e 11 0 es or e e s - a .::.

0 e r_c 1• e • -""r ~o e

~

as - --c: -&" ...

~ - --- - • - • - - ,.. - -.. -- - - -• • .... -- • • - -- -s .. - --- -

616 Robin Cormack

Middle Ages was particularly precious and special· the patterns of reading texts and pictures do' not necessarily correspond with our expectations -- modern familiarity with reading the printed book can too easily anaesthetise us to the medieval experience ... There are also special difficulties in discussing "new" programs in manuscript illumination in view of the •disappearance" of the "models" which in so much consideration of the Byzantine book have been taken to be the operative comparative "evtdence".'' While it is salutary to accept the principle that manuscript production involved copying, once the necessary caution has been encouraged in identifying innovation, the further interest in describing the appearance of lost models seems fruitless. These models, so long as they are irrecoverable, can only be reconstructed according to hypothetical principles; and the accuracy of the reconstructions cannot be tested.

Perhaps the most studied type of book in our period is the psalter; it offers the case of a text of immense functional importance in church and monastic life both before and after Iconoclasm, and one to which was added considerable embellishments. Yet ultimately these manuscripts give little practical help in solving the problems of patronage; they only help to understand the limitations of the evidence. The contents of the cycles in the "marginal psalters" of the ninth century appear to be derived from a mixture of old and new elements; the dense c ye les of the Chludov psal ter can hardly be entirely new creations -- author portraits of David were probably a traditional feature of the (lost> earlier Byzantine psalters, and the pictures with explicit Iconoclast representations cannot be earlier than the eighth century. But this conclusion hardly offers any method of distinguishing innovation from copying. and takes our discussion nowhere.•• As for the patronage, the position is much the same as will later e•erge in St Sophia; candidates have been canvassed, in particular patriarchs Hethodios, Ignatios and Photios. The controversy itself spells out the problem; why is the identity of the patron inaccessible to us?

The Paris Psalter of the tenth century has given ris-e to equally elusive controversies. u Although the polar aat1on or v1eva about this manuscript as either COPJ or • Late Antique model (with only the format of tbe p .. e chaaaed) or as pastiche entirely from discrete e a ot Late Antique art haa been modified. the wl e ev ot 1t •• partlr copy or earlier models and

'I c• 1~tatton or aeparate elements atill leaves ~ e t aa~ure of lt. •new program•. Furthermore

t. e !dent.1 ty or ita patron ia unresolved • P•rt roJenitoe or an unknown courtier,

Byzantine Iconography 617

it can play no useful role in the construction of an argument about patronage.•,

This leaves us with the evidence of a few other manuscripts of the period which give more specific information about their patrons. Two major manuscripts of the tenth century actually record the name of their patrons, the so-called Bible of Niketas and the Bible of Leo.•• Apart from work on the sources of the miniatures. more constructive attention has been given in the case of the Leo Bible to the principles of iconographlc choice. Leo may be identified as the author of the verses in the frames of the miniatures which act as a verbal pendant to the visual images. The question which therefore arises in a modern inter­pretation of the cycle is whether one should be looking for the intentions of the patron in choosing each image and judging his originality within the historical development of Orthodox exegesis. or whether on the other hand the personality of this author may be subordinated to the evidence he gives of the ways of thinking of the society in which he was living. Leo has been characterised as an "amateur poet"; but thinking of him in this way (irrespective of whether the judgement is right or wrong) may hinder an under­standing of how the verses were constructed. How far did Leo have a free hand in his compositions, and how far did the Nicaean formula of 787 mean that such a patron would necessarily consult with the clergy in his formulations and have his ideas vetted? More important is the consideration of how a tenth-century court official developed his theology; he was no rustic miller. but a conforming member of high society.•• Interpreting his logic must give a datum for the thought-world of the tenth-century civil service. We cannot know if Leo was "typical" but his verses and images do represent the scale and range of the "thinkable" withln the milieu. It may be true that the manuscript could help to understand the processes of c ommunic at ion between patron and artist; but its importance as an indication of the social use of art seems easier to grasp -- the role of art in prayer. its indications of the preoccupations and perceptions of the wealthy, and its reflection of the authority and predominance of the church.••

One further manuscript must be introduced. although its evidence cannot be so precisely explored as in the case of the Bible of Leo: This is the n1nth century Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus. Paris 510.•' Here at least we have a manuscript of undoubted innovation in its program, with images of great complex 1 ty and some top 1c ali ty which are unparalleled in other manuscripts of the same texts. But while the mind of Photios can be persuasively connected with its

DO a pur

or

an innovation of 1 ent on or the

the structures of The •osaica of

a ore useful inde of for he cho c a or such

•• John Chryaoa omoa and r n St Sophia,

tbe traditions location in

he historical olved happened. actor than the

sea of he mind or the aual co .. unication which

e prograas where the a or no more than a

can be compared with ere the choice of

a J or •oaaic saints -" ----toaa and partly on the

D of the monastery. allpa1ntinga of Cyprus

e nclua1on can be seen t paet history or the

to offer any 1nsights or bought of their

leiatra of

B s ntln Ieo o phJ 611 h patron was the patriarch Nicholas Mysticos and that

hi intention in this commission was to proclaim a victory of the church over the attempt by an emperor to flout it lava and to act as a warning to future emperors. how is one to teat the identification or to confirm th patron• a motives and thinking? Must one attribut innovation to individual creativity aa if it came ~ If on the other hand an explanation for the mosaic is only to be proposed on the basis of a Byzantine text which is thought to be the direct influence on the iconography, is one to accept that visual communication works simply by translating words into images?•• Surely no one takes the trouble to put up a picture simply to make the same point which could be written in a text.

Compoaitionally the narthex panel which shows an emperor in proskynesis in front of an enthroned Christ and medallions with saints (the Virgin and an archangel) is not unique. A related type of scheme is found in the north inner aisle mosaics of the church or St Demetrios at Thessaloniki (dating probably to the sixth century) and in the description of an eleventh­century imperial mosaic by John Mauropous.,. However there is no available exact parallel for the precise iconographic components of this panel. The analysis in terms of the patron must necessarily involve constructing the processes of conscious thought which went into the production of the mosaic. To be convincing sueh an analysis needs to determine the

t.be oomaiaaion Th d r

6l8 Robin Cormack

production. in the final analysis. what seems important is not what led him to the individual choic s

0 iconography. but its demonstration for th Vlewer of the structures of theological thought and imperial ideology in the late ninth century. A comparison between these Homilies and their illustrations and the illustration of the Bible of Leo documents less the individual predilections of Photios and Leo, and more their representation of theologies of their time and social groups.

The manuscripts can th refore offer some insights into the interpretation of patronage as a means of analysis. but only by turning next to the most prominent artistic productions of the period can the questions be more definitely exam1ned. Since the manuscripts considered were most 1 ikely produced in Constantinople • then it seems quite su 1 table to set against the evidence of their miniatures the monumental programs of the churches of Constantinople. Effectively this means looking further at the mosaics of St Sophia. and so locating the discussion in the example which must represent one of the most sophisticated co .. issions of the period.

The choice of St Sophia does mean abandoning any exploitation of the extensive decorations of Cappadocia which might be thought to offer the most extensive e1ample of the creation and modification of programs. But the value of St Sophia is that the bulk of the aaterial in the church in mosaic from the period either survives or can be documented from visual records. The other surviving decorations from Constantinople (or by the artists of Constantinople as may be suggested in the eaaea of the Kolmisis church at Nicaea or the cupola of St Sophia at Thessaloniki) which belong to thia period cannot. even if supplemented by the d cr1pt1ona of art in texts. supply a sufficient picture or the chronological developments after Ieonoclasa. The evidence both written and archaeo­logl~al ta too ncomplete in ita indications, and it is 1ff1cult to t•astne, as has been proposed, that a

p r od of revival which bad auch a variety of sources r a. to derive its ideas could have followed any

ion from. say, single figure eo p arrangements of

t Sophia after ar nd 867 and

period or the various

in beir o overall

ea tbouah tonal

Byzantine Iconography 619 particular s1gn1f c t1ons.~• This decor t1on ther for offer:s a P r digm case for th investieation of th qu stion of th d gr~e to which th "m aning" of programs and th notion of th ir "or ginality" can b r lat d to th indiv du l charact r and int rests 0 th (po tul t d) p trons.

It s th choic of th enthroned Virgin and Child nd rch ng 1 for th main ap e composition, a mosaic

t in plac b for th caffo dings requir d were re­er et d und r th dom , which sug t that a compatible pro ram for the other vaults of the church had b n plann d by 867. When later ca .rried out, this program compri~ d Christ in the dome surround d in th low r vaults by s raphim, archangel , prophets and Church Fath rs, and a numb r of p cific lew Testament scenes in the vaults of the galleries. Such a program. which has ome parallels in other decorations of the period <such as the Chry otriklinos in the Palace and in the major churches of Constantinople), has b en characterised as hierarchical and also as 1n the natur of a c.ivU.tl4 d..t...l -- one in which the New Dispen ation of the Christian Church was most prominent. The overa l effect is less of a narrative cycle than an evocation of the rotating liturgical calendar of the church.••

This mosaic decoration of St Sophia can be literally taken to be a new program. for the evidence is that it was the first figurative mosaic decoration ever set in the vaults of the church. Furth rmore certain elem nts n the iconography come together h re in what was certainly a new combination: This is quite evident 1n the saints of the tympana where the ninth­century patriarch Ignatios was included among the Church Fath rs The bishops chosen for representation generally had some special connection with St Sophia. There is sense n which it is easy to describe this program s the 1nd1v . dual formulation of a patron; and this effective patron, leaving aside the pract cal difficulties which h ve already been mentioned. was quite likely to have been the patriarch Photios. He may have formulated the reasons for choosing to fill the available spaces with such apparently outr~ but evocative characters as Gregory of Greater Armenia. He may also have given reasons for choosing to decorate the apse with the composition of the Virgin and Child. Yet even if the speculation is accepted that Phot os had particular intentions in drawing up a program for St Sophia. one is bound to question whether an explanation of the program lies in the "genius" of Photioa or indeed whether a greater understanding of the program is helped through personalising the patron. Had the program been drawn up by Hethodios or lgn tios (which of course it might have been), would this s r1ously detract from its histories si n1f1c nee?

621 Robin Cormack

encouraging sign and suggests that the granted. It would therefore be quite feasibl~r:~e~r is that the Byzantine viewer would read thi i gue

th t h t . s mage to

•say" a emperors. w a ever their sins in life, will be granted peace and forgiveness in the after! if Th is a message more tactfully conveyed visual!~· th!~ risked out lo~d. This type of message is the essence of religious art, images allow the articulation of ra e and the simultaneous promise of fulfillment. P Y r

While this kind of semiotic analysis of the narthex mosaic seems to me to be more rewarding than the traditional, sometimes exclusive, considerations rro• the point of view of the pat .ron and producer, it does not exhaust all the evocations of the image. which I take to be a polyvalent one. So far the viewer has been treated in the abstract; but it is also possible to consider the mosaic in terms of the possible categories of viewer in this part of St Sophia. The penitent. for example. who was not allowed into the nave of the church, but confined to the narthex. might read the penitence and forgiveness of an emperor into the scene. The pilgrim visiting the church might have read the image, placed above a door through which entry to the ordinary person was not allowed, as one of enhancement of the emperor who is placed in a close relationship with Christ and his heavenly retinue; the image expresses the nature of monarchy in the Byzantine state. Another kind of viewer can more closely be considered by the historian through the medium of a number of texts. This is the member of the congregation or St Sophia at services. The ceremonial is not only literally described in the Typ.atan of the Great Church and in the P~ CQ.L.II..Uian.lU. but symbolically interpreted in the Eccl.f4~o,t.tcaL Huta'ttl 4lld My4t.ll!tU.. Cant.utp.l.atlan of patriarch Germanos • ., The latter text was of dominant importance in our period, representing the "official" view of the symbolism of the liturgy within the visual environment of St Sophia.

The commentary of Germanos represents for the art historian a •text" to be taken in its own right. Considered as theology it may seem confused and contradictory, and it may be possible to explain the overlappin& ayabolis• throu&h source analysis. showing ho it ia a eo pilation or various traditions. But this kl d or tb oloa cal e orcia• doea not explain how the t t on eo deratood. It may be true

the seventh century ' rpr tation from

and then to level of

eacourased look for a re to the

it Byzantine Iconography 623

r ual at the entrance d later placed (the Int i~or ~ver which the mosaic was the litur ro 'cap. 24>. It is here that prays th:f proper is seen to begin; the patriarch con the holy angels may enter with the G gregation, and himself enters the church with the t~sp~l ~o~k, during the recitation of Psalm 94 (full of

an sg V ng and proskynesis to the Lord and King) ir~cess i ng . to the throne where he sits and says "Peace

eave w l th you" (John 14:27 >. Any Byzantine viewer present at the liturgy in St Sophia at the time when the mosaic was set in place would then have been influenced in a reading of the symbolism by the evocations of Gerrnanos. The text therefore opens up to the art historian further levels of interpretation of the mosaic as part of the setting of the liturgy and as part of t .he whole symbolic program of decoration of the church. This level of interpretation may be understood irrespective of the precise date of the mosaic or identity of the patron.

Conclusion It is this possibility of an analysis of the signs

of ninth- and tenth-century art without privileging the role of the (too often unknown) patron that undercuts the title of this paper. My argument is of course not to deny that any work of art is the product of economic. social and ideological factors, mediated through formal structures, all of which might be symbolised in the particular practices and personalities of the individual patrons and artists; but it is to say that one can hope to demystify the notion of art as being only the outcome of impenetrable personal creativity and inspiration. If the production of art and the viewer's responses to it are taken to be social activities, it follows that the discussion of new programs can be located within a broader context than of the individual patron. Innovations in art which structurally relate to other developments in the culture should be more possible for the historian to unravel since they can be observed in a broader spectrum of material. It is for this reason that interpretations of the program of the manuscript of the Homilies of St Gregory of Nazianzus could be proposed by Der Nersessian without a knowledge of precisely how the "patron" acted as producer.•• In the same way much can be said about the program of the Chludov and related psal ters, though not only the patron but also the context of production, whether Patriarchal or monastic. is a matter of uncertainty. In the case of the Bible of Leo, our knowledge of the patron. limited as it is, helps to locate the manuscript in its social milieu; but the character of Leo as personally revealed in the verses which he contributed is of less concern

6.J Robin Cormack pltron•g 1 contain d in t xt (for conatruct1on of n Vi tal in Rev nn , x mp th cost of th

"-· r.. .(,.u, 311. 145• c e C. H ngo, Tu A.·*" t}ll.. !Vl'"'~ p - ~, Engl '-'OOd Cliffa, N w '"" 0 '

1912>• 10--5: Agn llua r cords th xp nditur J ra y, by Julius Arg ntar1u , pr sumably ~ bank r.

8°n th church

10udU; dooum nt (for x mpl typika and Will 26,ooo gold t.hOI of Eu•t.athios Bo1laa nd the Pakouria

8' pfartioul rly

R. cormack. aa not 6 abov >;and 1nacription:oL(fom11y, e pala1ologan in•cr1ption in Gr c with informa{1 l mpl • •ultipl patron ' uoh a th in or1pt1on of th on about Upoul• CH•n1> • d t d Jun 126 • f1.rst publ~h~r~h of

• 8. Drandak • • "Th Wallpain 1 n of s Co m an 8 by Y.1poult ( 1265}", Mdt • fpJt.' 1980 ( 1982), 97-118 andd ~h;;· •~' A. Ph1lipp11di -:r p tl in D. F 1 nd A. Ph111ppidia-Braat~ "lnecr1pt ona u oponn a ( 1' xc ption de Hist " TIA 267-395. esp. 312-3). ra • •

8. Th lit ratur on mod 1 books, k tchbooks and pattern book is grow1n a mor mat r1 . l 1 ound: , moat recent! H. uchthal, Tlt.L "Mu.ft.vab.uc.h." o' lllo1..6«b/U.t.t..l. 4Jtd .f..U po-6.U..lon .£n. ~ W. '' t.h.t T~ Cut.t.u.A.V• C Vi nn • 1979 > and L. Bouras and 14.-Ph. Tzinkakou • Sk dia rg 1 s metabuz ntinon zographon" Zvgtr4• no. 62 (1983l, 22-30. On dr wing se T, Velmans, "L; dutin a Byzanc "• iUT11.Plot, 9 (1974), 137-70.

9. Th d ails ar 1v n by A. Gui lou, "Rome, c ntre t.rtn•i t d a produ 1 t d 1 ux d 'Ori nt au Ha ut Ho yen Age", Ztrt.u4• 10 (1979), 17-21 and notes 37-8. In on tran:s ction gild d icon of the Virgin w v lued at 30 nomismata nd lilk akaraman&ion m roid red w1 th gold thr d at 20 nomi•mata.

10. Eaampl a of r cycl d works ar found in the Tre eury of 1n Maroo at V n to • H. R. Hahnlo r C editor), I.t.. TUt11to tU .5411 ~D. U T.uou .t. .U.. Aeu .• U.D, (Flor ne , 1971) nd British HuttUII• Tlu.. T . .u4 4u...t(l t16 Slllf ~11. V~.~t..~. (London, 198l.i). Some 1t. ma ahow how in the ninth nd t nth c nturi a, for exampl , obJ eta from arl1 r p r1od wer ad pt d to n w use"; thos p1eo a which dat back to Ant1qu1 ty must Dom how have be n k pt •• famU y h J rloom or in ohurth or imp ri 1 treeaur1 s end tak n for r eett.ing or r u • For th eh ract ri atjon of a d due d t nth-c ntury connoi s ur s A. Cutl. r, "The Mythological Bowl in th Tr a ury of S n Haroo at V nice", in D.K. ouymJ !an < d1 tor), NUJ~ fcut.un NUM.U•a.t.lc~. IctTttog.lf.apltv. Epi.gupllv M.d H.Ut.t1..t.V• Stcutu~ a Ht111DJr t16 G.C. Ull.u, CBe1rut, 1974) • 2 ,_,,.. An xampl of th ua of · uoh obj ota s symbols of v elth and pow r ia r fleet d in the organieatton of th nter ainm nt for th Sarac n ambas dora <from T rsua >

r corded in Pc. CAc.U.~. d. J.J. R 1 k C d. Bono. 1829), J, 70 ff~ the emp ror <Conatantln Porphyrog nitoa) in ord r to

impr 11 th a v1a1tora 1n the Hangaur r qulsit1on d for lhib1t1on plat and oth r works in pr loue m t 1 from th

Qhur h a in h o 1 ty. The 1 mpl ahowe th pow rs of th •P•ror to appropriate auoh mat r1al and augg ta the r 1 tion

b tw n bu 1 n •• art and bullion a w alth. H raklio in 621 " • allow d to collect church pl t and conv rt i.t into oo1n 1 • a a • Crutkahank Dodd, IV'l.4ALiJU SU"c..t Stap.a, Ufaah1n n. D .. c •• 1861), ap. 2-3.

11. • ab ration• ot a ay t • or exohana• ae ' .. P4•C:l~CA, ( Cambr 1d&e • 1977) •

d ) and s. Pr1o • RU&ua.U tUt.d Pnu. "'"' cc aab r 1 d& • 1 V 8- ) •

Byzantine Iconography 631 St 12. A useful collection of material is in M. Hendy,

Ud-lu ./.Jt t.M. B1J'l411.t..l.M. UortLt4Juj Econ.o.IJ c. 300-1450, (Cambridge, 1985): hereafter cited as Hendy: 1985.

13 • Lucy-Anne Hunt, "Comnenian Aristocratic Palace ~e~oration: Descriptions and Islamic Connections", in Angold:

9 4 • (se above note 3) , 138-56, esp. 140 and note 22; and C. M npo• "When we Hichael Ill Born•. VOP, 21 (1967), 253-58.

1 • • S e H ndy: 1985, 224-5 and note 23 for reference to Th oph n a Cont1nuatus, iv.20: Bonn edn. 171-2. Hendy's figure is 7,869,600 nomismata •

15. Hendy: 1985, 206-7 and 225 with references. Hendy's figure is 3,600,000 nomismata.

16. Hendy: 1985. 225. A reserve of 14,400,000 nomiemata. 17. For the patronage of Theophilos see R. Cormack. "The

Art in the Age of Iconoclasm" in A. Bryer and J. Herrin (editors) lctT~tocJua, (University of Birmingham, 1977) and C. Hango, TM. W o-6 th...t By'Ulll.t..l.M. Eapbtt. 3J2-J453, (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972), esp. 160-5. For the patronage of Basil I. the text of the VUa BtUU.U. (Bk V of Theophanes Continuatus> offers the basis for an interpretation. In the case of Basil II, his connection with Hosios Lukas has been one suggestion to explain the lavish building and decoration of the Katholikon: for a new review of the literature see D.I. Pallas, "Zur Topographie und Chronologie von Hosios Lukas: ein kritische Obersicht", BZ, 78 (1985), 9l.i-107. (The patronage of Basil II accounts for the production of some illuminated manuscripts: the Henolog1on Vat gr 1613. the Psalter Harciana gr. 17, and pos~ibly the luxury Gospels Sinai 204). The picture of "stagnation" in art over the fifty years of his reign implied by K. Weitzmann. "Byzantine Miniature and Icon Painting in the Eleventh Century", reprinted in S.t.ud.l.t.~ ..lit C LILU .le 44.. and B tp:.t:I.ILt~ IAtU'I.tUCJl..ipt. l U wr~.f.n a.t...lon , e d i t e d b y H.L. Kessler, (Chicago and London, 1971), 271-313, depends on the "early" date of the Henologion proposed by Nersessian <on extremely week grounds). A date in the eleveQ,th century for the Henologion and the Psalter (as I. Sev~enko, "The Illuminators of the Henologium of Basil II", VOP, 16 [ 19621, 2~5-76 end A. Cutler, "The Psalter of Basil II", M.tV.t.n., 30 [1976), 9-19 and 31 [1977), 9-15) would mean readjustments to We1tzm nn's pictur • I see no reason to accept that the Menologton is a copy of an earlier tenth century "model" (the textual evidence adduced is erroneous>. Some of the resistance to accepting that Basil II was active in artistic patronage, as f o u n d 1 n S • Run c 1 man , 8 vzMt.llt.t. St. {ILL and C..lv .l.LU a.t..ltTK • (Harmondsworth, 197~). p. 108, seems to derive from a romantic notion of the philistine soldier "who resented spending money on th rts"; such vi we of "art" ignore its integral role in Byz ntin life -- Basil II wee accompanied on campaign not only by 11 th accoutrements of the b ggage train (see Hendy: 1985, 272-5 and 304-15 for an account of the contents of the imp rial b ggage train) but also by tr velling holy men. No doubt Basil travelled on c mpaign with portable icons -- he is a companied by pictures of military saints in his portrait icon 1n th H re lane Ps 1 ter. As for oth r emperors in the p riod. their patronage too still needs assessment; the case of H1cha 1 lli is on wh r his achievements can be rehab111t t d. a by R.J.H. Jenkins nd C. Mango. "The Date

nd Significance of the T nth Homily of Photius" • VOP, 9-10 ( 1956). 123-140.

an. and

6 (19761. 351-65. aad c. ...o. 1o • 1917)). eYer 1 CNr perlocl :a..awo yed 1 t ,.atroa of .oa•at.erle , aa

~- C tie) Patrlareb I tlo decorat of I r&loa aaecboa or t t of t •••'t:.ora 1 of uterr ~ I lua at

P r aro tealoa II I leu (893-901: r fa 1 o e 19 ~ ). pr 1

o reator t a la e c re of tter for a latioa. It .....

t t elerar •• re po 1 le for r toratl011 of t e period. ....1, •

t •Daalc decoratlo a of St Sop la ••• to e ed la t.o B•all I (aee

eiNilldl ledeeoratloa or tbe BolJ tlaop : ec:.o alderatloa • GIIS 23 rutoratlo proar•• ere eJICh oua ud

a tet .. or a rt1ae a 1 tbe coat of 1 r oH blJ c eap). e

rarai.Da or e • J t • iatlc ob a patrlareb .. .. tbe on la e eo s. al011 oarrt OG tttee ? Or

•• Pilot. u tb real• patroa 1 latecl tbe tJaperor t.o I'DilGlDC1 It la d ttlc lt at tbla leYel or e terp lee aa if o e eo laal bad oae patroa.

e retererea ill 21 aboYe. P. aadaliao. BJz••tl e .lrlatocratle Ot••• •

1 98 C aote ]), 92-111. eab1t - J. ltta. l C trater ltJ of t e

Co IZ 61 C 975). 360-84. -•tlo t e eo rnera a1 probl ..

••t!l 1•• c re a ud of o e taawe ra d oratloa. I e t.be

••••,.at~1o• o~ or t eee c re ea aad ~ e d-eeeratl eloq 1

D&A.f o tbe 1 ceat:.urr bf t lj of Caeaarea

col ). 0~ d J l

~go~ ot le •

Byzantine lconopaphy 637 51. Yario 1 litale, both

1 erarc:hiea already occur for e1aaple in Sa

panels. see he OYerall proar•• and tn the 1nd1•1d al subversio E. Leach, wHelchisedech and the eaperor: 1cona or Sh«tetu•Utt ~:: orthodoxy•. in E. leach and D • .l • .lJcock. 6 -88. upu.t&t..Unl..& .,, Ubar&L ~. (Caabrld&e• 983).

5.2 • I de t e e •J ar o a1

1

or the patron (or donor) ia taken to by N. Olkonoaldes. •Leo V and the Sophia POP, 30 (1976), 15 -72. n

deteralnin& role of the patrons of tbe op 1 is also taken bJ • Coraac •

o ale of S. Sophia at Iatanbul•, ~ 3 - 9.

is faced by • Cutler. fu•t,q&utu&l. er rtntat lcl7••tJt.t&pltf• ( Unhera1 ty Par • and by R. Coraack. J&Lthtt G.U. lfudu.t

'c~u • C London, 85). One related proble wblc on l ho useful the studJ or By&an ine

on can be. How anachronistic is it to rt iatorlan. for whoa novelty and

n an aia of th artist and aa o .. itted to •place• ach ork of art

52 above • . ;c. ... ..u "' Ccru.taat.U,.U o• tM. TU.».l.&£

tr nalatlon. introduction and ork. 19811>; and R. Taft, •T e

h: n 1nlt1al ynth ala or atructur of lconoclaea•. 90f, 3--5 (1980-

•

d vlth reap et to naain e n ulptur a or the Hauaoleua of ol • A.•dLt•ct Md Sculptcr" b. CL•uUc.(

p. 168; and. aore rorcefullJ• by o 1 e 1nd Media Ceniua. adnea and

<1 ), '7-96. S also olrr. aa

r. •Tbe Hell nlat.ic H rit • in er d • , J 01, 31/2 (19 81 • 57-7 5 •

•• A.t.C _. EUtu«-"t b. Bru-t'"' ( Prtnceton, C e atcal. aaauain that lit. rarJ te.ata

u tJ directly e1platn Claaatcal r atur a in t 1t •influence•. A aor cri tea 1

l•preaa1on1aa and Hal ant •· l te o~ 1D Byzantine F taurat.1Y .lrt.

cedonlan • lenaiaaance• •.. IEI. 2 C 1

1D (0 ford.

be OD ).