ThirtysixthAnnual

BYZANTINESTUDIESCONFERENCE

UniversityofPennsylvania

Philadelphia

810October2010

ABSTRACTSofPAPERS

1

IndexofSessionsSessionIA: NewMaterialsforNewNarratives 3

SessionIB: MonumentsofConstantinople 9

SessionIIA: PalaiologanSocietyandCulture 15

SessionIIB: IconsinPracticeandTheory 21

SessionIIIA: ByzantiumandtheRenaissance 27

SessionIIIB: Architecture 35

SessionIVA: ConvertsandConversion 43

SessionIVB: PortraitsandPatronsinChurches 49

SessionIVC: LateAntiqueHistoryandHistoriography 55

SessionVA: ManuscriptStudies 61

SessionVB: MedievalEuropeanViewsofByzantium 67

SessionVC: LiturgyandMonasticCulture 73

SessionVIA: ChurchPolitics 79

SessionVIB: ImperialRitualandDynasticRelations 87

SessionVIC: RaisingCapital:TheLaskaridsinNicaeaandNymphaion 95

SessionVIIA: RomanIdentityandtheOther 101

SessionVIIB: MiddleByzantineLiteraryCulture 109

SessionVIIC: ArchitecturalSpaces:Domestic,Acoustic,Monastic 117

SessionVIIIA:HistoryofArchaeology 125

SessionVIIIB: MaterialandMeaninginLateAntiquity 139

SessionVIIIC: ImagesandIconoclasm 135

Index 141

2

3

SessionIANewMaterialsforNewNarratives

4

TheChronicleofGalaxidi:AnOverviewofitsimportanceforunderstandingthehistoryofSouthwestCentralGreecebasedonanew

studyofthems.andananalysisofitssources.

ConstantineG.Hatzidimitriou(St.JohnsUniversity)

TheChronicleofGalaxidi,amonastictextwrittenin1703,preservesdetailsfromsourcesnowlostconcerningthehistoryoftheregionsofLokrisandDoridosinSouthwestCentralGreecefromthetenthtotheseventeenthcenturies.TheuniquemanuscriptoftheChroniclewasdiscoveredintheruinsoftheMonasteryofOurSaviorin1862bythepioneeringGreekscholarKonstantinosSathas.Hepublishedhiseditionshortlythereafteraspartofaregionalhistoryandnoonesincethenhaseitherhadanopportunitytostudythemanuscriptorproduceanewedition.Inthe1940stheeminentByzantinist,NikosBeeswasabletostudyphotographsofthemanuscriptandsuggestedsomecorrections,however,thepreciousmanuscript,thenpartofaprivatecollection,waspresumedlostduringtheaftermathoftheSecondWorldWar.Infact,Beesreportedpriortohisstudy,thatrumorshadcirculatedthatSathashadforgedtheuniquedocumentandthathiseditionwasahoax.

ScholarssuchasBees,Vasiliev,HoodandTivcev,havedemonstratedthe

veracityandimportanceoftheChronicleconcerningSlavicinvasionsandmigrationsintotheGulfofCorinthduringthetenthcentury.Recently,RosserhasmadeapersuasiveargumentinfavoroftheisletsofftheGalaxidicoastinthegulfofItea,asperiodicislesofrefugeusingthesamesource.Similarly,SavvideshasshownthattheGalaxiditextpreservessupplementaryinformationconcerningtheeleventhcenturyactivitiesoftheNormansintheregionandLatinpiratesduringthethirteenth.OthersectionsoftheGalaxidichroniclehowever,continuetobeunderutilizedespeciallyfortheOttomanperiod.

Thispaperpresentsanoverviewoftherediscoveryandanalysisofthelost

manuscriptbasedonareadingofitwhileIwasaGennadiusFellowattheAmericanSchoolofClassicalStudies.TheOverviewconsistsoffourparts:(1)Adescriptionandanalysisofthemanuscript,itslanguage,andtheperspectiveontheeventsitdescribes;(2)SomesuggestionsconcerningthekindsofsourcesthemonkEuthymioshadathisdisposalandhowIbelieveheusedthem.Forexample,acomparisonoftheGalaxidichronicletootherlocalsourcessuchastheChronicleofVarnakovawillbemade.(3)A

5

briefdiscussionofthesectionsoftheChroniclewhichrelateimportantinformationconcerningtheOttomanconquestofCentralGreeceduringthelatefourteenthandfifteenthcenturies.ThesesupplementLatinandGreeksourcessuchasCyriacusofAncona,SphrantzesandKhalkokondyles;(4)SomecommentsconcerningtheattitudeofthemonkEuthymiosontheterminologyheusesforHellenes,Latins,Romaioi,Ottomansandlocalidentitiesbasedontheinternalevidencethetextprovides.

Polystylon:AThracianByzantineTownintheContextofHistoricalDevelopmentsduringthe6th14thCenturiesasDecipheredbyits

ArchaeoAnthropologicalRecord

AnagnostisP.Agelarakis(AdelphiUniversity)

AtByzantinePolystylon(ancientAbdera)ontheThraciancoastoftheAegeanarchaeoanthropologicalinvestigationsundertheauspicesofthe12thEphoreiateofByzantineAntiquitiesidentifiedandrecoveredbetween19811995threesitesinvolvingcomplexhumanactivityareas.Atthefirstsite,anextendedcemeteryandathreeaisledbasilicawerediscoveredoutsidethefortificationwallsoftheByzantinetown.Bothwereinfunctionbetweentheendofthe6thandthe10th11thcenturies.Thesecondsite,withintheacropoliswallsandadjacenttothecentralgateofPolystylonrevealedasingleaisleddomedchurchofthe12th13thcentury.Acemeterydatingtothesameperiodsurroundedthechurchbuilding.ThethirdexcavationsitesituatedatthehighestelevationwithintheacropolisoftheByzantinetownfocusedontheruinsofthe9th10thcenturyEpiscopalChurch.Thewesterncourtyardofthechurchhadbeenusedasacemeteryduringthe13thand14thcenturies.Thispaperfocusesontheanthropologicalmaterialsretrievedfromthethreecemeteriesspanningoveratimeperiodfromthe6thtothe14thcenturies.Thecemeteriesofferedsignificantevidenceonthetypologyoftombs,andoffunerarycustomsandpractices.Thestudyofthehumanskeletalremainsfromthethreecemeteriesbasedonphysicalanthropological,paleopathologicandarchaeometricanalysesprovidedsignificantdataondemographicandbiologicalgrowthdynamicsaswellasofthepathologicprofilesofthepopulationsinvolved,reflectiveofdistincttransformationsin

6

thelivingenvironmentsatPolystylonasaprovincialByzantinetownbetweenthe6thand14thcenturies.ThecombinationofevidentiarydatafromboththearchaeologicalandanthropologicalrecordselucidatefacetsofthechangingsocioeconomicorganizationalcapacitiesatthiswesternThracianByzantinetownwhichallowsforabetterandmorethoroughunderstandingofitshistoricaldevelopment.Inconjunctionwithsuchassessmentsoverarchingintimebetweenthe6thand14thcenturiesatPolystylon,thisstudyofferstheopportunitytoalsoaddressanumberofparticularaspectsofthelargersociopoliticalrealmintheByzantineEmpire.Someemphasisisalsogivenintheearlyyearsofthe14thc.,duringthereignofEmperorAndronicusII,regardingthenatureofcompositionofthepopulationinvolvedinawalledtownundertimesofdistress,inparticularunderthecoevaldecentralizedByzantinedefensestrategyasrevealedatPolystylon.

TheCorpusofDatedandDatableInscriptionsfromConstantinople,Bithynia,andEasternThrace

AnneMcCabe(AthenianAgoraExcavations/CSAD,Oxford)

Somefortyyearsago,thelateProf.IhorSevcenkoandProf.CyrilMangobegancollectingmaterialforaCorpusofDatedandDatableInscriptionsfromConstantinople,Bithynia,andEasternThrace.Theemphasisoftheproject,whichisnearingcompletion,isontracingtheevolutionofGreekletterformsduringtheByzantineperiod;itwillalsoprovideadatedseriesagainstwhichundatedinscriptionsmaybecompared.TheCorpusnowconsistsofsome120inscriptionsonstonewhichareeitherdatedordatable,e.g.containinganallusiontoaknownpersonorbelongingtoamonumentwhosedateisknownfromothersources.Theseinscriptionsarefromthecapitalanditshinterland;anareachosensinceithasgreaterepigraphiccontinuity,sotospeak,thanmuchoftheempire,withtextsrepresentingtheentireByzantineperiodfromthefourthcenturyuntilthefifteenth.SomeoftheinscriptionsareinsituontheLandandSeaWallsofIstanbul,whileothersarebuiltintochurchessuchasSSSergiusandBacchusorSt.MaryPammakaristos.ManyloosestoneshavebeengatheredintheArchaeologicalMuseumsofIstanbul,Iznik,andTekirdag,andafewhavefoundtheirwayfurtherafieldtoGreeceandRussia.AnumberwereidentifiedorpublishedforthefirsttimebyProf.Sevcenko,

7

suchastheverseinscriptionfromSt.Polyeuktos,ortheepitaphofSisinnios,curatorofTzurulon.Amongthecategoriesrepresentedarededicationsofmonumentsandbuildings,funeraryinscriptionsbothhumbleandaristocratic,boundarystones,andaninscribeddecree.Alsoincludedareanumberoflostinscriptionsofwhichreasonablygoodfacsimilesexist.In1995thenewlyfoundedCentrefortheStudyofAncientDocumentsatOxfordprovidedfacilitiesforphotosoftheinscriptionstobescannedandforadatabasetobecreated.IamnowpreparingtheCorpusforpublicationtogetherwithProf.Mango.

MappingtheJewishCommunitiesoftheByzantineEmpire

NicholasdeLange(UniversityofCambridge)

ThepaperpresentsforthefirsttimetoanaudienceofspecialistByzantinistsanewresearchprojectwhichaimstogenerateinteractiveonlinemapsoftheJewishpresenceintheByzantineempire,usingGIS(GeographicInformationSystems).Theproject,fundedbytheEuropeanResearchCouncil,aimstofillagapintwofields,ByzantinehistoryandJewishhistory.Additionally,theapplicationofnewtechnologytothestudyofahistoricalsubjectwillfurnishamodelthatcanbefollowedinotherhistoricalprojects.TheprojectwillcollatealltheinformationthathassofarbeenpublishedabouttheJewishcommunities:theirwhereabouts,theirhistory,theirrelationshipswitheachotherandwiththeirwiderenvironment,includingtraderoutesandhistoricaltrends,andalsoaboutindividualsandtheirrelationshipswitheachother.Fullbibliographicaldocumentationwillbesupplied.Italsoaimstogobeyondthepublishedrecordandinvestigateunpublishedsources,soastobeascompleteanduptodateaspossible.AlldatahavingadateANDaplacewillbefedintotheGISdatabase,andwillformthebasisofthemaps.Afterpresentingtheaimsoftheprojectanditsrationale,thepaperexaminesthemethodologyadopted.Thescopeoftheprojectisdefinedtemporallyandspatially.Itbeginsin650,i.e.aftertheArabconquestofEgypt,PalestineandSyriaandthedefinitivelossoftheseregions,withtheirsubstantialJewishpopulations,totheByzantineempire.

8

TheenddateisfixednotbytheconventionaldateoftheOttomanconquestofConstantinoplein1453,butbythearrivalintheregionoflargenumbersofJewishimmigrantsfromSpainin1492.TheOttomanconquerorswiththeirpolicyofsrgn(forcedtransferofpopulations)dramaticallychangedthedemographyoftheJewishpopulation:theperiodfrom1453to1492isinitselfofrelevanceforafullunderstandingofthestoryofByzantineJewry,whileculturallytherewaslittlechangeintheaftermathoftheconquest.Itis1492thatmarkstherealend.Geographicallythechoicesaremorecomplex,sincethefrontiersoftheempirealteredconsiderablyandrepeatedlyduringtheeightcenturiesunderinvestigation.ForthepurposesoftheprojectthecoreareasofAsiaMinor,thesouthernBalkansandtheadjacentislands(includingCreteandCyprus)areincludedfortheentiretyoftheperiod,regardlessoftherulingpoweratanyparticulartime.Thesearchforunpublisheddatacontainingbothaspatialandatemporalreferenceisoneofthemostimportantaspectsoftheproject.Alargemassofsuchdataexists,notablyininscriptions,colophonsinHebrewmanuscripts,andthesubstantialandrelativelyunexploreddocumentsonCreteheldintheVenetianStateArchives.Numerousmethodologicalissuesbesetaprojectofthisnature,andthesearediscussedinthepaper.FinallyweconsiderhowthisprojectcancontributetosomeofthewiderquestionsconcerningtheJewishminorityinByzantium,andindeedtominorityhistorymoregenerally.

9

SessionIBMonumentsofConstantinople

10

TheRelationshipBetweenChristianSymbolsontheGoldenGateofConstantinople

ChristopherTimm(FloridaStateUniversity)

TheGoldenGate,integratedintothesouthernstretchoftheTheodosianWalls,servedastheceremonialentrancetoConstantinople.Numerouscrossesandstaurogramsarecarvedinreliefonmarbleblocksdatingfromitsconstructionbetween388and413.Thesesymbolsdeserveseriousconsideration,astheGoldenGateistheoldestextanttriumphalarchthatutilizesChristianimagery.ThelimitedattentiongiventoitsvisualprogramhasthusfarrelieduponthereconstructionofboththeLatininscriptionsoverthecentralportalandthefiguralimagery.Isuggestthatanexaminationoftheinternalrelationshipofthesesymbolsthepairingofcrossandstaurogramismorerevealingthanatypologicalapproach.Existingplansandreconstructionsdonotprovideacompleterecordoftheirplacement,form,andnumber.Ioffermyownsurvey,whichrevealsaconsideredarrangement.StaurogramsarelocatedupontheouterspringersofthenorthandsoutharchesoftheGoldenGate;thesearemirroredbycrossesontheinnerspringers.Thispairingisrepeatedonthesouthwestandnorthwestcornersofthenorthandsouthpylonswhereacrossandstaurogramflanktheapproachtothetriplearch.Thus,byprocessingthroughtheGoldenGate,onepassesthroughprogressivestaurogramcrosspairs.Iattempttoaccommodatethesesymbolsvarietyandfluidityratherthanpursueabsoluteidentificationsthatdefinecrossesaseithertheimperial,victoriouscrossortheholycrossonGolgotha.TheuseofcrossandstaurograminothercontextssuggeststhattheirarrangementontheGoldenGateconflateswordandimage.IsuggesttherelationshipbetweenthesesymbolshelpsformtheGoldenGatescomplexvisualprogram.

11

HagiaSophiasMarbleMeadowsandtheMarbleImperialPresenceinConstantinople

MayaMaskarinec(UCLA)

ThispaperexplorestheimperialresonancesofHagiaSophiasmarbles,situatingthemwithinabroadercontextofimperialmarbleuseinConstantinopleandtracingsomeofthelaterhistoricalperspectivesthattheygenerated.HagiaSophiaboastsanimpressiveabundanceofovertendifferenttypesofmarblecarefullyarrangedtoadornitswallsandfloorandthereareoverfiftymarblecolumnsthroughoutthechurch.AsthewellpreservedEufrasiuscathedralinPoreandtherestoreddecorativeschemeofS.VitaleinRavennaillustrate,HagiaSophiasmarblesplendorcorrelatedwith,butalsosurpassedcontemporarystandards,inparticularthoseofitsimmediateConstantinopolitanprecursors,St.PolyeuktosandSts.SergiosandBacchos.CorrelatingPaultheSilentiarysdescriptionofthemarbles(intheorationwhichhedeliveredshortlyafterthechurchsconsecrationin562)withevidenceregarding6thcenturyquarrying,Iexaminethetypes,quarrylocationsandavailabilityofHagiaSophiasmarbles.Thisreveals,contrarytolaterexpectation,thatalmostallofthesemarbles,withthesignificantexceptionsoftheNumidianyellow(foundinthewallrevetment)andtheeightenormousporphyrycolumns,couldhavebeenfreshlyquarried.Morethanamerecatalogueofmaterials,however,PaultheSilentiarysaccountofthemarblesservestomaptheexpanseofJustiniansempireandexaltConstantinopleastheEmpirescapital,centralthemesinPaulsencomiumofJustinian.AcomparisonwiththeChurchoftheHolyApostles(throughthelensofConstantinetheRhodians10thcenturydescription)andtheimperialsarcophagiofvaryingtypesofraremarblesplacedinthemausoleaandstoaeadjoiningthechurchdemonstratehowJustiniansideologicaluseofmarblesinConstantinoplefurtherdevelopedtheprecedentsetbyConstantinetheGreatandhissuccessors.Emperorswerecloselyattunedtotheresonancesoffinelycoloredanddistantlyquarriedmarbles,especiallypurpleandothercoloredporphyryfromEgypt.Thecontinuedaccumulationofimperialsarcophagi,upthroughConstantineVIII,(d.1028)inthemausoleaoftheChurchoftheHolyApostlesrevealshowtheseideologicalresonancesofmarblepersisted,althoughtheshrinkingEmpirelimitedtherangeofmarbleavailableforimperialburials.ChangingcircumstancesalsotransformedperceptionsofHagiaSophiasmarbles,whichcametobereinterpretedasspolia,reusedbuildingmaterial.The9thcenturyDiegesisusestheideologyofChristiantriumphtoexplainHagiaSophiasmarbles:Justinianissaidtohavedespoiledthetemplesofpaganantiquitythroughout

12

hisvastEmpiretoconstructConstantinoplesgrandestchurchand15thcenturyPersian/TurkishtranslationsoftheDiegesis,too,continuetoreconfigureConstantinoplespowerfulimperialmarblelegacy.FromanUrbanInteriortoanIndoorLandscape:HagiaSophiainthe

CeremonialLifeofConstantinople

PelinYoncaciArslan(UCLAArchitectureandUrbanDesign)

ItiswidelyacceptedthattheurbanplanofConstantinopleretainsanexperientialrelationtotheceremoniallifeofthecityandinthisrelationship;HagiaSophiaconstitutesanimportantterminus.Formostoftheurbanprocessions,theritualsfollowedthemaincolonnadedarteryofthecity.DesignatedasthetriumphalwayofConstantinoplebyCyrilMangoin2000,thisroutestartedwiththeGoldenGate,passedthroughfourimperialforaandendedwiththeMilionandtheAugusteoninfrontoftheHagiaSophiaandtheGreatPalace.Thispaper,however,arguesthattheGreatChurchcouldhaveoperatedasacontinuationofthispathwithinaconstantlychangingarchitecturalallegorybetweeninsideandoutsideunfoldingintimeandspace.Thisis,duringtheurbanprocessions,theopenairpublicspacestransformedintooutdoorrooms,whereasthechurchwasperceived,spatiallyandmetaphorically,asanindoorlandscapealandscapethathadgatesleadingtootherpassageways;arcadesandscreensprovidingseriesofchangingvistas;andspecializedfloorandwallscapescreatedbytheuseofanimatedmarbles.Assuch,thesequenceoftheurbanserialvisionformedbyelevatedstatuesoncolumnsinimperialfora,archwaysandcolonnadedavenuesgotseamlesslycombinedwiththeuninterruptedspaceofthechurchthatgotpunctuatedtothegroundsolelybyfourmainpierswhilstthevaultoftheskyspannedover.Asathickpausingmomentalongthegeovisualjourneyofaprocession,HagiaSophiarenderstheceremoniallifefullofexposuresandenclosures,ofconstraintsandreliefsandrepresentsitasanurbanperformance.TheparticularcontextinthepaperisthemilieuoftheearlytenthcenturyConstantinopleasthiserahasthemosttextualdocumentationabouturbanprocessions.Atfirst,theprocessionalroutewillbesetshortlystartingfromtheearlyfourthcenturywiththebirthdaycelebrationsofthecity,toLeoIscoronationceremonywhenthe

13

triumphalrouteofConstantinoplearchivedamoreorlessfixedform.Astheceremonialstagesetisestablished,areviewontheurbanprocessionsofthecitywillbereleased.Followingthat,themainpartofthepaperdoesanexperientialanalysis,firstthroughtheurbanarmatureandthenthroughtheinterioroftheHagiaSophia.Theformerconcentratesontheserialvisionwherethecolonnadesandarchways,focalpointsandunexpectedvistasservedtolinkthenearwiththeremote.Thespacesevokerecollectionsofpasteventsandimportantmomentsthroughcolumns,reliefsandsculpturalprogram.Thelatter,then,turnstotherelationshipbetweenthearchitectureofthechurchandthesensoryexperienceoftheemperor/thepatriarch/andthecommonpeopleunderwentwhilemovingandbeinginthedifferentiatedspaces,payingcloseattentiontothevariousindividualaspectsthatframethemovement,especiallythosegates,columns,wavywallsandfloors.ItisjustthroughmovementthatonediscoverstheGreatChurch:itsarchitectureisaboutthepath,aboutmovement.

ReplacingtheStatuewithaSaint:DanieltheStyliteand

ConstantinoplesMonumentalColumns

JoelDowlingSoka(OhioStateUniversity) InthefifthcenturyConstantinopleboastedadiversecollectionofmonumentalcolumns.Atthesametime,intheimmediatehinterlandofthecity,aSyrianasceticlivedouthislifeonthetopofadoublecolumn.ThereisaclearrelationshipmadebyDanielsLifeandbytheepigraminscribeduponhiscolumnbetweenhisasceticdevotionuponacolumnandthestatuetoppedcolumnsofgodsandemperors. TheepigraminscribedonhiscolumnpresentsamixtureofHomericandBiblicalimageryinaclassicalmeter(LifeofDanieltheStylite,cap.36;A.P.1.99.).Italsohasagreatdealofsimilaritywiththeformofatleastonepreservedepigramfromamonumentalcolumn(ananonymousepigramtoaEudoxia:AnthologiaeGraecaeAppendix,Epigrammatadedicatoria,354.).AcloseanalysisofthisepigramdemonstratesthattheepigrambothreferencesanddifferentiatesDanielfromthetraditionsevokedbyhiscolumnarmode. ThemannerinwhichtheLifepresentsDanielspresentationafterdeathalsosupportstheargumentthattherewasarecognitionbetweenhisstatusandacolumn

14

withastatue.Uponhisdeaththebodywasplacedonaplankandmadetostandverticalsothatitwouldnotfall.(LifeofDanieltheStylite,cap.99.)Danielbecame,forashortwhileafterhisdeathbutbeforehisburial,aninanimatestatue. BothoftheseexamplessuggestanunderstandingofthevisualsimilarityofasainttoastatueinfifthcenturyConstantinople,butdonotnecessarilydemonstratethatthesameimagerycanbeunderstoodasapplyingforthestylitesasawhole.BothexamplesshowthepeopleofConstantinoplemakingparallelsbetweenthemonumentalimageryofConstantinopleandtheasceticismofDaniel.ItisentirelypossiblethatSymeonsinventionofthestylitemodecouldbeaparticularlySyrianformofasceticism(Apossibilitysuggestedbytheexistenceofthephallobitesmuchearlierintheregion:DavidFrankfurter,StylitesandPhallobates:PillarReligionsinLateAntiqueSyria,inVigiliaeChristianae,Vol.44,No.2(Jun.,1990),pp.168198.)whilethetreatmentofDanielscolumnrepresentsatransformationofthatSyrianasceticismintotermsrelevanttoConstantinoplewithitssurplusofmonumentalarchitecture.SimilaritiesofimagerythatwouldhavebeenobvioustosomeonewhosawDanielonthesamedayasseeingthecolumnsintheHippodrome,theTheodosianForumandtheForumofConstantinemightnotseemsoobviousforavisitortoSymeonintheSyriandesert.

15

SessionIIAPalaiologanSocietyandCulture

16

PronoiaRevisited:AReconsiderationofImperialGrantsinLateByzantium,12801360

JasonAlexanderBanks(TheUniversityofChicago)

SincetheearlieststudiesbyscholarssuchasMakushev,Uspenski,Vasiliev,andOstrogorsky,pronoiagrantswereseenasanindicationofByzantinefeudalism.Thisintellectuallegacyhasboundlaterscholarstoviewpronoiathroughthelensoffeudalism,ormanorialismtobemoreprecise.ScholarshavetendedtotiepronoiagrantscloselywithavarietyofphenomenasuchasmanorialmodelsofsocioeconomicorganizationinByzantium,landtenurepractices,andthedisintegrationofimperialpowerduringthePaleologianperiod.Asaresult,therehasoftenbeenaselectiveuseofthesourcematerialregardingpronoiatoaccommodateideasandtheoriesaboutsocialphenomenaratherthanshapethem.Thispaperprovidesacloseexaminationofthepraktikaandprostagmatathatcreatedthegrantsfromtheyears12801360,whenthedocumentationismostabundanceandconsistent.BysuspendingaprioriassumptionsabouttherolemanorialisminByzantiumandfocusingonthesedocumentsascontractvehicleswithinthebroaderconstellationofimperialdocuments,Irevealapictureofpronoiaincontrasttotheprevailingview.Insteadofbeinggrantsoflandandtaxesrevenues,pronoiawasentirelytaxrevenuebasedanddidnotinvolvethetransferofland.ThisshifthasbroadimplicationsonestablishedinterpretationsoffourteenthcenturyByzantinesocietyandadministration.Sincepronoiahasbeenheavilyusedasproofofthewidespreadprevalenceofmanorialestatesandthevirtualdisappearanceofsmallholdingpeasants,thelackofpropertybeingacomponentofapronoiagrantdirectlyunderminesthisviewofPaleologiansociety.Theimplicationsextendtonatureofimperialcontrolaswell.Insteadofbeinganexampleofthedevolutionoftheempirescontroloveritsresources,pronoiawasanexampleoftheempirecreativelyleveragingitsresourcestomeetvariousfinancialobligationsandtoaccomplishotherobjectivessuchasencouragingthesettlementofabandonedland,thusincreasingitstaxbaseinthelongterm.

17

SocialagendasinthelateByzantinecourt:ReassessingthecontroversybetweenNikephorosChoumnosandTheodoreMetochites

AlexanderRiehle(UniversityofMunich)

Forthelastfortyyears,Ihorevenkosseminalmonograph,tudessurlapolmiqueentreThodoreMtochitesetNicphoreChoumnos(Brussels1962),hasprovidedthedefinitiveunderstandingofthecontroversyonliteraryandphilosophicalissuesbetweenthetwohighrankingofficialsinAndronikosIIcourt,NikephorosChumnosandTheodoreMetochites.Newhistoricaldata,however,allowsustoreassesstheevidenceoftheavailablesourcesrelatedtothissubject.RecentresearchonthelettercollectionsofNikephorosraisesquestionsaboutthenatureofthiscontroversy,inparticularitsrelationship,bothintermsofchronologyandofcontent,tothelettersexchangedbetweenNikephorosandTheodorebeforetheoutbreakoftheirenmity.Thefactthattheircorrespondenceaboundsinthetraditionalvocabularyandimageryoffriendship,whereastheorationsofthepolemicdossierarewritteninharshandaggressivetones,beliesthestrongthematicconjunctionbetweenthetwogroupsoftexts.ThecontroversywasignitedbyNikephorosOrationonliterarycriticismandcomposition,whichTheodoreinterpretedasaninvectiveagainsttheobscurityofhisownwritings.Theessenceoftheirrespectiveargumentscanalreadybedetectedintheirearliercorrespondence,however:inoneofhisletters,Nikephorosstatedthattheparamountstylisticvirtuewasclarity,essentialtomakingideascomprehensibleandaccessible;Theodore,incontrast,advocatedtheprincipleofdeinotes(rhetoricalforce),whichthroughdeliberateobfuscationledtoanexclusivenessofideas.Thesetwoopposingconceptsarenotonlyfrequentlyexpressedintheirotherwritings,butalsoshapedtheiractualwritingstyle:whileNikephorosemployedamoderatelyelevatedstyle,Theodoresexceedinglyelaboratelanguageoftenrendershisworksalmostunintelligible.Theseobservationsleadtoconclusionsreachingbeyondthefieldofliteraryanalysis:asitisargued,itwasNikephorosintentiontocommunicatethroughliteraturethatdemandedalanguagecomprehensibletoabroadereducatedpublic.Theodore,ontheotherhand,usedhiswritingsprimarilyasameansofsocialdistinctionbyemployingalanguageaccessibleonlytoasmallgroupofadepts.ThecontroversywasthusneitheraharmlessintellectualskirmishnorameresideeffectofapersonalrivalrymotivatedbythereplacementofNikephorosastheemperorsprimeminister(mesazon),ashaslongbeenthought,butratheraserioussociopolitical

18

debatebetweenthetwoantipodalpolesofByzantinesocietyexpressedtherein:ontheonehand,thegeneralhierarchicalmobilityandopennessofthearistocracytonewcomers,andontheother,thesocialandculturalelitismthroughwhichthoseinpowersoughttocompensateforthefragilityoftheirstatusregulatingandconstrainingsocialmobility.ThisreassessmentnotonlyprovidesfreshinsightsintothebiographiesoftwoimportantcourtofficialsinlateByzantium,butisalsorelevanttoabroaderhistoryofideas.SheddinglightondifferingsocialconceptionsinByzantium,itindicatesthattherelativelysmallConstantinopolitancourtelitewasnotnecessarilyanorganofacoherentimperialideology.Rather,acomplex,multilayerednetworkofviewsexistedaboutsocial,politicalandliteraryissueswhichcouldtriggersevereconflictsamongitsrepresentatives.

PhilosophyforRhetoric:NikephorosGregorasonIdentity

DivnaManolova(CentralEuropeanUniversity,MedievalStudiesDepartment)

Inletter34(ed.P.A.M.Leone,1982)addressedtoMaximosMagistros,amonkandlateranarchimandriteofChortaitesmonastery,NikephorosGregoras(ca.1292/12951358/1361)elaboratedonthenatureoffriendshipinvokingthenotionoftautotsoridentity.Gregorasaskedarathergeneralquestionaboutthehumanconstitution,namely,howisitpossiblethattwopersonshavesomuchincommon,thattheyaresomuchalike.HediscussedtheidenticalnaturesandcharacterofMaximosMagistros,themonkandMaximos,thehegoumenosofChortaitesmonastery,whowasinfactoriginallyfromGregorasnativecityHerakleiaPontikeandtowhomGregorasaddressedfiveotherletters.Inordertoaddressthequestionofidenticalcharacters,Gregorasintroducedtwodifferentphilosophicalaccountsofidentity.Thenrathersurprisingly,hecomplementedthediscussionwithcommentsontheconstructionoftheuniverseasconsistingofstableandmovingelements.Thepresentpaperinquiresintothewaysthroughwhichsucha

19

descriptionoftheuniverseenhancedtherhetoricalroleofthenotionofbeingidenticalemployedbyGregoras.ThereferencetotautotsinvokesmainlyNeoplatonicconnotationsasopposedtothemorecommonlyemployedinlettersAristoteliannotionofsimilarityinnature(homoiots).Thepresentpaperdrawsconclusionsastotheintention(s)behindGregoraschoiceofphilosophicalframeworkwithrespecttohisaddresseeandthetypeofepistolaryrelationshipGregorasaimedtoestablishorsustain.ThechiefcontributionofthepresentpaperistodemonstratethroughthecasestudyofGregorasletter34howphilosophywasusedforrhetoricalpurposesinByzantineepistolography.ThepresentinquiryisalsointerestedinGregorasmotivationtoaddressMaximosthroughtheemploymentofsuchanintricatephilosophicalargumentation.

ReconstructingByzantineRulership:ManuelIIsFuneralOration

JoshuaAbbotoy(CatholicUniversityofAmerica)

Bythelate14thcentury,thepoliticalwoesofByzantiumhadreachedtheiracme.Byzantinerulerscompetedasregionallordsagainstrivalfactions,Venetians,variousLatinkingdoms,Serbians,andincreasinglytheOttomans.In1407,TheodorePalaiologos,ByzantinedespotofGreece,passedawayafteralongdebilitatingillness.Twoyearslater,hisbrothertheEmperorManuelIIPalaiologoscomposedaliteraryepitaphforcirculationamongtheliteratiwhocomprisedhiscircleoffriends.Asalengthysourcefromapoorlyattestedperiod,theOrationhasattractedtheattentionofhistorianswhohavegenerallycomplainedabouttheOrationswealthofrhetoricandpaucityoffact.Morerecently,scholarshavebeenapproachingtheOrationforbroaderquestionsaboutlatePalaiologansociety,suchasethnicidentitiesandpoliticalattitudes.None,however,haveusedacomprehensiveapproachtounderstandtheOrationinitsownterms.IhavereadtheOrationasamirrorofManuelsself,inwhichhisreflectionsonhisbrotherslegacyservetoillustratehisownconstructionofhowaByzantinerulercouldcontinuetoexhibitvirtueandnobility,inapoliticalmilieuwhichthreatenedtodisgraceByzantineparticipants.ManueluseshisbrotherslegacytoestablishnewcriteriaforgoodByzantinerulership,bywhichhisownreignisjudgedtobeasuccess.Accordingly,Manuelhighlightsvirtueswhichhehimselfpossessesandwhichcouldupholdthe

20

nobilityofaByzantinerulerdespitethehumiliationofvassalageanddistastefulalliances.Thesevirtuesinclude:strongeducation,faithfulnessandshrewdnessinoathmaking,masteryoveraredefinedgeography,savvymanagementindealingswithforeignrulers,andtheabilitytoenduresufferingnobly.ThesevirtuesalsohelptodemarcatetheByzantinerulerfromregionalrivals.EquallyimportantarethetraditionalelementsofearlierByzantinepitfoiwhichareconspicuouslyabsentorobscured.AlthoughManuelcomposedtheFuneralOrationinaperiodofgriefbothforhimselfandfortheEmpireatlarge,itstoneconveysoptimismanddefiance:ManuelrefusestoallowpoliticalchaostoburyhiminthelongshadowofthegloriousByzantinepast.

21

SessionIIBIconsinPracticeandTheory

22

MotherofGod,CeaseSorrow!TheSignificanceofMovementinaLateByzantineIcon

RuthAnnBohlander(TempleUniversity)

Therelationshipsbetweenmovement,emotion,andritualcommunionin

Byzantiumhavedrawntheattentionofarthistoriansinrecentyears.WhileHenryMaguirehasconsideredmanyfacetsofthissubject,amonumentalLateByzantineicon,theTwoSidedIconwiththeVirginPausolype,FeastScenes,theCrucifixionandProphets,suggestsothers.WhilethecatalogentrybyAnnemarieWeylCarrinByzantium:FaithandPowerremainstheonlypublisheddiscussionofthisparticularicon,orevenspecificallyofthePausolype(ceasesorrow!)iconographictype,IbelievethatthisimagecontributessignificantlytoourunderstandingofLateByzantinecultureandliturgicalpractice.Carefulstudyofthisparticulariconencouragesaconsiderationoftheproblematicsubjectofemotion,anditsinteractionswithmovement,ritualandart.Thepaucityofevidencemakesitdifficulttoaddressspecificdevotionalpracticesassociatedwiththisparticularobject,althoughsomeobservationscanbemade.Iamable,however,toalignitwithitsiconographicantecedentsandestablishcontemporaryrelationships,illuminatingaspectsofitsoriginalfunction.

Visually,theformatofthePausolypeiconisreminiscentofthevitaicon,and

alsoincludesthestandardbiographicalcontent.AccesstothecentraliconoftheVirginPausolype,likethoseofvitaicons,reliedupontheviewersunderstandingofthesurroundingframeworkofimages.Thisformatengagedtheviewerinatheologicaldialogue,drivenbythenarrativeinteractionsbetweentheperipheralscenesandthecentralone.Iassertthatthecessationofsorrowmomentisatheologicaloneimbuedwithlament,whicharisesfromadebatebetweenMaryandherSonregardinghisimpendingsacrifice.IbelievethattheChristChildsagitatedmovementisindicativeofhisroleastheEucharistichost.MiddleandLateByzantineculturetypicallyeschewederraticmovement,makingtheabsenceofmotioncorrectetiquetteformostpublicoccasions.ByzantinesfromthelateMiddleperiodcreatedimagesaccordingtoculturalformulae,andyetthecentraliconontheobverseofthePausolypeiconisanythingbuttraditionallystatic.Insteadofonefrozenmoment,theChristChildsmovementmarksatransitionfromonemomenttoanother,inthiscaseaidedbythepositionoftheNativityaboveandtheAscensionbelow,anditthereforereadsvertically:Incarnation,Passion,andAdvent.InChriststwistingmovementcoupledwiththeknowinggazeofMary,andconfirmed

23

bytheplacementoffeastscenes,thepiousobserversawanencapsulationofthemajortheologicalmoments.Inaddition,thePausolypeiconparticipatedintheritualactoftransformativemovementbymeansofprocession,asisindicatedbyscarringonthebottomcenterofthepanel.AccordingtoSharonJ.Gerstel,movementthroughthechurchitselfsymbolizedtransformationfromearthtoparadise.ThesignificanceofthePausolypeiconisexpandedthroughcontextualization.WhileIagreewithWeylCarrandRebeccaW.CorriethattheChristChildsmovementmakesreferencetohishumanness,IbelievethatthisinsistenceonthephysicalityoftheChristChildservestohighlighthistransformationtothedivine.

TheFirstCanonicalByzantineIcon:BernardBerenson,RoyallTyler,andtheMellonMadonna

RobertS.Nelson(YaleUniversity)

WithtodaysabundanceofpublicationsandexhibitionsdevotedtoByzantineicons,itisdifficulttorealizehowrecentisageneralknowledgeoficons.AttheendofWorldWarII,fewmuseumsinEuropeandAmericanpossessedanddisplayedicons.NoiconsweretobefoundintheLouvre,theNationalGalleryandtheBritishMuseuminLondon,ormostanymuseuminAmerica.ExcludingrelativelyinaccessibleRussiancollections,onlytheByzantineMuseuminAthenspossessedanddisplayedByzantineicons,butGreeceofthe1940swasnottodaysthoroughlywesternizedmemberoftheEuropeanCommunity,andtouriststoAthenswenttoseeancient,notmedievalart.

WhatByzantineiconsweregenerallyknowninthelate1940s?Exactlyone,the

possiblyByzantineMellonMadonnaintheNationalGalleryinWashington.ThatpanelsdebuthadcomeatthefirstinternationalexhibitionofByzantineartinParisin1931.Accordingtotheprincipalorganizeroftheshow,RoyallTyler,hehadbeenforcedtoacceptthepanelbythedealerJosephDuveen,whomadeasignificantmonetarycontributiontotheexhibition.TylerconsideredDuveenspaneltobeaviledaubandheavilyrepaintedatthat.Adecadeearlier,however,ithadbeenpraisedbyBernardBerenson,whomDuveenkeptonretainer.LattersoldtoAndrewMellon,thepaintingtherebybecamepartofMellonsgifttoPresidentRooseveltandthenation,acollection

24

comprisedofworks,inMellonswords,ofthehigheststandardofqualitythatcomprisedmostofthegreatmastersofwesternEurope.TheGallerysfirstdirectorandcurator,bothdevotedtoBerenson,enshrinedtheMellonMadonnainthemuseumssurveyofarthistorythatbegan,asVasarihadargued,withByzantinepaintersinItaly,whotaughtandweresoonsurpassedbyItalianmasters.Thestatusofthepanelincreasedfurther,whenErnstGombrichandH.W.Jansonallotteditoneofthefewcolorplatesintheirbestsellingsurveybooksof1950and1965.InvestedwithVasarisandBerensonsnotionsofartandhistory,theMellonMadonnatherebybecamecanonicalwithconsequencesforByzantineartmoregenerally.

Synphrasis

AnthonyCutler(ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity)Synphrasisisatermusedin21stcenturyartcriticismtomeanaspeakingwith

orutteringtogether(seeK.GrovieronCyTwombly,TLS,1May2009,1718).ItisnotadeviceinthearmoryofancientrhetoriciansbutaconceptapplicabletoasizeablenumberofByzantineobjects.Itisatoolusefulintheirelucidation,especiallybecause,unlikeekphrasis,thedescriptionofaworkfromoutside,itisaninternal,constitutiveprocess.Werecognizesynphrasisinworksofartinwhichiconography,inscriptionsandtheirdisposition/miseenpage,sometimestheirmaterial,andthemannerinwhichtheywerehandledareelementsthatworktogether,eachreinforcingthestatementoftheotherfactors.Thissynergycanbeshowntobepurposeful,evenif,apparently,itwentunnoticedintheByzantineliteratureonart.Theaimofthehistorian,itcanbeargued,istoperceiveprocessesimperceptibletothosewhoparticipatedin,oremployed,them.

If,overtly,synphrasiswasinvisibletotheByzantines,itismanifestinobjects

producedacrossawidespanoftime.TheserangefromampullaeatMonza(seeesp.Grabar,no.10),theivoryAscensionboxinStuttgartandthediptychsatChambryandWarsaw(MistakenNovelty,Biuletynhistoriisztuki70[2008],269284),theLouvressilvergiltreliquaryfortheStoneoftheResurrection(Byzance,no.248),toachaliceveilinAthens(FaithandPower,no.186);equallysusceptibletothismodeofanalysisisthereliquaryattheProtaton,thetopicofBradHostelersfinepaperatBSC35(Sarasota2009,p.13).

25

WhenevenkoandIworkedtogetheronthediptychs,hewasinitiallyand

understandablymostinterestedintheirepigraphy.ButeveninthecourseofhislastillnesshewaswillingtoentertaintheideathatthiswassupplementedbytheotherfactorsthatIdescribeabove.Itisnoaccidentthatsynphrasisismostapparentonsmall,personalobjectsthingsthatneedtobeheldifoneistoreadtheinscriptionsandcontemplatethemultiplicityofwaysinwhichtheartefactconveysitsmeaning.Thispaperisdedicatedtohismemory.

TheIconandItsLegacyintheRussian/UkrainianAvantGarde

MyroslavaM.Mudrak(TheOhioStateUniversity)

ProfessorIhorSevcenkosvasteruditioninSlavicmedievalsourceshashadanimportantbearingonthewaythatwehavecometounderstandmodernRussianandUkrainianart.Itismyintentiontohonorhismemoryasascholar,whoseexpertiseasaByzantinistmeldedwithcontemporaryUkrainianstudies.Mypurpose,therefore,istofocusonthepictorialdevicesofformalistpaintingoftheearlytwentiethcenturyintheRussianEmpireasappropriationsandextensionsofanindexicallanguagethatwasrootedinByzantineiconography.ThispapernotonlyexaminesthewholesalecooptingoftheimagingdevicesoftraditionaliconsbymodernpainterssuchasKazimirMalevich,KlymentRedko,andVladimirTatlin,butreaffirmstheformalpropertiesoftheiconspecificallyflattenedspace,geometricproportions,symboliccolor,anddynamiclineasthecarriersofspiritualcontentthatistranslatedthroughmodernismintoaseculartranscendence.BythetimeoftheRevolutionof1917andespeciallyintheperiodofvisionaryConstructivismthatfollowed,thesubjectsoficonsandtheiriconographicfeaturescoincidedwiththeideologicalgestaltofadevelopingRussianandUkrainianvisualmodernism.TheconceptofreligiousconversionrelayedbyOrthodoxliturgicaliconscametobeadoptedthroughartisticprimitivismasawayofprofessingtherevelationofrevolution.Withaclaimforanidealworld,thepictoriallanguageofavantgardeartistsrepresentsatransfigurationofthespiritasitalsostakesoutaclaimforanimminentidealworldpromisedbyrevolution.NataliaGoncharovasMysticalImagesofWar(1914)servesasaprimeexample;inanotherinstance,thetheologicalandsymbolic

26

importoftheelementoflightasseenintheliturgicaliconoftheTransfigurationconvertsdirectlyintoametaphorofcommitmenttorevolutionaryaimsinthenonobjectiveutopianpaintingsofAlexandrRodchenko.TheemulationoftheiconimageplacestheRussianandUkrainianavantgardeintheforefrontofthemodernistdiscourseofwhatNikolaiBerdyaevcalledthecrisisofart.Indeed,theaffirmationofflatnesstheuniquepropertyofpaintingthatwasheavilydebatedbyWesternpaintersandcriticsfromEdouardManetinthe1860stoClementGreenberginthe1960swasareiterationofwhatthemodernSlavshadalreadycometoknowthroughtheirexperienceoficonsearlyinthetwentiethcentury:therecognitionthatpaintingsselfreferentialnatureconstitutesanunbrokensemiologicallinkwithOrthodoxiconography.ThispositionwasoutlinedbyA.Gritchenkoasearlyas1913inhisseminalessay,OsviazakhrusskoizhivopisisVizantieiiZapadomXIIIXXv.(Moscow1913)andwasreinforcedbythehistoricdisplayofoneofthelargestcollectionsoficons(inreproduction)bythePraguebasedSeminariumKondakoviumattheExpositiondesArtsDcoratifsdeParisin1925.TheRussian(andUkrainian)avantgardesformalistengagementwiththetraditionalOrthodoxiconsetsitapartfromothermodernistmovementsoftheearlytwentiethcenturybecauseoftheartistsengagementwiththepolysemiccapacityoftheiconsformalproperties.

27

SessionIIIAByzantiumandtheRenaissance

28

HesychiaandPaideiaintheFourteenthCentury:AReexaminationoftheOppositionbetweenMonksandHumanists

LeonidasPittos(UniversityofChicago)

Therelationshipbetweenhumanistsandhesychastsduringthelaterpartofthe

fourteenthcenturyrepresentsamajorthemeoftheintellectualhistoryofthePalaiologanera.Yetthereareseriousproblemsinthewaythequestionhadbeencast.ThehumanistsofthemidfourteenthcenturyhavebeendefinedgenerallybytheiroppositiontoGregoryPalamas.Yet,asonemayseeinthelettersofGregoryAkindynos(PalamassecondmajoropponentafterBarlaam),antiPalamitessuchasAkindynossharedanumberofkeybeliefsandvalueswithPalamasandwereanadmirersofthehesychasticwayoflife.Similarly,thestudyoftheGreekclassicaltraditionhasbeenputforwardasademarcationbetweenhesychastandhumanist.Yet,inthethoughtofhesychaststherewasnotanabsoluteoppositionbetweenthestudyofclassicalliteratureandthelifeofhesychia.Thisisparticularlytrueinthecaseoflanguageandattitudestowardlanguage.Themajorwritersandtheologiansofhesychasttheologyinthemidfourteenthcenturyhadallstudiedunderhumanistmastersandhadthoroughlyassimilatedtheskillsandattitudesofclassicalpaideia.Thetwoforemosthesychasttheologians,GregoryPalamasandPhilotheosKokkinos,werethoroughlyimbuedwiththerhetoricofclassicalantiquity.LinguisticAtticismwasthecoreandessenceofByzantinepaideia.BothPalamasandKokkinoscouldcomposeandspeakwellformedandcarefullycraftedsentencesorthetypethatGreekspeakingelitesincetheHellenisticperiodtookmuchpleasureinreadingandwriting,withabroadvocabularythattheyderivedfromtheirstudyoftheAtticwriters.Thus,thestandardaccountsoftheconflictbetweenlateByzantinehumanismandhesychasmemergeasnarrowandlimited.Thispapersuggestsafreshapproachtothequestion.Whereasthereweremanyspecifictheologicaldifferencesbetweenanumberofhesychastsandhumanists,Iexploreonekeyareaofdifferencebetweenthetwodiscourses:therhetoricalgenreofencomium.Iarguethatoneofthefundamentaldifferencesbetweenhesychastandhumanistinthefourteenthcenturyresidedinrhetoricalpractice.Thehesychastauthorsofthefourteenthcenturydivergedfromtheexpectationsofclassicalrhetoric,particularlyinthegenreoftheencomium,revisingthetraditionalcategoriesofpraisesuchasanatrophe(upbringing),epitedeumata(deeds)andpraxeis(actions)byinfusingtheseformswiththeasceticpracticesandmysticalexpectationsofthehesychast,whileminimizingthetraditionalmaterialofpraisesuchaspaideia.Itwasnotpaideiathatmadethesaintsholy.

29

ThesagesofancientGreece,whopossessedonlypaideiaandcouldnotbeconsideredequaltotheholymen,prophet,apostles,andsaintsoftheChristiantradition.TherealignmentoftheboundariesbetweenhumanistandhesychasthasfarreachingconsequencesinByzantineintellectualhistory,rangingevenfarbeyondthelateByzantineperiod.

FuneraryiambiclinesonthetomboftheblessedBasilissa,LadyKleofePalaiologina:MSVenice,MarcianaGr.533,f.48v,Reattribution

fromBessariontoTheodorosPalaiologos

DianaGillilandWright(IndependentScholar,Seattle)

ApoeminMSVenice,MarcianaGraeca533,f.48v,publishedbySpyridonLamprosin1926,hasalwaysbeenassumedtohavebeenwrittenbyCardinalBessarionasayoungman,andthemanuscriptassumedtobeinhishand.Studymakesthehandwritingattributiondoubtful,andtheauthorshipattributionimpossible.AnanalysisofcontemporaryMistraandItaliandocumentsconcerningKleofePalaioginaMalatesta,aswellasthecontentofthepoem,makesitclearthattheonlypossibleauthorcouldhavebeenherbereavedhusband,TheodorosIIPalaiologos. Thepoem,uniqueinByzantinepoetry,isanintenselyphysicallovepoem,Italianateinstyle,andwaswrittenfromthebackgroundofthecomplexemotionalrelationshipbetweenthecouple.Theodorosistraditionallyregardedasamathematician,andinthispoemheidentifiesfiveformsofpossibleunionthathemighthavewithKleofe,followingamodelofthefivesenses,whichheisnotabletocontinueusingforthefinaltwo.MostessentialtotheidentificationofTheodorosasauthoristhediscoveryofaPetrarcheansonnetbyKleofesfather,MalatestadeiSonettiMalatesti,LordofPesaro,tohisdeadwifewhichprovidesthemodelandseveraloftheimagesTheodorosusestosomewhatdifferenteffectinhispoem.Malatestasuseofthephrasenonhuom,mabruto,seemstoassureTheodorosidentificationwithTheocritusbrute,andadaptationofhisCyclopswherethepoettellsthedoctorthattheonlydrugforloveissong.Theodorosconcludeshispoemwiththedeclarationthathisonlycomfortisthissong,callingKleofehis.

30

TheepitaphiosforTheodoraPalaeologina,attributedtoBessarion:MSVenice,MarcianaGraeca533,f.48v49r.

PierreA.MacKay(UniversityofWashington)

InMSVenice,MarcianaGraeca533,f.4849r,immediatelyfollowingTheodorespoemtoCleofePalaeologina,isonedescribedassimilariambicsforthetombofConstantineswife,Theodora,whodiedinatownnearOlympiainlate1429.WeknowthatthispoemhasbeenattributedtoBessarionsinceatleast1648but,eventhoughitismuchlesspersonalthantheCleofepoem,therearegoodreasonsforthinkingthatthistooisTheodoreswork.Theformisconventionalashortekphrasisidentifiestheimageofthedeceased,andsuggeststhatthepoemwasinscribedinaframearoundthepainting.ThefollowinglinesstartoutaspraiseofTheodora,butimmediatelyswitchtoacelebrationofthewarlikecommander,Constantine.InthisinstancethereissomeironyintheassurancethatTheodoracamefromafamilyworthyofmarriagewithaPalaeologianprince,sinceTheodorasuncle,CarloIITocco,whoagreedtothealliance,wasconsideredbymanyByzantines,especiallyinMorea,tobeadisreputablepirate.ThehostileviewoftheTocchicanbeseeninapoem,(anonymous,butveryprobablybyJohnEugenicus)advisingConstantinethathemustkeepinmindthattheAusonian(acommonepithetfortheToccofamily)enthusiasticallycarriedoutpirateexpeditions.ThepresentpoemsanswertothischargeisreminiscentoftheendofalongpanegyricforManuelII(alreadydeceased)andJohnVIII.ThathastohavebeendeliveredclosetothetimeofJohn,ConstantineandThomassvictoryoverCarloinmid1428,andtheepitaphios,withitscelebrationofConstantineasawarrior,shouldcomeverycloseafterTheodorasdeath,whenthememoryofhisvictorieswasstillfresh.Atthistime,BessarionhadnotyetmadehisfirstvisittoMorea.Theodorewaspresentattheappropriatetimetowritethispoem;Bessarionwasnot.

31

APopularByzantineTextbookGoesWest:AphthoniussProgymnasmataanditsLatinTranslations

ManfredKraus(UniversityofTbingen,Germany)

Ofthemanyancienttextbooksonprogymnasmataorpreliminaryexercisesfor

beginnersinrhetoric,theonebythefourthcenturyAntiochenerhetorAphthoniuswasbyfarthemostsuccessful.ItmanagedtooutrivalallitspredecessorsandsuccessorssuchasAeliusTheon,PseudoHermogenes,orNicolausofMyrabypresentingthemostextendedrangeoffourteendifferentexercises,andbyfurnishingalsomodelexamplesforeachexerciseinadditiontodetailedtheoreticalinstructions.IntheByzantineEmpire,wheretheancienteducationalsystemsurvived,Aphthonius

littlemanualattainedcanonicalstatusasaschooltextbook,sinceitcametoserveasastandardintroductiontotheTechneofHermogenesofTarsus,theunrivaledauthorityinrhetoricinByzantinetimes.ItremainedenormouslypopularthroughouttheByzantineera,andaplethoraofcollectionsofmodelexamples,ofprolegomena,scholiaandcommentariesonAphthoniuswereproducedbyoutstandingByzantinescholars.IntheLatinwest,bycontrast,thetraditionofschoolingbyprogymnasmataappearsto

havealmostcompletelycollapsedduringtheMiddleAges.Onlyinthefifteenthcenturywhen,afterthefallofConstantinople,scoresofByzantineintellectualssurgedtothewest,inparticulartoItaly,withtheirfavoriterhetoricalhandbooksintheirluggage,knowledgeaboutAphthoniusandtheprogymnasmatawasretransferredtotheoccident.OneofthekeyfiguresinthisprocessofculturaltransmissionseemstohavebeenGeorgeofTrebizond.SinceAphthoniussmanualperfectlymatchedtheeducationalprinciplesoftheearly

humanists,itwasinstantlyembracedbythementhusiastically.Yet,toenableitswidespreaduseinhumanistschools,Latintranslationswereinevitablyneeded.Almostinstantly,thereaccruedarealprofusionofvariousdifferenttranslations,producedpartlybyoutstandinghumanistssuchasRudolphAgricola,PetrusMosellanus,orJoachimCamerarius.TheearliestcenterofdisseminationwasItaly,wherescholarssuchasGiovanniMariaCattaneo,AntonioBonfini,andNataleContiproducedinfluentialtranslationsinthelatefifteenthandearlysixteenthcenturies,butbyandbyNorthernhumaniststookover,withmoreandnewLatintranslationsmadeinthecourseofthe

32

sixteenthandseventeenthcenturies.Bywayofthesetranslations,AphthoniussmanualthankstoitspreservationintheByzantineeducationalsystemagaincontinuedtobeastandardschooltextbookinrhetoricuntiltheendoftheseventeenthcentury.ThepaperfirstillustratesthepivotalpositionofAphthoniusinByzantineeducation,

thendescribestheprocessofthetransferofthetextanditspedagogicalapproachfromByzantiumtothewest,andfinallyanalyzesandcategorizesasampleofLatintranslationsaccordingtotheirmethodsoftranslation,pedagogicalapproachesandgeneraloutline.

ChildofMyHeart,GardenofMyMind:RemarksonthePrefaceofPseudoEudokiasViolarium

PatrickPaulHogan(Chelsea,MI)

Lateinthe19thc.controversyswirledaroundtheauthenticityoftheViolarium,acompendiumofmythologicalandhistoricalfiguresthatwasattributedtotheempressofEudokiaMakrembolitissa,andabouthowmuchitactuallyrepresentedtheintellectualclimateofByzantiuminthe11thc.(videFlach1876).Theeventualverdictwasthatthe16thc.scholarConstantinosPalaiokappascreatedtheworkintheguiseofthelearnedempress,andresearchontheworkhasfocusedonhowheusedSuidas,Hesychius,andafewotherancientsources.ButscholarshavenotexaminedhowPalaiokappaspresentedthisadmittedlyderivativework.Theaimofmypaperistwofold:first,topresentatranslationoftheprefaceofthiswork(basedonthe1880editionofFlach);andsecond,toshowhowtheprefaceuseslongstandingtropesofancientandByzantinemiscellaniststoconditiontheattitudeofthereadertowardstheworkbutalsoincludeselementsfittingitspurportedauthor.ThetitleoftheworkreflectsthelongtraditionofgardenmetaphorsinliteraryanthologiesthisiscertainlynotlimitedtoGrecoRomancivilization(Anderson2003)andsotheViolariummaybecomparedwiththeStephanosofMeleager,theStromateisofClementofAlexandria,andmanyotherworksfromantiquity.Buttheauthorgoesbeyondtheusualmetaphorsofpruningignoranceandgraftingknowledgeandpromisesofvarietythatsuchcompendiacommonlymake(videtheprefaceofAeliansDe

33

NaturaAnimalium).Forinstance,theempressreferstothebookasachildproducedfromherheart,anespeciallyappropriatesentimentforthemotherofatleasteightchildren,andsheoffersitasproofofhercultivationofpaideiainthecapitalduringtheabsenceofherhusbandRomanosIVDiogenes.EspeciallyevocativeistheauthorsdecisiontobeginthebodyoftheworkwiththemythofAthena,whoiscalledtheoverseerofwisdomandallegorizedasrationalthought;thismakesanimplicitcomparisonofEudokiatoAthenaasapatronessofcultureandlearningandfitstheelevationofConstantinopleasarivaltoAlexandriaandAthens.Moststrikinganddivergentfromthetraditionisthepracticalandpublicroleofpaideia.Theauthorsofothercompendia,suchasPlinytheElderinhisNaturalisHistoriaandAulusGelliusinhisNoctesAtticae,emphasizehowtheyusedtheirleisuretime(otium/schol)frompubliclifetocomposetheirworksandhowtheyintendthemfortheprivateedificationofculturedmen.Incontrast,theprefaceoftheViolariumassertsthatthecultivationandpreservationofpaideia,thewrittenmindofhumanity,isactuallyaregalpursuitandsavesempiresfromstasisanddecline.Paideiaisevendepictedashavingsavedtheempireduringarecentperiodoftrouble,foreignanddomestic.Whetherthiscollectionofgods,heroes,heroines,metamorphoses,myths,allegories,andwisemen,couldindeedfulfillsucharoleisdebatable,buttheclaimsofthisregalliteraryendeavorcouldscarcelybehigher.

34

35

SessionIIIBArchitecture

36

MetrologyandChronologyoftheEarlyChristianandByzantineChurchesofSardinia

MarkJ.Johnson(BrighamYoungUniversity)

Aninteresting,butlittlestudied,groupofchurchesisfoundontheMediterraneanislandofSardinia.UniversallyattributedtotheByzantineperiod,whichforSardiniaencompassestheperiodof533tocirca1050,mostofthechurchespossessaGreekcrossplanandadome.Thelargestchurchofthegroup,SanSaturnino,islocatedinthecapitalcityoftheisland,Cagliariandisgenerallybelievedtobethefirstofthistype.Theotherchurchesaresupposedtohavebeenbuiltindifferentcitiesontheislandasitscopies,albeitonamuchsmallerscale,atvarioustimesduringthenextfourorfivecenturies.Establishingachronologyforthesechurchesisdifficult:thereareextremelyfewcontemporaryliterarysources,fewinscriptions,fewsculpturesorotherartifactsassociatedwiththebuildings,andlittleotherarchaeologicalevidence.AcceptingthehypothesisthatSanSaturninowasthefirstofthegroupwiththeothersfollowing,evidencefromexcavationsdoneinandaroundthechurchduringthepast30yearssuggestadateofthesixthcentury.Morespecifically,arecognitiononthepartofGiorgioCavalloinanunpublishedconferencepaperthatthestructurewasbuiltusingtheByzantinefootasitsunitofmeasurementdemonstratesthatitwasnotbegunbefore534,makingitaJustinianicbuildinginperiodifnotpatronage.CavallohadhitononepossiblesolutiontotheproblemofdatingthechurchesofSardiniatheuseofmetrology.AstudyoftheunitsofmeasurementemployedintheconstructionoftheByzantinechurchesofSardiniademonstrates,however,thattheacceptedrelativechronologyandthespecificproposeddatingofcertainchurchesmustberevised.Fourchurchesareexamined:thedomedcruciformchurchesofS.MariadiBonacattuatBonarcado,S.MariaIscalasnearCossoine,S.Antiocointhecityofthesamename,andthecircularchurchofS.MariadeMesumundunearSiligo.ThechurchatBonarcado,constructedusingpartsofalateRomanbathcomplexandthesiteofrecentexcavations,demonstratestheuseofboththeRomanandByzantinefootinitstwophasesofconstruction.S.MariaIscalas,achurchoftenreferredtoasthelastintheseriesanddatedtoaslateastheeleventhcentury,turnsouttohavebeenlaidoutusingtheRomanfootandisthereforeoneoftheearliestchurchesofthetype.S.MariadeMesumundu,longthoughttobeamodificationofaRomancaldariumintoachurch,thendatedtothe

37

seventhcenturyonthebasisoffindsinseveraltombsexcavatednearthechurch,alsoisshowntohaveusedtheRomanfootandshouldprobablybedatedtothefifthcentury.Finally,thechurchofSantAntioco,whichlogicallyappearedtohavebeenbuiltasacopyofSanSaturninoinbothdesignandinfunctionofamartyrium,isshowntohavealsoemployedtheRomanfootandthusperhapsactuallyinfluencedthedesignofthelargerchurchinCagliari.

AgiosGeorgiosandtheDomedHallChurchesofCyprus

CharlesA.Stewart(UniversityofSt.Thomas,Houston)

Byzantinearchitecturalhistoriansoftenfocusonthelargeanduniqueimperial

churches.Ironically,mostByzantinechurchesweresmallandmadewithlocalmaterials,havinglittleincommonwiththeConstantinopolitanmonuments.Forexample,thedomedhallchurchisoneofthemostenduringandwidespreadtypesofmedievalarchitecture,butremainsunderstudied.OnCyprusthereareoverthirtyfiveexamples;allwereoncerichlydecoratedwithfrescopainting.Whilethemajorityofthesedatefromthetwelfthcentury,theearliestexample,AgiosGeogios(Afendrika),seemstodatetotheninthortenthcentury.Itwasamodestsingleaisle,singledomedstructurewithtwoeasternapses.ThedesignandmasonryconstructionweresimilartootherCypriotchurches,suchastheadjacentbarrelvaultedbasilicasatAphendrikaandmultipledomedstructures,suchasAgiaParaskevi(Yeroskipou).AgiosGeorgiosrelationshipwiththeseothertypesunderscorestheexperimentalnatureofeighthandninthcenturymonumentswhenCypruswasinthesphereofArabinfluenceandinoppositiontoConstantinopolitanIconoclasm.

BecauseAgiosGeorgioswaslocatedintheremoteareaoftheKarpasPeninsula,

onemightquestionitssignificancetothegeneralarchitecturalhistoryoftheCyprus.However,asA.H.S.MegawandAthanasiusPapageorghiouhavesuggested,itwastheearliestdomedchurchonCyprus,markingafundamentalshiftinarchitecturaldesign.ItsinfluenceisfurtherevidencedbythechurchofAgiosGeorgiosatChoulou.TheChoulouchurchcloselyreplicatesthedesignandscaleofAgiosGeorgios(Aphendrika),includingthetwineasternapses.Thelatertwelfthcenturydomedhallchurchesbelongtothislineofdevelopment.

38

Theemergenceofthedomedhallchurchineleventhcentury,asthedominant

typeinCyprus,reflectsseveralculturalchanges.ThelatetenthcenturyreconquestofCyprusbytheByzantineEmpireledtoarestrictionofinsularpractices.InordertoreintegrateCyprus,theEmpireappointednonCypriotofficialswhocouldenforceimperiallawinoppositiontothelocalgovernment.Likewise,theEmpireencouragedtheformationsofmonasteriesandfortificationsaffiliatedwithcommunitiesoutsidetheisland.Asthesemonasteriesgrewandreplicatedthemselves,theywouldeventuallyinfluencethepoliciesoftheautocephalousChurchofCyprus.Monasteryadoptedthedomedhallchurchbecausetheywereatraditionaltype,whichcouldbeconstructedbylocalbuildersusingnativematerials,butbettersuitedtoserveexclusiveforeigncommunities.

TheRhetoricofArchitectureandMemoryoftheHolySepulchreinByzantium

JelenaBogdanovi(EastCarolinaUniversity)

TheactualphysicalappearanceoftheAnastasisGolgothacomplexinJerusalemduringByzantinetimesisnotdocumentedarchaeologically.TheextentandsignificanceoftheByzantineinterventionsbetweentheseventhandeleventhcenturies,afterthedestructionsbythePersians,fromearthquakes,anddevastatingfiresetbytheCaliphalHkimin1009,remainunderstudied.Presumably,aftereachdestructionthefirststructurerestoredforvenerationwasthemajorlocussanctus,theHolySepulchre.BecauseitisdoubtfulthattheByzantineskeptrecordsonthearchitecturaldesignoftheHolySepulchre,theirreconstructionswerenotbasedonadefinitepictorialscheme,butratheronthecombinationofparticularmotifs,whichtheByzantinesbuiltupontheirbeliefsystemandrelatedimagery.Inthispaper,IexaminemnemoniclinkstheByzantinesmayhaveusedfortheirreconstructionsoftheHolySepulchreinJerusalem.TheByzantinedescriptionsoftheHolySepulchreoftenrelyontheologicalandexegeticalaccountsandnotonpersonalexperience.Intheninthcentury,whenPhotios,PatriarchofConstantinoplewritesAbouttheTombofOurLordJesusChrist,itisnotthefirsthandexperience.Yet,thedescriptionisechoedinthepilgrimaccountbytheRussianabbot

39

DanielofChernigov,whovisitedJerusalemin1106/08.Similarly,survivingimageryfromtheeulogiai,ivories,illuminatedmanuscripts,ormonumentaldecorativeprograms,mayhavedepictedthephysicalappearanceoftheHolySepulchreoritsconstitutiveparts,butthesesourcesalsoincludeimaginedfeaturesoftheTomb.Textualandvisualevidenceisrepetitiveandsuggeststhesignificantroleoftheornaments,suchascolumns,lamps,enclosingfeatures,canopylikeroof,aswellasmaterials,suchascopper,silverandmarble,fordescriptionsandmemoryoftheTomb.Theemphasisonrepetitivedescriptions,oftenborrowingitsimagesfromtheGospels,hymnography,and/orliturgicalpractices,areanalogouswiththemedievalconstructofmemorythemethodofloci,ormnemoniclinksystembasedonplaces.TheByzantinesdidnotdistinguishverbalfromvisualmemory.Rhetoricalpedagogy,progymnasmataandekphrasiswerecrucialfortherecollecting,remembering,andvisualizingworksofarchitecture,bothrealandimagined.ThoughmnemonicimagesfortheHolySepulchremaydiffer,theircognitivevaluerepresentingtheessenceoftheHolySepulchreastheplaceoftestimonyofChristsResurrection,however,remainedunchangeableregardlesswhetheranyorneitheroftheseimagesresembledtheactualarchitecture.TheroleofornamentsintheHolySepulchremirrorstheroleofornamentsinrhetoricalcompositionforconcentration,contemplation,andremembrance,gatheringsiterelatedassociationsintoaplace.Consequently,mnemonicimagescouldenableeachByzantinerebuildingoftheHolySepulchre,whichwasneveranexactreplicaofthepreviousbuilding.Moreover,undertheByzantines,theHolySepulchrealsofunctionedasachurch,whileitsTombaediculaacquiredcanopylikerooftoresonatethemiracleoftheHolyFire.Thesenewelementsmarkedthediscontinuityinthephysicalrealityoftheoriginal,fourthcenturyHolySepulchre,whiletheircognitivevalueofnoveltywascrucialforthecollectivememoryoftheHolySepulchrebytheByzantines,forwerememberbestwhatisunusual.

40

AShiftinAthoniteArchitecture:NarthexofHilandarsKatholikon

NebojaStankovi(PrincetonUniversity)ThekatholikonofHilandarMonasteryonMountAthoswascompletedin1321,undertheauspicesofSerbiankingStephenUroIIMilutin(12821321),onthesiteofthepreviouslydemolishedchurchestablishedbySts.SavaandSymeon.Theplanofitstriconchal,crossinsquarenaosfollowsthealreadywellestablishedarchitecturaltraditiononMountAthos,closelyresemblingthe10thcenturydesignsofIvrnandVatopaidi.However,thelayoutofthenarthexfeaturesasomewhatdifferentform.Insteadofthethreebay,doublestoriednarthex,thereisasixbaylit,withtwocolumns,twodomesrisingabovethecornerbays,andnosecondstorey.

AlthoughHilandarsnarthexhasnoupperfloor,withtwosymmetricallyplacedchapelsmarkedwithdomes,asitisthecaseinVatopaidiskatholikon,itseemsplausiblethatthelattersexternaldesignservedasthemodelforHilandarschurch.Were,thus,thedomesjustanexpressionofadecorativeandformaltreatment?OrweretheyaphysicalmaterializationofspecificmeaningandneedsthatweredifferentfromthoseinVatopaidi?Theycouldwellhavebeenboth.VatopaidihadbeenregardedasamothermonasteryofHilandarandhadbeenemulatedatmanyaspects,whetherspiritualorartistic.ThetwindomedesignwasrepeatedinHilandar,althoughnochapelswerebuilt,suggestingthattherewasnoliturgicalneedforthem.Nevertheless,thedomedcompartmentscouldhaveprovidedasettingforcertainliturgicalacts,whichwereheightenedbythespecificsymbolicvalueofadomedspace.ThelocationofthreelateMedievaltombsinthesebayssuggeststhatsuchavaluewasfullyunderstoodbythosewhodecidedtousethemforburials.

However,thatstilldoesnotexplainwhyanupperstorywasnotbuilt.Yet,thereisapossibilitythattheoriginalintentionofthefounderwasindeedtoconstructasecond.Theoriginaldesign,neverfullyrealized,issuggestedbythesomewhatroughfinishoftheupperpartsofthenaosswesternfaade.Thefinaldesigncouldhavecomeasanafterthought,asaresultofadisappearanceofthevariousfunctionsthathadpreviouslybeenaccommodatedwithintheupperfloorofanarthex,orasaresultoftheirmigrationtootherpartsofthechurchormonastery.

41

Interestingly,allotherAthonitekatholika,builtorrebuiltinsubsequentcenturies,alsoacquiredsixbayorevenninebayliteswithoutupperstoriesand,assuch,theyhavebeenregardedbyscholarsasaspecificityofchurchplanningonMountAthos.Onewondersifthisshiftinthearchitectureofnarthexes,firstintroducedonMountAthoswithHilandarskatholikon,wasareflectionofchangesinliturgicalpracticesoftheByzantinemonasteriesintroducedinthecourseofthe13thcentury.Ifso,wasthenewarchitecturalsettingnecessitatedonlybythereformedmonasticritual,withprobablelocalpeculiarities,orwerethereinadditionotherforcesthattookpartinshapingthispartofthekatholikon?ThispaperexaminespossiblefactorsthatmayhavebeenbehindthisprofoundchangeofthenarthexsdesignandplanningontheLateByzantineMountAthos.

NotesontheConstructionalHistoryandArchitectureoftheChurchofthePortaPanaghia,Thessaly,Greece

StavrosMamaloukos(UniversityofPatras)

Thenew,completeandanalyticalsurveyandexaminationofthechurchofthePortaPanaghia,whichtookplaceadecadeagoaspartoftheprojectfortheconservationandrestorationofthechurch,hasgiventheopportunityforobservationstobemadethatenlightenaspectsofitsconstructionalhistoryandfurtherassistinthestudyofthearchitectureofthisimportantmonument,eitherbyaddingtoexistingevidenceorbyleadingtoarevisionofseveralviewswhichA.Orlandosandotherresearchershavepostulated.Thenewevidencewhichhascometolightthroughtheexaminationofthemonumentleadsustoseveralattemptsofgraphicrepresentationsinitsvariousconstructionalphases. ThesocalledPortaPanaghiachurchoftheTheotokosislocatedinthesettlementofPalaiaPorta,Trikala.Thechurch,accordingtowrittensources,wasbuiltastheKatholikonoftheMonasteryoftheTheotokosAkatamachetostonMegalonPylon,whichwasfoundedbytheSebastocratorJohn1stAggelosKomnenosDoukas,in1283. Thechurchconsistsoftwoparts.Thenaos,isathreeaisledcrossvaultedchurchofgreatdimensions,themorphologyofwhichconnectsitwiththeDespotateofEpirus.

42

Fromtherecentindepthexaminationofthechurch,whatcomesforthisthatthechurchwasfoundedin1283inasingleconstructionalphaseandnotontheremnantsofanearlierchurchontowhichtheexonarthexhadbeenaddedtoduringthe12thc.,ashasbeenadvocated.Thischurchpossessedaninitialnarthexunifiedwiththenaosandanisolatedfromtheholybema,diakonikonskevophylakion. Thecolumnsaswellasagreatpartofthevaultsofthechurch,whichmaynowbeexaminedanddefinedwithaccuracy,hasbeenreconstructedin1854orin1855,afterpartialcollapse.Theimpressiveexonarthexofthechurch,whichisaninterestingsampleofaconfinedgroupofdomednarthexes,withoctagonalroofingisantecedenttothechurch,asitisclearlyconfirmedfromthenewevidence. Theidiotypicalmorphologicalandconstructionalelements(ashlarstonemasonry,gothiclikeformsetc)implyaconnectionwithserbianmonumentswithinfluencesfromtheWest.Theconstructionoftheexonarthex,shouldmostprobablybeplacedinthemid14thc.,duringtheruleofStephenDuanoverThessaly.Asdeducedfromadetailedreexamination,aboutaquarterofthebuilding,andinparticularitsentiresouthwestcorneralongwithitsrespectivevaultaswellasgreatpartofthedome,hasbeenreconstructed,asitwasdestroyedoveraflood.Thisconstructionalphasemaybedatedonthebasisofanunknownuntilrecently,cryptographicinscription,to1743.Thusweindirectlyarrivetotheinterestingconclusionthatthewallpaintingsoftheexonarthex,whichOrlandoshaddatedtothefirsthalfofthe15thc.baseduponstylisticgrounds,isinfactamuchlaterworkatleastofthemid18thc.,whichmustbeexaminedinthecontextoftherevivaloftheMacedonianSchoolofPaintingoverthatperiod.

43

SessionIVAConvertsandConversion

44

BaitingtheHook:JohnChrysostomsDefenseofHisBarbarianMission

JonathanStanfill(FordhamUniversity)

AscendingtotheseeofConstantinopleinthelatefourthcentury,JohnChrysostomstandsoutamonghisfellowNicenebishopsforhissenseofpastoralresponsibilityfortheGothiccommunityinhiscityaswellasbeyondthebordersoftheRomanEmpire.AccordingtoTheodoret,ChrysostomdesignatedachurchintheimperialcityfortheGoths,furnisheditwithGothicpriests,deacons,andreaders,andpreachedthereoccasionallywiththeassistanceofatranslator.Furthermore,hedispatchedmissionariestotheGothsalongtheDanubeandsentaGothicbishoptothoselivingintheCrimea.

Thispastoralendeavordidnotsuffer,however,fromalackofopposition.The

principalaccusationoriginatesfromalingeringconcernoverwhetherChrysostomhadactuallysanctionedtheuseofthischurchbyArianGoths.ThischargeisevidentinSynesiusofCyrenesDeprovidentiaandIsaacthemonksindictmentattheSynodoftheOak.Moreover,itispossiblethatfifthcenturyecclesiasticalhistoriansSozomenandTheodoret,bothofwhomfavorChrysostom,overemphasizethebishopsrefusaltoconcedeachurchtoGothicgeneralGainasforArianworshipinordertocounteractthischargeofharboringheretics. SincethedebateoverwhethertheGothsworshippingintheChurchofSt.PaultheConfessorwereactuallyArianorOrthodoxremainshighlyspeculative,thispaperexaminesChrysostomsownunderstandingofconversionandpastoralcarewithrespecttohisGothicmission.ItistraditionallypositedthatHomiliahabitapostquampresbyterGothusconcionatusfuerat(PG63.499510)representsChrysostomsdefenseofthebarbarianfaithforhisOrthodoxcommunity.ByappealingtothebiblicalexamplesofAbraham,Moses,andtheMagi,hedemonstratesthattheinclusionofthebarbariansinthechurchrepresentsthefulfillmentofIsaiahseschatologicalvisionofwolvesandlambsgrazingtogether.WhathasbeenmissedaltogetherinthehomilyishowChrysostomusestherhetoricalmetaphorofbaitingthehooktosuggestthatthereisadivinepurposebehindtheArianismoftheGoths.ThusChrysostomdevelopsapastoralstrategythatissufficientlynuancedtodefendthevalidityofhisOrthodoxGothiccommunityandjustifythepossiblepresenceofArianGoths.

45

MoneyintheMeadow:ConversionandCoininJohnMoschosPratumSpirituale

BrendaLlewellynIhssen(PacificLutheranUniversity)

Intheearlyseventhcentury,PersianraidsinPalestineaddedtosocialunrestalreadypresentintheeasternRomanEmpire.WiththefallofJerusalemin614,impoverishedcitizenstraveledsouthbythethousandstowardsAlexandria,whilethosewhoremainedinthecitiesstruggledwithpoverty.AsGregoryNazianzus,BasiltheGreatandJohnChrysostomknewandasChurchesinNorthAmericaarelearningfinancialcrisiscanleadpeopletoGod.JohnMoschos,aseventhcenturyperipateticByzantinemonk,appearstohaveknownthisaswell. InhisPratumSpirituale(PG87.28513112)acollectionofstoriesandanecdotesJohngatheredwhiletravelingaroundPalestine,Egypt,SyriaandAsiaMinorwithhisfellowpilgrim,Sophroniosonefindsissuesofwealth,poverty,lending,borrowingandotherconcernsofmarketeconomyintimatelytiedupwithissuesofsocialandtheologicaljustice.Inatextlargelyconcernedwiththelivesofstationarymonks,thesefewandalltooshortstoriesthattouchonthefinancialdistressoflaypersonsseemoddlyoutofcontextamongstoriesofholymen,miraclesandheresy.PossiblytheirsmallnumberhasallowedthemtobeeasilyoverlookedinthecurrentacademicdiscussionofpovertyintheChristianworld,thereforemyaiminthispaperistobringMoschostreatmentofmoneyintheMeadowintothelargerconversationoftheconnectionsbetweenwealth,poverty,conversionandsoteriology.DrawingfromselecttextsinthePratumSpirituale,IarguethatJohnspreservationofstoriesoffinancialcrisisandgainpresentatheologicalvisionharmoniouswithapatristicvisionofChristpresentinthesufferingpoor,andpovertyasameanstosalvation.Ultimately,thestoriesstandasaffirmationthatcreativeandcompassionateeconomicpracticesintimesofsocialunrestcontributedtothespreadofChristianityintheByzantineEmpire.

46

BetweenBaghdadandByzantium:TheIntellectualWorldofAbdallhibnalFadlalAntk(fl.ca.1050)

SamuelNoble(YaleUniversity)

TheperiodofByzantineruleovertheregionofAntiochduringtheyears969to1084wasawatershedinthehistoryoftheOrthodoxChristiancommunityoftheNearEast.ThecityofAntiochanditssurroundingmonasteries,newlyreconnectedtotherestoftheByzantineworldandenrichedbythearrivalofrefugeesfromtheFatimidconquestofPalestine,quicklybecameacenterforthetransmissionoftheGreekPatristicheritageintoArabic.TheintellectualclimatethatproducedthisAntiochenetranslationmovement,whichrivaledtheearlierGraecoArabictranslationmovementof9thCenturyBaghdadinscale,isauniqueexampleofculturalsynthesisbetweenByzantineandArabChristiancultures.Althoughthereareasofyetnocriticaleditionsofhisworks,themostprolifictranslatorfromGreekintoArabicduringthisperiodwasthedeaconAbdallhibnalFadlalAntkwhowasactiveinthemiddlepartofthe11thCentury.Equippedwithastrongformaleducationinbothlanguages,includinghavingstudiedArabicgrammarwiththefamouspoetAbalAlalMaarr(d.1057),ibnalFadlwasinauniquepositiontocreatetranslationsofahighliteraryquality.Hewasresponsibleforalargenumberofpatristicandbiblicaltranslations,includingofworksbyBasiltheGreat,GregoryofNyssaandJohnChrysostom,aswellasthemostwidelyusedArabicversionofthePsalterandmoreevenmorecontemporaryByzantinecompositionssuchastheLociCommunesofPs.MaximustheConfessor.Hefrequentlyinterspersedcommentsandnotesthroughouthistranslations;inthecaseofhisversionoftheLociCommunes,heisespeciallyconcernedwithprovidingalexicalandgrammaticalcommentaryforhisowntranslationonthebasisofclassicalArabicgrammaticalworks.Additionally,ibnalFadlauthoredanumberoforiginaldogmaticandphilosophicalworks.Thelargestofthese,theBookofBenefit(KitbalManfaa)isacompendiumofusefulknowledgeincludingsuchvariedfieldsastheology,logic,meteorology,politics,andphysiognomytakenfromMuslim,ChristianArab,andbothpaganandChristianGreeksources.Thislatterworkprovidesanespeciallyvaluableinsightintotheliteratureavailabletothebilingualintellectualsof11thcenturyAntioch,intellectualswhowereequallyconcernedwithkeepingabreastofintellectualdevelopmentsintheGreekandArabicspeakingworlds.

47

ThispaperexaminesthetranslationsandoriginalworksofibnalFadlinordertosituatehimwithinhiswiderintellectualworldandtoshedlightontheculturalandintellectualsynthesisthattookplaceinAntiochduringhislifetime.

Tumuli,GraveGoodsandRitualsofBurial:IndicatorsofConversionintheSteppe?

RenataHolod(UniversityofPennsylvania)

ThecarefulexcavationofChungulKurganhasallowedforareconstructionofburialritualsofaKipchak(Cuman)nobleinthesteppeoftheMolochnaRiversystemofsouthernUkraine.Thepaperproposesthephasingoftheburialritualbasedontheinterpretationofthearchaeologicalrecord,enhancedthroughethnographicandhistoricparallels.Furthermore,thecalculationoftheenergeticsnecessaryfortheconstructionofthetumulusprovidesareliableestimateofthephysicaleffortandsocialorganizationnecessarytoraiseatumulusofmorethansixmetersinheightandsixtyeightfeetindiameter.Alongwiththeveryrichgravegoods,theconstructionprocessofthetumulusandtheburialritualsilluminatethematerialandspiritualidentityoftheKipchaknomadicconfederationofthetwelfthandthirteenthcenturies.ClosefamilialandmilitarytieswiththesurroundingpolitiesoftheRusprincipalities,Bulgaria,GeorgiaandByzantium,aswelltheactivitiesofmissionariesoutofCrimeaprovidedthesenomadicgroupswithafamiliaritywiththeritesandritualsofChristianity,botheasternandwestern.ThesereconstructedTurkicrituals,then,mustbereadagainstabackdropofcontinued,closeupexperienceofChristianity.

48

49

SessionIVBPortraitsandPatronsinChurches

50

PaintingsforSalvation:ADonorPortraitattheRedMonastery(Sohag,Egypt)

ElizabethS.Bolman(TempleUniversity)

Inthefallof2009,apaintedoransfigurewascleanedandconservedaspartofalargescaleprojectattheRedMonasterychurchinSohag,UpperEgypt.TheAmericanResearchCenterinEgyptandtheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentsupportedthework.Theorantstandsinaprominentpositiononthefaadewallthatseparatesthenavefromthetriconchsanctuary.Thefigurefacesthenave,aboutfourmetersabovefloorlevel,immediatelytothesouthofthemonumentalentrancetothetriconch.Evidencefromtheplastersupportandthestyleofthepaintingindicatethathebelongstothethirdphaseoflateantiquedecorationintheeasternendofthechurch.Thisimmensethirdphaseofworkconsistedofpaintingthefaadewallandalllevelsofthemassivetriconch,andmostlikelytookplaceinthesixthcentury. Severalfactorsstronglysuggestthattheorantisdepictedherebecausehesponsoredall,ormost,oftheworkinthechurchduringthethirdperiodofpainting.Heistheonlyfigurefromanyofthephasesoflateantiquepaintinginthechurchtobeportrayedwithoutanimbus.Hestandsintheoranspositionthatwasassumedforprayer.Donorssometimesshowedthemselvesasorants,inthisperiod,althoughmostexamplessurviveinthemuchhardiermediumoffloormosaic.Asidefromalargearrayofdecorativepatternsorganizedinaseriesofpaintedpanels,theorantsharestheentiretyofthefaadewallwithonlytwootherfigures,bothbustlengthfemalesaintsinroundels.Whilehislongsleevedtunicisrelativelymodestinhueanddecoration,whencomparedtoextanttextilesfromlateantiqueEgypt,hiselaboratemustacheandbeard,hismassivehennadyedhair,andhistallbootsconveytheimportanceofhissecularstatus,aswellasindicatingsomethingofhistasteforPersianmilitaryfashion. Theorantprovidesopportunitiestoexplorequestionsoflateantiqueidentityconstruction,fashion,monasticlayrelations,giftgiving,andremissionofsinsintheWhiteMonasteryfederation,alargemonasticgroupinUpperEgypttowhichtheRedMonasterybelonged.Whilethepaintingnolongerprovidesuswithanameortitle,wecanneverthelessreadthepaintingasavisualperformance,intoperpetuity,ofthedonorasapious,modestyetfashionable,andnodoubtwealthyandpowerfulindividual.

51

AReevaluationoftheRockCutChurchofMeryamAna

LynnJones(FloridaStateUniversity)

TherockcutchurchofMeryamAnaislocatedintheGremeOpenAirMuseum.Itisdatedstylisticallytothethirdquarterofthe11thcenturyandhasbeenthefocusoflimitedscholarship.Astudyofthechurchconductedoverthesummersof2008and2009leadsmetoproposenewidentitiesforfiveofthedepictedsaints,toofferanewinterpretationofthesoutherndecorativeprogramandtoreevaluatethefunctionofthechurch.

MeryamAnaisunusualinitsformandinthecontentofthedecorativeprogram;Ibeginwithform.Thechurchiscarvedontwolevels;theelevatedsanctuaryisfurtherdividedfromthenaosbyacontinuousscreen.Twobarrelvaultsalsodividetheinteriorspace.One,onthenorthsideofthechurch,spans2/3ofthenaos.Asmaller,secondvaultiscarvedhigherintherockandabutsthesouthernwall.Thehigherprofileofthisvaultisechoedintheraisedfloorlevelofthesoutheasternsectionofthesanctuary.Thisunityofsanctuaryandnaosvisuallydefinesaseparate,distinctspaceextendingfromthesouthwesternwalltothesoutheasternapse.

Thedecorativeprogramisremarkableforthenumberofdepictionsoffemalesaintsandfortheplacementoftheirimages.Earliersurveysidentifiedeight;Isuggestthatfivesaintspreviouslyidentifiedasmalearefemale.Thisraisesthetotaltothirteen,whichis29%ofallsaintsdepictedinthechurch.Ofthissuggestedthirteen,eightareplacedinthesanctuary.

Thechoicetodepictparticularfemalesaintsandtheirplacementinthesouthernendofthechurchsupportsmysuggestionthatitfunctionedasaseparatespace.DepictionsofthemainprotagonistsoftheApocalypseofAnastasiaareconcentratedinthesouthofthechurch,onthesouthwesternandsouthernwalls,onthesouthernvaultandinthesoutheasternapse.IsuggestthatthisportionofthedecorativeprogramcanthereforebeenseenasanilluminatedApocalypse.

Thenumberoffemalesaintsincludedinthedecorativeprogram,theirplacementandtheprominentplacementoftheimageofafemaledonorsuggestthatMeryamAnawasaconventchurch.Theseparationofthesouthernportionofthechurchandthe

52

visualreferencestoaspecificapocalyptictextsuggestthatthissectionofthechurchfunctionedasafunerarychapel.

PaintingEpiscopalAuthorityintheCathedralofPachoras(Faras),Nubia

AgnieszkaE.Szymaska(TempleUniversity)

PriortotheremovalofmonumentalmuralsfromthecathedralofPachoras

(Faras),thelargelyunknownculturalentityofChristianNubiafiguredinscholarshipmerelyasaperipheraloutpostofByzantineandEgyptianinfluence.TheimpressivecorpusofvisualevidencefromPachoras,locatedsouthofthefirstNilecataractandnowinundatedbyLakeNasser,ledKurtWeitzmanntoreevaluateitssignificanceinaseminalessaypublishedin1970.BytracingartisticsourcesofChristianNubianarttoEgypt,Palestine,andSyria,WeitzmanninitiatedrecognitionoftheclosetiesbetweenNubiaandByzantium.Sincethattime,however,thissubjecthasreceivedlittlearthistoricalattention,anditcontinuestoposeinterpretivechallenges.IendeavortorecuperatetheNubianwallpaintingsfromPachorasformainstreamByzantinestudies.Tothatend,IexplorethedepictionofoneofthePachorasbishops,withparticularattentiontoitsoriginallocation,relationshipwithsurroundingimages,andepigraphicevidence.IconceiveofthisearlyeleventhcenturyportraitasavisualconstructionofNubianepiscopalauthoritymappedoutonthecathedralswalls.

ClaudiaRapp,inher2005studyofearlyChristianchurchleadership,hasinvestigatedthepragmatic,spiritual,andasceticcomponentsofepiscopalauthority.IpostulatethattheconceptoflateantiqueecclesiasticalagencydescribedbyRappwasinstrumentalinshapingtheeleventhcenturyvisualprograminthesouthchapelofthePachorascathedral.Evidenceforthisincludesthepaintingswithaccompanyinginscriptions,fourteenthcenturyscrollsofBishopTimotheos,GreekandCopticepitaphsengravedonninththroughtwelfthcenturyfunerarysteles,andalistofbishops,firstpaintedaroundtheturnofthetenthcentury.RappsmodelprovidesaninterpretiveframeworkforthenumerousepiscopalimagesfromPachoras.Duetotimeconstraints,I

53

willexploreonlyoneofthem,theportraitofBishopMarianos(10051036).Itismycontentionthatthroughthevehicleofhisimposingpresentation,locatedinthecathedralssouthchapel,Marianosexpressedhisepiscopalauthority.Thisremarkabledepictionexhibitsthehierarchstripleprotection:thefulllengthfiguresofChristandtheVirginMaryflankthecentrallypositionedecclesiastic,andasecondrepresentationofChrist,asachild,isheldbyMary.TheportraitofMarianos,inwhichthestandinghaloedfiguresresttheirhandsonthebishopsshoulders,highlightsthehierarchsabilitytoseeandinteractwithgod.Themessageconveyeddrawsonthelateantiqueconstructionofthebishop,andunderscoresthetiesbetweenthecenterandperiphery.However,certainaspectsofthispaintingarecompletelyunprecedentedinByzantiumandtheWest,particularlythetactilecontactbetweentheecclesiasticsandtheirholyprotectors.

TheDaughtersoftheChamadesandZachariaFamilies:DonorPortraitsandDowryPortraits?

BarbaraR.McNulty(PhDTempleUniversity)

TwosurvivingfrescoesofdonorfamiliesonCyprus,oneinGalataandonein

Pedoulas,drawspecialattentiontotheelderdaughterspicturedaspartofthefamilygroup.Howdoweaccountforthis?Itraisesaninterestingquestionabouttheseportraits,onepaintedjustpriorto,andoneduringtheVenetianperiod.TheChamadesandZachariafamiliescommissionedtheirimagesfortwosmall,possiblyprivatechurches.Thesedonorportraitshavebeenanalyzedbyarthistorians,alongwiththepaintingprogramsofeachchurch,fortheirstylewithinthecontextofCypriotmonuments.ScholarshavediscussedelementsofforeigndressandthemixednatureofLatinandOrthodoxpracticesshownintheseimages.Becauseartisticrepresentationsoffamiliesandtheirchildrenareconstructedexpressionsofideals,theycanbemanipulatedtoservevarioussocialpurposes.Ibelievethat,inadditiontoportrayingthedonationandspiritualpietyofthedonors,thesepaintingsmayhavefunctionedasdowryportraitsfortheirdaughters.Thestylishnessoftheirclothingandtheirplacementdrawstheviewersattentiontotakenoticeofthesefemininefigures.

54

BycomparingthetwoportraitsatGalataandPedoulas,onedated1474andtheother1514,wecanbegintoseesomeinterestingpatterns.ThedowryportraitgenrebecamepopularinNorthernItalyintheearlyfifteenthcentury.ThedowrygifttothegroomwasawidelypracticedpartofthemarriageprocessineasternEurasiaandtheMediterraneanandhasbeendescribedasatypeofpremorteminheritance.Earlyrenaissancedowryportraitswererepresentationsofindividualwomenthatdisplayedaspectsofwealth,statusandlineagethroughthesubjectsadornmentandaccompanyingaccoutrements.Theseportraitswereconstructedtoreinforcethesuitabilityofthewomanfornoblemarriage.AlthoughtheChamadesandZachariaportraitsconsistoffamilygroups,theydisplaysomeofthesamecharacteristicsastheItalianportraits,particularlyinthedepictionsofmarriageabledaughters.

Thevisualimmediacyofportraitshashistoricallypromptedtheiruseasproxiesorassubstitutesforindividuals.Mighttheseimagesofthedaughtersalsohaveservedasagentsintheprocessofobtainingdesirablemarriagesforunweddaughters?TheChamadesfamilyportraitwaspaintedjustpriortotheVenetiantakeoveroftheislandin1489.Atfirstglance,avisualreadingofthedonorsposesinthisportraitrevealsaconservative,patriarchal,Orthodoxfamily,whosewomenhavebeenplacedinasubordinatepositiontoBasil,thepriestandfather.TheZachariafamilyportraitwaspaintedunderVenicerule.Thisportraitconveysthevisualconstructionofawealthy,sophisticated,urbane,educatedfamilywhoarepracticingOrthodoxworshippersonanisland,butwhoneverthelessparticipateinthedeploymentofVenetianculturalelements.Eventhoughthetwofamilygroupsshowdifferencesduetothepoliticalregimesunderwhichtheylived,bothemphasizetheportrayaloftheelderdaughter,suggestingthattheyareperformingmorethandevotion,wealthandstatus.

55

SessionIVCLateAntiqueHistoryandHistoriography

56

OnWhoseAuthority?ReexaminingtheThamugadianFeeSchedule

CaryBarber(TheOhioStateUniversity)

In331,theemperorConstantineissuedanedicttoallprovincials(CTh1.16.7)thatunequivocallyclassifiedallfeechargesinthejudicialprocessasillegal.Theedictexplicitlyidentifiedsomeofthetypesofmagistratesintheprovincialgovernorsofficiumwhowereguiltyoftheseabuses,aswellasthespecificactivitieswhichtheyhadcommoditized.Thirtyyearslater,between361and363,ascheduleoffeeswaserectedbytheprovincialgovernorofNumidiaatCirta,latertobecopiedatThamugadi.HerewefindmanyofthesameactivitiesmentionedbyConstantine,withtheircorrespondingcharges(intheformofmodiiofgrain),displayedinpubliconaratherlargemonument(over1mhighand.5mwide).Roughlysevenyearslater,anedictofValentinian(CTh1.29.5)againidentifiedthesechargesasillegal.Allofthisevidencehasbeenexaminedbyscholarsinthepast.AnumberhavearguedthatalthoughtheThamugadianscheduleoffeeswasconsideredbyatleastConstantine,Valentinian,Valens,andGratianasillegaland/orabusive,itwasneverthelessofficially(asomewhatambiguousterm)regulatedduringorbeforetheperiodofJuliansreign.Others,however,disagree.Thispaperattemptstoclarifytheissuebypursuingtwopossibleinterpretationsofthisfeeschedule.Ifweexaminetheschedulecarefully,andcompareitwithothertypesofimperialandprovincialpronouncements,wemaybeabletodetermineonwhoseauthorityitwaserected.Twoscenariosarise.IfthisfeeschedulewaserectedontheordersofJulian,weshouldlookatthisreformistemperorinanewlight.Consideringthepoorpayofthemembersoftheprovincialofficium,Julianisperhapsbeingpragmatichere,choosingtoregulatetheseabusesinordertokeepthemundercontrol.Thiscontrastswiththeidealistic,orevenseeminglynave,emperorwhoweencounterinanumberofdepictions,bothancientandmodern.If,ontheotherhand,wetakethispronouncementasthegovernoractingonhisowninitiative,weareleftwithanumberofothernewpossibilities.AsPeterBrownhascommentedinthepast,thegovernorwasoftenonlyaseffectiveashisofficestaffallowedhimtobe.Herewemightsee,amongotherconsiderations,aconcessiontothispowerfullobbyinggroupintheformofincreasedpaywithouttheriskofbreakingthelaw.Finally,thisstudyconcludeswithanexaminationofthescheduleinlightoftheoftremarkedconfusioninherentinlateRomanlaw.Theanonymouspamphleteerwriting(asIbelieve)toValentinianandValensbeggedthoseemperorstothrowlightupontheconfusedandcontradictoryrulingsofthelaws.Hereisanexcellentexampleofjustthistypeoflegislation.Overall,by

57

consideringwhetherthepronouncementoriginatedfromtheemperororhisgovernor,andfollowingthesescenariostotheirlogicalconclusions,wecanreachamorenuancedunderstandingofthehistoricalcontextinwhichthisinscriptionlies,andtherebyofthevariousstrategiesoflateantiquegovernanceingeneral.

TheHolyManandtheConquerer:AttilaattheGatesofRome

DeborahM.Deliyannis(IndianaUniversity)Intheearlysixteenthcentury,RaphaelpaintedonawallintheVaticanthebynowwellknownstoryofAttilaatthegatesofRome:AttilasarmyencampedoutsideRome,PopeLeoIwithhisclergywentouttotreatwiththeinvader,andthepopesholinesssoimpressedthesavageAttilathathevoluntarilyforeboretosackthecity.FifthandsixthcenturysourcesdonotePopeLeosinvolvementinAttilasinvasionofItaly,butsaythathetravelledtonorthernItalytomeetwithAttila.ThestoryofmiraculousinterventionoutsideRomeappearsforthefirsttimeintheeighthcenturyhistorianPaultheDeaconsHistoriaRomana.Thesamestoryalsoappearsinseveralothereighthandninthcenturytexts,aboutdifferentcities,andsomeofthesenarrativesweredirectlyinfluencedbyPaulsaccount.Interestingly,analmostidenticalstoryistoldbyJosephusinhisJewishAntiquitiesaboutAlexandertheGreatatthegatesofJerusalem.Inmytalk,ItracethedevelopmentofthetoposoftheHolyManfreeinghiscityfrominvasion,inbotheasternandwesternhistoriography.IdiscussboththewaythatAttilaispresentedincontemporaryandlaterhistoriography,andwhethersimilarrolesaredescribedforotherbishops.IaminterestedintheinfluenceofJosephus,andparticularlythisepisode,onlateantiqueandearlymedievalhistorians,theattitudesofhistorianstoAlexandertheGreat,andtheapparentlinking,inthisepisode,ofAttilawithAlexander.Iconcludethatinthefifthandsixthcentury,thesourcesareportrayingLeoasthesaviorofItaly,forpoliticalreasonsthatarespecifictothetangledpoliticsofthatperiod,whereasbytheeighthcentury,influencedbyJosephusaccount,historiansdepictLeoasthesavioroftheholycityofRome.

58

ByzantineGovernmentandEliteSocietyintheSixthCentury

DavidParnell(SaintLouisUniversity)

MaintainingasuccessfulrelationshipwitheliteswasoneofthegreatestconcernsoftheByzantinegovernment.Whileithastraditionallybeenrecognizedthattheimperialgovernmentcoulddistractorpacifytheurbanmasseswithbreadandgames,satisfyingtheelitewasanothermatterentirely.Historianshavegenerallyrecognizedthatatleastsomemembersoftheelitewerehighlydissatisfiedwiththeperformanceofthegovernmentinthesixthcentury.ThecomplaintsofProcopiusofCaesareainhisSecretHistoryandofJohnLydusinhisDeMagistratibusmaybecitedasproofofthisdissatisfaction.However,justbecausethisevidenceistheeasiesttocomebydoesnotmeanthatitshouldbeusedalonetojustifyanopinionthatsixthcenturyelitesdespisedtheByzantinegovernment.

Infact,thereisconsiderableevidencetosuggestthattheimperialgovernmenthadagenerallypositiverelationshipwithelitesocietyduringthisperiod.ThispaperpresentsevidencegleanedfromamassivedatabaseofthebureaucratsandadministratorsofthegovernmentfromthereignsofJustinI(518527)throughPhocas(602610).Thedatabaseincludesallknownofficialsfromthisperiod,whowerediscoveredthroughacarefulreadingoftheliterarysourcesaswellasminingofarchaeologicalsourcessuchasinscriptionsandleadseals.Whilethedatabasecanhardlyclaimtobecomprehensive,itdoespresent955menthatservedinthesixthcenturyciviladministrationandbureaucracy.ExaminationofthesemenandtheofficestheyoccupiedresultsinevidencethatmanyByzantineeliteshadreasontobesatisfiedwiththeirgovernmentandtheirplaceinsociety.Forexample,manyofthesemenheldhonoraryrankseveniftheyneverhadtheprivilegeofworkingdirectlyforthegovernmentasofficials.SomethingoftheoriginsofsixthcenturyByzantinecivilservantsmayalsobededucedfromtheevidenceofthedatabase.Ashaslongbeensuspected,nativeByzantinesratherthannonRomansorbarbarians(astheByzantinesmightdescribethem)servedintheadministrationandbureaucracy.TheprovincialoriginsofthesenativeByzantinecivilservantsrevealthattheempireculledthemmorefrequentlyfromricherprovincesandurbanareasthanfromthetraditionalrecruitinggroundsoftheByzantinearmy.Althoughtherelationshipbetweentheadministrationandthelowerlevelbureaucracywasnotalwaysharmonious,theByzantinegovernmentofthesixth

59

centuryfunctionedreasonablywell.Amongitschiefsuccesseswasthatitmanagedasuccessfulrelationshipwithelitesociety,whichpreservedtheempiresstabilityuntiltheusurpationofPhocas.ByzantineandSasanianImperialCompetitioninSixthCenturyArabia

MarionKruse(TheOhioStateUniversity)

ThestudyofByzantineimperialpolicyintheRedSearegionduringthereignsofAnastasius,JustinandJustinianboastsanunusuallylargenumberofsourcesfromawiderangeofmediums,languagesandtraditions.However,scholarshiptodatehaslargelyfocusedononeoftwomajorprojects:reconcilingtheaccountsinthesourcesandelucidatingthereligiousmotivationsfortheAxumiteinvasionsofHimyar,moderndayYemen.SignificantlylessattentionhasbeenpaidtotheeconomicmotivationsbehindtheByzantineinvolvementinwhatwasotherwisealocaldispute,andevenlesshasbeengiventotheroleoftheSasanianEmpireinmotivatingthatinvolvement.BythereignofAnastasius,theSasanianEmpirehaddevelopedanextensivenetworkofportcitiesandfortificationsalongtheArabiancoastofthePersianGulf.Inaddition,theempirehadcultivated,throughdiplomacyandconquest,apowerfulnetworkofallianceswiththenativeArabtribes.ThegoalofSasanianforeignpolicyintheareawastosecure,developandtaxthePersianGulftrade,whichprovidedvaluablerevenuestothecurrencystarvedSasanianmonarchy.Thisfunding,inturn,wascrucialtotheprogramofcentralizationundertakenbyQubd(GreekKabades)andhissonKhusrow(GreekChosroes)attheexpenseoftheinfluentialParthianfamiliesthatcontrolledthenorthernroutesoftheSilkRoad.ThecurrentpaperarguesthatJustinandJustiniansinterferenceinthedisputebetweenAxumandHimyarduringtheearlysixthcenturywasmotivatedbyadesiretounderminethePersiansthroughacombinationofeconomicpressureandstrategicpositioning.ItfurthersuggeststhatanexplicitdescriptionoftheByzantineprogramcanbefoundbyreadingProkopiosaccountofeventsintheregionagainstPersianimperialinterestsinthepeninsula.Finally,itattemptstolinkByzantineinvolvementinArabiatothedramaticescalationoftheByzantinePersianconflictinthemiddleofthesixthcentury.

60

61

SessionVAManuscriptStudies

62

ANewTestamentManuscriptProducedintheStoudiosScriptorium:Codex152intheLutheranSchoolofTheologyatChicago

NadezhdaKavrusHoffmann(Glenmont,NY)

TheLutheranSchoolofTheologyatChicagopossessesanimportantbutinsufficientlystudiedninthcenturymanuscript,MS152(GregoryAland1424),whichcontainsacompletetextoftheNewTestamentwithextensivemarginalcommentaries.Greekmanuscriptst