation of the ad-
aptation, preservation and transformation of Byzantine cultural strata in 9th–15th century
Old Rus’. There are firm grounds to believe that the Byzantine studies will become a more
advanced science when we review the Byzantine civilization on the basis of information
provided by archaeological investigations of the Russian medieval urban centres such as
Novgorod, Staraya Russa, Staraya Ladoga and Pskov.73
e-mail: aleksandr_musin@mail.ru
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
CYRIL OF TUROV:
„Кюрила епископа Туровьскаго сказание о черноризьчьстъмь чину от вьтхаго закона и новаго: оно-
го образ носяща, а сего делы съверщающа”, ed. И. П. Еремин (Литературное наследие Кирилла
Туровского), [in:] Труды отдела древнерусской литературы, Ленинград 1956, vol. 12, p. 340–361.
NICЕTAS STETHATOS:
Nicétas Stéthatos, Opuscules et lettres, introd., texte critique, trad. et notes par J. Darrouzes (Sources
chrétiennes 81), Paris 1961.
TIPIKON:
Алексей M. Пентковский, Типикон патриарха Алексия Студита в Византии и на Руси, Мос-
ква 2001.
POVEST:
Повесть временных лет, ed. М. Б. Свердлов, Санкт-Петербург 1996.
SUMMA:
Summa aurea de laudibus beatissimae virginis Mariae, ed. J. J. Bourassé, vol. 2. Paris 1862.
SVODNYI KATALOG:
Сводный каталог славяно-русских рукописных книг, хранящихся в СССР. XI–XIII вв., ed.
С. О. Шмидт et al., Москвa 1984.
SECONDARY LITERATURE
AFINOGENOV 2006:
Дмитрий Е. Афиногенов, “Новгородское переводное четье-минейное собрание: происхож-
дение, состав, греческий оригинал”, [in:] Abhandlungen zu den Grossen Lesemenäen des Met-
ropoliten Makarij. Kodikologische, miszellanologische und textologische Untersuchungen. vol. 2
(= Monumenta Linguae Slavicae dialecti veteris, XLIX), ed. E. Maier and E. Weiher, Freiburg i. Br.,
2006, p. 261–283.
73 I wish to thank Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance and
Bibliothèque Byzantine du Collège de France (Paris, France) for their support of my research project during
my periodical stay in Paris in 2004–2007. I also express my gratitude to Prof. Claudia Sode (Köln Univer-
sity, Germany) who invited me to a special session of the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies
(Plenary III: Infrastructures – New Byzantinists; London, 21–26 August, 2006) with papers taken as the
basis of the present article. She also helped me to improve the main part of the current English text.
38 Alexander Musin
AFINOGENOV 2007:
Dmitriy E. Afinogenov, “Lost Byzantine Sources in the Old Russian Literature”, [in:] In Search of a
Lost Byzantium. The Cultural Heritage of Old Russia as a Source for the synchronusstadial Recon-
struction of the Byzantine Civilization, ed. D. Afinogenov, A. Musin, Saint-Petersburg and Velikij
Novgorod 2007, p. 16–18.
AINALOV 1932:
Demetrius Ainalov, Geschichte des Russischen Monumentalkunst der Vormoskovitischen Zeit, Ber-
lin, Liepzig 1932.
AKENT’EV 1996:
Константин К. Акентьев, “Комментарии издателей”, [in:] Г. Подскальски, Христианство
и богословская литература в Киевской Руси (988–1237) гг., Санкт-Петербург 1996, p. 507–522.
AMORIUM REPORTS II 2003: Amorium Reports II: Research Papers and Technical Studies, ed.
Christopher S. Lightfoot [BAR International Series 1170], Oxford 2003.
ANDERSSON 1989:
Lars Andersson, Pilgrimsmärken och vallfart. Medeltida pilgrimskultur i Skandinavien, (Lund stu-
dies in medieval archaeology, 7) Stockholm 1989.
ANTONIY 1986:
Антоний (Мельников), Mитрополит, ”Из истории новгородской иконографии” Богословские
труды, 27 (1986), p. 61–80.
ARRIGHINI 1954:
Angelo Arrighini, I Doni della Madonna, Torino 1954.
BAKIRTZIS 1990:
Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Byzantine Ampullae from Thessaloniki”, [in:] The Blessings of Pilgrimage,
ed. R. Ousterhout, Chicago 1990, p. 140–149.
BOBROVSKIY, VORONTSOVA 2003:
Тимур А. Бобровський, Олена А. Воронцова “Середньовічні чернецькі шкіряні вироби з тисне-
ними зображеннями (попередне повідомлення)”, [in:] Культурна спадщина Києва: Досліджен-
ня та охорона історичного середовища, ed. Л. В. Прибега, Киïв 2003, p. 88–95.
BRYUSOVA 2006:
Вера Г. Брюсова, София Премудрость Божия в древнерусской литературе и искусстве, Мocква
2006.
BYZANTINE HOURS 2001:
Byzantine Hours: Works and Days in Byzantium: Athens – Thessaloniki – Mystras, ed. A. Doumas,
Athens 2001.
CANART 1982:
Paul Canart, “Cinq manuscrits transférés directement du monastère de Stoudios à celui de Grottafer-
rata?” [in:] Bisanzio e l’Italia. Raccolta di studi in memoria di Agostino Pertusi, (Scienze Filologiche
e Letteratura 22) Milan 1982, p. 19–28.
CATALOGUE 1965:
Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Medieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, ed.
M. C. Ross, vol. 2, Washington 1965.
CERKIEW 2001:
Cerkiew – Wielka Tajemnica. Sztuka cerkiewna od XI wieku do 1917 roku ze zbirow polskich. Katalog
wystawy, ed. D. Stryniak, Gniezno 2001.
COMEY 2007:
Martin G. Comey, “Stave-built Vessels”, [in:] Wood Use in Medieval Novgorod, ed. M. Brisbane, J.
Hather, Oxford 2007.
CRADLE 2000:
Cradle of Christianity, ed. Y. Israeli, D.Mevorah, Jerusalem 2000.
DAVIES 1996:
Norman Davies, Europe. A History, Oxford 1996.
DIRIMTEKIN 1962:
Feridun Dirimtekin, “Les fouilles faites en 1946–1947 et en 1958–1960 entre Sainte-Sophie et Sainte-
Irène à Istanbul”, Cahiers Archeologiques 13 (1962), p. 161–185.
EVERYDAY LIFE IN BYZANTIUM 2002:
Everyday life in Byzantium. Byzantine Hours: Works and Days in Byzantium: Thessaloniki, White
Tower, October 2001–January 2002, ed. D. Papanikola-Bakirtzi Athens, 2002.
FLOROVSKIY 1932:
Георгий В. Флоровский, “О почитании Софии Премудрости Божией в Византии и на Руси”, [in:]
Труды V съезда русских академических организаций заграницей, Vol. 1., София 1932, p.485–500.
FRANKLIN 1991:
Simon Franklin, Sermons and Rhetoric of Kievan Rus’, Cambridge (Mass.) 1991.
FRANKLIN 2002:
Simon Franklin, Writing, Society and Culture in Early Rus, c. 950–1300, Cambridge, New York 2002.
GAIMSTER 2001:
David R. Gaimster, “Pelts, Pitch and Pottery: the Archeology of Hanseatic Trade in Medieval Novgorod”,
[in:] Novgorod: the Archeology of a Russian Mediaval City and its Hinterland. The British Museum
Occasional Paper 141, ed. M. Brisbane, D.Gaimster, London 2001, 67–78.
GAYDUKOV 1992:
Петр Г. Гайдуков, Славенский конец средневекового Новгорода. Нутный раскоп, Москва 1992.
GAYDUKOV 1993:
Петр Г. Гайдуков, Медные русские монеты конца XIV-XVI веков, Москва 1993.
GILL 2002:
Margaret Anne V. Gill (with contributions by C.S. Lightfoot, E.A. Ivison, and M.T. Wypyski), Amorium
Reports, Finds I: The Glass (1987-1997) [BAR International Series 1070], Oxford 2002.
GIPPIUS 2007:
Алексей А. Гиппиус, “Архиепископ Антоний и новгородский культу святой Софии”, [in:] In
Search of a Lost Byzantium. The cultural Heritage of Old Russia as a Source for the synchronuss-
tadial Reconstruction of the Byzantine Civilization, ed. D.Afi nogenov, A. Musin, Saint-Petersburg
and Velikij Novgorod 2007, p. 20.
GLORY OF BYZANTIUM:
The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261, ed. H. C. Evans,
W. D. Wixom, New York 1997.
GOLOFAST, RYZOV 2003:
Лариса А. Голофаст, Станислав Г. Рыжов, “Раскопки квартала в северной части Херсонеса”,
[in:] Материалы по археологии, истории и этнографии Таврики, vol. 10, Симферополь 2003,
p. 182–260 .
GOLUBINSKIY 1997:
Евгений Е. Голубинский, История Русской Церкви, vol. 1, pt. 2, Москва 1997.
GORSKIY, NEVOSTRUEV 1869:
Александр В. Горский, Капитон И. Невоструев, Описание славняских рукописей Московской
Синодальной библиотеки. vol. 3, “Книги богослужебные”, pt. 1. Москва 1869.
GOUGH 1985:
Michael Gough, Alahan. An Early Christian Monastery in Southern Turkey, Toronto 1985.
GROSSMÄCHTIGES NOWGOROD 2003:
Großmächtiges Nowgorod. Meisterwerke der Ikonenmalerei. Die Kirche auf dem Wolotowo-Feld,
Frankfurt a. M. 2003.
40 Alexander Musin
GROZDILOV 1962:
Григорий П. Гроздилов, “Раскопки древнего Пскова (1954—1956 гг. )”, Археологический сборник
Государственного Эрмитажа.4 (1962), p. 7–76.
GUKOVA 2003:
Сания Н. Гукова, “София Премудрость Божия (к новгородскому изводу)”, Новгородский исто-
рический сборник. Санкт-Петербург 2003, vol. 9, p. 197–220.
GÜNSENIN 1993:
Nergis Günsenin, “Ganos, centre de production d’amphores à l’époque byzantine”, Anatolia antiqua 2
(1993), p. 193–201.
HARRISON 1986:
Richard M. Harrison, Excavation at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 1. “The Excavation, Structures, Archi-
tectural Decoration, Small Finds, Coins, Bones, and Molluscs”, Princeton 1986.
INNEMÉE 1992:
Karel C. Innemée, Ecclesiastical Dress in the Medieval Near East, (Studies in textile and costume
history 1) Leiden-New York-Köln 1992.
INNOKENTIY 1899:
Иннокентий (Беляев), Пострижение в монашество. Опыт историко-литургического исследова-
ния обрядов и чинопоследований пострижения в монашество в греческих и русских церквах до
XVII века включительно, Вильно 1899.
JOHNS 1997:
Cedric Norman Johns, Pilgrim’s Castle (Atlit), David’s Tower (Jerusalem) and Qalat ar-Rabad
(Ajlun): Three Middle Eastern Castles from the Time of the Crusades, Aldershot 1997.
IN SEARCH OF A LOST BYZANTIUM 2007:
In Search of a Lost Byzantium. The cultural Heritage of Old Russia as a Source for the synchronuss-
tadial Reconstruction of the Byzantine Civilization, ed. D. Afinogenov, A. Musin, Saint-Petersburg and
Velikij Novgorod 2007.
KALAVREZOU-MAXEINER 1985:
Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, Byzantine Icons in Steatite, (Byzantina Vindobonensia, 15/2.) vol. 2,
Vienna 1985.
KEENAN 2005:
Edward L. Keenan, “The Trading Town on the Volkhov”, [in:] Sacred Arts and City Life. The Glory of
Medieval Novgorod, ed. Y. Petrova, C. Griffith Mann, Saint-Petersburg 2005, p. 15–23.
KHOROSHEV 1998:
Александр С. Хорошев, “Новгородская святая София и псковская святая Троица по летописным
данным: Из истории местных патрональных культов” Medievalia Ukrainika: Ментальность
та iстория iдей 5 (1998), p. 5–15.
KOLCHIN 1989:
Boris A. Kolchin, Wooden Artefacts from Medieval Novgorod (BAR International Series, 495), Oxford
1989.
KOLCHIN, KHOROSHEV, YANIN 1981:
Борис А. Колчин, Александр С. Хорошев, Валентин Л. Янин, Усадьба новгородского художника
XII века, Москва 1981.
КОRAĆ 2001/2002:
Војислав Кораћ, Истраживање остатака храма Св. Пантелејмона у Нишу, Зборник радова
Византолошког института 39 (2001/2002), p. 103–145.
KORZUKHINA, PESKOVA 2003:
Гали Ф Корзухина, Анна А. Пескова, Древнерусские энколпионы. Нагрудные кресты-
реликварии X–XIII вв., Санкт-Петербург 2003.
KOVAL 2000:
Владимир Ю. Коваль, “Византийская поливная керамика из раскопок в Новгороде”, [in:] Новго-
род и Новгородская земля. История и археология 14, Великий Новгород 2000, p. 127–138.
KOVAL 2005:
Владимир Ю. Коваль, “Восточные связи рязанской земли по материалам импортной ке-
рамики”, [in:] Великое княжество Рязанское. Историко-археологические исследования
и материалы, ed. А. В. Чернецов, Москва 2005, p. 480–532.
KOVAL 2006:
Vladimir Y. Koval, “Eastern Pottery from the Excavations at Novgorod”, [in:] The Pottery from Medi-
eval Novgorod and its Region, ed. C. Orton, New York 2006, p. 161−192.
LASAREV 1967:
Viktor Lasarev, Die russische Ikone. Von den Anfangen bis zum Beginn des 16.Jahrhunderts, Zu-
rich, Dusseldorf 1967.
LASKARIS 2000:
Nikolaos G. Laskaris, Monuments funéraires paleochretiens (et byzantins) de Grèce, Athènes 2000.
LIFSHITS 1986:
Лев И. Лифшиц, “Премудрость в русской иконописи”, Византийский Временник 61 (2002),
p. 138–150.
LIGHTFOOT 2005:
Christopher C. Lightfoot, “Glass Finds at Amorium”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59 (2005), p. 173–181.
LIGHTFOOT 2003:
Mücahide Lightfoot, “Belt Buckles from Amorium and in the Afyon Archaeological Museum”, [in:]
Amorium Reports II 2003, p. 81–103.
MAJESKA 1984:
George P. Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the fourteenth and fi fteenth Centuries,
Washington D.C. 1984.
MAJESKA 2002:
George P. Majeska, “Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 (2002),
p. 93–108.
MANGO 2003:
Marlia Mundell Mango, “The Centre in and beyond the Periphery: material Culture in the Early Byz-
antine Empire”, [in:] Byzantina-Metabyzantina. La périphérie dans le temps et l’espace, Paris 2003,
p. 119–127.
MARIA NEL CULTO CATTOLICO:
Maria nel culto cattolico, ed. P. Gabriele, M. Rochini, Torino 1943, vol. 2. “Il culto di Maria nelle di-
vozioni particolari, nei sodalizi e nei congressi Mariani”.
MARTENS - CZARNECKA 2001:
Małgorzata Martens-Czarnecka, “Wall Paintings discovered in Old Dongola”, [in:] Dongola-Studien 35
jahre polnischer Forschungen im Zentrum des makuritischen Reiches, ed. S. Jakobielski, P. O. Scholz,
Warszawa 2001, p. 25–258.
MOTHER OF GOD 2000:
Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. M. Vassilaki, Athens 2000.
MIKHAYLOV 2005:
Кирилл A. Михайлов, “Новая находка византийской пряжки на Рюриковом Городище”, [in:] Нов-
город и Новгородская земля. История и археология 19, Великий Новгород 2005, p. 209–218.
MUSIN 1999:
Александр Е. Мусин, “Археология древнерусского паломничества в Святую Землю в XII–XV
вв.”, [in:] Богословские труды. К 150-летию Русской Духовной миссии в Иерусалиме (1847–
–1997), Mосква 1999, p. 92–110.
42 Alexander Musin
MUSIN 2003:
Александр Е. Мусин, “Социальные аспекты истории древнерусской Церкви по данным
новгородских берестяных грамот”, [in:] Берестяные грамоты: 50 лет открытия и изучения.
Материалы международной конференции. Великий Новгород, 24–27 сентября 2001 г. ed. В. Л.
Янин. Москва 2003, p. 102–124.
MUSIN 2004:
Александр Е. Мусин, “Усадьба «И» Неревского раскопа. Опыт комплексной характеристики
христианских древностей”, [in:] Новгородские археологические чтения – 2. Материалы науч-
ной конференции, посвященной 70-летию археологического изучения Новгорода и 100-летию
со дня рождения основателя Новгородской археологической экспедиции А. В. Арциховского,
г. Великий Новгород, 21–24 сентября 2002 г., ed. В. Л. Янин, Великий Новгород 2004, p. 137–151.
MUSIN 2006a:
Alexander E. Musin, “Change in Faith or Shift in Culture? Christianity and Christianization in the
Archaeology of Europe”, [in:] 12th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists.
Cracow, Poland, 19–24 September 2006. Abstracts, ed. H. Dobrzanska, Cracow 2006, p. 251–252.
MUSIN 2006b:
Александр Е. Мусин, “Археология «личного благочестия» в христианской традиции Востока
и Запада”, [in:] Христианская иконография Востока и Запада в памятниках материальной
культуры Древней Руси и Византии. Памяти Татьяны Чуковой, ed. А. Е. Мусин., Санкт-Пе-
тербург 2006, p. 163–222.
MUSIN 2006c:
Александр Е. Мусин, “К интерпретации граффито с изображением корабля на кирпиче
из церкви Успения на Волотовом поле 1352 г.”, Новгород и Новгородская земля. История
и археология 20 (2006), p. 296–306.
OIKONOMODES 1990:
Nicolas Oikonomides, “The Contents of the Byzantine House from the Eleventh to the Fifteenth Cen-
tury”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990), p. 205–214.
ONASCH 1969:
Konrad Onasch, Gross Novgorod und das Reich der Heiligen Sophia. Kirchen und Kulturgeschichte
einer alten Russischen Stadt und ihres Hinterlandes, Leipzig, 1969.
PALMOV 1914:
Иван Н. Пальмов, Пострижение в монашество. Чины пострижения в монашество в Гречес-
кой Церкви: историко-археологическое исследование, Киев 1914.
PATRICH 1995:
Joseph Patrich, Sabas, Leader of Palestinian Monasticism: a comparative Study in Eastern Monasti-
cism, fourth to seventh Centuries, (Dumbarton Oaks Studies 32) Washington D.C. 1995.
PETROV 1913:
Николай И. Петров, Альбом достопримечательностей церковно-археологического музея при
Императорской киевской духовной академии. Выпуск III. Южнорусские иконы, Киев 1913.
PITARAKIS 2006:
Brigitte Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires pectorales byzantines en bronze, (Bibliothèque des Cahiers
Archéologiques 16) Paris 2006.
PLOHOV 2007:
Алексей B. Плохов, “Средневековая стеклянная посуда Новгородского (Рюрикова) городища”,
[in:] У истоков русской государственности. К 30-летию археологического изучения Новго-
родского Рюрикова Городища и Новгородской областной археологической экспедиции. Исто-
рико-археологический сборник. Материалы международной конференции. 4–7 октября 2005
г., Великий Новгород, Россия, ed. Е. Н. Носов, А. Е. Мусин, Санкт-Петербург 2007, p. 166–175.
PODSKALSKY 1996:
Герхард Подскальски, Христианство и богословская литература в Киевской Руси (988–1237 гг.),
Санкт-Петербург 1996. (See also the original texte and the Polish translation: Christentum und
theologische Literatur in der Kiever Rus’ (988–1237), München, 1982; Chrześcijaństwo i literatura
teologiczna na Rusi Kijowskiej (988–1237), przeklad Juliusz Zychowicz. Kraków, 2000).
RAUTMAN 2006:
Marcus Rautman, Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire, Westport-London 2006.
RYBINA 1992:
Elena A. Rybina, “Trade Links of Novgorod established through archeological Data”, [in:] The Archae-
ology of Novgorod, Russia: Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland, ed. M. A. Brisbane (The
Society for Medieval Archaeology. Monograph series 13), Lincoln 1992.
SALDERN 1980:
Axel von Saldern, Ancient and Byzantine Glass from Sardis, Cambridge–London 1980.
SAN NICOLA 2006:
San Nicola. Splendori d’arte d’Oriente e d’Occidente. Bari, Castelo Svevo. 7 dicembre 2006–
–6 maggio 2007, ed. M. Bacci. Milano 2006.
SANDERS 2004:
Guy D. R. Sanders, “Problems in Interpreting Rural and Urban Settlement in Southern Greece AD
365-700”, [in:] Landscape of Change. Rural Evolutions in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,
ed. N. Christie, Aldershot, 2004, p. 163–194.
SEDOVA 1981:
Мария В. Седова, Ювелирные изделия Древнего Новгорода (X–XV вв.), Москвa 1981.
SECULAR BUILDINGS 2004:
Secular Buildings and the Archeology of Everyday Life in the Byzantine Empire, ed. Kenneth
R. Dark, Oxford 2004.
SHCHAPOVA 1998:
Юлия Л. Щапова, Византийское стекло. Очерки истории, Москвa 1998.
SMIRNOVA 2005:
Lyubov I. Smirnova, Comb-making in Medieval Novgorod (950–1450): An Industry in Transition,
Oxford 2005.
SMIRNOVA 2007:
Lyubov I. Smirnova, “Wooden Combs in the Light of the History of Comb-making Novgorod”, [in:]
Wood use in Medieval Novgorod, ed. M. Brisbane, J. Hather. Oxford 2007, p. 298–234.
SODINI 1993:
Jean-Pierre Sodini, “La contribution de l’archéologie à la connaissance du monde byzantin (IVe– VIIe
sicèles)”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), p. 139–184.
TARABARDINA 2001a:
Olga A. Tarabardina, “Dendrochronology in Novgorod: its History and current Programme of Re-
search”, [in:] Novgorod: The Archaeology of a Russian Medieval City and its Hinterland, eds.
M. Brisbane and D. Gaimster, (British Museum occasional Paper 141) London 2001. p. 47–50.
TARABARDINA 2001b:
Olga A. Tarabardina, „Geschichtstdaten auf der Straße aufgelesen. Dendrochronologische Forschun-
gen in Novgorod“, [in:], Novgorod. Das mittelalterliche Zentrum und sein Umland im Norden Ruß-
lands. Studien zur Siedlungsgeschihte und Archäologie der Ostseegebite, eds. M. Müller-Wille, V. Ja-
nin, E. Nosov and E. Rybina, Bd. 1. Neumunster, 2001, p. 99–108.
THOMPSON 1967:
Michael W. Thompson, Novgorod the Great: Excavations at the Medieval City Directed by A. V. Art-
sikhovsky and B. A. Kolchin, New York 1967.
44 Alexander Musin
TOTEV 1990:
Konstantin Totev, “Icones et croix de steatite de Tarnovo”, Cahiers archeologiques 40 (1992) p.
123–138.
TZAFERIS 1975:
Vasilios Tzaferis, “The archaeological Excavation at Shepherd’s Field”, Liber annuus 25 (1975),
p. 5–52.
VOLKOV 1996:
Игорь Волков, „Амфоры Новгорода Великого и некоторые заметки о византийско-русской тор-
говле вином”, [in:] Новгород и Новгородская земля. История и археология 10, Новгород 1996,
p. 90–103.
VOLKOV 2005:
Игорь Волков, “Амфоры Новгорода: хронология и распределение в слое”, [in:] Новгород
и Новгородская земля. История и археология 19, Великий Новгород 2005, p. 145–163.
VOLKOV 2006:
Игорь M. Volkov, “Amphorae from Novgorod the Great and Comments on the Wine Trade between
Byzantium and Medieval Russia”, [in:] The Pottery from Medieval Novgorod and its Region, ed.
C. Orton, New York, 2006, p. 145–160.
WENTKOWSKA VERZI 2000:
Anna Wentkowska Verzi, „Alcune insegne di pellegrinagio dall’area grossetana”, [in:] Archeologia
medievale 27 (2000), p. 423–432.
YANIN 1985:
Valentin Yanin, “Medieval Novgorod: Fifty Years’ Experience of Digging up the Past”, [in:] The com-
parative History of Urban Origins in Non-Roman Europe, (BAR International Series) Oxford 1985,
p. 647–667.
YANIN 2004:
Валентин Л. Янин, “Новгород и Венеция (об изображении на новгородских монетах)”, [in:] Вос-
точная Европа в Средневековье. К 80-летию Валентина Васильевича Седова, Москвa 2004,
p. 64–69.
YASHAEVA 2005:
Татьяна. Ю. Яшаева, “Ампула св. Мины и карта Херсонесских пилигримов”, [in:] Культ святых
мест в древних и современных религиях. Сборник научных трудов, Sacrum et Profanum, ed.
Н. А. Алексeенко, Севастополь 2005, p. 201–206.
YKOVLEVA 2005:
Анна И. Яковлева, “Византийский Додекаортон и русские праздничные чины Рублевской эпо-
хи”, Искусство христианского мира 9 (2005), p. 74–87.
ZALESSKAYA 2005:
Вера Н. Залесская, “Византийские стеатитовые образки и кресты эпохи Крестовых походов
в собрании Государственного Эрмитажа”, Искусство христианского мира 9 (2005), p. 29–35.
ZHARNOV, ZHARNOVA 1999:
Юрий Э. Жарнов, Валентина И. Жарнова, “Произведения прикладного искусства из раскопок
во Владимире”, [in:] Древнерусское искусство. Византия и Древняя Русь, Санкт-Петербург
1999, p. 451–462.
L’éloquence au service de l’archéologie.

Les « enfants aimés » de Theodore
Métochite et sa bibliothèque dans
le monastère de Chora*
Athanassios Semoglou
Université Aristote de Thessalonique,
Département d’Archéologie
L’inconscient est structuré comme un langage

Jacques Lacan
A la mémoire d’Angeliki Laiou
L’existence des rapports entre la littérature et l’art en tant qu’une réalité signifiante fut
judicieusement relevée et méthodiquement démontrée par Henry Maguire dans son ouvra-
ge de référence Art and Eloquence in Byzantium publié en 1981. Bien que la recherche
antérieure ait découvert dans certains hymnes ou oraisons des origines et parfois des inter-
prétations extraordinaires de quelques schémas iconographiques1, ce n’est que Maguire qui
a ouvert une nouvelle voie pour étudier dans son ensemble le phénomène du transfert de
la rhétorique de la parole à l’image. Malgré le fonds commun et l’unité des sources d’inspi-
*
Mes vifs remerciements aux collègues et organisateurs du symposium Towards Rewriting, Messieurs
Piotr Grotowski et Sławomir Skrzyniarz, de m’avoir invité à Cracovie, à partager avec eux mes réflexions
sur l’art du catholicon de Chora à Constantinople. Je remercie aussi le professeur d’Histoire Byzantine à
l’Université Aristote de Thessalonique, Mr Theodoros Korres, de sa gentillesse de m’avoir prêté pour la
publication certaines photos de son archive.
1 Pour la recherche antérieure sur l’influence de la rhétorique sur l’art, voir MAGUIRE 1981, 4 et 113.
46 Athanassios Semoglou
Fig. 1. Chora, exonarthex, intérieur, vue générale de l’angle sud-ouest (archive Th. Korres)
ration de l’imaginaire qui nourrit un langage, écrit ou visuel, les règles et les conditions du
passage d’un domaine à l’autre, de l’emprunt et/ou de l’application d’une technique diffé-
rente, représentent autant de questions à répondre et de paramètres à considérer.
Dans cette problématique, Maguire a analysé les effets visuels des schémas rhétoriques,
en commençant par le genre le plus populaire, l’ekphrasis, c’est-à-dire la description litté-
raire2. L’épisode du Massacre des Innocents, sujet relaté d’une manière très succincte par
Matthieu l’évangéliste (2:16–18) ainsi que dans certains textes apocryphes3, fut le champ
de vérification de sa théorie sur l’influence de la rhétorique sur l’image4. En fait, le déve-
loppement dramatique de l’iconographie, enrichie d’épisodes secondaires qui relèvent et
animent fortement la trame narrative de la composition, témoigne de l’emploi d’une source
homilétique indépendante du texte canonique, telle une paraphrase5. Selon nos connais-
sances, la plus ancienne paraphrase littéraire de ce genre est l’homélie De infantibus de
Basile, l’archevêque de la ville de Seleuceia, composée au Ve siècle6. Qu’elles que soient les
2 MAGUIRE 1981, 22–52. Pour un aperçu de la littérature scientifique sur l’ekphrasis, voir aussi Eikon
kai Logos 2006, 165–74.

3 Protévangile 22.1 ; Pseudo-Matthieu 17.
4 MAGUIRE 1981, 25–34.
5 Une paraphrase joue le rôle d’un texte exégétique qui révèle son importance et explique la signification
contemporaine de l’événement qu’elle décrit. En d’autres termes, la paraphrase connecte le contemporain

avec la narration évangélique (JOHNSON 2004, 11).
6 MAGUIRE 1981, 26.
L’éloquence au service de l’archéologie 47
Fig. 2. Chora, plan du programme iconographique (selon OUSTERHOUT 2002)

raisons ou les motifs de cette création littéraire, elle a nourri, de fait, l’imagerie religieuse
de schémas inspirés et fort dramatiques.
L’exemple le plus remarquable est celui du catholicon du monastère de Chora
à Constantinople, restauré par le grand logothète Théodore Métochite dans la seconde dé-
cennie du XIVe siècle7. L’unicité de cet exemple, jusqu’à ce jour paradoxalement jamais
discutée in extenso et non suffisamment expliquée, consiste en son déploiement particuliè-
rement étendue dans l’exonarthex de l’église (fig. 1)8. Le Massacre des Innocents de Chora
se développe en quatre registres, à une autonomie scénique extraordinaire qui leur confère
un caractère de tableaux (fig. 2)9. L’histoire se déroule en quatre actes représentés avec
éloquence et correspondant aux quatre moments distincts : l’ordre d’Hérode sur le mur
sud de l’exonarthex (fig. 3), l’exécution c’est-à-dire l’événement du Massacre (fig. 4), les
effets tragiques des lamentations des mères (fig. 5) qui font contraste avec le quatrième
acte, le salut miraculeux des protagonistes, Elisabeth et l’enfant, saint Jean le Prodrome,
enfuis dans la grotte (fig. 6). Les trois derniers épisodes occupent la bande supérieure et
se déploient sur toute la surface du mur ouest, à partir de l’entrée et jusqu’à l’angle sud
de l’exonarthex.
Il s’agit, bien évidemment, d’un cycle iconographique entier, résultat d’un procédé par-
ticulièrement descriptif, propre à une narration, basé apparemment sur un texte beaucoup
plus dramatique et riche en détails que celui de la Bible. Maguire n’avance aucune supposi-
tion, mais il est très probable que le mosaïste de Chora ait été inspiré par un manuscrit il-
lustrant avec minutie une homélie ou un autre texte relatif aux événements du Massacre10.
Les sources d’inspiration paraissent évidentes ou faciles à identifier, dans le cadre de
cette interdépendance entre la parole et l’image. Néanmoins, les raisons pour lesquelles
on insiste plutôt sur la mise en scène exceptionnelle d’un sujet que sur son choix11 restent
obscures. On doit remarquer que la manière cinématographique de la présentation du cycle
qui se rattache directement à l’art dramatique (comme en témoignent les gestes et les atti-
tudes expressifs des mères en deuil), ne pourrait pas résulter simplement du style narratif
imprégné de valeurs affectives, selon le goût et l’esthétique de l’art paléologue12. Elle consti-
7 UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 2, pl. 184–99 ; pour la description, t. 1, 98–104.

8 Jacqueline LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE a déjà signalé que les éléments iconographiques du Massacre
sont à l’ordinaire incorporés dans une seule composition, alors qu’à Chora ils s’étendent pour remplir l’es-
pace des quatre lunettes, tout en témoignant de l’inventivité de l’artiste (LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1975,
229-31). Nelson remarque aussi la singularité de la violence des tortures illustrées en détails dans le catho-
licon de Chora, NELSON 1999, 75.
9 Sur le plan de Robert Ousterhout que nous reproduisons ici, les compositions en question sont mar-
quées par les Nos 38, 39, 40 et 41, OUSTERHOUT 2002, 9.

10 Pareillement, la source d’inspiration de la composition rarissime du Recensement pour les impôts fut
l’art des manuscrits, LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1975, 207.

11 Toutefois, il faut remarquer la rareté de la composition du Massacre des Innocents dans l’art ortho-
doxe ; pour des exemples à Byzance, voir STAVROPOULOU-MAKRI 1990, 366–69.

12 VELMANS 1967, 47–57.
Fig. 3. Chora, exonarthex (mur sud), l’Ordre d’Hérode (Photo : P. Grotowski)
tue, en fait, une séquence progressive et consciente des valeurs inconnues dont la structure
dépasse les normes et les règles de l’époque13.
Paul Underwood, devant la question du déploiement exceptionnel de la scène, recher-
che une explication sur l’élasticité du programme iconographique des deux narthex du ca-
tholicon, surtout celui qui illustre la vie de la Vierge et l’enfance du Christ14. Par exemple, la
répétition de l’épisode de l’Ange qui nourrit la Vierge dans la Présentation de la Vierge au
Temple ou l’apparition d’une composition totalement inconnue dans l’art byzantin, comme
celle de l’Instruction de la Vierge au Temple sur le troisième arc juste à droite de l’entrée
qui mène au narthex intérieur, s’intègrent, selon le chercheur américain, dans l’effort des
iconographes de s’adapter aux formes architecturales du monument15. Néanmoins, cette
logique de filling the gaps ne nous semble pas nécessaire pour soutenir une thèse bien
évidente : le programme iconographique ne pouvait être ni dessiné en entier ni fixé dans
ses moindres détails avant la construction du monument. Il serait naïf de considérer l’éta-
13 Signalons, par exemple, que l’extension d’un cycle d’épisodes résurrectionnels dans le programme de
certains monuments de l’art paléologue (cycle de Milutine), phénomène qui a également provoqué la créa-
tion de nouvelles compositions fort originales dans l’iconographie byzantine, fait référence à un goût et un
besoin narratif de cette période. Cependant, ce dernier fut d’évidence combiné avec une fonction interpréta-
tive complémentaire du message théologique de la Résurrection, ZARRAS 2007, 110–11.
14 UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 1, 35.
15 UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 1, 35.
Fig. 4. Chora, exonarthex (mur ouest), le Massacre (selon UNDERWOOD 1966)
Fig. 5. Chora, exonarthex (mur ouest), les Lamentations (selon UNDERWOOD 1966)
Fig. 6. Chora, exonartex (mur ouest), le Salut d’Elisabeth et de Jean (Photo : P. Grotowski)
lement du Massacre et son analyse en quatre épisodes comme une invention du dernier
moment, juste pour remplir l’espace pictural des lunettes du mur ouest de l’exonarthex16.
Mais pourquoi alors cette mise en valeur de la composition en question? Y a-t-il, peut-être,
un rapport entre la place qu’elle occupe et le contexte de l’image? Enfin, pourrait-on éven-
tuellement rechercher l’implication du donateur Métochite dans le choix ou même dans la
conjugaison du sujet?
En commençant par la dernière question, la recherche s’est déjà prononcée en faveur de
l’implication personnelle du grand savant dans la formation du programme iconographi-
que sophistiqué du catholicon et de la chapelle latérale de Kariye17 ainsi que dans le choix
de certaines compositions. Par exemple, dans la figure de l’éparque de Syrie, Cyrenius dans
la scène extraordinaire du Recensement pour les impôts, située sur première lunette du
16 Je considère assez simpliste la proposition d’Underwood qui interprète l’addition de la composition
de l’Instruction de la Vierge au Temple comme « a space filler » image. Déjà Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne
interprète la scène en question, d’inspiration occidentale, en lien avec l’épisode de la Vierge nourrie par
l’ange, en face et qui partage le même arc, tout en mettant l’accent sur le Temple, en tant que lieu principal
de l’enfance de la Vierge, LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1975, 182. D’ailleurs, Robert Ousterhout a signalé les
rapports du cycle de l’Enfance de la Vierge avec l’emplacement et la symbolique du Temple dans le narthex.
Par l’alignement sur l’axe central des compositions qui se réfèrent au Temple, son importance est mise ainsi
en évidence, OUSTERHOUT 1995a, 100–01.
17 OUSTERHOUT 1995, 66 ; selon Ousterhout, la densité de significations du programme iconogra-
phique de Chora témoigne de l’implication du donateur savant dans sa conception. Cf. aussi OUSTE-
RHOUT 1995a, 92.
Fig. 7. Chora, exonarthex (mur oriental), le Recensement pour les impôts

(selon OUSTERHOUT 2002)
mur oriental de l’exonarthex (fig. 7), Robert Ousterhout a reconnu la personne du dona-
teur Métochite, tel qu’il est portraituré sur le linteau de l’entrée qui mène au naos (fig. 8)18.
Cette identification ne s’appuie pas seulement sur les caractéristiques de la physionomie
et des vêtements, qui renvoient à un haut officier byzantin19, mais surtout sur le contexte
de la composition. En effet, Robert Nelson est parvenu à attribuer à cette composition,
unique dans l’art mural byzantin au moins jusqu’à l’époque du décor du monument20, des
valeurs et des messages propres à une propagande politique21. La crise politique et sociale
profonde, sous le règne des Paléologues, semble avoir favorisé une recherche des soutiens
moraux dans le sentiment religieux, notamment dans des histoires moralisantes des héros
18 OUSTERHOUT 2002, 122. L’identification s’appuie sur le fait que Métochite fut responsable de la
collection des impôts en tant que chargé de la Trésorerie.

19 Signalons que Underwood indique les similitudes du couvre-chef des deux personnages, UNDE-
RWOOD 1966, t. 1, 89.

20 La scène est rarissime dans l’iconographie paléologue. Elle apparaît également à Curtea de Argeş
(1377–1382), à Kalenić (premier quart du XVe siècle) ainsi qu’à l’église de la Vierge à Méronas, près du
Rethymnon en Crète (1390) ; les trois compositions sont plus ou moins appuyées sur le modèle de Chora,
PASQUIER 2001, 179–84.
21 NELSON 1999, 56–78.
bibliques. Ainsi, la sainte famille fonc-

tionnait-elle comme un modèle à suivre
et le devoir citoyen de payer les impôts
disposait en définitive d’une image de
marque22.
Certes, une telle interprétation so-
ciologique, revêtue, il est vrai, d’un
aspect romantique, pourrait engen-
drer une explication analogue de la
narration, étrangement analytique, de
la composition du Massacre des Inno-
cents23. On pourrait se demander, par
exemple, si ce scénario cruel de l’histoi-
re biblique n’est pas une évocation pos-
sible des infanticides? Ce phénomène,
constant à l’époque24, a provoqué des
problèmes démographiques aigus, fai-
sant écho à une grave crise sociale. Déjà
Angeliki Laiou a remarqué une baisse
importante de naissances, suscitant le
déclin du monde paysan en Byzance,
surtout courant la première moitié du
XIVe siècle25. Fig. 8. Chora, narthex, linteau de l’entrée, le donateur
Une explication comparable fut Métochite, détail (selon OUSTERHOUT 2002)
d’ailleurs récemment proposée à pro-
22
L’analyse du fonds scénique fait aussi preuve de la diachronie de la composition qui comporte l’ar-
rivée de la sainte famille et sa présentation devant les autorités, HJORT 2004, 34. Il est aussi à remarquer
que le voisinage de cette scène avec la Nativité, dont l’emplacement dans l’exonarthex porte aussi à réflexion,
ne s’intègre pas seulement dans la logique narrative biblique. En premier lieu, l’intercalation de cette scène
unique dans le cycle de l’enfance du Christ appelle le spectateur à un raisonnement analogique servant à
légitimer le poids des impôts. Comme l’événement de la Nativité à Bethléem a présupposé l’obligation de
la sainte famille et de tout individu devant l’État, de même la renaissance de l’Empire byzantin passe né-
cessairement par le renouveau de ses fonds et sources économiques à travers la taxation des citoyens (pour
un aperçu sur les différentes catégories de taxes et leurs conséquences durant le règne d’Andronic II, voir
OIKONOMIDIS 1999, 195–205 ; pour le collecteur d’impôts et son image dans la société paléologue, voir en
bref KYRITSIS 1999, 186–88).
23 Signalons que la juxtaposition ainsi que l’analyse combinatoire des ces deux compositions, celles du
recensement pour les impôts et du Massacre des Innocents, furent déjà l’objet des articles de Robert Nelson,
NELSON 1999, 76 ; NELSON 2004, 3.
24 Voir par exemple le phénomène d’infanticide en Grèce durant la période hellénistique, POMEROY
1993, 207–222 ou des infanticides féminins en France au Xe siècle, COLEMAN 1974, 315–35.
25 LAIOU 1977, 292–95. Cf aussi les remarques d’Angeliki Laiou sur la crise démographique déclenchée
à partir du début du XIVe siècle dans la société rurale, LAIOU 1979, 226–28.
pos de la même représentation dans le narthex du catholicon du Prophète Elie à Thessalo-

nique, datée du dernier quart du XIVe siècle26. Là, la professeur Maria Kambouri-Vamvou-
cou a entrepris de rechercher des rapports éventuels entre la scène en question et le danger
des conquêtes ottomanes, notamment le phénomène des islamisations. Sans entrer dans
les détails, dans l’attente de la publication de sa communication, il suffirait, pour le mo-
ment, de retenir les paramètres sociaux et historiques de la composition en tant que les
facteurs probables de sa diffusion dans la peinture monumentale à partir de la période
paléologue27.
S’il en est ainsi, l’histoire de l’enfance du Christ dans l’exonarthex du catholicon du mo-
nastère de Chora prendrait l’aspect d’une critique sociale précise, chargée de messages po-
litiques. Ce deuxième niveau de lecture semble également être confirmé par les similitudes
iconographiques, dont gestes et attitudes, entre Hérode donnant l’ordre du Massacre et
l’éparque Cyrenius, dans la scène du recensement. Dans les deux cas, l’actualité visuelle de
celui qui représente le pouvoir, Cyrénius ou Hérode, conforte le propos social28.
Toutefois, le développement de l’épisode en plusieurs registres ainsi que l’emplacement
du cycle sur le prolongement, à l’ouest de la chapelle sud, dont la fonction privée est cer-
taine, trahissent la volonté de l’inspirateur de personnaliser cette composition religieuse29.
Cette note personnelle a orienté notre recherche vers les poèmes de Métochite, œuvres
d’intimité et d’éloquence suprême30.
Un de ces poèmes, « Recommandations au savant Nicéphore Grégoras et sur ses pro-
pres ouvrages », annoté par Rodolphe Guilland en 1926, a retenu notre attention31. Méto-
chite, n’ayant pas d’enfant pouvant accueillir en héritage sa science et ses écrits, choisit son
ami fidèle, Grégoras, comme son héritier intellectuel.
26 MAVROPOULOU-TSIOUMI 1992, 159.

27 KAMBOURI-VAMVOUCOU 2001, 459. Le message politique et social de la composition du Massacre
des Innocents à l’église du Prophète Elie à Thessalonique fut aussi l’objet principal de sa communication au
29e Congrès Historique Panhellénique qui a eu lieu à Thessalonique (16–18 mai 2008).
28 Si Cyrenius fait figure de bon gouverneur, OUSTERHOUT 2002, 122 ; NELSON 2004, 11, Hérode,
représenté de l’autre côté de l’exonarthex de manière à correspondre en diagonale avec le premier, constitue
en vérité le pôle opposé, représentant le pouvoir injuste : une confrontation visuelle inspirée par un autre
schéma littéraire, celui de l’antithèse, MAGUIRE 1981, 53–83. À cet égard, les deux portraits des gouver-
neurs, qui prennent place dans le programme iconographique de l’exonarthex de Chora, pourraient traduire
une critique exprimée par Métochite face aux différents aspects du pouvoir et de ses effets dans l’économie
salutaire de l’Humanité. Voir à ce propos l’ensemble des commentaires de Métochite sur le bon gouverneur
dans le premier BasilikÒj. (THEODOROS METOCHITES 2007, I. ch. 11–12, 215–25).
29 Robert Nelson se prononce aussi sur le caractère personnel du cycle du Massacre et son importance
exceptionnelle pour Métochite, le donateur, mais d’un autre point de vue ; celui de la perte douloureuse de
sa patrie, l’Asie Mineure, sa mère nourricière, NELSON 1999, 75.
30 Sur l’ensemble de la poésie de Métochite et son contenu, voir l’introduction de FEATHERSTONE 2000,
11-18. Pour l’ancienne bibliographie sur les poèmes de Métochite, FEATHERSTONE 2000, 12, n. 4.
31 Ce poème E„j tÕn NikhfÒron tÕn Grhgor©n ØpoqÁkai kai \ peri\ tîn o„ke…wn suntagm£twn
fut publié par Rodolph Guilland en 1926 y compris certaines parties des textes grecs, GUILLAND 1926,
269–80. Pour une publication plus récente du texte grec complet, accompagné de sa traduction en anglais,
voir ŠEVČENKO/FEATHERSTONE 1981, 28–45.
Métochite prie donc Grégoras d’écouter ses conseils et dernières volontés32. Le poème
en question, composé avant 1332, date de la mort du logothète, est écrit en hexamètres
dans un style recherché et en un dialecte épique ; il constitue un testament intellectuel du
savant et sa valeur historique s’avère particulièrement importante.
Dans cette œuvre, Métochite confie à Grégoras les livres qu’il a composés, fruit de ses
lectures. Ces livres représentent pour lui le plus précieux de tous les trésors. Une assi-
milation, reprise plusieurs fois dans le poème, en témoigne33. Nous citons la traduction
légèrement paraphrasée de Guilland : « mes livres me sont chers comme des enfants ; je
les ai engendrés au prix de douleurs, comparables à celles d’un accouchement pénible. Je
les aime passionnément ; je veux les voir restés immortels à l’abri de toutes les injures ; je
désire ne pas voir le temps, comme un torrent impétueux, les entraîner ; car le temps, dans
son cours irrésistible, emporte indistinctement ce qui est bon et ce qui ne l’est pas, dans les
gouffres de l’oubli »34.
L’assimilation des livres aux enfants permet à Métochite de développer son discours
tout en livrant son état psychologique. Par cette personnification, l’auteur passe du symbo-
lique au sémiotique, selon le terme de Julia Kristeva, tout en déployant une dramaturgie de
ses désirs, de ses peurs, enfin de ses obsessions35. La suite de son poème en témoigne : « Je
te demande, dans les années à venir, de protéger, de défendre mes enfants, afin de les sau-
ver, afin de les faire durer obstinément, afin de les faire honorer de ceux qui viennent après
moi »36. Dans un paroxysme émouvant, Métochite prie Grégoras de « protéger l’ensemble
de ses ouvrages, fils les plus chers, les plus désirés de son âme, …afin qu’ils rappellent plus
tard le souvenir de son existence »37. Et l’appel dramatique à son disciple continue : « Rien
ne saurait me paraître meilleur ni plus agréable de toi, si après t’avoir laissé comme tuteur,
à mes enfants encore très jeunes, je te voyais leur faire du bien, à eux qui sont le fruit de
mes peines, à eux, mes enfants si chéris… Puisses-tu, après ma mort, les garder intacts,
en prendre grand soin. Par dieu de l’amitié, par dieu de l’éloquence, ne me prive point de
32GUILLAND 1926, 269.
33Le souci de Métochite pour ses livres réapparaît dans sa lettre qu’il a adressée de son exile aux moines
de Chora. Métochite prie les moines d’avoir toujours soin de son monastère ainsi que de ses propres livres
(ŠEVČENKO 1975, 58–88).
34 «T£wn d¾ polÚ g' ¢mfimšmhla f…lwn, ¤te tšknwn, ¤tta mogostÒkoij çd‹si gšnont' ¥r ™mo…
ge: ¥fqita t' e‡ramai biÒein ¢z»mi£ t' a„šn: m»pot' ™rèVsi crÒnoio pararrÚanta ºÚte p£nq' ¤ma
d…j crÒnoj ¤t' ™sql¦ §t' ¥ra m», ·e…wn ¥sceta parasÚrV t¢n bšnqesi l»qhj. » (GUILLAND 1926,
272, vers 213-217).
35 Pour la différenciation du sémiotique face au symbolique en tant que deux modalités du procès de
la signifiance, voir KRISTEVA 1974. Il est intéressant de signaler que le sémiotique qui désigne le continent
pré-symbolique fut désigné par Julia Kristeva en tant que chora sémiotique au sens platonicien du terme
(KRISTEVA 1974, 22–30). Pour les réserves de Nelson sur l’application de cette lecture Kristevienne de l’art
de Kariye, voir NELSON 1999a, 85, n. 73.
36 «to‹sde tškess' ™pitšllom' Østi£toisin ™tšssin œmmen ™pimelša frountist¾n, éj ke
saèseij, Ã m£l' ¢te…rea, tim»ent' ™soumšnoisi. » (GUILLAND 1926, 272, vers 219–20).
37 « Eâ m£la t»re ™moi \ t£d' ™m¦ sunt£gmat' aÙtÕj, [...] soi\ g¦r ™gën ™£w par' fÚlaki t£d' ™m¦
p£nta fi\ltata yucÁj ™ktÒkia, polupoÚqht£ moi. » (GUILLAND 1926, 274, vers 279, 284–85).
Fig. 9. Chora, vue extérieure, façade ouest (selon OUSTERHOUT 1987)
secours que je sollicite. Sauve les livres que j’ai produits au prix d’efforts douloureux, sauve
les moi ; sois une Providence, qui leur permettra de rester intacts et de survivre. Je te fais
leur tuteur, je te supplie de les mettre en lieu sûr ; j’ai fermement confiance en toi, car tu
respectes tout ce qui est de moi, tu acceptes avec empressement toutes mes volontés, tu
exécutes rapidement, au prix de grands efforts, tous mes désirs. Remplis donc, en cela en-
core, cette demande que j’exprime »38.
À la fin de son poème, Métochite désigne à Grégoras le lieu que lui-même considère
comme le plus sûr pour ses enfants : « Chora, sois un asile pour mes enfants, afin de leur
permettre de vivre en sécurité, à eux, mes enfants chéris. Chora mon monastère si beau,
où tu habites avec eux, Chora que j’ai élevé pour t’être un lieu de repos agréable, à l’abri de
38 «oÙ mn ¥meinon ¨n aÙtÕj œkrina oÜte c£rien ™k sšqen ™j g' ™m e‡ ken, ™p…tropoj pais…
moi leifqei\ j nhpi£coij, ¢g£q' œdrasaj ¥n sfisi aÙto‹j, º pÒnouj moi toÝsd' ¥ra kai\ tškea f…l-
tata, a„ ke, q£nontoj ™me‹o, ¢teirÁ pouluwr»saij: nai\ prÕj toà fil…ou, prÕj toà log…oio qeo‹o,
m» m' ¢pošrsVj ïn ™ranîn soi dÁ g' ™pistšllw, ¢ll¦ s£ou moi t¦ ponšsaj bibl…' êdina, s£ou
moi prono»saj †n' ¥fqora parmšneie, Soi\ g¦r ™pitrÒpw t£de, part…qem' ¢sfal…sasqai, m£la
pepoiqëj, éj ge t¢m¦ tim£onti p£nta kai\ t' ™r£onti diamperj ¤pan Ó ken boulo…mhn, karpal…-
mwj ™p…pouna m£l' ¢nÚten, éj k' ™qšloimi: tù g' ¥ra k¢nq£de tÒnd' œron ¢pÒklhson ™me‹o »
(GUILLAND 1926, 276, vers 327–39).
Fig. 10. Chora, restitution hypothétique du « clocher » (selon OUSTERHOUT 1987)
toutes les tempêtes, de tous les malheurs qu’il écartera de toi, sans jamais se lasser durant
cette vie. Aussi accepte également les enfants de ma science : Chora, tel port favorable, éloi-
gnera à jamais la ruine indigne, née de la haine, qui s’attaque aux livres nombreux et divers,
réunis ici… De tous ces livres prends bien soin ; sauve-les, dans ce monastère si favorable,
et pour moi et pour les hommes qui plus tard seront des amants fidèles de la Science »39.
L’invocation dramatique de Métochite à sauver ses ouvrages de la haine et de la rancune
de ses ennemis ne pouvait qu’impressionner le lecteur. La destruction de son palais en 1328
par les familiers du nouveau Basileus, Andronic III le Paléologue, et son exil à Didymotique
39 « Cèra tš moi, gšne ¥suloj ¢mfi\ tškess' ¡medapo‹j, éj ken ¥r' ¢sfalš menšein t¢m¦ f…l-
tat' ™sae…: Cèran ™m¾n perikallša t£nde sÝ na…wn moun¦n ¼n ¥r ™gè soi a‡sion ƒdrus£mhn
kat£pauma, eÙd…oÒn t' ¢pÕ p£nta ce…mata, p£nta d lugr¦ se‹' ¢perÚkousan ¢n¦ b…oton a„eˆ
tÒnde: Ã sÚ g' ¢pÒtropon ¢p' ¥ra p£ntwn Ôclwn zèhn, ¢mbioei\j ¤m' ¢teirš', ¥scolon ¢mfi\ sof…V.
ToÜneka kaˆ sÝ t£d' ™ktÒkia sof…hj ¡medapÁj dšcoio: ºÚte Cèr eÙl…menoj, ¢n' ¥ra p£nta ™xe…-
hj ¢peiršsion g' a„în' ™rÚkousa fqoàron ¢eikša tînd' ™pigignÒmenon fqonÒenta, Óssa te pÒll'
›tera bibl…' ¢g»oca tÍde [...] p£nt' ¥ra moi kaˆ t£d' ¢mfišpe tÍ mon´ sîa profronimù, c£rin
™m¦n ºd q' Ósoi g' ˜xe…hj e„rastai\ sof…hj ™r…hroi œsontai brouto…. » (GUILLAND 1926, 277–78,
vers 341–53 et 359–61).
prouvent le grand danger auquel

furent exposés ses ouvrages40.
Les données historiques permet-
tent de supposer que ce poème
fut écrit dans la troisième décen-
nie du XIVe siècle, période agitée
et instable pour le savant, et très
probablement bien avant 132841.
Ce discours poétique est plus
qu’un testament personnel ; il
exprime, avec une éloquence uni-
que, l’extrême angoisse de l’auteur
quant au sort de son œuvre, l’im-
mortalité de sa présence créa-
tive42. Métochite traduit en récit
imagé ses passions : une mise en
scène imaginaire fait usage de la
rhétorique pour rythmer l’histoire
de ses états psychiques, conflits et
souffrances, afin d’obtenir le salut.
En fait, c’est une histoire dont la
structure, les conditions ainsi que
le caractère rappellent sensible- Fig. 11. Chora, plan des galléries (selon OUSTERHOUT 1987)
ment celle des Innocents, dans
l’exonarthex de Chora. L’absur-
dité du massacre des enfants n’est
comparable qu’à la destruction des livres, symboles de la connaissance et seuls garants
de sa survie. La haine et la rancune, politique ou religieuse, sont au contraire, les seules
ennemies. L’assimilation rhétorique est donc la clef de l’interprétation de l’image, qui est
une critique sévère de la politique de son temps, mais en même temps une critique globale
de l’histoire humaine. Parallèlement, le rôle de l’enfant Jésus dans l’économie salvatrice de
l’Humanité évoque, à travers la comparaison poétique des livres avec des enfants, la prio-
rité absolue de la protection du patrimoine intellectuel.
40ŠEVČENKO 1975, 30.

41Ihor Ševčenko et Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone ont proposé que le poème pourrait être composé vers
la moitié de 1320 ou un ou deux ans plus tard. (ŠEVČENKO/FEATHERSTONE 1981, 13 ; FEATHERSTONE
2000, 15). Cette datation coïncide et précède même légèrement la fin des travaux du décor mural à Kariye,
supposée par Paul Underwood vers le début de 1321 (UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 1, 15), fait qui est parfaitement
compatible avec notre hypothèse.
42 ŠEVČENKO 1975, 54. Voir aussi ŠEVČENKO/FEATHERSTONE 1981, 3.
Résumons nos données. La re-

valorisation de l’image du Massa-
cre et de son cycle iconographique
développé dans l’exonarthex de
Chora nous a permis de procéder
à deux interprétations plausibles et
complémentaires. La première est
une critique générale d’une société
en crise à l’époque de Métochite,
alors que la seconde personnalise
la problématique résultant de la
même crise. Deux codes alors pour
déchiffrer ce récit paradoxal. Il est
difficile de se prononcer quant à la
chronologie de ces deux codes. Ce-
pendant, la personnalisation forte
de l’image du Massacre, située sur
le prolongement de la chapelle
funéraire de Métochite (qui fonc-
tionne comme son narthex), mène
à l’hypothèse suivante : le code de
lecture de la composition émane
Fig. 12. Chora, vue extérieur, la base du «clocher» avec les du donateur et suggère, plutôt
arcs en ogive (Photo : auteur) qu’indique, le lieu précis de son
trésor intellectuel, ses œuvres, les
enfants aimés.
Si notre propos est valable, il faudrait par la suite rechercher ce lieu possible de dépôt du
testament intellectuel de Métochite dans le catholicon. Au-dessus de l’angle sud-ouest de
l’exonarthex, en voisinage avec le cycle du Massacre, est élevée une construction assez mo-
numentale, ayant eu très probablement la forme d’une tour, qui a été remplacée, pendant
la période ottomane, par le minaret actuel. Cet édifice, dont seulement la base articulée en
deux étages est conservée aujourd’hui (fig. 9), est identifié par Robert Ousterhout comme
le clocher du catholicon43.
La restitution du clocher a été faite à partir des autres exemples subsistants44. D’après
Ousterhout, la tour aurait trois étages et serait couverte d’une coupole (fig. 10). Une pe-
tite ouverture dans le mur sud, juste au-dessous de la composition de l’ordre d’Hérode,
43 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 106–10 et fig. 18 (pour une restitution du clocher).

44 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 108–10.
conduit à une échelle spiroïdale qui

mène à l’étage supérieur (fig. 11)45.
Toutefois, selon la remarque de Robert
Ousterhout, l’accès au clocher à l’aide
d’une échelle séparée constitue une ex-
ception, car un clocher fut d’habitude
pourvu d’une tribune46. En plus, la né-
cessité de renforcer les arcs originaux,
dont l’épaisseur fut déjà assez grande,
peut témoigner d’un usage supplémen-
taire de l’espace47. De même, la surface
qui dépasse les vingt-cinq mètres carrés
(25 m2) permettrait d’imaginer une pe-
tite bibliothèque personnelle ou un tré-
sor48.
Le décor extérieur vient aussi ren-
forcer cette hypothèse. Le décor du ca-
tholicon demeure dans son ensemble
très modeste. Cependant, la base du
clocher, dans sa partie supérieure, est
percée de trois petits arcs ogivaux en Fig. 13. Chora, vue générale intérieure de la chapelle
pierre, un sur la façade ouest et deux latérale (archive Th. Korres)
sur la façade sud. Ils comportent le seul
monogramme, en brique, du donateur :
« Théodore Métochite logothète » (fig. 12)49. L’entrée vers le catholicon favorisait une telle
disposition de la signature extérieure du donateur et c’est également le cas à l’église des
Saints-Apôtres à Thessalonique50. Le fait d’avoir placé le monogramme uniquement à la
base du clocher ne peut que susciter des questions sur les causes de ce choix ainsi que sur
le caractère particulier de ce lieu.
45 OUSTERHOUT 1987, fig. 12 et 13.

46 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 106.
47 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 106 et fig. 116.
48 Il y a aussi des arguments qui semblent mettre en question l’hypothèse de l’identification de la
construction avec un clocher. D’abord, l’insertion de l’architecture à l’extrémité sud de l’exonarthex du naos
rompant ainsi la symétrie axiale du monument se fait un trait exceptionnel pour l’architecture byzantine
(sur la forme et l’emplacement des clochers byzantins, cf. BARLA 1959) ; de même, les dimensions de l’édi-
fice, d’une largeur qui arrive aux cinq mètres ne sont pas compatibles avec la fonction proposée.
49 OUSTERHOUT 1987, figs. 127, 131 et 132.
50 RAUTMAN 1992, 12 et 174 ; figs. 16, 17.
L’usage privé et discret des espaces au-

dessus des narthex des églises est attesté déjà
dans le testament de saint Athanase l’Athonite
vers la fin du Xe siècle51. L’higoumène du mo-
nastère de la Grande Laure ordonne que ce
document secret soit conservé et protégé par
l’ecclésiarque, le moine Michel, dans les « ka-
téhoumeneia » de l’église, identifiés par la
recherche à l’étage au-dessus du narthex du
catholicon. Le professeur Slobodan Ćurčić dé-
veloppa ensuite une théorie intéressante sur
la fonction privée de ces espaces à l’étage des
églises52. Parmi les exemples qui ont été iden-
tifiés, comme des bibliothèques ou des scrip-
toria, nous signalons l’église de la Vierge-des-
Chaudronniers à Thessalonique53 ainsi que le
catholicon de Chora à Constantinople. Robert
Ousterhout a traité des données archéologi-
ques et a envisagé les probabilités d’une telle
fonction pour l’espace au-dessus du déambu-
Fig. 14. Chora, la chapelle, arc occidental, les latoire nord du catholicon. Sa communication
âmes des justes, détail discrète avec le naos fut l’un des arguments
(selon UNDERWOOD 1966)
principaux permettant de lui attribuer la
fonction d’un skeuophylakion, d’un trésor ou
même d’une bibliothèque54.
Même si ce propos est valable, rien ne nous empêche de considérer la construction à l’an-
gle sud-ouest de l’exonarthex de Chora comme le lieu de dépôt et de protection des œuvres de
Métochite. D’ailleurs, son alignement dans l’axe de la chapelle sud (funéraire du donateur),
fait remarqué par Robert Ousterhout, qui l’a aussi rapproché de nombreux cas de Messem-
brie en Bulgarie55, étaye notre hypothèse.
Ainsi, toute l’annexe sud du catholicon reflèterait-elle la quête personnelle du donateur
qui n’est autre qu’une postulation de l’éternité à travers le salut de son âme et de son esprit
51 MEYER 1965, 123.

52 ĆURČIĆ 1993, 8–9 ; ĆURČIĆ 2000, 83–93.
53 VELENIS 2001, 1–25.
54 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 51. Toutefois, la communication de cet espace avec le naos pourrait constituer
un contre-argument, quant à la fonction de bibliothèque, lieu de silence et de travail, ou de trésor qui sup-
pose l’intimité du lieu.
55 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 110.
(fig. 13)56. Par conséquent, le cycle iconographique du Massacre, en accord parfait avec le
cadre architectural57, signifierait la destination de cet espace. D’ailleurs, la composition des
âmes des justes sous forme d’enfants, placée non sans raison sur l’arc occidental, au-des-
sus de l’ouverture qui mène à l’exonarthex, pourrait très bien être considérée comme une
image de façade (fig. 14). En effet, exposée à la vue de tout fidèle sortant de la chapelle, cette
scène qui montre, une fois de plus, l’image de l’enfant, semble dialoguer avec la représen-
tation des Innocents, tout en prolongeant dans la chapelle des liens avec l’histoire tragique
du Massacre. Au-delà de sa portée eschatologique, bien connue dans l’art paléologue58,
cette composition, assez peu répandue, semble vouloir achever le jeu d’assimilations des
enfants aux livres. D’autre part, elle paraît désigner, cette fois-ci à l’intérieur de la chapelle,
la fonction du lieu qui abrita le trésor de Métochite59.
Enfin, notre interprétation conforte l’opinion d’Underwood à propos de la réadaptation
et l’élasticité du programme iconographique, réalisé par étapes mais en rapport immédiat
avec des nouvelles exigences et fonctions spatiales du monument. Ainsi, nous sommes en-
clins à considérer que le cycle iconographique en question fut vraisemblablement achevé
vers la fin de 1320 ou au début de 132160, année stigmatisée par le début de la crise politi-
que, résultat de la guerre civile des deux Androniques, ainsi que date probable de la com-
position du poème-Testament de Métochite61. Une autre hypothèse est également possible,
selon laquelle la fonction première de clocher aurait été élargie pour satisfaire le testament
du donateur. Pour conclure: l’élaboration de la rhétorique passe nécessairement par la
revalorisation de l’image et l’inverse. Nous avons estimé que le récit imagé du Massacre des
Innocents dans le monastère de Chora est en parfaite adéquation avec le récit poétique et
dramatique du testament du donateur. Les deux œuvres fonctionnent comme des ekphra-
seis ou des paraphraseis littéraires qui visent, à titre pédagogique, à raconter avec inspira-
tion et verve les détails dramatiques et les effets d’un événement tragique qui s’est passé
ou qui peut se (re)produire dans l’avenir. Cette comparaison nous a fourni la clef de l’inter-
prétation de cette suite d’images, à la sémantique riche, qui forment un petit cycle dans le
programme iconographique de l’exonarthex et définissent de fait la fonction d’un espace.
56 Robert Ousterhout met l’accent sur la différence fondamentale entre le catholicon et la chapelle de
Chora, en ce qui concerne le contenu et la signification de leurs programmes iconographiques ; le premier

étant orienté vers le sujet de l’Incarnation tandis que la seconde vers celui du salut et de la Rédemption,
OUSTERHOUT 1995, 66–69.
57 UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 1, 33.
58 Sur ce sujet, voir DER NERSESSIAN 1975, 331–32.
59 Pour le caractère intime du programme iconographique de Chora et l’esthétique de dénégation de la
réalité cruelle de l’époque, conformes aux exigences personnelles du donateur, souhaitant créer un « abri»,
voir l’article fort intéressant de KILLERICH 2004, 24–26.
60 S’il en est ainsi, nous nous proposerions de restituer, sous toutes réserves, les phases éventuelles de
l’embellissement du catholicon dans l’ordre suivant : a. le naos, b. le narthex intérieur et enfin c. l’exonarthex
avec la chapelle latérale.
61 Voir supra, note no 41.
En empruntant la rhétorique lacanienne, je conclurais que l’histoire du Massacre des Inno-

cents à Kariye illustre le glissement incessant du signifié vers le signifiant qui s’effectue au
moyen de la métaphore62, afin de guider, tel fil d’Ariane dans le dédale d’incertitudes d’une
crise politique profonde, vers le seul trésor, qu’est la (re)connaissance.
e-mail: semoglou@hotmail.com
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
BARLA 1959 :
Car…kleia Mp£rla, Morf» kai exel…xeij twn Buzantinèn kwdwnostas…wn, Aq»na 1959.
COLEMAN 1974 :
Emily R. Coleman, «L’infanticide dans le Haut Moyen Age», Annales (Economies, Sociétés, Civilisa-
tions) 29 (1974), p. 315–335.
ĆURČIĆ 1993 :
Slobodan Ćurčić, «What was the Real Function of Late Byzantine Katechoumena?», [dans:] 19th
Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers (1993), p. 8–9.
ĆURČIĆ 2000 :
Слободан Ћурчић,, «Смисао и функција катихумена у позновизантијској исрпској архитектури»,
[dans:] Манастир Жича: зборник радова, éd. Г. Суботић, Краљево 2000, p. 83–93.
DER NERSESSIAN 1975 :
Sirarpie Der Nersessian, «Program and Iconography of the Frescoes of the Parecclesion», [dans:]
The Kariye Djami, t. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, éd.
P. Underwood, Princeton 1975, p. 303–349.
Eikon kai Logos 2006 :
Eikèn kai LÒgoj. /Exi buzantinšj perigrafšj šrgwn tšcnhj, éd. P. AgaphtÒj, Aq»na
2006.
FEATHERSTONE 2000 :
Jeffrey Michael Featherstone, Theodore Metochites’s Poems to himself, Introduction, Text and Trans-
lation, Wien 2000.
GUILLAND 1926 :
Rodolphe Guilland, «Les Poésies inédites de Théodore Métochite», Byzantion 3 (1926), fasc. I,
p. 265–302.
HJORT 2004 :
Øystein. Hjort, «‘Oddities’ and ‘Refinements’ : Aspects of Architecture, Space and Narrative in the
Mosaics of Kariye Camii», [dans:] , Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, Papers read
at a Colloquium held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 1–5 December 1999, éd. J. O. Ro-
senqvist, Uppsala 2004, p. 27–43.
JOHNSON, 2004 :
Scott F. Johnson, The Life and Miracles of Thecla. A literary Study, (A. D. Phil. Thesis submitted to the
Classics Faculty of the University of Oxford), Oxford 2004.
62 LACAN 1966, 515–16.

KAMBOURI-VAMVOUCOU 2001 :
Maria Kambouri-Vamvoucou, «L’histoire dans l’art : des événements historiques dans l’iconographie
byzantine. L’exemple du Massacre des Innocents», [dans:] XXe Congrès International des Études
Byzantines, Pré-Actes. III Communication Libres, Collège de France – Sorbonne, 19–25 Août 2001,
Paris 2001, p. 459.
KILLERICH 2004 :
Bente Killerich, «Aesthetic Aspects of Palaiologan Art in Constantinople: Some Problems», [dans:]
Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, Papers read at a Colloquium held at the Swedish
Research Institute in Istanbul, 1–5 December 1999, éd. J. O. Rosenqvist, Uppsala 2004, p. 11–26.
KRISTEVA 1974 :
Julia Kristeva, La révolution du langage poétique, Paris 1974.
KYRITSIS 1999 :
Dhm»trhj Kur…tshj, «Kr£toj kai aristokrat…a thn epoc» tou Andron…kou B/: to adišxodo thj
stasimÒthtaj», [dans:] Manuel Panselinos and his Age, Aq»na 1999, 177–194.
LACAN 1966 :
Jacques Lacan, Écrits, Paris 1966.
LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1975 :
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne, « Iconography of the Cycle of the Infancy of Christ », [dans:] The Kariye
Djami, t. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, éd. P. Underwood,
Princeton 1975, p. 195–241.
LAIOU 1977 :
Angeliki Laiou, Peasant Society in the Late Byzantine Empire: a social and demographic Study,
Princeton 1977.
LAIOU 1979 :
Aggelik» Laou, «Koinwn…a kai oikonom…a (1204–1453)», [dans:] Istor…a tou EllhnikoÚ
/Eqnouj , t. Q/ (BuzantinÒj EllhnismÒj), Aq»na 1979, p. 214–143.
MAGUIRE 1981 :
Henry Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium, Princeton (New Jersey) 1981.
MAVROPOULOU-TSIOUMI 1992 :
Crus£nqh MauropoÚlou-TsioÚmh, Buzantin» Qessalon…kh , Qessalon…kh 1992.
MEYER 1965 :
Philipp Meyer, Die Haupturkunden für die Geschichte der Athosklöster, Amsterdam 1965.
NELSON 1999 :
Robert S. Nelson, «Taxation with Representation : Visual Narrative and the Political Field at the
Kariye Camii», Art History 22 (1999), p. 56–82 [réimprimé dans R. S. Nelson, Late Byzantine Pain-
ting. Art, Agency, and Appreciation, (Variorum Collected Studies Series), étude No I, Aldershot-
Burlington 2007].
NELSON 1999a :
Robert S. Nelson, «The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in Fourteenth-Century Constanti-
nople», Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23 (1999), p. 67–101 [réimprimé dans R. S. Nelson, Late
Byzantine Painting. Art, Agency, and Appreciation, (Variorum Collected Studies Series), étude No II,
Aldershot-Burlington 2007].
NELSON 2004 :
Robert S. Nelson, «Heavenly Allies at the Chora», Gesta 43 (2004), p. 31–40 [réimprimé dans R. S.
Nelson, Late Byzantine Painting. Art, Agency, and Appreciation, (Variorum Collected Studies Series),
étude No III, Aldershot-Burlington 2007].
OIKONOMIDIS 1999 :
N…koj Oikonom…dhj, «AgrotikÒ per…sseuma kai o rÒloj tou kr£touj gÚrw sto 1300»,
[dans:] Manuel Panselinos and his Age, Aq»na 1999, 195–205.
OUSTERHOUT 1987 :
Robert G. Ousterhout, The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington (D.C.) 1987.
OUSTERHOUT 1995 :
Robert Ousterhout, «Temporal structuring in the Chora Parekklesion», Gesta 34, No 1 (1995), p. 63–76.
OUSTERHOUT 1995a :
Robert Ousterhout, «The Virgin of the Chora : An Image and its Contexts», [dans:] The Sacred Image
East and West, éd. R. Ousterhout et L. Brubaker, Urbana Chicago 1995, p. 91–109.
OUSTERHOUT 2002 :
Robert Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye Camii, London 2002.
PASQUIER 2001 :
Régine Pasquier, «Le recensement pour les impôts, une scène rare du répertoire iconographique by-
zantin, Cahiers archéologiques 49 (2001), p. 179–184.
Theodoros Metochites 2007 :
QeÒdwroj Metoc…thj. Oi dÚo Basiliko… LÒgoi , éd. I. Polšmhj (Ke…mena Buzantin»j
Logotecn…aj 4), Aq»na 2007.
POMEROY 2007 :
Sarah B. Pomeroy, «Infanticide in Hellenistic Greece», [dans:] Images of Women in Antiquity, éd. Av.
Cameron, A. Kuhrt, London 1993, p. 207–222.
RAUTMAN 1992 :
Marcus-Louis Rautman, The Church of the Holy Apostles in Thessaloniki: a Study in Early Palaeo-
logan Architecture, Ann Arbor (Michigan) 1992.
ŠEVČENKO 1975 :
Ihor Ševčenko, «Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual Trends of his Time», [dans:]
The Kariye Djami, t. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its intellectual Background, éd.
P. Underwood, Princeton 1975, p. 17–91.
ŠEVČENKO/FEATHERSTONE 1981 :
Ihor Ševčenko et Jeffrey Michael Featherstone «Two Poems by Theodore Metochites», The Greek
Orthodox Theological Review 26 (1981), p. 1–45.
STAVROPOULOU–MAKRI 1990 :
Angéliki Stavropoulou-Makri, «Le thème du Massacre des Innocents dans la peinture post-byzantine
et son rapport avec l’art italien renaissant», Byzantion 60 (1990), p. 366–381.
UNDERWOOD 1966 :
Paul A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, 3 tomes., New York 1966.
VELENIS 2001 :
Geèrgioj Belšnhj, «H buzantin» arcitektonik» thj Qessalon…khj. Aisqhtik» prosšggish»,
[dans:] Afišrwma sth Mn»mh tou Swt»rh K…ssa , Qessalon…kh 2001, p. 1–25.
VELMANS 1967 :
Tania Velmans, «Les valeurs affectives dans la peinture murale byzantine au XIIIe siècle et la manière
de les représenter», [dans:] Symposium de Sopocani, Belgrade 1967, p. 47–57.
ZARRAS 2006–2007 :
Nektarios Zarras, «The Iconographical Cycle of the Eothina Gospel Pericopes in Churches from the
Reign of King Milutin», Зограф 31 (2006-2007), p. 95–113
Liturgical Drama as a Source

of the Monreale Mosaics
Liliya M. Evseeva
Andrey Rublev Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art,
Moscow (Russia)
The New Testament cycle of Monreale cathedral mosaics, the work of Constantinopoli-
tan artists (1180–1189), includes several scenes unusual to Byzantine monumental paint-
ing. The subject Christ’s Appearance to the Emmaus travellers is generally rare in Byz-
antine monumental art, but it has received a unique treatment in the Monreale mosaics.
It is presented in four scenes that occupy the middle register of the northern wall of the
transept. The first of these scenes shows the meeting of the apostles Luke and Cleophas
with Christ on the road, the second depicts the supper in the Emmaus inn, and in the third
one the apostles are depicted behind the same table, but in place of the seated Christ is an
empty aperture in the wall. In the fourth scene Luke and Cleophas meet the other apostles
in Jerusalem, telling them about the appearance of Christ on the Emmaus road (fig. 1).
Luke and Cleophas also participate in the continuous scene of The Incredulity of Thomas
(fig. 2), located on the western wall of the transept (north)1.
Emile Mâle and Ernest Kitzinger explain the incorporation of these three first scenes
with the Emmaus travelers in the Monreale mosaics as being influenced by ‘Peregrinus li-
turgical drama2. In the Catholic Church such plays were a part of vespers on Easter Sunday
or following it on Easter Monday. The practice was popular from the eleventh to the thir-
teenth centuries3. The incorporation of these scenes into the Monreale mosaics reminds us
of a similarity in forms of worship within the Catholic Church. Certainly this is true of the
Monreale Benedictine monastery, which ordered the mosaics.
However the question is whether the Monreale scenes with the Emmaus travellers were
a mere borrowing of iconographical schemes of Romanesque art (and E. Mâle and E. Kitz-
inger most likely share this view), or whether it is possible to speak about the direct influ-
ence of a liturgical drama on Byzantine artists working in Monreale?
1 KITZINGER 1995, figs. 131–53; The cathedral of Monreale, 39, 42.
2 MALE 1924, 138, note 6; KITZINGER 1995, 12.
3 YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 451–52.
68 Liliya M. Evseeva
Fig. 1. Scenes of the Passions, the Resurrection, Christ’s Appearance to the Emmaus travellers, the
meeting of Luke and Cleophas with the other apostles . Monreale cathedral mosaics. Northern wall
of the transept. 1180–89 (after The cathedral of Monreale)
In Southern Italy liturgical dramas became a part of the annual cycle of church services in
the Benedictine monasteries in the tenth century4. In the twelfth century Benedictine monks
transferred them to Sicily where they predominated at the time of the Norman rulers5. It is
possible to deduce that liturgical dramas, including Peregrinus plays, were performed in the
monasteries of Palermo: two church service manuscripts of the twelfth century, from Sic-
ily, contain the text of Peregrinus and other dramas in the Easter cycle. There are Graduale
(Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional, MS Vitr. 20–4 [Ant. Sing. C 132]) 6 and Tropario (Madrid, la
Biblioteca Nacional, MS 289 [Ant. Sing. C 153])7. The first of them, famously decorated, con-
tains in folio 99v the name of King Roger II (“[…] Rege nostro Rogerio”) and for this reason
can be dated to 1130–548. Researchers also connect its origin with Palermo9.
4YOUNG 1933, 207–15.

5WHITE 1938.
6 Parchment, 240 fol., 219 x 150 mm, with musical notation; gold figured initials with colour on fol. 12v,
23r, 103r, 134r; many red and blue initials (YOUNG 1933, I, 476–81; ANGLES, SUBIRA 1946, I, (No 23)
54–66; JANIN, SERRANO 1969, (No 197) 246–47.
7 Parchment, 155 fol., 200 x 150 mm, with musical notation (YOUNG 1933, I, 458–61; ANGLÉS, SUB-
IRÁ, 1946, vol. 1, [No 19] 18–36; JANIN, SERRANO 1969, [No 17]75).
8 JANIN, SERRANO 1969, 246.
9 ANGLÉS, SUBIRÁ, 1946, vol. 1, 54.
Liturgical Drama 69
Fig. 2. The Incredulity of Thomas. Monreale cathedral mosaic. 1180–89

(after The cathedral of Monreale)
E. Kitzinger thinks that the proof of iconographical borrowing by the Monreale mosaic
artists of Christ ‘s Appearance to the Emmaus travellers is to be found in the illustrations of
the St. Albans Psalter (1120–30), which contains the three scenes with the Emmaus trav-
elers (Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, MS St. Godehard 1, p. 69–71)10. These scenes obviously
reflect the influence of Peregrinus liturgical drama in their detail. The Manuscript of Ead-
wine Psalter of the twelfth century (Victoria and Albert Museum, MS 661) also contains
three miniatures with similar iconography11.
However, the Emmaus travelers are present in five scenes of the Monreale mosaics,
uniting them in a uniform small cycle. This cycle, more consistently and completely than
the miniatures, corresponds with the composition of the Peregrinus liturgical drama, most-
ly in a version of the Sicilian manuscript of 1130–54 (fol. 105v–108) where Thomas enters
as the third part. It is a rare version of Peregrinus.
What do we notice when we compare each of the mosaic scenes with the text of the
drama and with the miniatures from England? Actually the most interesting parts for us
are the drama comments, the author’s notes which specify character costume details, their
poses, their gestures and their relative position. We also notice that the location where the
action took place is named consistently.
10 KITZINGER 1995, 12–13, figs. C, D, E.

11 DAVIDSON 1983, 468.
According to the comments in the majority of the versions of the Peregrinus, the Sav-
iour must have in the first scene a pilgrim staff in his hand, a bag on his shoulder and
a cap upon his head. This particular attire for the Christ character can be explained by
the fact that the Saviour, appeared to his disciples on the Emmaus road, is named in the
Gospels as a pilgrim, i.e. a traveller: “Tu solus peregrinus es in Jerusalem” (Luke 24:
18). The realities of the epoch gave a new meaning to this evangelical text: in the twelfth
century the pilgrimage to Jerusalem had reached its peak, and everyone who visited the
city was considered a pilgrim. Therefore the image of Christ in the drama reflected sev-
eral features of real pilgrims of the twelfth century. That is
why in the miniatures (mentioned above) Christ is depicted
wearing a cap on his head, and a bag on his shoulder (fig. 3;
exactly as the stage directions demanded12). The Monreale
atist depicted Christ carrying the bag and the staff with the
left shoulder and both legs naked (fig. 1).
The majority of drama texts indicate that the first scene,
the meeting on the road to Emmaus, was played in the main
nave13. This scene looked especially impressive in the Mon-
reale cathedral. As we know, in the eastern part of Monreale
cathedral there was a high solid barrier (or transenna) with
an arch aperture in its centre and two pulpits on columns
before it14. A similar choir-screen, dated back to 1180, can
be seen in San Маttео cathedral in Salerno15 (fig 4). It rep- Fig. 3. The meeting on the
resented Jerusalem not only in a symbolic manner. It was road to Emmaus. The minia-
ture of the St. Albans Psalter.
even reminiscent of a real city wall with the towers and the 1120-30. Hildesheim, Dom-
central cathedral nave which led to it surely being meant to bibliothek, MS St. Gode-
hard 1, p. 69
represent the road to Jerusalem16 (fig. 5). Clergymen repre- (after KITZINGER 1995)
12 The version of liturgical drama Peregrini from Rouen (Bibl. de la Ville, MS 222, thirteenth century) is
the most interesting in description of gaments and atributs of characters: “Duo de ij [ii] sede…induti tunicis
et desuper cappis transversum, portantes baculos et peras in similitudinem Peregrinorum, et habeant cap-
pelos super capita et sint barbati. Exeant a vestiario… tunc quidam sacerdos de majori sede… indutus alba
et amictu, nudsus pedes, ferens crucem super dextrum humerum, voltu demisso, veniens usque ad eos per
dextram alam ecclesie…”. (“Two of the lower row [who set in the lower stalls of the choir, here pitty-canons
– editor’s note]… cloused in tunics and copes, go across, carring staffs and wallets in the likeness of travelers;
they have caps upon their heads and are being bearded… a priest from the upper row… closed in an alb and
an amice, barefooted, bearing the cross upon his right shoulder, with a downcast countenance, come up to
them through the right aisle of the church…”); quoted after Cheif Pre-Shakespearen dramas, 21–22.
13 For example, the manuscript from Rouen (MS 222). The manuscript from Palermo does not contain
comments for the first scene of Peregrinus.

14 LELLO 1595; DEMUS 1949, 106. There are some fragments of the choir-screen in the Monreale ca-
thedral now (DUNCAN-FLOWERS 1994, 39).

15 GLASS 1991, 66–67; DUNCAN-FLOWERS 1994, 42; BRACA 2001, 34-39.
16 EVSEEVA 2009.
Liturgical Drama 71
senting Christ and the apostles met in the middle of the nave. There was an exchange of
cues, and one of the apostles, after pronouncing the words “Sol uergens ad hoccаsum sua-
det ut nostrum uelis hospitium” 17 (“the Sun is going down and calls us to look for a shelter”)
would lift his hand up as if he were pointing at the sun . This gesture was stimulated by the
words “sol uergens ad hoccаsum” in the drama text, which replaced the words of the Gos-
pel text on this subject: “et inclinata est jam dias” (“… the day is far spent”; Luke 24: 29).
With this particular gesture, one of the apostles is depicted in the Monreale mosaic so as
in the above-mentioned miniatures. However, the disposition of figures in the miniatures
is quite different.
Fig. 4. Choir-screen in Salerno cathedral. About 1180 (after DI STEFANO 1966).
17 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional, MS Vitr. 20-4, fol. 106r (quoted after YOUNG 1933, I, 478).
Fig. 5. Monreale cathedral. The main nave. 1180–89 (after BELLAFIORE 1966)
The drama comments point out that it is necessary to have for the action of the sec-
ond scene “tabernaculum, in medio nauis ecclesie, in similitudinem castelli Emmaus
preparatum”18 (“the structure in the middle of the nave of the church, prepared in the
likeness of the fortress Emmaus”). It was erected usually as a platform, with a structure
on the back where the curtain was fastened more often19. The architectural design of two
mosaic compositions on the theme of the supper in Emmaus looks like a wall with three
wide apertures and two towers on the sides. It is similar the architectural background of
the miniatures of the manuscripts from England. It can be suggested that the architectural
background of the mosaics and the miniatures represents a real «theatrical requisite» of
the performance. Thus, the architectural design of the mosaic compositions is quite compa-
rable with that of the church, which had a scenic platform once arranged in its nave.
18Rouen, Bibl. de la Ville, MS 222, fol. 43v (quoted after YOUNG 1933, I, 462). The manuscript from
Palermo does not contain a comment about “castello”.
19 YOUNG 1933, vol. 2,, 404.
Liturgical Drama 73
Fig. 6. The supper in Emmaus. Monreale cathedral mosaic. 1180–89

A table and seats were placed on the platform. There was a variety of the drama com-
ments, one of them informed the reader by such words: “Quo cum ascenderint et ad men-
sam ibi paratam sederint, et Dominus inter eos sedent panem eis fregerit…”20 (“Where
they ascended and sat down at the table which was standing where the Lord sitting between
them divided the bread for them…”).
In the second scene, in the mosaic and in the miniatures, all its participants are sitting
at the table, Christ sits at the centre. In the mosaic He is in his usual garments. Several
round breads and a wide vessel, reminding chalice, lie on the table (fig. 6). These objects are
precisely in tune with the text of the liturgical drama from Palermo where “pane et uino”
are particularly mentioned21. In the mosaic Christ blesses the bread, in the miniatures He
breaks it (fig. 7). Both of these actions were particularly mentioned in the Comments. It can
be considered that the iconography of these two mosaic scenes is generally similar in both
miniatures and Comments.
20 Rouen, Bibl. De la Ville, MS 222, fol. 43v (quoted after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 462). The manuscript
from Palermo does not contain a comment aout «hospicium».
21 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol. 106r (quoted after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 478).
Fig. 7. The supper in Emmaus. The Fig. 8. Christ’ disappearance at the

miniature of the St. Albans Psalter. supper in Emmaus. The miniature
1120–130. Hildesheim, Dombibliothek, of the of St. Albans Psalter. 1120-
MS St. Godehard 1, p. 70 –130. Hildesheim, Dombibliothek,
(after KITZINGER 1995). MS St. Godehard 1, p. 71
(after KITZINGER 1995)
In the third scene one of the illustrators of the manuscripts has depicted Christ’s disap-
pearance as His Ascension (fig. 8), the other as the action of walking away. The author of
the mosaic shows the empty space shining gold in the wall where Christ was standing (fig.
1). This image is closer both to the text of the Gospel, and to the Comments of the drama
from Sicily: “… ac post ab oculis eorum euanescat”22 (“… after it He vanished out their
sight”). The clergyman playing the role of Christ in the performance disappeared immedi-
ately. Possibly, he hid himself behind a curtain or under a tablecloth.
The last part of the Peregrinus drama, The Incredulity of Thomas, was performed in
Palermo churches “in medio choro” (“in the middle of the choir”), as Comments of Sicil-
ian text indicate23. Thus, in Monreale it was behind the wall of the choir screen while the
parishioners located in the nave and were able to see the performance only through the
open space in the choir screen. In the first scene of the third concluding part, according
22 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol. 106v (after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 478).
23 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol. 107r (after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 479).
Liturgical Drama 75
to the drama Comments of the Palermo version24, ten clergymen, representing apostles,
participated. Mosaic depicts the following scene only: in Jerusalem Luke and Cleophas
meet the other apostles and inform them about seeing Christ. According to the drama text,
the apostles then declared: “Vidimus Dominum”25 (“We have seen the Lord”) - and then
Thomas approached them with the words about his doubting. It was followed by the scene
of Christ’s appearance and Thomas’ assurance. In the mosaic scene “The Incredulity of
Thomas”, Luke and Cleophas are depicted also as being witnesses of the preceding Christ
appearance (fig. 2).
The drama in the Palermo version ends with Thomas’s declaration to the people. As the
comment specifies: “Thomas uertat uultum suum ad populum; dicat: Misi digitum meum
in fixuram clauorum, et manum meam in latus eius et dixit: Dominus meus, et Deus meus
alleluia”26, (“Thomas turns his face to the people and speaks: I have put my fingers into
wounds from nails, and my hand I have thrust into His side, and I tell: my Lord, my God,
alleluia”). In the mosaic scene of The Incredulity of Thomas the young Phillip, with his face
and apparel similar to those of Thomas, is positioned symmetrically to Thomas, in a similar
pose, having turned his face to the spectators, as though he is representing the Thomas’s
reference to the people. So, all the details of this mosaic scene correspond with the text of
the Palermo version of the drama. More than that, the architectural structure in the mosaic
is horizontally stretched, with the arch in the centre as though it were repeating the shape
of the real choir-screen of the Monreale cathedral (the similar choir-screen of the cathe-
dral of Salerno had the arch in the centre which is now incorporated into transept southern
wall27). So, the mosaic scene can be considered to be having a certain reflection of the real
theatrical action which was performed in the Monreale cathedral.
As a result, all of the above observations make it possible to conclude: the iconography
of the first two scenes of the theme of the Emmaus travellers in the Monreale mosaics and
in the miniatures from England share lots of common details relating to widely known
Peregrinus drama comments. The iconography of the miniatures differs in the mosaics in
certain ways. The iconography of the next three scenes of the mosaic is connected with
performance of the Peregrinus drama in the churches of Palermo: these are Christ’s disap-
pearance in the third scene, the composition with the ten apostles in Jerusalem, and with
the particularities of The Incredulity of Thomas. The major thing is that all three parts of
the drama of the Palermo version are represented in the mosaics. There are five scenes (the
Palermo drama has eight scenes). A similar representation of the theme of the Peregrinus
liturgical drama cannot be found in Romanesque art.
24 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol.. 107r (after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 479).
25 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol.. 107r (after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 479).
26 Madrid, la Biblioteca Nacional. MS Vitr. 20- 4, fol. 108r (after YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 480).
27 BRACA 2001, 35.
Fig. 9. The Ascension. Monreale cathedral mosaic. 1180–89

Besides, an artistic interpretation of these five compositions has a number of differenc-

es with artistic interpretation of the majority of other New Testament scenes of Monreale.
First of all it is possible to name their special staginess which we understand as a precise
correlation of figures in space and personal communication of personages, expressed by
looks, turns of heads, poses and gestures. Each personage has individual emotional ex-
pression on his face. These features makes the compositions different from, for example,
“The Ascension” (fig. 9) or “The Descent of the Holy Ghost” (The Pentecost) on the same
northern wall of the transept. This difference can be explained by the fact that the source
of expressionism of the mosaic scenes with the Emmaus travellers in Monreale lays in per-
formances of the Peregrinus drama, their stage settings and the manner of their action.
Theatre historians, relying on the comments contained in the text of dramas, certain testi-
monies of contemporaries, and also numerous theatrical treatiees of Renaissance authors, char-
acterize liturgical drama of the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries as having the action in
them similar to those performed in ancient or medieval Oriental theatres28. It had mostly a statu-
ary character – the main part was singing and reciting. As for the actors acting (they were clergy-
men) it was the art of impersonation with certain features of it relating to reality29. The major
elements of expressiveness were the pose of the actor, the position of his head and the gestures
28 YOUNG 1933, vols. 1–2,; COLLINS 1972; AXTON 1974; BATE 1983.
29 YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 80.
Liturgical Drama 77
of his hands30. According to

the author of the twelfth cen-
tury, Honorius of Autun, those
gestures were rather expres-
sive (about which he speaks
in his work Gemma ani-
mae31). The characters, most
likely, showed on their faces
a certain emotion which did
not change during the entire
performance. So, the actors’
faces reminded the masks32.
The characters’ glances would
have been fixed upon each
other or on the spectators,as
though inviting them to share
Fig. 10. The three Marys at the tomb. Monreale cathedral their emotions. Similar fea-
mosaic. 1180–89 tures characterize all five of
(after The cathedral of Monreale sine data) the Monreale mosaic compo-
sitions depicting the Emmaus
travellers.
Besides the cycle with the Emmaus travellers, the Monreale mosaics contain some other
scenes reflecting other distinctive influences of liturgical drama which might be also men-
tioned. Those are “The Burial of Christ” located on the same northern wall of transept (fig.
1) and “The three Marys at the tomb” on its west wall33 (fig. 10). The composition of “The
Burial of Christ” is rare in a monumental painting of the twelfth century, but in Monreale
this scene is presented as the main one in the entire Easter cycle: it is depicted in the very
centre of the upper section of the northern wall. “The Burial “and “The three Marys at the
tomb” have lots of similarities in their composition and details. In the first scene the body
of the Saviour wrapped in linen (or sindon), is brought to the tomb, located in the rock
on the right side of the composition. The three Marys stay on the left, behind the other
participants in the burial rite. In the scene with the angel the tomb is of the same shape
and is also located as far to the right as is depicted as far to the left, the figures of the three
Marys. These two scenes reflect a ceremony and a liturgical drama of the Catholic Church,
namely the burial of the cross wrapped up by a linen cloth in a tomb which was established
30 DAVIDSON 1983; BERTRAM 1964.
31 HARRISON 1965, 93.
32 BROOKE 1967; LASCOMBRES 1983.
33 KITZINGER 1995, fig. 116, 107, 125–29; The cathedral of Monreale, 39, 42
in an altar on Holy Saturday, as well

as a demonstration of the same empty
cloth taken from the tomb during the
performance of the liturgical drama
Visitatio Sepulchre on Easter morn-
ing34. The inquiring looks and gestures
of the women in the mosaic as well as
the large size loosely laying cloth are
very similar to their depiction in the
early eleventh century miniature from
the manuscript of the monastery San
Gall (San Gall, Stiftbibliothek, MS 391,
p. 33; fig. 11). In Karl Young’s opinion,
it was significantly influenced by the
drama action Visitatio Sepulchre35.
All of this testifies that the Byzan-
tine artists who worked in Monreale
were moved by performances of the
liturgical dramas they personally had
seen, most likely, in Palermo churches,
and in Monreale cathedral in particu- Fig. 11. The three Marys at the tomb. The mini-
lar. Possibly these Constantinopolitan ature of the manuscript. San Gall, Stiftbibliothek,
artists had found it quite admissible to MS 391, p. 33 (after YOUNG 1933)
scoop out those new sources of artistic
impressions because they considered
performances in church to be a part of liturgy. And the church ceremony was always a source
of new iconographic schemes and graphic motives for the Byzantine artists.
Moreover some features of the liturgical drama are really close to the additional singing
church services (¢s Ä matikîn ¢kolouq…a) held in Constantinopolitan Hagia Sophia, which
also bore a dramatic character.
But it is not a coincidence that among Middle Age theologians as much as among con-
temporary scholars there were, and still are, numerous disputes, as to whether additional
singing church services were a certain theatrical action, or whether they have a different
nature based rather on old traditional Constantinopolitan ordinances. The metropolitan
of Thessaloniki, Symeon, in his fifteenth century treatise Dialogus contra Haereses36,
34 YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 113-34, 249-50.

35 YOUNG 1933, vol. 1, 272, fig. 1.
36 DMITRIEVSKIJ 1894, 574.
Liturgical Drama 79
thought, as do many of modern researches37, that the additional singing church services,
including that of “The three Children in the Furnace”, are not religious plays and are inde-
pendent from the western tradition. They see their basic difference from a liturgical drama
in their symbolical representation of sacred persons38 and in the absence in their action of
the act of impersonation39. The western idea of liturgical drama can be strongly character-
ized by containing impersonation of an actor playing a certain part into his hero40. This
action necessarily embraces certain features of real life and its observation.
As a result of borrowing from performances of liturgical dramas, the Byzantine masters
reproduced in Monreale mosaics particular life features which aesthetically assimilated ac-
tions of the dramas. This conclusion is made on the basis of the fact that liturgical drama
has had a strong influence on Romanesque art. And the way it was influencing the artists
was, as a rule, a direct one41.
The Byzantine artists used these innovations of their artistic language also in other New
Testament scenes of the Monreale mosaics which were not a subject of drama performances
at all (for example, in a cycle of Christ’s miracles located in the lateral naves).
The new features of style which we observe in the Monreale mosaics (first and foremost
are the individual emotional expression of personages’ faces as well as their certain actions)
are very similar to Romanesque art. However, as we’ve already tried to show, it was
not a mere copying of certain masterpieces of Romanesque art. It is also difficult to imagine
that the Byzantine masters borrowed from western paining only one thing - its vividness
and true-to-life certainty. A similar strict differentiation of art influence (like the singling
out of a certain part of art impression and then using it in their own work) was not revealed
in artistic practice of that time. It looks like the mediaeval masters considered artistic style
as something whole, and not something which could be divided into single components.
37 MANSVETOV 1880; MANSVETOV 1885, 229, 233, 236–45; DMITRIEVSKIJ 1894; GOLUBCOV
1911.
38
The metropolitan of Thessaloniki Symeon, wrote in his The book about the temple, 20–28, that the
priest may represent the Christ in the church services, as received Christ’s forth through chirotony. And this
forth is represented symbolically by priest vestments, having mystic spiritual significance (see this text
translated in Russian in: DMITREVSKIJ 1993, 390).
39 The metropolitan of Thessaloniki Symeon wrote in his Dialogus contra Haeresies: “If [the Latins]
reproach us for the furnace of three children, they should not congratulate themselves. Because we light
up not a furnace but candles and lights, and we offer incense to God according to custom; and we represent
the angel [in painting], and it is not a man that we send. Furthermore, we place three boys, pure as those
children, to sing canticle according to tradition”(Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 155, col. 113, trans-
lation from Greek after VELIMIROVIČ 1962, 352). Miloš M. Velimirovič thinks that there are elements of
the impersonating here on the part of singers, but Symeon underlines that three boys which are placed to
sing the canticle are similar The Children real, by his natural purity – and there is no an act of impersonat-
ing. Another modern researches are sure that liturgical drama exit in Byzantium. But their opinion bases
on very inaccurate descriptions of West visitors to Constantinople (BAUD-BOUVY 1938), or on very wide
definition of liturgical drama (LA PIANA 1936; VELIMIROVIČ 1962). But Byzantine indisputable works of
this kind are unknown.
40 YOUNG 1933, vol. 1., 80; DONOVAN 1958, 7.
41 MALE 1924, 142–45; EVANS 1950, 90–95.
Hence, we might conclude that the Byzantine masters have acquired the basic pathos of
Romanesque art culture not through painting itself, but through related artistic phenom-
ena belonging to other types of art, and particularly through liturgical drama. Study of Ro-
manesque art led to natural differentiation of artistic impression and finally to a borrowing:
the Byzantine masters, as a matter of fact, used only the graphic component of the drama
action, in this sense we can only talk about transferring expression or certain true-to-life
character positions, gestures, looks, as well as composition of scene.
As a source of Romanesque artistic cultural influence the liturgical drama was especially
significant in Sicily, taking into account the fact that in the 1180s, when the Monreale mosa-
ics were created, only about a hundred years passed since the island had been conquered
by the Normans, Christianity restored, and Catholic monasteries had been built. Prob-
ably masterpieces of Romanesque art were rather rare on the island: there were neither
ensembles of monumental painting there, nor large hundred-year-old monastic libraries
where codices containing cycles of miniatures were kept, though separate manuscripts with
illustrations as well as icons could have been brought to the island. Certainly, some Roman-
esque books of models created by western artists were known there - but their depiction
of Romanesque style features was rather limited. Consequently it cannot be excluded, that
the basic Romanesque art message to the Greek artists was that contained in the liturgical
drama, brought to the island by Benedictine monks who were the major carriers of this
tradition.
It is possible, that the Benedictine monastery which ordered those mosaics valued such
features of Romanesque art as expression and the true-to-life certainty of images. It can be
explained in many respects by the spiritual practice of the order. The main precept of St.
Benedict: “ora et labor” (“pray and labour”) - and the Benedictines’ rules for the monastic
life, which were the source of the active character of this order, possibly inspired their
desire to express the same active root in art works. This suggestion may be basically proved
by the frescoes of Benedictine Saint Angelo’s cloister in Formis created in 1072–85. Most
likely, Greek artists in Monreale were challenged by the task of the creation of similar imag-
es. Typically the Old Testament cycle of the Monreale mosaics included such iconographic
schemes of Romanesque art as “The Adam and Eve’s labours after their expulsion from
Paradise”, “The construction of the ark” and “The erection of Babel tower”, all of which
were filled by creative pathos. Two of these themes are depicted in the frescoes of Saint
Angelo’s in Formis. These themes were especially significant for the Benedictines. However
Greek artists in these compositions were not strictly required to simply copy Romanesque
models, and particularly their style. As with the whole of the Old Testament cycle in Mon-
reale, they were created in the Byzantine style. But the style of this cycle was a little bit
more narrative than most of the monumental Byzantine painting of the twelfth century.
The narrative character of the mosaic scenes is connected with specific features of illustra-
Liturgical Drama 81
tions of the twelfth century Byzantine Octateuchs, which were repeated basically in the
Old Testament cycle of the Monreale mosaics42. The Octateuchs’ miniatures were keepers
of the Byzantine knowledge of nature (naturalism in depiction of nature, particular im-
ages of animals, birds and fish) and knowledge of the nature of human beings, even with
rather vivid physiological features (for example, they include the scene of childbirth)43.
And the realistic features of the Octateuchs’ illustrations carry some similarities with
Romanesque artworks.
While working on the New Testament cycle of the Monreale mosaics the artists were
conscientiously following the manner of liturgical drama actions. Thus they found the way
to fill their artwork images with the expressionism and with the peculiar “reality” of Ro-
manesque art. As a result a new independent style of monumental painting was born in
Monreale. It was generally recognized by the Western world and started being repeatedly
duplicated44.
Through bringing to light the influence of liturgical drama on Byzantine artists we
open to ourself one of the mechanisms of Romanesque art influence on Monreale artists.
It also lets us bring to light and declare the problem of the interconnection of the Latin
order of mosaic decoration of the cathedral with its Greek executors. The order had not
compiled a programme of mosaics only, and come up with separate particulars of its
iconography, but the artists had become active participants in the artistic design of the
Monreale mosaics. On the other hand the reference of the Greek masters to artistic par-
ticularities of the liturgical drama testify to the Greek masters’ deep understanding of the
order’s rules and conditions.
e-mail: evseeva@cmiar.msk.ru
42 EVSEEVA 2005.
43 The artists of the miniatures of the Octateuchs copied illustrations of ancient medical and occupa-
tional treatises, botanic and zoological books, Claudius Ptolemy’s Geographica and others ancient scientific
works directly in their very ancient examples (WEITZMANN 1999, 300–07) or through Christian Topog-
raphy by Cosmas Indicopleustes (HUNT 1979; LOWDEN 1992, 121) .
44 DEMUS 1970, 150–61 (there are a large bibliography on these question here); OAKESHOTT 1972;
EVSEEVA 2002; MURATOVA 2004.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANGLÉS, SUBIRÁ:
Higinio Anglés y José Subirά, Catalogo musical de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid. Manuscriptos.
vol. 1–2, Barcelona 1946.
AXTON 1974:
Richard Axton, European Drama of the Early Middle Ages, London 1974.
BATE 1983:
Keith Bate, “The staging of Ludus Antichristo”, [in:] Atti IV colloquio della Société Internationale pour
l’Etude du Théâtre Médiéval, ed. M. Chialo–F. Doglio–M. Magmone, Viterbo 1983, p. 447–452.
BAUD-BOUVY 1938:
Samuel Baud-Bouvy, “Sur un “Sacrifice d’Abraham” de Romanos et sur l’existence d’un théâtre reli-
gieux à Byzance”, Byzantion 13 (1938), p. 321–334.
BELLAFIORE 1966:
Giuseppe Bellafiore, “Monreale | Duomo”, Tesori d’arte christiana a cura di Stefano Bottari, 2
(Il Romanico), Bologna 1966, p. 393–420.
BERTRAM 1964:
Joseph Bertram, Elizabethan acting, Oxford 1964.
BRACA 2001:
Antonio Braca, Guida alla catterale di Salerno e alle sue opere d’arte, Lancusi (Sa) 2001.
BROOKE 1967:
Iris Brooke, Medieval Theatre Costume: A Practice Guide to the Construction on Garments, London
1967.
The cathedral of Monreale:
The cathedral of Monreale. Palermo [sine data].
Chief Pre-Shakespearen dramas:
Chief Pre-Shakespearen Dramas, A selected of plays by J. Q. Adams, Cambridge 1924.
COLLINS 1972
Fletcher Collins, The Production of Medieval Church Music-Drama, Charlottesville (Virginia) 1972.
DAVIDSON 1983:
Clifford Davidson, “Stage Gesture in Medieval Drama”, [in:] Atti IV colloquio della Société Inter-
nationale pour l’Etude du Théâtre Médiéval, ed. M. Hhialo–E. Doglio–M. Magmone, Viterbo, 1983,
p. 465–477.
DEMUS 1949:
Otto Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, London 1949.
DEMUS 1970:
Otto Demus, Byzantine Art and the West, London 1970.
DI STEFANO 1966:
Roberto Di Stefano, “Salerno. Cattedrale”, (Tesori d'arte christiana 23), Bologna 1966, p. 57–84.
DMITREVSKIJ 1993:
Иван Дмитревский, Историческое, догматическое и таинственное изъяснение Божествен-
ной Литургии, Санкт-Петербург 1897 (Reprint: Москва 1993).
DMITRIEVSKIJ 1894:
Алексей А. Дмитриевский, “Чин Пещного действа”, Византийский Временник 1 (1894), No. 2,
p. 571-599.
DONOVAN 1958:
Richard B. Donovan, The Liturgical Drama in Medieval Spain, Toronto 1958.
Liturgical Drama 83
DUNCAN-FLOWERS 1994:
Maggie J. Duncan-Flowers, The Mosaics of Monreale: A Study of their monastic and funerary Con-
text, Ph. D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 1994.
EVANS 1950:
Joan Evans, Cluniac Art of the Romanesque Period, Cambridge 1950.
EVSEEVA 2002:
Лилия М. Евсеева, “Проблема образцов в византийском искусства и миниатюры романской
рукописи Hortus deliciarum” (résumé: “The problem of patterns in Byzantine art and miniatures
of Romanesque manuscript Hortus deliciarum”), [in:] Древнерусское искусство: Русь и страны
византийского мира. XII век, ed. О. Е. Этингоф. Санкт-Петербург 2002, p. 94–112, 559.
EVSEEVA 2005:
Лилия М. Евсеева, “Традиции Константинополя и Рима в в иконографии ветхозаветнго цикла
мозаик Сицилии” (résumé: “Traditions constantinopolitaines et romaines dans l’iconographie du
cycle d’Ancien Testament des mosaïques siciliens”), [in:] Древнерусское искусство: Византийский
мир: искусство Константинополя и национальные традиции, ed. М. А. Орлова. Москва 2005,
p. 277–298.
EVSEEVA 2009:
Лилия М. Евсеева, “Бенедиктинская традиция в воспроизведении сакрального пространства
Иерусалима” (résumé: “The Benedictine tradition in the re-enactment of the sacred space of Jerusa-
lem“), [in:] Новые Иерусалимы: Иеротопия и иконография сакральных пространств, ed. А. М.
Лидов. Москва 2009, p. 338–362.
GLASS 1991:
Dorothy Glass, Romanesque Sculpture in Campania, Pennsylvania 1991.
GOLUBCOV 1911:
Алексей П. Голубцов, “О выходах на воскресной вечерне и утрени в Древней Руси и их
происхождении”, [in:] idem, Сборник статей по литургике и церковной археологии, Сергиев
Посад 1911, p. 55–60.
HARRISON 1965:
Osborn B. Harrison, Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Age, Baltimore 1965.
HUNT 1979:
Cyntia Hunt, “The Creation of the Cosmos: Genesis Illustration in the Octateuchs”, Cahiers
archéologiques, 28 (1979), p. 29–40.
JANIN, SERRANO 1969:
José Janin y José Serrano, Manuscritos liturgicos de la Biblioteca Nacional, Madrid 1969.
KITZINGER 1995:
Ernst Kitzinger, I mosaici dei periodo normanno in Sicilia, IV: Il Duomo di Monreale. I mosaici del
transetto. Palermo 1995.
LA PIANA 1936:
George La Piana, “The Byzantine Theatre”, Speculum 11 (1936), p. 171–211
LASCOMBRES 1983:
André Lascombres, “Du masque au visage: diaphore théâtrale et typologie du personnage dans les
cycles anglais”, Atti IV colloquio della Société Internationale pour l’Etude du Théâtre Médiéval, ed.
M. Chialo–F. Doglio–M. Magmone,Viterbo 1983, p. 349–361.
LELLO 1595:
Giovanni L. Lello, Storia della Chiesa di Monreale, Roma 1595.
LOWDEN 1992:
John Lowden, The Octateuchs: A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illustration, University Park (Pa) 1992.
MÂLE 1924:
Emile Mâle, L’art réligieux du XII siècle en France: Étude sur les origines de l’iconographie du Moyen
Age, Paris 1924.
MANSVETOV 1880:
Иван Д. Мансветов, О песенном последовании, его древнейшей основе и общем строе, (Прибав-
ления к Творениям Св. Отец, III–IV) Cанкт-Петербург 1880.
MANSVETOV 1885:
Иван Д. Мансветов, Церковный устав (типик): его образование и судьба в Греческой и Русской
Церкви, Москва 1885.
MURATOVA 2004:
Ксения М. Муратова, “Англия и Сицилия в XII в.: К вопросу о циркуляции художественных
моделей” (résumé “La Sicile et l’Angleterre au XIIe siècle: A propos du problème de la circulation des
modèles artistiques”), [in:] Древнерусское искусство: Искусство рукописной книги: Византия.
Древняя Русь, ed. Э. Н. ДобрынинаСанкт-Петербург, 2004, p. 149–163.
OAKESHOTT 1972:
Walter F. Oakeshott, Sigena: Romanesque Paintings in Spain and the Winchester Bible, London
1972.
VELIMIROVIČ 1962:
Miloš M. Velimirovič, “Liturgical Drama in Byzantium and Russia”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16
(1962), p. 351–385.
WEITZMANN 1999:
Kurt Weizmann, “The origin of the illustrations of the Octateuchs”, [in:] Kurt Weizmann, Massimo
Bernabo (with collaboration of Rita Tarasconi), The Byzantine Octateuchs: The Illustrations in the
Manuscripts of the Septuagint, vol. 1, Princeton (NJ) 1999, p. 300–310.
WHITE 1938:
Lynne T. White, Latin Monasticism in Norman Sicily, Cambridge (Mass.) 1938.
YOUNG 1933:
Karl Young , The Drama of the Medieval Church, vol. 1–2, Oxford 1933.
Spatial Icons.
A Hierotopic Approach
to Byzantine Art History
Alexei Lidov
Research Centre for Eastern Christian Culture, Moscow
The present paper is based on the concept of Hierotopy, which I proposed nine years ago.
It deals with a new field of art historical and cultural studies focusing on the making of sacred
spaces considered to be a particular form of human creativity1. A significant phenomenon of
spatial icons has been discussed in this context. This phenomenon stands for the iconic im-
ages not depicted figuratively, but presented spatially as a kind of vision that extends beyond
the realm of flat pictures and their ideology, still dominant in our minds and preventing us
from establishing an adequate perception of hierotopical projects2. In such a case it seems
crucial to recognize and acknowledge the intrinsic spatial nature of iconic imagery as a whole:
in Byzantine minds the icon was not merely an object or a flat picture on a panel or wall,
but also a spatial vision emanating from the picture and existing between the image and its
beholder. This basic perception defined the iconic character of space in which various media
were interacting. From this point of view the creation of a sacred space is such organization
of concrete spatial imagery that typologically (i.e. according to a type of representation and
its perception), can be considered quite like Byzantine icons3.
This artistic phenomenon, as I have argued elsewhere, creates a methodological diffi-
culty, as it contradicts to the basic principle of the traditional art history - the opposition
‘image versus beholder’4. The relationship between the image and the beholder could be
most complicated, yet their structural opposition presents a kind of pivot of all art-his-
torical discussions. The most characteristic feature of hierotopic phenomena, however, is
1 LIDOV 2006a; LIDOV 2009.

2 LIDOV 2007; LIDOV 2004; LIDOV 2004a; LIDOV 2006.
3 On this phenomenon see: LIDOV 2007; LIDOV 2007a.
4 LIDOV 2006a, 40–43.
86 Alexei Lidov
the participation of the beholder in the spatial image5. The beholder finds himself within
the image as its integral element along with various representations and effects created by
lights, scents, gestures, and sounds6. Furthermore, the beholder, as endowed with collective
and individual memory, unique spiritual experience and knowledge, in a way participates
in the creation of spatial imagery. Simultaneously, the image exists in objective reality as
a kind of dynamic structure, adapting its elements according to an individual perception
- some aspects of the spatial entity could be accentuated, or temporarily downplayed. Crea-
tors of sacred spaces kept in their minds the factor of the prepared perception, connecting
all intellectual and emotional threads of the image-concept into a unified whole.
It is noteworthy, that Byzantine “spatial icons”, most unusual in modern European con-
text, have a typological parallel in the contemporary art of performances and multi-media
installations, which have nothing to do with the Byzantine tradition historically or symboli-
cally7. What they share in common is the basic principle of absence of a single source of im-
age, the imagery being created in space by numerous dynamically changing forms8. In this
situation the role of the beholder acquires major significance, as he actively participates in
the re-creation of the spatial imagery. With all the differences of the contents, technologies
and aesthetics one may speak about one and the same type of the perception of images.
Recent studies of spatial icons and of hierotopy in general, required serious reconsid-
eration of existing methodology and elaboration on the new notions, one of which I am
going to discuss in the present paper. It seems to be of major importance for the under-
standing of a number of phenomena of world art in general and the Eastern Christian
tradition specifically.
I will argue that in many cases the discussion of visual culture can not be reduced
to a positivist description of artefacts, or to the analysis of theological notions. Some
phenomena can be properly interpreted only on the level of images-ideas, I prefer to
term them “image-paradigms”, which do not coincide with the illustrative pictures or
ideological conceptions and, as it seems, might become a special notion and a useful
instrumentum studiorum, which helps to adopt the spatial imagery into the realm of our
mostly positivist discourse. That image-paradigm was not connected with an illustration
to any specific text, although it did belong to a continuum of literary and symbolic mean-
ings and associations. This type of imagery is quite distinct from what one may call an
iconographic device. At the same time the image-paradigm belonged to visual culture, it
was visible and recognizable, but it was not formalized in any fixed state, either in a form
of the pictorial scheme or in a mental construction. In this respect the image-paradigm
5
ISAR 2000; LIDOV 2004a, p. 319–21; LIDOV 2007, 355–57.
6
Some characteristic examples have been recently discussed: WEYL CARR 2006; BAKALOVA/LA-
ZAROVA 2006.
7 ISAR 2008, 465.
8 ISAR 2006.
Spatial Icons 87
resembles of the metaphor that loses its sense in re-telling, or in its de-construction into
parts. For the Byzantine world such irrational and simultaneously ‘hieroplastic’ percep-
tion of the phenomena could be the most adequate evidence of their divine essence. It
does not require any mystic perception but rather a special type of consciousness, in
which our distinct categories of the artistic, ritual, visual, spatial are interwoven into the
inseparable whole. This form of vision determines a range of symbolic structures as well
as numerous specific pictorial motifs; in addition, it challenges our fundamental meth-
odological approach to the image as illustration and flat picture.
Some previous years I tried to present some reconstructions of particular image-para-
digms that existed in the Byzantine world. Among them the image-paradigm of Heavenly
Jerusalem was the most perceptible, existing practically in every church where the Heav-
enly City was not formally depicted but appeared as a kind of vision created by various
media which included not only architecture and iconography but particular rites, sound-
ing liturgical prayers, dramaturgy of lightings, organization of incense and fragrance. It is
clear, that the level of sophistication and esthetical quality of the project was quite different
in the Byzantine capital and in a remote village but the principle of the image-paradigm,
visual and at the same not depicted, remained crucial in the concept of a sacred space.
Probably, Heavenly Jerusalem was the most powerful image-paradigm but, certainly, not
even one. We may speak about the entire category of Byzantine images neglected for a long
time. Some more specific examples, like image-paradigms of the “Blessed City of Edessa” or
of the Priesthood of the Virgin, have been recently revealed and discussed9.
In the present paper I would like to deal with another characteristic example of the
“image-paradigms” which played a great role in the Christian culture. This is the paradigm
of the Iconic Curtain. I would like to demonstrate that the curtain was a powerful vehicle of
the Byzantine culture definitive of the iconic imagery from the very beginning. It goes back
to the prototype of the Temple Veil and to the Jewish and Christian tradition of its theologi-
cal interpretation10.
Already the first mentioning of the Veil (paroket) of the Tabernacle (Exod. 26:31;
36:35), separating the holy place from the Holy of Holies and screening the Ark and the
seat of God, indicates that it was a kind of image, the skilled work, woven from blue, pur-
ple, crimson and linen, and embroidered with cherubim. The Jewish tradition perceived
the Veil as a symbolic representation of cosmos and eternity.
Josephus, writing at the end of the first century AD, stated that the veil, which had
been embroidered with flowers and patterns in Babylonian work, depicted a panorama
of the heavens. He explained that the colors woven together had a symbolic meaning: the
scarlet signified fire, the linen symbolised the earth, the blue - the air and the purple - the
9 LIDOV 1998; LIDOV 2006; LIDOV 2007.

10 On this tradition, see recently: BARKER 2005, 202–28.
88 Alexei Lidov
sea. The veil, thus, represented the matter, the substance of the visible creation, and of the
universe11. The later Jewish mystic theology suggested that the veil was also an image of the
sacred time simultaneously representing the past, the present and the future. The book of
Enoch III describes how Ishmael the high priest was taken up into heaven and shown all
the history of the world on the reverse side of the veil, as on a great screen.
Philo gave the same explanation of the colours of the veil as symbolizing the four ele-
ments of the world. A crucial point of his interpretation is that the veil was the boundary be-
tween the visible and the invisible creation. The world beyond the veil was unchanging and
without a temporal sequence of events, but the visible world outside the veil was a place of
change12. This statement of Philo seems to me of great significance for the tradition of the
icon worship and deserves more careful analysis. He introduced not merely an opposition
between the earthly and the heavenly worlds, but also defined a concept of interaction of
these two sacred realms, the holy and the most holy, which belong to different ontological
models. The most holy realm, placed beyond the veil and existing outside time and mat-
ter, creates the eternal pattern for the changing sacred environment in front of the curtain.
Some traces of Philo’s vision could be found in the Byzantine theology of icons. The holy
image, following the curtain paradigm, is not just ‘the door to heavens’ (this traditional in-
terpretation seems to be too simplified), but also the living spatial and transparent bound-
ary connecting two heterogeneous sacred realms. It provides an explanation of the special
concept of time and space, which one may discover while contemplating icons. From this
point of view every icon could be interpreted as a curtain signifying the boundary of the
dynamic space of prayer, unifying the beholder and the image in a space of unchangeable
divine presence.
In the Christian tradition, the tearing of the temple veil (katapetasma) at the moment
of Christ’s death (Mat. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) becomes a new source of interpreta-
tion. According to St Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, the veil is designated the flesh of the
Lord: “The new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain (katapetasma),
that is through his flesh” (Heb. 10:19-20). There are some important aspects derived from
the Christian vision of the veil. The eternity of Christ, who had passed beyond the veil and
thus beyond the time, has been confirmed. Through the veil torn in two He opened the
Holy of Holies to the faithful and a way to salvation. The temple curtain became an image
of His redemptive sacrifice with its liturgical connotations. The symbolism of the veil as the
flesh of Christ was one of the most influential and widespread topics in Christian culture.
A theological interpretation of the apocryphal story of the Virgin weaving the Temple veil
11 JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS, Ant. III 6, 4; III 7, 7 and War V 5, 4 (ed. Whiston, vol. 1, p. 224–25, 233–34;
vol. 4, p. 183).
12 PHILO, Questions on Exodus II 91 (ed. Marcus, p. 140).
Spatial Icons 89
became a popular theme of early Byzantine hymnography and homiletics where it was the
weaving of the veil came to be compared to the Incarnation of the Logos13.
From early Christian time onwards, the veil was perceived as a powerful iconic image
having various connotations ranging from the idea of the Incarnation to that of the Eucha-
ristic sacrifice. In contrast to the Jewish tradition a topos of the open curtain was highly
emphasized. It seems quite natural, then, that in the period of Iconoclasm the Temple veil
became one of the arguments of the icon-worshippers presented at the Second Council of
Nicaea: “Thus, this Christ, while visible to men by means of the curtain, that is His flesh,
made the divine nature – even though this remained concealed – manifest through signs.
Therefore, it is in this form, seen by men, that the holy Church of God depicts Christ”. This
vision was incorporated into the contemporary iconography.
The “Parousia miniature” from the ninth-century Vatican manuscript of the Christian
Topography (Cod. gr. 699, fol. 89r) provides the most characteristic example, which has
been recently discussed by Herbert Kessler14. The composition of the Second Coming (fig. 1.)
is actually structured by the tabernacle, following a two-part scheme used for the Ark of
the Covenant in the Jewish tradition and later in Byzantine iconography. The arched up-
per part represents the Holy of Holies, the rectangle lower part symbolizes the Holy place,
which is interpreted as a tripartite hierarchy of the heavenly, earthly and underground
beings. Christ is represented in the Holy of Holies in the background of a magnificent gold
cloth decorated with a trellis pattern filled with fleurs-de-lis. The ornamentation was prob-
ably inspired by Josephus’ description of the Temple Veil embroidered with flowers and
patterns. As Kessler has noticed, the same decoration of the Veil appeared in the depiction
of the entrance into the Tabernacle in other miniatures of the Christian Topography.
The curtain is at once the background and the major iconic representation, which is
symbolically inseparable from the image of Christ because the Veil, in Pauline and patristic
interpretation, is the flesh of Christ. Through Christ and the Temple Veil the viewer may
gain access to heaven represented by the blue background. This is a visual embodiment of
the New Testament’s words about “the new and living way” that Christ opened for us to the
Holy of Holies when the Screen-Veil was torn in two at the moment of the Redemptive Sac-
rifice. The idea of entrance into heaven is emphasized by the Greek inscription above the
Vatican Parousia: “You have my Father’s blessings” and further, according to St Matthew
(25:34) “come, enter and possess the kingdom that has been ready for you since the world
was made”. The creator of the miniature suggests a fundamental idea of all icons perceived
as mediating realms.
In this respect, the icon of “Christ-Veil” operates as an ideal iconic image. It is notewor-
thy that the curtain is closed and open at the same time. The idea of boundary seems cru-
13 CONSTAS 2003, chap. 6.

14 KESSLER 2000, 60–87.
90 Alexei Lidov
Fig. 1. The ‘Parousia miniature’ from the ninth-century Vatican manuscript of the Christian Topog-
raphy (from KESSLER 2000)
cial, but the possibility of crossing this threshold is no less significant. As the open curtain,
the icon is a sign of passage and transfiguration, in which the idea of theosis, or deification,
is realised as a dynamic process, a dialectic interaction of the holy and the most holy realms
Spatial Icons 91
with the active participation of the beholder. One may assume that the curtain as poten-
tially transparent sacred screen could be regarded as a basic principle of iconicity.
It is important to note that the icon-curtain has not received a formalized pictorial
scheme in iconography. Most probably, Byzantine image-makers deliberately avoided
limiting the all-embracing symbolism of the veil to a particular pattern but rather used it
as a recognizable paradigm of icon-screen appearing each time in a new form.
The image-paradigm of the iconic curtain has been revealed through real curtains and
veils hanging in actual Christian churches15. In Syrian sources from the fourth century on-
wards, there are several testimonies to the use of altar curtains, which were conceived as
an interactive system of veils concealing, respectively, the door of the sanctuary barrier, the
ciborium, and the holy gifts on the altar-table. Theologians identified these curtains with the
Temple veils – the symbolism is reflected not merely in commentaries but even in the termi-
nology of the church spaces divided by curtains. The evidence of written sources is confirmed
by archeological data indicating traces of hangings in the Early Syrian sanctuaries.
In one of the oldest Byzantine liturgical commentaries, ascribed to Sophronius of Jeru-
salem, it is said that the kosmites (architrave of the sanctuary barrier) is a symbolic image
of the katapetasma, i.e. the temple veil16. Multiple sources mention curtains in different
contexts of imperial ceremonies or miraculous events in Constantinople. The Byzantine
accounts fit well with the contemporary evidence from Liber Pontificalis on the numerous
icon-curtains presented by Roman popes to the main basilicas of their city17. The most char-
acteristic example is Paschal I (817–824) adorning Santa Maria Maggiore in 822–82418. He
presented to this church several dozens of textiles belonging to different types of decora-
tion (among others “the clothes of Byzantine purple”); most were for the altar area of the
basilica. There were at least three different sets of icon-curtains, decorating spaces between
columns of the sanctuary barriers. A year later, Pope Paschal added an extra set of icon-
curtains representing another cycle: Christ’s Passion and Resurrection.
Another group of curtains displayed on that basilica’s great beam was connected with
the sanctuary barrier’s decoration. The most significant among them was “a great veil of in-
terwoven gold, with 7 gold-studded panels and a fringe of Byzantine purple”. According to
Krautheimer, this large veil with seven images displayed beneath the triumphal arch was
for the wider central opening of the pergola (barrier)19. Thus, it had to serve as an actual
replica of the Temple Veil over the sanctuary door. This great curtain hung in juxtaposition
to another one placed at the entrance to Santa Maria Maggiore, “a great Alexandrian curtain,
15 The discussion of written sources and the available archeological data from Syria to Constantinople,
see: MATHEWS 1980, 162–71.

16 KRASNOSELTSEV 1894, 201.
17 CROQUISON 1964, 577–603; PETRIAGGI 1984.
18 Liber Pontificalis: C. Paschalis (817–824), XXX–XL (ed. Duchesne: vol.1, 60–63; translation: Da-
vis 27).
19 KRAUTHEIMER 1937/77, vol. 3, 52.
92 Alexei Lidov
Fig. 2. The Tabernacle. The seventh-century miniature of the Ashburnham Pentateuch (from
K. Weitzmann, Late Antique and Early Christian Book Illumination, New York 1977, pl. 46)
embellished and adorned with various representations”. These two veils engaged in a visual
and symbolic dialogue with the third one, which was situated on the same horizontal axis,
probably, behind the throne in the opening of the central arcade. It is noteworthy that in
many cases the Liber Pontificalis indicates the manner of making the curtains, emphasizing
their being manufactured out of four different materials “of fourfold-weave”. The symbolic
aspect of this technology seems quite clear: it connects Roman textiles with the Temple Veil
that was made of blue, purple, crimson and linen (Exod. 26:31; 36:35).
We have mentioned just few examples of the elaborated system of curtains creating
a multi-layered structure of sacred screens, dynamic, changing, and interacting. One can
imagine that Santa Maria Maggiore, as well as other Roman churches, looked much more
like cloth tabernacle than a stone church. A good impression of this imagery may be found
in the seventh-century miniature of the Ashburnham Pentateuch (Paris, Bibl. Nat., Cod.
lat. 2334, fol. 76r) representing the Old Testament tabernacle as a Christian church with
the eight different types of curtains arranged as a system of sacred screens (fig. 2). The
evidence of the Liber Pontificalis allows us to see in this iconographic pattern a reflection of
contemporary church interiors, embodying the most powerful image-paradigm, which for
centuries played such a great role in the Mediterranean visual culture, extending beyond
fluid borders of the West and the East. It is noteworthy that it was not an illustration of
a particular theological notion, though it had several symbolic meanings, deeply rooted
Spatial Icons 93
in the Jewish tradition and its Chris-

tian interpretation, revealing in ev-
ery church the imagery of the Tab-
ernacle.
The all-embracing symbolism of
the icon-curtain could be found in al-
most all church decoration – present-
ed on different levels, from a concrete
pictorial motif to a general structure.
In this connection one should examine
the well-known iconographic theme of
curtains in the lower register of church
walls. Curtains had already appeared
in early Byzantine art (in the murals
of the Bawit monasteries, or of Santa
Maria Antiqua in Rome; fig. 3) and
they became an established device
in the Middle-Byzantine period (fig.
4). Scholars have suggested different
interpretations of this motif20. In our
view, however, its connection with
the Temple Veil symbolism seems the Fig. 3. The curtains in the eighth-century murals of
most probable. Some new arguments Santa Maria Antiqua in Rome (Photo: Author)
can be provided. The representations
of curtains were accumulated in the
sanctuary area while in the naos of the church plates imitating marble were depicted. On the
curtains, represented in the altar of the 12th century Russian church of Sts Boris and Gleb in
Kideksha21, one finds a pattern in form of the candlestick with seven branches, an iconography
pointing to the Tabernacle and the Temple service. However, we find the most striking exam-
ple in the decoration of the mid-13th century upper church of the Boyana monastery near Sofia,
Bulgaria. An original inscription that has survived on the curtains in the lower register of the
northern wall clearly identifies the meaning of the image, “kourtina rekoma zavesa – kour-
tina, called the veil”. So, the curtains in the lower zone are not the ornamental margins but
an integral part of an ancient symbolic concept that goes back to the early Byzantine church
iconography. Going a step further in our interpretation, the holy figures above the curtains can
be viewed as the images on the Veil and beyond the Veil, coming from Heavens and becoming
20 John Osborne has discussed some interpretations in conjunction with Roman murals: OSBORNE
1992, 312–51.
21 ORLOVA 2002, 35–38.
94 Alexei Lidov
Fig. 4. The curtains in the sanctuary of the twelfth-century ossuary church of the Petritsion monas-
tery (Bachkovo) in Bulgaria (Photo: Author)
visible and accessible because the Temple Veil was opened forever by the sacrifice of Christ.
In this way the entire pictorial space of the church can be identified with the icon-curtain,
as I have earlier suggested in case of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia (fig. 5) with the mosaic vaults
recalling the ornamental veils and in Roman basilicas wherein the image of the tabernacle-
curtain received a key position at the top of the altar apse.
A sort of imagery that I attempted to disclose and discuss in the present paper leads to
an important methodological statement: the iconic curtain as well as some other important
phenomena of the Mediterranean visual culture can not be described in traditional terms of
art history. They challenge our fundamental methodological approach to the image as illus-
tration and flat picture, being quite distinct from what one may call iconography. The art-
ists, operating with various media, including standard depictions, could create in minds of
their experienced beholders the most powerful images which were visible and recognizable
at any particular space, yet not figuratively represented as pictorial schemes. These images
revealed specific messages, being charged with profound symbolic meanings and various
associations. At the same time they existed beyond illustrations of theological statements or
Spatial Icons 95
ordinary narratives. So, it concerns a special

kind of imagery which requires, in my view,
a new notion of image-paradigms. The in-
troduction of this notion into contemporary
art history, and humanities in general, will
allow us to acknowledge a number of phe-
nomena, not only “Medieval” and “Medi-
terranean”, which defined several symbolic
structures as well as numerous concrete
pictorial motifs. We still do not have an ad-
equate terminological language to operate
with image-paradigms but it seems already
clear that beyond image-paradigms our dis-
cussion will remain foreign to a medieval
way of thinking and any analysis would be
limited to merely the external fixation of
visual culture.
Fig. 5. The sixth-century mosaic vaults recalling

the ornamental veils of the Tabernacle. Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople (Photo: Author)
e-mail: alidov@gmail.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES:
Liber Pontificalis (ed. Duchesne):
Le Liber Pontificalis. Text, introduction et commentaire par L. Duchesne, Paris, 1981.
Liber Pontificalis (ed. Davis):
The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of Ten Popes from
A.D. 817–891, translated and commentary by R. Davis, Liverpool, 1995.
JOSEPHUS FLAVIUS:
The Works of Josephus, with a Life written by Himself, translated by W. Whiston, New York 1889,
vol. 1–4.
PHILO:
Philo, Questions and Answers on Exodus, [in:] Philo, Works, vol. 12 (Supplement 2) translated by R.
Marcus (Loeb Classical Library 401), London – Cambridge (Mass.) 1953.
96 Alexei Lidov
SECONDARY LITERATURE:
BAKALOVA/LAZAROVA 2006:
Elka Bakalova, Anna Lazarova, “The Relics of St Spyridon and the Making of Sacred Space on Corfu:
between Constantinople and Veniсe”, [in:] Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium
and Medieval Russia, ed. A. Lidov, Moscow, 2006, p. 434–464.
BARKER 2005:
Margaret Barker, The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy, London 2005.
CONSTAS 2003:
Nicholas Constas, Proclus of Constantinople and the Cult of the Virgin in Late Antiquity, Leiden
2003.
CROQUISON 1964:
Joseph Croquison, “L’iconographie chretienne a Rome d’apres «Liber pontificalis»”, Byzantion 34
(1964), p. 535–606.
ISAR 2000:
Nicoletta Isar, “The Vision and its Exceedingly Blessed Beholder. Of Desire and Participation in the
Icon”, RES. The Journal of Anthropology and Aesthetics, 38 (2000), p. 56–72.
ISAR 2006:
Nicoletta Isar, “Chorography (Chôra, Chôros, Chorós) – A performative paradigm of creation of sacred
space in Byzantium”, [in:] Hierotopy: The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Rus-
sia, ed. A. Lidov, Moscow 2006, p. 59–90.
ISAR 2008:
Nicoletta Isar, “Vision and Performance. A Hierotopic Approach to Contemporary Art”, [in:] Hier-
otopy. Comparative Studies, ed. A. Lidov, Moscow 2009, p. 328–362.
KESSLER 2000:
Herbert Kessler, Spiritual Seeing. Picturing God’s Invisibility in Medieval Art, Philadelphia 2000,
p. 60–87.
KRASNOSELTSEV 1894:
Николай Красносельцев, О древних литургических толкованиях, Odessa 1894.
KRAUTHEIMER 1937-77:
Richard Krautheimer, Corpus Basilicarum Christianarum Romae: The Early Christian Basilicas of
Rome (IV–IX Centuries), Vatican City 1937–1977, vol. 1-7.
LIDOV 1998:
Alexei Lidov, “Heavenly Jerusalem: the Byzantine Approach”, Jewish Art 1998 (The Real and Ideal
Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian and Islamic Art), ed. B. Kuehnel, Jerusalem 1997–1998, p. 341–353.
LIDOV 2004:
Alexei Lidov, “Leo the Wise and the Miraculous Icons in Hagia Sophia”, [in:] The Heroes of the Ortho-
dox Church. The New Saints, 8th to 16th century, ed. E. Kountura-Galaki, Athens 2004, p. 393–432.
LIDOV 2004a:
Alexei Lidov, “The Flying Hodegetria. The Miraculous Icon as Bearer of Sacred Space”, [in:] The
Miraculous Image in the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, eds. E. Thunø, G. Wolf, Rome 2004,
p. 291–321.
LIDOV 2006:
Alexei Lidov, “The Miracle of Reproduction. The Mandylion and Keramion as a Paradigm of Sacred
Space”, [in:] L’Immagine di Cristo dall’ Acheropiita dalla mano d’artista, eds. C. Frommel, G.Morello
and G. Wolf, Citta del Vaticano-Rome 2006, p. 17–41.
LIDOV 2006a:
Alexei Lidov, “Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces as a Form of Creativity and Subject of Cul-
tural History”, [in:] Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia,
ed. A. Lidov, Moscow 2006, pp. 32–58.
Spatial Icons 97
LIDOV 2007:
Alexei Lidov, “Spatial Icons. The Miraculous Performance with the Hodegetria of Constantinople”,
[in:] Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. A. Lidov, Mos-
cow 2006, p. 349–372.
LIDOV 2007a:
Alexei Lidov, “The Creator of Sacred Space as a Phenomenon of Byzantine Culture”, [in:] L’artista
a Bisanzio e nel mondo cristiano-orientale, ed. M. Bacci, Pisa 2007, p. 135–176.
LIDOV 2007a:
Alexei Lidov, “Holy Face, Holy Script, Holy Gate: Revealing the Edessa Paradigm in Christian Im-
agery”, [in:] A Intorno al Sacro Volto. Bisanzio, Genova e il Mediterraneo, ed. R Calderoni, C. Dufour
Bozzo, G. Wolf, Venezia 2007, p. 195–212.
LIDOV 2009:
Алексей Лидов, Иеротопия. Пространственные иконы и образы-парадигмы в византийской
культуре (Hierotopy. Spatial Icons and Image-Paradigms in Byzantine Culture) , Moscow 2009.
MATHEWS 1980:
Thomas F. Mathews, Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy, University Park
and London 1980.
ORLOVA 2002:
Мария Орлова. “О происхождении традиции изображения подвесных пелен в росписях древ-
нерусских храмов (On the origins of the representation of the hanging textiles in medieval Russian
churches)”, [in:] К 500-летию создания фресок Дионисия в Ферапонтовом монастыре. Тезисы
докладов международной конференции. Мoscow 2002, p. 35–38.
OSBORN 1992:
John Osborn, “Textiles and their painted Imitations in Early Medieval Rome”, Papers of the British
School in Rome, 60 (1992), p. 309–351.
PETRIAGGI 1984:
Roberto Petriaggi, “Utilizzazione, decorazione e diffusione dei tessuti nei corredi delle basiliche cri-
stiane secondo il Liber Pontificalis (514–795)”, Prospetiva. Revista di storia dell’arte antico e mo-
derna, 37 (1984), p. 37–46.
WEYL CARR 2006:
Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Taking Place: The Shrine of the Virgin Veiled by God in Kalopanagiotis,
Cyprus”, [in:] Hierotopy. The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed.
A. Lidov, Moscow 2006, p. 388–408.
Part II:
Interpretations
On the Interaction of Word

and Image in Byzantium:
The Case of the Epigrams
on the Florence Reliquary
Andreas Rhoby
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Byzantine Studies
Inscriptional words play a vital role in every society. The ambition to attach letters to
works of art has always been popular and still is today.1 In most cases the accompanying
letters are more than mere adornment.2 They either describe the object or the image they
are attached to or clarify their purpose. The importance of inscriptions in Byzantine works
of art was already recognized by Maximos Planudes at the end of the 13th century. In an epi-
gram written in the name of Theodora Kantakuzene Rhaulina Palaiologina Komnene,3 a relative
of Michael VIII Palaiologos, Planudes states the following: “Inscriptions [or titles]4 reveal
the representations of things and persons in pictures”.5 A similar statement is to be found
in a marginal note on fol. 1v in the so called Bible of Leo Sakellarios (Cod. Vat. Reg. gr. 1;
ca. 940–950). It states that the “iambic verses” (i.e. the epigrams) in this codex “explain the
meaning of the historical scenes [i.e. the miniatures] clearly and concisely”.6
However, the value of inscriptions preserved on or next to Byzantine works of art has
long been underestimated.7 That can be observed by looking at the images in some art
1 WALLIS 1973.
2 On the decorative use of inscriptions cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, 271–73; JAMES 2007.
3 Cf. TRAPP 1976-1996, no. 10943.
4 On the meaning “title” cf. LIDDELL/SCOTT/JONES/ MCKENZIE 1925–1940, s.v. ™pigraf» I 2.

5 LAMPROS 1916, 416 (no. 2, v. 1–2): 'Epigrafaˆ dhloàsi t¦j tîn pragm£twn / kaˆ tîn prosèpwn ™n
grafa‹j parast£seij.
6 MATHEWS 1977; cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, 193; LAUXTERMANN 1994, 65f.: … st…coi „ambikoˆ ...
tîn ƒstorhqšntwn noàn ™n ™pitomÍ safšstata dhloàntej.

7 Despite relevant hints such as those of Cyril Mango (MANGO 1972, 182): “They (i.e. epigrams) provide
an abundant and almost unexploited source of information for art historians”. Cf. also TOMADAKES 1961.
102 Andreas Rhoby
historical publications. Sometimes the accompanying text is not included or half of it is

cut off. In many cases this is a real pity because the inscriptions are not added at random
but for a certain purpose. One such example (for the improper presentation of the inscrip-
tions) is the catalogue of the illustrated Byzantine Octateuchs published by Weitzmann
and Bernabò.8 A lot of depicted scenes from various manuscripts are also accompanied
by verses. They were edited more or less properly by Weitzmann. However, if the user of
this book wants to check the verses at the images of the miniatures he soon discovers that
the overwhelming majority of them was not included when the photo was taken. These ac-
companying verses are mostly not more than a mere paraphrase of the depicted scene but
nevertheless they still would deserve to be displayed properly.
However, the blame is not to be put on art historians alone. Philologists also sometimes
tend to look at the texts in the manuscripts one-sided without paying too much attention to
their artistic value. Fortunately, due to efforts of Henry Maguire,9 Bissera Pentcheva10 and
many others11 the interaction between word and image is now more carefully investigated.
Among inscriptions preserved on works of art the metrical ones or epigrams, as they
are normally called, play a special role.12 Epigrams are more than a mere text which ac-
companies an object of art or an image. The text itself already has some kind of specific
value. Epigrams, primarily written in the Byzantine dodecasyllable,13 follow distinct rules
concerning prosody, the correct numbers of syllables, rhetorical figures, etc.14 Thus, au-
thors of epigrams, which were meant to be inscribed on works of art, had to comply with
two requirements: First, they had to follow the mentioned specific rules of the epigram.
Second, ideally they also had to consider the form of the medium to which the epigrams
were attached.
As can be seen from many examples epigram and image do not always correspond. This
has several causes: As Henry Maguire15 and Wolfram Hörandner16 have been demonstrat-
ing in several publications, epigrams were not always composed for one specific object or
image. Especially epigrams of prominent authors, such as Theodoros Studites (8th/9th c.),
Theodoros Prodromos (12th c.) and Manuel Philes (13th/14th c.), were reused in later cen-
turies, even long after the fall of the Byzantine empire. For example, two epigrams on the
Death of the Virgin Mary composed by Manuel Philes17, were used for the post-Byzantine
8 WEITZMANN/BERNABÒ 1999.
9 E.g. MAGUIRE 1996; MAGUIRE 1996a.
10 E.g. PENTCHEVA 2006; PENTCHEVA 2008.
11 An early example is DER NERSESSIAN 1962.
12 Cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, passim; HÖRANDNER 2003.
13 On the Byzantine dodecasyllable MAAS 1903; LAUXTERMANN 1998.
14 Cf. RHOBY 2007.
15 MAGUIRE 1996; MAGUIRE 1994.
16 HÖRANDNER 1987; HÖRANDNER 2006.
17 MANUEL PHILES, Carmina, CLXXVIII (ed. Miller vol. 1, p. 354).
Interaction of Word and Image 103
parts of the decoration (perhaps early 18th century)18 of the narthex of the katholikon of the
Pantanassa-monastery of Mistra.19 In fact, in such a case there have to be some inaccuracies
between the text and the image. In other cases, epigrams were composed at a time when it
was not yet clear what the actual object or monument would look like.
However, there is plenty of evidence for the case that epigram and object do corre-
spond – even if, in some cases, very subtly.
In some epigrams which are preserved on objects, the beholder is invited to take part
in the interaction between word and image, and asked to become an active member of
this performance.20 To quote one representative example: The Museo Correr at Venice
keeps a small silver-gilt reliquary from the 10th or 11th century; its side panels and back
are covered with a long metrical inscription which consists of twelve verses (six verses are
incised on the side panels, six verses on the back).21 It is also equipped with a ring which
most probably proves that it could be worn as an encolpion. The text of the epigram starts
next to the mentioned ring with the words Zhte‹j, qeat£, t…noj ¹ ceˆr tugc£nei; („You ask,
beholder, whose that hand?“) and continues with m£rturoj ¼de Mar…nhj tÁj ¡g…aj / Âj tÕ
kr£toj œqlase dr£konto<j> k£raj (“It belongs to the holy martyr Marina / whose power
crushed the heads of the dragon”).22 What we learn from these introductory verses is that
the reliquary was made to cover a part of the arm of St. Marina. In addition to the epigram
the reliquary is also decorated with a repoussé medallion depicting a bust-length image of
the saint. From the address Zhte‹j, qeat£ … (“You ask, beholder …”) it can be concluded
that the now lost lid of the reliquary was probably made of glass or crystal, in any case
some transparent material through which the relic could be seen by the qeat»j (by the
“beholder”).
This epigram is interesting for another reason as well. In order to learn by whom the
reliquary was donated the verses have to be studied very carefully. The donor is a woman;
her name is not mentioned but she might have been called Marina according to the relics in
the box.23 In order to identify the donor as a woman the text of the epigram provides only
one hint. This hint is the feminine participle zhtoàsa in verse 5. The whole verse reads as
zhtoàsa goàn œtucon aÙtÁj ™k pÒqou (“Seeking for it [the hand], I found it, in accordance
with my desire“).
Thus, it can be seen that sometimes a careful study of the accompanying text is required
in order to understand the whole sense of an object of art. However, one can also present
18 Cf. SINOS 2005, 515.
19 Cf. ZESIOS 1909, 441 (no. 149).
20 Cf. PAPALEXANDROU 2001; PAPALEXANDROU 2007.
21 Cf. GUILLOU 1996, 82–84 (no. 79) and tab. 75–77 (fig. 79a–e); FOLDA 1997, 496f. (no. 332) and fig.
332; D’AIUTO 2007, 436, 439; see also ŠΕVČENKO 1998, 251f.
22 A revised edition of the epigram is included in the second volume (RHOBY 2010, No. Me 81) of the
project “Byzantinische Epigramme auf Objekten” [Byzantine epigrams on objects].

23 Cf. GUILLOU 1996, 84.
104 Andreas Rhoby
an epigram to which much of attention has been paid but the conclusions which have been
drawn are still inaccurate. In her recently published book about the cave churches of Cap-
padocia with the title “Sacred Art of Cappadocia”24 – which has proven to be very useful –
Catherine Jolivet-Lévy devotes a long chapter to the richly decorated new church of Tokalı
Kilise in Göreme (Cappadocia). In this church on the cornice of the nave the remains of
a long epigram are preserved.25 The epigram once consisted of estimated 20 dodecasyl-
lables, but more than half of them are not legible any more. It was first edited by Rott at
the beginning of the 20th century,26 later by Jerphanion.27 Hardly anything of the epigram’s
beginning is preserved. The first legible letters belong to the verses 3 and 4: From verse
3 which is preserved as [¢nistÒ]rhsen Kwnstant‹noj ™k pÒqou one learns that a certain
Konstantinos commissioned the painting of the church.28 Of verse 4 only the beginning and
the end is preserved: One reads PROSMO at the beginning and ATON (perhaps MATON)
at the end.29 Jerphanion amended the lacuna with prÕj mon[¾n tîn oÙran…wn ¢sw]m£twn
(“to the monastery of the heavenly angels”). Since he was not certain of this amendment
and regarded it as a mere proposal he put a question mark to the end of the line. Jolivet-
Lévy (and others before her), however, did not pay attention to the fact that the verse was
amended by Jerphanion. Thus, she writes in her book “The Sacred Art of Cappadocia”30
that the inscription on the cornice states that the church belonged to the monastery of
the archangels. However, as was shown above, there is no evidence for that except for the
amended verse given by Jerphanion. The church might have belonged to a monastery, and
art historians shall make a decision about it, but the only thing which can be stated for cer-
tain is the fact that in the epigram there is no distinct hint for a monastery.
The long epigram in the lavishly decorated new church of Tokalı Kilise is also interesting
for another reason, namely for some inaccuracies between word and image. In the epigram
on the cornice also a list of the scenes portrayed below and above it in the vault is given: In
verse 16 the Feeding of the Multitude is mentioned. This scene however is not represented
anywhere in the church. On the other hand many important scenes do appear in the paint-
ings, but are omitted from the inscription. According to Maguire31 that can be determined
even though the inscription has lacunae, as there would not have been space to list all the
scenes. As was pointed out before, there might be several reasons responsible for this dis-
crepancy: The epigram was perhaps originally written for another church. Or it had been
24JOLIVET-LÉVY 2006.
25
Ed. RHOBY 2009, no. 192.
26 ROTT 1908, 227.
27 DE JERPHANION 1925, 306f.
28 Konstantinos is rather the donor than the painter of the church as can be seen by similar expressions
in other donors’ / founders’ inscriptions, cf. LAUXTERMANN 2003, 159.

29 The end of the verse is indicated with three dots as it was at the end of verse 3.
30 JOLIVET-LÉVY 2006, 45.
31 MAGUIRE 1996, 7.
used before for another church and was later reused for this one. There is certainly also the
possibility that the epigram was commissioned and composed at a time, when it was not yet
clear what the actual decoration of the church would look like.
The second part of the paper is devoted to a rather unknown Byzantine object of art
from the 14th century and its attached epigrams. Since the original object itself is now lost
few things are known. It is the aim of the following presentation to show how the existing
knowledge about the object and its purpose can be enlarged by carefully examining the ac-
companying epigrams.
The original object was once kept in the baptistery of the church San Giovanni at Flor-
ence / Italy. Since it obviously got lost as early as in the late 18th century it has never been
described properly. It was in fact studied only once, but at a time when it was already
incomplete and the different parts were separated. Antonio Francesco Gori included the
remaining parts, three silver slabs, into the 3rd volume of his study Thesaurus veterum dip-
tychorum consularium et ecclesiasticorum published in Florence, in 1759.32 In the second
half of the 18th century casts of the silver slabs worked in lead-gilt were produced; they are
now kept in the old depository of the Museo Cristiano in the Vatican.33 Exactly when and
how the original silver slabs disappeared remains unknown. Gori is certain that the silver
slabs he is discussing originally belonged to a reliquary, however, without telling in detail
how he came to this opinion. Did he manage to see the original complete object? To the
best of my knowledge, there is only one further study in which the slabs from Florence were
treated in some lines, namely in Wolfgang Fritz Volbach’s article.34 The author rightfully
dated the original slabs to the 14th century. He was, however, not fully convinced by Gori’s
idea that the three slabs once belonged to a reliquary. He rather thought that they served at
one time as decorations for an icon of John Prodromos since the first slab (fig. 1) is entirely
devoted to scenes of Prodromos’ life.35 The following comments on the epigrams attached
to the slabs will prove that Gori was right and that the object was originally a reliquary,
however, a reliquary containing the relics of different saints and not only of Prodromos.
Gori’s description of the slabs is not very accurate. He is hardly paying attention to the
style of the scenes and the depicted persons while making the not always successful attempt
of transcribing the Greek texts of the accompanying epigrams.
Upon taking a closer look at the engravings of the three slabs in Gori’s book it can be seen
that each slab consisted of six small plates with either scenes or depictions of persons.
The first slab (fig. 1) is dedicated to scenes of the life of John Prodromos. It shows the
Birth of Prodromos and it incorporates the Naming of Prodromos by his father Zachari-
32 GORI 1759, 349–56.

33 Cf. SCHLUMBERGER 1905, tab. VI (after p. 440), tab. VII (after p. 512); MUÑOZ 1906, 177 (figs.
137–38); KATSIOTE 1998, 304 (figs. 147–48).
34 VOLBACH 1947, p. 89, 93.
35 See epigrams Ia-f in the appendix.
106 Andreas Rhoby
as, showing Zacharias writing

Prodromos’ name on a scroll.
The next plate shows the young
Prodromos who is guided by an
angel to the desert. Next we see
Prodromos in front of Herodes
where he criticizes Herodes’
relationship to his sister-in-
-law Herodias. The next scene
presents Prodromos in prison.
The following plate is devoted
to Herodes’ banquet with the
famous Dance of Salome who
requires Prodromos’ head as
reward for her dance.36 On the
last plate the Discovery of Pro-
dromos’ head is depicted.
The second slab (fig. 2) is
covered with plates with the de-
pictions of the apostles Andrew,
Petrus and Jacob and the saints
Panteleemon, Akindynos and
John the Merciful (Eleemon).
The third slab (fig. 3) contains
plates with the saints Euplos,
Stephanos (the Younger), Theo-
doros Teron and Tryphon. The
last two images are empty apart
from the accompanying texts as
the sole remains.
All the plates on the three
slabs are combined with small
plates with Greek inscriptions.37
Fig. 1. Florence reliquary (14th c.), scenes of the life of John
The Greek inscriptions on the
Prodromos (after GORI 1759, tab. III; after p. 352)
small plates are all metrical
consisting of two verses. The be-
36 The severed head is already shown above her.

37 Besides, there are also inscriptions in the scenes themselves which can be seen upon closer inspection.
ginning of the epigrams is always

marked with a cross, and some-
times the end of the each verse is
marked with dots.
Commencing with the plates
on the first slab (fig. 1) with the
scenes of Prodromos’ life: on the
first plate both the Birth and the
Naming of Prodromos by Zach-
arias are depicted. According to
Angeliki Katsioti, who has stud-
ied the scenes of Prodromos’ life
in Byzantine art very carefully,
it is rather exceptional that both
scenes are combined,38 but one
encounters similar examples espe-
cially in cycles of his life in the 13th
to the 14th century. The epigram
below the scene, however, only
refers to the Naming of Prodro-
mos by his father Zacharias with
the words Fwn¾n sÝ genn´j toà
LÒgou, Zacar…a / p…steue loipÕn
kaˆ g' ¥nw klÁsin gr£fe (see epi-
gram no. Ia in the appendix).39
The next scene showing Pro-
dromos guided by an angel to
the desert is not based on a re-
port in the gospels (and also not
in the apocryphal Greek gospels).
Strangely enough, this episode is
mentioned for the first time in the
chronicle of Georgios Kedrenos in
Fig. 2. Florence reliquary (14th c.), apostles and saints
the 11th century.40 However, that
(after GORI 1759, tab. IV; after p. 354)
does certainly not mean that Ke-
drenos is the source for this scene
38 KATSIOTE 1998, 58f.
39 Although the expression Fwn¾n sÝ genn´j … can also be understood as reference to Prodromos’ birth.
40 KEDRENOS Hist. A.M. 5506 (ed. Bekker, vol. 1, p. 328).
108 Andreas Rhoby
and the accompanying epigram,

which runs as PrÕj t¾n œrhmon
qe‹oj ¥ggeloj fšrei / tÕn ¥ggelÒn
se k¨n œti bršfoj pšlVj (no. Ib in
the appendix). The source of this
report is most likely a Slavic text
of the apocryphal legend of Pro-
dromos. A similar epigram from
the middle of the 14th century is
preserved in the exonarthex of
the katholikon of the Prodromos
monastery near Serres. There
the text accompanying a similar
scene runs as follows: ”Aggeloj
™lqën ¢f' Ûyouj oÙranÒqen /
¥ggelon tÕn PrÒdromon œrhmon
¥gei.41 To the left of this scene one
can see the beheading of Zacharias
in the temple.42
The rest of the plates and the
accompanying epigrams refer-
ring to John Prodromos do not
offer very exciting insights. At
first glimpse it looks as if there
were only six plates / six scenes
reserved for the life of Prodro-
mos (on the first slab). However,
there must have been another
plate on the original object de-
picting another typical scene of
Prodromos’ life. It is not shown
on any of the three slabs in Gori’s Fig. 3. Florence reliquary (14th c.), saints
(after GORI 1759, tab. V; after p. 356)
study but it is preserved on one
41 Ed. RHOBY 2009, no. 109.

42 The text of the Serres-epigram also contains an interesting linguistical detail: One would expect a
preposition in front of œrhmon. For this reason a previous editor added the preposition ei0j before œrhmon.
However, the preposition was left out intentionally since œrhmon works here as an accusativus loci (for
further references concerning ¥gw with the accusativus loci cf. LIDDELL/SCOTT/JONES/MCKENZIE
1925–1940, s.v. ¥gw I 1).
of the two casts kept in the Vatican. It refers to the beheading of Prodromos’ father Zach-
arias. This scene normally precedes the scene showing Prodromos guided by an angel to the
desert as it is the case in the exonarthex of the Prodromos monastery near Serres. The con-
tent of the epigram referring to the beheading of Zacharias is based on Matthew 23, 35.43
Since this additional epigram now gives proof of there having been at least another plate
with a scene referring to the circle of Prodromos’ life, new questions have to be asked: Were
there more scenes of the circle of Prodromos’ life on the original Byzantine object than Gori
presents? Was there another slab with scenes of Prodromos’ life? Were the plates perhaps
already misplaced when Gori saw them? Or were they originally misplaced?
There is also another hint which indicates some misplacement within the slabs which
were available to Gori. On the third slab (fig. 3) the image of saint Thryphon is depicted
in the second row. The field reserved for his epigram is empty and Gori thought that the
verses were lost. But Gori was wrong: The plate with the epigram referring to saint Tryphon
is placed in the third row. The text of the epigram (see epigram no. IIIc in the appendix)
does not mention Tryphon explicitly, but there is a pun by which it is quite obvious that the
verses refer to Tryphon. The text reads as: 'Epènumoj sÝ tÁj trufÁj tÁj ™nqšou / d…dou
moi taÚthn æj truf©n so‹j leiy£noij. The pun referring to saint Tryphon consists of the
noun truf» in verse 1 and the verb truf©n in verse 2.44
Moreover, this and all the other epigrams on slabs II and III refer not only to the depicted
saints but also to their relics starting with the epigram below the apostle Andrew. In this epi-
gram (no. IIa in the appendix), which runs as: Ò prwtÒklhtoj 'Andršaj sÝn leiy£noij
/ ¢ntilaboà mou tÍ teleuta…v kr…sei, also a reference to the donor and / or the owner of
the object can be found. He asks the apostle in the tradition of similar dedicatory or donor’s
inscription for support on the Day of the Last Judgement (¢ntilaboà mou tÍ teleuta…v
kr…sei) by means of his relics. One can read about the donor / owner of the object also in
the epigram below the depiction of saint Panteleemon, which reads as: [TÕ] Pantele»monoj
le…yanon fšrwn / – eâ oda – phg¾n tîn „am£twn œcw (no. IIb in the appendix). The
donor/owner is speaking (to the beholder) in the first person (œcw). Here, perhaps another
hint providing information on the purpose of the original object can be obtained. The donor/
owner states that he is “carrying the relics of Panteleemon” ([TÕ] Pantele»monoj le…yanon
fšrwn). Is that a hint that the original object was always with him? Was the whole object or at
least this plate perhaps used as an encolpion? Or was the epigram originally composed for a
reliquary-encolpion of St. Panteleemon and reused for this object?
One can compare the wording of the epigram for Saint Panteleemon with similar ex-
pression on other objects: e.g. the verse: Leimîna paqîn toà Q(eo)à stšrnoij fšrwn
43 Zacharias’ alleged father Barachios is already mentioned there; but in fact Barachios is not the
father of this Zacharias, but of the small prophet Zacharias of the Old Testament. This mistake is either
due to Matthew himself, the Greek translator or a later commentator on the text.
44 The epigram reminds on similar puns to be found in iambic synaxarium verses, cf. HUNGER 1985.
110 Andreas Rhoby
on an encolpion kept in Siena, 45 or the epigram: St(au)rš, xÚlon t…mion ¹giasmšno(n), /

Óplon kat' ™cqrîn ¢fanîn Ðrwmšnwn / 'Iw£nnhj fšrw se DoÚkaj NostÒgkwn on
a cross-encolpion kept in Leipzig,46 or the verse: Fšrw se t¾n fšrousan ¡gnîj tÕn LÒgon
on an encolpion kept in the monastery of Vatopedi on Mt. Athos.47 Of these objects it is
known that they were used as encolpia for sure.48
The remaining epigrams are all characterized by some pun referring to the depicted
persons. In the epigram below Saint Akindynos (no. IIc in the appendix) the author plays
with ¢k…ndunoj and k…ndunoj, in the epigram below St. Euplos (no. IIIa in the appendix)
with the saint’s name and the noun eÜploia and – as was mentioned before – in the epi-
gram referring to St. Tryphon (no. IIIc in the appendix) with truf» and truf©n. From the
epigram which is placed under St. Stephen (no. IIIb in the appendix) it is obvious that it is
not St. Stephen who is depicted but St. Stephen the Younger (the first verse of the epigram
saying: TÕn Stšfanon ... tÕn nšon).
After having taken a closer look at the text, are more facts now known about the origi-
nal object? On the one hand, yes, on the other, no. Arguably, it can be said – as Volbach
thought – that the three slabs did not originally belong to the decoration of an icon of John
Prodromos. If the three slabs belonged together from the very beginning they must have
been part of a reliquary most probably containing both relics of Prodromos and of all the
other depicted apostles and saints. That is clearly indicated by the accompanying verses.
Was the object also used as an encolpion or at least parts of it? It is not known.
It is interesting to see that the person who was responsible for the arrangement of the casts
in the late 18th century had no idea about the meaning of the texts whatsoever. The plates with
the images and the plates with the inscriptions are completely misplaced. As a result, there
are some absurd combinations. For example: the epigram referring to Saint Euplos was put
on top of the scene with Prodromos and the angel; St. Euplos himself is depicted on the other
cast. By accident the apostle Jacob was copied twice, also the plates with the epigrams next to
him. However, they do not refer to him but to Prodromos’ naming by Zacharias.
In conclusion: it was this paper’s purpose to show how the thorough study and the close
examination of inscriptions can help to learn more about the object they are attached to or
the image they are accompanying. In this way, some Byzantine works of art come clearer
into focus offering many hidden, unexpected messages.
e-mail: Andreas.Rhoby@oeaw.ac.at
45
GALLAVOTTI CAVALLERO 1985, 89; BONFIOLI 1996, 108.
46
EFFENBERGER 1983, 116; HÖRANDNER 2007, 120.
47 FROLOW 1966, 625; PITARAKIS 2006, 141.
48 The epigrams of all three mentioned objects are included in the second volume (RHOBY 2010, No.
Me 75, Me 7, Me 35), of the project “Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung” [Byzantine

epigrams on objects].
Appendix (cf. RHOBY 2010, No. Me 53–67)
slab 1:
Ia) Birth and naming of Prodromos:
Fwn¾n sÝ genn´j toà LÒgou, Zacar…a:
p…steue loipÕn kaˆ g' ¥nw klÁsin gr£fe.
Ib) Prodromos guided to the desert by an angel:

PrÕj t¾n œrhmon qe‹oj ¥ggeloj fšrei
tÕn ¥ggelÒn se k¨n œti bršfoj pšlVj.
Ic) Prodromos’ criticism of Herodes:

–Eceij, `Hrèdh, t¾n guna‹ka Fil…ppou:
par£noma dr´j kaˆ misî paranÒmouj.
Id) Prodromos in prison:

O„ke‹j fulak¾n ™k tur£nnou man…aj,
ð lÚcne fwtÒj, ¢ll' ™lšgceij kaˆ plšon.
Ie) Banquet of Herodes / dance of Salome:

PÒtoj musarÕj musaroà basilšwj
kÒndu kerannÝj aƒm£twn pl»rhj fÒnou.
If) Discovery of Prodromos’ head:

P£ntwn kefal¾n prokhrÚttei <sÕn> k£ra:
gÁj ™x ¢dÚtwn nàn ¢n…scei ProdrÒmou.
slab 2:
IIa) St. Apostle Andrew:
Ò prwtÒklhtoj 'Andršaj sÝn leiy£noij
¢ntilaboà mou tÍ teleuta…v kr…sei.
IIb) St. Panteleemon:

[TÕ] Pantele»monoj le…yanon fšrwn
– eâ oda – phg¾n tîn „am£twn œcw.
IIc) St. Akindynos:

'AkindÚnou le…yana pantÕj kindÚnou
gšnoisqe lut»ria to‹j a„toumšnoij.
112 Andreas Rhoby
IId) St. John Merciful:

T¾n klÁsin aÙce‹j ¢pÕ tÁj eÙpoiaj:
ð 'Iw£nnh, to‹j goàn leiy£noij skšpe.
slab 3:
IIIa) St. Euplos:
EÜploian ¹m‹n EÜploj d…dou trism£kar,
b…ou pel£gei sîn c£riti leiy£nwn.
IIIb) St. Stephen the Younger:

TÕn Stšfanon d tîn martÚrwn tÕn nšon
¢sp£zoma… se proskunîn sÝn leiy£noij.
IIIc) St. Tryphon:

'Epènumoj sÝ tÁj trufÁj tÁj ™nqšou
d…dou moi taÚthn æj truf©n so‹j leiy£noij.
IIId) St. Sampson:

Le…yana S£mywnoj d toà xenodÒcou
brÚonta p©sin ¢kesèdunon c£rin.
IIIe) Zacharias:
TÕn Zacar…an tÕn uƒÕn Barac…ou
par£nomoi sf£ttousi toà neë mšson.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
KEDRENOS Hist:
Georgius Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, vol. 1–2, ed. I. Bekker, (Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae 32) Bonn 1838.
BONFIOLI 1996:
Mara Bonfioli, “Reliquario”, [in:] L’Oro di Siena. Il Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, ed. L. Bellos,
Milan 1996, p. 107–110.
DER NERSESSIAN 1962:
Sirarpie Der Nersessian, “The Illustrations of the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus: Paris Gr. 510.
A Study of the Connections between Text and Images”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), p. 195–228.
D’AIUTO 2007:
Francesco d’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi su un encolpio con cameo d’ametista del monastero di Vatopedi”,
Nša `Rèmh 4 (2007), p. 413–439.
EFFENBERGER 1983:
Arne Effenberger, “Ein byzantinisches Emailkreuz mit Besitzerinschrift”, Cahiers Archeologiques 31
(1983), p. 115–124.
FOLDA 1997:
Jaroslav Folda, “Reliquary of Saint Marina”, [in:] The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Mid-
dle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261, New York 1997, p. 496–497.
FROLOW 1966:
Anatole Frolow, “Un bĳout byzantin inédit”, [in:] Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, vol. 1, Poitiers
1966, p. 625–632.
GALLAVOTTI CAVALLERO 1985:
Daniela Gallavotti Cavallero, “Croce a doppio braccio” [in:] Lo Spedale di Santa Maria della Scala in
Siena, Siena 1985, p. 89–90.
GORI 1759:
Antonio Francesco Gori, Thesaurus veterum diptychorum consularium et ecclesiasticorum, vol. 3,
Florence 1759.
GUILLOU 1996:
André Guillou, Recueil des inscriptions grecques médiévales d’Italie, Rome 1996.
HÖRANDNER 1987:
Wolfram Hörandner, “Customs and Beliefs as reflected in occasional Poetry. Some Considerations”,
Byzantinische Forschungen 12 (1987), p. 235–247.
HÖRANDNER 2003:
Wolfram Hörandner, “Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung“, [in:]
L’épistolographie et la poésie épigrammatique: projets actuels et questions de méthodologie. Actes
de la 16e Table ronde organisée par W. Hörandner et M. Grünbart dans le cadre du XXe Congrès
international des Études byzantines, Collège de France – Sorbonne, Paris, 19–25 Août 2001, Paris
2003, p. 153–160.
HÖRANDNER 2006:
Wolfram Hörandner, “Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der byzantinischen Dichtung- am
Beispiel des Gedichts auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel“, [in:] Die poetische Ekphrasis
von Kunstwerken, ed. Ch. Ratkowitsch, Vienna 2006, p. 203–219.
HÖRANDNER 2007:
Wolfram Hörandner, “Das byzantinische Epigramm und das heilige Kreuz: einige Beobachtungen zu
Motiven und Typen“, [in:] La Croce. Iconografia e interpretazione (secoli I – inizio XVI). Atti del con-
vegno internazionale di studi (Napoli, 6–11 dicembre 1999), vol. 3, Naples – Rome 2007, p. 107–125.
HUNGER 1985:
Herbert Hunger, “Byzantinische Namensdeutungen in iambischen Synaxarversen“, Buzantin£ 13
(1985), p. 3–26.
JAMES 2007:
Liz James, “′And shall these mute stones speak?′ Text as Art”, [in:] Art and Text in Byzantine Culture,
ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007, p. 188–206.
DE JERPHANION 1925:
Guillaume de Jerphanion, Une nouvelle province de l’art byzantin. Les églises rupestres de Cappa-
doce, vol. 1, Paris 1925.
JOLIVET-LÉVY 2006:
Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, Sacred Art of Cappadocia. Byzantine Murals from the 6th to 13th Centuries,
Photographs by A. Ertuğ, Istanbul sine anno [2006].
114 Andreas Rhoby
KATSIOTE 1998:
Aggelik» Katsièth, Oi skhnšj thj zw»j kai o eikonografikÒj kÚkloj tou ag…ou Iw£nnh
ProdrÒmou sth buzantin» tšcnh , Aq»na 1998.
LAMPROS 1916:
Spur…dwn P. L£mproj, “ 'Epigr£mmata Max…mou PlanoÚdh“, Nšoj Èllhnomn»mwn 13 (1916),
p. 414–421.
LAUXTERMANN 1994:
Marc D. Lauxtermann, The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries. A Generic Study of
Epigrams and Some Other Forms of Poetry. Academisch Proefschrift, Amsterdam 1994.
LAUXTERMANN 1998:
Marc Lauxtermann, “The Velocity of pure Iambs. Byzantine Observations on the Metre and Rhythm of
the Dodecasyllable”, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998), p. 9–33.
LAUXTERMANN 2003:
Marc D. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres, Texts and Contexts, vol. 1, Vienna
2003.
LIDDELL/SCOTT/JONES/MCKENZIE 1925–1940;
Henry George Liddell-Robert Scott-Henry Stuart Jones-Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon,
Oxford 1925–1940.
MAAS 1903;
Paul Maas, “Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903), p. 278–323.
MAGUIRE 1994;
Henry Maguire, “Epigrams, Art and the “Macedonian Renaissance””, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48
(1994), p. 105–115.
MAGUIRE 1996;
Henry Maguire, Image and Imagination: the Byzantine Epigram as Evidence for Viewer Response,
Toronto 1996.
MAGUIRE 1996a:
Henry Maguire, The Icons of their Bodies: Saints and their Images in Byzantium, Princeton 1996.
MANGO 1972:
Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–1453. Sources and Documents, Englewood Cliffs,
N.J. 1972.
MATHEWS 1977:
Thomas F. Mathews, “The Epigrams of Leo Sacellarius and an Exegetical Approach to the Miniatures
of Vat. Reg. gr. 1”, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 43 (1977), p. 94-133.
MUÑOZ 1906:
Antonio Muñoz, L’art byzantin à l’exposition de Grottaferrata, Rome 1906.
PAPALEXANDROU 2001:
Amy Papalexandrou, “Text in Context: eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder”, Word and
Image 17 (2001), p. 259–283.
PAPALEXANDROU 2007:
Amy Papalexandrou, “Echoes of Orality in the Monumental Inscriptions of Byzantium”, [in:] Art and
Text in Byzantine Culture, ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007, p. 161–187.
PENTCHEVA 2006:
Bissera V. Pentcheva, Icons and Power. The Mother of God in Byzantium, University Park (Penn.) 2006.
PENTCHEVA 2008:
Bissera V. Pentcheva, “Räumliche und akustische Präsenz in byzantinischen Epigrammen: Der Fall
der Limburger Staurothek“, [in:] Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme. Akten
des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), ed. W. Hörandner, A. Rhoby, Vienna
2008, p. 75–83.
PITARAKIS 2006:
Brigitte Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires pectorales byzantines en bronze, (Bibliothèque des Cahiers
Archéologiques 16) Paris 2006.
RHOBY 2007:
Andreas Rhoby, “Die rhetorisch-poetische Gestaltung inschriftlich überlieferter byzantinischer Epi-
gramme”, [in:] International Society for the History of Rhetoric (ISHR), XVIe Congrès, Résumés,
Strasbourg, 24–28 juillet 2007, Strasbourg 2007, p. 140–141.
RHOBY 2009:
Andreas Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, (Byzantinische Epigramme in
inschriftlicher Überlieferung 1) Vienna 2009.
RHOBY 2010:
Andreas Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst, (Byzantinische
Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung 2) Vienna 2010.
ROTT 1908:
Hans Rott, Kleinasiatische Denkmäler aus Pisidien, Pamphylien, Kappadokien und Lydien, Leipzig 1908.
SCHLUMBERGER 1905:
Gustave Schlumberger, L’epopée byzantine à la fin du dixième siècle. Troisième Partie: Les porphyro-
génnètos Zoe et Theodora, Paris 1905.
ŠΕVČENKO 1998:
Ihor Ševčenko, “Observations Concerning Inscriptions on Objects Described in the Catalogue “The
Glory of Byzantium””, Palaeoslavica 6 (1998), p. 243–252.
SINOS 2005:
Stefan Sinos, “Mistras”, [in:] Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst, vol. 6, Stuttgart 2005, p. 380–518.
TOMADAKES 1961:
NikÒlaoj Tomad£khj, “Buzantin¦ ™pigr£mmata kaˆ buzantin¾ tšcnh”, 'Aqhn© 65 (1961),
p. 3–10.
TRAPP 1976-1996:
Erich Trapp [et al.], Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Vienna 1976–1996.
VOLBACH 1947:
Fritz Volbach, “Venetian-Byzantine Works of Art in Rome”, The Art Bulletin 29 (1947), p. 86–94.
WALLIS 1973:
Mieczysław Wallis, “Inscriptions in Paintings”, Semiotica 9 (1973), p. 1–28.
WEITZMANN/BERNABÒ 1999:
Kurt Weitzmann, Massimo Bernarbò, The Byzantine Octateuchs, vol. 1 Text, vol. 2 Plates, Princeton
(N.J.) 1999.
ZESIOS 1909:
Kwnstant…noj G. Zhs…oj, “ 'Epigrafaˆ Xristianikîn CrÒnwn tÁj Èll£doj“, Buzant…j 1
(1909), p. 114–145, 422–460, 541–556.
Byzantine Rite in a Gothic Setting:

Aspects of Cultural Appropriation
in Late Medieval Cyprus
Tassos Papacostas,
King’s College London
Cyprus was a Byzantine province until 1184 when its governor Isaac Komnenos pro-
claimed himself independent of Constantinople. His rule did not last long, however, as in
1191 he was ousted by Richard Lionheart who conquered the island during the Third Crusade.
Within a year, and following a short period of Templar rule, Guy de Lusignan, former king of
Jerusalem, established himself at Nicosia. His successors founded a dynasty that was to rule
down to the late fifteenth century when the Crusader kingdom was absorbed into the Vene-
tian Stato da Mar, before finally succumbing to the Ottomans.1 The centuries of Lusignan
rule (1192–1473) and the short period of Venetian domination (1473 – officially 1489 – to
1571) have bequeathed to the island a spectacular architectural heritage. There are elaborate
Gothic cathedrals built for the Roman catholic rite of the ruling elite (Nicosia, Famagusta),
numerous monastic and village churches founded by and for the majority Greek Orthodox
population, mountaintop castles first erected by the Byzantines and rebuilt later on (Saint
Hilarion, Buffavento, Kantara), and massive fortifications put up by the Venetian state in
a vain attempt to thwart the Ottoman advance (Nicosia, Famagusta, Kyrenia).2
All these buildings, emanating from an astonishing array of architectural traditions (es-
pecially considering the island’s restricted size) and displaying a multiplicity of building
techniques, have been more or less neatly categorized by modern scholarship in terms of
style and form into either Gothic or Byzantine, with a Renaissance element admitted for
the end of the period (sixteenth century). On the margins of this simplified and sometimes
highly problematic taxonomy a small group of monuments, which is thought to hover be-
tween the two principal traditions, has been assigned its own distinct identity based on its
1 HILL 1940–52, vols. 2–3; EDBURY 1991; PAPADOPOULLOS 1995-96.

2 STYLIANOU 1996, ENLART 1899, VAIVRE & PLAGNIEUX 2006, PERBELLINI 1973, 1986.
118 Tassos Papacostas
perceived hybrid character. In what follows I shall argue that no such identity exists, as it
is based on a set of largely untenable assumptions, and I will venture some preliminary
thoughts on the implications of this.
The group in question is that of the so-called Franco-Byzantine churches. The term
was coined in the 1930s by George Soteriou, one of the earliest students of the island’s
Byzantine heritage, and refers to no more than half a dozen monuments.3 What the group
lacks in numbers is amply compensated by the status of the buildings, for its main repre-
sentatives are the Orthodox cathedrals of the island’s principal urban settlements of this
period, namely Nicosia and Famagusta, and the monastic katholika of the Enkleistra of
Neophytos the Recluse near Paphos, better known for the twelfth-century frescoes of its
founder’s rock-cut hermitage, and of Saint Mamas at Morphou, an important pilgrimage
shrine housing the Cappadocian saint’s sepulchre.
The defining trait of the Franco-Byzantine style, as outlined by Soteriou and subsequent-
ly further delineated by Athanasios Papageorgiou, is the combination of a basilical plan with
a dome, the former (often with rib vaulting) thought to represent the Gothic tradition, the
latter that of medieval Byzantium.4 There is no doubt that basilical schemes, the trademark
of early Christian architecture on the island, became much less common in middle Byzan-
tine times, when centralized types were the norm.5 The import of Crusader and western
architecture to the island from the thirteenth century onwards, however, reintroduced the
basilica, albeit now rib-vaulted rather than timber-roofed. It was this development that in
the course of the fourteenth century supposedly led to the combination of the western ba-
silica with the eastern dome in churches founded by the island’s rising Orthodox elites, in an
attempt to marry Gothic grand scale and advanced building techniques with the hallmark
of Byzantine church architecture, the dome. Later investigations into the nature of ‘Fran-
co-Byzantine’ have implied that its inception represents the intentional expression and in-
deed bold advertisement of a vigorous attachment to the traditions of the island’s Orthodox
church during a period of animosity and even confrontation between Latins and Greeks.6
The relations between the two have been recently and most fruitfully re-examined on the
basis of a reassessment of the source evidence, most notably by Chris Schabel who brought
to light the less antagonistic elements of the equation.7 This evaluation is corroborated by
the material evidence, none of which is more eloquent than that provided by some of the
structures examined here.
It is important to stress at the outset that none of the monuments in question is se-
curely dated by epigraphic or documentary evidence. The two katholika are stylistically
3 SOTERIOU 1931.
4 PAPAGEORGIOU 1982, 1995.
5 MEGAW 1974, 59–75.
6 STYLIANOU 1996, 1241–46.
7 SCHABEL 2005.
Byzantine Rite in a Gothic Setting 119
closely related and ascribed

to the Venetian period. Based
primarily on stylistic consid-
erations, on their liturgical
furnishings, and on the sur-
viving frescoes at Saint Neo-
phytos, they appear to date to
the first half of the sixteenth
century.8 Both are rather
plain albeit robust structures
with a tall dome over the nave,
which is the main feature that
has earned them member-
ship of the Franco-Byzantine
group (figs. 1, 2). One would
nevertheless be hard-pressed
to find evidence of Gothic-
inspired input beyond deco-
rative elements such as the
capitals and perhaps the tomb
niche housing the saint’s sep-
ulchre at Morphou (fig. 3),
and the plain lancet windows
and moulded main doorways
of both monuments (the por-
Fig. 1. Enkleistra of Saint Neophytos, katholikon: plan and
tico at Saint Mamas is a later longitudinal section; scale (Drawings: Author, based on SOTE-
addition). There is definitely RIOU 1935)
nothing Gothic about either
their slightly pointed nave barrel vaults or the arcades which, with their rounded arches on
closely spaced columns, are unique in this period and rather intriguing. Their good quality
ashlar masonry, although usually associated more with Gothic rather than Byzantine build-
ing traditions on the island, is nevertheless typical of the period.
The Hodegetria, Nicosia’s now ruinous late medieval Greek Orthodox cathedral (subse-
quently known as the Bedesten and currently undergoing a disastrous restoration), is a com-
plex structure with several building phases ascribed to the middle Byzantine through the
Venetian period (fig. 4). It appears to have acquired its final form in the sixteenth century,
8 ENLART 1899, 1.188–93; PAPAGEORGIOU 1982, 223; PAPAGEORGIOU 1995, 278; STYLIANOU
1996, 1244.
Fig. 2. Morphou, Saint Mamas: view from the south-west (Photo: Author)
when an elaborate north façade was added to the north aisle, directly facing the western
porch of the Latin cathedral of Saint Sophia whose architecture it imitates, and the nave
was rebuilt with rib vaulting and an octagonal dome (figs. 5–6). This reconstruction was
perhaps interrupted by the city’s Ottoman conquest in 1570 and was never completed. The
irregular basilical layout, with a double south aisle, is due to the successive reconstructions
of the church and, most significantly, perhaps to the late antique basilica that stood on the
site. What the church would have looked like in the fourteenth century, before the recon-
struction, remains unclear, although it would appear that a significant portion of the earlier
Byzantine building was perhaps still standing next to the more recent double south aisle.9
What is significant for the Franco-Byzantine debate is that in the fourteenth century,
when this style is supposed to have emerged, neither the thoroughly Gothic rib-vaulted and
domed nave of the Hodegetria nor the two monastic domed basilicas had been built yet;
indeed, they were not erected until two centuries later. The affiliation of the latter’s basilical
scheme and the peculiar manner in which this is implemented remain to be established and
would merit a separate study that should place the two structures within the context of the
output of sixteenth-century Cyprus, but also of architectural developments in Venice.
9 ENLART 1899, 1:150–62; PLAGNIEUX & SOULARD 2006, 181–89; SOULARD 2006, 365–71; PA-
PACOSTAS 2005.
The fourth representative of the group,

and the most important in terms of sheer
scale, is Saint George of the Greeks at Fama-
gusta, now a ruin that has lost virtually all
its vaulting. Its date, long suspected to fall
in the mid-fourteenth century, has been
confirmed by the recent publication of a will
stating clearly that in 1363 it was under con-
struction.10 It was erected adjacent to a much
smaller domed cross-in-square church that
probably dates from the middle Byzantine
period and was deemed important enough
to be preserved together with its later exten-
sions and additions (fig. 7). The new cathe-
dral dwarfed this earlier complex. It is a reg-
ular three-aisled basilica whose sculptural
decoration, doorways and windows, as well
as the long lost vaulting closely followed
Gothic prototypes, echoing the architecture
Fig. 3. Morphou, Saint Mamas: tomb niche
of the slightly earlier Latin cathedral of Saint (after ENLART 1899)
Nicholas nearby. The Byzantine pedigree of
the monument is supposed to manifest it-
self in two ways. Firstly, in the layout of the
sanctuary with its semi-circular apses covered by semi-domes (fig. 8). This is indeed the
type of apse that the vast majority of middle Byzantine churches on the island employ,
those built subsequently for the Latin rite having often a polygonal rib-vaulted east end.
But is it really a mark of allegiance to Byzantine tradition? Could it not be the mere result
of other, less lofty considerations? It is after all the simplest kind of apse, and more impor-
tantly, it was used during the same period (fourteenth century) for churches of other com-
munities within Famagusta itself, most notably at Saints Peter and Paul, a shrine probably
built for one of the Oriental rites (Nestorian?) and whose architecture is closely linked to
that of Saint George (fig. 9).11 The appearance of the apses at Saint George with their solid
masonry, small lancet windows and lack of external articulation or decoration contrasts
sharply with the east end of the city’s Latin cathedral, an intricate and highly articulated
architectural piece replete with Gothic tracery, gables with crockets, pinnacles with elabo-
rate finials, and ornate sculptural detail. The plain treatment of the apses at Saint George is
10 OTTEN-FROUX 2003, 42.

11 PLAGNIEUX & SOULARD 2006, 271–85.
Fig. 4. Nicosia, Hodegetria (Bedesten): plan (after PLAGNIEUX & SOULARD 2006)
Fig. 5. Nicosia, Hodegetria (Bedesten): Fig. 6. Nicosia, Hodegetria (Bedesten): view of

north façade (Photo: Author) the nave from the south aisle (Photo: Author)
Fig. 7. Famagusta, Saint George of the Greeks: plan (after SOTERIOU 1935)
certainly a result of the overall character of the building’s austere approach to façade deco-
ration, evidenced by the large expanse of unarticulated wall surface on the surviving south
and west façades, rather than of any attempt to replicate Byzantine forms (fig. 10). Indeed,
the mere height of the apses, and in particular the central one, would work against such an
interpretation, as it would thwart any attempt to apply the all important standard icono-
graphical scheme developed in earlier centuries for much smaller structures; a sui generis
programme would have to be invented (fragments of which still survive on the curving wall
surface exposed to the elements), reminiscent of a similar process in the mosaic decoration
of the twelfth-century Norman churches on Sicily (Monreale, Cefalù).
The second element thought to betray a Byzantine affiliation is much more problematic.
It has to do with the existence of a dome over the central bay of the nave. This was first pro-
Fig. 8. Famagusta, Saint George of the Greeks: transversal section (after ENLART 1899)
posed in the nineteenth century and has since been accepted by almost all commentators.
The recent study of the monument by Thierry Soulard, however, suggests otherwise.12 One
is bound to agree that structurally it would be very difficult if not impossible to support
a dome over the tall nave without robust buttressing that the rather flimsy flying buttresses
over the aisles cannot have provided. The central bay was differentiated by its square plan
not in order to receive a dome, but for functional reasons: it marked the crossing between
the main east-west axis of the basilica and the equally significant north-south axis. Along
the latter were situated the (now lost) portal of the north façade and, to the south, the all-
-important point of access to the earlier Byzantine church. Moreover, a cursory look at what
was being built in the fourteenth century on Cyprus provides no evidence for the intrusion
of such a vaulting device, that is a dome, which is uncommon in Gothic architecture.
Domes were of course being built during this period on the island, but primarily in rural
areas, on a small scale, and as part of an indigenous architectural tradition hailing back
12 ENLART 1899, 1:311–21; SOTERIOU 1935, 55 (plan); PLAGNIEUX & SOULARD 2006, 286–96;
SOULARD 2006, 356–65.

Fig. 9. Saints Peter and Paul: perspective section (after ENLART 1899)
to Byzantine models of the pre-Lusignan period (e.g. Saint Demetrianos at Dali). Western
architecture was a predominantly urban phenomenon in Lusignan Cyprus, and at this rela-
tively early stage in the development of Cypriot Gothic (fourteenth century), master masons
and architects had not ventured yet into the novel combination of domes with rib vaults, as
they would do two centuries later with the construction of the nave at the Hodegetria of Ni-
cosia. None of the numerous contemporary churches of Famagusta adopted such a scheme.
Significantly, the much better preserved Saints Peter and Paul which, as mentioned above
is stylistically very closely related to Saint George and almost certainly dates from the same
period, was rib-vaulted throughout (fig. 11). This is not to deny, however, that a dome may
have been added at a later stage, following important alterations to the support system of
the structure. The date and interpretation of this intervention are beyond the scope of this
investigation; I shall be considering them in a forthcoming study.13 What matters in the
context of the present discussion is that, as in the case of the Hodegetria, the fourteenth-
-century building phase at Saint George of the Greeks lacked a dome (fig. 12).
13 PAPACOSTAS forthcoming a.
Fig. 10. Famagusta, Saint George of the Greeks: view from the south-west (Photo: Author)
Returning to the issue of Franco-Byzantine architecture, I hope it has become clear

by now that the monuments said to come under this label have very little in common and
none really corresponds to the imaginary Franco-Byzantine model. The two closely related
monastic churches belong to a different era and are the result of distinct developments par-
ticular to the Venetian period; whether they can appropriate for themselves the above label
remains doubtful. Although conceived as domed basilicas, they forsake almost entirely the
Gothic vocabulary of the two cathedrals. The latter, on the other hand, were definitely not
designed as domed basilicas. In sharp contrast to the katholika, both draw on an exten-
sive pool of Gothic vocabulary available locally. Their architecture has virtually no formal
characteristics that may be associated with the Byzantine tradition; their domes were after-
thoughts of the Venetian period. Thus, the entire concept of the fourteenth-century advent
of a church type combining Gothic and Byzantine elements and representing a so-called
Franco-Byzantine style has to be rejected as it rests on decidedly shaky foundations.
My argument so far implies

that the intentional evocation of
the island’s Byzantine heritage
in the fourteenth century, as al-
legedly reflected in the domed
basilicas, never was. This leaves
us with what in the eyes of the
modern observer appears to be
a major paradox: Saint George
is a Greek Orthodox cathedral
in a purely Gothic style. In order
to appreciate fully the meaning
of this, a brief excursus into the
history of Famagusta and the
Orthodox church is necessary
at this point. At the time of the
cathedral’s foundation the city
was home to a diverse popula-
tion consisting of several reli-
gious and ethnic communities.
It grew spectacularly in the early
fourteenth century from an in-
significant settlement to one of
the most important commercial Fig. 11. Famagusta, Saints Peter and Paul: view of the nave
centres of the eastern Mediterra- (Photo: Author)
nean, following the fall of the last
Crusader outposts on the Levan-
tine coast to the Mamluks in the preceding decades.14 Western as well as local merchants
from Syria-Palestine transferred their businesses to Cyprus at that time and refugees from
the mainland settled in the city, swelling its population and fuelling its economic growth.
Contemporary written sources testify to these developments most clearly. But it is the built
environment of Famagusta, not least its Latin cathedral of Saint Nicholas and of course the
Greek cathedral, that betray most eloquently the sudden rise in its fortunes.
An unavoidable question that arises from the construction of Saint George at that par-
ticular juncture has to do with the status of the Orthodox church of Cyprus. Soon after the
establishment of Lusignan rule over the island in the late twelfth century, a Latin church
hierarchy was also created. Following a short period during which the Greek church was
14 JACOBY 1984.
Fig. 12. Famagusta, Saint George of the Greeks: longitudinal section (after JEFFERY 1916)
left to its own devices, in the 1220s Latin church and secular authorities attempted to reg-
ulate the issue of tithes, and this touched upon their relations with the Orthodox. This
initiative inaugurated a period of friction and sometimes confrontation that was finally
settled in 1260 with the promulgation of the so-called Bulla Cypria by Pope Alexander IV,
representing a compromise between the two churches. In the course of this troubled period
the number of Greek Episcopal sees was gradually reduced from fourteen to four in order
to coincide with the recently created Latin sees, and the Orthodox prelates were confined
to rural areas. Following this arrangement the Greek bishop under whose jurisdiction the
Orthodox population of Famagusta came was to reside in the distant Karpas peninsula.15
Yet the mid-fourteenth century witnessed the construction of the city’s new Orthodox ca-
thedral that can only have been erected at the initiative of the Greek bishop. Indeed, in
the absence of secure textual evidence, the foundation of this building is regularly cited as
evidence for the move of the Orthodox bishops out of their rural seats and into the urban
centres, barely one century after the Bulla Cypria.
The large scale, basilical layout, rib vaulting, carved portals, sculptural ornamentation,
tall proportions and building techniques at Saint George are all elements associated with
Gothic architecture and with its variants imported to Cyprus by the architects and masons
working for the Latin church, the monastic orders and the secular elites of the kingdom.
But in Lusignan Cyprus, as elsewhere in the medieval world, the choice of artistic styles and
practices was not subject to the same criteria as those that our modern perceptions might
like to impose. As Annemarie Weyl Carr has proposed, well established beliefs about the
15 SCHABEL 2005, 190–212; PAPACOSTAS forthcoming b.

Fig. 13. Famagusta: view of Saint George of the Greeks with the Latin cathedral of Saint Nicholas in
the background (Photo: Author)
correlation between ethnic identity and religious affiliation on the one hand, and artistic
and architectural styles and practices on the other, need to be reconsidered.16
In the absence of written testimonies it is difficult to imagine what the reaction of the
new cathedral’s audience may have actually been. Nevertheless, the Orthodox population of
Famagusta would have certainly not associated its architecture with western Europe, which
is of course the modern observer’s instinctive reaction; very few if any would have ever had
contact with a built environment beyond their island’s shores, after all. Whereas as recently
as a century and a half earlier the foreign style of the Latin cathedral of Nicosia (founded in
the early thirteenth century) may have led to its association with the newly established Lat-
in church, by this time it had grown roots on Cypriot soil and was surely viewed primarily as
a mark of success, prestige, confidence and social advancement. It was simply perceived as
the best on offer at the time, in a society that exhibited increasing signs of cultural syncre-
tism among its constituent elements. Its architecture suggests that in fourteenth-century
Famagusta what we would call Gothic had lost any cultural or ethnic affiliation it may have
had earlier; it was clearly not associated with foreign rule and the concomitant antagonism
in ecclesiastical affairs and initial confrontation among the various religious and linguistic
16 WEYL CARR 1998/99.
groups that composed the island’s social landscape; it had no negative connotations for
the Greek Orthodox or for any other community for that matter. A parallel development
has been noted in the monumental art of Famagusta and a comparable trend has also been
observed by Maria Georgopoulou in the case of Venetian Crete. What is significant about
Cyprus, however, is the relatively early date of this development.17
By the middle of the fourteenth century the Orthodox church and the see of Famagusta
in particular were clearly experiencing a period of regeneration following the difficult thir-
teenth century. The patrons of Saint George, presumably the Greek bishop of Famagusta
and perhaps leading members of his flock, were able to afford both in financial and social
terms the building of a cathedral as grand as this, borrowing heavily and unhesitatingly
from the architecture of the nearby Latin cathedral. Even more significantly but perhaps
not surprisingly, this was done without any reference whatsoever to the island’s rich herit-
age in Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture from before the Latin conquest. What is more,
the layout of the church was hardly appropriate for the Byzantine liturgy although, admit-
tedly, very little is known about the way this was performed in Lusignan Cyprus, whereas
the arrangement of liturgical furnishings within the church remains unclear.
The sheer scale of the undertaking is without precedent in the religious architecture of the
Greek communities in former Byzantine territories. Saint George was perhaps the largest Or-
thodox church erected in the eastern Mediterranean in late medieval times. It was definitely
one of the most important religious structures (together with the Latin cathedrals of Nicosia
and Famagusta itself) built on the island since Late Antiquity, and its size would not be at-
tained again in the local ecclesiastical architecture until modern times.18 The financial back-
ground to its construction is not illuminated by the surviving documentation, but patronage
from the city’s rising Greek merchant class may have played an important role. Moreover,
the surviving keystones from the vaults that bear the arms of Jerusalem testify to royal ap-
proval, if not direct involvement in the project.19 In direct visual contact with the Latin cathe-
dral across the urban block that separates them, it vied with it for domination over the city’s
landscape (fig. 13). That this became possible and came about provides a tangible measure of
the state that relations between religious and ethnic communities had reached by the middle
of the fourteenth century. It also illustrates the determination of the Greek church, and by
extension of the community it represents, to make extraordinary use of architectural ostenta-
tion in order to affirm its presence in Famagusta and confidently proclaim its ascendancy.
e-mail: tassos.papacostas@kcl.ac.uk
17 WEYL CARR 2005, 315-16; SCHRYVER 2006, 394–95; BACCI 2006; GEORGOPOULOU 2005, 252.
18 The approximate maximal internal dimensions are 43 x 21m, with a nave vault height of 20m.
19 VAIVRE 2006, 452.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BACCI 2006:
Michele Bacci, “Syrian, Palaiologan, and Gothic Murals in the ‘Nestorian’ Church of Famagusta”,
Delt…on tÁj CristianikÁj 'ArcaiologikÁj Ètaire…aj, Per…odoj D/, 27 (2006), p. 207–220.
EDBURY 1991:
Peter W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades 1191–1374, Cambridge 1991.
ENLART 1899:
Camille Enlart, L’art gothique et la renaissance en Chypre, 2 vols., Paris 1899.
FOURRIER & GRIVAUD 2006:
Sabine Fourrier et Gilles Grivaud, Identités croisées en un milieu méditerranéen: le cas de Chypre
(Antiquité - Moyen Âge), Rouen 2006.
GEORGOPOULOU 2005
Maria Georgopoulou, “Gothic Architecture and Sculpture in Latin Greece and Cyprus”, [in:] Michel
Balard, E. Malamut et J.-M. Spieser, Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges,
Paris 2005, p. 225–253.
HILL 1940-52:
Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, 4 vols., Cambridge 1940–1952.
JACOBY 1984:
David Jacoby, “The Rise of a New Emporium in the Eastern Mediterranean: Famagusta in the Late
Thirteenth Century”, Melštai kaˆ Ùpomn»mata 1 (1984), p. 143–179.
JEFFERY 1916:
George Jeffery, “Byzantine Churches of Cyprus”, Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries 28 (9 March
1916), p. 111–134.
NICOLAOU-KONNARI & SCHABEL 2005:
Angel Nicolaou-Konnari and Chris Schabel, Cyprus. Society and Culture 1191–1373, (The Medieval Medi-
terranean 58) Leiden – Boston 2005.
MEGAW 1974:
Arthur H. S. Megaw, “Byzantine Architecture and Decoration in Cyprus: Metropolitan or Provincial?”,
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 28 (1974), p. 58–88.
OTTEN-FROUX 2003:
Catherine Otten-Froux, “Un notaire vénitien à Famaagouste au XIVe siècle. Les actes de Simeone, prê-
tre de San Giacomo dell’ Orio (1362–1371)”, Qhsaur…smata 33 (2003), p. 15–159.
PAPACOSTAS 2005:
Tassos Papacostas, “In Search of a Lost Byzantine Monument: Saint Sophia of Nicosia”, Epethr…da
tou Kšntrou Episthmonikèn Ereunèn 31 (2005), p. 11–37.
PAPACOSTAS forthcoming a
Tassos Papacostas, “A Gothic basilica in the Renaissance: Saint George of the Greeks at Famagusta”,
[in:] Chris Schabel and Angel Nicolaou-Konnari, Medieval Famagusta, forthcoming.
PAPACOSTAS forthcoming b
Tassos Papacostas, “Byzantine Famagusta: An Oxymoron?”, [in:] Chris Schabel and Angel Nicolaou-
Konnari, Medieval Famagusta, forthcoming.
PAPADOPOULLOS 1995-96:
QeÒdwrov PapadÒpoullov, Ìstor…a tÁj KÚprou, tÒmoj D/. MesaiwnikÕn bas…leion –
–Ènetokrat…a , vol. A/, Leukws…a 1995, vol. B/, Leukws…a 1996.
PAPAGEORGIOU 1982:
Athanasios Papageorgiou, “L’art byzantin de Chypre et l’art des croisés: influences réciproques”,
Reports of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus (1982), p. 217–226.
PAPAGEORGIOU 1995:
Athanasios Papageorgiou, “Crusader Influence on the Byzantine Art of Cyprus”, [in:] Nicholas Coureas
and Jonathan Riley-Smith, Cyprus and the Crusades. Papers given at the International Conference
“Cyprus and the Crusades”Nicosia 6–9 September 1994, Nicosia 1995, p. 275–294.
PERBELLINI 1973:
Gianni Perbellini, “Le fortificazioni di Cipro dal X al XVI secolo”, Castellum 17 (1973), p. 7–58.
PERBELLINI 1986:
Gianni Perbellini, “Le fortificazioni del Regno di Cipro nello Stato Veneto (X–XVI sec.)”, Kupriakaˆ
Spoudai / 50 (1986), p. 193–225.
PLAGNIEUX & SOULARD 2006:
Philippe Plagnieux and Thierry Soulard, “L’architecture religieuse”, [in:] VAIVRE & PLAGNIEUX
2006, p. 119–304.
SCHABEL 2005:
Chris Schabel, “Religion”, [in:] NICOLAOU-KONNARI & SCHABEL 2005, p. 157–218.
SCHRYVER 2006:
Jimmy Schryver, “Monuments of Identity: Latin, Greek, Frank and Cypriot?”, [in:] FOURRIER
& GRIVAUD 2006, p. 385–405.
SOTERIOU 1931:
Geèrgioj Swthr…ou, “T¦ palaiocristianik¦ kaˆ buzantin¦ mnhme‹a tÁj KÚprou”, Prak-
tik¦ tÁj 'Akadhm…aj 'Aqhnîn (1931), p. 477–490.
SOTERIOU 1935:
Geèrgioj Swthr…ou, T¦ buzantin¦ mnhme‹a tÁj KÚprou, vol. A/. LeÚkwma, 'AqÁna 1935.
SOULARD 2006:
Thierry Soulard, “L’architecture gothique grecque du royaume des Lusignan: les cathédrales de Fama-
gouste et Nicosie”, [in:] FOURRIER & GRIVAUD 2006, p. 355–384.
STYLIANOU 1996:
'Andršaj kaˆ 'Ioud¾q Stulianoà, “H buzantin¾ tšcnh kat¦ t¾n per…odo tÁj fragkokrat…
aj (1191–1570)”, [in:] PAPADOPOULLOS 1995–96, p. 1229–1407.
VAIVRE & PLAGNIEUX 2006:
Jean-Bernard de Vaivre et Philippe Plagnieux, L’art gothique en Chypre, Paris 2006.
VAIVRE 2006:
Jean-Bernard de Vaivre, “Le décor héraldique sur les monuments médiévaux”, [in:] VAIVRE & PLAG-
NIEUX 2006, p. 425–472.
WEYL CARR 1998/99:
Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Correlative Spaces: Art, Identity, and Appropriation in Lusignan Cyprus”,
Modern Greek Studies Yearbook 14/15 (1998/99), p. 59–80 [reprinted in: Annemarie Weyl Carr, Cy-
prus and the Devotional Arts of Byzantium in the Era of the Crusades, (Variorum Collected Studies
Series) Aldershot 2005].
WEYL CARR 2005:
Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Art”, [in:] NICOLAOU-KONNARI & SCHABEL 2005, p. 285–328.
Defining the Byzantine Saint –

– Creating a Message
in Orthodox Art
Piotr Ł. Grotowski,
The Pontifical University of John Paul II, Cracow
Literary evidence shows that the question of the resemblance between the icon and the
prototype was a crucial issue for Byzantine artists. The ability to recognize the saint por-
trayed is often emphasized in hagiographical texts. Already in the Early Byzantine period
a topos relating to this similarity appears in legends such as Miracula Sancti Demetrii,
where the saint incognito saves different people, who later recognize him as their rescuer
on his icon1. After Iconoclasm the accuracy of the image is often confirmed by a story about
a miraculous appearance of the saint to the founder or to the painter. Alexander Kazh-
dan and Henry Maguire have collected numerous ninth- and tenth-century legends of this
kind. According to one of them, Vita of Irene, the abbess of Chrysobalanton, Emperor Basil
I had a dream of this saint. Envoys sent by him to the monastery brought an icon that
corresponded to her appearance in the vision. Another story told in the Description the
Translation of the Relics of St. Theodora of Thessaloniki records that a girl had a vision of
two ladies, one of whom she recognized as Theodora, since the woman resembled a myrrh-
gushing icon. Saints Theodore Teron, Nikon Metanoeite and Maria the Younger appear in
a dream to the painters to allow them to paint their physiognomies properly.2 The idea of
the conjunction between the person and the image became so strong that emperor’s confes-
1 Miracula Sancti Demetrii I.8, 10, 15; II.6 (ed. P. Lemerle, p. 102, 115, 162, 239); CORMACK 1985, 67,
70, 74; MAGUIRE 1996, 42–43. As similar examples one can point out e.g.: the story about a saint liberating
a monk recognized by the latter as familiar to him from the icon of St. Plato of Ancyra (see ST. NILUS OF
ANCYRA, Epistula IV.62 [Patrologia graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 79, col. 580–81]; MANSI, vol. 13, 31–33;
LADNER 1953, 4; on authenticity of the letter see CAMERON 1976, 129–31; CAMERON 1976a, 189) and
a seventh-century miracle, in which a young girl recognized St. Artemios due to his physical resem-
blance to an icon exposed in a church, see Miracles of St. Artemios XXXIV (ed. Crisafulli/Nesbitt, p. 180);
JAMES 2003, 161.
2 KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 4–8; MAGUIRE 1996, 12–15, 19, 43–44, fig. 6.
134 Piotr Ł. Grotowski
sor Gregory Melissenos, a member of the Greek delegation to the Ferrara-Florence Council
(1438), when he entered a Latin church, was not able to recognize any saints and refused to
revere them. He did not even revere Christ himself because he did not know in what terms
he was inscribed.3
Although written evidence proves that the Byzantines did not have any trouble in rec-
ognizing their saints4, the schematic way of depiction is confusing for modern scholars.5 In
order to understand the divergence between written testimonies and surviving artefacts,
several theories have been suggested. One of them states that the Byzantines, being unfa-
miliar with either the illusionistic style of Renaissance art or with photography, had lower
expectations than modern viewers. The second explanation is similar to the first. According
to it, the Byzantines were used to a more restricted semantic field and therefore more alert
to small distinctions and iconographical nuances. Where a present-day viewer sees only
uniformity and a lack of differentiation, the Byzantine viewer could see variety.6
In the light of the research conducted so far, there is no controversy about the fact
that the principal task of the Byzantine artist was to depict a specific saint in such man-
ner as to leave no doubt about his identity. In this text, I would like to revert to the most
fundamental layer of interpretation and to scrutinize the methods used by the artist
to achieve this aim. Therefore, I would like to focus on the simplest representations of
motionless saints in a frontal attitude, depicted in half- or full figure. This type of im-
age, popular since the beginning of Christian art, was used to stress the presence of the
model rather than to narrate. Devoid of any redundant detail, it confronted the artist
with the challenge to create a kind of saint’s “portrait” recognizable to the beholder.
In order to analyse this problem, we should consider four significant elements: 1) in-
scription, 2) physiognomy, 3) attire and 4) the accompanying attribute.
Accompanying Inscription
The inscription is the most elementary method to denote the subject of a picture. Although
words belong to a language different from that of images, the pictorial character of writing
makes them easily applicable to visual representations. Explanatory inscriptions accompany-
ing figures and clarifying the depicted scene were common in Hellenic painting, long before
3 A story reported in Vera historia by Patriarchal dignitary Sylvester Syropoulos, see MANGO 1972,
254. NELSON 2007, 102 interprets the expression term as related to the Greek inscription IC XC – the lack
of which had to be noted by a pious orthodox priest.
4 DAGRON 1979, 144–49; GRIGG 1987, 3–4; KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 5; MAGUIRE 1996, 15–16.
5 The problem is well illustrated by numerous unrecognized saints, especially when explanatory in-
scriptions were not preserved on damaged murals, see. e.g. GERSTEL 1998, 92, 99–100, and catalogue on
p. 104-11.
6 Problem referred to by KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 7; MAGUIRE 1996, 42. DAGRON 1991, 26 com-
pares the practice of using general features on Byzantine icons with the police identikit technique.
Defining the Byzantine Saint 135
Christianity. Since Dipylon inscription and Nestor cup found in Pithekoussai they are frequent
on Greek vases and Roman floor mosaics. One example of the latter would be the Judgement
of Paris in the villa in Kos, another the famous pavement showing the Birth of Dionysus in the
villa in Nea Paphos, Cyprus or on the Judgement of Nereids in the Apamea Museum.7
In his monumental monograph on the iconography of Byzantine saints, Henry Maguire
has put forward the hypothesis that – contrary to the mid-Byzantine art – the representation
of the saint was rarely accompanied by explanatory inscriptions during the pre-iconoclastic
period. According to Maguire, inscriptions became a standard practice only after the period
of Iconoclasm.8 He recently extended this hypothesis, arguing that the reason for this inten-
tional omission was the wish to call upon more than one précised heavenly protector against
demons, especially in the case of private monuments.9
Although Maguire’s theory sounds interesting, it nevertheless needs further study, and
the analysis of the phenomena very often contradicts his statements, as Karen Boston has
recently remarked.10 In Early Christian art, the number of inscriptions is limited, but today
it is difficult to estimate whether this is the sign of their complete absence or rather the re-
sult of damage to the paintings’ surface. Nevertheless, the surviving examples confirm that
inscriptions were used for explanatory purposes. Belonging to the final stage of the process
of the production of painted panels, inscriptions were particularly fragile and could easily be
destroyed over the centuries. Therefore, they mostly survive in monumental art: for exam-
ple, in the mosaics in the apse of the St. Catherine Monastery at Mt. Sinai, frescoes in Phar-
as cathedral and Bawit monastery chapels, Roman churches: San Lorenzo fuori le Mura,
Santi Cosma e Damiano, Santo Stefano Rotondo, Santa Agnese, Santa Maria Antiqua, and
in the chapel of San Marco (ninth century), in the Basilica Euphrasiana in Poreč, Panagia
Kanakaria in Lythrangomi and Panagia Angeloktistos in Kiti on Cyprus, as well as in some
churches in Ravenna11 (fig. 1). However, we can give more examples of figures which can be
identified by a text written on the artefact: Early Christian murals (ever since the catacomb
7 LEADER-NEWBY 2007, 180–81, fig. 7.1; OSBORNE, PAPPAS 2007. Whole volume containing these
two essays is worth recalling as an excellent study devoted to the relationship between the image and the
inscription in antiquity. Numerous examples of explanatory inscriptions written in vernacular languages
(Greek, Latin, Syriac and Hebrew) on Roman pavements are given in e.g. DUNBABIN 1999, figs. 36, 44–45,
116, 118, 153–55, 174–77, 182–84, 194–95, 203, 212–14, 227–31, 240, 262, 285, 311, 313, 316 and colour pl.
25, 31, 34–35.
8 MAGUIRE 1996, 100–45.
9 MAGUIRE 2007, 139–45. The author makes an exception for official portraits like the votive mosaic
of St. Demetrius on the north face of the north pier at his basilica in Thessaloniki.
10 BOSTON 2003, 38; on nomina sacra as an element of the iconography of Christ and the Holy Virgin
in Byzantium cf. also NELSON 2007, 100–07.

11 WEITZMANN 1966a; WEITZMANN 1990, figs. 1–7, 12–19, SOPHOCLEOUS 1994, figs. 2–3; DEICH-
MANN 1969, 295–99, 307–08, 334, 340, figs. 254, 257–60, 283, 289; TERRY, MAGUIRE, 2007, vol. 1,
117–21, 142–44, 177–78, vol. 2. figs. 2, 22–23, 29, 39, 67, 70–72, 74, Faras, 76, 84–85, 97, 187, 189–90,
248–49, 253, 256, 259, 261–62, 282–84, 286; BRANDERNBURG 2005, figs. 125–26, 134, 140–41, 144,
150–51; MAGUIRE 2007, 146-49; BOSTON 2003, 38–41.
paintings, e.g. the Virgin with the Child in

the Coemeterium Maius, and Christ with
SS. Peter and Paul and the Saints in the
catacomb of Santi Pietro e Marcellino);12
sixth century Greek and Egyptian icons,
like Abbot Menas with Christ (now in the
Louvre), Abbot Abraham (now in Berlin,
Staatliche Museen), the Antiquus Dierum
in a mandorla inscribed as Emmanuel, St.
Basil and St. Theodore, prophet Elias, St.
Athanasios and St. Basil (all from the Si-
nai Monastery);13 as well as minor objects,
such as amulets with King Solomon or St.
Sisinios, or ceramic icons discovered in
Vinica (Macedonia) and dated before 711
AD (fig. 2).14 On the other hand, there are
examples of post-iconoclastic works with-
out (like in the case of the mosaic over
the Imperial Doors in the Hagia Sophia,
Constantinople)15 or with damaged in-
scriptions (like the frescoes in the St. Fig. 1. Bishop Appollinare, mosaic in the apse of San
Appollinare in Classe, Ravenna (Photo: Author)
Pantaleimon church at Nerezi).
The custom of identifying representa-
tions by means of an inscription intensified after 843 AD,16 but the above-mentioned ear-
lier examples seem to prove the continuity between ancient and Byzantine art. Statistically,
inscribed works of art significantly grew in number in the mid-Byzantine period. For mostly
literate Greek society this was the most secure way to establish a connection between a “por-
trait” and the specified saint, or even to give depicted person a hallmark of sanctity.17 The text
alone, though, did not suffice to create a relation of similarity between the icon and the proto-
12 FIOCCHI NICOLAI, BISCONTI, MAZZOLENI 2002, figs. 144, 148.

13 KNIPP, fig. 18; POPOVA 2005, 46; figs. 6–7; WEITZMANN 1976, cat. B13, B16–B17, B24.
14 WALTER 1990; WALTER 1994; MAGUIRE 1996, 120–23, fig. 102, 106–07; BALABANOV, KRSTE-
VSKI 1993, cat. 44–68, 81–83.

15 This exception discusses BOSTON 2003, 46–47.
16 Greek inscriptions in the interior of St. Sophia in Kiev (eleventh century) can be mentioned as an
example, see BELECKIJ 1960.

17 BARBER 2003, 28 quotes as an example story from the Life of Symeon the New Theologian. It tells
about Symeon’s efforts to recognise his spiritual father, Symeon Eulabes as a saint. Eventually petition was
rejected, and an icon that was discussed during proceedings was damaged. One of the members of the Holy
Synod, a synkellos Stephen of Nikomedia erased half of inscription that named the saint, and then returned
desacralised object to Symeon the New Theologian.
type. In case of controversy, the text with the saint’s

name was, of course, always decisive. Nevertheless,
artists had to create a more complicated system for
the identification of saints without the help of words.
In order to achieve this, they combined particular
features of the saint’s face and costume.
Physiognomic Features
In the late antique Rome, the physical appear-
ance used to identify or to describe a particular
person (eikonismos), and to create the collective
imagination (phantasia) necessary to recognize
visual features of the official images, was an im-
portant element of social life. The resemblance of
the emperor’s portrait to the real ruler granted the Fig. 2. St. Theodore on horseback,
validity of the court sentence and the value of the ceramic icon, Vinica, before 711
coin, whereas a description of physiognomy could (Photo: Author)
be helpful to identify a thief or fugitive slave18.
Hagiographical texts are, however, not very
useful for the study of the physical appearance of Byzantine saints. Their faces are usually
described in a conventional way and without detail. They are full of beauty, bright, send-
ing out rays, and their cheeks are just blooming with down19. Descriptions of monks and
Church Fathers stress disembodiment rather than physical appearance20. The language of
art, which aimed at precision, thus had to devise its own system. Pursuing the “representa-
tion” rather than the “imitation”, Byzantine artists used a limited range of forms. Within
these stylistic norms they changed the physical appearance by modelling the shape of the
head and the outline of the cheeks. They used lighter or darker pigments to achieve dif-
ferent skin tones. A wider colour and variety of form was possible in depicting hair and
beard. They could be dark, red or white, long or short, whereas the absence of beard and
18 For the meaning of phantasia on the basis of Neoplatonist philosophy and Souda definitions see
JAMES 2003, 60–62, 65 and note 8. For eikonismos see DAGRON 1991, 25–27; DAGRON 1994, 140. For
the idea of the identity of the Emperor and his likeness in late antique theory and the use of this concept to
explain Christ as the identical image of God the Father in writings of early Christian Fathers, cf. LADNER
1953, 3, 8, 18–22.
19 Physical beauty created by a painter that is in opposition to true virtue is criticized for example by
GREGORY OF NYSSA in his homily De hominis opificio 5 (Patrologia graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 44, col.
137A–B); see also KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 1–2.
20 MANUEL PHILES Carmina, LXXI-LXXII, (ed. E. Miller, vol. 1, p. 33); BROWNING 1963, 298, [No.
12] and examples further given by MAGUIRE 1990, 80–81; MAGUIRE 1996, 48–64, 78–80; KAZHDAN,
MAGUIRE 1991, p. 2–3.
moustache was meant to suggest young age. This method allowed the creation of a very lim-
ited number of face-types. This is confirmed by monotonous descriptions in iconographic
manuals and eikonismos collections (by Ulpius the Roman, dated to the ninth or tenth
century, and by post-Byzantine Hermeneia)21.
The first attempts to define the physiognomy in these terms can be observed already in
the Early Christian period, for example in the iconography of prominent Apostles Peter and
Paul. Descriptions of their physical features appeared comparatively early22, but even ear-
lier, they had been depicted in accordance with fixed types on the paintings in the catacomb
of SS. Peter and Marcellinus in Rome, on sarcophagi reliefs (such as the scenes of Traditio
Legis and Traditio clavis) and on other minor objects23. The Apostle Peter is represented
with short white hair and a broad beard, while Paul is a bald man with a long pointed beard
and black hair.
In the sixth century, the newly created “portrait” of St. Demetrius was used to establish
his cult in Thessaloniki more firmly. The martyr’s relics had been abandoned in Sirmium.
The local clergy spent some effort to compensate for this abandonment by the creation
of a strong cult centre in the new bishopric seat. Thus they made a contribution not only
to the new hagiography of Demetrius but also to his portrait in numerous intercessional
compositions that covered the walls of his new sanctuary24. Characteristic physiogno-
mies of other popular saints, e.g. Theodore, George or Sergius and Bacchus, seem to have
originated in the same period. Ernst Kitzinger’s hypothesis that in the late sixth century
the saint’s image lost its portrait character in favour of an iconic linear layout seems to
be based partly on a stylistic and not on an iconographical analysis25. Nonetheless, the
iconoclastic break caused numerous discontinuities within the “portrait” tradition.
At some point, possibly because they fell into oblivion, old formulas were abandoned in
favour of newly created ones. An example of the change in physiognomy can be observed
in representations of St. Menas of Egypt (fig. 3). This martyr was widely venerated and
had appeared from the fifth century as a young beardless soldier wearing a breastplate
21 For the reconstruction of the earliest version of the text of Ulpius see WINKELMANN 1990, 109–13
(in German) and 114–27 (in Greek); and DAGRON 1994, 140–42 (in French); Hermeneia, tr. Hetherington,
52–63, 70–81).
22 Acta Pauli et Theclae, 3 (ed. Lipsius & Bonnet, vol. 1, p. 237) give a description of St. Paul as a man
of a small stature with meeting eyebrows, bald [or shaved] head, bow-legged, strongly built, hollow-eyed,
with a large crooked nose. The physical appearance of both apostles is described in MALALAS, Chrono-
graphia, 10. 35–37 (ed. Thurn, 193-194); see also: GRANT 1982; DAGRON 1991, 25–26; DAGRON 1994,
138–40.
23 FIOCCHI NICOLAI, BISCONTI, MAZZOLENI 2002, fig. 144; Pietro e Paolo, cat. 47–54, 78, 80–82
(sarcophagi); 41, 55, 64, 73 (ivory); 44, 58–59, 74, 76–77 (minor bronze sculpture); 44, 84–90, 93–94 (gold-
glass medallions); cf. also exceptions with beardless young physiognomies on gold-glass bottoms, ibidem,
cat. 91–92.
24 VICKERS 1974, 348; CORMACK 1985, 51–60, 86-94, figs. 14, 18–19, 22-23, 27–31; WALTER
2003, 69–76.
25 KITZINGER 1954; KITZINGER 1955, 145; KITZINGER 1958, 45.
and a chlamys on various artefacts, such as pilgrim’s ampoules26. However, beginning

with the tenth century, he is portrayed without exception as a middle-aged man with
a white, curled beard and a moustache (fig. 4). His attire also changed to include a tunic
and a chlamys with a tablion, which were typical for civilian officers. Interestingly, it was
about the same time that the representation of another St. Menas – a Constantinopolitan
(or Athenian) senator called Kallikelados (Well speaking) – must have originated. His
portrait does not differ from the new image of the Egyptian saint27.
The evolution of the portrait of John Chrysostom presents a more complex problem.
The case was studied in detail by Otto Demus. A comparatively young man with an oval
face fringed with a sparse beard, depicted on seventh and eighth century frescoes in Santa
Maria Antiqua, was replaced by a man of dark skin and short dark hair in the ninth cen-
tury, and subsequently, by a more ascetic type – with pallid and withered cheeks, pointed
chin and a short, two-pronged beard. The latter type was developed by the beginning of
the eleventh century at the latest. It reveals numerous similarities to the physiognomy of
the prophet Jonah and to that of St. Luke. As the iconography of the frequently portrayed
Evangelist was developed as late as the ninth century, its influence on the appearance of
John Chrysostom is disputable. Demus does not exclude the possibility of a reversed
influence or the existence of a pattern associated with yet another image of the ascetic
saint28. It seems, though, that there is another possibility to be considered, namely the
adjustment of John’s physical appearance to his ascetic character, which was well known
from written sources29.
A similar adjustment can be noticed in the physiognomies of SS. Cosma and Damianos.
Two independent traditions of the twins’ portrait existed in the sixth century. The mosaic
in the northern apse of the Basilica Euphrasiana (Poreč), executed by technically advanced
artists after 553 AD, shows young men with pale faces and barely visible beards30. A differ-
ent type was used in the mosaic of the main apse in the church dedicated to these saints in
Rome, founded in 530 AD by Pope Felix IV31, and in the sixth- or seventh-century fresco
from the villa in Wadi Garga near Asyût (now in the British Museum)32. Here, the broth-
ers are depicted as elderly men with long dark beards and olive carnations indicating their
26 About the cult, iconography and translation of the relics of St. Menas the Egyptian see KISS 1989
(with further literature), and WALTER 2003, 181–86, who, however, could distinguish as many as four
saints under this name. His thesis was criticized by WOODFIN 2006, 111–17.
27 DELEHAYE 1910; CHATZIDAKIS-BACHARAS 1982, 71–73; MARKOVIĆ 1995, 612–14; WALTER
2003, 187; WOODFIN 2006, 117–23.

28 DEMUS 1960, 112–19.
29 Cf. e.g. poems attributed to MANUEL PHILES, Carmina, 69, 72-73 (ed. E. Miller, vol. 1, p. 33–34)
and their translation by MAGUIRE 1996, 78–79.

30 TERRY, MAGUIRE 2007, vol. 1., 179–81, vol. 2. fig. 160, 164–78, 218.
31 BRANDENBURG 2005, 222–24, figs. 138–39; For the foundation of the church by Pope Felix IV see
Liber Pontificalis 56. 1 (ed. Davis, 52).

32 Recent Acquisitions, 141–42; TERRY, MAGUIRE 2007, vol. 2, fig. 274.
Fig. 3. Ampoule with a representation of St. Fig. 4. St. Menas with St. Victor and St.
Menas, sixth century (Photo: Author) Vikentios, tenth-century icon from the
bishopric of Kition, Larnaca, Cyprus
(after SOPHOCLEOUS 1994)
Eastern origin. The contamination of both types, resulting in the image of young men with
dark skin, can be observed after Iconoclasm.
Although this type dominated in the iconography of the middle and late Byzantine pe-
riods, attempts to distinguish between the twins’ physiognomic features can be traced in
Russian art. While Cosma is always depicted conventionally – with a beard and a mous-
tache, Damianos appears clean-shaven in the eleventh-century fresco on the south-east
pillar of St. Sophia in Kiev. The upper part of his head and the inscription were repainted in
the nineteenth century, but the saint can be identified by the surgical box in his hand (fig.
5). This example is not unique, and the same distinction between the brothers’ physiogno-
mies appears on a Moscow school icon produced in the first half of fifteenth century (now
in the Rublov Museum), as well as in a codex of the Prolog dated to the second quarter of
the same century, now in the Public Library in St. Petersburg33.
The Ruthenian experiments with the iconography of anargyroi find a parallel in Byzan-
tium. The increasing number of portraits of the saints, widely venerated after Iconoclasm,
has caused additional problems to scholarly endeavours. It often happened, as in the case
33 POPOV 1975, fig. 1; LOGVYN 1974, ill. 30.

of St. Theodores Teron and Stratelates (the

latter created probably in the ninth century)34,
that a new hagiography (based on the older
version of St. Theodore Teron’s hagiography)
entailed the imitation of the old pattern in the
physical depiction of a new personality. The
risk of misunderstanding increased through
the similarity between the old and the new
legends. To avoid misinterpretation, artists
attempted to differentiate the physical ap-
pearance of both saints. This different pat-
tern in the portraits of both Theodores can
be noticed in many works from the eleventh
and twelfth centuries. According to Liliana
Mavrodinova, Teron is more eagerly repre-
sented with short hair adjacent to the head
and a broad pointed beard, whereas Strate-
lates has curly hair and a curly beard split in
the end. The Bulgarian scholar distinguishes
the Egyptian type, characteristic for St. Theo-
dore Teron, and the Oriental one, typical for
Stratelates35. Although Christopher Walter
criticized her theory36, the majority of Byzan-
Fig. 5. St. Damianos, fresco in Kiev St. Sophia
tine art historians agree that in some cases, as
Cathedral, second half of the eleventh century
in the mosaics in the main church of Hosios (Photo: Author)
Loukas and in the frescoes at Nerezi, this dis-
tinction is clearly visible37.
Hugo Buchtal points out another example of differentiated physiognomies of Holy Fa-
thers. Between the tenth and the eleventh centuries, a new portrait type of St. Gregory
of Nazianzus with short, broad beard and a bulbous forehead was introduced. It replaced
the old variant with a long white beard, which resembled that of St. Basil the Great. Pos-
sible reason for introducing such a variant could be to make a distinction between similar
34 OIKONOMIDES 1986.
35 MAVRODINOVA 1969, 40–45.
36 WALTER 1999, 186; WALTER 2003, 59–62, 65, where the author put forward a new hypothesis
bringing the new physical appearance of St. Theodore into a relationship with a third saint bearing the same
name – Theodore Anatolikos (Orientalis).
37 KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 8; MIRZOYAN 1987, 446; MAGUIRE 1990, 75–76; MAGUIRE 1996,
21–22; DAVIES 1991, 100 and MARKOVIĆ 1995, 596, who, however, thinks that the two types originated no
earlier than the twelfth century.
142
physiognomies of the two Cappadocian Church Fathers38. It is worth mentioning that early
examples of the new appearance include the representations on ivory triptychs in the Lou-
vre (Harbaville), Palazzo Venezia and Museo Sacro of the Vatican Library. In spite of the
custom of colouring Byzantine ivory, we may assume that the physiognomies of the saints,
carved beside one another, could be left unpainted. In case the shape of their beards had
been the same, it would have caused problems with proper recognition39.
Despite all the efforts described, the number of physical types available to Byzan-
tine artists was still insufficient to match the sudden growth in the number of venerated
saints. The fact that painters tried to reflect the character of the saints in the features
of the face, for example the Holy Fools, should also be taken into account. Andrew the
Fool, St. Nikon, St. Simeon and St. Mary of Egypt follow the iconography of John the
Baptist, with disheveled long hair and sunken cheeks, meant to stress their ascetic way
of life. A simple comparison of the faces of St. George and St. Pantaleimon shows that
the same physiognomy could occur in the portraits of different saints. In order to make
them unmistakably recognizable, it was necessary to introduce an additional element –
– the costume.
Garments
The analysis of the Book of Ceremonies and Court Tacticons shows that the Byz-
antine society inherited its strict dress-code from the Roman Empire and that it made
ample use of it to convey information 40. Imperial, clerical or military dress indicate the
wearer’s belonging to a specific profession or even ethnic group. On a more subtle level,
this was – as Maguire pointed out – extended to the modelling of the folds: clear and
linear in the case of monks’ gowns and rich in detail and splendour for Warrior Saints.
By means of a simple visual code it indicated the character of the saint at first sight. 41
The introduction of the costume as an indication of a specific group of saints can be
traced back to the sixth century42. It was connected with the emergence of new elements
in the official vestments. As Ch. Walter already noted, at that time, the phelonion and the
38 BUCHTAL 1963, 86–88; see also an example from the church of St. Nicholas on the Roof in Kakope-
tria (Cyprus), MAGUIRE 1996, fig. 37.

39 On the polychromy of Byzantine ivory see CONNOR 1998. The text of the Ulpius colected eikonismoi
is ambiguous mentioning a short but luxuriant beard, flat nose and straight eyebrows; see WINKELMANN
1990, p. 122.
40 PILTZ 1985; PILTZ 1997; PARANI 2003, 11–100; GROTOWSKI 2007.
41 MAGUIRE 1990, 75–83; to illustrate this process, he compares vital appearance of Warrior Saints
with incorporeal images of monks. The significance of the vestments in defining saints’ visual representa-
tions was already noted in DAGRON 1991, 26.
42 As an early example, we can quote the mosaics in the nave of San Apollinare Nuovo, Ravenna. While
the group of martyrs still wears timeless mantles, their female counterparts on the neighbouring wall are
shown in the costume of a Roman matron, DEICHMANN 1969, 308, fig. 258.
omophorion became permanent elements in the iconography of bishops (fig. 1). 43 This
phenomenon can be observed more clearly in a group of icons with representations of
Warrior Saints (e.g. St. Theodore Teron from the St. Catherine Monastery on Mt. Sinai;
St. Theodore on horseback on a ceramic icon from Vinica (fig. 2); St. Theodore killing
the dragon from Pharas)44. At the same time, Warrior Saints appear in military costume,
alongside with the older type, which included a court mantle and a tunic. The holy styl-
ites have been represented as monks from the outset (fig. 6)45.
In post-iconoclastic art this process was intensified 46, but the costume still referred
only to the category and did not create individuality. In the tenth century, both St. Theo-
dores wear officer’s belts on their chest, for example on ivory triptychs: Harbaville in
the Louvre, in the Vatican Collection and on the triptych of the Forty Martyrs in the
Hermitage. This means that Macedonian sculptors did not treat this distinction in terms
of military costume as an indication of the general’s rank. Kazhdan and Maguire, how-
ever, noted that in some later works, e.g. on the frescoes in the SS. Anargyroi church in
Kastoria and in the Parekklesion of Chora in Constantinople, Stratelates is depicted in
richer armour than Teron in order to underline his higher military rank 47. This distinc-
tion seems to be very subtle and needs further investigation. Undoubtedly, the tendency
to render all details very precisely – which was characteristic for the Comnenian period
– made the variety of vestments more visible.
Such nuances cannot be observed in the iconography of female saints. Their images
present a more limited range of costumes, which are usually divided into two categories.
The imperial robe, the crown and uncovered hair are connected with high social back-
ground of such saints as Helena, Theodora, Irene, Eudoxia, Barbara, Katherine, Glykeria,
Kalliope and others. St. Kyriake often wears the loros, the crown and the thorakion of
the empress in order to underline her “festival” status 48, while her “friend” Paraskeve is
usually depicted in a simple maphorion and a mantle.
43 WALTER 1982, 9–16; WALTER 1991, 356–57 also notes an unusual element for the bishops – dark, plain
mantle (mandyas). Early examples are published in: Faras, cat. 3; DEICHMANN 1969, 340, fig. 289.
44 WEITZMANN 1976, cat. B13; BALABANOV, KRSTEVSKI 1993, cat. 44–48; Faras, cat. 4.
45 See also e.g. silver plaque with St. Simeon Stylites in the Louvre, Byzance, cat. 61. Tenth-century
representations from Cappadocia were analysed in JOLIVET-LÉVY 1993.

46 An interesting example of the practice of ascribing special meanings to the image by means of cos-
tume can be the introduction of the imperial loros to the iconography of archangels after Iconoclasm. As
MANGO 1984, 39–44, figs. 1–4, and MAGUIRE 1995, 65–66, 68 have observed, in historical context, Arch-
angels Gabriel and Michael are depicted in antique tunics and mantles or armours; on the other hand, when
represented as celestial courtiers, they usually wear garments appropriate for high court officials.
47 KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991, 13 have noted, in the light of a Homily by John Mauropous stressing
the poverty of Theodore Teron, the distinction between military representations of both Theodores – e. g.
at Nerezi and in Chora.
48 See e.g. MAGURE 1996, 28 figs. 24, 29; GERSTEL 1998, 1, 3–6, 8–9, 17; on empresses’ costume see
RUDT DE COLLENBERG 1971, 268–73, 276–86. On the loros and often depicted clipea with portraits of the
Days of the week, see GAVRILOVIĆ 2007, 70–71, figs. 3–4; WALTER 1995, fig. 3.
This second type of female costume follows the ico-

nography of the Holy Virgin. It recalls a poor monastic
garb and is further reserved for other martyrs and nuns,
such as Thecla, Marina, Juliana, Agatha and Polychro-
nia49. The limited variation in the attire of female saints
mirrors the woman’s status in patriarchal Byzantine
culture50. At the same time, it makes the recognition of
a member of this group more difficult. Only occasional-
ly permanent principles facilitate the recognition, as in
the case of St. Marina’s bright red maphorion. Another
exception is the image of St. Mary of Egypt. Being an
anchoress, she is usually shown half-naked in the sim-
ple melota of her male counterparts51.
These observations corroborate the hypothesis al-
ready formulated by Henry Maguire – that it was only
the systematic method applied by the artists that allowed
the spectator to identify the depicted saint52. A limited
number of different physiognomies make a saint distin-
guishable only within a professional group defined by the
costume. The repetition of identical faces became pos-
sible, as in the case of St. George and St. Pantaleimon,
through the introduction of different categories. Only in
the case of female saints, the variety of costume types
was insufficient and caused problems. Otherwise the Fig. 6. Cooper oil lamp in the
pictorial definition of a personage strictly followed the shape of a Holy Stylite (Simeon?),
Archaeological Museum of Hatay
Aristotelian definition: per genus proximum et differ- (Antioch), 6–7 cent.
entiam specificam formulated in the Topics (VI 3) and (Photo: Author)
in Categories53. In a saint’s portrait, the genus would be
defined by his costume, which would ascribe him to a particular group of bishops, monks,
hermits, warriors or physicians, whereas his physiognomy would distinguish him from the
49 See e.g. NAUERTH, WARNS 1981; MAGUIRE 1996, figs. 24, 28–31; GERSTEL 1998, figs. 1, 7, 17, 19–20.
50 On the image of the woman in the Byzantine hagiographical literature see KAZHDAN 1990.
51 MAGUIRE 1996, 28, 30 listed Mary, together with Barbara, among few female saints recognizable
owing to their “physical portrait”.

52 MAGUIRE 1996, 46–47 states For the Byzantines, therefore, portraiture was a matter of definition,
not of illusion. As an example of the vitality of the Aristotelian definition of the definition he pointed out
Dialectica by John of Damascus.
53 An extensive analysis of the system of categorization and definition based on Aristotle’s Organon is
given in GRANGER, 1984, 3–8; BERG 1983.

other member of his category. This method allowed artists to produce portraits of numerous
saints using only a limited number of features.
The significance of the Aristotelian philosophical system in Byzantium was for a long
time depreciated by modern scholars in favour of Platonism and Neo-Platonism. Studies
on Aristotelian Commentaries, however, have brought to light the uninterrupted tradi-
tion of reading and use of Aristotelian concepts. Even if only indirectly, the main thesis
and the basic tools were familiar to Byzantines from earlier works and Commentaries on
the Categories written by Porphyry, Ammonius and Elias54. Probably due to sixth century
commentaries, Aristotelian logic was familiar to iconophile theologians in the final stage
of Iconoclasm. Theodore of Studios opens his Third Antirrheticus recalling Aristoteliki
technologia and uses the concept of homonym in the discussion with John the Grammari-
an, while Patriarch Nicephorus, according to his Vitae, excelled in logic and studied a wide
range of philosophical definitions. The Categories were also explained and commented
upon by Photius in his Questiones Amphilochianae, by his pupil Arethas of Caesarea and
by other scholars, like John Italos55.
Therefore, the borrowings from Aristotle in the mid-Byzantine period were by no
means a surprise. The influence of rhetoric upon iconography and the existence of oratory
figures in art have been studied extensively56. As Maguire has pointed out, this does not
mean that artists used them knowingly, but rather some ideas were present in the society,
which was saturated with Hellenistic knowledge. We should also be aware of the fact that
the difference between philosophy and the theory of oratory, which numbered among sci-
ences, was comparatively lesser than in our times.
In order to strengthen the identification reached by means of categorization, some ad-
ditional features were added, known to us as attributes.
Attribute
Describing the scene of the Transfiguration in his Sermo de Cruce et Transfiguratio,
Timothy of Antioch asks: From where it is known who is Moses and Elias? and responds:
54 Positive results of the research into Aristotle’s influence on Byzantine philosophy and theology,
expressed mainly in Commentaries to the philosopher’s works (also on Logic), are referred to in OEH-
LER 1964. More sceptical is T. M. Conley. He quotes negative opinions of Byzantine orators about the
philosopher’s style, described as obscure and unclear. However, he also gives examples of Aristotelian
defi nitions used in the Byzantine theory of rhetoric (mainly in codices dating from the period between
the tenth and the fourteenth centuries), see CONLEY 1990, 31–33; CONLEY 2004 (where he compares
John Italos’ theory of rhetoric with the Aristotelian tradition). The list of Byzantine manuscripts with
Aristotle’s works in contemporary libraries was published by MORAUX 1976.
55 OEHLER 1964, 137-39. On the influence of Categories on the theological discussion of the late Icono-
clasm and its role in shaping the theoretical explanation of the cult of icons, see PARRY 1996, 52–57. Cf. also
BOSTON 2003, 44. On Aristotelian homonyms and their reception during the Middle Ages: ANTON 1968;
ANTON 1969.
56 MAGUIRE 1981.
by signs (tekmhr…a). Elias namely is flying on char-

iot; Moses carries Tablets of the Law57. Judging
by this fragment, we may presume that attributes
were widely used in Byzantine art to identify saints.
However, this was not the case. Objects such as
the caduceus of Hermes, the bow and the quiver
of Arthemis, or the rod of Asclepios had been well
known in ancient art, but lost their function with
the arrival of Christianity and, therefore, could not
be transferred to the new iconography.
We can find singular examples of connecting at-
tributes to saints in Early Byzantine art (e.g. sheep
accompanying St. Agnes on the San Apollinare
Nuovo parade58) and in post-iconoclastic art. There
are also some examples of specific objects perma-
nently tied to particular saints, which should be
mentioned – e.g. the keys of St. Peter on an icon
in the Sinai Monastery, or the oar of St. Phocas
in the south gallery of St. Sophia in Kiev (fig. 7)59.
However, they appear inconsequently and as such
isolated artefacts that we cannot treat them as a Fig. 7. St. Phocas, fresco in Kiev St.
Sophia Cathedral, second half of the
comprehensive system of defining60. Moreover, the eleventh cent. (after LOGWYN 1971)
last example shows a combination of the bishop of
Sinope with his namesake martyr, the patron of sailors61. Few exceptions can be mentioned.
One of them is a medallion with the bust of Christ carried by St. Menas the Egyptian in ar-
tefacts dated to the period between the tenth and the fourteenth centuries. This mysterious
element – initially erroneously explained through the vision of the imprisoned Kallikelados
– was most likely introduced with the purpose to distinguish the saint from his namesake
(fig. 4)62. Other examples include an omophorion and a Gospels codex offered by Christ
and the Virgin Mary to St. Nicholas. This motif is related to a miraculous dream dreamt,
57 See Patrologia graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne, vol. 86a, col. 261C. I would like to express my gratitude to Dr.
Dirk Krausmüller of Cardiff University, for turning my attention on this Homily.

58 DEICHMANN 1969, 308, fig. 258.
59 WEITZMANN 1976, cat. B5; LOGWYN 1971, fig. 212.
60 The absence of a coherent system of attribution in Byzantine art was already observed by MAGUIRE
1996, 17.
61 About confused hagiographic traditions and iconography of three saints bearing name Phocas (the
Bishop of Sinope, a saint from Antioch and the gardener), see A. Kazhdan, N. P. Ševčenko, “Phocas”, [in:]
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, New York 1991, vol. 3, p. 1666–67.
62 CHATZIDAKIS-BACHARAS 1982, 73–74 suggests an improbable explanation connecting the medal-
lion with the vision of the saint in prison; a recent analysis of the problem in WOODFIN 2006, 129–43.
according to the legend, by the young saint or, according to a later version, by several bish-
ops of the First Nicene Council (325 AD) after St. Nicholas had been expelled from the
proceedings and imprisoned. The image of the saint with a bald head and a trimmed, round
beard, was not fully developed before the tenth century. Soon afterwards, the Holy Virgin
and Christ with symbols of the bishop’s office were introduced into his portrait, but these
attributes were never treated as an obligatory part of St. Nicholas’ iconography63.
The relationship between Byzantine attributes and early medieval Western iconography
still awaits a broader comparative analysis and goes far beyond the frame of this paper.
It was probably under the influence of Gothic iconography that Paleologian artists began
to reintroduce objects tightly connected with a specific person in hagiographical texts. St.
Merkurios, who usually appears with three arrows referring to the Syrian legend about the
death of Julian the Apostate, is an example from Late Byzantine art. According to the text,
the saint appeared to a certain Jovian in a dream and foretold that he would kill the emperor
within three weeks with one of the three arrows he was holding in his hand64. In a similar
way, St. Demetrius, who previously had not been distinguished from other Warrior Saints
by his weapon, appears with a bow and a quiver starting from the thirteenth century65. St.
Marina of Pisidian Antioch is often shown grasping by the hair and beating with a hammer
a small figure of Satan in order to distinguish her from her namesake of Tripoli. This scene
refers to a legend concerning the temptation of the imprisoned saint66.
At the same time, the process of the transmission of attributes, which were tightly con-
nected with one saint until now, to another, is sometimes observed. The Passio antiquor of
Sts. Sergius and Bacchus relates how the saints were, in an act of degradation preceding the
execution, deprived of the officers’ insignia, golden collars called maniakia (fig. 8)67. Thus
these attributes were a part of the brothers’ iconography until the thirteenth century68.
Since then, however, the manakion also appears on the dress of other military saints – for
example that of St. Procopius on the icon painted by Master Peter at the court of Jerusalem
63 ANRICH 1917, 392–94; ŠEVČENKO 1981, 79–80 and cat. 3, 14, 37, 41–42; MAGUIRE 1996, fig. 44.
64 For the Latin version of the legend see PEETERS 1921, 79–80; about a Syriac redaction written
between 502 and 532 AD see DELEHAYE 1909, 98.
65 ZACHARIADOU 1998, 689, put forward the hypothesis that a steatite icon ordered by a Turk con-
verted to Christianity could have acted as the pattern for such kind of iconography. Her opinion was ac-
cepted by WALTER 2003, 92.
66 LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1962, 252; MAGUIRE 1996, fig. 31. The Greek Vita describes the weapon
as a copper hammer; Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori, fol. 136r (ed. H. Usener, p. 30).
67 Passio antiquor ss. Sergii et Bacchi, 7 (ed. van den Gheyn, p. 380); WALTER 2003, 154 notes, that
the motif of the deprivation of the maniakia disappears already in Metaphrastes’ redaction of the Mar-
tyrdom); FOWDEN 1999, 31–32 and note. 81 thinks that the maniakion, mentioned already in the early
Armenian Synaxarion was introduced under the influence of iconography. A similar example of garment-
attribute can be a special pointed bonnet worn by Cyril of Alexandria. The bonnet, being the prerogative of
the patriarch of Alexandria, is often decorated with crosses.
68 See e.g. a seventh century icon from Sinai (now in Kiev) and mosaics in St. Demetrius basilica in
Thessaloniki, WEITZMANN 1976, cat. B9; FOWDEN 1999, figs. 1–5.

Fig. 8. St. Sergius and Bacchus, sixth-century icon from Sinai, National Gallery, Kiev,
(after WEITZMANN 1976)
Patriarch Euthymios II (now in the Sinai Monastery)69. The wide circulation of this motif
can be explained by the artists’ wish to ennoble the depicted figures by adding a sign other-
wise typical for a high commander of the army.
Some objects, which at first sight seem to be attributes, have to be understood as symbols
in a wider sense, or even as allegories conveying a message which is not connected with a par-
ticular saint; an example is the oldest known representation of St. Paraskeve, which appears
on fol. 285 of the Paris Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Par. gr. 510). Depicted in the right
bottom corner of the full-page miniature, the saint appears with a lance, a reed and a sponge.
Together with Helena, the prophet Habakkuk and the Hill of Golgotha, she acts as an illustra-
tion to the text of Gregory’s Second Easter Homily. According to Ch. Walter’s interpretation,
St. Paraskeve was introduced here as a personification of the Passion of Christ70 and the in-
struments displayed should therefore be related to this event. The explanation is confirmed
by the fact that Paraskeve was never depicted with the Arma Passionis again71.
69 GROTOWSKI 2007, 15, fig. 9. According to WALTER 2003, 154, only Sergius and Bacchus were
depicted wearing a maniakion.
70 DER NERSESSIAN 1962, 202, fig. 3; WALTER 1995, 753–54, fig. 1; GERSTEL 1998, 100. Different
interpretation of the neighbouring saint as Kyriake was recently proposed by GAVRILOVIĆ 2007.
71 The icon of the Man of Sorrows held by St. Paraskeve on some Cypriot representations (on a four-
teenth century icon in the Collection Phaneromeni in Nicosia and on a fresco in St. Sozomenos church)
seems to have a similar meaning; WALTER 1995, fig. 2 and note 13; SOPHOCLEOUS 1994, cat. 42.
This by no means implies that early- and mid-Byzantine saints were depicted without any
object in their hands. We can distinguish different groups of saints holding various kinds of
belongings connected with the type of their sanctity or with their occupation. Apart from the
martyrs holding crosses, there were also the iconophoroi: St. Theodosia, Patriarch Nicephorus
I, Empress Theodora and St. Stephan the Younger72. The icons in their hands indicate that the
saints belong to the defenders of images. Yet another group, appearing only in the post-Byz-
antine epoch, are the kephalophoroi73. The iconography of martyrs like Dionysius Areopagite,
George, Zosimos and Paraskeve, carrying their own heads as a sign of their cruel suffering, is
derived from the iconography of St. John the Baptist74.
Attributes referring to the saint’s occupation can be found in representations of Holy
Doctors. They appear initially with scrolls (e.g. on the leaves of a seventh century triptych
at Sinai) or with medical bags – usually given by the Hand of God75. In mid-Byzantine
iconography this attribute is gradually transformed into more elegant surgeon’s boxes and
scalpels. It is worth noticing that the shape of this tool strictly corresponds to the real object
known from archaeological excavations76.
The attributes in Byzantine art can therefore be usually understood as signs defining
the affiliation with a social or professional group. Their function is similar to that of profes-
sional garments, signalizing a category rather than personality77. This observation confirms
the phenomenon of double attributes, like in the case of saints Mamas, Blasios and Try-
phon. As the saints of poverty and protectors of peasants, they appear in the chapel of St.
Pantaleimon church at Nerezi with shepherd’s crooks defining them as a group. However
the first in the group also holds in his hands an ox symbolizing his protection over cattle-
breeders78. In addition, in illustrations of Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, St. Mamas is
frequently accompanied by a shepherd boy, kneeling to milk a doe or merely seated among
animals on a hillside. Since the sixth century, he is also often depicted sitting on a lion79.
Context
The practice of doubling saints’ lives, known from Early Christian times, has caused
some difficulty to hagiographers. Many saints had namesakes who were very often dif-
72 RUDT DE COLLENBERG 1971, fig. 11; MAGUIRE 1996, 17.
73 E.g. Christopher and George, see MEINARDUS 1987; WALTER 1991a.
74 WALTER 1995, 755–56, figs. 6–8; WALTER 2003, 143–44; WALTER 1990a, 268–74, figs. 6, 8, 10-12.
75 They are depicted with scrolls in the Chapel of Physicians at Santa Maria Antiqua, KNIPP 2002,
10–11 (and 18, figs. 8, 12–15 on scalpel in hand of St. Abbakyros). Examples with boxes and lancets are given
by MAGUIRE 1996, figs. 39–40.
76 KNIPP 2002, figs. 16–17.
77 On the classes of Byzantine saints distinguished by the costume and usual attributes ascribed to
a group see MAGUIRE 1996, 16–17, 33–34.

78 SINKEVIĆ 2000, 73, figs. 72, LXV-LXVI.
79 GABELIĆ 1986; GALAVARIS 1969, 100–03; MARAVA-CHATZENIKOLAOU 1961; SOPHOCLEOUS
1994, fig. 14; cat. 27.

ficult to distinguish – for example the double St. Polychronius80. St. Paraskeve the Elder
(known also as St. Paraskeve of Chalkis) is a similar example. The name itself (in Greek –
Friday) indicates (just as the saint’s martyrdom) that she was originally a personification of
the Passion. Her popularity resulted in the production of at least two subsequent martyrs
– Paraskeve of Epibathai (known also as Paraskeve of Turnovo) and Paraskeve of Ikonion81
– venerated especially in Rus’. Their lives present similar events based on a common pro-
totype. None of them had an independent iconography and only the inscriptions and local
traditions could indicate who of the saints was depicted82. In such extreme situations, the
artists had to locate saints within a particular context in order to avoid confusion between
duplicated figures. As the artistic convention of frontal attitude left no place for narration
or additional details, the contextualization could be reached only by means of a proper
surrounding. Accompanied by relatives, a saint became recognizable to the beholder, but
only on condition that the spectator was familiar with his or her biography. This technique
was applied to one of the three pairs of physician saints known under the same name Cos-
ma and Damianos. The oriental pair was sometimes depicted with their mother, Theodote.
They appear together on an eleventh-century Sinai icon, as well as on numerous frescoes in
Greek churches of St. Demetrius in Servia (late twelfth or early thirteenth century), of the
Episcopi in Eurytania (late twelfth or early thirteenth century) and St. Peter Kalyvia-
Kouvara in Attica (1232)83.
The connections between characters depicted together could also be very simple, as
in the case of St. Menas. Since the tenth century both saints known under that name
were distinguished by the introduction of accompanying martyrs, who were venerated
on the same day (on November 11 in the case of St. Menas the Egyptian; on Decem-
ber 10 in the case of Kallikelados). St. Victor and St. Vikentios accompanied St. Menas
the Egyptian (fig. 4; Tokali Kilise – New Church; St. Barbara and Karabaş Kilkise in
Sohanli; Hosios Loukas; Cod. sinaitus. gr. 500, fol. 129v; St. Pantaleimon at Nerezi;
Capella Pallatina and Martorana in Palermo; Agios Nicholas Orphanos in Thessaloniki;
Chora; Kučevište; Poganovo), whereas St. Hermogenes and St. Eugraphos were depicted
together with Kallikelados (Tokali-New Church; Staro Naogoričino; Gračanica; Chora;
Lesnovo; Rudenica)84.
80CRABBE 1981.
81On various saints known under this name see WALTER 1995, 754 and entries: A. Kazhdan, “Par-
askeve of Epibatai”, “Paraskeve of Ikonion”, (with N. P. Ševčenko), “Paraskeve the Elder”, Oxford Diction-
ary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, New York 1991, vol. 3, 1585–86 (with further bibliography).
82 The problem analyses recently SULIKOWSKA-GĄSKA 2008, 178–82.
83 GERSTEL 1998, 92, 94, 97, 105–07, 110; for more examples like St. Eustace of Rome, Cyricus and
Julita and others see DREWER 1992.

84 MARKOVIĆ 1995, 613–14 and note 364; SOPHOCLEOUS 1994, fig. 3; WOODFIN 2006, 127–28;
WEITZMANN 1966, 79, fig. 63.

Although the origin of this custom can be dated to a period before the Iconoclasm, most
examples are of a later date. An intensification of this process can be observed during the
thirteenth century and within the Paleologian period.
Conclusion
As a conclusion one can assume that the recognition of saints was not the effect of a particu-
lar visual sensitivity of the Byzantine beholder, but of a very complex identification system.
This system encompassed the inscription, face shape and garments, the last defining a par-
ticular group rather than acting as a specified attribute. In order to be understandable, this
system had to be familiar, possibly only on a subconscious level, both to the artist and the
viewer. With the time, however, an increasing number of saints caused difficulties in the use
of the system. One solution was to depict the saint in a specific context.
Of course, as with many generalizing statements concerning humanities and their
mechanisms, one could point out numerous exceptions. Therefore, the above-mentioned
regularities should be regarded as a preliminary investigation aimed at establishing the
presence of such mechanisms and an introduction to a broader discussion of the problem
rather than an attempt to create secure, universal rules.
e-mail: oxygenium@poczta.fm
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES:
Acta Pauli et Theclae:
“Acta Pauli et Theclae”, [in:] Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, vol. 2, “Acta Petri, Acta Pauli, Acta Petri
et Pauli, Acta Pauli et Theclae, Acta Thaddei”, ed. R. A. Lipsius & M. Bonnet, Hildesheim-New York
1972, p. 235–273.
Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori:
”Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori”, ed. H. Usener, [in:] Festschrift zur fünften Säcularfeier der Carl-
Ruprechts-Universität zu Heidelberg, Bonn 1886, p. 3–53
BROWNING 1963:
Robert Browning, ”An Unpublished Corpus of Byzantine Poems”, Byzantion 33 (1963), p. 289–316.
DELEHAYE 1909:
Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des Saints Militaires, Paris 1909 [reprinted: New York 1975].
Hermeneia:
The Painters Manual of Dionysius of Fourna. An English Translation from the Greek with Commen-
tary, of Cod. Gr. 708 in the Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library, transl. Paul Hetherington, Tor-
rance, California 1998.
Liber Pontificalis:
The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis) The Ancient Biographies of the first ninety Roman Bishops to
AD 715, translated by R. Davies (Translated Texts for Historians 6), Liverpool 2000.
MALALAS:
Ioannis Malalae, Chronographia, ed. I. Thurn (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 35), Berlin –
– New York 2000.
MANGO 1972:
Cyril Mango, The Art of Byzantine Empire 312–1453. Sources and Documents, New Jersey 1972.
MANSI:
Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J. D. Mansi, 31 vols., Florentiae 1758–1798.
MANUEL PHILES:
Manuelis Philae, Carmina, ed. E. Miller, vol. 1–2, Paris 1885–1887 [reprint 1967].
Miracula Sancti Demetrii:
Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de saint Démétrius et la pénétrations de
Slaves dans les Balkans, vol. 1: Le texte, Paris 1979.
Miracles of St. Artemios:
The Miracles of St. Artemios. A Collection of Miracle Stories by an Anonymous Author of Seventh-
Century Byzantium, transl. Virgil S. Crisafulli, introd. J. W. Nesbitt, commentary V. S. Crisafulli, J. W.
Nesbitt, (The Medieval Mediterranean 13), Leiden 1997.
NILUS OF ANCYRA:
S. Nilus Abbas, “Epistolarum Textum, Heliodoro Silentiario”, [in:] Patrologia graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne,
Paris 1857–1866, vol. 79, col. 579–581.
Passio antiquor ss. Sergii et Bacchi
“Passio antiquor ss. Sergii et Bacchi”, ed. I. Van den Gheyn, Analecta Bollandiana 14 (1895), p. 375–395.
PEETERS 1921:
Paul Peeters, “Un miracle des SS. Serge et Théodore et la Vie de S. Basile, dans Fauste de Byzance”,
Analecta Bollandiana 39 (1921), p. 65–88.
SECONDARY LITERATURE:
ANRICH 1917:
Gustav Anrich, Hagios Nikolaos. Der heilige Nikolaos in der griechischen Kirche, vol. 2, Berlin 1917.
ANTON 1968:
John P. Anton, “The Aristotelian Doctrine of Homonyma in the Categories and its Platonic Anteced-
ents”, Journal of the History of Philosophy 6 (1968), p. 315–326.
ANTON 1969:
John P. Anton, “Ancient Interpretations of Aristotle’s Doctrine of Homonyma”, Journal of the History
of Philosophy 7 (1969), p. 1–18.
BALABANOV, KRSTEVSKI 1993:
Kosta Balabanov, Cone Krstevski, Die Tonikonen von Vinica. Frühchristliche Bilder aus Makedonien,
München 1993.
BARBER 2003:
Charles Barber, “Icon and Portrait in the Trial of Symeon the New Theologian”, [in:] Icon and Word.
The Power of Images in Byzantium: Studies Presented to Robin Cormack, ed. A. Eastmond, L. James,
Aldershot 2003, p. 25–33.
BELECKIJ 1960:
А. А. Белецкий, “Греческие надписи на мозаиках Софии Киевской”, [in:] Виктор Н. Лазарев,
Мозаики Софии Киевской, Москва 1960, p. 161–192.
BERG 1983:
Jan Berg, “Aristotle’s Theory of Defi nition”, [in:] Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Storia della
Logica, San Gimignano, 4-8 decembre 1982, Bologna 1983, p. 19–30.
BOSTON 2003:
Karen Boston, “The Power of Inscriptions and the Trouble with Text”, [in:] Icon and Word. The Power
of Images in Byzantium: Studies Presented to Robin Cormack, ed. A. Eastmond, L. James, Aldershot
2003, p. 35–58.
BRANDENBURG 2005:
Hugo Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome from the Fourth to the Seventh Century. The Dawn of
Christian Architecture in the West, (Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive 8) Turnhout 2005.
BUCHTAL 1963:
Hugo Buchtal, “Some Notes on Byzantine Hagiographical Portraiture”, Gazette des Beaux Arts 62
(1963), p. 81–90.
Byzance 1992:
Byzance. L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises. Musée du Louvre 3 novembre 1992
1er février 1993, ed. J. Durand et al., Paris 1992.
CAMERON 1976:
Alan Cameron, “A Quotation from S. Nilus of Ancyra in an Iconodule Tract?”, The Journal of Theologi-
cal Studies 27 (1976), p. 128–131.
CAMERON 1976a:
Alan Cameron, “The Authenticity of the Letters of St Nilus of Ancyra”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine
Studies 17 (1976), p. 181–196.
CHATZIDAKIS-BACHARAS 1982:
Theano Chatzidakis-Bacharas, Les peintures murales de Hosios Loukas. Les chapelles occidentales.
Avant-propos par A. Grabar (Tetr£dia Cristiank»j Arcaiolog…aj kai Tšcnhj 3), Athénes 1982.
CONLEY 1990:
Thomas M. CONLEY, “Aristotle’s ‘Rhetoric’ in Byzantium”, Rhetorica 8 (1990), p. 29–44.
CONLEY 2004:
Thomas M. Conley, John Italos’ Methodos Rhetorikê: Text and Commentary, Greek Roman and
Byzantine Studies 44 (2004), p. 411–437
CONNOR 1998:
Carolyn L.Connor, The Color of Ivory: Polychromy on Byzantine Ivories, Princeton 1998.
CORMACK 1985:
Robin Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and Its Icons, London 1985.
CRABBE 1981:
Anna Crabbe, “St Polychronius and his Companions – but which Polychronius?” [in:] The Byzantine
Saint. University of Birmingham Fourteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, ed. S. Hackel,
London 1981, p. 141–154.
DAGRON 1991:
Gilbert Dagron, “Holy Images and Likeness”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 45 (1991), p. 23–33.
DAGRON 1994:
Gilbert Dagron, “L’image de culte et le portrait”, [in:] Byzance et les images, Cycle de conférences
organisées au Musée du Louvre du 5 au 7 décembre 1992, ed. A. Guillou et J. Durand, Paris, 1994,
p. 121–150.
DAVIES 1991:
John G. Davies, Medieval Armenian Art and Architecture: the Church of the Holy Cross, Aght’amar,
London 1991.
DEICHMANN 1969:
Friedrich W. Deichmann, Ravenna. Geschichte und Monumente, Wiesbaden 1969.
DELEHAYE 1910:
Hippolyte Delehaye, „L’invention des reliques de saint Ménas à Constantinople”, Analecta Bollandiana
29 (1910), p. 117–150.
DEMUS 1960:
Otto Demus, “Two Palaeologan Mosaic Icons in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection”, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 14 (1960), p. 89–119.
DREWER 1992:
Lois Drewer, “Saints and Their Families in Byzantine Art”, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής
Εταιρείας (1991-1992), Περίοδος Δ΄, p. 259–70.
DUNBABAIN 1999:
Katherine M. D. Dunbabin, Mosaics of the Greek and Roman World, Cambridge 1999.
Faras 2002:
Faras. Die Kathedrale aus dem Wüstensand, ed. W. Seipel, Wien 2002.
FIOCCHI NICOLAI, BISCONTI, MAZZOLENI 2002:
Vincenzo Fiocchi Nicolai, Fabrizio Bisconti, Danilo Mazzoleni, The Christian Catacombs of Rome,
History, Decoration, Regensburg 2002.
FOWDEN :
Elisabeth Key Fowden, The Barbarian Plain. Saint Sergius between, Rome and Iran, Berkeley-Los
Angeles-London 1999.
GABELIĆ 1986:
Smiljka Gabelić, “Contribution to the Iconography of Saint Mamas and Saints with Attributes”, [in:]
Praktik£ B/ DieqnoÚj KupriologikoÚ Sunedar…ou, vol. 2 MesaiwnikÒn Tm»ma, Leukws…a 1986.
GALAVARIS 1969:
George Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus, (Studies in
Manuscript Illumination 6) Princeton 1969.
GAVRILOVIĆ 2007:
Zaga Gavrilović, “New Observations on the Miniature of the Vision of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus in
Paris. Gr. 510”, Зборникм радова Византолошког института 44 (2007), p. 67–72.
GERSTEL 1998:
Sharon E. J. Gerstel, “Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium”, Dumbarton Oaks
Papers 52 (1998), p. 89–111.
GRANGER 1984:
Herbert Granger, “Aristotle on Genus and Differentia”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 22 (1984),
No. 1., Jan. p. 1–23
GRANT 1982:
Robert M. Grant, “The Description of Paul in the Acts of Paul and Thecla”, Vigiliae Christianae 36
(1982), p. 1–4.
GRIGG 1987:
Robert Grigg, “Byzantine Credulity as an Impediment to Antiquarianism”, Gesta 26, (1987), No. 1, p. 3–9.
GROTOWSKI 2007:
Piotr Ł. Grotowski, “Military Attire of Warrior Saints – a Case of Spekion”, Folia Historiae Artium 11
(2007), Seria Nowa, p. 5–16
JAMES 2003:
Liz James, “Art and Lies: Text, Image and Imagination in the Medieval World”, [in:] Icon and Word.
The Power of Images in Byzantium: Studies Presented to Robin Cormack, ed. A. Eastmond, L. James,
Aldershot 2003, p. 59–72.
JOLIVET-LÉVY 1993:
Catherine Jolivet-Lévy, “Contribution à l’étude de l’iconographie mésobyzantine des deux Syméon Sty-
lites”, [in:] Les saints et leur sanctuaire à Byzance: textes, images et monuments, ed. C. Jolivet-Lévy,
M. Kaplan. J.-P. Sodini (Byzantina Sorbonensia 11), Paris 1993, p. 35–47 (reprinted in: C. Jolivet-Lévy,
Etudes Cappadociennes, London 2002, p. 498–518).
KAZHDAN 1990:
Alexander Kazhdan, “Byzantine Hagiography and Sex in the Fifth to Twelfth Centuries”, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 44 (1990), p. 131–143.
KAZHDAN, MAGUIRE 1991:
Alexander Kazhdan, Henry Maguire, Byzantine “Hagiographical Texts as Sources on Art”, Dumbarton
Oaks Papers 45 (1991), p. 1–22.
KISS 1989:
Zsolt Kiss, Les Ampoules de Saint Ménas découvertes à Kôm el-Dikka (1961–1981), Varsovie 1989.
KITZINGER 1954:
Ernst Kitzinger, “The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954),
p. 83–130.
KITZINGER 1955:
Ernst Kitzinger, “On some Icons of the Seventh Century”, Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in
Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., ed. K. Weitzmann, Princeton 1955, p. 132–150
KITZINGER 1958:
Ernst Kitzinger, „Art in the Period between Justinian and Iconoclasm“, [in:] Berichte zum XI. Interna-
tionalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, vol. 4/1, München 1958, p. 1–50 [reprinted in E. Kitzinger, The Art
of Byzantium and The Medieval West, Bloomington 1976].
KNIPP 2002:
D. Knipp, “The Chapel of Physicians at Santa Maria Antiqua”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 56 (2002),
p. 1–23.
LADNER 1953:
Gerhart B. Ladner, “The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers and the Byzantine Iconoclastic
Controversy”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953), p. 1–34.
LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1962:
Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne, „Un thème iconographique peu connu: Marina assommant Belzébuth”,
Byzantion 32 (1962), p. 251–59.
LEADER-NEWBY 2007:
Ruth Leader-Newby, “Inscribed Mosaics in the Late Roman Empire: Perspectives from East and
West”, [in:] Art and Inscriptions in the Ancient World, ed. Z. Newby, R. Leader-Newby, Cambridge
Mass. 2007, p. 179–199.
LOGVYN 1974:
Григорій Н. Лoгвин, З глибин. Давня книжкова мініатюра XI–XVIII століть, Київ 1974.
LOGWYN 1971:
Hryhori Logwyn, Kiewer Sophienkathedrale. Staatliches Architekturhistorisches Denkmalschutzge-
biet, Kiew 1971.
MAGUIRE 1981:
Henry Maguire, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium. Princeton 1981.
MAGUIRE 1990:
Henry Maguire, “Disembodiment and Corporality in Byzantine Images of the Saints”, [in:] Iconog-
raphy at the Crossroads – Papers from the Colloquium sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, ed.
B. Cassidy, Princeton 1990, p. 75–83.
MAGUIRE 1995:
Henry Maguire, “A Murderer among the Angels: The Frontispiece Miniatures of Paris. Gr. 510 and
the Iconography of the Archangels in Byzantine Art", [in:] The Sacred Image East and West, (Illinois
Byzantine Studies 4) ed. R. Ousterhout, L. Brubaker, Chicago 1995, p. 63–71.
MAGUIRE 1996:
Henry Maguire, The Icons of their Bodies. Saints and their Images in Byzantium, Princeton 1996.
MAGUIRE 2007:
Henry Maguire, “Eufrasius and Friends. On Names and Their Absence in Byzantine Art”, [in:] Art and
Text in Byzantine Culture, ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007, p. 139–160.
MANGO 1984:
Cyril Mango, “St. Michael and Attis”, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Περίοδος
Δ΄, 12 (1984), p. 39–62.
MARAVA-CHATZENIKOLAOU 1961:
/Anna Marab©-Catzhnikol£ou, “EÙlog…a toà Àg…ou M£ma“, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής
Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Περίοδος Δ΄, 2 (1960-1961), p. 131–137.
MARKOVIĆ 1995:
Миодраг Марковић, “Свети Ратници из Ресаве, иконографска анализа”, [in:] Манастир Ресава,
историја и умиетност: научни скуп манастир Манасија и његово доба, Деспотовац 21.–22. 8.
1994, ed. П. Ивић, Деспотовац 1995 (Дани Српскога духовног преображења II), p. 191–216.
MAVRODINOVA 1969:
Лиляна Мавродинова, “Св. Теодор – развитие и особености на иконографскаия му тип в средно-
вековната живопис”, Извиестия на Института за изкуствознание 13 (1969), p. 33–53.
MEINARDUS 1987:
Otto F. A. Meinardus, „Der Kynokephalos in der armenischen Pfi ngst-Ikonographie. Zur historis-
chen Herkunft des Kynokephalos“, Revue des études arméniennes (Nouvelle série) 20 (1986–1987).
p. 427–439.
MIRZOYAN 1987:
Alvida Mirzoyan, “Les représentations des saints militaires dans le manuscrit No. 6305 du Matenadaran
M. Maštoc”, Revue des études arméniennes (Nouvelle série) 20 (1986–1987), p. 441–455.
MORAUX 1976:
Paul Moraux [et al.], Aristoteles Graecus. Die griechischen Manuskripte des Aristoteles, vol. 1 “Alex-
andrien-London”, New York-Berlin 1976.
NAUERTH, WARNS 1981:
Claudia Nauerth, Rüdiger Warns, Thekla: Ihre Bilder in der frühchristlichen Kunst, (Göttinger Orient-
forschungen. Reihe 2, Studien zur spätantiken und frühchristlichen Kunst) Wiesbaden 1981.
NELSON 2007:
Robert S. Nelson, “Image and Inscription: Pleas for Salvation in Spaces of Devotion”, [in:] Art and text
in Byzantine Culture, ed. L. James, Cambridge 2007, p. 100–119.
Sirarpie der Nersessian, “The Illustrations of the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus: Paris Gr. 510.
A Study of the Connections between Text and Images”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962), p. 195–228
OEHLER 1964:
Klaus Oehler, „Aristotle in Byzantium“, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 5 (1964) p. 133–146
[reprint in: K. Oehler,: Antike Philosophie und Byzantinisches Mittelalter, München 1969, p. 272–286
as: „Aristoeles in Byzanz“].
OIKONOMIDES 1986:
Nicolas Oikonomidès, “Le dédoublement de Saint Théodore et les villes d’Euchaïta et d’Euchaneia”,
Analecta Bollandiana 104 (1986), p. 327 - 335 [reprinted in N. Okonomides, Byzantium from the Ninth
Century to the Fourth Crusade – Studies, Texts, Monuments, Variorum Reprint, Vermont 1992].
OSBORNE, PAPPAS 2007:
Robin Osborne, Alexandra Pappas, “Writing on archaic Greek Pottery”, [in] Art and Inscriptions in
the Ancient World, ed. Z. Newby, R. Leader-Newby, Cambridge Mass. 2007, p. 131–155.
PARANI 2003:
Maria G. Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious
Iconography 11th–15th Centuries, (Medieval Mediterranean 41) Leiden 2003.
PARRY 1996:
Kenneth Parry, Depicting the Word: Byzantine Iconophile Thought of the Eighth and Ninth Centuries,
New York 1996.
Pierto e Paolo:
Pietro e Paolo. La storia il culto la memoria nei primi secoli, ed. A. Donati, Milano 2000.
PILTZ 1985:
Elisabeth Piltz, Le costume officiel des dignitaires byzantins à la époque Paléologue, (Acta Universi-
tatis Upsaliensis. Figura Nova Series 26) Uppsala, Stockholm 1989.
PILTZ 1997:
Elisabeth Piltz, “Middle Byzantine Court Costume”, [in:] Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204,
ed. H. Maguire, Washington 1997, p. 39–51.
POPOV 1975:
Геннадий В. Попов, Живопись и миниатюра Москвы середины XV-начала XVI века, Москва
1975.
POPOVA 2005:
Olga Popova, “Byzantine Icons of the 6th to 15th Centuries”, [in:] A History of Icon Painting, Moscow
2005, p. 43–94.
Recent Acquisitions:
“Recent Acquisitions by the British Museum”, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 36 (No. 204
Mar., 1920), p. 141–142.
RUDT DE COLLENBERG 1971:
Wipertus H. Rudt de Collenberg, “Le Thorakion. Recherches iconographiqes”, Mélanges de l’Ecole
Française de Rome. Moyen Age - Temps Modernes, 83 (1971), No. 2, p. 263–361.
SINKEVIĆ 2000:
Ida Sinkević, The Church of St. Pantaleimon at Nerezi. Architecture, Programme, Patronage, Wies-
baden 2000.
SOPHOCLEOUS 1994:
Sophocles Sophocleous, Icons of Cyprus: 7 th–20th Century, Nicosia 1994.
ŠEVČENKO 1981:
Nancy P. Ševčenko, The Life of Saint Nicholas in Byzantine Art, Turin 1981.
SULIKOWSKA-GĄSKA 2008:
Aleksandra Sulikowska-Gąska, „Kult świętej Paraskiewy na Rusi”, Ikonotheka 21 (2008), p. 171–186.
TERRY, MAGUIRE 2007:
Ann Terry, Henry Maguire, Dynamic Splendor: The Wall Mosaics in the Cathedral of Eufrasius at
Poreč, University Park 2007, vol. 1–2.
VICKERS 1974:
Michael Vickers, “Sirmium or Thessaloniki; A critical Examination of the St. Demetrius Legend”,
Byzantinische Zeitschrift 67 (1974), p. 337–350.
WALTER 1982:
Christopher Walter, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church, London 1982.
WALTER 1990:
Christopher Walter, “The Intaglio of Solomon in the Benaki Museum and the Origins of the Iconog-
raphy of Warrior Saints”, Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας, Περίοδος Δ΄ 15, (1989–
1990), p. 33-42 [reprinted in: Ch. Walter, Pictures as Language. How the Byzantines exploited them,
London 2000, p. 397–414].
WALTER 1990a:
Christopher Walter, “Three Notes on the Iconography of Dionysius the Areopagite”, Revue des Études
Byzantnes, 48 (1990), p. 255–274 [reprinted in: Prayer and Power in Byzantine and Papal Imagery,
London 1993].
WALTER 1991:
Кристофер Валтер, “Значење портрета Данила II као ктитора у Богородичиној цркви у Пећи”
(summary: “The Significance of the Portrait of Danilo II as Donor in his Church of the Bogorodica, Peć”),
[in:] Архиепископ Данило II и његово доба, (Научни скупови САНУ, књ. 58. Одељење историјских
наука, књ. 17) ed. В. Ј. Ђурић, Београд 1991, p. 355-359 [reprinted in: Ch. Walter, Pictures as Lan-
guage. How the Byzantines exploited them, London 2000, p. 204–212]
WALTER 1991a:
Christopher Walter, “St. George ‘Kephalophoros’”, [in:] EÙfrÒsunon. 'Af…erwma ston ManÒlh
Catzid£kh , Athens 1991, p. 694–703.
WALTER 1994:
Christopher Walter, “Some Unpublished Intaglios of Solomon in the British Museum, London”, [in:]
Qum…ama sth mn»mh thj Laskar…naj MpoÚraj, ed. L. Mprarz…th , Aq»na 1994, p. 365–
–368 [reprinted in: Ch. Walter, Pictures as Language. How the Byzantines exploited them, London
2000, p. 415–424].
WALTER 1995:
Christopher Walter, “The Portrait of Saint Paraskeve”, Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995), p. 753–757.
[reprinted in: Ch. Walter, Pictures as Language. How the Byzantines Exploited Them, London
2000, p. 383–394].
WALTER 1999:
Christopher Walter, “Theodore, Archetype of the Warrior Saint”, Revue des études byzantines 57
(1999), p. 163–210.
WALTER 2003:
Christopher Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition, Aldershot 2003.
WEITZMANN 1966:
Kurt Weitzmann, “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20 (1966),
p. 49–83
WEITZMANN 1966a:
Kurt Weitzmann, “The Mosaic in St Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai”, Proceedings of the Amer-
ican Philosophical Society, 110 (1966), p. 392–405.
WEITZMANN 1976:
Kurt Weitzmann, The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai, The Icons, vol. 1. “From the Sixth
to the Tenth Century”, Princeton 1976.
WEITZMANN 1990:
Kurt Weitzmann, „Mosaics“, [in:] Sinai. Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine, ed. K. A.
Manafi s, Athens 1990, p. 61–67.
WINKELMANN 1990:
Friedhelm Winkelmann, „’Über die körperlichen Merkmale der gottbeseelten Väter’ Zu einem Maler-
buch aus der Zeit zwischen 836 und 913“, [in:] Fest und Alltag in Byzanz, ed. G. Prinzing, D. Simon,
München, 1990, p. 107–27.
WOODFIN 2006:
Warren T. Woodfin, “An Officer and a Gentleman: Transformations in the Iconography of a Warrior
Saint”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006), p. 111–143.
ZACHARIADOU 1998:
Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Les nouvelles armes de Saint Dèmètrius”, [in:] EÙyuc…a , Melanges offerts
à Helénè Ahrweiler, (Byzantina Sorbonensia), Paris 1998, p. 689–693.
Fourteenth-century Regional Cretan

Church Decoration: the Case of the
Painter Pagomenos and his Clientele*
Angeliki Lymberopoulou
The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK
This paper has arisen from certain important questions regarding the way the production of
art on Crete during the period of its Venetian domination (1211–1669) has been studied. For ex-
ample, research on the fourteenth-century frescoes in provincial churches, on which I would like
to focus, involves attributions based on stylistic analysis. Broader practical circumstances of the
creation of these fresco decorations have not been studied in detail and, therefore, a number of
questions have been answered only very partially or not at all. Why, for instance, were decorated
churches built in greater numbers in certain regions than in others? While stylistic attributions
have given rise to tentative reconstructions of entire artistic schools, what can be assumed real-
istically about the size and composition of the workforce involved in the creation of the frescoes?
And what was the relation between the social status of the patrons who commissioned fresco
decorations and the style in which they were executed? While not claiming to have precise an-
swers to all these questions, I would like to present a few case studies which will, I hope, be an
incentive for further research in this direction.
The period of Venetian domination on Crete was a direct outcome of the Fourth Cru-
sade.1 The Venetians obtained the island in the aftermath of the first fall and sack of Con-
stantinople by the crusaders in 1204 – although they had to fight off their naval rivals, the
Genoese, and managed to establish their rule on the island only from 1211 onwards. The era
∗
I am grateful to Dr Rembrandt Duits, for his time and for his instrumental and invaluable help - both aca-
demically and practically - in producing and delivering this paper. For discussions on certain aspects of this paper
and for their helpful comments and advice I would like to thank Mr Dimitris Bikouvarakis, Dr Paul Hetherington,
Dr Charalambos Gasparis, Dr Stavros Maderakis and Dr Diana Newall. I would also like to thank Ms Sue Dobson
and Mr Peter Heatherington for producing maps (on figs. 1, 2 and 3, which accompany my text and Mrs Theano
Boraki and Mrs Areti Karveli for their practical help during my research in the library of Chania. Needless to say
that all of the paper’s potential shortfalls and mistakes are entirely my responsibility.
1 For a concise summary on the history of Venetian-dominated Crete: MALTEZOU 1988; MALTEZOU 1991.
160 Angeliki Lymberopoulou
Fig. 1. The island of Crete showing the four prefectures
of Venetian domination is one of the longest periods of governmental stability on Crete and
one of its most prolific culturally.
Although various revolts continued to cause headaches for the colonial rulers, cultural
interaction gradually developed between the native Greek-Orthodox population, tradition-
ally oriented toward Constantinople as a cultural and religious centre, and the Catholic
Venetians, whose religion derived of course from Rome, but whose first interest was un-
doubtedly Venice. The goal of making money bridged the gap in business transactions. The
rise of mixed marriages, which, in the long term, resulted in children of a mixed background,
eager to promote a ‘Cretan’ rather than an either ‘Greek Orthodox’ or a ‘Venetian Catholic’
identity was yet another step. While religion remained a very sensitive subject with the
Pope and Catholic orders established on the island, Orthodoxy managed to persevere – as
attested by the Byzantine character in the majority of the frescoes in churches that survive
on the island.2
According to the catalogue compiled by Gerola and Lassithiotakis in 1961, there
are eight-hundred-and-forty-five painted churches, scattered across the provinces of
present-day Crete.3 The division of the island in four prefectures (fig. 1) with a total of
twenty provinces has changed very little since the fourteenth century when the Vene-
tians divided the island in the same four administrative districts (territorii), which then
2 For a summary of these issues and relevant bibliography: LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 198–204.
3 GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961. This book is based on the research contacted by Giuseppe Gerola
and his monumental, four-volume publication: GEROLA 1905–1917 and GEROLA 1932. The number of
Cretan decorated churches exceeds eight-hundred-and-forty-five, since additional edifices, probably inac-
cessible at the time, have been located since. For four of these churches, see LASSITHIOTAKIS 1971, 122
and note 550.
Regional Cretan Church Decoration 161
Fig. 2. The island of Crete showing the nineteen Venetian castellanie
counted a total of nineteen provinces (castellanie) between them (figs. 2, 3). 4 The ma-
jority of the churches are situated in the countryside of the island, as very few have
survived in the cities owing to, primarily, centuries of urban re-development. Some-
what surprisingly, perhaps, the remote and mountainous province of Selino (fig. 3) in the
south-western part of Crete, in the prefecture of Chania, is the first in church density,
counting one-hundred-and-thirty churches5. With 408.768 km2 surface area the prov-
ince occupies 4.90% of the island’s surface, while it contains 15.38%6 of the total of the
island’s decorated churches from the Venetian period; there is one such church for every
3.14 km2.7 No other Cretan province can match these statistics. Moreover, out of the
fifteen painters whose names have been preserved in inscriptions in churches from this
era, seven are represented with work in Selino – almost fifty per cent.8 The same inscrip-
tions mention an impressive number of donors in the area, either individual families or the
4 MALTEZOU 1988, 110–15 (mentions seventeen castellanie); MALTEZOU 1991, 20.

5 GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 30–46 (nos. 79–206) and 110 (nos. 825–26). For the churches in
Selino see also LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970 and LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970a.
6 15.31% if we add the four churches noted by LASSITHIOTAKIS 1971, 122 and note 550; these four
buildings bring the total number of Cretan churches to eight-hundred-and-forty-nine.

7 This surface area presently includes the island of Gavdos, which has no churches on its soil. Without
the latter island the province of Selino covers 376.254 km2, which will make the ratio for church density even
more impressive – one church for every 2.89 km2. For Gavdos see GASPARIS 2004.
8 GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 113–16 (nos. 1, 2, 9, 12, 13); no. 7 worked in Chania. In this number
I have added the names of Ioakeim, the painter who worked in the church of the Panagia at Skafidia, in the
village of Prodromi (GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 36 [no. 130]) and that of Ioannis, whose signature
is found in the church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana (GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 38 [no.
146]). The latter painter has been, wrongly in my opinion, identified with Ioannis Pagomenos, see below,
note 31. See also LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970, 134–35; LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 129–30 and notes 4–6 and
129–84 respectively.
Fig. 3. The island of Crete showing the twenty modern provinces (provinces highlighted: Selino,
Sfakia, Malevizi, Temenos)
collective inhabitants of villages. 9 It seems that Selino carries a certain prestige in terms of
late-Byzantine ecclesiastical architecture and its patronage, but oddly, few attempts have
been made to explain why this is so.
The only explanation that has been put forward, by Lassithiotakis in 1970,10 is the wild,
mountainous landscape of the province, which is thought to have forced its inhabitants
to form numerous, relatively small settlements separated from each other by mountain
ranges and gorges. Unable to travel to neighbouring villages to attend church services, each
community erected its own small church to fulfil their religious needs. There may be some
validity in this argument, but a problem is that it applies equally to other rugged areas on
Crete, such as in the neighbouring region of Sfakia (fig. 3), which houses just 26 churches.11
While the province occupies 5.60% of the island’s total surface, it contains only 3.07%12 of
the frescoed edifices, in other words there is one church for every 17.98 km2.
Another possible explanation worth exploring for Selino containing many communi-
ties and many churches is that the province must have been relatively prosperous. Build-
ing a church, and especially hiring a painter who often had to come from afar, surely
cost money. Unfortunately, due to the lack of evidence little work has been done on the
socio-economic history of Selino so far,13 which means that I have to restrict myself here
to some educated guesses as to where this money came from.
9LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970, 133, 134.
10LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970, 135.
11 GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 46–50 (nos. 207–32). See also LASSITHIOTAKIS 1971, 95–122.
12 Or 3.06% – see above note 6.
13 GASPARIS 2008 is the latest publication with valuable information regarding primarily land owner-
ship in the prefecture of Chania during the fourteenth century.

The Venetians appear to have treated Crete as an agricultural area and a source of
certain raw materials. The three basic products of Cretan agriculture the Venetians
consumed and traded were wheat, wine and cheese.14 The mountains of Selino certainly
did not allow for wheat production, while the most famous Cretan wines were export-
ed from the provinces of Malevizi and Temenos (fig. 3), in the prefecture of Candia.15
Cheese was produced in various areas, and the shipping of cheese from Canea – the
capital of the prefecture of which Selino formed part, today known as Chania – to the
principal city of the island, modern-day Herakleion, is documented.16 The cheese was
destined not only for export, but also for the supply of passing ships, since cheese was
one of the main dietary components of seamen.17 The presence of cattle,18 especially
sheep, in the mountainous parts of the islands, such as Selino and Sfakia attested even
to the present day, make these good candidates for cheese production.
A crucial raw material the Venetians must have harvested on Crete was wood for build-
ing, ship-building,19 and various other uses (including panel painting). The main forests
were situated in the mountains of the southern provinces of the island, especially the
White Mountains (Leuk£ /Orh), which form the natural border between Selino and Sfa-
kia.20 The economic advantages of cheese production and wood harvests were of course
shared in equal measure by Selino and other elevated southern regions, but it is important
to point out that Selino, in the far west, was among the first sections of the relatively inac-
cessible south-western coast the Venetians brought under control. They built a fortress on
the coast of Selino, at Palaiochora, as early as 1282,21 while the fortress of neighbouring
Sfakia was erected only a century later, in 1374.22
When the Venetians attempted to pacify the noble leader of the most important na-
tive rebellion against their colonial rule, the Alexios Kallergis uprising of 1283, they of-
fered him a pick of territories.23 In the rather long list of the 1299 treaty it is mentioned
that Kallergis was given a choice between Kisamos, where his family had a long standing
presence, and Selino, which no surviving evidence connects with this house, with the ob-
ligation to pass his preference on to one of his fellow rebels.24 The fact that Selino was on
14 VAN SPITAEL 1981, 24.
15 THIRIET 1959, 320, note 2.
16 JACOBY 1999, 56.
17 JACOBY 1999, 55.
18 GASPARIS 2008, 114.
19 Both the capital Candia and Canea had arsenals for shipbuilding: GEORGOPOULOU 2001, 65–67
and notes 87–97 (on 290–91). Crete was exporting local timber: DUNN 1996, 484.
20 For Selino see GASPARIS 2008, 114. Sfakia had certainly excellent wood production: THIRIET 1959,
322 and note 2; VAN SPITAEL 1981, 43.

21 XANTHOUDIDIS 1939, 55; LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 3; GASPARIS 2008, 72–74.
22 ANDRIANAKIS 1998, esp. 12–13.
23 For references see LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 7.
24 MERTZIOS 1949, 267. See also GASPARIS 2008, 166 (table 7).
offer among other fertile territories,

such as Kisamos,25 forms another
indication that the province was of
economic significance and value. It
is unlikely Kallergis and those who
supported his rebellion primarily
for the benefits they might be able
to reap, would have been satisfied
with a worthless stretch of moun-
tainside.26 While we do not know
with certainty the outcome of Ka-
llergis’s decision, it is possible that
the reformed rebel chose Selino.
One of the inscriptions in the Selino
area, dated 1315, mentions a Kaller-
gis as the local administrator /gov-
ernor/superintendent (fig. 4).27
The notion that Selino would
have been part of a trade network
with the urban centres of Crete is
Fig. 4. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of Hagios Nikolaos in
also important as a plausible ex- Moni, Sougia, Selino, Crete, narthex, west wall, inscription,
planation for how the inhabitants 1315 (Photo: Author)
of such a remote region could have
been aware of the existence and engaged the services of painters from these urban centres
for the decoration of their churches. It is possible that it was via such a network that Ioan-
nis Pagomenos, one of the most prolific fourteenth-century Cretan painters, was brought to
Selino, where 50% of his signed oeuvre survives.
Pagomenos’s artistic production has been the focus of a number of scholarly
publications,28 which reflects his importance to our understanding of Cretan monumen-
tal fresco decoration. Six churches have been signed by the artist, three of which are in
Selino (fig. 5): Hagios Georgios, Komitades Sfakion, dated 1313–14; Hagios Nikolaos, Moni
25 THIRIET 1959, 310.
26 JACOBY 1999, 56 and note 64 offers evidence that Kallergis had a business interest in cheese produc-
tion. If Selino, as argued above, was among the cheese-producing Cretan areas then, perhaps, the Venetian
authorities took it into consideration when making their treaty suggestions to the Cretan noble.
27 For the inscription: GEROLA 1932, 470, no. 53; SUCROW 1994, 20–22. See also SPATHARAKIS
2001, 42.
28 For a brief entry on this very interesting and important Cretan painter see LYMBEROPOULOU 2006,
10–14 with relevant references. See also GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961, 113–14 (No. 2); MARAGKOU-
DAKI 2006, 172. In her Habilitation TSAMAKDA 2008 examines, among other things, issues of attribution
and the Pagomenos workshop.
Selinou, Sougia, dated 1315;29 Koimesis of the Virgin, Alikampos Apokoronou, dated
1315–16; Hagios Georgios Anydroi Selinou, dated 1323; Hagios Nikolaos, Maza Apoko-
ronou, dated 1325–26; and the church of the Virgin, Beilitika, Kakodiki Selinou, dated
1331–32.30 Based on stylistic comparisons, a much larger number of churches in the
vicinity of the signed monuments have been attributed to Pagomenos, or to his supposed
workshop, or to his school – those artists who were influenced by the painter and contin-
ued to follow his artistic choices.31
Because all of his known and attributed work is situated in this part of the island,
it has been suggested Pagomenos may have been a local talent.32 There is a number of
objections to this idea, however. Firstly, the dates of his signed churches confirm his
presence in the region only for a number of separate years between 1313–14 and 1331-
32.33 Secondly, the surname Pagomenos does not survive in the south-west of Crete, but
it does abundantly in the prefecture of Herakleion, which Mario Cattapan has proposed
as Pagomenos’s place of origin.34 Thirdly, we have neither evidence nor indications to
support the assumption that Selino or any of the other mountainous provinces of Chania
29 This is the church that mentions the administrator/ governor /superintendent Kallergis in its in-
scription; see above, note 27 and fig. 4.

30 For brief entry for all these churches and a translation of their inscriptions see LYMBEROPOULOU
2006, 129–33, 171–79 with relevant references. See also LASSITHIOTAKIS 1969, 480–86 (no. 52 – Maza),
486–90 (no. 54 – Alikampos); LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970, 176 (no. 75 – Anydroi); LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970a,
373–77 (no. 118 – Moni); LASSITHIOTAKIS 1971, 111–14 (no. 134 – Komitades).
31 The church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana, Kandanos, Selino dated 1327–28 (fig. 5) is con-
sidered a signed work by Pagomenos, on the basis that the painter who has signed this fresco decoration
shares his first name, Ioannis, with Pagomenos. Based on stylistic comparisons and palaeographic evidence,
I have rejected this attribution-turned-fact: LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 181–84 and passim. KALOKYRIS
1958, put forward the hypothesis that the church of the Virgin at Skafidia, Prodromi, Selino, dated 1347 (fig.
5), was also painted by Pagomenos, despite the fact that the inscription indicates Ioakeim as its painter.
Kalokyris assumed that the work was executed after Pagomenos had become a monk and that he signed this
work with his adopted name. This hypothesis has also been rejected by a number of scholars – see LYMBE-
ROPOULOU 2006, 130 and footnote 6. I have been informed by Dr Stavros Maderakis, whom I would like to
sincerely thank for his help, support and advice, that in the church of Hagios Georgios at Kakos Potamos,
Prodromi, Selino (fig. 5) the inscription mentions the names of Ioannis and Nikolaos Pagomenos. The pres-
ence of Ioannis Pagomenos’s name in the inscription of the latter church is also accepted by MARAGKOU-
DAKI 2006, 172. The decoration of the church is dated to either 1337–38 or 1339–40. Personally, I have never
visited this church and Dr Maderakis was extremely kind in lending me visual material in order to decipher
its inscription; however, I have been unable to read the names of the two painters the second of whom,
Nikolaos, Maderakis believes to be Ioannis’s son. Around the year 1333 the uprising of Vardas Kallergis has
spread in the Selino area, which may have, perhaps, branded it as unsafe: XANTHOUDIDIS 1939, 74–75. If
we accept Maderakis’s reading of the inscription, this uprising may offer an explanation for the gap between
the decoration of the church at Kakodiki and the latter one at Kakos Potamos. For a more recent discussion
on issues of attribution and Pagomenos’s workshop see TSAMAKDA 2008.
32 KALOKYRIS 1958, 350. Based on a verbal communication with Dr Maderakis, he seems to agree with
this hypothesis.
33 The potential addition of the church of Hagios Georgios at Kakos Potamos in the painter’s oeuvre (see
above note 31), only extends Pagomenos’s recorded activity in the area without affecting this statement.
34 CATTAPAN 1968, 37 (no. 6); CATTAPAN 1972, 203 (no. 5). Unfortunately, Cattapan did not reveal
the whereabouts in the Venetian archives of the documents on which he based his assumption and it has,
therefore, been impossible so far to verify this claim. See also LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, 11.
Fig. 5. The western part of Crete showing the prefectures of Chania and Rethymno
(Drawing: Author; LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, Map 1)
maintained a local and successful artistic training centre. Whether or not Pagomenos
was born in Selino, it is most likely that he received his training in the cultural and artis-
tic hub of Herakleion – even more so since the closest major city, Chania, was underde-
veloped and under-populated at the beginning of the fourteenth century.35
At the same time, it is indisputable that Pagomenos’s talent was in demand by provin-
cial clients in the prefecture of Chania. It would therefore be logical to presume that the
painter had a residential address within the prefecture, where he stayed between commis-
sions. Assuming that Pagomenos moved from commission to commission without a fixed
point of reference would be difficult to support for at least three reasons:
– it is unlikely that his workshop was active over the winter period, when in the moun-
tains of Selino and Sfakia, the famous sunny and warm Cretan weather gives way to unfa-
vourable conditions and snow makes transport difficult if not impossible;
– he had to come back to a base where he could replenish his supplies. This point fa-
vours Chania as a potential home where painting materials could be imported easily from
Herakleion or even from abroad; 36
35
GASPARIS 2008, 79.
36
Existing documentation confirms the transport of goods between the ports of Herakleion and Cha-
nia: GASPARIS 1991.
– the potential existence of a family.37 If our painter was married, it is unlikely that his
wife would have accompanied him to all his various commissions.
The location of Pagomenos’s signed churches makes it clear that he had to travel rela-
tively long distances from Chania to his destinations (fig 5). To reach the places where he
was invited to work he would have had either to sail around the island to the nearest port
and then walk to his destination, or walk or travel by donkey or mule all the way follow-
ing established paths.38 Either choice involved a long and perilous trip. For example, the
first recorded church painted by the artist, Hagios Georgios at Komitades Sfakion (fig. 5),
following the present day national road, is 69.5 km from the centre of Chania. The route
via the unhardened paths of the fourteenth-century can hardly have been shorter. At the
beginning of the fifteenth century, the Florentine traveler Cristoforo Buondelmonti, travel-
ling probably on a mule,39 went around Crete at an average speed of 14 km per day, as can
be reconstructed on the basis of the diary he kept.40 (A modern comparison is offered by the
trek through the Samaria gorge, a journey of 16 km across rough terrain which takes about
six hours to complete, as I have personally established during the seven times I made the
walk). Such a speed meant it would have taken Pagomenos four to five days to reach his
destination.
Was Pagomenos travelling alone or was he accompanied by assistants? And if he was
accompanied by assistants, how big was the size of his workshop-on-the-move? I think the
possibility of our painter travelling alone is highly unlikely. Long-distance trips entailed
many dangers in the fourteenth century. Companionship was probably always advisable
in case of accidents, illnesses and other incidents that could have befallen less fortunate
travellers. More importantly, in the present context, the churches Pagomenos was commis-
sioned to paint are situated in small villages, which have very few households and inhabit-
ants. Apart from, perhaps, employing somebody locally to help with the grinding of the
colours and other small jobs, it seems unlikely that Pagomenos would had relied on finding
somebody locally to assist with the execution of the frescoes. Within the thinly populat-
ed, small village communities of the Chania prefecture, it seems unlikely that our painter
would have been spoiled for choice for finding a qualified assistant.
At the same time, and reflecting the size of the communities these churches were ac-
commodating, the edifices themselves are of modest dimensions. Evidence concerning the
37 It has been suggested that during his late years Pagomenos was working with his son, Nikolaos, see
above, note 31.

38 VAN SPITAEL, 1981, 52, mentions that in the 1970s she was able to follow such paths on the island
during her attempt to reconstruct Buondelmonti’s itinerary. On transport land routes on Crete see also
GASPARIS 1995; GASPARIS 1997, 110–12.
39 This is what VAN SPITAEL, 1981, 45 assumes. GASPARIS 1997, 124–25 mentions that horses and
mules were expensive on the island and their purchase remained the privilege of the upper classes. Given his
affluent background and patron, Buodelmonti must have been able to afford if not a horse, certainly a mule:
WEISS 1964; WEISS 1972, 198–200.
40 VAN SPITAEL 1981, 46–52.
size of the workforce involved in church decoration is exceedingly rare, not only from
Venetian Crete but also from other, better-documented areas such as Renaissance Italy.
A telling example, however, can be found in the detailed notebooks of the fifteenth-cen-
tury Florentine painter Neri di Bicci (1419–1491). In 1452–53, Neri di Bicci was engaged
in fresco decoration at two different sites in Florence – Santa Trinità and Santa Maria
del Carmine. 41 In Santa Trinità, he was commissioned to decorate the chapel of the Spini
family, where two walls and the segment of the wall above the entrance arch had to be
covered in fresco. The total surface area of these walls amounts to ca. 150 m2. 42 Neri
used only a single assistant to complete the job.43 By comparison, the frescoed interior
of the church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana in Selino (fig. 5), the dimensions
of which are representative for the churches in the area, has a total surface area of ca.
100m2, two-thirds the size of the chapel Neri had to paint. 44 It is therefore improbable
that Pagomenos would have needed to employ more than one skilled assistant for the
work on his churches.
From what we know about medieval and Renaissance workshops, they seem to have
been small family businesses. From fourteenth-century Crete, too, there is evidence of
family members working together on church commissions, such as Theodore-Daniel and
41 THOMAS 1995, 89.

42 I am indebted to Dr Rembrandt Duits for calculating the surfaces of the Spini chapel, which
follows, as well as that of the church of the Archangel Michael, Kavalariana, Kandanos, Selino (see be-
low, note 44). The dimensions of the Spini chapel in Santa Trinità are as follows: width: 4.87 m; depth 5.12 m;
height (from the floor to the highest point of the vault): 11.10m; height of entrance arch (facing the south-
ern aisle of the church): ca. 7.50 m (judged by the height of the columns of the nave: 7.27 m – the en-
trance arch is slightly higher than the column). The chapel has two walls and two open arches, the one
facing out to the southern aisle of the church, the other to the southern arm of the transept. Judging by
the decorations of the other chapels in the church, Neri di Bicci must have painted the two walls, the
vault, and the segment of the wall of the southern aisle of the church above the arch giving entrance to
the chapel; only the fresco of the Annunciation on the wall of the aisle survives today. The total area of
painted surface in the chapel can be estimated roughly as follows: back wall 54.1 m2 [4.87 m x 11.10 m
(the wall has a pointed arch at the top; the latter is flanked, however, by the spandrels of the vault, which
are also painted)]; side wall 56.8 m 2 [5.12 m x 11.10 m]; vault 24.9 m2 [4.87 m x 5.12 m]; segment of wall
of the southern aisle above the entrance arch of the chapel: 17.5 m2 [(11.10 m–7.5 m) x 4.87 m]; total 153
m2. These calculations are based on the plan preceding the title page provided in SAALMAN 1966. The
chapel is the fi fth on the left-hand side; its identification is based on the plan preceding the title page in
TARANI 1897 (No. 16 on this plan is the Cappella dell’Assunta, identified as the Spini chapel on 53-55,
XXIII). See also SANTI 1987, 139–42.
43 THOMAS, 1995, 89.
44 The internal dimensions of the church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana, Kandanos, Selino are
as follows: width: 2.70 m; length: 8.05 m (nave: 6.00 m; sanctuary: 2.05 m); height of wall below vault: 2.20
m; height of vault (from ground): 3.55 m. The painted area can be calculated roughly as follows: vault 34.12
m2 [(1.35 m x π) x 8.05 m]; two long walls 35.42 m2 [2.20 m x 8.05 m x 2]; two short walls 19.17 m2 [2.70 m x
3.55 m]; total 88.71 m2. Given the fact that the two long walls each have three blind arches and there are also
two transverse arches in the nave and an apse in the sanctuary, the total painted area is most likely around
100 m2. These calculations are based on LYMBEROPOULOU 2006, Plans 1–2.
Fig. 6. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of Hagios Georgios in Anydroi, Selino, Crete, nave, south wall,
inscription, 1323 (Photo: Author)
Fig. 7. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of the Virgin in Beilitika, Kakodiki, Selino, Crete, nave, west wall,
inscription, 1331–32 (Photo: Author)
Michael Venieris45 and Manuel and Ioannis Phokas.46 It is not unthinkable, therefore, that
Pagomenos’s assistant was in fact a brother, a son, a nephew or a cousin.47
Pagomenos and his assistant, while travelling, also had to transport their profes-
sional materials, such as pigments and the special and rather heavy plaster – different
from ordinary plaster – that was used for painting in fresco. These materials would
undoubtedly not have been available locally.48 The loads must have been carried probably
by donkeys, since both horses and mules were expensive and also difficult to obtain on
the island.49 It is important to realise that the slow modes of travel and transport in Vene-
tian Crete would have severely restricted Pagomenos’s action radius. These restrictions in
their turn impose constraints on the number of church decorations that can realistically
be attributed to the artist. Similarly, the educated guess about the size of Pagomenos’s
workforce I made above limits the number of churches that can be attributed to assist-
ants or a ‘workshop’. Pagomenos’s style may have influenced that of other painters, but it
is questionable whether one can speak about a school in the sense that he trained all his
followers personally.
The six church inscriptions, which include Pagomenos’s name, all mention multiple do-
nors. These were collective donations, which involved a larger (Komitades, Anydroi, Maza,
Kakodiki) or a smaller (Moni, Alikampos) part of the community rather than being the gift
of a wealthy individual.50 It seems that there was no particular plan for these inscriptions, no
apparent order, alphabetical or other. Names are listed in a random sequence, individuals are
mentioned next to families, priests next to widows. At Anydroi (figs. 5–6), two names have
been added after the completion of the inscription, while at Kakodiki (figs. 5, 7) a space was
left in the middle of the inscription so that it could be filled in later. Although it is clear that in
certain cases, for example at Maza (fig. 5), the finances of certain individuals were better than
those of the rest of the community, there is no indication that any of these people belonged to
the ‘upper’ class (i.e. local nobility). No titles accompany any of the names mentioned in the
inscriptions.51 Pagomenos’s patrons are exponents of a new development in art sponsorship
– art had ceased to be the privilege of rulers and the upper class.
The fresco cycles Pagomenos created for these new patrons maintained a traditional
Byzantine character (figs. 8–10). Western influences in Cretan frescoes are confined, pri-
marily, to secondary details without affecting their, obviously important for the native
45
MADERAKIS 1981.
46
GOUMA-PETERSON 1983.
47 See above note 31, for Pagomenos working alongside with his son Nikolaos.
48 I would like to thank Dr Paul Hetherington for discussing this issue with me.
49 VAN SPITAEL 1981, 45; GASPARIS 1997, 113–14, 124–25. See also above, note 39.
50 For translations of these inscription see above, notes 27, 30.
51 The church of Hagios Nikolaos at Moni, Sougia, Selino, dated 1315 (fig. 5) mentions a Kallergis as ad-
ministrator/governor/superintend of the area; Kallergis, however, was not one of the donors of this church
– see above, notes 27, 29.
Fig. 8. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of Hagios Georgios in Anydroi, Selino, Crete, sanctuary, north
wall, Ascension, detail, 1323 (Photo: Author)
Fig. 9. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of Hagios Georgios in Anydroi, Selino, Crete, nave, south wall,
scenes from the life of Saint George (from left to right: Saint George wearing the Fiery Shoes, The Flag-
ellation of Saint George , and the Decapitation of Saint George), 1323 (Photo: Author)
patrons, overall Byzantine appear-

ance.52 The frescoes are different,
in this respect, from the promi-
nent hybrid icon production, which
emerged in Venetian Crete during
the fifteenth century.53 The icons
were manufactured in the main ur-
ban centres, primarily Herakleion,
where social interaction between
the native Greek-Orthodox and the
Venetians was much more extensive
than in the remote provincial com-
munities where small churches were
erected and decorated. Not surpris-
ingly, western artistic elements were
incorporated much more emphati-
cally in these icons than they had
been in the regional frescoes – es-
pecially since the clientele for these
icons overstepped the borders of
Orthodoxy and embraced the whole
of Europe. While the development of
art on Venetian-dominated Crete is
usually thought to be one of a gradual Fig. 10. Ioannis Pagomenos, Church of the Virgin in
increase of western influences, it is Beilitika, Kakodiki, Selino, Crete, nave, west wall, female
saints, 1331–32 (Photo: Author)
clear that when the geography of the
island and the social status of its art
patrons are taken into account, we
are forced to adjust the traditional story. This is yet another example of the often neglected
broader circumstances of creation that affected the way where, how, and by whom art was
commissioned and produced.
e-mail: A.Lymberopoulou@open.ac.uk
52 For a discussion and relevant references: LYMBEROPOULOU 2007a.

53 For a detailed discussion on the hybrid Cretan icon: LYMBEROPOULOU 2007; LYMBEROPOULOU
2010.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ANDRIANAKIS 1998:
Michalis Andrianakis, The Frangokastello at Sfakia, Athens 1998.
CATTAPAN 1968:
Mario Cattapan, “Nuovi documenti riguardanti pittori cretesi dal 1300 al 1500”, [in:] Πεπραγμένα του
Β΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, vol. 3, Αθήνα 1968, p. 29–46.
CATTAPAN 1972:
Mario Cattapan, “Nuovi elenchi e documenti dei pittori in Creta dal 1300 al 1500”, Θησαυρίσματα
9 (1972), p. 202–235.
DUNN 1991:
Archibald Dunn, "The Control and Exploitation of the Arboreal Resources of the Late Byzantine and
Frankish Aegean Region", [in:] L’Uomo e la Foresta secc. XIII-XVIII. Atti della “Ventisettesima Set-
timana di Studi” 8-13 maggio 1995, ed. S. Cavaciocchi, Firenze 1996, p. 479-497.
GASPARIS 1991:
Χαράλαμπος Γάσπαρης, “Οι Θαλάσσιες Μεταφορές μεταξύ των Λιμανιών της Κρήτης (1326–1360)”,
[in:] Πεπραγμένα του Στ’ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου, vol. 2, Χανιά 1991, p. 67–101.
GASPARIS 1995:
Χαράλαμπος Γάσπαρης, “Επαρχιακοί και αγροτικοί δρόμοι στον Ύστερο Μεσαίωνα (13ος–14ος Αι.):
Η Περίπτωση της Μακεδονίας και της Κρήτης”, Θησαυρίσματα 25 (1995), p. 49–60.
GASPARIS 1997:
Χαράλαμπος Γάσπαρης, Η γη και οι αγρότες στη μεσαιωνική Κρήτη 13ος–14ος αι., (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα
Ερευνών Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Μονογραφίες 4), Αθήνα 1997.
GASPARIS 2004:
Χαράλαμπος Γάσπαρης, “Η Γαύδος και το Βενετικό Ενδιαφέρον το 13ο Αιώνα”, Θησαυρίσματα 34
(2004), p. 99–115.
GASPARIS 2008:
Χαράλαμπος Γάσπαρης, Catastici Feudorum Crete Catasticum Chanee 1314–1396, (Εθνικό Ίδρυμα
Ερευνών, Ινστιτούτο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, Πηγές 9), Athens 2008.
GEROLA 1905-1917:
Giuseppe Gerola, Monumenti Veneti nell’ isola di Creta, 3 vols. [vol. 1 in two parts], Venice 1905–1917.
GEROLA 1932:
Giuseppe Gerola, Monumenti Veneti dell’ isola di Creta, vol. 4, Venice 1932.
GEROLA/LASSITHIOTAKIS 1961:
Giuseppe Gerola, Constantinos E. Lassithiotakis, Τοπογραφικός κατάλογος των τοιχογραφημένων εκ-
κλησιών της Κρήτης, [Elenco topografico delle chiese affrescate di Creta], ed. Κ. Ε. Λασσιθιωτάκης,
Hράκλειο 1961.
GEORGOPOULOU 2001:
Maria Georgopoulou, Venice’s Mediterranean Colonies: Architecture and Urbanism, Cambridge 2001.
GOUMA-PETERSON 1983:
Thalia Gouma-Peterson, , “Manuel and John Phokas and Artistic Personality in Late Byzantine Paint-
ing”, Gesta 32/2 (1983), p.159-170.
JACOBY 1999:
David Jacoby, “Cretan Cheese: A Neglected Aspect of Venetian Medieval Trade”, [in:] Medieval and
Renaissance Venice, eds. E. E. Kittell, T. F. Madden, Urbana and Chicago 1999, p. 49–68.
KALOKYRIS 1958:
Κωνσταντίνος. Καλοκύρης, “Ιωάννης Παγωμένος, ο Βυζαντινός ζωγράφος του ΙΔ΄ αιώνος”, Κρητικά
Χρονικά 12 (1958), p. 347–367.
LASSITHIOTAKIS 1969:
Κωνσταντίνος Ε. Λασσιθιωτάκης, “Εκκλησίες της Δυτικής Κρήτης. Εισαγωγή Α΄. Επαρχία Κισάμου”,
Κρητικά Χρονικά 21 (1969), p. 177–233.
Κωνσταντίνος Ε. Λασσιθιωτάκης, “Εκκλησίες της Δυτικής Κρήτης. Εισαγωγή Δ΄. Επαρχία Σελίνου,
αριθ. 57– 100”, Κρητικά Χρονικά 22 (1970), p. 133–210.
LASSITHIOTAKIS 1970a:
Κωνσταντίνος Ε. Λασσιθιωτάκης, “Εκκλησίες της Δυτικής Κρήτης. Εισαγωγή Δ’. Επαρχία Σελίνου,
αριθ. 101–126”, Κρητικά Χρονικά 22 (1970), p. 347–388.
Κωνσταντίνος Ε. Λασσιθιωτάκης, “Εκκλησίες της Δυτικής Κρήτης. Εισαγωγή Ε΄. Επαρχία Σφακίων.
Επιλεγόμενα. Πίνακες”, Κρητικά Χρονικά 23 (1971), p. 95–177.
LYMBEROPOULOU 2006:
Angeliki Lymberopoulou , The Church of the Archangel Michael at Kavalariana: Art and Society on
Fourteenth-Century Venetian-dominated Crete, London 2006.
LYMBEROPOULOU 2007:
Angeliki Lymberopoulou, “Audiences and Markets for Cretan Icons”, [in:] Viewing Renaissance
Art, eds. K. W. Woods, C. M. Richardson and A. Lymberopoulou, New Haven and London 2007,
p. 171–206.
LYMBEROPOULOU 2010:
Angeliki Lymberopoulou, "Late and Post-Byzantine Art under Venetian Rule: Frescoes versus Icons,
and Crete in the Middle", [in:] A Companion to Byzantium, ed. L. James, Oxford 2010, p. 351–370.
LYMBEROPOULOU 2007a:
Angeliki Lymberopoulou , “Fish on a Dish and its Table Companions in Fourteenth-Century Wall
Paintings on Venetian-dominated Crete”, [in:] Eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19). Food and Wine
in Byzantium. Papers of the 37 th Annual Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies in Honour of Profes-
sor A. A. M. Bryer, eds. L. Brubaker and K. Linardou (Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies,
Publications 13), Aldershot 2007, p. 223–232.
MADERAKIS 1981:
Σταύρος Ν. Μαδεράκης, “Οι Κρητικοί αγιογράφοι Θεόδωρος-Δανιήλ Βενέρης και Μιχαήλ Βενέρης”,
Πεπραγμένα Δ’ Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου (Ηράκλειο, 29 Αυγούστου – 3 Σεπτεμβρίου 1976), vol. 2, Αθή-
να 1981, p. 155–183.
MALTEZOU 1988,:
Χρύσα Α. Μαλτέζου, “Η Κρήτη στη Διάρκεια της περιόδου της Βενετοκρατίας (1211–1669)”, [in:] Κρήτη:
ιστορία και πολιτισμός, vol. 2, ed. Ν. Μ. Παναγιωτάκης, Heraklejon 1988, p. 105–161.
MALTEZOU 1991:
Chrysa Maltezou, “The historical and social Context”, [in:] Literature and Society in Renaissance
Crete, ed. D. Holton, Cambridge 1991, p. 17–47.
MARAGKOUDAKI 2006:
Μαρία Μαραγκουδάκη, “Ιωάννης Παγωμένος και Ιωακείμ, δύο διαφορετικοί ζωγράφοι”, [in:] Φιλο-
λογικός Σύλλογος “Ο Χρυσόστομος” Ι΄ Διεθνές Κρητολογικό Συνέδριο Χανιά, 1-8 Οκτωβρίου 2006,
Περιλήψεις (Literary Society “Chryssostomos” 10th International Cretological Congress Khania, 1-8
October 2006), Χανιά 2006, p. 172.
MERTZIOS 1949:
Κωνσταντίνος Δ. Μέρτζιος, “Η Συνθήκη Ενετών-Καλλέργη και οι Συνοδεύοντες αυτήν κατάλογοι”,
Κρητικά Χρονικά 3 (1949), p. 262–292.
SAALMAN 1966:
Howard Saalman , The Church of Santa Trinità in Florence, New York 1966.
SANTI 1987:
Bruno Santi, “VII. Pittura ‘Minore’ in S. Trinità: Da Bicci di Lorenzo a Nero di Bicci”, [in:] La Chiesa di
Santa Trinità a Firenze, eds. G. Marchini, E. Micheletti, Firenze 1987, p. 132–142.
SPATHARAKIS, 2001:
Ioannis Spatharakis, Dated Byzantine Wall Paintings of Crete, London 2001.
SUCROW 1994:
Alexandra Sucrow, Die Wandmalereien des Ioannes Pagomenos in Kirchen der ersten Hälfte des 14.
Jahrhunderts auf Kreta, Berlin 1994.
TARANI 1897:
Fedele Tarani, Cenni Storici e Artistici della Chiesa di S. Trinità e suo Restauro, Firenze 1897.
THIRIET 1959:
Freddy Thiriet, La Romanie Vénitienne au Moyen Age. Le développement et l’exploitation du do-
maine colonial vénitien (XIIe-XVe siècles), Paris 1959.
THOMAS 1995:
Anabel Thomas, The Painter’s Practice in Renaissance Tuscany, Cambridge 1995.
TSAMAKDA 2008:
Vasiliki Tsamakda , Die Panagia-Kirche und die Erzengelkirche in Kakodiki. Kunst- und kulturge-
schichtliche Analyse byzantinischer Malerei Kretas im 14. Jh., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München, Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften, München (Habilitation, publication forthcoming)
VAN SPITAEL 1981:
Marie-Anne Van Spitael ed., Cristoforo Buondelmonti: Descriptio insulae Crete et Liber insularum,
cap. XI: Creta, Heraklejon 1981.
WEISS 1964:
Robert Weiss, “Un umanista antiquario: Cristoforo Buondelmonti”, Lettere italiane, 16 (1964), n. 2,
p. 105–116.
WEISS 1972:
Robert, Weiss, Dizionario biografico degli Italiani, vol. 15, ed. A. M. Ghisalberti, Roma 1972, p. 198–200.
XANTHOUDIDIS 1939:
Στέφανος Ξανθουδίδης, Η Ενετοκρατία εν Κρήτη και οι κατά των Ενετών Αγώνες των Κρητών, (Texte
und Forschungen zur Byzantinisch-Neugriechischen Philologie 34), Αθήνα 1939.
Constantine’s Eastern Looks:

The Elevation of the Cross
in a Medieval Syriac Lectionary
Maja Kominko
University of York
Portraits of Constantine and Helena dating from their lifetime are immediately rec-
ognizable despite their considerable variety in style.1 While the faces of the first Christian
emperors depicted in Byzantine art metamorphose through the centuries,2 nowhere is the
departure from their original features more dramatic than in a medieval Syriac Lectionary
Vat. syr. 559. The codex in question is a large (43,5 x 33,5 cm), well preserved manuscript,
written in estranghelo.3 It contains fifty miniatures, dispersed throughout the text, placed
at the beginning of passages marking principal liturgical festivals.4 The last miniature (Vat.
syr. 559, fol. 223; fig. 1) shows Constantine and Helena flanking the True Cross. Their strik-
ingly oriental features, round faces and almond-shaped eyes led some scholars to believe
that in guise of Constantine and Helena the miniaturist represented the Mongolian Il-Khan
Hülegü and his Christian wife, Doquz Khatun, thus casting them in the role of new protec-
tors of Christianity.5 Should that indeed be the case, the miniature provides striking evi-
dence of the hopes that Syriac Christians pinned on their new Mongol overlords.
There are, nevertheless, several problems with such an identification, the fi rst and
foremost among them being the issue of the dating. A colophon on fol. 250v states that
1 WALTER 2006, 9–20. See also HARRISON 1967, 81–96; WRIGHT 1987, 493–507.
2 For a survey of representations see WALTER 2006.
3 For a general discussion of the manuscript see JERPHANION 1939; LEROY 1964, 281–302.
4 The miniatures are of two sizes, with the most important festivals (Nativity, Baptism of Christ, Entry
to Jerusalem, Crucifixion, Ascension, Pentecost and Transfiguration) taking almost an entire page, and the
remaining miniatures taking usually space of one column of the text. It seems that only two miniatures of
the entire cycle are lost: one showing the remaining two Evangelists, at the beginning and another showing
the Dormition of Mary (lacuna after fol. 209v). See LEROY 1964, 297.
5 FIEY 1975, 60–63; FOLDA 2004, 324, n. 44. For a discussion of this representation in a very broad
context of ceremonial and triumphal representations see ALDÓN 2009.

178 Maja Kominko
the manuscript was complet-

ed on Saturday, the first day
of May in the year 1531 of the
Greeks, that is 1220 A.D.6
This date appears to exclude
any possibility that Hülegü
and Doquz Khatun could
have been portrayed here,
but this has been contested
and a strong argument was
made for re-dating the man-
uscript four decades later.
To begin with, the date in
the colophon is not written
clearly and could be eas-
ily read as 1571 rather than
1531: in Syriac number
30 is designated by letter
lamed, while the number
70, by ayn, which is essen-
tially a smaller form of the
same later. Moreover, the
colophon mentions Satur-
day, 1st of May, which cor-
Fig. 1. Constantine and Helena flanking the True Cross,
responds to the year 1260, Vat. syr. 559, fol. 223v (after JERPHANION 1940)
but not to 1220, when 1 st
May fell on a Friday. 7 Finally, we learn that the manuscript, written by a scribe Mu-
barak from Bartelli, was offered to the monastery of Mār Mattai by Rabban ‘Abdallah,
son of Khusho, son of Shim’ûn, which seems to corroborate the later dating, since ‘Ab-
dallah, son of Khusho, is known to be a chief of the village of Bartelli in 1260.8 It seems
therefore that the evidence of the colophon does not exclude the possibility that it is
Hülegü and Doquz Khatun that the miniaturist portrayed as Constantine and Helena.
Accordingly, in the following paragraphs I examine the historical conditions which could
have inspired such representation.
6JERPHANION 1940, 6; LEROY 1964, 301; VAN LANTSCHOOT 1965, 78.
7FIEY 1975, 60.
8 BAR HEBRAEUS, Chronography, 515–516 (trans. Wallis Budge, p. 440); FIEY 1975, 61. We know of
one more manuscript attributed to the same scribe, but unfortunately this does not provide any help in dat-
ing of the Vat. syr. 559: it was written in 1239, and thus is almost equally distant in time from the dates two
proposed for Vat. syr. 559. See FIEY 1975, 61.
Constantine’s Eastern Looks 179
In 1256, the Mongol army of prince Hülegü, son of Tolui and a grandson of Genghis
Khan, crossed the Oxus River and advanced west into Iranian territory.9 Baghdad, the capi-
tal of Abbasid caliphate fell in February 1258, and was subjected to a weeklong massacre and
looting. The caliph and the majority of his kinsmen were executed.10 In 1259 Hülegü invaded
Syria, captured and sacked Aleppo and occupied Damascus in March 1260. At this stage the
news that his brother, Möngke Khan, had died the previous summer caused him to withdraw
to Azerbaijan, where he was better situated to respond to events in the Mongol capital, Khara
Khorum.11 The small occupying force he left under the command of his general Kitbuqa was
defeated by the Mamluk sultan Qutuz in September 1260 at ‘Ayn Jālūt, a battle that proved
to be a turning point, marking the western limit of Mongol military success in the Middle
East.12 In 1263 Hülegü sent out a mission to Europe to seek assistance in the war against the
Mamluks, but it never reached its goal.13 It seems, however, that Pope Urban IV have learnt
of the gist of his missive as in 1263 he dispatched the short letter Exultavit cor nostrum,
expressing his joy at Hülegü’s desire for instruction and baptism (or so the Pope thought),
and declared that after the Il-Khan’s conversion the Pope would send help in the war against
the Mamluks.14 While it is unlikely that Hülegü ever contemplated becoming a Christian,
his Christians sympathies may have been inspired by his Nestorian wife Doquz Katun.15
It also cannot be excluded that Mongols perceived the Eastern Christians as allies in the
war against the Muslim rulers. This, however, is never explicitly stated, and certainly
9 Hülegü, the fifth son of Tolui and Sarqûtanî Katun, was born ca. 1215. In 1251 Hülegü’s oldest brother,
Möngke, was proclaimed Great Khan. Soon afterwards he held a quriltai (assembly), in which Hülegü and
Qubilai were ordered to campaign in Muslim territories and China respectively. See JUVAINI, Hisotry of
World Conqueror III 607 (ed. Boyle, vol. 2, p. 607); RAŠID-AL- DĪN, Compendium of Chronicles III 21 (ed.
Thackston).
10 The method of execution was unprecedented: the caliph was rolled up in a carpet and trampled to
death galloping horses so that none of his royal blood could soak into the ground. The few ‘Abbasid survivors
managed to escape to Cairo, where they became figurehead caliphs for the new Mamluk masters of Egypt.
See MELVILLE 2002, 38; BOYLE 1961, 145–61.
11 MELVILLE 2002, 50. As an alternative hypothesis, it has been suggested that the logistical limita-
tions of Syria, that is, the lack of pastureland and water, compelled Hülegü to evacuate the country with the
approach of summer MORGAN 1985, 231–35.
12 SMITH 1984, 307–45. The Mongols did not accept this setback lying down. Almost immediately,
a smaller raiding force, perhaps numbering 6,000 horsemen, was dispatched to northern Syria. It was
defeated on 11 December 1260 by the Mamluk army near Homs. Hülegü was prevented from further
intervention on the Syrian front by his preoccupations elsewhere. Evidently as early as the winter of
660/1261–62, war erupted in the Caucasus region between the forces of the Golden Horde and the Il-
khanate. MELVILLE 2002, 50; AMITAI-PREISS 1995, 233–35.
13 RICHARD 1949, 294; JACKSON 1980, 484; MEYVAERT 1980, 249.
14 LUPPRIAN 1981, 216–19.
15 Although the traditional Mongol tolerance could have also played a role. Marco Polo, who was in
China from 1275 to 1292, quoted Khunilai Khan as saying, “There are four prophets who are worshipped and
to whom everybody des reverence. The Christians say their God was Jesus Christ; the Saracens Mahomet;
the Jews Moses; and the idolaters Sagamoni Burcan (the Shakyamuni Buddha), who was the first god of the
idols; and I do honour and reverence to all four, that is to him who is the greatest in heaven and more true,
and him I pray to help me.” See ROSSABI 2002, 25.
180 Maja Kominko
such a relatively benign attitude was not extended to the Franks in Syria, and did not influ-
ence the aggressive conduct of Hülegü towards the Frankish states in the Levant in 1260.16
Whatever his Christian sympathies were, upon his death in 1265, in accordance with Mon-
gol tradition he was interred together with several young women.17
When the Mongols arrived in Northern Mesopotamia, there were among them Muslims
(indeed, the Golden Horde in the North had already become Muslim), large numbers of
Shamanists, Buddhists and Christians.18 Among the latter, the most significant were the
Nestorians, whose ranks included Hülegüs chief wife, Doquz Khatun, and his most promi-
nent general Kitbuqa.
Doquz Khatun, a granddaughter of Wang Khan, leader of the Nestorian Christian
Kereyit tribe, was first given to Tolui, but the marriage was apparently not consummated
and, when he died she passed into the care of his son Hülegü.19 The latter had considerable
respect for her judgment and it was through her efforts that many Christians were spared
during the devastation of Baghdad in 1258.20 Muslim historian Rašid al-Dīn reported that
she “strongly supported the Christians, so that under her protection they had a great in-
fluence. In order to please her Hülegü supported and promoted this community so it was
able to build new churches everywhere. Near her tent there was always a chapel set, where
bells were rung.”21 Although Doquz Katun produced no children, Hülegü had progeny from
several concubines in her entourage, and her influence continued to be felt. She helped to
ensure the succession for his son Abakha, and may have played a role in negotiating, or at
least fostering, his marriage with Maria, the illegitimate daughter of the Byzantine emperor
Michael VIII.22
Hülegü died in February 1265, followed shortly afterwards by Doquz Khatun.23 Bar He-
braeus, Syriac polymath and a maphrian of the Syrian Jacobite Church (1264–1286), nar-
rates the death of Doquz Khatun as follows “And in the year 1576 of the Greeks (A.D. 1265),
in the days which introduced the Fast [of Nineveh], Hülegü, King of Kings, departed from
this world. The wisdom of this man, and his greatness of soul, and his wonderful actions are
incomparable. And in the days of summer Doquz Khatun, the believing queen, departed,
and great sorrow came to all the Christians throughout the world because of the departure
16 JACKSON 1980, 481–84; AMITAI -PREISS 1996.
17 Apparently this was the last occasion on which human victims were recorded as having been buried
with a Chingizid prince. BOYLE 1968, 354.
18 BUNDY 2000, 33.
19 HUNTER 1989–91, 142–63; RYAN 1998, 37.
20 BAR HEBRAEUS, Chronography, 574 (trans. Wallis Budge, p. 491); BRENT 1976, 137–39; FIEY
1975a, 24.
21 RAŠID-AL- DĪN III 10 (translation after SPULER 1972, 121). See also SPULER 1976, 621–31.
22 LIPPARD 1984, 197; RICHARD 1977, 102.
23 There is no evidence to support the Armenian historian Stephanos Orbelian’s claim that she was poi-
soned by the sāheb-dīvān, i.e., the historian Juvaini; STEPHANOS ORBELIAN 66 (ed. Brosset, p. 234–35).
See also RYAN 1998, 416 .
of these two great lights, who made the Christian religion triumphant.”24 While Bar He-
braeus does not build an explicit parallel between Hülegü and his wife and Constantine and
his mother, he clearly does see them as protectors of Christianity. Indeed, throughout his
Chronicle Bar Hebraeus refers to Dokuz Khatun as “truly believing and Christian queen”.25
It is, however, Hülegü’s mother that he compares to Helena: “And [the Khan] commanded
that his wife, whose name was Sarqûtanî Bagi, the daughter of the brother of king John,
should administer his dominion. Now this queen had four grown-up sons: Munga, who
ultimately became Khan; Kublai; Hülegü; and Arigh Boka. And this queen trained her sons
so well that all the princes marvelled at her power of administration. And she was a Chris-
tian, sincere and true like [queen] Helena.”26 Although nowhere in his text does he compare
Hülegü with Constantine, the way in which his account of a recapture of Constantinople by
Michael VIII, who “entered the city through a gate, which was not opened from the time of
Constantine the Great,” is directly followed by the narration of Hülegü’s conquest of Bagh-
dad, may suggest that he places Hülegü in a line of quintessentially Christian rulers.27 We
should note, however, that at the same time Bar Hebraeus did not shrink from describing
the horrors endured by the people of eastern Anatolia, Kurdistan and Syria at the hands of
the Mongol invaders.28
It was not only Jacobite (Monophysite) Syrians who pinned their hopes on the Mongols
as the protectors of their church. In 1281 the East Syrian (Nestorians) elected katholikos
Yahballāhā, born in China and chosen on account of his Ongüt origins and his familiarity
with the language and the customs of the Mongol leaders.29 Some indication of the influ-
ential role of the East Syrian Church is also given by the fact that in 1287 Il-Khan Arghun
selected Rabban Sauma, Yahballāhā’s companion from China, to undertake the delicate
mission of forging an alliance with the European monarchies and the Papacy against the
Mamluks.30 Rabban Sauma reached Rome in 1288 and was sent back the following year
with gifts and letters from Pope Nicholas IV, urging the Il-Khan Arghun to convert.31 Ar-
ghun did not embrace Christianity, but he had his son (later the ruler Öljeitu) baptized
Nicholas in the Pope’s honour.32 The result of this mission was the same as those of previ-
ous efforts to coordinate an anti-Muslim crusade: by Arghun’s death in 1291, the promised
24 mnashone d-tawdito mshihoyto “victory-givers of the Christian confession”, BAR HEBRAEUS,
Chronography, 521 (trans. Wallis Budge, p. 444).

. .
25 BAR HEBRAEUS, Chronography, 491 (trans. Wallis Budge, p. 419).
28 LANE 1999.
29 History of Yaballaha (ed. Bedjan, p. 33); TEULE 2003, 113.
30 ROSSABI 1992, 27-31.
31 Pope’s letter written to Arghun in 1298 is preserved in the Vat. Reg. 44. fol. 89v, reproduced in AR-
NOLD 1999, fig. 2–3.

32 BLAIR 2002, 112; ARNOLD 1999, 76.
.
182 Maja Kominko
aid from the West had failed to materialize.33 In September 1295, Ghazan (d. 1304), a con-
vert from Buddhism to Sunni Islam, became Il-Khan. The policy of religious tolerance un-
derwent something of a reversal. Buddhist monasteries and temples in western Asia were
closed (some damaged and destroyed), and Buddhism there would never recover from this
assault.34 Although Nestorians and Jews fared a little better, and did not suffer the same
fate, their political influence, and their liberties and status gradually eroded.
Ultimately the hopes that Eastern Christians may have been pinning on Mongolian rul-
ers were not to be fulfilled. At least initially, however, Mongolian religious tolerance, along
with a certain prominence that the church achieved under the Mongol rule, must have
given an illusion that a new dawn was rising for oriental Christians. In these circumstances
portraying Hülegü and Doquz Khatun as Constantine and Helena seems a suitable expres-
sion of Christian sentiments. Indeed, an Armenian historian, Stephanos Orbelian explicitly
described Hülegü and his chief wife as Constantine and Helena of their age.35 While less
explicit, the epithet given to them by Bar Hebraeus, “those who made Christianity trium-
phant” seems to convey the same idea as the representation of Constantine and Helena
flanking the True Cross – the image symbolizing the triumphant Christianity, as celebrated
in the liturgy of exaltation of Cross, which combined Constantine’s vision and the discovery
of the True Cross by Helena.36
An argument in favour of identification of the figures flanking the cross in Vat. syr. 559
with the Il-Khan and his wife may be found in the similarity of their features with those of
Mongolian rulers in Mongolian illuminated manuscripts, most prominently in the Mongol
Shahnama (Book of Kings), the earliest copies of which date to the first half of the 14th
century.37 Moreover, the miniature in the Syriac Lectionary would not be the only case of
a Christian representation where prominent Mongolian figures are portrayed under a histori-
cal or Biblical guise.38 Another such depiction can be found in one of thirteen icons of the
33 MELVILLE 2002, 51; ROSSABI 1992, 30–31.

34 BOYLE 1968, 379–80.
35 STEPHANOS ORBELIAN66 (ed. M.F. Brosset, p. 234–35).
36 TETERIATNIKOV 1995, 170–74. BAUMSTARK 1913, 217–20.
37 For the review of the literature concerning dating of the creation of the illustrative cycle of the
Shahnama, see SHREVE-SIMPSON 2004, 11–17. Faces similar to those of Constantine and Helena in the
Syriac lectionary appear in the Shahnama, manuscripts in Harvard University Art Museum and in Arthur
M. Sackler Gallery, Smithonian Institution, Washingto D.C, both dated to 1330 and attributed to Iran, prob-
ably Tabriz; in the Great Mongol Shahnama (probably Tabriz, 1330s) The Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY
(52.20.2), as well as in the First Small Shahnama, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (34.24.3),
attributed to northwest Iran or Baghdad, ca. 1300–1330, (KOMAROFF, CARBONI 2002, figs. 110; 163, 182,
244, 274); in the Anthology of Diwans, in the British Library, Cod. 132, dated 1314–1315 and attributed to
Tabriz (KOMAROFF/CARBONI 2002, fig. 164).
38 It has been also suggested that in an Armenian manuscript illustrated by Toros Roslin dated 1260,
the bodyguards of the Magi, who are mentioned in the apocryphal gospel accounts, are represented as Mon-
gols. FOLDA 2004, 325 n. 51; DER NERSESSIAN 1993, vol. 1, 60 and nn. 45–46, vol. 2 fig. 212. This, how-
ever, is not entirely convincing, as their features are not at all oriental.
life of Christ and Virgin on the iconostasis beam at Sinai dated to the early 1260s.39 The
Nativity, represented according to standard Byzantine iconography, is combined with the
Adoration of the Magi, which is without parallels in Byzantine, or western medieval art.40
The third of the Magi, clearly depicted as a Mongol, has been frequently identified with
Kitbuqa, the Nestorian Christian general in command of Mongol forces in Syria in the late
1250s.41 Whereas some scholars saw his presence here as an expression of Christian hopes
for an alliance with the Mongols,42 recently it has been argued that all three Magi are given
certain portrait-like traits and should be identified with historical figures.43 It was suggest-
ed that the first of the Magi, the oldest of them, depicted with long white hair and beard
and clothed in a red cloak, is in reality Armenian king Hetoum I, while the second Magus,
youthful, with a short beard and an Italian’s nobleman’s cap - Bohemond VI the prince of
Antioch, and Hetoum’s son in law.44 Furthermore, it has been suggested that this represen-
tation refers to a particular historical event, which took place after the Mongol conquest
of Damascus in 1260. According to the “Templar of Tyre”, after Bohemond and Hetoum
negotiated peace with the Mongols, they were invited by Kitbuqa to enter Damascus with
the victorious Mongol army, and to participate in celebration of the Mass in a Byzantine
church, previously used as a mosque, which Kitbuqa restored to Christian use.45 The verac-
ity of this account has been contested,46 but whether we believe the Templar or not, this
icon, showing a representative of Mongols bowing down to the newborn Christ, does seem
to reflect hopes for Christian an alliance with the Mongols. In that sense, a representation
of Hülegü and Doquz Khatun as Constantine and Helena would not be dissimilar.
Nevertheless, while in the Adoration of Magi the depiction of the Mongol (be it Kitbuqa
or not) is strikingly different from all other figures in the icon, the physiognomy of Constan-
tine and Helena is not unique in the Syriac Lectionary in Vatican. In the Lectionary features
of the main protagonists are reminiscent of their representations in Byzantine art,47 and
39 FOLDA 2008, 121.
40 FOLDA 2004, 323 with references.
41 WEITZMANN 1966, 63. Der Nersessian, argued against such identification, pointing out that Kitbuqa
was a Nestorian and a heretic, and therefore unlikely to be included in this scene by a Latin painter (DER
NERSESSIAN 1993, 61, n. 46), This argument, however, does not seem to bear much weight in view of the
complexity of the situation in particular, in context of Latin involvement with Armenian politics, the Armenian
alliance with the Mongols, and papal attempts to bring the Nestorians to communion with catholic church.
FOLDA 2004, 326, n. 51; HAMILTON 1980, 357; RICHARD 1969, 45–57.
42 WEITZMANN 1963, 181–83; WEITZMANN 1966, 63.
43 FOLDA 2008, 121.
44 FOLDA 2004, 324; FOLDA 2007, 150–52.
45 TEMPLAR OF TYRE, 303 (ed. Crawford, p. 34). See also RUNCIMANN 1954, vol. 3, 307. It has been
suggested that the entire iconostas beam has been in fact made for this reconverted church, FOLDA 2008, 121.
46 JACKSON 1980, 493; AMITAI-PREISS 1995, 31.
47 See for example Zachariah in the Annunciation to Zachariah, fol. 5r and giving the name to John the
Baptist, fol. 11r; Joseph in the dream of Joseph, fol. 12v, and in the Flight to Egypt, fol. 18v; Joseph, Symeon
and Mary in the Presentation in the Temple, fol. 48v; Peter in the scene of healing the leper, fol. 67r, see
LEROY 1964, pl. 73.2; 75.2; 75.4; 77.2; 81.4.
184 Maja Kominko
those of numerous secondary figures are strikingly Semitic,48 the round faces and almond-
-shaped eyes very similar to those of Constantine and Helena, are given to the Three Magi
in the Nativity scene49 and the bridegroom in the Marriage in Cana.50 Because all these
figures wear a very similar crown, it cannot be excluded that they all were meant to refer
in some way to Mongolian rulers.51 We should note, however, that king Herod is depicted
wearing the same type of crown, although unfortunately the paint has flaked off his face
and his features are illegible.52 Moreover, similar round faces and slanting black eyes are
given throughout the cycle to the soldiers – hardly positive characters in the Gospel nar-
rative.53
The type of crown worn by Constantine and Helena has been described as “Mongolian”,54
as it appears it in later representations of Mongolian rulers.55 It has been pointed out, how-
ever, that such a crown was among the Mongol headdresses introduced into Islamic world
in the first half of 13th century, as attested by its presence on Ayyubid metalwork,56 and in
Christian Arabic manuscripts.57
The proposed identification of Constantine and Helena is further undermined by the
fact that similar “Mongolian” features appear in another Syriac Lectionary, British Library,
Add. Ms. 7170.58 The codex was made between 1216 and 1220, as stipulated by a note,
which states that the book was copied and decorated in the era of the patriarch Mār Ioan-
nis (1208–1220) and Mār Ignatios, katholikos of the East (1216–22).59 This manuscript,
frequently described as a twin of the Vatican Lectionary, contains a strikingly similar rep-
resentation of Constantine and Helena flanking the True Cross.60 Like in the Vatican codex,
48 For example three Jews in the scene of naming John the Baptist, fol. 11r; A woman bathing Jesus in
the Nativity scene, fol. 16r; Servants in the Marriage of Cana, fol. 57v; the mother and men carrying the body
in the resurrection of the youth of Naim, fol. 90r, see LEROY 1964, pl. 75.2; 76.2; 82.2; 84.4.
49 Vat. syr. 559, fol. 16r, see LEROY 1964, pl. 76.2.
50 Vat. syr. 559, fol. 57v, see LEROY 1964, pl. 82.2.
51 The same crowns appear on the heads of David and Solomon in the scene of Anastasis, fol. 146v, both
represented with almond-shaped eyes, see LEROY 1964, pl. 92.2.

52 Vat. syr. 559, fol. 18v, see LEROY 1964, pl. 78.3.
53 In the slaughter of the Innocents, fol. 18v; In the prediction of John the Baptist, fol. 28r; in the de-
capitation of John the Baptist, fol. 29v; Jesus before Caiaphas, fol. 133r; Crucifixion, 149r; Resurrection, fol.
146v; LEROY 1964, pl. 80.3; 89.4; 90.2.
54 LEROY 1964, 286.
55 A very similar crown is worn by Mahmud Shah Inju, depicted in the frontispiece of the St. Petersburg
illustrated Shahnama (St. Petersburg, the Russian National Library, Dorn 329, fol. 2a), completed in 1333.
In a great majority of representations of rulers in other Shahnama manuscripts, its shape is slightly differ-
ent, with the middle part surmounted by a small conical jewel. See above, n. 38.
56 BAER 1989, 38-39 and pls. 31, 32, 123.
57 See for example Herod interrogating the Hebrew doctors in the Arabic Infancy Gospels, Florenze,
Laurenziana Library, cod. Orient. 387, fol. 7v; HUNT 1997, 162, fig.7.
58 LEROY 1964, 302-13; HUNT 1997, 385. It has been argued that the London codex is somewhat infe-
rior to the Vatican one; see JERPHANION 1939, 483–84.

59 LEROY 1964, 310.
60 LEROY 1964, pl. 99.
the outline of their faces is round, but unfortunately, because of the deterioration of the
paint, their features are almost illegible, and it is difficult to ascertain quite how similar
they were to those in the Vatican manuscript.61 Nevertheless, the same oriental facial types
we encountered in the Vatican Lectionary appear again, in representations corresponding
to those in the Vatican manuscript: in the Adoration of Magi,62 in the Marriage of Cana,63
and in the depictions of the soldiers.64
Whereas it has been argued that the differences in the style and details of the miniatures
in each of the Lectionaries are due to the fact that neither codex was the work of a single
artist,65 this cannot account for the existence of diverse facial types, which frequently oc-
cur within the same miniature.66 Significantly, there seem to be a consistency in assigning
particular type of features to particular types of figures, with the oriental physiognomy
particularly pronounced in the faces of soldiers and figures wearing crowns.
Similar physiognomies, in particular Semitic,67 and oriental,68 appear in the Arabic
manuscript from late 12th and the first half of the 13th century. Moreover, frequently there
seem to be an analogous correlation of certain ethnic types with the types of the figures
to which they are assigned. It is particularly striking that in numerous late 12th and early
13th-century Jaziran manuscripts rulers are represented with oriental features, which set
them apart from other figures,69 as for example in frontispieces of the illustrated volumes
of Kitāb al-Aghāni, prepared between ca. 1217 and 1219 for Badr al-Dīn Lu’lu, who ruled
in Mosul in various capacities from 1210–1259.70 These figures are frequently dressed in
61 This is probably due to oxidation, and unfortunately is not limited to this page. On the issues of con-
servation of this manuscript see CLARK, GIBBS 1998.

62 BL add. 7170, fol. 21r, see LEROY 1964, pl. 76.1.
63 BL add. 7170, fol. 67r, see LEROY 1964, pl. 82.1.
64 BL add. 7170, fols. 145r, 146v, 151r, 163r, see LEROY 1964, pls. 74.3; 89.4; 90.2; 93.
65 LEROY 1964, 299.
66 A good example is the Nativity illustration Vat. Syr. 559, fol. 16r, BL Add. 7170, fol. 21r, see LEROY
1964, pl. 76.

67 The face of Caiaphas (Vat. Syr. 559, fol. 133r, B.L. Add. 7170, fol. 145r, Leroy, 1964, pl. 89.4) has
been compared to that of Al-Harit, in a Hariri manuscript in Paris, dated to 1237 AD (Paris, BN, Ms. Arab.
5847, fol. 107). See BUCHTHAL 1939, 148, pl. XXII. See also HOLTER 1937a, nos. 31 and 32; KÜHNEL
1922, figs. 7–13.
68 LEROY 1964, 301. For example in miniatures of Kitāb al-Baytara by Ahmed ibn al-Husayn ibn
al-Ahnaf, illustrated in Baghdad in 1210, Istanbul, Topkapi Sarayi Library, Cod. Ahmed III 2115, (fol. 58a
reproduced by IPŠIROĞLU 1980, pl. 1); In the miniature showing Purple Betony, manuscript of Kitāb
khawāss al-ashjār (De Materia Medica), made in 1224 in Baghdad or North Jazira, recto of the detached
leaf, Cambridge Mass, Harvard Universiyty Art Museum, Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Bequest of Abby Al-
drich Rockefeller; Maqāmāt of al Harîrî in Paris, dated to the first half of the 13th century (National Library,
MS Arab. 3929, fol. 69r), ETTINGHAUSEN 1962, 82; Book of Antidotes (Kitāb ad-Diryāq) in Paris, dated
to 1199 (National Library, MS Arab. 2964, fol. 27) ETTINGHAUSEN 1962, 85.
69 NASSAR 1985, 88.
70 The original comprised of 20 volumes, of which only 6 volumes with frontispieces are preserved, 5
of them showing a ruler (vols. 2, 4, 11 in the National Library in Cairo, Adab 579; vols 17 and 19 in Istanbul,
Suleymaniye Library, Feyzullah Effndi, Feyzullah 1565 and 1566; vol. 20, Royal Library, Copenhagen no.
168); Book of Antidotes (Kitāb ad-Diryāq) in Vienna, dated to the middle of the 13th century and attributed
186 Maja Kominko
Turkish garments, fur-trimmed caps and short, close fitting tunics instead of the turbans,
long loose robes, wraps and cloak worn by most of the other figures. Their occurrence in
Arabic manuscripts has been attributed to Seljuk influence,71 which may also account for
their presence in the Syriac Lectionaries. Although the garments of the Constantine and
Helena in the Syriac codices are not Turkish, they do not seem purely Byzantine either, and
the band on their upper arms has been already recognized as tiraz, worn by members of the
ruling class and their entourage, by educated Muslims.72 Moreover, the “vermiculated” or
“scroll” folds, which appear in the garments of three Magi and some other figures in both
Lectionaries, are commonly found in Arabic manuscripts from early 13th century. 73
This are not the only characteristic shared by both Lectionaries with the illustrated
Arabic manuscripts of the first half of the 13th century. Indeed, it has been long noted that
whereas in terms of the iconography, both Syriac Lectionaries follow the Byzantine tra-
dition, but the illumination and the form of secondary features is closer to that of con-
temporary Islamic illustrated books.74 In that respect it compares well to a manuscript of
Automata by Al-Jazari in Istanbul (Topkapi Sarayi Library Ahmet III 3472) completed
according to the colophon in April 1206.75 Despite the classical sources of the genre, the
miniatures demonstrate influence from Seljuk painting style in their disregard for perspec-
tive and volume, and preference for silhouettes, brightly colored shapes and patterns, and
certain details of physical appearance and costume.76
Not only the figures, in the Syriac Lectionaries, but also the representation of the land-
scape resemble that in early 13th-century Arabic manuscripts produced in Northern Mesopo-
tamia. The manuscript share almost identical depictions of trees, in particular cypresses with
fabulous, ornamental crowns, but also the small plants, and calligraphic, fantastic rocks, as
well as depiction of water, with sinuous lines on the surface.77 Moreover, both Syriac Lection-
to Mosoul (National Library, MS A.F. 10, fol. 1r), ETTINGHAUSEN 1964, 92; Maqāmāt, of al-Hariri in Paris
(National Library MS Arabe 3929 fols. 31r; 70v and 133v) see BUCHTHAL 1940, figs. 6 and 32; a copy
of Persian version of the animal fable book the Kalīla wa Dimna, in Istanbul (Topkapi Palace Library,
Hazine 363 fols. 10r, 14r, 23v) PAPADOPOULO 1972, 641, 644–45, fig. 172–74. See also WARD 1985, 76;
NASSAR 1985, 88.
71 NASSAR 1985, 88.
72 BAER 1989, 38. See also ETTINGHAUSEN 1962, 79, 84, 87, 91, 106–07, 116, 119.
73 Such folds appear in the garments of the Jews in the scene of naming of John the Baptist and of the
three Magi in the scene of the Nativity (Vat. syr. 559, fols. 11r, 16r; B.L., Add. 7170, fols. 17v, 21r, LEROY
1964, pls. 75, 76). They are very similar to those in the Arabic Galen manuscript in Vienna (MS A.F. 10, fol.
5v). See HOLTER 1937, 14, pl. II.2; BUCHTHAL 1939, 146–147, fig. 4. See also NASSAR 1985; 92 and 96.
74 BUCHTHAL 1939, 145–50; JERPHANION 1939, 484; BREHIER 1940,149; LEROY 1964, 300–01.
75 WARD 1986, 69–76.
76 WARD 1985, 76.
77 Compare for example depiction of trees in Vat. syr. 559, fols. 1r, 48r (LEROY 1964, pl. 70.1, 80.1) with
those in the Arabic manuscript of De Materia Medica dated to 1222 and attributed to Baghdad, formerly
in the Martin Collection in Stockholm, MARTIN 1912, vol. 1, pl. B; likewise compare rocks in Vat. syr. 559,
fol. 206v, LEROY 1964, pl. 98.1 with Arabic manuscript of De Materia Medica in Vienna (National Library,
MS 3703, fol. 29r), ETTINGHAUSEN 1964, 89; see also WARD 1985, 92. Compare representation of water
aries are particularly close to 13th-century Islamic miniatures from Baghdad and Mosul in
their representations of architecture,78 as well as the architectural and ornamental frames of
the illustrations.79 Finally, they share with the Arabic manuscripts depiction of furnishings:
for example the bookstands in front of the Evangelists are of the shape commonly depicted in
the Arabic illustrations.80 The link with Islamic illumination is corroborated by another fea-
ture of the manuscripts, namely the curious way in which they use haloes. In Vat. syr. 559 we
find nimbi around the heads of unusual figures, for example Herod, and soldiers slaughtering
the innocents.81 While these depictions are missing from BL Add. 7170, in both codices there
is a profusion of halos surrounding heads of bystanders, and secondary figures.82 Such use of
the haloes seems reminiscent of the way in which they are employed in the Islamic miniature
of the School of Baghdad and Mosul, where they serve to simply emphasize faces of repre-
sented figures.83 It seems therefore that both Lectionaries belong to the artistic milieu of the
13th–century Mesopotamia, which cannot be simply defined as Christian or Arabic. Indeed,
we know that some manuscripts were produced by Christians and Muslims working together.
Such collaboration is documented, for example in a late Ayyubid manuscript of the De mate-
rial Medica in the Topkapi Sarayi Muzesi Library in Istanbul (Ahmet III, 2127), where the
scribe was a Christian originating from Mosul, but at least one of the painters is recognizable
in Vat. syr. 559, fol. 262r ,LEROY 1964, pl. 79.1, with water in the frontispiece of the vol. 20 of the Kitāb al
Aghani, Royal Library, Copenhagen no. 168) See also water depicted in Maqāmāt of al-Hariri, manuscript
dated to ca. 1225–1235 (St. Petersburg, Academy of Sciences, Oriental Institute, MS S 23, p. 260), ETTING-
HAUSEN 1966, 108.
78 For the general discussion see JERPHANION 1939, 489–97.
79 The frame enclosing busts of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste (Vat. syr. 559, fols. 93v–94, LEROY 1964,
pl. 72) has been compared the ornamental page in Koran manuscript illustrated in Baghdad in 1289 (Paris,
National Library, MS. Arab. 6716), JERPHANION 1939, 486–87, but it also resembles the frontispiece of
Mukhtar al-Hikam (fols. 1v–2r). The frame surrounding enthroned Mary in Vat. syr. 559, fol. 17r is very
much like one in a manuscript of Materia Medica dated to 1224 and attributed to the area of Baghdad
(Verver Collection, S86.0097).
80
The tables in Evangelists’ miniatures (Vat. syr. 559, fol. 1r, BL Add. 7170, fols. 5v, 6r, LEROY 1964,
pls. 70 and 71) are very much like those in Arabic manuscripts, see for example a table supporting a book in
front of a physician in the manuscript of Materia Medica dated to 1224 and attributed to area of Baghdad
(Verver Collection , S86.0098); the frontispiece of the early 13th-century manuscript of Kalīla wa Dimna in
Istanbul (Topkapi Sarayi Library, H. 363, fol. 2a), in portraits of the physicians in Kitāb al-diryāq in Paris,
dated to 1198–1199 (Paris, National Library, MS Arab. 2964, fols. 31–32, 34), PANCAROĞLU, 2001, figs.
2a–c, 9a–b. A bed represented in the scene in Joseph’s dream and resuscitating of the daughter of Jair (Vat.
syr. 559, fols. 12v 73v; BL, Add. 7170, fols. 19v, 83r, LEROY 1964, pls. 75.1 and 2, 83.1 and 2), can be also
found in Arabic illustrations, for example Maqmat of Hariri manuscript in the British Library (Ms Add.
22114, fol. 55, BUCHTHAL 1939, pl. XXIV).
81 Vat. syr. 559, fols. 18v, fol. 28r, LEROY 1964, pl. 78.3, 80.
82 In general, there is a profusion of haloes, and the nimbi surround heads of many figures, which are
not usually thus represented, as in the case of the interlocutors of Zachariah in the Temple, (Vat. syr. 559,
fol. 11r; BL Add 7170, fol. 17v, LEROY 1964, pl. 75.3 and 4); all figures in the scene of the preaching of John
the Baptist (Vat. syr. 559, fol. 28r; BL Add 7170, fol. 34v, LEROY1964, pl. 80.1 and 2) etc.
83 See for example illustrations of Maqāmāt of al-Hariri in Paris (National Library, MS Arab. 3929,
dated to ca. 1230 and MS Arab. 5847, dated to 1237 and attributed to Baghdad) POPE, ACKERMAN 1939,
pls. 631–94; JERPHANION 1939, 493.
188 Maja Kominko
as a Muslim by his signature on two of the plants.84 The interreligious merging and intercul-
tural artistic exchange in the period in question is perhaps most striking in case of Ayyubid
metalwork with Christian images, produced in the vicinity of Mosul, that is in the region from
which both Syriac Lectionaries most probably derive.85 It seems therefore that these codices
fit in well to that particular artistic context.
It has been argued that the combination of the western (Byzantine) and eastern (Seljuk)
influences is typical for the illustrated codices in the region of Jazīra in the late 12th and the
first half of the 13th century, and furthermore that these manuscripts may be divided into
two groups: one in which Seljuk style is dominant,86 and the other, where the Byzantine
influence is prevalent.87 It has been suggested that the Syriac illustrated Lectionaries are
closer to the latter.88 Nevertheless, we should note that the miniatures of both Syriac codi-
ces share with the manuscripts quoted as a chief proponents of the “Seljuk” influence the
presence of the oriental physiognomies, and predilection for strong colours.89 While the
iconographic and stylistic similarity has been taken to suggest that both Syriac Lectionar-
ies must be of the same date and come from the same atelier,90 the information gleaned
from the colophon seems to suggest that their relationship should be reconsidered, and
that the Vatican manuscript was produced only after the Mongolian invasion. We should
keep in mind, however, that the coming of the Mongols did not put an end to the style
that flourished in Mesopotamia in the early 13th century, for perhaps the finest example
of the Baghdad style is found in a manuscript of Rasā’il Ikhwān al-Safā (The Epistles of
the Sincere Brethern) copied in 1287 (Istanbul, Library of the Suleymaniye Mosque, Esad
Efendi 3638).91 The same physiognomies, similar landscape and architecture appear in
the late 13th and 14th-century manuscripts.92 Likewise, the custom of surrounding heads
84 According to colophone the manuscript was written by a scribe Abu Yusuf Behnam ibn Musa ibn Yu-
suf al-Mawsili, who was educated in the medical art. It is dated to 25 January 1229 AD with the words “glory
to God” added in syriac, see HUNT 1997, 154–155. Two of the plants, on fols. 29 and 29v are signed by ‘Abd
al-Jabbar ibn Ali, see also ETTINGHAUSEN 1962, 74
85 BAER 1989.
86 NASSAR 1985, 86–87 lists the following codices Kitāb al-Diryaq in Paris (National Library, MS Arab.
2964, dated 595/1199) and in Vienna (National Library, MS A.F. 10, datable to the first half of the 13th century),
Automata by al-Jazari in Istanbul (Topkapi Sarayi, MS Ahmet III 3472, dated 602/1205-6) and 6 volumes of
Kitāb al-Aghani (vols. 2, 4, 11 in the National Library in Cairo, Adab 579; vols 17 and 19 in Istanbul, Suley-
maniye Library, Feyzullah Effndi, Feyzullah 1565 and 1566; vol. 20, Royal Library, Copenhagen no. 168).
87 NASSAR 1985, 87–88 lists Maqāmāt of al-Hariri in Paris (National Library MS Ar 6094, dated to
1222), Kalīla wa Dimna in Paris (National Library, MS Ar 3465), not dated, but stylistically close to the
previous one) and De Materia Medica, in Istanbul (Topkapi Sarayi, Ahmet III 2127, dated 1229).
88 NASSAR 1985, 86.
89 For the argument that the “Seljuk” connection is mainly evident in the physical appearance of the
figures, i.e., he facial types and hairstyles, as well as their garments see NASSAR 1985, 86.
90 BUCHTHAL 1939, 137.
91 BLAIR 1993, 267
92 See above, n. 38. Good examples of similar representation of water and trees can be found in St. Pe-
tersburg illustrated Shahnama (St. Petersburg, the Russian National Library, Dorn 329, fols. 88a and 258b),
dated to 1333 AD, see ADAMOVA, 2004, figs. 5.5; 5.9.
with nimbi continues.93 It therefore seems that the miniatures of the Syriac Lectionary
in Vatican would not be out of place in the context of the second half of the 13th- century
manuscript illumination.
The fact that “oriental” physiognomies appear already in the London Lectionary in
1220s undermines the hypothesis that the miniature in the Vatican codex presents an unu-
sual case, the uniqueness of which would permit to immediately recognized Constantine
and Helena as Hülegü and Doquz Khatun. Much has been made of one detail, which sets
apart the representations of Constantine and Helena in the two Syriac Lectionaries, namely
the absence of a cross on the crown of Constantine in the miniature in the British Library
codex, which was taken to reflect the fact that Hülegü was not Christian.94 Nevertheless,
this is a very minor feature, and moreover, a cross is rarely represented on Constantine’s
crown in the scenes of exaltation of the cross, making the representation in the London
Lectionary unusual.95
Are then Hülegü and Doquz Khatun represented in Vat. syr. 559 as Helena and Con-
stantine? Even if we assume that the manuscript was made after the Mongolian invasion,
there is little to support this hypothesis. By that time, all the characteristics which make
the depiction of Constantine and Helena appear unusual to our eyes had long been a part
of the visual language of manuscript illumination in Syria and Mesopotamia. In particu-
lar, the oriental features had been associated with representations of the rulers already
in the first half of the 13th century. It therefore seems that the artist simply followed an
iconography of a king current in his milieu, and it is only our eyes, unaccustomed to the
visual language of 13th-century Mesopotamian illumination, that search for Hülegü and
Doquz Khatun in Constantine and Helena.
e-mail: maja.kominko@exeter-oxford.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
SOURCES
BAR HEBRAEUS:
The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj, the Son of Aaron, the Hebrew Physician, commonly
known as Bar Hebraeus; being the First Part of his political History of the World, tr. E. A. Wallis
Budge, London 1932.
93 See for example miniatures of the manuscript of al-Biruni’s Athar-I Baqiya, dated to 1307–1308,
Edinburgh University Library, Arab 161.

94 FIEY 1975, 63.
95 WALTER 2006, figs. 63, 64, 80–84, as well as a miniature showing Constantine and Helena flanking
the Cross in the Lectionary in Midyat, fol. 302r, LEROY 1964, 329, pl. 104.2.
190 Maja Kominko
History of Yahbalaha:
Tashi'ta de-mar Yahvalaha, Patriarkha, vade-Raban Tsauma (Histoire de Mar Jab-Alaha, Patri-
arche, et de raban Sauma), ed. P. Bedjan, tr. C.-B. Chabot, Paris-Leipzig 1895
JUVAINI:
Juvaini , Ala al-Din ‘Ata Malik, tr. J. A. Boyle, Genghis Khan: The History of the World-Conqueror,
Manchester 1997.
RAŠĪD-AL-DĪN:
Rašīd-al-Dīn, Compendium of Chronicles, tr. M. Thackston, vols. 1–3, Cambridge Mass 1998–1999.
STEPHANNOS ORBELIAN
Stephannos Orbelian, Histoire of Siounie, tr. M. Brosset, St. Petersbourg 1864.
TEMPLAR OF TYRE
Templar of Tyre, The Deeds of the Cypriots, tr. P. Crawford, London, 2003.
ADAMOVA 2004:
Adel T. Adamova, “The Petersburg Illustrated Shahnama of 733 Hijra (1333 AD) and the Injuid School
of Painting”, [in:] HILLENBRAND, 2004, p. 51–64.
ALDÓN 2009:
Manuel Marcos Aldón, “The Majestatic Representations in the Syriac Vat. Cod. 559”, [in:] East and
West. Essays on Byzantine and Arab Worlds in the Middle Age, eds. J.P. Monferrer-Sala, V. Christides,
and T. Papadopoullos (Gorgias Eastern Christian Studies 15), Piscateway 2009, p. 337–356.
AMITAI-PREIS 1995:
Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ikkhanid War, 1260–1281, (Cambridge
studies in Islamic Civilization) Cambridge, New York 1995.
AMITAI-PREISS 1996:
Reuven Amitai-Preis, “Hulagu”, [in:] Encyclopaedia Iranica, www.iranica.com [access Dec. 2010].
ARNOLD 1999:
Lauren Arnold, Princely Gifts and Papal Treasures: the Franciscan Mission to china and Its Influ-
ence on the Art of the West, San Francisco 1999.
BAER 1989:
Eva Baer, Ayyubid Metalwork with Christian Images, Leiden 1989.
BAUMSTARK 1913
Anton Baumstark, “Konstantiniana aus syrischer Kunst und Liturgie”, [in:] F.J. Dölger, ed., Konstantin
der Grosse und seine Zeit, Römische Quartalschrift 19 (1913), p. 217–254.
BLAIR 1993:
Sheila Blair, “The Development of the Illustrated Book in Iran”, Muqarnas 10 (1993), p. 266–274.
BLAIR 2002:
Sheila Blair, “The Religious Art of the Ilkhanids”, [in:] Komaroff/Carboni 2002, p. 105–133.
BOYLE 1961:
John A. Boyle, “The Death of the Last Abbāsid Caliph: A Contemporary Muslim Account”, Journal of
Semitic Studies 4 (1961), p. 145–161.
BOYLE, 1968:
John A. Boyle, “Dynastic and Political History of the Ilkhans”, [in:] The Cambridge History of Iran,
vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, ed. J. A. Boyle, Cambridge 1968, p. 303–421.
BREHIER 1940:
Louis Brehier, “L’Illustration des évangiles syriaques en Mesopotamie au XIIIe siècle”, Journal des
Savants 1940, p. 145–152
BRENT 1976:
Peter Brent, The Mongol Empire: Genghis Khan: His Triumph and his Legacy, New York 1976.
BUCHTHAL 1939:
Hugo Buchthal, “The painting of the Syrian Jacobites in its Relation to Byzantine and Islamic Art”,
Syria 20.2 (1939), p. 136–150.
BUNDY 1996:
David Bundy, “The Syriac and Armenian Christian Responses to the Islamification of the Mongols”, [in:]
Medieval Christian Perceptions of Islam, ed. J. V. Tolan, New York-London 1996, pp. 33–53
CLARK/GIBBS 1998:
Robin J. H. Clark, Peter J. Gibbs, “Raman Microscopy of a 13th-century Illuminated Text”, Analytical
Chemistry, 70 (1998), p. 99A–104A
Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, (Dumbarton Oaks
Studies) Washington D. C. 1993, vols. 1–2.
ETTINGHAUSEN 1962:
Richard Ettinghausen, Arab Painting, Geneva 1962.
FIEY 1975:
Jean M. Fiey, “Iconographie syriaque Hulagu, Doquz Khatun et… six ambons,” Le Muséon 88 (1975),
p. 59–64.
FIEY 1975a:
Jean M. Fiey, Chrétiens syriaques sous les Mongols (Il-Khanat de Perse XIIIe-XIVe s.), (Corpus Scrip-
torum Christianorum Orientalium 362) Louvain 1975.
FOLDA 2004:
Jaroslav Folda, “Figural Art in the Crusader Kingdom: Some New Realities”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers
58 (2004), p. 315–331.
FOLDA 2007:
Jaroslav Folda, “Crusader Artistic Interactions with the Mongols in the Thirteenth Century: Figural Im-
agery, Weapons and the Çintamani Design”, [in:] Interactions: Artistic Interchange between the East-
ern and Western Worlds in the Medieval Period, ed. C. Hourihane, University Park 2007, p. 147–166.
FOLDA 2008:
Jaroslav Folda, Crusader Art. The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1099–1291, Aldershot
2008.
HAMILTON 1980:
Bernard Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States, London 1980.
HARRISON 1967:
Evelyn B. Harrison, “The Constantinian Portrait”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967), p. 81–96.
HILLENBRAND 2004:
Robert Hillenbrand, Shahnama. The Visual Language of the Persian Book of Kings, Aldershot 2004.
HOLTER 1937:
Kurt Holter, “Die islamischen Miniaturhandschriften vor 1350,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen
48 (1937), p. 1–34
HUNT 1997:
Lucy A. Hunt, “Manuscript Production by Christians in 13th-14th Century Greater Syria and Mesopo-
tamia and Related Areas”, Aram 9 (1997), p. 289–336.
HUNTER 1991:
Erica D. Hunter, “The Conversion of the Kerait to Christianity in A.D. 1007,” Zentralasiatische Stu-
dien 22 (1989-91), p. 142–163.
192 Maja Kominko
IPŠIROĞLU 1980:
Mazhar S. Ipširoğlu, Masterpieces from the Topkapı Museum. Paintings and Miniatures, London
1980.
JACKSON 1980:
Peter Jackson, “The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260”, The English Historical Review 95 (1980), No.
376, p. 481–513.
JERPHANION 1939:
Guillaume de Jerphanion, “L’influence de la miniature musulmane sur un évangéliaire syriaque il-
lustré du XIIIe siècle (Vat. Syr. 559)”, Comptes Rendus des séances de l’Academie des Inscriptions et
Belles- Lettres 83 (1939), p. 483–509.
JERPHANION 1940:
Guillaume de Jerphanion, Les miniatures du manuscript syriaque no 559 de la Bibliotheque Vati-
cane, Citta del Vaticano, 1940.
KOMAROFF/CARBONI 2002:
The Legacy of Genghis Khan. Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353, eds. L. Komaroff,
S. Carboni, New Haven-London 2002.
KÜHNEL 1922:
Ernst Kühn, Miniaturenmalerei im islamische orient, Berlin 1922.
LANE 1999:
George Lane, “An Account of Gregory Bar Hebraeus Abu al-Faraj and His Relations with the Mon-
gols of Persia”, Hugoye 2 (1999) No. 2 (July), (http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol2No2/HV2N2GLane.
html).
LEROY 1964:
Jules Leroy, Les Manuscrits syriaques à peintures conserves dans les bibliothèques d’Europe et
d’Orient, (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 77) Paris 1964.
LIPPARD 1984:
Bruce G. Lippard, The Mongols and Byzantium 1243–1341, PhD Dissertation, Indiana University 1984
(Microfilm, Ann Arbor: University Microfilms).
LUPPRIAN 1981:
Karl E. Lupprian, Die Beziehungen der Päpste zu islamischen und mongolischen Herrschern im 13.
Jahrhundert anhand ihres Briefwechsels, Città del Vaticano 1981.
MARTIN 1912:
Frederic R. Martin, The Miniature Painting and Painters of Persia, India and Turkey, London 1912.
MELVILLE 2002:
Charles Melville, “The Mongols in Iran”, [in:] KOMAROFF/CARBONI 2002, p. 62–73
MEYVAERT 1980:
Paul Meyvaert, “An Unknown Letter of Hulagu, Il-Khan of Persia, to King Louis IX of France,” Viator
11 (1980), p. 245–259.
MORGAN 1985:
David O. Morgan, “The Mongols in Syria, 1260–1300”, [in:] Crusade and Settlement, ed. P. Edbury,
Cardiff 1985, p. 231–235.
NASSAR 1985:
Nahla Nassar, “Saljuq or Byzantine: Two related Styles of Jaziran Miniature Painting”, [in:] Syria and
Jazīra 1985, p. 85–98.
PANCAROĞLU 2001:
Oya Pancaroğlu, “Socializing Medicine: Illustrations of the Kitāb al-Diryāq”, Muqarnas 18 (2001),
p. 155–172.
PAPADOPOULO 1972:
Alexandre Papadopoulo, L’esthetique de l’art musulman: La peinture, Paris – Lille 1972.
POPE/ACKERMAN 1939:
Arthur U. Pope, Phyllis Ackerman, A Survey of Persian Art, Oxford 1939.
Syria and Jazīra 1985:
The Art of Syria and Jazīra, 1100–1250, ed. J. Raby, Oxford 1985.
RICHARD 1949:
Jean Richard, “Le début des relations entre la Papauté et les Mongols de Perse”, Journal Asiatique 237
(1949), p. 294–270.
RICHARD 1969:
Jean Richard, “The Mongols and the Franks”, Journal of Asian History 3 (1969), p. 45–57.
RICHARD 1977:
Jean Richard, La Papauté et les Missions d’Orient au Moyen Age, (Collection d’École Française de
Rome 33) Rome 1977.
ROSSABI 1992:
Morris Rossabi, Voyager from Xanadu: Rabban Sauma and the First Journey from China to the
West, Tokyo-New York 1992.
ROSSABI 2002:
Morris Rossabi, “The Mongols and Their Legacy” [in:] KOMAROFF/CARBONI, 2002, pp. 12–35.
RUNCIMAN 1954:
Steven Runciman, A History of Crusades, 3 vols., Cambridge 1954.
RYAN 1998:
James D. Ryan, “Christian Wives of Mongol Khans: Tatar Queens and Missionary Expectations in
Asia”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society III Series, 8 (1998), no. 3, p. 411–421.
SHREVE-SIMPSON 2004:
Marianna Shreve-Simpson, “Shahnama as Text and Shahnama as Image: a brief Overview of recent
Studies, 1975”, [in:] HILLENBRAND 2004, p. 9–23.
SMITH 1984:
John M. Smith, Jr., “Ayn Jālut: Mamluk Success or Mongol Failure,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Stud-
ies, 44 (1984), p. 307–345.
SPULER 1972:
Bertold Spuler, History of the Mongols. Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and
Fourteenth Centuries, London 1972.
SPULER 1976:
Bertold Spuler, “Le christianisme chez les Mongols aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles”, [in:] Tractata Altaica
Denis Sinor, Sexagenario Optime de Rebus Altaicis Merito Dedicata, eds. W. Heissig et al. Wiesbaden,
1976, p. 621–631.
TETERIATNIKOV 1995:
Natalia Teteratnikov, “The True Cross Flanked by Constantine and Helena. A study in the Light of
the Post-Iconoclastic Re-Evaluation of the Cross”, Deltion thj Christianik»j Archaiologik»j
Etaire…a j, Per…odoj D΄, 18 (1995), p. 169–188.
TEULE 2003:
Herman G.B. Teule, “Saint Louis and the Dream of a Terrestrial Empire. East-Syrians and their Con-
tacts with the West”, [in:] East and West in the crusader States. Context-Contacts-Confrontations,
eds. K. Ciggaae, H. Teule, Leuven 2003, p. 101–122.
VAN LANTSCHOOT 1965:
Arnold Van Lantschoot, Inventaire des manuscrits syriaques des fonds Vatican (490651), (Studi
e Testi 243) Città del Vaticano 1965.
WALTER 2006:
Christopher Walter, The Iconography of Constantine the Great, Emperor and Saint, Leiden 2006.
194 Maja Kominko
WARD 1985:
Rachel Ward, “Evidence for a School of Painting at the Artuqid Court”, [in:] Syria and Jazīra 1985,
p. 69–84.
WEITZMANN 1963:
Kurt Weitzmann, “Thirteenth Century Crusader Icons on Mount Sinai”, Analecta Bollandiana 45
(1963), p. 179–203.
WEITZMANN 1966:
Kurt Weitzmann, “Icon Painting in the Crusader Kingdom”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 20 (1960),
p. 49–83.
WRIGHT 1987:
David H. Wright, “The True Face of Constantine the Great”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41 (1987),
p. 493–507.
Part III:
Discoveries
Metal Objects of Byzantine Origin

in Medieval Graves from Croatia
Maja Petrinec
The Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments, Split
The metal finds of Byzantine origin from the graves (6th–11th centuries) in Medieval
Croatia can be divided into three groups:
1. Sixth- and seventh-century objects;
2. Grave objects from the 8th and the first half of the 9th century;
3. Grave objects from mid-ninth to the late 11th century.
1. Sixth- and seventh-century objects

The Great Migration of Peoples completely changed the political and ethnic map of
the former Roman province of Dalmatia. In 395 AD, when the Roman Empire was di-
vided in two, Dalmatia became part of the poorly defended western half. The situation of
the time is illustrated in St Jerome’s letter to Heliodorus, which states that already “for
twenty years and more the blood of the Romans has been shed daily between Constan-
tinople and the Julian Alps.”
In 401, under the leadership of Alaric, the Visigoths travelled through Dalmatia on their
way to the Apennine peninsula. After the foundation of Attila’s tribal union based in Pan-
nonia, many refugees from that area fled to Dalmatia. Until 437 Dalmatia stayed with the
Western Roman Empire, while from 454 it was part of the Eastern Roman Empire and soon
became independent until 480, the year of a death of Julius Nepos. Immediately before
that, in 476, the Western Roman Empire formally ceased to exist. After the disintegration
of the union of the Huns, some Germanic tribes succeeded in establishing stronger com-
munities on the territory of the former Roman Dalmatia, which was ruled first by Odoacer,
the commander of the Germanic troops in Italy, while subsequently most of its territory
(together with Pannonia Savia) became part of the political formation established by the
Ostrogoths. During the Byzantine-Gothic wars, or the so-called reconquest of Emperor
Justinian, associated with his attempts to reconquer the territory of the former Western
198 Maja Petrinec
Roman Empire, Dalmatia became part of the Eastern Roman Empire in 535 and remained
within it until the arrival of the Slavs. However, soon after the reconquest of Sirmium, in
the summer of 597, during the reign of Emperor Maurice Tiberius, Dalmatia was invaded,
probably through the old Roman road Servitium-Salona, by Avar khagan Bayan who cap-
tured the fortified town of Vonka (βονκεις) and forty more forts and settlements. Not long
after that, the Slavs started to move towards the south by crossing the Drava and Sava riv-
ers. A letter from Pope Gregory the Great to Maximus, the bishop of Salona, mentioning
Slavic incursions in Istria and Italy, also states that bishop himself is in danger, and so it
seems that the Slavs had come close to Dalmatia’s old capital city of Salona. In the scholarly
literature, the fall of Salona was traditionally placed in 614 based on the funerary inscrip-
tion of abbess Iohanna from Sirmium, while today it is well documented by numismatic
evidence: that is by, two coin hoards found in the Salonitan area.
The first hoard of golden Byzantine coins was found near the foundations of the basilica
from the age of Justinian at the site of Šuplja crkva, and it contains the coins of Maurice
Tiberius, Phocas and Heraclius (minted in 613).1
Of particular importance is a hoard of fifty-one bronze coins discovered in a Late An-
tique canal, in which the oldest coins are of Justinian, while the youngest are of Hera-
clius, minted in 631, all of which allows to conclude that Salona must have been abandoned
around the middle of the seventh century, when the newly migrated peoples posed a threat
to the city.2 Written sources which mention the arrival of the Croats also place this event
during the reign of Emperor Heraclius. The clearest picture of the material heritage of the
inhabitants of Dalmatia in this period is provided by the graveyard with 218 graves on the
site of Greblje at Knin.3 Most burials are those of the indigenous inhabitants that were
romanized and converted to Christianity, while only 7 graves are Germanic. Therefore, the
majority of finds display Late Antique and early Byzantine features, and mostly belong to
the second half of the 6th and early 7th century.
The Sucidava type of buckle (fig. 1) is common in the Byzantine provinces on the Bal-
kan peninsula and is found mostly in Justinianic and post-Justinianic strata of the forts
along the Danube limes, but also in the Early Byzantine urban centres, and they have
been dated to the second half of the 6th century. 4
The iron T-brooch with knobs represents a derivative of more luxurious prototypes
from the earlier centuries. It was worn on the right shoulder (more romano) and is the
last example which witnesses this Roman custom, since it was found in the same grave
which contained a buckle that cannot be dated prior to the late 6th century.5
1 GJURAŠIN 2000, 86.

2 MAROVIĆ 2006.
3 SIMONI 1989; VINSKI 1989;
4 SIMONI 1989, 64, pl. XV, 5;VINSKI 1989, 26.
5 SIMONI 1989, 60, pl. XI, 4; VINSKI 1989, 27.
Metal Objects 199
The origin of buckles of the so-called Mediterra-

nean type should also be sought in the Late Roman
production of the 4th and the 5th centuries. They
were widespread in Pannonia, the Danube area,
Italy and the Iberian peninsula. Although they are
often found in Germanic or Avar-Slav graves, they
should be considered as post-Justinianic Early
Byzantine cultural goods of the second half of the
6th and the 7 th century.6
Buckles with prominent shield-like base of the
tongue (fig. 2) are undoubtedly of Early Byzantine Fig. 1. Sucidava type of buckle
(Photo: Ante Jurčević)
origin and are part of the costume of the Roman-
ized indigenous population in Dalmatia in the pe-
riod of the late 6th and early 7 th century.7
The buckle with a U-shaped plate can be as-
cribed to a large group of Early Byzantine buckles
that were widely distributed during the late 6th
century, but particularly throughout the 7 th.
Circular disc brooches with the function of safe-
keeping the amulets are typical of the romanized in-
digenous population. Brooches of this type appear
during the 6th and 7th century in Europe, and several Fig. 2. Buckle with prominent shield-like
the production centres can be located in Pannonia, base of the tongue
Lombard Italy and Merovingian Rhineland.8
Peacock-shaped brooches (fig. 3) belong to a nu-
merous group of Late Antique zoomorphic brooches
associated with sixth-century female costume.9
Pins are also characteristic of the romanized in-
digenous population and appear in female graves in
the function of hair- and safety-pins.10
A silver signet-ring with engraved represen-
tation of two antithetical lions can be considered Fig. 3. Peacock-shaped brooch
product of Early Byzantine goldsmithing from the (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
6 SIMONI 1989, 60, pl. XI, 5; VINSKI 1989, 26.

7 SIMONI 1989, 73, pl. XXIX, 1.
8 SIMONI 1989, 71, pl. XX, 3.
9 SIMONI 1989, 66, pl. XVII, 4.
10 SIMONI 1989, 66, pl. XVII, 3.
200 Maja Petrinec
Fig. 4. Objects with local indigenous features from Knin-Greblje (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
second half of the 6th or early 7th century, as can the silver rings with monograms and
a key-shaped ring.11
The rest of the finds in the graves are objects with local indigenous features such as
poorly made cast earrings inspired by luxurious Early Byzantine earrings, cross brooches
of local production, necklaces made of glass beads, simple iron buckles, flints, keys, iron
knives (fig. 4).12
As I have already pointed out only several graves are Germanic: six are Ostrogothic
(fig. 5) and one West Germanic (with a find of an S-brooch), that can be linked to the short
incursion of the Lombards in Dalmatia, before their migration to Italy.13
A similar picture is yielded by other graveyards of the same period14 and therefore the
archaeological heritage can be said to have three components:
a) Late Antique tradition of the eastern Mediterranean area
b) The influence of the Early Byzantine culture
c) Minor presence of Germanic elements
11 SIMONI 1989, 67, pl. XVIII, 5.

12 SIMONI 1989.
13 VINSKI 1989, 20–27.
14 BELOŠEVIĆ 1965; BELOŠEVIĆ 1968; MILETIĆ 1956; MILETIĆ 1978; JURČEVIĆ 2007.
Metal Objects 201
2. Grave objects from the 8th and the first half of the 9th centuries
The period following the fall of Salona, Av-
ar-Slav incursions and the arrival of the Croats
in Dalmatia is usually referred to as the dark
centuries of Croatian history. The silence of the
written sources is matched by the lack of ar-
chaeological finds that can be firmly dated. The
only reliable seventh-century source is that from
the pontificate of pope John IV, referring to the
mission of abbot Martin who was sent to Dal-
matia and Istria in 641, with the task to ransom
the captured Christians and collect the relics of
the Early Christian martyrs.15 These relics were Fig. 5. Ostrogothic buckle
later placed in the chapel of St Venantius next to
the Lateran basilica at Rome, which displays the
famous mosaics of the mentioned martyrs.
This piece of information indirectly attests to the presence of a new Slavic ethnic group
in the hinterland of the coastal towns under Byzantine rule. Another key event was the fall
of the Ravenna Exarchate in 751, affecting the coastal towns (especially those of Split, Tro-
gir and Zadar) which became weaker and transformed into scattered Byzantine strongholds
along the Adriatic. At the same time, the Frankish state under Charlemagne grew strong-
er. By acknowledging Frankish supremacy, Croatia entered the written records, while the
Aachen peace treaty of 812 drew the line between Byzantine and Frankish empires on the
river Cetina. This made Cetina also the easternmost border of Croatia, while the coastal
towns, grouped in the new political unit of Byzantine Dalmatia, remained under the rule of
the Byzantine Emperor.
The archaeological picture of this period is rather blurred until the last decades of
the 8th century.
The oldest identifiable archaeological stratum is that of the incineration graveyards,
the presence of which has to be connected to the newly arrived Slavic settlers, since the
custom to incinerate the deceased was alien to the tradition inherited by Christian indig-
enous inhabitants of Dalmatia, but also to the Avar practice of inhumation. Incineration
graves still represent a phenomenon in the medieval acrhaeology in Croatia that has not
been fully researched and studied, and due to the lack of grave finds these cannot be pre-
cisely dated, but are loosely ascribed to the second half of the 7 th century.16
15 GOLDSTEIN 1995.
16 BELOŠEVIĆ 1972; GUNJAČA 1995; PETRINEC 2002.
202 Maja Petrinec
Fig. 6. Golubić near Knin, female grave (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
Soon after, a series of inhumation graveyards with pottery and iron finds difficult to
date appear on the territory of the future Croatian principality. What makes them dif-
ferent from the graveyards of the previous period, such as the site Greblje at Knin, is the
presence of pottery vessels as grave goods, as well as the traces of burning and smashing
of pottery connected to the the Slavic funerary customs of trizna and strava.17 Completely
absent, however, are finds of Byzantine provenance and thus it seems that the newly set-
tled Slavic tribes, organized according to kinship, were not initially in any contact with
the inhabitants of the nearby coastal towns included in the Byzantine theme. With regard
to the uniformity of the burial manner and grave finds, it is not possible to reach any
conclusion about the proportion of the indigenous population in these graveyards. Only
during the last decades of the 8th century, probably because of the gradual process of so-
cial stratification, a stratum of the so-called tribal nobility becomes recognizable in the
mentioned graveyards, which is obvious from the finds which reflect contemporary events
on the east Adriatic coast. The position of Croatia at the dividing line between two great
Empires of the time, left a peculiar imprint on the grave goods: luxurious male graves
17 JELOVINA 1976; BELOŠEVIĆ 1980; BELOŠEVIĆ 2007.

Metal Objects 203
are furnished with weapons and horse fittings of the

western, Carolingian type,18 while female graves have
yielded jewellery made of precious metals of undoubt-
edly Byzantine contemporary provenance.19
Accidental finds from a female grave in Golubić
near Knin (two pairs of earrings, a necklace and a ring)
were discovered under unknown circumstances (fig.
6).20 It was long thought that the grave was that of a fe-
male member of indigenous population from the 6th or
the 7 th century. However, among the horizon sixth- and
seventh-century graveyards there are no finds which
could be compared to the luxurious set from Golubić.
Moreover, this set represents top-class products of
goldsmithing and is of the highest quality in the group
of similar objects found in the last twenty years. These
newly discovered object themselves, resulting from
systematic archaeological excavations, have contrib-
uted to a more precise dating.
Important finds come from a double female grave
in Nin (site St. Asel).21 The earrings are extremely simi-
Fig. 7. Lepuri near Benkovac (site St.
Martin), female grave lar to those from Golubić, while other items include
(Photo: Ante Jurčević) another pair of golden earrings with basket-shaped
pendant and a silver loop with punched lozenges. Also
present are the rings with Christian symbols, the most prominent one being a golden ring.
The central oval-shaped disc of these rings is ornamented with an engraved Greek cross
with equilateral triangles at the ends of its arms. The cross is surrounded by a circle made
of punched dots. Between the arms are oblique lines also made with punched dots, mak-
ing the cross have actually eight arms, which represents the monogram of Christ. On
either side of the cross is a dove, each depicted in inverted position so that one is placed
straight in relation to the cross, while the other one is upside-down. The doves’ heads
are shaped like circles and have a punched eye and beak pointing downwards, while the
body and the tail are depicted with incised lines and fi lled with dots along their lengths.
Two silver torques were also found, as were iron knives, an amulet pendant and punched
Late Antique coin.
18 VINSKI 1981; JELOVINA 1986; HRVATI I KAROLINZI II 2000.
19 BELOŠEVIĆ 1983–1984.
20 PETRINEC 2002, 213–14.
21 HRVATI I KAROLINZI I 2000, 62–63.
204 Maja Petrinec
Fig. 8. Individual finds of golden earrings from Biskupija near Knin (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
Golden jewellery from a female grave in Lepuri near Benkovac (site St. Martin) con-
tains two pairs of earrings, a ring with lozenge-shaped front decorated with a fi ligree
cross and two different beads from a golden necklace (fig. 7).
Individual finds of golden earrings of the same type were found at Biskupija near
Knin (fig. 8),22 Bribir, Solin23 and around Nin near Zadar,24 as well as at Livno in today’s
south-west Bosnia.25
Besides the golden luxurious finds already mentioned, similar sets appear in more
modest manufacture at Glavice near Sinj (silver earrings and two bronze rings, together
with a needle-box and a vessel, as well as a necklace made of silver and glass beads, a silver
ring and three pairs of silver loops, one of which is analogous to a pair of silver loops from
Nin),26 a necklace from Stranče near Vinodol with silver and glass beads.27 These silver
beads have ornaments identical to those on the necklace from Golubić.
A silver ring from the graveyard at the site of Zduš near Vrlika (fig. 9) is decorated in the
same way as a golden ring discovered by the church of St Asel at Nin.28
22 PETRINEC 2005, 177, pl. I, 1–8.
23 Nakit 1986.
24 BELOŠEVIĆ 1965, 148–49.
25 MILETIĆ 1980, 297–98.
26 PETRINEC 2002, 240–41, pl. IV–V.
27 CETINIĆ 1998, 208, pl. VII.
28 GJURAŠIN 1992, 257.
Metal Objects 205
A mention should also be made of a triple grave from the

site of Ždrijac at Nin where a torque and a necklace were
found next to a female skeleton, while that of a man had
weapons and horse fittings of the western type.29
A special place belongs to the find from Grborezi near
Livno (south-east Bosnia) which includes a necklace made
of glass and silver beads, a torque, silver rings with oval
Fig. 9. Silver ring from Zduš
fronts, silver earrings and loops similar to the golden exam- near Vrlika
ples from Golubić and Nin, and also a pair of earrings with (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
bunch-like decoration.30
A very similar find is that from a female grave at Kašić near Zadar which apart from
a torque, a necklace with glass and metal beads, a ring decorated with engraved cross,
also contains a pair of earrings with bunch-like decoration.31
The latter type of earring links this group of finds from female graves with the well-
-known find from Trilj near Sinj (fig. 10).32 With three pairs of luxurious golden earrings
with a bunch-like pendant, a ring crowned with an inlaid blue stone and four oval-shaped
additions in the press forging, filigree, granulation technique, two buttons and a necklace
with golden beads, this find includes a golden Byzantine solidus of Constantine V and Leo
IV minted in Syracuse between 760 and 775.
This links the female grave from Trilj with the well-known male graves splendidly fur-
nished with Carolingian weapons and spurs from Biskupija near Knin, also containing finds
of identical Byzantine coins, so that it can be stated that all these finds belong to a single
horizon with a common formal, cultural and chronological denominator.33 It should also be
noticed that the highest concentration of the mentioned finds coincides with the sites of the
soon-to-be-formed most important centres of Croatian principality (Solin, Nin, the vicinity
of Knin and Livno).
The appearance of Byzantine coins in the late 8th century, but also of jewellery finds from
female graves, can be explained within the frame of the already mentioned historical circum-
stances. Incoming Slavic tribes densely populated the hinterland of Byzantine towns from the
mid-seventh century. Initially, there were no contacts between the two communities, obvious
from the lack of finds of Byzantine provenance which could be dated to this period. However,
the situation changed in the late 8th century when the territory of Dalmatia became part of
the Frankish sphere of interest. After the fall of the Ravenna Exarchate (during the reign of
Constantine V) and the Frankish occupation of Istria (788), Frankish missionaries appear on
29 BELOŠEVIĆ 2007, 240, 243.

30 HRVATI I KAROLINZI II 2000, 261.
31 BELOŠEVIĆ 1980, pl. XXXV, 3.
32 HRVATI I KAROLINZI II 2000, 349.
33 GIESLER 1974; ŠEPAROVIĆ 2003.
206 Maja Petrinec
Fig. 10. Trilj near Sinj, female grave (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
Croatian territory as do the weapon makers who supplied the ruling class of the Croats with
expensive weapons. Unprotected towns ruled by Byzantium were probably forced to buy their
peace and existence, and as a consequence, a large amount of golden coins and luxurious fe-
male jewellery had reached the hinterland.
The situation remained unchanged until the mid-ninth century, what is confirmed by an-
other find dated through a coin find. In a grave from Ždrijac at Nin, two pairs of earrings with
bunch-like decorations were found together with a denarius of Lothair I (840–855).34
The luxurious female jewellery must have been produced by the Byzantine workshops in
coastal towns, or by the workshops on Byzantine territory in the eastern Mediterranean area,
since the Croats of the hinterland, with their tribal and kinship system, were certainly not
familiar with the goldsmithing techniques, nor were they capable of producing good-quality
items by themselves. The apprenticeship to a goldsmith, namely, required from a candidate
a lengthy trial period (8 to 15 years), which is witnessed by the late medieval archival records
(from the 13th century) and thus even more applicable to the early medieval period.
34 BELOŠEVIĆ 2007, 147, pl. LV.

Metal Objects 207
Fig. 11. Temple earrings with one bead Fig. 12. Temple earring with two beads
(Photo: Ante Jurčević) (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
3. Grave objects from mid-ninth to the late 11th century

In the late 8th and the early 9th century, the hinterland of the north and central Adriatic
coast became the territory of the newly formed Croatian principality, later kingdom which
preserved its independence under the rulers of the Trpimirović dynasty until the early 12th
century, when it entered into national and judicial union with Hungary. Croatia covered
the territory from the river Raša in Istria in the west, to the river Cetina in the east, while its
continental area comprised of parts of present-day central Croatia and south-west Bosnia,
following the old Roman boundary between Dalmatia and Pannonia. Coastal towns, on the
other hand, remained under Byzantine rule until the middle of the 11th century. However,
mutual contacts between Byzantine towns and Croatia were unavoidable, as is confirmed
by the written sources. From the early 10th century, the bishop of Split became a metro-
politan not only of Byzantine theme of Dalmatia but of entire Croatia. This was decided
at the church synods held in Split and attended by Croatian king Tomislav. Although Split
was inhabited by Romance-speakers, it attracted the neighbouring Croats who gradually
migrated into it and they were present in the top levels of society already in the 10th cen-
tury. John, the archbishop of Split, was a son of Tvrdatah, and his Croatian origin cannot
be doubted. Jelena, a member of the noble family of the Madii from Zadar, became wife of
Croatian king Mihajlo Krešimir II.
Grave goods from this period (mid-9th until late 11th century) provide a completely dif-
ferent picture in relation to the previous periods. With the spread of Christianity on the
territory of Croatia, already from the mid-ninth century numerous churches were built
208 Maja Petrinec
Fig. 13. Temple earrings with four beads Fig. 14. Ring with a dome-shaped crown
(Photo: Ante Jurčević) (Photo: Ante Jurčević)
as donations of Croatian rulers whose names were carved in the Latin inscriptions on the
stone liturgical furnishings in these churches.35 Members of the highest social classes –
– that is the early feudal nobility – start to be buried next to the churches and the graves
contain finds of luxurious female jewellery.
These are mainly large temple earrings (diameter of the loop is 6–8 centimetres), made
of precious metals, in the raised filigree and granulation technique. There are examples
with one (fig. 11), two (fig. 12) or four oval-shaped beads (fig. 13) and earrings made with
silver and gilded filigree wire, undoubtedly modelled after older earrings similar to the
already mentioned golden examples from the late 8th and early 9th century. Although
there is no direct evidence, it should be assumed that these earrings were also produced by
the workshops in the coastal towns, where they were made for the ruling clas of Croatian
principality and adapted to the taste of their commissioners, and therefore these too can
be considered products of Byzantine goldsmithing in a wider sense.
Among the horizon of the graveyards discussed here, several examples of jewellery can
be linked to contemporary Byzantine goldwork.
Above all, I am referring here to the so-called rings with a dome-shaped crown (fig.
14), with many analogies in the east and south-east Balkan area under direct Byzantine
rule or under a strong Byzantine influence (such as Bulgaria, Serbia and Macedonia). 36
The same can be said for some examples of decorative applications and oval pendants
from the rims of the clothes (fig. 15).37
35 DELONGA 1996.
36 PETRINEC 2003a.
37 PETRINEC 2003.
Metal Objects 209
Fig. 15. Decorative applications and oval pendants from the rims of the clothes
The significance of goldsmithing in the coastal towns did not stop after the Byzantine
theme disintegrated in the middle of the 11th century, nor did it diminish in the late medieval
period. That the towns continue to supply their hinterland with luxurious golden objects,
especially with earrings, is witnessed by the data from the Dubrovnik archive, mentioning
Slavic earrings (cercellis de argento slavoneschis).38
e-mail: maja.petrinec@st.t-com.hr
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BELOŠEVIĆ 1965:
Janko Belošević, “Nekoliko ranosrednjovjekovnih metalnih nalaza s područja sjeverne Dalmacije”, Dia-
dora 3 (1965), p. 145–157.
BELOŠEVIĆ 1968:
Janko Belošević, “Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola u selu Kašić kraj Zadra“, Diadora 4 (1968),
221–246.
BELOŠEVIĆ 1972:
Janko Belošević, “Die ersten slawischen Urnengräber auf dem Gebiete Jugoslawiens aus dem Dorfe
Kašić bei Zadar“, Balcanoslavica 1 (1972), p. 73–86.
BELOŠEVIĆ 1980:
Janko Belošević, Materijalna kultura Hrvata od 7. do 9. stoljeća, Zagreb 1980.
38 JAKŠIĆ 1983, 72.

210 Maja Petrinec
BELOŠEVIĆ 1983–1984:
Janko Belošević, „Bizantske naušnice grozdolika tipa iz starohrvatskih nekropola ranog horizonta na
području Dalmacije“, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 23 (10) (1983–1984), p. 41–60.
BELOŠEVIĆ 2002:
Janko Belošević, „Razvoj i značajke starohrvatskih grobalja horizonta 7.–9. stoljeća na povijesnim
prostorima Hrvata“, Radovi Filozofskog fakulteta u Zadru 39 (26) (2002), p. 71–97.
BELOŠEVIĆ 2007:
Janko Belošević, “Starohrvatsko groblje na Ždrijacu u Ninu, Zadar 2007.
Nakit 1986:
Nakit 8-12. stoljeća u srednjoj Dalmaciji, ed. F. Buškariol, J. Mardešić, Split 1986.
CETINIĆ 1998:
Željka Cetinić, Stranče-Gorica, starohrvatsko groblje, Rijeka 1998.
DELONGA 1996:
Vedrana Delonga, Latinski epigrafički spomenici u ranosrednjovjekovnoj Hrvatskoj, Split 1996.
GIESLER 1974:
Ulrlike Giesler, “Datierung und Herleitung der vogelförmigen Riemenzungen“, [in:] Studien zur vor-
und frühgesichtlichen Archäologie (Festschrift J. Werner), München 1974, p. 521–543.
GJURAŠIN 1992:
Hrvoje Gjurašin, “Kasnoantički nalazi iz Škripa na otoku Braču i srebrni prsten iz Vrlike”, Starohrvatska
prosvjeta, Serija III, 20 (1990), p, 251–264.
GJURAŠIN 2000:
Hrvoje Gjurašin, “Šuplja crkva u Solinu, Arheološka istraživanja 1998. i 2001. godine”, Starohrvatska
prosvjeta, Serija III, 27 (2000), p. 83–87.
GOLDSTEIN 1995:
Ivo Goldstein, Hrvatski rani srednji vijek, Zagreb 1995.
GUNJAČA 1995:
Zlatko Gunjača, „Groblje u Dubravicama kod Skradina i druga groblja 8.–9. stoljeća u Dalmaciji“, [in:]
Etnogeneza Hrvata, ed. N. Budak, Zagreb 1995, p. 159–168, 280–287.
HRVATI I KAROLINZI 2000 I:
Hrvati i Karolinzi (Rasprave i vrela), Split 2000.
HRVATI I KAROLINZI 2000 II:
Hrvati i Karolinzi (Katalog), Split 2000.
JAKŠIĆ 1983:
Nikola Jakšić, “Naušnice s tri jagode u Muzeju hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika u Splitu“, Prilozi
povijesti umjetnosti u Dalmaciji, 23 ( 1983), p. 49–74.
JELOVINA 1976:
Dušan Jelovina, Starohrvatske nekropole na području između rijeka Zrmanje i Cetine, Split 1976.
JELOVINA 1986:
Dušan Jelovina, Mačevi i ostruge karolinškog obilježja u Muzeju hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika,
Split 1986.
JURČEVIĆ 2007:
Ante Jurčević, „Kasnoantičko i srednjovjekovno groblje na lokalitetu Crkvine u Klapavicama“, Staro-
hrvatska prosvjeta, Serija III, 34 (2007), p. 249–265
MAROVIĆ 2006:
Ivan Marović, “O godini razorenja Salone“, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest dalmatinsku, 99 (2006),
p. 253–273.
Metal Objects 211
MILETIĆ 1956:
Nada Miletić, “Nekropola u selu Mihaljevićima kod Rajlovca“, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja Bosne i Her-
cegovine u Sarajevu, Nova Serija, 11 (1956), p. 10–37.
MILETIĆ 1978:
Nada Miletić, “Ranosrednjovjekovna nekropola u Koritima kod Duvna“, Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja
Bosne i Hercegovine u Sarajevu, Nova Serija, 33 (1978), p. 141–204.
MILETIĆ 1980:
Nada Miletić, “Reflets de l’influence byzantine dans les trouvailles paléoslaves en Bosnie-Herzégovine”,
[in:] Rapports du IIIe Conrès International d’Achéologie Slave, vol. 2, Bratislava 1980, p. 287–305.
PETRINEC 2002:
Maja Petrinec, “Dosadašnji rezultati istraživanja ranosrednjovjekovnog groblja u Glavicama kraj Sinja
kao prilog razrješavanju problema kronologije starohrvatskih grobalja”, Opvscvla Archaeologica 26
(2002), p. 257–273.
PETRINEC 2003:
Maja. Petrinec, “Grob 29 na Crkvini u Biskupiji kod Knina”, Starohrvatska prosvjeta, Serija III, 30
(2003), p. 159–175.
PETRINEC 2003a:
Maja Petrinec, “Srebrne sljepoočničarke s Glavičina u Mravincima kraj Solina”, Opvscvla Archaeo-
logica 27 (2003), p. 529–542.
PETRINEC 2005:
Maja Petrinec, “Dva starohrvatska groblja u Biskupiji kod Knina”, Vjesnik za arheologiju i povijest
dalmatinsku 98 (2005), p. 171–212.
SIMONI 1991:
Katica Simoni, “Knin-Greblje – Kataloški opis grobova i nalaza“, Starohrvatska prosvjeta, Serija III,
19 (1989) p. 75–119.
ŠEPAROVIĆ 2003:
Tomislav Šeparović, “Nove spoznaje o nalazima ranosrednjovjekovnog novca u južnoj Hrvatskoj“,
Starohrvatska prosvjeta, Serija III, 20 (2003), p. 127–137.
VINSKI 1967:
Zdenko Vinski, “Kasnoantički starosjedioci u salonitanskoj regiji prema arheološkoj ostavštini pred-
slavenskog supstrata”, Vjesnik za arheologiju i historiju dalmatinsku 59 (1967), p. 5–98.
VINSKI 1968:
Zdenko Vinski, „Krstoliki nakit epohe seobe naroda u Jugoslaviji”, Vjesnik Arheološkog muzeja u
Zagrebu, Serija III, 3 (1968), p. 103–166.
VINSKI 1981:
Zdenko Vinski, “O nalazima karolinških mačeva u Jugoslaviji“, Starohrvatska prosvjeta, Serija III, 11
(1981), p. 9–53.
VINSKI 1989:
Zdenko Vinski, „Razmatranja o iskopavanjima u Kninu na nalazištu Greblje“, Starohrvatska pro-
svjeta, Serija III, 19 (1989), p. 2–73.
Finds of Byzantine Glass and Ceramics

on the Territory of Belarus:
Well-Known and New Facts
Kristina Lavysh
Institute of Art History, Ethnography and Folklore of the National
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk
In 1960s numerous items of Byzantine and Oriental glass were found during F. D.
Gurevich’s excavations in Novogrudok. F. D. Gurevich affirmed that according to the
number of finds and to the diversity of forms of the discovered vessels they were, and still
are, the most numerous and representative medieval glass collection not only in Rus’, but
also in whole Europe. In Novogrudok were found more than 340 fragments of glass ves-
sels of Byzantine and Oriental origin. About 70 of them belong to 8 vessels made in Syrian
ateliers (Raqqa, Aleppo). Remaining fragments by shape and ornament belong to more
than 40 vessels from Byzantium.1 This collection was published in 1968 as a separate vol-
ume by F. D. Gurevich, M. V. Malyevskaya and R. M. Janpoladyan. Their study is still the
main source of our knowledge about the shapes and decor of Byzantine and Oriental glass
vessels imported to Rus’ in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This book presents the
fundamental set of Byzantine and Oriental glass imports.2 The authors made a thorough
analysis of the artistic and technological characteristics of the vessels. A special value of
this edition is its thorough reconstructions, with the profile and decor of individual ves-
sels being restored from fragments. However, from that time onward, on the territory of
Belarus, both in Novogrudok and other localities, there have been found new fragments
of Byzantine glass and ceramics, not known until now to researchers. The purpose of this
paper is to supplement and verify the existing corpus of the glass and ceramic imports, as
elaborated by F. D. Gurevich.3
1 GUREVIČ 1986, 70.
2 Vostočnoe steklo.
3 Vostočnoe steklo; GUREVIČ 1986. I would like to express deep gratitude to the archaeologists
T. S. Buben’ko, L. V. Koledinskiy, S. V. Tarasov and G. V. Shtykhov, who kindly presented for publication
214 Kristina Lavysh
Fig. 1. The map of finds of Byzantine glass and ceramics on the territory of Modern Belarus.
– glass ware, – glass bracelets, – stained glass, – glazed ceramics.
Most of Byzantine glass vessels imported to medieval towns situated on the territory of
Modern Belarus4 were objects of high quality arts and crafts. These vessels, painted gold
and gold combined with enamel, or decorated with carving, engraving and grinding, were
high value articles of luxury in the Middle Ages. They were used for drinking at the feasts
and as containers for perfumes, medicines, etc. Moreover, they could have serve as decora-
tive elements of interiors of wealthy houses. The finds of Byzantine glazed ceramics on the
the materials of their excavations. Many of those materials are not published before. My special gratitude to
V. Y. Koval for prompt of attribution of Byzantine ceramic fragments.
4 It is clear that the term “Medieval towns of Belarus” is not historical and refers only to geographical
borders of the research – the territory of modern Belarus. Various historical names related to Belarus ei-
ther do not seize the whole of its territory (such as Black Rus’ – only the region of Novogrudok, the Polotsk
Principality or the Turov-Pinsk Principality) or have a broader meaning (Western Rus’, which includes also
the Smolensk Principality), or are of more recent origin (White Rus’). That is why I use the term “Medieval
towns of Belarus” having in mind Medieval towns on the territory of today’s Belarus.
Finds of Byzantine Glass and Ceramics 215
territory of Belarus are not numerous but they include luxury ceramics with polychromic
painting as well as more simple objects.
Import of artistic glass and pottery should be treated first of all as a cultural phenom-
enon rather than an economic one. It acquired an economic basis only after the emergence
of the relevant cultural needs. Economic forces had influence only on import dimensions,
but not on reasons for import in the Middle Ages.5 In the Medieval communities imported
goods were mainly purchased for the reason of prestige and fashion. Objects of Oriental
and Byzantine art were extremely popular in Medieval Europe and considered to be arti-
cles of luxury. It was very fashionable to posses them. The use of Oriental and Byzantine
imported goods reflected the trends of artistic taste of local people.
This paper examines the following categories of Byzantine glass objects found on the
territory of Belarus: vessels, bracelets and stained glass.
Byzantine glass vessels were found in Novogrudok, Turov, Vitebsk and Polotsk. Let’s
dwell briefly on the well-known finds from Novogrudok (excavations by F. D. Gurevich)
and from Turov (excavations by M. D. Poluboyarinova).6 Among them there are to be
distinguished several groups of artefacts. One of these group are thin-sided vessels
made of transparent colourless, purple, blue and milk-white glass, painted gold, or gold
in combination with white, yellow and red enamel. The main painting motifs are birds,
medallions, twigs, straight or wavy lines, crosses (simple and with crossed arms), circles
and other geometrical elements. In this group of vessels one can distinguish such forms as
bottles, beakers, bowls and some others. (figs. 2–4, 6–7).
Another group is composed of fragments of vessels made of very effective three-colour
twofold glass, sometimes painted with gold. In such glass the inner coat is marble-like and
consists of white and blue nontransparent areas; the outer coat is colourless and transpar-
ent. The combination of solid two-coloured layer with a transparent one adds a beautiful
shining texture to the glass. In F. D. Gurevich’s opinion, the form of vessels made of this
glass is a two-handled beaker on a ring-shaped stem (fig. 5: 1).7
A separate group is represented by two beakers from the series of the so-called Hed-
wig’s beakers (Hedwigsgläser), found in Novogrudok (fig. 8). One of them is better pre-
served, the other one has been badly deformed by fire. A technique of carving, engraving
and grinding was used in the process of figuration.8 There are figures of a lion, a griffin
and the Tree of Life carved on the sides of the beaker. In the broadest part of the vessel
there is depicted the figure of a lion, standing half face, with its body in side view but its
head in full-face, the tail elevated to the head, and the right forepaw raised high. The image
was placed into the square with a violation of proportions. Above the lion’s head there is
5 KOVAL’ 1999.
6 POLUBOJARINOVA 1963; Vostočnoe steklo.
7 GUREVIČ 1986, 73; Vostočnoe steklo, pl. XII, 23–28.
8 Vostočnoe steklo, pl. X, XIV, 2.
216 Kristina Lavysh
Fig. 2: 1 – Beaker of reddish violet glass decorated by gold painting. Reconstruction. First half of the
twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Her-
mitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. I); 2 – Bottle of blue glass painted with white enamel
and gold. Reconstruction. Second half of the twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations
by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. II); 3 –
Bottle of transparent colorless glass decorated by gold painting. Reconstruction. Second half of the
twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Her-
mitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. XI, 1); 4 – Bowl of transparent colourless glass painted
with yellow enamel and gold. Reconstruction. Second half of the twelfth century. Found in Novogru-
dok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe
steklo, pl. VII, 2); 5 – Vase of frosted milk-white glass. Reconstruction. First half of the twelfth
century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage
Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. XI, 5); 6 – Bottle of frosted milk-white glass painted with red
enamel and gold. Reconstruction. Second half of the twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok. Excava-
tions by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. IV)
engraved a segment with a triangle inscribed in it. On the other part of the beaker’s sides
there is a paw, a part of the body and a wing, which belongs to the griffin. Fatimid Egypt
was traditionally considered to be the place of manufacture of Hedwigsgläser. However,
Y. L. Schapova, who researched Hedwig’s Polish beakers (those from Kraków and Nysa),
came to the conclusion that they, as well as all European beakers of this group, are imi-
tations of the medieval samples and are dated back to the end of the seventeenth or the
beginning of the eighteenth centuries. She arrived at this conclusion while studying the
technique of drawing the decor. In the European series of beakers it corresponds to the
technique of cut glass of the end of the seventeenth and the early eighteenth centuries,
when many innovations in glass manufacturing and cold-working were mastered and were
being put into practice.
The technique of decor on the beaker from Novogrudok is different, and some of its
characteristics correspond to the wheel cut glass vessels from the Treasury of San Marco
in Venice, the so-called wheel cut Islamic glass, the wheel cut glass beakers of the fourth to
sixth centuries, which were found in Western and Northern Europe, the diatreta vases (a
rather shallow carved line of conjugated linear segments, with a lack of decor polishing).9
As far as the place of manufacture of the Novogrudok beaker is concerned, Y. L. Schapova
considers that, according to the chemical composition of the glass and to the manufactur-
ing technique, the beaker is Byzantine, probably from Constantinople. The chemical com-
position and the prescribed norm of the glass of the Novogrudok beaker fit in the area of
Byzantine glass, made according to the traditions of Provincial Roman glass manufactur-
ing, and exclude the possibility of intercourse with Syrian and Middle Eastern traditions.
Besides, the so-called Islamic wheel cut glass had existed for a relatively small span of
time, from the ninth and tenth centuries, and the beaker is archaeologically dated to the
second half of the twelfth century. Therefore, the Orient in this case, including Fatimid
Egypt, is excluded.10 Moreover, Y. L. Schapova advanced a hypothesis about the possible
Byzantine origin of the so-called Islamic wheel cut glass.11
Yet another group is composed of more simple vessels: glasses made of thin light-blue
and blue glass, a bowl made of thin colourless glass, its upper brim decorated with a thin
blue glass thread, fused into a colourless mass, a thick-sided bottle made of blue trans-
parent glass of indicative rectangular shape, and a vessel for chemical purposes made of
colourless transparent glass (fig. 5: 2–3).12
In addition to the well-known finds from Novogrudok and Turov, at the excavations
of the Medieval towns of Belarus the archaeologists discovered some more interesting
9 ŠAPOVA 2004, 203.

10 ŠAPOVA 1976, 214; ŠAPOVA 2004, 200–03.
11 ŠAPOVA, 205–37.
12 Vostočnoe steklo, 15, Pl. XIII; GUREVIČ 1986, 74.
218 Kristina Lavysh
Fig. 3. Bottle of frosted milk-white glass, painted Fig. 4. Bowl of frosted milk-white glass
with red enamel and gold. Second half of the twelfth painted with red enamel and gold. Sec-
century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. ond half of the twelfth century. Found in
Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich.
(after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. III) St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage Mu-
seum (after: Vostočnoe steklo, pl. V, VI)
fragments of Byzantine glass vessels which have not been introduced into wide scientific
circulation yet.
Several fragments of Byzantine glass vessels painted with enamel and gold come
from Vitebsk (excavations by L. V. Koledinsky). Three fragments belong, judging by
form and their quite large diameter, to the brim of a thin-sided cup made of blue glass,
painted with white enamel and gold (fig. 9).13 Its surface is covered with vegetative curls,
drawn in gold; the brim is additionally decorated with a border of cruciform figures
made of white enamel. Two fragments of the glass vessels, apparently of Byzantine ori-
gin, were found in Polotsk. One of them was painted with gold, the other one with white
and yellow enamel.14
13 TKAČEV/KOLEDINSKIY 1978, 156, 158.

14 GANETSKAYA 2003, 51.
Fig. 5:
1 – Two-handled beaker of three-colour twofold
glass. Reconstruction. Twelfth century. Found in
Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St.
Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum (after:
GUREVIČ 1986, p. 73);
2 – Bottle for chemical purposes of transpar-
ent colorless glass. Reconstruction. Second half
of the twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok.
Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg,
the State Hermitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe
steklo, pl. XIII, 1);
3 – Bottle of transparent blue glass. Reconstruc-
tion. Twelfth century. Found in Novogrudok.
Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg,
the State Hermitage Museum. (after: Vostočnoe
steklo, pl. XIII, 2)
Apart from the vessels fragments, there are fragments of Byzantine glass bracelets
found on the territory of Belarus. They have several characteristics which mark them
out from the basic mass of bracelets of Kievan origin and local production.15 First of all
they are distinguished by the chemical composition of the glass – they belong to the Na-
Ca-Si class (to both its subclasses – sodium and ash). Secondly, they are united by a number
of formal features. The probable Byzantine bracelets are notable for a variety of shapes and
decoration. Painting with gold and enamels is one of their characteristics, the others is the
prevalence of the colour blue (oxide cobalt was used as a dye), and they have inner surface
flat, outer surface curved, sometimes with a more complicated profile view, or square as well
as triangular form. A combination of two features – the presence of a blue colour and paint-
ing with gold and (or) enamels is especially reliable. The ornamental elements of painting are
different kinds of lines (straight and wavy, short and long, continuous and dashed), circles,
ovals, rhombes, spirals, rosettes, stars, curls, arches, volutes, crosses, triangles, dots, ticks,
birds’ images. Quite often these elements are united into different compositions.
The lower chronological border of Byzantine bracelets – the ninth century – is set by the
finds in Bulgaria, the upper one – the thirteenth century – by the finds in Khersones. A deco-
rative effect of the early painted bracelets was based on the sharp contrast of a dark, almost
black background and bright painting. In the bracelets of the eleventh century this contrast
15 ŠAPOVA 2004, 107.
220 Kristina Lavysh
Fig. 6. Fragments of vessels of coloured glass. Byzantium, Syria. Twelfth to thirteenth century.
1 – 32 – found in Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State Hermitage
Museum, 33 – 36 – found in Turov. Excavations by M. D. Polubojarinova (after: Vostočnoe steklo,
pl. XII and POLUBOJARINOVA 1963a, p. 235);
1 – 6 – frosted milk-white glass painted with gold and enamel, 7 – 13 – reddish violet glass decorat-
ed by gold painting, 14 – blue glass painted with gold and enamel, 15 – transparent colourless glass
painted with gold and enamel, 16 – transparent colourless glass painted with enamel, 17, 20 – yellow
and blue glass decorated by white glass thread, 18, 19, 21, 22 – blue glass painted with gold and
enamel, 23 – 28 – three-colour twofold glass, 29 – 31 – three-colour twofold glass with gold paint-
ing, 32 – transparent colourless glass painted with gold and enamel, 33 – 36 – blue glass painted
with gold and enamel.
was softened, in most cases the background of

the painting became blue, the colouring of the
painting became more complicated, and there
emerged additional yellow, red, blue and also
the gold.16
Amidst the bulk of the glass bracelets found
in Rus’ towns, Byzantine glass bracelets form
a small, but very noticeable part due to their ex-
pressive colour, decoration and form. According
to Y. L. Schapova’s observations, in Kiev they to-
tal to 9% of all finds, in Smolensk – 5% and in
Novgorod – 1.5%.17 In Byzantium glass bracelets
were rare. They were a part of material culture of
Fig. 7. An upper part of a vessel cover or its
inhabitants of outskirts of the Byzantine world.
ground-in stopper. Dark manganese- This people were on a lower stage of social and
-coloured semitransparent and white glass. cultural development and had its own system of
First half of the twelfth century. Found in
Novogrudok. Excavations by F. D. Gurevich. values, in which glass adornments could have pos-
Minsk, the National Art Museum of the sessed a high status. According to Y. L. Schapo-
Republic of Belarus. Inv. КП 20530 (Photo:
va’s supposition, Byzantine adornments made of
O. L. Lihtorovich)
glass were special export goods.18
On the territory of Belarus, Byzantine glass bracelets were found in Polotsk, Novogru-
dok, Volkovysk, Slonim, Minsk, Slutsk, Drutsk, Orsha, Mstislavl, Gomel, Grodno and Brest,
the site of the medieval settlement of Maskovichi (Braslav District of Vitebsk Region).19
This is evidenced by the glass composition (the Na-Ca-Si class), their characteristic col-
our (blue), the shape of the bracelets (inner surface flat, outer surface curved, sometimes
with more complicated side view, square and triangular) and their painting with gold and
enamel and their plated decor with glass bits.20
The most effective are three fragments of blue colour bracelets with painting in yellow
enamel and gold that were found in Polotsk (The Polotsk National Historical and Cultural
Museum-Reserve). All three fragments belong to different items. They are still the only finds,
known to us, of painted bracelets on the territory of Belarus. These bracelets are typical of
Byzantine manufacture of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.21
16 ŠAPOVA 2004, 129, 131.

17 ŠAPOVA 2004, 106.
18 ŠAPOVA 2004, 102–03.
19 GUREVIČ 1986, 76; ŠAPOVA 2004, 117.
20 ŠAPOVA 1969, 169; ŠAPOVA 1972, 109, 168.
21 ŠAPOVA 2004, 105.
222 Kristina Lavysh
One of them is painted with gold (fig.

10: 1). The ornament is geometrical with the
main motif of a rhombus shape with a dot in
the centre, which repeats along the length of
the bracelet. A fragment of a bracelet, which
was found in Novgorod, is similar in decora-
tive effect. It is also painted with gold, but
has more complicated ornamentation, which
includes the depiction of a bird in the medal-
lion and geometrical motifs.22 Two other
fragments are painted with gold and enamel.
The ornament is also geometrical, with lim-
ited insertions of simple vegetative elements.
On one of them are preserved two different
motifs, which apparently interchanged with
each other. One of them is a spiral, confined
in the circumference, the other one is made
with two diagonal lines, which divide the
surface in four parts, with vegetative curls
(fig. 10: 4). The spiral and curls were drawn
in gold, the rest of the painting with yellow
enamel. On the second fragment, there are
also two motifs interchanging with each Fig. 8. Hedwigsgläser beaker. Glass, carving,
other: one of them is a slanting net with cir- engraving, grinding. Second half of the twelfth
century. Found in Novogrudok. Excavations
cles in each area, the other one is a portrayal by F. D. Gurevich. St. Petersburg, the State
resembling a flower, the outer contours of Hermitage Museum (after: Vostočnoe steklo,
pl. X, XIII, 2)
which are outlined with a wavy line, the
heart of which is marked with a circle (fig.
10: 1). The circles and the flower were drawn
with yellow enamel, the rest of the details of the portrayal – gold. Similar blue glass bracelets
with painting with gold and enamel are kept in The National Museum of History of Ukraine
in Kiev. They were found in Kerch and are dated back to the eleventh century.
The fragments of bracelets of inner surface flat, outer surface curved with plated decoration
were found in Minsk (2 items), Gomel (2 items), Brest (1 item), Volkovysk (1 item), Slutsk
(1 item).23 All of them were blue, except for one copy from Gomel (green) and the decoration was
22 Drevnij Novgorod, fig. 248.

23 Minsk, the National Museum of History and Culture of Belarus, Museum “Gomel Palace-Park En-
semble”, Brest Regional Museum of Local Lore, Volkovysk Military-historical Museum, KOLEDINSKIY
1985, 168, fig. 176.
made by the application of glass bits of yellow and

white colours, which forms short lines and small
elongated spots (fig. 10: 3, 5–9). It is a group
of fragments of bracelets of inner surface flat,
outer surface curved, blue and without decoration
(Minsk, Mstislavl) that stands out. In Gomel two
fragments of liver-red colour and inner surface flat,
outer surface curved with complicated form (ribbed
surface) were found (fig. 10: 2). They are very simi-
lar in form to the fragments of blue bracelets found
at the excavations in Kerch (The National Museum Fig. 9. Fragment of vessel of transparent
of History of Ukraine in Kiev). In Drutsk fragments blue glass painted with enamel and gold.
of twisted Byzantine bracelets were found. By form Twelfth to thirteenth century. Found in
Vitebsk. Excavations by L. V. Koledinskiy.
they are very close to ordinary twisted Rus’ bracelets, Vitebsk Regional Museum of Local Lore
but differ in their bigger diameter and predominant Inv. H/B 10145/3 (Photo: Author)
blue colour, obtained with the use of cobalt. Deter-
mination of glass articles from Drutsk was made by
T. S. Skripchenko.24
It is necessary to note the fragments of stained glass in Grodno and Polotsk – a rare cat-
egory of finds in Rus’ towns. Fragments of flat pane are known from the excavations of the
St. John Chrysostom church in Chelm, the Church of the Tithes in Kiev, Dormition church of
Elets Monastery in Chernigov, as well as in Galich, Novgorod, Vladimir and Suzdal.25 On the
territory of Belarus fragments of stained glass were found in Grodno (excavations by Z. Du-
rczewski) and Polotsk (excavations by M. K. Karger and G. V. Shtykhov). The fragments from
Grodno are dark-green, with white enamel painting (fig. 11). The ornament of painting in one
case is geometrical, with the main motif of the circle, and in the other – vegetative. A frag-
ment of a similar colour and ornamentation was found in Polotsk. Other fragments from
Polotsk are of a blue colour made, apparently, with cobalt and without painting. While re-
searching the fragments from Grodno, Y. L. Schapova made the supposition that they could
be made by Greek craftsmen working in Kiev, because – according to the shape and col-
our – they significantly differ from pre-Mongol glass of Kiev manufacture and only in part
resemble those from West Europe.26 But the spectrum analysis made by A. N. Egorkov at
the Laboratory of the Archaeological Technology of the Institute for the History of Material
Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences had shown that the fragment from Polotsk is
rather of a West European origin. The researchers link some stained glass windows with the
24 LEVKO 1999, 12.

25 LIADOVA 2005, 149.
26 ŠAPOVA 1972, 143.
224 Kristina Lavysh
Fig. 10. Fragments of glass bracelets. Eleventh to twelfth century: 1, 4 – Blue glass painted with
gold and enamel. Found in Polotsk. Excavations by S. V. Tarasov. Polotsk National Historical and
Cultural Museum-Reserve. Inv. КП-8-4384/65, КП-10-6228/76, КП-7-3956/1 (Photo: Author);
2 – Liver-red- glass. Found in Gomel. Excavations by O. A. Makushnikov. Museum “Gomel Palace-
Park Ensemble” (Photo: Author); 3 – Blue glass with plated decor. Found in Brest. Excavations by
P. F. Lysenko. Brest Regional Museum of Local Lore. Inv. КП 14829/129, A-3300 (Photo: Author);
5 – Blue glass with plated decor. Found in Slutsk. Excavations by L. V. Koledinskiy. Slutsk Mu-
seum of Local Lore (Photo: L. V. Koledinskiy); 6, 8 – Blue glass with plated decor. Found in Minsk.
Excavations by V. R. Tarasenko. Minsk, the National Museum of History and Culture of Belarus.
Inv. КП 10613/5, КП 14704/66 (Photo: Author); 7 – Blue and green glass with plated décor. Found
in Gomel. Excavations by O. A. Makushnikov. Museum “Gomel Palace-Park Ensemble” (Photo: Au-
thor); 9 – Blue glass with plated decor. Found in Volkovysk. Volkovysk Military-historical Museum.
Inv. КП 2964/2854 (Photo: Author)
West European tradition (Vladimir and

Suzdal)27, and others - with Byzantine glass-
making (Kiev, Grodno and Vladimir). While
studying the glass from the workshop on
the territory of Kiev-Pecherskaya Lavra,
Y. L. Schapova came to the conclusion that
Byzantine glass-makers, who were invited for
ornamentation of the Dormition cathedral,
brought with them all of the necessary raw
materials: ashes, frit and dyes.28
The use of stained-glass windows in By-
zantium has been positively confirmed after
discoveries of A. Megaw in Constantinople
in the 1960s when, during the restoration of
the complex of the Christ Pantokrator Mon-
astery (1118–1124), a significant quantity of
fragments of blue, yellow, green and purple
window pane was found. All the glass was
well preserved and of supreme quality, and
one fourth of all fragments were covered
Fig. 11. Fragments of stained glasses. Twelfth
with paintings. Chemical analysis of the century. Found in Grodno. Excavations by
glass showed that it was melted according to Z. Durczewski. The Grodno State History and
Archaeology Museum. Inv. КП 2501, КП 5137,
the Provincial Roman tradition, in ashes of
КП 1302 (Photo: Author)
salt plants and dolomite, and that it belongs
to the Na-Ca-Si class.29
An unique find on the territory of Belarus is a cube of gilded smalt found in Vitebsk at
the excavations of St. Michael Church, and which has been dated to the first quarter of the
twelfth century (excavations by L. V. Koledinskiy)30 According to V. Galibin, who made the
chemical analysis, the chemical composition of the glass (a high concentration of potas-
sium oxide, a smaller concentration of calcium oxide and a twice as low concentration of
sodium oxide) may indicate its Byzantine origin.31 It is quite possible that it was made at
the joint Byzantine-Russian glass ateliers in Kiev, where the smalt was manufactured for
27 It conforms to information by V. Tatišev (Василий Н. Татишев, История российска я с самых
древнейших времен, Москва 1796) that Friedrich I Barbarossa sent Saxonic master-builders to the court
of Knyaz Andrei Bogolyubskij in the Vladimir land. Besides, Laurentian Chronicle informs that master-
-builders came to Bogolyubovo from foreign lands; see NICKEL 1997, 88–89.
28 ŠAPOVA 2004, 82-83.
29 LIADOVA 2005, 152–53.
30 KALIADZINSKI 1995, 64.
31 KALIADZINSKI, 63.
226 Kristina Lavysh
the decoration of Rus’ churches. One of

them was set up at the Sofia Cathedral
in the 40s of the eleventh century, and
the other one in Kiev-Pecherskaya La-
vra, at the end of the eleventh century.
The analysis of glass samples discov-
ered at these ateliers showed that 53%
of them belong to sodium or ash glass
of the Na-Ca-Si class. Therefore, they
were manufactured by Greek crafts-
men. The bulk of smalt manufactured
in Kiev workshops was gilded. It was
needed most of all because it was used
as mosaic background. Coloured smalt
was manufactured in small quantities,
what is indirectly proved by the fact that
only very small amount of waste from
coloured smalt has been discovered.
Some smalt was brought from Byzanti-
um.32 Apart from Kiev, gilded smalt was
found in Pereyaslavl Khmelnitskiy and Fig. 12. 1 – Fragment of ceramics «Zeuxippus Ware».
Novgorod. On the territory of Belarus Twelfth or early thirteenth century. Found on the
the well-known finds of smalt are those territory of Belarus. Minsk, Museum of the History
Faculty of the Belarusian State University (Photo:
in the sepulchral crypt of the funeral V. J. Koval); 2 – Fragment of semi-majolic red clay
church of Savior-Transfiguration (St. plate. Twelfth century. Found in Turov. Excava-
Euphrosyne) Monastery in Polotsk, and tions by M. D. Poluboyarinova. Minsk, the National
Museum of History and Culture of Belarus. Inv. КП
on the territory of the Upper Castle in 8828/146 (Photo: Author)
Polotsk where – however – the smalt
was made of opacified glass.33
The finds of Byzantine glazed ceramics on the territory of Belarus are not numerous. In
Turov, a fragment of semi-majolica red clay plate from the twelfth century, earlier regarded
as Middle Asian import, was found.34 The preserved brim fragment of a plate, decorated with
a border with an Arabic inscription or its imitation, made using the sgraffito technique (fig.
12: 2). A group of ceramics, with their imitations of Arabic inscription, made in this technique,
32 ŠAPOVA 2004, 73, 83.

33 KALIADZINSKI 1995, 62.
34 POLUBOJARINOVA 1963a, 45–46, fig. 11, 1.
became known as a result of excavations in

Constantinople and Corinth. D. T. Rice dated
this group back to the end of the eleventh or
the beginning of the twelfth century.35
In the Museum of the Faculty of His-
tory of the Belarusian State University,
Minsk, there is a fragment of the bottom
of a Byzantine cup belonging to the group
of the Zeuxippus Ware (the twelfth and
fourteenth centuries). It was found on the
territory of Belarus, however, the place of
this find is unknown. The bottom of the
cup is decorated with characteristic sgraf-
fito ornament in a round medallion and it is
covered with pale-green transparent glaze
(fig. 12: 1).
In Polotsk three fragments of white Fig. 13. Fragments of white clay glazed ceramics
with polychromic paining. Eleventh to twelfth
clay glazed ceramics with polychromic century. Found in Polotsk. Excavations by D. V.
painting were found (fig. 13).36 They be- Duk. Polotsk National Historical and Cultural
long to the type of Byzantine ceramics Museum-Reserve (Photo: Author)
with five colours for underglaze painting.
The characteristic colours of the painted
fragments (which are: blue, turquoise, red, yellow and brown) speak in favour of this sup-
position. Ceramics of this type are the highest achievement of Byzantine technology. The
only sample of this kind in Rus’ was found in Kiev (a plate with the depiction of a bird).
T. I. Makarova dated this sample back to the eleventh or twelfth centuries.37
A fragment of a vessel made of light-red clay, covered on the outside with white engobe
and light-green glaze was found in Novogrudok (possibly of the Byzantine origin or from
the Black Sea region, dated to the fourteenth century). Two fragments of semi-majolica
with green glaze from the Black Sea region (thirteenth and fourteenth centuries) come
from Volkovysk. Another two fragments, which probably relate to the same region and the
same time, were found in the same place. They belong to a red clay vessel, covered with
white engobe and a turquoise transparent glaze.
Byzantine glazed ceramics were known to the inhabitants of Novogrudok. This fact
is proved by two vessels reproducing forms of Byzantine tableware – an open dish (the
first half of the twelfth century) and a footed-bottom cup (the second half of the twelfth
35 RICE 1930, 72–73, pl. III, 3; XII.
36 DUK 2002, 31, photo 76.
37 MAKAROVA 1967, 17–20.
228 Kristina Lavysh
century). The first one, covered on both sides with a green opaque glaze, with horizon-
tally deflected rim and low bottom, differs from its Byzantine prototype by its simple
flat form of the rim (instead of the rim of the rail type). The cup, with blue-green glazed
outer walls, and with cherry-coloured glaze inside, reproduced the forms of the cup with
a vertical rim, though in somewhat changed proportions (being a bit higher and of a dif-
ferent profile).38
Thus, new finds supplement our perception of the types, forms and decor of Byzantine
glass and ceramics imported to the Medieval towns of Belarus. The verification of attribution
of the known items is also important for amending the known corpus of Byzantine imports.
e-mail:klavysh@mail.ru
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BANK 1994:
Алиса В. Банк, “Подражание арабским надписям в орнаментике архитектурных памятников
средневековой Греции (X–XIII вв.)”, [in:] Византия и Ближний Восток, ed. [В. С. Шандровская],
Санкт-Петербург 1994, p. 6–19.
BANK 1938:
Алиса В. Банк, “Керамика из Дманиси и Херсонеса”, [in:] Памятники эпохи Руставели,
Ленинград 1938, p. 178–187.
GANETSKAYA 2003:
Ірына У. Ганецкая, “Iмпарт у Полацку Х-ХІІІ стст. Па археалагічных матэрыялах”, [in:] Гісторыя
і археалогія Полацка і Полацкай зямлі: Матэрыялы IV Міжнароднай навуковай канферэнцыі,
ed. [Т. А. Джумантаева], Полацк 2003, p. 50–58.
GUREVIČ 1986:
Фрида Д. Гуревич, “Византийский импорт в городах Западной Руси в XII-XIII вв.”, Византийский
временник 47 (1986), p. 65–81.
Drevnij Novgorod:
Древний Новгород. Прикладное искусство и археология, Москва 1985.
DUK 2002:
Дзяніс У. Дук, Справаздача аб археалагічных раскопках у г. Полацку ў 2002 г., Minsk, Archives of
the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus, № 2046–2047.
KALIADZINSKI 1995:
Леанід У. Калядзінскі, “Віцебскі храм Св. Міхаіла”, Весці Нацыянальнай акадэміі навук
Беларусі. Серыя гуманітарных навук 1 (1995), p. 59–66.
KOLEDINSKIY 1985:
Леонид В. Колединский, Отчет о полевой работе в Слуцке в 1985 г., Minsk, Archives of the Insti-
tute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Belarus, № 940.
KOVAL 1999:
Владимир Ю. Коваль, “О характере восточного керамического импорта в средневековой Руси”, [in:]
Древнерусская культура в мировом контексте: археология и междисциплинарные исследования:
Материалы конференции, Москва, 19 – 21 ноября 1997 г., Москва 1999, p. 232–242.
38 MALEVSKAJA 1969, 196, 198.

LEVKO 1999:
Ольга Н. Левко, Отчет об археологических исследованиях на территории древнего Друцка
в 1999 г., Archive of the Tolochin’ Museum of Local Lore.
LIADOVA 2005:
А. В. Лядова, “Фрагменты витражных стекол из раскопок во Владимире и Суздале”, Российская
археология 1 (2005), p. 149–154.
MAKAROVA 1967:
Татьяна И. Макарова, Поливная посуда. Из истории керамического импорта и производства
Древней Руси, (Свод археологических источников, вып. Е1-38), Москва 1967.
MALEVSKAJA 1969:
Марианна В. Малевская, “Поливная керамика Новогрудка”, Советская археология 3 (1969),
p. 194–204.
MORGAN 1942:
Charles Morgan, The Byzantine Pottery. Corinth, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American
School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. 11, Cambridge Mass. 1942.
NICKEL 1997:
Heinrich N. Nickel, "Bezugsmotive der sächsischen romanischen Bauornamentik zu den Schmuckmo-
tiven der Vladimir-Suzdaler Architektur" [in:] Дмитриевский собор во Владимире: к 800-летию
создания, ed. Э. С. Смирнова, Москва 1997, p. 81–92.
POLUBOJARINOVA 1963a:
Марина Д. Полубояринова, “Стеклянная посуда древнего Турова”, Советская археология
4 (1963), p. 233–238.
POLUBOJARINOVA 1963b:
Марина Д. Полубояринова, “Раскопки древнего Турова”, Краткие сообщения Института
Aрхеологии АН СССР 96 (1963), p. 44–47.
RICE 1930:
David T. Rice, Byzantine Glazed Pottery, Oxford 1930.
TKAČEV/KOLEDINSKIY 1978:
Михаил А. Ткачев, Леонид В. Колединский, Отчет о полевых исследованиях на Верхнем Замке
Древнего Витебска, Minsk, Archives of the Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences
of the Republic of Belarus, № 717.
ŠAPOVA 2004:
Юлия Л. Щапова, Византийское стекло. Очерки истории, Москва 2004.
ŠAPOVA 1976:
Юлия Л. Щапова, “О резном бокале из Новогрудка”, [in:] Средневековая Русь, ed. Д. С. Лихачёв
et. all., Москва 1976, p. 209–215.
ŠAPOVA 1972:
Юлия Л. Щапова, Стекло Киевской Руси, Москва 1972.
ŠAPOVA 1969:
Юлия Л. Щапова, “Стеклянные браслеты Волковыска”, [in:] Тезисы докладов к конференции по
археологии Белоруссии, Минск 1969, p. 166–170.
Vostočnoe steklo:
Фрида Д. Гуревич, Репсиме М. Джанполадян, Марианна В. Малевская, Восточное стекло
в древней Руси, Ленинград 1968.
On Some Objects in the National

Museum in Krakow and Question
of their Origin: Athos or other
Monasteries? 1
Mirosław P. Kruk
National Museum in Cracow
In the present paper I would like to focus on few works of small relief sculpted in wood
which are commonly associated with Mount Athos workshops. The most precious among
them is a medallion (National Museum in Krakow XVIII-153a2; figs. 1.a–b) donated to
the National Museum in Krakow (further referred to as the MNK) together with an altar
cross (MNK XVIII-154; figs. 4.a–b)3 by Edward Goldstein in 1909, who purchased both
works in Paris. The medallion was already then stored in a wooden box veneered with
parchment written upon with Gothic minuscule with coloured initials (MNK XVIII-153b;
figs. 2–3). It was shown twice in the MNK Main Building exhibitions, in 1972 and 1994,
and since autumn 2007 it has been a part of permanent exhibition at the Bishop Erazm
Ciołek Palace – a new branch of the MNK at 17. Kanonicza Street in Krakow. It is exhib-
ited in Room II in a showcase containing other small sculptures in wood, including three
crosses, possibly also from Athos.
The monument is very poorly examined. Except for two inventory cards – one prepared by
J. Kłosińska (12.07.1959) and the other by B. Gumińska (03.1991), just a paragraph in a guide-
1 The Polish version of this paper was presented at Gniezno on 13 March 2008 during the VI Colloqium
Europaeum: Holy Mount Athos in European Culture: Europe in the culture of Mount Athos organized by
Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan and Collegium Europeum Gnesnense in Gniezno.
2 Medalion-enkolpion with the cycle of feasts and prophets, 2nd half of the 17th century-1st half of the 18th
century, Athos (?), boxwood, H. 14 cm; D. 9 cm, MNK XVIII-153a – acquired by E. Goldstein in Paris at the
beginning of 20th century.
3 Cross, 17th century (?), base – 19th century, Athos (?), boxwood, gilded, 16,4 x 5,7 x 1,4 cm, MNK
XVIII-154 – acquired by E. Goldstein in Paris at the beginning of 20th century. There is an inscription at the
bottom of the base: “De monte athos”.
232 Mirosław P. Kruk
Fig. 1. a–b Medalion-enkolpion with the cycle of feasts and prophets, 2nd half of the 17th
cent.-1st half of the 18th cent., Athos (?), boxwood, H. 14 cm; D. 9 cm, MNK XVIII-153a
(Photo: National Museum in Krakow)
book to the permanent galleries of the Museum was devoted to it in 20084. Besides basic
data (J. Kłosińska dates it to the 19th or 18th centuries, Athos?; B. Gumińska to the 18th cen-
tury or the second half of the 17 th century, Athos) the inventory card also contains a note by
B. Gumińska about the resemblance of the medallion to Early Christian relic ampoules of
the Holy Land. Moreover, B. Gumińska points to the medallion in Dr Siegfried Amberg’s
collection and a medallion depicting St. George and St. Demetrius dated to the 18th century
as analogous to the monument stored in Krakow5.
The manuscript which was used to veneer the box containing the medallion has also
been identified. It is probably a French manuscript with the text of Psalms coming from 13th
century Gothic Psalter6. Two of its sheets were used, written upon with minuscule in one
column and seventeen lines. On the face of the sheet on the top of the box we find Psalm
51 (50): Miserere mei Deus …written down from its third line. On the reverse there is a
continuation of the Psalm 51 (50) – lines 11-20. When the bottom of the box is veneered
with a sheet which face starts with the 15 line of Psalm 48 (47): Quoniam hic est, yet further
follow the lines 2 to 9 of Psalm 49 (48). The reverse of the sheet contains lines 3 to 14 of
Psalm 48 (47).
4 GUMIŃSKA 2008, 62.

5 Grieschisch-Byzantinische Kunst 1965, cat. 71.
6 GUMIŃSKA 2008, 62. The Author indicated on the alternation of golden and blue initials and severe
ornamentation based on simplified halfpalmets and proposed the dating of the manuscript on the 2nd half of
13th century, of the French origin and Cistercian scriptorium.
On Some Objects 233
Fig. 2. Medallion (MNK XVIII-153a) and the wooden box veneered with
parchment written upon with Gothic minuscule (MNK XVIII-153b) - exterior
Fig. 3. Medallion (MNK XVIII-153a) and the wooden box veneered with
parchment written upon with Gothic minuscule (MNK XVIII-153b) – interior
It is difficult to decide to what extent the choice of the parchment sheets was purpose-
ful, as they come from a Latin manuscript, nevertheless the choice of the texts powerfully
stresses their penitential, laudable message. Nor is it known when the choice was made and
by whom. The medallion, as well as the cross (MNK XVIII-154) was purchased by Edward
Goldstein in Paris, where Athos crosses appeared on the antique market in the first quarter
of 20th century, sold by E. Segregadis.
Analysing the scheme of placement of the scenes on the Krakow monument, we first
notice the expression of the idea of the Jesse Tree in it, combined with the choice of six
scenes connected to the major Evangelical events and religious holidays at the same time.
The scenes are placed within six large circles created by a bent shoot of a vine, while
within five smaller circles there are busts of prophets. B. Gumińska has taken note of the
fact that the prophets’ half figures are sculpted in the deeper layer, more poorly lighted,
which can be interpreted as a symbolic concession of the law of the Old Testament to the
light of the Gospel.
The formal resemblance of the medallion to the ampoules from the Holy Land, men-
tioned earlier, is confirmed by the layout of the scenes on one of the ampoules stored in
the cathedral treasury in Monza in Lombardy near Milan7. Both monuments feature the
theme of the Nativity in the centre, extended by the epiphanic themes of the Annunciation
to the Shepherds and the Arrival of the Magi. However, six circles surrounding the central
scene on the ampoule’s face contain slightly different themes highlighting the sequence
of events: the Annunciation (the upper left medallion) – the Visitation (the upper right
medallion) – the Nativity (in the centre) – the Baptism of Christ (the lower left medal-
lion) – the Crucifi xion (the lower right medallion) – the Women and the Angel at the Tomb
of Christ – and consequently the Resurrection (at the bottom) and the Ascension (at the
top), while its reverse contains the picture of the Mother of God Enthroned with the Christ
Child accompanied by angels. The choice of the central scene as well as the star above the
throne of Mary and Jesus seem, in this case, to emphasize the place for which these prod-
ucts were meant.
At the bottom of the Krakow medallion is a figure of the lying Jesse, from whom spreads
a shoot of vine symbolizing the genealogy tree of Jesus among whose ancestors were kings
David and Solomon and the prophets foretelling the coming of the Messiah. A similar
scheme appears in the icons of Hodegetria accompanied by the prophets, including the
scene on the silver lining of one of the most revered icons on Mount Athos, in the Protaton
church8. The layout of the scenes on the medallion “read” from left to right does not corre-
spond with the sequence of events: the Raising of Lazarus (the upper left medallion) – the
Nativity of the Virgin Mary (the upper right medallion) – the Presentation of Jesus in the
7 GRABAR 1958, cat. nr. 2, pp. 18–20; pl. IV – recto; pl. V – verso.
8 Mother of God Glycophilousa, Byzantine icon, 95 x 66 cm, dated (according to the legend) to the 8th
century; later gold (?) covering, Karyes, Protaton - HUBER 1982, fig. 161.
On Some Objects 235
Temple (the left medallion in the central row) – the Nativity (the central medallion) – the
Crucifi xion (the right medallion in the central row) – the Transfiguration (the left medal-
lion at the bottom) – the Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple (the right medal-
lion at the bottom). Thus, it seems that the ideological significance of the chosen themes
is more important here, with emphasis on the analogy between the events concerning the
Virgin Mary and Christ (the Nativity and the Presentation), as well as the solemn epipha-
nic character of the themes concerning Christ including the Raising of Lazarus and the
Transfiguration, obviously supplemented by the Crucifi xion. The scenes are divided by
smaller semicircles of vine, each of which contains a bust of a prophet. The enkolpion does
not have any scenes on the reverse which is smooth and merely functional.
***
In reference to the medallion and to other works displayed with it at the permanent
exhibition mentioned above, the question of origin returns. The medallion itself has
a form less frequently found, while the choice of material – hardwood and the method of
its precise working out, enabling the depiction of a large number of scenes and figures in
miniature, is also characteristic of both processional and altar crosses. The high quality
of execution of similar works inclines researchers to usually regard them as products of
the Mount Athos monasteries.
Perhaps it is there, where the second gift of Edward Goldstein of 1909 was made – which
is the altar cross (MNK XVIII-154; figs. 4.a–b) made probably in the 17 th century, but fixed on
a base of a later date perhaps of 19th century. On its face we find a depiction of the Crucifixion
with the Greek inscription: “H S[TAU]RWSIS”, while its sides show the Virgin Mary and St.
John (?). For the woman and man are standing already beneath the Cross the identification
of half-figures in the endings of the cross is not certain – as they should rather be the angels
or Evangelists eventually. The upper quarter and the lower one most probably depict the
Evangelists showed in half figured portraits. The reverse of the cross contains the Baptism
of Christ bearing the Greek inscription: “H B[AP]TISIS”. On the arms of the cross there are
two angels, while at the top and at the bottom we see two Evangelists. Each quarter is topped
with an arch in the form of a tudor arch. What draws attention is the placement of carved
acrostics: “APMS” and “TKPG” on the sides of the cross (figs. 4.c–d).
The problem of determination of workshop origin also appears in the description of
another small medallion exhibited with the works characterized above. A small pendant
with the theme of the Last Supper (MNK XVIII-101, inscription in Old-Salvic: ТAИΝ A) is º
dated to the 18th century (?) and regarded as north Balkan or Romanian imitation of Mount
Athos sculptures (fig. 5).9 Another plaque, with the Mother of God of the Sign with Christ
9 Medallion, 18th century (?), Romania (?), wood, D. 3,2 cm, MNK XVIII–101 – acquired in 1902 from
the Polish Academy of Science. At the opposite site inscription with ink: “1754”.
Fig. 4. a–d Cross, 17th cent. (?), base – 19th cent., Athos (?), boxwood, gilded, 16,4 x
5,7 x 1,4 cm, MNK XVIII-154 (Photo: National Museum in Krakow)
On Some Objects 237
Fig. 5. Medallion, 18th cent. (?), Romania (?), Fig. 6. Plaque, 19th cent. (?), Balkans (Greece?),
wood, D. 3,2 cm, MNK XVIII-101 boxwood, H. 3,5, W. 4 cm, MNK-XVIII-151
(Photo: National Museum in Krakow) (Photo: National Museum in Krakow)
Child on Her Breast (Greek Platytera, Old-Slavonic Znamenie; MNK XVIII-151; Greek in-
scriptions: “MR QU”; “IS CS”; in lowest row: “ÒI AGIOI KOSMAS KAI DAMIANOS Ò AGIOS
NIKOLAOS”), dated also at 18th century has been regarded as a Balkan (Greek?) work (fig.
6). 10 The collection is supplemented by an altar cross (MNK XVIII-100), also regarded as late
Balkan imitation of Mount Athos products (figs. 7.a–c). 11
Litte is known about the origin of another cross in the MNK collection, numbered
XVIII-92 and purchased after the year 1900 (figs. 8.a–b).12 Probably its simple, rather
harsh working out inclined J. Kłosińska to determine its origin as Ruthenian of 18th–19th
centuries and so it was described at the exhibition of Carpathian crosses in Sanok in the
1995. There is no certainty either, whether it fulfilled the function of an altar cross
or a hand cross, as it has no handle. On the other hand, B. Gumińska pointed to Serbia
or Greece as the place of its origin (18th century?), alternatively a Serbian monastery of
Chilandar on Mount Athos.
A closer look at the cross reveals its certain resemblance to the one numbered MNK
XVIII-154 (figs. 4.a-d). Also in this cross the quarters are divided by arches in the form
of a tudor arch. On its face there is the Crucifixion (Greek inscription: “IS CS NK”[?]) and
Evangelists on its sides. In the cross numbered MNK XVIII-92, however, the upper quarter
does not contain one more Evangelist, but the scene of adoration of the cross by two angels,
while in the lower quarter two half figures lean to one another. On the reverse, tradition-
10 Plaque, 19th century (?), Balkans (Greece?), boxwood, H. 3,5, W. 4 cm, MNK XVIII–151 – acquired in
1909 as a gift of Helena Dąbczańska.

11 Reliquary cross, 19th century, Balkans, wood, H. 12,3 cm, W. 6,3 cm, MNK XVIII–100 – acquired in
1902 from the Polish Academy of Science.

12 Cross, 17th century (?), Athos (?), boxwood, 14,4 x 8,1 cm, MNK XVIII-92 – acquired after 1900.
Fig. 7. Reliquary cross, 19th cent., Balkans, wood, H. 12,3 cm, W. 6,3 cm, MNK XVIII-100.
ally, we find–the Baptism of Christ (Greek inscription: “H B[AP]TISIS TOU K[URIOU]” with
Evangelists on the sides. Similarly as on the face of the cross, they were showed in profile oc-
cupied with writing or holding books inside the scriptorium. The upper quarter contains the
Annunciation, while the scene at the bottom has a significant section missing which makes it
difficult to identify . It is noticeable that the sides of this cross are bordered with a string orna-
ment, while on the cross numbered MNK XVIII-154 they are decorated with incisions, as well
as the fact that in both cases on the intersection of the arms we find ornaments in the form
of the letter “X”, which associates with a string tied around, and reminds of particles of rel-
ics tied in this way that we find in the most revered staurotheke, for example in the Lazarus
Staurotheka in the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos.
The origin of the crosses numbered MNK XVIII-154 and MNK XVIII-92 is confirmed by
parallel crosses at other museums. A very similar cross, but dated to the 16th century is in the
collection of the Andrei Rublev Museum in Moscow with the origin cautiously determined
as Mount Athos (figs. 9.a–b).13 Its iconography is nearly identical with the cross XVIII-154
– fields at the bottom and at the top on the side of the group of Crucifixion scene are filled
with half- figures of Evangelists, but on the sides – with half-figures of the angels. In both
crosses the half-figures of angels are placed on the sides of the scene of the Baptism of Christ,
while there are two Evangelists at the top and at the bottom – in the Krakow example in half-
figures while in Moscow one – in full-length as sitting at the pulpits. On the sides of all three
13 Altar cross, 16th century, Athos (?), wood, 10,7 x 6,2 x 1,4 cm, Moscow, Andrej Rublev Museum,
DAVYDOVA 2006.
On Some Objects 239
Fig. 8. Cross, 17th cent. (?), Athos (?), boxwood, 14,4 x 8,1 cm, MNK XVIII-92
crosses occur the same carved acrostics: “APMS” and “TKPG”. E. Davydova, the author of
the note on the cross in A. Rublev Museum collection, indicated the difficulty with unambigu-
ous determination of the environment in which the cross could have been made, because the
simplified working out of angels’ heads and ornament may indicate that it is an imitation of
a Greek original by a Serbian or Bulgarian artist. Referring to the inscriptions, she stressed
that the first record might refer to Adam, who was the first to fall because of the sin, but rose
from the dead because of the cross, while the second one: “TKPG” in her opinion remained
incomprehensible. Yet, similar acrostics were used in this type of monuments rather com-
monly, and their meaning has been lately recalled by I. Bentchev after N. Pokrovskij: “Sie
werden gelesen als ”Adam PeptokÕj Metest¾ StaÚrw oder ”Adam ProtoplastÕj Metest¾
StaÚrw. Dieses Akronym wie auch TKPG (TÒpoj Kran…ou Par£deisoj Gšgone), das dem
kirchenslavischen МЛРБ entspricht, ist auf griechischen Kreuzen des 17.–18. Jahrhunderts
oft anzutreffen”.14 Thus, the abbreviation written above the scene of the Crucifixion “IC XC
NK” is the sign of Messiah’s triumph: “'Ihsoàj CristÕj Nik©” – “Jesus Christ Conquers”.
While the above mentioned acrostics are explained in the following way: “APMS” = “”Adam
PeptokÕj Metest¾ StaÚrw” or “”Adam ProtoplastÕj Metest¾ StaÚrw” = „Adam who fall
into sin (or the first created man) arose through the cross”15 or there is another explanation:
14 BENTCHEV 2002, 57–64. See: POKROVSKIJ 1892, 356.

15 See: DAVYDOVA 2006.
Fig. 9. Altar cross, 16th cent., Athos (?), wood, 10,7 x 6,2 x 1,4 cm, Moscow,
Andrej Rublev Museum (after: DAVYDOVA 2006a, 301)
“'Arc¾ P…stewj Mwsakoj StaurÒj”16 – “The Moses’ Cross is the beginning of faith”; “TKPG”
= “TÒpoj Kran…ou Par£deisoj Gšgone” –“The Place of the Skull became the Paradise”.
One can find another cross of a very similar form at the Museum of Applied Arts in Bel-
grade, which is regarded as one of the oldest Serbian wooden crosses dated to the end of the
15th or the beginning of the 16th century.17 It draws attention here, that similarly as in the cross
numbered MNK XVIII-92, there is the Annunciation at the top, while at the bottom there are
two sitting figures who in the cross from Krakow cannot be identified due to a damage, while
in the Serbian cross they are provided with the names of the apostles Thomas and Philip.
On one arm of the cross the inscription is damaged, on the other the name of the apostle
Lucas has been deciphered. When on the reverse, above the theme of the Epiphany that is the
Baptism of Christ in the River Jordan, we find the theme of the Visitation of Abraham, in the
Orthodox tradition treated as the depiction of the Holy Trinity. The names that we read in the
quarters on the ends of the cross’s arms indicate that these did not need to be always figures
of the Evangelists that were placed there: on the side arms we find St. Bartholomew and St.
Simon, while at the bottom of the cross there are St. Peter and St. Paul. In the characteristics
16 ZAHARIADES 1998: http://www.phys.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/tributes/athos/agioreitikes_lep-
tomereies.htm [access 07. Nov. 2009] I would like to thank Prof. Józef Naumowicz for his kindly help in
translating the acrostics.
17 Altar cross, end of the 15th - beginning of the 16th century, Athos, plum wood, 17 x 8,2 x 2,6 cm, Bel-
grade, Museum of Applied Arts, acquired in the South of Serbia, MILOVANOVIC 2006b.
On Some Objects 241
of this cross, the author noted the avoidance of conventional solutions and the multilayered
structure of the setting, suggesting that it could have been made in the Chilandar monastery
on Mount Athos, where despite of the occupation of the whole Balkans by the Turks, art con-
tinually developed “for the glory of God and the nation”.18
There are very many crosses of similar iconography, associated with Mount Athos. One
of them is a 16th century cross from the cell of St. Apostles in the Skete of Kapsala, with
a preserved silver frame, kept in the monastery of Pantokrator.19 On the face of the cross,
above the Baptism of Christ there is the Annunciation, on the sides the Evangelists St. Mat-
thew and St. Mark and at the bottom St. Peter and St. Paul holding a model of the church,
and the Pentecost in the lowest quarter, while on the reverse we find the Crucifixion, above
it the Transfiguration, on the sides St. Luke and St. John, and at the bottom the Descent
from the Cross and Christ in the Tomb (Greek: Akra tapinosis). In the note, referring to
this cross the explanation of the abbreviation “TKPG” was that while it was stated that the
acrostic “APMS” was unknown.
To recapitulate this survey, it seems that the crosses at the Krakow collection have been
so far dated to a period that was too late – namely the turn of the 17th and the 18th centu-
ries. While their features are not different from these of the Athos crosses dated to 16th or
alternatively to the 17th century. They are sculpted in a similar, rough manner, not like the
crosses of end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century in which, as in the medallion, ap-
pears the trend to apply openwork forms, to hollow out wood especially in the parts of the
windows in an architectonic background and this is the character that the Krakow medal-
lion shows. Moreover, one can see it clearly on the example of an Athos cross dated to the
end of the 17th century in the collection of A. Rublev Museum in Moscow20.
Additionally, what draws attention is the variety of used materials proving the flourish-
ing of the sacred sculpture in Orthodox countries in modern times. There are well-known
superb examples of crosses with rich iconography preserved in the Moldavian monasteries,
made at the order of successive hospodars21, powerful rulers22 or metropolitans23. There are
well-known Serbian and Bulgarian crosses, for example made of horn24 or of wood framed
18 MILOVANOVIC 2006b.
19 Cross, 16th century, 13 x 9 cm, dark-coloured wood, Athos, Pantokrator, PROKHOROS 2006, 113.
20 Altar cross, end of the 17th, Athos, wood, 9,5 x 5,1 x 0,9 cm, acquired from the private collection, Mos-
cow, Andrey Rublov Museum, DAVYDOVA 2006a.

21 Cross, 1503, wood, metal, 33,5 (full H. - 45,5) x 16,5x 2,6 cm, foundation of the Stephen the Great as a
gift for Putna Monastery, Bucarest, National Museum, inv No. 394, PARADAIS 1991, fig. 28.
22 Cross, 1566, Wood, metal, 34 (full H. – 48) x 22 x 4 cm, gift of Ioan Banschi clerk of Orhei and his wife
Sotia for Putna Monastery, Monastery Museum, inv. No. 77, PARADAIS 1991, fig. 29.
23 Altar cross, 1743, cedar wood, silver gilded, 30 x 7 x 2 cm, gift of metropolitan Anthony for Putna
Monastery, Monastery Museum, inv. No. 79, PARADAIS 1991, fig. 30.
24 Altar cross, 17th, workshop active in East Serbia, horn, 8,8 x 5,5 cm, Belgrade, Museum of Applied
Arts, MILOVANOVIC 2006c, 305.

in silver25 and often decorated with precious stones.26 Crosses were made of various materi-
als and in different workshops, not always recognized.
Closer to the 17th century, crosses are more frequently not only dated, but also signed
by their creators, as for example the cross of a goldsmith Mavrodiy, active in a place called
Vratsa27 and the cross of Nikola and Pala from St. John the Evangelist monastery near
Vratsa,28 which are distinguished by a specific form of architectural shrines at the ends of
the arms. A similar cross is kept in a Serbian monastery in Visoki Dečani.29 We know of
crosses similar in form connected with Mount Athos.30
It seems that these crosses derive from the simpler versions of the old Athos crosses
in the type of the blossoming Tree of Life, having more plant-like forms applied in the 16th
century, as in the monument kept in the Hermitage.31 Its form is repeated by the cross-
es from the Balkans, additionally decorated with precious stones, as for example the one
found in the Rila monastery dated to the turn of the17th and the 18th centuries32 or in the
Neamţ monastery.33
In the crosses that become more and more complex in terms of iconography, the dog-
matic scenes (the Holy Trinity) often mingle with the Evangelical ones, including the scenes
based on the opposition to be found in the icons too – the Crucifixion on the face of the cross
sometimes corresponds with the Death of the Virgin on the reverse. The crosses from Serbia,
Bulgaria and Mount Athos were generally more expensive than the Ruthenian, as they had
silver frames with additions transforming a cross into the Tree of Life decorated with pearl
beads and gemstones, and the wood used for their production was hard, most often boxwood,
25 Altar cross, 17th century, wood, silver, enamel, H. 19 cm, Sofia, Orthodox Church Museum, DRUMEV
1976, fig. 193.
26 Altar cross, 17th century, Turnovo, wood, silver, stones, H. 18 cm, Saint Peter and Paul Monastery
nearby Arbanasi, DRUMEV 1976, fig. 194.

27 Altar cross, 1600, Bulgaria, Vratsa, Mavrodij Goldsmith, wood, silver, H. 32 cm, Vratsa, Church of
Saints Constantine and Helena – DRUMEV 1976, fig. 182.

28 Altar cross, 1601, Bulgaria, Čiprovci, Nikola and Pala Goldsmiths, for the St. John Evangelist Mon-
astery nearby Vratsa, wood, silver gilded, 61x20 cm, Vratsa, Church of St. Nicola – DRUMEV 1976, figs.
186–87.
29 Altar cross, 18th century (?), wood, silver gilded, Dečani Monastery, SUBOTIĆ 1997, pl. 77.
30 Cross, 17th century, wood, silver frame and base gilded, 21,2 x 7,0 x 5,9 cm, acquired in 1928, St. Pe-
tersburg, Russian Museum, inv. No. BK-3465, MAKAROVA 2006a; Cross, 17th century, wood, silver frame
and base gilded, 8,1 x 5,9 x 1,6 cm, from P. V. Sinitzin collection, acquired in 1901, St. Petersburg, Russian
Museum, inv. No. BK-3367, MAKAROVA 2006b. In the last example one can recognize St. Panteleimon for
the Author suppose that it could indicate the Monastery of its origin.
31 Cross, 16th century, Athos, 41,5 x 26 x2,8 cm, St. Petersburg, Ermitage – acquired in 1929 from the
Cathedral of the Winter Palace, inv. No. ω 380, ZALESSKAYA 2001a.

32 Altar cross, Hadzi Radoslav, end of 17th - beginning of 18th century, West Bulgaria or Serbia, silver,
wood, enamel, H. 25 cm, Rila, Monastery Museum, DRUMEV 1976, fig. 201.
33 Sanctification Cross, 1707, wood, silver, enamel, precious stones, pearls, 35,5 x 20,3 cm, Athos, Iviron
– the cross was embellished in Moscow by the Hegumen of the Iviron Monastery – Master Akakios Galat-
zianos, the musican from Galatista, who in the years 1699–1706 was the hegumen of the Monastery of St.
Nicolas, the Iviron metochion in Moscow, cf. ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 2006.
On Some Objects 243
walnut or cedar. This hardwood enabled sculpting of even small elements in an immense
concentration – each quarter is a separate, precisely filled world. This results in the problem
of thorough examination of these monuments – a miniature sculpture is often insufficiently
visible unless macro photography is applied. This also involves the matter of determination
of the workshop in which a monument was made. Sometimes the benefactors or donors are
well-known, however there is no data concerning the place of origin and the artist. An ex-
ample of such a problem is an enkolpion in the Princess Czartoryski collection, showed in
Gniezno at the exhibition the Orthodox Church – the Great Mystery in the year 2001: its face
contains the depiction of St. George with a Boy on a Horse, while its reverse – two bishops:
St. Charalambos and St. Nicholas34. The assessment of the material indicated the use of horn,
that is a material that was associated with the idea of the mythical unicorn, whose powdered
horn was supposed to have healing power. The suggested place of origin of the monument
covered quite a wide area – Anatolia, the Slavic Balkans and Greece. Still, what was charac-
teristic, it was the iconography and the choice of the saints as well as the use of frame in the
form of a silver filigree, like in the medallion founded by a Vlach archbishop Matthew for the
Bistriţa monastery and kept in the Dionysiou monastery on Mount Athos.35 A whole group of
similar products can be found in the Museum of Applied Arts in Belgrade, without the indica-
tion of origin.36 The collected material related to the monuments would thus generally indi-
cate that these are Balkan works, yet what remains an open question is the matter whether it
is possible to determine that the monuments could have been made in the workshops active
in the area of Serbia or in the Chilandar monastery on Mount Athos.
There is a similar monument in the Simonopetra monastery.37 Here as well, St. George
is surrounded with a frame made of silver filigree in combination with enamel, which was
typical of the second half of the 18th century. When the monument’s face depicts the ado-
ration of the Mother of God by archangels, seraphim and prophets within the semicircles
of vine, which reminds of the scheme of the paintings in the narthexes of the Palaeologan
temples or adequate icons. The sense of the composition is included in the hymnographical
canon of Anothen hoi prophetai referring to the glory of the Incarnation predicated by the
prophets, with references to the idea of the Tree of Jesse.
A part of a unique group, better recognized thanks to the name of its creator, is an altar
cross in the 20th century Czartoryski collection38, revealing style analogies in the frescoes of
34
St. George/St. Haralampie and St. Nicolas, two-sided enkolpion, unknown provenance, 2nd half of the
17 century-1st half of the 18th century, Balkans (?), horn, silver, Krakow, the Princess Czartoryski collection,
th
GROTOWSKI/KRUK/PASZKOWSKI 2001, 59.

35 Two-sided enkolpion, 2nd half of the 17th century, Athos (?), horn, silver, 11,5 x 9,2 cm, BALLIAN 1997.
36 Enkolpia, 17th century, workshop unknown, Belgrade, Museum of Applied Arts, RADOJKOVIĆ 1974,
80–81.
37 St. George slying the dragon, enkolpion, 2nd half of 18th century, D. 9,2 cm, wood, silver, stones, enam-
el, Athos, Simonopetra - ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 2006a, 117.

38 Georgios Laskaris, Altar cross, 20 September 1570, Athos, Krakow, the Princess Czartoryski collec-
tion, RÓŻYCKI 1994, figs. 1–20; list of Laskaris’ works – RÓŻYCKI 1994, 92.
Mistra and Athos of the 15th and the 16th centuries and numbering among nine signed works
of Georgios Laskaris.39 Still, the presumptions concerning the place of his workshop’s ac-
tivity indicate a dramatic lack of any source information on the subject. J. Różycki in a
monograph devoted to the above mentioned cross, stated in the conclusion that the only
place where the Byzantine tradition survived was Mount Athos and that it was there where
one should look for the place of activity of Laskaris’s workshop. The conclusion reappears
in the note about a very similar work ascribed to the workshop of Laskaris in the collection
of St. Petersburg’s Hermitage.40 The authoress of the note based her opinion on the stylistic
features of the cross and cited the article of J. Różycki.41
***
Returning to the subject of the Medallion described in the introduction, it seems in the
light of the known analogies that it was made in one of Mount Athos monasteries, most
probably in the Serbian monastery of Chilandar. The openwork form of its sculpture points
to other works dated to the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th century. Here belongs,
for example, the triptych at the Russian Museum in St. Petersburg, made of palm wood and
framed in silver.42 The wide semicircles of plant shoots are very similar here, and inside
them, one can find complex scenes of the dodekaorton. Next to the themes treated tradi-
tionally, as the Anastasis (Greek: Resurrection or Descent of Christ into Limbo), there are
other, like the Holy Trinity, that clearly reveal the turn towards new, non-Orthodox models
known from the Western European prints. One can get the impression that the tendency
to more and more openwork form increases among the works of that time. An example
of such especially bold working out is a diptych made of olive wood, associated with the
Chilandar monastery.43 What draws attention in this well-thought-out composition of both
wings is the principle of complementary ideas and at the same time the formal schemes –
in the central semicircle of one of the wings, created by a bent shoot of vine, there is a rare
variant of the Deesis theme with St. Nicholas receiving the prayers of Mary and St. John
the Baptist, which in the central part of the other wing is complemented by the depiction
of the Mother of God Enthroned with Child Christ in the type of Eleousa, being crowned by
angels suspended in the air. This very detail, alike the theme of the Holy Trinity with a tri-
39 RÓŻYCKI 1994, 96.

40 Laskaris workshop, altar cross, 24 July 1549, Mediterranean region, wood, H. 19,1 cm (34,3 – with
base), St. Peterburg, Ermitage – acquired in 1928 from M. Botkin collection, inv. No. 306 – ZALESSKAYA
2001 179–80.
41 ZALESSKAYA 2001a.
42 Triptych, end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century, Athos, palmwood, silver gilded, 8,9 x 11,2 x 0,8
cm, St. Petersburg, The Russian Museum inv. No. BK-28439, MAKAROVA 2006.
43 Icon-diptych, end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century, Athos, Chilandar, olive wood, 9,8 x 11,5
cm, Belgrade, Museum of Applied Arts, MILOVANOVIC 2006.

On Some Objects 245
angular nimbus and characteristic poses of the figures, is a definitely Western innovation,
resembling, in the latter case, for example the work of an Antwerpian painter Hendrik van
Balen of the 1620s.44 Also characteristic is the placement of two soldier saints – St. George
and St. Demetrius facing one another, as in many other modern Balkan icons, placed on the
axis, below the main scenes of both wings.
A similar openwork form distinguishes a small plaque or enkolpion with the image of
St. Sava, the Archbishop of Serbia, and the more related to the Serbian monastery, this
time made of cypress wood.45 The depiction of the saint’s face in profile is close to the way
in which the profile of the old Simeon on the Krakow plaque was worked out and the face
of Simeon on the above mentioned Belgrade plaque. The resemblance between them is
revealed by the shaping of the figures’ hair strands as well as the working out of the parts
around the mouth and a pointed beard and the nose, while it is difficult to decide in this
case what is the result of the artist’s individual technique and what the effect of a conven-
tion imposed by the type of material. In comparison with the described monuments, the
Krakow plaque is more sophisticated, having many settings and finer folds forming the let-
ter “V”. In the diptych, the form of the folds is more flat and what strikes is the monotony
of their parallel arrangement. The profile of St. Sava on the plaque seems to be even more
harsh. These three examples show at the same time the liking of the authors to experiment
with different kind of hardwood.
Equally noticeable is the liking of the Serbian masters for giving an openwork form to
the monuments, also in the earlier period, a beautiful example of which are the fragments
of 14th century polycandelabra (polycandilion) that is candlesticks made of bronze with
the names of Serbian donors e.g. of Dušan, King Stephen or Duchess Eugenia and their
sons – princes Stephen and Vukan. Enhancement of the effect led to the creation of works
in which free space dominates the sculpted matter, as in an unusual medallion made of
boxwood,46 sculpted in the manner characteristic of the xylographic school of Mount Athos
consisting in turning the material being processed into a kind of a stamp, totally hollowing
out the background.
At last, in the circle of the described works dated to the turn of 17th century and associ-
ated with the Chilandar monastery we also find a work that is closest to the Krakow plaque in
terms of its function. It is an openwork medallion of boxwood, sculpted on both sides, with
the scene of the Presentation of the Virgin Mary in the Temple on its face and Jesus in priestly
gowns between St. Simeon and St. Saba on the reverse – with a preserved case inside which,
similarly as in the Krakow monument – there is a precisely matching hollow in which it was
44 Hendrick van Balen, St. Trinity, 1620s, oil on canvas, Antwerp, St. Jacob church (Sint-Jacobskerk).
45 Enkolpion (St. Sava), end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century, Athos, Chilandar, cypress wood,
3,5 x 5,3 cm, Belgrade, Museum of Applied Arts, MILOVANOVIC 2006a.
46 Enkolpion, end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century, Athos, boxwood, D. 6,5 cm, Belgrade, Mu-
seum of Applied Arts, MILOVANOVIC 2006f.

Fig. 10. Enkolpion, 17th cent., Athos, D. 4,4 cm, wood-case: 6,1 x 7,8 cm,
Belgrade, Museum of the Applied Arts (after MILOVANOVIC 2006e, 313)
possible to keep the medallion (fig. 10).47 Thanks to the inscription we know that its author
was named Pachomius. In addition, this medallion does not have an expected silver frame, in
which similar works were usually placed, alike for example an enkolpion of Chilandar, which
was to be framed into silver in Thessaloniki.48 Thus, in this context, the attempt to explain the
function of this type of medallion that was carried in a wooden case becomes interesting. In
the opinion of D. Milovanovic this type of an icon could have been brought from Chilandar by
a monk, a bishop candidate with the intention of framing it with metal so that he could wear
it later on as a symbol of his dignity, but this did not happen for unknown reasons.49 If the
conclusion is proper, then the Krakow monument would have to represent another example
of this type of work that did not obtain the final status of an Episcopal enkolpion. Whether it
was a case is difficult to decide at this stage of the research. At any rate, the work analysed by
Milovanovic does not appear to be unique.
47 Enkolpion, 17th century, Athos, D. 4,4 cm, wood-case: 6,1 x 7,8 cm, Belgrade, Museum of Applied
Arts - MILOVANOVIC 2006d.

48 Enkolpion, end of the 17th-beginning of the 18th century, icons – Chilandar, frame – Thessaloniki, plum
wood, silver, gilded, filigree, stones, D. 8,3 cm, Belgrade, Museum of Applied Arts, MILOVANOVIC 2006e.
49 MILOVANOVIC 2006d.
On Some Objects 247
On the other hand, a typical Episcopal enkolpion, as the one of Protaton, was decorated
not only with a silver frame, but also with gems polished into cabochons, in this case made
of glass mass.50 In this work the Evangelical scenes are also presented within large circles
created by bent shoots or actually by branches growing out of the trunk of the Tree of Jesse,
while in the smaller circles we find prophets with unrolled scrolls with prophecies at the
service of the idea of Concordia Veteri et Novi Testamenti.
The very enkolpion, two sided too, constitutes also the testimony of multilayered con-
tent included in it, as it combines within itself not only typological schemes, but also re-
spects the Evangelical and liturgical order at the same time – here, on its face, one can find
three scenes of the first part of the liturgy being at the same time three epiphanic ones, in
which the divine nature of Jesus reveals itself, i.e. the Annunciation, the Baptism and the
Transfiguration, preceding the Offering. These scenes are the manifestation of the mystery
of the dual nature of Christ, in which Mary takes part, representing the era of new grace
and John – the witness of the Old Covenant, praying for the mankind. While on the reverse
there are three scenes of the second part of the liturgy, referring to the events related to
Christ’s Offering, i.e. the Crucifixion, the Lamentation and the Descent to Hell that is the
Anastasis. Thus, one can notice, as a result a simple message in the plan of the medallion,
also valid in reference to most of the works mentioned here, that the liturgy reconstructs
the life of the Saviour, while an enkolpion is to be the liturgy’s reflection.
e-mail: mpkruk@interia.pl
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Athos 2006:
Athos. Monastic Life on the Holy Mountain, [catalogue of the exhibition in the City Museum in Hel-
sinki, 18 August 2006 – 21 January 2007], Helsinki 2006.
BALLIAN 1997:
Anna Ballian, Enkolpion, cat. 9.90 in Appendix, [in:] Treasures 1997, p. 632.
BENTCHEV 2002:
Ivan Bentchev, “Monogramme und Akronyme als Ikonenaufschriften”, Zeitschrift für ostkirchliche
Kunst, 3-4 (2002), p. 57–64; http://www.icon-art.info/book_contents.php?lng=de&book_id=30
[access 07. Nov. 2009]
Cerkiew 2001:
Cerkiew –Wielka Tajemnica. Sztuka cerkiewna od XI do 1917 roku ze zbiorów polskich [catalogue
of exhibition in the Museum of the Origins of the Polish State in Gniezno, April–August 2001],
Gniezno 2001.
50 Enkolpion, 2nd half of 18th century, Athos, wood, silver, cabochons, 13,5 x 12 cm, Karyes, Protaton,
ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 1997.
DAVYDOVA 2006:
Elena Davydova, “Cross”, cat. 4.24, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 301.
DAVYDOVA 2006a:
Elena Davydova, “Cross”, cat. 4.27, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 303.
DRUMEV 1976:
Димитър Друмев, Златарско изкуство, София 1976.
GUMIŃSKA 2008:
Bronisława Gumińska, Galeria “Sztuka cerkiewna dawnej Rzeczypospolitej”. Przewodnik, Kraków 2008.
Grieschisch-Byzantinische Kunst 1965:
Grieschisch-Byzantinische Kunst, ed. M. Lichtenfeld, K. Fischer, essay H. Skrobucha, [catalogue of the
exhibition in the Museum in Ingelheim am Rhein, 1–30 May 1965], Ingelheim 1965
GRABAR 1958:
André Grabar, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza – Bobbio), Paris 1958.
GROTOWSKI/KRUK/PASZKOWSKI 2001:
Piotr Grotowski, Mirosław Piotr Kruk, Mariusz Paszkowski, Ikony-enkolpiony ze zbiorów Muzeum
Książąt Czartoryskich w Krakowie, cat. VI.90, [in:] Cerkiew 2001, p. 58–59.
HUBER 1982 (1969):
Paul Huber, Athos. Leben–Glaube–Kunst, Zürich 1982 (3rd ed.).
ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 1997:
Yota Iconomaki-Papadopoulou, “Episcopal Enkolpion”, cat. 9.59, [in:] Treasures 1997, p. 364–365.
ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 2006:
Yota Iconomaki-Papadopoulou, “Sanctification cross”, cat. A. 88, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 115.
ICONOMAKI-PAPADOPOULOU 2006a:
Yota Iconomaki-Papadopoulou, “Episcopal Enkolpion”, cat. A. 92, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 117–118.
MAKAROVA 2006:
Anna A. Makarova, “Triptych”, cat. 4.10, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 287.
MAKAROVA 2006a:
Anna A. Makarova, “Altar cross”, cat. 4.31, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 306.
MAKAROVA 2006b:
Anna A. Makarova, “Cross”, cat. 4.32, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 306.
MILOVANOVIC 2006:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Enkolpion”, cat. 4.11, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 287–288.
MILOVANOVIC 2006a:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Enkolpion”, cat. 4.12, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 288–289.
MILOVANOVIC 2006b:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Hand-held cross for veneration”, cat. 4.21, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 298.
MILOVANOVIC 2006c:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Cross – on the Holy Table”, cat. 4.29, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 305.
MILOVANOVIC 2006d:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Enkolpion”, cat. 4.42, [in:] Athos 2006, 313.
MILOVANOVIC 2006e:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Enkolpion”, cat. 4.43, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 314.
MILOVANOVIC 2006f:
Dusan Milovanovic, “Enkolpion”, cat. 4.44, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 315.
PARADAIS 1991:
Ladiu Paradais, Mănăstirea Putna, Putna 1991.
On Some Objects 249
POKROVSKIJ 1892:
Николай Васильевич Покровский, Евангелие в памятниках иконографии, преимущественно
византийских и русских, (Труды восмого археологическаго сезда въ Москвие 1), С.-Петер-
бургъ 1892
PROKHOROS 2006:
Prokhoros (Monk of Pantokrator Monastery), “Wooden cross”, cat. A.86, [in:] Athos 2006, p. 113.
RADOJKOVIĆ 1974:
Бojana Радоjковић, Филактерији енамлуци припојаснице, Београд 1974.
RÓŻYCKI 1994:
Jerzy Różycki, “Ein unbekanntes Werk des Georgios Laskaris: Das Geschnitzte Kreuz im Museum der
Fürsten Czartoryski Krakau”, Byzantina et slavica Cracoviensia 2 (1994), p. 83–96.
Sinai 2001:
Sinai. Byzantium. Russia. Orthodox Art. From the Sixth to the Twentieth Century, [catalogue of the
exhibition in the State Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, 09 June–18 September 2000], ed. Y. Piat-
nitsky, O. Baddeley, E. Brunner, M. M. Mango, St. Petersburg 2001.
SUBOTIĆ 1997:
Gojko Subotić, Art of Kosovo. The Sacred Land, Milano 1997.
Treasures 1997:
Treasures of Mount Athos, ed. A. A. Karakatsanis [catalogue of the exhibition in the Museum of Byz-
antine Culture in Thessaloniki, 21 June 1997–31 December 1997], Thessaloniki 1997.
ZAHARIADES 1998:
NikÒlaoj Zacari£dhj, Empeir…ej apÒ ton am…lhto kÒsmo tou 'Aqw, vol. 1, PÚrgoj Hle…aj 1998:
http://www.phys.uoa.gr/~nektar/orthodoxy/tributes/athos/agioreitikes_leptomereies.htm
[access 07. Nov. 2009].
ZALESSKAYA 2001:
Vera N. Zalesskaya, “Cross with Gospel Scenes”, cat. B-156a, [in:] Sinai 2001, p. 179–180.
ZALESSKAYA 2001a:
Vera N. Zalesskaya, “Cross with Gospel Scenes”, cat. B-157, [in:] Sinai 2001, p. 180.
Die byzantinische und osmanische

Keramik von Agios Elias
und Palaiochori Zaverdas
auf der Plaghia-Halbinsel in Nordwest-
Griechenland. Ein Vorbericht.
Nils Stadje
Berlin
Vom Jahr 2000 bis 2006 wurde die geschlossene Siedlungskammer der Plaghia-Hal-
binsel mit einem Intensiv-Survey erforscht, wobei Funde und Befunde von der Altsteinzeit
bis in die Neuzeit dokumentiert wurden.1 Die Plaghia-Halbinsel grenzt im Westen an die
Bucht der Insel Leukas, im Norden an die Bucht von Agios Nikolaos, im Süden an den Golf
von Zaverda und ist nur im Osten mit dem Festland verbunden.
Die Kooperationspartner waren: der griechische Antikendienst, das Seminar für Klas-
sische Archäologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (später das Institut für Klassische
Archäologie der Universität Darmstadt), das Architektur-Referat des Deutschen Archäolo-
gischen Institut, das Seminar für Alte Geschichte der Universität Münster, die Geomor-
phologie der Universität Marburg sowie einzelne Fachwissenschaftler verschiedener
naturwissenschaftlicher Institute. Seit 2007 besteht eine Zusammenarbeit mit den geo-
chemischen Labors des Berliner Museums für Naturkunde.
In diesem Artikel wird erstmals die byzantinische und osmanische Keramik der Region
vorgelegt. Der Autor versteht den Artikel als ersten Vorbericht und als Materialvorlage.
Eine weitgreifende Auseinandersetzung und Interpretation des keramischen Materials ist
in Vorbereitung.
1 LANG 2008
252 Nils Stadje
Die Wüstungen Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas
Bei Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas handelt es sich um sehr ähnlich angelegte
ländliche Siedlungen in unauffälliger Hanglage mit jeweils etwa 30 Gehöften. Wann diese
Siedlungen gegründet wurden, ist unklar, aber es ist davon auszugehen, dass dies nach
1453 im Zusammenhang mit der osmanischen Eroberung geschehen ist. Nach dem Ende
des griechischen Befreiungskrieges wurden diese Hangsiedlungen wieder verlassen. Die
Bewohner der umliegenden Hangsiedlungen zogen nach 1830 in neugegründete, zentral
gelegene Orte, wie zum Beispiel Palairos, oder Peratia. Die älteste Inschrift an einem Haus
von Palairos trägt das Datum 1834.
Die Wüstung Palaiochori Zaverdas

Palaiochori Zaverdas ist eine wüst gefallene Siedlung, etwa 5 km südöstlich vom heu-
tigen Palairos. Es sind noch etwa 30 Hausruinen dieser Siedlung erhalten. Der Erhaltung-
szustand der Häuser ist schlecht. Über die Siedlungen Palaiochori Zaverdas und Agios
Elias liegen keine bekannten schriftlichen Quellen der spätbyzantinischen Periode vor. Der
britische Offizier Leake bereiste im 18. Jh. Griechenland und 1809 auch Akarnanien und
erwähnt in seinem Reisebericht neben anderen Siedlungen ein Zaverdas.2
Inschriften, die Daten tragen, sind aus beiden Siedlungen nicht bekannt. Die schriftliche
Quellenlage für die Siedlungen fällt also insgesamt sehr dürftig aus. Das Dorf Palaiochori
Zaverdas konnte nicht intensiv abgesammelt werden. Insgesamt wurden 202 Scherben ge-
sammelt. Der Erhaltungszustand ist gemischt, wobei jedoch der Großteil des keramischen
Materials eher gut erhalten ist.
Die Wüstung Agios Elias

Es gelten dieselben Anmerkungen wie zu Palaiochori Zaverdas mit der Einschränkung,
dass Agios Elias nicht von Leake in seinem Reisebericht erwähnt wird. Agios Elias wurde
im Jahr 2005 von einem großen Team intensiv begangen. Es wurden 830 Scherben auf-
gesammelt, wobei der Erhaltungszustand des keramischen Materials insgesamt etwas
schlechter ist als bei den Scherben von Palaiochori Zaverdas. Viele Scherben sind zum
Teil verwaschen bis stark verwaschen. Aufgrund der unterschiedlichen Prospektions-
methoden fällt ein Vergleich des keramischen Materials der beiden Siedlungen schwer.
2 LEAKE 1830, 498.

Die byzantinische und osmanische Keramik 253
Die Keramik
Zur Beschreibung der Waren von Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas
Bei allen Scherben aus Palaiochori Zaverdas und Agios Elias handelt es sich um
scheibengedrehte Irdenware. Palaiochori Zaverdas erbrachte bei einer Gesamtmenge von
202 Keramikscherben 83 Waren, Agios Elias bei einer Gesamtmenge von 806 Keramiken
125 Warenarten. Insgesamt verteilen sich 1008 Keramiken auf 150 Waren. Diese Ware-
narten konnten in Gruppen zusammengefasst werden. Innerhalb der Grobwaren konnten
17 Gruppen abgegrenzt werden (Gruppen 1–17) und innerhalb der Feinwaren 16 Gruppen
(Gruppen 19–34). Die sogenannten Salzwaren wurden in drei Gruppen unterteilt: leicht,
mittel und stark „salzig“.
Feinwaren wurden aus feinem Ton gefertigt, sind Produkte von überwiegend höherer
Töpferqualität und im Vergleich zur gesamten Gefäßgröße meistens eher dünnwandig (im
Falle von Schalen < 5 mm und Kannen < 6 mm). Sie sind meistens schwach und fein ge-
magert und häufig glimmrig. Die zugrundeliegenden Formen von Feinwaren sind Schalen
und kannenartige Gefäße. Zudem sind sie in der Mehrzahl verziert, glasiert oder geslippt.
Unter Feinwaren wird in dieser Arbeit Keramik zusammengefasst, die in der englischspra-
chigen Literatur als „Feinwaren“, „Tablewares“ etc. bezeichnet wird. Grobwaren können
aus relativ feinem Ton gefertigt sein, sind aber häufig stärker und gröber gemagert als Fein-
ware. Sie sind im Verhältnis zur Gefäßgröße in der Regel dickwandig (> 7 mm bei Kannen,
ab 8 mm bei Amphoren). Im Formenspektrum dominieren kannenartige Gefäße bzw. Am-
phoren sowie Töpfe. Grobwaren sind überwiegend unverziert, es sind Slips zu beobachten,
kannenartige Gefäße tragen manchmal wellenförmige Kammzier oder Drehrillen an den
Außenseiten, in wenigen Fällen sind sie glasiert. Der Begriff Salzware ist irreführend, da
er „Salz“ im Ton implizieren könnte. Dabei handelt es sich jedoch lediglich um einen um-
gangssprachlichen Begriff, der sich im Plaghia-Projekt durchgesetzt hat und wegen eines
fehlenden besseren Begriffs in dieser Arbeit ebenfalls verwendet wird. Bei Salzware han-
delt es sich um rote bis braune gröbere Ware, die leicht bis stark mit weißem Quarz ge-
magert ist. Die Salzware lässt sich anhand der Quantität und Größe des Quarzes in leicht-,
mittel- und starksalzig unterteilen. Vorwiegende Formen sind Töpfe und kannenartige Ge-
fäße. Wandungsstärken reichen von dünn bis dickwandig. Salzware ist häufig unverziert,
kann aber auch braun geslippt oder braun glasiert sein.
Das Bild, das sich bei den Waren abzeichnet, ist uneinheitlich. Innerhalb der insgesamt
357 Grobwaren wurden 23 glasierte Scherben, drei davon mit Sgraffito-Dekor und eine
Majolikascherbe, beobachtet. Regelmäßig vorkommende Dekore der Grobwaren sind vor
allem helle Slips (92 mal) und in insgesamt 17 Fällen wurde bei den Grobwaren wellenför-
mige Kammzier, besonders im Schulterbereich von kannenartigen Gefäßen beobachtet. Der
Großteil der Grobwaren ist jedoch tongrundig (159 mal). Die Verwendung von Grobwaren
254 Nils Stadje
für glasierte Keramik könnte einerseits dafür sprechen, dass Töpfer, die diese Grob-
waren produzierten, auch glasierte Keramik hergestellt haben. Andererseits könnten
Töpfereien, die auf Fein- oder auf Grobwaren spezialisiert waren, entweder auf dasselbe
Tonvorkommen zurückgegriffen oder ähnliche Tonmischrezepte verwendet haben. Der
Großteil der Feinwaren (insgesamt 521-mal) war glasiert (415-mal) und nur 69 Scher-
ben wiesen überhaupt keine Dekoration auf. Auch für die Feinwaren gilt, dass dieselben
Waren für glasierte und unglasierte Keramik verwendet wurden. Die Gründe hierfür kön-
nen die gleichen sein wie für die glasierten Grobwaren. Besonders die Salzwaren treten
unter den Warengruppen markant hervor. Die Salzwaren können aufgrund ihrer starken
Ähnlichkeit zu einer Gruppe zusammengefasst werden und stellen mit insgesamt 126
Scherben die größte Warengruppe dar. Aufgrund der hohen Anzahl dieser Salzwaren im
Vergleich zu den restlichen Warengruppen, kann eine lokale Produktion dieser Gruppe
postuliert werden. Die schlichte Tonaufbereitung und Ausführung dieser Gefäße spricht
ebenfalls für eine lokale Produktion.
Formen
Das Kriterium der Form umfasst die Zuordnung zu bestimmten Rand-, Boden- und
Henkelformen. Eine eindeutige Zuordnung zu bestimmten Gefäßformen konnte nicht vorg-
enommen werden, da komplette Profile fehlen. Es können nur recht grobe Beschreibungen
der Gefäßformen erfolgen, wie z.B. kannenartiges Gefäß für eine hohe geschlossene Form.
Der Begriff Schale ist ebenfalls eine grob gefasste Kategorie. Die verbale Ansprache der
Formen richtet sich nach dem Leitfaden zur Keramikbeschreibung Mittelalter-Neuzeit.3
Neben den 318 diagnostischen Formen in Agios Elias und den 64 in Palaiochori Zaverdas
gibt es noch insgesamt 487 undiagnostische Scherben, wovon Wandungen den Großteil
ausmachen. Diese Scherben können in die Betrachtung der Form nicht einfließen.
Mit Ausnahme von Standbodengruppe 3 (neunmal), lassen sich die Böden der Stand-
bodengruppe 1 (53-mal) und 2 (79-mal) eher geschlossenen Formen (hier kannenar-
tige Gefäße genannt) und die Standringe eher niedrigen offenen Formen (hier Schalen
genannt) zuweisen. Die Standbodenformen 1 und 2 sind hoch standardisiert und finden
sich zu vielen Zeiten im byzantinischen Reich. Ebenfalls sehr normiert erscheinen die
Standringe der Schalen. Die vertretenen Standringformen lassen sich ebenso zu vielen
Zeiten im byzantinischen Reich beobachten. Die Ränder scheinen Ausdruck individuel-
ler Formgebung zu sein, da ihre Form stark variiert. Es ist auffällig, dass Boden- und
Henkelformen sehr einheitlich sind, ebenso die vertretenen Dekore. Weiterhin ist es sehr
auffällig, dass die Anzahl der Waren innerhalb des doch begrenzten Formen- und De-
korationsspektrums sehr hoch ist. Eine Interpretation dafür könnte sein: Wahrschein-
lich wurde im byzantinischen, ähnlich wie im römischen Reich, in Geschirrsätzen und
3 BAUER 1993.
bestimmten Keramikformen gedacht. Darum stellten viele Töpfer, einer bestimmten

Mode entsprechend, wenige Formen in vielen Gebieten her. Es könnten also bestimmte
standardisierte Keramik-Sets üblich gewesen sein. Gleichbleibendes Merkmal dieser Sets
wären dann besonders die Boden- und Henkelformen sowie die Dekore, wohingegen die
Ausformung der Ränder individueller ausfallen kann. Wenn die Formen und Dekore zu
ihrer Zeit als „typisch byzantinisch“ galten könnte man gerade in osmanischer Zeit an
diesen Traditionen festgehalten haben, um sich von den Osmanen abzugrenzen und eine
byzantinische Identität zu fundieren.
Dekor: Oberflächenbehandlung
Bei der Beschreibung des Dekors von Scherben wurde bei der Bearbeitung eine
Einteilung in Dekortechnik und Oberflächenbehandlung vorgenommen. Während De-
kortechnik einen physischen Eingriff in die Substanz des Gefäßes beschreibt, wie zum
Beispiel Drehriefen, Ritztechnik, Stichtechnik, Stempeltechnik, Rollradverzierungen,
Fingerzier oder Applikationen, kennzeichnet der Begriff Oberflächenbehandlung den
Auftrag u.a. von Schlicker, Slip oder Glasur etc. auf das Gefäß. Die Oberfläche kann auf
unterschiedliche Art und Weise behandelt und verziert werden: tongrundiger Überzug
(Slip), monochrome-, bichrome- sowie polychrome Bemalung, Firnis, Kaltbemalung
oder Glasur.
Engobe und Slip

Auf das lederharte Gefäß kann ein Überzug aus verdünntem Ton aufgetragen werden.
Dies kann durch das Eintauchen des Gefäßes in die feingeschlämmte Tonflüssigkeit er-
folgen, durch Gießen auf das Gefäß oder durch den Auftrag mit einem Pinsel. Die meisten
Überzüge sind beige, grau, braun oder weiß (im Falle von Unterglasuren) und können
sowohl die eigentliche Dekoration des Gefäßes darstellen oder als Unterglasur der Glasur
dienen. Folgende Tabelle listen die Gefäße auf, die ein- oder beidseitig unverziert sind.
Unverziert Agios Elias:

Innenseite Außenseite Beidseitig
105 62 255
Unverziert Palaiochori Zaverdas:

Innenseite Außenseite Beidseitig
32 22 54
256 Nils Stadje
Im Folgenden werden die Farben der Slips zusammengefasst.
Agios Elias:
Farbe Innenseite Außenseite Beidseitig
grau 0 2 10
beige 5 13 14
braun 5 13 14
Palaiochori Zaverdas:
grau 0 0 0
beige 5 18 1
braun 0 2 0
Glasur
Der Begriff Glasur beschreibt einen glassartigen siliziumreichen Auftrag auf ein kera-
misches Gefäß.4 Glasuren sind siliziumbasierte Gläser mit geringem Aluminiumanteil. Die
übliche und früheste Glasur ist die Bleiglasur (ebd.). Daneben sind im Arbeitsgebiet noch
graue Zinnglasuren bekannt.
Die häufigsten vorkommenden monochromen Glasuren sind:
– rotbraun: farblose, glänzende und ebene Bleiglasur auf braun-roter Salzware;
– braun: dünne, glatte, braune, matte bis glänzende Bleiglasur auf rotem bis braunem
Scherbe;
– beige: dünne, matte, beige Bleilasur auf hell-beigem Scherben;
– fahlgrün: dicke, glatte, glänzende, fahlgrüne Bleilasur auf heller Engobe und beigem
bis rötlichen Scherben;
– grün 1: wolkig changierende, dicke, glatte, grüne Bleiglasur auf heller Engobe und
beigem bis rötlichen Scherben;
– grün 2: wolkig changierende, dicke, glatte, grüne Bleilasur auf hellem Scherben;
– gelb/ honiggelb: glatte, glänzende, wolkige, gelbliche Bleilasur auf heller Engobe und
grauem bis beigen Scherben;
– grau: dicke, glatte, graue Zinnglasur auf hellem Scherben.
4 VELDE/DUC 1999, 93.

Monochrom glasierte Keramik Agios Elias:

braun 78 18 29
rotbraun 5 1 6
beige 8 3 6
fahlgrün 43 16 26
grün I 14 26 18
grün II 0 1 2
gelb 5 4 2
grau 8 13 3
nicht bestimmbar 0 0 0
Gesamt 161 82 92
Monochrom glasierte Keramik Palaiochori Zaverdas:

braun 5 1 3
rotbraun 6 1 3
beige 6 2 10
fahlgrün 0 2 8
grün I 4 10 10
grün II 0 0 2
gelb 0 1 2
grau 6 5 5
nicht bestimmbar 0 1 0
Gesamt 27 23 44
258 Nils Stadje
Häufig sind Scherben nicht nur monochrom, sondern vielfach auch polychrom glasi-
ert. Dabei handelt es sich in der Regel um Punkte, Flecken oder Linien, die entweder un-
regelmäßig verteilt sind oder im Falle von Sgraffito den Ritzungen folgen können, um sie zu
betonen. Die häufigsten vorkommenden polychromen Glasuren sind:
– Green-and-Brown-Painted-Ware: Fahlgrüne Grundglasur mit olivbrauner und oliv-
grüner Bemalung auf heller Engobe mit beigem bis rotem Scherben. Diese Gruppe könnte
trotzdem zur Sgraffito-Keramik gehören, wird jedoch getrennt aufgeführt, da keine Ritzun-
gen erkennbar sind.
– Sgraffito 1: Fahlgrüne Grundglasur mit olivbrauner und olivgrüner Bemalung auf hel-
ler Engobe mit beigem bis rotem Scherben. Sgraffito-Ritzungen sind farblich betont.
– Sgraffito 2: wie Sgraffito 1 mit unbetonten Ritzungen.
– Sgraffito 3: Eine Unterscheidung zwischen Sgraffito 1 und 2 ist aufgrund der Frag-
mentierung nicht möglich.
– Majolika: Graue (Zinn-?) Glasur mit blauer, selten zusätzlicher grüner und brauner
Bemalung.
– Fahlgrüne Grundglasur auf heller Engobe mit beigem bis rötlichem Scherben. Rand
ist grün betont.
Polychrom glasierte Keramik Agios Elias:

Green-and-Brown
5 19 15
Painted
Sgraffito-Glasuren 1 5 8 9
Majolika–Glasuren 6 16 5
Fabrich betoner Rand 0 0 9
Gesamt 24 76 53
Polychrom glasierte Keramik Palaiochori Zaverdas:

Green-and-Brown
4 4 2
Painted
Majolika–Glasuren 2 8 0
Fabrich betoner Rand 0 0 2
Gesamt 16 24 13
Dekor: Dekortechnik
Wie erwähnt, bezeichnet der Begriff Dekortechnik einen physischen Eingriff in die
Oberfläche des Gefäßes, wie zum Beispiel Drehriefen, Ritztechniken, Stichtechniken,
Stempeltechniken, Rollraddekor, Fingerzier, Stuckierungen etc. Folgende Dekortechniken
lassen am vorliegenden Keramikmaterial beobachten:
(Dreh-) Riefen
Feine bis grobe horizontale Drehspuren mit manchmal welliger Struktur. Sie sind meist
flach und treten oft in breiten Zonen auf. Bei Drehriefen handelt es sich um keinen wirkli-
chen Dekor, sondern um Herstellungsspuren.
Agios Elias:
Riefen Innenseite Außenseite
Fein 5 0
Grob 11 0
Gesamt 16 0
Palaiochori Zaverdas:
Riefen Innenseite Außenseite
Fein 2 0
Grob 4 0
Gesamt 6 0
260 Nils Stadje
Rillen
Meistens schmale bis breite, oft scharfkantige Eintiefungen, die mit einem Werkzeug
hergestellt wurden (z.B. mit einem Stylus oder einem Messer). Diese Rillen sind beim
vorliegenden Material ausnahmslos horizontal angebracht. Sehr oft sind bei kannenar-
tigen Gefäßen im Schulterbereich breite Zonen von gerader und / oder wellenförmiger
Kammzier angebracht. Die Verzierung mit wellenförmiger Kammzier hat eine sehr lange
Tradition. So tragen z.B. Kannen, die ins 6.–7. Jh. datieren, vom Yassi Adda Schiffswrack
wellenförmige Kammzier. Wellenförmige Kammzier ist bis ins 19. Jh. verbreitet und stellt
daher kein datierendes Kriterium dar.
Agios Elias
Rillen Außenseite
breit 11
Kammzier gerade 6
Kammzie wellenförmig 14
Drehrillen verwaschen 3
Gesamt 34
Palaiochori Zaverdas
Rillen Außenseite
breit 5
Kammzier gerade 4
Kammzie wellenförmig 2
Drehrillen verwaschen 1
Gesamt 12
Ritztechnik: byzantinische Sgraffito-Ware

Meist hell engobierte Gefäße mit beiger bis rötlicher Ware, bei denen die Engobe du-
rch ein Werkzeug stellenweise entfernt wurde. Diese Ritzungen umfassen vor allem geom-
etrische Motive wie Linien, Bögen, Spiralen und Kreise. Sgraffito-Waren sind zusätzlich
farbig glasiert, wobei die Ritzungen farblich betont werden können. Die Sgraffito-Ware
macht im Arbeitsgebiet unter der glasierten Keramik den Großteil aus.
Leider ist in spätbyzantinischer und osmanischer Zeit die Dekorationsart dieser

Keramik im Arbeitsgebiet so einheitlich, dass eine Differenzierung schwer fällt. Gerade die
Sgraffito-Waren aus Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas können nur der großen Gruppe
der Painted-Incisded-Sgraffito-Wares zugeordnet werden. Als zusätzliche Differenzierung
kann noch die Art der Sgraffitoritzungen herangezogen werden (zum Beispiel gezackt, Lin-
ien, Bögen, Schlaufen, Kreise etc.) und ob die Ritzungen farblich, meistens grün oder oliv-
braun, betont werden. Bei dieser Art der Unterscheidung ist die fragmentarische Über-
lieferung der Keramik ein großer Nachteil.
Es lassen sich folgende Sgraffito-Motive unterscheiden5:
– Sgraffito-Ritzungen allgemein (Gruppe 1);
– Spiralen und Bögen (Gruppe 2);
– Horizontale Ritzung unterhalb des Randes (Gruppe 3a);
– Horizontale Ritzung unterhalb des Randes und Spiralen (Gruppe 3b);
– Gezackte Ritzungen (Gruppe 4);
– Sich kreuzende Linien und Bögen (Gruppe 5);
– Wellenlinien (Gruppe 6);
Sgraffito Agios Elias

Sgrafitto-Technik Innenseite Außenseite
Gruppe 1 5 17
Gruppe 2 3 9
Gruppe 3a 0 8
Gruppe 3b 0 5
Gruppe 4 1 1
Gruppe 5 1 0
Gruppe 6 0 0
Gesamt 10 33
Sgraffito Palaiochori Zaverdas

Gruppe 1 2 2
Gruppe 2 0 8
5 Schema erweitert nach SPIESER 1993.

262 Nils Stadje
Gruppe 3a 2 0
Gruppe 3b 0 2
Gruppe 4 2 2
Gruppe 5 0 2
Gruppe 6 0 2
Gesamt 6 18
Stichdekor
Bestimmte Zonen eines Gefäßes werden flächig mit einem Holzstichel eingestochen.
Kommt zweimal in Agios Elias vor.
Rollraddekor
Rollradverzierung unterhalb des Randes. Kommt einmal in Palaiochori Zaverdas vor.
Fingertupfenleiste
Frei geformte aufgelegte Leiste mit Fingertupfen.
Abschließende Betrachtung und Ausblick

Ein Ziel dieses Beitrages war es, das keramische Material der beiden Dörfer Agios Elias
und Palaiochori Zaverdas zu ordnen und vorzustellen. Es erschien geeignet, dies getrennt
nach den drei Faktoren Ware, Form und Dekor anzustellen. Hinsichtlich der Publikation-
slage und der bereits bestehenden Keramik-Klassifikationen ist der Bearbeiter nach erfolgter
Bearbeitung der Keramik von Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas eher ernüchtert. Kaum
eine lokale Keramik-Gruppe konnte erfolgreich einer der bestehenden zugeordnet werden
- sei es aufgrund von Form, Dekor oder Ware. Nach Auffassung des Verfassers ist es nicht
sonderlich effektiv, wenn jeder Bearbeiter von Keramik eigene neue Keramik-Gruppen ein-
führt, da dies die Übersicht über die Materie erheblich erschwert. Im Falle der vorliegenden
Keramik war es jedoch leider nicht anders möglich, als sehr grob gefasste Definitionen der
Keramik zu geben. Wo ist die Ursache dieses Problems zu suchen? Vor allem in der For-
schungsgeschichte und in der Publikationslage, besonders für Akarnanien. Zu lange stand
verzierte byzantinische Keramik im Mittelpunkt des Forschungsinteresses, die Klassifikation
unverzierter Keramik ist noch immer, trotz erster Schritte, ein Desiderat.
Die osmanische Keramik bleibt noch immer mehr oder weniger unerforscht. Konnte
die vorliegende Keramik mit publizierter Keramik verglichen werden, dann waren es Fund-
plätze, die weit vom Arbeitsgebiet entfernt liegen oder zeitlich nicht in Frage kommen.
So könnten einige Formen aus Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas mit viel Wohlwollen
bestimmten Formen früh- bis Mittelbyzantinischer Zeit aus Korinth oder Konstantinopel
entsprechen. Diese Erkenntnis ruft dem Bearbeiter ins Gedächtnis, dass der Einfluss der
Hauptstadt auf ländliche Gebiete im keramischen Bereich noch nicht ausreichend erfor-
scht ist. Das heißt, es ist unklar, wie lange Modetrends, die von Konstantinopel ausgingen,
brauchten, um bis in entlegene Gegenden, und dazu zählt Akarnanien (von Konstantinopel
aus gesehen) zweifelsohne, zu gelangen - wenn sie es überhaupt taten. Ohne Frage folgt
die vorliegende Keramik bestimmten Trends, die Frage ist nur welchen. Das gewonnene
Bild der Keramik von Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas ist uneinheitlich: Zum Einen
liegt ein begrenztes Formenspektrum vor. Besonders die Standböden und die Standringe
machen einen stark standardisierten Eindruck hinsichtlich der Form.
Lediglich die Randformen haben individuellere Ausprägungen. Ebenso wirken die De-
kore, besonders die Sgraffito-Verzierungen, sehr einheitlich. Während sich also bei den
Formen und Dekoren ein einheitliches Bild abzeichnet, verhält es sich bei den archäolo-
gischen Warenproben genau gegensätzlich: 1008 Scherben verteilen sich auf 37 Waren-
gruppen, die wiederum aus 150 Einzelwaren zusammengefasst wurden. Wie ist dieses Bild
(wenig Formen und Dekore, viele Waren) zu erklären? Es könnte so zu begründet sein,
dass viele Töpfer in vielen Gebieten einen oder mehrere bestimmte Gefäßtypen mit be-
stimmten Dekoren, die zu einer bestimmten Zeit gerade in Mode waren, mit den ihnen
zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln (Waren) produzierten. Diese Töpfer könnten die Gefäße
in der näheren und weiteren Umgebung der Plaghia-Halbinsel produziert haben und sie
dann nach dort verhandelt haben. Eine weitere Möglichkeit wäre eine erheblich größere
Distribution der Keramik. Die Plaghia-Halbinsel liegt mitnichten entlegen, sondern in-
mitten eines breit frequentierten Seehandelsweges. Zum einen ist der direkte Nachbar die
wichtige Insel Leukas und unweit davon befindet sich Venedig- beides stellen sehr wichtige
Handelsumschlagplätze dar. Schiffe, mit Mengen an Keramik beladen, kamen an der Hal-
binsel in großer Zahl vorbei, um in Leukas oder Venedig einzuschiffen. Und hier stellt sich
eine Frage: Musste sich an einem derart günstig gelegenen Ort überhaupt eine ausgeprägte
lokale Keramikproduktion entwickeln, wenn doch Keramik günstig zu kaufen war? Wenn
auf eine archäologische Warenanalyse Verlass ist, deutet die hohe Anzahl von Waren im
Gesamtbild eher gegen eine lokale Produktion von Keramik. Auf jeden Fall gegen eine
Produktion in großem Maßstab, da eine solche Herstellung eher eine geringere Menge an
Waren erwarten lassen würde.
Da archäologische Methoden momentan nicht sonderlich gewinnbringend erscheinen,
bietet sich offenbar die Naturwissenschaft als Hilfe an. Es stehen chemische Analysen zu
264 Nils Stadje
Elementverteilungen von Keramik zur Verfügung. Demnächst wird ein Projekt in Zusam-
menarbeit mit den geo-chemischen Laboren des Museums für Naturkunde starten, mit
dem Ziel, die verschiedenen byzantinischen und osmanischen Warenarten auf ihre che-
mische Zusammensetzung hin zu untersuchen.
e-mail: nils.stadje@googlemail.com
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
AMSTRONG 1989:
Pamela Armstrong, “Lakonian Amphorae”, [in:] Recheres sur la céramique byzantine, Hrsg. V. Déro-
che, J. M. Spieser (Bulletin de correspondance hellénique Suppl. 18), Athènes 1989, S. 185–188.
BASS 1982:
George F. Bass, “The Pottery”, [in:] Yassi Ada I: A Seventh-century Byzantine Shipwreck, Hrsg.
G. F. Bass, F. H. van Doorninck, College Station 1982, S. 155–188.
Leitfaden
Leitfaden zur Keramikbeschreibung. Mittelalter-Neuzeit, Hrsg. I. Bauer, Kallmünz 1993.
LANG 2007
Franziska Lang, “Interdisziplinäre Landschaftsforschungen im westgriechischen Akarnanien. Bericht
zu den Kampagnen des Plaghiá-Halbinsel Survey-Projektes 2000–2002“, Archäologischer Anzeiger
2007/1, S. 95–178.
LEAKE 1835:
William Martin Leake, Travels in Northern Greece, Bd. 3, Amsterdam 1835.
SPIESER 1996:
Jean-Michel Spieser, Die byzantinische Keramik aus der Stadtgrabung von Pergamon, Berlin, New
York 1996.
STADJE:
Nils Stadje, Die byzantinische und osmanische Keramik von Agios Elias und Palaiochori Zaverdas.
Handel, Handwerk und Raumnutzungskonzepte auf der Plaghia-Halbinsel in Nordwestgriechenland
in Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit (in Vorbereitung).
VELDE/DUC 1999:
Bruce Velde, Isabelle Duc, Archaeological Ceramic Materials: Origin and Utilization, Berlin 1999.
Part IV:
Contribution to the Studies on Byzantine Art –
– Past and Future
Die Lemberger Forschung

zur Kunst der orthodoxen Kirche
Waldemar Deluga
(Die Kardinal-Stefan-Wyszyński-Universität)
Forschungen zur nachbyzantinischen Kunst in Mitteleuropa werden schon seit vielen

Jahrzehnten betrieben. Was fehlt sind Arbeiten, die es ermöglichen, ein komplexes Bild als
das im Synthese der künstlerischen Tätigkeit im Rahmen der orthodoxen Kirche entstehen
zu lassen.1 Die Kunst der Ostkirchen, insbesondere die Ikonen, sind weit zerstreut, und
die meisten befinden sich in den Museen der Ukraine, Polens, der Slowakei, Ungarns oder
Rumäniens. Um sie bearbeiten zu können, müssten die einzelnen musealen Sammlungen
hinsichtlich ihres Kontextes in den Ikonostasen veröffentlicht werden. In den bisherigen
wissenschaftlichen Bearbeitungen werden die Ikonen oft gesondert, ohne Verbindung zum
liturgischen Inhalt, präsentiert. Zu hoffen bleibt, dass nicht nur museale, sondern auch
kirchliche Schätze aus den Depots gezeigt werden. Unter Berücksichtigung aktueller For-
schungsmethoden (wie sie heute vorgeschlagen wurden) ist die Bearbeitung dieser ein-
zigartigen Werke zu überlegen.2 Es ist zu betonen, dass in der Ukraine bemerkenswerte
private Ikonensammlungen angelegt werden.3 Es entstehen auch neue Kollektionen in
den griechisch-katholischen Kirchen.4 Der geographische Umfang der künftigen wissen-
schaftlichen Forschungen konzentriert sich auf den Bereich der Karpato-Ukraine. Diese
Initiative verpflichtet uns – bei allen nationalen bzw. religiösen Unterschieden – zu einer
offenen Diskussion.5
1 Der Stand der Forschung zur Kunst der orthodoxen Kirche: KRUK 1997, 163–77; KRUK 1997,
29–55; DELUGA 2000; CERAN 2002, 33.
2 Aktuelle Problemstellungen aus zwei Teilbereichen der Kunstgeschichten, der musealen und der
Universitätsgeschichte, werfen die Frage auf, auf welche Weise diese die osteuropäische Gegenwartskunst
betreffen? Cf. HAXTHAUSEN 1999, XII, XXV.
3 SYDOR 2003.
4 DMYTRUH 2003; DMYRUH 2008.
5 Das ist heute eines der wichtigsten Postulate der europäischen Wissenschaft. Betonenswert ist, dass
die Konfession eines Forschers nicht ohne Einfluss auf seine wissenschaftliche Forschungen bleibt. Zahlrei-
che Wissenschaftler sind sich dessen bewusst. Vgl. TRAEGER 1997.
268 Waldemar Deluga
Eine besondere Rolle in der Entwicklung der Wissenschaftsgeschichte spielte das

Lemberger Forschermilieu. Die meisten Wissenschaftler aus diesem Kreis beschäftigten
sich mit der Kunst der Ostkirche.
Die Arbeiten unserer Vorgänger, die bereits im 19. Jh. wissenschaftliche Untersuchun-
gen zur Kunst der orthodoxen Kirche begonnen hatten, sind nachahmenswert und ihre
Ergebnisse sollten in Erinnerung gerufen werden. Unsere Erwägungen werden aber nicht
die Methoden, sondern die Inventarisationen betreffen, die den Umfang der derzeit von
den meisten Kunsthistorikern besprochenen Kunstwerke erweitern. Im Laufe von 100 Jah-
ren sind viele Denkmäler in diesem Teil Europas zerstört worden. Es geht also nicht nur
darum, bestehende Werke zu sammeln und katalogisieren, sondern auch die heute nicht
mehr existierenden, aber auf Grund der ikonographischen Überlieferung bekannten Bilder
in den Bestand der Denkmäler einzuschließen.
Um eine Rekonstruktion der Ausstattung einzelner orthodoxer Kirchen durchzufüh-
ren, braucht es die ikonographischen Überlieferungen und fotografische Dokumentati-
onen, die von unseren Vorgängern noch im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert angelegt wurden.
Die Entwicklung neuer grafischer Techniken ermöglichte es, eine Dokumentation der
wichtigsten Denkmäler anzufertigen. Die Vervollkommnung der Fotografie und Reisen
der Wissenschaftler haben zur Sammlung von vielen Denkmälergruppen beigetragen.6
Gabriel Millet, der als Ergebnis seiner Reisen eine Negativsammlung hinterließ (heute
im Centre Gabriel Millet in Paris7), hatte nicht vermutet, dass viele von diesen Negative
als einzige von der Existenz der vernichteten Kunstwerke zeugen werden. Ähnliche Do-
kumentationen kann man in der Kongressbibliothek (die Kollektion von Sergei Michailo-
witsch Prokudin-Gorski8) sowie in der Nationalgalerie in Washington (die Kollektion von
William Craft) entdecken. Bemerkenswert ist auch das Bildarchiv in Marburg, in dem
sich eine ganze Reihe von Fotografien von der Balkanhalbinsel befinden.9 Eine große Fo-
tografiensammlung von Architektur- und Kunstwerken in Polen vor 1939 besitzt auch die
ikonographische Abteilung des Nationalmuseums in Warschau.10
Über die Kunst der Ostkirche arbeiteten im 19. Jahrhundert Wissenschaftler in den
Zentren der k. u. k. Monarchie. Nachdem 1853 in Wien eine Zentralkommission zur Er-
forschung und Erhaltung von Baudenkmälern einberufen worden war, beschlossen auch
polnische Forscher eine solche zu gründen, was drei Jahre später in die Eröffnung der Abte-
ilungen Krakau und Lemberg mündete. 1888 wurde, unabhängig von den österreichischen
Behörden, die polnische Zentrale Kommission für Archäologie ins Leben gerufen. In der
galizischen Hauptstadt wurden zahlreiche Inventarisationsarbeiten durchgeführt und viele
6 Vgl. ARNOLD 2002, 450–68.

7 LEPAGE 2005, 5-18.
8 THE EMPIRE www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire.
9 www.bildindex.de [07. Nov. 2009].
10 JACKIEWICZ 1990, [10].
Die Lemberger Forschung 269
Denkmäler restauriert, wovon jene Berichte künden, die sowohl an Ort und Stelle als auch in
Wien publiziert wurden. Österreichische Wissenschaftler berichteten auf Basis der aus Lem-
berg und Krakau eingeschickten Arbeiten in einzelnen Sitzungen über Forschungsergebnisse
und veröffentlichten diese von 1856 bis 1917 in der Zeitschrift Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-
Commission für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal.
Erste Inventarisationsarbeiten, die hauptsächlich polnische Forscher durchgeführt hat-
ten, ermöglichten 1885 in Lemberg die Erste Polnisch-Russische archäologische Ausstel-
lung, in der die kostbarsten Werke aus Galizien gezeigt wurden. Es waren Kunstobjekte aus
griechisch-katholischen Kirchen (z.B. die Ikonostase aus Rohatyn) und neue Sammlungen
von Kirchenseite. Das ein Jahr später herausgegebene Album von Ludwik Wierzbicki und
Marian Sokołowski präsentiert viele Denkmäler, die sich jetzt in der Sammlung des Na-
tionalmuseums für Ukrainische Kunst in Lemberg befinden.11 In den dort abgedruckten
Reproduktionen wurde die damals neue Heliogravur eingesetzt. Dank dieser Ausstellung
begannen Forschungen mit dem Schwerpunkt: Entwicklung der kirchlichen orthodoxen
Malerei im Spätmittelalter. Als Ergebnis dieser Diskussionen hat Marian Sokołowski die
kleinrussische Schule (die westliche Ukraine, polnisch „Ruś Czerwona”) ausgesondert und
sie der byzantinischen Kunst zugeordnet.12 Władysław Łoziński dagegen sprach von der
Abhängigkeit der Kunst in Kleinrussland von äußeren Strömungen und meinte sogar, dass
sie durch griechische und moldawische Importe beeinflusst wäre.13 1888 fand durch das
Stauropigial-Institut in Lemberg eine Ausstellung orthodoxer Kunst statt. Sie wurde Kaiser
Franz Joseph zum 40. Jahrestag seiner Thronjubiläum und dem 900. Jahrestag der Taufe
Russlands (Rutheniens) gewidmet. Den Autoren dieses Unternehmens lag besonders da-
ran, die engen Beziehungen, welche die ruthenische und russische Kunst mit der Moldau
verbanden, zu betonen.14 Im Katalog, besser gesagt im Album, das unter Verwendung der
neuen graphischen Technik (Heliogravüre) herausgegeben wurde, fanden sich die in der
erwähnten Ausstellung gezeigten Werke. Sie erweckte großes Publikumsinteresse, wovon
die erschienenen Rezensionen zeugen.15
Eine ganze Reihe von diesen Kunstobjekten blieb in Lemberg und bildete den Grundstock
für das 1889 gegründete Museum des Stauropigial-Instituts. Dessen Gründer, Izydor Sza-
raniewicz und ein Priester, Antoni Petruszewicz, der Domherr das griechisch-katholichen
Lemberger Kapitel, stammten aus der ostkirchlichen Brüderschaft. Die Sammlung wurden
im Bürgerhaus in der Blacharskastraße untergebracht. Die sechs Abteilungen enthielten
nicht nur Ikonen, sondern auch iluminierte Handschriften, Textilien, Goldschmiedearbei-
11 WYSTAWA ARCHEOLOGICZNA 1886.
12 SOKOŁOWSKI 1899, 472.
13 ŁOZIŃSKI 1887, 149–209. Schriftliche Forschungsmaterialien von Władysław Łoziński befinden
sich z. Z. in der Sammlung des historischen Archivs in Lemberg, Fond Nr. 135.
14 SZARANIEWICZ 1888. Die in der W. Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg erhaltenen Dokumente bezie-
hen sich auf die Organisation der Ausstellung. Fond. Szaraniewicz, Nr. 19.
15 SOKOŁOWSKI 1898, 473—531.
270 Waldemar Deluga
ten (Kunsthandwerk) sowie archäologische Fundstücke. 1908 erschien der erste Katalog
der Kollektion, den der bekannte ukrainische Kunsthistoriker Ilarion Swěnzizkyj verfasst
hatte.16 Ikonen stellen den interessantesten Teil der Sammlung. Die älteste Gruppe bil-
den darunter die Ikonen aus der orthodoxen Verklärung der Belzer Christi-Kirche.17 Zwei
davon blieben dem heutigen Nationalmuseum Lemberg erhalten. Das sind: die moldaui-
sche Hodegetria mit Propheten und eine Ikone, die früher zu einer Ikonenwand gehörte
und die Szene der Verklärung Christi zeigt.18 Eine große Ikonengruppe aus dem 16. Jh. kam
aus Potylicz nach Lemberg.19 Dies ist deshalb bedeutend, weil deren Zahl erlaubt, eine dort
früher bestehende Ikonenwand zu rekonstruieren.
In der Sammlung fanden sich auch griechische Ikonen, wie etwa eine Gottesmutter
aus Athos, die 1904 als Geschenk eintraf.20 Die heute unbekannten griechischen Ikonen
aus dem 16. Jh. stammten aus der orthodoxen Kirche in Wołcz.21
Unter den späteren Werken erregten die aus der orthodoxen Uspienska-Kirche in Lem-
berg stammenden Bilder Aufmerksamkeit. Sie stellen Jerusalem und den Berg Athos dar
und waren ein Geschenk des griechischen Kaufmanns Hatzikiriakis Vourliotis, der Dut-
zende Jahre in Lemberg lebte, an die Kirche.22 Eins von ihnen, das die heilige Stadt zeigte,
wurde 1697 von Jan Malinowski gemalt und befindet sich gegenwärtig in der Lemberger
Gemäldegalerie.23 Das andere Bild, das die auf der Halbinsel Athos liegenden Monasterien
zeigt, wird in der Filiale Olesko aufbewahrt.24 Unter den restlichen Bildern, die eine Ansicht
präsentieren, ist ein großes Bild vom Ende des 17. Jh. bemerkenswert. Es zeigt das unweit
von Lemberg im Ort Werchrata gelegene Monasterium.25
Eine großen Teil der Stauropigial-Sammlung bilden Kupferstiche (Radierungen), vor al-
lem Altardecken, die sich in jeder orthodoxen oder griechisch-katholischen Kirche befanden.
Es waren dies großformatige Objekte, die Christus im Grab darstellten. Darin wurden Reli-
quien eingenäht, damit sie nach der Weihe für die Liturgie verwendet werden konnten.26
Erwähnenswert sind auch Porträts aus der frühen Stauropigial-Sammlung, die jetzt
größtenteils im Historischen Museum in Lemberg aufbewahrt werden. Einige von ihnen
sind Porträts der griechischen Bürger Lembergs. Hier fanden sich des Weiteren herrliche
16 SWENCYCKYJ 1908
17 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 44 und 119.
18 SWENCYCKYJ 2003, S. 62.
19 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 18, 19, 66, 94, 124, 125, 146.
20SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 53.
21SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 77, 78.
22 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 250–51.
23 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 250. Vgl. PETRUSHEWYCH 1874, 257; ŁOZIŃSKI 1887, 198–99 [irrtüm-
lich als Tomasz Milikowski]; SŁOWNIK ARTYSTÓW POLSKICH, 306.

24 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 251.
25 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 249.
26 SWENCYCKYJ 1908, Nr. 230–43.
griechische und moldauische Gewebe, die in der Ausstellung des Instituts im Jahre 1888
das rege Interesse der Gelehrten erweckten. Seit damals erschienen sie weder in ukraini-
schen noch deutschen Veröffentlichungen. Gegenwärtig befinden sie sich im Nationalmu-
seum Lemberg.
Von 1880 bis 1887 wurden in Halicz archäologische Arbeiten durchgeführt.27 Zur glei-
chen Zeit hat man einige wissenschaftliche Expeditionen organisiert, in deren Folge eine
außerordentlich interessante Negativensammlung von Izydor Szaraniewicz entstand, die
sich in der Kollektion des Nationalmuseums Lemberg befindet; wie auch die Inventari-
sationsdokumentation aus der Wassyl Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg.28 Über die Bezie-
hungen zwischen Lemberg und Suceava berichten zahlreiche Briefe aus der Stauropigi-
al-Sammlung (d.h. aus dem Kloster, das unmittelbar dem Patriarchen oder der Synode
unterstand). Sie wurden 1886 aus Anlass des 300-Jahrestages der Entstehung der Brüder-
schaft veröffentlicht.29 Die meisten befinden sich jetzt in der Sammlung des Historischen
Archivs in Lemberg.30 Die Lemberger Forscher planten eine weiteren Ausstellung. Diesmal
sollte die Kunst der Region Bukowina präsentiert werden, und sie beabsichtigten sie 1890
in Lemberg oder in Czernowitz aus Anlass der geplanten Tagung der polnischen Historiker
zu zeigen.31 Dieses Vorhaben ist nicht realisiert worden, aber die Idee der Erforschungen
der Kunst im Grenzgebiet des Königreiches Polen und der Moldau ist geblieben. Marian
Sokołowski publizierte damals einige Aufsätze, die später in Buchform erschienen.32 Es ist
zu betonen, dass 1906 in Bukarest eine Ausstellung organisiert wurde, welche Werke aus
den Klöstern in Putna, Suceviţa und Dragomirna präsentierte.33
Jene Gelehrten, die aus den Wissenschaftszentren der k. u. k. Monarchie stammten,
äußerten in ihren Arbeiten besonderes Interesse an den bukowinischen Denkmälern.34
Es wurden viele Aufsätze publiziert, die sich mit den orthodoxen Kirchen in: Dragomir-
na , Reuseni,36 Voroneţ 37, Suceviţa 38 befassten. Viel Aufmerksamkeit widmete man den
35
Außenfreskos an Kirchen. Einen großen Anteil an ihren Bearbeitungen hatte Władysław

Podlacha, der Ergebnisse seiner Forschungen in der deutschen Zeitschrift für Christliche
27PILEŃSKI 1914, 70–129.

28W. Stefanyk-Bibliotek in Lemberg, Fond. Szar. 1–19
29 JUBILEJNOE IZDANIJE 1886. Vgl.: ARCHIV JUGO-ZAPADNOJ ROSII.
30 Historisches Archiv, Lemberg, Fond 29. Op. I.
31 SOKOŁOVSKI 1898, 475.
32 SOKOŁOVSKI 1898, 375–531.

33 JUBILÄUMAUSTELLUNG 1906, 78.
34 ROMSDORFER 1894, 80–82; 135–38; ROMSDORFER 1895, 21–27; 86-87; 164–66; 250–54,
ROMSDORFER 1896, Bd. 22, 40–44; 68–76; JOBST 1900, 203–09; JOBST 1901, S. 10–12.
35 ZACHARIEWICZ 1899, 113–18.
36 ROMSDORFER 1901, 103–04.
37 ROMSDORFER 1894, 43–48.
38 MILKOWICZ 1898, 1–45.
272 Waldemar Deluga
Kunst veröffentlichte.39 Im Jahre 1912 gab dieser Forscher eine Monographie heraus, die
ins Rumänisch übersetzt wurde.40 Dieses Buch war Ergebnis der mehrjährigen Arbeit die-
ses Lemberger Gelehrten, die von österreichischen, rumänischen41 und französischen42
Wissenschaftlern fortgesetzt wurde.
1898 rief der Metropolit Andrej Scheptyzkyj den griechisch-katholischen Orden des
Heiligen Theodor-Studiten ins Leben. Dieser Orden war im Vergleich zu dem schon seit
einigen Jahrhunderten bestehenden Basilianer-Orden bezüglich der Ordensregeln oder
Liturgie der östlichen Tradition näher als der lateinischen. Die Studiten begründeten 1909
bei ihrem Monasterium Studion in Lemberg eine Ikonenkollektion. Sie suchten die Ikonen
in vielen Orten Galiziens.
Klemens Scheptyzkyj, der Ihumen des Tod-Mariens-Monasteriums in Uniewo, setzte
die Suche nach Ikonen fort und verwendete sie auch im Monasterium, das 50 Kilometer
weit von Lemberg lag. 1920 wurden von Pieszczański zusätzlich Werke der orthodoxen
Kunst aus Privatsammlungen angekauft. Die Exponate, die sich im kirchlichen Museum
befanden, wurden auch für Unterrichtszwecke verwendet, nachdem in den 1930igern eine
Schule für Ikonenmaler in Lemberg eröffnet worden war.
Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg haben die sowjetischen Behörden die Ikonen beschlag-
nahmt, ein Teil der Kollektion wurde in die Sammlung des Nationalmuseums übernom-
men. Die in Uniewo zurückgelassenen Ikonen wurden verbrannt. Nach der Unabhängigheit
der Ukraine kamen die Studiten nach Lemberg und Uniewo zurück, um ihre Monasterien
wiederaufzubauen. Sie erhielten jedoch die Ikonen nicht zurück und begannen deshalb
vom Anfang an solche in den parochialen Kirchen in Kleinstädten und Dörfern zu suchen.
Dank ihrer Beharrlichkeit retteten sie eine ganze Reihe von Ikonen, die einer sorgfältigen
Restaurierung bedurften.43
1905 wurde vom Metropoliten Andrej Scheptyzkyj das Museum der orthodoxen Kir-
che gegründet. Er übermittelte damals dem neuen Museum einen Teil seiner Kollektion,
eine Reihe von Kunstobjekten aus dem Archiv der griechisch-katholischen Kurie, aus dem
Bischofspalais sowie aus der Hl. Jur-Kathedrale (Georg-Kathedrale). Anfangs wurden die
Sammlungen im Gebäude an der Adam Mickiewiczstraße, das früher dem polnischen Ma-
ler Adam Styka gehörte, untergebracht.44 1911 wurde der Name des Museums geändert
39 PODLAHA 1911, 199–210; PODLAHA 1911a, 243–60; PODLAHA 1911b, 271–86.

40 PODLAHA 1912; PODLAHA 1985.
41 STEFĂNESCU 1929.
42 HENRY 1930.
43 Ein geringer Teil der neuen Kollektion, etwa 1500 Werke, wurde 2003 im Gebäude der Mohylaner
Akademie in Kijew gezeigt. Vgl. DMYTRUH 2003 DMYTRUH 2003a; DMYTRUH 2008. Wie die meisten
Ikonen aussehen, zeigt eine in Popeli gefundene Ikone mit der Darstellung von Hodegetria, die Papst Johan-
nes Paul II. im Jahre 2001 geschenkt wurde. Sie ist größtenteils zerstört, nur das Gesicht der Gottesmutter
ist erhalten, das Christusbildnis ist unwiederbringlich verschwunden.
44 BATIG 2000, 7.
und es hieß Ukrainisches Nationalmuseum. Dank der finanziellen Unterstützung des Me-
tropoliten wurde die neobarocke Villa von Dunikowski an der Mochnackistraße 42 (jetzt
Drohomanowstraße) als ständiger Sitz des Museums angekauft. Die festliche Eröffnung
des Museums erfolgte im Jahre 1913. Den wichtigsten Teil der Kollektion stellten Ikonen
dar, außerdem gab es eine Münzsammlung, archäologische Denkmäler und Goldschmie-
dearbeiten. Im Museum befanden sich des Weiteren slawischen Altdrucke, eine Reihe von
iluminierten Handschriften und galizische Volkskunst. Jahrzehnte hindurch leitete Ilarion
Swěnzizkyj dieses Museum; er bearbeitete einen Ikonenkatalog aus der Sammlung des Uk-
rainischen Nationalmuseums in zwei Fassungen.45 Die Ikonen wurden in zahlreichen Or-
ten gesucht und anschließend nach Lemberg gebracht. Der Metropolit Scheptyzkyj ermutigte
nachdrücklich zum Sammeln von Ikonen. Auf diese Weise bemühte er sich, Werke der ortho-
doxen Kunst vor der Zerstörung zu retten. Als 1916 die orthodoxe Kirche in Bohorodtschany in
Flammen aufging, erlaubten die österreichischen Behörden eine Ikonenwand nach Lemberg
zu bringen. Sie war eines der schönsten Werke der orthodoxen Kunst, die um die Wende des
17. zum 18. Jh. entstand. Der Schöpfer dieser Ikonen war Jowa Kondzelewycz, Jeromonach
des Monasteriums in Białystok in Wolhynien (bei Luck).46 Die Ikonenwand wurde zuerst in
der orthodoxen Kirche Skit in Maniawa angebracht. Im Jahre 1785 verkaufte man sie der or-
thodoxen Kirche in Bohorodtschany, wo sie sich bis zum Beginn des 20. Jh. befand.
Die ukrainische Wissenschaftsgemeinde forderte immer eindringlicher ein nationales
wissenschaftliches Zentrum. 1892 wurde daher die Taras Schewtschenko-Gesellschaft ins
Leben gerufen. Viele Jahre hindurch wurden Kunstwerke gesammelt, aber nicht ausge-
stellt. Ein Teil dieser Kollektion ist während des Ersten Weltkrieges zerstreut worden. Erst
1921 wurde das Museum offiziell eröffnet. Damals wurden auch die aus der Gegend von
Lemberg stammenden Ikonen ausgestellt.
Im ersten Weltkrieg erlitten alle musealen Lemberger Sammlungen Schäden und Verlus-
te. Die Stadt wurde von russischen Truppen besetzt. Das besondere Interesse der russischen
Behörden erweckten die Sammlungen des Nationalmuseum. Damals hat man eine Reihe von
orthodoxen Kunstwerken, hauptsächlich Ikonen, aber auch Zeichnungen und Altdrucke nach
Russland verbracht. 1915 wurde der damalige Direktor des Museums Ilarion Swěnzizkyj ver-
haftet und zusammen mit seiner Familie tief nach Rußland hinein verbannt. 1916 eroberten
österreichische Truppen die Stadt zurück und man begann die einzelnen Museen zu revitali-
sieren. Nach dem Krieg setzte sich das polnische Kapitel fort. An dieser Entwicklung hatten
Erdöl und die damit verbundene Industrie ihren Anteil sowie die Tatsache, dass Lemberg
sich zu einem bedeutenden Universitätszentrum herausgebildet hatte.
In der Zwischenkriegszeit haben Mykola Holubec und Wladimir Zaloziecky diese wis-
senschaftlichen Arbeiten fortgesetzt.47 Auch Tadeusz Mańkowski, der balkanische Ein-
45 SVJENCICKYJ 1928 Vgl. KORNYTKO-HRYNIV 2006.
46 BATIG 1997, 6–23; ALEKSANDROWYCH 1997, 6–23.
47 HOLUBEC 1922, Bd. 1.; ZALOZIECKI 1935, 70–77.
274 Waldemar Deluga
flüsse in der Kunst der Lemberger Region festmachte und auf zahlreiche Verbindungen
mit dem ottomanischen Imperium sowie mit der Moldau und der Walachei hinwies48, be-
tonte, dass weitere Forschungen unentbehrlich seien. Einige Jahrzehnte später entwickelte
Rãzvan Theodorerescu diesen Gedanken weiter.49 Interessante Artikel über moldauische
Denkmäler in Lemberg haben auch Bogdan Janusz50 und der rumänische Forscher P. P.
Panaitescu verfasst.51
Eine der größten Sammlungen stellt ein Negativsatz aus der Kollektion des Nationalmu-
seums in Lemberg dar. Ein Teil dieser Negative stammt wahrscheinlich aus der ehemaligen
Gesellschaft „Koło Konserwatorów Galicji Wschodniej” (Gesellschaft der Denkmalschützer
Ostgaliziens); eine ausführliche Dokumentation zur Tätigkeit dieser Gesellschaft befindet sich
in der Stephanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg.52 Das erwähnte Fotoarchiv hat nach dem Krieg Wira
Svjencicka ergänzt.53 In diesem Archiv gibt es Verzeichnisse, die im Auftrag der Gesellschaft
angefertigt wurden. Dubletten wurden nach Wien geschickt. Bei einer Durchsicht der Archive
könnten dort wohl für unsere Forschungen interessante (fotografische) Dokumente gefunden
werden. Der mit Dr. Ludwig Finkel geführte Briefwechsel der Gesellschaftsmitglieder betraf
vor allem die Restaurierung der Lemberger (zu dieser Zeit) griechisch-katholischen Kirchen.54
In dieser Zeit eben hat man Renovierungsarbeiten, u.a. in der walachischen Kirche durchge-
führt.55 Es ist bekannt, dass eine Dokumentation der Ikonostasen vor dem ersten Weltkrieg
von B. Zachajkiewicz im wissenschaftlichen Seminar, das Josef Strzygowski in Wien gehalten
hat, vorbereitet wurde.56 Die weiteren Ergebnisse der Forschungen dieses Gelehrten sind lei-
der nicht bekannt.
Eine weitere Sammlung von Negativen und Fotografien, die für den Forschungsstand von
Bedeutung ist, befindet sich im Institut für Archäologie in Sankt Petersburg. Sie dokumentiert
aber jene Denkmäler, die sich damals auf dem Gebiet des russischen Imperiums befanden.
Die fotografische Dokumentation des Jarosław Bohdan Konstantynowicz-Archivs wird
zum größten Teil im Museum für Volksbau in Sanok aufbewahrt. Einzelne Dokumente be-
finden sich in der Wassyl Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg57 und in der Nationalbibliothek
der Ukrainischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Kijew. Im Sanoker Museum sind jene
Texte verblieben, welche die Grundlage zur Erforschung der gesamten Negativensamm-
48MAŃKOWSKI 1936, 81. Die gleichen Bemerkungen äußerten andere Forscher: Vgl. IORGA 1924;
GÓRKA 1925.
49 THEODOREŞCU 1982; THEODOREŞCU 1983, 3–11; THEODOREŞCU 1990, 35–56.
50 JANUSZ 1924, 52–64.
51 PANAITESCU 1929, 1–19.
52 Die W. Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg, Fond UK. 5–65.
53 PAWLYCHKO 2001, 149–51.
54 Die W. Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg, Fond UK. 27, Nr. 248.
55 Die W. Stefanyk-Bibliothek in Lemberg, Fond UK 6, 75.
56 Cf. STRZYGOWSKI 1922, 221. Dieser Forscher hat zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhundert einen großen Ein-
fluss auf die Byzantinistik ausgeübt. Cf. ELSNER 2002, 358–79.

57 KONSTANTYNOWICZ 1930. Cf. DELUGA 2003, 212–23.
lung von Jarosław Konstantynowicz bilden.58 Es ist erwähnenswert, dass Zofia Szanter als
erste Wissenschaftlerin das fotografische Material von Jarosław Konstantynowicz nutzte
und anderen Forschern zugänglich machte.59
1925 begann Konstantynowicz Materialien für seine geplante Dissertation in Lemberg,
die Professor Władysław Podlacha betreuen sollte, zu sammeln. Die Inventarisationsarbei-
ten umfassten jene Denkmäler, die sich vor 1939 auf dem Gebiet Polens befanden. In der
Einleitung zur Dissertation, die 1929 beendet wurde, begründete der Autor die Wahl des
Themas und seinen Umfang. Gleichzeitig betont er die Einheit des künstlerischen Milieus
im ethnisch ukrainischen Gebiet der ehemaligen polnischen Republik und beschreibt die
Geschichte der postbyzantinischen Kunstdenkmäler während des 1. Weltkrieges und der
unmittelbaren Folgejahre. Viel Aufmerksamkeit widmete er den Ikonen aus dem Museum
am Czarniecki-Gymnasium in Chełm. Heute befindet sich die Sammlung im Kiewo-Pet-
scherska Lawra (Kiewer Höhlenkloster) Museum.60 Einige Jahre später beschloss Konstan-
tynowicz seine Aufsätze gemeinsam zu veröffentlichen und 1939 erschien auf Deutsch der
erste Band seines Buches u. d. T. „Ikonostasis”.61 Die polnische Fassung dieses Werkes,
das in den 1960igern entstand, findet man im Archiv des Museums für Volksbau.62 In die-
ser Periode befasste sich der Autor wiederum mit der Frage der Evolution der Ikonosta-
sen im 16. Jh. und hat eine neue Fassung seines Werkes geschrieben, dessen Manuskript
sich im oben genannten Museum befindet; der ukrainische Text wurde nach dem Tode des
Forschers im Exil veröffentlicht.63 Zu jeder dieser Fassungen sind zahlreiche Diapositive,
Fotografien und Negative im Museum in Sanok erhalten geblieben. Diese Dokumentation
bezieht sich auf jene Ikonen, die sich in den staatlichen Kollektionen befinden, aber sie
zeigt auch Ikonen in ihrer „natürlichen“ Umgebung. Viele von ihnen kann man zur Zeit in
polnischen und ukrainischen Museen finden. Ikonen aus Busowiska64, Skwarzawa65, Ro-
hatyn66 und Potylicz67 sind heute im Nationalmuseum in Lemberg. Ikonen aus Lipie68 und
Łukotyn69 werden im Historischen Museum in Sanok aufbewahrt. Ikonen aus der Ikono-
stase in Ulucz werden im Museum für Volksbau in Sanok70 ausgestellt. 1961–1964 stand ein
58 KONSTANTYNOWICZ 1929. Das Manuskript befindet sich im Museum Łańcut und in der Bibliothek
des Lehrstuhls für Geschichte der Byzantinischen und Postbyzantinischen Kunst der UKSW in Warschau.
59 SZANTER 1985, 93–134.
60 SZANTER 1985, 23–27. Vgl. MART 2000, 81–101.
61 KONSTATYNOWICZ 1939.
62 KONSTATYNOWICZ 1960
63 KONSTATYNOWICZ 1930. Vgl. KONSTATYNOWICZ 1978
64 JANOCHA 2001, Abb. 76, 130.
65 JANOCHA 2001, Abb. 90.
66 SWENCIC’KA/SYDOR 1990, Abb. 94. Vgl. SYDOR 1991.
67 JANOCHA 2001, Abb. 10, 156.
68 JANOCHA 2001, Abb. 163, 191.
69 JANOCHA 2001, Abb. 245.
70 IKONA KARPACKA, 168, Nr. 56–76.
276 Waldemar Deluga
ukrainischer Forscher im Briefwechsel mit der Firma Foto-Heinrich in München bezüglich

der Übergabe von Diapositiven. Im Museum für Volksbau in Sanok, im Nationalmuseum
Krakau und Nationalmuseum Lemberg sind Diapositive großen Formats in Lederkasetten
erhalten. Nicht unerwähnt bleiben soll, dass die Sammlung aus Sanok auch außerordent-
lich wichtig für die Geschichte der Fotografie ist.
Das hier vorgestellte ikonographische Material stellt nur einen kleinen Teil jener fo-
tografischen Sammlungen, die in vielen Museen und Bibliotheken zu finden sind, dar. Es
muss betont werden, dass die Kunsthistoriker immer häufiger zu graphischen Darstellun-
gen oder Fotografien greifen, sie dienen sie doch als Vergleichsmaterial zur Forschung der
Malerei und Architektur. Das betrifft aber die westliche Kunst. Wie Ihor Ševčenko bemerkt,
übernehmen die Forschungsarbeiten an der byzantinischen Kunst jetzt die Methode „der
Rekonstruktion der Vergangenheit”. Ist sie aber geeignet? Meiner Meinung nach sind Ver-
gleichsforschungen bei der Bearbeitung der Malerei der orthodoxen Kirche im Königreich
Polen sowohl da wichtig, wo sie die Wort/Bild-Relation betreffen, wie auch für den Fall
indirekter Vergleiche von Werken, die aus verschiedenen religiösen Zentren stammen. We-
sentlich sind aber auch ikonographische Rekonstruktionen der Ikonostasen, deren Rolle
im liturgischen Umfeld so wichtig ist. Diese Rekonstruktionen werden durch ikonogra-
phische Überlieferungen möglich, welche die Problemstellungen der orthodoxen Kunst in
ihrem vollem Umfang anschaulich machen.
Andere Vergleichsforschungen könnten technische Aspekten betreffen. So wäre es ist
z.B. interessant, ob Ikonenmaler und Freskanten die gleichen Pigmente verwendet haben.
Das sind jedoch Vorschläge für die Zukunft und es bleibt bloß zu betonen, dass nur weitere
gemeinsame Unternehmungen und gegenseitiger Informationsaustausch neue Entdec-
kungen ermöglichen.
e-mail: wdeluga@wp.pl
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
ALEKSANDROWYCH 1997:
Володимир Александрович, „Легенда Йова Кондзелевича: вступ до студій над творчістю
майстра на Волині”, [in:] Волинська Ікона: Питання історії вивчення, дослідження та
реставрації. Доповіді та матеріали IV наукової конференції м. Луцьк, 17–18 грудня 1997 року,
Луцьк 1997, S. 6–23.
ARCHIV JUGO-ZAPADNOJ ROSII:
Архив Юго-Западной России, издаваемый Временною комиссиею для разбора древних актов,
Высочайше утвержденною при Киевском военном, Подольском и Волынском генерал-
губернаторе, Киев 1859–1892.
BATIG 2000:
Микола I. Батіг, “Білі сторінки в історії Національного Музею у Львові”, Літопис Націо-
нального Музею у Львові 1 (2000), S. 5–7
BATIG 1997:
Микола I. Батіг, Йов Кондзелевич і Богородчанський іконостас, Львів 1957.
CERAN 2002:
Waldemar Ceran, “Główne osiągnięcia polskich badań nad historia sztuki bizantyńskiej (do roku
1998)”, [in:] Sztuka średniowiecznego Wschodu i Zachodu. Osiągnięcia i perspektywy poznawcze
u progu XXI wieku, Hrsg. M. Smorąg-Róźycka, Kraków 2002, S. 9–42.
DELUGA 2000:
Waldemar Deluga, Malarstwo i grafika cerkiewna w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej, Gdańsk 2000.
DELUGA 2003:
Waldemar Deluga, “Ukraińskie ikonostasy w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Dokumentacja naukowa
Jarosława Bohdana Konstantynowicza”, [in:] Do piękna nadprzyrodzonego. Sesja naukowa na temat
rozwoju sztuki sakralnej od X do XX wieku na terenie dawnych diecezji chełmskich Kościoła rzyms-
kokatolickiego, prawosławnego, greckokatolickiego, Hrsg. K. Mart, Bd. 1, Chełm 2003, S. 212–223.
DELUGA 2004:
Waldemar Deluga, “Die Ikonensammlungen in Lemberg um die Wende des 19. und des 20. Jahrhund-
erts“, Thesis. Cahier d’Histoire des Collections 5–6 (2004–2005), S. 51–61.
DMYTRUH 2003:
Севастіан Дмитрух, Сакральне мистецтво з колекції «Студіон». Каталог творів XVI–XX ст.
Львів 2003.
DMYTRUH 2003a:
Севастіан Дмитрух, Сакральне мистецтво з колекції «Студіон». Каталог творів XVI–XX ст.,
Bd. 1, Львів 2003.
DMYTRUH 2008:
Севастіан Дмитрух, Сакральне мистецтво з колекції «Студіон». Каталог творів XVI–XX ст.,
Bd. 2, Львів 2003
ELSNER 2002:
Jaś J. Elsner, “The Birth of Late Antiquity: Riegl and Strzygowski in 1901”, Art History 25 (2002), Nr.
3, S. 358–379.
GÓRKA 1925:
Olgierd O. Górka, Stan badań i zadania historiografii stosunków polsko-rumuńskich, Lwów 1925.
HAXTHAUSEN 1999:
Charles W. Haxthausen, “Introduction”, [in:] The Two Art Histories. The Museum and University,
Williamstown, Massachusets 1999, S. XII–XXV.
HEŁYTOWYCZ 2003:
Marija Hełytowycz, “Ikony XV-XVI wieku z Bełza (z kolekcji Muzeum Narodowego we Lwowie)”, [in:]
Do piękna nadprzyrodzonego. Sesja naukowa na temat rozwoju sztuki sakralnej od X do XX wieku
na terenie dawnych Diecezji Chełmskich Kościoła rzymskokatolickiego, prawosławnego i greckoka-
tolickiego, Hrsg. K. Mart , Bd. 1, Chełm 2003, S. 62.
HENRY 1930:
Paul Henry, Les églises de la Moldavie du Nord et origines à la fin du XVe siècle. Architecture et pein-
ture, Paris 1930.
HOLUBEC 1922:
Микола Голубец, Начерк історії українського мистецтва, Bd. 1, Львів 1922.
IKONA KARPACKA:
Ikona karpacka, hrsg. J. Czajkowski, Sanok 1998.
278 Waldemar Deluga
JACKIEWICZ1990:
Danuta Jackiewicz, Sztuka fotografii. Portret, pejzaż, reportaż w fotografii polskiej. Katalog wys-
tawy. Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, Warszawa 1990.
JANOCHA 2001:
Michał Janocha, Ukraińskie i białoruskie ikony świąteczne w dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Problem ka-
nonu, Warszawa 2001.
JANUSZ 1924:
Bohdan Janusz, „Zabytki mołdawskie we Lwowie”, Wiadomości konserwatorskie. Miesięcznik
poświęcony zabytkom sztuki i kultury 1 (1924), Nr. 2, S. 52–64.
JOBST 1900:
Karl Jobst, „Baudenkmale in der Bukowina I“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commission für Erfor-
schungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal , Neue Folge, 26 (1900), S. 203–209.
JOBST 1901:
Karl Jobst, „Baudenkmale in der Bukowina II“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commission für Erfor-
schungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal , Neue Folge, 27 (1901), Nr. 1, S. 10–12.
IORGA 1924:
Nicholae Iorga, Choses d’Orient et de Romanie, Bucarest, Paris 1924.
KONSTANTYNOWICZ 1929:
Jarosław B. Konstantynowicz, Ikonostasy XVII wieku na zachodnio-ukraińskim terytorium etno-
graficznym w granicach dawnej Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, [Sanok] 1929. Das Manuskript befindet
sich im Museum Łańcut und in der Bibliothek des Lehrstuhls für Geschichte der Byzantinischen und
Postbyzantinischen Kunst der UKSW in Warschau.
Jarosław B. Konstantynowicz, Ikonostasy XVII w. w granicach dawnych diecezji: przemyskiej,
bełskiej i chełmskiej. Próba charakterystyki, Bd. 2 [Fotoalbum], Sanok 1930. Lemberg Wissenschaft-
liche Stefanyk Bibliothek der Nationalen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Kupferstichkabinett, Nr.
4664.
KONSTATYNOWICZ 1939:
Jarosław B. Konstantynowicz, Ikonostasis. Studien und Forschungen, Bd. I, Lwów 1939.
KONSTATYNOWICZ 1960:
Jarosław J. B. Konstantynowicz, Ikonostas, studia i badania, etwa 1960, Manuskript im Archiv des
Museums für Volksbau (Archiwum Muzeum Budownictwa Ludowego w Sanoku), Sign. Z 10, Nr. 68.
Ярослав Б. Константинович, „Причинки до студії української ікони XIV-XVI ст.”, Богословія 42
(1978), S. 45–83.
KORNYTKO-HRYNIV 2006:
Оксана Корнутко Гринів, „До проблeми дослідження народного мистецтва в науковому
доробку Iларioнa Cвeнціцького“, Літопис 4 (9) (2006), S. 24–28.
KRUK 1996:
Mirosław P. Kruk, „Stan badań nad zachodnioruskim malarstwem ikonowym XV–XVI wieku”, [in:]
Sztuka Kresów Wschodnich, Hrsg. J. K. Ostrowski, Bd. 2, Kraków 1996, S. 29–55
KRUK 1997:
Mirosław P. Kruk, „Stan badań nad atrybutami warsztatowymi zachodnioruskiego malarstwa ikono-
wego XV–XVI w.“, [in:] Łemkowie i łemkoznawstwo w Polsce [=Prace Komisji Wschodnioeuropej-
skiej, Bd. 5], Hrsg. J. K. Ostrowski, Kraków 1997, S. 163–177.
LEPAGE 2005:
Claude Lepage, „Gabriel Millet, esprit élégant et moderne“, [in:], Institut de France. Séance du 28
octobre 2005. Hommage Rendu à Gabriel Millet et André Grabar, Paris 2005, S. 5–18.
ŁOZIŃSKI 1887:
Sygma [Władysław Łoziński], „Malarstwo cerkiewne na Rusi“, Kwartalnik Historyczny 1 (1887), Nr.
2, S. 149–209.
MAŃKOWSKI 1936:
Tadeusz Mańkowski, Lwowski cech malarzy w XVI i XVII wieku, Lwów 1936.
MILKOWICZ 1898:
Wladimir Milkowicz, „Zwei Fresco-Kalender in den Bukowiner Klosterkirchen Woronetz und Sucza-
witza aus dem 16. Jahrhundert“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commission für Erforschungen und
Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal, Neue Folge, 24 (1898), S. 1–45.
PANAITESCU 1929:
Petre P. Panaitescu, „Fundaţiuni religioase româneşti în Galiţia”, Buletinul Comisiuni Monumentelor
Istorice, 22 (fasc. 59) (1929), S. 1–19.
PAWLYCHKO 2001:
Ярослав Павличко, „Сакральне мистецтво Волині у фототеці Національного музею у Львові”,
[in:] Пам’ятки сакрального мистецтва на Волині. Матеріали VIII міжнародної наукової
конференції м. Луцьк, 13-14 грудня 2001 року, Луцьк 2001, S. 149–151.
PETRUSHEWYCH 1874:
Антон С. Петрушевич, Сводная Галицко-русская летопись с 1600 по 1700 гг., Bd. 1–6, Львов 1874.
PILEŃSKI 1914:
Józef Pileński, Halicz w dziejach sztuki średniowiecznej, Kraków 1914.
PODLAHA 1911:
Władysław Podlacha, „Abendländische Einflüsse in den Wandmalereien griechisch-orientalischen
Kirchen in der Bukowina. Bizantine Kunst der Neuzeit“, Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst 24 (1911),
Nr. 7, Sp. 199–210.
PODLAHA 1911a:
Władysław Podlacha, „Änderungen in der Ikonographie“, Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst 24 (1911),
Nr. 8, Sp. 243–260.
PODLAHA 1911b:
Władysław Podlacha, „Änderungen in der Formengebung“, Zeitschrift für christliche Kunst 24 (1911),
Nr. 9, Sp. 271–286.
PODLAHA 1912:
Władysław W. Podlacha, Malowidła ścienne w cerkwiach Bukowiny, Lwów 1912.
PODLAHA 1985:
Władysław Podlaha, Pictura murala din Bucovina, Bucureşti 1985.
ROMSDORFER 1894:
Karl A. Romstorfer, „Die griechisch-orientalische ehemalige Klosterkirche in Woronetz“, Mitteilun-
gen der K. K. Central-Commission für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen
Denkmal 20 (1894), S. 43–48.
ROMSDORFER 1894:
Karl A. Romstorfer, „Die Kirchenbauten in der Bukowina“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commis-
sion für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal 20 (1894), S. 80–82;
135–138.
ROMSDORFER 1895:
Karl A. Romstorfer, „Die Kirchenbaueten in der Bukowina“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commis-
sion für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal 21 (1895), S. 21–27;
86–87; 164–166; 250–254.
ROMSDORFER 1896:
Karl A. Romstorfer, „Die Kirchenbaueten in der Bukowina“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commission
für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal 22 (1896), S. 40–44; 68–76.
280 Waldemar Deluga
ROMSDORFER 1901:
Karl A. Romstorfer, „Die grechisch-orientalische Pfarrkirche in Reufeni“, Mitteilungen der k. k.
Central-Commission für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal, Neue
Folge 27 (1901), Nr. 1, S. 103–104.
SŁOWNIK ARTYSTÓW POLSKICH:
Słownik artystów polskich i obcych w Polsce działających. Malarze, rzeźbiarze, graficy, Bd. 5,
Warszawa 1993.
SOKOŁOWSKI 1899:
Marian Sokołowski, Studia i szkice z dziejów sztuki i cywilizacji, Bd. 1, Kraków 1899.
SOKOŁOWSKI 1898:
Marian Sokołowski, „Sztuka cerkiewna na Rusi i na Bukowinie. Wystawa Stauropigialna we Lwowie
z r. 1888/9”, Kwartalnik historyczny 3 (1898), S. 473—453.
STEFĂNESCU 1929:
Ioan D. Stefănescu, L’évolution de la peinture religieuse en Bucovine et en Moldavie. Nouvelles
recherches, Paris 1929.
STRZYGOWSKI 1922:
Josef Strzygowski, Die altslavische Kunst. Ein Versuch ihres Nachweisens, Augsburg 1922.
SWENCIC’KA/SYDOR 1990:
Віра И. Свєнціцька, Oлег Сидор, Спадщина Віків. Українске малярство XIV–XVIII століть
у музейних колекціях Львова, Львів 1990.
SWENCYCKYJ 1908:
Иларион С. Свенцицкий, Опись музея Ставропигийского института во Львове, Львов 1908.
SWENZIZKYJ 1928:
Ilarion Swěnzizkyj, Die Ikonenmalerei der Galizischen Ukraine des XV-XVI Jhd, Lwow 1928.
SYDOR 1991:
Олег Сидор, „Бароко в українському живопису“ [in:] Українське барокко та європейський
контекст, Київ 1991, S. 173–183
SYDOR 2003:
Олег Сидор, Давня українська ікона з приватних збірок, Київ 2003.
SZANTER 1985:
Zofia Szanter, „Rola wzorów zachodnich w ukształtowaniu ikonostasu w XVII wieku na południowo-
wschodnim obszarze Rzeczpospolitej”, [in:] Teka konserwatorska. Polska Południowo-Wschodnia,
Bd. 2, Hrsg. B. Tondos, Rzeszów 1985, S. 93–134.
SZARANIEWICZ 1888:
Ізидор Шараневич, Каталог археологическо-библиографической виставки Ставропигийского
института во Львове, Львов 1888.
THE EMPIRE:
The Empire that was Russia. The Proskudin Gorski Photographic Record Recreated, www.loc.gov/
exhibits/empire [Dezember 9, 2003 ]
THEODOREŞCU 1982:
Răzvan Theodoreşcu, “Maniérisme et le „premier baroque” postbyzantin entre Pologne et Stamboul.
Le cas moldave (1600- 1650)“, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik [=XVI Internationaler
Byzantinisten Kongress. Akten II/ 6] 36 (1982), Nr. 6, S. 341–351.
THEODOREŞCU 1983:
Răzvan Theodoreşcu, „Gusturi şi atitudini baroce la români în secolul al XVII-lea. Note liminare”,
Studii şi Cercetări de Istoria Artei. Seria Artă Plastică 30 (1983), S. 3–11.
THEODOREŞCU 1990:
Răzvan Theodoreşcu, „Synchronismes européens et disparités locales: le baroque roumain aux 17e
–18e siècles”, Revue Roumaine d’Histoire de l’Art. Serie Beaux-Arts 27 (1990), S. 35–56.
TRAEGER 1997:
Jörg Traeger, „Renaissance und Religion“, [in:] Die Kunst und Glaubens im Zeitalter Raphaels, Mün-
chen 1997, S. 11–25.
WYSTAWA ARCHEOLOGICZNA 1886:
Wystawa Archeologiczna polsko-ruska urządzona we Lwowie w roku 1885, Lwów 1886.
ZACHARIEWICZ 1899:
Julian von Zachariewicz, „Klosterkirche zu Dragomirna“, Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commission
für Erforschungen und Erhaltung der Kunst- und historischen Denkmal 35 (1899), S. 113–118.
ZALOZIECKI 1935:
Wladimir R., Zaloziecky, „Ikonensammlung an der Griechisch-katolischen Theologischen Akademie
in Lemberg“, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 10 (1935), S. 70–77.
Serge Averintsev. Byzantinologie

dans la perspective humaniste
Michał Janocha
Université Catholique Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński de Varsovie
« L’un des principaux devoirs de l’homme, c’est de comprendre autrui sans le transfor-
mer en une chose mesurable ni en un reflet de ses propres sentiments. Ce devoir est confié
à chaque individu, à chaque époque, à toute l’humanité. La philologie, qui est au service
de la compréhension, aide à l’accomplir »1. Ce fragment de l’article « Philologie » dans la
Courte encyclopédie de la littérature (Moscou 1972) peut être traité comme une sorte de
credo de son auteur qui est aussi le héros de notre discours, Serge Sergueïevitch Averintsev
(1937–2004).
Essayons maintenant d’énumérer les sept points de ce credo laconique:
Premièrement, la philologie comme un point de départ, conçue non pas d’une manière
académique, mais selon son sens premier, étymologique, qui veut dire l’amour de la parole;
Deuxièmement, la compréhension en tant que le but de la philologie et, d’une manière plus
générale, de la science ; compris elle aussi dans sa large acception en tant que gnosis ;
Troisièmement, l’aspect dialogique de la science (« comprendre autrui ») ;
Quatrièmement, l’aspect éthique de la science, le travail scientifique perçu comme une
charge, une mission envers l’homme et l’humanité ;
Cinquièmement, l’aspect historique et supra-historique de la science (« chaque
époque ») ;
Sixièmement, l’aspect universaliste de la science (« chaque individu », « toute l’hu-
manité ») ;
Septièmement, l’aspect humaniste de la science (« l’un des principaux devoirs de l’hom-
me, c’est de comprendre autrui ») ;
Les sciences humaines préservent la science de déformations telles que la déperson-
nalisation (« transformation de l’homme en une chose mesurable ») et la subjectivisation
(« reflet de ses propres sentiments »).
1 AVERINTSEV 1972.
284 Michał Janocha
La philologie en tant que l’amour de la parole constitue pour Averintsev le paradigme

de toutes les sciences humaines, qui ont pour charge de chercher la vérité sur l’homme.
Averintsev place la byzantinologie dans la même perspective.2
Serge Averintsev n’est pas byzantiniste stricto sensu, même si ses études sur l’histoi-
re de la littérature et de la culture byzantines suscitent l’intérêt et des discussions de plus
en plus importants dans le monde entier. Sa profonde connaissance de la littérature et
de la culture de l’Antiquité et du Proche-Orient, de la Bible et de la patristique lui permet
un regard sur la culture byzantine dans une vaste perspective historique. Il est difficile
d’enserrer dans des cadres classiques l’étendue des intérêts scientifiques d’Averintsev et,
d’autant plus, sa vision de la science. Philologue classique, chercheur en histoire et en
théorie de littérature antiques, paléochrétiennes, byzantines et médiévales, historien
d’idées, historien de philosophie, théologie et culture, traducteur du grec classique3 , du
latin, du vieux hébreu, du serbe, de l’allemand, du français et du polonais, critique et
publiciste, poète – avant tout, humaniste. Lui-même se présente avec modestie comme
historien de la culture chrétienne. Dans une perspective large, et en même temps selon le
sens étymologique, Averintsev serait non seulement philologue, celui qui aime la parole,
mais aussi philosophe, celui qui aime la sagesse. Il n’est pas alors un chercheur académi-
que classique (même si toute son activité scientifique était liée aux institutions telles que
l’Académie des Sciences d’URSS et, plus tard, aussi l’Université d’Etat des Sciences Hu-
maines de Russie à Moscou), il est plutôt un type de penseur-humaniste, devenu si rare
au XXIe siècle. Sa pensée, largement traitée dans le milieu d’intelligentsia russe à partir
des années 19704 , est relativement bien connue en Occident. Le lecteur polonais a l’accès
seulement (sans prendre en compte la poésie) à un volume d’articles sur la littérature et
la culture du premier Byzance intitulé Au croisement des traditions, traduit et rédigé
par Danuta Ulicka.5
L’attitude d’Averintsev trouve ses racines dans la tradition de pensée philosophico-re-
ligieuse russe de la fin du XIXe et du début du XXe siècle, de Solovyov et Berdiaev entre
autres. Averintsev puise de manière créative dans les conceptions de Bakhtin et de Losev
et, en même temps, adopte et modifie plusieurs éléments de la pensée occidentale. Ce type
de pensée est très rare dans le monde scientifique occidental et il se heurte souvent à la
désapprobation et l’incompréhension.
2 Les plus importantes publications d’Averintsev sur la culture du premier Byzance ont été publiées
dans le volume AVERINTSEV 2004. Voir aussi AVERINTSEV 2001, 440–61. On y trouve la bibliographie
complète de ses travaux scientifiques jusqu’à 2001. L’édition des œuvres complètes d’Averintsev (Собрание
сочинений) est en cours de préparation. Jusqu’à présent deux volumes ont été publiés: AVERINTSEV 2005,
AVERINTSEV 2006.
3 Le choix de traductions des Pères de l’Eglise grecque en russe : AVERINTSEV 2006.
4 Le choix d’articles sur Averintsev : Litchnost’, p. 209–98.
5 AVERINTSEV 1988.
Serge Averintsev 285
« Quand tout le monde s’amassent à bâbord, au point que le bateau menace de renver-
ser, celui qui l’aperçoit, est censé se mettre à tribord. »6 Dans le bateau penché dangereuse-
ment vers le rationalisme compris d’une manière étroite, Averintsev se met « à tribord »
et répète avec insistance des questions primordiales, fondatrices de la culture européenne,
qui ont été condamnées à l’exil par la modernité. Averintsev s’oppose à une compréhension
réductionniste des sciences humaines, qui veut rapprocher leurs méthodes de celles des
sciences naturelles, qui limite la philosophie à la théorie de la connaissance, et les disci-
plines particulières des sciences humaines à une étude de domaines et formes déterminés
de la culture. La spécialisation scientifique de plus en plus étroite perd souvent de vue la
vision intégrale de l’homme et de la réalité, renonce à poser des questions fondamentales
et par cela perd son identité humaniste. Averintsev, ne mettant pas en doute le besoin
de spécialisation, postule toutefois une large vision des sciences humaines qui, en toute
conscience de ses limites, essaieraient de lier plusieurs disciplines et approches méthodo-
logiques, toujours en quête du sens.
« Le sens réel du détail peut être reconstruit seulement dans le contexte de l’entité
dont il fait part. »7 La clé pour connaître cette entité, c’est l’étude de la structure intérieure
d’une vision donnée du monde. Dans ce cas, l’objet d’intérêt du chercheur « constitueront
non plus des énoncés fragmentaires, isolés de son contexte (délogés de ses positions) et
artificiellement (par force) réduits au système, mais tout le contenu intérieur de la vie spi-
rituelle. L’attention [du chercheur] devrait être attirée avant tout par des facteurs qui dé-
cident de l’unité stylistique de la vision du monde, par des chaînons qui soudent le monde
imaginaire que l’homme habitait jadis. Il doit saisir ce champ de forces en tant que l’entité.
Uniquement une telle approche lui permettra de légitimes et convaincantes références
à la sociologie. »
Quant aux recherches postulées sur l’esthétique médiévale (ce qui concerne également
l’esthétique byzantine) « ce sont les rapports réciproques entre la vision du monde com-
prise comme un style et la vie comprise comme un style (...) qui constituent l’objet réel
d’étude. » 8 Dans le fragment cité résonne l’écho du « style-de-voir-le-monde » de Losev :
« Le style et la vision du monde devraient être intégrés à tout prix, l’un devrait impérative-
ment se refléter dans l’autre. »9 Losev pourrait être content de son disciple, dont la vision
du monde, voire son style de penser, imprègne un style de travail scientifique, qui à son
tour se traduit dans style d’écriture, où le discours scientifique prend la forme littéraire
proche de l’essai. « J’écris comme j’écris non parce que je m’impose cette tâche, mais sim-
6 AVERINSEV 1984, 165. Traduction polonaise: Filologia, nauka i pamięć historyczna (interview avec
l’auteur), dans: AVERINTSEV 1988, 373.
7 AVERINTSEV 1975, 380. Traduction polonaise: Badania nad estetyką średniowieczną – uwagi
wstępne, dans : AVERINTSEV 1988, 311.

8 AVERINTSEV 1975, 375. Traduction polonaise:AVERINTSEV 1988, 299.
9 LOSEV 1930, 690. Voir : AVERINTSEV 1993, 16–22.
286 Michał Janocha
plement parce que je ne sais pas et je ne peux pas écrire autrement. Je n’ai pas choisi mon
style, comme je n’ai pas choisi ma taille ou la forme de mon nez. Et ce n’est pas que j’écris
de cette manière mais que je pense ainsi. »10
Selon Averintsev, le but des recherches historiques ne consiste pas uniquement à recons-
truire le sens historique d’une œuvre littéraire ou d’une œuvre d’art dans une époque par-
ticulière (ce qui reste un devoir incontestable des sciences historiques), mais aussi à décou-
vrir ce sens dans d’autres époques et cultures, aussi dans l’actualité. Il s’agit alors ici d’une
question sur le sens universel, d’une question philosophique. « La pensée philosophique
(...) d’une époque donnée peut et doit être interprétée d’une double façon, conformément
aux deux niveaux de son objet : comme la pensée d’une telle et telle p é r i o d e et comme
la p e n s é e d’une telle et telle période. »11 Cette seconde interprétation n’est pas possible
sans la première, mais ce n’est que l’intégration de toutes les deux qui donne aux sciences
humaines une dimension plus profonde. « Une pensée est une pensée dans la mesure où
elle porte une importance universelle, humaine. »12 Dans la nature même de la pensée, l’on
peut trouver le transcensus sui ipsius augustinien (dépassement de ses propres limites),
sorti de son propre cercle de vie et de son environnement culturel.
Évidemment, Byzance n’explique pas l’époque contemporaine ni celle-ci n’explique
aucunement Byzance. « Les époques ne donnent pas l’une à l’autre de réponses toutes
faites. Pourtant, elles peuvent se poser des questions, qui rendent des choses transpa-
rentes. »13 Le sens des écrits de Saint Maxime le Confesseur, de l’Acathiste de Romanos le
Mélode (Melodos) ou des mosaïques de Sainte-Sophie à Kiev dépasse leur époque. Leur
lecture dans la perspective métahistorique peut révéler au chercheur la transparence
des significations, pour se servir du terme forgé par Averintsev. « Si la pensée avait été
complètement réduite à son substrat social et culturel, fermée à double tour dans sa
propre époque, toute pensée dépassant ses frontières aurait été compromise. On n’aurait
pas pu analyser le passé du point de vue de nos temps. C’est seulement le niveau de signi-
fications synchronique14 , métahistorique dans l’objet de l’histoire de la philosophie, qui
donne à cette dernière la raison d’être. » Je ne sais pas si Averintsev connaissait Norwid,
mais ce poète et penseur lui serait certainement proche avec son entendement intégral
du monde, de l’histoire et de la culture, avec sa vision de l’avenir, étant « aujourd’hui,
seulement un peu – plus loin. »
La vision de l’histoire d’Averintsev, c’est l’entendement qui suppose aussi l’entente.
L’histoire en tant qu’entendement sort du cadre de la science perçue en tant que le savoir
et mène vers la sagesse comprise d’une manière intégrale, c’est-à-dire vers l’art de vivre.
10 AVERINTSEV 1984, 166. Traduction polonaise: AVERINTSEV 1988, 374–75.

11 AVERINTSEV 1975, 377. Traduction polonaise: AVERINTSEV 1988, 302.
Averintsev introduit la notion de « hétéro-science » (инонаучность), dotée de ses propres

critères de véracité qui ne sont pas obligatoirement les mêmes que les critères scientifi-
ques. Cette « hétéro-science » ne veut et ne devrait pas être soumise à une seule méthode.
Elle ne sépare pas la sphère de l’intellect de l’ensemble d’expériences de l’homme, bien au
contraire, elle tente de les intégrer le plus possible. C’est justement l'entente qui mène vers
cette intégration et qui résulte de la structure dialogique de la pensée. On peut retrouver
ici l‘écho de la conception de « petit et grand temps » de Mikhaïl Bakhtin.15 Le « petit
temps », étudié par l’histoire comprise d’une manière classique, avec ses conditions so-
ciopolitiques, entre dans le « grand temps », où des auteurs, leurs pensées et leurs œuvres
dialoguent sans cesse à travers les époques et cultures, un peu comme les philosophes de
la fresque de Raphaël, L’Ecole d’Athènes. Le dernier livre d’Averintsev, publié un an après
sa mort, contenant un choix de ses articles, porte le titre significatif Связь времён (La
liaison des temps).16
Ce qui vient à l’esprit à ce propos, c’est une certaine analogie avec l’herméneutique de
Hans Georg Gadamer. En commençant par la philologie et la théorie de la littérature, Ga-
damer essaie de transcender le sens historique : il trouve dans les textes analysés le sens
supra-historique : « Ce qui change attire l’attention incomparablement plus fort que ce qui
demeure dans sa forme ancienne. C’est une loi universelle dans notre vie de l’esprit. Pour
cela, les perspectives qui s’ouvrent grâce à l’expérience du changement historique risquent
de se déformer, car elles négligent le caractère caché de ce qui demeure. »17
Une œuvre étudiée et l’idée qu’elle contient sont pour Averintsev non seulement une « cho-
se », l’objet d’une analyse extérieure, faite à distance, mais aussi un « partenaire » qui s’adresse
à nous, qui nous parle. « L’objet des sciences humaines, ce sont des choses spécifiques, choses
qui par l’intégration à l’univers de l’homme deviennent signes et symboles. Si la chose permet
seulement qu’on la regarde, le symbole nous regarde en attendant. »18
Or, il y a dans cette conception du symbole un certain élément d’« incom-
préhension », d’étonnement par une mystérieuse différence. L’histoire en tant
qu’entendement nécessite aussi bien le rationalisme, critique et discipliné, que l’intui-
tionnisme avec sa capacité d’écouter. C’est ici que se manifeste l’expérience d’Averintsev
comme traducteur. Le traducteur participant au dialogue est toujours obligé d’écouter
attentivement le discours qu’il explique. Son devoir est celui de l’interprète, qui se trouve
inter, entre l’œuvre et le destinataire.
Écouter le texte, regarder la peinture supposent aussi un espace de silence (encore
Norwid !). Dans la pensée d’Averintsev, une place importante est occupée par la double
compréhension du symbole : en tant qu’exprimé est non-exprimé. Dans chaque époque il
15 BAKHTIN 1985.
16 AVERINTSEV 2005.
17 GADAMER 1975, 22.
288 Michał Janocha
existe, à coté des formes symboliques exprimées explicite (« témoignées par les textes »),
un espace d’expériences qui n’est pas l’objet de verbalisation et qui est accepté d’évidence.
Ce contenu, bien qu’impliqué par la science, est souvent rejeté au nom de l’objectivisme ra-
tionnel. « Pourtant, ne serait-ce que ce contenu non-exprimé qui soit une propriété la plus
intime d’un univers culturel, car seulement ce qui est le plus évident peut rester inexpliqué
et seulement ce qui est d’une grande importance inspire la peur d’en parler. »19 Averintsev
mentionne à ce propos l’exemple de l’esthétique byzantine et médiévale. Àsa base il voit une
projection de la notion contemporaine de l’esthétique à l’époque qui ne la connaissait pas et
qui l’exprimait implicite dans une vision du monde systématique et cohérente. Des éléments
de cette conception sont présents dans l’idée de « l’esthétique impliquée » de Wladyslaw
Tatarkiewicz qui l’introduit dans son Histoire de l’esthétique.20
Chacun qui prend le passé pour objet de ses recherches se situe d’habitude, au nom de
l’objectivisme scientifique, en dehors de l’objet étudié. Averintsev, bien qu’il ne conteste pas
la nécessité du criticisme scientifique, souligne toutefois que la place du chercheur ne se
situe pas hors de l’histoire mais dans l’histoire. « Il n’est pas possible de comprendre quoi
que ce soit de l’extérieur. La connaissance humaniste est fondée sur l’unité essentielle des
hommes dans le temps et dans l’espace. Grâce à cela, l’histoire de l’humanité est toujours
notre histoire, l’histoire de nous-mêmes. »21 La conscience du lien, de l’union historico-
culturelle avec l’époque étudiée, se chevauche avec la conscience de la séparation et, en
plus, avec le sentiment de dépendance de l’époque que l’on vit. Toute la pensée d’Averintsev
se construit autour de cette tension créative. Le chercheur qui veut se libérer de son épo-
que, doit à la fois se libérer de soi-même.22 Encore une fois, il apparaît ici l’aspect person-
nel, existentiel, éthique, si fortement lié à l’expérience du travail scientifique.
La vision du travail scientifique d’Averintsev exprime en même temps sa vision de
l’homme et du monde. Elle s’appuie sur la hiérarchie essentielle des valeurs : primauté
de l’esprit sur la matière, de l’éthique sur la technique, de l’homme sur l’objet, de l’esprit
sur l’âme et de l’âme sur le corps. Le penseur affirme les grandes possibilités de la raison
humaine, à condition qu’elle soit capable de reconnaître ses limites face au mystère qui
la dépasse. L’attitude d’Averintsev trouve ses fondements dans le christianisme orthodo-
xe, dans le sentiment du lien organique avec le passé biblico-byzantin et, de même, dans
l’ouverture sur le sens universel présent dans d’autres cultures et religions, comme lÒgoj
spermatikÒj chez Saint Justin.
Quelles sont les conséquences de cette vision du monde pour les recherches scientifi-
ques, notamment byzantines?
19 AVERINTSEV 1975, 379. Traduction polonaise: AVERINTSEV 1988, p. 309–10.

20 TATARKIEWICZ 1960/1967 (voir notamment 1960, t. 1, 17).
Averintsev, chrétien orthodoxe, ne considère pas Byzance comme une réalité éloignée
dans le temps et dans l’espace, définitivement terminée. Il y reconnaît une partie impor-
tante de sa propre expérience, qui vit et qui parle par les paroles de la Bible et des Pères
de l’Eglise, par le chant d’hymnes, l’odeur de l’encens, l’éclat des mosaïques et des dômes
d’églises. Le regard « de l’intérieur », dans le sentiment de continuum vivant, révèle des
dimensions plus profondes de la connaissance du passé, inaccessibles au regard purement
intellectuel, « de l’extérieur ». La manière de penser d’Averintsev n’a rien à voir avec un
confessionnalisme pris au sens étroit, qui réduit la perspective d’études à un seul point de
vue, ni avec le relativisme postmoderne, opposant de ce premier, qui permet en apparence
une connaissance plus profonde de la réalité, en proposant de divers point de vue mais,
parce que privé du ciment de hiérarchie de valeurs, déforme cette réalité. Le reproche de
« l’idéologisation de la science », utilisé souvent par les adversaires « du bâbord », aurait
été justifié si une telle attitude n’avait pas été accompagnée de l’impératif du criticisme
scientifique, qui suppose la distance envers l’objet d’étude. Cependant, c’est la distance
envers soi-même.
Verba docunt, exempla trahunt. Prenons un exemple. Dans son article L’or dans le
système de symboles de la culture du premier Byzance, l’auteur, l’Antiquité et la Bible
à l’appuie, analyse la symbolique de l’or.23 Dans la fascination des Byzantins pour l’or, le
métal le plus précieux et mystérieux, il voit une manifestation de l’attitude évangélique
qui fait accueillir tout avec simplicité, comme un don. L’artiste byzantin travaillant l’or se
sentait moins créateur qu’artisan de Dieu. Il faisait bon usage du trésor qui lui a été confié :
il l’acceptait avec une reconnaissance ingénue et le transformait ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Cet artisan savait que l’or se vérifie et se purifie dans le feu, ce que lui démontrait l’éthos
biblique de l’épreuve finale, de la purification de l’âme, de la sainteté, évoquant le sang des
martyrs et la chasteté immaculé de Theotokos. L’artiste contemporain se montre réticent
envers l’usage de l’or, car il se positionne en libre créateur qui veut créer des êtres à l’exem-
ple de Dieu. C’est pourquoi Rembrandt produit une lueur dorée en mettant la peinture
à l’huile sur la toile ; il la crée, dans un certain sens, du rien. Dans cette approche, deux
conceptions de l’art apparaissent, de même deux conceptions de l’artiste et deux aussi de
l’homme et du monde.
Un autre exemple du même article. Averintsev compare la lueur opaque des mosaï-
ques byzantines à la clarté transparente des vitraux gothiques. Il trouve, dans ces deux
techniques, deux différents aspects de l’idée de la lumière présents dans l’art de l’Orient
et de l’Occident médiévaux. Aussi bien la mosaïque que le vitrail a besoin de la lumière,
sans laquelle ils perdent leur raison d’être. C’est la lumière qui met en valeur leur beau-
té ; mais elle le fait différemment selon le cas. La mosaïque reflète la lumière, tandis que
le vitrail la laisse passer. Dans les deux cas, c’est le même fondement de la compréhen-
23 AVERINTSEV 1973, 132–37. Traduction polonaise: Złoto w systemie kultury wczesnobizantyń-
skiej, dans : AVERINTSEV 1988, 175–201.

290 Michał Janocha
sion symbolique, la théologie de Pseudo-Denys l’Aréopagite : la lumière qui se pose sur

les mosaïques dorées révèle la lueur, proche de l’idée de Yahvé de l’Ancien Testament.
Pourtant, quand Saint Thomas d’Aquin commente les textes de Pseudo-Denys sur l’im-
possibilité de la contemplation intellectuelle de Dieu, il fait un déplacement d’accents
significatif. Il met en relief non pas l’opacité mystérieuse, mais la clarté transparente –
– claritas.24
La métaphore de la mosaïque et du vitrail pourrait être appliquée, selon les règles de
l’entente des temps et des cultures, aux textes de Serge Averintsev lui-même (même si
l’auteur se serait senti un peu gêné par une telle application de sa propre méthode). Son
œuvre se caractérise par une maîtrise consciencieuse et précise qui, en s’appuyant sur
les fragments conservés de textes, d’images, d’idées, telles tesselles colorées ou petits
morceaux de verre, construit une composition monumentale où la lumière se regarde.
e-mail: m.janocha@uksw.edu.pl
Traduction: Nina Brzostowska-Smólska et Krzysztof Smólski
BIBLIOGRAPHIE
Sources
THOMAS D’AQUIN:
S. Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologica, éd. M. E. Marietti, Taurini-Roma 1917–1932, t. 1–5.
Littérature scientifique
AVERINTSEV 1972:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, «Филология Ч», [dans:] Краткая литературная энциклопедия, t. 7,
Москва 1972, col. 975.
AVERINTSEV 1973:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, «Золото в системе ранневизантийской культуры», [dans:] Византия.
Южные славяне и древняя Русь. Западняя Европа. Искусство и культура. Сборник статъей
в честь Виктора Н. Лазарева, réd. Виктор Н. Гращенков, Москва 1973, p. 132–137.
AVERINTSEV 1975:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, «Предврарительные заметки к изучению средневековой эстетики»,
[dans:] Древнерусское искусство. Зарубежные связи, réd. Г. Попов, Москва 1975, p. 371–396.
AVERINTSEV 1984:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, «Филология – наука и историческая память (розговор с автором-
интервьюер А. Архангельский)», Вопросы литературы 7 (1984), p. 163–175.
24 THOMAS D’AQUIN, Summa Theologica, t. 1, p. 62–63.

AVERINTSEV 1988:
Sergiusz Awierincew, Na skrzyżowaniu tradycji (szkice o literaturze i kulturze wczesnobizantyńskiej),
trad. D. Ulicka, Warszawa 1988.
AVERINTSEV 1993:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, «Мировоззренческий стиль»: поступы к явлению Лосева», Вопросы
философии 9 (1993), p. 16–22.
AVERINTSEV 2001:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, София – Логос. Словарь, réd. К. Б. Сигов, Киев 2001.
AVERINTSEV 2004:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, Поэтика ранневизантийской литературы, Санкт-Петербург 2004.
AVERINTSEV 2005:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, Связь времён (dans la série: Собрание сочинений), réd. Н. П. Аверинцева,
К. Б. Сигов, Киев 2005.
AVERINTSEV 2006:
Сергей С. Аверинцев, Многоценная жемчужина. Переводы, [dans:] Собрание сочинений, réd.
Н. П. Аверинцева, К. Б. Сигов, Киев 2006.
BAKHTIN 1985:
Михаил Бахтин, Эстетика словестного творчества, Москва 1985.
GADAMER 1975:
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik,
Tübingen 1975.
Litchnost 2005:
Личность и Традиция. Аверинцевские чтения, réd. К. Б. Сигов, Киев 2005.
LOSEV 1930:
Алексей Ф. Лосев, Очерки античного символизма и мифологии, t. 1, Москва 1930.
TATARKIEWICZ 1960/1967:
Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Historia estetyki, t. 1–3, Warszawa 1960–1967.
DiFaB - Digital Research

Archive for Byzantium
Anna Michalowska, Matthew Savage, Daniel Terkl

University of Vienna
The Digital Research Archive for Byzantium (DIFAB – DIgitales ForschungsArchiv

Byzanz) is a visual resource database devoted to the cultural legacy of Byzantium. DIFAB
is designed to serve as a digital research archive open to the scholarly community at
large. In fulfilling this mission, DIFAB aims to achieve several interrelated objectives.
First, DIFAB sets out to digitize historical photographs, slides and other types of images
contained in independent public and private archives around the world. Second, scholars
and staff working with DIFAB contribute new digital images to the database in the course
of field research. And finally, DIFAB strives to make all these images easily accessible to the
interested scholarly public through its database, which will be made available online.
In striving to bring together images – old and new – from diverse collections into a sin-
gle digital database and to make this material easily accessible to scholars, DIFAB aspires to
open new horizons for the study of the material culture of Byzantium. The project, which
was initiated in 2006 by Professor Lioba Theis at the Institute of Art History of the Univer-
sity of Vienna, is now in its fifth year.
Collections currently in DIFAB

Currently, the DIFAB database contains approximately 19,000 unique digital assets.
These assets primarily include scans of historical photographs and slides obtained from
several archives, and digital photographs made specifically for DIFAB since the project’s
initiation.
The DIFAB project began when permission was obtained to digitize the private slide
collection of deceased German art historian Horst Hallensleben. This important archive is
made up of more than 100,000 mostly original slides made by Hallensleben over several
decades of travel and study in Greece, Italy, the Balkans and Turkey. Incorporation of the
Hallensleben material into DIFAB continues today.
294 Anna Michalowska, Matthew Savage, Daniel Terkl
The DIFAB database also includes images related to Byzantium that are kept as part
of the extensive photographic collection of the Institute of Art History of the University
of Vienna. The Institute’s photography holdings reflect a long tradition of teaching and
research at one of the world’s oldest university departments of art history. DIFAB now con-
tains extensive material – much of it as yet unpublished – that was collected by some of the
pioneers of the history of Byzantine art who worked at the Vienna Institute, including Josef
Strzygowski and Otto Demus. Incorporation of the Strzygowski and Demus archives is on-
going; to date DIFAB has digitized approximately 1000 unique assets from the Strzygowski
archive and significant portions of the Demus archive.
DIFAB has also digitized photographs from the private collection of German art histori-
an Marcell Restle. These photographs documenting Byzantine monuments and landscapes
were made in the 1960s and 1970s during research campaigns to Turkey.
The importance of presenting historical photographs from various archives alongside
new images showing the same sites should be stressed. For the first time, DIFAB provides
a database of collected material that, taken together, provides virtual documentation of the
history of monuments over the course of decades since these objects were first photographed.
Making available images from various archives in a single digital database has the potential
to further a greater understanding of the history of these monuments. Documentation of this
nature is especially valuable for material related to Byzantium, many of whose monuments
have seen periods of destruction and restoration since first being photographed. Thus, the
evidence in old and new photographs is vital for any discussion and understanding of many
of these monuments today (figs 1–6).
The DIFAB database is, however, not restricted to digital images of objects. Other types
of material, such as architectural and technical drawings, photogrammetric data, field notes
and even audio and video files can be brought into DIFAB. Already, DIFAB contains field
notes and sketches from the Strzygowski and Demus archives that allow significant insights
into these scholars’ working methods and research approaches (figs 7–8). Such documents
are vital for any study of the historiography of the field of Byzantine art history.
Project structure, standards and features

DIFAB’s continued development is reliant on the project’s integration into the academic pro-
gram of the Institute of Art History in Vienna. The DIFAB project is maintained by project staff
working in dedicated offices at the Institute of Art History of the University of Vienna. Inherent
to the success of DIFAB is its emphasis on research and learning. Courses and work groups or-
ganized each semester give students the opportunity to work extensively on all aspects of the DI-
FAB project, including maintenance and expansion of the database. Students also participate in
fieldwork excursions to Byzantine sites, collecting new images that are then added to DIFAB.
DiFaB 295
Fig. 1. Mistras, Ag. Theodoroi. View from southeast. Undated black-and-white photo-
graph. DiFaB/University of Vienna. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19597
Fig. 2. Mistras, Ag. Theodoroi. View from southeast. Undated color slide (1992).
DiFaB/Horst Hallensleben. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19596
Fig. 3. Asenovgrad, Sveta Bogoroditsa Petrichka. Black-and-white photograph from before 1906.
DiFaB/University of Vienna. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19603
DiFaB 297
Fig. 4. Asenovgrad, Sveta Bogoroditsa Petrichka. Color digital photograph from 15 Feb. 2007. Di-
FaB/Fani Gargova. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19599
From its initiation, the Digital Research Archive for Byzantium has aimed to use the high-
est technical standards to ensure the preservation, maintenance and easy accessibility of its
digital assets. In scanning and digitizing historical material such as slides and photographs,
DIFAB adheres to the highest standards established by leading institutions and authorities
in the field, in particular the European Union’s MINERVA network and the United States
National Archives and Records Administration. Digital files are stored in the University of
Vienna’s new digital asset management system, PHAIDRA (Permanent Hosting, Archiving
and Indexing of Digital Resources and Assets), and are assigned a permanent asset identity
number that can be used as a unique citation reference for the data. PHAIDRA is designed for
long-term archiving of digital assets and is thus ideal for DIFAB’s needs.
DIFAB’s attention to standards ensures that digitized material archived in the DIFAB da-
tabase retains as much information from the original as possible. Application of these stand-
ards means not only that images and their metadata are archived properly, but also that the
digital files can be used for high-quality publication purposes. Further, these high-quality
digital images can also be used with emerging visualization technologies.
The metadata structure of images archived in DIFAB adheres to the Dublin Core
standard which is ISO certified for interoperable information exchange. The possibility
of working with standard, defined fields

containing specific types of information
enables the user to search the databank
with a high degree of success in finding
specific images or image details, for in-
stance through various kinds of keyword
searches. Specific data fields document ti-
tle, artist, founder, location, date, general
description, inscription, and information
related to the imaged object’s position
within a given archive, thus allowing both
general and detailed searches. Another
valuable research tool is the possibility
for users to create their own “collections”
from images in DIFAB. Such collections
enable digital objects to be linked together
by means of user-assigned collection-spe-
cific metadata. For indexing, DIFAB relies
on the well established Getty Thesauri Fig. 5. Veliko Turnovo, Sveti Petar i Pavel. Black-
and-white photograph from ca 1905. DiFaB/
(Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names; University of Vienna. Permalink: http://phaidra.
Art and Architecture Thesaurus; and the univie.ac.at/o:19601
Union List of Artist Names).
The ability to search the database both generally and on several distinct levels, as well as the
possibility to create user-defined collections of images and metadata are major advantages of
DIFAB as a research database.
Open Source and Open Access

In maintaining its database, DIFAB relies on open source software solutions and on
open standards. Also, DIFAB features an open access policy in the conviction that only thus
can the benefits of new technologies be brought to research in the humanities. Further-
more, open standards and open source solutions provide greater accessibility and better
prospects for long-term preservation of the images and their metadata.
The integration of DIFAB within the University of Vienna’s PHAIDRA digital repository
system fits the project’s aim to operate through a non-proprietary system. A prime advantage
of PHAIDRA over other digital repository systems is the security of data citation. Archived
images are thus permanent and cannot be deleted from the database. The legal owners
of images and image data can, however, restrict access to material, e.g. for copyright
purposes. Nevertheless, even thus restricted, image metadata remain under a stable
DiFsB 299
Fig. 6. Veliko Turnovo, Sveti Petar i Pavel. Color digital photograph from 18 Feb. 2007. DiFaB/Fani
Gargova. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19598
URL, which means that users can be certain of the viability of the image source and all
information associated with it.
Perspectives for the future

DIFAB continues to digitize the Hallensleben and Demus archives. The digitization
and incorporation of other archives, specifically the photograph collection of the Tabula
Imperii Byzantini, is scheduled. The task structure of the project is, however, flexible:
DIFAB is actively seeking to work with new partners in digitizing their archives for inclu-
sion into DIFAB.
Online access to the DIFAB database is planned for 2009. While DIFAB currently oper-
ates through a German-language interface, the introduction of an English-language inter-
face is planned for the near future; however, the implementation of international thesauri
in DIFAB’s PHAIDRA repository means it is already possible to search the database in
a wide variety of languages.
By incorporating a diverse array of old and new photographic material from many
sources and archives and making this digitized material easily available to the interna-
Fig. 7. Josef Strzygowski,

sketches and notes related
to the Anastasis Rotunda
in Jerusalem. Undated
folio. DiFaB/Univer-
sity of Vienna. Permalink:
http://phaidra.univie.
ac.at/o:19604
tional scholarly community, DIFAB aims to enable new research approaches to Byzantine
material culture.
We welcome suggestions for new partnerships and we would be happy to talk to you
about the possibility of cooperating on digitizing your archives with DIFAB.
www.univie.ac.at/difab
Contact:
Project Coordinator: Fani Gargova: fani.gargova@univie.ac.at
Project Director: Univ.-Prof. Dr. Lioba Theis: lioba.theis@univie.ac.at
Further links:
PHAIDRA: https://phaidra.univie.ac.at
Dublin Core Metadata Initiative: http://dublincore.org
MINERVA: http://www.minervaeurope.org
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration: http://www.archives.gov
DiFaB 301
Fig. 8. Otto Demus, plan of church of St. Mark’s, Venice, with color-coded notes and area highlights.
Undated folio. DiFaB/University of Vienna. Permalink: http://phaidra.univie.ac.at/o:19866

Vol. Viii. 2010 Full Text

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Vol. Viii. 2010 Full Text

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SERIES BYZANTINA

PROCEEDINGS OF THE SYMPOSIUM

THE POLISH SOCIETY OF ORIENTAL ART

EDITORS OF THE VOULME:

Continuation of the series published by the NERITON Publishing House

© Copyright by Waldemar Deluga, Piotr Ł. Grotowski, Sławomir Skrzyniarz

Printed by Sowa - Druk na Życzenie

Alexander Musin, Russian Medieval Culture as an “Area of Preservation”

Athanassios Semoglou, L’éloquence au service d’archéologie. Les « enfants aimés »

Liliya M. Evseeva, Liturgical Drama as a Source of Monreale Mosaics ................................... 67

PART II: INTERPRETATIONS

Andreas Rhoby, On the Interaction of Word and Image in Byzantium:

Tassos Papacostas, Byzantine Rite in a Gothic Setting:

Angeliki Lymberopoulou, Fourteenth-century Regional Cretan Church Decoration:

Maja Kominko, Constantine’s Eastern Looks:

PART III: DISCOVERIES

Mirosław P. Kruk, On some Objects in the National Museum in Krakow

Russian Medieval Culture

2001; RAUTMAN 2006.

14 SANDERS 2004, 163–93.

28 KOVAL 2005, 500–08.

ing cross-pendants of a special form attested in Novgorod,

36MUSIN 2006b, 163–222.

YASHAEVA 2005, 201; MUSIN 2006, 189–90.

Fig. 6. Pilgrim ampoule from Thessalonica, lead, Novgorod,

42 ANDERSSON 1989, 103–05; WENTKOWSKA VERZI 2000, 423–32.

Furthermore, the evidence from the excavations in

Myrrhon; 1260–1280; see fig. 2: 28; fig. 12). In general,

facts in question are known since the mid-19th century.

56 CYRIL OF TUROV II [fol. 610r] (ed. Еремин, p. 359).

Fig. 14. Monastic girdles, burial of abbots, 1220–1240, St.George

63 GOLUBINSKIY 1997, 676.

66 Н-81-Тр-VI-6-466; КП 33560/А96-531; 65 cm х 31/34 cm; 95 mm x 31/34 mm.

67 INNEMÉE 1992, 90–133; PATRICH 1995, 210–20.

Fig.17. Analabos, 1410–1430, Troickij

modern Latin traditions but deco-

68 KHOROSHEV 1998, 5–25; GIPPIUS 2007, 20.

George Florovskiy and Metro-

L’éloquence au service de l’archéologie.

L’inconscient est structuré comme un langage

A la mémoire d’Angeliki Laiou

kai Logos 2006, 165–74.

contemporaine de l’événement qu’elle décrit. En d’autres termes, la paraphrase connecte le contemporain

Fig. 2. Chora, plan du programme iconographique (selon OUSTERHOUT 2002)

7 UNDERWOOD 1966, t. 2, pl. 184–99 ; pour la description, t. 1, 98–104.

quées par les Nos 38, 39, 40 et 41, OUSTERHOUT 2002, 9.

l’art des manuscrits, LAFONTAINE-DOSOGNE 1975, 207.

doxe ; pour des exemples à Byzance, voir STAVROPOULOU-MAKRI 1990, 366–69.

Fig. 3. Chora, exonarthex (mur sud), l’Ordre d’Hérode (Photo : P. Grotowski)

Fig. 4. Chora, exonarthex (mur ouest), le Massacre (selon UNDERWOOD 1966)

Fig. 7. Chora, exonarthex (mur oriental), le Recensement pour les impôts

collection des impôts en tant que chargé de la Trésorerie.

RWOOD 1966, t. 1, 89.

bibliques. Ainsi, la sainte famille fonc-

pos de la même représentation dans le narthex du catholicon du Prophète Elie à Thessalo-

26 MAVROPOULOU-TSIOUMI 1992, 159.

Fig. 9. Chora, vue extérieure, façade ouest (selon OUSTERHOUT 1987)

Fig. 10. Chora, restitution hypothétique du « clocher » (selon OUSTERHOUT 1987)

prouvent le grand danger auquel

40ŠEVČENKO 1975, 30.

Résumons nos données. La re-

43 OUSTERHOUT 1987, 106–10 et fig. 18 (pour une restitution du clocher).

conduit à une échelle spiroïdale qui

45 OUSTERHOUT 1987, fig. 12 et 13.