Abstract
The Byzantine emperor was the center of a cult which went back to the Roman era. It contained strong Hellenistic and oriental elements which had been adapted to fit in with Christian ideas and beliefs, while the latter in their turn had introduced new aspects and modes into the imperial concept. The emperor was now no longer regarded as divine, but as a representative of God on earth.1
This article was written as the result of a study trip to Greece and Italy, made possible by a grant from the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (zwo). It was translated from the Dutch by Patricia Wardle.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
See O. Treitinger, Die öströmische Kaiser- und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeromoniell, Jena 1938 (reprinted 1956)
H.-W. Haussig, Kulturgeschichte von Byzanz, Stuttgart 19662, pp. 224–55.
For the iconography of the Byzantine emperor, see P.E. Schramm, “Das Herrscherbild in der Kunst des frühen Mittelalters,” Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 2 (1922–23), part 1, Leipzig and Berlin 1924, pp. 145–224
A. Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin, Paris 1936.
The first emperor to be crowned by a patriarch was Leo 1 (457–74). For representations of coronations in pictorial art, see Grabar, op. cit. (note 2), p. 112ff.
Examples of an emperor crowned as victor are to be found in the ms. gr. 510, Paris, Bibl. Nat., where Basil 1 (867–86) is crowned by the archangel Michael after his successful campaign in Germanicia (879; see I. Spatharakis, “The portraits and the date of the Codex Par. gr. 510,” Cahiers Archéologiques 23 [1974], pp. 97–105). Basil n Bulga-roctonus (976–1025) is crowned by Christ in a psalter in Venice (Marc. gr. 17) executed in 1019 after his return from the final defeat of Tsar Samuel of the Bulgars (see S. Der Nersessian, “Remarks on the date of the menologium and the psalter written for Basil 11,” Byzantion 15 [1940–41], p. 115).
R. Janin, “L’empereur dans l’Eglise byzantine,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique 77 (1955), pp. 49–60
A. Michel, Die Kaisermacht in der Ostkirche (843–1204), Darmstadt 1959.
Emperor John vi Cantacuzenus (1347–54) is depicted in codex Par. gr. 1242 presiding at the synod of 1351 (see C. Walter, L’iconographie des conçus dans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970, pp. 70–73).
Emperor Manuel 1 Comnenus (1143–80) and his wife Maria are depicted in codex Vat. gr. 1176, which contains the acta of the council of 1166, Thessalonika 1968, and C. Mango, “The councilian edict of 1166,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 17 [1963], pp. 317–30).
The author of this article is preparing a study of the portrait in Byzantine manuscripts.
Migne, PG, vol. 51, p. 71.
A. v. Premerstein, K. Wessely and J. Mantuani, Dioscurides, Codex Aniciae Fulianae, picturis illustratis, nunc Vindobenensis Med. gr. 1, Leiden 1906.
For portraits of the late Byzantine period, see T. Velmans, “Le portrait dans l’art des Paléologues,” in Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues, Venice 1971, pp. 93–148, and for illuminated manuscripts of the time, see H. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft, Heidelberg 1970, esp. p. 72ff.
Par. gr. 2144 (see exhib. cat. Byzance et la France médiévale, Paris 1958, nr. 64, pl. xxiii, and Belting, op. cit. [note 11], pp. 4, 19, 59).
Constantine Manasses (d. 1187) is portrayed in Vind. Hist. gr. 149.
Nicetas Chomates (mid-12th century-1213) appears in Vind. Hist. gr. 53.
George Pachymeres (1242–1310) is shown in ms. gr. 442 in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich, and in two copies after it: Venice, Marc. gr. 404 and codex Mb 13 in the University Library, Tübingen.
The theological writings of Emperor John vi Cantacuzenus (Par. gr. 1242) are illustrated with a double portrait of their author (see note 6; exhib. cat. Byzance et la France médiévale, cit. [note 12], nr. 50; and Belting, op. cit. [note 11], pp. 84–88, fig. 51). Manuel 11 Paleologus (1391–1425) is portrayed on the frontispiece to a manuscript in Paris (Suppl. gr. 309) of his funeral oration for his brother Theodore, despotes of the Morea (d. 1407; see exhib. cat. Byzance, nr. 52; Velmans, op. cit. [note 11]. p. 100, fig. 3).
For portraits of emperors in chrysobulls, see J. P. Alexander, “A chrysobull of the emperor Andronicus 11 Palaeologue in favour of the see of Kanina in Albania,” Byzantion 15 (1940–41), pp. 167–207; Velmans, op. cit. (note 11), pp. 104–06.
A complete gallery of the Byzantine emperors appears in codex a.S.5.5. in the Biblioteca Estense, Modena, while in the Pachymeres manuscripts mentioned in note 15 above there are portraits of emperors Theodore 11 Lascaris (1254–58), Michael viii Palaeologue (1259–82) and Andronicus 11 Palaeologue (1282–1328).
The crowns in this manuscript were changed to a semispherical form during a later restoration of the miniatures. This misled E. de Wald (“The Comnenian portraits in the Barberini Psalter,” Hesperia 13 [1944], pp. 78–86)
M. Bonicatti (“Per l’origine del Salterio Barberiano greco 372 e la cronologia del Tetraevangelo Urbinate greco 2,” Rivista di Cultura Classica de Medioevale 2 [1960], pp. 41–61), who respectively identified the imperial family as that of Alexius 1 and John 11.
S. Der Nersessian, L’illustration de Psautiers Grecs de moyen age 2: Londres, Add. 19352, Paris 1970.
G. Galavaris, The illustrations of the liturgical homilies of Gregorius Nazianzenus, Princeton (Studies in Manuscript Illumination, 4) 1969, fig. 355, with the caption “Gregory of Nazianzus offering a book to a prince.”
S. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos, Cambridge 1895, vol. 1, pp. 323–24; The treasures of Mt. Athos 1: Illuminated manuscripts 1, Athens 1973, p. 415, figs. 104–17 (color reproductions).
Lambros, op. cit. (note 22).
Galavaris, op. cit. (note 21), p. 207: “... the names of the scribe and the prince depicted on the dedication page may have existed at the end of the missing folios.”
K. Weitzmann, Aus den Bibliotheken des Athos, Hamburg 1963, p. 98.
This manuscript can, in fact, be dated more precisely. In exhib. cat. Il libro della Bibbia, Vatican 1972, nr. 56, it is put at around 1122, the year when Alexius, who is shown on fol. 19V with his father John 11 Comnenus (1119–43), was crowned co-emperor by his father. The date 1128–29 on fol. 2 was added by a later hand. (See also note 56.)
Galavaris, op. cit. (note 21), pp. 206–07.
V. Lazarev, Storia della pittura bizantina, Turin 1967, p. 250.
The στιχάϱιον, a descendant of the Roman tunic, takes its name from the purple bands (στίχοι; clavi) with which the tunic was decorated. It was stipulated that it be white and made of linen (although later costlier materials were also used) as it symbolizes purity (Symeon, metropolitan of Thessalonika, d. 1429 [Migne, PG, vol. 155, col. 712A]). For Byzantine ecclesiastical vestments, see P. Bernardakis, “Les ornements liturgiques chez les Grecs,” Échos d’orient 5 (1901–1902), pp. 129–39. The word sticharion was also used by Constantine vu Porphyrogenitus to denote the tunic worn by the august a or empress (στιχάϱιν βασιλίϰιν) when she went to the Augusteum near the church of St. Stephen for her coronation and wedding. Besides the tunic she also wore a maphorion which the emperor removed from her shoulders during the ceremony and spread out around her. He then put the chlamys on her which had previously been blessed by the patriarch (Le livre des cérémonies, ed. A. Vogt, Paris 1935–40, chap. 50).
The word φελόνιον (a diminutive form of which is derived from the Latin word paenula and which seems to appear in the form φαιλόνης only in Pseudo-Paul, Epistle to Timothy 4:13, at the beginning of the 2nd century) goes back to the 2nd century, other forms of it being still older (see W. Bauer, Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Berlin 19635, col. 1683, s.v. φαιλόνης). It was later used to denote the bishop’s chlamys. See also Simeon Thessalonicen-sis, PG, vol. 155, col. 713D.
The ώμοφόϱιου, which, like the pallium of the western church, is derived from the toga trabeata of the later imperial period, symbolizes the lost sheep that Christ carries on his shoulders. For further symbolic meanings of vestments, see Isidore of Pelusium (an Egyptian monk of the 5th century), in PG, vol. 78, col. 272c, epist. 136, and Simeon Thessalonicensis, op. cit. (note 30), col. 422B.
T. Papas, Studien zur Geschichte der Messgewänder im byzantinischen Ritus, Munich 1956, pp. 153–212, passim.
The έπιμανίϰια symbolize the fetters with which Christ was bound when he was led before Pilate (Simeon, loc. cit. [note 30]).
Galavaris, op. cit. (note 21), p. 25.
The decoration in question appears not only on the hem of the archangel’s tunic and tablion (a panel on the front of the chlamys appearing rectangular in form when the latter is closed), but also on the hem of the emperor’s garment. For a color reproduction, see D. Talbot Rice, Die Kunst im byzantinischen Zeitalter, Munich and Zurich 1968, pl. 112. See also note 20.
For a color reproduction of The baptism of St. Paul, see I tesori, nr. 25, pl. 9.
A. Orlandos, in Byzantine art, an European art: lectures, Athens 1966, p. 78, pls. 47, 55; see also idem, “Fresques byzantines du monastère de Patmos,” Cahiers Archéologiques 12 (1962), pp. 285–302, pl. 10.
A. Boschkov, Die bulgarische Malerei, Recklinghausen 1969, fig. 21.
N. Kondakov, Histoire et monuments des émaux byzantins, Frankfurt am Main 1892, pls. 9, 11.
St. Gregory has a reddish-brown chlamys with yellow and green leaves, St. Theodore a purple one with yellow and red leaves. The medallions were dated to the first half of the nth century by Kondakov in his deluxe publication of them for Tsar Alexander iii.
For color reproductions, see A. Grabar, Die Kunst im Zeitalter Fustinians, Munich [1967], pis. 171–72.
For the ϰαββάδιου, see Pseudo-Kodinos (shortly after 1360), Traité des offices, ed. J. Verpeaux, Paris 1966, p. 146, note 1.
Ms. Lincoln College, gr. 35; according to H. Belting (op. cit. [note 11], p. 31, figs. 17, 44) it dates from shortly after 1310, and according to D. Talbot Rice (The art of Byzantium, London 1959, pl. xl) around 1400.
R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Graeci, Vatican City 1950, p. 109.
J. Ebersolt, La miniature byzantine, Paris and Brussels 1926, p. 37.
The word used by both Constantine vu Porphyrogenitus (op. cit. [note 29], chap. 47, p. 2) and the Pseudo-Kodinos (op. cit. [note 42], pp. 18, 198) to denote this crown is στέμμα. Anna Comnena(1083-after 1148), in the Alexiade (ed. B. Leib, Paris 1937–45, 3.4.1), uses the words στέμμα and διάδημα, the diadem of the emperor being a semi-spherical crown set with pearls and precious stones. For the crown of the sebastocrator (a title introduced by Alexius 1 for his brother Isaac, setting him thereby above the caesar Nicephorus Melissenus) and that of the caesar, which were of a different shape, she uses the word στέφανος. She also says that Constantine, the son of Michael vii Dukas (1071–78), who was re-established as co-emperor by Alexius 1, followed the latter in processions wearing the βασιλιϰή τιάϱα, another designation for the imperial crown (ibid., 3.4.6). See further J. Deer, “Der Ursprung der Kaiserkrone,” Schweizer Beiträge zur allgemeine Geschichte 8 (1950), pp. 51–87. Alexius’s crown in Vat. gr. 666 is not obviously spherical.
Chapter 46 of Constantine vii Porphyrogenitus’s book on court ceremonies (cited in note 29) deals with the emperor’s frequent changes of regalia during festivals or processions. He speaks of stemmata of different colors: blue, green, white and red. A. Chris-tophilipoulou, Hellenica 15 [1957], pp. 279–85) suggests that these colors were those of the stones with which the stemmata were set.
Le livre des cérémonies, cit. (note 29), p. 17, chap. 50. Anna Com-nena (op. cit. [note 46], 3.4.1) says that the πϱεπενδούλια were a distinguishing feature of imperial costume.
According to Anna Comnena (op. cit. [note 46], 2.7.4), Emperor Isaac 1 Comnenus tried in vain to proclaim his brother John as his successor by offering him the imperial boots; the words she uses for them are: ύποδήματα, πέδίλα and τζαγγία. Alexius 1 was proclaimed emperor at Schiza in Thrace in like manner by his brother Isaac, who invested him with purple boots. From there he marched against the childless emperor, Nicephorus iii Botaniates, in Constantinople, where he was officially crowned by the patriarch.
The emperor did not stand on the ground but—as can be seen in numerous depictions—on a raised platform, a footstool or a cushion (σουππέδιου). See O. Treitinger, op. cit. (note 1), p. 58.
Grabar, op. cit. (note 2), p. 100: “Une belle miniature de la Panoplie Dogmatique figure Alexis 1er priant, les bras couverts, devant le Christ qui le bénit du haut du ciel.”
They are identified by inscriptions above their heads as Sts. John of Damascus, Maximus, John Chrysostom, Cyril, Gregory of Nazian-zus, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil, Athanasius and Dionysius.
For a color reproduction, see M. Bonicatti, “Per una introduzione alia cultura mediobizantina di Costantinopoli,” Rivista deïïistituto nazionale d’archeologia e storia dell’ arte n.s. 9 (i960), pp. 207–65.
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, op. cit. (note 29), chap. 46, passim. At the beginning of this chapter we are told how on Easter Sunday the emperors emerged from the palace, each clad in a purple σϰαϱαμάγγιου and a sagion or mantle. The sagion was later left behind in the apartment in the Daphne Palace, being replaced by another garment, the tzitzakion. After the aspasmos in the great triclinium of the nineteen beds, the tzitzakion was removed again and the loros (see note 57) and stemma were assumed. From this it is clear that the garment over which the loros was worn can only have been the skaramangion, which was a splendid sort of tunic. For it see N.P. Kondakov, “Les costumes orientaux à la cour byzantine,” Byzantion 1 (1924), pp. 7–49. Kondakov (p. 16) mistakenly regards the skaranikon mentioned by Pseudo-Kodinos as a further development of the skaramangion; in fact the former is not a tunic but a head cover. For the garments in question, see also J. Ebersolt, Les arts somptuaires de Byzance, Paris 1923.
Some, such as those on the lower right and on the sleeve, resemble stars.
Grabar, op. cit. (note 2), p. 119, says that it is the emperor Alexius 1 and his son John who are shown here, although it had previously been shown by C. Stornajolo (Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo monaco e dell’ evangeliario Greco Urbinate, Rome 1910, p. 19) that the Alexius in question is in fact the son of Emperor John 11. There is no room here to repeat Stornajolo’s arguments, but it may just be noted that in the inscriptions beside the figures, which he does not mention, Alexius is only called βασιλεύες, whereas John is referred to as....
The loros is the Roman trabea triumphalis. In former times it was worn by the consuls, but with the gradual disappearance of this office in the 6th and 7th centuries it was adopted by the emperor. In Pseudo-Kodinos the word λῶϱος appears only once (op. cit. [note 42], p. 181, 30) and then in the sense of a bludgeon. However, the loros, as we know it, was always worn by the Palaeologue emperors, as is clear from their depictions. It is often mentioned by Constan-tine vu Porphyrogenitus and from what he says it appears that it was worn not only by the emperor but also, on Easter and other occasions, by twelve high dignitaries (op. cit. [note 29], commentary to book 1, p. 71).
J. J. Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbegebung in der mittelalterlichen Buchmalerei, Helsinki 1933, p. 163. Gold garments, according to Tikkanen, were rare.
H.O. Coxe, Catalogi codicum manuscript or urn Bibliothecae Bod-leianae, part 1, Oxford 1853, pp. 704–05.
Exhib. cat. Greek manuscripts, Oxford (Bodleian Library) 1966, nr. 80. O. Pächt, Byzantine illumination, Oxford (Bodleian picture book 8) 1952, pls. 3, 8, 9b, 11, 17 (fols. 2ii, 23iv, 292V and 312V) and exhib. cat. Byzantine art, an European art, Athens 1964, nr. 296.
For Joasaph, see L.N. Politis, Byzantinische-Neugriechische Jahrbuch 14 (1938), pp. 268–70.
For the ivory, see A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.-XIII. Jahrhunderts, Berlin 1930–342, vol. 2, nr. 62.
Exhib. cat. Byzantine art, cit. (note 60), nr. 62.
H. Omont, Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibl. Nationale de VIe au XIVe siècle, Paris 1929, p. 46, pl. lxxxvii.
See note 46.
See note 35.
For the theatrical background to Byzantine miniatures, see K. Kenner, “Die frühmittelalterliche Buchmalerei und das klassische griechische Theater,” Fahreshefte Österreichischen archäologischen Institutes in Wien 39 (1952), pp. 47–53, and K. Weitzmann, “The character and intellectual origins of the Macedonian Renaissance,” in Studies in classical and Byzantine manuscript illumination, Chicago 1971, pp. 177–223, esp. p. 196f. (translation of Geistige Grundlagen und Wesen der Makedonischen Renaissance, Cologne 1963).
C. Neumann, Griechische Geschichtsschreiber und Geschichtsquellen im 12. Jahrhundert, Leipzig 1888, p. 33ff.
Op. cit. (note 46), 3.9.18–31.
Neumann, op. cit. (note 68), pp. 32–33.
Migne, PG, vol. 130.
Lazarev, op. cit. (note 28), p. 251, note 44.
It reads (PG, vol. 130, col. 18c).
Doubt has been cast on the historicity of St. Luke’s Theophilus. His name was already explained by Origen, in his first homily on the Gospel according to St. Luke, as referring to anyone beloved of God, while John Cameron, the 17th-century Scottish commentator on the New Testament, thought that the opening words ϰϱάτιστε Θεόφιλε were addressed not to a particular person but to all Christians (cf. Matth. Polus, Synopsis criticorum Sacrae Scripturae IV, Francofurti ad Moenum 1694, col. 796, ad Luc. 113). However, the idea that he is an imaginary figure is not generally accepted. A Jülicher (Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg in Breisgau and Leipzig 1894, p. 203), for example, held that although Theophilus was not the only person for whom St. Luke was writing, he was “ebensowenig eine fingirte Person”; nowadays he is usually regarded as a historical figure who is otherwise totally unknown. (For the information in this note I am indebted to H.J. de Jonge, who was kind enough to read the text of this article and who made various valuable suggestions.)
The earliest dated or datable manuscript belongs to the nth century, but the compilation was probably made in the 10th century; Galvaris, op. cit. (note 21), p. 10.
In chapter 53 of his book, where he deals with the “nobilissi-mus,” the rank immediately below that of caesar, Constantine vu Porphyrogenitus says that the former did not wear a purple chlamys like the caesar but a red one. In Vogt’s edition of the book (see note 29), vol. 2, book 2, p. 36, red is corrected to green, since green is in fact the color mentioned a few pages earlier (p. 34, lines 16–17). The main point of interest for us in all this is that the right to wear the purple chlamys did not extend below the rank of caesar. However, it must be mentioned that, contrary to the book of ceremonies, high dignitaries below the rank of caesar are also shown in pictorial arts clad in purple.
The title was conferred in that year by Manuel 1 Comnenus (1143–80) on Bela, son of Geza 11, king of Hungary, who was then engaged to his daughter Maria. Immediately below the rank of emperor and above that of sebastocrator, the despotes was meant to be the equivalent of the urum, the title Bela had borne in Hungary as heir to the throne. For the despotes, see R. Guilland, “Recherches sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin: le despote,” Revue des Etudes Byzantines 17 (1959), pp. 51–89.
R. Janin, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantin, vol. 3, Les églises et les monastères, Paris 1953, pp. 85–86.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1975 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Spatharakis, I. (1975). Three portraits of the early Comnenian period. In: Netherlands quarterly for the history of art. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3267-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-3267-9_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-015-2065-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-3267-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive