Front Matter Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. i-229 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291222 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
PAPERS OAKS DUMBARTON NUMBER NINETEEN
THE DUMBARTON OAKS CENTER FOR BYZANTINE STUDIES Trusteesfor HarvardUniversity Washington, District of Columbia
$12.00
DUMBARTON OAKS PAPERS NUMBERNINETEEN THE Dumbarton Oaks Papers were founded in I94I for the publication of articles concerning late classical, early mediaeval, and Byzantine civilization in the fields of Art and Architecture, History, Theology, Literature, and Law. Dumbarton Oaks Papers Number i9 contains the following studies and notes: George Ostrogorsky: The Byzantine Background of the Moravian Mission George C. Soulis: The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the SouthernSlavs Dimitri Obolensky: The Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia Antonfn Dostal: The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy Romilly J. H. Jenkins: The Chronological Accuracy of the"Logothete"for the Years A.D. 867-913
Cyril Mango and Ernest J. W. Hawkins: The Apse Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. Report on Work CarriedOut in I964 Sirarpie Der Nersessian: A Psalter and New TestamentManuscript at DumbartonOaks Alison Frantz: From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens Philip Grierson: Two Byzantine Coin Hoards of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries at DumbartonOaks
NOTES
R. Martin Harrison and Nezih Firatli: Excavations at Sarafhane in Istanbul: First Preliminary Report Carl D. Sheppard: A Radiocarbon Date for the Wooden Tie Beams in the West Gallery of St. Sophia, Istanbul Romilly J. H. Jenkins: A Note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii Donald M. Nicol: ConstantineAkropolites: A ProsopographicalNote Roman Jakobson: The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks
DUMBARTON OAKS PAPERS ?NUMBER NINETEEN
Dumbarton Oaks
Papers
NUMBER NINETEEN
The Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies Trustees for Harvard University Washington,Districtof Columbia 1965
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE TRUSTEES FOR HARVARD UNIVERSITY THE DUMBARTON OAKS RESEARCH LIBRARY AND COLLECTION WASHINGTON, D. C.
Distributedby J. J. Augustin, Publisher Locust Valley, New York
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 42-6499 Printed in Germany at J. J. Augustin, Gliickstadt
CONTENTS GEORGEOSTROGORSKY ........ The Byzantine Background of the Moravian Mission GEORGE C. SOULIS
? ??
............
I
?
.
19
*
*
45
.
67
.
89
The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
............
The Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia ANTONiN DOSTAL
.............
The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
......
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The ChronologicalAccuracy of the "Logothete" for the Years A.D. 867-913 CYRIL MANGOand ERNEST J. W. HAWKINS ......... The Apse Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. Report on Work Carried Out in I964 SIRARPIE DER NERSESSIAN
II3
.............
I53
A Psalter and New Testament Manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks ALISON FRANTZ
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i85
.
.
.
.
.
.
. 207
From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens PHILIP GRIERSON
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Two Byzantine Coin Hoards of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries at Dumbarton Oaks
NOTES R. MARTIN HARRISON and NEZIH FIRATLI ...... Excavations at Saraghane in Istanbul: First Preliminary Report CARL D. SHEPPARD
............
.
.
. 230
.
.
.
* 237
.
.
A Radiocarbon Date for the Wooden Tie Beams in the West Gallery of St. Sophia, Istanbul ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS ........ A Note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the Vita Ignatii DONALD M. NICOL ........ Constantine Akropolites: A Prosopographical Note
. ..
. 241
. 249
ROMAN JAKOBSON .............. .257 The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of I964, and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies
ILLUSTRATIONS (Following Page 152) and THE APSE MOSAICS W. Hawkins: Ernest Cyril Mango J.
OF ST. SOPHIA AT ISTANBUL.
REPORT
ON WORK CARRIED OUT IN I964
I. Istanbul, St. Sophia. General View of Apse and Bema Arch 2. Apse, Virgin and Child 3. Apse, Virgin and Child, with Indications of Sutures 4. Apse, Virgin and Child, Head of Virgin 5. Apse, Virgin and Child, Right Hand of Virgin and Right Hand of Child 6. Apse, Virgin and Child, Left Hand of Virgin 7. Apse, Virgin and Child, Lower Part of Figure 8. Apse, Virgin and Child, Head of Child 9. Apse, Virgin and Child, Feet of Child IO. Apse, Virgin and Child, North Side of Throne II. Apse, Virgin and Child, South Side of Throne 12. Apse, Virgin and Child I3. Face of Apse Semidome, Beginning of Inscription 14. Face of Apse Semidome, End of Inscription, with Indication of Suture I5. Gold Background of Apse Semidome, North Side I6. Gold Background of Apse Semidome, South Side 17. Apse Semidome, Window I (before Sill was lowered) I8. Apse Semidome, Windows 2 and 3 (before Sill of Window 2 was lowered) 19. Apse Semidome, Windows 3 and 4 (before Sill of Window 4 was lowered) 20. Apse Semidome, Window 5 (before Sill was lowered) 2I. Garland Border between Face of Apse Semidome and Window I 22. Garland Border below Window 2
23. Apse Semidome, Window 3 (after Sill was lowered) 24. Crown of Apse Semidome and Bema Arch 25. Window 3, South Soffit, Detail of
Geometric Border 26, 27. Window 3, Cutting showing Successive Sill Levels 28. Window 2, North Soffit (after Sill was lowered) 29. Window 4, South Soffit (after Sill was lowered) 30. Face of Apse Semidome, North Springing, Juncture between Inscription and Garland Border 3I. Area of Loss to North of Virgin and Child, with Indications of Sutures 32. Suture running into the Top of the Area of Loss to North of Virgin and Child 33. Same as Figure 32, with Black Line showing Underlap and Overlap of Second and Third Beds of Plaster onto Surface of First Bed. 34. Suture running into the Bottom of the Area of Loss to North of Virgin and Child 35. Same as Figure 34, with Black Line showing Underlap and Overlap of Plaster Beds 36. Area of Loss to South of Virgin and Child, with Indications of Sutures 37. Suture running into the Bottom of the Areaof Lossto South of Virginand Child 38. Same as Figure 37, with Black Line showing Underlap and Overlap of Second and Third Beds of Plaster onto Surface of First Bed 39. Northeast Exedra, Geometric Window Border
ILLUSTRATIONS
viii
40. Brickwork at Crown of Bema Arch 41. Bema Arch, South Archangel 42. South Archangel, with Indications of Sutures 43. South Archangel, Head 44. South Archangel, Right Hand 45. South Archangel, Left Hand 46. South Archangel, Right Wing 47. South Archangel, Left Wing 48. South Archangel, Left Foot 49. South Archangel, Toe of Left Foot
50. Bema Arch, North Archangel 5I. North Archangel, West Fragment 52. North Archangel, East Fragment 53. West Edge of Bema Arch, Fragment of Geometric Border 54. Soffit of Bema Arch at the Crown, looking up 55. West Edge of Bema Arch, Fragment of Geometric Border East Reveal of Main South Arch with 56. Partially Cleaned Mosaic Designs
(Illustrations in Text) Page 151. C. Section through Apse Semidome Page I34. A. Central Window of Apse, lookSouth and Bema Arch looking North. ing Areas of Phase i Mosaic are Page 150. B. Elevation of Apse Semidome. shown stippled Areas of Phase i Mosaic are shown stippled (Following Page I84)
SirarpieDer Nersessian:A
PSALTER AND NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPT AT DUMBARTON OAKS
Dumbarton Oaks Manuscript 3: Fol. 8ov, Canticle of the Virgin; fol. 330oV, Epistle to Philemon, detail, enlarged: Christ, Paul, and Timothy (see also Fig. 54) i. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 4. Cross I2. Paris, Bibl. Nat., suppl. gr. 6IO, fol. 249v. Canticle of Hannah (photo: Bibl. Nat.) (missing) (photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes) I3. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 76. Canticle of Habakkuk 2. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 4V.Virgin and Saints (missing) (photo: Ecole des Hautes I4. Paris, Bibl. Nat., suppl. gr. 6IO, fol. 252v. Canticle of Habakkuk (photo: Bibl. Nat.) Etudes) Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 77. Canticle MS fol. Birth and Dumbarton Oaks I5. 3, 5. 3. of Isaiah Anointing of David I6. Paris, Bibl. Nat., suppl. gr. 6io, fol. 256V. 4. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 5v. Portrait Canticle of Isaiah (photo: Bibl. Nat.) of David 17. Benaki Museum. Single Leaf Athens, fol. 6. of MS Portrait Oaks Dumbarton 3, 5. (fol. 78 of Dumbarton Oaks MS 3). David Canticle of Jonah (photo: Benaki Mus.) 6. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 27. Repenti8. Benaki Museum. Single Leaf Athens, ance of David of Dumbarton Oaks MS 3). The 78V (fol. 7. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 39. Christ Three in the Furnace (photo: Hebrews Pantokrator Benaki Mus.) 8. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 7I. Combat 19. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 79. Ananias of David and Goliath 20. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 79V. Azarias 9. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 72. Crossing 2I. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 80. Misael of the Red Sea 22. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 8oV.Canticle io. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 73. Moses Reof the Virgin (see also Frontispiece) ceiving the Tablets of the Law II. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 75. Canticle 23. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 8I. Canticle of Zacharias of Hannah Frontispiece (facing p.
155).
ILLUSTRATIONS 24. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 81V.Canticle of Hezekiah 25. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 82V. Prayer of Manasseh 26. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 86v. Portraits of Donors (missing) (photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes) Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 87. Virgin and 27. Child (missing) (photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes) 28. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 95. Portrait of Matthew 29. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. I29. Portrait
of Mark 30. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. I5I. Portrait of Luke 3I. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. I87. Portrait of John and Prochoros (missing) (photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes) 32 Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 215. Portrait
of Luke and the Eleven Apostles 33. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 250. Epistle of James: Portrait of James 34. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 253v. Preface to the Epistles of Peter: Portrait of Luke 35. Cleveland Museum of Art. Single Leaf (fol. 254 of Dumbarton Oaks MS 3). First Epistle of Peter: Portrait of Peter 36. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 258. Second Epistle of Peter: Peert (see also fig. 59) 37. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 260. Preface to the First Epistle of John: Luke and John (see also Fig. 60) 38. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 26I. First Epistle of John: Portrait of John 39. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 264V.Second Epistle of John 40. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 265V. Third Epistle of John 4I. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 266V.Epistle of Jude: Portrait of Jude 42. Dumbarton Oks MS 3, fol. 269V.Epistle to the Romans: Portrait of Paul 43. Dumbarton
Oaks MS 3, fol. 282v. First
Epistle to the Corinthians 44. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 294v. Second
Epistle to the Corinthians(see also Fig. 6I)
ix
45. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 303. Epistle to the Galatians 46. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 307. Epistle to the Ephesians 47. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 3IIV. Epistle to the Philippians (see also Fig. 62) 48. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 315. Epistle to the Colossians 49. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 318. First Epistle to the Thessalonians 50. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 32I. Second
Epistle to the Thessalonians 5I. Dumbarton
Oaks MS 3, fol. 323. First
Epistle to Timothy 52. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 326V. Second Epistle to Timothy 53. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 329. Epistle to Titus Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 330V. Epistle 54. to Philemon (see also Frontispiece) 55. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 33IV. Epistle to the Hebrews 56. Mount Athos, Vatopedi Monastery. Cod. 762, fol. I7. Virgin and Child between Archangels(photo: Archives Photographiques) Mount Athos, Vatopedi Monastery. Cod. 57. 762, fol. 88v. Gregory, Basil, and John Chrysostom (photo: Archives Photographiques) 58. Venice, Bibl. Marciana. Cod. gr. 565, fol. I9IV. Moses receiving the Tablets of the Law 59. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 258, detail, (enlarged three times): Peter (see also Fig. 36) 60. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 260, detail (enlarged three times): John (see also Fig. 37) 6I. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 294V, detail (enlarged three times): Christ and Paul (see also Fig. 44) 62. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 3IIv, detail (enlarged three times): Christ, Paul, and Timothy (see also Fig. 47)
x
ILLUSTRATIONS (Following Page 206)
Alison Frantz:
FROM PAGANISMTO CHRISTIANITY IN THE TEMPLES OF ATHENS
I. Athens, A.D. 267-408
12. Seventh-century Buckles from the
2. Late Roman Fortification in the Agora
Agora (selection) 13. Harness Ornament from the Agora I4. Templon Slab in the Erechtheion I5. The Temple of Hephaistos I6. The Hephaisteion as a Christian Church. (Plan and Sections) The Hephaisteion as a Christian 17. Church. Moulding in the Bema Arch, East Face, South Side I8. The Hephaisteion as a Christian Church. Moulding in the Bema Arch, Inner Face, South 19. The Hephaisteion as a Christian Church. Moulding in the Bema Arch, Inner Face, North 21, 22. Early Christian Mouldings from the Hephaisteion
3. Early Christian Lamp from the Agora 4. Early Christian Lamp from the Agora 5. Christian Tombstone from the Agora 6. The Agora in the Fifth Century A.D. 7. Pilaster Capital from the Gymnasium in the Agora 8. Silenus, from the Stage of Phaedrus in the Theater of Dionysos 9. Statue of a Magistrate, from the Agora 10. Acropolis Museum. Portrait of a Philosopher ii. Quatrefoil Building in the Library of Hadrian
20,
(Following Page 228) Philip Grierson: TWO
BYZANTINE COIN HOARDS OF THE SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES AT DUMBARTON OAKS
I. The Second Aydin Hoard (I). Coins of
2.
Tiberius II (nos. I, 2), Maurice (nos. 3, 4), and Phocas (nos. 5-II5) The Second Aydin Hoard (2). Coins of Heraclius alone (nos. II6-140), and of Heraclius with Heraclius Constantine (nos. 14I-I96)
3. The Sicilian Hoard (i). Coins of Constantine IV (nos. 1-3), Justinian II (no. 4), Leontius (nos. 5-21), and Tiberius III (nos. 22, 23)
4. The Sicilian Hoard (2). Coins of Tiberius III (nos. 24-44) and Philippicus (nos. 45, 46)
(Following Page 236) R. Martin Harrison and Nezih Frath: EXCAVATIONSAT SARAPHANE
IN ISTANBUL: FIRST PRE-
LIMINARY REPORT
i. General View of Site from City Hall
6. Fragment of Marble Frieze
Roof, looking northwest 2. Underpass, East wall of Building B
7. Marble Fragment with Monogram
3. Underpass, Early Conduit between A and B, looking south 4. Building C, Cross Vault at West End of Long Chamber, looking southwest 5. General View of M/I5-I7, looking south
8-1. Pier Capital: 8. Side a, 9. Side b, Io. Side c, II. Side d 12. Upper Part of Inlaid Columnas found,
with some Green Glass and Amethyst intact I3. Middle Section of Inlaid Column Shaft
ILLUSTRATIONS
xi
(Illustrations in Text) Fifth Century. Almost half extant. Page 230. A. Saraghane, General Plan of Excavation 2. Late Fourth-Early Fifth Century. D. (estimated) 30 cm. 3. Late Fourth-Mid Fifth Century. D. 26 Page232. B. Sarashane, Plan of Structures in West Face of Excavation for cm. 4. Mid (?) Fifth Century. D. 22 cm. 5 and 6. Mid-Late Fifth Underpass Page 232. C. Sarashane,
Approximate
Century. D. 24 and 25 cm. 7. Late Fifth Century. D. 32 cm. 8. Ca. 520-
Sec-
tion of Building Ain Underpass, looking west
570. D. 22 cm.. 9Probably Early Sixth Century. D. 22 cm. 10. Very Pale Ware with Orange Slip; Stamped Decoration and Rouletting: Fifth Century (third quarter?). Examples
Page 235. D. Selected Pottery from Conduit between Buildings A andB (2:5): I-9. Late Roman C Ware. o1.
Unclassified.
of the same Ware have been found at
i. Second Half
Athens and Sardis (unpublished)
(Following Page 240) Carl D. Sheppard: I.
A RADIOCARBON
DATE FOR THE WOODEN TIE BEAMS IN THE WEST GALLERY OF ST. SOPHIA, ISTANBUL
Istanbul, St. Sophia, West Gallery.Wooden Tie Beam in South Arch, seen from the West
2. Istanbul, St. Sophia, West Gallery. Detail of Tie Beam shown in Figure i, from above, showing location of specimens 3. Istanbul, St. Sophia, West Gallery. Wooden Tie Beam in Central Arch, seen from the West
4. Istanbul, St. Sophia, West Gallery. Wooden Tie Beam in Central Arch, from below 5. Istanbul, St. Sophia, South Gallery. Wooden Tie Beam in East Bay 6. Istanbul, Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, Bema, North Pier, Cornice 7. Istanbul, St. Sophia, Narthex. Intarsia Frieze beneath Plastic Cornice (photo: Byzantine Instutite, Paris)
(Following Page 256) Donald M. Nicol: I.
CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES: A PROSOPOGRAPHICALNOTE
Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria
2. Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon, of the Theotokos Hodegetria, detail of Lower Left Corer of Frame. Constantine Akropolites
3. Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria, detail of Lower Right Corner of Frame. Maria Komnene Tornikina
NOTES
The Byzantine Background of the Moravian Mission Author(s): George Ostrogorsky Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 1-18 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291223 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
THE
OF
BYZANTINE THE
BACKGROUND
MORAVIAN
GEORGE OSTROGORSKY
MISSION
This paper was prepared for the Symposium on "The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs: St. Cyril and St. Methodius," held at Dumbarton Oaks May 7-9, I964. Owing to unforeseen circumstances, Professor Ostrogorsky was unable to participate in the Symposium, and we are most grateful to him for submitting his paper for publication here. The Publication Committee
culture, the most highly developed of its time, had a .B qYZANTINE great power of radiation. In its expansion it embraced the whole Mediterranean world, taking in the European, Asian, and African shores. It penetrated deep into the interior of the European continent. While the movement was on the whole a constant one, there were periods of conspicuous advances and also times of recession. The second half of the ninth century witnessed the most marked advance; in addition, it was a period of particularly intensive missionary activity-the most effective form of Byzantine cultural penetration. I should like to examine here the conditions and the causes of this development. The Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius extended Byzantine religious and cultural influences to a remote Slavic country in the center of Europe. This is an impressive and spectacular manifestation of Byzantine religious and cultural expansion. The real and unique greatness of the Moravian mission, however, lies not so much in its achievements in Moravia proper, as in the outstanding nd far-reaching results achieved by the work of Constantine and Methodius beyond the Moravian border. By creating a Slavonic alphabet, which made possible the development of Slavic writing and literature, the brothers from Thessalonica opened up a new era in the cultural life of numerous Slavic peoples. This is why the whole civilized world is celebrating the eleven hundredth anniversary of the achievement of the "Apostles of the Slavs." However, except for the remarkable results it achieved, the Moravian mission viewed as a missionary enterprise, was not an uncommon activity at this time, much less an isolated one. It was only one link in a major historical process, one of a series of similar undertakings that were characteristic of the policy of the Byzantine Empire at the time. Byzantium was then consolidating her existing relations and establishing new relations with peoples in the extensive territory inhabited by the Slavs. In a short interval of time-a single decade-very important contacts were cemented between the Byzantine Empire and the various Slavic countries, southern, eastern, and western. These contacts had widespread consequences both for the Slavs and for Byzantium. After the Russian attack on Constantinople in 860, Byzantine missionary activity began in the young Russian state. In 863 the Moravian prince Rastislav requested Byzantium to send missionaries to his country. The next year saw Bulgaria officially accept Christianity. A few years later, the Serbian lands turned to Byzantine Orthodox Christianity. In 869-70 the problem of the Bulgarian Church was finally settled at the Council of Constantinople: Bulgaria together with Macedonia-which was soon to become the main center of Slavic culture-was included within the religious and cultural orbit of ByI*
3
4
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
zantium. All these events occurred in the course of a single decade, the sixties of the ninth century. It was indeed a great decade in the history of the Byzantine Empire. What were the reasons for the powerful influence exerted by Byzantine culture upon the Slavic world at that particular time? To answer this question we must carefully study the historical situation of this epoch, and, above all, examine the development of the previous centuries which led up to it. We shall undertake such an analysis and endeavor to discover the historical roots both of the Moravian mission and he other major achievements of this great decade. There are periods in the secular history of a state when a completely new and clearly perceptible trend takes shape. After a radical reorientation at the beginning otheh seventh century, the Byzantine Empire experienced the next turning point in its history in the middle of the ninth century. At the turn of the sixth century, its social and economic system-a survival from the late Roman Empire-underwent a deep crisis, followed by serious internal and external upheavals. In the seventh century (I discussed this problem at the Dumbarton Oaks symposium seven years ago) the economic and social foundations of the Empire were changing: the administrative and military organization was set up on a new basis; and the image of the Empire, both political and cultural, was recast. Thanks to this internal renovation, Byzantium succeeded in overcoming the crisis, but only after a long and strenuous struggle. Throughout the whole of the seventh and eighth centuries, Byzantium had to fight for her survival, defending herself against the invasions of enemies which threatened her very existence. Avars and Slavs flooded the Balkan Peninsula and, in 626, launched an assault against Constantinople, while from the other side the Persians appeared before the Byzantine capital. In the 670's the Arabs, after conquering nearer Asia and Egypt, besieged Constantinople for five long years during which time the existence of the Empire hung by a thread. In 7I7-I8 a new siege, which once more had led to a critical situation, ended with the defeat of the enemy.the Although the Byzantine Empire halted the Arab invasion at the walls wall of the capital and on the very threshold of Europe, it continued to be under almost constant pressure and threat from the Arabs. To this danger the menace of the young Bulgarian State in the Balkans was eventually added, and during the reign of Khan Krum, at the beginning of the ninth century, this menace became critical. A change, however, took place in the second half of the ninth century. In 863 Petronas, brother of Caesar Bardas, achieved a victory of far-reaching consequences over the Arabs in Asia Minor. To be sure, battles, fierce and varying in their outcome, continued to take place, but thenceforth the Byzantines more and more often took the initiative. Indeed, Petronas' victory of 863 represented a turn of the tide in the wars between Byzantium and the Arabs, and foreshadowed the subsequent triumphant expansion of the Byzantine Empire in the East. The struggle with the Arabs greatly influenced the situation in the European sectors, especially in the Balkan Peninsula, and they have had, therefore, to be
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND
OF MORAVIAN
MISSION
taken into consideration here. The difficulties it encountered in the East paralyzed the Empire in the Balkans, while successes on the eastern front strengthened its position and facilitated its activities in the north. At a decisive moment, one year after Petronas' victory in eastern Asia Minor, Byzantium intervened in the Balkans with the utmost determination and effectiveness, and by means of her armed forces compelled Bulgaria to sever her alliance with the Franks and to accept Christianity from Constantinople. The situation in the Balkans is of special importance in dealing with our problem; we shall, henceforth, have to devote particular attention to the events that took place there, beginning with the migration of the Southern Slavs. A massive immigration of Slavic tribes into the entire Balkan Peninsula shook Byzantine power from the Danube to the southern extremity of Greece. Byzantium maintained her position only in a number of cities-mainly coastal ones. The full scope of the disaster suffered by Byzantium in the Balkans at that time is often overlooked because Byzantine administration there was not h e replaced by any other organized stat territories, until then under the control of the Byzantine Empire, fell into the hands of Slavic tribes. The Balkan peninsula was transformed into a number of Sclaviniae-as Byzantine sources call the regions occupied by the Slavs. These regions were actually seized by the Slavs and were, in fact, removed from Byzantine political control, but they were not endowed with their own state organization. The Balkan Peninsula was indeed lost to Byzantium, yet the fiction of Byzantine sovereignty could still be maintained. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, in his celebrated treatise on foreign policy, strongly insisted on the supreme right of the Byzantine Empire in the Balkan lands. Modern historians, too, devote much attention to the question of how far Byzantine sovereignty was accepted in those countries. This approach, however, does not provide the key to the true political relationships in the Balkans. Formal recognition of the Empire's supreme rights did not represent real subordination to Byzantine authority. Actual Byzantine control existed only in those localities where the military and administrative apparatus was functioning. In contemporary terms, this meant that it prevailed wherever themes were established: themes were the new military administrative system introduced by Byzantium in her provinces beginning with the seventh-century revival. I emphasized this view in one of my previous papers, delivered at the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium in 1957.1 I am compelled here to repeat certain points, this time in a different perspective, because they are essential to an understanding of the situation in the Balkan Peninsula after the migration of the Slavs. On the earlier occasion we were interested in the conditions created in the seventh century. Now we are concerned with their subsequent development. Formerly our primary task was to draw attention to the true extent of the disorganization of Byzantine power after the catastrophe that befell the Empire 1 G. Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (1959), I f.
GEORGE
6
OSTROGORSKY
in the Balkans during the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Now our main task is to consider when and how Byzantium succeeded in overcoming the crisis and in re-establishing her authority in certain Balkan regions. The development of the theme system in the Balkan Peninsula has been described in detail in important works by Dvomik, Kyriakides, and Lemerle.2 Continuing their research, I have tried to shed light on this problem from a new viewpoint. In my opinion, the establishment of themes in the Balkans was a process identical with that of the Byzantine reoccupation of certain areas in the peninsula.3 It is known-Constantine Porphyrogenitus stated so himself, and documentary sources confirm the fact-that the first theme in the Balkans was organized only about the year 68o, in the district closest to the capital, i.e., in Thrace.4 Some ten years later, the theme of Hellas was created, embracing central Greece.5These were the only two areas in which Byzantium at this time succeeded in reorganizing her administrative apparatus. What is more important is that the process of establishing Byzantine rule in the Balkans, which started withthe creation of these two themes, limited in area and situated far apart, was arrested for a long time. Not one new theme was set up in the Balkans during the next hundred years. Until almost the end of the eighth century Byzantium failed to bring any other Balkan region into her military-administrative system. Then, suddenly, a change took place. Slow and sluggish for two centuries following the Slavic immigration, the process of reorganizing Byzantine power in the Balkans now became intensive, vigorous, and effective. From the end of the eighth century-and, particularly during the first half of the ninth-Byzantium succeeded in reconstituting her authority in a considerable portion theof Balkan peninsula. It is, however, only at first glance that the chane seems sudden. In actual fact, it was the result of long and laborious struggles-mentioned sporadically in Byzantine chronicles -and of gradual, barely noticeable, internal shifts. The establishment of the different themes was only the final result of these shifts. At one extremity the process embraced Greek territory. Probably by the end of the eighth century the new theme of the Peloponnesus was created alongside the existing one of Hellas.6 The theme of Cephalonia, including the Ionian Islands, was organized in the first years of the ninth century at the latest.7 At the other extremity, between 789 and 802, the theme of Macedonia was established, more or less contemporaneously with the Greek themes to the south.8 The Macedonian theme, however, had nothing in common with either classical Macedonia or that of modern times: this point must be made 2
F. Dvornik, Les ligendes de Constantin et de Methode vues de Byzance (Prague, I933), 3ff.; St. Buavrival MerTai (Thessalonica, P. Lemerle, Philippes et la Macddoine 1939), 29ff.; orientale d l'dpoque chyetienne et byzantine (Paris, I945), Ii8ff. 3 G. Ostrogorsky, "Postanak tema Helada i Peloponez," Zbornik radova Vizantologkoginstituta, i (1952), 64ff.; Cf. Geschichtedes byzantinischen Staates (1963), i62ff. 4 See note 2 supra. 5 Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, "Postanak tema...," 65 ff. 6 Kyriakides,
Ibid.,
71 ff.
7 Cf. D. A. Zakythinos, "Le theme de C6phalonie et la defense de 1'Occident," L'hellenisme contemporain, 8 (1954), 303ff. 8 Cf. Lemerle, op. cit., I22ff.
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND
OF MORAVIAN
MISSION
7
clear, particularly because the question of Macedonia is of especial importance to our problem. The Byzantine theme of Macedonia consisted of western Thrace, with its center at Adrianople. The name "Macedonia" was attached to this territory precisely because actual Macedonia was lost to Byzantium, and was occupied by Slavs and formed a conglomeration of Sclaviniae. In the first half of the ninth century-probably in its early years-the regions of Thessalonica and Dyrrachium were organized as themes. Both, along with the themes mentioned above, are cited in Uspenskij's Tacticon, compiled between 845 and 856.9 On the other hand, Dvornik has pointed out that the Life of St. Gregory Decapolites, which he edited, already mentions, about 836, the strategus of Thessalonica and his protocancellarius; from which Dvornik rightly concluded that the theme of Thessalonica originated at least before 836.10The establishment of a theme in the Dyrrachium region probably took place in the first quarter of the ninth century, as was recently shown by Jadran Ferluga, who relied on an item of information in the correspondence of Theodore the Studite.11 The institution of themes in the territories of Thessalonica and Dyrrachium was a particularly important step in strengthening the Byzantine position in the Balkans, since Dyrrachium was the main base of the Empire on the Adriatic coast, and Thessalonica was both the main stronghold on the Aegean Sea and, what is of particular importance in the present context, the Empire's principal gateway to the Slavic world. Hence, on the eve of the great mission of the brothers from Thessalonica, this city became the center of the most important theme of the Empire in the Balkans. Then Thessalonica was connected with the Thracian themes of Macedonia and Thrace by the creation of the theme of Strymon: this theme followed the coast between the rivers Strymon and Nestos, and its center was Serres.'2 At the other extremity, the formation of the Nicopolis theme, in Epirus, completed the network of the theme system on Greek territory. Finally, at the beginning of the reign of Basil I, the former archontia Dalmatia, which included the coastal cities and the nearby islands, acquired greater importance and was raised to the status of a theme.13 This was a decisive moment in the expansion of Byzantine influence in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula and in the Christianization of the Serbian lands. This completed the main phase in the process of restoring Byzantine power in the Balkans-a process of political reoccupation that made possible a gradual, often very slow, re-Hellenization of the regained regions. Later Byzantine reoccupation, which absorbed almost all of the Balkan Peninsula in the tenth and eleventh centuries, was temporary and had no deep roots. The process of reoccupation which we have followed here did, on the contrary, have lasting 9 G. Ostrogorsky, "Taktikon Uspenskog i Taktikon Benesevi6a," Zbornik radova Vizantoloskog
instituta, 2 (I953), 40ff.
10F. Dvornik, La vie de Saint Grdgoirele Ddcapolite (Paris, I926), pp. 36, 62. 11 J. Fergula, "La creation du theme de Dyrrachium," Actes du XIIe Congrgs d'dtudes byzantines, II
(1964), 83ff. 12 Cf. M. Rajkovic, "Oblast Strimona i tema Strimon," Zbornik radova VizantoloSkog instituta, 5 (I958), iff.
18J.
Ferluga, Vizantiska uprava u Dalmaciji (Belgrade, 1958, 68ff.
8
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
results. It divided the Balkan Peninsula forever into a Greek and a Slavic zone. By the second half of the ninth century, Byzantium had succeeded in strengthening her power not only in the entire southern part of the peninsula, but also in the more remote coastal regions accessible to her naval power. These regions included many old harbors and cities inhabited by the older Greek and Roman populations which the Slavic migration had driven there. The interior of the Balkan Peninsula, however, remained beyond the borders of Byzantium. Here, gradually, Slavic states arose: Bulgaria was formed and expanded, and new states were organized in the Serbian and Croatian regions. Thus ended the era of the Sclaviniae, which had marked the history of the Balkans from the seventh century to the ninmiddle middle the of theninth. Where Byzantine administrative power asserted itself, the Sclaviniae were eventually absorbed into the theme organization; in regions remaining outside Byzantine control they either merged into new Slavic states or joined existing ones. Numerous Macedonian Sclaviniae joined Bulgaria, and thus the Bulgarian State came to extend over those territories of Macedonia which were not included within the Byzantine theme organization, i.e., by far the greater part of that region. The incorporation of Macedonia-the main area of the later activity of Methodius' disciples, with Ohrid as the principal center of old Slavic culture and literature-is a particularly salient factor in our study. The date of this incorporation cannot be accurately determined. We know only, in connection with the activities of Methodius' disciples, that at the time of Prince Boris western Macedonia, including Ohrid, was situated within the borders of the Bulgarian State. In their efforts to determine when Bulgaria extended its hegemony over this territory, historians have resorted to a number of hypotheses-many of them fairly bold. The general pattern for the solution of this problem was proposed by the eminent Bulgarian historian Zlatarski.14Assuming that the annexation of Macedonia by Bulgaria resulted from wars between the Bulgarian State and Byzantium, Zlatarski went to great pains to search the sources for information about these wars. But since there is no evidence of any wars in western Macedonia at that time, he chose to rely on a brief notice in the Chronicle of Symeon Logothetes which states that a Bulgarian ruler marched is against Thessalonica. As this notice inserted in the the story of the return of Byzantine war prisoners deported in the time of Krum (among these prisoners were the later Emperor Basil I and his parents), Zlatarski dates the abovementioned expedition against Thessalonica to 837, and ascribes it to Khan Presiam. This would have been the operation needed to bring about the annexation of western Macedonia to Bulgaria. Bury accepts this chronology,15 although he observes-cautiously, as always-that to attribute such results to this expedition is "a hypothesis that cannot be proved.'16 S. Runciman also 14 V. N. Zlatarski, "Izvestija za Bulgarite v hronikata na Simeona Metafrasta i Logoteta," Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija i kniznina, 24 (1908), and Istorija na Bulgarskata DurSava prez srednite vekove I, i (Sofia, iqi8), 337ff. 15 J. B. Bury, A History of the Eastern Roman Empire (London, 1912), 370ff 16
Ibid.,
372.
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND OF MORAVIAN MISSION
9
accepts Zlatarski's chronology and his basic hypothesis.17 This date, we are told, is particularly plausible, because the Byzantine Emperor Theophilus was at that time engaged in a major struggle against the Arabs and could not intervene. Mutafciev, in his turn, while also following Zlatarski's basic ideas, develops them in his own way. He does not mention the expedition against Thessalonica, but bases his conclusions on information provided by the wellknown Shumen inscription, according to which the Bulgarian ruler (and he also believes it was Presiam) sent the prominent Bulgarian army commander Kavhan Isbul into the district of Serres. Mutafciev infers from this piece of evidence that a Byzantine army was concentrated there, with the task of an in the West and forcing Slavic tribes in the area of the instigatingattack rivers Strymon and Vardar to submit again to Byzantium.'8 Mutafciev attributes the fact that at that to him-the had to defend themselves time-838, according Byzantines against a massive Arab attack in Asia Minorwhich compelled them to withdraw forces from the West.19However, according to Zlatarski and Bury, Isbul's expedition in the area of the Strymon and the Nestos did not take place until after the year 846.20
Let us not dwell any longer on these contradictions, or on the fact that, in view of Bulgaria's annexation of the Macedonian Sclaviniae, some scholars attribute great importance to the Bulgarian ruler's campaign against Thessalonica, while others do not mention it all; or on the fact that in this connection the latter authorities attach correspondingly great significance to the Shumen inscription, while the former completely disregard it. It is, nevertheless, strange that the Sclaviniae in western and central Macedonia should have been transferred from Byzantine to Bulgarian authority without the sources mentioning any military operations in those areas; while, faute de mieux, we are offered data on Bulgarian actions in the districts of Thessalonica and Serres-regions which, in fact, were not annexed to Bulgaria. It is important above all to realize how insufficient and vague is the available evidence. Information provided by the partially preserved Shumen inscription is not even entirely clear. Contrary to Jirecek and Uspenskij, who published it, and to Bury who referred to "'warlike action,' 21 Zlatarski, in his final judgement 17
S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London,
18 P. Mutafciev, Istorija na Bulgarskija narod, I (Sofia, 1943),
1930),
87.
i60. See also P. Nikov, Han Omortag
i Kavhan Isbul (Sofia [Bulg. Istor. Bibl.], n.d). 19The new history of Bulgaria published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences combines these two pieces of evidence, and claims that the Kavhan Isbul was sent to the district of Thessalonica and "at the same time Isbul or some other Bulgarian army leader occupied all of central Macedonia, including part of southern Albania, without encountering serious resistance from the Byzantines who ruled these conquered regions." Cf. Istorija na Bulgarija, I (Sofia, 1954), 93. However, contrary to Zlatarski, T. Cankova-Petkova, in her article, "0 territorii bolgarskogo gosudarstva v VII-IX vv.," Viz. Vrem., 17 (ig960), 143, note ii8, points out that there is no actual evidence of any Bulgarian conquest of Macedonian territories at the time of Presiam. She is inclined to accept the hypothesis that these regions were annexed peacefully after their Christianization. 20 Zlatarski, Izvestija, 52; Bury, op. cit., 372, note 3, and Appendix io. Later Zlatarski changed his opinion and assigned the Shumen inscription to 836-37 (Istorija, I 452 f.), in order to refute Bury's conclusion that Malomir and Presiam were the same person. 21 C. Jirecek in Archaol.-Epigr. Mitteilungen, 19 (1896), 242f.; F. I. Uspenskij inIzvestija russk. arheol. inst. v Konstantinopole, 10 (1905), 232f.; Bury, op. cit., App. io, p. 83.
GEORGE
10
OSTROGORSKY
on this inscription, did not believe that military operations were involved here.22 On the other hand, information supplied by Symeon Logothetes -which Zlatarski takes as a point of departure-is clear in its meaning. But Symeon says-and only in a subordinate clause-no more than thanthat prisoners of war, with whom the whole story deals and who were deported at the time of Krum, were leaving for home wi their belongings when Michael, prince of Bulgaria, moved against Thessalonica.23That is all. The most awkward riddle is the fact that t hi ch modern scholars date to the end of the thirties, was, according to Symeon Logothetes, undertaken by Michael, in 852 Zlatarski i.e., Boris, who ascendedone the athrulerclaims that in question was obviously Presiam, and that this event took place at the very beginning of his reign, after a recent change on the throne: for, in the same passage, two lines earlier, another Bulgarian ruler is mentioned: Symeon Logothetes calls him Vladimir and relates that he was Krum's grandson and the father of Symeon who reigned afterward.24 Zlatarski claims that this Vladimir was in fact Malomir, since Malomir was Krum's grandson-and Bury and Runciman agree with him.25 However, Symeon Logothetes states that this Bulgarian archon was not only Krum's grandson, but also the father and predecessor of the great Symeon. This cannot be reconciled at all with what we know of Malomir;atwhereas Vladimir was least actually Symeon's predecessor, although not his father but his elder brother. We may add that Bury adduced powerful arguments to show that Malomir and Presiam were one and the same person, who reigned from 83I to 852; in which case there was no change at all on the Bulgarian throne in 836.26 Is it not safer to accept the possibility that Symeon Logothetes simply confused the facts? He wrote about events that occurred a hundred years before his time, and he was obviously at sea in Bulgarian history of the first half of the ninth centh century, a period which baffles even the most authoritative modern historians. Is it not preferable to recognize his obvious ignorance than to construct extensive theories and complicated hypotheses on the basis of his confused evidence? The more involved hypotheses appear to be, the more arbitrary they usually are. In fact, they cannot be anything but arbitrary when they set out to prove assumptions that are inaccurate from the start. Hypotheses with which we have been dealing here were conceived on the assumption that the Macedonian Sclaviniae, before being annexed by Bulgaria, belonged to Byzantium; and they aimed to establish at what date and through what military actions Bulgaria won Macedonia from Byzantium. Scholars 22
Zlatarski, Istorija, I,
I,
457.
23 Sym. Log., Georg. Mon. Cont. 8i8, io. Old Church Slavonic translation ed. by Sreznevskij (1905),
101. 24 25 26
Sym. Log., Georg. Mon. Cont. 8i8, 7. Old Church Slavonic translation, ioi.
Bury, op. cit., 369, note 4. Runciman,
op. cit., 86, note 3.
Bury, op. cit., App. X. Zlatarski rejects this interpretation (Istorija, I, i, App. I4) and insists that Malomir and Presiam were two different rulers and that Presiam succeeded Malomir. Discussing in detail the arguments of both parties in this matter, Runciman (op. cit., App. VIII) adduces the hypothesis that Presiam was not a ruler, but a commander in the army of Malomir who, as Bury pointed out, was Omortag's successor and Boris' predecessor, and, therefore, reigned from 831 to 852.
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND
OF MORAVIAN
MISSION
11
have taken pains to extract from the sources everything that, in their opinion, could shed light on these questions. But their quest has been in vain, because the Sclaviniae in upper Macedonia had long since ceased to be under Byzantine rule; hence Bulgaria had no need to wrest them from Byzantium. This is why we find no record of any such conquest in the sources. This fact only confirms what we stated above about conditions in the Balkans during the early Middle Ages. Byzantium lost control over the Balkan Peninsula after the migration of the Slavs. Later, up to the middle of the ninth century, the Byzantine Empire did succeed in gradually establishing its power over part of the Balkans, even over some districts of lower Macedonia-those adjoining the larger urban centers. However, the greater part of Macedonia and the greater portion of the Balkan Peninsula-the whole of the interior-remained outside its control. While the Sclaviniae within the territories reoccupied by Byzantium gradually submitted to her administrative apparatus and were slowly Hellenized, those that remained outside the Byzantine borders either gradually developed into independent Slavic states or joined the already existing Bulgarian State. This was a lengthy process which cannot be accurately dated. It can only be stated that it was largely completed by the reign of Boris, when the greater part of Macedonia was included within the Bulgarian State. I do not mean to imply that it all happened quietly and peacefully. Just as the subordination of the Sclaviniae to Byzantine rule in the southern part of the peninsula was preceded by actions of the Byzantine army, so it is probable that armed force was used in this case also-not to seize Macedonian Sclaviniae from Byzantium, but to subject them to the power of the Bulgarian State; and this is why Byzantine sources provide no information on the subject. Byzantine reoccupation of Balkan territories after an almost complete disaster at the time of the Slavic migration was certainly a great accomplishment, and demonstrates the extraordinary vitality of the Byzantine Empire. It not only created conditions for the gradual re-Hellenization of the reconquered regions, but also provided a solid foundation for the Empire's activities in other Balkan and non-Balkan territories. It is true that the Byzantine reoccupation went no further than the outer boundaries of homogeneous Slavic lands in the Balkan interior. The military and administrative power of Byzantium did not extend over these countries. However, by encircling them with Imperial themes and by strengthening the position of cities bordering on Slavic territories, Byzantium began, from these strongholds, vigorously to spread her influence over the Slavic interior. Changes in the ecclesiastical field which took place during this period of transition contributed to the effectiveness of this expansion. Constantinople was not the only center of diffusion of Byzantine religious and cultural influence among neighboring peoples. It shared this role with Thessalonica above all, and also with the cities of the Adriatic coast. Yet, almost all of the Balkan Peninsula-not just the western part, but its interior as well, that is, Illyricum with its center in Thessalonica-remained under the jurisdiction of the Roman
12
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
See until the middle of the eighth century. The age of Iconoclasm brought about vital changes in the relations between Byzantium and the Church of Rome. The Roman Church did not accept the Iconoclastic doctrine of the Byzantine imperial government. However, in the relations between Rome and Constantinople the ultimately decisive factor was, even more than the doctrinal element, the political situation in Italy created by the growing Lombard invasion. Pope Gregory II firmly repudiated the Iconoclastic doctrines of the Emperor Leo III, as did his successors. But, regardless of the conflict over the most sensitive religious issue of the time, Gregory II and his successors Gregory III and Zacharias remained politically loyal to the emperor as long as there theatwas hope Byzantium would be able to suppress the Lombard danger in Italy. This hope was finally dashed by the fall of Ravenna to the Lombards in 751. Rome turned her back on Byzantium and placed herself under the protection of the Frankish king. Pope Stephen II met King Pippin in Ponthion and entered into an alliance with him which marked a new direction in the development of the West. Byzantium was finally pushed back from northern and central Italy. In its turn, however, the Byzantine government removed the Hellenized regions of southern Italy and the Balkan Peninsula from Roman jurisdiction and placed them under the Church of Constantinople. Bearing in mind the development of Roman-Byzantine relations which we have briefly described, it seems to me that Grumel was right in concluding that this measure was taken not at the time of Leo III and Pope Gregory II, as has been generally thought until recently, but only after the fall of the exarchate of Ravenna, at the time of Stephen II and the Emperor Constantine V.27 In fact, Theophanes, describing with much exaggeration the conflict between Leo III and Gregory II, does not so much as mention the separation of the Balkan and southern Italian regions from Rome. I am sorry to disagree on this question with Anastos, the distinguished authority on the Iconoclastic period, who defends the old chronology.28 I am not convinced that Theophanes did not confuse events even when he ascribed the confiscation of the papal patrimonies in southern Italy to Leo III and presented this measure as the result of the conflict between Leo III and Gregory II on the issue of the cult of icons. Let us not forget how sketchy and confused were Theophanes' notions about everything regarding conditions in the West, particularly about the Roman pontiffs and their chronology. Theophanes mentions Pope Stephen II, and what he terms the Pope's "flight to Pippin," under the year 724-25; in other words, he antedates Stephen's pontificate by thirty years.29 But, whether this event occurred during the reign of Leo III or that of Constantine V, the fact is that the Balkan Peninsula, originally for the most part 27 V.
Grumel, "L'annexion de l'Illyricum oriental, de la Sicile et de la Calabre au patriarcat de Constantinople," Recherchesde science religieuse, 40 (1952), I9Iff. 28 M. V. Anastos, "The Transfer of Illyricum, Calabria and Sicily to the Jurisdiction of the Patri-
archate of Constantinople
in 732-33,"
in Silloge Bizantina
in onore di S. G. Mercati (Rome,
1957), i4ff. 29Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, "The Byzantine Empire in the World of the Seventh Century," Dumbarton
Oaks Papers, 13 (I959),
13, note 32.
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND
OF MORAVIAN
MISSION
13
under the jurisdiction of Rome, fell, during the Iconoclastic period, together with the southern Italian regions, under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.30 Thus, the main Byzantine centers in the Balkans, and especially Thessalonica, whose bishops had until then been considered vicars of the Pope, entered the realm of the Byzantine Church. Thus, even those regions which Byzantium was able to reoccupy only at a later date came within the orbit of its Church. Furthermore, important territories which the Byzantine Empire was quite unable to subdue politically in the period which is of interest to us here, also entered the sphere of the patriarchate of Constantinople. In evaluating the importance of of Illyricum to the patrithe toof nexation the importannexatieon archate of Constantinople, almost everyone who has discussed the matter has stressed that by this measure the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Church were made to correspond to the political borders of the Byzantine Empire. This, however, is not correct, even though it has been asserted by the leading authorities in the field of Byzantine political and Church history. At th time e of its annexation to the patriarchate of Constantinople, Illyricum indeed represented a congeries of Sclaviniae, whereas Byzantine sovereignty over these regions was at most only nominal. Even the successes of Byzantine reoccupation at the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century were limited mainly to the southern part of this area. In other words, by the change of boundaries in the Roman and Byzantine ecclesiastical spheres, the domain of the patriarchate of Constantinople was extended considerably beyond the actual boundaries of the Empire, and encompassed lands which were out of reach of the Byzantine military and administrative authorities, and which were situated in partibus infidelium. The imnportanceof this expansion was demonstrated only in the post-Iconoclastic era, when the religious and cultural influences of Byzantium were vigorously spreading over these, as well as more remote, regions. How important a gain this measure of the Iconoclastic government represented for Byzantium, and how real was the ensuing loss for Rome, is evidenced by the strong protests of the Roman Church, especially bitter after the defeat of Iconoclasm. From the well-known letter which Pope Hadrian II wrote to the Byzantine emperors it can be clearly seen that the news of the restoration of the cult of icons was greeted in Rome with mixed feelings, since the other measures of the Iconoclastic era were not revoked: the former boundaries of Roman jurisdiction were not re-established, nor were the Papal patrimonies in southern Italy returned to Rome.31 The Iconoclastic epoch emphasized sharply the frontiers between the Byzantine and the Roman spheres of influence, and this is the main feature of that period in the relations between Rome and Constantinople. Thus clear 30 H. Gelzer ("Das Verhaltnis von Staat und Kirche in Byzanz," Hartmann (Geschichte Italiens im Mittelalter, II, 2 [1903], iiif.);
Hist. Z., 86 [i9Oi], 193ff.); L. M. and, especially, F. isiA (Povijest
Hrvata [Zagreb, 1925], 68i iff.), have already, and rightly, stressed that by this action of the Iconoclast Byzantine government not only the Prefecture of Illyricum, but also Dalmatia-particularly the cities-were placed under the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople. 31 Mansi,
XII,
1055f.
14
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
expression was given to what had been previously foreshadowed. Political, cultural, and even linguistic developments were leading inginexorably to ever deeper differences between these two centers of the world and to ever greater mutual estrangement, and the clash between universalist ambitions on both sides was unavoidable. In the world of that time there were two powers, each with a strongly expressed belief in its own universal mission: one was secularthe Byzantine Empire, which claimed, as the only legal the empire empire, the right to rule over the world; the other was spiritual-the Roman Church, with its claim to supremacy over Christendom. The universalism of either side could have been maintained as long as the world, at least the Christian world, was united. When that unity disappeared, the universalism of both powers inevitably became open to question. Neither side ever retreated ideologically from its universalistic aspirations. In actual fact, Byzantine universalism was already condemned to extinction after the downfall of Justinian's empire. It was definitely doomed after the fall of the exarchate of Ravenna, when Italy broke away from Byzantine rule and the Roman Church turned to the Frankish Kingdom. In the year 8oo00,by crowning Charles the Great emperor, Rome created a second empire in the West. Meanwhile, as we have seen, the Roman Church was losing ground in the East. The emancipation of the West from the political sovereignty of Byzantium had its counterpart in the emancipation of the East from the supremacy of the Roman Church. The Iconoclastic age buried the universalism of the Byzantine State, but it also paved the way for the end of the universalism of the Roman Church. As the empire of Charles the Great rose up in the West as an opponent of Byzantine universalism, so also the impetus of the patriarchate of Constantinople emerged as a force that was soon to challenge the universalism of the Roman Church. Pope Hadrian protested in vain against the extension of the boundaries of Constantinople's jurisdiction for which previous events had prepared the way. Useless was his protest, in the letter mentioned above, against the title Oecumenical Patriarch heads the headsChurch the of the Church of of Constantinople had assumed long before. True, there were times when the ecclesiastical centers within the Eastern Church itself were engaged in bitter mutual struggles over church leadership. It had looked sometimes as if Constantinople would bow, if not to Antioch, then to powerful Alexandria. Unlike these rivals, famous for their great traditions, Constantinople had no Church tradition to speak of. But Constantinople was the capital of the Empire, and this fact decided the struggle in her favor. Her primacy in the Eastern Church was established in the canons of the oecumenical councils. And when the illustrious eastern patriarchal sees fell under the rule of the infidel Saracen, only the memory of their glory survived. The patriarch of Constantinople became in fact the sole head of the Byzantine Church, and this influenced his position also toward the see of Rome, particularly as his importance and authority continued to increase. The Iconoclastic crisis, which had placed the patriarchate of Constantinople in a difficult position of dependence upon a heretical government, was over. Now the Byzantine Church enjoyed the support of a strong and like-minded govern-
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND OF MORAVIAN MISSION
15
ment which upheld her efforts to achieve a sovereign position in the Christian world and to expand her influence beyond that world. Great new perspectives opened up before her. The seventh and eighth centuries were a time of struggle for survival and of a marked contraction of the Byzantine horizon and cultural activities. From the middle of the ninth century, however, perspectives widened considerably: a new age had arrived, the age of a powerful upsurge of Byzantine culture and of the spread of its influence abroad. The decade of extraordinary achievement lay ahead. Historically, everything we have examined here represents conditions essential to the accomplishments of this great decade: the internal strengthening of the Byzantine state and the growth of its military power; the change which, in the sixties of the ninth century, gave a favorable turn to the wars with the Arabs; the reoccupation of the coastal regions of the Balkan Peninsula; the gradual restoration of order in the Balkans and the re-establishment of the formerly disturbed balance of power; the inclusion of the entire Balkan Peninsula within the jurisdiction of the patriarchate of Constantinople; the increase of influence and authority of Constantinople in the Christian Church. All these developments prepared the way for the outstanding achievements of the Byzantine State and Church, and also led to the powerful expansion of Byzantine religious and cultural influences that took place during the years of the remarkable activity of the Patriarch Photius, of Caesar Bardas, and of Constantine and Methodius, the "Apostles of the Slavs." The cultural development that took place at that time in Byzantium itself was, of course, necessary for the powerful radiation of Byzantine culture in the outside world. We should remember that cultural life in Byzantium in the middle of the ninth century became extremely active and reached a very high level. The enlightened regent Caesar Bardas founded a university at the Magnaura Palace, to which he brought the most eminent scholars. With astonishing boldness he entrusted the school's leadership to the great scholar and former Iconoclast, Leo the Mathematician. This university adorned with the names of the most illustrious scholars and teachers, Leo and Photius, and in which the young philosopher Constantine studied and taught, became the focal point of mediaeval Greek science and culture and the center of its powerful radiation. Constantine was one of the most remarkable personalities in this intellectual upsurge of the Byzantine Empire. Both philosopher and theologian, he was endowed with all the secular and theological knowledge of his day, and was the exponent of the highest aspirations of the Byzantine State and Church. He and his brother Methodius were at the same time typical of the ByzantineSlav symbiosis which existed at that time in the Balkans. Nowhere was this symbiosis as pronounced as in their native Thessalonica, the most important center on the fringe of the Slavic world. The population of Thessalonica was then practically bilingual, as often happens in border regions. According to a statement in the Life of Constantine (chap. 5), everyone in Thessalonica spoke Slavic.
16
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
It need hardly be emphasized how important the knowledge of the Slavic language was for the brothers' task. Had they not preached and celebrated the liturgy in Slavic, had they not created an alphabet and translated the Bible and the liturgical books into Slavic, their work would have remained an episode without further significance. Because they did these things, however, their mission, while in the end unsuccessful in Moravia itself, acquired great impetus and significance in other Slavic lands, and laid the foundation for Slavic literacy, literature, and culture. It is interesting to note that in the Balkan regions, which the Empire incorporated within its own boundaries by gradual submission of the Sclaviniae, the Byzantine Church was a powerful factor in the Hellenization of the Slavic population. Thus, for instance, after the famous siege of Patras by the Slavs in 805, the Emperor Nicephorus I ordered the defeated Slavs to be assigned as paroikoi to the church of St. Andrew in Patras because that Saint had saved the city from the great peril of the Slavic invasion.32 In Moravia, on the other hand, the Byzantines preached Christianity and celebrated Mass in the Slavic language: here the Byzantine State and Church administrations deliberately supported Slavic self-consciousness, thus intentionally opposing the influence of the neighboring Frankish kingdom. The Lives of Constantine and Methodius constantly emphasize the inherent value of the Slavic language and attack the "trilingual heresy," i.e., the theorythe that the revealed truth of the Christian Church can be expressed only in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This broadminded spirit characterized to a great extent the Church policy of Byzantium in other Slavic countries as well. To sum up, the circumstances which made possible the great Byzantine achievements in the Slavic world were numerous and diverse. We have had to follow through centuries the development of the Byzantine Empire to be able to understand the way in which these conditions matured. We have also had to observe in the earlier political, ecclesiastical, and cultural history of Byzantium those developments which prepared the Moravian mission and other similar phenomena. The Moravian mission is one of a series of like phenomena which with amazing rapidity succeeded one another in the seventh decade of the ninth century. The achievements of that time, forerunners of further similar accomplishments, originated in the years when the Byzantine Empire was led by Michael III and his uncle, the great Caesar Bardas; while the great Patriarch Photius was at the head of the Byzantine Church. Their personal part in these achievements obviously was not small, and Constantine and Methodius must share the credit for their great work with the Patriarch Photius and Ceasar Bardas, the inspirers and leaders of Byzantine policy at that time. However, in the realization of the historical interests and primordial stirrings of a great empire, there is something deeper and more powerful than personal will, initiative, and perseverance. The actions initiated at the time of Michael III, Bardas, and Photius were continued faithfully and with equal success under 82
De adm. imp., chap. 49, ed. by Moravcsik-Jenkins.
BYZANTINE
BACKGROUND
OF MORAVIAN
MISSION
17
Basil I, who seized supreme power after the assassination of Bardas and Michael, and immediately dismissed Photius. Basil's policy toward the Slavic world did not substantially differ from that of his predecessors and victims. The policies differed somewhat in their methods, but not in the goals they pursued. It was not my intention toto describe the events of the great decade, which, in the main, are fairly well known. My purpose, rather, was to point to their roots and to stress their historical inevitability. I shall mention only briefly a few facts which clearly illustrate this inevitability. After the Russian attack on Constantinople in 86o, Byzantium began missionary activities in Russia. A few years later, in 8his in famous encyclical letter to the eastern patri867, archs, Photius with justifiable pride-though also with obvious exaggerationemphasized the success of that endeavor.33Basil I continued this line of action. Constantine Porphyrogenitus was even inclined to give his grandfather credit for Christianizing the Russians. These, of course, are panegyrical exaggerations, but there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of his information that Basil I ordered his patriarch Ignatius, Photius' rival, to send an archbishop to the Russians.34 The conflict with the Russians in 860 was followed by the embassy which Byzantium dispatched to her old allies, the Khazars. The diplomatic mission was entrusted to the young philosopher Constantine, and this is when this greatest propagator of Byzantine culture made his first appearance on the stage of history. After that came the mission of the Thessalonican brothers to Moravia at the invitation of Prince Rastislav, who, threatened by the Frankish-Bulgarian alliance, sent his historical appeal to Byzantium. There followed the Christianization of the Bulgarians whom Byzantium forced to repudiate their alliance with the Frankish Kingdom and to accept Christianity from Constantinople. Shortly thereafter, however, Bulgaria turned her back on Byzantium and approached Rome. The struggle over the Bulgarian Church greatly increased the acuteness of the conflict between the Patriarch Photius and Pope Nicholas I, and led to a sharp split between Constantinople and Rome. At the very moment when this dramatic change occurred, a coup d'etat took place in Constantinople. Basil became the autocrator of Byzantium. It was he, the assassin of Michael and Bardas and the adversary of Photius, who finally won the struggle over the Bulgarian Church and brought into effect the decision in favor of Byzantium, accepted at the final session of the same council that confirmed Photius' deposition. Thus, a loss which would have been of immense consequence for Byzantium was avoided. Moreover, a base which was later to be used for the cultural activities of Methodius' disciples was thereby included in the sphere of the Byzantine Church, and the future of the Slavic liturgy and its dissemination throughout the sphere of the Byzantine Church were assured. Had things turned out differently; had Bulgaria and Macedonia-including the Ohrid district, the area of the activity of Clement and Naum-remained under the wing of the Roman Church, a successful 83Migne, PG, 102, cols. 736/7, Epist. " Vita Const., Theoph. Cont., 342. 2
13.
18
GEORGE
OSTROGORSKY
future for the Slavic liturgy would have been hardly imaginable. On the other hand, from the very beginning of Basil's reign, Byzantine influence penetrated in full strength to the western region of the Balkans, especially to the Serbian lands. Here its expansion took a peculiar turn. The consolidation of the Byzantine position on the Adriatic was of decisive importance. Besieged by the Arab fleet, Dubrovnik sent an appeal for help to Constantinople. Addressed to the Emperor Michael, this appeal reached the new Emperor, who had just ascended the throne after assassinating Michael. Basil did what his predecessor would most probably have done: he sent the fleet to assist Dubrovnik, forcing the Arabs to raise their siege and to leave the Adriatic waters. The reinforcement of Byzantine authority on the Adriatic shore facilitated the penetration of the political, religious, and cultural influences of the Empire into the Slavic lands of the West Balkans. In the ensuing years, the Serbian lands officially accepted the Byzantine religion, and the Slavic liturgy was definitely established after the arrival of Methodius' disciples and the diffusion of the Slavic liturgy from Clement's and Naum's Ohrid. To stress the important point once more, the Moravian mission was not an isolated phenomenon. It was one of a series of similar, contemporary phenomena resulting from the same historical conditions. The work of the "Apostles of the Slavs" which resulted from this mission acquired its true and deep significance in the events which occurred simultaneously in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Serbia, and which later took place in the greatest of the Slavic countries-Russia.
The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs Author(s): George C. Soulis Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 19-43 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291224 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
LEGACY
THE AND
TO
THE
OF
CYRIL
METHODIUS SOUTHERN GEORGE C. SOULIS
SLAVS
This study is in substance identical with a paper delivered at the Symposium on "The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs: St. Cyril and St. Methodius," held at Dumbarton Oaks in May I964.
The author would like to thank his former teacher Professor Roman Jakobson who read the manuscript and called to his attention a number of bibliographical references.
^F
OR the reflectivestudent of Slavic culturalhistory,the year 885marksa
turning point of great significance. The death of Methodius in Velehrad that year was followed by the collapse of the work of the Thessalonian brothers in Central Europe. This in turn led to the most important event in the formation of the character of the spiritual and cultural life of the Southern and Eastern Slavs; namely, the expulsion of the disciples of Cyril and Methodius from Moravia by order of Prince Svatopluk, and their eager reception on the part of the Bulgarian ruler Boris. Thus, Bulgaria saved the fruits of the labor of the two brothers both for the Slavs and for Europe. Had Boris denied protection and encouragement to these carriers of Slavic liturgy and letters who sought refuge in his land, the Moravian mission of the Slavic apostles would have remained a mere episode in the annals of history, and never would have assumed the importance which we attribute to it today. It is true that to the end of the eleventh century the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition continued to exist in Bohemia and Southern Poland, especially around the Czech Benedictine abbey of Sazava, and that it even witnessed a revival in the fourteenth century at the Monastery of Emmaus in Prague. But the tradition subsequently disappeared from the lands of the former Great Moravian Empire, leaving only a memory which served thereafter as a thread of inspiration, intimately interwoven with the cultural life and national consciousness of the Czechs and the Slovaks.' The same tradition also flourished in Croatia, where, in the form of Glagolism, it assumed the role of a national symbol in the age-old conflict between Slavic and Latin Christianity in the Dalmatian lands. The Glagolitic tradition became the strongest defense of the Croats against Romanization, and has survived to this day-albeit in a meager form-as living proof of the vitality and tenacity of the Cyrillo-Methodian precepts.2 If, however, we attach great significance to the Moravian mission today, it is not because of the two specific cases just cited. Rather, it is because of the reception, preservation, and further development of the Cyrillo-Methodian 1 R. Jakobson, "The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature," Harvard Slavic Studies, I (I953), 39-55; B. HavrAinek, "Po6atky slovansk6ho pisma a psan6 literatury v dob6 velkomoravsk6," Velkd Moravd: Tisiciletd tradice stdtu a kultury (Prague, 1963), 77-96, where all the important literature on the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Moravia and Bohemia is mentioned. Cf. R. Jakobson, "(Jvahy o bisnictvf dovy husitske," Slovo a slovesnost, 2 (1936), i ff.; 0. Odloiilfk, "Components of the Czechoslovak Tradition," The Slavonic and East European Review, 23 (I945), 97-106. For the same tradition in Poland, see the most recent study on the subject by K. LanckoroAska, Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland (Rome, 1961; cf. the review by J. Szymanski in Revue d'histoire decclesiastique,58 [1963], 911I-20). 2 J.
Hamm, "Glagolizam i njegovo zna6enie za Juine Slavene," Slavia, 25 (1956), 313-21. Cf. V. Novak, "The Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis in Dalmatia During the Middle Ages," The Slavonic and East European Review, 32 (I953-4), 8ff. 21
22
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
legacy by Bulgaria, which, in turn, passed it on to the neighboring Serbs and Rumanians, and finally to the Russians, who, from the end of the tenth century, became the main beneficiaries of this heritage. The story of the events following the death of Methodius in Moravia is far from clear. Our principal source remains the Greek Life of Saint Clement, probably written by the archbishop of Ohrid, Theophylactus, toward the end of the eleventh century, but definitely based on an older Slavic prototype, which is no longer extant.3 From this source we learn that, in the winter followthe , a small group of his disciples led by Clement, Nahum, ing Me and Angelarius was conducted, under guard, to the Moravian frontier at the Danube, where it was left to seek its own fortune. Clement and his companions came down the Danube, longing to reach Bulgaria, the country that seemed to them the promised land for the work of their teachers, the Slavic apostles.4 It is not surprising that they chose to go there, for Bulgaria, bordering on the Great Moravian Empire, was the nearest country in which Christianity was closely connected with Byzantium, from where their masters had originally been sent to evangelize the Slavs. Furthermore, there is every indication that Clement himself, and probably others too, were born in Macedonia.5 ofhad, together with thismany Boris, rulerstate, received from in subjects, baptism Byzantium 864.6 Finally, by 870, after a period of skillful vacillation between Rome and Constantinople daring his effort to obtain an independent Church, Boris firmly attached his country to the Eastern Church, thus placing it forever within the orbit of Byzantine culture. In recognizing the supremacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople the Bulgarian Church retained a measure of autonomy.7 Nevertheless, to Boris the clergy must have appeared as an instrument of Byzantine political domination, for these men were Byzantine in origin, and Greek became the official language of both Church and State. This situation may well explain why Boris gladly welcomed the experienced 3 The best edition of the Life of Saint Clement is by N. G. Tunickij, Materialy dlja istorii dizni i dejatel'nosti u6enikov svv. Kirilla i Mefodija. I. Gremeskoeprostrannoe litie sv. Klimenta Slovenshogo translatioand (Sergiev Posad, 1918). For the various versions, editions, es see Gy. editranslations, commentaries, Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcia, I (Berlin, 1957), 555-7, to which should be added A. Milev, titija na sveti Kliment Ochridski (Sofia, 1961). Recently I. Snegarov ("Les sources sur la vie et l'activite de Clement d'Ochrida," Byzantinobulgarica, i [i962], 79-119) has again raised the question of the authorship of the Life by claiming, unconvincingly in my opinion, that it cannot be the work of Theophylactus of Ochrid. Cf. M. Kusseff, "St. Clement of Ochrida," The Slavonic and East European Review, 27 (1948), I93-215; J. Stanislav, Osudy Cyrila a Metoda a ich u6enikov u sivote Klimentovom (Bratislava, I950): E. Georgiev, Razcvetutna bulgarskata literatura v IX-X v. (Sofia, 1962), 334-9; idem, "Kliment Ochrid-
ski," Istorija na builgarskata literatura, I (Sofia, i962), 96-I1, 428 (bibliography); P. Gautier, "Clement d'Ohrid, eveque de Dragvista," Revue des 6tudes byzantines, 22 (I964), 199-214. 4 Vita Clementis, XII-XV (Migne, PG, CXXVI, 1216-21). 5 Ibid., XXII (Migne, 1228-9), where it is explicitly stated that Clement knew Methodius from
early youth. In the shorter Life of Saint Clement, a work attributed to the archbishop of Ohrid, Deme-
trius Chomatianus
(1216-34),
we read that Clement
r6 pivyVvoS ETAKEV(K T-rV EupcoirailcovMuaav. (I.
Ivanov, Bilgarski starini iz Makedonija [Sofia, 1931], 3I16-7). Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et
Rome aux IXe siecle (Paris, 1926), 314, note 2. 6 A. Vaillant and M. Lascaris, "La date de la conversion des Bulgares," Revue des 6tudes slaves, I3 (I933), 5ff. 7 V. Zlatarski, Istorija na bulgarskata Diuriava prez srednite vekove, II, pt. 2 (Sofia, 1927), 145-52. Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New Brunswick, 1957), 208-9.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS
AND THE SOUTHERN
SLAVS
23
and distinguished Slavic missionaries to his court in Pliska, for these men would make him less dependent upon the Byzantine clergy. Whether he had ever met Methodius, as has so often been suggested, really does not matter.8 Boris had ample opportunity to become acquainted with the Cyrillo-Methodian ideology, which proclaimed the sacred principle of equality of all nations and languages and the right of each nation to share equally in spiritual benefits.9 Since this view implied sovereignty over one's own nation, language, and Church, nothing could have been better suited to his aspirations. Moreover, Slavic Christianity would produce a much desired internal harmony in the Bulgarian realm by completing the Slavicization of the Turkic Bulgar element, which had originally founded the state, but which was now in decline and often prone to oppose Boris' policies bitterly.10 Boris, however, did not keep Clement and his followers in the capital for long, but settled some, including Nahum, near Preslav, at the Monastery of Saint Panteleimon, which was destined to become an important center of Slavic culture. The remaining Sla ssionar , under the leadership of Clement, were sent to evangelize the outlying Macedonian provinces. Boris must have had several reasons for doing this. Had he introduced the Slavic liturgy into the capital and established a large educational center there, his action would have provoked immediate opposition among the Byzantine clergy and the followers of the "heresy" of the three tongues, which claimed that only Greek, Latin, and Hebrew were suitable for divine worship." Such an action would also have caused dissention among the Bulgar boyars at the court, who remained hostile to Slavic Christianity, as the events of 893 that led to the fall of Vladimir, son and successor of Boris, clearly illustrate.12 The exact location of the district known as Kutmichevitsa, which was selected for Clement's missionary work, still remains the subject of great controversy.13 It is certain, however, that it was a territory of considerable size, and that it included the regions of Ohrid, Glavinitsa, and Devol, because it was in these three regions that Boris granted Clement places of residence for his Slavic school and houses for rest and meditation.14 8 Such a meeting has been suggested by V. Zlatarski, among others. See Zlatarski, op. cit., 219ff., and "Vel'ka Morava a Bulharsko v IX storoci," Risa Vel'komoravska(Prague, 1933), 285. Cf. I. Dujcev, "Vriizki meedu cehi, slovaci i bulgari prez srednovekovieto," echoslovakija i Bgaija rez vekovete Blgarija (Sofia, 1963), 28. Well-founded doubts concerning such a meeting have been expressed by Dvornik,
op. cit., 279. 9 R. Jakobson, "The Beginnings of National Self-Determination in Europe," Review of Politics, 7 (I945), 33-9, and idem, "The Kernel," 52-5.
10Zlatarski, Istorija, 43 f Cf. S. Runciman, A History of the First Bulgarian Empire (London,
I05-6;
M. Spinka, A History of Christianity
in the Balkans (Chicago, 1933),
I930),
47-50.
11 I. Dujcev, "II problema delle lingue nazionali nel Medio Evo e gli Slavi," Ricerche slavistiche, 8 (1960), 39-60. Cf. I. Sev6enko, "Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission," Slavic Review, 23 (1964), 226ff. 12 Zlatarski,
op. cit., 250ff.; Runciman, op. cit., 134. 13For a survey of the various theories, see Dvornik, op. cit., 315, note i. Cf. Zlatarski, op. cit., 226ff.; F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, 1960), I56; Gautier, loc. cit., 200-I. 14 Vita Clementis, XVII (Migne, 1224). Glavinitsa is located by K. Mijatev ("Gde se e namirala Glavinica," Archeologija, 4, fasc. i [1962], 5-6), supporting Dj. Stri6evic's thesis, near the present-day village of Zglavenica north of Ohrid, while by I. Snegarov ("Kuide se namiral srednovekovnjat grad Glavinica-Glavenica," ibid., 5, fasc. 3 [1963], 1-5) it is located in Southern Albania.
24
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
In his new mission, Clement faithfully followed the example of his teachers in Moravia. He first labored to create a great educational center, which would eventually provide trained priests and other clerics needed for a Slavic Bulgarian Church. During his seven-year activity as an apostolic teacher in Kutmichevitsa, Clement produced a large number of disciples-3500 we are toldwho, ordained as readers, subdeacons, deacons, and priests, were sent to their posts to spread the Slavic Word.15In this manner, the work of Cyril and Methodius was transplanted from Moravia to the fertile soil of Macedonia, which became the cradle of Slavic Christianity in the Balkans.16 The teaching activity of Clement is described by one of his disciples in glowing terms. He had never seen him idle, the disciple reports, but always engaged day and night either in teaching the alphabet or the art of writing, or in explaining the meaning of the Scriptures.17 He was a true continuator of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition with its emphasis on the interpretation of the Divine Word. What remained of his time he devoted to praying, reading, or writing. Clement's work in Kutmichevitsa met with singular success. Just as his teacher Methodius had been elevated to the episcopal dignity after a fruitful missionary career, so Clement was made bishop when Symeon, the younger son of Boris, became the new Bulgarian ruler in 893. The reign of Symeon, the most glorious period of Bulgarian history, was of paramount importance for the future of the Slavic liturgy and letters in Bulgaria. Symeon had spent much of his youth in Constantinople, living, it seems, in the precincts of the palace, and probably studying not only at Photius' Slavic school but also at the University. There is every reason to assume that while in the imperial city he met the Slavic clergy left there by Methodius in 882,18 as well as the Slavic missionaries from Moravia, whom the Emperor's ambassadors had rescued from slavery in Venice four years later.19 Upon his return to Bulgaria, Symeon furthered his associations with the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition at the royal Monastery of Saint Panteleimon, where he remained until his father called him to the throne replae to replace his older brother, the victim 15
Ibid., XVIII (Migne, 1225). Under Boris Slavic Christianity had also spread in the region of Bregalnitsa in Macedonia. See Theophylactus, archbishop of Ohrid, Historia martyrii XV martyrum, in Migne, PG, CXXVI, 201-8. Cf. Zlatarski, op. cit., 236-9. 18V. Jagic, "Izgnanici iz Moravske posle smrti Metodijeve; Sirenje slovenske crkve i knjige medju Juz. Slovenima,"
Brastvo, 17 (1923),
19-37.
The theories by E. Georgiev that Cyril and Methodius did
missionary work among the Bulgarians before they went to Moravia and that the Moravian tradition and literature had penetrated Bulgaria before 885 are based on mere suppositions. See E. Georgiev, "Prenasjaneto na kirilometodievata knizovna tradicija ot Veliko Moravija v Bulgarija," Sbornik v 6est na akad. A. Teodorov-Balan (Sofia, i955), 203-12; idem, Razcvetut, 29-68; idem, "Kiril i Metodij i razvitieto na bulgarskata kultura," Chilijada i sto godini na slavjanska pismenost, 863-1963; Sbornik v cest na Kiril i Metodij (Sofia, 1963), 21-49. 17 Vita Clementis, XVIII (Migne, 1225). This part of the Life, which is in the form of an eyewitness' account, must definitely belong to the original Slavic version written by one of Clement's disciples. For a Panegyric of Saint Clement in verse, also written by one of his disciples, see Ivanov, Op.cit., 322-7. Cf. Dj. Sp. Radojicic, Razvojni luk stare srpske knjizevnosti (Novi Sad, 1962), 53-61. 18 Vita Methodii, XIII (F. Grivec and F. Tomsi6, eds., "Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses Fontes," Radovi Staroslavenskoginstituta, 4 [1960], 163). Cf. Dvornik, op. cit., 271 ff.; idem, Les Legendes, de Constantin et MAlethode vue de Byzance (Prague, 1933), 276.
19 Vita Nahum, in Ivanov,
op. cit., 306.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS
AND THE SOUTHERN
SLAVS
25
of an attempted return to paganism. The royal power was entrusted to Symeon in 893 at a national assembly, which effected fundamental reforms for which Boris had striven throughout his reign.20First of all, Slavic was approved as the official language of the State and the Church. Furthermore, Preslav, the center of Slavic missionary and literary work, became not only the new Bulgarian capital, but also the seat of the archbishop. The acceptance of the new official language was followed by the introduction of a new script, the so-called Cyrillic alphabet, which came to replace the Glagolitic and served as the prototype of the modern Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian alphabets. In this context, as Il'inskij has so convincingly demonstratKHHrk in the Bulgarian version of the Short Chronicle ed, the phrase np-ioAK6e"
by Patriarch Nicephorus should be understood to mean simply transliteration from one Slavic alphabet to the other.21 It is not my intention here enter theinto the endless discussion concerning intotion to enter the origin and character of the Slavic alphabets. I shall limit myself to a few remarks only, which are pertinent to the specific subject of my paper. Of the two existing Slavic alphabets, the Glagolitic and the Cyrillic, the former is an original creation apparently based on signs of Byzantine tachygraphy, cryptography, and alchemy,22 while the latter is a mere adaptation of the Greek uncial script of the ninth century, with a few additions to render sounds unknown to the Greek alphabet. That the two alphabets are closely interrelated cannot be doubted even by the most casual observer. They are not only phonetically identical, but also share, either in a completely unchanged or in an adapted form, most of the letters which represent Slavic phonetic peculiarities.23 Though in recent years new and daring theories have been advanced about the original Slavic alphabet, in particular by Professor Georgiev,24the philological observations of earlier scholars as to the prior origin of the Glagolitic 20 Zlatarski,
op. cit., 254ff.
21
G. A. Il'inskij, "Gde, kogda, kem i s kakoju celju Glagolica bylazamenena 'Kirillicej' ?", Byzantinoslavica, 3 (193I), 79-88. For the transition from the Glagolitic alphabet to the Cyrillic, see also F. Grivec, "Vprasanija o Konstantinu in Metodu," Slovo, 11-12 (1962), 131-47. 22 E. E. Granstrem, "0 proischozdenii glagoliceskoj azbuki," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, For a survey of other unconvincing theories concerning the origin of the Glagolitic II (I955), 300-13. script, see F. Zagiba, "Neue Probleme in der kyrillo-methodianischen Forschung," OstkirchlicheStudien, see also T. Eckhardt, "Theorien II (I962), 1I0-I2; den Ursprung der Glagolica," Slovo, 13 (1963), liber 87-118.
23N. S. Trubetzkoy, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik; Schrift-, Laut- und Formensystem (Vienna, 7-8; A. Dostal, "Die Widerspiegelung der byzantinischen Welt in der altesten Periode der slavischen Sprachen, besonders im Altkirchenslawischen," Aus der byzantinischen Arbeit der Tschechoslowakischen Republik (Berlin, 1957), 43. 24 The theory by E. Georgiev that the so-called Cyrillic alphabet had a gradual development in pagan Bulgaria before the invention of the Glagolitic by Cyril has been expressed in a number of publications, the most recent being his Razcvetuitna bulgarskata literatura v IX-X v. (Sofia, 1962). For a survey of Georgiev's papers on the subject, see I. Dujcev, A. Kirmagovo, and A. Paunova, "Biilgarska kirilometodievska bibliografija za perioda 1944-62," Chiljada i sto godini, 526-9. For a convincing refutation of Georgiev's theory, see K. Horalek, "Nacaloto na pismenostta u Slavjanite," Sbornik u 1954), 15ff. Cf. A. Vaillant, "L'alphabet vieux-slave," Revue des edtudes slaves, 32 (I955),
6est na akad. A. Teodorov-Balan (Sofia, I955), 417-24; idem, "K pocatku knizni uzdelanosti u Slovanfi," Slavia, 24 (I955), 169-78; idem, "Zum Verhaltnis der Kyrillica und Glagolica," Die Welt der Slaven, 3 (1958), 232-5. Cf. Zagiba, loc. cit., 110-12.
26
C. SOULIS
GEORGE
remain unshaken.25 Similarly, on the basis of the available data, the view that the Slavs possessed an alphabet of their own before Christianization seems equally unfounded. It is true that at times the Slavs used special signs of their own (that is, what Khrabr called q9KTkIand pksui),26 but these Slavic runes did not have the character of a coherent alphabet. The only alphabets which the Slavs used before Christianization were, again to Khrabr, Greek and according without any adaptation. The numerous so-called protoLatin, 3ST 0$OCT9pOFHHd, written in Greek or using the Greek script, clearly illustrate Bulgar inscriptions, what Khrabr had in mind when he wrote his treatise on the Slavic alphabet toward the end of the ninth or the very beginning of the tenth century.27 Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the alphabet which Cyril and Methodius created and brought to the Slavs with Christianity was a unique conception attributed to divine inspiration, as was stressed in contemporary sources, and quite different from the Greek.28One could hardly attach such originality to the alphabet which we call Cyrillic today. It is sufficient only to recall that the origin of the Cyrillic was so obvious to the editors of the preRevolutionary Encyclopedia of Slavic Philology that they simply asked the palaeographer Gardthausen to supply them with a chapter on the Greek script of the ninth and tenth centuries.29Only the Glagolitic alphabet then, with its elaborate and unique form, could correspond to the description given in contemporary evidence. What specific factors necessitated the introduction of the new alphabet, which in the course of time was to eclipse the Glagolitic, still remains a puzzling problem. Was it merely the result of special Bulgarian cultural conditions at the close of the ninth century, which arose primarily from the proximity of Constantinople, the Greek origin of Bulgarian Christianity, and the long acquaintance of that once classical territory with the Greek alphabet ? Or was it rather a compromise between the Slavic party, on the one hand, and the Byzantine clergy and their followers in Bulgaria on the other ?30For certainly, 25 V. Jagi6, "Grafika u Slavjan; Glagoliceskoe pismo," Enciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, III, 2 "Doneski k vprasanju o postanku glagolice," Razprave (St. Petersburg, 1911), 5Iff.; R. Nahtigal, I Znam. drustva za humanisti6ne vede, i (1924), I35ff.; J. Vajs, Rukov6t hlaholskd paleografie (Prague, loc. cit., 43. Cf. V. Jagic, Entstehungsgeschichte der kirchenslavischen Sprache (Berlin, 1932), ff. DostAl, o p.cit., 172ff. I913), I94ff.; Grivec, 26 Khrabr, in Ivanov, op. cit., 442. 27 V. Besevliev, nadpisi; Uvod, tekst i komentar (Sofia, I934); idem, Purvobuugarski Purvobulgarski nadpisi; Dobavki i opravki (Sofia, 1936); V. Besevliev and H. Gr6goire, "Les inscriptions protobulgares," Byzantion, 25-7 (i955-7), 853-80, 28 (1958), 255-323; 29-30 (1959-6o), 477-500 (to be continued);
V. Be?evliev, Die cf. idem, "Die protobulgarischen InI963); protobulgarischen Inschriften (Berlin, schriften," Das Altertum, 6 (1960), 168-76. For the extensive literature on the subject, see Moravcsik, op. cit., 303-8. For two inscriptions in the Greek alphabet, but in the proto-Bulgar language, see I. Venedikov, "Trois inscriptions protobulgares," Razkopki i prou6vanija (Sofia, I950), 167-87. 28 Vita Constantini, XIV (Grivec and Tomsic, 129) and Vita Methodii, V (ibid., 155), where it is explicitly stated that Cyril had invented the Slavic alphabet by divine inspiration. The novelty of the Slavic alphabet is also stressed in the Panegyric oration (Slovo pochvalno) in honor of St. Cyril and St. Methodius,
composed
shortly after the latter's death in 885 (Grivec, op. cit., 173, 212, 251-2),
in Vita Clementis, II (Migne, 1196). 29V. Gardthausen, "Greceskoe pis'mo IX-X I. (St. Petersburg, 1911), 37-50. Cf. eevbenko, s History, ed. by C. E. Black (New York, 1962),
and
stoletij," Enciklopedija slavjanskoj filologii, III, 2 "Byzantine
174.
Cultural Influences,"
30B. Koneski, "Ohridska knjizevna kola," Slovo, 6-8 (1957), i88.
Rewriting Russian
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
27
even after the reforms of 893 the Byzantine party continued to exercise influence, and the "heresy" of the three tongues remained strong enough to prompt Khrabr's fierce attack, which strikingly echoes the very arguments Cyril had once used in his debate with the Latin clergy in Venice.31 The two alphabets lived for a long time side by side in Bulgaria, and this symbiosis is reflected in its two great cultural centers, Preslav and Ohrid. But the prevailing use of the one or the other eventually determined, to a large extent, the distinctive character of each of these two centers. Eastern Bulgaria, with the capital city of Preslav, became the home of the Cyrillic alphabet, while Macedonia, with its center at Ohrid, continued to adhere to the alphabet invented by Cyril and introduced there by Clement and his group. The new Bulgarian ruler, Symeon, recognized the successful missionary work of Clement by investing him with the bishopric of Devritsa (Dremvitsa) and Velitsa. This dual episcopal see seems to have been created especially for Clement and was probably located in central Macedonia, between the rivers Vardar and Bregalnitsa.32 His place, meanwhile, as the head of the Slavic school in Kutmichevitsa was taken by his co-disciple Nahum.33 In his new post, as the first Bulgarian bishop to celebrate the liturgy in Slavic, Clement continued his missionary and educational work with the same fervor and zeal as before. The hagiographer informs us that Clement always took the great Methodius as his ideal, and that his life was patterned with care after the teacher whom he had known so well since early youth. Clement's activity among the Bulgarians is likened by the same source to that of Saint Paul among the Corinthians. And we should recall that Saint Paul had emerged as the mainstay of the Moravian doctrine of the equality of the languages.34 Since Clement had noticed that many of the Bulgarian clergy were poorly acquainted with the Greek language and possessed no Slavic sermons, he undertook to prepare in clear and simple language a series of homilies for all the Church festivals. He also produced panegyrics, in a more ornate style, in honor of the Holy Virgin, the John the the Prophets and Apostles, and Baptist, several martyrs and Church Fathers. Furthermore, Clement composed many hymns and prayers, and shortly before his death in 916, at his monastery by 31 Vita Constatini, XVI (Grivec and Tomi, 34). Cf. D. Angelov, "Kiril i Metodij i vizantijskata kultura i politika," Chiljada i sto godini, 67ff.; I. Snegarev, "Cernorizec Chrabur," ibid., 305ff. 32 I. Snegarov, "De la question du diocese de Clement d'Ochride," XIIe Congres international des Itudes byzantines, Ochride 196I, Resumes des communications (Belgrade-Ohrid, I96I), 94-5; idem, "Po vuprosa za eparchijata na Kliment Kliment Ochridski Izvestijana Ochridski," Izvestija na Instituta za istorija, 10 (962), 205-23. For the hypothesis that Velikaja in Moravia is meant here by Velitsa and that Clement might have been a bishop of the Moravian Velikaja, see R. Jakobson, "Velikaja Moravija ili Velikaja nad Moravoj ?", Ezikovedsko-etnografiski izsledvanija v pamet na akad. Stojan Romanski (Sofia, 1960), 485-6. Since my paper was sent to the printer, P. Gautier's article, "Clement d'Ohrid, 6veque de Dragvista," (Revue des dtudes byzantines, 22 [1964], 199-214), has appeard, in which the author, on the basis of a reference to Clement as rfoxKoTros Apaypio-ras in a thirteenth-century manuscript (Cod. Vat. gr. 1409, fol. 352r), maintins that the correct form for the name of Clement's see is Dragvista, after a homonymous region located in southern Macedonia, in the area south of Ohrid and between Thessalonica and the Adriatic Sea. 33 Vita Nahum, in Ivanov, op. cit., 306. 34 Jakobson, "The Beginnings," 33; idem, "Minor Native Sources for the Early History of the Slavic Church," Harvard Slavic Studies, 2 (1954), 44; idem, "St. Constantine's Prologue to the Gospel,"
St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, 7 (1963),
I5.
28
C. SOULIS
GEORGE
Lake Ohrid, he completed the translation of the Triodion, containing the hymns for the offices from Easter to Pentecost.35 To determine exactly the literary activity of Clement is almost an impossible task. He has enjoyed such great popularity through the ages, and his cult has spread so widely in Macedonia and in the entire Orthodox world that a great number of homilies and panegyrics have been ascribed to him even without evidence to prove his authorship.36 It is, however, safe to argue on the basis of striking similarities between the Second Freising Fragment and Clement's homily "On the Memory of an Apostle or a Martyr" that he had begun his literary activity before his arrival in Bulgaria.37There is also good reason to believe that, while in Moravia and Pannonia, he may have participated in the composition of the Lives of Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius, especially of the latter.38 As a missionary and literary figure in the Slavic vernacular, Clement was surpassed only by his masters, Cyril and Methodius. He has been the most prominent and the most direct continuator otheheir tradition in Bulgaria, where he becamethe not only spiritual father of the national Church, but also the founder of literature and of culture in general. His legacy became the cornerstone of the so-called School of Ohrid, that great spiritual and cultural center in Macedonia, which radiated a significant influence on Mount Athos, the Balkans, and far away Russia.39 Closely associated with Ohrid at the same time was Clement's friend and co-disciple, Nahum. The short Life of Saint Nahum, which we possess in a tenthcentury version, is in the pure tradition of Slavic hagiography begun by the Lives of the Slavic apostles.40 This source, however, fails to provide us with sufficient information about his life and work. As far as we know, Nahum has left no writings. Yet, we learn from contemporary evidence that while he was at the Monastery of Saint Panteleimon, near Preslav, he encouraged the younger scholars to create and develop a Slavic literature.41Later, in Macedonia, he humbly and quietly continued the vast educational activities of Clement, and thus carried on the living tradition of Cyril and Methodius until his death in 910, in the monastery he had founded on the southern shore of Lake Ohrid. Vita Clementis, XXII-XXVII (Migne, 1228-36). Jagic, Entstehungsgeschichte,i i8. Even the creation of the Cyrillic alphabet is sometimes attributed to Clement (Dujcev, "Vriizki medidu &echi," 36). Cf. the well-founded critical remarks on this theory by Jagic, op. cit., 120-I. 37V. Jagic, "Hat Bischof Klemens fur eine seiner Homilien den Text der Freisinger Denkmals vor 35 36
Augen gehabt ?", Archiv fiir slavische Philologie,
27
(1905),
395-412;
V. VondrAk, "Zur Frage nach dem
Verhaltnisse des Freisinger Denkmale zu einer Homelie von Klemens," Archiv fur slavische Philologie, Cf. Grivec, op. cit., i6o-i. Razcvetut, 124-31.
28 (19g06), 256-60.
98 Georgiev,
39P. Dinekov, "Knizovni sredisca v srednevekova Bulgarija," Istori6eski pregled, 3 (1946-7), Koneski, loc. cit., 177-94; idem, "Kulturnata uloga na Ohrid," Nar. Muzej vo Ohrid, Zbornik na trudovi, Posebno izdanie (Ohrid, ig96i), 3-5. 40 Vita Nahum in Ivanov, op. cit., Cf. M. Kusseff, "St. Nahum," The Slavonic and East 305-II. 403-6;
European Review,
29
(1950-5I),
139-52;
Georgiev,
op. cit., 156-60,
334-9.
See the preface to the Uitel'noe Evangelie by Constantine the Presbyter, conveniently reproduced in I. Dujcev, Iz starata bulgarska knisnina, I (Sofia, I943), 76. 41
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
29
Thanks to Clement and Nahum, the Ohrid school emerged as the most direct heir of the Moravian tradition, and this relationship is clearly illustrated in the basic features of its literature. The Glagolitic alphabet was used continuously in Ohrid and in Macedonia in general until the end of the twelfth century, or perhaps even into the thirteenth century, as has been suggested on the basis of the Bitolje Triodion.42Only at that time was it entirely replaced by the Cyrillic alphabet. The Cyrillic was used in Macedonia, it seems, only sporadically until Tsar Samuel established his headquarters in Ohrid in the latter part of the tenth century and subsequently brought there the seat of the Bulgarian patriarch. At that time the use of the Cyrillic expanded rapidly, and eventually prevailed completely. Concrete proof of this development is to be found in such epigraphical evidence as the inscription of Tsar Samuel (993), the inscription from Varosi (996), and the inscription recently discovered in Bitolje.43 The adherence of the Ohrid school to the Glagolitic script was the chief factor in the preservation of a strong Moravi a and Pannonian influence in Ohrid literary production, which, both in language and in spirit, is closest to the classical form of the Old Church Slavic of Cyril and Methodius. Thus, it is not at all surprising that the oldest and most important monuments of Slavic writing, namely, tenth- and eleventh-century Glagolitic codices such as the Zographensis, the Marianus, the Assemanianus, and the Sinaitic Psalter and Euchologium, are all of Macedonian origin.44 The place of their discovery n of cultural influence of the Ohrid reveals to us the i school. Mount Athos, which from an early period seems to have harbored Slavic monks, became an outpost of the Ohrid literary tradition, and from this literary repository of the Christian East, Slavic monks carried the tradition as far as Jerusalem and Mount Sinai.45 In the opposite direction, the influence of Ohrid penetrated into Serbia, where it remained predominant, and even reached Bosnia and Croatia.46 Contacts with the Ohrid school existed in Eastern Bulgaria too. Clement and Nahum both came to Macedonia from this region. Since Ohrid and Preslav were both children of the same spiritual family, there seems no reason to doubt their mutual literary ties. Unlike Ohrid, however, the Preslav school adopted 42
466.
Ivanov, op. cit., 452-67; J. Hamm, "Glagolica," Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, III (Zagreb, 1958),
48 Forthe Samuel inscription and the one from Varosi, see Ivanov, op. cit., 24, 27. For the Bitolje inscription, see V. Mosin, "0 periodizacii russko-juznoslavjanskich literaturnych svjazej X--XVvv., Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, i9 (1963), 58. Cf. Dj. Sp. Radojicic, "(tirilica," Enciklopedija Jugoslavije, II (Zagreb, 1956), 627. 44 W. K. Matthews, "Sources of Old Slavonic," The Slavonic and East European Review, 28 (194950), 477ff. 45 G. A. Il'inskij, "Znacenie Afona v istorii slavjanskoj pis'mennosti," Zurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosvesMenija,N.S., i8 (igo908), i-4i; V. Rozov, "Bolgarskie rukopisi Ierusalima i Sinaja," Minalo, 3,
no. 9 (1914), 16-36; idem, "Srpski rukopisi lerusalima i Sinaia," Julnoslovenski filolog, 5 (1925-6), 118-29; idem, "Serby v Palestine i na Sinaje," Trudy IV-go s"jezda russkich organizacij za granicej
M. N. Speranskij, "Slavjanskaja pis'mennost' XI-XIV vv. na Sinae i v (Belgrade, 1929), 195-200; N. N. Rozov, "JuinoPalestine," Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti, 32 (1927), 43-Ii8; slavjanskie rukopisi Sinajskog monastyrja," Filologi6eskie nauki, Nau6nye doklady vysgej skoly, 2 K. W. Clark, "Research Resources in St. Catherine's Monastery in $ipai," Trudy XXV {i96i), 129-38; Mnedunarodnogokongressa vostokovedov,Moskva 9-i6 avgusta 1960, I (Moscow, 1962), 5 17-22. 46 Koneski,
loc. cit., 193.
30
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
the Cyrillic script, an act which strengthened the growing differences between the two schools, and eventually became very important for the subsequent development of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. This tradition was exposed to two particular influences in Eastern Bulgaria. The first was the primitive proto-Bulgar literature, part of which has survived in the proto-Bulgar inscriptions.47 Recent theories notwithstanding, however, the importance of this influence was rather negligible. Its traces can be discerned clearly only in the List of the Bulgar princes, preserved in the Russian Ellinskij Letopisec.48It is thus a fallacy to credit this proto-Bulgar literature with an influence on Slavic writing in Bulgaria equivalent to the role played the development of the Czech and Polish verby Latin in the formation and nacular literatures.49 On the other hand, the second influence, the direct Byzantine impact, was of paramount importance in the development of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Eastern Bulgaria. It is true that the Slavic liturgy and letters which Cyril and Methodius brought to the Great Moravian Empire were of Byzantine origin and inspiration, but in time the strong Latin influences present in Moravia forced important adoptions and adaptations, thus creating a composite tradition of Byzantine and Latin elements, a true bridge between East and West. In Preslav, none of these special conditions existed, and the Byzantine influence, strengthened by the proximity of Constantinople and by the Byzantine tutelage of the Bulgarian Church, reigned supreme. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Slavic liturgy quickly and completely adapted itself in Bulgaria to the Byzantine rite,50just as it is natural to expect that the literary output of Eastern Bulgaria would bear traces of this strong Byzantine influence. Unlike that of Ohrid, the language of this literature displays a marked deviation from Moravisms and Pannonisms, which were here gradually replaced by new lexical elements directly borrowed or translated from the Greek.51
In spite of the early predominance of the Cyrillic alphabet in Eastern Bulgaria, we notice here, as in Macedonia, a symbiosis of the two scripts. A number of Glagolitic inscriptions have been found in Symeon's Round Church at Preslav and on tablets recently discovered in Patlejna.52 Furthermore, the 47 See supra, note 27.
48 See the most recent edition of this text, accompanied by extensive bibliography, in Moravcsik,
op. cit., II (Berlin, I958), 352-4. Cf. V. Begeliev's remarks in Izvest. na Archeol. inst., 24 (1961), i-8. 49 The Bulgarian scholars P. Dinekov and V. Begevliev attribute a significant role to the proto-
Bulgar literature in this respect. See P. Dinekov, "tber die Anfange der bulgarischen Literatur," International Journal of Slavic Linguistics and Poetics, 3 (i960), 109-2I, and V. Be?evliev, "Die Anflonge der bulgarischen Literatur," ibid., 4 (I96I), 116-45. Cf. the critical remarks on the Bulgarian thesisdrevnejlie by N. Gudzij, "Literatura Kievskoj Rusi i inoslavjanski literatury," Issledovanija po slavjanskomu literaturovedeniju i fol'kloristike (Moscow, 1960), 59-60. 0 I. Go?ev, "Starobilgarskata liturgija spored bulgarski i vizantijski izvori ot IX-XI vv.," Godisnik na Sof. Universitet, Bog. Fak., 9 (1932), 79pp. 61 Jagi6, Entstehungsgeschichte, 267; Koneski, loc. cit., 194. 52 K.
Mijatev,
"Epigrafieskie
materialy
iz Preslava,"
Byzantinoslavica,
3 (193I),
383-403;
idem,
Kruiglatacirkva v Preslav (Sofia, 1932); V. Ivanova, "Sledite ot Glagolica v isto6na Bulgarija," Byzantinoslavica, 4 (1932), 227-33; S. Stan6ev, "Pliska und Preslav: Ihre archaologischen Denkmaler und deren Erforschung," Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien (Berlin, 1960), 260; I. Gosev, Starobulgarski galgoli6eski i kirilski nadpisi ot IX i X v. (Sofia, 1961).
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
31
use of Glagolitic can also be traced, to a certain degree, in a number of literary works of purely Eastern Bulgarian origin, for example, the Hexaemeron by John the Exarch.53 But we can surmise from epigraphical evidence in the Round Church at Preslav and from the Mostic inscription that in the course of the tenth century the Cyrillic script must have eclipsed the Glagolitic in Eastern Bulgaria.54 The Dobrudja inscription of 943, if we consider it to be authentic, also supports this conclusion, and provides us not only with the earliest dated monument of Slavic writing, but also with the evidence that, in the first half of the tenth century, the Cyrillic alphabet had spread as far north as the Danubian Delta.55 The early extinction of the use of the Glagolitic alphabet in Eastern Bulgaria explains quite convincingly the absence of Glagolism in Russia, save for a very few disputed traces in Russian manuscripts and for the Novgorod graffiti from the eleventh century.56 Under Symeon's protection the Preslav center grew and flourished rapidly, and soon overshadowed the Ohrid school. Symeon's desire to rival the Byzantine Emperor politically is evident from his efforts to obtain the imperial crown, and thereby to claim the leading position in the Byzantine hierarchy of states. But it is equally clear that he definitely had ambitions to foster a great literature in his realm. Thus, on the basis of the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage, brought to Bulgaria by Clement and his associates, a rich literature developed in Preslav, the effects of which were soon to be widely and permanently felt.57 Symeon, himself, one of the best educated men of his age, organized and 95 H. Jaksche, "Glagolitische Spuren im gestodnev des Exarchen Johannes," Die Welt der Slaven, 4 (i959), 258-301. 5
Mijatev, op. cit., 153ff.; S. Stancev, "Nadpisut na curgubilja Mostic ot Preslav," in Nadpisu na W6rgubiljaMostie (Sofia, I955), 3 ff.; idem, "Pliska und Preslav," 249, 259-60; St. Michailova, "Archeg.," Izvestija na Archeologieeskija institut, 20 (I955), 49-181; ologineski materiali ot Pliska, I948-5I V. Besevliev, "Novi otkuisleci ot puirvobilgarski i drugi srednovekovni nadpisi ot Pliska i Preslav," ibid., 282-3; Goev, op. cit., iff.; idem, "Razvitie na negruckite kirilometodievski bukveni znaci v t. nar. Kirilica," Chiljada i sto godini, 275-86. 5 D. Bogdan, "Dobrudlanskaja nadpis' 943 g.," Romanoslavica, i (I958), 88-I04; M. N. Tichomirov, "Nacalo slavjanskoj pis'mennosti v svete novejsich otkrytij," Voprosy istorii (I959), no. 4, Cf. Cthe observations by F. V. Mares, "Dva objevy starych slovanskfch nApisfi (v SSSR u 98-05. Smolenska a v Rumunsku)," Slavia, 20 (1951), 497-514. Professor R. Jakobson has expressed doubts about the authenticity of this inscription in his article "Vestiges the of Earliest Russian Vernacular," Word, 8 (I952), 350-2. The inscription is considered spurious by G. Nandrie, "A Spurious Slavonic Inscription from the Danube Canal," The Slavonic and East European Review, 38 (I959-60), 530-4. For other early Slavic graffiti and inscriptions discovered in Dobrudja, see D. Bogdan, "Grafitele de la Basarabi," Analele Universitdaii C. 1. Parhon, Seria stiinte sociale, Istorie, 9 (1960), 31-49. 56 M. Murko, Geschichteder dalterensudslavischen Literaturen (Leipzig, 1908), 60; J. Vajs, "Hlaholice na Rusi - Novgorodsk6 sgrafity," Byzantinoslavica, 7 (1937-8), 184-8; Mosin, loc. cit., 55; cf. Jagi6, Op. cit., 125-6. 57 For a
general survey of the Golden Age of mediaeval Bulgarian literature, see Murko, op. cit., 57ff.; M. Weingart, Bulhari a Cafihrad pred tisiciletim; List z dejin byzantskych vlivA na osv6tu slovanskou (Prague, 1915); F. Trograncic, Letteratura medioevale degli Slavi meridionali (Rome, 1950), 83ff.; R. Bernard, "Tableau de la litterature vieux-slave et de la litt6rature ancienne de la Bulgarie," Histoire ginerale des littdratures, I (Paris, 1961), 407ff. The most recent Bulgarian works on the subject are Georgiev, Razcvetit, and the Istorija na biilgarskata literatura, I (Sofia, 1962), 77ff., where all the important earlier Bulgarian contributions are mentioned. For a recent discussion of the Byzantine impact on mediaeval Bulgarian literature, see I. P. Eremin, "0 vizantijskom vlijanii v bolgarskoj i drevnerusskoj literaturach IX-XII vv.," Slavjanskie literatury; Doklady sovetskoj delegacii V meSdun. s"ezd slavistov (Moscow,
I963), 5-13.
32
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
sponsored a lively activity in translations and compilations.58The "Orthodox Tsar," as he was called, admired above all the other Fathers of the Church, John Chrysostom, who subsequently became a great favorite in mediaeval Slavic literature. Symeon prepared, either alone or with the help of an assistant, an anthology of excerpts from John Chrysostom's writings, to which he characteristically gave the name Zlatostruj, the Goldstream.59The Tsar further supervised a collection of explanatory extracts from the Church Fathers, as well as other Byzantine writings, including Choeroboscus' treatise on the tropes and figures of speech. The Izbornik of I073, as this collection is known to us from a Russian copy prepared for the Kievan prince Sviatoslav, contains a preface with a flattering tribute to the patronage of Symeon, "the new Ptolemy, who, like the industrious bee, gathers the juice of all the flowers."60 But Constantine the Presbyter and John the Exarch were the pride and the glory of the Preslav school. Constantine had been a disciple of Methodius and n his Didactic Gospel (Ucitel'noe evidently composed the office for him.6hiIn he translated several or sections thereof, by John Chrysohomilies, Evangelie) stom and other Fathers of the Church, to which he added some parts of his own.62Later, in 907, at the request of Symeon himself, Constantine, as bishop of Preslav, translated the sermons of Athanasius the Great against the Arians.63 He seems also to have been responsible for the Slavic version of the Short Chronicle of Patriarch Nicephorus, which he extended to the year 894.64 58 Georgiev, op.cit., 271-98; I. Dujcev,"Prevodna knisnina,"Istorija na bulgarshata literatura, I, 158-63. 59 V. M. Malinin, Zlatostruj, Desjat' slov Zlatostruja XII (St. Petersburg, 1910); G. A. Il'inskij, Zlatostruj A. F. By-kova XI v. (Sofia, i929). Cf. A. I. Sobolevskij, "Ioann Zlatoust v russkoj pis'mennosti," Bogoslovskaja enciklopedija, VI (St. Petersburg, I905), 94Iff. 60 Dujcev, Iz starata bulg. kniknina, I, 77, where the preface to the Izbornik is conveniently reproduced. For the complete text, see Izbornik Velikogo Knjazja Svjatoslava Jaroslavica 1073 g. (St. Petersburg, 88o) CfL. Masing, "Studien zur Kenntnis des Izbornik 1073 nebst Bemerkungen zu den Archiv fur slavische Philologie, 8 (I885), 357-95 (cf. 549-72), 9 (i886), juiingeren Handschriften," 77-112. A. A. Sachmatov ("Drevnebolgarskaja enciklopedija X v.," Vizantijskij vremennik, 7 [1900], that under Symeon an extensive encyclopedia of I-35) has suggested, but rather unconvincingly, translations was composed in three or four volumes, part of which was the Izbornik of 1073. For the Slavic version of the treatise by George Choiroboscus, see J. Besharov, Imagery of the Igor's Tale in the Light of Byzantino-Slavic Poetic Theory (Leiden, 1956), I-50. 61 J. Pavic, "Staroslavenski pjesnicki kanon u cast sv. Metodija i njegov autor," Bogoslovska smotra, 24 (1936), 59-86; D. Kostic, "Bulgarski episkop Konstantin-pisac sluobe sv. Metodiju," On Constantine Byzantinoslavica, 7 (I938), 189-211. Presbyter in general, see A. I. Sobolevskij, aodi umotvoa Sbornik za nai 8 (I901), 68-73; Georgiev, op. "Episkop Konstantin," kninina, cit., 161-201; idem, "Konstantin Preslavski," Istorija na bulgarskata literatura, I, 112-26, 428-9. 62 Of the fifty-one homilies included in the Uitel'noe Evangelie, nineteen have been published by Archbishop Antonij, Iz istorii christianskoj propov6di (St. Petersburg, 1895), 174ff., ten by A. V. Michajlov, "K voprosu ob Ucitel'nom evangelii Konstantina, episkopa Bolgarskogo," Trudy Slavjanskoj komissii Imper. Moskovskogo archeologi6eskogo ob96estva, I (i895), 111-33, and one by V. Jagi6, Konstantina Prezvitera Bulgarskoga "Nedjeljna propovjedanja rukopisu XIII po starosrpskom vjeka," Starine Jugosl. Akademije znanosti i umjetnosti, 5 (1873), 28-42, while the rest remain still unpublished. For the date of their composition, see Ju. Trifonov, "Koga sa pisani Ucitelnoto evangelie na episkop Konstantin i Besedata na Kozma Presbiter," Spisanie na Bulgarskata A kademija na naukite, 58 (1939), 4ff. 6 A. Vaillant, Discours contre les Ariens de Saint Athanase; Version slave et traduction en fran&ais (Sofia, 1954); idem, "Notes sur l'aspect dans la traduction de saint Athanase de Constantin le Pr6tre," Slavia, 25 (1956), 234-40. 64 M. Weingart, Byzantskd kroniky v literature cirkevn6-slovansked, I (Bratislava, 1922), 55-62 cf. Moravcsik, op. cit., I, 456-9; V. Zlatarski, "Naj-starijat istori6eski trud v starobulgarskata kniinina," Spisanie na Builgarskata Akademija na naukite, 27 (1923), 132-82; A. Vaillant, "Les dates dans' 1A chronologie de Constantin le Pr6tre," Byzantinoslavica, 9 (I948), i86ff.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS
AND THE SOUTHERN
SLAVS
33
Constantine also distinguished himself as a poet. As a prologue to his Didactic Gospel, an alphabetical prayer (Azbucnajamolitva) often appears in the manuscripts. The work was probably written in 893, for it states that thirty years had passed since the Christianization of the Slavs. This prayer was undoubtedly one of the first Slavic attempts at poetry of a non-musical ecclesiastic nature, and it displayed a certain originality in the adaptation of the Byzantine dodecasyllabic verse to a totally new verbal material.65 Ivan Franko called it 'a poem of exquisitely pure and artistic form, of high poetic value, and the product of an intense religious feeling."66 The poem is entirely conceived in the spirit of the famous Prologue (Proglas) attributed to Cyril himself.67 It glorifies national letters, faithfully echoing the ideology of Cyril and Methodius, whom the poet recalls in order to assure themt t heir names and their work have been his guiding stars. The other great luminary of Preslav, John the Exarch, was the first to produce a Slavic translation of John of Damascus, who remained for the Slavs, as for the Byzantines, a source of inspiration for hymnography and the classical exponent of Eastern Orthodoxy.68 John the Exarch translated the most important parts of the "Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" from the Source of Knowledge, and he wrote a cosmological commentary on Genesis. The latter, known as Sestodnev,the Hexaemeron, is an enormous composition, based on an adaptation of the homonymous work of Basil the Great, to which John the Exarch added translations from the writings of other Church Fathers and Byzantine authors.69The philosophical and scientific lore found in John's Hexaemeron was a novel element in Slavic literature, but it did not disturb in any way the religious and ecclesiastical outlook of this polyhistor. John the Exarch compared himself to a poor builder who has brought to an already finished construction merely a few stones and a little wood and straw.70 And he said that he would have preferred to refuse the task of translating John of Damascus, lest his feeble powers distort the literary tradition begun by Cyril and Methodius in such a masterly fashion, had he not been asked to 65 See the latest critical edition in R. Nahtigal, "Rekonstrukcija treh starocerkvenoslov. izvirnih pesnitev," Razprave Slovanske Akademije znanosti in umetnosti, i (i943), 45-73; cf. A. I. Sobolevskij, "Terkovno-slavjanskite stichotvorenija v IX-X vek i t6chnoto znacenie za 9erkovno-slav6nskija
ezik," Sbornik za narodni umotvorenija i knilnina, 16-I7 66 I. Franko, "Kleine Beitrage zur Geschichte der kirc Philologie, 67 R.
35 (1914),
(I900), 314-24;
Grivec, op. cit., 215-7.
henslavishenLitteratur," Archiv fur slavische
151-
Jakobson, "The Slavic Response to Byzantine Poetry," XIIe Congres international des 4tudes byzantines, Ochride 1961, Rapports (Belgrade-Ohrid, 1961), 264; idem, "St. Constantine's Prologue to the Gospel," 14-19. Cf. A. Vaillant, "Une po6sie vieux-slave: La Preface de l'lvangile," Revue des etudes slaves, 33 (1956), 7-25; Grivec, op. cit., 217-21. 68 Bogoslovie sv. Ioanna Damaskina v perevode Ioanna Eksarcha Bolgarskogo po charatejnomu spisku
Mosk. Sinod. biblioteki (Moscow, 1878). On the Slavic version of John of Damascus, see A. S. Archangel'skij, K izucheniju drevne-russkojliteratury: Tvorenija otcov Cerkvi v drevne-russkojpis'mennosti, I (Kazan', 1888), 98-126; B. Kotter, Die Oberlieferungder Pege Gnoseos des hl. Johannes von Damaskos (Ettal,
i959),
I93, 2I9,
232. On John the Exarch
in general, see Georgiev, op. cit., 202-70;
I. Duj6ev,
"Ioan Eksarch," Istorija na blgarskata literatura, I, 127-40, 429; extensive bibliography in C. Kristanov and I. Dujcev, Estestvoznanieto v srednovekovna Bilgarija (Sofia, 1954), 54-6. 69 See the recent edition by R. Aitzetmuiiller,Das Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes, I-III (Graz, 1958-61). Cf. A. Leskien, "Zum Sestodnev des Exarchen Johannes," Archiv fur slavische Philologie, 26 (1904),
I-70.
70Aitzetmuiiller, Das Hexaemeron, I, 45ff.
3
34
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
do it by the royal monk Doks (Duks).71 Despite his modest self-depreciation, however, the contribution of John the Exarch to Slavic letters remains important indeed. Although his art of translation was deficient and mechanical, John, nevertheless, did widen the horizon of Slavic literature and greatly contribute to the enrichment of the Slavic vocabulary.72 In the original parts of his work, such as the preface to his translation of John of Damascus and the epilogue to his Hexaemeron in praise of the glories of Symeon's court at Preslav, he displays considerable literary talent.73 Of the remaining Preslav authors who can be identified by name, Presbyter Gregory is credited with the translation of the Octateuch, which, he informs us, was done for Symeon, the "book-loving prince."74Theodore (Tudor), son of Doks (Duks) and a cousin of the ruler himself, is also represented, although only by a small prologue of his own.75On the other hand, an author of considerable originality was the monk Khrabr the Courageous, whom scholars have thus far unconvincingly attempted to identify as Clement, Nahum, John the Exarch, or even Symeon himself.76Khrabr's spirited apology of the Slavic alphabet and letters, already mentioned in another context, is a remarkable document springing directly from the Slavic ideology of Cyril and Methodius. Like the Slavic apostles,Khrabr, Khrabr, in his defense of the Slavic insists that Slavic is to Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, languages language, equal which appeared on the Saviour's cross and were sanctified by use in the Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers of the Church. He also preaches the equality of all languages, and argues that if Slavic has no ancient alphabet, it is all the better, because it was created by a single holy man, whereas the Greek script was the work of many heathen persons. It is interesting to note that Khrabr's treatise is obviously addressed to the sophisticated reader, thus indicating the existence of such an audience in Symeon's Bulgaria. Furthermore, the author reveals an impressive knowledge of Byzantine literature and classical lore. His knowledge is especially evident in the account of the develop71
Bogoslovie sv. loanna Damaskina, i. Vondrak, 0 mluv6 Jana Exarcha Bulgarsk,ho (Prague, i896); A. Leskien, "Die tbersetzungskunst des Exarchen Johannes," Archiv fur slavische Philologie, 25 (1903), 48ff.; idem, "ZumSestodnev 72 V.
des Exarchen
Johannes,'" ibid., 26 (1904), Iff. 73 For the original parts in the translation of John of Damascus, see V. Jagic, "Rassuzdenija juo-
noslavjanskoj i russkoj stariny o cerkovno-slavjanskom jazyke," Issledovanija po russkomu jazyku, I (St. Petersburg, 1885-95), 320-4. For the epiloge to the Hexaemeron, see N. Mavrodinov, "Opisanieto na Preslav v Sestodneva na Ioan Ekzarch," Istori6eski pregled, ii (1955), 95ff.; K. Mijatev, "Dva poeticeski fragmenta i loan Ekzarch kato istoriceski izvori," Archeologija, i (1959), 1I-2. 74 I. E. Evseev, "Grigorij Presviter, perevodcik vremeni bolgarskoto cara Simeona," Izvestija Otdelenija russkogo jazyka i slovesnosti Imper. Akademii nauk, 7 (1902), 356-66; Georgiev, op. cit., 299-303. 75
V. Zlatarski, "Koj e bil Tudor cernorizec Doksov?", Bullgarski pregled, 4, no. 3 (1897), 42-63; Georgiev, op. cit., 330-3. 76 On Khrabr and his treatise on the Slavic letters (0 pismen6ch,), there is an extensive bibliography.
The most recent studies are: Georgiev, op. cit., bulgar. literatura, I, 141-53,
429-30;
304-29;
V. Velcev, "Cernorizec Chrabuir,"Istorija na
K. Kuev, "Dva novi prepisa na Chrabrovo sucinenie,"
Izvestija
na Institut za istorija, io (1962), 225-44; idem, "K istorii izdanija P. J. gafarikom skazanija cernorizca Chrabra '0 pis'menach,"' Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, 19 (1963), 448-51; A. Dostal, "Les origines de l'apologie slave par Chrabr," Byzantinoslavica, 24 (1963), 236-46; I. I. Snegarev, "Cernorizec Chrabur," Chiljada i sto godini na slavjanska pismenost, 305-19; F. Tkadlcik, "Le moine Chrabr et l'origine de l'6criture slave," Byzantinoslavica, 25 (1964), 75-92.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
35
ment of the Greek alphabet, so strikingly similar, as Professor Dostal has demonstrated, to Byzantine scholia on the Ars Grammatica by Dionysius of Thrace.77 The work of known authors constitutes only a very small portion of the enormous Bulgarian literary output stemming from the time of Symeon and the other tsars of the First Empire. The rest of the literature, drawn exclusively from Greek prototypes, consists of numerous anonymous translations and compilations in the true Byzantine fashion of the tenth century.78 And the guiding principles in the choice of the Slav translators were the needs of the recently converted Bulgarian people. It was natural, therefore, that works of a liturgical and theological nature would occupy the most prominent position among these translations and compilations. The new faith also required for its confirmation and defense collections of canonical acts,79 as well as exegetic commentaries on the Bible and the works of the Church Fathers.80Within the patristic literature there is a marked preference for the Fathers of the great period of the fourth and fifth centuries. Their works appeared time and again in a variety of forms: translations of complete works, excerpts and fragments, or simply free adaptations. It is in this manner that works such as the ascetic treatises of Basil the Great,81 the homilies of John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus,82 the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem,83 and the writings of a pleiad of lesser stars, found their way into the common Orthodox Slavic literary patrimony. To this
77 Dostal, loc. cit., 24I ff. 78 Murko, op. cit., 72ff.; I. Dujcev, "Medieval Slavic Literature and its Byzantine Background," XIIe Congres international des etudes byzantines, Ochride i96i; Rapports complementaires resumes (Belgrade-Ohrid, I96I), 83 ff.; idem, "Prevodna kniznina," 154-63, 430. 79 On the legal treatises known to mediaeval Bulgaria, see A. Soloviev, "L'influence du droit byzantin dans les pays orthodoxes," Relazioni del X Congresso internazionale di scienze storiche, VI (Rome, Rechts auf die V6olker Osteuropas," Zeitschrift I955), 599-650; idem, "Der EinfluB des byzantinischen der Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgeschichte, Romanische Abteilung, 67 (I959), 432-79; idem, "Ostromisches Vulgarrecht, byzantinisches, balkanisches und slavisches Recht," XIIe Congres international des etudes byzantines, Ochride i96i, Rapports complementaires resumes (Belgrade-Ohrid, I96I), 107-8. Cf. Dujcev, loc. cit., 96; Mosin, loc. cit., 40; M. Andreev, "V Makedonija li e bil suzdaden Zakon Sudnyj Ljud'm i slavjanskijat piurvoucitel Metodij ?," Chiljada i sto godini na slavjanska pismenost, 321-37, where the various theories of the origin of the Zakon Sudnyj Ljudem are reviewed. 80 For the Slavic versions of exegetic commentaries and the works of the Church Fathers in general, see Archangel'skij, op. cit., I-IV (Kazan', I888-90); M. Heppel, "Slavonic Translations of Early Byzantine Ascetical Literature; A Bibliographical Note," Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 5 (I954), 86-ioo; Dujcev, "Medieval Slavic Literature," 86ff. 81 p. A. Lavrov and A. Vaillant, "Les Regles de saint Basile en vieux slave: les Feuillets du Zograph," Revue des etudes slaves, I0 (1930), 5-35; A. Vaillant, De Virginitate de saint Basile; Texte vieux slave et traduction francaise (Paris, 1943). Some scholars, however, consider the latter treatise to be the work of Basil of Ancyra. See J. Quasten, Patrology, III (Utrecht, I960), 203. 82 A. S. Budilovic, XIII slov Grigorija Bogoslova v drevneslavjanskom perevode (St. Petersburg, z r. o1073," I875); A. Konir, "Homilie Jana Zlatoiisteho o Herodiade ve Sborniku Svjatoslavove Byzantinoslavica, i (1929), I82-206, where further bibliography is given. Cf. supra, note 59. 83A. Vaillant, "La traduction vieux-slave des Catecheses de Cyrille de Jerusalem," Byzantinoslavica, 4 (I932), 253ff. 84 Idem, "Le Saint Ephrem slave," ibid., 19 (I958), 279-86; cf. Archangel'skij, op. cit., I, 46-53; D. Hemmerdinger-Iliadou, "L'Ephrem grec et la litterature slave," XIIe Congres international des 6tudes byzantines, Ochride i96i, Actes, II (Belgrade, I964), 343-6. 3*
36
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
From the classics of Byzantine the spirituality the Ladder of Paradise by John Climacus85and the Spiritual Meadow of John Moschus86enjoyed wide popularity, while an abundant hagiographical literature reached Bulgaria in the form of menologia and simple synaxaria.87 Byzantine apocryphal literature enjoyed a unique popularity in Bulgaria from the tenth century on, and it soon spread widely among the other Orthodox Slavs; as if this literature answered Slavic longing for mythology in Christian disguise rather than for dogma. In Bulgaria, this literature played a peculiar role, for it became associated with the heretical Bogomils and served as a source for the literature of their movement.88 It was this movement which provoked the Bulgarian apologetic Discourse Against the Recent Heresy of Bogomil by Cosmas the Presbyter.89 Far less numerous were the works translated from Byzantine secular literature. In contrast to the works of an ecclesiastical and theological character, the amount of secular literature, as far as we can judge on the basis of the surviving manuscripts, was very small indeed. Popular romances and tales were translated,90 and there also appeared works of scientific or pseudo-scientific content, such as the Physiologus,91 various astrological texts,92 and Meletius' Treatise on Human Nature, included in the Hexaemeron of John the Exarch.93 85 Archangel'skij, op. cit., 88-90o; M. Heppel, "Some Slavonic Manuscripts of the 'Scala Paradisi' i8 (I957), 233-70. ('Lestvica')," Byzantinoslavica, 86 N. van Wijk, "Die slavische Redaktion des M^ya Aeswcov&piov," Byzantinoslavica, 4 (1932), 236-
52; idem, "Einige Kapitel aus Joannes Moschos in zwei kirchenslavischen tbersetzungen," Zeitschrift fur slavische Philologie, I0 (I933), 6o-6. 87 Murko, op. cit., 73; I. Dujcev, "Les rapports entre l'hagiographie bulgare et l'hagiographie byzantine au moyen age," Sixieme Congres international d'dtudesbyzantines, Alger, 2-7 octobreI939, Resumds des rapports et communications
(Paris, I940),
152-3;
idem, "Perevodna
kniznina,"
I56.
See also R.
Aitzemiiller, "Die altbulgarische Ubersetzung der Vita s. Pauli Simplicis," Die Welt der Slaven, 5 (1960), 225-32. 88 I. Ivanov, Bogomilski knigi i legendi (Sofia, I925). Cf. A. I. Jacimirskij, Bibliografiteskij obzor apokrifov v juSnoslavjanskoj i russkoj pis'mennosti; Spisi pamjatnikov, I (Petrograd, 1921), 1-75; E. Turdeanu, "Apocryphes bogomiles et apocryphes pseudo-bogomiles," Revue de l'histoire des religions, 138 (I949),
22-52;
139 (I950),
I76-2I8;
idem, "Les apocryphes
slaves et roumaines:
leur apport 'a la
connaissance des apocryphes grecs," Studi bizantini e neollenici, 8 (I953), 47-52; B. Angelov, "Apokrifi," Istorija na bulg. literatura, I78-92, 431-2; V. Velcev, "Bogomilskata kniinina," ibid., 208-20, 432-3. 89
H. Ch. Puech and A. Vaillant, Le traite contre les Bogomiles de Cosmas le Pretre (Paris, 1945). Cf.
V. Vel?cev, "Prezviter
Kozma,"
Istorija na bu.lgarskata literatura, I, 22I-40,
433-4;
Cl. Backvis,
"Un
t6moignage bulgare du xe siecle sur les Bogomiles: le 'Slovo' de Cosmas le Pretre," Annuaire de l'Institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves, i6 (1963), 75-100. 90For bibliographical information on the Slavic versions of the romance 'Barlaam and Josaphat,' see A. A. Nazarevskij, Bibliografija drevnerusskoj povesti (Moscow-Leningrad, 1955), 6I-85. For the Alexander romance, the Stephanites and Ichnilates romance, and the Tale of Aesop, see Ju. Ivanov,
Starobulgarski razkazi (Sofia, 1935), I49-74,
273-89;
I34-43,
289-97;
103-7, 245-9. Cf. Murko,
op. cit., 95-I00; P. Dinekov, "Razkazi i povesti," Istorija na bulgar. literatura, I, i64-71, 430-1. A. Dostal ("N6kolik poznimek k jazyku slovansk6; Starorusk6 verze byzantskeho eposu o Digenisovi Akritovi," Rusko-6eskd studie, Jazyk a literature, II [I960], 39I-404) has detected South Slavic elements also in the Slavic version of Digenes Acrites, but he dates them from the twelfth century. 91 Dujcev, Estestvoznanieto, I58-8I, 572-4. Cf. M. N. Speranskij, "K istorii 'Fiziologa' v staroj bolgarskoj pis'mennosti," in his Iz istorii russko-slavjanskich literaturnych svjazej (Moscow, 1960), 148-59. 92
I. Dujcev, "Gadaene po knigi v srednovekovieto," Izvestija na Narodinija etnografski muzej, 14
(I943), 49-55;
idem, Estestvoznanieto,
390-437,
93A. Leskien, "Der aristotelische Abschnitt 496. in Hexaemeron des Exarchen Johannes," Jagi6-Festschrift (Berlin, I908), 97-III; Ju. Trifonov, "Ioan Ekzarch Biulgarski i opisanieto mu na .ovegkoto tjalo," Bulgarski pregled, i (1929),
I74ff. Cf. Dujcev,
Estestvozanieto,
I38ff., 570ff.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS
AND THE SOUTHERN
SLAVS
37
One could add here also the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes which apparently was translated into Slavic for the first time in Bulgaria learned literature of Byzanthe on the whole, during the tenth century.94But tium remained inaccessible to mediaeval Bulgaria. From the rich historical literature of the Byzantines, only the chronicles attracted the attention of the Slav translators.95Thus, we possess versions of the chronicles of John Malalas,96 Patriarch Nicephorus,97and George Syncellus,98dating from the period of the First Bulgarian Empire. But as far as we know, none of the numerous historians of the learned tradition were ever rendered into Slavic, even though authors such as Procopius, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, and Leo the Deacon dealt directly with the history of the Slavs. Responsibility for this situation must be placed upon the exclusively churchattitude oriented of the Bulgarian literary circles. This attitude also explains attitude Bulgarientedan the absence of translations from, or commentaries on, classical Greek literature, which witnessed a revival in Byzantium at that time, and was known not only in the literatures of the other neighboring Christian peoples, but also in that of the Moslems.99 Moreover, the case of Bulgaria appears somewhat paradoxical if we recall Liudprand of Cremona, who informs us that Symeon, during his long sojourn in Photius' Byzantium, became a proficient Greek scholar with a taste for the rhetoric of Demosthenes and the syllogisms of Aristotle.100Thus, Symeon was sometimes known as the Hemi-Argus, the half-Greek, and his three surviving letters to Leo Choerosphactes are written in Greek and in the best tradition of Byzantine epistolography.101Yet, as far as we can ascertain, Bulgaria's knowledge of the classical world and its literature was not acquired at first hand, but rather through the channels of patristic and Byzantine literature. The literature which developed in Bulgaria in the course of the ninth and tenth centuries, limited though it was with regard to originality and secular 94 Dujcev, Estestvoznanieto, 438-95; idem, "Medieval Slavic Literature," go90.For scientific knowl-
edge in mediaeval Bulgaria in general, see Kristanov and Dujcev, Estestvoznanieto, passim; I. Duj6ev, "Zaraidane na naucnata misul u svednovekovna Bulgarija," Archeologija, 5, no. 2 (1963), 10-15; idem, "Racionalisti6eski probljasuci u slavjanskoto srednovekovie," Istor. pregled, 19, no. 5 (1963), 86-ioo. 95 M. Weingart, Byzantske kroniky v literatu?e cirkevn6slovansk6, I-II (Bratislava, 1922-3). Cf. I. Duj6ev, "Ftbersicht fiber die bulgarische Geschichtsschreibung," Antike und Mittelalter in Bulgarien (Berlin, 1960), 53-6. 96 The Slavic version is based on a better Greek manuscript, not extant today. See Weingart, op. cit., 18-51. Cf. Moravcsik, 97 See supra, note 64.
op. cit., 329-34.
98 Weingart, op. cit., I, 52-55; Ju. Trifonov, "Vizantijskite chroniki v curkovno-slavjanskata knignina," Izvestija na Istor. druzestvo, 6 (1924), 169-70, where it is argued that the Slavic version was made in Bulgaria during the tenth or eleventh century. 99 Attempts to prove that, besides the Russian version, there existed a Bulgarian translation of Josephus Flavius' De bello judaico, and also of his Jewish Antiquities, have not been convincing so far. See I. Dujcev, "Odno nejasno mesto v drevnerusskom perevode losifa Flavija," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskojliteratury, i6 (1960), 420ff.; B. Angelov, "Iosif Flavij u juinoslavjanskich literaturach,"
ibid., 19 (1963),
256.
100Liudprandus, Antapodosis, III, 29, 6-7; MGH, SS., III, 309; cf. I. Dujcev, "Klassisches Altertum im mittelalterlichen Bulgarien," Renaissance und Humanismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa, I (Berlin, 1 962),
349-50.
101See the letters of Symeon in G. Kolias, Leon Choerosphactes,magistre, proconsul et patrice (Athens, I939), 76ff. Cf. V. Besevliev, "Fragmente aus der Korrespondenz eines bulgarischen Humanisten im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert," Renaissance und Humanismus in Mittel- und Osteuropa, I, 335-42.
38
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
outlook, nevertheless served as the foundation for Bulgarian national culture throughout the centuries, and also contributed greatly to the cultural life of other peoples. By enriching and developing the language created by the Slavic apostles, so that it could express even the most subtle thoughts, the Bulgarian authors and translators secured for it a privileged position beside Greek and Latin as a literary language in mediaeval Europe.102This Old Church Slavic language (or as it is sometimes termed with certain justice, Old Bulgarian) became the vehicle of literary expression for all the Orthodox Slavs. It remained such in a revised form until the end of the eighteenth century, and has survived as the liturgical language of the Slavic Orthodox Church. And when the vernacular idioms of the Southern and Eastern Slavs emerged, it was under the direct influence of Old Church Slavic that they attained literary maturity. A still greater achievement of the Bulgarians consisted in preserving intact the Cyrillo-Methodian precepts, while at the same time freely assimilating the culture of Byzantium, and subsequently disseminating the resulting synthesis among the Serbs, the Rumanians, and the Russians. By their example as well as by their activity, the Bulgarians fostered the growth of other national cultures along similar lines. The Serbs were the first to feel the effects of the Slavic vernacular culture emanating from the Bulgarian lands. The partial evangelization of the Serbs under the Emperor Heraclius hadhad had no lasting effects,03 and Christianity reached this people in permanent form only in the second half of the ninth century. It was during the reign of the Emperor Basil I, when Byzantine Christianity had triumphed in Bulgaria, that it also began to penetrate other Southern Slavic regions. The imperial fleet's liberation of Dubrovnik (Ragusa) from an Arab blockade in 867 re-established Byzantine authority on the Dalmatian coast. Political influence was soon followed by a rapid spread of from Byzantium, and Byzantine influence even won a temporary Christianity Byzantianity victory over the ascendency of the Frankish kingdom and the Roman Church in Croatia.104 102 Dostil, "Die Widerspiegelung," 36ff.; idem, "Staroslovensky jazyk, jeho strukturni charakteristika a lokalnf typy," Geskoslovenskepredndsky po V. mezindrodni sjezd slavisth v Sofii (Prague, I963), i ff. Cf. M. Weingart, "Le vocabulaire du vieux-slave dans ses relations avec le vocabulaire grec," Studi bizantini e neoellenici, 5 (I939), 645-77; K. Schumann, Die griechischen Lehnbildungen und Lehnbedeutungen im Altbulgarischen (Wiesbaden, 1958); I. Dujcev, "Les Slaves et Byzance," Etudes historiques a l'occasion de XIe Congres international des sciences historiques, Stockholm - A out ig960 (Sofia, 1960), 55-6. 103Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando imperio, XXII, 27ff. (ed. and tr. by Gy. Morav-
csik and R. J. H. Jenkins [Budapest, 1949], 155). Cf. B. Ferjancic, Vizantiski izvori za istoriju naroda Jugoslavije, II (Belgrade, 1959), 40 ff.; F. Dvornik, in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De administrando impeyio; Commentary (London, 1962), 133; P. I. Ramureanu, "tnceptul crestinarii Sarbilor sub imparatul bizantin Heraclius," Studii teologice, S. II, II (1959), 164-81. 104 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, op. cit., XXIX, 70ff. (Moravcsik and Jenkins, 126). Cf. G. Sp. Radojicic, "La date de la conversion des Serbes," Byzantion, 22 (1952), 253-6, where it is argued that the Christianization occurred between 867 and 874; Ferjancic, op. cit., i6; Dvornik, loc. cit., 103; Dujcev, loc. cit., 44; idem, "Une ambassade byzantine aupres des Serbes au IXe siecle," Zbornik radova Vizantologkoginstituta, 7 (i96i), 53-60; P. I. Ramureanu, "La conversion des Serbes sous l'empereur Basil I le Macedonien" (in Rumanian), Studii teologice, S. II, 12 (1960), 13-28 (known to me only from a reference in Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 54 [1961], 204).
CYRIL AND METHODIUS
AND THE SOUTHERN
SLAVS
39
Slavic Christianity, however, came from Bulgaria to Serbia only in a later period, and must have grown in influence during the reign of Symeon of Bulgaria, whose supremacy had been recognized by the Serbian prince Mutimir.'05 Theories about an earlier and more direct penetration of Slavic Christianity from Moravia or Pannonia remain mere suppositions.106The introduction of the Slavic liturgy in Serbian lands was followed by the appearance of the Oexistence of independent local literary activity in Serbian lands in the early period, although one should not exclude the possibility that it could have existed.107 Slavic literature did witness a great flowering in Serbia, but this was during the later Middle Ages, when Serbian political power grew under the Nemanja dynasty. Having assimilated Latin influences from the Dalmatian coast, this literature emerged with a more original form and content than that found in the literary monuments of Bulgaria, although it remained equally faithful to the principles of the Cyrillo-Methodiantradition.108The most striking example of this originality is the series of biographies we possess of secular Serbian personalities. In Bosnia and Croatia, meanwhile, the influence of the Ohrid school met a sister Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. The place of the Croatian lands in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition is both peculiar and complex.109The view that an indigenous Slavic liturgy had developed here before the Moravian mission is an ingenious theory which, however, lacks substantial proof.110The Slavic liturgy most probably had spread widely from Moravia and Pannonia into Croatia before the death of Methodius. Following the events of 885 and the destruction of the Great Moravian Empirem by the Magyars, the position of this liturgy was strengthened in Croatia with the arrival of the persecuted disciples of Cyril and Methodius.11" 105Zlatarski, Istorija, 12-13. 106
Dj. Sp. Radojicic, "Medieval Slavic Literature and Its Byzantine Background," XII6 Congres international des Itudes byzantines, Ochride ig96i, Rapports complidmentairesresumes (Belgrade-Ohrid, Ioi; idem, "Knizevnost vizantijska i knjizevnosti slovenske," Glas Srpske Akademije nauka 1961), i umetnosti, 250 (1961), i6iff.; idem, Razvojni luk stare srpske knjiSevnosti (Novi Sad, 1962), II; idem, "Jugoslovenska srednjevekovna knjigevnost," Zbornik Matice Srpske za knjiz. i jezik, II (1963), 17ff.
107The view that a literary school existed in the territory between Kossovo and Rila is held by Dj. Sp. Radojici6, Antologija stare srpske knjiSevnosti (Belgrade, I960), 5; idem, Razvojini luk, I2ff. 108 Murko, op. cit., I33ff.; cf. idem, "Vtber Werke okzidentaler Herkunft in der mittelalterlichen Litteratur der Sudslaven," Deuxieme Congres international des dtudes byzantines, Belgrade 1927 (BelA. Schmaus, "Zur Frage der Kulturorientierung der Serben im Mittelalter," grade, 1929), I50-2; Suiidost-Forschungen,I5 (1956), 194-201; N. Banasevic, "Odjeci Zapada u srpskoj knjizevnosti srednjega veka," Zivi jezici, 1-2 (i957), 5-I4; Radojicic, "Knjizevnost," i6iff.; idem, "Istocna i zapadna komponenta starih juznoslovenskih knjizevnosti," Glas, 256 (1963), I-20. 109 V. Jagic, "Hrvatska glagoljska knjizevnost," in B. Vodnik, Povijest hrvatske knjizevnosti, I (Zagreb, 1913), 9-64; K. Horalek, "Koreny charvatsko-hlaholsk6ho pismnictvi," Slavia, 19 (1950), 285-92;
P. Skok, "Uslovi
zivota glagoljice,"
Slovo, 3 (i953),
50-63;
A. Cronia, "Delle cosi detta let-
teratura glagolitica e del periodo della sua maggiore floridezza," Ricerche slavistiche, 3 (I954), 123-32; J. Hamm, "Der Glagolismus in mittlerem Balkanraum," Die Welt der Slaven, i (1956), 265-75; idem, idem, "Glagolica," 462-8; St. Smrzik, The Glagolitic or Roman-Slavonic "Glagolizam," 313-21; Liturgy (Cleveland, Ohio-Rome, 1959); Mosin, "0 periodizacii," 56; V. Stefanic, "Tisucu i sto godina
od moravske
misije,"
Slovo, 13 (1963),
5-42.
110This unsubstantiated view has been recently advocated anew by D. Mandic, Rasprave i prilozi
iz stare hrvatske povijesti (Rome, 1963),
390ff.
111 Vita Nahum, in Ivanov, op. cit., 307; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, op. cit., XLI (Moravcsik and Jenkins, i81).
GEORGE
40
C. SOULIS
Thus, one finds in Croatia a situation analogous to that in Bulgaria. In Croatia, however, the tradition of Cyril and Methodius came into direct contact with Latin Christianity, whereas in Bulgaria it met with its Byzantine counterpart. This difference was the basis for subsequent divergent development. Furthermore, in Bulgaria it was the desire of the ruler to create a national Church that facilitated the growth of Slavic liturgy and letters. The Croat rulers had recently recovered their independence and already possessed a Slavic bishopric at Nin; so one would have expected them to favor the Slavic liturgy-if for no other reason than that the liturgy would serve as a means of national appeal to the Croats living between the Drava and Sava rivers, who were still under Frankish rule. Motivated, rather, by their ambition to control thewealthy commercial cities on the Dalmatian coast, they acted otherwise.112 When hard pressed by the armies of Symeon of Bulgaria, the Byzantines, masters of this littoral, found an eager ally in Tomislav, the first king of the Croats. In exchange, Tomislav was entrusted with the administration of the Dalmatian coast, which was, however, ecclesiastically under the jurisdiction of Rome. In order to win the support of the new territories, then, the Croat ruler sided with Rome and the Latin bishop of Split. I n to the latter's attempts to bring the Slavic bishopric of Nin under his direct jurisdiction and to stamp out the Slavic liturgy, Gregory, the great bishop of Nin, raised he of the strong objections. Thus, whether or not we accept t authenticity tenth canon of the Synod of Split, held in 925, forbidding the ordination of new priests for the Slavic liturgy, the fact remains that neither Rome nor the Croat princes favored the Slavic liturgy. Rome apparently had no use for this liturgy once the Byzantine danger was over.113 But what assured the survival of the Slavic liturgy in Croatia was the force and vitality of the Cyrillo-Methodian ideology, which transformed it into a symbol of national identity and resistance to Latinization. The position of this liturgy was further strengthened by the timely intervention of a legend that Saint Jerome, a Roman Church Father and a son of Dalmatia, had created the Glagolitic alphabet and had introduced the Slavic tongue into the liturgy.114
The Slavic liturgy and letters in Croatia retained through the centuries the use of the Glagolitic alphabet, although in a more angular form, apparently under the influence of the Beneventan script.115Traces of Croatian contacts with the Ohrid tradition are evident, but in the early centuries the main contacts of Croatian Glagolism were with Bohemia, as is indicated by the 112 F. gisic, Geschichte der Kroaten, I (Zagreb, 1917), I08 ff.; F. Dvornik, The Slavs: Their Early History and Civilization (Boston, 1956), 134, 174-6. 118 J. Srebrni6, "Odnosaji pape Ivana X prema Bizantu i Slavenima na Balkanu," Zbornik Kralja Tomislava (Zagreb, 1925), 128-64.
114 See the Croatian Life of Saint Jerome in Starine Jugosl. Akademije znanisto i umjetnosti, i (1869), 236. Cf. Jagic, Entstehungsgeschichte,130-1; V. Novak, "Jeronim," Narodna enciklopedija, II (Belgrade,
n. d.), 155-6. 115 V.
Novak, Scriptura beneventanas osobitim obziromna tip dalmatinske beneventane (Zagreb, 1920),
62, 66; idem, "Slavonic-Latin Symbiosis," 9.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
41
reception of the Life of Saint Wenceslas, and the introduction of the first Czech saints into the Croatian Church calendar.116This debt was partially repaid in the fourteenth century, when Croatian glagoljasi brought the interrupted tradition of the Slavic liturgy back to Bohemia under Charles IV, and established it in the "Slavic Monastery" of Emmaus which he had founded in the New City of Prague."7 In spite of the fact that it had a continuous struggle for existence, Glagolism in Croatia did not remain restricted to liturgical usage alone. It was also used in everyday life, as we can ascertain from a number of eleventh-century Glagolitic inscriptions found on the Dalmatian coast and islands.118Glagolism also produced a considerable literature, which became the basis of subsequent Croatian vernacular literary development.119The Croatian Glagolitic tradition with its Roman orientation has sustained a meager life to this day in the Dalmatian territory, retaining the spirit of the ideology of the Slavic apostles, but otherwise completely separated from the course which the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition took in the other Southern Slavic countries. The Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in its Bulgarian form crossed the Danube river in the eastern part of the Balkan peninsula and spread Slavic Christianity to the territory that was later to be formed into the Rumanian principalities. Thus, Rumania made its spiritual and literary beginnings as a province of Slavic vernacular culture.120Determining the exact date of these beginnings is as difficult a problem as ascertaining the enigmatic origin of the Rumanians themselves. We find no traces of Slavic literary activity north of the Danube until the latter part of the fourt eenth century, and yet we are convinced that Slavic Christianity must have spread there at a much earlier date. This conclusion is dictated by philological and archaeological evidence, and by the strong possibility that at times the Bulgarian frontier in the ninth and tenth centuries extended north of the Danube.121Furthermore, the penetration of 116
HorAlek, "Kofeny,"
Wiener Slavistisches 117
285-92;
J. Hamm, "Vom kroatischen Typus des Kirchenslavischen,"
Jahrbuch, io (1963),
15-18.
Cf. Dvornik,
op. cit., 174.
M. Kosti6, "Zasto je osnovan slovensko-glagoljaski manastir Emaus u Pragu," Glasnik Skopskog M. Paulovla, "L'idee Cyrillo-M6thodienne dans la politique de nau6nog drustva, 2 (I927), 159-65; Charles IV et la fondation du monastre slave de Prague," Byzantinoslavica, II (I950), I74-86; cf. Jakobson, "The Kernel," 54; Fr. Dvornik, The Slavs in European History and Civilization (New Brunswick, N.J., 1962), i6o. 118 J. Hamm, "Datiranje glagoljskih tekstova," Radovi Staroslavenskog instituta, I (1952), 5-72. 119Jagic, "Hrvatska glagoljska knjizevnost," 3-5; A. Vaillant, "Les origines de la langue litt6raire ragusaine," Revue des 6tudes slaves, 4 (1924), 23 Iff. 120 I. Barbulescu, "L'origine des plus anciens mots et institutions slaves des Roumains," Jubileen sbornik v 6est' na S. S. Bob6ev (Sofia, 1921), 207-19; G. Nandri?, "The Beginnings of Slavonic Culture in the Rumanian Countries," The Slavonic and East European Review, 24 (I946), I60-7I; E. Turdeanu, Les Principautes Roumaines et les Slaves du Sud: Rapports litt6raires et religieux (Munich, 1959); St. Stefanescu, "Rumynobolgarskie svjazi v IX-XIV vv. i stanovlenie rumynskoj gosudarstvennosti," Romanoslavica, 9 (I963), 53I-42. For the penetration of the Slavic vernacular tradition in Transylvania, see P. Olteanu, "Origines de la culture slave dans la Transylvanie du Nord et le Maramurea," Romanoslavica, i (1958), 169-97; cf. C. Nicolescu, "Considerations sur l'anciennete des monuments roumains de Transylvanie," Revue roumaine d'histoire, i (1962), 411-26. 121 G. Nandri?, "The Earliest Contacts Between Slavs and Rumanians," The Slavonic and East European Review, 19 (1939-40), idem, "The Development and Structure of Rumanian," ibid., 142-5; 30 (1951-2), 7-39; A. Rosetti, Influenta limbilor slave meridionale asupre limbii romine (sec. VI-XII)
(Bucharest,
1954).
See also A. Grecu (P. P. Panaitescu), "Bulgaria in nordul Dunarii in veacurile al
42
GEORGE
C. SOULIS
Slavic Christianity during the period of the First Bulgarian Empire seems particularly likely if we recall the lively intercourse which existed during the tenth and eleventh centuries between Bulgaria and Kievan Russia.122 The Second Bulgarian Empire with its large Vlach element must definitely have strengthened Slavic Christianity in the trans-Danubian region, but its systematic organization probably dates from the fourteenth century, when the independent principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were formed.123Only then are we informed that the Slavic tongue was used not only for liturgical purposes, but also as the official language of the state. The influence of Bulgarian literature was so deeply rooted in the Rumanian lands that local literary activity continued to foster Slavic letters long after they had declined among the Balkan Slavs under Ottoman rule. Wallachia and Moldavia thereby became important centers of an adopted Slavic culture, and, in turn, they made both the Southern and the Eastern Slavs their debtors by returning to them Slavic literature, both in manuscript and printed form, as late as the seventeenth century.124 Slavic literaturete and the Cyrillo-Methodian ideology were so thoroughly assimilated in Rumania that they became the foundation of the national tradition and the basis for later cultural development. In this connection it is significant that when Phanariote influence penetrated these lands in the seventeenth century as a kind of prelude to its later rule, Cyrillic letters emerged as a symbol of opposition to the foreigners.125 Not until the national revival in
the nineteenth century, with its Latin inspiration, were the concrete manifestations of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition lost. And even then, when the Cyrillic alphabet had been completely replaced by the Latin, the spirit of the legacy of the Slavic apostles remained intact. The last, but nevertheless the greatest, beneficiaries of the tradition of Cyril and Methodius in its Bulgarian form were the Russians. Following the IX-lera X-lea," Studi qi cercetdri de istorie medie, i (I950), 223-36; M. Comia, "Die bulgarische Herrschaft des Donau wahrend des X Jh. im Lichte der archaologischen Forschungen," Dacia, N. S., 4 Istoia Romiiei II (Buchaest ) 395-422; 962), (I 279-87. 122 M. N. Tichomirov, "Istoriceskie svjazi russkogo naroda s juznymi slavjanami s drevnejsich vremen do poloviny XVII v.," Slavjanskij sbornik ([Moscow] 1947), I36ff.; G. Vernadsky, Kievan Russia (New Haven, 1948), 318ff.; V. Nikolaev, Slavjanobuilgarskijat faktor v christijanizacijata na Kievska Rusija (Sofia, 1949), 139ff.; I. Snegarov, Duchovno-kulturni vrufzkimezdu Buigarija i Rusija prez srednite vekova (X-XVv.) 123 N.
(Sofia, 1950),
iff.
Banescu, L'ancien Etat bulgare et les pays roumains (Bucharest, 1947), 69-88; E. Turdeanu, La littgrature bulgare du XIVe siecle et sa diffusion dans les pays roumains (Paris, 1947), passim; idem, Les Principaut6s, 2. Cf. R. L. Wolff, "The 'Second Bulgarian Empire': Its Origin and History to 1204," Speculum, 24 (1949), 124 A.
167-206.
I. Jacimirskij, Iz istorii slavjanskoj pis'mennosti v Moldavii i Valachii (Moscow, 1906); P. P. Panaitescu, "La litterature slavo-roumaine (XVe-XVIIe siecles) et son importance pour l'histoire des litteratures slaves," Sbornik praci I. sjezdu slovanskych filologuiv Praze I929, II (Prague, 1932), E. Turdeanu, "Din vechile schimburi culturale dintre Romani si Jugoslavi," Cercetdriliterare, 206-17; 3 (i939), 141-218; Dj. Sp. Radojicic, "Srpsko-rumunski odnosi XIV-XVII v.," Godignjak Filozofskog Fakulteta u Novom Sadu, i (1956), 13-29; St. Ciobanu, "Din legaturile culturale romano-ucrainene," Academia Romadnda, Memoriile Sectiunii literare, S. III, 8 (1938), 35ff.; Relafii romino-ruse din trecut (Bucharest, 1957); Studii privind relatiite romino-ruse ?i romino-sovietice (Bucharest, 1958); V. Ciobanu, "Relatii literare romino-ruse in epoca feudala," Studii qi cercetdri de istorie literard fi folklor, 9 (1960), 294ff. 125
Nandri?, "The Beginnings," i60.
CYRIL AND METHODIUS AND THE SOUTHERN SLAVS
43
conversion of Prince Vladimir about 988, Christianity and the Slavic liturgy were officially established in the lands of Kiev. The Slavic language and letters which Kiev received from Bulgaria became the cornerstone of a rich literature and culture, and when Rus' lay broken under the Tatar yoke, this culture acted as a unifying force. Eventually, strengthened by a new wave of South Slavic influence in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition helped to inspire Muscovy in its task of "gathering" the Russian lands. And as Muscovy expanded in every direction, Slavic liturgy and Slavic letters, conceived originally for Moravia, found their way in Russian hands to the distant shores of the Pacific Ocean.126 126 Tichomirov, loc. cit., 162ff.; Gudzij, "Literatura Kievskoj Rusi," 7-60; B. Angelov, "K voprosu o nacale russko-bolgarskich literaturnych svjazej," Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury, 14 (1958),
132-8.
The Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia Author(s): Dimitri Obolensky Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 45-65 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291225 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
THE
AND
HERITAGE METHODIUS
OF
CYRIL IN
DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
RUSSIA
This paper was read at a Symposium on "The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs: St. Cyril and St. Methodius," held at Dumbarton Oaks in May I964. Except for the notes, it is printed here in substantially the same form in which it was delivered.
I HT
HE Russian Primary Chronicle,in a passage describingthe measures
taken in 1037 by the Russian sovereign Yaroslav to provide his subjects with Slavonic translations of Byzantine books-a passage written in the eleventh or early twelfth century-makes the following observation: "Great is the profit obtained from book learning: for through books we are taught the way of repentance, and from the written word we gain wisdom and selfcontrol. Books are rivers which water the entire world; they are the springs of wisdom; in books there is an unfathomable depth; by them we are consoled in sorrow; they are the bridle of self-control.... He who reads books often converses with God, or with holy men."'1 Such statements are no doubt a commonplace of mediaeval literature; yet their conventional character cannot, even today, wholly obscure the genuine emotion with which the chronicler, who was probably a Russian monk, affirms that the life of men can be greatly enriched by the reading of books. And, as the context of this passage plainly shows, the chronicler's emotion is heightened by his knowledge that his compatriots have now been provided with books in their own Slavonic language. This he gratefully attributes to the ented action of the rulers of his own of land-Yaroslav, Prince Kiev, and his father Vladimir who converted Russia to Christianity in the late tenth century. So concerned is the chronicler to extol the virtues of these two Russian sovereigns in promoting the Slav vernacular culture that he fails, in this passage, to mention the fountainhead of this culture-the work of Cyril and Methodius. Yet, as we shall see, the Russians of the Middle Ages were well aware of the true origins of their vernacular literature, and cherished with gratitude and veneration the memory of the two Byzantine apostles of the Slavs; and the same Russian Primary Chronicle contains other passages which clearly acknowledge that the Russians owe their alphabet, their literature, and their scholarly tradition, to the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius. One of the aims of this paper is to demonstrate that the importance of this mission, and its relevance to the cultural history of the Eastern Slavs, were appreciated in mediaeval Russia; the second aim is to outline the history of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in mediaeval Russia and to assess the role it played in the culture and thoughtworld of the Eastern Slavs: I would emphasize the word "outline"; for it is clear to me that the "Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia" is a problem too vast and complex to be treated, within the scope of a single lecture, in any but a fragmentary and tentative manner. 1 Povest' vremennykh let, ed. by V. P. Adrianova-Peretts and D. S. Likhachev (Moscow-Leningrad, I, pp. 102-3; English translation by S. H. Cross and 0. P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (Cambridge, Mass., 1953), p. 137. In subsequent references to this document the original will be cited as "Povest'," and the translation as "Cross." 1950),
47
48
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
I propose to approach my subject chronologically. I shall concentrate mainly on the period which begins with the official acceptance of Christianity in the late tenth century and ends in the early twelfth. It was then, notably in the eleventh century, that Russian literature was born; it was then, too, that Russian national consciousness found its first articulate expression. The central part of my theme-the heritage of Cyril and Methodius in eleventhcentury Russia-will be introduced by a brief sketch of its antecedents on Russian soil, and will be followed by an epilogue illustrating its impact on late mediaeval Russia. II Our story begins with a puzzle, which has taxed the ingenuity of many a scholar. The first recorded conversion of the Russians to Christianity took place in the sixties of the ninth century: contemporary Byzantine sources inform us that this conversion closely followed the Russian attack on Constantinople in 86o0;2that by 867 the Russians had accepted a bishop from Byzantium;3 and that about 874 an archbishop was sent to them by the Patriarch Ignatius.4 This first ecclesiastical organization on Russian soil seems to have been submerged, later in the century, by a wave of paganism which swept away the pro-Christian rulers of Kiev and replaced them by a rival group of Scandinavians from North Russia. Yet there is little doubt that a Christian community survived, at least in Kiev, attracting a growing number of converts throughout the tenth century, until Russia's final conversion in the reign of St. Vladimir, in 988 or 989. Some of the Russian envoys who ratified the treaty with the Empire in Constantinople in 944 were Christians, and a Christian church, ministering to a numerous community, existed in Kiev at that time;5 in 957 Princess Olga, regent of the Russian realm, was baptized in Constantinople;6 and in 983, a few years before Vladimir's conversion, two Christian Varangians were martyred in Kiev for their faith.7 It is apparent from these facts that the beginnings of Russian Christianity coincide in time with the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius and with the conversion of Bulgaria to the Christian faith; and that a Christian community existed in Kiev, continuously or with brief interruptions, for I25 years before Vladimir's baptism. Moreover, the comparatively rapid establishment of a diocesan organization at the end of the tenth century, the perceptive and mature understanding of the Christian life revealed by Russian writers of the next two generations, and the high literary standards attained by some of 2 Theophanes Continuatus (Bonn), p. I96. 3 Photius, Epistolae, PG, I02, cols. 736-7.
4 Theoph. Contin., pp. 342-3. Cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches,
I (Munich-Berlin, 1924), p. 60. 5 Povest', I, p. 39; Cross, p. 77. The Russo-Byzantine treaty, dated by the chronicler to 945, was in
fact concluded in the previous year. See Povest', II, p. 289; Dolger, op. cit., I, p. 80. 6 Povest', I, pp. 44-5; Cross, pp. 82-3. For the date and place of Olga's baptism, see G. Laehr, Die Anfdnge des russischen Reiches (Berlin, 1930), pp. 103-6; F. Dvornik, The Slavs, Their Early History
and Civilization
(Boston,
1956),
pp. 200-I.
7 Povest', I, pp. 58-9; Cross, pp. 95-6.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
HERITAGE
IN RUSSIA
49
them in the Slavonic language strongly suggest that the Russian ecclesiastical leaders and intellectual elite of that time were building on earlier foundations; and it is only natural to suppose that these older foundations were such as to ensure the survival of the Christian community in Kiev as a going concern for more than a century before Vladimir; that this community, in other words, was provided with an effective clergy, intelligible Scriptures, and a liturgy capable of satisfying the spiritual needs of the Slav and Varangian converts to the Christian religion. We would expect, in brief, to find traces in Russia, between 860 and 988, of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition of Slavonic vernacular Christianity. These traces, however, are singularly insubstantial. The evidence which scholars have extracted from the sources, or dug out from the ground, amount to a few meagre crumbs: it has been maintained, for instance, that the Slavonic texts of the Russo-Byzantine peace treaties of the tenth century, preserved in the Primary Chronicle, prove that the Russians could by that time read and write in Slavonic, although we do not know for certain when or where these documents were translated from the Greek;8 the observation that Princess Olga, at the time of her baptism and visit to Constantinople in 957, knew no Greek and relied on the service of interpreters has led to the suggestion that the liturgy may have been celebrated in Slavonic for her benefit in Kiev;9 the fact that in the eleventh century the Russians had some acquaintance with the Glagolitic script has been taken to mean that they imported, not later than the middle of the tenth century, the Slavonic liturgy and books from Macedonia, where the Glagolitic tradition was still in existence;10 a Cyrillic inscription, consisting of a single word, was discovered on a clay vessel during excavations near Smolensk in 1949, and was dated by its discoverer, D. A. Avdusin, to the first quarter of the tenth century:" all this, in terms of direct evidence, does not amount to very much. And yet it seems likely enough that well before Vladimir's conversion, by the mid-tenth century at the latest, the Christian community in Kiev was familiar with the Slavonic liturgy, with Slavonic translations of parts of the Scriptures, and with Slav-speaking priests. It is permissible to speculate where 8 See D. S. Likhachev, in Povest', II, pp. 257, 278. For the text of these treaties, see Povest', I, pp. 24-9, 34-9, 52; Cross, pp. 64-8, 73-7, 89-g90. Cf. S. Mikucki, "1?tudes sur la diplomatique russe la plus ancienne. I. Les traites byzantino-russes du Xe si6cle," Bulletin international de l'AcadedmiePolonaise des Sciences et des Lettres, cl. de philol., d'hist. et de philos., no. 7 (Cracow, 1953), pp. I-40; I. Sorlin, "Les traites de Byzance avec la Russie au Xe si6cle," Cahiers du monde russe et sovietique, II (1961), 3, pp. 3I3-60,
4, pp. 447-75.
9 Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis (Bonn), I, p. 597. Cf. P. A. Lavrovsky, "Issledovanie o Letopisi Yakimovskoy," Uchenye Zapiski Vtorogo Otdeleniya Imper. Akademii Nauk, II, i (i856),
p. 149.
10 See M. Speransky, "Otkuda idut stareishie pamyatniki russkoy pis'mennosti i literatury ?", Slavia, VII, 3 (1928), pp. 516-35; B. S. Angelov, "K voprosu o nachale russko-bolgarskikh literaturnykh svyazey," Trudy Otdela Drevnerusskoy Literatury, XIV (1958), pp. 136-8. On the Glagolitic tradition in mediaeval Russia, see V. N. Shchepkin, "Novgorodskie nadpisi Graffiti," Drevnosti. Trudy Imper. Moskovskogo ArkheologicheskogoObshchestva, XIX, 3 (1902), pp. 26-46; G. Il'insky, "Pogodinskie kirillovsko-glagolicheskie listki," Byzantinoslavica, i (1929), p. 102. 11 D. A. Avdusin and M. N. Tikhomirov, "Drevneishaya russkaya nadpis'," Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR
4
(1950),
4, pp. 71-9.
50
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
these may have come from. Common linguistic and ethnic ties, and the political relations which existed in the tenth century between the Eastern Slavs on the one hand, and the Western and Southern Slavs on the other, may well have facilitated, or even provoked, the spread of Slav priests and books to Russia either from the former territories of Great Moravia, or else from Bulgaria.12 Some of these priests and books may even have come from Constantinople where, at least in the second half of the ninth century, the Byzantine authorities assembled Slav-speaking priests and stockpiled Slavonic books for the needs of missionary enterprises beyond the Empire's northern borders. We have no direct evidence to show how far, before or after the time of Vladimir, the Byzantine missionaries in Russia deliberately encouraged the Slavonic vernacular as a means of evangelizing the country; however, the rapid establishment of this tradition in Russia after Vladimir's conversion, to the virtual exclusion of the Greek language from the liturgy at a time when the Russian Church was governed by prelates appointed by Constantinople, strongly suggests that the East Roman authorities acknowledged that the tradition of vernacular lavic Christianity, which had already yielded rich dividends in Bulgaria, was the only one that could reasonably be imposed on the numerous population of their powerful and distant northern proselyte.13 This introductory survey has rested less on direct information-which is fragmentary and equivocal-than on circumstantial evidence and on later material derived from the eleventh century. It is customary to blame the Russian Primary Chronicle for our inadequate knowledge of the beginnings of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Russia. It is indeed at first sight surprising that this document, compiled in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, which treats in such detail of the earliest hist history of the Russian people and is so plainly concerned with the fate of Russian letters and learning, has nothing precise to say about the channels through which the Slav vernacular tradition came to Russia. It attributes, as we have seen, the introduction of book learning to Vladimir and his son Yaroslav. Are we then to conclude that the author, or authors, of the Chronicle knew nothing of any earlier beginning, and that they believed that the Christian community in Kiev before Vladimir's time celebrated the liturgy in Greek? Different answers have been given to this question. The Russian scholar N. K. Nikol'sky, in a study of the Russian Primary Chronicle, published in 1930, argued that its compilers were perfectly 12
On Russia's relations with Bohemia in the tenth century, see A. V. Florovsky, Chekhi i vostochnye slavyane, I (Prague, 1935), pp. 1-44. On Russia's relations with Bulgaria in the same period, see M. N. Tikhomirov, "Istoricheskie svyazi russkogo naroda s yuzhnymi slavyanami s drevneishikh vremen do poloviny XVII veka," Slavyansky Sbornik (Moscow, 1947), pp. 132-52. 13 For the Byzantine attitude toward the tradition of Slavonic vernacular Christianity, see F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXe siecle (Paris, 1926), pp. 298-301; I. Dujcev, "II problema delle lingue nazionali nel medio evo e gli Slavi," Ricerche Slavistiche, VIII (1960), pp. 39-60; I. Sevcenko, "Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission," The Slavic Review, XXIII (1964), pp. 226-32. The problem is complex and requires further investigation; in the meantime, it may be tentatively suggested that the farther a given Slavonic country was situated from Constantinople, and the less chance there consequently was of Hellenizing its culture, the more ready the Byzantine authorities generally were to consolidate its Christianity and to ensure its loyalty to the Empire by encouraging it to acquire and develop the Slav vernacular tradition.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA
51
aware of the Slavonic origin of Russian Christianity, but deliberately avoided of prominence to the story ordeVladiany mention of it, in or ger mir's baptism by Byzantine missionaries, to present the conversion as an exclusively Greek achievement, and thus to justify the claims of the Byzantine clergy to ecclesiastical hegemony over Russia.14 This thesis should be considered in a broader context: for the past fifty years it has been fashionable to regard th authors e of the Primary Chronicle as men moved by political passions and factional loyalties, propagandists not averse to suppressing, twisting, or inventing evidence to gratify their prejudices or to flatter their ecclesiastical or secular patrons. This view is best epitomized in the well known history of Kievan Russia by M. D. Priselkov, published in 1913, who carried to extreme, and sometimes absurd, lengths the more bala a nd cautious conclusions of his teacher Shakhmatov, that unrivalled authority on Russian chronicles.15 The problem of the reliability of the Primary Chronicle is too large and too complex to be discussed here. I can only express my personal belief that, although the compilers of the Chronicle did at times show a personal bias in the selectionpresentation of their material, to maintain or imply that they were wholesale forgers, playing an elaborate game of hide-and-seek with their mediaeval readers (and with modern scholars as well), is to overestimate their ingenuity, to degrade their sense of history, and to ascribe to them motives which are, to say the least, anachronistic. What Nikol'sky called "the mysterious silence" of the chronicler about the early introduction of Slavonic letters into Russia can, it seems to me, be explained more satisfactorily if we suppose that he was ignorant of the facts, rather than that he took part in a conspiracy to suppress them. He had, as we shall see, precise and detailed information on the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius; but the circumstances in which the fruits of this mission were first acquired by the Russians must have remained unknown to him. The Soviet scholar V. M. Istrin has plausibly suggested that this ignorance may be explained by the gradual, sporadic, and undramatic way in which the Slav vernacular tradition filtered in to Russia in the tenth century; and by the fact that among its carriers-Slav-speaking priests from the Balkans or the West Slavonic area-no memorable personality emerged of the calibre of Cyril and Methodius and their immediate disciples.16 III It is scarcely possible to doubt that elements of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition-priests, books, and the liturgy-came to Russia before the time of Vladimir. It would, however, be unwise to exaggerate the extent and import14N. K. Nikol'sky, "Povest' vremennykh let, kak istochnik dlya istorii nachal'nogo perioda russkoy pis'mennosti i kul'tury," Sbornik po Russkomu Yazyku i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk SSSR, II, i (Leningrad,
1930).
See the review of this work by G. Il'insky,
Byzantinoslavica,
pp.
(1930), 432-6. 15 M. D. Priselkov, "Ocherki po tserkovno-politicheskoy istorii Kievskoy Rusi X-XII vv.," Zapiski fak. Imperat. Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta, CXVI (1913). ist.-filol. 16 V. M. Istrin, "Moravskaya istoriya slavyan i istoriya polyano-rusi, kak predpolagaemye istoch-
niki nachal'noy
4*
russkoy letopisi,"
Byzantinoslavica,
3 (193I),
pp. 327-32,
4
2, 2
(1932),
pp. 51-7.
52
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
ance of this penetration. It was only after Russia's official conversion to Christianity in 988 or 989, which led to the strengthening of the links with Byzantium and the establishment of a nation-wide ecclesiastical structure under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, that the problem of building a Slav vernacular Church became really urgent.17For this new period, which spans and slightly overlaps the eleventh century, we have considerably more inorrmation; and much of it comes from the Russian Primary Chronicle. In an entry dated 898, the Chronicle gives a fairly detailed account of the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius; this is preceded by a brief note describing the invasion of Moravia by the Magyars; the introductory section of the Chronicle has a further entry which refers to the earliest history of the Slavs and to their dispersal from their primeval European home.18This introductory entry is linked with the later note on the conquest of Moravia by a common emphasis on the ethnic and linguistic unity of the Slav peoples; and both the entry and the note ae connected with the account of the Moravian mission by the importance they all ascribe to "Slavonic letters" (gramota slovenbskaja)as a force expressive of Slav unity. The scholars who have studied these various entries in the Chronicle-A. Shakhmatov, P. Lavrov, N. Nikol'sky, V. Istrin, and, most recently, Professor Jakobson-are agreed that they are all fragments of a single work, stemming from a Cyrillo-Methodian environRussia the West Slavonic area.19 Shakhmatov, ment, and brought to from who called it The Tale about the Translation of Books into the Slav language (Skazanie o prelozhenii knig na slovensky yazyk)-the name has stuckplausibly suggested that it came to Russia in the eleventh century; and Professor Jakobson has described it as "a Moravian apologetic writing of the very end of the ninth century."20 For our present purpose, the most interesting of these suriving fragments is the account of the Moravian mission. It has long been known to contain four separate quotations from the Vita Methodii, and to be generally based on this work, with several borrowings from the Vita Constantini.21On several points, however, the version of the Russian Chronicle deviates from the vitae of the apostles of the Slavs: ononnone of them is the Russian version reliable; most of the divergences may be ascribed to error or confusion on the chronicler's part: for instance, he states quite wrongly that Kocel, as well as Rastislav and 17
For Russia's conversion to Christianity in the reign of Vladimir, see Povest', I, pp. 59-81; Cross,
pp. 96-I17,
244-8;
Die Anfdnge
Laehr,
des russischen
Reiches, pp.
110-15;
G. Vernadsky,
Kievan
Russia (New Haven, 1948), pp. 60-5. For the establishment of a Byzantine hierarchy in Russia, see D. Obolensky, "Byzantium, Kiev, and Moscow. A Study in Ecclesiastical Relations," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, ii (1957), pp. 23-5; L. Muiiller,Zum Problem des hierarchischen Status und der jurisdiktionellen Abhangigkeit der russischen Kirche vor 1039 (Cologne, 1959) (Osteuropaund der deutscheOsten, III,6). 18
Povest', I, pp.
II,
21-3;
Cross, pp. 52-3,
62-3.
19A. Shakhmatov, "Povest' vremennykh let i ee istochniki," Trudy Otdela Drevne-Russkoy LiteraP. Lavrov, "Kirilo ta Metodiy v davn'o-slov'yans'komu pis'menstvi," tury, IV (1940), pp. 80-92; Zbirnik Ist.-Filol. Viddilu, Ukrains'ka Akademiya Nauk, 78 (1928), pp. 129-136; Nikol'sky, op. cit.; Istrin, op. cit.; R. Jakobson, "Minor Native Sources for the Early History of the Slavic Church," Harvard Slavic Studies, 20
ii
(1954),
pp. 39-47.
R. Jakobson, "Comparative Slavic Studies," The Review of Politics, XVI, i (1954), p. 79. 21 See Shakhmatov, "Povest'vremennykh let i ee istochniki," op. cit., pp. 87-9; Jakobson, "Minor Native Sources," op. cit., p. 40.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
HERITAGE
IN RUSSIA
53
Svatopluk, requested a teacher from Byzantium, that the Slavonic alphabet was invented in Moravia, and that toward the end of his life Constantine taught in Bulgaria; in one case, however, the Russian chronicler can be suspected of deliberately deviating from his sources: he acknowledges that the work of Constantine and Methodius was supported by the Papacy, but makes no mention of their stay in Rome; this omission, probably due to anti-Roman censorship, suggests the hand of a revisor of the late eleventh or early twelfth century, when hostility to the Latin Church was beginning to gain ground in Russia.22
As source material on the Moravian mission, the Tale about the Translation of Books is wholly derivative and of no great value to the historian. Yet in other respects document is of considerable interest: it proves that the Russian chronicler was familiar with the written Lives of Constantine and Methodius; it shows how a West Slavonic work, breathing the authentic spirit of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition, could be adapted to a specifically Russian situation; and, whether in its original or adapted form, it made, as I shall presently suggest, a small but not insignificant contribution to that tradition. The emphasis which the Tale repeatedly lays on the unity of the Slavonic language; its manifest pride in the "power" and "intelligibility"23 of the Slavonic letters created by Constantine and Methodius which, it tells us explicitly, are a common patrimony of the Moravians, theeand Bulgarians, the Russians; its critical attitude to the "trilingual heresy," that bete noire of the Slavonic apostles and of their disciples:24 these are familiar and characteristic ingredients of the Cyrillo-Methodian thought-world. But in its concluding part, which obviously bears the mark of a Russian revision, the Tale breaks new ground, and claims that the heritage of Cyril and Methodius has been acquired by the Russian people; it bases this claim on a series of syllogistic arguments: the Slavonic letters were brought by Constantine and Methodius to the Moravians; the Russians, like the Moravians, are Slavs, and speak the same Slav language; the conclusion is implied that the Russians, too, are pupils of the Slavonic apostles; furthermore, Moravia and Pannonia, the lands of Methodius' spiritual jurisdiction, had once been evangelized by St. Andronicus, one of Christ's seventy disciples; but St. Andronicus was the disciple of St. Paul, who himself preached in Moravia. Therefore St. Paul is the teacher 22
See Jakobson, ibid., p. 41. use of sila and razumb in the Cyrillo-Methodian vocabulary, see Jakobson, ibid., p. 41, note. 24 Povest', I, p. 22: "Certain men rose up against them [i.e. against Cyril and Methodius], murmuring and saying: 'It is not right for any people to have its own alphabet, except for the Jews, the Greeks, and the Latins, according to Pilate's inscription, which he caused to be inscribed on the Lord's cross'." Cf. Cross, 63. The "trilingual heresy," based on the view that Hebrew, Greek, and Latin are the only legitimate liturgical languages, is ascribed by Constantine's biographer to the Latin clerics who opposed Constantine and Methodius in Moravia and who disputed with the former in Venice. See Vita Constantini, XV, 5-9, XVI, 1-5, XVIII, 9: Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses. Fontes, ed. by 23 For the
F. Grivec and F. Tomsic (Zagreb, 1960) (Radovi Staroslavenskog Instituta, 4), pp. 131, 134, 141. Cf. Vita Methodii, VI, 3-4, ibid., p. 156. On the "trilingual heresy," see Dujcev, "II problema delle lingue
nazionali nel medio evo e gli Slavi," op. cit.; id., "L'activite de Constantin Philosophe-Cyrille en Moravie," Byzantinoslavica, 24 (1963), pp. 221-3.
54
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
of the Slavs, and the Russians, by virtue of being Slavs and pupils of St. Methodius, are likewise disciples of St. Paul.25 By means of these complicated constructions, and by appealing to the current though legendary tradition that Paul and Andronicus preached in northern Illyricum and Pannonia, the Russian chronicler traces the spiritual ancestry of his people back to Cyril and Methodius on the one hand, and to St. Paul on the other. The conjunction of names is significant, for the veneration of St. Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, is an essential feature of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition.26 There is clearly something artificial in these putative spiritual genealogies; even the syntax of this passage in the Chronicle is awkward: there are eleven causal conjunctions in nine lines. The chronicler's patent embarrassment doubtless stems from his inability to identify the historical channels through which the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage penetrated from Moravia to Russia; and it confirms the view I expressed earlier that his silence on this point comes from ignorance, not from bad faith. At the same time he is conscious, and rightly so, that the Slav vernacular tradition which flourished in Russia in his day has its roots in the Moravian mission of Constantine and Methodius. Two Scriptural quotations inserted in the Tale seem to me of special interest, and suggest that the chronicler,ororhis hissource, did more than just reiterate the classic themes of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. The first of them is embedded in the phrase: "The Slavs rejoiced to hear the mighty works of God in their own tongue"; and in a later passage the Pope is made to declare: "All nations shall tell the mighty works of God, as the Holy Spirit will give them utterance."27 The latter citation is taken from Pope Hadrian II's letter to Rastislav, Svatopluk, and Kocel, as quoted in the eighth chapter of the Vita Methodii;28 and both of these quotations in the Chronicle are also derived, practically verbatim, from the second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, verses four and eleven, which describes the descent of tongues of fire upon the Apostles at Pentecost. So far we are on familiar Cyrillo-Methodian ground, for the gift of tongues is a theme closely related to that of vernacular languages, and the Pope's citation of Acts II in the Vita Methodii implies that the appearance of the Slavonic liturgy and books can be regarded as a second Pentecost. However, these two Pentecostal quotations acquire an added significance if we relate them to the introductory part of the Primary Chronicle, which immediately precedes the first fragment of the Tale: this introduction, based largely, though not exclusively, on the Slavonic translation of the Byzantine chronicle of George Hamartolos,29 begins with the story of the division of the earth among the sons of Noah after the Flood, and ends with a brief account of the building of the Tower of Babel. The Russian version of the latter episode, based, it would seem, on a Slavonic version of a lost historical compendium 25
Povest', I, p. 23; Cross, p. 63.
26Cf. Jakobson, "Minor Native Sources," op. cit., pp. 43-4. 27 "I radi bysa sloveni, jako slysisa velicbja Boz,ja svoimi jazykomb .... Vsi vbz%glagoljutbjazyki velicija Bozbja, jako ze dastb imb Svjatyi Duchi otvescevati": Povest', I, p. 22; Cross, p. 63. 28 Vita Methodii, VIII, I3 (Grivec-Tomsic, p. 158). 29 Povest', I, pp. 9-ii; Cross, pp. 5 1-2. Cf. Shakhmatov, "Povest' vremennykh let i ee istochniki," op. cit., pp. 41-5; Povest', II, pp. 203-13; Cross, p. 231.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
HERITAGE
IN RUSSIA
55
mainly derived from the chronicles of John Malalas and George Hamartolos,30 states that when the Lord scattered His people over the face of the earth, the pristine linguistic and ethnic unity of mankind gave way to a multiplicity of languages and nations. The Russian chronicler deliberately links this Biblical introduction to his account, which follows immediately, of the early history and dispersal of the Slavs, by placing them both among the heirs of Japheth and among the seventy-two nations which were scattered from the Tower of Babel. The conclusion seems inescapable that the chronicler wished to suggest a contrast between the former multiplicity of tongues and the present unity of the Slavonic languages, a unity to which Cyril and Methodius gave a new significance; and that he did so by implying that the Slavonic letters are an extension of the miracle of Pentecost whereby the Holy Spirit rescinded the confusion of tongues which sprang from the Tower of Babel. This contrast between Pentecost and Babel, which gives a new and more universal dimension to the work of Cyril and Methodius, is not, as far as I know, explicitly drawn in any other work of the mediaeval Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. One or the other of the two contrasting themes is touched upon occasionally: the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages are mentioned in Khrabr's celebrated defence of the Slavonic letters, written in Bulgaria in the late ninth or the early tenth century;31 and, as Professor Jakobson has shown, the Pentecostal miracle is alluded to in a troparion of a canon to Cyril and Methodius, dating from the same period, which states that Cyril "received the grace of the Holy Spirit equal to that of the Apostles."32 It is true that the Prologue to the Holy Gospels, an Old Church Slavonic poem attributed by many scholars to Constantine himself, seems to go some way toward implying a contrast between Babel and Pentecost: its third line reads: "Christ comes to gather the nations and tongues" ;33 but only in the Russian Primary Chronicle are the two terms of the contrasting parallel clearly brought out. The origin of this idea is not hard to find: the contrast between Babel and Pentecost, and the belief that the latter has cancelled the former, are repeatedly emphasized in the Byzantine offices for Whitsunday. The kondakion of the feast makes the point with particular clarity: "When the Most High went down and confused the tongues, he divided the nations: but when He distrib80 Shakhmatov,
ibid., pp. 44-5, 72-7.
For the text of Khrabr's treatise 0 pismenechb, see P. A. Lavrov, Materialy po istorii vozniknoveniya drevneishey slavyanskoy pis'mennosti (Leningrad, 1930) (Trudy Slavyanskoy Komissii Akademii 31
Nauk SSSR), pp. 162-4;
I. Ivanov,
Bulgarski Starini iz Makedoniya,
2nd ed. (Sofia, 1931), pp. 442-6.
On Khrabr, see I. Snegarov, "Chernorizets Khrabur," Khilyada i sto godini: slavyanska pismenost, 863-1963. Sbornik v chest na Kiril i Metody (Sofia, 1963), pp. 305-19; A. DostAil, "Les origines de l'Apologie slave par Chrabr," Byzantinoslavica, 24 (1963), pp. 236-46; V. Tkadlcik, "Le moine Chrabr
et l'origine de 1'6criture slave,"
Byzantinoslavica,
25 (1964),
pp. 75-92.
The older literature
on the
subject is listed in G. A. Il'insky, Opyt sistematicheskoy Kirillo-Mefod'evskoy bibliografii (Sofia, I934), pp. 27-8; M. Popruzhenko and St. Romanski, Kirilometodievska bibliografiya za I934-I940 god (Sofia, 1942), pp. 30-I. 32
R. Jakobson, "St. Constantine's Prologue to the Gospel," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly,
VII, i (1963),
p. I5. Cf. Lavrov,
see Jakobson,
op. cit., pp.
Materialy,
p. 113 (no. 22).
8 "Christosb gredetb jezyki sbbrati": Lavrov, ibid., p. 196; cf. R. Nahtigal, "Rekonstrukcija treh starocerkvenoslovanskih izvirnih pesnitev," Razprave Akademije Znanosti in Umetnosti v Ljubljani, filozofsko-filologko-histori6nirazred, I (i943), pp. 76-122; for an English translation of the Prologue, 16-19.
56
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
uted the tongues of fire, He called all men to unity."34We do not know whether this idea, which is so succinctly expressed in the Greek and Slavonic service of Pentecost and is also to be found in the writings of several Greek Fathers,35 was directly applied to the Slavs by the Russian chronicler, or whether he found it in his source, the Tale about the Translation of Books; be that as it may, the notion that the Slavonic peoples share in the Pentecostal abrogation of Babel can be regarded as a significant addition to the storehouse of CyrilloMethodian ideas. The chronicler's adaptation of the Tale about the Translation of Books shows how close was the connection in his mind between the conversion of the Russians to Christianity and their acquisition of the Cyrillo-Methodian vernacular tradition; by contrast, as we have seen, he did not know when and how this tradition first came to Russia. He is not much more informative on this point when he comes totothe reign of Vladimir. Yet common sense suggests that the establishment of Christianity as the state religion in his reign would have been impossible had not a Slav-speaking clergy preached the Gospel and celebrated the liturgy in the vernacular on a wide scale. But of this we know next to nothing. It is true that the so-called "Chronicle of Joachim," a seventeenth-century compilation, no longer extant, based on mediaeval sources, and discovered and quoted in part by the eighteenth-century historian Tatishchev, contains several statements which, if true, would give us just the facts we need. After Vladimir's conversion to Christianity, we are told in this source, Symeon, tsar of Bulgaria, sent to Russia "learned priests and sufficient books."36 The view that the "Chronicle of Joachim" is a fabrication by Tatishchev has been abandoned by historians generally,37and this particular piece of evidence is accepted as as genuine by a number of scholars.. . LavrovA. sky attempted to explain away the anachronistic connection between Vladimir 84 OTE Kcrapas -rasySXcbocas aVV?X?, E8sEpptaev ?Qvri6 YICTTOSOT?S TOU Tvp6Os Tas yXC'ocas si4veinEv, EIS vOTnTraTr&vTrasKx&eaE(TTevriKOCT-r&piov Xapp6ovuvov [Rome, 1883], p. 400). 35The idea that the Pentecostal miracle, by reuniting the languages of the earth, repealed the
confusion of tongues which followed the building of the Tower of Babel, implied by Origen (In Genesim, PG, XII, col. 112), was explicitly formulated by Gregory Nazianzen (Oratio XLI: in Pentecosten, PG, XXXVI, col. 449), John Chrysostom (De Sancta Pentecoste, Homilia II, PG, L, col. 467; In epistolam I ad Cor. Homilia XXXV, i, PG, LXI, col. 296), Cyril of Alexandria (Glaphyra in Genesim, II, PG, LXIX, cols. 77, 80), Cosmas Indicopleustes (The Christian Topography, ed. by E. 0. Winstedt (Cambridge, I909), bk. III, pp. 95-7), and the Emperor Leo VI (Oratio XII: in Pentecosten, PG, CVII, col. 128). Cf. A. Borst, Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen uber Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker, I (Stuttgart, I957), pp. 236-9, 246, 249-50, 252, 262-3, 302. Gregory Nazi-
anzen expressed the contrast between Babel and Pentecost in the following terms: nTiTv rraivVET-ri pv rra;\ati& aipEles -rCav q*c)vwv T6OV 0O KaCi (fhv'Ka CpKO8O, UOVV TrCpYov KaKCOS Kal d&eECoS O6poCOVOVVTE, coarrEp CO vGv TpTcoaii TIVs) TNy&p TjS qcovis SiaacrTElt avv5ia?veiv 6TO oIoyvcoilov, -rTV Ey)Eip1iciv XaUCEV 8 f vUv eaupa-raToupyoup&v.'A-rr6 yap &vosHTvnu,ia-roseis -roXAois xveSiaa, E\Spiav appoviav &dISTraiVeTCOTipa col. 449). An Old Church Slavonic translation of this sermon by TrrAv Uavv&yeT-rai (PG, XXXVI, St. Gregory on Pentecost, preserved in an eleventh-century manuscript in Russia, existed there in the Kal
thirteenth century at the latest. See XIII slov Grigoriya Bogoslova v drevneslavyanskom perevodepo rukopisi Imper. Publichnoy Biblioteki XI veka, ed. by A. Budilovich (St. Petersburg, 1875), pp. iv, 270-82, esp. p. 281. For an English
translation
of this sermon, see A Select Library of Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. by P. Schaff and H. Wace, VII (Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1955),
pp. 378-85.
36V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriya Rossiiskaya, I (Moscow-Leningrad, I962), p. 112. 37See S. K. Shambinago, "Ioakimovskaya Letopis'," Istoricheskie Zapiski, XXI (I947), pp. 254-70; M. N. Tikhomirov, in Tatishchev, ibid., p. 50.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
HERITAGE
IN RUSSIA
57
and Symeon (who died half a century before the former's accession) by referring to the statement of the Byzantine chronicler Cedrenus that Romanus, son of the Bulgarian Tsar Peter, assumed the name of his grandfather Symeon.38 Romanus is believed by some historians to have been tsar of Bulgaria between about 979 and 997. However, though Romanus was undoubtedly a contemporary of Vladimir, it is far from clear that he ever reigned in Bulgaria.39A further statement in the "Chronicle of Joachim" seems to confirm that Vladimir's clergy was partly of Slavonic origin: the Byzantine authorities, it asserts, sent to Vladimir the Metropolitan Michael, a Bulgarian by nationality, to head the Russian Church.40This Michael, we may note, is mentioned as the first primate of Russia in several sixteenth-century sources.41However, tempting though it is to accept the statements of the "Chronicle of Joachim" on the penetration of a Slavonic clergy and books into Russia in the late tenth century, there are, in my opinion, too many uncertainties connected with this text to make it possible to regard it as reliable evidence. The earliest trustworthy account relating to the use of Slavonic in the Russian Church does, however, come from the reign of Vladimir; and it is supplied by the Primary Chronicle. In an entry dated 988, the chronicler tells us that after the Russians had been baptized Vladimir sent round to assemble the children of noble families, and gave thembeto benstructed instructed in book learning."42 It is prima facie highly improbable that the teaching in these earliest known Russian schools was conducted in Greek; some knowledge of the Greek language was doubtless imparted to the members of Vladimir's jeunesse doreaewho were destined for high office in the Russian Church; but there is every reason to believe that by "book learning" (ucenbekniznoe) the chronicler meant literary instruction in Slavonic. Evidence that this was so is provided by the chronicler's comment on Vladimir's schools, in a passage which immediately follows the account of their foundation: "When these children 38Cedrenus, Historiarum Compendium, II (Bonn), p. 455; P. A. Lavrovsky, "Issledovanie o Letopisi . 47-8. Cf. V. Nikolaev, Slavyanobulgarskiyat faktor v khristiyanizatsiyata . Yakimovskoy," op cit., na Kievska Rusiya (Sofia, 1949), pp. 80-8; V. Moshin, "Poslanie russkogo mitropolita Leona ob opresnokakh v Okhridskoy rukopisi," Byzantinoslavica, 24 (I963), p. 95. 39 Romanus, together with his brother Boris (the former tsar of Bulgaria) fled from Constantinople to Bulgaria about 979. Boris was killed on the way, but Romanus succeeded in joining the Comitopulus Samuel, who led the anti-Byzantine revolt in Macedonia. The statement of the eleventh-century Arab historian Yahya of Antioch that Romanus was proclaimed tsar of Bulgaria was accepted by V. N. Zlatarski (Istoriya na BiulgarskataDurzhava, I, 2 [Sofia, 1927], pp. 647-59) and by N. Adontz ("Samuel I'Arm6nien, roi des Bulgares," M6moires de l'Acad6mie Royale de Belgique, classe des lettres, XXXIX [I1938], p. i6). However, S. Runciman (A History of the First Bulgarian Empire [London, 1930], p. 221) and G. Ostrogorsky (History of the Byzantine State [Oxford, 1956], p. 267) point out, probably with better reason, that Romanus, being a eunuch, was disqualified from occupying the throne. 40 Tatishchev, Istoriya Rossiiskaya, I, p. 112. 41 Nikonovskaya Letopis', s. a. 988: Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, IX (St. Petersburg, i862), p. 57; Kniga Stepennaya Tsarskogo Rodosloviya, ibid., XXI, i (St. Petersburg, I908), p. 102. Both these sources describe Michael as a Syrian. Michael is also mentioned as the first metropolitan of Russia in several fifteenth-century manuscripts of the Church Statute of Vladimir: See Pamyatniki drevne-russkogokanonicheskogoprava, pt. 2, fasc. i, ed. by V. N. Beneshevich: Russkaya Istoricheskaya Biblioteka, XXXVI (Petrograd, I920), p. 4; cf. E. Golubinsky, Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, I, i, 2nd ed. 621, note 5. 190I), (Moscow, pp. 277-8I, 42 "Poslav%naca poimati u narocitye cadi deti, i dajati naca na ucenbe kniznoe." Povest', I, p. 8I; Cross, p. 117.
58
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
were assigned to study books in various places, there was fulfilled in the land of Russia the prophecy which says: 'In that day shall the deaf hear the words of a book, and the tongue of the dumb shall be clearly heard."'43There is, I submit, much significance in this Biblical quotation. It is a composite one, and is drawn from two different chapters of the Septuagint version of the Book of Isaiah, the first half from Isaiah 29: i8, the second half from Isaiah 35:6.44 In its original context it describes the change in Israel's relation to Jahweh, by which the people's blindness and stupidity will give way to knowledge and joy. "The words of a book" (XoyousPi[pAiov)are the commands of Jahweh, and these will be accepted when the book is unsealed45.These words of Isaiah are in the Primary Chronicle adapted to the Russian people's new relationship to God after their conversion to Christianity; and "the words of a book" (?o6yol PipXiou), by a translation both semantically accurate and creatively fitted to a new situation, are rendered in Slavonic as slovesa kniznaja, an expression which refers to the Christian Scriptures, but is also a technical term for the Scriptures and liturgy translated into the Slavonic tongue. The idea of applying the words of Isaiah to the Slav vernacular tradition was not an invention of the Russian chronicler. It has not, so far as I know, been observed that his conflation of the two quotations from Isaiah 29: 8 and Isaiah 35:6 has an exact parallel in the fifteenth chapter of the Vita Constantini, where they are likewise combined and placed in a similar context. This chapter, which describes Constantine's work in Moravia, opens with the following words: "When Constantine arrived in Moravia Rastislav received him with great honour and, having assembled some disciples, he gave them to him to be instructed. He soon translated the whole of the ecclesiastical office, and taught them the services of matins, the canonical hours, vespers, compline, and the sacred liturgy. And, according to the words of the prophet, the ears of the deaf were unstopped, and they heard the words of a book (kniz'naa slovesa), and the tongue of the dumb was clearly heard. 46The similarity between these two passages in the Primary Chronicle and in the Vita Constantini is striking: both contain the same composite quotation drawn from two different chapters of the Book of Isaiah; both apply the prophet's XoyousPhAiMXou to the Slavonic and there is an obvious vernacular; analogy between Rastislav's and Vladimir's educational measures: both are said to have assembled pupils and to have assigned them for instruction. There can be little doubt that the passage in 43 "Sim Me razdajanomL na ucenie knigam%,snbystbsja prorocestvo na rusbst6i zemli, glagoljusee: 'Vo ony dnii uslysati glusii slovesa kniznaja, i jasns- budetb jazykL gugnivych'," ibid. 44Kal dKoUaovrTalv T-ri pipa KEiVNI Kcocpol 6yous ip3X(ov(Is. 29: i8) ... Kai Tpav) r [oal yAcaaa voyiAaAcov(Is. 35 : 6). 45 See The Book of Isaiah, translated from a critically revised Hebrew text with commentary, by E. J. Kissane, I (Dublin, I960), p. 320. Cf. Is. 29: ii. 46 "DOSbdbSu {ejemu Moravy, STvelikoju cbstiju prijetb jego Rastislavb i uceniky sibravb i vsdastL i uciti. Vbskorb Me vrsb crbkovnyi cinb priimb nauci je utrbnici i casovomb i vecer'nii i pavecer'nici i tain6i slu'b6. I otvrLzose se prorocbskomu slovese usesa gluchyichib i uslysase knil'naa slovesa i jezykb jasbnib bystb gugnivyichb:" Vita Constantini, XV, 1-3 (Grivec-Tomsic, p. 131). In their translation of this passage Grivec and Tomsic erroneously derive the citations et apertae sunt ... aures surdorum and et lingua plana facta est balborumfrom Is. 35 : 5 and Is. 32 : 4, respectively (ibid, p. 202). They have also failed to observe that the words ut audirent verba scripturae are a quotation from
Is. 29 : i8.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
HERITAGE
IN RUSSIA
59
the Russian Primary Chronicle is directly based on the opening section of the fifteenth chapter of Constantine's Life. And this leads to the following conclusions: firstly, borrowings by the Russian chronicler from the Vita Constantini are not confined to the early sections of the chronicle which go back to the Tale about the Translation of Books; secondly, the Russian chronicler, by making use of the fifteenth chapter of the Vita Constantini and quoting from it, implied a parallel between the introduction of the Slavonic liturgy and Scriptures into Moravia throughthe combined efforts of Constantine and Rastislav, and their transmission to Russia on the initiative of Vladimir; and thirdly, the chronicler was convinced that Vladimir's educational measures really marked the beginning of the vernacular Slav tradition in Russia: in which belief, as we have seen, he was not altogether correct. We know regrettably little about Vladimir's Slavonic schools; their beginth , to judge from the chronicler's nings cannot have been altoge ironic statement that the mothers of these conscripted pupils "wept over them, as though they were dead."47The brighter of these alumni, who must have become adults by the year iooo at the latest, doubtless formed the nucleus of that educated elite which produced the earliest works of Russian literature in the first half of the eleventh century.48 This and the following generation of scholars must have taken an active part in the second of Russia's educational reforms, promoted by Vladimir's son Yaroslav and to which I alluded at the beginning of this paper. This reform is described in the Primary Chronicle under the year 1037. Yaroslav, repeatedly termed a "lover of books," which he is said to have read frequently night and day, "assembled many scribes and had them translate from Greek into the Slavonic language. And they wrote many books." These books, we are told in a subsequent passage, were deposited by Yaroslav in the newly built church of St. Sophia in Kiev, the principal cathedral in the land.49 The origin and nationality of Yaroslav's translators are unknown. That some of them were Russians can scarcely be doubted. Others may have been Greeks or Slavs from Byzantium. It is very probable that the group included Bulgarian priests and scholars, some of them perhaps refugees who had fled their land after the Byzantine conquest in ioi8. It is not impossible that some were Czechs. It has been suggested that the traces of various Slav languages found in some translations current in Russia at the time indicate that Yaroslav's 47 Povest', I, p. 8i; Cross, p. 117.
48
On the Russian literature of the eleventh century, see M. N. Speransky, Istoriya drevney russkoy literatury, 3rd ed., I (Moscow, 1920), pp. 113-345; V. M. Istrin, Ocherk istorii drevnerusskoy literatury domoskovskogo perioda (Petrograd, 1922), pp. 118-57; A. S. Orlov, Drevnyaya russkaya literatura (Moscow-Leningrad, 1945), pp. I-93; N. K. Gudzy, Istoriya drevney russkoy literatury, 6th ed. (Moscow, I956), pp. 45-89, 96-104: English translation: History of Early Russian Literature (New York, 1949), pp. 84-146; D. Tschizewskij (Chyzhevsky), Geschichte der altrussischen Literatur im ii., 12. und 13. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main, 1948), pp. 105-57, 174-99; id., History of Russian Literature from the Eleventh Century to the End of the Baroque (The Hague, 1960), pp. 20-81. The masterpiece of this literature, the Sermon on Law and Grace by Hilarion, metropolitan of Kiev, is the subject of an excellent critical edition and study by L. Muiller, Des Metropoliten Ilarion Lobrede auf Vladimir den Heiligen und Glaubensbekenntnis (Wiesbaden, 1962). 49 Povest', I, pp. 102-3;
Cross, pp. 137-8.
DIMITRI
60
OBOLENSKY
translators formed a kind of international commission.50 Here, however, the historian finds himself on peculiarly slippery ground: he cannot safely venture over it before he has an answer to three questions: What writings of Greek religious and secular literature were available in Russia in the early Middle Ages ? Which of these translations can with reasonable certainty be attributed to Russian hands ? And of these Russian translations, which were executed in the reign of Yaroslav, that is, between IOI9 and Io054? On none of these questions do philologists appear to have reached a consensus of opinion. A. I. Sobolevsky supposed that nearly all the extant translations made in Bulgaria in the ninth and tenth centuries were available in Russia during the first centuries after Russia's conversion.51 The same scholar drew up a tentative list of thirty-four of these translations which, in his opinion, were done by Russians in the pre-Mongol period. These include the Life of St. Andrew Salos, the Life of St. Theodore the Studite,the he Monastic Rule of Studios, the Christian Topography of Cosmas Indicopleustes, Josephus Flavius' History of the the Physiologus, Jewish War, the Romance of Alexander, the Bee (MEAiaaa), and the Devgenievo deyanie, generally regarded as a fragmentary Russian translation of an early version of Digenis Akritas.52V. M. Istrin, in his monumental edition and study of the Slavonic version of the Chronicle of Hamartolos, has argued that this work was translated in Kiev in the forties of the eleventh century, by a Russian member of Yaroslav's pool of translators.53 But this view has been disputed, or at least modified, by several scholars.54 Philologists are always reminding us how difficult it is to distinguish on linguistic grounds an Old Church Slavonic text written in Russia from one composed in Bulgaria or Bohemia, so homogeneous, until the end of the eleventh century, was the common Slavonic written tradition.55 And the historian who seeks to avoid the dangers of overemphasizing the cultural achievements of Kievan Russia must surely heed these words of caution. He will admit the contribution made by Russian scholars, in the eleventh century and later, to the available store of Old Church Slavonic translations from Greek; he will acknowledge that many, perhaps most, of the translations available in the Kievan period came from Bulgaria; and, to complete the picture, he will also recognize that some literary works stemming from the very area where Constantine and Methodius had worked-Moravia and Bohemia-were brought to Russia in the eleventh century. Among these works, written in the Czech recension of Old Church Slavonic and available in 50 51
See Chyzhevsky, Geschichte der altrussischen Literatur, pp. 69-70, 84. A. I. Sobolevsky, Perevodnaya literatura Moskovskoy Rusi XIV-XVII
vekov (St. Petersburg,
1903), p. v. 52 A. I. Sobolevsky,
"Materialy i issledovaniya v oblasti slavyanskoy filologii i arkheologii," Sbornik Otdeleniya Russkogo Yazyka i Slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk, LXXXVIII (1910), no. 3, pp. i62-77. 53 V. M. Istrin, Khronika Georgiya Amartola v drevnem slavyanorusskom perevode, 3 vols. (Petrograd,
1920-2,
Leningrad,
54
1930),
esp. vol. II, pp. 268-309.
See N. Durnovo, "K voprosu o natsional'nosti slavyanskogo perevodchika Khroniki Georgiya Amartola," Slavia, IV (1925), pp. 446-60; P. A. Lavrov, "Georgy Amartol v izdanii V. M. Istrina," ibid., pp. 461-84, 55
(I953),
657-83.
See R. Jakobson, "The Kernel of Comparative Slavic Literature," Harvard Slavic Studies, I pp. 37-41.
HERITAGE
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN
IN RUSSIA
61
the Kievan period, were the Martyrdom of St. Vitus, the Martyrdom of St. Wenceslas of Life of St. Wenceslas of BohemiaAppolinarius of Ravenna, and Gumpold's all translations from the Latin; and the original Slavonic Lives of St. Wenceslas and St. Ludmila.56 The cult of these two Czech saints in Kievan Russia is a striking but by no means isolated example of the close cultural and religious links which existed between Russia and Bohemia in the late tenth and in the eleventh century, atata time when Bohemia was still a living repository of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition.57 Evidence of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in eleventh-century Russian literature is not confined to Old Church Slavonic writings imported into Russia from the Balkans and Bohemia. Significant traces of this tradition can also be found in the earliest products of native literature, composed in the Russian recension of Old Church Slavonic. In an anonymous Tale (Skazanie), written in the late eleventh or early twelfth century, describing the murder of the saintly princes Boris and Gleb, a parallel is drawn between their martyrdom and that of St. Wenceslas of Bohemia;58 and, as Professor Chyzhevsky has pointed out, the influence of Gumpold's Life of St. Wenceslas can probably be detected in the approximately contemporary Vita (Chtenie) of Boris and Gleb by the monk Nestor, and in the Vita of St. Theodosius of the Kiev a author.59 uthor.59 The The connection between the Monastery of the Caves by the same cult of St. Wenceslas and that of Boris and Gleb acquires added significance if we recall that relics of these two Russian saints were deposited inside the altar of the Abbey of Sazava in Bohemia, that important center of the Slavonic liturgy and literature in the eleventh century.60 It has been suggested by several scholars that the influence of the CyrilloMethodian tradition can also be detected in the attempts of some early Russian writers to define the place occupied by their nation within the Christian community. Professor Jakobson, in an essay entitled "The Beginnings of National Self-Determination in Europe," has argued that a distinctive feature of the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage was the idea that a language used for the celebration of the liturgy acquires a sacred character, which is then assumed by the people which speaks it; and the cognate notion that every nation has its own particular gifts and its own legitimate calling within the universal family of Christian peoples. This concept of national self-determination, he suggests, shaped the outlook of the early writers of Kievan Russia;61 and with this 66 On these and other works brought from Bohemia to Kievan Russia, see R. Jakobson, "Some Russian Echoes of the Czech Hagiography," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales
et slaves, VII
(1939-44),
pp. 155-80;
Central and Eastern Europe (London, Literature, pp. 41-8. 57 See Florovsky,
Chyzhevsky, 1949),
F. Dvornik, The Making of op. cit., pp. 100-i; Jakobson, The Kernel of Comparative Slavic
pp. 242-7;
Chekhi i vostochnye slavyane, I, pp. 11-58,
99-151,
158-99.
58Zhitiya svyatykh muchenikov Borisa i Gleba, ed. by D. I. Abramovich (Petrograd, 1916), p. 33. 59 D. Cyzevikyj (Chyzhevsky) "Anklange an die Gumpoldslegende des hi. Vaclav in der altrussischen Legende des hi. Feodosij und das Problem der 'Originalitat' der slavischen mittelalterlichen Werke," Wiener Slavistisches Jahrbuch, I (I950), pp. 71-86. 60 Ibid., p. 84; cf. Florovsky, op. cit., pp. 106-7, 128. 61 R. Jakobson, "The Beginnings of National Self-Determination in Europe," The Review of Politics, VII, i (1945), pp. 29-42.
DIMITRI OBOLENSKY
62
view the late George Fedotov, to judge from his book The Russian Religious Mind, would have concurred.62If the ideological basis of the Cyrillo-Methodian movement be thus defined, the theme of this paper could legitimately be widened to include a discussion of national and patriotic motifs in early Russian literature; and of the attitude of its writers to the Byzantine Empire and to its claims to world supremacy. But these are problems too large and complex to be discussed here. Enough, I think, has been said to show that the Cyrillo-Methodian inheritance was a vital force in eleventh-century Russia. IV We cannot, for lack of information, trace the continuous history of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition in Russia after the early twelfth century. It is evidence becomes clearer and more only in the late Middle Ages that theevidene abundant. And this evidence suggests that in the late fourteenth and in the fifteenth century interest in the work of Cyril and Methodius, which may have flagged somewhat after the early twelfth century,63began to revive, and that attempts were made in that period to claim that their missionary activity, and particularly that of Constantine, had been directly connected with Russia. The motive forces behind these unhistorical constructions were probably a renewed interest in Russia's past history and international connections, a nationalistic desire of the Russians to claim some of the brothers' achievement for themselves, and, doubtless, genuine error. Thus, the anonymous Greek "philosopher," who in the Primary Chronicle delivers a speech of inordinate length, and dubious orthodoxy, to persuade Vladimir to accept Byzantine Christianity, is in two fifteenth-century chronicles given the name Cyril;64a Greek account of Russia's conversion to Christianity, the so-called Banduri Legend, preserved in a fifteenth-century manuscript and partly based on a lost Slavonic source, contains the colorful story of the dispatch by the Emperor Basil I to Russia of two missionaries, Cyril and Athanasius, who baptized the Russians and taught them the Slavonic alphabet;65 finally a Russian text, found in a manuscript of the Tolkovaya Paleya, copied in I494 and subsequently inserted in an account of the death of Cyril and the conversion of Vladimir, contains these words: "Be it known to all nations and all men ... that the Russian alphabet was by God made manifest to a Russian in the city of Cherson; from it Constantine the philosopher learned, and with its help he composed and
62 G. P. Fedotov, The Russian Religious Mind (New York, I960), pp. 405-I2. 63 See N. K. Nikol'sky, "K voprosu o sochineniyakh, pripisyvaemykh Kirillu Filosofu," Izvestiya po Russkomu Yazyku i Slovesnosti Akademii Nauk SSSR (1928), I, 2, pp. 400-2. 64 Povest', I, pp. 60-74, II, pp. 330-5; Cross, pp. 97-110; Novgorodskaya Chetvertaya Letopis', s.a. 986: Polnoe Sobranie Russkikh Letopisey, IV, i (Petrograd, I9I5), p. 6i; Sofiiskaya Pervaya
Letopis', s.a. 986: ibid., V (St. Petersburg, I85I) p.
15.
Cf. A. A. Shakhmatov, Razyskaniya o drev-
neishikh russkikh letopisnykh svodakh (St. Petersburg, I908), 65 The complete text of the "Banduri was
pp. 152-3, 23I, 558.
Legend" published by V. Regel (Analecta ByzantinoRussica [St. Petersburg, I891], pp. 44-5I; cf. ibid., pp. xix-xxxii) and by I. Sakkelion (Atlyrnais
'PcbcCv 0evos,EKTrI-ria
K8i8Ovivrl (Athens,
I89g)). The
scorn poured on this work by Golubinsky (Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, I, i2, pp. 247-52) is not altogether justified. For a more balanced assessment of its historical value, see I. Dujcev, "Le testimonianze bizantine sui Ss. Cirillo e Metodio," Miscellanea francescana. Rivista di scienze, lettere ed arti, LXIII (Rome,
I963), pp. 10-14.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA
63
wrote books with Russian words.''66 The interest of this text, which is clearly based on the eighth chapter of the Vita Constantini,67lies in the author's attempt to interpret the passage, so hotly debated by modern scholars, which describes how Constantine during his stay in Cherson in the winter of 860-i discovered a Gospel book and a Psalter written rusbskymi pismeny. It is curious to note that the attempt to interpret this passage of the Vita Constantini to mean that the Slavs had invented a Slavonic alphabet before Cyril-a view still vigorously championed by some East European scholars68-goes back to an anonymous Russian patriot of the fifteenth century. These belated and factitious claims, and the somewhat antiquarian interest in the work of Cyril and Methodius which they reveal, bear some characteristic marks of the historical thinking of early Muscovite Russia. And yet the Russians of the fifteenth century could, with far better reason, point to a genuine and recent instance which showed that the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition was still a vital and creative force in their country. About I378 a Russian monk by the name of Stephen went to preach the Gospel to the pagan Zyrians; this East Finnic people, known today as Komi, lived in the northeastern part of European Russia, in the basin of the Vychegda river, and were then subjects of the republic of Novgorod. Before embarking on his mission, Stephen learnt their language, invented a Zyrian alphabet and, with the approval of the Muscovite authorities, translated the liturgical books into Zyrian. He successfully Christianized his flock by preaching and singing the offices in their vernacular, disputing with the pagan shamans, building churches, and training disciples. In I383 he was consecrated Bishop of Perm', and spent the last fourteen years of his life bly y administering his Zyrian diocese. He died in and was later canonized 1396, by the Russian Church.69 The striking analogy between the achievements of St. Stephen of Perm' and
66V. Istrin, "Iz oblasti drevne-russkoy literatury," Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya, CCCLV (October, I904), p. 344; Cf. V. Jagic, "Rassuzhdeniya i russkoy stariny yuzhnoslavyanskoy o tserkovno-slavyanskom yazyke," Issledovaniya po Russkomu Yazyku (Otdelenie Russkogo Yazyka i Slovesnosti Imp. Akademii Nauk), I (I885-95), pp. 308-9; Lavrov, Materialy, pp. 36-7; B. S. Angelov, "Kirilometodievoto delo i ideayata za slavyansko edinstvo v staroslavyanskite literaturi," Slavistichen Sbornik, II (Sofia, 1958,) pp. 47-8. 67 Vita Constantini, VIII, I5 (Grivec-Tomsic, p. 109). Cf. Shakmatov, "Povest' vremennykh let i ee istochniki," op. cit., p. 86. 68 The controversial words are: "I obret' ze tu evaggelie i psaltiri, rusbskymi pismeny [var. rosnsky pismenb] pisano," Grivec-Tomsic, pp. 09, III. A leading protagonist of the view that the passage refers to "Russian," i.e. Slavonic, letters is E. Georgiev (Slavyanskaya pis'mennost' do Kirilla i Mefodiya [Sofia, 1952], pp. 48-52). For earlier attempts to interpret this passage of the Vita Constantini, see the bibliographies in Il'insky, op. cit., pp. 66-7, and in Popruzhenko and Romanski, op. cit., p. 56. More convincing is the view of A. Vaillant, who argued that rusbskymi is a misspelling for surbskymi i.e. Syriac letters: "Les 'lettres russes' de la Vie de Constantin," Revue des etudes slaves, XV (1935), pp. 75-7. Cf. R. Jakobson, "Saint Constantin et la langue syriaque," Annuaire de l'Institut de Philolopp. i8i-6. For a general discussion of the problem gie et d'Histoire orientates et slaves, VII (1939-44), of possible attempts before Constantine to create a Slavonic alphabet, see I. Dujcev, "Viiprosiit za vizantiisko-slavyanskite otnosheniya i vizantiiskite opiti za suzdavane na slavyanska azbuka prez purvata polovina na IX vek," Izvestiya na Instituta za Biulgarska Istoriya, Brlgarska Akademiya na Naukite, VII (1957), pp. 241-67. 69 Zhitie sv. Stefana, episkopa Permskogo, ed. by V. Druzhinin, photomechanic reprint with an introduction by D. bilevskij (Chyzhevsky) (The Hague, 1959). Cf. G. Lytkin, "Pyatisotletie zyryanskogo kraya," Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya, CCXXX (1883), pp. 275-326; id., Zyryansky kray pri episkopakh permskikh i zyryansky yazyk (St. Petersburg, 1889). Golubinsky, Istoriya russkoy tserkvi, II, i, pp. 262-96.
64
DIMITRI
OBOLENSKY
those of Constantine-Cyril is pointedly emphasized by Stephen's biographer and contemporary, Epiphanius the Most Wise. He calls Stephen "in truth the New Philosopher," and describes him as an accomplished Greek scholar; champions the cause of vernacular liturgies and Scriptures by quoting extensively from the defence of the Slavonic letters by the monk Khrabr, that knight-errant of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition; and even improves on Khrabr by suggesting that although St. Cyril and St. Stephen were equal in goodness and wisdom, and though they performed tasks of the same importance, Stephen's merit was the greater, for whereas Cyril was assisted by his brother Methodius, Stephen had no help save from God.70 Thus, at the end of our story, in the Russia of the late Middle Ages, we find the vitality of the Cyrillo-Methodian inheritance manifested not only in literary reminiscences, but also in the example of a man who in his personal life embodied the ideals and emulated the achievements of the two Byzantine missionaries. But in contrast to their performance the work of St. Stephen proved ephemeral. In the centralized Muscovy of the sixteenth century there was no place for the rights of vernacular languages, and the liturgical books of the Zyrians gradually fell into disuse.71Yet Stephen's missionary achievements were applauded by the Russian Church; and, above all, the memory of those who had inspired his life-work-St. Cyril and St. Methodius-continued to be reverently cherished by his compatriots. It is significant that the great majority of the extant manuscripts-complete or fragmentary-of their two biographies come from Russia: forty-four out of fifty-nine for the Vita Constantini, fourteen out of sixteen for the Vita Methodii.72Liturgical offical offices for Sts. Cyril and Methodius are included in the early Russian Menaia, the oldest of which go back to the late eleventh century: one of these early hymns addresses Cyril as follows: "Cyril, glorious teacher of virtue, you taught the Moravians to give thanks to God in their own language, by translating God's religion and its righteousness from Greek into the Slavonic language; therefore the Slavonic nations now rejoice and glorify God."73
In concluding this paper, I feel impelled to express a feeling of doubt that frequently assailed me during its preparation. I am acutely conscious of the 70Zhitie sv. Stefana, pp. 8, 69, 70-3. The analogy may be carried further by observing that both the Moravian and the Zyrian missions had a politica aspect. il and Methodius were ambassadors of l the Byzantine Emperor to Moravia; Stephen's work among the Zyrians enjoyed the active support of the Muscovite secular authorities, who seized this opportunity of extending their influence over the Novgorodian lands along the Vychegda river, which they annexed in the fifteenth century. For the relations between Stephen and Prince Dimitri of Moscow, see Zhitie sv. Stefana, p. 59; for the political significance of the Zyrian mission, see OcherkiIstorii SSSR, Period Feodalizma, IX-XV vv., 2 (Moscow, 1953), PP. 455-9.
71 As early as the fifteenth century Slavonic began to replace Zyrian in the liturgy of St. Stephen's diocese. However, the Zyrian vernacular was still used in monastic offices in the Komi region in the eighteenth century. See G. Lytkin, Pyatisotletie zyryanskogo kraya, pp. 296-9; V. I. Lytkin, Istoricheskaya grammatika komi yazyka, I (Syktyvkar, 1957), pp. 40-I; Id., Drevnepermsky yazyk (Moscow, 1952), pp. 50-9, 63, 75. 72 See B. S. Angelov, "Slavyanski izvori za Kiril i Metody," Izvestiya na Durzhavna Biblioleka "Vasil Kolarov" za I956 g. (Sofia, 1958), pp. i8I-6. Angelov's list includes incomplete manuscripts and nineteenth-century copies. 73Lavrov, Materialy, p. II5. Cf. R. Jakobson, "The Slavic Response to Byzantine Poetry," Actes du XIIe Congres international d'etudes byzantines, I (Belgrade, 1963), pp. 261-2.
THE CYRILLO-METHODIAN HERITAGE IN RUSSIA
65
fact that a historian who is not a trained philologist cannot, in discussing the Cyrillo-Methodian heritage in Russia, do justice to what he must surely acknowledge to be an essential, perhaps the essential, component of this heritage. I refer to the Old Church Slavonic language, acquired by the Russians partly in its Moravian but more especially in its Bulgarian recension, which became the medium for their religious expression and the foundation of their mediaeval literature, sacred and secular. Blending in the course of time with the native vernacular speech, later re-injected several times into the secularized Russian language by dictates of literary fashion, Old Church Slavonic has never ceased to enrich the vocabulary and the thought-world of the Russian people. The vernacular tradition which it created may have acted to some extent as a screen between the Russians and the culture of antiquity, and have been partly responsible for thethefact that a good knowledge of Greek was comparatively rare in mediaeval Russia. Yet we must not forget that Old Church Slavonic was itself modelled on Greek; and that it enabled the Russians to produce an abundant literature of their own, which ranks high in the history of their culture. One element in this Church Slavonic tradition has proved of peculiar strength and vitality: the Christian liturgy, which so moved the Russian mediaeval chronicler that he attributed the conversion of his country to the beauty of the public worship in Constantinople,74 and which, in its Slavonic version, continues even today to bear witness to the undying strength of Orthodox Christianity in the midst of the Soviet atheistic state. I would justify this concluding reference to a contemporary situation, which some of us may be disposed to view with optimism and hope, by appealing to the very nature of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. For surely hope and optimism, and their spiritual counterpart, joy, are a central theme of this tradition: joy which springs from the knowledge that the commands of the Lord are no longer a sealed book, that the Word has been made manifest to men, that the confusion of Babel has been repealed by the Pentecostal gift of tongues, and that "the divine shower of letters"75 has been sent down upon the Slavonic nations. This sense of triumph is conveyed most powerfully in the opening verses of the thirty-fifth chapter of the Book of Isaiah, the very verses from which the authors of the Vita Constantini, of the Russian Primary Chronicle and of the Life of St. Stephen of Perm',76 quoted to describe the bounty of the Slav vernacular tradition: "The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad, the desert shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice with joy and singing.... Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap like a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall be clearly heard.... They shall see the glory of the Lord, the splendor of our God."
74Povest', I, p. 75; Cross, p. iii. "Trebujusce dbzda Bo2ii bukvb": Prologue to the Holy Gospels, in Lavrov, Materialy, p. 197. 76 Like the author of the Vita Constantini and the Russian chronicler, Epiphanius, in his biography of St. Stephen, combines the two quotations from Isaiah 35: 6 and Isaiah 29: i8: Zhitie sv. Stefana, pp. 66. See supra, notes 43 and 46. Seveenko has pointed out further parallels between the Vita Constantini and the Life of St. Stephen, which strongly suggest that Epiphanius made use of the former document (Three Paradoxes of the Cyrillo-Methodian Mission, p. 225, note 19). 75
5
The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy Author(s): AntonÃn Dostál Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 67-87 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291226 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
THE
OF
THE
ORIGINS
SLAVONIC
ANTONIN DOSTAL
LITURGY
This paper was given at the Symposium on "The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs: St. Cyril and St. Methodius," held at Dumbarton Oaks in May I964.
7T 9HE arrival of the Byzantine mission in Great Moravia in 863, led by
Constantine the Philosopher and his brother Methodius, was a turning point in the historical and cultural development of the Slavs. Ever since then the Slavs have had their own language and their own letters-the Glagolitic alphabet invented by Constantine which was replaced in the tenth century by the Cyrillic alphabet, and which is used to-day by the orthodox Slavs.' The Macedonian dialect,2 which was spoken by the Slavs around Thessalonica3 and which the two brothers knew well, remained the literary language of all 1 Literature concerning the problem of the Byzantine mission is very extensive. I list, therefore,
only some basic works: M. Weingart, "Bulhafi a Caiihrad pred tisfciletfm, List z dbjin byzantskych vlivfi na osvbtu slovanskou," Vyro6. zprdva gymnasia v Praze III (Prague, 1915); F. Dvornik, Les Slaves, Byzance et Rome au IXe siUcle,Travaux publi6s par l'Institut slave IV (Paris, I926); F. Grivec, Konstantin und Method, Lehrer der Slaven (Wiesbaden, i960); Z. Dittrich, Christianity in GreatMoravia, Inst. XXXIII Bijdragen van Het (Groningen, I962); P. Dutthieul, L'Evangdlisation des Slaves, Cyrille et Mdthode Biblioth6que de th6ologie, serie 4, Hist. de la Th6ologie, V (Paris, 1963); F. Graus, "Velkomoravska fHe, jejf postaveni v soucasn6 Evrope a vnitrnf struktura," Konferencia o Vel'kej Morave a Byzantskej misii, Brno-Nitra i-4, X (1963), Referdty (Nitra, 1963); J. Poulik, "Archeologick6 objevy o Velk6 Morave," ibid.; P. Ratkos, "Vychodne oblasti Vel'kej Moravy a starf Madari," ibid.; V1. Vavrinek, "Staroslovbnske zivoty Konstantina a Metodeje," Rozpravy Ceskosl. akad. vWd(I963), seS. 17, ro6. 73 (Prague, I963).
2 When speaking of the "Macedonian" dialect as the basis of Old Church Slavonic, we must think of it in terms of ninth-century geography and not in terms of the contemporary linguistic situation of Slavic languages in the Balkan area. In employing this term today, we refer to the language spoken by the Slavic population in the vicinity of Salonica and in Salonica itself, a language also well known to Constantine the Philosopher and his brother Methodius. This language was one of the southern group of Slavic languages, and though it is related historically to all Slavic languages, it is closest to present-day Bulgarian and Macedonian, if we disregard the principal changes (for instance, the loss of the declension, etc.) which took place during the development of these languages. Typical of these languages were consonantal groups, "st," "zd"; and, in addition to full vowels, two reduced vowels (the "jers"), nasal sounds, and a very broadly pronounced "6." In words where the Russian group of Slavic languages has the so-called full pronounciation (cf. the Russian word "korolb"), this language uses the type "kralb," and so on. Declension and conjugation were fully developed (the conjugation of verbs having the aorist and imperfect tenses as well as the perfect). The syntax of Old Church Slavonic had two especially characteristic constructions: the possessive and absolute datives. Originally only a spoken language, it was slightly adapted by Constantine for literary purposes and was strongly influenced in its syntax by Byzantine Greek. Constantine and Methodius knew the language perfectly, almost as well as their mother tongue, as extant documents prove. From this fact it is sometimes inferred that they were of Slavic nationality and origin (at least on their mother's side). This opinion cannot well be sustained. The explanation is that Constantine and Methodius were scholarly Byzantines educated in Graeco-Byzantine culture, whose education and activity were in many ways those of city dwellers in Constantinople, despite their birth in Salonica. (Compare, for example, the fact that even the oldest Slavonic alphabet, the so-called Glagolitic, has a pronouncedly Constantinopolitan character.) 3 This Slavonic language was spoken in the vicinity of Salonica. The Slavic language in that area, that is, what remains of it in modem times, is characterized by many archaisms and similarities to Old Church Slavonic. It may be assumed that at the time when both brothers were born and lived in Salonica, the town's inhabitants were bilingual to a considerable degree. Since the population of the adjacent countryside used to come to the town (to the marketplace, etc.), the townspeople, who were not of Slavic origin, out of necessity learned to understand them. It was therefore natural that many Greek, as well as Latin, words which were administrative, theological, military, economic, and so on, or, simply, terms reflecting the realities of Byzantine life could be found in the language of the Salonica Slavs. Terms borrowed from Byzantine Greek are often found in Old Church Slavonic texts, but this does not always mean that the Slavic expression was lacking, for Greek terms were current in the language of the non-Greek population.
69
70
ANTONIN DOSTAL
the Slavs for several centuries. It is customary to call this common literary language "Slavonic" or "Church Slavonic," and the oldest version-that from the ninth to the eleventh century-"Old Church Slavonic.'4 All the works necessary to the cultural progress of the Slavs were written in this language. These old Slavonic texts are preserved in manuscripts dating from and after the tenth century.5 Many of them are copies of texts which originated in Great Moravia; others are of later date.6 4 Slavic philologists attach great importance to the name of this old language, since it directly indicates the modem language related to the linguistic basis of the language used by the Salonican Slavs, Old Church Slavonic. The older school of Slavic philologists (Fr. Miklosich and others) was of the opinion that the basis of this language was the Slovenian (the so-called Pannonian theory.) This assumption was based on the fact that the ancient Old Church Slavonic manuscript which is written in Latin-the Freising Fragments-contains some obviously Slovenian elements. More recent research has reliably proven that the language spoken by the Salonican Slavs was the basis of the Old Church Slavonic (the Macedonian theory). This is the reason why this language was designated by certain more concrete terms (the German "altbulgarisch," for instance, introduced by August Leskien; the Bulgarian term, "starobalgarski," etc., in order to express the fact that Old Church Slavonic belonged to the Old Bulgarian language, and so on). Because of the important role this language had in the Orthodox Church, terms like "AItkirchenslawisch"were introduced; the Czech term "staroslov6ngtina," is similar to the French "le vieux slave" and suggests the ancient origin of this Slavonic language. Bulgarian Slavists call it simply, "old Bulgarian." This name, however, ties it too closely to the Bulgarian linguistic type and does not express its broader pan-Slavic importance. Moreover, this term creates difficulties with regard to the later development of the Bulgarian language itself in more recent periods. It would therefore be a mistake to connect this language with the notion of current linguistic differences in this area. The written Slavic language of the oldest period, approximately from the ninth to the eleventh century, is called Old Church Slavonic, whereas the language of the later period, beginning with the eleventh century, is called Church Slavonic. The more recent form of Old Church Slavonic, which penetrated from Great Moravia to other Slavs of other areas, received some elements of indigenous languages which are distinctly reflected in extant manuscripts. Thus we speak of the so-called "versions" or of Old Church Slavonic (the Czech, Bulgarian, Croatian, Russian, Serbian, etc.). Even this term is somewhat misleading, because the impression is given that only religious writing was done in those "versions." Actually, works on the most varied subjects and themes were composed, and thus a very rich literature with a pan-Slavic character was created. Some Slavs used this written language until the most recent times, abandoning it only about the middle of the nineteenth century, to replace it by their native written language (as the Southern Slavs have done, for instance.) The development of this language and literature is very complex and differs in individual countries. The fact remains that an enormous literature was preserved, which is to be found in manuscripts, old printed books, etc. Thus, the desire of the brothers from Salonica, Constantine and Methodius, to establish a great Slavonic literature was fulfilled. As for the alphabet, the most ancient Old Church Slavonic texts were written in the so-called Glagolotic; the newer Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic texts, in the Cyrillic alphabet. 5 Only a few of the oldest Old Church Slavonic manuscripts are preserved, but their size and the variety of their subject matter make them a treasure of great importance. They include a number of large codices (Gospels, Books of Psalms, Euchologium, etc.). The largest is the Suprasliensis manuscript containing 570 pages. The most ancient Slavic manuscripts date from the tenth century (these are copies of older manuscripts, themselves both originals and copies), that is, the so-called Kiev Leaflets. But the majority are from the eleventh century. The oldest Slavic manuscripts are: the Codex Zographensis (V. Jagi6, Quattuor evangeliorum codex glagoliticus olim Zographensis nunc Petropolitanus [Berlin, I879]); the Codex Marianus (V. Jagic, Quattuor evangeliorum versionis paleoslovenicae codex Marianus glagoliticus [Berlin, 1883]); the Codex Assemanianus (J. Vajs and J. Kurz, Evangeliarium Assemani, Codex Vaticanus 3. Slavicus glagoliticus, I: Prolegomena, tabulae [Prague, 1929]; J. Kurz, Evangeliarium Assemani, Codex Vaticanus Slavicus glagoliticus, II [Prague, I955]); the Psalterium Sinaiticum (S. Sever'janov, Sinajskaja psaltyr', glagoli6eskij pamjatnik XI veka [St. Petersburg, 1922]); the Euchologium Sinaiticum (J. Frcek, "Euchologium Sinaiticum, texte slave avec sources grecques et traduction," Patrologia Orientalis, XXIV, fasc. 5 [Paris, 1933], XXV, fasc. 3 [Paris, 1939]; R. Nahtigal, Euchologium Sinaiticum, starocerhvenoslovanski glagolski spomenik, I [Ljubl-
jana,
I94I],
II
[Ljubljana,
1942]);
the
Clozianus
(A. DostAl,
Clozianus,
codex palaeoslovenicus
glagoliticus Tridentinus et Oenipontanus [Prague, 1959]); the Kiev Leaflets (P. C. Mohlberg, II messale glagolitico di Kiew (sec. IX) ed il suo prototipo Romano del sec. VI-VII [Rome, I928]); the Savvina kniga (V. S6epkin, Savvina kniga [St. Petersburg, 1903]); the Codex Suprasliensis (S. Sever'janov, Suprasl'skaja
rukopis' [St. Petersburg,
1904]).
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
71
Unfortunately, Slavic scholars have not yet succeeded in analyzing the philological structure of all of these texts. Moreover, we still lack an exhaustive literary history of Old Church Slavonic, and especially of Church Slavonic literature.7 The study of this literature is complicated by the fact that most of these texts are only partially preserved. In many manuscripts the beginnings are lost, in others only a small part of the text escaped destruction. The number of texts that have been preserved until to-day is therefore only a torso, but a torso of a complex of writings which, in the past, must have presented a wellchosen whole.8 This is evident from the content of the texts which have survived. We are entitled to conclude that translations into Slavonic, in the oldest period, were made according to a well outlined plan.9 The author of this plan was Con6 Even later, so-called Church Slavonic, manuscripts sometimes preserve very ancient texts from the ninth century. These manuscripts are very numerous, and some are listed in printed catalogues. For example, J. Vasica and J. Vajs, Soupis staroslovanskych rukopis2 Ndrodniho musea (Prague, I957). 7 The history of Church Slavonic literature has not yet been written because the actual texts of which it consists are mainly found only in manuscripts and old printed books, and, for the most part, have not been published or republished. If we could arrive at an accurate knowledge of it, we would find an extremely rich and extensive literature covering a period of almost one thousand years. It should also be noted that this literature does not belong to any existing language or national group precisely because of its pan-Slavic character. A considerable number of Slavic literary works dealing with various themes have not yet been analyzed. Often the basic question must first be settled as to which language, whether Church Slavonic or some ancient national tongue, a composition belongs. The Byzantine epos Digenis Akritas, for example, has been preserved in later Old-Russian manuscripts, but there is serious contention as to whether it was originally written in Church Slavonic and whether it is therefore, in origin, part of that literature. This is true also of Byzantine chronicles, which were freely translated into the Church Slavonic. Very important evidence for this comes from dictionaries of Old Church Slavonic (cf. the Old Church Slavonic dictionary just published) and especially of Church Slavonic, the preparation and publication of which is of interest to Slavists as well as to historians of the Middle Ages and Byzantium. 8 If we investigate in detail the history of an Old Church Slavonic or Church Slavonic text, we conclude that it is not merely a translation but a real transformation of the text, adapting it to a Slavic milieu. Slavic translators and adapters worked very hard, almost feverishly, trying to translate anything of importance for the culture of the time, and simultaneously adapting themes for the local milieu. They gave topics a more individual presentation or, at times, added their own ideas, or abbreviated texts. In a number of passages it is evident, that they worked as if according to a firmly established plan, which apparently had been already prepared by Constantine and Methodius. This, for instance, is very obvious in theological literature. 9 The older generation of Slavists often attempted to evaluate the quality of Slavic translated texts, the oldest of which they considered merely as translations. Therefore they were seeking to know, for example, how well the translator knew the language of the original and how well he coped with it. They criticized the translator for omitting or adding passages, that is, for acting arbitrarily or as a compiler. (This was understood to be a defect of mediaeval literature in general.) It is possible to list a number of works which judged the quality of Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic texts in this manner: compare the theological literature for an example of this attitude. Actually, this point of view was incorrect, because it considered, a priori, mediaeval Slavic literary production to be inferior. It was then often difficult to explain why the so-called translator omitted or, perhaps, added certain words. It was explained either as arbitrary decision, error, ignorance, and so forth, or as mediaeval fancy and literary style. In reality these changes were adaptations which appear more ingenious as times goes on (they comply with the metric structure of the literary work; express, in fact, the translator's ideas, etc.). We have therefore, nothing short of a refined adaptation of literary themes foreign to the Slavic environment, mentality, and philosophy of life. It is, therefore, impossible to label this literature "translation literature," as some do. Especially, this literature should not be underestimated and contrasted to old mediaeval national literature as to something entirely different. Further study in greater detail will certainly prove that many of these features of literary production presisted in old periods of national literatures as well (the old Czech, the old Russian, etc.).
72
ANTONIN DOSTAL
stantine-Cyril himself, who was a scholar well versed in Byzantine civilization and literature.10This fact has, so far, escaped the attention of Slavic specialists, who were more interested in philological and other problems of the texts. Slavic scholars of the older generation looked upon those texts as translations.ll Therefore, they continued to search for the originals and studied the accuracy of the translation, questioning the knowledge of Greek and the skill of the translators. They overlooked the fact that the authors of the Slavonic texts may have not only translated but also adapted the Greek original for Slavic consumption.l2 Subsequent studies have shown that very often the translators did rearrange the Greek texts in a more oe or less original and independent fashion. Even an important text such as that of the translation of the Gospels, where one would expect a quite literal approach, is more than just a translation.l3 It has an extraordinarily artistic quality, which should be ascribed to the genius of Constantine. But even here we are aware of an adaptation. The Greek text of the K redaction,l4 which was most probably the original from which Constantine made his Slavonic translation, reveals linguistic differences in the four Gospels. The Slavonic translation does not show these differences. It describes the facts in a very lively and graphic manner. The language is 10 Cf. F. Dvornik, Les LGgendesde Constantin et de MSthode vues de Byzance, Byzantinoslavica Supplementa, I (Prague, 1933), pp. 372, 385ff.; F. Grivec and F. Tomsic, "Constantinus et Methodius Thessalonicenses," Fontes (Zagreb, i960), p. I55 f. 11Cf. M. Weingart, Rukovat'jazyka staroslovenskcho (Prague, 1937), p. 34ff. 12 See, for instance, the interpretation of the Slavic version of the Byzantine epos Digenis Akritas. 13 Neither are Old Church Slavonic Gospel texts merely translations of the Greek, even though these were very important for the missionary activity of Constantine and Methodius. The quality of the Old Church Slavonic texts has been analyzed mantimes,esrepeatedly and it has been confirmed that the Slavic version represents a highly artistic text, a poetic text fit for recitation and exegesis as the basis of Christian doctrine. In this case Constantine almost literally translated the original text. He began the translation immediately at the start of his activity in Moravia, or probably even while still in Constantinople. Nevertheless, even this text was to some degree adapted. First of all, he adjusted the text of all four Gospels linguistically (the linguistic differences which can be found in the Greek version between the Gospels disappeared in the Church Slavonic text). The direct speech of the text was respected: the spoken language with its simple turns and metaphors is reflected in the arrangement of the translation into sections and in its dialogue, which is so frequent in the Gospels. This Slavic text had in its original form some words borrowed from the Greek and Slavicized. However, this fact should not be understood as meaning that the vocabulary of the Slavic language was insufficient to convey the meaning of the text, for other quite varied and demanding texts translated into Slavic show, on the contrary, great lexical richness. These foreign words, probably, were quite familiar to Byzantine Slavs (as, for instance, vlasvimisati, skandalisati, etc.). In newer transcripts these Grecisms decrease because to Western Slavs and in other non-Byzantine areas these Byzantine words were unknown. It is surprising that the first Slavic version of the Gospel is of such high quality from the point of view of the translation itself, the textual arrangement, and the artistic form. This is most often explained by Constantine's great talent, his ability as a writer, and his broad culture. A different explanation offered by J. Kurz, that the Byzantine Slavs could already have been in possession of the Slavic version of the Gospel text before the arrival of the Cyril-Methodian mission to Great Moravia, is not probable. The question may then arise as to why the Byzantine Slavs who spoke and understood Greek would need a Slavic text at the time when they had neither a literary language nor an alphabet. 14 The Old Church Slavonic Gospel text had as its basis one of the manuscripts then currently in use in Constantinople which represented a codex of the so-called "K" (Constantinople) manuscript and text edition. In addition, several variant readings of the Slavic Gospel text were discovered by editing Western manuscripts. The question of the influence of the Vulgate on the Slavic translation is still controversial. The study of the origin and development of the oldest Slavonic Gospel translation goes back a long way. The founder of Slavic linguistics, Joseph Dobrovsky, was already concerned with it, as many more recent scholars have been.
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
73
LITURGY
almost childish and naive.15 And because of this simplicity we can understand why it so greatly fascinated the Slavic audience of Great Moravia. We see, thus, that the work of translation at the time of Cyril and Methodius is often independent and original and shows the desire to accommodate foreign literature to the Slavic mind. Numerous examples can be quoted. If we accept this idea of accommodation, the deviations from the Greek original in the Slavonic texts are explained.16 The Slavonic liturgy which we are discussing here presents many complex problems. It is not only the question of the introduction of the Slavic language into the Moravian divine service, but that of discovering which kind of liturgy was chosen by the two brothers. It is interesting to note that there is a similarity between the Byzantine collection of liturgical books and the collection which is preserved in Slavonic manuscripts. The Byzantine priests used the following books for their liturgical practices: I. the Euchologium, 2. the Gospel (aprakos-abridged Gospel and the Tetraevangelion), 3. the Apostle (abridged or the full text of the Acts of the Apostles), 4. the Psalter, 5. the Horologion (the Greek breviary), 6. the Triodion (containing the liturgy from Lent to Easter), 7. the Pentekostarion (liturgy from Easter to the first Sunday after Pentecost), 8. Parakletika, 9. the Menologion (the Lives of the Saints), Io. the Akolouthia, and ii. the Typicon (liturgical handbook)."7 Almost all these texts are preserved in Slavonic or in those of more manuscripts of the tenth centenury, e recent date. Only the Typicon (liturgical handbook) is not among the oldest collection of Slavonic liturgical books. The text we have today is of a later redaction.18 This shows that the translators intended to put into Slavonic the whole ensemble of Byzantine liturgical books (VbSb cinb).19 If we accept this idea, then we may suppose that the initiators meant to introduce into Great Moravia the same religious order with all its liturgical acts as existed in Byzantium. However, we have, at the same time, to consider that on the arrival of the Byzantine mission Moravia was already Christianized to a great extent.20 This 15 The Old Church Slavonic language as preserved in the texts uses simple turns and phrases, as is usually the case with the first phase of development of a literary language which is based on a spoken tongue. These phrases and turns, developed from plain and uncomplicated notions, impress the modern reader as having a certain child-like, pleasing simplicity. Thus formulated, this text was close to the Slavic listener, and had an effect of nobility and dignity when it was read. The fact that Old Church Slavonic was very melodious (for instance, a regular alternation of consonants and vowels is strongly emphasized), also contributed to the quality of the translation. 16 See documents concerning this statement in works dealing with the study of Old Church Slavonic texts, for example: A. Dostal, "K slovanskym verzfm byzantskych kronik' (A propos des versions slaves des chroniques byzantines)," Acta Univ. Carolinae, Philologica 3, Slavica Pragensia IV (Prague, 1963), pp. 663-670. 17 The Typicon was translated into Old Church Slavonic later, not during the time of Constantine and Methodius. 18
H.-G. Beck, Kirche und theologischeLiteratur im Byzantinischen Reich (Munich, 1959), p.
19Cf. See F. Grivec-F. Tomsic, op. cit., p. 202.
252
ff.
20 Archaeological excavations which have been carried on for several years in the area of Great Moravia (in Mikulcice, Stare Mesto, Pohansko, and Nitra) have already produced surprising results. In Mikulcice, for example, the discovery of a large number of church buildings from the first half of the ninth century-the period, therefore, before the arrival of the Byzantine mission-is clear evidence that Christianity existed to a significant degree even before Constantine and Methodius themselves were active.
ANTONfN DOSTAL
74
presupposesthat a liturgy must have been introduced into Moravia before 863. What kind of liturgy? If it was an Eastern liturgy, was it that of St. Chrysostom or of St. Basil? If it was a Western liturgy, which sacramentary was chosen? Did there exist only one liturgy, or was the Mass celebrated in different rites ? The Legends tell us that before the arrival of the Byzantine brothers, missionaries from Germany, Italy, and Greece were working in Moravia.21This information is attributed to the Moravian oasBy- ambassadors who asked the zantine emperor to send teachers into Moravia capable of instructing the Moravians in Slavonic. This seems important to me and I disagree with Isacenko who thinks that the missionaries from Greece were not Greeks.22 Since they came from Byzantium, I assume they must have been Greeks and must have used a Byzantine liturgy. Of course, we cannot say to what extent they used this liturgy or which liturgy it was, whether that of St. Chrysostom or of St. Basil. Among the oldest Slavonic texts there are some which are definitely liturgical. These are, first, the Leaflets of Kiev, the oldest known Slavonic manuscript;23then the Leaflets of Vienna,24the content of which is similar to that of the Kiev manuscript, although this document is of later date. Then, there are the Fragments from Prague;25 the Fragments from Freising;26 the Manuscript of Chilandari from Mount Athos;27 three leaves found in the monastery of Sinai;28breviaries, and some other texts.29 Concerning the character of these documents, the language of the Leaflets of Kiev is the most ancient of all the documents mentioned. It contains some Latin words which have not been translated, for example prefacia, oblate. We also find traces of the Czech language. The Leaflets of Kiev were found in Jerusalem, and only seven folios are preserved, but on the first page of the first folio and on the last page of the seventh folio another non-liturgical text is copied. The original of the Kievan Leaflets were perhaps written in Latin. The Fragments from Prague consist of two leaflets only, containing prayers for certain feast days, which also show traces of the Czech language. The original from which they were translated was Greek, but it has not yet been traced. Cf. F. Dvornik, Les Legendes ..., p. 385; F. Grivec-F. Tomi, . ci, Cit p. 55. This is the opinion, for instance, of Prof. A. V. Isacenko and others, but I think in this case it is impossible not to believe the legend. It is very improbable that a priest from Byzantium would not have penetrated into the territory of Great Moravia when there is evidence of commercial and other 21 22
relations between the two. Cf. A. V. Isacenko. "K BonpocbI o6 H HpjiaH8CIKHiMHCCHHy naHHOHCKHX 7" (i963) pp. 43-72. MopaBCKHX cnaBsH, Bonpocbl S3blKCO3HaHU 23 Cf. the edition by Mohlberg, op. cit., M. Weingart and J. Kurz, Texty ke studiujazyka a pismenictvi 2nd ed. (Prague, 1949), pp. 114-137. staroslovpnskpho, 24Cf. M. Weingart-J. Kurz, op. cit., pp. 139-141. 25 Cf. M. Weingart-J. Kurz, op. cit., pp. 146-149. 26 Cf. M. Weingart-J. Kurz, op. cit., pp. I50-160. 27Cf. P. Uspenskij, Vtorojeput6gestvijepo sv. gore Athonskoj v gody I858, i859 i i86i (Moscow, i880),
pp. I79-I85. 28 Cf.
R. Nahrigal, op. cit., II, pp. 337-345; M. Weingart-J. Kurz, op. cit., pp. I42-I45. Cf. J. Vajs "Kanon charvatskohlaholskeho vatikanskeho missalu (Illyr 4), Oasopis pro mod. filol. xxv (Prague, 1939), PP. II3-I34; idem, "Mesnf rad charvatskohlaholskeho vatik6nskeho missalu (Illyr 4) a jeho pom6r k moravskopanonskemu sakrament.ari stol. IX," Acta academiae Velehra29
densis (Prague,
I939).
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
75
The Fragments from Freising are a translation from an Old High German original. They are written in Latin and their language shows that they were intended for the Slovenes. The original was probably a penitentiary book.30 The three folios of Sinai are important because they contain a part of the liturgy of St. Chrysostom. One prayer is listed wrongly as being from the liturgy of St. Basil. For a long time these three leaflets were thought of as an independent text. Now, however, it is generally agreed that they are a part of the Euchologium of Sinai.31 This Euchologium contains non-liturgical prayers (trebnik) and, together with the three folios of Sinai (sluzebnik), represents a combination which was common in Byzantium. Parts of the Euchologium are translations from the Greek, but one of the prayers is translated from Old High German. Many Greek Euchologia are known, but this Slavonic text is different from any of them. This text was published in I880 by Geitler,32but the edition was so inaccurate that a thorough study of it was impossible. Only recently have the editions of Frcek (I933, I939)33 and of Nahtigal
(I942)34 allowed scholars to
appreciate it better.. It is an important text, requiring further study. The question now arises as to which of these documents is the key text for the solution of the problem of the origins of Slavonic liturgy. From the linguistic point of view the Leaflets of Kiev should be regarded as the oldest 0
Cf. A. V. Isacenko, Jazyk a povod Frizinskyjch pamiatok (Bratislava, 1943); idem, Zaiatky
vzdelanosti vo Vel'komoravskej rli
(Turc. Sv. Martin, 1948).
31 Cf. L. Geitler, Euchologium. Glagolski spomenik manastira Sinai brda (Zagreb, 1882); J. Frcek,
op. cit., I, p. 612ff.
32The oldest edition of the Euchologium Sinaiticum was produced in 1882 by L. Geitler. (See note 3I.) It is a very poor edition, since Geitler had to copy the text very rapidly, under unfavorable conditions, from a Glagolitic manuscript and, as a result, it contains many errors. The unavailability of a text in Greek was an additional reason why the language, composition, and meaning of the Euchologium Sinaiticum were poorly understood. Therefore, for a long time, this text was not properly apprestill very ciated, and as recently as the first decades of this century it was In addition, the aspuzzling. so-called Sinaitic Fragments containing liturgical prayers are now considered part of the manuscript and text of the Euchologium Sinaiticum, whereas formerly they were not. At one time they were separated from the manuscript of the Euchologium. Because of inaccurate measuring, their dimensions were recorded as different from those of the manuscript itself. This created the impression that there were two completely distinct manuscripts. The combining of the non-liturgical text, i.e., the larger part of the preserved Euchologium manuscript, the portion published by Geitler, with the liturgical text, which was preserved in the Fragments, is a fact of central importance to our problem. The Euchologium is a Byzantine Eastern text. This combination of non-liturgical and liturgical prayers is completely unknown in the West and in Western liturgy. 38 Studies by J. Frcek (see note 5), who prepared a new edition even though he did not have access
to the photographed manuscript, constituted the first advancement in the knowledge of this important text. First of all, he discovered texts in different Greek manuscripts which corresponded with the
prayers in the Euchologium, and of these he found the greater part. (Several texts in Old High German were already known to V. VondrAk.) By comparing the Glagolitic with Greek texts and by emphasizing the meaning of the context, Frcek pointed out several linguistic errors committed by L. Geitler in his edition and corrected them in his own edition. Many of the interpretations of the Euchologium Sinaiticum made by Frcek were confirmed in a later edition by R. Nahtigal, who had photographs of the
entire manuscript at his disposal. The American scientific expedition to the monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai in 1950 photographed all the Slavic manuscripts for the Library of Congress in Washing-
ton, so that all Sinaitic manuscripts are now available for research. 34 Nahtigal's edition has two parts: the first contains photographs of the entire manuscript; the second, the transcript into Cyrillic and annotations. Frcek's edition has one advantage. According to principles of the French school of editing, it offers a French translation (with annotation) of the whole text. This made it accessible in its entirety for liturgical research, even to non-Slavists. This text calls for thorough analysis, especially because it obviously contains two linguistic strata.
76
ANTONIN
DOSTAL
document. Slavic philologists used to date it first from the eleventh century, then from the middle of the tenth, lately even from the very beginning of the tenth century. On the basis of recent studies made by Baumstark,35Mohlberg,36 Vajs37and Vasica,38the specialists in liturgical matters, the Leaflets are considered by many scholars to be the work of Constantine himself, who is believed to have translated them from a Latin original. Mohlberg has shown that the sacramentary preserved in Codex D 47 in Padua is probably the text nearest to the original used by Constantine. These scholars think that the Kievan Leaflets contain a Slavonic translation of the liturgy of St. Peter. This liturgy is a Greek translation of the Latin Roman Mass formula to which some Byzantine elements were added.39 35Baumstark was an outstanding liturgist but no Slavist. 36The formulation of the title of his study conveys Mohlberg's interpretation that the Kiev Leaflets were the work of Constantine (II Messale glagolitico di Kiev (Sec. IX) ed il suo prototipo Romano del sec. VI-VII). Even though Mohlberg critically surveyed the extensive literature concerning the Kiev Leaflets, they still require specialized linguistic and prosodic study in order to confirm or refute their authorship by Constantine. A misleading fact about the Kiev Leaflets is, first of all, that they are the most ancient handwritten texts, the oldest of all extant Slavonic manuscripts (the manuscript is an ancient one, of small size, written in the oldest type of Glagolitic script). Nevertheless, in spite of this, the Kiev Leaflets do not reflect the most ancient Old Church Slavonic language, as R. Jakobson has proved. 37 When one wanted to prove identity of authorship of an ancient Glagolitic text (that the author was Constantine, for example), lexical evidence was usually produced. It is ascertained whether words found in the Gospel text, i.e., in a text where Constantine's authorship is absolutely certain (because of wording, historical reasons, etc.), are employed. However, lexical evidence is, in my opinion, the weakest argument: if we can prove that the word in question is found in an ancient manuscript, it is very difficult to prove that it was not previously commonly known. To my way of thinking, the fact that the vocabulary of the Kiev Leaflets is ancient and identical with that of the Gospel text, i.e., of the Constantine translation, proves only that the author of the Kiev Fragments knew the Gospel text. That it is a more recent text is clearly shown by several newer linguistic phenomena, for instance: there is a complete absence of non-contracted adjectives in the Kiev Leaflets, a manuscript that is linguistically and orthographically very precise and ancient, as Roman Jakobson has proved; furthermore, there is the dependence of these forms on the metrical construction of the Kiev Leaflets (i.e. only the contracted adjectival forms which were preserved there are tied in with the metrical structure of the Leaflets' text, in the same number of syllables). Further reasons (Latinisms, Bohemisms, similarity to the text of the Padua Sacramentary D 47) provide evidence that the history of the Kiev Leaflets is more complicated than was previously believed. The Kiev Leaflets show, further, that the environment in which they originated was fluent in the Slavic, Greek, and Latin languages. Its Bohemisms permit us to ascribe the text to the Czech period of the Old Church Slavonic literature, but not to the Great Moravian period. 88 Prof. J. Vasica accepts, on the whole, the reasoning of Vajs and adds something of his own. He sums up again in Slovo a slovesnost, VI (Prague, 1940), p. 65 ff. the facts about the age of the Kiev Leaflets: i. they are in the oldest type of the Glagolitic script; 2. their Czech origin is indicated both by some phonetic deviations ("c," "z" instead of "st," "zd"), and by their vocabulary; 3. linguistically speaking, they are unreliable literary documents; 4. as to liturgy, we are on much firmer ground; 5. Mohlberg credited Constantine and Methodius with their authorship; 6. their Cyrillo-Methodian origin is generally recognized. Vasica finally admits that the Kiev Leaflets were translated by Constantine himself. The study mentioned above states on page 76 that: a systematic combination of the Byzantine and Western (Gregorian) liturgies is the consequence of the author's (Constantine's) personality. The fact that the Kiev Leaflets are texts which fell into disuse in the second half of the ninth century speaks in favor of this theory. Constantine was known for his interest in ancient texts. In his conclusion Vasica clearly stresses that the Kiev Leaflets are "the most precious pieces of Slavonic liturgy and they bear the stamp of the spirit of the great Constantine." As for the evidence of Constantine's authorship, we may thus recapitulate: its most important supporter was Mohlberg, but, in addition, Prof. J. Vajs, stressed their ancient origin, as did Prof. J. Vasica, and it was accepted by a majority of Czech and other Slavists. Nevertheless, this question remains open, and a linguistic analysis of the entire document is called for. 39St. Peter's liturgy is usually designated as a Western liturgy within a Byzantine framework (not, of course, a liturgy used in a Roman city specifically, but one commonly in use in Illyricum). Prof.
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
77
This shows us that Constantine, coming to Moravia, saw that a Western liturgy was already in use in that country. In order to avoid complications, he accepted it, adapting to the Slavonic language the Greek translation of the Latin Mass, called the liturgy of St. Peter. The scholars who are of this opinion believe that the so-called liturgy of St. Peter was used in Thessalonica and perhaps elsewhere in the former Illyricum, which was under the jurisdiction of Rome up to the year 732.40 Thus, the problem of the origin of the Slavonic liturgy would seem to be solved. This proposed solution, however, has certain weaknesses. Baumstark and Mohlberg have studied the problem only as specialists of Western liturgy. The two Slavists and liturgists, Professors Vajs and Vasica, went further, studying the document from the philological point of view. Vajs has shown that in the Leaflets of Kiev we find Old Church Slavonic words which are used also in the translation of the Gospels made by Constantine.41Vasica pointed out that some Latin and Slavonic terms used in the Leaflets correspond to words used in the Latin sacramentary.42 This is interesting, but we must be cautious in using the similarity of certain words in the Kievan document and in the Gospels as an argument for Constantine's authorship.43 The analysis of the oldest Slavonic texts from the linguistic point of view is only partly done. Generally, words retain the same meaning for a long time. Therefore, the fact that in both documents identical words are used does not seem to prove that the Leaflets and the Gospels are the work of the same author. Neither does the use of the same Latin words in the Leaflets and in the sacramentary prove anything about the identity of the author. There are also other Latin and Slavonic expressions in the text which do not correspond to those used in the sacramentary. Because of this, some Slavic philologists think that Constantine's authorship of the Kievan Leaflets cannot be proved.44 There is, however, another possible clue. We have seen that Czech linguistic traits can be detected in the Kievan Leaflets. After the death of St. Methodius and after the destruction of the Moravian Empire, the center of Slavonic literary activity was transferred from Moravia to Bohemia, where Slavonic, Latin, and Greek books Vasica, for example, describes it so. According to this conception, it would represent a compromise between the Byzantine and Western liturgies, a compromise which for understandable diplomatic reasons Constantine would have made himself, in order to avoid conflict between the Western liturgy already extant in Great Moravia and the Byzantine one newly introduced. 40 See J. Vasica, "Slovanska liturgie nove osvetlena Kijevskymi listy," Slovo a slovesnost, VI (Prague, I940), pp. 65-77; idem, "Slovanska liturgie sv. Petra," Byzantinoslavica, VIII (Prague, I939-40), pp. 41
1-54.
There is also the question of how St. Peter's liturgy would have been introduced. Had it been only a little-known form of liturgy, its use in Salonica at least, or even throughout Illyricum, would have to be proved, as Prof. J. Vasica thought. But that this liturgy was known in Salonica is shown by the Chilandari Fragments containing a Slavonic version of it, which is from a later period, of course. Certainly, this Athos manuscript does not and cannot indicate the oldest period; in my opinion it is a much more recent translation. 42 Cf. J. Vasica, "Slovanska liturgie nove osvetlena Kijevskymi listy," Slovo a slovesnost,VI (Prague, 1940), 48
p. 65 ff.
Cf. J. Vajs, Kyjevskg listy a jejich latinsk4(rimsky ) original (rev., Bratislava, I930), p. 527ff. 44 The assertion that the author or the compiler of the liturgical manual, the Leaflets of Kiev, was also Constantine has met with very serious opposition.
78
ANTONIN DOSTAL
were used. One can thus conclude that the Leaflets originated in Bohemia in the tenth century.45 If this was so, the Leaflets cannot be looked upon as the oldest Slavonic document of Moravian and Cyrillo-Methodian origin. This weakens the theory that Constantine accepted the Western liturgy after coming to Moravia. All this shows that the Kievan Leaflets need to be further analyzed and studied from the philological, metrical, and other points of view before we can come to a definite conclusion. The Fragments from Prague are, from the linguistic point of view, of a more recent date than the Leaflets of Kiev. The original text of these Fragments is translated from the Greek. It is not clear, however, where this prototype originated. The Slavist Vondrak thought that they were copied from a Bulgarian original. Sreznevskij was of the opinion that the prototype was a Russian mauscript. Jagic supposed that they were copied from a RussianBulgarian manuscript. Recently, F. V. Mares made a detailed analysis of that document and found in it some elements of the Russian language. He concluded that the Fragments were copied in the Glagolitic alphabet from a manuscript written in the Cyrillic alphabet somewhere in Kievan Russia. His main argument is that the Glagolitic letter called large I, which in the Glagolitic alphabet is also used to express the number 20, is used by the copyist for the number 8, as is the case in the Cyrillic alphabet.46 In my opinion Mares' argument is not convincing. There are several Slavonic manuscripts written in the Cyrillic alphabet in which one finds Glagolitic letters. The Czech Bible from the fifteenth century was written in the Glagolitic alphabet, although at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was in general use by the Orthodox Slavs.47The so-called Gospel of Rheims, on which the French kings used to take the oath at the coronation ceremony, is composed of two parts: one written in Cyrillic letters, probably in the twelfth century, and the other written in the Glagolitic alphabet, probably in the fourteenth century (I395) 48 One can conclude from this that the copyists of Slavonic works were
at one time familiar with both alphabets, and that therefore the use of a Glagolitic letter in a Cyrillic manuscript can be explained as a slip of the pen.49 45 After the death of Methodius, the center of Slavonic culture, and therefore also of Slavonic liturgy, moved to Bohemia. We have evidence, for instance, that St. Wenceslas learned from Slavic books and that the Slavonic cultural and liturgical center was the S azavamonastery. 46 Cf. F. V. Mares, "Prazske zlomky a jejich p'edloha v svetle hloskoslovneho rozboru," Slavia, XX (I950-5I), pp. 219-32. Using a phonetic analysis as a basis, Mares concludes that the Prague Fragments were copied from a manuscript of Russian origin. The use of a large 1/1to express the numerical value of the digit eight means, according to Mares, that the manuscript of the Prague Fragments was copied from one written in Cyrillic script (the Prague Fragments are written in Glagolitic script). In my opinion, the lexical analysis by Mares weakened somewhat the assumption that a manuscript of Russian origin served as a model for the Prague Fragments. Nevertheless, Mares says that the vocabulary of this text shows its ancient origin. With regard to the large I/I,I believe that in an environment which used the Cyrillic in addition to the Glagolitic alphabet, errors were easily come by. The copyist of the Glagolitic manuscript, who also knew the Cyrillic alphabet, could simply have made a mistake. 47 This Czech bible, written in Glagolitic but in the Czech language, was probably copied in a center of Church Slavonic literature (Emaiis). 48 See L'dvangdliaire slavon de Reims, dit: Texte du Sacre, ed. by L. Leger (Reims-Prague, I899). 49 Cf. the Fragments of M. P. Pogodin, for instance. It is a Cyrillic manuscript, but its copyist used the Glagolitic as well. See G. Iljinskij, "Pogodinskije kirillovsko-glagoliceskije listki," Byzantinoslavica, I (I929), pp. 86-117.
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
79
It is thus very difficult to determine the prototype of the Fragments from Prague. Moreover, the Fragments are a palimpsest manuscript. Many letters are illegible. This could be remedied one day with the help of modern ultrared examination equipment. Unfortunately, this has not yet been done. Last year the Catholic Faculty of Theology published in Prague, on the occasion of the eleventh centenary of the advent of the two brothers into Moravia, a symposium under the title "Solunsti bratri"-The Brothers of Thessalonica.50Two of the studies included in this symposium are, in some ways, complementary to each other. The art historian Cibulka, in his review of Moravian church architecture, repeats his theory that all Moravian churches so far discovered were built before the arrival of the Byzantine mission and that the first of them were erected by Irish missionaries in the HibernoScottish style. Another study, written by L. Pokorn5, is devoted to the problem of the origin of the Slavonic liturgy. The author disagrees with the two Slavic philologists and liturgists-Vajs anud Vasica-concerning the importance of the Kievan Leaflets for the study of the Slavonic liturgy. In his opinion the most important Slavonic liturgical texts are the Fragments from Prague. In analyzing them from the liturgical point of view, he concludes that this document is older than the Leaflets of Kiev and that it presupposes the existence of a Western liturgical Mass formula now unknown, but which, in the ninth century, was in use in the lands between Milan and Constantinople.51 He attributes the use of this liturgy to the Hiberno-Scottish monks who had introduced it into the Irish theory inby Moravia. It is evident that, influenced of his former teacher Cibulka, he tries to strengthen this theory with his liturgical arguments. One can see also that he is anxious to eliminate, insofar as possible, the Eastern elements of Moravian Christianity when trying to show that in the West the Irish missionaries and, after them, the Frankish missionaries from Salzburg played the principal role in the organization of the Moravian Church and its liturgy.52 Unfortunately, the author does not pay any attention in his study to the philological problems which this document presents. He disregards the fact, confirmed by philological analysis, that the prototype of the Fragments from Prague was translated from the Greek. The Fragments also contain a Byzantine prayer called "lychnikos." This is another indication that their original was Greek. This prayer cannot be traced in any Western Mass formula, but Pokomrny simply presupposes its existence in a formula which is unknown. He calls this 50Solungti bratri, IIoo let od piichodu sv. Cyrila a Metod&jena Moravu (Prague, I963). See particularly the study by L. PokornJt, "Liturgie p6je slovansky," op. cit., pp. I58-91. 51 Pokornf has in mind "a Western liturgy, which was currently in use between Milan and Constantinople." Cf. note 50 supra. However, nothing definite can be stated about this liturgy; the author himself admits (op. cit., p. 174) that it is not possible to say what kind of liturgy it was. 52 Pokornf bases his interpretation on the following facts: i. He puts more emphasis on the Fragments from Prague than on the Kiev Leaflets. He does not, however, explain the problem of the Kiev Leaflets. In any case, we cannot antedate the Prague Fragments before the Kiev Leaflets, either from the point of view of the manuscript itself or from its text. 2. He does not accept the Vasica-Vajs interpretation of St. Peter's liturgy, but he is obviously attempting an analogical interpretation in the sphere of liturgy to that of Prof. Cibulka in the sphere of church construction in Moravia (in the sense of the so-called Hiberno-Scottish theory).
80
ANTONIN DOSTAL
the liturgy of Cyril and Methodius without being able to show that the two brothers had accepted it.53 This attempt at the reconstruction of the Slavonic liturgy must be rejected. Another young scholar, J. Smrzik, shows more restraint in his work on Roman Slavonic liturgy.54 He accepts the opinion of Vajs and Vasica, and characterizes the Moravian liturgy as Romano-Slavonic and its basis as the liturgy of St. Peter. One remark deserves special mention. He shows that the oldest Slavonic liturgical texts are written in the Glagolitic alphabet, not in Cyrillic. This is important from the philological point of view. The language of the Glagolitic documents has a more ancient character than that of the texts written in Cyrillic letters. At the same time, Smrk admitss that the brothers may have used the Byzantine liturgy during the first year of their stay in Moravia, but later introduced the Roman liturgy which was more familiar to the Moravians.55 The German liturgist Kl. Gamber last year published a study in which he tried to show that the Leaflets of Kiev contain the liturgy introduced by Methodius. He finds the argumerentfor his assertion in the document sent in 871 to Louis the German by the Frankish hierarchy. In protesting against the encroachment of Methodius into territory regarded as being under their jurisdiction, the bishops said that he had translated the Mass from a Latin text.56
Special attention must be paid to two other texts mentioned by me, the Euchologium Sinaiticum and the three folios of Sinai which are parts of the Euchologium. We have here a Mass formula and prayers for other liturgical ceremonies, a combination which was common in Byzantine liturgical writings. The liturgical text from the three folios contains the Byzantine liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. The Euchologium contains prayers which were recited by the priests during different religious ceremonies, and, as I mentioned before, it was published by the late Czech philologist Frcek. It is important to note that one of the prayers of the Euchologium was known in Prague in the tenth century; this is the prayer which the priest recited when cutting the hair of a boy who was, by this ceremony, initiated into manhood. Frcek had shown that the same ceremony, according to the Byzantine rite, was performed by the Czech prince St. Wenceslas. Frcek and I came to the conclusion that the Euchologium is a highly important document for Slavic philology. Some parts reveal a very ancient vocabulary which may go back to the Cyrillo-Methodian period. Other parts 58
The terminology of the Slavonic liturgy is not used in a uniform way. Slavic philologists had mostly in mind only the Slavonic language during the divine liturgy service. Smrzik states plainly that the Slavonic liturgy was "Slavonic-Roman," following a theory closest to that of the St. Peter liturgy. 4 Cf. S. Smrifk, The Glagolitic or Roman-Slavonic Liturgy (Cleveland-Rome, I959). 55 Cf. Smrifk, op. cit., p. 98. 56 Gamber tries to prove that the conformity of the Kiev Leaflets to the D 47 Sacramentary is only accidental. This conformity, however, is important. Cf. K1. Gamber, "Das glagolitische Sakramentar der Slavenapostel Cyrill und Method und seine lateinische Vorlage," Ostkirchl. Stud., 6 (Wiirz-
burg, 1957), pp. I65-I73.
ORIGINS OF THE SLAVONIC LITURGY
81
are of much later date. The analysis of the Euchologium has only just begun. I am convinced that the key to the solution of the problems connected with the introduction of the Slavonic liturgy lies within this analysis, not in that of the other documents previously mentioned.57 The other Slavonic liturgical texts are of less importance. Let me mention only the manuscript of the Chilandari monastery containing the liturgy of St. Peter. It shows that this liturgy was in use on Mount Athos during the Middle Ages.58 Let us now review the results so far achieved by the research of the Slavic philologists, from the point of view of the liturgical ceremonies. In Byzantium the popular liturgy was that of St. Basil. Later, probably in the ninth century, during the lives of the two brothers, the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was more in favor. Besides these two liturgies, there existed the liturgy of the praesanctificata used during Lent, and the liturgy of St. Peter. The latter was not well known. Professor H. G. Beck characterizes it only as "Stubenarbeit" or as "bloBe Schreibtischarbeit."59 In any case, the liturgy of St. Peter was not in official and current use. It should be emphasized that the works of St. John Chrysostom had been translated often into Slavonic, from the oldest to the more recent period. It is known that in the old Slavonic collection called Codex Clozianus we read a homily which is now attributed by all specialists to St. Methodius. In the same collection there are also several Slavonic translations of Chrysostom's works.60Other such translations are in the homiliary of Mihanovid and in the Codex Sauprasliensis.This shows that St. Chrysostom was very popular among the ancient Slavs. In this respect, the fact that only the liturgy of St. Chrysostom is preserved in a Slavonic manuscript seems to be of some significance. No other Byzantine liturgy, except that of St. Peter, has, so far, been found in a Slavonic translation. The opinion that the liturgy of St. Peter was the liturgy used in Moravia is based on the supposition that the Leaflets of Kiev which contain it were composed by Constantine. VaSica, the main supporter of this opinion, explains the choice of this liturgy by Constantine as resulting from Constantine's veneration of St. Peter.61 I do not think that this explanation is satisfactory. Constantine was a realist and a very thorough scholar, and he revealed his genius in his philological and linguistic work. The Glagolitic alphabet which he composed 57 Concerning the Euchologium Sinaiticum, P. Lang has written "Jazykov6dnm rozbor Euchologia Sinajsk6ho," Zprdvy o c. k. real. a vygSim gymnasiu v Pibrami, I (Pravopis a hldskoslovi) (I888), pp. I-53; II (Tvaroslovi: Deklinace) (I889), pp. i-80; Konjugace (I890), pp. 1-53. J. Frcek says about the study by P. Lang, "on s'apperfoit aussit6t que ce travail fourmille d'erreurs." (op. cit., p. 624). 58 See note 27 supra. 59 Cf. H.-G. Beck, op. cit., p. 242. 60 The works of St. John Chrysostom were well known to Constantine and Methodius, and Old Church Slavonic and Church Slavonic literature contain a considerable number of translations from them. Constantine and Methodius and their disciples certainly considered these works very important for Slavic culture. This can only strengthen the assumption that the first liturgy introduced by Constantine into Great Moravia was that of St. John Chrysostom, which was then commonly in use in Constantinople and Byzantium.
61 See note 40 supra.
6
ANTONfN DOSTAL
82
shows how carefully he had observed the phonological character of the Slavonic language.62 It is a masterly work admired by all Slavic philologists. I cannot believe that such a genius would let himself be guided by his own personal fancy in the selection of such an important matter as the divine liturgy. The choice of the liturgy of St. Peter by him could be explained if we could suppose that this liturgy was introduced into Moravia by Greek priests who, as the legends have it, were working there before the arrival of the brothers. This, however, cannot be proved. In general, we do not know what kind of liturgy was in use in Moravia before 863. It is generally believed that Constantine found there only the Western liturgy, though we cannot prove this. The argument advanced by Ginzel,63 namely, that Constantine and Methodius, as simple priest and deacon, could not have introduced another liturgy into Moravia-for this could be done only by bishops-is irrelevant. The brothers were sent to Moravia by the Byzantine Emperor Michael, and his Patriarch Photius, not by Rome. Rostislav, the ruler of Moravia, expected that their religious activities would eliminate from Moravia the influence of the Frankish ecclesiastics. All this entitled them to bring with them Byzantine theological literature and to translate it into Slavonic. We have already seen that the Slavonic translations also contain the whole complex of the Byzantine liturgical books. This indicates that it was their express intention to introduce the Byzantine liturgy into Moravia. It is interesting to note that many of the older generation of Slavic philologists were of this opinion. J. Dobrovsky thought that only the disciples of Methodius had chosen the liturgy of the Roman rite.64This was also the view of F. Pastrnek. The Roman rite was introduced by the brothers only later, when they had seen how difficult it was for their disciples to learn Greek. This kind of argument can, of course, be dismissed. Translations from the Greek were made also by Methodius' disciples.65 A. Bruckner, who was of Polish origin and professor at the University of Berlin, favored of course the Roman thesis.66 Only modern Slavic philologists, impressed by the studies of Baumstark, Mohlberg, and Vajs, are inclined to accept the idea that Constantine had introduced the liturgy of St. Peter as contained in the Leaflets of Kiev. As I have already shown, we are not certain that the Kiev Leaflets are the most ancient Slavonic monuments of the Moravian period. There are, as we have seen, two weak points in the argumentation by Vajs and Vasica. First, the authorship of Constantine is not yet proven. Second, the similarity between 62 The Glagolitic alphabet was very ingeniously constructed and, as N. Trubeckoj (Altkirchenslavische Grammatik [Vienna, I954], P. I5ff.) and others have demonstrated, reflected precisely all the so-called phonological distinctions of the Old Church Slavonic language (i.e., the distinction between sounds, which was considered important to a speaker as a means of distinguishing word meaning). 68 Cf. J. A. Ginzel, Geschichte der Slawenapostel Cyrill und Method und der slawischen Liturgie (Vienna, 186I). 64Cf. J. Dobrovsky, Cyril a Method, apostoloveslovangti. Pozndmkami opatiil J. Vajs (Prague, 1948). 65 Cf.. Pastrnek, D4jiny slovanskgch apogtohl Cyrilla a Methoda s rozborem a otiskem hlavnich
pramenu' (Prague, 66Cf.
I902).
A. Bruckner, Die Wahrheit iiber die Slawenapostel (Tiibingen, I913).
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
83
the vocabulary of the Leaflets and Constantine's translation of the Gospels cannot be taken as a convincing argument until a more thorough investigation has revealed further and more convincing correspondences. We must admit that the results of the excavations made in Moravia are, so far, rather in favor of Vajs' thesis.67They show that during the first half of the ninth century Moravia was very much under Western cultural, political, and religious influences. So far, little has been discovered which can be dated from the Cyrillo-Methodian period, but, we must not forget that the excavations are not yet finished. Czech archaeologists say that what they have already found is only the beginning. Discoveries of even greater interest and importance are expected in the coming years,68andit is to be hoped that they will throw more light on the period characterized by the activity of the two brothers. Let me mention two more opinions concerning Constantine's attitude toward the Slavonic liturgy. The Croat specialist, S. Rittig,69 calls our attention to the fact that in the Vita Constantini the Eucharist is called SlWbba, which is evidently a translation of a Byzantine expression. The Vita Methodii, however, uses the Latin terminology-m ba- Missa. Rittig deduced from this that in Moravia Constantine continued to celebrate the Eucharist in Greek, not in Slavonic. This is an exaggeration. We know how energetically Constantine, in his discussion with Latin priests in Venice, defended the use of the Slavonic language. One cannot imagine that the object of the discussion could have been only the use of the Slavonic in instruction and in the writing of religious books. It was the celebrating of the Eucharist in Slavonic that had shocked the Latin priests. As for the terminology Slusbba and mbsa, the difference in choice of words can only have been accidental. It is probable that the author of the Vita Methodii used the Latin word because he was living in a Western atmosphere and was familiar with Latin terms.70 Constantine is supposed to have celebrated Mass in Rome, in the presence of the Bishop Arsenius and the papal secretary Anastasius, both of whom knew Greek.71Because of this, some scholars have deduced that Constantine celebrated in the Byzantine rite and in Greek. This could have been so because the Byzantine rite was not unknown in Rome; but we must remember that Pope Hadrian had already blessed the Slavic books, putting them on the altar 67 The present excavations in the territory of Great Moravia at this time favor the opinion of a more ancient presence of Christianity in Moravia and thus, indirectly, the assumption that the Western liturgy was already considerably widespread there before the arrival of the Byzantine mission. Of course, the excavations have not been completed, and one can certainly expect further discoveries, according to the archaeologists themselves. Such an important period in the history of Great Moravia as the Cyrillo-Methodian undoubtedly will finally be more distinctly revealed by archaeological findings. Up to the present, however, it has not materialized significantly. 68 Compare also the exhibition "Great Moravia" in Prague, I964, and its Guidebook. 69 Cf. S. Rittig, Povijest i pravo slovengtine u crkvenom bogosluSjusa osobitim obzirom na Hrvatsku,
I (Zagreb, 1910).
70 The author of the "Life of Methodius" was well acquainted with Latin texts. The "Life of Constantine," however, has a more Byzantine character. 71 It must be added that it is difficult to understand why many scholars, on the one hand, recognize the greatness of the Byzantine mission and the importance of Byzantine culture for the origin and initial development of Slavic literary culture but, on the other hand, withhold full acknowledgement of Byzantium's role in, and importance for European and, especially, Slavic culture. 6*
84
ANTONIN
DOSTAL
in the church of S. Maria Maggiore, and it is more logical to think that the translation of the liturgy into Slavonic was among these books. Taking all of the above into consideration, I am inclined to believe that the two brothers did bring the Byzantine liturgy to Moravia.72After all, in my opinion at least, they were both Greeks, they thought like Greeks, and they were staunch patriots.73 They spoke of the Byzantine Emperor and their Patriarch always with great respect. On the other hand, the complex of liturgical books translated into Slavonic was, as we have seen, Byzantine. The Euchologium of Sinai indicates that the liturgy was that of St. John Chrysostom. Only later, when Methodius and his disciples saw that the use of this liturgy was the subject of controversy, was a Roman Mass formula chosen and translated. Most probably it was the sacramentary now preserved as Codex D 47 in Padua. The Slavonic translation is preserved with some changes and additions in the Leaflets of Kiev. This, however, does not exclude the possibility that the Leaflets are a copy of an older manuscript, perhaps from the Moravian period.74 The question arises as to whether we may suppose that the liturgy was already celebrated in Slavonic during Constantine's stay in Moravia. It cannot be proved with the evidence we have, but it is possible, if not probable; for, if Constantine did not intend to use the Byzantine liturgical books in the divine service, why was he so anxious to translate them? It is not easy to say how long this supposed use of the Byzantine liturgy lasted in Moravia. The change to the Roman liturgy could have been effected before the visit of the brothers to Venice and Rome, or after the consecration of Methodius as archbishop of Sirmium with jurisdiction over Pannonia and Moravia. If we regard the Kievan Leaflets as a Czech product, then, of course, the use of a Roman sacramentary would be easily explained. In any case, we must reject the opinion voiced recently by Dutthieul that the Kievan Leaflets are merely a sketch of a liturgical project, made by Constantine, to be further elaborated later.75
One may ask whether, during the Great Moravian period and later, the whole, or only certain parts, of the Mass was said in Slavonic. We do not know which practice was followed. In Dalmatia, where the Slavonic liturgy of the Roman rite had survived, the following procedure was adopted: the priest recited in Slavonic only those parts of the Mass that were to be said aloud or sung by the congregation.76The rest of the Mass liturgy was recited in Latin. 72 I do not doubt that the passage in the legend (that priests from Italy, Germany, and Greece were active in Great Moravia before the arrival of the Byzantine mission) refers to Byzantine priests and monks. Why should this assertion always be minimized ? Why should we not believe that Byzantine priests were active there if we recognize the validity of the information about the activity of priests from Germany and Italy ? The mention of Greece in the legend could only have meant Byzantium. Rostislav, too, mentions that good laws, etc. always originated in Byzantium. Its influence was, therefore, certainly great. 78 Cf. the allusions in the legends (about the lives of Constantine and Methodius) to the Emperor Michael III and others. 74 The question as to whether the Kiev Leaflets could have originated from the late Moravian, i.e., the Methodius period, is not to be excluded, but cannot be proven either. 75 Cf. P. Dutthieul, op. cit., p. III.
76 Cf.
J. Smrifk, op. cit., p. Iogff.
ORIGINS
OF THE SLAVONIC
LITURGY
85
In the later period, especially from the seventeenth century on, the whole Mass was recited in Slavonic. We cannot determine which practice was followed in Moravia and Bohemia. It seems probable that the whole office of the Mass was recited in Slavonic, but whether this custom was introduced all at once or gradually is not known. What about the dispensation of sacraments and other liturgical services? Here the E ologium Siaiticum may be of some hel in answering the oloicquestion. As we have seen, a great number of prayers prescribed for the dispensation of sacraments and liturgical acts are written in Old Church Slavonic which indicates that they were already translated from the Greek during the Moravian period. The vocabulary of other prayers points rather to a post-Moravian era. This shows that the two brothers intended to translate the whole Greek Euchologium, but first adapted the prayers and services which they thought most important. Their work was completed by their disciples after the destruction of Great Moravia. I would like to stress once more, in this connection, that parts of the Euchologium are very ancient, more ancient than the Leaflets of Kiev and the Fragments from Prague. I would compare the linguistic character of this part of the Euchologium with that of the Psalter of Sinai, of the Gospels, and also of the Acts of the Apostles, the translations of which were made by the two brothers.77 The problem concerning the penetration of the Slavonic liturgy into Poland, and among the Sorbians in modern Saxony, is still debated by the specialists. The Polish Slavist Lehr-Splawiniski rejects the idea that the Slavonic liturgy was used in Poland.78 The Czech Slavist Havranek and others defend the thesis that the Slavonic liturgy was in use also in Poland. Havranek found in the Polish religious terminology some words which recall Old Church Slavonic terms. Moreover, the first Polish religious hymn, Bogurodzica, seems to show the influence of a Byzantine hymnology and atmosphere, as well as the influence of the first Czech hymn, "Hospodine, pomiluj ny," in which Professor Jakobson has detected Byzantine elements.79 In my opinion the Slavonic liturgy did penetrate into Poland, though it is difficult to say whether it had already done so during the Moravian period. This may have been the case, but it is also possible that the penetration took place in the later period, from Bohemia. Some specialists speak of Slavonic bishoprics in Poland, in the region of Cracow, but that there were such can hardly be proved, at least not for the Great Moravian period. The Czech specialist of the Sorbian language, Professor Frinta,80has shown 77 Cf.
J. Frek, op. cit., p. 625ff. Cf. K. Lanckoronska, "Le vestigia del rito Cirillo-Metodiano in Polonia," Antemurale, I (Rome, 1954); idem, "Studies on the Roman-Slavonic Rite in Poland," Orient. Christ. Anal., 161 (Rome, 1961); cf. also B. Havr6nek, "Otazka existence cirkevnf slovanstiny v Polsku," Slavia, XXV (I956), pp. 300-05; T. Lehr-Splawinski, "Czy sq slady istnienia liturgii cyrylo-metodejskiej w dawnej Polsce," ibid. pp. 290-9; idem, "Pierwszy chrzest Polski," ibid., XXIX (I960), pp. 34I-9. 79 Cf. R. Jakobson, Nejstaryi 6eskd pisn6 duchovni (Prague, 1929), and his other studies on this question. 80 Cf. A. Frinta, "Bohemismy a paleoslovenismy v luzickosrbske terminologii kfest'anske a jejich dbjepisn. vrznam," Acta Univ. Carolinae (I954), no. 5 (Philologica), p. 43. 78
86
ANTONIN
DOSTAL
that the religious terminology of Sorbian is closely akin to the Czech terminology, which was based, at least to a certain extent, on the Old Church Slavonic terminology. This seems to indicate that the Slavonic liturgy also reached the Slavs in modern Saxony, most probably from Bohemia, in the post-Moravian period. We cannot say how long this influence lasted. It should be emphasized that the translation of the liturgical books into Slavonic was not only important for the religious reSlavs, development of the but was, at the same time, a great cultural and literary achievement. It has been shown already that, after Constantine had composed an alphabet for the Slavs, a feverish literary activity started among them. There was a tendency to translate all important contemporary, mostly Byzantine, texts into Slavonic. This is characteristic, not only of the oldest Moravian period, but also of the whole early Middle Ages. The disciples of the two brothers continued their work, supplying translations of texts in the same spirit which had animated their masters. This tendency to provide translations of all important Byzantine texts strengthens the supposition that all liturgical texts were Slavicized. They are an integral part of Old Slavonic literature. Even the translation of the liturgical texts is more than just a translation. We detect many passages in these texts which show that the authors adapted the Greek originals to the new environment in which they worked and to the spirit of the Slavonic language. This is particularly evident in the Euchologium, but it can be detected also in the Kievan Leaflets and in other documents. The liturgical texts disclose also te fact that the new literary language was adequate for the enormous task of expressing Greek theological and philosophical terminology in terms which would conform to the spirit and the structure of the new literary idiom. The liturgical texts presented the greatest difficulty for the translators. They were composed in poetic language, often according to a metrical system. It was especially difficult to translate the religious songs in a manner which would appeal to the faithful who would be present at the services, but we are justified in saying that the translators achieved this. So far, the poetic side of these Slavonic texts has been neglected by Slavic philologists. Professor Jakobson is the first specialist to draw our attention to this fact in his studies of Old Slavonic religious songs. The success which the Slavonic liturgy had among the Slavs bears witness to the translators having fulfilled their task well. In conclusion, I should like to summarize the results of this investigation as follows: I. All Slavonic liturgical texts need more thorough analysis concerning their manuscript tradition and linguistic structure, especially the Euchologium Sinaiticum. Only when this analysis is completed shall we be able to determine which of these texts originated in the Moravian period. 2. The problem of the authorship of the Kievan Leaflets containing the translation of a Roman sacramentary must be subjected to more critical study. The fact that the Leaflets contain words which we also read in the translation of the Gospels does not prove definitely that they were translated by Constantine.
ORIGINS OF THE SLAVONIC LITURGY
87
3. It seems clear that Constantine and Methodius were the first to introduce the Slavonic language into the Byzantine liturgy, and most probably into that of St. John Chrysostom. 4. The Gregorian sacramentary from Padua, which may be the basis of the Greek liturgy of St. Peter, was translated and introduced into the liturgy at a later date, probably still in Moravia or Bohemia. 5. A Western liturgy may well have existed in Moravia before the advent of the two brothers. It is difficult to say which kind of sacramentary was used by the German and other missionaries. It is also not clear whether a Byzantine liturgy was also in use, even if we accept the affirmation of the Vita Methodii that priests from Greece were working in Moravia. We cannot determine which Byzantine liturgy could have been brought by them, that of St. Basil or that of St. John Chrysostom. 6. If a Czech origin of the Kievan Leaflets should be demonstrated, then the question as to how the liturgy of St. Peter reached Bohemia would arise. 7. It is possible, but not certain, that the Slavonic language was introduced into the Mass gradually. In the administering of the sacraments, and in other liturgical functions, Slavonic was used. This is shown quite clearly in the oldest part of the Euchologium of Sinai. 8. It seems most probable that the Slavonic liturgy penetrated also into Poland, but it has not yet been established whether this happened during the Moravian period or after the destruction of the Moravian empire. 9. The Slavonic liturgy is a major contribution to Slavic culture. Its poetic and clear language continued to inspire Slavic poetry and literature for many centuries.
The Chronological Accuracy of the "Logothete" for the Years A. D. 867-913 Author(s): Romilly J. H. Jenkins Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 89-112 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291227 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
CHRONOLOGICAL ACCURACY
THE
OF FOR
THE THE
"LOGOTHETE" YEARS
A.D.
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
867-913
M
JrUCH useful work has been done duringrecent decadeson the absolute
chronology of the reigns of Basil I and his son Leo VI.1 Pride of place among workers in this field must be awarded to Father V. Grumel, who has written a whole series of studies distinguished by deep learning, clear exposition, and an intuitive grasp of the subject. Especially in an article which, for its acumen and cogency of reasoning, must rank as one of the most remarkable works on this scale to be produced during the present century, he has totally revolutionized and clarified our knowledge of the absolute chronology of the reign of Leo VI.2 Even so, many points still remain open to doubt or dispute. We are therefore justified in exploring one further avenue of approach to the problem, which is the hypothesis put forward and defended in the present article. It may briefly be stated thus: in writing his accounts of the reigns of Basil I, Leo VI, and Alexander, Symeon the "Logothete,"3 who was a contemporary and admirer of Romanus I, relied for this chronology on a series of Annals; and that, when the basic data are disinterred from his text, these constitute absolute chronological criteria from which there can be no appeal. We must be clear at the outset on the distinction between Annals and Chronicles. The annalist merely sets down what he believes to be the most significant events of the current, or immediately past, year. In the mediaeval west, these events were often noted down on Paschal tables, that is, on blank spaces between the dates calculated for coming Easters. This method of recording cannot of course be called history, since the events are necessarily recorded in isolation, and no connected narrative can be written of any event, or series of events, which covers two or more years. On the other hand, annals have this priceless advantage, that they record events in their true chronological sequence. They neither tell nor explain a story; but they preserve, in the 1 Adontz, Canard, Gr6goire, Halkin, Kaidan, Kolias, Oikonomides, Ohnsorge, Stein, Vasiliev, and Vogt are among the authors whose several works are cited infra. 2 V. Grumel, "La chronologie des ev6nements du rmgne de Leon VI," Echos d'Orient, 35 (i936), 6-42. This article is cited simply as "Grumel." 8 For short bibliography of "Symeon Logotheta," see G. Ostrogorsky, GBS3, 123 and also Gy. Moravcsik in DOP, 15 (i96i), IIO-I22. The printed versions of the Logothete's Chronicle which are closest to his own composition are those of the Continuator of George the Monk (CSHB, 32, 763-924) and Theodosius Melitenus (ed. by T. L. F. Tafel [Munich, I859]). The former is the more readily available to scholars, and I refer mainly to it (as CGM). The MS Vindobon. hist. gr. 37 preserves some excellent variants, which are nearly always right and hence of capital importance: see S. Sestakov, "O Rukopisjakh Simeona Logotheta," Vizantijskij Vremennik, 5 (I898), I9-62, and infra, pp. 102-108. The versions of the Continuator of Theophanes and of Pseudo-Symeon are separate recensions of the original Chronicle, and do not concern us here except when they draw unwarranted conclusions from their source. It may here be remarked, once for all, that Pseudo-Symeon's allocation of events among regnal years is altogether arbitrary and misleading. His chronology is wrong nine times out of ten, and if he is right the tenth time, he is so by mere accident. No date given by him should be accepted without independent confirmation; and I leave his version out of account as evidence for this article. 91
92
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
right order, the essential elements around which the connected story must be written. The Chronicleis such a story. It is a coherent account of the disjecta membra of the annalist. Most often the chronicler will wait until the story ends, and then write it down connectedly from the beginning, so that all of it appears in his narrative at the chronological stage of its last significant event. The or, Byzantine formula for this method of compilation is IyKp6vTi avoCaPo6vres, "to go back a little." Here, says the chronicler, in the year so-and-so, we find such-and-such an event; but, in order to explain this event, we have to "go back a little" and trace its antecedents. This is necessary, and indeed inevitable, if coherence is to be achieved and causation explained. Innumerable instances of this method will occur to the reader of chronicles. An instance of dating a series of events to the year of its last recorded event has been noted by M. Canard4in the Arab chronicle of Tabari. Tabari places the revolt of Andronicus Ducas, his resistance at Kabala, and his subsequent defection to Tarsus and Bagdad, all in A.H. 294, that is, October 22, 906 to October II, 907. It can, however, be shown5 that the revolt of Andronicus began as early as October 905, and that he did not arrive in Bagdad until more than a twelvemonth later. Tabari finds this last event correctly dated to A.H. 294, and concludes that the whole series of events is datable to that year. As we shall see,6 a similar, but perfectly understandable, distortion is found in the Byzantine account of the same transaction. The Logothete, in compiling his chronicle, finds the escape of Constantine Ducas from Bagdad and his return to Constantinople, an event which naturally made some stir, dated by his annals to the winter of 907-908. But obviously he cannot repeat the annalist's notice and leave it at that: he has to tell how and why Constantine Ducas ever came to be at Bagdad in the first place. This necessitates a "cast back" to the initial revolt of Constantine's father Andronicus, in 905; but it does not invalidate the chronicler's accuracy. It is merely a question of determining, in each case, which event the chronicler has chosen as the chronological peg on which to hang his connected narrative; and this, most often, it is easy enough to do. One more brief example must suffice to illustrate the principle. At CGM, 841/1-8 the Logothete records the deposition of Photius by Basil I in the period between the earthquake of January 869 and the birth of Alexander in November 870. This at first sight is a blunder, since we know that Photius was deposed in September 867. But we read on and find that the Logothete's point of reference is the anti-Photian Council of October 869, which requires a brief "cast back" to 867 to explain it. Once more the Logothete's chronological accuracy is irreproachable. In other cases, though these are less frequent, the "cast" is made, not backwards, but forwards, in order to round off and finish a story whose chief 4
M. Canard, "Deux episodes des relations diplomatiques arabo-byzantines au Xe siecle," Bulletin
d'dtudes orientales, Damas,
I3 (I949-5I),
60-I, note 4.
R. J. H. Jenkins, "Leo Choerosphactes and the Saracen Vizier," ZRVI, 8 (I963), I67-75. 6 Infra, p. I o. 5
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
93
event lies in the past. This device may be marked with the words aAa rcaura upEv o-repovor, "but that was later on." Examples of the "cast forward" are: at CGM, 857/4 the death of Leo VI's second wife Zoe is recorded before that of her father, who in fact predeceased her. But this is merely because the chronicler wishes, quite properly, to round off the story of Zoe's marriage, reign, and death in a single paragraph. At her marriage and coronation, which are the important things about her, her father was of course still alive. Or again, at CGM, 846/1o-847/9 the arrest and imprisonment of Leo VI by his father are correctly placed in the year 883, but the story carries us on to the young Emperor's release in July 886.7 In order, therefore, to determine whether a chronicle is compiled on the basis of accurately kept annalistic information, we have to establish whether the events recorded, or else the "points of reference" in any connected series of events, do or do not follow one another chronologically. At first sight, the allowances to be made for the possible "cast back" or "cast forward" might seem too wide to permit an accurate determination: in other words, our freedom to choose what particular event gave rise to any coherent narrative might enable us to fit almost any two consecutive articles into chronological order. But closer examination shows that this is very far from the truth. In the first place, a large proportion of the Logothete's notices are not of series of events, but of single events, which require neither "casts backward" nor "casts forward." If any of these single events is demonstrably earlier in time than an event which precedes it in the text of the chronicle, then the chronological system here postulated has broken down, and no reliance can be placed on it. In the second place, even when we are dealing with notices which comprise whole series of events, we can apply the following absolute formula: if in any two notices, A and B, the earliest event in A is demonstrably later than the latest event in B, the same consequences follow. An example of this has already been referred to, in another connection, above. At CGM, 847/1-2 we find an account of the three-months imprisonment of Leo VI. Most people assume that these three months were April-July 886. Yet, in the very next section (CGM, 847/13) we read of a Byzantine defeat which beyond all doubt is identical with that which is dated by Tabari to the year 883. Either, then, our system breaks down here, or else the facts recorded have been misunderstood by modern historians. We shall offer the solution of this puzzle in its proper place. In the third place, the principle of "cast back" or "cast forward" can be applied only to connected and uninterrupted narratives such as CGM, 866/I2-868/10. By contrast, CGM, 870/18ff. tells us of three separate events: the illness of Leo VI, the fire in the candle factory, and the death of Leo VI. Here, the first event cannot be regarded as a "cast back" from the third, owing to the intervention of the second: and this has a bearing on the date of Himerius' Cretan campaign (CGM, 870/13-17), as will be seen in due course. All these limitations must be rigidly applied when passing judgement on chronological sequence. 7
Infra, p. I02.
94
ROMILLY
J. H. JENKINS
Having laid down the guiding principles for our enquiry into the Logothete's chronological accuracy, we must now proceed to look at the internal evidence for the sources used by this writer in the various parts of his chronicle. In an article published in the Vizantijskij Vremennikfor 1959, A. P. Kazdan has tried to establish the process by which the Chronicle of the Logothete reached its present state.8 According to his reasoning, the Logothete Symeon compiled his first "redaction" in the period between 948 and 963. The sources on which the Logothete relied were of three kinds, corresponding to three periods about which he wrote. These periods Kazdan divides as follows: I, the reigns of Michael III and Basil I (A.D. 842-886); 2, the reigns of Leo VI and Alexander (A.D. 886-9I3); and 3, the minority reign of Constantine VII, with his mother Zoe, and the reign of Romanus I, including the four years between the deposition of the latter and his death in 948 (A.D. 913-948). The prime source for the first of these periods Kazdan believes to have been a lost biography of Basil I, which described that Emperor's life from the time when he reached Constantinople (ca. 856) until he died (886). But this was no ordinary biography. It was written with the express purpose of making the picture of its "hero" as black as possible; and, thinks Kadan, it may have been written by a partisan of Photius, between the year of Photius' dismissal by Leo VI (886) and that of the ex-Patriarch's death, some time in the 8go's. The chief source for the second period of the Logothete's chronicle (the reigns of Leo VI and Alexander) Kazdan believes to have been Annals, which recorded the chief events of these years chronologically, and laid especial and characteristic emphasis on prodigious happenings, such as eclipses and earthquakes. Finally, for the third period, 913-948, the Logothete relied on his own personal recollections and on oral information of contemporaries. With some parts of this hypothesis every informed historian will agree. Leaving aside for the moment the diagnosis of the source or sources for the first period, there can be do doubt whatever that the source for the second is in fact a series of Annals: and one, we may add, that was kept with much accuracy. The conjecture that the source of the third period was personal recollection, helped by oral information, is strengthened by the fact that this kind of source is often mistaken in detail; and we do in fact discover several inaccuracies in this third period which are not apparent in the second, based on written documents. For example, the Logothete was obviously convinced that Romanus Lecapenus was crowned emperor on December 17, 919. The order of his text makes this quite clear.9 First comes the coronation of Romanus; then, that of his wife, on the following January 6 (920, as the author believes). Then, that of his son Christopher, on the following Whitsunday. And then, correctly, the promulgation of the Tomus Unionis shortly afterwards, in the same eighth indiction (920). It could have been argued that the Logothete was right as to the order of events, and had merely taken the day of the month of Romanus' coronation from the wrong almanack: that of 920, instead of that of 8 A. P. Kaidan, "Khronika 9 CGM, 890/12-23.
Simeona Logofeta,"
Vizantijskij
Vremennik, 15 (I959), 125-43.
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
95
But this will not do: since we have the unequivocal evidence of the preamble to the Tomus Unionis itself that, at the time of its promulgation (July 920), Romanus was still only basileopator,and not yet emperor.10It was left to Grumel to point out the Logothete's blunder, and to prove incontestably that Romanus was crowned at the end of 920, and not at the end of 919."1 Then, again, rather earlier in the same division of his chronicle,l2 the Logothete records the betrayal of Adrianople to Symeon of Bulgaria in September 914; and, after this, the death of the Saracen admiral Damian at Strobilos. Yet, as we know from Ibn al-Athir, Damian died before July 28, 9I4.13 These are errors in chronological sequence which may or may not arise from the fact that, in the last division of his narrative, the Logothete was relying on his own memory of events that had occurred in his own time. But, because the Logothete makes mistakes (very few, it is true: in the main his record is chronologically accurate) in his last period, we cannot conclude from this that he made mistakes in the order of events during the reigns of Basil I and Leo VI and Alexander, which he necessarily took from written records. Indeed, it may be repeated, the whole point of this article is to show that, in his narrative of the years 867 to 9I3, he is not demonstrably guilty of one single error in chronological sequence. At this point, of course, we come up against the contention of Kazdan that the principal source for the reigns of Michael III and Basil I was a pejorative Life, or Biography, of Basil I. The Logothete's version of the reign of Michael III, even after 856, when Michael attained supreme power, is full of chronological incongruities. The reduction and conversion of Bulgaria (864) are placed before the defeatt of the Emir of Melitene at Poson (863).14 And Bardas is referred to as "Caesar" at least as early as 863, before either of these events, although, as we know from independent evidence, he was not raised to this rank until 864.15Then, the story hurries us back five years to 858, to the quarrel of Ignatius with Bardas (here once more called "Caesar"), and to the appointment of Photiusas patriarch:16 (there is of course no question of a "cast back" here, since no incident in the article is later than 858; it is mere misplacement, due to ignorance). Then, after mention of the Russian attack (860), we skip five years and come to the appointment of Basil as chamberlain (865).17 Thereafter, the events of 866-867 follow in what is presumably their proper order. Whether the origins of this confused account of Michael's reign are a pejorative biography of Basil I, as Kazdan maintains, need not here be discussed. Where, however, we have to disagree with Kaidan is in his linking the Logo919.
10
Mansi, XVIII A, col. 336B. Echos d'Orient, 35 (1936), 333-5. 12 CGM, 880/5-13.
11
13 A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, II, Part 2, "Extraits des sources arabes traduits par Marius Canard" (Brussels, 1950) p. 145; referred to hereafter as "Vasiliev, 11/2."
14 CGM, 824-5. 15 Ibid., 824/I0: 16 CGM, 826. 17 Ibid., 826-7.
AIPHO,
2/2 (I934), 899-900,
note 2.
96
ROMILLY
J. H. JENKINS
thete's "Michael III" and his "Basil I" to the same principal source. The Logothete's "Basil I" is an altogether different kind of document from his "Michael III." Where the "Michael" is verbose and anecdotal, the "Basil" is concise and factual. Where the "Michael" is chronologically vague and inaccurate, the "Basil" is chronologically careful and correct, as we shall see. In fact it seems clear that, whatever may have been the source of the "Michael," the "Basil" rests on Annals, and very probably on the same series of Annals which formed the basis of the "Leo VI" and the "Alexander." From the point of view of their sources, therefore, the three divisions of the Logothete's Chronicle are: i. Michael III; 2. Basil I, Leo VI, and Alexander; 3. Constantine VII and Romanus I to A.D. 948. One of Kazdan's reasons for distinguishing the "Basil I" from the "Leo VI" is the absence from the former of portents and prodigies such as are commonly recorded in annals. But this is not quite accurate. The earthquake of January 9, 86918is no different in principle from the eclipse of August 8, 89I.19 There are, to be sure, many more such events recorded of the reign of Leo VI than of the reign of Basil I: in the former we find one eclipse, one comet, one gale, and two prophecies. But the text of the "Leo VI" is nearly two and a half times longer than that of the "Basil I"; and we must include in the latter the account of Basil's snake-bite as a portentous event, and also his own prophecy of the hard times to be undergone during the future reign of his son.20 So, then, the Logothete's account of the reigns of Basil I, Leo VI, and Alexander derives its basic facts and chronological order from a series of Annals probably kept by a Constantinopolitan monastery (this may be deduced from the emphasis laid on construction of churches, foundation of monasteries, Church councils, and so on). The Logothete's selection of incidents is undoubtedly dictated by dislike of the Macedonian emperors, as Hirsch long ago pointed out.21 Like most Byzantine chroniclers, the Logothete slanted his narrative, not by falsifying it, but by omitting what was good and successful and including what was mischievous or disastrous: suppressio veri leading to suggestiofalsi. But this prejudice does not affect the order in which the events so selected are put down. Our contention that this order is everywhere accurate can be substantiated only by a detailed examination of these three reigns. Let us take them in order. BASIL I (CGM, 839-848) We have first to see how many of the events recorded are datable independently, and next whether these datable events are in fact given chronologically. CGM, 839/3-7
(cap. I):
Accession and proclamation of Basil, 867 (i.e., Wednesday, September 24: Muralt,22446).
18
Ibid., 840/I4. 19 Ibid.,
852/I2. 20 Ibid., 844/I, 847/7-9. 21 F. 22
Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien (Leipzig, 1876), 63, 69. E. de Muralt, Essai de chronographiebyzantine (St. Petersburg, I855).
SYMEON CGM, 840/14-22
(cap. 4):
CGM, 841/1-8
(cap. 5):
97
THE "LOGOTHETE"
Forty days of earthquake, starting on Sunday, January 9, 869 (the day of the month is also given by MPG, I05, col. 549 A and Synaxar. Cpl., and the day of the week, Sunday, by Script. orig. Constantinopolitanarum [Preger] 2, 272, which is decisive for 869). The anti-Photian Council (EyayE TO6ov jE-rTx'PoWednesday, October 5, 869February 28, 870 (Muralt, 451-2);
aicov ErIoKocov),
Tuesday,
CGM, 84I/9-20
CGM, 843/5-9 CGM, 844/I1-13
CGM, 844/17-18
Birth of Alexander, Thursday, November 23, 870 (Adontz, Byzantion, 8 [I933], 506). The anti-Paulician campaigns, ending with the (cap. 6): sack of Tephrice and death of Chrysocheir, 871-2 (Vasiliev, 11/2, 6; Vasiliev, II, 93).23 (cap. II): Fall of Syracuse, Tuesday, May 20, 878 (Vasiliev, 11/2, 136; Vasiliev, II, 93). (cap. I6): Rehabilitation of Photius, 879 (N.B. It is important to note that this event is dated from the reconciliation with Pope John VIII in 879, rather than from the de facto restoration of Photius in 877: exactly as, in cap. 5 supra, his deposition is dated from the anti-Photian Council of 869 rather than from the de facto deposition of 867. This may throw some light on the nature of the annalistic source. Muralt, 458-9; and see infra p. IOI). (cap. I7): Expedition of Basil I and his son Constantine to the east, 879 (Vasiliev, II, 71-2, 94; ? cf. Bar-Hebraeus, I48).24
CGM, 844/19
(cap. I8):
Death of the Emperor Constantine, Thursday, September 3, 879 (Halkin, Byzantion, 24 [I954],
CGM, 845/I-4
(cap. I9):
Encaenia of the New Church, Sunday, May i, 880
I4-I7). (Jenkins and Mango, DOP, 9-o1 [I955-I956], p. I30). CGM, 845/9-II
CGM, 847/12-14
CGM, 848/15-16
Defeat and death of the protovestiary Procopius in Sicily, 882 (Vasiliev, 11/2, 138: Vasiliev, II, 88). (cap. 25): Defeat of Stypiotes at Chrysobullum near Tarsus, Saturday, September 14, 883 (Vasiliev, 11/2, 9; Vasiliev, II, 82). (cap. 20):
(cap. 27):
Death of Basil I, Monday, August 29, 886.
23 A. A. Vasiliev, Vizantija i Araby ... za Vreme Makedonskoj Dinastii (St. Petersburg, referred to hereafter as "Vasiliev, II." 24 The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus, tr. by E. A. Wallis-Budge (Oxford, I935). 7
I902);
98
ROMILLY
J. H. JENKINS
Here, then, we have a dozen or more incidents from the reign of Basil I, almost all of them datable on independent evidence, which the Logothete has placed in their correct chronological sequence. This is surely prima facie justification for the hypothesis that those incidents which cannot be checked independently are equally correctly placed. Almost at once (CGM, 840/8-I3) a test case occurs by which the whole theory stands or falls: the question of the date of (birth and) baptism of the future patriarch Stephen, third or fourth son of the Emperor Basil I. It is one of those small, irritating questions which have almost no significance for the advancement of historical knowledge, but which historians are eagerly and almost passionately concerned to settle for good, one way or the other. Perhaps the greatest historical importance that can be attributed to it relates to the matter under discussion here: can it, or can it not, be used as evidence for the invariable accuracy of the Logothete's chronological order in his account of the reign of Basil I ? I believe that it can. The evidence of the Logothete can be read only one way.25 Stephen was baptized on a Christmas Day between September 867 and January 869 (that is, Christmas 867 or 868); whereas Alexander was born after the opening, if not after the close, of the anti-Photian Council (October 869-February 870): that is, in November 870 or, just conceivably, November 869. There is no way of getting around this. It is either right or wrong. The reasons for thinking it wrong are soon told. Nicetas Paphlago and Pseudo-Symeon,26 as is well known, record that among the ruses adopted by the exiled Photius to recover the imperial favor (i.e., between 870 and 877) was his forgery of a prophecy which hinted at the succession of a dynasty called BEKLAS, a name composed of the initial letters of Basil, Eudocia, Konstantine, Leo, Alexander, and Stephen. This forgery was doubtless widely known and quoted at the time; but it proves nothing for the order of birth of Basil's sons, since the word does not purport to represent such an order, and in any case the alternative form BEKLSA was unpronounceable. However, there are better reasons for supposing Alexander the elder of the two: a direct statement to this effect by his own nephew Constantine Porphyrogenitus,27and a direct statement of the contemporary Vita Euthymii.28Hence many scholars, including and since Hirsch,29 have assumed that the chronicler's order is misplaced here, and that Stephen was in truth the youngest of Basil's sons. At first sight, the statement of Constantine Porphyrogenitus seems to be weighty. A man should, one would think, know the order in which his own uncles were born. However, Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself was not born until twelve years after his uncle Stephen died (905, 893); and Stephen had been dead more than fifty years before his nephew came to write about him. Constantine was, moreover, not wholly free from aberrations of this kind: 25
CGM, 840/8-I3.
26 MPG, I05, cols. 565-8; 27 Theoph. Cont. 264/15. 28 Ed. P. 29
by
Pseudo-Symeon
Karlin-Hayter,
Byzantinische Studien, 65.
Byzantion,
(Bonn), 689/7ff. 25-7 (I955-7),
10/2I:
referred to hereafter as "VE."
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
99
he made three notorious blunders in tracing the parentage of his own daughterin-law.30But we need not go so far back as this to discover similar uncertainties. My own Mother had five brothers. I believe I know who the eldest was, but could not with any confidence state the order in which the next four were born: and if I tried to do so off-hand, I should very likely be wrong. Yet only two of them died before I was born, and the other three I knew well. It is perfectly possible, as Adontz31 contends, that Constantine Porphyrogenitus was misled by the story of BEKLAS. The statement of Vita Euthymii that Stephen was urTa-rToof the brothers, though equally careless, is more excusable. The author was not a relative of the Patriarch, but, like everyone else, had heard the BEKLAS story and drew his own conclusions. Adontz, therefore, who vindicates the prior birth of Stephen, seems to me to be right: and this for an additional reason, which he does not cite but which both Amandos32 and Kolias33 mention. In a letter written in 933 by Romanus I's minister Daphnopates to Anastasius, metropolitan of Heraclea, who was protesting against the premature appointment of the young prince Theophylact as patriarch, Daphnopates says:34"Are you to accept or reject the appointment of Master Stephen, who in our own time was made patriarch at nineteen years of age ?" Now, Stephen, as was known to Muralt and De Boor and has been since confirmed by Grumel, was enthroned as patriarch on December 25, 886.35 If he was nineteen years old at the time, then he was born in November 867 and christened on the following Christmas Day. The testimony of Daphnopates seems to me to be decisive. To begin with, a man who is arguing with another on a point of principle is more likely to be sure of his facts than one who is making an offhand and uncontroversial statement. Again, if Daphnopates had been able to assure Anastasius that Stephen had been only fifteen or sixteen years old at the time of his appointment as patriarch, his argument in favor of the elevation of Theophylact at sixteen36would have trebled in weight. But he could not do so, without leaving himself open to refutation. Stephen, then, was turned nineteen at Christmas 886, and was therefore born late in 867, probably in November of that year, about fourteen months after his elder brother Leo. Incidentally, this throws an even more ghastly light on the murder of Michael III. That Michael's onetime favorite Eudocia Ingerina should have helped to stupefy him with drink37 so as to facilitate his murder, is bad enough. That she should have done so when seven months gone in pregnancy aggravates the crime. Was this one reason why the child, when born two months later, was destined for the church? 30DAI, Commentary (London, 1962), note on 26/15. 31N. Adontz, "La portee historique de l'oraison funebre de Basile I," Byzantion, 8 (I933), 505. 32 K. Amandos, 'loropia -roe Pcvav-rivo Kparovu(I947), 59. 33 G. T. Kolias, in rlpoorqop& EiS E-r. H. KuptaKiS8Iv rTarpi&pXou, BioypaqlK& TrEqavouA' OIKOvuEVIKOO (Salonica, 1953), 362. 84 AIEE, 2 (1885-9), 403/I3-I5: K KspjS yve
him only fourteen in 886. 37 CGM, 836/I8-I9. 7*
Stephen
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
100
Two further facts point to the same conclusion. First, we have the statement of CGM, 84I/6-8 that, when Alexander was born, here was, at last (orTos),a true-born son of Basil and Eudocia. If the calumny uttered of Leo VI-that he was the son of Michael and Eudocia-was also uttered of Stephen, as this passage suggests, then Stephen must have been conceived while Michael (t September 23, 867) was still alive. Second, this conclusion coincides absolutely with the testimony of his contemporary Leo Choerosphactes, published by Kolias,38that Stephen lived twenty-five years. So he did: twenty-five years and six months, to be exact (November 867-May 893).39 The enquiry, then, so far confirms our theory of the correct order of events in the Logothete's chronicle; and establishes, in my opinion, that Stephen was older, by just three years, than his brother Alexander. CGM, 841-843 (cap. 7-10) give no independently datable information. The building of Ignatius' church and monastery (cap. 7), the scandal over Thecla (cap. 8),40 the conversion of the Jews (cap. 9), and the death of Nicholas the prosmonarius (cap. Io) should all follow in sequence between 872 and 877-8, but need not each be related to a separate year. As regards the conversion of the Jews, this was obviously a long process, and lasted through most of Basil's reign.41 The Logothete's notice plainly refers to some great public ceremony at Constantinople, in which representative Jews were solemnly baptized and then munificently rewarded. CGM, 843/3-9 (cap. ii) describes the excavation of the foundations of the New Church, which was therefore begun in 877 or early in 878,42 before the news of the investiture of Syracuse reached Constantinople. The fall of Syracuse (May 20, 878) took place before the arrival of the imperial navy, which was consequently dispatched thither around March or April 878. The intrigue of the Empress Eudocia with Xylinites (CGM, 842/10-I2, cap. 12) is probably datable to the second half of 878, when she was between forty and forty-five years of age, since it is placed after the fall of Syracuse and before the two campaigns against the eastern Saracens in the following year (cap. 15, I7). CGM, 843/15-844/7 (cap. 13, 14) continues the story of the building of 8 Op. cit., 358-9.
89 This is one of the few points over which I have to disagree with G. Ostrogorsky (GBS3, I94-5,
note 2). It is unnecessary to say which of the two of us is more likely a priori to be right, but I am convinced that my arguments are in sum persuasive. Cf. also Pseudo-Symeon, 700/4-5 and MPG, Io9, col. 653 A, in both of which passages Stephen is given priority over Alexander. 40As noted by F. Hirsch (Byzantinische Studien, 66, note I), this Thecla was the sister, not of Basil I, but of Michael III: so that we ought to insert MiXOiAh between d&SEAqis and 'rov paatEcoSat CGM, 842/3. In the next line, p-rpIovshould be written with a capital initial: it was the man's name (cf. Synaxarion Cpl., 721/25).
The correct reading is Mfrplv -rTvaOC crrf vepcoTrov O
yEXcoToTrolov 6vTra, "one Metrios, her
servant and fool:" cf. gestakov, op. cit., 41. 41 A tolerably accurate date for the commencement of the persecution (perhaps undertaken by Basil because of the supposedly Jewish origins of the Amorian house, cf. Theoph. Cont. 42-43) is given by the Jewish Chronicle of Ahimaaz of Oria, which has "im Jahre 800 seit der Zerst6rung der heiligen Stadt," that is, by Titus. See S. Kaufmann, Die Chronik des Achimaaz von Oria (850-1054) (Frankfort, I896), who (I3-I4) equates this with A.D. 868. But the persecution lasted all through Basil's reign (ibid., I6, 20), till 886. The year 868 is supported by the mention of the raid on Oria by Saudan of Bari (ibid., I6-I7), that is, before 869, when Saudan was shut up in Bari by Lewis II: cf.
DAI,
42
Commentary,
notes on 29/I04-12.
R. J. H. Jenkins and C. A. Mango, DOP, 9-10 (I955-I956), I30 and note 35.
SYMEON THE "LOGOTHETE"
101
the New Church in 878-879, on the foundations laid in cap. ii. Then (CGM, 844/11-16, cap. i6) follows the brief account of Photius' rehabilitation, dated, as we have seen,43from the consent and recognition given to this rehabilitation by Pope John VIII. The Pope's letters, to Basil, Photius, and the Oriental patriarchs, in which he accords his recognition, were written in the middle of August 879,44which is doubtless the operative date of our notice: the Council which officially reinstated Photius did not begin to sit till November. Cap. i6-i8, with their tight chronology, throw the suddenness of Constantine's death into vivid relief. The papal letters date from mid-August; then, Basil and Constantine return (uErrorpeYE)45 triumphantly from Germanicea (end of August); then, Constantine dies (September 3). Cap. 19 and 20 are, as we have seen, independently datable to 880 and 882; and so we come on to CGM, 845-847 (cap. 21-24): to the malign influence of Theodore of Santabaris and to the plots laid against the young Emperor Leo. We cannot here discuss the significance of these stories, but merely their chronology. Cap. 21 records a process (the growing influence acquired by Santabarenus), and two incidents (the apparition of the dead Constantine and the dedication of a monastery in his name). The chronological point of reference of the narrative is clearly the dedication of the monastery (cf. cap. 7, I, etc.), which, according to our reckoning, took place in 882. There is no improbability here: such a monastery may well have needed two or three years to complete, especially if it was being built concurrently with the New Church. The rest of cap. 2I is therefore a "cast back" to explain this; and the conjuring up of Constantine's phantom no doubt took place earlier, and shortly after his death in 879. CGM, 846/7-9 (cap. 23) records the young Emperor Leo's marriage to Theophano Martinakiou, which took place almost certainly in 882,46 and quite probably in September, at or just after Leo's sixteenth birthday. The difficulties begin with CGM, 846/Ioff. (cap. 24), that is, with the date and length of Leo's imprisonment by his father. Vogt assumes that Leo's arrest and detention fell in the year 886, so that he was imprisoned from April to July 20 (St. Elijah's Day) of that year and then set at liberty.47 This would agree with CGM, 847/I that he was confined during three months. However, if so, then cap. 24 is sadly out of place, and we are up against another test case for our theory. For not only does cap. 24 come before cap. 26, which tells of the conspiracy of Kourkouas liquidated on 43
Supra, p. 97.
44 Mon. Germ. Hist.,
45 CGM, 844/18.
Ep. VII, I67-I87.
46 A. Vogt, "La Jeunesse de Leon VI le sage," Revue historique, 174 (I934), 4I5-6, suggests Christmas 88i, but this is mere inference: cf. VE, ed. by de Boor, I05. Since the marriage is recorded after the defeat of Procopius in 882 (supra, p. 97), Vogt's date should be moved forward some months, to the latter part of 882. It is true that Procopius' defeat is given by Ibn al-Athir (Vasiliev, 11/2, I38)
as falling in the year August 88i-July
882, so that it is just possible to date it before Christmas 881:
but that all the operations which precede it in Ibn al-Athir's account are to be dated between August
and December 88i, is most improbable. 47 Vogt, op. cit., 420-3.
102
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
March 25, again, according to Vogt, 886,48but it also comes before cap. 25, which tells of the Byzantine defeat near Tarsus, dated quite certainly by Tabari to September I4, 883.49 The confusion is more apparent than real. Cap. 24 follows cap. 23, which tells of Leo's marriage. After the marriage, the bride Theophano had a daughter, Eudocia, while her husband was still at liberty.50This brings us to the summer of 883, at earliest, if the marriage took place in September 882. The next notice (cap. 24) is Leo's arrest on a charge of high treason against his father. But we can be more accurate still. Cap. 25 tells us that Andreas, the commander-in-chief, was recalled before the battle of Chrysobullum near Tarsus (September 14, 883), which was thus lost by the incompetence of his substitute Stypiotes. However, when the Byzantine army arrived near Tarsus, as Tabari tells us,51 Andreas was still in command. Therefore he was recalled in late August or early September, on the eve of the campaign. And why was he recalled ? He was recalled cbsTa AEovroS qpovaiv,that is, "as a partisan of Leo,"52 and on suspicion of being concerned in the treason for which Leo already lay under arrest. Leo's arrest must therefore be datable to the late summer of 883, and not to April 886: otherwise there would have been no charge to make against Andreas. The chronicler goes on, by means of the usual "cast forward," to round off the story with a mention of Leo's release on St. Elijah's Day. But in what
year? If the reading piivas Trpesbe retained as the duration of Leo's imprison-
ment, this involves us in insuperable difficulties, since St. Elijah's Day 884 fell nearly eleven months after August 883. But here the reading of Vindobon. hist. gr. 37, to which reference has already been made,53 comes decisively to our aid. This version states that Leo was estranged from his father, not for three months, but for threeyears. This was the version known in the fourteenth century to Nicephorus Gregoras,54who says that Leo had completed the third year of his imprisonment when liberated. The whole incident at once becomes plain. Leo was arrested in or about August 883, and his arrest was followed by the dismissal of Andreas. Leo was freed on Wednesday, July 20, 886, after three years (all but a week or two) of captivity. Kurtz55already suspected the true solution of this problem; and Constantine Porphyrogenitus himself56 states that his father was imprisoned "a long time," which is far more appropriate to three years than to three months. That the conspiracy of 883, 48 Ibid.
49Vasiliev, II/2, 9. 50 "Zwei griechische Texte iiber die H1. Theophano," ed. by E. Kurtz, Zapiski Imp. Akad. Nauk,
8th Ser., Hist.-phil. otdel., t. III, no. 2 (St. Petersburg, 51 Vasiliev, 11/2, 9.
I898), 8/5: Kal TO T?rKVOv.
52Andrew Craterus at the hair may have been a son of Leo Craterus, who had acted as &cvaSoXoS clipping of the infant Leo, and was thus a kind of gossip or spiritual father of the Emperor: see De Cerimoniis (Bonn), 622/8. 53 See note 3, supra, and Sestakov, op. cit., 41: rroinoE85 6 pacnAeiSAEcov6 uI6OTOU 0aiAlcosdTrb 60ec TOs TroC -ri-rpOS roOXp6Ovovu y'. 54 Kurtz, op. cit., 38/28-9: i&yEi Tr6v uv1v TOO8E:apcoTrrpiOU Tosr 1 TrpiTrovEv rToTrcpStlUKO6Ta. See
also Synaxarion
Cpl., 315/5-6, Xp6voS 55 Kurtz, ibid., 62, note 45. 56Theoph. Cont., 350/15-16.
T-rpii.
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
103
whether Leo was or was not concerned in it, was thought to be serious, and even perhaps successful, can be seen from the fact that the Arab chronicler actually records Basil's death in 883,57and then again in its proper place three years later (886). This suggests that Basil's assassination in the former year was widely rumored, at least at Bagdad. Then, at CGM, 847/I5 ff. (cap. 26), with Leo out of the way, the great plot of John Krokoas (Kourkouas) and the sixty-six nobles comes to maturity; is betrayed, as Vogt58 has seen, in 886; and finally wound up on March 25 of that year.59Its liquidation was naturally followed by the release of Leo,60who could have had no hand in this, whatever hand he may have had in the previous, conspiracy. Cap. 27, as we saw, ends the reign with Basil's death. So far, then, and subject to an occasional "cast back" or "forward" from the central event, to explain its origin or trace its consequence, the chronology of events is never found to be inaccurate. Let us pass on to the reign of Leo VI himself, and apply the same methods. LEO VI (CGM 848-871): Here, in a much longer text, the case is much plainer. As before, we will begin by listing the events which are independently datable, making full use of Father Grumel's invaluable article alluded to above; and then discuss the residuum. CGM, 848/19-20
(cap.
CGM, 849/I6-2I
(cap. 3):
CGM, 850/1-3
(cap. 4):
CGM, 852/5-II
(cap. 8):
I):
Leo ruled "twenty-five years and eight months," i.e. from August 30, 886 to May II, 912. Stephen was patriarch "six years and five months," i.e., from December 25, 886 to May 17/18, 893 (Grumel, I0-I3); Stephen's career is rounded off by a "cast forward" here, though his death is recorded once more in its proper place in cap. I0. Destruction of St. Thomas' church by fire: this is dated by Michael Syrus61 to the year I200, that is, A.D. 887. Victory of Aion of Benevento over Constantine o epi trapezes,June 887 (Gay,62143; Hirsch, 72).
57Vasiliev, II/2, 9; cf. Bar Hebraeus, ed. cit., I49. This suggests that when Tabari, anno 886, states that Basil was killed by his own three sons, he was telling the truth. His testimony, doubtless historical, is the strongest support of Vogt's theory (op. cit., 427) to the same effect, though Vogt, oddly enough, does not cite it. 68 Vogt, op. cit., p. 420. 59CGM, 848/3. 60 The picturesque incident of the parrot who exclaimed aT, ac, KOpAGcovand thus reduced the company to tears, is not recorded by the Logothete, but by Constantine Porphyrogenitus, at Theoph. Cont. 350/2 iff.No doubt the story is substantially true, since it would be very hard to invent; but one iXei or XqTaov ("God for may suspect that the bird in fact said, not al, al, KVpAEcovbut aT,al, KvppiE His Mercy"), this being the kind of expletive which, owing to its being pronounced with special frequency and emphasis, parrots are notoriously prone to memorize and repeat. 61 Ed. and tr. by Chabot, III, 2, p. II9. 62 J. Gay, L'Italie m6ridionale et l'empire byzantin (Paris, I904).
104 CGM,852/12-13
CGM,852/20-22 CGM, 853-855 CGM, 855/I8-19 CGM, 856/14
ROMILLY
J. H. JENKINS
Annular eclipse of the sun from II a.m. to 2 p.m. on Sunday, August 8, 89I, sun and moon each being in the fifteenth cycle.63 (This is the only solar eclipse commemorated in the Synaxarion Cpl., col. 878, where the date is given in detail and with complete accuracy.64 Cf. Th. Ritter von Oppolzer, Canon der Finsternisse, p. 200, no. 4995, and chart oo00.Western chronicles also record it: MGH, Scr. I, 52; III, 3. See Dobschiitz, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, I8 [I909], I04; and Grumel, La Chronologie,464). (cap. Io): Death of the patriarch Stephen, May 17/18, 893, and appointment of his successor Antony Cauleas, August, 893 (Grumel, 6, io). (cap. 11-14): War with Symeon of Bulgaria, 894-896 (G. Ostrogorsky, GBS, 213). (cap. 15): Loss of Koron (Qurra) in Cappadocia, August 5, 897 (Vasiliev, II, II2-3; Vasiliev, 11/2, I3). (cap. I7): Death of St. Theophano, November io, 897
(cap. 9):
(Grumel, 22-29):
CGM, 856/18-857/4
(cap. i8):
December
CGM, 857/2I
(cap. 19):
CGM, 860/I-4
(cap.
CGM, 860/II
(cap. 24):
CGM,860/20-21
(cap. 26):
though her commemoration
falls on December I6 (cf. Kurtz, op. cit., 58, note 2). Leo marries Zoe Zaiitzina, probably after six months court mourning (cf. Halkin, Byzantion, 24 [I954], I5), in May 898. She reigned "one year and eight months," and therefore died 899/January
900 (Grumel, 19-21).
Her death is here recorded by a "cast forward," to round off her story: see supra, p. 93. Death of Stylian Zaiitzes, six months before that of Zoe, therefore June/July 899 (Grumel, I9-2I).
22):
Death of the Patriarch Antony, February I2, 90o, and appointment of his successor Nicholas Mysticus, March I, 90o (Grumel, 8-9). Death of the Empress Eudocia, April I2, 90o (Grumel, I9). Loss of Taormina, August I, 902 (Vasiliev, II, 125-6).
63 Cf. Buchegger, Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbiicher, ii (I934-5), 29-39. 64 G. T. Kolias, L6on Choerosphactes (Athens, I939), 33-4, wrongly identifies this eclipse with a
total eclipse visible in Scandinavia and North Russia on June 7, 894. If, as seems likely, Symeon of Bulgaria (Kolias, ibid., p. 77) referred to the eclipse of 89I as that which was predicted Trpo-rripva by Leo VI, then rrpo-rpuCoihere means simply "a year or two ago," and is valueless as an exact chronological criterion. Taken literally, it would imply a date of 893 for Symeon's letter to Choerosphactes, as Mercati (Riv. degli Stud. Or., io [I923-5], 221) has seen.
SYMEON CGM, 86i/8ff.
(cap. 27):
CGM, 863/6
(cap. 30):
CGM, 864/21
(cap. 32):
105
THE "LOGOTHETE"
Attempted assassination of Leo VI in the church of St. Mocius, May II, 903 (Grumel, 40-I). Fall of Thessalonica, July 3I, 904 (Joh. Cameniata ap. Theoph. Cont. 519). Appearance of a comet, May I6, 905 (Muralt, 483; Grumel, Echos d'Orient, 36 [I937], 60-I).65
CGM, 865/2-3
(cap. 32):
CGM, 865/I6-2I
(cap. 35):
CGM, 868/21-22
(cap. 41):
Baptism of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, January 6, 906. Expulsion and exile of the Patriarch Nicholas, February I, 907. Coronation of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Sunday, May 15, 908 (Grierson and Jenkins, Byzantion, 32 [I962], I33-8).
CGM,
(cap. 42):
869/20-870-9
Lunar eclipse (March 20, 908) followed by the fall of Samonas, June 13, 908 (Jenkins, Speculum, 23 [1948], 234, note 99).
CGM, 870/I3
(cap. 43):
Himerius sails for Crete, October g9I (his expedition fails in April or early May 912:
(cap. 44):
Leo VI falls ill, before March 4,
Jenkins, npoopopa iESZT. l. KupiaKi8rlv, 279-8I).
CGM, 870/I8-20; 871/1-2
9I2.
Leo VI dies, May II, 9I2.
With regard to the last three of these notices, dating from the years 9II-912, I must at once make an observation which should not be relegated to a footnote. The order of these notices invalidates a hypothesis put forward by me some years ago,66when I tried to show that Himerius' Cretan expedition was datable, not to October9II, but to the eight months between August 911 and April 912. While the main conclusion of that article, that Himerius' final defeat took place in April or early May 912, seems to be undoubtedly right, it now appears that the common reading 'OiKTcrpcopIp E plvl must after all be to the OKTCO ?-rri of We are bound to conclude IiijvaS preferred Pseudo-Symeon. that Himerius' expedition to Crete started in October 9II, which must be the operative date of the Logothete's article (cap. 43), and it is followed by the usual "cast forward" to round off the story. If the final defeat of Himerius (April/May 912) had been the occasion of the article, then this article must have appeared after the following notice of the Emperor Leo's illness, which declared itself before March 4, 9I2.67 It is also impossible to regard the Emperor's death in May 912 as the occasion for all of cap. 44: the notice of his As is shown infra, p. I09, this phenomenon had no connection with the birth of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, which took place probably in the following September. The date of the comet's appearance is not absolutely certain. Both Muralt and Grumel give Thursday, May I6, 905, and this is the date suggested by the wording of the western chronicle. But the Chinese observers date its appearance specifically to Wednesday, May 22, SOthat possibly the Thursday of the western source is May 23 rather than I6: see J. Williams, Observationsof Comets ... extracted from the Chinese Annals 65
(London, 66 R.
I87I), 52-3.
J. H. Jenkins, "The Date of Leo VI's Cretan Expedition," Tpoopop&EiSI-r. iT. KupitaKrlv (Salonica, I953), 279-80. 67 EV TrjaPXr T-rV VTlaTeloV. CGM, 870/20:
106
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
illness in or before March 9I2 cannot be a "cast back" from his death, since the two notices are divided by a third, that of the fire in the candle factory. The annalistic source certainly preserved these four events in their correct order: Himerius goes to Crete in October 9II; Leo VI falls ill in or before March 9I2; a serious fire breaks out in the cathedral candle factory (? April 912); and Leo VI dies in May 912.
We may now proceed to examine the residual material of the Logothete's narrative, and see how it fits in between the chronological points already established. The transfer of the body of Michael III to the church of the Holy Apostles (cap. I), the deposition and confinement of Photius (cap. 2), and the appointment of Stylian Zaiitzes as magister and logothete (cap. 3) took place, in that order, between September I and December 25, 886. With regard to the first of these events, the phrase ErTa TO auToKopaTopioaal (CGM, 849/2) confirms that it was the first official act of the reign, and therefore took place in September. The capture of Hypsele by the Saracens and the process against Santabarenus and Photius (cap. 4-6) took place in 887, and the fire which destroyed St. Thomas' church fell between them. The siege of Samos and the promotion of Zaiitzes to the rank of basileopator (cap. Io) follow between August 891 and May 893. This is almost the only place where Grumel's chronology must be modified. He gives the year 888-9 for Zafitzes' promotion,68but this is impossible: the eclipse of August 8, 891 intervenes decisively. Grumel is, however, manifestly right in dissociating the promotion from Leo VI's marriage to Zaiitzes' daughter, which took place not before 898 (see supra, p. I04). In fact, no marital significance attaches to the title of basileopator,even though it was later bestowed on Romanus Lecapenus, father-in-law of Constantine VII. It was an honorary title implying spiritual parentage or guardianship of the sovereign. It is said that Leo VI himself invented the rank for Zaiitzes.69This may be true; but his father had invented a similar title in favor of the widow Danelis, who pT'ripKEAsTorea paailXcS i'lcbeij that is, "was accorded the rank of basileometor,"and her son was adopted by Basil as his spiritual brother.70 The revolt of Cherson (cap. 15) naturally followed immediately on the Byzantine defeat at Bulgarophygon (or "Bulgarogephyron," as we ought to write it): that is, late in 896 or early in 897. The conspiracy of Zaiitzes' relatives to murder the Emperor at Damianou (cap. 16) occurs between August and November, 897.71 The expulsion and tonsuring of the corrupt Musicus and Stauracius (cap. I9) took place shortly before the death of Zaiitzes, which itself took place in June or July of 899. 68 Grumel, 40; cf. Kurtz, op. cit., 57, note 24. 69 Theoph. Cont., 357/5-6: oT-ros KaivoupyicraS TOo6vopa. 70 Ibid., 318/21-2.
71 The mention of St. Theophano's death after the Bulgarian war and the loss of Koron (Qurra) rules out de Boor's conclusion, defended by Kolias (EEBE, 23 [I953], 332-5), that she died in 893, and confirms Grumel's date of November io, 897.
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
107
Then follows the major conspiracy of Basil the Epeictes (cap. 20), and the consequent rise of Samonas.72The conspiracy was hatched after the death of the Empress Zoe (CGM,859/3), which took place in December 899 or January goo. Therefore, it was betrayed and frustrated in the early part of goo; and I have elsewhere conjectured that Arethas, who was examined on Easter Saturday goo, may have been implicated-however unjustly-in this conspiracy.73 The next item is the taking of Demetrias by the Saracen Admiral Damian (cap. 22). As this is recorded after the appointment of Nicholas Mysticus as patriarch (March i, g90) and before the death of the Empress Eudocia (April 12, 90I), Demetrias fell in March or early April 901. Grumel is therefore right in rejecting the earlier date suggested for this event by Gregoire.74 The next two chapters (23, 24) are a short piece of dynastic history rendered necessary by the notice of the Empress Eudocia's death at the end of it (CGM, 860/Io-Ii). The brief notes on the "'interimof Anna" (January to June 90o)75 and the marriage of Eudocia herself (June or July goo) are an understandable, and indeed essential, "cast back" to explain who this Eudocia was who died at this conjuncture. The account is perfectly connected, and not interrupted by any extraneous event. Cap. 25-26 are concerned with the construction of two churches and a monastery. The churches were those of St. Theophano (Leo VI's own first wife) and St. Lazarus. There is some reason to think that the encaenia of the latter took placae on May 4 902.76The fall of Taormina follows (August I, and the sack recorded of at the end of cap. 26, is to be put at Lemnos, 902); the end of the same year (902) or the beginning of the next. At the time of the attempt on Leo VI's life in the church of St. Mocius (cap. 27), which took place on MayI,
903, the Emperor's trusty servant Samonas
was busy "bringing Zoe [Carbunopsina]to the Palace to live with the Emperor" (CGM, 861/18-20). This may mark the beginning of Leo's liaison with Zoe, or else it may indicate that Zoe was being brought to the Porphyra to give birth to her first child by Leo, which was probably the princess Anna II (cf. Ohnsorge, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 51 [1958], 80-8i). Cap. 31 provides a rare instance of chronological ambiguity. It contains the curious story of the flight, arrest, confinement, and return to favor of the 72 The respective ministries of Stylian Zaiitzes and Samonas lasted about eight years each (891-899 and 900-9g8). If we count the former from the date at which Zaiitzes became magister and logothete (end of 886) rather than from the date at which he became basileopator, it lasted twelve and a half years. The reign of Leo was thus in popular memory divided into these two periods of supremacy, that of Zaiitzes and that of Samonas. A Jewish "Genizah" text of the thirteenth century, which was first published by Ginzberg and later commented on by Krauss (Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahyrbiicher,7 [1928-9], 66-7I), illustrates this. The two ministers are called an "Ethiopian" and an "Arab." Krauss saw that the ^ former must be Zaiitzes, who was probably a negro, or half-negro: see Kurtz, op. cit., riV, AiOiop.The "Arab," Krauss thought to be Romanus Lecapenus, an identification 11/28, Ti acoi very properly rejected by Dolger, Byzantinische Zeitschrift,3I (193I), I77. Obviously the person meant was the Arab Samonas.
73 'EX?2viYK&, I4 (I956),
349-50.
74 Grumel, 34-6. 75 Idem, 32-4. 76 C. A. Mango, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 47 (I954), 8.
108
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
Emperor's confidential minister Samonas. The last firm date before these events is that of the fall of Thessalonica, July 31, 904. Then, the minister flies, is recaptured, spends four months in confinement, and lastly returns to favor on the Emperor's Accession Day, August 30. If the point of reference of the story is the date of Samonas' flight, then this took place in April 905, i.e., after the fall of Thessalonica and before the appearance of the comet on May i6, 905 (cap. 32). But if the point of reference is August 30, then we can date the incident to 904, since August 30, 904 is a month later than July 3I, 904. On the whole, if we compare the narrative of cap. 36-39, whose point of reference is its final incident, the return of Constantine Ducas from Bagdad in the winter of 907-908 (see infra, p. iio); and if we consider that the actual date given in cap. 31 is August 30, on which the annalist presumably made his entry, then we shall probably conclude that Samonas fled in April 904.77 This was a moment of great danger for the Empire; and that Samonas, being an Arab, should have been under house-arrest during the crisis of June and July seems very understandable. Cap. 32 is interesting. CGM, 864-5 and Theodosius Melitenus, I95/4-5 preserve the original order of events which the Logothete found in his annals. First, the comet appears (i.e., on May I6, or 23, 905) ;78 second, Samonas is created a patrician; third, Constantine Porphyrogenitus is born; fourth, Constantine Porphyrogenitus is baptized (i.e., on January 6, 906). Grumel,79in a brilliant article, has tried to connect a later statement of the chronicle (CGM, 887/9-10),
that ConstantinePorphyrogenituswas marriedT7rTpiTlr
TOU TacrXa
the date of his birth, which, Grumel assumes, must have been at least fourteen years before his marriage, whenever that was. There can be no dispute about the year of Constantine's marriage: it was 9I9. The enigmatical "Tuesday of Easter called of Galilee" Grumel equates with the Tuesday of the fourth week after Easter, that is, May i8, 919. Now, some later versions of the Logothete's chronicle do actually connect the appearance of the comet (on May i6, 905) with Constantine's birth:80so, argues Grumel, Constantine Porphyrogenitus was born on May 17 or i8, 905, and married fourteen years later, to the day, on May i8, 9I9. The trouble with this argument is that TNj Tpi(Tl) Toiv r7aoXais not the correct reading: Vindobon. hist. gr. 37 has TOU'AvrT'rracoa8l which, for obvious reasons, is to be preferred. Constantine was therefore married, not on Tuesday, May i8, but on Tuesday May 4, 9I9. And, if it were really true that he was then fourteen years old or more, he must have been born on or before May 4, 905, at least twelve days, and perhaps nineteen, before the comet appeared. It could of course be argued that the two events, the birth and the comet, were so close to one another in time that they could be connected in popular memory. But, on the evidence of the text before us, there is no reason to believe that T Theyophvi o
77 78
SrCiliAaFasc , with
Cf. R. J. H. Jenkins, "The Flight of Samonas," Speculum, 23 (I948), 227. See note 65 supra.
Echos d'Orient, 36 (1937), 52-64. 80 Theoph. Cont., 370/9: oiZ v -ri yevvariEtl(pavi KOVP1TrS&o-rfip: cf. Cedrenus, II, 264/23. 81 Sestakov, Vizantijskij Vremennik, 5, 42: TO (cod.) avTlr&rCxa, TTi ?EyOUVr1 rCaACliio. 79
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
109
the Logothete or his source did connect them. It is the Continuator of Theophanes who infers a connection between two separate events originally divided from one another by a third, the elevation of Samonas to the rank of patrician. We are forced back to the conclusion that Constantine Porphyrogenitus may have been born at any time between May I6 and November 27, 905;82 and that his marriage in 99i took place before,rather than on or after, his fourteenth birthday.83What probably governed the choice of date for his union with the usurper's daughter was not Constantine's minority, but the prohibition of marriages during the Paschal Octave, Easter Sunday to St. Thomas' Sunday or Antipascha. On the second available day after May 2 (Antipascha), 919, the morrow of the day connected liturgically with the Wedding of Cana in Galilee, the marriage was celebrated.84 This is disappointingly vague. As is well known, the Continuator of Theophanes states85 that Constantine Porphyrogenitus lived fifty-five years and two months; but, as he died, according to the same authority, on November 15, third indiction (i.e., 959), A.M. 6469 (i.e., 961 !), and as, even if he was born as early as 905, he lived no more than fifty-four years and six months Maary all told, no reliance can be placed on this information. We are equally in the dark as to the exact date of the promotion of Samonas, except that it must have been after May 16 and acro rijisarroiu puyijs,whatever that may mean. Indeed, the whole passage86is unsatisfactory: it is either carelessly copied or else corrupt, since, as it stands, the meaning of EyevvorE6E ui6v KTA. is that Samonas, and not Leo VI, was the father of Constantine Porphyrogenitus! However, it may well be that Skylitzes87preserves the true record, in stating that Constantine lived "fifty-four years and two months," which would place his birth, plausibly enough, in September 905. On the whole, the most probable solution is that, first, the comet appeared on May i6 or 23; second, Samonas was made patrician "[a year] after his flight," i.e., on August 30; and third, Constantine was born in September, 905. The building known as Kuphe (= fornix: CGM, 865/6-7, cap. 33) is also referred to at De Cerimoniis (Bonn.), i80/6. Janin's date88of 905 for its conversion into an almshouse could be right, since the baptism of Constantine Porphyrogenitus in January 906, referred to in the previous chapter, merely rounds off the record of his birth in (? September of) the year before. But a date between January and April 906 seems rather more probable. In either event, this move against prostitution may be regarded as an act of contrition on the Emperor's part, since he himself was living in open fornication. Forty days before his baptism: cf. Muralt, 483. 83By Novel I09 of Leo VI, the imperial family was expressly exempted from the rule which laid down minimum ages for betrothal and marriage: see Kolias, EEBE, 23 (I953), 326-7, who quotes and comments on the text. Constantine VII could thus be married at thirteen years and eight months old, if the needs of state required it, as, in his father-in-law's view, they certainly did. 84 See Grumel, Echos d'Orient, 35 (1936), 274-9. It is useful to have established that "Galilee Tuesday" was the second Tuesday after Easter: cf. De Cerimoniis 377/2-3. 85 Theoph. Cont., 468/22-3: cf. VE, ed. by de Boor, II6-II8. 82
86 CGM, 865/1I-2. 87 Cedrenus, II, 88
338/I; cf. Muralt, 483. R. Janin, Constantinople Byzantine (Paris, I950), 350.
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
110
The unlawful marriage of Leo VI and Zoe Carbunopsina (CGM, 865/8-9, cap. 34) which took place e-ra T-V fop-rTv (Easter Sunday, April I3, 906), was probably celebrated between April 21 and the end of the month. Nicholas Mysticus, writing in 9I2, states that the papal legates who came to Constantinople in February 907 arrived there eight months after the "marriage," which would place the latter in or about June 906. But, if he is right, what was the Eopr'iof the chronicle? And in any case, if the Vita Euthymii is to be trusted,89Nicholas himself made a first attempt to reconcile his colleagues to the union as early as May I, 906: so that the second half of April remains the likeliest time. CGM, 865/14, cap. 35, places the promotion of Samonas to the office of parakoimomenos (chamberlain) before the expulsion of the Patriarch Nicholas on February i, 907. This conflicts with the evidence of the Vita Euthymii,90 which, a short time after this, still calls him protovestiarios. If the Logothete really found the promotion in an annal of this date, he is probably right; but no date is assigned to it in his text, and it may be his own inference. Euthymius, it is generally conceded, became patriarch (CGM, 865/2I-2, cap. 35) at the end of February 907, or thereabouts.91 CGM, 866/5-II (cap. 36) describes the sudden and severe storm which disturbed the Emperor's visit to the monastery of Constantine Lips. As this visit was in June, only the year 907 will fit the facts. Both the return of Constantine Ducas and the coronation of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (cap. 39, 41) took place before June 908. Then, in cap. 37-9 (CGM, 866-868), is recounted the long saga of the defection of Andronicus Ducas to Bagdad. I have elsewhere, relying on a document now attributable to Leo Choerosphactes and on a brilliant note of Professor Marius Canard, worked out the time-sequence of this chain of events.92Briefly, the revolt of Andronicus, deluded by Samonas, took place late in September 905, and was followed by the naval victory of Himerius on October 6 of that year. Andronicus defected to the Saracens of Tarsus in March 906, and proceeded to Bagdad in or after October 906. The effort of the Emperor Leo to secure his return was frustrated in the winter of 906-907. But Andronicus' son, Constantine Ducas, who had defected with him, did succeed in escaping, and got back to Constantinople in the winter of 907-908.93 Now, it is clearly this last, dramatic event which is the occasion of -the Logothete's story. The story itself is a locus classicus for his method of "casting back."94 Constantine Ducas returns from Bagdad. How did he get there in the first place? Well, it all started with the naval expedition of Himerius in 905, and the malice of Samonas, and so on; and the tale unfolds. How much 89 VE, 76/32: cf. de Boor, ad loc., 169. 90 ibid., 96/I8.
91V. Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, I, 2, p. I46: VE,- ed. by de Boor,
124.
92
See notes 4 and 5 supra.
" See Gr6goire, Byzantion,
94See supra, p. 92.
8 (I933),
84; Grierson and Jenkins, ibid., 32 (1962), 137-8.
SYMEON
THE "LOGOTHETE"
111
of it, especially of the alleged machinations of Samonas, is true, is not the question here. But the chronological sequence, at first sight violated by recording a naval victory of October 905 after a storm at the monastery of Lips in June 907, is none the less preserved, when it is seen that the end of the story, the return of Constantine Ducas from Bagdad, is the point of reference of the whole narrative. The chronology of cap. 40-42 (CGM, 868-870) has been explained by Mr. Grierson and myself.95 The points of reference are: the Saracen mission to Constantinople in the spring of 908; the coronation of Constantine VII on May 15, o98; and the fall of Samonas on or about June 13, 908. The previous passage (CGM, 869-870) is a "cast back" to explain this dismissal. The remaining two chapters, 43 and 44, have been explained above, p. 105, where it is shown that the Cretan expedition of Himerius set out in October 9II; the Emperor Leo fell ill before or very early in March 9I2; the fire in the candle works occurred between March and May 912; and the Emperor died on May ii of the same year. ALEXANDER (CGM, 871-874): The short reign of the Emperor Alexander (May 12, 9I2-June 6, 913) provides only a small amount of chronological information, though this seems to confirm, or at least not to invalidate, the principle established for the two preceding reigns. CGM, 872/17-19, 873/8-12 (cap. 3, 5) gives two independently datable of information. pieces Cap. 3 records the fifteen-day perihelion of the comet Xiphias, known to us as Halley's Comet. Modern calculation has shown that this period began on July 19, 9I2,96 and therefore lasted until August 3 of that year. Cap. 5 records the death of the ex-Admiral Himerius. As Himerius returned to Constantinople in the latter part of May 9I2, and died six months later, he must have died in November 9I2. The remaining items are easily placed. Cap. i records the recall of Nicholas Mysticus to the patriarchal see, and the subsequent condemnation, brutal punishment, and (by "cast forward") death, of Euthymius. The recall of Nicholas was the first significant act of the reign: indeed, the diocese had been in Nicholas' hands since March or April, 91I2, as has recently been shown by M. Oikonomides and myself.97 The process against Euthymius took place, as we should have supposed, in June. Cap. 2 records the appointment of Alexander's Privy Council, which is datable to the same month: at all events, before July I9. The blasphemous adoration of the images in the Hippodrome, and the race-meeting (cap. 4), took place on a holiday between July and November. The embassy of Symeon 95 Grierson and Jenkins, op. cit., p. 137. 96 See M. Proctor and A. C. D.
Crommelin, Comets, Their Nature, Origin and Place in the Science of
Astronomy (London, 1937), 62. 97 Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 56 (I963), 46-52;
DOP, I7 (1963),
399-401.
112
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
of Bulgaria (cap. 6) was repelled with insult between November and the Emperor's death in the following June, which is recorded in cap. 7.98 Nothing in this invalidates our hypothesis, and what can be established confirms it. We are thus, I believe, justified in thinking that the Logothe te used, with Log much care, a set of Annals for his accounts of the reigns of Basil I, Leo VI and Alexander. Along with much other chronological data concerning trivialities, we have been able, on this hypothesis, to establish the dates of some more important events over which a lot of ink has been spilt in the past. The Patriarch Stephen was born in November 867. Leo VI married his first wife in the latter part of 882, but not later than November. Leo VI was imprisoned by his father for three years (August 883-July 886). Constantine Porphyrogenitus was born, after all, in September 905. Constantine Porphyrogenitus was married to Helen Lecapena on Tuesday, May 4, 919. It is to be hoped that future investigation will render some of the other chronological information elucidated by this article of use to the historian. 98
This does not conflict with what is said of the embassy by A. P. Kazdan, 'O natchale vtoroj bolgaro-vizantijskoj vojny', Slavjanskij Arkhiv (I959), 29, though he thinks the war broke out before it; see, however, MPG, CXI, cols. 45-56, passim.
The Apse Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. Report on Work Carried out in 1964 Author(s): Cyril Mango and Ernest J. W. Hawkins Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 113-151 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291228 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
[email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
THE
OF
ST.
APSE SOPHIA
MOSAICS AT
ISTANBUL
REPORT ON WORK CARRIED OUT IN 1964 CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST J. W. HAWKINS
mosaics decorating the apse and bema of St. Sophia comprise the following principal elements: an enthroned Virgin and Child in the conch of the apse, a commemorative inscription on the face of the apse semidome, two standing archangels in the soffit of the bema arch (the one on the north side has almost entirely disappeared), and various ornamental borders (fig. i). These mosaics remained exposed to view until the first half of the eighteenth century, and were delineated by the travellers Grelot (1672) and Loos (I7IO), at which time both archangels appear to have been preserved in their entirety. Some time between I710 and ca. I750 the apse mosaics were covered with a coating of plaster or whitewash. They were revealed for a brief time during the restoration of the building by the Fossati brothers (I847-49) whose record of them, hurried and unsatisfactory as it is, nevertheless indicates that the mosaics were found then in substantially the same condition in which they are today.1 The Fossatis concealed the mosaics once again with plaster and various stenciled designs painted in oils. The uncovering of the apse mosaics was carried out by the late Thomas
TInHE
Whittemore between 1935 and I939. Whittemore published a few photographs
of these mosaics,2 but the detailed report he was preparing remained unfinished when he died (1950). The lack of precise information concerning the apse mosaics has had the usual result of encouraging scholarly speculation. In particular, the dating of these mosaics has led to a measure of disagreement (ranging from the early eighth century to the mid-fourteenth) that is phenomenal even in so controversial a subject as the history of Byzantine art.3 In 1 For the foregoing details, see C. Mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, VIII (Washington, D. C., 1962), pp. 80ff., 0oo; figs. 2 (Grelot drawing), go (Loos drawing), 92, I04-5 (Fossati drawings). Grelot erroneously represented a Mandylion in the soffit of theo bema arch. Fossati's sketches of the preserved archangel (Archivio Cantonale, Bellinzona, Nos. 103, 357, 374) remain unpublished, but they do not contribute any additional information. 2 AJA, 3
XLVI
(I942),
pls. i-iv;
Mosaics of Haghia Sophia at Istanbul (Boston,
I950), pls. 24-29.
Whittemore himself believed that the mosaics were made by the painter Lazarus shortly after the restoration of icons in 843: "On the Dating of some Mosaics in Hagia Sophia," The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bulletin (Summer 1946), p. 44f.; Mosaics of Haghia Sophia, Preface. So also V. N. Lazarev, Istorija vizantijskoj tivopisi (Moscow, I947), p. 84ff.; A. Frolow, "La mosaique murale byzantine," Byzantinoslavica, XII (I95I), p. I89f.; A. Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin (Paris, 1957), p. I8gff. (between 843 and 855). Here is a sampling of other opinions: G. Galassi, "Recenti ricuperi a Santa Sofia," Felix Ravenna,
LVI (I95I), p. 3Iff. (early eighth century);
id., Roma o Bisanzio,
II (Rome, 1953), p. 308ff. (archangel
either eighth or tenth/eleventh century; Virgin's face pre-Iconoclastic, the rest of the figure being Comnenian or Palaeologan); C. R. Morey, Mediaeval Art (New York, I942), p. I07 (the Virgin a later replica of an original made between 867 and 886); id., "The Mosaics of Hagia Sophia," The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Bulletin (March I944), p. 205f. (A.D. 866-67); J. Beckwith, The Art of Constantinople (London, i96I), pp. 62f., I45 (archangel ninth century; Virgin, except for her face, largely a fourteenth-century restoration); G. Galavaris, "Observations on the Date of the Apse Mosaic of the Church of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople," Actes du XIIe congrhsinternational d'dtudesbyzantines, Ochride, III (Belgrade, 1964), pp. I07-IIo; id., "The Representation of the Virgin and Child on a 8*
115
116
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
order to resolve this important question and to present an accurate description of the apse mosaics, it was essential to study them at close quarters. Accordingly, a scaffold rising to a height of nearly 30 m. was erected in the apse in the spring of 1964. This gave us the opportunity not only to examine the mosaics in inute detail, but also to carry out some badly needed conservation work; namely, to free fe rom plaster and paint large areas of ornamental mosaic, in particular the magnificent garland that circles the base of the apse semidome (these had been only partially cleaned by Whittemore), and to treat areas of loss in a uniform manner. This work was completed by the winter of I964. In order to make our findings available with a minimum of delay, we have restricted the scope of this report to a factual description of the mosaics and of the chronological evidence that may be extracted from them. This information is interpreted by us in the light of whatever scanty evidence is provided by mediaeval sources. A discussion of artistic style and iconography has been deliberately omitted for future treatment. As before, it is our pleasant duty to extend our thanks to the Turkish authorities and in particular to Bay Feridun Dirimtekin, Director of the Ayasofya Museum, for their friendly cooperation and enlightened interest in our work. We should also like to express our appreciation to the members of our staff for having carried out an unusually arduous task. DESCRIPTION OF THE MOSAICS I. THE VIRGIN AND CHILD
The Virgin who occupies the center of the apse semidome is represented enthroned with the Child seated in her lap (fig. 2). She rests her right hand on the Child's right shoulder, and her left, which holds a handkerchief, on the Child's left knee. The figure is complete except for an area of loss (roughly o.80 m. high and 0.70 wide) on the Virgin's left side corresponding to her left forearm and elbow, the Child's left hand, and part of the upper cushion placed on the throne. There is, furthermore, a fissure, caused by a structural crack in the shell of the semidome, which runs down the middle of the figure to the apex of the central window. It is clear that the mosaic was executed at a time when the semidome had already undergone the deformations it exhibits today. With regard to the proportions of the figure, certain considerations ought to be borne in mind. The dimensions given below have been measured on the curve and show that, in general terms, the scale diminishes as one goes higher up the figure. This diminution, though not consistent (thus, the Virgin's feet are too small even by normal standards), is unmistakable: the Virgin's head 'Thokos' on Seals of the Constantinopolitan Patriarchs," AeX-riovTjrS XptaIrIaVI1KSs 'ApXatoXoyIKS 'ETClIpeifaS 1960-61 (1962), especially p. 159ff. (Virgin ca. 1355); G. Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics (London,
1963), P. 138 (Virgin "almost certainly later than the earthquake of I346" [sic]).
APSE MOSAICS OF ST. SOPHIA AT ISTANBUL
117
is too small in relation to her total height (the proportion is I: 8.3), her right hand is markedly smaller than her left hand, and the Child's figure, too, starting with rather large feet, loses scale towards the top. This anomaly cannot be explained by any rational attempt on the part of the artist to counteract optical distortion. Since the figure of the Virgin is placed above the windows of the conch, it lies, not as normally, on the quadrant of a circle, but in the upper half of a quadrant (see fig. C), and if we drew an imaginary line from the top to the bottom of the composition, this line would be at 300 to the horizontal. To see the mosaic at right angles from the ground one has to stand at the eastern end of the building, in line with the eastern exedrae. From the middle of the nave the top part of the mosaic is foreshortened more than its lower part, so that the proportion of head to body becomes about 1:9. It is only if one stands directly below the mosaic (a position inaccessible to the mediaeval worshipper) that the proportions become more nearly normal. In other words, the mosaicist laid out the figure as if it were meant for the lower ring of a dome, to be viewed straight up, as, for example, in the Ascension dome of St. Sophia, Salonica, where the figures of the Virgin and apostles are correctly lengthened with relation to their heads.4 Note that in the apse of the latter church the head of the enthroned Virgin is, on the contrary, disproportionately big.5 What surely happened in our case is that the mosaic of the Virgin was designed from a platform more or less level with the windows of the apse semidome. If we suppose that the artist took his vantage point directly below the crown of the semidome or a very short distance further west, as he would have had to do in order to see the whole composition in one glance, then the proportions of the mosaic become reasonably normal, as shown in figure 2 and, even more markedly, in figure 12, which was photographed from a point below the bema arch at the level of the marble cornice (proportion of head to entire body I:6.6).6 For further confirmation of our suggestion, note that in figure 12 the seat and footstool of the Virgin's throne appear nearly horizontal and the posts of the throne vertical, whereas when the mosaic is seen from below (cf. fig. I) the seat seems to sag in the middle and the posts to come apart at the base. In other words, the artist gave no thought to the appearance of the mosaic from the ground: he designed the composition freehand and gave it the proportions which looked correct from his scaffold. Naturally, he could not have used any form of squared up sketch for transferring the design on to the wall.7 4 Cf. 0. Demus, Byzantine Mosaic Decoration (London, 1948), p. 32. 5 Diehl, Le Tourneau, and Saladin, Les monuments chrdtiens de Salonique (Paris, I9I8), p. I40. 6 This should serve as a warning against reliance on photographs for stylistic analysis. On the
older photograph of the Madonna reproduced in Mango, Materials, fig. io6, the proportion of head to body is I: 7.5, while in the general view of the apse published by Whittemore, AJA, XLVI (1942), pi. ii, it is I:8.2. 7 As has been claimed for the apse mosaic of Tsromi in Georgia: S. Ja. Amiranasvili, Istorija gruzinskoj monumental'noj Sivopisi, I (Tbilisi, I957), p. 24.
118
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
Dimensions Total height of composition from top of halo to bottom of footstool Maximum width of composition The Virgin: Height of figure from top of hood to level of left foot Height of head from top of head to chin Height of face to lower edge of kerchief Maximum width of face excluding ears Length of nose Length of eyes Length of mouth Diameter of halo Length of middle finger of right hand Length of middle finger of left hand The Child: Height of figure excluding halo Diameter of halo Height of head Width of face from ear to ear Length of index finger of right hand
4.89 m. 3.18 4.39 0.53
0.33 0.25
0.13 0.08 0.065 I.04 0.I8 0.25
I.99
0.565 0.34 0.225 O.I0
The Virgin's. Halo The outline consists of four rows of red glass tesserae. The gold field of the halo is set concentrically, except for the trim round the head and shoulders which is three rows wide. Mixed with the gold cubes is a tiny proportion of silver ones. The underpainting on the setting bed is red.8 The Virgin's Face and Neck (fig. 4) The eyebrows consist of a single row of black glass tesserae below which is a shadow line of purple-brown glass. The upper eyelids are in black glass, the lower eyelids in purple-brown glass. Whites of eyes: the lighted parts are of white limestone cubes, the shaded parts of olive glass. Pupils: the outline and centers are of black glass, the remainder of purple-brown glass. Intentional damage has been caused to both eyes perhaps by Fossati's workmen.8aThe ridge of the nose consists of two vertical rows of fine-grained white marble, followed on the right (illuminated) side by one row of coarse-grained Proconnesian white marble and two rows of cream marble; on the left (shaded) side by one row of pink marble, one row of purple-brown glass, two rows of olive glass, and two rows of yellow-green glass. The tip, like the ridge, of the nose is in smooth white marble. The nostrils are of black glass, the dimple shadow under the nose is in purple-brown glass. The parting line of the mouth is in red glass. The upper lip, the high light on the lower lip and the corers of the mouth are in vermilion glass. The shadow under the mouth is in purple-brown glass. 8 As usual, there are three layers of lime plaster under the mosaic. The first two are of rather coarse consistency and contain a considerable admixture of chopped straw. The final layer or setting bed is of fine consistency. The total thickness of plaster is 3.5 to 4.5 cm. 8a Cf. Mango, Materials, p. I4, note 36.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
119
The flesh tones are in the following materials: fine-grained white marble, Proconnesian white marble, milky off-white glass (used along the right edge of the face), cream marble and three shades of pink marble. There is a touch of vermilion glass on the tip of the chin, and three lines of it on the left cheek. The shaded parts of the face consist of purple-brown glass, olive glass, light green, and yellow-green glass. The ears are not delineated. The tesserae used in the face are occasionally as small as 3 mm. square. There are small areas of loss on the forehead, under the right eye, and on the tip of the chin. Under the chin there is a fairly heavy shadow in purple-brown glass and green glasses, the latter extending to the shaded (left-hand) side of the neck. There is, further, a line of light green glass at the base of the neck. The Virgin's Right Hand (fig. 5) The lower line of the fingers and of the back of the hand is in red glass. The flesh tones are in fine-grained white marble, Proconnesian white marble, and three tones of pink marble; the shadows are in yellow-green glass. The knuckles on the index and middle fingers as well as the fingernails are imperceptibly indicated in fine-grained white marble. The nails are not outlined as in the left hand. The Virgin's Left Hand and Handkerchief (fig. 6) The thumb and fingers are outlined on the spectator's right side with mat brown glass which also forms the heavy shadow on the back of the hand. The lighter shadow near the wrist as well as one line on the left side of the ring finger are in yellow-green glass. The flesh tones are the same as in the right hand. The nails are outlined in red glass. Folded over the thumb is a handkerchief consisting of white Proconnesian otlin n the spectator's left side with two rows of white limestone marble, outlined tesserae. Limestone is also used for the tasselled fringe on the left, but not on the right extremity of the handkerchief. The Virgin's Feet (fig. 7) The feet, which are disproportionately small (the exposed part of the left foot being only 0.20 m. long), are shod, as usual, in red slippers. Originally, the slippers were rendered in two tones: red glass was used for the shaded parts, while the lighted parts consisted of cubes dipped in red lead paint. The paint has largely flaked off, revealing both glass and stone tesserae of different colors, gold, silver, green, blue, etc.9 9 This was also true of the kneeling emperor's shoes in the narthex panel, as noted by W. Salzenberg, Alt-christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel (Berlin, I854), p. 102. Following the loss of the red paint, the shoes now appear white. Whittemore is mistaken in stating that this was their original color: The Mosaics of St. Sophia
...
Preliminary
Report on the First Year's Work (I933),
p. I9. The
same applies to the Virgin's slippers in the mosaic of the southwest vestibule. Whittemore notes that they have an oval inset of red glass, the remainder of the slippers being made of "gold and silver tessellae turned on all faces." The latter, which must have been dipped in red paint, he mistakenly interprets as denoting "soft gilded leather": The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul. Second Preliminary Report (I936), pp. 12, 45.
120
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
The Virgin's Garments The kerchief covering the Virgin's head is of white Proconnesian marble with a shadow line and sets of triple fold lines in turquoise glass. The kerchief is outlined against the face with a single line of black glass tesserae. The Virgin is dressed, as usual, in a stola and a maphorion. Both are of the same color. The stola is visible below the neck, at the cuff of the right arm, and from the knees down. The stuff of the garments is indicated by means of only four shades of glass tesserae: turquoise, cobalt blue, dark blue, and black (at times pure black, at times purplish). The turquoise has undergone considerable surface deterioration causing it to turn a paler shade. This is especially noticeable at the Virgin's right knee, and produces, when viewed from a distance, the deceptive appearance of an exaggerated high light. The maphorion is adorned with cruciform segmenta, each consisting of four little gold squares; one of these ornaments is placed in the center of the hood and one on each shoulder. The edge of the maphorion where it falls down from the left arm has a double edging in pale turquoise glass with the nigh lights indicated in white marble. Attached to the hem are tassels consisting of two or three threads tied in a knot. The tassels are rather schematically drawn; they are in white marble where they are against the blue of the maphorion and in blue glass where they are against the gold of the footstool. The Child's Halo The halo is outlined with three rows of red glass tesserae. The arms of the cross, which are nearly straight, are in white Proconnesian marble. The field of the halo is in gold, set concentrically. There is no admixture of silver cubes in the gold. The Child's Head (fig. 8) There is intentional damage to the right eye. Further areas of loss occur above the right ear, at the top of the head,, and down the left side of the hair to a point just above the left ear. The Child is shown fair-haired. The lighter strands of hair are in yellow glass and yellow-green glass, the darker strands being in clear brown glass (gold cubes turned sideways) and mat brown glass. Accents are provided by occasional gold strands. A triple tuft falls over the middle of the forehead. The flesh tones of the face and neck are of the following materials. Finegrained white marble is used for the projecting or high-lighted parts, viz. the center of the forehead, above the eyebrows, one vertical row down the ridge of the nose and one transverse row across the top of the bridge, the tip of the nose, the top of the chin, and a few lines under the eyes. The grey vein of Proconnesian marble provides light shadows on the ridge of the nose (vertically, on either side of the white line), between the eyebrows, on the right side of the forehead (inside the green shadow line), under the eyes, and in a small patch to the left of the mouth. Three tones of pink marble are used, the
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
121
palest mostly in the forehead, the two more intense tones in the cheeks and chin. Cream marble outlines the nose and nostrils. There are three tones of green glass: light yellow-green, yellow-green (under the eyes, on the right side of the neck, and on the right side of the forehead) and pale green (outline of the right jowl). Olive glass is used in two tones (one yellowish) to outline the entire left side of the head and in conjunction with purple-brown glass in the shadows round he eyes and under the mouth. Purple-brown glass outlines the nose and eyes. The eyebrows, eyelids, nostrils, and corners of the mouth are in slightly purplish black glass. The parting of the mouth is in deep red glass. Vermilion glass is used in the lips, small spots on the cheeks, a spot on the bottom part of the chin, and others on the right ear. The whites of the eyes are in white limestone. The Child's Right Hand (fig. 5) The right hand, which alone is preserved, is rather clumsily drawn. It is held in blessing, with the ring finger bent back and joined to the thumb. The spaces between the tips of the fingers have been left in unset plaster. The underside of the fingers and hand is outlined in deep red glass. The flesh tones are rendered by means of white marble, grey Proconnesian marble, and three shades of pink marble. The shadows are expressed in yellow-green and pale green glass. The Scroll The scroll (partially destroyed), which was held in the Child's left hand, consists of a vertical strip, two to three rows of cubes wide, of mat white limestone; this is surrounded by two rows of Proconnesian white marble. The shadow line on the spectator's right is in two to three rows of pale turquoise glass, which also formed the circular opening at the top of the scroll. The Child's Feet (fig. 9) The right foot, covered except for the toes and the lower part of the instep, is shown in head-on foreshortening. The left foot is in profile (length 0.34 m.). The feet are shod in sandals, the sole of which consists of a double row of gold cubes, and the thongs of one row of gold, bordered with clear brown glass. The flesh tones comprise fine-grained white marble, Proconnesian white marble, and three tones of pink marble. The shadow line along the sole of the left foot is in light yellow-green and yellow-green glass. The right foot has a green shadow line separating the toes from the instep. The Child's Garments As in the case of the Virgin, there is no distinction in color between the tunic, of which the right sleeve and the portion covering the breast are visible,
122
CYRIL
MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
and the himation which envelops the rest of the body. The basic color is gold. The high-lighted or forward parts are in silver, the shadows in mat brown glass. Darker fold lines are in transparent glass (gold cubes placed on their side), which is mostly brown, sometimes greenish. The Throne (figs. Io, II) The throne on which the Virgin is seated is seen from the right and slightly from above. Owing to faulty perspective, its construction is not at once apparent. The horizontal seat is meant to be supported on two pairs of square posts, each pair being braced together by a cross-bar. The front post on the cas with the rear post on spectator's left has a ball base, but this is not the case the right. The right and left sections of the throne are differently proportioned (thus, the thickness of the seat is 0.2I to 0.245 m. on the left and 0.32 on the right) and the cabochon stones decorating the respective parts do not line up.10 There are some further inconsistencies which will be described below. The receding parts of the throne are made of a coarse granite which was originally of a brown color, but has now paled to a grey of unsuitable shade. The granite tesserae are of varying sizes up to 2 cm. long, and have been untidily set in horizontal rows, except in the cross-bar on the spectator's right, where they are set on the segment of a circle. Large and small tesserae have been used indiscriminately.1 The horizontal seat of the throne is outlined on the spectator's left side with the same grey granite, except that about two-thirds of the upper outline are in three rows of mixed brown glass, mat and clear. On the spectator's right, the front and back outlines of the top of the seat are in clear brown glass, while the sie of the seat and the lower front edge are outlined in granite. The front of the seat is decorated with cabochon stones, alternately rectangular and oval. Between each stone are three pearls set in a vertical row. The stones, which are made alternately of green and red glass tesserae, have silver mounts outlined in brown glass. The pearls are of Proconnesian marble and have shadows of brown glass. The left front post of the throne is outlined on the spectator's left with grey granite, except for the bottom 16 cm. of the outline which is in brown glass. The decoration of the post consists of two oval and two rectangular stones and ten pearls. The oval stones arectangular nare ones green. The red, the mounts are, once more, silver, but they are outlined with granite cubes. The four top pearls have brown glass shadows, the four middle pearls shadows of grey granite, and the two bottom pearls blue glass shadows. Of the two bottom 10In order to appear horizontal from below, the seat of the throne should have been drawn slightly convex. This was a procedure familiar to Byzantine mosaicists in the case of apses decorated with a monumental cross: cf. P. A. Underwood in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 13 (I959), p. 239. The side of the seat on the spectator's left (fig. io) does, in fact, dip slightly towards the edge and, consequently, does not line up with the horizontal rows of gold cubes in the background. On the right, however (fig. 11), the seat is horizontal and therefore nearly parallel to the lines formed by the gold tesserae of the background. This inconsistency further aggravates the imbalance between the two halves of the throne. 11The crumbly nature of this stone would have made it very difficult, in any case, for the tesserae to be cut to a uniform size.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
123
pearls, the one on the right is disproportionately big and its blue shadow cuts into the vertical outline of the post. The base of the post is outlined in dark blue glass. The front post on the spectator's right is decorated with a red oval stone and a pair of green rectangular stones, as well as with pearls. As we have said, these stones do not line up with those on the left-hand post for the reason that the seat of the throne is considerably wider and comes lower on the right side than it does on the left. The Cushions Two cushions are placed on the seat of the throne. Although the Virgin is meant to be resting on them, the cushions give the impression of being laid behind her back. The upper cushion has its lighted parts in white Proconnesian marble. Light shadows are in grey Proconnesian marble, medium shadows in pale turquoise glass, and heavy shadows in turquoise glass. The upper cushion is ornamented with ivy leaves in red glass tesserae. The greater part of this cushion on the spectator's right has been destroyed. The lower cushion has its high lights in yellow glass mixed with yellow-green glass. The main body of the cushion is in leaf-green glass, while medium shadows are in turquoise glass, partly decayed, and heavy shadows in dark blue glass. The Footstool (fig. 7) The footstool is shown in reverse perspective and is placed to the right of center with regard to the throne. The front of the footstool is 2.34 m. long at the base; the height of the side increases from 0.33 m. at the front to 0.365 at the rear. The front, like the top of the footstool, is gold, whereas the side is shaded in mat brown glass with a sprinkling of gold cubes. The outline is in dark blue glass, the upper one of the front side being the heaviest (five rows wide). The lower horizontal and two vertical outlines of the front side are four rows wide, the lateral outlines three rows wide. The back of the footstool has no blue outline. The front and side of the footstool are decorated with cabochon stones and pearls. The front has a diamond-shaped stone in the middle and three rectangular stones on either side; the side, an oval stone in the center flanked by two rectangular stones. The mounts of the stones are gold with blue outlines. As on the throne, the stones are red and green alternately, but here there is an interesting refinement: some of the stones (the third, fifth, sixth, and seventh counting from the left) are in two tones of the same color. In the case of red stones, the deeper tone is provided by red glass, the lighter by means of cubes of different colors that were dipped in red lead paint. In the case of green stones, leaf-green and blue-green glass provided the two tones needed. Observation of this segment of the mosaic makes it possible to determine the sequence in which the work was carried out. The figure of the Virgin and Child was made first. Secondly, the mosaicist made the blue outline of the
124
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
footstool, the tesserae of which conform to the lower line of the Virgin's stola. Thirdly, he bordered the upper and lower outlines of the front of the footstool with four horizontal rows of gold cubes. Next, he set the stones and pearls, working from right to left and from bottom to top: note that the mount of the central diamond-shaped stone is, for lack of room, amputated at the top, as are also the two upper pearls,on one on each side of it. Finally, the mosaicist filled in the gold ground between the stones and pearls. The Gold Background of the Apse Semidome An irregular area of gold ground surrounding the Virgin and Child was set in the same bed of plaster as the figure. The limits of this area are indicated by a suture which is, for the most part, easily discernible (fig. 3). Anticipating our detailed observations on this suture (see infra, p. I40), we may proceed to describe the probable sequence in which the mosaics of the semidome were made. In the first place, the entire tlinesemidome, emiomerformed roughly above the the of the was covered a with windows, by tops preliminary coating of plaster an of appreciable containing proportion chopped straw. Upon this first coating was laid a second thickness of plaster corresponding to the area intended for the figural composition and allowing sufficient room all round it. The settingbed of finer plaster was then applied, probably in smaller sections, although the boundaries between them cannot be traced. As usual, the artist proceeded to paint upon the setting-bed the subject of his composition, and in so doing he colored yellow the background forming the immediate surround of the figure. The figural mosaic was then made, starting at the top and working downward. The composition turned out to be somewhat taller than originally envisaged, with the result that its lower extremity came to the very edge of the bed of plaster that had been laid and, incidentally, rather too close to the top of the central window. It may be observed that the rear right post of the throne came so close to the edge of the plaster that its corner had to be rounded off (figs. 3 and ii). Possibly, additional patches of plaster had to be added to accommodate parts of the composition, and this may explain some of the irregularities we have observed, e.g., the change in the material used for the outline at the lower extremity of the left-hand post of the throne. A trim of gold tesserae, two to four rows wide, was then made round the entire composition, after which the mosaicist proceeded to cover with gold as much of the plaster bed as had been laid. He knew that the gold cubes had to be set on concentric curves, but he did not take the trouble of marking out exact setting-lines, with the result that he sometimes misjudged the direction of the lines and had to correct himself by inserting wedge-shaped patches of gold mosaic. After this process had been completed, the remainder of the conch was covered with a second, and then a third layer of plaster. This time the craftsman took a center point immediately above the Virgin's head and, probably using a long cord attached to a pin, marked out a number of concentric semicircles. A small area of loss to the south of the composition and more or less level with the Child's head has enabled us to ascertain that these
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
125
guide-lines were indicated in red paint upon the second coat of plaster. The over-all, gold background was laid with the help of these guide-lines, but with the inevitable result that the rows of tesserae did not exactly line up with those in the gold ground belonging to the immediate surround of the figure. The average size of the cubes used in the background is 5 to 6 mm. square, and there are roughly 225 of them per 10 cm. square. Mixed with the gold is an appreciable proportion of silver tesserae. This admixture is least in the immediate surround of the figure and more considerable in the over-all background, but there is no consistency about the proportion of silver, which in places is as much as 10 percent, in others almost nil. In addition to the silver, there is also a sprinkling of red glass cubes in the over-all background, a peculiarity we have also observed in the mosaic of St. Ignatius Theophoros in the north tympanum. The underpainting on the setting-bed of the over-all gold background (as distinct rom that of the gold surround of the figure) is red. 2. THE INSCRIPTION (figs. 13, 14)
The face of the apse semidome was occupied by an inscription commemorating the restoration of religious images after the defeat of Iconoclasm. The full text, preserved in the Palatine Anthology (I. I) was as follows: oi -rr?avoi KaOeThov evOa8' "AS ElKovas avaKclrs E?crT'ACoavUEOpElS Tr&Aiv.
That is: "The images which the impostors had cast down here pious emperors have again set up." Today, only the very beginning and end of the inscription remain: + ACO..... BEICIAAIN.12 The same letters were uncovered by the Fossati brothers in 1847-49, whose record of them is, however, rather confused.13 The identification of the preserved fragments with the distich in the Anthology is due to Antoniades.14 The inscription was written in capital letters 0.40 m. high on a gold band 0.54 to 0.57 m. wide. The letters are in dark blue glass. The background is
gold with a small admixture of silver, set in widely spaced rows of angled
tesserae, as was often done on vertical surfaces. The setting-bed under the
gold was painted yellow. For the juncture between the inscription and the garland borders on either side of it, see infra, p. I38f. 3. THE GARLAND
BORDERS
(figs.
14-24,
41)
Sumptuous garland borders were placed on either side of the commemorative inscription (i.e., one running round the soffit of the bema arch along its eastern edge, the other convex and folded over the rim of the apse semidome), along the base of the apse semidome, and under both archangels at the springing of the bema arch: roughly seventy running meters in all, of which about forty-four are preserved, either entirely or in part. Furthermore, a similar garland border 12
A tiny portion of the lower curve of an epsilon is visible before the beta in the tail end of the inscription. 13 See Mango, Materials, p. 82. 14
-ri 'Ayicas Zoias, "EKqpacrJS
III (Leipzig-Athens,
I909), p. 29ff.
126
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
at a somewhat smaller scale, and again convex, folds round the interior edges of the five windows of the apse, totalling about thirty-one running meters.14' The garland borders are delimited by a double outline normally consisting of three rows (two round the windows) of terracotta tesserae or marble tesserae dipped in burnt umber paint, and of two rows of white marble tesserae. Within this outline the background is gold with an admixture of silver cubes. The garland itself consists of a dark blue sheaf bordered on either side with a row of green bay leaves. The leaves are inclined in the direction in which the garland is proceeding, and the tips of the leaves are, here and there, bent over backwards. Round the blue sheaf is twined spirally a silver (occasionally white marble) ivy vine. Attached to this vine, in addition to normal spadeshaped leaves, are five-petalled flowers, clusters of berries, and "pears," all usually in silver. The space between each turn of the vine is filled with a variety of vegetal motifs, to wit, curving stems bearing pomegranates, pears, and circular flowers on short straight stems. The pears and flowers are usually arranged in rows of three. In the intervening spaces are sprinkled circular berries, either red or gold. Wherever the garland has to turn at a right angle, it is contained in a kind of L-shaped tube which gives the appearance of being made of silver. The rotundity of this tube is indicated by parallel bands of colors, usually white limestone or marble in the middle, shading off on either side first to silver, then to turquoise, then to dark blue. The ends of the tube are folded over, and there is a two-tone red ribbon twined round the tube. If we conceive the garlands as proceeding out of these corner tubes, there is a center point at which two converging garlands meet. This point is occupied by a star-shaped flower, such as the one directly under the south archangel (fig. 41). Another, incompletely preserved, flower remains at the apex of the bema arch (fig. 24). The flower under the archangel has a center of turquoise glass, four trefoil petals in red glass and terracotta, and four pointed gold petals. A similar flower occupies the apex of each of the five windows of the apse. The window borders are of similar design, except that the horizontal band at the base of the windows (it is preserved in its entirety under window No. 3, and in part under window No. 2),15being only about 0.25 m. wide, has the sheaf without the green leaves (figs. i8, I9, 23, 26). In windows 2 and 3 it is clearly seen that the vertical bands of border were made first, and the horizontal band next on a separate bed of plaster, with a straight joint on either side. Given the considerable length of the garland borders, it is only natural that we should encounter in them some differences of detail. The most carefully executed stretch is at the base of the apse semidome, between windows i and 3 (fig. 22). The length of border between window No. i and the face of the apse (fig. 21) is of somewhat looser construction: the round flowers and pears 14a In mosaic little remains of the convex border around the western edge of the bema arch, where it opens into the great eastern semidome of the nave; excepting at its lower ends, where the tubelike angle of the garland border turns upward, the border was geometric in form; its relation to the apse mosaics will be discussed below (pp. I32, I37f). 16 For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the windows by number, counting from the north.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
127
AT ISTANBUL
(which here have long stems) are not lined up, as elsewhere, in neat vertical rows, and there are no pomegranates. In spite of such inconsistencies, there is an undeniable uniformity both of technique and materials in all of the garland borders. Especially noticeable is the extensive use throughout the garlands and always in the same contexts of painted tesserae. In addition to the red and white outline, these occur in the ribbons that are looped round the corner tubes, in the pears, the pomegranates, the stems and in the small round berries. The latter appear to have been further touched up with red lead paint, as is also the case with the feet of the south archangel. 4. THE WINDOW SOFFITS
(fig. 23)
The soffits of the five windows of the are covered with plain gold mosaic, ofapse a for band of ornament next to the marble window grilles. except geometric The ornamental band (width 0.27 m.) consists of X's alternating with diamonds (fig. 25). These motifs are placed on a background of dark blue glass. The X's, which are silver, have little crossbars near the end of each arm and a silver almond or teardrop between each arm. The diamonds are in red, gold, and green glass, and have a silver stepped motif attached to each side. The geometric border is separated from the gold ground of the window soffits by a double row of silver tesserae. No natural stones are used in the mosaic decoration of the soffits. 5.
THE SOUTH ARCHANGEL
For the sake of convenience we shall refer to this archangel as Gabriel, in accordance with the Byzantine custom of depicting Gabriel on the left hand and Michael on the right hand of the Virgin in the apse of a church. Gabriel, clad in red buskins, tunic, and chlamys, is represented standing frontally, holding a staff in his right hand and a crystal globe in his left (fig. 41). The left shoulder, a little less than half of the halo, the upper part of both wings, and the top of the staff have been destroyed. Originally, the staff may have formed part of a labarum inscribed with the trisagion, as was the case in the Dormition Church at Nicaea. Dimensions Width of gold background from border to border Total height of figure excluding halo Maximum width of figure Diameter of halo Height of head Length of eyes Length of mouth Length of right foot from heel to toe Diameter of globe
4.64 m. 4.90
3.48 1.18 o.66 0.09 o.o8 0.44
0.59
128
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
The Halo The halo is outlined with four rows of red glass tesserae. The field of the halo is gold, set concentrically, with a very slight admixture of silver cubes. The Head and Neck (fig. 43) The archangel's abundant hair is gathered round the head in thick plaits and falls down the back of the neck, showing over the right collarbone. The lighter strands are in yellow glass at the top and on the right of the figure, and in yellow-green glass on the left. The darker strands are in olive, mat brown, and clear brown glass, and there are a few lines of black glass. High lights are provided by occasional lines of gold tesserae. Over the middle of the forehead the hair is arranged in a flower-like form. The contour of the hair is outlined against the gold of the halo by one or two rows of pale turquoise glass. The hair is tied with a ribbon of white marble tesserae, its ends (only one end is preserved) fluttering behind the head. The eyebrows, markedly arched, are in mat brown glass, the upper eyelids in black and mat brown glass, the lower eyelids in mat brown glass with a line of olive shadow underneath. The pupils of both eyes have been gouged out. The whites of the eyes have high lights in white limestone, the rest being in off-white milky glass. The flesh tones used in the face and neck are fine-grained white marble, Proconnesian white marble, Proconnesian grey, cream marble (used very sparingly), and two or three tones of pink marble. Extensive use is made, furthermore, of off-white milky glass which has sometimes a bluish, sometimes a purplish tinge; this forms the right outline of the face, the left outline of the forehead, the pockets under the eyes, the area of light shadow to the left of the nose, etc. Olive glass is used for strong shadows to the left of the nose, round the eyes, the dimple under the nose, and for the shadow under the mouth, where it is mixed with lighter shades of glass and with pink marble. The tip of the nose and parting of the mouth are in deep red glass. Vermilion glass is used in the lips (in the lower lip it is mixed with pink marble) and one line of it forms the end of the chin. The nostrils are in black glass. No green or yellow-green occurs in the archangel's face. The shadow under the chin is in olive and purple-brown glass. On the left side of the neck an effect like that of a cast shadow is obtained by a mixture of pink marble and yellow-green glass. This is the only part of the mosaic which may be called impressionistic; elsewhere the modelling, though relatively free, is nevertheless linear. The left collarbone is indicated by a shadow of yellow-green glass. The Right Hand (fig. 44) The upper line of the thumb and fingers as well as the lower line of the thumb muscle are in yellow-green glass. The lower line of the thumb and fingers is in mat brown glass. Each finger has two wrinkles on the second joint
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
129
in red glass. There are two odd, red glass cubes and one vermilion cube on the muscle of the thumb. The nails, not outlined, are in white Proconnesian marble. The flesh tones are in white Proconnesian marble, cream marble, and two tones of pink marble. The Left Hand (fig. 45) The shadow on the wrist, the upper line of the thumb (in two rows) and the lower outline of the hand are in yellow-green glass. The fingers and fingernails are outlined in deep red glass which also forms one wrinkle line below each nail. The lower line of the thumb and the iupper line of the palm are in mat brown glass. The flesh tones are in white Proconnesian marble, cream marble, three tones of pink marble, and purple-grey granite. Apart from the heavy green outline, the flesh tones of the thumb (which is meant to be seen through the crystal of the globe) are the same as those of the rest of the hand. The Feet (fig. 48) The feet are shod in buskins, ornamented both on the heel and the toe with clusters of round and almond-shaped pearls done in white limestone. The buskins themselves are in two tones: the shaded parts are in deep red glass, the lighted parts in terracotta tesserae that were dipped in red lead paint. Either simultaneously with the making of the mosaic, or, more probably, at a later date, the terracotta cubes were further touched up with red paint which covers the interstices between them and is smeared over some of the red glass cubes. The toe of the left foot impinges on the trim of the garland border; the significance of this fact will be discussed below, on p. I40. The Wings (figs. 46, 47) The wings are outlined along the top and about two-thirds down the sides with two or three rows of turquoise glass. The general color scheme of the wings is the following: the upper and outer portions are in brown tones, the inner portion is in white, grey, and green tones. The bottom feathers are dark blue and black. The stone tesserae used in the wings are cut big, as they are also in the garments. The inner (lighter) part of the wings is in grey Proconnesian marble lit with vertical rows of white Proconnesian marble. The tips of the feathers are here in turquoise glass shading off to light turquoise. The surface of the turquoise cubes has deteriorated. In the outer (darker) part of the wings the following materials are used: yellow-green glass, purple-grey granite, khaki-brown granite, clear brown and mat brown glass (the two latter in the tips of the feathers). The granite has in many places worn off, forming grooves in the surface of the mosaic. The long, bottom feathers are in blue glass mixed with black glass. The treatment of both wings is identical, except that the left wing has patches of black glass filling the ends of the brown feathers in the darker outer area, thus producing a more shaded effect. 9
130
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
The Tunic The archangel's lower garment is a beltless tunic (divitision),16presumably made of silk. It is to be seen in the sleeves, in the narrow slit near the left edge where the chlamys is open, and at the lower right. The sleeves are tight-fitting over the wrist and forearm, but expand to a considerable width over the elbow. Sewn on to the tunic are a number of elements decorated with gold thread and embroidery, viz. the collar, hem, and cuffs. Except for the high lights on the folds of the right sleeve, which are made of grey Proconnesian marble, the entire tunic is in glass tesserae. The dominant color is light turquoise; the shadows and fold lines are in turquoise, cobalt blue, and dark blue. The cuffs are plain gold with fold lines in mat brown glass. The lower outline of the left cuff, three rows wide, is in clear brown glass. The gold collar is largely hidden by the chlamys, except for the patch over the right shoulder. This is decorated with a diamond design, only half of which shows, containing two concentric circles and a little square attached to each side. The design as well as a double border at the bottom of the patch are in two rows of red glass. The hem of the tunic is gold decorated with a rinceau in red glass. Within each convolution of the rinceau is a triple leaf with two tendrils curving downward. The falling fold of the chlamys divides the hem into two unequal parts, and these parts do not completely match. The smaller section on the angel's right is 0.59 m. high; the section on the left is 0.565 m. high. Furthermore, the upper and lower edging of the hem are different in the two sections: on the right, the upper edging consists of two lines of red glass separated by a band of gold three rows wide, the lower edging of two lines of red separated by five rows of gold. The left section has no red in the upper edging, but, instead, one row of mat brown glass and above it one row of gold; the bottom edging has two lines of red separated by three rows of gold. On the angel's left the tunic is meant to have a lateral slit at the bottom. This slit is edged with a gold stripe terminating in a circular segmentum (diameter 0.27 m.) of which only one half is visible. The segmentum,like the shoulder patch, is decorated with a diamond containing a circle. To each side of the diamond is attached a little square. This design is in single rows of red glass. The Chlamys The chlamys, which is ankle-long, is decorated with two gold tablia and is clasped with a fibula over the right shoulder. The left tablion covers the breast, while the right one is hidden behind the figure except for a narrow strip that appears beneath the right elbow. 16On this garment, see especially D. F. Beljaev, Byzantina, II (St. Petersburg, 1893), p. 5off.; N. P. Kondakov, OEerkii zametki (Prague, 1929), pp. 223, 232. Note that in the ninth century the divitision, chlamys, and red buskins constituted the emperor's official costume. Cf. the account of the
coronation of Basil I: Kct ol wTpalrT6alroOi vyKaVTrS [sic] Kai TCayyica vvucraavTOVBaaoiAElov, g8alTriatov 6o-ris paacv [= "having put on," not abiecta chlamyde] -rqv XXai?ja GrW-EaViS TOS TOU6a os paal ^co
[Michael III]: Georgius Monachus, along with Theophanes Cont., Bonn ed., p. 832 f.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
131
The tablia are gold with a slight admixture of silver cubes, while the rest of the chlamys is done entirely in local stones cut into rather large tesserae (up to i cm. square), namely, white Proconnesian marble for the high lights, grey Proconnesian marble, two kinds of decayed granite, one purple-grey, the other khaki-brown, and finally a slate-grey stone with a thin white vein (known locally as Beykoz stone, after the village of Beykoz on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus). Fold lines usually change color when they go across the tablia: grey stone becomes red glass; purple-grey in one place turns to khaki-brown, while in others it does not change color. Both kinds of granite have been eroded, forming grooves in the surface of the mosaic. The fibula is outlined in Beykoz stone. Its center is in white marble. The Staff This consists of five vertical rows of gold outlined on the angel's right with one row of red glass and three on the left. The lower tip of the staff (to a height of 0.29 m. from the bottom) was originally silver, but the heads of the cubes have largely disappeared exposing clear glass of a pale honey or greenish color. The Orb (fig. 45) The orb which the archangel holds in his left hand is outlined, starting from the outside, with two rows of dark blue glass and three rows of turquoise glass. Two wavy lines running across the middle of the globe are each in three rows of turquoise glass. All the turquoise glass has surface patina due to deterioration. The high lights in the upper half of the orb are in white Proconnesian marble. Immediately above thethe umb is an elongated patch which appears to have been originally silver. All but a few of the silver heads have, however, fallen off, exposing clear glass of a pale greenish color. The rest of the orb is mostly in pale turquoise glass. 6. THE NORTH ARCHANGEL (figs. 50-52)
Only tiny portions of this archangel remain, namely: four feathers of the right wing, part of the left foot, part of the ornamented hem of the tunic, the tip of the staff, the tip of one feather of the left wing, and, much higher up the arch, an insignificant fragment of the halo. The execution of these fragments is in all respects similar to that of the Archangel Gabriel. The buskin is in two shades of red, the lighted parts being in terracotta, the darker parts in red glass. The pearls on the toe of the buskin are in white limestone. The staff was in five vertical rows of gold, outlined with one row of red glass on the angel's right and three on the left. The tip of the staff, to a height of O.I9 m., was in silver, but the heads of most of the silver tesserae have flaked off, exposing clear glass. The feathers are in clear brown, pale turquoise, turquoise, dark blue, and black glass. The hem of the tunic is gold with a double, red line at the bottom and traces of a rinceau pattern, also in red. For the gold background, see infra, p. I37. 9*
132
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
7. THE SOFFIT OF THE BEMA ARCH
Except for the two archangels, the soffit of the bema arch was covered with plain gold mosaic, a large area of which has survived at the crown of the arch (fig. 54).17 This field of gold is delimited on the east side by a garland border and on the west side by a geometric border of which only four small fragments survive: one near the north springing of the arch to the left of the Archangel Michael (figs. 50, 51), the second and third near the apex of the arch (fig. 53), and the fourth slightly above the level of Gabriel's head (fig. 55). Owing to its fragmentary condition, this border was covered by the Fossatis with a garland painted in oils. Originally, the geometric border curved round onto the western face of the bema arch. The design was basically the same as the one in the windows of the apse, i.e., X's alternating with diamonds. The X's were gold, and each arm terminated in a trefoil. A heart-shaped motif, outlined with four rows of gold, filled the right angle between each pair of the X's arms. The diamonds had a wide, gold border within which was inscribed a circle; inside the circle was a stepped square in red glass. Attached to each side of the diamond was a semicircle outlined in silver, containing a gold stepped motif on a red ground. The over-all background of the design was dark blue, the cubes being rather widely spaced. The blue background was separated from the field of gold in the soffit of the bema arch by three rows of silver tesserae. The very same kind of border occurs elsewhere in St. Sophia, a fact to which we shall return later (infra, p. I48). We may note meanwhile that the geometric border we have described is made exclusively of glass tesserae, namely, red, blue, and green, in addition to gold and silver. 8. COLOR CHART OF TESSERAE18
Metallic
Virgin & Child
Archangels
Garlands
I. Gold
yes
yes
yes
2. Silver
yes
yes
yes
17 Cut into the soffit is a circular hole extending vertically to a depth of 1.35 m. It was probably used for the suspension of a lamp. 18 It should be borne in mind that the materials used by the Byzantine mosaicist, whether stone or glass, were never of a completely uniform color. To take one example, Proconnesian marble is white and has a grey or blue-grey vein. Naturally, there is considerable variation both in the whiteness of the white and in the intensity and shade of the grey, not to mention the gradations between the two. It would be pointless and confusing, however, to list all the slight differences of shade that may be observed. What we can confidently say is that in the apse Proconnesian marble was consciously used for two values only, namely, white and grey. Other contributing factors in the appearance of stones are weathering and the effect of repeated plastering over and cleaning; while the smalts (the pigmentation of which was never mechanically uniform to start with) have undergone patination to varying degrees, this, as we have said, being especially the case with turquoise glass. In the following table, therefore, we have listed only those colors which, in our opinion, were deliberately used as such by the mosaicists. This explains the relatively limited number of entries in our list as contrasted, for example, with the color chart that has recently been drawn up for St. Sophia, Kiev, listing I77 shades: V. N. Lazarev,
Mozaiki Sofii Kievskoj (Moscow, I960),
p. I44ff.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA Virgin & Child
AT ISTANBUL
133
Archangels
Garlands
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes no no no no
yes no no no no no yes yes
yes
yes
yes
I3. I4. I5. I6. I7. I8.
Cobalt blue Dark blue Black Light olive Olive Purple-brown 19. Clear brown19
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes
yes no yes no no no no no
20. Mat brown20
yes
yes
no
21. Milky off-white
yes
yes
no
22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
White limestone Proconnesian white marble Proconnesian grey marble Fine-grained white marble Cream marble 27. Pink marble (3 shades) 28. Purple-grey granite21 29. Khaki-brown granite 30. Slate-grey (Beykoz) stone
yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes no
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
yes yes no no no no no no no
3I. Terracotta
no
yes
yes
yes no
yes no
yes yes
Glasses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Io.
Deep red Vermilion Yellow Yellow-green Light yellow-green Light green Leaf green Blue-green
ii. Turquoise 12. Pale turquoise
Stones
Painted cubes 32. Red lead (vermilion or pink) 33. Burnt umber
19Obtained by turning gold tesserae on their sides. The color of the clear glass varies considerably from amber to greenish brown. The gold heads are occasionally visible; at times, however, the mosaicists appear to have used trimmings that had no gold leaf on them from the edges of gold glass sheets. 20 Obtained by turning gold cubes upside down. The melted glass seems to have been poured on a sandy surface so that when it hardened its underside acquired a mat, slightly pitted appearance. 21 Both Nos. 28 and 29 are weathered granites consisting mainly of quartz, feldspar, and mica. We are indebted for this identification to Mr. R. J. Davis of the British Museum (Natural History).
134
CYRIL
MANGO and ERNEST
CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE
J. W. HAWKINS
OF THE MOSAICS
The mosaics we have described belong to two periods and, as far as we could ascertain, to two periods only. With a view to establishing certain criteria which distinguish the work of the first period from that of the second, we may start our investigation with the windows of the apse, all five of which exhibit more or less the same conditions. First, however, a few words should be said about the form of the windows. The steeply pitched sills which we found in all five windows dated from the Fossati restoration (figs. 26, 27, and text fig. A). A cutting made by us in the central window revealed the original sill which was considerably lower and less inclined than the Fossati sill. Subsequently, all five sills were lowered by us to their original level. In the course of this operation several interesting facts came to light.
bed(5illNo.2) corrugated plaster
A. Central Window of Apse Section, looking South
APSE MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
135
The marble window grilles are unquestionably of Justinianic date and bear the following masons' marks: G in windows i and 4; Poin windows 2 and 3 (twice in each case); and .A in window 5 (twice).22 Originally, however, the grilles had one further row of lights at the bottom, which Fossati's workmen cut off, and the horizontal bottom rail was correspondingly lower (fig. A). As a result, the apse mustt have admitted more light in Byzantine times than it does today.23 The stumps of the vertical bars pertaining to the bottom row of lights have survived in windows 3 and 4. A memento of the Fossati alterations, duly dated, is inscribed on the grille of window No. 2.24 The original sill was neatly plastered and painted yellow ochre with a black border all round it (marked i in fig. 26). Over this was later laid a corrugated bed of plaster containing a good deal of chopped straw (figs. 23, 27). The treatment of this bed is similar to that of a preliminary coat of plaster intended for mosaic.25 Although no tesserae were found here, it is pe possible tthat this sill (which we may call sill No. 2) was once covered with gold mosaic which would have reflected a considerable amount of light onto the figure of the Virgin in the conch. Overlaying sill No. 2 was a deposit of accumulated earth having a crackled surface due to the weight of the filling that was later laid upon it. On top of this accumulation we found several fragments of window glass, two of which had a raised rim and clearly belonged to a circular bull's eye. It should be noted that in I7Io Loos showed the apse windows and, indeed, practically all the other windows of the building as having circular lights.26 Since the marble grilles (which have square lights) could not have been moved from their original positions, we may suppose that there were double windows in Turkish times. The third and last sill dates from the 1847 repairs. A wooden beam was now laid across the inner opening of the window to contain the mass of broken bricks and plaster which Fossati's workmen used as a filling to raise the level of the sill at a steeply inclined plane. When we proceed to examine the mosaics in the window soffits, we notice in the first instance that the area of plain gold which fills the greater part of each soffit is integral with the geometric border next to the marble grille (figs. A and 25). The two, as we have said, are separated by a double row of silver tesserae. This silver trim continues below the level of the Fossati sill, and turns at an obtuse angle to run parallel to sill No. i. The narrow strip between the original sill and the horizontal silver trim is in some places unset plaster 22
Identical or similar marks occur in other sixth-century contexts: )6- elsewhere in St. Sophia (Antoniades, op. cit., I, fig. 29); Er and I in the Binbirdirek cistern. On the latter, see A. Choisy, L'art de batir chez les byzantins (Paris, I883), p. 172; id. in Revue archdologique,N.S., XXXI (I876), p. 245; P. Forchheimer and J. Strzygowski, Die byzant. Wasserbehdltervon Konstantinopel (Vienna, I893), p. 249; K. Wulzinger
in BZ, XX (I9I3), p. 463 ff.
The same holds good of the eastern semidome whose windows were filled up during the Fossati restoration to a height of about 0.50 m. on the interior side (see fig. 40, top right corner). 24 After a number of letters which we are unable to interpret, the inscription reads: ... OM8PA8 MEPEMETI (? Turkish dmiirlii = having a
life) XATZIMHXAAIE (Turkish meramet = small 23
repair): ETOX: I847.
26 It exhibits, however, the peculiarity that small chips of clear glass were embedded in the ridges formed by the plaster. 26
Mango, Materials,
fig. 9go; cf. figs. 7, 22, 40, 41, 49, 56, 91.
136
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
painted red, while in others there are two to four rows of blue glass tesserae running underneath the silver trim and continuing, as it were, the blue background of the geometric border (figs. 28, 29). When, however, we come to the garland border on the inner reveal of the windows, there is clear evidence of disturbance. Examining more closely the juncture between the gold ground of the soffits and the garland, we find that here, too, there originally existed a silver trim: portions of it still survive in the south soffits of windows 2 and 5 and in the north soffit of window i. In the latter as well as in the north soffit of window 2 there are, withi the silver trim, small areaasof dark blue tesserae which evidently pertained to the background of an earlier border, later replaced by the garland: this is clearly seen in the lower left corner of figure 28 where the dark blue tesserae form a vertical band five rows wide. The earlier border was surely geometric like the one partially preserved in the semidome of the northeast exedra, in the second window, counting from the apse (fig. 39). We are confronted, therefore, with the work of two periods: the geometric border next to the window grilles and the gold groud of the soffits belong to Phase i; the garland border on the inner reveal to Phase 2. We may further note that Phase i mosaic is associated with sill No. I, and Phase 2 mosaic with sill No. 2. The corrugated bed of plaster, which is all that remains of sill No. 2, is indeed integral with the plaster rendering underneath the horizontal garland border which runs at the base of the central window (this, as we have said, being the only window that preserves the horizontal garland border in its entirety). Since there is no evidence that Phase i mosaic replaces an earlier decoration (or, for that matter, that sill No. i is not the first sill), the is a rima facie casethe for thinking inat it pertains to Justinian's time. The technical characteristics of Phase i mosaic in the window soffits are the following: The gold ground is made up of tesserae 5 or 6 mm. square, set very close in neat rows so that there are about 215 to 225 tesserae per 10 cm. square. The painting on the setting-bed is red underneath the gold ground. There is an unusually high proportion of triangular tesserae often fitted together in pairs in lieu of square tesserae.27There is no deliberate admixture of silver in the gold ground. The colored geometric design is made entirely of glass tesserae (red, green, and dark blue, in addition to gold and silver) to the exclusion of natural stone and terracotta. The colored cubes are cut rather larger (up to i cm. square) and set more loosely than the metallic ones. The ornamental borders are regularly separated from the gold ground by a silver trim. Bearing these characteristics in mind, we may proceed to examine the mosaics in the semidome of the apse. Here the presence of Phase i work is seen to be limited to the area between the windows, as shown in figures 17-20 and figures B and C. In each interfenestration (if we may coin such a word) Phase i mosaic starts more or less level with the interior line of the window 27 This is apparently also the case in the sixth-century mosaics of the narthex. Whittemore speaks of "instances where the workman in following his pattern even assembled the fragments of each broken cube before setting it in its position": The Mosaics of St. Sophia ... Preliminary Report on the First Year's Work (I933), p. I2.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
137
sills and it never goes much above the crowns of the windows. In most places there is a suture dividing Phase i from later work;28where no suture is clearly discernible, it is nevertheless possible to distinguish Phase i work (we are concerned here exclusively with gold ground) from later gold mosaic by the frequent use of triangular tesserae in the former and by the presence of an admixture of silver tesserae in the latter. With regard to the size and closeness of the tesserae, no distinction can be drawn between the two phases. Probable boundaries of juncture are indicated by a broken line in figs. I7-20. It is worth noting that no Phase i gold mosaic seems to have survived between the end windows (Nos. i and 5 respectively) and the face of the apse semidome. The original border round the window openings-this, as we have said, was once more trimmed with two rows of silver surely geometric-was tesserae against the gold ground of the semidome. This silver trim was almost entirely removed when the garland borders were made, but small traces of it remain on the south side of window No. 2 (fig. 18). When we turn our attention to the soffit of the bema arch, we discover that the large area of plain gold mosaic at the crown of the arch shows all the characteristics of Phase I work. As we have said, this expanse of gold is delimited on the eastgarlantd side by one of the agrnd on the west side by bborders a geometric border of which only a few fragments survive. We can now make the following observations: I. The geometric border is contemporary with the gold ground that fills the soffit of the arch (cf. figs. 53, 55). The two are, once more, separated by a line of silver which in this case is three rows wide. The border itself, like the one in the window soffits, is made exclusively of glass tesserae, the colors used being also the same (red, blue, and green, plus gold and silver). 2. The garland border on the east side of the arch was clearly cut into Phase i gold ground. The juncture between the two elements forms a somewhat ragged line: in places Phase I gold comes right up to the red outline of the garland border, in others it was cut further back and the intervening space filled with gold cubes. The presence of Phase i gold background can also be detected round the figures of both archangels, the areas in question being indicated in figs. 42, 51, 52. It would seem that a rough sketch of the archangels was made on the preexisting gold ground, after which the necessary space was cut out for the insertion of the new mosaics. A few stretches of Phase i silver trim have survived in places, namely, a run o.60 m. long to the right (west) of Gabriel, starting 2.50 m. above the cornice (fig. 47); another run, 0.17 m. long, to the left of Gabriel, I.90 m. above the cornice (fig. 46), and, on the north side of the soffit, a horizontal stretch, only o.io m. long, embedded in the upper red outline of the fragmentary garland (fig. 51).29 28In these sutures we have often found a black deposit. This has been analyzed by Miss Joyce Plesters of the National Gallery, London, who kindly informs us that it is neither a pigment nor an adhesive, but in all probability candle soot that was wafted up from the ground. We have not found this deposit in seams dividing separate areas of Phase 2 work. 29 This last fragment of silver trim, together with a small area of gold mosaic next to it, would appear to be a repair patch of a date intermediate between Phase i and Phase 2.
138
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
It is particularly instructive to examine the reveal of the bema arch to the left (west) of the Archangel Michael (fig. 51). As on the opposite side, there was a horizontal run of the garland border under the archangel. On reaching the left corner of the panel, the garland forms a right angle and proceeds vertically upwards; but at a height of I.94 m. above the cornice the garland breaks off. Next comes a strip of unset plaster, about 5 cm. wide, which was smeared with black paint in Turkish times. This plaster is of a piece with the garland border, and it was trowelled upwards to meet the chopped off edge of the geometric border which now survives to a height of only 0.50 m. Above this we encounter a plaster repair, probably of Turkish date,30but previous to the Fossati restoration. There can be no doubt, once again, that the garland represents a later stage than the geometric border which was left in situ above the tubular motif at the springings of the arch. Setting aside those areas of mosaic that we have ascribed to Phase i, all the other mosaics in the apse and bema arch are of the same period, namely e aeled Phas2. are to this important conclusion by the following observations which we shall examine in turn: I. All of the figure mosaics ae homogeneous. In spite of a number of inconsistencies in the throne of the Virgin (not surprising in so large a composition, which was probably executed by several hands), there is no sign whatever of any later alterations. 2. All of the garland borders are contemporary. As we have already pointed out, they exhibit a remarkable uniformity in technique and in the use of materials. We refer in particular to tesserae dipped in burnt umber and red lead paint which occur extensively throughout the garlands and, as we have said, always in the same context. This may have been done in the case of the red-and-white outline with a view to economizing on red glass tesserae, and, in the body of the garland with a view to obtaining a lighter value of red without using vermilion glass, which was evidently in very short supply. It must be borne in mind that the use of tesserae dipped in paint is rather uncommon in Byzantine mosaics.31 3. The garlands are contemporary with the inscription on the face of the apse. In fact, the garland forming the inner surround of the inscription was set in the same bed of plaster as the inscription itself (fig. 30). The garland 30 The plaster is painted a mustard color and has a black border along the west edge of the bema arch. The reason for thinking that this repair is of the Turkish period is that it fills up the space between the two preserved fragments of the Archangel Michael and extends upwards above these fragments: had the repair been made in the late Byzantine period (say after the collapse of I346), some attempt would probably have been made to complete, if only in paint, the damaged parts of the archangel. Besides, as we have said, Michael appears to have been preserved in his entirety as late
as I7I0.
31 Other instances known to us are: in St. Sophia itself in the room off the southwest corner of the gallery, in the panel above the Imperial Door, the bishops of the north tympanum, the pendentive corner of a domical vault in the south gallery, and in the panel of the southwest vestibule (see supra, note 9)-all of these being of the ninth or tenth century; also in the fourteenth-century repair of the dome (white marble cubes dipped in burnt umber paint). Outside Constantinople: Centcelles in Spain (see T. Hauschild and H. Schlunk, "Vorbericht iiber die Arbeiten in Centcelles," Madrider Mitteilungen, II [196I], p. 140), Kanakaria, Kiti, and Livadia in Cyprus, Tsromi in Georgia (Amiranasvili,
op. cit., p. 24).
APSE MOSAICS OF ST. SOPHIA AT ISTANBUL
139
forming the outer surround was set separately, after the inscription had been completed, but evidently as part of the same continuous operation. This is quite evident at the tail-end of the inscription, where the gold background of the letters laps over the re-entrant angle between the face of the semidome and the soffit of the bema arch. The suture between the two stages of the work follows here the tops of the letters (fig. 14), at which point the gold background begins to curve round onto the soffit of the bema arch. The strip of gold background above the tops of the letters is integral with the outer garland, and was set so that the gold cubes should line up with the somewhat erratic rows of gold in the main part of the background. On the opposite side of the semidome, where the inscription begins, the boundary between the two successive stages coincides with the outer red border of the inscription (fig. I3). Note, incidentally, that both the outer and the inner red border are made of marble tesserae dipped in burnt umber paint. 4. The garland forming the inner surround of the inscription was made subsequent to, but in close conjunction with, the over-all gold background of the apse semidome. The sequence of work appears to have been roughly as follows. The over-all gold background of the semidome was made first and brought to an uneven line some 0.50 m. away from the forward edge of the semidome (figs. 3, 15, i6). In some places this provisional termination of the background was outlined with a row of the same gold cubes. Next, the garland was made and trimmed along its eastern edge with three rows of marble tesserae dipped in red paint. Two rows of white marble tesserae were then set next to the red trim, and the intervening strip between this white line and the previously made background of the semidome was filled with gold cubes in such a way as to pick up the lines of tesserae in the over-all background. As a result, a suture is observable, running rather unevenly at a distance varying from 2 cm. to 30 cm. east of the white line. The character of the gold mosaic on both sides of the suture is, however, identical, and it contains the same proportion of silver cubes. In order to establish this sequence of work, we cut two test holes in the north half of the semidome, next to areas where the mosaic was missing. In both instances we were able to observe first, that the boundary lines under discussion affect only the setting-bed, but not the two lower coats of plaster which appear to be continuous throughout, thus showing that we are dealing here with successive stages of one continuous campaign of work; second, that the break in the setting-bed corresponding to the suture in the gold background shows an underlap on the side of the overall background and an overlap on the side of the inserted strip, thus confirming our view that the former was done first and the latter second; and third, that there is another break in the setting-bed between the red and the white trim of the garland border, showing that the two were done separately. The white trim is, however, integral with the inserted strip of gold. The above observations apply only to the area of the semidome that is above the crowns of the windows. The suture in the gold background seems to disappear, on the south side of the apse, a little below the top of window
140
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
No. 5, and the space between that window and the garland on the edge of the semidome is filled with a uniform area of gold (fig. 20).32 The same appears to have been the case on the north side of the apse, but the loss of large areas of mosaic in that particular spot does not allow us to determine exactly how far down the suture extended (fig. I7). 5. The gold ground forming the immediate surround of the Virgin and Child was made before the over-all gold ground of the apse semidome. Removal of the two large plaster patches to the right and left of the Virgin gave us an opportunity to examine in cross-section the points at which the suture surrounding the entire figure runs into these areas of loss (figs. 31, 36). Three out of the four points examined (the fourth being inconclusive) gave unmistakable evidence that the bed of plaster pertaining to the gold background immediately surrounding the figure formed an underlap which was overlaid by the bed of plaster belonging to the over-all gold background (figs. 32-35, 37, 38). This observation applies not only to the setting-bed, but also to the intermediate bed; only the first layer, applied directly over the brickwork, appears to extend unbroken under both parts of the background. This completes the chain of evidence. Since thhaevie Virgin and Child was made to the prior general gold ground of the semidome, which was made before the border on the lip of the semidome, and since this garland border was garland made simultaneously with the ninth-century inscription (for the date of the inscription, see infra), it follows that the Virgin must have been made beforeeven if only a very short time before-the inscription. This conclusion accords with our observations on the mosaic of the Archangel Gabriel. Here, too, it is clear that the figure was made before the garland border th runs horizontally under it. The archangel's left foot cuts into the upper red outline of the garland border, and upon close examination we discover that the rows of terracotta tesserae forming the red line dip slightly down in an effort to accommodate the archangel's toe (fig. 48). Moreover, the archangel's left foot had already been outlined with one row of gold tesserae, and a patch of gold ground had been set to the spectator's right of it-perhaps, indeed, all round the toe. Owing to a slight miscalculation, the upper red outline of the border was drawn about an inch too high. The artisan making this outline, probably working from east to west, came upon the archangel's toe and may have had to remove some gold cubes that had previously been set to the left of the toe. But then he probably realized that the archangel's buskin and the red border he was working on were very nearly of the same color. In order to differentiate between the two, he retained the gold outline of the toe and even the small patch of gold to the right of it, although the latter cut into the red border. Setting aside all discussion of artistic style and iconography, we may add some further considerations which confirm our findings. 32 As shown in figure 20, there is a further seam just to the right of window 5. This probably delimits the patch of setting-bed plaster which was laid for the making of the garland surround of the window.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
141
As we have noted, silver tesserae were deliberately mixed into the gold background of Phase 2 (not of Phase i) work, the purpose being, presumably, to obtain a lighter, less brassy value of gold. To the best of our knowledge, this technique was used at Constantinople from about the eighth century until the end of the tenth. Whereas it is not found in the mosaics of St. Sophia that may reasonably be attributed to the sixth century, it is found in the apse of St. Irene (presumably eighth century),33 in the entire group of mosaics in St. Sophia that belongs to the late ninth or early tenth centuries, namely, the panel over the Imperial Door,34the portrait of the Emperor Alexander,35and the bishops in the north tympanum, as well as in areas of ornamental mosaics of the same period; finally, this technique occurs in the mosaic of the southwest vestibule which is probably of the late tenth century.36We have not found any silver in the gold backgrounds of later mosaics, such as the imperial portraits of the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Deisis in the south gallery, or in the mosaics of Fethiye Camii and Kariye Camii. In the second place, there is in all the mosaics we have ascribed to Phase 2 an undeniable consistency in the use of materials. We have already referred to the presence in both figures as well as in the garlands of tesserae that were dipped in red paint. Milky off-white glass, a most unusual material, occurs in the faces of both the Virgin and the archangel. Vermilion glass-once more a scarce material-is used in the same sparing manner and to produce the same effects in the heads of the archangel, the Virgin, and the Child. It is also found in the mosaic of St. John Chrysostom in the north tympanum, in the mosaic panel of the southwest vestibule, and in the fragmentary mosaics in the chapel of the southwest buttress.37 The absence of green shadows in the archangel's face is, of course, deliberate, with a view to producing an effect of ethereal pallor; but green glass is used in his neck and hands. Decayed granite of a grey-brown or khaki-brown color (a poor-grade material rather unsuitable for mosaic work) is used extensively both in the archangel's garments and in the Virgin's throne. The heads of the archangel and the Virgin are closely related in modelling, the shape of the oval, the drawing of the eyes and mouth. The proportion of the head to the rather large and heavily outlined nimbus is the same in both cases. There is also a close similarity in the drapery folds, especially those that are rectilinear and terminate in little hooks: compare the bottom part of the Virgin's stola with the archangel's tablion. We may quote further instances of such folds in the mosaic above the Imperial Door (Christ's garments), in the figure of St. Ignatius Theophoros in the north tympanum, in the tenth-century reliquary of the Sancta Sanctorum in Rome,38etc. 33 W. S. George, The Church of St. 34 Whittemore, The Mosaics of St.
Eirene at Constantinople (Oxford, 1912), p. 47. Sophia ... Preliminary Report on the First Year's Work, p. 22. 35 P. A. Underwood and E. J. W. Hawkins in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 15 p. I94. Here the (I96I), proportion of silver is as much as 30 per cent. 36 Whittemore, The Mosaics of St. Sophia ... Second Preliminary Report, p. 42. 37 Photographs of these mosaics are reproduced in Mango, Materials, figs. 36-38. 38 Reproduced,
e.g., by 0. Demus in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 14 (I960),
fig. 31 facing p. II9.
142
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
Mediaeval sources contain very little direct information on our mosaics. An attempt to collect and interpret the textual evidence has previously been made by one of us,39 but the conclusions expressed on that occasion are in need of correction. We shall, therefore, proceed to review the evidence once again. The first of the relevant texts is contained in the Pilgrimage of Antony, archbishop of Novgorod, who visited Constantinople in I200. He says that the painter Lazarus "for the first time represented in Constantinople, in the sanctuary of St. Sophia, the Holy Mother of God holding Christ, and two angels."40Lazarus flourished in the first half of the ninth century and we shall have more to say of him later. The second text requires lengthier analysis. It is a sermon of the Patriarch Photius delivered in St. Sophia on March 29, 867.41In the extant manuscripts this sermon is entitled "Of the same most-blessed Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, homily delivered from the ambo of the Great Church, on Holy Saturday, in the presence of the Christ-loving Emperor [lege Emperors], when the form of the Theotokos had been depicted and uncovered." The homily was indeed delivered, as is made clear by its text, in the presence of the Emperors Michael III and Basil I, and it deals with two noteworthy achievements, or triumphs, of the Orthodox cause. The first of these achievements was the conversion of a large body of heretics, the so-called Quartodecimans. The second, which the speaker regarded to be of far greater importance, was the uncovering or unveiling of an image of the Virgin and Child. Indeed, this image symbolized the definitive defeat of the Iconoclast heresy and the ceremonial inauguration of an Orthodox era: as the orator expresses it, "If one called this day the beginning and day of Orthodoxy (lest I say something excessive), one would not be far wrong." It is made clear that until that time St. Sophia had remained deprived of representational images: its "visual mysteries" had been scraped off by the Iconoclasts, and "it had not yet received the privilege of pictorial restoration" OrTTla (TirSyap ?iKovoUpyiKrjs avaorr Acboacos ouirro l(pEIV
TO biKaicola).
The interior of
the Great Church had looked melancholy, disfigured by the scars of heresy, shorn of its glory. But now that the image of the Theotokos had been restored, raised from the depths of oblivion, the images of the saints would rise in like fashion. In other words, an entire iconographic cycle was under execution or being planned. The sermon concludes with the wish that the two emperors should "consecrate the remainder of the church, too, with holy images." It must be admitted that Photius does not specify the location of the newly unveiled image of the Virgin, nor does he say that it was a mosaic. In describing BZ, XLVII (I954), P. 395ff. 40 Ed. Kh. Loparev, Pravoslavnyj Palestinskij Sbornik, XVII, 3 (St. Petersburg, 1899), p. 35: toi
pervjee napisal vo Carjegradjevo svjatjei Sofii vo oltari svjatuju Bogorodicu der'lSaguKhrista, i dva angela. 41
Ed. S. Aristarches,
(DcoTifoU ...
o6yot Kal 6lAialai, II (Constantinople,
1900), p. 294ff.; new ed.
by B. Laourdas, OcT-riov 6liAiai (Thessaloniki, 1959), p. I64ff.; English trans., The Homilies of -Photius Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass., I958), p. 286ff.
APSE
MOSAICS
OF ST. SOPHIA
AT ISTANBUL
143
and "the art of painting" (lcoyp&Tos it, he speaks of "colors" (TroT Xpcbloaaov) Terxvr),42from which some scholars have concluded
that the image was a
painted one.43Furthermore, the expressions he uses in speaking of the image appear at first sight somewhat inappropriate to the mosaic that is now in the apse. He says that the Virgin otKiVnTosEar-tKE,44which could be rendered either "stands motionless" or "is set up motionless;" and that the Christ Child was "reclining as an infant" (cos pp9pos&vaiKAv6poEvov).45 Taking these expres-
sions in their literal sense, one of us has previously suggested that Photius was referring not to a seated Virgin, but to a standing Hodegetria holding a reclining Infant in her arms, a type that was in fact used in the ninth century.46 Such an interpretation is not, however, mandatory, and it has rightly been pointed out that Photius' language is not inconsistent with the mosaic in the apse.47 The problem can now be formulated by means of the following alternatives: I. Photius is indeed speaking of a mosaic in the apse, but this was an earlier
mosaic which was later replaced by the one now in existence. 2. Photius is speaking not of an image in the apse, but either, i) of a mosaic that was elsewhere in St. Sophia or, ii) of a portable icon. 3. Photius is speaking of the very mosaic that is now in the apse. The first alternative can be immediately ruled out in view of the fact that the existing mosaic in the apse is not later than the inscription commemorating the restoration of images by "pious emperors." Alternative 2(i) can also be excluded. The only other mosaic of the Virgin that may be considered in this connection was at the crown of the great western arch. This mosaic was, however, made by the Emperor Basil I after the earthquake of January 9, 869.48 Alternative 2(ii) is equally unacceptable. If all that happened on March 29, 867 was that a portable icon of the Virgin had been placed somewhere in St. Sophia, then Photius is guilty of the wildest hyperbole. There is yet a further difficulty: if Photius was prompted to such lofty flights of rhetoric by the presence of a portable icon, are we to assume that the apse mosaics had already been made by 867 or that they had not yet been made ? If we assume that they were already in existence and had been put up, say, around 855,49then Photius' homily ceases to make any sense at all. If, on the other hand, we suppose that the redecoration of St. Sophia with mosaics was begun after 867, we only create a further and quite unnecessary difficulty. It is remarkable enough that the first figurative mosaics of St. Sophia should have been made no sooner than twenty-four years after the Feast of Orthodoxy (843) without further protracting the length of this hiatus. 42 Ed. by Aristarches, II, p. 299; English 43 E.g., S. Sestakov in Vizant. Vrem., IX 44 Ed. by Aristarches, II, p. 306; English 45 Ed. by Aristarches, II, p. 299; English 46 BZ, XLVII (I954), p. 400. 47 R. J. H. Jenkins in BZ, LII (1959), p. 48
See Mango, Materials, p. 77.
trans., (I902), trans., trans.,
p. 290.
p. 537f. p. 295. p. 290.
107.
9 So Grabar, L'iconoclasme byzantin, loc. cit. (supra, note 3).
144
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
Thus, we are inevitably led to the third alternative. Photius' homily must have been delivered upon the completion of the Virgin and Child that is still extant in the apse. In other words, both the mosaic of the Virgin and, most probably, the mosaics of the two archangels were completed in 867. The "pious emperors" mentioned in the commemorative inscription are Michael III and Basil I. We may now return to the statement made by Antony of Novgorod and consider whether our mosaics could be attributed to the painter Lazarus. First, however, let us be clear about the intrinsic worth of this statement: since Antony is merely reporting something he was told in 200, he has as much claim on our credence as a present day tourist explaining, on the authority of the local cicerone, why the Blue Mosque has six minarets. What we know about Lazarus from more or less contemporary sources is this:50 He was of Chazar extraction and took up both painting and the monastic life at an early age.51 An outspoken critic of the Emperor Theophilus (829-42), he was subjected to torture and imprisonment, but continued nevertheless painting icons. To punish the monk's obduracy, the Emperor ordered that the palms of his hands should be burnt with leaves of red-hot iron. Barely surviving this ordeal, Lazarus was released from prison at the instance of the Empress Theodora, and took refuge in the monastery of St. John tou Phoberou on the outskirts of Constantinople.52There he painted an icon of the Baptist, which was still extant in the tenth century and performed many cures. At the restoration of Orthodoxy (843) Lazarus defied the wishes of the government by refusing to countenance the "whitewashing" of the deceased Emperor's memory; he was nevertheless commissioned to execute the mosaic image of Christ above the bronze portal of the imperial palace, which he did with his own hands before 847.53 Adorned with the title Confessor, Lazarus now took an active part in Church politics. His allegiance lay with the extreme "right-wing" monkish party, as was already made clear by his intransigent stand in 843. The Synaxarion informs us that he undertook a mission to Rome "on behalf of the doctrines and traditions of the Fathers and the apostles;" that he returned "in splendid fashion," and was once again sent to the same destination "because of the same matters," but that he died on the way. His body was brought back to Constantinople and buried in the monastery of Evandros outside the walls.54 The "apostolic service" which Lazarus was delegated to perform was in fact to obtain the Pope's consent to the deposition of Gregory Asbestas, bishop of Syracuse.55He seems to have arrived in Rome in 855, soon after the 60 Cf. BZ, XLVII (1954), p. 396f. 61 Synaxarium eccl. Constant., ed. by Delehaye,
52
col. 23129.
On this monastery, see R. Janin in Rev. des dtudes byzantines, XII (I954), p. 70ff. 63 Theophanes Cont., Bonn ed., p. 102. On the restoration of the image of Christ above the Chalke
gate, see C. Mango, The Brazen House (Copenhagen, 54
1959), p. I25ff.
Synax. eccles. Constant., col. 233f. On the monastery of Evandros, see Janin, Gdographie ec-
cldsiastique de l'Empire byzantin, I, 3 (Paris, I953), p. I20. 56 On the circumstances, see F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism (Cambridge, I948), p. I9ff.
APSE MOSAICS OF ST. SOPHIA AT ISTANBUL
145
accession of Benedict III, and brought splendid gifts to the Pope, namely, a Gospel book, a chalice, two hangings of purple cloth, etc.56 The gifts were received with thanks, but the Pope appears to have refrained from pronouncing judgment on Asbestas.57 Lazarus' second mission cannot be dated so accurately, except that it must have taken place after 865; for in his famous letter to the Emperor Michael III, dated September 28, 865, Pope Nicholas I stipulates, Mittuntur etiam de parte Ignatii archiepiscopi quidem Antonius Cyzici, Basilius Thessalonicae ... atque Lazarus presbyter et monachus, qui dicitur Chazaris.58Unless, therefore, the Pope was misinformed, Lazarus was still alive at the time. We do not know, however, when he set out for Rome or, indeed, whether he did so before or after the downfall of Photius (September 23, 867). From the viewpoint of chronology, therefore, we cannot rule out the attribution of the apse mosaics to Lazarus. What makes this rather unlikely, however, is that he was one of the most determined adversaries of the Patriarch Photius. Gregory Asbestas was a close friend of the Patriarch's and was among the bishops chosen to consecrate him in 859; yet Lazarus, as we have seen, had gone to Rome to obtain Gregory's condemnation. And if, in 865, Pope Nicholas wished to have Lazarus plead Ignatius' case in Rome, this was surely because Lazarus, along with Antony of Cyzicus and a handful of other staunch Ignatians, was known for his attachment to the deposed Patriarch. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Photius would have chosen his declared enemy for a task in which he took such great personal pride, namely, the restoration of the mosaics of St. Sophia. How the attribution of the apse mosaics to Lazarus came about it is now impossible to say: perhaps simply because Lazarus was the most famous-in fact, the only famous painter of the period; on the other hand, it may have been a deliberate invention calculated to deprive Photius of the credit of having restored the mosaics. For the sake of completeness, we may examine a few other mediaeval texts, although their relevance to the history of the apse mosaics is at best incidental. In the course of the eleventh century the interior of St. Sophia underwent a "facelifting." While the Emperor Romanus III (I028-34) gilded the capitals,59 the Patriarch John Xiphilinus (1064-75) is said to have "renewed all the images of the saints."60 In a passage rather lacking in clarity, Michael Psellus gives the following details concerning the restoration carried out by this Patriarch: "In the first place, the great and most-holy temple of divine Wisdom, 66 Liber Pontificalis, ed. by Duchesne, II (Paris, 1892), p. 147f. For the date, see Grumel, Regestes, I, 2 (I936), No. 448. Stylianos in his letter to Pope Stephen V is mistaken in stating that Lazarus treated with Leo IV (d. July 17, 855): Mansi, XVI, col. 428 C. The mission is also mentioned in the extracts from the acts of the Council of 86i preserved by Cardinal Deusdedit: V. Wolf von Glanvell, Die Kanonessammiung des Kardinals Deusdedit, I (Paderborn, I905), p. 608. 57 Dvornik, op. cit., p. 25ff. 68 MGH, Epist. VI, p. 482. 69 See Mango, Materials, p. 70. The face of the carved marble cornice at the base of the apse semidome was once gilded, as we were able to ascertain in the course of our work. Perhaps this gilding, too, was applied in the eleventh century. 60 PG, II0, col. 1237 B. I0
146
CYRIL MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
which in greater part and especially round the bema was not overly decorated, and those parts of the superimposed arches and ceiling which were cracked and altogether unadorned-both these parts he adorns and embellishes, the former by encompassing it, as it were, with gold crowns and honoring it with artful images, whereas the latter he repaired splendidly and challenged the ancient beauty with the new."61 To judge by this statement, the restoration of the upper part of the church was largely structural, while the images that the Patriarch caused to be made (or renewed ?) were in the bema on ground level. There is, in any case, no reason to suppose that this work affected the apse mosaics, unless it was at this time that the archangel's feet and certain elements of the garland frieze were touched up with red paint. The disastrous collapse of May 19, 1346 is not known to have affected either the semidome of the apse or the bema arch. In the most reliable accounts of this calamity it is stated that the great eastern arch caved in, bringing down that portion of the dome which it supported;6 e the parts that were subsequently mepp rebuilt being that same eastern arch, the "roof of the bema" (= the eastern semidome)-both completed by October 6, I34663-the two eastern pendentives, and a little less than one third of the dome (in I353-4).64 The evidence
of the written sources is in this respect in full accord with conditions observable in the building.65In the course of our work we had occasion to strip the western face of the bema arch at its crown because the thick coat of plaster dating from the Fossati repairs was in a precarious condition (fig. 40). The arch was found to consist of two voussoir rings, the inner one being made of bricks of normal size, while the outer one is constructed of bipedales about 0.70 m. long.66 The bond between the two rings has been broken and the outer one has in places slipped forward by about 4 cm. We have found, however, no evidence of repair in the fourteenth century. The apse mosaic of the Virgin and Child figures in a dream or vision purported to have been vouchsafed to the future Patriarch Isidore on January 6, 1347, i.e., barely eight months after the collapse. Isidore dreamed that he was in the church of the Blachernae in the midst of a great throng which included the Patriarch (the anti-Palamite John Kalekas). From there they all proceeded to St. Sophia and, while the Patriarch and his suite halted within the Imperial Door, Isidore went to the center of the nave and stationed himself under the ambo. While he was standing there, the Mother of God came out of her image which was above the Patriarch's seat (the latter being presumably in the center of the synthronon) and, approaching Isidore, asked him why he was not oc61 Sathas, Bibl. gr. med. aevi, IV, p. 451.
62
Nicephorus Gregoras, Bonn ed., II, p. 749. The fullest discussion of the collapse is by I. Sev6enko in Siidostforschungen, XII (I953), p. I6gff. Note that, according to Gregoras (II, p. 751), the catastrophe would have been much more serious had not the Emperor Andronicus II buttressed up the eastern wall of the church. 63 S. Lampros,
BpayXa xpovlK&, MvrleTa
-Tfs^AM1TvIKiSto-ropias,
I, i (Athens,
I932), p. 89.
64 Gregoras, III, p. Ig8f.; Cantacuzenus, Bonn ed., III, p. 29f. 65 W. Emerson and R. L. Van Nice in AJA, XLVII (1943), p. 434ff. 66Bricks of this large size are used in the great arches of the dome. See Emerson and Van Nice
in Archaeology, IV, 2 (1951), p. 102.
APSE MOSAICS OF ST. SOPHIA AT ISTANBUL
147
cupying the place appropriate to his rank, pointing, as she did so, to the patriarchal throne. She also bade Isidore go up to Kalekas (who was still near the Imperial Door) and express her dissatisfaction in him; this Isidore did and, upon returning, was presented by the Virgin with a gold basket containing a Gospel and a cross. She then ascended back into her image. As for Isidore, he walked up to the sanctuary, hesitant to believe the message that had been imparted to him. The Mother of God had to come down to him once more to express it in even plainer language. Less than a month later Kalekas was deposed (February 2, I347) and Isidore elected patriarch.67 CONCLUSION
The principal result of our investigation has already been stated: the mosaic of the Virgin and Child in theeapse of St. Sophia is, in our opinion, the image that was unveiled in 867, and all the other mosaics of Phase 2, namely, the archangels, the commemorative inscription, and the garlands are contemporary with it. This conclusion leads us to make certain further observations. In the first place, we have found no trace of iconoclastic activity. On a superficial view, the suture round the figure of the Virgin might have been interpreted in thee samee sense as the cruciform seams in the apses of St. Sophia, Salonica, and the Dormition church at Nicaea, in both of which a mosaic of the Virgin was substituted for an earlier cross. We have been able to show, however, that in our case this suture merely marks the boundary between two successive stages in the execution of the mosaics in the ninth century and offers no clue to what might have been there at an earlier date. When the archangels were made in the soffit of the bema arch, there was evident concern to preserve as much as possible of Phase i gold mosaic. As we have seen, the areas that were cut out must have been carefully calculated since they closely correspond to the contours of the figures. Yet, in the semidome of the apse Phase i gold mosaic was retained only between the windows, while everything else had to be made de novo (fig. B). This is certainly surprising in view of the economy we have observed in the soffit of the bema arch: had the pre-867 decoration consisted of a large cross on a plain gold field (as in St. Irene), there is no reason why this gold background should have been removed. The fact that it was could be explained in at least two different ways. The simpler explanation would be that the Iconoclasts did not tamper with the apse decoration: we have, in fact, no explicit evidence that they did.68 The commemorative inscription, it is true, speaks of images which the Iconoclasts had cast down "here" (RvO&E), but the connotation of this adverb prob67A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Pitija dvukh vselenskikh patriarkhov XIV veka (= Zapiski istor.filol. Fakul'teta Imp. S.-Peter. Univ., 76 [1905]), p. IIoff. 68 The statement of Photius that the image of the Theotokos was "rising up from the very depths of oblivion" (ed. by Aristarches, II, p. 304; English trans., p. 293) might be interpreted to mean that a representation of the Virgin, destroyed by the Iconoclasts, had previously existed in the same place. We are inclined to think, however, that Photius is speaking in general rather than specific terms. IO*
148
CYRIL
MANGO and ERNEST
J. W. HAWKINS
ably extends to the whole church and is not limited to the apse. Justinian's original decoration was presumably non-representational and it might have subsisted until 867. In that case we would have to suppose that the Justinianic decoration in the semidome of the apse was of a kind that did not lend itself to adaptation. The background might have been filled with clouds or vegetal rinceaux or any other appropriate ornament provided this did not entail a large expanse of unbroken gold. Alternatively, the mosaics of the semidome may have gone through several phases before the ninth century. The Justinianic decoration may have been replaced by a figure of the Virgin or a multi-figured composition in the late sixth or seventh century; if so, such images would have been removed by the Iconoclasts who would have substituted some form of symbolic decoration that they considered fitting-say, a cross surrounded by foliage or shrubs. Finally, the iconoclast mosaics would have been totally removed in 867 because no appreciable portion of them could be usefully retained. Whichever of these two explanations is closer to the truth, it is evident that the ninth-century mosaics of the apse were designed to have a "triumphal" appearance. This note, so evident in Photius' sermon, is echoed by the profusion of garland friezes. What is particularly telling is that the original geometric surrounds of the apse windows were replaced by garland borders, no doubt with a view to enhancing the pomp of the decoration. Finally, a word about the geometric borders. We have found two closely related types, both of which have been shown to be Justinianic:69 a simpler kind in the soffits of the apse windows (fig. 25) and a more elaborate kind in the bema arch (figs. 51, 53, 55) and round the windows of the northeast exedra (fig. 39). Both kinds were used extensively in St. Sophia: the former in the mosaics, now destroyed, of the west gallery,70while the latter bordered some of the main articulations of the interior superstructure of the nave, namely, the four principal arches (fig. 56),71 the tympana, and the ribs of the dome to about a man's height. This design was imitated in the course of successive restorations of the mosaics in the ninth, tenth, and fourteenth centuries, but the work of these various periods may be distinguished thanks to considerable differences in technique and materials, as we hope to show on another occasion. At the base of the tympana this motif was successfully used in the late ninth century to give the illusion of a decorated parapet-wall "behind" the figures of the Church Fathers and bishops. This device, as we can now see, was not created by the mosaicists of the ninth century, but was imposed upon them by their desire to maintain the unity of the interior decoration. 69They offer an obvious resemblance to the bands of ornament, surely of pre-iconoclastic date, in the apse of the Dormition church at Nicaea: Th. Schmit, Die Koimesis-Kirche von Nikaia (Berlin-
Leipzig,
1927), pls. xII, xx.
Mango, Materials, figs. 42, 43, 46. This opens up the possibility that the mosaics of the west gallery were of the sixth rather than of the ninth century (as suggested ibid., p. 42). 71 Our illustration shows the east reveal of the great southern arch with the mosaics partially cleaned of Fossati overpainting. These mosaics appear to be of Justinianic date. 70
Note on the Illustrations In figures 3, 14, I5, I6, I7, I8, 19, 20, 28, 29, 31, 36, 42,
46, 47, 5I, and 52 solid black lines indicate boundaries between the work of two different periods (Phase I and Phase 2) and broken lines the probable course of such boundaries. Dashand-dot lines denote boundaries between separate areas of work executed as part of one continuous campaign, and dotted lines the probable course of such boundaries. In the case of figures 33, 35, and 38 the dash-and-dot line indicates the course of a suture between two work areas of a single campaign, but it has been drawn as a solid line where the joint appears in the cross section of the plaster layers. We do not wish to imply that all areas where we have not drawn dash-and-dot (or dotted) lines were necessarily executed in a single operation. Mr. R. L. Van Nice has kindly allowed us to use tracings of his architectural drawings for the preparation of our text figures B and C.
III --v-I-
I. . . I.
2 I
3
4
5
-
6 I
I
I
B. Elevation of Apse Semidome. Areas of Phase 1 Mosaic are shown stip
C. Section through Apse Semidome and Bema Arch looking North. Areas of Phase 1 Mosaic are show
C)
0
PQ (J
0 u-(
lci) Cld (1) z
vi
Cr
vo
~
~ r;
~ nr~~~~~~~~~~~~~n~~~~~s ~~I*1 ir;~T~' at.
?
'?:'?::L
,"~'s wwm~'"~i~~~~E?;.,
I
;???
?
?.
-~
AL
IrRV~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~It?~~ ??t~~~~~~~~'l~~~~?. ~~~~~~~~~i~~~I~~~~~
?'
FIlC 'S"rr;
ii.A~
?;
~
i~t~.?u1
a~~8 ~: ..?
:ir;~L
:???,?;: _i..:?;
.??:1G
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~-
'~~~~i~~~"?.?t;
;?Z?
.~~~~:;
+i1?10?;
Pi~~~~f? t~~s~i~s~~~?i;'?'~~-:
?
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?,~~~~~T~~~Z~~~;F~~~~R~~~.e~~~~~.''. J~~~~~~~~ 6;~~~~~~ ?r~~ ~~~??-1.~~~~~~~~A
I.
~
~~ri:L
*A ijAur~~
,t
~:
f~..
.4
.+ .r.
?
?.~EP
Uz
.?, zA
f
~
~
~
~
T
.1~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~iR
?r?~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 2
~s;
L.??(~~?~; I??;l*Y??kj ?~~~rq: G~~:::'~ ;'??~~?~-
Al-le
ik-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Y
i'j?
::
.,
.31,
~~~
??~::.
~~?A"E; ~ ~ :`:'~ t.;
?:
A
.i:~b;
P?
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~sr~~~~~~~i~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~I.
~ ~ 2~:?s; ~
jl
:.il~~~~~~n -
2. Apse, Virgin and Child
I.
4.
N ~-4
~
~
>~
~
I~ ~ ~~~~~~~I
-.g-7
4~~~~~~~~~ Ait4
$ Ml-
aa~~
~ 14
I' '
-
. ....~
3
A
c.O.' .
.
I 3. Apse, Virgin and Child, with Indications of Sutures
W16
.;e s
,~,. j.i
;KiJjT?T
i ^i ri*-.?;?" ..,
*
*1
?YT
Th
r
,\.
.
i
'i ;l.;
5. Apse, Virgin and Child,
Hand of
and
Hand
.
?- . .
2:
ij
-l
t
'.7ittZ lyf5 W-xA>A. lk,
-I 4
V
CI -
6. Apse, Virgin and Child, Left Hand of
),-
-
,,
7.
Apse, Virgin and Child, ILower Part of Figure
,;
.
.-;
,,
J
.. A
I,
4'
"I I
;
* 1-;ee
'kJIAW ff:." 'i, .1:!. . .., 11' :..i... . ...
.
. Iti
I,
.
... 1
'I
...4I j
:
. 1 -1 : .
i, .
0.
.:i . f'.
-
I.
.
'lk
)-.
"
.
?,,f.r'
'i-~~~~j
~
:
~:.~~/
, ,~', ~ '. '~ ~,~ ...... ~......
,.....~~~~~~~
.~
~~ ~.~q ~,
.. 9
Apse~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,, .n
Vigi
..l,;et:fChl
sj
9... "A
V ?
Child, Fe
oCh
i te
.
;
t
^;-
L, V.
^.,^
i X
* '** 's.%
\>
t: , ..i1
11w .'a'. .f .:*:*:
.,..:
-.:*."*.-:;*. ~i.v.Ar-^^-^;'...,..,.:.? '?:'****F ,.:.~,.e,** - '" '-..*:~,. *!*. ^
a '~ '*';".":"'''"1' ".'*V: ii '*^^,^-:'-.M' .:.' :-.^/ ~< !lK-~'' ....,. i:........ '~~.
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~T
VT
.....~~~~~~~~~~~Z ::..,R. "'
~.~'7
~
,'':~.~
,,, ~V.... . ~~~~~~~~~~~~1.... !
...
0'?.~
..... i~,-
i,~.~
O.:..':.. :'..':,.:,'.~~,
~ :',Z X ~~'K.. ~ , *-*_ .... ~.,;......,-~ , :~~ ? ,.......~.~>F-'~ -' ~::,~....-~ ^
; ^ ^ n ?''..
..
" -''" *
'"",~.
- *." *;. : *'
.
,
, ~*
^
,
'
*
~.' ~ ~~~~~~~~-4 -7, ^~~~~~~~~~~~~" ......."7':,',~ ,
,-.,..
. ,-* .....;'v.:..i.+i~
"
* y . ^t-m
of
t ~"~-~~~~4 jr
a^
_
g
;,,
' ..... ~'' '....'0 . .-~, ?,;.,-
'i.
?.'?..:t'. te
'" 1 *i. *r . . - .1 i .; r
.^
,
,~
' L~: a ,,. --,;....,,.:
T. '-
^C.-9^f&**,.,;*'
".'~ ..-* ;~~~~~~~~~~:." ,r^ ::-y
s,-'Lr
' . ..i .,.,_: :*
1
......
.^
^
*.......
;~
.:..^
.-^
~'
$'~~
*
^
j.
I
'./ :H
~'
*~
:'~"-~t~.,
r
iis
'
,. ..^
;
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---w: * -. .'*- .: . '.-. .* :;:i'i" :".'? ' : EbrM;C ?X :/ ;~":'.: ;~:!-.E*^ ^ * | '~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^;^ ''i'^^^^ a:.': O~~~~~~~~~~~~~. "
*
,. .^
,* - ~...~.,-,~ ' "
?
...
*-
.:'
'.~i
'..,
~.
,'":
7
'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~'' ~~ ''",~-.. ... :: ~~:J?-~~:.E .,~--~ ~ ,,J , ,,. -"-'**'
'fi
'"*'
."
.
'-'?,-'
^
.**
'ilu~~~k ' :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c. "'f ~.:,,^^
.
? 7.'g'
..~'h
~., .,~ ".'-
~..~.r~,.~, "..~ .,.'~", .
.
. . . . . .~
..,s.^;.
*- ., ''--:.?^ 2^^
"-" "
....
" 1 **'
..; ?
? ' ** '' ~ -**-r^
.
'
W .
,N1
','
.
~
r.'
Aciii '~
P%"
" ....?........ :i'.~,~ ,."'.'::.. . ........~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ~
,'....:-
~43"'
:.:...
.. i
' '
r-
- a-.. .I"L.'.
,
.
OR---S1Ii<. .-i
.%l)
0 '', *A>, 1,:,;'.::~.'.?.
'0:i,: r..?:..
1 ,~ %
?.1' .
ak .E;
.:; :
..
. '..
'.
L,:-: ,? ...*;r
'
*
'."' e .-. Apts ..~?-,?;'.. .i Virg; .,:.,%, Nt Cid nSid Io .%4~;,,t . T'hr
. -:
?
.,
/
v
IR :t:a
?, ~,...
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~'~'L' '~
. O,,?~-
Ape.Vrinad.hl,.othSd.o.Trn
11. Apse, Virgin and Child, South Side of Throne
0o
ut
c+..
cn
CO
*"1 2.j .-4
a'n4nS jo uoijuxpul IliM 'uoqldiisuljJo pu3
LuiopiuJaasdV jo aznuj j-I
15. North Side
17. Window 1 (before Sill was lowered)
18.
Windows 2 and 3 (before Sill of Window 2 was lowered)
19. Windows 3 and 4 (before Sill of Window 4 was lowered)
20.
Window 5 (before Sill was lowered)
21.
Garland Border between Face of Apse Semidome and Window 1
22.
Garland Border below Window 2
..:
... ~...'.
7af~~~~~~~~~~~~?.r~~~~~~~~~t~A
.t''
,;'
Ml...
$t,
- ;.s>: ; K /7.
iV*
1
T
:
...
'; e.'.
F4;A,.A:? . ..-'"
'. . t
:v:. .
.V-N'..'.'I#'"
- ..:; X
K..
..
.' ;*:" , : ' ;*i
*..
*i
. if." I,e
I::
A-S
:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~R
MM
".i::`:-'. -
,
.;.t, W-1 I i. " ""A -1 '0 1,,
k
,"i
23. Apse Semidome, Window 3 (after Sill was lowered)
-
1.
i .
.,
24.
Crown
of
Apse
Semidome
and
Bema
Arch
24. Crown of Apse Semidome and Bema Arch
25.
Window 3, South soffit
26.
27.
28. Window 2, North Soffit (after Sill was lowered)
29. Window 4, South Soffit (af
30. Face of Apse Semidome, North Springing, Juncture between Inscription and GarlandBorder
,r. :.
.,
.. :* !~~~ ifc~~~~~~~~~~ "^?^~~~~~~~~~~....^"
., :_
32.
Suture running into the Top of the Area of Loss to North of Virgin and Child
34.
Suture running into the Bottom of the Area of Loss to North of Virgin and Child
33.
S
v
-
Same as Fig. 32, with Black Line sho Second and Third Beds of Plaster o
35.
Same as Fig. 34, with Black Lin Overlap of Plaster
0 t av t
4
0
9;
Cr
t' Cr.
0
0 ?0 0o cr
0^ -
V. a)
0o13 At ^0
00
o 5
o a S
0 . ^0
o<
0 .
0
pr
bocL . ?
.0
*-
I
:.
cns ^a) .r
Cr
Cr
Q^
...O
L-
cn
c/) 0 0
o,,
Cr
C*)
0
.t IS 0
?
._0
0
t0 0
0 o
0n
u A
Cr 0
a)
?-
CD CIT
40. 39. Northeast Exedra, Geometric Window Border
Brickwork at Crown of Be
qA
i .A
:1
4-1
..
I., . .1
.
. -.5
r
. 4 .J. It
.
;
i ,,
, 'Aw
V.. A
:.
.4 -
:i
i',
'. 'r
,
'4
|dr i
I.. t
I
,,,,,'
:'7' ,'.'*:.i
s
*
4.
- -:' * r . * ..,,,'
* ,v,?
'. ..I . . ... ,t., . ;;a- .4 V% :, - , t, . ,
:'
.1 .,.
*mm.' 11! ..
Is
?:j:.
" ',t
.' AkPI" Z-. i.; 4,
..
' :1
*M4
v
''1
'
.'*
2, _.
.
. - -'.. *:
*, ..S. - i-.Q ?.. ~'"~':.." -- ^
'4.,:-i:_}, :._ ,
;~ i'. '',' )' . :',"' :I.;Krf :: .::', ' ,
"i .? | ? :.::;
~. :
...
. ,-: , :'
.w?: , ":.::;..-? 1
.?"' Z.,l_,,.,'!
.'?'.-. ...
.
,
?
; :' Z: 'IN: q.~-, l-ff', ,
Aw"
4.. rc
42.
ha
S
...
.A
South Archangel with Indications of Sutures
::
t;
*
.;
ati;
4?
'-~
'''
' w"
*,. n.
4
*-1
43.
South Archangel, Head
45. Left Hand
8~~~~
:
l. '~-{i
-~~~~~~~~~~ _
D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
i!"h,~,i~
t.-.
'.
' "" "'/..
"', .. Archangel,
46.!South
Right
..' :'"'% '..q- ' -.. .....Jk. . ,.~.
..,
,
' . .
.
?
.
,,
. >?
~ ~ ~
~
4.
S.ou.h
Arhage.,
RihWn
-.
Wing
A
r~~~~~,'. ~
~.
....
'"4.
"
'.
i'"
..A
' ?'i
~."?-
.'.'^ , -, ....
.,:."":'J-\ *'!},"
:.i*'
;?.. *:...,.i -.:^ ?-r^
47.
South Archangel, Left Wing
48. Left Foot
..... :......, .~ .:..:~.:~. ,...~. :.~~ ~% :.:~ ~~.....,,~,..~.:. .~..-,:~... ~.:: :>::~,,:~,~. ~ .. ~::..,~..~.~,,:~.: .... .....:.........
: ::: .?'
...
:==*====*====================================='~:X
'.?t].V V 44/4 4.
I
:~:
'I 4
-
0
f*
d4rd. -.
a
.1
50. Bema Arch, North Archangel
51. North Archangel, West Fragment
4t
-'
52. North Archangel, East Fragment
. k.": .!.e .i.-. 4~,'r7.r,3L-;2i X'ti '. E,
-~,
r
r
.
.
if
53. West Edge of Bema Arch, Fragment of Geometric Border
'
d
77
?
sw, t;.
',
*
'.*. ,^ ,'s~ ^*: ^'zt, ,; t.t..
-
-
--.,,,,-.
-
.
' .
, ',;'
'
i
15
e
,,,S
A
r
..
.
o? ?y
;
A
....
J'
,,
*'
"
':
r
' ..
;
:^
' : ' ..*. ''
''' '
iC
o ig.
,
...
'.
:,,
^
at w0, t
S
*
_*,
.
''
..
.
,-.
.s
st
'' ' ;1'k,<, ;
-'
* *
'
!,
7.*
.A
-
.
''
.w
,_
.
.
..
fe
:up:
?
".'
.
*
.
55.
West Edge of Bema Arch, Fragment of Geometric Border
56.
East Reveal of Main South
A Psalter and New Testament Manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks Author(s): Sirarpie der Nersessian Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 153-183 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291229 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
A
PSALTER
TESTAMENT
NEW AT
AND
MANUSCRIPT
DUMBARTON OAKS
SIRARPIE DER NERSESSIAN
es s/es n1s e
0' {f$;I*)tiet t;s v1 }14 ftV ',,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?
1z
*1 A
. ^
R.vinHVMm
^
'*., . .t.'t'j''...
K
.'.'' jr
_
-'A i
t
J'f-
.
. I F*t4....
I
; 1tSgC
:
i 1 .j: ;
.
X
4.
or-rx
t
h
.
:i
ffi
i 5 5" ., >a N
I
|
I
t5-?;b*s
.
ls
}
b{s
''
n
|
?rol
Jl'
..{
.U* .
t
-IfI
.,-
sj1o
A."... i.4 v 4 4f"... . 4.,4*s, . . 4t'
tCr **J;>- | 9";
i
t 4Ei] w}t ft fFlr>ssa*St *fhJ*ts ts rs...':g
wt
- 1 # rs* 1&fy Itflrfl .... ::"Z,:
;1Sv41i(;'fs1J
!
I I
.. ---
- .
-
-
Fol. 80V, Canticle of the Virgin
.:A" 16z
.
: ...
. I
I
Fol. 330v, Epistle to Philemon, detail, enlarged: Christ, Paul, and Timothy (see also Fig. 54)
.
*,,
*/'
'
'. ...,.. ...
:
t . . v: it *; . <-
::
;r.. Oli --.. /,
t .:: ..
,
,,
. :
.
: I
Dumbarton Oaks Manuscript 3
.tv 4 *.w
"
.-J
t
..,
.
IN
Septemberi962 the DumbartonOaks Collectionacquiredfrom a dealer
in Western Europe a Psalter and New Testament manuscript, formerly no. 49 at the Pantokrator Monastery on Mount Athos.' The Government of Greece was fully informed. It is not known when this manuscript, which in was still in the monastery I94I,2 left the Holy Mountain, but before I936 one leaf (fol. 78) had already been detached from the Psalter and acquired by the Benaki Museum in Athens; in I950 another leaf (fol. 254) was purchased
by the Cleveland Museum of Art from the Vladimir G. Simkhovitch Collection in New York.3 The manuscript acquired by Dumbarton Oaks has been incorporated in the Collection as MS 3.3a
Ever since the last decade of the nineteenth century, when this manuscript was first described or studied by Brockhaus, Millet, and Tikkanen, and photobecame the part of theCollection of the Ecole des Hautes graphs of the Psalter of Etudes in Paris and were thus made available to scholars,4 the Pantokrator Psalter 49 has been mentioned in all general histories of Byzantine art, as well as in all studies devoted to Psalter illustration or to Constantinopolitan art 1 S. P. Lambros, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts on Mount Athos (Cambridge, I895), I, p. 98. s Several photographs, made in I94I, were published by F. Dolger, Mnchsland A thos (Berlin, 1942), figs. 98-101. According to a letter written by Mr. Ernest W. Saunders of the Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Illinois, to Mr. William D. Wixom, Associate Curator of the Cleveland Museum of Art, the manuscript could not be located at the Pantokrator monastery in I953. 3 Guide to the Benaki Museum, English ed. (Athens, I936), no. 6, p. 35; Handbook of the Cleveland Museum of Art (Cleveland, 1958), no. 32 and fig.; "Byzantine Manuscript Illumination," Oberlin College, Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin, XV (Winter 1958), p. 47, no. 5 and fig. 9. I wish to thank Mr. M. Chadzidakis, Director of the Benaki Museum, of Sherman Lee, Director of the Cleveum, Mr. land Museum of Art, and Mr. William D. Wixom, Associate Curator, for sending photographs of the leaves in their museums and for permission to reproduce them. I am indebted to Miss Dorothy Miner, for photographs of and information on two of the manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery; to Prof. Kurt Weitzmann for sending to me for my information photographs of Pantokrator MS 234; to Prof. Andr6 Grabar for two photographs of Pantokrator MS 49 which had not yet been incorporated into the catalogue of the Ecole des Hautes Etudes; and to him and Mademoiselle Suzy Dufrenne for letting me consult the photographs of the Bristol Psalter and the Pantokrator Psalter 6i, which are to be published by Mlle Dufrenne in her book Illustration des psautiers grecs du moyen age. My thanks are due also to Prof. A. Xyngopoulos for information concerning the Psalter (MS 7) in the Athens National Library; to Prof. Cyril Mango for a description of the miniatures in the Psalter (Add. MS 11836) in the British Museum; to Prof. Romilly Jenkins for checking and completing the transcriptions from the Greek in the present paper; and to Prof. John Meyendorff for his help in identifying the texts on fol. 341 ff. of the Dumbarton Oaks MS. 3a The other two MSS in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection are: MS i, Greek Lectionary (D.O. 39.12; cf. Seymour de Ricci, Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada [New York, 1962],
p. 103);
and MS 2, Georgian Menaion
cf. Gerard Garitte, "Le M6nee g6orgien de Dumbarton Oaks," Le Museon, LXXVII, 1-2 29-64). 4 H. Brockhaus,
Die Kunst in den Athos-Klodstern (Leipzig, 1891),
pp. 170, I74ff.,
(D.O. 52.1; [1964],
pp.
205ff.; G. Millet,
"Quelques representations byzantines de la salutation angelique," Bulletin de correspondance hell6nique, XVIII (1894), pp. 456-7; J. J. Tikkanen, Die Psalterillustration im Mittelalter (Helsingfors, G. Millet, La collection chredtienneet byzantine des Hautes Etudes (Paris, 1903), 1895), I. 2, pp. 128-32;
C 104-115.
155
156
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
of the eleventh century.5 But, so far, the miniatures have not been considered in their entirety and, strangely enough, those which accompany the New Testament have hardly ever been recorded. OF THE MANUSCRIPT
DESCRIPTION
The manuscript consisted of 364 folios, measuring 16.2 x 10.3 to 10.9 cm., numbered i to 362; number 211 has been omitted by mistake and a missing leaf between folios 187 and i88 (John i: 1-26) has not been taken into consideration in the modern pagination. Folios i to 340 are in vellum; the text, in a small, regular minuscule, is written in a single column and there are thirtysix lines to a page. Folios 341 to 362 (beginning with the Epistle to the Hebrews I3:20) are in paper, and were added later. Folios 4, 78, 86, 87, 187, I87 bis, and 254 are now missing; folios 78 and 254 are in the Benaki Museum and the Cleveland Museum respectively, as has been mentioned above; the present location of the other missing folios is not known. The modern binding of yellow velvet over wooden boards is badly worn. The Manuscript was copied in IO084,since the Paschal tables on fol. 3Vbegin with that year. CONTENTS OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND DESCRIPTION
OF THE MINIATURES
Fol. 2. Instruction on how to read the Psalter with spiritual profit. Fols. 2-3. Brief indication of the content of each Psalm. Fol. 3v. Paschal tables for the years IO084to IIOI. Fol. 4 (missing). Cross raised on a mount, and inscription IC XC NIKA written in circles at the sides (fig. i).6 A later hand has drawn a bearded face, on the left; the inscription .ov-s TO TavTOKiparoposvTrapXE is also by a later hand. Fol. 4V (missing). Virgin and Saints (fig. 2).7 The three-quarter figure of the Virgin Eleousa, embracing the Christ Child held on her right arm, is flanked by the full figures of John the Baptist and an archangel. In the lower section Gregory the Theologian (of Nazianzus), Basil, and John Chrysostom stand frontally. The names have all been added by a late hand. Fol. 5. Birth and Anointing of David (fig. 3). In the upper section David's mother, half reclining, gazes into the distance; three young attendants stand behind the couch and a servant is seated in the foreground holding the naked and nimbed child; the empty bath and a pitcher are depicted on the left. The Anointing of David, in the lower section, is badly flaked. Samuel raises the horn of oil over the head of David in the presence of David's father and brothers, 5 It would be futile to list all the works in which our manuscript is mentioned and some of its miniatures reproduced. Apart from the publications of early date mentioned in the preceding note, we need only refer to some of the more recent discussions by V. Lazarev (Istoriia vizantiiskoi zhivopisi III,
p. iiff.);
and K. Weitzmann (Illustrations in Roll and Codex [Princeton, I70, i8o; The Joshua Roll [Princeton, I948], pp. 75ff., 80). 6 Photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, C 6120. 7 Photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, C 6II9
[Moscow, I947], I49,
150,
I52,
I62,
1947],
pp.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
157
only three of whom are clearly visible. The nimbed, female figure standing between David and his father Jesse can be identified as the personification of Gentleness (rTpao-rns) by comparison with the corresponding scene in the Paris Psalter I39.8 Fol. 5V. Portrait of David (fig. 4). David, clad in imperial garb, has risen from his throne and stretches both hands to receive the scroll presented by the Hand of God emerging from the arc of heaven. The paint has flaked, especially from the central area of the miniature. Fol. 6. Portrait of David (fig. 5). In the square headpiece of Psalm i, David, clad as in the preceding miniature, is seated on a stool and writes on a leaf leaning against his knees; the Hand of God, blessing, emerges from the arc of heaven. An inkwell and a pen can be seen on top of the square table and an open book is placed on the fish-shaped lectern. The title of the Psalm, written in large, gilt uncials, reads: AauiS T6O rpco-rov&apa, Tov 9'aXccovPa'ans.The initial M is formed by the standing figures of Christ and of David, identified by inscriptions. David holds an open scroll above which a cross with two transverse bars has been drawn. Fols. 6 to 26V. Psalms I to 49. Fol. 27. Repentance of David (fig. 6). In the headpiece of Psalm 50, David, admonished by Nathan, is seated on a stool; an angel with drawn sword stands behind him. David is represented a second time prostrate before the prophet. A bust of David, identified by an inscription, is drawn inside the initial E, and his outstretched arms form the horizontal bar of the letter; in the outer margin is a figure of Christ enthroned frontally. The title of the Psalm is written in small, gilt uncials. Fols. 27 to 38v. Psalms 50 to 76.
Fol. 39. Christ Pantokrator,headpiece of Psalm 77 (fig. 7). The paint has flaked from the face, neck, and right hand of Christ Christ who points to the open book held in His left hand. The top of the large cross-nimbus covers part of the frame. The title of the Psalm, written in large, gilt uncials, reads: CuvvEecoS Tc- 'Aoaq)The initial F is formed by Christ presenting a closed book to David; both figures are identified by inscriptions. Fols. 39 to 71. Psalms 77 to 151.
Fol. 7I. Combatof David and Goliath (fig. 8), at the end of the supplementary Psalm 151. In the upper part, David, clad in a short tunic and mantle, and holding his sling, stands frontally, his head slightly turned toward Goliath who protects himself with his shield and raises his right arm to throw his spear. In the lower section David cuts off the head of Goliath who has fallen on his knees. Fol. 72. Crossing of the Red Sea (fig. 9), headpiece of the first canticle of Moses (Exodus i5: i-i9) which ends on the top of folio 73. The Israelites, preceded by the pillar of fire and blessed by the hand of God, proceed to the right; Moses stands in their midst and with his wand touches the water which flows 8
H. Omont, Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris,
p. 7 and pl. iii.
1929),
158
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
across the lower part of the miniature. The colors have flaked in this area, but one can distinguish some of the soldiers, Pharaoh in his chariot drawn by a rearing horse, and the arms of the personification of the Abyss pulling Pharaoh into the water. The title of the Ode, written in gilt uncials, reads: "ApSrqv puOiaasOapa.b MooafiSAeyl.
Fol. 73. Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law (fig. io), headpiece of the second Canticle of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) which ends on folio 74v. Moses stands on the mountain, between two rocky peaks, and holds the two stone tablets given to him by the Hand of God emerging from the arc of heaven; his discarded sandals lie on the him, next to the gIsraelites ground behind flamingon are grouped in the center stand the ally froenter foreforeground; they butforeground; most slightly raises his head in the direction of Moses. The of personification Mount Sinai, seen from the back, is seated on the left and holds the trunk of a withered tree; a pool the of water fills lower right-hand corner. The title of the Canticle, written in gilt uncials, reads: Nopou ypapivroS aies 4W8i McoaE(ios). Fol. 75. Headpiece of the Canticle of Hannah (I Kings 2: i-io) which continues on folio 75V (fig. ii). On the left, the holding the infant Samuel on left, Hannah, her knees, is seated in front of a rectangular, columnar structure above which are several trees. She is represented again on the right, this time gazing upward and with her hands raised in the attituderc attitude ofthe of the arc of heaven prayer, but has been omitted. A half-length figure of Hannah, identified by an inscription, is drawn inside the initial E; her outstretched hands, forming the horizontal bar of the letter, are directed toward the enthroned figure of Christ in the outer margin. The title, in gilt uncials, reads: eo6v yEyaipE oartlpa Trrouaa gkvcos.
Fol. 76. Headpiece of the Canticle of Habakkuk (Hab. 3: 1-19) which ends on the top of folio 77 (fig. 13). Habakkuk stands in the center and turns to the right, his head and hands raised to the arc of heaven. The seated figure on the left, effaced and crudely redrawn, can be identified as the personification of the city of Babylon by comparison with the identical composition in the Psalter in Paris, suppl. gr. 6io,9 where there is an accompanying inscription (fig. 14). In the upper part of the miniature an angel has seized Habakkuk by the hair and flies through the air with him; the prophet carries a pitcher in his right hand, and in his left hand a basket of food which he rests on his shoulder. The initial K is formed by the standing figure of Habakkuk, identified by an inscription and holding a long, inscribed scroll; a bust of Christ is drawn in the outer margin. The title of the Canticle, written in gilt uncials, reads: T^v rTOUXoyou KivcaOIV'AppaKo1* qppaaov. Fol. 77. Headpiece of the Canticle of Isaiah (Isaiah 26:9-20) which continues on folio 77V (fig. 15). Isaiah stands in prayer between the allegorical figures of Night and Dawn; he raises his head and hands toward the Hand of God emerging from the arc of heaven. A three-quarter length figure of the Prophet, identified by an inscription, is drawn inside the initial E; his outstretched arms, forming the horizontal bar, are directed toward the bust of Christ in 9 Ch. Astruc, "Un psautier byzantin d frontispices: le suppl. gr. 6io," Cahiers archdologiques,III pp. 111-13, fig. 3.
(1948),
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
159
the outer margin. The title of the Canticle, written in gilt uncials, reads, 'Hcatou T0rMXov. wTp6ppriCjiS vXIs -r6
Fol. 78 (in the Benaki Museum). Headpiece of the Canticle of Jonah (Jonah which continues on the verso (fig. I7). The sea, hemmed in by mountains, fills the lower left-hand corner of the miniature; Jonah's bust issues from the mouth of the whale whose body is cut off by the frame. Behind Jonah is the personification of the Abyss, identified by the inscription Bvues; the paint has flaked and only the outlines of this figure, the thrident, and the remain. On the left hand toremain. stands thein prayer next to the gourd plant; right, Jonah stands the arc of heaven toward which the Prophet is meant to be gazing has again been omitted. A rocky landscape fills the greater part of the miniature; on the left, in the distance, can be seen the gate of Nineveh with trees rising above it. The half effaced figure of Jonah is drawn inside the initial E and there is a bust of Christ in the outer margin. The title, in gilt uncials, reads: 'EK EOQp(bs) 2:3-10)
kpa*yaaev 'Icovas ANycov.
Fol. 78V (in the Benaki Museum). The Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace (fig. i8). They are clad in the usual Persian costume; the one in the middle stands frontally in the attitude of an orant; the other two are turned toward him. The angel, standing behind them slightly off center, lays a protecting hand on the shoulder of the young man on the extreme left and directs his lance against the two servants, one of whom has turned his face away from the flames. The Canticle of the Three Hebrews (fols. 79-80) is divided into three parts, each one preceded by a title in gilt uncials and with the figure of one of the young men in the initial, his hands stretched toward a bust of Christ in the outer margin. On folio 79, the figure is identified as Ananias (fig. I9) and the title reads: Alv(os)qp?6yaapEvvvalTCOVTrpicovNeov (Daniel 3:36-51). On folio 79V the figure is identified as Azarias (fig. 20) and the title reads: Tcov6Cfae?p(C5v) upvrjlis ijv jSov NEcov(Daniel 3:52-56). On folio 80 the figure is identified as Misael (fig. 21) and the title reads: Tov Ea?rr0oTvGicoxovr KTIor(cov)Tpais(Daniel 3:57-88).
Fol. 8ov. Annunciation and Seated Virgin (fig. 22 and frontispiece), headpiece of the Magnificat (Luke I:46-55) which continues on folio 8I. The two scenes are separated from one another by rocky hills; the angel and the Virgin stand above the ledge; below, the Virgin is seated frontally, next to a small house, the door of which stands open; she holds an open book and points to the words which must be those of her prayer. The Visitation is represented inside the initial M; the Virgin is on the left, as usual, and identified, moreover, by an inscription; the title of the scene 6 ao-rraapoos is written in the margin. The title of the Canticle, in gilt uncials, reads: TovviovvipveTK(al) E(e6)v ,Uf(T)pK6pT). Fol. 8i. Canticle of Zacharias (Luke 2:68-79). Zacharias, identified by an inscription, stands inside the initial E; his hands, forming the horizontal bar, are extended toward the bust of Christ in the outer margin (fig. 23). Fol. 8iv. Canticle of Hezekiah (fig. 24), headpiece of the Canticle (Isaiah 38: Io020) which continues on folio 82. Hezekiah, crowned and wearing a long tunic
160
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
and a chlamys, prays in the attitude of proskynesis; behind him stands a female figure, probably the personification of prayer, clad in a sleeveless, red dress; she bends slightly forward, and her right hand barely touches the kneeling King. The throne is placed inside a rectangular structure on the left. The kneeling figure of Hezekiah, identified by an inscription, is repeated inside the initial and forms the horizontal bar of the letter E. The title in pot COxO6t. gilt uncials reads: Tov 'ELEKIaV EXoyoUVTra& Fol. 82v. Headpiece of the Prayer of Manasseh (fig. 25) which ends on fol. 84. Manasseh, clad in imperial costume, stands in the midst of a mountainous landscape; his veiled hands are raised in prayer and he gazes upward, following the gesture of a tall, female figure who points to the arc of heaven. The standing figure of Manasseh, identified by an inscription, and holding a long, inscribed scroll, forms the initial K. The title, in gilt uncials, reads: ScorelsMavaaifsTOV eEovpEyaXWVVE1. Fols. 84v85v. The Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-I3); the Canticle of Symeon the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-I2) (Luke 2:29-32); Fols. 86v-87 (missing). Portraits of Donors, of later date (figs. 26-27) .1 On folio
86V the protomartyr Stephen, dressed as a deacon, lays a protecting hand on the shoulder of the monk John, and presents him to the Virgin (represented on the opposite page); behind the two stands the "hieromonachos" Gregory, holding a closed book in his left hand. The Virgin (fol. 87), with the Christ Child on her left knee, is seated on a large wooden throne with curved back; Christ appears to be wearing the imperial loros over his tunic. Inscriptions: r Oeou fol. 86v. AEriatSTOUSoAou TOU Kai rprilyopiouiEpop0ovaXou TrVEUpaTiTKOU TwrTpos
6 &ayios rTEyavos 6 TrpcoTopapTrup
AErlc'STOU8OXouTOUv OEoU
'Icoavvou povaxou fol. 87. pir"nTIp SEou r OTruAaicbT-ea
Fol. 87v missing. Inscription of late date, stating that the manuscript belongs to the Pantokrator Monastery.'1 The New Testament begins on folio 88 with the letter of Eusebius written on the recto and verso, without an ornamental frame. Fols. 89-93v. Canon tables written inside simple, arched frames. Fol. 94r-v. Preface and index of the Gospel of Matthew. Fols. 95-I27V. Gospel of Matthew. The Portrait of Matthew is painted inside
the square headpiece (fig. 28). He is seated, meditating, his right hand resting on the open book on his knees. A long scroll hangs from the lectern placed above the rectangular desk. A standing figure of Matthew, identified by an 10 Photos: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, C
6129-6130 11Cf. photostat owned by the late Robert P. Blake; photo in the DumbartonOaks files.
DUMBARTON OAKS PSALTER AND NEW TESTAMENT
161
inscription and holding a closed book, forms the vertical bar of the initial B; the three figures in the outer margin are almost entirely effaced, but the accompanying inscriptions help us to identify them as Christ, above, and David and Solomon, below. Fol. I28r-v. Preface and index of the Gospel of Mark. Fols..29Gospel of Mark. The Portrait of Mark is painted inside the square headpiece (fig. 29); he is seated in front of his desk; his right hand, holding the pen, rests on the paper lying on his knee, while his left touches the fish-shaped lectern on which an open book is placed. The initial A is formed by the tall figure of Christ standing on a footstool, on the right, and laying his hand on the head of the small figure of Mark, identified by an inscription. The figure of John the Baptist, in the outer margin, is almost entirely effaced, but can be recognized thanks to its inscription; he seems to be wearing a short tunic and he holds a cross-staff. Fol. I50r-v.
Preface and index of the Gospel of Luke.
Fols. I5i-i86V. Gospel of Luke. The Portrait of Luke is painted inside the square headpiece (fig. 30); he bends forward to write on a large leaf propped against his left knee; a scroll hangs over a fish-shapd lecte ton a placed square table. A standing figure of Luke, identified by an inscription, is placed inside the initial E; the Evangelist's outstretched hand forms the horizontal bar of the letter. The three figures in the outer margin, which again can be recognized because of the accompanying inscriptions, are Theophilus, above, and Zacharias and Elizabeth, below. Fol. I87 (missing). The preface and index of the Gospel of John were written on the recto and the Portraits of John and Prochoroswere painted on the verso (fig. 31).12 John stands on the right, his head turned toward the Hand of God emerging from the arc of heaven, his right hand extended toward Prochoros, who, seated on the ground on the left, writes on a leaf he holds with his left hand. Fols. I88-2I3v. Gospel of John, beginning with chapter I:26 ({$cOv a0rlKet...). Fol. 214. On the recto, index of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles; on the verso, preface of the Acts written in the shape of a cross. Fols. 215-249v.
Acts of the Apostles. Luke is represented inside the square
headpiece (fig. 32); he bends forward to write on a large leaf propped against his left knee; opposite him stand the Apostles in a compact group, identified by the accompanying inscription: oi EvsEKa r6roroXoi. A standing figure of Luke, identified by an inscription, forms the bar of the initial T; hardly any trace remains of the figure of Theophilus in the outer margin and only his name can be deciphered. Fol. 249v. Preface of the Epistle of James. Fols. 250-253 Epistle of James. Inside the square headpiece (fig. 33) James is seated in the same attitude as the Evangelist Mark, his right hand holding a pen and resting on the paper on his knees, his left hand touching the lectern 12
For the recto, cf. photostat
owned by the late R. P. Blake; photo in the Dumbarton
Verso, photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, C 6125. II
Oaks files.
162
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
on which a book is placed. A standing figure of James forms the initial I; he is turned toward Christ, standing in the outer margin. Fol. 253v. Preface of the Epistles of Peter (fig. 34). Luke, identified by an inscription, stands inside the initial E, and is writing the text of the preface; the title vTroecEis T-rS TFETpOUTic-oAfis is written in uncials inside four circles
lodged in the angles of the cruciform text. Fol. 254 (in the Cleveland Museum of Art). Headpiece of the First Epistle of Peter (fig. 35), which ends on folio 257V.13 Peter, blessing and holding a scroll,
stands in front of an elaborate architectural structure over which a red veil has been thrown. The initial rn is formed by Christ blessing Peter. Both are identified by inscriptions. Fols. 257v--258. Preface to the Second Epistle of Peter. Fols. 258-260. Second Epistle of Peter. The beginning of the text on folio 258 (figs. 36, 59) is preceded by a narrow, ornate band. Peter stands inside the initial C. A section of the outer margin, which probably had an image of Christ, has been cut off. Fol. 260r and v. Preface to the First Epistle of John (figs. 37, 60). The initial is formed by a figure of Luke, identified by an inscription; the Evangelist is shown standing and writing. John stands in the outer margin; he holds a half-open book and turns toward Luke. Fols. 261-264V. First Epistle of John (fig. 38). John, seated, writing on a large sheet held in his left hand, occupies the headpiece; a scroll hangs over a lectern placed on a desk. A bust of John, identified by an inscription, is painted inside the initial 0. Fol. 264V. Preface to the Second Epistle. Fols. 264V-265. Second Epistle of John, preceded by a narrow, ornate band. The bust figure of John is painted, as before, inside the initial 0 (fig. 39). Fol. 265. Preface to the Third Epistle. Fol. 265V. Third Epistle of John. Initial 0 with bust of John (fig. 40). Fol. 266. Preface to the Epistle of Jude written in the shape of a cross. Fols. 266V-267V.Epistle of Jude (fig. 4I). Jude stands in front of an elaborate architectural setting, his head turned to the left. His standing figure is repeated to form the initial I; turning slightly to the left, he addresses Christ, who is represented in the margin next to him, while the figure of James occupies the inner margin; identifying inscriptions accompany all three figures. Fols. 267V-269. Travels of Saint Paul and preface to the Epistle to the Romans. Fols. 269V-28IV.Epistle to the Romans (fig. 42).14 Paul, seated in an armchair, writes in an open book; a veiled woman leans over the back of his chair and a young man stands, facing them, next to the desk on which another book has been placed. The initial n is formed by Jesus and Paul, identified by inscriptions. Fol. 282. Preface to the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Fols. 282V-293V. First Epistle to the Corinthians preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial l as on folio 269V (fig. 43). 13 On
folio 254v the text continues as far as I: 21. have been omitted.
14 The last verses of the Epistle, I6:25-27,
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
163
Fol. 294. Preface to the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Fols. 294v-302v. Second Epistle to the Corinthians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial IIas before (figs. 44, 6i). Fols. 302v-3o3. Preface to the Epistle to the Galatians. Fols. 303-3o6v. Epistle to the Galatians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial II as before (fig. 45). Fols. 3o6V-307. Preface to the Epistle to the Ephesians. Fols. 307-3II. Epistle to the Ephesians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial II as before (fig. 46). Fol. 3II. Preface to the Epistle to the Philippians. Fols. 3IIV-3I4v. Epistle to the Philippians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band.
The initial II is formed by the standing figures of Timothy and Paul, identified by inscriptions, and a bust of Christ blessing them (figs. 47, 62). Fol. 314V. Preface to the Epistle to the Colossians. Fols. 315-317v. Epistle to the Colossians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band;
again the initial H is formed by Timothy and Paul blessed by Christ (fig. 48). Fols. 3I7V-3I8. Preface to the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. Fols. 3I8-320v. First Epistle to the Thessalonians, preceded by a narrow band; the initial IIis formed by the standing figures of Silvanus and Paul; Timothy is depicted in the outer margin (fig. 49). All three are identified by inscriptions. Fols. 320v-32i. Preface to the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians. Fols. 321-322v. Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; again the initial HII is formed by Silvanus and Paul, and Timothy is depicted in the margin (fig. 50). Fols. 322v-323. Preface to the First Epistle to Timothy.
Fols. 323-326. First Epistle to Timothy, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; the initial H is formed by the standing figures of Jesus and Paul (fig. 51).
Fol. 326r andv. Preface to the Second Epistle to Timothy.
Fols. 326v-328v. Second Epistle to Timothy, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial II as before (fig. 52). Fol. 329. Preface to the Epistle to Titus. Fols. 329-330v. Epistle to Titus, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial II
as before (fig. 53). Fol. 330V. Preface to the Epistle to Philemon.
Fols. 330v-33I. Epistle to Philemon, preceded by a narrow, ornate band; initial II as before. Timothy stands close to it, on the left (fig. 54 and frontispiece). Fol. 33IV. Preface to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
Fols. 33Iv-340v. Epistle to the Hebrews preceded by a narrow, ornate band; the initial II is formed by the standing figures of Jesus and Paul; a group of Hebrews stands in the lower margin (fig. 55). Fol. 340V ends with Hebrews I3:20. Fols. 341-360 are paper leaves added in the fourteenth or fifteenth century. They contain, in addition to the last verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews, a number of different texts: Fol. 34I. End of the Epistle to the Hebrews. II*
164
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
Fols. 341-347. Tables of Gospel and Epistle lessons for the various liturgical cycles. Fols. 347-350. A spiritual discourse by Abba Ammon Inc. Tipei aaurTovaKP13ioS...
Fol. 350. Anonymous spiritual discourse Inc. 'Eav Eitaiv?v 're
TOwTCp
Fol. 351. Anonymous spiritual discourse TTEpi piou [Aiav rqwEAouSKCXal acompiouvl4a Inc. rios avSpcoTros,&sExpoi...
Fol. 352. Order of the Mesonyktikon for weekdays. Fols. 352v-353. Order of the Mesonyktikon for Saturdays. Fols. 353-354V. Canon of the Mesonyktikon.
Fols. 354V`355. Order of the Orthrosand Prime. Fols. 355-356. Order of Tierce, Sext, and None. Fol. 356. Order of Typika. Fols. 356V-357v. Liturgical indications for Lent. Fols. 357v-359V. Canon to Christ and the Virgin.
Fols. 359v-36ov. Prayer before sleep. STUDY OF THE MINIATURES
The miniatures, painted against a gold background, are characteristic examples of the art of the late eleventh century. Their Constantinopolitan origin is proved by the delicate elegance of the figures and, above all, by close stylistic similarities with illustrations of manuscripts which we know from their colophons to have been executed in the capital, for instance, Paris, suppl. gr. 1096, a Gospel book copied by Peter Grammaticus of the school of the Chalcoprateia in I070,15 or the Psalter of the Vatican, cod. gr. 342, written in io88
by Michael Attaliates.'6 Because of the smaller size of these two codices, their paintings can better be compared with those of our manuscript than can the portraits in the luxury copy of the Homilies of John Chrysostom, Paris, Coislin 79, commissioned by Nicephorus Botaniates
(1078-o1081).7
The light colors, with a predominance of delicate blues, used during the early eleventh century, still prevail, but, as in other works of the latter part of that century, vivid touches given by bright reds occur more frequently. Thus, in the scene of the Birth of David (fig. 3) the soft blue of the mother's robe is set off by the vermilion tunics of the first and the third attendant standing behind the couch, and of the servant in the foreground. Similarly, in
the Crossing of the Red Sea (fig. 9), Moses, clad in a blue tunic and light mauve 14a The title is almost illegible today; the words included in brackets are restored according to the description by S.Lambros, Catalogue of theGreekManuscripts on MountAthos, I (Cambridge, 1895), p. 98. 15 BibliothWqueNationale. Catalogue des MSS grecs: Ch. Astruc and M. L. Concasty, Le suppl6ment
grec, III, nos. 901-1371 (Paris, 1960), pp. 227-8; K. and S. Lake, Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscripts to the Year 1200 (Boston, 1935), IV, pls. 299-300. 16 R. Devreesse, Codices Vaticani Selecti (Rome, 1937), II, p. i6. For reproductions, see M. Bonicatti, "Un salterio greco miniato del periodo comneno: Venezia, Biblioteca Marciana, cod. gr. 565, gia 113,
cl. II. Naniano 167," Bullettino dell'Archivio Paleografico Italiano, N.S. II-III (1956-57), pt. XIV.I, XVII.2. 17 H. Omont, op. cit., pIs. LXI-LXIV.
VIII.I,
I,
pls.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
165
mantle, is framed by two figures dressed in red. This predilection of the artist for bright hues has led him to paint in red even the veil deployed above the head of the personification of Night (fig. I5), whereas, not only in the Parisinus gr. I39 but also in the Psalter in Paris, suppl. gr. 6io, which can be dated in the early eleventh century, the blue veil gives a more faithful image of night (fig. i6). The comparison with this last named manuscript, where we have three compositions identical with those of our manuscript (figs. ii-i6), shows the gradual transformation of the style. The painterly manner, the color-modelling, with very delicate lines to indicate the features or the folds, the subtle use of high lights have given place to a more linear treatment. The contour lines are more accentuated, as are also the small, angular pleats drawn over the smooth surfaces of the legs. These lines form a pleasing design in some of the finest figures, like that of Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law (fig. io); the swallow-tailed folds of the edge of the mantle, falling from the raised arms, add to the decorative effect. Our painter never uses the gold hatchings so prominent in the "Theodore" Psalter (British Museum Add. 19352) illustrated at the Studios Monastery in io66, and in related manuscripts such as Paris, gr. 74, and if this is a workshop mannerism, we must conclude that our manuscript was illustrated in some other Constantinopolitan scriptorium. In comparison with the miniatures of Paris, suppl. gr. 6Io, and of other manuscripts of the early eleventh century, the forms are more slender and the feeling of bodily weight is further attenuated. Another trait of the late eleventh century is to bring the figures almost to the edge of the lower frame and to reduce the width of the foreground band; the mountains or the architectural
settings act as a backdrop instead of giving a feeling of space. A difference in degree may again be noted by comparing the illustrations of the Canticles of Hannah, Isaiah, and Habakkuk with the corresponding compositions of Paris, suppl. gr. 6io, where the figures stand at a short distance from the lower band of the frame (figs. iI-i6). The landscape backgrounds of several miniatures illustrating the Canticles of the Psalter are derived from earlier representations of these same scenes, but the step-faced peaks of the mountains, sharply marked by high lights, form more regular patterns and they contrast with the smooth, uniform surfaces of the lower slopes. To the same more or less distant prototypes belong those architectural elements which form part of the classical landscape. In the Canticle of Jonah the gate of Nineveh, with the trees rising above it, has the appearance of a villa rustica (fig. I7).18 In the Prayer of Manasseh the column with a tall cubic base (fig. 25) is a modified form of a motif used in the Joshua Roll-the tower placed on top of a cubic structure-which in turn is derived from the tower of the classical sacred grove.19The sacred tree precinct has been transformed into a columnar building in the Canticle of Hannah (fig. ii) and a pedimental structure reduced to a decorative motif, on the right. 18 K. Weitzmann, The Joshua Roll. A Work of the Macedonian Renaissance (Princeton, 1948), pp.
75-78 for this and the following examples. 19 Ibid., figs. 31, 34, and 6i.
166
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
In other composition, especially in thethe portraits which adorn Psalter and the New Testament, the architectural settings conform to the types currently used from the tenth century on. In two instances, namely, in the headpieces of the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (figs. 35, 41), tower-like constructions at either end are joined by means of a wall, recessed at the center to form an angular niche. We have here a simpler version of the complex structures frequently represented behind the standing saints in the Menologium of Basil II (Vat. gr. 1613); the columnar types predominate in this manuscript, but the recessed wall with towers at each end is also to be seen.20The simple form of our manuscript is parallelled by a number of contemporary or slightly orary later examples, for instance, the portraits in the Menologiums of Paris, cod. gr. I528 and of London, Brit. Mus. Add. i870,21 or in the Synaxary section of the Lectionary of Dionysiou, no. 587 (formerly 740).22 The other type of architectural setting-rectangular buildings joined by a straight wall-is the one commonly used during this period for the portraits of evangelists.23 Occasionally, as in the portraits of David (figs. 4, 5), several tall buildings, some covered by a barrel vault, are grouped on one side. The ciborium placed behind the desk in the portrait of James (fig. 33) becomes a purely ornamental feature in other representations (figs. 5, 28). Before passing to the iconographic study of the illustrations a few words should be said about the anthropomorphic initials. Byzantine painters, unlike those of western Europe, did not at first favor ornate letters formed by an animal or by a human figure. These appear occasionally in manuscripts of the tenth century and are used increasingly in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In some instances they have a purely decorative character; that is to say, even when they are constituted by human are in no way configures, the they nected with the content of the text. This is true, for instance, of the dancers, musiciad musicians which form the initials of a copy of the Homilies of acrobats, and Gregory of Nazianzus in Turin.24More often, however, however, these anthropomorphic letters are part of the illustration of the text. The simplest type consists of the portraits of the authors whose writings they accompany, as in our manuscript; in more elaborate examples several figures, disposed so as to delineate the shape of the letter, compose an entire scene.25 Our manuscript belongs to that group of illustrated Psalters which, ever since Tikkanen's basic study, have been designated as the aristocratic Psalters. The characteristic features of these full-page illustrations are the following. A 20 II Menologio di Basilio II. Cod. Vaticano greco 1613 (Turin, 1907), pp. 74, i i6,
124,
192,
226,
263, 265. 21 G. F. Warner, British Museum.
Reproductions from Illuminated MSS., ist Ser. (1907), No. i, pl. I. 22 K. Weitzmann, "The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustration," New Testament Studies, ed. by M. Parvis and A. P. Wikgren (Chicago, 1950), pl. xx, fig. i. 23
See several examples in A. M. Friend Jr., "The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin
Manuscripts," 24 Turin
Papers, 25
Art Studies (1927),
pls. xiv, XVIII.
cod. C, I, 6/16: A. Grabar, "Une pyxide en ivoire a Dumbarton Oaks," Dumbarton Oaks
14 (1960), pp. I43-4,
fig. 35a-e.
See, for instance, Omont, op. cit., pls. cvIi-cxiv, and A. Grabar, "Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses peintures, "Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 8 (1954), figs. 5-23.
DUMBARTON OAKS PSALTER AND NEW TESTAMENT
167
varying number of miniatures, comprising scenes from the life of David in addition to his portraits, precede the first Psalm. Within the Psalter text there are miniatures only for the fiftieth Psalm (the Penitence Psalm); the seventyseventh Psalm, with which the second part of the Psalter begins; and the supplementary Psalm 151. Then come the miniatures which accompany the Canticles. It has been generally recognized that, in the main, the illustrations of our Psalter belong to the recension of which the Paris Psalter, no. I39, is the most famous representative. There are, however, a number of differences, some of which, as we shall see, point to a gradual modification of the general scheme of aristocratic Psalters. The illustrations begin with the image of the the Cross a representations of the Virgin and saints (figs. i-2). The presence of these Christian themes is not due to the fact that the manuscript includes the books of the New Testament, for they are also found in other codices which are exclusively Psalters; they are indicative, rather, of a change which may have begun in the course of the eleventh century. There is considerable divergency between these to Psaltouerrs the salter oof the manuscripts. The example clorosest in no. in which the illustration 3807, Berlin, Theological Seminary begins with an image of the Cross with the inscription IC XC NIKA, followed by the and and saints, as in our manuscript.26The only difference is that Virgin and Child the Virgin Eleousa, represented in bust form, stands between two archangels, whereas the presence of John the Baptist in our miniature confers on the composition a symbolical meaning, connected with the rite of the Proskomide.27 Images of the Virgin occur at the beginning of other Psalters. In a manuscript in Vienna, Theol. gr. 336, which can be dated ca. 1077, she is enthroned with the Christ Child on her knees,28 while in a slightly later Psalter at the Marciana in Venice, cod. 565, she stands holding the Child in front of her.29 Portraits of saints, as well as that of the Virgin and Child, are tobebe seen in a Psalter and New Testament of the Vatopedi Monastery, no. 762 (formerly 6io): The Virgin, holding the Christ Child, is represented standing between two archangels, on folio I7 before the beginning of the Psalter, while three Church Fathers are found on folio 88v, after the Canticles (figs. 56-57).30 We have, thus, quite a large group of Psalters with full-page miniatures of the Virgin and, at times, of the Church Fathers. The frontispiece of the Psalter proper comprises only four images: two biographical scenes and two portraits. The former, grouped on the same page (fig. 3), confront David's birth according to the flesh with his spiritual birth 26
G. Stuhlfauth, "A Greek Psalter with Byzantine Miniatures," Art Bulletin, XV (I933), pp. figs. 6 and 7; in the group of Church Fathers Gregory of Nazianzus is replaced by Nicholas of Myra. On the following page the Deesis is represented (fig. 8). 27 S. Der Nersessian, "Two Images of the Virgin in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection," Dumbarton 31I-26;
Oaks Papers,
I4 (1960),
pp. 75-7.
P. Buberl and H. Gerstinger, Die Byzantinischen Handschriften (Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der illuminierten Handschriften in Osterreich, N.S., IV), pt. 2 (Leipzig, 1938), pl. xii. The Crucifixion is represented on the next folio. 29 M. Bonicatti, op. cit., pl. i. The Virgin is designated as the Kyriotissa. 30Photos: Archives photographiques, A 4576, A 4583. 28
168
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
when, by being anointed, "the spirit of the Lord came upon" him (I Samuel. i6: I3). The birth of David, not mentioned in the Bible, but represented in the aristocratic Psalter in Athens, no. 7, and in a Vatican codex, no. 752, which belongs to another recension,31 is patterned on the Nativity of the Virgin. The Anointing scene closely follows the iconographic scheme used in the Paris Psalter, no. 139, in the Book of Kings, Vatican gr. 333, and in the Vatican Bible, cod. reg. gr. I.32 The two portraits of David differ from the types used in the Paris Psalter and related manuscripts. Instead of the young musician, inspired by Melody, the aged King is represented receiving his inspiration directly from the Lord, who presents a scroll to him; in the second miniature he is seated, like the evangelists, in front of his desk, in the act of writing the psalms (figs. 4-5). These two images do not occur together in any other Psalter known to me, but the composition in a manuscript slightly older than ours, Bodleian, Clark 15, dated A.D. 1078, may be considered a conflation of the two: David is seated writing, while a three-quarter length figure of Christ appears in the arc of heaven holding an open scroll.33The representation of David rising from his throne to receive the scroll is repeated in a twelfth-century Psalter in the Barb. rb.gr. 320.34 The seated King, writing, is also rather rare: in a Vatican, cod. Ba
Psalter in Milan, Ambros, cod. 54, he is accompanied by an allegorical figure,35 but in the Venice Psalter, cod. gr. 565, he appears alone in an elaborate architectural frame.36 Thus, except for the Anointing of David, the initial miniatures of our Psalter diverge from the iconographic tradition represented by the Parisinus; they find their closest analogies in manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and, together with other miniatures to be discussed below, they show a later development in the illustration of the aristocratic Psalters. The earlier tradition is better preserved in some of the miniatures that illustrate the Psalms man theand ticles. Thus, in the David and Goliath scenes (fig. 8) we find only the two protagonists, as in the Vatican Book of Kings, cod. gr. 333, without the allegorical figures and the companies of soldiers 31 P. Buberi, Die Miniaturenhandschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Athen. Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, Phil.-hist. KI., 60, Abt. 2 (Vienna, 1917), fig. 37; E. T. DeWald, Vaticanus Graecus 752. The Illustrations in the Manuscripts of the Septuagint, III, pt. 2 (Princeton, 1942), pl. i; a complete cycle of the life of Christ precedes the Psalter illustrations in this manuscript, pis. xi-xII. The birth of David is also repiesented on the ivory casket in the Palazzo di Venezia in Rome. 32 H. Omont, op cit., pl. iii. J. Lassus, "Les miniatures byzantines du Livre des Rois," Mdlanges d'arch6ologie et d'histoire, XIV (1928), pp. 38-74, pl.I, fig. 4; Miniature della bibbia cod. Vat. Regin. greco i e del salterio cod. Vat. Palat. greco 381. Collezione paleografica Vaticana, fasc. i (Milan, 1905), pI. 12. The anointing of David is also represented in the Psalters in the Vatican, Barb. gr. 320 (fol. IV) and in the British Museum, Add. 36928 (fol. 44). 33 K. and S. Lake, Dated Greek Minuscule Manuscript to the year 1200, II (Boston, 1934), pl. I Io. 34 Bonicatti, op. cit., pI. v.2. The other two portraits in this manuscript represent David as king, standing frontally with an open book in his hand and blessed by Christ in the arc of heaven, and the young David inspired by Melody; ibid., pis. xiv. 2 and 11.2. 35 H. Buchthal, The Miniatures of the Paris Psalter (London, 1938), fig. 23. 36
M. Bonicatti,
op. cit., pl. iII.
The preceding
miniature
(fol. 51iV) represents
him inspired
by
Melody (ibid., pl. II.i). In the manuscript in Vienna, Theol. gr. 336, David, holding an open book, is seated frontally (Buberi and Gerstinger, op. cit., pl. xii).
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
169
represented in the Parisinus.37In the Berlin Psalter the fight and the beheading, depicted as in our manuscript, are also grouped on the same page.38 In the Crossing of the Red Sea (fig. 9) the action is not continuous; instead, the Israelites are placed above the Egyptians, and Moses stands in the center as in the Parisinus ;39of the many allegorical figures, only that of Abyss has been retained, and once again the composition closely resembles the miniatures of the Berlin Psalter, and of another Psalter of approximately the same date as ours, Vatican, gr. 342, of the year Io87-88.40 The illustration of the Canticle of Jonah (fig. 17) is also ultimately derived from a composition similar to the one in the Paris Psalter;41 the praying figure of Jonah, brought to the foreground, stands next to the scene where he is ejected by the whale; the hand of God has been omitted, as has also the group of Jonah and the Ninevites, and the city of Nineveh has the appearance of a villa rustica, half hidden by the mountains; but we find, behind the whale, the personification of Abyss absent from the Parisinus, though the figure is represented in the eleventh-century Psalter of Vatopedi, cod. no. 760 (formerly no. 608).42 Moses Receiving the Tablets of the Law (fig. io), which illustrates his second Canticle, as in the Parisinus, instead of Psalm 77, is also, in part, part, a simpler version of the same :43 the elements common to both compositions are the personiiconographic type fication of Mount Sinai, the group of Israelites, and Moses himself, though in our manuscript Moses is turned to the right, as in the corresponding scenes of the Octateuchs and of several Psalters.44 The principal difference resides in the absence of the second image of Moses, which in the Parisinus stands on the right and looks up to the Hand of God. By omitting this figure, as well as the representations of Moses loosening his sandals and showing the tablets of the law to the Israelites, which are to be seen in the Berlin Psalter and on a leaf from a Vatopedi Psalter now in Walters the Art Gallery,45the painter of our manuhas created a more impressive and unified composition. Only the flaming script bush, beyond the discarded sandals of Moses, suggests an episode other than the main event: that is, the giving of the law. The illustration of the Penitence Psalm (fig. 6) differs from the iconographic type to be seen in the Parisinus, the Jerusalem Psalter, Taphou 51, and the 37 J. Lassus, 38
op. cit., pl. iv, figs. 6-7; H. Omont, op. cit., pi. iv. Stuhlfauth, op. cit., fig. 13. 39 H. Omont, op. cit., pi. ix. 40 M. Bonicatti, op. cit., pl. vIII.i. Stuhlfauth, op. cit., fig. 14. 41 H. Omont, op. cit., pi. xii. 42
G. Millet and S. Der Nersessian, "Le psautier armenien illustre," Revue des 6tudes armdniennes,
IX (1920), 43
p. 177, pl. XIII, I.
H. Omont, op. cit., pl. x. 44Vatican, gr. 747: K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton, 1947), fig. 165. Smyrna, MS A. I.; D. C. Hesseling, Miniatures de l'octateuque grec de Smyrne (Leiden, 1909), pl. 63, no. 201. Moses is also turned to the right in the Psalters in Berlin, no. 3807 (Stuhlfauth, op. cit., fig. ii) and Vatopedi, no. 761 (leaf now in the Walters Art Gallery: K. Weitzmann, "The Psalter Vatopedi 761. Its Place in the Aristocratic Psalter Recension," The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery [1947], pp. 20-5I, fig. i), but these compositions do not comprise the allegorical figure and the group of Israelites next to it. These figures occur in the Vatican Bible (Miniature della bibbia, pi. io) and the Vatican Psalter, Barb. gr. 320 (formerly III 39), where Moses is shown presenting the stone tablets
to the Israelites 46
(Tikkanen,
op. cit., fig. 128; Bonicatti,
See references in note 44
op. cit., pl.
VI.2).
170
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
Vatican Book of Kings.46 Instead of first representing David admonished by Nathan, then repentant and praying, the prostrate figure of David is introduced between his image seated on the throne, and that of Nathan, standing on the right. Thus David's supplication is addressed to the Prophet, instead of to God, and in this respect the representation is related to the compositions in the Paris Gregory of Nazianzus, gr. 510, and the Psalter of Basil II.47 The disposition of the three figures of our miniature recurs in two Psalters of the Vatican, cod. gr. 752 and I927,48 but, whereas in these examples the angel is a half-length figure, above David, in ours he stands behind the throne with drawn sword, as in the Book of Kings and Paris gr. 510. The miniatures considered thus far represent events mentioned or implied in the texts to which they are attached. To this first group also belong the Canticle of The Three Hebrews in the Fiery Furnace, the illustration of which presents no special problem and follows the usual type (fig. i8), and the Canticle of Hezekiah (fig. 24), which I should like to discuss later. There are, however, several Canticles which, strictly speaking, have no subject matter. The opening words of Isaiah's prayer: "With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early" (26:9) had served as a source of inspiration for the beautiful composition of the prophet praying between the allegorical figures of Night and Dawn (fig. 15), repeated in several manuscripts.49But for most of the others, the miniaturists, especially those of a later date, simply represented the author of the Canticle in prayer. In our manuscript we have a different approach in three instances, namely, the Canticles of Hannah, Habakkuk, and the Virgin; however, these compositions were not invented for our manuscript, since identical compositions for the first two Canticles named may be seen in the slightly older Psalter in Paris, suppl. gr. 6io (figs. 11-14,
22).
In each instance a scene taken from the life ofofthe author of the Canticle is authe added to his or her image. Thus, Hannah seated with the infant Samuel on her knees appears next to Hannah praying (figs. 11-12). The first scene is an rather than than an illustration of the biblical text, since Hannah illustration interpretation rather recited her prayer after she had brought her child to Eli, the scene represented in the Book of Kings,50but it is an image appropriate to the prayer of thanksgiving for the birth of her son, which it accompanies. We have a somewhat different interpretation in the Psalter in Athens, no. 7, where the young Samuel, praying, faces his mother;51 while in a Psalter in Leningrad, Publ. 46
H. Omont, op. cit., p. viii A. A. Baumstark, "Ein rudimentares Exemplar der griechischen Psalter-
illustration
durch
Ganzseitenbilder,"
Oriens
Christianus,
N.S.,
II (1912),
pp. 107-19,
pl. III.
J.
Lassus, op. cit., pi. v, fig. 9. 47 H. Omont, op. cit., pl. xxiii, i; Buchthal, op. cit., fig. 26. 48 E. DeWald, op. cit., pl. xxxi. Idem, Vaticanus graecus I927 (Princeton, 1941) pl. xxii; here the composition is reversed. 49 H. Omont, op. cit., pi. XIII. Vatican gr. 755: A. Munoz, I codici greci miniati delle minori bibliotechedi Roma (Florence, 1905), pl. 6. The Bristol Psalter: M. Philipps Perry, "An Unnoticed Byzantine Psalter," The Burlington Magazine, 38 (1921), pp. II9ff., 282ff, and pl. iii. 50 J. Lassus, op. cit. p. 69, miniature on fol. 6; there is no representation of Hannah reciting her
prayer; ibid., p. 55. 51 Folio 237v. Photo: Ecole des Hautes Etudes, C
1298.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
171
Libr., gr. 214, the same two figures, blessed by Christ, form the initial of the Canticle.52
It was more difficult to find an image for the Canticle of Habakkuk, for neither in the prayer nor in the other chapters of this Prophet's book is there any passage which could easily lend itself to a pictorial rendering. Some painters have turned their attention to the opening sentence, as they had done for Isaiah's Canticle, and reprepresented Habakkuk listening in fear, in accordance with the words: "O Lord, I have heard thy speech and was afraid"' (3:2).53 In order to find a scene from the life of Habakkuk which could be added to the praying figure, the miniaturist who first devised the composition copied in our manuscript and in Paris, suppl. gr. 6io (figs. I3-I4) had to turn to the only passage in the Bible where Habakkuk is mentioned, namely, to the apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon which, in the edition of the Septuagint, occurs in Daniel I4:32-38.54 According to this account, Habakkuk was preparing a meal when the angel of the Lord appeared to him and ordered him to take the food to Daniel who was in the den of lions in Babylon. Habakkuk the or den was to be found, wherereplied that he knew not where Babylon the seized him the hair of his head and carried him swiftly by upon angel through the air. This scene, which forms part of the Daniel story, has been detached from the composition of Daniel in the den of lions, with which it is sometimes represented,55 and placed here, since it is the only known episode in the life of the Prophet; the illustrators have also taken over the personification of Babylon which belongs to the Daniel story. The Annunciation and the seated Virgin in the headpiece of the Magnificat (fig. 22) give us another example of the juxtaposition of scene and portrait; in this instance the Visitation has been added in the initial so that we have
the two major episodes which preceded the Thanksgiving Canticle recited by Mary. These scenes from the life of the Virgin appear in other aristocratic Psalters: the Annunciation is llustrated in Athens, no. 7 and Jerusalem, Taphou 53,56 while in the Psalter in Venice, cod. gr. 563, the Visitation is represented in thetheheadpiece and the Annunciation forms the initial M.57 The
Virgin seated and pointing to the open book has not been repeated in other Psalters,58 but, as has been suggested by K. Weitzmann, echoes of such an 52 V. N. Lazarev, Istoriia vizantiiskoi zhivopis' (Moscow, 1948) pl. 137. Idem, "Tsarigradskaia litsevaia psaltir XIv." Vizantiiskii Vremennik, III (1950), pp. 211-17, fig. 7. 53 For instance, in Athens MS I5: Buberi, op. cit., fig. 52. 54 Apocryphal Book of Bel and the Dragon, cf. R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old Testament (Oxford, 1913), i, p. 663. 66 Paris. gr. 510: Omont, op. cit., pl. LVII. For earlier examples, see Dictionnaire d'archeologie
chrdtienneet de liturgie, VI, 2, figs. 55I0-15. 56 Buberl, op. cit., fig. 47. G. Millet, op. cit., in Bulletin de correspondance helldnique, I8 (I894), p.
457. A. Baumstark, op. cit., in Oriens Christianus, V (I905), p. 308. 57Bonicatti, op. cit., pl. Ix i; the initial is not visible in the reproduction, because the photograph
is cut off immediately under the headpiece. 58 The Virgin in prayer, either full face or in profile, may be seen in the following manuscripts: British Museum, Add. II836, fol. 304; Vatopedi, cod. 85I (K. Weitzmann, "Eine Pariser-PsalterKopie des I3. Jahrhunderts auf dem Sinai," Jahrbuch der Osterreichischenbyzantinischen Gesellschaft, VI [I957], p. I32); Jerusalem, Hagiou Staurou, 88 (A. Baumstark, "Zur byzantinischen Odenillustration," Romische Quartalschrift, XXI [I907], p. I63); Mount Athos, Lavra B 26, fol. 268; Paris, suppl. gr. I335,
fol. 334.
172
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
image may be discerned in a Leningrad leaf from a thirteenth-century manuscript on Mount Sinai, no. 38, where Mary enthroned, with the Christ Child on her knees, holds an open scroll on which the first words of her Canticle have been inscribed.59 In view of the definite intent to combine scene and portrait-an intent to be observed in the last three compositions that we have examined as well as in the headpiece of the Canticle of Jonah-one is surprised to find at the beginning of the Canticle of Hezekiah (fig. 24) only the image of the King praying, whereas in the Paris Psalter Hezekiah has also been represented as ill, and reclining on a bed next to which stands Isaiah.60 It is most unfortunate that the corresponding miniature in Paris suppl. gr. 6IO is lost, for it might have helped us to understand what appears to be a case of faulty copying in our manuscript, namely, the box-like structure on the left which is barely wide enough to house the King's throne and which differs from all other architectural figurations. Could it be a distortion of the palace facade as it is represented in the Parisinus, with projecting walls at the sides of the steps and the King's bed placed in front of them ? If such be the case, we must conclude that the immediate or distant prototype of our miniature also comprised the scene in which Isaiah predicted to Hezekiah that he would be healed.61 Behind Hezekiah, represented in proskynesis as David was in the miniature of the Penitence Psalm, stands a female personification, bent slightly forward and quite different from the allegorical figure of Prayer in the corresponding miniature of the Parisinus. But the group in the Parisinus formed by Hezekiah and Prayer (wrpoaEuxi') has been used for the Prayer of Manasseh in our manuscript (fig. 25) with only a minor change: The full-length allegorical figure, seen en face, points to the arc of heaven. Very few manuscripts have retained an illustration for this prayer; in the Psalters with marginal miniatures Manasseh is represented kneeling, while in the aristocratic Psalter in Athens the King's bust, orans, emerges from a brazen bull.62This composition, which also occurs in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus in Paris, gr. 5Io,63 is based on the apocryphal stories according to which Manasseh, when taken as a prisoner to Babylon, was placed inside a brazen animal under which a fire was kindled; but Manasseh repented and prayed to the Lord, whereupon the animal melted and he was freed.64 All of the Canticles (except those of Moses) and Psalms I, 50, and 77 begin with a figured initial. The Visitation has been represented inside the initial of the Magnificat, as we have just seen; in the other instances the author of the 9 K. Weitzmann, op. cit., p. I31-32, op. cit., pi. xiv.
60 Omont, 61 In the
fig. 6.
Bristol Psalter, Brit. Mus., Add. 4073I, Hezekiah, praying, stands alone next to a small structure; S. Dufrenne, "Le Psautier de Bristol," Cahiers archdologiques,XIV (I964), p. 172, fig. 23. 62 Buberl, op. cit., fig. 48. op. cit., pl. LVII.
63 Omont,
64Targum of Chronicles and II Baruch 64; cf. Bruce M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha
(New York,
1957),
pp. I26-7;
R. H. Charles, op. cit., p. 515. See also ibid., i, p. 613, note i, for
references to Byzantine authors who mention this legend.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
173
Canticle forms the first letter or is painted inside it, while the initials of Psalms i and 77 are formed by the standing figures of Christ and David (figs. 5-7, II, Similar letters are found in the Vatican Psalter, Barb. gr. I3, I5, I7, 19-25). 320,65 and in the Psalter in the Leningrad Public Library, gr. 214, the illustration of which consists almost exclusively of historiated initials.66 But there is a major difference between these examples and our manuscript, for in ours the image of Christ has been painted in the outer the and oauthors of margin the Canticles, hands stretched out toward Him, address their prayers to Him.67 The Christological element thus introduced into the Psalter illustration, an element of which the representations of the Virgin and saints at the beginning of the manuscript are another example, finds its full expression in the figure of Christ Pantokrator in the headpiece of Psalm 77 (fig. 7). This psalm is primarily a summary of the history of Israel; there is no specific mention of the law given to Moses, but because of the opening words ("Give ear, 0 my people, to my law") and the reference to the law appointed by the Lord in Israel (v. 5), the scenes selected in the majority of aristocratic Psalters are Moses receiving the stone tablets, showing them to the Israelites,68or teaching the law to the people of Israel.69 The substitution of Christ Pantokrator for these images finds its explanation in some of the commentaries to the psalms. Both Eusebius and Hesychius (Pseudo-Athanasius) explain verse 2 ("I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old") by reference to Matthew
I3:34-35,
where this verse is quoted: "All these things spake
Jesus unto the multitude in parables, and without a parable spake he not unto them: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet saying, I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world." The law to which we must "give ear" is the evangelical law, they state, and it is the Savior Himself who says: "Attend my people to my law."70 It was therefore most appropriate to represent, in the headpiece of this Psalm, Christ, the lawgiver, rather than Moses receiving the law. This Christological interpretation appears for the first time in the codex of the Pantokrator Monastery, no. 61, which belongs to the old group of Psalters with marginal illustrations. On folio 102, next to the title of the Psalm, stands its author, Asaph, sounding a large horn, but on folio 102v, next to verses i to 4, Christ addresses a group of Israelites, and the accompanying inscription 6 K(uplo)sTroIs reads: El'rrEv These two miniatures are followed by 'louvBaiois. several others depicting the events referred to in the Psalm. The illustrator 65 M. Bonicatti, op. cit., pI. 11.2, VI.2, VII.2. In the Psalter in Paris, gr. 41, anthropomorphic initials are used for many of the Psalms but not for the Canticles. 66 V. Lazarev, Istoriia, II, pls. 136-7 and idem, in Viz. Vrem., III (I950), pp. 211-2I7, figs. 1-12; the only miniature introduced into the text represents Jonah cast into the sea. 67 In the Vatican manucript just mentioned, as well as in Paris gr. 41, the initial of the first psalm is formed by the figures of Christ and David, as in our manuscript. 68 For instance, in the leaf from Vatopedi 761 at the Walters Art Gallery, the Psalter of the Theological Seminary in Berlin (K. Weitzmann, in The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery [1947], figs. i and 19) and in Sinai MS 38 (Idein, in Jahrb. der Osterr. byz. Gesellschaft, VI [I957], fig. 2). 69 Lavra B 26 (Millet and Der Nersessian, op. cit., pi. xv.i) and Vatopedi, cod. 85I, fol. I54V. 70 Migne, PG, XXIII, col. 901 C and XXVII, cols. 349-57.
174
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
of the "Bristol" Psalter, Brit. Mus., Add. 40731, has given greater prominence to the Christological interpretation by devoting, exceptionally, a full page to the miniature which forms the frontispiece to Psalm 77 and in which we see Christ, enthroned, teaching the people grouped on either side (fol. 25v).71On the following pages the marginal illustrations again represent scenes from the history of Israel. The image of Christ is not absent from the other manuscripts of this group; in the Barberini Psalter, He appears on the margin of folio I25 speaking to two Israelites, while in the Psalter of the Walters Art Gallery the small figure of Christ enthroned is painted above the title of the Psalm,72 just as the bust portrait of the Pantokrator has been represented in the headpiece of our manuscript. This same Christological interpretation occurs, under different forms, in several aristocratic Psalters. The full-page miniature of Marciana cod. gr. 565 appears to be, at first glance, the traditional scene of Moses Receiving the Law, with the Israelites gazing up toward him (fig. 58); but in the group on the left, unfortunately badly preserved, one can distinguish a nimbed figure with the facial type of Christ. I shall return to this composition and to its meaning after mentioning other examples. In British Museum Add. 11836, the miniature of fol. 267v, facing Psalm 77, represents a group of five standing Israelites; Christ, identified by the sigla IC XC is in the upper left corner with His right hand extended, and the first words of the Psalm are written in red on a gold ground. In the thirteenth-century Psalter in Paris, suppl. gr. 1335 (fol. 296v), Christ, addressing the Israelites, stands opposite
them; in its formal aspects the composition is identical with the corresponding miniature of the Psalter of Mount Athos, Lavra B 26, where Moses speaks to the Israelites.73 In the Vatican Psalter, Palat. gr. 381, two full-page compositions precede Psalm 77; the first, on folio i69v, representing Moses Receiving the Law, is identical with the miniature in Sinai codex no. 38, and both are derived from the illustration of the second Canticle of Moses in the Parisinus I39.74 In the lower part of the opposite page Moses presents the tablets to the Israelites, while in the upper part he is once again depicted receiving the law, though this time from Christ who stands opposite him.75 This last scene is obviously an intrusion into the original scheme76and does not introduce a new idea: it is always Moses who transmits the law which he receives from God; but God is represented once, symbolically, through the Hand emerging from the arc of heaven, and a second time under the aspect of Christ with white 71 S. Dufrenne, op. cit., in Cahiers arch6ologiques,XIV (1964), p. 72Dorothy E. Miner, "The Monastic Psalter of the Walters Art i65. Gallery," Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Matthias Friend Jr. (Princeton, 1955), p. 246, fig. ii. In the London Psalter, Add. 19352, the enthroned figure who holds an open book with the word v6uos is Asaph, the author of the Psalm, but the medallion portrait of Christ appears higher up, on the side margin (fol. ioo).
73 Millet and Der Nersessian, 74
op. cit., pI. xv.i.
K. Weitzmann, op. cit., in Jahrbuch der osterr. byz. Gesellschaft, VI (1957), p. 139, figs. 2, 8. Miniature della bibbia, pI. 21. 75 Ibid., pI. 22. 76 Referring to C. R. Morey's contention that the prototype of the manuscript, namely, the Paris Psalter, must once have had a similar miniature, Weitzmann rightly asserts that the Christological element and other aspects of the composition render this hypothesis untenable (op. cit., p. 139).
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
175
hair and beard, that is, as the Ancient of Days. We find a somewhat similar idea in the Psalter of Sinai, gr. 6i, of the year 1274; the miniature on folio I2Iv, preceding Psalm 77, is divided into two registers: above, Moses receives the law from Christ, in the presence of the Israelites; below, Moses addresses the Israelites. The composition in the Venice Psalter no. 565 combines two different themes: the law given by God to Moses, and the law taught by Christ. We have here an indirect illustration of the opposition of the old law and the new law expressed in the Gospel of John: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (I: 17). These words are recalled in several representations of Moses Receiving the Law: In a Gospel MS in Berlin, qu. 66, they are written above and below this scene ;77 in a lectionary in the Vatican Library, cod. gr. 1522, the frontispiece representing Moses Receiving the Law is followed by a long poem developing the opposition between the old and the new law.78Both these miniatures are connected with the Joannine text, since in the Berlin manuscript it serves as a frontispiece to the Gospel of John, and the Vatican codex, like all lectionaries, begins with the first chapter of John. More interesting for our purpose are those examples which have no direct link with the Gospel of John, and are to be found in manuscripts of the Psalter and New Testament combined. Such a manuscript is Paris, suppl. gr. I335, already mentioned in connection with the illustration of Psalm 77; Moses Receiving the Law is used as a frontispiece to the entire manuscript and, facing it, is another full-page miniature in which the medallion portrait of the youthful Christ is surrounded by the symbols of the four evangelists.79 The same two compositions probably adorned the stylistically related Rockefeller-Mc Cormick manuscript; the second miniature is lost, but the opposition of the old and new law, pictorially expressed by the paired images, is clearly set forth by John's words, "for the law was given by Moses," written above the image of Moses Receiving the Law, and the sentence must have continued on the opposite page.80 The representations of the Virgin and saints at the beginning of our manuscript; the marginal images of Christ to whom the authors of the Canticles address their prayers; finally, the portrait of Christ Pantokrator replacing that of Moses show the gradual modification of the original aristocratic Psalter illustration which, except for the miniatures illustrating the Canticles taken from the Gospels, comprised only Old Testament scenes. The same phenomenon was observed in varying degrees in other aristocratic Psalters of the 77Miniature on folio 264v, following the portraits of John and Prochoros on folio 263V; photographs at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris. 78 K. Weitzmann, Byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. und io. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, I935), figs. 25, 26; The Rockefeller-McCormickNew Testament. III. The Miniatures, by Harold R. Willoughby (Chicago, I932), p. I2 and pl. iii. The manuscript is dated in the fourteenth century by Devreesse in his catalogue,
III, pp. 67-70.
79Willoughby, op. cit., pls. ii and xcix. 80Ibid., pp. 9-I2 and I, fol. 6v. The scene of Moses Receiving the Law is repeated as an illustration of John I: I 7 on folio 86. An earlier example of the illustration of this verse is to be seen in the Lectionary in Paris, suppl. gr. 27: Omont, op. cit., pl. xcvIII, 5.
176
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
eleventh and subsequent centuries mentioned above. In none of these was the fundamental scheme altered, since within the Psalter proper only Psalms 50, 77, and i5i were illustrated, but during the same period other Psalters with full-page miniatures showed a more radical transformation: in these, other Psalms, besides the three just mentioned, were also accompanied by miniatures and they sometimes represented Gospel scenes. A leaf in the Princeton Museum, with the Crucifixion and the Anastasis, was recognized by K. Weitzmann as belonging to such a Psalter, where it originally faced Psalm 9; in his discussion of these miniatures he also referred to another manuscript of this type, Vatopedi, cod. no. 760 (formerly 608).81A study of the illustrations of this Psalter, known to me through the photographs made by G. Millet and a microfilm at the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes in Paris,82 lies outside the scope of this article, and I shall limit myself here to a few remarks which have a bearing on the transformation of the aristrocratic Psalter recension. This transformation must have taken place primarily under the influence of the Psalters with marginal illustration: In almost every instance the same scenes have have been selected to illustrate the same Psalms, and some of these show the type of literal interpretation characteristic of the marginal Psalters. For instance, on folio 25 David stands next to a hillock, on which three birds are perched, and looks up to Christ, depicted in the upper right-hand corner; the words that have been illustrated: "In the Lord put I my trust, how say ye to my soul, Flee as a bird to your mountain?" (Ps. o: I) are written, as is customary in this manuscript, o the open scroll held by David. A bird perched on the mountain may be in seen in the Chludov Psalter (fol. io), the London Psalter (fol. ov) and the Barberini Psalter (fol. I5), and in the last two thejust man o) points to the medallion of Christ. The miniature on folio 245, which refers to Psalm 136:I-2 ("By the rivers of
the Babylon,g willows") and depicts the scene described in these verses, also corresponds to the illustrations in the same three Psalters (folios 81
,
and 222 respectively).83
K. Weitzmann, "Aristocratic Psalter and Lectionary," The Record of the Art Museum, Princeton
University, 82
35
XIX
(I960),
pp. 98-107,
fig. i.
Reproductions of a few miniatures in K. Weitzmann, ibid., figs. 3-4, and Illustrations in Roll and Codex, figs. 113139 Millet Milletand and Der Der ps.Nersessian, H. Buchthal, The Miniaxiii-xiv3-39; Nersessian,op. cit., ps. op.cit., tures of the Paris Prsalter, figs. 8o-8; N. Kondakov, Pamiatniki Christianskago iskusstva na Afone which the accompany miniaturesalms which (Saint Petersburg, 902), p. 286. The miniatures accompany tthe Psalms are the following: fol. iiv, Christ Teaching the Israelites (Ps. 2: 1); fol. I9v, Entry into Jerusalem (Ps. 8:2); fol. 25V, David stands next to a hill on which three ravens ravens f.29,);fol. are are perched (Ps. I); man, in imperial dress,
stands between two groups of men (Ps. i3:
i);
fol. 59, Paul Baptized
by Ananias (Ps. 31:
I);
fol. 79V,
fol. 96v, Repentance of David (Ps. 50); John the Almoner Distributing Alms to the Poor (Ps. 40:I); fol. 119v, Anastasis (Ps. 67: I); fol. 143, Moses Receiving the Law (Ps. 77); fol. 218, David and a group of men stand at the side of a church (Ps. ii8. i); fol. 245, the Israelites are seated next to a river; folios 263V-264, The Combat of harps and different instruments hang from the trees (Ps. 136:1-2); David and Goliath, and David Presenting the Head of Goliath to Saul (Ps. 151). 83 In discussing the iconography of the Crucifixion and the Anastasis on the Princeton leaf and the compositions of the Entry into Jerusalem and the Anastasis in the Vatopedi Psalter, K. Weitzmann speaks of "the influence of the feast cycle [of lectionaries] upon the aristocratic Psalter" (op. cit., p. 106). This remark naturally applies to the iconography of these subjects and not to the choice of scenes, for of the twelve miniatures of the Vatopedinus, only the two just mentioned are Gospel scenes; a third, Paul Baptized by Ananias (fol. 59), belongs to the Acts of the Apostles, and the remaining nine are directly connected with the text of the psalms, and, ordinarily, with the opening verses.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
177
The influence of the marginal Psalters on the Dumbarton Oaks and related manuscripts is less obvious, but can nevertheless be discerned. It will be recalled that the Christological interpretation of Psalm 77 already occurred in the ninth-century Psalter of the Pantokrator Monastery, cod. 6i, and in several of the later copies. Inhe small portraits painted in the initials, showing the authors of the Canticles with their hands stretched out toward Christ, we echo of numeros have perhaps an echominiatures of the numerous marginal miniatures of these Psalters which represent David, a prophet, or a saint praying to Christ. Finally, in scroll thefrom the hand of God, considering the portrait of David receiving instead of being inspired by Melody, one recalls that the divine inspiration of the Psalmist is suggested in the marginal Psalters also: In the Chludov Psalter the medallion figure of Christ appears above David playing the psalterion (fol. IV), and in the elaborate frontispiece on folio 2 of the Barberini Psalter, Christ, enthroned and blessing, is depicted above David and the group of musicians and dancers. The illustration of the New Testament section of our manuscript consists almost exclusively of portraits. Those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the headpieces of their Gospels, and of James and John above their Epistles conform to the iconographic types of writing or meditating authors (figs. 28-30, 33, 38) current in the eleventh century.84For the Gospel of John, the group portrait of John dictating to Prochoros, also common in this period,85 was selected, and the entire page given over to it (fig. 31). The folio which once faced this miniature musthave had a large, ornate headpiece, since the missing part of the text, that is, John i: I-26, would have covered only a page and a half. The portraits of Peter and Jude are derived from the iconographic types used for the prophets rather than those of the standing evangelists, for they carry scrolls instead of books. These seated or standing portraits preceding the different epistles are in keeping with general practice. Occasionally, however, all the authors are grouped on a single page, as in the Psalter and New Testament of Vatopedi, cod. no. 762 (fol. 330), or, together with Luke, they are depicted two by two on three folios before the Acts of the Apostles, as in the Praxapostolos of the Vatican, gr. I208.86 Scenes from their lives, such as fill the lunettes of the beautiful manuscript of the Bodleian, Auct. T infra I. io, are extremely rare.87 Different schemes are used for the frontispiece or the headpiece of Acts, in addition to the single portrait of Luke, who is shown either seated and writing 84 A.
M. Friend, Jr., "The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts," Art
Studies, V (1927), p. 134ff., 86 Ibid., pI. xviii. 86
pl. xiv.
Ibid., pI. VII, figs. 92-94. Otto Pacht, Byzantine Illumination (Oxford, 1952), fig. 17, lunette of the frontispiece to the Epistles of Paul (fol. 312v). On folio 287V James is represented seated and preaching to two groups of men; on fol. 292v, in the lunette above the portrait of Peter, writing, the angel delivers him from prison; on fol. 302v, in the lunette above the portrait of John, meditating, the evangelist and a young man are in a boat. In the Rockefeller-McCormick New Testament there are no narrative scenes for the Epistles, though the Acts are illustrated. 87
12
178
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
or standing. At times the composition includes all the apostles. In the New Testament of Dionysiou, cod. 8, dated II33, the page is divided into twelve rectangular compartments, each one housing the bust portrait of an apostle; this leaf, detached from the manuscript, is now in the Paul Canellopoulos collection in Athens.88 In the Praxapostolos of the Walters Art Gallery, cod. 533 (fol. I), and that of Mount Sinai, gr. 275 (fol. i), Christ, standing in the midst of the apostles, fills the headpiece of the Acts, while in Paris suppl. gr. 26II, of the year IIoi, Christ, enthroned, addresses the apostles (fol. 35). In the New Testament of the Pantokrator Monastery, no. 234, Luke is seated with an open book on his lap and the apostles stand opposite him (fol. 52V). The Pauline Epistles are also usually preceded by the portrait of Saint Paul,89 sometimes writing,90 and occasionally dictating to a disciple.91 In the Pantokrator codex no. 234 Paul is seated, writing, and a woman looks out of a window opposite him.92The scene is based on an episode in the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thekla, where it is related that when Paul was teaching in Iconium, at the house of Onesiphoros, Thekla, seated at the window of her own house, listened to his words. This composition helps us to understand the representation in our manuscript (fig. 42). The woman who leans over Paul's chair and watches while he writes, should probably, because of her costume, be identified as Thekla, although the scene does not correspond to any specific passage of the apocryphal Acts. The compositional scheme is that of an author inspired by an allegorical figure standing behind him, a scheme occasionally used for the portraits of David and, in later periods, for the Church Fathers;93 but here the addition of the young man behind the desk suggests the use and transposition of the iconographic type of John Chrysostom inspired by St. Paul. According to a passage in the Vita by George of Alexandria, repeated by Leo the Wise and Symeon Metaphrastes,94 John Chrysostom was composing his Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, when Proclos, his secretary, watching from behind the door, saw a man whispering in John's ear. Proclos revealed to John what he had witnessed, and pointing to the image of St. Paul which hung on the wall, stated that he was the man who had visited John every night. This scene is represented in the frontispiece of the Epistles of St. Paul with the commentary of John Chrysostom in the Vatican, cod. gr. 766: Paul stands behind John's chair, a man watches from the doorway, and 88 K. and S. Lake, Dated Greek Minuscule
Manuscripts,
III, pl. I97, fol. I34v-i35.
Catalogue:
L'art
byzantin art europden. Neuvieme exposition sousl'6gide du Conseil de l'Europe (Athens, 1964), no. 313. 89 H. Willoughby, The Rockefeller-McCormickNew Testament, III, p. 330, pl. cxxv. 90 Paris, gr. 224: Omont, op. cit., pi. ci; Moscow, University Library, no. 2280, A.D. I072: M. Alpatov, "Un nuovo monumento di miniatura della scuola constantinopolitana," Studi bizantini, II, (1927),
pp. 103-108,
fig. I; Oxford, Bodleian,
Auct. T. infra, I, Io, fol. 312v; Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coislin
30: K. Weitzmann, "An Early Copto-Arabic Miniature in Leningrad," Ars Islamica, X (1943), p. 123, note 15a. 91Mount Athos, Lavra, cod. B 26 (K. Weitzmann, op. cit., fig. 6). 92Photograph kindly communicated by Prof. Weitzmann. 93Milan, Ambros., cod. 54: H. Buchthal, The Paris Psalter, fig. 23. J. Strzygowski, Die Miniaturen des Serbischen Psalters der Konigl. Hof-und Staatsbibliothek in Miiunchen (Vienna, I906), pl. v, fig. 8, discussion I2 p. I9, and fig. pp. 94 Leo the Wise, "Laudatio" 94-5. (PG, 107, cols. 256 D-257 II04 B-IIo8 B).
C); Simeon
Metaphrastes
(PG, II4, cols.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
179
the icon of St. Paul hangs on the wall.95It is repeated in the Psalter in Athens, no. 7, although the accompanying text is Chrysostom's Commentary on the Psalms rather than his Commentary on the Epistles.96 This theme enjoyed great popularity; we find it, with some variations, in the Menologium of Mount Sinai, no. 500, where it is placed before the Life of John Chrysostom, the entry for November I3 (fol. I75); in a copy of John Chrysostom's Commentaries in Milan, cod. A. I72,97 and, adapted to the initial K, in the liturgical scroll of Jerusalem, thraupou o09.98 The fact that this composition occurs in one of the aristocratic Psalters is of particular interest, for it suggests tie possible source of the iconographic scheme used for thehe adpiece of the Pauline Epistles. In this re-adaptation the inspiring figure of Paul has been transformed into that of Thekla, thus introducing an element derived from the apocryphal Acts; as for the young man who has taken the place of Proclos, shallsee, John's secretary, he may be Paul's companion, Timothy. For, as we shall the two are sometimes represented together, and in the Praxapostolos of the Esphigmenou Monastery, cod., 63, mentioned by K. Weitzmann, "Timothy stands in front of Paul, who is seated and writing in a codex."99 The portraits of the authors of the books of the New Testament are repeated in the initials, as they had been in the Psalter, and they are occasionally accompanied by marginal miniatures. The most interesting among the latter are those which were painted on the incipit pages of the Gospels; though effaced, they can be identified thanks to their inscriptions. These figures are the following: for Matthew, Christ, David, and Solomon (fig. 28); for Mark, John the Baptist
(fig. 29); for Luke, Theophilus,
Zacharias, and Elizabeth
(fig. 30). The incipit page of John is lost and there is no photographic record of it. Marginal miniatures are more common in lectionaries of this period than in manuscripts of the Four Gospels, and it is most unusual to restrict them to the incipit pages. There is, however, one other example very similar to ours, in codex no. 522 of the Walters Art Gallery which can be assigned to the early twelfth century. Here the figures, also almost obliterated, represent Abraham, David, and Christ on the first page of Matthew (fol. I2); John the Baptist, on the first page of Mark (fol. 89); and Zacharias and the angel on the first page of Luke (fol. I4I). There is no marginal figure on the incipit page of John.100 95 J. R. Martin, The Illustration of the Heavenly Ladder by John Climacus (Princeton, I954), p. 23 and fig. 299. It also occurs in Vatican, gr. 1640: Cyrus Giannelli, Codices Vaticani graeci: Codices 1485-1683 (Vatican City, 1950), p. 349. 96 P. Buberl, op. cit., fig. 40; cf. A. Xyngopoulos 97
in Archaiologike Ephemeris (942-44),
p. I7, note 2.
M. L. Gengaro, F. Leoni, G. Villa, Codici decorati e miniati dell'Ambrosiana: Ebraici e greci (Milan, 1960), pI. LIII. 98 A. Grabar, "Un rouleau liturgique constantinopolitain et ses peintures," Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
8 (1954), p. I73, fig. 5. " K. Weitzmann, op. cit., p.
123. In the Psalter and New Testament of Lavra, cod. B 26, the youthful scribe to whom Paul is dictating is identified as Timothy by the inscription (ibid., p. 123-4, fig. 6). In the Praxapostolos in Moscow, no. 2280, though he is not identified, the young apostle who writes under Paul's dictation in the headpiece of the Epistle to the Philippians must again be Timothy, since he is associated with Paul in the opening words: "Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ" (Alpatov, op. cit., fig. 4; V. Lazarev, Istoriia, II, pl. 135 a).
100H. Buchthal,
12*
Miniature
Painting
in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (London, 1957),
pl. 141 e.
180
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
As can be seen, both manuscripts represent an abbreviated genealogy of Christ to illustrate the first chapter of Matthew. The illustrator of the Walters codex has followed the wording of the first verse: "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham," placing the figures in descending order, with Abraham at the top. In our manuscript we have a selected genealogy, which comprises only David and Solomon, the two Kings represented in Western Europe in the compositions of the Tree of Jesse, and, as in these examples, Christ is placed above them. For the Gospel of Mark the choice isthe thame same in both manuscripts, since only John the Baptist is mentioned in the first verses; but there is once more a slight divergence inththeillustration of the incipit page of Luke. In addition todepicting Theophilus, who is addressed by Luke in verse 3, the illustrator of our manuscript has again given a genealogical image by representing the parents of John the Baptist, Zacharias, and Elizabeth, mentioned in verse 5, while in the Walters Gospels the scene is that of the angel appearing to Zacharias. These marginal miniatures are to be connected with the illustrations of an older manuscript in Paris, gr. 64. Here two ornate folios precede each Gospel; on the verso of the first leaf andthe recto of the second the text is written in the shape of a cross, and the miniatures, consisting for the most part of single figures, are painted in the free spaces at the sides of the cross. The choice of figures and scenes is more detailed than in the Dumbarton Oaks and Walters manuscripts, but, with the exception of Christ, all those that occur in the latter are also found in the Parisinus. For Matthew we have again a selected genealogy, beginning with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jude on folio iov, and continuing with David, Solomon, Mary, and Joseph on folio Ii,101 though these four are not mentioned in the accompanying text which goes from Phares (v. 3) to Manasses (v. io). Among the miniatures that illustrate the Gospel of Mark, John the Baptist is represented twice, wearing a short pallium and holding the cross staff, as in our manuscript.102Those that illustrate the Gospel of Luke also correspond to ours: On folio I02 we see Luke addressing Theophilus (in our Gospel Luke was painted in the initial) and, below, Zacharias and Elizabeth; while on folio II3 we find the angel and Zacharias, as in the Walters Gospel.103There is thus a very close relationship between these three manuscripts as regards both the method of illustration and the choice of individual figures, and the marginal miniatures of the Dumbarton Oaks and Walters manuscripts are important witnesses of a type of Gospel illustration known hitherto only through the Parisinus, gr. 64. In the outer margin of the Acts of the Apostles the illustrator of our manuscript has repeated the figure of Theophilus (fig. 32), addressed again by Luke (i:I). Only the outlines of the figure remain, and we cannot tell whether or not he was clad in imperial garb, as he is in the two Oxford manuscripts: Bodleian, Auct T. infra i. 10, where he is represented in the frontispiece of 101H. Omont, op. cit., pI. LXXXV, 102 Ibid., pI. LXXXV, 4. 103 Ibid., pI. LXXXVI, 1-2.
1-2.
AND NEW TESTAMENT
OAKS PSALTER
DUMBARTON
181
Acts, opposite Luke, who is seated and writing,104and Christ Church gr. 12, where both he and Luke are represented standing, at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (fol. 82v).105 Theophilus also wears the imperial costume in Paris, gr. 64. The other marginal miniatures of our manuscript are portraits relating to the authors of the Epistles. These anthropomorphic initials, elegant as they are, do not display the inventiveness which can be observed in other contemporary manuscripts where entire scenes have been adapted to the shapes of the letters. The initial 11,which occurs most frequently, is usually formed by Christ and the author of the epistle-Peter or Paul (figs. 35, 42-46, as in the Psalter Christ and David formed the hastae of the 51, 55, 6)-just same letter (figs. 5-7). When in the first verse of one of his Epistles Paul mentions his companion Timothy, or Silvanus, or both together, different combinations are used: The initial is formed by Christ and Paul, with Timothy represented in the margin (fig. 54, and frontispiece); or by Paul and Silvanus, with Timothy again depicted in the margin (figs. 49, 50); or Paul and Timothy form the two hastae and are blessed by the bust figure of Christ (figs. 47, 48, 62). The initial I could be represented only by a single figure, which is that of the author. Consequently, the others are placed in the margin; Christ appears there alone beside the Epistle of James (fig. 33); Christ is in one margin and James in the other beside the Epistle of Jude (fig. 41), which begins with the words: "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James." The initial O of the Epistles of John frames his bust figure (figs. 38-39), but his portrait is also painted in the margin of the preface to his Epistles (figs. 37, 60). It is interesting to observe that the miniaturist has used three different portrait types for John: dictating to Prochoros (fig. 31), seated and writing (fig. 38), and standing in profile, with a half open book in his hands (figs. 37, 60), a type used in tenth-century manuscripts such as Paris, gr. 70 and Vienna, Theol. gr. 240.106
The initial A of the Gospel of Markis a variant of the type used for the letter II, for it also consists of two figures: Mark and Jesus (fig. 29). The only suggestion of a scene occurs on folio 331 (fig. 55), where the Hebrews to whom the Epistle was addressed are depicted in the margin, but in the initial Paul stands turned toward Christ, and does not look in their direction. This absence of any reference to Paul's predication constitutes one of the essential differences between the initials of our manuscript and those of the Praxapostolos
of the University
Library in Moscow, no. 2280,
dated 1072,
with which they are stylistically related, and which are often formed by the figures of Peter or Paul addressing a small group of men.107Moreover, Christ, almost invariably included in the initials of our manuscript, is absent from those of the Moscow codex, and only occasionally has the painter represented 104 0. 105
Pacht, op. cit., fig. 8.
The paint has flaked, but one can still see that Theophilus was crowned and wore a loros over
his tunic instead of a chlamys 106 A.
as in the preceding
M. Friend, Jr., op. cit., pl. i, figs. 4, i6. 107 Alpatov, op. cit., in Studi biz., II (1927), figs.
example: the inscription reads 6 KpTOri-rOSs66
3-5.
182
SIRARPIE
DER NERSESSIAN
the Hand of God blessing. Finally, another iconographic difference should be noted: James is represented as an apostle in our manuscript and as a bishop in the Moscow codex.108 In conception, though not in form, the initials of our manuscript that consist of the portraits of the authors of the Epistles and of the companions of Paul are comparable to the miniatures introduced into the text, at the beginning of the Epistles, in two Praxapostolos manuscripts: Walters Art Gallery, no. 533 and Mount Sinai, gr. 275. Thus, in both codices Paul and Timothy stand facing one another at the beginnings of the Epistles to the Philippians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon.109Silvanus is added in the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. In the Walters manuscript three bust figures are enclosed in medallions in the headpiece of the first of the two Epistles, and the three men stand side by side next to the second Epistle.110In the Sinai manuscript we have each time a headpiece with the full figure of Paul in a medallion at the center, and Timothy and Silvanus at the sides. The compositions, which consist of two figures turned slightly toward one another, could easily have been used to form the initial LI, and, conversely, the figures could have been detached from the hastae of the letter to stand, freely, opposite one another. Folios 86 and 87, which have been added by a later owner of the manuscript, show the monk John being introduced to the Virgin by the protomartyr Stephen; behind him stands the "'hieromonachos" Gregory, who, as the spiritual father of John, holds the book, while John himself raises both hands in the attitude of prayer or supplication (figs. 26, 27). There is not sufficient information to allow identification of either one of these clerics, but the epithet of the Virgin, the "'Spelaiotissa," connects her image with an icon of the famous Peloponnesan monastery of Megaspelaion, depicting the young prince John Dukas Angelos Palaeologos Tornitses before the Virgin, designated as the Spelaiotissa.111In the latter example the young prince stands frontally, while our composition follows the more usual iconographic scheme of the donor, in three-quarter view, being presented to Christ by the Virgin, or to the Virgin and Child by a patron saint. The type of the Virgin and Child is, however, virtually the same in both paintings: Christ, blessing, wears an ornate tunic, but in the miniature He is seated on His mother's knees instead of being held in her left arm.112 The differences are rather of a stylistic order, and suggest 108Lazarev, Istoriia, II, pl. I32 a. '10 For the Walters manuscript, cf. K. Weitzmann, op. cit., in Ars Islamica, x (I943), p. 122 and figs. 2, 4. In the Sinai codex these scenes occur on folios 245, 261V and 309 (photos: The Library of Con-
gress). 110Weitzmann, op. cit., p. I22 and fig. 3. Sinai codex, fols. 270V and 279v (photos: The Library of Congress). 111G. Soteriou, 'eH KcbVTOVol-aXa?atoyou T-rf Movis TOU MEya&ou X-Trrlaiov,Archaiologikon Deltion (1918), pp. 30-44, pl. 2. 112On an older icon of the Megaspelaion, the so-called Virgin of the Evangelist Luke, the Child
is on the right arm of the Virgin: G. Soteriou, TT-Epi T-S Movjs TO0 MeyaXou irrnilaiou Kad TCV (v aUrij ibid. (I918), Parartema, pp. 46-80, fig. ii; A. Xyngopoulos, KEimpiAi{OV, ov 'H ESK&cT-rS E0OT6Kov -rT Movij TOUMeyOXou Tr7Aa[ouv,Archaiologike Ephemeris (1933), p. IOI if.
DUMBARTON
OAKS PSALTER
AND NEW TESTAMENT
183
that the miniature was executed after the middle of the fifteenth century, the date assigned by Soteriou to the icon on the strength of his identification of the donor.113The proportions of both the Virgin and Child are more elongated the heads the in the miniature, being aabnormally small; the attitudes are more mature, themantle of the Virgin are less rigid even though the folds of the voluminous from her right arm. The large semiin sinuous curves drawn and fall tightly circular throne is frequently used for the Virgin and other persons from the fourteenth century on; in the earlier examples it has a simple form, with a solid back; this is true, for instance, of the throne in the representation of Hippocrates in a manuscript copied for Alexis Apokaukos (t I345).114 The openwork design of small columns at the back is to be seen on semicircular or rectangular thrones in later works, such as a painting in the Church of Saint Nicholas at Kastoria, executed in I485.,15 The costumes of Saint Stephen, who is represented as a deacon as is often the case, and of the monk John do not have any distinctive features. The priest-monk Gregory wears the phelonion and an ornate epitrachilion; his hood has two flat bands which fall in front of his shoulders. This particular shape of headdress seems to be characteristic of the post-Byzantine period; two examples are to be seen among the paintings of Mount Athos: the portrait of Neophitos, Metropolitan of Berrhea,116at the Katholikon of Lavra, and that of the Patriarch Jeremiah at Stavronikita.117 In conclusion, the two leaves inserted in our manuscript were probably painted in the first half of the sixteenth century or, at the earliest, in the last years of the fifteenth. We cannot know whether or not either the donor or his spiritual father was connected with the Megaspelaion; the epithet of the Virgin may simply indicate a veneration for this type. Nor can we be sure that the donor presented the manuscript to the Pantokrator Monastery, although this seems probable, for the notice added on folio 87v, like the one written under the cross on folio 4, is a library entry and does not bear a donor's name. 113 Archaiologikon 114 Paris, gr. 2144
Deltion (1918), p. 43. (Omont, op. cit., pl. cxxviii).
115 S. Pelekanides, Kastoria (Thessalonica, 1953), pl. i86, I. 116 G. Millet, Monuments de I'Athos. Les peintures (Paris, 1927), pl. 138, 4. An inscription dates the
paintings of the Katholikon in 1535 (ibid., p. 6i). 117 Ibid., pl. 167, 3. An inscripion dates the paintings of the naos in 1546 (ibid., p. 62).
.
? o -. C)
= C) "I
r-?
EO C) '-
a))
0
0
o
c/)
71 t.t . t F
C)
OaQ_
5'5' OTQ _.
-_. aw
-;
a 3. Fol. 5. Birth and Anointing of David
4.
Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
Fo
e :.>
.
A
:::
..............................
a^Rbi
*
.
-
:^ *e0 z
i.
:. * 5' -'W
Cd 0
eiv
o"
C-)
id .. *'-Z *
.. S 'T
C1) C)
r(1 Q,-1 (1)
ci
* $
I
4~
:tt
F
C~l
;;
I
CIe
rr*
cn
C)
~0 1-0
S
E
??
f-;"'?
A*
'
.
..
:. J
; s
*' . ,**'*' *
'
:,
;.
! '..
:r
.
I-
'
...
'L:t
:.'::
s
*' V
"'
t.
r-4
*
..., .,
..
*
??
3.
..
a
r
?
>, t
..
;.
Cd
,
'
E
...
+-4
I *:!... ..
.,
^
-,.
,
-,
ri
:, ?
.
;
:.
?.
._ I
:L et
,.
..
!:?
, '..
...
.
C .
;
c-
*t
*,
r
.f
?
.... .
. .
*I..
,
,i
P-1
_..
s? 5 r
..
;
?' . -, .
s'
lr... ' ib
|t
,.
.
t:.
s
I-
.
.?
s
,
,
rs
e.
,,$
Y
:.
.,
VI'
s
O
^ :- - r..
:
?
'
^.
jL
. ........~.~ : ''
F ;
J.
.W
f
.. , w_
.x.
,TS'" 'c' ... s
:i *s
_.
i,
2*
.*
t A. Ww 51
...
'
_U. z.
%
f
e* i _
f0
..*
I;
Ci
*
A..;
..~,,
7
I. Cs
0
C rt
o C Cd
-S 1-1 l-
4i rllll
Cd z 0
S E 93
.* .i *. .
'-4
C
'-4-
Cd -4J V. C) '-4
. Ct P-
0 : '-Co
C~ t--
............. is < 3ti5i .
. .? '"~, . .~-,. Ai
..
* ?!E?::t?!
?? ag
??i
,.? * bs-.Ih.,
.
_. .
.
.. _. c X.
.,.,,
.......
I
jjz?''
,
.
.i
4
j Ia? i~
X
WC~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
idL
:?'
?1 ~~ i'E7 i
cKhtN
1iC
Nab
'rs
fE
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
~
i
L~~jl i
1
II
t
~
.:oa
I.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
II
Is m
;
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~:~~~:. Xa
m,
i
;I:P
UA
,.'
"/.v,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1-4
?~~~~~~~~~~: I~~~~
;
i'.~..L.
Ia4"i^
a
1.~v
"t' '~..?i:'-.,
*I
r!
T
Rit:
r'"
;i~ ~ ......?i ~~ ~ r
1
~ ~ f ~~~' ?
?1..:..~~~ e~~~~~~~~~~' t , ?:.rli ;l'k II *
; X?
?r :*I':rr').
I
':::,,~"i
~ ~t:,~'i' :, ?............................. ,,,~,
""$ X ~ :.."~...."?,'. .~r?
L
v
:,.?~....,..
/~a~.,,1 ~' ..?
?
*
~,... . ".s
s
~
~ .
~
"' ~
.
.
~.
FAmr
_ji
': .
..
.
.
.
,
j
'
r
F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'
...-, .,, G.. ~'. p.? 'Y.:., -'.-.,.'r'',19 '.*' " t' ,j -..........T A ~XZ < ',"?':t
:~ '. """"' '""': ;"'""' ~~~~~~~~:;.. '"".;....., ., i;{ .
.J
10.
:
'
.'
"
wt
itz
9.
" '"'
..."'
Fol. 72. Crossing Fol. of the Red Sea
;2:!.
.:
~
;
Fol. 72,. Crossing of the Red Sea
r
1(). Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
73. Mose
;SI at>.,s,r 7?
.
e ;: h
Fol. 7.g. Mos
.
_
..
r? ..;.;?*? . iiP? : I "' ?I ?-:?
^
t
"A .C.
/4
..I _I
_
:?. ;?;.,? ?:':::f?
??"???
i
^^.. . /4 t
'l
','tf
.,
j'
.
_
"%"?'' i"~w !'t*..o;{::^ ... I~t4 ,. ;
?'. i:
4.
.','
" .
12. 11. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 75. Canticle of Hannah
12.
P Paris
Bibl.
ais, B Nat.,
supp
I'
I
.i [?
sl...t
R
II 'W #
y, M.P
,
4w
i
I
I
13.
Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 76. Canticle of Habakkuk
14. Paris, Bibl. Nat., supp
H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V rtP
i'?
.". '.
~~~~~~~~~.
4 J;
~Jf~;cc
4.
WO-Ae
ar,7-
r1".
-7 A%~~
~ ~~
~ ~
-AP-F~ *
.0
1
'3 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.:L~31 ra-r'-
1
Ow~
1.
a-
..
9.
..7Z
I.~~r
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
cti
-
44.
C
~ C;
9z.,
oh~??
?~~~~~~~~~~~ 9.a
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?!: -Q!- 2 9-
''rf"i*.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~P ?r"'.:.iP :1)?
;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .
-t -------wt:,:
-
4-~~
O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M
ir.?;2
WIF
-2
S,-4 ~~~~~
n~~~~~~~~~~~~~ t
v" 7-
C
? -4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U
ZL
-4-J~~~~-
...-..i
S~~~~~~~~~
.
-
w ,
1i
* S
q
? .5$.
i
..
s ,
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
Ct
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ ~~~~ ?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-.4"
r'" !.t-,,. _t l: ~ '" i , _ .
. %':.,,. :,
Z,.........-....:..;'"'~'I ? L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...,i~....
'--
, F''i;i: ??????''
..:?.. o! 5:;,,
. .^.. ''^'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*
r tv t>:X
:~~,i _
ti.*wFsV
?.
tWrrti
Y
*r~~ *
,
.- _ . :,. o;
','
:' "
L
'
~
f:: ?i
2C
;s
?:
~', 'C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. ~, ~ $ ., 4%
-
'4-.
"s
0
c
IF:
-
;
.
,er'
"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~t\ wcr
-~,
.
-
r Vt ; [m>i. i
[p
dj
:
?f
C i?~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?) 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r
\
g
t
i
i
r
**b
N
'.. 1|-|' Lz s???
i
S
;
~~~~ ~
8-"bN
:i
t
~
)
~
~ ~
.
~
~ s
~
J J
~
~
~
~
~
. .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2.. ~~~~ i1;7f'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~':'? "?'
,
.
t.
SteS?l $S
|
I
r
"
r:.
.
oE
Ok~~~~~~~~
0
"I
~~~~~~~~~~~~-'
14-4 (,C
S
""
S gEk X IEiaLw
S
*
/
,~~~~~~~~~x ~~~~~~~~~~~~?:,,.,.'..........*wc s., ef?<$" |
0
*[,(CC
~~~ ??? ~~~~~I to~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, ''~' ?1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..1..
(C
7 ~?
X ??e
'
t
l
"'
c4
ii
"
'^t.
?
_M
9
<4
i$ :. .
r
A
.
.4
2
t~~~~~~S
*
_
F
u-C
1-
.--I
C
c'0
-
.#
l -
r
*
_a
.Z,5-<
* -,,
^
>
f"
Z
C
I
*
s Pl;t
*
*
c..:?
I
c.
i,f
*~31-??
0' f:
*
*t
..
*_ . r,,
.
...
l
,
,,
~
'
K.
K) .-
'r^ r
r
:\'
'
u~ c)
'
44',
~
At
'.
'I'tj
,'*s^. C
-
p* . c '-r
C
*
.,
'rk'^~l'4
r {
_
.'
,::
?I
*
^-
i'i
*
o
Cr
t
(X
1. f \ p _ ?*. t _l.l
::s? ?
iiIr
ss **
X
t -
CU _i
t?~
il
C*
;
i^
.
-^
.C.
t
C
!--
.^1
i-i WI? *ft%%9
'4
o
4
'
i,
r
r. 4
'
?r}
C I
. 7
( -*
-
E
tr 1
:
c.
IL
. -r r^.,v^
.. -
ft
-
. ......
(c)
14 rt
o t-4 C?
cC N.-,
I
_
..
f
(A c-
Cd 1
?;
-
1
N 1?-
.9-
-c
--? e
Ct 4
71
-~~ C
i.
'
-'9
~~ ~ -
,C. -
C?
-~~ -
ct
=1
Is-
6. -
C4 6
Cli
'i
't-ri'K
h'
r t '
t
.
. ... . .
.." , <' ,
U,
!,-t , * ? , - : ..
-
--
r
4.~ F
. >_
-.-.b ,_ . ' ~. _,o -. * ".-
-
C ,t
r .: ", . . ~ I :.'
e,
^ .._H X :?. >' ?<*
;.
.
o r
-
-ct
_
.
_*
z*
-
-;
-
'8
;c
P
t-
-stK 2
IF
-
'f
-
'.
I" cd
C
9
-
-
-
44l
* . ^: X _-< b 't r?-if _* .........,.. >
~~ >: 1^ z,@ * _ * _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
t -,4
.:
-
' 4-
a)
..
, 04t.
Cd
'
U
{3'~* t
...
a
-
i,
Fg 't-
.....
A cn
Co 0 ....-y, **^,..|
^^
0
x.^.
I
Ql .) -C) C()
4o4-J
a)
C.)
cn -
-A: N-1
Ci
C) Cf
I,
cr
C
-
Q
C]
0
(I; Ct
0 C C I-
C U
F
4
-PC
C)
0 C)
C
-t
4
K
r i. ~~~~~~~~~~In ,., ~~~~~~~~i U-in-m-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. turn-
v I r," It
ci
cc
P
--
4
r
,f ,
j.~ 'Ii
I 26. Fol. 86v. Portraits of Donors (missing)
27. Fol. 8 Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
:~~~~~~~~~~~~. ,
I
?
-,I,
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~... ?'1,-
-v
,-'
4
4
.z
r~~~~~~~i~~~~RXIiipj-
:t
A
A
, A.A
i "P.
I
7
i t
it tI
&,
'.
i
I ~'
*"1
'
'
t. .. * f ..3i .t *, ., A ^ . ,[
.i./*k.;:,.~v.* jf g
) ...,
.1*" an1?
,.,
'~;": '
"t"*' ""?~ .,. '.1
,
, , ?;
e g.e ,
. ,'(
?
, ^
,
,Apspe
. .*
,*, ,
.cA
n p
L 'X .^ \
. ?np
oft,
<..*.'I~
,
4
,
, ~~**~,', t~~?ftt... .
,..rI,
,}'t
.l*.^*1 V'/ p^ **^
..-
2'.-
-* i.?
.4,',,,
.0
''1 II VP.
i
-,
, ". ,.C.-If
}
-T a*'
<' "
.
*. .
"re*'-/ q M
*pa a? ' .'
..,
'
-., ....* ?*
: -,,
f
Paf'
*-""
.
~*.
"T
',
'
.
g e .e ' e p . ".t; ' r*
I, 4 *f t "
'~~~~~~~~~~~~1 V H1'f 1
$IS
t
'
I',
T
,. j l
/ .- - ' ^ r a' /
M^
-p
Al 1114
A X'
tI
.",. 1.r? 5, ,
I
'*!t'
^ ,-" p .' . ,, t L t'*" t "'-"I n,.r re, a, ", r-^ /.' -"I
ie
*
' * l - jI '
.r
t
,,,- ,.
:
. , -. - * 7 *u$'p"e ' rr' T
* rrT'j
,/f- *
*-,* ,,,?: .
-"
I' ' "
1' "
r pe,f
~. ?,T " se*tf ' "
A,~~~~~~~~~~~ 1414
)...
4 -; ,' i A e", 1 ' 'I' s'1 9
71*. '. J<*
.-,*.)-**
-:|
.~,' } *,
A t. ;Ae.
'
;
3 p
.I
"-
' /. / ; ^ (^
e~~~~ . e" ~ r we
4"-j e' r "t' I : ';
I
I '
"1"'^
' ~'' "% *
;: z?., i:q,az:MI...:
2S.
Fol. 9,5. Portrait of Matthew
29. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
Fol. 129. Portrait of
P4
"0
ii
f.i
4
CC
cfr2;tt' :t
C)
44
0 -4 .4
p-s
c:
0 CO
..
.:
-M
--
d .
,-o
.
km
. I
.
-
..
--
F I
-
.
.,.
z
I
vP
;At
..
-:
'. :-.
II
11 i
I;
_ ,,,. ,
._
,
*'w .?
:
* ,
. .:, .r * ; -
z:,,..
r
?....
..:.
.k
r.,, -r*, , ...i.-". * ?.
r -.r4 ,
EU <4
*4
A
/
44-A
AA A
A
t '
, 7"**** t ^ " j.r **- t rt <x _i;t ;.^..^.
?*
*.J,
?
44 :
'
*
s--
4
'
*.. t e .t J
-,
g -
,
T'i
A
.* .
. A.
tAd
~ ,.
,-
;-
._'.t.
-
,
.'
**"*;-;-^'
.
.
-
^.^.^^^.^r^.V?;^
.,
*
.J..
cit
A ._
.
..r. cAt
-
.-
,
'
. : *'
-p
..A
. 32. Fol. 215. Portrait of Luke and the Eleven Apostles Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
33.
Fol. 250. Epistle of James: Po
W
4-.) I-
I
? *-?
?
; -
cr-F -,
,
.v. (a) ';
._1
=
'
o av C)
V.- t
*.ifNii*"S 4 3 - 4Q*rt;'. ?~~~~ ;r,' 5
^c ir s -'
-<-
cn
.<
C
0
.-l-
,r-',
_
<
ov'~* F ~k S'
,
S * >; 1
;
'-:
,-
~'. I.
C
E
To CO
.-
, ~s.t
?'',"c'.,-'
,,'.s' ?t.r
_. , ,;
'
$5
cn C
cc
c.
-r;
CH 01C)
A*
t
ib
3;?
^r
i.
e
ros 1
zt ^*V
r
*
s;3
- :
f
,:
.S
c
_
c
s;
ra)...
> 5
()
_
-u
*'-
c f C) !Ci
41
<-
C1) 4C)
-I
-'........~ ...... .~ . , T ~-'.~-",~,~ET.'...e,
~',
...': - w ..
C)
cc C), -~ . ....x
?.
;
CL) -+C
'
C-
x r t
'*
.
i
'- :
cC - -
t
'
r
Z-$
b
C-~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. co . t .^.^ - ^^.-.^ <~~-.. =-'~ - - =^" ^1-'-' :~~~i I:t?^ -*...-*. (~~0).Z.^ve~-" ' ':' 'O ' * " '< <..-* ; L? Jri. ~ *'-' t '-:.~ ^ - 's2.. ~.; - : . -:, . i~ .,f 0: ,:^: 1; :T s ~' ';' "~-' e" /r?'
7
K_
, ., -
C1) Z-)
[-.,v^
01) 4-4
c
COd
(I;
$5o C
cc
-44
l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--.^ ~,
Cl.
$54
0
IC
4
U 'g ai:t
' a.' ? aV '
r
'a. 4*X a' a.,;a.*.,a
' ;
ja
" A- at v l' a a l
'
a
' a' 1a
!a.; ' ''l: ?4' -
.'
'.'
K
Jr's gI a a 'a,
*-~'-
l
.,r :-'
,
,'Ga',e!t,a't.'a
' 'Il '',-'.!t't,
"
-r^rr (at.'. -r i 1 t
'ha.- ;i
-
ta
I 7' ?*' -t' 'AU i I q'" ft 't-.1 .a ft **?n?.* uN tzl" 4" . aa* r' ^;* f! ' r? * tanr?-<, ^-1 -'t!
'-. 'I
.;
I
a a. 't *
i?/t t :i-I4 O al:
.
t
.
a. .6, .1 PI v r -, 4 a a \ a aaaa.
,~~~~~~~~~~~~aaa. .'iiIl
'-
^^4^ ' -ir st,
'4 I
'
ri - a
*"
aa r '
p
.ala
a;ar
'? r': -'...
"*"
a al a... ' . f'" -
'
tJ * t ?' a g r''
'ii'.*
.
'
,
,,
g '
a
't
,,
l)
IL) a Oit^;,*;i-'
(t...a i artltl
,
l
-a
,t
' 'nt-t..
I.,
-
*I
.
,!',:
t'',
.7
36.
Fol. 258. Second Epistle of Peter: Peter (see also Fig. 59)
' -'..a
- -~~~~~~~N -. ihSfc : :;--' ' ::'' *." ..:. . . .
\
..^,
. ..
..~:..
.
.
,.:
*:.-. ..^ ,.. ^
.
r,
j
a , *, :a * ^', , ^. ^ p , -., . .. ., *"a'.-. a'(a ." -
.,. ...
-
*
i~~~
a
-, 'ta .t
a
af
.'*-
a*
'&
aa/,.
a a a'
I a aaa t* -a*-a?'
aa
p
t
c
a
?..
W^^ NPalllla
a,; ^;a!a iA ?
'a
,
.a $
,a t
a
a ~
.
a.
--a~~.
.
ta
..
:' a'
a ja~
a
"i"-
a
''
a' ~ ;;.r~.
:
"o 'aa~~1
rf'
a
a
a
Fol. 260. Preface
to the First Epistle of John: Luke and Jolihn (see also Fig. (60())
38.
la~~$'
Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
Fol. 261. First Epistle
a
a?'-
; a.: , ....
i 37.
.
~
t i
'
a '9
.'
.. t'
/
a.
a
Id
.
"
a: a!
'.
sr
*
*
,a a,'
~~~~-a,
!. K".."
i
...?a.:: a ..aa ~
,/''.
?"
.
t' - - . *'
a. -
.-.,.
of John:
'
=....?*
.
-l
'~
~'--'?;;~JtJttJ .
-, i ..r--.. ..
how,r
~ .. *__s
._
i..
..q-
-"
,-
, 2
~~ ~ ~ ?t~ ~ ~ ~
r a *i -. . _ <.
X
r
tE
,2
Imq
9"
"'
~.
.
............... .. _....... , .
J ht
%+4 0
?ii
C1) -44
4X
i
t -~
s'-
t
~
A A
s-V-
A
VIt
S-z
'ttt?
.:
' t,
#
_t':
r a
01
%+4
C
C1) 44
C-)-
Cl)
CC4
Cl(: C)
cfC 0'
*
#0s .3
:L
. '.
'V
i
1.Pil'i C.
d,.'27,Zb
* ? .' 1' I . ".
1;
0
:?
3' I--
,I
II
"?-~~~~~4. 1* *
*
::;-1 I I4
*
.4
4.
f
a
41. Fol. 266v. Epistle of Jude: Portrait of Jude
42. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
Fol. 269v. Ep
r
er '
_: s.
r
,:
r
-
4.?
t ^r ^ x ;
?
t.4 I;
. i
2
'S .;
*.C
ti
2*"
?'"
?
*
C
*
-
4:4
-7
2
-I 4"-
:
*
-2
*1 -
"* .
i..'
.5
p -
*
2>
.4
4
4
-
-t
' * '-
e
'
:.
...
^
:?
.i *-* *. .. i4.:
'
4j
i:I'
I .5
'
..
r
0
-t
?
-
*-
*
r
.5 r
C.
-
C
-2
t
I
-
4 S
C
$3 ' '-
wL
p
r C
I.'-.
-t
$4..
.
i (
-L>
2
2
-
SI
?
-.
I.--
7-
cs IC
24.
c 0-
-2
4.
A
c
4
C/
4
I
-. 4.,4 "
i W
'~%
.;.- j . -
AC
0 C 0
,Q r
.-
-
..
la
1.011-'
--. ....
.a 4.R4
-
.'-i,::..j
ii
-
j
'
p
C cC
41
.5
*1
C
S
I-
at
C
0
4"
C) S
.
F
+
4.4.4to'r 't;-
4.5
s'S 4.5
-
4
4:
-
C C)
Ca L
-
*
A?4
t V+ -'
.4
4.'"
4.
;5:Itt I-t8 c-Z-"<
1-'
'*4'. a 01
Z12
01
C
r
3'
CO
C1 CO * -4
z4444
-
'2
-x
tjS
*
/ ?,.
jo E0 C)
^
._
-Zn a) rf)
v z
W ?5i
-
X
sr'
/
L
Li'
l;,.]
,M'
_s_i_ '1u^ai^^
-
0 r..
CL>
-4
*--
uy2t
i:r:
i>
F'.~ ,
.'/ ,4 .x,i
.,
.'
>t
-
?
.
A-
'&
,, ..i
t
;~tC < ?
.., "o .
-C
"'''c
*-
*:;>
-r
x
-4 n
t.
IC. C)
t'
r4
.. r
;tr
&
--+-
-
u >
L
a
1--
'A
Vt - . ~
n
-0.~~~~~ Sf
N"
.A
. *
Zn
Zn
Zn
'L..
4.-h
7)
C)
CL)
-4-4
C)
N-14
a) .9
COd
.<
T < r 0
' 5
10
t. . .k :47
*r4 ;~
.CO -
At.. ^
L
.
_.-. *:' _:'-6 .
4.
S?
t
:-
c)
X
? C '.
O3
.-.
_
..C)
4 .'
I
4 = O
.k v'
*'. *
C_
H .>Xt~~~~z
.z . 4 !.. ...
C) # 4
f
.s:
. I. N. I c
-
l.~C _~~C
%.
r-.,
:..
0.11,
. :!.:,.
't"'
co CO
0
0
I N, 1.4
z:,~~~~~I cd
4
Cd Cf)
he
"N
-4.3
"4-
C1 V
I
%
Co1-
I ..
.
.6i
..
.
"16
.
.r.
I 1>.
I
?.
",
** ':
:- ,',, ': " ' "
. ....'~ ~" '-f .'
~.'..~
f
44
,'
" .6.'
?:
' 66
''
^-^r? --,.^..~?
.6.-6/.64-16t 4.6ra.
.....
'6
* <*-j' ; j .6 -,?,.
? .6 .t.1i..-.?.6T.,'6 5 T't '*l.K
-fl
,,?<,^l^-, >* lM
, ,4 **
1T
~ ? ^
"
?.
* .6 %
' ?- ,;. : * ,, < ', , '**t . ':?"' ,?i**?{ *'r ,'.'' w.f % 'f" .6'iwr.I-.? *: , ,?, I .64.66 V"u~ 'l.6f.J6. t ? ~3??l t 4 *T:.i.:.r '*If > ' ,.: .r ,,~ ~i ~ ::~ -^.~
..
'416;Jfl4~~~~~~~~~
'641
'4
6
''
6
1, t
1t,6 .6 , . .6.6.6
.,
.... 64 66i. ':
.
.
4.'~
!'
''Y
':
'!
.6. 4 ".: '4'
Im *
* .-
'
f? 6' .
..^. *j ~~*
.,
'""4.l6: ? *., . .<, *
:-
t
" ,
*:H
^
'*
*
*,
;'
-
* ? ,
50. Fol. 321. Second Epistle to the Thessalonians
-
."?,~
*-? 1 1 *
':,:' '::"'"~
-
?
, ., . .6
;
.6.
4 I
.66?,
.
?
.
6.6^6 6
i+-v tI
-f" 44' %a-T'It 66 p g4"'ri-:'. *:::*-^~:'p::' rofI 'Avi.
t'~~~~~
tW'4
.6.61.6
6' .
. 6
.
.
4. .
..
*' .. .
"
,,*
-
.,
4a
:: -A
lift
.TIsf' .n".
.f ; 44
...
6,^, '6
.6'.6:**-161
.'4
.
.6
**f**
...
.: .,A. * ' ?t.'. . ,* ,*.. ?, ::/"':s^-?-*;.^? - --,4,,p.' ,*.' *rpm / A. t'*? ? f **<*' :-1 -t -M <-1; tj4
m<
*
*+"
^ jfcr^91 f-^
f
Lur'It
'
tT* -r :,i1* >~~~~~~~.r.
.1@
1t
~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..~
6 646,*. . ? * * * ,
*
;
*i ^ f
~ '
-.*. T-l ^**rr \ T .*...Vf .N" * 6 6
'
**
1, 6
' 6??.
^
.
0ID x
rll*
.6.646
tr
% 14o > AAA 'w
'
-.
?-.p'r.
1 r. 514f
. ,-V*A W.T4644.tf6E'#6.4
I '4?
mf
n-i-h 4 ''*
i4-... lv,.
lift'
*.A ..?, : 661.61.*. :- .6,? ^ --t ' . l '* *-*.*^..*f ^-^6 I ~~~~~~. I *** -1.?f ,,,6 . , *. ****,*** '1 ^ .,4 * .6 *.. *(*:i * .....t{ ? i:' 1 :. :: .:""' ??.t. ?.-,...,
~:: ~ t : -r'~-'V - *:^ " 6l1-'1': ^49r":y "": ";'?* w~'L ~..1?1 . ~~~~~iz~~~~~~~~~~~ 4 6~ f .., ~,..4'.~ ~AT;'~n .I ..f- " '.,6"6.rem, 9 '**
-' ? *~ ~ '*-t -,4~ " '; 6 ~~~~~~~~~4 * * ?*(*.~~ -** ~~~~~~'( ' . ?**** 6. ' I -^NN ?*...............
. -'
4, 4
1
'67
'iv
'.A
It 4.161
.
41 1*61
.64%
~. I . '5,~~~~
i ?
t6 .
6
.
6 &/:*
.
6 't
.6^6
^'
"t - ' "
."
.6.
51. Fol. 323. First Epistle to Timothy
52. Fol. 326v. Second Epistle Dumbarton Oaks MS 3
7 __
r
;:*
-"
a
C1)
-SX
0
I
-c
-.4 C1)
.4 r
;
_
Ew(
f C4-)
'*
-SI
4.
,.
* :'
' .:
*1 I
.
X
.
^'VY
94
r
t
,.
*U
.'.
_;
#
-
0 fr
*
Cf)
. .iil
-
C CO CO)
.. .
...
. .
.
.
;. ?
I.
. ,
.
.
*.
:.;
F
A
A
-9 ,
r-
;...'
* 1.
"-*
S
':.a
-
-U a (I) "14
. 0 1-4) 10
Sz
.1
'Is
w
pt
-
:.
-.
'
.
4
B'..,' ~'
t1...
I
.1.
-
;*' 4'
C
..t .AS.
.
A
..
, ?
.
:.
r* S *
.2
44*
U;
4-
.4.
t
47..
is
;W
sa-
~'=
~
-
.
=s
.:;.
. *
*;
I
.
,
I
.I ,
s.
*tB
?
.
A
?'.
,
.... I, 6
ir
9
4
I .-
4
1.
t
* s-
-4
-
r
':1
i'
1"'
- . .-.
:.;: ' .
. .
- ? :.
. r
;S
t
.
cc
I
ft.
.
I? ,, . r
4-
t.5 * A.
'-
i'
"? ,
r
'
4
. : .
^-
.
, .o
i
. ?~,
,
, :
s
"
** _..
t,
o< . ~
,.
01 CO -
IL ...
^ ?*-.. S
.?
,
~ ?
e>
.
IA
1 *1 *
,
4
s
4
4
'.
I
~.
.
L
.X
.,
...
cO .
,~
F~~ :__, .
,r
-.
~'i.~
4
I1
I
'-4 k..
t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
I
4...
- ..
-
~--~R W~
W-
...C~
.
. . . ...........
Fr Y
'Mc^\,e.
'i ;.
* A' \ t tA
?4*., . . -
e
*.;(,w
4 t ?' , ?
.
'*1 .
...f
4.i .'. -~
t"
*
4
t
.4
.
.
. .? .
,
'~?} ,
?.
-
,T
*
.4
4?
e I4
,.
3
r
.*,
- q~ 4 . * t
*
-I
i i i. *
4 ? *,
t
*A .* h.I.. a . I- *
? , *r ...
.4 ,r.,,
3
f'
-
3333
4
A. tr' t1
ifst.rt :I.3 ,p. i
t!.
r ' .t.
*t34434e4*
343333$ r w Ze
*_
t '
4
.
3
"
*'3Jt
I ?:,
"
i 4r,,-
34s3t 3:
t1,,/, ?
-.3 f
.
34
j
'
.
,-
J
*i'Ll/k.
*.3,
9It
? t
'
..
t, 'H[ 11qF'?~ *3 * 1.
)"
'r
; * **: ?-
":n'.?**
'
L3'1,
, j t ;
'4fiI
,: , -,
.
''-' I
'j 'lr'l
1
3jf
,
.4
.4,t
3 .3
'
...,
*3' it. r 4 31t
,.1> *4
a
..4..
j lil ' i
,
*. 4 '3
?t . 3-* r
'7
. 4
133 44f.'
tr *
;
4.
4 4 r'qf
i
;
i
..
-, -.;, ? 'r
I*s
T.v r i
,rrt
rs t
.
,.
*wev i . r ~ tf ,'** *-',*T ;-.*"' n *tFl * ? ^ t• ? -*?
,lf~"v
no.'-
:,
, . ,.. ~-. . .. .4 -,~. s..* .. -4 ? , .;..: ..:' ..~ . ^,.,, ....-~
tjf
r**
AoF.tft *ft?A
s
fs
,,
,/
! t >(t
"
* *' ['**' '?''T' -'~ ****^.r *' ! i ** *
t
Ir"'*s''' * - *> J" r r 'fi ? f ^ ; ; *,t ^ ' r ^ 1 ,t-As ^/
,'
* ir
ItSw
56. Mount Athos, Vatopedi Monastery Virgin and Child between Arc 55. Dumbarton Oaks MS 3, fol. 331v. Epistle to the Hebrews
4^y 57.
Mount Athos, Vatopedi Monastery. Cod. 762, fol. SSv. Gregory, Basil, and John Chrysostom
58.
Venice, B Moses Re
.
.,"~
'
_,~.:
.,
N
't "
I
.:i41 11y
i:
~..6r
. A
...
:rjcrg
t
.t
A.
.:.:
w:
?
An .!
\: V^o~rr
.'
. .
1
4i
&
r
59.
4
Fol. 258, detail (enlarged three times): Peter (see also Fig. 36)
60..Fol. . ~
,
~..,,.
.....
260
60. Fol. 260, detail (enlarged three times): John (see also Fig. 37)
0
.ttjtI
'Ir:I
? .......
..^
Ar.
^
~t%E, :--^ .
t
fsl ft
'
*~,,,~"
.,-
:....-
;c
'atNr 'I
AV
A. *
K
N? '>"''
.ThFJL
tt #
tIi r-f
rr- t'#4
61. Fol. 294v, detail (enlarged three times): Christ and Paul (see also Fig. 44)
a
r$4
62. Fol. 311v, detail (enlarged three times): Christ, Paul, and Timothy (see also Fig. 47)
DumtbartonOaks MS 3
From Paganism to Christianity in the Temples of Athens Author(s): Alison Frantz Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 185-205 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291230 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
PAGANISM
FROM IN
THE
TO
TEMPLES
CHRISTIANITY OF
ALISON FRANTZ
ATHENS
...
cunctaque eorum fana templa delubra,
si qua etiam nunc restant integra, praecepto magistratuum destrui conlocationequevenerandae Christianae religionis signi expiari praecipimus.1 (Codex Theodosianus, xvi.Io.25)
In A.D. 435 Theodosius II issued this edict, requiring the destruction of any pagan temples and shrines still remaining intact, and the purification of their sites by the setting up of a cross. But the existence of temples converted into churches in all provinces of the Roman Empire provides evidence that the law was not universally observed,2 and it has long been recognized that the law was applied more rigorously in some areas than in others. This measure to speed up the transition from paganism to Christianity was particularly unsuccessful in Athens, and it was perhaps an effort to explain away the widespread disregard of the law there that led, in the nineteenthenthury, to a misinterpretation of the law itself, reading it as authorizing, as an alternative to destruc1 The substane of this article was the theme of a at Dumbarton Oaks in Nolecturubstance hdelivered of vember I964. I am grateful to Professor Ernst Kitzinger and his colleagues for the hospitality the Dumbarton Oaks Papers toward this expanded form. Thanks are also due to Professor Richard Krautheimer for valuable comments and suggestions. My indebtedness to Professor Homer Thompson will be apparent to all who have read his "Athenian Twilight: A.D. 267-600," JRS, 49 (I959), or who have observed my free use of material from the Athenian Agora. The following ab61-72, breviations are used for the works most frequently cited: A BME TijS 'EASabos 'ApXelov TCOvPuvaVrivCOv Pviqsiccov AE 'ApXaloAoyiK
188
ALISON
FRANTZ
tion, the conversion of temples into places of Christian worship.3 The text, however, presents no alternative and expiari suggests not conversion, but, rather, exorcism of the pagan spirits which might be supposed to have survived the destruction of the building. There was no provision for conversion because the order foordestruction was regarded as final. Through frequent repetition, the nineteenth-century version of the decree has acquired the stamp of authority,4 and is still often cited as evidence that the transformation of all Athenian temples dates from the middle of the fifth century. But neither the historical nor the archaeological evidence supports the view that the complete Christianization of Athens took place with any such rapidity; and we are forced to conclude that the conception of the gods departing from their temples, each to be replaced at once by the saint with the most closely comparable attributes, to whom the worshipers obediently transferred their allegiance in response to imperial decree, probably bears little relation to the truth. The history of Christian Athens begins with St. Paul's famous sermon to the members of the Council of the Areopagus, when, with a brilliant stroke of opportunism, he turned their scepticism to good account by preaching the Unknown God. The pride with which later generations of Athenians laid hold of this event and of the conversion of Dionysios, o the a member of the Council itself, was perhaps hardly sustained by the facts. Paul's success in Athens, notwithstanding the eminence of the Areopagite, was only moderate, summed up in a single verse of the Acts (17:34): "Howbeite c lave unto him, and the which was Dionysios the Areopagite, and a woman named believed; among Damaris, and others with them." This is a bleak a ccount compared with the enthusiastic detail accorded Paul's triumphs elsewhere, and it would, indeed, be hard to find a place where the inhabitants were so unreceptive to Christianity. Although a few Christian congregations are recorded for Greece from the time of St. Paul, they left no visible thee traces for first three centuries. By 325 the Athenian church was sufficiently well recognized to be represented at the Council of Nicaea, but Greece as a whole, with a total of only three bishops, made a poor showing at that event, as compared with the some two hundred bishops from the eastern provinces.5 In all of Greece, among the scores of Early Christian rches whose remains have been uncovered, only the basilica at Epidauros has been claimed for the fourth century.6 Like the earlier converts, the majority of the fourth-century congregations most probably worshipped in private houses. The comparative prosperity of Athens in the late classical period had been brought to an abrupt end in A.D. 267, with an unusually savage attack by the 3 Gregorovius was the first, according to Strzygowski, in "Die Akropolis in altbyzantinischer Zeit," AM, I4 (1889), 272, note 2, to read the law in this way. 4 E.g., J. B. Bury, The History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1923), vol. I, 371. For a more critical approach to the problem as it concerns the various regions of the Empire individually cf. Deichmann, op. cit., 107-114. 6 F. van derMeer and Christine Mohrmann, Atlas of the Early Christian World (London, 1958), pl. 4. 6 G. Sotiriou, At efpal TS eacraAiXaS Kal at TraaloxpiarlciavlKai p(aaiAlKalTflS 'EAa&oS, AE xPiOrTlavIKal 198; also ITAA, 4 (1930), 9I ff. (1929),
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
189
IN ATHENS
barbarian Heruli, which left most of the lower city in ruins and disrupted life for a century or more.7 The Agora, with its great public buildings, the Kerameikos and the district to the south of the Acropolis had all been laid waste (fig. i). The original defenses had been abandoned and the city had shrunk to a cramped area immediately to the north of the Acropolis, fortified by a wall composed of debris taken from the ruined buildings outside (fig. 2). The Agora remained uninhabitable, or at any rate uninhabited, until the end of the fourth century. For a new movement with any considerable popular following, these circumstances might have been expected to create a favorable opportunity to establish itself at the expense of its rivals. Even if, as seems likely from the evidence of the lamp industry,8 the recovery in city as a whole was more rapid than in the Agora, which lay in ruins until about 400, sufficient time elapsed between the destruction of the loweir city and the resumption of ordinary activity to allow for a complete break with the past. When more or less normal life was resumed in Athens, Christianity was already in a favored position in the Empire as a whole; it was legally in complete control by 400, when returning prosperity encouraged a monumental building program in the city. But the Christians apparently had insufficient strength to take advantage of the situation. To be sure, the Christian community was growing. Christian symbols begin to appear in the minor arts by the middle of the fourth century, as on lamps found in the Agora (figs. 3, 4),9 but less frequently than pagan motifs. Christian tombstones (fig. 5),10 while attesting to a fairly large number of adherents, nevertheless suggest, by the crude carving and almost illiterate character of their inscriptions, that the Christian population was drawn largely from the humbler orders. The Herulian destruction caused no lasting break in the study of philosophy at Athens. During the second half of the fourth century and the whole of the of Athenian education continued to attract Athe fifth, the fame and popularity students from abroad, including some of the foremost thinkers of the time: the pagan philosopher Libanius and his pupil Julian, the future emperor; also the two Cappadocian ChurchFathers, Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus, whose thorough mastery of Greek literature and thought, acquired in Athens, had a profound influence on the formative stage of Christian dogma. But the Christian students were in the minority and Christian teachers rare indeed." Our picture of Athens in the second half of the fourth century is at present incomplete and in many ways contradictory. On the one hand, the flourishing condition of the schools suggests an active community life at well above subsistence level. On the other, there is visible proof of the destruction of a substantial part of the city and, in the case th of theAgora e at least, a subsequent period 7 Thompson, op. cit., 6iff.
8
J. Perlzweig, The Athenian Agora, VII, Lamps of the Roman Period (Princeton, 1961),
20.
9 Agora inv. L 3208, L 2523.
10 Agora inv. I 1657
11 One of the most notable of these was Prohaeresius, who was able to arouse the enthusiasm and gratitude of such an implacable pagan as Eunapius (Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists, 485-493).
190
ALISON
FRANTZ
of utter desolation. This aspect is partly corroborated, for the last decade of the century, by the eyewitness testimony of Synesius, later Bishop of Cyrene, and since considerable importance has been attached to his evidence, it should be examined in some detail. Synesius' visit to Athens probably took place between A.D. 395 and 400, when he was in his late twenties.12 How long he stayed and whether he went there as a student or merely as a tourist is not known. His avowed reason for his trip, i.e., that he was tired of returning students assuming lofty airs because they had seen the Academy, the Lyceum, and the Stoa Poikile, suggests that he expected to be disappointed, and his satisfaction is apparent when he remarks that "the proconsul has taken away all the pictures from the Stoa Poikile, and has thus humiliated these men's pretensions to learning."'13 At about this time, in the year 396, Alaric the Visigoth led his forces down through northern Greece and arrived outside Athens. Through the use of a judicious combination of supernatural and practical persuasion, the Athenians induced him to spare the city,14but he then proceeded to ravage all the countryside between Athens and Megara. How much of the desolation of Athens reported by Synesiu as due to damage inflicted by Alaric, how much to natural decay, and how much to unfavorable comparison with the more cosmopolitan Alexandria, where he had spent the preceding years, is hard to assess. His reference to the arrogant behavior of students who had seen the Academy and the Lyceum implies that these institutions were still standing shortly before his own visit. Excavations have revealed that the Academy was completely rebuilt in the early fifth century,15 leaving a period of some ten years during which it might have been destroyed, which coincides with the time both of Alaric's invasion and Synesius' visit. Lying directly in Alaric's path on the way to Megara, it could hardly have escaped destruction and the sight of its ruins might well have contributed to Synesius' disillusionment with Athens.16 The beginning of the fifth century witnessed a sudden rush of building activity in Athens. Its immediate cause has not been established with certainty, but H. A. Thompson suggests that it was connected with Alaric's invasion and represents "not an expansion from the core but a contraction from the periphery inwards."'17Some of the new construction within the city may have replaced buildings destroyed in the environs; alleviation of the Gothic threat may have provided further impetus, and the interest of a public-spirited high official such as Herculius, pretorian prefect in 408-4I2,18 could account for the monu-
mental character of Athenian building at this time. It is worthy of note that 12 Cf. Ch. Lacombrade, Syndsios de Cyrene, hellMneet chrdtien (Paris, 1951), 74-75, and Augustine Fitzgerald, The Letters of Synesios of Cyrene (London, 1926), 17. 13 Ep. 54; cf. also Ep. 135. 14 Zosimus, iv. i8; v. 15 HAE (1950), 16
5. 54; HTAA, 8 (i933),
243.
For the more profound philosophical aspects of Synesius' lack of sympathy with Athens, cf. H. I. Marrou, "Synesius of Cyrene and Alexandrian Neoplatonism," in The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century, ed. by Arnaldo Momigliano (Oxford, 1963), 126150. 17 Op. cit., 67. 18
For Herculius and his activities, see infra, p.
192.
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
191
Herculius was responsible for the construction of an aqueduct in Megara,19 perhaps a replacement for one destroyed or damaged by Alaric's forces. Much of the architectural activity of this time was centered around the site of the Agora. The accumulated rubbish of the past century was cleared away and replaced by a large and imposing complex which occupied the entire center of the square an incorporated foundations the Odeion of Agrippa and thein fcorporated some lesser buildings (fig. 6).20 The date of construction can be fairly securely fixed, by a considerable number of coins of Arcadius and Honorius, to about A.D. 400. The plan, with a large gymnasium, baths, and smaller rooms suitable for lectures, has led to the identification of the complex of the with one cschools of philosophy, thus continuing the educational tradition established in this area with the construction of the Gymnasium of Ptolemy, immediately to the south.21 The quality of the masonry, even in the basement rooms, and of the architectural ornament, such as one of the pilaster capitals (fig. 7),22 entitle the complex to rank among the major Athenian productions of the fifth century A.D. Similar, although less elaborate, structures have been found immediately south of the Agora23 and also to the south of the Acropolis. Their pagan character is well demonstrated by their sculptural decoration, for example, the Giants and Tritons, salvaged from the Odeion of Agrippa and reused conspicuously in the Agora complex. At about the same time the archon Phaedrus provided a new stage for the Theater of Dionysos, equally pagan in inspiration (fig. 8), probably to repair Herulian damage. The tenacity of the pagan tradition, even after the fruitless command of the Edict of Theodosius for the destruction of the temples, was due in large measure
to the influence of the Neo-Platonic Academy, which continued to be the dominant factor in Athenian life until its obligatory closing in A.D. 529, by
decree of Justinian. The reason is not hard to find. Apart from the natural proclivities of the Greeks toward pagan philosophy, the Academy represented the only stable institution of the time. For the century and a half of its official existence, a period in which contemporary historians generally ignored Greece, the records preserve an unbroken sequence of Heads of the Academy, from Plutarch, its founder, who died at an advanced age in 432, to Damascius, who was in office in 529 and who, with others, preferred exile in the Persian court to renunciation of his pagan beliefs. Not only did the leading philosophers exert a powerful influence on education; they took an active part in civic affairs as well. The writings of the NeoPlatonists and inscriptions found in Athens shed some light on their relations with the magistrates and demonstrate that, however recondite their philosophy, they had a surprisingly shrewd practical sense. The wealth of the city seems to have been largely in their hands, derived partly from their extensive 19 CIG, io8i. 20Thompson, op. cit., 67-68, and idem, "The Odeion in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, 19
(1950), I34-I41. 21 For this
new identification of the buildings, previously known as the Middle and South Stoas, and related structures, see H. A. Thompson, AJA, 69 (i965), 177. 22
Agora Inv. A 2268. 23 Thompson, "Activities
in the Athenian
Agora," Hesperia,
28 (1959),
104-105.
ALISON
192
FRANTZ
land holdings but frequently supplemented by bequests from their admirers.24They lived well, in their imposing houses embellished with polished marble,25but also they were generous in giving financial aid to civic enterprises. About A.D. 400, for example, lamblichos, grandson of the famous Syrian NeoPlatonist of the same name, was honored for having helped to build new walls and towers for the city's defense.26 Proclus, the most distinguished of all the Athenian Neo-Platonists, and head of the Academy from about 450 to his death in 485, was frequently consulted on civic matters, and bequeathed a large part of his estate to the city of Athens.27 But Plutarch, the founder of the Neo-Platonic Academy, apparently earned the greatest gratitude for having three times defrayed the costs of transporting the Panathenaic ship up to the temple, thereby "expending his entire fortune."28 In the early fifth century the Academy was fortunate in the appointment of an enlightened and well disposed official, Herculius, as Prefect of Illyricum.29 and its seat was either Sirmium, near Although the Prefecture covered a wide area the Danube, or Thessalonica, Herculius seems to have spent much time in Athens and not only to have cultivated cordial relations with the philosophers, but also to have helped them in material ways. For it was surely in recognition of some substantial benefaction to the Academy that Plutarch was able to spare enough from his Panathenaic expenditures to erect what must have been an imposing statue of Herculius in a most conspicuous position, at the entrance of the Library of Hadrian,30and that another philosopher, Apronian, dedicated a statue e Acropolis, "beside the statue of Athena Promachos."31 A statue of a high official of the period was found in the Gymnasium complex of the Agora (fig. 9).32Being headless, it is unidentifiable, but it might be conjectured that thisisis yet another statue of Herculius set up in gratitude for his enlightened interest in education. These dedications seem to leave no doubt that Herculius, the highest official in the Balkan Peninsula, whether nomibetrasinin betraying his pagan sympanally pagan or Christian, felt no embarrassment thies. Another high magistrate, Theagenes, who served a term as archon, was known as a benefactor of the Academy.33 The lines between pagan and Chris24 Vita Isidori,
94I9 ff.
Eunapius, Lives of the Philosophers, 483 (Julianus). 26 A. E. Raubitschek, "Iamblichus at Athens," Hesperia, 33 (I964), 63-68. 27 Vita Procli, 14.15. 26
28 IG, II2, 38I8. 29 30 31
See supra, p. IG, II2, 4224. IG, II2,
190.
4225.
E. B. Harrison, The Athenian Agora, Portrait I, Sculpture (Princeton, I953), pis. 41, 42; Agora Inv. S 657. 33The date of Theagenes' archonship is unknown. P. Graindor, "Pampr6pios (?) et Th6ag6n6s," 32
Byzantion,
4 ([1927-8],
474), puts it shortly before 450, which would have been early in his career,
for he appears to have continued to hold some influential position until much later. He is represented in the Vita Isidori as taking a prominent part in the selection of a successor to Proclus, ca. 480-485. Although he was closely connected with the Academy by marriage and by ties of friendship, it was apparently as an outsider that he was consulted. Photius calls him a Christian who passed as a philosopher (RE, V, A, 2, 1346), but in the Vita Isidori he appears as a pagan who, toward the end of his career, came to some terms with the Christians for reasons of policy. This seems a truer appraisal, since it is hardly likely that a Christian would have been admitted to the inner councils of the Academy.
FROM PAGANISM TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
193
tian in fourth- and fifth-century Athens were perhaps not always as sharply drawn as might be expected, and at least some of the officials of both church and state seem to have been chosen for their skill in diplomacy, rather than for the strength of their convictions.34 The fact that Herculius, friend and benefactor of the staunchest opponents of Christianity, could also receive an affectionate letter from John Chrysostom35lends color to this view. It is not surprising, therefore, that pagan institutions in Athens, instead of giving way to the establishment of a Christian city, were either continued or revived, that the Council of the Areopagus was functioning at least as late as A.D. 373,36 and that the Panathenaic Festival was being celebrated regularly, and with some splendor, in the fifth century. The philosophers have contributed to our meager knowledge not only of the history of fifth-century Athens, but also of its topography. From a reference in Marinus' Vita Procli37 we are able to localize the official residence of the head of the Academy with some precision. Marinus describes Proclus' house as being near the Theater and Temple of Dionysos, in the neighborhood of the Temple of Asklepios and visible from the Acropolis. Proclus is said to have enjoyed it both for its location and because it had been occupied by his predecessors Plutarch and Syrianus, thus establishing its official character. A large building answering to these specifications was discovered a few years ago by the Greek Archaeological Service.38 Its plan conforms to what we know from elsewhere of the type of building the schools and, like the others, its construction may be dated to about A.D. 400oo.39A portrait, now in the Acropolis Museum (fig. io), is said to have been found in or near the building.40 Once identified with Proclus, it is now thought to be somewhat earlier, probably about the beginning of the fifth century.41It is plainly of a philosopher and from its place of finding might be associated with the Academy. Possibly it is Plutarch himself. By the middle of the fifth century, increasing imperial concern for enforcing the acceptance of Christianity had shaken the complacency of pagan Athenians enough to recommend caution. But, although during the second half of the century no new pagan construction seems to have been undertaken, the buildings erected in the first half were kept in repair and were undoubtedly sufficient 34 H. I. Marrou, op. cit., the bishopric of Cyrene.
35 PG,
36
142,
makes this point in connection with the elevation
of Synesius to
52, col. 723.
IG, II2, 4222 honors Rufius Festus as proconsul and Areopagite.
37 Chap. 29.
38
Ergon (I955),
5-II.-
39The physical relation between the Neo-Platonic Academy and the Academy of Plato must remain ob$cure until a complete study is made of the fifth-century reconstruction of Plato's Academy cf. J. by the Kephissos. In the meantime, Travlos,cf. , J. Travlos 134; Ph. Stavropoullos, Mey& 'EAA-nvlKh 'EyKvKAo7mwaETa, Suppl. 22; R. E. Wycherley, Greeceand Rome, 2nd. ser., 8, no. 2 (Oct. 1961), 152-i63; 9, no i (March, I962), 2-2I (with bibliography on the schools). The building under discussion might be the house of Proclus, the home of the Neo-Platonic Academy, or one of the houses of sophists which did duty also as classrooms (cf. Eunapius, loc. cit.). 40 rAE (I955), 49. 41 Acropolis I47-I52.
I3
Museum,
no. I313;
G. Dontas,
"Kopf
eines Neuplatonikers,"
AM,
69/70
(I954-5),
194
ALISON
FRANTZ
to satisfy all needs and to monopolize the center of the city. The Christians, too, felt similar caution and, not yet sure of their ground, avoided the center of the city in their intensive building activities of the second half of the century.42 Tradition credits Eudocia, the Athenian-born wife of Theodosius II, with giving impetus to the Christian building activity of the fifth century. Daughter of the sophist Leontius and named Athenais at birth, she renounced paganism, whether from policy or conviction, and lent active support to the state religion. The basilica by the Ilissos, probably one of te earliest churches in Athens, is attributendto herther influence, and there may have been others. commonly attributed Exclusive of ancient buildings turned into churches and of caves in the Acropolis slopes known to have been used as Christian shrines, the existence of fourteen Early Christian churches (that is, of the fifth and sixth centuries) is attested either by literary evidence or by excavation, and thiis probably only a fraction of the total.43Few of these buildings survived the invasions of the next two or three centuries and none remain standing now, but the many bits of architectural ornament, later used as construction material in houses and fortifications, give some idea of the activity among the Early Christians of Athens. Two apparent exceptions to the Christian avoidance of the center of the city deserve careful examination. The churches in the Theater of Dionysos and the Temple of Asklepios have been assigned to the fifth century and, if this dating can be upheld, the theory of pagan and Christian spheres of influence within the city would the fall to ground.44The excavation of the Asklepieion in I876,45 with the single purpose of exposing the remains of the classical and inscriptions and other marbles from the later period and recovering ancient masonry, effectively destroyed most of the architectural evidence for the date of the construction of the Early Christian church. But the answer lies, in the view of the present writer, in the Vita Procli, in the same passage commonly used to support a date ca. A.D. 450. Marinus' circumstantial account, written within a year of Proclus' death in 485, presents a picture, which cannot be ignored, of an area centered around the sanctuaries of Asklepios and Dionysos and dominated by the Academy. The presence of two churches in the very heart of this precinct, one of them actually over the ruins of the Temple of Asklepios, would be in such serious conflict with this conception as to demand a reappraisal of the evidence.46 The case for a mid-fifth-century date for the church in the Asklepieion rests largely on the prevailing belief in the prompt and rigid enforcement of the Edict of Theodosius and on the common interpretation of the famous passage in the Vita Procli recounting Proclus' visit to the temple to pray for the health of Asklepigeneia.47The episode, it is argued, must have occurred about 42 43
Travlos, op. cit., chap. vii and pl. vii. E. P. Blegen, "News Items from Athens," AJA, 50 (1946), 373-374.
44 J. Travlos, 'H B', 301-3I16; TCaAaloxptacavlKh pactXiKoh TOU AIOVOacIKOU eE&rpov, AE (1953-4), 'H iraaioxpit-riaviKi paaiMAKh TOUO 'AKATriieovUT-roV'ASrnvCov,AE (I939-4I), 34-68. 45 TAE and pis. vi-vii. (1876), 20ff; BCH, i (1877), 169-170, 46 Travlos, who proposed a mid-fifth-century date for both buildings (rToAeo8opiKf, 138-140),
has recently told me that he now regards the question as open. '47Chap. 29.
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
195
450 because of its relative position in the narrative, and the words Kaiyap ilrrOXet? Tr TO7eis TOTe, K
48 E.g., in the translation by L. J. Rosan, The Philosophy of Proclus (New York, I949). 49Liddell and Scott give both meanings. The verb is used in the latter sense, and in a similar context in Athenaeus, Deipnosophists, xii, 523, TropSEiv?KTCOV IEpev Ta&&y&Ava-ra. 50 A. Xyngopoulos, in Xplo-naviK6v'AaoKrTnrrlov(AE [I915], 53) following Gregorovius, and Travlos (AE [I939-4I], 63) hold the Christians responsible, but the idea of the Christians savagely attacking all sanctuaries of Asklepios because of their addiction to magic arts (cf. E. J. de Waele, "The Sanctuary of Asklepios and Hygeia at Corinth," AJA, 37 [I933], 435-437) is unconvincing; Deichmann, who places the destruction at the end of the fifth century, attributes it to an earthquake (AM, 63-64 [I938-9], I37-I38). Of nine earthquakes listed by V. Grumel ("Trait6 d'etudes byzantines," La chronologice [Paris, I958], 476-48i) for the period 450-485, none is mentioned as having affected mainland Greece; it is possible that the earthquake recorded in Constantinople in 480 might be the "miraculous" earthquake mentioned in the Vita Isidori (Asmus, 96, 5) in connection with the strategems preceding the choice of a successor to Proclus which seem to have begun as much as five years before his death. The earthquakes in Greece in the Middle Ages have apparently suffered the same neglect from historians as have other events. It must be remembered, however, that Athens is much less liable to earthquakes than is the rest of Greece. Any minor tremor might be useful to prove divine anger, approval, or concern, but earthquakes severe enough to cause substantial physical damage are extremely rare in Athenian history.
I3*
196
ALISON
FRANTZ
The topographical argument in favor of a sixth-century date applies equally well to the church in the Theater of Dionysos; the archaeological evidence is inconclusive as between the fifth and sixth.51 The building should probably be regarded as more or less contemporary with the church in the Asklepieion. One other building may be considered in this connection: the quatrefoil building in the courtyard of the Library of Hadrian (fig. ii). First published as a church,52 it was so accepted until Travlos argued convincingly against the identification.53 Apart from the question of the likelihood of a Christian church being built in the center of Athens at the beginning of the fifth century, Travlos made a strong case for the close relationship between the building and the dedication to Herculius built into the wall near the entrance.54He in fact suggested that Herculius himself erected the building either as a reading room for the Library or, more probably, as lecture hall and class rooms for one of the schools presumably housed in the Library; hence the gratitude of the sophists. Travlos' investigations confirmed Sisson's dating of ca. A.D. 400; the structure thus takes its place in the considerable building program of the early years of the fifth century: the Gymnasium complex in the Agora, the contemporary building in the Metroon,55"Proclus' house" south of the Acropolis, the school to the south of the Agora, the stage of Phaedrus in the Theatre of Dionysos, the building dedicated to Arcadius and Honorius by the prefect Aetius in 40I,56 the many baths, gymnasia, etc., either newly built or refurbished in the Hadrianic extension of Athens and the complete rebuilding of Plato's Academy. But the question of the original purpose of the structure in the Library of Hadrian, whether secular or ecclesiastical, remains unsolved. Its similarity to many churches of the centralized plan has offered support in favor of an ecclesiastical origin.57 On the other hand, ecclesiastical architecture has no monopoly on the trefoil or quatrefoil plan.58In view of the inconclusive nature of the architectural evidence, the relation to its immediate surroundings assumes greater weight. Plutarch's statue of Herculius59stood in a commanding position at the entrance to the Library and a visitor, as he passed it, would have been immediately confronted by the quatrefoil building which dominated the whole courtyard. The easiest explanation is that this was the benefaction which prompted the presentation of the statue, and if this was so, it would rule out the possibility that the building was used as a Christian church. 61 Travlos, AE (I953-4), 301I-316. M. A. Sisson, "The Stoa of Hadrian of Athens," Papers of the British School at Rome, II (I929), 50ff. 63 'Avamc
68 Cf. I. Lavin,
69 See supra.
"The House of the Lord," Art Bulletin,
XLIV,
i (I962),
1-27.
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
197
The prosperity which had begun again for Athens at the beginning of the fifth century lasted through the first quarter of the sixth. During this time pagans and Christians seem to have adopted a policy of more or less peaceful coexistence during which the balance gradually shifted from pagan to Christian. It is probable that by the end of the fifth century all the temples had been deconsecrated, but there is no evidence of any having been transformed into a church. Although the Christian population was increasing in numbers and influence,60Justinian's arbitrary closing of the schools in 529 is clear proof that paganism in Athens was still by no means a dead issue. Thus suddenly deprived of its most marketable commodity, philosophy, the city rapidly lost also its chief source of revenue, the students who had continued to flock from all parts of the Empire to its most distinguished seat of higher learning. The the south of the Acropolis, and buildings which had housed the schools to the the especially Gymnasium complex in the Agora were allowed to fall into disrepair. How much Christian construction was undertaken in the sixth century is uncertain, but therereare some indications that the often-quoted remark of Procopius that "in all Greece and no t in Athens itself no was restored nor could any useful thing be done" should not public building be taken too literally or too extensively.61 With the mounting threat of Slavic invasion added to the gradual decay brought about by neglect of the pagan buildings, there was small chance that Athens would regain the prestige or prosperity enjoyed before 529. The threat, in fact, soon became reality and sometime between 580 and 585 the city suffered a general disaster. Mediaeval historians are usually indifferent to occurrences in Athens (Theophanes makes no mention of the city in the sixth or seventh century, and in the fifth only by implication), including this calamity of the 58o's, but the event left its own documentation in the form of burned debris and hoards of coins in scattered areas, both north and south of the Acropolis.62The invaders, like their predecessors the Heruli, evidently made no attempt to occupy the city, but contented themselves with leaving a mass of ruins which lay more or less undisturbed until the beginning of the seventh century. Although the Slavs overran the entire Balkan peninsula in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, it is improbable that Athens itself was ever occupied during this period.63It was in Byzantine hands and evidently regarded as safe in 662/3 when Constans II wintered there, and although there is evidence 60 Cf. Damascius' strictures on Theagenes' opportunism in "slipping into the life of the majority of the people," i.e., the Christians (Vita Isidori, 93). 61 Anecdota, xxvi, 33. (tr. by H. B. Dewing, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, 1935]). This remark was prompted by the actions of the Logothete Alexander who transferred to the imperial treasury the public funds of all the cities of Greece on the pretext that they were to be used for the maintenance of troops in Greece. Although Justinian is represented as concurring in these measures, Procopius contradicts his own testimony with the statement, often confirmed by actual remains, that Justinian rebuilt the walls of the cities of Greece (De aedificiis, iv, 2, 24). 62 Thompson, JRS, 49 (i959), 70; D. M. Metcalf, "The Slavonic Threat to Greece," Hesperia, A. W. Parsons, "A Roman Water Mill in the Athenian Agora," Hesperia, 5 31 (1962), I34-157;
(1936), 63
70-90.
For a recent discussion of the nature and extent of the invasions, cf. G. Ostrogorsky, "By-
zantium
in the Seventh
Century,"
DOP,
13 (I959),
3-21,
esp. 4-7.
198
ALISON
FRANTZ
of acute danger during the reign of Heraclius,64there is no sign of another break in the continuity of life such as occurred in the 580's. Life was admittedly at a low ebb, but there is mounting evidence of a period of recovery in the seventh century which delayed the onset of the darkest ages until toward the end of the century. The volume of coins of Phocas, Heraclius, Constans II, and Constantine IV found in the Athenian Agora (a total of 1127 for the period 602-685) presents an impressive contrast to the scant twenty-five recorded for the twenty years immediately preceding, when Athens was suffering from the aftermath of the Slavic invasion.65 The numismatic evidence from the Agora is corroborated by the discovery of a considerable number of bronze belt buckles of the type commonly known as "Avar" or "Bulgaric" (fig. I2).66 Of the twenty-four buckles found in the Agora area, nine were found in graves on the Areopagus, two in disturbed graves in the Hephaisteion, and the remainder over or near the Panathenaic Way in contexts predominantly of the seventh century. The coincidence of these buckles with the route of Constans and his army has already been remarked,67and from the heavy concentration along the Panathenaic Way, in conjunction with the large number of coins of Constans, we may infer that this was a road much frequented by the troops stationed in Athens, perhaps on their way to garrison duty on the Acropolis. The humble tile graves on the Areopagus, in which several of the buckles were found, might well be part of the military cemetery associated with the garrison. From close by the Panathenaic Way, in the southeast corner of the Agora, came a bronze harness ornament in the form of a bird, with two large letters, kappa omega, in reverse, and an abbreviation sign (fig.I3).68 A similar ornament was brought to light in the same vicinity, "near the Stoa of Attalos," during the excavations of the Greek Archaeological Society inI867.69 Since the style of the ornaments fits well with the time of Constans, it is perhaps not too rash to suppose that they were emblems of the imperial horse, like the N on the bridles of Napoleon's cavalry. The hypothesis is strengthened by the discovery of an apparently identical example in a village south of Almyros, on the slopes of Mt. Othrys, on the Gulf of Volo.70According to the chroniclers, 64
D. M. Metcalf, "The Aegean Coastlands under Threat: Some Coins and Coin Hoards of Hera-
clius," 65
BSA,
57 (I962),
14-23.
M. Thompson, The Athenian Agora, II, Coins from the Roman through the Venetian Period
(Princeton,
1954), 69-7I.
For the voluminous literature on these buckles, cf. K. M. Setton, "The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century," Speculum, 25 (I950), 523-525; 542-543 (with earlier references); and "Constans II and the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs," Speculum, 66
P. Charanis, "On the Capture of Corinth by the Onogurs," Speculum, 27 27 (I952), 351-362; (I952), G. D. Weinberg, Corinth, XII, The Minor Objects (Princeton,I952), 343-350; 266ff. and pl.II114. 67 Setton, Speculum, 25 (1950), 523-524. 68
Agora, Inv. B 96.
69 AE 404 and pl. (I872), 70 N. I. Giannopoulos,
58, 9. Bv[avT-rivWal cpayiSES avEK80o-rol poEpxoPEvai EK -rjs -wTapxiaS 'AXupoO, Byzantinische Zeitschrift, i8 (1909), 503. Both of these ornaments are published as stamps, but this
identification is ruled out in the case of the Agora example by the undercutting of the letters; it also leaves unexplained the attachment holes found in the two Athenian specimens at least. The sketchily drawn illustration of the piece from Almyros does not show this feature, but one suspects its presence.
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
199
Constans followed the shore route on his way to Athens.7' With the Slavs in control of most of the interior of Greece,72 both stationary garrisons and mobile troops would have been essential for the protection of the imperial retinue, whether it accompanied the army or traveled on the ships which were to carry it on the next stage of the journey. A site overlooking the plain of Almyros and the Gulf of Volo would have been a highly suitable location for such a garrison.73 Theophanes, who devotes most of a chapter to Constans' inglorious end in a Sicilian bath,74dismisses his whole journey from Constantinople to Syracuse in Ev upaKouCTi) 6 two lines: TOUTCw KcovorTavTrivoUroiv KaTcAnlTrCov TCo)T?EI PETEO'rrTl paai?AE'us with no mention of TTrS tKE2fiaS,pouvrTSEiS Ev 'PCdU) T-TV 3paclAEiav PETaaficmal,75 Thessalonica Athens, Tarentum, or Rome. In none of the chronicles is there more than the briefest mention of Athens, and yet for a whole winter it must of a large number have been virtually the capital of the Empire, with court officials in addition to the military. The Byzantine court could never belong without ceremonial, even when in transit, and the account in the Liber Pontificalis of the exchanges of visits between Emperor and Pope makes it clear that Constans' retinue was well equipped for ceremonies.76The presence of a large imperial train would have demanded many services of a more practical nature, and this implies the existence of a fairly prosperous community. In no part of Athens where excavations have been conducted have traces of any monumental building of the seventh century been uncovered, and the physical appearance of the city at that time must for the present remain largely conjectural. Where Constans resided or held court or where his troops were quartered are questions to which there are still no answers. Justinian's wall may have suffered sufficiently in the invasion of the 580's to make it advisable to withdraw once more within the late Roman fortification77where, possibly, one or another of the large fifth-century buildings was still, or had been made, habitable. Even apart from the court, life in Athens was not so barren as is frequently believed. The teaching of philosophy had crept back at least to some extent, probably completely Christianized, and the Athenian schools once more had the distinction of sending an eminent churchman to a high ecclesiastical post: the Cilician Theodore of Tarsus, who studied in Athens before going on to an illustrious career as Archbishop of Canterbury (669-690).78 71 E.g., Paulus Diaconus, in De gestis Langobardorum, V, 6 (PL, 95, 598A): per littoralia iter habens Athenas venit; indeque mare transgressus Tarentum applicuit. 72 Ostrogorsky, op. cit., p. 4. 73 Two almost identical examples, said to have been found in Constantinople, are in the collection of Mr. and Mrs. John de Menil in Houston. I am indebted to the owners for permission to mention these unpublished pieces and to Mr. Marvin C. Ross not only for calling my attention to them, but also for a photograph. The attachment holes are present in both cases. 74Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. by de Boor (Leipzig, 1883), p. 351 (A.M. 6i60). 75 Ibid., p. 348, A.M. 6153. 76 LP, I, 343 (Vitalian). 77 Travlos, TToEoSoPIKni, p. 149. 78 This information is based on the authority of Pope Zacharias, writing fifty years after the death of Theodore: ... et novissime tuis temporibus Theodorus ex Graeco Latinus ante philosophus et Athenis eruditus (PL, 89, 943C.). Cf. also the Venerable Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, bk. iv, chap.
200
ALISON
FRANTZ
Against this background of relations between pagans and Christians the defiance of the Edict of Theodosius is understandable, particularly since t of the order was entrusted to the magistrates. In this case, as enforcemenc ed had no great enthusiasm for performing Athenians, good they woul have their duties. Moreover, the decree must be considered, not as an isolated order but in its context, as one ofofa long series longmeasures dealing with the outward aspects of the transition from paganism to Christianity. These differed in severity according to circumstances, and offered a diversity of solutions, including destruction, neutralization by the removal of the cult statues, and occasionally conversion to public (but never specifically Christian) use, in no logical sequence. Geographical and also topographical considerations evidently intwo decrees decreesissuedby Arcadius and Honorius played a part, as, for instance, in in the same year, A.D. 399: "No man ... shall attempt to destroy temples which are empty of illicit things" (Padua);79 but six weeks earlier, "temples ... in the country districts ... shall be torn down without disturbance or tumult (Damascus).80 This flexibility suggests that in the edict of 435 the phrase Praecepto magistratuum was inserted as a loophole to allow the magistrates to exercise their discretion. The provision against sacrifices was constant; it was both easier to enforce and struck more directly at the heart of the matter. Concern for the buildings themselves was incidental, and often utilitarian.81 Those buildings which weathered the storm of 435 (if, indeed, it was a storm) found protection in an edict of Majorian, in 458, against using ancient buildings as quarries: "buildings that have been founded by the ancients as temples, or other monuments constructed for public use or pleasure shall not be destroyed by any person."82 Toward the end of Proclus' life it was becoming clear that paganism was doomed.
His dream of Athena coming to live with him when To aya.Xa avuTTisTo v T7apEVcoV TeCos ispuvievov TrarTiCoVKai Tra aKiVlTa KIVOUVTOVPETERpeTO places
the removal of the Parthenos and, therefore, the deconsecration of the Parthenon sometime before 485.83 It was probably about this same time that the
cult statue was removed from the temple of Asklepios.84 Theagenes, archon i: ... Theodorus, natus Tarso Ciliciae, vir et saeculari et divina literatura, et Graece instructus et Some slight scepticism might be retained as to whether Theodore actually studied at Latine.... Athens, or whether the prestige of Athenian education was still so great as to cause its bestowal, honoris causa, on a man who had achieved such distinction. One would like to think that the credentials were earned legitimately. Another seventh-century man, St. Gislenus, is credited with having studied in Athens:
...
Tt EuyevECrarThr TrOV-rr6hcov rTS 'En EA8aoos o ns
lTpoacEEpev EiS Ta Oevr)IraTris yXobaar7s
-rTO avOos-rfisyoaTTias (Gesta Episcoporum Camaracensium, I, 409, quoted by F. Gregorovius, Geschichte der Stadt Athen im Mittelalter [Stuttgart, 1889], I, 99). Gislenus is also said to have written to King Dagobert: Exsul et peregrinus sum et in hac partes de terra longinqua veni, h.e. de Athenis, nobilissima Graecorum urbe. (Acta Sanctorum, October, vol. 4, 1030). But the report cannot be traced back further than the tenth century. 79 Cod. Theod., xvi. io.i8. All translations are from The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, ed. by Clyde Pharr (Princeton, 1952). 80 Ibid., xvi. Io.16. 81 As Deichmann observed, once the symbols were removed, the shell of the building ceased to
have any significance (JdI, 54 [I939], 82 Novels of Majorian, 4.1. 83 Vita Procli, 30. 84 See supra.
114).
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
201
and benefactor of the Academy, who is also represented as something of an opportunist, toward the end of his career, ca. 480-485, found it politic to avoid giving provocation to the Christians,85but that paganism was still a powerful force is evident from the obligatory closing of the schools in 529. Failing architectural evidence to the contrary, therefore, it seems unlikely that the conversion of the temples followed immed iately after deconsecration. Immediate rededication would have been distasteful to the Christians and offensive to the pagans, and since the Christians were already amply provided with places of worship, there was no reaso to provoke inevitable friction by such a blatant act. It is far more probable that during the dying years of paganism the temples were left as a spiritual no-man's land, untended and allowed to fall into decay.86 The zeal with which the classically-oriented archaeologists of the nineteenth century stripped away from Athenian temples all possible reminders of their post-classical history has rendered unduly complicated the task of dating their conversion. The nature of the required alterations made it impossible to eradicate completely all traces and these, supplemented by descriptions and drawings by the early travelers, have sometimes made it possible to reconstruct the general appearance of both exterior and interior. But the systematic removal, without recording, of wall masonry and, in many cases, even of foundations, destroyed at the same time almost all chronological evidence. The process of transformation consisted of two, perhaps three, stages: deconsecration by means of the removal of the cult statue and other pagan trappings; possibly an intermediate period when the building was used as a place of worship without any structural alteration; and finally, architectural remodeling to conform to the demands of the Christian liturgy, i.e., reorientation, involving the construction of anapse apseat the east end and a new entrance at the west end. The middle phase, by its very nature, leaves no physical traces and there is, so far as I know, no sure evidence of its reality in any Athenian building. Of the three major temples in Athens known to have been turned into churches, namely, the Parthenon, Erechtheion, and Hephaisteion, the Parthenon alone drew the attention of the later writers. But all the descriptions are late, the earliest being that of Nicolo de Martoni, who visited the building in I395
;87
their authors were primarily concerned with the interior embellish-
ments and shed no light on the date of conversion. Deichmann, in his detailed analysis of the building,88found the archaeological evidence so meager that he could only assign a terminus ante quem of 694, the date of the first surviving Christian graffito.89 85 Vita Isidori,
ed. by Asmus, p. 20. E.g., the temple of Asklepios. This might also account for the corrosion on the floor of the Parthenon, indicating disrepair and a period of abandonment, observed by Deichmann ("Die Basilika im Parthenon," AM, 63-64 [1938-9], 127). 87 For the later history of the Parthenon, cf. A. Michaelis, Der Parthenon (1871); also G. Sotiriou, EMME, I, 36 and K. Setton, Speculum, 19 (1944), i98-201. 86
88 AM,
89 CIG,
63-64 (I938-9), IV, 9350.
I27-139.
202
ALISON
FRANTZ
The Erechtheion is a little less elusive. Some remains of its Christian phase survived the nineteenth-century austerity to contribute to the study of the building carried out by the American School of Classical Studies.90The excavators found the later construction crude, with many careless details and with an inconsistent use of materials, e.g., poros in the south aisle, marble in the north. "'It is hard to associate such methods with the age of Justinian even in a provincial city like Athens; they belong rather to the deep decline of the late sixth and seventh centuries."91The single carved slab of the templon preserved almost complete (fig. 4) corroborates this impression; with its fat,angulat, angular carving and eclectic use of motifs, it could hardly be dated before the seventh century. With the temple of Hephaistos, the so-called Theseum (fig. I5), we are more in fortunate th e later accretions connected with the remodeling were recorded before being removed92and in some cases, e.g., the barrel vault, even allowed to remain. Re-examination of the evidence thus preserved suggests that the fourth- to fifth-century date generally assigned to the conversion of the temple on the basis of the carved ornament be revised. The various aspects of the remodeling have been fully presented elsewhere93and need be recapitulated here only very briefly. The main features of the architectural conversion of the building consisted, as usual, in theopening of a door in the west opening the end and the construction of an apse at the east, the latter involving the difficult feat of replacing the two columns of the pronaos with an arch, without destroying the frieze immediately above. The opening for the apse was narrowed to a width of 4.62 m. by thick piers leading off from the antae. The piers, with their crowning capitals, reached a height of ca. 2.10 m. and supported an arch consisting of twenty-one voussoir blocks (fig. I6). It was established by Orlandos, Dinsmoor, and others that the first ape was destroyed at some undeter-
mined time and replaced by the smaller one seen by Stuart and Revett,94 Dupre,95and others96prior to 1834. Soon after this year the history of the building as the church of St. George came to an end; the apse was demolished and the bema arch was filled in with a rubble wall to make the building serviceable as a museum for stray bits of sculpture gathered from various parts of the city. In I936 Orlandos, onf the Greek Archaeological Service, removed the wall together with the arch, and restored the two columns of the pronaos. Until that time the pilaster capitals had been visible in the east and west faces of the wall; a discrepancy of 0.015 m. in the height of the blocks on the east and west made it plain that on neither side of the arch were the capitals composed of a single block. 90 The Erechtheion, ed. by J. Paton (Cambridge, 1927), esp. 492-522. 91 Ibid., p. 511. 92 A. Orlandos, ABME, II (1936), 207-216. 93 Orlandos, loc. cit.; W. B. Dinsmoor, "Observations on the Hephaisteion," Hesperia, Suppl. V esp. 6-15; H. Koch, Studien zum Theseustempel (Berlin, 1955), 33-38. Full bibliography may (I94I),
be found in these three works. 94 The Antiquities of Athens, III (1794), chap. I, pl. 95 Voyage a Athenes (1825), pl. 24. 96 A. Blouet, etc. Expedition
ii.
scientifique de Moree (1838), III, pI. 92 (expedition of 1829).
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
203
With the unblocking of the bema arch, its inner faces were exposed, revealing the actual composition of the pilaster capitals. Photographs taken at the time show up the piers as a shoddy bit of patchwork and leave no doubt that the capitals wee not originally carved for this position (figs. 17-19).97 The antae of the original building determined the depth of the arch and of its supports (ca. i m.). But this was not, as it were, a standard size in Early the in Christian architecture, and the masremodelion where neither to or able find carve to blocks of a suitable size. new, old, willing They used, accordingly, two ill-assorted pairs, one member from each pair to a side. Even this combination was not enough to cover the whole spaefce and a gap about I5 cm. was left between the two blocks. The gap was filled with a miserable the as patch of brick and mortar, of much the same character piers themselves, but quite inconsistent with the comparatively high quality of the carving. Presumably the gap was made less unsightly by a stucco filling, but that could not conceal the disparity between the two elements. Chipped surfaces, heavily weathered, leave no doubt that all four blocks were originally carved for use elsewhere in one, or more probably two, buildings, and that after the destruction of these buildings they lay around exposed to the elements for an appreciable time before being reused in their final position. Alternating acanthus and water leaves, the most common decorative motif in Early Christian Athenian architecture, form the basis of the ornamental scheme of all the blocks, with the addition, on the western pair, of a central cross. Making due allowance for disparity in the competence of the stone carvers, it is probable that a difference of date should likewise be be recognized. On the eastern pair (fig. 20) the acanthus, well co-ordinated with the lobes clearly related to the central stem, is much closer to its classical prototypes. On the companion pieces (figs. 21, 22) the upper lobes appear to be inserted into available spaces with little connection to the main body of the leaf, and the lack of naturalism is further accentuated by the harsh, vertical grooves down the center. This pair resembles most closely, in theme and execution, the design on a large piece of an epistyle in the Asklepieion which Xyngopoulos attributed to a later repair to the church on that site.98If we accept the sixthcentury date now proposed for the church,99the epistyle would be at least as late as the sixth century. The earlier pair, on the basis of the meager chronological evidence available, should probably be placed about the middle or second half of the fifth century.100 On the basis of the evidence of the piers, the dating of the conversion of the Hephaisteion in the fourth, fifth, or even sixth century must be seriously questioned.101It is naturally impossible to determine with certainty the lapse of time that must be allowed for construction of the building in which the 97 The photographs of the blocks in situ I owe to the generosity of Professor Orlandos. A. Xyngopoulos, AE (1915), 60 and fig. 12.
98
99 See supra. 100Cf. unpublished pieces from Lechaion and Brauron. 101Koch (op. cit., pp. 37-38) observed the discrepancy between the pairs of blocks, but still attributed the construction of the apse (though not of the vault) to the fifth or sixth century.
204
ALISON
FRANTZ
carved members were originally used, its destruction, and a period of desolation accountable for weathering before removal of the blocks to a protected spot. Theoretically, all of these phases could be compressed into a very short space of time. But the period of the fifth and most of the sixth century was not one of great destruction in Athens. The most likely occasion for extensive demolition was the Slavic invasion of the 58o's. Although the possibility of a local disaster to a single building is not excluded, it is made less likely by the apparent difference in date between the two pairs of blocks, presupposing the destruction of two original buildings. The desolate condition of Athens for the twenty years following the invasion would account for the weathering. Of all the churches built in Athens before the invasion, only the basilica by the Ilissos is known to have survived.102By the time recovery began, in the reign of Heraclius, the city would have been in need of places of worship, the ruins of the churches would have provided convenient quarrying grounds for architectural members and the final demise of paganism would have removed the last obstacle to appropriation of the temples for Christian use. seventh century the transformation of the Hephaisteion How early in the centuryhe took place is impossible to say. With the establishment of a completely Christian city, the Parthenon would have had a prior claim and it might, by exception, have been converted even before the Slavic invasion. Because of its close proximity, the Erechtheion must have followed soon after but not, to judge by the templon slab, before the beginning of the seventh century. The Hephaisteion, with its less commanding position, was probably the last of the three; the atrocious masonry of the piers argues for a date well into the seventh century, possibly as late as Constans' visit. After 663 there would have been no further occasion for its transformation; all activity seems to have ceased until the Athenian-born Empress Eirene found her native city a convenient place of exile for her brothers-in-law.103 The date of the construction of the vault is irrelevant to the problem of the date of the original conversion of the temple. But, although the question of the vault is still unresolved, it should perhaps be stated here. Both Sotiriou and Orlandos, who dated the first remodeling in the fourth or fifth century, separated the vault from this operation, Sotiriou placing it "after the ninth Koch suggested century"104and Orlandos "in the middle Byzantine period."'105 the time of Basil II.106 Dinsmoor107found evidence corroborating Orlandos' view. The weight of opinion is therefore on the side of late construction, but 102 It is presumed to be the one mentioned by Michael Choniates as being in a state of neglect (cf. Sotiriou, EMME, I, 53). 108 Theophanes, 473 (A.M. 6290). It would be interesting to know for what reason E. Br6ton (AthUnes [1862], 193) assigned the year 667; possibly he was following Pittakis who gave the same, unsubstantiated, answer (L'ancienne Ath?nes [Athens, 1835], 8i). But Pittakis later revised this dating on the basis of two Christian graffiti on the columns which he read as 499 and 492 (AE [1853], 939, nos. 1599, i600). Mommsen (Athenae Christianae [Leipzig, i868], 99, no. ii6) refuted Pittakis' reading and put the inscriptions "after the reign of Justinian." 104 AE (1929), 172.
105 ABME,
II, 214.
106Op. cit., 38.
107Op. cit., II.
FROM PAGANISM
TO CHRISTIANITY
IN ATHENS
205
with no definite date. A. W. Lawrence, who examined the building in i963, found parallels in twelfth- tnd thirteenth-century Crusader vaults in Syria, with the same use of rubble masonry and square lighting holes. It seems most likely that the replacement of the original large apse with the small one seen by the early travelers was connected with the construction of the vault; that both apse and roof met with some disaster and were replaced at the same time. But beyond the fact that no traces of fire have ever been found in the entire building, it is impossible to say what was the nature of the disaster. We must probably exclude the destruction caused by the forces of Leon Sgouros in I204 because elsewhere in the Agora indications of his activities are always accompanied by evidence of burning. It has been maintained that the many Christian gravestones, small objects with Christian symbols, as well as unmistakable signs of building activity among the Christian population of Athens, argue against a latedate date for the conversion of the temples. But we have only to consider a parallel situation in Rome, a city far less uncompromising than Athens in upholding the pagan tradition. There the power and influence of the Christians is clearly attested by innumerable churches, churches,cemeteries, etc. and yet the first known instance of the conversion of a genuine Roman temple is the Pantheon, which became the church of S. Maria ad Martyres in 609, under Boniface IV.108It may be noted that the entry in the Liber Pontificalis recording this event follows immediately after a report of famine, pestilence, and flood. The parallel with Athens is close. The basilicas which had risen on the outskirts of the city in the great building period of the fifth century had no protection againstd Slavic invaders of thlate late sixth. They were more exposed the and less solidly constructed thand buildings the within the city and undoubtedly, with their rich ornament and sacramental furniture, more attractive to looters than the earlier structures from which "those things which ought not to be moved" had already vanished. That the basilicas were not reconstructed or Greece was beleaguered both by land and by sea repaired is not surprising. beleaguered and the future held no security. The temples, although probably in disrepair, provided substantial shelter in a less vulnerable position, and the pagan spirits, now finally laid to rest, offered no further terrors. So it was by virtue of necessity rather than in token of a victorious faith that the temples of the old dispensation became the province of the new. 108 LP, I, 317. The so-called Templum Urbis Romae, transformed into the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian under Felix IV (526-530), was not a temple in the proper sense but rather an adjunct to the library in the Forum Pacis of Vespasian. It received its popular name only in the seventeenth century. In a city where events such as this were so well documented in the Liber Pontificalis, the argumentum ex silentio carries considerable weight and we may well believe that the Pantheon was indeed the first temple to be converted.
.
~~~~~~~... ,
:
~
4
~ ~~~~~~~~~*;i:,\ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -
'
*
*;. YA pAl;
AIA
HO-
./
.1 1...
x ,;
?:'-
0 ...~.
>AA
*
"
%
~' ' '.
. ..,
~-w :t
^
?
-
I ? ^b
..'.
-:;.
'-
,..
~~... ... yS ?'" ..... , *'',"2-" r;; (\ f,;, ..
"^ ', * aS^
. e L . ':*>, ,
../.
iz
*
^A',NFI '"
"
' '"
r~~~~~~r ~- ~ ~ ~~~ .
.
.
.
.........
V
./ .
^ r
?:
....^ ^.
Athens,
1.
2.
A.
..
-267-40.
Athens, A.D. 267-408.
Late Roman Fortification in the Agora
*
-4'
,'.
I
-/:.-.'F.. , ?'
-O1.
. . ,
,
"
'
i i
3. Early Christian Lamp from the Agora
i
4. Early Christian Lamp from the Agora
5. Christian Tombstone from the Agora
7.
Pilaster Capital from the Gymnasium in the Agora
10.
Acropolis Museum.
Portrait of a Philosopher
S.
Silenus, from the Stage of Phaedrus in the
9.
Statue of a Magistrate from the
1:3. Harness Ornament from the Agora
11.
Quatrefoil Building in the Library of Hadrian
9+i'~~~~~~~~~
"i:
4
.
W-
"Ido1
12. Seventh-century Buckles from the Agora (Selection)
14.
Templon Slab in the Erechtheion
I 5.
The Temple of Hephaistos
S.
'S..0
.0.
mm
I
p 11114 NN3
E.4
V
*
*
.1
l
PM
S~
S
M0 IS
k~
V
_
I
!
0
I
16.
0
0
0
I
I
I ,
5 M.
The Hephaisteion as a Christian Church. (Plan and Sections)
J.T. 1958
..
,
.
'
. *-.,i
^ jzg; .'*i.:*
w0_
?South
Side.
South Side
18.
Inner Face, South
19.
Inner Face, North
20.
21.
22. Early Christian M\ouldingsfrom the Hephaisteion
Two Byzantine Coin Hoards of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries at Dumbarton Oaks Author(s): Philip Grierson Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 207-228 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291231 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
TWO
BYZANTINE
OF AND AT
COIN
HOARDS
SEVENTH
THE
EIGHTH
CENTURIES
DUMBARTON OAKS
PHILIP GRIERSON
Pn
ROFESSOR Alfred R. Bellinger published some years ago a Byzantine
coin hoard of the empire of Nicaea which was acquired intact by the late Thomas Whittemore and is now the property of the Fogg Museum in Cambridge (Mass.), part of it being deposited on loan with the Dumbarton Oaks Collection in Washington.1 It seems desirable to put on record the existence of two further Byzantine coin hoards at Dumbarton Oaks, one of the seventh and the other of the early eighth century, although, unlike the Whittemore hoard, they are no longer available for study in their entirety. Only a selection of coins from each is in the Collection, and, though their former owners made notes on their further contents and for one of them some photographs of the absent coins are available, these are not adequate substitutes for the information on weights and stylistic details which access to the whole of the hoard evidence would provide. I THE SECOND AYDIN HOARD (Figures I and 2)
The earlier in date and the larger of the two hoards (216 solidi) is said to have been found in southwestern Asia Minor, in the neighborhood of Aydin, the ancient Tralles, in the lower Maeander valley some twenty-five miles from the sea. Since the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul already possesses another hoard of solidi from the same neighborhood, it will be convenient to call the Istanbul one Aydin I and that of which a part is at Dumbarton Oaks Aydin II.2 The two hoards end with coins of the second type of Heraclius, issued between 613 and 629, and though the accompanying table shows that they differ in the proportion of coins of Phocas which they contain, they were probably buried at about the same time. Only fifty-three coins from Aydin II, i.e., no more than a quarter of the coins of which some particulars are preserved, are at Dumbarton Oaks, the remainder having been dispersed or possibly even melted down. Since 216 coins would correspond exactly to the sum of three Roman pounds, there is at least some reason to suppose that the hoard was complete. Its provenance is of course unproved, but one can at least say that its contents are not incompatible with its having come originally from southwestern Asia Minor, like the better doc1"A Hoard of Silver Coins of, the Empire of Nicaea," Centennial Publication of the American Numismatic 2
Society, ed. by H. Ingholt
(New York, 1958),
73-81.
The contents of Aydin I are summarized in S. McA. Mosser, A Bibliography of Byzantine Coin Hoards (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, No. 67 [New York, 1935]), 8, on the basis of information supplied by Dr. Kurt Regling. I made extensive use of the material in both hoards in my study, "Solidi of Phocas and Heraclius: the Chronological Framework," Numismatic Chronicle, 6th ser., 19 (i959), I4
131-49.
209
210
PHILIP
GRIERSON
umented Aydin I. In composition it is extremely homogeneous, consisting almost entirely of solidi of Phocas (602-10) and of the first two types issued during the reign of Heraclius (610-41). If the hoard dates from 615 (see infra), over go90 per cent of the coins must have been struck within the decade previous to its burial-98 per cent within the preceding thirteen years-which explains why they are for the most part in a virtually unworn condition. Coins in Aydin I and Aydin II Aydin I Anastasius I (49I-518)
Tiberius II (578-82) Maurice (582-602) Phocas (602-10) Heraclius (610-4I) Class I (610-I3) Class II (613-29)
Aydin II
I* 2 (2) 2 (2) I
III
(22)
5
25 (8)
52
76 (I9)
59
2i6 (53)
* A tremissis.
The figures in parentheses in the second column are those of the specimens at Dumbarton Oaks. In the description of the hoard that follows, an asterisk against the number indicates that the coin is at Dumbarton Oaks, and "as last," unless qualified in some way, implies that the coin is similar in type and style to the preceding coin and has the same officina letter, but is struck with different dies. The division into classes follows that of my article on the solidi of Phocas and Heraclius referred to above. References to "Wroth" indicate the British Museum Catalogue of Byzantine coins.3 The die positions are always 1t. TIBERIUS II (578-82) (in grams) (in grams) *I. Obv. bTmTIbCONS TANTPPAVC. Armored bust facing, wearing shield and crown w. circular ornament and cross, holding globus cruciger. (End of inscr. obscured through double-striking). Rev. VICTORIAAVCCE.Cross potent on four steps; below, CONOB. 4.48 *2. As last, but officina letter Z. 4.48 MAURICE (582-602) TlbPPAVC.Armored bust facing, wearing cloak and *3. Obv. [O]NTMAVRC helmet and holding g.c. plumed Rev. VICTORI AAVCCB.Angel facing, holding long cross w. looped top and g.c. 4.44 a W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Imperial Byzantine coins in the British Museum (London, I908).
TWO BYZANTINE
COIN HOARDS
211
*4. As last, but [ONMIAV].There are some graffiti scratched on the obv., apparently the letters H A. 4.35 PHOCAS (602-I0)
Class II No pendants on crown; obv. inscription begins ON; rev. inscription ends with AVCCand officina letter Bearded bust facing, wearing armor, cloak, *5. Obv. ONFOCASPERPAVC. and crown with circular ornament and cross, holding g.c. Rev. VICTORI AAVCCA.Angel facing, holding long cross w. looped top and g.c. 4.49 As last. 6,7. *8. As last, but off. letter B 4.35 As last. 9-I2. *i3. As last, but off. letter r. I4. As last. *I5. As last, but off. letter A. i6, i7. As last.
4.40
*I8. As last, but off. letter E. First part of rev. inscr. illegible. As last. As last, but off. letter S.
4.48
4.39
I9-2I. *22.
4.48
23. As last. *24. As last, but 25,26. As last.
off. letter Z.
4.47
*27. As last, but off. letter H.
4.43
As last. As last, but off. letter E. *30.
4.42
28,29.
31,32. As last.
*33. As last, but off. letter 1.
4.46
34-36. As last.
Class IV No pendants on crown; obv. inscription begins bN; rev. inscription ends with AV'qIand officina letter *37. As last, but obv. inscr. begins bN instead of ON and rev. inscr. reads VICTORIA AVqqA. 38,39. As last. *40. As last, but off. letter B. 41,42. As last.
4.51
4.40
*43. As last, but off. letter A. The die-cutter seems to have started to make some other letter, apparently E, and then corrected himself 4.52 As last. 44. *45. As last, but off. letter E. 4.49 I4#
212 46-70.
PHILIP
GRIERSON
As last.
*7I. As last, but off. letter Z.
4.46
72-74. As last.
*75. As last, but off. letter H. *76. As last, but off. letter 0. *77. As last.
4.36 4.46 4.47
78-82. As last.
*83. As last, but off. letter 1. 84-107.
io8-III.
4.34
As last.
As last, off. letter illegible. These coins are noted as having been identical in style with the others, giving the imperial bust a rather prominent neck differentiated clearly from the background. Class IV, var. With N in rev. field
As last, but N in right field on rev. and off. letter Z. *II3. As last, but off. letter I. *II2.
4.48 4.49
II4. As last.
*II5. As last, but bNN instead of bN. HERACLIUS
4.45 (610-4I)
Class I Bust of Heraclius (with short beard) alone (6I0-I3) PER.Cross potent on two steps (a). Inscription hERACLI *II6. Obv. dNNhERAC LIPERAV. Bearded bust facing, wearing plumed helmet, armor, and cloak, and holding g.c. Rev. [VICT]ORIAAVqqE. Cross potent on two steps; below, CONOB.
4.47
PP.Cross potent usually on three steps (b). Inscription hERACLIqS VSPPAVC. *II7. As last, but ONhERACL[I] Crosspotent on three steps, and off. letter A. (Part of the CLand the whole of the I of hERACLI are off flan. The V has the left-hand stroke curved, but is closer to V than to qc). 4.50 II8,II9.
As last.
As last, but dNhERACL IVSPPAC.Cross potent on two steps, and off. letter E. (The V is closer to V than to q.) 4.37 As last. 121,122. *I23. As last, but [d]NhERACLI SPPA. 4.47 qSPPAVC.Cross potent on three steps. *I124. As last, but dNhERACLI The first part of the obv. inscription is barely legible. 4.44 *I20.
TWO BYZANTINE 125-I34.
COIN HOARDS
213
As last.
qSPPAVC.Cross potent on three steps, and *I35. As last, but dNhERACLI off. letter 1. 4.4I I36,I37.
As last, same obv. and rev. dies.
*I38. As last, but different dies. (The officina letter is not certain.)
4.49
I39. As last, different dies. I SPPAC.Cross potent on two steps. *I40. As last, but dNhERACL
4.44
Class II Heraclius (with short beard) and Heraclius Constantine (613-29) (a). Crown flat or only slightly convex, surmounted by cross without circular ornament *141.
IqSEZhERACONSTPPAVC. Obv. [ddNN hERACL] Busts of Heraclius and
Heraclius Constantine facing, each wearing cloak and crown, cross in field above. Heraclius has a short beard; H. C. is beardless, and is represented very small. AVqqA.Crosspotent on three steps; below, CONOB. 4.43 Rev. VICTORIA I42. As last, same dies.
SEThERACONSTPP and busts very differ*I43. As last, but ddNNhERACLIV ent in style. It is discussed below. 4.49 *I44. As last, but off. letter B. Injured by double striking (//////ETChER There are the remains of a short exergual ACONSTPPAVC). line below the busts, as is sometimes found on normal solidi, but not the exaggerated one seen on nos. I75-9.
*I45. As last, normal inscr. but off. letter E. I46-I70.
4.42
4.48
As last, noted as being very uniform in style.
*I7I. As last, normal inscr. (ends AV) but off. letter H. (Vfor q in obv. inscr., as on no. I43). *I72. As last, but different dies.
*I73. As last, but off. letter E. *I74. As last, but off. letter I (ddNNhERACLI/////CONSTPPAVF).
4.50
4.46
4.37 4.29
Var. of distinctive style with exergual line below busts *I75. As last, at end of rev. inscr. I (ddNNhERACIIVSETChERAC////TP). 4.48 *I76. As last, but at end of rev. inscr. IX (ddNNh//////ERACONSTP).
Same obv. dies as no. I75. As last. *I77. (ddNNhERACIVSEtChERCON/////). *i78. As last, but at end of rev. inscr. ITT(//dNNhERACIIVSETh////TP). *I79. As last (/////ERACIItSETChRACONSTPP).
4.48 4.46 4.47 4.45
(b). As var. (a) but N in rev. field *I8o. As nos. I41-74, but N to r. in rev. field, off. letter E(ddNNhERACLlqs /////CONSTPPAV). 4.42
214
PHILIP
GRIERSON
As last, different dies (ddNNhERACLIqSEThERACONSTPPAV). 4.46 As last, various dies. i82-I92.
*I8i.
(g). Crowns convex, surmounted by circular ornament and cross *I93. As nos. I4I-74,
but diff. crown, bust of H. C. very large, off.
letter r. Possibly an intruder. As last, but bust of H. C. small, off. letter E. *I94.
4.38 4.45
(i). Same crowns, I in rev. field *I95. As no. I94, but I to r. in rev. field. (/////qSE6ThERACONSTPPAVC).
*i96. As last, diff. dies (ends CONST////; I97-216.
As last, various dies.
the E in et has the form E).
4.4I
4.45
The mints of the gold coins were not at this period identified by any particular mint-mark, CONOBhaving lost its specific association with Constantinople and being used also at Carthage, Ravenna, and Rome in the west, and at such provincial mints as may have struck gold in the east.4The solidi of Phocas and Heraclius in Aydin II are for the most part extremely uniform in style, and there can be little doubt that they are from the mint of the capital. The two solidi of Maurice are both of the variety with narrow imperial bust, not of that with a broad one, but whether these variations result from differences in date or differences in mint is as yet uncertain; a case can be made for assigning those with broad bust to the mint of Antioch. There were no light-weight solidi in the hoard, neither those of the classes studied by Adelson nor the 23-carat solidi marked by a star in obverse and reverse fields subsequently identified by Leuthold5. Though the hoard contained a number of coins with I or N in the reverse field, their presence does not help us to discover the meaning of these sigla. The only exceptions to the stylistic uniformity of the coins are nos. I43, I75-9,
and-though
in a different fashion-no.
I93.
Nos. 175-9, which have squat and rather crudely designed busts with an exergual line beneath them, I have discussed elsewhere.6 Their stylistic peculiarities and the abnormal terminal letters of their reverse inscriptions-IX or as well as the more normal I-mark them as a distinct group. They are also ITT, closely die-linked; nos. I75 and I76 share a common obverse die, thus linking 4 ALE?OB appears exceptionally on some solidi of Justin II struck at Alexandria. There is one in the British Museum, acquired since the publication of Wroth's catalogue, and a second from the same dies in the collection of Sig. Enrico Leuthold at Milan. 6 Howard L. Adelson, Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade during the Sixth and Seventh Centuries (Numismatic Notes and Monographs, no. 138 [New York, 1937]); E. Leuthold, "Solidi leggieri da XXIII silique degli imperatori Maurizio Tiberio, Foca ed Eraclio," Rivista italiana di numismatica, 62 (1960),
146-54.
6 Op. cit., I46-7. On p. I47 Aydin is inadvertently described as being in southeastern instead of
southwestern Asia Minor. The curious use of the exergual line below the busts suggests that the diesinkers were copying a square painting showing the busts of the two emperors and did not venture to continue the robes below what this actually showed.
TWO BYZANTINE
COIN HOARDS
215
the terminal letters I and IX, and Mr. Whitting has recently published a dielink between IX and IT.7The ending IX also occurs on a variety of the first type of Heraclius on which he is shown with a long beard like that of Phocas and since this can be assigned with fair confidence to the mint of Alexandria, it is reasonable to suppose that nos. 175-9 belong to Alexandria also. Only hoard evidence from Egypt could really decide the matter, and so far none is available. No. 143, with terminal letter A, is also anomalous in style, and Mr. Bellinger in his forthcoming first volume of the catalogue of the Dumbarton Oaks coin collection attributes it to Alexandria along with nos. I75-9. The coin has certainly close affinities with these, notably in the coarse treatment of the rather prominent hair and the height of the crown and of the cross above it. On the other hand, there is no exergual line, the bust has not the squat appearance of the "Alexandria" group, and the terminal letter A does not seem to occur on any coins which definitely belong to the latter. I am therefore inclined to see in it the work of an incompetent die-sinker at Constantinople rather than the product of a different mint, while not denying the possibility that it may eventually turn out to be the latter. The other anomalous coin, no. 193, is more important, since, if it is really part of the hoard, it would vitally affect the dating both of this and of the phases of Heraclius' Class II coinage. When discussing the latter some years ago, I argued that the coins on which the crowns of the two emperors had a simple cross were earlier than those on which the cross surmounts a circular ornament,8 and those of the latter class on which the figure of Heraclius Constantine is very small are obviously earlier than those on which he is larger. Class II as a whole can be dated 6I3-29, but
any more precise division within it can be little more than guesswork. I suggested that the transition from crown-with-cross to crown-with-circularornament-and-cross should be placed ca. 6i6, mainly because the second variety appears in fair quantity in Aydin II, and that since the latter still contains many coins of Phocas, it cannot be placed very late in the reign (ca. 617-8?). The presence of no. 193 is an obvious difficulty, since, with a large bust of Heraclius Constantine and a cross potent of quite different proportions on the reverse, it can scarcely be earlier than the 620's. Its divergences from the rest of the hoard are so great that I feel it should be written off as an intruder. Solidi of Heraclius are so common that it could easily have been accidentally interchanged with one of an earlier type while the hoard was in commerce. A slightly different basis for classifying the solidi of Class II is proposed by Mr. Bellinger in his forthcoming Catalogue. He points out that the distinction between cross-on-crown and cross-and-circular-ornament-on-crown is not an absolute one. On some coins which belong to the first group the cross is above a 7 P. D. Whitting, "An Heraclius die identity," Spink's Numismatic Circular, 72 (1964), 134. There is a similar die-link at Dumbarton Oaks. 8 I followed Wroth in calling this ornament a globus cruciger, but Bellinger rightly points out that it cannot have involved a "globus" and that "circular ornament with cross" (or "surmounted by cross") would be more appropriate.
216
PHILIP
GRIERSON
small circle placed between the upper and lower borders of the crown but not extending outside these, as it does in the second group; it is fairly evident, indeed, that it was from this design that the distinctive feature of the second group developed. He prefers to use as a criterion the actual shape of the crown, and proposes a division into three groups: (a) flat crown, with small bust of Heraclius Constantine, probably dated 613-23, (b) convex crown, still with small bust, probably 624-5, and (c) convex crown, with large bust, dated 626-9. The dating of the transition from small to large bust would have taken place when Heraclius Constantine attained the age of fourteen, which he did on 3 May 626. This classification has an advantage over mine ine in distinguishing between coins on which Heraclius Constantine is shown small and those on which he is large, though this can equally well be done within the framework of my cross-andcircular-ornament-on-crown group. It is less clear that the distinction between "flat crown" and "convex crown" is preferable to that between "cross-oncrown" and "cross-with-circular-ornament-on-crown." If the latter two theiher are the former, designs are not sharply differentiated from each other, for the crown is sometims so slightly curved that one is uncertain as to the group to which it should be assigned. Both divisions are in any case artificial; we are dealing with a mass of small varieties produced of by a number different and die-sinkers, though we can see the broad lines on which the design evolved, it is unlikely that the engravers were directed at any given moment to abandon one form and replace it by another. Even by Mr. Bellinger's classification all the coins in Aydin II belong to his group (a) with the exception of no. I93, which is group (c), and if his dating of this is correct, it strengthens the case for regarding the coin an intruder. This still leaves undetermined the date at which the "circular ornament" below the cross appeared as a fully developed element in the design of the crown,9 and it is worth approaching the problem from another angle. Both Aydin I and Aydin II belong to t heetwo large groups of hoards from provinces bordering the eastern Mediterranean which marked first the Persian and then the Arab invasions. Some of these hoards were no doubt of local origin, but since others are likely to have been buried by refugees from other provinces already attacked or occupied, their evidence in some respects must be used with caution. So far as Asia Minoris concerned, one can reasonably attribute to the first series of invasions the burial'0 of the two Aydin gold hoards and a bronze hoard found at Sardis," together with the burial of two 9 This, of course, refers merely to the development of the design within the framework of Class II of Heraclius, not to the evolution of the crown as a physical object or to its representation on Byzantine coins in general. A crown having a circular ornament and cross had already appeared on the coinage of Tiberius II in the previous century. 10One commonly speaks of "burial" where "failure to recover" would be more precise. Coins have always been buried for safety. It is only in time of war or other disturbance that the proportion buried, and, still more, the proportion of those not recovered by their owners, will be much larger than usual. '11 Sardis, XI. H. W. Bell, The Coins (Leiden, 1916), pp. viii-ix, 78ff. D. M. Metcalf, who has recently discussed the hoards of this region and period ("The Aegean coastlands under threat: some coins and coin hoards from the reign of Heraclius," Annual of the British School at Athens, 57 [i962], 14-23), speaks of two Sardis hoards, one of 216 coins discovered on ii April 1912 and another of six
TWO BYZANTINE
COIN HOARDS
217
magnificent gold encolpia of the early seventh century found at Adana in Cilicia in I882.12
The two gold hoards cannot on internal evidence be dated precisely, though they were evidently buried between 613 and 629 and nearer the earlier than the later date, but the Sardis hoard (2I6 coins, two of them half-folles) consisted mainly of folles of Years I-4 of Heraclius (I75 coins) and a few of Year 5 (5 coins).13 There can be no doubt that it was buried during Year 5, which ran from October 614 to October 6I5, and the most likely supposition is that its owner-the hoard had been carefully concealed in a bagbeneath a large block of marble-had both hidden it and failed to retrieve it because of the Persian occupation.14The literary sources indicate that this took place, if possibly not very thoroughly, in 6I5. The Persian general Sahen is stated by an Armenian historian to have devastated Cilicia during the year following the capture of Jerusalem (May 6I4),15 and the Paschal Chronicle says that itit was in 6I5 that he reached Chrysopolis and Chalcedon on the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus, from where he negotiated with Heraclius.16This occupation cannot have been permanent, for dated bronze coins were still being struck at Nicomedia in Years 6, 7, and 8, and only with the last year does an eight-year gap in the issue begin; but the fact that the coinage of Cyzicus ends in Year 5 suggests that Persian occupation further to the west dates effectively from 6I5.17There is, at any rate, a strong case for supposing that both the Aydin hoards were folles of Heraclius found on 20 March I913. The latter, however, consists only of coins found fairly close together on the same level; it is not clear thaatthey were lost on the same occasion or can be treated as a hoard. There is another hoard of forty-seven solidi not known to him in the Archaeological Museum at Istanbul. It was found in I947 at Bakirkoy (Makrikoy), the ancient Hebdomon, on the Sea of Marmara, three miles west of the Golden Gate of Constantinople, and was apparently buried in 6iI or 612. 12 J. Strzygowski, Das Etschmiadzin-Evangeliar (= his Byzantinische Denkmadler,i [Vienna, I891]), Anhang i (pp. 99-112). 13This last figure should perhaps be larger, since there were twenty-five coins of the second type of the reign, issued from Year 3 onwards, on which the dates were illegible. 14 Bell conjectured that the hoard represented the savings of a laborer engaged in quarrying stones from the abandoned Temple of Artemis, which was at that time in regular use as a source of building material, but it may equally well represent the small change put aside for paying such laborers. It is not known what the sum of 215 folles would have been worth at that period in terms of gold. Seventy years earlier it would have represented almost exactly one solidus (210 folles), and the fact that both the Aydin II and the Sardis hoards contained exactly the samenumber of coins suggests that each was intended to represent a round sum in money of account. 15 K. Patkanian, "Essai d'une histoire de la dynastie des Sassanides, d'apres les renseignements fournis par les historiens armeniens," Journal asiatique, 6th ser, 7 (i866), 2I2. It is not clear which Armenian chronicler is being cited. 16 Chronicon Paschale, A. M. 6123 (Bonn ed., i. 706). Theophanes attributes the capture of Chalcedon to 6I6, while both Cedrenus and the Latin translation of Theophanes substitute Carthage for Chalcedon. The question is fully discussed in a long note by N. H. Baynes, "The Military Operations of the Emperor Heraclius," United Services Magazine, N.S., 47 (1913), 320-I. This fundamental study is unfortunately based entirely on the literary sources and takes no account of the light thrown by Heraclius' coinage on the events of the Persian war. 17 Nicomedia coins of Years 6 and 7 in BMC Byz, i. 6i8, and a coin of Year 8 at Dumbarton Oaks; a Cyzicus coin of Year 5 in Sardis, no. 905. Sardis 907 is stated to be overstruck on a Cyzicus coin of Year 7, which, if correct, would invalidate the statement in the text, but I know of no other evidence for the mint of Cyzicus being open so late. No doubt the Persian "occupation" of Asia Minor was far from complete; cities could have been captured and subsequently abandoned because insufficient troops were available for garrison purposes, and parts of the country, while living in fear of sudden raids, probably never saw any Persian soldiers at all.
218
PHILIP
GRIERSON
buried during 615, not as late as 617/8, in which case the transition from crownwith-cross to crown-with-circular-ornament-and-cross would already have taken place by this year.18The natural objection to such an early date is the fact that a great number of solidi of the first variety are known to exist, but this may be merely a consequence of the burial of so many at the moment of the Persian invasion and their consequent survival to the present. An analysis of the hoard by officinae, as set out in the accompanying table, presents some points of interest.
-
-
The coins of Phocas of Class II in the hoard are fairly evenly divided between the ten officinae, but in Class IV there is a sharp contraction in the proportions from all the officinae except E and 1. That this is not an aberration affecting only this particular hoard was shown in my earlier article; the majority of all recorded specimens of Class IV are from the same two officinae.19 Under Heraclius there was a further contraction, the coins of his Classes I and II coming mainly from officina E, with specimens of officina I greatly reduced in number. Here once again there is no serious distortion of the general picture. 18 A date earlier than 6i6 for the transition has already been suggested by Metcalf, op. cit., 23, on the basis of a possible interpretation of the rather unreliable hoard evidence from Athens. 19Leuthold, op. cit., (supra, p. 214, note 5), 148, argues that officinae E and I were normally almost twice as active as any of the others. His figures are based on some 2000 solidi, but I have little doubt that a breakdown into individual reigns would show serious distortion of the total through the nclusion of a high proportion-presumably a large hoard-of solidi of Phocas and Heraclius, which are not typical of the rest.
TWO BYZANTINE
219
COIN HOARDS
Photographs of other specimens in Class I which I have noted from sale catalogues and from museums and private collections give between two and three E (thirty-two specimens) as from Officina I times as many coins from Officina the of Class II the proportion of other officinae (thirteen). During period increases again, and with Classes III and IV, which are not represented in Aydin II, it is back to normal. This expansion in the number of coins from the other officinae is only just beginning to show in Aydin II, since Officina E still predominated in the early stages of Class II,20 and as a general phenomenon it should be useful in dating hoards buried between 6I3 and 629. The meaning of the temporary concentration of output in Officina E, and to a lesser degree in Officina I, is unknown. II THE SICILIAN HOARD
(Figures 3 and 4)
The second hoard consists entirely of Byzantine solidi of the last decades of the seventh and the first of the eighth century. Since these were all of the mint of Syracuse, it can most conveniently be termed the "Sicilian Hoard," without prejudice to the question of whether it was actually found in Sicily or not. The person from whom the coins were acquired could give no information regarding its original size or provenance, and the fact that coins originated in a particular region is no proof that they were found there. The uniformity of mint and date does at least bear out the statement that they are all from a single source. The hoard must have consisted of at least forty-six coins, but how much larger it was originally and whether those now known were fairly representative of its original composition cannot now be determined. Twenty-five of the coins were acquired by Dumbarton Oaks. The distribution by reigns is as given in the following table. Emperor
Total Total known
At Dumbarton Oaks Oaks
Constantine IV (668-85) Justinian II (685-95) Leontius (695-98)
3 I I7
3 I 8
Tiberius III (698-705)
23
I2
2
2
46
26
Philippicus (7II-I3)
20 Unfortunately the separate figures of the coins in Aydin I from individual officinae are not available. The relatively small number of coins of Phocas in Aydin I would suggest this being later in date than Aydin II, and not contemporary with it as I have assumed in the text, but since the circumstances in which the hoards were put together are quite unknown, one cannot place too much reliance on a difference of this kind.
220
PHILIP
GRIERSON
The Sicilian solidi of this period are distinguished from those of the capital by a number of stylistic peculiarities, such as the use of a linear border instead of a reel one or one of pellets, the deformation of several letters, notably the A, and the presence of one or more of a well-defined group of symbols or letters in the reverse field or at the end of the reverse inscription. The coins are also lighter in weight than the corresponding solidi of Constantinople. Wroth attributed the whole group to Carthage, despite their unlikeness to the "globular" solidi characteristic of this mint, but Ricotti has shown21 that they must be attributed to Sicily, and presumably to the mint of Syracuse which we know from the bronze coinage to have been in operation at this time. The catalogue of the coins which follows gives the Ricotti reference for each, since his listing is the most comprehensive that has been made of the series. The descriptions have been made very brief, since all the coins are illustrated. The die positions are always to. There is much variation in the letter forms: B, D, T and V are sometimes square capitals and sometimes b, b (or P), ., and q, the A is elongated horizontally and in extreme cases has the appearance of a tall V lying on its side. The E has a greatly elongated middle stroke, but this feature is also found on coins of Constantinople. It is not always possible to distinguish between P and q, the die-sinker having contented himself with a vertical stroke thickened at the top. In reproducing the inscriptions, a dot under a letter indicates a doubtful reading. Coins marked with an asterisk are at Dumbarton Oaks. The present whereabouts of the others is unknown, the illustrations of them being taken from photographs made by the former owner before the hoard was broken up. CONSTANTINE IV (668-85) (a) With his brothers, 668-8I. No. i (b) Alone, 68i-85. Nos. 2, 3 No.
*I
Obverse
Reverse
Armoredandhelmetedbust of emp. facing, bearded, holding spear on shoulder
Crosspotent on three steps between Heraclius and Tiberius; below, CONOB
bNCOS /CANSqqr
WNCOS z [ANSqqr] Hel-
*2
Wt.
Ric.
VICTORIA A VVq+, the cross vertically; 3 pellets after CONOB
4.52
II3v.
VICTORIAAVVqK, the last
4.24
II8
4.19
ii8v.
met without usual frontal ornament
*3
21
letter vertically. Cross potent on three steps. Below, CONOB WNCOS T ANSqPPBreast- As last, but e instead of plate rendered by crisscross K pattern
D. Ricotti Prina, "La monetazione siciliana nell'epoca bizantina," Numismatica, i6 (1950), 26-6o.
TWO BYZANTINE
221
COIN HOARDS
No. i differs from the normal Sicilian specimens of this type in that the terminal symbol of the reverse legend is a cross instead of a vertical stroke with a pellet on either side. It has every appearance, however, of having been originally intended as such a symbol and to have been converted into a cross by a simple joining of the pellets to the vertical stroke. One is tempted to infer that the symbol of a vertical stroke flanked by two pellets is always a cross manque, but since it occurs in this form on several different reverse dies this can scarcely ben t bethe a very late specimen of group to which it belongs, since the lettering and the style of the bust are very close to those of the final type of the reign. It is unusual in that the "tails" of the diadem flutter, like those on the fifth-century coins which served as its model, instead of projecting more or less rigidly to the left, as they do on most specimens of this class. No. 2 is important because it allows one to read the final letter of the reverse inscription, which is off the flan on the specimen in the museum at Syracuse and which Ricotti rendered as a pellet. JUSTINIAN II, first reign (685-95) No.
*4
Obv.
Rev.
Bust of emp. facing, wear- Cross potent on three ing cloak and holding steps; below, CONOB globus cruciger VICTORIA AYqqq [I9S-CIl] NIANSqpp
Wt.
Ric.
4.22
124
Ricotti (nos. 124-30) records several varieties of solidus of Justinian II, for the most part with letters in the field. This particular one he cites from Wroth, nos. 34, 35 (pl. xxxix. 6). The peculiar blanket-like form it attributes to the emperor's cloak-Wroth was so disconcerted by its appearance that he called it a mantle-is also found on solidi having the terminal letter K on the reverse (Tolstoi 2i22 = Ricotti I26) and on copper folles (Wroth 47 - Ricotti I38) and half-folles (Tolstoi 90go Ricotti I52). Something similar occurs also on the coins of Carthage (Tolstoi 88.) LEONTIUS (695-98) Ricotti knew only three varieties of the Sicilian solidus of Leontius, corresponding to nos. II, I2, and I5 below. His nos. I53 and I54 correspond to Wroth, p. 369, no. I9, and p. 368, nos. I7 and I8, from which he took his references, all three coins being wrongly ascribed by Wroth to Leo III. This hoard greatly increases the number of varieties which are known and makes possible a tentative classification. The number of dies is remarkable-the coins have been struck by fourteen obverse and by sixteen reverse dies-and argues a large mint output. 22
J. Tolstoi, Monnaies
byzantines, fasc. 8 (St. Petersburg,
I914).
PHILIP GRIERSON
222
Class I. Nothing in rev. field. Obv.
No.
Rev.
Wt.
Ric.
Bust of emp. facing, wearing Crosspotent on three steps; loros and holding akakia below, CONOB and g.c. *5
DLEON AqS
VICTORIAAqq[q]B (The final
4.07
B is reversed and placed vertically, not as part of the inscr.) AVqqr VICTORIA
4.2I
Similar, diff. die
Similar, diff. die
4.I6
bLEO NAqq
Similar, diff. die
4.09
Same die, [b]LEO [NA] q[q]
Similar, diff. die
4.04
Same die, b6LEO [NAqq]
Similar, diff. die, final letter 4.I4 illeg. but probably f
*II
DLEO NAL
Similar, but ends E (Double struck)
4.i8
I53
*I2
[DLEO] N PAS
Similar, but ends E (inscribed vertically)
4.16
I53 bis
*I3
DLEO NAq
Similar, diff. die
4.II
DLEO NPEA
Similar, end of inscr. illegible
4.II
*6 DLEONPEAV 7 *8 9 IO
I4
The last coin in this list figured in a recent sale catalogue (Miinzen und Medaillen A. G., Basel, Vente publique XIX [5 June 1959], no. 288), where it is described as overstruck on an Arab dinar. The final portion of the reverse inscription does in fact have the appearance of a thick vertical stroke and two pellets, so that confusion with a Kufic letter is understandable, but Dr. George C. Miles and I have examined photographs of the coin together and concur in the view that they are the result of a damaged die and do not represent an earlier Arab striking.
TWO BYZANTINE
223
COIN HOARDS
Class II. With *:.and I in rev. field.
*I5
Rev.
Obv.
No. As before
As before, but *:*and I in field
bLEO NAIq
VICTORIAAVqqO
Wt.
Ric.
4.14
154
(0 vertically) i6
bLE NAq
Same die
3.93
I54
17
Same die
Same die
4.I2
I54
I8
Similar, but bLEO////
Same die
4.08
I54
19
Similar, but &LENAqq
Same die
4.13
I54
20
Similar, but DLENAiqq
Same die
4.02
I54
Wt.
Ric.
Class III. With star in rev. field.
*2I
Rev.
Obv.
No. As before
As before, star in field r.
bLE APP
VICTORIA[AVqq]B (B re-
4.14
versed and vertically) TIBERIUS
III (698-705)
The solidi known to Ricotti fall into five groups according to whether they have in the reverse field nothing, two crosses, I P, H AP, or C I. The last three of these, specimens of which were in Ricotti's own collection, are unrepresented in the hoard under discussion, but a new class, with A in the rev. field, can be added to the list. Dumbarton Oaks also possesses a coin (not from the hoard) with H A in the field. Class I. Nothing in rev. field No.
Obv.
Rev.
Wt.
Armored bust of Tiberius Cross potent on three facing, holding spear trans- steps; below, CONOB versely across his body (a) with no officina letter *22
23
bTIbE RI> q
VICTORI> >qqq
4.10
Similar, but diff. die
Similar, diff. die
4.I4
Ric.
224
PHILIP
No.
GRIERSON
Obv.
Rev.
Wt.
Ric.
(b) with *:.at end of rev. inscription *24
DTIbERIqSA Vq
VICTORI< A94q
4.03
158
*25
Similar, diff. die
Similar, diff. die w. [Aq]qY *:-and CONO
4.14
I58
26
Same die as 24
Similar, diff. die, CONOB
4.09
I58
27
D-IbE ilIs >q
Similar, diff. die
4.13
158
28
DribE RIS> q
Similar, diff. die
3.96
I58
29
DTIbERISA q
Similar, CONOBoff flan
3.88
30
DNCibERIAq qq
Similar
4.15
158
3I
Same die as 30
Same die as 30
3.87
I58
4.04
i6i
(c) with C at end of rev. inscription *32
bTibE RI Aq
Ends C (vertically)
On emperor's r. shoulder, Zb *33 34
(d) with C. at end of rev. inscription Same die Ends C' (vertically)
4.09
Same die
3.87
Similar, diff. die
(e) with r P at end of rev. inscription 35 *36 37
DrIbERIAV qqq Same die.
Ends r P (vertically) Similar, diff. die
Similar, diff. die, final letters obscure
Similar, diff. die, off. letter off flan
4.29 4.23 4.07
(f) with P at end of rev. inscription *38
DlibE RI////
Ends P (vertically) (g) with star at end of rev. inscription
4.06
*39
[DtibE]RIAV qPP
Ends with star
4.03
*40
Similar, but ends qqP Same die
Similar, diff. die
4.10
Similar, diff. die, most of
4.07
4I
inscr. off flan Class. II. Two crosses in rev. field *42
q2IbE RI ///
iq
VICTORI> [> ] qq
4.1I7
I62(?)
TWO BYZANTINE Class III. No. *43
A in rev. field Rev.
Obv. D-IBER ISA qqq
225
COIN HOARDS
VICTORI>
>
Iqq, CONOB
Wt.
Ric.
4.02
off flan. *44
DTIBERIS /////
VICTORI> > //////,
4.28
CONOBlegible The uncertainty over the identification of no. 42 is due to the end of the rev. inscription being illegible. On Ricotti I62 (- Wroth I3) it is S. It is possible, though not likely, that a final letter on no. 43 is off the flan. The obverse die of nos. 32-4, with the TCb of the emperor's name on his shoulder, is curious, but the varying patterns of the armor on these coins show how much freedom was left to individual die-sinkers. PHILIPPICUS (7I-I3) Ricotti knew three groups of solidi of Philippicus, (a) with nothing in rev. field or after the rev. inscription, (b) with a star after the inscription, and (c) with P in the field and a star after the inscription. The coins in this hoard are of the first two classes. Bust facing, wearing loros Cross potent on three and holding g.c. and eagle- steps; below, CONOB topped sceptre *45
JNFIL////I ///S qP
qICTORI > > qqq
3.95
174
*46
JNFILEPICqS //
qICTORI > ///
3.95
I75
*
Struck with a very worn die, but notably different in style from no. 45. The hoard increases substantially the number of varieties which have been known up to the present, but does not help towards explaining the meaning of the sigla appearing in the field or at the end of the reverse inscriptions. It does, on the other hand, provide metrological information of some significance. The theoretical weight of the solidus was at this time I/72nd of the Roman lb., which, if the latter be taken as 327.45 g., works out at 4.55 g. The normal solidus of the mint of Constantinople weighed in practice rather less than this, in the neighborhood of 4.48 g. Whether this was because the figure of 327.45 g. for the Roman lb. is an overestimate, as Naville believed, and the true weight was nearer 322.56 g., or because the coins were deliberately struck light to 15
226
PHILIP
GRIERSON
cover the cost of manufacture, need not here be discussed.23What is relevant is that if we can take 4.48 g. as representing the actual weight of the theoretical twenty-four-carat solidus of Constantinople, those of Sicily were being struck to a lower standard. Ricotti's figures show the Sicilian solidus of the midseventh century as weighing between 4.35 g. and 4.40 g., but since several of his sources gave the weights only to the nearest half-centigram, one cannot obtain from these figures a very reliable picture of the extent of the reduction. The fact that the first coin in the hoard just described weighs 4.52 g. is sufficient to show that the traditional figure was still theoretically adhered to in the 670's. The remaning coins in the hoard are all appreciably below this weight, and the shape of many of them suggests at first sight that they have been clipped. This may be true in some cases, but the edges of most of them do not resemble those of coins which have been clipped after striking; the flans seem to have been cut down before the striking was done, so that the reduction in weight was effected in the mint itself. The existence of such lighter solidi in Sicily has long been recognized, though the exact weight intended for them has not been determined. Ricotti knew the weights of only twenty-four coins for the period forty-three, with the coins in good condition. 688-73, while the hoard providesthe The fact that nos. 2 and 3 are already of the lower standard would seem to imply that the reduction must have taken place during the reign of Constantine IV, but isolated specimens of Justinian II (e.g., Wroth, p. 337, no. 34) are sometimes 4.48 g. It seems likely, therefore, that the reduction was made under Justinian II, some specimens of Constantine IV having been subsequently trimmed to make them conform to the new standard. The accompanying table gives the weight distribution of the coins in the Sicilian hoard. Those of Aydin II, which were in an equally good state of preservation, have been added as a basis for comparison. It shows how clearly the two weight standards were differentiated from one another, with the single "heavy" solidus of Constantine IV in the Sicilian hoard separated from all the others. The average weightsoins thein the largest weight groups in the two weights of the coins hoards are 4.13 g. and 4.48 g., so that the reduction amounted to 0.35 g. or approximately two carats (0.38 g.). Ricotti reckoned that the solidus was reduced under Justinian II to about 4.25 g., i.e., that it was struck either seventy-six to the lb. or to a theoretical weight of twenty-three carats, and that under his immediate successors it oscillated between about seventy-seven and seventy-nine to the lb., with weights of between about 4.10 g. and 4.20 g. Intentional changes so frequently made seem unlikely; it is more probable that the weight was simply reduced to about 4.13 g. or a little above it and 28 Cf.
L. Naville, "Fragments de m6trologie antique," Revue suisse de numismatique, xxii (1920-22), esp. 42-6, his "La livre romaine et le denier de la loi salique," ibid., 257-63, and the appendix to his book, Les monnaies d'or de la Cyrenaique (Geneva, 1951), 108-9. The most recent general surveys of the question are by F. Panvini Rosati in his account of the Comiso hoard ("Ripostiglio di aurei tardo-imperiali a Comiso," Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Serie 8. Classe di scienze morali, ecc.: Rendiconti, viii [1953], 422-40, esp. 437-40) and the article libra in E. de Ruggiero, Dizio42-60,
nario epigrafico di antichitd romana, 4 (fasc. 30), 951-5.
TWO BYZANTINE
COIN HOARDS
227
remained for some years at this figure-later it was much lower-although with a greater tolerance above and below the norm than was customary at Constantinople. Wt. interval (grams)
Sicilian
3.86-3.90
2
3.9I-3.95 3.96-4.00 4.01-4.05
3 2 6
4.o6-4.io 4.II-4.I5
Aydin II
9 II
4.16-4.20
5
4.2I-4.25
4
4.26-4.30
2
I
I
3 7 I4 26 2
4.3I-4-35 4.36-4.40 4.4I-4-45 4.46-4.50 4.5I-4-55
This does not necessarily mean that the new weight was thought of as twenty-two carats either by the mint authorities or by those actually using the coins. Such a reduction is not an isolated phenomenon in Byzantine numismatics. Gold coins a little lighter than the normal solidus were very widely struck during the sixth and seventh centuries. The explanation of the various standards of imperial light-weight solidi, of which a corpus was compiled some years ago by Adelson,24is still debated, but the reasons behind the comparable changes effected by the Arabs, and by the Franks and other Germanic peoples of western Europe, are scarcely open to question. The dinar of 4.25 g. replaced the Romano-Byzantine solidus because a weight of 4.55 g. did not fit into the Arab weight system, while a coin of 4.25 g. made exactly twenty Arab-Syrian carats of 0.212 g.25 Similarly, the Roman tremissis of 1.5 g. accorded ill with Germanic weight systems based upon the grain, whether the barleycorn-the later Troy grain-of 0.064 g. or the lighter wheat grain of about 0.050 g.26 It was therefore modified in the Frankish kingdom to a coin 24 Howard
L. Adelson, Light Weight Solidi and Byzantine Trade during the Sixth and Seventh
Centuries (Numismatic 26
Notes and Monographs,
no. 138 [New York, 1957]).
P. Grierson, "The monetary reforms of 'Abd al-Malik," Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient, 3 (I960), 24I-64, esp. 253-6. 26 The weight to be assigned in the early Middle Ages to the wheat grain as a metric unit is uncer-
tain and no doubt varied from place to place, but it was about this figure. The generally accepted proportion between the barleycorn and the wheat grain as 4:3 would put it at 0.048 g., which was in fact the weight of the later grain (as) in the Low Countries, but the Paris grain, which was equally based on the wheat grain, was slightly higher (0.052 g.). The evidence of the Crondall hoard shows that the (Troy) grain of the seventh century was identical with that of modern times, a remarkable testimony to the stability of some of the basic units of measurement. I5*
228
PHILIP
GRIERSON
of 1.3 g. or twenty barleycorns, though the continued use of the carat as a weight unit in Provence and other parts of southern and eastern France resulted in coins of this weight being marked as being of VII siliquae (i.e., carats), their nearest equivalent in the Roman system.27 It is probable that some similar adaptation accounts for the reduced weight of the Sicilian solidus, though one cannot as yet say exactly what it was. A coin of 4.13 g. is not obviously related to either of the west European reckonings of the grain or to the later Neapolitan grano or acino of 0.044 g. There is one other feature of the hoard that requires comment. Ricotti recorded only three known specimens of Sicilian coins belonging to the second reign of Justinian II (705-II). Two of them (Ricotti 171, 72) were struck immediately after his return to power, before he associated his son Tiberius with him on the throne, and solidi of Justinian II and Tiberius together are conspicuous by their absence.28Since a follis of the joint reign exists (Ricotti I73), a solidus will probably be discovered in the course of time, but this hoard, which was probably buried in 711 or 712, shows that there is nothing abnormal about Ricotti's figures and that minting must have been virtually suspended in Sicily during Justinian II's second reign. There is no obvious explanation of the fact, for coins of Justinian II and Tiberius were being struck in Sardinia and on the Italian mainland. None None of our sources suggests that Sicily was at time in revolt any Justinst against Justinian; it was indeed the strategos of Sicily whom Justinian sent to wreak vengeance on the city of Ravenna soon after his restoration, and the same man welcomed Pope Constantine when he stopped in Sicily on his journey to Constantinople in 7Io-II.29
It may have been that
the government of the island was thrown into disarray by the beginning of the Muslim raids. An expedition in 704 captured so much plunder in one of the coastal cities that those taking part in it were said to have received one hundred dinars apiece as their share, and in 705 part of Syracuse itself was for a time in Muslim hands.30This perhaps led to a temporary suspension of minting, but there is no positive evidence on the matter. 27 That the weight of seven siliquae was only an approximation to the weight of the reduced tremissis, not an exact statement of it, is shown by the fact that the full solidus is sometimes marked XX and sometimes XXI, a weight of three reduced tremisses (= 3.9 g.) falling, in fact, between those two figures. 28 It is also possible that Ricotti I7I is wrongly identified, since it does not seem to have had any
inscription. 29 Liber Pontificalis, ed. by L. Duchesne (Paris, i886), i. (Vita of Pope Constantine, 2, 4). 30Michele Amari, Storia dei Muszulmani di Sicilia, ed. 389-go90 by C. A. Nallino, i (Catania, 1933), 293-5.
..
,W . ..'. .
: ,*: .be "'V pi^?,.. .. .
^ .l X<^
'
I, V
1.
THE SEC(ONDADI)IN HOARD (1). Coins of Tiberius II (nos. 1, 2), Maurice (nos. :, 4),
and Phocas (nos. 5-115)
N
':
zrt V*
\t*
I
4-
;.' .....
"L
ftrt
i
7 .II
..
tL:t4;S.
*1
C-
8. - .
ti.
' .t. i
... '. x, ; . S.
t._.
I
AZ
.
:.
-1
A bk
''-.
,
A
:
$
tj4,
" ..4:i i
.
?.,,.'t- ,.l :.''
;W
-'4-
6
~. ._'~..
IA
''"' > '..
N... '
'- **
li.i?I.?
,,..
;
L ~'.~
'*:. :it 43L'> ,
.-
. l
"..k
WI i
t
-
l
.?-.'%..
$..:$
.j i-W34
-
H
.....
/ .1
\XS'i
" t; .
1: V.-
..h R;' s, arK' w_* t N.
:::, ~
-'.-.. --.
"i-i.
.
t-..,ava-r
.J "
':
s:
b-
IsA
l!.!4;p:,-4^t*t
;.?:?'
I Vb:X-t e4X:
' V-~f
V~t~
t i\1 :-tp 't;,,. . ?2:: .
%
WI
...
<' N . -;.
W' ,":" .., :I S
* k' .:
v..;
..>> r.'.
4,WI, I ;
' '4
\-M p
lii.4
I -
~.., -ift
l.....
2.
THE SECONDAYDIN HOARD (2). Coins of Heraclius alone (nos. 116-140) and of Heraclius
with Heraclius Constantine (nos. 141-196)
'4 ....
.\1 tk.
P
C. ^s
. Ie,
^,
I.
<,
. I
'^-ff,!
4~. 4
.
.. 't '
.-. -
&
..,1
-:
rrf.: ?,.-~ p~;:.
r
' l- ., '~
---4"tl''
r
Ar! t.r~~r ;r;
#
'.
/
N ,ib
3
. --
[S Ak , ct.x ,:. iAb:
~,'."~~ ~",. '"... ,
.
IN
4 \'y^ I.I$ ; .<
' f.I*
*
,
)ei
<
r
Kg,;
>.i
j&2*
ii,
: '"::t~:
?*t r*
?*.
r ??
'C
i'
-
4$]'
A s
9-
*.-';.A.
.4
_
r
L.
'
'2^^fe;^-*Z
"..'t
'.',
n * {,
; r ,.vr,_..
.
-.1--.
AL..~
t, ..., .
~
- r-
i.
i
I
, t,^k P ...-:Ill.: .-
!i
:I
.
.
1.e..
.}
I '
.1
Pirl:f,
?
;. ,
.i"
..
r
I
.
.i
*4
%,
.
4w. .,, .
9
''
, ., . !m""If. -. :, I . !II? . . TI, I M',
. i.
|.:
,.%;ido . . ..t'.
*.-I^
: & 1 .1. i. k. '...1.. " '. O..
..
..
.--:.:....:. t.'X
.
l
~~~~~~~.,.,: ,
i.
:
A'??... +41.:;...
.
.
,'... :' W
.1
.;. . .
,.
? . . "J. 7, ?
3. THE SICILIANHOARD(1). Coins of Constantine IV (nos. 1-3), Justinian II (no. 1), Leontius (nos. 5-21), and Tiberius III (nos. 22, 23)
~
d
i
_
"!'i, --i" .. ii.,
.,
0
f .116
. t .z. . 4.
.
A I
11 V:
k f
0.
fz. A I
I ;.v .
i i
g_ abe.j
f..
lll 1 )
.. I
..>K~
Af.:-;
*
lell-
I,
I
,
..
,
.. .e.)~ .4
I
U.
.' 1 t
ia I
il ,r
-14
.!
I.
' ,.,...,,; I't
i'2; !...
i
4.t.
,,
*W_i
_ "
__-~-'
i*i z
'_.
4.
THE SICILIANHOARD (2). Coins of Tiberius III (nos. 24-44) and Philippicus (nos. 45, 46)
Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul: First Preliminary Report Author(s): R. Martin Harrison and Nezih Firatli Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 231-236 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291232 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
1 18
17
14
1
12
, -,,,,
'-
X
u' \\ <~/7
/
; .
P
N
-H
X
\
.
IPAH
A.
Sarachane, General Plan of Excavation
?
EXCAVATIONS AT SARACHANE IN ISTANBUL: FIRST PRELITMINARYREPORT R. MARTIN HARRISON and NEZIHFIRATLI IN I960 grading operations at Saraqhanein Istanbul uncovered a large number of richly carved architectural blocks. These were shown to have come from the hitherto unidentified church of St. Polyeuktos, which was built in this area by Anicia Juliana, probably in A.D. 524-7.1 The archaeological importance of this discovery was quickly appreciated, and the open site where the blocks had been found was laid out as public gardens pending systematic excavation. A preliminary campaign, authorized by the Turkish Department of Antiquities and the municipal authorities of Istanbul and carried out jointly by Dumbarton Oaks and the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, opened on 3 August I964 and lasted four weeks.2 The site lies in the southwest angle of the $ehzadeba?l Caddesi-Atatiirk Bulvarl intersection, and the conversion of this intersection to an underpass afforded a unique opportunity, during construction of the tunnel approach, to probe the eastern limits of the site in depth (figs. A and i). Our first task was to record what we could in this underpass cutting while it remained open, our second to dig exploratory trenches in the gardens farther west with a view to assessing future 1 C. Mango and I. Sevrcenko,"Remains of the Church of St. Polyeuktos at Constantino-
possibilities and requirements. A 5-meter grid was imposed on the whole area, and squares were labelled alphabetically east to west, numerically north to south; trenches cut were mainly either 4 X 4 or 4 x 9 meters, with I-meter baulks. At the beginning of August the underpass cutting had already reached a depth of five meters below modern street level, and on the west side of the cutting mechanical excavators had encountered, and, on the whole, left undisturbed, a mass of deep-lying masonry. Our first few days were devoted to an examination of this masonry, which soon resolved itself into the eastern ends of two adjacent buildings projecting from the side of the cutting. For convenience the southern building is here called A, the northern, B (fig. B). The eastern face of A had suffered, but the lowest course of masonry fortunately survived to provide the plan. Several large blocks of undressed limestone with dovetail cramps had been salvaged from this area by the engineers. The building's most distinctive features in section3 are four east-west walls, with tile floors in the central and southern of the three "rooms" defined by them (fig. C). These floors lie on a deep foundation of mortared rubble, through which a brickvaulted conduit runs obliquely. The north end of the building was puzzling: although the northern of the four walls resembles its neighbors and appears to be contemporary with them and their foundations, it rests upon equally deep but differently aligned foundations, which appear to be earlier. Other early foundations were cut by the south wall of A and overrun by a stonecapped conduit.
ple," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, I5 (I96I), p. 243f.
The basis of their identificationwas the recognition that a fragmentary inscription on two of these blocks is part of the long text from St. Polyeuktos recordedin Palatine Anthology, I, IO.
2The campaignwas directedby the authors, with the helpof Mr.G. R. J. Lawson,A.R.I.B.A. (architect), Mrs. Harrison (photographer),and Mr. J. W. Hayes (pottery specialist). The practical assistance at all times of Mr. N. Dolunay, Director of the ArchaeologicalMuseum, is most gratefully acknowledged.A brief notice of this campaign appeared in M. J. Mellink, "Archaeology in Asia Minor, i964,"
3 The section here reproducedis an oblique cut across A, determined by the line of the underpass; any calculations of width from the drawingmust take this into account.
American Journal of Archaeology, 69 (I965), p. 149, and pl. 40.
231
B.
*I DATUM -I
Saraghane, Plan of Structures in West Face of Excavation for Underpass
+ ILOAD SULFACE. -ASPHALT
I
,,/,~
.........
I
~DLU .....
HT,.u FALLE.I+-'~ GLAYLL
1I~~
*\5\ r HAM /^| INTO .---VIA I{MEv/l\\>\%//xx/gLISY//\\V/g\/ \\I'NC//
P'A 'l*T ^ ?r5 rlLETILOOLLO.
'
SCALL
/\S L\ TILONA //Ax\ /
/
/
A
HED NOLTbONES,
|
C,I
ts ,MOLTADL ..\e5vx^ iSOUTHbUILDING 'A' US L XP MOP"TAR~D/UbbLE FOUNDATIONS
I
,.
,
NOLTH
-
4 LEVEL OF TILL FLOOI II
OF
- AlLL^:LbL ,,
I
L OF CONOUIT -LUbbLWI
\
I
ME.TLL
C. Sara9hane, Approximate Section of Building A in Underpass, looking west
WITHOUT
EXCAVATIONS
AT SARACHANE
The eastern face of B was fully exposed and was found to be well preserved (fig. 2). Its length is I5.0, its present height 2.72 m. The masonry is of small, mortared blocks, irregular below a narrow string-course at 1.50 m. from the base of the wall, roughly coursed above it. Its northern end touched our underpass section, and here it could be seen that the foundation trench at the corner had been cut more than 1.50 m. into a deep stratum of black clay. This clay was overlaid by debris which extended south above B, and B was now tackled from above, in the hope of finding the inner face of its eastern wall. It proved, however, to be a solid foundation of mortared rubble, extending at least six meters back from the face. A and B are 2.50 m. apart, and in the gap a section of conduit running north-south was preserved. This had been cut and blocked by the foundations of both buildings, and served as a receptacle for debris during their construction (fig. 3). The pottery recovered from it provides valuable dating material, as indicated below (p. 235, and fig. D). A plain, limestone sarcophagus with gabled lid was uncovered on the east side of the underpass cutting, and was recorded by us.4 West of the cutting, trenches were opened along the eastern edge of the gardens, both on the line of Building B and north of it. In M/8, just beneath the turf, we encountered remains of the furnace of a small Turkish bath: tiled floor, circular hearth, flues, hypocaust, and immured water pipe, on an extremely hard foundation of mortared rubble. Continuous occupation in this area throughout Turkish times is amply attested by rubbish pits, everywhere intrusive into the Byzantine levels. The high proportion of Turkish and imported fine wares amongst the pottery from these deposits should provide close dating and a good chronological sequence. In M-N/Io-II brick vaulting and walls began to appear a few centi meters beneath the turf; this complex is here called Building C. A north-south corridor, choked by the 4 Cf. N. Firath, "Finds from the 5(emberlita?
District," Annual of the A rchaeological Museums, II-I2 (I964), p. 207, pl. xxxiv, 4, for a similar
sarcophagus.
IN ISTANBUL
233
collapse of its barrel vault, was cleared to a sufficient depth to enable us to enter two chambers which opened off it and which, with roofing intact, were only partly filled with debris. An arched doorway in the east wall of the corridor leads into a square room, a pilaster in each corner of which supports the springing of a cross vault. At a later period this cross vault was superseded by four shallow barrel vaults, one springing from each side of a brick well shaft which was now constructed through the center of the room. A third period is represented by the rough rebuilding of the north and south walls of the room, the former blocking an arched doorway. At the north end of the corridor another arched doorway opens onto the cross-vaulted western end (fig. 4) of a long room, which is barrel vaulted for the rest of its length. This room has in its south wall the blocked arch originally communicating with the square room, and at its eastern end a post-andlintel opening blocked by external debris beneath the modern road and pavement. The lower courses of the lateral walls are of rough stone, the upper courses of brick, and the barrel vault is constructed of bricks both radially laid and pitched. The brickwork is carefully pointed with red mortar containing a high percentage of crushed brick. The north wall of the long room was also the north wall of Building C, as became clear in M/9, where its outer face was found, bordered by a drain and revetted with thick plaques of white marble. A hard, plaster floor above the long room bore the imprint of large, oblong paving slabs, evidently the "piano nobile" of which the vaulted chambers are substructures; it should be remembered that a complex of substructures of this kind need bear no relation in plan (except in outline) to the floor it supports. Farther south, on the line of Building B, M/I4-I6 revealed substantial brick walls and a related wall of large blocks with dovetail cramps; there are two doorways, one (M/I4) paved with marble slabs, the other (M/I5) modified by the addition of a semicircular structure, apparently some sort of niche (fig. 5). All this lay in a deep and extensive destruction-layer, which yielded striking evidence of the building's former opulence:
234
R. MARTIN HARRISON and NEZIH FIRATLI
i. Fragments of polychrome marble wall veneer in great quantity and variety. ii. Four types of white marble beading for framing this veneer: one with saw-tooth carving, one with bead-and-reel, a third with dentils, the fourth plain with rounded profile. iii. Many fragments of wall mosaic, suggesting a design of small triangles; mainly silver, gold, and dark blue glass, white marble and white limestone; one piece is concave, clearly from a vault. Two fragments with carefully juxtaposed pink and red tesserae suggest that there may have been figures. iv. Several fragments of rather coarse pavement mosaic; white, green, and black marble. v. One piece of coarse wall plaster painted in seven colors, greys and greens predominating (a leaf design?). vi. Very many architectural elements of marble, including fine window mullions. vii. Three fragments of a marble column shaft (diam. 0.37-0.43 m.), cut for an elaborate inlay of hexagons and squares. One fragment was found to have some of the inlay still precariously adhering: triangles and trapeziums of opaque green glass, squares (0.04 m.) of amethyst (figs. I2, I3). viii. Extensive fragments of a marble frieze (ht. 0.30, thickness 0.05 m.) decorated in high, flat relief with a cross-in-arcade motif; above and below are bead-and-reel borders (fig. 6). ix. Several small fragments of marble carving in the same distinctive style as the carved blocks found in I960: the raised veins of leaves and the deep under-drilling of edges made even tiny chips recognizable. Finally, two more important pieces of carving from other contexts should be mentioned here: x. Fragment of marble carving with vine leaves and monogram (fig. 7); destruction layer in M/9. xi. A large pier capital (figs. 8-II) recovered from the western face of M/I6 was lying, oddly enough, at the bottom of a large Turkish (seventeenth-century) rubbish pit, into which it had presumably tumbled when the pit was dug.5 Proconnesian marble; 5 This capital is identical with the pair in the Piazzetta at Venice, which, with their
ht. 0.90, base 0.94 m. square with o0.08m. rebate at one angle; similar design on all four sides. Considerablyto the west, two long, northsouth trenches were cut, two meters wide. These showed that the Byzantine levels, which could not be investigated in the time available, here lie at greater depth, and that the terracing in the southern part of the site is entirely recent. Buildings A and B are assigned to a period after the opening years of the sixth century, on the evidence of pottery from their foundations. Moreover, a brick-vaulted conduit in the foundations of A yielded brick stamps of a type prevalent in the corridor debris of C, which thus appears to be contemporary.6 This type of brick stamp is cruciform and refers to the third year of an indiction. The third year of one indiction began on i September 524, which is precisely the year previously suggested on historical grounds for the commencement of St. Polyeuktos.7 Construction is known to have lasted three years, and foundations and substructures are exactly where we should expect to find bricks dated to the beginning of this triennium. That this is the church of St. Polyeuktos seems now tolerably certain, but the elucidation of its architecture must await future seasons. A, B, and C have here been treated supporting piers, are believed to have been broughtfrom Acre (Ptolemais):cf. M. Kalligas, 01 -roTaoi T-rSlTroXe?pai5os, Arch. Eph. (1938, pub. also W. F. Volbach, FriihI940), pp. 70-101;
christlicheKunst (Munich, I958), pl. 208 and p. 85.
The similarity of shape and decorationextends to an exact correspondenceof base dimensions, and even to the rebate at the internal angle. This relationshipis confirmedby the monogram illustrated here (fig. 7), which recurs on the eastern pier at Venice. The Constantinopolitan origin of the pilastri acritani is thus assured. Their intimate connectionwith the material at Saraghane,and the wider implications of this discovery, will be examined by us on a future occasion. 6 Of 125 recovered, forty-one were either
illegible or too fragmentary to be classified. The remainingeighty-fourincludedten different types, and amongst these were fifty-nine examples (a proportionof 70 per cent) of a cruciform type recording the third year of an indiction. 7 Cf. Mango and Sevcenko, op. cit. (note i,
supra), p. 245.
EXCAVATIONS
AT SARACHANE
as separate, albeit adjacent and contemporary, buildings; it should be borne in mind that this was done only for convenient reference and that their apparent independence may be illusory. At several points we encountered earlier stone walls divergent from the sixth-century orientation and more nearly aligned with our own grid. These were observed (a) at the north and south corners of Building B in the underpass cutting; (b) in M/i5, where a terracotta lamp of late fourth-early fifthcentury type was found in the same stratigraphical context; and (c) in M/7, where the
early levels were reached in a few places only; but the finds are significant. Among the finer wares represented, Late Roman C is by far the most common, although small quantities of North African ware (Late Roman A/B) and of other fabrics also occur. The filling of the conduit between Buildings A and B produced an important group of material (fig. D). Amongst finds here were numerous sherds of Late Roman C ware, mostly of types current in the latter half of the fifth century, but with a few fragments which can hardly be earlier than ca. 520 (fig. D, 8). Together with these were a number of
2
1
235
IN ISTANBUL
4
3
N
47
6
7
8
9 10
0
__
__
,-m,~ -~~
5
10 ,
CM
D.
Selected Pottery from Conduit between Buildings A and B (2:5): 1-9. Late Roman C Ware. 10. Unclassified. 1. Second Half Fifth Century. Almost half extant. 2. Late Fourth-Early Fifth Century. D. (estimated) 30 cm. 3. Late Fourth-Mid Fifth Century. D. 26 cm. 4. Mid(?) Fifth Century. D. 22 cm. 5 and 6. Mid-Late Fifth Century. D. 24 and 25 cm. 7. Late Fifth Century. D. 32 cm. 8. Ca. 520-570. D. 22 cm. 9. Probably Early Sixth Century. D. 22 cm. 10. Very Pale Ware with Orange Slip; Stamped Decoration and Rouletting: Fifth Century (third quarter ?). Examples of the same Ware have been found at Athens and Sardis (unpublished) foundations of a well constructed wall (thickness 1.30 m.) running east-west and of another wall meeting it were found three meters below the present surface. There is at least the possibility that these are remains of the fifth-century church which is known to have preceded Anicia Juliana's edifice. The pottery found during this first campaign is summarized by Mr. J. W. Hayes as follows: i. Late Roman (fourth to seventh century). The amount found was relatively small, since
sherds of other fabrics which belong to the same period, and a complete lamp of local type which is probably fifth century. An intact lamp from the lowest level in M/I5 serves to date the early wall found there; the lamp is a local copy of an early variety of the common North African type (Broneer, XXXI), to be dated to the end of the fourth or first half of the fifth century. Among other parts of the site which yielded sherds of Late Roman type, M/7 deserves a mention: here a number of sherds of sixth-century types
236
R. MARTIN HARRISON and NEZIH FIRATLI
were discovered in the fill against and over the low-level wall. 2. Byzantine. Most of the Byzantine glazed pottery from the excavation came from an extensive layer in the exploratory trenches along line U, and is of the types represented in Stage IV at the Great Palace-Impressed Ware, Painted and Plain White Wares. A few sherds of similar types were found among the destruction debris over the main part of the site, and also in the drain in M/9. All these presumably are eleventh century. Later intrusions in M/9 and M/I2 produced a limited amount of material comparable with Stage V in the Great Palace. Two more or less complete amphorae, of a type found
commonly in our eleventh- to twelfth-century levels, were salvaged from the underpass operations. 3. Turkish. All periods from the fifteenth century to the present day are represented in the surface levels. Three pits produced large groups of fine and household wares: one in M/8 to be dated ca. I480-I520; two, overlapping one another, in M/I5-I6, the earlier of the period I510-1530, the later (in which was found the large pier capital) of ca. I600-I650. Both in the pits and elsewhere the number of pieces of high quality is conspicuous: Iznik, Kutahya, and "Golden Horn" ware, and Chinese porcelain and celadon all occur.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,
.,
I Lx'
I
i
IionII l ii
::
--I 1111-m J|ls"t mr 1111r ..
.'%-
.,'''.~,,,.",::.- :w',~~ '-:-u;,.-'.'~., '.''
c. '-_BI
pp-
owrt, .- l
.ip-z .: Y, :1 kf,%.
h9L.-'s
....~~~F1
: .
!:**
a
* i
^S;
.
..
-
.?.
"^
',
-*
x
~
ffi
t:e
v..t&ij'j-
W
1.
:|
General View of Site from City Hall Roof, looking northwest
2. Underpass, East Wall of Building B
3. Underpass, Early Conduit between A and B, looking south
. ?~:': . ? ..? .. .. :c
,.
,
M
.
^ "^"S '
I-*;?-. S#-
r w> w.*:
5.
.
-*?t. i .:..; .:J. ?,,: *;^':' " . Hf5 . ....
... ~ d:: '~
:." .
Bi-Es.
?' .
::i:
^
~!..!!.....:.' - . : : . _ : . ~;ii., .:~:
' . "?
.. ~, '" .
?:,,* ',.,:* ...-,!
..
...... : ' .......'
!
? . :;. II Iiti?l
..
.
General View of M/15-17, looking south
' i,:i'.
? fl
." ./i
6.
. ''. .
Fragment of Marble Frieze
7. Marble Fragment with Monogram
.
a
....
; 1. l_
..
L~
* X..w t->|s
'?
? ?, :. ?::.'.":
?w
;
.! :
..
'
.:A.:
.''
., All.~/ A,~
..
?
.....''.2i,:'* ?
.s.
Wj
'!
X
~' '::::::,:_ '~''' b44
'"l' -L'9I"/"~
-I
8.
: ..'"
. .,
:
a- 'I-"W.:;:
Side a
,A
.**
.
. :"',
':.a
.,
?";
10.
Side c
11. Side d Pier Capital
12. Upper Part of Inlaid Column as found, with some Green Glass and Amethyst intact
A Radiocarbon Date for the Wooden Tie Beams in the West Gallery of St. Sophia, Istanbul Author(s): Carl D. Sheppard Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 237-240 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291233 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:09 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
A RADIOCARBON DATE FOR THE WOODEN TIE BEAMS IN THE WEST GALLERY OF ST. SOPHIA, ISTANBUL CARLD. SHEPPARD Director of the Museum of St. THE Sophia, Bay Feridun Dirimtekin, graciously permitted four specimens of wood from that venerable building to be submitted to radiocarbon analysis for the purpose of dating. Counts were run on the four specimens at the Institute of Geophysics, University of California. Only two of the specimens will be referred to in this paper, UCLA 562 and UCLA 563.1 Both were taken from the west gallery of St. Sophia. In the middle of the gallery, where it touches the great nave, are three large arches, each spanned by a tie beam placed slightly above the spring points of the arches. These tie beams are entirely of wood; the beams themselves are roughly hewn and are encased on the bottom and sides by boards about 3.8 cm. thick (figs. I-4). The over-all width of the central tie beam (including its
contaminated by the stain was taken for testing, since, unless the wood were clean, the test results could not be depended upon for an accurate date of the wood itself. The casings are carved in low relief with distinctive decorative motifs. A secure date for these motifs would provide a point of reference for dating related motifs on carved marble slabs. There is a considerable literature concerning carved marbleslabs (generally of the period from the sixth to the tenth century) in the West. No corpus of similar material has as yet been gathered from Byzantine monuments. It appears, nevertheless, that East and West developed in independent directions from a common base after the sixth century. However that may be, dating of Eastern slabs has proved extremely unreliable and it has been necessary to turn to architecture in the attempt to find a definite point of reference. St. Sophia is a treasure house of ornamental motifs. Unfortunately, the records of the history of the building, in so far as they exist at all, are so vague that for the nonspecialist it is very difficult to tell whether a given element is original or restored and, if the latter, at what date. It may be hoped that problems such as these will be considerably clarified by the publication of Robert Van Nice's monumental survey of the church. There is no question at least that the actual building, St. Sophia III, was constructed at the order of Justinian between 532 and 537.2 The dome, weakened by earthquakes in 553 and 557, collapsed along with the great eastern arch and part of the half dome. It is not known for certain what was
casing) is 32 cm.; its height 40 cm. The two
specimens were taken from the beam of the southern arch, whose over-all height is 27 cm.
The wood of the beam has almost disintegrated through dry rot, and at some time a plank was nailed on top of it to afford a solid block for the attachment of fastenings from which lamps or other objects could safely be hung (fig. 2). One specimen was taken from the beam itself, the other from the inner side of the casing board which faces the gallery (more precisely from a point a little below its exposed upper edge). This board had been at least stained, if not painted or varnished, a dark brown. None of the surface of the board which might have been 1 The two specimens not discussed in this paper are UCLA564 and UCLA565. UCLA565 was taken from the wooden core of a former door valve, now in a storageroom of St. Sophia and tested
A.D.
2 These and the following dates are taken from: E. H. Swift, Hagia Sophia (New York,
1770 ? 70. UCLA 564 was
taken from the wooden core of the north valve of the central doors between the nartheces of
1940);
Paul A. Underwood,
"The Portrait
of
the Emperor Alexander," Dumbarton Oaks
St. Sophia and tested A.D. 410 ? 70.
Papers, I5
237
(I96I),
p. 214.
238
CARL D. SHEPPARD
actually dismantled before reconstruction, on a slightly different scheme, was begun. It has been suggested that the great walls to the north and south above the galleries had to be rebuilt. Records indicate that repairs and refurbishment were carried out during the reigns of Basil I (867-886) and Basil II (976-1025). Another severe quake in 1343 weakened the eastern arch again, but the arch did not collapse until I346, when most of it fell, together with the eastern semi-dome, part of the pendentives, and a third of the great dome. The building was repaired by about I355. Parts of the interior were re-arranged after the Turkish conquest in I453, and the building underwent various vissicitudes culminating in the very thorough restoration ordered by Sultan Abdul Medjid and executed by Gaspare Fossati from I847 to I849.3 Careful records of consolidation, restoration, and redecoration have been kept only since the I930's when the building became a museum. Fortunately, radiocarbon analysis can give us dates which history and style alone cannot. The wood of the beam itself is counted as A.D. 470 ? 70. There is a two out of three chance that the actual count is absolute. In all probability this means that the beam was used in the original construction of 532-537, was never removed, and has never been changed. Through all the vissicitudes of time the arches of the west gallery have stood, probably intact and possibly with the original mosaics in their soffits. The beams penetrate so far into the masonry on either side that to have moved them would have dislodged the mosaic tesserae at the points where the beams enter the wall, and this has not happened to any appreciable extent. The count for the wooden casings is A.D. 830 ? 70. This means that the actual boards are datable to the late eighth or ninth century. If the mean date of 830 is taken, they were executed during the Iconoclastic period, possibly during the reign of the Emperor Theophilus (829-842). A pair of bronze doors, inscribed with the date 84I, replacing 838, and the names of the Emperors
Theophilus and Michael and the Empress Theodora, is still in place at the south end of the inner narthex.4 It is not unreasonable to assume that Theophilus ordered certain other embellishments for the interior of the great church, including the decorative casings for the beams in the west gallery. Theophilus is a fascinating name to conjure with in Byzantine art. We know that this Emperor was actively interested in contemporary Arabic art, specifically that of the Abbasid caliphs of Bagdad. In 835 he had constructed a palace which was a reproduction of one at Bagdad.5The chronicle known as TheophanesContinuatusspecifically states that the Palace of Bryas on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus reproduced the plans and decorations of Arab palaces, descriptions of which were brought to Constantinople for that purpose by the Emperor's ambassador to the Caliph. Theophilus built a great deal more than the pleasure retreat of Bryas, particularly within the grounds of the Sacred Palace. He built with luxurious lavishness, but all of his works have disappeared. The decorations of the tie beams in the west gallery of St. Sophia may give us some insight into the art of the palace in the early ninth century. Interestingly, the decoration on these beams is related to that which has been identified as the Ommayyad style of the seventh and eighth centuries in Syria, a style which derived from Sassanian originals. Along each surface of the casings is a series of interlacing circles, a very common motif throughout the Mediterranean world during the Early Christian era, especially in mosaics and metalwork. Inside the circles are rosettes, crosses, and a variety of palmettes. It is the latter which are related to the Sassanian-Ommayyadtype of decoration, as also are the filler motifs placed in the spandrels along the edges of the frames. These include heart-shaped leaves or, if the stem is included, ace-of-spade shapes (figs. I, 2), and wide-spread acanthus or winged palmettes with two leaves or feathers ar-
3 Cyril Mango, The Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 8 (I962),
aux a'la cour byzantine sous les Mac6doniens," MiinchnerJahrbuchder Bildenden Kunst, 3rd
pt. i.
4 E. H. Swift, op. cit., p. 55ff. 5 Andr6 Grabar,"Le succes des arts orient-
ser., 2 (I95I), pp. 56-57.
DATE FOR TIE BEAMS IN ST. SOPHIA, ISTANBUL ranged in an arch shape at the center top (figs. 3, 4). On the beams to the south and north is a palmette of three-lobed leaves curving upward to enclose a palmette of two-lobed leaves the outer of which reverse the curve of the lower leaves, the inner creating a cresting arch (figs. I, 2). On the panel toward the gallery side of the central beam are more complex shapes such as a circle divided into four parts so that the motif contained in each field retains a vertical or horizontal axis (fig. 3, at far left). This motif is a palmette made of three-lobed leaves rising to a closed peak. The under panel of the central beam is the most complexly decorated of all (fig. 4). In one circle are four three-lobed palmettes surmounted by tiny arches. In another three-lobed palmettes are drawn so that the top two leaves arch upward and meet at the circle's edge. In still another a three-lobed palmette spreads its arms outward following the circle, and at its end is a reversed continuation of the same element brought to a peak against the circle on the axis of the motif. In the center is a threepetalled flower. These motifs certainly show inventiveness and ingenuity, but the basic palmette or wing shape belongs to the Sassanian repertory. Among their closest parallels are the motifs found on the bronze tie-rod coverings preserved in the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem built by the Ommayyad Caliph, Abd-al-Malik (685-705), possibly in 690/I.6 It is characteristic of this style that the motifs are rather large in scale; that they are placed on a horizontal or vertical axis; and that they are rigid (rather than flowing), static, and symmetrical. Additional evidence, outside the capital, of the presence of Sassanian-Ommayyad features in Byzantine sculpture before the tenth century is given by the architectural decorations of the church at Skripu, near Thebes, in Greece. Skripu is dated by inscription 873/4.7 It has a much greater 6 K. A. C. Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture, I (Oxford,1932), p. 46. 7 J. Stryzgowski, "Inedita der Architektur und Plastik aus der Zeit Basilios I," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, 3
(I894),
pp. I-I6;
Maria
Soteriou, "0 naos tes Skripous tes Boiotias,"
Archaiologike Ephemeris (I93I), pp. II9-157.
239
repertory than that afforded by the three tie beams from St. Sophia. The type of carving, with its emphasis on crispness rather than a white-black contrast, is similar in both monuments and is also typical of Byzantine marble carving after the sixth century. The forward elements are not undercut but rise from the background plane by shallow curves at the edges of the motifs. The repertory of motifs includes rosettes and palmettes. At Skripu there is the additional element of animals-birds and lions in particular-used decoratively. The lions, with their bodies in profile and their heads full front, are very reminiscent of Sassanian prototypes. In tenth-century sculpture the most beautiful examples of the Sassanian-Ommayyad style come from the church of the Virgin, now called Fenari Isa Camii, in Istanbul. This church was founded by Constantine Lips, a favorite of Leo VI, and dedicated probably in the year 907.8 In it there is preserved a large amount of carved marble relief decorating the bases of the central dome and the main apse, the string courses marking the springings of some of the vaults, and the plinths, shafts, and capitals of the window mullions, specifically in the apses. Stunning in quality of execution and design are two plinths carved respectively with a winged palmette and a winged palmette surmounted by an outspread peacock tail.9 One shaft has a series of repeated palmettes ascending vertically, while between the eagles of the capital above is another feather palmette.10 Andr6 Grabar most recently has argued that the Sassanian quality in the style of the sculptures at Fenari Isa Camii represents a revival of Justinianic motifs within the general frameworkof the MacedonianRenaissance.11 The Renaissance artists used what8 Th. Macridy, "The Monastery of Lips (Fenari Isa Camii) at Istanbul, with Contributions by A. H. S. Megaw, C. Mango, and E. J. W. Hawkins," DumbartonOaks Papers, I8 (i964), p. 249ff. 9 Ibid., Mango-Hawkins, figs. I9, 20. 10 Ibid., fig. i8.
11Andr6 Grabar, Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople, IV-X siecles, Bibliotheque arch6ologiqueet historiquede l'Institut frangais
d'arch6ologie d'Istanbul, I7 (Paris, i963), pp. 100-122.
240
CARL D. SHEPPARD
ever prototypes of the sixth century were available for their particular media.12Hence, in ivory carving and some manuscripts an antique classical style is found. In architectural sculpture, ceramic ware, and also in manuscripts the Sassanian-Ommayyad style is to be found. Grabar prefers this explanation of the appearance of the style to those afforded by hypotheses of direct influence on Constantinople from provincial eastern Persia where the Ommayyad style of the seventh and eighth centuries was still practiced, or of contemporary influence from the heartland of the Islamic world, which was having its own renaissance of this style. Grabar's theory is based on evidence discovered in I960 in Istanbul. At that time a group of architectural reliefs was uncovered. Ihor Sevcenko and Cyril Mango were able to demonstrate by means of a contemporary descriptive poem and the presence of inscriptions that these fragments belonged to the Church of St. Polyeuktos, an establishment of the famous Anicia Juliana, built between 512 and 527 or possibly 524 and 527.13These broken segments of niches and entablatures show motifs and an arrangement of motifs associated with the Sassanian style, namely, large single elements, including palmettes, axially oriented and repeated.14 These are exotic as compared with the decorative repertory in vogue immediately before in the fifth century, for example on the fragments from St. Sophia II. The technique of carving, however, is the same as that found normally in fifth- and sixth-century Byzantine architecture; i.e., the artist used a dark background plane to make a linear pattern 12 Ibid., pp. 121-122. 13 Cyril Mango and I. gevcenko, "Remains of the Churchof St. Polyeuktos at Constantinople," Dumbarton Oaks Papers, I5 (I96I),
243-247.
14 Ibid., figs. 8, io, 12-I4.
pp.
on the surface stand forth in a striking contrast of white. If we look at the multitudinous motifs covering the interior of St. Sophia III, only a few decades later in date than St. Polyeuktos, we can isolate some examples which belong to the style in question. One is particularly distinctive: a split palmette with a pine cone or artichoke rising in the middle, decorating the tie-rod casings throughout the church (fig. 5). This design might be considered as later in date than the sixth century, but the same palmette is carved on the entablatures in the interior of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus (fig. 6), and other not dissimilar motifs are found on the intarsia frieze beneath the plaster cornices, in the narthex of St. Sophia (fig. 7). The occurrence of Sassanian elements in sculpture in the first half of the sixth century in Byzantium needs to be recognized and explained, as do their appearance in the ninth century and their development from the tenth century onward. With varying degrees of importance, and in a variety of media such as silk, metal, ceramics, marble, vellum, etc., the style seems to have been present at Constantinople continuously from the sixth century on. It is indeed this stylistic factor which most clearly distinguishes Byzantine decorative sculpture from similar monuments in the West from the sixth through the tenth centuries. There is no need to posit Arabic influence even during the reign of Theophilus. In general this paper is intended to do no more than point out the presence in Byzantine art before the tenth century and after the sixth of elements associated with Sassanian art. This raises the further questions, however, of the origins of the Ommayyad style and of the relation of Constantinople to Syria in the fifth and sixth centuries.
1.
Wooden Tie Beam in South Arch, seen from the West
\
aY?-
2.
Detail of Tie Beam shown in Figure 1, from above, showing location of specimens
3.
Wooden Tie Beam in Central Arch, seen from the West
4.
Istanbul, St. Sophia, West Gallery. Wooden Tie Beam in Central Arch, from below
5. Istanbul, St. Sophia, South Gallery. W
6. Istanbul, Church of Sts. Sergius and Bacchus, Bema, North Pier, Cornice
7. Istanbul, St. Sophia, Narthex. Intarsia Fr
A Note on Nicetas David Paphlago and the "Vita Ignatii" Author(s): Romilly J. H. Jenkins Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 241-247 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291234 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
A NOTE ON NICETAS DAVID PAPHLAGO AND THE VITA IGNATII ROMILLYJ. H. JENKINS
NICETAS David of Paphlagonia is a literary Proteus. He was a prolific author, chiefly of encomia, on apostles, saints, or martyrs, which won him wide and lasting popularity.1 His basic name, Nicetas Paphlago, or Nicetas of Paphlagonia, receives many accretions in innumerable MSS. He is called "Nicetas who is also David": the "rhetor"; the "philosopher"; the "slave of Jesus Christ"; the "holy man"; the "bishop of Dadybra." These titles occur in various combinations. As regards the date of his works, Vogt2 states that they are from the time of "Constantine VII, the two Romanuses and up to that of Nicephorus Phocas," i.e., between 913 and 963. If this is right, the encomiast's floruit is the first half of the tenth century. The celebrated Life of the Patriarch Ignatius3 (hereafter referred to as VI) is also stated to have been written by "Nicetas, slave of Jesus Christ, also called David, the Paphlagonian." In this superscription we have no fewer than four of the names or titles applied elsewhere to the encomiast. Lastly, the Life of St. Euthymius4 (hereafter referred to as VE), in chapter sixteen, mentions a certain Nicetas, nephew to Paul the Sacellarius, himself of Paphlagonian origin. This Nicetas, says VE, was a kind of infant prodigy, far the best student of
his day, and (by 907) setting up for a teacher. However, in this year, 907, he "despised all the things of this world," divided his substance among the poor and his students, and retired to meditate in a cave on the Black Sea, at Media, near the Bulgarian frontier. He came under suspicion as a potential defector to Bulgaria, was arrested by the military governor of the province of Thrace, and sent back to Constantinople. Here it was found that he had written a "very hostile and bitter" libel (oiyypaxjipa) against the new patriarch Euthymius (907-912) and against the Emperor Leo VI himself. The poor man was now in considerable danger, until the saintly Euthymius contrived to get him released, despite the remonstrances of Nicetas' own uncle, Paul, and of his own master, Arethas, Archbishop of Caesarea. Nicetas took refuge in the monastery of Agathos, a dependancy in Asia of Euthymius' own monastery of Psamathia, in Constantinople. And there he stayed, during two years (908-910io), incomunicado. Thus, we have three notices, or bodies of evidence, about a person or persons called Nicetas Paphlago: I. He was a popular encomiast of the first half of the tenth century, a monk (that is the explanation of his other name "David"), a "rhetor," a "philosopher," and a bishop of Dadybra. 2. He wrote the Life of St. Ignatius (died 877). 3. He was a pupil of Arethas of Caesarea (ca. 850-932), and was, in 907 or 908, accused of libelling the Patriarch Euthymius and the Emperor Leo VI. Does this evidence relate to the same person, or to two different persons, or to three different persons ? At first sight, there is no apparent reason for dividing the persons. All of them flourished, or could easily have flourished, in the first half of the tenth century. All are called Nicetas, of Paphlagonian origin. All are writers. 2. and 3. wrote "libels," 2. on Photius and 3. on Euthymius and the
1 For a catalogue of his works, with titles,
see Chr. M. Loparev, Izvestija russk. arkheolog. inst. v K/pole, I3 (I908), pp. I73-181; though Loparev warns us (Vizantijskij Vremennik, I9 [I912], p. I48, note i) that it is perhaps incomplete, and Vogt (Orientalia Christiana, 23 [I93I], p. 6, note i) calls it "assez discutable." 2
A. Vogt, "Deux discoursinedits de Nicetas
de Paphlagonie," Orientalia Christiana, 23 (193I), p. 6. He promised to produce his evidence in Corpus Bruxellense, but, so far as I know,
did not do so. 3
MPG, CV, cols. 487-573. by C. De Boor (Berlin, i888); ed. by P. Karlin-Hayter (Byzantion, 25-7 [I955-7], 4 Ed.
pp. I-I72).
I6
241
242
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
Emperor Leo. i. and 2. had the same monastic name, David; and 3. may very well have assumed this name on entering the monastery of Agathos in 908. However, since De Boor's celebrated edition and commentary of VE (I888), scholars are nearly unanimous5 in refusing to identify 2. with 3., the author of VI with the pupil of Arethas and the libeller of St. Euthymius. De Boor's argument,6 in briefest outline, runs like this: the Nicetas of VE attacked Euthymius for his "dispensation" of Leo VI's fourth marriage. Therefore, he was anti the Ignatian Euthymius and pro the Photian Nicholas Mysticus. Therefore, he is unlikely to be the author of VI, who is demonstrably anti Photius and pro Ignatius. Therefore 2. and 3. are different persons. A chronological obstacle to the identification is added, though not by De Boor. The author of VI, it is generally stated, died ca. 890, if not ca. 880. Krumbacher7 gives both dates. Most scholars repeat at least the later date (890); although Loparev8 admits that it is a mere guess. Obviously, if 2. died in or about 890, he cannot be 3., who is alive in 9Io; still less can he be i., who, according to Vogt, is writing as late as ca. 963. Where then do these dates of 880/90 come from ? So far as I can discover, 880 first appears in E. Dronke's preface to Nicetas' Paraphrasis carminum arcanorumS. GregoriiNaz. (I840), where we find : Hoc constat eum [Nicetam] mortem obiisse post annum 880: nam irruptionem illis temporibusa Saracenis in Siciliam factam atque eversionem Syracusarum ipse narrat in Vita Ignatii patriarchae Cplitani.9 This is true enough, so far as it goes. But there is no evidence at all to show that the author of VI died immediately, or ten years, after the disaster recorded. In point of fact, at the time of its occurrence he was probably not yet born. 6 The scholarsinclude (in alphabeticalorder) Beck, Costa-Louillet, Dvornik, Krumbacher, Loparev, Moravcsik, Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Popov, Vasil'evskij and Vogt: a formidable array. It is unnecessaryto cite their works in detail here, since I believe their thesis to be wrong. They will be cited infra, as occasion offers. 6 Op. cit., pp. I94-I96. 7 GBL2, pp. I67, 679. 8 Izvestija, 13, p. 171: konechno gadatel'no. 9 MPG, XXXVIII, cols. 68I-682,
But to return to De Boor's main argument: this was justifiable inference at the time it was written, for the facts of the case were not yet known. But since the publication of Eight Letters of Arethas'? (hereafter referred to as EL) in I956, there can be no excuse for maintaining it now. In brief, the Nicetas of VE wrote his libel on St. Euthymius and the Emperor Leo without in any way upholding the cause of Photius or identifying himself with Nicholas Mysticus. In his eyes, the conduct of both Church parties, Photian-Nicholaan and Ignatian-Euthymian, over the Emperor Leo's fourth marriage was equally depraved and contemptible. And, indeed, in a celebrated passage of VI,"1to which we must return, he stigmatises the whole series of Photius' patriarchal successorsas equally time-serving, grasping, and odious. He had been an ardent disciple of Arethas when Arethas was opposing the fourth marriage (April 90o6-February 907); but when, thereafter, Arethas followed the Euthymians in their great betrayal, Nicetas washed his hands of the whole pack of them, Photians and Ignatians alike. Having got rid of a Nicetas who died ca. 890, and of reasons supposedly inhibiting the Nicetas of VE from writing VI, we can see that 2. and 3. may easily be-as in fact they are-identical. One more clearance of accretion must be made, before we begin to reconstruct the true, indivisible Nicetas: that is, removal of his episcopal pretensions. Vogt12 saw that the title "Bishop of Dadybra," as applied to Nicetas, is a laughable error. Among the headings of Nicetas' works enumerated by Loparev13we find, NlKTTra TO TcTaqpXay6vos Kai AaSiPupou, SoOXou 'IcoOVXpiaToU, TOUqiXoa6Oou. Originally, this stood as NIKT'-ra TOUfTTcaayo6vos Kal Aa8 (sc. David). An ingenious scribe, knowing that the see of Dadybra was a suffragan of Gangra, in Paphlagonia, at once appointed Nicetas to this see, and he appears thereafter as ETl'iaKo1roS Aaa6u3pcov. The error was made easier, and more venial, 10R. J. H. Jenkins, Basil Laourdas,"Eight Letters of Arethas on the Fourth Marriageof
Leo the Wise," Hellenika, 14 (I956), pp. 293-372. 11
Col. 573 C.
12 Op. cit., p. 8. 13 Op. cit., p. I74.
NICETAS DAVID PAPHLAGO and THE VITA IGNATII by the fact that there had been a Nicetas, bishop of Dadybra, who signed the Acts of the Seventh Council in 787.14Nor can Nicetas have been a bishop or archbishop of Paphlagonia, as some have supposed, since, as Allatius"5 puts it, episcopatus Paphlagoniae nullus apparet. We can now proceed to summarize what is known, or can be deduced, of the biography of Nicetas-David Paphlago.16 Like his uncle Paul the Sacellarius,17he hailed from Paphlagonia, and was born not earlier than ca. 885.18 He came to Constantinople, and studied under the great scholar Arethas,19 Archbishop of Caesarea since ca. 903. He was the intimate friend of Arethas during the most critical months of the Tetragamy scandal,20 that is, from the summer of 906 to the spring of 907; and, under Arethas' influence, he espoused with ardour the cause of the "anti-marriage" party, of which Arethas himself was at that time the chief spokesman.21 The Court party, supported, whether through conviction or blackmail, by the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus, made every effort between May and December 906 to overcome Arethas' intransigence; and they tried repeatedly, both through Nicetas' uncle Paul22 and through the Patriarch Nicholas23 himself, to detach his brilliant young pupil from Arethas' side. It was to no purpose. Nicetas, in a letter to his uncle which is 14 Mansi, 13, col. 369 D;
15MPG, CV, cols. 9-I0.
cf. col. 39I A.
16The "biography"concocted by Loparev, as Vogt (op. cit., p. 6, note i) points out, is almost wholly imaginary. 17 VE (ed. by Karlin-Hayter), I10/14-i6: cf. ibid., pp. 170-17I; Neos Hellenomnemon, 19 (1925), pp. I88-I9I. 18 Perhapsat Amastris,which, at
col.
421
MPG, CV,
C-D, he calls Trf 0KOUE'VnS6AifyouBeIv
If Nicetas was still Arethas' pupil in 6q9pSAp6s. 906, he is not likely to have been much over 20; but if he was already setting up as a teacher himself, he will not, however brilliant, have been less. Again, if, as Vogt says, he was still writing as late as 963, it will not do to make him much beyond 8o at the time. It seems clear that he was born after the death of Ignatius (877): cf. VI, col. 489 A.
extant,24 writes of his master with all the enthusiasm of ardent youth. He is bound indissolubly to his beloved, his adored Arethas. He has known him long, and chosen him as the pattern of virtue. He owes everything to him. Arethas has instructed him, formed his mind, led him to truth, moulded his intellect, taught him wisdom and courage. But best of all is his master's goodness. Arethas is full of all grace, piety, religion, intelligence, quickness, franknessin a word, a perfect gentleman. How can Nicetas desert him ? One would hardly have thought the bitter and rancorous Arethas capable of arousing this degree of Schwdrmerei in a pupil, however young and devoted to scholarship. But such is the fact. Nicetas was in every way guided by his master until the betrayal of 907: and he gives ample proof, both in one of his letters and, as we shall see,25 in VI, of close familiarity with Arethas' polemical tracts on the Tetragamy scandal. Everyone knows the outcome. The crisis came in February 907. The Patriarch Nicholas, who, despite all his efforts, had failed to reconcile the party of Euthymius and Arethas to the Emperor's fourth marriage, was dismissed. And in his place Euthymius, leader of the very party which had hitherto condemned the marriage out of hand, now quietly accepted the patriarchate and "dispensed" the marriage. Arethas followed suit.26 Only the miserable Nicetas was left out in the cold. The blow was stunning. Small wonder that he "despised all the things of this world," and betook himself to "philosophise," that is, to prepare for the life to come,27in a hermitage near Media. We have seen how, some months later, he was arrested as a spy, and would have been punished severely for his libel on the Patriarch Euthymius and the Emperor Leo, but for the Patriarch's intercession. Arethas, in urging Nicetas' condemnation and punishment, committed his final betrayal of one who had loved and
19 VE (ed. by Karlin-Hayter), 114/11-12.
24Op. cit., supra (note 22), p. I89. 25 Cf. also DOP, i6 (I962), pp. 231-232. 26 VE (ed. by Karlin-Hayter), Io8/2off. 27
20 See EL, passim. 21 Ibid. 22 Neos
Hellenomnemon,
I88-I91. 23 Ibid., 8 (I9II), I6*
I9
(1925),
pp.
See Karlin-Hayter'scomment at VE, p.
note i; and Psellus, Chronographie (ed, by Renauld), i, p. 73. iii,
pp. 301I-306.
243
244
ROMILLY
J. H. JENKINS
trusted him; but, as we shall see, he had some excuse for his resentment. Nicetas withdrew to the monastery of Agathos, where he remained two years. It was probably here that he became the monk David.28 We have thus accounted for his genuine names and titles: "rhetor" as a teacher; "philosopher" as intellectual ascetic; "David," "slave of Christ," and "holy man" as a monk. He left the monastery in 9Io, at the age of about 25. The rest of his long life is known to us only fromhis voluminous writings. And now there remain the questions of when and why did he write the Life of St. Ignatius? To begin with the date: in EL (p. 346) I ventured the opinion that Nicetas wrote VI during the years 908-IO, at the monastery of Agathos. This I believe to be nearly right, but not quite so. Let us try to be more precise. De Boor,29 who is followed by many, states that VI was written "h6chst wahrscheinlich zwischen a. 880 und a. 886." Obviously, if the author died ca. 890, it must have been written before that date. But in fact both dates, 88o-6 and 890, are pure assumption, and, as it proves, false assumption. The reasoning is that the latest historical events recorded in VI must be recent events at the time of composition. There is no ground for this hypothesis. Indeed, there are very good reasons for believing it to be mistaken. In the first place, VI (col. 54I A-B) describes the attempt of contemporary Photians to claim for their hero the "honour of sainthood" (860av yitcoacivjs). This can only mean that Photius is now dead. The date of his death is uncertain. It could be February 6, 893, or it could be later; but it cannot be before 893.30Internal evidence can take us further. 28 Cf. VI, col. 6 Kai 'Iyva&'oS, 493 D, NIK1'Tas where the Saint's "worldly"name comes first, and his monastic name second. Similarly, with
NlKTras 6 KadAavu8. Loparev (op. cit., p. I65),
with singular perverseness, reverses the order. 29 Op. cit., p. I95.
30I need not discuss the point at length here; for conflicting views on it, see N. Popov, Imperator Lev VI Mudrij (Moscow, I892), pp. 46-47, and J. Hergenrother, Photius, II, pp. 713-714. Photius seems to have been canonised before 959, if that is the date of MS "H" of the
Typiconof the GreatChurch(ed. by Mateos,Or. Chr.Anal., I65 [Rome, I962], pp. xviii-xix,
228/6).
Ignatius, says Nicetas (col. 489 A), appeared later in time than the stalwarts of old, but still "before this generation of ours"; and again (col. 489 B), since his death (in 877), the cloud of ignorance about him has grown thick during many years (iKavoTsXp6vots). The number of years implied by iKavoTsis of course debatable; but a generation (yEVE6), as Loparev31reminds us, is thirty years, and thirty years on from 877 is 907. Again, at col. 573 B. the loss of Syracuse (878) is recorded, and then the author goes on: "and every island, and every city and country, continues to be ravaged and destroyed even down to this day (E'xpltKal TrtIEpov), for no prayer of those who claim to be priests can win God's favour, but-as it is writtenwe are in truth become sheep for whom there is no shepherd. For the mischief has become inveterate (xpoviacra...f KaKia), and is confirmed by numerous examples, and is a law unto the lawless, and the habit of unrighteousness is-as it were-a second nature to the scoffers, and draws down all the wrath of God." The use of I~xpi Kal T'r1Epov, and even more of xpovi'aac a, surely implies several years since 878. But of all such hints, that found at col. 573 C is the most significant: "But to recount each one of the injuries and crimes of Photius himself, the first in the line of hypocrites, and of all his successors one after the other aUcTou8iao6Xcov), KaOE?fE5TCOV (KCdTrravTCOV
who have shared his lust for power, is the task of a historian, and unsuitable for a treatise of the present scope."32"All Photius' successors, one after the other," must imply at least three patriarchs since his second deposition in 886, namely, Stephen, Antony, and Nicholas. I believe that it implies one more, Euthymius. The consensus of the internal evidence is, then, that the composition of VI is datable 31 Vizantijskij Vremennik, 19 (I912), p. I45; but Loparev thinks that the "generation" is from Ignatius' birth (798), and will, therefore, have Nicetas born ca. 828. This is a good fifty years too early. 32 Col. 573 C. Papadopoulos-Kerameus (Vizantijskij Vremennik, 6 [I899], pp. 17-20), silly as his article is, lays proper emphasis on the passage, as Fr. Yared and Popov (op. cit., p. I6I, note 5) had done before him. Vasil'evskij's answer to Pap.-Ker., on this point at least, is decidedly weak (Viz. Vrem., tom. cit., pp. 44-45).
NICETAS DAVID PAPHLAGO and THE VITA IGNATII about thirty years or so after the Saint's death, that is, in the patriarchate of Nicholas (901-907),
or of Euthymius
(907-912).
This
conclusion is fully confirmed by detailed consideration of VI, cols. 505 D (6 p?V oUv KUpIos f]pc)v KTrX.)to 508 D (-rcv EUOEopOuVTCOV avTEpeiv). Nicetas has been describing the quarrel between Bardas and Ignatius, followed by the latter's deposition on a trumped-up charge of high treason. He then proceeds in this manner: Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God of true Father, Who both, as God before all ages, knows all things before their coming to birth, and also, when He became man for us, foreknew all things in His deified mind, saith: "It is needful that scandals should come; but woe unto him through whom scandal cometh !" Now, for all the heresies which, since the presence of His incarnate Divinity even unto this present day, have crept in to defile the Churches, the heresiarchs themselves, as authors of the scandals, are deservedly the first to share in their miseries also; and I suppose that, equally with the famous heretics of olden days, those who have played the villain in this our generation, as authors of ten thousand scandals to the world, will be the objects (AlpIovTai) of the heavenly wrath. For not because they seem to confess God in 'orthodox' (as they claim) doctrine and innumerable diatribes, shall they merely on this account be justified; no! rather because in their deeds (according to the words of Sacred Scripture) they denied Him, and became impure and disobedient, and unapproved towards every good work, for this shall they be condemned. And not because they put on a semblance of piety, and some form and empty fiction of regard for religion in all their doings and traffickings, so that they may be justified before men, shall they on this account be found righteous before Him Who surveys and weighs our secrets; no! rather because they deserted the stronghold of piety and life according to the Gospel, and sold themselves for love of self and money and all kinds of pleasure and power, and
245
indulged in all kinds of unrighteousness, perjuries, broken promises, and crimes and injuries against the innocent, and dissolved and confounded all ecclesiastical order; because by their manifold irregularities and illegalities they profaned the divine substance and name of Holy Church, so that the mystery of religion (one might almost say) runs the risk of being understood as mere verbiage, and no longer as reality and truth; for these reasons they shall receive God's most righteous condemnation. Of all these evils the primordial cause and root is, plainly, the primordial slayer of man, who, a renegade from goodness, and become the creator of all vice, doth not cease, even unto now, to belch his peculiar venom upon those who, in every generation, are prone to receive it. And so much the more profuse is he of his viciousness as he comes upon those who are more fit to serve his purpose. Sometimes God allows to govern, and to be great in worldly authority, men through whom (as Divine Scripture has it) 'the thoughts of many hearts may be manifest': so that the grain may be divided from the chaff, and the righteous, by their persecutions, may be refined as gold in the crucible, and hoarded up in the heavenly treasuries; and all that is unapproved and unworthy of the Kingdom of God may be cast aside like dross. I do not think any religious man will disagree with this. There is much in this truly remarkable outburst of Nicetas that calls for careful scrutiny. To begin with, it bears every mark of being an excursus: indeed, the author admits that it is, by remarking, at its close: "But let us see what the sequel was in the case of the holy Ignatius also": or, in other words, the passage is not of particular reference to Ignatius' story, but refers to analogous situations, or an analogous situation. Second, the passage refers to a situation prevalent at the time of writing: TSra....EXp1 TCOV8Eupo TrapElac(p9ap?aas aipEeiESs, and o0 KaTa TC-UTrVTrOV1PEvoUapEVOI yEVEav (col.
508 A). It cannot therefore refer to events in
246
ROMILLY J. H. JENKINS
the life of St. Ignatius, which are expressly stated to have occurred Trpo6rfi Kas' nItas TauTtlS... yEvEas(col. 489 A). Third, the referenceto "heresies" (aipEcriES) is highly instructive. In the quarrel between Bardas and Ignatius in 856-8, no question of heresy was involved. Bardas was a man who chose to live in incest with his daughter-inlaw, or at all events was widely believed to be doing so. But he was not a heretic, in any sense of the word. Even the ostensible reason for Ignatius' deposition was a political charge of treason, and did not involve his accusers in heresy. However, in the Tetragamy scandal of 906-7, the opposition party, headed by Arethas, maintained that Leo VI's fourth marriage did involve heresy. Arethas33states (in 906) that the Emperor's friends are disseminating the opinion that "there is nothing in all this [fourth marriage] to excite any scandal whatever, or to give any pretext for withdrawal from their Church: for this is no heresy, they say (oU5E yap
alpEais TOUTO, 9qpr(fv), nothing which
calls for an irremediable breach in the body of the faithful; and to desert the Court on such grounds as these, and by personal example to divide others into a party of opposition, is absurd." But, continues Arethas, heresy is involved in the present evil, as is witnessed by the canonical fixation of penalties. Fourth, once the connection of our passage with the second of Arethas' Eight Letters is seen, the inspiration of the former is unmistakable. The whole section from Ov yap OTt soypaacv 6p$oTs (VI, col. 508 A) down to the end is a conscious paraphrase of paragraph 4 in Arethas' second Letter,34 where Arethas castigates the Court party for defiling purity of faith by impure works. Indeed, even the vocabulary is here and there the same in both: cf. VI, col. 508 A, 86oyacaiv 6pSoTswith Arethas'T'rIv?v 86ypaatv 6pS6TrnTra (EL, 300/37); and VI, ibid., roTSgpyoiS PSEvKTroiwith Trjp[EX'apiaTrCV 33EL, p. 299/I2-28.
For "heresy" in the
parallelcases of ConstantineVI and Constantine IX, see passages from Theodore Studita and Cerularius given by A. Michel, Humbertund
Kerullarios, II (Paderborn, 1930), p. 240; cf. ibid., pp. I71x-75, and id., Die Kaisermachtin der Ostkirche (Darmstadt, I959), p. I43. 34 EL, pp. 300-301.
?pycoV (EL, 301/8). Now, I have pointed out elsewhere35that Nicetas betrays an intimate knowledge of Arethas' Letters in one of his own, edited by Lambros36:and this, in view of the close association of the two men until 907, is natural enough. We cannot doubt that at VI, col. 508, Nicetas is copying his one-time master. The implication of this will soon appear. For the present, it is enough to state that, since the second Letter of Arethas was written in the latter part of 906, then VI, or at least this part of it, must have been written after that date. But we have still not quite finished with Nicetas' outburst. VE37 tells us that when Nicetas appeared a second time as a prisoner before the Emperor, it had been discovered that he had written "a very hostile and bitter tract [A6yos or ouyypapgxa]" against the arch-priest [Euthymius] and the Emperor [Leo] himself." Can this CTvyypalipahave been very different from the passage here in question? Is it not possible, even probable, that this is (in substance) the very passage produced and read in evidence at Nicetas' trial? VE states that the diatribe was against Patriarch and Emperor, in that order, and this is in fact the order of our passage; while to describe it as "very hostile and bitter" would seem to be an understatement. The hierarchy is first condemned, in the very terms formerly applied by Arethas to Nicholas Mysticus when the latter was still a supporter of the fourth marriage: the same accusations of time-serving and hypocrisy are made. As for the castigation of Leo (2vyXco8E woXNaKIS poUvTrait KpacrETv KTr.),it is not strange that it should have put that choleric Emperor beside himself with rage. To be told that he was Satan's instrument, and that he was so absolutely evil that God's only reason for "allowing" him to rule was in order that his tyranny might (KpcrrETv) serve as a touchstone to separate the virtuous from the depraved-what insults could be greater than these? Moreover, on this hypothesis, the anger and vindictiveness of Arethas towards his former pupil are easily explained. Having stood by to hear himself and his new friends denounced in the very 35 DOP,
I6 (I962), pp. 231-232. 36 Neos Hellenomnemon, 2I (I927), pp. 7-I4. 37 (Ed. by
Karlin-Hayter),112/9-II.
NICETAS DAVID PAPHLAGO and THE VITA IGNATII
247
arguments and phrases coined by himself, he was naturally exasperated; and if we must condemn as ungenerous his demand for full punishment on Nicetas, we must also grant that he was under severe provocation. If this is allowed, it brings us very close to an accurate date for the composition of VI. At least a part of it was composed between February 907 and the end of the year; though it is probable that its final form was elaborated during the following two years of quiet and converse with Ignatian monks in the Agathos monastery. All this puts a different complexion on the purpose of VI as a whole. It has hitherto been regarded, with good reason, as primarily an anti-Photian document, and it was later appended to the Anti-Photian Collection.38As is well known, the later historian Skylitzes so regarded it.39But it now appears that antiPhotianism was a secondary consideration with Nicetas Paphlago, though a very real one, for all that: since Photius had been the master of his once adored but now detested Arethas. If Nicetas had still been the friend and pupil of Arethas after, as before, February 907, he could not have written his attack on Photius in VI. But Nicetas' main emotional preoccupation at the time of writing was
the Tetragamy struggle of 906-7, in which he had been so cruelly betrayed.40 Casting about for a theme which should furnish an example of courage and constancy in such matters, he very naturally pitched on the story of Ignatius. Like Nicholas, Euthymius, and Arethas, Ignatius had been faced with the problem of scandalous sexual laxity in the imperial house; but, unlike them, he had stood firm against it, and had suffered deposition, insult, and torture in defense of his principles. The Emperor Leo and his Patriarch were quite sharp enough to see at whom Nicetas was aiming in the passage translated and explained above. It is much to the credit of the truly good and humane Euthymius that he, though just as much belabored by Nicetas as was the Emperor himself, could see the author's point, sympathize with his position, secure his liberty, and grant him refuge. The conclusion, then, would seem to be that Nicetas-David Paphlago, rhetor, didaskalos, "philosopher," and monk (but at no time bishop of Dadybra), was one man, whether he appears as the author of encomia, or of VI, or in the pages of VE. Personae non sunt multiplicandae sine necessitate. Here no necessitas exists.
38 F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism (Cambridge, I948), pp. 271-275.
40 Cf. VI, col. 573 C, which contains a clear referenceto the Tetragamyscandalin the word : see DOP, i6 (I962), p. 233. TrmSvui(aS
39Cedrenus (Bonn ed.) I, 4/7, 5/2.
Constantine Akropolites: A Prosopographical Note Author(s): Donald M. Nicol Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 249-256 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291235 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES A Prosopographical Note DONALDM. NICOL CONSTANTINE Akropolites was a son of the statesman and historian George Akropolites who lived from I2I7 to I282. The Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos took an active interest in his upbringing and education; but Constantine, unlike his father, remained an outspoken opponent of Michael's policy of union with the Roman Church and of the efforts of the Patriarch John Bekkos to persuade the clergy and people of Constantinople that that policy was dogmatically acceptable.' Andronikos II appointed him Logothete TOVyEviKov,perhaps in I282; and as such his name appears among the witnesses to the Byzantine treaty with Venice in June I285.2 But after the death of Theodore Mouzalon in I294 he was raised to the dignity of Grand Logothete, holding this office at least until I32I, at which time he appears to have shared the title, if not the rank, with Theodore Metochites.3 His greatest claim to fame rests on 1 George Pachymeres, De Andronico Palae-
ologo, I (Bonn), pp. 495-6. The career of Constantine's father George,who was GrandLogothete under the EmperorsTheodoreII Laskaris and MichaelVIII, is summarizedby A. Heisen-
berg, Georgii Acropolitae Opera, II (Leipzig, 1903), pp. iii-xiii. Constantine calls himself "the first-born son" (see infra, p. 51); one Leon
Akropolites,who could have been his brother, was Dux of the Theme of Ser-es and Strymon
in November I295. M. Goudas, Buvav-rlaKn gyypaqa T,S ?v "AOcIIepas poviS TOUBa-rorrEiou, 'E&rrFflpis'ETaipeias Bulav-rnvov -rrovuScv,III (1926), no. 6, p. 132; cf. F. Dolger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des ostromischen Reiches, IV (Munich, 1960), no. 218 I. 2 "... panseuasto seuasto familiari Imperij
nostri logotheta de genico domino Constantino Acropolita." G. L. F. Tafel and G. M. Thomas,
pp. 248-50;
i857), P. 339.
3 John Cantacuzene, Historiae, I (Bonn), I952),
pp.
ii,
note
M. Jugie, Dictionnaire
de gdographie
(Munich, I959), pp. 698-9. 6 M. Treu, Planudis Epistulae, pp. 248-50. 7 Pachymeres, II (Bonn), p. 214, lines I2-13: ... 6 'AKpoTwoTioTrs MeXiaei<6x,6eTOS cov TiS aOCroO ((>lAavepcoTrrjvoO) yvvaiKo6 ....
pp. 67-8. Cf. H.-G. Beck, Theodoros Metochites. Die Krise des byzantinischen Weltbildes im I4. (Munich,
schichte der byzantinischen Litteratur, 2nd ed. (Munich, I897), pp. 204-5; M. Treu, Maximi Monachi Planudis Epistulae (Breslau, I890),
et d'histoire ecclesiastique, I, pp. 375-7; H.-G. Beck, Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche (Freiburg, 1957), I, pp. 246-7; id., Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich
Urkunden zur alteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig, III (Vienna,
Jahrhundert 14, note 3.
his literary output which was considerable and mainly hagiographical in content. His numerous versions of saints' lives earned for him, in later times if not in his own day, the name of Neos Metaphrastes. Many of these remain unedited, and by far the larger part of his extensive correspondence has still to be published.4 It has been stated that he married into the family of Cantacuzene, but this is a fallacy. Such is the extent of the biographical information hitherto provided about Constantine Akropolites in the works of reference and editions of his writings.5 Some of those writings, however, and one surprisingly neglected item of iconographical evidence, provide some interesting additional facts about his family and career which seem not to have been collected or used by those concerned with the history of the period. M. Treu showed him to be the brother of the monk Melchisedek Akropolites, to whom fourteen of the letters of Maximos Planoudes are addressed.6Melchisedekwas among those who helped to incite the pinkernis Alexios Tarchaniotes Philanthropenos to rebellion against Andronikos II in Asia Minor in I296. Pachymeres describes him as "an uncle of Alexios' wife."7 Philanthropenos was also 4 See infra for a provisionallist of the writings of Constantine. 5Briefbiographicalnoticesof Constantineare given by A. Ehrhard, in K. Krumbacher,Ge-
3;
249
DONALD M. NICOL
250
the friend of Planoudes, who congratulated him on the event of his marriage in a letter written in I295.8 Shortly afterwards his wife's brother died at the tender age of fourteen, and from the letters which Planoudes wrote to him and to Melchisedek on this occasion it emerges that the boy's father, and consequently the father-in-law of Alexios Philanthropenos, was the Logothete rTOU yEViKOJ, namely
Constantine
Akropolites.9
Constantine is therefore known to have had a daughter, not named by Planoudes, who married Alexios Philanthropenos, and a son who died in I295. Philanthropenos was blinded in December I296 when his revolt was suppressed and thereafter lived in retirement until restored to favor in I323.10 8 Treu, Planudis Epistulae, no. 98, lines 84 ff., pp. I27-8. 9 Ibid., nos. 90 and 94, pp. 114-I7, 120-2. For the chronological sequence of these letters, see Treu, op. cit., p. 252. 10 Two of Constantine's unpublished letters tell of his temporary banishment from Constanand of his tinople, perhaps to Thessalonica, desire to return to the capital to stand trial and clear his name. This may suggest that he was implicated or suspected of implication in the See Cod. Amconspiracy of Philanthropenos. bros. H 8i Sup., Letters nos. 97, 98, fols. 307r to 3o8r. On the family of Philanthropenos, see Athenagoras, Metropolitan of Paramythia and Philiates, TOUBuvavuvoXapoi EISIrhvTo-ropiav TIVOV OIKOU TCOV $AiavOpcoTrrnvcov, Ae-r'iov
Ti'S
'Ic"ropIKfsKal 'E0voooyiKfiS 'ETalpdiaS T"rS'EAaX&Sos, N. S., I (I929), pp. 61-74; V. Laurent, in Echos d'Orient, XXIX (I930), pp. 495-7, and XXXI (I932), pp. I77-81; St. Binon, "A propos d'un prostagma inedit d'Andronic Paleologue," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, XXXVIII (I938), pp. I48-9; P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus (Archives de l'Athos, II), Texte (Paris, 1946), p. I27. The rebellion of Alexios Philanthropenos and its suppression is described in detail by Nikephoros Gregoras, Historiae Byzantinae, I (Bonn), pp. I95-202 and Pachymeres, II (Bonn), pp. 2IO29. Cf. R. Guilland, Correspondance de Nicephore Gregoras (Paris, I927), pp. 372-4; H.-G. Beck, "Belisar-Philanthropenos. Das BelisarLied der Palaiologenzeit," Serta Monacensia (Franz Babinger zum i5. Januar I95I als Festpp. 46-52; gruss dargebracht [Leiden, I952]), P. Lemerle, L'Emirat et d'Aydin. Byzance l'Occident (Paris, I957), pp. I5, 87, note i. It seems to have been as a thanksgiving for his deliverance from the rebel Philanthropenos that Andronikos II consecrated the month of August to the worship of the Virgin. See V. Grumel, "Le mois de Marie des Byzantins," Echos d' Orient, XXXI (1932), pp. 257-69.
The name of one of Constantine's daughters is provided by the first of two Testaments which he wrote with his own hand. In this document Constantine makes over all that he had inherited from his mother and from his father, the Grand Logothete, to his daughter Theodora. In addition he consigns to Theodora everything brought to him by his own wife as dowry from her father, who is said to have borne the ancient and honorable name of Tornikes and to have been descended from the line of the Komnenoi.11 This statement may serve finally to dispel the myth formulated by Ch.Du Cange and
perpetuated by A. Papadopulos that Constantine Akropolites married the daughter of one Cantacuzene,
a myth
whose
only
foundation appears to be a misreading of a passage in the text of Pachymeres. Pachymeres clearly indicates that the daughter of Cantacuzene married not Constantine Akropolites but Theodore Mouzalon, the later Grand Logothete. The wife of Akropolites was a member of the Tornikes family.12 11 AiaeirKT1 &c., ed. 'lo-roby M. Treu, AEXATiov plKfiSKad'EevoXoylKfis 'ErTalpias, IV (I892), p. 48, II.25-34.
12 Ch. Du Cange, Familiae Augustae Byzantinae (Paris, I68o), p. 260, lists as the daughter of N. Cantacuzenus and Theodora, and so as the sister of the Emperor John VI Cantacuzene: "N. CANTACUZENA, uxor CONSTANTINI A CROPOLI TAE, Magni Logothetae,filii Georgii Acropolitae
Magni perinde Logothetae ...".
So
also I. C. Filitti, Notice sur les Cantacuzene du XIe au XVIIe siecles (Bucharest, I936), p. 5; A. Th. Papadopulos, Versuch einer Genealogie der Palaiologen (Munich, I938), no. 26, p. 17. But see Pachymeres, I (Bonn), pp. 495, line 14-
496, line 4: TOVTO uvI3rp Kal a[Xois TXEiorTOIs, Si Kal Kcovo-rawrivcp-r 'AKpo-ToXAT uppEP31KEIl Kai TCrO eeo05bpc MovLa&covi, &uvTOv pv wrapa TO0 rrTaTpOsTOU pEya&0o Aoyo06Tou Aaplcov dVfiyE ITraCtSEUOV Kal oiKEtoV dr"OKaiTcra iS OTt puNairTa, TOV &S iK o-rpaTCriOTKfiS poipas d&vaXafPc0v Kal ToTS
pacfi"aaiv Ev8oUs ivaXo&cmaat Aoyoioeriv T-rv EViKCoV ES yUvaTKa ol Kal T'v TOG iTipCa, culeCEutaS KavTraKoUvnvog euyaTrpa,
Kal pEaiT,
TCO KOIVUV
iXp-ro. The "Cantacuzena" in question cannot in any case be the sister of the future Emperor John VI. She must belong to the previous generation. On Theodore Mouzalon, her husband, who died in I294, see V. Laurent, in Dictionnaire de thdologie catholique, X, 2, pp. 258I-4, and in Echos d'Orient, XXV (I926), pp. 318, 319; "Notes chronologiques J. Verpeaux, sur les livres II et III du de Andronico Palaeologo de Revue des etudes byzanGeorges Pachymere,"
CONSTANTINE Further prosopographical information is provided by the speech which Constantine composed to celebrate the restoration of the monastery of the Anastasis in Constantinople.13 This monastery, reputed to have been first built by Constantine and Helena and repaired over the centuries by various emperors, had fallen into a state of almost complete ruin during the "Italian" occupation of Constantinople between the years I204 and I26I. While Constantine Akropolites was still a child his father had undertaken to reconstruct the church; and Constantine himself, as "the first-born of his father's sons," felt it his duty to contribute and to cooperate in this pious work, even though his father had spent a great part of his expected inheritance upon it. He became in effect the ktitor, or founder, of the monastery which, at the time when he was writing, had been rebuilt around the church. When his wife died he laid her body to rest within its walls; and the oratory dedicated to St. Lazaros was erected at his expense. This interesting document concludes with a form of typikon of the monastery of the Anastasis in which it is prescribed, among other regulations, that on the fifth day of the week the name of St. Lazaros should be commemorated; and that on the seventh and last day of the week prayers should be offeredfor Constantine'slate mother Eudokia, for himself, and for his wife Maria. Constantine's wife may therefore be designated as Maria Komnene Tornikina, and his mother, the wife of George Akropolites, as Eudokia.14
251
AKROPOLITES
It is possible that Maria was an otherwise unknown daughter of the John Tornikes, Dux of the Thrakesion Theme in I258 and later sebastokrator, to whom George Akropolites addressed a letter.'5 The more ConstantineTornikes, celebrated sebastokrator, prefect of the City in Constantinople in I264 and governor of Thessalonike until 1267, is known to have had two daughters. The first marriedthe Despot John Palaiologos, brother of the Emperor Michael VIII. The second married John Doukas, son of the Despot Michael II of Epiros, and is described as "Tomikina Komnene Raoul(aina)" in an epitaph which Manuel Philes composed on the death of her daughter Helena.16 The parentage of Constantine's wife remains to be determined, but the literary testimony for her name and lineage is united with the monastery of the Anastasis by chrysobull of AndronikosII (drafted by Nikephoros Choumnos): text in J. F. Boissonade, AnecdotaGraeca,II (Paris, I830), pp. 77-84; F. Miklosich and J. Miiller, Acta et Diplomata GraecaMedii Aevi (Vienna, I860-90o),V, pp. 264-7;
cf. F. D6olger, Regesten, IV, no. 2085.
There was a monastery of the Saviour called in Mesembria;the documents -TO0 'AKpoTrwoiTou establishing and confirming its patriarchal status are in Miklosichand Muller,Actaet Diplomata,I, pp. 502-3 (datedApril 1369); II, pp. 37,
152-3; A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'Ava&XKTa 'IEpoCo7auiplTlKfisTcaxuo7oyias,I (St. Petersburg, 1891), pp. 470-I (prostagma of 1379, wrongly
attributed to John VI Cantacuzene). Cf. P. Mutafciev, "Km istorijata na Mesemvrijskite Monastiri," Sbornik v test' na V. N. Zlatarski (Sofia, 1925), pp. i67-74; I. Velkov, "La basi-
lique de la mer a Mesemvrie,"L'Art byzantin chezles Slaves.Les Balkans (= Orientet Byzance,
tines, XVII (I959), pp. I68-70; id., Nicdphore Choumnoshomme d'dtat et humanistebyzantin (Paris, 1959),PP. 35-40; I. gevcenko,Etudessur la poldmiqueentre ThdodoreMdtochiteet Nicephore Choumnos(CorpusBruxellense Historiae
polites, ed. by Heisenberg,II, pp. xx and 67-9. Cf. F. Dolger, "Chronologischesund Prosopo-
7, note I; I47, note 5; I48; I59-60.
graphisches zur byzantinischen Geschichte des I3. Jahrhunderts," Byzantinische Zeitschrift,
Byzantinae, Subsidia, III [Brussels, I962]), pp.
13A6yos &c., ed. by H. Delehaye, Analecta Bollandiana, LI (I933), pp. 279-84. 14 Ibid., p. 282. The history of the monastery
of the Anastasis or Resurrection,which cannot apparently be traced further back than the
twelfth century, is given by R. Janin, La gdographie eccldsiastique de l'Empire byzantin, I, iii. Les eglises et les monastOres(Paris, I953),
pp. 24-6. See also the title page of Cod.Vat. gr. I63 of the Historyof GeorgeAkropolites,ed. by
A. Heisenberg, I, pp. vi and 3. The monastery
of the Theometoron Mount Galesion, founded by St. Lazaros in the eleventh century, was
IV [Paris, I930]),
p. 77.
15 For John Tornikes, see Miklosich and
Muller, Acta et Diplomata, IV, pp. 73-4; Akro-
XXVII (I927), p. 309 and note 6. 16 For Constantine Tornikes, see Nikephoros
Gregoras, I (Bonn), p. 79; Pachymeres, I (Bonn), pp. io8, 226, 243, 485, 487; F. D6olger, Aus den Schatzkammerndes Heiligen Berges (Munich, I948), N. 34; Actes de Zographou, ed. by W. Regel, E. Kurtz, B. Korablev, Vizantijskij Vremennik,
XIII,
Prilozenie
(I907),
nos.
VI
and VII, pp. i6-i8, 19-24. Manuel Philes, Carmina, ed. by E. Miller, I (Paris, I855), no. LXXIX,
p. 253, i. I5f.; cf. no. CCLI, pp. 448-9;
Carmina inedita, ed. by Ae. Martini (Naples, I900), no. 9I, pp. 128-30.
252
DONALD
handsomely confirmed by an icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria, formerlyin the TroiceSergiev Lavra and now in the Tretjakov Gallery in Moscow.17In the lower corners of the intricately carved silver cover and frame surrounding this picture of the Virgin and Child are to be seen the figures of the donors (figs. I, 2, 3). On the left, bearded and wearing the headgear and robes of his office, stands: 6 bouAos Tro X(pior)oi Kcovo-ravTIvos 6 'AKpoTroX-riT. On the right stands: Mapia Kopvrvi TopvKiva f 'AKporroXiTIaaa.
N. Kondakov, who first published reproductions of these portraits in I906, commented on the discrepancy between the statement of Ch.Du Cange that Constantine Akropolites married a "Cantacuzena" and the evident fact that the portrait of Constantine's wife on this icon bears the names Maria Komnene Tornikina. He was led to venture the opinion that Du Cange had erred, but with the literary and historical evidence available to him, he was unable to press the matter further and contented himself with a brief lament on the difficulty of disentangling the ramifications of late Byzantine genealogies. It is now clear, however, that his opinion was right and that the donors here portrayed are Constantine Akropolites and his wife Maria. The occasion of their donation remains open to conjecture.18 In his second Testament Constantine speaks of his children and grandchildren in 17 V. I.
Antonova and N. E. Mneva, Katalog drevnerusskojlivopisi XI-na6ala XVIII veka a Tretjakovskaja Gallereja), (Gosudarstvennaj II (Moscow, I963), no. 22I, pp. 262-3 and pl. 172. 18 N. P. Kondakov, IzobrazenijaRusskojKnja-
leskoj Sem'i v miniatjurach XI veka (St. Petersburg, I906),
pp. 80-4, pls. io and ii
(details of
the portraits of Constantine and Maria); id., Ikonografija Bogomateri, II (Petrograd, 1915), pp. 201-3 and pl. 93. Icons with silver covers and frames of strikingly similar design exist in the monastery of Vatopedi on Mount Athos. See F. D61ger, Monchsland Athos (Munich, I945), nos. 78 and 79, pp. I46-7, I48-9 (the latter bears
the name of Andronikos [II] Palaiologos). Cf. also the silverwork on an icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria formerly belonging to the monastery of the Panagia of Soumela near Trebizond. Chrysanthos, Metropolitan of Trebizond, 'H 'EKArl7tia Tparrelov-Tros (=
and V [I936], pp.
48I-2
'ApXETovTVTOv-ro,IV
and pls. 68, 69.
M. NICOL the plural."9His unnamed son died prematurely in I295. His grandchildren must therefore have been the offspring either of his first daughter (Theodora ?), who was the wife of Alexios Philanthropenos, or of his second daughter, who married a son of the reigning Emperor of Trebizond. In his Sermon on the Blessed MartyrTheodosia, Constantine recounts a miracle brought about by the Saint's intervention in the case of one of his own relatives. The relative is defined as "my son-in-law of noble and illustrious (descent), a nephew of the present pious Emperor [Andronikos II] and a son of the [present] legitimate successor to the Empire of Kolchis [Trebizond] through his parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents; for the daughter of the late Emperor [Michael VIII] was joined to him in matrimony and became the mother of this (my son-in-law)."20 Eudokia, the third daughter of the Emperor Michael VIII, is known to have married John II Komnenos, Emperor of Trebizond, in 1282. Constantine's father, George Akropolites, had some interest in the affair, having been sent on a fruitless mission to Trebizond by Michael VIII in I28I to try to make arrangements for the wedding. John II reigned with some brief interruptions from 1280 until his death on i6 August I297. Eudokia went home to Constantinople as a widow in June I298, but returned to Trebizond in I30I and died there in December of the following year. She had two sons: Alexios, who was born in I283 and succeeded his father as Emperor of Trebizond, and Michael, who was born about I285 (he is said to have been fifty-six years old in I34I). Either of these could be correctly described as "a nephew of the present pious Emperor" Andronikos II; and by terms of their deceased father's will Andronikos became their guardian in I297. It was his hope, for personal IV
19 'ETEpaAlaOcKrlK, ed. by M. Treu, AEX-riov&c., (I892), p. 50. 20 A6yos Eis TTrVayiav 6cnopa&pTupaOEooo-iav,
ed. by Migne, Patrologia Graeca, CXL, cols. 925 D-928 A: Fapp6os EpOS Eri Ouycrrpi T-rgV
EuyEVCoVOfOTOSKCa rrepip7Xi-Trcov, yap a5&EXAptSos -roO vVv 0oCEp03oOs 'P1 v pacaiAEvovroS,wirais5 TOO TTIVTfs KoXxi6os apXl V ?K TE TrrCTpooV, rra&TTrcov Kai ETl'Trra&rTrc0v K?r1pcoaaEcqivovuTOoTCOy&p T) TOU
TrpopEpaalAO'EvKOTOs ivyaTrlp y&pov v6pocpcTuvaq)OEi-
cra, P'ITrirpTOUSEyeyEV-rCTa.
CONSTANTINE and political reasons, that the young Alexios II of Trebizond would marry Eirene, the second daughter of his minister Nikephoros Choumnos. But Alexios jumped the gun and deeply offended his uncle by eloping with a lady of his own choice, a Georgian princess, one of the daughters of B6ka Jaqeli, ruler of Samtzkh6. His younger brother Michael was about thirteen or fourteen years old when he went to Constantinople with his mother Eudokia in I298.21 Unfortunately, the Byzantine historians neglect to record the event of his marriage, but the circumstances strongly suggest that it was he who became the son-in-law of Constantine Akropolites. His only brother had already taken a wife; and it would be quite in keeping with the elaborate dynastic and marital schemes of Andronikos II that, having failed to marry off the daughter of one of his ministers to the Emperor of Trebizond, he should encourage or arrange the marriage of the daughter of his Grand Logothete to that Emperor's brother.22 It is not clear whether Michael went back to Trebizond with his mother in I30I; but forty years later he was certainly living in Constantinople. For when civil war broke out 21 Gregoras, I, pp. I48-9, 202-3; Pachymeres, I (Bonn), pp. 519-24; II, pp. 270-I, 287-9.
J. Verpeaux, "Notes prosopographiquessur la
famille Choumnos," Byzantinoslavica, XX (I959), P. 260; on the somewhat strained re-
lationship between Constantineand Nikephoros Choumnos,see id., NicdphoreChoumnos, pp. 40-I. Michael Panaretos, Chronicle,ed. by Sp. Lam-
bros, Neos Hellenomnenon, IV (I907), pp. 267-9; ed. by 0. Lampsides, MIXailjXTOUTTlavap?-rou TCO MEy&Xcov Trrp}i KopiviuvCov, 'ApXEIovTOl6vTO XXII (I958) (printed separately as Hov-rtKal 'EpEuvat,no. 2 [Athens, 1958], pp. 62-3). J. P. Fallmerayer, Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt (Munich, I827), pp. I47-8, 158-9; W. Miller, Trebizond: the Last Greek Empire (London, I926), pp. 27-33. For Beka Jaqeli (called "Pekai" by Michael Panaretos), ruler of Samtzkhe and father-in-law also of the II-Khan Dmitri II of Tiflis (I299-130I), see W. E. D. Allen, A History of the Georgian People (London, I932), pp. 119, i20,
I22 and note 2; N. A. Berd-
zenisvili and others, Istorija Gruzii, I (Tiflis, 1946), p. 283.
22 It would be pleasant to suppose, though perhaps impossible to prove, that the icon of the Hodegetria now in Moscow was a gift of Constantine Akropolites and Maria to John II of Trebizond, on the occasion of their daughter's marriage to his son.
AKROPOLITES
253
in Trebizond following the death of the Emperor Basil in April 1340, John Cantacuzene, in his capacity as regent for the young John V Palaiologos in Constantinople, inspired a not very happy attempt to place Michael on his father's throne. The attempt was countered by the Dowager Empress Anne of Savoy, who put up Michael's son John as a rival candidate for the Empire of Trebizond. Neither succeeded in maintaining his position, however, and Michael, the son of John II and Eudokia Palaiologina, and the son-in-law of Constantine Akropolites, is last heard of in 135I, living, as he had lived most of his life, in exile in Constantinople.23 In conclusion, it can be stated that Constantine Akropolites was the elder son of George Akropolites, Grand Logothete, and Eudokia, and the brother of Melchisedek Akropolites the monk. He married Maria Komnene Tornikina, who took from him the name Akropolitissa, and had three children: a son who died in childhood in I295, and two daughters, one of whom (probably the one called Theodora) married Alexios Philanthropenos the pinkernis in 1295, while the other married Michael, son of the Emperor John II Komnenos of Trebizond.24He was still Grand Logothete in I32I, but he died in or before I324, for in May-August of that year, in a document concerningthe Monastery of the Anastasis of which he was the founder, he is referred to as deceased.25 23 Michael Panaretos, ed. by Lambros, pp. 276-7; ed. by Lampsides, pp. 68-9. John Lazaropoulos,ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Sbornik Istocnikov po istorii Trapezundskoj
Imperii (St. Petersburg, I897), pp. I34-6. Fallmerayer, op. cit., pp. I83-91; Miller, op. cit., pp.
49-56. Michaelreceives no mention in the fulsome honors list of membersof the Komnenos family included in the Epitaph on his brother
Alexios II (died I330), composed by Constantine
Loukites (ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'AV&CA?KTa 'lEpooovupTrlKrisETaXuo?oyias, I, pp. 42I-9). 24 One would like to know more about the
Maria Doukaina Akropolitissawho made over some of her property at Phanari to Maria Palaiologina, Despoina of the Mongols, before I351.
See documentof OctoberI35I in Miklosichand
Muller, Acta et Diplomata, I, pp. 3I2-i7. 25 Miklosich and Muller, Acta et Diplomata, a report of the hieromonachos I, pp. 102-4:
Nikandrosto the synod in Constantinopleabout the gift to himthreeyearsearlierof somelandnear the Anastasis Monasteryfrom the then Abbot
DONALD M. NICOL
254
THE FAMILY OF CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES
George Akropolites (1217-I282) m.
Eudokia I~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I________________________________ Constantine Akropolites (died ca. I324)
I Melchisedek monk
m.
Maria Komnene Tornikina Akropolitissa I
I
Theodora (Akropolitissa) m. Alexios Philanthropenos pinkernis (died ca. I335-I340)
I
I
daughter m. Michael son of John II Komnenos and Eudokia of Trebizond
THE LITERARY WORKS OF CONSTANTINE AKROPOLITES
Following is a list of the writings of Constantine Akropolites, published and unpublished, known to the present writer, who does not claim it to be exhaustive. Immediately below are the abbreviations that have been used: BHG3= BibliothecaHagiographicaGraeca, 3rd ed. by F. Halkin (Subsidia Hagiographica Graeca, 8a [Brussels, I957]). Delehaye = H. Delehaye, "Constantini Acropolitae Hagiographi Byzantini epistularum manipulus," Analecta Bollandiana, LI (I933), pp. 263-84. Ehrhard = A. Ehrhard, Uberlieferung und Bestand der Hagiographischenund Homiletischen Literatur der griechischen Kirche, I. Die Uberlieferung, III (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 52, I, II [Leipzig, I943, I952]). Hierosol. Bibl. = A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'IEpoCoXupriTrnK I-V (St. BipAIoS1K11K, Petersburg, I891-1915). Makarios Tarchaniotes, eISaoEl Kal ToO KTrfrTOpoS rTarris, TOO Ipeyavou XoyoeTOvu &cidvou.Nikandros
had built a chapel and some kellia on this land which the said Grand Logothete, for reasons best known to himself, had ordered to be demolished.
son (died I295)
I. The Published Works A. Encomia of Saints Athanasios of Atramyttion. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Varia Graeca Sacra (St. Petersburg, I909), pp. 14I-7; Ph. Photopoulos, Nka licov, XII (1912), pp. 665-72. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, I6; BHG3, no. I92.
Barbaros. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-KeraTameus, 'Ava&EKT-ra 'IpooXuwupiTirKiS XvoXoyias, I (St. Petersburg, I891), pp. 405-20. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, I7; BHG3, no. 220.
Constantine and Helena. Ed. by C. Simonides, 'OpOoSo6cov'E7AXvcov&oXoyiKai ypapai Tc-aaapEs (London, I853), pp. I-37; extracts in M. Gedeon, 'EiKKrlaiao'rrlKi 'A?Xeila, XXII (I902), pp. 22I-3, 230-3. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 121, 22; Ehrhard,
pp. 60, 62, 64, 92, 336, 457, 826, 878; BHG3, no. 368. Demetrios, with two Letters to the Thessalonians. Ed. by A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'AvaXEKTa 'IEpocoXu"ITTI&KqS ITaxuoXoyiaS, I, pp. I60-215; cf. pp. 492-3. Cf. BHG3, nos. 540-2. Eudokimos. Ed. by C. Loparev, Izvestija russkago archeologiceskago Instituta v Konstantinopole, XIII (1908), pp. I99219; and separately as Zitie sv. Evdokima (Sofia, I908), pp. 48-68. Cf. Ehrhard,
CONSTANTINE p. 840; BHG3, no. 6o6; Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, I5.
Gerasimos. Ed. by M. Koikylides, Al rrapa TOV 'lopS&avv caupai KaXapgovos Kal ayfou IEppaaiutou(Jerusalem, I902), pp. 27-39. Cf. Delehaye, p. 266, I7; BHG3, no. 696.
John of Damascus. Acta Sanctorum, May, II (Paris and Rome, I866), pp. viii-xxxvi;
Migne, PG, CXL, cols. 812-85. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, 2I; Ehrhard, p. 476; BHG3, no. 885. Leontios. Acta Sanctorum, June, IV (I867), pp. 463-7. Cf. Delehaye, p. 265, 8; BHG3, no. 987. Theodore Tiron. Acta Sanctorum,November, IV
(Brussels,
I925),
pp.
72-6.
Cf.
Delehaye, p. 265, 6; Ehrhard, p. 822; BHG3, no. I765n. Theodosia of Constantinople. Acta Sanctorum, May, VII (1866), pp. 67-82; Migne, PG, CXL, cols. 893-936. Cf. Ehrhard, pp. 292, 336, 967; BHG3, no. I774.
Thomais of Lesbos. Acta Sanctorum, November,
IV
(1925),
pp.
242-6.
Cf.
Delehaye, p. 265, 9; BHG3, no. 2457. B. Otherworks Speech on the dedication of the restored church of the Anastasis. Ed. by Delehaye, A6yoS EIS Triv v Tr s TOU Kuplou StlalqrTK6S, op. 279-84. Cf. BHG3,
aKacxivicv TOU vao 'jcov 'AvaoTa-'a?coS cit., Appendix, pp. App. II, no. 8o9g.
Antiphon to the Theotokos. Ed. by M. Treu, NEos Kc86it TrAv Epycov TOU Ey60IVouAooOT"ou KcovocavTivou TOU 'AKpoTroXi-ro, AEXTriovTrfs 'loToptKflS Kai 'EeyoAoyIKfjs 'ETa-pias T-f 'EAAaa8os, IV (I892), pp. 42-4. Testaments. Ed. by M. Treu, AtlaKiKrr TOU p'y&Aou XoyoerTou Kcovo-ravirfvou TOU ibid., pp. 45-9; 'ETrpa 'AKporroMiTOU, AiaOfiKfl, ibid., pp. 49-50.
Homiletics. Ed. by Ph. Photopoulos, 'AV?KSoTa (Koovo-rTavrrvoTO5 'AKpoTroArTOU),Nka ticbv, XI (I9II), pp. 862-9: iETs'P OUCvnS Kai vrio-reiaS lEyXpIal5 (pp. 863-4); 0e7lS' ?i KaT' &p?TT1VP1co'rov (pp. 864-9); ibid., XII (1912), pp. 278-8I: "EKpppaolsTfrS KaTa T11VMEyaXrlv KupIaK1v (TOOi a'cOXa)TrEATfls.
255
AKROPOLITES
Fables. Ed. by M. Treu, Kcovoravrivov 'AKpo-ro'ITouMuiot, Ae3Ariov etc., III (I891), PP. 445-50. Letters. Ed. by M. Treu, AEATiovetc., III (I891), pp. 450-I (one letter); id., "Ein
Kritiker des Timarion," Byzantinische Zeitschrift, I (I892), pp. 36I-5 (one letter);
Delehaye,
op. cit., pp.
272-8
(nineteen letters). II. The Unpublished works A. Encomia of Saints Epicharis. Cf. Delehaye, p. 269, 37; BHG3, no. 2124.
Euphrosyne. Cf. Delehaye, p. 266, I2; BHG3, no. 626m. Euplos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 265, 5; BHG3, no. 63op. Floros and Lauros. Cf. Delehaye, p. 269, 33; BHG3, no. 666m. George. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Der heilige Georg in der griechischen Uberlieferung, ed. by A. Ehrhard, Abhandlungen der konigl. bayer. Akad. der Wissenschaften, XXV, 3 (Munich, I9II), pp. 227-3I; Delehaye, pp. 270-I; Ehrhard, pp. 92,
336, 826; BHG3, no. 684a. John the Theologian. Cf. A. PapadopoulosKerameus, Maupoyop8rrEMos BtpXioIrDKir(=
'EAAjvlOIK6Ol1XoAoyiKos OxA-
Aoyos ?v KcovoravTnvouvroA6i,XVI, Suppl. [I885]), p. 75, no. 86, 7; Delehaye, pp. 270-I; Ehrhard, pp. 225, 292, 336;
BHG3, no. 932c. John (III) Vatatzes, Emperor. Cf. Delehaye, p. 266, I4; BHG3, no. 934c. Metrophanes. Cf. P. Heseler, "Das Enkomion auf Metrophanesdes Konstantinos Akropolites," Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrb., XIII (I937), pp. 96-9; Delehaye, p. 265, 4; BHG3, no. I278z. Neophytos. Cf. H. Delehaye, "Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Graecorum Bibliothecae Barberinianae de Urbe," Analecta Bollandiana, XIX (1900), pp. 9I, II3; Delehaye, p. 266, I5; Ehrhard,
p. 477; BHG3, no. I326d. Nikephoros. Cf. Delehaye, p. 266, I6; BHG3, no. I334d.
Oraiozele. Cf. Delehaye, pp. 266, I3, 270; BHG3, no. 2180.
256
DONALD
Panteleimon. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 2I; BHG3, no. I4i8b. Paraskeve. Cf. Hierosol. Bibl., I, p. 122, 14; Delehaye, p. 270; BHG3, no. i42ox. Photios and Aniketos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 268, 32; BHG3, no. I544f. Prokopios. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, 20; BHG3, no. I582c. Sampson. Cf. Delehaye, p. 267, I9; BHG3, no. I6i5d. Theodotos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 265, 3; BHG3, no. I783m. Zotikos. Cf. Delehaye, p. 264, i; BHG3, no.
M. NICOL schen Litteratur,p. 388; GeorgiiAcropolita, Opera, ed. by A. Heisenberg, II (Leipzige I903), p. xxiv; H. Hunger, Katalog der griechischen Handschriften der 6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, I (Vienna, I96I), Codices Historici, 99, 2, p. I07.26
Rhetorical and minor works. Cf. Delehaye, pp. 264, 2; 265, 7; 267, 22, 23; 268, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 3I; Hierosol. Bibl. I, pp. 120-1, 500.
III. Letters addressed to Constantine Akropolites
2480.
B. Otherworks Letters. The Codex Ambrosianus H. 8i Sup., fols. 270-333V, contains I94 letters of Constantine Akropolites, of which nineteen are edited by Delehaye, pp. 272-8; cf. p. 269, 34. Letter no. I84 (fol. 33IV) refers to an encomium of the Emperor (Andronikos II) which Constantine composed on some festive occasion. Account of a miracle wrought by the icon of Christ called the Antiphonetes. Cf. Delehaye, pp. 265-6, IO-II; BHG3, App. II, no. 797 f. Chronicle. The Codex Vindobonensis Hist. Graec. 99, fols. I5r-35r, contains a Chronicle of Roman and Byzantine affairs from Aeneas to A.D. I260 (or I26I), with notes relating to fourteenthcentury emperors added by a later hand. It is entitled: TOU&aKpOTroAoiTou KupoOI Kai puyaxou xoyoe-rTOU. ETITO"ij apX)(i TCOV poco,aicov
ETriKpaTEias KaCKTiVOs
KaT6ayOVratl Kai TrcOSpcoia.coti EKAl&rjrav. The beginning and four ex-
tracts from this work are printed with a description of the manuscript by A. Heinrich, Die Chronik des Johannes Sikeliota derWienerHofbibliothek.Jahresberichtdes K. K. erstenStaats-Gymnasiums in Graz (Graz, I892), pp. IO-I5. This should probably be ascribed to Constantine Akropolites, though, as Heinrich, loc. cit., p. 10, remarks, the pedantic and unliterary nature of the composition reflects little credit on its author. Cf. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantini-
The following were among Constantine's correspondents: Gregory of Cyprus. Four letters, ed. by S. Eustratiades, 'EKKAXTicYaaitKOS Oa&poS,I nos. V 2, 38, 39; (1908), (I9IO), no. I69. Cf. W. Lameere, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de Grigoirede Chypre, patriarchede Constantinople(I283-1289) (Brussels-Rome, I937), nos. 2, 38, 39, i83.
Nikephoros Choumnos. Four letters, ed. by J. F. Boissonade, AnecdotaNova (Paris, I844), nos. 79, 80, 8i, 83, pp. 97-IOO, 103-5. Theodore Hyrtakenos. One letter, ed. by F. J. G. La Porte-du Theil, Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Nationale (Paris, I8oo), no. 46, p. I3. Manuel Moschopoulos. One letter, unpublished, in Cod. Coislin. 34I, fols. 305-6. Cf. R. Devreesse, BibliothequeNationale. Departement des manuscrits. Catalogue des manuscritsgrecs, II. Le Fonds Coislin (Paris, I945), pp. 325-6; Krumbacher, op. cit., pp. 546-7. 26 A. Heisenberg, loc. cit., describes the Chronicle as continuingup to the year A.D. I323, but
the last event dated in the manuscript(fol. 35r) is the recapture of Constantinopleby Michael VIII in July 6768 (which should read 6769 = 126I), and in the notes added by a later hand the last date recorded is 6849 (== I34I), the year of the death of AndronikosII Palaiologos. I am greatly indebted to ProfessorI. Sevcenko for much helpful advice in the preparationof this note and more particularlyfor lending me photographs of the relevant sections of Cod. Vindob. Hist. Graec. 99 and Cod. Ambros. H. 81 Sup.
M @ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' X11..,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,
4.~~~~~~~~~~~ 2X1RY
it
S35
IC.
-;-
lSol.&-r^
/
W.,,.,,
'v
V ~ i:.
;i,
'.
'
,J[p1
'
-J
!
?
I:~,:..~,,,~ -A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MN
,"'!_~ i!^
.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
521
-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I
'U 1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~""' '_ , ;r::..
.~;,9,v
,-
OA 11 ,*~"w
_,_
t/~ y..] ..'~:"X""m-m
. '"i:
1.
Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria
X
._~. ...;..
..
'VA
L
f
!^^
gW
iSAx)
2.
Detail of Lower Left Corner of Frame. Constantine Akropolites
3.
*If'
t,6
"
Detail of Lower Right Corner of Frame. Maria Komnene Tornikina Akropolitissa
Moscow, Tretjakov Gallery. Icon of the Theotokos Hodegetria
The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1964 and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies Author(s): Roman Jakobson Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 257-265 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291236 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
THE BYZANTINE MISSION TO THE SLAVS Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of i964 and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies ROMANJAKOBSON BOTH Thessalonian brothers are presented by two quite diverse Latin sources of their epoch in nearly identical terms. Quirillus quidam, nacione Grecus is praised in the oldest version of the Czech Latin Christian's legend. QuidamGraecus,Methodiusnomine is scorned in the Frankish document Conversio Bagoariorumet Carantanorum.Both brothers were Greek by origin, education, cultural background, and inclination; both rendered important services to the Byzantine Empire and Church, and both were sent by the Emperor and apparently also (takoze i) by the Patriarch on a responsible mission to Moravia. Father Dvornik's momentous volume-Les Legendesde Constantinet de Methode vues de Byzance (Prague, I933)-and his lifelong inquiry into the activities of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius among the Slavs showed that their manifold work must be studied and interpreted in the light of Byzantine cultural, ecclesiastic, and political problems, as the title of his book suggests. It was the idea of an indissoluble connection between the Cyrillo-Methodian legacy and its Eastern Roman fountainhead which inspired the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium on the Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Doubts had been cast on the Old Church Slavonic Vitae of Constantine-Cyril and Methodius as to the age of these two legends, or at least of their Slavic texts, and as to the trustworthiness of their factual data. In the Analecta Bollandiana of I955, P. Meyvaert and P. Devos demonstrated that the end of 882 is the terminus ante quem the Vita of Constantine the Philosopher had been composed Sclavorum litteris, and that the supplementary Vita of his brother and successor Methodius must also have been 17
written in Moravia and only a few years later. Equally definitive is the following rejoinder to the skeptics. Professor Francis Dvornik's introductory lecture "Ninth-Century Moravia and the Byzantine Mission" summed up and substantially reinforced his argumentation for the high reliability and value of the various historical testimonies preserved in both Vitae. Their reports about the intercourse of the mission with Constantinople and Rome find convincing foundation and motivation in the light of the evolving relations between the papacy and Byzantium. The organic connection between the religious, cultural, and political purposes of the Byzantine mission, and the tenacious fight of Moravian Slavs for total independence from Frankish pressure and infiltration becomes ever more evident. The Byzantine mission differs radically in its scope, cultural background, and intentions from the rudimentary ecclesiastic organization under the patronage of the Passau bishopric; the former agency cannot be regarded as a continuation of the latter, and the Vita Methodii could therefore praise his and his brother's Moravian activities nostri populi gratia, cuius nemo unquam curam gessit. Cyril's first aim on arriving in Moravia was to supply the young Church with liturgical books in the Slavic language. The brothers were not of the Roman but of the Byzantine obedience; hence, there is nothing dubious in the circumstantial and rapturous report of the Vita Constantini about the Slavic liturgy long before their visit to Rome and the papal approval of this daring innovation. "The Byzantine Background of the Moravian Mission" was the topic of the paper sent 257
258
ROMAN JAKOBSON
by Professor George Ostrogorsky from Belgrade. The mission to Moraviawas an impressive manifestation of Byzantine religious and cultural expansion and belongs to the same great decade as Constantinople's efforts to cement contacts with the Slavic South and East. In the gradual process of regaining Sclavinias, the organization of the Thessalonian region as a Byzantine theme in the early ninth century was a significant achievement. Thessalonica, with its bilingual population, was the principal gate leading from the Empire to the Slavic world. The highest aspirations of the Byzantine State and Church found in Constantine of Thessalonia a most remarkableintellectual exponent, who helped to further the awakening of selfawareness among the Slavs and who assisted them in their defense against German encroachment. Professor George C. Soulis surveyed "The Legacy of Cyril and Methodius to the Southern Slavs." After its collapse in Moravia, the work of the Slavic apostles was saved for the Slavs and Europe by Bulgaria when its ruler Boris, in his endeavor to establish a national church, protected and encouraged the Slavic missionaries who sought refuge in his land. Thus, the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition was preserved and further cultivated in Ochrid and Preslav, two great and dissimilar centers which created a rich literature and culture Byzantine in inspiration, yet Slavic in language and ideology. This trend, inaugurated in Moravia, developed in Bulgaria, and further transmitted to the Serbs and Russians, succeeded in converting its Byzantine premises into a program of national self-determination and universal equality, with particular emphasis on the sovereign rights of Slavic, as well as any other vernacular, in ecclesia and in all branches of spiritual life. In his lecture on "The Heritage of Cyril and Methodius in Russia," Professor Dimitri Obolensky was able to trace, despite the paucity of direct evidence, the initial stages of Christianity in Russia and the penetration of the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition into the Kievan state. It is beyond doubt that St. Vladimir's baptism, largely patronized by Byzantine authorities, was followed by a rapid establishment of Slavic liturgy in
Russia. Apparently these authorities realized that the Church of the Slavic apostles was the only one that could be successfully imposed upon the numerous population of that powerful and distant country. By the eleventh century priests of Slavic tongue, both natives and newcomers from abroad, mainly from Bulgaria, must have been active in Kievan Russia. The Russian Primary Chronicle cherished the memory of the Slavic apostles and recognized their fundamental contribution to the enlightenment of the Russian people. The Cyrillo-Methodian literature of Moravia took over the eastern patristic belief in the Pentecostal abrogation of Babel and identified the emergence of the Slavic liturgy with the gift of tongues, and this idea was echoed by the Primary Chronicle. The same composite quotation from Isaiah which was used in Moravian writings, especially in the Vita Constantini, was reproduced by the Primary Chronicleto glorify Vladimir's educational efforts, which were in this way equated with Rastislav's and Constantine's joint work in Moravia; and what particularly exemplified the vitality of this tradition in Russia was that St. Stephen of Perm, enlightener of the Zyrians and translator of the Scripture into their vernacular in the late fourteenth century, was praised in his Vita by a repetition of the same quotation, and that, in general, Epiphanius the Wise, the author of this Vita, modeled it upon the early Cyrillo-Methodianliterature. The lecture of Professor Horace G. Lunt was devoted to "Greek Influences in Early Slavonic." From the beginningthe language of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission was fashioned upon Greek; direct borrowings and especially translations from Greek built a substantial layer of the Church Slavonic vocabulary, complemented by a strong influence of Greek upon word derivation and composition, phraseology and syntax, and style. The radiation of calques from Greek in Christian terminology widely oversteps the limits of Church Slavonic proper, encompasses the entire Slavic territory, and continues despite the later restriction in the number of countries adhering to Slavic liturgy. The expansion of Old Church Slavonic in the ninth to eleventh centuries was facilitated by the lasting lexical, grammatical, and phonologic
THE BYZANTINE
MISSION TO THE SLAVS
proximity of all Slavic vernaculars. Old Church Slavonic assumed the role of a common Slavic literary language, intended from the beginning to fulfill all spiritual tasks and at the time of its maximal inter-Slavic expansion, in the eleventh century, used by Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Russians, Czechs, and Poles. In countries that clung to Slavic liturgy, regional recensionsof ChurchSlavonic served for ecclesiastic writings, while literature of a more secular character resorted to various hybrid combinations of this language with the native vernacular. The basic unity of the Church Slavonic language was preserved and supported by repeated efforts to eliminate divergences: e.g., the dependence of the Serbian recension on the Russian one in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuries; the second South Slavic influence upon Russian from the end of the fourteenth century; the mutual adaptations of the Moscow and Kievan recensions, with orientation toward the former in the sixteenth and toward the latter in the seventeenth century; likewise in the seventeenth century an adherence of the Croatian recension to the Kievan model; the Russian recension adopted by the Serbs in the eighteenth, and by the Bulgarians in the nineteenth century. Unfortunately, no history of Church Slavonic in its different regional variants and their interaction has yet been written. These conservative and expansive tendencies furthered literary and cultural exchange between countries of Slavic liturgy. Serial translations which at different moments in different Slavic regions vacillated between a creative adaptation and a slavish, mechanistic literalism secured the ties between Church Slavonic and Greek, and the history of this translational technique and of the Greek imprint borne by Church Slavonic and by those literary languages which preserved a Church Slavonic substratum still awaits detailed investigation. Professor Antonin Dostal discussed "The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy." According to the Vita Methodii, both Greek and Latin missionaries must have worked in Moravia before the arrival of the Thessalonian brothers. The Old Church Slavonic liturgic texts have to be interpreted rather as free adjustments than as literal translations of 17*
259
foreign models. The surmise that ConstantineCyril introduced a Slavic adaptation of Latin liturgy is based on the Kievan leaflets, but they differ in language from his authentic writings and apparently the text of these leaflets was translated at a later date; perhaps it belongs even to the Bohemian period of Church Slavonic worship, although Bohemia of the tenth century also maintains vestiges of the Byzantine rite. The question whether or not the liturgy of St. Peter was translated and used by the brothers can hardly be answered affirmatively. As to the Prague fragments,their text is translated from Greek, but both the source of their composition and the origin of their protograph remain unclear, and we still face the urgent task of applying the modern techniques for making the underlayer of this palimpsest available. Presumably the Byzantine mission in Moravia first introduced a Slavonic version of John Chrysostom's liturgy, as a fragment of this translation in the Sinai leaflets testifies. The coexistence of Slavonic with Greek or Latin in the Cyrillo-Methodian mass remains undetermined. Also the question whether Church Slavonic penetrated into Poland from the Cyrillo-Methodian mission or only later from Bohemia is still controversial. "Old Church Slavonic Poetry" was approached by Professor Roman Jakobson. This poetry, hitherto usually overlooked in mediaeval studies, belongs to the most abundant and remarkable products of the powerful Byzantine impact upon the Slavic civilization. It was deeply rooted in the wide creative activities of the two truly bilingual brothers and endowed the Moravian literature of the 86o's to the 88o's with magnificent masterpieces of both hymnody and paraenesis. Throughout the tenth and eleventh centuries, in all the regional variants of Old Church Slavonic language and culture, poetic art continued the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition. The late Middle Ages witnessed a further evolution of this poetry in those countries which still used Church Slavonic as their ecclesiastic language. Finally, the formation of modern Russian poetry in the eighteenth century and its subsequent drift were much influenced by the liturgical tradition of ecclesiastic chants. Thanks to progress in the comparative investigation of Byzantine and
260
ROMAN JAKOBSON
Church Slavonic chants, students of the song books copied in Russia in the eleventh to thirteenth centuries can detect and reconstruct their prototypes which prove to be at least two to three centuries older. In particular, the analysis of the early Slavic original canons enables us to ascribe to the Moravian mission of the 870's and 88o's, and to its leader Methodius, not only the canon for St. Demetrius of Thessalonica but also, beyond any doubt, the Church Slavonic Hirmologion, and to throw new light upon the vexed question of the divine service practiced by this mission. The intimate connection of this canon with the CyrilloMethodian mission is attested by the final ode, a poignant yearning, in the struggle against "the cruel trilinguals and heretics," for a return from wanderings over strange lands to the native Thessalonica, while the close textual and metrical coherence between the canon's troparia and hirmoi proves the anterior Slavic translation of the Hirmologion. (Both this paper and the following two are to appear in Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae: Studies on the Fragmenta Chiliandarica Palaeoslavica, II-Fundamental Problems of Early Slavic Music and Poetry.) Professor Oliver Strunk analyzed "Two Chilandari Choir Books," the Triodion Chilandari 307 and the Hirmologion Chilandari 308, both published in I957 as a part of the series MonumentaMusicae Byzantinae. These two choir books, like other ancient monuments of Slavic chant, preserve vestiges of archaic musical and liturgical practices; they can shed new light on the early history of Byzantine music, and the Triodion in particular might even be said to constitute a compensating replacement for a type of Byzantine manuscript that must once have existed but is no longer extant. Professor Strunk concluded that i. the archaic Slavic notation is of Byzantine origin; 2. it must have been introduced well before the year 1000, perhaps as early as 950; 3. at some time after the year ioo000,perhaps as late as I050, it was modified in certain respects and these modifications were again of Byzantine origin; and 4. in certain other respects it is an original creation because it restricts the use of some of its borrowed signs in ways quite unfamiliar to Byzantium
and because it has invented at least one sign of its own. Even with these modifications, however, the Slavic notation continues to retain its archaic character, for the revisions to which it was subjected were minor ones, affecting only isolated details. However intimately one may come to understand the workings of an archaic notation like this one, to think in terms of a positive transcription on the five-line staff is simply to deceive oneself. Under favorable conditions, and with the help of unambiguous, unimpeachable controls, in particular of a Byzantine control, one can as a rule work out a sort of reconstruction, but the result is highly tentative. As such an experiment, a musical reconstruction of a Slavic translated hirmos is proposed. Professor Kenneth J. Levy dealt with "The Earliest Slavic Melismatic Chants"; he analyzed an Old Russian kontakarion, and concluded that the origins of the Slavic melismatic chants are firmly rooted in Byzantium. The enigma of the kontakarion notation is finally opened to solution. This notation enables the musicologist to explore the structure of the asmatic melodies. Their centonate-formulaic design underlies the compositional process for many, if not most, early liturgies, and the Slavic chants, preserving the earliest state of the Byzantine melismatic traditions, have a unique contribution to make toward the understanding of this process. The notation of these Slavic chants shows not only archaisms related to the early characters of Byzantine notation, but also points of contact with Greekdevelopments of the eleventh century. The question whether these chants were taken over from Byzantium during the same ninth-century wave of musical and liturgical activity that witnessed the borrowing of the syllabic chants or somewhat later must be left open. In his second lecture, on "Recent Archaeological Discoveries in the Territories of Great Moravia," Professor Dvornik gave a condensed account of the Moravian and Slovak excavations conducted on a large scale since I948. Remnants of sixteen or seventeen stone churches of the ninth century have so far been discovered, whereas until recently it was thought that there were no stone churches in the state of Rastislav and
THE BYZANTINE
MISSION TO THE SLAVS
Sventopluk. The main finds are concentrated around two neighboring Moravian settlements-Star6 Mesto, presumably the seat of Archbishop Methodius and his disciples, and Mikulcice, the probable stronghold of Prince Rastislav, with remains of stone walls, a stone palace, and mansions of nobles. Among the churches found in these centers, several were built after the advent of the Byzantine mission, e.g., the third church unearthed in Mikulcice, the largest discovered so far in Moravia, and other churches with an elongated apse. Similar church architecture is found at a later period in Southern Russia, where Byzantine missionaries were active. Most probably this style was brought to Moravia by the Byzantine mission. Yet, since this type of construction was dominant in Pannonia, Noricum, and Istria during the early Christian period, it could have been revived in Moravia as well by missionaries from Istria and Dalmatia. As to the churches belonging to the first half of the ninth century, Professor Dvornik rejects the controversial hypothesis of their connection with the Irish-Scottish style and with the unlikely activities of Irish missionaries in Moravia. He raises the question of possible links with the Byzantine cities on the Adriatic. Among the examples of minor arts, only a few objects so far discovered could be positively regarded as imported from Byzantium, but local workshops of native and immigrant artisans in Moravia must have adopted Byzantine patterns. The Symposium, as was stated in the concluding remarks, illustrated the farreaching role of the Cyrillo-Methodian mission in space and time, and the wide range of religious, cultural, and political problems which were brought forward and bequeathed to Slavdom by the brothers' venture. The Byzantine roots of their work and legacy were carefully traced, whereas all the incessant, yet groundless, conjectures about some preCyrillian Slavic alphabet (despite the clear statement of the Vita Constantini XIV: Ne sgt" togo obreli, "it has not been found"), and attempts to attribute an exaggerated cultural significance to earlier missions in Moravia or to the faint rudiments of Slavic translations before Constantine's Evangeliary, and to deny to the Byzantine mission
261
any role in the erection of Moravian and Pannonian churches, were explicitly disproved. In the discussion of the Byzantine impact on the Cyrillo-Methodiantradition, it was made clear that these cultural impulses came not only from Constantinople but also from Thessalonica and from Adriatic coastal cities. The most important feature of the mission was the vernacularization of the Scripture and divine service, as both Constantine's poetic Prologue (Proglas") to the translated Gospels, and the two Vitae eloquently confirm. According to the Vita ConstantiniXIV, Rastislav asked the Emperor to send a teacher who would translate the true Christian faith "into our own language" (the formula v" svoi ny jgzyk" with the predictable anteposition of the enclitic dative ny obviously cannot be regarded as an interpolation), and in his answer the Emperor refers to the letters revealed to Constantine by the Lord "for your language" (v" vas' jQzyk") as an extraordinary privilege which will "rank you among the great nations that praise God in their own language" (svoim' jgzykom'). This tolerance toward a "barbarian" vernacular, acknowledged in the Vita itself as unusual, is strategically explicable by the remoteness and borderline position of the Moravian and Pannonian area between the East and the West, circumstances which subsequently called forth a similar, though temporary, compliance on the part of Rome. Such a concession was more easily made by Byzantium, with its practice of laissez-faire than by the West with its inveterate tenet tres sunt autem linguae sacrae, his enim tribus linguis super crucem Domini a Pilato fuit causa eius scripta. One must also remember Professor Dvornik's suggestion that, of the two powerful parties fighting for control of the Byzantine Church and state in the midninth century, the more liberal, democratic, and flexible faction-originating in the Greens of the Hippodrome-was apparently favored by Constantine. The ideological foundations for the basic Cyrillo-Methodianprinciple-the equality of all languages and peoples and the sacred right of any vernacular tongue to be used for all spiritual tasks up to the Holy Communionwere drawn from the Bible and Eastern
262
ROMAN JAKOBSON
Patristic literature. All right of seniority was denied to languages, since all of them originated simultaneously at Babel. The reference to the division of tongues emerges in the early Cyrillo-Methodianapologetic literature and serves as an introduction to the Old Russian letopisi; the persistent usage of beginning Czech mediaeval chronicles with a narrative about the Tower of Babel was ironically countered by Enea Silvio Piccolomini. The idea of the Pentecostal miracle, which changed the multiplicity of languages from the original punishment into a divine gift of tongues and impelled all languages to glorify the Lord, runs throughout Slavic literatures of Cyrillo-Methodian inspiration, from the Moravian writings to the Russian Primary Chronicle and to the Latin Pentecost sequence of the twelfth century, which praised omnigenarumbeatissimamunera linguarum predestined to teach omnes nationes, and which entered into the missals of the Prague archdiocese (AnalectaHymnica, LIII, 72). This Pentecostal image of every man hearing the apostles speak in his own language and understanding the divine words had been developed in the Eastern Patristic literature, and later, as A. Borst points out, became much more popular in the marginal areas of the Empire than in its metropolis. Scripture and liturgy in the people's own language was interpreted by the mission to the Slavs as indispensable to comprehension. Particularly significant are the favorite references to the Scripture adduced to consecrate this doctrine. The claim for the comprehension of all the prayers by "all the brethren" was supported in Constantine's Proglas", and in his Venetian disputation with the preachers of the "trilingual heresy," by quotations from the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and in the Cyrillo-Methodian tradition the Slavic apostles are constantly represented as the true heirs of St. Paul. The introductions to the Vitae (Const.I and Meth. II) and the alleged letter of the Emperor Michael to Rastislav (Const.XIV) paraphrase the verses of I Tim. 2:4 and 7; God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth," whereunto He ordained a teacher-namely, Paul, according to the Epistle, or, in the two Vitae, Constantine and Methodius, respectively. Later
Stephen, the teacher of the Zyrians, was to be similarly introduced in his Vita. The metaphors of Isaiah's verses (29:I8; 32:3, 4; 35:5, 6) about the ears of the deaf and the eyes of the blind being opened to apprehend the words of the book, and the tongue of the stammerers (gognivyix") being ready to speak plainly were utilized in order to describe the effect of the sacred Scriptures and mass in the native language. This imagery is paraphrased in the Proglas", the Vita Constantini, the Moravian Panegyric to Both Teachers of the Slavic People, and, praising Vladimir's extension of the brothers' work to Russia, in Ilarion's Discourse of Law and Grace and in the Primary Chronicle. After the schism this imagery inspired a rancorous tract against the Western Church, which was accused of having abandoned Peter the Apostle in favor of an imaginary imposter, Peter the Stammerer (gugnivyi), the adversary of vernacular liturgy. In both the Venetian disputation of Constantine and the Primary Chronicle, Isaiah's images are followed by quotations from the Psalms, especially 95-"O sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, all the earth." Against the "trilinguals" Constantine brings forward the concluding chapter of Mark-i6:17 "In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues." The idea that the greater the variety of languages that sing the glory of the Lord, the greater the joy of the heavens runs through the entire tradition. The multiformity of languages and, in Vladimir Monomach's formulation, the uniqueness of each human creature, the principium individuationis, is considered the greatest of the Creator's miracles. The notion of new tongues is highly important in the further development of the Cyrillo-Methodiantrend. Thus, Ilarion recalls the precept of Matthew 9:I7, to put new wine not into old bottles but into new ones, and concludes that new teaching demands new peoples and new languages: novoe ucenie, novy mexy, novy jazyky, novoe i s"bljudet'sja,jakoze i jest'. In this connection the Panegyric to Both Teachers, composed in Moravia shortly after the death of Methodius, is particularly revealing: "as two new apostles, they did not build their work on an alien foundation, but having
THE BYZANTINE
MISSION TO THE SLAVS
invented letters anew, they carried them out for a new tongue" (nova apostola ne na tugdem'osnovanii svoe delo poloz'gan" iznova pismena v"obrazs'ai s"vr'sistav"jgzyk" nov"). The alphabet was a visual symbol of a liturgic and literary language enjoying equal rights with all other tongues that exalt the Lord. Therefore, the Glagolitic letters were not supposed to resemble the Greek model, and this goal was partly achieved by recourse to Oriental patterns, partly perhaps by reshaping Byzantine cryptography. The puzzling Slavic changes in the Greek musical notation are possibly due to a similar intention. The requirement of a new form for a new content underlies the treatise of the monk Xrabr, compiled in Bulgaria at the beginning of the tenth century: it proclaims the superiority of the Slavic alphabet over the Greek, since the former is a Christian creation for pious purposes, while the latter is rooted in heathenism. From time to time questions are askedwhether the Latin mass would not have been in closer agreement with the people's belief in the magic power of the incomprehensible word; whether the emphasis on liturgic vernacular was not a blunder which caused the downfall of the work of the Slavic apostles, first in Moravia and later in Bohemia. Yet the Slavic people is said to have met the work of both teachers with joy (s" radostijq), as, almost five centuries earlier, Armenians reacted to the similar innovation of Nesrop, and we have no contrary evidence. Again, for the conjecture that the substitution of Slavic worship modeled upon Greek for a liturgy of Latin language and rite might have produced discontent, no proof can be furnished. The political background of the suppression of the Cyrillo-Methodian activities in both Moravia and Bohemia gives us no reason to suspect that without a vernacularliturgy they would have been able to survive. Above all, Constantine's warning, reported in his Vita XVI and based on Luke II:52-"Woe unto you, bookmen! for ye have taken away the key of comprehension"-indicates unambiguously that his entire ideology excluded any concession in the principle of common and total intelligibility and equality; there was really no place for an admission that among all the languages of the world declared
263
to be equal, a few traditionally liturgic languages were, in the terms of modern satire, "more equal." Partial defeats were unavoidable. Yet from the beginning, the work of the Byzantine mission had a wider destiny. In the four copies of Constantine's Proglas" "all the Slavs" (Slovene v'si) are summoned to listen to the Gospels translated into their language, and the three Serbian manuscripts preserve perfectly the syllabic pattern of the dodecasyllable: Teim' ze usly?ite I Slovene v'si ("Thereforehearken, all ye Slavs !"); so the arbitrary emendation-Slovene si ("hearken, ye Slavs, to this!") is not only clumsy but completely superfluous.Towardthe end of the poem the Slavic exhortation grows into a world-wide appeal, "ye nations," modeled upon Isaiah 34:I. The Slavic and the oecumenical scope of the mission alternate in the Vitae. According to the Vita Methodii VIII, the Pope said to the Pannonian ruler that Methodius was assigned "not only to thee but also to all those Slavic countries," while in the Vita ConstantiniXIV, Rastislav asks the Emperor to send a teacher who could translate the true Christian doctrine into the vernacular, "so that the other countries, on seeing that, would imitate us." Correspondingly, the Panegyric to Both Teachersof the Slavic People glorifies Constantine-Cyril for having taught the people to praise the Lord in their own language (v" svoi jfzyk"), thus "admonishing the whole world to sing in native tongues." If "all ye Slavs" were addressed, the question ariseswhether the message had been actually received and the legacy accepted. At the end of the first millennium Slavic dialects, to use EdwardSapir'sformulation,were"homogeneous enough to securethe common feeling and purposeneeded to create a norm." Throughout the early centuries of Slavic Christianity, according to the concept persuasively vindicated by R. Picchio, the communitalinguistica Slava ecclesiasticaessentially transcended the differencesamong the regional recensions of the Slavic written language and among the spiritual literary creations of the individual Slavic nations. Among the most significant manifestations of this supranationalunity, one may cite first the intensive inter-Slavic circulation of the ecclesiastical works, both translated and original, then the repeatedly cen-
264
ROMAN JAKOBSON
tripetal tendencies in the development of Church Slavonic, and finally a remarkable diffusion of new literary models. The interSlavic growth of favorite literary genres could be exemplified by the Bohemian, Russian, and Serbian princely vitae, which reach one of their supreme achievements in the Life of St. Sava. When the international ChurchSlavonic community is taken into account, it appears quite natural that numerous texts of the Bulgarian Golden Age and Czech writings of the tenth and eleventh centuries entered into the Russian literary repository; the various reflections of Czech hagiography in the early Russian Vitae and Eulogies are a corollary of this radiation. Prokop's Monastery on Sazava, the Bohemian center of Slavic liturgy in the eleventh century, must have maintained a lively intercourse with Kievan Russia; and even a Czech Church Slavonic Life and Martyrdom of Boris and Gleb, the most popular Russian saints, composed in Latin style and apparently imported from this monastery, entered into an Old Russian lectionary. Attempts of some students to place one of the local variants above all other Slavic literatures of the Middle Ages bear the stamp of biased subjectivism. The assertion that Old Russian literature, allegedly the only one endowed with chronicles and epics, excels in this regard the Old Bulgarian and early Czech letters forms a vicious circle, because Church Slavonic literature of Czech and Old Bulgarian recensions has been preserved almost exclusively through Russian copies and because original works of a secular tinge, e.g., the Russian letopisi and voinskie povesti, did not enter into inter-Slavic circulation. Old Bulgarian or Czech creations of secular content could hardly, therefore, be expected to have survived, and the original scope of these literatures simply remains unknown to us. Each ancient center of Church Slavonic literature-the Moravian seat of the Byzantine mission, Ochrid, Preslav, Prague, Kiev, Novgorod-leaves its own typical mark on the local production. Comparative evaluation of the technique of translation sometimes discloses a doctrinaire preconception of the critic himself. Approaches to the translator's task differ radically in Moravia, Bulgaria, Kievan Russia, the Tyrnovo school
of Euthymius, or Muscovy. For example, the detached Moravian attitude toward Greek models, which is manifested both in translations and in the Glagolitic letters, should not serve to belittle the literalism of Preslav, which found equally striking expression both in the reformed, Cyrillic alphabet and in the mass production of word-for-word translations. This encyclopedic activity enabled the First Bulgarian Czardom to provide the whole communita with a native version of manifold patristic and Byzantine works and with an amazingly expert, fecund, and lasting Slavic terminology for all the branches of contemporaneous erudition. While in Constantine's and Methodius' lifetime the Slavic translations were apparently made from Greek only, the following two centuries in Bohemia (and perhaps the very end of the ninth century in Moravia) witnessed many translations into Old Church Slavonic from Latin and vice versa, complementing thereby the Greek imprint upon Slavic literature and literary language by a Western impetus. However, the tradition of Slavicized Greek worship had not been lost in the Czech state of the tenth and eleventh centuries, to judge from several vestiges detected by Czech philologists (J. Frcek, J. Vasica, F. V. Mares), and furthermore the ChurchSlavonictranslationsfromLatin betray the Greek training of their Bohemian authors. It is true that the time of the first crusade puts an end to Slavic liturgy in Bohemia, but the strength of the historical precedents and the vitality of the Cyrillo-Methodian ideology continued for centuries to stimulate Czech spiritual development; these factors awakened national self-awarenessand encouraged the rise and growth of literature and scholarship in the native language; the same tradition underlay the effort of Charles IV to reinstate vulgare slavonicum as liturgic language in his Prague MonasteriumSlavorum in order to unify all Slavs in the Catholic faith, and, on the other hand, inspired the Hussite struggle for vernacular liturgy; the latter example was followed by Luther. In the seventeenth century both Comenius,in the name of the CzechReformation, and Bohuslav Balbfn, the outstanding Czech spokesman of the Counter Reformation, referred emphatically to the unalterable significance of the
THE BYZANTINE
MISSION TO THE SLAVS
Moravianmission and to its sacratissimamissa in the Slavic language, understandable to all the parishioners. The relationship of Church Slavonic culture in Moravia and Bohemia with the age-old Croatian Glagolitic tradition and with the temporary expansion of these Czech stimuli to Poland still demands a more systematic and objective exploration. The discussion whether the prolonged faithfulness of the Orthodox Slavic peoples to the Byzantine tradition was a benefit or a cultural handicap is futile. Who is greater and more original-the Bohemian Master of Trebonfiand the skillful responses to Latin models in Czech trecento poetry, or the coeval Russian Hesychasts-in painting, Andrej Rublev and in letters Epifanij the Sage with the other artists of the florid style ? In any case, no attentive and unprejudiced observer of Russian literature from the eleventh century onward could consider its wide range in the nineteenth century startling and unpredictable. The various stages and forms of symbiosis between Church Slavonic and the native colloquial speech gradually prepared the rich and multifarious constitution of the modern literary language; and with all its far-flunginnovations the literature of the St. Petersburg Empire is one bone and one flesh with the written and oral tradition of many centuries. The late Henri Gregoire tersely characterized this continuity when he confessed that, in order to gain a true insight into Leskov's prose, he found Byzantine
265
Greek to be a more adequate medium than modern French. It is the liturgic chant that stands behind modern poetry, and if word of mouth proves to be a particularly important factor in the formation of new Russian literature, it is because the Church Slavonic tradition was oriented primarily toward the Church, so that the secular genres became the chief dominion of folklore, and hence the latter took an extraordinary place in Russian verbal art as well as in that of other Greco-Orthodox Slavs. The inquiry into the different temporal and local variants of such fields as the Cyrillo-Methodianideology, the Church Slavonic language and literature, in particular liturgic poetry with its music, or the corresponding chapters of art history runs the risk of being curtailed and distorted when Slavic responses are treated without regard to Byzantine stimuli, or if, conversely, these responses are viewed as mere slavish replicas of foreign models. When, for instance, in the history of the Church Slavonic chant or of the Digenis epic in its Russian versions, the Slavic traditionalism which often surpasses the conservatism of the Greek forms, and the creative deviations from the Greek patterns, are both consistently taken into account, then Byzantino-Slavic studies substantially enrich both Slavic and Greek philology, poetics, metrics, and musicology. This reciprocal instruction was convincingly illustrated during the Symposium of I964.
Back Matter Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965) Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291237 Accessed: 09/07/2008 11:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=doaks. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
http://www.jstor.org
DUMBARTON OAKS PAPERS Out of Print VolumesI through I4 of in volumes are these Reprints preparation by the Johnson Reprint Corporation, iii Fifth Avenue, New York 3, N.Y., with whom orders may be placed direct. DumbartonOaks Papers I5 $Io.oo C. C. Vermeule III, M. H. Shepherd, Jr., R. Stillwell, G. Moravcsik, H. Buchthal, G. C. Soulis, I. Sevcenko, P. A. Underwood, E. J. W. Hawkins, P. Grierson, R. J. H. Jenkins, C. Mango, G. Downey DumbartonOaks Papers i6 $I2.00 P. Grierson, H. A. Wolfson, 0. Temkin, M. V. Anastos, H. Belting, S. Der Nersessian, R. J. H. Jenkins, I. geveenko, A. H. S. Megaw, E. J. W. Hawkins, M. M. Velimirovic, A. Diller, C. Mango DumbartonOaks Papers I7 $I2.00 A. H. M. Jones, M. Hadas, R. J. H. Jenkins, C. Mango, G. M. A. Hanfmann, E. Kitzinger, E. H. Kantorowicz, I. Lavin, S. Vryonis, Jr., A. H. S. Megaw, S. Eyice, K. Weitzmann, I. gevcenko DumbartonOaks Papers I8 $I2.00 G. C. Miles, M. Canard, F. Gabrieli, 0. Grabar, G. E. von Grunebaum, J. Meyendorff, D. Pingree, A. R. Bellinger, P. Bruun, J. P. C. Kent, C. H. V. Sutherland, E. C.Dodd, t T. Macridy, C. Mango, E. J. W. Hawkins, K. Weitzmann, A. Dikigoropoulos
DUMBARTON OAKS CATALOGUES Catalogueof Greekand Roman Antiquities in the DumbartonOaks Collection, I956 Gisela M. A. Richter $5.oo0 Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Mediaeval Antiquities in the DumbartonOaks Collection, Vol. I, Metalwork,Ceramics,Glass, Glyptics, Painting, I962; vol. II, Jewelry, Enamels, and Art of the Migration Period, I965
Marvin C. Ross
ea. $io.oo
Catalogueof the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collectionand in the Whittemore Collection, Vol. I, From Anastasius I to Maurice (49I-602),
I966
Alfred R. Bellinger
$20.00
Handbook of the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, $I.00
I955
DISTRIBUTED BY J. J. AUGUSTIN PUBLISHER LOCUST VALLEY, NEW YORK
STUDIES^
DUMBARTON OAKS Dumbarton Oaks Studies I. I950 Justin the First, A. A. Vasiliev
(Limited Edition, $Io.oo) $6.oo
Dumbarton Oaks Studies II. I95I The Season Sarcophagus in DumbartonOaks, George M. A. Hanfmann
Two volumes, $25.00
Dumbarton Oaks Studies III. I958 The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople; English Translation, Introduction and Commentary, $6.oo
Cyril Mango Dumbarton Oaks Studies IV. I958 The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew, Francis Dvornik
$6.oo
Dumbarton Oaks Studies V. I959 The Dynastic Porphyry Tombs of the Norman Period in Sicily, $8.00 Josef Deer Dumbarton Oaks Studies VI. I960 The Churchof San Marco in Venice. History, Architecture, Sculpture, Otto Demus
$Io.oo
Dumbarton Oaks Studies VII. I96I Byzantine Silver Stamps, Erica Cruikshank Dodd
$I5.00
Dumbarton Oaks Studies VIII. I962 Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, $Io.oo
Cyril Mango Dumbarton Oaks Studies IX. I965 Early Christian and Byzantine Political Philosophy. Origins and Background, Francis Dvornik Saint Sophia in Istanbul: An Architectural Survey Robert L. Van Nice Installment I, I966 DISTRIBUTED BY
$8.oo0
$40.00
J.J. AUGUSTIN PUBLISHER, LOCUST VALLEY, NEW YORK
