Dop 52, 1998

Dumbarton Oaks Papers
NUMBER FIFTY-TWO
1998
DumbartonOaks Research
Library
and Collection
Washington,
District of Columbia
? 1998 DUMBARTON OAKS
TRUSTEES FOR HARVARDUNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
All
correspondence
and orders should be addressed to
DumbartonOaks
Publishing
Office
1703 32nd
Street,
N.W.
Washington,
D.C. 20007
EDITOR'S NOTE:
The DumbartonOaks
Papers
were founded in1941 for the
publication
of articles
relating
tolate
antique, early
medieval,
and
Byzantine
civilizationinthe fields of art and
architecture,
history,
archaeology,
literature,
theology,
and law. Articles for submissionshould be
prepared according
tothe
Style
Guide contained inthis volume and sent tothe Director of
Byzantine Studies,
Dumbarton
Oaks,
1703 32nd
St., N.W.,
Washington,
D.C., 20007.
Library
of
Congress Catalogue
Card Number
42-6499;
ISSN 0070-7546
Compositionby Graphic Composition,
Inc.
Printed
by
The Stinehour Press
CONTENTS
Women's
Space Colloquium
ALEXANDER P. KAZHDANt
Womenat Home
1
BARBARA A. HANAWALT
Medieval
English
WomeninRural and UrbanDomestic
Space
19
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
Womenat Church in
Byzantium: Where,
When-and
Why?
27
SHARON E.
J.
GERSTEL
Painted Sources for Female
Piety
inMedieval
Byzantium
89
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
Women's
Space
in
Byzantine
Monasteries
113
JOELLE
BEAUCAMP
Les femmes et
l'espace public
a
Byzance:
Le cas des tribunaux
129
JAMES
A. BRUNDAGE
Juridical Space:
Female Witnesses inCanonLaw
147
vi CONTENTS
ROCHELLE SNEE
Gregory
Nazianzen's AnastasiaChurch:
Arianism,
the
Goths,
and
Hagiography
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
The
Dialogue of
the Monk and Recluse Moschos
concerning
the
Holy
Icons,
An
Early Iconophile
Text
MICHAEL ANGOLD
The
Autobiographical Impulse
in
Byzantium
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
Wall
Paintings
fromthe
Baptistery
at
Stobi, Macedonia,
and
Early Depictions
of Christ and the
Evangelists
SVETLANA POPOVIC
The
Trapeza
inCenobitic Monasteries: Architectural and
Spiritual
Contexts
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
Further
Prolegomena
toa
Study
of the Pantokrator Psalter: An
Unpublished
Miniature,
Some Restored
Losses,
and Observations onthe
Relationship
with the Chludov Psalter and Paris
Fragment
NOTES
C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.
The Amorium
Project:
The 1996 ExcavationSeason
List of
Abbreviations,
DumbartonOaks
Papers
52
Style
Guide for the DumbartonOaks
Papers
157
187
225
259
281
305
323
337
341
http://www.jstor.org
Women at Home
Author(s): Alexander P. Kazhdan
Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 52, (1998), pp. 1-17
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291775
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:15
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 enable 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 support@jstor.org.
Womenat Home
ALEXANDER P. KAZHDANt
In
recent
years
some scholars have tended to
imagine Byzantine
womenas
living
ina
male-dominated
environment,
ina
military society
where men
inevitably
exercised
power,
under the
oppression
of
"patriarchy."
'
It is not the
purpose
of this
paper
torecon-
sider the evidence invoked todemonstrate that
Byzantine
womenwere victims of sexual
bias.
Probably they
formed
politically
a"second class,"
despite
a
significant
number of
influential
empresses; probably they
formed a"second class"
ideologically
as
well,
despite
the
enormously important
role of the
VirginMary
inall areas of
spiritual
life and
despite
the
principle
that
sanctity
is
equally
available toboth
genders
and all
ages.
The
goal
of this
paper
is much more modest and limited: toexamine the role of womenwithin
the household.
The
study
of this
topic
is
hampered by
the lack of
adequate
sources. Relevant docu-
ments are rare eand come
primarily
fromthe later centuries.
Archaeological
dataconcern-
ing private
houses are
sparse. Byzantine
writers concentrated their attentionon
political
and
religious
events,
and
only casually
referred to
everyday
life withinthe
private
house.
Since these authors oftenwrite about events and
relationships
of the
past,
the
dating
of the situationdescribed becomes in
many
cases
problematic:
it is difficult toestablish
whether the author
(especially
a
hagiographer)
was
describing relationships
he could
observe inhis own
day
or
repeated,
more or less
mechanically,
informationhe had found
intexts
produced
several hundred
years
before his birth.
There is another
difficulty
we must face: the
contradictory
nature of our sources. The
causes of these contradictions are uncertain:
they may
be caused
by
the
chronological
distance
separating
different
sources,
by
local
particularities,
or
by
the
political,
ethical,
and
religious
views of the authors we use. I amfar from
claiming
afinal solutionof the
problem;
this
paper
is nomore thana
cautious,
tentative
attempt
to
reconsider the idea
of the
Byzantine "patriarchy"
and todemonstrate the lack of evidence that in
everyday
relations womenwere
really oppressed by
members of the other sex. I focus onrelations
I am
extremely grateful
to
Angeliki Laiou,
Alice-Mary
Talbot,
and SharonGerst;el fortheir
help
onthis ar-
ticle.
'The formulations
byJ.
Herrin,
"InSearch of
Byzantine
Women: Three Avenues of
Approach,"
in
Images
of
Womenin
Antiquity,
ed. Av. Cameronand A.
Kuhrt, 2nd ed.
(Detroit, Mich., 1993), 167,
and C.
Galatariotou,
"Holy
Womenand Witches:
Aspects
of
Byzantine Conceptions
of
Gender," BMGS 9
(1984-85), 56f,
78 n. 79.
Milderis the statement
by
M.
Angold,
Church and
Society
in
Byzantium
underthe
Comneni,
1081-1261
(Cam-
bridge, 1995),
440: "Women
occupy
anambivalent role ina
patriarchal society."
WOMEN AT HOME
betweenmenand womeninthe ninth
through
twelfth
centuries,
only
in
exceptional
cases
referring
toearlier or later
periods, accompanying
such cases with
explanatory
and
warning provisos.
LITERARY EVIDENCE ON THE SECLUSION OF WOMEN
I
begin
with several well-knowntexts of the eleventh
century.
Michael
Attaleiates,
describing
the
earthquake
of
1064,
affirms that
women,
usually kept
at home
(OaxkapEo6-
Fievot),
were shaken
by
fear,
forgot
their shame, and ranto
openplaces.2
Evenmore
explicit
is a
contemporary
of
Attaleiates,
the author of the
Precepts
and
Anecdotes,
Kekau-
menos. Cautious in
every regard,
Kekaumenos does not want tooffer
hospitality
tohis
friends. "If
you
admit afriend to
your
house,"
he
muses,
"your
wife,
your daughters,
and
your daughters-in-law
will be unable toleave their room
(oìKrjpa)
and dothe
necessary
housekeeping."3
He alsoadvises:
"Keep your daughters
confined
(eyKeK?cGcito vat)
like
criminals."4 A third
writer,
Michael
Psellos,
relates that
during
the riot of 1042 women
whohad never before beenseenoutside the women's
quarters (yuvaK(oviTtI608o ic4o)
wreaked havoc
publicly.5
If we move back tothe ninth and tenth
centuries,
we find similar testimonies.
John
Kaminiates
(whether
his book was a
contemporary
account of the
capture
of Thessalo-
nike in904 or a
15th-century forgery) deplores
the fate of his
city plundered by
the Arabs
in
904;
virgins,
he
laments,
whohad never
stepped
out of their household
(oiKoopia),
whoused tobe
safely preserved
for
marriage,
were now
scurrying through public squares
inthe
company
of other women.6 The vitaof Philaretos the
Merciful,
written
by
his
grandson
Niketas of Amniainthe
early
ninth
century, presents
asimilar situationob-
served fromanother
viewpoint:
whenthe
emperor's envoys
asked Philaretos toshow
themhis
daughters
and
granddaughters,
the saint answered:
"My
lords,
even
though
we
are
poor,
our
daughters
never leave their room
(KoupouKXtov);
if
you
wish,
my
lords,
enter the koubouklionand
gaze
at them."7 The father of
Theophano,
the future wife of
Leo
VI,
never allowed his
daughter
to
go
out,
except
tothe
bathhouse,
towhich she was
sent either late inthe
evening
or
early
inthe
morning, accompanied by
numerous ser-
vants and maids.8
We
may
add tothese statements a
passage
fromthe
hagiographical
collectionof
Sy-
meon
Metaphrastes. Symeon
lived and wrote inthe second half of the tenth
century,
but
he included inhis collectionof saints' lives older
vitae,
sometimes intheir
pristine
form,
sometimes
substantially
revised.
Among
other tales he relates the
moving story
of two
2Michael
Attaleiates, Historia, ed. I. Bekker
(Bonn, 1853),
88.13-15.
3Sovety
i
rasskazy Kekavmena,
ed. G. Litavrin
(Moscow, 1972),
202.16-18.
4Ibid., 220.11-12.
5Michele
Psello,
Imperatori
di
Bisanzio,
ed. S.
Impellizzeri,
I
(Milan, 1984),
216: V:26.3-5.
6Ioannes
Caminiates,
De
expugnatione Thessalonicae,
ed. G.
Bohlig
(Berlin-New
York, 1973),
35.66-70.
7M. H.
Fourmy
and M.
Leroy,
"Lavie de s.
Philarete,"
Byzantion
9
(1934),
139.31-34. Anotherredaction
of the vita
designates
the women's
quarters
as
oiKiBcKOS;
see A.
Vasiliev,
"Zhitie Filareta
Milostivogo,"
IRAIK
5
(1900),
76.11-14.
8BHG
1794,
ed. E.
Kurtz,
"Zwei
griechische
Texte uberdie
hi.
Theophano,
die GemahlinKaisers Leo
VI.," Zapiski
Akademii nauk
8, istor.-filol., 3.2
(1898),
3.25-30.
2
ALEXANDER P. KAZHDAN
fourth-century martyrs,
the
siblings Eulampios
and
Eulampia:
after
Eulampios'
arrest
his sister left the maidens'
quarters (TaptEviKoIV OaX6aLcov)
and mixed with the
crowd,
exposing
herself tomen's
stares;
this statement
belongs
to
Symeon
himself and is absent
fromthe
anonymous martyrionpreceding Symeon's menologion.9
We donot know
when
the earlier
martyrion
was
written,
but the observation
concerning
"maidens'
quarters"
was made
by
the
tenth-century hagiographer.
Some late
Byzantine
sources describe the confinement of womeninasimilar manner:
according
to
Doukas,
the Ottomans who
captured Constantinople
in1453 bound
young
men
together
with
virgins upon
whomthe sunhad never shone and whomeventheir
fathers had
rarely
seen.10 A similar formulais
employed
inthe Trebizond redaction
of
the
epic
of
Digenes
Akritas:
"Digenes
looked at and
spoke
tothe
[girl]
whomthe sunhad
never seen";11 her seclusiondid
not, however,
prevent
her from
giving Digenes
a
ring
and
asking
the
young knight
not to
forget
her. A well-informed
outsider,
FrancescoFi-
lelfo,
whovisited
Constantinople
in1420-27 and married aGreek
woman,
asserted that
noble
Byzantine
matrons never conversed either with
strangers
or their fellow
citizens,
and never left their
houses,
except
inthe
dark,
with covered faces and
accompanied by
servants or relatives.12
Here is aseries of
independent
sources,
produced
indifferent
chronological periods,
the authors of which
unanimously emphasize
the existence of a
system
of confinement
of women. At the same time there is abroad
gamut
of other texts
showing
that
Byzantine
womenmoved
freely,
were
economically
active,
participated
in
political
and
religious
conflicts,
incharitable
activity,
and did not abstainfromextramarital love
affairs.l3
If we
believe
Attaleiates,
or
Psellos,
or
Doukas,
womenwere
hardly
allowed tosee the
sun,
but
inthe vitaof
Antony
the
Younger
we find adifferent
picture.
WhenanArabfleet
ap-
proached
Attaleiaand the
enemy prepared
toattack the
city, Antony (serving
at that time
as the
governor
of
Attaleia)
ordered all the
populationcapable
of
bearing
arms totake
their
places
onthe
city
walls;
there were not
only
menbut
young
womenas
well,
dis-
guised
inmale
apparel.14
Inthe
eighth century,
we are
told,
womenand children
partici-
pated
inthe
public slaughter
of
Stephen
the
Younger.'5
Let us turn
again
toa
questionable
source,
SymeonMetaphrastes,
whointhe tenth
century
revised the old
legend
of St. Theklawhich relates that
Thekla,
upon
arrival in
Antioch,
was attacked
by
the rich nobleman
Alexander;
since she refused tofollow
him,
he tried to
drag
her tothe
magistrate. Symeonsupplements
this skeletal
episode
of the
original
with a
picture
of womenwhowere
present
at the attack and who"felt
sympathy
with their
gender
and considered this event as their common
business";
shouting
"A
9BHG
617,
ed. PG
115:1060D;
cf.
AASS,
Oct. 5:75A.
'ODucas,
Istoria
Turco-Byzantind,
ed. V. Grecu
(Bucharest, 1958),
367.9-10.
1DigenesAkrites,
ed. E.
Trapp (Vienna, 1971), 185.1732-33.
12S.
Moraitis,
"Surun
passage
de
Chalcondyle
relatifaux
Anglais,"
REG 1
(1888), 97;
see L.
Brehier,
"La
femme dans lafamille a
Byzance,"
AIPHOS 9
(1949),
108.
13See,
for
instance, L.
Garland,
"The Life and
Ideology
of
Byzantine
Woen,"
Byzantion
58
(1988),
361-93.
"4BHG
142,
ed. A.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Sylloge
Palaistines kai
Syriakes hagiologias (PPSb
19.3
[1907]),
199.1-4.
15BHG
1666,
ed. PG 100:1177A.
3
WOMEN AT HOME
bad solution!"
they gathered
before the seat of the
hegemon.16 Certainly, Symeon
was not
astonished at a
throng
of womeninthe streets of a
big city.
Another
episode
related towomen's
participation
inmale
entertainment,
tothe best
of
my knowledge,
has not
yet
beenused
by
scholars intheir
study
of feminine
indepen-
dence.
According
toNiketas of
Amnia,
female
family
members were not
permitted
to
participate
inthe dinner his
grandfather
Philaretos
arranged
inthe
eighth century
for
the
envoys
from
Constantinople;
we find
quite
adifferent
picture
inthe twelfth
century.
Niketas Choniates describes a
banquet givenby Emperor
Isaac II
Angelos, during
which
the basileus asked tobe
passed
some
salt; ?V&7yKTa i got
6i&Xa;
were his words.17 But the
Greek
iXkac (salt)
sounds
exactly
like
`XXaS;,
"other
[women],"
and the mime Chaliboures
immediately played
onthe
similarity
of the twowords. "Let us come toknow
these,"
he
exclaimed,
referring evidently
towomenwhoattended the
banquet,
"and thencommand
others tobe
brought
in."18
Thus our sources are ambivalent: onthe one
hand,
we hear that womenwere con-
fined withinthe women's
quarters
and,
onthe
other,
they
moved
freely, participated
in
economic
activities,
attended
banquets.
How cansuch a
dichotomy
be resolved?
A. Laiouhas
suggested
what
may
be called ahistorical
approach.19 Referring
toAtta-
leiates' statement that womenwere
normally
confined totheir
homes,
she called it "the
last
[evidence]
toshow the
gynaeceum
as
part
of social
reality."
She discarded thenas an
archaismthe
passage
inEustathios of Thessalonike's
twelfth-century commentary
on
John
of Damascus20 inwhich Eustathios
explained
the
homonymy
of the word
KOp1r,
which meant both "maiden" and
"pupil
of the
eye."
He
says:
"This
[word]
kore is
[also]
applied metaphorically (Kaat 6va4op6v)
tothe kore of the
eye,
our beloved
[part
of the
body],
since each
virgin-kore
is beloved
by [her] loving parents; they
deemit
worthy
to
[keep her]
guarded (OlnXaKfi;)
like the
pupil
of our
eye,
likewise confined
(9OaXag?oogLev1r)
under the
eyelids."
Laiouis
absolutely right:
the situationof womeninthe twelfth cen-
tury
differed
substantially
fromthat inthe
preceding
centuries,21
and we can
hardly
ex-
pect Byzantine
womentobe locked inwomen's
quarters
inthe
days
of Eustathios. As for
the observationmade
by
Filelfo,
she
cautiously acknowledges
that "he
may
have been
describing
anew
reality."
Thus,
according
to
Laiou,
womenwere confined in
Byzantium
up
tothe eleventh
century,
more or less
emancipated
inthe
twelfth,
and confined
again
inthe new social conditions onthe eve of the fall of
Constantinople.
Another
approach
tothe
problem
is, however,
not
impossible.
Inthe formulationof
M.
Angold
with
regard
tothe issue of the confinement of women, "there was a
discrep-
16BHG 1719,
ed. PG
115:833c;
cf. BHG
1717,
ed. G.
Dagron,
Vie et Miracles desainte Thecle
(Brussels, 1978),
par.
15.
'7Nicetas Choniates, Historia,
ed.
J.
L. vanDieten
(Berlin-New York, 1975),
441.23 (hereafter
NikChon).
The
difficulty
inthe
interpretation
of this
passage
consists inthe
possibility
that Chaliboures could have
meant actresses
brought
inforthe entertainment of the male
company;
such an
explanation, however,
is
not
mandatory.
180
City of Byzantium:
Annals
of
Niketas
Choniates,
trans. H.
Magoulias (Detroit, Mich., 1984),
242.
'9A. Laiou,
"The Role of Womenin
Byzantine Society,"JOB
31.1
(1981),
249-60.
20PG 136:732BC.
21
See alsoA. Kazhdanand A. Wharton
Epstein, Change
in
Byzantine
Culture inthe Eleventh and
Twelfth
Centu-
ries
(Berkeley,
Calif., 1985),
10If.
4
ancy
between
stereotype
and
reality,"22
or the usual ambivalence of
Byzantine society.
Let us come back tothe statements
concerning
"confinement" and
analyze
them
more
carefully.
The first
jarring
note is our authors'
disagreement
with
regard
towho
was
confined inthe women's
quarters-all
women,
or
only
noble
women,
or
only young
un-
married maidens
("virgins").
Second,
our authors
present primarily
cases whenthe
"rule
of confinement" was
broken-by
natural or
political
disasters,
or
by
the intrusion
of
strangers,
whether friends of the
family
or
imperial envoys. Finally,
it is
noteworthy
that
the terms for the
place
of confinement are varied: it seems that there was no
single spe-
cific termto
designate
women's
quarters.
The
expressiony?vaiKEtiooiKoq23
meant in
the
Byzantine vocabulary
not a
gynaeceum
but aconvent. Ph.
Koukoules,
whobelieved
in
the seclusionof
Byzantine
women,
listed various names for the
parts
of the
Byzantine
house;
he did not
include, however,
any specific
termfor the rooms
assigned
towomen.24
Tosummarize: while the works of Eustathios are
unquestionably metaphorical,
the
sentences of Attaleiates or Psellos or other writers
quoted
above
present
another rhetori-
cal
figure
of
speech-hyperbole ("Even
the fathers
rarely
saw their
daughters"),
and
they
should not be takenat face value. Theodore of
Stoudios,
inhis
panegyric
of his
mother,
praised
her for
keeping
her
daughter away
frommen's
gaze
and
prohibiting
the
girl
to
wear
jewelry;25
it would be far-fetched to
assert,
onthe basis of this
sentence,
that
young
girls
in
Byzantium
did not
experience
the
joy
of
expensive
adornment.
In
fact,
the sen-
tence
implies
that it was normal for
Byzantine girls
tobe
exposed
tomen's
gaze
and to
wear
jewelry.
The
meaning
of the statements collected above is: "Our womenand
espe-
cially
our maidens are
chaste,
and their
appearance
in
public
would contradict the
image
of the role model that our
society
has created." This is amoral
("ideological")
construct,
not actual
reality. Only
if we find
palpable
traces of the
Byzantine gynaeceum
shall we
be entitled to
speak
about the confinement of womeninthe
empire
of the Rhomaioi.
It
goes
without
saying
that
Byzantine empresses
had their
private
chambers that were
well
guarded
and off-limits to
strangers. Empress
Zoe used themfor feminine
pursuits,
the manufacture of
fragrant unguents,
but other
Byzantine queens preferred wielding
power
toconcerns about eternal
beauty.
Pulcheria,
the elder sister of Theodosios
II,
or
Theodora,
the famous wife of
Justinian
I,
are
inappropriate examples,
since
they belong
tothe
proto-Byzantine period,
and I
strongly
believe that the
empire
underwent adrastic
change
insocial and
political
structure inthe seventh
century.
But we can
easily
find
later
examples
of womenwhoadministered
imperial power,
such as
Irene,
Constantine
VI's mother; Theodora,
widow of
Emperor Theophilos;
Zoe
Karbonopsis,
the
dowager
queen
mother of Constantine
VII;
or Anna
Dalassene,
inwhomher sonAlexios I
placed
absolute trust.
22Angold,
Church and
Society,
433.
23BHG 65,
ed. H.
Delehaye,
Les saints
stylites (Brussels, 1923),
161.17-18. R. F.
Taft,
inhis
paper
inthis
volume entitled "Womenat Church in
Byzantium: Where, When-and
Why?"
has
persuasively
shown
(pp.
3
1ff, 86-87)
that atermfromthe same
root, yovatiKiTr,
designated
a
part
of the church
building
that
by
no
means was reserved forwomen
only.
240n
the innerrooms of the
house,
including
the
kitchen,
see Ph.
Koukoules, Blavxtvv
Pios
toai
K
O n01to-
gi6g,
IV
(Athens, 1951),
294-313. The short
paragraph
onthe
OaXagteots (II [1948], 166-68)
does not con-
taindataotherthanthose cited at the
beginning
of this article.
25PG 99:888A.
5
WOMEN AT HOME
It is clear that
empresses
moved outside their
private
chambers. Michael III invited
his mother Theodoratohis
quarters
to
play
a
practical joke
onher: she was
shortsighted
and did not
recognize
the
courtjester
under his
patriarchal
attire. The
pious Theophano,
Leo
VI's
spouse, freely
moved around
Constantinople
and
deplored
her misfortune to
the
hegoumenos Euthymios,
the future
patriarch.
And I doubt that theen
Georgianprincess
Maria,
the wife of Michael VII and
subsequently
of
Nikephoros
III,
whomthe
young
Alexios Komnenos
obviously
courted,
was avictimof seclusion. We had better leave the
empresses
aside as an
atypical
case: the
private
chambers of the
empress
did not differ
much fromthe kouboukleionof the
emperor,
also
secluded,
alsoinaccessible to
strangers,
menand womenalike.
Did noble ladies have their
quarters
of seclusion? The most
striking
case tothe con-
trary
is the
story
of Andronikos Komnenos' incestuous love affair with the niece of Em-
peror
Manuel
I,
a
young
widow named Eudokia.26 She followed himtothe
military camp
at
Pelagonia
where she
stayed
inatent27 without
prompting anyone's
amazement. Her
blood relations surrounded the tent but failed tocatch Andronikos. The romantic
epi-
sode is well knownfromthe account of Ch.
Diehl,
soI shall
spare
the reader the
savory
details. What matters for our
purposes
is the noble
lady dwelling
inatent ina
military
camp,
and not ina
gynaeceum.
But this is the twelfth
century.
Probably
the most famous
Byzantine description
of anaristocratic mansionis that of
the
"palace"
built
by Digenes
Akritas onthe
Euphrates.28
Withinafence there was a
three-story building
behind which asecond house was constructed. The mansionalso
included atower with acruciformtriklinos
(another
version
speaks
of
dv86pov?; oraupo-
?t8E6;)
and twoother
chambers,
twochamotriklinoi
(the
halls onthe
ground floor?),
a
church of St.
Theodore,
a
bathhouse,
and
guest
houses;
the
buildings
were surrounded
by
a
gorgeous garden
and adorned
by
mosaics. Not
only
is there no
place
for women's
quarters
inthis
description,
but the author fixes our attentiononthe
togetherness
of
the life of both sexes:
Digenes'
mother is said tolive inthe
"glorious
house" with her
sonand
daughter-in-law,
and at the
signal
for meals
Digenes appears
with his wife and
immediately
afterward "his most beautiful mother" enters.
Certainly,
the
epic
of
Digenes
is an
enigmatic
text. The
long-standing
discussionas
towhether the Escurial or Grottaferrataversionis
primary
is far from
settled,29
but it has
little relevance toour
problem,
since the
longest description
of the mansionsurvives in
the Trebizond
redaction,
whereas the twomainversions
preserve only scraps
of the
pic-
ture. The date of the
epic
is under discussionas well: H.
Gregoire's
view that the
epic
26NikChon, 104f.
27Magoulias,
0
City,
60, translates,
"He
[Andronikos]
was
lying
inthe woman's embraces inhis tent." The
Greek
text, however,
has no
possessive pronoun;
Choniates
just says 7,t aK1rvfT; (NikChon104.49).
Since we
are told laterthat Andronikos
jumped
out of the tent
leaving
Eudokia
behind,
and that she was able to
suggest
herlover
disguise
himself inawoman's dress and call hermaidservants
by
name
(105.59-61),
the
scene
evidently
took
place
inhertent.
According
toCh. Diehl
(Figures byzantines,
II
[Paris, 1938], 95-98),
Andronikos
joined
his mistress "dans latente
qu'elle occupait."
28Digenes
Akrites,
ed.
Trapp,
326-43. On
it,
see A.
Xyngopoulos,
"To
avdKtopov
ToD
AIyevj 'AKpira,"
Lao-
graphia
12
(1948), 547-88;
M.
Andronikos,
"TonaXauit IoV
Atysvf 'AKpiTa," 'EntorCgovtK'i 'EeTrrnipigtf;
OiXo-
ootK11rS oXfoi OeGoaXovtiK; 11
(1969),
7-15.
29See
the
survey
of the
problem
inC.
Galatariotou,
"The
Primacy
of the Escurial
Digenes
Akrites: An
Open
and Shut Case?" in
Digenes
Akrites: New
Approaches
to
Byzantine
Heroic
Poetry,
ed. R. Beatonand D. Ricks
(Aldershot, 1993),
38-54.
6
originated
inaPaulicianmilieuaround 90030 seems tohave been
rejected
and
forgotten;
A.
Syrkin,
ina
monograph practically
unknowninthe
West,
placed
the
composition
of
the
poem
betweenthe 970s and
1020s;31
H. G. Beck
distinguished
the "Emir-Lied"
of
the tenth
century
fromthe
"Digenes-Roman"
of the eleventh or twelfth
century;32
ac-
cording
to
P.
Magdalino,
the Grottaferrataversionfits well intothe revival of the
twelfth
century,33
while S. Alexioudates the Escurial redactiontothe
early
twelfth
century.34
The
problem
of
Digenes'
residence becomes evenmore
complicated
if one takes
into
considerationM. Andronikos'
suggestion
that anancient source
(Plato)
could have
influ-
enced the
description
of the
mansion,
or the
assumption
of N. Oikonomides that
the
epic
reflects relations inAsiaMinor inthe tenth and eleventh centuries. We
may
reach
only
a
very
limited and
negative
result: the author of the
epic
does not mentionthe
existence of a
gynaeceum.
Incontrast to
Digenes Akritas,
the will
(diataxis)
of Michael Attaleiates of 1077
(the
same
Attaleiates whoasserted that all noble ladies in
Byzantium
were confined inwomen's
quarters
until the
earthquake
of 1064 shook and shocked
Byzantine society)
is a
precisely
dated
documentary
source.35 Inthis will Attaleiates describes twohouses he transferred
tothe
poorhouse
he
efounded inRhaidestos: one located inRhaidestos and the other in
Constantinople.
Attaleiates found the house inRhaidestos
completely
demolished,
and
its restorationwas
costly;
later
on,
Attaleiates
joined
other
properties
toit and "made a
single
house"
(27.155)
that he intended touse for
storage
of
products
of all kinds. The
second house Attaleiates
bought
fromhis aunt Anastasointhe
capital;
its
description
is
more detailed. The house had a
hall onthe
ground
floor
(KaTc6yeov
TOD
TptKXivou) facing
the
courtyard
of another house as well as a
gallery (itaiKO6;),
and a
three-story
room
(,Tp
atov
Koupo?KXtov)
where a
donkey-driven
mill was
positioned (29.179).
Nowomen's
quarters
were mentioned inthe diataxis.
Certainly,
an
argumentum
ex silentiois not
proof,
but in
any
case Attaleiates does not confirmthe existence of the
Byzantine gynaeceum.
The
tenth-century
vitaof Basil the
Younger
introduces us toadifferent world of
humble
people.
One of themis
Theodora,
the faithful servant of the
saint,
whoinher
youth
was amaidenslave inanoble house in
Constantinople.
Married
by
the order of
her
master,
she
gave
birth totwo
children;
after her
spouse's
death,
she
brought up
her
childrenalone. The master
provided
her with a
tiny
cell located inthe vestibule
(npoa6-
(tov)
of the
mansion,36
not a
good place
for women's
quarters.
Another minor female
character of the vitais
Melitine,
the wife of the misthios Alexander. She
obviously
was not
30H.
Gregoire,
"Notes onthe
Byzantine Epic," Byzantion
15
(1940-41),
92-103.
31A.
Syrkin,
Poemao
Digenise
Akrite
(Moscow, 1964),
140.
32H. G.
Beck,
Geschichte der
byzantinischen
Volksliteratur
(Munich, 1971), 96;
cf. N.
Oikonomides,
"L
'epopee'
de
Digenis
et la
frontiere orientale de
Byzance
aux Xe et XIe siecles," TM 7
(1979),
375-97.
33P. Magdalino, "Digenes
Akrites and
Byzantine
Literature: The
Twelfth-Century Background
tothe Grot-
taferrataVersion," in
Digenes Akrites,
ed. Beatonand Ricks
(as above,
note
29),
1-14. Cf. R.
Beaton,
"Cappa-
docians at Court:
Digenes
and
Timarion,"
inAlexios I
Komnenos,
ed. M. Mullett and D.
Smythe,
I
(Belfast,
1996),
330-33.
34S.
Alexiou,
"l(TopticaK KXi tyeoypactiKKa
c(TOV
AIyevi 'AKpitmr,"
in
Ex(p6o(nvov: 'AtpoCa otov
M.
Xaer86iK,
I
(Athens, 1991),
39.
35P. Gautier,
"LaDiataxis de Michel Attaliate," REB 39
(1981),
5-143. Onthis
document,
see P.
Lemerle,
Cinq
etudes sur
le XIe
siecle
byzantin(Paris, 1977),
65-112.
36BHG 264b,
ed. S. G.
Vilinskij,
Zhitie sv.
VasilijaNovogo
v
russkoj
literature
(Odessa, 1911),
301.5-6. On
Theodora,
see Ch.
Angelide, "AoiXot oTiIv KcovoavTtvoioXri
TO6v 100 ai.,"
Symmeikta
6
(1985),
40f.
7
WOMEN AT HOME
confined toa
gynaeceum,
since she
slept
with almost all the meninthe
neighborhood,
and eventried toseduce
Gregory,
the author of the
vita,
following
him
brazenly
inthe
daytime.37
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ON WOMEN'S
QUARTERS
IN BYZANTIUM
We have
some,
albeit
few,
archaeological
remains of
Byzantine
houses. Will their ex-
aminationsubstantiate or contradict the
possibility
of the existence of women's
quarters
inthe abodes of the
ordinary
citizens of the
empire?
Before
moving
intothis field I have
to
emphasize
that I claimno
professional knowledge
of
Byzantine
architecture,
but
hope
that
my ineptitude
and the desire tocorrect
my
mistakes will attract
archaeologists
tothe
problem.
It has been
frequently
stressed that the
history
of the
private
house in
Byzan-
tiumhas not
yet
been
properly
studied. The
only general study,
that
by
L. de
Beylie,38
is
hopelessly
obsolete,
and the data
referring
tothe
period
after the late Roman
Empire
are
scanty
and not
yet
summarized.39
Scholarly
evaluationof the
development
of
private
buildings ranges
from
emphasis
onthe
preservation
of the ancient architectural tradi-
tion40 tothe idea of radical
change
at the end of the late Roman
period.41
It is
quite
natural,
insuch astate of
investigation,
that
my
notes are
extremely
tentative.
Let us
assume,
together
with S.
Ellis,
that the constructionof Roman
peristyle
houses
ended around the middle of the sixth
century,
and
simultaneously
a
system
of "subdivi-
sion" was
developed. By
the term"subdivision" Ellis understands the creationof small
rooms inside
preexisting buildings
which were turned intocollections of small
apart-
ments.
Evidently,
these communities of small
apartmently
ts co ints are not
compatible
with the
concept
of closed women's
quarters,
such as is
suggested
by
the
ground plan
of a
large
and rich Athenianhouse fromthe fourth
century
(House
B onthe
Areopagus),42
which
allows one toassume the
possibility
of a
gynaeceum;
in
any
event,
onthe
opposite (east)
side fromthe main
unit,
there was asmaller
court,
with a
well,
surrounded
by
small
rooms;
this court formed an
independent
unit,
access towhich was
only through
a
pas-
sageway.
It is
premature
to
express
an
opinionconcerning
the
frequency
of such a
plan.
Houses of the tenth
through
twelfth centuries were built onadifferent
plan(I
leave
aside the
question
of whether this
planreproduces
the ancient traditionor
not).
A Corin-
thianhouse inthe southwest
quarter
consisted of four rooms situated ontwosides of a
courtyard
that was enclosed onthe other sides
by two(?)
buildings.
The north room
prob-
ably
served for
storage.
A door onthe east side of the
courtyard
led toasmaller room
behind which
lay
the
largest
chamber of the
complex,
divided intotwosections
by
a
pair
37Vilinskij,
Zhitie, 320f.
38L.
de
Beylie,
Lhabitation
byzantine (Grenoble-Paris, 1902).
39A
survey
was
suggested by
Ch. Bouras in"Houses in
Byzantium," AX_T.XptYT.'ApX.'Ec.
11
(1982-83),
1-26; cf. his
"KaotoKi?;
Kcai
OiKtGJ.oi GTioz1 6uavtvi 'EX6a&a,"
inOiKtugoit imjv
'EkXkaa,
ed. D. B. Doumanes
and P. Oliver
(Athens, 1974),
30-52.
40A.
Kriesis,
Greek Town
Building (Athens, 1965), 185f;
cf.
J.
Travlos, naoXeo5otKri
e4Xit5t;
XToV
'A9rviv
(Athens, 1960).
41Especially
inthe works
by
S.
Ellis,
"The End of the RomanHouse,"
AJA
92
(1988), 565-76,
and "La
casa,"
inLaciviltabizantina:
Oggetti
e
messaggio
(Rome, 1993),
167-226. Cf.
J.-P.
Sodini,
"L'habitat urbainen
Grece alaveille des
invasions,"
inVilles
etpeuplement
dans
l'Illyricumprotobyzantin(Paris, 1984),
396.
42A. Frantz,
Late
Antiquity:
A.D. 267-700, The Athenian
Agora
24
(Princeton, N.J., 1988),
39f.
8
of columns.43
Obviously,
there is no
place
for a
separate gynaeceum
inthis house: the
life of the
family
had tobe concentrated inthe
large
room
partitioned by
columns. A
twelfth-century one-story
farmhouse at Armatova
(inElis)
consisted of three small inter-
connected rooms
(one
with the outline of
rectangular benches)
and awoodenshelter or
lean-to
(a
barnor
kitchen?);44
there is no
persuasive
trace of women's
quarters
inthe
plan.
A similar
phenomenon
is noted inthe
tenth-century
foundationinMessenianNichoria
(Peloponnesos):
the mainchamber forms a
rectangular space
towhich an
apsidal
oven
is
annexed;
another
rectangular
room
directly adjoins
the mainhall's north wall.45 The
tenth-century
houses inCherson
usually
had a
courtyard
with sheds for
storage;
the
courtyard separated
the house fromthe street
(later
the
courtyards
were
positioned
mostly
behind the
houses),
and the entrance tothe
buildings
led
through
the
courtyard.
Several
independent two-story buildings
surrounded the
courtyard; they
had
storage
areas onthe
ground
floor
(sometimes
dug-in),
the access towhich was
only through
the
second
floor;46
there is thusus no
place
for isolated women's
quarters
inthe
private
houses
of Cherson. The later
(ca. 1250)
settlement of Geraki
(Lakonian plain)47
included
primar-
ily two-story rectangular buildings
inwhich the
upper
floor served as a
dwelling
area;
it
had a
separate
entrance,
which means that the roomwas not secluded.
Inthese
ordinary
houses,
emphasis
was laid onthe
privacy
of the whole unit
sepa-
rated fromthe street48
(even
though
each
locality
formed,
in
principle,
a
community
of
several houses with its own
square
and
chapel)
and not onthe
privacy
of the individual
sections that
might
have been
assigned
towomen. Later documents
(from
14th-century
Thessalonike)
alsoshow
ordinary
houses connected with the outer world
only through
a
gateway
between the
courtyard
and the street.49 A Hebrew
marriage
contract of 1022
fromthe townof Mastaura onthe Meander River describes the
dowry
of acertainEu-
dokia as well as
gifts
she received fromher
bridegroom
and his
mother;
Eudokia's
mother-in-law conferred onthe bride the
ground
floor of her house with anentrance
facing
the river.50 This room
opening
tothe outer world is afar
cry
fromour
perception
of aclosed
space assigned
towomen. A will of 1049
originating
fromaGreek
community
inSouth
Italy conveys
adifferent
story:
Gemma,
the
owner,
bequeaths
tothe sons of her
nephew
Leoahouse or room
(oiKrcga)
inwhich she had
slept (KataK-rK`KXRGia).51
The wom-
43R. L.
Scranton,
Mediaeval Architecture inthe Central Area
of Corinth,
Corinth 16
(Princeton,
N.J., 1957),
66f.
44J. Coleman,
"Excavationof aSite
(EleanPylos)
near
Agraridochori," 'ApX.AEXr.
24.2
(1969),
157 and
plan
4. A similar
ground plan
is found insome
Byzantine
houses inthe Mani. See T. Moschos and L.
Moschou,
"naXatojiavi&TiKa:
Oi
pvCavrtvoti yporlKoi
oiKiojioti Trf;
AaKcwvlKfS MavriS," 'ApXaooXoy7Ka'AvXEKrta
r5
'AOrvcov
14.1
(1981), 19-22,
plan
3.
45W.
A.
McDonald, W. D. E.
Coulson,
and E
Rosser,
Excavations at NichoriainSouthwest
Greece,
III
(Minne-
apolis,
Minn., 1983),
361.
46A.
L.
Jakobson, Rannesrednevekovyj
Khersones
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1959),
296f. Forthe later
period,
see
his
Srednevekovyj
Khersones
(XII-XIV vv.)
(Moscow-Leningrad, 1950),
86f.
47A. M. Simatouand R.
Christodoulopoulou, "napaTrpfioetS;
oTov gEawcOVIKO OIKI1Lt6
TODrepaKioh,"
AEXrc.
XpocT.'ApX.'ET.
15
(1991),
71-83.
48Bouras,
"Houses in
Byzantium,"
24f.
49D.
Papachryssanthou,
"Maisons modestes a
Thessalonique
auXIVe siecle," in
'AgiTTO;S
GTgI gviLigr
t(TD'
'AooroXTnokooXo'u (Athens, 1984),
260f.
50Th. Reinach,
"Uncontrat de
mariage
du
temps
de Basile le
Bulgaroktone,"
in
Melanges offerts
aG.
Schlumberger,
I
(Paris, 1924), 123,
no.
vII.
51G.
Robinson,
History
and
Cartulary of
the Greek
Monastery of
St. Elias and St. Anastasius
of
Carbone
(Rome,
1929),
doc.
iv, 53.20-22.
9
WOMEN AT HOME
an's bedchamber is here transferred totwo
young
men,
and
had,
most
probably,
no
spe-
cific features of women's
quarters.
A
slight
alterationmade
by SymeonMetaphrastes
inthe
legend
of St.
Spyridonprob-
ably
shows the
tendency
of
development
of the inner
space
of the
family
house. In
the
original
vita,
written
by
Theodore of
Paphos
inthe middle of the seventh
century,
we
read about the death of
Spyridon's daughter
Irene. Soonafter she
died,
awomancame
to
Spyridon claiming
that Irene had borrowed fromher some
jewelry
that must still be
inhis house. He went tothe
storage
room
(raptetov)
and searched the whole house
(oiKO;),
but found
nothing. Spyridon
had noother recourse but toask Irene herself
where she had
put
the
jewelry
that she received as a
deposit,
and the dead
girl explained
it tohim.52
SymeonMetaphrastes, preserving
the mainelements of the
episode, says
however that
Spyridon
searched
through
"her whole oikos" and adds
below,
"inthe room
(oiKioKov)
of his
daughter."53
Irene of the tenth
century
had her roominthe
paternal
house,
but this roomdoes not look like a
gynaeceum.
We have tobe
very
cautious: inthe Ottomanhouse the haremthat
definitely
existed
did not forman
architecturally separate,
isolated
part
of the
building
as was commonin
Arab
regions,54
and the case of Eudokia's
apartment
cited above refers toa
Jewish
minor-
ity
whose customs could differ fromthe habits of the dominant Greek
populace.
The
only
conclusionwe
may
risk is that neither
archaeology
nor writtentexts confirmthe
existence of a
Byzantine gynaeceum-they compel
us neiher to
deny
nor to
accept
its ex-
istence.
THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE HOUSEHOLD
It has been
emphasized many
times that the nuclear
family
was the center of
Byzan-
tine
society
and that women
unquestionably played
an
important part
in
family
life.55
There are some indications that
Byzantine
law,
after the
eighth century, acknowledged
a
certainincrease inwomen's
property rights
and inwomen's
legal protection.56 Leaving
aside both
legislation
and
applied
law as reflected in
private
documents and court deci-
sions,
I draw attentiontothe
everyday
situationwithinthe
family. Again
I
begin
with a
text that has beenstudied
many
times: the laments of the
henpecked
husband inthe first
poem
of
Ptochoprodromos.57
The
story
of amanwho had tocome tohis ownhouse
disguised
as a
beggar
inorder to
get
some food fromhis
despotic
wife is
obviously
a
caricature,
but there are more serious texts
showing
the
leading
role of the mother within
the
family.
Two
great Byzantine
writers,
Theodore of Stoudios58 and Michael Psellos,59
devoted
special panegyrics
totheir
mothers,
and
Christopher
of
Mitylene praised
his
52P.
vanden
Ven,
La
legende
de s.
Spyridoneve'que
de Trimithonte
(Louvain, 1953),
34-36.
53PG 116:436CD.
54S. Ellis,
"Privacy
in
Byzantine
and OttomanHouses,"
ByzF
16
(1991),
156.
55Laiou,
"The Role of
Women," 233-41.
56J.
Beaucamp,
"Lasituation
juridique
de lafemme a
Byzance,"
CahCM 20
(1977),
164-74.
57D. C.
Hesseling
and H.
Pernot, Poemes
prodromiques
en
grec
vulgaire (Amsterdam, 1910), 30-37;
new ed.
(with
German
trans.) by
H.
Eideneier,
Ptochoprodromos (Cologne, 1991), 99-107,
177-85. Onthis
poem,
see P
Speck, "Interpolations
et non-sens
indiscutables,"
Varia1
(1984), 273-309;
cf.
Angold,
Church and
Society,
437f.
58BHG
2422,
ed. PG 99:883-902.
59K. N.
Sathas, Mesaionike Bibliotheke, V
(Athens, 1876;
repr. Hildesheim, 1972),
3-61.
10
mother as an
energetic
and
prudent
housewife,
eager
to
provide
the
family
with
food,
supervising
the work of the housemaids.60 Even
Neophytos
the
Recluse,
whomC. Galata-
riotoudescribes as aconsistent
misogynist, appears,
inher own
words,
"tohave
been
directed more towards his mother thanhis father."61 Onthe other
hand,
tothe best
of
my knowledge,
no
Byzantine
rhetoricianever
produced
a
eulogy
of his father.
Gregory
of Nazianzus wrote several funeral
speeches
for his close relatives-a
brother,
a
sister, and
his father-but
Gregory's
is an
early
text. Niketas of Amniawrote avitaof his
grandfather
Philaretos,
but
depicted
himas afailure in
providing
for his
family.
AnnaKomnene
panegyrized
Alexios I as astatesmanrather thanthe manof the
family,
and evenin
her Alexiad
many
warmwords are addressed toher mother Irene Doukainaand her
grandmother
AnnaDalassene.
"Byzantine eulogies
of womentend tobe confined to
mother
figures," says
Galatariotou,
who
emphasizes
the
patriarchal
nature of
Byzantine
society,
but what is
significant
is not the interest inthe "mother
figure,"
but the lack of
the "father
figure"
in
Byzantine
rhetorical collections.
The
stereotype
is a
powerful
tool of intellectual
impact
on
society,
and it was a
Byzan-
tine
hagiographical stereotype
to
present
the
strong
ties betweenmother and
child,
and
not those betweenthe father and his
progeny.
If we believe
Ignatios
the
Deacon,
both
Patriarch Tarasios and Patriarch
Nikephoros
were
brought up by
their
mothers,
and
Methodios
gives
the same informationabout the
youthful Theophanes. Probably
we need
anexhaustive statistical
study
of
hagiographical
discourses that I amunable to
provide,
but it will
suffice,
for the time
being,
tonote that
SymeonMetaphrastes,
the tireless
collector of saints'
vitae,
gives
numerous
examples
of ties betweenmother and child. In
his
panegyric
for the
apostle Timothy, Symeonpraises
the hero's
grandmother
Lois and
mother
Eunike,
whereas his father is characterized as Hellene
(=
pagan)
and darnel in
the
good grain
of
Timothy's
kin,
as athorn
sprouting up among
roses.62 A similar situa-
tionis described inthe vitaof Clement of
Ankyra:
the saint's mother
Sophia
was a
good
Christian,
while her husband
belonged
tothe Hellenic factionand tried toconvert her
tothe false faith. Clement is described as "the child of the
woman," and she as his
"father,
teacher,
and mother"
simultaneously.63
St. Eleutherios was asonof anoble but
impious
father,
while his mother Euanthiafollowed the
teaching
of the
apostle
Paul;
it was she
who
gave
the saint his name and
brought
him
up
in
good
and free
principles.64
Euboule,
the
pious
mother of St.
Panteleimon,
was married to
Eustorgios,
notorious for his
ungod-
liness,
and
naturally
it was the mother whoeducated the future
saint;65
only
later did
Eustorgios
convert to
Christianity.
The
early passio
of St.
Euphemia
calls her the
daughter
of the senator
Philophron
and the
pious
womanTheodosiane. The later versionof
Sy-
meon
Metaphrastes diligently develops
the theme of Theodorosiane's
(sic)
religious
faith:
she was
extremely pious
and
orderly,
she revealed tothe
poor
that she was
truly
God's
gift (he
plays
onthe revised name of the
woman),
stretching
out tothemher
generous
60Die Gedichte des
Christophoros Mitylenaios,
ed. E. Kurtz
(Leipzig, 1903),
no. 57.
61Galatariotou,
"Holy
Women"
(as above,
note
1),
81.
62BHG 1841,
ed. PG 1
14:761A.
Symeon
stresses that
Timothy
was educated
by
his mother
(col. 761B).
63BHG
353,
ed. PG
114:816AB, 817A.
64BHG 571,
ed. PG 115:128A. Unlike
Symeon,
the authorof an
anonymous martyrion
omits the
topic
of
the father's
impiety:
the husband of Anthiais said to
belong
tothe
extremely
noble
family
of
"Anikeoroi";
see
P. Franchi de'
Cavalieri,
I
martirii
di s. Theodotoe di s.
Ariadne,
ST 6
(Vatican
City, 1901),
149.5-7.
65BHG
1414,
ed. PG 115:448c.
11
WOMEN AT HOME
and benevolent hand;66 at the same time
Symeon
omits the
passage
of the
early passio
that the saint was buried
by
her mother and father.67 We alsofind in
Symeon's
collection
a
saintly
womanAnastasiamarried toan
impious
husband with whom
she,
naturally,
had
nosexual intercourse.68 Inhis
menologion
canbe found another
Anastasia,
alsomarried
toa
pagan
and also
avoiding
sexual intercourse.69 There is alsoa
story
about the
parents
of St. Abramios who
urged
himtotake awife-the mother
entreating,
the father com-
manding.70
Inall these cases the womanis better or milder thanher
spouse.
A
slight
alterationinthe
martyrion
of Artemios is
typical
of
Metaphrastes:
the
original
version
written
by
acertain
John(Damascene
or
Rhodios)
states that Constantine
[the Great],
the sonof Constans and the blessed
Helen,
rejected
the "foolish
deception
of
idols";
Symeonreplaces
the
gender-neutral epithet g6crato;
with the
adjective 7cizTpto;,
the first
meaning
of which is "of the father." 71 The
martyr
Eustratios,
inanother
passio,
announces
that he was Christian"frommaternal
swaddling
clothes." 72 "Paternal" has abad connota-
tion,
"maternal" a
good
one.
Inseveral
Metaphrastic
discourses,
fathers are
simply
omitted: awidow
supported by
her sonrecovered the head of the centurion
Longinus;73 Symeonpresents
the
wealthy
Phrygella,
healed
by
St.
Averkios,
as the mother of
Poplion
whoheld
topmost dignities
in
Hierapolis,
without
mentioning
her husband.74 Three
infants,
victims of
Emperor
Numerianus,
are
presented solely
as childrenof their mother Christodoule.75 Three
young girls-Theoktiste, Theodote,
and Eudoxia-are featured inthe vitaof
Kyros
and
Johntogether
with their mother
Athanasia,76
while the father is not mentioned. The
female
apostle
Theklais described as a
daughter
of Theokleiawhobetrothed Thekla
against
her
will;77
again
there is nofather inthe narrative.
Symeonbegins
his account of
St. Hieronwith the statement that his fatherland was
Tyana
in
Cappadocia
and his
mother Stratonike was a
pious
woman;78
later we read that Stratonike was a
widow,
that
Hieronwas concerned about his mother's
solitude,
and that his cut-off hand was carried
tohis mother.
Tosummarize:
SymeonMetaphrastes
not
only
found inhis sources the
stereotype
of
close ties betweenmothers and their children
(especially sons),
but alsoreinforced this
idea
by
certain
additions,
changes,
and omissions.
Probably
not
only
mother-sonrela-
tions were
strong
in
Byzantium,
but alsothe relations between
nephews
and maternal
66BHG
626,
ed. E
Halkin,
Euphemie
de Chalcedoine
(Brussels, 1965), 146.19-22;
cf.
ibid., 14.16-17.
67Ibid., 33.1-2.
68BHG
77,
ed. PG 115:1296A.
69BHG 82, ed. PG 116:576f.
70BHG 8, ed. PG 115:45c.
7'John
of
Damascus,
Die
Schriften,
ed. B.
Kotter,
V
(Berlin, 1988), 204,
par. 5.4-6;
PG 115:116OBC (BHG
172).
72BHG
646,
ed. PG 116:473c.
73BHG
989,
ed. PG 115:40c.
74BHG
4,
ed. Th.
Nissen,
Abercii vita
(Leipzig, 1912),
97.25-28.
75Martyrion
of St.
Babylas,
BHG
206,
ed. PG 114:976A. Numerianus first of all asked themwhether
they
had amother
(col. 973D).
76BHG 471, ed. PG 114:1241.
77BHG
1719,
ed. PG 115:824c.
78BHG
750,
ed. PG 116:109A. There is nosuch sentence at the
beginning
of the earlier
martyrion;
Strato-
nike
appears only
inalater
paragraph
about herwidowhood
(AASS,
Nov.
3:331F).
12
uncles, as,
for
instance,
inthe case of Platonof Sakkoudionand Theodore of
Stoudios.
The theme of the
Byzantine
avunculate has not
yet
beentouched
upon.
There is ascene inthe
martyrion
of St.
Catherine,
revised
by SymeonMetaphrastes,
that mirrors the ambivalence of
Byzantine
attitudes toward women: the heathen
emperor
Maxentius discusses the
problems
of faith with Catherine inAlexandria
(sic); failing
to
convince her of the
advantages
of
paganism,
he
organizes
her debate with
fifty
rhetori-
cians. The
disputants gather,
confident intheir
art,
and one of themexclaims:
"What
does awomanknow about the
profession
of rhetoric!" 79 The
phrase
could be
interpreted
as
patriarchal
disdainof feminine
intelligence,
but the case is not as
simple
as it
seems.
First of
all, Symeon
omits the boastful sentence of the rhetoricianwhoridicules Cather-
ine's desire tooverturnall the rhetorical
TrvoXoyia
even
though
she is unfamiliar with
the
vocabulary
of the rhetoricians. Thenhe inserts the
phrase
crucial for our
purpose:
whenMaxentius
dispatched
his
encyclical
toconvene the
disputants,
he,
says
Meta-
phrastes,8 pretended
or claimed
(npounotca'6tevo;)
that it was beneath his
dignity (ava-
tiov)
to
dispute
with awoman.
Symeon
understood that a
Byzantine
manwould assert
that to
compete
with awomaninarhetorical
disputation
was beneath his
dignity,
but in
fact neither Maxentius nor
Metaphrastes
himself
thought
so;
for Catherine wonthe dis-
pute
and evenconverted
fifty
skillful rhetoricians toher creed.
An
exceptional
case is
presented
inadocument of the late
Byzantine period.
A con-
tract of
1364,
regulating
relations betweena
[widow?]
Irene
Drymouchaine
and her son-
in-law,
graphically
demonstrates the
power
of a
Byzantine
womaninher ownhouse.
According
tothis
contract,
the
"lady"
Irene
"accepted" (XacLRpv?i)
her son-in-law Theo-
dore,
together
with her own
daughter Mary,
onthe
following
conditions:
they
would
stay
under the same roof and
get
the same
meals,
but Irene would remain"the
lady
and
hostess" until her
death;
she would be free torunthe house as she found desirable
for her
spiritual
salvation. The
"children,"
however,
retained the exclusive
right
toher
inheritance.81
WOMEN'S COSTUME
The
history
of
Byzantine
costume is still tobe writtenand will be difficult towrite.
With the
exception
of some
Coptic
textiles,
few material remnants have
survived,
and
Byzantine
art
provides
us
mostly
with conventional
images
of
imperial
or court attire.
By
nomeans doI claimto
present
here a
comprehensive
characterizationof the dress of
Byzantine
women;82
the
only question
I dare raise is the
relationship
betweenmale and
female costume.
The
Byzantines distinguished
betweenthe costume of menand
women;
JohnChry-
79BHG
32,
ed. PG
116:284c;
the
phrase
is
copied
fromanearlier
martyrion: J. Viteau,
Passions des saints
Ecaterine et Pierre
d'Alexandrie,
Barbaraet
Anysia(Paris, 1897),
11.15.
80PG 116:281c.
81
G. Ferrari dalle
Spade, "Registro
Vaticanodi atti bizantini di diritto
privato,"
SBN 4
(1935), 264,
no. vii.
82Koukoules,
Bio;, II.2:9f, devoted a
single page
tothe
particularities
of the feminine
garment.
See also
the
paragraph
"Women's Dress inthe TransitionPeriod" inM. G.
Houston,
Ancient
Greek,
Romanand
Byzantine
Costume
(London, 1947),
130-34. Forthe
discovery
of awoman's caftanof
Byzantine origin(?)
in
Birka,
see
I.
Hagg,
Kvinnodrdkteni Birka
(Uppsala, 1974),
110.
13
WOMEN AT HOME
sostom,
for
example,
insisted that menshould not
put
onwomen's
clothing.83
Around
the ninth
century,
Achmet discussed dreams inwhich men
appeared
dressed as women
and vice
versa;84
this
paragraph,
however,
is titled "Fromthe
Persians,"
and we cannot
be sure that the author was
describing genuine Byzantine
habits. "Criminals" condemned
tothe
parade
of
infamy might
be dressed infemale
garb: according
to
Symeon
Meta-
phrastes, Emperor
Maximianordered women's
garments (specifically
identified as wom-
en's
KoXo)3ita)
tobe
put
on
Sergios
and
Bacchos,85
and inthe eleventh
century Theophilos
Erotikos was
paraded
inthe
Hippodrome
infeminine attire.86 Andronikos Komnenos
refused to
put
onfeminine
garb
to
escape
fromhis mistress's tent since he was afraid of
being caught
and
humiliated,
but sometime later he fled froma
prisondisguised
as a
woman.87 A distinctionbetweenmale and female costume was evident tothe
Byzantine
eye,
but towhat extent was it substantial?
Ph. Koukoules has
already
shownthat the
terminology
of men's and women's costume
was similar. The will of the nun
Mary
mentions two
principal
terms for her
cloak, i4titov
and
Lav&6ao;,
which
reappear
inthe treatise of Pseudo-Kodinos as the elements of the
dress of the
dowager empress.88
Both terms are
commonly
used for men's
garments
as
well. Niketas of
Amnia,
the author of the vitaof Philaretos the
Merciful,
narrates a
story
that demonstrates how conventional was the distinctionbetweenmen's and women's
dress: Philaretos
gave away
toa
poor
manhis himati(cion
(chiton,
inanother
version);
when
he returned
home,
inhis
underwear,
his wife took her own
actXaptov,
recut it in"the
mans
manner,"
and
gave
it toher husband.89 The word
sticharion, however,
normally
designated
aman's
tunic,
particularly
avestment of
deacons,
priests,
and
bishops.
A simi-
lar
episode
is narrated inthe vitaof
Mary
the
Younger:90
as
Mary's corpse
was
being
prepared
for
burial,
her husband ordered that his chitonbe recut intoafemale one and
put
onhis dead wife. Chitonwas a
garment
worn
by
menand womenalike. Kolobia, in
which
Sergios
and Bacchos were
garbed
for the
parade
of
infamy,
are
usually
identified
as
dalmatics,
and were alsoworn
by
men. Eventhe
maphorion,
adistinctive element of
feminine costume
covering
the head and
shoulders,
could serve as anitemof
apparel
for
the
praepositus
of the
Senate,91
and monks could wear
maphoria
as well.
The will of the nun
Mary
lists several other items of costume:
o6ytov (mentioned
also
inthe will of
Gemma)
could alsobe used
by
men; Pr-Xaptov designated
a
piece
of
textile,
sometimes
cotton,
xab68tov
velvet,
and
xiaKltXtov
ahead
covering.
The marital contract
of
Eudokia,
which enumerates other elements of feminine
attire,
is in
Hebrew,
but the
terms for
clothing
are
mostly
of Latin
origin(pallium,
sacculus, sudarion);
onthe other
83PG 61:216.39-40.
84Achmes, Oneirocriticon,
ed. . Drexl
(Leipzig, 1925),
218.
s8BHG 1625,
ed. PG 115: 1009D.
86loannes
Scylitzes, Synopsis
historiarum,
ed. I. Thurn
429.13-17.
87NikChon, 105.59-60,
196.69-70.
88Pseudo-Kodinos,
Traite des
offices,
ed.
J. Verpeaux (Paris, 1966),
261.2-3.
89Fourmy
and
Leroy,
"Lavie" (as above,
note
7), 135.13-23;
the termchitonis used once inthis
story.
Another
version, Vasiliev,
"Zhitie" (as above,
note
7), 74.9-17,
alsouses the termchiton.
90BHG
1164,
ed.
AASS,
Nov. 4:697A. See
English
trans.
by
A.
Laiou,
in
Holy
Women
of Byzantium:
TenSaints'
Lives in
English
Translation,
ed. A.-M.
Talbot,
Byzantine
Saints' Lives inTranslation
1
(Washington,
D.C.,
1996),
267.
91De Ceremoniis aulae
byzantinae,
ed.
J.
Reiske,
I
(Bonn, 1829),
529.20-22.
14
hand,
the termfor anitemof
headgear,
entrichin
("wig"),
seems tohave
originated
from
Greek.
The theme of awoman
entering
amale
monastery
in
disguise
is commonin
Byzan-
tine
hagiography, predominantly
inthe earlier centuries.92 Whentheir transvestism
was
discovered,
the
only problem
of costume that arose was the
headgear,
not the
dress.
Whenthe
gender
of the
fifth-century
St. Matronaof
Perge
was
revealed,
the abbot
asked
her how
she,
a
woman,
dared to
approach
the
holy
eucharist with her head uncovered
(as
menwould
do),
and Matronadescribed tohimthe trick she used toavoid
discovery
and at the same time to
comply
with the
aprohibition imposed
nwomen: she claimed to
suffer fromaheadache and raised her
pallium
over her head.93 If we believe Arethas of
Caesarea,
the
tenth-century emperor
Alexander tried toeliminate this
discriminatory
tradition: he initiated anew customof
entering
church with covered head.94 This was a
rule that referred to
men,
since womenhad
always
been
supposed
tocover their heads
in
church,
and not inchurch
only:
the
hagiographer
of the late Romansaint
Pelagia
emphasized
that the
heroine,
inher
youth,
was soshameless that she did not evenuse a
light
veil
(Oepitopov)
tocover her head. The habit of
covering
the face continued for
centuries: Anna
Komnene,
describing
the dramatic
flight
of the female members of the
Comnenianclanin
1081,
narrates how one of
them,
while
talking
with the
envoys
of the
emperor,
raised
up
the linenveil
(606vl)
that was
covering
her face.96 But in
Byzantium
not
only
womencovered their
faces;
according
toEustathios of
Thessalonike,
the custom
of monks was similar. He relates that monks in
public places usually
masked the
upper
half of their faces with ablack hood
(gL?6av nTapaiceTa?Yga),
but it would
quickly
be raised
above
eye
level,
if the veiled man
spotted any indecency worthy
of observation.97 Male
and female
hairstyles
seemtobe
different;
in
any
event,
Zonaras criticizes menwho
imitated womeninorder to
beautify
the hair ontheir heads.98
Probably
the most distinctive masculine itemof costume
(if
we discount the lack of a
veil or
headgear
and
jewelry)
was trousers. Mentions of themare
relatively
commonin
Greek sources of the twelfth
century,99
but both Eustathios of Thessalonike and Niketas
Choniates
speak
of trousers with
derision,
and it is
possible
that the customof
wearing
pants
was limited toanarrow
group
of mouned warriors. The belt was
evidently
a
typi-
cal element of
Byzantine
official "male"
costume,
the zoste
patrikiabeing
the
single
fe-
male
exception.
Inother
words,
we
again
encounter
typically Byzantine terminological
contradiction:
while the mainelements of costume
(cloak
=
himationor
mandyas;
tunic
=
kolobionor
sticharion)
were almost identical for menand
women,
the
headgear
and
especially
hair-
styles
were
distinct,
and trousers were characteristic
only
of alimited social
category.
92E.
Patlagean, "L'histoire
de lafemme
deguisee
enmoine et l'evolutionde lasaintete f6minine a
Byzance,"
StMed 17
(1976), 597-623,
repr.
inherStructure
sociale,
famille,
chretiente
(London, 1981),
no. xI.
93BHG 1221,
ed.
AASS,
Nov.
3:794B;
English
trans.
by
J.
Featherstone and C.
Mango
in
Holy
Women, ed.
Talbot, 26.
94Arethas,
Scriptaminora,
ed. L. G.
Westerink,
I
(Leipzig, 1968),
90.27.
95B. Flusin,
in
Pelagie
laPenitente:
Metamorphoses
d'une
legende,
ed. P.
Petitmengin,
I
(Paris, 1981),
79.36-37.
96Anne Comnene,
Alexiade
11:5.8,
ed. B.
Leib,
I
(Paris, 1967),
78.29.
97Eustathius,
Opuscula,
ed. G. L. F. Tafel
(Frankfurt, 1832),
250.39-46.
98PG 137:848BC.
99Dataare
gathered
inKazhdanand Wharton
Epstein, Change
in
Byzantine Culture,
76f.
15
WOMEN AT HOME
CONCLUSION
Women's
activity
withinthe house
encompasses
several
spheres.
We have seenthat
the
Byzantine stereotype
made the mother the
principal
educator of children, male and
female alike. It is also
possible
tosurmise that womenwere
responsible
for
cleaning
the
house. We
may expect
that womenwere
responsible
for
washing
clothes,100 but menocca-
sionally
shared inthis
chore;
at
any
rate,
during
the late Roman
period
outside the
city
walls of
Emesa,
Symeon
the Fool saw tenmen
washing
their
himatia.1'0
Womenwere the
cooks for the household and evencooked food tosell at market. The
hagiographer
of
Nikonthe Metanoeite relates how awomankneaded
barley
cakes at
home,
while her
daughter helped by carrying
water froma
nearby
well;102
the
story
has adouble
signifi-
cance,
showing
as well that
younger,
unmarried womenof the lower class moved
freely
outside the house.
Among
the items
given
toEudokia
by
her
marriage
contract are
kitchenutensils-a
cauldron,
a
dish,
abasin-all
designated
inthe document
by
Hebrew
words of Greek
origin:
KaKKaptv, X?PflxtV,
XEKcvtv.
A
X?KaVrl
appears
inthe will of
Gemmaas well. But
again,
amancould
possess
the same kind of kitchen
utensils;
at
any
rate,
the will of Skaranos lists two
-KaKapotoUkXa(small cauldrons),
several
intipakXTpLa
(basins),
a
copper
vessel
(X6XKogLa),
and some other
objects
of unclear
meaning,
before it
moves onto
agricultural implements.
The
image
of the housewife or
young girl spinning, weaving,
and
making
cloth was a
topos
of
Byzantine
literature
throughout
the centuries.103 JohnMoschos relates abeautiful
novelette about a
young virgin
whobecame an
object
of Satanic desire: amanwholoved
her would
stay
all
day
outside her house sothat she could not
go
tochurch. She sent a
maid to
him,
invited the maninside her house
(obviously
Moschos did not know that
Byzantine virgins
were
supposed
tolive instrict
confinement),
and asked him
why
he
kept
her from
going
out. Whenthe man
explained
that he loved
her,
she thenasked him
again:
"What do
you
find inme sobeautiful that makes
you
love me so
passionately?"
"Your
eyes,"
he answered. The
girl
was
sitting
at the loom
(iotaptov),
soshe took the
weaver's shuttle
(K?pKri
ov)
and
gouged
out both her
eyes.l04
Later,
the
ninth-century
saint Athanasia of
Aegina
was
working
at the loom
(iosT6;)
whenshe saw a
vision,l05
and
Gemma,
whose will I have mentioned several
times,
was alsoinvolved in
weaving:
in in her
will she
stipulates
that skeins of wool she
possessed
should be
given
toaweaver tomake
atextile for a
church;
another clause is evenmore
interesting,
for Gemma
bequeathed
her loomnot toa
woman,
but to
men,
the sons of her relative Leo.l06
The dataI have
presented
are
scanty
and
chronologically
not
homogeneous. They
00Koukoules, Bio;, 11.2:203.
'01BHG 1677,
ed. Leontios of
Neapolis,
Vie de
Syme'on
le Fouet Vie
dejean
de
Chypre,
ed. A.
J. Festugiere
and
L.
Ryden(Paris, 1974),
97.16.
102BHG
1366,
ed. D.
Sullivan,
The
Life of
Saint Nikon
(Brookline, Mass., 1987), 98,
par.
27.1. 2.. Ona13th-
century
case
involving
a
young
womanwhodrew waterfroma
spring
where aVlach
sexually
assaulted
her,
see A.
Laiou, "Sex, Consent,
and Coercionin
Byzantium,"
inConsent and CoerciontoSex and
Marriage
inAncient
and Medieval
Society (Washington,
D.C., 1993),
165f.
103
Laiou,
"The Role of Women," 243f.
104PG 87:2913AB.
105BHG 180,
ed. F.
Halkin,
Six inedits
d'hagiologie byzantine (Brussels, 1987),
180.17-18.
English
trans.
by
L.
Sherry
in
Holy Women,
ed.
Talbot, 142.
106Robinson,
History
and
Cartulary,
doc. iv, 53.77-79.
16
ALEXANDER P KAZHDAN
are not sufficient for a
persuasive
conclusion,
but
they
allow us toraise the
question
whether there was adrastic difference betweenmenand womenwithinthe household.
I aminclined toanswer this
questionnegatively;
at
any
rate,
I was unable todiscover
separate dwellings
ina
regular
house or
separate
kinds of utensils or
strictly separate
types
of economic
activity;
eventhe
clothing
was more similar than
not,
with
only insig-
nificant distinctions.
Certainly,
the situationof womenin
Byzantium
underwent alter-
ations as time went on: there were
periods
of
improvement
and of decline of the social
status of women. The
chronological aspect
of the
problem
of women's household
activity
needs a
special investigation,
but at the moment it seems that one of the
periods
of their
improved
circumstances was the most
"military"
Comnenian
century:
in
Byzantium,
as
probably
inthe
West,
chivalric
ideology
led toa
growing respect
for womenrather than
worsening
of their status.
Certainly throughout
all of
Byzantine history
there were cases
of male
violence,
of
rape,
of male sexual
chauvinism,
but it is still tobe
proven
that
Byzantine
womenlived inaharemand were abused at
every step
as one would
expect
ina
paradigmatic (but
not
real) "patriarchal"
and
"military" society.
DumbartonOaks
17
Medieval English Women in Rural and Urban Domestic Space
Author(s): Barbara A. Hanawalt
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:15
Medieval
English
WomeninRural and Urban
Domestic
Space
BARBARA A. HANAWALT
M
edieval
Europeansociety
did not have
strong gender
divisions inits domestic ar-
rangements
such as that found inthe harems of Islamic
society, yet
the social as-
sumptions
that
underlay gendered
divisions of
space
had
implications
for where women
could be and what would
happen
tothemif
they
moved outside that
space.
A woman's
reputationmight hinge
onher
ability
toremainina
particular, acceptable space.
The
space might
be a
house,
village,
or
city quarter depending
onher economic
activity
and
her social class. Inthis
paper
I look at the
spaces
that women
traditionally occupied,
the
advice literature that trained womentobe inthat
space,
and the risks that arose for
womenwhomoved
beyond
their allotted
space.
I
present parallel
discussions of the do-
mestic
space
that rural and urbanwomen
occupied
and aninstance ineach case of
spaces
that
placed
womenat risk: for rural
women, fields,
and for urban
women,
taverns.
Anthropologists
have noted that women's access tothe entire environment was re-
stricted. Pierre
Bourdieu,
inhis fieldwork
among
the
Berberes,
observed that the houses
were
literally
divided intomale and female
space.
The divisionof the house extended
intothe value
judgments
associated with this divisionand
metaphors
for the dominance
of the male over the female-male
space
over female
lspace.'
While
Europeansociety
did
not divide houses inthis
manner,
Bourdieu's
larger point
is
important
for our consider-
ationof the
meaning
of
controlling
access to
space.
The
power
of dominant
groups
lies,
in
part,
intheir
ability
tocontrol the
ordering
of
space
for subservient
groups.
Martine
Segalen's exploration
of the divisionof male and female
space among
the French
peas-
ants is valuable because she
brings
her observations toa
rural,
European
situation. She
notes that there was a"female house" and a"male outside." Whenwomenwent outside
the
house,
they
did sointhe
company
of other women. Men's
space
was the fields.
Thus,
she
observed,
not
only
were tasks divided inthe
peasant
communities,
but alsothe alloca-
tionof
space.2
The
spaces
that were considered male and female in
Europe
did not usu-
lP.
Bourdieu,
Outline
of
a
Theory of
Practice,
trans. R. Nice
(Cambridge, 1977), 90-91,
160-63. See also
R. A. Levine and S. E.
Levine,
"House
Design
and the Self inanAfrican
Culture,"
in
Body
and
Space: Symbolic
Models
of Unity
and Divisionin
AfricanCosmology
and
Experience,
ed. A.
Jacobson-Widding (Uppsala, 1991),
155-73,
inwhich the houses and rooms define the
stages
of life formenand women.
2M.
Segalen,
Mari
etfemme
dans lasociete
paysanne, Bibliothieque d'ethnologie historique (Paris, 1980).
In
herHistorical
Anthropology of
the
Family,
trans.
J.
C. Whitehouse and S. Matthews
(Cambridge, 1986), 205-12,
218-19,
she extends the observationtoother
preindustrial
classes.
MEDIEVAL ENGLISH WOMEN
ally imply
an
exclusivity by
sex
(with
the
exception
of some sacred
space).
Mendid not
congregate
alone intaverns or
temples,
and womenwere not
kept
inwomen's
quarters.
Womendid work inthe fields at
harvest,
and menlived inthe houses.
Nonetheless,
strong
customdictated how womenmoved inthe
spaces
that mendominated. Tobreak
these
rules,
as
Mary Douglas
observed,
made women
"polluting"
and
"dangerous."3
Thus,
as we shall
see,
womenwhobroke the codes
limiting
their movement outside their
allotted
physical space
were
subject
toharassment.
Segalen's
observations about the
space
of a
peasant
woman's
sphere
of
activity
receive
confirmationfromthe
study
of accidental deaths recorded in
fourteenth-century English
coroners'
inquests.
Medieval
coroners,
like modern
ones,
were
charged
with
investigating
all cases of violent death. Thus their
duty
was to
inquire
about all
homicides, suicides,
and misadventures. The
inquests
can,
at their
fullest,
provide
awealth of detail about
the scene of the
tragedy.
The
inquests give
the name of the
accused,
the
date,
and some-
times the
day
of the accident and
age
of the
victim,
and the
place, activity,
and instrument
that caused the death.
Inthe rural coroners'
inquests,
which reflect the life of the
peasants, my sample
in-
cluded one thousand adult males and females for whomaclear
place
of accident could
be
established;
the differences were
striking. Only
12
percent
of the men
compared
to
30
percent
of the womendied intheir homes. Private
property
such as a
neighbor's
house
or
garden
area,
manor
house,
and soonwere the
place
of death of
only
6
percent
of the
menbut 9
percent
of the women. In
public
areas withinthe
village,
such as
greens,
streets,
highways,
churches,
and
markets,
women
againpredominated,
with 22
percent
of their accidents there
compared
tomen's 18
percent.
But if we look at
fields,
marl
pits,
forest,
and so
on,
we find that 38
percent
of menhad accidents
there,
while
only
18
percent
of the womendid.
Likewise,
menhad 4
percent
more of their accidents inwater-
ways.
The
aggregate picture
is more dramatic thanthe breakdownintovarious
catego-
ries. Womenhad 61
percent
of their accidents withintheir home and
village,
while men
had
only
36
percent
inthis limited area.
The numerical breakdownof women's
place
of accidental death correlates with the
type
of activities that caused them. Most of the women's accidents
(37%)
correlated with
their activities of
maintaining
and
provisioning
the
household,
including
food
prepara-
tion,
laundry, brewing, getting
water,
starting
fires,
collecting
fruits,
and
working
with
domestic animals. For both sexes accidents involved in
moving
fromone
place
toan-
other-including walking, carting,
horseback
riding,
and
boating-were high, involving
30
percent
of the women's accidents and 43
percent
of the men's. But whenone looks at
work outside the
village
and
house,
19
percent
of the men
compared
to4
percent
of the
womendied in
agricultural
accidents,
and 4
percent
of the menand nowomendied in
activities related toconstructionand
carpentry.4
If we look at the
landscape
of
Europe today
for evidence of women's use of
space,
we
find it inthe
villages
rather thanthe fields. The
ridges
and furrows that create awash-
3M.
Douglas, Purity
and
Danger:
An
Analysis of Concepts of
Pollutionand Taboo
(London, 1966), 140-58,
dis-
cusses the
interplay
betweenmenand womenand ideas about
pollution.
V.
Turner,
The Ritual Process: Struc-
ture and Anti-Structure
(New York, 1969),
109-1
1,
has
spoken
about the
perceived danger
of the weak insoci-
eties.
4B.
A.
Hanawalt,
The Ties That Bound: Peasant Families inMedieval
England (New York, 1986);
see
tables, 271.
20
BARBARA A. HANAWALT
board effect onthe
land,
particularly
whenseeninaerial
photographs,
are
peasant
men's
legacy,
but inthe deserted
villages
and in
archaeological
sites,
the
U-shaped depressions
mark the locationof aformer house floor formed
by
the
sweeping
of the
housewife's
broom.
Inthe commissionof
crime,
womenalso
stayed
near their homes. Their crimes
were
concentrated in
burglary, larceny,
and
receiving
of stolen
property
or knownfelons.
The
first twocrimes were most
likely
tobe committed
against neighbors
inthe same
village,
and the last
was,
of
course,
acrime committed intheir ownhome. It was the men
who
committed crimes inthe
fields, forests,
and
highways.5
Likewise,
womenwere more
likely
tobe victims of homicide intheir homes or
village
rather thaninthe fields.6
When
peasant
womenmoved outside the home or
village,
however,
they put
them-
selves intoasituationof risk.
Joan
of Arc's
inquisitors continually suggested by
their
questions
that
Joan
had
put
her
virginity
at risk
by going
tothe fields totend
sheep,
and
she
continually replied
that she had not hrded. She maintained that she had beenraised
inher faher's house and her mother
taught
her tosew. She left her father's house once
to
go
tothat of awomannamed LaRousse whenthe
Burgundians
threatened,
but "in
this house she did the household
tasks,
and did not
go
intothe fields to
keep sheep
or
other animals." At another sessionshe was asked if she took animals to
pasture,
and she
replied
that "since she had
grownup
and reached
years
of
understanding,
she did not
look after
them;
but she did
help
drive themtothe
meadows,
and toacastle called
1'Ile,
for fear of the soldiers."7 The theme of risk for womeninthe fields and
pastures
also
appears
inthe French
play
Robinand
Marion,
inwhich a
knight approaches
Marionwhile
she is out
tending
her flocks and tries toabduct her.8
Cases fromthe coroners'
inquests
and trial records show that the
pastoral
environ-
ment,
separated
was it was fromthe women's normal
space
of the
village, placed young
womeninavulnerable
position. Joan's inquisitors
were not
forming
their
questions
from
prejudice
alone. For
instance,
Agnes, daughter
of
John
de
Enovere,
appealed Hugh
Fitz
Thomas
le Renur of
rape (i.e.,
she made a
legal accusation). Agnes
was seven
years
old
at the time and was
minding sheep
inthe fields.
Hugh
came
upon
her and
violently
threw her ontothe
ground
inorder to
rape
her,
squeezing
her sohard that blood issued
fromher mouth and nose.9 Another
woman, Emma,
daughter
of Richard
Toky
of
Southill,
went tothe woods tocollect firewood. Walter
Gargolf
of Stanford
came,
carrying
5B.
A.
Hanawalt,
Crime and
Conflict
inMedieval
Communities,
1300-1348
(Cambridge,
Mass., 1979),
120-
22,
168-70.
6In
general,
womenwere not cited as victims of
property
crimes because their
property,
unless
they
were
single
or
widows,
belonged
totheirhusbands. Forthe
pattern
on
homicide,
see
J.
B.
Given,
Society
and
Homicide
in
Thirteenth-Century England (Stanford, Calif., 1977),
169.
7The Trial
of Joanof
Arc,
Being
the Verbatim
Report of
the
Proceedings from
the Orleans
Manuscript,
trans. W S.
Scott
(Westport, Conn., 1956), 66-67,
74-75.
8Five
Comedies
of
Medieval
France,
trans. 0. Mandel
(New York, 1970),
85-104. See alsoK.
Gravdal,
Rav-
ishing
Maidens:
Writing Rape
inMedieval French Literature and Law
(Philadelphia, 1991).
In
chapter
4 she dis-
cusses the sexual violence that was characteristic of the
pastourelle
inwhich the
knight
deflowers the
shep-
herdess. The undefended
shepherdess
was astandard of literature
throughout
medieval
Europe,
sothat this
is aninstance where literature and the
history
of
rape
must have intersected in
forming
the
opinions
of both
menand womenabout the
rape
situation.
9H.
N.
Schneebach,
"The Law of
Felony
inMedieval
England
fromthe Accessionof Edward I until the
Mid-Fourteenth
Century" (Ph.D. diss.,
University
of
Iowa, 1973),
464-67.
21
abow and asmall sheaf of
arrows,
took hold of
Emma, and tried tothrow her tothe
ground
and deflower
her,
but she
immediately
shouted,
and her
father,
whowas
working
nearby,
came.
Gargolf
shot and killed her father and thenfled.10
It was not
simply country
lasses whowere at risk of
rape
when
they departed
from
women's normal
space. Margery Kemp,
a
mature,
middle-aged
woman,
explained
that
she
accompanied
her widowed
daughter-in-law
back to
Germany
because awoman
trav-
eling
alone was at risk of
rape.
After she delivered the
daughter-in-law
toher
family,
Margery
made the return
trip
herself and took aside
trip
toAachen. Onthis
trip
she
greatly
feared that she would be
raped,
and one manasked her
why
she was
traveling
alone
considering
the risk she was
taking.11
The urbanenvironment was one inwhich menand womenmixed
throughout
the
day.
Business was conducted in
shops
and cellars of homes as well as inthe halls of the
houses themselves.
Apprentices,
servants, merchants,
and artisans
mingled
with the fam-
ily
of the master.
Many people
lived incrowded conditions intenements sothat both
menand womenwere
constantly coming
and
going
onthe stairs of the three-storied
houses. Inthe streets as well the sexes
mingled.
One
might
assume that the urbanenvi-
ronment was not as conscious of the
space
that awomancould
occupy.
Evidence from
advice
literature,
coroners'
inquests,
and other
legal
cases
argues against
this
assumption.
Women's
space
could be confined
by
means other than
simple geography: clothing,
the
way
of
walking,
and even
injunctions
of
speech
could
regulate
awoman's access to
physi-
cal
space.
Advice
literature,
designed chiefly by
menfor urbanand middle-class
women,
em-
phasized
the behavior of womenwhen
they
moved outside their homes. Inthe
poem,
"How the Good Wife
Taught
Her
Daughter,"
the
daughter
is told that her
place
is the
home,
but since she must
go
out she should
keep
her
eyes
downwhenshe is inthe streets.
The
poemcarefully spells
out the
dangers
of
public places.
Anwanthou
goist
inthe
way, go
thounot to
faste,
Braundishe not with thin
heed,
thi schuldris thoune
caste;
Haue thounot to
manye
wordis;
toswere be thounot
leefe,
For alle such maners comentoan
yuel preef:
For he that cacchith tohiman
yuel
name,
It is tohimafoule
fame,
Mi Leue childe.
Further
warnings
include not
getting
drunk in
taverns,
not
going
house tohouse
buying
beer with
money
made from
selling
cloth,
and not
accompanying
alover to
places
condu-
cive toseduction.
Finally,
the
good daughter
would not
go
toshows like acommonstrum-
pet,
but "wone at
hom,
daughter,
and loue thi werk
myche."12
While advice manuals for
young
mentell themtolook oncomers inthe
eye,
those for
young
women
suggest
that a
way
of
preserving
their
space
in
public
is to
keep
their
eyes
down. Women's
space,
there-
fore,
could be
effectively preserved by physical
limitations of the movement of the head
and
eyes.
Not content with
limiting
the
space
that womenwere to
occupy
and their behavior
10Bedfordshire
Coroners'
Rolls,
trans. R. F.
Hunnisett, Bedfordshire Historical Record
Society
Publications
41
(1961),
27-28.
1
The Book
of Margery Kempe,
trans. B. A. Windeatt
(Harmondsworth, 1985), 269-72, 281.
2The Babees Book
...,
ed. F.
J. Furnival,
Early English
Text
Society,
old
ser., 32
(London, 1868),
36-47.
22
BARBARA A. HANAWALT
when
they
moved outside that
space,
male moralists also
imposed regulations
onwhat
womenwere towear. Dress codes
are,
of
course,
another
way
of
confining
women,
inthis
case withinanouter
layer
of cloth. The nun's veil is the most
apparent
of the dress
codes,
but inLondonand
many
cities of
Europe, city
fathers
regulated
headdress: "Nowoman
of the townshall henceforth
go
tothe market nor intothe
highway
out of her house with
ahood furred with
budge,
whether it be of lambor of
conies,
uponpain
of
forfeiting
her hood tothe use of the
Sheriffs,
except
dames whowear furred
capes
and hoods of
which bear fur such as
they
wish....
Brewsters, nurses,
other
servants,
and womenof
disreputable
character adornthemselves and wear hoods furred with
gros
veer and mini-
ver after the manner of
reputable [women]."
13 Not
only
headdress,
but a
variety
of cloth-
ing
items determined the
properly
clad womanin
public.14
Medieval women's head-
dresses were either veils or hoods that served like horse blinders when
they
walked in
the streets. Cloaks covered the
body
tothe toes.
The obverse of
city regulation
for
respectable
womenwas the
clothing signifiers
that
cities
prescribed
for
prostitutes.
InLondonahood of multicolored cloth and insouthern
France sleeves and headdress
distinguished prostitutes. Italy prohibited prostitutes
from
wearing
veils or mantles like
respectable
womenand
required
themtowear a
yellow strip
denoting
their trade.15
Even
though
the
regulation
of women's dress and behavior incities indicates that
womenwere more
frequently mingling
with meninthe
streets,
womenstill moved within
anarrower confine thanmen. Mentook their
regulations seriously
not
only
as restric-
tions onurban
women,
but alsoas
guides
for their ownbehavior with
regard
towomen.
An
example
fromthe LondonGoldsmith's Guild tells of the
degradation
felt
by
all
parties
inthe removal of afemale fromthe
socially accepted space.
William
Rothely
was fined
"because he ...
against
all
humanity,
sent his maid out of his house and suffered her to
lie out two
nights
soshe was faintoborrow
money
tolie at the Pewter Pot tothe dishonor
of all the
fellowship
[of goldsmiths]."
16
By expelling
his servant fromher
protected physi-
cal
space
and
forcing
her to
stay
at an
inn,
Rothely
had
disgraced
himself and his
guild.
The
daily
rounds of activities mentioned inthe Londoncoroners'
inquest
inues toacci-
dental deaths indicate that women's activities were centered intheir homes and
city
ward
or
parish.
For womenthe home and the
garden
were the
major places
of death
(50%),
with streets
being
the locationof 30
percent
of their deaths. Nowomendied in
shops
or
workplaces,
and
only
10
percent
onwharves or inthe river.
Men, however,
had the ma-
jority
of their fatal accidents inthe river or wharf area
(30%),
street
(18%),
and
shop
and
workplace (16%),
but
only
20
percent
inthe home.'7 Literature
againprovides examples
of the uneasiness of males whenurbanwomenmoved outside the
city quarter.
Chaucer's
3Calendaro
ofLetter-Books
Preserved
among
the Archives
of
the
Corporationof
the
City ofLondon, 1275-1487,
Letter
Book
A,
ed. R. R.
Sharpe (London, 1889),
220.
14D. 0.
Hughes, "Distinguishing Signs: Ear-rings, Jews
and FranciscanRhetoric inthe ItalianRenaissance
City,"
Past and Present 112
(1986),
3-59.
"5R. M.
Karras,
"The
Regulation
of Brothels inLaterMedieval
England," Signs
14
(1989), 421;
L.
Otis,
ProstitutioninMedieval
Society:
The
History of
anUrbanInstitutionin
Languedoc (Chicago, 1985), 80;
J.
Rossiaud,
Medieval
Prostitution,
trans. L. G. Cochrane
(Oxford, 1988), 64-65;
Hughes, "Distinguishing Signs,"
29-30.
'6T.
E
Reddaway,
The
Early History of
the Goldsmith's
Company,
1327-1509
(London, 1975),
151.
17The total
sample
size is 267 accidental deaths from1275 to1341. Cases
appear
inCalendar
of
Coroners'
Rolls
of
the
City of London,
A.D.
1300-1378,
ed. R. R.
Sharpe (London, 1913);
Public Record Office Just 2/94A;
and Calendar
of
Letter-Books
of
the
City of London,
LetterBook
B,
ed. R. R.
Sharpe (London, 1900),
256-80.
23
Wife of Bath is both amuch traveled and much ridiculed woman. Her honor is
ques-
tioned because she traveled alone
beyond
Bath.
Like the Wife of
Bath,
widows of craftsmenand
merchants,
or inLondonmarried
women
acting asfemme
sole,
ventured intothe broader
marketplace
or dealt insubstantial
production.
But eventhere
they
were limited totheir owncities.
They
could not accom-
pany
their
goods
totrade fairs or other towns.18 Womeninlesser trades such as hucksters
traveled
only
tomarkets and back totheir
quarter
of the
city
tosell their
goods
inthe
street. Inthe urban
environment, therefore,
the
home,
either natal or that of a
master,
was the chief
place
of
living,
work,
and
socializing
for women.
Prostitutes were the other
group
of womenwho
escaped
the strictures of confinement
tohousehold and
shop,
but,
unlike
respectable
women,
did not
keep
their
eyes
down
when
they
were inthe street but
openly
invited invasionof their
physical, bodily space.
Inthis
respect they
were between
respectable
women,
whowere not tomake
eye
contact
inorder to
preserve private space,
and
men,
whowere tolook about theminorder to
dominate the
public space.
Prostitutes looked about themand made
eye
contact inorder
toinvite invasionof
private space.
But London
city magistrates,
like those in
Europe,
increasingly sought
toconfine
prostitutes
to
particular spaces
as well.
Only
certainlanes
inLondoncould be the abode of
prostitutes,
and the
independent borough
across the
Thames, Southwark,
was their chief habitat.19
For urban
women,
taverns were
ambiguous spaces
that
implied
risk to
reputation
and even
violence,
much as fields and
pastures
were
risky places
for
village
women. Tav-
erns
and inns were
among
the most
complex
institutions of medieval social life and social
regulation
because
they occupied contradictory
roles both in
reality
and inthe
mentality
of the
age.
Their
very
interior
spaces
were
ambiguous
territories. Onthe one
hand,
the
guests
were invited toshare domestic and
primarily
female
space:
the main
living
area
or
hall,
where food and drink were
served,
and the bedchambers. Onthe other
hand,
the menand womenwho
congregated
in
breweries,
ale
houses, taverns,
and inns were
held in
general suspicion
as
potentially disorderly.
Another
ambiguity
was that inns and
taverns were the resort of
ordinary
citizens, laborers,
and
servants,
as well as of
foreigners
fromother
countries,
transient
English,
and a
general
rabble of rootless and
possibly
dishonest
people.
To
speak
of a
drinking
establishment as
domestic,
female
space requires
an
explana-
tion. Giventhe
gendered
divisionof labor and
space,
the
production
and
consumption
of alcohol stand out as aneconomic and social areainwhich traditional distinctions were
blurred. Inthe
countryside, brewing
and
running
atavernwere extensions of domestic
labor and domestic
space,
with women
making
and
buying
ale for home
consumption.
But the brewster's house was alsoasocial
gathering place frequented by
both women
and men. In
cities,
where
brewing
was more
professional
and more
male-dominated,
taverns
were,
like their
nineteenth-century
descendants,
arecreationarea
away
fromthe
'8K.
L.
Reyerson,
"WomeninBusiness inMedieval
Montpellier," 117-44;
M.
Kowaleski, "Women's Work
inaMarket Town: Exeterinthe Late Fourteenth
Century,"
145-60;
and M. C.
Howell, "Women,
the
Family
Economy,
and the Structures of Market ProductioninCities of Northern
Europe during
the Late Middle
Ages," 198-222,
all inWomenand Work inPreindustrial
Europe,
ed. B. A. Hanawalt
(Bloomington,
Ind., 1986).
'9For
a
complete
discussion,
see R. M.
Karras,
CommonWomen: Prostitutionand
Sexuality
inMedieval
England
(New York, 1996).
24
BARBARA A. HANAWALT
cramped rooming quarters
of atownor
city
and a
resting place
for travelers and
foreigners.
Taverns and inns retained
many
features of the home
atmosphere,
but womenassociated
with themhad a
very
bad
reputation-offering
sex as well as other domestic comforts.
Every
femalre role associated with taverns and inns turned the domestic nature of the
associationonend and
implied
tainted womanhood. The
disparaging
term"ale-wife"
was not the
only
insult attached towomenassociated with
brewing
and drink. For a
materfamilias (proprietress)
of a
tavern,
the titles of
"procurer"
or "bawd" were
ready
to
the
tongue,
and for the
tapster,
the associationwith
prostitution
was all toomuch of a
stereotype.
As we have
seen,
ina
mid-fourteenth-century
London
ordinance,
brewsters
were
lumped
with
nurses,
other
servants,
and "womenof
disreputable
character" ina
prohibitionagainst adorning
themselves with furred hoods.
Womenwhoworked inthe service
occupations
intaverns were at risk of
being
pimped by
the master and mistress for the sexual satisfactionof male customers. Thus
ThomasinaNewtonwas
said,
inthe London
Consistory
Court,
tohave worked for Wil-
liam
Basseloy,
the
paterfamilias
of atavernwhoacted as her
pimp.
The owner of "The
Busche" tavernwas accused of
pimping
for his two
servants,
Mandeleyn
and Alice. Oth-
ers were accused of
adultery
with members of their
establishment,
as was the
proprietor
of "The
Lodyn
Proche" with his
tapster,
Mariota;
and Williamle Hostler of"Le Crown"
was said tohave
gotten
his
servant, Matrosa,
pregnant
and tohave beenthe father of her
daughter.20
The
materfamilias
was nobetter thanher male
counterpart.
The one who
kept
"le tavernnear the church" was accused of
adultery
with her
servant,
and the one run-
ning
"Le
Schippe" procured
her
tapster
as a
prostitute.2'
The
tapsters
themselves ac-
quired
a
neighborhood reputation.
Elizabeth
Machyn, tapster
of the "Red
Lyon,"
was
accused of
adultery,
and the
neighbors
said that she did the same at "Le Cok" inWood-
street,
while
Mariona,
whowas the sometime
tapster
at "The Vine" inthe
parish
of St.
Helenand at "The Choker" inthe
high
street,
was accused of
being
"acommonscandal-
izer
(scandilizatrix)
especially
with
Thomas,
one of the deacons of St. Paul."22
Taverns
provided opportunities
for
pimps
and
prostitutes
that
apparently
went un-
regulated by
the
proprietors. John
Mande and his wife
pimped
his sister at a
tavern,
and
others made contacts with
prostitutes
at taverns.23 "The
Pye"
in
Quenhithe
had a
reputa-
tionas a
place
"which is a
good shadowing
for thieves and
many
evil
bargains
have been
made
there,
and
many strumpets
and
pimps
have their covert
there,
and leisure tomake
their false covenants." The
neighbors
wanted it closed at
night.24
Suspicion
fell on
ordinary
female
patrons
of taverns as well as onservants and known
prostitutes.
The "Good Wife" cautions her
daughter
that she should not
spend
intaverns
all the
money
that she makes
selling
her cloth inthe
city
because
"they
that taverns
haunt/
Fromthrift sooncome towant." The first
warning
is that taverns are a
place
tothrow
away money;
the second
warning
is about the effects of drunkenness on
reputation.
20LondonGuildhall,
Consistory
Court
9064/1,
ms.
5, 5v, 6, 26v, 30, 31, 64v, 65, 66, 81v, 114, 116, 116v,
119, 119v, 122v,
155v.
P.
R. 0.
C1/136/79.
John
Godwynn
and his
wife,
Agnes,
were accused inthe wardmote
of
Billingsgate
of
keeping
misrule inaninncalled "The Mermaid" held onlease fromthe Chamberlain
of London.
2"Guildhall,
Consistory
Court
9064/1, ms.
68, 83, 84,
91v.
22Ibid., ms.
110v, 114v.
23Corporation
of LondonRecord
Office,
Repertory
5,
fol. 52-52v.
24Guildhall,
Consistory
Court
9064/1,
ms.
143, 43, 32.
25
And if thoube in
any place
where
good
ale is aloft,
Whether that thouserve thereof or that thousit soft,
Measurably
thoutake
thereof,
that thoufall innoblame
For if thoube often
drunk,
it falleth to
thy
shame.
For those that be oftendrunk-
Thrift is fromthem
sunk,
My
lief child.25
The
poempresumes
that the
young
woman
might
either be a
tapster
or a
patron.
The
space
of inns and
taverns,
being
domestic,
facilitated not
only
sexual contacts
but alsoviolence between menand women. For
instance,
five menwith
accomplices
were
indicted for
being present
with arms at the innof
John
Fodard,
a
hostler,
inCornhill.
The
charge
was that
they
broke into Katherine de Brewes' chamber and
dragged
her
along
the floor
by
her arms and
clothing
sothat she was naked below the waist and her
hair was
hanging
over her bosom. She was
only
saved whenthe servants and
neighbors
came and rescued her.26
In1325 Walter de
Benygtone
and seventeen
companions
came tothe brewhouse of
Gilbert de Mordone with stones intheir
hoods, swords, knives,
and other
weapons. They
sat inthe tavern
drinking
four
gallons
of ale. Their
objective
was toseize
Emma,
daugh-
ter of the late Robert Pourte and award of Gilbert.
Mabel,
Gilbert's
wife,
and
Geoffrey,
his
brewer,
asked themtoleave.
They
refused,
saying
that it was a
public
tavernand
they
had the
right
to
stay
and drink. Mabel took Emmatoan
upper
chamber,
while the men
dealt with the ruffians. A
fight
ensued and
spilled
intothe
streets,
where the
neighbors
came tothe
rescue,
and one of the
thugs
was killed. Inanother
brawl,
twomenwere
quietly playing
checkers inatavernwhensome rowdies came inand laid awomanacross
the checker board.27
This
paper
does not
argue
that the
only way
that medieval
society
defined and con-
trolled womenwas
by limiting
their movements tocertainwell-defined
areas,
but restric-
tions over their
spatial
freedomwas one of the
simplest
means of social control that
modernhistorians have
largely
overlooked. The
space
that womencould
occupy
with
freedomof movement was the
home,
the
village,
and the
city quarter (I
leave out castles
and nunneries fromthis
paper).
If
they
moved outside this
area,
they
did sowith
proper
dress, demeanor,
and
escort,
or
they
risked
impingement
ontheir honor or ontheir
persons. Spatial
confinement was not anunconscious
aspect
of medieval
society,
but
rather atheme that
appeared
inall
types
of medieval literature. Once the
space
of honor-
able womenwas defined and its
centrality
well
established,
marginal
womencould be
easily
defined as those whowandered outside the confines. For
country
women,
the area
outside the
village
was
dangerous;
for
city
dwellers,
taverns
posed
arisk to
reputation
and of violent assault.
University
of Minnesota
25The Babees
Book,
ed.
Furnival,
34-35.
26Calendar
of
Pleaand MemorandaRolls
of
the
City of London, 1323-1482,
ed. A. H. Thomas, II
(Cambridge,
1929),
184.
27Coroners' Rolls
of
the
City of London,
ed.
Sharpe,
17-18, 114-16.
26
Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, When-And Why?
Author(s): Robert F. Taft
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Womenat Church in
Byzantium:
Where,
When-and
Why?
ROBERT E
TAFT,
S.J.
INTRODUCTION
ince the
beginning
of
history, religion,
sex,
and
gender
have beenentwined inan
unrelenting
embrace. It should be no
surprise,
then,
that
they
were related issues in
Byzantine society
too. One result of this was the
segregation
of womeninchurch in
Byzantium.1
Inthe
following pages
I
try
todetermine the modalities and motives for this
segregation.
Inso
doing,
I
simply presume
what should
require
nodemonstration: that
in
Byzantine Christianity
as
elsewhere,
womenwere
systematically
ranked after men.
"Did not the Devil create woman?"
(Kal
ogi
6
6tapokos
Citr106 tiv
y)vaaiKa;),
a
Byzantine
I am
grateful
to
Jeffrey
Featherstone forhis
help
in
proofreading
the text of this
paper
and
offering
numerous invaluable
suggestions
and corrections inthe
interpretation
of
texts,
and in to
Alice-Mary
Talbot
and the ane
onymous
DOP referees fortheirvaluable editorial
suggestions.
'Among
recent studies onwomenin
Byzantium,
see M.
Angold,
Church and
Society
in
Byzantium
underthe
Comneni,
1081-1261
(Cambridge, 1995), chap.
21; P. M.
Beagan,
"The
Cappadocian
Fathers, Women,
and
Ecclesiastical
Politics,"
VChr49
(1995), 165-79;
J. Beaucamp,
"Lasituation
juridique
de lafemme a
Byzance,"
CahCM 20
(1977), 147-76; eadem,
Le statut de la
femme
a
Byzance (4e-7e siecle), 2
vols.,
I: Le droit
imperial;
II:
Les
pratiques
sociales, TM,
Monographies
5-6
(Paris, 1990, 1992);
G.
Buckler,
"Womenin
Byzantine
Law about
1100 A.D."
Byzantion
11
(1936), 391-416;
Av.
Cameron,
History
as Text: The
Writing of
Ancient
History (London,
1989);
C.
Galatariotou,
"Holy
Womenand Witches:
Aspects
of
Byzantine Conceptions
of
Gender,"
BMGS 9
(1984-85), 55-94;
L.
Garland,
"'The
Eye
of the Beholder':
Byzantine Imperial
Womenand TheirPublic
Image
fromZoe
Porphyrogenita
to
Euphrosyne
KamaterissaDoukaina
(1028-1203)," Byzantion
64
(1994),
19-39, 261-313; eadem,
"Conformity
and Licence at the
Byzantine
Court inthe Eleventh and Twelfth Cen-
turies: The Case of
Imperial
Women,"
ByzF
21
(1995), 101-15; eadem,
"The Life and
Ideology
of
Byzantine
Women,"
Byzantion
58
(1988), 361-93;
C. V.
Harrison,
"Male and Female in
CappadocianTheology,"JTS
41
(1990), 441-71;
J.
Herrin,
"InSearch o of
Byzantine
Women: Three Avenues of
Approach,"
in
Images of
Women
in
Antiquity,
ed. Av. Cameron and A. Kuhrt
(London, 1983), 167-89;
A.
Laiou, Gender,
Society
and Economic
Life
in
Byzantium,
VariorumCollected Studies
(London, 1992);
eadem,
Mariage,
amour
etparente
a
Byzance
au
XIIe-XIIIe
siecles, TM,
Monographies
7
(Paris, 1992); eadem,
"Observations onthe Life and
Ideology
of
Byzantine Women,"
ByzF
9
(1985), 59-102; eadem,
"The Role of Womenin
Byzantin
ntne
Society,"
JOB 31.1
(1981), 233-60; eadem, "Sex, Consent,
and Coercionin
Byzantium,"
inConsent and CoerciontoSex and Mar-
riage
inAncient and Medieval
Societies,
ed. A. Laiou
(Washington,
D.C., 1993), 109-221;
D. M.
Nicol,
The
Byzan-
tine
Lady:
Ten
Portraits,
1250-1500
(Cambridge, 1994);
A.-M.
Talbot, ed., Holy Women
of Byzantium:
TenSaints'
Lives in
English Translation,
Byzantine
Saints' Lives inTranslation1
(Washington,
D.C., 1996);
K.
Nikolaou,
"H
yuvaioKa
6ro
Buavtno,"
Archaeologia
21
(1986), 28-31; eadem, "ruvatiKEt; ?EntoTooyp01oi
61
J9 [GTvOn pCIavrtvri
7iept6o6 (8o;-10oo; at.)," Proceedings
of
the 2nd International
Symposium: Communicationin
Byzantium
(Athens,
1993), 169-80; eadem,
H
9Ehrr
Ti;
yuvaiKa;
OTic
pounavvttvf
Kotvovia
(Athens, 1993); eadem,
"Ot
yuvaiKE;
OTO
PIo
Kat
t upya ou
O eoikXouV,"
Symmeikta
9,
In
Memory of
D. A.
Zakythinos,
II
(Athens, 1994),
137-51.
WOMEN AT CHURCH IN BYZANTIUM
interlocutor asks
rhetorically
inthe fictitious
Life of
St. Andrew the Fool
(ca.
650-ca.
950),2
and
though
the answer was
"no,"
the
question
alone is
symptomatic:
"Anti-feminismwas
afundamental tenet of
Byzantine thinking
until the
sporadic
introductionof western
ideas of romantic love inabout the twelfth
century."
3 So
my
interest focuses onwhatever
other
factors,
exacerbating
or
mitigating, may
have determined the
place
of womenin
church in
Byzantium.
Inso
doing
I
try
toavoid anachronistic
thinking, though
without
pretending
tobe uninfluenced
by contemporary
concerns. As A. Laiousaid
apropos
of
analogous
issues in
Byzantium,
"While one must be cautious not to
superimpose
current
concerns on
past
societies,
nevertheless it would be absurd not to
recognize
the fact that
historians are moved and informed
by
the debates of their own
day.
" 4 For
that,
historians
need offer no
apologies.
A. WHERE? THE PLACE OF LAYWOMEN IN CHURCH
I. The
Byzantine
Church
First some
precisions. By "Byzantine
church" I mean
"Byzantine-rite
church,"
the
church
building designed
for the celebrationof the
"liturgy
of the Great Church" inuse
throughout
the Patriarchate of
Constantinople. Byzantinist-practitioners
of other disci-
plines may
choose touse the
epithet "Byzantine"
more
broadly, assigning
the term
"Byz-
antine" tochurches inPalestine or church
plate
from
Syria, provided
the
objects
in
ques-
tiondate fromatime whenthat
province
was withinthe
Byzantine Empire.
But for the
historianof
liturgy,
church
plate
from
Syria
is nomore
Byzantine
thanaChinese restau-
rant inRome is Italian. The issue is not
geography
or
political
borders,
but the distinct
ecclesial cultures of the Orthe odox
patriarchates
and their
respective liturgical
traditions
before
they
were
finally Byzantinized
inthe first centuries of the second millennium.5
These distintinons are not
pedantry.
Without them
everythi
in
liturgy,
at
least,
becomes
a
complete
muddle.
Furthermore,
inthe
present
context,
by "Byzantine
church" I meansecular church.
The
peculiarities
of the
disposition
of
space
for womenin
nunnery chapels
are a
separate
problem.
Arrangements
in
segregated
areas where womenwere more in
charge
of their
lives thanelsewhere cannot be considered
typical.
II. The
Liturgical
Space of
the
Laity
Inadditionto
clarifying
nomenclature we must alsorecall that T. F. Mathews6 has
dispensed
with the former "received doctrine"
according
towhich the
Byzantine
nave
2L.
Ryden,
ed.,
The
Life of
St. Andrew the
Fool, 2 vols.,
ActaUniversitatis
Upsaliensis,
Studia
Byzantina
Upsaliensia
4.1-2
(Uppsala, 1995), II,
line 2224. Onthe
date,
which C.
Mango
would
place
inthe later7th
century, Ryden
ca.
950,
see
ibid., I, 41-56;
C.
Mango,
"The Life of St. Andrew the Fool
Reconsidered,"
RSBS
2
(1982), 297-313,
repr.
in
idem,
Byzantium
and Its
Image: History
and Culture
of
the
Byzantine Empire
and Its
Heritage,
VariorumCollected Studies
(London, 1984),
no. viII.
3C.
Mango, Byzantium:
The
Empire of
New Rome
(London, 1980),
225-26.
4Laiou, "Sex, Consent,
and Coercionin
Byzantium,"
110-11.
5See R. E
Taft,
The
Byzantine
Rite: A Short
History,
American
Essays
in
Liturgy (Collegeville, Minn., 1993),
56-57 and 64 n. 31.
6T. F.
Mathews,
The
Early
Churches
of Constantinople:
Architecture and
Liturgy (University
Park, Pa.-London,
1971), 117-25.
28
ROBERT E
TAFT, S.J.
was reserved for
liturgical activity
and hence closed tothe
laity.7
Infact,
only
the ambo-
sanctuary
areas were enclosed and set
apart
for the exclusive use of the
clergy.
The
chancel-solea-ambobarrier in
early Constantinopolitan
churches was
designed precisely
to
keep
these
spaces
and their
connecting runway unimpeded by
the
laity.
What would
have beenthe
point
of this walled-insoleaif the
laity
were excluded fromthe nave? And
in
fact,
several sources Mathews adduces describe the
congregation
inthe center of the
nave
crowding up
tothe
chancel, ambo,
and their
connecting
solea,
the better tosee and
hear what was
going
on.
1. The
Preaching of Chrysostom(398-404)
The
Byzantine
historian
Sozomen,
anative of Gaza
writing
some time after 443 A.D.
about ecclesial events inthe crucial
century
from324 to
425,
presents
inhis Church
History
VIII, 5.2,
ascenariothat would
hardly
have been
possible
if the
laity
were
kept
inthe
side
aisles,
away
fromthe nave. As Sozomendescribes
it,
Chrysostom's preaching
inCon-
stantinople
attracted such crowds
pressing
around tohear himthat he sometimes
preached
fromthe ambointhe center of the nave instead of seated onhis throne behind
the altar inthe
sanctuary,
as was more
customary
even,
apparently,
for
Chrysostom:8
TocoDTov
&6 snpoq av6ov
Txb
krnXfoq ?KrvXiV-
Somuch did the crowd
press
around
him,
oav Kal T6Cv a6xro6
X6ycov K6pov oO
UiK
eXov,
unable to
get enough
of his
words,
caus-
COT?E, rei cboti6gLevot Kai 7rept0Xt3ovTr; ing danger
by pushing
this
way
and that
a&XiXoiV; ?KiVct6vv?ov, /KcaooG Tipo-
and
crushing
one
another,
each one
ocOGTpc
i[vat
ptaI 6tleOvo; 06cw; yybi; rzape- struggling
to
get
closer sothat
by
stand-
oTrX; a6lKpt1peGpov ai)rToi Xeyovto0; aKoolt,
ing
near he
might
hear more
accurately
gLoov
Eavmov c61ot
nap6XOcv icri
to6
1Pfla-
what he
[Chrysostom]
was
saying,
that he
ToS Tc
v
avayvx0zxTv cKaOef6oevog; i6- placed
himself onthe readers' amboin
6a(KCEv.9
the midst of all and
taught
themseated
there.
Inhis sermonInIoh.
hom. 3, 1,
Chrysostom
himself confirms this
pushing
and
shoving
to
get
near the ambo.10
2. The
Synod
of Constantinople (518)
A similar mobscene
accompanied
a
synod
held at
Constantinople
in518.11 With the
accessionof the Orthodox
emperor Justin
I on
July
10, 518,
the
pro-Chalcedonianpopu-
7See the remarks inR.
Krautheimer,
Early
Christianand
Byzantine Architecture,
Pelican
History
of Art Z24
(Harmondsworth, 1965),
159. The laterYale
edition,
revised
by
R. Krautheimerand S.
Curcic,
moderates
this view somewhat
(486
n.
12).
I am
grateful
toProf. MarchitaMauck for
pointing
this out tome.
8Sozomen,
Hist.
eccles. VIII, 18.7-8,
in
Sozomenus,
Kirchengeschichte, ed.J.
Bidez and G. Ch.
Hansen,
GCS
50
(Berlin, 1960),
374
= PG 67:1564B; cf.
Maximus,
Mystagogy (628-630 A.D.) 14,
PG 91.1:692-93.
9GCS 50:357.11-15
= PG 67:1528BC;
trans.
adapted
fromA Select
Library of
the Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers
of
the Christian
Church,
ed. P. Schaff
(Grand
Rapids,
Mich.,
ser. 1:
1974-;
ser. 2: 1952-
;
hereafter
NPNF),
ser.
2, 11:402;
aless circumstantial account of the same in
Socrates,
Hist. eccles.
VI, 5.5,
inG. Ch.
Hansen, ed.,
Sokrates
Kirchengeschichte,
GCS, n.s.,
1
(Berlin, 1995),
317
=
PG 67:673B
=
NPNF,
ser.
2,
11:140.
Onthe locationand
posture
of the
preacher
inthis
period,
see A.
Olivar,
La
predicacion
cristiana
antigua,
Biblioteca
Herder,
Secci6nde
teologiay
filosofia189
(Barcelona, 1991),
726-36.
'OPG 59:37.
1
Background
details inR. F
Taft,
A
History of
the
Liturgy of
St.
JohnChrysostom,
IV: The
Diptychs,
OCA 238
(Rome, 1991), 102-3, and,
most
recently, J. Speigl, "Synoden
im
Gefolge
derWende der
Religionspolitik
unterKaiser
Justinos (518),"
OKS 45
(1996),
3-8.
29
lace forced the
newly
elected
(April
17, 518)
Patriarch
John
II
Cappadox (518-520)
to
include the Council of Chalcedoninthe conciliar
diptychs.
The occasionwas the
patriar-
chal eucharist on
July
16 in
HagiaSophia:
"at the time of the
diptychs
the
gathered
throng,
in
complete
silence,
crowded around the
sanctuary
in
great
numbers and lis-
tened"
(T4) KatpcO
TCOV
8tIc7iXO(0v
?ETano
Tc
loXCXiax ovfn)vpacLgoV
av aav to
nk0o KUKk()
TOio
ODutaTipol0ouKai riKpocovto)
tothe deacon
proclaim
the four councils and the deceased
Orthodox
patriarchs.12
3. Paul Silentiarius
(ca.
563
A.D.)
Nor was this
crowding up
tothe
clergy
area
just
anabuse intimes of
special
excite-
ment or tension.
Writing
around 563
A.D.,
Paul
Silentiarius,
inhis
Descriptionof
the Ambo
of HagiaSophia, gives
avivid
description
of the
people crowding up
tothe soleatotouch
and kiss the
evangeliary being
borne back tothe altar after the
reading
of the
Gospel.
The
sanctuary
(a6&8wov, OucutaaTiplov, pfr(a) ofJustinian's
HagiaSophia,
described inmin-
ute detail
by
the
Silentiary,13
was anelevated area
including
and
extending
out infront
of the
apse,
itself a
relatively
shallow
space
filled with the curved
steps
of the elevated
synthronon
where the
clergy
sat. The altar-roominfront of it was enclosed
by
a
HI-shaped
chancel barrier
(T?|rtXov,
G&c'ruta, KaY7K6X0,
KayKEXXov, Ky7KXEXa, Kl7yKt,
KIMYKIti
?;,
etc.) jutting
out intothe nave fromthe two
secondary piers
at the northwest and south-
west extremities of the
apse.
Three
doors,
one ineach side
(north-west-south)
of the
chancel,
provided
access tothe altar-room.
Extending
out intothe nave before the central
"Holy
Doors" inthe west face of the chancel was a
walled-in,
raised
passageway,
the
solea,
which led tothe
oval-shaped
amboenclosure toward the center of the nave. The Silenti-
ary
describes this amboas an"island amidst the waves of the sea. .
joined
tothe main-
land coast
by
anisthmus"-the solea-"a
long
strait"
extending up
tothe
sanctuary
doors and bounded
by waist-high
walls.'4
This
runway kept open
the
space
needed for
the
processional comings
and
goings
between
sanctuary
and ambo. And it was needed
precisely
to
keep
back the
people crowding
around,
as is clear fromthe
Silentiary's
de-
scription:
[247-59]
Here the
priest
who
brings
the
good tidings passes along
onhis returnfrom
the
ambo,
holding
aloft the
golden
book;
and while the crowd strives inhonor of the
immaculate God totouch the sacred book with their
lips
and
hands,
the countless waves
of the
surging people
break around. Thus like anisthmus beaten
by
waves oneither
side,
does this
space
stretch
out,
and it leads the
priest
whodescends fromthe
lofty crags
2ACO
III, 71-76
(citation76).
"3Paul
Silentiary, Descriptio
S.
Sophiae
418-23, 682-805,
and
Descriptio
ambonis S.
Sophiae
50ff: ed. P. Fried-
lander,
Johannes
vonGazaund Paulus
Silentiarius,
Kunstbeschreibungen JustinianischerZeit,
Sammlung
wis-
senschaftlicher Kommentare zu
griechischen
und r6mischenSchriftstellern
(Leipzig-Berlin, 1912),
227-
65 = Paulus
Silentiarius,
Descriptio
S.
Sophiae
et
ambonis,
ed. I.
Bekker,
CSHB 32
(Bonn, 1837),
3-58
=
PG
86.2:2119-2264
(hereafter
these works are cited
according
toline number
only);
trans. C.
Mango,
The Art
of
the
Byzantine Empire, 312-1453,
Sources and Documents inthe
History
of Art
(Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 1972),
82, 87-89,
91-96. Cf. S. G.
Xydis,
"The Chancel
Barrier,
Soleaand Amboof
HagiaSophia,"
ArtB 29
(1947),
1-24; Mathews,
Early Churches, 96-99;
R. F
Taft,
The Great Entrance: A
History of
the
Transferof Gifts
and Other
Pre-anaphoral
Rites
of
the
Liturgy of
St.
JohnChrysostom,
2nd ed.,
OCA 200
(Rome, 1978), 178ff;
R.
J. Mainstone,
HagiaSophia: Architecture,
Structure and
Liturgy ofJustinian's
Great Church
(London, 1988), 232-33,
fig.
252; 271,
plan
A2; 276-77,
plans
A7-8.
14Paul
ambonis
224-46;
Mango, Art,
95.
30
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
of this
vantage point [the
raised
ambo]
tothe shrine of the
holy
table
[the altar]. This
entire
path
is fenced onboth sides with fresh
green
stone of
Thessaly.'5
4. St.
Stephen
the
Younger (d. 765)
This
crowding up
tothe chancel is confirmed
by
afurther witness not mentioned
by
Mathews,
Stephen
the
Deacon,
inhis
Life
of
St.
Stephen
the
Younger,
writtenca. 807. While
attending night vigils
with his
mother,
St.
Stephen, martyred
in765
during
the Iconoclast
persecution
under Constantine V
Copronymus (740-775),
would
press up against
the
sanctuary
chancel inorder tohear the lections better: "Nor did he
interrupt going by
night (vuKTOtop6v)
with his
saintly
mother tothe
customary vigils (aypvtvifa;)
held in
memory
of the saints. And that honorable
young
manreceived such
grace
that whenit
was time tobe seated for the
readings,
he stood
by
the chancel
(7p6 Tflq KtiyKcib8o;
t(a6-
gievo;),
attentive tothe reader."
16
Obviously, Stephen
was
assisting
at the service fromthe
nave,
and not tucked
away
inaside aisle under the
galleries.
III. The Women' Place inChurch: The Documents
The sources
speak
of womenin
general-presumably baptized laywomen
of
varying
social status-as well as of twodistinct
categories
of women: the
empress
or
imperial
consort and deaconesses. I shall discuss
ordinary
womenand the
empress
as mentionof
themoccurs inthe
documents;
the deaconesses I reserve for
separate
treatment later
(below, B.I-II).
What
parts
of the church
building
dothe sources
designate
as the women's
place
of
worship
in
Byzantium?
Numerous texts locate womeninthe
galleries,
which are called
either
"catechumena,"
or some
generic
name, or,
very rarely, "gynaeceum."
More
often,
the latter termis used to
designate
areas onthe
ground
floor
assigned, presumably,
to
the women. Inwhat follows I
generally
refer tothe
second-story
aisles as
"galleries."
This
I intend as a
generic
architectural
designation
like
aooai
or
usepcoa,
neutral with
respect
to
purpose.
I use "catechumena"
only
totranslate the
corresponding
Greek terms
(Kaxrl-
Xo<4tleva, KaTrXXoltev?vta, KaTrXou.e?vita)
when
they
are
actually
found inthe source I am
discussing.
The
same,
mutatis
mutandis,
applies
tothe term
"gynaeceum,"
which I use
only
totranslate 6
y)valKictr; or,
less
commonly, especially
inlater
Byzantine
sources,
the
adjective 7vaiKcovitS;,
alsoused
substantively.
As with the term
"catechumena,"
the fact that the
Byzantines,
for whatever
reason,
thought
it useful todenominate a
place
as "the women's" initself
proves nothing.
This is
not the
place
to
digress
onthe
maddening
insouciance with which the
Byzantines
threw
around terms. I
just
wish tounderline that
although
I amsure the terms "catechumena"
and
"gynaeceum"
not
only
came from
somewhere,
and must alsoat some time or other
have had reference tosome
reality,
one caninno
way
infer
solely
fromtheir continued
use that such areferent had remained
operative. Consequently,
I will assert that women
were inthe
galleries
or elsewhere
only
when
they
are
actually sighted
there,
not
just
because some text refers tothe
place
as "the women's." I
impose
this restrictionfor the
15Mango, Art,
95-96.
'6PG
100:1081
(=
BHG
1666).
Forthe dates
given,
see C.
Mango, Nikephoros,
Patriarch of
Constantinople.
Short
History (Washington, D.C., 1990), 222;
S.
Gero,
Byzantine
Iconoclasm
during
the
Reignof
Constantine
V,
with
ParticularAttentiontothe Oriental
Sources,
CSCO
384, Subsidia52
(Louvain, 1977),
123.
31
simple
reasonthat the same texts
speak
of the
galleries
as
"catechumena,"
though
no
extant source ever
actually places
the catechumens there-a
question
I returnto
later
(below,
A.IV.
1).
1. The Council
of
Laodicea
(ca. 380)
The earliest text fromthe
Byzantine
realmto
legislate concerning
the
place
of
women
inchurch is fromthe Council of Laodiceain
Phrygia
Pacatiana,
near the modern
Denizli
in
Turkey,
inthe last
quarter
of the fourth
century.'7
Canon
44,
"Onwomennot
entering
the
sanctuary" (Jepi Tov
IT
Eiotevat
?tg; i'patelov yovatKaS),
rules "That womenshould
not enter the
sanctuary" ("Ozt o0 86i ? yuvaLtKaS; iS
T6 0uotoat
ptov ?iaotevat).18
Why
does this
prohibitionsingle
out
women,
whenaccess tothe
sanctuary
was forbid-
dentoall the
laity,
male and female
(see below, D.I)?
The
key
tothis
prescriptionmay
be incanon11 of the same
synod,
which decrees "That one should not institute inchurch
those called female
presbyters
or
presiders" (Flcpi
TOi gI 6SEv Tra;
X?6yOlt?vag; tpp?6pwiTt5ag
01cot t7poKa90r?vav; ?v ?KKvraigta Ka9i7Txa6O0a).19
Whowere these female
presiders-liter-
ally,
"womenwhosit infront"?
They reappear
as "the widows whosit infront"
(\
, konl Z\,\NsLZ)
inthe
fifth-century Syriac
TestamentumDomini
I, 19, 41,
and
43,20
which
assigns
thema
place
at the eucharist with the
clergy,
withinthe altar veil
(I, 23).21
Prescinding
fromthe whole Pandora's box of female
ministry
inthe
Early
Church that
this and similar
early
texts
openup,
I
suspect
that canon44 of Laodicea
may
have been
addressing
the
problem
of female
ministry
rather thanthe more
general
issue we are
dealing
with inthis
paper.22
Canons were
promulgated
to
bring problem
situations under
control. Since one can
hardly imagine
that all
laywomen
of AsiaMinor were
flocking
into
the
sanctuary
at
services,
indirect
opposition
tothe
already existing fourth-century
taxis
(see
the documents cited
below, D.I),
the
prohibitionprobably envisaged
some
particular
local situation
perceived
tobe
getting
out of
hand,
like the one
just
cited fromthe Testa-
mentumDomini.
2.
Gregory
Nazianzen
(380-381)
Gregory
Nazianzenwas
briefly bishop
of
Constantinople during
the Ariandomina-
tionof the church there before the First Council of
Constantinople (381),
over which
Gregory presided, placed
the Orthodox
again
incontrol. Inhis famous Dreamabout the
AnastasiaChurch
19-20,
he locates the womeninthe
galleries:
170n Laodicea,
see C.
Foss, "Laodikeia," ODB 11:1177. Onthe
dating
of the
synod,
see P. P.
Joannou,
Discipline generale antique (IIe-IXe s.),
2 vols.
plus
index, Fonti codificazione canonica
orientale,
fasc. 9
(Grotta-
ferrata, 1962-64), 1.2:127-28: Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (d.
ca.
466), InterpretatioEp.
ad Coloss.
2.18,
PG
82:614B =
CPG,
5
vols.,
ed. M. Geerard and F. Glorie,
Corpus
Christianorum
(Turnhout, 1983-87), 6209,
refers tocanon35
against angel worship (Joannou,
Discipline, 1.2:144-45),
which means that the
synod
was
nolaterthanTheodoret.
'8Joannou, Discipline,
1.2:148.
19Ibid.,
135.
20TestamentumDomini nostri
JesuChristi,
ed. I. E. Rahmani
(Mainz, 1899), 26-27, 98-99, 102-3. Onthis
little-studied
document,
see now G. S.
Sperry-White, "Daily Prayer
inIts Ascetic Context inthe
Syriac
and
Ethiopic
TestamentumDomini"
(Ph.D. diss.,
University
of Notre
Dame, 1993), esp. chap.
3 forthe issue in
question.
I am
grateful
toDr.
Sperry-White
for
sending
me a
copy
of his
study.
2 Testamentum
Domini,
ed.
Rahmani,
34-37.
22From
the same
period (ca. 380),
the
Apostolic
Constitutions is alsoconcerned with what womenministers
canand cannot do:
cf. Les Constitutions
apostoliques,
ed. M.
Metzger,
vol. 1: books
I-II,
SC 320
(Paris, 1985);
vol. 2: books
III-VI,
SC 329
(Paris, 1986);
vol. 3: books
V-VIII,
SC 336
(Paris, 1987), esp.
book
III,
6 and
9,
32
ROBERT
F TAFT,
S.J.
Ai 8'
ip'
a''
UiTrxqMv tryEo0v EiUKooatov Fromthe
upper story
the
pure
maidens
QKo1ilv 'Ayvai :apeo?vKai
K iXvoV
agca
o70-
together
with the married womenbend a
Xoy6gotS.23
gracious ear.
3. Sozomen
(after
443)
Sozomen,
inhis Church
History
VII, 5.4,
narrates amiracle
story confirming
the
pres-
ence of women
attending
a
liturgical
service inthe
galleries
of the same Anastasiachurch
during
the same brief and turbulent
episcopate
of
Gregory
Nazianzen. A
pregnant
womanfell fromthe
gallery
toher
death,
but was revived
by
the "common
prayer"
(KoIvfi;
8?
Riapatiavtcov E?UiX;)
of the
congregation,
areference-so it would seemfrom
the
vocabulary24-to
the
customary
litanies of intercession
following
the lections at eu-
charist or at the end of the
major
hours like
Vespers
and Orthros:
'QS 65 TtvCov adkr-0Qr y?iv iXoVptoCEvo0v
As I have
heard,
some insist it is true that
cKriKoa,
?lKKXrlotamovTo; ToDo Xaoo, yuvqil y- once,
whenthe
people
were assembled
KctQroV ado Txr; i1e?p)o0) aTo0;
KcaTarm- for
worship,
a
pregnant
woman fell from
0oo6a, V0a86e rwG0vriKe, KOIvfi; c TRapa
the
gallery
aisle and was killed onthe
,iavtov
E6i5qg it'
ar'ni yevojt_vrj ave:rloe, spot,
but was restored tolife at the com-
Ka
l
oDv cTO)
Ppet
(C6Or1.25
mon
prayer
of all for
her,
and saved to-
gether
with the babe inher womb.
As with all such
anecdotes,
the issue is not whether the
story
is true. Evenina
legendary
tale,
Sozomen would not have had the woman take
flight
fromthe
galleries
unless that
was where a
Byzantine might legitimately
have
expected
her tobe.
4.
JohnRufus of
Maiouma
(ca. 512)
John
Rufus,
bishop
of
Maiouma,
inhis anti-Chalcedonian
Plerophoria
36,
writtenin
Greek
shortly
after 512 A.D. and translated into
Syriac
before
572,26
recounts how the
holy
woman Elianacried out fromthe
galleries (Syriac
ZchmnZ
aTro)
of the church in
Constantinople
where Nestorius was
preaching,
"Be
damned,
Antichrist!"27
5. Paul Silentiarius
(ca.
563
A.D.)
Writing
around 563
A.D.,
inhis
Description
of
the Church
of HagiaSophia
580-89,
Paul
the
Silentiary
also
assigns
womentothe
galleries,
which he calls
variously
"women's
gal-
SC
329:132-35, 142-45;
resuming
and
expanding
the
3rd-century
Didascalia
15,
inR. H.
Connolly,
Didascalia
Apostolorum:
The
Syriac
VersionTranslated and
Accompanied by
the VeronaLatin
Fragments,
with anintroduction
and notes
(Oxford, 1929), 133-34, 142;
E X.
Funk,
Didascaliaet Constitutiones
Apostolorum,
2 vols.
(Paderborn,
1905), I, 190-93, 198-201.
23
PG37:1255A;
cf.
E
vande
Paverd,
ZurGeschichte der
Mefliturgie
inAntiocheiaund
Konstantinopel gegen
Ende
des
viertenJahrhunderts: Analyse
der
Quellen
bei
Johannes Chrysostomos,
OCA 187
(Rome, 1970),
416-18. Onthe
Anastasia,
see
Socrates,
Hist. eccles.
II, 38.14-26, GCS, n.s.,
1:165-66
=
PG
67:325-28;
G.
Dagron,
Naissance
d'une
capitale: Constantinople
et ses institutions de 330 a
451,
Bibliotheque byzantine,
Etudes 7
(Paris, 1974), 448;
R.
Janin,
La
geographie ecclesiastique
de
l'Empire byzantin,
I: Le
siege
de
Constantinople
et le
patriarcat oecumenique,
3,
Les
eglises
et les
monasteres,
2nd ed.
(Paris, 1969), 22-25; idem,
Constantinople byzantine: Developpement
urbain
et
repertoire topographique,
AOC 4A
(Paris, 1964), 89-90;
R. E
Taft,
"Byzantine Liturgical
Evidence inthe Life
of St. Marcianthe
CEconomos:
Concelebrationand the
Preanaphoral Rites,"
OCP 48
(1982),
159-70.
24Cf. J.
Mateos,
La
celebrationde la
parole
dans la
liturgie byzantine,
OCA 191
(Rome, 1971),
59.
25GCS 50:306 = PG
67:1425B; cf. vande
Paverd,
Mefiliturgie,
419.
26Joannes Rufus,
bishop
of
Maiuma,
Plerophories: Temoignages
et revelations contre le Concile de Chalcedoine, ed.
E
Nau, PO 8:7.
27
Ibid., 81-82.
33
leries"
(0nXrv?fpcv nepicta[389]),
"where the
place
of the women's seats
appears" (evOa
7yuvatlKEv avacaivETat
Ev6La
C0KOV
[541]),
the "women's
precincts" (y7vaiKEîot
?6s'0Xo
[562]),
"women's
loggia"
(OrXur?Epri
aiOoiaa
[587]):28
[580] Ai?tge
Kai voTItrv
popecrtxtt
itdaav
6gotfO
v
[581] grlKveSav iv ai0ov7av,
ixEt
86
Tt Kai 7rXfov
fi6e'
[582] r?EiEi
yap :tvt
X%)pov dacoKptvFOevaXa66aooet [583]
A6-
ovi(ov paotAini OeoGzterxot;
Ev
eoptai;.
[584]
ivOa 6'
?gIo; aoKrzToiX0o; flgmevo;
ri0a8t 0WKCO
[585] RgVxuo6Xo
ot
o
; ipototv
sriv tzmTaraev adKOVuv.
[586] '1oa86
Txoi; D~ncvepOe
Kai
iV6W0t
IrcvTa
voioet [587] OriXwDTprv
v
aZtOooav '?;
dagRoT-pa; xrt;
adveX06v
[588]
/i
yap intep-
zroXXoa
ipbO iaoeppov
oKxt ot
Soai; [589]
I[t
Ta;(5
?
ixfzpotv, 7i5p vap9rlrKOg;
io3a.
[580]
Onthe south
you
will find a
long
aisle
altogether
similar tothe northern
one,
yet
it has
something
inaddition: for
it contains a
space separated by
a
wall,
re-
served for the Ausonian
emperor
onsol-
emnfestivals. Here
my sceptered
sover-
eign,
seated onhis
customary
throne,
lends his ear to
[the reading of]
the sa-
cred books.
[586]
And whoever mounts
up
will find
that the women's aisles oneither side are
similar tothose
below;
but the one that
runs above the
narthex,
tothe
west,
is not
like the other two.29
The
Silentiary's ekphrasis
is
perfectly straightforward:
1. The north and south
ground-floor
aisles
flanking
the nave left and
right
are
identical
except
for the
emperor's
metatorioninone of the
bays
of the south
aisle
[580-81].30
2. Each of these aisles is surmounted
by
a
gallery
north and
south,
similar to
the aisles below them
[586].
3. These
galleries
are "the women's"
(09rozT?pj) [587].
Sources
describing
women
assisting
at services inthe
galleries
of
Constantinople
from
the time of
Gregory
Nazianzen's
episcopacy (380-381)
continue
right
until the end of
Byzantium.
Sothe
question
is not did womenassist at services fromthe
galleries,
but
rather were all the women
there,
were
they always
and
only
there and nowhere
else,
and
were
they
the
only
ones there?
Though
the
Silentiary
does not
say
so,
it is sometimes
inferred that if the
second-story galleries
were for the
women,
the
ground-floor
aisles
below themmust have beenfor the
men,
at least before the middle
Byzantine period.
This was more or less the received doctrine until Mathews
proposed
that womenat-
tended
liturgy
onthe
ground
floor inthe earlier
period
too.31
6.
Procopius (ca. 550-560)
The
argument hangs
onthe
interpretation
of an
admittedly
difficult
passage
fromDe
aedificiis
1.1:55-58,
of the
sixth-century
historian
Procopius
of Caesareain
Palestine,
a
28Cf.
Mathews,
Early
Churches,
130.
29Trans.
adapted
from
Mango, Art,
85.
30Mathews,
Early Churches, 96,
fig.
50, 132, 134;
and
Mainstone,
H.
Sophia,
223-26 and
fig.
59, 249, 252;
both locate the
ground-floor
metatorionof H.
Sophia
inthe south
aisle,
though
not inthe same
bay.
Onthis
question
see alsoC.
Mango,
The BrazenHouse: A
Study of
the Vestibule
of
the
Imperial
Palace
of Constantinople,
Arkeologisk-kunsthistoriske
Meddelelser 4.4
(Copenhagen, 1959), 64, 72 and n.
198;
C.
Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite
derKirchenvon
Konstantinopel
in
justinianischer
Zeit: Architektonische und
quellenkritische
Untersu-
chungen,
Schriftenzur
Geistesgeschichte
des 6stlichen
Europa
6
(Wiesbaden, 1973), 73-81, 163-64.
31Mathews,
Early Churches,
130-33.
34
ROBERT
F. TAFT,
S.J.
text that both Mathews and C. Strube have translated
(intoEnglish
and German
respec-
tively)
and discussed at some
length.
Here is what
Procopius
wrote about
HagiaSophia
ca. 550-560:
55. cyroat r'r
titv Ka,rpoweO 6"o, oiKo-
6ojistz Rev
tCoi
Vsb, oi56eRn4 8&Etpy61gswnat,
a' Xx
caK
Jet2Ov
alYrO')
1nOtoUO
U
.t o
ijUpom
TO
JeTpov,
Kal
Ct( g1KSet g,XPt
,
tO
irpa,;
(TvEMKv0146vEvat,
TO
68 ye i5ji o; Kcxta6ac-
-repat,
wcai acd'zta;
&E, i ,rs
6po4il
O6xo; ica6o
Xpuao; EyicaXirunt(yia. 56. rca&katv 6e tcitv
aToaitv
acrFpa
ei~v
oio;
'a,v6pa;
e
xogLvo
u;
&taQ1CMKip(O)cta yVQ&7uvat4 tXU 8tOWI4aC-
vat; qi
'a'XXI1
avitncat.
57.
ncapaXX64 &i: oij8&w
ixo'oavv, oi5&i:
8ta6wpou ;y 8itnou6a'i xxatv,
KQhaTO G0
i
Uo l tv
z
spq
S
Kc Xo
8t
'lcFt ica't
tbpdt`5E-t
o'
F'-gF-pP'-
58.
cf;
8' 'a'v
'tCOW
LflP(JO)(ov trf yuVlcKomvi"t6o; i'pgljve"i);
yEvotVW, Ti
t1L tU
am;t
iO;uYovuo
cYtOU
Icai ta;
nrFpt
ti5Xou; an5X6;, at;
6
vF-xbO;
iCFpt-
IkI3XTrQzt;32
55. There are twocolonnaded aisles, on
either side, and these are not
separated
fromthe nave
by any
structural element,
but serve rather toincrease its width; in
length they
reach toits
very
end, while
in
height they
are lower.
They
toohave
vaulted
ceilings
and
gold
decorations. 56.
One of this
pair o-F
colonnaded aisles has
been
assigned
tothe
praying
men, while
the other is reserved for women
doing
the same. 57. But there is nodistinction
betweenthem
[=
the two
aisles]
nor do
they really
differ fromeach
other,
but the
equality
of the
pair
serves toenhance the
beauty
of the church and their resem-
blance is anornament. 58.
Who, then,
could describe the
galleries
of the
gynae-
ceum,
or enumerate the abundance of
the colonnades or the columned halls
with which the church is surrounded?
The crux
interpretur, by general agreement,
is ? 55: Tctocac
t
eknctv
?KQtKapoei
&6
io,
Ot"KO-
6ogf'agF-v -roi ve bw
o-66sgi4
&slepy6gLEvat.
The term
otoo
has various related
meanings:
a
covered colonnade or
portico,
a
porch,
the narthex or aisle of achurch.33 The central
nave of
HagiaSophia
is flanked
along
its full
length by
acolonnaded side aisle ontwo
sides,
north and south. Each of these side aisles is surmounted
by
a
similarly
colonnaded
gallery
toformadouble or
two-story
aisle oneach side. Soinfact 1
here are not twobut
four
ttoaf
in
all,
twooneach
side,
one on
ground
level,
one above it. The translations
of H.
Dewing
and C.
Mango-"There
are two
[stoa-like]34
colonnades
(stoai),
one oneach
side"
35
-rightly preserves
the
ambiguity
of the
original,
since both aisles and
galleries
could be considered stoai. At
any
rate,
the text has beenthe
subject
of
divergent interpre-
tations:
1. If
Procopius
means,
as Strube seems tothink
possible (though
less
plaus-
ible),36
that "There are
stoai,
twooneach
side"-that is, four spaces inall,
twooneach side (anaisle surmounted
by
a
gallery)-then
what he
says
in
? 56 about one of them
being
for the
men,
one for the
women,
could be taken
tomeanthat one side of the church both
upstairs
and downis reserved for the
men,
the other for the women. But I donot think that is what the Greek
32Procopius,
with an
English
trans.
by
H. B.
Dewing,
with G.
Downey,
7
vols.,
VII:
Buildings,
Loeb
(Cam-
bridge,
Mass., 1954),
26-28.
33Ibid., 412;
cf.
Mathews,
Early Churches,
130.
34Gloss added in
Dewing's
version
(note
32
above).
35Procopius, Buildings
25;
Mango, Art,
76.
36Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
90-91.
35
means.
Furthermore,
as Strube
recognizes,
this
interpretation
would contra-
dict most other
sources,
which seemto
assign
the
galleries
inthe
plural
and
without distinctiontothe women.
2. SoI take
Procopius
tobe
saying
in? 55 that "there are aisles, one oneach
side,
twoof them
[inall]," referring thereby only
tothe
ground-floor
side
aisles
flanking
the nave north and
south,
twoin
all,
one oneach side. If
so,
thenin? 56
Procopius
is
asserting
that womenassisted at the
liturgy
from
one of the
ground-floor
aisles
flanking
the
nave,
as well as fromboth
galleries
(he uses the
plural),
where he alsolocates the womenin
? 58.
This,
if I under-
stand him
correctly,
is the solutionMathews
favors,
and he shores
up
his
argu-
ment
by appealing
to
Procopius'
use of the dual for the stoain
?
56,37
the
flavor of which I have tried to
preserve
in
my
version
by translating
the dual
as "pair."
In
effect,
Procopius
is
saying,
"There are
ground-floor
aisles,
one oneach
side,
two
in
all,
exactly
alike. One of this
pair
is for the
men,
one for the
women,
whereas the
galleries
over these aisles are both for the women." Not
only
does this accord with con-
temporary
sources like Paul
Silentiarius,
which
assign
the
galleries
inthe
plural
and with-
out distinctiontothe women, but it alsoseems tofit inbetter with the context of what
follows in
?
58,
where
Procopius clearly designates
the
galleries
inthe
plural
as the wom-
en's.
Furthermore,
Procopius'
insistence that the women's and men's aisles are the same
(? 57)
dovetails
perfectly
with the
Silentiary's
assertion
(above, A.III.5),
that the aisles on
ground
level and the women's
galleries
above themare
basically
the same.
7.
Evagrius
Scholasticus
(6th
century)
Another
contemporary description
of
HagiaSophia
from
Evagrius
Scholasticus
(ca.
536-d. after
594),
inChurch
History
IV, 31,
has also
given
rise to
varying interpretations:
1. Onthe
right
and
left,
columns of Thessalianmarble are set out inarow beside them
[the
main
piers], supporting, by
means of
other,
similar
columns,
galleries (6trepc0a),
let-
ting
those whosowish tolook down
upon
the rites
being
enacted
(rcpoKcVTetv
TOi
; poUXo-
?gvot; 86t6vT?;
5; xra
TeXo6vgeva) [below].
2. It is fromthere that the
empress,
whenshe is
inattendance on
feastdays,
witnesses the
offering
of the
holy mysteries (T itepoupyiaz6v
tv(onTrpicv aioxaTat).38
Evagrius places
the
empress
inthe
galleries during worship (2),
but refers inthe
masculine toothers
looking
downfromthe
galleries (1)
during
services. For
Mathews,
then,
"Evagrius
does not seemtobe aware that the
galleries
are reserved
exclusively
for
women."39 But
Evagrius
could
just
be
employing
the traditional
generic
masculine. Be-
sides,
the
emperor
and his retinue sometimes attended services fromthe
galleries (see
below,
A.III.9.a-e),
as did the
empress
and her
entourage (A.III.9.a),
which included
male
guards
and retainers.
37Mathews,
Early Churches, 130-32.
38J. Bidez and L.
Parmentier,
The Ecclesiastical
History of Evagrius
with Scholia
(London, 1898), 180;
trans.
adapted
from
Mango, Art,
79-80.
39Mathews,
Early Churches,
131.
36
ROBERT F TAFT,
S.J.
8. The Narratiode S.
Sophia(8th-9th
century)
The
eighth-ninth-century legendary Diegesis
or Narratiode S.
Sophia,
5 and
26, also
mentions the north and south aisles and the
galleries
of
HagiaSophia:
[5]
1. Tb
68: 864o'V g'pO;
tOio
o)VatQKitO1
oXkov
KCl
LWS;
tOt
KLovo; toC ayfouBaoy-
X&o'U Kai FK WitO
VaO)
gCFpoP
tt
un7TT1pXov
OKil0K aCLtaXapft'Tvoo; Evot-ot) tcb
T
iO
iirhKkv
XIJvo7toXoTh O, 'Cai'
MA
ovfa(lIaav gLEt iL)X-
aptf(yxt;.
2. Tb &o
6pvitop pv gF'po; toil yu-
Vat'KttCO
Kat
O);
tO)
-KiOVO;
tOt) aX7tOt
Fprjyopio)
tot) O
autgatoupyob)tIUI-JPXOV OtKTj-
jinza
6Wvoo65vt6; Ttvo;
...
[26]
3.
...'Ev
8 tF'
6ErPi 8tt nkupd
toi) &e-
4to) ytvawftiaou
Fi:nofftjoE
6XkaXav gF,-pt
attOa(gfi;, ivaavepXyzat
tC
t")8p,
Kcai -KXL-
gQKQaiLav, 0b1w; 6vow tfi;
Oa.a'
raa; &pXov-
,cat ot
tepCt;. 4. 'EacgaF- 66i -Kazh
'
np6ayo0Tcov
&8cxgeviiv b,3pxaV vag6tOV Icai
FyXIwE
Xovta; 66W8&FKa,
Rap8k6t;
&O&EKtX, 80pKa-
8a; 6&O&8KcI,
&EtOUt
KOi Xcly)ot)i0
Kalt
[t6a-
xo,u; ica' iop6ova; ica a&rotu; 6rv&a 8568ac&
Kati
t6v
7CVapu'yYcv
ai5t6v FgctG0at tb
UM6wp
&&a
ini1Xavriii06ttv
'CO tO tot;
itpFi;
virtcz Oiat go6vov. 'EKXa'kFT &F'- tv t6'tov
Aeovtaptov- 5. Kcti
Mi-catdptov, biltp
FKF-tiG-
avr'YF&tpF-v
KOtuCOVaWpuitov
&6,ptl)-
(3OV, tVca7tOpE)OfLEVOt a)
Q)tOt) CV tq
vaiq
~ilccinowaOrx~6;1.42
42
[5]
1. The whole
right-hand part
of the
gynaeceumup
tothe
pillar
of St. Basil
and alsoa
part
of the nave had beenthe
house of the eunuch Chariton, nick-
named "the
goose-peddler,"4'
which was
purchased
with
thanksgiving.
2. But the
left-hand
part
of the
gynaeceumup
to
the
pillar
of
Gregory
the
Thaumaturge
had beenthe house of acertainXeno-
phon,
acobbler
by
trade ...
[26] 3. ... Onthe right-hand side of the
right gynaeceumj'
he
[Justinian]
made a
pool inwhich water collected to the
depth
of one
span44
and a
gangway
for
the
priests
towalk over the
pool.
4.
Facing
the
pool
he set
up
acisternof rainwater,
and he carved twelve lions, twelve
leop-
ards, twelve deer,
eagles
and hares and
calves and crows likewise twelve
each, out
of whose throats water flowed
by
means
of amechanismfor the ablutionof the
priests
alone. He called this
place
"Leon-
tarion." 5. There, too, he constructed the
metatorion, abeautiful chamber covered
with
gold,
sothat he
might
rest there
whenever he weni- tochurch.
This account locates not one (as in
Procopius,
A.JII.6
above)
but two
ground-floor
gynaecea
in
HagiaSophia:
1. The text in?
[5]
describes two
properties, formerly occupied by
houses,
that
had been
purchased
for the constructionof
HagiaSophia.45
2. Since the
right
and left
gynaecea
as well as
part of
the nave now stand onthese
two
properties,
the text is
obviously referring
tothe
ground
floor of the basil-
ica,
not tothe
galleries.
This is confirmed
by
the reference
([5] 1-2)
tothe
40T
Preger, Scriptores OriginumConstantinopolitanarum,
Bibliotheca
Scriptorum
Graecorumet Romanorum
Teubneriana,
Scriptores
Graeci
(Leipzig,
1901;
repr. 1989),
79-80. Onthis
source,
see G.
Dagron,
Constanti-
nople imaginaire:
Etudes surle
recueil
des
"Patria,"
Bibliotheque byzantine,
Etudes 8
(Paris, 1984),
191-314
(with
French
trans., 196-211).
41Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire, 198, 200 n. 37.
42Preger, Scriptores,
103-4.
43Mango, Art, 101,
from
which this translationof ?
[26]
is
adapted,
translates this as "the
right
women's
gallery,"
but I think the text is
referring
tothe
ground-floor
south
aisle,
as I
explain
below.
44A oant0ii = 23.4 cm:
Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire,
255 n. 190.
45On the locationof these
properties,
see
ibid., 221 n. 38.
37
columns of St. Basil and of St.
Gregory Thaumaturgus.
The latter
column,46
which
(below,
B.II.2 ?
8) supposedly
contained the
body
of the
saint,
was the
northwesternmost
freestanding
columnof
HagiaSophia,
at the northwest
corner of the north
(left)
aisle
by
the northwest door tothe narthex. The
columnof St. Basil was the
corresponding
one at the southwest corner of the
opposite
aisle of the church.47
3. Since the text in
?
[5] clearly distinguishes
the nave fromthe
gynaeceum,
the
left and
right-that
is,
north and south
(1-2)-gynaecea occupied
both the
north-south
ground-floor
side aisles
flanking
the
nave,
but did not include
the central nave itself. This accords
perfectly
with ?
[26],
which
again
refers
toa
ground-floor gynaeceum
inthe
right (south)
side aisle
(3)
where the
emperor's ground-floor
metatorion
(5)
was located.48
4. The existence of two
ground-floor
gynaecea
is further confirmed insection
[23]
of the
Diegesis,
which refers tothe
lighting
fixtures as "six thousand
golden
candelabras and
lamp
clusters of the
narthex,
the
ambo,
the
bema,
and the two
gynaecea" (TnourKav6Sra
KaiX
poop6ta
a co
vapO0r1Koq Kca
TOo
alpco-
voq
Kal
TDopr [flaxo; 6;X6Zpvoa
oiv yz6v
6t5
y8vauc?idov
Ztt6& V),49
thus list-
ing
the two
gynaecea
inaseries of
spaces
onthe
ground
floor of the church.50
5. Of
course,
HagiaSophia
alsohad an
imperial
metatorioninthe south
gallery,
used
by
the
empress
and onsome occasions also
by
the
emperor,
as we see in
De cerimoniis
(below, A.III.9.a).
This is confirmed
by
Nicetas David
Paphla-
gon's
vitaof Patriarch St.
Ignatius (847-858, 867-886):
at the eucharist in
HagiaSophia
onNovember
23, 867,
whenBasil I
(867-886)
restored
Ignatius
tothe
patriarchal
throne,
the
emperor
was inattendance inthe
right (south)
gallery,51
that is, where the
upper-level
imperial
metatorionwas located. In
addition,
according
toDe
cerimoniis,
the
emperor
used some sort of
loge, per-
manent or
improvised
with
curtains,
on
days
whenhe assisted at
liturgy
from
the
galleries
inother churches of the
capital (below, A.III.9.b-f).
Soone can-
not
argue
fromthe mentionof the metatorionalone that our text could not
be
referring
tothe south
gallery.
I would consider that
unlikely,
however,
since what most sources call the
emperor's
metatorionwas
certainly
onthe
ground
floor
(see above,
A.III.5
[580-85]
and
below, A.III.9.a).
Hence I think
our
anonymous Diegesis
is
referring
tothe
ground-floor
south aisle.
46This columnalso
appears
inthe Russian
pilgrim
accounts of
Anthony
of
Novgorod (1200 A.D.),
in
Kh. M.
Loparev,
ed.,
Knuea
naioinHuK: CKasaHue mecm
cesmblx so
LapeepaOe
AHmoHul
ApxuenucKona
Hoesopod
cKaCo
6 1200
zoby,
PPSB 51 = 17.3
(St. Petersburg, 1899),
6-7 (hereafter
Loparev);
and the
post-Crusader
Russian
"Anonymous Description
of
Constantinople,"
inG. P.
Majeska,
RussianTravelers to
Constantinople
inthe Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Centuries,
DOS 19
(Washington,
D.C., 1984),
132-33
(text),
213-14
(commen-
tary).
47Majeska,
Russian
Travelers,
213-14 and "H" in
plan
I
facing p.
199;
E. M.
Antoniades,
"EK'pactSI;
Tc 'Ayias
So?fiaS,
3 vols.
(Athens, 1907-9), II, 205, 226-27 and
pl.
62
facing p.
226;
R. L. Van
Nice,
Saint
Sophia
in
Istanbul: AnArchitectural
Survey (Washington,
D.C., 1965), pl.
9.
48See note 30 above.
49Preger, Scriptores,
100.
50Mango, Art, 100,
translates this as "the twowomen's
galleries,"
but
Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite, 93,
alsounderstands the
Diegesis
tobe
talking
about the
ground-floor
aisles.
5 PG 105:544D
(=
BHG
817).
I am
grateful
tothe late AlexanderKazhdanof DumbartonOaks forthis ref-
erence.
38
ROBERT E TAFT,
S.J.
6. As for the
large pool ([26] 3) plus
acisternwith fountain
(4) supposedly
lo-
cated inthe south aisle
being
described,
G.
Dagron52
is
tempted
tosee this
as
referring
tothe
baptistry
and well that the
anonymous
Russian
pilgrim
ac-
count
(ca.
1389/91
A.D.) speaks
of.53 That is
improbable.54
The de Khitrowo
translation
Dagron
relies onis
inaccurate,
depending
as it does onthe
"Dia-
logue"
versionof the
text,
which locates these
emplacements
at the east
end
of
HagiaSophia,
and G.
Majeska
is doubtless correct in
identifying
this
water
source as the Great Fountain
(Otairl)
inthe atriumbefore the west facade
of
HagiaSophia.55
Besides,
the
Diegesis
is
legendary
and not alittle
fantastic, so
its account of these water sources need not be takenas aliteral
description
of
actual
emplacements.
Closer to
reality
thanthe
anonymous
Russian
pilgrim
is
Anthony
of
Novgorod (1200 A.D.),
whorefers to"the cisterns
(KrJase3H)
...
and bath
(6aHn)
of the
patriarchs
inthe
galleries
(HanojiaTaxb)"
of
Hagia
Sophia.56
The term
inoJaTH/naIaTH
clearly
refers tothe church
galleries.
But
since
Anthony
locates inthe same
place,
Ha
nojiaTaxb,
the
patriarchal
store-
room
(orpaA,)
full of fruits and other
victuals,
he is doubtless
referring
tothe
patriarchal palace,
a
multistory building contiguous
tothe south side of Ha-
giaSophia,
whose south
gallery
communicated
directly
with the
patriarchal
quarters.57
Note that this
interpretation
of the
Diegesis
as
describing gynaecea
inboth the north
and south
ground-floor
aisles of
HagiaSophiadirectly
contradicts
Procopius,
whoas-
signs
one
ground-floor
aisle tothe
men,
the other one
plus
both
galleries,
north and
south,
tothe women
(above, A.III.6 ?? 56, 58).
As we shall see inthe next
section,
De
cerimoniis alsorefers to
only
one
in
HagiaSophia
and the other
churches of the
capital-but
it is not
always
the same
aisle, and,
unlike
Procopius,
De
cerimoniis nowhere
implies
that the other aisle was not also
"gynaeceum" space.
9. De cerimoniis
(10th
century)
The earliest full
description
of
Byzantine imperial participation
inchurch services
is found inDe
cerimoniis aulae
byzantinae.58 Emperor
Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus
(945-959)
compiled
this
imperial
ceremonial treatise frommaterial
representing
several
historical
strata,
and not all of its
prescriptions
canbe taken
uncritically
as amirror of
tenth-century Byzantine society.59 By
that time the
government
had retreated somewhat
52Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire,
255 nn. 190-91.
53Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 134-35,
138-39.
54Ibid.,
134 n.
26, 202.
55Mme B.
(= SofijaP.)
de
Khitrowo,
Itineraires russes enOrient
(Geneva, 1889), 229;
Dagron, Constantinople
imaginaire,
255 n.
191; cf.
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 138 nn.
32-33,
138-39.
56Loparev,
23; cf.
Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire,
255 n. 191. De
Khitrowo, Itineraires, 101, translates it
as "au-dessus des tribunes."
57C.
Mango, "HagiaSophia,"
ODB
II:893;
R. Cormack and E.
J.
W.
Hawkins,
"The Mosaics of St.
Sophia
at Istanbul: The Rooms above the Southwest
Vestibule,"
DOP 31
(1977), 200-202, 247-51.
58A.
Vogt,
ed.,
Le Livre des ceremonies de Constantin
Porphyrogenete,
2 vols.
(Paris, 1935, 1939)
(hereafter
Vogt),
and
idem, Commentaire, 2 vols.
(Paris, 1935, 1940); J. J.
Reiske, ed., Constantini
Porphyrogeniti imperatoris
De
Cerimoniis aulae
byzantinae,
2
vols.,
CSHB
(Bonn, 1829-30) (hereafter
Reiske).
Forthe
respective
churches
mentioned below fromthis
document,
see
Janin, Eglises,
and the
respective
articles inODB.
590n
the
problems
of text and
authorship
of this
source, see,
most
recently,
A.
Moffatt,
"The Masterof
Ceremonies' BottomDrawer: The Unfinished State of the De Ceremoniis of Constantine
Porphyrogennetos,"
BSl 56
(1995),
377-88.
39
fromthe
public
scene,
and inhis
preface
tothe book Constantine VII
explicitly
admits
his aimtorestore traditions that had
already decayed.60
For
Mango, then, "the Book of
Ceremonies is
essentially
an
antiquarian
work rather thana
practical manual.'61
The
stylized formality
of
Byzantine public
life,
with its
predilection
for
&dt5;,
or order,62 inevi-
tably
involved a
heavy
dose of ritual conservatisminchurch and court. Numerous
aspects
of civic and court life that the Book
of
Ceremonies describes as still current-the
Hippo-
drome,
chariot
racing,
the
factions,
luxurious
public bathing, reclining
at table-were
probably
no
longer
in
general
use. As
Mango
remarks,
"These survivals
suggest
that the
evocationof anextinct
life-style,
that of the
Empire
inits
greatness,
was adeliberate
component
of court ceremonial. Which is
why, perhaps,
the Book
of
Ceremonies is what it
is-not a
guide
to
existing procedure,
but acollectionof ancient
precedents."63
Neverthe-
less,
some of the Book
of
Ceremonies' rituals are
clearly descriptions
of actual church cele-
brations,64
and evenincourt life the continual
updating
of its
prescriptions
under Con-
stantine VII's successors Romanus
II
(959-963)
and
Nicephorus
Phocas
(963-969)
must
indicate some
ongoing
relevance toactual
practice.65
The
liturgical
material of interest to
us,
principally
inDe cerimoniis
I, 1-18, describes,
inter
alia,
the
imperial participation
instational
processions
and other
religious
services
on
major
feasts of the church
year.
This
part
of the text is believed todate to
Emperor
Michael III
(842-867)
around the
years 847-862(?),
later revised ca. 900-903 under
LeoVI
(886-912)
and
againby
its final
redactor,
Constantine
VII,
ca.
957-959,66
inthe
ninth-eleventh-century
eraof
Byzantine "encyclopedism,"67
when
xtS;
was still the or-
der of the
day
inchurch and
state,
and the
compilation
of
anthologies
and bureaucratic
manuals was in
vogue.
What is
important
for our
purposes
is that middle
Byzantine
sources such as the
Narratiode S.
Sophia
and De cerimoniis not
only assign
a
variety
of activities tothe
galleries
of churches inthe
capital, systematically
referred toas
"catechumena," but also
clearly
locate the
gynaeceum
inboth side aisles onthe
ground
floor of these
churches,
whereas
Procopius (above, A.III.6) assigns
one
ground-floor
aisle as well as both
galleries
tothe
women.
a.
HagiaSophia
Among
these churches the
prime analogate
for the rite of
Constantinople
is,
of
course,
the Great Church. Onthe feast of Pentecost
(I, 9),
the
emperor
assists at the
Divine
Liturgy
fromhis metatorioninthe south aisle of
HagiaSophia, flanking
the nave
60Vogt
I, 1-2;
cf. M.
McCormick,
Eternal
Victory: Triumphal Rulership
inLate
Antiquity, Byzantium,
and the
Early
Medieval West
(Cambridge-Paris, 1986),
175-76.
61C.
Mango, "Daily
Life in
Byzantium," JOB
31.1
(1981), 346;
cf. alsoAv.
Cameron,
"The Constructionof
Court Ritual: The
Byzantine
Book
of Ceremonies,"
inRituals
of Royalty:
Powerand Ceremonial inTraditional Socie-
ties,
ed. D. Cannadine and S. Price
(Cambridge, 1987),
106-36.
62 See A. Kazhdanand G.
Constable,
People
and Powerin
Byzantium:
AnIntroductiontoModern
Byzantine
Studies
(Washington, D.C., 1982), 60-66, 126, 134, 137, 158,
161.
63Mango, "Daily
Life," 352.
64McCormick,
Eternal
Victory,
160.
65Ibid., 175-76;
J.
B.
Bury,
"The Ceremonial Book of Constantine
Porphyrogennetos,"
EHR 22
(1907),
217-21.
66M.
McCormick,
"De
ceremoniis,"
ODB I:595-97.
67A.
Kazhdan,
"Encyclopedism,"
ODB 1:696-97.
40
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
on
ground-floor
level.68 The
empress
alsoattends the
liturgy,
not with the
emperor
but
fromanother
metatorion,
located inthe
catechumena,
doubtless inthe south
gallery
right
above the
emperor's
metatorioninthe aisle below
(the
text does not
specify
which
side the metatorionwas
on,
but it is
hardly imaginable
for the
imperial loge
of the
cathe-
dral church tohave beenlocated inthe less honorable north
gallery
whenit could
equally
well have beenonthe other
side, where, indeed,
we see it inall other churches of
the
capital):69
1. One should know that whenthe Divine
Liturgy begins,
the chamberlains mount
forth-
with tothe catechumenaand the
empress
exits fromthe
metatorion,
which is in
the
catechumena, and sits onher
throne,
and all the chamberlains stand oneither
side, and
the
protospathary70
eunuchs stand behind the
augusta.
2. And at a
signal
fromthe au-
gusta
the
praepositus goes
out,
with twoostiaries
carrying
their
staffs,
and introduces
the first
delegation(Pqfiov):
the
women-patricians
of the cincture ...
One
by
one,
seven
delegations
of noble womenand the wives of courtiers and court
officials are ushered inand receive the kiss of
peace
fromthe
empress.
Then:
3. After
giving
the kiss of
peace (xhv ayanrrv)
to
all,
the
augustasignals
the
praepositus,
who
says,
"Command!" and
they [the
delegations
of
women] exclaim,
"For
many
and
good years!",
and
they go
out. 4. And the
augusta
rises and enters the metatorionwith
her
personal chamberlains,
5. and the rest of the chamberlains
go
downtothe
emperor.7l
Onthe feast of Christ's
Ascension, however,
it is the
emperor
whoassists at Divine
Liturgy
fromthe
galleries
of
HagiaSophia,
where there were alsocommunioncredences
(the
emperor
and
dignitaries
were
brought
communioninthe
galleries by
the
patriarch),
an
imperial dining
room
(tpitKXvo;)
closed off fromthe rest of the
gallery
since it had a
door,
and the
imperial apartment (Kotcov)
with which the
dining
roomcommunicated di-
rectly.72
Onthe
Sunday
of
Orthodoxy,
De cerimoniis
I,
37
(28),
specifies
that the
emperor
at-
tends services fromthe metatorionof the catechumena and dines with the
patriarch
afterwards.73
Also,
onthe
Sunday
after Easter the
sovereigns (oi 68eoncat)
attend
liturgy
fromthe catechumenaof
HagiaSophia
and dine there afterwards
(I,
25
[16]).74
Finally,
De cerimoniis
II, 24, 38,
has the
imperial party
assist at the consecrationof a
patriarch
fromthe
upper
metatorioninthe catechumena.75
The De cerimoniis account of the
imperial
devotions in
HagiaSophiaprovides
the
following
data:
68Vogt
I,
59-60.
69See
below, A.III.9.b, d, f,
h.
70"Spathary"
means
"swordbearer," but
by
this time most of these offices were titular. Onthe various titles
inthis
source,
see
Vogt, Commentaire, I, 10ff,
and the
respective chapters
in
ibid., II;
alsothe
respective
articles in
ODB;
and
especially J. Darrouzes, Recherches surles
60|iKta
de
l'Eglise
byzantine,
AOC 11
(Paris,
1970).
71Vogt
I, 61-62.
72De cerim.
I, 27
(18): Vogt
I,
104-5.
73Vogt
I, 145-48.
74Vogt
I, 90-91.
75Reiske
566,
636.
41
1.
HagiaSophia
had two
imperial
metatoria,
one inthe
ground-floor
south
aisle,76
one inthe
gallery
above it
(1, 4).
2.
Only
the
emperor (paaXotEC)77
or
co-emperors (6?ec6oat),78 never the em-
press,
assist at services fromthe
ground-floor
metatorion.
3.
Though
the
gallery
metatorionis used also
by
the
empress
and her
entourage
(1, 4),
this should not be takenas
reinforcing
the notionthat the
galleries
were the
place
of the women
exclusively.
For the
emperor
and his
entourage,
all
men,
are alsodescribed as
attending liturgy
fromthe
galleries
in
Hagia
Sophia, Holy Apostles (below, A.III.9.b),
Chalkoprateia(A.III.9.c),
and Ha-
gios
Mokios
(A.III.9.d).
4. The retainers
attending
the
empress
inthe
galleries
include not
only
the
Byz-
antine
equivalent
of her
ladies-in-waiting,
but alsovarious male officials: the
praepositus,
two
ostiaries,
some of the
emperor's
chamberlains whoassist her
at least
during
the
receptions (1-4)
before
returning
totheir
place
at the
emperor's
metatorionbelow
(5).
Withinthe culture of the
times,
it would
have been
hardly imaginable
for a
Byzantine imperial
consort and female
attendants toroamabout without anescort of male
guards
and retainers.
5. Fromnone of
this, however,
canone
argue anything pro
or con
regarding
the
presence (or not)
of
ordinary laity,
male or
female,
inthe rest of the
galleries.
6.
Though
the text
analyzed
above
says nothing
about a
gynaeceum, according
toDe cerimoniis
I,
44
(below,
B.II. 1
?
1),
there was one onthe left
(north)
side
of the
ground
floor of
HagiaSophia, just
as in
Holy Apostles (below,
A.III.9.b
??
6, 8)
and
Chalkoprateia(A.III.9.c:
??
14-15),
whereas in
Hagios
Mokios
(A.III.9.d
?
24),
Stoudios
(A.III.9.h
?
30),
and the Nea
(A.III.9.i),
the
gynae-
ceumwas onthe
right (south)
side of the
ground
floor.
b.
Holy Apostles
The
imperial
retinue assisted at the Divine
Liturgy
fromthe
galleries
at the Easter
Monday
stational
liturgy
in
Holy Apostles,79
the basilicawhere Constantine and some
of the sainted
bishops
of the Great
Church,
including JohnChrysostom
and
Gregory
Nazianzen,
were buried. Fromthe
description
inDe cerimoniis
I, (10),
it is clear that an
imperial loge
was located inthe south
gallery,
and there was a
gynaeceum
onthe
ground
floor.
Going
in
procession
viathe Mese to
Holy Apostles
basilica,
the
emperor
enters the
narthex toawait the arrival of the
patriarch.
Whenthe
patriarch
has arrived with the
stational
procession([terarfi XtLi;q)
and recited the
customary
Introit
Prayer
of the Di-
vine
Liturgy
inthe narthex before the
Imperial
Doors,
they
enter the
nave,
proceeding
as usual around the amboand
along
the soleaintothe
sanctuary
viathe
Holy
Doors-
that
is,
of the
templon
or chancel-where the
emperor places
his
offering
onthe altar.80
Thenthe
emperor
and
patriarch
reverence the relics inthe
sanctuary
and outside it:
76See note 30
above,
and De cerim.
I,
1 and 9:
Vogt
I, 12-13,
59-61.
77De cerim.
I,
9:
Vogt
I,
59-61.
78De cerim.
I,
1:
Vogt
I, 12-13.
79J.
Mateos, ed.,
Le
Typicon
de laGrande
Eglise:
Ms. Sainte-Croix n?
40,
Xe
siecle, introduction,
critical
text,
translation,
and
notes, 2
vols.,
OCA 165-66
(Rome, 1962-63), II,
96-99.
?Cf.
Taft,
Great
Entrance, 29-30 n.
76,
195-97.
42
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
6. Kai
8tip%ovzat agL6TeOpot
6
ze
paotXe)q
Kai
6
7axptipXli
p la TO&
apo 6ptOx poi gppouq
ToD
vaoD, iyyo)v
TOU
y7vatKcTOu, avtlKpU
To
OvotaoTnpiol ,
7. Kai
7ipoKuvncovave;s
d%l6Toepot dalxxXou;
6
patX?eiq KIcai
6 ca-
Tptp%XgrS, D7nooTpei
t p posz
To cKTAeXoal
Tilv
Oeiav
X?txoupyiav,
8. 6 8
paxotiXei)
8Ifpgexat
8t o5
yDvatKciTOU Kail
c
pg?erat
eiq
T6v
vap9OCKa,
Kal
?bKKivaS; nppoq
T6O
aptlo(Tpd(; Epogi
TO O
XOVTrpO;.
9. oi !.tev
cazpiK6tot iTaavwat ~c0oev ziT
7IrqS; ToiD
KOXXtIO, 7?epe%6O?VOe TOzv pa-
aotXa,
10. 6
68
paotXe;S 618ptyeD)6?0evo;
nCO
Tzov
dp6OVtov xoD6
KOUpOKxe/oV
...
Katl otnOv, dvapeati 6da TOa
o
a6to
daptiT-
epoV KOXXtIO6 v To0; oGCMo0t
KaCTcxoVgLe-
VEiotg,
11. Ta8
[ PrXa
Ta
KppeCdieva
ev
toiS
KacTntoXoVLEVeio; otXevtlptot Trotoi6ot, 12.
Kat
daTieXobv izaat
elv
Toi; 58e to;q lgLpoti,
&vEai9iOtzTat alzT
Ka9'
KaToztv
npoX:ev-
otV tioaoeat,
Kal
TeEti
TCiv
Oeiav
X0etTOVp-
yiav.
13. oi 8E
inaxpictot Kai
oi
oTpaTtyot
advpXovrati Onta0v
TO6
paaiXcow; 8ta
TO6
aDTO6
KoXXtO), Kalt
itavtat Qa;ivavTI TOD
)oita(aTpioo, v6OaKai T o
paotXCKOv
advt-
ifotov np6OKEi?at,
?V (
Kai Kotvcvi 6
paat-
Xieu; v Trat;
ota6Tat; 7ipoeXe6Feoiv.81
6. And both of
them,
the
emperor
and the
patriarch, gothrough
the left side of the
church,
that
is,
the
gynaeceum,
across
fromthe
sanctuary,
7. and after both of
them,
the
emperor
and the
patriarch,
have bowed toeach
other, the
patriarch
goes
back tocelebrate the Divine
Liturgy,
8. while the
emperor goes through
the
gynaeceum
and
goes
out intothe narthex
and heads toward the left side of the
atrium.
9. The
patricians
stand outside the door
tothe
spiral stairway acclaiming
the em-
peror.
10. The
emperor, preceded by
the
chief chamberlains . . . and the
rest,
as-
cends viathe same left-hand
spiral
stair-
way
intothe venerable
catechumena,
11.
and the silentiaries
arrange
the curtains
that
hang
inthe
catechumena, 12. and
[the
emperor] goes
and takes his
place
on
the
right
side where he is accustomed to
stay
at each
procession,82
and assists at the
Divine
Liturgy.
13. But the
patricians
and
the
generals goup
behind the
emperor,
viathe same
spiral stairway,
and stand
op-
posite
the
sanctuary,
where the
imperial
antimensionis
located,
at which the em-
peror
receives communionat such
pro-
cessions.
The text
presents
no
problems
of
interpretation.
After
reverencing
the relics at the
tombs,
the
emperor
and his
entourage
cross the
gynaeceum
onthe left
(north)
side of
the
sanctuary (6, 8),
exit the nave tothe narthex
(8)
where the door tothe
spiral stairway
was located onthe same north
(left)
side
(9),
and mount the
stairway
tothe catechumena
(10).
There
(11)
inthe tribune tothe
right (12)-that is,
over the south aisle of the nave-
the silentiaries
improvise
an
imperial loge
with curtains
(1pfia),
and the
sovereign
enters
the
loge
tofollow the Divine
Liturgy being
celebrated
directly
below inthe
sanctuary
(12).
The
principal imperial chamberlains,
apparently,
attend the
emperor
inthe
loge,
while the lesser officials of his escort remain
by
the communion
antimension,
located in
the west tribune over the
narthex,
opposite
the
sanctuary
tothe east
(13).83
c.
Chalkoprateia
The church of Theotokos in
Chalkoprateia
alsohad
galleries,
reached
by
awooden
stairway
and furnished with an
imperial
metatorionwhere the
emperor
assisted at the
81Vogt
I, 69-70.
82nlposXEiut
(accession,
coming
out,
issuing forth),
the term
commonly
used inDe cerim. for
imperial
court
processions,
is not one of the common
Byzantine
church terms for
liturgical processions:
see
J.
E
Baldovin,
The UrbanCharacter
of
Christian
Worship:
The
Origins, Development,
and Meaning
of Stational Liturgy,
OCA 228
(Rome, 1987),
205-9.
83Onthe details of these
places
and
furnishings,
see
Vogt, Commentaire, I,
111.
43
liturgy
onAnnunciation
(March 25), according
toDe cerimoniis I, 1, 39
(30),
44
(43).84 In
Chalkoprateia
as in
HagiaSophia
and
Holy Apostles,
a
gynaeceum
is alsolocated onthe
ground
floor tothe left
(north)
of the
sanctuary:
14. The
sovereigns, having
entered the
sanctuary
and
deposited
their
purse
onthe
holy
altar,
leave viathe left side of the same
sanctuary
and
gothrough
the
gynaeceum
of the
same church
(?;pzovc0xat
troaa,toD dpox?0po) po); TOi aXTo) 01)(taGTpiopt0,
Kai
8tiepovrcTa
6aT oi6
yvvaKiTOio Trfq ar;Sq EiKKXqntaiaa).
15. And inthe
gynaeceumthey
await the whole
senate,
which renders
homage
tothe
sovereigns,
16. and the
sovereigns
with the
patri-
arch and the chamberlains
gothrough
the arch tothe
holy
altar of the
[chapel
of
the]
Holy
Coffer
...
85
Whenthe devotions are
completed,
17. a
reception
is held inthe same
gynaeceum
of the church
(yive'at 6oX0l iv aC5ot TO
yuvatKiTnT'rf; ?KKni7ia;).86
InDe cerimoniis
I,
39
(30),
this
chapel
of the
Holy
Coffer
(16)
holding
the
prized
relic of
the
Virgin's
cincture87 is reached
by exiting
the main
sanctuary
fromthe left side: 8ta
TriS
Titayfia
ToD
aptarepoi g|?pou; E?4SX06v, EirEpXETat ?i5;
TTiV
ayiav oopov.88
Sothe
chapel
must have beenlocated onthe
ground
floor
just
north of the main
sanctuary.
Onthe
same side of the
sanctuary
is "the
gynaeceum" (14-15),
which the
sovereigns
and
patri-
arch cross onthe
way
tothe
chapel (14-16).
Far from
being
restricted tothe
women,
it
is used
by
the
imperial party
for the traditional ceremonial
homage (15)
and for
recep-
tions
(17).
d.
Hagios
Mokios
On
Midpentecost Wednesday
the
emperor
attends services fromthe
galleriepr
s of the
church of the
martyr
St. Mokios
(I,
26
[17]):
18.
Eic?oeXOv
6V
pa6 toti?);
v TX
XouVTpt
Kcai
6t?X0Ov
FtXp
TC6O
yparxOki
t6iv Tv
vep-
Xo[tFvtOv ?v Tz
vap0rKlC,
KCKice? vtva-
t?VOq, 8tIPX?eralt
8t 'r)
vap0rlKO;, traVTZ?;
6E
oi
rarpiKctot Kai (TTpaTriyoi
fl?OTa TX1S
Guy-
CKXiTOl
7tV
Xo1ov TfS
eioayo6ol(n; nTXrl; iS
TOv
KoXXfav, ?e67?ovxTaTObv
paotLXa.....
19.0
6' paiaeot S; 65lptyeDu6tevo; i07c6
C?
TCOv dpXOV-cOv
TOV
KOVpOVKX?0io
V
Kai
fa-
otXtKcV
OilKEtIaKcOV,
TOD) trf
KaTaoT(3dae(Y
?e
Kali
oite?vxtaptov, advepg?eat
86t TOlo
KoXXtoi, 20.
Kati LtKpOv cKKiva; dapto-
T'p6v, 8tl?px?xat
8ta
iCv
KaTcq%ODVt?Vliov
TOD
vap0OnrKO;, cKai eioEpXETa Ei
TOV KOt-
tO6va auxou.89
18.
Entering
the atriumand
going
across
tothe
steps leading
intothe
narthex,
the
emperor,
after
performing
the ablutions
there,
crosses the narthex while the
patri-
cians and
generals
with the members of
the
senate,
standing by
the door tothe
spiral
staircase,
acclaimthe
emperor....
19. Thenthe
emperor, preceded by
the
chief chamberlains and
imperial
domes-
tics,
the master of ceremonies and the si-
lentiaries,
goes up
viathe
spiral
staircase,
20. and
veering
abit tothe
left,
goes
through
the catechumenaof the narthex
and enters his
apartment.
84Vogt
I, 24-25, 154-55,
173.
85De cerim.
I,
1:
Vogt
I, 24-25.
86De cerim.
I,
1:
Vogt
I, 25.
87Vogt, Commentaire, I, 76; Mathews, Early Churches,
33.
88Vogt
I,
154.
89Vogt I,
93.
44
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
Once the
emperor
is
vested,
the account
continues,
he
goes
out fromhis
apartment
intothe catechumena:
21. Toi 68 piaotXfo; eeX006vto; ?K ToD 21. After the
emperor
has
gone
out of his
KOtTOvo0
axTouev
Toi~ KaTrlou)gevfott; i7c-
apartment
inthe catechumena over the
e?p?v
'TCV
pa(?tKOCv rVTUXOV, ei?opxovTat
oi
Imperial
Doors,
the vestiaries enter and
PerriryopeS KCait Xak6aooool
T
hv XXaviSa put onhimthe
imperial
mantle, 22. and
Txv
paotkEa,
22. a
86i Keloe iC KpeCLageva
the chamberlains
arrange
the curtains
PriXa
?v
toi; KaTr%ouXL?VtioIt
KOUptKOuXC-
that
hang
inthe catechumena.
ptot :otoOGtv.90
The
emperor
and his retainers thendescend the
spiral stairway
for the Introit cere-
monies of the Divine
Liturgy,
after which he returns tohis
loge
inthe
galleries:
23. And the
patriarch
remains inthe
sanctuary
for the Divine
Liturgy,
24. while the
emperor, leaving
the
sanctuary, goes
across viathe side of the
gynaeceum(Ei;eXO9v
?K
0)a(otaTorpio 86tep%eta86a
T
nktzay ias
xo
yuvaKictou)),
25. and the
patricians
stand out-
side the door tothe
spiral stairway, along
with the
generals,
the master of
ceremonies,
and the
silentiaries,
acclaiming
the
emperor
with the senate. 26. The
emperor, preceded
by
the chamberlains and
imperial
domestics,
goes up
viathe
private spiral stairway
and
enters the
loge (advpXE?a
ra ToD
gvLo,trcoi KoX0to Kcali eiGtpxovrat ei;
TO6
capaKwuTIKOV),
where he assists at the Divine
Liturgy.
27. If he so
wishes,
the
emperor
awaits the
patri-
arch there until it is time totake his
place
at table. 28. If
not,
he
goes through
the
catechumena... and enters his
apartment.
Whenthe time for dinner has
come,
the
emperor
leaves his
apartment...
and
goes
intothe
catechumena,
inwhich the
precious
table has beenset.91
After the
liturgy
the
emperor
dines with the
patriarch
inthe
catechumena,
either
waiting
for himthere or first
passing through
the catechumenatoenter his
apartment
(86tIpXTat 86t
TO6v
KaTo)lXOV,Levto)v
... K:ai
dTc1pX?at
?v TO
KOttcVI a6Cxot),
then
coming
out
again
later,
whenit is time to
join
the
patriarch
at table.92
Here
again,
several distinct
spaces
canbe identified:
1. There is an
imperial
chamber or
apartment (Kotr6Cv)
inthe
gallery
over the
narthex at the west end of the church
(20-21).
2. There is alsoan
imperial
box or
loge
inthe catechumenafromwhich the
emperor
assists at the
liturgy (26).
It is called not "metatorion" but To6
capa-
Kcvn-KO6V,
literally
"lookout,"
anobservation
post
fromwhich the activities be-
low could be seen.
3. This
loge
was
clearly
a
space
distinct fromthe
imperial apartment
over the
narthex inthe west
gallery (20-21),
for after the
liturgy
the
emperor
must
leave the
loge
and traverse the catechumenatoenter his
apartment (28).
4. The
galleries,
called "catechumena"
(20-21),
were accessible viatwo
spiral
stairways large enough
toaccommodate the
emperor
and his
entourage.
The
first,
entered fromthe narthex
(18-19),
seems tohave beenlocated at the
southwest corner of the
building,
since the
imperial party, upon
coming up
intothe
catechumena,
had toturnleft to
get
tothe west
gallery
over the
90Vogt
I,
94.
91Vogt
I, 96.
92Vogt
I,
96.
45
narthex
(20).
This
stairway
tothe catechumenawas doubtless alsoaccessible
tothe
public.
The other
one,
called "the
private spiral stairway" (26), prob-
ably
because it was reserved for use
by
the
imperial
retinue
only, apparently
led fromthe
gynaeceum
inside the church
(24)
directly
intothe
imperial loge
inthe
galleries (26).
5. As in
HagiaSophia, Holy Apostles,
and
Chalkoprateia,
this
gynaeceum
is an
areaon
ground
level across fromthe
sanctuary (24),
since the
emperor
crosses toit after
exiting
fromthe
sanctuary (24)
but before
going up
the
private
stairs tohis
loge (26).
6. The text does not
say
which side of the church this
gynaeceum
is on. But
since the
emperor
exits the
sanctuary
and
goes through
this
ground-floor
gynaeceum
areaonhis
way
tothe
private spiral stairway leading directly
to
his
loge (24-26),
and this
loge
was
undoubtedly
located inthe
right (south)
gallery,
as it seems tohave beenin
HagiaSophia(above, A.III.9.a),
this stair-
way
must have beenonthe
right (south)
side of the church. Otherwise it
could
hardly
have communicated
directly
with the
loge.
At
any
rate,
it is
hardly
conceivable that the
imperial loge
would have been
placed
inthe
north
gallery
onthe less honorable left side of the church whenit could
equally
well have been
placed
onthe
right
side. And fromthe
description
one
caninfer that it was not inthe west
gallery.
The
emperor
is said toleave his
loge
and cross the catechumenatoreach his
apartment (27-28)
inthe west
gallery
over the
Imperial
Doors
(20-21),
a
description
that would make no
sense if the
imperial loge
and
apartment
were located
together
inthe same
west
gallery.
7. But this means that the
gynaeceum
the
emperor
crosses toreach his
private
stairway
alsohad tobe onthe
right (south)
side of the
Hagios
Mokios church.
Since the
parallel
texts inDe cerimoniis
regarding HagiaSophia(below,
B.II. 1
?
1),
Holy Apostles (above,
A.III.9.b??
6, 8),
and
Chalkoprateia(A.III.9.c
?
14)
identify
the
opposite (left/north)
aisle as the
gynaeceum,
does this mean
that both
ground-floor
aisles were for the women? The evidence is inconsis-
tent:
Procopius (above,
A.III.6
[56])
clearly assigns only
one of these aisles to
the
women,
the other tothe
men,
whereas the Narratiode S.
Sophia(A.III.8)
is
equally explicit
in
assigning
both tothe women.
e. Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos
De cerimoniis alsodescribes the
emperor's
attendance at the
liturgy
intwoof the
smaller churches of the
capital.
OnEaster
Tuesday
he assists at Divine
Liturgy
inthe
galleries
of Saints
Sergios
and Bacchos
(I,
20
[11]).93
The ritual is
basically
the same as
what we have seeninthe other churches of the
capital.
What is
interesting
for our
pur-
pose
is the number of distinct
spaces
or chambers located inthe
galleries
of this rather
small edifice:
oratory, loge,
and metatorion. Evenif these chambers were
very
small,
they
would
occupy
alot of the
gallery space
insosmall a
building,
and one would be hard
put
to
imagine
all the womenof the
congregationfinding
roominthe
galleries
too.
However,
as A.-M. Talbot has reminded
me,
Sts.
Sergios
and
Bacchos,
like Theotokos of
93Vogt
I, 79-80.
46
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
Pege
and Stoudios
(?? f,
h
below),
was the church of amale
monastery perhaps
little
frequented by
women.
f. Theotokos of
Pege
OnAscension
Thursday,
inDe cerimoniis I,
27
(18),
the
emperor
attends the
liturgy
in
the monastic church of Theotokos of the Source
(f-; rlqriy),
outside the Theodosian
Walls near amiraculous
spring (triy7i).94
After the usual Introit formalities the
emperor
leaves the
sanctuary,
crosses the
right
side of the
nave,
and
goes up
the
spiral
stairs
to
the
catechumena,
where he assists at the
liturgy
"inthe usual
place."
The catechumena
containan
imperial dining
room
(tpiKXivo;),
an
imperial apartment (KovcOV),
a"small
metatorion"
(gLlrXacptOKtov),
and the usual two
portable
communioncredences
(avrt-
ti<ota),
one where the
emperor
communicates fromthe
patriarch's
hands,
the other for
"the usual
dignitaries."
What was said above
(A.III.9.e) apropos
of Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos
applies,
mutatis
mutandis,
here too. If one takes intoaccount the size of the
imperial party
with its master
of
ceremonies, silentiaries, chamberlains,
generals,
senators,
and the other "usual
digni-
taries,"
doubtless
accompanied by guards,
all inthe
galleries,
the
galleries
seeminthis
period
tobe more
"imperial space"
than
anything
else. At
any
rate,
they certainly
were
not reserved for the womeninthis male monastic
sanctuary.
g.
Theotokos of Blachernai
De cerimoniis
I,
36
(27), gives
the
imperial
ceremonial for the
February
2
Hypapante
feast at Theotokos of Blachernai. The
emperor
mounts the stairs toan
oratory
inthe
catechumena
(6taTxoi oxpacKio
dveX0cov v tev
O
?rKTrlpto)95
where he attends
liturgy
and
is
brought
communion
by
the
patriarch.
He alsohas an
apartment
and
dining
room
there.96
h. St.
John
Prodromos at Stoudios
The
right (south)
aisle of the basilicaof St.
John
the Forerunner at the Stoudios
monastery
alsohad a
metatorion,
referred to
explicitly
as a
gynaeceum.
InDe cerimoniis
II, 13,
after the Introit ceremonies of the Divine
Liturgy
on
August
29,
the
patronal
feast
of the Decollationof St.
John
the
Baptist
whose relics were venerated inthe
monastery
church,97
the
sovereigns
leave the
sanctuary,
29.
Kai 6e4ta
to
Prjgaxost ?po6gCevot
... 29. and
going
viathe
right
side of the
Kai
epx60evot eioapXovxat eig TO EKEtGe? sanctuary
.. and
exiting,
they
enter the
lrtaxoptov
... 30.
eioCepX6govot
ioTavrat metatorionthere ... 30.
[and]
entering,
ei; TObV
YDvat-KirlV
ei;
Tg 6e4tbv RtpOg
dvaxo-
they
stand inthe
gynaeceum
onthe
right
Xaxg gLpog To 1P3jaTo;, Kai afTiouoiv
side of the
sanctuary
tothe
east,
and
light
Krcpou; eiq
TxIv TOD
E6DayyeXtoU aCKp6aaov.98
candles for the
reading
of the
Gospel.
94Vogt
I, 102-5. Cf. C.
Mango
and N. P.
Sevcenko,
"Pege,"
ODB 111:1616.
950nthe term
oxdp6ctov,
see
Vogt
I,
140 n. 1.
96Vogt I, 140;
cf. De cerim.
II, 52: Reiske 759.
97Janin,
Eglises, 430-40;
onthe
relics, ibid.,
435.
98Reiske
563;
cf.
Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite, 92-93 and n. 370.
47
i. The NeaEkklesia
Finally,
a
gynaeceum
is alsoidentified inthe
right (south) ground-floor
aisle of the
Neaor "New"
Church,
built withinthe Great Palace99 under
Emperor
Basil I
(867-886)
and consecrated
by
Patriarch Photius on
May
1,
880. De
cerimoniis I, 28
(19)-29 (20), has
the
imperial party attending
services there ontwo
occasions,
the
vigil (irapaRovi)100
of
the feast of the Ascensionof the
Prophet Elijah,
July
20
(the
Neahad a
chapel
of St.
Elijah,101
doubtless the reasonfor the
celebration),
and the et dedicationof the Neaon
March 1.102 The Neahad
galleries
north and
south,
the latter
communicating directly
with the
palace.'03
The De cerimoniis account describes a
with
an
oratory (7po(eoXa?6ov), through
both of which the
sovereigns pass
toreach anarthex
onthe side of the sea
(6t?p60R?vot
6i
aTOi
aoi"oT
v
ywvatKlTo ...
.
i.
pXtovTaX
?v TO
?KE?1?
7TpOG?uX%a5clO,
K8Kxei0EV
?KpaivovTE0 ; i;
TOV
np?i T9Iv
OaK
aaoav
v
,pOerKa).
This narthex had
acurtained areawith seats for the
sovereigns,
fromwhich the
s,
y
listened tothe
proclama-
tionof the
Gospel.
04
The
sea,
found in
every
direction
except
west of the
promontory
occupied by
the monumental
HagiaSophia-Patriarchate/Great Palace-Hippodrome
com-
plex,
is aless thanexact
point
of reference. What "sea" is the text
referring
to? Doubtless
the
open
water tothe east
(Bosporus)
and south
(Sea
of
Marmara)
of the basilica.105 The
south
gallery
of the Neacommunicated
directly
with the
palace.
Since the
sovereigns
are
said toexit tothe
palace through
the
gynaeceum
in
question,
this
gynaeceum
must have
beeninthe
right (south)
aisle
flanking
the thnave.06
Theophanes
Continuatus'
Life of
Basil I
85-86,
inhis
Chronographia
V,
confirms
explicitly
that the seaward side of the Nea
was tothe east.107
According
tothe
Continuator,
the Neahad not
only
anatriumtothe
west
(npoS; i?o?pav lv Kai KaT' awtaTOI vaov Ta
I7poa3Ui(ta),
but alsoacovered
portico
or walk
(repiaToar;)
onthe other three
sides, east, north,
and south-the latter
"facing
the sea":
KaTra
6e tS; npoS
vo6ov
T Kai -v OaaaaQav
If,
onthe other
hand,
yougo
out the
X7Than ei e4nXeOV np,; avaroona;
Snorlaa-
southerndoors
facing
the
sea,
and wish
(oan
-iv 7iopefiav
e)Xioeta;,
aov
[n7epi-
to
proceed
eastward,
you
will find an-
RtaTov] eapiToeE; ix7o|qiroKr
i T
Rpo; popp&v
other
[portico]
of
equal length
tothe
Kai i0o6pojiov 6ia
ov.'08 northernone and likewise
extending
as
far as the
imperial courtyard.109
99Cf. C.
Mango,
"Great
Palace," ODB 11:869-70,
and the literature
there,
especially
idem,
Brazen
House;
J.
Ebersolt,
Le Grand Palais de
Constantinople
et le Livre des ceremonies
(Paris, 1910), 130-35;
and the foldout
plans
at the end of
Vogt, Commentaire,
I.
'000n
the
term,
see
Mateos,
Typicon,
II, 311;
R. F Taft,
"Vigil,"
ODB 111:2166.
'OlJanin, Eglises, 361-64;
C.
Mango,
"Nea
Ekklesia," ODB
11:1146,
and the further
bibliography
there.
'02Vogt
I, 107-9, 111-12; cf. Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
78 n.
300, 92-93 and n. 370.
Mateos,
Typicon,
I, 346-47,
records
only
the
vigil,
not the March 1 dedication.
'03Janin, Eglises,
364.
'04Vogt
I,
109. InDe cerim.
I,
30
(21),
the
sovereigns
at services inthe
palace
church of St. Demetrios also
exit tohearthe
Gospel
inaside areacalled the
Teipdaepov ("square"
or
"quadrangle"):
ibid., I, 115;
cf.
Vogt,
Commentaire, I,
141.
'05 See the foldout
plans
at the end of
Vogt,
Commentaire, I.
106Ebersolt, Palais, 134,
mistakenly places
it onthe north side.
107Theophanes Continuatus,
loannes
Cameniata, Symeon
Magister, Georgius Monachus,
ed. I.
Bekker,
CSHB
(Bonn, 1838),
327-28.
108Ibid., 328.
'09Mango, Art,
195
(slightly adapted).
48
ROBERT F
TAFT,
SJ.
j.
Conclusions fromDe cerimoniis
Though
the
archaizing
nature of De cerimoniis does not
permit
one toconclude
that
all its ritual
prescriptions
were still ris inforce at the time of
writing,
I see noreason
to
doubt that these rubrics
represent
the
imperial
ritual onsome feasts inthe ninth totenth
centuries.
Apart
fromthe
peculiarities
dictated
by
the locationof the
imperial loges-in
HagiaSophia
two
permanent
metatoria,
one constructed inthe south
ground-floor
aisle,
the other inthe
gallery surmounting
it;
one
apparently improvised
inthe south aisle
of
Stoudios
or,
with
curtains,
inthe south narthex of the Neaand inthe
galleries
of
Holy
Apostles
and
Chalkoprateia;
a
space
called a"lookout"
(TiapacuKtriKOv)
inSt. Mokios and
Sts.
Sergios
and
Bacchos;
a"small metatorion"
(girTrazrptKiov)
inTheotokos of
Pege-the
basic commonelements of the ritual remainthe same.
Regarding
e m the mainissue
here,
the
place
of the womeninchurch
during
services,
one canconclude the
following
fromDe cerimoniis:
1. A
gynaeceum
is identified onthe left
(north)
side of the
ground
floor in
Hagia
Sophia, Holy Apostles,
and Theotokos in
Chalkoprateia,
but onthe
right
(south)
side of
Hagios
Mokios, Stoudios,
and the Nea. There is no
indication,
however,
that this is tobe understood
exclusively,
that
is,
that there was not
alsoa
gynaeceum
onthe
opposite
side of the
respective
churches.
2.
Though nothing
inDe cerimoniis
implies
that the
gynaeceum
was restricted to
the side
aisles,
by analogy
with the Narratiode S.
Sophia(above, A.III.8)-but
against Procopius (A.III.6)-it
seems
likely
that inthis
period
the
gynaeceum
occupied
both
ground-floor
side aisles
flanking
the nave north and
south,
leaving
the central nave areatothe men.
3. There is noindicationwhatever that the
galleries,
called
"catechumena," were
assigned
tothe women
or,
for that
matter,
tothe catechumens.
4. At
any
rate,
the womenwere not the
only
ones inthe
galleries,
nor could all
the womenhave fit inthe
galleries.
Insmall monastic churches like Sts. Ser-
gios
and
Bacchos,
evenasmall number of womeninattendance at the ser-
vices
together
with their childrencould
hardly
have been
relegated
tothe
galleries, already occupied by
the
large imperial entourage
and all the other
imperial
chambers De cerimoniis tells us were there.
10.
Symeon
Metaphrastes'
Life of
Chrysostom(10th
century)
Still,
right
until the end of
Byzantium,
we find references towomen
attending
ser-
vices fromthe
galleries. SymeonMetaphrastes' Life of St.JohnChrysostom
27,
fromthe end
of the tenth
century,
recounts this
story:
1.
Agye?at
...
6acKt
&iv abv oeiov
vaptov 1. It is said ...
that,
whenhe
[Chrysos-
ieponpyiov
ava
epot,
?iv0oxv 6Xov
yiv6- tor]
elevated the Divine Bread while cel-
I?ivov, oGji6pXoi0t;
ti o T To
O?EOi
aytov
ebrating
the
liturgy,
he became com-
nIve)gra
c't xra
irpOKrJI?1eva
8xpaKaMapal-
pletely enraptured
and
through
certain
vov
6pav.
2. 'Ev6;
yoov
toTe
T6v 7rapitoa-
symbols
saw the
Holy Spirit
descend
jifvcov aM6YoXetto0py6v yuvaif
tvI TCO
upon
the offered
gifts.
2. But whenone
8taKuiTOCV65V avov
7poox6vTOg;
Tv 6v00- of the ministers
serving
with himcast an
aXog6v iKai
ireptipyo; aiDTzTv
c:po[3PX;E0ovT0O, eye
at acertainwomanof those
looking
5taKpouo9fivat Rptv oitZo
TnV
Oecplav TroD downfrom
above,
and stared at her with
7ve6g,uaxog
3.
EKicevov
58 It
dayvofioal,
curiosity,
the vision of the
Spirit
was
49
0WOMEN AT CHURCH IN BYZANTIUM
a'calx toyv
g'iFv
citco'opyov
a?uTfKa
gctaictvrj-
oat 'r
a-r6o'cam;
.... 4.
Ac{aTcpovotav
KQt
tot)
[tFXXovroq Oa'gcvov, irapacncgaaiv
ElcuPF-va
6'Ca
WrcFp6a
8ta
EtXfSEcrTat
ixi
thereby
driven
away.
3. He
[Chrysostom]
did not
ignore
this,
but removed the min-
ister fromhis
position
forthwith
....
4.
Then,
providing
for future
eventualities,
he ordered that the
galleries
be curtained
off with veils.
The scenariois the Elevationat the ancient communion
call,
T&
"iaytatot; &ytot;,
of
the Divine
Liturgy (1).
Womenwere inattendance fromthe
galleries (2),
and
Chrysos-
tom,
distracted fromhis
mystical rapture by
the fact that one of his fellow ministers is
giving
themthe
eye (2),
dismisses him
(3)
and orders that inthe future the
galleries
be
curtained off
(4)
sothe womencould not be seenfrombelow.
Anearlier variant of the same
legend
is found inthe
eighth-ninth-century
apocryphal Pseudo-Amphilochius,
Invitamet miraculaS.
Basilii 9,
though
it uses the later
term"catechumena" for the
galleries."'
11. Balsamon
(ca. 1130/40-d.
after 1195)
The
Byzantine
canonist Theodore Balsamon
(ca. 11 30/40-d. after
1195),
comment-
ing
on
Dionysius
of Alexandria's
ruling (below,
C.II.
1)
that womeninmenstruation
may
pray
but are not allowed toenter the church
proper
or receive communion
(Ci;
vaov
oi5,
ciai0vczat i"
gt
_raxacg6vciv ai-r,;U -r6Ov &ytaGg-r(Ov,
o"5
66s),
describes
Byzantine practice
as follows:
1. ...
f3~XErogCv arCgcpov
Ect
tQ
YLJVatKtcZ
Kati
REXXOv
govaatpita
&69cS6
toWz6ta; t' ia-
tcxagva; yuvatixca; ci;
-obS; iTcpovdou;
itav-
tofat; aytia; Ecix6ct
KceKaxx(jonagJvYo
u),
Kati ci;
85~4xoyfav
OcoiZ a'
novegwiev'ra;-
2.
Kat
Fpw(OtCOVtCF
OitO TO'to
yiVzCat,
aQKoOo-
gcv
gqr
e]cKxxrjaiaiv ai5t6;,
iircp igoi
tao;
o; 6oi~ci.
3. Oi
y6p
cictv oi
ntp6vaoi
oivoi
t;'at(Ov ?KKXTlcTOtcv
t
poa6i"h a,
aXX'agF,po;
a{,rciv
a'rovegfrlOv tai;S yivati tai;
gi~
K(oXuogc'vatc; E'KKXria1Xit4tv.
4.
0;g
&,
7npo'
vao;
t6ito;
8citupa;
Fati
gCtEavofa;,
6 'r6iv
axpoCOjEvowv
Xcy6jicvog.
Kai
i9v
Tht65 oii)
av6pdai,
v 'Ci' rcat t"aa0ma, tg19ijoetat ~ti
iCKKXYtC1tV,
aXXQaF oO)cv
aTht2Oi npoa-
xCaei,tv. 5. 'E5ct
yoiv
'oib;
'owouco;q
irpo-
vaox;
ci; ou; ai rotaibcat
a' ]KCa'patot yu-
vciicc; F,,geXXoV iItcyaaOat, gi
a'vawrxrpoi5v
tronov
FKiicXTja6iv F-'4 6p0oif,
6.
(ox;t Kcn
iCa
p-
1.
Today
we see such
[menstruating]
women in
gynaecea
and
especially
in
monasteries
standing freely
inthe vesti-
bules,
which are decorated with all sorts
of sacred
images,
and
devoting
them-
selves tothe
praises
of God. 2. And in-
quiring
how this can
be,
we hear that
they
are not
attending
church-which does
not seemsotome. 3. For these vestibules
are not for commonuse like the fore-
courts of the
churches,
but are a
part
of
themset aside for womenwhoare not
prevented
from
attending
church. 4. This
vestibule is the
place
of second
penance,
called that of the hearers. Nor are men
excluded
by penance
from
attending
church
permitted
tostand in
it;
they
must
dotheir
weeping
outside of it. 5. It is fit-
ting,
then,
that these vestibules inwhich
"'PG 114:1113Bc.
"'F. Combefis, ed.,
SS. Patrum
Amphilochii Iconensis,
Methodii
Patarensis,
et Andreae Cretensis
opera
omnia
(Paris,
1644),
183
(=
CPG
3253;
BHG
247;
BHO
164-68, 170).
On
gallery
use and
terminology,
see V.
Ruggieri,
"Kat&ehoumenon: Uno
spazio
sociale,"
in
ETAOFHMA: Studies inHonor
of
Robert
Taft, S.J.,
ed. E.
Carr,
S.
Parenti,
A.-A.
Thiermeyer,
and E.
Velkovska,
StudiaAnselmiana110
=
Analecta
Liturgica
17
(Rome,
1993), 391ff; Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
90-96, 296-303;
my
review of Strube's excellent
monograph
inOCP 42
(1976), 296-303;
and A.IV.1 below. We are still inneed of a
fully systematic
and
comparative
chronologico-geographical study
of the
catechumena/gynaeceumterminology
inthe
archaeological
and lit-
erary (including liturgical)
sources.
50
ROBERT
E TAFT,
S.J.
Eti; gTeaTOIV OEiov dayitaoLTv at&pXeooal
such uncleanwomenare tostand
should
KaTa
TOv
XepouptKcv igvov,
7. Kai
0Lgtiv
not
directly occupy space
in
churches, 6.
TObg ?v
ovToxp
iao;
6vag
o qTa (oov;
Kai ayiov;,
sothat the
priests may pass through
with
8.
rKai Tevx&Ea; &aycov E6Xv
ircotteiv 9.
if
the divine
gifts during
the
Cherubic
KaV ie? e'Tam
tKOTiKciK ertTpoTrfil Toi;
Tot-
Hymn,
7. and incense the tombs and
o6uoV; T6rOo;V a&opi?e60at,
oXore
aTOKp-
saints that
might
be in this
[church
gaTtiToco;
otaaolat v aVmxoi
Ta; aKcaO&p- space],
8. and
complete
the
holy prayers;
TOZ; yuiVatKac;.112
9. or that under the
bishop's
direction
such
places [not
directly
inthe
churches]
should be set
apart
sothat the unclean
women
may
stand inthemwithout con-
demnation.
The
ambiguities
inthis text result fromBalsamon's failure touse what we
(anachro-
nistically) might
like toconsider "standard"
terminology
for the antechambers of the
Byzantine
church
(auXri,
wc0vap0rl, vapOrl).13
Though
this reflects the
Byzantine
ten-
dency
toeschew
"ordinary"
words in
literary
works,
it is less usual in
juridical
and theo-
logical writings.
Balsamonrefers totwo
spaces,
the
7rpoa)iXta
and
tpo6vaot,
which I have
translated
neutrally
as "forecourts" and "vestibules" soas not to
preempt
their
meaning
inadvance. The forecourts
(npoa6)Xta)
are "common"
(Kotva)-that is,
ordinary
or
"pro-
fane,"
not
"sacred"-space,
whereas the vestibule
(ncp6vao;)
is set aside for use
by
the
women
(3). Just
what
spaces
is Balsamon
referring
to?
Though
not
frequent,
both
npoa6-
kta"4
and
7cp6vaoS;5
are used
by
other
authors,
and Balsamonalsouses
Tp6vaos
inan-
other
context,
as we shall see below.
Let us take the terms one
by
one:
1.
npoavi6ta.
This is a
generic
termwith several
meanings.
Some sources use
aiuXta
inthe
plural
to
designate
the
Constantinopolitan
narthex.16 But in
Theophanes
Continuatus'
Chronographia
V,
Life of
Basil I
85,
the
npoau'kta
is
clearly
the atriumor
large
unroofed forecourt before the west entrance of
the church
(rnp6o;S onTpav
Ve v
Kai Kxa' ax&arxovaouxra
poa6kta),"7
which
in
Constantinopolitan
sources is
given
a
variety
of
names:'18
ai5li,119 or,
by
synecdoche, Xkowip (pool)120
or even
adXkrl (fountain),l21
after the traditional
I2n
epist.
S.
Dionysii
Alexandrini ad Basilidem
episcopum,
canon
2,
PG 138:465c-468A. I am
grateful
to
SharonGerstel for
suggesting
that I take asecond look at
my
earliertranslationand
interpretation
of this
text
(Taft,
Great
Entrance, 199-200),
both of which I
substantially modify
here;
and
especially
to
Jeffrey
Featherstone forhis
suggestions
onhow totranslate and
interpret
the text.
"3 See Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
n. 629 and the index under"atrium" and "narthex."
4Cf.
Lampe
1138 and the texts adduced below.
15 C.
Du
Cange,
Glossariumad
scriptores
mediae et
infimae graecitatis (Lyons,
1688;
repr.
Graz, 1958), 1245-46;
L.
Clugnet,
Dictionnaire
grec-franfais
des noms
liturgiques
en
usage
dans
l'Eglise grecque (Paris, 1895), 128,
and the
texts adduced below.
"6Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
41-42.
17Theophanes Continuatus,
ed.
Bekker, 327,
line
4;
Mango,
Art,
195.
18
Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
"atrium" inthe index.
9"Ibid.,
and Paul
S.
Sophiae
590-93.
120Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite, 40-46,
esp.
43 n.
128;
C.
Mango
and
J. Parker,
"A
Twelfth-Century
Description
of St.
Sophia,"
DOP 14
(1960),
236
(text),
cf. 242
(commentary).
This termis alsoused forthe
baptistry:
Mateos,
Typicon,
I, 182.
"2'Narratio
de S.
Sophia
26,
in
Preger, Scriptores, 103,
line
4;
cf.
Mango, Art,
101. This termis alsoused for
the
baptismal
font:
Mateos,
Typicon, I, 182.
51
atriumfountain.122
Pseudo-Sophronius, Life of
St.
Mary of Egypt
22-23, is
best
interpreted
inthe same
way.123
InBalsamon's text cited
above, however,
it
is
not clear whether
7tpoav6ita(3) designates
the atriumbefore the facade at
the
west end of
early Byzantine
churches of the
capital,
or whether Balsamon
is
using
the termmore
generically,
for the other colonnades and
porticoes
be-
fore the other entrances and even
surrounding
the
building
of churches
like
HagiaSophia124
and the Nea.125
John
Damascene
(ca.
675-ca.
753/4)
could
well be
using ipoaXtau
for the atrium
too,
whenhe refers toan
image
of the
Theotokos,
alsoin
Alexandria,
"inthe forecourt of the Great Church"
(Tilv iv
TO
Tcpoauxcf Ti|; MEyd6rX; ?KKXrociax
Tfij
OT
eot0lxopo;q EKova),126
though
infact
this could mean
any
forehall of the
cathedral,
including
the narthex.
2.
rIp6vaoS.
This termis
generally
takentomean
narthex,'27
as inthe vita
of
Maximus Confessor
(cited below, A.IV.1),
and Balsamonhimself
employs
it
elsewhere for what seems tobe the narthex of
HagiaSophia. Commenting
oncanon76 of
Trullo,
which forbids commerce withinthe sacred
precincts
of a
church,128
he recounts how the
Constantinopolitanpatriarchs
ordered
buyers
and sellers
expelled
"fromboth the
Augusteon129
and the areas
around the
npo6vaoc
of the
most-holy
Great Church of God"
(67o6 eT?
TO A6-
yoUxT?covo; Kai
TCOV
TpooF?X?ea Tx?po
v
?ep TcpoVa6c Tr
aytcOTaTrqS To6 OEO)
M?y6Xr; ?KKTri7tag).'30
Some
protested
that "the canonnames as church en-
closures the
pronaos
of each
church,
but not the fountains and the other
parts
of the sacred basilicas attached tothem"
((;S tneptl56oX); ?KKXrlYotaoTtKo
1;
6
Kcavv 6vogCle? xo;S 7Ipovoaov;
?KctTOx) vaov, Ov
jitv TaX; tadXag Kait
ax
i?T?pa
I?pi
TOCv
0?EOVfVO
vaov
tx
ovrIvocvi?vaa6ixo-t).
Since it would not occur to
any
Christianto
engage
intrade inthe middle of the church or inits vestibule
(?v
?atoovd6q
i1 ipovacp),
Balsamoncontinues, the real
problem
is to
distinguish
what is "withinthe sacred enclosures"
(?v68ov
TOV
i'?p(v 7c?ptp36o0v)
of the
22Mateos, Typicon,
I, 324; Strube, Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
34ff, 43, 60,
and nn.
128, 209;
Mango
and
Parker,
"Twelfth-Century Description
of St.
Sophia,"
242.
23PG
87.3:3113AB
(=
BHG
1042);
"Life of St.
Mary
of
Egypt,"
trans. M.
Kouli,
in
Talbot,
Holy Women,
82-83. Inthe
lively
scenario,
on
September14,
Mary,
not
yet
converted fromherdissolute
life,
tries to
push
her
way
intothe church with the rest of the crowd towitness the Exaltationof the
Holy
Cross. She crosses
the forecourt of the basilica
(z& Tzootcov
7rpoa6Xta)
and
gets
as faras the threshold of the church doors
(xriv
kXthv Tfi 016pa;)
whenahiddenforce
pushes
herback intothe
tpoaoita,
preventing
herentrance
(eioo60o).
Soshe is forced to
stay
inthe
npoaxita,
unable towitness the ritual. Inthis case
npoa;ita
must meanthe
atrium.
Mary
is unable tosee the
service,
which would not
necessarily
be true fromthe narthex.
Besides,
the whole
point
of the
story
is that
Mary
cannot force her
way
intothe church. She crosses the
courtyard
but
is
stopped
inhertracks at the threshold of the church because of hersins.
24See the next
paragraph;
alsoPaul
S.
Sophiae
605;
Mango, Art, 85;
and B.II below.
'25See A.III.9.i;
also
Theophanes Continuatus,
Chronographia
V,
De BasilioMacedone
86,
ed.
Bekker, 328,
lines
2ff;
Mango, Art,
195.
"6Ep.
ad
Theophilumimperatorem
de sanctis et venerandis
imaginibus
6,
PG 95:353A.
127See note 115 above.
28G.
Nedungatt
and M.
Featherstone, eds.,
The Council inTrullo
Revisited,
Kanonika6
(Rome, 1995),
157.
'29The
forumbetweenH.
Sophia
and the
palace, by
the 12th
century
considered the south forecourt of
H.
Sophia: Mango,
Brazen
House, 42-47 and
figs.
1-5, 28;
Mango
and
Parker,
of St.
Sophia,"
242.
130PG
137:773BC.
I find notrace of such
patriarchal
edicts inthe
patriarchal registers (see
note 134
below)
orin
J.
Oudot, Patriarchatus
Constantinopolitani
acta
selecta,
2
vols.,
Fonti codificazione canonica
orientale,
ser.
2,
fasc. 3-4
(Vatican
City,
1941; Grottaferrata, 1967).
52
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
church fromthe rest of the enclosures
(iteptipoot)
withinits
precincts.'31
Among
the latter
places
"otherwise
joined" (a2koxTp6oct; KOltvw0gvTg;)
tothe
sacred
precincts-that
is,
areas
contiguous
tothe church but not
designated
for
exclusively religious purposes-he
lists
ra
X;oxpaKai TOia KioqCO ioq
K tat
Ta; oToa;
the baths and the
gardens
and the col-
Txa; ovrlvoggEva; ati; EKKrtoiat;....
onnades attached to the church....
Ta6ia
yap geprl
tiev
tf5 i
KKicria; Xooyi-
These are called
part
of the church but
ovxat, ic?pol
8 i
7repti3oxot
OD
?XOfi-
are not said tobe sacred enclosures.
JOVxat.
132
Sothe
pronaos
where
nonmenstruating
womencanstand is
part
of the
church and its sacred
precincts,
not
just
one of its forecourts or outer enclo-
sures.
Indeed,
along
with the
nave,
it is one of the two
parts
of the church
that Balsamonnames as areas noone would think of
considering
otherwise.
Further,
he
says
the
pronaos
was
separate
fromboth the
yvatlKEta (1)
and
the
tzpoaiXta(3).
The latter were
"common,"
that
is,
not for sacred use and
therefore accessible to
everyone
without restriction
(3),
part
of what Bal-
samon's
commentary
onTrullancanon76
places
outside the sacred
precincts
(though
Balsamondoes not use the term
npoacXwta there).
The
pronaos,
how-
ever,
was restricted
space,
considered
part
of the
church,
which is
why
Bal-
samon
says
those excluded fromchurch
by penance
could not stand
there,
except
for the "hearers"
(4),133
that
is,
those inthe last
stages
of their
penance,
one
step away
from
reintegration
intofull communionwith the
community.134
131The
12th-century Ekphrasis (lines 34-35)
also
distinguishes
between"enclosure"
(cEpifpoXov)
and
"holy
place" (roiepov), i.e.,
the church
proper: Mango
and
Parker,
of St.
Sophia,"
236.
132PG 137: 773C-776A.
1330nthe
hearers,
see
J.
Grotz,
Die
Entwicklung
des
Bufistufenswesens
indervornicdnischenKirche
(Freiburg,
1955),
"BuBstufen" and "Horende" inthe
index;
also
J.
A.
Favazza,
The Order
of
Penitents
(Collegeville,
Minn.,
1988),
130-35, 165-66.
134Canonical
anthologies
and
commentaries,
like
liturgical
sources,
are often
anachronistically antiquar-
ian,
preserving
reference to
practices long
fallenintodisuse. Sothe mere mentionof "hearers"
(see
the
previous note)
and
penitents by
canonist Balsamondoes not
prove
that the
categories
of
public penance
were still alive and well at that late date. Inthe absence of
any adequate
historical
study
of
public penitence
in
Byzantium
anteriortothe
liturgical manuscripts,
Balsamon's references to
types
and classes of ecclesiasti-
cal
penance
and the exclusionof
penitents
fromchurch attendance
(4-5)
are not
easy
to
interpret.
Onthe
one
hand,
we know that the
Byzantine liturgy
once
prayed
overand dismissed
penitents
at the end of the
Liturgy
of the
Word,
as was commoninlate
antique liturgy:
cf.
Apostolic
Constitutions
VIII, 9:1-11, 35:2-36: 1,
38:1,
inLes Constitutions
apostoliques,
ed.
Metzger,
SC
336:162-67, 246-47,250-51. Furthermore,
the Council
of
Constantinople
IV
(870 A.D.)
still refers to
public penance (Actaix,
Mansi
16:152D-153A),
and the
patriar-
chal
registers
continue torecord
penitential legislationright
until 1338: cf. V.
Grumel,
Les
Regestes
duPatriar-
cat de
Constantinople,
I: Les actes
despatriarches,
fasc.
1-3,
Le Patriarcat
byzantin,
ser. 1
(Kadikoy-Istanbul,
1932,
1936; Bucharest, 1947);
fasc.
4,
ed. V. Laurent
(Paris, 1971);
fasc. 1
(2nd ed., Paris, 1972)-hereafter
RegPatr-with
references tothe
documents,
which are numbered
consecutively throughout:
12,49, 540, 790,
982.5, 1037, 2007, 2180, 2183. So
right
until the end of
Byzantium
there were sinners in
penance
whowere
excluded fromthe sacraments insome formal and more orless
public
manner. But how this
discipline
was
related tothe older
"public"
or"canonical
penance"
is not clear. For
by
the time of the earliest
liturgical
manuscript,
the
8th-century
Barberini
336,
the
liturgical prayers
overand dismissal of
penitents
have
already
disappeared
fromthe
liturgy (van
de
Paverd,
Mefiliturgie, 453-60), though
there remains a
prayer
tobe said
at the end of
public(?) penance:
S. Parenti and E.
Velkovska, eds.,
L'Eucologio
Barberini
gr. 336
(ff. 1-263),
Bibliotheca
EphL,
Subsidia80
(Rome, 1995),
? 202.1;
cf.
J.
Goar,
E'Xoo6ytov
sive Rituale Graecorum. .
.,
2nd
53
It was destined for the
nonmenstruating
women
permitted
toattend the lit-
urgy
(3).
This
pronaos
must have beenanarthex before one of the entrances
intothe
nave,
and thus indirect communicationwith the main
body
of the
church and the
performance
of the
liturgy
there. Otherwise how could Bal-
samonconsider the womenthere tobe
assisting
at the
liturgy,
as he
certainly
does
(1-3)?
The identificationof this
pronaos
with such anarthex is further
strengthened by
Balsamon's affirmationthat this
space
was decorated with
iconography (1), and, indeed,
was
"liturgical space"
used
by
the
clergy during
the celebrationof services
(6-8).
As for the womenin
menstruation,
forbid-
dentoattend
church,
they
could stand
only
ina
pronaos
that did not commu-
nicate
directly
with the church
proper (5);
otherwise the
bishop
should set
apart
another
place
for them
(9).
If this
attempt
at
terminological precision
is valid-and
nothing
was more
foreign
to
the
Byzantines
than
terminological precision-then
Balsamon's text cited above seems
tobe
saying
the
following:
1. Inthe twelfth
century
a
pronaos
or inner narthex of some
Byzantine
churches
was the
place
assigned
towomen
permitted
toattend church
(3).
2. Balsamon
complains
that it had become commonfor
menstruating
women
tostand there as well
(1),
onthe
pretext
that
they
were "not
attending
church"
(2).
3. Balsamoninsists that
menstruating
womenare allowed
only
inamore distant
pronaos, separate
fromthe church
proper
(5).
4. If achurch is
lacking
such a
separate pronaos,
the
bishop
is toreserve some
other
separate place
for themtostand without condemnation
(9),
sothat
during
the
singing
of the
Cherubicon,
that
is,
during
the Great
Entrance,
the
clergy
can
pass through
the
pronaos bearing
the
holy gifts (6),
or incense the
tombs and sacred
images
there
(7),
without fear of "ritual contamination."
Balsamonmust meanhere the
pronaos
of the womenallowed toattend
church,
for it is
hardly imaginable
that the
clergy passed through space
re-
stricted tothose considered
"ritually impure"
at one of the most solemnmo-
ments of the Divine
Liturgy.
ed.
(Venice, 1730;
repr.
Graz, 1960),
536. H.-F.
Schmid,
"P6nitentiels
byzantins
et
occidentaux,"
Actes duVIe
Congres
international d'tudes
byzantines (Paris, 1951), 359-63,
shows that
Byzantine penitentials,
almost all
attributed to
Constantinopolitan
Patriarch
John
the Faster
(582-595)
but none of which are infact earlier
thanthe end of the 8th
century,
are "des documents
authentiques
de la
disparition
de la
penitence publique
dans
l'Eglise byzantine" (ibid., 361;
onthe
penitentials
cf. also
RegPatr270).
Onthe
question
of
penance
in
the
Byzantine liturgical sources, see,
most
recently,
M.
Arranz,
"Evolutiondes rites
d'incorporation
et de
readmissiondans
l'Eglise
selon
l'Euchologe byzantin,"
inGestes et
paroles
dans les diverses
familles liturgiques,
Conf6rences
S.-Serge-XXIVe
Semaine d'etudes
liturgiques,
Paris,
June 28-July
1, 1977,
Bibliotheca
EphL,
Subsidia14
(Rome, 1978), 68-75; idem,
"Les sacrements de l'ancien
Euchologe constantinopolitain,"
II:
1,
OCP 56
(1990), 283-322; 2.1-2,
OCP 57
(1991), 87-143, 309-29; 2.3,
OCP 58
(1992), 23-82; 3.1,
OCP 58
(1992), 423-59; 3.2-3,
OCP 59
(1993), 63-89, 357-86; 4,
OCP 61
(1995),
425-76 (hereafter"Sacrements
II"); idem,
I Penitenziali bizantini: II ProtokanonarionoKanonarionPrimitivodi Giovanni Monacoe Diaconoe il
Deuterokanonariono"SecondoKanonarion" di Basilio
Monaco,
Kanonika3
(Rome, 1993)-to
be
used, however,
with the corrections indicated inthe reviews of S.
Parenti,
BZ 88
(1995), 474-81,
and M.
Kohlbacher,
OC 79
(1995),
236-40.
54
ROBERT E TAFT,
S.J.
5.
Still,
sections 6-8 are not
altogether
clear froma
liturgical standpoint.
Bal-
samon
clearly
states that the
priests
incense the tombs inthe
pronaos
where
the womenare
(7),
or
pass through
it
bearing
the
gifts during
the Great
En-
trance
procession(6)-which
is one more reason
why
the womeninmenstru-
ationshould not
"directly occupy space
inthe churches"
(5).
But after
the
Great Entrance the
priests "complete
the
holy prayers" (8),
which must
mean
the
preanaphoral
rites,
anaphora,
and so
on,
that take
place
inthe
sanctuary,
and
certainly
not inthe
pronaos.
Furthermore,
though
one can
easily imagine
the ministers
going
intothe traditional westerninner narthex toincense the
tombs and sacred
images
there,
it is
by
nomeans clear what the
priests
could
be
doing passing through
that narthex
during
the Great Entrance-unless
Balsamonmeans not the narthex across the west end
of
the church but a"women's nar-
thex"
leading
intothe north aisle
through
which the
clergy bearing
the
gifts might
pass
when
entering
fromanoutside
skeuophylakion(see below, B.II).
Both
HagiaSophia
and the Nea
Church,
at
least,
had another narthex besides the
usual one at the west end
(above, A.III.9.i; below, B.II.4).
12.
Ignatius of
Smolensk
(1392)
Gallery
curtains and their rationale are confirmed at the end of the fourteenth cen-
tury by
the Russian
pilgrimIgnatius
of
Smolensk,
whoattended the coronationof Man-
uel II
(1391-1425)
and his consort in
HagiaSophia
on
February
11, 1392. Here is how
he describes the seclusionof the women:
1. I went at
daybreak,
soI was there
[for
the
coronation].
2. A multitude of
people
were
there,
3. the meninside the
holy
church
(BHyTpb
CBaTbIa
ILepKBH),
4. the womeninthe
galleries (HanojiaTax).
5.
[The
arrangement]
was
very
artful;
all whowere of the female
sex stood behind silken
drapes
sothat none of the
[male]
congregation
could see the
adornment of their
faces,
while
they [the women]
could see
everything
that was tobe
seen.135
This is the
only Byzantine
text I know of that
puts
all the womeninthe
galleries (5)
in
Constantinople,
with
only
the meninthe nave
(3),
though
Chorikios of Gaza
(below,
A.III.14)
witnesses tothe same inPalestine much earlier
(ca. 536-548).
13. Patriarch Athanasius I
(ca. 1309)
By
the
beginning
of the fourteenth
century,
the
placement
of the womeninthe
galler-
ies seems tohave beenthe remnant of a
deteriorating practice-or maybe
the
transpar-
ent silkencurtains were added because of the situation
stigmatized
inthe same
century
by twice-patriarch (1289-93, 1303-9)
Athanasius I. Toward the end of his second
patri-
archate,
Athanasius' letter
45,
writtentoinvite the
emperor
toattend the traditional
August
15 Dormitionfestivities at
HagiaSophia,'36 speaks
with
approval
of the
emperor
assisting
at the
liturgy
inthe
galleries,
but
discourages
the
presence
of noblewomenthere:
1. The
piety
of
your God-guarded majesty,
which is motivated
by your
love of God (and
onaccount of which I invite
you
tocome tothe shrine of the Great Wisdomof
God),
is
135Majeska,
Russian
Travelers,
104-5
(text),
420-21
(commentary).
136Inthe
10th-century
typikon
of the Great
Church, Blachernai is the stationforthis feast:
Mateos, Typicon,
II, 368-73.
55
a
great
honor for the Church of Christ.... 2. Thus <the Church>
gladly
throws
open
all Her
doors,
joyfully receiving you
Her
son, eveninthe catechumenathemselves, if
youshould sobid
(Kai 6fnCot) Kal
xoit KCaTcriXo)uLeveiot;
acOTot e?i Ke
aXDGeta;).
3. But it
seems tome that we
ought
torefuse toreceive the noblewomenthere,
4. because
they
donot take their
place
inthe catechumena
(ev toi; KaTcamriXovveiot;)
from
piety,
as if
they
eagerly
seized
upon
the
holiday
and the ascent tothe
holy
shrine as an
opportunity
for
prayer
and
consecration,
but
really
for the sake of
puffing
themselves
up
and
showing
themselves off
(not
tomentionfor the sake of asensual
appearance),
not inadowncast
manner that would
inspire mercy,
but with a
haughty
and insolent attitude. Also
they
bedeck themselves with
gold
and
precious jewels,
and make a
display
of their
clothes,
failing
torealize that embellishment fromwithout rather thanfromwithinis not
praise-
worthy, especially beautifying
oneself with
paints;
5. and inaddition
they try
tofind
ways
toavoid
standing
with the other
people
that
they might pray together,
but stand
high
above the
crowd,
above their
very prosternations.
But if
perhaps they
would be
willing
to
gather
for
worship together
with the rest of the
Orthodox,
and toask
pardon
for their
actions with ahumble
spirit...
the Church will
always open
Her
gates
tothese
women,
if
they
behave inthis
manner,
as
worthy
indeed tobe called Her
daughters....
6. And
let not ancient custombe cast in
my
face
by
certain
people
as
justification,
if different
practice prevailed
inthe
past,
because there is
nothing
more
fitting
and hallowed
by age
than
piety
and virtue and
pure
fear of God.137
Fromthis we can
glean
the
following:
1. In
HagiaSophia(1)
the
emperor
sometimes-hence not
always-assists
at
services "eveninthe catechumena" if he sowishes
(2).
2. Noblewomenare inthe
galleries
too
(3),
if for less than
pious
motives
(4).
3. Since Athanasius
says
it would be better were these noblewomenelsewhere
during
the
services,
this must have beenarealistic
possibility.
Sowomenwere
clearly
not restricted tothe
galleries.
4. One caninfer the same fromthe context of Athanasius'
complaint.
Since the
separation
of the sexes at
worship
was still
operative
at this
time,
he could
hardly
berate the noblewomenfor
separating
themselves fromthe
men,
for
wherever the womenwere
they
would be
separated from
the men
of
the
congregation.
SoAthanasius'
reproval
of the noblewomen
separating
themselves fromand
looking
downfromthe
galleries upon
the rest of the
praying community
can
only
mean
they
were
separating
themselves
from
the other women
assisting
at the service
below.
5. Athanasius
implies
as much whenhe asserts that
reserving
the
galleries
tothe
womenwas acustomboth ancient and
different (6)-different,
that
is,
from
the current
usage
theninforce-and one he
opposes
for reasons not unlike
the motive for
putting
the women inthe
galleries
inthe first
place:
cherchez
lafemme.
6. It would
seem, then,
that
by
Athanasius' time the
galleries
were reserved for
the
imperial entourage
and for
noblewomen,
while those Athanasius
literally
calls the
hoipolloi (5)
assisted inthe nave and aisles below.
137Slightly
modified fromA.-M.
Talbot, ed., The
Correspondence of
Athanasius
I,
Patriarch
of
Constantinople,
CFHB 7 =
DOT 3
(Washington, D.C., 1975),
94-95
(text),
cf. 353-54
(commentary).
Numbers and Greek
interpolated
tofacilitate reference.
56
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
14.
Beyond
the Great Church
Beyond
the
capital
we find no
uniformity
inthe sources
concerning
the
placement
of womeninchurch.
During liturgy
inAntioch as described
by presbyter JohnChrysos-
tombefore
398,
it is clear that the womenattended services fromthe
ground
floor to-
gether
with the men-which is
why, apparently, Chrysostom
had ahard time
keeping
them
apart.138
Further south in
Gaza, however,
the
arrangement
was like what we saw in
Constantinople.
Ca. 536-548 the rhetoricianChorikios of
Gaza,
inLaudatioMarciani
II,
47,
describes inthe church of St.
Stephen
twotribunes for the women
directly
over the
ground-floor
aisles,
doubtless
flanking
the nave north and south:
Toi 65 JTl To3t
a&v6paot y)vaQXtKv
O)V
LI ov
avaLi?yv'o60a, Kaitzot Trf KIaTo 0g6oeCoS
nir0oS Xcopo6oyr
eKtaTepOV
o068?VOZ; nitrov-
TO;, ItTC7fv ?epya?6oyovatKcoviztv
;
tiioou
RL?V Tai; KYqaTco
:KDvovCLV
-v
r
oaL;S,
E?t
ioov
&1
Tal'cTat; o?p'volEtvrIv,
g6OVO &e: X?eto-
gLt?VqrV
TC
i6jDet,
O6OV
ariiq
oi
Tiv oTTyrlv
avE%ovT?e Kiove?
TOV
TitOKKet?V(OV
TTT(VTaI.
139
That the female
congregation
should not
be
mingled
with the
men,
though
there
is room
enough
onthe
ground
for both
without
crowding, you
have constructed
adouble
gynaeceum,
its
length
and width
equal
tothose of the aisles
below,
but
somewhat inferior in
height
tothe extent
that the columns
supporting
the roof are
shorter thanthe ones beneath them.140
This text-not asource for the
liturgy
of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople,
how-
ever-agrees
with the much later
(1392 A.D.) Ignatius
of Smolensk
(above, A.III.12),
the
only Byzantine
text toaffirmthe
complete separation
of the
sexes,
placing
all the women
inthe
galleries.
Indeed,
Chorikios makes it clear that
segregation
was the deliberate
intention,
since there was
enough space
toaccommodate both menand womenonthe
ground
floor.
AnItalo-Greek
Byzantine liturgical manuscript
shows that sexismextended evento
the dead. A rubric of the monastic
rXqrLaTOok6ytov
inthe
eleventh-century
codex Grotta-
ferratarF XLIII
(fol. 108r-v) specifies:
Kat ei
F'tZ
v
i1YO?tE1vo;q
i
irCPaF3?r)Epo;n
i8t-
aKovo;
6
teFXF-tl)tK6;, TtfOat
XcbXEiiavov
rn5,Toii
iatcv6rn1ov roi
OUYtaoypiolu
...
et
&
govaX6S;
Eaxt
ztfOF-at Itp6;
To
6c5t6v
'tr6 * i5figo;-ti 8v. '4'Vil i'oztv v.'4'
,To
Fl)(OVI)goV.
14
And if the deceased is a
hegumen
or
pres-
byter
or
deacon,
his bier is
placed
infront
of the
sanctuary
... but if he is a
simple
monk it is
placed
onthe
right
side of the
church,
but onthe left if it is awoman.
This
placement
of the bier
undoubtedly
reflects the fact that the menand womenstood
separately
in
church,
menonthe
right,
womenonthe left. A careful
scrutiny
of the
hundreds of extant
Byzantine liturgical manuscripts
would doubtless turn
up
numerous
instances of the same or similar
practices right up
toour own
day.
IV.
Gynaeceum,
Catechumena,
Curtains
The documentationthus far adduced-and I have tried tobe as
complete
as
pos-
sible-presents
several obvious
problems
of nomenclature and
interpretation
that need
'38See D.II below.
'39R. Foersterand E.
Richsteig,
eds.,
Choricii Gazaei
opera,
Bibliotheca
Scriptorum
Graecorumet Ro-
manorumTeubneriana
(Leipzig,
1929;
repr. Stuttgart, 1972),
40.
40
Mango,
Art,
71.
141I owe this text toS. Parenti.
57
tobe addressed before
considering
the
place
inchurch
assigned
to
special categories
of women.
1.
Gynaeceum,
Catechumens, Catechumenate, Catechumena
The evidence for where womenattended the
liturgy
in
Byzantine
churches has con-
fronted us with two
terms,
"gynaeceum,"
or
"place
of the
women,"
and "catechumena"
(inGreek, KaTrxo1i'o?4va, KaTrlX%o0v?v?tia, KaTr|xo'ugc?vta),
almost
always
inthe
plural,
to
designate
the
galleries
that
typically
ranaround the
Byzantine
church onthree
sides,
west, north,
and south.
Why
is a
place
inchurch often
designated
as
being
for the
women,
and where womenare
actually sighted attending liturgy,
called "catechumena" whenno
single
source ever
actually places
acatechumenthere?
Though
aresolutionof this issue is
beyond
the
scope
of this
study,
the
following
details
emerge
froma
summary
review of the available evidence:
1. Inwhat seems tobe the earliest extant reference tothe church
galleries
as
"catechumena"
(<-\
'r*-.n,D),
the
Syriac
Life
ofJohnof Hephaestopolis
in
Egypt,
writtenin
586/8
by
the
Monophysite John
of
Ephesus (ca. 507-586/8),
de-
scribes St.
John
at achurch inTralles
secretly ordaining Monophysite clergy
inthe
galleries,
which
they
"were
givenpermission
to
occupy," Johnsays,
"since we were a
large party,
and there were
distinguished gentlemenamong
us."
142
Tralles is inland east of
Ephesus
inthe
province
of
Asia,
hence within
the orbit of
Constantinople. John's secretly Monophysite party, clearly
male
fromthe context
(he
was
certainly
not
ordaining women),
confers these ordi-
nations,
the vitainforms
us,
"while those
[the
Chalcedonian
Orthodox]
below
were
performing
the
service,"
that
is,
during
a
liturgical
celebrationof some
sort. It is
obvious, therefore,
that inthe sixth
century,
ina
region
not far
fromthe
capital,
the catechumenawere the exclusive
preserve
of neither the
catechumens nor the
women,
since menof
quality,
at
least,
could be
permit-
ted touse themeven
during
the
liturgical
services.
2.
Byzantine
church
galleries
are
commonly (though by
nomeans
exclusively)143
called "catechumena" fromthe sixth
century
on.144
142Lives
of
the EasternSaints
25,
ed. E.
W. Brooks,
PO 18.4:538. Forthe dates of this
document,
cf. PO
17.1:iv-vii.
Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite, 92,
says
the Greek name "catechumena" forthe
galleries
first
appears
at the end of the 7th
century,
but the
Syriac
here is
clearly
atranslationfromthe Greek.
143In
additiontonine of the fourteen
mostly Constantinopolitan
documents
already
cited
(A.III.2-8, 10,
12),
cf. VitaS. Nicolai Sionitae
(d.
ca.
564), 80,
ed. G.
Anrich,
Hagios
Nikolaos: Der
heilige
Nikolaos inder
grie-
chischen
Kirche,
I: Texte
(Leipzig-Berlin,
1913;
repr. Hildesheim, 1965),
55.8-9
(=
BHG
1347,
cf.
p. 151);
Leo
VI
(886-912),
Novel 73 inthe
following
note;
Ps.-Nicephorus,
canon
18,
refers tothe
galleries
as the
yuvatii-
TrT;:
J.
B.
Pitra,
luris ecclesiastici Graecorumhistoriaet
monumenta,
II
(Rome, 1868),
329. Pitratranslates this as
"atrium,"
which is
certainly
mistaken:
Ruggieri, "Katechoumenon,"
390-91 n. 4.
144In
additiontothe sources cited inthe
previous
note,
see the vitaof St. Theodore of
Sykeon(d. 613),
55.14-15, 154.10,
161.38-63
(=
BHG
1748-49,
after641
A.D.),
ed.
A.-J. Festugiere,
Vie de Theodore de
Sykeon,
2
vols.,
SubsHag
48
(Brussels, 1970), I, 47, 124, 139-40; II, 50-51, 130, 144-45, 206;
Maximus
Confessor,
DisputatioBizyae
=
Acta, II, 25
(656 A.D.;
fordate: P.
Sherwood,
AnAnnotated Date-List
of
the Works
of
Maximus
the
Confessor,
StudiaAnselmiana30
[Rome, 1952], 56, 59),
PG
90:161A;
Council inTrullo
(692 A.D.),
canon
97,
Nedungatt
and
Featherstone, Trullo,
179 =
Joannou, Discipline,
I. 1:234-35; MiraculaS. Artemii 31
(martyr
58
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
3. We see womeninthe
galleries
in
Constantinople
before this denomination
becomes current
(see
documents
above, A.III.2-7).
4.
Though by
the end of the seventh
century
the catechumenate inConstantino-
ple
seems tohave
stagnated,
as we shall see
shortly,
the
galleries
continue to
be called "catechumena"
(see
documents
above, A.III.9-10, 13).145
5. Nomenclature tothe
contrary notwithstanding,
we have noevidence what-
ever,
fromeither before or after this
designation
of the
galleries
as "catechu-
mena" became
current,
that the
galleries
were reserved for the use of the
catechumens.
6. In
fact,
we see the
galleries employed
for
just
about
every imaginable pur-
pose,146 legitimate
or
not,
including
even
temporary lodgings147
and sexual
dalliance.148 Womenand the
imperial party
attend
liturgy
inthe
galleries
and
have the sacrament
brought
tothem
there.'49
Anabbess with aflow of blood
could attend services inthe
galleries
of her
monastery
church.150 Ordinations
tothe
priesthood,'15 loyalty
oaths,152
ghostly
counsel,
miraculous
cures,
and
exorcisms were all administered there.153
They
were used for
distributing
under
Julian,
ca. 331-363
= BHG
173),
writtenunderConstans II
(d. 668),
ed. A.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus,
VariaGraecasacra
(St. Petersburg, 1909), 44.25;
cf. C.
Mango,
"Onthe
History
of the
Templon
and the Mar-
tyrion
of St. Artemios at
Constantinople," 3ozpa/
10
(1979), 41;
the cure of Blessed Martha,
hegumena
in
Monembasia
(9th-10th century?),
as recounted
by
Paul,
bishop
of the same townin
Peloponnesus (before
Dec.
15,
955-after
959): J. Wortley,
ed.,
Les recits
edifiants
de
Paul, eveque
de
Monembasie,
et d'autres auteurs,
Sources d'histoire medievale
(Paris, 1987), 14/XVI.1-3,
pp.
110-13
(=
BHG
1175)-I
owe this reference to
SharonGerstel. Numerous laterreferences tothe use of the term"catechumena" are listed in
Ruggieri,
"Katechoumenon";
cf.
idem,
Byzantine Religious
Architecture
(582-867):
Its
History
and Structural Elements,
OCA
237
(Rome, 1991),
247ff and n. 300;
Du
Cange,
Glossarium, 621-22;
Lampe
733.
By
the 9th
century,
Leo
VI
(886-912),
Novel
73, condemning
those whocohabit with womeninthe
galleries,
continues tocall
them
6irep4oa
but
says they
"are called
by many
'catechumena"': P Noailles and A.
Dain, eds.,
Les Novelles de Leon
VIle
Sage,
Nouvelle collectionde textes et documents
(Paris, 1944), 261; cf. S. Troianou, "The Canons of
the
TrullanCouncil inthe Novels of Leo
VI,"
in
Nedungatt
and Featherstone, Trullo,
195.
'45See alsothe literature and sources cited innotes 111,
143-44.
46Cf. Mathews,
Early
Churches, 128-29;
Ruggieri,
"Katechoumenon."
147Cf. Theodore of
Sykeon's
vita, 161,
ed.
Festugiere,
I, 139-40; II, 144;
MiraculaS. Artemii 44.25 (note
144
above).
Canons
forbidding
this are
incorporated
into
Byzantine legislation:
The Rudder
(Pedalion)
...
or
All the Sacred and Divine
Canons,
trans. D.
Cummings (Chicago, 1957),
405-6.
148LeoVI, Novel 73
(note
144
above).
149See documents below, A.III.9.
150Wortley,
Recits, 14/XVI.1-3,
pp.
110-13.
'51Above,
note 142.
152The scenariofromanAnnunciation
(March 25) liturgy
in
Chalkoprateiaduring
the first
patriarchate
of Photios
(858-867),
recounted inthe
mid-1Oth-century
Chronicle of
Symeon
the
Logothete (see
A. Kazhdan,
"Symeon
the
Logothete,"
ODB 111:1982-83),
has the
patriarch bring
communiontothe
imperial party
in
the
galleries,
as was
customary (see A.III.9).
Onthis occasionthe
party
included Michael III
(842-867),
his
uncle Bardas Caesar
(d. 866),
and Basil I
(867-886),
thenstill
parakoimomenos,
or
guardian
of the
emperor's
bedchamber
(see
A.
Kazhdan, "Parakoimomenos," ODB 111:1584).
Michael and Basil take anoath not to
harmBardas,
and seal it with communion. The
story
is
repeated
inseveral redactions:
SymeonMagister,
Annales,
De Michaele et Theodora40,
and
Georgius
Monachus,
Vitae
imperatorum
recentiorum,
De Michaele et Theo-
dora
26,
in
Theophanes
Continuatus,
ed.
Bekker, 676-77;
Leo
Grammaticus,
Chronographia,
ed. I. Bekker,
CSHB
(Bonn, 1842), 243;
cf. Mathews,
Early
Churches,
31-32. I owe most of these references to
Jeffrey
Featherstone.
'53Theodore of
Sykeon's
vita, 154, 161,
ed.
Festugiere,
I, 124, 139-40; II, 130, 144-45;
Wortley,
Recits, 14/
XVI,
pp.
110-15.
59
clergy stipends (roga),154
for
imperial receptions
and
dinners,'55
for sessions
of
every
sort of ecclesiastical tribunal and
meeting
of the
standing synod,
and soon.156 Oratories and the
imperial apartment, refectory,
and
loge-
metatorioncould all be located there.'57
In
short,
we are faced with acollisionof nomenclature and fact: the
galleries may
be
called
"catechumena,"
but
they
seemmore the
place
of the womenthanof the catechu-
mens-and
indeed,
the
place
of much more besides.
Is there
any way
out of this
impasse?
As Mathews
said,
there must have beensome
reasonfor the name
"catechumena."'58
And infact the
Constantinopolitangalleries
were
ideally
suited for a
category
like the catechumens that was once dismissed fromchurch
halfway through
the service. Their
system
of stairs
exiting
outside the nave made it
pos-
sible for those inthe
galleries
toleave without
having
to
pass through
the main
body
of
the church.159
Inthis whole
discussion,
noone has
yet
taken
adequate
account of the
history
of the
catechumenate in
Constantinople.'60
The Council inTrullo
(692)
is the last time catechu-
mens
appear
in
Byzantine synodal legislation.'16
Later canonical collections
may incorpo-
rate
previously existing legislationregarding
the
catechumenate,
but such
anthologies
continue to
reproduce
earlier texts
long
after
they
had lost all force.
Furthermore,
it is
not
altogether
clear how effective aninstitutionthe catechumenate had remained even
at the time of Trullo. The
ambiguity
of other
seventh-century
witnesses
already
shows a
weakening
of the tradition. As late as
628-630,
Maximus
Confessor,
in
Mystagogia
14-15,
seems to
speak
of the dismissal of the catechumens at the
Byzantine
Divine
Liturgy
as if
it were aneffective
reality,162
and his vitastill refers to"the
prostration
of the
unbaptized
inthe
pronaos" (ad*)ritzv Fiv
Tc
pov6
tOV
ip6OTCzox ).'63
But inhis ScholiainlibrumDe ecclesi-
'54According
tothe
early 12th-century Praxapostolos manuscript
DresdenA
104;
see A. A.
Dmitrievskij,
,4pesHezulue nampuapiuue munuKOHbl c6smozpo6cKuu, uepycaiuMclcuu
u
BeiUKcou KoHcmaumuHonoObcKou
IfepK6u.
KpumuKo-6u6iuozpafuuecKoe u3cieoe6aHue (Kiev, 1907), 144, 159-60; cf.
Darrouzes,
Recherches
(as innote 70
above),
47.
'55Above, A.III.9.a, c-f;
alsothe
reception
forPatriarch
Ignatius
onNov.
23,
867: Nicetas
Paphlago,
Vita
S.
Ignatii archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani,
PG
105:544D; Pseudo-Kodinos,
De
officiis
7,
inTraite des
offices,
ed.
J.
Verpeaux (Paris, 1966),
269.
156Between
1019 and
1192,
there are
fully twenty-five
references in
RegPatr
826, 844, 869, 896, 925-27,
1000, 1007, 1014-15, 1055, 1063, 1065, 1067, 1068, 1073, 1077-78, 1085-86, 1111, 1119,
1179-80. Cf.
Darrouzes, Recherches, 429.
157Texts
above, A.III.5,
7-9.
58 Mathews,
l59Ibid., 23, 49-51, 83, 87, 91-94, 108, 129, 152.
160We need anew
history
of the catechumenate in
Byzantium. Meanwhile,
inadditiontoArranz's massive
work onthe
liturgical
documents-M.
Arranz,
"Les sacrements de l'ancien
Euchologe constantinopolitain,"
I: 1,
OCP 48
(1982), 284-335; 2,
OCP 49
(1983), 42-90; 3,
OCP 49
(1983), 284-302; 4,
OCP 50
(1984), 43-64;
5,
OCP 50
(1984), 372-97; 6,
OCP 51
(1985), 60-86; 7,
OCP 52
(1986), 145-78; 8,
OCP 53
(1987), 59-106;
9,
OCP 55
(1989), 33-62; 10,
OCP 55
(1989),
317-38
(hereafter"Sacrements
I")-the
older
study
of A.
Almazov, Hcmopu, uuHonociebo6aHun
KpeuleHuu
u
MuponoMa3aHuq (Kazan, 1884),
remains useful.
161Canons 78 and
95,
Nedungatt
and
Featherstone, Trullo, 159,
174-77
=
1.1:215,
230-33.
62PG 91:692-93;
date from
Sherwood, Annotated
Date-List, 32, 61;
cf.
Mathews,
Early Churches, 128, 152.
'63R. Devreesse,
"Lavie de S. Maxime le confesseuret ses
recensions,"
AB 46
(1928),
22, line 6
(=
BHG
1234).
60
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
asticahierarchiaof
Pseudo-Dionysius,
Maximus calls the dismissal of the catechumens a
dead letter
(o<) yivrat).l64
And neither
Procopius
nor the
Silentiary
ever mention cate-
chumens in
HagiaSophia,165 though they go
onand onabout the
galleries.
Similarly,
continued reference tothe catechumenate in
liturgical
texts of itself
proves
nothing. Liturgies
are
(or were) notoriously
conservative,
continuing
to
gothrough
the
motions of aritual
long
after it has lost
any
relevance to
reality. Though
catechumens
have not beendismissed for a
millennium,
the text of their dismissal
by
the deaconcon-
tinues tobe
printed
in
Byzantine liturgical
books,
and insome
places
is still
proclaimed.
If one could take the
typikon
of the Great Church as amirror of actual
practice,
it would
seemthat a
vestigial
catechumenate for children of Orthodox
parents
and for converts
continued toexist in
Constantinople
as late as the tenth
century,'66
whenthe
Prayer
over the Catechumens
began
to
disappear
fromthe
liturgical manuscripts
of the Divine
Office.'67
Since the
tenth-century typikon
still
provides
acatechesis for the catechumens
before Easter
baptism,168
M. Arranz
proposed
that at that time the Great Church was
probably baptizing
Orthodox
progeny
when
they
had attained the
age
of reason.'69 De
cerimoniis
I,
21
(12),
would seemtorecommend this
interpretation.
On
Wednesday
after
Easter the
emperor
receives inthe
palace
six of the
newly baptized accompanied by
six
orphans,'70
and it is hard to
imagine why
the
orphans
would be
escorting
adult neo-
phytes.
But I
suspect
this is aninstance whenthe ceremonial books are anachronistic.
For
Byzantine
sources fromthe sixth totenth centuries show that
baptism
onthe fortieth
day
after birth had
long
been
normal,17'
though previously
childrenwere
baptized
at
age
three.172 Sowhenthe
Praxapostolos manuscript
DresdenA 104 at the
beginning
of the
twelfth
century
has the deacons and
godparents
"take the childrenfromtheir mothers"
(6epyT aeTei
OT HX
MaTepen),'73
we can
probably
infer that
they
were still infants intheir
mothers' arms.
At
any
rate,
these Orthodox children
(along,
doubtless,
with some adult converts from
the various
categories
that continue tobe mentioned inthe
liturgical manuscripts,
such
'64PG 4: 141c. This text is not
among
those whose
authenticity
has been
challenged:
see H. U. vonBaltha-
sar,
"Das Problemder
Dionysius-Scholien,"
in
idem,
Kosmische
Liturgie:
Das Weltbild Maximus' des
Bekenners,
2nd ed.
(Einsiedeln, 1961),
644-72.
165Mathews,
Early
Churches,
128-29.
'66Mateos,
Typicon,
II,
31-33 n.
2, 38-39, 78-79 and n.
6,
cf.
index, 300; Arranz,
"Sacrements I,"
esp.
1-8;
idem,
"Evolutiondes rites
d'incorporation
et de readmissiondans
l'Eglise,"
37-53.
167G.
Hanke,
"Das Kathedraloffiziumder
HagiaSophia
imKontext der
Liturgiegeschichte
Konstantino-
pels" (doctoral
diss. in
preparation
under
my direction), chap.
5.
Note, however,
that the
Litany, Prayer,
and
Dismissal of the Catechumens have remained tothis
day
inthe
Byzantine
eucharist: E E.
Brightman,
Litur-
gies
Easternand Western
(Oxford, 1896), 374-75,
400.
'68Mateos,
Typicon,
II,
31-33 n.
2, 38-39,
78-79 and n.
6,
cf.
index, 300;
DresdenA
104,
in
Dmitrievskij,
TunUKOnbl, 154-56;
cf.
Arranz,
"Sacrements I," 4-5:43-49, 64,
377-97.
'69Arranz, "Sacrements
I," 2:44-47, 89-90;
cf.
Almazov, Hcmopua, chap.
24,
esp.
592-96.
170Vogt
I, 82.
171
Vitaof Abbess St. Elizabeth of
Constantinople (before 591):
E
Halkin,
"Sainte Elisabeth
d'Heraclee,
abbesse a
Constantinople,"
AB 91
(1973),
255-56
(=
BHG
2121);
and
RegPatr
592
(886-893 A.D.)
and 972.1
(1094 A.D.); J.
Baun,
"The Fate of Babies
Dying
before
Baptism
in
Byzantium,"
Studies inChurch
History
31
(1994),
115-25. I owe these references toStefanoParenti and
Alice-Mary
Talbot.
172RegPatr
3:972.1.
173Dmitrievskij,
TunuKoHbl, 156;
cf.
Arranz,
"Sacrements
I,"
5:375.
61
as
pagans, Jews,
Arians, Macedonians, Manicheans, Nabatians, Armenians, etc.)174
con-
tinued tobe
processed
toward
baptism
viaa
drastically
reduced
"catechumenate," the
details of which are not our concernhere.175 These "infant-catechumens" doubtless at-
tended church services inthe
galleries
with their
mothers,
and this
might possibly
be the
source of the
gynaeceum-equals-catechumena
conflation.
Mathews
objects
that to
put
the womenin theecs
women
galleries
would
impede
their access to
the sacrament. But if the
imperial party
had communion
brought up
the stairs tothem
inthe
galleries (see above, A.III.9.a,
g),
the womencommunicants could
certainly
have
beenserved the sacrament at similar antimensiaset
up
for that
purpose,
as Strube
sug-
gests.'76
Besides,
frequent
communionhad declined so
drastically by
the end of the
fourth
century
that the
problem
Mathews raises would have beenacute
only
at Easter
and afew other
major
feasts.'77
At
any
rate,
the
overwhelming
evidence for the
presence
of women and others like
the
sovereigns
and their retainers inthe
galleries during
the Divine
Liturgy throughout
this
period
whenthe
galleries
were called
"catechumena,"
and for the fact that the
galler-
ies were used for a
bewildering variety
of
activities,
both
legitimate
and less
so,
precludes
fromthe outset
any
notion that the
upper-level
tribunes were reserved for the exclusive
use of either catechumens or women.
By
the time of Patriarch Athanasius I
(ca. 1309),
the
placement
of women inthe
galleries
seems tohave been the
remnant of an
already deteriorating practice:
noble-
womenattended
liturgy
fromthe
galleries,
but Athanasius
says they
should be
elsewhere,
which
clearly
means
they
could have been
elsewhere,
and that elsewhere can
only
have
beenonthe
ground
floor.
2.
Gallery
Curtains
One final
point.
Twosources fromthe tenth and fourteenth centuries
respectively,
Symeon Metaphrastes'
vitaof
Chrysostom(above,
A.III.10 ?
4)
and
Ignatius
of Smolensk
(A.III.12
?
5),
refer tocurtains or
drapes hiding
the women inthe
galleries. Though
I
have noreasonto
challenge
these
witnesses,
the
practice
cannot have beenincontinuous
use,
since numerous other
texts,
early
and
late,
refer tothe womeninthe
galleries being
174P. Eleuteri and A.
Rigo,
Eretici,
dissidenti,
musulmani ed ebrei aBizanzio: Unaraccolta
eresiologica
del XII
secolo,
Ricerche
(Venice, 1993),
all
post-Iconoclast liturgical
texts
(ibid., 36)
concerning
these
categories (I
amindebted toStefanoParenti forthis
reference); Arranz,
"Sacrements
I,"
3:48-84.
75
Details inthe
manuscripts
examined
by Arranz, "Sacrements
I,"
esp.
2,
4.
176Strube,
Die westliche
Eingangsseite,
91-92. She
proposes (p. 91)
that the "FuBbodenmosaik derWestem-
pore" may
have beenthe
place
of the women's communion. I
presume
she is
referring
tothe
rectangle
in
the
pavement
of the centerof the west
gallery directly opposite
the
sanctuary (VanNice,
St.
Sophia,
pls.
2, 17;
Mainstone,
H.
Sophia, fig. 73),
since I know of nofloormosaic inthe west
gallery:
see C.
Mango,
The Mosaics
of
St. Sophiaat
Istanbul,
DOS 8
(Washington,
D.C., 1962),
40-46 and
diagram
II. I have found no
Byzantine
evidence forthe Slavic
usage
that I.
Muretov, MumpononumKunpuan
6 ezo
iumypezuecKou
0eameilbHocmu
(Moscow, 1882), 142,
cites fromthe
BulgarianCyprianTsamblak,
metropolitan
of Kiev
(1381-82,
1390-
1406),
according
towhich the
women,
considered
unworthy
tocommunicate before the central
Holy
Doors
of the iconostasis inview of the altarlike the men
did, received communionafterthe
men,
before the north
doortothe
prothesis;
cf. N.
Teteriatnikov,
"The Place of the NunMelania
(the
Lady
of the
Mongols)
inthe
Deesis
Program
of the InnerNarthex of
Chora,
Constantinople,"
CahArch 43
(1995),
177-78 and n. 69.
Muretov
(p. 143) says
we donot know how
widespread
this
usage
was inRus'.
1771 treat this inR.
F
Taft,
A
History of
the
Liturgy of
St.
JohnChrysostom,
V: The Communionand Final Rites
(forthcoming
in
OCA),
"Excursus to
Chapter
XII: The
Frequency
of Communionin
Byzantium."
62
ROBERT E
TAFT,
S.J.
spotted
frombelow. And Patriarch Athanasius I
(ca. 1309)
accuses the noblewomen
of
going
tothe
galleries
toshow off their
finery (A.III.13 ? 4),
surely
a
pointless vanity
if
they
were hiddenbehind
curtains, unseen.
3.
Segregation?
Though
twosources
clearly
affirmthe
complete separation
of the sexes inchurch
by
relegating
all womentothe
galleries (A.III.12, 14),
only
the first of
them,
Ignatius
of
Smolensk
(1392 A.D.),
is awitness tothe rite of
Constantinople. Many
other sources
affirm
the
presence
of a
gynaeceumspace
inthe
ground-floor
side
aisles,
and the concern
ex-
pressed again
and
again
in
patristic
homilies over the interactionof menand women
in
church
(below, D.II)
makes it
unlikely
that
originally,
at
least,
the sexes were so
separated
that
they
could not
get
at each other if
they
wanted to.
B. SPECIAL
WOMEN,
SPECIAL SPACES
Inadditiontothe
ordinary laywomen,
there was the order of
deaconesses,
with a
special
role and
place
inthe
Byzantine
church.
I. The Ordination
of
Deaconesses
The
third-century
institutionof afemale diaconal
ministry
is
beyond
the
scope
of this
paper.178
The
single
issue of interest tous is the
place
these ordained women
occupied
in
the
Byzantine
church
building.179
1. The CheirotoniaRite
Inthe earliest extant rite for the cheirotoniaof deaconesses in
Byzantium,'80
the
detailed rubrics of the
mid-eighth-century euchology
codex Barberini Gr. 336 show an
almost exact
parallelism
betweenthe rite for
instituting
deacons and deaconesses.181 Both
were ordained inthe
bema,
that
is,
withinthe
sanctuary,
inside the
templon
or chancel
barrier,
anareaof the church fromwhich the
laity-and afortiori
all
laywomen-except
the
emperor
were
normally
barred.182 This is
especially significant
inthe
light
of
Byzan-
tine
liturgical symbolism,
inwhich the altar
symbolizes
the divine
presence. Only major
orders
(diaconate,
presbyterate, episcopacy)
are conferred at the altar withinthe
bema,
and the ritual
"approach
tothe divine
altar"--i
. .
.?T/i TOv Oetov
0uoaaoTpltov t7pooa-
'78They appear
forthe first time as anorderdistinct fromwidows and
virgins
inthe
3rd-century
Dida-
skalia, II, 26.3-8,
with afixed
(III, 12-13),
if limited
(III, 6.1-2; 9),
ministry;
cf. also
II, 4.2; III, 4.1-2; III,
5, etc.,
in
Funk, Didascalia, I, 34-36, 102-4, 186, 188-90, 198-200, 208-16.
'79The
bibliography
ondeaconesses is considerable. The best recent
overview,
with the more
important
earlier
bibliography indicated,
is A.-A.
Thiermeyer,
"DerDiakonat derFrau,"
ThQ
173
(1993),
226-36. To
the literature cited
there,
add S.
Elm,
"Vergini, vedove, diaconesse: Alcuni osservazioni sullo
sviluppo
dei
cosidetti 'ordini femminili' nel
quarto
secoloinOriente," Codex
Aquilarensis
5
(1991),
77-90.
'80On
the ordination
rite,
see C.
Vagaggini,
"Lordinazione delle diaconesse nellatradizione
greca
e bizan-
tina," OCP 40
(1974), 177, 179, 181;
E. D.
Theodorou,
"'H
'XitpoTovta'
il
'XetpoO?oia'
t6v AlaKovtoov,"
OeoFoy?a
25
(1954), 576-601; ibid., 26
(1955),
57-76.
18Parenti
and
Velkovska, Barberini
gr. 336, ?? 161-64.
182The Rudder
(Pedalion), 372-73,
560.
Nuns, however,
could enter
(presumably
intheirmonastic
church)
tocleanthe
sanctuary
or
light
the candles:
ibid., 372.
63
yoCyii, Pseudo-Dionysius
calls it183 -in which the candidate for
major
orders is conducted
fromthe nave
through
the chancel doors tothe
altar,
signifies approaching
the font of
the "divine
grace"
of ordinationfor which the
bishop prays.
Vita14 of the
ninth-century
St. Athanasiaof
Aegina
describes ascene
apparently
modeled onthis ritual. At the convent eucharist onthe
fortieth-day
memorial of the
saint's
death,
her fellow nuns saw the
following
vision:
Whenit was
morning
and the divine
liturgy
had
begun,
twoof the leaders of that sacred
group
of nuns ... observed two
men,
awe-inspiring
in
appearance
and with
flashing
bright
robes;
and
they
had the blessed Athanasiabetweenthem. And
leading
her and
making
her stand infront of the
holy sanctuary, they brought
out a
purple
robe decor-
ated with
gems
and
pearls. They
dressed her like an
empress
and crowned her head with
acrownthat had crosses inthe front and back.
They placed
inher hand a
jewel-studded
staff and escorted her intothe divine
sanctuary (ei;
TO
6eiov
rTaro
v OtvaoTrpltov
fiyayov).184
Though
the
angelic
visitors invest Athanasia with
imperial insignia, imperial
rank did
not
grant
women
entry
intothe
earthly sanctuary (see below, B.III.1). Rather,
it seems
Athanasiawas a
deaconess,l85
and the scenarioimitates the ritual
approach
tothe altar
of the
Byzantine
diaconal ordinationrites.
2. The CommunionRitual
The diaconal
prayers
and rubrics
assign
male candidates amore intimate eucharistic
ministry,
however,
referring
tothe deacons as "ministers at
your
immaculate
mysteries"
and
having
themdistribute the chalice at communion. The
deaconess,
though
she re-
ceives the chalice inthe hand and drinks from
it,
puts
it back onthe altar without distrib-
uting
it toothers.
3. Balsamon
(ca.
1130/40-d.
after 1195)
By
the twelfth
century,
however,
womenascetics were called "deaconesses"
abusively
(KaTaXpr|ltKd);),'86
according
to
Balsamon,
who
strongly opposed
the ordinationof
womento
any grade.
The order of deaconess no
longer
exists,
he tells
us,
and women
are barred fromthe
sanctuary.
The
reasoning
inhis
commentary
oncanon15 of
Chalcedon
(451 A.D.),
which ruled that womennot be ordained deaconess before the
age
of
forty,
is
pure petitioprincipii:
o6t
KXavOV
eot
8topti6gevo; giq
EioePXe-
For there is acanon
ruling
that women
o9at
yuvadiKas;
v
Txc ayiop PriLaxt.
'H
yo,ov
cannot enter the
holy
bema. How canone
gi
UvageVrn:v TOZ yip
wOitaoTinpi?
unable toenter the
holy sanctuary
exer-
eioeOeXiv, n65g
Ta
TCOV
t&aK6OVV
evep- cise the
ministry
of the deacons?
yGe; i;187
183De eccles. hierarchia
VII, 3.2,
PG
3:509D;
full discussionof this
key liturgical concept
in
Taft,
Great En-
trance,
279-83 (and see index under"accessus ad
altare").
184
Vita
14,
ed. F
Halkin,
"Lavie de sainte Athanase
d'Egine" (=
BHG
180),
in
idem,
Six inedits
d'hagiologie
byzantine, SubsHag
74
(Brussels, 1987), 191;
"Life of St. Athanasiaof
Aegina,"
trans. L. F
Sherry,
in
Talbot,
Holy Women,
153. The vitais found ina
single manuscript
dated 916
(ibid., 138-39).
185
Vita
18,
in
Talbot,
Holy
Women,
156 and n. 75.
186PG 137:441D.
87
Ibid.
64
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
II. The Narthex and
Gynaeceumof
the Deaconesses
By
the tenth
century,
inthe Great Church we find a
special place
set aside for the
order of
deaconesses,
which at that time had not
yet degenerated
intoa
purely
titular
grade
awarded
nuns,
but was anorder of
pious
women
directly dependent
onthe
bishop
and attached to
HagiaSophia.188
1. De cerimoniis
The
tenth-century
De cerimoniis
I,
44
(35),
describes the
imperial
ceremonial for
Holy
Saturday
and
Annunciation.l89
At the third hour the
emperor begins
his
progress
toward
HagiaSophia. Going
first tothe
Holy
Well located near or inthe
porch
south of the
apse
at the east end of the
church,190
he enters and is
greeted by
the
patriarch.
Thenboth
enter the
basilica,
doubtless
by
the door
leading
intothe south aisle at the east end of
the
church,
and
go
intothe
sanctuary
viathe central or
Holy
Doors of the chancel. After
incensing
the
sanctuary,
the
emperor
and the
patriarch go
off tothe
skeuophylakion,
where
they
continue their devotions. The account continues:
1. Kai
ei0' oixtO; avioarTaTa
6
paote5,
Kai 1. Thenthe
emperor
rises,
and
going
out
?'EO6v d7C6 T0oD 6oK?VOnX,aKio), 8tIp-
of the
skeuophylakion,
he
passes through
Xrcat
8txaTOD
yDvalcKiTO vap0rlKcoS,
?v o the narthex of the
gynaeceum
where the
Kai
TilV 7Dvrri oGTa(otv Kc?KTqvTat
ai
Tfi;
ai-
deaconesses of the Great Church have
Tfi; MeyaXrlg; 'EKKcroiaSq
a
aKo6vtooat,
2. their
customary place,
2. and
goes
out
by
Kai ;
epX?eat
bta
TiS dptE?pd;
t
5rlSq; rtoD
the left door of the
sanctuary
and the
pflaTro; Kai act if6otxnv aoDTci
6
inaptpaprc
patriarch
gives
himthe
eulogia.
3. And
?O)XoyiaS.
3. Kai
6teX6vT?; adtLo6cpt tp6 going
viathe narrow
passageway
of St.
'oiiO toe0v TzoD
Paoxo
og?Evo
&tap3aTKo)
Nicholas located behind the
sanctuary,
toi 'Ayfov NtIKOXOo, dcirpXovTat LX%pl
T
oi
both of them
go
off tothe
Holy
Well.
'AyioOp(D'aroS;.191
In
attempting
todivine where the Narthex and
Gynaeceum
of the Deaconesses were
located,
and how the toand frodescribed took
place,
recall
(see above, A.II.3)
that the
sanctuary
of
HagiaSophia
was
separated
fromthe nave
by
a
H-shaped,
three-sided tem-
plon
or chancel barrier
jutting
intothe nave with doors onall three sides: infront
(west),
the central or
"Holy
Doors,"
and side doors
right (south)
and left
(north)
as one faces the
altar.
According
tothe De cerimoniis account:
1. The
emperor
reenters the
sanctuary (1),
and
again
leaves it
(2)
viaits north
side,
that
is,
the left side as one faces east.
2. Since the text has himuse the left chancel door
only
when
leaving
the sanctu-
ary
for
good (2),
it is
possible
that in
going
toand fromthe
skeuophylakion
(1)
he used the
passage
betweenthe northeasternmost
pier
and the east wall
of the
church,
just
infront of the
apse,
which leads fromthe
sanctuary
tothe
eastern
extremity
of the north aisle.192 Otherwise he would have exited the
'88G.
Dagron,
"Les moines de laville: Le monachisme a
Constantinople jusqu'au
Concile de Chalcedoine
(451),"
TM 4
(1970),
265 n. 169.
189For
Annunciation,
see
Vogt
I, 172.
90
Mango,
Brazen
House, 60-72; Mainstone,
H.
Sophia,
113.
19'
Vogt
I,
170-71.
92 Van
Nice,
St.
Sophia, pl.
11.
65
north door of the bemaand
passed
betweenthe columns of the northeast
exedratothe easternmost
bay
of the north aisle.
3. How did the
patriarch
and
imperial party
exit the northeast
bay
and
enter
the
skeuophylakion?
It is
possible, though
not
certain,
that
they passed
via
the now bricked-insmall door inthe center of the easternmost
bay
of
the
north aisle ascant 4.7 meters across fromthe south side of the
skeuophy-
lakion.193
4.
They
could have returned the same
way
or
by
adifferent route. One could
perhaps
infer the latter fromthe fact that
only
onhis
return,
according
to
the
text,
does the
emperor pass through
the Narthex of the
Gynaeceum
of
the Deaconesses
(1).
If
by
adifferent
route,
there are two
options:
viathe
central door of the north aisle or viathe door at the east end of the same aisle.
5. At
any
rate,
onits returnthe
processionpassed through
the Narthex of the
Deaconesses,
and that can
only
have beenlocated outside one of the three
church doors within
easy range
of the
skeuophylakion,
that
is, (1)
inthe rela-
tively
narrow
(5
m
wide)
strip
betweenthe
skeuophylakion
and the small door
directly
across fromit inthe north wall of the
church;'94 (2)
infront of the
maindoors inthe center of the north
aisle;
or
(3)
inthe forehalls outside the
door at the east end of the north aisle. I returntothis
point
inthe
following
sections
(B.II.2-4).
2.
Anthony of Novgorod (1200 A.D.)
The De
cerimoniis
account is corroborated
by
the Russian
pilgrimAnthony
of Nov-
gorod,
whovisited
HagiaSophia
in1200 and describes his tour of the relics
kept
there:'95
1. First of all we venerated Saint
Sophia
... and the iconof the most
holy
Theotokos
holding
Christ,
which
aJew
had stabbed onthe throat with aknife and blood flowed out.
2. And the blood of the Lord that issued fromthe iconwe kissed inthe
prothesis
(BO OJITapHI MaJIOMb)
...
[here
aseries of relics and other
objects
inthe
prothesis-i.e.,
skeuophylakion-are listed].
3. And at the outside of the door of the
prothesis (BE
Hei
ZBepH OJIrTapaMaJIaro)
stands the cross the same size that Christ onearth inthe flesh was in
height.196
4. And
193Ibid.,
pls.
1, 11; Antoniades, 'EK(paot;, II, 146-53;
E
Dirimtekin,
"Le
skevophylakion
de Sainte-
Sophie,"
REB 19
(1961),
393.
194The
present
difference infloor level betweenthe basilicaand the
skeuophylakion,
as well as the
present
outside entrance tothe
skeuophylakion
at the actual
ground level,
well above the rotunda's
original ground-
floor
level,
canbe discounted. The doordates fromTurkish times
(Mainstone,
H.
Sophia,
137, 138,
pl. 161),
and neitherit northe
present ground
level has
anything
todowith the
original Byzantine building
and its
use,
as has beenshown
by
the latest excavations
reported
inS.
Tiirkoglu, "AyasofyaSkevophilakionu
kazisi,"
Ayasofya
Muiizesi
Yilligi-Annual of Ayasofya
Museum9
(1983), 25-35,
plans
1-3 and
pls.
1-9,
at the end of the
volume. Cf. alsoVan
Nice,
St.
Sophia, pl.
4; Mainstone,
H.
Sophia,
129, 133-38,
pl.
161; 277,
plan
A8;
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 219, cf. 182-83. I review the whole
question
of the
skeuophylakion
and access toit in
"Quaestiones disputatae:
The
Skeuophylakion
of
HagiaSophia
and the Entrances of the
Liturgy Revisited,"
part
1,
OC 81
(1997),
1-35.
'95Text in
Loparev,
2-9.
'96 How
many
doors does the
skeuophylakion
have in
Anthony's
account? His reference to"BbHei
ABepH
OJITTPAs
Majiaro" (3)
has beentakentomeanthere must have beentwo
doors,
anoutside one and aninside
one. But there is nomentionof a
second, "inside
door," and since
gsepH
could be
genitive
as well as
preposi-
tional,
the text could be
interpreted
tomeaneither"at the outside doorof the
prothesis"
or"at the outside
66
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
behind that cross is buried
Anna,
who
gave
her house toSt.
Sophia
(and
onwhich
[prop-
erty]
the
prothesis
is
built)
and for that reasonshe was buried there.197
5. And not far fromthis
prothesis
the
Myrrhbearers sing,
and there stands before
thema
great
iconof the most
pure
Theotokos
holding
Christ ...
6. And from
there,
onthe same
side,
is the Church of the
Holy Apostle
Peter
(14
OTTOJIA
HaTOii
)KbCTpaHi uepKBH [variant: uepKoBb]
ecTb
CBsTaro
anocToJia
IeTpa),
where
St.
Theophanides
is
buried,
the one who
kept
the
key
of
HagiaSophia;
and
they
kiss
these
very keys
...
7. Near tothe
Myrrhbearers
inSt.
Sophia
is the small tombof the child of St. Athino-
genos.
And there are noother tombs inSt.
Sophia
save that one.
8. And from
there,
going
toward the
doors,
is the columnof St.
Gregory
Thauma-
turgus.198
It is not difficult totrace the
pilgrim's
route
through
the basilica:
1.
Approaching
the Great Church
complex
fromthe
southeast,
by
the
Holy
Well
where the iconof Christ stabbed
by
the
Jew
was located
(1),199
Anthony
crosses over toenter the
skeuophylakion
situated
just
off the northeast side
of the church and venerates the relics
kept
there
(2). Anthony
does not
say
how he arrived at or entered the
skeuophylakion, though
he refers toits door
(3).
But it is clear that the "prothesis" is a
separate building,
since Annais
buried there
(4),
and
Anthony
tells us
explicitly
that the
only
tombinside
HagiaSophia
is that of the child-saint
Athinogenos (7).
We can
safely
assume,
then,
that
Anthony's "prothesis"
was the extant rotunda
traditionally
identi-
fied as the
skeuophylakion.
of the door of the
prothesis."
At
any
rate,
the
point
the text is
trying
tomake is clear: the Christ-size cross is
located onthe outside wall of the rotunda
by
the one doorof the
prothesis
ratherthaninside it. Sothe text
is no
proof
of asecond door. AnearlierLatin
text,
the
"Anonymus
Mercati,"
provides independent
confirma-
tionof
Anthony's
account: K. N.
Ciggaar,
"Une
description
de
Constantinople
traduite
par
un
pelerin
an-
glais,"
REB 34
(1976),
211-67. The Greek
original, dating
1063-81,
was translated intoLatinca. 1089-96
by
a
western,
most
likely English, pilgrim(ibid., 214-15, 219, 221, 225-32).
The text describes the
skeuophy-
lakiondoor with its cross the
height
of
Christ,
as well as the stones fromthe
Holy Sepulcher
that
Anthony
mentions:
Et fecit de
longitudine
Christi
Iustinianus
And the
emperorJustinian
made across the
imperator
crucemet ornavit eam
argento
et
height
of
Christ,
and decorated it with silver
aureo et
lapidibus preciosis
et deauravit and
gold
and
precious
stones,
and
gilded
it.
eam. Et statuit eamiuxtaostium
gazophi-
And he
placed
it beside the door of the
gazo-
lacii ubi sunt omniasacravasaet thesaurus
phylakion
where all the sacred vessels and
magnae
aecclesiae similiter et omnia
pre-
treasure of the Great Church
are,
and all the
dictasanctuaria. Indexteraautem
parte
above mentioned relics. And onthe
right
altaris
templi
extrain
pariete
est hostium side of the altar of the
church,
outside inthe
monumenti Domini ...
(ibid., 246-47, wall,
is the door of the Lord's
sepulcher.
lines
14-20).
A bit laterthe same text alsorecounts the
story
of the
Jew stabbing
the throat of Christ inthe
image
Anthony
locates at the southeast
extremity
of the church
(ibid., 248-49,
lines
82-102).
It
says nothing,
how-
ever,
of asecond door intothe
treasury.
'97That
awidow Annaowned the
property
is confirmed
by Preger, Scriptores,
78;
cf.
Mathews,
Early
Churches,
160.
198See
above,
A.III.8.
'99Majeska,
Russian
Travelers,
136-39 and n.
31, 304; Mainstone,
H.
Sophia,
271,
plan
A2.
67
2. Near the
skeuophylakion, Anthony
continues, is the
place
where
the
myrrhbearing
women
sing (5).
Fromhis initial
description(5-6)
this
would
seemtobe located outside the
church,
somewhere betweenthe
skeuophylak-
ionand the church of St. Peter which
Anthony passes
next,
onthe north
side
of
HagiaSophia(6).200
But thenhe tells us the
Myrrhbearers
are near
the
tombof St.
Athinogenos,
which was inside the church
(7).
The
seeming
confu-
sion
probably
results fromthe fact that
HagiaSophia
had both anarthex
(outside)
and a
gynaeceum(inside)
of the deaconesses. I shall returnto
this
below
(B.II.3-4).
Anthony
tells us there is a
large
iconof the Theotokos with
child infront of the
Myrrhbearers (6),
and the later Russian
post-Crusader
anonymous pilgrim
account
places
what
may
be the same Marian
image
un-
der aciboriuminthe easternhalf of the north aisle.201
3. Since
Anthony
had tobe outside the basilicatovisit the
skeuophylakion
and
St.
Peter's,
he
probably
reentered the basilicaviathe doors inthe center of
the north aisle. At
any
rate,
we next see himinside the
church,
progressing
westward downthe north aisle
past
the "columnof St.
Gregory
Thaumatur-
gus"
at the northwest end of the aisle
(see above, A.III.8).
3. The
Gynaeceumof
the Deaconesses
Are the Narthex
and/or
Gynaeceum
of the Deaconesses tobe identified with Antho-
ny's place
where "the
Myrrhbearers sing" (5)?
Presuming
that
Anthony's Myrrhbearers
are the
deaconesses,
they
doubtless assisted at the
liturgy
inasectionof the
gynaeceum
reserved for them. As members of the
clergy, they
were
certainly
not constrained toat-
tend services insome narthex. This would be not
only incongruous
with the deaconesses'
rank,
but also
pointless:
what could
possibly
be the
purpose
of
having
the women
singing
200OnSt. Peter's church,
which has
disappeared
without a
trace,
see
Janin,
Eglises,
398-99; Mateos, Typicon,
I, 104, 128, 194, 198, 232, 272, 278, 310, 322, 378; II, 104;
Dmitrievskij,
TunUKOubl, 161-62, 327 n.
2;
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 210, 216, 223. In
Taft, "Quaestiones
disputatae," part
1,
sec.
A.I.6,
I review the
evidence forSt.
Peter's,
concluding
that it was a
separate
church, somewhere inthe clutterof structures
withinthe Great Church
complex occupying
the
slope
betweenH.
Sophia
and H. Eirene
(cf.
F.
Dirimtekin,
"Les fouilles faites en1946-1947 et en1958-1960 entre
Sainte-Sophie
et
Sainte-Irene,
a
Istanbul,"
CahArch
13
[1962], 161-85; Mathews, Early Churches,
83 and
fig. 43),
and not asmall
rectangularchapel
built intothe
north wall of the basilica
just
west of the
skeuophylakionrotunda,
as in
Antoniades,
"EK:paot;, II, 161-63,
and
I, pl.
17 between
pp.
48 and 49. This is confirmed
by Anthony,
whoinforms us that St.
Theophanides
was buried inSt. Peter's
(6),
and that the
only
tombinH.
Sophia
was that of St.
Athinogenos (7).
It is true
that one text of the
typikon
of the Great Church
(Mateos,
Typicon,
I, 198)
refers toSt. Peter's "inside the Great
Church"
(Fv65ov Tr;
Mey6;S 'EKKXrCoiaTa).
But St. Peter's was toonearH.
Eirene,
the latter
lying
10 m
higher
thanand
110
mtothe north of H.
Sophia(Janin,
Constantinople, map
1: Carte
archeologique
et
topogra-
phique; Mathews,
Early Churches, 78),
tobe a
part
of H.
Sophia:
DresdenA 104
(Dmitrievskij,
TunuKOHbl,
138) says
one could descend fromSt.
Peter's
viaa
spiral
staircase and enterH. Eirene
(Sxd
Toi
KO%Xxtou
TOD
aytio) IIrtpoV
KatrepX6ervoS,
X
dv:pXeait
?v rntyiz
Eipifivn).
The Easter
baptism
rubrics of the
early-12th-
century patriarchal
"Bessarion
Euchology,"
Grottaferrata
rp I,
confirm
Anthony's
locationof St. Peter's on
the north side of H.
Sophia, beyond
the
skeuophylakion:
M.
Arranz,
L'Eucologiocostantinopolitanoagli
inizi del
secolo
XI:
Hagiasmatarion
e Archieratikon
(Rituale
e
Pontificale)
con
l'aggiunta
del
Leiturgikon(Messale) (Rome, 1996),
182; idem, "Sacrements
I," 6:74-75; Goar, E5xo6oyltov, 291bis;
cf.
Mateos,
Typicon, II, 84-85;
G.
Majeska,
"Notes onthe
Skeuophylakion
of St.
Sophia,"
VizVrem55
(1998), 212-15; Taft,
Great
Entrance,
199 n. 68.
201Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 132-33, 215-16.
Majeska
locates
Anthony's
iconoutside the
basilica,
nearSt.
Peter's,
but I see noneed to
interpret Anthony's
text inthat
way.
68
ROBERT E
TAFT,
S.J.
outside the church?202 SoI would infer that
Anthony's place
where "the
Myrrhbearers
sing"
is identical with the
"gynaeceum
where the deaconesses have their
customary
place"
inDe cerimoniis I, 44
(35).
Second,
it is clear inDe cerimoniis
I,
44
(35),
that the deaconesses' narthex and
gynae-
ceumare twodifferent but
contiguous
locales,
one
presumably
outside,
the other inside
HagiaSophia's
north aisle. Since De cerimoniis
I,
1
(10),
identifies this same left
(north)
ground-floor
aisle of
Holy Apostles
and
Chalkoprateia(above, A.III.9.b-c)
as the
gynae-
ceum,
one
may
conclude that the north aisle was alsoconsidered
gynaeceumspace
in
HagiaSophia,
and that the
Gynaeceum
of the Deaconesses most
likely occupied
the east-
ernhalf or at least the easternmost
bay
of the north
aisle,
opposite
the
imperial
metato-
riononthe other side of the church inthe
corresponding
east
bay
of the south aisle.203
Since
Justinian
limited to
forty
the deaconesses
ministering (though probably
not all
together
inthe same
shift)
at
HagiaSophia
and the three other
patriarchal
churches
served
by
the
clergy
of the Great Church
(Hagia
Eirene,
Chalkoprateia,
and
Hagios
Theodoros of
Sphorakios),204
the
space
reserved for their use must have been
large
enough
tohold afair number of
people.
4. The Narthex
of
the Deaconesses
Since it is
logical
to
suppose
that this
Gynaeceum
of the Deaconesses was
just
inside
the church fromthe Narthex of the
Deaconesses,
the latter must have beenaforehall or
chamber located outside the main
body
of the church: De cerimoniis
I,
44
(35),
calls it a
"narthex"
(above,
B.II. ?
1);
Anthony,
a
npHTBOpb
or
"porch."
Just
where this
"porch"
or "narthex" was located is not
certain,
but we
may safely
infer it was located at the
entrance tothe
Gynaeceum
of the
Deaconesses,
that
i,
somewhere
just
outside the east-
ernhalf of the north aisle of the basilica.
Though Anthony's description
could be taken
as
implying
it was either betweenthe
skeuophylakion
and the door
right
across fromit
inthe middle of the southeast
bay
of
HagiaSophia,
or
just
outside the north-central
doors
(see above,
B.II.2 ?? 5-7 and
commentary),
F. Dirimtekinwould locate it inthe
outbuildings
that once surrounded the northeast entrance of the church
just
north of
the
apse, proposing,
onthe basis of his excavations
there,
one of the forehalls one had to
pass through
to
go
fromoutside intothe northeast
bay
of the church viathe northeastern
door.205 The available evidence does not
permit
adefinitive resolutionof this issue.
Perhaps
we
may
draw a
parallel
fromatext not
long
before
Anthony
of
Novgorod's
visit tothe
capital
in1200.
Byzantine
canonist Theodore Balsamon
(ca.
1130/40-d. after
1195),
commenting (above, A.III.11)
that womeninmenstruationare allowed to
pray
but should not enter the church
proper (?i;
vaov Oeoi5 e?itcnvat ... oi
68et),
testifies that
202Indeed,
since
Sozomen,
Hist. eccles.
VII,
16.11-15
(GCS 50:324),
informs us that womeninthe
ministry
should be at least
sixty years
old,
one
might
ask what was the
point
of
having
them
singing
at all. Onthe
question
of women's choirs inChristian
worship
inlate
antiquity,
see
J. Quasten,
Music and
Worship
in
Pagan
and Christian
Antiquity,
National Pastoral Musicians Studies inChurch Music and
Liturgy (Washington,
D.C.,
1983),
75-87. N. K.
Moran,
Singers
inLate
Byzantine
and Slavonic
Painting, ByzantinaNeerlandica,
fasc. 9
(Leiden, 1986),
does not discuss the choirof deaconesses orthe
singing
of womeninchurch in
Byzantium
(indeed,
there is no
entry
foreither"deaconess" or"women" inthe
index).
203 See note 30 above.
204See
CIC,
Nov
2021;
cf.
Taft,
Great
Entrance,
200-201 n. 71.
205Dirimtekin,
"Skevophylakion,"
396-98 and
plan
3.
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 228,
conflates both
spaces
and locates theminthe northeast exedra.
69
inthe twelfth
century,
at
least,
some
Byzantine
churches had a
7p6vaos
distinct fromthe
gynaecea
and
nave,
and destined for use
by
the womennot
prevented by
menstruation
from
attending
church. Balsamon's
description
would fit in
perfectly
with the ideaof
a
vestibule
by
one of the doors at the northeast end of the church near the
skeuophylakion,
avestibule
through
which the Great Entrance
procession
would alsohave
passed
(A.III.
11 ? 6).
III.
Imperial
Womeninthe
Sanctuary
?
1.
Augusta
Pulcheria
(399-453)
Pulcheria
(399-453),
sister of
Emperor
Theodosius
II
(408-450)
and
augusta
from
July
4, 414,206
seems tohave had
pretensions beyond
the
merely imperial.
She
compared
herself to
Mary
and considered herself the bride of Christ.207 Onthat
basis,
and not
because of her
dignity
as
augusta,
she
inveigled
Patriarch Sisinnius I
(426-427)
tolet her
communicate at Easter withinthe
sanctuary.
But whenshe tried the same
again
the eenext
Easter,
on
April
15, 428,
Sisinnius' successor Nestorius
(428-431)
stopped
her inher
tracks.208 The Letter to
Cosmas 8,
writteninGreek after 435 A.D. and
preserved
in
Syriac
translation,
recounts the incident:
Furthermore,
onthe
great
feast of the Pasch it was
customary
for the
emperor
to
receive communionwithinthe
Holy
of Holies. Pulcheriawanted
(to
dothe
same).
She
had convinced the
bishop
Sisinnius and received communionwith the
emperor
within
the
Holy
of Holies. Nestorius did not allow
that,
but whenshe
approached
the
Holy
of
Holies as was her
custom,
Nestorius saw her and asked what that meant. The archdeacon
Peter
explained
the situationtohim. Nestorius hastened tomeet her at the door tothe
Holy
of Holies and
stopped
her and did not
permit
her toenter.
Queen
Pulcheriawas irritated with himand said to
him,
"Let me enter
according
to
my
custom." But he
said,
"This
place
should not be troddenon
except by
the
priests."
She said to
him,
"Why?
Have I not
given
birth toGod?" He said to
her,
"You? Youhave
given
birth toSatan!" And he chased her
away
fromthe door tothe
Holy
of Holies.209
Since Pulcheriatried to
justify
herentrance intothe
sanctuary
not as
augusta
but as
imitator of
Mary Theotokos210-hardly
arecommendationfor Nestorius-the
Byzan-
tines
apparently thought
that
Mary,
at
least,
had a
right
tobe withinthe
sanctuary.
206See
K. G.
Holum,
Theodosian
Empresses:
Womenand
Imperial
DominioninLate
Antiquity,
The Transforma-
tionof the Classical
Heritage
3
(Berkeley, 1982), 79-111, 147-228; T. E.
Gregory
and A.
Cutler, "Pulcheria,"
ODB 11:1757-58; V. Limberis,
Divine Heiress: The
VirginMary
and the Creation
of
Christian
Constantinople
(London-New York, 1994),
54-55
(I
owe this reference toF. vande
Paverd).
207
See
F Nau, ed.,
L'Histoire de Barhadbesabbha'Arbaia
27, PO
9:565-68; Nestorius,
The Bazaar
of Heracleides,
trans. G. K. Drower and L.
Hodgson (Oxford, 1925), 96-97; cf.
Holum,
Theodosian
Empresses, 141-45,
153-54; Limberis, Divine Heiress,
54-55.
2080n
the
date,
see ODB 111:1757.
209. Nau, ed.,
Histoire de Nestorius
d'apres
lalettre a
Cosme,
PO 13:279.
2'0To
depict Mary
inthe
sanctuary apse
seated onthe
throne,
where
only
the
bishop
can
sit,
is acommon-
place
in
Byzantine iconography:
see
examples
inI.
Kalavrezou,
"Images
of the Mother: Whenthe
Virgin
Mary
Became Meter
Theou,"
DOP 44
(1990),
168 and
figs.
5,
8-9.
Similarly, Mary
is
depicted
inthe
sanctuary
invisions:
Wortley, Recits, 14/XVI.3,
pp. 112-13;
Ryden, Life of
St. Andrew the
Fool, II,
lines 3732-58.
70
ROBERT E
TAFT,
S.J.
2. The
Empress'
Communion
One later text seems to
imply
that not
only
the deaconesses but alsothe
empress
received communioninside the
sanctuary.
The Russian
pilgrimIgnatius
of Smolensk was
present
at the coronationof
Emperor
Manuel II
Paleologus (1391-1425),
which he
says
took
place
on
February
11, 1392.211 Here is his
eyewitness description
of the
imperial
communion:
1. Whenthe time for
holy
communionhad
arrived,
the twochief deacons went and
bowed tothe
empress.
Whenshe had descended fromher
throne,
the
people standing
there tore
apart
all the
drapes
onthe
chamber,
each
wanting
as
large
a
piece
as
possible
for himself. 2. The
empress
entered a
wing
of the
sanctuary (KpIunooJITapa) by
the south
doors,
and was
givenholy
communionthere. 3. The
emperor,
however,
received commu-
nionfromthe
patriarch
at the altar of Christ
together
with the
priests.212
This text contains some
surprises:
1. It seems to
say
the
empress actually
entered the
sanctuary
toreceive commu-
nion
(2).
This is
highly
unusual inthe
light
of the traditional
prohibition
against
women
and, indeed,
any layperson
but the
emperor, entering
the
altar
enclosure,
ataxis
already
well entrenched
by
the end of the fourth cen-
tury (see above, A.III.1,
and
below, D.I). Furthermore,
Byzantine
canonlaw
codifies the
emperor's privilege
but makes nosuch
provision
for the em-
press.213
So
Majeskamay
be
right
that the
empress
did not
actually
enter the
enclosure but communicated at the south door of the
n-shaped
chancel
barrier.214
2. Onthe other
hand, even
among
the
Byzantines
there were
exceptions
tothis
rule.
Initially,
at
least, deaconesses,
as we saw above
(B.I),
were considered
part
of the
clergy
and were ordained and communicated at the
altar,
inside
the
sanctuary, just
like the male
recipients
of
major
orders.
3. At
any
rate,
that the
empress' dignity
was not
equivalent
tothe
emperor's
can
be seeninthe
imperial
communionritual.
Ignatius simply says
that the em-
press
"was
givenholy
communion"
(2),
whereas the
emperor
receives com-
munionfromthe
patriarch
at the altar like the
priests
do
(3),
that
is,
being
given
first the
bread,
thenthe
chalice,
separately
and inhis ownhands. This
communionof the
emperor
at the altar with the
clergy
is aninnovationin
the later Greek
sources,
which
Majeska
is correct in
seeing
confirmed
by
the
same custominthe
crowning
of the Russiantsar.215
211Onthe
date, Ps.-Kodinos, Traite des
offices,
ed.
Verpeaux,
351-52;
and
esp.
P.
Schreiner,
"Hochzeit und
Kr6nung
KaiserManuels II. imJahre
1392,"
BZ 60
(1967), 70-85;
and
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 416-20,
whoreview
thoroughly
and
competently
the event
itself,
its
sources,
and the relevant literature and
argu-
ments. Schreiner
(pp. 76-79)
alsoedits the text.
212Majeska,
Russian
Travelers,
110-11.
213The Rudder
(Pedalion),
372-73.
214Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 432. Onthe chancel barrierof H.
Sophia,
see A.I.3 above.
215Majeska,
Russian
Travelers,
433 n. 114. Onthe
relationship
betweenthe Greek and Slavonic coronation
rituals,
see the remarks and literature cited in
Arranz,
"Les sacrements de l'institutionde l'ancien
Euchologe
constantinopolitain,"
III:
1,
OCP 56
(1990), 85-87;
alsoB. A.
Uspenskij,
"JIhTyprniqecKHcii CTaTyc uapA B
pyccKOli uepKBH4: npHo6eueHHe
CBITbIM TaHHaM
(HCTOpHKo-JnHTyprimeCKHii
3TiOA),"
in
press.
I am
grateful
to
Prof. Boris
Uspenskij
for
providing
me a
prepublicationcopy
of his
study.
71
IV WomenSaints inthe
Sanctuary?
St.
Gregory
Nazianzen
(329/30-ca. 390), bishop
of
Constantinople
from379 to381,
describes in
Epitaphia
88-89 how his
dying
mother,
St. Nonna
(t
ca.
373), grasped
the
altar
(iepaxTpa6eSa)
with one hand while
raising
the other in
prayer;
and his Oratio8 in
laudemsororis suae
Gorgoniae
18 tells how his
sister,
St.
Gorgonia (t
ca.
370),
seriously
ill
and
despairing
of
any earthly
cure,
rose fromher sickbed at
night
and laid her head on
the altar
(Tc 0uotaxrpicp Tlv K?paPc hV /awTq i;poE0tia).215a
The term
6otaoiflptov
can
also
commonly
refer tothe entire
sanctuary
area,
but there is no
ambiguity
inthe
previ-
ous text:
ie'p Tp&arcea
can
only
meanthe altar table.
Gregory
is the
only
source inwhich I have found such a
reference,
and the
context,
which inboth instances seems tosuit a
private
domestic
chapel,
is not clear.
Still,
what
Gregory
narrates is
certainly contrary
tothe
general
rule.
C. WHEN? RESTRICTIONS ON WOMEN'S ATTENDANCE AT CHURCH SERVICES
Byzantine
canonical sources
say very
little about women
except
with
regard
tomar-
riage,
and
marriage
law is not
gender-discriminatory:
it concerns menas well as
women.216
Indeed,
one searches invainfor
any body
of restrictive canonical
legislation
concerning
where women can
go
inchurch-there is infact
remarkably
little
juridical
evidence of
spaces
inchurch forbidden towomen217-and what
they
canor cannot do
while there. The
only
restrictions onchurch attendance directed
solely
at women con-
cern
vigils
and "ritual
purity,"
that
is,
menstruation.
I.
Vigils
Chrysostom,
still a
presbyter
inAntioch in390
A.D.,
writing
inhis De sacerdotio
III,
13.69,
onthe surveillance of
virgins, says
a
virgin
should be made to
stay
at
home,
should
go
out
only rarely
inthe course of the
year,
and above
all,
"It is
necessary
to
keep
her
away
fromfunerals and
night vigils (6Ei
6?
Kai ?Kait
opov
Kait
TavvUXic&ov alcEipyelv).
For he
knows,
the
serpent
of athousand ruses knows how to
spread
his
poison
eveninlaudable
occupations."218
Earlier,
canon35 of the Council of Elvirain
Spain(305 A.D.)
had
prohib-
ited womenfrom
vigils
inthe cemeteries because of the well-knownabuses
accompanying
mourning
rituals.219
215aPG
38:55A-56A=CPG
3038;
PG 35:809c=CPG 3010. Both
Epitaphia
and Oratio8 are cited in
F.J.
Dolger,
"Die
Heiligkeit
des Altars und ihre
Begriindung
imchristilichen
Altertum,"
Antike und Christentum2
(1930),
169-70. I am
grateful
to
my colleague
Prof. MariaGiovanna
Muzj
for
bringing
this reference to
my
attention.
216See The Rudder
(Pedalion),
"marriage"
inthe
index, 1026.
217
One case is St. Theodore of
Sykeon's
retreat inthe side
chapel
of St.
Plato,
a
special
case derived from
the saint's desire formonastic seclusionand
privacy:
Vita
60.8,
ed.
Festugiere,
I, 51; II,
54. And in
787,
Nicaea
II,
canon
18, rules,
understandably,
that womenshould not reside in
(men's)
monasteries or
episcopal
residences:
Joannou, Discipline, II, 276-77.
218Jean
Chrysostome,
Surle sacerdoce
(Dialogue
et
homdlie),
ed. A.-M.
Malingrey,
SC 272
(Paris, 1980),
217.
219Mansi 2:11: "Placuit
prohiberi
ne feminae incoemiterio
pervigilent;
eo
quod saepe
subobtentuora-
tionis latentersceleracommittant." Onfuneral
vigils
and the attendant
abuses,
see
Chrysostom,
De Lazaro
concio, V, 13,
PG
48:1022;
Quasten,
Music and
Worship,
160ff;
Angold,
Church and
Society
in
Byzantium, 453-57;
A.
Karpozilos,
A.
Kazhdan,
N.
Teteriatnikov,
and A.
Cutler, "Funerals," ODB
11:808-9;
M.
Alexiou,
The Ritual
Lament inthe Greek Tradition
(Cambridge, 1974),
24ff.
72
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
Later,
in
Constantinople
from398 until his definitive exile in404,
Chrysostom
wit-
nesses tothe exclusionof womenfrom
attending vigils
there too.
Waxing eloquent
on
the consolations of nocturnal
prayer
inhis
Homily
26 onActs
3-4,
he tells us that on
nights
of
public vigil
the
women,
forbiddento
go
out to
them,
kept
watch at home.220 Palladius'
Dialogue
onthe
Life of
John
Chrysostom
V, 146-49,
also
reports
that attendance at
vigils
in
Chrysostom's
time was restricted tomen:
Chrysostom
told the wives to
stay
at home
and
pray.221
This
stricture,
though
not unknown
elsewhere,222
was not
general.223
Evenin
Byzan-
tiumit seems tohave beena
metropolitanprecaution,
for inthe
provinces things
seem
tohave beenless strict thaninthe
capital.
In
Cappadocia, Gregory
of
Nyssa(d. 394)
describes the
participation
of womenat the
vigil
for the wake of his sister St. Macrinain
379.224 And the vitaof St.
Matrona,
from
Perge
in
Pamphylia
and later abbess inConstan-
tinople
at the end of the fifth
century, says
she
frequented
the
vigils along
with other
pious
women,
despite
the fact that her husband Dometian forbade it.225
Evenin
Constantinople
the
prohibition
was
probably
not observed
consistently.
Twenty-five years
after
Chrysostom
the ill-fated Patriarch Nestorius
(428-431) again
"prohibited and
prevented
womenfrom
assembling
at
night together
with the menfor
prayer
and
singing
the
hymns
and chants."226 Barhadbeabbha
'Arbaia,
inhis
History
21,
tells
why:
in
Constantinople, virgins engaged
inthe service of the church were
guilty
of
promiscuity
at the
vigils (Syriac ZlIs),
soNestorius forbade themtoattend-for which
they
and their
companions
in
revelry
almost stoned him!227
By
the time of Iconoclasm
the exclusionof womenhas
clearly
fallenintodesuetude: ca.
807,
Stephen
the Deacon's
Life of
St.
Stephen
the
Younger, martyred
in
765,
tells how the latter used toattend
night
vigils
with his mother
(cited above, A.II.4).
And St. Thomais of
Lesbos,
amarried
lay-
womani of the first half of the tenth
century
who
spent
most of her life inConstanti-
nople,228
is described inher Vita10 as
moving freely
about the
capital
alone,
day
and
night, visiting
shrines and
participating
in
processions:
220PG 60:201-4. On
Constantinopolitanvigils
in
general,
see R. F.
Taft,
The
Liturgy of
the Hours inEast and
West: The
Origins of
the Divine
Office
and Its
Meaninfor Today,
2nd ed.
(Collegeville,
Minn., 1993),
171-74.
221Palladios,
Dialogue
surlavie
dejeanChrysostome,
ed. A.-M.
Malingrey,
2
vols.,
SC 341-42
(Paris, 1988), I,
124
= PG 47:20.
222
Quasten,
Music and
Worship,
163ff.
223
Forevidence of womenat
vigils,
see
Taft, Hours,
166-87.
224Life of
St. Macrina33: "While we were
busy
with these
[preparations
of the
body
of
Macrina],
and the
psalmody
of the
virgins mingled
with lamentations filled the
place,
the news somehow had
quickly spread
throughout
the whole
surrounding
area,
and all the
neighbors began
to
hurry
there insuch numbers that
the vestibule could not hold them. At dawn
(iopOpo;)
afterthe
all-night vigil (tnavvuXt;) by
her
[bier],
with
hymnody
as at
martyrs' panegyrics,
the crowd that had flocked infromthe whole
surrounding countryside,
both menand
women,
interrupted
the
psalmody
with their
grieving." Gregoire
de
Nysse,
Vie de Sainte Ma-
crine,
ed. P.
Maraval,
SC 178
(Paris, 1971), 246-51;
trans. from
Taft, Hours,
168.
225
Vita
2-3, 8, AASS,
Nov.
3:791,
794
(=
BHG
1221);
"Life of St. Matronaof
Perge,"
trans.
J. Featherstone,
in
Talbot,
Holy Women, 20-21, 27;
I amindebted to
Jeffrey
Featherstone for
bringing
these references to
my
attention.
226E. Goeller, ed.,
"Einnestorianisches Bruchsttick zur
Kirchengeschichte
des 4. und 5. Jahrhunderts,"
OC 1
(1901),
94-95.
227pO
9:528; cf.
Limberis,
Divine
Heiress,
54. There is nobasis forthe
parenthetical gloss
on
vigils-"(repas
pour
les
defunts)"-in
Nau's French translation
(loc. cit.).
Sahrd in
Syriac simply
means
"vigil."
228"Life of St. Thomais of
Lesbos,"
trans. P
Halsall,
in
Talbot,
Holy Women, 291-322;
cf. 291-92 forthe
dates of the saint and of hervita.
73
<Thomais>
constantly
visited the divine churches and most
frequently
attended
<services
at churches> where
all-night hymnody (navvvXoS tvLvt6ia)
toGod was
being performed.
She used to
goregularly
tothe most divine church at Blachernai, and would walk the
whole
way
at
night (6trveKK; ineptjpet VDKTOp Tiv 6XOrlv 686v) sending
forth
hymns
of
supplication
toGod and
entreating
his
all-pure
Mother.229
Thomais,
amiddle-class womannot of the
nobility, may
have had more latitude
because
of her lower social
status,
Halsall
remarks,
"but her excursions intothe streets and
mar-
ketplaces may
alsoreflect the
security
and
stability
of life in
tenth-century
Constanti-
nople."
230
II. "Ritual
Purity"
1. Menstruation
The second restrictionconcerns feminine
hygiene
and "ritual
purity." Only
those
totally
innocent of sociocultural
history
could be
surprised by
this. Inall
premodern
societies,
questions
of
alimentation,
digestion,
elimination,
reproduction,
childbirth,
in-
fant
mortality-in
a
word,
life-death issues of
hygiene,
health, sanitation,
and the survival
of the
species-were automatically religious
concerns too. At atime when other social
structures to
regulate
such issues were
wanting, myth
and ritual
inevitably
filled the
gap.
And since the
stereotypical
role of womenhas
always
beencentral insuch
issues,
fromthe
bearing, nursing,
and
rearing
of
offspring
tofood
preparation,
cleanliness,
and
general
hygiene,
much of the
regulating
of these matters has affected or beeninflicted onwomen
in
particular.
Such
attitudes,
some of them
clearly sex-discriminatory, go
back to
long
before
any-
one ever heard of
Christianity.
We donot
get beyond
the third
chapter
of the Bible
before Adamand Eve are
covering
their
private parts
inembarrassment
(Gen. 3:7),
and
fromthenonwe are off and
running.
A whole
chapter
of Leviticus
(12)
is dedicated to
reproduction
and related
matters,
including
various forms of what was considered fe-
male uncleanness. And if the Levitical view of menstruationas unclean
(Lev. 15:19-30)
receives more attention inour eraof feminist
consciousness,
the fact of the matter is that
all human
bodily
emissions,
voluntary
or
involuntary,
male or
female,
including
male
semen,
were
stigmatized
as unclean
(Lev. 15:1-18),
though
the Hebrew abhorrence of
blood
(Lev. 17:10-16)
made the menses
especially repugnant
tothe
Jews.
These Old Testament strictures were
adopted by
the
early
Christians fromthe
start.231 Not even
Mary's
exalted rank could
dispense
her fromthe demands of ritual
purity,
at least before
becoming
Theotokos: the
mid-second-century apocryphal
Protoe-
vangeliumofJames, VII.2-IX.2,
has
Mary
reside inthe
Temple
from
age
twountil
twelve,
whenthe
priests'
council betroth her to
Joseph
and send her tolive inhis
house,
"Lest
she
pollute
the
sanctuary
of the Lord"
(VIII.2).232
Around
247/8 A.D.,
Dionysius
of Alexandria
(ca. 195-264),
inhis Letter toBasilides
2,
229AASS,
Nov. 4:237
(=
BHG
2454); Halsall,
"Life of St. Thomais," 308-9.
230In
Talbot,
Holy Women, 292.
231The basic
study
is D.
Wendebourg,
"Die alttestamentlichen
Reinheitsgesetze
inder frtihen
Kirche,"
ZKircheng
95
(1984),
149-70.
232M. R.
James,
The
Apocryphal
New Testament
(Oxford, 1926),
42.
74
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
says
menstruating
womenshould not receive communionor evenenter the church
(si;
bTV olcKOV e?iotvat
TO)
0eoi),
because "one whois not
entirely
cleaninsoul and
body
is
forbiddento
approach
the
holy things
or the
Holy
of Holies"
(ei;
6e
TzX a6yta
Kai ta
6yta
Tv
ayticv
6
jO
6vna' Ka0ap ii
t
V9 K-Ka6,pt Tpotvat
KXviA o6
at). 233 Timothy
of
Alexandria
(381 A.D.) repeats
the restrictionon
communion,
and adds that
during
her
period
awomanwas not eventobe
baptized,
"until she is
purified"
(iEc;
av
Ka0apto f),234
arestrictionunderstandable at atime whencandidates were immersed inthe font
naked.235
The
TestamentumDomini
I, 42,
inits list of ascetic
practices
for
widows whoserved at the altar
(see below, D.I.2), prescribes:
"If she is
menstruous,
let
her remaininthe
temple
and not
approach
the
altar,
not because she is
polluted,
but
[so]
that the altar
may
have honor.
Afterwards,
whenshe fasts and
bathes,
let her be
constant
[at
the
altar]."236 Chapter
I, 23,
of the same document excludes themand other
menstruating
womenfromcommunion.237 As
Sperry-White
remarks inhis
commentary,
there is noneed to
postulate
aJudaeo-Christian
provenance
for such texts.238 Old Testa-
ment themes are "rediscovered" and enter Gentile-Christian
writings massively
fromthe
third
century
on.
As we saw above
(A.III.11),
the
twelfth-century Byzantine
canonist Theodore Bal-
samon,
commenting
on
Dionysius
of Alexandria's
ruling just
cited,
confirms the same for
Byzantium:
womeninmenstruationare allowed to
pray
but should not enter the church
proper
or receive communion
(t?;
vaov eo0
ettioval L?Taapav?v
auav TOV a
ya; T-v aytac-
anTov,
oD
6et).239
Eveninconvents
(though
the
place
of nuns intheir ownchurches is
beyond
the
scope
of this
paper), apparently,
some sort of
segregation
was
imposed,
to
judge
fromthe miraculous cure of Blessed Martha
(9th-10th century?), hegumena
of the
233C. L.
Feltoe, ed.,
The Letters and OtherRemains
inof Dionysius of
Alexandria,
Cambridge
Patristic Texts
(Cam-
bridge, 1904),
102-3 annou,
Discipline,
II, 14), 2
(cf. p.
2 fordate and
authenticity).
Cf. F vande
Paverd,
"'Confession'
(exagoreusis)
and 'Penance'
(exomologesis)
inDe
lepra
of Methodius of
Olympus,"
II,
OCP 45
(1979),
51-53.
234Timothy
of
Alexandria,
Canonical
Replies
6-7,
in
Joannou,
Discipline,
II, 243-44, 264
(cf. p.
238 fordate
and
authenticity);
The Rudder
(Pedalion),
718-20.
235See the numerous references to
stripping
at
baptism
inthe
3rd-4th-century
sources:
Apostolic
Tradition
21, inLaTradition
apostolique
de S.
Hippolyte:
Essai de
reconstitution,
ed. B.
Botte,
Liturgiewissenschaftliche
Quel-
lenund
Forschungen
39
(Miinster, 1963), 44-45;
Cyril/John
II of
Jerusalem,
Catechesis
2, 2,
in
Cyrille
de
Jrusalem,
Catchses
mystagogues,
ed. A.
Pidagnel,
trans. P
Paris, 2nd ed.,
SC 26bis
(Paris, 1988), 104-6;
Chrysostom, Baptismal Homily,
II, 11, 24,
in
Jean
Chrysostome,
Huit catecheses
baptismales
inedites,
ed. A.
Wenger,
SC 50bis
(Paris, 1970), 139, 147; idem,
Ep.
1 ad
Innocentium,
line
154,
ed.
Malingrey,
SC
342:84,
cf.
52,
and further
Chrysostom
references inH. M.
Riley,
Christian
Initiation,
Catholic
University
of America
Studies inChristian
Antiquity
17
(Washington,
D.C., 1974), 160-70;
Theodore of
Mopsuestia,
Hom.
14, 8,
ed. R. Tonneauand R.
Devreesse,
Les homelies
catechetiques
de Theodore de
Mopsueste,
ST 145
(VaticanCity,
1949), 401, 417-19; Ambrose,
InPs. 61 enarr.
32,
PL 14:
1180A;
cf. F.
J. Dolger,
DerExorcismus imaltchristlichen
Taufritual:
Eine
religionsgeschichtliche Studie,
StudienzurGeschichte und Kulturdes Altertums 3.1-2
(Pader-
born, 1909), 107-18;
E.
Yarnold,
The
Awe-Inspiring
Rites
of
Initiation:
Baptismal
Homilies
of
the Fourth
Century
(Slough, 1971), 20-21, 74-75, 162,
163 n.
21, 167, 188-89, 194, 265.
236Testamentum
Domini,
ed.
Rahmani, 100;
trans. from
Sperry-White, "Daily Prayer"
(as innote 20
above),
59.
237Sperry-White, "Daily Prayer,"
46.
238Ibid., 60,
against
M.
Arranz,
"Le 'sanctasanctis' dans latradition
liturgique
des
eglises,"
ALw 15
(1973),
60.
239In
epist.
S.
Dionysii
Alexandrini ad Basilidem
episcopum,
canon
2,
PG 138:465c-468A.
75
Theotokos
monastery
in
Monembasia,
as recounted
by
Paul,
bishop
of the same townin
Peloponnesus
(before
Dec.
15,
955-after
959).
Because she was
hemorrhaging,
evendur-
ing
the celebrationof the offices she remained inthe catechumenaof the
monastery
church
(mvV?fpr
ov
azlgoppitv
Kal
86arTv toItawrv aC0ev6eav, ?v
TObtq Kxar)xouD'LeVOt; ?6XO-
kae?v TOi avw5oi5 a'yioi vaoi),
where she was visited and
miraculously
cured
by
St.
John
the
Evangelist
inthe
guise
of an
aged
monk.240
2. Sex
But
questions
of "ritual
purity"
went far
beyond
issues of feminine
hygiene
toinclude
the whole
gamut
of human
sexuality,
female and
male,
alone or in
marriage.241
The
only
male
parallel
tothe
wholly
natural and
guiltless phenomenon
of menstruationwas
involuntary
nocturnal seminal
emission,
considered
"pollution"
and cause for exclusion
of
laymen
and
clergy
fromcommunion
(but
not from
attending
church,
as with the
womenin
menstruation)
and
clergy
from
celebrating
the eucharist.242 As for sexual rela-
tions,
the issue was marital sexual
relations,
of
course,
since
any
other kind were
simply
anathemaand
beyond
discussion.243
These
attitudes, too,
have roots
deep
inhuman
religiosity long
before the Christian
era. InExod.
19:15,
Moses onSinai
prepares
the Chosen
People
tomeet God inthree
days
with the
peremptory
command: "Donot
go
near awoman"
(cf.
also1 Sam.
[=
LXX
1
Kings] 21:4-6).
Far from
being aJudaeo-Christianspecialty,
the same taboos
prevailed
inGraeco-Roman
paganism,
as reflected inthe devotional
practices
attributed tothe
pagan
Roman
emperor
Severus Alexander
by
the Historia
Augusta,
Alexander Severus
29,
2: "His manner of
living
was as follows: First of
all,
if it were
permissible,
that is to
say, if
he had not lainwith his
wife,
inthe
early morning
hours,
he would
worship
inthe
sanctuary
of his
Lares,
inwhich he
kept
statues of the deified
emperors."
244
Such attitudes were of course not
foreign
toChristians in
Byzantium
and
beyond.
Around 341
A.D., canon4 of the Council of
Gangra((ankinr,
105 kmnortheast of An-
kara),
capital city
of the
province
of
Paphlagoniaon
the northerncoast of Asia
Minor,
has toanathematize those whorefuse tocommunicate at aeucharist celebrated
by
a
married
priest245-this
at atime and
place
wheneven
bishops
were still married: recall
that the father of
Gregory
Nazianzen
(ca. 330-390),
alsoa
Gregory,
had been
bishop
of
Nazianzus in
Cappadocia(329-374).
Not far
away
there were
strong
currents
favoring
celibacy
insome strains of
early Syriac Christianity.246
SocertainChristianattitudes-in
this
early
case,
fallout fromthe extreme asceticismfostered
by
the
teaching
of Eustathius
40
Wortley,
Recits, 14/XVI.1-3,
pp.
110- 13.
241
Onthe entire
question,
see P
Brown,
The
Body
and
Society: Men, Women,
and Sexual Renunciationin
Early
Christianity,
Lectures onthe
History
of
Religions
13
(New York, 1988).
242See,
e.g.,
Basil the Great
(d. 379), Regulae
brevius tractatae
309,
PG
31:1301c-1303A;
5th-century Syriac
TestamentumDomini
1.23,
ed.
Rahmani, 46;
othersources invande
Paverd,
"'Confession' and
'Penance,"'
52-53.
243For
Byzantium,
see
Laiou, "Sex, Consent,
and
Coercion," 130-32.
244E. Hohl, ed.,
Scriptores
Historiae
Augustae,
I,
Bibliotheca
Scriptorum
Graecorumet RomanorumTeub-
neriana
(Leipzig, 1965),
272-73: "usuvivendi eidemhic fuit:
primum
ut,
si facultas
esset,
id est si noncum
uxore
cubuisset,
matutinis horis inlar<ar>io
suo,
in
quo
et divos
principes
... habebat ac maiorum
effigies,
remdivinam
faciebat";
English trans.,
D.
Magie,
The
Scriptores
Historiae
Augustae,
II,
Loeb
(London, 1924),
235
(emphasis added).
245Joannou, Discipline,
1.2:91. A small
gathering
of thirteen
bishops,
the
synod promulgated twenty
canons.
246G.
Nedungatt,
"The Covenanters of the
Early Syriac-Speaking
Church," OCP 39
(1973), 191-215,
419-44.
76
ROBERT
E TAFT,
S.J.
of Sebaste
(ca.
300-d. after
377)247-far
from
being always
the result of official church
policy,
were
prejudices
the church was at
pains
tocontrol. Infact, orthodox
Christianity,
though unalterably opposed
toextramarital
sex,
and at times
only grudging
inits
accep-
tance of its marital
exercise,
consistently
defended the
sanctity
of the married sexual
union
against
all comers of the dualist and
spiritualist camps.
Nevertheless,
negative
attitudes toward sex evenin
marriage
continued toafflict
Byz-
antine Christians too.248 Marital relations on
Sunday
defiled the Lord's
Day.249 Early
can-
ons exclude
spouses
fromthe sacrament if
they
had had
intercourse the
night
before,250
arule that had
passed
into
Byzantine legislationby
the time of the Council of Trulloin
692: canon13
requires
continence of the
clergy
the eve of a
day they
are toofficiate at
the
altar,
"for those
approaching
the altar whenthe
holy gifts
are handled must be
wholly
continent
(,yKpaze^t
etvat
?
v
aotv),
that
they may
obtain what
they
ask
sincerely
of
God." 251
The rule of continence before communionalso
applied
tothe
laity,
as we see inthe
synodal response
of
September
1168 that married
people
should abstainfromsexual
intercourse for three
days
before
going
to
communion,
and-astonishingly-even
re-
maincontinent the
day
of their
marriage,
under
penalty
of canonical sanctions.252 On
the outskirts of the
empire
this sort of
thing
could evolve intosome
surprising
views,
as well as
provoke, by way
of
reaction,
adose of commonsense. Inthe
Bbnpauwalue
KwopuKoeo,
or
Kirik'
Inquiry,
aseries of moral "casus conscientiae"
posed by
Hieromonk
Kirik
to
Bishop
Nifont of
Novgorod (1131-56),
the
bishop
ridicules Kirik for
asking
if
marital intercourse
during
Lent bars one fromcommunion. And he
shrugs
off the
ques-
tionof sexual relations betweentwo
girls
with the
startling
comment,
"Better than
doing
it with aman." But eventhis in
many ways astonishingly
"liberal" document deals
nega-
tively
with issues of female "uncleanliness."253
Needless to
say,
there is
nothing peculiarly
"oriental" or
"Byzantine"
about
any
of
this.254 Inthe
West,
analogous
restrictions were once found in
any
traditional Latinman-
247Cf.
J.
Gribomont,
"Eustathe de
Sebaste,"
DSp
4.2:1708-12,
and DHGE
16:26-33; idem,
"Le monach-
isme auIVe s. enAsie Mineure: De
Gangres
au
messalianisme," Studia
Patristica
2,
TU 64
(Berlin, 1957),
400-415; idem,
"S. Basile et le monachisme
enthousiaste,"
Irenikon
53
(1980),
123-44.
248See
P.
Viscuso,
"Purity
and Sexual Defilement inLate
Byzantine Theology,"
OCP 57
(1991),
399-408.
249Ryden, Life of
St. Andrew the
Fool, II,
lines 2869-92.
250Timothy
of Alexandria
(381 A.D.), Canonical
Replies
5,
in
II, 242-43.
251Nedungatt
and
84-87
(trans. modified).
252RegPatr
1083;
cf.
Viscuso,
"Purity."
See alsonote 260 below.
253Cited
extensively
in
J.
Fennell,
A
History of
the RussianChurch to1448
(London-New York, 1995), 74-76,
from
HaMHmnuuKupeHee-pyccKozocKanoHuuecKazo
npaea, part I:
H1aMi
mHuKuXI-XII
s., 2nd ed., Bonpocbl
KupuKa,
Caeebl u
Hsuu,
c omeemaMu
Hu6fonma,
enuccona
noesopoacKaeo,
u
Opyzux uepapxuueccux uiut,
1130-
1156
e.,
PyccKaq
HcTOpnHIecKaa
BH6JiHOTeKa
6
(St.
Petersburg, 1908),
21-62. Onthe same
topic,
see E.
Levin,
Sex and
Society
inthe World
of
the Orthodox
Slavs, 900-1700
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1989), esp.
163-72, 250-60.
254On
sexuality
in
Byzantium,
see
J. Herrin,
"Sexuality,"
ODB
III:1185
and the references
giventhere;
L.
Garland,
"'Be
Amorous
but Be Chaste
...
': Sexual
Morality
in
Byzantine
Learned and VernacularRo-
mance,"
BMGS 14
(1990), 62-120;
A.
Kazhdan,
"Byzantine Hagiography
and Sex inthe Fifth toTwelfth
Centuries,"
DOP 44
(1990),
131-43. The much-discussed book of
J.
Boswell,
Same-Sex Unions inPremodern
Europe (New York, 1994), esp.
162ff, 199ff,
alsodeals with issues of
sexuality
in
Byzantium,
since
Byzantine
Orthodox rituals of "brotherhood"
(da68eo07orlot;)
and
"adoption" (TeKvooir(loT;)
formthe backbone of his
argument.
I find
Boswell's study
tendentious and
inadequate,
both in
argument
and inits translations from
the Greek.
Cf.
my
remarks inNewsweek
(June
20, 1994), 76-77;
the review of B. D.
Shaw,
"A Groomof One's
Own? The Medieval Church and the
Question
of
Gay Marriage,"
New
Republic (July
18 and
25, 1994), 33-41;
and the
ensuing
discussionibid.
(October3, 1994),
39-41. These
rituals,
which the U.S.
press breathlessly
77
ual
of moral
theology.
And inthe time of
Gregory
of Tours
(d. 594), early Merovingian
superstition
held that
spouses
who
engaged
insexual intercourse on
Sundays
would
be-
get
deformed
progeny.255
Inthe case of married Christian
clergy,
matrimonial relations were
complicated by
the
requirement
of sexual abstinence onthe
day preceding
the celebrationof the
lit-
urgy.256
We find
it,
for
instance,
as
early
as
692,
incanon 13 of Trullo.257 It
reappears
in
the so-called Constitutiones ecclesiasticae
156,
acanonical
anthology
of doubtful
authorship
attributed toPatriarch
Nicephorus
I
(806-815).258
Canon7 of the Nomocanonof
Manuel
Malaxos259 included inthe collectionreads: "It is not
necessary
that a
priest
celebrate the
liturgy
each
day (iepoupy6iv KaO' s?KaoTrV).
For it is suitable that a
priest
not celebrate on
a
day
of unionwith his wife. Let a
priest perform
the
unbloody
sacrifice
only
onthose
days
whenhe
completely
abstains from
worldly
sexual intercourse with his
wife,
for thus
the canons of the
Holy
Fathers wish."260 The text
goes
ontocite as its authorities Exod.
19:15 and 1 Sam.
[=
LXX
1
Kings]
21:4-6.
This abstinence frommarital
relations,
which Matthew Blastares
(1335 A.D.)
extends
for three
days,261
was codified inthe
very
first rubric of the diataxis of Philotheus Kok-
kinos,
anAthonite rubric book
composed
while
Philotheus,
later
patriarch
of Constanti-
nople (1353-54, 1364-76),
was still
hegumen
of the Great LavraonMount
Athos,
as the
incipit
of the text itself informs us-thus before he become
bishop
of Heracleain1347:
M_XXov
6
i?ep?ei;
Tiv Oeiav EmTe?ie1iv jR.(T-
The
priest
whois
going
tocelebrate the
traycyiav
6e,
itxei
.
i.
. T
KapGiav
or6n
)- Divine
Liturgy
should .. .
keep
his heart
va;lS
anso7ovrpcv
ri al
rlpatnXoytogv,
ny-
free of
impure thoughts
as far as
possible,
KpaTemar
aai T
aiKpt
v
ab' ieancpaq
Kat remaincontinent
from
the
evening before,
and
eyp"ryopevat
gexpt tot
TiS;
iepovpyias
be
vigilant
until the time of the divine
Katpo,.262 service.
acclaimed as
shocking
"discoveries,"
are old hat to
anyone
even
superficially acquainted
with the
Byzantine
ritual and its relevant literature:
cf.,
for
example,
the standard handbook
by
P. de
Meester,
Liturgiabizantina,
book
2,
part
6:
Rituale-benedizionale bizantino
(Rome, 1929),
357-71.
255Gregory
of
Tours,
Libri octomiraculorum: Liberde virtutibus sancti Martini
episcopi,
II, 24,
ed. B.
Krusch,
MGH,
ScriptRerMerov,
I
(Hannover, 1885), 617; cf. I. N.
Wood,
"Early Merovingian
DevotioninTownand
Country,"
inThe Church inTownand
Countryside,
ed. D.
Baker,
Studies inChurch
History
16
(Oxford, 1979),
62-63.
256Viscuso,
"Purity,"
403-4.
257Nedungatt
and
85-86.
258Cf. H. G.
Beck,
Kirche und
theologische
Literaturim
byzantinischenReich,
Handbuch derAltertumswis-
senschaft
12,
Byzantinisches Handbuch,
I
(Munich, 1959),
490.
259Cf.
ibid.,
147.
260J. P.
Pitra, ed.,
SpicilegiumSolesmense,
4 vols.
(Paris, 1852-58;
repr.
Graz, 1963),
4:413-14. Norwas this
an
exclusively
clerical
regulation.
Canon6 of the
Quaestiones
et
responsa
inthe same
collection, ? 145,
imposes
onthe married
laity
abstinence on
Saturdays
and
Sundays,
soas "toofferthemselves toGod
spiritual
sacri-
fices"-doubtless, because those were the traditional
days
of eucharistic celebration
(ibid., 410-11);
and
Nomocanon18
says
womenshould not communicate
during
their
period (PG 104:1054).
Similarsexual taboos
are found inthe TestamentumDomini
1.23,
ed.
Rahmani,
46-47.
261Viscuso, "Purity,"
414.
262The
best editionis P. N.
Trempelas,
Ai
TpeiS Aevrovpyfia
Kaca
TooS;
Ev
'A9Ovaot;
KcOitIKa;,
Texte und
Forschungen
zur
byzantinisch-neugriechischen Philologie
15
(Athens, 1935), 1-16,
here 1. OnPhilotheus'
diataxis (and
ondiataxeis in
general),
see R.
F Taft,
"Mount Athos: A Late
Chapter
inthe
History
of the
'Byzantine Rite,"'
DOP 42
(1988), 192-94; idem,
Great
Entrance, xxxv-viii; idem,
Byzantine Rite,
81-83.
78
ROBERT F TAFT,
S.J.
FromPhilotheus' diataxis the rubric made its
way
intothe
printed euchologies
viathe
1526 editio
princeps
of Demetrios
Doukas,
where it
(or
some variant of
it)
remains to
this
day.
Such sexual
taboos,
reflecting age-old pre-Christian
notions of
sexuality
and ritual
purity,
confirmonce
again
what I said at the
beginning
of this
paper:
that
religion
and
sex have
always
beenintertwined as
major
drives of humankind and as twoof the most
important components
of humanculture and
history.
3. The Rite
of "Churching"
Negative
attitudes toward sex and feminine
hygiene perdured
well into
"Byzance
apres Byzance,"263
even
affecting
church ritual.264 One later refinement concerns the
"churching"
or
"purification"
of amother fromher "uncleanness"
forty days
after child-
birth.265
Though
the later
(but
not the
earliest)266
ritual contains a
petition
to
"purify [the
mother]
of all uncleanness"
(Kacaptoov
...
ainonavToS pirno),267
my colleague
Arranz has
shownthat the
original
intent of the
fortieth-day
ceremonial inthe
pre-iconoclast
rite
concerned the
"churching"
not of the mother but of the newbornchild.268 The later ritual
is derived fromthe Purificationof
Mary
inLuke 2:22-39 as
prescribed
inthe Mosaic
Law
(Lev. 12:2-8;
cf. Exod.
13:2, 12).
Note alsothat the earliest
manuscripts
of the rite
donot
preclude
the introduction of afemale child intothe
sanctuary during
the
"churching,"
as does the later ritual.269
D. WHY?
One must resist the
impulse
to
presume
that womenwere treated as
they
were in
church
simply
because of the
systematic relegation
of womentosecond
place
inthe male-
dominated culture of the times.270 While such discriminationwas of course
operative,
it
was
by
nomeans the
only
factor,
nor even
always
the mainone.
What, then,
were some of the other reasons for the
place assigned
towomeninthe
Byzantine
church? I would
identify
three
principal
ones,
all related:
order,
or
T4tS;,
deco-
rum,
and
security.
L.
Tdtl
Inlate
antiquity-indeed,
until after World War II-our
contemporary
western
youth-culture
casualness and
breezy informality
would have beenan
unimaginable
af-
front to
accepted
mores. The
very
first witness tothe
eucharist,
St. Paul in
1
Cor. 11:17-
263See,
for
example,
Viscuso,
"Purity."
264Levin,
Sex and
Society,
169-72.
265See the new
study by
S.
Roll,
"The
Churching
of WomenafterChildbirth: AnOld Rite
Raising
New
Issues,"
Questions
liturgiques
76
(1995), 206-29,
though
there is not much oneasternor
Byzantine
sources.
266Cf.
8th-century
Barberini
gr.
336,
inParenti and Velkovska, Barberini
gr. 336,
?
113.2; Arranz,
"Sacre-
ments
I," 3:292.
267Goar, Ezo.6ooytov,
267. The
prayerappears
inthe earliest codices:
ibid., 269-71: Parenti and
Velkovska,
Barberini
gr. 336, ? 113.2;
G.
Passarelli,
L'eucologioCryptense
Fp
VII
(sec. X),
AnalektaVlatadon36
(Thessalonike,
1982),
??
128, 178;
cf.
Arranz, "Sacrements I," 3:292-301.
268Onthe whole
question,
see
Arranz, "Sacrements I,"
2:44-45, 89-90; 3:292-301.
269Compare
Goar, EDXoM6ytov, 268-69; Arranz,
"Sacrements
I," 3:293-94 and n. 10.
270See references innote
1,
esp. Beaucamp,
Le statut de
lafemme
t
Byzance.
79
34,
is
preoccupied
not with doctrine but with order. It was
equally
aconcernof
Clement
of Rome
during
the last decade of the first
century.
His First Letter tothe
Corinthians, the
earliest Christiandocument touse the terms
rat;5
and
"laity" (XaiKO6;) (40:5),
exhorts
all
tostrive tobe
pleasing
toGod "each
according
tohis ownrank"
(KaCaXTo; ?V
rt i6fti
,ra
ct) (41:1).271
Canon18 of the first ecumenical
council,
NicaeaI in325 A.D., is
also
about
order,
forbidding
deacons to
give
communionto
presbyters,
as was
customary
in
some
places
like
Alexandria,
or toreceive the sacrament before the
bishops
and
pres-
byters.272
Hence not
every
restrictionof access or limitationof
place
inchurch anbe inter-
preted
as
gender-discriminating.
Such
prohibitions
were
general:
canon69 of Trulloex-
plicitly
forbids not
just
womenbut all the
laity
toenter the
sanctuary.273
To
subject
such
ordinances toa
critique
that
might
be
"politically
correct" in
today's
terms would be
anachronistic inthe framework of the culture we are
trying
tounderstand.
So
Taft;,
"a
place
for
everyone
and
everyone
in
his/her
place,"
was arule of thumb
noone would have
imagined challenging
inthe culture with which we are
dealing.
Lest
we be
tempted
tothink this is an
anachronism,
ask
anyone
familiar with the intricate
minuet that
protocol
officers must still
gothrough
in
arranging precedence
in
diplomatic
or ecumenical
meetings today.
1.
The
Apostolic
Constitutions
(ca. 380)
By
the third tofourth
century
this concernfor order is formulated inanew Christian
literary genre appropriately
entitled "church orders."274 The
longest
of
them,
fromthe
region
of
Antioch ca.
380,
the
Apostolic
Constitutions
II, 57:2-4, 10-13,
compares
the
church toawell-ordered
ship
inwhich
everyone
has afixed
place,
"the women
sepa-
rately,"
of
course,
according
to
age
and
status,
with
separate places
for married
women,
elderly
womenand
widows,
young
womenand
virgins.
And "if
anyone
be found
sitting
out of
place,
let himbe rebuked
by
the deacon.. . and removed tohis
proper place."275
Similarly,
book
VIII, 13:14,
establishes afixed order for communionand
gives
detailed
instructions for its execution.276
2. The TestamentumDomini
(5th
century)
The
TestamentumDomini
I, 23,
enjoins
a
similarly
detailed order
of
precedence
at communion: "Let the
clergy
receive
first,
inthe
following
order: the
bishop,
thenthe
presbyters,
after themthe
deacons,
next the
widows,
thenthe readers,
271Clement
de
Rome,
Epitre
aux Corinthiens,
ed. A.
Jaubert,
SC 167
(Paris, 1971),
166-67.
272Joannou, Discipline,
1.1:39-40;
N. P
Tanner, ed.,
Decrees
of
the Ecumenical
Councils, 2 vols.
(London-
Washington,
D.C., 1990), I,
14-16.
273Nedungatt
and
151. The same canonmakes an
exception
forthe
emperor
who
could enterthe
sanctuary
when
making
his
offering (see
D.I.3
below),
an
exception
later
Byzantine
sources
will maintain:
e.g.,
Nicetas Stethatos of Stoudios
(d.
ca.
1090), Ep.
8, 3,
inNicetas
Stethatos,
Opuscules
et
lettres,
ed.
J. Darrouzes,
SC 81
(Paris, 1961), 282-85; cf.
Cabasilas,
Commentary
24.2,
inNicolas Cabasilas, Explication
de laDivine
Liturgie,
trans. and notes
by
S.
Salaville, 2nd ed. with the Greek
text,
reviewed and
augmented
by
R.
Bornert,
J. Gouillard,
and
P. P6richon,
SC 4bis
(Paris, 1967),
162-63.
2740n
this
genre,
see most
recently
B.
Steiner,
Vertex Traditionis: Die
Gattung
deraltchristlichenKirchenord-
nungen,
Beihefte zurZNW 63
(Berlin-New York, 1992).
275SC 320:310-17; translation
adapted
fromThe Ante-Nicene
Fathers,
ed. A. Roberts and
J.
Donaldson
(Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1969-),
7:421. Cf. alsobook
II, 58:1, 5-6,
SC 320:320-23.
276SC 336:208-10.
80
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
thenthe
subdeacons,
and
finally
those with
special
charisms and the
newly baptized
and
the
boys.
The
people,
however, [receive]
inthis order: the
elderly
men,
the
celibates, then
the rest. From
among
the
women,
first the
deaconesses,
thenthe
others."277
3. Ambrose and Theodosius I
(390 A.D.)
The
assignment
of
places
inchurch evidenced fromthese
early
church orders is but
one more
symptom
of the concernfor
good
order socharacteristic of late
antique
culture
in
general,
and
hence,
inevitably,
of matters ecclesiastical too. Not eventhe
emperor
was
exempt
fromthis
discipline,
as we see inthe
oft-repeated story
of St. Ambrose
(d. 397),
bishop
of
Milan,
and
Emperor
Theodosius I
(379-395)
as told
by
Theodoret
(ca.
393-ca.
466),
bishop
of
Cyrrhus
from
423,
inhis Church
History
V, 18.19-23,
writtenbetween444
and 450. The scene takes
place during
the
liturgy
of Theodosius' restorationtocommu-
nionafter Ambrose had excommunicated himand forced himtodo
penance
for the
massacre of Thessalonike in390:
Whenthe moment had come tooffer the
gifts
at the
holy
altar ...
[Theodosius]
rose and
ented [the
sanctuary].
After
offering,
however,
he
s,stayed
inside
[the
sanctuary], by
the
chancel,
as he was wont todo
[in
Constantinople].
But
again
the
great
Ambrose did not
remain
silent,
but
taught
himthe distinctionof
places.
First he asked himif he wantedhi t
something.
But whenthe
emperor
said he was
aiting
for communioninthe
holy mys-
teries,
Ambrose sent word tohim
by
the head deaconthat "The
interior,
0
emperor,
is
open
tothe
priests
alone. Toall others it is closed and inaccessible. Go
out, therefore,
and take
your place
with the others. For the
purple
makes
emperors,
not
priests."
This
advice, too,
the most faithful
emperor
received
gladly, indicating
in
reply
that he had
remained withinthe chancel not from
presumption,
but because he learned this custom
in
Constantinople....
On
returning
to
Constantinople,
Theodosius
kept
withinthe
bounds of
piety
he had learnt fromthe
great bishop.
For whenadivine feast
brought
himonce
again
intothe divine
temple,
after
offering
his
gifts
at the
holy
altar he went
out forthwith. But the head
bishop
of the church
(at
that time it was
Nectarius)
remon-
strated,
"Why
didn't
youstay
inside
[the
sanctuary]?"278
Soin
Constantinople
the
emperor
used toremaininthe
sanctuary
fromthe moment
he offered his
gifts
at the altar until
communion,
that
is,
during
the entire
liturgy.
For in
the rite of the Great Church the
emperor
offered his
gifts
at the altar
during
the Introit
at the
beginning
of the service.279
According
tothe Milanese
usage,
the
emperor
offered
his
gifts
at the altar but did not remainthere until
communion,
as Theodosius learned
the hard
way.
That the latter was the customat
Constantinople
is confirmed
by
the reac-
tionof Patriarch Nectarius
(381-397),
whomTheodosius
surprised by introducing
the
usage
of Milan
upon
his returnto
Constantinople.
Fromthenonthe Ambrosianrule was
observed inthe Great Church
too,
as another
fifth-century Byzantine
historian,
Sozo-
men,
informs us inhis account of the same incident.280
277
Testamentum
Domini,
ed.
Rahmani,
46-47.
278Theodoret,
Kirchengeschichte,
ed. L.
Parmentier,
GCS 44
(Leipzig, 1911),
312.13-313.11
=
PG
82:1236c-37B. Onthis
story
and its
liturgical implications,
see also
Taft,
Great
Entrance, 26-28.
279De cerim.
I, 1, 9, 10, 32
(23),
35
(26),
39
(30),
44
(35): Vogt
I, 10-13, 58-60, 69, 122-23, 134-35, 154-55,
170;
cf.
Mathews,
Early Churches, 146-47; Taft,
Great
Entrance,
30. See alsonote 273 above.
280Hist. eccles. VII, 25.5-13: "It was the customforthe
emperors
toattend church services
(nKKnXrot4ettv)
inthe
sanctuary (?v
rTO
iEpaueiq)) separately, beyond
the barrierset forthe rest of the
people. Considering
this custom
flattery
or
indiscipline,
he
[Ambrose]
caused the
place
of the
emperors
inthe churches tobe
81
II. Decorumand
Security
Apart
fromthe fact that insome cultures and
periods
it was not
socially acceptable
for the sexes to
mingle freely,
aconcern for decorumin
rough-and-tumble
late
antiquity
was doubtless afurther motive for their
separation
inchurch. The admonitionof
Apostolic
Constitutions
VIII, 13:14,
toavoid all commotionat
communion,
approaching
"inorder
(Katrar4tv),
with
respect
and
piety,
and without disturbance
(ave? Oopipo)u),"281
is not to
be taken
lightly.
Inlate
antiquity, comportment
inchurch left more thanalittle tobe
desired,
and
discipline
and decorumwere insisted onwith reason.
Chrysostom's
De
baptismo
Christi 4
depicts
the distribution of communion inAntioch as
very rough
and
tumble: "We don't
approach
with awe but
kicking, striking,
filled with
anger, shoving
our
neighbors,
full of disorder."282 Insuch
circumstances,
having
menand women receive
communion
separately
was based onmore than
gender
discrimination.
The fact that
baptism
was administered toadult
neophytes
stark naked was anobvi-
ous reasonfor
keeping
the sexes
apart
at
baptism.283
The kiss of
peace provided
afurther
motive. As I have shown
elsewhere,
normally
women inchurch in
Byzantium
did not
exchange
the kiss with members of the
opposite
sex,
for
equally
obvious reasons.284 This
was true evenof the
imperial party,
as we see inDe cerimoniis
I,
9.285
Security, though admittedly involving
acertain
paternalistic
care that
placed
women
and children onmore or less the same
level,
was another real
preoccupation
that recom-
mended the
separation
of menand women. For
anyone
whoreads the documents instead
of
being
mesmerized
by
the romantic
myth
of the "Golden
Age
of Patristic
Liturgy,"
it is
not hard to
imagine why
it was not
prudent
for
respectable
women to
mingle
with the
menin
public
assemblies,
or tobe out at
night
ina
metropolis
like Antioch or Constanti-
nople.
In
379,
the
largely
Arian
citizenry
of the
capital
stoned the Orthodox
bishop, Gregory
Nazianzen,
during
the Easter
Vigil
inthe Anastasia church of the
Orthodox,
an
outrage
inwhich eventhe
virgins
and monks took
part.286
A few
years
later,
Chrysostom's Homily
onthe
Martyrs,
preached
inAntioch before
398,
testifies tothe fact that his flock tended
placed
before the
sanctuary
rails
(ipod
T,v
5pu&KTci
v ToD
iepateiou)),
sothat he held the
place
of
precedence
infront of the
people,
but the
priests
held
precedence
overhim. The
emperor
Theodosius
approved
of this
excellent
tradition,
as did his
successors,
and we see that it has beenobserved fromthenuntil now"
(GCS
50:340 = PG
67:1496B-97A).
This is confirmed
by
the
Byzantine imperial
ceremonials: after
offering
their
gifts
the
sovereigns
leave the
sanctuary
and assist at the
liturgy
fromthe
metatorion,
though
insome of the
latersources
they
enterthe
sanctuary again
toreceive communion. Onthe whole
question
see
my
"Excursus
to
Chapter
X: The
Emperor's
Communion,"
in
Taft,
Communionand Final Rites.
281SC 336:208-10.
282PG 49:371
(=
CPG
4335);
cf. also
idem,
Indiemnatalem
7,
PG 49:360-61
(=
CPG
4334).
283 See note 235 above.
284Taft,
Great
Entrance, 389-92; Featherstone,
"Life of St.
Matrona," 26,
chap.
7.
See, however,
a
contrary
witness inthe "Life of St.
Mary
of
Egypt,"
35,
trans.
Kouli,
90:
"according
tocustomshe
gave
the monk
[Zosimas]
the kiss of love onhis mouth."
285Vogt
I, 56-57, 60-62.
286Gregory
Nazianzen,
Ep.
77, 1-3,
inSaint
Gregoire
de
Nazianze, Lettres,
ed. P.
Gallay,
2 vols., Collection
des Universites de France
(Paris, 1964, 1967), I,
95 =
Gregor
von
Nazianz,
Briefe,
ed. P.
Gallay,
GCS 51
(Berlin, 1969),
66 = PG
37:141-44; idem, Carmende
seipso
1, 660ff,
PG 37:1074-75
(=
CPG
3036);
cf.
Dagron,
"Les
moines," 262. The monks of
Constantinople
were atroublesome lot: cf.
J.
N. D.
Kelly,
GoldenMouth:
The
Story ofJohnChrysostom-Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop (London, 1995),
123-24.
82
ROBERT F
TAFT, S.J.
toconclude their
pious all-night vigils
with
carousing
inthe taverns. The scene describes
a
typical
late
antique all-night
cathedral
vigil
concluded
by
a
morning
eucharist:287
Youhave turned the
night
into
day by
means of
holy vigils (6ta
Tov
cavvuX%itcv
Tov
iepCov).
Don't
change day
into
night
with
intemperance
and
gluttony
... and lascivious
songs.
Youhonored the
martyrs by your presence [inchurch], by hearing [the lessons]
... honor themalso
by going
home.... Think how ridiculous it is after such
gatherings,
after solemn
vigils,
after the
reading
of Sacred
Scripture,
after
participating
inthe
Holy
Mysteries
... that menand womenare seen
passing
the whole
day
inthe taverns.288
Thenas
now,
inEast and
West,
alcohol made the
nights
less thansafe for those inter-
ested in
staying
out of trouble. Ambrose inMilan
(339-397),289 Augustine (d. 430)
in
North
Africa,290
and
Caesarius,
bishop
of Arles
(503-542)
insouthern
Gaul,291
all witness
tothe bibulous
vigils
of their flocks
(according
to
Caesarius,
Sermo
55, 4-5,
eventhe
clergy
took their
draughts).
Alcohol abuse onfeast
days
was such a
problem
inLatinNorth
Africa292 that
Augustine
had toadmonish the
newly baptized
children not toshow
up
drunk at
vespers
Easter
evening.293
His
congregation,
he tells
them,
seems like "afew
grains
of wheat"
among
the chaff of
"many
thieves, drunkards,
blasphemers,
and theater-
goers."294
Basil the Great
(d. 379)295
and Caesarius296 are
among many
other
bishops
of
late
antiquity
who
complain
that even
during
the
holy
seasonof Lent their flocks
passed
the
night
in
pleasures quite
other than
thepannychis.
In
Constantinople,
Barhadbesabbha
'Arbaia,
in
History
21,
recounts how Patriarch Nestorius had totake measures
against
eventhe monks of
Constantinople carousing
intaverns.297
Things
were not much better ine
daylight.
Ca. 501
Zosimus,
New
History
V, 23,
recounts
what
Dagron
calls
Constantinople's
own"St. Bartholomew's Massacre" in
403,298
during
the troubles in
Constantinople surrounding Chrysostom,
whenthe monks
occupied
the
Great Church. "This
enraged
the commoners and
soldiers, who,
anxious tohumble the
monks'
insolence,
went out whenthe
signal
was
given,
and
violently
and
indiscriminately
killed them
all,
until the church was filled with bodies."299 For
women,
aworst-case sce-
nariois recounted
by
Sozomen,
Church
History
VII, 16.8,
which details the
uproar
caused
in
Constantinople
whenawomanwas
raped
inchurch
by
adeacon.300
287 On
vigils
inlate
antiquity,
see
Taft, Hours,
165-90.
288PG 50:663-64
(=
CPG
4359);
trans.
Taft, Hours,
170.
289De Heliaet ieiunio62,
CSEL 32.2:448-49
=
PL 14:719AB.
290Confessions VI.2:2,
CSEL 33:114-16.
291Sermo 55, 1-5,
CCSL 103:241-44
=
SC 243:476-85. The best work onCaesarius and the
liturgy
is K.
Berg,
Cdsarius vonAries:
Ein
Bischof
des sechsten
Jahrhunderts
erschliefit
das
liturgische
Lebenseiner
Zeit,
Friihes
Christentum,
Forschungen
und
Perspektiven
1
(Thaur, 1994).
292Cf. Sermo
252, 4,
PL
38:1174;
In
ep. Joh.
tract.
4, 4,
PL 35:2007.
293Sermo
225, 4,
PL 38:1018.
294Sermo
252, 4,
PL 38:1174.
29Homily
14 on
Drunkards, 1,
PG 31:444 45.
296Sermo
6, 2-3,
CCSL 103:31-32.
297po9:528-29.
298Dagron,
"Les
moines," 264-65.
299Zosimus, Historianova,
ed. I.
Bekker,
CSHB
(Bonn, 1837),
278-79
=
L. Mendelssohn
(Leipzig, 1887),
244-45;
English
fromNew
History,
translated with a
commentary by
R. T.
Ridley, Byzantina
Australiensia2
(Canberra, 1982),
111.
300GCS
50:323
=
PG 67:1461B.
Socrates,
Hist. eccles. V,
19.5-10,
gives
avariant versionof the same inci-
dent:
GCS, n.s., 1:293-94
=
PG 67:616-20A.
83
Evenwhen
things
were not
violent,
they
were
hardly orderly.301 Chrysostom
inCon-
stantinople (398-404)
accuses his
congregation
of
roaming
around
during
church ser-
vices;302
of either
ignoring
the
preacher303
or
pushing
and
shoving
tohear him
(above,
A.II.
1),
whennot bored or
downright exasperated
with
him;304
of
talking, especially
dur-
ing
the
Scripture
lessons;305
leaving
before the services are
over;306 and,
in
general,
caus-
ing
an
uproar
and
acting (the
words are
Chrysostom's)
as if
they
were inthe forumor
barbershop-or
worse
still,
inatavernor whorehouse.307 The womencause distractions
(even
for the
ministering clergy)308 by
the
way they
deck themselves out in
finery,
makeup,
and
jewelry.309
The
youth,
whom
Chrysostom
calls "filth
(KaOdparta)
rather
than
youth," spend
their time inchurch
laughing, joking,
and
talking.310
The
large
crowd
at the Easter
Vigil
is more amobthana
congregation. They
come tochurch like
they go
tothe baths or the
forum,
without devotionor
spiritual profit.
"It would be better to
stay
at
home,"
Chrysostom
concludes.311
301Tobe
fair,
of
course,
one cancite othertexts inwhich the church fathers
praise
the
people
fortheir
devotionand
participation
inchurch services: several
examples
inT. K.
Carroll,
Preaching
the
Word,
Message
of the Fathers of the Church 11
(Wilmington,
Del., 1984), esp. chap.
3. Onthis and other
questions
concern-
ing preaching
inthis
period,
the best
study,
with extensive
bibliography,
is
Olivar, Predicacion,
esp. chap.
9
and,
concerning Chrysostom
and his
hearers,
774-76. Cf.
idem,
"La
duraci6n
de la
predicaci6nantigua,"
Liturgica3, Scripta
et documenta 17
(Montserrat, 1966), 143-84;
R. E
Taft, "Sermon,"
ODB
111:1880-81,
and the
bibliography
there. Forthe West: V.
Monachino,
Lacura
pastorale
a
Milano,
Cartagine
e Romanel secolo
IV,
Analecta
Gregoriana
41
(Rome, 1947); idem,
S.
Ambrogio
e lacura
pastorale
aMilanonel secoloIV
(Milan,
1973);
H. G.
Beck,
The Pastoral Care
of
Souls inSouth-East France
during
the Sixth
Century,
Analecta
Gregoriana
51
(Rome, 1950); F
vander
Meer,
Augustine
the
Bishop:
The
Life
and Work
of aFather
of
the Church
(London,
1978), 168-77; P. Brown, Augustine
ofHippo:
A
Biography (London, 1967), esp. chaps.
22-23.
302InMt.
hom. 19, 7-9,
PG 57:283-85.
303In
Mt. horn.
32/33, 6,
PG 57:384-85.
304De sacerdotio
V,
8:
JeanChrysostome,
Surle
sacerdoce,
ed.
Malingrey,
302-5
=
PG 48:677.
Again,
tobe
fair,
preachers
inlate
antiquity
were
applauded
as well as booed: see the works cited innote
301,
esp.
Olivar,
Predicacion;
also
idem,
"Sobre las ovaciones tributados alos
antiguos predicadores cristianos,"
Didascalia12
(1982), 13-43;
A.
Quacquarelli,
Retoricae
liturgia
antenicena
(Rome, 1960), 89-93;
Th.
Klauser,
"Akklamation,"
RAC 1:226-27;
A.
Stuiber, "Beifall,"
RAC
2:91-103,
esp.
99-102;
F.J. Dolger, "Klingeln,
Tanz und Hande-
klatschenimGottesdienst derchristlichenMelitianerin
Agypten,"
Antike und Christentum4
(1934), 245-64,
esp.
254ff;
J.
Ernst,
"Beifallsbezeugen
zur
Predikt,"
Theologisch-praktische Monatsschrift
27
(1917),
568ff.
305See the citations inthis section.
Origen
had made the same
complaint
more thana
century
earlier: see
InGen. horn.
10, 1;
InEx. horn.
12, 2,
in
Origenes Werke,
ed. W A.
Baehrens, VI.1,
GCS 29
(Leipzig, 1920), 93,
263-64. And Caesarius of Arles
complains
of the same abuse
repeatedly:
see Sermones 55,
1, 4; 72, 1; 73, 1-5;
78, 1; 80, 1;
CCSL
103:241-44, 303, 306-9, 323, 328-89
=
SC
243:476-85; 330:180-81, 190-99, 237-44,
256-57.
Though
what
today
we would call
"patriarchy"
was
certainly
behind such
prescriptions
as canon70
of Trullo
(692 A.D.), stating
that womenshould not talk
during
the
liturgy (Nedungatt
and
Featherstone,
Trullo, 152),
adumbrated
long
before in1 Cor.
14:34,
the
problem
was areal one.
306They
dothe same inAntioch:
Chrysostom,
De
baptismo
Christi
4, 1,
PG 49:370-71
(=
CPG
4335),
and in
Egypt,
at least
according
toPs.-Eusebius of Alexandria
(5th-6th
century),
Sermo
16,
De die
dominica,
PG 86:416
(=
CPG
5525);
cf. F Nau,
"Notes surdiverses homelies
pseudoepigraphiques,
surles ceuvres attribuees a
Eusibe d'Alexandrie et surunnouveaumanuscrit de lachaine contraSeverianos," ROC 13
(1908),
406-34.
In
Aries,
Caesarius evenranout of church after
them,
according
tohis Vita
I, 27: Passiones
vitaeque
sanctorum
aevi
Merovingici
et
antiquiorumaliquot,
ed. B.
Krusch, MGH,
ScriptRerMerov,
III
(Hannover, 1896),
466-67.
307See the
Chrysostom
citations below.
308See the anecdote recounted
above,
A.III.10.
309InMt. horn.
73/74, 3,
PG
58:67;
In1 Tim.
2,
horn.
8, 1-3,
PG 62:541-44.
30In
Actahorn.
24, 4,
PG 60:190.
31'In
Actahorn.
29, 3,
PG
60:218;
cf. alsoInMt. horn.
19, 7-9, PG 57:283-85.
84
ROBERT F
TAFT,
S.J.
The
way
the sexes behave in church
just
exacerbated the
general
scandal
of
churchgoing
in
Constantinople, according
toas
Chrysostom,
In1 Cor.
Hornm. 36,
5-6.
The
presider greets
those inchurch with
"peace,"
but the
reality
he has toface is more
like
"all-out warfare
everywhere"
(nooXk;
6
cO6? 0ot; ntcavtaXoi),
as
Chrysostomsays
with
his
customary
frankness:
Great is the
tumult,
great
the confusionhere inchurch. Our assemblies differ in
nothing
froma
tavern,
soloud is the
laughter,
so
great
the
disturbance,
just
as inthe
baths, in
the
markets,
with
everyone shouting
and
causing
an
uproar....
The church is not
a
barbershop,
a
perfumer's,
nor
any
other
shop
inthe forum....
[Inchurch]
we behave
more
impudently
than
dogs,
and
pay
as much
respect
toGod as toawhore.... The
church is not a
place
of conversationbut of
teaching.
But now it is nodifferent fromthe
forum... nor
probably
evenfromthe
stage,
fromthe
way
the womenwhoassemble
here adornthemselves more
wantonly
thanthe unchaste ones there. Hence we see that
many profligates
are enticed here
by
them,
and if
anyone
is
trying
or
intending
to
corrupt
a
woman,
I
suppose
no
place
seems better thanthe church.312
And
on,
and on. Rich Antiochenes intheir
finery
make
churchgoing
afashion
parade,
Chrysostom
tells us.313 As for the
sexes,
they
have turned the church froma
sheepfold
intoastall full of
manure,
"For indeed if one could see what is said
by
menand women
at each
synaxis, you
would see that their talk is filthier thanexcrement"
(Ko6tpoS).314
An
exasperated Chrysostom's
sermon InMt.
hornm.
73/74,
3-he was
probably preaching
at
Vespers
since he cites Ps.
140,
the classical
vesperal psalm-says they
need awall in
church to
keep
the menand women
apart:
Listenfirst towhat
yousay
inthe
psalm,
"Let
my prayer
rise like incense before
you"
(Ps. 140/141:2).
But since it is not incense but
stinking
smoke that rises from
you
and
your
actions,
what
punishment
do
you
not deserve to
undergo?
What is the
stinking
smoke?
Many
enter
[the church]
to
gape
at the
beauty
of the
women,
others curious to
see the
blooming youth
of the
boys....
What are
youdoing,
man? Do
youcuriously
look
for female
beauty,
and not shudder at
insulting
inthis
way
the
temple
of God? Does the
church seemto
you
a
whorehouse,
less honorable thanthe forum? Inthe forum
you
are
ashamed tobe seen
giving
womenthe
once-over,
but inGod's
temple,
whenGod himself
is
speaking
and
warning you
about these
things, you
are
committing
fornicationand
adultery
at the
very
time
you
are
hearing
not to! ...
Indeed,
youought
tohave an
interior wall
(xeiXo;)
to
separate you
fromthe
women,
but since
you
don't want
to,
our
fathers
thought
it
necessary
towall
you
off with these boards
(Tact
oaviotv
aS&; ratUat;
&aetitiat).315
For I hear fromelders that
formerly
there were not these barriers
(tettia),
"Since inChrist
Jesus
there is neither male nor female"
(Gal. 3:28).
Inthe time
of the
apostles
the menand womenwere
equal,
for the menwere menand the women
women. But now it is
completely
different: the womenhave takenonthe habits of courte-
sans,
and the menare nodifferent fromfrantic stallions.316
312PG
61:313-14;
trans.
adapted
from
NPNF,
ser.
1, XII:220-21.
313In2 Thess.
hom. 3, 4,
PG 62:483-84.
314InMt. horn.
88/89, 4,
PG 58:780-81.
315Such a
separation
was
apparently
not inforce inNorth Africa:
Augustine complains
that inchurch the
menmove inand
out,
chattering
and
making
dates with their
lady
friends
(Enarr.
inPs. 39,
8,
CCSL 38:430-
31),
as indeed he himself did before his
conversion,
according
tohis
Confessions
III, iii.5, CCSL 27:29.
316PG 58:676-77.
85
Even
allowing
for rhetorical
hyperbole,317
inthose
days things
were
obviously
some-
what less sedate inchurch than
they
are
today.
Noone should be
surprised,
then, at
the
peremptory
diaconal commands in
early
Greek
liturgy:
"Get
up!" ('OpOof),
"Stand
aright!" (1ZTC?6EV K1aXC;),318 "Keep quiet!"
(nIaz5aezo),
"Pay
attention!"
(rIp(OYXjWiV)-to
which
Chrysostom,
doubtless,
would like tohave added: "Leave the womenalone!"
E. CONCLUSIONS
The
weight
of the earliest
Byzantine
evidence
clearly
tilts more infavor of
considering
the
galleries
or catechumenaa
preferred
"women's
space" during
times of
worship.
But
there is
nothing
to
prove
that womenwere restricted tothe
galleries,
nor that this
space
was
reserved
for
their exclusive
liturgical
use,
that
is,
that
during
services
only
the womenwere in
the
galleries,
that
they
were nowhere but inthe
galleries,
and that noone else was there
with them.
Procopius (above, A.III.6)
and the Narratiode S.
Sophia(A.III.8) put
the
womeninboth the
galleries
and the
ground-floor
aisles. De cerimoniis
(A.III.9)
has the
emperor
and
empress
and their retinues
assisting
at the
liturgy
inthe
galleries,
and iden-
tifies a
gynaeceum
inthe
ground-floor
aisles. Sointhe fifth tosixth
centuries,
at
least,
the womenwere free toattend services
downstairs,
though
some of themcontinued to
maintainwhat
may
have beenthe older
usage
of
going
tothe
galleries.
Furthermore,
apart
fromthe text of Balsamondiscussed above
(A.III.11),
the com-
plete
absence of
Byzantine
canons or other texts
forbidding
womenfrom
entering
certain
parts
of the church
building except
the
sanctuary,
or of
any legends
or anecdotes inthe
homiletic,
hagiographical,
or historical literature about women
being expelled
from
places
forbiddento
them,
recommends cautionin
exaggerating separation
of the sexes
or the
segregation
of
laywomen
inchurch
during
the
Byzantine period.319
Why,
then,
doauthors from
Chrysostom
on
systematically
draw attentiontothe
women
up
above inthe
galleries?
If womenwere there not alone but
together
with at
least some men
(the imperial
retinue,
for
instance);
and if womenattended
liturgy
on
the
ground
floor
too;
thenwhat was sodistinctive and notable about their
presence
in
317
Onthe
question
of
veracity
vs. rhetorical conventioninthese
accusations,
see the discussioninA.
Natali,
"Tradition
ludique
et sociabilite dans la
pratique religieuse
aAntioche
d'apres JeanChrysostome,"
Studia
Patristica
16,
TU 129
(Berlin, 1985),
463-70. Onthe circumstances and
contretemps
of
Chrysostom's preach-
ing
in
general,
see Ch.
Bauer,
Der
heiligeJohannes Chrysostomus
und seine
Zeit, 2 vols.
(Munich, 1929, 1930),
I,
166-212; II, 72-83;
R.
Kaczynski,
Wort Gottes in
Liturgie
und
Alltag
derGemeindendes
Johannes Chrysostomus,
Freiburgertheologische
Studien
(Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1974), esp.
271-306;
O.
Pasquati,
Gli
spettacoli
inS.
Giovanni Crisostomo:
Paganesimo
e cristianesimoad Antiochiae
Costantinopoli
nel
IVsecolo,
OCA 201
(Rome, 1976),
chap.
7:
"Spettacoli
e
liturgia";
and most
recently, Kelly,
Golden
Mouth,
passim.
318Anastasius of Sinai
(d.
after
700) expatiates
onthis command inthe context of church orderinOratio
de sacra
synaxi,
PG 89:837ff
(=
CPG
7750).
319The
only
instance I know is the A.D. 390 orderof Valentinian
II,
Theodosius
I,
and Arcadius to
eject
fromchurch womenwhohave shaved theirheads: CTh
1.2:843-44,
?
XVI, 2.27;
P. R.
Coleman-Norton,
RomanState and ChristianChurch: A Collection
of Legal
Documents toA.D.
535,
3 vols.
(London, 1966), II, 430,
? 225; Sozomen,
Hist. eccles.
VII, 16.13-15,
GCS 50:324
=
PG 67:1464A.
Shaving
the head was a
sign
of
disgrace (Coleman-Norton, II,
431 n.
13)
or
mourning (Quasten,
Music and
Worship, 163-64).
Thenthere is
the
complaint
in518 A.D. about
Bishop
Peterof
Apamea, apparently something
of ahierarchical
lecher, who,
inter
alia,
allowed a
disreputable unbaptized
womantostand ina
place
of honorinchurch: ACO
III, 92ff;
cf. L. R.
Wickham,
"Aspects
of Clerical Life inthe
Early Byzantine
Church inTwoScenes:
Mopsuestia
and
Apamaea,"JEH
46
(1995), 3-18,
esp.
14-17.
86
ROBERT F.
TAFT,
S.J.
the
galleries
that it attracted somuch comment?
Apart
fromthe fact that the writers in
question
are all
men,
for some of
whom,
at
least,
womenwould
presumably
be of more
interest thanother
men,
I
really
have noanswer tothat
question.
But if we cantake the
word of
Chrysostom
and others for how some menbehaved inchurch
(see above, D.II),
it is
quite plausible
that evenafter the
system
had
begun
tobreak
down,
respectable
womencontinued totake
refuge
inthe
galleries
toavoid
being annoyed
while at their
devotions. Inother
words,
evenif womenwere not
strictly obliged
toattend services
only
inthe
gynaecea,
it is
quite possible
that
during services, at least,
access tothe
galleries
was restricted towomenwith their childrenand tothe
imperial party
and their retainers.
In
summary,
then,
inthe churches of
Constantinople:
1. Womenassisted at
liturgy
fromthose sections of the
galleries
that were not
cordoned off insome
way
and reserved for
imperial
use.
2. The
imperial party
alsoattended
liturgy
inthe
galleries
and was
brought
communionthere.
3.
Apart
fromthis
imperial
retinue,
only
womenare
reliably
attested
attending
liturgy
fromthe
galleries, though
I have
presumed
that their
children,
both
male and
female,
were there with themtoo.
4. Fromthe sixth
century
on,
sources alsowitness to
gynaecea
inboth
ground-
floor aisles
flanking
the nave.
5.
Though
nosource ever
places
womeninthe central
nave,
nosource excludes
themfromit either. But if the womenwere inthe
second-story galleries
and
ground-floor
aisles,
it is safe toinfer that the central nave
area,
the
only space
left,
was for the men.
7.
By
the end of
Byzantium
the
galleries
had
apparently
become a
refuge
for
noblewomen,
and their
presence
there
during liturgy
is
stigmatized
as di-
visive.
8. Since it is not attested toelsewhere until
"Byzance apres Byzance,"
one
may
question
whether Balsamon's
relegating
women tothe
pronaos (above,
A.III.11)
is
representative.
At
any
rate,
there is
certainly
noevidence for it
before Balsamon.
9. The reasons for
segregating
womeninchurch or
forbidding
their attendance
at
night
services canbe considered acombinationof church
order, decorum,
gender discrimination,
and
paternalistic protection.
PontificioIstitutoOrientale
87
Painted Sources for Female Piety in Medieval Byzantium
Author(s): Sharon E. J. Gerstel
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Painted Sources for Female
Piety
inMedieval
Byzantium
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
As
a
primary
source,
Byzantine
monumental decorationhas much toreveal about the
devotional
practices
of medieval women. The careful
analysis
of
painted
churches
suggests
that
specific
saints could be included withinadecorative
program
inorder to
accommodate women's devotional needs and
gendered
ritual
practices.
Tofurther the
discussionof such
issues,
I have assembled a
corpus
of more than
seventy Byzantine
churches that survive in
modern-day
Greece
(see Appendix).
The
churches,
which date
fromthe eleventh
through
fifteenth
century,
served a
variety
of constituencies from
monks to
lay people,
from
city
dwellers tothe
poorest
inhabitants of the
Byzantine
coun-
tryside.
The first order of business is
dividing
the churches intotheir functional
types
in
order tosee where
images
of female saints were
painted
and what their
identity
and
location
might
reveal about
patterns
of female
worship.
One basic
question
is that of
where womenstood
during
services. Inthe
past,
scholars
suggested
that female saints
were
painted
inthe narthex because womenstood outside the naos
during
the
liturgy.'
I
argue
that this view of female
segregation,
whether in
paint
or in
flesh,
cannot be
sup-
ported.
Artistic and writtenevidence confirm
that,
inchurches other thanthose of male
monasteries,
womenstood inthe naos.
Furthermore,
I
propose
that the
clustering
of
portraits
of
holy
womenin
specific
areas of the
church,
whether innartheces or insmaller
chapels, corresponds
to
extraliturgical
rituals that were of
particular import
to
Byzantine
women. The evidence demonstrates that for womeninthe medieval East
images
of fe-
male saints served as visual
counterparts,
as
personal
intercessors,
and as
potential
surro-
gates.
This
paper
has benefited fromdiscussions with
Jeffrey
C.
Anderson,
Henry Maguire, Nancy
P.
Sevcenko,
and
Alice-Mary
Talbot. I thank Aimilia
Bakourou,
directorof the Fifth
Ephoreia
of
Byzantine Antiquities,
Sparta,
forherassistance in
visiting
and
photographing
the Lakonianchurches included inthis
study,
and
Antonis Petkos and Xanthi
Sabbapoulou
fortheirassistance with monuments inVeroiaand Kastoria. The
titles of Greek articles are
reproduced
with their
original
accentuation.
'The
mistakennotionthat womenwere confined tothe narthex
during
the
liturgy
has beenused
by
some
art historians to
interpret
the "function" of female saints inthat ecclesiastical
space.
See,
for
example,
J.
B.
Wainewright,
The
Byzantine Office (London, 1909), 14;
A. K.
Orlandos, "Oi
'Aytot 'Avdpyvpot,"
'ApX.Bvu.Mvr,.'tEXX.
4
(1938), 26;
and K.
Skawran,
The
Development of
Middle
Byzantine
Fresco
Painting
inGreece
(Pretoria, 1982), 47,
53.
PAINTEDSOURCES FOR FEMALE PIETY
MONASTIC ANDMETROPOLITAN CHURCHES
Hundreds of
Byzantine
churches containtheir
original
frescoes or mosaics. Identi-
fying
the
congregation
that
originally
viewed the church interior and
understanding
the
ritual it followed are
important keys
to
decoding
the
complex messages
offered
by
the
decorative
program. Byzantine
churches canbe divided into
categories
that
correspond
tothe
populationthey
served:
monastic,
metropolitan(episcopal), parish, family,
and
burial. Female saints are
rarely
found withinthe monumental
programs
of male monas-
teries. This artistic fact reflected institutional
regulations. Byzantine typikastrictly prohib-
ited the
entry
of womenintomale monasteries
except
in
special
circumstances.
Visiting
arelative's
grave, commemorating
an
important
feast
day,
or
making
a
pilgrimage
toa
shrine were all
religious obligations
that enabled womentoenter the monastic
precinct.2
The inclusionof
portraits
of female saints inmonastic katholika
signals
the occasional
presence
of womeninsuch institutions. For
example,
the
representation
of female saints
onthe west wall of the narthex
program
at the cult center of Hosios Loukas inPhokis
(Fig. 1)
reflects the admissionof women
pilgrims
intothe
monastery,
where
they sought
healing
fromLuke's
relics,
a
practice
that is confirmed
by
the Life of the saint.3 The
program
of Hosios
Loukas, however,
is unusual. Katholikaof the documented male mon-
asteries that
preserve
their
complete
decorative
programs,
such as NeaMoni onChios
or
Holy Apostles
in
Thessalonike,
containno
images
of female saints intheir sanctoral
cycles.4 Images
of monastic
saints,
fighters
of
heresy,
and church authors were undoubt-
edly
considered more
appropriate
for amale audience. The
presence
of female saints
would have been
improper
and
perhaps
even
distracting.5
A document of
May
1341,
recording
the conversionof the
Constantinopolitanmonastery
of Maroules fromfemale
2See A.-M.
Talbot,
"A
Comparison
of the Monastic
Experience
of
Byzantine
Menand
Women," GOTR
30.1
(1985), 13-14,
and herarticle inthis volume.
30n
the
tympanum
overthe south window of the west wall are
full-length portraits
of Constantine and
Helenaand medallions
containing half-length portraits
of
Thekla,
Agatha,
Anastasia, Febronia,
and
Euge-
nia.
Full-length representations
of
Eirene, Catherine,
and
Barbara,
and medallions with
Euphemia,
Marina,
and
Juliana
are located overthe north window. See R. W. Schultz and S. H.
Barnsley,
The
Monastery of
Saint
Luke
of Stiris,
in
Phocis,
and the
Dependent Monastery of
Saint Nicolas
in
the
Fields,
near
Skripou,
in
Boeotia
(London,
1901), 49-50,
pls.
36,
37. The monastic authorof the
Life of
Hosios Loukas describes the
healing
of several
women whocame tovenerate the relics of the saint. One old woman of
Boeotia,
for
example,
"went tothe
monastery
of the
saint,
entered the sacred
precinct
and
prostrated
herself at the
holy
tomb,"
inThe
Life
and
Miracles
of
Saint Luke
of
Stiris,
trans. C. L. Connorand
W.
R. Connor
(Brookline, Mass., 1994),
121.
4A medallion of Anna is
paired
with that
of
her
husband, Joachim,
inthe inner narthex of the katholikon
of NeaMoni. See D.
Mouriki,
The Mosaics
of
NeaMoni onChios
(Athens, 1985), 70,
pls.
67, 69, 213, 215. One
notable
exception
tothe absence of female saints inthe
katholika
of male monasteries is the
14th-century
church of the Anastasis of Christ inVeroia where
images
of Catherine and Eirene are located at the west
end of the north wall. The
painting
of the
church, however,
was
completed
under the
patronage
of a
woman,
Euphrosyne,
the wife of Xenos Psalidas.
Moreover,
women were buried outside the church and are the
subjects
of
intercessory images adjacent
totheir
tombs.
The decoration of one blind
arch,
dated
1326,
repre-
sents the
Virginpresenting
the
deceased,
Mary Synadene,
toChrist. See G.
Gounaris,
The Church
of
Christ in
Veria
(Thessalonike, 1991), 42, 46,
pls.
41, 48; S. Pelekanides,
KaXXt1pyrql, oXir; OerctatLa; a5ptoo; ho)yp6&o;
(Athens, 1973), 87-90,
pl.
81.
5In
herdiscussion of the donor and
patron
in
Byzantine
art,
Maria
Panayotidi
notes that the absence of
images
of female saints fromthe Enkleistra and bema of St.
Neophytos,
near
Paphos, Cyprus, may
be linked
tothe
"personality
and views of the
patron,
since it is known that he had not
only
banned women from
visiting
the
monastery,
but had alsobanned all female animals." M.
Panayotidi,
"The
Question
of the Role
of the Donor and of the Painter: A
Rudimentary Approach," AeTX.Xpot.'ApX.'Ec.
4.17
(1993-94),
154.
90
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
to
male,
provides
evidence for the intentional
gendering
of church decorationwithina
cloistered context. Whenthe nuns were
replaced by
monks,
the decorationof the refec-
tory
underwent asimilar sex
change: images
of female saints were covered
by
those of
holy
men.6
Although
little is knownabout the monumental
programs
of female
monasteries,
they
were
presumably
decorated inamanner that reflected afemale
population.
The
church of the
Virgin
Blachernitissanear Artawas converted fromamale
monastery
toa
nunnery
sometime before 1230.7 The narthex
paintings,
dated tothe end of the
century,
may
reflect the use of the church
by
women.8 The
analysis
of one
representation
onthe
west wall of the narthex
suggests
how fruitful the
investigation
of the Blachernitissafres-
coes
might
be. The
unique
historical scene
depicts
anevent that took
place
on
Tuesdays
indistant
Constantinople-the procession
of the
Hodegetria
icon.9
Pilgrims'
accounts
refer tothe diverse crowd of onlookers that witnessed the
weekly procession.10
The
painter
of the Arta
representation
has filled the
foreground
of the
composition
with
women. Female
pilgrims
flank the icon
along
with the members of the icon-carriers
guild,
while male onlookers are
relegated
tothe back of the crowd.
Myrtali
Potamianou
has
suggested
that three of the women
depicted
inthe
foreground
were members or
relatives of the
ruling family
of
Epiros.1
Their
inclusion,
and the artistic
emphasis
on
female attendance at the
Constantinopolitanprocession,
would have resonated
loudly
with the Blachernitissa's
nuns,
who
could,
by
visual
association,
undertake their own
symbolic pilgrimage
tothe
capital
inorder tovenerate the
all-holy
icon.
While monastic
programs
have beenthe focus of intensive art-historical
scrutiny,
the decorationof
metropolitan
churches has received somewhat less attention. These
churches,
oftenconstructed inbasilicanformeveninmedieval
Byzantium,
accommo-
dated
large
numbers of
worshipers. Considering
the diverse
population
that attended
services at these
churches,
it should come as no
surprise
that
images
of female saints
6According
tothe text,
iol
ev n
Tpatudn
icropia
(6iaS
teXE
s
V
dpXTv
1yEpacva, yIva4KacI,
L?T?E7Oiorr|c?
6?
T
:MV
iXToplav Tauinv
6
7po:Toi?
paKdpKoS; toUcpov ?i; 6oiAwo.
Das
Register
des Patriarchats von
Konstantinopel,
ed.
H.
Hunger,
II
(Vienna, 1995),
278. I thank
Alice-Mary
Talbot forthe reference toartistic
changes
inthe
monastery,
which is cited inher
work,
"A
Comparison,"
8. Onthe locationof the
monastery,
see R.
Janin,
La
de
l'Empire byzantin,
III
(Paris, 1969),
196.
7See A.-M.
Talbot,
"Affirmative Actioninthe 13th
Century:
AnAct of
JohnApokaukos concerning
the
Blachernitissa
Monastery
inArta," in
TsIAEAAHN:
Studies inHonour
of
Robert
Browning,
ed. C. N. Constanti-
nides et al.
(Venice, 1997),
399-409.
8The decorationof the
naos,
including
scenes fromthe life of Christ and
figures
of male
saints,
has been
dated tothe mid-13th
century,
the
period
inwhich the
gender
of the
population changed.
See M.
Acheimastou-Potamianou,
"The
Byzantine
Wall
Paintings
of Vlacherna
Monastery (area
of Arta)," Actes du
XVe
Congres
international des Etudes
byzantines,
IIa
(Athens, 1981), 1-14; eadem,
"H
)ypaclKn
T-rr;
ApTa;
Tro
130 amdbva
cKat
T
Movi Trj; BXax?pvaS;,
in
HIpaQKTncK AI?0voVi;
D
aonoio
ymaTo
Ac^Tocd-z oTro
H7?cipo)o(Apta,
27-31
Maiou1990),
ed. E.
Chrysos (Arta, 1992), 185,
figs.
11-13.
9M. Acheimastou-Potamianou,
"The BasilissaAnna
Palaiologina
of Artaand the
Monastery
of
Vlacherna,"
inWomenand
Byzantine
Monasticism
(Actes
du
Symposiumd'Athenes, 1988),
ed.
J.
Y. Perreault
(Athens, 1991),
43-49.
'OIn
the 15th
century,
for
example,
PeroTafurremarks that "there is amarket inthe
square
onthat
day,
and a
great
crowd assembles." Pero
Tafur,
Travels and
Adventures, 1435-1439,
trans. M. Letts
(London,
1926),
142.
"
Potamianouidentifies Anna
Palaiologina
as one of the three noble
women,
rendered in
larger
scale and
inricher
attire,
inthe left
foreground
of the scene of the
procession
of the
Hodegetria
icon. See Acheimastou-
Potamianou,
"The BasilissaAnna
Palaiologina,"
43-49.
91
forma
regular part
of their decorative
programs.
The
longitudinal shape
of
metropolitan
churches
may
have facilitated the divisionof the mixed
congregation
intotwo
segments,
womenand
men,
who
occupied
the northernand southernhalves of the church
respec-
tively.
In
preserved programs
of
metropolitan
churches,
female saints are located onthe
north
(left)
side of the church: onthe north
wall,
inthe vault of the north
aisle,
or on
the north side of the westernentrance. In
HagiaSophia
in
Thessalonike,
for
example,
twofemale monastic saints are found inthe soffits of the northwest entrance tothe nar-
thex
(Fig. 2).12
The entrance tothe north aisle of
Hagios Stephanos,
Kastoria,
was decor-
ated with
images
of Theodoraof Alexandriaand anunidentified
holy
woman.'3
Inthe
Old
Metropolis
inVeroiaand St.
Demetrios,
the
episcopal
church of
Servia,
portraits
of
female saints are located onthe north
pier
of the tribelon.4 Inthe southe of
Greece,
half-
length
female
saints,
including
St. Eudokia
(the Samaritan?),
decorate the north aisle of
St.
Demetrios,
the
metropolitan
church of
Mystra;15
and three female saints were once
found onthe north wall of the cathedral of
Athens,
the Parthenon.16 Inthese metro-
politan
churches,
the female saints are
depicted
either as
guardians
of the north en-
tranceways
tothe church or as framed
portraits
inthe north aisle. The
placement
of
female saints onthe north side of the church conforms toadevotional tradition
already
well documented in
Constantinople,
where,
fromthe
early Byzantine period,
women
stood inthe north aisle of
HagiaSophia
and other churches.7 The
twelfth-century
Tima-
rion,
asatirical account of a
journey
toThessalonike for the feast of St.
Demetrios,
pro-
vides evidence for the locationof womenonthe left side of basilican
churches,
eveninthe
medieval
period. Describing
the celebrationof the saint's feast inthe basilicaof
Hagios
Demetrios,
the text states: "Thenfromthose whohad
specially practiced
the rituals of
the festival-what a
congregationthey
had there-there was heard amost divine
psalm-
ody,
most
gracefully
varied inits
rhythm,
order,
and artistic alternations. For it was not
only
menwhowere
singing;
the
holy
nuns inthe
left wing
of
the
church,
divided intotwo
antipho-
"2Skawran,
The
Development, fig.
103.
13N. K.
Moutsopoulos, 'EKKXTGIt?S; TS; Kartoptai
9o;-1 lo;
aicvag (Thessalonike, 1992),
300-302.
14InVeroia,
St. Barbarais located onthe south face of the
pier.
St.
Kyriake
and anunidentified female
saint
occupy
the east face. A
portrait
of St.
Jerusalem,
alocal Veroianfemale
saint,
decorated the east face
of the second
pier
fromthe west inthe northernarcade. These
representations
are dated tothe
early
13th
century.
See Th.
Papazotos,
'H
B?poIaKit oi
vaot Tri;
(Athens, 1994), 167-68; idem, "AytokoyiKa-
EtKovoypaOtlKac ayicov Bepota;," 'ApX.AekT.
44-46.1
(1989-91),
153-57. InSt.
Demetrios, Servia,
St. Paraskeve
is
adjacent
toa
composition
of Cosmas and Damian
flanking
their
mother,
Theodote. Andreas
Xyngopoulos
alsoidentified a
portrait
of St. Barbara. The frescoes have beendated tothe late 12th
century.
See A.
Xyngo-
poulos,
ThaMvrngeiaT6OV
eppptov (Thessalonike, 1957),
29-75.
'5Personal
observations made at the church.
Only
the
inscriptionaccompanying
Eudokiacould be read.
Forthe
history
of the
church,
see S.
Dufrenne,
Les
programmes iconographiques
des
eglises byzantines
de Mistra
(Paris, 1970), 5-8;
M.
Chatzidakis, "Necoepa yiaTiv
loropia
Kat
TfiV T?XVTI
Ti)
MrTp6nonghr
TDoi
Mucp6,"
AE^T.-
XptrT.'Ap.'ET.
4.9
(1977-79), 143-75,
pls.
51b,
59. Three additional
portraits
of female saints
adjacent
to
the diakonikon
may belong
toalater
painted layer.
See G.
Millet,
Monuments
byzantins
de Mistra
(Paris, 1910),
pl.
86.
'6A.
Xyngopoulos, "HIapOerv6vos Pu0avttvai T0oXoypa|iat," 'ApX.'E0. (1920), 36-51,
figs.
11, 13.
'7T.
E
Mathews,
The
Early
Churches
of Constantinople:
Architecture and
Liturgy (University
Park, Pa., 1971),
130-34. The
10th-century
Book
of
Ceremonies makes reference towomenonthe north side of
Holy Apostles
and the
Chalkoprateia
church. See Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus,
Le livre des
ceremonies,
ed. A.
Vogt,
I
(Paris, 1935-40), 24-25,
155. See alsothe article
by
Robert F. Taft inthis volume.
92
1 Hosios
Loukas, Phokis, narthex,
female saints
(photo:Josephine Powell)
4
.'
:~
.... t-
.v '
n
.j o
* , ..
. 1.
;I?
,E ;'1 2
Hagia Sophia, Thessalonike, narthex,
fF - unidentified female saint
F'
.
*.M
(ti 'Id
,'cDoO0jg
ALXD
DA
o^1o
T
(oO
I
ot
5(o0y31 oz1 53id)
-XodkoXlo,L,, 'exiag-nolnodoSJooDJayi :oioqd) adolle)I iS 'Ilioqnj 'ia,Xj 'uoieJnS.irsueJIL
13
I .
.
r
??:'1
i :%
BgI
.. i
i c?
i
t
.?Y i
n
i
I 'c;.?l
1
c .
O
.1.
I1
A
1
It
*'f
'
F ,
. 1.. K
.- .
-
" i
*. It'
?
??
,9 j:?
C ???""'?; ? ?"
?'"?
: ??:?: ????? i?
gi?,?9 :???
[Ms^^f
i;^
~~~~~
*?
.? .;
1?
? 'Yi,:. . ., .
';. 4g'
;f -\4e
*;e -
4
Omorphi Ekklesia, Athens,
St.
Glyke-
ria
(photo:
after
Vasilake-Karakatsane,
Oi
xotxoypacpieqS
Ti;
"OLopqcpr
'EKKcXTliot, pl. 18b)
5 Penteli
Caves, Attica,
St. Catherine
(photo:
after
Mouriki,
"Oi
puo-
avxtve;
Totxoypa(piet," pl. 28)
?
.
*;)iy
?
'0
St. . . . .
.... X~..'~....
?. ~"'....
'.
? ?
,;S
-m"':';,
?
-?
?
r.'?I?_
I
6 St.
JohnChrysostom, Geraki,
north
wall,
Sts.
Helena, Catherine,
and Barbara
at;
I' I
G*ii?
";%
?
;a
,:' 5:
c.-.?,
,4?? :
:.1
i?:-? i-
.L. E
f "
; rt
..b
A.
i
.. .
I
.
i
..
a
sup*
s
7
Hagios
Strategos, Upper
Boularioi,
Mani, nave,
St.
Polychronia
.?3?1
? .
";4i o
.?'1;.??? -:a
Jci.k .?a
il??q?
lg
:? %.
le
S. ?
vA ???
8 St.
Panteleimon, UpperBoularioi, Mani,
St.
Kyriake (photo:
after
Drandakes, Bucavtiv;q ToiXoypacpiS;, 390,
fig. 27)
9
St.John, Zoupenas, Lakonia,
St. Cath-
erine
(photo:
after
Drandakes,
"'O
oTrl-
Xal,u6rl;
vao6
ToD'Ai-FtrvvaKli," 90,
fig. 22)
S
7 . I
. . .
..
2^'
. ,a e
S....'^ ..;i '.;bl{ ,.
::
:.
., ..
:?t
iP ? ;
ri *.
,S
at
': ?i?
??.1 P',
?? c ':5
%:'r:6e
r.???- .P;
S' . ''
?*X
?t .
"'
Fs.?u
10
Hagios Stephanos, Kastoria, Chapel
of St. Anna
-
. .
11:
4.R
.?J 1. ?
sF CCk "'
'-1
)
,*Y
r
r
"-
L"
I
;-v
. ;
.
.-...
. .'.
.I
t
..
-.i
4
11
of St.
Anna,
Annaand infant
Mary
a
P. - .
a
iSOAr
*W
te
*
*
12
of
St.
Anna,
Anna
Galaktotrophousa
13
of
St.
Anna,
female saint flanked
by
her
twochildren
?: i
I;???f:? .
i i,
'?' ?
; ?-:'-?:.+??IYT _? g' ' .
1 ,?
e:?:f
*Ir?-
: :
''e
*1Li . 1.
C' ?sp$': it
''r' .: :R:, ku:iLtJFErS.'
I
-. t -
;t# 1
6
14
Hagioi Anargyroi, Kastoria,
narthex,
Annaand infant
Mary
15 Nicholas
Orphanos, Thessalonike,
north
aisle,
Annaand infant
Mary
*/
16
Hagioi Anargyroi, Kastoria,
view intonarthex
17
Hagios
Nicholas tou
Kasnitzi, Kastoria, narthex, Sts.Juliane, Barbara,
and Marina
18
Hagios Strategos, UpperBoularioi,
Mani,
narthex tomb
19
Episcopi, Mani, narthex, LastJudgment
and unidentified female saints
(photo:
after
Drandakes,
BtCavtive; totioypacpiec, 205, fiz. 53)
(LL
'Id 'Noid tUritLV aoiAv, Qol
53id)odloXiol 10 'lanouEtu
-ud .aalje :oloqd) 9A3a:s.eXd 'lS 'AjEWpI lueju! puL euuV 'eloqng 'soq!llAxo'sisauwiomOZ0
*
?? ?C
)??l:r???'- ?*
b
''L(:
ii ??
r
f
.?1 p*,
j
I.
I
r i..
; I
??J
YRila I?I
r !E,
a
i':'FlsEiSi r"
?LII
s
ra
;rl
,, I-?i. i?i'
'??'?1:4.C
?I;
W,? 14?
R ;-? :?b:; ''71
r i r r?.
t ,?p( ,?
I '
?
"?.
'1:
i
;r
?, ..?.
-F
ct
?I ?. r. I
L
5 )L?;.?-? jIj?.
I;
b
r
f). ?'
ii . .?;
?;... t .? ??? 'a
?"'
-''- '
rL':Br:Ilp
:1.F
. 1
i? ;; ri .??I :?? 'r-'
i
T "??'":O i
.1?
-?
9 1
1.1
?' ?r
b
'? * C
i'Jr .I
'?
'i' I-
':b* I
*
IljaE ''
r.
F.'
t".:
. . .
4* ,
,1
I
A..
.I
. lq
f
.
" r' ?
Li'
i"
'.
.
^
't.
;.*"
^ to.
*
,*
i ^
r ls'i'*
f
.
. d -.
^:'r.
/ ,
,-..e
.4
t:.'
i li ? ' t
ic/0?
. ?
I AI
r1l1. I
'~. V"~:
k!
-
r: ? ?
,,,
.$? 'r
r*:-?. ??
a
i ?*
;
*?*-
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
nal
choirs,
alsooffered
up
the
Holy
of Holies tothe
martyr."
18
The
placement
of
images
of female saints onthe north side of
metropolitan
churches thus
corresponded
tothe use
of that
space by
female
congregants,
a
practice
continued
by
modernOrthodox women
whoclaimthe northernhalf of the church.
PARISH
CHURCHES, FAMILY CHURCHES, BURIAL CHURCHES
Parish,
family,
and burial churches were the focus of
worship
and
ceremony
for both
menand wmen. Female
worshipers brought
tothese monuments aset of concerns that
were reflected inthe
painted
decoration. Inadditiontothe celebrationof the eucharistic
liturgy,
these churches accommodated
family
rituals related to
birth,
baptism, purifica-
tion,
engagement
and
marriage,
sicknes and
healing,
death and the commemorationof
the deceased. These rituals unfolded in
designated spaces
that sustained decorationwith
scenes and motifs
appropriate
tothe event and its
participants. Images
of female saints
are found
throughout
small
churches,
both as
intercessory figures
for womenand their
families and as delimiters of female
space
and female ritual.
Like their male
counterparts,
female
patrons
endeavored to
place images
of their
holy
intercessorss close tothe
sanctuary
as
possible.
The
extraordinary
insertionof a
monumental
image
of St.
Kalliope
intothe
sanctuary program
of the
thirteenth-century
church of the
Transfiguration
in
Pyrgi,
Euboia,
canbe
directly
linked tothe
patronage
of Kale
Meledone,
whois mentioned as the
primary
donor ina
preserved inscription
(Fig. 3).19
The same connectionbetweenafemale
patron
and the
placement
of a
portrait
of afemale saint has beenseenas the reasonfor the unorthodox
placement
of St. Cather-
ine ina
supplicatory pose
onthe
masonry templon
of the north burial church of the
Penteli Caves inAttica
(Fig. 5).20
St.
Glykeria's representation
inthe diakonikonof Omor-
phi
EkklesiainAthens
may
alsohave beendictated
by
afemale
patron(Fig. 4).21
These
female saints stand in
places ordinarily
reserved for
holy bishops
or church authors.
Their
presence
withinthe
sanctuary precinct
raises
important questions
about
potential
female influence onthe decorative
program
of
provincial Byzantine
churches.22 We
'8TOT6 yoiv TOV KaTaT ov
oKpptclv
tt&cv oa ppuvv-o
zTO6TOv; co6v zcv
TOV;
OEopO
;-, iaytcp6ia
e0t-
otSpa
tI ?xt1 l1KOU?To, pV0u6ot Kati td?te
Kai
dagoiPfi dVXVVp 7outKogtIK
v
poivr
6
TUcC
XKa apteartpov,
iv 56
Oi)K
&vSpovv
R6ovov
i4tVOS dva7etspt6gevo;,
dXk& 68i Kai yuvva^tK
6otat
Kati ov6dovoat ,repi z6O CepVy7tov ewo6vvg.d rov
Too
iepoV, Icp6i;
8D
opobi; davxtc6vov; 6tatpeeitaat Kai
arnat rT
6otov adxce?60ov Tzogripptp.
Timarion, trans.
B. Baldwin
(Detroit, 1984),
48-49. The Greek text is edited
by
R.
Romano, Timarione: Testo
critico, introduzione,
traduzione,
commentarioe lessico
(Naples, 1974),
59. This text must refertothe widened easternend of the
north aisle
adjacent
tothe
sanctuary.
'9According
tothe donor's
inscription,
the church was the
family
commissionof
Kale,
her
son,
and his
family: Avlyep0er
6
0eito
va6; o{TO;
To6
K(upi)o)u(o)Txfp)o; O(e)oD
8t 6
(otvpofqS; '46WcV tov O0v oXov toi
O(?)OD
KakXfi
Ti;5 M?XrM60vl
Kai
zTv
TrKVcOV
atciS re?opytioiep?o;S &FaoDlp3iotS
Kat
T?cKVOtS ait6v.
M.
Georgopoulou-
Berra,
"TotXoypa?iec; to6 T?Xkoq;
TxoD13o0
aicovaaTov
Etpota-
'0
Ec0zipa;
T06
nupyi
Kai
'Ayia
O'KXa,"
'ApX.AeXz.
32.1
(1977), 10, 14-15,
pl.
14b. Inthe
15th-century
Maniate church of St. Nicholas in
Briki,
St.
Kallinike is located onthe east wall
adjacent
tothe
sanctuary opening.
See N.
Drandakes,
BivavctvE;
Totoo-
ypaie?;
rfi MoGa
MdvilS (Athens, 1995),
113.
20D. Mouriki, "Oi
pufavnveS;
0otXoypawi?f;
COv
iaCp?KKeric&iov
TX
q7-gtd5 TIX;
i;evTr;,"
AEX^T.XplGT.
ApX'ET
4.7
(1973-74), 99,
pls.
28, 29.
2'A. Vasilake-Karakatsane, Oi
TotXoypai?eS; Te; "O?op?n5 'EKKXjoiat;
GTiV 'Ai0va
(Athens, 1971), 15, pl. 18b.
22The
locationof these churches inareas that were underLatininfluence raises the
question
of whether
the
placement
of
images
of female saints inthe
sanctuary
was misunderstood as areflectionof actual women
93
might compare
these
painted images
with donors'
inscriptions
on
liturgical
scrolls. These
inscriptions,
often
including
female
names,
were intended tobe read inthe
sanctuary
at
certainmoments of the
liturgy, effectively allowing
womenaccess tothe altar
through
their writteninvocations.
Parish and other
nonmetropolitan
churches,
serviced
by priests
whowere entitled to
marry,
contained decorative
programs
that facilitated the devotional needs of entire fami-
lies,
not
just
monks or
bishops.
Their
painted programs responded
tothe needs of their
congregations. Images
of female saints are found
primarily
inthe
naos,
and their loca-
tionand the manner of their
representation
(in
medallions or as
full-length figures)
often
reflect
regional
traditions. For
example,
inLakonianchurches of the thirteenth and
fourteenth
centuries,
medallions of
half-length
female saints oftenrunthe
length
of the
naos walls.23 InSt.
Jon Chrysostom
in
Geraki,
an
early-fourteenth-century single-aisled
church,
tenmedallions of female saints decorate the north wall inaband below the
narrative
cycle
and above
portraits
of
full-length
male saints
(Fig. 6).24
The
holy
women,
differentiated
only by
wardrobe and
headdress,
were
arranged
insets
according
tothe
reasons for their sainthood:
royal
saints,
martyrs, holy
mothers,
and healers formdistinct
typological
clusters.25 The
program
of the church of St. Geore inthe same
village
also
contains female saints in
medallions,
but inthis small basilica
they
are located onthe
south side of the central nave.26 The ambivalence over the locationof the female saints
inthese churches
may
reflect the
mixing
of the
congregation
withinthe
body
of the
church. Inthe seventeenth
century,
LeoAllatios described the architectural
configura-
tionof rural churches and the
place occupied by
their
congregations
inthe
following
manner: "Inrural
churches,
often
quite
small and scattered here and there
among
the
fields,
there is nodifference betweenchoir and narthex. Rather
everyone,
both menand
women,
is enclosed inone little
place."
27
Surviving
evidence indicates that the
Byzantine
countryside
was full of
small,
single-aisled
churches without nartheces. These structures
were vaulted onthe
interior,
and
only
the
sanctuary
was divided fromthe naos
by
a
barrier.
In
village
churches,
whether for a
parish
or for anextended
family,
the naos was a
space
shared
by
womenand men. Inadditiontomedallions of female
saints,
full-length
entering
that
space.
Forthe accusations of Constantine Stilbes
regarding
the
alleged
western
practice
of
permitting
womentoenterthe
sanctuary,
see
J. Darrouzes,
"Memoire de ConstantinStilbes contre les Lat-
ins,"
REB 21
(1963),
51-100. Foran
analysis
of the
portion
of this text
concerning
womeninthe
sanctuary,
see H.
Maguire,
'4baton
and Oikonomia: St.
Neophytos
and the
Iconography
of the Presentationof the Vir-
gin,"
ina
forthcoming
volume on
Byzantine Cyprus
in
memory
of DoulaMouriki.
23Fourmedallions of female
saints,
including
Sts. Barbaraand
Kyriake,
are located onthe north wall
of St.
George
at Phoutia
(V. Kepetzi,
"'O vao6 to)
'Ayiou
FEropyiov oid&
Ootma
oiS
'EirtEauxpouALgip6S;,"
in
ANTIOUNON:
'AOttEpogia
Tcov
KaLOryTyr7i
N. B.
Apav6aKir[Thessalonike, 1994], 508-30).
Inthe
early
13th-
century
church of St. PeterGardenitsainthe
Mani,
medallions of
Kyriake, Kalliste,
and Eirene are found at
the west end of the north wall
(Drandakes, B-iavtivei;S otXoypafie;, 296-98,
fig. 41).
24N. K.
Moutsopoulos
and G.
Demetrokalles, FepdKt.
Oi
E?KKcXTjci?;
TO
oiKitogoi (Thessalonike, 1981), 11,
figs.
23-33. The
only
female saint onthe south wall of the church is
Theodote, who,
as the motherof Cosmas
and
Damian,
is
placed
betweenhertwosons.
25
For
the
representationof
holy
mothers and their
children,
see L.
Drewer,
"Saints and TheirFamilies in
Byzantine
Art,"
AsXT.Xpta.'ApX.'ET.
4.16
(1991-92),
259-70.
26Personal observationof the frescoes.
27L. Allatios,
The Newer
Temples of
the
Greeks,
trans. A. Cutler
(University
Park, Pa., 1969),
31.
94
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
images
of
holy
womenalsoshared the
naos,
standing
onthe
north, south, and west
walls.
Ina
group
of Lakonian
churches,
including
the
VirginChrysaphitissa
in
Chrysapha
and
Hagios Strategos
in
Upper
Boularioi, Mani,
full-length
female saints were located in
the
western
compartments
of the nave
(Fig. 7).28
InSt.
Nicholas,
Agoriane, holy
women
are
found onthe north
wall,
but
they occupy
the south wall inthe churches of St.
George
Bardas onthe island of Rhodes and
Hagia
Triadanear Kranidi inthe
Argolid.29 The
painted
evidence
suggests
that women
occupied
the central naos of the church
along
with men
and, further,
that
images
of female saints were located inthis areaas
personal
intercessors for the faithful and as
painted components
of the
kingdom
of heaven
so
palely
reflected onearth ina
populationcomprised
of two
sexes.
Scholars of westernmedieval art whohave
analyzed manuscript
and monumental
programs
that include
portraits
of female saints have
urged
cautionabout
using
such
images
as evidence for conclusions about female
piety
and female
space.30
For
Byzan-
tium, however,
we canbe more confident about
using
monumental decorationas a
pri-
mary
source for the
space
women
occupied
inthe church. The evidence offered
by
the
painted portraits
of female saints is confirmed
by
writtensources.
Moreover,
donors'
inscriptions
and votive
prayers painted adjacent
to
specific
saints reveal aclose connec-
tionbetweenwomenand their female name saints. Inthe
East,
women
sought
access to
their name saints
through
the inclusionof their
images
inthe church
program.
In
many
churches there is a
correspondence
betweenthe names of womenmentioned indonors'
inscriptions
and the selectionof
specific
female saints for the decorative
programs spon-
sored
by
their
families.31
For
instance,
St.
Charitene,
a
rarely depicted fourth-century
martyr,
was
portrayed
inthe
program
of the
fourteenth-century
Maniate church of St.
Nicholas inPlatsa. Her
presence
is
explained by
the
inscription
inthe
apse
of the south
aisle that records the donors as the
priest
Michael and his
wife, Charitene.32 St. Eirene is
28See
N.
Drandakes,
"Ilavayia
fi
Xpu(ixaiTtcoa (1290),"
in
HpaKTtKa
A'
TOrtKOo Xuve6piou
AaCVIKCoV MeX-
E?xtV
(Athens, 1983), 337-403; idem,
Bu)avttvEq; ot%oypaOi?;,
392-466.
29M. Emmanouel,
"Oi zotXoypafi?e
Toi 'Ayiov NucKOXdou
ziv 'Ay6ptavrAaKc0ovia;,"
AezT.XpIto.'ApX.'Et.
4.14
(1987-88), fig.
37;
A. K.
Orlandos,
"'AytoS FeVopytoS
6
Bdp8ag,"
'ApX.BBv.MvriL.'EXX.
6
(1948), 134,
figs.
114-16;
S.
Kalopissi-Verti, Die
Kirche der
Hagia
Triadabei Kranidi
inder
Argolis (1244) (Munich, 1975), pls.
25, 26.
30
Forthe hazards of
linking
female
images
tofemale
piety,
see C.
W.
Bynum, Jesus
as Mother: Studies inthe
Spirituality of
the
High
Middle
Ages (Berkeley-Los Angeles, 1982),
172-73. See alsoP.
Sheingorn's
review of
J. Hamburger,
The Rothschild Canticles: Art and
Mysticism
inFlanders and the Rhineland circa1300
(New Haven,
Conn.-London, 1990),
inArtB 74
(1992), 679-81;
C.
Rapp, "Figures
of Female
Sanctity: Byzantine Edifying
Manuscripts
and Their
Audience,"
DOP 50
(1996),
313-32.
31
For
13th-century inscriptions,
see S.
Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions
and DonorPortraits inThirteenth-
Century
Churches
of
Greece
(Vienna, 1992).
See alsoA. and
J. Stylianou,
"Donors and
Dedicatory Inscriptions,
Supplicants
and
Supplications
inthe Painted Churches of
Cyprus," JOBG
9
(1960), 97-128. Ina
study
of
peasant
names in
Macedonia,
Angeliki
Laiounoted that "names
may
show folk adherence toa
patron
saint
of the
district,
and
they
tell us how
strictly
the
population
adhered tothe Christiancalendar." See A.
Laiou,
"Peasant Names in
Fourteenth-Century Macedonia," BMGS 1
(1975),
72.
32D.
Mouriki,
The Frescoes
of
the Church
of
St. Nicholas at Platsainthe Mani
(Athens, 1975), 17,
51. The
poorly
spelled inscription
inthe south
apse
reads:
Mvio0rYlt CK(pt)e
TOD60oDXDTD
o6 (eo)DAqnycTpioD TouD
X
Kapx6TOTOU
Kati eo06poU
To6 [---]T'
tv6aQOxr
K[(pt)e TO6 806ODOD
TO0] 0(?O)D
MxXZafl iepEog
TO
PllKovO6Lov
Kaci T V
orlvpiou
aXDToD
Xapitivrg; ['Iotopi90O
cb]aTCtos;
a
(z) ytov PD6ia.
The
inscription
is followed
by
the
year,
1343/4. Foran
analysis of
the
inscription,
see D. Feissel and A.
Philippidis-Braat,
"Inventaires envue d'unrecueil des in-
scriptions historiques
de
Byzance,
III:
Inscriptions
du
Peloponnese (a
l'exception
de
Mistra),"
TM 9
(1985),
333,
pl.
xx, 3-4.
95
one of twofemale saints included inthe
program
of St. Demetrios inMakrochori, Euboia,
where she stands
adjacent
tothe
Archangel
Michael. An
inscription
inthat church refers
tothe donors Michael Tamesaand his
wife,
Eirene.33 A second kind of
epigraphical
evidence comes fromvotive
prayers painted adjacent
tothe
portrait
of the name saint.
Inthe thirteenth
century,
for
example,
the framed
image
of St.
Kyriake
was added to
the
late-tenth-century program
of the Maniate church of St. Panteleimonin
Upper
Bou-
larioi
(Fig. 8).
The
inscriptionadjacent
tothe saint's
right
shoulder reads: "Deesis of the
servant of
God,
Kyriake,
and of her
husband,
Nicholas
Orphanos.
Amen."34 Inthe cave
church of St.
John
in
Zoupenas,
Lakonia,
awomannamed Kale had her name
inscribed,
along
with that of her husband and
child,
adjacent
tothe
representation
of
Catherine,
who
may
have beenher name saint
(Fig. 9).35 Clearly,
these
holy
female
figures
consti-
tuted
especially
effective intercessors for
women,
and their inclusioninthe church
pro-
gram
demonstrates that womenhad avoice in
demanding images
suitable for female
piety.
WOMEN'S RITUAL,
WOMEN'S SPACE: A WOMEN'S ORATORY
ANDFEMALE DEVOTION TO ANNA
Important
evidence for female devotional
practices emerges
fromthe examination
of numerous churches that include
images
of
holy
women. After
collecting
the
evidence,
however,
canwe
go
a
step
further to
suggest
that certain
spaces
were used for rituals that
might
be deemed "female"? Historical and
hagiographical
sources
suggest
that
infertility
and infant
mortality
were
important
concerns tomedieval women. Painted evidence
seems toindicate that the church
program
could
facilitate,
through
the inclusionof
spe-
cific
saints,
devotional
practices
aimed at
curing infertility
and
maintaining
the health of
at-risk children.
Hagios Stephanos,
the
metropolitan
church of
Kastoria,
contains a
sepa-
rate
chapel
filled with
painted images
of
maternity.
Its
early layers
of
painted
decoration,
dated tothe tenth and twelfth
centuries,
include female saints inthe north entrance to
the nave.36 A
steep,
narrow staircase leads fromthe narthex toachamber that overlooked
the nave
through
anarched window divided intotwo
openings by
anarrow
pier (Fig. 10).
At the far end of the
chamber,
amodified iconostasis screens asmall
sanctuary,
with altar
and
prothesis
niches built intothe east wall. Fromthe decorative
program,
which is dated
tothe thirteenth
century
on
stylistic grounds,
it is clear that the chamber was dedicated
to
Anna,
the mother of the
Virgin
Mary.37 Anna
appears
three times withinthe decoration
of the chamber. Her
full-length figure holding
the infant
Mary
inher left armfills the
33M.
Emmanouel, Oi
o0tXoypatie(;
Tco
'Ayioi
Arl7rTpioD
oTo
MaKpuo')pt
Kai
aT;
Kot laoecw;
-r
OE roT06KO
oT6V '05XiOoTfi; EbDpoaS ;(Athens, 1991), 31,
pls.
2, 32,
34.
34 A?(qtS;) (T;) 6oT( X(i;) O(r) TO 0(o)f KupIaKi;S cT(;) cDvpiouNlcoX6O
TO
opoavoO6 AR(irv).
N.
Drandakes,
"'Ayto;
HavT??eX&icov
MnouXaptov," 'ET.'ET.BVo.ZIt. 37
(1969-70), figs.
19, 20; idem,
Btuavrtv;
ToIXoypxaOie;,
390-91,
figs.
27, 28.
35K(6pt)e
POF
Tnrv
6ourinv o0 KicaXD ToD
AiX-mqr
ara
cqrt1io
K?
T8KV(11;
axi1. N.
Drandakes,
"O
oi6xiato6r5;
vac6;
ToD
AI-rtavvKai
cmYT
ZonEvea," AeXT.XptIo.'ApX.'Eu.
4.13
(1985-86), 82, 90,
fig.
22.
36See
Moutsopoulos, 'EKKXtoi?5F;
ci;
Kaocoptid,
203-5.
37For
adiscussionof this
chamber,
see A. K.
Orlandos,
"'O
'Ay. ZT|avo;,"
'Apx.Buv.Mvli.'EXX.
4
(1938),
109, 122-24. Orlandos dates the frescoes tothe 14th
century. Images
fromthis chambercanbe found in
S.
Pelekanides,
Kascopia,
I
(Thessalonike, 1953), pls. 10la, b,
where the frescoes are dated tothe 13th
century.
96
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
niche over the altar withinthe
chapel (Fig. 11).
Framed
images
of Annaare alsolocated
onthe sides of the
pier dividing
the
sis ofcentral window. Painted onthe south side, Anna
holds the infant
Mary
inher
right
arm. The north side is
occupied by
an
image
of Anna
Galaktotrophousa(Fig. 12).38
These
multiple images
of
maternity
are
supplemented by
two
panels.
The
subjects
of the first
panel, damaged by
incised
graffiti,
have beenidenti-
fied as
Kyrikos
and
Julitta(Fig. 13).
Closer
inspection,
however,
reveals asecond child in
front of his
mother,
indicating
that the
panel depicted
afemale saint with two
children,
perhaps
Theodote with her sons Cosmas and
Damian,
or St.
Jerusalem,
alocal saint from
Veroia,
with her
sons,
Sekendonand Sekendikon.39 The
subjects
of the second
panel
have beenidentified as
Sergios
and
Bacchos,
but could
equally
be Cosmas and Damian.
Onthe east wall of the
chamber,
above the window ontothe
nave,
is arow of five half-
length martyr
saints,
perhaps
female.
Images
of Anna
holding
the infant
Mary commonly
occur inthe decorative
programs
of
Byzantine
churches,
oftenframed as
separate
devotional
images.40
In
Hagioi
Anar-
gyroi,
Kastoria,
for
example,
an
image
of Anna
holding
the infant
Mary
is
placed
onthe
east wall of the narthex
(Fig. 14).41
The individual
framing
of the
figure
inimitationof
a
large-scale
icon
suggests
that this
image
was afocus of
special
devotion.
Similarly,
a
monumental
image
of Anna
holding
the infant
Mary
is located inthe north aisle of the
church of Nicholas
Orphanos
inThessalonike
(Fig. 15).42
Here the saint stands next to
an
image
of the
Virgin
Paraklesis,
whoholds an
open
scroll inscribed:
"0,
only begotten
child,
accept
the
entreaty
of
your
mother." These twofemale
figures
and those of the
royal
saints
Eirene and Catherine
adjacent
tothemare crowned
by
scenes fromthe
38According
tothe
Protoevangelium
of St.
James,
"And whenthe
days
were
fulfilled,
Anna
purified
herself
fromherchildbed and
gave
suck tothe
child,
and called her
Mary."
See alsoA.
Cutler,
"The Cult of the
Galaktotrophousa
in
Byzantium
and
Italy,"JOB
37
(1987),
335-50.
39According
to
legend,
St.
Jerusalem
and hersons were
martyred
inVeroiainthe 3rd
century.
The center
of hercult was in
Veroia,
but her
depiction
with hertwosons inthe narthex of
Hagioi Anargyroi
indicates
that hercult had
spread
to
neighboring
Kastoria. Forthe life of St.
Jerusalem,
see G.
Chionides, 'IYropia
TiS
Bepofa;,
I
(Veroia, 1960),
185-89.
40InGreece,
images
of Annawith the infant
Mary
are found inthe late-
lOth/early- I
th-century
church
of
the
Transfiguration
near
Koropi,
Attica
(M. Chatzidakis, "Medieval
Painting
inGreece," Connoisseur603
[May 1962], 29-34);
the church of the
Transfiguration(dated 1296)
in
Pyrgi,
Euboia
(Georgopoulou-Berra,
"To.XoypactiE?;
To2,[ T?ko;
Toi
13o0
aidva
tihev Eipota,"
9-38,
pls.
7, 14);
the
13th-century
church of St.
John
the
Theologian
nearKranidi inthe
Argolid (N. Panselinou,
"TotXoypaies;
tod 13ouaiova
otilv
'Apyoktifa-
'O
va6;g
6v
Ta4tapc&av Kai
6
Ayto; 'IhodvvrlS;
6
Oeok6yo;," AekX.XpLoT.'ApX.'Er.
4.16
[1991-92], 161-62,
figs. 9,
10);
the church of Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos
(ca. 1262-85)
near
Kitta,
Mani
(N. Drandakes,
S.
Kalopissi,
and
M.
Panagiotidi, "'EpeDva
goii Mdvri,"
npaKc.'Ap.'Er. [1979],
181,
pi. 126b);
the church of the Koimesis in
Oxylithos,
Euboia
(Emmanouel,
0t
Oi
tXoypaie
0ro Ayto
Ayron
rTpioupl. 77);
the church of St. Nicholas in
Pyrgos,
Euboia
(M. Emmanouel, "Oi
toitoypafi?E;
Tof
Ay. NtKoadiO
(TO)V rlipyo," ApXetov
ED5OiKcov MekXe?TV
26
[1984-85], 391-420,
fig. 9);
the church of St. Panteleimon in
Bizariano,
Crete
(M. Borboudakis,
K.
Gallas,
and K.
Wessel,
Byzantinisches
Kreta
[Munich, 1983], 402-7);
the church of the
Transfiguration
in
Kisamou,
Crete
(Ap.A . 21.2, 2
[1968], fig. 468b);
and the exteriorof the Anastasis of Christ inVeroia
(Gounaris,
The Church
of Christ, 45).
Full-length figures
of
Joachim
and Annaare found onthe north wall of the cave
church of St.
John
the
Baptist
near
Chrysapha(N. Drandakes,
"'O
7rXkatn56rS;
va6oToI
npo6p6oODKovI&6
r
Xp6oa0a
'ri
AaK?6aiFtovo;," Ae?X.XptoX.'AP.'ET.
4.15
[1989-90], 179-96).
A similar
meaning
was undoubt-
edly
intended
by
the
representation
of Elizabeth
holding
the infant
John
inthe church of St.
John
in
Zoupe-
nas, Lakonia
(Drandakes, "'O a7rXnSav6r1;
va6;S
To
'Ai-rtavvdKir,"
fig. 17).
4"Pelekanides, Kaocopia, pi.
38b.
42A.
Tsitouridou,
'0
SoypaCftKoS 56dKoaoL
Toti
Aytio NiKoidoZ 'OpOavoD
ci OI
eooaahoviiK (Thessalonike,
1986), pi.
100.
97
Akathistos
Hymn,
an
early Byzantine
work
stressing
the divine motherhood of the Vir-
ginMary.43
Although
the cult of Anna
(St. Anne)
inthe medieval West has been
closely
scruti-
nized
by
scholars,44
devotiontothis
figure
has not
yet
been
investigated
for
Byzantium.
Inthe
West,
Annawas associated with
fertility
and
childbearing,
associations based on
her miraculous
conception
of
Mary
at anadvanced
age,
as described inthe
Protoevangel-
ium
of
James.45
The
depiction
of the saint in
Byzantine
art reflects this
aspect
of the
Protoevangelium
narrative. She is
always
shownat anadvanced
age,
her face marked
by
wrinkles. But was Anna
specifically
connected with
childbearing
in
Byzantium?
Both the
literary
and artistic evidence
suggest
atentative
"yes."
The Life of St. Thomais of Lesbos
presents
aninfertile
couple
whodevote themselves to
all-night prayer
and
fasting
in
order that achild be
given
tothem.
According
tothe tenth- or
eleventh-century
Life,
"They
emulated the
supplications
of the
righteous
Annaand
Joachim,
the
parents
of the
mother of God."46 The mother of
Stephen
the
Younger,
whowas
approaching
meno-
pause, prayed
toher namesake St. Annafor ason.47 The
problems
of
infertility plagued
Emperor
Leothe
Wise,
who
may
have
instigated
the constructionof a
chapel
dedicated
toAnnainthe
apartments
of the
empress
inorder toreverse his fortunes.48 Such a
pur-
pose may
have beenintended for the
chapel
at
Hagios Stephanos,
where the
array
of
images
of Annafocused the
prayers
of Kastorianwomen
seeking fertility
and
healthy
childbirth. The inclusionof an
image
of Anna
holding
the infant
Mary,
found innumer-
ous
churches,
possibly
reflected a
deep
devotiontothis
figure
in
Byzantiumby
a
particu-
lar
population
with a
specialized
need.
WOMEN,
FEMALE
SAINTS,
ANDTHE CHURCH NARTHEX
Inmonastic churches and
cathedrals,
the narthex was the
setting
for numerous ser-
vices,
including
certain
hourly liturgies,49
the
washing
of the feet on
Holy Thursday,50
43C. A.
Trypanis,
Fourteen
Early Byzantine
Cantica
(Vienna, 1968),
17-39.
44See
Interpreting
Cultural
Symbols:
Saint Anne inLate Medieval
Society,
ed. K.
Ashley
and P.
Sheingorn(Ath-
ens, Ga.-London, 1990).
45Ibid., 2,
48.
46"Life of St. Thomais of
Lesbos,"
trans. P
Halsall,
in
Holy
Women
of Byzantium:
TenSaints' Lives in
English
Translation,
ed. A.-M.
Talbot,
Byzantine
Saints' Lives inTranslation1
(Washington,
D.C., 1996),
301.
47
In
the
text, Anna,
the motherof St.
Stephen, compares
herself toanumberof biblical womenwhohad
difficulties in
conceiving: Oeop?jacxa 86
i
c OVTcov
iraveEvoaepj prlrnip
Xout6v c6v
Xp6vov
O
poOcpEovTa
Kai Ta
yovalKCv p6O; CTTF1eip(otV ai)Tl; ?Eyyilovta, 1ToXaXXEv Kai ?i'6o(y6pet izat&iov aippev
OVK
Eiiooa. 'AortaKTdxTp
6
CirfCTTt EpoglP?Vnavim,
Kai
dvaXoyoaetvii nijV
TE?
Zapav,
Kai
'Avvav, Kai 'EXio(76PE,
Kal T6
rpaxlKOv KElVO
?V
v6
Xapoioa
ont,
'0
rTTO6V EipioKE1, Kcai MTX
KpoOVTIt
0
votyi orai, gi1V O6Cbvuov
'Avvav
1ieiCTat. 'Avva
yap
Kai
mTavuTO ovoja.
Life of
St.
Stephen
the
Younger,
PG
100,
1076A. I thank
Alice-Mary
Talbot forthis reference.
48Janin,
La
geographie ecclesiastique,
37.
49 Of all of the
hourly liturgies,
the
midnight
service
(gFccovVoxTIKOV)
is most oftencelebrated inthe narthex.
See,
for
example,
the
typikon
of the Pantokrator
monastery
in
Constantinople (P. Gautier,
"Le
Typicon
du
Christ Sauveur
Pantocrator,"
REB 32
[1974], 30-33).
The
typikon
of the female
monastery
of the
Virgin
Kecharitomene refers tothe use of the narthex forthe
midnight
hours as well as for
prime, terce,
and sext
(P Gautier,
"Le
Typicon
de laTheotokos
Kecharitomene,"
REB 43
[1985], 80-82, 86).
50For
a
description
of this
ceremony
inmonastic and
episcopal
contexts,
see
Gautier, "Kecharitomene,"
124-27,
and
J. Mateos, ed.,
Le
Typicon
de laGrande
Eglise,
II
(Rome, 1963),
73-75. For
preliminary
discussion
of the connections betweenthe scene of the
Washing
of the Feet inmonumental decorationand the
Holy
Thursday
ritual,
see S.
Tomekovic,
"Contributional'etude du
programme
dunarthex des
eglises
mon-
astiques (XIe-premiere
moitie duXIIIe
s.)," Byzantion
58
(1988), 140-54,
and W.
Tronzo,
"Mimesis in
Byzan-
98
SHARON E.
J.
GERSTEL
and the
blessing
of the waters at the
beginning
of each month.51 These
ceremonies,
par-
ticularly
the
hourly liturgies, required
a
space
that could house those who
participated
inthe rite. The absence of anarthex from
many
churches of the
Byzantine countryside
demonstrates that such anadditional annex was not
required.
Whenanarthex is found
inanonmonastic
church,
another
purpose
must be
posited
for that architectural addi-
tion. Inboth monastic and nonmonastic
churches,
the narthex oftenserved as aburial
chamber.52
I
propose
analternative
explanation
for the role of womeninthe
narthex,
based on
evidence takenfromfive nonmonastic churches inwhich
images
of female saints
appear
inthat location.
Hagioi Anargyroi
in
Kastoria,
decorated inthe late twelfth
century
through
the munificence of Theodore Lemniotes and his
wife,
Anna
Radene,
was un-
doubtedly
meant as the
family
burial church. An
inscription
onthe east wall of the nar-
thex
clearly
refers toTheodore's future burial inthat
space,
where he will find "the ever-
dewy grass" (Txv a?itpooo
v
%X6rqv)
and "a
place
of the meek"
(Toiov
TCOv
rtpacTov).53
The
narthex is
replete
with
images
of
full-length
female saints:
Kyriake,
Julitta
and her son
Kyrikos,
Marina
slaying
Beezelbub,
Theodoraof
Alexandria,
Jerusalem
flanked
by
her
two
sons,
Euphemia,
Thekla, Anastasia, Eirene,
and Constantine and Helena
(Fig. 16).
Not far from
Hagioi Anargyroi,
the
magistros Nikephoros
Kasnitzes and his
wife, Anna,
built the church of
Hagios
Nicholas tou
Kasnitzi,
most
likely
the burial church for that
family.
Inthe narthex are several female saints: onthe north
wall, Juliane, Barbara,
Marina,
and anunidentified female
saint;
and onthe south
wall,
Constantine and Hel-
ena,
and Photeine
(Fig. 17).
Inthe
contemporaneous
church of
Hagios Strategos
inthe
Mani,
female saints were
depicted
inthe nave
(Sts. Paraskeve,
Polychronia,
Anastasiaof
Rome,
and
Thekla)
as well as inthe
thirteenth-century
narthex
(Thekla
and
Kyriake).54
This westernchamber contains two
sarcophagi,
one onthe north and the other onthe
south
side,
and is decorated with amonumental scene of the Last
Judgment.
Fromthis
I infer that the narthex served as a
place
of burial
(Fig. 18). Similarly,
four unidentified
female saints are located onthe east wall of the narthex
directly
below the Last
Judgment
inthe
twelfth-century
Maniate church of the
Episcopi (Fig. 19).55
Inthe
cemetery
church
of the Koimesis in
Oxylithos,
Euboia, Anna,
holding
the infant
Mary,
and the orant St.
Paraskeve are located onthe south wall of the
narthex,
directly
below the scene of the
Last
Judgment (Fig. 20).56
The dedicationof the church tothe Koimesis and the eschato-
logical
content of the narthex
program
reflect the use of this chamber for burial.
The
depiction
of female saints inthe narthex is
intimately
linked tothe ritual use of
tium: Notes toward a
History
of the Functionof the
Image,"
RES:
Anthropology
and Aesthetics 25
(Spring
1994),
61-76.
51See S.
Gerstel,
"Ritual
Swimming
and the Feast of the
Epiphany,"
BSCAbstr21
(New York, 1995),
78.
520nburial inthe church
narthex,
see E. A.
Ivison,
"Mortuary
Practices in
Byzantium(c. 950-1453):
An
Archaeological
Contribution"
(Ph.D. diss.,
University
of
Birmingham, 1993);
N.
Laskaris,
"Monuments
funeraires
paleochretiens
(et
byzantins)
de laGrece"
(Ph.D. diss.,
Universite de Paris
I, 1991);
A.
Papageor-
giou,
"The Narthex of the Churches of the Middle
Byzantine
Period in
Cyprus,"
in
Rayonnement grec:
Hom-
mage
aCharles
Delvoye (Brussels, 1982), 437-48;
N.
Teteriatnikov,
"Burial Places in
Cappadocian
Churches,"
GOTR 29.2
(1984),
141-57.
53Orlandos, "Oi
Ay. 'Avapyopol,"
35.
54Drandakes, BuCavrtv;S
TotX0oypa)i?F;,
392-466.
55Ibid., 174, 205,
fig.
53.
56Emmanouel, Oi T0oioypa0t?se
xoi
'Aytioi Arjltxpiou, 147-49,
pl.
77.
99
that
space.
Sts.
Paraskeve,
Kyriake,
Anastasia,
and Eirene are oftenlocated inthe
narthex
or in
cemetery
churches without nartheces. These are all saints
who,
inadditionto
being
exemplathrough
their
holy
lives,
bear Greek names that translate intowords
associated
with death and resurrection. Sts. Paraskeve and
Kyriake
were associated with
Holy Friday
and the
Sunday
of Resurrection.57
Indeed,
aconflationof the
second-century
St.
Para-
skeve and the
allegorical figure
of
Holy Friday
was made inthe
ninth-century
illustrated
Homilies of
regory
of Nazianzos
(Paris
gr. 510),
where
images
of
Paraskeve,
holding
the
instruments of the
Passion,
and Helenawith the rock of
Golgothaaccompany Gregory's
second Orationfor Easter.58 The
remaining
saints
represent
the entire
spectrum
of
Byz-
antine women:
mothers,
virgins, princesses,
healers. Their
presence may
allude tothe
role of womeninrituals
surrounding
death and commemoration.
As evidence of the connectionbetween
images
of female saints and burials inthe
Byzantine church,
one
might
consider the fact that inchurches with no
narthex,
female
saints are oftenfeatured onthe
piers flanking
tombs built intothe arched recesses of the
naos walls. The carved screeninfront of aburial niche in
Hagios Georgios,
Geraki,
is
well knowntoscholars who
study
the Crusader
period
inthe Morea.59 Less well known
are the
images
of unidentified female saints withinthat niche. Inthe church of St. Theo-
dore,
Tsopaka,
inthe
Mani,
paired
female saints adornthe
piers flanking
recessed arches
that
might
have served as arcosolia.60 This
pattern
is
repeated
innumerous burial
churches where female
saints,
placed
onthe curved soffits of the arches above
tombs,
literally
watched over the deceased.
The involvement of womeninthe
preparation, mourning,
and commemorationof
the dead is well knownfromancient times. Their role continued in
Byzantium,
as at-
tested inwrittenand artistic sources.61
Byzantine
saints' lives demonstrate that women
comprised
the chief mourners over the dead inanelaborate ritual of sustained
grieving
and lamentation. The Life of
Mary
the
Younger (d. 902/3)
describes the death of the
saint as follows: "Whenthe
distinguished
womenof the
city
learned of her imminent
death,
they
all
came,
and
she,
having
seenthemfor ashort
while,
at last said: 'Lothe
57The twosaints are
depicted
inthe
following
churches:
Hagios Strategos, UpperBoularioi, Mani;
Hagioi
Anargyroi
and
Theodote,
Kepoula, Mani;
Sts. Theodoroi near
Kaphione, Mani;
St.
Demetrios, Krokees,
Lakonia;
Panagia
stes
Yiallous, Naxos;
St.
George
Bardas, Rhodes;
St.
JohnChrysostom, Geraki;
and St.
Nicholas, Pakia,
Molaous. Forthe
representation
of St.
Kyriake,
see S.
Gabelic,
"St.
Kyriaki
in
Wallpainting
in
Cyprus," ArchaeologiaCypria
1
(1985),
115-19.
58The conflationof the
2nd-century martyr
Paraskeve
(Synaxarium
CIP
843)
with
Holy Friday
seems totake
place
inthe middle
Byzantine period.
Forthe Homilies of
Gregory
Nazianzen
(Paris.
gr.
510,
fol.
285),
see
H.
Omont, Miniatures des
plus
anciens manuscrits
grecs
de la
Bibliotheque
Nationale duVIe auXIVe siecle
(Paris,
1929), pi. XLIII;
S. Der
Nersessian,
"The Illustrations of the Homilies of
Gregory
of Nazianzus: Paris
gr.
510;
A
Study
of the Connections betweenText and
Images,"
DOP 16
(1962), 201-2,
pl.
3.
59A.
Wace, "Laconia,
V: Frankish
Sculptures
at Parori and
Geraki,"
BSA 11
(1904-5), 144,
fig.
4. A
painted
inscription
withinthe arcosolium
may
indicate the use of this
space
forburial and the
purpose
of the
images
forintercessiononbehalf of the deceased:
E-pao(r6
T-raooGito;
'Io(a)aKto;
?K
o1660oi, RagpTt;,
TCIV
ailv
davrGT[6-
pn?ce] irdva?7r[x. ....
r?]toi
T[[V
6]?
7nPi6 ((V) ?67ci6'TnV
n7po3aX6o?voS
, Fr?Up[7yi] gaciKap.
Foran
analysis
of the
inscription,
see Feissel and
Philippidis-Braat,
"Inventaires en
vue," 345-46,
pl.
xxvii, 1-2.
"6Drandakes, BoavTtv?;S
xotioypait?eS,
29-53.
61Margaret
Alexioucites
frequent
condemnations
by
church officials as evidence that ritual lamentation
was
widespread
in
early Byzantium.
M.
Alexiou,
The Ritual Lament inGreek Tradition
(New York-London,
1974),
27-28.
100
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
heavens are
opening,
and I see anineffable
light
and a
suspended
crown.' And she
de-
parted
with these words. Thenthere broke forth
great weeping
and
wailing,
raised
by
both her husband and the women. Whenthe lament
quieted
down,
they prepared
the
funeral
bath."62
The
mid-fourteenth-century "Dialogue
betweenthe Rich and the
Poor"
suggests
what the rich will lose as
they
forfeit their
gold:
"There will be no
struggle
betweenthe different churches for our
burial,
no
splendid
and
beautiful
graves
will
re-
ceive us.... There would be norelatives
wailing,
in
tears,
beating
their
breasts,
no
lam-
entations and
dirges
from
mourning
women,
no
respect expressed by
these
actions."63
Could the
placement
of
images
of female saints inclose
proximity
tothe dead allude to
the actual
place
of womenas chief mourners? Are the
saints,
inother
words,
surrogates
for actual women?
Inthe art of late
Byzantium,
the inclusionof
large groups
of
lamenting
womenin
the scene of the Lamentationhas oftenbeentakenas areflectionof actual
mourning
practices
inlate
Byzantium.64
The connectionbetweenwomenand the ritual
lament,
in
amodern
context,
has beenof
special
interest tosocial
anthropologists.
Studies carried
out intraditional Orthodox
villages suggest
that it is womenwhocelebrate the ritual of
lamentation.
Anthropological analysis may
serve as a
paradigmby
which tounderstand
the
Byzantine process
of
mourning. Writing
about such rituals inthe
present-day
Mani,
NadiaSerematakis has noted:
The
gender-based organization
of the
mortuary
rite is
expressed
inthe women's
proxim-
ity
tothe dead. Fromthe
laying
out of the
corpse, through
the burial
ceremony,
and
years
later at the exhumationof the
bones,
womenremaininclose
physical
contact with
thei
corpse
and its mains-entities that menrefrainfrom
coming
intoclose contact
with. The
corpse
is caressed and kissed
by
the womeninceremonies of ritual
greeting
as
they
enter the house of the dead where the
mourning
will take
place. Through
the inorder
of
mourning song performance,
and inthe
intensity
of their cathartic
gestures
such as
the
pulling
out of hair and self-inflicted
wounds,
women
signify
their
proximity
tothe
dead and their
intimacy
with the domainof Death. Inthis
synthesis
of authentic
personal
pain
and
patterned performance,
the womenboth establish the
intensity
of their
kinship
and
symbolic
relationtothe dead and
ritually
demarcate awoman's
symbolic space
and
performative territory
fromwhich men
keep
their distance.65
62"Life, Deeds,
and Partial Account of the Miracles of the Blessed and Celebrated
Mary
the
Younger,"
trans. A.
Laiou,
in
Talbot,
Holy
Women
(as above,
note
46),
266.
631.
Sevcenko, "Alexios Makrembolites and His
'Dialogue
betweenthe Rich and the Poor,"' ZRVI 6
(1960),
227.
64This
connectionwas made
by Henry Maguire
in"WomenMourners in
Byzantine Art, Literature,
and
Society,"
a
paper
delivered at the
International
Congress
of
Byzantine Studies, Moscow,
1991. See also
H.
Maguire,
"The
Depiction
of Sorrow inMiddle
Byzantine Art,"
DOP 31
(1977),
126-32. Forthe inclusion
of
mourning
womeninthe scene of the
Lamentation,
see alsoI.
Spatharakis,
"The Influence of the Lithos
inthe
Development
of the
Iconography
of the
Threnos,"
in
Byzantine East,
LatinWest: Art-Historical Studies in
Honor
of
Kurt
Weitzmann,
ed. D. Mouriki
(Princeton,
N.J., 1995), 435-41,
with collected
bibliography.
65C.
Nadia
Serematakis, "Womenand Death: Cultural Powerand Ritual Process inInnerMani," Canadian
WomanStudies 8.2
(1987),
109. See also
eadem,
The Last Word:
Women, Death,
and DivinationinInnerMani
(Chicago-London, 1991); eadem,
"The
Eye
of the Other:
Watching
Death inRural
Greece,"Journal of
Modern
Hellenism
1
(April 1984), 71-72;
A.
Caraveli, "The Bitter
Wounding:
The Lament as Social Protest inRural
Greece,"
inGenderand PowerinRural
Greece,
ed.
J.
Dubisch
(Princeton,
N.J., 1986), 169-94;
L.
Danforth,
The
Death Rituals
of
Rural Greece
(Princeton,
N.J., 1982); Alexiou,
The Ritual Lament.
101
Byzantine
sources tell us that a
procession
carried the deceased fromhis house tothe
church. The
deceased,
if a
layman,
was
placed
inthe narthex for the funeral.66 The low
benches in
many
nartheces
may
have facilitated the
long vigils
over the remains.67 In
additiontothe actual
funeral,
the cathartic
process
of
healing
inthe Orthodox church
required
that commemorationof the deceased take
place
onthe
third, sixth, ninth, and
fortieth
days
after death and onthe first
anniversary.68
These commemorations took
place
inthe
church,
where memorial services were
incorporated
intothe
regular
services
held inthe
building. Through
burial inthe
church,
the
perpetual blessings
of these com-
memorative services were
guaranteed.
For the
deceased,
the commemorationof his or
her soul was aimed at
securing
a
place
inheaven. The constructionof achurch or the
refurbishing
or
repainting
of that monument was intended to
tip
the scales infavor of
the donor.
By placing images
of womenonthe walls of the narthex and inother
funerary
contexts withinthe
church,
the donor
guaranteed
continuous
intercessory protection
through
the female saints who
participated
inthe
ongoing
lamentationover the de-
ceased.
Just
as
painted bishops perpetually
celebrated the eucharistic
liturgy
inthe
church
sanctuary,
female saints such as
Paraskeve,
Kyriake,
and
Thekla,
painted
onthe
walls of the narthex or inother
funerary
contexts,
eternally
watched over the bodies
buried at their feet.
CONCLUSION
Careful
scrutiny
of monumental
programs suggests
that female saints were
depicted
inthe
space physically occupied by
womeninthe
Byzantine
church. The absence of such
portraits
inmale monasteries
agrees
with evidence
provided by
writtensources
regarding
the admissionof womentothese institutions. But in
metropolitan
churches,
women
formed an
important component
of the
congregation.
Portraits of female saints are lo-
cated ona
single
side of the
nave,
analogous
tothe
position
of actual
women,
as attested
in
surviving
documents.
By
far the
greatest
amount of evidence for the
religious space
occupied by Byzantine
women
may
be
gathered
fromsmall churches intowns and rural
areas. Here the
presence
of
painted
female
saints,
comparable
insize and dress totheir
living counterparts,
is so
palpable
that adirect
relationship
between
image
and viewer
canbe assumed.69 Such a
relationship
has beendemonstrated
through
the
marking
of
certain
images
of female saints with the names of
Byzantine
womenand their
families,
facilitating
adirect
correspondence
betweenactual womenand their
depicted
name
saints.
66Forthe
placement
of the remains inthe
narthex,
see F.
Bache,
"Lafonctionfuneraire dunarthex dans
les
eglises byzantines
duXIIe auXIVe siecle," Histoire de l'art 7
(1989), 28;
P. de
Meester,
Studi di ritobizantino
allaluce della
teologia,
del diritto
ecclesiastico,
della
storia,
dell'arte e
dell'archeologia,
II
(Rome, 1930), 84;
J.
Goar,
Euchologion
sive Rituale Graecorum
(Venice, 1730;
repr.
Graz, 1960), 451;
V.
Bruni,
Ifunerali
di unsacerdote nel
ritobizantino
(Jerusalem, 1972),
103.
67Benches
are
preserved,
for
example,
in
Hagioi Anargyroi
inKastoria.
68For
rituals associated with
death,
see
Symeon
of
Thessalonike,
De SacroOrdine
Sepulturae,
PG 155:
669-96;
D.
Abrahamse, "Rituals of Death inthe Middle
Byzantine
Period," GOTR 29.2
(1984), 125-34;
J. Kyriakakis, "Byzantine
Burial Customs: Care of the Deceased fromDeath to
Prothesis,"
GOTR 19.1
(1974),
37-72;
Ph.
Koukoules, "BCavtvCwv NEKpiKC 'EIOtLia,' 'ETc.'E.BV4.1t.
16
(1940),
3-80.
69Fora
comparable analysis
of
concelebrating
saints inthe
Byzantine sanctuary,
see S.
Gerstel,
"Liturgical
Scrolls inthe
Byzantine Sanctuary,"
GRBS 35.2
(1994), 195-204.
102
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
Images
of male saints
participated
inthe official rituals of the
Byzantine
church
through
their
placement,
stance,
and
actions,
whether as
military guardians
of the door-
ways,
as healers
displaying
their medical
instruments,
or as
bishops unfurling liturgical
scrolls in
prayer.
Womenhad little official role inthe medieval
Byzantine
church. Por-
traits of female saints inthe church naos
may simply
indicate the
presence
of female
worshipers
inthat
space.
But
images
of female saints alsooccur in
spaces
inwhich actual
women
may
have had anunofficial role inthe life of the church. In
chapels
and in
segre-
gated spaces
of the
church,
the
presence
of female saints
may
indicate that womenhad
their owndevotional
paths
toachieve
fertility,
bear
healthy
children,
or attain
spiritual
healing.
Such nonofficial female devotional
practices may
have beenexcluded fromthe
main
part
of the church and
placed
in
subsidiary spaces
that could accommodate rites
that were
compatible
with church
teachings, though
not sanctioned
by
official
liturgy.
Such was the
place,
for
example,
of womeninthe commemorationof the deceased. Con-
demnations in
Byzantine
texts
concerning
the emotional role of womeninthe lamenta-
tionof the dead confirmthat such
practices
were
widespread.
The
placement
of
images
of female saints inclose
proximity
tothe
dead,
whether inthe church narthex or
flanking
arcosolia,
suggests
that
Byzantine
monumental decoration
responded
tothe
important
role of female
vigil
and female lamentationinthe eternal life of the deceased. The
depic-
tionof female saints in
Byzantine
monumental
programs provides
an
important
source
for the
study
of womenof the medieval East and ritual
patterns
in
Byzantium. By
consid-
ering
new
evidence,
we obtainaclearer
picture
of the
response
of
painting
to
practice.
The
participation
of womeninthe life of the
church,
oftenunclear intextual
description,
is
richly portrayed
onthe church walls
through
the
presence
of female saints and the
painted
decorationof ritual
spaces
used
by
women.
University
of
Maryland/Dumbarton
Oaks
103
Appendix: Chronological
List of Select Churches in
Greece
Containing Representations
of Female Saints
(with
references to
publications
with
images
of the
saints)
Eleventh
Century
Hosios
Loukas, Phokis,
male
monastery (narthex,
west
wall)
South side:
Thekla,
Agatha,
Anastasia, Febronia,
Eugenia,
Constantine and Helena
North side:
Eirene, Catherine, Barbara,
Euphemia,
Marina,
Juliana
(R.
W. Schultz and S. H.
Barnsley,
The
Monastery of
Saint Luke
of
Stiris,
in
Phocis,
and the
Dependent
Monastery of
Saint Nicolas inthe
Fields,
near
Skripou,
inBoeotia
[London, 1901],
pls. 36, 37)
Panagia
ton
Chalkeon, Thessalonike, 1028,
burial church
(naos,
north
wall)
Three female
figures including
Eirene inzone below window
(D.
E.
Evangelidi,
'H
navayQa
TCv
XarK?c0v [Thessalonike, 1954], 62,
pl. 27)
Hagios
Merkourios,
Kerkyra,
1074-75
(naos,
west end of north
wall)
Marinawith hatchet
(P.
L.
Vocotopoulos, "Fresques
duXIe siecle a
Corfou,"
CahArch 21
[1971], 151-80,
figs.
13, 14)
Metamorphosis,
near
Koropi,
Attica,
late
10th/early
11th
century
Annaand infant
Mary,
unidentified female saint
(M. Chatzidakis,
"Medieval
Painting
inGreece," Connoisseur 603
[May 1962], 29-34)
HagiaSophia,
Thessalonike,
11th
century(?), metropolitan
church
(narthex,
north en-
trance)
Theodoraof
Thessalonike(?),
Theodoraof
Alexandria,
twounidentified female mo-
nastics
(K. Skawran,
The
Development of
Middle
Byzantine
Fresco
Painting
inGreece
[Pretoria,
1982], 159-60,
fig. 103)
Twelfth
Century
Hagioi Anargyroi,
Kastoria,
ca.
1180,
family
church
(narthex)
West wall:
Kyriake, Julitta/Kyrikos,
Marina, Theodora,
Jerusalem, Euphemia,
Thekla,
Anastasia
East wall: Annaand infant
Mary,
Eirene
(S. Pelekanides,
Kaaoopia,
I
[Thessalonike, 1953], pls.
38b, 40)
Hagios
Nicholas tou
Kasnitzi, Kastoria,
ca.
1180,
family
church
(narthex,
north and
south
walls)
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
Marina, Barbara, Juliane,
unidentified female
saint,
Constantine and
Helena,
Photeine
(Pelekanides, Kaotopta, pl. 55b)
Theotokos
(Parthenon), Athens, 12th
century, metropolitan
church
(naos,
north
wall)
Two
princess
saints
(Catherine?),
female
martyr
(A. Xyngopoulos, "rIapOev6ivoS;
Pavtivail otooypaooiat," 'ApX.'Eq. [1920], 36-51,
figs.
11,
13)
Protothronos, Naxos,
12th
century (naos,
above
conch)
Eirene(?)
('ApX.Ae^X. 26.2, 2
[1971], 474,
pl. 492a)
Evangelistria,
Geraki,
late 12th
century (naos,
southwest
compartment)
Catherine,
twounidentified female saints
(N.
K.
Moutsopoulos
and G.
Demetrokalles, repaiKt. Oi KKr1Gi? TOD
oiiKllago) [Thes-
salonike, 1981], figs.
154, 155, 157, 164)
Hagios Strategos, Upper
Boularioi, Mani,
late 12th
century (naos),
13th
century (nar-
thex),
burial church
West wall of naos:
Polychronia,
Paraskeve,
Anastasiathe
Roman,
Thekla
West wall of narthex:
Thekla,
Kyriake
(N. Drandakes,
Bu)avTtve; To%toypaOi?fS; TfiS Moaa
Mavrl; [Athens, 1995], 392-466,
figs.
23, 35, 36, 39, 65, 66, 75)
Episcopi,
Mani,
late 12th
century,
burial
church(?) (narthex,
east
wall)
Four unidentified female saints
(Drandakes, Buvavztv;S Totzoypatfe;, 151-212,
figs.
27, 28, 53, 60)
St.
Demetrios, Servia,
late
12th/early
13th
century, metropolitan
church
(naos,
north and
west
walls)
Cosmas/Theodote/Damian, Paraskeve,
Barbara
(A.
Xyngopoulos,
T&a
gvrIgiea tov
I?ep3iov [Athens, 1957], 43-44)
Episcopi, Eurytania,
12th-13th
century (formerly
in
naos)
Cosmas/Theodote/Damian
('ApX.AeXT. 21.2,
1
[1966], 28-29,
pls.
31, 32)
Thirteenth
Century
Holy
Savior, Geraki,
ca. 1200
(naos,
west
wall)
Anastasiathe
Roman, Julitta
(Moutsopoulos
and
Demetrokalles,
FepKtd, figs.
331, 332)
St. Barbarastou
Glezou, Mani,
ca. 1200
(conches
flanking apse)
Barbara, unidentified female saint
(N. Drandakes,
S.
Kalopissi,
and M.
Panayotidi, "'Ep?vvaoTil
Mvrl," IpaKx.'ApX.'ET.
[1979], 165)
Paliomonastiro,
near
Vrondamas, Lakonia, 1201
(narthex)
Barbara, Marina,
Constantine and
Helena,
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria, Paraskeve,
Eirene, Thekla,
Kyriake, Juliane
(N. Drandakes,
"To
lnahtogovaoclTpo
Tov
Bpovmraga," 'ApX.AeXr.
43.1
[1988], 174-78,
pls. 82a, 83a, 87)
105
6PAINTEDSOURCES FOR FEMALE PIETY
St.
Peter,
Kalyvia-Kouvara, Attica, 1232
(tribelon,
north
wall)
Cosmas/Damian/Theodote, Marina,
Kyriake
(N. Coumbaraki-Panselinou, ""Ayto; I'-rpo; KaKuptfov Koupap&
'Atctixi;,"
AFXt.XptGt.-
'ApX.'Etr.
4.14
[1987-88], 173-87,
figs. 20-22)
Hagia
Triada,
near
Kranidi,
Argolid,
1244
(naos,
south
wall)
Marinawith
hatchet,
unidentified female
martyr
(S.
Kalopissi-Verti,
Die Kirche der
Hagia
Triadabei
Kranidi
inder
Argolis (1244) [Munich,
1975],
pls.
25, 26)
Holy
Savior,
near
Alepochori
in
Megara,
1260-80,
monastery(?) (naos,
west
wall)
Paraskeve,
Marina
(D. Mouriki,
O'
toitoypUOt,Fc;
xof
Xo-nfpa
xovt&
ot0
'AXcnoXO6pO MEyapf6o; [Athens,
1978], pls.
62, 63, 69)
Sts.
Sergios
and
Bacchos,
near
Kitta, Mani,
ca. 1262-85
Annaand infant
Mary
(Drandakes,
Kalopissi,
and
Panayotidi, "'Ep_uvaoti9
M6vrj,"
181,
pl. 126b)
Hagioi Anargyroi
and
Theodote,
Kepoula,
Mani, 1265,
cemetery church(?) (naos)
South blind arch
soffits: Paraskeve,
Kyriake
North wall:
Thekla, Catherine,
(N. Drandakes,
"O'
totXoypaOtF;
t6v
'Ayfov 'Avapy6pov Kflno'5Xax; (1265)," 'ApX.'EO.
[1980], 97-118,
pl.
38; Drandakes,
Bu
avctvS; ,otXoypuO'F_;,
307-39,
figs.
23, 34)
St.
Nicholas,
near
Geraki, Lakonia,
ca. 1280 1300
(naos,
west end of north
wall)
Sophia,
unidentified
princess
saint
(A. Giaoure,
"'0
va6o 'oo 'Ayfou
NtKoX6Ou
iovt6
oIv6 J7p6Ka","
'ApX.ASXT.
32.1
[1977],
91-115,
pl. 4Gb)
St. Basil stou
Kalou,
near
Males, Mani,
ca. 1280-90
(naos,
south
wall)
Thekla(?)
(Drandakes,
Kalopissi,
and
Panayotidi,
""Epeova(Yii
M6vn," 158)
St.
Demetrios, Krokees, Lakonia, 1286
(naos)
West wall:
Barbara,
Paraskeve
North wall:
Kyriake,
Marina
(N. Drandakes,
"'A7o6
ct';
Totooypaotfe;
toi5
'Ay{oio-
ArgIqt'po- KpoK4icV
(1286),"
AF_Xtc.Xpt(Y.'ApX.'Etc.
4.12
[1984], 203-38)
Panagia
stes
Yiallous, Naxos, 1288-89
(naos,
north
wall)
Kyriake,
Paraskeve
(N. Drandakes,
"AM
CotXoypao'at
toi
vaoi5
cij;
N6Sou
'Hcavayfca
yiif;
ftalQXXoi (1288/
9),"
'En.'Et.BuS.1ir.
33
[1964], 258-69,
figs. 9-11)
St.
George
Bardas, Rhodes, 1289-90
(naos)
South wall:
Paraskeve, Barbara, Eirene,
Kyriake
West wall: Marina
(A.
K.
Orlandos,
"'Ay-to; FFepyto; 6
B6p&;,"
'ApX.Buo.Mviqg.'EXX.
6
[1948], 114-42,
figs. 114-16)
Panagia Chrysaphitissa, Chrysapha, Lakonia, 1290
(naos,
western
compartments!
narthex)
Northwest
compartment:
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria, Kyriake, Eirene, Barbara,
Con-
stantine and Helena
(below
women at
tomb)
106
SHARON
E.J.
GERSTEL
Southwest
compartment: Julitta
Narthex,
niche ineast wall: Paraskeve
(16th century?)
(J.
Albani,
"Byzantinische
Freskomalerei inder Kirche
PanagiaChrysaphitissa," JOB
38
[1988], 363-88,
fig.
25;
N.
Drandakes, "navaytcail XpDoaot)iTtaa[1290]," FIpaKrtKa
A'
TOntucoi3 ZveSpioDAaKcovtKcov Me?X?xoV
[Athens, 1983], 337-403,
figs.
35, 36)
Cave of
John
the
Baptist,
near
Chrysapha,
Lakonia, 1290/1
(naos)
North wall:
Catherine(?), Marina,
princess
saint,
unidentified female
saint,
Joachim
and Anna
South wall:
Cosmas/Theodote/Damian, Elizabeth,
Mary
of
Egypt
(N. Drandakes, "'O cmTqXati8rlS vao6S
xo
Ilpoap6gou i:ovK
d
Oacil XpDoaaatfi; AaKceailto-
vo;," AeXT.XptIo.'ApX.'Et.
4.15
[1989-90], 179-96,
figs.
4, 14)
Transfiguration, Pyrgi,
Euboia,
1296
(naos)
West wall: Annaand infant
Mary
East
wall,
next to
sanctuary: Kalliope
(M.
Georgopoulou-Berra, "TotXoypat?e;
xo
T?x-roD;
Toi6 13oV
aiovaoxilv Eipota.
'O
c0PiTpaS
TOc6
iTupyt Kai
t
'Ayia OAcKXa," 'ApX.AeXr.
32.1
[1977], 9-38,
pls.
7b, 14b)
St.
JohnChrysostom,
Geraki,
ca.
1300,
cemetery (naos, medallions)
North wall:
Thekla, Dorothea,
Gregoria, Kyriake,
Paraskeve, Eirene, Helena,
Catherine, Barbara,
Juliana
South wall: Cosmas/Theodote/Damian
(Moutsopoulos
and
Demetrokalles, r?paKt, 16-18)
St.
Peter, Gardenitsa, Mani,
early
13th
century (naos)
West end of north
wall,
medallions:
Kyriake,
Kalliste,
Eirene
North
apse,
conch: Paraskeve
(Michael
insouth
apse)
(Drandakes, Bvcavtxtv;q
TotXoypaOi?S;, 259-306,
figs.
6, 41)
Chapel
of the
Virgin,
Merenda, Attica,
mid-13th
century
Twounidentified female saints
(N. Coumbaraki-Panselinou,
Saint-Pierre de
Kalyvia-Kouvara
et la
chapelle
de la
Vierge
de
Merenta: Deux monuments duXIIIe siecle en
Attique
[Thessalonike, 1976],
pl. 84)
St.
Theodore,
Tsopaka,
Mani,
late 13th
century (naos)
North
wall,
blind arch:
Kyriake,
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria,
Anastasiathe Roman
South
wall,
blind arch:
Martyrdom
of Anastasia
Pharmakolytria
Soffits,
south
wall,
arches:
Julitta,
unidentified female
saint, Paraskeve, Barbara,
Theo-
dote, Juliane,
three medallions of
holy
women
(N. Drandakes,
"'O
'Aytog ?e68o)po;
oarv
To6ia:aKa-i; Mvrls," ineXoioovvritaKc 16
[1985-86], 241-55; Drandakes, Bucavxtv/g TotXoypa?eg;, 29-53,
figs.
16, 17, 19)
St.
Nicholas,
near
Monemvasia,
late 13th
century (narthex)
Unidentified female saint
(N. Drandakes,
"Oi
TotXoypaiOtS
Toi 'AytioNIKoX&ouGTOv
'Ayto
NKO6Xao
Movegpa-
ocag," AeXT.Xpt.'.'ApX.'ET.
4.9
[1979], 35-58)
St.
Nicholas, Pakia, Molaoi, Lakonia,
late 13th
century (naos)
Standing:
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria, Euphemia,
Anastasiathe Roman
North
wall,
medallions:
Paraskeve,
Kyriake,
Eirene,
Catherine
South
wall,
medallions:
Eulaleia,
Sophia,
Marina, Barbara,
Pelagia
(S. Koukiare,
"A6oBoavrtvoi
vaoi
oxaikzKta
AaKovtaq,"'
AaK.IZ. 10
[1990], 166-89)
107
St.
Demetrios,
Mystra,
Lakonia,
late 13th
century (north
aisle of
basilica)
Eudokia(?),
three unidentified female saints
(S. Dufrenne,
Les
programmes iconographiques
des
eglises byzantines
de Mistra
[Paris, 1970],
5-8,
fig. 9)
Cave of the
Forty Martyrs,
Grammousa, Lakonia,
end of 13th
century
Anna
('ApX.Ae?T. 35.2,
1
[1980], 166,
pl. 68a)
St.
John, Zoupenas,
Lakonia,
end of 13th
century (cave
church near
Geraki)
Elizabeth and infant
John,
Catherine,
Kyriake
(N. Drandakes,
"'O
olnrlmka6&
va6oxoD
'Ai-FtavvaicK oxfi ZovinEva,"
AEX.Xptox.-
'Ap%.'ET.
4.13
[1985-86], 79-92,
figs.
17, 22)
Church of the
Ascension, Philiatra, Messenia,
13th-century layer (naos,
north
wall)
Anna(?)
('Apx.AX%z.
36.2,
1
[1981], 141, pl. 78b)
Cave
Chapel
of St.
Sophia, Kythera,
13th
century (iconostasis)
Sophia
and
daughters Agape, Elpis,
and Pistis
(M.
Chatzidakis and I.
Mpitha, Corpus
de la
peinture
monumentale
byzantine
de laGrece:
Lfle de
Cythere [Athens, 1997], 292-97)
St. Nicholas stes
Maroulainas, Kastania, Mani,
13th
century (naos,
west
wall)
Barbara,
(N. Drandakes,
S.
Kalopissi,
and M.
Panayotidi, "'EpeuvaoTil MeocnvtaCKi Mavri,"
HpacK.'ApX.'ET. [1980], 193-94)
St.
Panteleimon, Bizariano, Crete,
13th
century (naos,
north
wall)
Annaand infant
Mary
(M. Borboudakis,
K.
Gallas,
and K.
Wessel,
Byzantinisches
Kreta
[Munich, 1983],
407-8)
St.
John
the
Theologian
st'Adesaurou, Naxos,
13th-century layer
Marina(?)
('ApX.AeXz. 35.2,
2
[1980], 491-92,
pl. 295a)
St.
John
the
Theologian,
near
Kranidi,
Argolid,
13th
century (naos,
north
wall)
Annaand infant
Mary
(N. Panselinou,
"TotXoypatFie Tzo
13oz aictva
aoriv 'ApyoXitba
'O va6o6(v
TCTatapXov
Kai
6
'Ato5 'Icovvrg
6
eo6oX6yo;,"
AeX.Xptoa.'ApX.'ET.
4.16
[1991-92], 155-66,
figs.
9, 10;
'ApX.AeXz.
22.2,
1
[1967], 23,
pl. 30a)
St.
George,
Mina, Mani,
13th
century (naos,
south
wall)
Melaniathe
Roman,
(Drandakes, BuiavTtv?;
TotXoypaO)i?;, 133-37,
fig. 4)
Omorphi
Ekklesia, Galatsi, Athens,
13th
century (diakonikon)
Glykeria
(A. Vasilake-Karakatsane, Oi xotXoypaOi?;s
xTi
'Ogop4(rl; 'EKKXroia; GTolV
'AOilva[Ath-
ens, 1971], 11, 15,
pl. 18b)
Hagios Stephanos, Kastoria,
chapel
of St.
Anna,
13th
century (upper chapel)
Anna
Galaktotrophousa,
Annaand infant
Mary,
female saint with twosons
(N.
K.
Moutsopoulos,
'EKK1Xr1t?(; Tfi; Kaoaoptt6; 9o;-1l
Ioaicova;
203-5,
figs.
207, 214)
108
SHARON
E.J. GERSTEL1
St.
Thekia, Euboia,
end of 13th
century, cemetery
church
(naos,
south
wall)
Julitta
and
Kyrikos
(Georgopoulou-Berra, "TotXoypcutfe to-i
chXouq
-roi 13ou
ai6(vaYcq-v EJpota,"
9-38,
pl. 20; G. Demetrokalles, "'O 3vuxvrtvv6; va6o; ti; 'Ay7'a; e'KXa; E'43o'a;"
ThXVtK&
Xpovt-K6
227
[1963], 52)
St.
Panteleimon,
Upper
Boularioi, Mani,
13th-14th
century (naos,
south
wall)
Kyriake
(N. Drandakes, "'Ayto;
fIavcsXcii cgwov M2touXaptCov," 'Ei.EE.Bu.Xtn.
37
[1969-70],
437-
58,
figs.
19, 20; Drandakes,
PuSavctv'; toiXoypapfE;,
390-91,
figs.
27, 28)
St.
Marina, Voutama, Lakonia,
13th-14th
century (naos)
North wall: Marina
South wall: Eirene
(N.
Drandakes et
al., "'EpEuva(cTv
'Enit&aupo Atpjp6"" npaKc<.'ApX.E-EC. [1982], 405)
Fourteenth
Century
St.
Nicholas,
Agoriane,
Lakonia,
ca. 1300
(naos,
west end of north
wall)
Eirene(?),
unidentified female
saint,
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria,
Barbara
(M. Emmanouel,
"O'
toiXoypcuo;
-roi
6AyoiouNtK-oXaO
'o
fV 'Ay6pwqvr) AAa7o a;,"
AC-X.XptYc.'ApX.'E,T.
4.14
[1987-88],
fig. 37)
St.
Niketas, Karavas, Mani,
ca. 1300
(narthex,
north
wall)
Kyriake(?)
(N. Gioles,
"'0
vakc
toi
VAy. NtKfdjta
(nc6v
Kapafk
MFoa
M6vrj;" AaKJ2In.
[1983], 178,
pl. IIa)
St.
Marina, Mournes, Crete,
ca. 1300-1320
(naos)
Life
cycle
of Marina
(J. Albani, "O4 toiXoypaOts; toii
vaoi7 tc
;Ayf a;
Mapfvac; (t6v
Moupv'
,Ti
Kp',rrq.'lEvaq
&WyvoGTO;
PtoypaOcK6;
K-1"KXo;
t* &y7ag Mapiva,."
As-X.Xptac.'ApX.'Et.
4.12
[1993-
94], 211-22)
St.
Demetrios, Makrochori, Euboia, 1302-3
(naos)
South wall: Eirene
West
wall,
south side: Marinawith hatchet
(M. Emmanouel,
O'
toiXoypaots; toTo
'AyfouAri,xrypfou
rr
MaKptq ppt
icati Kotgr'-
oF-S
Tq- Oeor 6Kou v
'OvG50Xio
of);
Etfpotaw
[Athens, 1991],
pls.
32, 34, 35)
Anastasis of
Christ, Veroia,
ca. 1315
(naos)
West end of north wall:
Catherine,
Eirene
South exterior: Annaand infant
Mary (late
13th
century)
(G. Gounaris,
The Church
of
Christ inVeria
pls.
41, 48;
5. Pele-
kanides,
KaXXi~pyr7;,
6"rA;
Oe-TaXfa;
&p to
7
S&yp6'o;
[Athens, 1973], 87-90,
pl. 81)
Savior, Kisamou, Crete, 1320
(south wall)
Annaand infant
Mary
('ApX.Aekc.
21.2, 2
[1966], 431,
pl. 468b)
Nicholas
Orphanos, Thessalonike,
ca. 1320
North aisle of
ambulatory:
Annaand infant
Mary,
Catherine,
Lirene
North end of west nave wall:
Theodote/Cosmas/Damian
109
110 PA.LI-INTEDSOURCES FOR FEMALE PIETY
(A. Tsitouridou, 'O
(o)ypczOKo';
6twKiogo;tooi?
~Aytou
NtKoXa'ou
'Opoavoi5
ar'i Oc(m-
XovficKri
[Thessalonike, 1986], pls. 98, 100, 101)
Chapel
of the
Archangels, Desphina,
1332 (naos, west
wall)
Paraskeve
(M. Soteriou, "A'
poaoyp
at cuoi5
Du4zv-tvoi
vcz
pf'oi
t65
Ta4tcLpX&~ Aeaot'v%~,"
AO_Xt.Xpturr.'ApX.'Etc.
4.3
[1962-63], 175-202, pl. 58)
St. Nicholas, Platsa, Mani, 1337/8, 1343/4, 1348/9
Central nave, north wall: twounidentified
women., Menodora, Oraiozele
South aisle:
Julitta(?), Charitine, Anysia, Pelagia
(D. Mouriki, O't
Ttoioypaotfs;
toi5 'Ayfox Nt-KoXa'O' itiiv HIX6a'a
tijl; M6'v% [Athens,
1975], pl. 90)
HagiaSophia, Langada. Mani, early
14th
century (south wall)
Twounidentified female saints
(Ch. Constantinide, "'O vaO6;
tfi; 'Ayfcz;
Toot'a;
(T j
AQyK6&Z
ti~;'2E4( M6'vrj;,"
Aax.l1c.
6
[1982], 80-124)
St. Nicholas
Polemitas, Mani, 14th
century (naos)
South
wall, arch:
Nonna, Barbara
North wall, blind arch:
Kyriake (next
toSt.
George)
North
wall, arch: Kallinike, Anastasia, Thekla
(Drandakes, Bu~avctvw';
1tOyat'
138-50,
figs. 8-12)
Koimesis, Oxylithos, Euboia,
cemetery
church
(narthex)
Annaand infant
Mary, Paraskeve(?)
(Emmanouel, O' to
tyaF& 'toi
UAyf'o-L
Aiqgrjptpou
pl. 77)
St. Zacharias, Phoiniki, Chalkis, 14th
century
(A. Katsiote, "Ot
toiqoypcuofe
tCoi Ayf'ouZaXapt'aYcto4DotVtiKt
nq X6X-Kq;,"
'ApX.AcXt.
40.1
[1985], 229-41,
p1. 112a)
PanagiaArkouliotissa, Naxos, 14th
century (east
wall of
conch)
('ApX.A8-Xt. 26.2, 2 [1971], 473, PI. 488a)
St. Nicholas, Penteli
Cave, 14th
century(?),
burial church
(templon)
Catherine
('ApX.Ae-X-c.
28.2, 1
[1973], 68, p1. 51; D.
Mouriki, "O't
P-0av-rn%F;
'CtoX0aoypw'; t6COv
npe'K(KX1cthOOV
fi~; DrrjXt&; tfi;
I`kvtP'_Xr;,"
A
t.cXpt~at.'ApX.'Ec.
4.7
[1973-74], 79-115,
pls. 28, 29)
PanagiaKalomoiron, Rodovaniou
Selinou, Crete, 14th
century
Photeine
('ApX.AesXt. 25.2, 2 [1970],
490,
PI. 425b)
St.
George, Phoutia, late 14th
century, cemetery
church
(north wall)
Twounidentified female saints, Barbara,
Kyriake
(V. Kepetzi,
"'O
va6';r
-roi
Ay'ouF_o)p'yfo1
aT6'
FDo1'5ta
tfq;
'Ent6a&z(poiO
At4nqpa',"
ANTI-
4D.2NON:
'Aotp(O4w
GcOtV
KQOTD'ln-iy
N. B.
Apav8a6KTq
[Thessalonike, 1994], 508-30)
Fifteenth
Century
St.
Eustratios, Pharaklos, Lakonia, 15th
century (naos, south
wall)
Sophia, Thekla
110
SHARON E.
J.
GERSTEL
(N.
Drandakes et
al., ""Epeuva
orinv 'Etbaupo
Atgrlpa," HpaKo.'ApX.'ET. [1982], 436,
pl.
244b)
Ai-Sideros,
Pyrgos,
Mani, Lakonia,
early
15th
century (naos,
north and south
walls)
Paraskeve,
Eirene
(Drandakes, Kalopissi,
and
Panayotidi, "'pepuva
oGti
Mavrl," 176,
pl. 123c)
Holy Apostles
Kavvousiou,
Ierapetras,
Crete,
15th
century, cemetery
church
Eirene,
Sophia,
unidentified saints
('ApX.A?Xc. 25.2,
2
[1970], 495,
pl. 429a)
St.
Nicholas, Briki, Mani,
second
quarter
of 15th
century (naos, adjacent
to
sanctuary)
Kallinike
(Drandakes, BuVavntv;q TotxoypactiE?, 112-21)
St.
Nicholas, Kastania, Mani,
second
quarter
of 15th
century
(naos,
north and south
walls)
Marina,
Anastasia
Pharmakolytria,
Paraskeve,
twounidentified female saints
(N. Drandakes, "'Epeva ei5;
TIv
Meaor?vtaKiv Mavrv,"
FpaK.'Ap/.'E. [1976], 228,
pl. 162d)
111
Women's Space in Byzantine Monasteries
Author(s): Alice-Mary Talbot
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Women's
Space
in
Byzantine
Monasteries
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
hroughout
the
Byzantine
era,
adoption
of the monastic habit entailed vows of chas-
tity, poverty,
and obedience and necessitated renunciationof
worldly
ties,
including
those of
property
and
family.
The architecture of monasteries
encouraged
this
separation
fromthe outside world and the
segregation
of the sexes
by enclosing
the
precincts
with
amassive wall and
strictly limiting
the number of entrances.' Such a
plan
facilitated
enforcement of twobasic monastic rules that
attempted
tomaintainadistinct and
sepa-
rate
space
for those whotook the habit: the rule of abaton
designed
to
keep
unwelcome
visitors
outside,
and the rule of enclosure intended to
keep
monks and nuns inside. The
purpose
of these
rules,
of
course,
was to
protect
monastics from
worldly
distractionand
sexual
temptation.
The
peril
involved in
disregarding
themwas
vividly expressed by
the
father of St.
Mary,
whoadvised her whenshe was about toenter a
monastery disguised
as the monk
Marinos, "Child,
take heed how
you
conduct
yourself,
for
you
are about to
enter intothe midst of
fire,
for awomaninno
way
enters a<male>
monastery."2
The
sources
preserve
several notorious cases where womensneaked intomonasteries
specifi-
cally
for
purposes
of sexual
encounters,
thus
demonstrating
that the fears of monastic
founders were not
totally groundless.3
The rule of
abaton,
literally meaning
"untrodden" or
"inaccessible,"
and
describing
My
thanks toSharon
Gerstel,
Alexander
Kazhdan(t),
Henry Maguire,
Svetlana
Popovic,
and Patrick Vis-
cuso,
whoread and commented onearlierversions of this
paper.
I amalso
grateful
tothe two
anonymous
reviewers who
suggested
anumberof
improvements.
'Cf.
Nov.
133,
chap.
1,
of
Justinian(CIC,
Nov
668),
and the
typikon
of Neilos
Damilas,
ed. S.
Petrides,
"Le
typikon
de Nil Damilas
pour
le monastere de femmes de BaeoniaenCrete
(1400),"
IRAIK 15
(1911),
107-8.
Fora
survey
of monastic
gateways,
see A. Orlandos,
MovaoncptaKinaPX?KTTovtK' (Athens, 1958), 17-26,
and
S.
Mojsilovic-Popovic, "Monastery
Entrances around the Year
1200,"
inStudenicaet l'art
byzantin
autourde
l'annee
1200,
ed. V. Korac
(Belgrade, 1988),
153-69.
2Cf. vitaof St.
Mary/Marinos, chap.
4,
ed. M.
Richard,
"LaVie Ancienne de Sainte Marie surnommee
Marinos," inCoronaGratiarum: Miscellanea
patristica,
historicaet
liturgicaEligio
Dekkers
O.
S.B. XII Lustra
complenti
oblata,
I
(Brugge, 1975),
88.29-31. Forfurther
examples
of similar
sentiments,
see D.
Abrahamse,
"Women's
Monasticisminthe Middle
Byzantine
Period: Problems and
Prospects," ByzF
9
(1985),
44-45.
3E.g.,
twoinstances at the
Hodegoi monastery
ca. 1355, cited inthe same
synodal
document: awoman
called Moschonouwas accused of
visiting
the monk
Ioasaph
inhis
cell,
and
Ananias,
the
nephew
of the
metropolitan
of
Tyre,
was
caught
with a
prostitute
inhis
cell;
cf.
J.
Darrouzes,
Les
regestes
des actes duPatriarcat
de
Constantinople,
I: Les actes des
patriarches,
IV-VI
(Paris, 1932-79), V,
no. 2385
(hereafter,
RegPatr),
and MM
1:187, 442-43.
WOMEN'S SPACE IN BYZANTINE MONASTERIES
the
principle
that amale
monastery
was off-limits towomenand vice versa,4 was codified
inboth civil and canonlaw in
Byzantium.
Thus Novel 133 of
Justinian,
of the
year
539,
forbade entrance toa
monastery by
members of the
opposite
sex, evenof
corpses
for
burial. The
only explicit exception
was that
gravediggers
were
permitted
toenter anun-
nery
inorder to
prepare
a
grave
inthe
cemetery
and
perform
the actual burial.
Justinian
alsoforbade mentovisit afemale convent or womentovisit amale
monastery
for com-
memorative
services.5
Canonlaw reiterated this
prohibition:
canon47 of the Council in
Trullo
(691/2),
for
example, prohibited
awomanfrom
spending
the
night
inamale mon-
astery
and vice
versa,
while canon18 of Nicaea
II
in787
prescribed
stricter
rules,
that
womenwere not allowed tovisit monasteries under
any
circumstances.6
As we shall
see, however,
these civil and ecclesiastical
regulations represented
anideal
that was difficult toachieve inthe case of male institutions and
impossible
for female
religious
houses. Inthis
paper
I review the evidence onthe observance of rules of abaton
and enclosure in
Byzantium
over a
period
of
approximately
six hundred
years,
ca. 800
to1400.
I
have chosenthese six centuries because
they
are
particularly
rich insources
on
monasticism,
especially
saints'
lives,
typika
(monastic
foundation
documents),
and
syn-
odal acts.
ABATON AT MALE MONASTERIES
The
typika
of male monastic houses
normally prescribed
that the doors were tobe
barred to
women,
with some
necessary exceptions.
Thus
vthe
eleventh-century
rule for
the
Evergetis monastery
in
Constantinople,
which served as the model for numerous
subsequent typika,
stated that the founder would have
preferred
toexclude women
totally
fromthe monastic
precincts,
but felt
obligated
to
permit
certainwellbornwomentovisit
for
spiritual purposes.7
At St.
Mamas,
aristocratic womenwere vouchsafed
permission
to
attend the burial or memorial rites of relatives of the
founder;
they
were admitted
only
tothe church and had toleave as soonas the
ceremony
concluded.8 At the Pantokrator
monastery
in
Constantinople,
aComnenianfoundationof the twelfth
century,
three con-
tiguous
church
buildings
still survive to
complement
and
help interpret
the evidence of
the
typikon.9
The rule of
John
II
Komnenos
absolutely
forbade womentoenter the mo-
40n
the
principle
of
abaton,
see
J.
L. vanDieteninRB
1 (1969), 49-84,
and P de
Meester,
De monachico
statuiuxta
disciplinambyzantinam(VaticanCity, 1942),
163-66.
5Novel
133,
chap.
3,
CC.
,
,
Nov 669-71.
6G.
A. Rhalles and M.
Potles,
6w)vTaygla tOv
Eicov Kat iepOv KavovoV,
II (Athens, 1852), 628-30;
I. M.
Konidares,
NORmtKi
Ecprijor
n6 TCOVvaoYTptIaKv runtctK6CV (Athens, 1984),
120.
7P.
Gautier,
"Le
typikon
de laTheotokos
Evergetis,"
REB 40
(1982), chap.
39.
8S.
Eustratiades,
"TUTinKOV
TT
E?V KovaTavwtvoZio6Xet RovS toi a`yiotoi) Reyakoxaptpo; M6dLavToS," Hellenika
1
(1928),
282-83. The vitaof
Symeon
the
Theologian
describes the vainefforts of the motherof his
disciple
Arsenios
tovisit hersonat the St. Mamas
monastery. Although
the
porteryielded
toher
importunate suppli-
cations and announced herarrival to
Arsenios,
the
young
monk
steadfastly
refused tosee his
mother,
even
though
she
spent
three
days
outside the
gate; cf. I. Hausherr,
Vie de
Symeon
le Nouveau
The'ologien(949-1022)
par
Nicetas Stethatos
(Rome, 1928), chap.
46.
90n
the
complex
of the Pantokrator
monastery,
see A. H. S.
Megaw,
"Notes onRecent Work of the
Byzan-
tine Institute in
Istanbul,"
DOP 17
(1963), 335-64; G. Majeska,
RussianTravelers to
Constantinople
inthe Four-
teenth and
Fifteenth
Centuries
(Washington,
D.C., 1984), 289-95;
R.
Janin,
La
de
I'Empire
114
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
nastic
precincts, declaring
that the
monastery
was abatos. He
did, however,
make
provi-
sionfor noblewomentoattend funeral and memorial services
by entering through
the
door of the northernEleousachurch rather than
through
the main
gate
of the
complex.10
In
addition,
womenwere admitted tothis church
every Friday night
whena
procession
was held and
elderly
womenattendants
helped
distribute water fromthe
phiale."1
The
Eleousa,
described
by
the
typikon
as
being
"near" or "next to" the
monastery,12
was thus
apparently
considered tobe
separate
fromthe monastic
complex,
and hence female wor-
shipers
would not contravene the
provisions
of the
typikon.
Fromthe
Eleousa,
visitors
could
proceed directly
intothe
adjoining
middle church of St.
Michael,
which served as
amausoleumfor both male and female members of the
imperial family;'3
it was also
considered tolie outside the
monastery precincts,14
which
began
with the attached south
church of the Pantokrator that served as the katholikon. Alsooutside the
precincts
was
a
fifty-bed hospital
attached tothe
monastery,
which was intended for the care of
lay people
and included award with twelve beds for
women.'5
As I
interpret
the
typikon
text,
the Pantokrator churches must have beensituated at the
very edge
of the monastic
precinct,
sothat there could be free
public
access tothe Eleousachurch. The
disposition
of the three churches at Pantokrator thus
provided
ameans
whereby
womencould
be admitted toachurch associated with the
monastery,
but not enter the
precincts
themselves.
At the
contemporary
Kosmosoteira,
amale
monastery
at Pherrai in
Thrace,
women
were
permitted
toenter the church for
worship only
three times a
year,
onthe Marian
feast
days
of the Annunciation
(March 25),
the Birth of the
Virgin(September 8),
and
her Dormition
(August 15).
This was aconcessionof the
founder,
Isaac
Komnenos,
who
wanted in
principle
tolimit women's
worship
at the
katholikon,
soas not todetract from
its
"good appearance" (eVntp?enta),
but at the same time felt he should
occasionally per-
mit women tomake their devotions tothe
Virgin
and to
pray
for his "wretched soul."
Isaac
specified
that the female
worshipers
were toavoid
any
contact with the
monks,
by
entering through
the east
gate
of the
monastery complex
and
waiting
until the monks
had left the church after the conclusionof the
liturgy.
Onthese three
days,
womenvisi-
tors
were, however,
permitted
tomeet with their male relatives inthe
monastery
court-
yard
under the watchful
supervision
of the abbot.
During
the rest of the
year,
women
byzantin,
I: Le
siege
de
Constantinople
et le
patriarcat oecumenique,
3,
Les
eglises
et les
monasteres, 2nd ed.
(Paris,
1969), 515-23,
564-66
(hereafter, Janin,
Eglises CP).
For
plans
of the
monastery,
see T. F.E
Mathews,
The
Byzantine
Churches
of
Istanbul: A
Photographic Survey (University
Park, Pa., 1976), 74,
and W.
Miiller-Wiener,
Bildlexikonzur
Topographie
Istanbuls
(Tubingen, 1977),
210.
'OP. Gautier,
"Le
typikon
duChrist Sauveur
Pantocrator,"
REB 32
(1974),
61.530-34: OOiK &rOb tfjC;
xn6
T,c; Ctovi; ?16?AYX?DO6VoTat,
'
6aTcO 5
T
n|; 7Sl ;oi
TO vaov
);
'E
^FoDo6?i;.
11There were fourof these female attendants called
graptai;
twoserved at atime
during
alternate weeks.
These womenalso
helped
to
keep
the church
clean;
cf.
Gautier, "Pantocrator,"
77.785-94.
'2Gautier, "Pantocrator," 73.728-33: sn6rtaiov TfiS; Taozi6Ic; CIovi ;.
13Forthe burial of
John
II and his wife Irene at the
church,
see
Gautier, "Pantocrator," 47.289-90,
73.728-32; cf. E. and M.
Jeffreys, "Immortality
inthe
Pantokrator?"JOB
44
(1994),
193-201. Manuel I and
his wife Irene were alsointerred inthe mausoleumof St. Michael.
4Gautier, "Pantocrator," 73.730-32: jzuaibtoiz xotoiutou
vaoi) Kai
Tc;S gLovT; TuEpov E)UKT1plOV
. .. . X' ovo-
LaTIoT.o ...
MtXarx.
'5Gautier, "Pantocrator," 83-109.
115
were refused entrance and had tobe content with
venerating
amosaic iconof the
Virgin
hanging
onthe
gate leading
intothe
monastery courtyard.16
The
typika
of some male monasteries were sostrict with
regard
tocontact
between
the monks and
any
womenthat
they
evenforbade charitable distributions at the monas-
tery gate
toindividual female
beggars.
Inthe words of the
typikon
for the
Evergetis
mon-
astery:
"It is our wish that noone should
goaway
fromour
gate empty-handed
unless
it
should be awoman. For no<individual> distributionshould be made tothese
<women>,
not because we
despise
their kindred
<nature>,
by
no
means,
but we must be on
guard
against
the harm
ensuing
therefrom,
lest out of habit
they begin
to
frequent
the
gate
more often<and> become acause of evil rather than
good
for those whodole out <the
alms>." The
Evergetine typikon
did, however,
permit
womentoreceive food at the time
of
general
distributions on
major
feast
days,
"for this
happens rarely
and does not cause
us
any
harm."17
Despite
all the restrictions onfemale
access,
there were
legitimate
reasons for
grant-
ing
womenoccasional and brief admittance toamale
monastery:
toattend funeral or
commemorative services
(a
privilege normally
limited torelatives of aristocratic found-
ers),
toattend services onthe
monastery's
feast
day,18
or for
pilgrimage
toa
holy
shrine
withinthe monastic
precincts.
At some men's
monasteries,
access to
healing
tombs was
readily
available tomale and female
pilgrims
alike. At Hosios
Loukas,
for
example,
as at
most
monasteries,
the katholikonwas inthe middle of the
monastery,
and
pilgrims
would
have to
pass through
a
courtyard
toreach the shrine.19 At the Kosmidionshrine inCon-
stantinople
the
pilgrims
established themselves under shaded
porticoes. They brought
their own
bedding
with
them;
curtains were sometimes used to
partition
off
private
space,
but oftenmenand women
pilgrims lay right
next toeach other.20 Some male
houses,
for
instance,
the monasteries of Tarasios and
Ignatios,
whose rules forbade access
by
women,
ineffect also
prevented
themfrom
making pilgrimage
toseek amiraculous
cure at the saint's
reliquary
housed inthe katholikon. Insuch cases women
might get
around this
prohibitionby sending
male servants or relatives toobtainfor themsome
6L.
Petit,
"Typikon
dumonastere de laKosmosoteira
pres
d'Aenos
(1152),"
IRAIK 13
(1908), chap.
84,
pp.
60-61. The Actaof the brothers
David,
Symeon,
and
George,
onthe other
hand,
present
amuch less
rigorous picture
of interactionbetweenthe monks and theirfemale relatives.
Thus,
whenDavid's mother
came tovisit himat his
monastery,
he sent amonk toescort herfromthe seashore and
greeted
herwith a
warm
embrace;
cf. I. vanden
Gheyn,
"Acta
graeca
ss.
Davidis,
Symeonis
et
Georgii Mitylenae
ininsula
Lesbo," AB 18
(1899),
217-18.
'7Gautier,
"Evergetis," chap.
38,
p.
83.1184-91.
Very
similar
prohibitions
are found in
Petit,
"Kosmoso-
teira,"
chap.
56,
p.
47.21-27, and inthe Phoberou
typikon,
ed. A.
Noctes
Petropolita-
nae
(St. Petersburg, 1913), chap.
55,
p.
74.
'8As
we have seenat
Kosmosoteira;
see alsoP.
Gautier,
"Le
typikon
dusebaste
Gregoire Pakourianos,"
REB 42
(1984), chap.
23,
p. 105.1413-15,
which states that womenare
permitted
inthe church of the
Pakourianos
monastery only
onits feast
day.
'9It
is not clearfromthe vitaof St. Luke of Steiris whetherhis
healing
shrine was located (as C. Connor
assumes)
inthe
crypt,
which has a
separate
entrance,
orinthe church above it. Fora
plan
of Hosios
Loukas,
see C.
Connor,
Art and Miracles inMedieval
Byzantium:
The
Crypt
at Hosios Loukas and Its Frescoes
(Princeton,
N.J., 1991), fig.
1. Forsimilar
disposition
of the katholikonat the Boeotianmonasteries of
Sagmatas
and
Hosios
Meletios,
see
Orlandos, MovaoxrlptaiaTi dpXtecKTovtKTJ, figs.
8-9.
2?See
A.-J. Festugiere,
Sainte
Thecle,
saints Come et
Damien,
saints
Cyr
et Jean
(extraits),
saint
Georges (Paris,
1971),
89.
116
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
sort of
eulogia(usually
an
ampulla
of
holy
oil or
water).21
Other womenwere so
desperate
totouch asaint's tombthat
they
resorted to
disguise
as amanor as aeunuch.22 Some-
times,
as a
concession,
the
holy
relics were carried tothe entrance of the katholikonchurch
so
they
could be revered
by
women
visiting
the
monastery.23
Yet another solutiontothe
problem
of visitation
by
female
pilgrims may
have beentolocate the katholikonat the
edge
of amonastic
complex
with anexterior
public
entrance,
as at Pantokrator. Parallels
for this
siting
of the katholikoncanbe found inat least twoother
Constantinopolitan
monasteries,
Kalenderhane Cami and the Pammakaristos.24
Finally,
I should mentionthe
healing
shrine of St. Peter of Atroain
Bithynia
as another
paradigm
of accommodation
of
pilgrims.
First of
all,
during
Peter's lifetime a
chapel
of the
Virgin
was built outside the
monastery
enclosure where Peter could meet female
pilgrims.
After his death his relics
were moved toa
grotto-chapel
near but outside the
monastery, again
tofacilitate access
by
female
pilgrims.25
The
principle
of abatonat male
religious
houses came tobe extended from
single
monasteries toentire
complexes
of monasteries on
holy
mountains,
as onMount Athos.26
The same rule of exclusionof womenheld true for
Meteora,
where the fourteenth-
century typikon
of St. Athanasios ordered that womenwere not toenter the
precincts
of
the
holy
mountain,
nor tobe
givenany
food to
eat,
evenif
they
were
dying
of
hunger.27
The total absence of nunneries fromMount Latros leads us toconclude that this was
another
holy
mountainthat
prohibited
the
presence
of women. Onother
holy
mountains
of westernAsia
Minor, Galesion, Auxentios,
and
Olympos,
for
example, attempts
were
made tocontrol the
presence
of women
by permitting
the establishment of a
single
fe-
male
convent,
designed primarily
tohouse the relatives of monks
residing
onthose
holy
mountains.28 At Auxentios the
nunnery
was located onthe lower
slopes
of the
mountain,
while the male
monastery
was near the summit.29 Aneffort was evenmade toexclude
2
Thus,
inthe vita
Ignatii,
one woman
dispatched
servants to
bring
hersome of the saint's hairin
apomyr-
isma
(probably myron,
the
sweet-smelling
exudationfromthe saint's
remains),
while anotherwomansent her
husband tofetch hersome of the
holy
oil
(PG 105:561c-D).
22Thus ademoniac womanwas
disguised
as aman
by
heruncle soshe could
spend
the
night
next tothe
tombof Elias
Spelaiotes (AASS, Sept.
3:
chap. 82),
and twootherwomen
suffering
fromanissue of blood
dressed as eunuchs inorderto
gain
entrance tothe tombof Tarasios
(I.
A.
Heikel,
Ignatii
Diaconi VitaTarasii
archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani [Helsingfors, 1891], 421.29-37).
23Cf. C.
Bouras,
NeaMoni onChios:
History
and Architecture
(Athens, 1982),
167 and n. 2.
24For
plans
of Kalenderhane Cami and
Pammakaristos,
see
Miiller-Wiener, Bildlexikon,
154 and
132;
see
alsoH.
Hallensleben,
"Untersuchungen
zur
Baugeschichte
der
ehemaligenPammakaristoskirche,
derheuti-
genFethiye
camii in
Istanbul," IstMitt 13-14
(1963-64), 128-93,
esp. figs.
3, 4,
and 15.
25The rule of Peter's
monastery absolutely
forbade entrance to
women;
cf. V.
Laurent,
LaVie merveilleuse
de saint Pierre d'Atroa
(Brussels, 1956),
54 and 169.18-22. Forthe translationof Peter's
relics,
see V.
Laurent,
LaVitaretractataet les miracles
posthumes
de saint Pierre d'Atroa
(Brussels, 1958), chap.
97.
260nabatonat
Athos,
see S.
Papadatos,
To
7rp6pkXrlja
Troi
d6Ptoo
Toi
'Aytio"Opo?S (Thessalonike, 1969),
and A.-M.
Talbot,
"Womenand Mt. Athos," inMount Athos and
Byzantine Monasticism,
ed. A.
Bryer
and
M.
Cunningham(Aldershot,
Hampshire, 1996),
67-79.
27N. Bees, "Iu,1po3Xi Ei;
TiV
itrcopiav
TCv
RlovCov
TCMv
Me-ET?pcov," Byzantis
1
(1909), 251,
article
7;
cf. also
p.
259:
tai
To
jopacov
eivvat
yDvaQti
-t KUKXqc) ToD
MET&EpODo.
Here we cansee the extension of the
misogynistic
provision
inthe
Evergetine typikon(see
note 17
above)
tothe entire Meteora
complex.
28Forfurther
details,
see A.-M.
Talbot,
"A
Comparison
of the Monastic
Experience
of
Byzantine
Menand
Women," GOTR 30
(1985),
2-3.
29Cf. R.
Janin,
Les
eglises
et les monasteres des
grands
centres
byzantins (Paris, 1975),
46.
117
womenfromthe
entirety
of
Patmos,
as we learnfroma
chrysobull
of
Emperor
Alexios I
forbidding
womentolive onthe hallowed island where Christodoulos was
establishing
the
monastery
of St.
John
the
Theologian;
but Christodoulos was forced to
change
the
rule whenhe could not find unmarried constructionworkers tocome tothe
island,
espe-
cially
whenhe realized that he needed not
only
builders ona
temporary
basis but
long-
termlaborers. He
compromised by requiring
the workmen's
families,
especially
the
women,
toremainconfined toone corner of the island.30
The rule of abatonon
holy
mountains was
obviously
intended to
preserve
the
special
purity
of the monks
inhabiting
these isolated monastic
complexes.
I would also
argue
that the masculine character of
holy
mountains was enhanced
by
the
tendency
in
Byzan-
tiumfor female convents tobe built inurbanlocations that were deemed safer thanthe
countryside
for the weaker sex.
Moreover,
since nuns of the middle and late
Byzantine
centuries almost
always
resided incenobitic
institutions,
they
were not as attracted tothe
wild mountainous
regions
of Greece and Anatoliaas were the
holy
menwho
readily
moved back and forth betweenthe cenobitic life and the
solitary
existence of hermits.31
DOUBLE MONASTERIES
Double
monasteries,
that
is,
male and female monasteries built either
contiguous
to
or
closely
associated with each
other,
under the rule of a
single superior,32
were frowned
uponby
both civil and
religious
authorities in
Byzantium. Justinianattempted
to
prohibit
such institutions inhis Novel 123 of the
year
546,33
but
they
continue tobe attested into
the
eighth century,
as at Mantineion.34 Around the
year
800, however,
these
complexes
seemtohave been
effectively suppressed:
canon20 of the seventh ecumenical
council,
Nicaea
II
(787), prohibited any
future double
foundations,
and ca. 810 Patriarch
Nikeph-
oros I
totally
closed all such institutions.35 For three centuries thereafter
(800-1100)
no
double monasteries are mentioned inthe sources. Double monasteries
reappear
inthe
twelfth
century,
for
example,
the male
monastery
of Christ
Philanthropos
and the con-
vent of the Kecharitomene
jointly
founded
by
Irene
Doukaina,36
and are knowninthe
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as
well,
onMount Ganos and in
Constantinople.37
Since there are no
physical
remains of these
complexes,
our
knowledge
of themmust be
30E. L.
Vranouse,
BRuavctva
?yypa4xa
tf;
[tovi; nldtiou,
I
(Athens, 1980),
no.
6,
p.
60,
lines
Xy'-Xe', 1-8;
typikon
of
Christodoulos,
MM 6:66-68.
31
Formore on
this,
see
Talbot,
"Comparison,"
2-4.
320ndouble
monasteries,
see S.
Hilpisch,
Die
Doppelkloster: Entstehung
und
Organisation(Mtinster, 1928),
5-24;
J. Pargoire,
"Les monasteres doubles chez les
byzantins,"
EO 9
(1906), 21-25;
ODB
11:1392; Talbot,
"Comparison,"
5-7.
33CIC,
Nov 123.36.
34SynaxariumCP,
849-50.
35Forcanon20 of Nicaea
II,
see Rhalles and
Potles, 1Z6vtayga, II,
637-38. The actionof
Nikephoros
is described inhis
vita,
ed. C. de
Boor,
Nicephori archiepiscopi
Constantinopolitani
opuscula
historica
(Leipzig,
1880),
159-60.
36Cf.
Janin, Eglises CP, 188-91, 525-27;
P.
Gautier,
"Le
typikon
de laTheotokos Kecharitomene," REB 43
(1985),
139. It should be noted that each
part
of the
monastery
had its own
superior.
37Complexes
onMount Ganos and at
Xerolophos
inthe
capital
were associated with Athanasios
I, patri-
arch of
Constantinople (1289-93, 1303-9).
For
bibliography,
see
Talbot,
"Comparison,"
nn. 23-25. Onthe
monastery
of Christ the
Savior,
see R. H.
Trone,
"A
Constantinopolitan
Double
Monastery
of the Fourteenth
Century:
The
Philanthropic
Savior,"
ByzSt
10
(1983),
81-87.
118
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
based on
scanty
textual references that
provide virtually
noindicationof the
physical
layout
of these institutions. The Kecharitomene
typikon
informs us that convent and male
monastery
were divided
by
awall and that the twoinstitutions had
separate
water chan-
nels.38 The homilies of
Theoleptos
of
Philadelphia
address the monks and nuns of Phi-
lanthropos
Soter
separately,
thus
implying
that
they
attended the
daily
offices indifferent
churches.39 A
passage
inone of his Easter homilies has beentaken
by
one scholar to
suggest
that the monks and nuns ate
together
inthe
monastery,
but should
surely
be
interpreted metaphorically.40
The vitaof St. Philotheos of Athos does seemto
imply,
on
the other
hand,
that monks and nuns at adouble
monastery
at
Neapolis
attended the
liturgy together;41 they may
have been
separated by
awall or screen. It seems most
likely
that double monasteries had
separate
areas for monks and
nuns,
divided
by
a
wall,
but
insome cases
may
have shared the use of the katholikon. It is
surely significant
that inhis
decree of 1383
dividing
the double
monastery
of Athanasios on
Xerolophos,
Patriarch
Neilos Kerameus
carefully
detailed the divisionof
properties previously
owned incom-
mon,
but made nodivisionof
buildings,
thus
suggesting
that each
part
of the
monastery
had its own
church,
refectory,
kitchens,
and soon.42
ABATONANDENCLOSURE IN FEMALE CONVENTS
I now turntonunneries and review their rules of enclosure and abatonand the vis-
iting privileges
of menwho
sought
entrance.43 In
principle,
nuns were cloistered for life
and could
go
out of their convent
only
in
extraordinary
circumstances,
for
instance,
if a
parent
was sick or
dying.44
Insuch
cases,
the
twelfth-century
Kecharitomene
typikonper-
mitted anuntoleave the cloister for the
day, accompanied by
two
aged
nuns,
tovisit her
parents'
house. The
late-thirteenth-century
rule for the
Lips
convent was somewhat more
liberal,
stating
that anunneed be
accompanied
onsuch avisit
only
if she were of unreli-
able
reputation.
In
fact, however,
nuns did leave their convents for anumber of other
38Gautier, "Kecharit6mene," 115.1677-90, 139.2115-16.
39R. E.
Sinkewicz, Theoleptos
of Philadelphia:
The Monastic Discourses
(Toronto, 1992),
19.
40In
homily
17
(p. 302), referring
tothe death of the monk Leo
Monomachos,
Theoleptos says
tothe
nuns: "You
know,
my
sisters,
you
saw himwith
your
own
eyes
and had himas a
guest
at table and as afellow
travelleronthe
way ((YuveoTdtopa
Kat
ovo6out6pov E?f%?T
auTov); togetheryouplied
the seaof this life"
(trans. Sinkewicz).
R.
Janin(followed by Sinkewicz) suggests
that Leo
may
have beena
priest
orconfessorin
the women's
convent;
cf. his "Les monasteres duChrist
Philanthrope
a
Constantinople,"
REB 4
(1946),
153.
R. Trone
("Double Monastery," 86)
has
interpreted
this
passage
as
meaning
that "the menand womenof
the
monastery
associated at
table,
had acommon
diet,
and did some
ordinary
work
together,
but did not
worship together."
Another
passage
in
homily
9
(p. 220)
that
might imply
acommon
refectory (ai T11 dapig
TOi
Kotvopio
.. .
i.
TIeptOX'i
T6OV
pxovc6v Jlia.
6
OlKoK;
TV v
DVi'pV oVOV
6 af6 'S
Tt; oToeoT; i
Tp&cESa
Ti
a't)
could well be a
general description
of cenobitic
life,
ratherthana
specific
allusionto
Philanthropos
Soter;
cf. Sinkewicz,
Theoleptos,
19.
41B.
Papoulia,
"Die Vitades
Heiligen
Philotheos vomAthos," SiidostF 22
(1963),
274-76.
42MM 2:80-83.
43Foraconvenient
survey
of the
regulations
of
typika
for
Byzantine
convents,
see C.
Galatariotou,
"Byzan-
tine Women's Monastic Communities: The Evidence of the
Typika,"
JOB 38
(1988),
262-90. See alsoAbra-
hamse,
"Women's Monasticism," 35-58,
esp.
40-47,
and A. E.
Laiou,
"Observations onthe Life and
Ideology
of
Byzantine
Women,"
ByzF
9
(1985),
59-102.
44Cf.,
e.g.,
Gautier, "Kecharit6mene,"
61.761-67;
Lips typikon, chap.
15,
and Bebaia
Elpis typikon, chap.
77,
inH.
Delehaye,
Deux
typicabyzantins
de
lepoque
des
Paleologues (Brussels, 1921),
114.18-115.6 and 63.12-64.5
(hereafter
Lips
and Bebaia
Elpis).
119
reasons,
as we learnfromthe
typika
themselves as well as fromthe texts of saints'
lives
and
synodal
acts. Thus
upon
the occasionof the installationof a
newly
elected abbess, a
group
of nuns
might
escort their
superior
tothe
imperial palace
or
patriarchate
where
the
emperor
or
patriarch
would entrust the abbess with the staff of office.45 Some
nuns
had duties that took themoutside the
cloister;
thus Theodoraof Thessalonike is
de-
scribed as
going
tothe market to
buy
firewood,46
and afemale oikonomos
(steward) might
have tovisit
properties
owned
by
her convent.47 Nuns alsowent out for other business
purposes,
for
instance,
to
request
rental
payments
for a
gardenthey
had leased
out,48 to
petition
the
synod,
or to
appear
as witnesses or defendants inlawsuits.49 Onoccasiona
nun
might
leave tovisit her
spiritual
father or toattend the wake of arelative.50
Finally,
there are numerous references tonuns
going
on
pilgrimage
toashrine or
seeking
heal-
ing
at asaint's
tomb.51
Despite
the
sweeping
declarations of the
typika
of female convents that their
precincts
were forbiddento
men,52
the
very
same documents outlined numerous
exceptions
tothis
rule. The
major difficulty
with the
concept
of abatonat a
nunnery
was of course that a
female
religious
house could not functionwithout the entrance intoits
precincts
of mem-
bers of the male
sex,
because certain
positions necessary
for the
everyday operations
of
aconvent were held
only by
men. Thus male
priests
were
indispensable,
as were father
confessors,
physicians,
workmen,
gravediggers,
and sometimes male
stewards,
gardeners,
and
singers.
The founders of convents dealt with this
problem
inseveral
ways: by limiting
most such
appointments
to
elderly
or married menor to
eunuchs;
by limiting
the fre-
quency
of their access tothe
convent;
and
by limiting
the areas withinthe convent
they
could visit.
Priests were the most
frequent
male visitors tothe convent because of the need for
45Cf.
Lips, chap.
7,
and Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
26.
46S. Paschalides,
'O piog; Tf;
6oiopopwiX0t6o; Oeo&6pa<; rfi
ev OeoGaXoviKx (Thessalonike, 1991), chap.
23 (hereafterV. Theod. Thess.).
47Cf. Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
54.
48MM 2:501-2
(RegPatrVI,
no.
3212).
49Numerous
examples
are tobe found inthe acts of the
synod
of
Constantinople;
see,
for
instance,
RegPatr
VI,
nos. 3215 and 3216
(MM
2:506-9 and
2:509-10).
Tosummarize twosuch
cases,
in1348 anun
appealed
tothe
synod
with
regard
tothe
dowry
of herdeceased sisterwhich herbrother-in-law had
appropriated
(RegPatr
V,
no.
2304;
MM
1:283-84),
while in1397 the nun
Hypomone
filed a
complaint against
herson-
in-law inan
attempt
torecoverthe
property
willed toher
by
her
daughter (RegPatrVI,
no.
3061;
MM
2:347-48).
These lawsuits
indicate,
by
the
way,
that not all nuns had renounced interest intheir
family
property.
Forother
instances,
see
RegPatr
V,
nos.
2064, 2156, 2157.
50The
15th-century
nun
Eulogia-Eugenia
was
givenpermission
tovisit her
confessor,
the
metropolitan
of
Chalcedon;
cf. V.
Laurent,
"Ladirection
spirituelle
des
grandes
dames a
Byzance:
La
correspondance
inedite
d'un
metropolite
de
Chalcedoine,"
REB 8
(1951), 67, 71, 73,
76. The
princess Irene-Eulogia
Choumnaina
was allowed
by
her
spiritual
confessortoattend the wake of her
aunt;
cf. A. C.
Hero,
A Woman's Quest
for
Spiritual
Guidance: The
Correspondence of
Princess Irene
Eulogia
Choumnaina
Palaiologina(Brookline,
Mass.,
1986),
ep.
22.1-2.
51E.g., pilgrimage
of a
group
of nuns fromthe convent of the Theotokos touMaroule tothe
Pege
shrine
(MM 1:223);
the abbess of the convent of Kachlakine in
Arkadioupolis, accompanied by
two
nuns,
journeyed
to
Bizye
tothe tombof
Mary
the
Younger(AASS,
Nov.
4:698EF);
ademoniac nun
sought
acure at the tomb
of St. Thomais at the convent of TaMikraRhomaiou
(AASS,
Nov.
4:240AB);
anotherdemoniac nuntraveled
from
Bulgaria
to
Bizye
toseek
healing
at the tombof St.
Mary
the
Younger(AASS,
Nov.
4:698c).
52E.g., Gautier, "Kecharitomene," 39.324, 329; 61.743-44, 758-59; 63.773-74; 145.2269-70.
120
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
themtocelebrate the
liturgy
and certainmonastic offices.53 The
twelfth-century
Kechari-
tomene
typikonspecified
that
they
should be eunuchs
(preferably monks),54
as did a
proc-
lamationof Patriarch Arsenios inthe mid-thirteenth
century,
which added that the eu-
nuchs should be
elderly.55
The rules of two
Palaiologan
nunneries
stipulated
that the
liturgy
be celebrated
by
married secular
priests, ideally
of mature
years.56
Another manwho
regularly frequented
the convent was the
spiritual
father of the
nuns. He
might
be a
solitary
or cenobitic
monk,
or evena
bishop;57
Irene
Doukaina,
foundress of the Kecharitomene
convent,
required
this individual tobe a
eunuch,
just
like the
priests.58
The
primary
functionof the
spiritual
father was tohear individual
confessions fromthe nuns and todeliver homilies of exhortation. He
normally
heard
confessioninthe narthex of the church or "inside the convent"
(presumably
inaheated
building)
if the weather was toocold. His
frequency
of visitationvaried fromconvent to
convent,
daily
at Bebaia
Elpis,
three
days per
month at
Lips.59
Inthe latter case the
spiritual
father would
spend
the
night
in"the small rooms
assigned
for this
purpose
in
the
hospice (xenon),"
which was "attached to" but considered
separate
fromthe convent
proper.60
The
oikonomos,
or
steward,
of aconvent
might
be either male or
female,61
depending
onthe rule of a
given
institution;
whenthe
appointment
of amanwas
specified,
aeunuch
was
preferred.62
Since the steward needed tovisit all
parts
of the
complex
for
inspection
ofe e the
upkeep
of the
buildings,
he had tobe amanof
impeccable reputation.
Neverthe-
less,
some limits were
imposed
onhis freedomof
movement;
at
Lips,
for
example,
he
had tomeet with the abbess inthe
presence
of the chief
nunnery
officials and totake
his
midday
meal inone of the rooms of the
hospice
rather thaninthe refectory.63 At
Kecharitomene the
physician
alsohad tobe aeunuch or
very elderly.64
53The basic article onthis
subject
is
by
E.
Papagianne,
"Ot
KXipt-KOi
TO)V
PIVaIV?cV yUVValKEicoV (LOV(V
Kai
To
pa,ro," BRav9taKa
6
(1986),
77-93.
54Gautier, "Kecharitomene,"
chap.
15,
p.
59.708. It should be noted that canon22 of the
Holy Apostles
forbade the ordination
only
of eunuchs whohad castrated
themselves;
those castrated
by
others could be-
come
bishops (canon21);
cf. Rhalles and
Potles, 2i)vTayla, II, 29-30.
55RegPatr
IV,
no.
1374,
par.
16;
PG 119:1144D-1145A. This
prefreence
foreunuch
priests provides
con-
firmationof K.
Ringrose's
thesis of the
Byzantine
eunuch as a
mediator,
inthis case betweenthe convent
and the outside
world;
cf. K.
Ringrose,
"Eunuchs as Cultural Mediators in
Byzantium,"
BSCAbstr21
(New
York, 1995),
57.
56Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
79,
p.
65.7-9; Petrides, "Damilas,"
107.
57Solitary
orcenobitic monk:
Lips, chap.
11,
p.
112.28. The
spiritual
directors of
Irene-Eulogia
Choum-
nainainthe 14th
century
and of the ent ofnun
Eulogia
inthe 15th were both
metropolitans;
cf.
Hero, Choumnaina,
19,
and
Laurent,
"Direction
spirituelle,"
68.
58Gautier, "Kecharit6mene,"
chap.
16,
p.
59.722-23.
590n
the
spiritual father,
see
chap.
16,
p.
59;
Lips, chap.
11;
Bebaia
Elpis,
chaps.
105-11; Petrides, "Damilas,"
103.
60Lips, chap. p.
3.2-3;
chap.
50,
p.
134. 10.
61
Female stewards were
appointed
at the convents of Bebaia
Elpis
and
Damilas;
cf. Bebaia
Elpis, chaps.
54-55,
and
Petrides, "Damilas,"
108-9.
62Gautier, "Kecharit6mene," 55.646-57.654
(aeunuch,
preferably
one of the convent
priests); Lips, chap.
25,
pp.
119.23-120.22
("a
manor
eunuch"); typikon
of
nunnery
of Kosmas and
Damian,
chap.
59,
ed. Dele-
haye,
Deux
typica,
139.6-7
("a
eunuch orotherwise
respectable man").
63Lips, chap.
26.
64Gautier, "Kecharitomene
,"
chap.
57,
p.
107.1572.
121
Irene
Doukaina,
whose rules for the Kecharitomene tend tobe more strict thanthose
of later convent
founders,
was adamant about
refusing
entrance tomale
singers
or
psaltai,
evenon
special
feast
days
or
days
of commemoration.65 At the
Lips
convent,
Theodora
Palaiologina
also
normally prohibited
the admissionof the
singers
of
psalms
called kalli-
phonoi,
but she was
willing
tomake an
exception
onthe
birthday
of the
Theotokos,
when
her son,
Emperor
Andronikos
II,
came tothe convent for services.66
Other menadmitted onofficial business
might
be
workmen,
gravediggers,
or a
lay
administrator of the convent. If a
garden
or
vineyard
was situated withinthe convent
walls,
thenmale
gardeners
or vinedressers
might
alsohave toenter the
monastery pre-
cincts.67
Menlike
priests
and
physicians
had an
official
role to
play
at the convent and of
necessity
had access to
specified parts
of the convent
complex
inorder to
carry
out their
duties. The
typikaplaced
much
greater
restrictions onmenwhocame for
personal
reasons,
tosee their female relatives or for
worship,
and oncertain
laymen
whocame onbusiness.
A man
wishing
totalk toafemale relative inthe
nunnery
was not
permitted
toenter the
monastic
precincts,
but had tomeet her outside the
gatehouse
inthe
company
of re-
spected
nuns,68
or else tosit inthe area"betweenthe two
gates," evidently
areference to
the
space
inthe
gatehouse
betweenthe outer and inner
gates,
where there
might
be
benches.69
Significantly
it was
specified
that the nunshould "returntothe convent" after
her
meeting;
thus the convent
proper
was considered to
begin
at the inner
gate.70
Not
eventhe serious illness of anunwould
provide
the excuse for amale relative tocome
inside the
nunnery;
insuch acase the
ailing
nunwas tobe carried onastretcher tothe
gate.71
The
gatehouse
was alsothe locationwhere the abbess
might
meet with estate man-
agers.72
The
typika
alsomade
provision
for mentovisit the convent
church,
especially
if it
housed the tombs of relatives.73 Irene
Doukaina, however,
placed
limitations onthese
visitors,
evenif
they
were her
sons, sons-in-law,
or
grandsons,
for
they
were restricted to
the exonarthex of the church while the nuns were
singing
the
office;
after the choir
sisters had returned totheir
dormitory,
the relatives of the foundress could enter the
65Ibid., chap.
75.
66Lips, chap.
39. As an
anonymous
readerhas
observed,
these
objections
tothe entrance of male
singers
may
not have beenbased
solely
ontheir
gender,
but alsoonthe belief that
professional hymnsinging
was
anembellishment more
appropriate
for
public
celebrationand
lay congregations
thanformonastic commu-
nities,
forsimilarrestrictions were
enjoined
inthe
typika
of male
monasteries;
cf.
typikon
of
Blemmydes, chap.
13,
ed. A.
Heisenberg, Nicephori Blemmydae
curriculumvitae et carmina
(Leipzig, 1896), 98,
and H.
Delehaye,
"Constantini
Acropolitae hagiographi byzantini epistularummanipulus,"
AB 51
(1933), chap.
7,
p.
283.
67Forfurtherdiscussionof monastic horticulture and
gardeners,
see
my forthcoming
article,
"Byzantine
Horticulture and the Monastic
Landscape."
chap.
17,
p. 61.748-49;
Lips, chap.
15,
p.
114.28-29.
69Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
76,
p.
63.1-2. Foran
example
of such a
gatehouse
at the
Holy Apostles
inThessalo-
nike,
see G.
Velenis, "'O oX6,vax; 'Tf tovg TCiv
'Ay. 7
6oo6oXOv
OeoFGaXovilC;," 'A4tnpOL0ra
OTi
pIvir
rZtvoitavoi
ne;iXKavi6T1
=
Makedonika,
suppl.
5
(Thessalonike, 1983),
23-36. A woodcut of the Pammakaristos shows a
bench inthe
gatehouse;
cf.
Hallensleben, "Pammakaristoskirche"
(as
innote 24
above), fig.
3.
70Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
76,
p.
63.9-11.
71Gautier, "K6charito6m6n,"
chap.
17,
p.
61.749-54.
72Ibid.,
chap.
17,
p.
63.768-74.
73E.g., Lips, chap.
16: Theodora
Palaiologina's
relatives are
permitted
tovisit the churches and tombs.
122
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
church
proper
and converse with the
abbess,
whowas tobe escorted
by
twoor three
aged
nuns.74
The evidence of saints' lives and other sources
supplements
that of the
typika, sug-
gesting
that male visitors toconvents were infact not
uncommon,
especially
if
they
had
business with the abbess or with anunwhohad the
reputation
of a
holy
woman. Thus
Irene of
Chrysobalanton
received at her convent asea
captain, imperial
emissaries,
and
her adviser
Christopher,
and shared ameal with akinsman
recently
released from
prison.75
Theodoraof Thessalonike was visited
by
emissaries fromthe archimandrite of
Thessalonike,
while her
daughter Theopiste
had
frequent
contact with amannamed
Theodotos whowas a
patron
of the
monastery
and evenseems tohave lived there for a
while,
presumably
inthe
hospice.76
Michael Psellos was not
only permitted
tovisit his
mother at her convent but evento
spend
the
night
there.77 The abbess
Irene-Eulogia
Choumnaina
enjoyed
visits fromintellectuals with whomshe could hold
literary
and
theological
discussions.78
The funerals and memorial rites of
saintly
nuns attracted vast
throngs
of both men
and womento
convents;
thus at the death of Irene of
Chrysobalanton,
we are told that
all the citizens of
Constantinople,
male and
female,
flocked tothe
convent;
they thronged
the forecourt of the church inthe desire totouch her
body
as it was laid out for burial.79
Inasimilar
vein,
"anenormous crowd of monastics and
laymen
sat inattendance" when
the abbess Annaof the convent of St.
Stephen
was onher
deathbed,
and monks and
priests
came for the funeral of Theodoraof Thessalonike.80 If the
corpses
of these women
were laid out for burial inthe narthex of the
church,
it is not so
surprising
that
they
were
accessible to
lay people
fromoutside. But what are we tothink of Annaonher deathbed?
Were male mourners admitted toher cell?
GENDEREDSPACE IN THE CONVENT
The DumbartonOaks
colloquium
onwomen's
space
has
encouraged
us tothink of
women's activities interms of the
space they occupied,
and not
just
interms of their
status and functions. I find this a
helpful prismthrough
which toview the
Byzantine
convent and conclude this discussionwith areview of which
parts
of the
complex
were
accessible
only
tonuns and inwhich areas
they might
interact with male visitors. No
Byzantine
convent still stands
today
sothat we canvisualize its
plan,
with the
exception
ofAreianear
Nauplion,
founded inthe twelfth
century
as aconvent for
thirty-six
nuns,
74Gautier, "Kecharitmene,"
chap.
80,
pp.
145.2271-147.2281.
7V. Iren.
Chrysobalant.
80-82, 94, 100-102.
76V Theod.
Thess.,
chap.
36;
Translationand
Miracles,
chaps.
2-3,
13.
77K. N.
Sathas, MEyoaomvtK BtpXtoerKrq,
V
(Paris, 1876),
37.26-28.
78A. C.
Hero,
"Irene-Eulogia
Choumnaina
Palaiologina,
Abbess of the Convent of
Philanthropos
Soterin
Constantinople," ByzF
9
(1985),
136 and n. 49. See also
Nikephoros
Choumnos,
ep.
163,
ed.
J.
F.
Boissonade,
AnecdotaNova
(Paris, 1844), 181-82;
D.
Reinsch,
Die
Briefe
des Matthaios von
Ephesos
imCodex Vindobonensis
Theol. Gr174
(Berlin, 1974), ep.
B32.
79 V Iren.
Chrysobalant., chap.
23.
80V
Theod.
Thess.,
chaps.
38,
43.
123
but soonconverted tothe use of
monks;81
hence for our
knowledge
of the
layout
of
nunneries we must
rely primarily
onthe
plans
of male monasteries and the evidence of
texts.
Analysis
of the
ground plan
of
contemporary
Greek Orthodox nunneries
may
also
prove
useful,
if it is valid to
argue
that
they
have retained atraditional divisionof
space
that reflects
Byzantine practice.
At
Ormylia,
for
example,
inthe Chalkidike
peninsula
of
northern
Greece,
the new convent of the Annunciationmaintains adistinct
separation
betweenareas tothe west accessible to
lay
visitors and those tothe
east,
the "sanctum"
(including
the cell
wing
and abbess's
quarters),
restricted tothe nuns.82 This divisionof
the
complex
intoareas with
varying degrees
of
privacy
characterizes male monasteries
as well.
The chief areas restricted tonuns seemtohave beenthe
dormitories, workrooms,
refectory,
and bathhouse. Cenobitic nuns
slept
either incommunal dormitories or in
individual
cells;83
at
Kecharitomene,
certain
intercalary
offices
(e.g.,
the mesoriaof
none)
were
sung
inthe
dormitory
and hence were an
exclusively
female service.84 At the same
convent a
private space
surrounded
by
awall was
provied
behind the
dormitory
where
the nuns could take
recreation,
that
is,
walk or sit onbenches.85 As one
might expect,
the
dormitory
was considered the most sacrosanct
refuge
of the
nuns,
and
any penetration
by
amanwould be a
great
scandal.86 The
workrooms,
where the nuns did their handwork
such as
spinning
and
weaving,
alsoseemtohave beenoff-limits tomenwhowould have
nocause tovisit. I would further
argue
that the
refectory
(and the associated kitchen
and
bakery)
was restricted tothe use of nuns and was a
space
dominated
by
the abbess
and the refectorian. It served food for the
spirit
as well as the
body,
as one of the nuns
always
read aloud from
Scripture,
saints'
lives,
or other
edifying
literature
during
the
meal.87 A
fourteenth-century synodal
document tells us that at least one convent refec-
81
n
Areia,
transformed
again
intoa
nunnery
inthe modern
era,
see G. A.
Choras,
'H
"'Ayia
Movi"
'ApEiaa;
Ev TfT
eKKXrYtaGTaottK Ka'i
iotctKc
i itcropia, Naucktfou
Kai
'Apyoi; (Athens, 1975).
A
plan
of the monas-
tery
is found between
pp.
40 and 41. The church is the
only original 12th-century
structure,
but the other
buildings
were built on
top
of older
foundations,
sothe
present layout probably
reflects the
Byzantine plan
of the
complex;
cf. ibid.,
p.
40. Anoutside readerhas noted that e
onastery
of St.
John
the Forerunner
onMount MenoikeionnearSerres has alsonow beenconverted intoa
nunnery.
Onthese
conversions,
which
suggest
abasic
interchangeability
of monastic structures foruse
by
menor
womenor,
see A.-M.
Talbot,
"The
Change
inStatus of
Byzantine
Monasteries fromMale toFemale and
Vice-Versa,"
inByzantium: Identity,
Image, Influence:
XIX International
Congress ofByzantine Studes,
Abstracts e s
of
Communications
(Copenhagen, 1996),
no. 6214.
82Cf.
Ormylia:
the
Holy Coenobiun
ofthe Annunciation,
ed. S. A.
Papadopoulos (Athens, 1992),
184-85.
83A communal
dormitory
for
twenty-four
nuns
(KcovITrVGKO,
,
KotgiiTflipIov)
is
specified
inthe Kecharito-
mene
typikon(Gautier,
"Kecharit6menei," chaps.
6 and
73,
p. 127.1907-8), private
cells
(KXohat, Kek.ia)
at
Lips (chap.
29,
p. 122.8)
and Bebaia
Elpis (chap.
66,
p. 55.20-31).
chap.
35.
85Ibid.,
chap.
73,
p.
127.1907-9. See also
pp.
81-83.1132-35. The
typikon
seems touse the word
KOtgifyiTptOV
forboth the
dormitory (e.g., p. 127.1907-8)
and the nuns'
cemetery
at the convent ra
KekXap-
aica. I am
following
Gautier's
interpretation
that the
KotglirT1plov
at Kecharitomene is the
dormitory.
86
See,
for
example,
an
anonymous
letterof the
early
14th
century
that describes the
surreptitious
entrance
of a
vagabond
monk intothe
Constantinopolitannunnery
of the
Kanikleiou,
where he was soon
discovered;
cf.
J.
Gouillard,
"Apres
le schisme arsenite: La
correspondance
inedite du
pseudo-JeanChilas,"
Acade'mie
Roumaine. Bulletinde laSection
Historique
25
(1944), 187, 206.80-82,
and
Janin,
Eglises CP,
277. Inthe vitaof
Irene of
Chrysobalanton
avinedresserdreams of
sneaking
intoanun's
cell;
cf. V Iren.
Chrysobalant., chap.
15.
87Cf.,
e.g., Gautier, "Kecharitomene,"
chap.
40,
p. 89.1270-71, 1275;
Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
85,
p. 67.14-25;
Lips, chaps. 8, 29.
124
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
tory
featured fresco
paintings
of
holy
women,
which would reinforce the feminine
char-
acter of this
space.88
Male visitors who
stayed
for ameal were offered
hospitality
inthe
hospice89
or
perhaps
inthe abbess's suite.
Areas where the nuns interacted with menwere the
gatehouse,
the
church,
the in-
firmary,
and the
cemetery.
The
gatehouse,
atransitional
space marking
the
passageway
betweenthe outside secular world and the havenof the
convent,90
was
obviously
a
prime
point
of contact betweennuns and male visitors. Hence the enormous
responsibility
of
the
portress
whoheld the
keys
tothe convent
gate
and
regulated
access fromthe outside
and
egress
frominside. As noted
above,
the
gatehouse
was the areawhere nuns met with
male relatives and the abbess did business with certain
laymen.
It was alsothe
place
where bread and leftover food were distributed to
beggars
ona
daily
basis and where
donations of
bread, wine,
and coins were made on
special
feast
days
and
days
of com-
memorationfor the convent founder and his or her relatives.91 At some nunneries the
portress
did not remainonconstant
duty
at the
gate
but went
only
whensummoned
by
the
bell;
at others acell was built at the outer
gate
of the
courtyard
as a
permanent
residence for the
gatekeeper.92
The church was another
part
of the convent where menand women's
space
over-
lapped:
it was the
place
where
priests
celebrated the
liturgy
and
presided
over the elec-
tionof the
abbess,93
where the
spiritual
father heard the nuns' confessioninthe nar-
thex,94 where male relatives of the founder
might
be
buried,
and where the faithful of
both sexes
might
come toattend services and memorial rites and tovisit
holy
shrines.
Sometimes, however,
the nuns seemtohave conducted their own
services,
and the
priest
was
relegated
toaminor
role,
as at Kecharitomene where the abbess and ekklesiarchissa
led the seven
daily
offices. The ekklesiarchissastood infront of the
iconostasis,
leading
the
nuns in
kneeling
and
prayer
in
unison,
while the abbess read abrief catechesis and led
prayers,
and the nuns
sang hymns
or
troparia;
a
priest
was also
present,
however,
torecite
prayers.95
At the Kecharitomene the abbess also
performed
the installationceremonies
of all officials.96 Canonlaw states that nuns were
permitted
toenter the
sanctuary
to
adornand
sweep
it and to
light
candles and
lamps;97
we canthus assume that the skeuo-
88Whenthe convent of the Theotokos of Maroules in
Constantinople
was converted toamale
monastery,
the
images
of female saints inthe
refectory
were
replaced
with those of male
saints;
cf.
RegPatrV,
no.
2207;
MM 1:222.
89Chapter
26 of the
typikon
of
Lips
states that the steward should eat lunch inthe xenon.
90Anoutside readerhas
suggested
that the liminal role of
gatehouses may help
to
explain
the architectural
ornament lavished
upon
them. For
bibliography
onmonastic
gateways,
see note 1 above.
9lFordescriptions
of the distributio of
charity
at the convent
gate,
see
Gautier, "Kecharitmenei,"
chaps.
59, 64;
Lips, chap.
38;
typikon
of
nunnery
of Kosmas and
Damian,
chap.
60,
ed.
Delehaye,
Deux
typica, 139;
Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
89, 112. For
general
discussionof this functionof
convents,
see A.-M.
Talbot,
"Byzantine
Women,
Saints'
Lives,
and Social
Welfare,"
in
Through
the
Eye of
a
Needle:Judeo-ChristianRoots
of
Social
Welfare,
ed. E. A.
Hanawalt and C.
Lindberg (Kirksville, Mo., 1994),
117-19.
92Cf. Gautier, "Kecharitomene,"
chap.
29;
Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
72;
and
P6trides, "Damilas,"
108.
93Electionof abbess: cf.
chap.
11,
pp.
49-51.
94Lips, chap.
11,
p. 113.1-4;
Kosmas and
Damian,
chap.
59,
ed.
Delehaye,
Deux
typica,
138.33-139.1.
chap.
32.
96Ibid.,
chap.
18;
the
procedure
forthe installationof the male oikonomos is described in
chap.
14.
97Cf. canon15 of Patriarch
Nikephoros
I,
ed. Rhalles and
Potles, 6v'taya, IV, 428: 6ei ti&
govauoVoaic
e?ictval
eiSv
c
To
yov 9omGtao ptov, Kail
'rTetv KrTpov
Kal
Kav6iXav,
Kai Kcogteiv axjo Kai
oapoiv.
Unfortu-
nately,
the
typika
fornunneries include no
regulations
onthis
subject.
125
phylakissa
would have
approached
the altar to
lay
out
liturgical
cloths and vessels. The
typika
of nunneries
give
noinformationonwhere the choir sisters and other nuns stood
during
services;
we
learn, however,
froma
twelfth-century commentary
of Balsamonthat
menstruating
women,
including
nuns,
were
prohibited
from
entering
the church
proper,
but sometimes stood inthe narthex.98
The
infirmary
was
necessarily
another areainwhich mencame intocontact with
women.
Although
women
physicians
existed in
Byzantium, they
were
rare,
and convent
doctors were
typically
male,
preferably
aeunuch or
elderly
individual.99 At
Lips
the
phy-
sicianwas
supposed
tomake
weekly
visits tothe
nunnery except during
Lent whenthe
gates
were shut toall
outsiders,
whether male or female. An
exception
was made if anun
fell
seriously
ill and
required urgent
medical attention.100
The
cemetery
was another
space
where menwere
indispensable
for the burial rites
of
nuns,
both as
gravediggers
to
prepare
the
graves
and as
priests
toconduct the ceremo-
nies. Several texts
suggest,
however,
that
only
afew nuns attended the actual interment
of their deceased
sisters,
nodoubt toavoid interactionwith the
gravediggers.'10
Inadditiontothese
buildings
and areas that formed
part
of the monastic
complex
and were essential toits
functioning,
some convents alsoincluded annexes
governed by
the
typikon
but considered tobe outside the cloister. For
example,
the
Lips nunnery
had
a
hospice (xenon)
that is described as
being
"next tothe convent" and attached toit. It
was
essentially
analmshouse for twelve
laywomen,
served
by
a
priest
and a
predomi-
nantly
male
staff.'02 The ambivalent status of the
hospice,
attached tothe convent but
outside the
cloister,
made it anideal locationtooffer
hospitality
toofficial male
visitors,
if
the steward had to
stay
for lunch or the
spiritual
confessor needed to
spend
the
night.103
Nunneries of
imperial
foundation
might
alsoinclude
separate apartments
for womenof
the
royal family
whodecided totake the monastic
habit,
but felt unable toendure the
rigors
of cenobitic life. At Kecharitomene these womenwere
assigned
tocells inasmall
tropike
built behind the
apse
of the convent
refectory
next tothe cloister wall.104 The
empress
had adifferent
apartment complex, including
aninner and outer
courtyard,
a
church,
and two
bathhouses,
separated
fromthe convent
proper by
awall with a
gate
that could be locked fromthe inside
by
the abbess and fromthe outside
by
the
patroness.
The
foundress,
Irene
Doukaina,
specified
that the
buildings
were tobe
elegant,
but
regu-
lated their
height
sothat none of the residents could look intothe convent or the associ-
ated male
monastery
of Christ
Philanthropos.l05
Thus one
may
conclude that
despite
the stated ideal of seclusionand
segregation
for
monastics of both
sexes,
monks could be sure of
avoiding
contact with women
only by
98Cf. Balsamon,
commentary
oncanon2 of
Dionysios
of
Alexandria,
PG
138:465-68,
ed. Rhalles and
Potles, EYvcayga, IV,
8-9. Forfull discussionof this
passage,
see R. E
Taft,
"Womenat Church in
Byzantium:
Where, When-and
Why?"
inthis volume.
99Cf.
Gautier, "Kecharit6mene,"
chap.
57;
Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
90.
00?Lips, chap.
35.
'01Balsamon,
commentary
oncanon47 of the Council in
Trullo,
ed. Rhalles and
Potles, vevzaygla,
II,
418-19; Gautier, "Kecharitomene,"
p.
117.1717-18.
102Lips, chap.
50;
the
only
female staff memberwas the laundress.
103Lips, chap.
26
(steward)
and
chap.
11
(spiritual father).
chap.
4.
105Ibid.,
chap.
79.
126
ALICE-MARY TALBOT
withdrawing
toanisolated and restricted
holy
mountain,106
while nuns
necessarily
associ-
ated ona
frequent
basis with the menessential totheir
spiritual
and
physical well-being.
The letters written
by
the
fourteenth-century
abbess
Irene-Eulogia
Choumnaina,
plead-
ing
with her
spiritual
director tomake more
frequent
visits toher
convent,107
graphically
demonstrate the emotional
dependence
some nuns
developed
with
regard
toafather
confessor. It is also
important
to
realize, however,
that
well-disciplined
nuns and monks
were able tointeract with members of the
opposite
sex and evenwith their fellow monas-
tics inaconditionof
impassivity
or
apatheiaby avoiding looking
at their faces. This ideal
is
expressed
ina
passage
of the
typikon
of the male
monastery
of Phoberouthat
sought
to
regulate against
conditions that
might promote homosexuality among
the monks. The
founder comments that nuns are alsoliable to
develop passionate
attachments totheir
monastic sisters and that wise abbesses
encourage
their
charges
toavoid
looking
at each
other
directly,
but
always
to
keep
their
eyes
downcast while
conversing,
the so-called
custody
of the
eyes.
108
Onasomewhat different
note,
the foundress of the Bebaia
Elpis
nunnery
instructed her nuns to
keep
their
eyes
lowered
during
mealtime: "Each nun
should not
only
have
eyes
for herself alone and focus her attentiononthe food set before
her,
but should concentrate toaneven
greater
extent onthe sacred
readings."109
A
telling
passage
inthe vitaof Theodoraof Thessalonike describes how this
saintly
woman
greeted
visitors: "Inaddition tothe
subjection
of her
body
. .
.,
she alsomaintained
rigorous
control over her
eyes (wiav
Tov
6OraixRotv
aKpitPtav).
Whenever
anyone
who was not
knownto<Theodora> came toher for a
prayer,
she would
reply
tohis
questions
while
looking
at the
ground,
onnoaccount
gazing
at the face of her visitor. And after his
departure
she would
inquire
whoit was and what he looked like."110 Thus anun's down-
cast
gaze
was not
only
an
expression
of
humility,
but alsoserved tocreate a
private space
around her that made her immune to
temptation
frommale visitors and other nuns.
Each nunwas
expected
tobuild aninvisible wall around
herself,
comparable
tothe
physi-
cal wall that shielded the cloister fromthe outside world.
DumbartonOaks
106It should be
noted, however,
that evenmonks onMount Athos could not
always escape
interactionwith
the female
sex;
cf.
Talbot,
"Womenand Mt. Athos" (as innote 26
above).
'07Hero, Choumnaina,
epp.
7.31-33, 8.39-54, 9.80-81,
15.44-45.
108Phoberou
typikon,
ed.
Noctes
Petropolitanae,
81.6-11.
'09Bebaia
Elpis, chap.
86.
"110 Theod.
Thess.,
chap.
40. The vitaof Elisabeth of Herakleiadescribes how she
kept
her
eyes
directed
toward the
ground
forafull three
years
as a
sign
of
humility
(ed. E
Halkin,
"Sainte Elisabeth
d'Heraclee,
abbesse a
Constantinople,"
AB 91
[1973], 257). Custody
of the
eyes
was a
praiseworthy practice
formonks
as
well;
we are
told,
for
example,
that the
youthful
St. NikonhoMetanoeite "had
great
control overhis
stomach and
eyes";
cf. D. E
Sullivan,
The
Life of
St. Nikon
(Brookline, Mass., 1987),
34.37. See alsothe vitaof
Lazaros of
Galesion, AASS,
Nov. 3:
567c,
and
J. Noret,
Vitae duae
antiquae sancti Athanasii Athonitae
(Turnhout,
1982),
vita
A,
p.
39.20 and vita
B,
chap.
30.45-47.
127
Les femmes et l,espace public Byzance:
Le cas des tribunaux
J oE
Bacevp

,enqute
pr6sent6e ici s,est attach6e aux pratiques beaucoup plus qu,aux normes juri-
_ldiques, qui sont mieux connues. t elle a pris en consid6ration les deux extrmes,
ou presque, de 'histoire byzantine: d'une part les Ve_V e sicles, d,autre part les X e_
XI Ve sicles. Ce parti pris a deux raisons. La premire est que, sur la trs longue dur6e,
on a plus de chance de rep6rer des changements dans les pratiques sociales. La seconde
est que les sources de ces deux p6riodes nous informent mieux qu,aux sicles interm6-
diaires Sur ces mmes pratiques. Pour lpoque protobyzantine, i s,agit 6videmment des
papyrus,l
ecs
mais aussi coptes, lesquels nous renseignent avan tout sur a soci6t6
6gyptienne: ils fournissent notamment des procs-verbaux enregistrant minutieusement
des audiencesjudiciaires. Pour lpoque la plus tardive, diff6rents textes Sont disponibles:
le plus riche pour notre sujet est le Registre patriarcal, qui donne une image assez d6-
taill6e de l'activit6 du tribunal pr6sid6 par le patriarche, dans la Constantinop e du X Ve
sicle;2 le recueil des actes de Chomatianos fait de mme pour un tribunal archi6piscopal
dans l,pire du X e sicle, mais i est d6j plus succinct en ce qui concerne le d6roule-
ment des proc6dures;3 enfin, |a Peirq, dnne quelques renseignements Sur des procs qui
ont eu lieu, au X e sicle, devant un tribunal constantinopolitain, mais imp6rial cette
fois, celui de l'F ippodrome.a
Ces deux groupes de sources nous font connaitre un nombre non n6g igeab e (pour
la premire p6riode) ou important (pour la deuxime) de femmes qui se pr6sentent en
justice,
dans le rle du demandeu du dfendeur ou du t6moin. partir de l, deux
types d,ana yse Sont r6a1isab es. On peut examiner si ces r es respectent ou, au contraire,
outrePassent les normes l6gales. On peut 6galement essayer de voir si les femmes
Que J ean-Claude
Cheynet et Ruth Macrides trouvent ici l'expression de mes remerciements pour eurs
r6ponses mes interrogations concernant les X e-X Ve sicles.
'Les
abrviations des publications papyro ogiques sont celles deJ . F. oaes, R, S. Bagnall, W H. Wi lis, et
K. A, Worp, Checklist of ditions of Greek nd' Lti'n Ppyri, ostrc nd Thblets,4e d. (Chico, Ca if., 992).
2H.
F unger et o, Kresten, Ds Registe des Ptriarchats on Kstntinopel, (Wien, 198l); F . F unge
o. resten, . Kislinge et C. Cupane, Ds Register des Ptrirehats on onstntinope (Wien, 1995); MM
I - . Voir assi Les regestes des ctes du,ptrircat de Cnstntinople, 6d.
]'
Darrouzs, , 5 et 6 (Paris, 19?7, l979).
3..Responsiones
Demetrii Chomaiiani,,, das nbct scr t clssic Spicitego Solesmensi part, 6d.
]..
Pitra, V (Paris,
189l), 1-617.
aepos,J us,
Y 7-260.
---
,
!
130 LES FMMS T jESPC PUBL C A BYZ {C
exercent r6ellement tous eS droits que la loi leur assure en th6orie ou bien si leurs in-
terventions devant les tribunaux ne connaissent pas des restrictions suppl6menaires
par rapport celles que la 6gislation prescrit: autrement dit, des restrictions qui corres-
pondraient des normes sociales et non pas juridiques.
Mais, pour r6pondre aux questions que pose un colloque consacr6
..l'espace
des
femmes Byzance et dans l"Occident m6di6va1,,, il s,agissait non seu ement d,enquter
sur e rle des femmes en justice d,une manire gn6rale, mais de mettre l,accent sur
l,aspect Satial de a question, ce qui est plus difficile. Les comptes rendus d,audience ou
les 6nonc6s de sentences dont nous disposons ont en effet un caractre abstrait' ls ne
disent pas comment les femmes (ni d,ailleurs les hommes) sont introdtits devant le tribu-
na , que endroit elles (ou i s) se tiennent, de que le fagon e es (ou ils) prennent la
paro e; en outre, es sources des e_X Ve sic es rapportent bien la teneur des d6clara-
ions, mais non les propos exacts des parties prenantes.5
J ,ai
n6anmins r6examin6 les
textes Sous cet angle de vue et tent6 de tirer parti de toutes es donn6es, directes ou indi-
receS.
Ls rs DvNT J UST c
V-V
s.l
sera d,abord question, rapidement, de la situation des Ve-V e sic es. Rapide-
ment, car j,ai d6j abord6 ce sujet, dans un ivre de 1992 puis dans un article paraitre.6
Bien que ce soit une Evidence pour une soci6t6 traditionne e, il faut d6j rappeler que
les femmes, au tribunal, ne sauraient tre pr6sentes que dans l'espace auquel ont accs
es justiciab es; elles Sont exclues de 'espace occup6
ar
ceux qui disent e droit et par
leurs divers auxiliaires. De fait, les procs-verbaux d,audiences judiciaires conserv6s par
les papyrus corroborent que les juges, qu'ils soient fonctionnaires imp6riaux, magistrats
municipaux ou encore eccl6siastiques, leurs assesseurs et les divers ex6cutants sont des
hommes.7 Pour le reste, les documents de ,6poque ne renseignent gure sur l,am6nage-
ment interne des tribunaux. ls nous apprennent tout au plus, pour deux villes de a
val 6e du Nil au Ve sicle, quel endroit certains procs se d6roulent.8 Les btiments
en question sont i6s la vie municipale (administrative, fiscale ou cultuelle): ce sont
5Voir
R. Macrides,
..PoeticJ ustice
in the Patriarchate: Murder and Canniba ism in the Proinces,'' Cupido
kgun' d. L. Burgmann, M. Th. Fgen, et . Schminck (Frankfurt am Main, l985), 163-64.
6VoirJ .
Beaucamp, Le sttut de lafemme d 1znce (4e_7e siicle), (Paris, 1992), 21.31 et 389-40, e (sos
presse)
..ssistance
judiciaire aux femmes et r6le du mari d,aprs les papyrus byzantins,,' paraire dans a
s6rie Stu,dia H e Llenistic.
,ux
textes cit6s dans Beaucamp, Statut, |, 8 n. 90, viennent s,ajouter SB xv 13295, cR xV ,
no. 18. et Cair. sid. 77.
8Pour
oxyrhynchos, sont mentionn6s le Capitole et le bureau municipal des compes en 325 (P oxy. L V
3758, 1, 78 e.t 98) et l'F adrianeion vers 326 (P oxy. L 3764, l. 14): . ,ukaszewicz, Les 6dif'ces publics das
lesilles de l'gypte om'ine (Varsovie, 196), 173, souligne que e Capitole d'Oxyrhynchos remplit les fonctions
qi sont ailleurs cel es des basi iques; quant l,F adrianeion, i] semble avoir t6 uti isd comme prison au Ve
sicle (p. 56 et 162); d,aprs P oxy. L 3576, note des lignes 18-19, l,F adrianeion et le bureau municipa des
comtes sont attest6s comme sites de prison; et P oxy. L V 3757,note de la ligne 3, rcapitu e les divers
endroits oir se tiennent es audiences judiciaires devant le logise. Pour F ermoupolis sont mentionns un
local administratif en 390 (secetriumlofio de P Lips. 38 , l. 1 et 4) et le l:6 (voir G. F usson,
o K A
[aris,
|983],244 n. 1) de 1'6glise pincipale (sur l,expression oi1 oi, voir . Wipszycka,
..or]
et es autres pithes qua ifiant le nom o,,,
'The
J ou'rnal
of
J urbtic
Pp1rolg 24
[1994]'
19l_212) au Ve sic e (P Lips. 43, l. 1_2); selon t,ukaszewicz, diJ iees,48-49, le secretriun, lieu par excel-
lence de 1'activit6 judiciaire, est une des salles du pr6toire; or un prdtoire est attest6 } ermoupolis
(p. 177-78).
J OELLE
B J CAMP
assur6ment des espaces peu familiers aux femmes, qui n ont pas accs aux fonctions de
a cit6. Un autre procs semb e se d6rouler en p ein ai puisque la seule oca isation
indiqu6e est..prS de la prte nord, qui mne a grand-route',:9 la pub1icit6 des d6bats
est ainsi assur6e, mais on est l, au moins id6ologiquement, ,oppos6 le plus extrme
de ,espace clos de la maison, domaine des femmes.10
Ma gr6 cet obstac e, des femmes se rendent au tribunal. Les papyrus en font connai-
tre plus d'une cinquantaine, qui participent des proc6dures judiciaires ou arbitrales
en tant que demandeur (s,il s,agit d,un procs civil) ou accusateur (s,il s,agit d'un
procs criminel), ou encore comme dfendeu ou enfin titre de t6moin. Mais si e es
ne sont pas 6cart6es de l'espace judiciaire, e fr6quentent-elles
ou
autant ?gal des
hommes?
Tiois ph6nomnes significatifs cet 6gard peuvent tre d6gag6s de l,ana yse des docu-
ments. Premirement, les femmes, dont aucune ne repr6sente autrui en justice, ne vien-
nent jamais au tribuna comme procurateurs ou mandataires d,une tierce personne. 2
n revanche, e les se font souvent repr6senter par un homme. Sur l'ensemble des cas
mentionn6s dans les paPyrus, il y en a vingt-neuf Suscetibles d,tre 6tudi6s de ce point
de vue:3 Sur ces vingt-neuf femmes, dix-huit se pr6sentent en personne ou Sont directe-
ment engag6es un stade ou un autre de la proc6dure;n onze, au contraire, agissent ou
comparaissent par I 'interm6diaire d'un mandataire.t5 Lidentit6 de ces procurateurs et
les raisons de leur intervention Seront examin6es un peu plus loin. sufht de note pour
le moment, q,une femme sur trois environ a recours rn repr6sentant judiciaire; les
hommes, eux, ne le font qu,exceptionnel ement.
Deuximement, quand des femmes ont affaire a justice, par e es-mmes ou par
l'interm6diaire d'un repr6sentant, c,est presque oujours pour d6fendre leurs propres
int6rts. Les procs-verbaux d,audience permettent, vingt-sept fois, d,identifier 'objet
du conflit de faEon certaine ou probable. Dans vingt-trois cas, la femme poursuit exclu-
sivement un but personnel.16 Dans un autre cas, il est difficile de d6terminer si l,int6rt
en jeu est Se ement ce ui de la femme, propri6taire terrienne, ou 6galement celui de
son intendant.7 Dans les trois cas restants, il ne fait pas de doute que la femme agit dans
l,int6rt d,autrui, Mais ce tiers es toujours un proche: deux reprises, une mre ddfend
les int6rts de ses enfants;l8 la troisime fois, une 6pouse poursuit le meurtre de son
mari.te
,cPR
xv A, no. 18, l. 2 (Flermoupo is, 321): g
ov
l3

i | o i.
oVoirJ .
Beaucamp,..organisation domestique et rles sexuels: Les papyrus byzantins,'' DoP 47 (L993)'
185-94.
ltux
documents firant dans BeaucamP, Sto,tut, , 21_3 et 389-93, il faut adjoindre les textes signal6s
note 7.
2Voir
Beacamp, Sttut, , 21_26.
l3Outre
les cas oi les documents restent imprdcis, ceux oi la emme est mineure n,ont pas 6t6 pris en
compte, afin d'6viter toute interfErence entre ce qui tient ,ge et ce qui est li6 au sexe.
{Voir
Beaucamp, Sttut, , 389_93 (annexe I ), nos. | ' 3' 7
'
9' 12, 15, l8, 20' 25' 26' 29' 35' 36' 37
'
38.42.
lsVoir
BeaucamP, Sttut, , 389-93 (annexe ), nos' 4, 10, 1 9, 20
'
2\
'
23
'
30, 32' 33
'
34.
l6Voir
BeaucamP, Sktut, I I , 26 et nn. 37-38.
'7P
Lond. 971 (Chrest. Mit. 95) du Ve s.
l8P
Sakaon 31 (28/ 281) et P oxy. L v 3758, l. 156-8 (325).
0P
Mich. X I 660-661 + SB Xv 12542 e s.).
131
n-
'es
ls-
.es
.er
ur
lu
ne
'u-
1a
aa-
les
ii-
e-
e."
ue
:s
)ar
)ar
ats
les
la
nts
)nt
ous
sla
,l'id
: ,
\ /
ns
ons
Ve
des
r'ers
un
;on,
^t, ^
o4t
.ce .
rolis
.=*=
32 LS FMMES T jSPAc PUBL C BYZA \ C
Tioisimement, les papyrus nous montrent des femmes appe16es en justice comme
6moins, mme si ce n,est gure fr6quent. On peut invoque tout au plus, quatre exem.
ples. Au d6but du Ve sicle, propos d,une somme d,argent dont e versement est con-
test6, le plaignant demande que l,6pouse du dEfendeur vienne t6moigner SoS Serment.20
Les lacunes du document empchent de savoir si le juge
a fait droit ou non cette re-
qute; c,est particu irement regettab e puisque nous aurions affaire une 6pouse
amen6e prendre psition pour ou contre Son mari, cas de figure qui a suscit6 u it6rt
particu ier chez les juristes byzantins'2 n 332, les autorit6s exigent qu,une femme
vienne attester que Son pre nourricier est bien phi osophe et justifier sans doute ainsi
une immunit6 fiscale.22 n 545 ou 546, au cours d,un itige re atif la vente d,un terrain,
le d6fendeur sollicite du juge que sa sceur soit convoqu6e comme t6moin.23 Le dernier
cas, la fin du V e ou au V e sicle, est d,interpr6tation plus d6 icate, mais i1 se peut
qu,une certaine Maria soit appel6e d6poser SouS Serment propos d,une question con-
cernant son pre.2a
Ces pratiques sociales attest6es par les papyrus des Ve-V e sicles Sont en con.
formit6 avec les normes du droit imp6rial de l6poque.25 Ce droit exclu les femmes de la
fonction de juge' limite leur recours la justice la ddfense de leurs seules affaires, au
civil comme au crimine , et n,admet que de rares exceptions dans 1'int6rt de que ques
proches; il refuse 6ga1ement qu,elles repr6sentent autrui dans un procs, sauf dans des
cas exceptionnels justifis par la situation familiale.26 n revanche, i reconnait pleine.
menc aux femmes a capacit de t6moigner en justice.27 De cette 6troite correspondance
entre rg es juridiques et pratiques r6v6l6es par les papyrus, on conclurait volontiers que
le droit romain 6tait, en cette matire, strictement appliqu6 dans l'gypte byzantine.
Mais on
eut
comprendre aussi que les normes l6gales 6taient parfaitement adapt6es
l,attente sciale.
Quoi
qu,il en soit, un autre ph6nomne pr6sente davantage d,int6rt pour la pro-
b16matique spatiale: c,est la fr6quence relativement ev6e avec laquelle les femmes se
font repr6senter devant les tribnaux, Lenqute papyrologique a montr6 qu,une femme
sur trois fait appel un mandataire. O en ce domaine, i ne saurait tre question d,une
incapacit6 juridique
qui affecterait l'ensemble du sexe f6minin. D'une part, le droit imp6-
rial ne prescrit rien de ce genre. D'autre part, certaines femmes se rendent bel et bien
devant le juge. Deux sortes d,explication viennent l,esprit, qui ne s'excluent pas n6ces-
sairement ,une l,autre. on peut faire entrer en ligne de compte une fami iarit6 moindre
des femmes avec le milieu ouvert, public, que constitue e tribuna : auquel cas on aurait
r6e1 ement affaire une cat6gorisation de l,espace selon e sexe. Mais on peut aussi envi-
sager que certaines femmes aient une capacit6 juridique amoindrie, dans la mesure oir
,P
Vind. Tandem 8.
2|Peir
5_7 (epos'J ' ' 126): voir D. Simon,
..Die
Melee des Eustathios Rhomaios iber die
Befugnis der Wiwe zur Mordanklagei' ZSRom 4 (l987), 571-80.
"P
Lips. 47.
:3S
v 790 (avec BL, v , 236 et V ,40l).
2+P
Oxy' V 893 (Chrest. Mi.99).
95Beaucamp,
Sttut, ,5-33 et 37.
:6Beaucamp,
Sttut, , 34-45,
2' ors
qu'il ne eur
Permet
pas d?tre t6moins d,un contrat (voir Beaucam, Statut, ,45)'
t
ii
J oLL
BUCAMP 33
des pouvoirs
familiaux s'exercent sr elles: cela va de soi pour les fil es soumises 1,auto-
rit6 paternelle;
mais cela ne vaudrait-il pas aussi pour d,autres cat6gories? Te les Sont eS
deux pistes qui ont 6t6 suivies dans les papyrus.
On ny trouve aucune affirmation expresse, aucune indication directe pour soutenir
l,ne
ou l,autre hypothse. Mais, en regardant de p us prs l,ensemble des cas oit les
femmes
ont un procurateur ou bien, au contraire, comparaissent en personne, on repre
des faits significatifs. qui, d6j, es femmes ont-elles recurs pour les repr6senter?
Qua.
e fois, les documents ne signalent ou ne permettent d,6tablir aucun lien de parent6
entre la femme et son mandataire.2s Ailleurs, on trouve comme procurateurs un neveu,
n beau-frre
(mari de la sur), un parent par alliance (6q) qui doit tre, cette fois
encore,
le beau-frre, et enfin le mari.2g Le cas du mari est le p us instructif. Sans doute,
on ne le voit qu'une seu e fois mandat par Son dpouse pour la repr6senter en justice.3o
Mais, en polssant l,analyse p us oin et en joignant es uns aux autres une multitude de
petits indices, on aboutit la conclusion que, bien souvent, 1e mari d6fend sans mandat
les int6rts de son 6pouse.3l
Les donn6es Sont es suivantes. Une cinquantaine de femmes Sont imp iqu6es dans
des proc6dures diverses. o quinze repr.ises, on constate une intervention pls ou
moins nette du mari, sans qu,un mandat soit explicitement mentionn6.32 Le ph6nomne
s,avre encore plus frappant quand on tient compte uniquement des cas oi l,on sait si la
femme est mari6e ou ne l,est pas.33 L6tat civil peut atre dtermin6 pour vingt-huit
femmes. Six sont d6pourvues de mari au moment du procs (cinq veuves et une femme
consacr6e Dieu): elles se pr6sentent seu es a tribunal.3a Vingt-deux Sont mari6es: pour
quinze d'entre elles, comme il vient d?tre indiqu6, le mari intervient;3s et pour quatre
atres, le procs les oppose justement eur conjint, ce qui empche 6videmment celui.
ci de prendre en main leurs int6rts.36 Au total, on repre ue tendance nette ce que
le mari repr6sente sa femme sans mandat. On peut mme, mon avis, parler de norme
:3P
Oxy. xLV 3389 (343); P binn. 63 (350); P Lips. 38 (390); P Cair. Masp. 67161 (566), pour lequel
n lien de parent6 semble improbable: le choix, comme
Procrater,
de Dioscore d,phrodit, s,expliqe
vaisemblab ement par le savoir juridique de ce dernie.
99Le
neveu: Stud. Pal. Xx 243 (des ann6es 630-640: voir BL, | ,474); le mari de la seur: SB Xv
12692 (de 339); le
6q:
P Lond. inv. no. 2222 (de 319), pub ipar P
J .
Sijpesteijn e K. . trVorp,
..Three
Lonclon Papyri,,, dans iscelLne P,pyo ogic in occsione del bicentencrio dell,'edizione della C ata rgina,
(Florence, 1990), 507-9; le mari: cR xv , no. l8, l. 6 (de 32l).
3o -e
mandat qu,une femme 6tab1it pour son mari en 323 ( oxy, XXxv 277|) ne concerne pas la
repr6sentation en justice.
J Pour
le d6tai1 de la ddmonstation, voir Beaucamp,
,.ssistance.,,
.32P
Oxy. xxxv 2768 (fin du e s.); P Berl. Mller 1 (30); SB v 9192 (314); P Cair. sid. 77 (320);
sB Xv 12692 (339),
Pour
une des deux femmes; P Lips. 38 (390); P Lond. 992 (507); Vat. Aphrod.
10 (premire
moitiE du V e s.); Mich. X 659 (premire moiti6 du V e s.); P Lond. V 1707 (566);
PMiinch. lL(574); P V iinch. 7(583); Lond.v1708(secondemoiti6duV es.),qiconcernedeux
emmes; SB V 8988 (647).
33 l
faut en effet avoir l,esprit que, dans les papyrus, les individus-hommes ou femmes-sont hab
tellement identifis par leurs noms, cex de leur pre et mre et leur origine; le nom du mari, li, n,est
pas indiqud.
J {P
Sakaon 3t (280/ 281); P oxy. XV 2t87 (30a); P Mnch. 6 (583); P Mich. x 66-661 (V e s.);
BGU 103 (V e ou V e s.); P Lips. 43 ( Ve s.).
35)ans
un seizime cas, il est fait mention d,un mandat: voir ci-dessus et note 29.
36P
Oxy. L v 3758, | .39-77 (325); PS 41 ( Ve s.); Lips.41 (seconde moitid du Ve s.); P. Cair. Masp.
67295, col. _ (copie d'un document de a fin du Ve s.).
'
t
2
L
)S
)S
a'
,e
a
_-.
134 LS FEMMES ET SPC UBL C BYZ \ C
Sociale, bien qu,il existe que ques exceptions.37 t ce r e ind6niab1e du mari me parait
devoir tre compris en termes de pouvoir familial, d,autorit6 marita e,38 La raret6 des
femmes mari6es dans les pr6toires ne t6moignerait nullement, dans cette perspective,
d,une rdpugnance investir un espace masculin.
Un texte normatif vient toutefois l,encontre de cette interpr6tation. s,agit d,une
constitution attribu6e, dans le Code justinien, Constantin et dat6e de 315.39 E,lle ac-
corde a mari le droit d,agir en justice pour Son 6pouse, sans mandat. Une tel e mesure
constitue sans nul doute une innovation par rapport au droit romain classique qui ne
reconnaissait aucun polvoir de ce genre au mari; sans nul dute tron plus, cest une
adaptation du droit a norme sociale dont nous avons constat6 la viguer en gypte.
Mais, plus importante ici s,avre lajustification avanc6e: l,empereur d6clare vou oir 6viter
..que,
SouS pr6texte de poursuivre un procs, les femmes ne sejettent d,une fagon ind6-
cente dans le m6pris de la pudeur d'une femme honorable et ne Soient contraintes se
m er des runions d,hommes et des procs.,,a0 Cette fois, l,aspect patial est nette-
ment pr6sent: dans une soci6t6 qui ne Se caract6rise certainement pas par la mixit6, 'es-
pace public dont relve le tribunal est u milieu mascu in, oi ne honnte femme ne
saurait paraitre; du moins, une femme qui peut s,en dispenser parce qu,un pre ou un
mari est l pour prendre en charge ses int6rts.
Cette premire enqute sur es Ve-V e sicles aboutit donc aux constatations sui-
vartes. Les femmes sont pr6sentes enjustice, mme si elles le sont moins que les hommes.
Sur ce premier pint, il y a harmonie entre les pratiques sciales et la l6gislation imp6-
riale, qui, tout la fois, admet les femmes, y compris comme t6moins, et limite trs
strictemen eurs intervenions pour autrui. Mais, Sur un deuxime point, on observe
une re ative discordance entre les textes juridiques et les documents de la pratique.
D,aprs les papyrus, mme si de nombreses femmes viennent au tribunal et y prennent
la parole, ies 6pouses, e les, apparaissent en retrait; et l,ensemb e des donn6es papyrlo-
giques suggre une exp ication par e pouvoir marital. La l6gislation imp6ria e, tout en
ent6rinat le r e du mari, ne le justifie pas par ,autorit6 qui appartiendrait ce dernie
mais par e fait qu,il protge son 6pouse de la fr6quentation ind6cente d,un espace
d,hommes. ouvir marital donc ou bien exclusion spatiale o encore les deux com-
posantes a fois? C,est ce qu'il faut voir maintenant pour les sicles plus tardifs.
Ls olcNAGES FfM N NS
X-X V s.l
La question des t6moignages Sera envisag6e en premier. C,est, en effet, e seu do-
maine ol) le l6gislateur introduit un changement, en exposant onguement les raisons
qi ui fnt abandonner le droit de
J ustinien.
Pour le reste, les Basiliques et les nombreux
6crits qi en d6rivent reprennent fidlement les normes juridiques des compilations du
37Dans
P Abinn. 63 (350), une femme marie est repr6sent6e par un mandataire qui n,est pas son mari;
e sa scu 6ga1ement mari6e, se rend en
Personne
l,audience. Dans P Lips. 38, il y a n mandataire et,
ensuite, un rle du mari.
J 3Voir
Beaucamp, Sttd, , 193-266 (notamment 257-60).
!c c,
C1 2.12.21.pr.
'..
. . . ne feminae persequend litis obtentu in contume iam matrona is pudoris ineveente inruant nec
conventibus vivorum vel iudiciis interesse cogantur."
j:-
=.
I
I
I
J OLLE
BAUCAMP J 3
V e sicle, limitant l,intervention des 1.emmes en justice la dfense de leurs
ropres
int6rts; il y est 6galemen rappe 6 que les femmes n,ont pas la capacit6 d,tre juges
ou avocats.a
Les dispsitions du droitjustinien Sur le t6moignage des femmes, el es, ne satisfont
pas L6on V qui, la fin du e sic e, consacre une Nove le entire la question.a2 Le
texte ne brille pas par la pr6cision. l laisse notamment planer une incertitude sur la
nature et la port6e exactes de la mesure prise par l,empereur. Vraisemb ablement, L6on
V n,autorise plus les femmes t6moigner en justice que pour des faits sp6cifiquement
fEminins, re evant, pour ainsi dire, de la gyn6co1ogie;a3 c,est, en tout cas, de cette fagon
que Sa Novelle a 6t6 comprise dans le droit byzantin des Xe-X Ve sicles.aa Les multiples
raisons qui ont motiv6 l,intervention imp6riale sont, e es, longuement d6velopp6es.
Deux aspects, auxquels la Novel e attache une importance particu ire, nus int6ressent
sp6cialement ici. Premirement, a s6gr6gation spatiale: a femme ne doit pas se m6.
langer aux hommes. ppeler des femmes t6moigner fait
..qu,elles
se mlent des as-
sembl6es (i) nombreuses.,,
..Cela
trahit la pudeur et la ddcence (oo6q) qui sont
l,apanage des femmes.,, Car..mme leur abord priv6 (o1o) doit tre survei1l6 et non pas
permis indistinctement et SanS retenue.,, Le tableau que pr6sente la Novelle est clair.
l,int6rieur mme de a maison, c,est-.dire dans un espace priv6, une femme qui se res-
pecte ne saurait tre accessible tous. plus forte raison est-elle bannie de l,espace public
qui est celui des hommes et des r6unins mascu i.'.,. cet 6gard, je ne crois pas fortuit
que le terme emp oyd deux reprises pour d6signer ces r6unions soit fro, qui se r6fre,
{VoirJ .
Beaucamp,
.,La
situation juridique de la femme Byzance,,, ChC 20 (L977)' 149_50, Simon,
..Melete,,,
559_95, a nrotrtr6 qe le trait6 du juge stat re cherchant jstifier q'une emme soit admise )
poursuivre le meurtre de son mari trouve jusement son origine dans la renaissance de ces rgles anciennes
sous 1a dynastie macdonienne.
12P
Noail es et . Dain, Les oelles de Lio V le Sge (Paris, l944), 186-91, no. 48.
*3Une
6tde dtaill6e doit paraitre dans
J .
Beaucamp,
., ncapacit6
fminine et rle public Byzance,''
dans Femmes et pouoirs des
fennes
d yznce et en occident (V e_ e siicLe).
]aOn
trove trace de cette interprEtaion tant dans |e prtitlon d'e a Novelle 48 (Noailles et Dain, N'e les,
186) c1ue dans e texte mme des Basiliques, oj la formulation de C C, Dig 22.5'l.8 (..les femnres aussi ont e
droit de
rononcer
un tmoignage dans n jugement,') est conpitement transform6e en onction de a
Nove e 48:
,.Une
emme ne tEmoigne pas dans un testament; pour le reste, elle aPPorte son t6moignage, l
i les hommes ne Sont pas appel6s', (Bs 2L.L,17
[p.
10 7, . 9-10]). Aux e_X e sicles, cete version rema-
ni6e est reprise dans |a S1npsis &silicor'm Mjor ( | 12:. epos,
J s,
, 4 3), dans la Peir ( 1 1 et 79:
epos,J us, ' L27 et 136) et dans le manuei juridique en vers de Michel Psel os (G. Weiss,
..Die.Synopsrs
legum, des N ichae Psellos,,, Fontes Minores'
[Frankfurt
am Main, 1977l, 196, vers
g25_27);
la sentence
prononce par e juge ustathe tmoigne, en outre, de la mise en euvre concrte de cette rgle (voir note
46)' Pour une ana yse plus d6tai116e de toutes ces sources' voir Beaucamp,
.. ncapacit6.,,-La
mme interpr-
tation se retrouve, en 1142, dasl,'cloga silicorm (d. L. Burgmann
[Frankfurt
am Main, 1988], 81, titre
3), propos de Bs 2.3.2.pr.: pour aire comprendre dans quels cas les femmes t6moignent, l,auter prend
l,exemple d,n fait divers qui surviendrait au bain des femmes;
..a ors
[une
emme] pet t6moigner, puis-
qu,un homme ne
eut
pas tre prdsent cet endroit e voir ce qui se passe''; l'exception concernant le bain
des femmes figure aussi dans la schlie no. 33 de .Bas 21. 1.3 (p. |229' |. 30_31), oi il y a manifestement une
addition a texte d'Enantiophanes (voir D. Simon, Untersc mgen zm j,'stininischen Zi,i 'Prze
[Miinchen,
1969),24L_42).- la fin c]r e sic e, dans son commentaire au catron 70 d concile in Tiullo, Balsamon
cite encore es restrictions impos6es aux t6moignages fminins par les Basiliques (.Bas 21.L,L7) et par a
Novel e de L6on V tout ensemble (G. Rhalles et M. Potles, riv i i iri 6, 6 vols.
[Athnes, 852_59], , 468-69).-La mme configuration se retrouve, vers 1300, dans le Procliron auctum
(xv 189-90: epos,J s, v , 191) et, au X Ve sicle, dans |e S1ntgna l,plabeticn de Mathieu Blastars
(: Rhailes et Potles, ri, ' 229),
36 LS FMMES ET jSPCE PUBL C BYZ \ C
par del l,6volution byzantine, un univers politique antique, exclusivement mascrlin.
Deuximement, l,effacement physique. Ljid6al serait l,absence des f,emmes, oi sont les
hommes. Mais si el es traversent ce monde d,hommes, il faut au moins qu,elles s,y fassent
voir e moins possible. Le comble de ,inadmissible, du d6rglement (ooi), est de
..s'exposer
sans r6serve aux yeux des hommes,,, pour reprendre les ermes de L6on V .
or qui est au centre de tous les regards, sinon celui qui parle en public? Voil qui fonde
assur6ment e refus des t6moignages f6minins, lesquels impliquent d,une certaine ma.
nire une prise de parole publique.
.Acc6der
au t6moignage ouvre la voie une ibertd
de par e (o) qui ne convient pas aux femmes,,, dit le texte. ci encore' l,emp oi
du terme oi, associd la d6mocratie antique, n apparait pas indiff6rent. La mesure
que prend L6on V propos des t6moignages affiche donc la mme justification que
ce le de Constantin propos de la repr6sentation par le mari: 6viter aux honntes
femmes d,avoir paraitre au tribunal.
Les t6moignages f6minins se font-ils, ds lrs, plus rares et se limitent-ils des sujets
inaccessibles aux hommes? La Source chronologiquemen la plus proche, |a Peir, e
permet pas de conc usion assur6e pour le e sic e. E e offre u seul exemp e indubi-
table de femmes qui t6moignent: il s,agit d,une attestation de virginit6 demandEe des
..femmes
de bonne r6putation,, propos d,unejeune fi le victime d,un rapt.]s Une tel e
d6position rentre dvidemment dans la cat6gorie autoris6e par L6on V , et le juge prend
la peine de souligner le fait.+6 Dans un autre procs auquel \a Peir fait al usion, i est
question de faire venir une femme Constantinople, mais nous n,avns pas a certitude
qe ce soit comme t6moin.a7 t il n,y a pas d,autre exemple concret dans a Peir.a8
a5Peir
L| 36 et XX 79 (Zepos,
J us,
1,209 e 136). Utre version beaucoup plus conrplte de la
sentence d'Eustathe a t6 pub1i6e, avec une traduction en ailemand, par . Schminck,
..Vier
eherechtliche
ntscheidungen aus dem 11.
J ahrhunder'''
Fontes Minres, (Frankfurt am Main, 1979),221_41; A. .
Laiou,
..Sex,
Consent, and Coercion in Byzanium,'' das Consent nd Coe.cion to Sex nd fu rige in ncient
nd edieal Societies (Washington, D.c., 1993), |57-64 et 75-76, en a donn6 une raduction anglaise e
un commentaire.
u6Schminck,
..Entscheidngen'''
226,1. 31-34:
..Lattestation
n6tait pas r6cusable; ca sur ce qui doi rester
cach6 aux yeux des hommes, il n,est pas inerclit aux femmes de tmoigne e la loi l'expose en ces termes',
(sui une citation des Basi iques). La remarque figure, avec de lgres variantes, das Peir x - x 36 e
79 (epos'J us, 209 et 136).
a7
Peir L 25 (epos,
J s,
' 2|7).
Quoi
qu,i en soit du r6 e jo par la femme, ce texte pr6sene un
grand intrt pour l'aspect sPatial du problme. l dbute par un absolu normatif:
,.un
juge ne doit pas faire
se d6p1acer des femmes'' (6 o i oci1g ioq oi
ig);
le terme rare dog se ren-
contre aussi dans 1es Basiliqes (,Bas 2.6.l9, texte partir duque a 6treconstitu6 C1 1.15.2) et chez Bal-
samon, dans e commentaire aux canons 3 et 5 du concile de Sardique (Rhal es et Potles, r1, ,237
et 242)' j6nonc6 de |a Peira a pour origine l,avis rendu par Eustathe, comme quoi
..aire
venir 6galement la
femme lui est apparu grave et interdit par les lois.,' Bien que es raisons ne soient pas indiqu6es, la difficu t6
6tait nranifestement de faire quitter une emme sa r6sidence et de la jeter sur les routes, l s,agit bien, en
un Sens, de passer du domici e priv6 un esPace ouvert tous (et tous les dangers). Mais il faut avoir
l,esprit deux correctifs
ar
raort au prob me qui nous in6resse ici. Sortir de sa maison pour se pr6senter
au tribnal ocal est une chose; quitter son lieu de rsidence
our
une ville ou une province trangre en
est une autre. t, mme ce a, Eustathe, en d6finiive, ne lexc ut pas compltement, contrairenrent ltnoncE
simplificateur qui ouvre le passage de |a Peir; simplement, i faut l,inervention impEriale.
+8La
dEposiion de l,6pouse contre Son mari es envisagde, dans l,abstrait, par le juge Eustahe Rhomaios
dans le trait6 par leque il cherche prouver qu,une femme a la capacit6 de poursuivre le meurtre de son
mari (voir Simon,..Me ete,,,57l_80): on observera cet 6gard que le juge insiste sur le caractre ind6cent
I
s
1
t
J OLL
BEAUCAMP 137
l faut attendre le X Ve sic e pour t ouver suffisamment de donn6es:a9 le Registre
patriarcal pr6sente une douzaine d'affaires dans lesquel es un ou plusieurs t6moignages
f6minins sont so licitds. Deux fois, le cas de figure est conforme ce que prescrit la No-
velle de L6on V . n 1316, n homme, afin dtre ordonn6 diacre, doit prouver qu,il
n,a pas eu de relations sexuel es avec son 6pouse avant le mariage;so i propose que
..la
Mouzalnissa,' et
..la
Theodgina', t6moignent de la virginit6 de sa femme au moment
des nces; comme el es ne peuvent se rendre au synode, un 6missaire leur est envoy6
qui elles indiquent lesquelles de eurs femmes 6taient pr6sentes la c6r6monie. Ces der-
nires Sont convoqu6es, et l,archevque de Bizy est charg6, en compagnie de deux ar-
chontes eccl6siastiques, de les interroger; el es assurent (o,) alors qu,el es
avaient vu, lrs du mariage, la preuve de sa virginit6. De mme, en 1325, un homme
porte p ainte en raison de vio ences sexuel es subies par Sa fi le avant l'Age nubile.s Le
r6cit de l'audience indique que la jeune femme 6tait pr6sente et a subi un examen phy-
sique, qui est habituel en ce genre d'affaires et qui a montr6 la gravit6 du dommage subi.
On en d6duit que des sages-femmes ont examin6 la victime et fait une d6position.
n revanche, dix reprises, au moins, des femmes apportent eur t6moignage ou
sont sol icit6es de ddposer propos de questions qui n ont rien de spcifiquement f6mi-
nin, Dans une premire affaire dont l,6pilogue se situe en 1341, il y a mention de plus
d,un t6moignage f6minin.52 Un o6
q
6q53 avait fond6 n monastre de
femmes. prs sa mort, son fils veut transformer celui-ci en monastre d,hommes et
persuade sa mre, la donestikissa, de ui apporter Son concours. l obtient qu,elle
..ajoute
son t6moignage,, (oo0o) ses propres affirmations et au deux 6crits, en fait
falsifi6s, qu,i produit l,appui de ses dires. Aprs le d6cs de son fils, e repentir saisit a
dnestikiss: el e vient rapporter l,affaire devant le synode et d6c arer que c,est sous la
contrainte qu,elle
..a
fait ce pr6c6dent t6moignage qui n,6tait pas v6ridique,, ( o6
i
o ). l e signa e, entre autres, que Son fi s a fait remplacer les images
de saintes par des repr6sentations de saints. Le patriarche met en mouvement une ins-
truction approfondie et sollicite des t6moignages (flo) sous la menace de ,excom-
runication: es affirmations de trois 6moins Sont rapport6es et il est indiqu6 6ga ement
qu'une moniale est interrog6e.5l
de a situation, envisag6e d point de vue du coupI e, mais ne mentionne nu lemen que les femmes seraient
exc ues des t6moignages en justice (Peir5-7: epos,J us, \ 26-27). Cela vau 6ga ement pour la
Peir 1 (Zepos,
/s,
, 127)' traian du tEmoignage de l,affranchie contre son
Paton.
nfin, dans le
cas of un mari accuserait sa femme de ne pas avoir t6 vierge au moment du mariage, |a Pei (L X 5:
epos,
J ls,
v, 20) impose une procdure qui ncessite, implicitement, de recourir des t6moignages f6mi-
nins (dans un domaine re evant, cette fois, de a gyncologie).
agLes
Responsiones d'e Chomatianos (no. 141) font connaitre une dposition fEminine sur un sujet non
spEcifique ax fenrmes (Pitra, V , col. 553-5): au cours d,une audience oi sont pr6sents n certain heo-
dros Ch16ropods, son 6pouse irn et les parents de cel e.ci, la ddposiion de la seur de Theod6ros,
Maria, permet de d6couvrir ce qui 6tai resdissimul6 jusque li: la passion de sa belle-seur pour un autre
nomme.
50Register
, no. 30.
5\Register
, no. 89: voir l,analyse de Laiou,
..Sex,',
17t-73.
52Register
, no. 135.
5Sur
ce
Personnage,
Maroules Phokas, or PL fasc.7 (Wien, 1985), 134, o. 71157.
5+
Register , no. 135, |. 73_74; mais le contexte de cette mention nest pas clair.
:-
Ei
]
ti
ti
9,
l
Ei
[:
138 LS F MS T LSAc. PUBL C sZc
n 1401, un itige sur e staut de biens immeubles est soumis au patriarche:s5 ces
biens, qui d6pendent en fait d'une 6glise, ont 6t6 vendus par un homme, d6cdd6 entre-
temps, et Son 6pouse, Kabadina. Le patriarche doit mener une ongue enqute, et,
deux reprises, il envoie deux archontes eccl6siastiques interroger abadina, sous la me-
nace de l,excommunication. Pour d6signer Son t6moignage, le document uti ise le mot
i,
mais aussi ooi, sans par er des termes o,Qioo et o. Ces
variations permettent de traiter colnme des t6moignages f6minis d,autres d6positions,
que le Registre patriarcal ne d6signe pas exp icitement comme des
i.
l en va ainsi dans l,affaire de bonnes mceurs de 1316 pour laquelle deux femmes
sont appelEes d6poser.56 Un certain Th6odore Karbalenos a demand6 devenir diacre.
Comme la rumeur lui impute des re ations sexuel es il16gitimes avec une femme, il est
convoqu6 par le synode. 1 expose que, trois ans auparavan, la femme en question a
prof6r6 une telle accusation, mais qu'une enqute a eu lieu et que deux t6moins ont
prouv6 sa fausset6. Le synode fait venir les dex t6moins et la femme, qui confirment les
faits (o6o).
..On
chargea alors le m6tropolite de Pruse d,interroger (flo)
la femme; interrog6e (6rio) par lui et soumise a menace d'une peine, e e re-
connut avoir port6 une d6nonciation mensongre,,, la fois par amour et ,instigation
de la tante de arbalenos. n cons6quence, le m6tropolite
..fut
charg6 d,interroger la
tane, en compagnie de l,archonte des monastres et avec la s6curit6 qui convient.',57
S,agissant de a premire femme, qui a 6t6 l,origine de 'accusation primitive, il est peut-
tre plus diffici e de parler de t6moignage; mais cela ne fait aucun dote pour la tante.
Une situation comparable se retruve en 140, au cours d,un procs pur bigamie
intent6 par le pre de a seconde femme.58 on voit que la premire 6pouse se pr6sente
au synode pour confondre (61) son mari et exoser (o6q) son propre point
de vue. Par la suite, au moment de r6gler les questins patrimoniales, il est fait 6tat d,un
contrat engageant la tante du bigame. L-dessus, ladite tante accourt au synode et af-
firme (6) que le contrat est falsifi6.
Dans six cas encore, les d6positions des femmes concernent des droits sur des biens.
1330, le patriarche dit trancher n conflit sur la possession d,un monastre.5g La
demanderesse, la monia e Agathonik, a accus6 de fausset6 le testament de son pre
produit par la partie adverse; les d6fendeurs ont r6torqu6 qu,e le seule contestait le doc.
ment, a ors que Sa mre, la moniale nastasia, ,acceptait. n cons6quence de quoi, nas-
tasia..a 6t6 convqu6e, est venue elle aussi et, interrog6e en synode, a dit 6galement que
le testament 6tait forg6."6o
En 1359, e patriarche est saisi d,un litige concernant la propri6t6 d,une vigne, qui
avait 6t6 achet6e autrefois ne moniale.6 l estime n6cessaire d,interroger la moniale
en synode. Mais,
..comme
celle.ci est empch6e par faiblesse de se pr6senter au tribunal
55Darrouzs,
Regertes no. 3239 (MM 2:551-56, no' 677).
66
Register , no. 3 l .
57Sur
cette dernire pr6cision, voir note 75.
53Darrouzs,
Regestes no. 3141 (N N 2:40l-4, no. 582).
59Register
, no. 103.
\oRegister
, no. 103, t. 50-51 (p. 588): offi i i ii i io ooriq -
o6 oiq i it | .rj E,
6Darrouzs,
Regees no.2410 (MM 1: 388-9i, no. i72).
I
:l
.
I
I
1
:
,
I
I
..:
.i
l
I
:
a
J oLL
BEAUCMP 139
Synodal,,'
il mandate le m6tropo1ite de Brysis et trois archontes ecc 6siastiqes qui vont
recueillir sa d6position (ioQo6 i, o6, ioo). La mo-
niale d6pose sous a menace de l,excommunication et c,est en fonction de ses d6clarations
que le patriarche atribue la vigne l'une des deux parties. n l400, le patriarche juge
indispensable, dans l,int6rt d,un enfant, qe la grand-mre rnaternelle atteste le mon-
tant de la dot de sa fille d6c6d6e.6: ..tt" fin, trois o{ficiers de a chancellerie patriarca e
sont envoy6s l'interroger; et le patriarche fonde sur ce t6moignage sa d6cision de r6server
des biens au mineur.
Tujours en 1400, nna Palaiologina vient faire une d6position devant le patriarche,
en synode:63 propos d,une vigne dont a propri6t6 est contest6e entre ses fi s et Son
gendre, elle d6clare exactement e contraire de ce qu,el e avait dit lors d,un procs ant6-
rieur. Son second tdmoignage est rejet6. n 1400 encore, e Registre patriarcal a recuei li
une d6position similaire:6* une femme d6clare en pr6sence du patriarche qu'une maison
apartient pour deux tiers l,un de ses fils et pour un tiers ,autre, Un dernier cas, de
1400 aussi, s,avre particu irement int6ressant.65 Un itige relatif une servitude (un
droit de passage) oppose le pre et le mari d,une femme. u cours de l,instruction men6e
par le patriarche, la femme est interrog6e et fait une d6position d6favorable son mari.
or le fait qu'une femme puisse tre amen6e t6moigner contre son mari apparaissait
particulirement incongru, au e sicle, au juge Eustathe.66
u total, dans la Constantinople du X Ve sic e, devant la juridiction patriarcale du
moins, e t6mignage des femmes n,est pas limit6 aux domaines dont les hommes son
exc us. l semb e, au contraire, qu,on ait largement recours leurs d6positions,6, y com-
pris quand e mari est impliqu6 dans le procs, Peu avant la fin de Byzance, les femmes
n'assument pas moins qu, ,6poque protobyzantine le rle de tEmoin en justice.
Mais il reste examiner le point e p us important. Ce rle de t6moin implique-t-il
n6cessairement une prise de paro e publique, devant le tribunal synodal? Si, d,aventure,
il en a ait diff6remmen, e serait-ce pas l,indice que les femmes restent l6cart d'un
espace peu familier? Car 6tranger et intimidant, 1e tribunal synodal l'est certainement.
Une ordonnance de 139B du paiarche Matthieu er donne des indications Sur So or-
ganisation spatiale.68 Au cours des audiences judiciaires, e patriarche sige Sur Son trne,
6:Darrouzs,
Regestes no. 3 28 (MM 2:385-86, no. 570). La dot repr6sente, d point de vue des enfants
de ce le-ci, leurs biens maternels.
69Darrouzs,
Regestes no. 3155 ( 2:422-23, no. 595).
6j Darrouzs,
Regestes no.3 67 (N M 2:438, no.607).
65Darrouzs,
Regestes n. 3150 (MM 2:417_l8, no. 590).
66Voir
notes 21 et 48.
6?En
1400, quand nna Palaiologina fait sa seconde dposition (voir note 63), le Registre patriarcal note:
..il
y avait plusieurs raisns pour ne pas l,admete, en tant que femme et en tant qu,elle disait le contraire
dê ce qu,elle avait dit auParavant', (i o16 61 6oo, i e
,,,
i q i oiq
t 6o 6oo). Cela porrait s'inerpr6ter comme une rserve ltgard d,un tEmoignage de emme,
en soi.
J 'y
vois plutt le signe d,un contraste entre l,ido1ogie (dfavorable aux inerventions f6minines) et les
pratiques, qui adnettent parfaitement ou mme sollicitent les t6moignages f6minins ( e premier tmoignage
d,nna au mme titre que bien d,autres).
68Darrouzs,
Rege*eino.3066:J .Oudot' Ptrirc tusConstntinollolitnictaselect,| (Cit6clrVatican,
|94)' |44-46,
$
11 et
$
t3. D,aprs R.
J anin,
Lr giogrp ie eccllsistiqe de 'npire byzantin, |: Le siige de
Conantinople et le ptrirct oecunlnique, 3, Les iglises et les nonstires, 2e 6d. (Paris, 969), 46 1 , les r6unions d
140 LES FMMS ET jSPAc UBL C A BYZNC

avec les archontes Sup6rieurs aSSiS SeS ct6s; les notaires se tiennent 6ga1ement auprs
du trne patriarca , mais debout; les altres archontes et les membres du c erg6 sont
rang6s derrire i. Les Evques prEsents son assis Sur une estrade.69 n contrebas se
trouvent, debout, |es episkopeini, charg6s de faire r6gner l,ordre parmi les justiciables.
Lensemb e devait tre impressionnant pour toute personne introduite devant un tel
"ar6opage."
Mais davantage encore pour une femme, seule de son sexe en ce lieu. D'au-
tant que pour y prendre a parole, il fallait, comme l,indique l,ordonnance,
..s,avancer
au mi ieu.,,7
Les femmes du X Ve sicle le font-elles sans r6serve? Une demi-douzaine de fois, on
constate qu'elles 6noncent bel et bien leur t6moignage au cours d'une r6union du synode:
ou bien, en effet, e Registre patriarcal le dit express6ment7 ou bien le contexte le rend
rs probable.72 n revanche, propos de deux affaires examin6es en 1316, au lieu de
dire que la d6position a eu lieu en synode, le Registre patriarcal indique que les femmes
ont 6t6 intelrog6es par des personnes pr6cises: urr archevque et deux archontes eccl6-
siastiques, dans e premier cas;73 un m6tropolite et ,archonte des monastres, dans le
Second.74 Le fait que des enquteurs sp6ciaux soient nomm6s pourrait indiquer que l,in-
te rogatoire n'a
aS
eu lieu pendant une r6union pl6nire du synode, mais en comit6
restreint.7s n ce cas, la d6position ne Se ferait pas en public.
Parfois aussi, la femme dont le t6moignage apparait nEcessaire n'est pas convoqu6e
au tribunal: le patriarche la fait interroger son domici1e,76 Serait-ce que contraindre
une femme se d6placer apparait inconvenan? Lanalyse des diff6rents cas n'appuie pas
vraiment une tel e hypothse. Dans l,affaie jg6e en l401, Kabadina fait sa d6position
chez el e, alors que deux hommes, eux, la font en synode; mais e r6cit indique aussi
synode se enaient dans les tribunes de droite de Saine-Sophie. Les tudes de P Lemerle,
..Recherches
sr
les institutions jdiciaires 1,6poque des Pal6o1ogues, : Le tribunal du patriarcat o tribunal synodal,,' dans
Le monde de yzance: Histoire et institutions (Londres, l978), no. xI I , et de F . Hunge
..Das
Patriarchatsregister
von Konstantinopel als Spiegel byzantinischer Verhiltnisse im 14.
J ahrhundet)'
nzWie 1 5 (197B), 1 17-
36, n'envisagent
Pas
son lieu de r6rnion.
60J .
Darrouzs , Rechercles sr ls Q( d e l'glise b^zntine (Paris, 1970), 144 et n. 1 .
7oudo,
ct' |44: iq
o
il.
Quand
ustahe stigmatise l'attiude de l?pouse qui t6moignerai
contre son mari en faveur d,un 6tranger (Peir 6 et LXV 2: epos,J s, V 126 et244), il emploie le
mme vocabuiaire:
..elle,
se pr6sentant effront6ment au milieu,' ( iv iq
6o Qo).
7LRegister
, no. 103, .50 (oir note 57), et Darrouzs, Regestes no.3155 (MN 2:422, no.595, l.23), no.
3 41 (M 2:402, no. 582, l. 29).
72Register
, no. 135, 1. 36, et Darrouzs, Regestes no. 3167 (MM 2:43B, no. 607, l. 3), no. 314l (MM 2:403,
no. 582, l. 68).- l n y a pas de pr6cision sr les modalitds de la d6position dans Register , no. 89 (eile a sans
doute lieu en synode, mais c'est imp icite), e I , no. 135 (en ce qui concerne le premier tEmoignage de la
domertikissa et celui de la monia e)
73Register
, no. 30, l. 40_41'
7'Register
, no. 3 l, . 17-19.
75Les
deux fois, il est pr6cis6 que les femmes snt inerrogEes
..avec
la s6curitqui convient'' (,oQ-
iq
6
ooo6o6). Malgr1a coincidence, cette menion ne se r6fre pas des pr6cautions particulires
aux interrogatoires de emmes. Car on a trouve aussi propos d,enqutes oir seuls des hommes sont im-
p1iqu6s: voi titre d'exemple, Register |, no. 42, l. 39; no. 73' |. 56 et 60; no. 79, l' 106; no. 93, l. 37.
Lexpressin renvoie, en ralit, aux mises en garde faites aux uturs t6moins, noamment la menace d,ex-
communication prof6r6e pour l,6ventua1it6 d,une d6position mensongre: MM 2:508, no, 64, l. 67-71 (Dar-
rouzs, Regestes no. 32l5).
76 J ana yseneprendpasencompteDarrozs,
Regestes no.3l50(MM2: 4l7_18,no.590): cettefois,c'est
parce que le pariarche s,est transport6 sur place por mene l,ensemble de l,enqute, qre l,interrogatoire
se d6rou e .
,]
l
.i
:i
i
=:a1
I
I
I
I
L-r
J OLLE
BEUCAMP
q,elle
souffre d,une maladie mortelle et a prononc6 sa d6claration l,article de a mort.77
En 1316, il est dit que deux femmes ne peuvent (i1 6q i1o) se rendre au synode.7s
Lexpression
renvoie p utt une impossibilit6 physique qu, une incapacit6 juridique.
t un acte de 1359 ne laisse aucun doute sur ce pint:79 le patriarche a d6cid6 d,inter-
roger en synode la moniale spietina; mais
..comme
celle-ci est empch6e par faib esse
(' oi6) de se pr6senter au tribunal synoda ,,' il envie n m6tropolite et trois
archontes
l,interroger chez e le. S'il y avait exclusion des femmes d,une manire globale,
la d6cision du patriarche n,aurait pas besoin dttre motiv6e; et ue monia e ne serait pas
convoquEe
et interrog6e en synode, comme cea Se produit en 1330.80 Liexp ication doit
donc teni chaque fois, une situaion particulire,8 comme le grand ge, une infirmit6
ou encore une position sociale 6minente.82
n d6finitive, pour le X Ve sicle, le Registre patriarcal apporte deux certitudes
propos des t6moignages f6minins. D,une part, ils Sont recevab es ou mme sollicit6s par
lajustice sur des sujets qui n'ont rien de sp6cifique aux femmes. D'autre part, ces d6posi-
tions peuvent tre apport6es pbliquement, en synode. t on ne parvient pas d6celer
clairement de rEticence la pr6sence fEminine dans cet espace. C'est ce dernier point
qu,il faut maintenant contrler en examinant rapidement l'ensemble des apparitions
f6minines devant le tribunal synodal.
Ls rts DvN LE. R BUNL SYNoDAL
1X V s.l
Le Registre patriarcal permet de connaitre un nombre 6lev6 de femmes engag6es
dans une proc6dre devant le synode: plus de soixante-dix, dnt deux tiers peu prs
dans le rle du demandeur et un tiers dans celui du d6fendeur.s3 Or la majorit6 d,entre
el es comparaissent en personne8a devant le synode: on saisit environ quarante cas de ce
genre, la pr6sence de a femme est signal6e par les termes 6o, o, odo,
es mmes que pour les hommes. n outre, si ,on se lie aux relations de ces audiences,
les femmes en qestion ne Se contentent pas de venir au tribunal; elles s,y exprimen
77Darrouzs,
Regestes no. 3239 (MM 2:554, 556, no' 677),
;SRegister
, no. 3, l. 35.
7gDarrouzs,
Regertes n.2410 (MM 1:389, no. 172, l.53_54).
8Register
, no. l03, . 50-51.
3Aucne
prcision n,est donn6e, en 1400, propos de la femme interroge chez elle sr le montan c e la
dot de sa fi]le d6funte: Darrozs, Regestes no. 3i28 (N M 2:385-86, no. 570).
3,Les
Basi iques pr6voient notamment que es personnes de rang lev prten serment non pas au tribu-
nal, mais leur domicile (s 7.|4.20,
$
1; 22,5.15). h fi.' d e ou au d6bt d X e sicle, ne Nove le
d,]exis er Comnne (epos,
J u"s,
, 645_46) atteste encore que ce privilge concernait es personnes de
rang snatoria|: oir Regesten der iserrhlden des ostrl,nischen Reic es, 2e 6d., 6d. F, Dlger et P lVirth
(Minchen,
1995), 129-30, no. 1l62a. t un contrat de 1t12 permet de voir q,une femme de rang p.oto.
spathaire na pas 6t6 interrog6e au tribunal, mais chez e| e: ctes de Doc eirioi, d. N, Oikonomidi (Paris,
1984), no. 3,1.23-25 etTl-72 (j e remercie Michel Kaplan pour cerre r6f6rence).
83les
femmes qui d6posent une plainte ol intentent une action sont ainsi deux fois p us nombreuses,
environ, que ce les mises en cause.
8aEt,
se on toutaarence, elles e font presque toujours seules: une fois, la femme dont l'int6rt est en
]e-u se prsente avec son mari (Darrozds' Regees no.2426); ne autre, un couple vient, accompagn6 de sa
fil e, pour d6fendre les fiangailles de cel e-ci (Darrouzs, Regestes o.2448); ou bien un homm ei sa mre
poursuivent
devant le tribuna un in6rt commun (Darrouzs, Regestes no. 3086).
\ 4\
S
t
f
: :
I
e
S
e
-
a
c
r
e
S
n
si
I S
j
i_
1
e
3,
S
la
u-
CS
7.
x-
]S
e
t42 LS FMMES T jSPCE PUBL c
gzec
toutes seules. Une seule fois, il est pr6cis6 qi'une d6nomm6e Laskarina, cit6e de
nombreuses reprises, a fini par se pr6senter devant e synode, accompagn6e d,avcats.s5
Sion, en croire le vocabulaire emp oy6, identique ce ui que l,on encontre pou
es hommes (Q6, io, fo, 6o, ooio, o), les femmes
paraissent plaider leur cause el es-mmes.86
Ce dernier aspect me semble n6anmoins quelque peu probl6matique. Les jsticiables
de l,n et l,autre sexe prenaient-ils vraiment la parle devant le tribunal synodal pour
exposer eurs droits? N,avaient-ils pas p utt recours, comme autrefois,87 des sp6cia-
listes, tant du point de vue juridique que rh6torique, et ne sont-ce pas des avocats qui
s,exprimeraient, quand eurs c ients sont dits e faire? Le Registre patriarcal, ui seu ,
ne permet pas de trancher.
J 'y
ai rep6r6, outre les d6fenseurs de Laskarina, une seconde
mention d,avocat.88 Son silence, dans les autres actes, suffit-il prouver qu,il n,y en avait
pas? Faut-il pense au contraire, que les actes patriarcaux vont le plus souvent l,es-
sentiel et masquent le rle de tels professionnels? on ne dispose, sinon, que de quelques
indices' D,un c6t6, la Prosopographie de l,6poque des Pal6o ogues ne cite aucun avocat.
De l,autre, il semble que ce rle puisse tre tenu par les archontes et les clercs pr6sents
au synode.8g Lincertitude demeure, mais le problme concerne arssi bien les hommes
que les femmes.go Une conclusion s,impose, de tote fagon: recourir au tribua patriar-
ca et S,y pr6senter parait a ler de soi pour les femmes' On ne peut parler ni d,incapacit6
gndrale ni d,exclusion de ,espace judiciaire.
Ce a signifie-t.il, pour atant, qt,acune rdserve ne se manifeste et que la sitatin
des femmes, cet 6gard, est en tout point identique celle des hommes? y a, en fait,
deux limitations. Premirement, quand on regarde l,objet des procs l) des femmes snt
impliqu6es, on constate qu'elles ne viennent au tribunal que pour faire valoir leurs int6-
rts propres. 1 en va ainsi dans une soixantaine de cas.g
Face ces soixante femmes d6fendant leur cause elles, j'en ai re1ev6 seu emetrt huit
E5Darrouzs,.Regestes
no.2674: , Sakkelion,
..oi
16og
q
, 6oiog,,,..E..E.
3 (189-91), 1L6-] 7.
36Voi
titre d,exemple, Register , no. 14, l. 6; no. 23,| .3; no. 21, l. | L; no.77,1. 25; no.
no. 135,1.37.
87Les
procs-verbaux d'adience de la p6riode protobyzantine font trs solvent mention d'avocats.
88Dans
MM 2:552 (Darrozds, Regestes no. 3239), il est qestion, a cours d'une enqute, d,un hiroroine
e de son dfenseu ( o6 Q). on trouve, sinon, des emplois figur6s de o6 e fooq.
89En
1398, 'ordonnance du patriarche Matthieu er relative au tribunal patriarcal (Darrozs, Regertes
no. 3066: oudot, ct, L44,
$
12) dispose que..si es atres archontes ou membres du clerg6 le velent, i]s
euvent
prendre en main une affaire, s,avancer au mi ieu (iq
6oo
i) et se aire les avocats (o.
fro)
de la partie en difficu1t6.'' Le texe explique ensuite que cette facu1t6 amd iore la qualitdu c[6bat, fait
apparaitre le droit et la v6rit6 et donne ,occasion celui qui joue le r6le de d6fenseur de montrer son
aptitude de plus hautes fonctions.
goPor
les X e-X e sicles, en revanche, le rle des avocats, devan les tribunaux impriaux en tot cas,
ne fait aucun doute: voir D. Simon, Rec tsfindung m bzntiisc en Reichsgerichl (Frankfurt am Main, l973),
10, et R. Macrides,
.J ustice
under v anuel Komnenos: Four Novels orr Court Business and N urde'Fonles
Minores, V (Frankfurt am Main, L984)' 126-27, t38_39, |74J 5.
9 1
s'agi, le plus souven, de conflits
Prtant
sur des biens immobi iers, de l,argent ou des revens; la dot
et les droits Successoraux y occupent une place particulirement importante: oir R. Macrides,
..Dowry
and
nheritance in the Late Period: Some Cases from the atriarchal Registe,, d'as ]erec t nd Fni ient
im
Antike tnd ittelalte 6d. D. Simon (Miinchen, 1992), 89_98. Les litiges relatifs au mariage mme sont rares,
e p s encore es accsations crininelles.
E;4-
e
i5
r
.S
J OLL.
B J CAMP t43
qui interviennent en justice dans 1,int6rt d,autrui. Deux fois, d,ail eurs, une mre agit
tant pour elle-mme que pour ses enfans.g2 l ne reste donc que six cas o) l,int6rt
personnel
n,entre aucunement en ligne de compte. Tiois fois, i s,agit de celui de la fille,g3
une fois de celui du petit-fils,e4 une autre fois de celui de neveux orphelins;es dans un
dernier cas, l,6pouse cherche obtenir ,argent n6cessaire au rachat de son mari pri-
sonnier.96
Les intervenions f6minines au profit d,un iers se limitent dnc a d6fense
des int6rts de personnes trs proches, notamment les jenes enfants de la parent6. C,est
conforme,
il faut le rappele ce que prescrit depuis toujours le droit imp6ria
yzance; c'est 6galement similaire aux pratiques qui S,observent aux Ve-V e sicles.
Quant
la seconde limitation, elle est, elle aussi, en harmonie avec la l6gis atin et
cn continuit6 avec 1'6poque protobyzantine: alors que les femmes ne repr6sentent jamais
autrui en justice, e les ot recou S des mandataires ou voient eurs int6rts pris en
charge par des hommes de leur famille.g7
Qu,en
est-il, d,abord, des mandataires. Face
la quarantaine de femmes qui viennent en personne au tribunal, il y en a huit qui se font
repr6sener. u tota , une femme sur cinq agit par ,interm6diaire d,un procurateur.g8
Ces mandataires judiciaires sont des gendres,gg un petit-filsto ou bien des hommes avec
qui nul lien de parent6 n'est signal6. 01 Leur intervention n,a dnc rien voir avec une
6ventue le auto it6 vis--vis de la femme. Ne pourrait-on, alors, envisager une explication
par une r6ticence f6minine se pr6senter devant un tribunal? Un cas se prterait 6ven.
tuellement cette hypothse. En 140, |'rchontiss Th6odora d6pose une plainte, devant
e tribunal patriarca , cont e un de ses deux gendres, et le fait par ,interm6diaire d,un
mandataire ('6oq), sn autre gendre.102 Au cours de l,audience, e d6fendeur
..de.
mande que Sa be le-mre soit interrog6e,,; le patriarche envoie alors le grand chartophy-
ax recevoir la d6position so1licit6e. Aucune explicaion de cette d6cision n,est donn6e.
Peuvent entrer en igne de compte l,ge, le rang; on ne saurait exclure non p us une
r6pugnance de a femme comparaitre en personne, r6pugnance dont le patriarche
aurait tenu compte lui aussi. Mais i n,en va pas toujours ainsi. Dans une autre affaire, la
femme qui a pris un procuraeur est convoqu6e en personne rn stade 1t6rieur de la
92Darrouzs,
Regestes no.3168 (MM 2:439-41, no.608), no.320 (M 2:486-87, no.639).
g3Register
, no. 92, no. 23 (fille et gendre), et Darrouzs, Regestes no.2448 (MM 1:484_85, no. 225), oi
c,est un coup e qui agit pour sa fil e,
9{Darrouzs,
Regestes no. 3l52 (MM 2:420-21, no. 592).
95Register
, no. 152.
96Darrouzs,
Regestes no.3247 (MM 2:564_65, no. 684).
97our
le e sicle, des ph6nomnes similaires s,observent dans les Responsiones de Chomatianos: voir
G' Prinzing,..Sozialgeschichte der Frau im Spiegel der Chomatenos- ten,,'J 32.2 ( 982)' 453-62, e
F . N. ngelmatis-Tsougarakis,
..Women
in he Society of the Despotate opirus,,, ibid., 473_80.
g8C,est
moins qu, l,6poque protobyzantine, ot une femme sur trois environ le faisait.
99Le
second mandataire de Register , no. 151, et ceux de Darrouzs, Regestes no. 3166 (L M 2:437-38,
no.606), no.3217 (MM 2: 511-12, no.656).
looDarrouzs,
Regestes no' 3247 (MM 2:564-65, no. 684).
10tLe
premier mandataire de Register , no. 151, et ceu de Darrouzs, Regees no. 3i13 (MM 2:361-66,
no.557), no.3157 (2: 424-26, no.597), no.3159 (2427-29, no.599), no,3169 (2: 44 _42,
no. 609).
02Darouzs,
Regestes no.3166 (MM 2:437-38, no.606). Le terme archontiss est compris par Darrouzs
comme un nm
ProPre.
n
t
t-
5
t^
ts
)-
lt
-
),
e5
)
.cl
]1
S,
144 LES FEMME.S ET LSPC PL BL C A BYZANC
proc6dure.t03 t en 140, une tante de empereu qui a un mandataire, se pr6sente
dembl6e l,audience avec ui.10a l n'y a donc rien de trs concluant en faveur de l,inter-
pr6tation par la difficult6 investir un espace pub ic.
Une dernire observation renforce ce Scepticisme. n plus de ces mandataires sp6-
cialement d6sign6s, on voit des homnres d6fendre devant le synode les int6rts cl,rne
femme (son mariage, sa dot, ses droits Successoraux). Le plus souvent, c,est le pre qui
intervient ainsi;105 mais n trouve aussi 1'oncle,06 e mari.o7 S,agissant du pre, on est
6videmment renvoy6 l,exercice de la puissance paterne le. Dans e cas du mari, une
explication similaire en termes de pouvoir marita apparait vraisemblable. on constae,
en effet, que presque toutes les femmes ayant recours au tribunal patriarcal sont des
veuves ou des monia es.o8 Les femmes qui viennent devant le synode sont celles sur
lesquelles ne s'exercent pas ou plus d,autorit6 maritale. Bien sf on ne peut tout fait
exc ure que le r e du mari ait aussi des raisons mora es, comme dans la loi de Cons-
tantin. Mais la version du pouvoir est plus cr6dible, dans la mesure or) ant de veuves se
prdsentent elles-mmes et o si peu usent d,un mandataire. 09
Les conc usions peuvent s,6noncer aisi. l6poque protobyzantine comme a X Ve
sicle, il y a des limitations au r e des femmes en justice, mais il n,y a pas exclusion de
lespace judiciaire. L-dessus, les pratiques sociales et e droit sont, globalement, en ac-
cord. Sur les raisons de ces limitations, en revanche, on constate un d6calage entre ce
que les documents de la pratique permettent de comprendre et ce que es textes norma-
tifs 6noncent. Les premiers montrent que es veuves agissent en personne et suggrent
que es femres mari6es Sont en retrait: il s,agit d,un problme de povoir familial. Le
droit-que ce soit la constitution de Constantin reprise dans le Code justinien o a
Nove le de L6on V ll-met, lui, ,accent sur la composante spatiale: il est inconvenant
qu,une femme paraisse au tribunal. Pour cette raison de biens6ance sociale justement,
la fin du Xe sicle, L6on VI limite le plus possible les t6moignages f6minins en justice.
Faute de donn6es SuffiSantes dans la Peir' 1| est impossible de dire si cette mesure a 66
|3
Regbter , no. 15 1.
la
Darrouzs, Regestes no. 3 l3 (L V 2:361-66 ,
o. 557): on a l,impression, dans ce cas, q,ii agit plus
comme avocat que comme procrateur. De mme, Darrouzs, Regestes no' 3 59 (N 2 127_29, rro. 599)'
mentionne la fois a pr6sence de la moniale l,audience et le rle de son repr6sentant (iioo{Qo-
og): on notera en outre que, dans un conflit qui l'oppose un archonte sup6rieu e e a justement choisi
pour dfenseur un autre archone suprieur.
1o5Registerl,o.22,
no.38, no. 89, no. 101, et Darrouzs, Regestes no.3L22 (2:37b-77, no. 565), no.
3l41 (MM 2:40 ._4, no' 582); au no. 2448 (MI l:484-85, no.225), il s,agi du pre et de la mre.
06Regbter
,no.9et94.-arai leurs, dansRegister ,o.72,i sepeutqueleneveintervienne,mais
on ignore que itre.
| o7Register| ,no.47;
I , no. 151.
'sMacrides,
..Dowr,'
90 et n. l4, relve que, quand un litige concerne les biens d,une femne, celle-ct
agit presque toujours elle-mme en justice; elle remarque, simultan6ment, que ces femmes Sont des veuves.
J ,ajouterai
que es femmes qui prennent en charge l,int6rt d,atrui sont dga ement ddpourves de mari.
09Une
sur cinq, comme on ,a vu.
o -a
mme constatation vaut
Pour
la Peir (voir note 70) et pour |'clog silicon ( propos de Bs
2.3.2'pr., p.8 ): l,exclusion des emmes de toute fonction civile ou publique y est jusifie non seulement
par les dfauts de jugemen du sexe f6minin, mais aussi par le fait
..qu,il
est indigne que es fenrnres aient
une activit6 publique
,
fr6qentent les tribunaux et se mlent aux hommes.''
-e
3-
e
1i
st
e
e,
es
tr
it
s-
SE
Ve
de
c-
ce
I a-
}n
Le
la
n
: ,
ce.
t6
rlus
ee),
)o.
.oisi
J oELLE
BEUCMP
145
appliqu6e
au X e sicle; au X Ve, el e ne ,est manifestemet pas.'., Deux interpr6tations
sont
donc envisageables. Ou bien la ovelle a d,abord 6t6 respect6e, pour tre ensuite
abandonn6e:
en ce cas, l,exc usion a progress6, d.ans l,espace judiciaire,
partir du Xe
sicle,
puis r6gress6 avant le X Ve. ou bien, la Nove le est rest6e lettre morte et il y a eu
une oppsition
constante entre ,id6ologie et les pratiques. Ce que je
crois.112
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
ix-en-rovence
l Elle
ne semb e pas l?tre non p us dans l,Epire du X e sicle (voir note 49); mais i faudrait disPoser
d,un ventail plus large de tEmoignages f6minins,
2llopposition
n,est pas douteuse, en effet, pour la priode protobyzantine, ol) on ne trouve pas l,euvre,
dans les papyrus,'la volon.de sgEgation qui inspire a loi de Constantin (voir ci-dessus,
P.
i3t-3+);
Po.,.
un contraste similaire au XI Ve sic e, voir note 67.
no.
nais
I e-ci
_ves.
t.
Bs
ne11
ient
Juridical Space: Female Witnesses in Canon Law
Author(s): James A. Brundage
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Juridical
Space:
Female Witnesses in Canon Law
JAMES
A. BRUNDAGE
The
law of evidence
presents thorny,
often
intractable,
problems
in
every legal sys-
tem,l
and medieval canon law was no
exception
to that
general
rule. Gratian and
his successors
got only
limited
help
from their Roman law texts when
they
tried to devise
rules
concerning
the
admissibility
of oral
testimony, depositions,
documents,
and
physical
data,
or the evaluation of the evidence that these sources
furnished,
since ancient Roman
jurists
had
remarkably
little to
say
about these matters.2 Medieval canonists
had,
none-
theless,
begun
to devise rules of evidence
long
before the mid-twelfth
century,
when Gra-
tian
systematically
assembled and
analyzed
the material available from a wide
range
of
earlier sources.3 His work laid the foundation for the
development
of a
hierarchy
of
evidence and of doctrines for its
evaluation,
which was one of the
major
achievements
of the classical
period
of canon law and lies at the basis of much of the law of evidence
in
subsequent
western
legal systems, including
our own.4
My purpose
here is to examine female
space
in the law courts as defined
by
one
element in the law of evidence that the la o eideecanonists devised
during
the twelfth and thir-
teenth
centuries,
namely,
the
way
in which
they
dealt with
testimony given by
female
witnesses.5 I first look at the doctrine on this matter as it
emerged
in the schools and
then
compare
the academic
teachings
on this matter with the
practice
of church courts
in
England,
where the
surviving
evidence from the Courts Christian is
relatively
abun-
dant and often more
readily
accessible than church court records from the continent.6
'R.
C. Van
Caenegem,
"The Law of Evidence in the Twelfth
Century: European Perspective
and Intellec-
tual
Background,"
in
Proceedings of
the Second International
Congress of
Medieval Canon
Law,
ed. S. Kuttner and
J. J.
Ryan,
Monumenta
iuris canonici,
Subsidia
(Vatican
City, 1965),
310.
2W W Buckland andan A. D.
McNair,
Roman Law and Common Law: A
Comparison
in
Outline,
2nd
ed.,
rev.
by
E H. Lawson
(Cambridge, 1965),
402.
3W
Litewski,
"Les textes
proceduraux
du droit de Justinien dans le Decret de Gratien," Studia Gratiana 9
(1966),
78-84.
4J.-P.
Levy,
"Le
probleme
de la
preuve
dans les droits savants," Recueil de la Societe
Jean Bodin 17
(1965),
139-67;
J. Kejr,
"Pojem
soudniho dukazu ve
stredoveky
pravnich
naukach"
[The
notion of evidence in
medieval
legal documents],
Stdt
apravo
13
(1967),
187
(Eng. summary).
51 am
greatly
indebted
throughout
this
paper
to Dr. Giovanni Minnucci's fundamental research on the
whole
topic
of the
procedural
situation of women in the
canonists;
see
especially
his La
capacita processuale
della donna nel
pensiero
canonistico
classico, 2 vols.,
Quaderni
di "Studi Senesi" 68 and 79
(1989-94),
and La
capacitd processuale
della donna nel
pensiero
canonistico classico: Le scuole Franco-Renana ed
Anglo-Normana
al
tempo
di
Uguccione
da Pisa
(Siena, 1990).
6Many
of the
surviving
records are
analyzed
in The Records
of
the Medieval Ecclesiastical
Courts,
ed. C. Do-
nahue,
Jr.,
2 vols.,
Comparative
Studies in Continental and
Anglo-American Legal History
6-7
(Berlin,
1989-94).
FEMALE WITNESSES IN CANON LAW
Gratian dealt with the
eligibility
of witnesses to
testify
in several
passages
of his
Decre-
tum.7 In one of them he cited authorities to the effect that known enemies of a defendant
should be barred from
giving testimony against
him,
as also should
persons
known to
be
immoral or to have unorthodox
religious opinions.8
In another
passage
he
reported
the
opinion
of Pseudo-Calixtus to the effect that blood relatives of the accuser or
members
of his household should also be
rejected
as witnesses
against
a defendant.9 Gratian
drew
upon
Roman law authorities in three further
passages
that center
specifically
on
the
testimony
of women. These authorities tell us that in
principle
women were
permitted
to
testify
in
court,
although
their
right
to
bring
accusations was limited to situations involv-
ing
the deaths of their
parents,
their
children,
their
patrons,
or a
patron's
sons,
daugh-
ters,
or
grandchildren.10
Women could also
appear
in criminal
proceedings concerning
the wills of their
parents'
freedmen or to
avenge
the deaths of
any
of their own close kin.
They
were further
permitted
to
testify
in treason cases" and in cases
involving simony.'2
From these
passages
Gratian concluded that the laws
generally permitted
women to tes-
tify
and that
they
should not be barred from
giving testimony
in civil matters unless some
enactment
specifically
forbade them to do so.13
Bringing
criminal
accusations,
Gratian
continued,
was another matter
entirely.
Since the laws
permitted
women to
appear
as
accusers in a few
specific
situations,
he
argued
that women were not entitled to
appear
as accusers in other criminal
matters,
including
fornication,
which was the
specific
situa-
tion at issue in this
passage
of the
Decretum.'4
In a different
context, however,
Gratian
cited a
patristic passage
that on the face of it seemed to bar the courts from
hearing
the
testimony
of female witnesses at
all.'5
Academic commentators were
quick
to
point
out
7See
generally
F.
Liotta,
"II testimone nel Decreto di
Graziano,"
in
Proceedings of the Fourth International
Congress of
Medieval Canon
Law,
ed. S.
Kuttner, Monumenta iuris
canonici,
Subsidia 5
(Vatican City, 1976),
81-93.
sC. 3
q.
5 c. 4:
"Suspectos
aut
inimicos,
aut facile
litigantes,
et
eos,
qui
non sunt bonae
conuersationis,
aut
quorum
uita est
accusabilis,
et
qui
rectam non tenent et docent
fidem,
accusatores esse et testes antecessores
nostri
apostoli prohibuerunt
et nos eorum auctoritate submouemus
atque temporibus
futuris excludimus."
This is a
fragment
from
Pseudo-Isidore;
see Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae et
Capitula Angilramni,
ed. P. Hin-
schius
(Leipzig,
1863;
repr.
Aalen, 1963),
149. For the romano-canonical citation
system employed
here,
see
my
Medieval Canon Law
(London, 1995),
190-205.
9C. 3
q.
5 c. 12: "Accusatores uel testes
suspecti
non
recipiantur,
nec familiares uel de domo
prodeuntes,
nec etiam
consanguinei
accusatoris aduersus extraneos testimonium
dicant,
quia propinquitatis
et familiari-
tatis ac dominationis affectio ueritatem
inpedire
solet. Amor carnalis et timor
atque
auaritia
plerumque
sensus hebetant
humanos,
et
peruertunt opiniones,
ut
questum pietatem putent,
et
pecuniam quasi
mercedem
prudentiae";
also from
Pseudo-Isidore, Decretales,
ed.
Hinschius,
141.
'OC. 15
q.
3 c.
2,
taken from
CIC,
Dig
22.5.18 and 48.2.1.
"C.
15
q.
3 c.
3,
a
pastiche
of
quotations
from
CIC, Dig
48.2.2,
CI
9.1.4,
and Dig 48.4.8.
'C.
15
q.
3 c.
4,
taken from
CIC,
CI 1.3.30.5.
3French
royal
law
ultimately adopted
this
position
as
well;
see A.
Gouron, "Ordonnances des rois de
France et droits savants
(XIIIe-XVe siecles),"
CRAI
(1991),
851-65 at 853.
'4C.
15
q.
3
d.p.c.
4 ? 2: "Nec
quisquam distinguere querat,
ad
aliorum,
non ad sacerdotum accusationem
in hoc casu
symoniae
mulieres esse admittendas. Cum enim
generaliter legibus
hoc eis
permissum
inuenia-
tur,
nisi
quis specialiter aliqua lege
hoc
prohibitum ostenderit,
eius distinctio locum non habebit.
Verum,
cum contra
regulas generales quedam
crimina
specialiter excepta
sint,
in
quibus
mulieri accusare
permitti-
tur,
inter
que
fornicatio non
numeratur,
patet, quod
huius accusatio
duppliciter infirmatur,
et
quia
fornica-
tionis crimen
intendit,
et
quia,
dum de se
confitetur,
super
alienum crimen ei credi non
oportet."
15C. 33
q.
5 c. 17: "Mulierem constat subiectam dominio uiri
esse,
et nullam auctoritatem
habere;
nec
docere
potest,
nec testis esse, nec iudicare."
Although
Gratian attributed this
passage
to St.
Ambrose,
the
author was in fact St.
Augustine:
Liber
quaestionum
Veteris et Novi
Testamenti,
q.
45,
in PL 35:2247.
148
JAMES
A. BRUNDAGE
the
discrepancy
between this and other
passages
in the Decretum and to
explain away
the
inconsistency
with nimble distinctions.16
Elsewhere Gratian dealt with a few
special
situations in which women's
testimony
was
clearly
admissible. These included matrimonial
litigation
in which the husband was
al-
leged
to be
impotent.
Here his wife's
testimony
was
obviously
essential.'7
Similarly
when
consanguinity
was at issue in matrimonial cases the
testimony
of
family
members, includ-
ing
women,
was
obviously likely
to
comprise
a
significant part
of the evidence on the
matter and
accordingly
was
allowed,'8
even
though
Gratian maintained that as a
general
rule members of a
party's
household were
ineligible
to
testify.19
Gratian further admitted certain situations where all
persons
within certain
classes,
regardless
of
gender,
were
unacceptable
as witnesses in
litigation.
These included
per-
sons
adjudged disreputable (infames),20
excommunicates, heretics,
pagans, Jews,2'
mi-
nors,22
and the insane.23
While teachers in the schools of canon law
generally accepted
the
positions
on the
admissibility
of witnesses that
they
found in
Gratian's text and
sought
to
explicate
his
reasoning
on this
topic
more
fully,
a few of them took issue with some of his conclusions.
Thus,
for
example,
o
Stephen
of Tournai
(1135-1203)
opined
that Gratian had either erred
or wandered from the
point
in his discussion of the
acceptability
of women as witnesses in
treason and
simony
cases.24
Similarly,
Master Rolandus
(fl.
late
1150s)
adopted
a rather
'6E.g., Johannes Teutonicus,
Glossa ordinaria to C. 33
q.
5 c. 17 v. nec testis: "In causa
criminali,
nisi in illis
casibus in
quibus
infames
admittuntur, nec in
testamento,
Insti. D testa.
?
testes
[Inst. 2.10.6],
nec contra
clericos in causa
criminali,
quia
non
potest
esse
quod ipsi
sunt,
supra
2
q.
7
ipsi Apostoli [C.
2
q.
7 c.
38],
nec
etiam contra
laicos,
ut no. 16
quaest.
3 De crimine
[C.
15
q.
3 c.
1]."
Here and elsewhere I cite the canonistic
glos.
ord. from the
printed
edition of the
Corpus iuris
canonici
(Venice, 1605).
'7C. 27
q.
2 c.
29,
ascribed to
Pope Gregory
I, but
actually
from a
9th-century
letter of Hrabanus Maurus:
"Quod
autem
interrogasti
me de
his,
qui
matrimonio iuncti
sunt,
et nubere non
possunt,
si ille
aliam,
uel
illa
alium
possit accipere,
de
quibus scriptum
est: Vir et
mulier,
si se
coniunxerint,
et
postea
dixerit mulier
de
uiro,
quod
non
possit
coire cum
illa,
si
potest probare per
uerum
iudicium,
quod
uerum
sit,
accipiat
alium." See also
my "Impotence, Frigidity
and Marital
Nullity
in the Decretists and the
Early
Decretalists,"
in
Proceedings of
the Seventh International
Congress of
Medieval Canon
Law,
ed. P
Linehan, Monumenta iuris
canonici, Subsidia 8
(Vatican
City, 1988), 407-23,
also
reprinted
with
original pagination
in
Sex,
Law and
Marriage
in the Middle
Ages (Aldershot, 1993).
'8C.
35
q.
6 c. 2 ?
1: "Videtur nobis ...
Quod
autem
parentes,
fratres et
cognati utriusque
sexus in
testificationem suorum ad matrimonium
coniungendum
uel dirimendum
admittantur,
tam
antiqua
con-
suetudine
quam legibus approbatur.
Ideo enim maxime
parentes, et,
si defuerint
parentes, proximiores
admittuntur,
quoniam unusquisque
suam
genalogiam
cum testibus et
chartis,
tum etiam ex recitatione mai-
orum scire laborat." See also c. 3.
'9C. 3
q.
5
pr., d.p.c.
14 and
d.p.c.
15,
relying
in
part
on
CIC,
CI
3.1.16;
cf.
Dig
22.5.4.
20C.
3
q.
4 c.
11; Pseudo-Isidore, Decretales,
ed.
Hinschius, 211-12;
cf. also
Paulus,
Sententiae
1.2.1,
in
Collectio librorum iuris
anteiustiniani in usum
scholarum,
ed. P.
Krueger,
T.
Mommsen,
and W.
Studemund,
3 vols.
(Berlin, 1878-90), II, 49,
and also E.
Levy,
Pauli Sententiae: A
Palingenesia of
the
Opening
Titles as a
Specimen of
Research in West Roman
Vulgar
Law
(Ithaca, N.Y., 1945;
repr.
New
York, 1969),
66-71.
21C.4q. c. 1.
22C. 4
q.
3 c. 1.
2C.
3
q.
7
d.p.c.
1: "Tria
sunt,
quibus aliqui inpediuntur
ne iudices fiant:
Natura,
ut
surdus, mutus et
perpetuo furiosus,
et
inpubes, quia
iudicio carent.
Lege, qui
senatu motus est.
Moribus, feminae et
serui,
non
quia
non habent
iudicium,
sed
quia receptum
est ut ciuilibus non
fungantur offitiis";
cf. CIC, Dig
5.1.12.2 and 5.1.39.
24Stephen
of
Tournai, Summa to C. 15
q.
3
d.p.c.
4,
ed.
J.
E von Schulte
(Giessen, 1891; repr.
Aalen,
1965),
221.
149
more restrictive view than Gratian's of the
capacity
of women to
testify against priests,25
while both
Stephen
of Tournai and the
anonymous
author of the Summa Parisiensis
(ca.
1160) suggested
that the vexed
question
of the
credibility
of witnesses, either men or
women,
who
belonged
to the household of one of the
litigants required
a rather more
nuanced and flexible treatment than Gratian had
given
it.26 The Summa Parisiensis main-
tained that
judges ought
to evaluate the evidence of household witnesses on the basis of
their individual
credibility
rather than their
status,
a
position
that Rufinus
(d. 1192)
and
the author of the Summa Coloniensis
(ca. 1169) adopted
and
developed
in
greater
detail.27
Twelfth-century
decretists,
or commentators on the
Decretum,
elaborated some addi-
tional
points concerning
the
eligibility
of witnesses that Gratian's book
passed
over
lightly.
One
point,
vital to the due
process
doctrines that canonists were
developing during
this
period,
barred known
enemies,
male or
female,
of a
litigant
from
giving
evidence.28
Testimony
based on
hearsay
constituted another difficult issue in the law of evidence.
Gratian at one
point
drew the conclusion from his authorities that witnesses should be
permitted
to
testify only
to matters of which
they
had direct
knowledge,
that
is,
things
they
had
personally
seen and heard.29 The decretists
pointed
out, however,
that this con-
tradicted a later
passage
in which Gratian's authorities allowed
hearsay
evidence to be
given
in matrimonial cases where
consanguinity
between the
spouses
was
alleged
as
grounds
for a declaration of
nullity. Consanguinity, they
concluded, must,
in its
very
nature,
constitute an
exception
to the
general
rule
against hearsay,
since it was
highly
unlikely
that
parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, great-aunts
and
uncles,
or
other remote relatives could be available to
testify
to
relationships
that were rooted in
the distant
past.30
Here the
testimony
of the
fathers, mothers,
and other close
relatives,
whether male or
female,
was
essential,
and it would be
unreasonable,
indeed
impossible
in most
situations,
not to
accept
their evidence on events that
they
knew of
only
from
hearsay.
This was an
especially
acute
problem prior
to 1215:
up
to that time canon law
mandated a
seven-degree
rule,
which
prohibited
valid
marriages
between
persons
re-
lated within seven
degrees
of blood
relationship.3'
That rule
proscribed marriages
within
an enormous
range
of blood
relationships.
A Christian was
legally
barred from
marrying
any person
descended from his or her
great-great-great-great-great-grandfather,
a
pro-
hibited
group
that could
easily
include
thousands,
or even tens of
thousands,
of
per-
sons.32
Securing
reliable evidence
concerning
such an enormous
span
of
relationships
25Rolandus, Summa to C. 15
q.
3,
ed. F. Thaner
(Innsbruck, 1874),
33-34.
26Stephen
of
Tournai, Summa to C. 3
q.
5
pr.,
ed.
Schulte, 195;
Summa Parisiensis to C. 3
q.
5
pr.,
ed. T. P.
McLaughlin (Toronto, 1952),
119.
27Rufinus,
Summa to C. 3
q.
5
pr.,
ed. H.
Singer (Paderborn, 1902;
repr.
Aalen, 1963), 266;
Summa 'Ele-
gantius
in iure diuino' seu Coloniensis
6.82-83,
ed. G. Fransen and S.
Kuttner,
Monumenta iuris canonici, Cor-
pus glossatorum,
vol. 1.1-4
(New York-Vatican
City, 1969-90),
2:142.
28Summa Parisiensis to C. 3
q.
5
pr.,
v.
quia
vero
testes,
ed.
McLaughlin,
119; Summa Coloniensis
6.81,
ed.
Fransen and
Kuttner, 2:141.
29C.
3 1. 9 c.
15,
d.p.c.
15,
and c.
16;
Stephen
of
Tournai,
Summa to C. 3 q. 9 c.
15,
ed.
Schulte, 198;
and
q.
9
d.p.c.
15,
ed.
McLaughlin,
123.
30Rolandus,
Summa to C. 35
q.
6 c.
5,
ed.
Thaner, 230-31; Rufinus,
Summa to C. 35
q.
6
pr.
v. accusantibus
vel
testificantibus,
ed.
Singer,
528-29.
31C.
30
q.
1 d.a.c.
1;
C. 35
q.
1
d.p.c.
1;
C. 35
q.
2 & 3 d.a.c.
1,
d.p.c.
21,
and
d.p.c.
22.
32
For further
details,
see
J.
A.
Brundage,
Law, Sex,
and Christian
Society
in Medieval
Europe (Chicago, 1987),
140-41, 191-93,
355-57. As Peter Landau
recently pointed
out,
the number of
persons
with whom a
given
man
or woman could not
legally
contract
marriage
could
easily
amount to as
many
as
16,129 relatives within seven
150
JAMES
A. BRUNDAGE
demanded a detailed
knowledge
of the marital
history
and
genealogy
of the families
involved,
much of which
necessarily
must
depend upon
evidence that witnesses could
only
have
gleaned
from
others,
whether
through family
oral traditions or in some cases
from written
genealogical
records.33 Since women were often the
repositories
of
genea-
logical
lore,
their
testimony,
evenon matters that
they
knew
solely
from
hearsay,
for
practical purposes
was
frequently indispensable.
The
problem
of evidence
concerning
consanguinity
was
simplified,
to be
sure,
by
the Fourth Lateran Council's decision in
1215 to reduce the
degrees
of
relationship
within which
marriage
was forbidden from
seven to four.34 Even under the new
rules, however,
proof
or
disproof
of the
alleged
blood
relationship
often
depended
both on the
testimony
of female witnesses and on
hearsay,
problems
that the council itself
explicitly
addressed in another of its constitutions.35
Women
were,
in
addition,
barred
by
law from
giving testimony against
certain
groups
of
men,
including priests, bishops,
and members of the
papal
curia. This last
group
could
be convicted
only upon
the sworn
testimonory
of numerous male witnesses:
seventy-two
witnesses,
for
exampl,
were
necessary
for the conviction of a
cardinal-bishop, according
to one
authority.36
Women were also restrained from
testifying against
their
husbands,
save on issues
involving marriage.37
Finally,
canonists
accepted
the Roman law doctrine that forbade women to
testify
in
litigation
that involved wills or testaments.38 To this
they
added their own rules that re-
stricted women's evidence on criminal
charges
to cases of
simony
or
heresy.39
Pope Gregory
IX's
publication
of the Liber Extra on 5
September
1234 added further
qualifications
to the canon law
concerning
female witnesses. The new lawbook
permitted
women to
testify against
clerics in some limited
circumstances,40
allowed them to be wit-
nesses
againstJews,41
reaffirmed their
capacity
to
give
evidence
concerning
the
marriages
of their
children,42 and admitted their
testimony
in cases where the marital
history
of a
bishop-elect
was at issue.43
degrees
of blood
relationship;
see his
"Ehetrennung
als Strafe: Zum Wandel des kanonischen Eherechts
im 12.
Jahrhundert,"
ZSavKan 81
(1995),
163. On the method of
reckoning
blood
relationships,
see
J.
Freisen,
Geschichte des canonischen Eherechts bis zum
Verfall
der
Glossenlitteratur,
2nd ed.
(Paderborn, 1893),
406-
39,
or E.
Champeaux, 'Jus sanguinis:
Trois faSons de calculer le
parente
au
moyen age,"
Revue
historique
de droit
franfais
et
etranger,
4th
ser., 12
(1933), 241-90;
for a brief
summary
in
English,
see F. Pollock and F. W.
Maitland,
The
History of English
Law
before
the Time
of
Edward
I, 2nd ed., 2 vols.
(Cambridge,
1898;
repr. 1968), II,
386-87.
33G.
Duby,
Medieval
Marriage:
Two Models
from Twelfth-Century
France,
trans. E. Forster
(Baltimore, Md.,
1978), 25-30;
C.
Brooke,
The Medieval Idea
of Marriage (Oxford, 1989),
135-37.
344 Lateran
(1215)
c. 50
(=
X
4.14.8),
in Constitutiones Concilii
quarti
Lateranensis una cum commentariis glossa-
torum,
ed. A. Garca
y
Garcia,
Monumenta iuris canonici,
Corpus glossatorum
II
(Vatican
City, 1981), 90-91;
also,
with
English
trans.,
in Decrees
of
the Ecumenical
Councils,
ed. N. P.
Tanner, 2 vols.
(Washington,
D.C.-
London, 1990), I, 257-58.
354 Lateran
(1215)
c. 52
(=
X
2.20.47),
in
Constitutiones,
ed. Garcia
y
Garcia, 93-94,
and
Decrees,
ed.
Tanner,
I, 259.
36C. 2
q.
4 c.
2;
see also
Rufinus,
Summa to C. 2
q.
4
pr.
and C. 15
q.
3
pr.,
ed.
Singer,
251 and
348;
Summa
Parisiensis to C. 15
q.
3
pr.,
ed.
McLaughlin,
175.
37Johannes Teutonicus,
Glos. ord. to C. 4
q.
2 & 3 c. 3 v.
imperari.
38CIC,
Dig
28.1.20.6; Tancred,
Ordo iudiciarius
3.6,
in Libri de iudiciorum
ordine,
ed. E C.
Bergmann
(G6t-
tingen,
1842;
repr.
Aalen, 1965),
223.
Glos. ord. to C. 15
q.
3 c. 2 v. testimonium.
40X 2.20.3; cf. Bernard of
Parma, Glos. ord. to X 2.20.3 v. mulieris.
41X 2.20.23.
42Bernard of
Parma,
Glos. ord. to X 2.20.22 v. cum mater.
43X 2.20.33.
151
Canonists also relied
heavily upon
Roman law doctrines when it came to the
question
of
evaluating
the evidence of witnesses44 or,
as civil
lawyers nowadays
describe it, estab-
lishing
a witness's "coefficient of
credibility."45
The
principles they adopted
for this
pur-
pose
were for the most
part very general
ones: a
judge
must not decide a cae
merely by
comparing
the numbers of witnesses that each side
produced,
but must take into account
their
reputations
for
honesty
and
trustworthiness,
as well as the
plausibility
of their testi-
mony.46
Where the numbers and
credibility
of the witnesses on either side of a case were
roughly equal,
however,
ajudge
should
give preference
to the evidence of the defendant's
witnesses,
since he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.47 The evidence of known
enemies of a
party
must be
discounted,
as must that of his
friends, allies,
and associates.
Testimony
from someone over whom one of the
parties
exercised control was likewise
entitled to little
weight,
as were
any professions
of
opinion
from his
lawyers.
The
judge
should be alert to detect inconsistencies in the tale that a witness told and
ought
to be
suspicious
of
any
who recited his
story
too
fluently,
for he
may
have been
coached,
per-
haps
even bribed.48
Other criteria for the evaluation of
evidence, however,
were more
detailed,
and some
of these focused
upon
the
reliability
of women's
testimony.
Thus,
for
example,
Gratian
cited a
Carolingian capitulary
as an
authority
for the rule that when the
testimony
of
husband and wife
conflicts,
the husband's version should
prevail,49
and the Liber Extra
incorporated
a decision in which
Pope
Alexander III
(1159-81)
held that the
testimony
of a
girl's
mother was
suspect
in a
marriage
case
involving
her
daughter
and should not
be admitted as evidence.50 Commentators likewise discussed the difficulties of
evaluating
testimony
from
persons closely
associated with one or another of the
parties
in
litigation
and advised
judges
to take into account the character of the
erwitnesses,
as well as the
nature of their
relationship
with the
principals
in a case when
determining
whether to
credit his or her
testimony.51 Leading
authorities on
procedural problems, notably
Mas-
ter Tancred
(ca.
1185-ca.
1236)
and the elder William Durand
(1231-96),
known as "the
Speculator,"
were
naturally
much concerned with these matters and wrote about them
at
length.52
When we turn from the texts of the law and the
teachings
of the law
professors
to the
records of actual
cases, however,
we find ourselves in what looks at first like a different
world. Courts did not
always operate
as the standard
procedural
texts said
they
should,
and
judges
did not
always
feel
strictly
bound to follow the rules in the books of law.53
Charles Donahue's research on church court records from medieval
England
shows that
44C.
4
q.
2 & 3 c.
3,
quoting
CIC,
Dig 22.5.2-8, 10-12, 16, 17, 19-21,
and 24-25.
45Liotta,
"II
testimone," 82.
46C.
4
q.
2 & 3 c. 3
?? 1-2;
X 2.19.9 and 2.19.12.
Glos. ord. to C. 4
q.
2 & 3 c. 3 v. eorum.
48Summa
Parisiensis to C. 4
q.
2 & 3 c. 3 v. item in
testibus,
ed.
McLaughlin,
126.
49C.
33
q.
1 c.
3,
from the
Capitulary
of
Compiegne (757)
c. 20.
50X 2.20.22.
51E.g.,
q.
2
pr.,
ed.
McLaughlin,
169.
52Tancred,
Ordo iudiciarius
3.12,
ed.
Bergmann, 246-47;
William Durand the
Elder,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
1,
partic. 4,
tit. De teste
?? 1 and 12
(Basel, 1574;
repr.
Aalen, 1975), 1:283-304,
337-38.
53R. H.
Helmholz,
Marriage Litigation
in Medieval
England, Cambridge
Studies in
English Legal History
(Cambridge, 1974), 112-13;
Van
Caenegem,
"Law of Evidence," 300.
152
JAMES A. BRUNDAGE
judges
there
routinely
took
depositions
from
persons
who,
under the academic rules
we
have
just examined,
were not
eligible
to
testify.54 English judges
instead
permitted
the
parties,
or their
legal
counsel,
to attack evidence from
unqualified
witnesses
by entering
peremptory exceptions
or
replications
to their
testimony
after their evidence had
been
recorded and
copies
furnished to the
parties.
This
practice requires
some
explanation.
An
exception
or
replication
in Romano-
canonical
procedure
resembles a motion to exclude
testimony
in common law
procedure.
The two
ters,
exception
and
replication,
differ in this: an
exception
is an
objection
offered
by
the defense
against
evidence or a motion introduced
by
the
plaintiff,
while
a
replication
means an answer
by
the
plaintiff
to the
objection
raised
by
the defendant.55
Jurists distinguished
two basic
categories
of
exceptions, dilatory
and
peremptory.
The
important point
in this
distinction,
at least for our
purposes
here,
is that
dilatory excep-
tions must be raised
during
the
preliminary stages
of a
proceeding, prior
to the
joining
of issue and the
beginning
of litis
contestatio,56
whereas
peremptory exceptions
could be
put
forward at the close of litis
contestatio,
after the
publication
of the witnesses' testi-
mony.57
It is also
important
to note that when a defendant entered a
peremptory excep-
tion to a
witness,
he assumed the burden of
proving
his claim that the
judge
should
disregard
evidence
given by
witnesses
who,
the defendant
claimed,
were not
qualified
to
testify.58
Although
the
practice
of canonical
judges
in
England
with
regard
to the evidence of
witnesses who were
legally disqualified
from
testifying certainly
differed,
as Donahue
points
out,
from the
procedures
that the
leading
continental authorities
prescribed
as
normal,
it nevertheless was not
entirely contrary
to the rules. Innocent III dealt with this
practice
in one of his
decretals,59
and this method of
proceeding
was
taught
and discussed
in the schools of canon law.60 William
Durand,
the
leading proceduralist
writer of the
second half of the thirteenth
century,
for
example,
dealt in detail with the
procedure
of
entering peremptory exceptions
to the
testimony
of
unqualified
witnesses after their
testimony
had been
published.6'
It seems
clear,
in other
words,
that the
process
for deal-
ing
with the
testimony
of both men and
women,
who were
disqualified
as witnesses in a
particular
case,
varied from one
region
to another and that teachers in the
major
law
schools were aware of this and did not
object
to it. In one of his additiones to William
54C. Donahue,
Jr.,
"Proof
by
Witnesses in the Church Courts of Medieval
England:
An
Imperfect Recep-
tion of the Learned
Law,"
in On the Laws and Customs
of England: Essays
in Honor
of
Samuel E.
Thorne,
ed. M. S.
Arnold, T.
A. Green,
S. A.
Scully,
and S. D. White
(Chapel
Hill, N.C., 1981), 143,
145-46.
55Tancred,
Ordo
iudiciarius
2.5
pr.
and
5,
ed.
Bergmann,
139, 146; Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
2,
partic. 1,
tit. De
exceptionibus
et
replicationibus, pr. (1574 ed., 1:507).
The
process
of
objection
and
counterobjec-
tion
may,
in
principle,
continue
through
several
rounds,
as
triplicatio, quadruplicatio,
etc.
56Tancred,
Ordo
iudiciarius 3.1
? 1,
ed.
Bergmann, 196; Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
2,
partic.
1,
tit. De
litis contestatione ?
1
(1574 ed., 1:563).
57Tancred,
Ordo iudiciarius 2.5
? 3,
ed.
Bergmann, 143-44; Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
2,
partic.
1,
tit.
De
exceptionibus
et
replicationibus ? 3.1-2,
5
(1574 ed., 1:515-16).
58Tancred,
Ordo iudiciarius 2.5
? 4,
ed.
Bergmann,
145.
593
Comp.
2.12.4 = X 2.20.31.
Apparatus glossarum
in
Compilationem
tertiam to 3
Comp.
2.12.4 v. in
personas,
ed.
K.
Pennington,
Monumenta iuris
canonici,
Corpus glossatorum,
III
(Vatican
City, 1981-), 1:247-49;
Ber-
nard of
Parma,
Glos. ord. to X 2.20.31 v. in
personas.
61Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
1,
partic.
4,
tit. De teste ? 10
(1574 ed.,
1:332-35).
153
Durand's
Speculum
iudiciale,
for
example, Johannes
Andreae
(ca. 1270-1348) remarked,
"[Ubertus
de
Bobbio] adds, however,
that custom should be observed in this matter, and
this is because of the
diversity
of
opinion
which is followed in various
courts."62
Donahue also notes that records from
English
canonical courts show
persons
who
were not
eyewitnesses testifying
to matters of which
they
had no
personal knowledge,
contrary
to the rules laid down in the
legal
sources.63 It is
certainly
true that several
texts
in Gratian's Decretum insisted that witnesses should
testify only
to what
they
had
person-
ally
seen and heard and instructed
judges
not to
rely
on
hearsay.64
But it is
equally
true
that the academic commentator o the Decretum
qualified
this
general
rule and
pointed
to situations
(such
as evidence
concerning consanguinity,
mentioned
earlier)
where hear-
say
was in the nature of
things acceptable.65
I would
suggest
that while the
practice
of
English
canonical
judges
in this
regard may
have
diverged
from academic
doctrines,
it
was not
entirely contrary
to them.
Donahue further
suggests
that
judges
in the Courts Christian in
England
exercised
a
great
deal more discretion in
evaluating
evidence than the schools
taught
was
proper.66
Here
again,
it seems to
me,
academic writers
granted judges quite
a wide
range
of lati-
tude in
assessing
the value of evidence.
Consider,
for
example,
a
passage
in which the
anonymous
author of the Summa Parisiensis declared:
Ifwitnesses.
When the witnesses are
equal
in number and
credibility,
then let
[the matter]
be
judged
in
light
of all the
testimony.
But if these
[witnesses]
are on one side and those
[witnesses]
are on the
other,
how can one follow the
testimony?
On
this,
some
say
that if
the accounts
by
those on the same side are
consistent,
their
testimony
should be followed.
If, however,
they disagree,
those who
give
the more
probable
account should be
believed,
even if
they
are fewer. In
equal
number. Even
though they
be
fewer, [let
them
prevail]
because
they
convince the
judge.67
It is true
that,
as Donahue
suggests,
the Standard Gloss maintained a more
rigid,
al-
most mechanistic
approach
to the evaluation of
conflicting testimony
than did the
pas-
sage
from the Summa Parisiensis that I have
just quoted.68
The literature addressed
pri-
marily
to
practitioners,
however,
generally
assumed the more flexible
approach
to this
problem
that the Summa Parisiensis reflects.
Thus,
for
example,
the Summa introductoria
62Johannes Andreae,
Additio to
Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
2,
partic.
1,
tit. De
exceptionibus
et
replicationi-
bus
?
10 v. secundum Uber.
(1574 ed., 1:516):
"Subdit
tamen,
quod
consuetudo in his
attenditur,
et sic est
propter
diuersitatem
opinionum, quae
diuersis foris seruantur."
63Donahue,
"Proof
by
Witnesses," 143,
145-46.
64C. 3 1. 9 c. 15 and
16,
as well as
d.p.c.
15.
65Rolandus,
Summa to C. 35
q.
6 c.
5,
ed.
Thaner, 230-31;
Stephen
of
Tournai,
Summa to C. 3
q.
9 c.
15,
ed.
Schulte, 198;
Summa Coloniensis
6.76-76a,
ed. Fransen and
Kuttner, 2:137-38;
and cf.
Rufinus,
Summa to
C. 35
q.
6
pr.
v. accusantibus vel
testificantibus,
ed.
Singer,
528-29.
66Donahue,
"Proof
by
Witnesses,"
143.
67Summa Parisiensis to C. 4
q.
2 & 3 c. 3 v. Si testes and
inpari numero,
ed.
McLaughlin,
126: "Si testes.
Quando
aequales
honestate et numero
fuerunt,
tunc secundum omnia
testimoniajudicabitur.
Sed si isti sint
pro
una
parte,
illi
pro
altera,
quomodo sequentur
eorum testimonia? Idcirco dicunt
quidam quoniam intelligendum
est de eis
qui
sunt ex eadem
parte qui,
si concordes
fuerunt,
sequatur
eorum testimonium. Si vero
discordes,
eis credetur
qui probabilius dixerint,
licet sint
pauciores.
in
pari
numero,
licet illi sint
pauciores, quia
movent
judicem."
68Thus
see the
lengthy exposition
of
Johannes
Teutonicus in the Glos. ord. to C. 4
q.
2 & 3 c.
3,
as well as
the Casus of Benencasa
(d. 1206)
to the same
passage.
154
JAMES
A. BRUNDAGE
super officio
advocationis
inforo
ecclesiae,
which
Bonaguida
de Arezzo
completed
in or
about
1249,69
noted that
"thejudge ought
to consider the
speech
and demeanor of the
witness"
in
evaluating
his or her
testimony.70 Bonaguida
then
gave
some
examples
of the
way
in
which advocates
might phrase
their
exceptions
to
unqualified
witnesses,71
and
added:
"These
exceptions against
witnesses that I have mentioned
happen very
often and
occur
frequently,
and
you
advocates should enter
them,
in this manner or
otherwise,
as
your
role in the matter and the nature of the case
may require."72
English
ecclesiastical court records make it
abundantly
clear that women from
all
ranks of
society appeared frequently
as witnesses and that
they
did so most often
(al-
though
not
exclusively)
in
marriage
cases.73
Indeed,
it is
striking
how often in the
records
of
marriage
cases the
testimony
in
support
of the man comes
exclusively
from male
wit-
nesses,
while the witnesses for the woman are
typically
other women.74
Academic
opinion
about female witnesses over the course of time came
increasingly
to narrow the limitations on the
admissibility
and
credibility
of their
evidence,
and the
practice
of the
English
canonical courts
by
and
large
seems to
agree
with the
teachings
of the schools. William Durand sums
up fairly briefly
the state of the matter toward
the close of the classical
period
of medieval canon law:
"According
to the
canons,
wo-
men
[witnesses]
are never admitted in a criminal case ..
.,
save in
exceptional
circum-
stances....
T[ancred], Ber[nard],
and others state that
they
are admitted in
civil,
matri-
monial,
and
spiritual
matters and in some
others,
including
civil actions on
crimes,
such
as
proceedings by inquisition
or
denunciation,
. . . and in short wherever
they
are not
explicitly
excluded,
as in
testamentary
and criminal
proceedings."75
In
conclusion, then,
it
appears
that the
practices
Donahue finds in the records of
English
church courts
probably
reflect one variation
among many
in the conduct of
litiga-
69K. W
Norr,
"Die Literatur zum
gemeinen ZivilprozeB,"
in Handbuch der
Quellen und Literatur der neue-
ren
europdischen Privatrechtsgeschichte,
ed. H.
Coing,
I, Mittelalter
(Munich, 1974),
391. See also G.
Barraclough, "Bonaguida
de
Aretinis,"
in Dictionnaire de droit
canonique,
ed. R.
Naz,
7 vols.
(Paris, 1935-65),
II,
934-40.
70Bonaguida
de
Arezzo,
Summa introductoria
super officio
advocationis in
foro
ecclesiae
3.7,
in Anecdota
quae
processum
civilem
spectant,
ed. A. Wunderlich
(G6ttingen, 1841),
293.
71Bonaguida
de
Arezzo,
Summa introductoria 3.10,
ed.
Wunderlich,
303-4.
72Ibid., 304-5: "Istas
siquidem exceptiones nominavi,
et
frequentius competunt
et occurunt contra
testes,
et secundum hanc formam
proponetis
vos
causidici, alias,
quas
vobis sollicitudinis vestrae cura et
ipsius
causae natura dictabit."
73Select
Cases
from
the Ecclesiastical Courts
of
the Province
of Canterbury,
c.
1200-1301,
ed. N. Adams and
C.
Donahue,
Jr.,
Selden
Society
Publications 95
(London, 1981), introduction,
46.
74Thus,
e.g.,
in Alice
c.
John
the
Blacksmith,
where the court heard fourteen
witnesses,
the
eight
men all
testified on
John's behalf,
while the six women testified for
Alice; likewise in Richard de Bosco c. Johanne de
Clapton,
the four female witnesses testified in
support ofJohanna
and the seven male witnesses for
Richard;
see Select
Cases,
ed. Adams and
Donahue,
A.7 and
C.1,
pp.
25-28, 96-102.
Sometimes,
to be
sure,
one finds
men
testifying
for women
litigants, e.g.,
Robert Norman c. Emma
Proudfoot (1269-72),
but it is unusual to find
women
appearing
on behalf of
men;
Select
Cases,
ed. Adams and
Donahue, C.2,
pp.
102-12.
75William Durand,
Speculum iudiciale,
lib.
1,
partic. 4,
tit. De teste ? 83
(1574 ed., 1:301):
"Secundum ca-
nones autem
nunquam
admittitur in causa
criminali,
xxxiii
q.
v mulierem
[C.
33
q.
5 c.
17],
nisi in criminibus
exceptis,
et sic
intelligendum
est
prae.
c. forus
[X 5.40.10].
In ciuilibus autem et
matrimonialibus,
et
spiritu-
alibus,
et
quibuscunque aliis,
et etiam ubi de crimine ciuiliter
agitur,
ut in causa
inquisitionis
uel denuncia-
tionis
dicunt
T.
et Ber. et
alii, eam
admitti,
extra de test.
quoniam
et c.
super
eo ii. et c. tam literis
[X 2.20.3,
22, 33];
extra de
accus.,
super
his,
et c. ad
petitionem [X 5.1.16, 22];
de
simo.,
per tuas,
in fi.
[X 5.3.33],
et
breuiter,
ubicunque
non
prohibetur expresse,
ut in testamentis et criminibus."
155
tion. It further
appears
that the law
professors
were well aware that
practices
in courts
varied in some details in different
regions
and took some account of those differences in
their
teaching
on
procedural
matters.
Since
many, perhaps
most,
of the academic law teachers whom we know about seem
to have combined
teaching
with
practice
as
advocates, arbitrators,
negotiators,
and
legal
advisers,
it should not be
surprising
that
they
were aware that
procedures
differed on
some
points
from one
jurisdiction
to another. As
teachers, however,
they
saw no
point
in
burdening
their students with detailed discussions of those variations.
They sought,
instead-quite sensibly,
I think-to instruct their
pupils
in what
they regarded
as the
basic elements of
procedure
and trusted that observation and
experience
in
practice
would
quickly
alert them to the
idiosyncrasies
of the courts and
judges
before whom
they appeared.
The
departures
from the mainstream norms of
procedure
that
appear
in
English
church court records with
respect
to evidence furnished
by
women seem
unlikely
to have
altered the outcome of the
reported
cases. What I find most
striking
about their
proce-
dures,
at least in this
area,
is not their
divergence
from the norms
taught
in the schools
of
law,
but rather their
conformity
to mainstream
practices.
Lawrence,
Kansas
156
Gregory Nazianzen's Anastasia Church: Arianism, the Goths, and Hagiography
Author(s): Rochelle Snee
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Gregory
Nazianzen's Anastasia Church:
Arianism,
the
Goths,
and
Hagiography
ROCHF.T,LF SNEE
t is curious to read in the Vita Marciani that the Arian Gothic-Alan
generals
Ardabur
(junior)
and
Aspar provided
the ecclesiastical vessels
(7iX?toca
Katl
64toeaca [nox)-
T?]rXi CTK?Dr)
for Marcian's
purported rebuilding
of
Gregory
Nazianzen's Anastasia church
(fv TOIS; AOdVtvvou eitp6Xot;).1 Marcian,
priest
and oikonomos of
Hagia Sophia (ca. 450-472),
in thanks for this
generosity,
had the
Gospels
read in Gothic in the Anastasia on festal
days.
Nazianzen,
and to a lesser extent his
Constantinopolitan
church,
remained
throughout
the
Byzantine period
a
potent symbol
of
(Nicene) orthodoxy.
The Vita Marci-
ani,
written
by
a near
contemporary,
is evidence for this in the late fifth
century:
Marcian's
rebuilding
of the Anastasia is said to have been
inspired by
a
prophecy
in
Gregory's
writ-
ings;2
several miracles at the Anastasia are
explicitly interpreted
as anti-Arian. How then
are we to assess the Arian
generals'
interest in the church? When was this donative
made,
and what was its
significance?
The
question
of the survival of Arianism in the
East,
after its condemnation at the
Council of
Constantinople
in
381,
has received little attention.3 This is
partly
because the
Vita
Marciani,
ed. M. .
edeon,
Busavtvov
EopzT06ytov (Constantinople, 1899),
277
(92B2).
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
188r,
col.
2,
reads
tOkXersX T?
CKEmi.
For the Life of Marcian: BHG
1032-34b,
and BHGAuct
1034b;
the
Metaphrastic
vita: PG 114:429-56
=
AASS,
Jan.
1:611-19
(sic);
in the
Synaxarium C, 379-80,
Marcian's feast
day
is
Jan.
9,
elsewhere
Jan.
10;
on the
manuscript,
see note
75,
below. The Vita Marciani is not cited in
PLRE, II,
135-37 (Ardabur Junior 1)
or 164-69
(Fl.
Ardabur
Aspar).
Most
recently,
see H.
Saradi,
"Notes
on the Vita of Saint Markianos," BSI 56
(1996),
18-25.
(I
am
grateful
to A.-M. Talbot for this and two other
references.)
On the Anastasia: R.
Janin,
La
ge'ographie ecclsiastique
de
I'Empire byzantin,
I: Le
siege
de Constantino-
ple
et le
patriarcat oecumenique, 3,
Les eglises et les
monasteres,
2nd ed.
(Paris, 1969),
22-25, and idem, "Etudes de
topographie byzantine: T"Epoot
xoi
AoivtivoD.
Ta
MauptavoDi,"
EO 36
(1937), 137-49;
J.
Ebersolt, Sanctuaires
de
Byzance (Paris, 1921), 90-91;
G.
Dagron,
Naissance d'une
capitale (Paris, 1974),
447-49. L.
Ryden,
"A Note
on Some References to the Church of St. Anastasia in
Constantinople
in the 10th
Century," Byzantion
44
(1974), 198-201,
argues
that Janin's
(Eglises, 25)
Anastasia churches 3 and 4 are identical with Anastasia
2,
Nazianzen's church. See also G. P.
Majeska,
Russian Travelers to
Constantinople
in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth
Centuries,
DOS 19
(Washington,
D.C., 1984), 289,
and cf.
44, 150, 336-37;
Dumbarton Oaks
Bibliographies,
1.1:246;
A.
Berger, Untersuchungen
zu den Patria
Konstantinupoleos (Bonn, 1988),
444
47,
515-16.
2Sergius,
Vita
Marciani, 5,
ed.
Gedeon, 273-74;
A.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus, 'AvXEKTca 'lepoaookuLitKcif
.TaaXoXoyia;,
IV
(St. Petersburg, 1897),
260-61 [hereafter ed.
P.-Ker.];
cf. the
Metaphrastic vita,
PG
114:436A-c.
3The fullest modern
study only goes through
the 4th
century:
M.
Simonetti,
La crisi ariana del IV
secolo,
Studia
Ephemeridis "Augustinianum"
11
(Rome, 1975);
K. D.
Schmidt,
Die
Bekehrung
der
Ostgermanen
zum
Christentum
(Der
ostgermanische Arianismus) (Gottingen, 1939).
It is
disappointing
that there is
only very
sum-
GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S ANASTASIA CHURCH
sources stem from a
period
of Nicene
ascendancy
and
propaganda;4
it is also
because,
with the
important exception
of the
Goths,
the Arian
party, splintered by
internal
division
and
deprived
of
imperial support, gradually
lost its
constituency.
The
rapidity
of its
de-
mise, however,
is too often
exaggerated;5
and,
at the same
time,
the effect of
Gothic
Arianism on the fate of the sect in
general
has not been
sufficiently
taken into
account.
Some
aspects
of the
hagiographical
evidence for
Constantinople
on these issues will
be
discussed later.
First,
we must look at the
history
of Nazianzen's Anastasia church. R.
Janin
has dis-
credited Marcian's
rebuilding,
and the
general
historical value of the Vita Marciani is
not
above
reproach.6
But A. Demandt's
article,
"Der Kelch von Ardabur und
Anthusa," makes
the vessels
(a?K?rl)
of Ardabur and
Aspar
at least
appear
fact,
not fiction.7
An
analysis
of the Vita Marciani is
clearly
called for. This is
particularly
the case since
scholars have not
adequately
differentiated the three extant versions of the Life
(the
Metaphrastic
and two
pre-Metaphrastic vitae),
nor are
existing
editions based on suffi-
cient
manuscript
evidence.8
My
comments should contribute to
establishing
the text and
provide
a more secure basis for
interpretation.
Moreover,
Marcian is an odd hero for
early hagiography,
which is
usually peopled
with
stylites,
hermits,
and
monks,
not
wealthy
aristocratic oikonomoi.9 His
vita,
as we shall
see,
served
specific propagandist
func-
tions in
fifth-century Constantinople.
I. THE ANASTASIA
In
origin,
the Anastasia was a house
chapel, given
the name Anastasia
by
Nazianzen
to
symbolize
his resurrection
(anastasis)
of the Nicene faith
(379-381)
in the Arian-
dominated
capital.10 Interestingly,
this double entendre was not
forgotten,
and
Gregory
mary
treatment of Arianism in G.
Albert,
Goten in
Konstantinopel: Untersuchungen
zur ostrdomischen Geschichte um
dasjahr
400 n. Chr.
(Munich, 1984).
4See R.
Snee,
"Valens' Recall of the Nicene Exiles and Anti-Arian
Propaganda,"
GRBS 26
(1985),
395-419.
Cf. G.
Dagron,
"Les moines
mo
et la ville: Le monachisme a
Constantinople jusqu'au
concile de Chalcedoine
(451),"
TM 4
(1970),
229-76 (on the Macedonian
origin
of monasticism at
Constantinople);
T. S.
Miller,
The
Birth
of
the Hospital in the
Byzantine Empire (Baltimore, Md., 1985),
68-88 (on the
possible
Arian
origin
of
the
hospital).
5An
exception,
W . C.
Frend,
The Rise
of Christianity (Philadelphia, 1984),
755
(briefly).
Theodoret of
Cyrrhus,
in the mid-5th
century,
converted an Arian
(Homoian)
and a Eunomian
village, Epp.
81, 113,
116:
PG
83:1260cD, 1322B, 1324CD.
6Janin,
Eglises,
22-23,
and
idem,
"Etudes de
topographie," 138-39;
Dagron, Naissance, 512 n. 5.
7DOP 40
(1986),
111-17. See most
recently
R.
Scharf,
"Der Kelch des Ardabur und der
Anthusa,"
Byzantion
63
(1993),
213-23.
Janin,
though
he cites all the various Lives of Marcian
(Eglises,
22 n.
9;
"Etudes de
topographie,"
138 n.
7),
relies on the
Metaphrast,
the most
comprehensive
of the current editions.
Dagron (e.g., Naissance,
495
nn. 2 and
3)
uses
only
the
Papadopoulos-Kerameus
edition
(above,
note
2),
which is the shorter and later of
the two
pre-Metaphrastic
versions. See
below,
pp.
166 ff.
gThe Vita Marciani
may represent
a
turning point;
cf. E.
Patlagean,
"Ancient
Byzantine Hagiography
and
Social
History,"
in Saints and Their Cults: Studies in
Religious Sociology,
Folklore and
History,
ed. S. Wilson
(Cam-
bridge, 1983), 102;
L. Cracco
Ruggini,
"II miracolo nella cultura del tardo
impero:
Concetto e
funzione,"
in
Hagiographie:
Cultures et
societes,
IVe-XIIe siecles
(Paris, 1981),
168-69.
l0On
the name:
Janin, Eglises, 23,
and
idem, "Etudes de
topographie,"
137,
140-41. Cf.
Gregory
Nazian-
zen,
Or. 42.26: PG
36:489B;
Carm.
11.1.5,
3-5: PG 37:1022-23
(AdplebemAnastasiae); II.1.11, 1079-83: ed. C.
Jungck (Heidelberg, 1974),
106
(De
vita
sua); I.1. 15,
49-50: PG 37:1254A
(De seipso post reditum); 11.1.16, 306,
158
ROCHELLE SNEE
himself remained
intimately
linked with the
Anastasia,
though
new associations
accrued
to the church
through
the centuries.
For
Nazianzen,
the Anastasia was
primarily
a
community,
not a
building.1l
On
occa-
sion he calls it a
va6g,
but most
frequently
refers to it as a tent
(oGKrlvl), evoking images
of the Israelites
wandering
in the
desert.l2
His one extended reference to the
chapel
as
a
building
is in a
poem
entitled "Somnium de Anastasiae
ecclesia,"
written from
retire-
ment after he abdicated the see of
Constantinople
in 381.13
Gregory
envisions his
former
congregation filling
the Anastasia to hear his
sermons,
and he mentions some
architec-
tural details-a chancel screen
(line 14),
holy
doors
(line 15),
and an
implied sanctuary
(lines 7-12)-but
the bulk of the crowd is
apparently
in the streets
(lines 17-20).
Later
in the
poem (lines 75-76),
he
longs
for his
newly
built church
(ve?0rniKT(o; vr6;S),
a
possible
reference to Nectarius'
(bishop 381-397)
rebuilding,
but more
likely
a
metaphor
for the
community,
as is the name Anastasia
itself.'4
The house
chapel may
have existed before Nazianzen's arrival in the
capital early
in
379.15 A small
community
of Eustathian Nicenes had
persisted throughout
the
period
of
Arian
ascendancy,
but had been without a church since the
bishopric
of Macedonius
(350-360)
and without a
bishop
since the abortive
attempt
to install the
shadowy
Eva-
grius
in 370.16
Nazianzen,
in his brief tenure of the Nicene
episcopacy
of the
capital,17
delivered
twenty-two
orations,
the
majority
of which were
pronounced
in the house
chapel
of the
Anastasia
(January
379-November
27, 380).18
These include the famous Five
Theological
Orations,
from which he
gained
his
epithet
6
eoXkoyo1.'9
It was as an
eloquent
and
fiery
62: PG
37:1254A, 1258A
(Somnium
de
Anastasiae
ecclesia). Gregory consistently
uses "Anastasia" to refer to his
community
and reserves "Anastasis" for Christ's Resurrection
(e.g.,
Or. 1.1: PG
35:396A;
Or. 16.9: PG
35:945c;
Or
40.24: PG
36:392B;
Or 41.14: PG
36:448A; Or. 45.24: PG
36:657A),
or resurrection in
general
(e.g.,
Or.
42.26:
PG
36:465B; Or. 45.29: PG
36:661D).
On the house church:
J.
G.
Davies,
The
Origin
and
Development of Early
Christian Architecture
(London, 1952),
20-21.
"See,
particularly, Greg.
Naz. Carm.
II.1.5,
1-7: PG 37:1022A
(AdplebemAnastasiae).
The
Metaphrast,
Vita
Marciani,
chap.
5: PG
114:436A,
recognizes
and
emphasizes
this; cf. Vita
Marciani,
ed.
Gedeon, 273
(88A1-
A2),
and ed.
P-Ker., 260.
12Cf., e.g.,
Carm.
II.1.11,
1079:
ed.Jungck,
106
(De
vita
sua),
and Or. 25.19: PG 35:1224c. Ambrose calls it
privatae aedes,
Ep.
13.3: PL 16:991A.
"3Carm. II.1.16: PG 37:1254-61.
Dating:
L. E M. de
Jonge,
De S.
Gregorii
Nazianzeni carminibus
quae
inscribi
solent
niepi
Eiavuoi
(Amsterdam, 1910),
120.
14For
ve6iTcKTOS
used
metaphorically,
cf.
(of
the
Trinity) Greg.
Naz. Carm.
II.1.17,
47: PG 37:1265A
(De
diversis vitae
generibus); (of
virginity)
Carm.
1.2.1,
378: PG 37:550A
(In
laudem
virginitatis).
For similar architec-
tural
detail, cf. Or. 42.26: ed.
J.
Bernardi
(SC
384
[Paris, 1992]),
108.
15Socrates,
Historia
ecclesiastica 4.1
(hereafter
Soc.
HE): Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
137. M. Lenain de
Tillemont,
Memoires
pour
servir a l'histoire
ecclesiastique,
2nd ed.
(Paris, 1714),
708 n.
24, however,
believed that
the
chapel
was
specifically designed
for
Gregory.
So too
J. Bernardi, "Nouvelles
perspectives
sur la famille
de
Gregoire
de
Nazianze,"
VChr 38
(1984), 354-56,
though
the Anastasia is
unlikely
to have been a
reception
hall in an aristocratic
mansion;
see below.
"6On the
complex
ecclesiastical
politics
of the
period,
see
Dagron, Naissance,
419-49. Priests had main-
tained the Nicenes:
e.g., Greg.
Naz. Or. 23:
Gregoire
de
Nazianze,
Discours
20-23,
ed.
J. Mossay,
SC 270
(Paris, 1980).
Socrates
(HE 2.38) says
the Nicenes were in communion with the Novatians who had three
churches in the
city;
cf.
Sozomen, Historia ecclesiastica 4.20 (hereafter Soz.
HE).
But the Novatians themselves
were
persecuted
under
Macedonius;
see
below,
p.
170.
17
.
Gallay,
La Vie de
Saint
Gregoire
de Nazianze
(Paris, 1943),
132-211.
8J. Bernardi,
La
predication
des
peres cappadociens:
Le
predicateur
et son auditoire
(Marseille, 1968),
140-90.
9Orations 27-31: ed.
P.
Gallay,
SC 250
(Paris, 1978).
159
opponent
of Eunomian Arianism that
Gregory's reputation,
not
only
as an orator
but
also as an
image
of
orthodoxy,
was assured.20
Even after the Council of
Constantinople
in
381, Arianism,
whether in its
Homoian
or Eunomian
form,
remained a
problem,
if not a serious
threat,
for some time to come.21
In
388,
on rumor of Theodosius I's defeat
by
the
usurper
Maximus,
Arians in
Constanti-
nople
burned the house of
Bishop
Nectarius.22
John Chrysostom (bp.
398-404)
actively
proselytized among
the Arians.23 Theodoret of
Cyrrhus
was
proud
of his Arian
converts;24
his Ecclesiastical
History,
written between 441 and
449,
was even more anti-Arian than
those of Socrates and Sozomen.25
Clearchus,
uncle of
Emperor
Anastasius
(491-518),
was
an Arian.26
Only
in 524 did an edict
ofJustin
I exclude Arians from all civil and
military
offices.27
Through
the
reign
of Leo I
(457-474),
Arian Goths in the
army
were a force to
contend
with;
underJustinian,
and even as late as Tiberius II
(698-705),
some still served
as
foederati.28
Continuing
orthodox
propaganda
was
prudent,
and Nazianzen and the Anastasia
church
appear
to have been
part
of this
program.
In the fifth
century,
Sozomen
(Historia
ecclesiastica
[HE] 7.5.3),
for
instance,
was well aware that the house
chapel
had been
named to commemorate Nazianzen's revival of Nicaea in the
capital. Gregory's
associa-
tion with the Anastasia and anti-Arianism was
undoubtedly popularized by
the Vita Mar-
ciani and is remembered in the sixth
century by
Marcellinus Comes.29
Moreover,
the
history
of the Anastasia
building
itself would indicate its
propagandist
function. From Socrates we learn that the
chapel,
before his
day (ca. 440),
had had a
large
church built
adjoining
it:30
TO6?
?
rpyopiy6p
S;
6
Naltavroi
jLETaT0OEi;
?v8ov
'T-; 7Zi6?E(;
20See,
e.g.,
L.
Brubaker, "Politics,
Patronage,
and Art in
Ninth-Century Byzantium:
The Homilies of
Greg-
ory
of Nazianzus
(B.N.
Gr.
510),"
DOP 39
(1985), 4-6;
C.
Walter,
Art and Ritual
of
the
Byzantine
Church
(Lon-
don, 1982),
170-71.
21Cf.
J.
B.
Bury, History of
the Later Roman
Empire (New York, 1958)
(hereafter
LRE), I, 349,
378
(briefly).
On Arianism in
general,
see
Simonetti,
La crisi ariana. Arianism remained the
"archetypal experience
of
heresy" (Walter,
Art and
Ritual, 110).
Cf. E
Dvornik,
"The Patriarch Photius and
Iconoclasm,"
DOP 7
(1953),
87-89
(Photius'
comparison
of Arianism and
Iconoclasm).
22Soc. HE 5.13.
23
See
below,
pp.
177-78.
24See
above,
note 5.
25G. F
Chesnut,
The First Christian Histories
(Paris, 1977), 202-3, 237; idem,
"The Date of
Composition
of
Theodoret's Church
History,"
VChr 35
(1981),
250.
26Theodore
Anagnostes,
Historia ecclesiastica 2.7 (hereafter Theod.
Anagn. HE):
PG
86:185c-188A;
see
also
ibid., 2.43,
PG
86:205B,
for an Arian
bishop
under Marcian
(450-457). George Hamartolus, Chronicon,
IV.523.16: PG
110:772D,
says
there was an Arian
bishop
of
Constantinople, Deuterios,
under Anastasius.
27Theophanes, Chronographia,
A.M. 6016: ed. C. de Boor
(Leipzig,
1883;
repr. Hildeheim, 1963),
109.
According
to H.
Wolfram,
History of
the Goths
(Berkeley,
Calif., 1988), 331,
the edict was in retaliation for the
execution of Boethius. W. E.
Kaegi
Jr.,
"Arianism and the
Byzantine Army
in
Africa,
533-546," Traditio 21
(1965), 37,
reprinted
in idem,
Army, Society
and
Religion
in
Byzantium (London, 1982),
no. vII.
28Kaegi, "Arianism," 28,
and
idem,
Byzantine Military Unrest,
471-843
(Amsterdam, 1981),
6-7, 20, 26-27,
75, 82-83,
85.
29Chronicon,
annus 380: PL 51:917c. Rufinus had translated ten of Nazianzen's orations into Latin around
400,
and the oldest scholia on the orations
probably
date to the 5th
century;
see F.
Lefherz, Studien zu
Gregor
von Nazianz:
Mythologie, Uberlieferung,
Scholiasten
(Bonn, 1958), 112-13,
and E.
Norden,
Die antike
Kunstprosa,
II
(Leipzig, 1898),
568.
30The Notitia Urbis
Constantinopolitanae (ca. 430),
ed. 0.
Seeck, Notitia
Dignitatum (Berlin, 1876), 235,
locates
the Anastasia in the 7th
region.
For a
dating
of the Notitia to between 423/4 and
427/8,
see
P.
Speck,
"Der
Mauerbau in 60
Tagen,"
in Studien zur
Friihgeschichte Konstantinopels,
ed. H. G. Beck
(Munich, 1973),
144-50.
160
ROCHELLE SNEE
eV
tJiKpO)
E? KTIp1i
'T;
i
ovayoyyK; ?iotI?To-
0
rtvt t -rTpov
ot BaotX-it; ?eytIT0ov
oiiKov
? KTinptov
7po7v)vaavNav;,
'AvaoxTaiav (ov6gaaav (HE 5.7;
cf. Soz. HE
7.5.2). ("At
that
time
Gregory
Nazianzen,
having
been translated to
Constantinople,
was
holding
his as-
semblies within the
city
in a small
chapel,
to which at a later time the
emperors adjoined
a
very large
church and named it
Anastasia.")
The
significance
of this
passage
has,
in
general,
been
overlooked.31
As we shall see, the Vita Marciani
makes it
explicit
that the
chapel
was not
replaced,
but remained as an annex to the new Anastasia.32
Socrates does not name the
emperors
who were
responsible
for
building
the new
church,
but we know from Photius that one of the
charges against Chrysostom
at the
Council of the Oak
(403)
was that he had sold off the marble Nectarius had stored
up
for
facing
the
Anastasia.33
The church was therefore built
during
the
reign
of Theodosius
I and had not
yet
been
fully
decorated
by
the
reign
ofArcadius. The Theodosian
building
was
undoubtedly part
of a
propaganda campaign during
the transformation of the
capi-
tal from Arian to Nicene
domination.34
Its unfinished state in 403 would
suggest
a con-
struction date later in Theodosius'
reign, probably
in
response
to the Arian riot of 388.
If we leave
Marcian's
aside,
the next known event in the
history
of the Anastasia is the translation of the relics of a St. Anastasia from Sirmium.35 Theo-
dore
Anagnostes (530)
states that these relics were
deposited
in the church
during
the
reign
of Leo I
(457-474)
and the
patriarchate
of Gennadius
(458-471).36
On this evi-
dence the translation dates to sometime between 458 and 471.
It is unclear on what basis
Janin
narrows the date for the arrival of St. Anastasia's
relics to
468-470.37
Later sources
give
more
precise
dates than
Theodore,
but not those
ofJanin.
Moreover,
these accounts are modeled on te
Lector's,
while their
dating
varies
widely. Theophanes
(9th
century),
for
instance,
puts
the translation in the sixteenth
year
of Leo's
reign;38
a date of 473
clearly
falls outside the
parameters
set
by
the
sixth-century
source. Cedrenus'
(1
th-12th
century)
date of the first
year
of Leo's
reign (February
7,
457-February
7, 458)
is
barely compatible
with Theodore's at the other extreme.39 Erod-
ing
our confidence still further is that elsewhere Cedrenus mentions the translation of
relics from Nicomedia
of
a-presumably
second-St. Anastasia in the seventeenth
year
31Cf.
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
133-34, 137;
Dagron,
Naissance, 448,
5.
32To my knowledge,
noted
only by Berger, Patria,
446.
33Bibliotheca,
cod. 59: ed. R.
Henry,
I
(Paris, 1959), 53,
grievance
4. On the
probable authenticity
of the
charge,
see
Dagron, Naissance,
498.
34Cf.
Snee,
"Valens'
Recall,"
407-8.
35This
is the
only
historical evidence for St. Anastasia
(BHG 81-83b).
Her feast was celebrated on Dec. 22
in the East and on Dec. 25 in the
West,
where she was transformed into a Roman noblewoman
martyred
under Diocletian and became the
patron
saint of the
titulus
Anastasiae at the foot of the Palatine. See
J.-P
Kirsch,
"Anastasie
(Sainte),"
in DACL 1.2
(Paris, 1924), 1919-24;
H.
Delehaye,
Etude sur le
Legendier
Romain:
Les saints de Novembre et de Decembre
(Brussels, 1936), 151-71;
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
146;
R.
Aigrain,
Lhagiographie (Poitiers, 1953),
281. An
apparent
fictional doublet of Anastasia was revered on various
days
in October
(BHG 76x-78e);
see H.
Delehaye,
"La Passion de Sainte Anastasie la
Romaine,"
Mlanges d'hagio-
graphie grecque
et
latine,
SubsHag
42
(Brussels, 1966), 394-402,
reprinted
from Studi dedicati alla memoria di
Paolo Ubaldi
(Milan, 1937), 17-26; P. Devos,
"Sainte Anastasie la
vierge
et la source de sa
passion,"
AB 80
(1962),
33-51.
36HE 2.65: PG
86.1:216AB; cf.
H. G.
Opitz
in RE
5A2 (1872-75),
1880.
37Eglises,
27;
cf. "Etudes de
topographie,"
140,
where he dates the translation to 458-460!
38Chronographia,
ed. de
Boor, 111.
39Historiarum
Compendium,
PG 121:661c.
161
of Leo's
reign.40
We
clearly
need more reliable and
contemporary
evidence if we
hope
to
have a firmer date for the
depositio
of the saint in the Anastasia church.
Naturally,
with the introduction of the relics of St.
Anastasia,
confusion arose
about
the
significance
of the name of the church.41
(i) (&yia) 'Avazaylia,
from the later fifth
century
on,
more
frequently
refers to the
saint,
not to Nazianzen's
abstraction,
but
the
latter was never lost from view.
Cedrenus,
in a discussion
ultimately
derivative from
Sozo-
men,
records that one
meaning
of the name Anastasia was "the resurrection of true reli-
gion";42
and,
in the twelfth
century,
Zonaras can still
depict
Nazianzen
boldly teaching
orthodox Trinitarian doctrine at the church.43
This,
in
spite
of the fact that on occasion
the church was also
thought
to commemorate the
Anastasis,
that
is,
Christ's
Resurrection,
and was sometimes so called.44
Variant names for a church were a common
phenomenon
in
Byzantium
and could
either be without
significance
or reflect
coexisting
associations.45 As
early
as
Sozomen,
the name Anastasia was also
thought
to commemorate the death and resurrection of a
woman
congregant
in the church. This
story,
as noted
below,
was
repeated through
the
centuries and
may
have
given
rise to the church's
popularity
as a
healing
shrine,
which
was well established
by
the tenth century.46
Memory
of Nazianzen's association with the Anastasia was
reinforced,
at least from
the ninth
century
on,
through
the
incorporation
of certain of his orations in the
liturgy:
Oration
42,
in which
Gregory
himself
explains
the name
(PG 36:489B),
was read on his
feast day.47
A church's festivals and its role in
imperial
ceremonial contribute
greatly
to our un-
derstanding
of its
significance.
The two
prominent
feasts celebrated at the Anastasia were
those of St. Anastasia
(December 22)
and
Gregory
Nazianzen.48
January
25 commemo-
40PG 121:668B.
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
142,
incorrectly
reads and cites this
passage;
the
reign
of
Leo,
not that of
Zeno,
is under discussion. Janin
(ibid.,
142 and
146) conjectures
that these relics could have
been
deposited
in the Anastasia church in the
portico
of
Domninus,
but that more
likely
there were two
Anastasia churches in
Constantinople
at the time of Cedrenus. Cf.
above,
note
35,
on the two Anastasia
martyrs
and see
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 289 and n.
2,
for
multiple
relics of St. Anastasia.
41
See
above,
note 10.
42Hist.
Comp.,
PG 121:600D. Cf. above on Sozomen. Cf.
Nicephorus Callistus,
Historia ecclesiastica 12.7.
43Epitome
Historiarum 13.19: ed. L.
Dindorf,
III
(Leipzig, 1870),
229.
44See,
e.g.,
Hist.
Comp.,
PG 121:712A
(Holy Anastasis)
and
1125B,
where the church is referred to as
both the
"Holy
Anastasis" and "St.
Anastasia";
Nicetas the
Paphlagonian (10th
century),
Encomium
of Gregory
Nazianzen,
chaps. 14-15,
ed.
J. J.
Rizzo,
SubsHag
58
(Brussels, 1976), 46-47,
has all three associations: the
saint, Nazianzen's
abstraction,
and Christ's Resurrection! On the
designation
"Anastasis" for the
church,
and
ultimately
an
adjoining monastery,
see
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie," 140-41,
143.
45Cf. G.
Downey,
"The Name of the Church of St.
Sophia
in
Constantinople,"
HTR 52
(1959), 37-41;
Av.
Cameron,
"Notes on the
Sophiae,
the
Sophianae
and the Harbour of
Sophia," Byzantion
37
(1968),
14-15.
46E.g., Cedrenus,
PG 121:600D. See
Ryden,
"The Church of St. Anastasia," 198-201. An
epithet
of Anasta-
sia was
q)apgaKoX,5cpta: Synaxarium CP, 333-34; Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
147.
47G.
Galavaris,
The Illustrations
of
the
Liturgical
Homilies
of Gregory Nazianzenus,
Studies in
Manuscript
Illumi-
nation 6
(Princeton,
N.J., 1969), 10-11;
on the effect of such
readings,
see A.
Moffatt,
"Schooling
in the
Iconoclast
Centuries,"
in
Iconoclasm,
ed. A.
Bryer
and J. Herrin
(Birmingham, Ala., 1977),
88-89.
48Also the
Myriad
of
Angels (Jan. 11)
and St. Auxentius
(Feb. 14);
see
Janin,
Eglises,
24.
According
to one
tradition, Auxentius was buried in the
monastery adjoining
the Anastasia. See
Synaxarium CP, 465,
line
52;
Janin, Eglises, 24; idem,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
143. This
monastery
is first attested in the 12th
century,
and an earlier tradition has Auxentius buried in the convent of the Trichinaria. Cf.
Synaxarium CP, 465,
lines
14-16;
Symeon Metaphrastes,
Vita Auxentii 66-67: PG
114:1436B-D; but see
Janin,
Eglises,
488.
Auxentius,
a
162
ROCHELLE SNEE
rated the translation of
Gregory's
relics from Arianzus in
Cappadocia
to
Constantinople
by
Constantine VII
(913-959); part
of his remains were
placed
in the
Holy Apostles, part
in the Anastasia.49
Clearly
Nazianzen's connection with the latter was still remembered
in the tenth
century
and
strengthened
in cult: after an
early morning processional
from
Hagia Sophia
to the
Forum,
his
aoDva;ts
was celebrated at the Great
Church,
the Anasta-
sia,
and the
Holy Apostles.50
I
may
mention here the two known instances of the Anastasia's role in the
larger
world of
Byzantine
ceremonial.
Although
it is little
noted,
the
procession
for the first
inauguration
of
Hagia Sophia (December 27, 537), presided
over
by Justinian
and Patri-
arch
Menas,
began
at the Anastasia.51
Second,
on the feast of Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos
(October 7),
the
processions began
with a
chanting
of the
Trisagion
at the Anastasia
(Janin
finds this
"quelque peu etonnant"),
then moved to the Forum before
continuing
to the saints' church for the o
vactS.52
Circumstances seem to
suggest
that this twofold
processional
use of the Anastasia served as a
symbolic
confirmation of
Justinian's
ortho-
doxy,
as well as a celebration of the recent
victory
over the Arian Vandals.
Overtures to the West between 533 and 536
had,
on
religious
issues,
culminated in a
council
denouncing Monophysitism,
an
abrupt
reversal
ofJustinian's
policy
of reconcilia-
tion with the
Monophysites. Pope Agapetus,
in
Constantinople
in
536,
had consecrated
Menas
patriarch (536-552)
after
deposing
his
predecessor,
the
Monophysite sympathizer
Anthimus
(535-536).53
The
Anastasia,
s the fount of
orthodoxy
in the
ouncapital,
was an
undoubtedly pointed
choice in the ceremonies
inaugurating Hagia Sophia
in
537,
one
that was not maintained under the
changed
climate in 562 for the second
inauguration.54
Whatever
Justinian's
own
shifting
definition of
orthodoxy,
he went to some
lengths
to make the
religion
of the
empire
one.55 The
reconquest
of North Africa from the Arian
Vandals
can,
in
part,
be seen as a
religious
war.
Significantly, Pope Agapetus
was instru-
mental in
sharpening Justinian's
anti-Arian zeal in this instance. In 537 one
phase
of the
contemporary
and friend of St.
Marcian,
is said to have
opposed Eutyches
and Nestorius at the Council
of Chalcedon.
49Ebersolt, Sanctuaires,
91 and n. 3.
Janin,
Eglises,
28,
incorrectly gives
the date s
Jan. 23.
January
19
is,
however,
a variant date for the
commemoration;
see
Synaxarium CP, 402-4. For the
depiction
of the transla-
tion in
art,
see C.
Walter,
"Biographical
Scenes of the Three
Hierarchs,"
REB 36
(1978),
236-37.
Only
Symeon Magister,
Annales:
Imperium
Constantini
Porphyrogenneti
6: PG
109:817B,
specifically
mentions
Grego-
ry's
relics at the Anastasia
(on
Pseudo-Symeon,
see H.
Hunger,
Die
hochsprachliche profane
Literatur der
Byzan-
tiner,
I
[Munich, 1978], 354-57).
50Le Typicon
de la Grande
Eglise,
ed.
J.
Mateos, I,
OCA 165
(Rome, 1962), 210;
Synaxarium CP, 422-23. Cf.
R.
Janin,
"Les
processions religieuses
a
Byzance,"
REB 24
(1966),
77.
51Bury, LRE, II,
51
(briefly). Theophanes,
A. 6030:
Chronographia,
A.ed. de
Boor, 217; Cedrenus,
PG
121:712A.
According
to
Synaxarium CP, 338,
the
inauguration
of
Hagia Sophia
was commemorated on Dec.
22,
St. Anastasia's feast
day!
52Janin,
"Les
processions,"
74.
53Bury, LRE, II, 376-78;
E.
Stein,
Histoire du
Bas-Empire,
II
(Paris, 1949), 382ff;
H. G.
Beck,
"The
Early
Byzantine
Church,"
in
History of
the
Church,
ed. H.
Jedin
and
J.
Dolan,
II
(New York, 1980), 445f;
cf.
R.
Browning, Justinian
and Theodora
(London, 1987), 142-51;
D. M.
Olster,
'Justinian, Imperial Rhetoric,
and the
Church,"
BSl 50
(1989), 165, 170-72.
54The
vigil preceding
took
place
at St.
Platon;
see
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
150-52. Cf. Paulus
Silentiarius, Descriptio
S.
Sophiae, 331-36,
ed. P Friedlander
(Leipzig-Berlin, 1912), 236, 275-76.
55Bury,
LRE, II, 361-72; Beck,
"The
Early Byzantine
Church,"
456; Frend,
The Rise
of Christianity,
814,
830-31, 854;
Kaegi, "Arianism," 24 n. 4 and the literature cited
there; and, notably, Olster, 'Justinian,"
165-76.
163
Vandalic War had
just
been concluded with the successful
quelling
of an
Arian-inspired
rebellion.56 In such a
context,
the
processional
from the Anastasia can indeed be
viewed
as
triumphant.
The Anastasia's role in the ceremonial for the feast of Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos
is
recorded in the
Typikon
of the Great Church
(10th
century).57
That we should assume
an
origin
for this role in the
reign
of
Justinian
seems
quite likely.58 According
to C.
Mango,
the church of Sts.
Sergios
and Bacchos was built for a
Monophysite monastery
sometime
between 527 and 536,
probably
closer to the latter.59
Following
Justinian's
precipitate
change
of
religious policy
in
536, however,
the abbot of that
monastery joined
in con-
demning Monophysitism
in the council held that
year.60 Including
the Anastasia in the
itinerary
for the feast
day
must
surely
have been a
significant symbol
of
orthodoxy
and
even of
purification.
The
chanting
of the
uninterpolated Trisagion
underscored the anti-
Monophysite
character of the ceremony.61
It seems clear that Ardabur and
Aspar
must have been aware of the
history
and char-
acter of the Anastasia when
they
made their donative. The
gift
of ecclesiastical vessels
and Marcian's
provision
for
Gothic-language readings
at the church should
undoubtedly
be
seen,
in
part,
as
political
statements, and,
as
argued
below,
in the context of the trans-
lation of St. Anastasia's relics.
II. THE VITA MARCIANI
There are two
pre-Metaphrastic
versions of the Life of St. Marcian: one written
by
a
near
contemporary,
an otherwise unknown
Sergius,
and
dating
to the late fifth
century,
the other an
undoubtedly subsequent abridgment.
Scholars have not
sufficiently
noted
the value of the
longer
version,
possibly
because the
Metaphrast appears
to have the
fullest account.62 M. Gedeon's edition of
Sergius
is, however,
based on
only
one manu-
script
which,
as shown
below,
is
missing
two folios. In
fact,
the
Metaphrast
is
simply
a
rewrite of
Sergius.63
As in so
many
other
instances,
a critical edition of the Vita Marciani
is a desideratum.
56Kaegi,
"Arianism,"
23, 39-48;
cf.
idem,
47-48.
57Typicon,
ed.
Mateos, I, 62-65.
58Cf. M.
McCormick,
"Analyzing Imperial
Ceremonies,"JOB 35
(1985), 4,
cf.
6;Janin,
"Les
processions,"
69.
59"The Church of Saints
Sergius
and Bacchus at
Constantinople
and the
Alleged
Tradition of Octagonal
Palatine
Churches,"JOB 21
(1972), 189-93; idem,
"The Church of Saints
Sergius
and Bacchus Once
Again,"
BZ 68
(1975), 385-92; and,
most
recently,
I.
Shahid,
"The Church of Sts.
Sergius
and Bacchus in Constanti-
nople:
Who Built It and
Why?"
BSCAbstr 22
(1996), 84,
argues
for a 527 foundation date that does not
exclude an association with
Monophysitism.
See also G.
Dagron,
Constantinople
imaginaire:
Etudes sur le recueil
des "Patria"
(Paris, 1984),
321 n.
29,
and T E
Mathews,
The
Early
Churches
of
Constantinople
(University
Park,
Pa., 1971),
47.
60Janin, Eglises, 451;
Mango,
"The Church
Again,"
386.
61The
Monophysite
clause in the
Trisagion
had caused riots in 512:
Bury,
LRE, I, 438-39;
Al.
Cameron,
Circus Factions
(Oxford, 1976),
132-33. See also
Justinian,
Tractatus contra
Monophysitas,
PG
86.1:1141BC;
J. Meyendorff,
Christ in Eastern Christian
Thought (Crestwood, N.Y., 1975),
34-35. The
emperor's Monogenes
Hymn
was included in the
liturgy, probably
in
535/6: C.
Stallman-Pacitti,
Cyril of Scythopolis (Brookline,
Mass.,
1991),
49-50 and nn. 42 and 43.
62See
above, notes 2 and 8.
63PG 114:429-56
=
AASS,
Jan. 1, Jan.
10:611-19
(sic),
Latin translation of Gentianus Hervetus. The
Metaphrast
has altered and embellished the Greek in his characteristic
fashion,
rearranging
some of the
164
ROCHELLE SNEE
The
subscription
to the
longer
vita reads:
Tazi5ta
i-yb
0
,X6 xto;
Ipyto;
E-K T6Ov
Tcx tpt
toCfl nttpO,
tO1)tO-)
cKptf3O}nt
a7ttQLVow O)V
npay7LOV1i(a,
TtIXI 8, KQ1 ica t
a
o;
2ttXpXapaTlO)wv,
d
7coXX65v
hXtya mUvEypaaNca,
Ei;
'C
tobT;
F
vruyxavovta;
F
pyC 6o8o4etv
t`v Oc6v...
(ed. Ged-
eon,
277
[93B 1]).64 ("I,
the humble
Sergius, having inquired
into these events from
those
who
accurately
know about this
father,
and also
myself being present
at
some,
selecting
a few
things
from
many, composed
this
work,
in order that those who read it
may glorify
God...")
That this
subscription
is
authentic,
in that it at least
represents
a
contemporary
not
too far removed from the time of
Marcian,
seems
guaranteed
on internal evidence.65
There are no
chronological
curiosities;
no anachronistic
descriptions
of such
things
as
church
buildings,
ecclesiastical
vestments,
or the
liturgy.66
There is
very precise
detail on
topography,
social
institutions,
and so
on,
that well suits the late fifth
century.
The most
telling
indication is the
recording
of Ardabur and
Aspar's gifts
to the Anas-
tasia. Another
sign
of
early composition
is the
story
of Marcian's
attempt
to
buy property
near the Forum of
Constantine,67
for his
purported building
of the
Anastasia,
from the
widow
Nico,
a native of Antioch in
Syria.
She
ultimately
decided not to sell. The
property
was too valuable because it came with an annona
civica,
namely,
the bread ration
(here,
oil
also)
or
panes
aedium established
by
Constantine I to
encourage development
in the
city.68 Symeon Metaphrastes (PG 114:433c),
though
he tells the
story
of
Nico,
eliminates
stories for
compositional
effect and
occasionally eliminating
details of
importance
for the social and eco-
nomic
history
of the 5th
century;
see below. There has been
very
little
stylistic analysis
of the
Metaphrast;
see E
Tinnefeld,
"Hagiographie
und Humanismus: Die
Darstellung
menschlicher
Empfindungen
in den
Viten des
Metaphrasten,"
in The 17th International
Byzantine Congress,
Abstracts
of
Short
Papers (Washington,
D.C., 1986),
351-53.
64Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
189r,
col.
2,
reads: 'rai'ra Eyib 6
i'XXt6iroq x6pyto;
Fi
kK 7ToX2h
62ya
cnvXypayJa. I.e.,
Esw
,c&v...
capacux6ov
is
omitted,
either due to homeocatarcta of &K
T6&v
with EK
tnoXX6&v
or because the
phrase
guaranteeing authenticity
was a later insertion.
650n
hagiographical subscriptions,
see
Aigrain, L'hagiographie,
201-2.
66For one
apparent exception,
see note 82.
67Ed. Gedeon, 273
(87A2):
the house was situated in the semicircle of the anteforum of Constantine.
Marcian
paid
more than two thousand
gold pieces (1i&77i'p
To
t;
68tXfotfou; xpuxoi5;)
for the deed of sale
(('va;,
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
178r,
col.
1,
probably
the
original reading;
cf.
c'vait,
ed.
Gedeon, 273
[87B2]; 7yopd;,
"provisions,"
ed.
Gedeon, 273 [87B
1])
and was
willing
to
pay
double that (ed.
Gedeon, 273
[87B2]).
The
Patria
Constantinopolis (111.43:
ed. T
Preger, Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum [Leipzig,
1901;
repr.
New
York, 1975], 233)
locates the
property
in r6
aPii0d (R. Janin,
Constantinople byzantine,
2nd ed.
[Paris,
1964], 419)
and
says
it cost
2,000 nomismata
("gold coins"),
a
tidy
sum. Nicholas of
Sion,
in the 6th
century,
built a shrine to the Theotokos for 400 nomismata: The
Life of
St. Nicholas
of Sion,
chap.
69,
ed. and trans. I.
and N. P Sevi'enko
(Brookline, Mass., 1984), 102; cf.
chap.
58,
pp.
92 and 138
(nomisma).
See
also,
on the
terminology
for and value of late
antique coinage,
E. A.
Clark,
The
Life of
Melania the
Younger,
trans. and
commentary (New York-Toronto, 1984),
95-96.
68Ed.
Gedeon, 273
(87B1-B2):
['AXX'
61] pxC`Kaiog ExOp6';
ird
aott; 'yaoit; d 8Vr iuu')V
icac
7Ep6; jirno8&ag6ov
rooto iorou vaot
otb' 6Xfyov fzEPdlv i~V6S nCnLP6V, b i ~eroeXov i yaye
ro
yUvatov, ,i op6XXov
a
oolar6ci
;
- eK
iK(ogC080'Ug9VV
tit6 ir
oXX6OV Oi5&6
Ppaxt[v] Xpovov 8ta-KacaWX&tV 8vTle0a
tT1'V
aXV8ptKllV Ot"K11nY Icat'Vot
etirp6aobov cdrivp6;S irapauuefav axo' co xrtovojiov re
itp6;
ieopvjzv sci 7ohrKv iEPrdiv
&prwv Xoprryfiqt o-rtVs; ai5fj IaOTT mave'pO Vaaav
ncci
r6, r6cOv
XoutKctv ohKCuv
tcKatov?
roUTo0;
yap
rot;
&p,rom 6
[tcya;
Fv
Paa0x-3k7t Kovcravrivo; otU g6vov
r4
o
n;
~
v865o0 'ra nii;
nc6JX*0;
hXX'
i&tiC6;
Kci 'rdt;
O'iidut;
c3tnij, Ei;
e?pcv
buiveijzcv
gF-Tis lCCli
kXaiou OtYICfcna;
ifplpriSa; -KaO' wrKaMov
'apov,2
6-ava,, oiicmich ni~pd~am ccai
ibfav
6noypciv.
...
atot;
o
.................
165
this anachronistic detail for his
tenth-century
audience. The
panes
aedium
appear
not
to
have been
granted
for new construction
beyond
361,
but the
privileges
extended
through
the sixth
century.69
The
terminology
used for the
Virgin Mary
also seems to fit the late fifth
century.
Sergius
refers to her as il toO
XpiGTOi Kait
Oci0
qILCoV axvpavtog
gfjTITjp (ed. Gedeon, 274
[89A1]),
that
is,
he calls her the "mother of
God,"
but avoids
using
the term
?oT6KO0;.
This
passage
is modeled on Sozomen
(HE 7.5.2), who,
writing shortly
after the
Council
of
Ephesus
in 431
accepted OeoT6Kog
as an
epithet
for
Mary,
instead calls her
a1.r
'i
Xpttoo
i
gr't,qp
Mapta il &yioa tnapOevo;.
Other
contemporaries,
such as
Cyrus
of
Panopolis,
who is credited with
dedicating
the first church to
Mary
in the
capital (A.D. 439),
also
avoid the contentious title.70 The
Metaphrast, long
since removed from the
Nestorian
controversy, comfortably
rewrites
Sergius' descriptive phrase
as as
avdti
il Kotvil
Baioti
ravT0ov, 1i a%pavTo0 Os?OTOKOg (PG 114:441B).
The shorter Vita Marciani is an edited version of
Sergius,
done
by
one Thomas
(Gen.
33,
fol.
141v),
most
likely
for a
menologion.71 Concentrating
on Marcian as oikonomos and
church
builder,
it omits stories and
details,
and there is some
rearrangement;
words and
1.
owyKiaS:
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
178v,
col. 1.
2.
Kae' iKatov,
ibid.: Kca'
iKac6riv,
ed.
Gedeon, 273 n. 3.
3.
niroypaoiv
?v
toqI; 8rTOGioot; i%it
KK6tItI TC
T6yr7aTi
TTV
OiKtCbV 4iopioLva Kai anwcXs;
eiitv: Vat.
gr. 1638,
ibid.
But the
Devil,
who
eagerly opposes everything good, granted
not even a few
days respite
in
hindering
such a
holy
chuchr and influenced the woman to
repent
her decision. He
suggested
sophistically
that she would be a
laughingstock
if she were not even able to inhabit her husband's
house for a brief
time,
although
she had it
easily
accessible for her
comfort,
for the
profit
from the
rents,
and for the
supplies
from the
daily public
bread
dole,
which was sold with it in accordance
with the
property rights
of the rest of the houses. For
Constantine,
great among kings,
distributed
this bread not
only
to the
people
of this wonderful
city,
but also to each of the houses that he
found. Each house also had a
daily
measure of olive oil. These domestic
provisions
have their own
registration
in the
public
codices under the rank of houses.
On the annona
civica,
see A. H. M.
Jones,
The Later Roman
Empire,
284-602: A
Social, Economic,
and Adminis-
trative
Survey (Norman, Okla., 1964)
(hereafter
LRE), I, 696-97;
H. G.
Beck, "GroBstadt-Probleme: Konstan-
tinopel
vom 4.-6.
Jahrhundert,"
in Studien zur
Friihgeschichte
(as in note 30
above), 6;
and most
recently J.
Durliat,
De la vlle
antique
a la ile
byzantine:
Le
probleme
des subsistances
(Rome, 1990), 188-206;
cf.
Dagron,
Naissance,
504
(donation
of
Olympias), 530-35,
539.
Dagron (p. 520) suggests
that the deal
may
have fallen
through
because Marcian could not tear the house down. See also
Saradi,
"Notes on the
Vita," 19-20,
for
the
significance
of this evidence for the annona in the 5th
century.
69Dagron, Naissance, 520, 535; according to B. Kubler in RE
183 (1983), 606,
the
panes aedium
were in
effect until 618. See also C. Strube, "Der
Begriff
Domus in der Notitia Urbis
Constantinopolitanae,"
in
Studien zur
Friihgeschichte (as in note 30
above),
125-26.
70Cyrus
calls
Mary &yia tapOevog
and
jnir,p anetpoyago;;
see T. E.
Gregory,
"The Remarkable Christmas
Homily
of
Kyros Panopolites,"
GRBS 16
(1975), 318-19, 323-24; idem,
Vox
Populi:
Violence and
Popular
Involve-
ment in the
Religious Controversies
of
the
Fifth Century
A.D.
(Columbus, Ohio, 1979), 88-100,
and the literature
cited there. Cf. W.
Delius,
Texte zur Geschichte der
Marienverehrung
und
Marienverkiindigung
in der Alten Kirche
(Berlin, 1956), 15-30;
F. M.
Young,
From Nicaea to Chalcedon
(Philadelphia, 1983), 213-40,
esp.
234-37. In
the 5th
century,
the
overwhelming
use of the term Oeo0TKO0 is in the context of the
controversy: Lampe,
639-41;
e.g.,
Soc. HE 7.32.
71A.
Papadopoulos-Kerameus (above,
note
2)
has edited codex Hieros. Sab.
242,
fols. 19ff.
(For
additional
apparatus,
see
idem,
'AvaXeKTra 'lepooouXttK1S zTaXVuooyia;,
V
[St.
Petersburg, 1898], 402-4.)
On the
manuscript,
see A.
Ehrhard,
Uberlieferung
und Bestand der
hagiographischen
und homiletischen Literatur der grie-
166
ROCHELLE SNEE
forms of
Sergius'
middle ecclesiastical Greek are sometimes
vulgarized.72
The account of
the
gifts
of the Arian
generals
Ardabur and
Aspar
to the Anastasia has been deleted, but
the
abridged
vita would
appear,
from
currently
available editions, to have two stories
related to the Anastasia that are not in
Sergius.73
In one
story
Marcian is
miraculously
clothed in
imperial garments during
the consecration of the Anastasia
(chaps.
5-6: ed.
P.-Ker., 261-63);
in the other he saves the Anastasia from the
great
fire in
Constantinople
in 465
(chap.
7: ed.
P.-Ker., 264).
Gedeon's edition of
Sergius'
vita is based
solely
on codex
Athos,
Koutloum.
37, folios
86r-93v.74 It is
clear, however,
from
another, unedited,
copy
of
Sergius (Vat. gr.
1638,
fols.
175v-189v)75
that the two stories were
originally
in the
longer
vita. Folio 88v
(Athos)
ends
with
?v
tfi a,
while folio 89r
begins
with
Kai giapTupiat;
M6?oiKv. Gedeon noted a
problem
with the text
(274,
n.
1),
but
thought
that
only
some words were
missing.
Colla-
tion with codex
Vaticanus,
folio
180r,
column
2,
?v Tf
d960X ?it,
and folio
183r,
column
1,
vugLtiou 6865ceK? (with
variant
reading;
cf. ed.
P.-Ker., 265,
lines
4-5, Kati capzupia;, 8680-
K?V,
and Gen.
33,
fol.
136v,
col.
2,
Kati
gapTUpialS 68i6oKev),
shows rather
(allowing
for
chischen
Kirche,
TU 52
(Leipzig, 1939),
735. The unedited codex Genuensis
33,
fols.
131-41v,
another
copy
of the shorter
vita,
has the
following subscription (omitted
in Hieros. Sab. 242
[ed. P.-Ker.]):
Tae5a e
Xy
0 6
?Xt6coS; apyo
.a. .
?iS
TOo TOi; ?v'nyXavovTa;
ao
tdev citv OeOv (cf. above,
p. 165)
Kai
FeX?eoat
Vd7mp
T? ?F0Joi TO
?XaXtio6To0
Kaii wTOV d68eX0) 'RCOV
Oejd TtoD Kai
eit; ?i5v6
? G-Omov
i1avTO'; g?
TOD) vap to
Kai iGayy7XovD P0io To) OeapOPTo dQv5poS d7PLoypaQfalv.
51d TO
oroXoy7iv
acTOv tov X
aK;S
p10oeval ?iK TC OaX0;a1oorVl KtIV16UVV ?K T?
pappaptKs; %EtpO6; TaiC EXatSi aJTO- 'xoiva
6kvtv
TIjCtv
OiSeog
y7vTai
r 6
8rLtoDpy6;?
'Cv 6TO v
8e6:; i PvLtv EXoVpaviov So
ct
p?6eX;ovg
faU
S dva6eIKV6ov,
co ic
664a
Kai
TO KpaTro; Kai qi T1Tj
Kcai pooKvnPOK [sic]
6Ov TOP
avap%xp
aUToi naTpi KaiL TX, Tavayifc Kai tOOO
tveC1aTt VfV Kcai dei Kai eTO ai0va
ToV avva
xVov
a(vv
-
giv.
[fol. 141v] I,
the humble
Sergius,
... in order that those who read this work
may glorify
God
[the
following replaces
the remainder of the
original subscription,
ed.
Gedeon, 277
(93B1)],
and
may
pray
both on behalf of
my
humble self and our brother Thomas who labored
together
with me on
this
copy
of the virtuous and
angelic
life of this
God-pleasing
man,
for he has
acknowledged
that
he was often
protected
from the
dangers
of the sea and from the hands of barbarians
through
the
saint's intercession.
(And
we have
labored)
so that the maker of the universe
may
be
propitious
to
us
all,
our God who
proclaims
us as sharers in
heavenly
life,
to whom is the
glory
and the
power
and the honor and the
veneration,
together
with his father without
beginning
and the
all-holy
and
life-giving spirit,
now and
always
forever and ever. Amen.
On the Genoa
manuscript (1
lth-12th
century),
see A.
Ehrhard,
Uberlieferung
und Bestand der
hagiogra-
phischen
und homiletischen Literatur
dergriechischen Kirche,
TU
50,
ser. 4
(Leipzig, 1937),
544-45.
(I
owe
special
thanks to Chiara
Farragiano
for
obtaining
a microfilm of this
manuscript
for
me.)
72E.g.,
nominative absolutes
replace genitive
absolutes;
optative
used for
subjunctive; periphrastic
use of
genitive
absolute.
73The
following
stories are also omitted in the shorter vita: Niko's abortive sale of
property
to Marcian for
the Anastasia
(chap. 4);
Marcian's resurrection of a
pregnant
woman at the consecration of the Anastasia
(chap. 6);
his conversion of
prostitutes (chap. 12); forgiving
the banker who cheated him
(chap. 13);
selection
of
weekly readings
in honor of the saints
(chap. 15);
and
healing
a Roman noblewoman from an issue of
blood
(chap. 16).
The
Synaxarium CP,
379-80
(Jan. 9)
adds
nothing
to the tradition. The
Imperial
Menolo-
gion
Vita Marciani
(BHG
Auct
1034b)
is
largely
an
abridgment
of the
Metaphrast.
74See above,
note 2. Ehrhard,
Hagiographischen Literatur, 532,
dates the Athos
manuscript
to the 10th cen-
tury. Although
Gedeon does on occasion cite variant
readings
from
Papadopoulos-Kerameus' edition,
he
has vitriolic
contempt (p. 271)
for the
Jerusalem manuscript (above,
note
71).
75On the Vatican
manuscript (11th
century),
see
Ehrhard,
Hagiographischen Literatur, 542-44. It
appears
to have been written at the Stoudios
monastery
in
Constantinople.
Cf. P.
Canart,
Les Vaticani Graeci, 1487-
1962
(Vatican City, 1979), 19-23, 163,
167.
167
differences in size in the
manuscripts)
that the two folios
containing
the stories mentioned
above had
simply
fallen out of the Athos
manuscript.76
Both stories
point
to an anti-Arian
moral,
and it is
important
to confirm their attestation in the late fifth
century.
The Vita Marciani is in
many respects disappointing
to the historian and does not
have the same value
as,
for
instance,
the Vita
Danielis.77
Marcian
is, however,
a historical
figure,
the first named oikonomos of
Hagia Sophia (ca. 450-472).
We are told
by
Theodore
Anagnostes (HE
376: ed.
Hansen, 106)
that he made the other churches of the
capital
responsible
for their own revenues.78 That he should oversee church
building
and reno-
vation,
and even use his own
private
resources,
well suits his role as oikonomos and has
historical
parallel.7
If he cannot be
credited,
as his vita
claims,
with the
original
Anastasia
building (above,
pp. 160-61),
it would nonetheless
appear
reasonable that there is some
historical basis for
associating
his name with the church.
Although
I cannot here
attempt
a full-scale
commentary
on the Vita
Marciani,
I will examine stories and their sources
that are of relevance to both the
history
of the Anastasia and the
propagandistic
role of
contemporary hagiography.80
Sergius
has
amplified
the Life of Marcian with
literary borrowings
and the
reshaping
of oral tradition. Sozomen
provides
the model for the
story
of
Marcian,
during
the conse-
cration of the
Anastasia,
raising
from the dead a
pregnant
woman who had fallen from
the
gallery.
In Sozomen the
story
serves as a variant
explanation
for the
origin
of the
name of the
church,
and no offian
t,
at the
apparently ordinary
service,
is
named,
though
Nazianzen can be
implied
from the
context.8'
Sergius
has
simply
transferred the
story
to Marcian and
expanded
Sozomen's account:
76Twenty-five
lines of the Gedeon text
equal
one
page
of Vat.
gr.
1638;
40 lines of the Gedeon text
equal
one
page
of codex
Athos,
Koutloum. 37. Cf. Ehrhard,
Hagiographischen Literatur, 532 and 542. A collation of
the Vatican
manuscript
with Gedeon's edition of the Athos
manuscript
reveals that
(particularly
in the second
half of the
vita)
there are considerable
variants,
many
of them
explanatory glosses
or
interpolations
not
found in the Vatican
manuscript. E.g.,
fol.
186v,
col. 1 =
ed.
Gedeon, 275
(91A1),
where a
catalogue
of the
type
of miracles
performed
at Isidore's
martyrion
is added
(so
too in ed.
P.-Ker., 268,
lines
17-20;
Gen.
33,
fol.
139v,
col. 2
[with variants]);
fol.
186v,
col. 2
= ed.
Gedeon, 276
(91A2),
where a
description
of
proces-
sional
participants
is
expanded (so
too in ed.
P.-Ker., 268,
line
28-269,
line
1;
Gen.
33,
fol.
140r,
col.
1).
Four
of these
interpolations
are of
significance
for the historian and are discussed here elsewhere.
770n
the Vita
Danielis, see,
e.g., Jones, LRE, I, 217.
78Sergius (ed. Gedeon, 272
[86A2]) says
Marcian was ordained
priest
and
appointed
oikonomos in the
reign
of
Emperor
Marcian
(450-457).
Theodore
Anagnostes (Kirchengeschichte,
ed. G. C. Hansen
[Berlin, 1971],
106)
credits Patriarch Gennadius
(458-471)
with Marcian's
appointment,
but his account here has been
influenced
by
tradition
subsequent
to
Sergius;
see
below,
p.
169.
Emperor
Marcian was well known for his
strict economic
measures,
and it is
likely
he who
appointed
Marcian and
approved
his
reorganization
of
church finances. Cf.
Bury,
LRE, I, 236-37,
and
Dagron, Naissance, 495,
508.
79"The
great
oikonomos controls all the
possessions
of the church and the collection of
money
from them.
He also
supervises
them for the
high priest
and the church":
AASS,
Jan.
1:610. On
priests
and deacons
building
churches at their own
expense,
see E.
Patlagean,
Pauvrete
economique
et
pauvrete
sociale a
Byzance,
4e-7e
siecles
(Paris, 1977), 196-97; cf. R.
MacMullen,
Corruption
and the Decline
of
Rome
(New Haven, Conn., 1988),
51 and 235 n. 178.
80Marcian's aristocratic
origins, simple lifestyle,
and
ability
to raise the dead and cure the sick are all stock
hagiographic
material.
See,
e.g.,
R.
Browning,
"The 'Low Level' Saint's Life in the
Early Byzantine
World,"
in The
Byzantine Saint,
ed. S. Hackel
(London, 1981), 120-23;
Patlagean,
"Ancient
Byzantine Hagiography,"
103, 109,
114 nn. 10 and 12.
81Cf.
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
138. On
hagiographical borrowing,
see
Aigrain, L'hagiographie, 277,
cf.
204-5;
Patlagean,
"Ancient
Byzantine Hagiography,"
112.
168
ROCHELLE SNEE
LiKKXUki(Tta' OVt
qtoil Xaoi yXva i
LUyrI
EKIov &ir6 tf;T IiqCpco)u ato&;
Katait oiaa
E'v
o68
?
T*-
VIlKC, KOW1V
&'
tQOp(
iTQVtO)V
E)Xtj ilt
(fl)t
yevoTtEvrO[ EVJ; CXVFL]GT
KUt CUV T(f)
gpL(- L'(7O1?
(Soz.
HE
7.5.4)
EicXt,nata6retv pF _XXovco; Tof
il
aof, yvvh "ycl,OWv cdirb rijT
-roil
wvi)'LO)go g'poi); 'irEp
ao&T -roil
XeyORtLvou Kt1}Xou4LFvo
u KaTCZK'OuJQGa 7itpa
co)
gktlpou
Kat KaraYovaa cYa
K troo
iyouS;
Fv rCo
i6860e
troio
vao-l
TEWOKEvv
icotviji
3~
irapa iravivov iKat acilro MapKtavo-l -roil
6afou
YEVO0u4Vijn
cilX7i F-V
-rfj X
oupyta, &vdarr1
,i yuvil icai ailv
rci flppEEte
'affOr. (ed. Ged-
eon, 274
[89A2])82
The Marian
background
for this resurrection
story,
in which the Mother of Christ is
said to have revealed herself to the sick in dreams and visions at the
Anastasia,
is taken
almost word for word from Sozomen. We
may conjecture
that the ultimate
origin
for this
story
is Nazianzen's
poem,
"Somnium de Anastasiae ecclesia"
(lines
19-20: PG
37:1255),
describing
the attentive audience for his sermons: At
6'
6a'p' 6'o' Urn?,9Mov TEYe-r'Vo FiKOGROV
6iouiv / 'Ayva'
i
apOFvt-Kat -KXiVOV
&' ,
a0oygoto;. ("And holy maidens together with
goodly
matrons
gracefully
leaned to hear from
lofty roofs.")
Similarly, Sergius
draws
inspiration
for his account of Marcian's
building
of the Anas-
tasia,
at the site of the
original
house
chapel,
from Sozomen
(HE 7.5.1, 3)
and
Gregory,
though
here the latter is a more immediate source.
Marcian,
unable to
purchase
the
widow Nico's
property,
finds his solution while
reading
Nazianzen:
"'Avaa-rcaf'av carrriv
,rfv
ar5
iva
u-r6o
o;
e TEiOU ?t6Ivugov
6sos
U
iXa-rr_pav El o16a Kai [tEt'(O*
T6'6 got
npoXF'_YEtT
-r
Hvci51
r6z
&ywtov."
Taì'ta g'v
o;v
6
gF-ya; ira-aip 1i.Liv optoir6p0o rpo;irizaelv
(ed.
Gedeon,
273
[88A2]). ("'You
will see the
Anastasia,
this
eponym
of
resurrection,
become wider
and
greater,
I know it well. The
Holy Spirit prophesied
it to me.' This then was the
prophecy
of our
great
father
Gregory.")
G.
Dagron
quotes
this
passage
as it is filtered
through
the
patriographers (111.43:
ed.
Preger, 233)
and thinks that it refers to an actual
inscription.
This is
unlikely.83
We are in
a
literary
context, and,
as
Symeon Metaphrastes (PG 114:436A)
rightly recognized,
Mar-
cian,
or rather
Sergius,
had read
Gregory's
sermons,
specifically
Oration 42. Several
pas-
sages
from that oration contribute to the above version of the
prophecy
and are trans-
ferred,
as
Symeon
notes,
from the Anastasia as Nicene
community (above,
p. 159)
to the
Anastasia as church
building.84
Theodore Anagnostes (530) says
that Marcian was
appointed
oikonomos after his con-
version from Novatianism.85 The source for this nonhistorical assertion is both natural
confusion with oral tradition about the Novatians and
Sergius' appropriation
of that tra-
dition for the Vita
Marciani.
There had been a Marcian consecrated
bishop
of the Nova-
82Equal
to Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
183v,
col.
1 (with
one variant: omit Tofl
6i0oou). According
to
Mathews,
Early
Churches, 128-30,
the earliest known use of the term
KaTqX'rXoUCLVOV
to
designate
the
gallery
of a church is in
the late 7th
century.
Its occurrence here
may
be an
explanatory gloss.
83Dagron, Constantinople imaginaire,
152 and n. 99.
Patria,
111.43 (ed.
Preger)
is a distillation of the Vita
Marciani;
cf.
above,
note 67 and
below,
p.
177.
84Greg.
Naz. Or. 42.6 and 26: ed.
Bernardi, 62-64,
108.
85Theod.
Anagn.
HE 13: PG
86:172c;
Kirchengeschichte,
ed. G. C.
Hansen, GCS, n.s.,
3
(Berlin, 1995),
106.
So too in the Vita
Auxentii (Sym. Metaphr.,
PG
114:138GB). It remained a common
misconception; see,
e.g.,
George Monachus,
Chronicon Breve: PG 110:757Bc.
169
tians in
Constantinople
as
recently
as 438.86 The Novatians also had an Anastasia
church,
named in a fashion similar to
Nazianzen's,
though
in a
concrete,
not a
metaphorical,
sense. Under the semi-Arian
bishop
Macedonius
(350-360),
the
Novatians,
forbidden
to
worship
within the
city,
carted their church stone
by
stone to
Sycae
and "resurrected"
it
there.
Julian (360-363),
characteristically,
allowed them to "resurrect" it once
again
in
its
original spot
in the
quarter
of the
Pelargos.87
This time
they
renovated
(PektXioavTe;)
the
structure,
and it was still in use in the fifth century.88
The Novatian
bishop
Paul is
reported
to have saved that sect's Anastasia church from
a
fire in 433
(Soc.
HE
7.39).89
Similarly,
Marcian is
supposed
to have saved the orthodox
Anastasia from the
devastating
fire of 465.90 There ae differences in detail: Paul
clung
to the
altar,
while Marcian climbed the roof with the
Gospel
books,
but the model for the
story
is
certain.9l
We have no verbal
allusions,
in this
instance,
to the text of
Socrates,
but
the
story
was
probably
a
popular
one in oral
tradition, and, indeed,
the Novatians cele-
brated the
anniversary
of the miraculous
delivery
of their church
(August 17).92
The fire of 465
destroyed eight
of fourteen urban
regions.
It
passed through
the
Forum of
Constantine,
the
Mese,
and the Forum
Tauri,
that
is,the
vicinity
of the Portico
of Domninus where the Anast wasia was located. Individual
buildings,
however,
were
spared,
for
example, Sporacius'
mansion on the
Mese,
even
though
an
adjoining chapel
was burned down.93 It would
appear
that the Anastasia also survived the
fire,
lending
credence to the
transposed
miracle
story.
We can see in Marcian's
alleged rebuilding
of Nazianzen's
chapel, inspired by
that
symbol
of
orthodoxy
himself,
and in his miracles there a deliberate
attempt
to counter
the
popularity
of the Novatian
Anastasia,
with its double "resurrection" and its
publicly
commemorated,
miraculous
escape
from the fire of 433. The sect had no less
important
a
sympathizer
than
Socrates, and,
although
Novatians were tolerated as schismatic breth-
ren,
there had been
sporadic
invective and
legislation against
them and
they
were re-
stricted from
building
new churches. On the wane in the fifth
century,
the Novatians
were
gone by
the end of the sixth. This was in
part
a
process
of
assimilation,
as even
Novatian
clergy
were received into the church with ease.94 In the Vita Marciani we can
also see the
working
of
propaganda.
Marcian was
not,
of
course,
a converted Novatian
as later tradition
asserts;
he and the orthodox Anastasia were
simply
heir to Novatian tra-
ditions.
86Soc. HE
7.46; cf. 4.9,
for an earlier
(384-395)
Novatian
bishop
Marcian.
87T.
E.
Gregory,
"Novatianism: A
Rigorist
Sect in the Christian Roman
Empire," ByzSt
2
(1975),
7.
88Soc. HE
2.38;
Soz. HE 4.20.
89Gregory, "Novatianism," 7;
A. M.
Schneider, "Brande in
Konstantinopel,"
BZ 41
(1941),
383.
90 Vita
Marciani:
Sym. Metaphr.,
PG
114:440B-441A;
ed.
P.-Ker., 264;
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fols.
182r-183r;
Schnei-
der, "Brande,"
383-84.
91Cf.
Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
139
(who
dates the fire to 1
September 461).
92Soc.
HE
7.39;
the actual
day
of the fire.
93Schneider, "Brande";
C.
Mango,
"The
Development
of
Constantinople
as an Urban
Centre,"
in The 17th
International
Byzantine Congress, Major Papers (Washington, D.C., 1986), 125, 127.
Sergius' description
of the
fire's extent is not detailed
(cf.
Vita Danielis 45-46: ed. H.
Delehaye,
Les Saints
stylites, SubsHag
14
[Brussels,
1923], 42-44),
but accurate
(above,
note
90).
94Gregory, "Novatianism," 2 n.
4, 4-6, 8, 17; Chesnut,
First Christian
Histories,
176-77.
Chrysostom (Homily
5.1: PG
63:491-94) simply castigates
the Catharoi for their
arrogant assumption
of
purity
because
they
refrain from fornication and
adultery.
170
ROCHELLE SNEE
Marcian's
church-building projects,
and related
stories,
are the decided focus of
the Vita
Marciani,
occupying
fifteen of
twenty-two chapters
in
Sergius (Metaphrast),
ten
of fourteen in the
abridged
version.
Although
he is
given passing
credit for the
building
and refurbishment of other
structures,95
two churches are
singled
out: the Anastasia
(nine
chapters)
and
Hagia
Irene in Perama
(ca.
four
chapters).
The latter existed at the time
of the Notitia
(ed. Seeck, 235),
ca.
425-430,
and was located
together
with the Anastasia
in the seventh
region.96
The vita records that the two churches were
regarded
as sisters
(ed. Gedeon,
276
[91B1]),
and there are notable
parallels
in
Sergius'
treatment of them.
Both
Hagia
Irene and the Anastasia are renovated and
enlarged
because of a vision
or
prophecy.
Relics are also translated to
Hagia
Irene-those of St. Isidore. The
original
choice of a site is
changed (Anastasia);
the chest
holding
Isidore's relis re fuses to
budge
from the
skeuophylakion
of
Hagia
Irene,
and
Marcian,
abandoning
his search for a suit-
able site
elsewhere,
builds an
adjoining martyrion.97
Both churches have roles as
healing
shrines,
and their construction suffers
momentary
setbacks because of the intervention
of the devil.98 The
description
of the
rebuilding
of
Hagia
Irene, however,
is far richer in
concrete detail and
clearly
the more historical of the two.
Hagia
Irene in
Perama,
built on the water's
edge,
was the
apparent
victim of erosion.
In the
early
470s the sea encroached to the middle of the
church,
and Marcian oversaw
what was
probably
a
partial
demolition,
land
reclamation,
and the
relaying
of the founda-
tions. The church is
carefully
described as an aisled basilica with a wood roof covered in
lead;
the altar was flanked
by
columns,
the left one inclined
slightly (the
devil had tried
to
topple it).99
It had a
baptistry
in the
shape
of the
Sheep's
Gate
pool
at
Jerusalem
with five stoas.100 This was covered with
multiple
domes
(06Xot)
inlaid with
gold
mosaic
(Xpulo6rtos)
and with
paintings
of
figures
of the sick
(rc Tciv voooivOv
aVEpytpyaaTo
Xcilaza,
ed. Ged G eon,
275
[90B2]).101
The
dating
for Marcian's renovation of
Hagia
Irene is
relatively precise. According
to
95Marcian is said to have decorated and
painted (5tayppdaS)
St. Theodore in the
Tenetros,
to have built
and adorned St. Stratonikos in
Rhegium,
and to have built a
monastery
at the church of St.
John
the
Baptist
which was near St. Mocius: ed.
Gedeon, 276
(91A2-B2).
All three churches have little or no attestation
outside the Vita
Marciani;
see
Janin, Eglises,
153
(Theodore 13),
412-13
(Prodromos 8),
478-79
(Stratonikos).
96
Janin, Eglises,
106-7
(Irene 3); idem,
53. Cf.
Dagron, Naissance, 393, 400, 512,
and
Mango,
"The
Development,"
125.
97Ed. Gedeon, 275-76
(90B2-91A1);
cf. ed.
P.-Ker., 268. On small attached
martyria,
see R.
Krautheimer,
Early
Christian and
Byzantine
Architecture
(Baltimore, Md., 1975),
111.
980On the Anastasia:
above,
pp.
162 and
168-69,
and note
46;
on
Hagia
Irene: ed.
Gedeon, 276
(91A1)
(KaoTc
... . . ov,
omitted in Vat.
gr.
1638, 186v,
col.
1);
ed.
Gedeon, 275
(90A2-B2).
99Ed.
Gedeon, 274-75
(89A2-90B2).
On the basilica as standard in
5th-century Constantinople,
see
Krautheimer, Architecture,
111.
According
to
Sergius (90A1), Hagia
Irene had
galleries:
Ta; T? Ka xTO
XCOa;
Kai
t,a
7cv?pK?iLt
?va;
?eipydoaTo. ?i-Ta 8takapcov d7raiOpop;
Tov o0KOV
navtaxo6ev oirco; Tiv
6po(ilv
?i7rTiTr0ntv. The
term
UateaOpa
has been
interpreted
as
open-air galleries designed
to minimize fire hazard:
AASS,
Jan.
1:615,
n. d. Cf.
Evagrius,
Historia ecclesiastica 1.14
(hereafter
Evagr. HE):
ed.
J. Bidez and L.
Parmentier,
The Ecclesi-
astical
History of Evagrius
with the Scholia
(Amsterdam, 1964), 24,
lines 13-15.
'00uotiapltov:
ed.
P.-Ker., 267,
line
17;
Gen.
33,
fols.
138v,
col.
2-139r,
col.
1;
Sym. Metaphr.,
PG 114:445B
(also
paxcztiriptov); opovTaTinpitov (monastery):
ed.
Gedeon, 275
(90B1);
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
185v,
col. 2. See
A.
Grabar,
Martyrium:
Recherches sur le culte des
reliques
et l'art chretien
antique (Paris, 1946), I, 322-35,
for the
popularity
of
buildings
in Palestine
through
the 6th
century;
cf.
78.
'01Janin, Eglises, 564,
and
Miller, Birth
of
the
Hospital,
81,
cite the Patria
(111.44:
ed.
Preger, 234)
as evidence
for
Hagia
Irene as the oldest
hospital
in
Constantinople.
No other evidence
supports
Marcian's
building
of
the
nosokomeion in
operation
there at a later
date,
and
here,
as in
chap.
43
(see above,
note
83),
the Patria
171
the
vita,
Gennadius
(bp.
458-471),
in fulfillment of a
vision,
tore down the old
church
in order that a
larger
one
might
be built under his successor Acacius
(471-489).102
Since Marcian died before its adornment and dedication
(January
20)
and
Empress
Verina
completed
it,
the reconstruction dates to
471-474,
that
is,
after the death of Gen-
nadius and before the death of Leo I.103 Verina's adornment of the church and
gilding
of the
ceiling
were recorded in an
inscription (Cio6CEp 8rqXoiTat Kai
8ta
TrI-;
Ev
afji iut-
Ypao)S).
104
In
contrast,
for the Anastasia the
only chronology Sergius provides
is that of the
dedication
(?yKatvt 7L6;o),105
December
22,
the date of St. Anastasia's
martyrdom
and her
feast
day.
Gennadius
presides
at the
ceremony-the
occasion of the
imperial garments
miracle-and this
may give
an ante
quem
of 471 for
any remodeling by
Marcian.
Clearly,
the miraculous deliverance of the church from the 465 fire should be used with caution
in
establishing
a
chronology
for the Anastasia.
Sergius
describes Marcian's new Anastasia as surrounded like a
pearl by ipoat"ta
(outbuildings)
and
many-colored open-air
stoas
(rroaQS; notiiat;
ai
caI xaiOpot; KuKXO6ev,
ed.
Gedeon, 274
[88B1]),
recalling
Sozomen's reference to the
beauty
and
magnitude
of
its structures
(oi4Ko8onaIgTCov KauXo;
T?
Kait
c
soiey o,
HE
7.5.2).
The saint is said to have
gilded
the
ceiling,
beautified the lower stoas with
paintings,
and furnished a silver-
sheathed altar. He also added a
baptistry
and
skeuophylakion.106
The latter's
costly liturgi-
cal vessels are later (ed. Gedeon,
277
[92B1-B2])
identified as the
gift
of Ardabur and
Aspar.
Despite
this
apparent
detail,
the
only
concrete architectural reference is to the fate of
simply
indicates
familiarity
with the Vita Marciani.
Though
the Vita Marciani (ed. Gedeon, 275
[90B1-2])
refers in
passing
to
people
"freed from various diseases
(v6ocov nronzXcov)
and all
earthly
discontent" at the
baptistry,
the
primary emphasis
is on the
metaphorical healing
of sins
through baptism.
For
archaeological
evidence
confirming healing
scenes in
baptistries,
see
Saradi,
"Notes on the Vita," 23-24.
102
Ed.
Gedeon, 274 (88B 1
[sic]).
Most
recently
on
Gennadius,
see J. Declerck,
"Le Patriarche Gennade de
Constantinople (458-471)
et un
opuscule
inedit contre les
Nestoriens,"
Byzantion
60
(1990),
131 n. 4 and the
bibliography
cited there. For
Acacius,
see M.
Jugie
in DHGE
1
(Paris, 1912),
cols. 244-48.
'03Verina is, however,
active under Zeno
through
478;
see P.
Chuvin,
A Chronicle
of
the Last
Pagans (Cam-
bridge,
Mass., 1990),
98. For
Zeno,
a
great
church
builder,
see
passim.
It is unclear
why
Janin
(Eglises, 106)
dates the reconstruction to 455-460.
104Ed.
Gedeon, 276
(91B1).
The
inscription
and the dedication date
appear
to be
part
of a
knowledgeable
interpolation;
(dOtep
86rnoirat
.
. ..
adpvpo; 'AvaoTaoieta
is omitted in Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
187r,
col. 1. Cf.
Aigrain, L'hagiographie,
198-200.
5
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
180r,
col.
2;
eyKavtauio6S,
ed.
Gedeon, 274
(88B2).
'06The description
is
problematic.
Are the
outbuildings
the
baptistry, skeuophylakion,
Nazianzens
chapel
(see below),
or are the
irpoahkta
"vestibules"? Stoa is a
very general
term;
here it would seem used with two
meanings:
cf. G.
Downey
in
Procopius, Buildings (Cambridge, Mass., 1940), xvi-xvii, 25. For a church inside
a
stoa,
cf.
Procopius, Buildings,
I.vi.
13,
and for a circular
stoa,
see
ibid.,
I.viii. 12. Both ed.
Gedeon, 274
(88B2),
and Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
180r,
col.
1,
read
-otoKoediva
;
6YroS;
the shorter Vita
Marciani, however,
says
the
upper
stoas, i.e.,
the
galleries,
had
paintings
(ed.
P.-Ker., 261,
lines 19-20: 7n?epKet?gevagc
yTod&;;
Gen.
33,
fol.
133v,
col. 2:
irnepKetLevatSv roat;).
In 401
Chrysostom
installed the Tall Brothers in monastic cells
contiguous
to
the Anastasia:
Janin,
Eglises,
23.
Emperor
Basil I
(876-886)
is also credited with
gilding
the
ceiling:
Patria,
111.43: ed.
Preger,
234;
cf. Vita
Basilii,
ed. I.
Bekker,
Theophanes Continuatus, V,
CSHB 33
(Bonn, 1838), 324,
where he is said to have
replaced
a wooden roof with stone. The term
skeuophylakion
is used in the
story
of the
imperial garments
miracle as the
place
where the
clergy gathered
after the
liturgy:
ed.
P.-Ker., 263,
line
4;
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
181r,
col.
2;
Gen.
33,
fol.
135r,
col. 1. On
skeuophylakia,
see G.
Babic,
Les
chapelles
annexes des
eglises byzantines (Paris, 1969), 58-64; Mathews,
172
ROCHELLE SNEE
Nazianzen's
original
house
chapel.
Marcian left the
oratory
in its earlier form
(it_n
ToD
ipotepo oXi|gaToS;,
ed.
Gedeon,
274
[88B 1])
as a
proof
of Nazianzen's
prophecy
(above,
p.
169).
It
lay
to the north of the
larger
church,
and
according
to Socrates
(above, pp.
160-61)
was
adjoined
to it.107 Even in the tenth
century, Gregory
the
Presbyter
can com-
ment on the small size of the
chapel
that
anyone
could ascertain
by viewing
the old
building (T6 tnaato6v ainxnc T?R?gVOS,
PG
35:276c).1?8
Liturgical
rather than architectural detail characterizes
Sergius'
treatment of the An-
astasia, and,
significantly,
the dedication
ceremony
is for the translation of St. Anastasia's
relics.109 The
emperors,
Senate,
and
populace carrying
candles escort
(npont?RLnovTE;)
the
relics.
Marcian,
during
the
procession, secretly gives away
his chiton to a
poor
man and
is left clothed
only
in his chasuble
(X?d6vtov)."10
He is
designated by Archbishop
Gennad-
ius to
perform
the eucharistic
offering (dvvaoopa), and,
as he is
washing
his hands at the
kiss of
peace (a6ocaoCLog6),
the
archbishop
and the attendant
priests
see an
imperial
robe
(paai3
tKin oxtoXfl)
beneath his chasuble. At the communion
(Kotv0vta)
the
laity
also notice
the robe. At the conclusion of the
liturgy,
when the
clergy
have retired to the
skeuophy-
lakion,
Gennadius
upbraids
Marcian for
wearing imperial garments,
but
lifting up
his
chasuble finds him
naked.'1l
The miracle is
interpreted
as a
victory
over the devil and
the
heresy
of Arius.
As noted above
(p. 161),
the new Anastasia dates to the late fourth
century,
and
Marcian cannot be credited with its
building. Janin suggests
that he
may
have done some
restorative work after a fire or
earthquake,
but if so we have no record of a natural disas-
ter in
Constantinople
other than the fire of
465,
which the church survived.112 The obvi-
ous occasion when Marcian
may
have remodeled the
Anastasia,
giving
rise to the notion
that he
actually
built
it,
would have been for the
reception
of the relics of the like-named
saint. The
emphasis
in
Sergius'
account on the translatio
supports
this
hypothesis,
as does
the common
phenomenon
of"restorers"
being
credited with the
original building.113
But once
again,
when we
compare Sergius'
discussion of
Hagia
Irene with that of the
Anastasia,
we note the relative
precision
of the location of the relics of St. Isidore. We are
specifically
told that Marcian
ultimately
built a
martyrion adjacent
to
Hagia
Irene for the
saint
(ed. Gedeon, 274
[89A2];
275-76
[91A1]).114
With the Anastasia we are left
largely
to
107Ed.
Gedeon, 273
(88A2):
Tov
(EKTipwtOV OtKOV) tX6pI
vVv TOC tEriovI aDTi;
OIKo KaKa
apKtov;
to which
(with variants)
ed.
P-Ker., 261,
lines
1-3,
adds
nTpooKc?givov;
cf. Gen.
33,
fol.
133r,
col.
2, npooxapapKe?ievov,
and the
Metaphrast's rewording:
PG 114:436B. For the
liturgical
use of such annexed
chapels,
see
Babic,
Chapelles annexes,
9-10.
108For
zTEievo-
=
church
building,
see ed.
Gedeon, 273
(87A2);
cf.
Procopius, Buildings,
I.iii.17.
"09Ed. P.-Ker., 262-63;
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fols.
180r,
col.
2-182r,
col.
1;
cf.
Sym. Metaphr.,
PG 114:436D-440A.
See
Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, 106,
for the distinction between consecration and dedication. On the sources for
Byzantine liturgy,
see
Mathews,
Early
Churches,
111-15.
"'On the
phelonion,
see
Walter,
Art and
Ritual, 13, 14, 23.
"'For
the
early liturgy,
see
Mathews,
Early Churches, 162-63, 170-73; Babic,
Chapelles annexes,
60.
"2Janin,
"Etudes de
topographie,"
138-39. See V.
Grumel,
Traite d'etudes
byzantines,
I: La
chronologie (Paris,
1958),
477-78.
"3E.g.,
Theodosius
II, Pulcheria, Verina,
and
Justin
II have all been credited with the church of the
Virgin
at
Chalkoprateia;
see
Mathews,
Early
Churches, 28.
Justin
II was
clearly only
a
restorer;
see Av. Cam-
eron,
"The Artistic
Patronage
of
Justin
II,"
Byzantion
50
(1980), 77-78;
cf.
Babic,
Chapelles annexes,
36-37.
"4Cf. Babic,
Chapelles annexes, 35,
39
(chapel
of the
Holy Reliquary).
173
conjecture.
Was a
crypt
readied for the
depositio
beneath the new silver
altar?l15
Were
the
relics housed in Nazianzen's house
chapel?
The text of
Sergius
can be read to mean this:
O5 /VTVyZXvcXv
Tota 7Tv?taxTKov X6yoti ; Tot tyiou 7Tcarx;pbO iCV rpriyopio.).
. .
yvcw Kctai Ti
...
..po(tnetiav n7ep1 pO OICKOV Tio
q ?yiaq ytadpxupoq 'Avaoxca?ata; To0 ?v ToI; Aotvivouv XPo,ot;
ovTo;, 8t&a<KOVTO;
ev TO) e6KTTnpi( arzTq
oIKcO
TzO
dpai?p, ?v
co
Kai Ta?
X)??iava
cariS ?Xoq
TOD viv dar6Ketvrxat, X,yovTOg
oxo . ... (ed. Gedeon,
273
[88A1])
who
(Marcian), reading
the
inspired
words of our
holy
father
Gregory
...
recognized
also the ...
prophecy concerning
the church of the
holy martyr
Anastasia which is in
the
portico
of
Domninus, (made)
when he
(Gregory)
was
teaching
in her old
oratory,
in
which also her relics lie to the
present day,
and said as follows . . .
The relative clause
(nov
O) could, however,
refer back to the church rather than the
oratory
or
simply
have the e whole
complex
as an understood antecedent in
Sergius' day.
It could
as well be an
interpolation, weakening any arguments
from
grammar.116
The
Metaphrast
(PG 114:436A), though
he
consciously
corrects
Sergius
in this
passage (above,
p. 169),
not
only
does not
clarify
the issue for us but
completely
fails to mention the relics. In the
absence of
corroborating
evidence,
it seems
prudent
to leave their location a
question.117
One
important pattern,
however,
is clear.
Marcian,
in what must have been a natural
role for an
oikonomos,
was
charged
with
housing
the relics of Sts. Isidore and Anastasia
and in both instances did not build
separate martyria
but rather modified
existing
churches.118 But was Marcian himself
responsible
for the translations? From the vita it
would
appear
so,
particularly
in the case of Isidore. The
bishops
Gennadius and Acacius
are the
instigators
of the restoration of
Hagia
Irene,
but Marcian is said to have
brought
or recovered
(KotuiaaS;)l19
the relics of Isidore and to have been anxious to find a suitable
resting place
for them.
Similarly,
Marcian was intent on
building
a church for St. Anasta-
sia,
first on the widow Nico's
property,
then at the site of Nazianzen's
chapel.'20
There
is,
however,
no hint of when or
by
whom the relics were
acquired.
It is
interesting
that
Emperor
Leo I
(457-474)
is nowhere mentioned in the Vita
Marciani.
(One
can
hardly
count the
vague
reference to
"emperors"
in attendance at the
dedication of the
Anastasia.)
The
piety
of Leo I and his officers is well observed in the
"50n
the
crypt
under the altar of
Hagios
loannes Stoudios built in
463,
see
Mathews,
Early Churches, 27;
cf.
63-65,
67.
11Though
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
179r,
col.
1,
reads
?v .. . . . T viV
daIT6Ke?vTal;
cf. ed.
P.-Ker., 260,
line 23: ifv
o ...
vuvt
KartaK?ata,
and Gen.
33,
fol.
133r, col. 1:
?v o ... V1V KaraTKECait.
117Berger (Patria, 446)
assumes the relics were
originally
in the
chapel.
The faithful had access to
them,
at
least in the 14th
century;
see
Majeska,
Russian
Travelers, 289.
118In
the East in the 5th
century, martyria
were
characteristically adjuncts
of a church
proper: Grabar,
Martyrium, 314-22,
335-56.
'"9Ed. Gedeon, 275
(90B2).
The Athos
manuscript (Koutloum. 37)
reads
KoafRqoag (275
n.
5),
as does Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
186r,
col. 2.
However,
ed.
P.-Ker., 268,
line
6,
and Gen.
33,
fol.
139,
col.
1,
read
KORicas;.
"20The
relics of St. Anastasia are introduced
abruptly
as follows:
MapKtav6; ovTos
6
gaKipto;S
oepwp6
nj?op
KpaTOu?gVO; tcept TTIV oiKoa60o
V TV
ayiOTaTCOv
CKKXThYItOV
Kai gdtorTa Tf;S inepUavofS;
ev
g6ptuoa
Toi
Xpicrnoi
Kait e0?o)
rCo
dva6ox(T6etS 8t?voetio /i&pav
?;
itg?paS
T6tov
?7;TC6?itov,
ii?va to xotIOTov
?y?pe?
T??tVO- . . .
(ed. Gedeon, 273
[87A1-A2]).
Gedeon
(273
n.
1) proposes
the
reading 'Avaozactia
for the Athos
manuscript's
dvaoTdoeo;.
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
177v,
col.
2,
reads
dvaoTaoia;,
undoubtedly
the
original reading.
Elsewhere
in
Sergius
the church is
consistently
referred to as that
Tfl; dyiaa; gdpTupoS 'AvaoTaotia
(e.g.,
273
[87A1])
or
TS a6ytas
'AvaoxaoTao
(e.g.,
274
[88B1]).
On later
understanding
of the name as
referring
to Christ's Resur-
rection,
which
probably
accounts for the Athos
manuscript reading,
see
above,
p.
162.
174
ROCHELLE SNEE
Vita
Danielis,
and Leo's
reign
is credited with
any
number of translations of relics and
the construction of their attendant churches and
chapels.121
St.
Symeon Stylites'
leather
tunic was
brought
to
Constantinople
for
presentation
to him.122 The cult of St. Mamas
was founded in the
capital during
his
reign.123
The construction of the church of the
Virgin
at
Chalkoprateia
is attributed to his wife Verina
(among others).l24
The church of
Blachernae and the
deposition
of the
Virgin's
robe
are,
according
to one
tradition,
assign-
able to Leo I and
Verina.'25
The Vita
Marciani,
it is
true,
lauds Verina's
completion
of
Hagia
Irene in
Perama,
but Leo is
conspicuous by
his absence. If Marcian was
responsible
for the translation of relics
and,
as his vita claims
(ed. Gedeon, 276
[91A1]),
had contrib-
uted his
patrimony
to church
building,
he reinforced the
piety
of Leo's
reign.
This
may
be the
implication
of the
imperial garments
miracle at the dedication of the Anastasia.
Be that as it
may, only
Marcian's name
and,
no doubt
significantly,
those ofArdabur and
Aspar
are associated with the construction
(remodeling)
of the Anastasia.
III. THE ARDABURS
For
fifty years
in the fifth
century
the
powerful
Alan
family,
the
Ardaburs,
played
a dominant role in the
army
and
imperial politics
in East and West.126 Ardabur
Senior,
consul in the West in
427,
had conducted
campaigns
in Persia
(421-422) and,
as
magister
militum,
was sent
against
the western
usurper John (424).
His son
Aspar,
the most
promi-
nent member of the
family,
served with his father
against
the
usurper
and was instrumen-
tal in
securing John's
downfall in 425. In 431
Aspar
commanded an
expedition against
the Vandals in
Africa,
and in 441 one
against
the
Huns,
this time
clearly
as
magister
militum
praesentalis. Aspar
was
kingmaker
in the
East,
supporting
Marcian
(450-457)
and
promot-
ing
Leo
(457-474),
both of whom had served under him in the
army.127
A silver shield is extant
commemorating Aspar's consulship
in the West in 434 and
his son Ardabur's
praetorship
in the same
year. Depicted
with them are Ardabur Senior
and Fl.
Plinta,
possibly Aspar's
father-in-law.'28
The
dynastic implications
are clear. Arda-
121
E.g.,
the translation of the relics of the three
holy
children from
Babylon,
Vita Danielis 92: ed.
Delehaye,
87; Ebersolt, Sanctuaires,
108.
122
Delehaye,
23. Leo had
unsuccessfully
demanded the
body
of St.
Symeon: Evagr.
HE 1.13: ed. Bidez and
Parmentier, 22-23.
123Ebersolt, Sanctuaires,
93.
24Above,
note
113;
also
Janin, Eglises,
237.
125Janin, Eglises, 161-62; Babic,
Chapelles annexes, 36-37, 39;
cf.
Walter,
Art and
Ritual,
147. Av.
Cameron,
"The
Early Religious
Policies of
Justin II,"
in The Orthodox Churches and the
West,
Studies in Church
History
13,
ed. D. Baker
(Oxford, 1976),
66-67
(repr.
in Av.
Cameron,
Continuity
and
Change
in
Sixth-Century Byzan-
tium,
Variorum
Reprints [London, 1981]), argues
that
Justin
II and
Sophia
built the
chapel
for the
Virgin's
robe.
126PLRE, II,
137-38
(Fl.
Ardabur
3),
164-69
(Fl.
Ardabur
Aspar),
135-37
(Ardabur
junior 1); Jones, LRE,
I, 181-82, 218-24, 323-30,
and
Bury, LRE, I, 222-25, 314-22. See also B. S.
Bachrach,
A
History of
the Alans
in the West
(Minneapolis, Minn., 1973), 41-51, 76,
98.
1270. Seeck,
Geschichte des
Untergangs
der antiken
Welt,
VI
(Stuttgart, 1920), 270, 356-57;
A.
Demandt,
"Ma-
gister Militum," RE,
suppl.
12
(1970),
769-72. On Leo's accession
ceremony,
the first described in the Book
of Ceremonies,
see S.
MacCormack,
Art and
Ceremony
in Late
Antiquity (Berkeley,
Calif., 1981), 164, 241-43.
128
For
the shield or
disk,
see R.
Delbrueck,
Die
Konsulardiptychen
und verwandte Denkmdler
(Berlin-Leipzig,
1929), 154-56,
pl.
35. For Fl.
Plinta, PLRE, II, 892-93;
Jones, LRE, II,
1104-5 n. 18. Plinta is credited with
healing
the Arian
Psathyrian controversy (the
Father had
always
been
Father,
even when the Son was
not);
Soc. HE 5.23: Soz. HE
7.17; E. A.
Thompson,
The
Visigoths
in the Time
of Wulfila (Oxford, 1966),
135-38.
175
bur
Junior
was consul in the East in 447 and was
appointed magister
militum
per
Orientem
by Emperor
Marcian. Two other sons also held the
consulship,
Patricius in 459 and Her-
mineric in 465.
By
466, however,
Aspar
had lost his hold on Leo. His son
Ardabur,
for
example,
was
implicated by
the future
emperor
Zeno
(474-475, 476-491)
in treason with Persia and
forced to
resign
as
magister
militum
per
Orientem. But the
power
of
Aspar
and his
family
was not so
easily
broken;
only by assassinating Aspar
and Ardabur in 471 was the
way
paved
for Zeno. Even as late as
469,
Aspar's
son Patricius was declared Caesar and Zeno
temporarily
driven from
Constantinople.
He returned
only
in 471 after
assisting
in the
assassination,
an event that
triggered
a Gothic
uprising
in
Constantinople
and the revolt
of the Goths under Theoderic
Strabo.l29
It is in this context that I return to the Vita
Marciani and the Ardaburs' donation to the Anastasia.
A
passage
in the Vita Marciani
enumerating
all those who loved and
respected
St.
Marcian names a
particular
member of the
Senate, Ardabur,
identified as the son of
Aspar
with whom he had been enrolled
among
the
patricians.'30 Although they
were
Arians,
we are
told,
they
at least revered the Father
(ai6oi toi
niatpo6)
and had
provided
the Anastasia with a number of beautiful and
costly
vessels,
because
they
lived in its
vicinity,
north of the church. In
return,
Marcian had the
Scriptures
read in Gothic in the
martyrion
on festal
days (ai ?itcsrTio0t Rif?Jpa1).l31
This is the
complete
account of the do-
nation.
Although
Ardabur is
singled
out as the
special
donor,
he was
inseparable
in contem-
porary
minds from his more famous
father,
and both are said to have
presented
the
vessels
((TKEnil
. .. .
poniveyK7av).l32
A
later,
and
unreliable,
tradition that the Ardaburs
paid
for the construction of the Anastasia is erroneous.133
The vita does not state when or in what circumstances this
gift
to the Anastasia was
made,
but in context one can assume Marcian's
as a
likely
time. As
we have
seen,
some
remodeling
for the
reception
of the relics of the saint
appears
reason-
able,
and the
generals undoubtedly
made their donation in connection with the
highly
public
and ceremonial
depositio.'34
Demandt has
convincingly
demonstrated that two ecclesiastical vessels inscribed with
the name Ardaburios were
gifts
of Ardabur
Junior.
One is a silver
goblet
in the Dumbar-
ton Oaks
collection,
the other a bronze disk and bell from a
hanging
candelabrum in the
129E.
Stein, Histoire du
Bas-Empire,
I
(Paris, 1959), 360-61; Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 775-76;
Kaegi,
Byzantine Military Unrest, 26-27; P. Heather,
Goths and
Romans,
332-489
(Oxford, 1991), 255-56, 268; PLRE,
II, 1200-1202
(Fl.
Zenon
7).
30
Ed.
Gedeon, 277
(92B1-B2):
6 Ev
7caCptKtiot (oiv) 'AoTYapt ypa?i; 'Ap5apo6pto;;
Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
188r,
col. 2: 6
?v tcatptKiot; 'ApSapooptog.
Since both witnesses have a
plural
verb
(7pooGve?yKav),
the Athos manu-
script undoubtedly preserves
the correct
reading. Aspar
was
patricius already
in
451, Ardabur
already
ca.
453,
though
he
appears
to have lost this status in 466:
Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 765,
769.
31
For Gothic as an Arian
liturgical language,
see
Schmidt,
Die
Bekehrung
der
Ostgermanen,
284-96.
'32The Metaphrast (PG 114:453D)
lists
Aspar
first.
133Patria, III.43: ed.
Preger,
233.
Janin (Eglises,
23,
and "Etudes de
topographie," 139)
incorrectly
reads
(and cites) Sym. Metaphr.
Vita Marciani 21: PG
114:453D-456A;
the
Metaphrast only
adds to
Sergius'
account
that the vessels were silver and
gold.
'34On
the arrival of
relics,
see K. G. Holum and G.
Vikan,
"The Trier
Ivory,
Adventus
Ceremonies,
and
the Relics of St.
Stephen,"
DOP 33
(1979),
116.
176
ROCHELLE SNEE
Benaki Museum in Athens. The
inscriptions
on both
objects
are
dedicatory.'35
Demandt
comments on the
piety
of
Ardabur;
we can now add a third,
though literary,
witness to
that
"piety."
There seems little reason to
question
the
accuracy
of the Vita Marciani here.
Demandt narrows the
provenance
of the Dumbarton Oaks
goblet
to Antioch and
environs-Ardabur served there as
magister
militum
per
Orientem
(453-466)
and owned
property
in
Daphne.
We do not know in which church the
goblet
was
dedicated, but
there
certainly
could have been Arian churches in the
vicinity
of Antioch in the mid-fifth
century.
The
city
had been a vital center of Arianism under
Valens,
and Theodoret is
witness to the
persistence
of Arian belief in the area.
136
But the evidence of the Vita Marci-
ani does not make this a
necessary assumption.
At the
Anastasia,
Ardabur dedicated
vessels not
only
to a Nicene
church,
but to one that was a
symbol
of anti-Arianism in
Constantinople.
There is in this
gesture,
it would
seem,
something
more than
simple
piety.
The
explanation
for the donative-that the Ardaburs were
neighbors
of the Anasta-
sia-is found
only
in the Athos
manuscript
of the vita and is
likely
a gloss.137 The Patria
(11.71:
ed.
Preger, 188)
mentions an
OIKO;
TO)
'Ao7capo0
whose site is said
by
Janin to be
unknown;
he finds no reason to connect it with the cistern of
Aspar
that
lay
outside the
Constantinian
walls.'38
The Vita Marciani
would, however,
place
the residence of
Aspar
squarely
in the old
city,
that
is,
a little north of the
Anastasia,
and its location in the
Emboloi tou Domninou
(Not.
Urb. .
Cp., Regio VII)
between the Forum of Constantine
and the Forum
Tauri.l39
This makes sense because of the residence's
proximity
to the
Strategion,
or soldiers'
quarters
in the
city
north of the Great Palace.40 The Patria
(II.99:
ed.
Preger, 204)
also mentions a Stele
ofAspar
in the area of the Forum Tauri and notes
(in
a
gloss)
that his house
passed
to a certain
gBasileios.41
Significantly, Dagalaiphus,
Ar-
dabur's
son-in-law,
lived near the Forum Tauri'42 in a locale named after him.143 The
Goth
Dagistheus'
name is later attached to baths built
facing
the
Anastasia.'44
It is
likely
that
throughout
the fifth
century
the
quarter
was a Gothic
neighborhood.
Evidence for a Gothic
community
in
Constantinople
dates from the time of
Chrysos-
tom
(bp. 398-404). John's
first sermon in 398 was
against
the
Arians,'45
and he
actively
fostered the orthodox Goths of the
capital
(and
their
co-religionists
in the
Crimea), desig-
135A.
Demandt,
"Der Kelch von Ardabur und Anthusa,' DOP 40
(1986),
111-17.
36 See above,
note
5; cf. Marcellinus
Comes, Chronicon,
PL 51
:929AB,
a.
453,
for an Arian
priest
of Emisena
briefly
in
possession
of the head of
John
the
Baptist.
37Ed. Gedeon, 277
(92B2):
oa
tnpoS; pKTrov
aco5
Y?tiVIVT?(C;;
omitted in Vat.
gr.
1638,
fol.
188r,
col. 2.
'38Janin,
316.
'39The
porticoes
of Domninos were
probably
at the crossroads formed
by
the Mese and the
Long
Portico
of Maurianos:
Janin,
Eglises,
24-25.
Regio
VII was
residential;
see
Strube,
"Der
Begriff
Domus," 127-28.
140R.
Guilland,
Etudes de
topographie
de
Constantinople byzantine (Berlin, 1969),
3.
41 Cf.
Berger, Patria, 612-13.
142 Vita
Danielis,
ed.
Delehaye,
76,
lines
12-17; PLRE, ,
340-41
(Fl. Dagalaiphus 2);
R. S.
Bagnall
et
al.,
Consuls
of
the Later Roman
Empire (Atlanta, Ga., 1987),
457.
143Janin, Constantinople byzantine,
331,
cf. 352. Gainas' house
gave
his name to a
region
in
Constantinople
whose location is unknown
(Patria,
111.109: ed.
Preger, 252).
144PLRE, II,
341
(Dagistheus),
and cf.
Janin,
331-33. The baths were
begun by
Anastasius and
completed by Justinian.
See also
Berger, Patria, 439-42.
45
Contra Anomoeos: PG
48:796-98;
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
46;
cf.
Frend,
Rise
of Christianity,
749 and 778 n. 44.
177
nating
a church for them and
preaching among
them himself.146 He
provided
as well
for
a Gothic
clergy by establishing
a
monastery/seminary.
47
Presumably,
the church in
ques-
tion was that of the orthodox
Goths,
"near the
palace" (Zosimus 5.19.4),
that was
burned
to the
ground
on
July
12, 400,
after
Gainas' brief
"coup."
148
The exact
identity,
location,
and denomination of this Gothic church
is, however,
unsettled.
Synesius implies
it was Arian
(De
Prov.
1268),
but this is
likely
a
barbarophobe
generalization,
not reliable
evidence:'49
Chrysostom
had refused Gainas
permission
for
an Arian Gothic church in the
capital.
150
Socrates
(HE 6.6;
cf Soz. HE
8.4.17,
i
KaiXoige?vr
ToV
rF6Ocv ?eKKXihGia)
does not
specifically
name or locate the "church of the
Goths"
other than to
say
it is inside the
city
walls.
Despite
later evidence to the
contrary,
51
Zosi-
mus' statement that the church was near the
palace appears
the most
plausible.
There is an oration that
Chrysostom
delivered
during
the course of a Gothic service
(PG 63:499ff), according
to its title ev
wTi
?KK
i o
i-Iaoi
n
t M
nhaDihXou.
This St. Paul's was the
church of Macedonius that under Theodosius the Great
(379-395)
received-undoubt-
edly pointedly-the
remains of the Nicene
bishop
Paul.152 As some scholars have
noted,
the
wording
of the title
argues
for a church beside that of St.
Paul,153
a
point certainly
worth
emphasizing
since "the church of the Goths" was
destroyed
in
400,
whereas St.
Paul's was still
standing
in the thirteenth
century. J.
Zeiller, however,
interpreted
?itIt
rni-
Xou
to mean "beside the tomb of
Bishop
Paul."'54
If St. Paul's church itself were
meant,
146Theodoret,
Kirchengeschichte,
ed. L.
Parmentier,
3rd
ed.,
ed. G. C.
Hansen,
GCS 44
(5) (Berlin, 1998),
330; Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 78-79;
J.
Zeiller,
Les
origines
chrtiennes dans
lesprovinces
danbiennes s inde
'empire
romain
(Paris, 1918),
545.
'47Dagron, Naissance, 466;
K. G.
Holum,
Theodosian
Empresses:
Women and
Imperial
Dominion in Late
Antiquity
(Berkeley,
Calif., 1982),
70 and n. 87. The
monastery
was in
T2 Ilpoo6tnou, i.e.,
on the Mese near the church
of the
Holy Apostles.
See
Janin,
417.
'48Dagron, Naissance, 110-11; Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 149-50; Albert, Goten,
157-58 and n. 42. Most
recently,
Alan Cameron
argues persuasively against
an actual
coup by
Gainas,
in Barbarians and Politics at the
Court
of
Arcadius
(Berkeley,
Calif, 1992),
199-223.
149Cameron, Barbarians,
385-86 n.
254;
cf. also
38-39, and,
in
general,
on
Synesius'
dubious value as an
eyewitness,
199-223. Cf. Zeiller,
Les
origines,
545;
contra
J.
H. W. G.
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and
Bishops: Army,
Church,
and State in the
Age of
Arcadius and
Chrysostom (Oxford, 1990),
190-91.
'50Albert, Goten,
157 n.
41,
effectively
counters E.
Demougeot's (De
l'unite' a la division de
l'Empire romain,
395-410:
Essai sur le
gouvernement imperial [Paris, 1951],
254 n.
1
11)
contention that the Arians had a church
inside the
city.
Even under Theodosius I
(379-395)
and
during
the immediate transition from the Arian to
Nicene
domination,
the Arians were
only
allowed a church outside the
(Constantinian)
walls
(St. Mocius);
see
Dagron, Naissance, 305,
and
Miller,
Birth
of
the
Hospital,
81-82. In
Chrysostom's
time
they
used the church
of St.
John
the
Baptist (Soz.
HE
8.5;
Soc. HE 6.6:
John
the
Apostle),
7 miles outside the
city;
see
Janin,
Eglises,
414. Nestorius
(428-431)
also
prohibited
a church for the Arians in the
city (Barhadbeshabba,
Histoire
21:
PO 9:529-30),
and burned down an Arian
chapel (Soc.
HE
7.29);
see
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
84. Like
the Nicenes under Arian domination
(e.g.,
the
Anastasia),
the Arians must have had
house-chapels
within
the walls.
515The
sources are collected in
Cameron, Barbarians,
385 n.
254;
e.g.,
the
7th-century
Chronicon Paschale's
statement
(PG 92:780AB)
that
many
Goths were killed in the Leomakellion is
probably historically suspect
since the name derived from
Emperor
Leo's assassination of the "Goths"
Aspar
and Ardabur.
152Janin, Eglises, 394; Snee, "Valens'
Recall,"
408 and n. 72.
153P. Batiffol,
"De
quelques
homelies de S.
Jean Chrysostome
et de la version
gothique
des ecritures
(1),"
Revue
biblique
internationale 8
(1899),
568-69
(who
identifies this church with the "church of the
Goths");
Cameron, Barbarians,
385 n.
254;
cf.
Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and
Bishops,
169 and n. 21.
'54Zeiller,
Les
origines,
545 n. 5.
According
to
Janin (Eglises, 394),
there is a variant Eici Hla-iov. 'Eni of
place
is more
regularly "upon,"
and it is worth
noting
that at least in 1200 the relics of Paul were under the altar.
178
ROCHELLE SNEE
there is no need to infer from Gothic services-as the Anastasia demonstrates-that this
was the church of the Goths. Gothic services need
only imply
a Gothic audience.
The
obvious,
and
traditional,
candidate for a St. Paul's in the time of
Chrysostom
is
the church of that name located
by
the Notitia
(5th century)
in
Regio
VII
along
with the
Anastasia and St. Irene of
Perama.l55 Although
later evidence
appears
to
question
this
localization,'56
the use of Gothic at the Anastasia in the third
quarter
of the fifth
century
lends credence to the traditional
identification,157 and,
in
any
event,
the cumulative
weight
of the evidence indicates that the core of
Constantinople
in that
century
must
have had a
significant
Gothic
population.
The Ardaburs' interest in the
Anastasia, however,
must have
gone beyond
mere
neighborly goodwill. According
to E W.
Deichmann,
there
was,
under
Theoderic,
an im-
portant
church in Ravenna dedicated to St. Anastasia
(not
to the
Anastasis, i.e.,
Christ's
Resurrection).l58
In
supporting
his
contention,
he finds the Ardaburs' association with
the
Constantinopolitan
Anastasia,'59
as well as her Pannonian
origin, compelling
evi-
dence for the saint's favor with the Goths. Anastasia is
certainly among
the
company
of
martyrs depicted
in St.
Apollinare
Nuovo,
but Theoderic was a
hostage
in Constanti-
nople
from 461 to 471
(!)
and
inspiration
for a Ravenna St. Anastasia church
may simply
have come from his
experience
in the eastern
capital.'60
The
question
of the saint's Pan-
nonian
origin
is more
intriguing.
Anastasia's relics were
brought
from
Sirmium,
an area
long
associated with Arianism
and,
since the fall of Attila's
Huns,
a residence of the
Ostrogoths.
Anastasia was
appar-
ently
revered in a
chapel
in a
cemetery
outside Sirmium and
possibly
in a basilica in the
city
as
well.'16
The
acquisition
of the relics
during
the
period following
the
Ostrogothic
settlement in Pannonia
certainly
makes
sense,
as there was relative
peace
between
'55Janin, Eglises,
395
(first suggested by
Du
Cange).
'56Janin, Eglises:
the
Typikon appears
to locate St. Paul's in
Regio
III, i.e., south,
not
north,
of the Forum
of Constantine. I have
yet
to locate the
passage
cited in
Janin.
He
gives
a
faulty
reference: 1.90 is Paul the
Confessor's
synaxis
on Nov. 6 at
Hagia Sophia.
157It
may
be worth
noting
that in both homilies that
Chrysostom
delivered in the Anastasia he
complains
of low attendance:
Homily
4: PG 63:477-86
(A.D. 398); Homily
7: PG 63:493-500
(A.D. 399).
158F W.
Deichmann,
Ravenna:
Hauptstadt
des
spdtantiken Abendlandes,
II
(Wiesbaden, 1976),
301-3. Deich-
mann does not
fully
consider that 6vaoraoia could be a
colloquial
form of
dvataotu;;
see
above,
note 44. See
also
Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 325-26,
and
Zeiller,
Les
origines,
545-46 n.
5,
for a refutation of the
sugges-
tion that the Anastasia was the church of the Goths in
Constantinople.
159Following Janin, Eglises,
23,
and Cedrenus
(PG 121:712),
Deichmann thinks the Ardaburs
paid
to have
the church rebuilt to house the relics of St. Anastasia. Cedrenus and the Patria
(III.43:
ed.
Preger, 233) (but
not,
as
Janin claims,
Sym. Metaphr.,
PG
114:456A)
do credit
Aspar
with
paying
for construction. If
so,
why
does the near
contemporary
Vita Marciani fail to mention it? See further
below,
and cf. the
magister
militum
Anatolius' donation of a silver
reliquary
for the bones of the
Apostle
Thomas
(A.D. 442): PLRE, II,
85
(Anato-
lius
10).
'60See
M.
J. Johnson,
"Toward a
History
of Theoderic's
Building Program,"
DOP 42
(1988),
73-96. Theo-
deric
may
even have attended Gothic services at the Anastasia.
161
Zeiller,
Les
origines,
188-90
(Anastasia
in
Sirmium),
535-37
(Arianism
in
Pannonia); and,
on the Ostro-
goths
in
Pannonia,
E.
Demougeot,
La
formation
de
l'Europe
et les invasions
barbares, 11.2
(Paris, 1979),
776-83.
St. Anastasia also had a cult
following
in the 5th
century
in the Chersonese: H.
Delehaye,
Les
origines
du culte
des
martyrs (Brussels, 1933), 255; Zeiller,
Les
origines,
412;
and
particularly
E. Kurtz in BZ 9
(1900), 308-10,
a
review of V.
Latysev,
"Studien zur
byzantinischen Epigraphik.
4.
Einige
mit Inschriften versehene Denk-
maler der
byzant. Epoche
aus dem Taurischen Chersones," VizVrem 6
(1899),
337-69.
(Kurtz
entertains the
possibility
that this Anastasia was
only
a local
saint.)
179
Romans and Goths for a decade
(459-469),162
and the
dating
accords with that of
An-
agnostes (458-471).
Ardabur was
serving
in Thrace in the late
460s,163 and,
considering
Aspar's
connections in the
Balkans,164
could have
acquired
the relics for the
capital.
The
Vita Marciani mentions
only
Marcian's
attempts
to find a suitable
resting place
for
them
in
Constantinople.l65
Circumstantial
evidence,
notably
the Ardaburs' donation of
ecclesi-
astical vessels to the
Anastasia,
suggests
a more intimate involvement with the relics
than
the vita
allows,
but there is in the end no
proof.
An
important question
remains. St. Marcian had the
Gospels
read in Gothic at the
Anastasia on festal
days.
Can this
imply
that the services were Arian? The Vita Marciani
shows a
spirit
of
generosity
in
acknowledging
that at least the Arians had
proper
rever-
ence for the
Father,
and the use of their ancestral
language
was meant to honor the
Ardaburs for their donation. On the
whole,
it would
appear
more
likely
that the Ardaburs
and their "fellow" Goths attended a Nicene
liturgy
much
along
the lines
Chrysostom
had
established in the
early part
of the
century.
As we have
veseen,
the Anastasia was a
long-standing symbol
of Nicene
orthodoxy,
and
the Ardaburs in their official
capacities
were
frequently
called
upon
to intervene in ortho-
dox ecclesiastical affairs. Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (Ep.
140,
A.D.
450)
thanked
Aspar
for
helping
rescind the acts of the Latrocinium
(Second
Council of
Ephesus,
A.D.
449),
which
had condemned him as a Nestorian.
Pope
Leo
(Ep.
153.1,
A.D.
458)
asked
Aspar-unsuc-
cessfully-to oppose
the
Monophysite bishop
of
Alexandria,
Timothy
Aelurus.'66
Ar-
dabur
Junior,
in 459 as
magister
militum
per
Orientem,
was
charged
with
protecting
the
remains of St.
Symeon Stylites
the Elder from relic
hunters.'67 In
general,
the Ardaburs'
official
positions
took
precedence
over their Arian
beliefs,
both in the
eyes
of others and
in their own.'68
In Arian Gothic
Christianity
there were some
paradoxical
tendencies. On the one
hand,
Arianism reinforced Germanic
ethnocentricity, keeping
the Goths distinct from
their Roman-orthodox
neighbors.169
At the same
time,
the
newly
converted Goths exhib-
ited more
religious
tolerance than did Roman
Christianity;170
the niceties of
theological
controversies were of little concern.
17
62
Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths,
260-63.
'63Demandt,
"Magister Militum," 764f.
64T S.
Burns,
A
History of
the
Ostrogoths (Bloomington,
Ind., 1984),
55.
165Interestingly,
Marcian's first
attempt
was with the
property
of the widow Nico from Antioch in
Syria
where the Ardaburs were local
proprietors.
See
above, p.
169.
'660n
Timothy
Aelurus,
see
Gregory,
Vox
Populi, 189-91; cf.
Leo,
Letters 149-51: PL 54:1120-22.
'67Evagr.
Parmentier, 22-23. For a
general
account,
see G.
Bardy,
Histoire de
l'Eglise,
ed. A. Fliche and V.
Martin,
IV
(Paris, 1948), 280-84;
on the Ardaburs and ecclesiastical
politics,
see
Kaegi,
76-78. See also L. R.
Scott,
"The
Magistri
Militum of the Eastern Roman
Empire
in the Fifth
Century" (Ph.D. diss.,
Cambridge University, 1972),
140-48.
'68Cf. Demandt,
"Magister Militum," 764, 779, 783;
L. R.
Scott,
'Aspar
and the Burden of the Barbarian
Heritage," ByzSt
3
(1976),
66-69.
169p,
D.
King,
Law and
Society
in the
Visigothic Kingdom (Cambridge, 1972), 4-6; Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths,
16-17, 232
(with notes); Liebeschuetz, Barbarians and
Bishops,
49-50,
153.
170
Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 197-202;
Johnson,
"Theoderic's
Building Program,"
79.
71
Burns,
Ostrogoths, 158-62, and,
most
recently,
W. A.
Sumruld,
Augustine
and the Arians: The
Bishop of
Hippo's
Encounters with
Ulfilan
Arianism
(London, 1994),
158-59.
180
ROCHELLE SNEE
Christology
dominated fifth- and
sixth-century religious politics;
Arianism was
sig-
nificant
only
as the
religion
of the Goths. Because of their
importance
in the
military,
it
was
frequently
deemed
prudent
to
ignore
the Goths'
religious
beliefs,
but when circum-
stances
dictated,
it was
possible
to mobilize a
powerful
anti-Arian undercurrent
against
them.
Long
after its
demise,
Arianism remained the
archetypal experience
of
heresy.'72
It is outside the
scope
of this
study
to
give
a full account of the Ardaburs' fall from
power during
the
period
466-471,
that
is,
from Ardabur's recall to
Constantinople
on
charges
of treason with the
Persians,
and his
subsequent
dismissal as
magister
militum
per
Orientem,
until the assassination.173 The sources are
problematic,
and it is
frequently
dif-
ficult to ascertain whether
allegations against
the Alans were true or
simply trumped up
in order to curb their
power.174
To
judge
from the
hagiographical
sources, however,
reli-
gion played
a definite role in those final
years
to which I now turn
my
attention.
First,
the events that led
up
to the Ardaburs' assassination: as
early
as 464 the seeds
were
being
sown for their destruction. In that
year
two
important military
fronts were
vested elsewhere:
Basiliscus,
Verina's
brother,
was
appointed magister
militum in
Thrace,
and Tatianus was
envoy
to the
Vandals."75
It is true that
Aspar's
son Hermineric was
consul in the East in
465,
but this was
undoubtedly
meant to
placate
a still
powerful
rival.
Hermineric himself
appears
to have
posed
no serious
threat;
he
eventually
married a
granddaughter
of Zeno and died a natural death.l76
The
year
466 was the real
turning point.
Ardabur was removed as
magister
militum
per
Orientem on a
charge
of treason with
Persia,
an accusation contrived
by
Zeno who was
himself
appointed
count of the domestics that
year.'77
As has often been
noted,
Leo was
playing
one barbarian
general against
another,
and in 467 Zeno became
magister
militum
in Thrace
(replacing Basiliscus)
and married Leo's
daughter
Ariadne.'78
Also in
467,
Leo
appointed
Anthemius western
emperor, thereby
both
asserting Constantinople's
author-
ity
and
ridding
himself of a
potential
rival.179 In
468,
in a
continuing
bid for
indepen-
172On Photius'
comparison
of Arianism and
Iconoclasm,
see E
Dvornik,
"The Patriarch Photius and Icon-
oclasm,"
DOP 7
(1953), 87-89,
but for an
opposing
view on the
strength
of Iconoclasm in this
period,
see
C.
Mango,
"The
Liquidation
of Iconoclasm and the Patriarch
Photius,"
in
Iconoclasm,
ed.
Bryer
and Herrin
(as
in note 47
above),
133-40.
173
See,
e.g.,
the comments of W.
Goffart,
Barbarians and
Romans,
A.D. 418-584: The
Techniques of
Accommoda-
tion
(Princeton, N.J., 1980),
34-35 and n. 55. See
esp.
A.
Demandt,
Die
Spdtantike,
Handbuch der Altertums-
wissenschaft,
3.6
(Munich, 1989), 183ff, 186f;
and
idem,
"Magister
Militum," 764-81. See also
Heather,
Goths
and
Romans, 251-63,
passim;
Scott,
"Aspar,"
59-69.
174Cf. Aetius'
misrepresentation
of
Boniface,
see
Procopius, History of
the
Wars,
III.iii.35-36. See also the
discussion in
Kaegi, Byzantine Military
Unrest, 52-53,
of
Procopius' report
of false accusations
brought against
Belisarius. For an
analysis
of source
problems
for the
Ardaburs,
see R. C.
Blockley,
The
Fragmentary Classicizing
Historians
of
the Later Roman
Empire: Eunapius,
Olympiodorus,
Priscus and Malchus
(Liverpool, 1981), 33, 34, 50,
67, 80, 81, 83, 115,
166 nn. 24 and 25.
'75Bagnall
et al.,
Consuls, 465-67; PLRE, II,
1053-54
(Tatianus 1); Bachrach, Alans,
46.
'76PLRE, II,
549
(Herminericus).
'77Jones, LRE, I, 222.
'78Heather,
Goths and
Romans, 255; PLRE, II, 1200-1201
(Fl.
Zenon
7); Demandt,
"Magister
Militum,"
766-67
(date
of
marriage
to Ariadne as 466 or
467),
777.
'79PLRE, II,
96-98
(Anthemius 3);
F
M.
Clover,
"The
Family
and
Early
Career of Anicius
Olybrius,"
Hist-
oria 27
(1978),
195
(Anthemius
a
"political
menace" to
Leo).
Cf.
J.
M.
O'Flynn,
"A Greek on the Roman
Throne: The Fate of
Anthemius,"
Historia 40
(1991),
124-25.
181
dence from his one-time
mentor,
Leo
ignored Aspar's
advice for nonintervention
and
sent
military
aid to the Sciri in their war
against
the Pannonian
Goths.'80
Leo's
expedition against
the Vandals in North Africa in 468 was commanded
by
Ba-
siliscus.
Aspar
went
along
as a
military
adviser,
and the disastrous failure of the
expedi-
tion was blamed on
Aspar's
advice in
dealing
with the Vandal
king
Geiseric.l18 Zeno's
influence continued to wax as
Aspar's
waned: in 468 he advanced to
magister
militum
per
Orientem,
saw the birth of his son Leo
II,
and in 469 was honored with the eastern consul-
ship.'82
Once
again rejecting Aspar's
advice,
in 469 Leo
supported
Anthemius' ill-fated
attack on the Pannonian
Ostrogoths.l83
The revolt of
Anagastes,
the new
magister
militum in
Thrace,
in 469 was blamed on
Ardabur,
possibly rightly,
and has been seen as the most
important
reason
why
Leo de-
cided to murder the
Alans.'84
Aspar
was still in a
position
of
power
as
magister
militum
praesentalis
at the head of
loyal
Gothic
troops
and
supported by
the federated Goths un-
der Theoderic Strabo
(as the Gothic reaction to the assassination
clearly shows);
he and
his son were
by
no means
dispensable
in time of
crisis,
for
example,
the Hunnic-Gothic
invasion of Thrace.185
They energetically sought
to counter Zeno and his Isaurians.
Aspar
is said to have
instigated mutiny among
Zeno's
soldiers,
causing
Zeno to absent himself
from
Constantinople
from 469 to 471.186
It is in this
period
that
Aspar's
son Patricius was declared
Caesar,
and either betrothed
or
briefly
married to Leo's other
daughter,
Leontia.187 (If the
marriage
indeed took
place,
it was annulled. Patricius survived the assassination
plot,
and we later find Leontia mar-
ried to Anthemius'
son,
Fl.
Marcianus.)188
The sources claim that Leo was
trying
to induce
Aspar
to remain
loyal,
while modern scholars attribute the elevation of Patricius to
pres-
80Dating: Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 264-65,
though
others date this incident to
466,
e.g., PLRE, II,
167. See also
Burns, Ostrogoths,
54-55.
'sAspar
is said to have advised
against
the
expedition
(he had commanded the
expedition
defeated in
431), and,
according
to Scott
("Aspar," 65-66),
could have had the command if he wanted it. For
Aspar's
advice as the cause for
failure, see,
e.g.,
Theod.
Anagn.
HE
25;
Procopius, History of
the
Wars, III.vi.2, 3, 11,
13-16.
Jones (LRE, I, 222)
attributes the defeat to Basiliscus'
incompetence. Cf,
on the
question
of
Aspar's
collusion, PLRE, II,
496-99
(Geisericus);
C.
Courtois,
Les Vandales et
l'Afrique (Paris, 1955), 200-205,
esp.
202
n.
2; Bachrach, Alans,
47 and n.
55; Demandt,
"Der
Kelch,"
114-15
(Ardabur
=
Anonymous
110
[PLRE, II,
1235]
and also
accompanied Basiliscus).
"82The
dating given
here
may
be off
by
a
year;
cf.
Demandt,
"Magister
Militum,"
773-74,
and PLRE,
II, 1201.
83
Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 263-65.
(One
of the DOP
anonymous readers, however,
interprets
Sidon-
ius,
Carm.
2.377,
as "no more than some kind of
diplomatic contact.")
84PLRE,
II, 75-76
(Anagastes).
For Ardabur to
blame,
B.
Croke,
"The Date of the 'Anastasian
Long
Wall'
in Thrace GRBS 23
(1982),
65. For reason for
assassination,
Kaegi, Byzantine Military Unrest, 26.
'85Above,
note 129. Also
Jones, LRE, I, 221-22; Wolfram,
History of
the
Goths, 259-60 and 265
(Aspar's
second in
command,
a
Hun,
defeats Hunnic-Gothic
forces).
Invasion dated to 469:
Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 768;
see also 764f for Ardabur's defeat of the Gothic
king Bigelis
under Zeno's command in
467-468.
'86E.
W.
Brooks,
"The
Emperor
Zenon and the
Isaurians,"
EHR 30
(1893), 214; Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 767-68; Croke,
"The
Date," 65-66.
Jones (LRE, I, 222)
attributes the
mutiny
to Zeno's
unpopular-
ity
rather than
Aspar's
"machinations."
According
to Heather
(Goths and
Romans, 255),
Ardabur tried to use
Anagastes
to kill
Zeno,
but
(p. 263) Anagastes
was won over
by
Zeno.
187Possibly
A.D. 470:
Brooks,
"Emperor Zenon," 213-14; PLRE, II, 842
(lulius
Patricius
15).
A.D. 468:
Demandt,
"Magister Militum," 772; Seeck, Geschichte, VI,
369.
"'PLRE, II,
667
(Leontia 1);
she was thirteen in 470.
Demandt,
"Magister
Militum,"
772, 774; married
to Marcianus in
471-472; PLRE, II,
717-18
(Fl.
Marcianus
17).
182
ROCHELLE SNEE
sure from
Aspar.l89
In either
case,
it is worth
noting
that Caesars were unusual after
Constantius
II;
designated
heirs were more
normally co-opted
as
Augusti.
Leo, however,
made an
exception:
he first
appointed
Anthemius Caesar and
only
when he reached
Rome had him declared
Augustus.190
Leo
undoubtedly
had no intention that Patricius would succeed
him,
but the incident
must be viewed as a concession to the still
powerful
Ardaburs. To
judge
from the account
in the
Life of
Marcellus of the
popular
riot in the
hippodrome,
Patricius'
appointment
as
Caesar and
imperial marriage
were taken
seriously by
monks,
clergy,
and a
frequently
barbarophobe population.'19
The focus of the
riot, however,
was not
ethnicity
but reli-
gion. Significantly,
Patriarch Gennadius and the archimandrite of the Akoimetoi
(Sleep-
less
Ones), Marcellus,
stirred
up popular
reaction
against
the Arian Patricius. To what
extent
might
this have been the
design
of
Leo?l92
Certainly
the disastrous fire of 465 and the recent failure of the massive
expedition
against
the Vandals
hardly put
Leo in a
good light
with the
populace,
nor for that matter
did his
courting
of the Isaurians.
93
Aspar,
on the other
hand,
seems to have
enjoyed
considerable
popular
favor. His
construction,
in
459,
of the
great
cistern that still stands
near the Sultan Selim
mosque
must have
provided employment
for
many.
94
Tradition
records his active role in
combating
the fire of 465
(Leo
fled
Constantinople
for six
months).195
Leo's murder of the Ardaburs
gained
him the
epithet
"Macelles"
(the
Butcher).
96
Blaming Aspar
for the failure of the North African
campaign
and
"setting
up"
the Ardaburs for a
popular
attack on their Arianism reflect the
complex
maneuver-
ing
that characterized these
years.
The
Life of
Marcellus
(chap.
34: ed.
Dagron, 316-18)
records that
Leo,
Aspar,
and
Ardabur resolved to end their
potentially mutually
destructive
enmity by conferring
the
rank of Caesar on Patricius and
marrying
him to Leo's
daughter.
This
arrangement,
we
are
told,
disturbed the Church because an Arian
might
succeed to the throne. The
Life
of
Marcellus
emphasizes
that
Aspar
and his entire
family
were afflicted with the
"pagan
madness of Arius"
(?Xr,vtiKc
'ApeioiT Ravia).
The Christian
(i.e., orthodox) people
and
189E.g., Evagr.
Parmentier, 66; Heather,
Goths and
Romans, 255; Demandt,
"Magis-
ter
Militum," 771;
Jones,
LRE, I, 222.
'90Jones, LRE, I, 323. Leo acted
similarly
with his
grandson
Leo II who was
proclaimed
Caesar in October
473 and
Augustus shortly
before Leo's death in
early
474:
PLRE, II,
664-65
(Leo 7).
'91G.
Dagron,
ed.,
"La Vie Ancienne de saint Marcel l'Acemete," AB 86
(1968),
316-18
(chap. 34).
On the
popular uprising against
Gainas and his Gothic followers in
400,
cf.
Liebeschuetz,
Barbarians and
Bishops,
111-31,
and
Cameron, Barbarians, 199-223,
316-36. Anti-Germanism would
appear sporadic
and
unorga-
nized. It also cut across class lines:
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
24.
192Cf.
(briefly)
Bachrach, Alans,
48.
193
Unpopularity
of Zeno and the Isaurians:
Bury,
LRE, I, 389-90;
Blockley, Fragmentary Classicizing
Histori-
ans,
80-81
(on Malchus).
'94Cistern of
Aspar: Janin,
316; Beck, "GroBstadt-Probleme," 10;
C.
Mango,
Le
developpement
urbain de
Constantinople (IVe-VIIe siecles) (Paris, 1985),
49. In this
period,
the
popularity
of build-
ing projects
is best illustrated
by Cyrus
of
Panopolis,
for whose meteoric rise and fall see
Holum,
Theodosian
Empresses,
189-91. Cf.
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
142. For the stele
depicting
an
equestrian Aspar bearing
a lance
set
up
near the Forum
Tauri,
see
above,
p.
177.
195Aspar
is said to have
paid
citizens to form a bucket
brigade: Bury,
LRE, I, 332; PLRE, II,
167. For
Leo,
see
Life of
Daniel the
Stylite, chaps.
45-46,
in Three
Byzantine Saints,
trans. E. Dawes and N. H.
Baynes (Oxford,
1948),
33-34 and 79 n.
196PLRE, II, 664; Scott,
"Aspar,"
63;
cf.
Heather,
Goths and
Romans, 236-37. See also
Berger, Patria,
515-16.
183
clergy
met at
Hagia Sophia
and from there went to the
hippodrome,
led
by
Patriarch
Gennadius and the archimandrite Marcellus who had come into town from his monas-
tery (the Irenaion,
across the
Bosphorus) specifically
for this
purpose.197
There
they
in-
tended to affirm the orthodox faith and to
ready
the
emperor
for action-not unwill-
ingly-against
his
oppressors, Aspar
and Ardabur. The
patriarch
surrounded
by clergy,
and Marcellus
by
monks
(with
an
angel
on his
left),
took their stand in the middle of the
hippodrome
in front of the
imperial
box and shouted for
hours, K)pti?
??X?TGov.
They
asked that the Caesar be orthodox or
give up
his
title,
and that he not
marry
the
daugh-
ter of the
emperor.
Marcellus
encouraged
the
crowd,
saying
that the
emperor
would
defeat his
powerful
enemies
(Marcellus
had earlier
prophesied
the Ardaburs' assassina-
tion). Leo,
in rather
vague
terms
(Kai
x
^
iqgl TX atwca
z^tiv CgtopZ?k)6[?90a),
said he was of
one accord with their
thinking. According
to the
Life of
Marcellus,
shortly
thereafter Arda-
bur,
Aspar,
and Patricius met their end: the lion
(Leo)
swallowed the
snake.l98
The author of the
Life of
Marcellus,
a monk of the
monastery
of the
Akoimetoi,
was
writing
toward the middle of the sixth
century,199
at a
point
not too far removed from
the events he describes.
Popular
demonstrations in the
hippodrome
were a feature of
the
age,
and it has been
suggested
that formulaic chants indicate considerable
organiza-
tion.200 That
emperor, patriarch,
and monastics act in concert on a
"religious"
issue was
not the
norm.20'
One
suspects choreography.
Leo had
long
been
working
to rid himself
of the Ardaburs:
Zeno,
though avoiding Constantinople,
was still active as
magister
militum
per
Orientem,
and is said to have
helped
in the assassination
plot
from Chalcedon where
he had stationed his Isaurian
troops;202
Heraclius
(comes
rei
militaris?)
was recalled from
Libya
and was on hand in 471 in
anticipation
of the Gothic revolt after the Ardaburs'
murder.203 We have no evidence for Gennadius' relations with the
Alans,
but the
Life of
197The Akoimetoi inhabited one of the most
important
monasteries in
Constantinople;
Marcellus was
hege-
mon ca. 448-484. See
J. Pargoire,
"Ac6metes," in DACL 1
(Paris, 1924), 315-21;
Dagron,
"Les moines et la
ville," 231-38; and,
most
recently, J.-M. Baguenard,
Les moines acemetes: Vies des saints
Alexandre,
Marcel
etJean
Calybite (Maine-et-Loire, 1988),
123-42.
'98In a
dream,
Marcellus saw a lion harassed
by
a
serpent eventually gulp
it down and
predicted
the
downfall of Ardabur and his father (Vita Marcelli,
chap.
33: ed.
Dagron,
"La Vie
Ancienne," 314).
On the lion
prophecy,
cf.
Demandt,
"Der
Kelch," 111,
and
Scharf,
"Der
Kelch," 215-16.
'99Dagron,
"La Vie
Ancienne," 276-79;
he bases his
dating
in
part
on the curious fact that the Life does
not mention Marcellus' contest with the
Monophysite Eutyches
between 448 and
451,
and
suggests
this
reflects the climate of the
period
after the monks'
papal
condemnation for Nestorianism in 534
through
the
attempts
of
Justinian
and his immediate successors to reconcile the
Monophysites. Baguenard,
Les moines
acemetes, 124-25,
repeats Dagron's arguments.
See also
Dagron,
"Les moines et la ville,"
237,
and
Pargoire,
"Acemetes,"
319.
200In
general,
on
popular
demonstrations in this
period,
see Av.
Cameron,
The Mediterranean World in Late
Antiquity,
A.D. 395-600
(London, 1993),
171-74. See
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
104
(formulaic
slogans),
116
(orga-
nized
demonstrations),
130
(another
instance of
kyrie eleison).
201
E.g.,
Leo had to force Gennadius to ordain Daniel
Stylites,
Delehaye,
"Les Saints
stylites,"
38-39.
Gregory,
Vox
Populi,
109
(supporting Dagron's
thesis that
usually
in
Constantinople
monks
and
clergy clashed), 112;
Dagron,
"Les moines et la ville," 274 n.
222,
aware that the
hippodrome
scene
contradicts his
thesis,
lays emphasis
on the fact
that,
though acting
in
concert,
the
patriarch
and the archi-
mandrite had their own
"troops."
202Demandt,
"Magister Militum," 773; Heather,
Goths and
Romans, 274.
203PLRE, II, 541-42
(Heraclius 4);
Blockley, Fragmentary Classicizing Historians, 171;
cf. W. E.
Kaegi Jr.,
Byzantium
and the Decline
of
Rome
(Princeton, N.J., 1968), 40,
and E M.
Clover,
"Leo I's War
of
A.D. 470
against
the
Vandals,"
BSCAbstr 2
(1976), 2-3,
who
argues
that the disaster of the 468
campaign
was
exaggerated
in
the
sources,
while the
campaign
of 470 achieved some success but had to be recalled before the showdown
with
Aspar.
184
ROCHELLE SNEE
Marcellus tells of a confrontation between Ardabur and the Akoimetoi
(chap.
32: ed. Da-
gron, 314-16).
A certain
John
who had offended Ardabur took
refuge
at the
monastery
(the emperor
was
powerless against
the
Ardaburs).
The valiant Marcellus refused to hand
over
John,
and
eventually
a miraculous
apparition-a
crown of fire with a cross in the
center-frightened
Ardabur's
soldiers,
and he
gave up
the
siege.
This dramatic
story
hints at the
hostility
between the Ardaburs and the
Akoimetoi,
and
Gennadius,
we
know,
showed favor to the
monks,
allowing
some of them to take
up
residence in
Constantinople
at the
newly
founded Stoudios monastery.204 Whatever the ecclesiastics'
precise
motiva-
tion,
they
were
clearly ready
to lend the wir combined
weight
in
swaying popular opinion
against
the Alans.205
Without
question,
the
family
of
Aspar
was debarred from the
purple
because of its
Arian faith.206 And
again,
without
question, Aspar recognized
this. Rather than
aspiring
to the throne
himself,
he
preferred
to maintain his
military power;207 remaining
Arian
was an
important
link with his
power
base,
the Germanic
peoples.
For Patricius there
were no such concerns.
Clearly,
the status of Caesar and son-in-law of the
emperor-if
it
were to be taken at all
seriously-required
conversion to "Chalcedonian"
orthodoxy.
There was
contemporary precedent
for Arians
converting
in order to win
imperial
favor
and
promotion,
for
example,
Jordanes,
Ardabur's immediate successor as
magister
militum
per
Orientem.208 Modern scholars treat Patricius' conversion as
fact,209
though,
as Demandt
points
out,
there is no evidence for this in the sources.210 But there is a
hint,
however
distorted,
in Cedrenus that Patricius was at least
contemplating
this
necessary step.
Ac-
cording
to the
twelfth-century
historian
(PG 121:668A),
in 469 when Patricius was made
Caesar he was sent to Alexandria because he led
Aspar away
from the Arian sect and
made him
pleasing
to the
emperor.
I need not dwell on the
improbability
of this
highly
curious
trip
to
Alexandria;
what is
important
is the "confirmation" of what otherwise
must be inferred: Patricius' renunciation of Arianism and the fact that such a conversion
was not
pleasing
to Leo.
Whether or not Patricius' decision to convert was the result of the
hippodrome
scene
or not is
impossible
to
say.
The Vita
Marcelli,
as noted
earlier,
is
very vague
about
any
result other than the Ardaburs' assassination. Most
likely,
the
hippodrome
scene
repre-
sents Leo's efforts to
play
a final
card,
the Alans' Arianism.211 Not to be outdone fits well
204Theod.
Anagn.
HE 17: PG
86:173B;
Bury,
LRE, I, 386,
and
Pargoire, "Acemetes," 316-18, 320-21,
emphasize
that this did not make the Studites Akoimetoi. The latter were monks of a
monastery,
not an order.
205The Akoimetoi had a
long history
of
rioting: (A.D.
426 over
Nestorius) Life of Daniel,
trans. Dawes and
Baynes,
75
n.; Cameron,
The Mediterranean
World, 64; (518
over the
Henoticon) Beck,
"The
Early Byzantine
Church," 435;
Pargoire,
"Acemetes,"
319; (533-534
over the
Theopaschite doctrine) Bury,
LRE, I, 376;
Stallman-Pacitti,
Cyril,
64 n.
50,
86-88
(related
riot in 512 over the
wording
of the
Trisagion).
The Akoimetoi
were Antiochene Chalcedonians.
206Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 770,
argues against
their race as a
barrier;
cf.
Dagron, Naissance, 208.
207Demandt,
"Magister Militum,"
770-71.
208PLRE, II, 620-21
(Fl.
Jordanes
3).
209E.g., Dagron,
"Les moines et la
ville," 237 n.
49; PLRE, II, 842.
2'0Demandt,
"Magister
Militum," 772.
211Malalas,
Chronikon 14: PG 97:553B
(cf.
Chron.
Pasch.,
PG
92:828A) says
that Leo forbade churches and
gatherings
to the Exakionite Arians after the execution of
Aspar
and Ardabur.
(I
am
grateful
to Frank M.
Clover for this reference and other advice and
assistance.)
"Exakionite"
appears
to be a term of derision for
Eudoxian
Arians,
in this
period primarily
Goths. Cf.
Lampe,
491
('E4acKtovifTr)
and 501
(4oucK6vTrot;),
and
see
Theodoret, Haereticarum Fabularum
Compendium
4.3: PG 83:42 iB;
Chron.
Pasch.,
PG 92:845A.
185
186 GREGORY NAZIANZEN'S ANASTASIA CHURCH
with
everything
else we know about
Aspar,
and the donation to the Anastasia in the
general
context of
vying
for
popular
favor and the
specific
context of Patricius' imminent
conversion
may
find a
plausible
historical
explanation.
The
pageantry
of the
depositio
(made
even more
poignant
if the Ardaburs did
supply
the
relics),
the oikonomos Marcian's
gratitude
for the ecclesiastical
vessels,
the Gothic
language
in a famous shrine to Ni-
caea,212
all this must have
provided
Leo with
yet
another
compelling
reason to
play
his
final card-murder.
Pacific Lutheran
University
212The Anastasia seems to have had a
dwindling congregation (see above,
note
157). Marcian,
having
made the churches
fiscally independent, may
well have
expected
an increase in revenue with the Anastasia
welcoming
its Gothic
neighbors.
The "Dialogue of the Monk and Recluse Moschos concerning the Holy Icons", An Early
Iconophile Text
Author(s): Alexander Alexakis
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:18
The
Dialogue
of
the Monk and Recluse Moschos
concerning
the
Holy Icons,
An
Early Iconophile
Text
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
T n this
study
I discuss in detail a text that has
gone
unnoticed for
many
centuries,
despite
its
significance
for the
history
of
Iconophile
literature. The
study
is divided
into four
parts:
a brief introduction followed
by
the editio
princeps
of the
text,
an
English
translation with notes and
commentary,
and a
concluding
discussion. Since I
initially
approached
the text from a
philological point
of
view,
much of the relevant historical
information is contained here in the notes to the translation.
The
Dialogue of
Moschos
appears
to be a record of an actual or a fictitious discussion
written as
early
as the second third of the fifth
century
AD. It is clear that this text is a
purported dialogue
between an orthodox monk and a Sabbatian Christian.
Historical,
stylistic,
and other internal evidence
(presented mainly
in the notes to the
translation)
point
to a date of
composition
not far removed from the death of
Sabbatios,
the founder
of the Sabbatian sect
(d.
after
413).
The
arguments
in the text in favor of or
against
the
veneration of created
things
are not
original.
I have
attempted
to trace them to earlier
patristic
sources and to
place
them as
accurately
as
possible among
the
products
of Ico-
nophile
intellectual evolution. I have also tried to establish the
presence
of
particular
words
appearing
in the
dialogue
in other texts earlier than the fifth
century.
I
suggest
that,
no matter how
unoriginal
the text's
argumentation
is,
the author must have been
the
first,
or at least one of the
first,
"pre-Iconophile"
believers to
put
these
arguments
together
in order to formulate a somewhat coherent
(though unsophisticated
and
"primi-
tive")
defense of the veneration of created
things.
Most of these
arguments
were
adopted
by
the later
apologists
of the sixth to
eighth
centuries and were
repeated,
either
partially
or in
slightly
altered
form,
or further
developed
in the
anti-Jewish dialogues
of that
pe-
riod. This
study
concludes with a reexamination of
early iconophobic
attitudes
among
At Dumbarton Oaks and at Columbia
University
I had the
opportunity
to consult with
many colleagues
apart
from those mentioned in the footnotes. I would like to thank Vincent
Deroche,
Cyril Mango,
the late
Alexander
Kazhdan,
Alice-Mary
Talbot,
Henry Maguire,
David
Olster,
Theodora
Antonopoulou,
Lee E
Sherry,
Peter
Hatlie,
Margaret
Mullett,
Claudia
Rapp,
and an
anonymous
reader. I also wish to thank
Roger
Bagnall,
Alan
Cameron,
James
Rives,
and Elizabeth Castelli of the "Late
Antique Society"
at Columbia Uni-
versity.
Thanks are also due to Frances
Kianka,
Leslie MacCoull, and
Olga
Grushin for their
editing
and
proofreading,
and to Victoria Erhart and Mark
Zapatka
of the
Byzantine Library.
It
goes
without
saying
that
I owe much to their
erudition,
but I alone am
responsible
for
any
mistakes and inaccuracies.
THE DIALOGUE OF THE MONK AND RECLUSE MOSCHOS
Christians, especially among
Sabbatians and
Novatians,
and a
comparison
of the
Dialogue
of
Moschos to later
Iconophile
literature.
Note that I use the terms
Iconophile(s), iconophoby,
and other related words in a some-
what broader sense than usual. These terms became
prominent during
the
eighth
cen-
tury,
when the discussion focused on
image
veneration.
However,
in the
early period
the
debate moved
along traditionally
Old Testament lines and touched on the
prohibition
against
the veneration of created
things
in
general
and not
only
icons. One should there-
fore bear in mind that
by
these terms I
usually
refer to all
types
of veneration of created
things.
Note also the use of
square
brackets in two distinct contexts: in the critical edition
of the text
they
indicate a
sequestered
word or
words;
in the translation
they
are used to
denote insertion of additional words.
I. INTRODUCTION
Codex Parisinus
graecus
1115
(P), copied by
Leo Kinnamos in 1276 from a manu-
script
of the
papal library
in Rome that dated to
774/5,1 preserves
on fols. 278-80 a
fragment
from a
seemingly
much more extensive
dialogue
between an orthodox Chris-
tian named Moschos and an
unspecified
heretic. This
fragment
is not known from
any
other
manuscript
source and
occupies
a
place
toward the end of an enormous
Iconophile
florilegium
that covers folios 235v-283v of P. No scholar has ever
paid
attention to this
work
apart
from
J.
Gouillard,
who described the
dialogue
as a text "d'une rare
plati-
tude."2 On another
occasion,
Gouillard
suggested
that the author of the
dialogue
had
"pillaged"
a letter written
by Pope Gregory
II to Patriarch Germanus I ca. 730.3 This
implied
that the
dialogue
was a work of the Iconoclast
period and,
more
specifically,
of
the second Iconoclasm.4 As we shall
see,
this is not the case.
The
manuscript
in which the text is found
preserves
a
fragment
full of Old Testament
quotations, including
at least one Talmudic
reference,
that
mainly
deal with the
prohibi-
tion
against venerating
manmade
objects.
It is
evident, however, that the
original
com-
piler
of the
Iconophile florilegium
did not
merely
extract the
appropriate fragments
from the
dialogue,
but included in his
excerpt
some
parts
that are not relevant to the
subject.
So the discussion on
image
veneration is
preceded by
two or three sentences
informing
us that the heretical
opponent
of Moschos does not
accept
the
repentance
of
lapsed
Christians
(lines
3-5 of the text
below).
In
addition, the
fragment
ends with a
'For this
manuscript seeJ. Munitiz, "Le Parisinus Graecus 1115:
Description
et
arriere-plan historique,"
Scriptorium
36
(1982), 51-67,
who has
questioned
the
validity
of the information contained in the
colophon
of P. The same
opinion
has also been
supported by
K.-H.
Uthemann, "Ein
Beitrag
zur Geschichte der Union
des Konzils von
Lyon (1274): Bemerkungen
zum Codex Parisinus
gr.
1115
(Med. Reg. 2951)," AnnHistCon
13
(1981),
27-49. For the
dating given here, see A.
Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its
Archetype,
DOS 34
(Washington, D.C., 1996), 254-55.
2J.
Gouillard,
"Lhere'sie dans
l'Empire byzantin
des
origines
au XIIe siecle," TM 1
(1965), 311.
3j. Gouillard,
'Aux
origines
de l'iconoclasme: Le
temoignage
de
Gregoire
II?" TM 3
(1968), 244. It is
interesting
that this letter is also transmitted
by
P on fols. 281v-283v, and the
fragment
from the
dialogue
is
found on fol. 283.
4The occurrence of the name Sabbatios in the text has
decidedly
contributed to that
assumption (see lines
123, 124,
and
127,
where the two
opponents speak
about the relic of
Sabbatios). Sabbatios has been identified
with a monk of that name who in 813 advised Leo V the Armenian to restore Iconoclasm (see Theophanes
Continuatus,
Bonn
ed., 27-28).
188
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
vague
allusion
by
Moschos to the relics of a certain Sabbatios that have never
produced
any
cure;
to this the heretic retorts that Moschos' statement cannot be
proven.
The
frag-
ment ends
abruptly
with Moschos' claim that he can offer information on the issue.
It is
impossible
to establish the
author, date,
or
place
of
origin
of this
fragment,
but
in
many aspects
the work resembles the
dialogues
between Christians and
Jews
that first
appear
in the seventh century.5 It
might
be even earlier
because,
as will become
evident,
both
parties support
their
arguments exclusively
on the basis of
Holy Scripture.
The text
contains no references to
patristic
literature on the veneration of manmade
objects,
de-
spite
the fact that this is a
"dialogue"
between Christians.
5See V.
Deroche,
"La
polemique antijudaique
au VIe et au
VIIe
s.: Un memento
inedit,
les
Kephalaia,"
TM 11
(1991),
275-311.
189
II. TEXT
Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115
(fol. 278) AtdXoyo7
M6%ooV Lova'oi Kaoi
iyKX?ifTo'ou cp6O
tva
CZEPi ?iKOV(CV yitov.
Mema
TcoXXiv
86 Tiv
&t6XE4Sv, ?(r
7p6O
;
6Ov
IEX&yETo
0
E?iPtRLEVO; LUOvaXoC 'HKODa;
tI
yp? 6
d7
6oTOOOS; rlaXoS
Tn
?KKXralxTa Tf ppaxTcRIag?vl
T6S
OwV 6(V
TiV
Le?Td-
votav
oD
8n,
ijv 6
Kiptos; 7poo6?X?Ta1 ; Tav riv oUv gi
?XO%I?IVO
GOV
O86?v
ii) 2o
5
(aiv?e
i t
v
divTvogo0e9Tv
Txc
XptiOT."
Axo5S; 6
?rl
"Tg6 Ov
KcaTryop?i Xologdv ti?p[
COV OK?&T?1
CE pOK)V?EiV
?iKOVCOV
Kai
a0CixoV
TIVoV X
?Y?l Yp ozTo(; iAXov CTKOltOV
K ài
6otS2
Uav
e4UVKi6 <Xla3cov> `yXvylev3
?v
ijUeXeaia
<&pyia5>
aivToi-
. . .
ei-
KaoEv3 avTo
etiKcov av0p(0oov ir
fOC)p
Ttvi
<E'V?Ei> CUOi)aev3
aViT KaTapifaac4
[aDo6t] LiXZuTp
Kai
fVK1E5 p)QvOivaS6 xpoav aTovi
Kaica noaav
Kiit8a7 t'rv ?v
aT6jiZ Ka-
10
TaXpi f8[]uaS9
Kai or iracS9 avaxo
<avTizo>
a4Lov ot'icrgua, EiOrpKev3
av6To0 ev
tofi%p a-
a(paXiacwusvoSq1 ai5rjpco. iva
<,I?V ovv>
pjII
KaTawawr
wpoevo6aev3 [y&p]
a'Tov
Ei6
512
oT. d6Vva?i ?avTz
pootQuavl
Kcai
yap
EaTIv
E?iKtcv
Kai
%peiav
e%e
p
t3o?Oia. irepi
6i
iCKTriraTCov avzo13
Kai
ya,cov
K I
TECKVCV cpoaEvpXopevo1"
OVK
aiuVa5vezat4
T'
aivX()
npoaraov15.
. .
[Kai]
7repi
<6e>
ois;
TO
z V?KpOpV 130.-186 5id; O
fV
SiKOVI
Vc?I.;
npoo-
15
KWvCUTe, TOIatZa a'KO6OVT?; Tapa XOXOgCOVT0;,, Klai 7axtv
X?yOVT0o
a5'TO
'gil ntpoa-
K2ViCTon 2favTi At%?spOOt7ioi [oit]
(fol. 278v)
ccrKatdpatov yap
Kat aViT
Kai
o6
Gol J-
6as
az6To;'" 'O
p9665o4o;
i0
"Aiat6vrvv
Kai
?VTpo7nrv iF?V?6oo
?K T5v
&irooaT6a
ov
7c?pt
g? avota;,
iKa
Vcdv [? ?VTp?V?o
6x? 0Y6 X
og60Ov. 1?pti
cV
tinac S
pdCav,Opv
avxrwv
Kai
dCKOC<7?it
Kai caV.
HIXavaoa'17
iI
?ti86; Tza ypapd6a, prpUn T7v 53vvaituv a"zcv
20
oi xpi yap L6OVV
ta
ypagLaTa avayivoxbKetv,
xX Kcai
T6v
ypaovv
tv
8vagtv
yVoXIdKCeV.
AoKttLa(FV
O)tv c O rV
Tpa prLaTa Kail
ctdO
?V
ap a[[TO
Tod o0ot
[
vTO;
ir?pi TIVcOV ?ye7?t
Tauta
Kai Tvt
d&pg6Fot07
Kai i ?c ;
yeyov7Ta
?
c?Y? Kai
?i
y?y6vaa,
TiV?S
?iFcoi.-oav ?ye?d
yap- 'Taraiwcpot
<6e> Kai <Ev
v?Kpot.>
ai
[e1c6 adi.v,
oi-
TIV?&
eKado
ea v
Oeovs-
epya Xeipov &avOpcwobv,
Xpva
pypov
Kai apyvpov
T??Vi epivE-
25 X?TTri ,a Kiai aTiK6cLaTa
vO."v8
'hKovuoaS;
TI
tiE-
gI
yap
?
70i
a6o
Xpx0oi5 i 6p-
yVpo-
?X
KcKEua
oCCov,
TOTTtI
t
"uXo v aov XV
XOpiP
Kai
7cpO?K)vr|a a5t6;
Elta itXtv
X7yei OXO|Lt"V
TO 3f
&eiponoftriov EmtKaTapaTov
f[cai
aivt
Kal
6
moti7aa avio,
OTt
O6
{lV eipyda To,
TO'
i
O0apTov <Qeo6> aovoyakdOrp
?v iao yap
ialsfiy
0e6
Kai 6
&ac3&ov
Kai i
dacoef3ta aviTov ..
19
'Apyq
yap nopveiac
Eimvota
ei&6Xcov.'
Ei?e
oVv,
30
T1i; ?7c6pvE?)E?
toI5 ci&Xoit5 _i
y
p
i?y)
?7i6pv ?ia
Kai ?Tift9X?Tr<v>
T4C
BeEX?EYCp,
3fcf. Col. 1.12-14
11
6fWisd. of Sol. 13.13-18
11
15fWisd. of Sol. 14.8
11
17 Ps. 34.26.2
11
19 cf. Matt.
22.29 1 20f cf. Acts 8.30
11
23f Wisd. of Sol. 13.10
1|
26f cf. Exod. 32.4
11
27f Wisd. of Sol.
14.8-9/12
|[
30 cf. Num. 25.3/Ps. 105.28
'cod.: 6oK?iTat
|| 2cod.: O6OK; || 3cod.:-av
II
4cod.:
Kazaxpca6gavT? |(
5cod.: uriKI | 6cod.:
?p'upadvavT?
||
7cod.: Ki?Ci6a ||
81
supra
lineam ||
9cod.:-oavTeS;
I|
cod.: al
[| I1
"cod.:-pevot || 12cod.: e?i6t05e I 13cod.:
Ca6v
||
'4cod.:-ovtal
||
5cod.:-OV5
|[|
'6cod.: T6V
VEKPOC
V
aovdoVT?;
|| '7cod.: nkaVdae || "8cod.: aeti-
KaGaa
56oou
|| '9_v
iucp-avtoiD cod.: ?v
06oo yap
te?I Ta
OeF dcOr
6f Kai Ti
'
&aope6
a az5tv
190
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
Tx ?iE6X(p; Mi yap
anT
?; D oi
rnacav eiKoaTrpEt; xXtla&iSg
v
t6 a
ri?pac;
Mi
yap
Ot-
t,
'
,
,? &v 5: ,a
,
dx6oxokog.
Elv l:
Ve??5 L?
g
tlaato ?K Ti;
6pys;;
EiTa Xoutov aKoayov
Kal tr Xouta VoXog6TvO<; 'oKc
ripKi?Ev20
TO& navda6 Oat
epi ZTV
TOy&
Oo yvorCliv, Crv2
Kati ev
jeydX0p opv&Tw wovAiqC,
dyvolag,
ooazwa
'aKac eip0jvov 2rpocayopev3ovlv, jo21 yap T?K'vo'OvovS TeLq?o
5
35 i4
KpVlta pCvTrjpta'
?T?XIoV.
A?ye
OVv g0ot, ti;
?e7otroGE
T?KVO|OVoi); t'OEXa;; Mfi yap
?ycy
iOvaTa tOia; viotS go) Kal ta&;
Ovyartpa; gO)
to01 8alpovioti; Mi
yap
E?' 90got
?EOovoKTOvijO9
ij
yij
Ev Toi;
aiulaort; MTi
Eywo
EiKOva C?T6Xa
?it;
Tbv vaov
T?xpa6op4ov
i%o0uVav ?i8oaov Kai avio v ncpo6Ktvoov;
MVu 11
P&Ai5yjiaTa ep7?Tvcv
Kal
KrT1VwV emt
T4
ToifXq
Toil vaovi
Eyo eypaFma;
Mi
yap
?LU? ?i5?V 'I?E?KITX 6
XtPOf nTpoIor; Op77vovza
40 TOV 'A6ovi Kat
Ov/uIiovTa
TpO riXic, 7?pt
ov
iX?y?
Kat 6O &t
a6GToXo;- 'aldTpevav TZT
KT6ioei capa
Tov KTziavTa;'
Mr
yap oy6v eTrla ?iKovaS
T6V 56to
Ctopv6v
?v
Ayctcp,
T1 ;
'NOo.Ka22
Kal
Ti;S
'O
i3sla,23 Kal
fpoEK.vrla atc4at;;
Mi
yf Pv Bapuhiovt
i T
Bi7Rj
71po0eK8v4GaV
;
Mi8 yap Eyz .v
1naXa oTfivn
T4
Aayiov 1
Ovaa;
Ta1r1a cKifvot; ToIt; 4cotil-
6aotv
EyKatie TakOa 'ois 'Iou8aioti; Xeyet, nepi Ov Kat
i} ypa()
geyaxo(ovoS; poat
45
noi)
yap
jv
X7Ci oXo6iVTto; iO XpitTtav0v
?KKXjroia;
O'6)8 ?'eTa %XitXa E'rn aveaTin
a&|'
ovL talTa
yeyove
Kal
eX,X9r0. fnco;
oUv
Tacza 't
TOi
XptITOi ?yKaXei(; eKKXrTaiZ,
Tfi
Lr?67coezT? EiCoO80 T?X
?63?ifg.
1i
T?KVO(fol. 279)oovfalS; 1i Kviaatl24
I 6uTisnpioLS; gtap-
Oi;
i
ri
KTI Irt
tapa
T6v
KTit(Yava (?Ypaa9T?o ti 7CpOoK1)vr(Ya6n;
nXiv
Oi6?7oT0?
oi
aipE?TlcKOt GdOvTI
TCOV
ypaoTov
ta
iicogIaTa. Odi%
I
il
ToI XpGtod Co ?KKXri(Yia
g'Ta o-
50
6aaXa ?TSr ?EiV KwovcTavTivo, TO ii6
paotX' (;a ?pv
?v t2
i 6p'i Tn
Magupfp
[lacuna] ta
Roava Toi
gtaTazioD 'At6Xovoo;5
Kai tov 1v avo
pobR?vov ntap'
'EXXiicr rIaVavio1v25
TOi) AaK?EatlgOVCOV26
Pa7X?O);
TOV
TpiTwo6a <Kai> KaT?DuGa?V alTotS;27
Kal ?KKX1GtiaV
XpioToi,
TjTOIt
vaov, (CKo566rtlo?v; Ox%I
?v
KIXIKia 'AaKX7itoio
TOV vaov Kaz'T?7anr7?
Kai
Ti8da'o?
Kai
ToD
'A5ovi
TO
?i8còov ?v
TCp nocTagcL ?p9iA?Yv; O"iVX
?v
Ad(vq| rfi
55
EvpiaQ
TO
7?ptIKax?&; avTcTov Ltaatiov
aya?Xia
Toil
'Ato6 o)vo;
KaT?KaD?av28
'i
avij
'TO
Xpitto0 ?FKKXi1oia
Kal
BapDia
Toi
ga6ptxpos;
Tov
ayicov
altoii ?2 av&owv
O9jKrlv
av?8?
t?v;
'EK?iVOI;
OVV
n7?pi TOtWCOV ?yKa?t oloXoo[i6v,
&XX Kal 6 To'toD
ltaztip
AaDi6, X?ywv(ov
'a Ei'oa T6cv EOv(bv
apyVlplov
Kai
Xpvaiov, epya XEtlpp)V avOp6wov,
aT06a EiXovuI<V> Kai oVi ai a0ovaiv, 6oOaXolV EX01ovI<V>
Kai OViK
oyiovTai,
wa e-
60
XovUa<v>
Kal OVtK
aKovovaov ,
pivag
XovuvI<v> Kai OVK
6oapav07jaovTai, xEipaq
E-
XOv)TL<V>
KaL ov
yr7iXaarjaoi0v, in6aS e%XOVat<V>
Kai ov
7UepLan7cal ovaLv, ov,
(j)(Ov]Cov-
V v V
Tzc Xdpvyyi avTSzv.
jioioot
avTcv yevoLvTo
oi
notoviovv
avTa Kai c
ravTSe
oi
7i?7iot00eT; ei
atoS
a
.
To i
6 TO`
Xplatoi ?KKXT6ilAg
SOXOL'IV
6oca
o EziXyrTai29 <yap>
4Vtov 6t'
oO
yiveTat itKatiocavir.'
AjXov
OTi
TOv
dytov TaQ1pov Xe?ye?.
65 Kat
lcnXtv AaDi86 Xyet Tfi al'fi
TOiD
Xpltrto ?VKKTigt
C '
IvO'tE KVCOV TO'p V
OEo
v pj,iV
31 cf. Num.
25.9/25.11-13/Ps. 105.30
11
32f Wisd. of Sol. 14.22-23
11
36f Ps. 105.37
11
37 Ps.
105.38.4
11
38 Ez. 8.10
11
39f cf. Ez.
8.14/8.11
11
40f Rom. 1.25
11
41f cf. Ez. 23.4f
11
42 cf. 2
Kings
17.16/Jer.
39.28-29
11
43fcf.Judg.
16.23
11
58fPs. 113.12-16 11 63fWisd. of Sol. 14.7 11 65f Ps. 98.5
20cod.: ripKcrioav 1
2cod.: ei
11
22cod.:
'Tj
o5oXL Il
23cod.:
'TiO
oiipa
II 24cod.:
Kpioat |
25cod.:-av II
26cod.:
XaKati6vegovV || 27sic, an a)?
|| 28cod.:
K1aTZ7a7EV ||
2cod.:
EX0oyEit2E
191
192 THE DIALOGUE OF THE MONK AND RECLUSE MOSCHOS
Kai
npooKvveitTE
TO)
voCKo7i()
iTxV
wO6Cv
avTov oT taytoS ?TV.'
'A7OKpfir9Tlt
OVV
o0v
o0i5 tVXIOV oTtiV 6O
GTaupO,
0)
X%?p0oCoirlTOV
KaTaGKEDaGga; 'Akkd
PfOXTIC
Tv
866av
iv
?iapF
izapa
TCoi
?
v
a
ii
TavDetvTo;
XpiaCoi- 8aigova;
yap (ya6e?&1i, V6oomV
iraTa, coiv 6t6o8G. HEpi
TOVCYCOU TOD
'5XOU
poa 1XoXogv, 5; TIpo?EtogEv,
'EXo6yrctci29a
70 i4"ov 81'
otD Yivza 8IKalOCT7vrI,
KOt 6
Aaui8-
'nrpooCKVvrjacpev
ei TOV
To6ov, oDi
iaTu7av oi
no6&E
atvoVO.'
TiVt 7iCet6(5O GOI, ri TjO
Aaxi8 K.al
loXogL6vTI; 'EKEIVOtI X?-
yoXIt 'rpo.ToKlV1ionocEv
V Gl)
Xy?It; 'gIj 7c
poK1Ivvi17;.' Eini
ODV, nO;
tPOaKDVEVi; Tti
KOlUvc0Via o0
KXal1 TI
LEyaE
GOD-Kat Ta
a-
a
xKEpotzoirYqa
KaTaGK?DKaOiaTaX -Kai
TaQJTa
7CO;S
TpooKOv1t;;
"0
yap
av
?1i7I;, CiLi
GO1
Kcai
( ?YOOU
voi6o?;.
El
Bi
Vv
i;
75
x?&po7toiftTa 7rpoGKDvrviG?t;, 7EP1i77T?i; iS;
TO
prLga ZOkojIOVTO; KaAi AaoiF8-
?it-
KazTpaTO;
nat
6
npOGKuVOV
XePpOEotUirTO;
Kal
ait?p 60K?Ci;30 a(Xob5 ?L4?EOeal ?1i;
a?DTa EC?pl?t7?a3a;."
'O 68
aTOKplt?i;S,
?
i7?V "01')
7pO0K1)VO XIpO07OlPlTOK; 7Zo0T,
aXX'
a7i?p (fol. 279v)
oi6a
86vaglv
?xovra
0OiKiv."
O 0
6p660o05o
o "Ei
d0;
686vagLv i?-
Xovta 9?iKilv 7TpO(TK)V? Kai
0ta
0yWa ?XC?t; Kai TLaS, Ti ?gol c4L
Tt
Kai
XoI6Op?It;
80
oiT o?
TiC
pooKVVO0IVTa;
'Hgci;
yap irpoaKvwvoiv
V O
oiasv
. . . oi
dApXivoi wpoo-
KicvjTai,
oi
7rV?i5iuat
Ki
aTtiKaxi
tpO
KDVOVVT?C;, nspooTp?%ovT?E; Tf
ayla
Kotvovia (T;
a6.Lxa
Toi
XptoToD 'va86etX0Fi?1G31
Kai wi v
xaptiog?Lvn Toi; 7CT0I OTJ0V ITpOoK1VOV-
gL?V
ta
axpavca C?yacla,
0
axpavra
Xoy60 ToD
O?O* 2pPOGKDKVO0UL?V Kai Tf
?iKOVI
TcOv &yicov
[LapmTpowv
ov
v/ti
Xco
i S0; epotnoilyrov,
a6Xa ToD
Ti|r9?VTto;
Kai
85
8o4aGo?vTos; tcapa O?
e TOV
TIC?pi?%X6O?VOV
?K?cI?
XapaKTfrpa?
IoLXOV yap ToD
68oa-
(o?VTO; Kai
7lpOGKDVOKLv?VOV,
7TpOGKVV?iTa.32 Kal 6
5oa^da;
aT6OV
?065;.
'EKc?IVOu;
OVV
7TpoaK)VOcO
7?pti ov
ZOXOIOV e?Y?t
'AtKaicov
<&6>
Wv%ai
?V
X?vpi
Xt0oie
Kai oi jnLi)
aynrat amiv padavoS.
E6o0av ?v
6o4aAoit dcaip6vwov
T?0vavai Kai
eXoyia6 KaiKC1)at;
i7
Eoo060 av&v Kvai ai ad<'
]iiu6y
v
ropeia tavvTpltia,
oi 6
e?ioiv
Ev
eipijvn.... 6oiya
90
[yap]
iratEvOevzeq, petyd;a
a
EiT?pyT77'0OrmovTai,
TI 6 0Q? ;
eneipacv33
3
aVTovq Kca
?Vp?V
aroi);
a4tiovq
e'avtwo
cog Xpvuov
ev
XOVV?VThpit( E60oKiLacsv aVToVi Kai
cg
6OLoKdp7roia3a34 Ovaiag 7npO7??4aTO
aVTOiV Kai Ev
K-altp EiCOaKorjIg aZTZ5v35 avaiadu-
fovIt<v>
...
Kplvo
?v
EOvrl Kai KpaVtfuOvau<v>
XaOv Kai
paulvaeoL avTzv KVplO5
Ei5 TOiV
aicivag.'
Kati matv- toi
7rneoii66vT
; Ei' aVTov
CovV4CoVuav36 dXal0?lav
95
Kai
oi
7T0Toit37
EV
aywa
J
wpooEMvorIv alor
ott
X%pPS Kai XEo5 Toi0
EKKCTtO3838
avToi.' Kai nat6tv O6
ipoti?TS;
'HTacita; iiocaf
'MaKapioi t
dvTES oi
wrTopLvovzTE aviov.'
Kai Aaui86
tepi aTc5ov rat
'Tot oia
dyiots zoit
ev Tzf
jri
azoiv 6Oaviaz oa'
v 6o
K6ptoS
rdvTa
Ta
Ei
iata aIvov ?v
aITzoi.'
Kai a xo
'ov
cr11
vvayyo
za
avay
v
oya
aVTi5v E4
aiAidzcv.'
Kai niatXitv
'
OaviaaTog
o6
OEO
?v
zoig dyioti avzoi,
o6
OEo
100
'IaparnX.'
Kati
eTpo900
'?Eioi 6e Xfav
EiTtlyjOaav
oi pi2ot
cov,
o6
OE65- liav PKpaTat-
GO9rluav ai
apxai
avizv'
6EaptOiujoaoail av'Tovq
Kai
V17nrp
&agov
nlCv%vOvtovTal.' 'O
68e
po)rT;T ZaXapiak39 tliV '"H5Et <KVplog>
6
06og
<jiov>
Kait naTvrT
; oi
aytot
70f Ps. 131.7
11
80fJohn 4.22/23
11
87fWisd. of Sol.
3.1-3/5-8
||
94fWisd. of Sol. 3.9
||
96 Isa. 30.18
(aKa6ptot
oi
tggevovT;ev avc-)
I|
97f Ps.
15.3/4
11
99fPs.
67.3611 0lOOfPs.
138.17-1811
102fZach. 14.5
2c
aCod.:
EiuOYE
iT
||
30|cod.: OKO;S ||
31cod. :-|
a
oI
32cod.:-tc I
33cod.:-5ev
|
I
34cod.:
0XoKlal3oU a |
35
cod.:
a To I 36|c
od.:
E ptoi[(TtV 3cod.:
ciKa:ot |I
38cod.:
6Oiot;
II 39cod.: 'Ho
aiaa
;
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
[ai'Toi] Liez' aVTot.'
Ka
d
a7icog; tSEitV, ?1ti TavTa
lrapay(ayo
ta ?K
Ti; 0?ia ypafis 7Z?pt
TCOV
adyiov ?ipr|F'?Va ETCEiV?t JIS?
P
IE tyoViLi?VOV O6
xpvo5. ToutoV
Tov V
ayitOV TODS
105
XapacKTipaS TnnoAu?gvo;S ?v ?iKO6t
7Cpo7KD)V?t
Katl
tLga
ii
KaOoXhKri
To)
Xptiaoo
?KKX-
ria
ev
ra6on
tn
oiKKO v
an,
EyaXvoioa ato;S
Kai
TotS 6ycovaq
avTtDv
Kai TOt;
a9OouS, Triv T?
vrletitav
Kai
aypiirvlav
Kat ?iirottav Kat amtav
wnrokovrv FiayyX-
XoX(ya
6aw
Te
ypat|cKfi; 5rl7Ysn?o(;
Katl
iToptKTr;
i
?noOeGaso;, (fol. 280)
iva Kal Ev
TOT'OL
2rX1pwo6n
6
o6oyoq
Aaui)8-
'6ocoq
av
yvO
ysvea eatpa,
vioi <oi> TxOr6-
110
jieVOI,
Kai
dvaaTijoaovTai
Kai
cirayye3Xoi3uv40
avzTa
Toif
vioiS <avTi(v>,
i'va
OacvTrai ?i
Tzv
Oebv
'
TJV
Xicf3a
aviZCTv.'
Katl
7a;
TOIVuV 2cIto;' ?yypao1
?
iayr ?so(;
Kal
Tir;
1yToptlKl; i709oET?G?(;
aLKOXcOV
wKal
p?7ncCOV, )5; s?prTat, TOV;
T?
ayoiva;
aiTOv Kal T
Iv
6go6toTT|Ta
'TOV
XapaKTinpcov a'T(5v, 8t?y?fp?Tat
?i; dvap?iav
Kalt Xov Kat 7i6Oov Kat
KKaTvl ioV ?Cai
TObV
0bV
TOt Kal aTov TV
a'Tr(v4
a
; KX<7c ?o
)V;
Katl
Ji'?piOo;
Kal
115
moutrpia; TV?xeV, P3X?7rov
gaXiiTa 86a TCOV ?Xslvavov avto)v Kal
XapaKTripc)v H9a|La-
T0oupyia;
l6?(cov
yIvogL?va;.
Ato
Riozt?i
Katl
at716O0
7poa?pXO6?gVO;
Kiai
adam6g?vo0;
at-
'TOv,
ayiatoLai
8id
Tri
?V
?|j)
Z1IT?C5,
^
?Xc
ipO5
TOV
TLLiavTa
avTov) ?0v,
8' v t
Kal
aDTot
Tb
aiT, a ?
?%?av,
giT
IrpoK(TA'uVijaVtE; Toi(; 8atglOVtiKoT; ?i8o5&?ot;
T6V
'EXivcowv.
8?
6s
7cavo)0g?vo;,
i
E?l8si ; Ta;S ypaa6S,
Tjv
atioXvrqv
Kail
?Vpo0nifv
Kal TO
120
6v?t6o;, 6in?p
?ypd(()
T0
oi; "EXktI KataXs??iv Ti n?sotg&?vn
Tot
Xpwt ot
?KKiccrix ,
KaTa TOV GOv 6
GKOTO0V ?inavay?s;. rivoXiK?
cSg
i7;t?i90uvo
?i
TO
pop?p Kpttripicq cVv
a6n Tfi npo6otn
60 ooI
8G?p?fig
Katl 7i?p Tlfi ?1S TOS;
aytiol)
aTtOt
p3Xaar|LfaS.
t Ao;
jo01t
8? TniV Gi,-v
?KKifriav a7i?a6oa6av
itOT?
8ailova; 6865 g1ot
rT-a ??iava
zaappaTio),
OV
6?pn,
OTI naO6v
KaT?KpaTTaav
v
i vo6o0S
ia6avTo. 'A'a'
ot-es atTr;
Eappatno;
125
?VXTp6(aTia6?
? K TYE
;
Grigq; Tiapoa; 7ctavr;g."
T6T?
asnoKpt0?s;
aTt 6O
aip?itKog ?b;rri
"'I8oi) 7ic?pl oXogiovTo;0 ai??e6ta;S 7ic?pl TfIVcV X?y?t
TO
zigl
7npoGKVV?)V
WTo68?%Xogat.
rIfpi
8?
Sappa'Tio 6aval7c66?KTOo
v
Tnpa&y[a gil pO?V?yKVnS." 'O 68?
?i
Eyr "'Ey
oY? Kai
C?plt
TOVTCOV
7ijrpoOop65
..."
104 Heb. 11.32
|1
109 cf.
John
12.38
11
109f Ps. 77.6-7
40cod.: dvao- I
41
cod.: ul'&iv
193
III. TRANSLATION
Dialogue
between
Moschos,
Monk and
Recluse,6
and
[an anonymous
interlocutor]
concerning
the
Holy
Icons7
After much
discussion,
the aforementioned monk said to
[the man]
with whom he
was
talking:
"You have heard what the
apostle
Paul wrote to the
baptized
Church; there-
fore,
how is it that
you
do not
accept
the
repentance
that the Lord
accepts?
If
you
refuse
to
accept
it,
you appear
to be
doing nothing
but
legislating
in
opposition
to Christ."8
And he
responded:
"Solomon accuses
you
for what
you
seem to be
worshiping, [that
is], images/icons
and other
things;
for he
says:
A crooked
piece of
wood
andfull of
knots <he
took and> carveth it with the
diligence of
his idleness .. he
giveth
it the semblance
of
the
image of
a
man,
or maketh it like some
paltry
animal,
smearing
it with
vermilion,
and with
paint coloring
it
red,
and
smearing every
stain
that is
therein; And
having
made
for
it a chamber
worthy ofit,
he setteth it
in a
wall,
and maketh it
fast
wth iron. In order
therefore
that it
may
not
fall,
he taketh
thoughtfor
it;
knowing
that it is unable to
help itself; (for
verily
it is an
image,
and hath need
of help;)
and when he
maketh his
prayerfor
his
goodss andfor
his
marriage
and
children,
he is not ashamed to
speak
to that
which hath no
life;
... and
for life
he beseecheth that which is dead.'9 How is
it, then,
that
you
6The name
Mo6XoS
is not
widely
attested;
apart
from the famous author of the Pratum
spirituale,
we do
not know of
many
other monks
by
that name. The
M6oXoS
of the
dialogue
cannot be identified.
For the monastic
practice
of enkleismos
("seclusion"
or
"enclosure"),
attested from the 4th
century,
see ODB
1:699-700;
see also I. Pena, P. Castellana,
and R.
Fernandez,
Les reclus
syriens (Milan, 1980)
and the relevant
entry (reclus)
in DACL 14.2:2149-59
by
H.
Leclercq. Already by
the 5th
century
enkleistoi were to be found
throughout
the late Roman
Empire,
from
Egypt
to
Constantinople
to the West
(DACL 14.2:2152).
7Apparently
this title and
part
of the
opening
line cannot be
original:
the
fragment
does not deal exclu-
sively
with
"holy
icons,"
and the entire
dialogue
touches
upon
other issues as well. The first words of the
dialogue
also seem to be an addition
by
the hand of the
person
who
excerpted
the
original
text. These words
make the
abrupt beginning
of the text a little less awkward.
8These lines
give
the first basic
point
of dissent between the two discussants: the
rejection
on the
part
of
Moschos'
opponent
of the
repentance
of
lapsed
Christians. This allows for an initial
narrowing
of the
possi-
bilities
concerning
the confessional
identity
of Moschos'
opponent.
It is
generally
known that in the
early
Church one
sect,
the Novatians or
Katharoi,
had been notorious for
refusing
to readmit the
lapsi
of the
persecutions
of Decius
(A.D. 250-251)
and for its strict attitude toward
any
sin committed after
baptism.
See
Epiphanius, Panarion, II, 363.13-364.4; Socrates, HE,
PG
67:537A-541A;
H.
J. Vogt,
Coetus Sanctorum: Der
Kirchenbegriff
des Novatian und die Geschichte seiner
Sonderkirche,
Theophaneia
20
(Bonn, 1968), 57-83, 115-21,
139-68;
T E.
Gregory,
"Novatianism: A
Rigorist
Sect in the Christian Roman
Empire," ByzSt
2.1
(1975),
2-4.
The
Sabbatians,
an offshoot of the Novatians
an,
held the same
rigorist
views. See
Socrates, HE,
PG 67:621A-
625A, 745B-748A, 757c-760c; Sozomen, HE, 327.8-329.8, 348.9-349.20;
Vogt,
Coetus
Sanctorum, 245-48;
Gregory,
"Novatianism,"
13ff. On the issue of
repentance
these two sects
appear together
in the
following
passage
from the De Trinitate
I, attributed to
Didymus
the Blind:
fIp6;S tox;To; Xaapev ovouoiav (i.e.,
Peter the
Apostle), LtaUXov
5E
Kat iadvtEc;
i'
amov,
iT
dayopevitv
TOt; nTatcouotv, da
5
6XXE(G9at [ ?TavooLVTa;. O1J6?i ;
yap dvaudpTnroS;,
ei ti
6
xa'Tmv 7n1rxp?'aSr
TO1
?Tpq
TV
aV66evTeiav, toVo yrp crTctV "O ecv DxT?iiTa
7iiX yiSt, eo at
2?cXeURIvov ?v TOt;
Oupav6O;."
Eipptyfiv
KwTOTr T?rv NavaTov Kati appaTiov adiavOp(ofav. (Honscheid,
Didymus,
204.17-206.19;
the work dates from the
period
397-398
[ibid., 5]
and offers the earliest written attestation
of Sabbatios
[ibid.,
207 n.
2].
See also
Vogt,
Coetus
Sanctorum, 247).
Concerning
the New Testament
passage
presented by
Moschos in order to refute the thesis of his
opponent,
I have
proposed
Col.
1.12-14,
but one
cannot be sure of the contents of the
missing part
of the
dialogue.
There are a number of relevant biblical
passages
cited in
chap.
30 of the De Trinitate
I,
but Col. 1.12-14 seems to be the most
appropriate (cf.
Hon-
scheid, Didymus, 204.18-206.23).
9This is a
very
unusual
passage
for a
non-Iconophile
to use in
beginning
a
disputation
on the
subject
of
image worship.
The issue
crops up
in some
dialogues
between Christians and
Jews
or between Christians
194
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
worship
an
image, although you
have heard such words from Solomon and
[although]
again
he
says:
'Thou shalt not
worship any
idol made with
hands,
for it is
accursed,
itself
and he that made it' "?10
The orthodox said: "On the issue of
repentance you
have been clothed with shame and
dishonor
by
the
apostles,
and now Solomon is
going
to embarrass
you.
For
you
are
going
to hear about the
very
same words that
you
mentioned.
"Ye do
err,
not
knowing
the
Scriptures,
nor their
power;
for it is
necessary
not
only
to read
the
letters,
but also to understand the
meaning
of the
Scriptures.
Let us
test, therefore,
the words and let us learn from Solomon himself what he said these
[words] about,
and
to whom these
[words] apply,
and if he
spoke
them of events that did
occur,
and if
[what
Solomon
spoke
about]
has
happened,
who were the
agents;
for he
says:
'But miserable were
they,
and in dead
things
were their
hopes,
who called them
gods
which are works
of
men's
hands,
gold
and
silver,
wrought
with
careful
art,
and likenesses
of
beasts."' You heard what he
said;
it was
certainly
not me who
forged gold
or silver into a
beast,
that
is,
the calf on Mount
Horeb,
and
worshiped
it.
"Then
again
said Solomon: 'But the idol made with hands is
accursed,
itself
and he that made
it;
because his was the
working,
and the
corruptible thing
was named a
god; for
both the
ungodly
doer
and his
ungodliness
are alike
hateful
to God.... For the
devising of
idols was the
beginning of
fornication.' Say,
then,
who
prostituted
himself to the
idols?'2
Did I
prostitute myself
and
did I
join myself
unto
Baalpeor,
13
the idol? Did
twenty-three
thousand fall
by my
hand in
a
single day?14
Did Phinehas make an atonement of
[God's]
wrath for me?
Then,
finally,
listen to the rest of Solomon's
[words]:
'. .. it was not
enough for
them to
go astray
in the
and
pagans
and
develops
into a
theological problem proper during
Iconoclasm
(for image worship-or,
in
general, worshiping
manmade
objects-in anti-Jewish
literature,
see V.
Deroche,
"L'authenticite de
l"Apo-
logie
contre les Juifs' de Leontios de
Neapolis,"
BCH 110
[1986], 661-64,
and
idem,
in Leontios of
Neapolis,
"LApologie," 99-104).
What one
usually
finds in this literature when the
subject
is introduced is a
general
reference to the
scriptural prohibition
of
venerating objects
made
by
human
hands,
basically
Exod.
20.4,
Lev.
26.1,
Deut. 5.8
(cf. Ps.-Athanasius, Questiones adAntiochum,
PG
28:621A-D;
'Avtipork,
33; A^Laks; 'Iou-
8aifo
Kal
Xptoctavoi,
Mansi
XIII, 165E; Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio,
PG
89:1233c;
Leontios of
Neapolis,
"L'A-
pologie,"
68.93-94;
Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra
Iudaeos, 52.17-18;
the
Syriac
Disputation
ofSergius,
X.2, XVI.3,
etc.).
An
interesting exception
can be found in
Tpoicata, 245,
where the
subject
is
presented
with a
quotation
from Isa. 44.17. I have been able to trace the
passage
in
question
in two later
works,
the
first,
in
chronological
order,
being
the Sermo VIII of
Symeon Stylites
the
Younger
in a
passage
where
Symeon inveighs against
the
pagans (see
H. G.
Thtimmel,
Die
Friihgeschichte
der ostkirchlichen
Bilderlehre,
TU 139
[Berlin, 1992], 322).
There
follows the
mid-8th-century Noeria,
166, , where it is
employed by
the Iconoclast
bishop
Cosmas.
"'The
first
part
of this
quotation
is not attested
by any
other source. In
any
case,
the entire
passage
presents
the same situation as the one examined in the
previous
note: it
appears only
in the
Notuetfa, 166,
next to the
previous quotation.
"Cf.
NoOefoia,
166.
12From what follows one can deduce that here Moschos refers to Num. 25. If and has
slightly changed
part
of the biblical
quotation
in order to connect it with what he has
already
said. In the biblical
passage
the
word
i?K7iopveKko (which
became
7opvc?i6o
in Moschos'
mouth)
is used to show that the Israelites first
began to
commit whoredom with the
daughters of
Moab and then
worshiped Baalpeor.
"3Cf.
'AvTpokil, 77.3-4; Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio,
PG
89:1236cD;
Leontios of
Neapolis, "L'Apologie,"
68.76-80,
70.167-70. Similar lists of acts of
idolatry
also occur in
John Chrysostom,
Adversus Iudaeos orationes
VIII,
PG
48:906,
line 20f and in the
3rd-century Martyrium
Pionii,
ed. L.
Robert,
Le
Martyre
de Pionios
pretre
de
Smyrne (Washington,
D.C., 1994),
22.
'4The number of Israelites killed in Num. 25.9 was
actually twenty-four
thousand.
195
knowledge of
God,
but
also,
while
they
live in sore
conflict through ignorance
. . . that multitude
of
evils
they
call
peace, for they
either
slaughtered
children in solemn
rites,
or celebrated secret
mys-
teries.' 15
"Say,
then,
who
slaughtered
childrened in solemn rites? Did I sacrifice
my
sons and
my
daughters
unto devils? Was it in
my
time that the land was
polluted
with blood? Did I set
up
in
the
temple
an
image
that had a fourfold idol and
worship
it?16 Did I
portray
abominable
reptiles
and beasts on the wall of the
temple?
Did Ezechiel the
prophet
see me
weeping
for Adonis and
burning
incense to the sun?7
[The people
who did these
things
are the
ones]
about whom the
apostle
said:
[they] 'worshipped
the creature more than the Creator' Did
I set
up
in
Egypt images
of the two
whores,
namely,
ofA/Oholah and of
oA/Oholibah,
and
did I
worship
them?
8
Did I
worship
Bel
(Baal)
in
Babylon?
Did I
offer
a
sacrifice
unto
Dagon
15Cf. NoOeofia,
166. The
argument
is used there
by
an Iconoclast.
'6This
reference is rather
extraordinary.
I have not been able to find
any
instance of a fourfold idol in the
Old
Testament,
and
any
occurrence of the word
T?epdaopov
in
Greek-speaking Christianity
is
usually
associ-
ated with the four beasts of Ezechiel
(Ez. 1.5f) or,
occasionally,
with the
Seraphim (cf. Epiphanius,
Homilia
in laudes Mariae
deiparae,
PG
43:496c). However,
the
story
of this fourfold idol is
present
in the Talmud
(Sanhedrin 103b)
as a
commentary
on 2 Chron. 33.7
by
the
2nd-3rd-century
Rabbi
Johanan
ben
Nappaha.
According
to this
source,
in the time of the
prophet
Isaiah,
king
Manasseh set
up
in the inner
space
of the
Temple
an idol with four
faces,
copied
from the four
figures
on the throne of God
(cf.
Ez.
1).
The
idol,
which
was made
by
Manasseh's
grandfather
Ahaz and was
kept by
him in the
upper
chamber of the
Temple
over
the
holy
of
holies,
was so
placed
that from whatever direction one entered the
Temple,
one was confronted
with a face of the idol
(see
L.
Ginzberg,
The
Legends of
the
Jews,
trans. H.
Szold,
7 vols.
[Philadelphia,
1946-47],
IV:278 and VI:371-72 nn.
96-97).
In the
Septuaginta,
Manasseh
appears
to have set
up
an idol in the
Temple
(2 Kings
20.7 and 2 Chron.
33.7),
but no further details are
given,
and later translations of the Hebrew Old
Testament
(Aquila,
Theodotion,
and
Symmachus)
are also silent
(see
the
Hexapla
of
Origen,
PG
16:227-30;
I wish to thank Rabbi David Weiss-Halivni for his
help
with this and
many
other references
concerning
Talmudic
matters). Nevertheless,
I cannot claim that Moschos obtained this information
through
direct
contact with rabbinical
sources,
because the same event is recorded
by
at least one earlier author. Eusebius
of Emesa
(d.
before
359)
in his Sermo de
paenitentia (CPG 3530)
referred to the
empartpo6coTa
ei6coka of
Manasseh
(see
E. M.
Buytagert, 'hitage ltraire
dEuse d'see me
[Louvain, 1949], 21 for the Greek text and
150-56 for an
introduction). Finally,
see
Gouillard,
"Aux
origines,"
247 n.
34,
for later
Byzantine historiogra-
phers
who used the same
story.
'7Cf.
the
Syriac Disputation of Sergius,
XVII.1. If the
copyist
has not omitted
anything
here,
we are
dealing
with a flawed
quotation.
This sentence summarizes Ez.
8.10-16, but,
although
its first
part (P?eXyjiccaTa
vao)
relies on a
scripturalte
text that is not transmitted
by
the main
manuscripts
of the
Septuagint
and
Origen
had also checked it with an asterisk
(*)
in his
Hexapla (see Septuaginta Gottingensis,
XVI, 118-19,
where
Theodotion's translation also
gives
a similar
text),
the rest of the t e
quotation
is
abridged.
In the vision of
Ezechiel described in
chap.
8,
there is first a reference to the
imagery
on the wall of the
Temple,
second,
the
description
of
seventy
men
standing
with
censers, third,
the
presence
of women
weeping
for Tammuz
(Ad-
onis),
and
fourth,
twenty
men in the inner court of the
Temple worshiping
the sun. Our text has
merged
parts
three and four into one.
"8The
story
of the two sisters
appears
in Ez. 23.4f.
However,
no icon of these two women
worshiped by
the Israelites is recorded. These sisters are accused of
adultery
and
idolatry (Ez. 23.37f),
and the
only
icons
that are introduced in connection with them are those of the Chaldaeans
(Ez. 23.14).
If Moschos is not
mistaken,
then he is either
making up
a
story
of half
(biblical)
truths or
devising
a rhetorical
question
in
order to make clear that
he,
at
least,
as a Christian has never
worshiped unholy
human
beings.
In
any
event,
the two sisters and their icon are not mentioned in
any
other
text,
and I have not found
any
reference to
them and their
image
in the Talmud either. So the
possibility
of a
misunderstanding
on the
part
of Moschos
is much
stronger
here than in
any
other
case, because
already
in the text of Ezechiel these two names
symbolically represent
the
capitals
of the
kingdoms
of Israel and
Judah (Ohola
=
Samaria,
Oholibah
=
Jerusalem;
see the relevant
entry
in I.
Singer,Jewish Encyclopedia [New York, 1925], 9:391).
196
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
in
Palestine?'9
[The prophet/apostle?]
accuses of these
things
those who did them and
proclaims
these
[things]-about
which the
Scripture
cries with a loud voice-to
the
Jews;
for where was the church of the Christians in the time of Solomon? It came into
existence more than a thousand
years
after those events had taken
place
and
[these
words]
had been
spoken.20
So how do
you
accuse of these
things
the Church of
Christ,
which has never
joined
itself unto
idols,
or sacrifices of
children,
or burnt
sacrifices, or
abominable
mysteries,
and
[has never]
served and
worshiped
the creature more than
the creator. But heretics never understand the
peculiar
modes of
expression21
of the
Scripture.
"Was it not the Church of Christ that after so
many years,2
in the
reign
of
Emperor
'91n
these last two
sentences,
unless Moschos
gives
a mistaken biblical
reference,
he must be
chastising
the
idolatry
of the Chaldaeans and
Philistines,
and not that of the
Jews,
who, nevertheless,
appear
on
many
occasions to have
worshiped
Baal
(Bel) (2 Kings
17.16, 20.3, etc.;
see also Leontios of
Neapolis, "LApologie,"
70.170).
The Old Testament
provides
no
specific
information about
Jews worshiping
Bel in
Babylon
or
offering
sacrifices to
Dagon
in Palestine. The
only problem
is that the next sentence credits all these acts of
idolatry
to
Jews, although
the
vagueness
of its first
part (Ta-Ci5a cKENvOtq;
-uo; iOtu~wnv yKaXeit ) leaves some
room for the
hypothesis
of a
wrong
reference. The situation is further
complicated
because these two acts of
idolatry
are also ascribed to the
Jews by
two authors of the 4th and 5th centuries. The
worship
of Bel in
Babylon
is mentioned
by Didymus
the Blind in his Commentarii in Zacchariam: Hokkot
tO)V
JIEtotKo1xteY'TGv
E'K
'cti; 'EaULtCv X6pa; iai
alt
pf6o; E'i; tiiv T6&v
KpaTT1(Y6v?tw0v v6og(p QiX fcYia;, ntv,rr l
Ti;
Oeoa_ei3sf; Kmcn
I
6vte;
ci860ot;
iX6tpe'oav,
6;
oi
eikvcn
ri [..kK]ai
co
BioX
KQi tca
6p aKoV'lt 7mpor-vKiVi, iea i tapt
o; Ti)tot Kw
EiK6vt Napo-oXo6ov6o5op
coi -
updvvou
(see
L.
Doutreleau, ed., Didyme
lAveugle,
Sur
Zacharie,
III,
SC 85
[Paris,
1962], 968.5)
and also in his
Commentarii in Psalmos: d&Wx(oi1
6
'Rypai'k
'v Tf
Bapukvvt,
"6tc
tbv BiiX
1npooJCK)vouv
icai t,iv eiKO6vaQ
oi
NapoiuXoovoca6p (see
M.
Gronewald, ed.,
Didymus
der
Blinde,
Psalmenkommentar,
V,
Papyro-
logische
Texte und
Abhandlungen
12
[Bonn, 1970], 178).
On the other
hand,
the sacrifices to
Dagon appear
in a
spurious
sermon of
John Chrysostom (possibly by
Proclus,
CPG
4597,
In
principium indictionis,
PG
59:673.31-37: c
'IouhiF ..... Ev
tji Cpijpl'gc uiXov 6X'KEZcxioY;
'v rfj
Moxxftn6t r' 6cgat
7cpooeK6vrvjw;, 'v
trj H I
x1oatfivni
'C
Aay6v iO1xYfaca;,
'v
FDotvfiqjx 'Aait6ptpj
'X6tpc,xia; av ai
AgXoxq
tcjO Xaj.tCO;
iTpoosK15v1yoa;).
However,
it is evident from the first
excerpt
from
Didymus
the Blind cited above that the idea of
Jews
worshiping
Bel in
Babylon
is an embellishment on the Old Testament
story
of Bel et
Draco,
which
might
have
been
generated by
a hostile attitude toward the
Jews.
It is
likely
that the sacrifices to
Dagon
are
part
of the
same stock of
anti-Jewish
cliches.
20The
author seems to be
acquainted
with the conventional Christian
dating
of Old Testament events. His
placing
of Solomon
roughly
one thousand
years
before the birth of Christ
agrees
with what most of the
early
historians have written.
Cf.
Georgius Syncellus, Ecloga Chronographica,
ed. A. A.
Mosshammer,
Teubner ed.
(Leipzig, 1984),
213:
Zo2ogi6v xt6v
Ev
JIpouoaXikg
va6v
6p6tcvo;
KtiSE&V
6,t6
&E
utcpo1 `xoi; ,t0 i;
paJklcnXf;
a&j,oi, 6ij7sp
i~
;i6'tfj;
wi
clr6- )'ob, _V rE'
catv
cF_,TF_oxcv 6y66q)e i-ret
-f;
paUzxcia; acr-0ob, K'
&'
i"'Clt
-f;
SWfi;
Qiot).
eiyiv o0V
'n6 'A&qx
"
ii
'
"-rou
a'crob 6`nij 61uoqr'
(=
4477),
-Kar Rl r6 v
'AoptKav6v 8ivv
'
(= 4456).
icccc &6 E
o''Ptov 6po' (= 4170). Moreover,
all the
early
Christian
dating systems placed
the birth of Christ
at about
5,500
years
after the Creation
(see V. Grumel,
La
chronologie [Paris, 1958], 30).
Consequently,
Solo-
mon lived some
1,023
to
1,330
years
before Christ.
21For it6gaCca
see
Lampe,
s.v
(especially
B.3 for further
references).
The same
expression (i&@t0
a-u
ypaoS;)
is a cliche
among
the
early
fathers when it comes to
scriptural exegesis (for
St. Basil see his
Regulae
Morales,
PG
31:728.39;
for
John Chrysostom
see,
auong
other
references,
PG
53:132.61, 234.47, 52;
PG
59:229.5, 376.20, 53, etc.).
See also Theodoret of
Cyrrhus, Explanatio
in Canticum
canticorum,
PG 81:32D:
'Avaytv6oKov0Vx,;,
6);
o{Ciat, -o5-ro
6O
TOyypcz7xca (= Scripture)
Kalt
6pCovm;
F-v a6i'YcC
gtl'pa Kacl ot
ccreaca
KIai RflpoS;
Kat
KOlXiQV Kac 60gpcaXv KCti Gcry7vc; .... KCtti Ocia;
Fpa7)S
&yvooi)vts;
r;
ia toua ,
01Kp
fleklosXllv
66tavwat
Kal -roi5
yp6qCuaRgo;
OepPfivat
c6'
Kc(X[taQ; idem,
In Divini Ezechielis
prophetiam
inter-
pretatio,
PG 81:952c:
npoc'Ket
-c -ri;
Fpaopfj; itc6(Ogaza ei&vatv oi'-re
y7p '-r'p;co a)ri;
r6v
aKo6iOv 6ta-
yv6)vat.
221.e.,
more than a thousand
years.
197
Constantine,
found at the Oak of Mamre23
[lacuna]
... the idols24 of the worthless
Apollo25
and the
tripod
of
Pausanias,26
the
king
of the
Lacedaemons,
that was much
celebrated
among
the
Greeks,
and
destroyed
them,
and built a church, that is, a
23The incident is recorded
by
Eusebius and other
contemporary
church historians
(see ODB, 11:1279-80;
Socrates, HE,
PG
67:124A). According
to Sozomen
(HE, 54.20-56.9),
this
holy place,
two miles north of
Hebron,
where the three
angels appeared
to
Abraham,
hosted an annual feast celebrated
by
Christians,
Jews,
and
pagans
alike. When Constantine I was informed
by Eutropia(?),
his
mother-in-law,
of the festive
customs,
he decided to abolish the
Jewish
and
pagan
rites and to build a church in this
place.
Eusebius
(VC,
99.19-101.14) preserves
Constantine's letter in which the
emperor
ordered Macarius
ofJerusalem, Eusebius,
and other
bishops
of Palestine to burn the
idols,
destroy
the altar that was in the
place,
and build a basilica
(see
F.
W. Deichmann, "Fruihchristliche Kirchen in antiken
Heiligtiimern," JDAI
54
[1939], 107-8, 120).
Unfortunately,
not much of this information is
preserved by
our
dialogue
since it seems that the text is
corrupt (see
the
following note).
On the other
hand,
recent excavations have revealed some remains of the
church that was built on the site
by Emperor
Constantine. This church
might
have been reused in the
Crusader
period;
see the
entry by
I.
Magen
in E.
Stern, ed.,
The New
Encyclopedia of Archaeological
Excavations
in the
Holy
Land,
III
(Jerusalem, 1993), 939-41,
and also A.
Ovadiah,
Corpus of
the
Byzantine
Churches in the
Holy
Land
(Bonn, 1970), 131-33, both with additional
bibliography.
24It is obvious that the Greek text from lines
50-51, Tac
soava,
to line
54,
poi0toev,
is
seriously
disturbed.
There are three
possibilities:
either
(1)
Moschos was
quoting
some events from his
faulty memory,
or
(2)
Leo
Kinnamos,
the
copyist
who
produced
Paris.
gr.
1115,
misread or omitted certain words from his
exemplar,
or
(3)
a combination
of(l1)
and
(2).
The emendations I have
proposed simply
aim at
providing
an
intelligible
text,
but what is
suggested
here is
probably
far from the
original.
In
any
case,
the relevant
passage
from Sozomen
can be of considerable
help,
and I
reproduce
it here with some of its context:
Sozomen, HE, 56.23-57.9:
TcCv
'
an
0odvcov
ea
ovta
thCliaS XrlS;
Kai
TtOv ahXXcv,
6oov
?60K?Ei XpitCintov eival, vup6i 8I?KptVE?T Kcai
6onF,6(oia i7yvexro xp1gtaa
,
ia
6E? v
X%axK
Oauaftoi; eipyao6Eva aTcdvoOev
o?;
TiIV iv
o 6viov
i oiV6v zo
T
aYoroKpatuopo; (sc. Constantinople) Ler?TKoripoerl tp6; K06COn0Vi
Kal ?Cit?t VIv
6oriL
toai tispuVra Kara
as; amyulac
Kai TO v iKai a pa?6a paV TI
paTt
v o tt
avTiKov
'A6oXonvos
Kai
Moioal
ai
'EhiKcov&5G
Kai oi 'v
AeX0oi2
Tptito3e
Kiai 6
[sTav
6
leg. Andvv]
Paod
evoS,
6v Hciuav ia 6o
AaKce6ai-
i6vtoS Kai ai 'EXrfviSe i6XIeta; dv?E0vro TLoE
TOV
rpoS Mi5ovS;
rX6ejtov....
KaTrCei6aV Kd av TT
Kai
ap68rv pi'aviuOqaav
Or
6
a v
Aiyaitq
Tj;
KitiKiaq 'AcaKrc7ntoV
vao' Kai o6 v
'AdaKoiotq Tj A0po56iT7ls
Capc'
Ti v Alavov To
opos
Kaicti AIoviv TOv noTao6v.
As is evident from the above
passage,
a lacuna can be
postulated
in the
dialogue
before the words Ta
6oava,
because what follows refers to items
actually
removed from
Delphi
in the
reign
of Constantine and not from
Mamre. On the other
hand,
our text
gives
a correct
reading
where the editor of Sozomen was unable to
come
up
with
anything
better than a name for a statue that never existed in
Delphi (6
Hlav
6
POId?eVOS [cf.
Sozomen, HE, index,
p.
471: Hdv: Statue aus
Delphi]),
instead of o6 advu
POLOE?VO;,
which is
implied by
the
reading
of our
manuscript. Incidentally,
this
"philologically
incorrect" statue has attracted the attention of
other scholars and has
acquired
an existence in K. Wernicke's
entry
on "Pan" in W H.
Roscher,
Ausfiihrliches
Lexikon der Griechischen und Rdmischen
Mythologie,
III
[Leipzig, 1897-1909],
col.
1408;
see also C.
Mango,
"An-
tique Statuary
and the
Byzantine
Beholder,"
DOP 17
[1963],
57 n.
10).
25For the statues of
Apollo
that were
transported
to
Constantinople
in the
period
under
discussion,
there
is not much information
apart
from the
passage
of Sozomen
(see previous note)
and a few other historians.
Eusebius
(VC, 101.20-25)
states that some bronze statues of
Apollo
had been erected on the streets of Con-
stantinople (6)? Ig?V
TOV
nsltov,
?T,?pco6t
W6
TbOv 4tLiv6tov, ?iv aton 6'
iT7o5poriicp oto;
?v Aeô
tI; Tpinto8a),
and
Socrates
only
mentions the
presence
of statues
(HE,
PG
67:117A)
for decorative
purposes.
In the
8th-century
napaoTado?t; o6vcofiot XpovtuKa,
there is not a
single
statue of
Apollo
from
Delphi
described
(the
case of a
"charioteer of
gods
with the
inscription 'All-powerful Apollo"' [ibid., 113]
is
unclear).
26
For the
tripod
that Pausanias dedicated to the Oracle of
Delphi,
the basic source is Herodotos
(see
C.
Hude,
ed., Herodoti
Historiae,
3rd ed.
[Oxford, 1975],
IX.8
1),
and also Pausanias
(see
H.
Hitzig,
ed.,
Pausaniae Graeciae
descriptio [Leipzig,
1910], 111.2, 556.4-9).
For its
(possible) original position
at
Delphi,
see A.
Jacquemin
and D.
Laroche,
"Une offrande monumentale a
Delphes:
Le
trepied
des
Crotoniates,"
BCH 114
(1990),
299-323. This
monument was transferred to
the
reign
of Constantine and after the 9th
century
was set
up
in the
Hippodrome,
where the lower
part
of it is still
preserved
in
poor
condition. See
R.Janin, Constantinople
byzantine (Paris, 1964), 191-92; W.
Mtiller-Wiener,
Bildlexikon zur
Topographie
Istanbuls
(Tiibingen, 1977), 65,
71
with further
bibliography;
and S. Guberti
Bassett,
"The
Antiquities
in the
Hippodrome
of
Constantinople,"
DOP 45
(1991),
89-90. I thank
Henry Maguire
for the last reference.
198
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
temple,
in honor of Christ?27 Did not
[the Church] trample upon
the
temple
of
Asklepios
in Cilicia and demolish
it;28
did
[it]
not
submerge
the idol of Adonis29 into the
27There is not much
archaeological
evidence to
support
this rather
imprecise
and
textually problematic
statement of Moschos. It is
questionable
whether Constantine built a church at the
sanctuary
of
Delphi.
The excavation
report
from
Delphi by
G. Daux
(BCH
86
[1962], 909-12)
notes an
early
Christian
apse
in the southeast wall of the Great
Sanctuary
that
may possibly imply
the
presence
of a small church
dating
to the
early
5th
century.
Other
findings may point
to an even earlier date
(ibid., 912),
but this is
the
only
evidence. On the other
hand,
E.
Dyggve, following
V.
Laurent,
has
accepted
the
theory
that
the
Delphic temple
was transformed into a church at the
beginning
of the 5th
century;
see E.
Dyggve,
"Les traditions cultuelles de
Delphes
et
l'eglise
chretienne:
Quelques
notes sur
AP^GOot XpoTCtaVIKOf,"
CahArch 3
(1948), 21-22. P.
Amandry
has
suggested
that the
temple
of
Delphi
had been
destroyed by
the Christians
("Chronique Delphique [1970-1981],"
BCH 105
[1981], 686-87, 721-40,
and
idem, "La
ruine du
temple d'Apollon
a
Delphes,"
BAcBelg,
5th
ser.,
75
[1989], 26-47). However, J.
M.
Spieser
has
contested
Dyggve's position
and
suggested
that Christian
buildings
and rites first
appeared
outside the
old
Delphic sanctuary
and
gradually
moved into the
pagan site, evidently
not in the Constantinian
period
but much later
(see J.
M.
Spieser,
"La christianisation des sanctuaires
paliens
en
Grece,"
in U.
Jantzen,
ed.,
Neue
Forschungen
in
griechischen Heligttimn H[Tibingen, 1976], 316-17;
I wish to thank
Carolyn
Snively
for this referen
ce)ntly,
R.
Trombley
has
argued
that
Delphi kept
its
pagan
character
until the
majority
of its
city
councillors became Christian ca. 364-375
(F.
R.
Trombley,
Hellenic
Religion
and Christianization c.
370-529,
I
[Leiden-New York-Cologne, 1993], 170, 194).
The latest contribution to
the
subject
comes from V.
Deroche, who confirms the conclusions of
Spieser, arguing
that the Christian
churches in
Delphi
never
supplanted
the
Delphic temple
and were erected on the
periphery
of the
ancient sacred site. The Christianization of
Delphi
was slow and
gradual.
See V. Deroche, "Delphes:
La
christianisation d'un sanctuaire
paien,"
in Actes du XIe
Congres
International
d'Archeologie Chretienne, Lyon,
Vienne, Grenoble, Generve et Aoste
(21-28 septembre 1986),
Collection de 'Ecole franpaise de Rome 123
(Rome, 1989), 2721-23.
28The destruction of this rather
popular Aesculapium,
situated at
Aigai
in Cilicia
(modern Ayas
on the
west side of the Gulf of Iskenderun in southeastern
Turkey;
see RE
1:945),
is recorded
by
all the church
historians of the
period;
see Eusebius, VC, 103.21-104.10; Socrates HE, PG
67:124B; Sozomen, HE, 57.7-8.
Eusebius writes that the
sanctuary,
where diseases were cured
by incubation, was
entirely destroyed by
sol-
diers at the behest of Constantine
(VC, 104.1-3),
but he does not
speak
of
any
Christian church built in its
place. However, Zonaras refers to an incident that took
place inde the
reign
of
Justinian
that
might point
to a
possible spoliation
of the
themple by
Christians in order to build a church at a different location
(Ioannes
Zonaras, Annales,
PG
134:1152A). Evidently, apart
from a
temporary
revival
during
the last
year
of Julian's
reign,
the
temple
and cult of
Asklepios
at
Aigai
never recovered from the destruction and fell into
decay.
For
a detailed
survey
of the sources
concerning
the
history
of this
temple
and of
Aigai
in
general,
see L. Robert,
"De Cilicie a Messine et a
Plymouth
avec deux
inscriptions grecques errantes,"JSav (1973), 183-93, repr.
in
L.
Robert, Opera
Minora
Selecta, VII
(Amsterdam, 1990), 247-57; also R.
Ziegler, "Aigeai,
der
Asklepioskult,
das Kaiserhaus der Decier und das
Christentum," Tyche
9
(1994), 187-212, esp.
207-8. To
my knowledge,
recent excavations have not been conducted in the area, and the latest
reports
from
Ayas
do not include
any
findings
of
pagan
or Christian sanctuaries of that
period (see M. V. Seton-Williams, "Cilician
Survey,"
AnatSt
4
[1954], 149).
T A.
Sinclair, in his four-volume Eastern
Turkey:
An Architectural and
Archaeological Survey (Lon-
don, 1987-90),
refers to this site
only
four times in
passing (1:109; IV:266, 271, 371). For the latest
report
from the
site, see H.
Bloesch, Erinnerungen
an
Aigeai (Winterthur, 1989); what he found in a field filled
with ruins
belongs
to the
temple
of
Asklepios,
but is far from
giving
an
adequate image
of the ancient
shrine that Bloesch discusses
mainly
on the basis of numismatic evidence
(ibid., 26-39). However, Deich-
mann
("Fruihchristliche Kirchen," 129) includes it in his list of
temples
in Asia Minor that were converted
into churches.
29
If the text is correct here, however, and Moschos indeed
spoke
of a statue of Adonis, then a
theory
proposed by
F. Millar
gains
additional
support.
Millar notes, on the basis of other sources, that shrines in
the area of
Byblos
were dedicated to eastern deities such as Astarte or Tammuz-Adonis.
Consequently,
the
place
at
Aphaka
could have been the tomb of Adonis
(as it
appears
to be in the
Syriac
Oration
of
Meliton the
Philosopher);
see F. Millar, The Roman Near East
(Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 276-78. Thus the
presence
of
a statue of Adonis is not to be excluded, and the
dialogue might represent
a source closer to the facts
than Sozomen.
199
river?30 Was it not the same Church of Christ that
completely
burned their
splendid
but
worthless statue of
Apollo
in
Daphne
of
Syria,31
and established a
reliquary
for the
holy
relics of
Babylas32
the
martyr?33
"Therefore,
Solomon accuses these
[pagans
and
Jews]
of those
things,
and also his
father
David,
by saying:
'Their
[sc.
the
heathens']
idols are silver and
gold,
the work
of
men'
30This
sentence is
drastically abridged,
and the
meaning
of the
original
text
utterly
distorted. As one
may
understand from
Sozomen's
text
(above,
note
24),
there was no idol of Adonis
submerged
in the river
(see,
however,
note
29).
All three historians
(Eusebius, VC, 102.29-103.20; Socrates, HE,
PG
67:124B; Sozomen,
HE, 57.8-9) speak
of the destruction of the shrine of
Aphrodite
at
Aphaka
on Mount Lebanon in the
vicinity
of the river Adonis
(for
this river see RE
1:384-85).
In
fact,
this was a rather obscure cultic site in a nonurban
locale,
where
people practiced
homosexual acts and ritual
prostitution (see Millar,
The Roman Near
East, 217,
276-77).
The
temple
was indeed razed to its
foundations,
and a new
building
was erected in its
place
with
the same materials
(see Deichmann,
"Fruihchristliche
Kirchen," 108, 115;
Trombley,
Hellenic
Religion, I, 116).
Finally,
note that most of these Constantinian
temple
conversions are
placed by
the historians of that time
and also-more
explicitly-by Theophanes
in the
period following
the First Ecumenical
Council,
that
is,
in
the
year
326
(see Theophanis Chronographia,
ed. C. de
Boor,
CSHB
[Bonn, 1839], 34.16-17).
31
Daphne
was a suburb of Antioch south of the
city
at the
place
where the river Orontes flows into the sea.
For this event that took
place
in the
reign
of
Julian (Oct. 363),
see
Sozomen, HE, 223.25-227.17,
esp.
227.7-17; Theodoret, HE, 188.6-17; Ammianus
Marcellinus,
Res
Gestae, 22.13.1-3. The
burning
of this
wooden statue
(along
with the
sanctuary)
is said to have been the work of a thunderbolt that fell on Apollo's
temple,
while Ammianus Marcellinus states that it was the result of
sparks
emitted
by
some votive wax
tapers
lit
by
the
philosopher Asclepiades
before the statue.
Emperor Julian,
however,
ordered a detailed
investigation
because there were
many
reasonable
suspicions
that Christians started the fire. For more details
see
J.
den
Boeft,
J.
W.
Drijvers,
D. den
Hengst,
and H. C.
Teitler,
Philological
and Historical
Commentary
on
Ammianus Marcellinus XXII
(Groningen, 1995),
228-32.
According
to Sozomen
(HE, 227.13-16),
the
priest
of
Apollo
was
interrogated
under torture but refused to
bring any
accusation
against
Christians. In this
respect,
the information
provided by
our text is
very interesting,
because,
unless Moschos is
overstating
the
events,
the destruction of the statue is
proudly
admitted to be the work of the Christian Church. That the
temple,
or at least
part
of its
precincts,
was
by
that time used
by
Christians is evident from the fact that
Julian
ordered the removal of the remains of Christians
(alone?)
buried near it and the
performance
of
purification
rites similar to those with which the Athenians had
purified
the island of Delos
(Res Gestae, 22.12.8;
see also
the
following note).
32For
Babylas
the
martyr,
who died under Decius
(250-251)
or Numerianus
(283-284),
see ODB
1:243,
with additional
bibliography.
Here Moschos is
again
inaccurate: Sozomen
(HE, 225.7-14,
who
gives
a more detailed account than that
of
Theodoret, HE, 186.23-24)
states
that,
when
Julian's
brother
Gallus (Flavius
Claudius Constantius
G.)
was
appointed
Caesar
by
Constantius
(352-354
A.D.)
and took
up
residence in
Antioch,
he decided to
purge
Daphne
from
any
licentious
pagan practices
and to that effect transferred the relics of
Babylas
there and
(possibly)
built a shrine at the burial
place
close to the
temple
of
Daphnaios Apollo.
When
Julian,
on his
way
to
Persia,
wished to consult the old oracle of
Apollo,
he received the answer that the oracle was silent because
of the
presence
of
corpses
buried near the site. Then
Julian singled
out the
body
of
Babylas
and demanded
the
transportation
of his remains to Antioch.
Accordingly,
the Christians of Antioch formed a
great proces-
sion and transferred the coffin to the
city, chanting antipagan hymns.
A little later the
temple
and the statue
were burned
(see
den Boeft et
al.,
Commentary, 225-27).
So it seems that events evolved in a way different
from that described
by
Moschos:
Babylas'
remains were
given
their own tomb in Antioch after their transfer
from
Daphne.
This does not
necessarily preclude
the eventual Christianization of the
pagan
shrine. (For the
Daphne temple,
see also
Deichmann, "Fruhchristliche
Kirchen," 108, 116; for the Christianization of the
region
around
Antioch,
see
Trombley,
Hellenic
Religion,
I, 275f.)
At
any
rate,
even if Moschos is not accurate
regarding
the historical circumstances and dates of the conversion of these
pagan
shrines into Christian
churches,
our text must be
accepted
as a valid witness to their eventual Christianization and can serve as
terminus ante
quem
for this event.
33For
a similar
argument ("since
Christians
destroy pagan temples
and
idols,
they
cannot be
idolaters"),
cf.
'AvTipoXrf,
74.2-7; Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio, PG 89:1233A; Leontios of
68.74-75.
For an
interpretation
of the
implications
of this
argument,
which
practically
advocates Christian Iconoclasm
against pagan images,
see D.
Freedberg,
The Power
of Images (Chicago-London, 1989),
389ff.
200
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
hands.
They
have
mouths,
but
they speak
not;
eyes
have
they,
but
they
see
not;
they
have ears, but
they
hear
not;
noses have
they,
but
they
smell
not;
they
have
hands,
but
they
handle
not;
feet
have
they,
but
they
walk
not;
neither
speak through
their throat.
They
that make them are like unto
them;
so is
every-
one that trusteth in
them.34
But to the Church of
Christ,
Solomon cried aloud: 'For blessed
was the wood
through
which cometh
righteousness.'
It is evident that he
speaks
about the
Holy
Cross.35
And
again
David
says
to the same Church of Christ: 'Exalt
ye
the Lord our
God,
and
worship
at his
footstool; for
he is
holy.'
36
"So
give
me an answer: Is not the cross
[made]
of
wood,
is it not a handmade artifact?
But look at the
glory
it has received from
Christ,
who was stretched on
it;
for
[the cross]
puts
demons to
flight,
cures
diseases,
gives
life.37 For this wood Solomon
proclaims,
as I
said
before,
'blessed was the wood
through
which cometh
righteousness,'
and David: 'let
us
worship
at the
place
where his
feet
stood.'8
Whom should I
obey, you
or David and Solomon?
They say:
'Let us
worship'; you say:
'Thou shalt not
worship.' Say,
then,
how do
you
worship your holy
communion39 and
your
book that contains the
Gospels,
which are all
handmade
artifacts,
how do
you worship
them?40 Whatever
you
are
going
to
say,
it must
34The same citation is
presented by
a
Jew
in the
Syriac Disputation of Sergius,
X.2.
35The
same citation and
interpretation appears
in the Doctrina
lacobi,
1.34.11: G.
Dagron
and V. Deroche,
'Juifs
et Chretiens dans
l'Orient
du
VIIe
siecle,"
TM 11
(1991), 121; cf.
also Leontios of
Neapolis, "L'Apolo-
gie,"
69.138,
and the
6th-century Anonymus dialogus
cum
Iudaeis,
ed.
J.
H.
Declerck,
CCSG 30
(Turnhout,
1994),
IX. 191.
36This
Old Testament
passage
does not
easily
fit the
context,
unless the cross is understood to
be,
in a
literal
sense,
one of the
places
where God's
(here Christ's)
feet
stood; still,
the same
understanding
of this
quotation
is
displayed
in a
spurious
work attributed to St.
John Chrysostom (In
adorationem venerandae
crucis,
PG
62:749.80-750.5). However,
in its
accepted interpretation,
the
quotation
refers to the veneration of cre-
ated
things through
and in which God acted for
humanity's
salvation. For a
proper
use of this
excerpt,
see
John
of
Damascus,
Schriften
III,
1.14.8-9 and 111.34.28-29.
37Cf. John Chrysostom,
Homilia
in
Psalmum
LXXV PG 55:598.62-63:
Ei6xi VeKpOVu
davEyeipEt, 3aitLovac
pvuya368eVt, vo6aovs
idat,
Oavaizovs ?KcV?I.
According
to Montfaucon
(Monitum,
PG
55:593-94),
the work is
spurious
and seems to be a word-for-word
commentary
on Psalm 75
by
Eusebius.
38See
above,
note 36.
39Obviously,
Moschos here
speaks
about the Eucharist as a
sequence
of acts of
worship;
see R.
F. Taft,
The
Great
Entrance,
OCA 200
(Rome, 1975), 45;
for instances of
worship (n7po7oKw6v1ot7;)
of the elements
during
the
liturgy,
see
ibid., 430,
the Greek textus
receptus
of the Great Entrance. The Great Entrance is not
clearly
established as
part
of the
liturgy
until after the 5th
century.
However,
there is
already
at least one
4th-century
attestation of
venerating
the elements of the Eucharist in the Catecheses of
Cyril
of
Jerusalem (d. 387).
See
A.
Piedagnel
and P.
Paris,
Cyrille deJfrusalem,
Catecheses Mystagogiques,
SC 126
(Paris, 1966),
172: Evcta
geta
xo
KOlvovVrTGai
oE
TOD
?c6aWXIO tO XPIUTOV, pO0cepXOV0 Kai
T) CO
7OTlpicp tO) aiLraTo;
[T avaTtivcov Tas; tEpaS, adXa
K1TCTCOV
Kal
Trp6oto) ipocKicvv74rao Kiai epdac6iatoT
Xyowov
T
"'Arirv", yytQ;ou Kaio ?K TOD) aatoarO; |eTaXapa,v(cov
Xptoxoi.
I wish to thank Robert
Taft,
S.J.,
for this reference.
40This sentence offers one more clear indication that Moschos' interlocutor is another Christian who
happens
to be a heretic
(cf.
also the term used in line 49
by
Moschos:
aipertKoi).
This is also a
point
where
our
text,
as one would
expect,
deviates from the
anti-Jewish dialogues. Basically,
the
argument produced by
the orthodox
speaker
is the same here and in the
anti-Jewish dialogues ("although you
accuse me of
worship-
ing objects
made
by
human
hands,
you
do the
same"),
but the enumeration of these manmade
objects
differs.
The list of manmade
objects worshiped by Jews usually
features the Ark of the
Covenant,
the
Seraphim,
the
Cherubim,
the Book of the
Laws,
etc.
(see Tp6oata, 246; 'AvtpoX,i, 32, etc.).
Here the veneration of the
Eucharist and the book of
Gospels points
in the direction of a
non-Iconophile
Christian. See also S. Der
Nersessian,
"Une
apologie
des
images
du
septieme
siecle,"
Byzantion
17
(1944-45),
65. The term
geyateiov,
meaning Gospel book,
is
very rarely
attested before the 6th
century.
I have
been able
to trace this word in
only
one work of the 4th
century
in which it is used to denote the Bible. See
Eusebius,
Praeparatio evangelica
8.10.9,
ed. K.
Mras,
Eusebius
Werke,
achter
Band,
Diepraeparatio evangelica,
GCS 43.1
(Berlin, 1954),
452.21-23:
&IO6Tep Kactx0
6
voLo0eTrn(
(= Moses)
Eii
T
r6
!eya2eiov
glaevfivvoXe, X7ycov as,
ouvTe?Xeiag; %ctpa; esvat 0Eoi.
201
202 THE DIALOGUE OF THE MONK AND RECLUSE MOSCHOS
apply equally
to both of us. For if
you worship
them as handmade
objects, you
fall into
the words of Solomon and
David,
'accursed is
he,
who
worships [idols]
made with
hands,'
and
you
have committed
[exactly]
what
you appear
to censure others for."41
And he said in
response:
"I have never
worshiped objects
made
by
human
hands, but
those
things
that I
perceive
to have divine
power."
The orthodox man said: "If
you worship [them]
on account of their
possessing
divine
power42
and because
you
think of them and honor them as
holy,
then what are
you
accusing
me
of,
and
[why
do
you]
rebuke me for
worshiping
in the same manner?
We,
the true
worshippers,
the
people
who
worship
in
spirit
and in
truth,
know what we
worship,
has-
tening
to venerate the
holy
communion,
for it is shown forth as the
body
of Christ and
grants
life to those who
believe;43
we
worship
the undefiled books of the
Gospels,
for
[they contain]
the immaculate words of
God;
we also
worship
the icon of the
holy martyrs
not as mere wood or as a handmade
object,
but as a
[circumscription of]
the nature of
the individual contained
therein,44
who has been honored and
glorified
by
God; for,
since
GTatSi:
5e Oeia
KaXcoq;
av
XfyovTo Kzt
aTa TO
geyaatiov 'V K6GoL0') KiaaCTaKn.
One
might explain
the
rarity
of
this word's occurrence
by taking
into account its rather vernacular character.
41The same
argument appears, among
other
works,
in Severian of
Gabala,
In dedicationem crucis
(cited by
John
of
Damascus, Schriften III, 1.58, 11.54, III.52.10-13): Ei'e,
J&
nt6arcTaTe Oi?OD oep6aov- [sc. Moses]
6
daayop?D?;t;, TCOIEZ;;
6
&aVaTPr?Et;, KaTaQGK?F)d?Ia;;
E0
?yCov
'OD
7ioiroei; yXrntOv',
6
TOV XCOVsEoOVCa POV KIT?--
Xra6a,
ctD
Oivitv %aXKOUpyei;;
the
anonymous AlaXe;ls
'Ioiuaiou
Kai XptIctavod,
Mansi
XIII,
168BC:
'Opa;
TCiS; ?6
7apayy?UXov
MOO ;
6Otoifoga i1 nootillat 6giofoptLa ?iRoir?v; Tpo6rata,
247.8-9: 'I5oD
Toivuv
Kati
-DtsI?
7poGKlV?iT? %?1po0roit|Ta'
i6oI
Kai
D|ids
g gtat 'HTa"'a; it?6'
Ti
CoV;
and Leontios of
Neapolis,
"L'Apologie,"
66.2-67.13.
42To the best of
my knowledge,
no other text uses the same formulation to
justify
the veneration of
objects
made
by
human hands. The
wording
here is much closer to the
pagan
beliefs
concerning
the divine
powers
or the
divinity
that
especially
dwells within statues
(see Photios, Bibliotheca, III,
cod.
215,
p.
130,
where
Photios comments on a work
by John Philoponos
directed
against
the
Ilipi dyaXgtcov
of
lamblichus;
neither
this book nor
Philoponos'
refutation is
preserved,
but some of the comments of Photios allow for an under-
standing
of
Iamblichus'
ideas:
'Aveyvx(o0ri
'Ivodvvoi Tcoi
4tXocovou
Ka
Tai
j
arnorovi6r 'Iaglpixov, riv
?7r?ypave?
Hepi dya,audzov.
'"Eot ?V
oi6v GKOTOc;
'IagiXf,p
?ia
e
T?e 6?eiat
zTa ?eioa
... . Kai
Oe?ag Le?Tzouoiag
av6tX?a). In
any
case,
the divine
power
is
implicitly present
in the
Iconophile argument
when the orthodox
speaker
invokes the miraculous
power
of the
images
and of the Cross.
See,
for
example, Ps.-Athanasius, Qucestiones
ad Antiochum
(PG
28:62 lc: Oi
6?
?a
dXauov?iaS; adooTxp?e6gvot 7tpooKu)V6V
tOv
OTaop6v
Kat
Tag ?iK6vaS, X?y?-
To0oav oi dvo6rTot
n6S; jlpa noXXaKtK; ?pXuoav
ai
`ytat iKO6ve?;
vvdpet Kvptov;). On the
popular
belief in the
divine
powers (or any
sort of
powers) dwelling
in
images,
see H.
Maguire, "Magic
and the Christian
Image,"
in H.
Maguire,
ed.,
Byzantine Magic (Washington,
D.C., 1995), 51-71,
esp.
51 and 67.
43 For the Eucharist as the
body
of Christ and as "medicine of
immortality"
(as
perceived by
Moschos
here)
in the
early
fathers,
see
J. Pelikan,
The Christian
Tradition,
I: The
Emergence of
the Catholic Tradition
(100-600)
(Chicago, 1971), 167-71, 236-38,
and also
J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology,
2nd ed.
(New York, 1983),
201-2.
Among
other
early
fathers,
Makarios
Magnes (ca. 400)
had
sponsored
the same
idea;
see his
Apocriti-
cus,
where he asserts that the Eucharist is not
TZOS oCl;
agto o'615?
TUrog; aitaxoS.
.
..
., aa KaTa
adXfieav
cc(TIa
Kai
atjga Xptoxo6,
ed. C.
Blondel,
Macarii
Magnetis quae supersunt
ex inedito codice
(Paris, 1876),
106.1.1-3.
44Cf.
'AvxtpoX3ia,
31.23-32.2:
Kai
oimT? T06
46Xov ovTe TIv Wypa(piav tpooTK1voV?V ?t.?tri
Toxxa,Kc; TaS ?iK6vaS
aXatovuvaUS anakreifotgev
Kai
cavaKatvitoev
r Kai
ap0?io Kat apoOcaa; ioL ?v (note, however, that the second
part
of the
argument
about
destroyed
icons is
missing
from
Moschos); Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio,
PG
89:1233D,
almost a word-for-word
repetition
of the
previous passage; AidtaX4; 'IovSaiouv
Kai
XptoTtavov,
Mansi
XIII,
168B:
OtiKOVV
Tuf
fv3dvf ?lKOVIt
t
l
T
ypai&bt 7poGorKvoiU?i
v i
oG?3ogC?V,
daXX TOv xTiv O6oIv
8?c6z0TnV Xpltozv
TOV
0e6v
8o4oXoyoirgev; Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra
Iudaeos, 52.12-13: oD
yap
TO6
6Xov 7IpooKuvetiTal,
ad' 6 ?v TO,
46XG givrqgoveu6g?evo g o?pa5eTat Kai 0Oropo6g?Vvo; TiLdTat;
Leontios of
67.43-47:
Kai
(i)I?p
1o
7CpooKcOVc(
V
ltpilXov toO
v6OOD
otV i
7v
V6otv
Xv O?V
aizc 86?pg6rov
iKai To
g?:Xavog
ntpooKcvvei,
a&'Xa
T
X6o 7yoti
Toi) eso)
TxoI;
?v
aiTxo K?IstgVOt;, OTuo0g Kadyc TTIV iKo6va TO6
Xptoroi) TIPO6KDVV
o) Tviv
xiv6oV
TCOV
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
he,
who has been
glorified [by
God]
and is
worshiped [by men],
is a servant
[of God],
God who
glorified
him is the one that is
worshiped.45
Therefore, I
worship
these
people,
about whom Solomon
says:46
'But he souls
of
the
righteous
ore in the hand
of
God,
and no torment
shall touch them. In the
eyes of
the
fools they
seemed to
die;
and their
departure
was accounted to be
their
hurt,
and their
going from
us to be their
ruin,
but
they
are in
peace.
...
[For] having
borne a
little
chastening, they
shall receive
great good;
because God tested them and
found
them
worthy of
himself;
as
gold
in the
furnace
he
proved
them,
and as a whole burnt
offering
he
accepted
them and
in the time
of
their visitation
they
shall shine
forth.... They shalljudge
nations,
and have dominion
over
people,
and the Lord shall
reign
over them
for
evermore.' And
again: 'They
that trust in him
shall understand
truth,
and the
faithful
shall abide with him in
love;
because
grace
and
mercy
are to
his chosen.' And
again
the
prophet
Isaiah
says:
'Blessed are all
they
that wait
for
him.'47 And
David
says
about them: 'On
behalf of
the saints that are in his land the Lord has
magnified
all
his
pleasure
in them.' And elsewhere: 'I will
by
no means assemble their
bloody meetings.'48
And
again:
'God is
wonderful among
his
holy ones,
the God
of
Israel.' And in another
passage:
'But
thy friends,
0
God,
have been
greatly
honoured
by
me;
their rule has been
greatly strengthened;
I will
number
them,
and
they
shall be multiplied
beyond
the sand.' But
also,
the
prophet
Zechariah
says:
'The Lord
my
God shall come and all the Saints with thee.'49
And,
generally speaking,
if I
ô6cov Kai Xpcot6tcov nTpoancVCo (nl yevotuo),
atkax Tov da"VXov XapaKUTlpa Xptiycoi- Kpacov
6t' av'Tov
Xpt&Yov
KpaT6EV 0OKCO Kai n1poGKl)VsiV.
45The formulation of the
argument
here resembles that of
many
other texts considered in the frame of
this
study.
At first
sight
it looks like an
expansion
ofsi the basic
argument
derived from the famous "Icono-
phile" passage
of St. Bassa t il's De
Spiritu
Sancto 18.45.19-20: 6toit il
f-I
EiKOvoS
TtgLL
?Et T
pOTOT-cOrTov
5apa3ivel.
For more
details,
see the discussion inthe final
part
of this
study.
Cf. also Leontios of
70.181-82
('O yap -TtOV TOV
aipcupa TOv E06v tRiL)
and
ibid., 84.'?0.1.2-3.
46From this
point
on,
Moschos
presents
a
lengthy anthology
of Old Testament citations that covers lines
87-103 of our text. These
quotations
deal with the idea of
holiness,
but their insertion here serves no
signifi-
cant
purpose
and seems to be a
digression. Certainly,
Moschos wants to
legitimize
the veneration of the
martyrs
or saints
depicted
in icons and
employs
the Old Testament in order to stress their
holiness,
on
account of which
they
receive his veneration. In
any
event,
this
part
of the
Iconophile argument
is not found
in
any
of the other texts discussed
here,
at least not in the fashion Moschos
expands
on it.
47This Old Testament
quotation
is taken from a
manuscript
of the
Septuaginta
that deviates
slightly
from
the main
manuscripts (see Septuaginta Gottingensis,
XIV, 229-30)
or from the Greek translation of
Symma-
chus.
(I
have cited the
Septuaginta
text in the first
apparatus.)
If it is
Symmachus,
it is difficult to
explain why
only
this citation comes from a Greek version of the Old Testament other than the
Septuaginta.
One
hypothe-
sis is that Moschos
(or
the unknown
author)
was
using
the
Hexapla
of
Origen
and
mistakenly copied
the
version of
Symmachus
instead of mm sithe
Septuaginta.
It is well known that the translation of
Symmachus
occu-
pied
the fourth column in
Origen's Hexapla
and the
Septuaginta
the
fifth,
so a confusion of the two columns
would have been an
easy
mistake. This deviation could also indicate that our author was
using
a
florilegium.
It is also
possible
that the choice was intentional since the version of
Symmachus ("Blessed
are all
they
that
[have]
submitted
to/endured[?] Him")
fits the deceased saints better.
48It is difficult to
justify
the
presence
of this
particular
citation
here,
because its
interpretation
is rather
complicated
and not
always positive.
Moschos must be
following (or agreeing with)
the
exegesis
of Eusebius
in his Commentaria in
Psalmos,
PG 23:157AB. It could also be a
clumsy abridgment
of a
longer,
more elabo-
rate
argument.
49This citation was taken from Zechariah and not from Isaiah as Moschos
(or Kinnamos?)
has stated. This
mistake is a
very strong
indication that the author of the
dialogue
either used or had secondhand
knowledge
of an
early
biblical
florilegium
(Book
of Testimonies).
See L.
Williams,
Adversus Iudaeos
(Cambridge, 1935), 8-9,
for numerous mistakes of this nature
among
the
evangelists
and
early
Christian authors. Isaiah as a
general
heading
in these collections has taken under its umbrella
many
citations from the lesser
prophets.
203
bring
forth all that has been written in
Holy Scripture
about the saints, time
wouldfail
me
[to talk].
"The catholic Church of Christ venerates and honors all over the world the
images
of these saints
depicted
in
icons,
extolling
them and
proclaiming by
both
pictorial repre-
sentation[s]
and historical
narrative[s]
their
contests,
their
labors,
the
fasting,
the
all-
night vigils,
the
almsgiving,
and all their
steadfastness,
so that even in this
might
be
fulfilled
the word of David: 'that another
generation might
know,
even the sons which should be
born; and
they
should arise and declare them to their
children,
that
they might
set their
hope
on God.' 50
There-
fore,
every
believer,
by seeing-as
it has been said-in the
pictorial representation,
and
by listening
to the historical narrative of their contests and the likeness of their
figure,
is
instigated
to
bravery,
emulation, desire,
and
compunction
and beseeches God to
grant
him the same
calling,
fate,
and
salvation,5'
for
he, moreover,
witnesses miraculous cures
50Tomc5ov-awtCov (lines 104-11).
In this
passage
Moschos attributes to icons a value similar to that as-
cribed to a written text.
According
to
him,
both icons and saints' lives
help keep
alive the
memory
of the
saints. Cf.
Ps.-Athanasius, Qucestiones
ad
Antiochum,
PG
28:621CD:
Ehxa Ti aoat itpbo;
ra)Ta oi
?7;txp?7iovT?; git
71pooKWuvev TO0; XapaKTcpa; TOV
dyitov, Oikiep
tI'
VI6f6ivFiv
Kai
LO6vov K-Tuto4uev,
?Kai OV 61' ixtepov Tpo6ov;
'Avtip3oXjl,
32.2-3: Kai
dUag cKatvoUpyiaS [sc. eiKO6vaS] moto1tecv 7p6; 6vSg LVO6
V
ai6vov
tya0v; the same sen-
tence,
found in
Ps.-Anastasius, Disputatio,
PG 89:
1233D; AtadXt; 'Iou6aiou
Kai
XptaTtavoD,
Mansi
XIII,
168A:
Ai ydp eiKO6ve; ii OE?opit, rnpOb VrOwivrtiv
Tf; Xt
avOp6trov oezrlpia; yp60ovrat
TO0
oG0Txfpo;
R1gCv
'Iroo0 Xpt-
GTo0. ...
O
yap, Cb;
OT VOEvo, 0eo0otoioVT;S a-&;S xTpooKVvoi6nv
oi
Xpuoxtavoi, ad'
XX
Xp, 7zopoiUgevot
Kcai
iT?orIt
TzS
TCOV
7yicov Eo0po0Otv ?iKova;, Pvr#Uv Ogpovwe ti; TrocoIv O?oo?FePai; Tp6Otaa,
249:
5oti0ovTE;
TOv
Xpt-
oT6v, zTv traupov a6Tzoo
7e36/op?0a eiS avadjiv1tv awTooI go6vov;
Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra
Iudaeos, 52.15-17: Ti
oDv; OicK 06i?XoLtRev R&LAov 7CpooKcveiv TOV; dyioVo; 6oVXotV;
TO 0eoie
KCai
lt& gvtr6 v
a6vzv eEipetv EiKo6va;
Kai dvaoTrlXA0ov iva Cin iqOapyrqi9otv;
also
ibid., 53.29-54.33:
'H/Lti;
o6v eiv Tv V
ijylv T6v
&yv
tv
ei;cKova;
cotoifiegv
'AppadM/, Mco?)o(o
, .. .Kai TCv XotutCv ipo(xrtv,
daooToXc0v Kai
taptupov
Yxv tyiv tV Oeav avat-
p?eOevTov, iva nac 6
6pcov a'ToiS;
eiv eciK6vt
ivrploveVnR aTCZ6v;
Leontios of
67.39-41:
Kai
t&
TcofTo
Xptcitov Kai Ta
Xpto-o6
ia6Oiq
v
cXT?KKIqu(Tiat;
cai ot OIKO Kai
(yopai
. ..
IKai
v
navtl TOx6tc KTVzrnofU-
gEV, iva
tIV?Ks:co; 6pcv-T?; Tax)a vjioi1itv?aCK:icAeOa.
See also Der
Nersessian,
"Une
apologie,"
67. That the
early
Christians also
perceived
icons as a means of
preserving
a saint's
memory
is attested
by Epiphanius
in
his Tractatus contra eos
qui imagines faciunt (CPG 3749,
written ca.
392);
see
Thtimmel,
Friihgeschichte,
298.13-15:
'AX'
peit; gtot 60t "Oi
7aT?p?; eSipoXa
F
0vi0 v
P65ev a ,avTo,
ir/tei
5O Tax;
eiK6vaS T6Cv &yiT
v
7otoiL?ev
E?i; jIV76docvov aDTcv,
Kai eit;
Ttjtilv KEvciv aDita
7cpocK:)voUL/ev." Compare
also the letter of Neilos of
Ancyra
to
Olympiodoros Eparchos (written
before
430),
Mansi
XIII,
36c:
iaToptucv
65
7cacatd;
Kai
veaq 5&ata0iKr
7czXrpo?at
ivOev Kai evO?ev yetpi cKaXXioToD
oypdp(ou
T6v vaov TCOv &yiowv,
6OtoG;
av oi
j'l Ei66te; ypdj&aTa xri56
6uvvd?vot T;S O?iaS dvaytvxoTKE?tv
ypadS;
qT;
0?0Epia; Tfj;
rcypa(iaS; tavjanlv
TE
Xca/P4dvCt
o( i T;
tCv yviowCO;
T
daq0tvC O?c
6?60ou8o?oK6
cv
dv6payaOiag
l Kai
7p6o; &iatX,av t??eyeipovat
TCOV
E?KEc?Ov
Kai: dooti6o
v
dptot?u-
,dtuv.
Thiimmel
believes that this
passage
is an
Iconophile redaction;
see H. G.
Thummel,
"Neilos von
Ankyra
fiber die
Bilder,"
BZ 71
(1978),
10-21
(text
repr.
in his
Friihgeschichte, 310). However,
it is difficult to
understand the reconstruction of the
original
text
proposed by
Thiimmel
("Neilos
von
Ankyra," 21).
Ac-
cording
to
him,
the
non-Iconophile original
of this letter should have contained
something
to the effect that
the faithful
staying
within the whitewashed church of the
martyrs
would commemorate them
by reading
the
accounts of their deeds. I think that the
passages
cited above offer numerous
parallels supporting
the au-
thenticity
of the
Iconophile (=
icons for the commemoration of the
saints)
version of Neilos' letter. For
additional
arguments
in favor of the
authenticity
of these
letters,
see Al.
Cameron,
"The
Authenticity
of the
Letters of St Nilus
ofAncyra,"
GRBS 17.2
(1976),
189-92.
1
For the role of icons in
inciting
the faithful to emulate the
holy
deeds
depicted
in them and their
eventual salvific
operation,
see also the Aitd6tX
; 'Iov)aiov Kai
Xptoxtavoi,
Mansi
XIII,
168A: oi
Xpitotavoi,
...
Xc
n ucpo6i/?vot
Kai mttrxet
TCs
txv Tyiwtv Oeopoo1tv eiK6va. .. Kai
7cpooKuvovVT?;
TOv
TCv
TV yicv ?KK-a-
Xo-tvat
Oe6v,
kXyovTe;- 'EiXoyTiqt;
e{ 6
Oe6;...
6
6oi) attol; 6T;mogovilv Kai 65t6v
Kai odo
f3aotE?iaC, tet6toa;g
lLgag; oir?oovn a6cOv
Kai
etXai-t
aJTxv
tViocxoov iag&';
Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra
Iudaeos,
54.33-36:
np?:cet
ydp
azxoi; [sc.
the
saints] xtIt i
capocK:vrV(ot;
Kai
dvaTOieoeat
Ta
ilpxepa 7p6b; axto;S
Kata TTiv
5IKatlOtV6lv
204
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
accomplished through
their relics and
images.52
For this reason, when I
proceed
in faith
and devotion and kiss
them,
I am sanctified
through my
own faith in God, who has
honored them and for whom
they
have shed their
blood,
refusing
to
worship
the de-
monic idols of the
Hellenes/pagans.53
"You, however,
in
your
error and in
your ignorance
of the
Scriptures, bring up,
in
accordance with
your
intention,
the
shame, dishonor,
and
disgrace
that the Hellenes/
pagans
have been accused of
pouring
down
upon
the
enlightened
Church of Christ.54
avov, iva 7civreS oi ?OeOpoiVT?e; avTOitS;
YineDrotx Kai atoi potRtngiTal yevoe0at
T6v
npaEcov [other manuscript:
TrS; 7okXtF?ia;] aco'j5v.
For an earlier
example,
see the text of Neilos of
Ancyra
in the
preceding
note.
52Cf. Ps.-Athanasius, Quastiones
ad
Antiochum,
PG
28:621c;
Leontios of
68.83: 'EK
ketUIadvCv RapTxpCov
Kai
ciKOV(tV Coa'XLKSt; Eia-6vovtat 8aaitoveg
53At
mTot -et-ciTV 'EXXfjvov
(lines 114-19):
I have not found the idea of
"being
sanctified
through
one's
own faith in God" in
any
other text discussed here. In this
passage,
Moschos understands the veneration of
the saints as a
proof
of his faith in God. For the last
part
of the
sentence,
cf. also Leontios of
Neapolis,
"LApologie,"
68.75: Ei rx
eicoX)aa 7ipooeKicvo)v,
t&a Ti Xourov
ztLG TOit'; ttdpzTpa; TzoD; KaTzaX6oavTag;
T
?Eito)a;
54It seems that Moschos here tries to
say
that the
Hellenes/pagans
have accused Christians of
impiety
in
general,
while
they
themselves were
impious.
If, however,
Moschos refers to what has
already
been
said, this
implies
that the
Hellenes/pagans
have accused Christians of
idolatry,
which is rather odd. From what is
generally
known,
idolatry
was a
predominantly
Christian accusation directed
against
the
pagans
in the
early
centuries and was then taken over
by Jews
in their
polemic against
Christians in the 7th
century (see
P.
Alexander,
The Patriarch
Nicephorus of Constantinople [Oxford, 1958], 23-34; Thtimmel,
Friihgeschichte,
29-
42, 96-102, and
118-27).
There are
very
few recorded occasions on which
pagans
have addressed the issue
of
venerating images,
statues,
or other created
things
such as the Cross or relics. Even in these
texts, however,
all that
pagans
claim is that there is no
practical
difference between the Christian and the
pagan
veneration
of manmade or created
objects. Julian,
in his Kata
Xpioxtavcv X6yoS
A,
brings up
the issue in the
following
words:
esxa, o 68oxugzTX ; avOpoCnoI [sc. Christians], oploJ%voV
TOo
z7ap' fliv
OXoTCko0
toT;EO
.. .
z.poorKvetv
devT?S Kai oepeoOat,
To tot
oTaTpot nTpOoKD)VEtIrE eOV, iKo6va;
aTtot
GKlaypa0o)vT?c;
ev TO
[L?TO(7p Kai npO
zc&v oiKrrlgdToZ
v
eyypadovTe; (see
C. I.
Neumann,
luliani
Imperatoris
librorum contra Christianos
quae supersunt
[Leipzig, 1880], 196).
Another
telling example
comes from the Latin Consultationes Zacchei christiani
etApollonii
philosophi,
written,
in all
probability,
in Palestine in the
years
408-410
(see J.
L.
Feiertag
and W.
Steinmann,
eds., Questions
d'un
paien
a un
chretien, 2 vols.,
SC 401-2
[Paris, 1994], 1:22-25).
In
chap.
28 of the first book
(ibid., 172),
a certain
Apollonius Philosopher poses
the
following question:
"2. Nos enim eorum simulacra
vel
imagines
adoramus
quos
vel vera
religione
deos
credimus,
vel
antiquorum
traditionibus docti deos non
esse nescimus. 3. Vos
vero,
quibus
istud abominatio
est,
cur
imagines
hominum,
vel ceris
pictas,
vel metallis
defictas,
sub
regum
reverentia etiam
publica
adoratione
veneramini, et,
ut
ipsi praedicatis,
deo tantum hon-
orem debitum etiam hominibus datis?" On the Greek side of
Christianity,
see the
early-7th-century dialogue
of
John ofThessalonica,
Mansi
XIII,
164A: 'O
'EXklv ecnev.
"'Ye'; o)v v
fVTai;
?KKXTnjiat; iKc6va;
o
ypd OeE?T?
TxoiS; yot; {i)iv Kai cpomCvveite adyotov;V
Ka i ov
lt6vov TxoI; ayfio,
axka Kai avtc T4X 0?C
6,I)v; Ottco;
oDv
v6gOIe? Kai igac;
Ta
3ip?Tfn 7c?ptOdAkrovTa;- o6K
aTa
h 7rpooycKveiv,
akkax
r; 6t'
at6i)v
e0pa7e?vo;egva; doaLgdxov;
8uvd&tet;." Ibid., 164D-165A: 0 'E"EXrv etTev-
"'oTEst,
TOv Oebv
Xoyov
E,
?vav0pwc0TCioavTa eiKovoypa(ei~Te.
xt
cepi TCOv dyyX77
v
0aT?;
"Ot
Kaca a6totS; c)ypa(?eT? d); &dvOpc7oo;
Kai ;po(cKV?IT?e.... O{Txt
v6O,tte Kai TO'ob;
rap' il[t6iv tiLog)0EvoV; Oe?o6;
8t& TCv
ayakxgatov 0?pae?eo60ati,
n?v aTOv &tomov
Cg6v
8ta7CpaoTTo,evc0v, 6(o7e?p
o68e
pICOV ?7il
TV
ypa0ot6ivtov 6yyEXov."
See also the late-6th- or
early-7th-century
Laudatio omnium
martyrum
of
Constantine the deacon and chartophylax, Mansi XIII, 185BC: "Ti 6E Kai
nap'
pivv,"
oi
Tupavvot
[sc. the
pagan judges] 6?teqiOov,
"'O pate Oeiov ?v
eiKo6IV
O0K
eYXapdTtXeT; ncH;
OUV Rpiv
I8aXot8opei06e,
8eit6tatgLovEoG?pov
e'
6ooiatS; cpde4nt 8taKe?iievoI;"
"OKOtv
?i7e?tp ijtiv [sc. the
martyrs],
(0
&iKacata,
TOI;
?ee4eXyKTot;
W 06yo0t; Tiv tOv eiKovov
ypaivv
nrapapTC?xe, ()pe? fi; t7epi TOT)O
k6dvqr;
Kai
adgtpoxfia;
o
tgLd;
dnakadtco0ev."
It is also certain that
by
the 4th
century
the
pagans
had accused Christians of
idolatry
on
account of the veneration
given
to the
martyrs.
Asterius of
Amaseia,
in his tenth
homily,
found himself
obliged
to
clarify
the situation in the
following
words: To
aotb 8i
ai
Kai
?Xo
To;
dpvot
xnT
rovOev,
x(v
Katxapo-
vo0Dt
Tco0koi 6rbI0 8iaS; voiaS; ie?DTXefovT?;
aDTtCv T
dtic oiga. "O0iK
av6pcMc6S; ETttv;
O6K
?8a7iavfi0rl
T
o
(6ga;
OicK
v
O6iyoIt;
Xetdvvot; Kai
TOtTOt; i?yKcEXCo)(CLvoIt
a)DTOv i
Lv1iLr1;"
Mdktoaa 6i TfaDta
"EXXqrve;
ai Et6voItavoi
)aoitv. eiTzrotev 7cp6
d&lROT?opou;.
"'HgEt; gidpTupa;
otD
WpooKuvo VLe?V,
daXX
TIt6geL?V
d)
;, YVr1oio0; TpOcKDVTqr&;
205
You must understand that
you
will be held
responsible
to the fearsome tribunal55 for all
your impiety
and for the
blasphemy
to his saints.
"But show me
your
church56
having
ever
expelled any
demons;
show me the relics
of Sabbatios57-whom
you revere-having prevailed
over diseases or
having
cured
any
illnesses.
However,
not even Sabbatios himself saved
you
from
your paternal
error."
Then the heretic
replied
to him
by saying:
"Behold,
concerning
Solomon,
you
have
proved
for whom he
says
'thou shalt not
worship';
[that]
I do
accept. Concerning
Sabbat-
ios, however,
you
should not
bring
forward
something
that has not been
proven."
And he said: "I can assure
you
even about these
[things]
..."
IV. DISCUSSION
The
Nature, Sources,
and
Dating of
the
Dialogue
It is difficult to determine whether this
dialogue
is the record of an actual discussion
that took
place
between two Christians or the work of an author who chose to
expound
Oeo0D OD
o6pogeV av6vop7Do.
.o)
.
..'E4ET6Cogiev Xotiv
KaC TO
Ojd, Eti
tOCD
yiKXlaWtO
O
KatrjyopO; KaOapE16uE;.
Kai
Ico;, 6i ye oupioui
TCV TCOveot(oav &vOpc0ov
o,
tlRqat;S,
XXk'
S,
O
tS; TpooKDVtsv;;
OD
JDi
AfjlrTpav
Kcai
Ko6piv
{On
TiS; dvoiacS auuoiD 'OooaS;" (C. Datema, ed.,
Asterius
of
Amasea,
Homilies I-XIV
[Leiden, 1970], 139.18-24,
140.1-3).
The
homily
was first delivered before 395
(ibid., xxiii).
55Cf.
John Chrysostom,
In decem
virgines,
PG 59:531.19-20:
oopsepco IKpTlqpi(.
56This is one more indication of the
identity
of Moschos' interlocutor. It is clear that he is a member of a
Christian church different from the orthodox Church to which Moschos
belongs.
The idea that the Nova-
tians (and
probably
the
Sabbatians)
formed a
separate
church
(icKKrioa)
was not alien to the
early
authors.
Sozomen,
for
example, speaks
about their church in rather favorable terms and refers to the Novatians as
n
Nauatnav6v ?KcKX,roia (HE, 327.13,
18 and 348.9-11: NaQatavoi 68, ei
Kaci tva; ToTxcOv trapaTcxev
T
7cepi
TOf
nIaox%a tirlotG;
v
app3zTtoo; ?veOTfpitev,
dXX' oDv oi
nCX?oV; emri
xt
i aXTCOv
?KKcr,lofia ipf?gouv.
However, the
distinction between the Novatian and the orthodox Church is much more clear in a
passage
where Sozomen
speaks
about
Sisinnios,
the Novatian
bishop
of
Constantinople,
who was much liked even
by
the
bishops
of
the Ka06Xov
iKKvXrri?a [ibid., 348.22-24]).
Socrates also refers to them in the same terms
(cf. HE,
PG
67:624AB,
and also
745c,
where Sabbatios
appears
to have set
up
his own church:
LappacTto;S
ev OVV . ..
T; NauaDzav6cv
'EKKXranfia; ave?X(pi|o, irpo6aaov
a Tv
7rapaTijpr(?tiv
Tov
'IoD6acKOV nfol6ca nOtOIO ?VO;. Hapacuvvdyov
oov vT)
etr:K6roc)
eaof av
T2VVf t}v ZVVi ToZiup jS
H6TX
).
57The name of Sabbatios is the final and invaluable
piece
of information that allows for a secure identifica-
tion of Moschos'
opponent. Undoubtedly,
here we have a
fragment
from a
dialogue
between an orthodox
Christian and a Sabbatian. I discuss this issue further in the last
part
of this
study.
On
Sabbatios,
apart
from
the literature mentioned above in note
8,
see also the
entry
"Sabbatiens"
by
E. Amann in DTC 14.1
(1939),
cols. 430-31.
Sabbatios,
who was born a
Jew, probably
in the second half of the 4th
century,
converted to
Christianity
and
joined
the ranks of the Novatian church. He was ordained a
priest
in 384 but a little later
withdrew from that church. Socrates states that the main reason for this was Sabbatios'
strong
desire for a
bishopric, though
Sabbatios himself affirmed that his dissent focused on the observance of Easter. As a
Novatian
priest,
Sabbatios,
following
a canon introduced
by
an earlier
synod
of Novatian
bishops
at a
Phryg-
ian
village
called
Pazos,
celebrated Easter at the same time as the
Jewish
Passover
(Socrates, HE,
PG 67:62 1c/
745c). Eventually,
in
407,
a
year
of
uncertainty
in the Novatian
church,
Sabbatios
managed
to be elected
bishop by
a few
prelates. However,
the Novatians
finally
succeeded in
consecrating
a certain
Chrysanthos
as
bishop,
and this is how the final
separation
between the Novatians and the Sabbatians occurred
(Socrates,
HE,
PG
67:760A).
It is
impossible
to establish the extent of Sabbatios' influence after his
separation
from the
Novatian
church,
but
imperial legislation
turned
against
the Sabbatians as
early
as
413,
while still
favoring
the Novatians
(CTh 16.6.6).
A little
later, however,
the
Byzantine
state
began
to
oppress
both the Sabbatians
and the
Novatians,
and in CTh 16.5.59
(of
the
year 423)
and 16.5.65
(of
the
year 428) they
share the fate of
other
heretics,
such as the
Macedonians,
the
Eunomians,
or even the Manichees. As for the rest of Sabbatios'
life,
we know that he was exiled to Rhodes
(probably
after
413;
see
Socrates, HE,
PG
67:796A)
and that he
died there. His remains were indeed the
subject
of veneration
by
his
followers,
who
eventually
transferred
206
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
his ideas in this
particular
form. The first
hypothesis
can be
supported by
what the text
itself
provides, assuming
that Leo Kinnamos did not
significantly
alter the text of his exem-
plar.58
One could
support
the oral character of the
dialogue
on the basis of a number of
standard
expressions
that constitute
part
and
parcel
of an oral discourse and contribute to
its vividness
(e.g.,
line 35:
A:ye
o v
got;
line 72: ?iur owv;
line 66:
'AinoKpi?0rTt
oVv
got).
There
are also some instances of
irregular syntax,
for
example,
in lines 82-84 and
86-87, where
the verb
cpooKxuveiv
takes an
object
in both the accusative and the dative
(rrpooKVvoi4?Ev
Ta
a%pavTa g?eyaExca
.. .
*
npO7Kwvo6(?Z
V Kai
Tf, ?iKOV
TQoV
ayic0v....
'EK?
VOm)g O)V
7tpO-
(KVv() . . .
),59
or the
following
anacolouthon:
7tpooTp6XovT?E;
at X
ayfi Kotvovtag (; oc56a
TOD
XpixToii a'va6?tX0?iTai
Kai
Scoiv Xaptiog?vrj.
In
addition,
one should note the
inaccuracy
of
many
of the biblical
quotations
in the text.60 This
inaccuracy
could be the result of
quoting
from
memory,
and this
gives
some additional
support
for the oral nature of the
dialogue.
It could also be an indication that the author was
using
some of the
anti-Jewish
florilegia, already
in
place
even before the
appearance
of the
Gospels.61
Also
noteworthy
is the
quotation
in lines 68-69 based on
John Chrysostom(?)
and the
similarity
between the text in lines 50-54 and
fragments
from Sozomen
(see
note
24).
Here
again
it is difficult to decide whether the author of the
dialogue
had at his
disposal
the text of Sozomen
(written
between 443 and
450;
see
Sozomen, HE, lxv)
or one of
Sozomen's
sources,
or whether Moschos was
quoting
from
memory
texts that were in
general
circulation. If the latter is
true,
it would
help explain
the various inaccuracies
pointed
out above
(notes 24, 27,
and
30-32).
The
possible
connection of this work with a
significant
number of
existing
written
sources,
and even with the
Talmud,
implies
that Moschos
(or
the
anonymous author)
had
access to a
library
furnished with
many early patristic
works and the entire
Scriptures
or
at least a biblical
florilegium.62
Moreover,
an external characteristic of the
dialogue-the
distribution of the
spoken
words between the two discussants-renders
any pretense
of
oral discourse ineffective. A
quick
calculation shows that the heretic is heard
only
three
them to
Constantinople
in the
patriarchate
of Attikos
(406-425).
Socrates
again provides
the last
piece
of
information
regarding
the fate of these relics in
Constantinople:
Attikos,
in in order to avoid
any
further devel-
opment
of a Sabbatian
cult,
had the remains exhumed and buried in an unknown
place (Socrates, HE,
PG
67:796A).
After that the Sabbatians
appear
in various
sources,
but the use of the term is rather
problematic;
see
Gouillard, "L'hersie," 304, 306, 310-11;
see also
below,
notes 71 and 112-14.
58For Kinnamos as a
copyist,
see
Munitiz,
"Le Parisinus Graecus 1115," 54-57, and
Alexakis,
Codex Par-
isinus,
passim.
As I have
shown,
Kinnamos tends to omit
phrases
or words from a
fragment, especially
when
it
happens
to be a biblical
quotation;
see also
my
article,
"Some Remarks on the
Colophon
of the Codex
Parisinus Graecus
1115," Revue d'histoire des textes 22
(1992),
137-39.
59It seems that this double
syntax
of the verb
7cpoKcuveiv
is common in the written sources of the
early
Byzantine period;
cf. Deroche in Leontios of
70.175
(accusative)
and 70.182
(dative).
60E.g.,
the first
quotation (lines 6-14),
where the
manuscript preserves
a text in which the
subject
is in the
third
person plural
instead of the
singular;
the next citation
(lines 15-17),
the first
part
of which does not
exist in the edited text of the Old
Testament;
one more
citation,
which is cited under a
wrong
name
(lines
102f);
and the
wrong
references to the two
prostitutes
and the otherwise unknown veneration of their
image
(lines 41-42).
61See Williams,
Adversus
Iudaeos, 3-13, 124-31;
also for the collections of
Cyprian,
Ps.-Gregory
of
Nyssa,
and
others,
see H.
Schreckenberg,
Die christlichen
Adversus-Judaeos-Texte
und ihr literarisches und historisches Um-
feld (1.-1..Jh.) (Frankfurt
am
Main, 1982), 235, 299, 332,
367. It must be admitted that the material found
in these collections is not relevant to the
subject
of our
dialogue.
62For the
possible presence
of the
Hexapla
of
Origen among
these
works,
see
above,
note 47.
207
times
(lines 5-17, 77-78, and 126-27),
and his utterances cover less than
11
percent
of
the entire text. If it were not for the
lengthy quotation
from the Wisdom of Solomon in
lines
5-14,
this
figure
would be even
lower. So
e
are
practically dealing
with a mono-
logue
rather
than a
dialogue:
the
heretical voice is there in order to
provoke
the
lengthy
orthodox
responses,
but we learn
nothing
about the beliefs of the
heretic,
apart
from
generalities. According
to V.
Deroche,
this is an indication of the fictive character of such
a
work.63 Therefore,
it seems
possible
that our text is a fictitious
dialogue
whose
original
title was
AtXkoyo; Mo6%XoD
govaxoo
Kat ? yKtXOiTOD
npop6 (ntva ?) Sappafzavov.
Concerning
the
sources
of the
text,
it is
obvious
that the
vast
majority
of the
excerpts
found in it come from the Wisdom of Solomon and from the Psalms.
Noteworthy
also is
at least one reference to the Talmud. The "hidden
quotation"
in lines
68-69 from the
work of
Ps.-John Chrysostom
is a rather short and
catchy
one for someone to remember
easily,
but that does not
preclude
the
availability
of that
particular
work in the
library
of
Moschos
(or
of the
anonymous author).
Puzzling,
however,
is the
relationship
of lines 50-54 to the ecclesiastical
history
of
Sozomen. At first
sight,
Moschos' words look like a
summary
account of what Sozomen
has
written,
yet they preserve
a correct
reading
that none of the
manuscripts
of Sozo-
men has transmitted.64 One
potential
solution is to
postulate
a common source behind
Moschos and
Sozomen,
but the
problem
with the
striking similarity
between the two
texts on the
tripod
of Pausanias makes this
option impossible.
A
second,
rather
better,
explanation might
be the
hypothesis
that Moschos or the
anonymous
author had access
to a
manuscript
of Sozomen that was better than those that have
preserved
his work to
date. What is
preserved
in the Historia
tripartita (attributed
to Cassiodorus but written
by
his
disciple Epiphanius)
seems to corroborate the fact that a little more than a hundred
years
after the death of Sozomen the
manuscript
tradition of his work was
already faulty.
To be
sure, the Historia
tripartita gives
a
mostly
accurate translation of almost the entire
chapter
to which the
passage
cited above
(note 24)
belongs.
It
skips,
however,
the dis-
puted
line
(Kati [Hn7v O
leg.
n11
vv] ..
.
eZa
rTov
rpo6g
Mr6ovS noi6ov).65
In
any
case,
all
63For the
dialogue
as a
genre
and its relation to
reality,
see
Deroche,
"La
polemique,"
281-97,
though
Deroche deals almost
exclusively
with
Judaeo-Christian dialogues.
He is of the
opinion
that,
for the
period
after the 6th
century,
these
dialogues
were the result of two rather
contradictory
realities:
"l'existence
de
debats bien reels et la tendance a un
usage
interne"
(ibid., 288).
An author of such a
dialogue
was interested
in
presenting
the
Jewish argument
in order to show its
weakness,
not in
letting
the
Jew
defend his
position.
Thus,
"nous
pouvons
donc admettre
que
ces textes nous donnent en
quelque
sorte les tetes de
chapitres
de la
polemique
desJuifs
contre les Chretiens et
le plein developpement
de la
reponse chretienne;
cette
hypothese
explique
la
disproportion
entre
l'extension
des demonstrations du
Chretien
et la
maigreur
de ceux du
Juif....
En
somme,
cette litterature
polemique presente
des de&bats fictifs
qu'elle imagine
en bonne
partie
a
l'aide
des textes
anterieurs, mais
elle reflete bien une realite
contemporaine
et
peut,
au
moins
dans
'esprit
de
ses
auteurs,
contribuer indirectement a une conversion des
Juifs"
(ibid., 289).
It is
striking
that the
Dialogue of
Moschos also conforms to this
theory,
even
though
it is a little earlier than the 6th
century.
64See above,
note 24.
65For
the sources of
Sozomen,
see G.
Schoo,
Die
Quellen
des Kirchenhistorikers Sozomenos
(Aalen, 1973),
138.
It is characteristic that Schoo also
accepts
the correctness of the
reading
6
lav
6
POojI?evog
and classifies this
remark as
"selbstandig."
For the rest of the
passage,
Schoo
gives
Eusebius' VC as a source. It is
clear, however,
that our text is much closer to Sozomen than to Eusebius. For the Historia
tripartita,
see W.
Jacob
and
R.
Hanslik, eds.,
Cassiodori-Epiphanii
Historia
ecclesiastica tripartita, CSEL
71
(Vienna, 1952), xiii-xvi;
the
pas-
sage
in
question
is on
pp.
118-19.
208
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
other ecclesiastical
histories,
with the
exception
of Eusebius'
(VC 101.25-26),
are silent
about
Delphi. Finally,
one has to exclude as
possible
sources
any
late
anti-Jewish
dia-
logues
for the
simple
reason that the
argument
here
develops exclusively
between Chris-
tians and no one mentions the
Jews
in
conjunction
with the issue of
image worship.66
The
dating
of this work
presents
some
difficulties,
and for the latest terminus
post quem
much
depends
on the sources of the
dialogue.
At
any
rate,
the datable events in the text
do not
go beyond
the
year
425
(death
of Patriarch
Attikos)67
or
450,
if we
agree
that
Moschos was
using
the ecclesiastical
history
of Sozomen.
Many
of these events are much
earlier
(e.g.,
the destruction of the
pagan temples [326]
and the
burning
of the statue of
Daphnaios Apollo [363]).
I am inclined to
place
the
composition
of the
dialogue
in the
period
425-460 for the
following
reason: at the end of the
dialogue,
Moschos refers to
the relic of
Sabbatios,
who is the
object
of veneration on the
part
of his interlocutor. The
vague
allusion of the latter to events that cannot be
proven implies
that the incident of
the
"disappearance"
of Sabbatios' relic
(see
note
57)
was still fresh.
Besides,
the
period
after
423,
in which two
imperial
edicts were issued
against
the Sabbatians
(and
other
heretics),
offers an
appropriate
historical context for the creation of such a text.68
On the other
hand,
one could claim that te
dialogue might
have been a later
product
(first
half of the seventh
century)
because of its similarities with
many anti-Jewish
dia-
logues
of that
period.
This
suggestion,
however,
fails to
explain
the
conspicuous
absence
in the
dialogue
of
any
reference to the term
'Judaizing"
in connection with the venera-
tion of manmade
objects.
If this absence means
something,
it concerns the
dating
of the
text: a
dialogue
between an orthodox Christian and a
non-Iconophile
Christian,
in which
the former does not accuse the latter
ofJudaizing,
must have come from a
period
before
the entrance of the
Jews
into the
dogmatic disputations
related to the
worship
of man-
made
objects,
that
is,
before the seventh or even the late sixth century.69
Finally,
the
possible
association of the text with
pagan
anti-Christian literature
(see
note
54)
does not have
any implication
for the
dating
of the
dialogue,
since,
even if a
number of the
points
made in it recur more
frequently
in the seventh
century, they
had
already emerged during
the fourth or the third
century.
And
pagan,
as well as Christian
(e.g., Epiphanius
of
Salamis),
charges
of Christian
"idolatry"
were
floating
around earlier
than the fifth
century.
Moreover,
this
charge might
have come
up
in the course of the
trials of the Christian
martyrs
in the
third-century persecutions.70
So,
given
the historical
circumstances and the
general pattern
of the
development
of the Sabbatian
heresy, along
with a number of formulations and
expressions
shared between the
dialogue
and other
66See
below,
note 69.
67See
above,
note 57.
68Another relevant historical
example
is
provided by
the
composition
of the Doctrina
Jacobi
nuper baptizati:
it followed the forced
baptism
of the
Jews
of
Carthage imposed by Herakleios;
see
Dagron
and
Deroche,
'Juifs
et Chretiens dans
l'Orient," 230-31.
69See
Deroche,
"La
polemique,"
290-91,
and E.
Kitzinger,
"The Cult of
Images
in the
Age
before Icono-
clasm," DOP 8
(1954),
130 n.
204,
with
bibliography.
70Cf. the Laudatio omnium
martyrum (above,
note
54),
a late text but
referring
to the
period
of the Roman
persecutions;
see also the text of Asterios of
Amaseia,
ibid.
209
works of the late fourth to
early
fifth
century,
the second third of the fifth
century
is the
most
likely period
for the
composition
of the
dialogue.7
The
Iconophile Arguments of
the
Dialogue
and Its
Testimony concerning
the Veneration
of
Relics and Icons
The
parts
of the
dialogue
that deal with issues other than the veneration of manmade
objects
are so brief
(lines
2-5 and
127-28)
that
they
do not allow for much further com-
ment. That the
rejection
of
penitence
and the cult of Sabbatios were
part
of the Sabbatian
belief has
already
been noted.72 The
dialogue
reveals a much more
significant aspect
of
the Sabbatian
heresy,
its
apparent iconophoby,
which is the
starting point
for the
develop-
ment
of
the
Iconophile arguments
of Moschos that
occupy
almost the entire
dialogue.
The first
point
that strikes one is that the
subject
introduced
by
the Sabbatian and
discussed
by
Moschos is not
only
the veneration of
images
but the
worship
of manmade
objects
in
general.
This is an additional
sign
of the
early
date of the
dialogue,
and it also
shows the Old Testament
origins
of the
problem
of the veneration of created matter.73
The Sabbatian introduces the
problem
of
venerating images
"and other
things"
with
two
quotations
from the Wisdom of Solomon
(lines 5-17),
the secion of l
(nes
ec which is
directly
against
the veneration of
any
manmade or created
object.
The orthodox Moschos re-
sponds
with the
argument
that his
opponent
does not understand the
Scripture, arguing
that these accusations were aimed at the
Jews
and the
pagans
who had
worshiped
created
things
and idols. He
supports
his
counterargument
with a number of Old Testament
71It is true that the Sabbatians surfaced in later sources such as the 9th- or
10th-century
Vita
Ignatii (PG
105:493c)
and are sometimes confused with the
Quartodecimans,
but in
general,
like the Novatians and the
Quartodecimans, they
almost
disappear
from the scene in the latter
part
of the 5th
century, receiving only
a
few
sporadic
mentions
by
later authors. For
instance,
already
before the 7th
century,
Leontios,
presbyter
of
Constantinople,
refers to them
only
in his ninth sermon in connection with the celebration of Easter
(see
C. Datema and
P. Allen, eds.,
Leontii
Presbyteri CPolitani, Homiliae,
CCSG 17
[Turnhout, 1987], IX.29).
The
early-7th-century
Timotheos,
presbyter
of
Constantinople,
refers to them in
passing only
to connect them
with the Novatians and
castigates
them over the celebration of Easter
(De iis
qui
ad ecclesiam
accedunt,
PG
86.1:36A-37B).
Anastasius Sinaites
completely ignores
them in his
Hodegos (K.
H.
Uthemann, ed.,
Anastasii
Sinaitae,
Viae
Dux,
CCSG 8
[Turnhout, 1981]).
Patriarch
Germanus,
in his De haeresibus et
synodis, briefly
refers
to them
once,
in order to stress their
similarity
to the Novatians and the Montanists
(PG 98:87AB). Epipha-
nius,
who died in
403,
may rightly ignore
them in his
Panarion,
but
they
are also absent from
John
of
Damascus' Liber de haeresibus
(Schriften IV, 19-57).
At
any
rate,
they
are mentioned
by
the
10th-century Synod-
icon Vetus in such a
way
as to
imply
their existence
up
to that
time;
see
J. Duffy
and
J.
Parker,
The
Synodicon
Vetus,
CFHB 15
(Washington, D.C., 1979), 62:
app&c6to; 7ooXXoio;
TDv Buoavtcov
ouv1iplaoYe, rap'
ov Kati
Xap-
Panavoti etpt Kat
CriLte?pV Xeyovtat.
I have found no mention of them in the
Synodicon of Orthodoxy;
see
J.
Gouillard,
"Le
Synodikon
de
l'Orthodoxie,
edition et
commentaire," TM 2
(1967),
1-316.
Finally,
there is
not a
single
reference to them in the Bibliothehca of Photios
(J. Schamp,
ed., Photius,
Bibliotheque,
IX,
Index
[Paris, 1991]).
72 For the issue of
penitence,
cf. also
Germanus, De haeresibus et
synodis,
PG 98:85AB: rFetovoilt 6e
71oX;
Kat
ayXtiupot, 6)o; EiiCeiv, ekii tV?;
ToCV
aipeIKoV
... . .
Avooto;
TO
'ApEicp, Naudrat
oitS; Xappartavout;, 'dpo6tpot
56
e
i; TOv
ntepi e?Tavota; X6oyov TOt; Movtavot;.
We do not know much about the Sabbatian
position
on
penitence,
but for the
Novatians,
who shared their
beliefs,
see
Vogt,
Coetus
Sanctorum,
57-83.
73A
similar situation is observed in the
7th-century anti-Jewish dialogues;
see
Deroche,
"La
polemique,"
291: "Le fond de la
critique porte
en effet non
pas
sur
l'existence
d'images,
mais sur l'adoration du cree,
qui
menace celle due au Createur
seul;
rendre la
proskynese
a un
objet
revient a en faire une
idole;
de ce
point
de
vue, meme la
proskynZese
d'une
personne pourrait
constituer un
blaspheme.
C'est cette
opposition
cree/
non-cree
qui
fonde le debat." As will become
clear,
this is also the core of the
argument expanded
in the dia-
logue.
210
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
examples (lines 30-44).
The orthodox thesis is that Solomon's
prohibitions
refer to
a
different time and a
totally
different situation. The
logic
is
simple:
what a Christian
ven-
erates is much different from the idols of the
pagan past during
which the
Christian
Church did not exist
(lines 45-48).
Moschos then advances the
argument
one
step
fur-
ther,
asserting
that not
only
has the Christian Church never committed
any
acts of
idola-
try,
but that from its
very
first
(official) steps
it turned
against paganism
and
destroyed
idols and
pagan temples (lines 50-57).
And if Solomon and David had
castigated
the
idolatry
of the
heathens,
they
did not include veneration of the Cross in their condemna-
tion. On the
contrary,
when
they spoke (allegorically)
about the
Cross,
they suggested
its
veneration even
though
it is a manmade
object (lines 57-64). Besides,
the Cross has been
accorded
exceptional glory
because Christ was stretched on
it,
and its
power
extends
over demons and illnesses
(lines 65-69).74
The orthodox
argument
culminates here: if
Solomon and David-whose
authority
is
acknowledged by
both discussants-had
legiti-
mized the veneration of the
Cross,
then
why
does Moschos' interlocutor want to ban it
(lines 70-72)?
Then Moschos turns to some manmade
objects
that are
worshiped by
his
opponent,
that
is,
theat elements of the
Holy
Eucharist and the book of
Gospels.
Further-
more,
Moschos asks for a fair consideration of his case
by
his
opponent
who
practices
the
same
thing
he does
(lines 72-77).
The
Sabbatian,
in a rather awkward
position,
maintains
that he does not
worship
manmade
objects
but some
things
that he views as
having
divine
power (lines 77-78).
This is not the best
argument
because the formulation could
again
evoke
idolatry;75
however,
Moschos
agrees
to it and
expounds
on
why
Christians
worship
the
Holy
Eucharist,
the
Gospels,
and the icons of the
martyrs.
He also makes clear that
what is
worshiped
is not the nature of the wood nor the manmade
object,
but the "servant
of God"
represented
in the
image
and,
through
him,
God himself
(lines 78-86).
Next
comes a
lengthy florilegium comprising
Old Testament
quotations
that describe the na-
ture of the
holy person (lines 87-103).
Though
it does not serve
any
clear
purpose
at
first
sight,
this
digression helps
Moschos add two other serious
arguments
in defense of
image worship.
The first has to do with the
educational/commemorative
purpose
that
any pictorial representation
can
serve,
supplementing
that of a written
text;
the second
revolves around the idea of
images
(and
texts)
as
representations
of role models for
Christians
(lines 104-15).76
Finally,
Moschos closes his
argument
with a brief reference to
the
healing power
of the
images
and relics of the saints and
presents
his
image worship
as a
proof
of his faith in God
(lines 115-19).
The Sabbatian
acknowledges
defeat on the
subject
and
proceeds
with a somewhat related
topic,
the veneration or cult of the relic
of Sabbatios.
The
arguments
used
by
Moschos in defense of the veneration of manmade
objects
are rather
undeveloped
and not as
sophisticated
as those
found,
for
example,
in the anti-
Jewish dialogue
of Leontios of
Neapolis, although they
are more or less the same. De-
740ne
more
argument
addressed from a Christian to another Christian.
75See above,
note 42. From this
point
of
view,
the basic distinction between
idolatry
and Christian venera-
tion can be found in the words of
Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra
Iudaeos,
51.3-5:
FIepti &6 tcv
iK6vco TOcV
dyfov
Oappovigev otn tcav ?pyov YIVO6e?VOV ?iv O6v6ora Toi)
OEOi
KaX6v EcCtv Kai
&ytov.
"Etepov 6 ETcmv ?iKO)V Kai
ierpov Ei8oXov.
Everything
related to the Christian God is
good;
the rest is evil.
76
For
the connection and
complementary
function of Christian text and
image,
see in
general
H.
Maguire,
Art and
Eloquence
in
Byzantium (Princeton, N.J., 1994), esp.
34-42.
211
roche has
given
a detailed
analysis
of these
arguments,
so I do not
repeat
them here.77
However,
given
the
early
date of the
Dialogue of
Moschos and its
nature, it is
important
to
establish the
place
this text
occupies
in the
development
of
Iconophile
doctrine. I have
already
stressed that the
dialogue
does not deal
exclusively
with the veneration of icons
but
encompasses
the veneration of created
things
in
general. Although
the Sabbatian
starts out
by accusing
his orthodox
opponent
of
worshiping
"icons and other
things"
(lines
6 and
14-17),
the
scriptural passages
he adduces in
support
of this accusation
speak generally
about manmade
objects (lines
6-14 and
16).
The orthodox
speaker
later
specifies
the manmade
objects
that receive his veneration in the
following
order: the
Holy
Cross
(implied
in lines
64-71),
the
Holy
Eucharist
(lines 81-82),
the
Gospel
book
(lines 82-83),
and the icons of the
holy martyrs (lines 83-85).
To these I would add the
relics of the saints.78 It is remarkable that the
image
of Christ is absent from this
list,
although
much is said about the icons of the
holy martyrs
and their content
(lines
83-87
and
104-16).
I assume that this is because the creation and
subsequent
veneration of
any
image
of Christ were still debatable in the fifth
century. Although
one cannot read into
the
dialogue
either a total
rejection
of this
particular
veneration or a
full-fledged worship
of Christ's
icons,
a number of
literary
sources
pertaining
to this
period display ambiguity
on that issue.79 And if
Christology
did enter the debate
already
during
the
period
under
consideration,
it was in order to refute the
possibility
of
any pictorial representation
of
Christ.80
Perhaps
Moschos was aware of this
problem
and
passed
over it in silence. The
Cross is the
only thing
related to Christ that receives the veneration of Moschos
(as
im-
plied
in lines
169-71),
but the Cross was never denied
any
honor,
even
by
the Icono-
clasts.81
77At
many points
I have
given
the
parallel passages
from other texts in the notes to the translation of
the
dialogue.
Here I
give
the relevant references to the
analysis
of
particular arguments by
Deroche. For the
Christian
argument
that it was the
Jews
who first committed acts of
idolatry,
see Deroche in Leontios of
88;
for the commemorative function of the
images,
see
ibid., 92;
for the
Judaic
parallel
to the Christian veneration of the Eucharist and the
Gospels,
see
ibid., 90;
for the honor
paid
to the
saints that is
eventually
addressed to
God,
see
ibid., 91-92.
78The relics of the saints are
briefly
referred to in line
115,
along
with their
icons,
as sources of
healing
mir-
acles.
79Most of the texts to which I refer are
conveniently
collected in E. von
Dobschuitz,
Christusbilder: Untersuch-
ungen
zur christlichen
Legende,
TU
18, n.s.,
3
(Leipzig, 1899), 98*-109*;
for a fresh
approach
to a number of
them,
see Ch.
Murray,
"Art and the
Early Church,"JTS
28.2
(1977), 303-45; eadem,
"Le
probleme
de l'icono-
phobie
et les
premiers
siecles
chretiens,"
in F.
Boespflug
and N.
Lossky,
eds.,
Nicee
II,
787-1987: Douze siecles
d'images religieuses (Paris, 1987),
39-50. See also
Thuimmel,
Friihgeschichte, 47-102,
esp.
96ff and
282-319,
for
another set of
primary
sources
partly overlapping
with those of von
Dobschiitz.
80See Thtimmel,
Friihgeschichte, 99-100,
and S.
Gero,
"The True
Image
of Christ: Eusebius' Letter to
Constantia
Reconsidered,"JTS
27
(1981),
460ff.
Concerning Christology
and its
adoption by
the
Iconophile
party,
see now the excellent article of T. F. X.
Noble,
'John
Damascene and the
History
of the Iconoclastic
Controversy,"
in
Religion,
Culture and
Society
in the Middle
Ages:
Studies in Honor
of
Richard E. Sullivan
(Kalama-
zoo, Mich., 1987), 95-116,
which
provides
a detailed
bibliography
and review of earlier literature on the
subject.
See also
J.
R.
Payton Jr., 'John
of Damascus on Human
Cognition:
An Element in His
Apologetic
for
Icons,"
Church
History
65
(1996),
173-83 and
esp.
174 n.
5,
for an
updated bibliography.
As a matter of
fact,
pictorial representations
of Christ were slow to
develop,
and the earliest
images
of Christ alone are
documented
only
from the 6th
century;
see ODB
1:437,
and
Alexander,
Nicephorus,
1-2.
81For the
early period
see
Kitzinger,
"The
Cult," 89-90;
for the Iconoclast
period
see S.
Gero,
Byzantine
Iconoclasm
during
the
Reign of
Leo
III, CSCO,
Subsidia 41
(Louvain, 1973),
113-26.
212
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
Moschos'
support
for the veneration of manmade
objects
is based on the
following
arguments: (1)
One cannot
apply
the Old Testament
prohibitions against worshiping
manmade
objects
to the Christian veneration of icons "and other
things"
because these
restrictions were addressed to
Jews
and
pagans. (2)
The Christian Church cannot be
accused of
idolatry
because it is the one that has
destroyed
the idols.
(3)
The Old Testa-
ment
allegorically prescribes
the veneration of the Cross.
(4)
The veneration of the
image
of a saint constitutes honor to the saint
proper
and an eventual
worship
of God.
(5a)
The
images,
as well as
hagiographic
literature,
preserve
the
memory
of the saints and in this
way (b)
instruct and set the Christian role models for the faithful to imitate.
Finally, (6)
some
images, along
with
relics,
possess
miraculous
powers.
As I have indicated in the relevant
notes,
all the main
arguments
summarized
here,
along
with some
secondary
ones
(e.g.,
the idea that the
non-Iconophile
discussant also
venerates manmade
objects), reappear
in later
anti-Jewish dialogues82
before their final
incorporation
into the mainstream
Iconophile armory. Argument (5a)
and
part
of ar-
gument (4)
are also
present
in the
slightly
earlier Tractatus contra eos
qui imaginesfaciunt
of
Epiphanius
(see
note
50),
and
argument (5b)
is found 5in the letter of Neilos
ofAncyra
to
Olympiodoros Eparchos,
which dates before 430
(see
note
51).
The second
part
of
argu-
ment
(4)
does not seem to result from
knowledge
of St. Basil's
passage
from the De
Spiritu
Sancto
(see
note
45),
but this
idea,
which seems to
appear
here for the first
time,
would
have a
permanent impact
on the
Iconophile
literature. In this
argument
are found the
rudiments of what Deroche has termed the "thorie
g
ralel de la necessite d'intermedi-
aires materiels dans une
religion
sincere."83
Still,
Moschos focuses on a different
aspect
of this
relationship,
which does not seem to have been
seriously adopted
later
because,
among
other
things,
it did not make
any distinction-something
to be
expected
from
such an
early
text-between the adoration
proper
that is
(and should
be)
addressed
exclusively
to God and veneration of the
saints;
it also lacked the
anagogic concepts
intro-
duced into Christian
thought by Pseudo-Dionysius.84
Moschos' thesis
develops
as follows:
After
having explained
that it is not the wood or the manmade
object
that receives the
veneration,
but the
image
of the saint on
it,
Moschos continues with an elaboration on
the nature of the saint that
procures
the
legitimacy
of his veneration.
According
to
him,
a saint is one that has been honored and
glorified by
God (and to
prove
this he
produces
a number of Old Testament
quotations). Consequently,
our veneration of the saint serves
as the human
counterpart
to God's
glorification
of
him,
and this
eventually
is a form of
compliance
with the will of God on the
part
of the Christian. On the other
hand,
a saint
is a servant of
God,
and
any
honor
paid
to the saint
passes
to the
master,
that
is,
to
God.
Certainly
this
argument
does not
prove why
the veneration of
images
should be an
accepted
form of
honoring
a saint and not some other
form,
for
example,
a commemora-
tive service at the church. The
argument
lacks the
particular subarguments
that would
establish the
image
of the saint as a material
intermediary
between visible and
invisible,
82See notes
9-13, 15, 33-36, 40-41, 44-45, 50-51,
and 54.
83See Deroche in Leontios of
89-90, a detailed
analysis
of the same
argument
as
it
appears
in Leontios of
Neapolis.
84See
Kitzinger,
"The Cult," 137.
213
and thus substantiate the icon's relation to its
prototype.85
Moschos later returns to
the
subject
and offers
arguments (5a
and
b),
to which he
finally
ties the miraculous
power
of
some icons
(6).86
The last
argument brings
the
dialogue
back to the
point
where the Sabbatian
re-
sponded
that he venerated
things
that
possessed
divine
power.
However,
this
very argu-
ment,
which even in this
dialogue
is
presented
sotto
voce,
acquired
immense
importance
in later centuries. If one examines the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council that con-
firmed the
legitimacy
and veneration of
images,
it is not difficult to see that
many
of
the
texts adduced in favor of
image worship
and
many
oral interventions of the
participants
were concerned with miraculous icons.87
For the
healing power
of relics
(and
the cult or veneration
generated therefrom)
there
are a number of sources earlier than the fifth
century,88
but there is no reference to
healing
icons before the sixth
century.
A. Grabar traced the
origins
of the idea of
healing
icons to the
images
of saints
printed
on the
phials
or medallions from the saints' tombs.89
Furthermore,
Grabar continued with the
concept
that it was the association of an icon
with a
particular
relic that
gave
the icon a derivative
supernatural power (the
divine
power
of our
text)
that enabled it to
perform healings.
It is remarkable that the
wording
in the
dialogue suggests exactly
this order and
supports
Grabar's
theory (pXraov lstIoTa
6ta
T-OV
?tWydpavwv anc6vv Kat
%apaKTzpov 0pauvatoDpYtS
itaecov
yvo?xevas,
lines 1
15-16).90
So,
if
my dating
is
correct, thte
Dialogue of
Moschos
offers the first known attestation of the
existence and veneration of miraculous
images.
85For these
arguments
see ibid., 92, and cf. ibid., 142.
86For
the
early
miraculous
images
there is no extensive
literature,
since miracles in
general
have not
yet
received
particular
attenton. The most concise treatment of the
subject
is in A.
Grabar,
Martyrium,
II
(Paris,
1946),
343-57. H.
Belting (Bild und Kult
[Munich, 1990], 60ff)
discusses
only miraculously
created icons
(acheiropoietoi). Kitzinger ("The Cult," 100-115,
esp. 106-7)
deals with the
post-Justinianic period
and thinks
that Leontios of
Neapolis
was the "first author who utilized in an
apology
of Christian
images
the claim that
they
work miracles"
(ibid., 147).
One other article relevant to the
subject
is R.
Cormack, "Miraculous Icons
in
Byzantium
and Their
Powers,"
Arte cristiana
76,
fasc. 724
(1988), 55-60,
but it revolves around a 9th-
century
list of miraculous icons.
Finally,
see also N.
Baynes,
"The
Supernatural
Defenders of Constantino-
ple,"
AB 67
(1949),
165-77.
87See Mansi
XIII, 13BC, 24BC, 24E-32A,
and the scholium of Tarasius in
32B, 57D-60B, 64B-65D,
65DE
(oral
communication of
personal experience), 68A-D, 73c-77B,
77c-80B
(a
set of three stories
involving
personal experiences), 80D-85c, 85D-89A, 89A-D, 89E-92B, 189E-192c, 193D-196c. For some
interesting
comments on this
reality,
see
Freedberg,
The Power
of Images, 395-96,
and H. G.
Beck,
Von der
Fragwiirdigkeit
derIkone, SBMunch
7
(Munich, 1975),
26-27.
88See
Kitzinger,
"The
Cult,"
90.
89Grabar,
Martyrium,
II,
344-45.
90Ibid.,
346: "Dans tous ces
premiers temoignages
sur les
images
miraculeuses venerees a cause de leur
force
mystique,
c'est
l'origine particuliere
des
representations qui
en
explique
la
puissance
surnaturelle. Les
unes sont liees a la
relique (eulogies
et colonne de saint
Georges),
les
autres,
'ach6iropoietes'
ou
non,
ont ete
en contact immediat avec le Christ et la
Vierge.
Licone n'est
pas
encore sainte ni
chargee
de la
grace
divine
par elle-meme,
c'est-a-dire
par
le
simple
fait
qu'elle reproduit
les traits d'un saint
personnage,
mais
parce
qu'elle
a
ete,
a un moment
donne,
ou-par
l'intermediaire d'une
relique-se
trouve en
permanence
en
contact direct avec le Christ ou un saint."
However,
Kitzinger ("The Cult," 116-19)
has indicated that the
cult of
images, "though clearly prepared
and
encouraged by
the cult of
relics,
was never
entirely dependent
on it" and that
many images
were
thought
to
possess "magic powers"
without
having
been associated with
any
relic.
Obviously,
the formulation of our text
(and
also that of Leontios of
Neapolis
in note 52
above)
is
closer to the
theory
of
Grabar,
but
certainly
does not
preclude
the correctness of
Kitzinger's objection,
which
results from later sources.
214
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
From what I have delineated to this
point
it becomes clear that this
dialogue
also
constitutes the earliest known
attempt
at a consistent defense of the veneration accorded
by
Christians to man tmade
objects (icons included).
The
arguments presented
in the dia-
logue
still lack the refinement and coherence achieved in the course of later confronta-
tions on the
subject
and the
great theological
debates of the
eighth
and ninth centuries.
The
significance
of this
text, however, lies,
among
other
things,
in the fact that Moschos
(or
the
anonymous author) brought togetheugger
a number of
arguments
in favor of
image
worship
that were
already
in circulation
by
the end of the fourth
century,
as I have
shown.91
Though
an
early
text,
the
Dialogue of
Moschos does not have much
original
mate-
rial to offer as far as
Iconophile
doctrine is concerned.
Evidently
Moschos was not the
one who
transformed,
for
example,
ethe
pagan argument
on the commemorative function
of an icon introduced
by
Maximus of
Tyrus92
into a Christian one. This
process
was
already completed
before the fifth
century,
and if we are to
accept
the
genuineness
of the
Tractatus contra eos
qui imaginesfaciunt
of
Epiphanius (see
note
50),
this
argument-along
with the idea of the honorific character of an icon and its educational function93-must
have entered the Christian
camp
in the fourth
century,
if not earlier. So Moschos' Ico-
nophile positions represent
the
beginnings
of one of the three
tributary
streams
(the
other two
being Christology
and tradition at
large)
that,
through
the
anti-Jewish
litera-
ture of the seventh
century, finally merged
into the
great Iconophile
works of the
eighth
In terms of
image worship,
the
dialogue represents
a
stage
in the
development
of this
practice
that
seemingly
did not extend so far as to include
any
icons of Christ. One should
be
cautious, however,
in
giving
full credit to this
statement,
because it is based on the
absence of
any
reference to the icon of Christ in the
surviving fragment
of the
dialogue.
But,
along
the same
line,
the time
span
between the third and the fifth
century
is a
period
during
which one can
single
out a number of
contradictory
testimonies in
support
of or
against image
veneration.94
Therefore,
the most one can
say
about this
dialogue
is that it
emanates from a milieu that was
Iconophile
but that
probably
did not rank Christ
among
its admitted
iconographical
themes.95
In view of the
significance
of the
dialogue
as an
early testimony
of both
image
venera-
tion and
Iconophile argumentation,
I should discuss
briefly
the
gaps
that it
may
fill in
the modern literature
pertaining
to the
subject.
E.
Kitzinger
first noted that "there was
no
really systematic attempt
to establish a Christian
theory
of
images prior
to the sixth
century,"96
and then H. G. Thummel
suggested,
War in den
Quellen
bis in das 6.
Jahrhundert
hinein nur eine
Ablehnung
des Bildes zum
Ausdruck
gekommen,
und
klang
eine
Rechtfertigung
hochstens in der
Ankniipfung
an
9lSee above,
notes
13, 19, 37, 41-43, 48, 50-51,
and 54.
92For the
English
text,
see N.
Baynes, "Idolatry
and the
Early
Church,"
in his
Byzantine
Studies and Other
Essays (London, 1955),
132.
93See also
Kitzinger,
"The
Cult," 136-37.
94See
Thiimmel, Friihgeschichte, 282-316,
and A.
Grabar,
L'Iconoclasme
byzantin:
Le dossier
archeologique,
2nd
ed.
(Paris, 1984),
23-25.
95
In connection with
this,
we should note the absence of
any
reference to
acheiropoietoi
in the
dialogue.
As
is well
known,
stories about
acheiropoietoi appear
after the 6th
century.
See
Grabar, L'Iconoclasme, 19, 33-40,
and
Kitzinger,
"The
Cult," 112-15 and 113 n. 117 for further references.
"Kitzinger,
"The
Cult," 135.
215
ein vorhandenes Denkmal
an,
so andern sich
jetzt
die Verhaltnisse
langsam.
Dieser Wan-
del muB doch wohl so
interpretiert werden, daB zunachts das christliche Bild vor allem
in einem Bereiche beheimatet war,
wo keine Literatur
produziert wurde, also in einem
eher volkstumlichen Milieu, und daB seit dem 6. Jahrhundert in starkerem MaBe auch
theologisch gebildete
Kreise das Bild in der Kirche anerkannten und
rechtfertigten.97
Both also
agree
that
Hypatios
of
Ephesos
was the first
theologian
to touch on the issue
and
produce,
in the first half of the sixth
century,
a defense of
image worship
that is
somewhat debatable in its rationale.98
From the overall
analysis
of the
Dialogue of Moschos,
it becomes
fairly
certain that the
defense of the veneration of
images
had
already
been undertaken
by
an
unrecognizable
monastic milieu that had access to a wealth of biblical sources and some
patristic
litera-
ture almost one
century
before
Hypatios
of
Ephesos.
This defense took its initial
shape
within the context of the internal confrontations between orthodox Christians and
rigor-
ist sectarians
ofJudaizing tendencies,
who
opposed
the
worship
of
any
manmade
object.
Sabbatian
(and Novatian?) Iconophoby
and Other Issues
Disappointingly
little is known about the
Sabbatians, and one cannot resist the
temp-
tation of
taking
at face value the
general
assertion that these sectarians
hardly
differed
from the Novatians in terms of
dogma.
All we can deduce from the
dialogue
at hand is
that
they
had a number of
strong
reservations
concerning
the veneration of manmade
objects
and created nature. These reservations were based
exclusively
on the Old Testa-
ment
prohibition, although
it is unclear
why
the
subject
was introduced and debated on
the basis of the Wisdom of Solomon.99 Another
interesting aspect
of this confrontation is
the
interpretation
of the Old Testament offered
by
Moschos and
eventually accepted by
the Sabbatian. In contrast to what had
prevailed
in the field of
scriptural exegesis,
alle-
gorical interpretation
is used here in
only
one instance
(line 64)
in which it is still backed
by
two additional Old Testament
quotations
taken in their literal sense
(lines
65-66 and
70-71).
The other biblical
quotations
are
presented
as historical information or as norm-
ative texts. Of
course,
the veneration of manmade
objects
can be better
supported by
reference to concrete
facts, but this is another characteristic of the
dialogue
that would
have set a
precedent
for similar discussions in the
anti-Jewish
works.100 The constant
recourse to the Old Testament is
clearly
an indication of what the Sabbatians
recognized
97Thummel, Friihgeschichte,
103.
98On this text
('Y
taTtou &pX1t1EiGKO1cou 'Ecogoo ?K T(oV
7p6;
'IoXAavv6v kioKKOTov
'ATpa[otfou
(TYUJIKTCV
riquTraiTov PiPXfo)
a' cK?aXafoo) ?', Tiepi T6)V ev
Toi; ayioto; OiKO;),
see Thuimmel, Fruihgeschichte,
103 n. 191,
for
bibliography. However,
the attitude of
Hypatios
toward icons (which can be summarized as "icons for the
illiterate and
intellectually inferior, texts for the educated and 'illuminated' ones") was not
altogether original
in the 6th
century.
In the Latin Consultationes Zacchei christiani et
Apollonii philosophi
of 408-410, there is a
similar rationale behind the defense of
image
veneration
by
Zacchaeus (see Feiertag
and Steinmann, eds.,
Questions,
1:174.8: "Et licet hanc incautoris
obsequii
consuetudinem [sc. venerationem] districtiores horreant
christiani,
nec
prohibere
desinant
sacerdotes, non tamen deus dicitur, cuius
effigies salutatur, nec adolentur
imagines
aut colendae aris
superstant,
sed memoriae
pro
meritis
exponuntur,
ut
exemplum
factorum
pro-
babilium
posteris praestent
aut
praesentes pro
abusione
castigent").
99For the
early
inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Old Testament canon, see Eusebius, Praeparatio
Evangelica, XI.7.21-22, ed. K.
Mras, Die
Praeparatio Evangelica,
GCS 43.2 (Berlin, 1956), 21.21-22.
'00
For the
interpretation
of the Old Testament
by
Christian
apologists,
see M. Simon, Verus Israel, Eng.
trans. H.
McKeating (Oxford, 1986), 146-55.
216
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
as authoritative works in the Christian
tradition;
on the other
hand, the absence of
any
quotations
from
approved
church fathers
may
also
imply
their
rejection by
the Sabba-
tians,
but this is
only
a tentative
suggestion.101
The
issue, however, is
important,
and I
can
only
make further
suggestions
without
offering any satisfactory explanation. Among
other
possibilities,
one could
postulate
that the text transmitted
by
P is a reworked ver-
sion
(perhaps
in
early
Iconoclastic
times?)
of a document that
originally
included a num-
ber of
patristic
references. These
quotations may
have been
subsequently
removed in
order to make the text conform to the standards of
anti-Jewish dialogues.
The evidence
of a number of lacunas in the
dialogue
leaves some room for this
solution,
but even this
is as
hypothetical
as
my
first
suggestion.
It is
interesting,
however,
that an
early-seventh-
century
Armenian
Iconophile
treatise does include at least four
patristic quotations sup-
porting image
veneration.'02
This is the other known
pre-Iconoclastic
text that offers a
disputation
on
image
veneration between Christians and
certainly provides
a
picture
different from that of our
dialogue.
As for the veneration of manmade
objects
or created
things
in
general,
the Sabbatians
become,
through
the
present dialogue,
one of the first
solidly
attested Christian sects to
have
incorporated iconophoby
as
part
of their devotional
practice.'03
The situation is less
clear
regarding
the veneration of relics. To be
sure,
we have the
testimony
of Socrates
that the tomb of Sabbatios was a
place
where his followers offered their
prayers'04
until
Attikos had his remains exhumed and buried elsewhere.105 The
Dialogue of
Moschos,
how-
ever,
is
confusing
on this issue if one focuses on the
meaning
of each word: Moschos
speaks
about Sabbatios as the
vague recipient
of vent o
eration,
but he is not clear about his
relics
(56e;
oI T
X
Eiava
Xappaioto,
oi
cnE
and not
av sPn);
thus the
question
of the
veneration of relics
by
the Sabbatians remains with no definite answer.
Having
established that the Sabbatians constituted one of the first declared "Icono-
clast"
or,
at
least,
non-Iconophile
sects of
early Christianity,
one further
point
of
investiga-
tion remains. This is the Novatian attitude toward the veneration of created
things,
which
may
be similar to that of the Sabbatians in view of the common
ground
these two sects
share.'06
Unfortunately,
the
only
concrete evidence on this issue comes from a treatise
1lO In this context it is worth
noting
that the Novatian
(reader and later
bishop)
Sisinnios was the first to
suggest using
the
testimony
of the church fathers in ordthers or to solve
dogmatic disputes
between orthodox
Christians and Arians as
early
as 383
(see Sozomen, HE, 314.17-315.26).
We do not know whether this
movement was the result of the official Novatian stance toward the
patristic tradition,
orjust
a tactical move
in their
fight against
the Arians-Sisinnios in
any
case was
very
learned in both
Scripture
and
patristic
literature-but,
judging
from this
dialogue,
it is
unlikely
that the Sabbatians shared the Novatians'
positive
inclination toward
patristic
tradition.
102See Der
Nersessian,
"Une
apologie,"
60-61,
63.
103It is difficult,
if not
impossible,
to deduce which
segments
of
Christianity
were
represented by early
non-Iconophiles
such as
Epiphanius
of Salamis or Eusebius of Caesarea.
104See Socrates, HE,
PG 67:796A: To 70oWLa 'Toi)
Xappatio)
?K
T
'; P66oT80
?TaKoiTaVTa;
... . . Kai
avTaq,
t?7r1i 1 a TO T
eOXEGoai.
105See above,
note 57.
106
Concerning
other
potentially iconophobic heresies,
evidence either does not exist or cannot be verified.
There
is,
for
example,
a short
passage
in the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in which Tarasios lists
among
the
early
Iconoclasts the
Marcionists,
the Manichees
(who clearly
were not
Iconoclasts),
and other
individuals well known for their
Monophysite
beliefs
(see
Mansi
XII,
1031DE:
Tapa7toS
O6
ayitoTaTO; iraTpiap-
%; eX Ce ?epi)Koev
)cKal
MavtIaioui;
gi
6E?taivoi) iK6va;
Kai
MapKlitcvto6(a,
Kal TobD
oyZvxtIKOi
;
T6Ov
Xpt-
GTroD
?Doeov,
Xcv
IIexpo 6o Kva6eet Ka ct
SEevdtai
6
Iepao,6Xeo;, oi atiperiKco,
adXX Kat
ZEPnfpoS).
The
way
Tara-
217
against
the Novatians written
by Eulogios, patriarch
of Alexandria from 580 to 607. In
it
Eulogios spoke, among
other
things,
of the Novatian aversion to relics and their cult,
which
practically
falls into the
category
of the veneration of created
things.
However, this
information
pertains
to some Novatians who lived in
Egypt
at the
beginning
of the sev-
enth
century,
and we cannot be sure whether this was a
practice
followed
by
all Novatians
or
only by
those in
Alexandria.'07
I
present
with a
strong
caveat another
potential
bit of
information on the Novatians because I fear I
may
be
reading
too much into the sources:
in the Latin
Consultationes Zacchei christiani
et
Apollonii philosophi,
the Christian informs his
discussant that the veneration of
images
is
something
that "districtiores horreant chris-
tiani." 108
Considering
that this is one of the
very
few texts of this
period
that
display
a
positive
attitude toward the
Novatians,109 I
wonder whether the
category
of"districtiores
christiani"
may
include that
group.
One later reference to the
Novatians, however,
is a little more
suggestive
of a
possible
connection between the Novatians and
iconophoby.
The reference comes from the
eighth-century NoOetia
a,
in a
passage
where the Iconoclast
bishop
Cosmas enumerated
the
patristic
authorities who had
spoken against images.
The first author in this list was
Epiphanius
the wonderworker
(of Salamis),
followed
by George
of Alexandria and Sev-
erus of
Antioch(!).
The
Iconophile
monk retorted
by contesting
the
orthodoxy
of the last
two
authors;
as for the iconoclastic
writings
of
Epiphanius,
he claimed that
they
were
Novatian
forgeries.l10
In this context it is evident
that,
according
to the
Iconophile
monk,
the Novatians fabricated a number of
iconophobic
testimonies. This
by implication
leads
to the conclusion that the Novatians were also Iconoclasts.
Unfortunately,
it is not
pos-
sible to establish the
credibility
of this
allusion,
and the
problem
is
aggravated by
the fact
that
tht
e author of te
Noielasia
probably
used our
dialogue.
So the
question
becomes
sios
expressed
his
thoughts
does not
make clear, however,
whether
iconophoby
was a
general
tenet of those
heresies
orjust
a
practice
observed
by
some of them or
only by
the
persons
mentioned. In
any
case,
according
to the
Synodicon Vetus,
and other sources
(Ecclesiastical History
of
John Diakrinomenos,
Theophanes),
the first
Iconoclast was one of those mentioned
by
Tarasios
above,
that
is,
the
Monophysite
Xenaias of
Hierapolis
(floruit
end of 5th
century;
see The
Synodicon
Vetus
[above ,
note
71],
90.105.5-9:
XEtpOTovei .evadav iiltaKOtov
.. .
t;
%Xp .avoKa1(rlyoptKurS aip,o6o?
;
d&pXrlyeTv
tdidnupov-
tpcpoxo;
yap itdvTov
XptaoioD
To Oeof
Ti)cov, T|S;
itavayvo) aino
gnlxtpos;
Kati
davTCov
T iv T
y
ayo
e a
cuia; EiKovac g
ef;
TEKKXil;tag; C4?a Xev).
For more about
the other sources and additional
bibliography
on
Xenaias,
see
ibid.,
91-93 n. 114. For an Iconoclast sect in
early-7th-century
Armenia,
see Der
Nersessian,
"Une
apologie,"
58-87,
and P.
Alexander,
"An Ascetic Sect
of Iconoclasts in Seventh
Century
Armenia,"
in K.
Weitzmann, ed.,
Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor
of
Albert Mathias
FriendJr.
(Princeton,
N.J., 1955),
151-60.
Finally,
for the
possible
connections between Pauli-
cianism and
Byzantine Iconoclasm,
see N. G.
Garsoian,
"Byzantine Heresy:
A
Reinterpretation,"
DOP 25
(1971),
97-101.
107The
treatise of
Eulogios
has not been
preserved.
All we have is an extensive
description
of it in the
Bibliotheca of Photios
(see
cod. 182 = vol.
II, pp.
193-94 and cod. 280 = vol.
VIII,
pp. 209-11).
Even Photios
is not sure about the extent of this Novatian
practice (see
cod.
182,
pp.
193-94:
'Ev
&6 TO,ci ?ctpz <X6ycp>
ibico;
wpi
Zopt TOEV 6 Iv
ctav 8 Ta Tv
iyapupowv kxtEiyava
enaycviferat [sc. Eulogios],
oii pi
daCveXEOat npairetv (|toi
Txoi;
dav
TivV 'AXeAavp?fiav 8taitcapev'aS; NauaxtavoDl;, EitCe rolvTov pOVV Kai
Triv
Totaimiv
voaov
inpoo-
V?VOcfnKOro)v, ti"re KOico;rv
'r
aipEaeio;
TOTZo 3tarXpe,PulvoVaCrqq).
'08See
above,
note 98.
109See
Feiertag
and
Steinmann, eds.,
Questions,
11:129.
"OSee Nou6eoia,
179-80: '0
y'pov
iepi
rol TO FaKapiot 'Eirctavioov VEu6EntXacwo; ar'zroi xpdCxaat
Navarta-
voi
yap, o7rvaoavTeq
wi
eijIoya
zTg aipEaecoq avciT-mv
aroat,
T6
ovojia
ToV Oeoq6pov KceOaXijv To XO7yov XpfjcravTo.
See also S.
Gero,
Byzantine
Iconoclasm
during
the
Reign of
Constantine
V, CSCO, Subsidia 52
(Louvain, 1977),
34.
218
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
more
complex:
was the author of the
Nou0eeoia
aware of some
things
about the
Novatians
that we do not know? Was he
confusing
them with the Sabbatians of our
dialogue?
It
is
impossible
to answer.
Unfortunat.ely,
this is all that the extant sources can offer for
the
time
being,
and it is rather inconclusive.
Concerning
the
Sabbatians, however,
it is reasonable to assume that their
iconophoby
was
part
of
theiter
udaizing
character
which,
I would
suggest,
manifested itself
in,
among
other
things,
the strict observance of Old Testament
precepts.l1l Along
the same
lines,
one could cite their
preference
for
celebrating
Easter on the
day
of the
Jewish
Passover.
Certainly,
the
Jewish origins
of Sabbatios
might
have accounted for other
Judaizing prac-
tices
adopted by
his
followers, but;
I am unable to describe
any
of
them,
if there were
any.
Rather
odd, however,
is the
possible
veneration of the relic of
Sabbatios,
because this
kind of veneration is
something quite
alien to
Jewish
customs. In the later sources one
can find more
examples
of other
Judaizing practices
observed
by
the Sabbatians or other
related
sects,
such as the
Quartoclecimans;12
it is
very
difficult, however,
to establish that
a certain
ninth-century
Sabbatian,
for
example,
who followed the Mosaic law and
rejected
both the Resurrection of Christ andthe existence of the devi was the iidirect descen-
dant of our Sabbatian. 14
On the other
hand,
it seems that it was the
identity
of the Sabbatian interlocutor of
Moschos that
may
have been
responsible
for the form and the content of the
dialogue
and its eventual resemblance to later
anti-Jewish dialogues.
In other
words,
Moschos was
not in a much different
position talking
to the
Sabbatian, than,
say,
Leontios
addressing
his
imaginary Jew
because of the
similarity
of the
subject
and of a number of
possible
analogies
between Sabbatians
andi
Jews
that I have
presented
above.
To
conclude,
the
present dialogue helps
to locae with more
precision
one of the most
important
sources of
iconophobic
attitudes within the
early
Christian
Church."5 This
source was the
Judaizing
sect of Sabbatians and
possibly
some
segments
of the Novatian
Church. This should not be
urprising;
one would
expect
to find in the
Judaizing
sects
the most fertile
ground
for a continuation of the Old Testament
hostility
to
any
artistic
representation.
This is
exactly
the
inspiration
for the
position
of the
early
Iconoclasts
before Constantine
V,
which is
why
the Iconoclastic
arguments
of Leo III are the same
as those of the Sabbatian.116
However,
the
Dialogue of
Moschos shows
that,
apart
from some
individual
exceptions
of
early
fathers such as
Epiphanius
of
Salamis,
the mainstream
"'
For the
meaning ofJudaizing
and other related
issues,
see G.
Dagron, 'udaiser,"
TM 11
(1991),
359-80.
"12For
a well-attested conversion of
Quartodecimans
to
orthodoxy,
see C.
Mango,
The Homilies
of Photius,
Patriarch
of Constantinople (Cambridge, Mass., 1958),
279ff.
"3The Sabbatian(?)
in
question
was in fact the Iconoclast
emperor
Michael
II;
see Vita
Ignatii,
PG
105:493c;
for more see
Dagron, 'Judaiser," 367,
and
Gouillard,
"L'heresie"
(above,
note
2),
310-11. It is
very
likely
that the term is used in this case as a slander.
1140n
Judaizing
heresies and
iconophoby,
see
P. Crone, "Islam,
Judeo-Christianity
and
Byzantine
Icono-
clasm,"
Jerusalem
Studies in Arabic and Islam 2
(1980),
83ff. It is worth
noting
that,
apart
from our
Sabbatians,
there was
already
in existence another
Judeo-Christian
sect of the same name.
According
to
Syrian authors,
the sect
originated
in
Apostolic
times
(ibid., 84).
I wish to thank S. Shoemaker for this reference.
1"5For
more on the
subject
and further
bibliography
on other
possible
sources of
iconophoby
in the
early
Church,
see
Murray,
"Art and the
Early
Church,"
303-4 nn. 1-2.
116
In
addition to the
bibliography
cited above
(notes 80-81),
see also Th.
Sideris,
"The
Theological Argu-
ments of the Iconoclasts
during
the Iconoclastic
Controversy," ByzSt
6.1-2
(1979), 178-91,
esp.
181-83.
219
Church was not
openly
and
unanimously
hostile to the veneration of manmade ob-
jects."l7
The
initially quasi-internal
and
subsequently marginal pressure
from
rigorist
sects must have turned the attention of the
early
Church to the
problem
of
image
vener-
ation.118
The
Dialogue
and Later Works
As indicated in the
introduction,
Gouillard first
thought
that this
work,
being
a ninth-
century product,
had borrowed some
passages
from the letter of
Pope Gregory
II to
Patriarch
Germanus.l19
I
hope
that the
analysis provided
here has
proven
the
impossi-
bility
of such an
assumption.
In
addition,
I add a few more
arguments
in
support
of the
priority
of our
dialogue
over the letter of
Pope Gregory
II.
The
passage
from
Gregory's
letter reads as follows in P
(fol. 283):
... o6.
8
yap
a8taLXe;
t t
TpoeKvrvoa?Ev, o6aV? 0 t6LXov ?
v
Xopilp
?/aXKe,oagLev,
omte Oe6
fjiv
1i KTiots; EXy7tocCal, Oi)5'
au
t6Xtv
TrO
yuxCCO i6?e7?7oaev Kai
TO
BeeXOeyop ?ekXp a0ri-
jiev,
O68? T?eKvo46voJV
;
xeXET&; [TEXveT&;]
TI Kcpi)ta gloxripta TX6ekoagev, oi6)i TOtb; viot;
Ti,uov
Kai
TCas; OvyaT-paS
TOgV
E06oaa?v 8atgoviotS; rozT,
co;
av
e?is;
iga xa traapa oXoog&vTro
toi;q i6oXoXodXpact;
t
y6
,teva
'KXa [dveo0at.
Mi
ryp ? O'
gtdCv
?0ovoKTov1ir10 i yfi
?v Toit
alitaotv
'
?eiKova eit TOv vaov
E7irotfioagev
Txepgopao0p oov ?e8toaV
ov
Kai
cTavTn xcpooe-
K1)vfiGaCJev;
Mi
P5ifXuy?ga eprTrexTv cKa KITVCV
r
iX TrO%CX TOr0 vao6 KaTxeyp&aaLiev;
"H
6hitv
frLaS
6
'0IECEKt/IX eO6wedaT0o
Oprlvoivra;
TObv 'Aoovi
Kai
90i)vgTav; TC /ioiF; nepi
Xv ?qotv
6
dxrTc6ozo
;
o
Xa
XpeuVoav tfi
KTIzoet tapa TOv KTioavra;
Mu
&pa
o
iGoai?v iKc6vaS
TOv
860
nopv&Cv ?v Aiy'67rTC,
Tfil 'OMoM&
Kat
fi; 'Oip Ka
Kai
Ta6xa QtpOGeK1vfioGatev, 1i a0to
0
ouiat
irap' /gL(v
Tro
BiX
?v BapDXovt
Kaci
TC
Aayo
v v
naXcato?ivr ipooriv9%0rloav
T
Ttoi; aXXot;
0eoi;
TCV ?0vCIv ucPen:Teoagev;
01iK ?iTI TajTa,
O)K CX(Tr. ...
A
comparison
between this
fragment
and the text included in lines 25-43 of the
dialogue
will
easily
show that the text of the
dialogue
is more extensive and
complete
than the
fragment
in
Gregory's
letter.
Compare
the
following:
(1)
Dialogue,
lines 27-29: Wisd. of Sol.
14.8-9/12 where the
phrase
xo 6;
009ap6ov
Oeb,
ovogtaOrqi occurs.
Gregory's
letter,
lines 1-2: o6e
Oeb?0c
rlgiiv )
KT1ca1;
X?X k6yi(Tat.
(2)
Dialogue,
lines 32-35: Wisd. of Sol. 14.22-23.
Gregory's
letter,
lines 4-5:
cS6
av
ei5;
iLta;
ra iap&a OXOIOVT0o;
Toit;
?iXo8(0XoaTpat; Xey6-
?LEva
r?Kgapadve?6at.
Of
course,
the two versions come closer in the
remaining
lines that
follow
the words
Mri yop
... ?ovoKrovril9r,
but it is still difficult to
accept
that the
dialogue copies
the
letter of
Gregory.
In
practice
it is much easier to
abridge
an
existing
text than to
identify
and cite in full a biblical
passage
that is alluded to. The first line of the
passage
in the
letter of
Gregory
where there is a reference to the
worship
of cows
(o066 yap
8acgdket
7rpooY?K)vrioYaCLv)
must be an addition
by
the author of the letter. This allusion comes
from
1 Kings
12.28 and disturbs the
"chronological" sequence
of the events cited in the
17
For a
reevaluation
of this
theory,
see
Murray,
"Art and the
Early
Church,"
305ff.
"8For
a similar
conclusion,
put,
however,
in a much wider
frame,
see
Crone, "Islam,"
74ff.
"9See Gouillard,
"Aux
origines" (above,
note
3),
244-53. For an exhaustive
bibliography
and discussion
of this
letter,
see P.
Conte,
Regesto
delle lettere dei
papi
del secolo VIII.
Saggi (Milan, 1984),
46ff.
220
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
sequel.
A further
addition,
I
think,
is the short sentence with which the
fragment
from
Gregory
ends
(if TOi; a6Xo; Os
iE;
-Tr V e9v6v
)7i?j7w?6a(t?V;). Besides, in the letter of
Greg-
ory
there are a number of
Iconophile
testimonia taken from earlier
works, all of which
have been identified
by
Gouillard.120 The
fragment
from the
dialogue
is the
only piece
for which Gouillard is rather
vague
and considers it a
borrowing
from
anti-Jewish
litera-
ture.121 But
why
should one
go
that
far,
when the source in
question
was
already
available
in the form of the
Dialogue of
Moschos some time before the introduction of the
subject
in
the
anti-Jewish
texts?
The second author
that,
in all
probability,
used the
dialogue
was a certain Theosebes
who wrote the
Noueaoia yepovTo;
before 775. Here the
borrowings
are not
direct, but
knowledge
and creative reuse of ideas found in the
dialogue
are evident in some
parts
of the
Nobueaia.
It has
already
been
pointed
out that some biblical
quotations
are shared
only by
the
dialogue
and the NoveO?aa.122 A basic feature of the
Nov0e?aa
is that it
repeats
many
of the
Iconophile arguments
of the
Dialogue of
Moschos,
but the
NoeOatoia
is more
advanced than the
dialogue
in that the verbal
exchanges
between the
Iconophile
monk
and the Iconoclast
bishop
Cosmas are more
balanced,
the Old Testament citations more
extensive and
complete,
and the
arguments
more
appropriately
articulated. I list here
some
parallels
between the
dialogue (D)
and the
No9?e(ia (N)
without
trying
to be ex-
haustive.123
Compare
the
following:
(1)
D lines 58-63 = Ps. 113.12-16
N lines 186-88 = Ps. 113.12-13
(adding Kai
Ua t
fi )
(2)
D lines 43-47:
TaPca
F?K?Ivot; Toit notoaaaotv
?ylKaXet?
Taca Tz to
'Ioubatots; X?7?t,
?pit
ov
KaO
i
i
Ypawil y?yaXodov0S
po.
toi
yap
jv
i?;i EoXog5vToc; i{
Xptortav6v ?;KK::raia;
OV6& [
?Ta
XfiXa
?Ta v avo-i 6a'
oD ravzTaa
yyove Kai ?Xi?09ri.
1n`6;
oVv -aQa
rn
Toi
Xpvatoi
?yKal?6;
i?KKXT:Tila,
Tfi T8?7OxT?E
?i860otg; T?XL??ion
...
N lines 205-11: 'O
y?pov
?i7?v 6TX? TaiTa
Mwo; a'nciivaTo,
6
%ptaTavioaoS;
i ta
Xpitoio
?vTaQ4aTa Kat
ai tat a6xoo 7apab6oeo? ?11i
yrno ?xoXT?V)ovTo;
Nal i' oi;
KooaLt&; e?7zV'
O8V? ge?Ta ptpoiXlta ?Tnl
XO?v ?v oapKi XpltoT; ?XiC
yq
...
(3)
D lines 72-74:
Ei7i?
ov,
T&v n
pOKlpooK?uv;
T11 KotvWovita 6O
Kai
TOqo i?a?c
Oic(p GO-Kai
TxaOa
XEtpoTofirlTa KaTaGK?DaGLzaTa-Kat
TaVi
Ca &TC;
7CPOGK:V?5;;
N lines 379-83: 0 y7?pov
?It?V i6ob -iV gLapxTpiav
Kaxa
G?Va&
Tv
(?pov
OV VO?5
?EipcrK6(
yap
"T6
X?tpotoirlxov, ?7IcKaTapaTov
awxo
Kai
6 t
oilOaS
axo6" Ti
?t?oy;f;
'O
otaoDpo
TOD
XpITxof
X?tpo7coirT6;
?xTtv
'r
oi';
T a &y1a
?ayY?Xta
Kai
X
To
OItc K?EVl Ti; ?:KKrxoina;,
Kai
ra
ayta S&pa oiVK ?iotv
x?tpo7oirfTa;
The last
example
is
apparently
a list of cliches that occur
throughout
the entire Icon-
ophile
and
anti-Jewish
literature.
However,
as far as I
know,
the elements of the
Holy
"20For these
testimonia, see
Gouillard,
"Aux
origines,"
246-47.
21
Ibid., 247: "Une meilleure connaissance des ecrits
polemiques
contre les Juifs montrerait certainement
que Gregoire
leur doit bien
davantage.
Sinon la bizarre lecon
Olodam,
...
peut-etre accidentelle, l'allusion
a
''idole
tetramorphe'
de Manass . . . refletent les
a-peu-pres
outranciers d'un
polemiste populaire."
How-
ever,
as I have shown
above,
no known
anti-Jewish
text
provides anything
similar to this
passage.
22See
above,
notes 9 and
10,
esp.
the latter.
1231 will return to this issue in the critical edition of the
Noeuoi?a
on which I am
currently working.
221
Eucharist are listed
among
the created
objects
that are
worshiped only by
these two works
and
by
the Adversus Iconoclastas,
124
which was written in 770.125
John
of Damascus and the Seventh Ecumenical Council
(Nicaea 787) undoubtedly
ignored
the
Dialogue of
Moschos,
and one
might
wonder if either
John
of Damascus or
Patriarch Tarasios ever came across this text. For
John
of Damascus the answer is
easy:
had he known the
Dialogue of
Moschos,
he would have included it in one of his three
Iconophile florilegia.
For Tarasios and his assistants the answer is more
complicated:
it is
characteristic that the first
part
of the fifth session at Nicaea was devoted to
discussing
the
origins
of Iconoclasm. Tarasios
presented
a number of
texts,
arguing
that,
apart
from
the Old Testament
example
of Nebuchadnezzar who
destroyed
the
Cherubim,'26
the
Iconoclasts were
Samaritans,127
pagans (Greeks),l28 Jews,129
Manichees or
Phantasiasts,l30
and the
Monophysites
Xenaias of
Hierapolis
and Severus of Antioch.131 This is all Tara-
sios was able to come
up
with.
Moreover,
a careful
investigation
of the text of the acts of
Nicaea has failed to
produce any
textual
parallels
with the
Dialogue of
Moschos.
However,
as I have
argued
elsewhere,132 the
archetype
of
P,
which included the
dialogue,
was a
manuscript
from the
papal library
in
Rome,
and the Seventh Ecumenical Council made
use of this
manuscript.
The reasons
why
this text was
ignored by
Tarasios are not clear
to
me,
but one can assume that the work of Leontios of
Neapolis against
the
Jews
was
sufficient for the needs of the Seventh Ecumenical Council
(in this
respect, compare
Tarasios with the case of
Nicephorus below).
In
any
event,
by
that time the Sabbatians
would have been
long forgotten
in
Constantinople
or,
more
likely, they
were a
negli-
gible entity.
Despite
its absence from the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical
Council,
the
Dialogue of
Moschos was available in
Constantinople
after
787,
as stated above. This is confirmed
by
the
following passage
from the
recently published Refutatio
et eversio of Patriarch
Niceph-
orus. In order to refute an Iconoclastic testimonium
presented
at the Council of St.
Sophia
(815)
under the name of a certain
Leontios,
Nicephorus
cited some
fragments
from the
dialogue
of Leontios of
Neapolis.
In the
sequel
he stated that he could also
quote
from
other authors who had written
against Jews, pagans,
and other
heretics,
but he did not
wish to shoot wide of his
mark,
so he
only gave
the names of these authors. The relevant
extract from the
Refutatio
et eversio reads as follows:
... Cl.
eoV
86
xav0v y'7?tv
a T?
?e il i;v iape?piO?
TO)
;TpoKE?tgjVvoi) KOicoo ye?voOca,
ola
Kai
ova
7cpob 'Io&aioux;
Kat
"E'XXrvaS Kai ei TI; &XaXl
a
vtieT0o;o zo) 6pOo6 X6yov goipa
Kat
teEpot i?poi a&v6pes sf
eo?f eiafS
TFpongarojsa6evot
a6vTeiov
Avazdo6atg
e 6
0eoo00tX1,,
6
cKa'c
T6
ttvaiov
6po;,
"ifot tz- 'AvttoXFov npoe6pe oag Kaic
'Iodvvl7
6
:; a
Oeaaovuc?ov
124pG 96:505A.
25
See H. G.
Beck,
Kirche und
theologische
Literatur im
byzantinischen
Reich
(Munich, 1959),
488.
12Mansi
XIII,
16OAB.
127Ibid.,
160D-164B.
128
Ibid., 164C-165D,
185A-188B.
129Ibid.,
165E-168C.
130Ibid.,
168D-173D.
131Ibid.,
180D-184c.
132See
Alexakis,
"Some
Remarks,"
143
(above,
note
58);
idem, Codex
Parisinus, 254-57.
222
ALEXANDER ALEXAKIS
EtTpoTeV6oaq apXtepXo6opvrlq, Zpytog
Te Kai
Mooxog,
oi
EDxapeaot cai Ka
ovaTavzvog
6
OeooEPEozTaTo ;
8aKiOVo Kai
Xapzoo5Xa Tfie
Kaa eV
payXrl
xaa ?tOv
PaotXe6oKK1ircLv i
agt
yvo0ptoe0?gf;
&v oi X6yot 6tootot
Kai
ciPt?p TIVcv TOoi; (tXOO6vo; ?KrlxTo0Otv tkitKavei;
KaOi-
TQCavCai.
133
As noted
earlier,
these authors did indeed write
against Jews (Anastasius Sinaites)
or
pagans (John
of Thessalonica and Constantine the deacon and
chartophylax). Sergios
cannot be
identified,134
but Moschos must be the "recluse" of our
dialogue,
since the
famous
John
Moschos is well known for his Pratum
spirituale
and
practically
for
nothing
else
(see
CPG 7376 and
7377).
The above
passage
is the
only
known witness to the exis-
tence of a Moschos who wrote
against Jews, pagans,
or
heretics,
but we are on the safe
side
assuming
that
Nicephorus
listed Moschos as an author of antiheretical
work(s?),
since all the other
categories
were covered the
remaining
names. In this context the
extract from
Nicephorus
offers an additional
argument
in favor of the
dialogue's early
date. It also lends some
support
to
my suggestion
that Moschos was
ignored by
Tarasios
because the work of Leontios of
onNeapolis
was sufficient for the needs of the Seventh
Ecumenical Council.
Facing
the same
situation,
Nicephorus
did
exactly
what Tarasios
had done about
thirty years previously,
but
Nicephorus,
at
least,
stated the reasons be-
hind his decision and
gave
the names of the authors he decided to omit.135
Columbia
University
and Dumbarton Oaks
REFERENCES AND ABBREVIATIONS
A. The Bible
For the Old Testament text I used the
Septuaginta
edition
by
A. Rahlfs
(Athens, 1979).
On some
occasions I also consulted the edition
published by
the
Academy
of
Gottingen (see below,
Septua-
ginta Gottingensis).
For the New Testament I relied on the 1987
reprint
of the Nestle-Aland edition
of the Novum Testamentum Graece
(Stuttgart, 1979).
For the translation of the biblical
passages
I used the
King James
Version,
supplemented by
the translation of Sir Lancelot C. L.
Brenton,
The
Septuagint
with
Apocrypha,
Greek and
English (Lon-
don, 1851;
repr. 1987). However,
the translations of the Wisdom of Solomon are from R. H.
Charles,
The
Apocrypha
and
Pseudepigrapha of
the Old Testament in
English,
I:
Apocrypha (Oxford, 1913).
For the Talmud I used the
Hebrew-English
Edition
of
the
Babylonian Talmud,
published
under
the
editorship
of Rabbi Dr. I.
Epstein (London, 1978).
133J.
M. Featherstone, ed.,
Nicephori
Patriarchae
Constantinopolitani Refutatio
et eversio
definitionis synodalis
anni
815,
CCSG 33
(Louvain, 1997), 174;
see also
Alexander,
Nicephorus,
257 for an
English summary.
'34Sergios
the
Stylite
of the
Syrian disputation
is rather late to be identified with this one. In
Nicephorus'
text,
Sergios
and Moschos
appear
to be somehow connected in this
passage.
Does this
imply
that
Nicephorus
had a more
complete
version of this text in which
Sergios
was an
ally
of Moschos in the
dialogue?
1351 have left for further
investigation
an issue
dealing
with the
provenance
of some inexact references to
the Old Testament. It would be of interest to ascertain the source of
many
of the
(supposedly)
Old Testament
quotations
in the entire
corpus
of
Byzantine
literature. All the critical editions to date have contented them-
selves with a citation of an Old Testament reference
preceded by
"cf." or followed
by
a
question
mark.
Numerous
surprises may
be in store for a researcher who
investigates
the extra-testamental sources of He-
brew literature.
Many questions concerning
the mutual influences between
Christianity
and
Judaism
in the
early
Christian centuries
may
find new answers.
223
B. Other
Primary
Sources
Ammianus
Marcellinus,
Res Gestae:
J.
C.
Rolfe, ed.,
Ammiani
Marcellini,
Rerum
gestarum
libri
qui
su-
persunt,
II,
Loeb ed.
(Cambridge,
Mass., 1937).
'Avztpokl: 'Avxtipokl natIai
Ko Kat
(ci icovoS 'Iovbafov,
ed. A. C.
McGiffert,
Dialogue
between a Chris-
tian and
aJew (New York, 1889) (CPG 7796).
Disputation
of
Sergius:
A. P.
Hayman,
ed.,
The
Disputation
of Sergius
the
Stylite against
a
Jew,
CSCO,
Scriptores Syri
152-53
(Louvain, 1973).
Epiphanius,
Panarion: K.
Holl, ed.,
Epiphanius (Ancoratus
und
Panarion),
3
vols.,
GCS
25, 31,
37
(Leipzig,
1915, 1922; Berlin, 1985) (CPG 3745).
Eusebius,
VC: Vita
Constantini,
ed. I. A.
Heikel,
Eusebius
Werke,
erster Band iiber das Leben Constantins
etc.,
GCS 7
(Leipzig, 1902) (CPG 3496).
Honscheid,
Didymus:
J. Honscheid, ed., Didymus
der
Blinde,
De
Trinitate,
I
(Meisenheim
am
Glan,
1975) (CPG 2570).
John
of
Damascus,
Schriften
III: B.
Kotter, ed.,
Die
Schriften
desJohannes von
Damaskos,
III: Contra
imaginum
calumniatores orationes
tres,
Patristische Texte und Studien 17
(Berlin-New York,
1975) (CPG 8045).
John
of
Damascus,
Schriften
IV: B.
Kotter, ed.,
Die
Schriften desJohannes
von
Damaskos,
IV: Liber de
haeresibus.
Opera polemica,
Patristische Texte und Studien 22
(Berlin-New York, 1981).
Leontios of
Neapolis, "L'Apologie":
V.
Deroche, ed.,
"LApologie
contre
lesJuifs
de Leontios de Nea-
polis,"
TM 12
(1994), 45-104,
text and French translation at 61-85
(CPG 7885).
NoVo6eia:
NoVOeEia yepovTOS; TEcp
T6OV
ayicov eiKovov,
ed. A.
Misides,
H
lrapoucTia Trq 'EKKijr(ias;
fiz; K(ivpovu iS i;Ov aycva 7ie)p
Tcv
ei6Kovcov (reopy0to;
6
Kaipto0;
ica'
KovoTravTivo; K(ovcTavtiaq)
(Nicosia, 1989),
text at 153-92.
napaTa6ote;
ci6Voiv
ot
povIKat:
A. Cameron and
J.
Herrin, eds.,
Constantinople
in the
Early
Eighth
Century:
The Parastaseis
Syntomoi
Chronikai
(Leiden, 1984).
Photios,
Bibliotheca: R.
Henry,
ed.,
Photius
Bibliotheque,
8 vols.
(Paris, 1959-77).
Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio:
Ps.-Anastasius,
Disputatio
adversus
Iudaeos,
PG 89:1204-81
(CPG 7772).
Septuaginta Gottingensis: Septuaginta,
Vetus Testamentum Graecum. Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Got-
tingensis
editum,
ed. R.
Hanhart,
J.
W.
Wevers,
A.
Rahlfs,
et al.
(Gottingen,
193
lff).
Socrates,
HE: Socrates
Scholasticus,
Historia
ecclesiastica,
PG 67:28-842
(CPG 6082).
Sozomen,
HE:
Sozomenus,
Historia
ecclesiastica, ed.
J.
Bidez and G. C.
Hansen,
Sozomenus Kirchen-
geschichte,
GCS 50
(Berlin, 1960) (CPG 6030).
Stephen
of
Bostra,
Contra Iudaeos: A.
Alexakis, ed.,
"Stephen
of Bostra:
Fragmenta
contra Iudaeos
(CPG 7790),"JOB
43
(1993), 45-60,
text at 51-56.
Theodoret,
HE: Theodoretus
Cyrrhi,
Historia
ecclesiastica,
ed. L. Parmentier and F.
Scheidweiler,
Theodoret,
Kirchengeschichte,
2nd
ed.,
GCS 54
(Berlin, 1954) (CPG 6222).
Tpoinata: Trophaea
Damasci.
Dialogus
contra
ludaeos,
ed. G.
Bardy,
Les
Trophees
de Damas: Controverse
jude'o-chre'tienne
du Vile
siecle,
PO 15
(1927),
173-275
(CPG 7797).
224
The Autobiographical Impulse in Byzantium
Author(s): Michael Angold
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
The
Autobiographical Impulse
in
Byzantium
MICHAEL ANGOLD
To the
memory
of Alexander Kazhdan
It
has often been noted that the intellectual and cultural histories of
Byzantium
and
the Latin West demonstrate a curious
parallelism.
The
Carolingian
Renaissance
has,
for
example,
its
counterpart
in the Macedonian Renaissance. So it was with
autobiogra-
phy.
St.
Augustine's Confessions
were matched in the Greek East
by
a series of
contempo-
rary autobiographical
works
by
both
pagans
and Christians. Thereafter the
writing
of
autobiography
to all intents and
purposes
ceased in both East and
West,
only
to revive
quite suddenly
in the course of the eleventh
century.
Attention has focused on the
reap-
pearance
of
autobiography
in the Latin West. This is
easy
to understand. The best-known
examples
come from the
West,
in the
shape
of Abelard's Historia Calamitatum and Guibert
of
Nogent's
De Vita sive Monodiae. Their aim was to illuminate the
meaning
and inner
purpose
of their lives.
They
fulfilled,
in other
words,
the basic criterion of
autobiography.
They
both had a
good literary pedigree.
Guibert of
Nogent
found
inspiration
in Au-
gustine's Confessions,
while Abelard
ingeniously exploited
the letter of consolation for au-
tobiographical
purposes.
The
personal
concerns of these
autobiographies
fitted
neatly
with the notion of the
rediscovery
of the
individual-or,
perhaps
better,
of the "self"-
which has been
proposed
as a
defining
characteristic of the
twelfth-century
renaissance.'
It is much harder to
categorize Byzantine autobiography.
The
starting point
has to
be G. Misch's
monumental,
but
neglected,
Geschichte
derAutobiographie.
It
contains,
among
many
other
things,
what is still the
only
detailed and
systematic
examination of
Byzantine
autobiography.2
Misch concentrated on the continuities that he liked to believe linked
Byzantine
education and literature to the classical world. He was therefore inclined to
Guibert de
Nogent, Autobiographie,
ed. E.-R. Labande
(Paris, 1981). Confiteor
is the first word of the
text;
Historia
Calamitatum,
ed.
J.
T.
Muckle,
Medieval Studies 12
(1950), 163-213;
C.
Morris,
The
Discovery of
the
Individual,
1050-1200
(London, 1972),
64-95. Cf. C. W.
Bynum,
"Did the Twelfth
Century
Discover the
Individual?" in
Jesus
as Mother
(Berkeley,
Calif., 1982), 82-109,
where stress is
placed
on the
importance
of
relationships
for the individual.
2G.
Misch, Geschichte der
Autobiographie,
11.2
(Frankfurt
am
Main, 1962),
766-830. Cf. H.
Hunger,
Die
hochsprachliche profane
Literatur der
Byzantiner (Munich, 1978), I, 165-70,
for a modern treatment. See also M.
Hinterberger, Autobiographische
Traditionem in
Byzanz, WByzSt
21
(Vienna, 1999).
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL IMPULSE IN BYZANTIUM
underline similarities between
Byzantine
and classical Greek
autobiographies.
To his
mind
Byzantine autobiographies
divided into the same three
categories
that he identified
in classical
autobiography:
historical,
religious,
and
literary.3
The
Chronographia
of Mi-
chael Psellos
provided
him with an
example
of a "historical"
autobiography
or memoirs.
For
"religious" autobiography
he turned to the
autobiographies
of
Nikephoros
Blem-
mydes,
while those of
Nikephoros
Basilakes and
Gregory
of
Cyprus
served as
examples
of
"literary" autobiography.
His selection of these texts for detailed discussion
strength-
ened his case that
Byzantine autobiography
was a continuation of a classical tradition.
Misch was aware that
they
did not exhaust
autobiographical writing
in
Byzantium,
but
he
rapidly passed
over other
examples,
such as
Emperor
Michael
Palaiologos' autobiog-
raphy.4
Misch's treatment of
reflected his conviction that
European
autobiography
had its roots in classical Greece. He was
unwilling
to
accept
that
Augus-
tine's
Confessions
were the first true
autobiography.
It would mean
admitting
that auto-
biography emerged
not from classical
antiquity,
but "from
religious
inwardness,
of which
the Christian
practice
of self-examination is characteristic."5 It would also mean that
autobiography
was
essentially
a
subjective
and not
objective
exercise. It suited Misch's
case that
Byzantium
never kner ew
Augustine's Confessions.
Misch could use
Byzantine
auto-
biography
to
support
his views about the
importance
of classical
antiquity
to the
develop-
ment of
autobiography.
To do so he had to stress the
conventionality
of
Byzantine
autobi-
ography
and to see it as
part
of a
literary
tradition inherited from the Hellenistic
age.
Misch
presented Byzantine autobiography
as
part
of a
continuing literary
tradition.
He was aware of the
chronological gap
that
separated
the Greek
autobiographies
of late
antiquity
and
Byzantine autobiographies,
but did not consider that this constituted seri-
ous
grounds
for
doubting
their essential
continuity.
He
glossed
over the
striking
fact that
Byzantine
authors of the eleventh
century
and later seem
deliberately
to have overlooked
as models
examples
of Greek
autobiography
from late
antiquity.
Neither the
pagan
Li-
banius nor the Christian
Synesius, bishop
of
Cyrene, inspired Byzantine
imitators.
Greg-
ory
Nazianzen had a
reputation
in
Byzantium
to rival that of
Augustine
in the
West,
but his
autobiographical poems
never had the
currency
nor the
authority
of
Augustine's
Confessions.6
It is therefore difficult to
accept
Misch's contention that the
major impulse
behind the
reappearance
of
autobiography
in
Byzantium
in the eleventh
century
was a
simple
revival of classical
literary
tradition. It was rather more
complicated
than this.
There is no
denying
that the relevance of the Hellenic ideal to a Christian
society
was an
important
theme in the
Byzantine autobiographies
that Misch chose to examine. He took
this as evidence that classical literature exercised a direct influence on the revival of
autobiography
in
Byzantium.
But this theme
pointed
not to the
past
but to a
contempo-
rary problem
for
many
educated
Byzantines.
It was a medieval dilemma. Classical auto-
biographies
offered scant
guidance.
Like
many
scholars of his
generation,
Misch had a
poor opinion
of
Byzantium.
He
3Misch, Geschichte, 11.2,
749-59.
4Ibid., 752-55.
5G.
Misch,
A
History of Autobiography
in
Antiquity,
2 vols.
(London, 1950), I,
16.
6Ibid., II, 554-63, 594-99, 600-624. See also C.
White,
Gregory of
Nazianzus:
Autobiographical Poems,
Cam-
bridge
Medieval Classics 6
(Cambridge, 1996).
226
MICHAEL ANGOLD
ended his
study
of Michael Psellos
by accusing
him of
betraying
the Hellenic ideal: "What
a
gulf separates
the
Byzantine
intellectual from the
philosophical
Ideal of free men, who
desire to live in Truth and
Clarity"!7
He failed to see that Psellos had little interest in
slavishly imitating
classical models. His
Chronographia
was an
original reworking
of the
classical mode of
history writing, largely
achieved
through
the
autobiographical empha-
sis he
imparted.
Misch failed to do
justice
to the
originality
of
Byzantine
literature. For his own
pur-
poses
he concentrated on
only
those
autobiographies
that seemed to fit the classical mold.
This left him in a false
position:
his narrow choice went counter to his conviction that a
characteristic of
autobiography
as a
literary genre
was its wealth of forms. In his own
words,
"hardly any
form is alien to it."8 A. Kazhdan has shown that from the eleventh
century
the conventional forms of
Byzantine
literature were
given
new life and
meaning
by
the
injection
of
personal
information and a
personal viewpoint.9
But this is incidental
as
opposed
to deliberate
autobiography,
which aims at the direct illumination of the au-
thor's life. The latter is an
undertaking
that few
attempt,
even in a self-obsessed
age
such
as our own. No wonder that some of the first
autobiographical writings
in
Byzantium
were
disguised.
But it went further than this. The
preferred
form of
autobiography
in
Byzantium
was as a
preface
to a monastic
rule,
or
typikon,
or as a
preamble
to a will. It is
not clear that these were e
designed
as literature at all.
They
had no connection with
any
classical tradition.
Misch's
presentation
of
has its
merits,
but the
emphasis
on
a classical
background
makes it somewhat one-sided.
Underlying
this was an idealism
that
nowadays
strikes a false note. It does seem
unlikely
that
autobiography
will reveal
the essential core of
any personality
and still more
unlikely
that it will conform to some
classical ideal. It was such a conviction that led Misch to criticize
Byzantine autobiogra-
phers
for
dealing
in
superficialities,
but this was a failure to
recognize
that
Byzantine
assumptions
were different from those of classical
antiquity.
It was also a failure to come
to terms with the uncomfortable fact that the
protective
mask or
persona may
be all that
there is. KaHco ic67 gLia
7poorn7i6a
va Kevo! For the
historian,
a concentration on the role
assumed and the
pressures
and
opportunities
it created
may
be more valuable than
prob-
ing
beneath the surface
searching
for the inner core of
personality.
But even if
Byzantine
autobiography
celebrates the
persona
rather than the
ego,
it still introduces a
strongly
personal
note,
which was at odds with the
impersonality
of official life in
Byzantium.
Because of his idealization of the
individual,
Misch minimizes the obstacles there
were to the
writing
of
autobiography.
He considered it all too human an
activity.
The
truth is that the naked concentration on the individual and the
personal
was
normally
deemed "unnatural."
Why
otherwise should so little in the
way
of
autobiographical
writ-
ing
survive from either the classical
period
or the Middle
Ages?
Those who made the
830.
8Misch,
History,
I,
4.
9A. Kazhdan with S.
Franklin,
Studies on
Byzantine
Literature
of
the Eleventh and
Twelfth
Centuries
(Cambridge,
1984), esp.
224-55.
'OM.
J. Angold,
"Were
Byzantine
Monastic
Typika
Literature?" in The
Making of Byzantine History:
Studies
Dedicated to Donald M.
Nicol,
ed. R. Beaton and C. Rouech6
(Aldershot, 1993),
46-70. Cf. K. A.
Manaphes,
MovacomiplaKa tuntKa-taeTijcKa (Athens, 1970).
227
attempt normally
had a claim to be
exemplars
in one
way
or another.
They
believed their
wisdom and
experience
worth
passing
on.
They
were also
celebrating
their
exemplary
role in
society.
The
personal
element was therefore almost
inevitably entangled
with cul-
tural and social self-assertion.
Misch was
looking
for the
Byzantine psyche
and did not like what he found. But a
historical,
as
opposed
to
literary,
evaluation of
has to have
other,
more
concrete,
aims. It has to start
by explaining
how and
why autobiography
revived in
Byzantium;
it has to
classify
the forms that
autobiography
took and establish
its main
themes;
it has to
identify
who wrote
autobiography
and for whom and with what
purposes
in mind. But there remains the
question
of what constitutes
autobiography.
Is
it
any
text that contains
personal
information? If the
increasing
number of such texts
points
to the
strength
of the re
tautobiographical impulse, personal
information is not of
itself
autobiography. J.
Sturrock has defined the essence of
autobiography
in the follow-
ing
terms:
"Autobiography
raises into consciousness whatever unconscious
process
the
autobiographer accepts
has
brought
him to his
present
condition."11 It is a
way
of estab-
lishing
a
psychological identity.
In other
words,
autobiography
reveals what the author
believes to be the forces and events that have
given significance
to his life or to his role
in life.
II
The
impersonality
of official life in
Byzantium
rendered
autobiography
more or less
irrelevant from the sixth
century
on. A formal and hierarchical
concept
of church and
state was reflected in and reinforced
by
a
literary activity
that was
governed by
conven-
tion and aimed at
objectivity. Typical
of
Byzantine literary production
in the late ninth
and tenth centuries were the handbooks
(taktika)
and
encyclopedias,
histories in the form
of
imperial
biographies,
official
cycles
of saints' lives
(menologia
and
synaxaria),
not to men-
tion court and ecclesiastical rhetoric.12 Even literature for
private enjoyment
was stilted
by
the conventions of
public
life. This all
helped
to stifle the
production
of
autobiography,
which is
personal
and
subjective.
From the turn of the tenth
century,
however,
come the first
stirrings
of
autobiography
in
Byzantium. They
are associated with monastic founders and reformers of the time.
One such was
John
Xenos who founded a series of monasteries in his native Crete. His
will has survived13 and can be dated to the
patriarchate
of Alexios the Studite
(1025-43).
Unlike earlier
wills,
it contains
autobiographical
information,
so much so that it came
to serve his
community
in lieu of a saint's life. In the
preamble
to his will
John
sketches
his
background:
he was born into a
prosperous
Cretan
family.
From an
early age
he was
11J. Sturrock,
The
Language ofAutobiography:
Studies in the First Person
Singular (Cambridge, 1993),
6.
12
P. Lemerle,
Le
premier
humanisme
byzantin (Paris, 1971),
267-300.
13H.
Delehaye,
Deux
typica byzantins
de
l'epoque
des
191-96. See L.
Petit,
"St.
Jean
Xenos ou l'Ermite
d'apres
son
autobiographie,"
AB 42
(1924),
5-20. A more famous
monk,
Nikon
Metanoeite
(d.
ca.
997),
has left a will. It contains much
autobiographical information,
especially
about the
circumstances of the foundation of his
monastery
at
Sparta.
I decided
against using
it because it
only
survives
in a modern Greek
version,
first
published
at Venice in 1780. See
Sp. Lampros, "AtaOiK1r NiKcVO;," N?o;
'EXX. 3
(1906),
223-28. On the remains of the
monastery,
see G. B.
Waywell
andJ.
J.
Wilkes, "Medieval Reuse
of the Roman Stoa: The Church and
Monastery
of St. Nikon Metanoeites," BSA 89
(1994),
424-49.
228
MICHAEL ANGOLD
overcome with a desire to follow a
solitary
life. He roamed the mountains and moorlands
of his native
island,
until one
day
he found a cave that harbored two
funerary
monu-
ments. As he left the cave he heard a voice
instructing
him to build a church there. This
he did. He had found his
vocation,
the
building
of
churches,
which he
organized
into a
monastic confederation. A will
provided
the occasion to set out his
achievements,
both as
a memorial and an
inspiration
for his followers and as a
legal guarantee
of the continued
existence of his monastic
community.
The needs of a monastic leader turned a will into
a vehicle for
autobiography.
Compared
with the
relatively
obscure
figure
of
John
Xenos,
Athanasios the Athonite
stood out
among
the monastic leaders of his time. He too was moved to record for the
benefit of his
community
relevant
autobiographical
details,
not in a
will,
but in the
pref-
ace to the
typikon
he
gave
his foundation of the Lavra on Mount Athos.14 Athanasios
wished to
put
on record the circumstances that made his foundation of the Lavra
pos-
sible. These
hinged
on his
friendship
with the future
emperor Nikephoros
Phocas
(963-
969),
who
provided
Athanasios with the
necessary
funds. He also undertook to become
a monk and to
join
Athanasios on Mount Athos. His elevation to the
imperial
throne was
to rule this out. The news of his accession stunned
Athanasios,
whose immediate reaction
was to
stop
work on his foundation. He then set off for the
capital
in order to remonstrate
with the new
emperor. Suitably
contrite,
Phocas
implored
Athanasios-the text
gives
his
words in direct
speech-to carry
on his work. He
promised
that when times were more
propitious
he would come to Athos. Athanasios believed that Phocas would have honored
this
pledge
had he not been assassinated.
Here was
autobiography
in an
embryonic
form. It
distinguished
Athanasios' rule
from the Studite
rule,
to which it was otherwise much indebted. It added a
personal
dimension that the Studite rule lacks. The latter was dominated
by
the need to
provide
the monks with a strict timetable and a
rigorous discipline.
Characteristic was the tariff
of
punishments
for
trifling
offenses,
such as not
returning
books to the
library
on time!
Athanasios fails to make clear
why
he
eneeded
to add
autobiographical
details to his
typi-
kon. Given the
prestige
st
of the Studite
rule,
it was an
important step.
Athanasios was the
advocate of a different kind of
monasticism,
loosely
termed
lavriot,
which
sought
to com-
bine both the eremitical and cenobitic ideals.15 Athanasios was not
just contrasting
his
form of monastic
organization
with the Studite. He had also to defend it
against
the
hermits and
hesychasts
who until his arrival had dominated the life of the
holy
mountain.
There is an
implicitly polemical
element to the
autobiographical
details Athanasios
sup-
plies. Imperial support
was
important
to his
enterprise
and set him
apart
from the her-
mits who
gravitated
to Athos. It was therefore
necessary
to exonerate
Phocas,
even if it
required special pleading.
Athanasios was the most
distinguished
of a line of
tenth-century
monastic reformers
who either came from
great
aristocratic houses or were
closely
connected with them.
From this
background
came St.
Symeon
the New
Theologian
as well. Like St. Athanasios
he was from an Anatolian
family
and was sent to
Constantinople
for his education.
4Ph.
Meyer,
Die
Haupturkundenfiir
die Geschichte der
Athoskloster (Leipzig, 1894),
102-7.
15D.
Papachryssanthou,
"La vie
monastique
dans les
campagnes byzantines
du
VIIIe
au XIe siecle,"
Byzan-
tion 43
(1973), 58-80;
R.
Morris,
Monks and
Laymen
in
Byzantium,
843-1118
(Cambridge, 1995),
31-63.
229
Thanks to
family
connections
Symeon
entered
imperial
service,
and a
glittering
career
beckoned. But even more seductive was the call of the cloister. He became infatuated
with a
leading mystic
of the
day,
who was a monk at Stoudios. The monk had the
good
sense to curb
Symeon's youthful impetuosity,
which
many
at the time found
unhealthy.
Only
when
Symeon
reached mature
years
did the monk of Stoudios take him on in order
to instruct him in the
path
of
mysticism.
In due
course,
Symeon
moved to the rundown
monastery
of St. Mamas inside the
capital,
restored
it,16
and made it the center of a cult
for his
spiritual
father.
Symeon
revived the
mystical
tradition in
Byzantium through
his
example
and in his voluminous
writings.
He
put great
stress on the divine
light.
At the
moment the
mystic
made contact with the
godhead
he was bathed in the uncreated
light
that Christ and the
apostles experienced
on Mount Tabor. It was
proof,
even if of a
highly
subjective
kind,
of the
validity
of the
mystical path
to God. The
mystic
was in direct
contact with
God,
in the same
way
that the
apostles
had
been,
or so
Symeon
insisted.
This
placed
him above the official
hierarchy. Symeon
would claim that the
powers
of
binding
and
loosing belonged
to the
mystic
and not to
emperors, bishops,
and
priests.
The
mystic
would exercise them in a rather different
way
from the official
hierarchy
of
church and state. It would be done
through
his role as a
spiritual
father
with the
empha-
sis on his
responsibility
to hear confession.'7
No rule drawn
up by Symeon
for his
monastery
survives,
if indeed it ever existed.
But one of his sermons takes the form of
disguised autobiography.
In it he sets out his
own search for
perfection,
but in the
guise
of a
young
man he calls
George.
Rather
ingenuously Symeon
confessed to
knowing
him
well,
"because he had been
my
friend
and childhood
companion."18
In this sermon
Symeon
comes close to true
autobiography
because it was a
way
of
making
sense of his own life and
presenting
it as a
guide
to his
audience. Was the
community
aware of the
deception?
Did the monks
recognize
their
abbot in the
guise
of his "friend and childhood
companion"?
His
hagiographer
Nicetas
Stethatos
certainly
did.19 But
why
should
Symeon
have been so diffident? It is
likely
that
he was
following
a monastic tradition of
humility
and
anonymity:
he had
begun
his mo-
nastic career at Stoudios. His
misgivings
can
only
have been
magnified by
the
suspicion
in which
mystical experience
was held at the
time
by
the church authorities. Sturrock
has said that
"autobiographers
need an excuse for
indulging
to the extent that
they
do
in self-advertisement."20
Symeon
would have found little excuse for
autobiography
in
the Studite tradition in which he was
steeped.
But he was
feeling
his
way
to a different
understanding
of
monasticism,
where individual
experience
was
paramount,
whence the
need to resort to
disguised autobiography.
The thrust of his
teaching
was the
centrality
'6D. Krausmiiller,
"The Monastic Communities of Stoudios and St. Mamas in the Second Half of the
Tenth
Century,"
in The Theotokos
Evergetis
and
Eleventh-Century Monasticism,
ed. M. Mullett and A.
Kirby (Bel-
fast, 1994),
67-85.
'7B. Krivocheine,
In the
Light of
Christ: Saint
Symeon
the New
Theologian (949-1022):
Life-Spirituality-Doc-
trine,
trans. A. P.
Gythiel (New York, 1986), esp.
125-40;
H.
J.
M.
Turner,
St.
Symeon
the New
Theologian
and
Spiritual
Fatherhood
(Leiden-New York, 1990), 16-69,
118-90.
'8Symeon
the New
Theologian, Catecheses,
ed. B.
Krivocheine,
trans.
J. Paramelle,
II (Paris, 1964),
no.
xxii,
364-93.
l9I.
Hausherr,
Un
grand mystique byzantin:
Vie de
Syme'on
le
Nouveau
The'ologien par
Nicetas Stethatos
(Rome,
1928),
Ivi-lxvii.
20Sturrock, Autobiography,
7.
230
MICHAEL ANGOLD
of individual
experience
of God. He also stressed the
prime importance
of confession to
the monastic life. This too
points
in the direction of
autobiography.
Symeon's enduring
influence on
Byzantine
monasticism remains
problematic.
It is
not
possible
to establish
any convincing
link with the
monastery
of the Theotokos Ever-
getis,
which was at the heart of a monastic revival in
Constantinople
from the mid-
eleventh
century.
However,
Symeon
was the
posthumous inspiration
of the
monastery
of
Kyr
Philotheos,
whose founder was an
adept
of
Symeon's
cult. He made
frequent
visits
to the saint's tomb and studied his
writings
which he committed to
memory.
He was said
to have "the saint within him in his
entirety."
This
monastery
seems in
many ways
to have
anticipated
the ideals and
organization
associated with the
Evergetis.21
Thanks to the
efforts of his
hagiographer,
Nicetas
Stethatos,
Symeon's
cult took root in
Constantinople.
It
gained
the
powerful support
of Patriarch Michael Keroularios
(1043-58),
who
pre-
sided over the translation of
Symeon's
relics to
Constantinople
in 1052 and his subse-
quent recognition
as a saint.22
III
It is no
surprise
that the first
signs
of
autobiography
in
Byzantium
should
appear
in
a monastic
setting
where there was a new stress on
inspiration
and the
individual,
but
they
came in a
disguised
or tentative form. The obstacles in . the
way
of the full and
open development
of
autobiography
were still there even in the late eleventh
century,
as
becomes clear from Kekaumenos' "Book of
Advice,"
known
conventionally
as his
Strategi-
kon.23 Because it was written
very largely
on the basis of his own
experience,
the
assump-
tion has
always
been that it can be classed as an
autobiography.
As
such,
it
is, however,
a
disappointment.
Kekaumenos is reticent in the extreme about himself. He sets out to
present
his
experience
as
objectively
as he can. He
scarcely
ever features himself in inci-
dents in which he must have been involved. He is more
forthcoming
about members of
his
family.24
He recalls the
exploits
of his
grandfathers
and even of a
great-grandfather.
On one occasion he tells us that he has heard the
story
from his father.25 He had access
to a
family
archive,
from which he extracted a document from the
reign
of Basil II.26
Nearer his own
time,
he made use of and
quoted
from a written account left
by
one of his
relatives about an
uprising
in
Thessaly
in 1066 and about his
subsequent imprisonment.27
Kekaumenos was
putting
his own
experience
and the accumulated
experience
of his
family
at the service of both his sons and his
emperor,
who is to be identified with Michael
21M.
J. Angold,
Church and
Society
in
Byzantium
under the Comneni, 1081-1261
(Cambridge, 1995),
269-70.
22Hausherr,
Vie de
Symion,
xvii, 207.
23Cecaumeni
Strategicon
et incerti
scriptoris de
Officiis regiis libellus,
ed. B.
Wassiliewsky
and V. Jernstedt
(St.
Petersburg,
1896;
repr.
Amsterdam, 1965); Sovety
i
rasskazy Kekavmena,
ed. G. G. Litavrin
(Moscow, 1972).
See
Ch.
Roueche,
"Byzantine
Writers and Readers:
Storytelling
in the Eleventh
Century,"
in The Greek
Novel,
A.D.
1-1985,
ed. R. Beaton
(London, 1988), 123-33;
J. Shepard,
"A
Suspected
Source of
Skylitzes' Synopsis
Histo-
rion: The Great Catacalon
Cecaumenos,"
BMGS 16
(1992),
171-81.
24 P
Lemerle,
Prolegomenes
a une edition
critique
et commentee des "Conseils et Recits" de Kekaumenos
(Brussels,
1959),
20-46.
25Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 39.13;
ed.
Litavrin,
196.1.
26Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 96.13-22;
ed.
Litavrin, 280.15-282.3.
27Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 72-73;
ed.
Litavrin, 266.1-3.
231
VII Doukas
(1071-78).28
But
modesty
forbade that he intrude
himself. He
sought
to stifle
any autobiographical impulse.
He allows himself two or three
passing
references,29
but
on
only
one occasion does he have
anything directly
to
say
about himself. It is to
justify
his
writing,
which he does in the
following
terms:
For I am without
learning,
not
having
received a Hellenic
education,
which has meant
that I cannot turn an
elegant phrase
and I have not been
taught eloquence.
I know that
people
make fun of
me,
playing
on
my ignorance,
but I am not
writing
some
poetic
composition
for
others;
I am
writing
for
you
and
your
brothers,
my
children,
the fruit
of
my
loins,
whom God has
given
me. I have
composed
this not with
elegant periods
and
with
deceiving images,
which are
entirely
without moral
value,
but I have set out what I
have done and suffered and seen and heard
about,
matters that are
true;
things
that are
done and
happen
in
everyday
life. The
style may
be somewhat
pedestrian,
but,
if
you
consider the
things
related in a
proper
state of
mind,
you
will find them full of truth.30
At
last,
Kekaumenos relents and reveals
something
of
himself,
but the
autobiographi-
cal element is stifled. Kekaumenos subscribed to the belief that
individuality
should be
subordinated to the interests of the
family:
he showed little interest in
making
sense of his
own
life,
except
insofar as he was
working
for the
good
of his immediate
family.
In the
same
way
that an abbot
might place
his
experience
as a
guide
and an
inspiration
for his
community,
Kekaumenos is
seeking
to inculcate his sons with lessons for life. One of
those lessons was that the
family
was more
important
than
any single
individual.
"Don't overlook
your
relatives and God won't overlook
you"
was a
typical piece
of Kekau-
menos' wisdom.31
Kekaumenos was also inclined to subordinate his
individuality
to the needs of the
emperor
on the
grounds
that
"the
emperor
at
Constantinople always
wins." This was a
conventional
piece
of wisdom that was
already becoming
out of date
by
Kekaumenos'
day.
There are
signs, though,
that he was aware how the world was
changing.
He was all
too conscious of his lack of
education,
which
put
him at a
disadvantage
in court circles.
He was
suspicious
of the
"philosophers"
and the civil servants who ran the court and
government
at
Constantinople.
These were the men behind Constantine IX Mono-
machos,
whom he blamed for
"destroying
and
desolating
the
Empire
of the
Romans,"32
men such as Michael Psellos.
Kekaumenos
may
not mention Psellos
by
name,
but he includes a
story
that can
only
have been directed
against
him. It concerns
Emperor Augustus
and Athenodorus-a
poor
man,
but honest and
sagacious.
The
emperor
had him
brought
to his court at
Rome,
so that he could act as his moral tutor. Athenodorus cross-examined him
daily
about his
deeds and his state of
mind,
"until he made him
morally perfect."33
This was
clearly
a
28Lemerle,
Prolegomenes,
19-20.
29E.g., Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 60.11;
ed.
Litavrin, 238.25-26,
where he recalls his
acquaintance
with
John, bishop
of
Larissa,
when he was
governor
in
Thessaly.
30Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 75-76;
ed.
Litavrin, 272.12-23.
31Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 52.25;
ed.
Litavrin, 222.32.
32Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 99.22;
ed.
Litavrin, 288.1-2.
33
Kekaumenos,
ed.
Wassiliewsky
and
Jernstedt, 100-101;
ed.
Litavrin, 290.11-292.6. What makes it even
more
likely
that Kekaumenos aimed this
story
at Psellos is that the latter liked to
compare
himself with
the
philosophers
Arrian and Rusticus who ministered to
Augustus:
K. N.
Sathas, MeCaatOVtKiv
ptp3Xto0lKiq
(Venice-Paris, 1874), V, 509.5-9 (hereafter
Sathas, MB).
232
MICHAEL ANGOLD
plea
on Kekaumenos'
part
that
Emperor
Michael VII Doukas allow himself to be
guided
by
a moral counselor-a
spiritual
father,
in other words-without intellectual
preten-
sions,
rather than
by
his former tutor Michael Psellos.
Contemporaries
considered that
Psellos had overeducated his
imperial charge,
to the
point
where he was unfit to
govern.34
Unlike
Kekaumenos,
Michael Psellos had little
compunction
about
introducing
him-
self whenever he could into his
many
discourses. Psellos was a
phenomenon:
his
writings
were on such a massive scale and his
range
of interests so broad that no modern scholar
has done
justice
to his
achievements.35
A new stress on the individual and on the human
dimension was Psellos'
specific
contribution to his times. Flesh and blood were what
counted. He insisted: "I am an
earthly being
made of flesh and
blood,
so that illnesses
seem to me to be
illnesses,
blows
blows,
traumas
traumas,
however much I
may reject
the
well-known
saying
that man is the measure of all
things."36
This did not
prevent
him
from
vindicating
his
autonomy
as an individual with the words: "It is not
necessary
for
me to be measured
by
the hands of others: I am for
myself
both the measure and the
norm!"37
It was an outlook that stressed the
primacy
of
personal
relations. Psellos wrote to a
friend: "I
carry your image
in
my
soul.... You are
always
with me in
memory.
But I
want to see
you
with
my eyes
and to hear
your
sweet voice in
my
ears."38 In his
writings
Psellos
sought
to
present
others in
relationship
to himself:
they
existed
through
his
expe-
rience of them. This was a
necessary part
of the self-awareness that makes
autobiography
possible.
Thus his funeral oration for his mother becomes an
autobiographical
account
of his childhood.39 He
explains why
this should be: "Let no one think the worse of
me,
if I
speak
about
myself.
It is not a matter of self-advertisement
(7eptanzookoyta),
but a
means of
demonstrating (aicoXoyia) my
mother's virtues."40 This
may
have been Psellos'
intention,
but he
places
himself at the center of
things.
It is an account of his childhood
over which his mother
presided.
She was a stern mother who hid her love. He was not
allowed
fairy
stories,
but had to listen to
upliftin
tales from the Old Testament. His
mother would talk to him about
virginity
and discourse about the saved and the damned.
In his
words,
"she subordinated maternal love to a
higher
law and a
betterjudgment,
so
that I did not become too full of
myself
and I remained obedient to her commands."41
However,
when she
thought
he was fast
asleep,
she would kiss him and
say,
"0,
my
dar-
ling
child,
how much I love
you;
I can't
give you enough
kisses!"42 She was more
openly
affectionate to her
daughter,
who was the
darling
of the
family.
Psellos
compares
himself
unfavorably
to his sister. She lived
up
to her mother's
expectations
in a
way
that he failed
to do. Her death was a
family calamity.
Psellos describes her funeral in some
detail,
but
4'H
(ov%XEta 'TS; Xpovoypa)ia(;
Toi
'Iodvvou ZKUiTr1il (Ioannes
Skylitzes Continuatus),
ed. E. Th. Tsolakes
(Thessalonica, 1968), 156.5-8;
John Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum,
ed. Th.
Bttner-Wobst,
III
(Bonn,
I
1897),
708.8.
35Ja.
N.
Ljubarskij,
Mikhail Psell: Lichnost' i tvorchestvo
(Moscow, 1978),
remains the best treatment.
36Sathas, MB, V, 232.25-233.1.
37Ibid., 220. 1-3.
38Michael Psellos, Scripta minora,
ed. E. Kurtz and F.
Drexl,
II
(Milan, 1941),
no. 138, 165.2-6.
39Sathas, MB, V,
3-61. Cf. U.
Criscuolo,
Michele
Psello,
Autobiografia.
Encomio
per
la madre
(Naples, 1989-90).
40Sathas, MB, V, 11.12-14;
ed.
Criscuolo, 94.260-62.
41Sathas, MB, V, 17.26-28;
ed.
42Sathas, MB, V, 18.1-3;
ed.
Criscuolo, 101-2.480-81.
233
her death is defined
by
his
grief.43 Following
her death his mother went into retreat
and
persuaded
her husband to become a monk.
Psellos' father is a
shadowy figure.
He was not
easily
roused to
anger
and not
much
given
to words. But Psellos remembered him as a fine
figure
of a man and was
proud
of
their
physical
resemblance.44 Psellos was
present
at his deathbed
along
with his
mother.
His
grief
was intensified
by
her harsh words. She turned to him and
said,
"Secular
learn-
ing
has earned
you nothing,
son,
in the
way
of Christian
piety.
Your
education,
your
love
of
learning
has all been in
vain!"45
Psellos derived some consolation from a dream
he
had
shortly
afterward,
in which his father
appeared
to him. He was
wearing
the habit in
which he had been buried but was even more radiant than he had been in life. He told
his son that he had seen God and had interceded on his behalf. Psellos confessed to him
that he was not as
good
a Christian as he should
be,
but he was hindered
by
the
pressures
of
public
life. He beseeched his father to continue to intercede with the Lord and to free
him from the world of the senses.46
This was the dilemma that Psellos
explored
in the funeral oration for his mother.
How to reconcile Christian
piety
with "Hellenic"
learning!
His mother had done all she
could-including conjuring up
a vision of St.
John Chrysostom47-to
insure that Psellos
continued with his
education,
but somehow he felt he had
disappointed
her.48 Psellos was
denied the
opportunity
of a deathbed reconciliation with his
mother;
he arrived too late.
He saw his mother's
corpse
and fell into a
swoon,
so intense was his
anguish.
Once
again
a death is defined
by
his
grief.
Sometime later Psellos had a vision. He was led
along
a
narrow
path
blocked
by
a wall of
polished
stone. His
guides
showed him an
opening
through
which he slid head first. He then descended a ladder and found himself in a
church. There in front of an icon of the Mother of God he saw his mother and rushed
over to her. She
stayed
him and told him to look to his
right.
He saw a monk on his knees
praying,
a
writing
tablet in his hands. "Who is that?" he asked his mother. "St.
Basil,"
was
the
reply. They approached
to
pay
their
respects;
the saint looked
up
and nodded. Then
he was
gone
in a rumble of
thunder,
Psellos' mother was nowhere to be
seen,
and Psellos
came to his senses.49 He
interpreted
this vision as a
sign
that his mother
finally approved
of his choice of
philosophy
as a
way
of life.50 The
figure
of St. Basil was
deliberately
chosen to
emphasize
that Psellos was
approaching
the
study
of the ancient
philosophers
in a Christian manner. Psellos concludes the funeral oration with a
celebration,
not of his
mother's
piety
or other
qualities,
but of his own intellectual
curiosity
and
appetite.
The
purpose
of his mother's life thus becomes clear: it was to make
possible
Psellos' intellec-
tual
eminence,
but with one
proviso.
Psellos
might
find in ancient
philosophy
"an inex-
haustible
treasury
of wisdom"
51
and
might enjoy
classical literature for its own
sake,52
but
43Sathas, MB, V, 28-31;
ed.
Criscuolo, 114-17.
44Sathas, MB, V, 19-20;
ed.
Criscuolo,
103-4.
45Sathas, MB, V, 40.6-8;
ed.
Criscuolo, 127.1216-20.
46Sathas, MB, V, 41-42;
ed.
Criscuolo, 128-30.
47Sathas, MB, V, 12-13;
ed.
Criscuolo,
95-97.
48Sathas, MB, V, 17.6;
ed.
49Sathas, MB, V, 52-54;
ed.
Criscuolo, 142-44.
50Sathas, MB, V, 52.18-21, 54.5-7;
ed.
Criscuolo, 142.1630-33, 144.1685-87.
51Sathas, MB, V, 58.11;
ed.
Criscuolo, 149.1825.
52Sathas, MB, V, 59.19-21;
ed.
Criscuolo, 150-51.1867-70.
234
MICHAEL ANGOLD
she had instilled in him a
proper
Christian
outlook,
which in the end was
proof against
worldly
success.53
There are
autobiographical
elements in almost
everything
Psellos wrote. Not even
hagiography escaped.
He wrote the Life of St.
Auxentios,
a
relatively
obscure saint cred-
ited with the foundation of a
monastery
that flourished in Psellos' time. He
reshaped
an
earlier Life to
give
the saint some of his own features: there are common
experiences
and a
similarity
of outlook. He attributed to the saint his own interest in
demonology.
He confessed to
enjoying
music
just
like the saint.54
Psellos
gave history
an
autobiographical
twist. Misch has labeled his
Chronographia
"Fragments
of an
Autobiography."55
This is a fair
enough description, though
the work
is
perhaps
better understood as memoirs rather than as a
straightforward autobiography.
The
Chronographia purported
to be a continuation of that series of
Byzantine
histories
that
began
with the chronicler
Theophanes
in the
early
ninth century,56 but contem-
poraries recognized
that it was rather different from its
precursors.57
What Psellos did
with his
history,
as he did with other
literary
forms,
was to take a
genre
and convert it to
personal
ends. Psellos' method was to filter
history through
his own
experience.
He in-
cludes
passages-often
substantial-of
autobiography.
Their
purpose
was to
emphasize
his
qualifications
to be the historian of his own time and to sit in
judgment
on his contem-
poraries,
from
emperors
and
patriarchs
on down. He would use
history
to set his
stamp
on the
history
of his own times. In a letter of his to a
contemporary,
he lets it be known
that he is
embarking
on a
Chronographia
and it would be wise to be nice to him.58 Psellos
used his
Chronographia
to defend himself
against
a
variety
of
charges.
For
example,
at one
point
he inserts a
ringing
affirmation of his
orthodoxy.
This was a
way
of
countering
the
charges
of
heresy
leveled
against
him,
charges
that he fails to
specify
in the
Chronographia,
but which were well known.59
The ostensible focus of the
Chronographia always
remained the
emperor
to whom the
adult Psellos related in much the same
way
that the
young
Psellos had to his mother. The
fate and
qualities
of
emperors
are seen
through
the
prism
of Psellos'
intelligence
and
experience.
At times the latter become the true focal
point
of the
history.
Psellos insinu-
ates himself into the historical
process.
The
history
of his times is
punctuated by
the
stages
of his life. So he was in his
twenty-fifth year
when he entered the service of Con-
stantine IX Monomachos. This is the
signal
for a
long digression
on his education.60 It
was central to his
history,
for his
mastery
of
philosophy
not
only provided
him with his
credentials as a
historian,
but was also the foundation of his
political
career. For a brief
period,
from 1057 to
1059,
he was at the center of events. He eased
Emperor
Isaac
Komnenos on to the
imperial
throne and off
again
and was
responsible
for the
deposition
53Sathas, MB, V, 61.6-25;
ed.
Criscuolo, 152-53.1919-39.
54A.
Kazhdan,
"Hagiographical
Notes: 3,"
Byzantion
53
(1983), 546-56;
E. A.
Fisher,
"Michael Psellos on
the Rhetoric of
Hagiography
and the
Life
of St. Auxentius," BMGS 17
(1993),
43-53.
55
Misch, Geschichte, 11.2,
760.
56Michael
Psellos,
Chronographia,
I
i; VI,
lxxiii: ed. E.
Renauld,
Chronographie,
2 vols.
(Paris, 1926-28), I,
2.1-5, 152-53;
trans. E. R. A. Sewter
(Harmondsworth, 1966), 27,
191.
57John
Skylitzes, Synopsis Historiarum,
ed. I.
Thurn,
CFHB 5
3.18-19.
58Sathas, MB, V, 352-53;
cf. 513.8-12.
59Angold,
Church and
Society,
31-35.
60Michael
Psellos,
Chronographia,
VI,
xxxvi-xlv: ed.
Renauld, I, 134-39;
trans.
Sewter,
173-78.
235
of Patriarch Michael Keroularios.61 At this
point history
becomes
autobiography,
but this
was
exceptional.
It was more usual for Psellos to
adopt
the role of observer and commen-
tator. It allowed him to
emphasize
that without the historian there would be no
history.
In his
Chronographia, just
as in his funeral oration for his
mother,
Psellos subverts a
traditional
literary genre
for
autobiographical purposes.
The result was
autobiography
in
disguise.
It had certain
advantages.
It forced Psellos to assess the
meaning
and
pur-
pose
of his childhood and of his
public
life,
not in
isolation,
but in terms of
relationships,
whether
personal
or
political.
The
very
fact that Psellos had to
proceed by
stealth
only
confirms the
strength
of the
autobiographical impulse
in
eleventh-century Byzantium.
Was Psellos motivated
by anything
more than
rampant egotism?
Psellos had a
very
clear idea of what his role should
ideally
be. He was the
"philosopher"
who
by
virtue of
his education and
superior intelligence guided
the actions of
emperors.
The
"philoso-
pher"
was therefore central to
Byzantine society
and his wisdom and
experience
counted
for
just
as much as that of the
mystic.62
In his
correspondence
with
patriarchs
Michael
Keroularios and
John Xiphilinos,
Psellos contrasted the ideals of the
mystic
and the hu-
manist,
to the
advantage
of the latter. He claimed that "a throne has been set aside for
me,
which is no less
high
and
imposing
than
yours,
nor in
any way
inferior."63 Did Christ
"not
often
frequent
the
marketplace
and much less
frequenth ly
the mountains?"64 Psellos
was
arguing
that
lay society,
not
just
monastic
communities,
provided
a
proper setting
for a Christian life. The
"philosopher"
had
just
as much to contribute as the
"mystic"
in
terms of
spiritual guidance.
To
exemplify
his ideal of the
"philosopher,"
Psellos drew on
his own
experience,
in much the same
way
that
Symeon
the New
Theologian
had on his
own for a different end: to
justify
his
mystical teachings.
The thrust of
my argument
is
plain:
in the course of the eleventh
century
there was
a monastic revival that built on
Symeon's reputation.
It
emphasized
the ideal of the
spiri-
tual father as a
guide
to a Christian
society.
It stressed the
importance
of individual
expe-
rience and
personal
relations. To this ideal Michael Psellos
opposed
the
qualifications
of
the
"philosopher." Again
the
emphasis
was on individual
experience
and
personal
rela-
tions. The focus on the
qualities
of
mystic
and
"philosopher"
as a
guide
to human behav-
ior invited
autobiographical
detail.
But
why
should this shift have
happened
in the eleventh
century
rather than at
any
other time? I have
already pointed
to one set of reasons: the
greater
value accorded to
the
individual, self-awareness,
and
personal relationships.
But this was connected with a
more critical
appraisal
of the
imperial
ideal: as the raison
d'tre
of a Christian
society
it
was
increasingly
seen to be
inadequate. Emperors
did not measure
up
to the exact-
61L.
Brehier,
"Un discours inedit de
Psellos,"
REG 16
(1903), 375-416;
REG 17
(1904),
35-76.
62See
M.
J. Angold, "Imperial
Renewal and Orthodox Reaction:
Byzantium
in the Eleventh
Century,"
in
New Constantines: The
Rhythm of Imperial
Renewal
in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries,
ed. P.
Magdalino (Aldershot,
1994), 231-46;
Angold,
Church and
Society,
31-35. See also
J.
M.
Hussey,
Ascetics and Humanists in Eleventh-
Century Byzantium (London, 1960),
who
prefers
to
play
down the differences between humanists and ascetics
and to minimize the tensions. She is correct to the extent that most
sought
to find
ways
of
reconciling
the
differences
through
the usual
compromises
and
incomprehension.
This even
applies
on occasion to Psellos
himself:
see Michael
Psellos,
Scripta minora, II,
ed. Kurtz and
Drexl,
no. 36. It does not mean that differences
did not exist nor that there was no debate.
63Sathas, MB, V, 509.23-24.
64Ibid., 450.5-6.
236
MICHAEL ANGOLD
ing responsibilities
of office.
They
lacked the
necessary personal qualities
and the sheer
ability.
This was a
major
theme of Psellos in the
Chronographia.
It drew a
response
from
his former
charge, Emperor
Michael VII Doukas
(1071-78),65
which took the
shape
of
an
autobiography.
When the
emperor
learned that his old tutor had
plans
for a
history
of his
reign,
he
provided
him with an account of his life. Psellos had
expected something
bombastic. Instead he received more of a
confession,
notable for its
humility
and self-
criticism. This is the first overt
autobiography
recorded in a medieval
Byzantine
context.
It has not
survived,
but we
may
surmise that it contained an
apology
for his conduct
of the
imperial
office directed
against
the strictures of Michael Psellos. Michael VII's
autobiography
accords
very
well with the advice he received from Kekaumenos.66 It will
be remembered that he
urged
the
emperor
to
acquire
a
"philosopher"-in
the manner
of
Emperor Augustus-who
would oversee his moral and
spiritual
welfare. "Philoso-
pher"
was a title to which both a
humanist,
such as Michael
Psellos,
and a
spiritual guide,
such as
Symeon
the New
Theologian,
could
lay
claim.67
The
therefore owed
something
to these
competing
ideals.
Both humanist and monastic mentor cultivated their rational faculties: the former to
guide emperors
and to act as an arbiter of Christian
society;
the latter to
provide spiritual
guidance
and to intercede with God. Their
power
was no
longer anonymous.
It was
also more
subjective.
The
mystical teachings
of
Symeon
the New
Theologian brought
sanctification within human
grasp. Equally
the cultivation of the mind
emphasized
hu-
man
potential.
Both humanist and monastic teacher
put
a new stress on
personal experi-
ence,
which in its turn
pointed
to
autobiography.
The humanist and the monastic
sage
were not the
only
idealized
figures
who
enjoyed
special prominence
at this time: the aristocrat was another. Here
again
there were com-
peting
ideals. The claims of birth
challenged
those of merit. Michael Psellos hailed Em-
peror
Constantine IX Monomachos for
rejecting
birth as a
necessary qualification
for
high
office.68 Kekaumenos' diffidence
may
owe
something
to his failure to claim aris-
tocratic status. He was
caught
between the ideals of
service,
loyalty,
and merit and his
duties to his
family. Bishops
too were
beginning
to make more elaborate claims for their
65Michael Psellos,
Chronographia,
vii,
xi: ed.
Renauld, II, 177-78;
trans.
Sewter,
373.
66See note 33.
67Michael Psellos describes the situation
very
well:
"By philosopher
I mean not those who have investi-
gated
the essences of
beings
nor those who have
sought
the
principles
of the cosmos and have
neglected
the
principles
of their own
salvation,
but those who have
contempt
for the world and have lived with the
transcendents."
(Michael Psellos,
Chronographia,
IV, xxxiv,
4-7: ed.
Renauld, I, 73;
trans.
Sewter,
106-7. Cf.
E
Dolger, Byzanz
und die
europdische
Staatenwelt
[Ettal, 1953], 197-208.)
The use of the term "humanist" has
scarcely
been debated
by Byzantinists
in contrast to western medievalists. For R. W.
Southern,
Medieval
Humanism and Other Studies
(Oxford, 1970), 60,
"humanism" seems a
legitimate
term to use in a medieval
context. It means little more than the
study
of the classics and the wisdom derived therefrom. Other medi-
evalists
argue
that the terms "humanist" and "humanism" do not
appear
until the Renaissance and that
consequently they
cannot be
employed
for an earlier
period (e.g., J. Stephens,
The Italian Renaissance: The
Origins of
Intellectual and Artistic
Change before
the
Reformation [London-New York, 1990], 10-22).
The
Byzan-
tines
certainly
had no word for "humanist."
However,
their use of
"philosopher"
in the sense of scholar
rather than monk is more or less identical with "humanist" as
employed
in a Renaissance context. Overuse
of the term
"philosopher"
becomes tiresome. On humanism in
Byzantium,
see H.
Hunger,
Reich der neuen
Mitte: Der christliche Geist der
byzantinischen
Kultur
(Graz-Vienna-Cologne, 1965), 355-69;
J. Verpeaux, Nicephore
Choumnos
(Paris, 1959),
171-201.
68Sathas, MB, IV,
430-31.
237
authority.
The role of the
bishop
was
increasingly
idealized with the
greater
stress on
pastoral responsibilities
evident from the late eleventh
century.69 Autobiography,
in one
form or
another,
often
disguised
or
oblique, provided
a means
whereby
such
figures
could assert their claims to social
prominence
or
apologize
for their failure to live
up
to
an ideal.
IV
Psellos
gave
the humanist ideal in
Byzantium
clearer definition. He did this
very
largely through self-promotion,
which
necessarily
meant
dwelling
on his own
experience.
This took
autobiographical
form,
even if he never
progressed beyond
the
stage
of autobi-
ography
in
disguise.
This failure
may
well have stemmed from a failure to find a
specific
literary
form that would both serve as a vehicle of the humanist ideal and do
justice
to
his sense of
self-importance.
At a later date the
prologue
to the edition of a humanist's
collected works would come to serve a
biographical
and
autobiographical purpose.
We
know that one of Psellos'
patrons
made an edition of some
e
of his
letters,
but it has not
survived.70 Psellos' works have come down to us in some disorder. His
Chronographia
re-
mained
unfinished,
reinforcing
the
suspicion
that Psellos died
unexpectedly
in 1078.71
It
may
be the case that a
premature
death
deprived
him of the
opportunity
to review the
meaning
of his life.
The first such
prologue
that has survived we owe to
Nikephoros
Basilakes,72
a human-
ist
prominent
in the affairs of the
patriarchate
in the mid-twelfth
century.
He held a so-
called
professorial
chair at
Hagia Sophia.
He was involved in one of the
many dogmatic
disputes
of the Comnenian
period,
found himself on the
wrone
ong
side,
and was exiled. In
the course of this
dispute
he collected various of his occasional
pieces, encouraged,
he
claimed,
by
friends and
supporters,
and
prefaced
his work with a brief
autobiography.73
There are
striking
similarities with the
autobiography prefacing
a monastic rule. The
foundation of a
monastery
was one
path
to
immortality,
an edition of collected works
another.
Basilakes'
autobiography
would have
delighted
his
supporters.
It is one of the few
pieces
of
Byzantine
literature that can be
appreciated
even
today
for its wit. He starts
with a
quotation
from the Wisdom of Solomon: "Of
making many
books there is no
end;
and much
study
is a weariness of the flesh"
[Eccles. 12:12].74
This
opens
the
way
for a
display
of
self-deprecating
humor and of
acquaintance
with the classics. He
quotes
Mar-
69C.
Walter,
Art and Ritual
of
the
Byzantine
Church
(London, 1982), 111-15, 214-21, 237-49;
Angold,
Church
and
Society,
139-57.
70I.e.,
the Caesar
John
Doukas: Michael
Psellos,
Scripta
minora, II,
no.
256, 303-4;
Michael
Psellos,
De
Operatione Daemonum,
ed.
J.
F.
Boissonade
(Nuremberg,
1838;
repr. Amsterdam, 1964),
176.1-2. Cf.
Ljubar-
skij,
Mikhail
Psell, 36-39,
69-74.
71
P. Gautier,
"Monodie inedite de Michel Psellos sur
le
basileus Andronic
Ducas,"
REB 24
(1966),
159-64.
For a different
view,
see
Kazhdan,
Byzantine Literature, 53-55;
Ljubarskij,
Mikhail
Psell, 32-35.
72A.
Garzya,
"Un lettre du milieu du
XIIe
siecle:
Nicephore Basilakes,"
RESEE 8
(1970),
611-21
(=
A.
Garzya,
Storia e
interpretazione
di
testi bizantini [London, 1974],
no.
viii).
See
Misch, Geschichte, 11.2,
876-90.
73A.
Garzya,
"II
Prologo
di Niceforo
Basilace,"
Bollettino del
comitato
per
la
preparazione
dell'edizione nazionale
dei classici greci
e
latini, n.s.,
19
(1971),
55-71
(= Garzya,
Storia e
interpretazione,
no.
xi).
74Ibid.,
56.1.
238
MICHAEL ANGOLD
cus Aurelius:
"Forget your
thirst for
books,
lest
you
die
belly-aching."75 Having
nodded
in the direction of
proper humility
he then embarks on a
triumphal presentation
of his
success as both a
pupil
and a teacher. He lists his
writings,
notes the
envy they produced
among
his
rivals,
but
apologizes
for the
paucity
of the
offerings
now on
display.
He ex-
plains
that he never
sought
friends or
patrons;
that he was the harshest of critics of his
own work. For that reason he saw no
point
in
publishing
them,
but locked them
away
where the
damp
had
got
at them. In
any
case,
he had burned much of his
juvenilia,
when
he was converted to the
study
of Christian wisdom.76 This
brought
him
preferment
and
a
professorial
chair. His
exposition
of the
Scriptures brought
him immense acclaim. He
was like "a
nightingale encompassing
the
great
meadow of the church."77 His
popularity
was not to
o the
liking
of the
patriarch
of the
day.
On one occasion his lecture went on
so
long
that the
patriarch
was late for his
supper.
The
patriarch
sent him a
regulation
commentary
on the Acts of the
Apostles, suggesting
that he be
guided by
this and that
in future he submit his lectures for
patriarchal approval.
Basilakes did
so,
but
got
around
this
attempt
at
censorship by extemporizing.78
It was the kind of
triumph
that academics
have
always
relished.
There is a
polemical
flavor to this
autobiography,
as
though
Basilakes is
using
it to
score
points
off his
opponents.
At one
point
he insists that he is not like the
apes
who
shower excessive love on their
offspring.79
His readers would have understood the refer-
ence,
which was to
Aesop. Apes
were
supposed
to cosset one of their
offspring
and
neglect
the other.80
Unfortunately,
it was the former that almost
always
died. The
meaning
was
clear: Basilakes' works would
survive;
those of his
opponents
would e entnot.
Making
a selec-
tion of his rhetorical works
gave
Basilakes an
opportunity
to review his life. The main-
spring
was a
pride
in his rhetorical skills and academic
triumphs,
in other words that he
had lived
up
to the ideal of the humanist. The
setting
was the
infighting
of the
patriarchal
church. With the
emergence
in the twelfth
century
of the
patriarchal
didaskaloi the
church of
Hagia Sophia increasingly
becamehe arena in which humanists
proved
them-
selves.
The other
important
humanist
autobiography
was the work of Patriarch
Gregory
of
Cyprus (1283-89).81
It too took the form of a
prologue
to a collected edition of his writ-
ings.
Unlike that of
Basilakes,
it was not
inspired by polemic
or
apology,
but was more a
meditation on the humanist ideal. The
autobiographical
details concentrate on his edu-
cation and intellectual
development. Gregory interpreted
his
burning
desire for a classi-
cal Greek education as a
spiritual energy
that defined the
purpose
of his life and
provided
75Ibid., 56.27-29.
76Ibid.,
57-60.
77 Ibid.,
60.177-78.
78Ibid., 61.184-210.
79Ibid.,
60.152-54. Basilakes nicknames his chief
enemy Bagoas,
who should
probably
be identified with
a deacon of
Hagia Sophia
named Basil. See
Angold,
Church and
Society,
80 n. 38.
80B. E.
Perry, Aesopica (Urbana, Ill., 1952), 406,
no. 218.
s8W.
Lameere,
La tradition manuscrite de la
correspondance
de
Gregoire
de
Chypre patriarche
de
Constantinople
(1283-1289) (Brussels-Rome, 1937),
176-91. See
Misch, Geschichte, 11.2, 890-903;
A.
Garzya,
"Observations
sur
i'Autobiographie
de
Gregoire
de
Chypre," IlpaKTicKa
O
tzo pcoto 6&60vof); KKcnpoXoyitKo auve6ptio (Ni-
cosia, 1972), II, 33-36
(=
Garzya,
Storia e
interpretazione,
no.
xIIi);
C. N.
Constantinides,
Higher
Education in
Byzantium
in the Thirteenth and
Early
Fourteenth Centuries
(1204-ca. 1310) (Nicosia, 1982),
31-49.
239
him with the means to overcome the
many
obstacles he met. The
objective
was the
vita
contemplativa,
but understood not in a
monastic,
but in a
Hellenic,
sense. The
classical
influence is
apparent
in his decision to write his
autobiography
in the third
person,
until
at the
very
end he switches into the first
person
to
deny
that he is a fit
person
to
judge
Gregory's style
and
literary
achievement!82
In his
autobiography
he
presents
his life as one
inspired by
the desire to recover the
Hellenic ideal. He
only
once refers to God and then in a neutral context. Unlike Basilakes
he has
nothing
to
say
about his
theological
studies. He omits to mention that he became
a monk and founded a
monastery.
He does admit to
having
become
patriarch,
but this
only brought
him cares and
anxiety
and denied him the leisure to devote himself to his
studies or to live in a manner
befitting
"a
philosopher-let
alone a free man."83 The
patriarchate brought Gregory
a sea of
troubles,
and he
resigned
the throne in relief in
1289. A life of
study
was to be his
compensation.
V
Gregory
also founded a
monastery.
In the normal course of events he would have
provided
it with a
rule,
prefaced by
a short
autobiographical
sketch. The
preface
to a
monastic rule became the
preferred
vehicle of
autobiography
in
Byzantium.
For
laity
and
clergy
alike,
the foundation of a
monastery gave meaning
and
purpose
to life. There
is, however,
a contrast between the
autobiographies
of the
laity
and the
clergy.
The for-
mer
normally
wished to
supply
an
apology,
or at least an
explanation,
for their
lives,
while the latter were more concerned with their
reputation
for
sanctity.
There is a
strong
note of
self-justification
in the earliest of these
lay autobiographies,
the work of Michael
Attaleiates,84
a successful bureaucrat who is best known for his his-
tory
of
Byzantium covering
the mid- to late eleventh
century.
He founded a charitable
house attached to a
monastery
at
Constantinople.
He let it be known in the autobio-
graphical preface
that his foundation was a
thanks-offering
to God for the favor He had
shown him.85
Coming
from humble
provincial origins,
he had risen to a
position
of re-
spectable
eminence. His account of his life concentrates on his
education,
marriages,
and
the landed
property
he
acquired.86
He is at
pains
to
emphasize
the
legality
of his
deals,
even
citing legal
documents. He was in fact
using
the foundation in order to create a
family
trust,
which would
enjoy
the tax
privileges
accorded to a
pious
foundation. It was
a tax
dodge.
He devoted much of his rule to the
legal
rights
exercised over the founda-
tion
by
his heirs. He had it written into the rule that
any
case
involving
the
property
tied
up
in the
monastery
was to
go
before the
prefect
of the
city,
who would not
only
have his
own name commemorated in the
prayers
of the
monastery
but receive an annual re-
tainer.87 Like the
good
civil servant he
was,
Attaleiates
envisaged recruiting
the monks
82
Lameere,
Correspondance,
191.4-6.
83Ibid., 187.19-29.
84P. Gautier,
"La diataxis de Michel
Attaliate,"
REB 39
(1981), 5-143;
autobiographical
introduction, 16-31.
85
Ibid., 23-29.
86Ibid., 16-24.
87Ibid.,
68.
240
MICHAEL ANGOLD
for his foundation from former civil
servants,
men who would be efficient administrators
of the foundation's wealth.88
Attaleiates was
recreating Byzantine bureaucracy
in a monastic
setting.
His counter-
part
on the
military
side was the
Georgian Gregory
Pakourianos,
Alexios I Komnenos'
first
grand
domestic or
commander-in-chief,
who founded a
monastery
in Thrace. In
keeping
with his
calling,
Pakourianos used it to settle-far from their homeland-the
remnants of his
warband,
but now as monks. He
provided
them with a rule89 prefaced
by
an
autobiography
that is
mostly
an account of the
sufferings
of himself and his retain-
ers in the service of the
Byzantine Empire.
Few of them had died a natural
death,
"for
all have shed their blood
through
the sword and hand of the enemies of the
Holy
Cross
and
Byzantium [Romania]."90
These included his brother
Aspasios.
There is a
long,
mov-
ing description
of how
Gregory
reburied him in the
grave
he had set aside for himself in
the
monastery.91
The
monastery
was to serve as their memorial. Pakourianos used the
autobiographical preface
to his
typikon
to celebrate his role now and in the hereafter as
the leader of a warband.
Attaleiates was a
parvenu;
Pakourianos,
a
foreigner
who retained a
healthy suspicion
of Greeks.92 Both associate
autobiographical
detail and the foundation of a
monastery
with
success,
as a bureaucrat or as a
military
commander. In their different
ways they
were both
laying
claim to aristocratic
status,
which was still ill-defined in the late eleventh
century.
Merit
challenged
the claims of birth for much of that
century.
This
changed
with
the accession to
power
of the Komnenoi.
Henceforth,
aristocracy
came
increasingly
to be
identified with the new
dynasty.93
The Komnenoi were
great
founders of
monasteries,
which
they supplied
with
rules,
but
they
were
strangely
reticent about
supplying
autobio-
graphical
details,
even
though
the
opportunity
was there.
Empress
Eirene Doukaina had
a rule drawn
up
for her foundation of the Theotokos Kecharitomene. It was
adapted
from that of the Theotokos
Evergetis.94
She
provides
few if
any
details of her life. This
was
equally
true of her sons.
John
II Komnenos
(1118-43)
has almost
nothing
to
say
about his life in the rule he
gave
his foundation of the
Pantokrator,95
nor did his brother
Isaac Komnenos in that for the
monastery
of the Kosmosoteira in Thrace.96 Isaac
pre-
ferred to dwell on the state of mind that induced him to found the
monastery:
he had
fallen into the
pit
of
unbelief,
but had been rescued. The foundation of a
monastery
was
a
thanks-offering.97
The absence of
autobiographical
detail is
striking
and is best ex-
plained by
the sense that he was a
sinner,
which
pervades
the whole document. He for-
88Ibid.,
58.
89p. Gautier,
"Le
typikon
du sebaste
Gregoire Pakourianos,"
REB 42
(1984), 5-145;
autobiographical
intro-
duction,
18-35.
90Ibid.,
34-35.
91
Ibid., 41.378-80.
92Ibid.,
104-5.
93See now P.
Magdalino,
"Innovations in
Government,"
inAlexios I
Komnenos,
ed. M. Mullett and D.
Smythe
(Belfast, 1996),
146-66.
94
P
Gautier,
"Le
typikon
de la Theotokos
Kecharitomene,"
REB 43
(1985),
5-165. It
begins (pp. 18-29)
with an invocation to the Mother of
God,
which serves instead of
any autobiographical
introduction.
95. Gautier,
"Le
typikon
du Christ Sauveur
Pantocrator,"
REB 32
(1974),
1-145. It
begins (pp. 26-30)
with
an invocation to the Pantokrator.
96L. Petit,
"Typikon
du monastere de la Kosmosotira
pres
d'Aenos," IRAIK 13
(1908),
17-77.
97
Ibid., 20.18-30.
241
bade the monks to have a
portrait
of him
made,
for he considered that this would
some-
how be destructive of his
spiritual well-being.98
How to
explain
the reticence of Eirene Doukaina and her sons? It
may
be that
they
were constrained
by
the
Evergetine
tradition with its
contempt
for the world and its stress
on state of mind. It
may
therefore have been a reflection of Comnenian
piety.99
It is more
than
possible
that members of the
imperial dynasties
of Doukas and Komnenos did not
feel
any
need to
justify
or vaunt their social and
political ascendancy.
This did not
apply
with the same
weight
to the series of aristocratic families that
emerged
from under the Comnenian umbrella in the course of the twelfth
century,
fami-
lies such as
Palaiologos
and Cantacuzene. Members of these families would in due course
seize the
imperial
throne,
Michael
Palaiologos
in 1259 and
John
Cantacuzene in 1341.
Both
usurpers
wrote
autobiographies,
it is
true,
of
very
different kinds. Both
autobiogra-
phies
were informed
by
the need to
justify
the act of
usurpation.
Cantacuzene's
autobiog-
raphy
comes in the form of memoirs and will be considered later.100 Michael VIII Palaio-
logos (1259-82)
left two
autobiographies,
one rather more substantial than the
other.'10
They
took the now traditional form of
prefaces
to monastic rules: the first to the rule he
gave
to the
monastery
of St. Demetrios in
Constantinople,
which he
refounded;
the sec-
ond that to the
monastery
of St. Michael the
Archangel
on Mount
Auxentios,
which he
restored. Both were written at the
very
end of his
reign,
when the Sicilian
Vespers
of
1282 seemed to have
justified
his life's work. He claimed he was
writing
not in
praise
of
himself,
but to the
glory
of God. He
presented
his achievements as evidence of the favor
of God and of his
patron
saints,
the
Archangel
Michael and St. Demetrios. He ends his
rule for the
monastery
of the
Archangel
Michal wi the
hope
pethat
he will be
duly
re-
warded for his
struggles
on behalf of
Byzantium,
and he sets out in detail what he consid-
ers these to be. He then reminds the
patriarchs
of
Constantinople
that it was
only
thanks
to his
recovery
of the
Queen
of Cities that
they
were no
longer contemptuously
referred
to as
patriarchs
of Nicaea or
patriarchs
of the
Bithynian eparchy.102
There is a
strong
note of
apology
in Michael
Palaiologos' autobiographies.
He insisted
that he had been raised to the
imperial dignity,
not
through
force or a
glib tongue-
which were the
charges against
him-but "it was Your
right
hand, Lord,
which
gave
me
strength,
... not
persuading,
nor
adducing necessity,
but
being persuaded
and co-
erced." 103
He
presented
himself as the
agent
of divine
providence.
But
underlying
his
justification
for his seizure of the
imperial
throne and his actions as
emperor
was some-
thing
else: a
strong
sense of
family
and
family responsibility.
He claimed that the honor
of the
family
had
passed
down to
him,
growing
all the time. His forebears were not
content with
earthly
rewards,
but served
God,
whence their honors and
position
at court.
They
were
distinguished
for their wealth and
military prowess,
but
they
were also
patrons
98Ibid., 63.27-30,
64.33-34.
99Alexios I Komnenos' Mousai
(ed.
P.
Maas,
"Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios I.," BZ 22
[1913], 348-69)
provide
an
insight
into Comnenian
piety
with their
emphasis
on
humility,
virtue,
and the last
judgment.
Cf.
Angold,
Church and
Society, 69-72, 273-76.
??See
A.
Kazhdan, "L'Histoire
de Cantacuzene en tant
qu'oeuvre
litteraire,"
Byzantion
50
(1980),
279-335.
101H.
Gregoire, "Imperatoris
Michaelis
Palaeologi
de Vita
sua,"
Byzantion
29-30
(1959-60), 447-76;
A. A.
Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgicheskikh
rukopisei,
I.i
(Kiev, 1895),
769-94.
l02Dmitrievskij, Opisanie,
789-93.
103Gregoire,
"Vita,"
453-56.
242
MICHAEL ANGOLD
of monasteries and benefactors of the
poor
and
defenseless.'04
Both monasteries were
family
monasteries. Michael
Palaiologos
recalled that the
monastery
of St.
Demetrios, the
family's patron
saint,
had been founded
by
his ancestor
George Palaiologos,105
while the
monastery
of the
Archangel
Michael was restored
by
his
grandfather
Alexios Palaio-
logos.'06
Michael
Palaiologos' autobiographies
were not
only
an
apology
for
usurpation,
but also a vindication of the aristocratic ideal in
Byzantium.
VI
The
to a monastic rule was the
preferred
form of
autobiog-
raphy
in
Byzantium.
Given the
place
that the
monastery
held in
Byzantine
life,
this is
perfectly
understandable. For
laity
and monks alike it was the focus of
spiritual
life
and
posthumous hope.
For the
laity
the foundation of a
monastery
was often a thanks-
offering
for a successful career or
designed
to serve as a
family
memorial. The
signifi-
cance of a life would be embodied in a
monastery.
Sub
specie
aeternitatis,
this could be
reduced to a few
lines,
or at best
pages,
of
autobiography. Only
for saints and would-be
saints was there much more to be said.
The
autobiographies
of monks who founded or restored monasteries have two leit-
motifs: the
spiritual journey
of the founder as a
guide
to the
community
and the
practical
steps
taken to found the
monastery.
On
occasion,
the first
might
be
dispensed
with.
Neilos,
the
organizer
of the
monastery
of Our
Lady
Machairas on the island of
Cyprus,
was a
practical
man. He
provides
a brief
history
of the
monastery
and how he came to
be chosen abbot. His
practical ability
had saved the
monastery during
a
period
of famine.
As abbot he records his
building
activities and how he
brought
difficult
countryside
under
cultivation.107 He itemizes the
imperial privileges
he obtained to
protect
the
monastery.
He allows a
personal
note to
creep
in: he built himself a
chapel
dedicated to
John
the
Baptist
near a cell with a few trees and
gently flowing
water. Had his administrative
responsibilities
allowed he would have liked to retire there to lead the life of a
hesy-
chast.108
St.
Christodoulos,
the founder of the
monastery
of St.
John
the
Theologian
on the
island of
Patmos,
has more to
say
about his life in his
to his
rule.109 He saw himself as a monastic reformer. In his
autobiography
he dwells on his
early experiences.
He had run
away
from home while still a child in search of Christ. He
had ended
up
in Palestine where he had moved from
monastery
to
monastery. Finally,
the Saracens were too much for
him,
and he returned to Asia Minor and settled on
Mount
Latros,
where he followed and
may
have introduced the lavriot
pattern
of monas-
tic life. Turkish raids forced him
yet again
to move
on."10
He visited
Constantinople
in
'04Ibid., 449-52.
105Ibid., 464-68.
106Dmitrievskij, Opisanie,
772.
107I.
P.
Tsiknopoullos, K-optapKa TnuntKa (Nicosia, 1969),
9-15.
108Ibid., 58.16-26.
"09MM,
VI, 59-90;
autobiographical introduction,
60-69. The term used for Christodoulos' rule is
hypoty-
posis
rather than the more usual
typikon.
Christodoulos' will
(ibid., 81-85)
contains some additional informa-
tion. See E. L.
Vranouse, Tha
ytokoytKa
K?itieva ToD
O(tfoi) XptiTob5o8Xo,
i6pvcoi
T-i; ?v
HdTXcp ptovS; (Athens,
1966), 87-139; Morris,
Monks and
Laymen,
47-50.
"OMM, VI, 60-61.
243
the
hope
of
obtaining support
from
Emperor
Alexios I
Komnenos."11
The
emperor
must
have found his kind of monasticism rather old-fashioned
compared
with the new cur-
rents associated with the
monastery
of the Theotokos
Evergetis,
which stressed the
pri-
macy
of confession. Christodoulos
paid
little attention to the
spiritual
benefits of con-
fession. His
autobiography
was therefore not
only
a statement of his fitness to be the
founder of a new
monastery,
but also a defense of the lavriot
ideal,
as he had
practiced
it on Mount Latros.
Quite unhistorically,
he believed that Mount Latros had
originally
been colonized
by
monks from Sinai and
Raithou.ll2
This
gave
the ideal the
respectability
of ancient
usage.
Christodoulos remembered how
they
all used to
gather together
on
Sunday
to celebrate the Eucharist and would then
disperse
to their
hermitages, spending
the rest of the week
engaged
in
singing
the
psalms
and in handicrafts. The bulk of his
autobiography
is devoted to the foundation of his
monastery
on the island of Patmos and
the obstacles that he faced and overcame. The foundation was his ultimate
purpose
in
life. The
autobiography
enshrined his
experience
and wisdom and was to serve as a
guide
and an
inspiration
to the
community.
His
autobiography
is on a much
larger
scale than
that of Athanasios the
Athonite,
but it conformed to the
pattern
of a monastic leader
upholding
his ideal of monasticism. Christodoulos would in due course be
recognized
as
a
saint,
but there is no
suggestion
in his
writings
that he had
any
intention of
promoting
his own cult.
This is in contrast to St.
Neophytos,
the
twelfth-century Cypriot
saint,
who is the
subject
of an excellent recent
study by
C.
Galatariotou.l13
He too has left an autobio-
graphical preface
to his monastic
rule.1l4
The theme is how he was chosen
by
God. From
early
on he was troubled
by
the flux of life. He could see no
point
to
worldly
success,
for
only
death and another world awaited him. These
thoughts,
he
insisted,
were not
prompted by
his
youth
or
by
his lack of
education,
but
by
divine
grace
and
providence.
This was the start of his conversion to a monastic
way
of life. "If some
poor beggar
or
wandering
monk came to
my
father's
house,
begging
bread,
I
thought
his
way
of life
enviable and
blessed, and,
if it had been within
my powers,
I would
cheerfully
have
embraced it."115 None of his
family
knew of his
preoccupations,
but when faced with
marriage,
he ran
away
to a
monastery. Brought
back to face
up
to life's
responsibilities,
he ran
away again,
this time for
good.
He was bitter about the fact that he had never
received
any schooling
from his
parents.
It meant that he was sent off
by
the abbot of the
monastery
to tend the
vineyards-something
for which his
peasant background
fitted
him. This went on for five
years,
but somehow he learned to read and write and was
allowed a
position
in the
monastery.
He was
inordinately proud
of his
literacy"16
and
became a
prolific
author.
Of these short
autobiographies,
his is the one that has to a modern ear the
greatest
11Ibid.,
64-65.
" Ibid., 60;
cf.
Morris,
Monks and
Laymen,
48-49.
"3C. Galatariotou,
The
Making of
a Saint: The
Life,
Times and
Sanctification of Neophytos
the Recluse
(Cam-
bridge, 1991).
"4Tsiknopoullos, KpucptaKa rIKwd,
73-81.
15
Ibid.,
74-75.
116Ibid.,
75-76.
244
MICHAEL ANGOLD
literary
merit. There is a freshness that is
usually missing
from
Byzantine
texts
where
such a
high premium
was
placed
on
conventionality.
He includes in his monastic rule
a
list of his
writings.
He believed that his works were
proof
of his
quest
for
sanctity.
His
sermons contain
passages
where he claims that his
writings
are
scarcely
his own but
are
divinely inspired.
He liked to think of himself as God's instrument."' In his
autobiogra-
phy
he
presents
his life as an
inspired
search for the form of monastic life that
would
enable him to fulfill God's
purpose
for him. He is
guided by
visions and
voices,
which
he
recounts. Once he had a vision that he was
ascending
Mount
Olympos
in
Cyprus
so
that
he could
worship
the
Holy
Cross.
He dedicated to the
Holy
Cross the cave church where
he
eventually
settled.118
Neophytos originally
drew
up
his rule with the
autobiography
in
1189,
but
toward
the end of his life made some additions to the rule to take into account his
monastery's
new circumstances. These were connected with the
way
it had become a
refuge
for the
Greek
population
faced with Frankish rule.119 He did not take this
opportunity,
however,
to make additions to his
autobiographical preface,
for the main
purpose
of his life had
been fulfilled with the foundation of his
monastery.
Neophytos supplemented
his
original autobiography
with other
autobiographical
writings,
the most
important
of which was an account of oua miracle that had saved him.
He had decided that his
original
cave
dwelling
was
becoming
too
easy
of access. He
recounts what
happened
to
him,
not once but several
times,
on the feast of the Elevation
of the
Cross,
which was of
particular significance
to his church. So
many people pressed
into the
tiny
church that he somehow
got
overlooked. There was not even
any
food for
him. All he asked for was ten beans soaked in water. To
get away
from
people
he started
to excavate new
quarters
above the cave church. He was now over
sixty
and was
bringing
the work to a
conclusion,
when he realized he had
forgotten
to make
provision
for a
privy.
He set
to,
but there was a rock fall and he was
trapped by
a monstrous boulder for
several
days.
He
emerged
unscathed and
presented
this as the miracle that
pointed
to
his
special
choice
by
God. It was the kind of
piece
that one would
expect
from a
hagiogra-
pher
and would
normally
have been
part
of the unofficial
process
of canonization that
prevailed
in
Byzantium. Neophytos
ensured that this event would not be
forgotten
and
composed
a
special prayer
of
thanksgiving.
His brother
John,
abbot of
Koutsovendis,
turned this into a
liturgical commemoration,
celebrated
every January
24.120 No Life of
St.
Neophytos
was ever
composed.
The
preface
to his rule was
hagiography enough.
The
self-promotion
of the
autobiography
went hand in hand with
Neophytos'
use of
the
image.
He made sure that his
portrait
was
present
in the decoration of his cave
church. One showed him as a
supplicant
in a
Deesis;
another had him
being
carried to
heaven
by
the
archangels
Michael and Gabriel. Even more
suggestive
of his immortal
longings
is the dome of the cave church with its
depiction
of the Ascension. At its center
was the entrance into
Neophytos'
new
apartment.
To attend the
liturgy
all he had to do
117Galatariotou,
Neophytos,
97-128.
"'Tsiknopoullos, Knp7cptaKa u7ctra,
77-78.
119Ibid.,
80-81.
120Galatariotou, Neophytos,
110-13. See G. K.
Christodoulou,
"Un canon inedit sur la Theosemie de Neo-
phyte
le reclus
par
son
frere, Jean
le
Chrysostomite,"
REB 55
(1997), 247-59.
245
was to
poke
his head over the
edge
of this entrance. He would therefore
appear
in the
midst of the Ascension-a
living
icon.'21
Neophytos'
use of art echoes his use of
autobiog-
raphy
which
spills
over into
autohagiography.'22
It
was,
in
many ways,
a
logical develop-
ment of the
autobiography
of the
inspired
monastic teacher.
VII
Neophytos' writings anticipated
the
autobiographies
of
Nikephoros Blemmydes,
the
most famous scholar of the
period
of exile after 1204.123 He twice turned
down,
or so he
says,
offers of the
patriarchal
throne. He was the
representative
of the orthodox church
on two occasions in discussions over the union of churches with the Latins. He was the
abbot of one
monastery
and the founder of
another,
but this is not the
explanation
be-
hind his need to write not
one,
but two
autobiographies.
They
were more in the nature of
spiritual
testaments
originally
delivered to the
monks of his
foundation,
the
monastery
of the Lord Christ Who
Is,
to celebrate Blem-
mydes' reaching
his
sixty-sixth year. Sixty-six
was
traditionally
the
age
when the
pious
took stock of their lives and drew
up
their wills. This invited the testator to dwell on his
spiritual
condition.124 Wills remained
primarily legal
documents,
but
increasingly
af-
fected a confessional element with
appropriate autobiographical
details.
They
had much
in common with the
to a monastic
typikon.
125
Blemmydes'
auto-
biographies
owed
something
to
both,
but were neither a will nor
part
of
any
monastic
rule.
Blemmydes
did draw
up
a monastic
rule,
but it has survived
only
in
fragmentary
form. There is no
autobiographical preface.
In another
respect,
too,
his monastic rule
does not conform to the normal
pattern.
At least
two,
and
possibly
three of the
chapters
of his rule
(only
four
survive)
consist of treatises that
Blemmydes composed
at various
intervals.126 Like the
autobiographies, they
are most
likely
to have first seen the
light
of
day
as sermons delivered before his
community.
We
might
conclude that
Blemmydes
12Galatariotou,
Neophytos,
128-46.
22Cf.
J.
A.
Munitiz,
"Hagiographical Autobiography
in the 13th
Century,"
BSI 53
(1992), 243-49;
J.
A.
Munitiz,
"Self-Canonisation: The 'Partial Account' of
Nikephoros Blemmydes,"
in The
Byzantine
Saint,
ed.
S. Hackel
(London, 1981),
164-68.
23Nicephorus Blemmydes, Autobiographia
sive curriculum vitae necnon
epistula universalior,
ed.
J.
A.
Munitiz,
CCSG 13
(Brepols-Turnhout, 1984); Nikephoros Blemmydes,
A
PartialAccount,
trans. J. A. Munitiz
(Louvain,
1988).
See
Misch, Geschichte, 11.2, 831-75;
I.
Sevcenko,
"Blemmydes
et ses
Autobiographies,"
in La civilta
bizantina dal XII al XV secolo
(Rome, 1982), 116-37;
P. A.
Agapetos,
"O
XoyorFeXvtKO;
Ovaro;
zc6v
XOpov
GTniV
"Au1op ioypatpia'
TOri
NtKPilppou BXSeggiuri,"
Hellenika 48
(1998),
29-46.
"24Blemmydes,
I, i,
1: ed.
Munitiz, 1.1-4;
trans.
Munitiz,
43. Cf. The
Correspondence
of
Leo,
Metropolitan of
Synada
and
Syncellus,
ed. M. P.
Vinson,
DOT 8
(Washington,
D.C., 1985),
48-52.
125Most wills
containing significant autobiographical
information were monastic in
origin.
Three abbots
of Patmos have left wills in which
they give
an account of their
stewardship:
Sabas
[n.d.];
Theoktistos
(Sept.
1157);
Germanos
(Dec.
1272): MM, VI, 106-8,
229-33, 241-46. This was the
practice
in other monasteries:
e.g.,
the will of Abbot
Neophytos
of Docheiariou: Actes de
Docheiariou,
ed. N.
Oikonomides,
Archives de l'Athos
12
(Paris, 1984),
no.
6,
91-97. Monastic wills
might
serve as
typika, e.g.,
that of
Maximos,
founder of the
monastery
of Skoteine near
Philadelphia:
S. Eustratiades in Hellenika 3
(1930),
325-39. See
Manaphes, Tu-
t-KuC,
145-73. Wills with
autobiographical preambles
were not a monastic
monopoly,
but were also drawn
up by
the
laity.
One of the earliest
surviving
such wills was the work of Eustathios Boilas: see P.
Lemerle,
"Le
testament d'Eustathios Boilas
(Avril 1059),"
in
Cinq
etudes sur le XIe siecle
byzantin (Paris, 1977),
20-29.
"26Nicephorus Blemmydes,
Curriculum vitae et
carmina,
ed. A.
Heisenberg (Leipzig, 1896); J.
A.
Munitiz,
"A
Missing Chapter
from the
Typikon
of
Nikephoros Blemmydes,"
REB 44
(1986),
199-207.
246
MICHAEL ANGOLD
never finished
drawing up
his rule and that the
surviving portions
were rather materials
for a rule.127 In
any
case,
we seem to be
very
close to the
origins
of the
autobiographies
that
preface
monastic
rules,
in
longer
treatises for the benefit and edification of the com-
munity, along
the lines of
Symeon
the New
Theologian's disguised autobiography.
Blemmydes
was able to fuse different forms of monastic
documentation-wills,
typika,
and sermons-and create a
literary
vehicle for full-scale
autobiography.
It is entitled
"a
partial
narrative"
(Diegesis merike).
The narrative was the
simplest literary
form that
Byzantines
had at their
disposal.
It was
organized
on a
strictly chronological
basis, which
aligns
it with
hagiography
rather than encomiastic or other rhetorical forms of
Byzantine
literature. The
emphasis
on the miraculous and divine intervention is
equally hagio-
graphical.
The artlessness of the
literary
form belies
Blemmydes' originality.
His ambi-
tions are revealed
by
a
literary style
that is
highly
rhetorical. His deliberate choice of a
high-level style
reveals that in their final form he was
aiming
his
autobiographies
not
only
toward his monastic
community,
but also toward the educated elite that dominated
church and state. It also reveals that
Blemmydes hoped they
would be an
enduring
mon-
ument.
They
were not occasional
pieces,
but
designed
to
preserve
his
memory.
The material and the themes of his two
autobiographies
are not
obviously
different,
but
they scarcely overlap.
The first was delivered in
May
1264 and the second in
April
1265.
Blemmydes
seems to have conceived them from the outset as a
complementary
pair,
which would form "a harmonious
whole,
a
body complete
with members."128 As he
says
in the introduction to his second
autobiography,
"I shall deal in
particular
with
things
that I hesitated to
explain
in
my previous composition,
as I was afraid it would
become too
long."
129
They
deal with different
aspects
of his life and
display
a difference
of
emphasis
and selection. The first
autobiography
traces the
path
that led him to the
monastic life and its
consequences;
the
second,
his career as a scholar and a
theologian.
They
are united
by
his
quest
for
self-perfection.130
The first is built around the
key episode
of his
life,
his conversion to a monastic
vocation. He liked to think that it
brought
him into
contempt,
that it set
against
him the
world of the court that he had abandoned. He became "the butt and
laughing
stock of
haughty people,"131
but God never abandoned him. The first
autobiography
is full of
people
who wanted to murder
Blemmydes,
but on each occasion he was saved
by
a mir-
acle. A sword stuck in a
scabbard,132 or a sword seemed to
pass right through Blemmydes
without
causing any
harm.'33 His enemies died in
suspicious circumstances,
one from
winding
a caul around his
head,'34
another from sheer
panic.'35
Yet another found him-
127A
marginal
note from Oxon.
Bodl.: Holkham
graecus
71,
fol.
205v,
lends some
support
to this view in
the sense that it
lumps together discourses,
some taken from the
typikon,
others
apparently
not,
the two
autobiographies,
and the
epistola
universalior: see
Blemmydes,
ed.
Munitiz, xiii;
trans.
Munitiz,
4-5.
28Blemmydes,
II, i, 2: ed.
Munitiz, 47.4-7;
trans.
Munitiz,
95.
29Ibid., II, i,
1: ed.
Munitiz, 47.12-14;
trans.
Munitiz,
95.
130I
owe this to
Joseph
A. Munitiz. I am
very grateful
to him for
reading
a version of this
paper
and
generously sharing
his
profound knowledge
of
Blemmydes' Autobiographies.
131Blemmydes,
I, li,
90: ed.
Munitiz, 44-45;
trans.
Munitiz,
94.
'32Ibid., I, xli,
71: ed.
Munitiz, 36.6-9;
trans.
Munitiz,
84.
'33Ibid., I, xviii, 29: ed.
Munitiz, 17.1-11;
trans.
Munitiz,
59.
134Ibid., I, xxxi, 52: ed.
Munitiz, 28.10-12;
trans.
Munitiz,
74.
135Ibid., I, xxxii,
53: ed.
Munitiz, 28-29;
trans.
Munitiz,
74.
247
self excommunicated.136
Blemmydes
was convinced that he was the
object
of miraculous
intervention. There is a
greater
stress on the miraculous in the first
autobiography
than
in the
second,
even
though
the first is more
straightforward.
In his second
autobiography, Blemmydes prefaces
an account of his intellectual activi-
ties with an
interpretation
of the
meaning
of his childhood. He was convinced that his
childhood actions
proclaimed
that he had been
preordained
to a life of
sanctity.
It showed
in the
way
that as a
baby
he insisted on
being
suckled
only by
his mother. He never told
a lie. His favorite
game
was
playing
at churches. He
always pushed away motherly
souls
who wanted to embrace him. He concluded his account with the
smug
remark: "I hold
these and similar incidents to be
signs
of God's affection and of the
process by
which
goodness
is
engraved
and
impressed upon
the soul."137 He was a most unnatural son.
Though
their
only surviving child,
he refused to visit either his mother or his father as
they lay dying.
He
justified
this on the
grounds
that he was
being
true to the monastic
ideal of
forsaking
all.138 He was
being
true to his true father, God!
This introduction to his second
autobiography
served two
purposes.
It
spelled
out
the
message
of the first
autobiography
and
justified
his intellectual
pursuits
as
part
of a
divinely
ordained
pattern.
He
presents
his oral examination at the end of his studies as
a rite of
passage.
He relates how he outwitted his examiner thanks to the brilliance of his
logic.139
This
episode
led to his role as official
spokesman
for the orthodox church in the
two sets of discussions with the Latins. He noted with satisfaction that he was
initially
called in because the
original spokesman,
who
happened
to be
Blemmydes'
luckless ex-
aminer,
40
did not have the intellectual caliber to stand
up
to the Latins.
Blemmydes
was
also
spokesmain
talks with the Armenian church-another
episode
that he includes in
his second
autobiography.
This is followed
by
a defense of the sermon on St.
John
the
Divine he
preached
on his return.141
Even more
significant
is the account he
provides
of the foundation of his
monastery
of the Lord Christ Who
Is,
for this set a seal on his life.142 Not a word is said about this
foundation in the first
autobiography.
This
may
at first
sight
seem
strange,
since it was
addressed to the
community;
less
strange,
if it is remembered that the first
autobiography
concentrated on
Blemmydes'
tribulations and the second on his achievements. In the
second
autobiography
he
included,
for
instance, a list of his
major
works.
They
are
mostly
theological,
but
Blemmydes
did not
forget
the Mirror of Princes that he
composed
for
Theodore II
Laskaris,
the heir to the throne.143 It was evidence of his moral
authority.
The second
autobiography
could
easily
have served as the basis for a
preface
to a
collection of
Blemmydes' works,
in the manner of a
Nikephoros
Basilakes or a
Gregory
36Ibid., I, xxxii,
54: ed.
Munitiz, 29.10-11; trans. Munitiz, 75.
37Ibid., II, iii,
5: ed.
Munitiz, 48-49; trans. Munitiz, 96.
138
Ibid., II, xviii, 42-43: ed.
Munitiz, 64-65; trans. Munitiz, 115-16.
39Ibid., II, iv-viii,
8-15: ed.
Munitiz, 50-53; trans. Munitiz, 98-103.
140Ibid., II, xiii-xvii, 25-40: ed. Munitiz, 57-63; trans. Munitiz, 106-14.
141
Ibid., II, xxiv-xxvii, 61-73: ed. Munitiz, 73-79; trans. Munitiz, 125-32. Cf.
J.
A. Munitiz, "Blemmydes'
Encomium on St.
John
the
Evangelist (BHG 931)," AB 107
(1989), 285-346.
42Blemmydes, II, xix-xx, 45-48: ed. Munitiz, 65-67; trans. Munitiz, 116-18.
143
Ibid., II, xxviii,
75-76: ed.
Munitiz, 79-80, trans. Munitiz, 132-34. Cf. H.
Hunger
and I. Sevcenko, Des
Nikephoros Blemmydes
BaotXktic
'Av3pia;
und dessen
Metaphrase
von
Georgios
Galesiotes und
Georgios Oinaiotes,
WByzSt
18
(Vienna, 1986).
248
MICHAEL ANGOLD
of
Cyprus.
But
by
the end of his life
Blemmydes
had little
sympathy
with the humanist
ideal,
as
Gregory
found to his cost.
Gregory
had
hoped
to
study
with
Blemmydes,
but
was dissuaded
by
his
reputation
for
arrogance.
It was this
quality apparently,
rather than
any
love for
learning,
that he
passed
on to his
pupils.144
It was a
reputation
difficult to
reconcile with the "Hellenic" ideal that was
Gregory's inspiration.
Misch
quite rightly
detects beneath the surface of
Blemmydes' autobiographies
an
underlying
tension between two
contemplative
ideals: the monastic and the "Hellenic." 145
Blemmydes
devotes the
early chapters
of his first
autobiography
not to his
childhood,
but to a detailed account of his
education,
which was
largely
"Hellenic." 46 It fitted him
for a
position
at
court,
but he dismissed this as a dream
world.'47
He turned instead to a
career in the
church,
which he found
just
as
unsatisfactory.
It involved him in sour
pro-
fessional rivalries and
gave
him no time to continue with him studies. This tudie imore than
anything prompted
his decision to abandon his career and turn to the monastic
life,
which would allow him more time with his books.148 Once settled into the monastic life
he continued to
study
the outer or "Hellenic"
wisdom,
even if he claims to have concen-
trated more on Christian authors.
49
He also
gave
instruction in "Hellenic"
philosophy
and science to
pupils
sent from the
imperial
court.'50
Blemmydes hoped
to combine
"Hellenic" and monastic elements in his
contemplative
life.
Experience
and what he took
to be divine
guidance
showed him that this was
impossible.
It was at this
point
that he
ended his first
autobiography.
There was much left to be
explained,
occasioned
by
his
rejection
of the "Hellenic" education that was his
starting point.
His second
autobiography supplies
the answers. His
starting point
this time was his
childhood. It revealed that God had chosen him
specially.
His "Hellenic" education is
passed
over in a few
sentences,
but its
purpose
was clear: it fitted him to defend ortho-
doxy. Scholarship
and
learning
were
irrelevant,
except
insofar as
they
laid the founda-
tions for
Blemmydes' ability
as a
theologian.
The
message
of theooian.s two
autobiographies
is
clear: from childhood
on,
whether as a monk or as a
theologian,
he came under divine
protection.
With God's aid
Blemmydes
came to understand that his
divinely
instituted
task was to defend
orthodoxy
both
intellectually
and
morally against
its enemies. He was
an instrument of the divine will.
As the
only
full-scale
Byzantine autobiography,
the two books of
Blemmydes' Diegesis
merike warrant more attention than has been
given
them.
They
have not been hailed as
a
literary
achievement of real
significance.
Even the most recent
editor,
J.
Munitiz-who
is more
sympathetic
and
discerning
than most-has his doubts about their
lasting
value,
44Lameere,
Correspondance,
181.12-22.
836-37. This was a distinction
recognized
by Byzantines themselves,
notably
in
the
way they
contrasted the "inner" and the "outer"
learning.
I use "Hellenic" to
correspond
to the "outer"
learning
and its
assumptions
and outlook.
J.
Munitiz refuses to
accept
the distinction made
by
Misch
("Ha-
giographical Autobiography," 249).
It is true that most educated
Byzantines, including Blemmydes himself,
aimed to reconcile both in their lives. Most succeeded
by ignoring
the contradictions this
posed.
But it was
a
problem
for educated
Byzantines,
and the more
perspicacious
admitted it.
'46Blemmydes,
I, i-vi, 2-10: ed.
Munitiz, 3-7;
trans.
Munitiz,
43-48.
'47Ibid., I, iv,
6: ed.
Munitiz, 5-6;
trans.
Munitiz,
45-46. Cf.
ibid., I, vii,
11: ed.
Munitiz, 7-8;
trans.
Munitiz,
48.
'48Ibid., I, xxii,
35: ed.
Munitiz, 20.1-8;
trans.
Munitiz,
63.
'49Ibid., I, xxviii,
49: ed.
Munitiz, 26.1-3;
trans.
Munitiz,
71.
50Ibid., I, xxix,
49: ed.
Munitiz, 26.4; trans.
Munitiz,
71.
249
but he identifies the difficulties that a modern
readership
has with
Blemmydes' autobiog-
raphies.
He sees
Blemmydes
as a victim of "delusion of
grandeur,
albeit in its most insidi-
ous form of
spiritual
achievement." But he allows that he was also
"very
much a child of
his
age."'51
The combination makes
Blemmydes thoroughly unsympathetic
in modern
terms. I. Sevcenko dismisses his
autobiographies
as the
outpourings
of a
neurotic.'52
This
does not take us
very
far,
since
by
modern standards most
Byzantine holy
men were
neurotic,
and some
certifiably
so. There was a marked neurotic
component
to
Byzantine
culture and
society. Nobody
would wish to
argue
that
Blemmydes
was somehow the
typi-
cal
Byzantine,
but the traits he revealed were
Byzantine.
As
long
as it is remembered that
he took
things
to
extremes,
we can
agree
with Munitiz' conclusion: "It is
through
him
that
many
of the
ordinary
reactions,
fears and
hopes
of exiled
Constantinopolitans
can
be felt: their trust in God's
special protection,
their murderous internecine
rivalries,
their
petty ignorance
of the
path
that
history
was
taking,
their
superstitions,
their
physical
sufferings,
their love
affairs,
their stubborn cultural
pride
and their
gradual
realization
of difficult tasks that would bear
lasting
fruit."'
153
Blemmydes' autobiographies
have
gone
unappreciated by
modern scholars
simply
because it is so hard to come to terms with the
Byzantine psyche
for
those,
like
Misch,
who are
impregnated
with the classical ideal. He
expressed disappointment
that
Blemmydes
failed to deliver what he
anticipated
from
him, "a
self-contained narrative of an individual life that focuses on the core of the
per-
sonality."
154 Misch attributed this
apparent
failure to the
hagiographical imprint
the auto-
biographies
bore. In
fact,
Misch was more or less
admitting
that the
personality
revealed
did not
tally
with his
rigid
standards. If the
purpose
of
autobiography
is to
lay
bare the
core of a
personality,
then
Blemmydes
would
appear
to have succeeded. He stands re-
vealed as
stubborn, self-obsessed,
self-righteous,
vindictive,
and
overweening.
There are elements of
self-justification-of paranoia,
if
you
like-in
Blemmydes'
au-
tobiographies,
but
they
were also an advertisement of his
saintly qualities. Why
otherwise
should Patriarch
Joseph
I
(1266-75)
have come from
Constantinople
in 1268 to Blem-
mydes' monastery
near
Ephesos?
He came to seek
Blemmydes' support
in his
struggle
with the
recently deposed
Patriarch
Arsenios.
The historian
George Pachymeres
de-
scribed
Blemmydes
on that occasion as "a disembodied
intelligence."
It was intended as
a tribute to his saintliness.
Blemmydes
treated the
patriarch
with a hauteur that
verged
on
contempt.
This was in
keeping
with the tone of his
autobiographies.
He wished to
emphasize
his
lofty neutrality.
He was nevertheless
willing
to endorse the
patriarch.
The
price
he demanded was ratification of the
independence
of his
monastery.
The
patriarch
was in addition
expected,
on his return to
Constantinople,
to obtain
imperial
confirma-
tion of the
privilege
he issued
Blemmydes.
The
patriarch complied,
but on
Blemmydes'
death rescinded the
measure,
to the
glee
of
George Pachymeres.'55 Blemmydes' willing-
ness to
compromise
with the
patriarch
lost him much
respect
in the church at
large.
This
compromise
failed in its
purpose,
for the
patriarch
did not honor his undertak-
ing.
He instead took the
opportunity
of
Blemmydes'
death to subordinate his
monastery
151
Ibid.,
trans.
Munitiz, 42.
152
Sevcenko,
"Blemmydes
et ses
Autobiographies,"
119-23.
'53Blemmydes,
trans.
Munitiz, 42.
836.
55George Pachymeres,
Relations
historiques,
ed. A.
Failler,
trans.
V.
Laurent
(Paris, 1984), II, 437-41.
250
MICHAEL ANGOLD
to the
monastery
of Galesios. This
precluded
the
development
of
any
cult devoted
to
Blemmydes,
as there was now no
independent community capable
of
preserving
his
rep-
utation for
sanctity.
Without such a
community
his
autobiographies
lost their
power
as
a statement of his claim to be an instrument of God. In
any
case,
as R. Macrides
has
shown,
canonization was
becoming
more
systematic
under the
Palaiologoi,
the
essential
element
being patriarchal
and
synodal approval.156
This
Blemmydes
had more or
less
forfeited
through
his
high-handed
but
self-serving
treatment of the
patriarch.
His
auto-
biographies
smacked of
self-promotion,
self-sanctification even.
They
would have
pro-
duced
unease,
if not
downright disapproval.
VIII
Blemmydes
had created out of various elements a
literary
vehicle for full-scale auto-
biography.
It was an
impressive
achievement,
but blunted
by
the failure of others to ex-
ploit
to the full the
possibilities opened up by
him. The
spiritual
testament continued to
provide
an
opportunity
for
autobiography,
but never on the scale
essayed by Blemmydes.
The exiled
patriarch
Arsenios left a testament that dates to soon after
Blemmydes
death.
It is not
possible
to establish
any
connection between this and
Blemmydes' autobiog-
raphies,
but it does fill a
gap
left
by
the latter. While hostile to
Emperor
Theodore II
Laskaris,
Blemmydes
was careful to distance himself from Michael
Palaiologos' usurpa-
tion. He achieved this
by
more or les
ignoring
it in his
autobiographies.
For Patriarch
Arsenios this act of
usurpation
was the central fact of his life. His testament was a defense
of his
opposition
to the
usurper.
57
Isidore Boucheiras
(1347-50)
was another
patriarch
of
Constantinople
who left a
testament with a
strong autobiographical
element. He was one of
Gregory
Palamas' most
loyal
adherents in the
struggle
with Barlaam and his
supporters.
This
iscontroversy
was
decided in favor of the Palamites
by Emperor John
VI Cantacuzene's victorious
entry
into
Constantinople
in 1347. Isidore's reward was the offer of the
patriarchate.
He tells
us in his
autobiography
that he was reluctant to
accept,
but the Mother of God made
up
his mind for him. She
appeared
to him in a vision and indicated that he should
accept
the
patriarchal
throne. Isidore saw as his main task and achievement the
suppression
of
anti-Palamite
teachings.
He has
nothing
but
extravagant praise
for
Cantacuzene,
who
made this
possible.
He also recalled the
emperor's generosity,
which had rescued the
patriarchate
from
poverty.
58
Yet another
patriarch,
Matthew I
(1397-1410),
also left a testament
(epiteleutios
boulesis
kai
didaskalia),
dated 1407. It was addressed to the monks of the
Constantinopolitan
mon-
astery
of
Charsianites,
where he had been a monk and continued to be abbot. It is
largely
autobiographical,
but his life is interwoven with the
history
of the
monastery.
There is a
strong apologetic element,
as the
patriarch explains
his role
during Emperor
Manuel II
156R.
Macrides, "Saints and Sainthood in the
Early Palaiologan
Period," in
Byzantine
Saint,
ed. Hackel (as
in note 122
above),
67-87.
'57PG 140:947-58.
158MM, I,
no.
cxxx, 287-94;
trans. W.
Heifer,
"Das Testament des Patriarchen Isidoros
(1347-1349/50),"
JOBG
17
(1968),
73-84.
251
Palaiologos' long
absence in the West
(1399-1402).159
These
patriarchal autobiographies
seem to be a new feature. All the
patriarchs
in
question
came from a monastic
back-
ground,
which will
explain
the
origin
of their
autobiographical
testaments.
They
were
acting
in a
way
that
might
be
expected
of an abbot.160
These
patriarchal
testaments were
by
no means the
only autobiographical
literature
that
appeared
in
Byzantium
in the fourteenth
century
and later. The
autobiographical
impulse
still retained much of its
vigor. Autobiographical
sketches,
in the now traditional
forms,
continued to be
produced.
Monastic
typika
continued to be
prefaced by
autobio-
graphical
sketches. Theodora
Synadene provides
a
particularly moving example
for the
"Lincoln
College" typikon
that she drew
up
for the
nunnery
of the Theotokos of Certain
Hope
at
Constantinople.'16
Authors still
prefaced
their works with brief
autobiographies.
Joseph Rhakendytes, commonly
known as the
"Philosopher," compiled
an
Encyclopaedia
that remains one of the more
intriguing literary productions
of the
early
fourteenth cen-
tury.
It contains a brief
autobiographical
foreword that allowed him to describe his educa-
tion in
Constantinople
in some detail. The
autobiography
is built around the author's
decision,
taken at a
very young age,
to
adopt
the
contemplative
life over the vita activa.162
This was also a
question
that
engaged
Theodore
Metochites,
notably
in his
Ethikos,
com-
posed
about 1305 when he became Andronikos II's chief minister. He used it to
survey
his education and
early
career. As
autobiography
it is arid and
theoretical,
enlivened
only
by
a
genuine
concern for his children.
63
Still later Demetrios
Kydones (died
ca.
1398),
another
Byzantine
humanist who became chief
minister,
left an
autobiography
in the
form of an
apology
for his conversion to
Catholicism.'64
The
in
Byzantium
was not confined to humanists and mo-
nastic
founders,
whether
lay
or cleric. There were
always
other forms of
autobiography
besides
prefac
t tes
to monastic rules and willsand to
literary
collections.
Bishops indulged
in a
peculiar
form of
autobiographical
endeavor,
the verse letter of abdication. The best
known is that of Nicholas
Mouzalon,
who abdicated the throne of
Cyprus.
At
1,057
lines
it is a substantial
piece
of
work,
written soon after his abdication around 1110.165 At about
the same
time, Nicholas,
bishop
of
Kerkyra, resigned
his see and likewise wrote a verse
letter of
abdication,
but it is less
substantial,
only
360 lines
long.l66
Its tone is more
general
159H.
Hunger,
"Das Testament des Patriarchen Matthaios I
(1397-1410),"
BZ 51
(1958),
288-309
(=
H.
Hunger, Byzantinische Grundlagenforschung [London, 1973],
no.
ix);
I. M. Konidares and K. A.
Manaphes,
"'EtreXi5to pOor; Kai touaKa'ia Toal OiKOatgKXtKO NatXo
MooMaaiov A'
(1397-1410),"
'EI.'ET.
BvI.7c.
45
(1981/82),
472-510.
'60V. Laurent, "Ecrits
spirituels
inedits de Macaire
Choumnos," Hellenika 14
(1955), 76-85,
for the
spiritual
testament
(epiteleutios homilia)
of a
contemporary
monastic leader.
'61H.
Delehaye,
Deux
typica byzantins
de
l'epoque
des
20-25.
'62Ch. Walz,
Rhetores
Graeci
(Stuttgart, 1834),
467-72.
163H.
Hunger,
"Der
ilOtKo6
des Theodoros Metochites,"
1enIpaygjLeva
ToO
E'
SI0eevo; PucavTIvoXoytKO)
Duve6pfio
(Athens, 1958), 141-58; I. Sevcenko, "Theodore
Metochite,
Logos
10," in Civilta bizantina (as in
note
123),
138-49.
'64G. Mercati,
Notizie di Procoro e Dimitrio
Cidone,
Manuele Caleca e Teodoro
Meliteniota,
ST 56
(Vatican
City,
1931), 359-403; trans. H. G.
Beck,
"Die
'Apologia pro
vita sua' des Demetrios
Kydones,"
OKS 1
(1952),
208-25, 264-82. See E
Kianka,
"The
Apology
of Demetrius
Cydones," ByzSt
7
(1980),
57-71.
165S. Doanidou, "'H
n7apaitrcnt;
NtKoXado Tro
MovdaXwvo; S
a6o T;
d&pxui?tKo7rfS Koitpou,"
Hellenika 7
(1934),
109-50. See
Galatariotou,
Neophytos,
192-99.
'66Sp. Lampros, KepKipaKda dav?K6Ora (Athens, 1882),
23-41.
252
MICHAEL ANGOLD
than that of Mouzalon's
poem,
which
provides
a vivid
picture
of his election to the see of
Cyprus
and the difficulties that he faced once in office. Both
bishops
set out to
justify
their
resignation.
Their
pieces
were
presumably designed
to soften
opinion against
them
in the
patriarchal synod.
Their
appearance
at the
beginning
of the twelfth
century
must
be connected with the
greater
stress on the
pastoral responsibilities
of
bishops
associated
with the
patriarchate
of Nicholas Grammatikos
(1084-1
11
1).
This was in its turn
part
of
the
changing
climate of the eleventh
century.
67
Galatariotou has underlined how the travel
report acquired
a more
obviously
auto-
biographical stamp
from the mid-twelfth
century.
The
responses
to the
experience
of
travel were no
longer
marked
by
the
objectivity
and
conventionality
of the
pilgrim
ac-
count.'68
Constantine
Manasses,
for
example,
has left an account in verse of the
voyage
he made in 1161 to crusader
Jerusalem
as a member of a
diplomatic
mission. It is full of
personal
observationnve and
prejudices.
It is alive to local color and smells and reveals the
author's
changing
moods and states of
mind.'69
This
immediacy
is also
apparent
in Nich-
olas Mesarites'
report
to the abbot and monks of the Theotokos
Evergetis monastery
recounting
his adventures on a
journey
from
Constantinople
to Nicaea in 1208.170 These
travel
reports
are not
autobiographies: they
do not aim to
explain
or
justify
a
life,
but
their
potential
is revealed
by
Andreas Libadenos'
autobiography
written in the mid-
fourteenth
century.
Its
title,
Periegetike
Historia,
might
translate as
"My
Life as Travel." At
the
age
of twelve he was in
Egypt
as a
junior
member of a
Byzantine embassy;
thereafter
he moved around the
Byzantine
world,
ending up
in Trebizond. He
presented
his life as
one dominated
by
the
dangers
of
travel,
from which
Christ,
his
Mother,
and the saints
invariably
delivered him.7"'
IX
The
in
Byzantium
had its roots in a reevaluation of the
personal
and the
individual, in a new
preference
for the
subjective
over the
objective.
Kazhdan has said a
propos
of an oration of
Nikephoros Chrysoberges,
a
Byzantine
man
of letters of the late twelfth
century:
"Such rhetoric seeks as far as
possible
to 'deconcre-
tise'
reality,
to substitute the abstract and the universal for the
particular
and
local,
and
thus to transcend the
deceptive multiplicity
of
perceived phenomena,
and to
convey
the
inner
meaning,
the
unchanging
idea,
and timeless essence of events."'72 That was the
167Angold,
Church and
Society,
252-62.
168C. Galatariotou,
"Travel and
Perception
in
Byzantium,"
DOP 47
(1993),
221-41. One
has, however,
to
agree
with C.
Mango ("Chypre
carrefour du monde
byzantin,"
in XVe Congres international d'e'tudes
byzantines,
V.5
[Athens, 1976], 10-11) against
C. Galatariotou that Constantine Manasses' encounter with an evil-
smelling Cypriot
has
very
little to do with
being
tired and emotional and is much more a reflection of
Constantinopolitan
condescension. Galatariotou claims that Manasses admitted that his actions
might
not
have met with total
approval
back in
Constantinople.
His words were: "And that was
that,
even if some
may
disapprove."
But these refer to the
way
he knocked the man down. He was
betraying Constantinopolitan
sang
froid and
sullying
his hands with
physical
contact. It has
nothing
to do with his obvious disdain for a
provincial,
which would have been shared
by
other members of the
Constantinopolitan
elite.
'69K. Horna,
"Das
Hodoiporikon
des Konstantin Manasses," BZ 13
(1904),
325-47.
'70A.
Heisenberg, Quellen
und Studien zur
spdtbyzantinischen
Geschichte
(London, 1973),
no. II:
II, iii,
35-46.
'7"'Av8pEou At,pa6rvof PIoS; Kai Fpya,
ed. 0.
Lampsides (Athens, 1975),
39-87.
I
am most
grateful
to Dr.
Martin
Hinterberger
for
drawing my
attention to this text.
172
Kazhdan,
Byzantine Literature, 242-43.
253
traditional aim of
Byzantine
literature,
but it had been
giving ground
since the eleventh
century
to a more realistic and concrete
approach.
Kazhdan contrasts
Chrysoberges'
ora-
tion with one on the same
episode by
Nicholas Mesarites: "His narrative is
frankly per-
sonal. He is involved in the events which he describes and he
presents
them from his
own
point
of view." 173
Kazhdan
points
to the
way
a concern with the individual and with "the
particular
and the local"
gave
new substance to old
literary genres.
This was the main
way
in which
Byzantine literary
culture renewed itself.
John
Cantacuzene's Memoirs
provide
an ex-
cellent
example.'74 They
fulfill the criteria for
autobiography
rather better than Psellos'
Chronographia,
even if Misch chose to
pass
them
by.175 They
constitute an
apologia
that
Cantacuzene uses to exonerate himself from the
charge
that his ambitions
produced
the
civil wars that tore
Byzantium apart
in the 1320s and 1340s. His defense was that he
never wished to be
emperor.
The
assumption
of the
imperial dignity
was forced
upon
him
by
the
envy
and
spite
of his
opponents.
He
hoped thereby
to
safeguard
the interests
of
Byzantium.
A desire to restore
Byzantium
to a semblance of its
past greatness
was the
avowed
purpose
of Cantacuzene's life. His failure was a
tragedy.
Kazhdan
puts
it well:
"In
Byzantine
literature Cantacuzee invented the
poetry
of heroic defeat. This is what
constitutes the
novelty
and
originality
of his historical
perspective."
But heroic defeat has
to revolve around a hero. That hero was Cantacuzene. In his Memoirs he
presented
his
actions as
though they
were "dictated
by
the
purest
of sentiments," but
ranged against
him were "insurmountable
obstacles,
that made
defeat,
not
something ordinary,
but an
event of
grandiose proportions."
176
Cantacuzene could turn
history
into
autobiography by
virtue of his
self-appointed
role as
tragic
hero,
but a
tragic
hero who was also
emperor.
The
Byzantines
understood
the historical
process
to focus on the actions of an
emperor.
This was an
assumption
that
allowed Cantacuzene to
justify
his
appropriation
for his own ends of the
history
of his
own time.
In
many ways,
Cantacuzene's Memoirs have more in common with Michael Palaio-
logos' Autobiography
than
they
do with Psellos'
Chronographia. Though
the form was differ-
ent,
their
purposes
were similar. Both
emperors sought
to
justify
their
usurpations
and
their conduct of the
imperial
office. There
is, however,
one
significant
difference. While
Michael
Palaiologos gloried
in his aristocratic
descent,
Cantacuzene has almost
nothing
to
say
about his forebears. He fails to
give
his father's name and makes identification of
his
grandparents impossible.
His descent
may
not have been as
glorious
as often
sup-
posed.
It
may,
of
course,
only
have been that his father's
early
death had
unhappy
conse-
quences
for the
standing
of his side of the
family.
Cantacuzene
may,
however,
have delib-
erately played
down his aristocratic connections and ambitions. It suited the
persona
he
173Ibid., 248.
'74John Cantacuzenus, Historiarium Libri
IV,
ed. L.
Schopen
and B.
Niebuhr,
3 vols.
(Bonn, 1828-32);
trans.
G. Fatouros and T. Krischer, Geschichte, 2 vols.
(Stuttgart, 1982-86).
See
Kazhdan, "L'Histoire de Cantacu-
zene," 279-335;
D. M.
Nicol,
The Reluctant
Emperor:
A
Biography of John Cantacuzene,
Byzantine Emperor
and
Monk,
c. 1295-1383
(Cambridge, 1996); Hunger, Literatur, I,
465-75.
'75Misch, Geschichte, 11.2, 752, 827-28.
176
Kazhdan, "LHistoire
de
Cantacuzene," 287-88.
254
MICHAEL ANGOLD
adopted
of the "reluctant
emperor"
who,
despite
the cost, subordinated self-interest to
the
greater good
of the common weal. This turned what
purported
to be
history
into
autobiography.
Cantacuzene's Memoirs
support
Kazhdan's contention: a more
pronounced emphasis
on the
personal
and concrete
helped
to revitalize old
genres
of
Byzantine
literature.
But,
if we
except
the memoirs of Cantacuzene and
Psellos,
classicizing genres
of
Byzantine
literature failed to
provide
a
satisfactory
outlet for the
autobiographical impulse,
whence
disguised autobiographies
and the other forms of
experimentation
that we have fol-
lowed. The short
autobiographical prefaces
to monastic
typika
and to collected works
cannot be dismissed as
negligible.
Some of them
display
a freshness and
originality
that
is
usually missing
from
Byzantine
literature. Their
scope
was, however,
very
narrow.
There was never
any
intention of
providing
a rounded
autobiography.
It was a
particular
role that found
expression,
but it was the role that so often
gave meaning
to a life. Blem-
mydes' autobiographies
reveal the
literary potential
of these sketches that had few
pre-
tensions to be literature in
any
conventional sense. His
autobiographies represent
a
considerable achievement in the art of
autobiography,
however rebarbative modern sen-
sibilities
may
find the
personality they
reveal.
Blemmydes
created a new
literary
form in
Byzantium capable
of
accommodating
full-scale
autobiography,
but the
literary possibilities
he
opened up
were never
properly
exploited.
This can be
explained
in terms of his
suspect reputation.
In his hands auto-
biography
became
autohagiography.
Even if his
autobiographies proved
to be a dead
end,
they emphasize
how
pervasive
the
autobiographical
element was in late
Byzantine
culture. It was sustained
by
a
greater
self-awareness,
evident in the new stress on the
individual that was common to both humanists and
mystics.
This, however,
challenged
traditional
Byzantine literary
culture,
which was conventional and
impersonal
in the ex-
treme. This was a
potential
source of conflict.
Autobiography
in
disguise provided
a
way
out.
There was another side to auto
tbiography
in
Byzantium.
Its initial
impulse
can be
located from the turn of the tenth
century
in a monastic
setting.
Monastic leaders and
reformers used
autobiography
to
publicize
their achievements and to
justify
and
impose
their ideas. Because the monastic connection was so
pervasive,
their
example
would later
be followed
by many
others,
ecclesiastics and
laity
alike. For some it was a means of self-
assertion or of
self-justification.
It also had more modest ends: to allow a widow to
express
grief
for the death of a husband or a
bishop
to remember a difficult uncle.
In
purely literary
terms,
autobiography
in
Byzantium
is a
curiosity.
Most
Byzantine
autobiographies
were little more than sketches. There were
only
three substantial
pieces
of
Byzantine autobiography.
Two of these-those of Psellos and Cantacuzene-were
memoirs and not
strictly autobiographies.
The one true
autobiography,
that of Blem-
mydes,
found no imitators. Until
recently
it has not had the attention it
deserves,
because
literary
scholars have found it so hard to
place.
This is not
surprising given
its back-
ground,
which is
scarcely literary. Autobiography
was not able to establish itself in
Byzan-
tium as a distinct
genre.
This failure stands in contrast to the
ubiquity
of the autobio-
graphical impulse
itself. It found
expression
in so
many ways.
It was
open
to a broad
section of
Byzantine society,
not
just
to
professional
litterateurs. It served as a marker in
255
a
way
that conventional forms of literature could not. It can be used to
plot
the
changing
cultural climate. The
reemergence
of
autobiography
in the eleventh
century
was
symp-
tomatic of radical
changes.
It has
long
been
accepted
that the eleventh
century
was a watershed of
Byzantine
history.
C.
Mango
has,
for
example,
drawn our attention to the
"stylistic originality"
of
eleventh-century Byzantine
art. He noted that "work of the ninth and tenth centuries
often looks as if it had been
reproduced
from much earlier models without
any
creative
transformation,
whereas that of the eleventh
century
has more of a distinctive
stamp.
It
has moved
away
from classicism towards a
calligraphic
and two-dimensional
approach
that is sometimes decoratiatve and
elegant
... at other times forceful and severe."177
Mango
also underlines the
originality
of Psellos'
Chronographia,
which "is all the more
striking
in as much as it is not
explicable
in terms of
prior development."178
He tries to
explain
its
originality
in terms of "the rise of an urban
bourgeoisie,
to which Psellos himself
belonged."
But it was a
bourgeoisie
with a difference. Kazhdan has called its members
"bourgeois gentry." They
were rentiers who avoided direct involvement in business.
They
preferred
service in the
apparatus
of church and state with its
significantly higher
re-
wards. The
qualification
was education. This created an
intelligentsia,
which remained
prominent
until the final fall of
Byzantium.
P.
Magdalino
has dubbed them the "Guard-
ians of
Orthodoxy."
79
This was also the
background
of
many
of the monastic leaders
and reformers from the late tenth
cententury.
Their work and
inspiration, culminating
in
the foundation of the Theotokos
Evergetis
in the mid-eleventh
century, gave Byzantine
monasticism a new
purpose
and
dynamism.180
It counted in a
way
that it had not done
since the end of iconoclasm.
It was in this monastic milieu that
autobiography
in the sketchiest of
guises reap-
peared
in
Byzantium.
The intention was didactic rather than
strictly literary.
It con-
formed to a monastic leader's
duty
to instruct and
inspire
and underlined his role as a
spiritual
and moral arbiter. He was the Christian
"philosopher."
Michael Psellos also laid
claim to the title of
"philosopher,"
but in a
quite
different sense. He too used
autobiogra-
phy
to
emphasize
his role as an arbiter of taste and a counselor of
princes.
He
employed
more
obviously literary
means. Both monastic leader and humanist claimed the
right
to
pronounce
on the
ordering
of a Christian
society.
The debate could no
longer
be re-
duced,
as it had in the
past,
to the ideal
relationship
between the
emperor
and the
church,
if
only
because both monastic leader and humanist had identified the individual
as the central
problem.
Both were
equally hampered by
the lack of
any
clear definition
of
society
in a
Byzantine
context.
Consequently,
the
problem presented by
the individual
in a Christian
society
could never be tackled
directly.
The debate
always
had a muted
quality.'18 Autobiography
was a contribution to the
debate,
the terms of which were never
clearly
defined. This
may help
to
explain why autobiography
should have
displayed
the
177C.
Mango, Byzantium,
The
Empire of
New Rome
(London, 1980),
275.
178Ibid., 245.
179Kazhdan,
Byzantine Literature, 85-86;
A. P Kazhdan and A. W.
Epstein, Change
in
Byzantine
Culture in the
Eleventh and
Twelfth
Centuries
(Berkeley,
Calif., 1985), 46-56;
P.
Magdalino,
The
Empire of
Manuel I Komnenos,
1143-1180
(Cambridge, 1993), 316-412.
180
Morris,
Monks and
Laymen
in
Byzantium,
64-142.
181
E.g., Kazhdan,
Byzantine Literature,
140-67.
256
MICHAEL ANGOLD 257
fragmented,
subterranean,
and
disguised
form that it did in
Byzantium.
But this had
certain
advantages.
There was an
emphasis
on the
individual;
there was a
greater
self-
awareness;
there was more room for the
expression
of emotion. These were characteris-
tics of
Byzantine
culture as it
developed
from the eleventh
century. They
mark it off from
the more conventional and stilted
qualities
of an earlier
period.
The
changing
character
of
Byzantine
culture is
caught
most
vividly
in
art,
for
example,
in the frescoes dated to
1 164 of the church at Nerezi in Macedonia. These are
among
the
greatest
achievements
of
Byzantine
art. In
Mango's
words,
they
"are
highly stylized, yet charged
with dramatic
intensity."
182
This is a
judgment
that could be
applied
with
equal
force to
Blemmydes'
autobiography.
University
of
Edinburgh
182Mango,
Byzantium,
275.
Wall Paintings from the Baptistery at Stobi, Macedonia, and Early Depictions of Christ and
the Evangelists
Author(s): Caroline J. Downing
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:14
Wall
Paintings
from the
Baptistery
at
Stobi, Macedonia,
and
Early Depictions
of Christ and the
Evangelists
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
An important
new set of
baptistery paintings,
found at Stobi in 1971, has much to tell
us about the
iconography
of Christ and the
evangelists
in late
antiquity.' Study
of
these
figural
scenes has determined that the
paintings
are of
great importance
not
only
for their intrinsic
beauty,
which is considerable in some
cases,
but also for the information
they provide
on the
development
of Christian
iconography,
for their relation to
imperial
art of the late fourth and
early
fifth
centuries,
and for their contribution to the
general
study
of
baptistery
decoration. Technical studies of the
paintings
and the
pigments
have
provided
further information on the raw materials used in their creation and on the
nature of
painting workshops
in the
provinces
of the Roman
Empire.
Found in
many fragments
in the ruined
baptistery (Figs. 1-4),
the
paintings required
'The Stobi Excavation
Project,
a
joint Yugoslav-American project,
involved active fieldwork at the site
from 1970 to 1980. The American director was
James Wiseman,
Boston
University,
and the
Yugoslav
direc-
tors were
Djordje
Mano-Zissi and
Blaga
Aleksova,
University
of
Skopje.
Publication of the results of fieldwork
and
subsequent
research,
by
Princeton
University
Press,
is now in
progress.
Volume
one,
Stobi: The Hellenistic
and Late Roman
Pottery, by Virginia Anderson-Stojanovic, appeared
in 1992.
Preliminary reports
on the
baptistery
can be found in
J.
Wiseman and
Dj.
Mano-Zissi,
"Excavations at
Stobi, 1971,"
AJA
76
(1972), 420-24;
J.
Wiseman and
Dj.
Mano-Zissi,
"Excavations at Stobi, 1972,"
AJA
77
(1973), 391-403,
figs.
13, 14;
J.
Wiseman and
Dj.
Mano-Zissi,
"Excavations at
Stobi, 1973-1974,"
Journal of
Field
Archaeology
1
(1974), 142-46,
figs.
30, 31;
and
J. Wiseman,
"Stobi in
Yugoslavian
Macedonia: Archaeo-
logical
Excavations and
Research, 1977-1978,"
Journal of
Field
Archaeology
5
(1978), 408-9,
fig.
15. Detailed
discussions of the
building's
architectural context can be found in R.
Kolarik,
"The Floor Mosaics of Stobi
and Their Balkan Context"
(Ph.D.
diss., Harvard
University, 1982),
and in C.
Snively, "Early
Christian Basili-
cas of Stobi: A
Study
of
Form, Function,
and Location"
(Ph.D. diss.,
University
of
Texas, 1979).
A
complete
catalogue
and discussion of the wall
paintings
from the
baptistery
can be found in
my dissertation,
C. He-
mans,
"Late
Antique
Wall
Painting
from
Stobi,
Yugoslavia" (Ph.D. diss., Indiana
University, 1987).
Many
thanks are due to
project
members: Frederick
Hemans,
who
provided many
hours of
help,
and
James
and
Lucy
Wiseman,
who
encouraged
this work.
James
Wiseman
provided many helpful
comments on
the
manuscript
and assisted in
locating
items from the Stobi
photo
archives. Both of the
peer
reviewers
made
many
invaluable
suggestions.
I
recognized
one reviewer as
my colleague, Carolyn Snively,
and she has
given
me further
suggestions
for
improvement,
for which I am most
grateful.
I would also like to thank
my
Macedonian
colleague, Djordje Djordjievski,
for his work
reconstructing
the
paintings
both in
reality
and in
a
superb
watercolor rendition. Thanks are also due to the Research and Creative Endeavors Committee of
the State
University
of New
York, Potsdam,
which
provided funding
for electron
microscope analysis
of
paint pigment samples.
WALL PAINTINGS FROM THE BAPTISTERY AT STOBI
years
of
painstaking
reconstruction,
a
process complicated by
the
presence,
in
many
cases,
of two
layers
of
paint.2
Two substantial
areas,
and numerous smaller
sections, have
been
reconstructed;
these contain three
depictions
of Christ and
representations
of
two
evangelists.
One
image
of
Christ,
from the east
wall,
appears
in a scene
including
a build-
ing
and several other
figures.
The
largest
reconstructed section comes from one of the
baptistery's
small
semidomes,
which were set in each corner. This semidome contains a
portrait
of the
evangelist
Matthew,
identified
by
an
inscription.
The
paintings,
those from
the east wall
in
particular,
show considerable
stylistic
resemblances to art of the
period
of Theodosius I the
Great,
and this
study attempts
to demonstrate that on this basis
they
should be
assigned
to the
period
of his
reign (379-395)
or
slightly
later.
Although
there
is some
archaeological
evidence to
support
this
position,
the
building
is still
being
stud-
ied,
and it is not
possible
to be definitive about dates at this time.
The
building history
of this
baptistery
is
very complex
and difficult to
determine,
for
the structure underwent several
remodelings
and modifications. In its first
phase,
the
building
was associated with a basilica known as the
Early
Church,
which
dates,
on the
evidence of
coins,
to the
period
after the
360s/370s A.D.
(Fig. 3).3
Pottery
from a use level
in the
Early
Church
gives
a date in the fourth
century;
destruction debris that filled in
the
Early
Church contained
pottery
from the late fourth
century.4 Built on the south
side of the
Early
Church,
the
baptistery
is constructed of mortared fieldstones and is
approximately
10 m
square.
However,
the
baptistery may
not be
contemporaneous
with
the first
phase
of the
Early
Church,
but somewhat
later,
for the materials and methods
used in its construction differ
markedly
from those of the
Early
Church. The
upper
walls
of the
Early
Church were constructed of
mudbrick,
unlike those of the
baptistery,
and
different mortars were used in the stonework of each structure. There were at least two
phases
of the
piscina
itself. Fill over a
pipe
that
probably
led to the earlier
piscina
con-
tained two coins of Theodosius
I,
dated to
383-392.5 The
baptistery
was
originally
equipped
with an
ambulatory;
remains of the
ambulatory
walls were found
during
exca-
vation and can be
clearly
seen on the state
plan.
The
roofing system
has been much
debated and has not
yet
been determined.6
2C. Hemans,
"Fresco Reconstruction at Ancient
Stobi," Context 3.1-2
(1983), 12-14,
published by
Boston
University
Center for
Archaeological
Studies.
During excavation,
careful records were made in field note-
books of the
findspots
of wall
painting fragments;
these were of
great help during
the reconstruction
process.
3Wiseman, "Stobi,"
405-6.
4Anderson-Stojanovic, Stobi,
169-74. Dates for the
Early
Church itself are also
problematic.
Excavation of
the
building
has continued under B.
Aleksova,
who has
published
the
following reports:
B.
Aleksova,
"The
Old
Episcopal
Basilica at Stobi-Excavations and
Researches, 1981-1984,"
Zbornikfilozofskifakultet
na univerzi-
tetot-Skopje (Skopje, 1985), 43-72,
and "The Old
Episcopal
Basilica at Stobi,"
Archiug (Belgrade)
22-23
(1982-83),
50-62.
5Wiseman, "Stobi," 408-9,
fig.
15. Remains of an earlier
piscina
below the
present
one were discovered
during
excavation below the mosaic floor in
1977,
as described in
Journal of
Field
Archaeology
5
(1978),
411.
One of the most
interesting
modifications of the
baptistery
consisted of the insertion of a
large
white marble
kantharos into the wall of the
piscina. Perhaps
this modification was made to allow the
baptism
of
infants;
the
piscina
itself was still available for total immersion
baptism
in the latest
phase
of the basilica.
6The Early
Church
may
have been a cathedral from its earliest construction
phase (a bishop
of Stobi
attended the Council of Nicaea in
325).
Recent
publications
on the churches in
Dalmatia, however,
have
made it clear that a church need not be a cathedral in order to
possess
a
baptistery.
See P.
Chevalier,
Salona
II: Ecclesiae
Dalmatiae,
I
(Rome, 1995),
183. See also E
Hemans,
"Late
Antique
Residences at
Stobi,
Yugosla-
via"
(Ph.D. diss.,
Boston
University, 1985);
R.
Kolarik,
"Mosaics of the
Early
Church at
Stobi,"
DOP 41
(1987),
260
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
Sometime after the middle of the fifth
century
the
Early
Church was demolished
(its
fallen wall
paintings
show the marks of a
systematic destruction)
and filled with debris
to
create a terrace about 4 m above the
original
floor level of the church.
Pottery
found
in
the destruction debris
provides
a date between the middle and third
quarter
of the
fifth
century.7 Upon
the terrace rose a new church, known as the
Episcopal
Basilica. The
new
church
adopted
the old
baptistery
for its
own,
adding
a staircase in
green
sandstone
from
its narthex down to the level of the
baptistery.
Construction of the terrace
required
the
addition of a
large retaining
wall between the basilica and the
baptistery.
This was
built
over the north corridor of the
ambulatory, leaving
the
remaining
sections to be
adapted
into a sort of
half-ambulatory (Figs.
2, 3).
On the
interior,
the
baptistery's
curved walls re as form an
octagonal shape,
in
keeping
with the
numerological
tradition of the
times,
as evidenced in
many contemporary bap-
tisteries.8 The
octagon
is formed
by
four
curving
walls at the
corner,
each
containing
a
semidome,
with walls of a more shallow curve between the semidomes. An
octagonal
piscina
in the center once
supported
an elaborate
superstructure
of small columns in
white marble. An almost
complete
set of architectural
sculpture
was found in the debris
during
excavation.
Upon
the
floors,
figural
mosaics
provided
further scenes
appropriate
for a
baptistery:
harts
drinking
from kantharoi in two
corners,
and
peacocks
in the other
two
(Fig. 4).
It is
possible
that the floor mosaics and architectural
sculpture
were added
at the time the
baptistery
was
adopted
for use
by
the
Episcopal
Basilica.
Cuttings along
the bottom of the wall
paintings,
to accommodate the later
mosaic,
indicate that the
plastered
walls
predate
this
remodeling.
Some wall
paintings
have been
preserved
in situ in the
baptistery,
on the lower
parts
of the walls and in the northwest semidome.
Very
little remains of the
painted design:
only
a few
painted
lines,
very
much
faded,
can still be discerned. On the lower walls of
the
baptistery
the
design
consists of linear
patterns
in imitation of
opus
sectile
revetment,
such as those that formed the decoration of the walls of the
Early
Church.9
Most of the
baptistery paintings
have been reconstructed from
fragments
found
among
the destruction debris. The
largest
section to be
reconstructed,
about 2.5 m
high
and 3.5 m
wide,
is from the northeast semidome. This section was covered with two
layers
of
paint,
of which the outer coat was in
poor
condition,
flaking
off
very easily
to
expose parts
of the
painting
beneath
(Fig. 5).
Painted
upon
this second
layer
of
paint
was
295-306;
and the two articles
by
B. Aleksova cited in note 4 above. A considerable amount of wall and
ceiling
painting
was found in the
Early
Church. See C.
Hemans,
"Fresco
Reconstruction," and
eadem,
"Late
Antique
Wall
Painting,"
9-55. Wall
paintings
from the
Early
Church consist of imitation
panels
of
opus
sectile and a
ceiling
of illusionistic coffers
(see below,
note
49).
The state
plan
of the
Episcopal Basilica,
by
F. Hemans,
is
published
in
J.
Wiseman and
Dj. Mano-Zissi,
"Stobi: A
City
of Ancient
Macedonia,"
Journal of
Field
Archaeology
3
(1976), 288-89,
fig.
21. On the state
plan
the foundations of the
original ambulatory
can be
clearly
seen. On the
roofing system,
see W. B.
Dinsmoor,
"The
Baptistery:
Its
Roofing
and Related
Problems,"
in Studies in the
Antiquities
of Stobi,
II
(Belgrade, 1975),
15-25. Dinsmoor
proposed
a dome for the first
phase
of the
baptistery.
More recent
studies,
by
E Hemans
and
others,
as
yet unpublished,
seem to indicate that a dome is
unlikely.
7Anderson-Stojanovic, Stobi,
173. Coins beneath a first
phase
mosaic in the
Episcopal
Basilica
provide
a date of
425-450,
thus
suggesting
a reliable terminus
post
quem
for the construction of the first
phase
of
the
building.
8R. Krautheimer,
Early
Christian and
4th ed.
(Baltimore, Md., 1986),
95.
9C.
Hemans,
"Late
Antique
Wall
Painting,"
9-55.
261
a
large red-orange
cross adorned with white
"jewels,"
flanked
by
candelabra or
flaming
torches.
Although
at first no
figures
were identified as
belonging
to this second
phase
painting,
one small head has now been identified
(Fig. 6).
It is
painted
on
top
of the
outer coat added to cover the first
phase paintings;
it does not
join directly
into the
reconstructed section of the semidome and so cannot at this time be associated with
any
scene. After careful documentation with
photographs
and
drawings,
the outer
layer
of
paint
was removed from the semidome with
surgical scalpels.
The outer
layer
of
paint
served
admirably
to
preserve
the
very important painting
underneath
(Figs. 7-9). Dominating
the scene is a
large figure
of the
evangelist
Matthew,
who is identified
by inscriptions
above his head. He is located within an arched
opening,
indicated
by reddish-purple
lines on a
pale purple background.
On the
right
is a block
projecting
from the
springpoint
of the
painted
arch. The word ETA
[ TFE
A
]
OC is
painted
in
purple
letters above the
arch,
while
directly
above the head of St. Matthew
are
preserved
in white
paint
the letters
MAT3EOC.
Only
the lower
parts
of the
alpha
and
theta are
preserved.
A blue nimbus surrounds the head of the
saint,
blending
with
diago-
nal brush strokes into the
purple ground
on the left while
forming
a firm circular
edge
on the
right.10
St. Matthew is
portrayed
in an almost frontal
pose,
his head turned
very
slightly
to the
right.
While
large
areas of his face are
missing,
most of his
eyes
and nose
are
preserved, painted
in brown on a
beige background,
with white
overpainted high-
lights.
His
eyeballs,
like those of all the other
figures
in the
composition,
are also over-
painted
in white. St. Matthew has brown hair streaked with
gray
at the
temples
and cut
straight
across his brow. His
pointed
brown
beard,
streaked with
white,
appears
to be of
medium
length,
neither
very long
nor
closely cropped.
The
evangelist
is
raising
his
right
hand,
with two
fingers
extended in a
gesture
of benediction or adlocutio. In his left hand
he holds his
Gospel
book;
the
top
of his
fingers
can be seen as he
supports
the book from
beneath.
Nothing
is
preserved
below
this;
it is therefore not
possible
to
judge
whether
he is seated or
standing.
His
clothing
consists of a
pale
blue
chlamys
with a brown clavus
or vertical
stripe.
To the left of St. Matthew is
preserved part
of the face and
upper body
of a man with
a short reddish-brown beard who is
wearing
a brown cloak. To the
right
of the
evangelist
is a
group
of
figures
of which five have been
partly preserved. Flanking
St. Matthew is a
man who holds
up
his
right hand in a
gesture
of
presentation
or obeisance toward the
saint. His
fingers
are
greatly elongated,
with the
finger joints
indicated
by
short
pairs
of
parallel
lines. His
hair, mustache,
and beard are
painted
brown;
some curls are visible at
the left. His left
eye
is turned toward the saint.
Very
little is
preserved
below the neck.
To the
right
is a beardless
man,
of whom
only part
of the left
eye,
nose,
and mouth are
preserved.
Rather fine brush strokes characterize the
modeling
of this face. The next
face on the
right,
almost
complete,
is that of a
broad-faced,
heavily jowled
man who is
turned
away
from St. Matthew. His hair forms a
cap
over his
head,
while a sideburn
'?The
significance
of the blue nimbus is difficult to ascertain. D.
Korol,
in his
study
of the
4th-century
Via
Latina catacomb
painting
discovered in
1955,
remarks that
early portraits
of Christ were often nimbed in
blue. At
Stobi,
Christ bears a
golden
nimbus,
and the
evangelists
blue.
Perhaps
the distinction
being
made
here is between the natures of God and
man,
with
only
the divine
receiving
the
golden
nimbus. See D.
Korol,
"Zum Bild der
Vertreibung
Adams und Evas in der Neuen Katakombe an der Via Latina und zur
anthropo-
morphen Darstellung
Gottvaters,"JbAC 22
(1979),
175-90.
262
1. North Basilica
2. Civil Basilica
'
3. Little Bath
4. Central Basilica
5. House of Psalms +
6. Via Axia
7. Central Fountain
8. Large Bath
9. Via Principali Inferior
10. House of Peri as
11. Via Theodosia
12. Theodosian Palace
13. House of Parthenius
14. Via
Principalis Superior
15 i4naiRe nf thk F,t,.lla.
,4-
--
+ F- -F F
16.
Episcopal
Residence '
17. Semicircular Court
18. Via Sacra
19.
Episcopal
Basilica + . + +
+ .+
yy-
F- +
? //
I-~~~F
J- VX~? -I ,
20.
Baptistery
'
21. Porta Heraclea
/
'
6
22. West
Cemetery
,
'
23. Theater
-
24. Casino '
.'
..
25. Inner Wall 2o-.,. zoL.;
-.
26. East
City
Wall
and-i"
-i- +- +
n
1
'
-i +.
Turkish
Bridge
'
"
27. Museum
28.
Cemetery
Basilica . 4 4
,t -
' +
.... -\ - '
29. Palikura Balilica
--I " x4*, I I.?
+
-- - +
+
4-
' - t -
i
-
+
-I-
',
+
,,:-
-
-h
29
+ +
^?
-
t.. 4-
-
--t- +
"4
i -.
'-
-
+- 4- -4 ,:- .4-
./
-- -4- 4- 4-' 4- -4- 4--
1 Plan of the site of
Stobi,
Macedonia
(surveyed
and drawn
by
P. Huffman
F. P. Hemans
[1974])
f+ - R
IV E R
-
t .I
,\
.
S ]
..
I
..-F , - -
-i- + -t-
,
-;
-, +
- - - . . + -/'F
.. . I I
+
S F I
.
I _ i
+
I I _ t -f-t i i > i ti F i *I .I i If I ':
~--_
?
.
F4-
-+-S.:?-
+ ..27
, -
'
F,',
' 1T7--
. 7
'-- - O
THESSALONICA
- -F-
-~-
,' ....:, T
-
;
-- .1 )-f- -!. :'
4, -
.- +. '. I '
/
,. / +
' , -' 'X ': t
-:.'I~.':t- -t + -t
2 t
I . ' ' -
/ / /// -.-,: -F
:-4.
"
- 6'
-/
;" -
'"1i
*.:. "?IL 0
1
50 METERS-
[171 and D. PekIwihadtosb
'
E+
'
17
and D. Peck
2],
with additions
by
C. Erhorn
3] and
y/,
.-
[1971]
and
D.-Pck[97]
wt adtin b .'Erho
[1973]
and::
0.
2 Restored
plan
of the
Episcopal
Basilica and the
baptistery (plan by
E P.
Hemans)
-o
0
BUILDING
C
//
//
/I I
o
// BUILDIN(
//
// ?
//
0
o
"1
I i
I I
I 4
l l
1 1
0 5 20
H -H -H I I20
FPH
199L
II
Cd
=f
O
r
CD
tIj
O
FS
=f
U9
P,
=f
e
cD
vl
Cd`
p,
.r
d
X
cD
r
0 *&
G D
C
*1
CCr
*~~~~~- Kw
.Ij.
..
'
.
,
Lt ...-
i.
-
!^?a
A
Nt
* 4 -
I U
Mvs
11
t 'S
--
Ili - %--
4
Baptistery
after
cleaning
and
restoration, showing piscina
and mosaic floors
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
u
* "'
""
'I : .?1.??
?? 9
''
i . .
?-''"'
.:i -": ??--??:?i?3?rl;''::.:ji
'??.
'' 1? ":P-""&-j:rr
:?- : ? -1?- ;?I iik8;-;i?"ll?'li'?;?:r?
?r!- ;i?' ':.r .:$a?
)?
r
??i?: ?:?.:? ??? ?. r:e'
?I/??. .? '.? ?: ??:??'? ?;:?
??:? idt. ?:?-n?i -:. 2,
??J?
:?li ;?::. i!li ??? ??- ;
-'?.?*-.'
''`?'':? ?'??_:: ::'..: '"?
?': i
i . ? ?;.-.'?
"-I .
. .
5
Painting
of the
baptistery's
northeast semidome before removal of the second
phase painting
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
p '
~~'... .... .:i I ~ E~:41i~: ?7., '
J-:
tt. .. -
t-
.
,
*
. r
r . ??..'-h..
L. .??:?:i.-:
;'.'
i..: i ?:
i?? - ?` \?r
:*
;?.
:?.: ??' ?? .;
( ?:??''
:S't'?'?: .:
?'? :
':? ?.:?: ;?:
?-"?1: ':
??' '
:
??'?j:.?? ?.:-- ?.. ?. . . ? !?.. ; ? ?..:
-i
.i ;.pn. ;
f5;1
:i : L
;.:: :?.:?c.? L''*';'?i
.I : r .-
?.:h
''' 1 F??y ,
;.?
hii:
?-??
i
r ??:
' -ir ????
?-. :? ::
* t $:$
.
. . ...
-c ??;
,X-?"'
AL
6 Small head from the second
phase painting
of the northeast semidome
(photo:
Stobi
Excavation
Project)
.
4?.r;?i.?: :?3.':?. ?rr
?L'!jS$.r.'' ?
u e "''
7 Northeast
semidome,
first
phase painting (photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
0 0. lm.
Cd"
8 Northeast
semidome, drawing
of the first
phase painting
9 Northeast
semidome,
St. Matthew
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
....
. ,,
.
.t
...10
Southeast
semidome, evangelist
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
I
I
I
5
I
I
*!
Y
? ?f .? ;i
'''",UUY*;.'
"'L'
?? ?
'i
." ''i Y"*c
F
1 'i L)
3
.. #k Z .t:
?i
????-LC-.?
6, %
t b' ' -
'ca?i
t?- ;?:r r r .
,? ?a
?s ?
"C ii?.
I
??? ?
-?
.I C.
i,a
-i d
*i
c, 1 .t , .?
-.???r?*r
'?4r? ?r?:..:
;,...
L
i4iP rj
d?a?1 : '"
?u c*r?? r-
*9 -1 .rr
F" r:
.r i, i r?*??
?:ks
aC ?.
k; .*u
r? a
?.. --?::? 91r.lP
??-.a?*:;-'??.?rl igirSI;
'r
::?2; .?:?:F?:ll(i?
#?t ;I ? ,. .;??
-. ,.,..
"; "
:s
rrL?SY
:. -- IIL _ _ I I ??liL--------?i??li '?'r ?m ??I
s.r- ??i;i..l-r;arep_9sl??-? ?-:?-? '" 'j a??
,n
I? Yh :
lis!Z ai ?
i ,,: ''ta" I'
Si.- ????; -:?ri-w?r-? . . *?PB? 1'-`-"'- -'- "I'-I'U?FL ?-;?
11
Gospel
book of St.
Augustine, frontispiece
to the
Gospel
of St. Luke
(photo: courtesy
of the Master and
Fellows of
Corpus
Christi
College, Cambridge, England)
12 East wall
painting
from the
baptistery (photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
13
Drawing
of the east wall
painting (width:
1.44
m)
14 Detail of the
painting
from the east wall: Christ
(far right), figures,
and
building (photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
15 Detail of the
painting
from the east wall
showing
an
inscription (photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
(Pa.fo.I
UOIe1AB13X
!qolS :oioiqd) 11pM lsua
9ql uoij oan.lJ
papeiaq
e
jo .
ela9 9
I
i.. I
T
.
.
j
....
. .
--.I '
I
:Jt?
'''i
.r
I
c
I-.
*.? :?'
i.
i"
i
17 Panel from the
ivory
throne of
Maximian,
Museo
arcivescovile,
Ravenna
(reproduced
with
permission
of the
museum)
w' ...
.. .
.
.-
~~2~ri
1
rs~~~~~~~~~~
18 Marble relief of the
healing
of the blind
man,
Dumbarton Oaks collection
I
J.
J..
I, *>
-
-
. ..*?I
. .
.
, .
-. , ~.-
..1 . ., ,.. ^ ./ "-,
:
.. / ... ...
I
,
-
'p,
19
Painting
of Christ from the
baptistery's
south wall
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
t~~)
~ 20
Painting
of Christ from
the
baptistery's
west wall
(photo:
Stobi Excavation
Project)
e * m
1I
21
Naples baptistery, drawing
of
cupola
mosaics
(after
Maier,
Le
Baptistre
de
Naples, fig. 1; reproduced
with
permission
of Editions
Universitaires, Fribourg)
a
I.
BUILDING A
i;?
.. .
; ,
i
?
e e !'
c.)
I 'Smn
b
22 The location of
images
in the Stobi and
Naples baptisteries: (a) Stobi, baptistery
of
Building
A and
Episcopal Basilica,
ca.
370-380; (b) Naples, baptistery
of Sta.
Restituta,
ca. 400
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
extends down his
right
cheek. His nose is
broad, and his mouth rather small. Behind
the
head of this man
appears part
of the face of a beardless
youth
who is
looking
to the
right.
The last
figure
on the
right
that is
preserved
to
any
extent is that of a man with a
short
brown beard and mustache. Presented in an almost frontal
position,
his
large
round
eyes
appear
to
engage
the viewer. He wears a white cloak fastened at the center.
Though
more
figures
were once located to the
right, very
little remains of these. Above the heads
of
these
figures
is what
appears
to be a
swag
of
hanging drapery,
in
purple
on a
pale
blue
background.
To the
right
is an area of
pale purple
in which is contained the
inscription
AAOC. Above the entire
composition,
a
curving
decorative border encloses a
segment
of
a
circle,
thus
completing
the
design
of the semidome at the
top.
In
scale,
the
paintings
from the northeast semidome are
quite large,
with heads more
than 25-30 cm in
height,
or over life-size. These contrast in size with the
painted figures
on the walls between the
semidomes,
in which the heads are
generally
around 15 cm in
height.
The
significance
of this difference in scale is discussed below. Remains from the
other three semidomes have been
found,
but most are in
very poor
condition. The face
of one other
evangelist,
however,
can be identified with some
certainty. Figure
10 shows
the face in
question;
it is
painted
on a blue
ground
like that of St.
Matthew,
and traces of
what
may
have been
parts
of white letters from an
inscription
can be seen on the left.
Most
telling
is the size of the head: it would have been
(the
top
o the head is
missing)
about 25 cm in
height.
The face is that of a
fairly young
man,
with brown hair and a
short brown beard. On
iconographical
and other
grounds,
discussed
below,
I
postulate
that this
painting represents
the
evangelist
Mark.
While the
evangelist
from the south semidome
(Mark?)
appears
as a
youth
with dark
hair and
beard,
Matthew
appears
as a much older
man,
whose hair and
longer
beard are
streaked with white. Because of the careful distinction in facial features between the
paintings
of the two
surviving evangelists
at
Stobi,
I would
argue
that
they
are meant to
be
portraits.
While
surviving portraits
of the
evangelists
from this
early period
are not
common,
we find a
representation
of Matthew as a
venerable,
white-bearded man in the
Orthodox
Baptistery
in
Ravenna,
of the mid-fifth
century
A.D.11 At
Ravenna, too,
Mat-
thew wears a
long
white
mantle,
similar to the
pale
blue
chlamys
of the Stobi
representa-
tion. In the Stobi
paintings,
both
clothing
and
pose,
with the saint
holding
his
Gospel
book,
echo the
iconography
chosen for Old Testament
prophets,
such as the
prophets
in
S.
Apollinare
Nuovo in Ravenna.
Depictions
of the
evangelists appear,
then,
to be con-
sciously
related to those of the ancient
prophets
who
predicted
the
coming
of the
Messiah.
Considered as a
whole, however,
including
the
figures
who flank Matthew on either
side,
the northeast semidome
paintings
are
iconographically
related most
closely
to an-
other
genre,
that of the
philosopher
surrounded
by
his
pupils.
This
genre
has ancient
roots,
dating
at least to the Hellenistic
period,
and is found in all
media,
including
free-
standing sculpture.12
An
example
from
Apamea,
in the form of a floor
mosaic,
shows
Socrates seated in the center with three bearded followers seated on each side of him.13
"S.
Kostof,
The Orthodox
Baptistery
at Ravenna
(New Haven, Conn., 1965), fig.
51.
'2A.
Grabar, Christian
Iconography:
A
Study of
Its
Origins (Princeton,
N.J., 1968),
72-73.
13Ibid., 72,
pl.
174.
263
Socrates is
distinguished
from his fellow
philosophers
not
only by
his central location,
but also because his head is
considerably higher
than those of the other
figures.
While
Socrates himself is
bare-chested,
at least two of the other
philosophers
wear the
chlamys
with the clavus or shoulder
stripe.
The
popularity
of this theme of the
philosopher
and his
pupils
increased
dramatically
in the late
antique period,
when it was
adopted
for use in Christian
iconography.
A
paint-
ing
in the Via Latina Catacomb in
Rome,
dated to the fourth
century, may represent
Aristotle
giving
an
anatomy
lesson.'4
Here
again,
the
philosopher
is
given
the
position
of
honor,
seated at the
highest
level
and,
in this
case,
slightly
left of
center,
but still flanked
by
three
pupils
on either side.
Here,
as so often in the catacomb
paintings, subjects
that
are not
specifically
Christian in content are used as
symbols
for Christian
worshipers.
Not
surprisingly,
the same
iconographical systems
were soon
explicitly adapted
for Chris-
tian use: now instead of a
pagan philosopher
and his
pupils,
we have Christ himself
surrounded
by
the
apostles.
Such a scene is found in a wall
painting
in
Verona,
on a
lunette of the
hypogeum
of S. Maria in
Stelle;
the
painting probably
dates from the fifth
century.
The Verona Christ is seated in the midst of the
apostles wearing
robes of
impe-
rial
purple
and,
like the Stobi St.
Matthew,
surrounded
by
a blue nimbus.15
Another
depiction
is found in the
apse
mosaic of S.
Aquilino
in Milan of ca. 400 A.D.16
At S.
Aquilino,
Christ
appears
as
young
and
beardless,
but his
disciples
are of
varying
ages,
some
appearing youthful,
while others have whie hair and beards. Christ's
pose,
with his
right
hand raised and the left
holding
a
scroll,
is the same one chosen for the
Stobi
depiction
of St.
Matthew,
who raises his
right
hand in the
gesture
of address or
blessing
and in the left holds his
Gospel
book. In his discussion of the S.
Aquilino
mosaic,
W.
Dorigo
sees,
as
may
also be the case at
Stobi,
"an
underlying
reference to
portraiture
in the
figures
of the
apostles
and in that of Christ."17
Adoption
of such a
specific iconographical type
must
represent
a deliberate
attempt
on the
part
of Christian artists or
patrons
to
portray
Christ as the end
result,
the ultimate
embodiment,
of a
long
and
distinguished
line of
philosophers-the
True
Philosopher.
It
is
quite possible
that this
appropriation
of
imagery
was chosen at least in
part
for its
appeal
to
classically
educated
pagans.
It is also not difficult to see
why
this
image
was
used for the
evangelists
as
well,
in their
capacity
as teachers of the word of
Christ,
study
of which culminates in the rite of
baptism.
What is the
significance
of the architectural
setting
in the
evangelist
scene at Stobi?
Certainly
the
appearance
of St. Matthew within an arched
opening
(an
apse?)
is meant
to
emphasize
his
importance.
It
is,
I
believe,
borrowed from
imperial iconography,
where
the architecture is used to
place
the
emperor
in a
position
of sole
authority,
and reflects
actual architectural
arrangements
in the
imperial
court. An
example
is the silver misso-
'4A. Ferrua,
Catacombe sconosciute
(Florence, 1990), 121-23,
fig.
111.
'5B. Forlati
Tamaro,
"L'Ipogeo
di S. Maria in
Stelle, Verona,"
in Stucchi e mosaici
altomedioevali,
I: Lo
stucco,
il mosaico, studi vari
(Milan, 1962),
245-50. Forlati Tamaro dates the transformation of the
hypogeum
into a
Christian
chapel
as not later than the 5th
century.
See discussion in W.
Dorigo,
Late Roman
Painting (London,
1970),
259-61.
16C. Bertelli,
"I mosaici di
Sant'Aquilino,"
in La Basilica di San Lorenzo in
Milano,
ed. G. A.
Dell'Aqua (Milan,
1985),
145-51.
'7Dorigo,
Late Roman
Painting,
227-28.
264
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
rium of Theodosius
I,
created to celebrate his decennalia.18 Theodosius is seated in the
center of the
missorium,
beneath an arched
opening
that forms
part
of an arcuated
pedi-
ment. His
nephew
Valentinian II and his son Arcadius flank
him,
but
they
are
depicted
at a smaller scale and are not contained within the arch. The arch is therefore meant to
symbolize
and reinforce the
power
of the individual
posed
within it.19 The
significance
of this
iconographical system
lies
partly
in relation to its reflection of actual court
ritual,
the
appearance
of the
emperor,
seated
upon
his throne in his
apsed
and arcuated audi-
ence hall.
Just
such an audience hall is still
preserved
in Diocletian's Palace at
Split.
It
seems, then,
that the arched
opening painted
behind St. Matthew at Stobi could also be
read as an
apse.
While
imperial
attributes are
appropriate
for
Christ,
as
emperor
of
heaven,
they
are
also
commonly assigned
not
only
to other
holy figures
such as the
evangelists,
but also
to Christ's
representatives
in the
church,
the
bishops.
R. Krautheimer
compares
the cere-
monial
entry
of the
emperor,
and his throne beneath the arch of his audiene
hall,
to
that of the
bishop
into the
apse
area of the
church,
which was contained beneath a "tri-
umphal
arch." 20
Some
scholars, too,
would
regard
the
gesture
of the Stobi St. Matthew as an
example
of
adlocutio,
another
appropriation
of
imperial iconography.
Numerous
examples
of im-
perial
uses of this
gesture
survive from
antiquity,
the most famous
being
the statue of
i8Theodosius'
decennalia was celebrated in the same
year
in which he visited
Stobi;
he
stayed long enough
to issue three edicts
(CTh 16.4.2, 16.5.15).
S.
MacCormack,
in Art and
Ceremony
in Late
Antiquity (Berkeley,
Calif., 1981), 220,
relates the
imagery
of the missorium of Theodosius both to
imperial
ceremonies,
such as
the adventus of the
emperor,
and to
panegyrics composed
in honor of these ceremonial occasions.
The influence of
imperial iconography
on
images
of Christ has
recently
been
challenged by
T F. Mathews
in The Clash
of
Gods: A
Reinterpretation of
Christian Art
(Princeton,
N.J., 1993).
Mathews
goes
to
great lengths
to
deny
such
influences,
but
many
scholars,
in
reviewing
his
work,
seem to have come to a consensus
that,
while the book
provides
a
necessary
corrective to the
"emperor mystique,"
in fact Mathews overstates his
case. P.
Brown,
for
example,
in his review in ArtB 77
(1995), 500, writes that "Mathews claims to be able
either to banish
imperial
themes
entirely
from the
explanation
of
many
scenes,
or to see them turned on
their head in a Christian context. The reader is
faced,
at
every
turn,
with a
peremptory
either/or. Either
representations
of Christ
betray
artistic conventions that must mirror
faithfully
the visual content of contem-
porary
court ceremonials and
imperial representations-and, further,
must communicate the
overbearing
message
associated with such ceremonials and
representations-or they
communicate, often,
the exact
op-
posite."
Brown
goes
on to demonstrate that Mathews must
ignore
some
iconographic images
in order to
present
his
argument;
for
example,
Mathews states that
high-backed
thrones are
only
for
images
of
gods
(and
are therefore
appropriate
for
Christ),
and so he does not discuss the medallions of Constantine that
show the
emperor
on a
high-backed
throne.
Images
in
art, then,
cannot be made
completely
consistent with
Mathews'
reinterpretation;
and
neither,
for that
matter,
can the words of
Early
Christian writers that refer
to Christ as
king,
ruler,
and
military
leader. Mathews' book
may
be a
necessary
corrective of a
viewpoint
that
is
overly
reliant
upon recognizing imperial imagery
in Christian
art, but,
in
my opinion,
it is not successful
in
completely denying
the existence of such
imagery.
'9A.
Wallace-Hadrill discusses the
appropriation
of the
apsidal
room from the
public sphere
to domestic
architecture,
where it is meant to demonstrate the
public
nature of certain functions of the Roman house.
See "The Social Structure of the Roman
House,"
BSA 56
(1988),
43-97. He writes: "The
apse
with its semi-
cupola
serves to frame the visual
centrepiece
of certain
types
of
public room,
notably
the basin
('labrum')
recess of the caldarium in
public baths,
the
cult-image
recess in certain
temples,
and the tribunal of a basilica.
The same feature
appears
in certain
grand imperial reception
rooms from the
early empire
onwards
(the
so-called Auditorium
Maecenatis,
the Aula
Isiaca,
the auditorium of Domitian's
Palace)
and in rare instances
in
grand reception
rooms in
private
houses"
(p. 68).
20Krautheimer,
Early
Christian and
40.
265
Augustus
from Prima Porta. On the other
hand,
the
gesture
is also
commonly
used
by
philosophers addressing
their
students,
and it
may
well be from this source that it was
appropriated
for use in
images
of Christ
himself,
as the True
Philosopher,
as noted above
in the mosaic of S.
Aquilino.
A distinctive and unusual feature of the Stobi
baptistery depiction
of the
evangelist
Matthew is the men who flank him and who are identified
by
the word AAOC. The mean-
ing
of this
inscription
is
probably
to be taken as
"congregation"
or "Christian commu-
nity."
This
usage
was derived from
Jewish
tradition,
where it was used to
identify
the
Jewish community
and,
in a
larger
sense,
the chosen
people
of Israel.21 An
inscription
in
a
fifth-century synagogue
in
Hulda, Israel,
reads
eulogeitos
ho
laos,
or "blessed be the
people."22
Used
commonly
in the literature of the
early
church,
the word is no
longer
associated with the
Jewish people,
but is used in a narrow sense to refer to the
"congrega-
tion assembled for
worship"
(as
distinct from the
leaders).23
The modern term
"laity"
is
derived from this effort to
distinguish
between the leaders and the
congregation.
It is
clear in the Stobi
painting
that Matthew is meant to be seen as distinct from his
followers,
since he is set
apart
from them within his arch.
Closest in
style
to the
representation
of St. Matthew at Stobi are the
depictions
of
evangelists
in
painted
miniatures from
manuscripts.
In the Rabbula
Codex,
created in
Zagba, Mesopotamia,
in
586,
the
evangelist
Matthew
appears
in an arch
supported by
columns.24 The saint's
appearance
and attributes are similar to the Stobi St.
Matthew;
he
is
represented
as white-haired and with a white
beard,
is
raising
his
right
hand with the
same
gesture,
and with his left hand holds his
Gospel
book. Also
comparable
is the saint's
clothing, pale
in color but with a darker shoulder
stripe.
Miniatures of the
evangelists
served as
frontispieces
to the
Gospels
in a late-sixth-
century manuscript
of the
Gospels
of St.
Augustine,
now in
Cambridge, England.25 Only
one of the miniatures
survives,
that of St. Luke
(Fig. 11).
Iconographically,
it too is
very
close to the Stobi
painting.
An architectural
setting
dominates,
with Luke seated beneath
a
lintel,
above which an arch
opens, containing
the
tetramorph symbol
of Luke on a blue
background.
Luke himself is seated
upon
a throne with two Corinthian columns on each
side. The
space
behind Luke is
recessed,
but the recess
appears
to be rectilinear rather
than
apsidal.
The
space
is
depicted
in
gold
and seems to form a substitute for a nimbus.
Luke is
seated,
again
white-haired and
bearded,
and holds his
Gospel
book with his left
hand,
while his
right
hand
appears
to be
supporting
his chin. On each side of the
evange-
list,
between the two
columns,
are
painted tiny
scenes from the life of
Christ,
six on each
side,
in
registers
one above the other. As discussed
below,
this same
system
of
larger
images
of
evangelists
flanked
by
smaller
scenes,
one above the
other,
is also found in the
Stobi
baptistery.
Before I discuss that
system, however,
I must describe the remains of
these smaller-scale
paintings
at Stobi.
21This definition of laos is discussed in the
Theological
Dictionary of
the New
Testament,
ed. G.
Kittel, trans.
and ed. G.
W. Bromley,
IV
(Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1967),
29-57.
22G. M. A.
Hanfmann,
"The Ninth
Campaign
at Sardis," BASOR 187
(1967),
10. The
inscription
is
painted
in
purple
letters and surrounded
by
faint traces of architectural motifs.
23Theological Dictionary,
ed.
Kittel,
57.
24K. Weitzmann,
Late
Antique
and
Early
Christian Book Illumination
(New York, 1977), 100, pl.
35.
25
E Wormald,
The Miniatures in the
Gospel of
St.
Augustine, Corpus
Christi
College
Ms. 286
(Cambridge, 1954),
1-4,
fig.
vn.
266
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
Best
preserved
of all the smaller-scale
paintings
that adorned the walls between
the
semidomes is a
large
area about 1.5 m
square
from the east wall
(Figs. 12-16). There
appear
to be
parts
of two scenes
here,
separated by
a decorative border. Of the
upper
scene,
only
the lowest
parts
are
preserved,
and no identification of the
subject
matter
is
possible.
At the
left,
the area is
painted
in mottled
green,
with white
stripes,
and on
the
right
is an area of white with thin
painted
lines in red. These
may represent
the
lower
parts
of
draped figures.
Underneath this scene is a border
consisting
of a band of
light
brown with a narrow reddish
stripe
in the
center,
then a white
band,
and
finally
a
pink
band with an
overpainted
bead-and-reel
design.
Below the border is a
figural composition.
Its
background
is formed of wide
bands
of
alternating
white and
blue,
representing
the
sky.
At the left is a
building
with a
dark
red
roof.
On the
top
of the
roof,
and
partly overlapping
it,
is
part
of a Greek
inscription
(Fig. 15).
Preserved letters are I
E
P 0
[
... ]
TC [ ... ].
Part of the
building's
facade
is
preserved
on the
right, consisting
of almost the entire
pediment
above the
top
of
an
arch. Architectural
moldings
are indicated with dark red lines on a
background
of white.
Centered within the
pediment
is an
insignium,
and tondi are located on each side of the
arch. Little is
preserved
of the
building
below
this;
the area within the arch is
painted
dark red.
On the
right
of the
building
are five
figures,
of which the lowest
parts
are
missing.
In
the center stands
Christ,
identified
by
a nimbus of
yellow
ocher. He leans forward to the
right
and wears a white
cloak,
with folds
painted
in
red,
and with red
stripes
on either
side
falling
from the shoulder. Reddish-brown hair surrounds his face in a
caplike
arc.
The
youthful,
beardless face is
presented
almost
frontally,
with
only
a
slight
turn toward
the left. The face is
pink,
with
eyes,
nose,
and mouth contoured in
pinkish-brown
and
with darker shades
accentuating
the
eyeballs, eyelids, tip
of the
nose,
and
lips.
His
eyes
are oversized and
very
round. To the left of Christ is a head with
deep
blue-black
curly
hair,
shorter than that of
Christ,
and with a narrow face and features. This head also
turns
slightly
to the left. To the left of this
figure,
closest to the
building,
is a
young
man,
again depicted
almost
frontally, wearing
a
pale orange
cloak fastened
by
a fibula in thick
white
paint
that is raised
considerably
above the surface of the rest of the
painting.
Folds
of his cloak are
painted
in
orange-brown.
His
hair,
once full at the
sides,
is
partly
worn
away.
It does not form a concave arc around his face as does Christ's
hair,
but instead
dips
down in a convex arc toward the
eyes.
On Christ's
right
is the
figure
of a
broad-shouldered,
bearded man whose face turns
toward Christ and who
gestures
toward him
(Fig. 16).
A
partly preserved
hand
may
be-
long
to this
figure,
or to another
figure
to the
right,
of which now
only
the hair and a
part
of the forehead are
preserved.
The face of the bearded man is
represented
in a
three-quarter
view. His reddish-brown hair is worn
away
in
places.
His forehead is
brownish-pink,
and the rest
pink
with dark brown contours. His
clothing
is brown with
reddish-brown
stripes running
down from the
shoulders,
similar to the
clothing
of the
figure
at the far left. Below the hand is a
large
area of rich
reddish-brown,
which
may
represent
the
drapery
of a crouched or seated
figure.
An area of
green speckled
with
brown
spots
is located to the left.
No exact
parallel
to the east wall scene at Stobi exists.
Nevertheless,
study
of the evi-
dence contained within the scene leads to a
strong
likelihood that the scene
represents
a
267
healing
miracle
performed by
Christ. An
important
factor in terms of identification is
the
inscription,
which is
unfortunately incomplete.
Preserved are the letters I E P 0
[.
. ]
T
C
[...
.
These
may represent part
of the
city
name
IEPOTC
[AAHM].26
Another
pos-
sible
reading
is IEPO
[N] [.
. .
]
TC
[
... ]. In this
reading,
the
building
itself is identified
as
IEPON,
or
temple,
and the
remaining
letters, [
.
..
.] C
[ .
.
],
form
part
of the name
Jerusalem.
Given the
space
available,
and the
probable proportions
of the
building repre-
sented,
the former
interpretation
seems most
likely.
In either
case,
the
inscription pro-
vides
strong
evidence that the location of this scene is the
temple
at
Jerusalem,
which
certainly
narrows the
possibilities considerably.
The
building
itself is
perfectly
suitable as
a
temple type:
a close
parallel,
in
fact,
is a
representation
of the
temple
at
Jerusalem
from
the
third-century synagogue
at Dura
Europos,
where the
temple appears
as a
pedi-
mented
building
with a round floral
design
in its
gable.27
A feature of the method of
representation
of the
building
is that the whole facade is
shown,
as well as the entire
long
side of the
building.
This method of
representation
is
very
common in the
period,
as evidenced
by
a
fourth-fifth-century
mosaic from
Tunisia,
now in the Musee
Alaoui.28
This mosaic
represents
the mother
church,
identified
by
the
Latin
inscription
"Ecclesia Mater" above the
building.
In his desire to delineate
clearly
each
part
of the
church,
the mosaicist has
separated
the various
parts
of the structure:
the
apse
with
a round
window,
an
arch,
the side view of the
structure,
and the
facade,
with two small round windows
flanking
a
rectangular
one. Similar
depictions
of
buildings
can be seen on the
panels
of
glass opus
sectile found in the sea at
Kenchreai,
the eastern
port
of
Corinth.29
In these
panels,
dated to the third
quarter
of the fourth
century,
the
buildings
often show one end in full frontal view as well as an entire
long
side. In addi-
tion,
several of the
buildings display insignia
like that in the Stobi
painting.
As well as
scenes with
buildings,
a number of the
panels
found at Kenchreai also contained
por-
traits of
philosophers
and of
religious figures.
Assuming
the locale as the
temple
at
Jerusalem,
what event in the life of Christ could
be
represented
here? The
presentation
at the
temple
is a
possibility,
but here the
figure
of
Christ,
while
appearing very youthful,
is not
childlike,
nor is he
significantly
smaller
than the bearded
figure
on the
right.30
Furthermore,
the other two
portraits
of Christ
from the Stobi
baptistery
also show a
very youthful
Christ,
and since there is
only
one
event from the childhood of Christ described in the
Gospels,
these other
portraits
must
represent
the adult Christ.
Based on the scene as a
whole,
what is most
likely represented
here is a
healing
mir-
acle,
probably
the
healing
of the blind. In the
Gospel
of St.
Matthew,
Christ is described
26S.v.
'IEpoa6okDXuva
in
W.
Arndt and E
Gingrich,
A
Greek-English
Lexicon
of
the New Testament and Other
Early
Christian Literature
(Chicago, 1957).
Two variants
given
for the name of the
city
are
'Iepoo6X.ta
and
'WepoOoaXriG.
27
K. Weitzmann and H. L.
Kessler,
The Frescoes
of
the Dura
Synagogue
and Christian
Art,
DOS 28
(Washington,
D.C., 1990), 98,
figs.
5,
139. See also
J.
Lassus,
The
Early
Christian and
Byzantine
World
(Toronto, 1967),
17,
fig.
3.2.
28N. Duval,
"La
representation
du
palais
dans
l'art
du
bas-empire
et du haut
moyen age d'apres
le
psautier
d'Utrecht,"
CahArch 15
(1965),
207-54.
29L.
Ibrahim,
R.
Scranton,
and R.
Brill, Kenchreai:
Eastern Port
of Corinth, II:
The Panels
of Opus
Sectile in
Glass
(Leiden, 1976), pls.
89-99.
30C.
Hemans,
"The Fresco
Program
of the
Episcopal
Basilica at
Stobi," BSCAbstr 8
(1982),
15-16.
268
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
as
performing
miracles,
including healing
miracles, within the
temple precinct
at
Jerusa-
lem
(Matt. 21:14).
A number of
contemporary depictions
of similar scenes
survive, and
they
include a bearded
figure
who serves as "witness" to the miracle. An
example
is
the
ivory panel
from the throne of Maximian at Ravenna
(Fig. 17),
where Christ is shown
in
the
process
of
healing
two
figures,
a blind man and a lame man. Christ stands on
the
right,
with his head inclined toward the
stooping
blind man. Behind the two
supplicants
stands a bearded
figure
who raises his
right
hand and in his left holds a
book.31
In
some
representations,
the bearded witness can be
clearly
identified as a
prophet
who functions
as a witness to the fulfillment of Messianic
prophecy;
in the
ivory panel,
however, the
figure
holds a
book,
not the scroll
usually
held
by
a
prophet.32
On an
ivory
box in
the
Vatican Museum is a scene
showing
Christ
healing
the
blind,
with another "witness"
figure
who once
again
holds a book. The entire
scene,
interestingly,
takes
place
beneath
an arcuated
pediment
that recalls similar scenes on
sarcophagi.33
By
far the closest
parallel
for the Stobi
composition
is a small marble relief at Dumbar-
ton
Oaks,
studied
by
E.
Kitzinger (Fig. 18).34 Kitzinger
dates the relief to the
reign
of
Theodosius I and believes it
originated
in an
imperial workshop
in
Constantinople.
The
relief,
incomplete
on all sides
except
the
bottom,
measures 26.5 cm in
height
and 28.7
cm in width. On the
relief,
Christ
occupies
the
center,
where he stands
leaning slightly
to the
left,
while he reaches out to the left to touch the e e of a
stooping
blind man.
Christ
appears youthful
and
beardless,
with hair
arranged
in a
caplike
form around his
head. He is the
only figure
in the relief to bear a nimbus. Dressed in a tunic and
pallium,
he holds a volumen in his left hand. To Christ's
right
is the
upper part
of a man's head.
On the far
right
stands a bearded
figure,
dressed din the same
clothing
as
Christ,
who
carries a tall staff
topped by
a cross.
Similarities between the Dumbarton Oaks relief and the Stobi
painting
are remark-
31
C. Cecchelli, La cattedra di Massimiano ed altri avorii romano-orientali
(Rome, 1937), pl.
32.
32In
the
Gospels
of Rossano and
Sinope,
Old Testament
prophets
are
certainly depicted. They carry
scrolls inscribed with
quotations
from their
writings:
A.
Munoz, II
codice
purpureo
di Rossano
(Rome, 1907),
pi.
xi;
A.
Grabar,
Les
peintures
de
l'evangeliaire
de
Sinope (Paris, 1948), pl.
iv.
33 Grabar, Christian
Iconography,
97,
pi.
246.
See,
for
example,
the architectural framework on
thesarcopha-
gus
of
Junius
Bassus: F. Gerke,
Der
Sarkophag
des
Iunius Bassus
(Berlin, 1936).
34E.
Kitzinger,
"A Marble Relief of the Theodosian
Period," DOP 14
(1961),
19-42. The relief was declared
a
forgery
in 1981
by
S.
Boyd
and G.
Vikan, Questions
of Authenticity among
the Arts
of Byzantium: Catalog of
an
Exhibition Held at Dumbarton
Oaks,
January 7-May
11,
1981
(Washington,
D.C., 1981),
4-7. The relief did not
come from an established
context,
such as a documented
archaeological excavation,
and that is one reason
that its
authenticity
could be so
easily questioned. Kitzinger
rebuts the declaration of
Boyd
and Vikan in a
footnote to the new German edition of
Byzantine
Art in the
Making, citing
the relief's
"style
and
quality
and
iconographic peculiarities" (Byzantinische
Kunst im Werden:
Stilentwicklungen
in der Mittelmeerkunst vom 3. bis zum
7.
Jahrhundert [Cologne, 1984], 78, 79, 256 n.
43).
The burden of
proof
still
appears
to remain with
Boyd
and Vikan.
Furthermore,
the Stobi
baptistery's
east wall
painting
adds an
unquestionably
authentic
stylistic
and
iconographic parallel
that lends
support
to
Kitzinger's original
attribution. For
example,
one
design
element that
Boyd
and Vikan found
particularly
indicative of a
forgery
is the bead-and-reel
design
on the
bottom of the
relief.
They
felt that it had been
slavishly copied
from the diadem
adorning
a marble head of
Arcadius that was found
shortly
before the
"forged
relief" came to
light.
But the
presence
of the same bead-
and-reel motif in the Stobi
baptistery
east
wall,
in a scene that most
likely represents
the same
theme,
adds
important
new evidence in
support
of
Kitzinger's
attribution. See also G.
Vikan,
Catalogue of
the Sculpture in
the Dumbarton Oaks Collection
from
the Ptolemaic Period to the Renaissance
(Washington,
D.C., 1995), xi-xii,
wherein Vikan
explains
his exclusion of the relief from the
catalogue
but
requests "any
information or
argumentation
that
may yet
exonerate it."
269
able,
despite
the difference in media. Both exhibit the characteristics of Theodosian art,
documented
by J.
Kollwitz in his detailed
study
of Theodosian
sculpture.35 Typical
is the
slight angle
or incline of
figures,
as seen in both
depictions
of Christ, and the
representa-
tion of Christ as a
wide-eyed,
almost
innocent-looking young
man,
with his hair
forming
a round
cap framing
the face. The same feature characterizes a
portrait
of Arcadius in
Istanbul. A soft
"classicizing"
cast can also be identified in
both,
in the
drapery
and in
the facial features. In the Stobi
painting,
little or
nothing
of the blind man is
preserved;
he must have been located between Christ and the bearded
figure
to his
right.
A notable difference between the two works is the
appearance
of the bearded
figure.
In the Stobi
painting
the man has a
caplike hairstyle
like that of
Christ,
while the Dum-
barton Oaks relief
depicts
a
balding
man with a domed forehead.
Kitzinger
identifies this
figure
as St. Paul and
suggests
that Paul is used as a
Constantinopolitan counterpart
of
St.
Peter,
whose fame was
growing
so
great
as to threaten the
preeminence
of
Byzan-
tium.36
As
Kitzinger expresses
it, "a
comprehensive explanation
is needed of all the
phe-
nomena
indicating
a
particular preference
for Paul in East Roman art of the
period
of
Theodosius
I."37 Further,
if the Dumbarton Oaks relief is indeed from a
baptistery
table,
as
Kitzinger
believes,
then the
presence
of Paul is even more
striking,
for Paul recovered
his
sight
when he was
baptized.
In more
general
terms, also,
the miracle of the
healing
of the blind is
commonly
associated with
baptism;
evidence for this comes both from
liturgical
sources and from remains of decorated
baptisteries.38
As discussed
below,
other
healing
miracles, too,
are
commonly
found in
programs
of
baptistery
decoration.
Who is the bearded
figure
in the Stobi
painting?
It seems
unlikely
to be
Paul,
because
the
hairstyle
does not look like his. He holds neither scroll nor
Gospel
book,
and so
cannot be
definitely
identified as either a
prophet
or an
evangelist.
While it is
certainly
unsatisfying
to leave him an
anonymous
"witness"
figure,
no further identification is
pos-
sible at
present.
Another
inscription
survives from the east wall of the
baptistery,
the
single
word
DHMI. It cannot be determined whether it comes from the
healing
miracle scene or from
the scene above. Its
presence
is
significant
because it must introduce a
quotation
from
Christ,
and therefore it is clear that
scriptural passages
formed
part
of the Stobi
baptis-
tery
decoration,
even if the
precise passage
cannot be determined. The word does occur
in the
Gospel
of Matthew
just
after the scene of the
healing
miracles within the
temple
precinct,
when
Jesus
causes the
fig
tree to wither
(Matt. 21:18-22). However,
this is such
a common word
throughout
the New Testament that it is not
possible
to make a
specific
identification.
From the
remaining fragments
of the
painted
walls of the
baptistery, only
smaller
sections have been reconstructed. From the southwest semidome a
group
of four
faces,
very badly preserved, probably represents
the laos
surrounding
another
evangelist.
Four
more
poorly preserved
faces,
from the northwest
semidome,
are
likely
to
represent
the
same scheme. Most
striking
of the
remaining fragments
are two heads of
Christ,
one
35J. Kollwitz,
Ostrdmische Plastik der
theodosianischen
Zeit
(Berlin, 1941).
See also B.
Kiilerich,
Late Fourth
Century
Classicism in the Plastic Arts: Studies in the So-Called Theodosian Renaissance
(Odense, 1993),
133-34.
36Kitzinger,
"Marble
Relief," 35,
36.
37Ibid.,
35.
38Ibid., 35,
36.
270
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
from the south wall
(Fig. 19)
and one from the west wall
(Fig. 20). They
are identified as
Christ because
they
have a
golden
nimbus,
like the Christ from the east wall. The head
from the south
wall,
about 15 cm in
height,
is similar in
appearance
to that on the east
wall and
may
be
by
the same artist. That from the west wall is
quite
different in
style,
with smaller facial features and fewer brush strokes used in its execution. The
painting
is in
poor
condition: not
only
has a
great
deal of
paint
flaked
off,
but it has also been
splashed
with
large drips
of white
paint, presumably during
the
"whitewashing"
of the
building's
final decorative
phase.
I now consider the entire
iconographic program
of the Stobi
baptistery paintings.
It
seems safe to assume that each of the four semidomes contained a
depiction
of an
evange-
list,
of which two are
extant,
Matthew and one
other,
possibly
Mark. On the walls between
the
semidomes,
at a smaller
scale,
scenes from the life of Christ were
presented,
in at
least two
registers.
One of these smaller-scale
scenes,
that from the east
wall,
probably
shows Christ
performing
a
healing
miracle. Do these
images,
and their locations on the
baptistery
walls,
fall into
any previously
known
pattern
of
baptistery
decoration?
Few
baptisteries
survive from this
early period,
and even fewer have much of their
interior decoration
preserved.
The
Naples baptistery, belonging
to the church of S. Resti-
tuta,
is dated to around 400
(Fig. 21).39
While some of the mosaics
adorning
this small
building
are
missing, enough
remain to
provide
a
good
deal of information on the kind
of
images
deemed
appropriate
for this
important
ritual
setting.
Like the Stobi
baptistery,
the
building
is
square,
but forms four
apsidioles
where the walls create an
octagonal
transition to its dome. In each of the
apsidioles
is
represented
one of the
tetramorphs,
or
winged symbols
of the
evangelists.
In the southeast is that of
Matthew,
in the southwest
Mark,
in the northeast
Luke,
and in the northwest
John, corresponding
to the order in
which
they
are described in Ezekiel. At first
glance
this does not seem to
correspond
exactly
with the
placement
of the
figures
in the Stobi
baptistery,
where St. Matthew occu-
pies
the northeast semidome. If one examines the evidence a little more
closely,
however,
it
appears
that an exact
correspondence might
once have existed. The
original
entrance
to the
Naples baptistery, according
to
J.
L. Maier and
others,
was on the west.
Thus,
as
one entered the
building,
the
evangelist
in the far
right
corner would have been Matthew.
At
Stobi,
the main entrance was on the south. The south entrance is wider than the others
and was reached
by
the
ambulatory
on the west. When one entered the Stobi
baptistery
from the
south,
the
evangelist
in the far
right
corner would once
again
be
Matthew,
as at
Naples. (Figure
22
diagrams
the locations of the
images
in each
baptistery.) Assuming
that the
placement
of the other
evangelist figures
at Stobi would have followed the
pat-
tern at
Naples,
then in the southeast semidome should be
Mark,
in the southwest
Luke,
and in the northwest
John.
As discussed
above,
the
painting
of the
evangelist preserved
from the southeast semi-
dome had
already
been
tentatively
identified as Mark. This evidence from the
Naples
baptistery
should serve to make the identification much more secure. Mark is
usually
represented
as
middle-aged,
with dark hair and beard.40 He
appears
thus in the cubicolo
39J.
L.
Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples
et ses
mosaiques (Fribourg, 1964).
40See
A. M. Friend
Jr.,
"The Portraits of the
Evangelists
in Greek and Latin
Manuscripts,"
Art Studies 5
(1927)
115-47. Friend
(p. 120)
observes that Mark and Luke are
commonly
illustrated in
manuscripts
with
271
of S. Cecilia in the catacombs of SS. Marcus and Marcellianus in
Rome,
where he and
Matthew are
bearded,
and Luke and
John
beardless.41 In the Rabbula
Gospel,
where
Matthew is shown with white hair and beard, Mark has a short dark
beard,
while Luke
has a full dark beard and
John
is beardless. In the Rossano
Gospel,
too,
Mark wears a
short dark beard and has dark
hair;
in
general,
his
appearance closely
resembles that of
the Stobi
portrait.42 Iconographically,
then,
the
portrait
is closest to
representations
of
St. Mark.
No other
surviving baptistery
contains
portraits
of the
evangelists.
In the Orthodox
Baptistery
at
Ravenna, however,
the mosaics of ca. 450
depict
four
evangeliaries.43
Lo-
cated on the main directional
axes,
the
Gospel
of Luke is on the
north,
Matthew on the
east,
John
on the
south,
and Mark on the west. These
evangeliaries,
therefore,
do not
follow the order of their mention in Ezekiel. Since in this case we have
depictions
of the
books,
and not the
evangelists
themselves,
adhering
to this order
may
not have seemed
necessary.
One
possibility
should be considered in terms of the
placement
of the
images
of the
evangelists
in the
baptistery:
were the
images
related not
only
to the
baptistery
itself,
but
also to the main church? Given the
great diversity
in
placement
of
baptisteries
in relation
to their
churches,
this was never a
great
likelihood in
general,
and in this case there does
not seem to be
any
such
relationship.
As seen in the
plan (Fig. 2),
the
baptistery
of the
Early
Church and
subsequently
of the
Episcopal
Basilica at Stobi was located in the
middle of the south side of the church. At
Naples,
the
baptistery
was located at the end
of the
right
aisle of S. Restituta. Given this
variation,
one would not
expect
the
layout
of
the
to be related
directionally
to the main
church,
and indeed it
does not seem to be. At
Stobi,
Matthew is
positioned
closest to the
apse,
and at
Naples,
John.
An
important
fact has been determined: the
of a
baptistery
was considered as a discrete
entity.
From the
study
of three
baptisteries
that are close in
date,
it
appears
that even in the late fourth
century
artists were
working
with a set
pro-
gram
of
baptistery
decoration. In
fact,
the exact
correspondence
in
position
of the evan-
gelist portraits
at Stobi and at
Naples
seems to confirm L. de
Bruyne's
conclusion that
there was a
precise parallelism
in decoration
among early baptisteries.
De
Bruyne
reached this conclusion after
comparing
the decoration of the
Naples baptistery
and that
dark hair and shorter beards to
distinguish
them from the
apostles
as
belonging
to a "second
generation
of
Christian witnesses." Friend sees these
images
as
types,
not actual
portraits,
whose
inspiration
came from
Hellenistic works in which
portraits
of authors were
placed
at the
beginning
of texts
(p. 118).
41G.
Kaftal,
Iconography of
the Saints in Central and South Italian
Painting (Florence, 1965),
743-48.
42Weitzmann,
Book
Illumination, 96,
pl.
33.
43Kostof, Orthodox
Baptistery.
In the
chapel
of St.
John
the
Evangelist, adjacent
to the Lateran
Baptistery
in
Rome,
the four
evangelists
were
depicted
in
5th-century
mosaics that are now lost.
Drawings by Ciampini
show that the mosaics
depicted
the
evangelists
with their
Gospel
books. Above their heads their names were
inscribed,
and above the
inscriptions
were their
symbols.
In this
chapel,
the
evangelist
mosaics were located
beneath actual
arches,
two
evangelists
beneath each arch. See R.
Garrucci,
Storia della arte cristiana nei
primi
otto secoli della
chiesa,
6 vols.
(Prato, 1872-81), IV, 86-87,
pls.
272-73. Other
depictions
of the
evangelists
within semidomes are found in a
chapel
of S. Maria Mater
Domini,
in
Vicenza,
of the mid-5th
century.
See
G. P.
Bognetti,
B. Forlati
Tamaro,
and G.
Lorenzon,
Vicenza nell'alto medioevo
(Venice, 1959),
28ff.
272
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
of the
third-century baptistery
in Dura
Europos, Syria.44
At
Dura, only
the
baptistery
of
the house church was decorated. It
may
be, then,
that
baptistery iconography developed
earliest of all and for this reason was thereafter conceived
separately
from the
decoration
of the rest of the church.
Maier, too,
in his
study
of the
Naples baptistery,
observes
a
similarity
in
subject
matter in
early baptisteries.45
Now the
baptistery
of the
Episcopal
Basilica at Stobi can be added to the
comparative
material. Table 1
presents
a
schema-
tized
summary
of the
iconographic parallels
from the four
buildings
discussed.
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF ICONOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS OF BAPTISTERIES
AT DURA
EUROPOS, NAPLES, RAVENNA
(ORTHODOX),
AND STOBI46
Dura
Europos Naples
Ravenna
(Orthodox)
Stobi
Starry sky Starry sky
Good
Shepherd
Good
Shepherd
Good
Shepherd
Samaritan at well Jesus and Samaritan
Walking
on water
Walking
on water
Women at tomb Women at tomb
Tetramorphs Evangeliaries Evangelists
Healing
miracle
Healing
miracles?
Healing
miracle?
(paralytic)
Apostles Apostles
Traditio
Legis
Traditio
Legis
Garden of Paradise
(?) Four rivers of
paradise
Scenes found at both Dura and
Naples
are the women at the
tomb,
Christ
walking
on
the
water,
the Samaritan woman at the
well,
and the Good
Shepherd.
On the north wall
at
Dura,
now
mostly destroyed,
were the scenes of
walking
on the water and the
healing
of the
paralytic.
It is
likely
that the rest of the wall contained more
healing
miracles. At
Naples,
some of the mosaic
panels
in the dome are
missing,
and Maier and others con-
sider that
representations
of
healing
miracles were most
likely
there,
also. Maier
proposes
these scenes: the
paralytic
(as
at
Dura),
the blind
man,
and the deaf mute.47 Scholars also
agree
that a
baptism
of Christ was
likely.
At
Dura,
Old Testament scenes were also
pres-
ent: Adam and
Eve,
David and
Goliath,
and a scene of Paradise.48
In the vault of the baldacchino over the
baptismal pool
at
Dura,
the decoration took
the form of stars
against
a dark blue
ground.
This
scheme,
though
not found in the
baptistery
itself,
recalls the
ceiling painting
of the
Early
Church at
Stobi,
for which the
baptistery
was
originally
built.49
44L. de
Bruyne,
"La decoration des
baptisteres paleochretiens,"
in Miscellanea
liturgica
in honorem L. Cuni-
berti
Mohlberg (Rome, 1948), I,
190. C.
Kraeling,
The Christian
Building,
vol.
VIII,
pt.
2 of The Excavations at
Dura
Europos,
Final
Report,
ed. C. Bradford Welles
(New Haven, Conn., 1967).
45
Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples,
58.
46The first five items are taken from the chart
published
by
Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples,
79.
47Ibid., 58.
48
Kraeling,
The Christian
Building.
49My
watercolor reconstruction of this
ceiling
can be found in C.
Hemans,
"Fresco Reconstruction,"
fig.
4;
J. Wiseman,
"Multidisciplinary
Research in Classical
Archaeology:
An
Example
from the
Balkans,"
273
From examination of the decorative
programs
of these
early baptisteries,
we can draw
some conclusions about the
iconography
of the
images
chosen for the
baptistery,
the
building
that was in
many ways
the heart of the
early
church. First, the
evangelists
were
chosen because
they
recorded the
story
of the life of Christ.
Significantly,
at both Stobi
and
Naples they
hold their
Gospel
books,
while in the Orthodox
Baptistery
at Ravenna
the books alone are
present.
At
Stobi,
the scene of the blind man is
placed just
to the
right
of the
representation
of St. Matthew. Matthew's
Gospel,
as noted
earlier,
is one of the
primary
sources for this
miracle,
and this
placement
is
surely
not accidental.
Further,
the
inscription
on the build-
ing
in this scene also relates this miracle to the
Gospel
of
Matthew,
for it is this
Gospel
that records
healing
miracles as
taking place
in the
temple precinct
at
Jerusalem.
In the
Gospel
book of St.
Augustine,
described
above,
the
frontispiece
to the
Gospel
of St. Luke
shows the saint seated within an architectural framework and flanked
by
small scenes
from the life of Christ as described in Luke. It is
exactly
this
system
that
may
also have
existed at
Stobi,
for the semidome
containing
St. Matthew within his arch is flanked on
the
right by
the miracle of the
healing
of the blind
man,
in the version that most
closely
follows that from the
Gospel
of St. Matthew. As discussed
above,
the scenes on the walls
between the semidomes are smaller in scale and were
placed
in
registers,
one on
top
of
the
other,
just
as
they
are found in the
Gospel
book of St.
Augustine.
Are the
preserved
scenes from the
cupola
of the
Naples baptistery positioned
in a
particular
relation to the
symbols
of the
evangelists
in that
building?
Above the
symbol
of Matthew is the
Giving
of the
Laws,
or Traditio
Legis,
and to the
right
the scene of Christ
walking
on the water. Both of these scenes are
primarily
related to the
Gospel
of St.
Matthew. Those above
John
are all
destroyed,
and the
only
one left above Mark is the
scene of the
Marys
at the
tomb,
which is treated in each of the
Gospels.
Above the
symbol
of Luke are two
scenes,
the Samaritan woman at the well and the miracle of the wine at
the
wedding
at
Cana,
both from the
Gospel
of
John,
not Luke. Exact
correspondence,
then,
is not
present
at
Naples, although
it does
seem,
in the case of
Matthew,
that above
his
symbol
an effort was made to
portray
scenes that are
emphasized
in his
Gospel.
At
Naples
and
Dura,
as de
Bruyne
and Maier
point
out,
baptistery
decoration focused
on water
symbolism.50
Both show Christ
walking
on the water and the Samaritan woman
at the well. And at
Naples,
the
wedding
at
Cana,
where water was
changed
to
wine,
is
also shown. While no water scenes survive from
among
the
painted images
at
Stobi,
the
mosaic floor contained four sets of animals
drinking
from
kantharoi,
one beneath each
semidome.51 Two scenes contain
deer,
or
harts,
one on each side of a kantharos. Harts
drinking
from fountains are described as
symbols
of the
evangelists by
St.
Jerome
in the
prologue
to his
commentary
on St. Matthew.52 The
presence
of four deer would seem to
reinforce this
interpretation
as related to the Stobi
baptistery.
At
Stobi, then,
the mosaic
in Contributions to
Aegean Archaeology:
Studies in Honor
of
William A. McDonald
(Dubuque,
Iowa, 1985), fig.
12;
Wiseman, "Stobi," 402,
fig.
9;
and W.
Tronzo,
The Via Latina Catacomb: Imitation and
Discontinuity
in Fourth-
Century
Roman
Painting (University
Park, Pa., 1986), fig.
113.
50De
Bruyne,
"La
decoration," 192-95; Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples,
38-42.
51Kolarik,
"The Floor Mosaics of Stobi," 122, 126,
fig.
275.
52. Underwood,
"The Fountain of Life," DOP 5
(1950),
71-72. The text of St.
Jerome's commentary
can
be found in PL 24:15-22.
274
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
floor seems to be reflective of the
chosen for the
painted
walls. In
the
Naples baptistery, drinking
deer
appear
in the
cupola
mosaics
themselves, further
reinforcing
the idea that at Stobi
they
were meant to be viewed as
part
of the icono-
graphic program
of the
baptistery.53
Naturally,
all this water
symbolism
is
directly
related to the water of the
baptismal
pool.
Scenes such as the
healing
of the blind were meant to
symbolize
the
enlightenment
provided by
the
baptismal
rite. De
Bruyne
concludes that the
emphasis
of
baptistery
decorative schemes was
overwhelmingly
on the
positive-on
miracles,
including healing
miracles and on themes of
regeneration-while
the more
negative aspects,
such as the
cleansing
of
sins,
are
rarely depicted.
In
fact,
though,
the Dura
baptistery presents
us
with an
interesting
case in this
regard.
The small scene of Adam and
Eve,
located at the
lower left corner of the scene
containing
the Good
Shepherd,
seems
clearly
to have been
added at a later date.54 C.
Kraeling
sees this as an emendation of the
iconographic pro-
gram, probably
as a result of
objections
to the
program
as
originally
conceived. It is an
emendation that does introduce an
emphasis precisely upon redemption
and the cleans-
ing
of sins-for Adam and Eve have
clearly already
sinned
(they
are
holding
leaves in
front of
themselves).
Study
of the
Naples baptistery throughout
the twentieth
century
has led to
many
theories about the
missing
mosaic
panels,
and
they bring up
an
interesting
issue that
should be mentioned here. Some of the theories
propose
that scenes from the entire life
of Christ were
present, including
an annunciation and a
nativity. J. Wilpert,
for
example,
proposed
an
annunciation,
a
baptism,
and two
miracles,
while W. N. Schumacher
pre-
ferred to reconstruct scenes from Christ's
public
life and then an ascension.55 Maier
pre-
fers a
baptism
and
then,
after the scene of
Cana,
Christ's first
miracle,
three
healing
miracles
(the
paralytic,
the blind
man,
and the deaf
mute).
The
remaining
scenes,
how-
ever,
are not in
order,
so that a
chronological sequence
cannot be
intended,
only
a series
of scenes from the life of Christ that were
particularly
associated with
baptism.
It seems
most
likely,
then,
from the
surviving
evidence,
that
only
scenes from Christ's later life
were chosen to decorate
baptisteries.
In the
third-century baptistery
at Dura
Europos,
as noted
above,
some Old Testament
scenes
parallel
those from the New Testament. The scene of David and Goliath at
Dura,
though,
is not attested in
any
other
surviving baptistery.
At
Naples,
no Old Testament
scenes are
found,
nor have
any
been found at Stobi. Both
baptisteries,
of
course,
have
missing images,
and,
in the case of the Stobi
baptistery, very
little indeed survives.56
Scenes from both the Old and the New Testaments are
very
common in the catacomb
paintings
associated with
baptismal
scenes and in
sarcophagi containing
such scenes. Old
Testament
images
are found as well in the Orthodox
Baptistery
at
Ravenna,
though they
53Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples,
132-40.
54Kraeling,
The Christian
Building,
49, 55, 202.
55Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples, 58-69;
J. Wilpert,
Die Romischen Mosaiken und Malerei der kirchlichen Bauten
vom IV bis XIII.
Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1916), 216-30;
W. N.
Schumacher,
"Dominus
legem
dat," RQ 54
(1959),
26.
56Maier,
Le
Baptistere
de
Naples, 79, considers the
Naples baptistery
to be "the
product
of an
epoch
of
transition." The scenes that
correspond
most
closely
to those of Dura are for the most
part
confined to the
cupola,
while those that exhibit a "new
spirit,"
the
apostles
and
symbols
of the
evangelists,
are
arranged
below.
275
are confined to the small stuccoes in Zone
II;
the
emphasis
of the decorative
program
is
clearly
on the New
Testament,
with the
baptism
of Christ in the
cupola
and the circle of
apostles
below,
culminating
in the Traditio
Legis.57
So
far,
at
Stobi,
no scenes from the Old
Testament have been identified in either the
baptistery
or in the
Episcopal
Basilica itself.
What other scenes
may
have been
painted
on the walls of the Stobi
baptistery?
From
a
survey
of
contemporary baptisteries,
it
appears likely
that
many
of the scenes were
taken from the New
Testament,
and that these scenes
may
have been located on the walls
next to the
images
of the
evangelists,
from whose texts the scenes were derived.
Likely
to have been
present
are more miracle
scenes,
a
baptism,
an
image
of the Good
Shep-
herd,
and
perhaps
the Traditio
Legis.
It is even
possible
that some
type
of
garden
scene
was
present
at
Stobi;
in the remains of the scene above that of Christ on the east
wall,
a
large
area of mottled
green
with a fencelike
diagonal grid appears.
If this does
represent
a
garden,
it would
parallel
the Garden of Paradise scene identified
by Kraeling
at Dura
and the four rivers of Paradise in the mosaics of the
Naples baptistery.58
What is
certainly
clear is that the wall
paintings
from the
baptistery
of the
Episcopal
Basilica fit
very
well
into the
previously
known
body
of decorative
subjects
from
baptisteries.
R. M.
Jensen's study
of the rite of
baptism
included examination of catacomb
paint-
ings, sarcophagi,
and minor arts as well as the
surviving
decorative
programs
of
early
baptisteries
themselves.59
Jensen
studied scenes found in the catacombs next to
obviously
baptismal
scenes,
that
is,
scenes
containing
the
baptisms
either of Christ himself or of a
neophyte
Christian,
perhaps
the
occupant
of the tomb.
Baptismal imagery
was most
likely
used in
funerary
contexts to make clear that the deceased had been
baptized
and
was thus assured eternal life.
Images juxtaposed
with
baptism
scenes in the catacomb
paintings
are taken from both the Old and the New Testaments. Old Testament scenes
include Adam and
Eve,
Moses
striking
water from the
rock,
the sacrifice of Isaac
by
Abraham,
Jonah
and the
whale,
Jonah
under the
gourd
tree,
Job
in
misery,
Daniel in the
lions'
den,
and Noah and the ark. New Testament scenes include
baptismal
scenes,
ban-
quet (eucharistic) scenes, fishermen,
gravediggers, healing
miracles
(paralytic,
blind
man, Lazarus,
woman with issue of
blood),
multiplication
of loaves and
fishes,
the
tempest-tossed ship, walking
on the
water,
the
annunciation,
the three
magi,
the Good
Shepherd,
and Christ as teacher or
philosopher.
While one of the latter scenes is obvi-
ously appropriate only
for tombs
(the
gravediggers),
the
striking correspondence
of the
remaining
scenes makes
study
of the catacomb
images
and their relation to
baptismal
iconography quite
useful. With
very
few
exceptions,
then
(the
gravediggers
and
Job),
we can
recognize images
that
appear
to be
particularly appropriate
for association with
baptismal
rites;
many
are found in the
baptisteries
discussed here. One notable
exception
is Moses
striking
water from the
rock,
which would seem an obvious choice for a
baptis-
mal role but is not found in the
baptisteries.
The
appropriateness
of
baptismal imagery
is reinforced
by
association of
baptismal imagery
and tomb
images.60
This association is
57Kostof,
Orthodox
Baptistery,
94-95,
99.
58Kraeling,
The
Christian
Building,
65-67, 167, 209.
59R.
M.
Jensen, "Living
Water:
Images, Settings,
and
Symbols
of Christian
Baptism
in the West"
(Ph.D.
diss.,
Columbia
University, 1991).
60Kraeling,
The Christian
Building,
191-95.
Tronzo,
The Via Latina
Catacomb,
62 n.
42,
even
postulates
that
baptistery
decoration
may
have
directly
influenced decoration and structural
layout
in the Via Latina cat-
acomb.
276
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
well
attested,
not least
by
the
paintings
in the Dura
baptistery,
in which a
large part
of
the wall is dedicated to the scene that
depicts,
in
Kraeling's
view,
five women outside the
tomb and then the same five women inside the tomb next to the
empty sarcophagus.61
Baptisteries
themselves,
and their
piscinas
as
well,
are often
octagonal, consciously
refer-
ring
to Roman tomb
architecture,
such as Diocletian's tomb at his
palace
at
Split
and
Theodoric's mausoleum in Ravenna.
Baptism
is,
as the
liturgical writings
often
express,
a
symbolic
death and rebirth in Christ.
Further,
burials often took
place
in
baptisteries,
though
this
practice
was later banned
by
the church. A number of burials are associated
with the Stobi
baptistery.62
Baptism clearly played
a
major
role in the rites of the
early
church. As we have
seen,
at Dura
only
the
baptistery
of the house-church was
decorated,
and there is no evidence
that
any
other room used for
religious purposes
was ever decorated.63 Can we learn
anything
further about the
purposes
of
baptistery
decorations
by examining
the evidence
for the rites themselves? While
very
few artworks show the rite in an architectural
setting,
there is some written
testimony.
The first detailed
testimony
about the ritual of
baptism
is that of
Hippolytus
in the third century.64
Hippolytus
describes a
long
and involved
procedure, beginning
with
bathing
on
Holy Thursday, fasting
on
Friday,
a
ceremony
of
exorcism
by
the
bishop
on
Saturday,
and then a
night
of instruction and
listening
to
readings,
before
proceeding
to the
baptismal
water
early
on Easter
Sunday. Hippolytus
specifies
that children are to be
baptized
first,
then
men,
and
finally
women.
At
Dura,
the
processional
character of the scene of the women at the tomb has
long
been
noted,
so much so that an alternative
interpretation
is the
procession
of the wise
and foolish
virgins,
discounted
by Kraeling
but
repeated by
T. M. Mathews as
recently
as
1993.65 What is
significant
about the
style
chosen for the Dura scene
may actually
be that
it is meant to
parallel
the
procession
of women into the
baptistery
for the rite itself.
(The
women visited the
tomb,
after
all,
on the
original
Easter
Sunday.)
This
interpretation
would seem to leave out the
men,
who should have been
baptized
first,
if
Hippolytus'
order was
being
followed. But the men
may
be
here,
symbolically,
and closer to the
font,
for the scene
directly
above the font shows the Good
Shepherd
and his
flock,
which
consists
exclusively
of rams. The flock of rams
may symbolize
the
group
of men
present
for
baptism,
ahead of the
women,
who are
symbolically present
in the form of the women
at the tomb on the side wall. St.
Augustine,
in The
City of
God,
refers to a
baptistery
with
separate
sides for men and women. More direct evidence of such an
arrangement
in art
can be found in the Pola
casket,
which shows men on one side and women on the other
side of a curtained
baptistery.66
In both the Arian and the Orthodox
baptisteries
at
Ravenna,
a
procession
of
disciples
proceeds
around the central
image
in the
dome,
a
baptism
of Christ. Here the saints
themselves
may
be
representing
the
neophytes present
for
baptism.
At
Naples,
the lower
zone contains
figures
identified as
saints,
holding
crowns,
who
appear
to be
walking,
and
61Kraeling,
The Christian
Building,
191-95.
62Jensen,
"Living
Water,"
371-73. For the
baptistery
burials,
see Wiseman and
Mano-Zissi, "Stobi, 1971,"
422.
63Jensen,
"Living Water,"
40.
64P.
Cramer, Baptism
and
Change
in the
Early
Middle
Ages (Cambridge, 1993),
11.
65Mathews,
The Clash
of
Gods,
153.
66Civ. Dei
22.8;
Jensen, "Living
Water," 250-52.
277
these once
again may represent
those
present
for
baptism.67
At Stobi, it is
possible
that
the rows of
standing figures
on either side of each
evangelist may
be seen as
fulfilling
this
function,
especially
since a
group
of
figures
from the southwest semidome
may
in-
clude women. The
painting
is
very badly damaged,
and
many
areas have
completely
flaked
off,
but some
figures
do
appear
to have
draped
heads.68
The
figures flanking
the
evangelist
Mat
ithew
in the northeast
semidome,
it should be
remembered,
are
specifically
referred to as the
congregation,
laos. At Stobi the
figures
around each
evangelist may
be
more
closely
associated with another
aspect
of the
baptismal
rite mentioned
by Hippoly-
tus: the
readings
conducted
by
the
officiating bishop during
the
night
before the
baptis-
mal
ceremony.69
The
evangelists holding
their
Gospel
books
embody
the
importance
of
those
readings
conducted
by
the
bishop during
the
baptismal
rite. At
Stobi, too,
there
were actual
painted excerpts frome
the
Scriptures,
as is
proved by
the
presence
of the
single
word fHMI from the east wall. This reinforces the
possibility
that actual ceremo-
nial
readings
from the
Scriptures,
which are known to have taken
place
as
part
of the
baptismal ceremony,
are
paralleled
in the decorative
program
of the Stobi
baptistery.
It
therefore seems that there
may
be a conscious
attempt
to
parallel
the ceremonial
aspect
of the
baptismal
rite in
early baptisteries,
either the
procession
to the
baptismal
font or
the
reading
of the
Scriptures.
While there is a
strong unity
of
design throughout
the Stobi
baptistery,
the same
cannot be said of the
style.
For while I have established that the smaller-scale
painting
from the east
wall,
and the
image
of Christ from the west
wall,
appear
to be
very
close in
style
to Theodosian
art,
these
paintings
are
very
different from those
decorating
the
semidomes of the
building.
In the smaller-scale scenes the
paint
is
applied
in
very
thin
layers,
so that in some
places
the
background paint
shows
through.
The faces are com-
posed
of a limited number of brush
strokes,
creating
an almost
"impressionistic" appear-
ance. In the
semidomes,
the
paint
is
applied
in thick
layers, creating
an
appearance
of
dense
opacity.
In
addition,
small brush strokes are often added to each face in the form
of
shading,
such as in the cheek area. While the
figures
in the east wall share the soft
features of Theodosian
art,
those of the northeast semidome have harder
edges,
with a
good
deal of
outlining (observe
the hand of the
figure
to the
right
of St.
Matthew)
and
stiffer,
more hieratic
poses.
Kitzinger might
choose to
explain
the differences in these two
representations by
utilizing
his
theory
of
"modes."70
According
to this
theory,
different
styles
of
depiction
of
subjects
could be
deliberately
chosen for their associative
impact
on the viewer. That
is,
the
very style
itself was intended to enhance the theme
being depicted. Kitzinger
cites as
an
example
the use of an
"epic
mode" for some of the scenes in mosaic from S. Maria
Maggiore,
executed in the 430s.71
Another
explanation
that
might
be
postulated
is that the artists were
using
different
models for their
works,
perhaps
in the form of
painted
miniatures. The model for "the
evangelist,"
then,
could be one definite
type,
and that for
depictions
of Christ
quite
an-
67
Maier,
Le Baptistere de
Naples.
68C.
Hemans,
"Late
Antique
Wall
Painting,"
81.
69Cramer,
Baptism
and
Change,
11.
70E.
Kitzinger, Byzantine
Art in the
Making (Cambridge, 1977), 71-75, 87,
96.
71Ibid., 72.
278
CAROLINE
J.
DOWNING
other. At
Stobi, however,
as we have
seen,
it is not
only
the
appearance
that is
different,
but even the method of
application
of
paint.
This leads
inevitably
to the conclusion
that
the different
styles
indicate two different artists
working
side
by
side in the Stobi
baptis-
tery.
If indeed the
paintings
are of Theodosian
date,
it is
tempting
to think of one
artist
as
having
been trained in
Constantinople
and
perhaps
even as
accompanying
Theodosius
to Stobi in 388.
We are fortunate to
possess
another
example
that is
very
close in date to these
circum-
stances of creation: in the
hypogeum
of S. Maria in
Stelle,
near
Verona,
two
very
distinct
styles
of
painting
are found on the walls. It is worth
quoting
at some
length Dorigo's
summation of his
study
of the two artists'
production:
This first artist of S. Maria in Stelle
may safely
be considered to have worked at the
end of the fourth
century
and in the
very early
fifth. He shows a
provincial style,
unas-
suming
and
linear,
but with much reference to the art of the Theodosian
age
and its
successor;
a
style
in some
respects (e.g.
the utilization of line to function as a substitute
for
corporeality)
akin to the manner of the lunette of Christ
among
the
Apostles
at
S.
Aquilino.
The
large
lunette of the
Apostolic College
at S. Maria in Stelle is
undoubtedly by
another
hand,
quite probably
of a later date and
certainly
more individual and creative.72
S. Maria in Stelle
presents
a remarkable
parallel
to the Stobi
baptistery,
and
although
Dorigo
feels that the two artists did not work at the same time
there,
he does not rule
out that
possibility.
At
Stobi,
the
painter
of the east
wall,
as we have
seen,
painted
in a
style
that owes much to Theodosian
art,
while the
painter
of the northeast semidome
painted
in a more
linear,
proto-Byzantine style.
In
general,
the
picture provided by
the evidence of wall
paintings
from the
baptistery
and from other
buildings
at Stobi is in accordance with that
provided by
mosaics and
by
architectural
sculpture:
the work was executed
mainly by
local
workshops
with occasional
metropolitan
craftsmen. R. Kolarik believes that the
exceptionally finely
constructed and
costly
materials of some of the mosaics from the
Episcopal
Basilica indicate
metropolitan
craftsmanship.73
The
majority
of the Stobi
mosaics,
on the other
hand,
she
believes,
were
the
products
of local artists.
Similarly,
F Hemans'
petrographic analysis
of the stones
used in the manufacture of architectural
sculpture
shows
that,
while most of the stones
were
quarried
and worked
locally,
some were
definitely imported (the
island of Thasos
has been identified as one
source).74
The
paintings
from the Stobi
baptistery
would seem
to confirm the
picture
formed
by
the evidence from other
workshops,
in stone and mo-
saic-that of
mostly
local
workshops
with occasional
importation
of
luxury
materials,
and
perhaps
artists,
from
metropolitan
centers.
At a later
date,
probably during
the sixth
century,
the
baptistery paintings
described
here were
summarily
whitewashed and
replaced
with
crudely painted, mostly nonfigural
designs.
In the northeast
semidome,
where once St. Matthew had
presided,
a
large,
red-
orange
Latin cross now
hung (Fig. 5).
Adorning
the cross were
large
round white
"jewels"
and a
gray
vine or ribbon curled around it.
Flanking
the cross on the
right
stood two
candelabra or
flaming
torches in
trumpet-shaped
stands. While it was once believed that
72Dorigo,
Late Roman
Painting,
261,
pls.
211-14.
73Kolarik,
"The Floor Mosaics of
Stobi," 526-38.
74F. Hemans,
"Late
Antique Residences," 258-59.
279
no
figural compositions
could be
assigned
to this
painting phase,
one small
head,
very
carelessly
executed in
mostly gray paint, probably
does
belong (Fig. 6).
This
painting
phase may
be attributable to the
increasing power
of the iconoclastic
movement,
which
already
in the fifth
century
had considerable influence.
The observation that the second
phase painting
was
considerably
cruder
may
be said
to have been based on
subjective judgment.
More
objective
evidence is
available,
how-
ever,
in the form of
paint pigment analysis.
Blue
pigment
from the first
phase paintings
was made from
azurite,
a rare and rather
expensive pigment,
while that from the later
repainting proved
to be made from crushed
glass.75 Certainly
it could be
expected
that
artists associated with
imperial workshops
would have much
greater
access to rare
pig-
ments. In
any
case,
whatever the intent of ho the artists who
repaintedthe baptistery,
their
actions
had,
ironically,
the effect of better
preserving
the earlier
paintings
until their
discovery
in the twentieth
century.
The
paintings
from the
baptistery
of the
Episcopal
Basilica at Stobi make available
an
outstanding
new series of
images
to aid in the
study
of Christian
iconography during
late
antiquity.
While the
paintings
fit
very
well into the
previously
known
body
of decora-
tive
subjects
from
baptisteries, they
have also added new
elements,
such as the
unique
setting
of the scene from the east wall.
Furthermore,
the
style
of the
paintings
makes a
significant
new contribution to the
study
of Theodosian
art,
this time in
painted
form.
State
University
of New
York,
Potsdam
75The blue
pigment
that
appears
to consist of crushed
glass
could have been a manufactured blue
pig-
ment,
commonly
known as
"Egyptian
blue,"
that was
widely
distributed
throughout
the ancient Mediterra-
nean area.
Pigment analysis
was undertaken
using
a
scanning
electron
microscope
at the laboratories of
Eastern
Analytic,
Inc.,
Burlington,
Massachusetts,
operated by
Drew
Kilius,
and at the laboratories of
Clarkson
University,
Potsdam,
New York.
280
The "Trapeza" in Cenobitic Monasteries: Architectural and Spiritual Contexts
Author(s): Svetlana Popovi
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:13
The
Trapeza
in Cenobitic Monasteries:
Architectural and
Spiritual
Contexts
SVETLANA POPOVIC
The
spiritual
life of monasticism found material
expression
in a
spatial
structure
known as the
monastery.
The
concept
of this establishment thus has
many layers
of
meanings
in which the architectural and
spatial layouts
are
prominent.
There is a
very
close
relationship
between the monastic
way
of life and its architectural
setting. Building
forms and their
spatial arrangement
often have
symbolic meaning,
sometimes not imme-
diately recognizable.
The
shaping
of the
monastery
of the eastern Christian world
evolved
through
the
centuries,
from its
beginnings
in the fourth
century through
the
medieval
epoch.
The cenobitic
community-the
koinobion-where a
group
of monks fol-
lowed a communal form of life was established as
early
as the fourth
century.1
Three
prominent physical
features characterized a koinobion: the main
church,
the enclosure
wall,
and the
refectory,
referred to as the
trapeza
in the Greek sources.2 If one considers
all of the elements involved in
establishing
a koinobion
monastery,
one realizes that its
spatial layout
must have been determined at the time the main church was founded. The
entire area was dedicated to a
particular
saint,
and in this context the act of
founding
the
church,
where
prayers
were conducted
day
and
night, points
to an established ritual
performed
within a defined and secured area.
Planning
the
complex
at an
early stage
did not mean that the
monastery's
walled enclosure was
complete
from the
beginning;
construction could continue
alongside
the
building
of the church.
This article is an
expanded
and revised version of a
paper
read at the
Byzantine
Studies
Conference,
Ann
Arbor, Mich.,
October 1994. I have
greatly
benefited from the comments and
suggestions
of Slobodan Curcic
and
Alice-Mary
Talbot.
From the voluminous
bibliography
on
early monasticism,
I list here
only
the most recent
publications
in
which most of the older relevant literature has been cited: Pachomian
Koinonia,
ed. A.
Veilleux,
3 vols.
(Kala-
mazoo, Mich., 1980-82);
C. A.
Frazee,
"Anatolian Asceticism in the Fourth
Century:
Eustathius of Sebastea
and Basil of Caesarea," CHR 66
(1980), 16-33;
P.
Rousseau,
Pachomius: The
Making of
a
Community
in Fourth-
Century Egypt (Los
Angeles, 1985);
A.
Papadakis, "Byzantine
Monasticism
Reconsidered,"
BSI 47-48
(1986-
87), 34-46;
J.
C.
O'Neill,
"The
Origins
of Monasticism," in The
Making of Orthodoxy: Essays
in Honour
of Henry
Chadwick,
ed. R. Williams
(Cambridge, 1989), 270-87;
J.
Binns,
"The Distinctiveness of Palestinian Monasti-
cism,
450-550 A.D.," in Monastic Studies: The
Continuity of Tradition,
ed.
J.
Loades
(Bangor,
Maine, 1990), 11-20;
G.
Gould,
The Desert Fathers on Monastic
Community (Oxford, 1993);
S.
Elm,
"Virgins of
God": The
Making of
Asceticism in Late
Antiquity (Oxford, 1994).
2S.
Popovic,
Krst u
krugu:
Arhitektura manastira u
srednjovekovnoj
Srbiji
(Belgrade, 1994),
50-62. On the mo-
nastic
trapeza,
cf.
Lampe,
1399.
THE TRAPEZA IN CENOBITIC MONASTERIES
The koinobion had several functions that determined its form.
Generally speaking,
three functional
groups
of structures can be
distinguished:
one zone reserved for reli-
gious worship,
a second zone for
dwelling purposes,
and a third for economic
activity.3
To be
sure,
the entire koinobion
monastery
was dedicated to
religious activity,
but in
the
concrete conditions of
daily
life the
space
intended
exclusively
for
worship
can be
clearly
defined. The zone for
worship,
in which I would include the
refectory,
was determined
by
the
position
of the church
building.
In most cases a monastic settlement would de-
velop
its zone for
religious worship
over a
period
of
time,
increasing
the number
of
religious buildings beyond
that in the
original concept.
These were
placed
in the free
space
of the inner
courtyard
and within the
developed
area
along
the enclosure walls.
The koinobion as an architectural
complex
was
spatially
defined
by
a
great
outer wall.4
This walled enclosure was not
merely
a
physical
border
dividing
the
space,
but in the
minds of
contemporaries
also
symbolized
the abode of a
saint,
a
"holy
enclosure."5 One
should bear in
mind, however,
that this would be the
primary spatial concept. Changes
or additions to the
primary
forms could occur over the course of time. Yet the three main
features-the enclosure
wall,
the
church,
and the
refectory-remained
constant. This
brief
description
of the
physical
enclosure of the cenobitic
community
could be
para-
digmatic
for the entire
chronological span surveyed
here,
from the fourth
century
to the
end of the medieval era. The reason for the
continuity
of the
spatial design
is that the
monastic
way
of life was
governed by
strict rules that did not
change substantially
for
centuries. This does not mean that the monastic rules did not
change
at all over
time;
they
did. Those
changes
did not
happen
at
once, however;
they developed
over a
longer
period
of
time,
bringing
to
light
new
arrangements
of monastic settlements. The
layout
of
buildings
in the
monastery
and their architectural
relationships
interacted
closely
with
the
prescribed daily
life and ritual
performed
in the
community.
This
brings
us to the
question
of the
position
and
meaning
of the cenobitic
refectory
within the monastic envi-
ronment.
It is well known that a
meal,
or better a communal
meal,
was
very important
for the
first
Christians,
whether monks or
ordinary
believers.6 Even the first
anchorites,
who
mortified the flesh for the salvation of their
souls,
gathered
twice a week to eat
together
with other brethren.7 It is also well known that the
agape-a religious
meal
performed
by
the first
Christians,
with its roots in
Judaism-was
different from the Eucharist whose
liturgical
source was the Last
Supper.8
The
agape
also had its source in the Lord's
Supper,
but not with the same connota-
tions.9 In the
early days
of
monasticism,
especially
in the
period strongly
characterized
3Popovic, Krst, 80ff; eadem,
The Architectural
Iconography of
the Late
Byzantine Monastery (Toronto, 1997),
1-6,
13-17.
4Cf.
H. G.
Evelyn-White,
The Monasteries
of
the Wddi 'N
Natrun,
III
(New York, 1933), 5;
H.
Torp,
"Murs
d'enceinte des monasteres
coptes primitifs
et
couvents-forteresses,"
MelRome 76
(1964), 173-200;
S.
Popovic,
"Monastery
Entrances around the Year
1200,"
in Studenica et l'art
byzantin
autour de l'anne'e 1200
(Belgrade,
1988),
153-69.
5The
Life of
Pachomius
(Vita
Prima
Graeca),
ed. A. N. Athanassakis
(Missoula, Mont., 1975),
81.1.
6Cf.
G.
Dix,
The
Shape of
the
Liturgy (Westminster, 1945), 82ff; W. A.
Meeks,
The First Urban Christians
(New
Haven, Conn.-London, 1983),
157ff.
7Cf.Jean
Cassien: Institutions
cenobitiques,
ed.
J.
C.
Guy (Paris, 1965), V, 234.26.
8Cf. Dix,
Shape of
the
Liturgy,
19, 48, 82ff.
9Ibid.,
89.
282
SVETLANA POPOVIC
by
anchoritism,
the hermits assembled twice a week in the communal church for the
liturgy;
a communal meal that derived from the
agape always
followed the divine services.
Special dietary prescriptions
for the anchorites as well as for cenobitic monks derived
from the
original Early
Christian custom of
using
certain foods for
religious purposes.10
Bearing
in mind all these
facts,
it seems
logical
to
expect
that the cenobitic
refectory
would have been a
building
with a
special
status within the
monastery.
THE REFECTORIES OF EGYPT AND SYRIA-PALESTINE
In terms of its
spatial disposition
in the monastic
complex,
the
refectory
was
always
in the
vicinity
of the church. This
relationship
can be traced to the
very beginnings
of
monasticism in
Egypt
and Palestine. One of the earliest
prominent
monks, Pachomius,
the founder of the
Egyptian
koinobia,
left his Rules
governing
all of the
Egyptian
cenobitic
monasteries,
which constituted an
assembly
of all Pachomian
communities."l
Among
the
regulations
was a
refectory
rule that
prescribed
conduct
during
the monks' common
meal.12 After the
synaxis
concluded in the
church,
the brothers would
go
to the
refectory.
They
would sit in order at their
appointed places
while a
special
seat was
provided
for
the father
superior.
Conversation was
prohibited during
the
meal,
and the food was
served when a
signal
sounded. In the Pachomian koinobia of
Egypt,
it was common to
locate the
refectory
next to the church. At Anba Bishoi and Deir es
Suryani
it was situated
west of the main
church,
from which it was
separated by
a corridor. At Deir el Baramus
the
refectory
was located to the
southwest,
and at St.
Antony
it was northwest of the
old church.13
The
monastery
of Anba Bishoi was founded in the fourth
century
in the time of
Macarius the Great.14 The
monastery
was rebuilt
many
times
during
its centuries of exis-
tence,
while its
refectory
bears traces of renovation from the eleventh
century.15
The
refectory
was located west of the
church;
its main entrance was
opposite
its central west-
ern door
(Fig. la).
In architectural
plan,
it was an
elongated
narrow hall
consisting
of six
bays structurally
divided
by
arches,
each of them
separately
vaulted. The central
bay
had
a
quadripartite
vault. Each of the two side
bays
was covered
by
a low
dome,
while the
northernmost was barrel vaulted
(Fig. Ib).
The broad
elongated masonry
table was
placed centrally along
the
longitudinal
axis of the
building.
The
refectory
table termi-
nated in a
three-quarter
circle at its northern end. In the southernmost
bay
once stood
a
lectern,
used for
reading
the
psalms
and
prayers during
the meal.
In the
monastery
of Deir es
Suryani,
founded in the first half of the sixth
century,
the
refectory
was also located on the west side of the church.16 The main entrances to the
dining
hall and to the church
building
faced each other. The architectural articulation of
the
refectory
seems to have been
changed
from its
original plan by shortening
the build-
ing
at its west end
(Fig. 2a).
A
masonry
table
occupied
the central
position
in the
hall,
"Cf. E.
Jeanselme,
"La
regime
alimentaire des anachoretes et des moines
byzantins,"
in 2e
Congres d'His-
toire de la Medecine
(Evreux, 1922),
1-28.
"Cf. note 1 above.
"Cf. Pachomian
Koinonia,
ed.
Veilleux, II, 150.28-34, 151.35-37.
13Cf. C.
Walters,
Monastic
Archaeology
in
Egypt (Warminster, 1974),
99-102.
"4Cf.
Evelyn-White, Monasteries,
133.
5Ibid.,
163.
"Ibid.,
170.
283
and a stone lectern was
placed
at the east end. All three
remaining bays
were domed.
The
only
remnants of fresco decoration are the
eight painted
crosses found on the lec-
tern.'7
The
building
has been dated to the ninth
century.18
Of a similar architectural
plan,
and also
dating
to the ninth
century,
is the
refectory
in the
monastery
of Deir el Bara-
mus.19 Here the
dining
hall was situated next to the southwest side of the main church
(Fig. 2b).
The architectural
plan
of the
building
and its structural features lead to the
conclusion that some alterations must have occurred over the course of time. The elon-
gated rectangular
hall consisted of three domed
bays,
of which the westernmost is di-
vided
by
an arch. A stone lectern was
placed
in the west
bay,
and a
long masonry
table
runs
along
the
longitudinal
axis of the
building.
At the St.
Symeon monastery,
or Anba
Hadra,
in
Aswan,
the
refectory
was located on
the
upper
terrace of the
monastery
where the kasr
(monastic tower)
was located.20 The
appearance
of kasrs as
strongholds
can be traced back to the end of the fourth
century,
and
definitely
to the
beginning
of the fifth
century
in
Egypt.21
The unusual
position
of
the
dining
hall,
which is connected with the main monastic tower instead of with the
church,
could be
explained
in the broader context of monastic
development.
It is well
known that St.
Symeon's monastery,
built in the
eighth century,
suffered from
major
alterations and
rebuilding
in the tenth
century
and later.22 These towers were
multipur-
pose
in their function as well as in their
meaning.
In
Egyptian
monasteries
they
had two
or three stories
containing
cells,
rooms for economic
activity,
a
treasury
with a
library,
lodgings
for individuals of
special
distinction,
and a
chapel
on the
uppermost
level,
usu-
ally
dedicated to the
archangel
Michael.23 The tower functioned as a
refuge
in case of a
siege,
and in these circumstances it also served as a small
monastery
within the broader
monastic
complex.
But the tower had
yet
another function in the
everyday
life of the
community.
There are numerous
examples
of towers in
Egypt
and
throughout
the re-
gions
of Palestine and
Syria
that were used as
places
of seclusion for
prominent
monks
and founders of communities.24 In that sense the
refectory
at the St.
Symeon monastery
that was attached to the
tower,
or
incorporated
in the kasr that functioned as an
indepen-
dent monastic unit with its
chapel,
had its usual
function,
position,
and
meaning.
The
dining
hall there had an
elongated rectangular plan consisting
often vaulted
bays, prob-
ably
once domed. The
axially placed
row of four
columns,
together
with transverse
arches
linking
columns with the
walls,
formed each of the
bays (Fig.
3a, b).
Remains of
eight
circular
masonry
constructions
resembling refectory
tables are still visible on the
refectory
floor.
It is
important
to
analyze
the
position
of these
Egyptian
monastic refectories within
the monastic
complex. They
were set in close relation to the monastic
church,
most often
attached to its western
side,
with the main entrances to the church and the
refectory
17G.
J. Chester,
"Notes on the
Coptic Dayrs
of the
Wady
Natrun and on
Dayr
Antonios in the Eastern
Desert,"
AJ
30
(1873), 109;
Evelyn-White, Monasteries, 210.
8
Evelyn-White, Monasteries, 244.
19Ibid., 244-45.
20U. Monneret de
Villard, II monastero di S. Simeone
presso Aswan,
I
(Milan, 1927).
21On the tower of the skete from 444
A.D., cf.
J.-C. Guy,
Les
Apophtegmes
des
peres (Paris, 1993),
74.
22Monneret de
Villard,
S.
Simeone, 156ff; Walters, Monastic
Archaeology,
241.
23Walters,
Monastic
Archaeology,
86-99.
24Cf.
S.
Popovic,
"Elevated
Chapels:
The
Monastery
Tower and
Its'Meaning,"
BSCAbstr 19
(1993),
7-8.
284
,II
a I
A
N
p:
i
b
k-k
o 5
'o
1 Anba Bishoi
monastery,
Wadi Natrun:
(a) plan; (b) refectory
cross-section
(after Evelyn-White,
Monasteries, pl. xxxvII)
a
0 I0
10
t I
l
I
I I , I II
-
~ ~ ~ I I
prT - wlr
i
rno
r3 T j j j 1
.
m~~~~~~
N
.
d
N
....~<~0
i0 t0
2
(a)
Deir es
Suryani monastery, plan; (b)
Deir el Baramus
monastery, plan (after Evelyn-White,
Monasteries, pls.
L and
LXXX)
a
I
I
I
o
5
0o i5
_I
'
b
k-k
o
*
2 3
3 St.
Symeon monastery: (a) plan; (b) refectory
cross-section
(after
Monneret de
Villard,
S.
Simeone,
fig. 114)
Burial cave
Gatekeeper's
cell
0 25m
_ _
N
0
15
4
Monastery
of
Martyrius, plan (top)
and
refectory (bottom) (after Hirschfeld,
Desert
Monasteries,
fig. 21)
Bath
R
4
I
a
8 I
is
0
1 W--
w
-1
a
b
~i !
'
I I I
/I
I i
Church
\
\1
v~,'///////// //~ II
||__^
^
,
i. E
Refecavatory L ?
<
}{ 0Living quarters Lkr--J
L_J L__
L l
V,, O lS
Lavatory?
VJ
_ip~~
1~e5.3 Herodian
_ Byzantine
5
(a)
Khirbet ed Deir
monastery, plan; (b) monastery
of
Castellion, plan (after Hirschfeld,
Desert
Moqnasteries, figs. 18, 28)
Desert MtonPasteries, figs. 18, 28)
I
I
II _
l
I .a i
S ? ? I? ?
1
l
so aa
0
I
B
a
J-
CI
to0
k ,EB
o
3 6 9 15
I . ..' l , ~,,, ,
-
6 Kefr Fenche
monastery, plan (after Penia, Castellana,
and
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens, fig. 27)
A
N
a
b
0 20
a .
I1IIIIC
C
7
(a)
Dar
Qita monastery, plan (after Butler, Early
Churches in
Syria, fig. 48); (b) Qal'at
et Touffah
monastery, plan (after Pefia, Castellana,
and
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens, fig. 35A); (c)
Tell
Bi'a
monastery,
sketch
plan
of the
refectory (after Weiss, 'Archaeology
in
Syria," fig. 26)
a
o 30
A
I
,
..
,
A
O so~0 20
8
(a)
Bin Bir Kilisse
monastery (nos. 32, 39,
and
43), plan; (b)
Bin Bir Kilisse
monastery (no. 44),
plan (after Ramsay
and
Bell,
The Thousand and One
Churches, figs. 164, 181)
A
N
0 tO to
10
9
Latros,
Kellibaron
complex (after Wiegand,
Der
Latmos, fig.
after
p. 24)
0 1o 60
10
Latros, Stylos complex (after Wiegand,
Der
Latmos, fig.
after
p. 60)
N
bL
o
60_o
so
11 Latros:
(a) monastery
on the island of
Herakleia; (b) monastery
on the site of Mersinet
(after Wiegand, DerLatmos, figs. 19, 72)
a
i 1
0 2m
A
N
0 5m
I .....-
b
I I
0 Sm
4 I I . I I
12
(a)
Yusuf KoM Kilisesi
monastery, plan; (b)
Goreme
valley,
four rock-cut
refectories, plans (after Rodley,
Cave
Monasteries, figs. 28, 32)
:- --
/
/
/
/
/f
///
/7 /
7,
"I.'Iz
17
/
A
N
01 2 3 4 10 20
40
-u-rJ I I
13
Haghartzin monastery, plan (after Haghartzin, fig.
at
p. 40)
II
11-1
---
o5? 0 5 #,
I
14
Haghartzin
monastery, refectory
elevation
(top),
cross-section
(middle),
and
plan (bottom)
(after Haghartzin, fig. 19)
r
i
I
i '4 mr
I I
I
-
W--
I_
,i
tr -| ,
~~
I
-,
N
i
R
n
,
I
I 10
15 Hanzt'a
monastery, plan (after Djobadze,
Early
Medieval
Georgian
Monasteries, fig.
B at
p. 28)
o 1 7
I I I ?
i
14
16
(a) Monastery
of
Udabno, refectory plan; (b) monastery
of
Bertubani, refectory plan
(after Vol'skaja, Rospisi srednevekovykh trapeznykh Gruzii, figs. 7, 29)
z
17 Mount
Athos,
Great Lavra
monastery, plan (drawing by
P. M.
Mylonas)
18 Mount
Athos,
Great Lavra
monastery, refectory plan (top)
and east elevation
(bottom)
(reconstruction
after
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza," figs. 4, 9)
;~~~~~~~?
1111
'^;^':^;;;^ i^
r?
a
5 40 b
b
s
-
19
(a)
Hosios Loukas
cross-sections
(top)
and
plan (bottom) (after Stikas,
To oiko-
domikon
chronikon, fig. 103); (b) Chios, monastery
of Nea
Moni, refectory
cross-section
(left)
and
plan (right) (after Bouras,
Nea Moni on
Chios, fig.
151)
L- -,- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - r . -- - - - . - . ? - - - -I'?1
r`
LI,,,,,,,,,,,,, - - -- - r - -- - -- - - -- - - - --)
r,,,-,-,-,-- ?IICI)----L------- --f
tt rr?I- -? I - - - - - ---?ll-r?-- -
-
-- -
- - ----
I~I
T
j
a
0 5 10M.
b
R
?
20
20
(a) Patmos, monastery
of
St.John
the
Theologian, refectory
cross-section
(left)
and
plan (right) (after
Orlandos, Monasteriake,
fig.
58); (b)
Hosios Meletios
monastery, plan (after Orlandos, Monasteriake,
fig.
8)
a
0
b
_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ -- 4
21
(a)
Mount
Papikion,
Sostis
complex, plan
of the monastic
refectory (after Zikos, "Papikion oros,"
pl. CCLXVII); (b)
Mount
Athos,
Chilandar
elevation
(top)
and
plan (bottom)
(after Nenadovic, "Jedna hipoteza," figs. 4, 9)
I
. t
a
0
2.0
I I I -t
b er -' - -- -
'f
(after Popovic, Krst, fig 85)
/
"
--,---
L^.i-
-
_i, o_____
22
(a) Mistra, monastery
of
Brontochion, plan (after Millet,
Monuments
byzantins
de
Mistra,
pi. 16.2); (b) monastery
of
Djurdjevi Stupovi, refectory
elevation
(top)
and
plan (bottom)
(after Popovid, Krst, fig.
85)
a
N
b
_ \I
0 10
23
Monastery
of Studenica:
(a) plan; (b) refectory
elevation
(top)
and
plan (bottom)
(after Popovic, Krst, figs. 19, 86)
I
a
r)
,.... - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I
b
o I o I I 0__________
1
24
(a) Monastery
of
Sopocani, refectory
elevation
(top)
and
plan (bottom) (after Popovi6, Krst, fig. 89);
(b) monastery
of St.
Stephen
in
Banjska, refectory
elevation
(top)
and
plan (bottom) (after Popovic,
Krst, fig.
90)
r-I
0 5
I11 IB 1XJ J 11 IN
11 m
I
K> K
I 11
iN1'1M i
iLL
I
k
25
Holy Archangels monastery
near
Prizren, refectory
reconstruction
(top), plan (bottom left),
and
cross-sections
(bottom right) (after Popovic, Krst, figs. 92, 93)
0 10
I L
I I I " I R ,
-
, 1 , " R " I
al-
5:
i
i.4
A
N
0 5 10 15 20
).... I i _j
0 5 tO 15 20 25
,
. [
!
'
.
26
(a) Monastery
of
Patleina, plan (after Tuleskov, Arhitektura, fig. 216); (b)
Tuzlalaka
monastery,
plan (after
Tuleskov,
Arhitektura, fig. 214)
a
b
A
N
b
0 5 10 15 20
I
,
- I i
c
I-
0a
2? ,
27
(a) Monastery
of
Kurdzali, plan (after Tuleskov, Arhitektura, fig. 218); (b) Turnovo, monastery
of St.
John
of
Rila, plan (after Tuleskov, Arhitektura, fig. 151); (c) Apollonia (Albania), monastery
of the Dormition
of the
Theotokos, refectory plan (top)
and cross-section
(bottom) (after Meksi,
"Deux
constructions," fig. v)
a
r_
b
c d
28 Refectory
tables:
(a)
Great Lavra on Mount Athos; (b)
St.
John
the
Theologian
on Patmos; (c)
Nea Moni on
Chios
(after Orlandos, Monasteriake, figs. 65-67);
(d)
Treskavac near
Prilep (after Popovic, Krst, fig.
101
c)
a
b
c
d
e f
29 Altar tables
(after Nussbaum,
"Zum Problem der runden und
sigmaformigen Altarplatten," fig. 2)
SVETLANA POPOVIC
facing
each other. From the structural
point
of view, the
dining
hall was an
elongated
rectangular
hall divided into
bays,
either vaulted or domed. The most
important
feature
of its interior was a
single long masonry
table,
or several rows of
tables,
sometimes circu-
lar in
shape,
as in St.
Symeon's community.
A stone lectern was an
obligatory piece
of
furniture within the
refectory
because it was of
extraordinary importance
for the
perfor-
mance of the
refectory
ritual. It was the
place
from which
prayers
were read
during
meals. The interior decoration of the walls
unfortunately
has not
survived,
but
judging
from the fresco remains of
painted
crosses on one of the
surviving
lecterns,
as mentioned
above,
the restricted
painted
decoration was
part
of the interior
setting.
All available data
lead to the conclusion that the
refectory
was an
extremely important building
in the
monastic
complexes
of
Egypt.
It was
definitely
a sacred and not a secular
space.
In the monastic communities of
Palestine,
especially
in the koinobia of the
Judean
desert,
the location of the
refectory
was
slightly
different,
but one of the basic
planning
objectives
was to
provide
a convenient
passage
from the church to the
refectory.25
In one
of the earliest
monasteries,
founded
by Martyrius
in the fifth
century,
the
refectory
was
located nortwest of the
church,
close to the burial
cave,
while in the
complex
at Khirbet
ed Deir it was
placed
near a
group
of sacred
buildings.
It is
important
to remember that
two
types
of monastic
community,
lavra and
koinobion,
were characteristic of the Palestin-
ian monastic world of the fourth to sixth centuries. In a
way,
the lavra
type
was similar
to the skete
organization
of
Egypt,
in which the anchorites lived in secluded cells and
gathered only
once a week for communal
prayer
and the communal meal. Koinobia in
Palestine,
as elsewhere in the Christian
world,
were
enclosed,
compact
monastic settle-
ments in which the monks lived
according
to
prescribed
rules. In both
types
of
monastery
the
refectory,
or
gathering place
for the communal
meal,
was in close
proximity
to the
church
building.
Recent
archaeological
excavation in different lavrai has not uncovered
any examples
ofa
refectory building,
but written sources mention a common meal after
the
Sunday liturgy.27
In the Life of St.
Euthymius
it is said that
Euthymius together
with
Theoctistus founded the
community
in the cave. He
prohibited
conversation in the
church as well as in the
refectory.28
From the same vita we learn that
Euthymius'
successor
Fidus built a koinobion surrounded with
walls,
"and the old church he made into a refec-
tory,
and built the new church above it."
29
In the fourth
century
on
Sinai,
there were
holy
men
living
in their cells around the
site of the
Burning
Bush.
They
were the
predecessors
of the cenobitic
community
of the
St. Catherine
monastery
established in the sixth
century.
The
holy
men sometimes
gath-
ered in the
garden
near the
Burning
Bush for a meal.30 From the relevant
data,
it seems
evident that in the
Holy
Land,
as in
Egypt,
in the
early days
of monasticism a communal
meal,
whether held in lavrai or in
koinobia,
was
part
of the monastic routine. The reason
for the absence of material remains of lavra refectories could be that communal meals in
25Cf. Y. Hirschfeld, TheJudean
Desert Monasteries in The
Byzantine
Period
(New Haven, Conn.-London, 1992),
esp.
190-96;
J. Patrich, Sabas,
Leader
of
Palestinian Monasticism
(Washington,
D.C., 1995), 142,
193.
26Cf. Hirschfeld,
Desert
Monasteries,
190.
27
Vita sancti Gerasimi
anonyma,
ed. K. M.
Koikylides (Jerusalem, 1902), 2,
3.
28Cyril of Scythopolis:
The Lives
of
the Monks
of Palestine,
trans. R. M.
Price,
notes
by J.
Binns
(Kalamazoo,
Mich., 1991), 13,
col. 18.
29Ibid.,
61.
30Cf.
J. Wilkinson,
Egeria's
Travels to the
Holy
Land
(Jerusalem-Warminster, 1981),
96.4.8.
285
lavrai were served in the
courtyard
in front of the church, in an
open space,
or under
some
light
shelter. If the
building
was
especially
constructed of wood for that
purpose,
it
would not have left
any
material traces. A
parallel
can be found in the
assembly
of the
holy
men near the
Burning
Bush for communal meals.
One of the best
preserved sixth-century
monastic refectories in the
Judean
desert
was that in the
monastery
of
Martyrius.31
The
building
was located in the western
part
of the
monastery
next to the burial cave and linked to the main church
by
a corridor.
The architectural
plan
of the
refectory
was of a basilical
type:
a vast
rectangular
hall with
two rows of stone columns
supporting
the
upper gallery
and timber roof construction
(Fig. 4).
The
dining
room had a mosaic floor and
plastered
walls decorated with Greek
inscriptions painted
in red.32 A
dedicatory inscription
in Greek was
placed
on the floor
at the main entrance to the
building.
Of the
refectory
furniture
only
stone benches coated
with reddish
plaster
have been
preserved.
The
arrangement
of tables and the
position
of the lectern remain unknown.
Another monastic
refectory
of a different architectural
plan
is found in the
complex
at Khirbet ed Deir
(Fig. 5a).33
The
dining
hall was situated west of the cave
church,
close
to the cave contain the founder's
tomb,
recalling
the
oundposition
of the
refectory
at the
monastery
of
Martyrius.
The
refectory
was a
two-story building
with an
elongated,
nar-
row
rectangular planr
. The kitchen was located on the first
floor,
while the
dining
room
for the
community
was on the second.
Structurally
it was a stone
building
with rows of
pilasters along
its
longitudinal
walls
dividing
the
space
into
eight bays, probably
with a
series of transverse stone arches.
Only
scattered remains of the
original
mosaic floor have
been retrieved in the debris on the
ground-floor
level.34
In the
monastery
of Castellion in the
Judean
desert,35
the
refectory
was located west
of the church
(Fig. 5b);
it was a
large
hall attached
directly
to the west wall of the church.
In another
sixth-century
monastic
complex
at Beit
She'an,
the
refectory
was located near
the main
church,
directly opposite
the church
building.36
In the
Holy
Land,
as in
Egypt,
the monastic
refectory
and the communal meal had
close links with the church and the
liturgy performed
there,
or with t r rhe burial
chapel
that served as another
important
sacred
space
within the
monastery.
All of the mentioned
examples
stress the functional links between the church and the
dining
hall. In a classi-
fication of
special
areas within the monastic enclosure reserved for
buildings
with differ-
ent
functions,
the church and the
refectory always represented
the sacred zone of the
complex.
In
Syria,
monasticism in both its anchoretic and cenobitic forms was
highly
devel-
oped
as
early
as the
beginning
of the fourth century.37 One of the earliest koinobia in the
region
of Antioch was founded in the district around Gindarus around the
year
330.38
Like a
typical
cenobitic
Syrian monastery,
it included a tower for the seclusion of the
31
Cf.
Hirschfeld,
Desert
Monasteries,
91ff.
32Ibid., 192.
33Ibid.,
194-95.
34
Ibid.,
4 1.
35Ibid., 52.
36G. M.
Fitzgerald,
A
Sixth-Century Monastery
at Beth Shan
(Scythopolis),
IV
(Philadelphia, 1939),
1-2.
37Theodoret
of Cyrrhus:
A
History of
the Monks
of Syria,
trans. R. M. Price
(Kalamazoo, Mich., 1985).
38Ibid.,
11.9 and
p.
35,
n. 8.
286
SVETLANA POPOVIC
monk-founder,
or father
superior, alongside
the church or an
oratory,
a communal burial
place, dwellings
for the
monks,
and a
hostel,
which was sometimes added to the
complex.
An
indispensable part
of the
monastery
was a
multipurpose
communal
building
that
served as a
place
for the monks'
daily
manual work and as a refectory.39 This
building
was also used as an
assembly
hall for the brethren whom the father
superior brought
together weekly
for
spiritual training.
This
weekly gathering, according
to the Rules of
Rabbula,40
also included a communal meal. In
Syria
there were two
types
of communal
monastic
building:
vast
rectangular
stone
buildings
without
any open
annexes,
and rect-
angular
halls with a
porch,
at times surrounded
by porches
on all sides.41 The
building
could have one or two stories. Porches were formed of rows oof
rectangular piers
without
any
decoration. Pillars were
simple,
without
any
bases or
capitals.
The exact use of these
porticoes
remains unknown.42 There has been some
speculation
about their
function,
mostly
in connection with monastic
pilgrimage
sites,
but recent
archaeological
work has
not succeeded in
determining
their use.43 The
position
of the monastic
refectory,
or mo-
nastic communal
building,
in relation to the main church or
oratory
varied
considerably
among Syrian
koinobia.
They
could be located either north or west of the church. It is
significant
also that these
buildings
are often connected with the burial caves of the mon-
asteries or even with burial
chapels.
In a
monastery
near the old
city
of Kefr
Fenche,
dating
from the fifth and sixth
centuries,
the monastic hall was situated on the north side
of the church. The stone
building
was
rectangular
in
plan,
had two
stories,
and was
surrounded
by porticoes (Fig. 6).44
The most
interesting part
of the
building
was its east
wing,
where the
funerary chapel
was
placed;
the remains of one
sarcophagus
were found
along
with two additional tombs situated in the same room. The western
part
of the
building
contained a vast monastic hall. A similar relation between the
multipurpose
monastic hall
(refectory)
and burial
place
can be seen in the
complex
at Dar
Qita,
with
its church
dating
from the
beginning
of the fifth
century (Fig. 7a).45
In the
monastery
at
Qal'at
et
Touffah,
the
multipurpose
monastic hall was situated next to the church build-
ing
on its north
side,
forming
a
separate
court divided
by
a wall from the rest of the
monastery complex (Fig. 7b).46
Although
refectories in
Syrian
koinobia were
part
of
larger multipurpose buildings,
they
were located in
proximity
to the church or to a burial site. This leads one to conclude
that the monastic
refectory
in
Syria,
as in
Egypt
or
Palestine,
was
positioned
near and
related to the sacred
space
of the monastic
complex.
Recent
archaeological
excavations
in Tell Bi'a
(Syria)
have
brought
to
light
a
sixth-century Byzantine
monastic
complex.47
The rooms located north of the church included a
refectory,
a
rectangular
room
paved
with stone slabs and
containing omega-shaped masonry
benches
(Fig. 7c).
The
shape
of
39Cf. I.
Pefia, P.
Castellana,
and R.
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens (Milan, 1983),
30ff.
40Cf.
D. G.
Turbessi,
Regole
monastiche antiche
(Rome, 1978),
109
and,
for the Rules of
Rabbula,
esp.
308-12.
41
Pefia, Castellana,
and
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens,
39ff.
42Cf. G.
Tchalenko,
Villages antiques
de la
Syrie
du Nord, 3 vols.
(Paris, 1953-58), I,
19.
43Cf. Pefa, Castellana,
and
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens,
41.
44Ibid., 181ff.
45H. C.
Butler,
Early
Churches in
Syria (Princeton,
N.J., 1929),
50ff.
46Cf.
Pefia, Castellana,
and
Fernandez,
Les cenobites
syriens,
220.
47Cf.
H.
Weiss,
"Archaeology
in
Syria," AJA
98.1
(1994),
143-44.
287
the benches
suggests
that round table slabs were used in the
refectory.
This
type
of
inte-
rior
arrangement
was also
employed
at St.
Symeon's monastery
in
Egypt.
THE REFECTORIES OF ASIA MINOR
In the broader context of the
Byzantine
monastic
world,
Asia Minor
played
a
signifi-
cant role. In the fourth
century,
Basil the
Great,
later the
bishop
of
Caesarea,
had
the
most
important impact
on the
development
of the cenobitic communities in the
Byzan-
tine
Empire, especially
in Asia Minor.48 His well-known "The
Longer
and the Shorter
Rules" became the foundations of the
development
of
Byzantine
cenobitic life.49 Unfortu-
nately,
St. Basil's Rules do not
explicitly
mention the monastic
refectory,
and we must
look to a
hagiographic
text for
literary
evidence on
early
Anatolian refectories. The sixth-
century
Life of St. Theodore of
Sykeon,
who lived in Galatia and founded a
monastery
there,
describes the commemorative meal held
annually
in his
monastery
on the Satur-
day
when "the Ascension of Our Father-Lord
Jesus-Christ
was celebrated."50 Unfortu-
nately,
the vita
provides
no information about the
position
and architecture of the refec-
tory building,
but it does state that the meal took
place
after the conclusion of the
liturgy.
In another
region
of Asia
Minor,
southeast of
Iconium,
the mountainous district called
Kara
Dagh
rises from the level
Lycaonian plain
and contains various ecclesiastical re-
mains. On the site of Maden
Sheher,
known in the
scholarly
literature as Bin Bir Kilisse
(Thousand
and One
Churches),
a
great
number of monasteries once existed.51
According
to the
archaeological
evidence,
the earliest monastic structures in this
region may
be
dated
roughly
to about the middle of the fifth and the
early
sixth centuries.52 In a se-
cluded
valley
(on
the
Deghile site),
several monasteries were
gradually
built. Founded
probably
at the
beginning
of the fifth
century,
soginngme
of them increased in size
during
the
sixth and later centuries.53 The
refectory buildings
were identified in
only
two sixth-
century
koinobia there.54 In both
monasteries,
buildings
were
grouped
around vast rect-
angular
courts and included
large
halls
serving
as refectories. One of the refectories was
an
elongated rectangular
hall with
centrally arranged piers (Fig. 8a).
Two
square piers
alternated with one cruciform
pier.
The cruciform
piers
carried transverse arches across
the barrel vault.55 This
refectory
has not survived in its
entirety,
as the eastern and most
of the southern walls are
missing.
The
building
was located on the southwest side of the
monastery, opposite
the main
church,
but not
very
close to it. The reason for this distant
location of the
refectory
is that the monastic
complex, including
the
church,
had several
different
building phases.56
It is certain that the church and the rest of the
buildings
cannot be
regarded
as the
product
of a
single comprehensive plan. Only archaeological
excavation could
bring
to
light
the
original arrangement
of the
buildings
in the
complex,
48W. K. L.
Clarke,
Basil the Great: The Ascetic Works
of
Saint Basil
(London, 1925);
M. M.
Wagner,
Saint Basil:
Ascetical Works
(New York, 1950); Frazee,
"Anatolian Asceticism," 16-33.
49PG 31:905ff.
50A.
J.
Festugiere,
Vie de Theodore de
Syke'on, SubsHag
48
(Brussels, 1970),
88-89.
51Cf. W. M.
Ramsay
and G. L.
Bell,
The Thousand and One Churches
(London, 1909).
52Ibid., 21-22.
53Ibid., 12-13.
54Ibid.,
468ff.
55Ibid., 200ff.
56
Ibid., 199ff.
288
SVETLANA POPOVIC
and
probably
the location of an older
church,
with a different
relationship
to the refec-
tory.
In the other monastic settlement in the same
region,
the
refectory
had its
customary
location,
near the
church,
on its west side.57 The
building
was of an
plan,
with a barrel vault and two
ribbing
arches
springing
from
engaged piers (Fig. 8b).
In the
monastery
of Alahan
(late
5th
century)
in southern
Anatolia, the church and the
refectory
that served the monastic
community
were
placed
in the eastern
part
of the
monastery.58
This location confirms the tradition of
placing
the
refectory
in the
vicinity
of the church
building
in
yet
another
region
of the Christian East.
A monastic center northeast of
Miletos,
situated on islands in the lake of Herakleia
and on Mount
Latros,
was an
important colony
of monks from the tenth to the thirteenth
century.
Architectural remains of the monastic
complexes
there
suggest
that both lavra
and koinobion
types
of settlements existed.59 The monastic architecture of Latros still
awaits
study. Among
the
problems
still to be resolved are the identification of
refectories,
their
locations,
architectural
plans,
and
dating.
The unusual feature of a
T-shaped
build-
ing
with
protruding apse
was found in the
complexes
of
Kellibaron,
Stylos,
Mersinet and
on the island of Herakleia
(Figs.
9, 10, 1 la, b).
This
type
of
building
has been
variously
interpreted
in the
scholarly
literature as a
refectory
and as a
chapel.60
Without archaeo-
logical
excavation and
proper
architectural
analysis,
it is difficult to come to a firm con-
clusion. On the basis of the
existing plans
it seems more
likely
that the
building
was a
refectory
rather than a
chapel.
The
primary
reason for this conclusion is that the
apses
of the
buildings
were not
exclusively
oriented toward the
east,
as
they
would be if
they
were
chapels.
Their locations within the
complexes
varied. In the monastic settlement
on the island of
Herakleia,
the
building
was located on the west side of the
complex,
opposite
the main church
(Fig.
1
la),
that
is,
in the usual
refectory position.
In the com-
plex
at
Stylos,
the same
type
of
building
was
placed
on the south side of the main
church,
in its
vicinity (Fig. 10).
This could also be considered a
typical refectory
location. In the
lavra of Kellibaron and in the
complex
at
Mersinet,
buildings probably
to be identified
as refectories were
incorporated
into the enclosure walls. At
Mersinet,
the main church
building
is not
yet archaeologically
defined
(Fig.
1
lb),
while in the lavra of Kellibaron
several successive churches and
chapels
existed within the
complex (Fig. 9).
Bearing
in
mind that we are
dealing
with a lavra
complex,
it would not be
surprising
to
expect
the
refectory building
to have been located within the wider context of the monastic settle-
ment. On the other
hand,
a
T-plan
for a
refectory building
is
quite
unusual in the Chris-
tian East. If we recall
yet
another unusual form-the
tenth-century
cruciform
refectory
plan
from Mount Athos-we could
envisage
the
possibility
of similar architectural and
functional
developments
in both
environments, Mount Latros and Mount Athos.61 Un-
57Ibid., 221-29.
58M.
Gough,
"Alahan
Monastery-Fourth Preliminary Report,"
AnatSt 17
(1967),
37-47. C.
Mango postu-
lated
recently
that Alahan was not a
monastery
at
first,
but a
pilgrimage
center:
"Germia,
a
Postscript," JOB
41
(1991),
297-300.
59Cf. T
Wiegand,
Der Latmos
(Berlin, 1913);
R.
Janin,
La
de l'Empire
byzantin,
II: Les
eiglises
et les monasteres des
grands
centres
byzantins (Paris, 1975), 217-50;
A.
Kirby
and Z.
Mercangoz,
"The Mon-
asteries of Mt. Latros and Their Architectural
Development,"
in Work and Worship at the Theotokos
Evergetis,
1050-1200,
ed. M. Mullett and A.
Kirby (Belfast, 1997),
51-77.
60R.
Janin thought
that
T-shaped buildings
could be refectories: Les
eglises, 221, 232, 238, 239. T.
Wiegand
interpreted
the same
buildings
as
chapels:
Der
Latmos, 17-24, 51-55, 61-69, 178-80.
61
On
the cruciform
refectory
of the Great Lavra on Mount
Athos,
see further in this
study.
289
fortunately, systematic archaeological
research into the monastic
complexes
of Asia Minor
has not been
undertaken,
thus
creating
a
significant
lacuna in our
knowledge.62
Research in another
part
of Asia
Minor-Cappadocia-has provided
relevant
data
about cenobitic communities in the tenth and later centuries.63 The
greatest
concentra-
tion of monasteries is in the mountainous
part
of
Cappadocia,
where cave monasteries
constituted a
significant group. Especially important
are the monastic
complexes
in
the
Goreme
valley.
In recent
scholarship,
an entire
group
of
Cappadocian
monasteries have been
given
the name of "the
Refectory
Monasteries,"
as the
refectory
was the most
prominent
fea-
ture,
after the
church,
in the
complex.64
One of them is the
eleventh-century
Yusuf Koe
Kilisesi
monastery (Fig. 12a).65
In the linear
arrangement
of the
compartments
of the
cave
complex,
the
refectory
had a second
position
in a row of
rooms,
immediately
after
the church itself. The
dining
hall was
rectangular;
its front wall is now
completely
miss-
ing.
The rock-cut furniture is the
only remaining
interior element. The
position
of the
refectory clearly
testifies to its
significance
for the
community
in both a
spiritual
and
functional sense.
The
group
of small cave monastic
complexes
in the Goreme
valley
also had rock-
cut refectories
(Fig. 12b).
The main characteristic of these rooms is the lack of exterior
architectural articulation. The interior consisted of a rock-cut
space
with rock-cut furniture on one side of the room. The
long
table in each
refectory
was flanked
by
benches. In some of the
dining
halls,
frescoes have
survived,
as in
tarikli
Kilise monastery.66
The functional
disposition
of the
refectory
and its relation to the church in
Cappado-
cian monasteries were similar to those in other
regions
of the Christian East. The refec-
tory
therefore,
as
elsewhere,
was the most
prominent space
in the
complex
after the
church itself.
THE REFECTORIES OF ARMENIA AND GEORGIA
The first cenobitic monasteries in Armenia were founded in the
early
fourth
century.
Monasticism
developed
there under the
strong
influence of Eustathius of Sebaste and of
St. Basil the Great.67 At the time of the
great
ecclesiastical leader
Nerses,
in the fourth
century,
monasticism flourished in Armenia. This was
especially
true in the
region
of
62The newest
scholarly
literature is more relevant for churches than for monastic
architecture;
cf.
S.
Hill,
"The
Early
Christian Churches of Cilicia"
(Ph.D. diss.,
University
of
Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 1984);
T. A.
Sinclair,
Eastern
Turkey:
An Architectural and
Archaeological Survey,
3 vols.
(London, 1987-89);
H. Hellen-
kemper, "Early
Church Architecture in Southern Asia
Minor,"
in Churches Built in Ancient Times, ed. K. Painter
(London, 1994),
213-38.
63
L.
Rodley,
Cave Monasteries
of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge, 1985).
64Ibid.,
151ff. It seems that a more
appropriate
name for this
group
of monasteries would be koinobion
monasteries,
as the main characteristic of the cenobitic
community
is the
refectory.
65Rodley,
Cave
Monasteries,
151-57.
66Cf. N.
Thierry,
"Une
iconographie
in6dite de la Cene dans un refectoire
rupestre
de
Cappadoce,"
REB
33
(1975),
177-85.
67Cf. N. G.
Garsoian,
"Nerses le
Grand,
Basile de Cesaree et Eustathe de Sebaste," Revue des etudes arme'-
niennes 17
(1983),
145-69.
290
SVETLANA POPOVIC
Taron,
where St. Kint was one of the founders of monasticism.68 In addition to the
com-
munal
way
of life
practiced
in
monasteries,
there were also
anchorites-holy
men
living
in
solitary
communities in caves or in inaccessible rock-hewn caverns.69 The earliest
ar-
chaeological
remains of Armenian monasteries date to the fifth
century.
Numerous
sites
where cenobitic life was
practiced
in the fifth and later centuries were in the course
of
time
rebuilt,
enlarged,
or even
replaced
with new architectural constructions
changing
the
original layout.70
The refectories in these monasteries shared the same fate.
Thus
many
of them date from the eleventh to the thirteenth
century.71
One of the most
impor-
tant structural characteristics of Armenian
refectory
architecture was the
system
of
vault-
ing
with stone
cross-arches,
with
openings
at their
apices,
as in the
Haghartzin refectory
built in
1248.72 The
refectory,
located west of the
complex
of sacred
buildings (Figs.
13,
14),
was a
spacious rectangular
hall divided into two
bays by
two
freestanding quadrangu-
lar
piers placed
in the center of the room. Each
bay
had a
four-pitched
roof with
apex
openings
in its center. The use of stone as
building
material,
as well as the distinctive
construction
technique
and the internal stone
decoration,
constitute a
specific, regional
architectural
development.
Similar construction can be seen elsewhere in
Armenia,
as in
the
monastery
of
Halbat
(l0th-13th
century).73
Georgia, neighboring
Armenia to the
north,
constitutes another distinctive
region
of
the Christian East. Several refectories have survived there in
monastery complexes rang-
ing
in date from the
eighth
to the tenth
century.74 In the
monastery
of
Opiza,
founded
in
750,
the
refectory
was located on the southwest side of the church. The
building
was
covered with a barrel vault
supported by
transverse arches.
According
to an
inscription
found on the south wall of the eastern
bay,
the
tenth-century
founder of the
refectory
was
ASot
IV
Kuropalates.75
A
refectory
has also been
preserved
in the south
part
of the
complex
of the
eighth-century monastery
in Hanzt'a.76 It was a vast
rectangular
hall
divided into ten
bays by
a central row of four cruciform
piers (Fig. 15).
In the mountainous
regions
of
Georgia,
in the cave monasteries of Udabno and Ber-
tubani,
two
thirteenth-century
refectories have survived.77 Their
plans
and architectural
settings
resemble the refectories of
Cappadocian
cave monasteries. In Udabno
(Fig. 16a)
two
longitudinal masonry
tables have been
preserved,
while Bertubani had an
axially
placed
table
(Fig. 16b).
The interiors of both
dining
halls were decorated with frescoes
of which remains
may
still be seen on the walls. A
variety
of niches in the walls constitute
part
of the interior
setting.
One such niche at Bertubani was
centrally placed facing
the
table and was a kind of
apse.
68Cf.
G.
Amadouni,
"Le role
historique
des hieromoines
Armeniens,"
OCA 153
(1958),
279-305.
69Cf.
The
Epic
Histories Attributed to
P'awstos Buzand
(Buzandazan Patmut'iwnk'),
ed. N. G. Garsoian
(Cam-
bridge,
Mass., 1989), 239,
xvi.
70Cf. P. Cuneo, Architettura armena dal
quatro
al diciannovesimo
secolo,
I
(Rome, 1988),
744-49.
71
S.
Mnacakanjan,
"I
complessi
monastici dell'Armenia medioevale," in Atti del I
Simposio
Internazionale di
Arte Armena
(Bergamo, 1975), 527-36;
0.
Khalpakhch'ian,
"Arkhitektura armianskikh
trapeznykh,"
Arkhitek-
turnoe nasledstvo 3
(1953),
130-47.
72A. Zarian,
Haghartzin,
Documents of Armenian Architecture 13
(Milan, 1984),
9 and 38.
73Cf. Cuneo, Architettura
armena,
746
(147).
74Cf.
W. Djobadze, Early
Medieval
Georgian
Monasteries in Historic
Tao, Klavjet'i,
and Savset'i
(Stuttgart, 1992).
75Ibid.,
17ff.
76Ibid., 29ff.
77Cf. A.
Vol'skaja, Rospisi srednevekovykh trapeznykh
Gruzii
(Tbilisi, 1974).
291
Armenian and
Georgian
monastic refectories
developed
as
part
of wider Christian
community practices
under
Byzantine
influence.
Apart
from the
regional
character of
their architectural
solutions,
their location relative to the church
building
and their inte-
rior decoration
remained,
as elsewhere in the Christian
East,
within the sacral context of
their communities.
THE REFECTORIES OF CONSTANTINOPLE AND GREECE
The
early developments
of monastic refectories in the
great
urban centers of the
Byzantine Empire, especially
in
Constantinople, unfortunately
remain unknown. Future
archaeological
excavations of numerous urban monastic communities will be of crucial
importance
in that
regard.
The close
relationship
between the church
building
and the
refectory
continued in
later
centuries,
as can be seen on Mount
Athos,
where St. Athanasius founded the Great
Lavra in the tenth
century.
Here a cruciform
refectory
faces the triconch church in the
most direct
manner,
both
buildings being arranged
on the same east-west axis
(Fig. 17).78
According
to the written
sources,
Athanasius built the Lavra
refectory
with
twenty
white
marble tables at each of which twelve monks could be seated.79 The central
position
of
the church within the koinobion was not Athanasius'
invention,
but the
placement
of the
trapeza directly facing
the main church
portal
was
probably
his contribution. The Great
Lavra
represents
a
developed
model of
Byzantine
koinobion that became a
paradigm
for
most Athonite monasteries and monasteries elsewhere within the
Byzantine sphere
of
influence,
where refectories were
typically
located in the western
part
of the
enclosure,
near the church. The most
striking parallel
to Athos is found in the
fourteenth-century
Serbian
monastery
of the
Holy Archangels
near
Prizren,
a foundation of Tzar Stefan
Dusan. The cruciform
refectory
there,
with its location on the west side
opposite
the
main
church,
was
definitely
based on the Great Lavra model.80
The
longer
west arm of the cruciform Lavra
refectory
terminated in an
apse,
resem-
bling
that of the katholikon
(Fig. 18).
The structural form of the
building
followed the
plan,
as the vast hall was covered with a cruciform wooden trussed roof. The main en-
trance,
perhaps tripartite
and
monumental,
faced the main entrance to the church.81
The
spatial disposition
of the
refectory
and its architectural
design emphasize
the
strong
interrelation between these two
buildings
within the monastic
complex.
In the eleventh
century
in the
monastery
of Hosios
Loukas,
a monumental
refectory
was built on the south side of the katholikon
(Fig. 19a).82
The
trapeza
was a vast
single-
aisled hall with an
apse
at its east end.
Two-light
windows were
placed along
its
longitudi-
nal walls. The main
tripartite
entrance was in the western short wall. No traces of table
masonry
were
found,
but it has been
proposed
that a
single axially placed longitudinal
dining
table once existed.83 The
masonry
was a combination of brick and
stone,
while
the semicircular arches
forming
the windows were of brick alone. With
regard
to its
78Cf. P. M.
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza
de la Grande Lavra au Mont Athos' CahArch 35
(1987),
143-57.
79Vitae duae
antiquae
Sancti Athanasii Athonitae, ed.
J.
Noret
(Louvain, 1982),
Vita
B,
chap.
25, 20-25.
80Cf.
Popovic, Krst, 262-64.
8
Cf.
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza,"
152.
82E. G.
Stikas,
To oikodomikon chronikon tes Mones Hosiou Louka Phokidos
(Athens, 1970),
209ff.
83Ibid., 210,
fig.
103.
292
SVETLANA POPOVIC
building technique
and architectural
decoration,
the
refectory
of Hosios Loukas had
many
similarities with its katholikon. The
proximity
of the
refectory
to the main church
stressed the
spatial
and functional relation between these two
buildings.
Another
eleventh-century Byzantine
monastic
refectory
with a
plan
similar to Hosios
Loukas was at Nea Moni on
Chios,
where the
dining
hall was located on the southwest
side of the katholikon.84 The
trapeza
has not survived in its
original
architectural
form,
as
it was rebuilt several times over the course of centuries.85 The
plan
of the
refectory,
the
masonry
table,
and the eastern
apse
are the
original
elements still
preserved
within its
structural fabric. The
dining
hall was an
elongated, single-aisled rectangular building,
covered
by
a barrel vault and
terminating
in a semicircular
apse
on the east side
(Fig.
19b).
The interior articulation is dominated
by
a
large
constructed table
placed along
its
longitudinal
axis and flanked
by longitudinal
benches on both sides. The surface of the
table was
entirely
covered
by
marble slabs of
simple geometric shapes. Similarity
in the
locations of the refectories at Hosios Loukas and Nea Moni
points
to an established
model within a wider monastic
community,
with a fixed
relationship
between the church
and the
trapeza.
The
Byzantine
monastic
compound
on the island of Patmos dedicated to St.
John
the
Theologian
was established in the eleventh
century.
The founder of the
monastery,
Christodoulos,
built a
complex
that his successors
enlarged significantly
in the course of
its
history.86 The
twelfth-century refectory, placed
close to the church
complex
on the
southeastern
side,
was an
elongated, single-aisled rectangular
hall with an
irregular apse
at its north end. This hall was intersected in the middle of its east side
by
another
bay
that also terminated in a semicircular
apse,
but was divided from the main hall
by
a solid
stone wall with a door
leading
into the
apsidal space (Fig. 20a).
The
masonry
tables were
placed along
the
longitudinal
axis of the room. The main entrance was on the west side
of the
dining
hall,
providing easy
communication with the entrance to the katholikon. In
the structural articulation of the
building,
two
phases
are
present.
In the first
building
period
the
refectory apparently
had a wooden
roof,
replaced
in the later medieval
period
by
a domed construction over the middle
portion
of the
building.
The dome rested on
the vaults
along
the north-south axis and on the east and west arches. The
upper vaulting
construction was
supported by
lateral blind arches that bear the remains of the first
layer
of the
original
wall
painting.
The second
layer
of frescoes survives in the dome and on
the vaults. The
style
of the frescoes
suggests
that
they
date to the late twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries for their two successive
phases.87
The interior
setting
and the
disposition
of the
apse
reveal the
emphasis placed
on the
tripartite
northern
apsidal arrangement.
The
centrally placed
table in front of the
great
northern
apse
must have been reserved
for the
hegoumenos
of the
monastery
or for other ecclesiastical
dignitaries.
Eleventh-century Byzantine
refectories in the monasteries of
Daphni,
Hosios Mele-
tios
(Fig. 20b),
and elsewhere in the
empire
use an architectural solution similar to that
84Cf. C.
Bouras,
Nea Moni on Chios:
History
and Architecture
(Athens, 1982),
168ff.
85
Ibid.,
170.
86A.
K.
Orlandos,
He architektonike kai hai
byzantinai toichographiai
tes Mones tou
Theologou
Patmou
(Athens,
1970);
E.
Kollias,
Patmos: Mosaic Wall
Paintings (Athens, 1986), 24-35;
Patmos: Treasures
of
the
Monastery,
ed.
A. D. Kominis
(Athens, 1988).
87Cf. Orlandos,
He
architektonike, 93-103, 175-272; Kollias, Patmos,
24ff.
293
at Nea Moni.88 In th eleventh and twelfth
centuries,
Mount
Papikion
in the
Rhodope
region
of Thrace became e a
significant
monastic center Recent
archaeological
excava-
tions there have
brought
to
light
a monastic
complex
situated close to the
village
of
Sostis.90 The
refectory
excavated there was located on the west side of the
complex, oppo-
site the katholikon and its main western
portal.
The
building
had an
plan,
with a semicircular
protruding apse
on its north side
(Fig. 2la).
With
regard
to
the
refectory
location and
plan,
the
monastery
on Mount
Papikion
utilized the
same
architectural model as elsewhere in the
empire.
It seems that from the late ninth to the
eleventh and twelfth ancenturies
refectory building throughout
the
empire
became codi-
fied: a
long
hall,
most often without an aisle and
terminating
in an
apse.
In the twelfth
century
on Mount
Athos,
the
refectory
in the
monastery
of Chilandar used the same
model.91 Its location to the west of the
katholikon,
with the entrance
facing
the main west-
ern
portal
of the
esonarthex,
resembles the
spatial
relations encountered at the Great
Lavra. The Chilandar
trapeza
was an
elongated,
aisleless hall with an
apse
that is semicir-
cular on the inside and
polygonal
on the exterior at its north end
(Fig.
2
b).
The articula-
tion of its main east facade can be reconstructed from the scattered remains of the
origi-
nal
two-light
windows in the lower zone and the
alternating
blind arches and
single-light
openings
in the
upper
zone. In the
interior,
marble tables of the same semicircular
type
(sigmata)
as in the Great Lavra existed until the
eighteenth century,
when
they
were
replaced
with wooden ones.92 Remnants of
thirteenth-century
wall decoration are
pre-
served in the
upper
zone of the north
tympanum, today
hidden from view above the
modern
ceiling.93
In the late thirteenth and
early
fourteenth centuries in
Mistra,
refectories continued
to be built on the same
plan,
as can be seen in the
monastery
of Brontochion.94 Located
south of the main
church,
as at Hosios Loukas or Nea
Moni,
the
refectory
here was a
single-aisled elongated
hall with an
apse
at its east end
(Fig. 22a).
Lateral north and
south walls also have semicircular niches
paralleling
the arches. The main north facade
facing
the church was articulated
by pilasters
on the exterior.
THE REFECTORIES OF SERBIA AND BULGARIA
The architectural
refectory types
established in
Byzantine
monasteries
spread
north
into the Balkans from the tenth
century
on. The
kingdoms
of Serbia and
Bulgaria,
Chris-
tian states that
developed
under
strong Byzantine
influence,
established their monastic
8For a
survey
of the monastic refectories in
Greece,
cf. A. K.
Orlandos, Monasteriake
architektonike, 2nd ed.
(Athens, 1958),
43-60.
9P. Soustal,
Thrakien
(Thrake,
Rodope
und
Haimimontos), TIB 6
(Vienna, 1991),
386-87.
0Cf. N.
Zikos,
"Apotelesmata anaskaphikon
ereunon sto
Papikion
oros,"
ByzF
14.1
(1989), 677-93;
ByzF
14.2
(1989), pls.
CCLVI-CCLXXX.
91Cf. S.
Nenadovic,
'Tedna hipoteza
o arhitekturi hilandarske
trpezarije,"
Zbornik
zas'tite
spomenika kulture
14
(1963),
1-11.
92V. G.
Barskii,
Vtoroe
poseshchenie
Sv.
Afonskoi gory (St.
Petersburg, 1887),
41.
3Cf.
V.
Djuric,
"La
peinture
de Chilandar a
l'epoque
du roi Milutin," Hilandarski zbornik 4
(1978), 31-64,
esp.
41-62.
94G.
Millet, Monuments
byzantins
de Mistra
(Paris, 1910), esp. pl.
16.2.
294
SVETLANA POPOVIC
communities within the
Byzantine
monastic context. The monastic
colony
of the
Holy
Mountain of Athos made an
especially important impact throughout
the Balkans.
The
refectory
inhe
monastery
of
Djurdjevi Stupovi
in Serbia dtes from the rat t late
twelfth
century.95
Located south of the
church,
it was
planned
as a
long rectangular
hall
with an
apse
at its short east wall
(Fig. 22b).
Recent
archaeological
excavations have re-
vealed the
original
stone frames of the
two-light
windows,
together
with stone window
colonnettes and
Romanesque capitals.
The exterior wall decoration of the
refectory
re-
sembles the similar decorative solution found on the church
building.
Not far from
Djurdjevi Stupovi
survives the
compound
of the Studenica
monastery
with a monumental
refectory
from the twelfth
century (Fig. 23a).
At this foundation of
the
Nemanjic dynasty,
the
archbishop
Sava drew his ideas from several older monastic
complexes.
For
example,
the
great dining
hall was situated west of the main katholikon as
in the Athonite communities.96 The
single-aisled, long
hall was
equipped
with two rows
of
sigmata
of the Mount Athos
type
and of
Byzantine style (Fig. 23b).
In the
thirteenth-century
monastic foundation at
Sopocani,
another
great dining
hall
is worth
noting.97
Located northwest of the main
church,
the
refectory
entrance faced the
main western church entrance
(Fig. 24a).
In
King
Milutin's
foundation,
the
monastery
of
St.
Stephen
in
Banjska,
the
refectory
was also located on the west side of the
complex,
facing
the katholikon.98 Built in
alternating
stone and brick
courses,
characteristic of
Byzantine-Constantinopolitan
construction,
the
refectory
had two rows of stone tables
with side benches
(Fig. 24b).
In the niches on the
longitudinal
west
wall,
remains of fresco
painting
were found.
The most
interesting refectory
in medieval Serbia is that discovered at the
Holy
Arch-
angels monastery
near
Prizren,
a
fourteenth-century
foundation of Tzar Stefan Dusan.99
The cruciform
refectory
here,
as
already
mentioned,
is
definitely
of the Great Lavra
type
(Fig. 25).
On the
territory
of the First
Bulgarian Empire,
a
great
number of monasteries were
founded in the late ninth and tenth
centuries,
most of them concentrated in or around
the urban centers of Pliska and Preslav. One of the most
prominent
monastic centers was
at Patleina-the
monastery
of St. Panteleimon.100 Founded and built between the late
ninth and
early
tenth
centuries,
Patleina had a
refectory
situated on the south side of the
complex (Fig. 26a).
It was an
elongated rectangular building
divided into three
compart-
ments without an
apse.
At Great
Preslav,
on the site of
Tuzlalaka,
another monastic com-
munity
was founded in the late ninth to
early
tenth
century.101
Over the course of
time,
in the later medieval
epoch,
the
monastery,
and
especially
the
church,
were rebuilt. On
95Cf.
Popovic, Krst, 242ff.
96Ibid., 243.
97Ibid., 250ff.
98Ibid., 255ff.
99Ibid., 262ff.
'00J.
S.
Gospodinov, "Razkopki
v
Patlejna,"
Izvestiia na
bulgarskiia arkheologicheski
institut, BAN 4
(1914),
113-28;
S.
Vaklinov,
Formirane na
starobulgarskata
kultura VI-XI vek
(Sofia, 1977), 204ff;
N.
Caneva-Decevska,
Curkvi i manastiri ot Veliki Preslav
(Sofia, 1980),
140ff.
101
Vaklinov, Formirane, 206ff; Caneva-Decevska, Curkvi, 136ff;
T.
Totev,
Manastirut v "Tuzlalaka"-Centur na
risuvana keramika v Preslav
prez
IX-X
v.,
Razkopki
i
proucvanija
8
(Sofia, 1982),
5-78.
295
the southeast side of the
complex
a
great
cruciform
building
was constructed
(Fig.
26b).
It is not
yet
clear from the
archaeological
data whether this
building
served as the
refec-
tory
or
perhaps
as the residence of the
hegoumenos.'02
If it is a
refectory,
it would
reflect
the
impact
of Mount Athos in the northern
Balkans,
illustrating
the tradition of the Great
Lavra model.
In the
twelfth-century monastery
in the
region
of
Kurdzali,
a
refectory
was excavated
on the east side of the
church.'03
It was a
single-aisled long
hall with an
apse
on its south
side
(Fig. 27a).
The
refectory
in the
monastery
of St.
John
of Rila within the urban center
of Turnovo utilized a similar architectural
plan.104
Located on the southeast side of the
church,
the
refectory
had an
apse
that was semicircular on the
interior,
while its exterior
articulation was
polygonal (Fig. 27b).
The
early-fourteenth-century dining
hall in the
monastery
at
Apollonia (in Albania)
had an unusual triconch
plan.105
The
refectory
was located in the west
part
of the com-
plex (Fig. 27c).
The main entrance to the
dining
room faced the main entrance to the
church. The interior of the
building
was decorated with frescoes. The three facades were
articulated with small
apses
of stone and brick. The
upper
zones of the walls were exe-
cuted in the cloisonne
technique
with two vertical bricks
separating
blocks of stone. The
different
building techniques
visible on its walls
suggest
that the
refectory
was remodeled
several times
during
the medieval era.
All the relevant data lead to the conclusion that the most
popular Byzantine
model
for refectories was articulated on Mount
Athos,
penetrated
into the northern Balkans
during
the time of
Byzantine
rule,
and remained there in the
subsequent period
of the
establishment of national states.
CONCLUSION
Analysis
of the architecture of monastic refectories of the Christian
East,
and
espe-
cially
of the
Byzantine
world,
points
first of all to a continuous
adaptation
of an architec-
tural model without much
change
in terms of its
general spatial
and architectural
disposi-
tion. This is evident
primarily
in the location of the
trapeza
relative to the
church,
as well
as in its
plan,
which is
usually rectangular,
often with an
apse
at one of its shorter ends.
The main
exceptions
to this formula are the cruciform refectories of the Great Lavra on
Mount Athos and of the
Holy Archangels
in Serbia. A variation of this
design may
also
be seen in the triconch
refectory
of the medieval
monastery
near ancient
Apollonia
in Al-
bania.
If we
compare
the locations of the refectories of the
Byzantine
world,
we can
identify
'02Cf. Vaklinov, Formirane, 204-5;
N.
Tuleskov, Arhitektura
na
Bulgarskite manastiri (Sofia, 1988),
160ff.
03 N. Oviarov
and D.
Hadzieva,
Srednovekovnijat
manastir v
Gr. Kurdzali-Centur
na
episkopijata
Ahridos
(XI-
XIV
v.),
Razkopki
i
proucvanija
24
(Sofia, 1992).
104Tuleskov, Arhitektura,
163ff.
'05Cf.
A.
Meksi,
"Deux constructions du
type
a trois
conques" (French resume),
Monumentet 7-8
(1974),
229-46;
H. and H.
Buschhausen,
Die Marienkirche von
Apollonia
in Albanien:
Byzantiner,
Normannen und Serben
im
Kampf um
die Via
Egnatia (Vienna, 1976); J. J. Yiannias,
"The
Palaeologan Refectory Program
at
Apol-
lonia,"
in The
Twilight of Byzantium,
ed. S.
Curcic
and D. Mouriki
(Princeton,
N.J., 1991), 161-74;
G.
Reshat,
"L'architecture
des monasteres
byzantins
et
postbyzantins
en
Albanie," CorsiRav 40
(1993), 505-18,
esp.
539
and
fig.
6.
296
SVETLANA POPOVIC
several
general
characteristics. Some were built as
part
of a
complex
of
buildings
and
incorporated
into a
group
next to the main monastic
church,
most
commonly
in
Egypt.
Another
spatial
solution was the
placement
of the
refectory
as a
freestanding building
related to the church but not
physically joined
to
it,
as in certain
examples
in
Palestine,
Syria,
the
Balkans,
and Armenia. Yet other refectories were
independent buildings
incor-
porated
into the
monastery
enclosure
wall;
there are some
examples
in
Palestine,
but
this
type
is most
frequently
encountered in
Byzantine
monasteries in the Balkans and in
later
monasteries of the Slavic states in the same
region.
A
freestanding refectory
in the
central
zone of the monastic
complex, opposite
the katholikon on its west
side,
was a Mount Athos
tradition,
probably
invented in the tenth
century
at the Great Lavra. The Lavra model
made a
strong impact
on the rest of Mount Athos. This is
particularly
evident in the
location of the
trapeza
on the west side of the
church,
and less so in its architectural
plan.
Over the course of time in some Athonite
complexes,
refectories were
adapted
or even
remodeled,
using
the Lavra
dining
hall as a
specific
model
(e.g., Vatopedi, Dionysiou,
Docheiariou).106
Analysis
of the
spatial disposition
and the locations of monastic refectories does not
indicate a
single
universal model
applicable
to all
pertinent
koinobia of the Christian East.
But at the same time it is
possible
to discern certain constant
characteristics,
especially
from the
point
of view of the
physical relationship
of the
trapeza
to the church. Whether
freestanding
or
not,
the
refectory
was
always
related to the church or the relevant sacred
space
of the
monastery.
In some
cases,
dining
halls were
juxtaposed
with the main mo-
nastic
church,
in others with a burial cave or a
funerary chapel
(as
in some
examples
in
Syria).
Further architectural and structural
analysis
of refectories could be
pursued
in two
directions: architectural
layout
and structural
disposition.
In a
general
sense,
a
plan
with
a number of common characteristics was
adopted
on a wider scale in the Christian East.
Three main architectural solutions can be
recognized:
a
single-aisled elongated
hall,
a basilican
plan,
and a vast
rectangular
room divided into
bays by
means of
pilasters
or
axially placed
rows of
piers
or columns. These
commonly adopted
models
spread
through
all the
regions
of the
Byzantine Empire
and
through
the Christian East in
general.
The cruciform and
T-shaped refectory plans
were
quite
unusual and became
typical
only
on Mount
Athos,
probably
on Mount Latros in Asia
Minor,
and in the Balkans.
Another
planning
feature of refectories that was not
evenly spread through
the entire
area in
question
was the
apsidal
termination. In
Egypt,
Palestine,
and
parts
of
Syria,
protruding
semicircular
apses
are not
found,107
but interior semicircular niches were
occasionally
found,
whereas
they
could be an element of the
plan
in Armenia. In con-
trast,
in the central
regions
of Asia Minor and in the
Balkans,
especially during
the
middle
Byzantine period,
the
apse
became one of the common elements of a
refectory
plan.
The lack of
archaeological
data for the
early periods
in
Constantinople
and its
vicinity,
as well as for the monastic centers of
Bithynia
or
Pontus,
makes it
impossible
to
106A great
number of the Athonite refectories were remodeled in the late
Byzantine
or even
post-
Byzantine period.
For the
comparative analysis
of their
plans,
see
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza,"
146-47.
'07In
the St.
Symeon monastery
and elsewhere in
Egypt.
In Armenia in the 12th-14th
centuries,
the
refectories lacked
apses.
297
reach a firm conclusion in this
regard
for these
regions. Keeping
in mind later
develop-
ments in the Christian East,
one can
speculate
that
apsidal
construction was not charac-
teristic in
Egypt
and Palestine. On the other
hand,
in the monastic
complexes
of the
empire
in the
Balkans,
an
apse
was a
prominent
feature of the
plan.
As monastic
develop-
ment in
Constantinople
was influenced
by
the
great
monastic centers in Asia
Minor,
one
can
suggest
that
apsidal
refectories
may
have been common in
early
monasteries in Con-
stantinople
and its
vicinity.
Contemporary palace
architecture no doubt had an
impact
on
refectory
architecture.
The Dekaenneakoubita-the
banqueting
hall with the nineteen couches within the Great
Palace of the
Byzantine emperors,
restored in the tenth
century
in the time of Con-
stantine VII
Porphyrogennetos-was
a
long
hall terminated
by
an
apse
and with nine
vaulted niches on either side.108 Ceremonial features
present
in the
banqueting
halls of
imperial
residences'09 had wider Christian architectural
implications.
The conclusion
may
be
proposed
that a monastic
refectory building (trapeza)
of the
middle and late
Byzantine periods
was an
apsidal elongated
hall,
adopted
as a
general
model in the
capital
and its
neighboring regions,
as well as in the Balkans.
Regional
elements are more discernible in monastic refectories with
regard
to struc-
tural
composition
and architectural
design.
As in the case of
churches,
the most common
building
materials for refectories were stone or stone and
brick,
depending
on the re-
gional
resources. Structural
articulation,
especially
of the
upper
zones and the
roof,
was
determined
by regional building practices.
Barrel vaults
strengthened by
transverse
arches were
widespread, especially
in
Egypt,
but also in other
regions
of the Christian
East.
Vaulting
of
bays
with low
hemispherical
domes without drums was also common in
Egypt.
Similar construction
methods,
but marked
by regional
execution,
occurred in
Armenia. Refectories there often had
special vaulting
over individual
bays, featuring
apex openings
in the central
part
of each
bay.
Barrel vaults with transverse arches were
also
popular
in the southern
regions
of the Balkans. Wooden roofs were in use simultane-
ously
with
vaulting.
The basilical
refectory
in the
monastery
of St.
Martyrius
in Palestine
had a wooden
roof,
as did the cruciform
refectory
of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos.ll0
Monastic refectories in the Balkans had
mostly
wooden roofs."'
The external
sculptural
decoration of refectories in
general
also had
regional signifi-
cance and
regional
characteristics.
Egyptian
monastic refectories lacked
any
external
sculptural
decoration. Refectories in
Syria
and Armenia were made of cut stone ashlars
using
the same
building techniques
as the churches. Exterior
sculptural
decoration was
stressed in the articulation of the main
refectory portals
in Armenia.112 In
Byzantine
monastic centers of the tenth and later
centuries,
refectories were often built of stone or
of stone and brick in a
polychrome technique
similar to that used in churches. If one
compares
the architecture of refectories and
churches,
one is struck
by
certain similarities
108Cf. C.
Mango,
The Art
of
the
Byzantine Empire,
312-1453,
Sources and Documents
(Toronto, 1986), 208,
210.
109N.
Oikonomides,
Les listes de
preseance byzantines
des IXe et Xe siecles
(Paris, 1972).
"OFor the wooden roof of the
refectory
at St.
Martyrius,
see
Hirschfeld,
Desert
Monasteries,
193. For the
wooden roof construction in the Great Lavra
refectory,
see
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza,"
150ff.
"llCf.
Popovic,
Krst, 242ff.
112As in the monastic
refectory
in
Haghartzin
and elsewhere.
298
SVETLANA POPOVIC
between their formal features.
Though
the two
buildings
relied on different architectural
solutions,
this did not affect the individual elements. Similarities also exist in the selection
of
secondary sculptural
and decorative
elements,
though
these were
generally
much
more elaborate in
churches,
as can be seen in the
monastery
of Hosios Loukas and else-
where.
Another characteristic of architectural
design
was the
system
of measurements ac-
cording
to which the
buildings
were erected. The
measuring
and
design
of
religious
buildings
have often been a
subject
of
study, particularly
the
proportional aspects
of
design.
These include the familiar methods of
quadrature
and
triangulation. Monastery
refectories also conformed to certain
design
modules that were
employed
in order to
determine their overall dimensions.113
The interior articulation of a
trapeza
was marked
by
the
arrangement
of tables and
the fresco decoration on its walls. Two
principal
solutions to the
seating arrangement
have been noted. In the first
case,
two rows of tables
parallel
the main
axis,
while three
separate
tables were in front of the
apse.114
The other solution
employed
a
single
continu-
ous
elongated dining
table
placed
in the center
along
the main axis. 15
Very
often tables
were built with stone slabs
providing
the
dining
surface. One of the shorter sides of the
table slab often ended in a semicircle when there were two rows of tables
(Fig. 28a),
or
both ends were
shaped identically
if a
single
table was
employed (Fig.
28b, c).
The table
design
in which one end is curved has been termed the
sigma
table
type (Fig. 28d).116
The
of
surviving refectory
fresco decoration
emphasized
the Last
Supper,
but also featured the
figures
of monastic saints and scenes from the
christological
cycle,
and the
Menologion,
as has been shown in several studies
by
J.
Yiannias.
l7
It is
interesting
to note that "when the
nunnery
of the Theotokos of Maroules in Constantino-
ple
was converted to use
by
monks,
the frescoes of female saints that adorned the refec-
tory
were
replaced
with
images
of male saints."
118
In
considering
the
meaning
and function of the
trapeza
in the monastic
environment,
one must deal with several different factors: the
position
of the
building
in the overall
iconographic concept
of the koinobion
enclosure,
its architectural
type,
its interior ar-
rangement
and fresco
decoration, and,
above
all,
the ritual
performed
in connection with
meals. It is known from the written sources-the monastic rules or
typika-that
commu-
3For the
design
modules of the
refectories,
see
Popov, Krst,
366-67.
"4This
arrangement
of tables is characteristic for Mount Athos and the Balkans in
general.
"5The
use of a
single long
table was
widespread
in the refectories of
Egypt, Cappadocia,
and
Georgia,
but also in the
region
of
Chios,
on Patmos.
ll6Cf.
J. Strzygowski,
"Der
Sigmaformige
Tiisch und der alteste
Typus
des Refektoriums," in Wdrter und
Sachen,
I
(Heidelberg, 1909), 70-80;
L. Hibbard
Loomis,
"The Table of the Last
Supper
in
Religious
and
Secular
Iconography,"
Art Studies 5
(1927), 71-88;
0.
Nussbaum,
"Zum Problem der runden und
Sigmafbr-
migen Altarplatten,"JbAC
4
(1961), 18-43;
K.
Gamber,
Domus Ecclesiae
(Regensburg, 1968),
37 and 78ff. On
the
refectory
tables, cf.
Orlandos, Monasteriake, 52,
figs.
65-67.
"7J.
J.
Yiannias,
"The Wall
Paintings
in the
Trapeza
of the Great Lavra on Mount Athos: A
Study
in
Eastern Orthodox
Refectory
Art"
(Ph.D.
diss.,
University
of
Pittsburgh, 1971); idem,
"The Elevation of the
Panaghia,"
DOP 26
(1972), 225-36; idem,
"The
Palaeologan Refectory Program,"
161-74; idem,
"The Refec-
tory Paintings
of Mount Athos: An
Interpretation,"
in The
Byzantine
Tradition
after
the Fall
of Constantinople
(Charlottesville, Va.-London, 1991),
269-309.
"8Cf.
A.-M.
Talbot,
"A
Comparison
of the Monastic
Experience
of
Byzantine
Men and
Women,"
GOTR
30-31
(1985),
8.
299
nal meals were ceremonial rituals
organized
in accordance with strict
regulations.l19
The
refectory
semandron sounded to
signal
the
beginning
of the
ritual,
followed
by
the sol-
emn entrance
procession
and the
seating
of church
dignitaries-the hegoumenos
and the
high-ranking clergy
who
occupied
seats of honor. The ritual also included
special prayers
and
readings
from
Scripture
or other
edifying
texts
during
the meals.120
Very
little writ-
ten data about
refectory
rules are
preserved
from the
early days
of
monasticism.'21
How-
ever,
it is certain that communal refectories existed not
only
in oinoba but in lavrai as
well,
for
weekly gatherings
of the brethren.
In several
scholarly
works the
origin
of the architectural form of the
trapeza
has been
traced back to late
antiquity
and the
early Byzantine type
of triclinium.122 Formal similari-
ties do exist in the
plan
of the
building,
and the table
types
were also
similar,
judging
from some
archaeological
finds.123 Differences can be
found, however,
in the articulation
of triclinia of the
respective periods.
The
dining space
of late
antique
triclinia was often
visualy
connected,
even
physically
nece, even
phopen,
to the
neighboring nymphea, garden settings
or
atria,
which formed an
integral part
of the environment in which a meal took
place.124
Just
the
opposite
was true of the koinobion
trapeza:
it was a closed
space,
focused exclu-
sively
on its interior
setting,
with
hardly any
communication with the external environ-
ment. A limited number of windows on
refectory
walls admitted a scant amount of
light.
In
addition,
the
participants
in the meal were forbidden to
engage
in
any
conversation.
They
had to focus on their
prescribed
meal and listen to the voice of a chosen brother
reading
from
Scripture
or another
appropriate
text.
Bearing
in mind all these
facts,
one must look to another ritual
performed
in the
early days
of
Christianity-the
funeral
banquet-as
a source of the form of the
refectory
building
and its ritual. This
banquet
was the
agape performed
in connection with the
feasts of the
martyrs;
the mensa-coemeterium of the
early
Christians,
arranged
in the form
of vast basilical
halls,
was the site where these commemorative meals were celebrated.25
Sigma-shaped
mensae have been
archaeologically
confirmed in numerous
Early
Christian
cemetery
sites
spread throughout
the vast Christian East and West.126
They
constituted
the
physical part
of a
funerary
ritual that was
performed
near the
graves
of both
average
"9Cf. Le
typikon
de la Theotokos
Evergetis,
ed. P. Gautier
(Paris, 1982) [=
REB 40
(1982)], 1-101,
esp.
33.9ff;
Le
typikon
du Christ Sauveur
Pantocrator,
ed. P. Gautier
(Paris, 1974) [=
REB 32
(1974)], 47.291ff,
and in
many
other monastic
typika. Concerning refectory
rules in the 18th
century,
cf.
Barskii,
Vtoroe
poseshchenie,
73-76
and
fig.
18.
12Cf. Pachomian
Koinonia,
ed.
Veilleux, II,
151.37.
"'Ibid., 150.29-34,
151.35-37.
1221.
Lavin,
"The House of the Lord:
Aspects
of the Role of Palace Triclinia in the Architecture of Late
Antiquity
and
Early
Middle
Ages,"
ArtB 44
(1962), 1-27;
L.
Bek,
"Questiones
Convivales: The Idea of the
Triclinium and the
Staging
of Convivial
Ceremony
from Rome to
Byzantium,"
Analecta Romana Instituti Danici
12
(1983), 81-107;
Mylonas,
"La
trapeza,"
143-45.
"23Cf. J.-P. Sodini, "L'habitat urbain en
Griece
a la veille des invasions," in Villes
etpeuplement
dans
l'Illyricum
protobyzantin,
Collection de
l'Ecole
franSaise
(Rome, 1984), esp.
375-83.
"4Cf. Bek, "Triclinium,"
86ff.
125Cf. R.
Krautheimer,
"Mensa-coemeterium-martyrium,"
in Studies in
Early Christian,
Medieval and Renais-
sance Art
(New York, 1969),
35-58.
"2Cf.
P.
Sanmartin Moro and P
Palol,
"Necropolis paleocristiana
de
Cartagena,"
in Actas del VIII Congreso
Internacional de
Arqueologia
Cristiana
(Barcelona, 1972), 447-58;
X. Barral i
Altet,
"Mensae et
repas
funeraire
dans les
n6cropoles d'epoque
chretienne de la
peninsule Iberique: Vestiges archiologiques,"
in Atti del IX
Congreso
Internazionale di
Archaeologia Cristiana,
II
(Rome, 1978), 49-69;
K. E
Kadra,
"Rapport
sur les decouv-
ertes en
Algerie,"
in Actes du XIe
Congres
International
d'Arche'ologie Chretienne,
II
(Rome, 1989),
1961-67.
300
SVETLANA POPOVIC
mortals and
martyrs.
Stone
slabs,
either circular or
sigma-shaped,
used as
dining
surfaces
for that
type
of commemorative
meal,
resembled the later tables built for refectories
(Fig.
29).
The
refectory
in the St.
Symeon monastery
in
Egypt,
for
example,
had circular table
slabs
arranged
in two rows. A similar
disposition
and
shape
of tables were
recently
found
in the
early Byzantine
monastic
complex
at Tell Bi'a in
Syria.
Later,
in the tenth
century,
the Mount Athos
trapeza
used the same table
type.
Going
back to the monastic
refectory
and its
meaning,
there are reasons for
stressing
its commemorative character. If one recalls the location of the
early refectory buildings
in the monasteries of
Egypt
and
Syria,
or in Palestinian
koinobia,
one notes that
they
were
commonly
located in close relation to burial caves and were connected to either the
church or a
chapel by
an
appropriate pathway
or corridor. In middle and late
Byzantine
monasteries the
refectory
was located near the
church,
usually
in the western
part
of the
enclosure,
and oriented toward the church narthex.
According
to
surviving
monastic
rules,
after
prayers
in the narthe
aex,
monks or nuns would
proceed
to the
refectory
as a
closing part
of the ritual. 27 It is well known that one of the narthex functions was funer-
ary, providing
the
setting
for the tombs of the donor and his
family
and sometimes church
dignitaries. According
to some
typika,
the
pannychis (nocturnal vigil)
was also
performed
there. 28
Several
Byzantine typika
indicate that all commemorations involved the
refectory,
as
they always
included an
obligatory
meal.129 In the Life of Lazarus the Galesiote
(11th
century),
we read how a monk chose the sacred
space
of a
refectory
in which to die: "And
he came out to the
refectory-for
it was there that he
slept
on the
ground
. .. in the
place
in which there are
holy images
of the Theotokos and
Archangel
Michael
stretching
out
(their arms)
in
supplication
to the
Savior,
and
quietly
surrendered his soul to God."
130
Unfortunately,
most of the
early refectory
fresco
programs
have not survived. Their
traces can be
gleaned only through
the scattered
descriptions
in
travelogues
that bear
witness to a certain
continuity
with later
programs
from the fourteenth
century
and even
from the
post-Byzantine
era.131 Some of the
iconographic programs
in refectories have
close links with those in church
narthexes,
as has been noted
by
H. Brockhaus and Yian-
nias.'32
I do not intend to
argue
that
refectory programs
did not
change
and
develop
in the course of time. The same evolution
appears
in church decoration that reflected
the elaboration of
liturgical
functions related to certain
parts
of the
church,
but this did
not
change
their ultimate
purpose.
Instead,
it
only gave
them
new,
additional
layers
of
meaning.
Bearing
in mind all available
data,
one can conclude that the koinobion
trapeza belongs
27Cf.
Typ. Evergetis,
ed.
Gautier, 33.9-337ff;
Typ. Pantocrator,
ed.
Gautier,
47.300-305.
128Cf. M. Arranz,
"Les
prieres presbyterales
de la
'pannychis'
de l'ancien
euchologe byzantin
et la
'panik-
hida' des
defunts,"
in La maladie et la mort du chretien dans la
liturgie (Rome, 1975),
31-82.
"29Cf.
Typ. Evergetis,
ed.
Gautier, 77.1080ff;
"Le
typikon
du Sebaste
Gregoire
Pakourianos," ed.
P.
Gautier,
REB 42
(1984), 97.1290ff;
"Le
typikon
de la Theotokos
Kecharit6mene,"
ed. P.
Gautier,
REB 43
(1985),
119.7 1ff.
130Synaxarium
CP col. 560E. The
quoted
text is a translation
by
P.
Topping
in A.
Cutler,
"Under the
Sign
of the Deesis: On the
Question
of
Representativeness
in Medieval Art and Literature," DOP 41
(1987),
147.
131Cf. Ruy
Gonzales de
Clavijo, Embassy
to
Tamerlane,
1403-1406, ed. G. Le
Strange (London, 1928), 64, 67,
69ff;
Stephen
of
Novgorod
(in his
journey
to
Constantinople
in 1348 or
1349)
visited the
refectory
of the
Studite
monastery:
cf. G. P.
Majeska,
Russian Travelers to
Constantinople
in the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth
Centuries
(Washington, D.C., 1984),
41.
132H. Brockhaus,
Die Kunst in den
Athos-Kldstern, 2nd ed.
(Leipzig, 1924), 84; Yiannias,
"The
Refectory
Paintings,"
279.
301
to the sacred rather than to the secular
buildings
of a
monastery.133
Its architectural form
originated
from the vast basilical halls of late
antiquity, though
not
exclusively
from tri-
clinia. Parallels can be found in church
buildings
of the
period,
which evolved from the
familiar forms of
pagan
basilicas,
but also from other architectural structures found
within
imperial palaces.'34
From the
early
communities to the late
Byzantine period,
the
refectory
locations
within the monastic
complex always
had a
special
relation to the main monastic church
or a relevant
chapel.
Sometimes,
as in
Egypt,
refectories were
physically joined
to the
church
buildings.
Their
spatial disposition
in the monasteries of the
respective periods
of the Christian East and
Byzantium
can be considered as a constant feature of the koino-
bion
spatial iconography.
The
refectory
was
always
the most
prominent building
after the
church in the monastic settlement. Its architectural
articulation,
especially
in middle and
late
Byzantine developments,
contains certain decorative features reminiscent of the mo-
nastic church with which it is associated. This confirms an interaction between the two
buildings
at the
secondary
level of architectural elements as well. The interior decoration
of
refectories,
whose walls were covered with
religious images,
makes these correlations
even closer.
However,
the
refectory
is not a church, being
distinguished
from the latter
in its
meaning
and function. It can be considered as a bifunctional
building: regular
meals were served there as well as commemorative feasts.
Analyzing
fresco
programs
in
Byzantine
monastic
refectories,
Yiannias summarized their
meaning
in the form of a
proposition:
"The Incarnation of the second Person of the
Trinity,
effected
through
the
Theotokos,
has made
possible
our
salvation,
for which we on our
part
must
practice
self-
denial."
135
This
proposition
was
closely
connected to the ascetic
spirit
of monasticism in
Byzantium
and in the Christian East in
general.
There a meal has
always
been a crucial
moment in
tracing
a
path
to ultimate salvation. Another
aspect
also-commemoration-
characterized the
refectory procedure.
Strict
hierarchy
in
seating
the monastic
dignitar-
ies at the
dining
table was observed
there,
as a
part
of the
refectory regulations. During
the
meal,
appropriate prayers
were recited
constantly.
For the
important
Christian
feasts,
special prayers
and
special
foods were
prescribed
for the
refectory.'36
In other
words,
the
trapeza
was used for the
daily
commemorative meal in remembrance of Christian saints
and
martyrs,
and above all for the commemoration of "Our Lord who made our salvation
possible,"
the reminder of which the monks bore witness to
permanently, especially
through
the annual
great
feasts. The
way
of
performing
the commemoration in that
sense was charted
long
before in the
early days
of
Christianity through
the commemora-
tive meal held at Christian
graves.
The interior
appearance
of the
refectory
with its fresco
program
and rows of
sigma-shaped
tables
originated
in the
Early
Christian ritual con-
nected with
funerary banquets.
This
brings
into focus one of the
refectory's principal
functions,
commemoration.
The monasticism of the Christian East and of the
Byzantine
world was focused on
self-denial,
mortification of the
flesh,
a strict
daily regime,
continuous
prayers,
and
pre-
'33The
refectory
was
wrongly
classified as a secular
building
in
Hirschfeld,
Desert
Monasteries,
190ff.
134S.
Curcic,
"Church and Palace: Did Form Follow Function in Late
Antique
and
Byzantine
Architec-
ture?"
(forthcoming).
135Yiannias,
"The
Refectory Paintings,"
288.
13"Typ.
Kecharitomene," 93.46-47ff.
302
SVETLANA POPOVIC 303
scribed commemorations as the means of salvation. The
monastery
church was the
place
where the
liturgy
was
performed
and the Eucharist celebrated. The koinobion
refectory,
on the other
hand,
was the
place
where commemorative meals were served.
Finally,
its
spatial position
in the koinobion close to the main
church,
or
ideally placed
on the same
axis with the
church,
clearly
testifies to the fact that the two
buildings provided
a
joint
setting
for an
integral
monastic ritual that
began
in the church and ended in the koino-
bion
trapeza.
Greenbelt,
Md.
Further Prolegomena to a Study of the Pantokrator Psalter: An Unpublished Miniature, Some
Restored Losses, and Observations on the Relationship with the Chludov Psalter and Paris
Fragment
Author(s): Jeffrey C. Anderson
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:13
Further
Prolegomena
to a
Study
of the Pantokrator
Psalter: An
Unpublished
Miniature,
Some Restored
Losses,
and Observations on the
Relationship
with
the Chludov Psalter and Paris
Fragment
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
ur
knowledge
of the earliest
psalter
illustration in
Byzantium
is
unlikely
to be ad-
vanced
by
the
discovery
of new
manuscripts
or
fragments.l
It
may,
however,
be
possible
to
wring
more evidence from the works that survive. This
study
contributes
further information on the
ninth-century psalters, specifically
on the
original pictorigi
ic al
content of the Pantokrator Psalter. As has
long
been
recognized,
the Pantokrator Psalter
does not survive intact. An amount of text
equal
to about one
gathering
is
missing
from
the
start,
and seventeen lacunae can be counted over the rest of the
manuscript.2
Most
of the
gaps
seem to result from the removal of
single
leaves,
taken in all likelihood for
the sake of miniatures
painted
on them.
Only
fourteen of the lacunae
actually represent
complete
losses for the art historian, because
J. Strzygowski recognized
four of the miss-
ing
leaves in St.
Petersburg.3
In addition to sheets
lost,
a number of leaves were mutilated
'Manuscripts
cited
by
abbreviation and the
published
sources:
B
=
Barberini Psalter:
Rome,
Biblioteca
Apostolica
Vaticana,
Barb.
gr. 372.J.
Anderson,
P.
Canart,
and C.
Walter,
The Barberini Psalter: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 372
(Zurich, 1989).
Br =
Bristol Psalter:
London,
British
Library,
Add. MS
40,731.
S.
Dufrenne,
Eillustration des
psau-
tiers
grecs
du
Moyen age:
Pantocrator 61, Paris
grec 20, British Museum 40731
(Paris, 1966), 49-66,
pls.
47-60.
Ch= Chludov Psalter:
Moscow,
Gosudarstvennyi
Istoriceskii Muzei
(State
Historical
Museum), gr.
129. M.
Sicepkina, Miniatiury
Khludovskoi
psaltyri:
Grecheskii
illiustrirovannyi
kodeks IX veka
(Mos-
cow, 1977).
P = Paris
Fragment:
Paris,
Bibliotheque
Nationale,
gr.
20. Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs (see above, Br),
39-46,
pls.
34-46;
and H.
Omont, Miniatures des
plus
anciens manuscrits
grecs
de la
Bibliotheque
Nationale du VIe au XIVe
siecle, 2nd ed.
(Paris, 1929), 40-43, pls. LXXIII-LXXVIII.
Pk
=
Pantokrator Psalter: Mount
Athos,
Pantokrator
Monastery Library,
cod.
61,
and
cuttings
in St.
Petersburg,
Gosudarstvennaja
Publicnaja
Biblioteka im. M. E.
Saltykova-Scedrina,
cod. 265.
Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs (see above, Br), 14-38,
pls.
1-33;
and S. Pelekanides et
al.,
Hoi thes-
auroi tou
Hagiou
Orous,
III
(Athens, 1979), 265-80,
figs.
180-237.
2j.
Anderson,
"The
Palimpsest
Psalter, Pantokrator Cod. 61: Its Content and
Relationship
to the Bristol
Psalter,"
DOP 48
(1994), 201-5,
for contents.
3J.
Strzygowski,
review of J.
Tikkanen,
Die Psalterillustrationen
[sic]
im
Mittelalter,
in BZ 6
(1897),
423-25.
For these
leaves,
see
Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs,
25, 28,
34.
306 FURTHER PROLEGOMENA TO THE PANTOKRATOR PSALTER
when miniatures were cut from their
margins. Many
of these losses can be restored with
a
degree
of
confidence;
by
"restoration" I mean that the lost
subject
can be
identified,
not that its
image
can be
recaptured.
The evidence comes from three
sources,
one from
within the Pantokrator Psalter itself. The
manuscript
bears unmistakable traces of miss-
ing
miniatures:
offprinting
and
shadowing
on leaves once in contact with now lost scenes
as well as small
parts
of miniatures that survived t she knife. The second source
comprises
the other
marginal psalters
considered to be of about the same
period
and to have had
similar illustrative
cycles:
the Paris
Fragment
and the Chludov Psalter.4 S. Dufrenne and
K.
Corrigan
have used
parallels
from these
manuscripts
to restore a number of Pantokra-
tor losses.5 The third source used here is the Bristol
Psalter,
an
eleventh-century adapta-
tion of the Pantokrator.
In the course of
comparing
the four
psalters,
an
unexpected category
of information
relevant to the
early history
of illustration takes
shape.
This is the
group
of
subjects
found
in one or both of the two other
psalters-the
Chludov Psalter and the Paris
Fragment-
but never in the Pantokrator. It is
important
to
identify
the
passages
the Pantokrator
illuminator did not illustrate because the evidence can be used to
suggest
some thematic
differences
among
the earliest
Byzantine psalters.
In the last section of this
paper
I exam-
ine a
group
of
subjects,
referred to here as "double
glosses,"
that seem to
bring
the
ques-
tion of absent
subject
matter into
particularly sharp
focus.
Despite
their obvious similari-
ties,
the three
early manuscripts appear
to have been different in
content,
and the
differences
may
have
chronological implications.
AN UNPUBLISHED MINIATURE
Before
beginning
the
comparisons,
I wish to introduce a miniature from the Panto-
krator Psalter hitherto
unpublished
but
possibly original.
Drawn in outline in the
margin
of folio 65 are bones and limbs that illustrate Ps.
52:6,
"For God has scattered the bones
of the
men-pleasers; they
were
ashamed,
for God
despised
them"
(Fig. 1).
The
subject
has no
parallel
in either the Chludov or the Bristol
Psalter,
and the
passage
illustrated
does not occur
among
those
preserved
in the Paris
Fragment.
The forms scattered about
are ones otherwise found in
Byzantine images
of Ezekiel in the
valley
of the
dry
bones
4The
parallels
are well known and have been a cornerstone of the
scholarly
discussion;
poorly
understood
is the mechanism that
gave
rise to them. From
among
the
possibilities,
K. Weitzmann
(Die byzantinische
Buch-
malerei des 9. und
10.Jahrhunderts [Berlin, 1935], 54-56) proposed
that all three derive from the same arche-
type;
the Paris
Fragment,
he
felt,
was made in a
place quite
removed from the
scriptorium
in which the
Pantokrator and Chludov
psalters
were both
made,
though by separate
artists
(presumably
from the same
model);
A. Grabar
(Liconoclasme byzantin:
Dossier arche'ologique, 2nd ed.
[Paris, 1984], 284) thought
that all
three
manuscripts
were made about the same time in the same
scriptorium
and,
in
part, by
the same
person
who had access to an illustrated
psalter
that served as an
inspiration
more than as a model
strictly
defined;
K.
Corrigan (Visual
Polemics in the
Ninth-Century Byzantine
Psalters
[Cambridge,
1992], 24, 126-27)
endorses
Grabar's
position
that
they
are
products
of the same
scriptorium,
but
suggests
that
they
were
probably
writ-
ten
by
different
scribes;
C. Walter
("'Latter-Day'
Saints and the
Image
of Christ in the
Ninth-Century
Mar-
ginal
Psalters," REB 45
[1987], 219) accepts
the likelihood of a
single
model but
questions
the
necessity
of
positing
a
single scriptorium
for the Chludov and Pantokrator
psalters
(and
presumably
Paris.
gr. 20);
he
sees their
making
as a more
dispersed phenomenon.
5Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs,
and
Corrigan,
Visual
Polemics;
specific pages
cited below where
appropriate.
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
and the Last
Judgment.6
The
question
arises as to whether or not the miniature is con-
temporary
with the others in the
psalter.
Two observations
may
cast some doubt on the
drawing's ninth-century
date.
First,
examples
of the Last
Judgment
that have a collection
of bones as a discrete
compositional
unit tend to be later than the Pantokrator Psalter.
Second,
no
inscription appears
around the
image;
most,
but
by
no means all
(cf.
fols. 63,
103v, 107v, 113, 132, 151, 164),
of the miniatures are identified
by inscription. Perhaps
the illuminator had
difficulty
in
finding
a succinct
tag
for the collection of bones. It
should
perhaps
be added that the individual who inventoried the miniatures at the end
of the nineteenth or first half of the twentieth
century
omitted this one from the numera-
tion.7
Although
worth
recording,
the
objections
are
insufficiently strong
to invalidate the
miniature as an
original part
of the
cycle. Speaking
in favor of
originality
is the
expert
and delicate
draftsmanship
that recalls the
underdrawing occasionally
visible in
damaged
miniatures
(e.g.,
fols.
23, 68v, 107v, 149v, 217v).
Like the
underdrawings
revealed
by
flaking,
the bones and
fragments
were executed in outline so as to establish the bound-
aries of the
paint.
If a later
addition,
the miniature would be of
higher
than usual
quality
and in a book otherwise
lacking graffiti. Finally,
the
subject
does find one
rough parallel
in the scene of Ezekiel in the
Valley painted
in the
contemporary
Paris Sermons of
Greg-
ory
Nazianzen,
made at the behest of Basil I.8 The added
significance
of the
parallel
lies in the
relationship
that has been seen as
existing
between the visual
interpretations
sometimes found in the volume of
Gregory's
sermons and those in the first
psalters.9
The
drawing
strikes me as
enough
like the miniatures in
style
and content to warrant
publica-
tion for consideration as
part
of the
cycle.
RESTORATION OF DAMAGED LEAVES
I have demonstrated elsewhere that the
eleventh-century
illuminator of the Bristol
Psalter used the much earlier Pantokrator Psalter as his
principal
source.10 On the basis
of the
unique relationship
between the Pantokrator and Bristol
psalters,
it should be
possible
to
identify
the
subjects
removed from the
margins
of the earlier
manuscript.
What
complicates
use of the Bristol Psalter to restore Pantokrator losses is the eleventh-
century
illuminator's
tendency
to omit miniatures that he considered to be
obscure,
re-
dundant,
or irrelevant to his
purpose.
The Bristol Painter created a new
cycle
and did
so
mainly by selecting subjects
from the wide
range
of Pantokrator
imagery. Comparing
the two
manuscripts
(over
their
preserved portions only)
reveals
forty-five
instances in
which the Bristol Painter elected not to
copy
a Pantokrator miniature.
Compensating
for
the Bristol Painter's
changes,
and
serving
as a check
throughout,
is the Chludov
Psalter,
which is
closely
related in
style,
content,
and date to the Pantokrator Psalter. Of the
forty-
6B.
Brenk,
Tradition und
Neuerung
in der christlichen Kunst des ersten
Jahrtausends:
Studien zur Geschichte des
Weltgerichtsbildes (Vienna, 1966), 149-56,
figs.
23, 24, 28,
for discussion with
examples.
7Anderson,
"Palimpsest
Psalter," 209,
on the
numbering.
8Fol. 438v:
Omont, Miniatures,
pl.
LVIII.
9S. Der
Nersessian,
"The Illustrations of the Homilies of
Gregory
of Nazianzus: Paris
gr.
510. A
Study
of
the Connections between Text and
Images,"
DOP 16
(1962), 226, 227;
L.
Brubaker, "Politics,
Patronage,
and
Art in
Ninth-Century Byzantium:
The Homilies of
Gregory
of Nazianzus
(B.N.
Gr.
510),"
DOP 39
(1985),
1-13.
'?Anderson,
"Palimpsest
Psalter," 199-220.
307
five Pantokrator miniatures that the Bristol Painter failed to take over or
adapt, thirty-
eight
have
parallels
in the Chludov Psalter. The second relative of the Pantokrator
Psalter,
the
nearly contemporary
Paris
Fragment,
survives as a mere handful of
gatherings,
but
its
testimony
is nonetheless
significant
and is cited here when
appropriate.
Nineteen leaves have been trimmed from the Pantokrator Psalter. In five instances
(fols.
1
Iv, 61, 72v, 118v, 149v),
some or most of the miniature remains on the leaf. Three
ghosts
on
facing
leaves
(fols.
5
[from
4v],
12
[from
1
Iv],
19v
[from 20])
attest not
only
to
the
presence
of miniatures but also to
aspects
of their
compositions."l
On four more
leaves
(fols. 21, 88v, 124v, 154),
a trace of
paint
remains to show that a miniature was
once
present
but not what its
subject might
have been.
I now turn to the individual
leaves,
not all of which will be
subject
to
satisfactory
restoration.12 It should be noted that the Pantokrator Psalter is a
palimpsest;
the
upper
psalm
text
appears
to follow
closely,
but not
precisely,
the lower
text,
which was written
in uncial.
Folio 21.
Upper
text: Ps.
8:4-8,
Entry
into
Jerusalem (Figs.
2, 3)
The
top part
of the leaf has been
carefully
trimmed across its
length;
beneath the cut
edge
on the recto
appear
traces of
paint
from a miniature. The Bristol Psalter has a
panoramic
version of the
Entry
into
Jerusalem
in the lower
margin, just
below Ps. 8:3
("Out
of the mouths of babes and
sucklings, you perfected praise").
The relevant leaf of
the Chludov Psalter
(Ch 7)
has also been
mutilated,
but other evidence
strongly suggests
that its illuminator
depicted
the
Entry
at the
top right margin
near the
beginning
lines
of the
psalm.13
On the basis of the Bristol Psalter evidence and the indirect
testimony
of
the Chludov
Psalter,
the restoration of the
Entry
into
Jerusalem, suggested by
Dufrenne,
seems
plausible.14
Folio 2.
Upper
text: Ps.
16:3b-8a/8b-13a,
Unrestorable loss
Neither the Chludov nor the Bristol Psalter illustrates
any part
of the text found on
the mutilated Pantokrator leaf. The Paris.
gr.
20 is defective at this
point.
Folio 4v.
Upper
text: Ps.
17:10b-15a, Christ
riding
above the world
(Figs. 4-6)
In the
top right
corner of folio
5,
in the
margin
above the first line of
text,
appear
two stains of the kind made
by
the
ground
used for
gold
leaf. Since no miniature was
painted
on the
verso,
the stains must have been caused
by bleeding
from the
facing page,
11Such
ghosts
result when the
ground
used under
gold
leaf bleeds
through
the
parchment
and becomes
visible on the other side
(see, e.g.,
Ch
87v,
the haloes of
Joseph
and Nicodemus from the
recto),
but it can
sometimes attack the
facing
sheet as well
(see, e.g.,
Ch
89v,
the halo and throne from fol.
90).
"2Unrestorable losses and certain others will not be
illustrated;
tracings
of the
damage may
be found in
Anderson,
"Palimpsest
Psalter."
'3Restored on the
authority
of the Barberini Psalter
(B 14).
The 1
Ith-century
Studite
psalters-the
Theo-
dore and the Barberini-were
produced
from the same lost model
(see
C.
Walter,
"'Latter-Day'
Saints in the
Model for the London and Barberini Psalters," REB 46
[1988], 211-15);
the source of this Studite
manuscript
was the Chludov Psalter.
14
Dufrenne, Psautiers
grecs, 22.
-$1,
- $1
t.4
*0 c
.tj
-"-rI
t1 "'
.-4
? \
. w.
..2~
t.t.i '-"
'.
't
Pantokrator Psalter, fol. 65
(Ps. 52:6)
7"a
a
_w
1
'
.7,.
.,
;*.,
1 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 65
(Ps. 52:6)
4* .;
.
2 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 21
- -:
.4b
.w-:., t . ,. :..
**' ? ?. .'? ?
.; .
?
, , .
.
.
..
at ff
.
A ..
.- .
' .< -
'
Fi-
-<i". , ,
,
.
-
.
.
*
.
**. . . "
; r. . ,.
*
,
'. :. .
.. .
.
A
r
1
r
t'
? . 3 i r'' 1 r , ;. .
.he: IW a Lv
fr "fi
ft^
0c 1
<
"
*
1'
x
j0. ,
* *
t
l
i
.
^
v
?tr *p 9 -
!B
.
:
. .
,
"
. .
r p 'us' n ..
t ,.; L-*
;
<
r-
t
o
.
'
; .- f j
t
. t '
'.
,'
'- .
-; ,,. , 9,
Ai* kiY'r
,'~,"J~i~lTP~CrJ~r~.~ ,.,
1, ,!.-,.
::; .:
'*',~ . . . ..~~~~VIR -
O'
~~~~~~~~~~r'a
I
$
,t.
-
~,s ,,..,
b::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~e
3 s sr^'8
(
t
y
i ofth riih
iray
3 Bristol Psalter, fol. 15v (Ps. 8:?,8) (photo: by permission of the British Library)
I/ m ~ ~~~~~~~~~-
I
/
.
r
T-
fl
o
4 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fols. 4v-5
:I
/
F
i
.9?
- 4e
o .,
i,
-
.
.1 - " ~
5 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 27v
(Ps. 17:11-13, 16) (photo: by permission
of the British
Library)
I:'
.. .
.. . .
. i
I
I
,.
I
I
. ?. .
^
. * . * *'*
4 . .'
*
. . '
,?
. i
"
'
..
,
.. ...;
~C ,it:
'
3
;
.,
:
{ I
.fi . ; ,, L I t
I?lt-.. x i$ S '
i.
r r. fit >
f iS
ii, 3r r rM / '3 ^^.;* '-ij
* *
6 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 14
(Ps. 17:11-13) (after Scepkina, Miniatiury)
I
,-
I
1.
..
.
.
.
2 fl%
?
l
.
I
7 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fols. lv-12
. ... ;
r.
.
'
- ? a ^ tt A- w *
o4
C?
.A.
L
.-.. .
* *.
.
i ; .
- ... ~~~~ ~ ~~~., I,'.
s *.", : i "'
'
..
A
,t
I Rj p t '4 -h -,'L~
t~~~ V b~~ t 4 A
F
-, - 4 1t3' 4I S~-
~
*
.
, ,, .
,*
^ |
4 *
^
-
* rs I ? a j t- r : y
r
', 1 4
-. r
ti . .
i
r
/
-
1
^ ^
-
?
* *
r
t
-
* *
* i
t
o
r ?
Y t
4..
7 r t r ?
* .
* ' s H
\I.
.
.
'
.
I t.
8 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 35v (Ps.
21:17-22) (photo: by permission
of the British
Library)
i.
'A
;
'
.
,...
,
I
.
A
.0
----A-~~~~_
W
.
':.
'* ' *'
1
'.i
I
115
.
:fi
I
!^
"I
J
i
l
II
iI
.F 4 iA**
L 'a, O av
*;
'-
?'s F .'- ) f . It . t 1. , iA .
"av C)
t
s4 le> rM : :. ea fSt
f ,lA. .. .. :. -s P...s . .. iP .
,
/ : : .' ' ,. . ;
:fW-l 4
1-
i r. t siA o r 't
?<.1 vv
.î,;
I r
.,: .
rj H t" Lt
s; rs, ,. .CJ T
^N t
$ > \ \ ~ s 1* . . _
i>
*r..n
r .
* '
, *
-,
,- f a y
t
.- X,u. ?,
3 ';)
*' ^ 1- l < ; M. < ?*-- 4 ',0
-
^
^;
'^
A
I.
,.
,. .<
"^-. -:
*..--.
" 9 ... .
:'.
,.. .
,1
I
''
\
.
.
,
* ? .
9 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 20
(Ps. 21:17-23) (after Skepkina, Miniatiury)
4
10 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fols. 19v-20
l
*
* ' .* - t .
.j.
m i . ,
'
a
A,
44 14 N p
-:4
11 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 44v
(Ps. 28:3) (photo: by permission
of the British
Library)
~~~M_
I .
r tt
.:P.c~
,. - e , *
J
L
12 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 72v /
I .
. .
',,
"
-.y<~
':
-" . . '% ' .
... .
" ? *
.. . .. (.;^
:;:
,.!...'
*
....
;,-:
.
, i
<,S; WN .;' i a '
*i;:
j ''; 'ts h i(
I
A
$ A (4 LV -
r
$, .
",,+ t"
" * * - f
** f^ *
^^ *"r-6-
o ; b-*
*
-
t- t,' ...:A
'a~C-f)U~X~m-r,? ?...
,
t
-,
J t _
*
~ .-
1?
?-<jt?
t?-t Lr .'.
m,
r. .
.;
- .
[9
-
at{^r
^y
^
^
^
*
.l It
iL
'
I
a' "
i. *
-
t F
S7'
'
f .s".tJ .
::, .
~
.
~ ..4,
t * i
^
,t
'
!,.
-
:'
*il
,__
. l
'
R r
"~r &"
7
F"
~'
'
t,
;
,,'
)r
~
'i
ii
'.
: ' :
* l
,.f~
'
* ,
.. "
:,
,
;.
_. Ixi*
.'_ '
t
V;
- *1
*XA-^ c
Yr?
H :
,,,
;
',
.*
_J^^^^^^^B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.?1
:.
A
J,
Ar4iilXr
..2..j-
* ,.~ "'4LXctaE.rr;n:.
13 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 93
of the British
Library)
N.p
.- ?r
: 'I
"1
IA
- rt
* * .. /I
- ,*';
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ r:
;Ii 'f A
-i '~~4;.
6*dC?
. 11
ItC;'B
4'f
i
i*" .
~iv
* - ,
?iitnb
14 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 56
(Ps. 58:1) (after Scepkina, Miniatiury)
,
. .a .!
. I'
j
% i
4 4
; * I. .
.
. -
I -, .
, i g ' . !
I
,
:,- t *
-
I
,
,
. j
'. i t
, - ;
,.q ~
.: i' ? ?.?,
-~
,
,
";, '
I AX
B::
*~ .:*
15 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 88v
r-
--
~
-
~~
-
-
_
.,...
A _.
.
4*4
A
Err- . 4 .. ._
4* .
'
.. .
--*m
:^
'
f r
s < * J
'
f.'
. e .r
-
e
'a 94.-:.:'ijA
rl- :..
.4 .
I
-?
.' ii & U1t
'l
o. rc v j
.
..
r
16 Brisol Psaler,fol I IO (s. 68:22)(phoo: by prmissio of
theBritishLibrary
.'
__, l
16 Bristol
Psalter, fol. 110
of the British
Library)
:*,
k
"''
1
:.
-. I
;
,
,t..
I Yb.
^ s 4 *_ 4 > 1 --
7A.v ., K * p t p
'>l(s
^
^.-sy
.,
\
3
t.
4
i
U -. J,A;. Ub "
'
:?"$ i ?Rt: t `' .T~W lt;, L:
--
^ ---
-- -
^ --
n
a,
. . .
.
^ r*cp^ WC.', A" u
t W..,
.
.QN
^
....; .
.
.."
-
" " ....
'
,
L.
yf'
r-
7I''t^
1^^^K
b tX v \ 4i.
4-.
-:;
'-
...' t . ,
.
1 c j
.:
r
,
'
,
~ . V.
''"
~,.,,.~~~~~~~itc~7''
17 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 67
18 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 124
_ .w ..
...A
...... . ..
,
_ _ ,
.
'
~#
"
' '
. -
^*
r
"
-
t
.
}
:: t
i' s i ?
1 ,.. r.
?b
;;c.t S Y4
griX
,~
?4r 8
i
| ?
*
.A A Jd 4I
: * ^ :"~ ., .
a
^
s t |
f $ r iY fsi
ti
a I
7 a 7
* .
'
.
e
.
*
.
i,A -.
e
) t'E?
fr*t * *
.
..
2
r'
-f
,
-T
:*
.
e
.* .rer.'-
r
t , f rt
. '
*'T-
?I^ 1
.
? P.
.-
' ..H' r "'""i
$i
^
?r' we
? r
-rrr sa *t f 1
t
f
r
~
* "
i [
" '
r
' r. '
.
' . :
,
' , .. r.
..
, + ~
' ''
t
f
.
i
4' *
. - ;
, ? i ;'" -.
r-
.
. ;
'
f
:"'" ~. ~
r
" :
,,--'! i
~'-.-'-.
~ ..~
-~
~. ~.,i
.
aj.~ Jr,:~nl.b..
%
:~/llll
': $
19 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 147
of the British
Library)
...
i
7 -'~~~"
in- 7?: .; -? g, ..~?
Il I~ ?' a?- -, 1"
-,
K' '-. 1.
1 ? r?~~~~/
aK^ri
^liBilBI_^
^
^^
*
e.
..*.'
II
.
\ : I
i1
If
9
41d
r-:. ;
1~~~~~
' S i
"
?t~CS.)
~~~I; ?C
20 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 88
* rto ..
21 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 136
k.
1 ... - .
'.
,
-;. ~
'
R,
?
:I
t-)tkt
t
^
nl
pr i
f.
^,.
1 r
?oT-^fn>
M
?}jf*ju
'.?
1
' ."r*
Ftt
ai
,
i;
r -
t .r
?F
V , O
?
s I*
y
TJL a T 'X .. - H' _ _
.
*!'
w -- .<f~~~~'
;
4.
,
f
r
M1,
4 (*p4..J>* _g '
).
*
.J* TW..J-,l"
*
-
3 , \ t T.
c*
fla.
:jt}- % ,4t4
.
.,
.1W ii*
'
) t.
4
i.
<
itL-A >
'A
.
IC
*
,-d'
^ ,
47r '*5I
I
22 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 96
(Ps.
95:
Title) (after Scepkina, Miniatiury)
I
t
i
t
it'.
1..
(
I,
i
i
0'
44
'P4?
i4
>
W:..
.
... .
....
'K. . U -
2 PaiFam,etfo.4(P .95Til)(feOmn iar
"
,.
-7'
'"
-... "'
.Ci.'
"
""/' .
'.t?^
,....
^ ^'y
@; *
i:1
*
h . i _% 2 *
-*..
""'
.
?
:
.-
* ' t
i
--J
*.
t.Fe,t
?L
"e t
-s-t.-..t;
.:..:..._.
?
'... ..j
.:'
23 Paris
Fragment, fol..
4
(Ps.
95:
Title) (after Omont, Miniatures)
'-.. ! '.-
.... ,
; .L >;
..4
.I ..
If
i
AL
I o .. e
XM l F
* ?
'
'
.
. . .
,
__
'aI
P
A
.;:
24 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 150 25 Bristol
Psalter, fol. 174v
(Ps. 104:18) (photo: by permission of the
British
Library)
C~ Ir,
p*it
AS
ll,..
;|i *t
tjui i ,j
,,,~s
q
..C.
'.,t
;
' lpPtr/,,
1
~,
t . j, ,
t Z y \4 w1. s 1
ui *ttrr *!;i
r's:;
'v7au'; ,p/m '
+
(fep
r^Ti sPir^v(vlp^l
(eJ:.
.^t.L
' A % . %
^.4 "N.
'i -
,
;i |
ttIr^fl
J
^W rp Qp
p*erq
t sr i47
rspctskp 6 \
',l ''
t4,I 4l|
^^TnortvyM^ y"^vvr. ?rlv;
,
?
, ,
-' ..r .s ._
a,ct rr
'x j W crCn
. , ',."l
O,, ~
,i
;1. 4
;. "-'T ,)U .
.' la '
',.
W1t )e4 ':;'m
tt
V #' rn
IM
^
r?y^>ry
fz)I u .I a I:* ,
f ? nt 1(..1
t.'
tl
r1
,+
??:;?1,
fP12
J,
tlrr
4?,
'd?
)(p,
26 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 106
Ve
*
- -AIRL.-
it--I
-*<
**
',
**
. *; !*. ,
'
.'
t t} t I
V * f
-
V' V Ff
'
? fI \. V
1- A
A
J.- .
?
'
-
.
,'^
<
t
'
6"M
,
.
A r
,
'
h1
f , '
rI 'N
v
..*.
.. *
?i r
' . 111 ' .. X II,.'
...
.
: iA
"'
:
'
.
.,
p
'f!.
?
rS.',A.
" ~
..%'t! t w| ||i.
..'
-
...
r"t ^ -'i "
- '?1 ' .p
'
i : ' '
r
. fr';
>~
'P I A
*,;-.' '-:'.Q.V
"
Z
.
, r
s -, , , i
^.'
Lr
.:.
., :'
?.:t,
'
; a,^
X
.
r
~
I
,\
A. i fi ?t,
'
. z .
, ?-
'
i. . w i
;....
U. Î ;
I
A
; P a
Y
XP .l A C l V
.
'
'
a - t*i" '
'
1
r... . :
??r,r ~ ~W-
', ...
;
.
''
e ^'i^^^^Hi'^'^c'Xv'n-o'Y/
"
.
'
'
t
r
V
<I....,.!
f1,/
:i,^,t,
t *t/it->
-,'? ,- ~;
,r
'
-
,
7
'.
-,--.:'~!1,~:r!~'~'~','~
~;:'. . . .
'
~.: , '
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I'-?,
,,-,~
CC;~-~:' , . ...
27 Paris
Fragment,
fol. 13v
(Ps. 104:17-23) (after Omont, Miniatures)
28 Pantokrator
Psalter, fol.
154
* . , v . .-
*
^
*
*
. t '
t .
^
*
! S
,4, ,t -**j.
~
Bs
"*' *
1 -
... .e
r. '"'
' "'F.
.
'. t -.
*l
-.
t a'
A*
0?-,..t4J* S
,
,
* i. 1 . : 3
' ' .t . ",
*
#
'*.:
.".':
'
?
*7
t
'
S s t
n .
r,: ^
,,
.
*t .*** ..
.4 i , t " , . ;
-r,,$,,
*
i
f 4
;
4 y; .
'
'* r;i ** *
*
* r 1t
cr> z
;t'/ .. rg t.,
.:
29 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 180
of the British
Library)
I
. ^
.I
9
*
.-.i.
_...
-?_ ?.
-
.^
?;
* '.;.:. , 1
?1
'"
|l . :'I ;
.,. t
, ...
I
.p
. , .'
"
.
,
, *'* ;.. ! ."
*' B ?
*
t /
;.* * . :. .
'
i
'
1~- i' .
, .
,
.
1
'1
. - .
qtt
' '* '
. I
* ; '5
'
I ' .
..... ; \ .: i .'
.,"3
'*: ,, :; ' , /J '
., t * ;
. 'V '1
. 3t'
y
r
'
*
'
*K
-
>>Î~, .7,
.,,,,,
...
it
a
?ti
30 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 109v
...
:'"..
' ,
t
.1.1t I
-r . .
v
.
. A
-
'I;
* *
a
a
*~~~~~~~~ S
t#'t~~
* -Ct
ItI
. . .? ? .
:
?
.
..
.
J
0 t9
:
3 1 r i s o l s a l e r , f o. 1 8 v ( s 1 5 4 ( py r-i _h a
31 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 180v
of the British
Library)
0. *
$. i *
V
*
I
0
*}
I
I
i
.I
0. ? . 4
"'
* .
*
t
* a
,
i
* . - ;
.*
4 ,_
r
A
* ic
I
-1(1"
t - b
.
It
i
f
.
M^ a
1'
7/"'
r
---~~
1t
i
I
I
I
4
**
..
1
I
rm
IS
- !1 ?
I' 4 **
* ' '7'; I
4:-
(. 6,
r:
'*" .'
IT
?
,.1.. -.~
,..
r?I
."
":
P",
-,
.." .:',
,/'
^
..
32 Chludov Psalter, fol. 110
%
'
.*
-?t
MA.
I,'-
",'i
1'P'
1Y00
1,
}d4rst
sS * '..,
; ..
It
I *
):
I
,r:
.4,
33 Paris
Fragment,
fol. 18
(Ps. 105:37-41)
(after Omont, Miniatures)
..
AI
.4r V&
,
.
.t r
-
*' '.,
r4a.v
-
..?
34 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 189
/
s.
iA
35 Bristol
Psalter,
fol. 223
of the British
Library)
't.
36 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 135
?
,,
I. ..
N'I
4^^
1 .^t
'* R.;
tX P.
;;
-
4 . ..
--1
a,p Y
'
. . . .~~~~~~;.
- .* . #,
i- . ,'.J l ' . r - :'
a. ~.'l k'UD?, F
"r
%
.
:
A .
?eya ieI
alNcC r s
?
ijsF
,( 7 , I
/ w e
-*Lnr rr
i; -. CE
.
' r
.. t
N
Or i . ;'4
"I I
:.
-..
, -
FI-y
' ,
'~'.
t
.
l
,^..._- .
.,,
'j*oy
*
V- ) r.
-
n F C-J t, t-
I
,,J Y: .
CI
D
-lr y
.
-
o'. -s '?
!
"* ;,-
?
. r.-r, .....
37 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 5 v
(Ps. 51:8)
(after Scepkina, Miniatiury)
,4,.p
-r .. ,,
,-a4..
^,
-u,
. ,0
L
,6
B
o-,,
q, -,~,~ ~'
,,~ ;'"''
:
4'~
',rujV "OA ,tj;,
,
,:iu ?.
.
?n.ta_1U1rratrrs
an&..r
Jr )
.
.1-F\
"
t,ui,
r
.,
u
.
t -:Sgt
/ ,<
,,
,
-rw
f
b.it
cru
O
-î,,
'f .,r(
pa. .rev a,
. r'"~+
,
.
t?I
v
""' a
v;
'
';, " ~'~
"
''
7%e yi4r aaIac 4,V
~'S ~ cl . bh 36C"
38 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 6
(Ps. 51:8)
(photo: courtesy
of the
Byzantine
Museum, Athens)
I
".
'll-
I
,
^
.. .
rS ,#{
'
c
'
|
...,
I
-
i%..
I
C"\ o r
I
! . j'
A r
,1
. * , . r
* '
** . .' l. *i ' '
i i, .' , .
.. . , . -
, ,, .'-v ,.'.
*
.
' . - * . '
.
? -i * '
< : }
..
*
^.
,
\ I
,.
-
, ,
*
1 1 ;,1 , .
'. ..
.
r
.
,7. .
l..
.
1
q
:~t
:
i
l-^ - ~~~.9
&t>
39 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 67v
(Ps. 68:28-29)
(after Scepkina, Miniatiury)
-
7 -ru' I-.T.
:
^ liv-8-?^ .^
1r4"* 4A
.
~ -.t 4. . .
,,- .
:.
'
? o1 ?
Htc.i.
e'l'i
ll-4-i
c .
>
.l
iezLSt : -''" -* -a?y |
r^^^-
"*"Lp*>T^- ^^
^*
40 Pantokrator
Psalter,
fol. 89
(Ps. 68:28-29)
(photo: courtesy
of the
Byzantine
Mu-
seum, Athens)
j
[!
.
t
*
. .
. I..
.
4-
.. .
r
r'
.'I .,
;,.
I .
; i
r,
* t.
n
L P b-l? , I I? L
..
.
Kb >, X X 7 * x, , .
\
'. ..I I
41i
.,t:
41 Paris
Fragment,
fol. 5v
(Ps. 96:11) (after Omont, Miniatures)
*. .
.'
.'... . ..,
'l:
'1: . i
I
'
i ~:1~ 'l ~5
. ' l ' *'ll
'
.'
.i*-i':,
t'
:
,: y- : be .' ^ ;.'i
.
^ M
'
"
t
'.
'
!
*,:
I
i i ;
. . I.I. , ..
* iI[ ;aN a i
~~~~~~~~~~r
?-?
t.>'{,-:.? ',,?,: ,!'..:.:.
....7.
* '
I *?
1
?'5 ?
r;(
M
' 1,
.
C. ,
t.
W 8
I ....'"
'T::-:. e.:^c
F
: .,t
wHs
n
Pt
...-"x
-
-O Lty
' r
.
-I
'.u
4 csC
X
-"rt Lp.rrtL.p
z -
t l
"
'n v u'
T
7 3
- . :
1i.
'^7 ? ?
.
'
? "p j-,-
-
',1
'gl
Apt C L-UVa -J%(
__
_ ,''
L
o
e
f
...-
{-û
!
7i
---
-,$.. 4tZ- c T c n * .. ..
Ai
Z u a p rui(p L ciFs:
"s"~~~~~.,
Pj.~'
~.:
-
.4
'rf,~ ,.
".~
-
. . . . ' .,._
. .!.,
:., ..-.
~"
~. ' '
:}~'-ar~ 'T/'o""a',,F}zF', , jC.'f
42 Pantokrator Psalter, fol. 138 (Ps. 96:11) (photo: courtesy of the Byzantine Museum, Athens)
42 Pantokrator
Psalter, fol. 138 (Ps. 96' 11) (photo: courtesy
of the
Byzantine Museum, Athens)
I ??*
" t' L' n z 11 ;
i.. ii h . Fi
* ;I'
S
r?rei*C a r- t'a j c I
cF
IIN
.,i
. ,
,. I
4?
It
wlk
.
.s':
',
... P
~
.
k C
*
. .-". i c
* ,
"
"',* "' ?fi
*
"
4 "r "' .
*
. ,at.
f,4"
'S-* V. îAf\. (
^
.'.'
*
V . ".c ^"1' 'Îi.* r..
V ? ,,,, s, ,,
r
3
4t
I, , ,
..:., ..
" . *- '
." : ~ 'j,
>
'
,
, ? .
t r 7 t 'A
*''
Q r:"v t " '.* 1
t . .;
I t... ,
I.t. .- ; . .. .
e A TTW./ v.3 rf f J
t
;
..;g :;.
t i
'
'*' 1 ;
I , i'
$
A
'.,
"),
*
It
.!
. I,
It
V
i
i
I
.
I.
?.Xp
....
V I/
\.. ,...
43 Chludov
Psalter,
fol. 97v
, I
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
folio
4,
which has been trimmed at a
point opposite
the marks. The stains form
two
hollow circles
only slightly separated
from each other. The miniature in the Bristol
Psal-
ter shows that
they
were formed
by
the haloes of
angels
to either side of a
mandorla
containing
Christ. The
arrangement
of the three
figures
in the Pantokrator Psalter
was
unlike that found in the Chludov
Psalter,
which followed a more literal
reading (Ps.
17:11,
"And he mounted on cherubs and
flew").
The scene in the Bristol Psalter
captures
the sense of the
psalmist's language predicting
the destruction that will be
wrought by
an
angry
God. The size of the Pantokrator loss does not allow for much to have
been
represented
beneath the mandorla other than
possibly
the cloud and
fiery
rain
(Ps.
17:8-9)
found in the Bristol Psalter. The Bristol Painter's illustration of the
"springs
from
the
depths"
(as
inscribed in
Br) arguably represents
an
independent
addition
prompted
by
a
phrase
found later in the
psalm (v. 16).
The
springs
recall the illuminator's
predilec-
tion for narrow verbal
equivalents, expressed
in the
editing
of miniatures and the addi-
tion of
images.15
Folio ll v.
Upper
text: Ps. 21:1
7b-23a,
Christ nailed to the
cross(?);
soldiers cast
lots;
lion(?)
(Figs. 7-9)
The entire side
margin
has been
removed,
but one of the soldiers
casting
lots for
Christ's
garment
remains on the
verso.'6
On the
facing
leaf,
folio
12,
stains are visible
from the
inscription
tablet,
Christ's
halo,
and the
gilt strips
of his colobium. The tablet
appears
at
roughly
the level of the first line of
text,
and
ghosts
of the
gold
bands
(which
would run to Christ's
feet)
fall
through
the first third or half of the text on folio 12. The
vertical
arrangement
of the stains means that the
position
of the cross in the Pantokrator
Psalter was not like that in the Chludov. Two verses are illustrated:
"they pierced my
hands and
my
feet"
(v. 17)
and
"they parted my garments among
themselves,
and cast
lots
upon my
raiment"
(v. 18).
The Chludov Painter created an illusion in which the
beholder stands well above the cross and looks down on the three executioners as
they
drive the nails. In the Pantokrator Psalter the cross was
upright;
so if the executioners
were
present,
the
spatial
effect
might
have been less
sophisticated.
At first
sight
the Bristol
Psalter confuses matters. From the Pantokrator miniature the Bristol Painter took over
the
upright position
of the cross and the
figures
intent on
dividing
Christ's
garment,
and
in so
doing represented
Christ
stripped
to a loincloth. A
Byzantine,
I
believe,
would have
considered the
subject
in the Bristol Psalter to be the
Deposition
on the basis of the visual
cues:
Joseph
of Arimathea stands on the ladder
using pliers
to extract a nail from one of
Christ's
hands,
while
Nicodemus,
nearly
lost when the outer
margin
was
trimmed,
kneels
to work at Christ's feet.17 Dufrenne was reluctant to
accept
the
Deposition
as the
subject,18
and
possibly
with
good
reason: Christ
appears
to be
alive,
and
John
and the
Virgin,
who
'5S. Dufrenne,
"Le
psautier
de Bristol et les autres
psautiers byzantins,"
CahArch 14
(1964),
160-61, on
this
body
of
imagery.
16Dufrenne, Psautiers
grecs,
21,
relates the soldier to the
gambling
scene.
17 G.
Millet, Recherches sur
l'iconographie
de
l'Evangile
aux
XIVe,
XVe et XVIe
siecles,
d'apres
les monuments de
Mistra,
de
la Macedoine et du Mont-Athos
(Paris, 1916), 466-88;
a number of
examples
are illustrated as a
consequence
of the main theme of K.
Weitzmann,
"The
Origin
of the
Threnos,"
in De Artibus
Opuscula
XL:
Essays
in Honor
of
Erwin
Panofsky,
ed. M. Meiss
(New York, 1961),
476-90.
18Dufrenne, Psautiers
grecs,
56.
309
are
usually present
when the
body
is taken
down, are
missing.
The Bristol
margins
were
severely
trimmed
by
a
binder,
but
probably
not so much as to cause the loss of two
figures.
Identifying
the Pantokrator
subject
does not
require solving
the dilemma
posed by
the
Bristol Painter's
creation,
only seeing through
it to
imagine
what
prompted
the Bristol
Painter's
incomplete
and
unsatisfactory
transformation of what he
apparently
took to be
the
Deposition.19
Since Christ was dressed in the
long
colobium in the Pantokrator minia-
ture,
the source was most
likely
an awkward version of the
nailing.
The Bristol Painter illustrated verse 22
("Save
me from the lion's
mouth")
by repre-
senting
a lion. The Chludov Psalter has no
parallel,
and it seems doubtful that the illumi-
nator of the Pantokrator Psalter would have had
space
for the
lion,
because the soldier
gambling
for Christ's
garment
is
preserved
at the bottom of the leaf. The lion
may repre-
sent another of the Bristol Painter's
highly
focused additions to the
cycle.
Folio 20.
Upper
text: Ps.
28:1b-5,
Baptism (Figs.
10, 11)
A small
patch
of
paint
survives near the bottom of the cut on folio 20. On folio 19v
are the
ghosts
of four
haloes,
falling
in a
pattern
that
clearly belongs
to the
Baptism:
at
the outer
edge,
the two
angels; lower in the
center, Christ;
and
higher,
near the
text,
John
the
Baptist.20
The set of haloes
appears
at about the middle of the text on folio 19v.
The relevant leaf is lost from the Chludov
Psalter,
but the
Baptism may
be restored at
this
point
in the
text,
as Dufrenne noted
(cf.
B
47v).21
Folio 61.
Upper
text: Pss.
48:21b-49:4, Solar
chariot, David
(preserved), Habakkuk(?)
and
Christ,
and
rising
sun
(preserved) (Br 80v,
Ch
48v)
Remaining
on the leaf is
David,
seated
gesturing (toward
the lost
margin),
as well as
the
rising
sun,
depicted
beneath his feet. The
rising
sun also
appears
in the Chludov
Psalter,
at the bottom of the
leaf;
above it the Chludov Painter
represented
David and
Habakkuk
flanking
a
clipeate representation
of Christ. The
way
the
edge
of the cut traces
a circle above David's head
suggests
that the circular
portrait
of Christ also
appeared
in
the Pantokrator
Psalter,
as observed
by Corrigan.22
Whether Habakkuk was
represented
cannot be
determined,
though
his
presence
seems
likely.
Folio 72.
Upper
text: Ps.
57:8b-12, Snake(s)
and
charmer(?) (Br 92,
Ch
56)
Near this
point
in the text
(Ps. 57:5-6)
the Chludov Psalter has a snake charmer and
two
snakes;
the Bristol Painter
represented
one snake and no charmer at Ps. 57:5. The
Bristol Painter's illustration looks more like an edited version of the Pantokrator minia-
ture on folio 193
(two
snakes at Ps.
139:4,
"They
have
sharpened
their
tongue
as the
'9The
10th-century Deposition ivory
at Dumbarton Oaks
(K. Weitzmann,
Catalogue of
the
Byzantine
and
Early
Mediaeval
Antiquities
in the Dumbarton Oaks
Collection,
III: Ivories and Steatites
[Washington,
D.C., 1972],
pl. XLI)
shows Nicodemus at Christ's feet
using
a hammer and
chisel,
visual
cognates
to the hammer and
nails of the Chludov Crucifixion. The Chludov miniature has no
inscription
to
guide
the reader in
interpret-
ing
the
scene;
perhaps
the Pantokrator
image
was likewise uninscribed.
20Anderson,
"Palimpsest Psalter,"
fig.
5,
illustrates the leaf.
21Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs,
22.
22
Corrigan,
Visual
Polemics,
70.
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
tongue
of a
serpent;
the
poison
of
asps
is under their
lips").
It is difficult to know which
version better
represents
that of the Pantokrator. The
upper
text falls
slightly
ahead of
the relevant
passage,
but folio 71v has no miniature and the
upper
text does not match
precisely
with the lower
writing.
The
image
of snake and charmer is
among
the small
number of
parallels
that exist between the Latin
Stuttgart
Psalter and the first
Byzantine
psalters.23
The
parallel
favors the
presence
of the snake charmer in the Pantokrator
min-
iature,
but does not
require
it. The miniature was
likely
lost as a
consequence
of the
removal of the scene on the verso.
Folio 72v.
Upper
text: Ps.
58:1-6a,
Michal lowers David as Saul threatens
(Figs. 12-14)
The
figure
of David
running
to make his
escape
remains on the leaf. Lost from the
side
margin
was a
long image
of Saul and his
army entering
the
city
as Michal lowers
David over the
walls,
as noted
by
Dufrenne in 1966.24 The Bristol
(Ps. 58:1)
and Chludov
psalters
confirm both
subject
and main lines of the
composition.
The Bristol Painter
armed David.
Folio 88v.
Upper
text: Ps.
68:21b-26,
Crucifixion (Figs. 15-17)
Toward the bottom of the
leaf,
some
paint
remains to
verify
the loss of a miniature
from the
margin,
but there is not
enough
to tell what
exactly
was lost at this lower reach
(part
of
Golgotha?
a sandaled
foot?).
The Bristol and Chludov
psalters agree
in
having
the Crucifixion
represented
at Ps. 68:22. In
both,
Christ wears the colobium and
Longi-
nus stands
by
with the lance while
Stephaton
raises the
sponge
to Christ's
lips.
The Chlu-
dov Painter
supplemented
the Crucifixion with two iconoclasts
whitewashing
an
icon,
and it is this
part
that cannot be verified. The
figures'
absence from the Bristol Psalter is
inconclusive,
since the
manuscripts
illuminator omitted the miniatures with
overtly
anti-
iconoclastic content.
Depicting
the act of effacement
required
the Chludov Painter to use
much of the lower
margin.
The format of the Pantokrator Psalter differs from that of the
Chludov
(see
comment on fol.
124, below);
but even
taking
into account the difference
in
shape,
there seem to be no
grounds
for
assuming
the
presence
of the iconoclasts below
the Pantokrator Crucifixion. The issue will be clarified in the
concluding
remarks.
Folio 118v.
John
and
Christfrom
the
Visitation(?) (Ch 85)
The Chludov Psalter has the infants
John
the
Baptist
and Christ
depicted
in the
Visitation. The miniature in the Pantokrator Psalter has been
mutilated,
possibly
to re-
move the
portraits
of Christ and
John;
an
analogy
is
provided by
the
removal,
discussed
above,
of Christ's
portrait
from folio 61. The
shape
of the tear
suggests
that the infants
would have been in the
foreground,
rather than above the
cityscape,
where
they
hover
23Stuttgart
Psalter:
Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek,
Bibl. fol.
23,
fol. 69v
(E.
De
Wald,
The
Stuttgart
Psalter
[Princeton, N.J., 1932];
and Der
Stuttgarter Bilderpsalter:
Bibl. Fol.
23,
Wiirttembergische
Landes-
bibliothek,
Stuttgart,
II
[Stuttgart, 1968]).
The
parallels
common to the Greek and Latin
psalters
are discussed
by
E
Miitherich,
"Die
Stellung
der Bilder in der fruihmittelalterlichen
Psalterillustration,"
in
ibid., 163-202,
and
Corrigan,
Visual
Polemics,
8-13.
24Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs, 26.
311
in the Chludov Psalter. The Bristol Painter did not
paint
the
Visitation, and his
decision
leaves the matter in the
air,
as
perhaps impossible
to
verify.
Folio 124.
Upper
text: Ps.
88:8b-12,
Christ calms the waters
(Figs. 18-20)
Folio 124 is an instance in which the size and
shape
of the loss do not
readily
conform
to the combined
testimony
of the Chludov and Bristol
psalters (Ps. 88:10),
both of which
show a
seascape
across the lower
margin.
The Pantokrator loss is confined to the
side
margin
of the leaf
(likely
removed to obtain the
Transfiguration
on the
verso).
The
nearly
square proportions
of the Pantokrator Psalter recall those of an
early
codex,
though
the
text block is a narrow
rectangle
of medieval
shape.25
So wide were the
margins
that
they
swallowed
up complex subjects
like the
Raising
of Lazarus
(Pk 29),
the Metadosis
(Pk 37),
Woman at t ll con o the Well
(Pk 42v),
Execution of the Four
Kings (Pk
1
15v),
Miracle of the
Quail
and Manna
(Pk 151v),
and others. It is not unreasonable to
imagine
the scene of Christ
calming
the wind and waters fitted into the side
margin
near the verse it illustrated. A
pocket manuscript
like the Bristol Psalter would
require
the
subject
either to be
placed
in the lower
margin,
sinince the
top margins
were
designed
too small to allow
miniatures,
or to be modified.
(See
the modification of the Execution of the Four
Kings,
Br
139;
as
well as the instructive
example
of how the Chludov Painter condensed the same
subject,
Ch
83.)
Folio 124v.
Upper
text: Ps. 88:13-1
7a,
Metamorphosis (Br 147v,
Ch
88v)
A trace of
paint appears
on the verso near the cut. A tall version of the
Metamorphosis
appears similarly composed
in both the Chludov and Bristol
psalters (Ps. 88:13).
The
same
subject
was
likely represented
in the Pantokrator Psalter at this
point.
Folio 131.
Upper
text: Pss.
90:11b-91:2a/2b-8a,
Unrestorable loss
The Bristol Painter did not illustrate
any
of the verses retraced on this leaf. At Ps.
91:11
("But
my
horn shall be exalted as the horn of the
unicorn"),
the Chludov Painter
represented
a
clipeate image
of Christ
(presumed
from the circular
excision)
above a
woman seated with a unicorn. The same
subject, though
without
Christ,
appears
in the
Pantokrator Psalter at Ps. 77:69
("And
he built his
sanctuary
as the
place
of
unicorns"),
where the Chludov has David's
anointing.
In these circumstances it does not seem
pos-
sible to
say
what illustration the Pantokrator Psalter had on folio
131,
since it is
unlikely
that the woman with the unicorn would have been
represented
twice.
Folio 136.
Upper
text: Pss.
94:4b-[95:3], David in
prayer(?);
construction scene
(Figs.
21-23)
At the
top
of folio
96,
near the final verses of Ps.
94,
the Chludov Painter
represented
David in
proskynesis,
at about the
point
where the Paris
Fragment apparently
showed
him
standing
to
pray (P 4,
damaged).
Bristol
provides
no
parallel
for this or the next
miniature
presumed
to be lost.
25Entire leaves have been
reproduced
in
Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs, pls.
30
(Pk 212),
33
(Pk 222); Anderson,
"Palimpsest Psalter," fig.
1
(Pk 209).
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
For the title of Ps. 95
("When
the house was built after the
captivity"),
the Chludov
Painter
represented
a
magnificent
scene of construction that fills the entire side
margin
and much of the lower one as well. The Pantokrator loss allows for a
composition
that
could inhabit somewhat less of the lower
margin (see
comment on fol.
124, above).
An
image
of workmen
setting
columns also
appears
in the Paris
Fragment. Although
in-
spired by
the same
source,
the Chludov and Paris rereesentations are
different, and
therefore show that the illuminators had freedom when
reproducing subjects
not
pre-
cisely
determined
by
either tradition or the dictates of the text.
Folio 139v.
Upper
text: Ps.
98:[lb]-7a,
Cross and
priests(?) (Ch 98)
Bristol contains no miniature for the text on the Pantokrator
leaf,
but at Ps. 98:5
("worship
at his
[the Lord's] footstool")
the Chludov Painter
depicted
an
empty
cross
raised on a
hill;
and below
it,
in illustration of Ps.
98:6,
he
represented
Moses, Aaron,
and
Samuel,
each named in the
passage.
The Paris
Fragment (P 6v)
shows the
empty
cross but not Moses and the
priests.
The size of the Pantokrator loss
suggests
the
presence
of more than the cross.
Folio 149v.
Upper
text: Ps.
104:11-17,
Joseph
sold into
slavery (Br 174v,
Ch
106,
P
13v)
In the bottom
margin
of folio 174v the Bristol Painter
represented Joseph
sold into
slavery by
his brothers
(Ps. 104:17,
'Joseph
was sold for a
slave").
Similarly composed
miniatures
appear
in the Chludov Psalter and the Paris
Fragment (P 13v).
The
figure
of
Joseph
was the
object
of the
removal,
for the brothers remain on the
sheet,
where the
inscription
identifies the scene as
'Joseph
consumed
by
fire,"
a reference to Ps. 104:20
("the
Lord tried him as
fire").
The loss has been noted
by
Dufrenne.26
Folio 150.
Upper
text: Ps.
104:18-[24a],
Joseph
released;
Jacob
arrives in
Egypt (Figs. 24-27)
The Bristol Psalter leaf has suffered loss from
binding.
At the
top
of the
right margin,
a soldier
passively
attends a
young
man who
gestures
in
speech
toward a lost
figure.
The
missing figure
is
Pharaoh,
who was
probably
enthroned since the verse
requires
him to
exercise
power (Ps. 104:20,
"The
king
sent and loosed him . . . and let him
go free").
The
Chludov Psalter contains no
parallel,
but the Paris
Fragment
does:
Joseph
stands before
a ruler on folio
13v,
the scene
immediately following
his sale to the Ishmaelites. In the
Bristol miniature that follows
(Ps. 104:23), Jacob
was
depicted arriving
in
Egypt.
For this
episode
the Chludov Psalter offers a
parallel:
at the left
Jacob
and his
family
enter in a
cart as
Joseph,
enthroned and dressed as a lord of
Egypt, gives
an order to a man car-
rying
arms. The Bristol
composition,
now
badly damaged,
must have been
relatively
elaborate,
and more so than the Chludov
miniature;
the loss means that the
presence
of
Joseph
seated cannot be confirmed for the Pantokrator Psalter.
Folio 150v.
Upper
text: Ps.
104:24b-[30],
Plagues of Egypt (Br 175v-176,
Ch
106v-107)
Folio 151 of the Pantokrator Psalter contains traces of
images
relevant to the
plagues
of
Egypt:
flies, trees,
grasshoppers, caterpillars,
and first-born animals and men. The
26Dufrenne,
Psautiers
grecs,
33.
313
preserved
references can be
compared
with those on folios 175v and 176 of the Bristol
Psalter.
Missing
from the Pantokrator are the waters and
frogs,
which are not
only
in the
Bristol but also the Chludov
Psalter;
the relevant leaf of the Paris
Fragment
(P 14) has
been
mutilated,
but it bears some similarities to the Chludov. The Chludov Psalter also
has the confrontation between Moses and Pharaoh
depicted
before the start of the
plagues;
the absence of the
subject
from the Bristol Psalter leaves its
presence
in the
Pantokrator in
question.
Folio 154.
Upper
text: Ps.
105:35b-[40],
Child
sacrifice (Figs. 28-30)
At Ps. 105:37 the Bristol Painter
represented
men
sacrificing
children at the base of
a
pagan
statue. The sacrifice
agrees
with the versions in the Chludov Psalter and the
Paris
Fragment (P 18)
with the
exception
of the
column,
which
belongs
to the
worship
of Baal in a
preceding
miniature
(and
which is a cliche of
Byzantine
art
by
the eleventh
century).
Folio 154. Lower
margin: Captive
Hebrews
(Figs. 31-33)
The
composition
in the Bristol
Psalter,
which shows a soldier on horseback
using
a
rope
to lead a
group
of Hebrew
prisoners
of
war,
finds a close
parallel
in the Paris
Frag-
ment
(P 18).
Dufrenne notes a trace of a horse's tail on the Pantokrator leaf and
suggests
that the Hebrews taken
captive
had been
represented;
this
suggestion
was endorsed
by
Corrigan.27
The scene in the Chludov Psalter is not the
same;
on folio 110 a battle was
represented
in illustration of Ps. 105:41. Since the Paris
Fragment
and the Pantokrator
Psalter,
by
inference from the
Bristol,
are
aligned,
it follows that the Chludov Painter
changed
the
subject
to a battle. In
fact,
he seems to have chosen to show the scene of
captive prisoners
of war
elsewhere,
at folio
78v,
in illustration of Ps. 77:60
("And
he
gave
their
strength
into
captivity");
Ps. 77:60 is
preserved,
but without
illustration,
in the Pan-
tokrator Psalter.
Folio 169.
Upper
text: Ps. 11
7:15-[22a],
Gates
of Heaven(?) (Ch
1
19v)
The Bristol Psalter has no scene for the text on this leaf. In the Chludov
Psalter,
Ps.
117:20 was illustrated
by
the Gates of
Heaven,
painted
in the side
margin
from the
top
of the leaf down to the last line of text. Mutilation is the
only sign
that a miniature
might
have been
present.
Folio 189.
Upper
text: Ps.
135:19-26a,
By
the river
of Babylon (Figs. 34-36)
The Chludov and Bristol
psalters (Ps. 136:1)
have a similar version of the Hebrews
lamenting by
the river of
Babylon:
a seated male
figure represents
the source of the
river,
which flows down from the
margin along
the lower
edge
of the
leaf;
the
captors
stand
with a tree at their
backs,
and one
gestures
to the seated
figures.
The
way
the leaf was
torn
may
mean that
part
of the miniature rose into the side
margin,
as does the
example
in the Chludov Psalter. The version in the Paris
Fragment (P 40v)
has the
personification
27Ibid., 34;
Corrigan,
Visual
Polemics,
36.
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
of the
spring high
in the
margin
and the waters
flowing
down,
another
composition
that
would
require
extensive
damage
to the folio in order to remove the miniature
intact.
Folio 198.
Upper
text: Pss.
143:4b-144:10a/lOb-14a,
Unrestorable loss
Neither the Chludov nor the Bristol Psalter has a scene
illustrating
the text on
this
leaf. The
strip
lost from the
margin appears
to be too narrow to accommodate
much
more than a
figure
or two.
The evidence can be summarized for convenience. Of the nineteen leaves that were
trimmed,
only
two
(fols.
2
[Ps. 16:3b-13a]
and 198
[Pss. 143:4b-144:14a])
have
psalm
text that neither the Chludov nor the Bristol Painter illustrated. For one other loss
(fol.
131
[Pss. 90:11 lb-91:8a]),
the available
parallel
is not
germane.
Otherwise,
deducing
the
subjects
of the excised miniatures seems
relatively straightforward, although
doubt sur-
rounds a number of individual
points.
But we would never
expect
to infer
accurately
the
appearance
of the lost
compositions.
The evidence
provided by
the related
manuscripts
confirms the
original hypothesis:
the
margins
were cut to obtain
images.
The other losses
that the
manuscript
has suffered are entire leaves and
gatherings. Leaving
aside the four
sheets
kept
in St.
Petersburg
after
Porphirii Uspenskii
removed them from the
psalter,
there are fifteen
separate
lacunae
(counting
the defective
beginning),
some
consisting
of
more than one leaf.28
Judging by
the
preserved
sections and the leaves discussed
here,
many
of the lost sheets contained miniatures. But without the
testimony
offered
by
dam-
age
confined to
margins,
their reconstruction
proves
to be
speculative.
What we know of
the
manuscript permits
some final remarks.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHLUDOV PSALTER
AND THE PARIS FRAGMENT
Success in
recapturing
the circumstances in which the first
psalters
were created de-
pends
on the
ability
to
exploit
a
range
of
evidence,
including
the
Septuagint
text,
the
apparatus supporting
the reader's use of the
text,
the
styles
of
handwriting
and miniature
painting,
and
literary parallels
for select illustrations. Relative content must also
figure
in the discussion.
Ironically,
confirmation of what was not illustrated in the Pantokrator
manuscript
forms an
important part
of its reconstruction. Here I examine
ways
in which
the earliest
psalters
differ
slightly
in
content, and,
on the basis of select
differences,
draw
some modest conclusions
regarding
the
manuscripts'
relative dates of creation.29 The
background
for discussion remains the
degree
to which the
manuscripts
were
similarly
illustrated. Miniatures cited in the
study
of losses at Pss.
58, 88, 104,
and 135
(Figs.
12-14,
18-20, 24-27,
34-36)
stand as a reminder of the kinds of
parallels
that have
prompted
art historians to
puzzle
over the
history
of three works
obviously
related but
just
as
clearly unique.
2L[acuna] 1,
Pss.
1:1-8:3; L2,
Pss.
14:2-16:3a; L3,
Pss.
17:27-19:3; L4,
Ps.
20:4b-14a; L5,
Pss.
21:32-22:6;
L6,
Pss.
40:1-41:6a; L7,
Pss.
43:21b-44:5a; L8,
Pss.
45:5b-46:3a; L9,
Pss.
49:21b-50:6; L10,
Pss.
50:19-51:7;
Lll,
Pss.
58:15-59:7a; L12,
Pss.
63:11-65:15a; L13,
Ps.
71:6b-16a; L14,
Pss. 79:13-80:3; L15, Ps.
105:9b-23a.
29Much of the relevant
bibliography
is cited here in notes
1, 2, 4, 15, 23, 38,
and 39.
315
To
attempt
a
comparison
of the three
early psalters
is to confront the obstacle
posed
by
the Paris
Fragment.
It
opens
with Ps. 91 and runs to Ps.
136,
and even within these
limits a number of leaves have been lost or
damaged.
What remains can be
compared
with the others to establish several
points.
One,
which has been
long recognized,
is that
the first known
marginal psalters
share an extensive
body
of
subjects,
some of them un-
usually complicated.30 Enough
of the Paris
manuscript
remains to know that the Chludov
Psalter was the most
densely
illustrated of the
three;
it contains a
large
number of
subjects
without
parallel
in the Pantokrator Psalter or the Paris
Fragment.31
It is also
possible
to
suggest
that the Pantokrator Psalter was the most
sparsely
illustrated of the three. The
Pantokrator Psalter lacks six of the
subjects
common to the Paris
Fragment
and the Chlu-
dov
Psalter;
given
the limitations of the
evidence,
the number of fewer
miniatures,
though
small,
is
noteworthy.
For the next
step
to be taken it does not matter whether the
core of common scenes is
explained by imagining
an illuminator who retained the
imag-
ery
in his
memory
or
by positing
an illustrated
manuscript
that was
passed
around and
adapted.
Scenes have been added and taken
away
to
satisfy
a
patron's
taste or his view of
the didactic role of the illustrated
psalter.
30The Chludov and Pantokrator
psalters
measured
against
the Paris
Fragment:
Ps. P Ch Pk
94:7 3v
95:Title 4 96 [Rest
163]
95:10 4v 96v 137
96:11 5v 97v 138*
98:5 6v 98v* [Rest
139v]
98:9 7 - 140*
101:26, 27 9 lOlv
102:3 9v 101v 144
103:2-4 11 102v
(at 102:20)
103:17 12 104
104:9 13 105v 151v
(at 104:12)
104:17-22 13v 106* [Rest
149v]
104:29-30 14 106v* [Rest
150]
104:36 14v 107* 151
104:39-41 15 107 151v
105:9-11 16 108 Lacuna
105:17-20 16v 108v Lacuna
105:28-30 17v 109v 153r-v
105:37-41 18 110* [Rest 154]
106:13-14 19v [Rest
=
B
187]
106:19-20 20 [Rest
=
B
187v]
108:1,8 23 113
109:4 25 115
Petrop
4v*
113:3,
5 26v 117 164v
113:12-16 27 117 165*
131:6 37 131v* 184v*
136:1 40v 135 [Rest
189]
-
no
miniature,
no lacuna
(i.e.,
verified as
unillustrated)
*
=
generally agrees,
but with
differences, some
significant
Rest =
subject
lost but restored with
help
of related sources
31Exactly
how
many
will
depend
on an accurate
description
of the Paris
Fragment.
Over the text under
consideration the
subjects
possibly
added
by
the Chludov Painter are on fols. 96v
(Ps. 95:5, demons),
100v
(Ps. 101:7, 14),
102v
(Ps. 102:15-17),
103
(Ps. 103:5-6),
114
(Ps. 109:1),
116
(Ps. 111:9),
116v
(Ps. 113:3),
132
(Ps. 131:7, cf. B
223),
133
(Ps. 134:6-7).
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
The state of the Paris
Fragment
confounds our
attempt
to take the next
step,
which
would be to
identify
thematic differences
among
all three
manuscripts.
Since it is
impos-
sible to
generate
the
patterns
from the
complete cycles,
an alternative method is
required
to advance our
understanding
of the issues. As the
alternative,
I
propose
a
hypothetical
history
of the
manuscripts
that can be tested
against
the evidence available. This
history
begins
at the creation of a
cycle
of
exegetical images
and holds that the
cycle
is most
accurately
reflected in the miniatures of the Paris
Fragment. Although
an accurate
copy
might
have been
produced
at
any
time,
there is no
compelling
reason for not
giving
the
Paris
manuscript chronological precedence
over the other two. The Chludov Painter
took over
virtually
the entire
cycle
known to the illuminator of Paris.
gr. 20;
to the
cycle,
the Chludov Painter added various
subjects, many
of them
prompted by
miniatures in
the source itself. The illuminator of the Pantokrator Psalter worked from the same
cycle
to which he added little that can be verified as
original;32
he
did, however,
substantially
reduce the number of miniatures in the
cycle.
Both the Chludov Painter and the illumi-
nator of the Pantokrator Psalter worked at some distance from the issues that
prompted
the
cycle's
invention,
and the most direct
way
to account for such distance is in terms of
time. The
working
methods
underlying
the
hypothesis
can be confirmed with the
help
of other
psalter manuscripts.
The
eleventh-century
Bristol Painter created a
new,
unified
set of illustrations
by doing
little other than
omitting
miniatures
present
in his model.
Theodore,
the
eleventh-century
Studite
monk,
virtually
reinvented the
cycle by adding
subjects.33
These methods of
editing
were in
use,
I would
claim,
in the tenth
century.
Several
groups
of miniatures offer a means of
testing
the
plausibility
of the
proposed
history.
A
group
that seems well suited is the double
glosses.
Most of the
subjects
in the
psalters
are individual
entities,
a
portrait
or narrative moment that
appears
near a line
of text. Psalm
104,
for
example,
calls
upon
the reader to
praise
God for his wondrous
works,
which are enumerated:
Joseph
sold as a
slave,
made lord over his
house,
and so
on. The illuminator
depicted
in succession the individual
episodes
from the
story
of
Jo-
seph
cited in the text
(Figs.
26, 27).
When the
psalmist (Ps. 88:9) speaks
of God's
ruling
"the
power
of the sea" and
calming
"the tumult of its
waves,"
the illustrators
respond
with Christ in a boat
calming
the water
(Fig. 20).
The
images,
unmediated
by
the com-
mentator's "this means that" or "the
significance
of this
is,"
establish a framework that
effaces
temporal
distinctions to reveal the
clarity
of the divine
plan.
The double
glosses
exploit
the framework for the sake of
comprehending
recent
history.
In
creating
them
an illuminator
joined
two
subjects
to a
single
verse. Often he made the
subjects
mirror
each other in
composition (Fig. 39),
or created a
powerful
visual link between them
(Fig.
17).
The
repetitive quality
of the
depictions
announces a view of
history
in which the
uniqueness
of events is sacrificed in order to reveal fundamental
patterns.
Six double
glosses
are scattered
throughout
the best
preserved
of the
early marginal
psalters,
the Chludov. One has
already
come
up briefly
in the context of a
problem
of
32The one illustration not in the Paris
Fragment (Pk 141v)
is found in the Chludov Psalter
(Ch 100)
at the
same
passage,
Ps. 101 :Title. See note 38 for two
noteworthy subjects
not found in either the Paris
Fragment
or the Chludov Psalter.
33J. Anderson, "On the Nature of the Theodore Psalter," ArtB 70
(1988),
559-65.
317
restitution
(Pk 88v;
Fig. 17).34
Three others
yield particularly
valuable
information;
they
occur at Pss.
51, 68,
and 96
(Figs. 37-43).
In the first
example (Figs.
37, 38),
St.
Peter,
walking
on the back of Simon
Magus,
illustrates the verse "Behold the man who made
not God his
help;
but trusted in the abundance of his
wealth,
and
strengthened
himself
in his
vanity" (Ps. 51:8).
From Simon's overturned
purse,
coins rain over the
ground.
To
this extent both the Pantokrator and the Chludov
agree,
but the illuminator of the Chlu-
dov Psalter
presented
another level of
interpretation:
Patriarch
Nikephoros
holds an icon
as he
steps
on Patriarch
John
the
Grammarian,
who has
dropped
his
bag, spilling
its
contents. In the second
example (Figs.
39, 40),
a
group
ofJews
bribing
the
guards placed
by
Pilate at Christ's tomb
(Matt. 28:11-15)
illustrates Ps. 68:28-29
("Add iniquity
to their
iniquity;
and let them not come into
thy righteousness").
Below the biblical scene the
illuminator of the Chludov Psalter
painted
another. In it an iconoclast
bishop
takes
money
from a man whose head he touches in
blessing;
the
inscription
indicates that the
money represents payment
for
"dishonor[ing]
the
image
of Christ."35 The Pantokrator
Psalter lacks the iconoclast
component.
The final double
gloss
occurs at Ps. 96:11
("Light
is
sprung up
for the
righteous"),
where the Chludov Psalter and the Paris
Fragment
show
an icon of Christ
suspended
between the antlers of a
stag (Figs. 41-43);
the icon is the
source of divine
light
for Sts. Peter and Eustathios. The illuminator of the Pantokrator
Psalter did not
represent
Peter.
Each of the doublets has the same structure. The
psalm
verse was
given
a
typological
significance
that seems unremarkable: an event from Christ's life or from the
Apostolic
era stands as fulfillment of the words of the
prophet
David. The
apparently
conventional
interpretation
served to anchor a second one that
boldly
extended the
parallel
in
time,
to the second
century
(Eustathios),
sometime in the iconoclastic
era,
or the
year
815,
when Patriarch
Nikephoros triumphed
over
John
the Grammarian in a debate.36 The
differences between the Chludov and Pantokrator
psalters
are uniform: the Pantokrator
contains
only
one
subject.
The
question
is: which version is closer to the
hypothesized
original cycle?
The answer reflects with unusual
clarity
on the nature of the
original cycle
and its
genesis.
For the solution I cite three
categories
of
proof.
34Double
glosses
in the three
psalters:
Ps. P Ch Pk
Subject
51:9 L 51v 64* Simon and
Peter/John
and
Nikephoros
55:Title L 54v 68v arrest of David/arrest of Christ
68:22 L 67
[88v] Stephaton
and Christ/iconoclasts and Christ
68:28 L 67v 89* Jews bribe
guards/men
bribe
bishop
96:11-12 5v 97v 138* Christ illuminates Peter/Christ illuminates Eustathios
123:6 L? [B
218v]
182 David and lions/Panteleimon and
leopard
L =
lacuna;
* = truncated
35The Chludov
inscription
is
damaged
and
impossible
to read from the
facsimile;
it
begins
with "Simoni-
acs" and
ends,
after the loss of several
words,
with
"they
dishonor the
image
of Christ
[and]
earn the
wages
of their unlawfulness." A
discrepancy
seems to exist between the
inscription
and the
miniature,
but it is hard
to tell if this conclusion makes too much out of
sloppiness
or if an
explanation
is
actually
demanded;
for
commentary,
see
J. Tikkanen,
Die Psalterillustration im Mittelalter
(repr.
Soest, 1975), 81-82; Grabar,
L'ico-
noclasme, 287-88;
Corrigan,
Visual Polemics, 29-30. Are we to take
"simony" according
to its modern
usage
or
as
merely meaning "bribery"?
36C.
Mango,
The Homilies
of Photios,
Patriarch
of Constantinople (Cambridge,
Mass., 1958), 243,
citing
as
evidence of the debate a remark in the
Synodal
Letter
of
the Oriental Patriarchs to
Theophilos (PG 95:372B).
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON
The available evidence
strongly
favors the
originality
of the Chludov double
glosses;
the Pantokrator miniatures should be viewed as derivative and weakened. The Paris
Fragment preserves
one leaf out of the
four;
on folio 5v
(Fig. 41),
the
light
shines on St.
Peter as well as on
Eustathios,
and thus
helps
tie the Chludov miniature to the
presumed
witness to the
early
level of
psalter
illustration. The first form of
testimony
involves
the
qualitative
differences in
subject
matter. In each of the
miniatures,
save that of Eustathios
and
Peter,
the element lost from the Pantokrator version has a
polemical
force
relating
directly
to Iconoclasm.37 The omissions
belong
to a
pattern apparent throughout
the
Pantokrator
cycle,
at least as it is measured
against
the Chludov and in one case verifiable
with the Paris
Fragment.
For
example,
the illuminator
dropped
the
looming figure
of the
iconoclast
lannis,
holding
a
moneybag
and a snake and
inspired by
a demon
(Ch 35v).
A little before the leaf with
lannis,
the Chludov Painter
represented Judas holding
a sack
of
money (Ch 32v),
and this
portrait
does not
appear
in the Pantokrator
Psalter;
nor does
an entire series that
emphasized Judas' corruption
and his
betrayal
of Christ
(P 23,
Ch
113).
Absent from the Pantokrator Psalter is the scene of the divine
punishment
of
those who
"blaspheme against
God's
Holy
Church"
(inscription,
Ch
lOv)
or that of the
unspecified
sinners
(Ch 31);
the Pantokrator Psalter does not have the
grotesque
men
who
"speak heresy
and murmur
against
God"
(inscription,
Ch
70v)
or the
breaking
of
the sinners' horns
(Ch 74).
The Pantokrator illuminator seems less
pricked by betrayal
and
heresy, though
it is
important
to remember that his work contains the two densest
anti-iconoclationic
images
to have survived
(neither
one known from the Chludov Psalter
or the Paris
Fragment).38
The second
category
of evidence relates to the
originality
of the first element in the
double
glosses.
The
paired sequences
start with a
premise
that seems to be
conventional,
just
more
examples
of the sort of
typology
common to the New Testament and works of
the most
widely
read commentators.39 But in
fact,
the
pairing
of Peter's
triumph
with Ps.
51:8 was not a
commonplace;
it was not cited
by any
of the authors
surveyed by
C. Walter
in his
study
of the
literary background
of the
psalter cycle.40
The same holds true of the
premises underlying
the other two double
glosses.
Even if one or all of the
interpretations
were to be discovered in a
commentary,
it would
only
mean that the
typologies
were
highly
unusual instead of otherwise unknown. The more
satisfactory
conclusion is the
one that sees the double
glosses
as unified creations.
They
were invented as
pairs
to
be
imposed
on the text
following
a method of
scriptural interpretation
that is the
only
conventional
aspect
of the
psalters.
The third kind of evidence
supporting
the
originality
of the Chludov double
glosses
emerges
from a
larger
context. The
history
of the
Byzantine marginal psalters
is
entropic.
37That
of Eustathios and Peter is
indirect,
through
a concern with
holy
visions that has been stressed
by
Grabar, Eiconoclasme, 252-69,
in
relationship
to Orthodox
theology
at the time of Iconoclasm.
38The miniature on fol. 16 has been discussed
by
I.
Sevcenko,
"The Anti-Iconoclastic Poem in the Panto-
krator
Psalter,"
CahArch 15
(1965), 39-52;
and that on fol. 165
by
S.
Dufrenne,
"Une illustration
'historique,'
inconnue,
du
psautier
du
Mont-Athos, Pantokrator n?
61," CahArch 15
(1965),
83-95.
39C.
Walter,
"Christological
Themes in the
Byzantine Marginal
Psalters from the Ninth to the Eleventh
Century,"
REB 44
(1986), 272-77,
relates the
subjects
to a
range
of
writings,
all of which could
reasonably
be said to have had some circulation
among
those now envisioned as
having
been
responsible
for the
produc-
tion of the
psalters.
40Walter,
"Christological
Themes," 280.
319
Over the centuries in which
they
were
made,
the
precise
historical references were
gradu-
ally
lost;
of all the
examples produced
after the ninth
century, only
the Hamilton Psalter
preserves
in
any
number the miniatures that
gave
the first
psalters
their sarcastic
edge.41
The
argument
that the illuminator of the Pantokrator Psalter blunted the
message by
editing
the double
glosses
fits a known historical
pattern.
The added
importance
of the double
glosses
lies in how close
they
take us to
opposing
perspectives
on the invention of the
marginal psalters.
One view sees the ninth- and
tenth-century psalters
as the result of a kind of
slow,
organic growth
from a
type
that
must have been
produced
in
Early
Christian
times;
the
supposed type
would consist of
typologies
and historical scenes drawn from the Old Testament. When the Pantokrator
versions
(Figs.
38, 40, 42)
are
given priority
over those of the Chludov
Psalter,
the result
endorses the
evolutionary
view of the
psalters' origin.
The
(truncated)
miniatures in the
Pantokrator Psalter reflect the
primitive
level of illustration known to a
late-eighth-
or
ninth-century Byzantine.
This
Byzantine
would have added
topical
miniatures to create
a
picture cycle
that
argued contemporary theology
and condemned recent
heresy.
The
second element in the Chludov double
glosses
would thus reflect the
ninth-century
stra-
tum added to the first level. The
opposing position,
the one taken
here,
envisions the
double
glosses
as unified creations that are
separated only
at the risk of
losing
their
significance.
This
position
views the
cycle
as the result of a burst of
creativity,
one for
which earlier
psalter
illustration was of relevance
only
as a
spark
to a volatile
gas.
In the
illustration of Ps. 68
(Figs.
39, 40),
the
topical gloss
is the act labeled
"simony,"
the crush-
ing
of which formed the foundation element in the celebration of
Nikephoros' triumph
over
John
the Grammarian.
Quite likely
the
designer
of the
cycle began
with the con-
demnation of the iconoclast
patriarch
and conceived of the scene of Simon and Peter as
a
way
of
linking
current events to the
prophecy through
use of an
accepted
rhetorical
device. In other
words,
the
designer
of the first
marginal psalter
forced
typological
link-
ages
in order to
provide
a framework for
comprehending
the Orthodox
triumph
over
Iconoclasm and iconoclasts.
Following
the
hypothesis
to its conclusion results in a radical
suggestion:
the
marginal psalter type
known in Greek
manuscripts
was created in the
late
eighth
or
early
ninth
century.
The
trajectory
of creation
began
with a set of
ardently
held views that found
expression
in an
exegetical
structure that had come to be a tradi-
tional
way
of
interpreting Scripture:
the
triumph
of
Orthodoxy
was
integral
to God's
plan
for the salvation of humankind.
Study
of the double
glosses supports
the
argument regarding
the relative
positions
of the three
manuscripts,
the
hypothetical history
that
opened
this conclusion. The Chlu-
dov Psalter and the Paris
Fragment
share a core of
images, many
of them
tendentious;
the Chludov Painter added
subjects,
and in so
doing gave
the
cycle
a
slight
ethical bent
to which later
generations proved highly
sensitive.42 The illuminator of the Pantokrator
Psalter added little but still
changed
the
message;
he blunted the
topicality.
The less
timebound creation found a later audience and on one occasion
provided
the model for
a work in which the
cycle
was
again
edited to create the Bristol Psalter.
Analysis
of content
41C. Havice,
"The
Marginal
Miniatures in the Hamilton Psalter
(Kupferstichkabinett 78.A.9)," JbBM
26
(1984),
79-142.
42Anderson, "Theodore
Psalter," 560-68.
JEFFREY
C. ANDERSON 321
thus
suggests
that the Paris
Fragment
contains the earliest stratum of
illustration,
which
the illuminators of the Chludov and Pantokrator
psalters
modified or
augmented
at a
later time.
The
George Washington University
The Amorium Project: The 1996 Excavation Season
Author(s): C. S. Lightfoot
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:13
The Amorium
Project:
The 1996 Excavation Season
C. S. LIGHTFOOT ET AL.*
INTRODUCTION
The ninth season of excavations at Amorium
in central
Turkey
took
place
over a seven-week
period
in
July
and
August
1996.1 The
analysis
and assessment of the results are still at an
early stage,
but it is
possible
to
give
a
prelimi-
nary
account and
interpretation
of what was
another
very
successful and eventful cam-
paign.2
*Compiled
with the assistance of other team
members,
notably
Eric A.
Ivison, Yalgn Mergen,
Miicahide
Kodak,
and Paola
Pugsley.
'For a
complete bibliography
to
1995,
see C. S.
Lightfoot
and E. A.
Ivison,
"The Amorium
Project:
The
1995 Excavation
Season,"
DOP 51
(1997),
291 n. 1.
During
1996-97 the
following reports
were also
published:
C. S.
Lightfoot,
E. A.
Ivison,
et
al.,
"Amorium Excavations
1995,
the
Eighth Preliminary Report,"
AnatSt 46
(1996), 91-110;
C. S.
Lightfoot,
"1995
ylll
Amorium
kazisl,"
in XVIII. Kazz
Sonuflarz Toplantzsz, Ankara,
27-31
Mayzs
1996
(Ankara,
1997), 431-47;
M.-H.
Gates,
"Archaeology
in
Turkey," AJA
101.2
(1997),
298-300 and
figs. 40-41;
C. S.
Lightfoot,
"Excavations at Amorium in
1996," Bulletin
of
British
Byzan-
tine Studies 23
(1997), 39-49;
C.
Lightfoot,
"Amorium
1996,"
in Anatolian
Archaeology: Reports
on Research Con-
ducted in
Turkey,
ed. G. Coulthard and S.
Hill,
II
(1996
[1997]), 8-9;
and T Drew-Bear and T.
Lochmann,
"Gra-
breliefs aus
Amorion,
Orkistos und der antiken
Siedlung
von
Baglica Zeugen verlorengegangener Grabbauten,"
Ege
Universitesi
Arkeoloji Dergisi
4
(1996),
109-34.
2The Amorium excavations are conducted
by
an inter-
national
group
of
archaeologists
and
students,
many
of
whom have now been connected with the excavations for
several
years.
In 1996 the team
comprised
Chris
Lightfoot
(director),
Eric Ivison
(assistant director),
Yalcn
Mergen
(field archaeologist),
Karen Barker
(conservator), John
Giorgi (archaeobotanist),
Elizabeth Hendrix
(stone
conser-
vator),
Paola
Pugsley (field
archaeologist),
and
Julie
Rob-
erts
(human
anthropologist).
In
addition,
archaeology
graduates
and students from universities in
Turkey,
Brit-
ain,
Germany,
and the United States took
part
in the exca-
vations;
they
were Zeliha
Demirel, Miicahide
Kocak,
De-
fne
Ozbayer, Ay?e Taskln, Fertizat
Ulker, Hasan
Yllmazya?ar
(all from the
University
of Anatolia at Eski-
The main
purpose
of the work at Amorium
has been to trace
through
the
archaeological
record the
developments
and
changes
that the
city
underwent
during
the half millennium or
so from the late
antique
to the middle
Byzan-
tine
period.
A
second,
subsidiary
aim has been
to
investigate
the nature of the transition from
Byzantine
to Turkish
occupation, tracing
the
decline of Amorium from a
large
urban settle-
ment to a small rural
community.
In
addition,
other work is
being
carried out in order to
?ehir), Betiil ?ahin (Ankara University),
Beate Bohlendorf
(Heidelberg University), Olga Karagiorgou (Oxford
Uni-
versity),
Simon
Young (Durham University),
and Christine
Zitrides
(Florida
State
University).
The
project
team is
extremely grateful
for the contin-
ued
help
and
support provided by
the Directorate of Mon-
uments and Museums at the
Ministry
of Culture. We also
benefited
greatly
from the warm welcome and kind assis-
tance extended to us
during
the excavation season
by
Saym
Ibrahim
Avcl,
district
governor
of
Emirdag, Sayin
Ismet
Giiler,
mayor
of
Emirdag, Sayin
Ahmet
Tabur, direc-
tor of cultural
affairs,
Afyon Province,
and
Sayln
Ahmet
Ilash and all the staff of the
Archaeological
Museum in
Afyon.
Numerous other individuals also offered us valu-
able
help,
advice,
and
encouragement, notably Cyril
Mango,
Ebru
Parman,
Hiiseyin Tanrlkulu
(mayor
of Piri-
beyli),
Marlia
Mango,
Richard
Ashton,
David
Barchard,
John Casey,
Mark
Whittow,
and Pamela
Armstrong.
The
government representative
was
Hayriye Avcl
from
the Kocaeli Museum and later Mustafa Demirel from the
Archaeological
Museum in
Antalya.
Visitors to Amorium
during
the summer of 1996 included Levent
Zoroglu (Sel-
juk University, Konya),
Melih Arslan
(Anatolian
Civiliza-
tions
Museum, Ankara),
Peter Kuniholm
(Cornell
Univer-
sity),
Kenneth Harl
(Tulane
University,
New
Orleans),
Timothy
Mitford
(British
Institute of
Archaeology
at An-
kara),
Trevor Proudfoot
(Aphrodisias excavations),
Keith
Devries
(Gordion excavations),
Martin
Styan (from
Bratis-
lava, Slovakia),
Osman
Klzllklll,
and
John
Duncan.
Funds were
generously provided by
the British In-
stitute of
Archaeology
at
Ankara, Dumbarton
Oaks,
the Seven Pillars of Wisdom
Trust,
and the Friends of
Amorium.
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
THE 1996 EXCAVATION SEASON
compare
and contrast the use of both the area
within the
city
and the
territory
that it con-
trolled. This
may,
for
example, help
to shed
light
on the
changes
in land use and the
way
in which
agriculture
in central Anatolia was
gradually replaced by pastoralism
in the medi-
eval
period.
In
addition,
the
Upper City
is
a
large
manmade mound or tell
(hoyiik)
and
holds out the
possibility
of
studying
the earlier
history
of the
site,
but since the
Roman,
Iron
Age,
and Hittite
periods
are
being
studied
elsewhere in the
region, notably
at
Pessinus,
Aizanoi, Gordion,
and
Dorylaeum,
the focus of
the work at Amorium will remain with the late
antique, Byzantine,
and Turkish levels. In this
way
we
hope
to
optimize
the contribution that
the Amorium
Project
can make to the archae-
ology
of central Anatolia.
The
strategy
has been one of
excavating
dis-
crete areas of the
site,
combined with intensive
surface
survey,
in order to
gain
a better un-
derstanding
of the
history
and
archaeology
of
Amorium.
So,
for
example,
before excavations
started it was
commonly
believed that the
city
had been abandoned
by
the
Byzantines
in the
latter
part
of the eleventh
century
and that the
site had remained
completely unoccupied
until
1892,
when the modern
village
of
Hisark6y
was established.
Work, however,
has shown
that there was a considerable Turkish
presence
at Amorium at least from the thirteenth to the
eighteenth century.
Likewise,
the
strategy
of
opening up
trenches both on the
Upper City
mound and in the Lower
City
has allowed us
to
compare directly
these two areas of the site
and to understand better the
changing
rela-
tionship
that existed between them at various
periods
in the
city's history.
In 1996 excavations were conducted in four
trenches
(Fig. A),
one on the
Upper City
mound in a new area next to the trench where
the middle
Byzantine
kiln was found in
1995,
while the other three trenches were in the
Lower
City.
These
provided
much
comple-
mentary
and
contrasting
information about
the
Byzantine
and Turkish
occupation
of Amo-
rium and included for the first time conclusive
evidence for
permanent
settlement of the
Up-
per City
in the Ottoman
period. Equally
excit-
ing
was the
discovery
of a massive stone floor
covering
the whole of the south aisle of the
Lower
City
church,
under which there
may
be
a lower
story
or
crypt.
The other two trenches
supplied
further abundant evidence for con-
tinued
occupation
of the Lower
City
in the
middle
Byzantine period.
At the
dig
house,
much effort was
put
into
recording
the human
bones,
the fresco
frag-
ments,
the decorated stone and
epigraphic
fragments,
and the
coins,
while a
preliminary
survey
of the middle
Byzantine
and late
medieval ceramic finds was conducted
by
Beate Bohlendorf. In
addition,
archaeobotani-
cal
sampling
was carried out
by John Giorgi (a
flotation unit was constructed and
put
into
op-
eration this
year),
while other
samples (carbon,
wood,
paint,
stone,
and
pottery)
have been
sent to the United
Kingdom
and the United
States for
analysis.
In addition to
excavation, research,
and
publication,
there is an awareness of the
proj-
ect's
obligation
to
preserve
the site and to con-
serve the excavated structures so that future
generations
can
enjoy
and learn from Amo-
rium. Each
year
a considerable amount of
time, effort,
and
expenditure
is devoted to this
work both on site and at the
dig
house,
where
every attempt
is made to
repair
and
improve
the facilities.3 In the
long
term there is a
need to
give
Amorium a role within the local
community, providing
educational and recre-
ational
opportunities
not
just
for
visiting
tour-
ists but also for the
people
of
Emirdag.
Ulti-
mately,
the fate of Amorium lies in the hands
not of the
archaeologists
but of the inhabitants
of
Hisark6y
and the
surrounding
area.
THE LOWER CITY CHURCH
The excavation of the Lower
City
church
(Fig.
A,
no.
1)
has been
continuing
since 1990.
Work in 1996 concentrated on three areas in-
side the excavated structure with the aim of
completing
the
planning
of the floor and con-
3So, for
example,
with the assistance of the Turkish au-
thorities in
Emirdag,
further
progress
was made in remov-
ing
some of the
spoil heaps
that have been
building up
around the Lower
City
church since excavations
began
there in 1990. The visit of Trevor
Proudfoot,
arranged by
the British Institute of
Archaeology
at Ankara with the
ap-
proval
of R. R. R.
Smith, enabled a further assessment to
be made of the
long-term
conservation needs of the site.
His
report, being
both constructive in its recommenda-
tions and
encouraging
in its
appraisal
of the
feasibility
for
conserving
the
exposed masonry,
was a welcome contribu-
tion to the season's work.
324
tinuing
the excavation of the main
body
of the
church. The three areas were the central
bay
of
the north
aisle,
the southern half of the
narthex,
and the south section/balk in the south aisle.
The 1995 backfill was cleared from the
bay
and the north side of the nave in order to com-
plete
the
planning
of the floor.4 The
design
of
the
opus
sectile marble
pavement
in the nave
is
quite
intricate;
the floor is divided into
strips
running along
an east-west
axis,
parallel
to the
Phase II
piers,
the Phase I
stylobate,
and the
ambo,
whose foundations
occupy
the center of
the nave. The central
bay
of the north aisle
is,
by
contrast,
paved
with
tiles,
but
only part
is
preserved,
the
gaps being
filled with an earth
floor. The surface of the tiles and of the earth
floor both show
signs
of
burning.
A
sondage
trench was
dug through
the earth floor in an
attempt
to discover traces of the Phase I floor-
ing
and the
original
foundations of the build-
ing.
In the northeast corner of the
bay
a
large
breccia slab
(T967),
uncovered in
1995,
was
lifted
(Fig. 1).
This
proved
to be
part
of the
Phase I
furnishings
of the
church;
to date it is
the
only piece
of the late
antique
ambo that has
come to
light.
As such it constitutes a valuable
addition to the collection of carved stones from
the church and stands as a
comparison piece
to
the
fragments
of the middle
Byzantine
ambo.5
Excavation of the southern half of the nar-
thex started from the level reached in 1993.
Removal of a
layer
of
dumped
earth and rub-
ble revealed remnants of a burned surface on
a
clay
floor. The
clay
floor was laid on
top
of the
Byzantine
tiled
floor,
which is
only par-
tially preserved (Fig. 2).
The
clay
floor is of the
same
period
as other
clay
floors encountered
throughout
the
building,
laid
immediately
above the
damaged
or
stripped Byzantine
pavements.
These
clay
floors were all burned
by
fire. This first
post-Christian phase,
which
witnessed the
stripping
of marble slabs from
the
pavement
in the nave and
bema,
the
scraping
down of frescoes from the lower
walls,
and the demolition of the
liturgical furniture,
4Eric Ivison is
presently engaged
in
linking
the various
sections of the
plan, and, once it is
complete,
we will be
better able to see and
appreciate
the full
layout
of the
pavement
in the nave and bema.
5C. S.
Lightfoot
et
al., "Amorium Excavations
1993,
the
Sixth
Preliminary Report,"
AnatSt 44
(1994), 121,
pl.
xxI(a);
AnatSt 46
(1996), 102-3,
pl. xIII(a).
can be dated
by
a coin found in 1994 in the
Seljuk footing piled
on the
templon
immedi-
ately
after the fire. The coin has been identi-
fied and dated to the
early
thirteenth
century,
thus
providing
a terminus ante
quem
for the first
Seljuk
use of the
building.6
The massive south
balk, created
during
the
excavation of the nave between 1990 and 1993,
covered most of the south aisle. Since it consti-
tuted the last
remaining
section within the
body
of the church that
preserved
a full strati-
graphic
record from the
topsoil
downward, a
careful record was made of each
layer
as it was
removed. In the west
bay
a
large pit
of modern
date had been cut down to within a meter of
the
pavement
and contained
ancient, medi-
eval,
and modern
pottery, together
with one
copper alloy
coin of Leo V
(SF3402).
The
pit
was
evidently
used to rob
masonry
from the
church earlier this
century. Despite
this activ-
ity,
the main south wall is well
preserved
and
furnished an
unexpected
find. In the west
bay
a
large fragment
of
painted
fresco was found
still in situ
(Fig. 3).
The colors of the
fresco,
predominantly
dark
blue,
green,
and
red,
re-
tained much of their
original
freshness. The
fresco
depicts
a
standing figure
clothed in a
long garment
with a central vertical
stripe
and
broad
edges, possibly
meant to
represent
a lin-
ing
of fur.
Only
the lower half of the
figure
sur-
vives,
but it is
likely
from its rather
unimport-
ant
position
within the church's scheme of
fresco decoration that it
portrays
a minor saint.
Interestingly,
the
figure
constitutes a
second,
upper layer
of
painted plaster, indicating
that
here as elsewhere in the church there were two
principal phases
of fresco decoration in the
middle
Byzantine period.
It would seem that
the fresco had survived
largely
because it was
concealed and
protected
behind a rubble wall
that had been built
parallel
to the main south
wall. Other evidence of the Turkish
reoccupa-
tion and use of the south aisle was to be found
in the series of stone-lined
pits
or
troughs
that
had been constructed in the corners of each
bay
between the south wall and the
adjacent
buttresses
(Fig. 4).
One of
these, excavated in
the southeast corner of the east
bay,
was
appar-
6C. S.
Lightfoot, E. A.
Ivison,
et
al., "Amorium Excava-
tions
1994,
the Seventh
Preliminary Report,"
AnatSt 45
(1995), 137, no. 2.
325
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
ently
used over a considerable
length
of time,
for it was
subsequently given
a brick
lining.
All
of these
troughs
have been
interpreted
as stor-
age
bins,
possibly
used for animal fodder and
other
agricultural supplies. During
the course
of excavation
they
were disassembled in order
to allow the excavation of the entire floor of the
aisle and to recover reused
Byzantine
furnish-
ings.
These included a
badly damaged
but still
recognizable
font
(T961), possibly
of middle
Byzantine
date
(Fig. 5).
Another
unexpected
but
very interesting
discovery
was that the middle
Byzantine
floor
of the south aisle was
quite
different from
those in the nave
(marble opus
sectile)
and
north aisle
(tile).
Here the entire
length
of the
aisle was
paved
with massive stone
slabs,
some
of which had
subsequently
been
prised up
from their
original positions, probably
when
the later Turkish
occupants
of the
building
were
looking
for treasure
(Fig. 6).
It is clear
that this floor is not laid on solid
foundations,
as in the case of the north
aisle,
but covers an
empty space
below. This has not been investi-
gated
so
far,
but it would seem to
suggest
that,
as in a number of other
churches,
the south
aisle
may
have a lower
story
or
crypt.
It also
means
that,
despite
our best intentions and
well-laid
plans,
the excavation of the Lower
City
church is far from
complete.
THE UPPER CITY,
TRENCH UU
At the
beginning
of the season a new area
was marked out for excavation
adjacent
to the
trench where the
potter's
kiln had been found
in 1995
(Fig.
A,
no.
2).7
The intention was to
remove the
upper layers fairly rapidly
and so
uncover the middle
Byzantine
strata con-
taining
the
workshop
area.
However,
immedi-
ately
below the
topsoil
we encountered a two-
room
dwelling
whose roof had
collapsed,
leav-
ing
a mass of
partially
burned timbers and
beams. These were
painstakingly
excavated,
recorded,
and
sampled.
The
samples
were
later sorted and a selection removed for fur-
ther
study
at the Carol and Malcolm Wiener
Laboratory
for
Aegean Dendrochronology
at
Cornell
University.
Once this
layer
of debris
had been
removed,
a
good
floor surface was
7AnatSt 46
(1996),
106.
revealed
(Fig. 7).
The finds from this
layer
in-
cluded several
clay
tobacco
pipe fragments,
the
iron mechanism from a flintlock
musket,
and a
silver
para
of the Ottoman sultan Mustafa III
(SF3422,
dated A.H. 1182/A.D. 1769).
The
qual-
ity
of the
construction,
the liberal use of mor-
tar,
and the small finds
suggest long-term
oc-
cupation
and a
relatively high
standard of
living.
Such evidence was
totally unexpected,
since
it had
previously
been
thought
that there had
been no real Ottoman
presence
at the
site,
only
traces of seasonal
occupancy by
Turkoman
tribesmen.8 The late date of this settlement was
also a
surprise,
and it
represents
an
important
addition to the
history
of Amorium. This dis-
covery
has
prompted
a more detailed
study
of
the Ottoman archives in an
attempt
to ascer-
tain the
nature, size,
and status of the Turkish
community occupying
the
site,
known at least
since the time of
Suleyman
the
Magnificent by
the name of Hisarcik.9 The
site, however,
was
apparently unoccupied
when it was identified
as Amorium
by
William Hamilton
during
his
visit in
1836,
and it had
clearly
been deserted
for some time before the
present village
was
founded in 1892.10
Excavation of the substantial Ottoman
layer
took
up
most of the
season,
but below it two
other distinct
periods
of
activity
could be iden-
tified. A number of floor surfaces were
found,
indicating
that
occupation
of the site stretched
back into the
Seljuk period,
but the late me-
dieval strata had
largely
been obliterated
by
the Ottoman
dwelling.
A
layer representing
a
middle
Byzantine
industrial
dump
was also
reached
during
the season but was not investi-
gated.
As a
result,
further
investigation
of the
potter's workshop
has had to be
postponed
un-
til a future season.
8C. S.
Lightfoot,
"Amorium:
Byzantine City
to Turkish
Encampment,"
Minerva 7.4
(1996), esp.
25.
9Ottoman archives show that in 1530 the
village
com-
prised
14 households and included 43
taxpayers,
from
whom the sum of
2,056 akfe was levied. This information
was
kindly provided by Sayin
Muharrem
Bayar,
director
of the Anatolian
High
School in Bolvadin.
10W.
J.
Hamilton,
Researches in Asia
Minor,
Pontus and Ar-
menia,
I
(London, 1842),
449: "We reached the deserted
and
dreary
site of what was once a
populous city;
and sel-
dom have I witnessed a more
striking
scene of solitude and
desolation: a few cattle were
grazing amongst
the
ruins,
and a rank
herbage
and numerous wild flowers
grew
in
profusion
amidst the fallen
buildings."
326
Roman
AMORIUM Extraural
North
PROJECT
Suburb Strea Necropolls
1996
...--,Tower?
Lower City Church
To Ham iTrench
To
Hamzahachll ST
Tower?, "
5) Trench UU
Tower.
"
GaTen c h _
./'"
'-
. ..
.. Gate?
Trench LC
G\t /e?
J
urvivlng
4 Trench
XAIXB
,
Trench
Tower
\
'Gate?
TT
Tower?
Modern cemetery / Church .
Tower?1
\
,'Tower? a
U
pper City
. Tower.,
.\
/Stream
! ; fi
" '
(Act
s i ~ TrenchL /
.> I
\moat)c_-. .
Ga
>
. Tower?
NeCropolis -.
..
Nrl, I,r'1171;1Street?
,%'
Tower?
/
rf,.\<\W S;::^ ^
?
MODE
. ,
Area
,.
nch
/
MODERN
/-^^ ^ r?~-~
Tower?
T''> 4 ower?
tream -S Rock-cut BasillcDomed
ower?
To mb .' #
;
"' ;Church
s. LTofwer?
.^(,* <
Fort? I
--
.?.
-
'
.Gate?
'
'
_
4 ',
8
,,,?
1l
I.
\ Tumulus s Street,
'
Large Building |
.
Dry stream bed
Tren
(Acting aa moat?)
Gate
I
Ancient quarries
Necropolis
LowerCltyWiati--.---
Road
~
,"Tower ? , M ODERN
100 200 300 400 500 Metr To Davulga
Fig.
A Sketch
plan
of Amorium, 1988-96
(adapted
from H. G. Welfare, assisted
by
H.
Dodge
and A.
Wilkins,
in R. M. Harrison,
"Amorium 1987: A
Preliminary Survey,"
AnatSt 38
[1988], 178, fig. 2)
AM96/XB: Sondage
D Brick / N
p
V -6I
V
, , ,/
,
VILLAGE
T
-
f
"
Towe.
'
*'"
"
;
%..CrChurch
%-,
---''O ^
i ,
,'
. ^ .
_..
r
r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t,
i-.4 (C !0 : ,
~
....~~
M'I' ) ~"i
, " LD
,~~~~
@:2iiiiii
, ,7
-
'""
i?
Fig.
B Plan of the excavated area inside the
Stpiiyi ^'*-*^r (^y
?. \
[~-1 '
enclosure,
initial
sondage (drawing by
g ,llisfi
l
\
. !
^
\ *i
^
f
~
eA T a
A
.k.
XtiA w (Y
/
-.t, v-
l*
. ^ .
'
,
Ayse la?kin)
0 1M
I I
Fig.
C Plan of the excavated area outside the
enclosure,
final state
(drawing by Ayse
Tagkin)
M ",
.-. , Fig.
D Plan of the excavated area
.!
!
! !, . inside the
enclosure,
final state
e,3i
~~
~
(drawing by Ayse Taskin)
0
Brick * Mud-Brick
[
Stone
2
^-?------------
--r'-7
ASE_.,,*#
............. .ia6S
.
...,.........._.,,.
^
o_,-sr. ........ ?v.??? -,----F:;,V //,-^ f --_* Jr
^ :~ :: .;........-.....-....-....-..-..........-
., ........
........ ..-. . P* ^
//
4 5
Fig.
E Middle
Byzantine pottery fragments (cat.
nos. 1-4: scale
1:4;
cat. no. 5: scale
1:2)
(drawings by
Beate
Bohlendorf)
I
I
I'.- I
-
(popupJ.ogt agag Agq sSuiM.eip)
(: I api3 :6-9
'sou
'ei3) saJlx o:ijgis palumd 'Xejaod pâotpaup a:ej q j
*.
9
panuzluo j '2ij
I
!
"
x Iw'
~~)ir
8
/D\
10
C
, I
I
,/
11 12
/\
!^J
13
Fig.
G Late medieval
pottery, plain glazed
wares
(cat.
nos. 10-13: scale
1:4) (drawings by
Beate
Bohlendorf)
(
14
14
15
16
Fig.
H
Pottery
from
post-Byzantine
levels
(cat.
nos. 14-15: scale
1:4;
cat. no. 16: scale
1:2)
(drawings by
Beate
Bohlendorf)
r
1%
I
11%
eI I
"'
1
Amorium,
late
antique
ambo slab
(T967)
in
the north aisle of the Lower
City
church
(Neg. AM96/07/36)
2 Lower
City church,
the narthex
looking
east
(Neg. AM96/02/01)
?1 I-5;?8aei
`C I: .1.*??'
:?:: 2i5'
j.
.?:4
4
??? '
.
I
3 Lower
City church,
fresco in the south aisle
(Neg. AM96/02/10)
".
"\M
4
Loeicuh,soaebnithcetaba'fh.e
s
.il (N.
A9/" 1A
4.
.':'........
.b':" ' ." ,
?
4 Lower
City church, storage
bin in the central
bay
of the south aisle
(Neg AM9/06/19A)
",,?j
,.' .;. .:...'' ...
I. .
'
.. . !-~:.''i.:l":!: ..:: : : !i,:i
?
.,..: . . .
.?.-....
. , , , . ,-. ._~. ...
~
....-, :. ,:
s s2:r*e
" :*
F-
:':??" ,:.:
a-i
Pi
'A
.,
t-:
5 Lwe Ctychrc, on (T61 i stuinth
estrnbyoth
sout aisle
c
(Negi.
AM6/6/2A
4.-I
6 Lower
City church, general
view of the south
aisle from the east
(Neg. AM96/08/21)
Xl.
A) '?
4
I
.
'
'
-"
i
F.
rS?I
.
-' I
- f
- -ri
-C -
. I
. .
4
4.,,
p . -
- ;?t "c;?flCr!
Y-iiu
cr.
?:f',""
'L
I-?-- t
7
Upper City,
Ottoman room with a
fireplace
in Trench UU
(Neg. AM96/05/22)
8 Lower
City,
middle
Byzantine buildings
inside the
city
wall in Trench LC
(Neg. AM96/06/29)
- F~~~~~~~~~i
ieli--
-kl?
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*"* ..................
-', .. .
....?.
I
...
..--
. .
.'.
I-
.... -
j_ -'
' 'r
'
?
P: ....'""' ....
j.........
?~~~~~~?ilt ri?~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~"~t.t.'~.ie!;/;. ~'~'~~i Aj;-'?;~,?i.?.,
(Neg ?r i. ?AM96/01/06)~?ti';
U
Ir-J!F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tS~~~~~~~~~~
t~ ~ ~ ~ Mt
7Ih yA4
,-.qJ; p ? flsLL-.
f
*AE
9 A t4
i""~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l
9 Lower
City, general
view of the enclosure from the south
edge
of the
Upper City
mound
(Neg. AM96/01/06)
I;~~~~~~~~~
. :. ~
-i
,wp.-..w
. . . I
-a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
.-?,.V - . . -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"~
... . ,
..~~~~~: '-' .'",~?',~i,""':
..
. , ',, .T , c
~??
.... ~
`W..
~~~~~~~~-~
..,,,.~c:,a~. ~ ~. . ~,-
, . ._: ..
??~~~~~~~~~~~~, ..:
,~
~
.
,~'::'*..
~.:-.....~.~:
. . .....
4 l"-
C: .
.
4
. . . . .. -
-
... .
v
. .
!
10 Lower
City, general
view of Trench XA
showing
the exterior face of the enclosure wall
(Neg. AM96/05/29)
L.?, ?? ?'.. .'..4
,.,..
..????
?
??:? ,?;
"
.:
-,
t' '..
-
-
.
.;g
1%.
.-.~~~~lf?
. -V.
I 1-~
, I
.
,. ... .
'::t'.',' ,,^
' r -
i-
'
1 d. ,, ''l
4
---
'
".tty.
'?
''',
'
r 4
'1
Lwer ity ineirfc fteecouewl nTec.B(e.A 9/40A
11 Lower
City
interior face of the enclosure wall in Trench XB
(Neg. AM96/04/08A)
7 ? Y ~ ~ ~~'""- ~~'E~,?
-~
~
"
cFis:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
_
/ g ?
;-' ?
* tx I _
12
" 'w
~~~~~~~~~.~. ~'..-'"./
- :
.l.
:.1 ;. ,. ' ,.. :',._..,
13 Iron arrowhead
(SF3438)
from Trench XB/Context 5
(Neg. AM96/10/28)
_ _? ?
, .
.9.
.~..'
.'.-. .
"'-
:'~
5t ~9~e1F
: :
.I
- .
.
? . ,I'.~
?
.'
.
p
I
.t
.-
1 :'?
?.
L'
i
X'
I
Z
'J^
? 'C*';
?.?-
*.4
.,
14 Lower
City, troughs
below the
enclosure wall in Trench XB
(Neg. AM96/07/29)
'gr r ir.u?;1
1 r
f ? ? i
?r 9')
1
ig:it
2 SF3419
;Ix
'O
/
j
j!Iii::rt Q
?t
:C
L:g 1.
IJ
i ,?. ?I?
I
t: t
t
1
F;1
:r
:`t? --
'*Lyi E
i4.
(F7r'I :tryTi
'' I-. ?'
..t,lil? L?
4 SF3403
15 Four
copper alloy
coins recovered from Trench XA
(photos:
T.
(akar,
from
casts)
1 SF3420
3 SF3418
THE LOWER CITY, TRENCH AB/LC
Work in the area of the
gateway
and fortifi-
cations in the southwest sector of the Lower
City
walls
(Fig.
A,
no.
3)
started in
1988, the
first
year
of excavation at
Amorium,
and has
continued
every year
with the
exception
of
1990.11 A
large
area has now been
exposed,
re-
vealing
a series of rooms and structures that
were
evidently
built in this area after the forti-
fications had fallen into
disrepair
and had
been abandoned
(Fig. 8).
The season's work
entailed the removal of a massive
quantity
of
rubble debris from the surface of the site. Be-
low the surface
rubble,
numerous
walls,
still in
a
good
state of
preservation,
were
uncovered;
on the associated
floors,
several more
pottery
vessels were found to add to the
examples
ex-
cavated in 1995.12 It now seems clear that these
cooking
wares must date from the middle
Byz-
antine
period,
for
absolutely
no
sign
of later
Turkish
occupation
has been encountered in
this area. One room in
particular proved
to be
of
special
interest,
producing
a wealth of finds.
This was
evidently
used as a
living
area for it
had a hearth built into one wall. The floor in
front of the
fireplace
was
heavily
burned and
retained traces of carbonized cloth. The same
room, however,
also contained somewhat sinis-
ter remains in the form of a human skull and
a
complete
flexed
leg.
THE LOWER
CITY, TRENCH
XA/XB
One of the most
prominent
features in the
Lower
City
is the ruins of a massive walled en-
closure
(Fig.
A,
no.
4;
Fig. 9), lying
almost at
the center of the entire site between the south
slope
of the
Upper City
mound and the Lower
City
church. This feature had
previously
at-
tracted some attention and
prompted specula-
tion about its
possible
function and date. It
had,
for
example,
been
suggested
that it
repre-
sents the remains of a Roman
camp,
which
served to house a vexillation of
legio
XII Fulmi-
nata.l3 Another view was that it indicated the
position
of the main town
square
in the late
Roman
city, possibly
erected at the same time
1DOP 51
(1997),
297-98.
'2AnatSt 46
(1996),
106. The vessel in
fig.
7 is
wrongly
described as
"Seljuk"; compare
DOP 51
(1997),
298.
13
S.
Mitchell, Anatolia:
Land, Men,
and Gods in Asia
Minor,
I
(Oxford 1993),
121 and n. 23.
as the Lower
City
fortifications and
church.'4
But, whatever the function of the enclosure
was,
from both its
position
and its size the area
undoubtedly
had an
important place
in the
history
and life of the
city.'5
It
was, therefore,
decided to test the various
hypotheses by putting
a trench
through
a sec-
tion of the enclosure wall and so find out about
its construction and date. Another reason for
undertaking
a limited excavation in this area
of the Lower
City
was to ascertain the nature
of its
archaeology
in advance of a
large-scale
magnetometry survey
of the site. A
point
was
chosen on the
south-facing
side of the enclo-
sure,
some 25 m from the southwest corner,
and a trench 5 m wide was laid out
along
the
wall. It was decided
initially
to
investigate
the
area
immediately
outside the
enclosure, ex-
tending
for 8 m from the
top
of the wall in a
southeast direction
(Fig. 10).
A second
trench,
10 m
long,
was
subsequently
laid out in the
op-
posite
direction inside the enclosure.
On both sides of the enclosure wall there was
a thick
layer
of rubble
collapse, evidently
from
the wall itself. Once this had been
cleared,
the
full width of the wall and its
general appear-
ance could be ascertained. The wall is 2.35 m
thick and has a core
consisting
of rubble ma-
sonry
and a
gritty,
white mortar. The wall
surfaces are constructed from
medium-sized,
roughly squared masonry
blocks set in hori-
zontal rows and
interspersed
with a few brick
fragments.
The interior face is the better
pre-
served
(Fig. 11).
The wall was excavated
right
down to its foundations on both
sides,
which
revealed that it
comprised
two distinct
phases.
On the interior face the first
(lower) phase
was
clearly
marked
by
scorch marks on the surfaces
of the blocks in its
uppermost
row and
by
asso-
ciated ash
layers
in the southwest section.16 On
14C. S.
Lightfoot,
"The Survival of Cities in
Byzantine
Anatolia: The Case of
Amorium," Byzantion
68.1
(1998),
69.
15It was learned
during
the course of the season that
the enclosure had been excavated
by villagers many years
ago,
in
part merely
to obtain
building
stone. The results of
this
activity
can be
clearly
seen in the
deep pits
left in the
enclosure
wall,
especially along
its east side. One
elderly
villager,
who admitted to
having
taken
part
in this
illegal
digging,
also affirmed that substantial
buildings
had been
found within the
enclosure, some of which had once had
marble floors.
16Samples
were taken from this ash
layer
for C-14 dat-
ing,
the results of which are still awaited.
327
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
the exterior, on the other
hand,
part
of this
earlier
phase
of the wall had been robbed and
backfilled with earth before the construction of
the second
phase (Fig. 12).
At the base of the
enclosure wall in Trench XB a small area of
tiled floor was encountered
(Fig. B);
this
pre-
sumably represents
all that remains of the
ground
surface associated with the wall.
In the trench outside the enclosure wall
were found four
copper alloy
coins
(see below,
pp.
331-32 and
Fig. 15).
The enclosure wall
itself also
points
to a
mid-Byzantine
date for
both of its
phases,
since the two
phases
resem-
ble each other
closely,
while in
comparison
with the other structures so far excavated at
Amorium the nearest
parallel
is the second
phase
fortification wall of the
Upper City
mound. This has
tentatively
been dated to the
tenth to eleventh centuries.17 The enclosure
should
probably
be
assigned
a
military pur-
pose
since the outer wall was
clearly
intended
to be
defensive,
and it
may represent
the head-
quarters,
barracks, stables,
and
depots
of the
thematic
troops
that were based at Amorium
in the tenth and eleventh centuries.18
The small finds from either side of the wall
were
markedly
different. Outside the enclo-
sure,
large quantities
of
glass
vessel and
glass
bracelet
fragments
were
encountered,
and a
small number of terracotta loom
weights
was
also recovered.19
By
contrast,
the trench inside
the enclosure
produced large
amounts of ani-
mal bone. Both trenches also contained
many
iron
objects (principally nails),
but it was
only
inside the enclosure that two iron arrowheads
and an iron knife blade were found
(Fig. 13).20
17DOP 51
(1997),
299.
8
Early-10th-century
Arab sources
provide
a list of the
Byzantine
forces stationed in the eastern
provinces
of the
empire;
see M.
Whittow, The
Making of
Orthodox
Byzantium,
600-1025
(Basingstoke-London, 1996),
184
(also pub-
lished
by
the
University
of California Press under the title
The
Making of Byzantium,
600-1025). The
army
of the Ana-
tolikon theme stands out as
by
far the
largest
of these with
a nominal
strength
of
15,000 men,
many
of whom were
presumably
based at
Amorium,
the
provincial capital.
"9So,
for
example,
the contrast in the number of brace-
let
fragments
recovered from Trench XA outside the en-
closure
(57 fragments)
and from XB inside the wall
(7
fragments)
is
particularly striking.
These,
together
with
the other
glass
finds from the season's
work,
will be studied
in detail
by Margaret
Gill
during
the summer of 1997.
20For the arrowhead
(SF3438;
L. 10.6
cm), compare
G. R.
Davidson, Corinth,
XII: The Minor
Objects (Princeton,
1952), 200, pl.
91
(nos. 1529-30).
Large quantities
of
pottery
sherds were recov-
ered from both trenches. This material, which
has still to be studied in detail, includes a wide
variety
of wares and offers an
opportunity
to
develop
both a
typological
and a
chronological
sequence stretching
back from the middle
Byz-
antine
period
into the Dark
Age. Preliminary
inspection
of the finds revealed that the
pot-
tery
included
plain cooking
wares and a num-
ber of decorated wares
(glazed, painted,
bur-
nished,
and relief
wares).
In
addition,
several
fragments
of
"metropolitan" glazed
ware were
found,
indicating
that some
luxury pottery
was
imported
from
the
eighth
Below and
partially
cut
by
the enclosure wall
were found three stone
troughs,
one
being
outside and the other two inside the wall
(Figs.
C, D,
and
14). They
had all been carved out of
single
blocks of stone and had been
arranged
in a line so that the narrow ends of the
troughs
touched each other. The blocks had been hol-
lowed out to form shallow
troughs measuring
0.36 m wide and 0.14 m
deep;
the
exposed
narrow end of two of the
troughs
had been
squared
off,
while the other end of the middle
trough
was rounded. This
shaping gave
the
troughs
the
appearance
of
sarcophagi,
but the
depth
of their interiors and the
presence
of
small
drainage
holes cut into two of them
would seem to
imply
some other use. A short
stretch of loose rubble
wall,
aligned
with the
troughs,
was also
exposed immediately
inside
the enclosure. These features have
yet
to be
fully investigated
and
explained,
but their
very
existence under the enclosure wall is of
great
significance,
for
they
show that this area of the
city
had a
quite
different
layout,
orientation,
and use before the construction of the en-
closure.
BONES
(by Julie
A.
Roberts)
The
study
of the human remains
produced
some
unexpected
results. A total of
2,240
bones were
examined,
most of which had been
recovered from the rock-cut tomb
(MZ01)
in
1995.21
Analysis
of this material is not
yet
com-
plete,
but to date 51 adults and 22 subadults
(aged
less than 18
years old)
have been iden-
2'AnatSt 46
(1996),
97-102.
328
tified. This information confirm
gained
from the
sparse grave goo
that the tomb was in use over a ve
riod of time.
All of the remains were disartici
the
exception
of a
complete
flexec
in
LC5/Context 8
during
the 1996
i
majority
were
fragmentary,
althoi
crania from the rock-cut tomb wer
state of
preservation.
Six intact
(from
LC5 and
MZ01)
enabled an
stature to be
calculated,
while clos
tion of the cranial and
pelvic morp
the dimensions of the articular surf
bones enabled the determination o
some individuals.
Age
at death wa,
by
observation of the
development
tion of
teeth,
the auricular surface
symphysis
of the
pelvis,
the
epiphl
of
long
bones,
ectocranial suture c
the
appearance
of the sternal ends
following
table shows the number (
als,
divided
by
sex,
that has been ic
each area of the site.22
Area Male Female Subadult Unki
MZ01
TT
ST
LC
A2-1
AB
D
19
3
1
3
0
1
0
I
O
16
2
1
0
0
0
0
O
O
22
3
1
0
0
0
0
MNI =
minimum number of individuals
s the view tions
(particularly pectineus,
an adductor and
ds,
namely,
flexor muscle used
extensively
in activities
ry long pe-
such as horseback
riding).
The most common
pathology
identified was
alated, with dental disease. There were numerous ex-
I
leg
found
amples
of antemortem tooth loss, a
phenome-
season. The non that is
commonly
caused
by periodontal
ugh
several disease. Carious lesions also occurred fre-
e in a better
quently,
and the two conditions
may
be linked
long
bones to a combination of
poor
dental
hygiene
and a
estimate of diet
high
in
carbohydrates
and
sugar.
There was
,e examina-
relatively
low
prevalence
of
degenerative joint
)hology
and
disease, which,
together
with the
suggested
aces of
long
diet and
stature,
might
indicate that the de-
)f the sex of ceased had
enjoyed
a
relatively high
standard
s calculated of
living
and
belonged
to a
high
social class.
t and
erup-
There were few
examples
of traumatic in-
and
pubic jury.
Those identified included a fractured hu-
yseal
fusion merus that was well healed but
badly
set,
a
losure,
and fractured fibula that had
subsequently
become
of ribs. The
infected,
and a fractured and
partially
healed
of individu- tibia. The fractured and infected clavicle of a
dentified in neonate
(newborn
baby) may represent
an in-
jury
that occurred in utero. An
x-ray
of a mis-
shapen
vertebra
proved
that the deformation
Total was the result of a fracture rather than of a
nown MNI
congenital
condition. In
addition,
two cases of
L6 73
maxillary
sinusitis were identified. There were
4 12
few
examples
of
periostitis,
a
type
of
superfi-
3 6
cial bone infection
commonly
found in archae-
1 4
ological populations,
and this
again suggests
1 ~1
that a good standard of living was
enjoyed
by
these individuals.
1 1
FRESCOES
The
height
of seven individuals was calcu-
lated,
two from LC and five from MZ01. Those
from LC were both male and measured 1.75 m
and 1.78 m
(5'7"
and
5'8").
From the rock-cut
tomb three males were found to be 1.69
m,
1.70
m,
and 1.76 m
(5'5", 5'6",
and
5'7") tall,
while two females had an estimated
height
of
1.64 m and 1.535 m
(5'3"
and
5').
Several of
the bones that have been examined were
large
and
robust,
having pronounced
muscle inser-
22These
represent
trenches on the
Upper City
mound
(TT
and
ST)
and in the Lower
City (LC, AB, D, and
A2),
the latter
being
the church. MNI
=
minimum number of
individuals, calculated
by
the identification of
repeated
skeletal elements.
A second
important study
started this
year
was that of the fresco
fragments
from the
Lower
City
church. This
work,
undertaken
by
Christine
Zitrides,
aims to
inventory
and
classify
all the
fragments
recovered from the
church since its excavation
began
in 1990.
More than
eighteen
thousand
pieces
of
painted
plaster
and
thirty-five masonry
blocks that still
have fresco
adhering
to their surfaces were
studied
during
the
season,
the information
from which is now
being
collated and made
into a database. The results from the database
will be
ready
before the start of the 1997 sea-
son,
when it is
hoped
that the
study
of this in-
teresting
and
important group
of material will
be continued.
329
1
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
DECORATED STONES
Numerous
examples
of
sculpted
stone exca-
vated from the Lower
City
church
preserve
traces of the
original polychrome
decoration.
Close visual
inspection
with the unaided
eye
and a low
magnification (x5)
hand lens can re-
veal the
range
of colors used as well as the
pat-
terns of color
applied
to the
sculpted
surfaces.
In 1996 a
special study
of this material was
carried out
by
Elizabeth Hendrix
using
tech-
niques
that she had
developed
while
working
in the Athenian
agora.
This was the first time
that such
techniques
had been
applied
on an
archaeological
site in
Turkey.23
Ultraviolet re-
flectance
photography
can,
in some
cases,
en-
hance traces of the
polychromy.
It was tested
on selected
examples
of carved stone from the
church that either still
preserve
traces of
paint
or were believed to have been
painted.
Normal
daylight photography,
both color slides and
black and white
negative
film,
were also used
to document the stones for
purposes
of com-
parison
and to
provide
information
regarding
color and form to
augment
the ultraviolet re-
flectography. Finally,
colored
drawings
were
made to
map
extant traces of
paint.
Once the
photographic
results have been studied in de-
tail,
another set will be made in order to illus-
trate the reconstruction
(or possible
recon-
struction)
of each stone as it
appeared
when
the
paint
was first
applied.
In
addition,
samples
of
paint
from stones
representing
the two
major building phases
of
the church were also taken for
analysis
in or-
der to
identify
the actual
pigments
used at
Amorium. It should be
possible
to determine
whether the artisans continued to use the same
pigments
in the middle
Byzantine
reconstruc-
tion of the church as were used in the
original
building during
the late fifth or
early
sixth
century
or whether
pigments changed
in the
course of time. The
analyses
should also
pro-
vide some
insight
into the artists'
technique.
Some of the
preliminary
results from the ex-
amination of
fifty-seven sculpted
blocks in-
23A
report
on this research was delivered at the Archae-
ological
Institute of America's 98th Annual
Meeting,
held
in New York in December
1996;
cf. E. A. Ivison and
E.
Hendrix,
"Reconstructing Polychromy
on Middle
Byz-
antine Architectural
Sculpture," AJA
101.2
(1997),
387.
clude the
range
of colors used to embellish the
stone
(red, black, blue,
and
yellow)
and the
ap-
plication
of the
paint, following
the form of the
carving
to some
extent,
but
crossing
forms on
occasion or
only partially coloring
forms on
other occasions. It was also clear that
symme-
try
of color was not
always
intended,
as
oppos-
ing
forms
might
be the same color on one
part
of a stone and different colors on another sec-
tion of the same stone. These initial conclu-
sions show that the
painting
of stones at Amo-
rium was an art in its own
right, changing
as
well as
enhancing
the
appearance
of the
carved stone surfaces that embellished the
Lower
City
church.
INSCRIPTIONS24
As in
previous
seasons,
the number of
epi-
graphic fragments
recovered in 1996 was small
and all of the recovered
pieces
contained
only
very
short texts. Three
examples
were found
during
the excavations in the Lower
City
church
(T851, T902,
and
T945),
while another
(T975),
overlooked when first found in
1993,
also comes from the same location. One of
these
(T851)
is
part
of an inscribed frieze block
of Roman date that had been reused in one of
the narthex walls. Of
greater
interest is a col-
umn shaft
fragment (T902)
in
gray
veined
marble inscribed with the letters
OI
(or
IO
=
the numeral
19), not,
perhaps,
a mason's mark
per
se,
but rather
part
of the column number-
ing system
used
by
the builders of the
church,
similar to the letters A' and B' noted on the
stylobate
in 1995.25 The
remaining fragments
are
unprovenanced
surface
finds,
among
which is an attractive ciborium
spandrel frag-
ment
(T952)
in white
marble,
inscribed
along
the
top
and decorated with a
twisting
acanthus
design
in low relief below. It was donated
by
Recep
Din:er,
who stated that he had found
it in the ruins of an old house in
Emirdag;
it
probably
came
originally
from Amorium.26
24A
corpus
of
inscriptions
recorded at Amorium be-
tween 1993 and 1997 is now
being prepared
for
publica-
tion
by
Thomas Drew-Bear.
25DOP 51
(1997),
293.
26The
inscription
has been read
by Cyril Mango
as ...
TO
K(al) KontaKoti To
K(ai) z
...
330
COINS
Thirty-four
coins were recorded
during
the
1996
season,
of which
twenty
came from ex-
cavated
contexts,
while the
remaining
four-
teen coins are surface finds.7 The coins were
cleaned and consolidated on site
by
the
proj-
ect's
conservator,
Karen
Barker,
and casts were
made for future reference and further
study.
At the end of the season all of the coins were
deposited
in the
Afyon Archaeological
Mu-
seum. Since the
inception
of the
project
a total
of 231 coins have been recorded. This
year's
finds follow the same
chronological pattern as
has been met with in
previous
seasons.
The
corpus
includes three late Roman coins
(SF3401, SF3417,
and
SF3424),
one of which
was found in the Lower
City
church. The Dark
Ages
are
represented by
two,
possibly
three,
is-
sues
(SF3591, SF3631,
and
SF3572),
while of
even
greater importance
are the four
copper
alloy
coins
dating
to the first half of the ninth
century, representing
issues of
Nicephorus
I,
Leo
V,
and
Theophilus (SF3420, SF3402,
SF3613,
and
SF3406).
In
addition,
there are
examples
from the
reigns
of Leo VI and Ro-
manus I from the late ninth and first half of
the tenth
century (SF3632
and
SF3411).
The
rest of the middle
Byzantine
finds are
anony-
mous and
signed
folles. Those from excavated
contexts include one
example
from the church
(SF3416),
two from Trench LC
(SF3404
and
SF3408)
in the area of domestic
occupation
be-
hind the Lower
City
walls,
and three from
Trench XA in the Lower
City immediately
out-
side the enclosure wall
(SF3418, SF3419,
and
SF3403).
The latter
group
includes a
signed
follis of Romanus IV. These
finds,
together
with the associated
pottery assemblages,
would
appear
to confirm that areas of the Lower
City
were
occupied
in the tenth and eleventh centu-
ries,
but that
they
were
subsequently
aban-
doned and not reused in the Turkish
period.
By
contrast, Trench UU on the
Upper City
mound has
produced
a
large
amount of late
(Seljuk
and
Ottoman) material,
including sig-
nificant
quantities
of
glazed pottery
and Otto-
man
pipe
bowl
fragments.
Two Islamic coins
27The latter include seven coins
generously
donated
by
one of the
workmen, Mustan
Ate?,
while another four ex-
amples
were handed in
by
Ali Ozcan.
(SF3421
and
SF3422)
were also recovered
from this
trench,
one of which
may
be a
Seljuk
copper
coin,
while the other is the silver
para
of
the Ottoman sultan Mustafa III, dated 1769.28
Here
only
the details of the four coins recov-
ered from the area outside the enclosure are
offered
(Fig. 15).29
1.Nicephorus
I
(802-811); AM96/XA13/
SF3420;
from the Lower
City,
27.07.96;
AE, follis,
class
2; 24-23
mm;
6.1g;
6h.
Obv. Two busts
facing, Nicephorus
on 1.,
Stauracius on r.
wearing
loros.30
Rev.
Large
M,
cross
above,
A
below; to
1., XXX;
to
r.,
NNN. DOC III.1: 358;
P. Grierson,
Byzantine
Coins
(Berkeley,
Ca-
lif., 1982),
no. 700.
2.
Anonymous follis, Class A2
(976?-ca.
1030/35); AM96/XA13/SF3419;
from the
Lower
City,
24.07.96; AE; 31-28
mm;
12.2g;
6h.
Obv. +eMMA
NO[VHA];
bust of Christ fac-
ing,
with cross-nimbus and
holding
book;
in
field, IC
[XC].
Rev. +IhSUS /
XRIST[US]
/bASILeU /
bASILe. DOC III.2: 670
(var. 43).
3.
Anonymous follis,
Class C
(1042?-ca.
1050); AM96/XA12/SF3418;
from the
Lower
City,
26.07.96; AE; 28-26
mm;
9.4g;
6h.
Obv.
+eM[M]A N[O]VHA;
three-quarter-
length figure
of Christ
Antiphonetes,
with
cross-nimbus
having pellet
on each
arm,
holding
book;
in
field,
IC XC.
Rev.
Jeweled
cross with
pellet
at end of
each arm and IC XC / NI KA in
angles.
DOC III.2: 681-82.
4. Romanus IV
(1068-71); AM96/XA/ Con-
text
1/SF3403;
from the Lower
City,
sub-
soil outside enclosure
wall, 18.07.96; AE;
27
mm;
4.5g;
6h.
28N. Pere, Coins
of
the Ottoman
Empire (Istanbul, 1968),
216, no. 639; G.
?ahin,
"Battalalti
Definesi,"
Kayseri
Miizesi
Yzllhg 1
(1987), 29-32,
esp.
31.
29Each coin is
described,
and details of its
size,
weight,
and die-axis are
given. Square
brackets indicate where the
legend
is
illegible
and has been restored.
30The obverse is
badly corroded, but a cross can
just
be
discerned in the field above and between the two
imperial
busts. It is, therefore,
preferable
to
identify
this coin as an
issue of
Nicephorus
I rather than of one of his
successors,
Leo V or Michael I.
331
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
Obv. Bust of Christ
facing;
in
field,
IC XC
over NI KA.
Rev. C R / P
A;
Latin cross with X at inter-
section and one
large
and two small
pel-
lets at end of each arm. Overstruck on an
anonymous
follis of Class G. DOC III.2:
796-97
(8.16); Grierson,
Byzantine
Coins,
no. 997.
GLAZED POTTERY FROM TRENCH TT
(by
Beate
Bohlendorf)
In 1994 and 1995 an
area,
designated
as
Trench
TT,
was excavated on
top
of the
Upper
City
mound.31
During
these
excavations,
fea-
tures and floors associated with the Turkish oc-
cupation
of Amorium
appeared
in the
upper
levels.32 A real
surprise
here was the
discovery
of a middle
Byzantine potter's
kiln,
the
only
example
of such a structure so far for this
pe-
riod in Anatolia.
The structures that
lay stratigraphically
be-
tween the Ottoman contexts and the level asso-
ciated with the kiln
comprised
a number of
small rooms and
produced
a
variety
of medi-
eval
ceramics,
coarse as well as
glazed
wares.
The lower kiln levels
produced Byzantine
cooking pots
and
glazed
ceramics,
together
with residual late Roman and
Sagalassos
ware.33 In addition to the kiln
itself,
the recov-
ery
of a considerable
quantity
of wasters and
misfired
pottery, although
in
slightly higher
levels,
indicates that an active
pottery
and
brick
production
center existed in Amorium at
this time. The
pottery
from this
stratigraphical
context forms the
subject
of the
following
cata-
logue.34
3'AnatSt 45
(1995), 121;
C.
Lightfoot,
"Excavations at
Amorium,"
Anatolian
Archaeology:
Reports
on Research Con-
ducted in
Turkey
1
(1995), 5;
DOP 51
(1997),
298-300.
32AnatSt 45
(1995),
121-22. The date of the latest Otto-
man
occupation was, however,
only
ascertained in 1996
(see above,
p. 326).
33AnatSt 46
(1996),
105.
34The
study
of the
Byzantine pottery
was
begun only
in
1996. Last season's work was restricted in time and
scope,
and,
as a
consequence,
this
report
is limited to a discussion
of certain selected
examples
of
glazed pottery.
It is
hoped
that in 1997 a full
study
of all the
pottery
from Trench TT
will be carried out.
Key:
D. =
diameter of
rim;
DE =
diameter of
foot;
DH. =
diameter of
handle;
H. =
height.
All measure-
ments are in centimeters.
Slip
and
glaze
are to be taken
as
appearing
on both the inside and the outside of each
example,
unless stated otherwise. The
height
of the
appli-
Fabrics35
Fabric 4: reddish
yellow
to brown
(C9-10,
D9-12, E9),
on occasions fired
partly gray
(A7-10, B7), very
fine
grain, sandy,
small fine
pores (round, elongated).
Soft.
Fabric 6: reddish
yellow
to brown
(C9-10,
D
1), gritty,
fine
pores (round). Hard,
smooth fracture.
Fabric 7: reddish
yellow
to brown
(C9,
Dl
1),
gritty, sandy, very porous (round, oval,
elon-
gated).
Soft,
rough crumbly
fracture.
Fabric 9: reddish
yellow
to brown
(C9-10,
D10-12, E10),
much fine
gold
mica,
sandy,
very porous (round, oval,
elongated).
Soft.
Fabric 10: brown
(D10-11, E10, E12), gritty,
fine
gold
mica,
fine
pores (round).
Soft.
Fabric 13: brown
(D10-11, E9-10), very
gritty, quartz, many
fine
pores (round,
elon-
gated).
Soft,
cracked fractures.
Fabric 14: brown
(D10, E9, Ell),
much fine
gold
mica,
quartz,
fine
pores.
Cracked frac-
tures.
Middle
Byzantine Pottery (8th-first half of
9th
century)
1. AM95/TT1 14
(11):
from north of the kiln
(Fig.
E, 1).
Red
painted
ware:
body
sherd. Fabric 7
(C10).
Decoration: small red line on the
outside
(8E5,
reddish
brown).36
2.AM95/TT115
(37):
fill of
pit
119
(Fig.
E, 2).
Plain
glazed
ware: flat bottom of a
jug(?).
DE 9.2. Fabric 13
(E10).
Thin
glaze
on the
outside and under the bottom without
slip
(5D7, golden brown), rough
surface.
3.
AM95/TT122, 128,
131
(13, 14):
fill of
city
wall construction trench
(Fig.
E, 3).
Incised ware: six rim sherds of a shallow
bowl with
triple molding
on rim. D. 23.2.
cation of
slip
and
glaze
is shown in the illustrations
by
dot-
ted lines. The colors of the
glaze
and their
designation
are
given according
to the "Lexikon der
Farben";
see A. Korn-
erup
and
J.
H.
Wanscher,
Taschenlexikon der Farben
(Zurich-
Gottingen, 1981).
35In this
report only
fabrics
represented
in Trench fT
are listed.
Specimens
of the color of the biscuit were deter-
mined
according
to C.E.C. Color Charts.
36Pottery
with this decoration has also been found in
other trenches at
Amorium,
but it is
especially
common on
the
Upper City
mound.
332
Fabric 4
(A9, C10).
Glaze without
slip,
in-
side different coloration
(4D6, 4E4, amber
yellow, olive),
outside
up
to 1.95
(4D6,
honey yellow),
bubble holes.
Rough,
dull
surface. Decorated on the inside of the
molded rim with a relief tooth
cutting,
while the
body
has an incised
pattern
un-
der the
glaze,
visible on three of the
sherds;
one
depicts
the head of a
bird, the
other two have
part
of a
loop
motif. On
the
outside,
an incised
wavy
line in the
form of a shallow
groove.37
4.
AM95/TT128
(36): layer
below Context
67
(Fig.
E, 4).
Plain
glazed:
rim of a small bowl. D. 13.8.
Fabric 6
(D11). Shiny glaze
without
slip
(between
5C8 and
5D8,
brownish
yellow
to
yellowish brown),
fine crackled.38
5.
AM95/TT146
(44) (Fig.
E, 5).
Plain
glazed:
small handle of a
cup(?).
DH.
0.55/0.8. Fabric 4
(C9).
Thick
glaze
of
good quality (29E8,
deep green)
without
slip.
Late Medieval
Pottery (second
half of
13th-14th
century)
6.AM95/TT67
(58):
open
area outside
structure,
mixed with middle
Byzantine
wasters
(Fig.
F, 6).
Painted
sgraffito
ware: rim of a
deep
bowl.
D. 25.6. Fabric 10
(D1). Slip (B1),
glaze
inside
(28A4,
pastel green),
outside
up
to
4.1
(27B5,
grayish green),
thin
glaze
with fine cracks. Decoration:
sgraffito
and oxide
painting
with
irregular stripes
(5E6, 27E7,
mustard
brown,
grayish
37Hayes
dated
pottery
with this
type of
fabric,
glaze,
and form to the 7th
century;
see
J.
W.
Hayes,
"A Seventh-
Century Pottery Group,"
DOP 22
(1968), 203-16,
esp.
203-5,
fig.
C16. The Sarachane
material, however, does
not include
any specimens
with incised
decoration,
so the
example
from Amorium
may
be later. The decoration on
the Sarachane Glazed White Ware
Group
I
(pottery
with
white
biscuit, dated to the 8th
century)
is similar to the
decoration of the Amorium
bowl; see
J.
W.
Hayes,
Sara-
fhane
in
Istanbul,
II: The
Pottery (Princeton, N.J., 1992),
15-
17. Also
belonging
to the 8th
century
are some
chafing
dishes from
Aegina
that have a similar decoration on the
rim and incised
motif; see E
Felten, Die christliche
Siedlung,
Alt-Agina
1.2
(Mainz, 1975), 75-76,
pl. 28,
156. Also found
at
Aegina
were
chafing
dishes with a red biscuit and
brown
glaze.
38For this
type,
see
Felten,
Die christliche
Siedlung, 74-75,
pl.
19,
146.
green).
Motif: leaves and
triangles hang-
ing
from the lower of three rim circles.
7. AM94/TT53
(41):
floor surface of a room
(Fig.
F, 7).
Painted
sgraffito
ware: bottom with
molded
ring
base and
deep slanting
sides. DF. 9.7. Fabric 14
(E10). Slip
in-
side,
outside
up
to 5.35
(E2), glaze
inside
(1A4,
pastel yellow),
outside
up
to 6.2
(27C6, grayish green), glaze
dull and
cracked. Decoration:
sgraffito
and oxide
painting
with
stripes (27F6,
dark
green)
and dots
(27D8, deep green).
Motif:
leaves and crosshatched
triangles hang-
ing
from a circle.
8.
AM95/TT67, 109
(54):
same context as
for nos.
6, 9,
and 11
(Fig.
F, 8).
Painted incised
sgraffito
ware: rim of a
deep
bowl. D. 25.2. Fabric 10
(Dl 1).
Thick
slip
(B1), glaze
inside
(2A4,
pastel yellow),
outside
(28B7, 5E5,
green,
bronze
brown), dull,
sintered
glaze
with bubble
holes. Decoration: incised
sgraffito
and
oxide
painting
with
stripes (6F3, 28A6,
29E8, coffee
brown,
green, deep green).
Motif: three rim circles and radial lines.
9. AM95/TT67
(47):
same context as for
nos.
6, 8,
and 11
(Fig.
F, 9).
Painted
sgraffito
ware:
deep
bowl with
molded
ring
base,
deep curving
wall and
rounded rim. D.
21.0;
DF.
8.7;
H. 9.8.
Fabric 9
(D12). Slip
inside,
outside
up
to
3.55-4.55
(B1), glaze
inside
(30B5,
gray-
ish
green),
outside
up
to 3.8-4.45
(27B5,
grayish green), glaze
dull and cracked.
Decoration:
sgraffito
and oxide
painting
with
stripes (27D6,
grayish green)
and
splashes (6E4, brown).
Motif: leaves and
crosshatched
triangles hanging
from the
lower of two rim circles. The base of the
leaves
spring
from a central cross-
hatched circle.
All of these vessels bear a clear similar-
ity
in terms of
fabric,
profile,
and decora-
tion/motif to a
Byzantine
ceramic
group
from
Pergamon,
which
may imply
the
same
production
center.39 This
type
of
39The so-called Keramik mit
grinen
und
purpurnen
Flecken
group;
see
J.-M. Spieser,
Die
byzantinische
Keramik
aus der
Stadtgrabung
von
Pergamon, Pergamenische
For-
schungen
9
(Berlin, 1996),
49-50.
Spieser
does not ar-
333
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
pottery
is also found at
Ephesos,
Me-
tropolis,
and Sardis in
Byzantine
con-
texts,
indicating
a wide distribution in
western-central Anatolia.40
10. AM94/TT53
(35):
same context as for
no. 7
(Fig.
G, 10).
Plain
glazed:
rim of a flat bowl with inner
edge.
D. 28.2. Fabric 7
(D12).
Thick
slip
(E2), speckled glaze (27F7, 27D8,
dark
green, deep green),
outside
up
to 0.45-
1.9,
glaze
of
poor quality,
iridescent with
many
cracks.
11.
AM95/TT67, 109
(50):
same context as
for nos.
6, 8,
and 9
(Fig.
G, 11).
Plain
glazed:
handle. DH. 1.4-2.15 and
1.45-2.1. Fabric 9
(Dl ). Slip (El), glaze
of
poor quality (28F7,
dark
green), very
crackled.
12.AM95/TT109
(48): open
area outside
structure
(Fig.
G, 12).
Plain
glazed:
1.5-2.2. Fabric 10
(D10).
Slip (El),
speckled glaze (28F3, 28B3,
dark
green,
grayish green), glaze
of
poor quality,
iri-
descent,
very
crackled,
bubble holes.
13.
AM95/TT109
(49):
same context as for
no. 12
(Fig.
G, 13).
Plain
glazed:
1.6-2.2. Fabric 9
(D 1). Slip (El), speck-
range
the fabrics
clearly
into
groups,
but he mentions "Die
auBere
Flache,
wenn nicht von der Glasur
bedeckt,
zeigt
oft ein 'fettes' oder sodar
'seifeges'
Aussehen" of the un-
glazed body;
see
ibid.,
49. These characteristics can also be
seen on the sherds from Amorium. For
profiles
and deco-
ration,
see
ibid.,
pl.
52 and
pl.
10, 163,
respectively.
40E.
Parman,
"Ayasoluk Tepesinde
Bulunan Bizans Ker-
amikleri"
(Ph.D. diss., Ankara, 1978), 83,
inv. no.
77,
illus.
60a
(Parman's
transitional
Byzantine/Seljuk pottery);
at
Metropolis (Torbali),
in a
13th-century
context from
Byz-
antine
buildings
in the
upper
levels of the
theater,
find
nos. Ti.
94.5,
Ti.
94.83;
and at
Sardis,
inv. no. 23
(the
Is-
lamic
painted sgraffito
ware from Sardis is
quite different;
see H. G.
Crane,
"Preliminary
Observations on the Glazed
Pottery
of the Turkish Period from Sardis," BASOR 228
[1978], 51-54,
fig. 7).
This ware is also
regarded
as of
Byzantine
manufacture
by J. Soustiel,
La
ceramique islamique,
VI: La
ceramique
tradi-
tionnelle
byzantine
du IXe au XIVe siecle
(Paris, 1985), 142-44,
pl.
168
(from
Constantinople).
One
may
also note the ex-
cavation of "late
Byzantine"
houses
(Areas
Z13 and
Z14)
within the ruins of the Roman baths at
Hierapolis
in
Phrygia; here, too,
sgraffito
ware has been
found,
together
with other
pottery,
identified as
Seljuk;
see S.
Yllmaz,
"De-
nizli,
Hierapolis (Pamukkale)
antik kenti Roma hamami
sondaj
kazisl ve temizlik
aali?malarl,"
in IV Miize Kurtarma
Kazzlarz Semineri, 26-29 Nisan
1993, Marmaris
(Ankara,
1994), 202-3,
pls.
21-26.
led
glaze (28E8, 28D7, 28C3:
deep
green, grayish green,
Nile
green), glaze
of
poor quality, very
iridescent,
very
crackled,
bubble holes.
Pottery
from Post-Byzantine
Levels
14. AM94/TT26
(46):
fill of late medieval
dwelling (Fig.
H, 14).
Plain
glazed
ware: rim of shallow bowl. D.
31.2. Fabric 10
(E10). Slip, glaze (inside:
27E7,
grayish green;
outside: 26B5,
grayish green).
15.AM95/TT49
(39): pit
fill
(Context 28),
cut into fill of
dwelling (Fig.
H, 15).
Plain
glazed
ware: rim of a flat bowl. D.
19.6. Fabric 4
(A10/E10).
Inside
glaze
without
slip (speckled
5E7, 5F6,
lino-
leum
brown,
tobacco
brown), glaze
of
poor quality
with
many
bubble holes
and cracks.
16.AM95/TT49
(38):
same context as for
no. 15
(Fig.
H, 16).
Relief
ware:
body
sherd of a
bowl(?).
Fab-
ric 4
(B7). Thick,
shiny glaze
without
slip (inside:
speckled
28E8, 28F6,
deep
green,
dark
green;
outside:
4D8, olive).
Decoration: well-molded band of
egg
and dart under a massive
ridge.
Conclusions and
Prospects
The
pottery
from Trench TT shows-as
does the material from other contexts-that
the
typical
middle and late
Byzantine sgraffito
wares,
well known from other
Byzantine
sites
such as
Ephesos, Metropolis, Pergamon,
and
Sardis,
are not
represented
at Amorium. On
the other
hand,
the
glazed pottery
in the Sel-
juk
levels
belongs
to the
group
of late
Byzan-
tine
painted sgraffito
wares. It remains uncer-
tain whether these vessels were
produced
locally by
Turkish
potters,
whether there was
Byzantine pottery production
at Amorium
during
the
Seljuk period,
or whether the
pot-
tery
was
imported
from
Byzantine
merchants.
The
study
of this
corpus
of material will be of
fundamental interest for the
analysis
of social
changes
after the
Seljuk occupation
of Amo-
rium and
may
shed new
light
on the nature of
Seljuk
rule.
The middle
Byzantine pottery
of the kiln
area with its wide
range
of
glazed, painted,
and
334
coarse wares
provides
an
important body
of ev-
idence for
pottery production
in central Ana-
tolia at this time.
Currently
there is still a lack
of material from the
Byzantine
"Dark
Ages"
in
the whole of
Anatolia,
so this material and the
study
of the
pottery production
at Amorium
will be crucial for our future
understanding
of
Byzantine
ceramics.
CONCLUSION
The season's work has allowed us both to
confirm certain views about the
history
of the
site and to
develop
new
insights
and theories.
So,
for
example,
the
archaeological
evidence
has confirmed that there was a
prosperous,
if
small,
Turkish settlement at
Amorium,
cen-
tered on the
Upper City
mound,
until the lat-
ter
part
of the
eighteenth century
and that for
some unknown reason this was abandoned
soon thereafter. Further research in the Otto-
man archives is
required
to
explain
this
phe-
nomenon,
but it would seem to be
part
of a
more
general
trend in which a number of vil-
lages
in the
Emirdag-Bolvadin
area were aban-
doned in the
early
nineteenth
century.
Sufficient evidence has now been collected
from Trench
AB/LC to allow a
good
under-
standing
of the
history
of the Lower
City
forti-
fications and of the domestic
buildings
that
succeeded them. The
city
walls were built in
the late
antique period,
while the houses date
to that of the
Byzantine
revival in the tenth and
eleventh centuries. The 1996 season added
further valuable
information,
especially
as it
proved
that there is no trace of
any
structures
or
occupation
of the area
immediately
behind
the defensive wall north of the
gateway during
the
intervening period
of the
Byzantine
Dark
Ages.
These excavations also confirmed the
lack of
any
Turkish
occupation
in this
outlying
area of the site.
Likewise,
there was no
sign
of
any post-
Byzantine activity
in Trench
XA/XB situated in
the middle of the Lower
City.
This in itself was
a
significant discovery, indicating
that land in
the
very
center of the site was devoid of later
Turkish remains and that there were undis-
turbed middle
Byzantine
and Dark
Age
levels
immediately
below the modern
ground
sur-
face. This new trench also
proved
to be im-
mensely
valuable because it
provided good
evi-
dence for the construction and use of a
major
new
complex,
which
perhaps
had a
military
function,
during
the
period
of the
Byzantine
revival. Further
work,
including
nonintrusive
survey
of the whole
area, is
planned
for future
seasons in the
hope
of
establishing
the enclo-
sure as a middle
Byzantine military
com-
pound.
The
discovery
in 1996
may
thus
pro-
vide
important
new information about the
Byzantine army
on the
ground,
since it would
be the first
example
of such a base to be iden-
tified.
By
contrast,
the excavations within the
Up-
per City
have shown that there was a
prosper-
ous and
vigorous community living
there in
middle
Byzantine
times. As well as evidence for
an industrial
quarter,
domestic
buildings,
com-
plete
with
large storage jars,
have been
found,
while the outline of a church can still be traced
on the
present-day
surface of the mound.41 In-
deed,
the evidence would seem to
suggest
that
at least from the second half of the ninth cen-
tury
the
Upper City
formed the nucleus of the
Byzantine
settlement. The inhabitants of Amo-
rium, however,
continued to make use of areas
within the Lower
City,
even
though
this was
now
unprotected
and
lay
outside the walls.
For,
as well as
continuing
to use and look after the
church,
some of the middle
Byzantine popula-
tion of Amorium lived in
housing
constructed
on
top
of and behind the ruins of the Lower
City
walls.
Nevertheless,
the
presence
of the fortified
enclosure in the Lower
City may perhaps
indi-
cate a reversal of roles for the Lower and
Up-
per City
areas after the
Byzantine
Dark
Ages.
The construction around the
Upper City
of a
separate
circuit of walls made of
spolia
from
the Roman
city
should
probably
be associ-
ated with the establishment at Amorium of the
headquarters
of the
magister
militum
per
Orien-
tem in the 640s.42
So,
while the civilian inhabi-
tants continued to look to the Lower
City
walls
for
protection during
the troubled times of the
seventh and
eighth centuries,
it is
likely
that
the
military
command took
up
its
position
in
the most suitable defensive
position,
the
Up-
per City.
41This
building
has not
yet
been
investigated,
but it
would
appear
to be smaller in
length
than the Lower
City
church.
42Byzantion
68.1
(1998),
64-65.
335
THE AMORIUM
PROJECT:
In
1997,
the last
year
in the second
five-year
cycle
of work at
Amorium,
efforts will be con-
centrated on the
study
of the material that has
already
been excavated and the
preparation
of an interim
report
for the
years
1993-97.
Plans are now
being
made for the next cam-
paign
that will take the Amorium
Project
for-
ward into the
twenty-first century.
336
Back Matter
Accessed: 15/04/2008 08:13
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Dumbarton Oaks
Papers
52
AASS Acta
sanctorum,
71 vols.
(Paris, 1863-1940)
AB Analecta Bollandiana
ACO Acta conciliorum
oecumenicorum,
ed. E.
Schwartz,
4 vols. in 27
pts. (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922-74)
AIPHOS Annuaire de l'Institut de
philologie
et d'histoire orientales et slaves
AJ
ArchaeologicalJournal
AJA AmericanJournal of Archaeology
ALw
Archivfiir Liturgiewissenschaft
AnatSt Anatolian Studies
AnnHistCon Annuarium historiae conciliorum
AnzWien
Anzeiger
der
[Osterreichischen]
Akademie der
Wissenschaften,
Wien,
Philosophisch-histor-
ische Klasse
AOC Archives de l'Orient chretien
'ApX.Biv.Mvrl.'EXX. 'ApXEiov
TOV
Buvavxtvcv Mvr|eicov Tiq; 'EXXa6oS
'ApX.AeXT. 'ApXatoXoytKbv AeXTiov
'ApX.'E(.
'ApXatoXoytKic 'EqrlLgep?;
Archlug Archaeologia iugoslavica
ArtB Art Bulletin
BAcBelg
Bulletin de la Classe des lettres et des sciences morales
etpolitiques,
Academie
royale
de
Belgique
BASOR Bulletin
of
the American Schools
of
Oriental Research in
Jerusalem
BCH Bulletin de
correspondance hellenique
BHG Bibliotheca
hagiographica graeca,
3rd
ed.,
ed. F
Halkin,
3 vols.
(Brussels, 1957)
BHGAuct Bibliotheca
hagiographica graeca,
3rd
ed.,
ed. F
Halkin,
vol.
4,
Auctarium
(Brussels, 1969)
BHO Bibliotheca
hagiographica orientalis,
ed. Socii Bollandiani
(Brussels, 1910)
BMGS
Byzantine
and Modern Greek Studies
Bonn ed.
Corpus scriptorum
historiae
byzantinae,
ed. B. G. Niebuhr et al.
(Bonn, 1828-97)
BSA The Annual
of
the British School at Athens
BSCAbstr
Byzantine
Studies
Conference,
Abstracts
of Papers
BSl
Byzantinoslavica
ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen
ByzSt Byzantine
Studies/Etudes
byzantines
BZ
Byzantinische Zeitschrift
CahArch Cahiers
archeologiques
CahCM Cahiers de civilisation
medievale,
Xe-XIIe siecles
CCSG
Corpus christianorum,
Series
graeca
CCSL
Corpus christianorum,
Series latina
ABBREVIATIONS
CFHB
Corpus
fontium historiae
byzantinae
CHR Catholic Historical Review
CIC
Corpus
iuris
civilis,
3 vols.
(Berlin, 1928-29; Dublin-Zurich, 1972)
CI Codex
lustinianus,
ed. P.
Kriger (Berlin, 1929)
Dig Digesta,
ed. Th. Mommsen and P.
Kriiger (Berlin, 1928)
Nov Novellae, ed. F. Schoell and G. Kroll
(Berlin, 1928)
CorsiRav Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina
CPG Clavis
patrum
graecorum,
ed. M. Geerard and F.
Glorie, 5 vols.
(Turnhout, 1974-87)
CRAI
Comptes
rendus des seances de l'annee de l'Academie des
inscriptions
et belles-lettres
CSCO
Corpus scriptorum
christianorum orientalium
CSEL
Corpus scriptorum
ecclesiasticorum latinorum
CSHB
Corpus scriptorum
historiae
byzantinae
CTh Theodosiani libri XVI cum constitutionibus Sirmondianis et
leges
novellae ad Theodosianum
perti-
nentes,
ed. Th. Mommsen and P. M.
Meyer,
2 vols. in 3
pts. (Berlin, 1905)
DA CL Dictionnaire
d'archeologie
chretienne et de
liturgie
AXT.' ET. 'EX.
AXriNov Tfi;
'IoxoptKig
KaiK
'E0voXoyIKTcf 'Eratpe?iag Ti;
'EXX66o
AEXT.XptIT.'ApX.'E.
AeX/tov Ti;
XptTcxavucKig 'ApXatoXoytKcfS 'Etap?eia
DHGE Dictionnaire d'histoire et de
geographie ecclesiastiques
DOC A. R.
Bellinger
and P.
Grierson,
Catalogue of
the
Byzantine
Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collec-
tion and in the Whittemore
Collection,
3 vols.
(Washington,
D.C., 1966-73)
DOP Dumbarton Oaks
Papers
DOS Dumbarton Oaks Studies
DOT Dumbarton Oaks Texts
DSp
Dictionnaire de
spiritualite'ascetique
et
mystique
DTC Dictionnaire de
theologie catholique
EHR
English
Historical Review
EO Echos d'Orient
'Er.'E.Bvu.iBc. 'ETcerpip; 'Eratpe?ia
BuVavxtvv
X7ov5c&v
EphL Ephemerides liturgicae
GCS Die
griechischen
christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten
[drei] Jahrhunderte (1897-
GOTR Greek Orthodox
Theological
Review
GRBS
Greek,
Roman and
Byzantine
Studies
HTR Harvard
Theological
Review
IRAIK
Izvestija Russkogo arheologiceskogo
instituta v
Konstantinopole
IstMitt Istanbuler
Mitteilungen,
Deutsches
Archaologisches
Institut,
Abteilung
Istanbul
JbAC JahrbuchfiirAntike
und Christentum
JbBM Jahrbuch
der Berliner Museen
JDAI
Jahrbuch
des Deutschen
Archdologischen
Instituts
JEH Journal of
Ecclesiastical
History
JOB Jahrbuch
der Osterreichischen
Byzantinistik,
vol. 18-
(Vienna,
1969-
JOBG
Jahrbuch
der Osterreichischen
Byzantinischen Gesellschaft,
17 vols.
(Vienna, 1951-68)
JSav
Journal
des savants
JTS
Journal
of Theological
Studies
AacK.Tc. AaoKw vtcKa Zirovu6ao
338
ABBREVIATIONS
Lampe
G. W. H.
Lampe,
A Patristic Greek Lexicon
(Oxford, 1961-68)
Loeb Loeb Classical
Library
Mansi
J.
D.
Mansi,
Sacrorum conciliorum nova et
amplissima
collectio,
53 vols. in 58
pts. (Paris-
Leipzig,
1901-27)
MelRome
Melanges d'archeologie
et
d'histoire,
Ecole
franSaise
de
Rome
MGH Monumenta Germaniae historica
ScriptRerMerov Scriptores
rerum
Merovingicarum
MM F Miklosich and
J.
Muller,
Acta et
diplomata graeca
medii aevi sacra
etprofana,
6 vols.
(Vienna,
1860-90)
N?o;s
'EX.
Nfog
'EXXrvogIvfiLov
OC Oriens christianus
OCA Orientalia christiana analecta
OCP Orientalia christiana
periodica
ODB The
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium,
ed. A. Kazhdan et
al.,
3 vols.
(New York-Oxford, 1991)
OKS Ostkirchliche Studien
OrChr Orientalia christiana
PG
Patrologiae
cursus
completus,
Series
graeca,
ed.
J.-P. Migne,
161 vols. in 166
pts. (Paris,
1857-66)
PL
Patrologiae
cursus
completus,
Series
latina,
ed.
J.-P. Migne,
221 vols. in 222
pts.
6
(Paris,
1844-80)
PLP
Prosopographisches
Lexikon der
Palaiologenzeit,
ed. E.
Trapp
et al.
(Vienna, 1976-1996)
PLRE The
Prosopography of
the Later Roman
Empire,
vol.
1,
ed. A. H. M.
Jones, J.
R.
Martindale,
andJ.
Morris
(Cambridge, 1971);
vol.
2,
ed.
J.
R. Martindale
(1980);
vol.
3,
ed.
J.
R. Martin-
dale
(1992)
PO
Patrologia
orientalis,
ed. R. Graffin and F Nau
(Paris,
1903-
PPSb
Pravoslavnij palestinskij
sbornik
(1881-1916)
FIparK.'ApX.'E. flpa-c KTtKa i v
'A0fivat 'ApXatoXoytKf; 'Eratpeia;
RAC Reallexikon
far
Antike und Christentum
RB Reallexikon der
Byzantinistik,
ed. P. Wirth
(Amsterdam,
1968-
RE
Paulys Real-Encyclopddie
der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft,
new rev. ed.
by
G. Wissowa
[and
W.
Kroll]
(Stuttgart, 1894-1978)
REA Revue des etudes anciennes
REB Revue des etudes
byzantines
REG Revue des etudes
grecques
RESEE Revue des etudes sud-est
europeennes
ROC Revue de l'Orient chretien
RQ
Romische
Quartalschriftfiir
christliche Altertumskunde und
fiir Kirchengeschichte
RSBS Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi
SBMunch
Sitzungsberichte
der
Bayerischen
Akademie der
Wissenschaften,
Philosophisch-
historische Klasse
SBN Studi bizantini e neoellenici
SC Sources chretiennes
ST Studi e testi
StMed Studi medievali
SubsHag
Subsidia
hagiographica
339
ABBREVIATIONS
SiidostF
Siidost-Forschungen
Synaxarium
CP
Synaxarium
ecclesiae
Constantinopolitanae. Propylaeum
ad Acta sanctorum
Novembris, ed.
H.
Delehaye
(Brussels, 1902)
ThQ
Theologische Quartalschrift
TIB Tabula
imperii byzantini,
ed. H.
Hunger (Vienna,
1976-
TM Travaux et memoires
TU Texte und
Untersuchungen
zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur
(Leipzig-Berlin,
1882-
VChr
Vigiliae
christianae
VizVrem
Vizantijskij
vremennik
WByzSt
Wiener
byzantinistische
Studien
Zepos,Jus
Jus
graecoromanum,
ed.
J.
and P.
Zepos,
8 vols.
(Athens, 1931;
repr.
Aalen, 1962)
ZKircheng Zeitschriftfiir Kirchengeschichte
ZNW
Zeitschrift fur
die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft
und die Kunde der alteren Kirche
ZRVI Zbornik radova
Vizantoloskog
instituta,
Srpska akademija
nauka
ZSavKan
Zeitschrift
der
Savigny-Stiftung fir Rechtsgeschichte,
Kanonistische
Abteilung
ZSavRom
Zeitschrift
der
Savigny-Stiftung fir Rechtsgeschichte,
Romanistische
Abteilung
340
STYLE GUIDE FOR THE DUMBARTON OAKS PAPERS
M anuscripts should be submitted in duplicate to the director of
Byzantine
Studies. Illustra-
tions
accompanying
initial submissions should be
photocopies,
not
originals.
Changes
made in an article once set into
type
are
costly,
and authors who
request
excessive
changes
will be
charged
for amounts above ten
percent
of the initial cost of
composition. They
should, therefore,
submit
only
clean and
carefully
revised
copy, prepared according
to the follow-
ing style guide.
A
manuscript
not
prepared
in this
manner,
even
though accepted
for
publication,
may
be returned to its author for revision and
retyping.
Authors will
normally
receive
only
first
(or galley) proofs
for
proofreading.
Manuscript preparation
1. All
manuscripts
must be
typewritten, double-spaced,
with
pages
numbered
consecutively
throughout
the text and footnotes. Use
good-quality paper, leaving
wide
margins
of at least one
inch on all sides. Do not use erasable
paper
or
very
thin
(onion skin) paper.
Leave extra
space
between
paragraphs only
if it is
required
in the
printed
article. Footnotes should be numbered consecu-
tively
and must be
double-spaced
on
separate
sheets of
paper following
the text of the article. Submit
the
original manuscript
and one
clear,
clean
copy;
retain a
copy
for
your
own records. In some
cases it
may
be feasible to use the
computer
disk
copy
of articles in the
editing process.
If
you
have a disk
copy, please
submit it with the final version of
your
article.
2.
Foreign
words and abbreviations that have become current in
English
should not be itali-
cized. For
example,
ca., ibid.,
passim,
idem, s.v.,
and in situ should not be italicized or underlined.
Do not italicize Greek.
3. Follow standard American
usage
for
spelling.
Consult Webster's Third New International Dic-
tionary
or its
abridgment,
Webster's New
Collegiate Dictionary. Capitalization
should be consistent
throughout
the text. For
guidance
in
this,
as well as on
grammar
and
punctuation,
use a standard
reference
work,
preferably
The
Chicago
Manual
of Style,
14th ed.
(Chicago, 1993),
or W.
Strunk,
Jr.
and E. B.
White,
The Elements
of Style,
3rd ed.
(New York, 1979).
Footnotes
1.
Verify
all references and
quotations
before
submitting your manuscript.
Include all re-
quired
facts of
publication. Incomplete
contributions will be returned to the author for com-
pletion.
2. In
writing
footnotes the author should consider
completeness, clarity,
and
brevity,
in that
order. For abbreviations of
commonly
cited
journals,
series,
and reference
works,
use the Dumbar-
ton Oaks List of
Abbreviations,
available on
request.
The first reference to a book or article must
be
complete.
For
subsequent
references use the author's last name and a shortened form of the
title;
ibid. should be used
sparingly.
3. All titles should be cited in the
original languages,
not in translation. Slavic transliterations
should follow the Dumbarton Oaks
system (available
on
request).
Citations of Greek should be
clearly legible.
STYLE GUIDE
4.
Examples:
Books
1C. Diehl,
Manuel d'art
byzantin,
2nd ed., II
(Paris, 1926), 442-61.
2E.
Stein,
Histoire du
Bas-Empire,
I
(Paris, 1949),
77ff.
3Diehl, Manuel, 193ff,
fig.
90.
4Les
gestes
des
Chiprois,
ed. G.
Raynaud (Geneva, 1887).
5Eusebius,
Vita
Constantini, 1.3,
PG
20,
cols. 914-16.
6Stein,
Bas-Empire,
I,
777.
Articles
'G.
Ostrogorsky,
"Observations on the
Aristocracy
in
Byzantium,"
DOP 25
(1971),
1-32.
2R.
Guilland,
"Venalite et favoritisme a
Byzance,"
REB 10
(1953),
35-39.
30strogorsky, "Aristocracy,"
12-14.
4Guilland, "Vnalite," 36.
Illustrations
1. After the article has been
accepted
for
publication,
submit
original, sharp, glossy prints
made,
whenever
possible,
from the work to be
reproduced.
If
photos
have, however,
been made
from
reproductions, complete bibliographical
information must be
supplied.
Line artwork is re-
produced
best from
original
ink
drawings
or
photostats,
but in some cases
very sharp photocopies
are
acceptable. Drawings
with broken and
incomplete
lines should not be submitted.
Layout
sketches for the illustrations
prepared by
the author are of assistance and should follow the same
sequence
as that of the
figure
references in the article.
2. Place
figure
numbers and
any necessary cropping
indications on the reverse of the
photos
in
light,
soft
pencil
lines. Do not write
heavily
as this can cause visible
damage
to the
photo
surface
that
may
show in the
printed
illustration. Do not
tape captions
to
photos.
3. A
separate
list of
captions
must
accompany
the
manuscript
when submitted and should
include
complete
sources and credit information.
Captions
should be as brief as
possible.
4. Permissions and
payment
of
any required reproduction
fees are the
responsibility
of the
author.
Copies
of
permissions
must be submitted to the editorial office if
requested.
5. Photos will be returned to the author.
Proofreading
All corrections on
proofs
should be marked as
clearly
as
possible. They
should be
printed
or,
if more than a line or
two,
typed
in the
margins
or on a
separate
sheet of
paper,
with the
point
for correction in the line of
type clearly
marked.
Authors'
copies
Twenty-five offprints
and one
copy
of the volume in which the article
appears
will be sent to
the author free of
charge
at the time of
publication.
Additional
offprints,
which will be billed to
the author at
cost,
may
be ordered when the
galley proofs
are returned to the editor. Additional
copies
of the volume in which the article
appears may
be ordered
by
the author at a
twenty
percent
discount at
any
time.
342

Dop 52, 1998

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dop 52, 1998

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dumbarton Oaks Papers

140 LES FMMS ET jSPAc UBL C A BYZNC

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen