Between Constantinople and Rome: An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches 1409457443, 9781409457442

Table of contents :
List of Plates vii
List of Figures and Tables xi
Acknowledgments xiii
List of Abbreviations xvii
1. Introduction 1
2. Paris 54: Codicological and Paleographical Considerations 11
3. Paris 54: 'Modus Operandi' of Scribes and Artists 33
4. The Greek Gospel Text of Paris 54 and New Testament Textual Criticism 51
5. The Three Artists Responsible for the Narrative Miniatures and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54 83
6. Imitation and Innovation: A Comparative Study of the Narrative Cycles and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5 101
7. Paris 54’s Place in Thirteenth-century Constantinopolitan Book Illumination 145
8. Art and Diplomacy in Late Thirteenth-century Constantinople: Paris 54 and the Union of Churches 175
9. Epilogue: From Constantinople to Catherine de Medici 217
Appendix A: Description of Contents of Paris 54 229
Appendix B: Lineation Scheme for Paris 54 235
Appendix C: A Comparative Study of the Texts of Matthew of Paris 54, Iviron 5, and Garrett 3 237
Bibliography 265
List of Miniatures in Paris 54 289
List of Manuscripts Referred to by Gregory/Aland Number 291
Paris 54: List of Manuscripts by Geographical Location 293
Index 299

Citation preview

between constantinople and rome

This is a study of the artistic and political context that led to the production of a truly exceptional Byzantine illustrated manuscript. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, codex grec 54 is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the Byzantine era. This thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book features full-page evangelist portraits, an extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic texts. However, it has never been the subject of a comprehensive study and the circumstances of its commission are unknown. In this book Kathleen Maxwell addresses the following questions: what circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books? Paris 54’s innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. Maxwell’s multi-disciplinary approach includes codicological and paleographical evidence together with New Testament textual criticism, artistic and historical analysis. She concludes that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically embody a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Analysis of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that it was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts to unify the Latin and Orthodox churches. As such, Paris 54 is a unique witness to early Palaeologan attempts to achieve church union with Rome. Kathleen Maxwell is Associate Professor in the Department of Art and Art History, Santa Clara University, USA.

For Paul Missiroli Sullam and Juliana, Angelica, and Mariella Sullam

Between Constantinople and Rome An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches

Kathleen Maxwell

ROUTLEDGE

Routledge Taylor & Francis Group

LONDONAND NEWYORK

First published 2014 by Ashgate Publishing Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Kathleen Maxwell 2014 Kathleen Maxwell has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows: Maxwell, Kathleen, 1952– Between Constantinople and Rome : An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches / By Kathleen Maxwell. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4094-5744-2 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Bible. Gospels—Illustrations. 2. Bibliothhque nationale de France. Manuscript. Graecus 54. Illumination of books and manuscripts, Byzantine. 4. Christian union—Orthodox Eastern Church. 5. Christian union—Catholic Church. I. Title. ND3359.B535M39 2014 745.6'7487—dc23 ISBN 9781409457442 (hbk)

2013035991

Contents

List of Plates List of Figures and Tables Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations

vii xi xiii xvii

1

Introduction

1

2

Paris 54: Codicological and Paleographical Considerations

11

3

Paris 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists

33

4

The Greek Gospel Text of Paris 54 and New Testament Textual Criticism

51

5

The Three Artists Responsible for the Narrative Miniatures and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54

83

6

Imitation and Innovation: A Comparative Study of the Narrative Cycles and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5

101

7

Paris 54’s Place in Thirteenth-century Constantinopolitan Book Illumination

145

8

Art and Diplomacy in Late Thirteenth-century Constantinople: Paris 54 and the Union of Churches

175

9

Epilogue: From Constantinople to Catherine de Medici

217

Appendix A: Description of Contents of Paris 54

229

Appendix B: Lineation Scheme for Paris 54

235

vi

Between Constantinople and Rome

Appendix C: A Comparative Study of the Texts of Matthew of Paris 54, Iviron 5, and Garrett 3

237

Bibliography List of Miniatures in Paris 54 List of Manuscripts Referred to by Gregory/Aland Number Paris 54: List of Manuscripts by Geographical Location Index

265 289 291 293 299

List of Plates

Please note that color plates are in Roman numerals and black and white plates are in Arabic numerals. Color Plates I Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew, fol. 10v

XII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Descent from the Cross, fol. 107r

II Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, fol. 11r

XIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Holy Women at the Sepulcher, fol. 108r

III Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Nativity, fol. 13v

XIV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 111r

IV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Woman with the Hemorrhage, fol. 35v

XV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law, fol. 114v

V Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Miracle of the Loaves, fol. 55r

XVI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of the Leper, fol. 115v

VI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Wedding Feast of the King’s Son, fol. 80r

XVII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Christ Stilling the Water, fol. 124v

VII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, fol. 91r

XVIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac, fol. 125v

VIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Last Supper, fol. 96v

XIX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Luke, fol. 173r

IX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Betrayal, fol. 99r

XX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Annunciation, fol. 176r

X Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Denial of Peter, fol. 101r

XXI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Baptism, fol. 186v

XI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Remorse of Peter, fol. 102r

XXII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of the Paralytic, fol. 193v

viii between constantinople and rome

XXIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Healing of the Son of the Widow of Naim, fol. 201r

8 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, first uninitiated miniature, fol. 142r

XXIV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Christ Asleep in the Boat, fol. 207r

9 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Visitation, fol. 177v

XXV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Transfiguration, fol. 213r

10 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Presentation, fol. 182r

XXVI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 278v

11 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Anointing of Christ’s Feet, fol. 203v

XXVII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Beginning of the Gospel of John, fol. 279r

12 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, first appearance of second Greek scribe, fol. 234r

XXVIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Samaritan Woman at the Well, fol. 289r

13 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with uninitiated miniature, fol. 247r

XXIX Athos, Iviron 5, The Transfiguration, fol. 269v

14 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with uninitiated miniature, fol. 247v

XXX Athos, Iviron 5, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 136v

15 Athos, Iviron 5, The Miracle of the Loaves, fol. 63v

XXXI Athos, Iviron 5, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 357v

16 Athos, Iviron 5, The Wedding Feast of the King’s Son, fol. 94v

XXXII Athos, Iviron 5, The Samaritan Woman at the Well, fol. 371r

17 Athos, Iviron 5, The Last Supper, fol. 117r

XXXIII Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, fol. 238v

18 Athos, Iviron 5, The Descent from the Cross, fol. 129v

Black and White Plates 1 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page, fol. 16r

19 Athos, Iviron 5, The Holy Women at the Sepulcher, fol. 130v 20 Athos, Iviron 5, The Baptism, fol. 138v

2 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page, fol. 16v

21 Athos, Iviron 5, Peter’s Mother-inlaw, fol. 141r

3 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs, fol. 32v

22 Athos, Iviron 5, The Healing of the Leper, fol. 142r

4 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with erasure on lines 20–21 of Greek text, fol. 63r

23 Athos, Iviron 5, The Annunciation, fol. 222r

5 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page showing grouped minims, fol. 86r

24 Athos, Iviron 5, The Woman with the Hemorrhage, fol. 38v

6 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, page missing 26 words in Greek text, fol. 89v

25 Athos, Iviron 5, The Man with Dropsy, fol. 299v

7 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page showing later Latin hand, fol. 121r

26 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Nativity text, fol. 6v

list of plates

27 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Miracle of the Loaves text, fol. 37r 28 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Last Supper text, fol. 66r 29 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Remorse of Peter text, fol. 69v 30 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Annunciation text, fol. 128v 31 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, text page with no evidence of a red cross, fol. 183v

ix

40 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6246, Evangelist Mark 41 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6242, Evangelist John

32 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, fol. 42v

42 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6244, Evangelist Matthew

33 Athos, Dionysiou 587, Christ’s Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias, fol. 173r

43 Athos, Vatopedi 938, Evangelist Matthew

34 London, British Library, Burney 20, Evangelist Mark, fol. 90v

44 Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Taphou 5, fol. 227v

35 London, British Library, Burney 20, Evangelist John, fol. 226v

45 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 382 (folio from Taphou 5)

36 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101, Evangelist John with Prochoros, fol. 116v

46 Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Taphou 5, fol. 243r

37 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101, Evangelist Mark with St. Peter, fol. 50v

47 Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, MS Q 902, The Mokvi Gospels, The Transfiguration, fol. 59v

38 Princeton University Library, Garrett 2, Evangelist Mark, fol. 125v 39 Princeton University Library, Garrett 2, Evangelist John, fol. 267v

48 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, flyleaf, fol. Iv

x

between constantinople and rome

Picture Credits Grateful acknowledgment is given to various organizations for kindly granting permission to reproduce illustrative material as follows: Bibliothèque nationale de France: Plates I–XXVIII, 1–14, and 48. Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki, Greece: Plates XXIX–XXXII, 15–25, 33, and 43. Garrett Collection of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts, Manuscripts Division. Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library: Plates XXXIII, 26–32, and 38 and 39. The British Library Board, London: Plates 34 and 35. Manuscript Department, National Library of Russia: Plates 36, 37, and 45. Photographic and Historical Archives, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Athens: Plates 40–42. Patriarchal Library, Jerusalem: Plates 44 and 46. National Centre of Manuscripts, Tbilisi, Georgia: Plate 47. Every effort has been made to contact the copyright holders. For any inadvertently missed, the publishers will be pleased to add an acknowledgment in any future editions.

List of Figures and Tables

Figures 3.1 Luke: first quire 3.2 Luke: second quire 3.3 Luke: third quire 3.4 Luke: fourth quire 3.5 Luke: last quire 3.6 Status of Paris 54’s Greek and Latin texts and the degree of completion of its narrative miniatures 6.1 Diagram of the relative scale of Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s narrative miniatures

4.7 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in Mark in Text und Textwert, Gruppierung List 4.8 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in John in Text und Textwert, Gruppierung List 4.9 Manuscripts most consistently associated with Paris 54 (MS 16) 4.10 Textual variants (scribal errors) in Paris 54, Garrett 3, and Iviron 5 in Matthew 4.11 Red crosses in Garrett 3 5.1 Identification of Paris 54’s miniature cycle

Tables 4.1 Von Soden’s Ι Text Type β

4.2 McReynolds’ Group 1216 4.3 Omanson’s Group 1216 based on Mark Chapters 3, 11 and 14 4.4 Wisse Group 1216 4.5 Wisse’s Group 16 4.6 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in Matthew in Text und Textwert, vol. 2:1, Gruppierung List

5.2 Completed miniatures listed by artist in order of appearance in Paris 54 6.1 The narrative cycles of Paris 54 and Iviron 5: common miniatures 6.2 The miniatures of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 and their location within their respective texts 6.3 Narrative miniatures unique to Paris 54: Gospel and quire locations 6.4 Classification of scenes common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5

xii

between constantinople and rome

6.5 Miniatures added to Paris 54’s narrative cycle (not included in Iviron 5) 6.6 Total gains for each category of miniature in Paris 54 versus Iviron 5

6.7 The Great Feasts 6.8 Scenes added to Paris 54 related to St. Peter (in order of appearance in Paris 54’s text)

Acknowledgments

Any project taking this long to complete is indebted to many individuals and institutions. I begin with Prof. Robert S. Nelson and his Byzantine manuscript illumination seminar at the University of Chicago in 1978. It was then that I committed to Paris 54 as the subject of my dissertation. I thank Prof. Nelson, as well as Profs. Linda Seidel and the late Kathleen Shelton, the other two members of my dissertation committee. Prof. Nelson should also be credited for proposing the title of this book. I would never have been able to complete the dissertation and undertake the research for this book without the enlightened policies of Doe Library and the Art History Seminar at the University of California at Berkeley, and the nearby library of the Graduate Theological Union. I thank especially Kathryn Wayne, Fine Arts Librarian at the Art History/Classics Library at Berkeley, and her predecessor, Ann Gilbert, for generously accommodating my needs over the years. I also thank the librarians at the Gellert Library of Notre Dame de Namur University, in Belmont, California, where I spent many hours while our youngest child attended school nearby. Research on Athos, Iviron cod. 5—the sister manuscript of Paris 54—was enormously facilitated by two extraordinary events in March 1998. First, I was granted permission to personally examine Iviron 5 by the Holy Community of Monks of Mount Athos while the manuscript was displayed in the Treasures of Mount Athos exhibition at the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki. I wish to express my profound gratitude to the Holy Community, and especially to the monks of the Iviron Monastery for this unique privilege. I also thank my friend the late Alfred Büchler for his interest in my research. It was he who put me in touch with Fr. James Skedros, who in turn introduced me to Prof. Aristotle Mentzos and Dr. Ioannis Tavlakis, Superintendent of the Tenth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Thessaloniki. Dr. Tavlakis relayed my request to examine Iviron 5 directly to the Athonite Community. Others interceded on my behalf as well, including Prof. Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou, Prof. Maria Vassilaki, and Prof. Robert Nelson. I thank, too, the Director and staff of the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki for providing ideal circumstances in which to examine Iviron 5 during my visit to Thessaloniki.

xiv

between constantinople and rome

I also wish to acknowledge the critical role of Prof. Dorothea French of the History Department of Santa Clara University. As my colleague and mentor at Santa Clara, Dorothea insisted that I pursue the possibility of gaining permission to examine Iviron 5 while it was “off the mountain” even when others insisted that such permission would never be granted. Thank you, Dorothea! Second, but no less important, I wish to thank Efthymios K. Litsas for procuring a microfilm copy of Iviron 5 for me. By coincidence, it arrived a few days after I returned from viewing Iviron 5 in Thessaloniki. I had been seeking access to a microfilm of Iviron 5 for almost twenty years and I am deeply grateful to Prof. Litsas for his many efforts on my behalf. Copies of that microfilm are now in the collections of the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) in Münster, Germany and the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California. A number of institutions have provided financial assistance over the years. I thank the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for supporting my dissertation research abroad for nine months in 1980. My debt to Santa Clara University, where I have taught for over thirty years, is immense. Whether in the form of sabbatical leave, a course release, conference travel, generous funding for photos, related permissions, and the publisher’s subvention, I have benefited from the support of the President’s and Provost’s Offices, and the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. I thank in particular the late Paul Locatelli, SJ, former President of Santa Clara University; Denise Carmody, former Provost of the University; Don Dodson, former Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Interim Provost; Diane Jonte-Pace, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education; Amy Shachter, Associate Provost for Research and Faculty Affairs, and Atom Yee, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. I am also grateful for the encouragement and support of all my colleagues in the Department of Art and Art History. I single out Prof. Kate Morris, who served as a sounding board on countless occasions, and especially Prof. Blake de Maria, who volunteered to read and comment on seven chapters of the book. The late Gerald Sullivan, SJ, assisted with the translation of a Latin text. For financial support from the department, I thank former chair Prof. Kelly Detweiler, and current chair Prof. Blake de Maria. Various staff members at Santa Clara have been profoundly helpful to me. This includes Cynthia Bradley, Interlibrary Loan Manager, and Carolee Bird, Interlibrary Loan Supervisor, without whose efforts I would have been hopelessly stymied on numerous occasions. Leanna Goodwater, the Humanities Librarian, and Elwood Mills in Media Services also assisted with countless requests related to my research and the publication of this book. For technical support, I thank Phil Erskine of Information Technology and Marc Ramos, Technology Training Specialist. Santa Clara University also provided funding for undergraduate student assistants. I thank especially Nate Funkhouser, who compiled the bibliography from the footnotes, and Lucy (Elizabeth) Morgan, who proofread all the

acknowledgments

xv

chapters. Christine Lechelt and Lauren Baines also served as student assistants in past years. Many specialists have answered my queries. I thank Albert Derolez, Emeritus Professor of the Free Universities of Brussels, for helping me with many questions related to the scribes of Paris 54’s Latin text while he served as Visiting Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. For issues related to New Testament textual criticism, I thank Profs. Bart D. Ehrman, Bruce Morrill, David C. Parker, Ulrich Schmid, Tommy Wasserman, Klaus Wessel, and the late Bruce M. Metzger. Prof. Robert Ousterhout provided a copy of an especially elusive article. Profs. Elizabeth Fisher and Cecily J. Hilsdale gave feedback on individual chapters of this book, and Prof. Hilsdale also generously volunteered to share her photographs with me. Alice-Mary Talbot, Director of Byzantine Studies Emerita at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, encouraged me to submit the modus operandi chapter to Dumbarton Oaks Papers, while Margaret Mullett, Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, generously granted permission to include that material in this book. Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffmann, independent scholar, Prof. Stratis Papaioannou of Brown University and his graduate student Daria Resh intervened on my behalf so that permission was granted to publish photographs of St. Petersburg codices gr. 101 and 382. Prof. Robert W. Allison helped me procure photographs from Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki. I wish to especially to thank Prof. Annemarie Weyl Carr, who introduced me to the study of medieval manuscripts forty years ago while I was an undergraduate at Southern Methodist University. I am so very grateful for her interest, support, and friendship over these many years. Many institutions have provided photographs and related permissions. I thank especially the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki, and Princeton University Library. Family and friends have also cheered me on through their interest in my work. My mother, Kathleen Kane Maxwell, 95 years old at this writing, read chapter drafts as did my sister, Josephine Maxwell Grahn of Salt Lake City. My nephew, Sebastian Shepard, carefully edited and proofread the bibliography. For extended conversations about my research, I thank Dorothy Hansberry, Lucy Irwin, Graham Taylor, and Jane Willson. On the home front, I thank first and foremost my husband, Paul M. Sullam. We met at about the same time that I initiated my research on Paris 54 thirtyfive years ago. His emotional and financial support go a long way in explaining how this book finally came to fruition. I also thank our three daughters, Juliana, Angelica, and Mariella, for their encouragement and interest in my work, and especially for their patience. Maria Guadalupe Corrales (Pita), whom our daughters refer to as their second mother, must be credited for keeping our household functional for more than two decades. Her love and dedication have been essential to all of us.

xvi

between constantinople and rome

I thank, too, the anonymous readers of the prospectus and the book manuscript for their supportive and helpful comments. The strengths of this book reflect the debt I owe to the scholars listed in the bibliography; the inevitable errors are my responsibility alone. Lastly, I thank John Smedley, my editor at Ashgate, for taking on this book. I am very grateful to him for his enthusiasm and support. Kathleen Maxwell San Francisco

Note A detailed iconographical analysis of the individual miniatures of Paris 54, based upon Chapter 5 of the author’s dissertation, is available on Ashgate’s website at: www.ashgate.com/maxwell-iconography-index.

List of Abbreviations

BL

British Library, London

BnF

Bibliothèque nationale de France

Bodl. Libr.

Bodleian Library, Oxford

cod.

codex

CPM

Claremont Profile Method

GA

Gregory/Aland number

INTF

Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung

Metzger

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd edn. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975

NLR

National Library of Russia

NTG

Novum Testamentum Graece: Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edn., ed. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993

P54

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex grec 54

w.o.

word order

1 Introduction

Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex grec 54 (Paris, BnF, gr. 54; Paris 54, or P54) is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the early Palaeologan period. Its full-page evangelist portraits, extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic bilingual texts have garnered scholarly attention since Gabriel Millet published some of its illustrations in 1916.1 More than eighty-five years later, however, little is known about this thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book. The circumstances of its commission are undocumented and we do not understand why its narrative cycle, Latin text, and ornament remain incomplete. This study addresses the following questions: What circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books? While nothing is known about the origins of Paris 54, it can be linked to two very different manuscripts. Its dependence on the evangelist portraits and some of the text miniatures of the illustrated Gospel book, Mt. Athos, Iviron 5, is widely acknowledged. This study clarifies the relationship between Paris 54 and Iviron 5. The correct identification of the text miniatures of Paris 54 reveals that it incorporates all 29 scenes found in Iviron 5, as well as 22 additional miniatures. Paris 54’s significantly expanded miniature cycle combined with its distinctive double-column format and colorful bilingual texts create an entirely different impact, however, than Iviron 5’s smaller, single-column Greek text written in standard brown ink. A second source for Paris 54 is also identified. My research indicates that the Greek text of Paris 54 was likely copied directly from Princeton, University Library, Codex Garrett 3, a Gospel book of 1136 that otherwise

1 Gabriel Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’Évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles (Paris: Fontemoine et Cie, Éditeurs, 1916), figs. 20, 42, 149, 195, 277, 366–7, and 654. Henri Omont was the first to publish all of its narrative miniatures in Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale du VIe au XIVe siècle (Paris: H. Champion, 1929), pls. XC–XCVI.

2

between constantinople and rome

appears unrelated to Paris 54.2 The occurrence of unique textual anomalies in Paris 54’s and Garrett 3’s Greek texts of Matthew, coupled with additional paratextual evidence, underlines Paris 54’s dependence on Garrett 3. Paris 54 surpasses both of its models, as manifested by its generous proportions, its bilingual and multi-colored texts, the enhanced format of its images, and the expanded number of passages selected for illustration. The differences between Paris 54 and its models are due both to the stipulations of Paris 54’s unidentified but highly ambitious and sophisticated patron, as well as to decisions and modifications adopted by its head scribe. In fact, Paris 54’s innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. I will demonstrate that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically symbolize a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Further analysis of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that Paris 54 was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts in the late thirteenth century to unify the Latin and Orthodox Churches.

Description and Provenance Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, codex grec 543 entered the Royal Library in France in 1599 along with numerous other Greek manuscripts from the remarkable collection of Catherine de Medici.4 Comprising 364 folios of thick, white parchment measuring 335 × 250 mm, the manuscript contains the 2 The relationship between the texts of Paris 54 and Garrett 3 was first noted in the Gospel of Luke by New Testament text critic Frederik Wisse, The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence, Studies and Documents 44, ed. Irving A. Sparks (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982). See p. 107, where Paris 54 is referred to by its Gregory/Aland #16 and Princeton, Garrett 3 as #1528. 3 A catalogue of the King’s Library compiled in 1682 by Nicolas Clement listed Paris 54 as manuscript “Reg. 1881,” but in 1740 it was renumbered as manuscript 54. See Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae, Tomus secundus (Paris: Typographia Regia, 1740), p. 13. 4 According to Omont, the Greek manuscripts in the Bibliothèque nationale de France were derived largely from the royal collection of Francis I from the chateau at Fontainebleau as well as that of Catherine de Medici. See Henri Omont, Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements, vol. 1: Ancien fonds grecs (Paris: A. Picard, 1886), p. vi. Catherine de Medici inherited the core of her collection from Pietro Strozzi (d. 1558), who had in turn purchased them in 1550 from the heirs of Cardinal Nicolas Ridolfi, nephew of Pope Leo X. See Monsieur (Joseph B.) Silvestre, Paléographie universelle, deuxième partie: Grecs et Latins (Paris: Didot Frères, 1841), and Charles Astruc, “Les fonds grecs du Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale,” in Byzance et la France médiévale (exhibition catalogue) (Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, 1958), pp. xxv–xxxii. For more on the historical context by which Paris 54 may have traveled from Constantinople to Italy, see Chapter 9 below.

introduction

3

complete Gospels in Greek in the left-hand column and an incomplete Latin version of the Vulgate in the right-hand column. Four full-page evangelist portraits were inserted at the beginning of each Gospel, while space was reserved throughout the text for as many as 52 narrative miniatures.5 Only 22 text miniatures were completed, and five others remain in varying stages of completion. Twenty-five remaining miniatures received, at most, only a simple, rectangular red-ink frame indicating the original scope of the program. Paris 54, with the exception of the decorative frames of the evangelist portraits, is almost completely devoid of ornament. Space was reserved at the beginning of each Gospel for an ornamental headpiece, but these were never executed.

Historiographical Review6 Paris 54 attracted the attention of New Testament text scholars almost a century before paleographers or art historians.7 Its bilingual text led many to propose that it was produced on Italian soil.8 This trend roused opposition as early as 1916 in Millet, and again in 1931 with Lazarev.9 It was not until 1929, when Henri Omont fully published Paris 54’s illustrations, that it began to be consistently noted by art historians.10 5 Table 6.1 contains a complete list of the miniatures in Paris 54. Appendix A offers a description of the contents of the manuscript arranged by quire. 6 I am grateful to Dumbarton Oaks for permission to repeat here passages from my article “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book,” © 2000, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Trustees for Harvard University. Originally published in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000): 117–38. 7 See, for example, Johan Jakob Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, nec non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis historiam et vim verborum illustrante, vol. 1: Continens Quattuor Evangelia. Editionis Receptae (Amsterdam: Ex Officina Dommeriana, 1751), p. 47, where he dates Paris 54 to the fourteenth century based on its Latin script. 8 The following thought that Paris 54 was probably produced in Italy: J.P.P. Martin, Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au Nouveau Testament conservés dans les bibliothèques de Paris (Paris: Maisonneuve Frères and C. Leclerc, 1884), p. 29; N.V. Pokrovskij, Evangelie v pamjatnikach ikonografii preimuščestvenno vizantijskich i russkich (St. Petersburg, 1892), p. xx; A. Vaccari, “La Grecia nell’Italia meridionale,” Orientalia Christiana 3/13 (1925), pp. 273ff. (I thank Susan Pinto Madigan for this reference); H. Gerstinger, Die griechische Buchmalerei (Vienna: Österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, 1926), p. 38; A. Grabar, La peinture religieuse en Bulgarie (Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1928), p. 170, and Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 1; however, Johan J. Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung in der mittelalterlichen Buchmalerei, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 5 (Helsingfors: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1933), pp. 132 and 163, suggested that Paris 54 may have come from Italy. 9 Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 646, and V. Lazarev, “Duccio and Thirteenth Century Greek Icons,” The Burlington Magazine 59 (1931), p. 159. 10 Omont, Miniatures, pls. XC–XCVI. A full historiographical review of the scholarship related to Paris 54 can be found in Chapter 7 below.

4

between constantinople and rome

Paris 54 remains something of an anomaly. Extensively illustrated Gospel books are rare in the Palaeologan period. By this time the preferred venue for extensive narrative cycles was monumental painting.11 However, as we shall see, there are many aspects of Paris 54 that contribute to its singular status above and beyond its narrative cycle. Since Paris 54 has never been the subject of a comprehensive study, every aspect of the manuscript—script, illumination, ornament, and text—warrants examination.

Chapter Summaries Chapter 2 addresses codicological and paleographical issues of Paris 54, including the unusual make-up of Paris 54’s quires (ten folios) and their bilingual Greek and Armenian quire signatures, as well as paleographical peculiarities of its Greek and Latin Gospel texts. Paris 54’s polychrome text is unique in Byzantine manuscript production and its hierarchical implications are of interest. Bright red ink was used for the simple narrative text, while a darker red or crimson ink was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ, and the words of the angels. Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while dark brown ink was used for words spoken by the Pharisees, people from the crowd, Judas Ischariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds, and the scribes. Paleographical analysis indicates that the Greek text, with the exception of one quire, was executed by one scribe working in a handsome archaizing script, while the Latin text is the product of many different hands and several different time periods. Moreover, Paris 54’s Greek text has recently been associated with a select group of secular and religious manuscripts produced in Constantinople that is dated or datable to the period 1277–1330. Chapter 3 analyzes Paris 54’s unfinished aspects to gain insight into the modus operandi of both scribes and artists. Examination of the Greek text reveals that it was completed before the Latin text was initiated, and that the head scribe expanded and refined his unique concept of the varied ink colors as he proceeded with the Greek text. The scribes responsible for the Latin text were careful to maintain absolute color symmetry with the Greek text located in the left column of each page. While this symmetry was undoubtedly motivated by aesthetic concerns, it was also imperative that both the Greek and Latin texts break for an illustration at the same point, since the illustration extends across both columns of text. The resulting line-for-line color parallelism in the Greek and Latin text was attained through some interesting scribal machinations. In addition, evidence from Mark’s Gospel indicates that the Latin text and narrative miniatures of that Gospel were produced simultaneously. The point at which the Latin text is taken over by a new (and 11 See Robert S. Nelson and John Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group: Additional Manuscripts and New Questions,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991): 59–68, esp. p. 64.

introduction

5

probably later) scribe using black ink corresponds with the location of the first uninitiated miniature (fol. 142r) in the manuscript (Plate 8).12 Meanwhile, the five incomplete illustrations of Luke allow for the reconstruction of the precise steps in which they were painted. As we shall see, these unfinished illustrations provide surprising parallels with the working methods utilized by the Latin scribe in folios 120v–141v. Codicological and textual anomalies in the Paris 54’s Gospels of Mark and Luke can be linked rather closely with similar disruptions in miniature production. Taken together, the evidence suggests that artists and scribes worked more intimately in the production of this manuscript than is generally recognized in the Byzantine sphere. This degree of cooperation between scribes and artists challenges traditional assumptions about the ways in which deluxe manuscripts were produced during this period. Chapter 4 focuses on Paris 54’s Greek Gospel text and its treatment by New Testament text critics. A review of this scholarship reveals that Paris 54’s Greek text is a member of a small subgroup of manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that was identified initially by Hermann von Soden in 1911, and confirmed by E.C. Colwell. Membership in this group has been reestablished more recently by those employing the Claremont Profile Method, as well as by Kurt Aland’s test passages method, the results of which have been published in a series of volumes beginning in the late 1990s. In 1982, Frederik Wisse actually named a small group of Gospel manuscripts after Paris 54. Moreover, Wisse paired Paris 54’s Greek text of Luke with that of Princeton, Garrett 3, a Greek Gospel book from Jerusalem dated to 1136. I will demonstrate that Princeton, Garrett 3 likely served as the actual model for the Greek text of Paris 54. The data indicate that, notwithstanding their divergent origins, dates and formats, Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 share a number of significant textual aberrations not found in Iviron 5 or in any of the manuscripts with which New Testament text critics have associated Paris 54. Furthermore, a small cross executed in red ink is found in Princeton, Garrett 3’s text in a number of places that correspond precisely to the locations of the miniatures interspersed throughout Paris 54 (Plate XXXIII). I propose that these red crosses were added to Garrett 3’s text by the head scribe of Paris 54. The presence of each cross served as a visual cue, reminding the scribe to leave spaces for the miniatures that he wished to include in Paris 54’s text as he copied the Greek text of Garrett 3. The inclusion of these red crosses throughout Garrett 3’s four Gospels, together with the results of my textual comparative study of both manuscripts’ Gospels of Matthew, suggest that Paris 54 was copied directly from Princeton, Garrett 3. Chapter 5 utilizes traditional art historical methods of formal analysis to characterize the three artists who created Paris 54’s narrative cycle and evangelist portraits. Artists A and B were responsible for the miniatures of 12 Reproduced in color in Maxwell, “Modus Operandi,” fig. 9.

6

between constantinople and rome

Matthew and Mark, as well as the four full-page portraits of the evangelists. These artists copy the miniatures of Iviron 5 with mixed results, whereas Artist C executed the miniatures of Luke and John and demonstrates less dependence on Iviron 5. His independent and iconic compositions suggest that he was trained in a more monumental medium such as icon or fresco painting. Artist C’s animated faces, dramatic gestures, and dynamic, threedimensional settings distance him from both Artists A and B and reflect his sensitivity to stylistic developments of the later thirteenth century. Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the narrative cycles and evangelist portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5. Prior to my research, Paris 54 was largely perceived to be a copy of Iviron 5 and was even described as its twin. In this chapter, I demonstrate that Iviron 5 itself was available to the head scribe (and designer) of Paris 54 and to the two artists responsible for the four evangelist portraits and the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark. The enlarged lateral format of the illustrations of Paris 54 posed challenges for Artists A and B as they sought to transfer the compositions of Iviron 5 to the expanded width of Paris 54’s compositions. The lackluster results seen in some of their efforts betray the dimensions of their immediate model—that is, a manuscript with illustrations of the approximate dimensions of Iviron 5’s miniatures. Artist C, however, displayed greater initiative and creativity in response to these changes in format, as well as a willingness to incorporate contemporary iconographic and stylistic trends into his work. Based on my physical examination of both Paris 54 and Iviron 5,13 I conclude that they are more closely related in terms of style than published reproductions of both manuscripts suggest. The best-known color reproductions of Iviron 5 distort the differences between the styles of the two manuscripts. These observations have important ramifications concerning the relative date of the two works, a subject addressed in Chapter 7. Despite Iviron 5’s role in the genesis of Paris 54, it is clear that Iviron 5 was never meant to be more than a springboard for Paris 54. The second half of this chapter examines the motivating factors behind the decision to expand Paris 54’s narrative cycle. The fact that the additional 22 miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle are not distributed equally among its four Gospels suggests a degree of intentionality that has not been addressed previously. The additional scenes in Matthew and Mark are selected overwhelmingly from Christ’s passion, whereas the three additional scenes in John are drawn exclusively from post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. In contrast, the illustrations added to Paris 54’s Gospel of Luke differ in both the diversity of scenes selected and in their distribution throughout the text of his Gospel. 13 Permission was granted to examine Athos, Iviron 5 for two days in March 1998 while the manuscript was exhibited in Thessaloniki. Iviron 5 itself was compared to its published color illustrations in S. Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. 2 (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1975), figs. 11–40, and to high-quality color positives of Paris 54 purchased from the Bibliothèque nationale de France.

introduction

7

The chapter concludes with an analysis of the seven added scenes to Paris 54 which contain significant references to St. Peter. Five of these scenes emphasize Peter’s weakness of character—that is, moments when he has disappointed or denied Christ. These scenes can be contrasted with the more neutral character of the Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law (Mk. 1:30), a scene involving Peter that is common to both Paris 54 and Iviron 5.14 The other two added scenes cast Peter in a more positive light. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, for example, is actually the calling of St. Peter.15 The synoptic Gospels all include this scene, but in Matthew’s (Mt. 4:18–22) and Mark’s (Mk. 1:16–20) accounts, Andrew is given as important a role as Peter. It is noteworthy that the designer of Paris 54 chose Luke’s text (Lk. 5:1–11), for in it Peter alone is the focus of this encounter with Christ.16 This point is underscored by an iconography scholar who writes that this passage in Luke’s text is “extremely rarely depicted during the Middle Ages.”17 The Post-Resurrection Appearance of Christ to the Disciples on the Shores of the Sea of Tiberias offers a fitting conclusion to the series of “Peter” miniatures. This is the last of the scenes added to Paris 54, and it serves as the final miniature in its narrative cycle.18 In this passage, Peter is fully “rehabilitated” and, according to the Church of Rome, his primacy among the apostles is acknowledged. Paris 54’s narrative cycle ends with this final post-Resurrection appearance, and it is in the course of this encounter that Christ effectively transfers leadership to Peter.19 The Gospel of John ends a few verses later. The singular role of St. Peter in Paris 54’s expanded narrative cycle will be addressed again in Chapter 8 when the historical context in which the manuscript was likely produced is considered in detail. While Iviron 5 provided the model for Paris 54’s evangelist portraits and for many miniatures in its narrative cycle, a remarkable degree of innovation is exhibited by the head scribe/designer of Paris 54. These include its deluxe proportions, its bilingual multi-colored text, and its considerably expanded number of Gospel passages selected for illustration. The innovative aspects of Paris 54 are impressive given the aversion to change evident in many aspects of Byzantine culture and the highly conservative nature of Byzantine piety.

14 Although one could argue that this scene is not neutral in the West as it indirectly espouses the right of priests to marry. Greek Orthodox priests may marry, while Catholic priests may not. 15 “Do not be afraid; henceforth thou shalt catch men” (Lk. 5:10). 16 John’s account of the calling of Peter differs significantly; see Jn. 1:35–42. 17 Gertrud Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, transl. Janet Seligman (New York: New York Graphic Society, 1971), vol. 1, p. 167, notes that Raphael was one of the first to use the scene in his tapestry cartoons for the Sistine Chapel commissioned by Pope Leo X in 1516. 18 Space was reserved for this scene on fol. 359v. The last folio of the manuscript is fol. 364. 19 In fact, when papal infallibility was first proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870, this text in John’s Gospel was cited in support of it.

8

between constantinople and rome

Chapter 7 analyzes Paris 54’s relationship to several important groups of manuscripts typically dated to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century. These groups include the decorative style manuscripts, Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group, and the so-called Palaeologina group. The framed format of Paris 54’s narrative cycle was well developed in the Gospel books of the decorative style manuscripts. However, the closest stylistic ties to Paris 54 are found in Iviron 5 and manuscripts like London, Burney 20 (dated 1285), and some of the miniatures of Jerusalem, Taphou 5. The Smyrna Lectionary, which is linked to both Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group (in two of its evangelist portraits) and the Palaeologina group (in its script by the scribe David), provides a critical clue to Paris 54’s date since it is securely dated to 1298. Moreover, palaeographic links with Vatopedi 602, the Hamilton Psalter, and the Octateuch in the Laurentian Library in Florence suggest that Paris 54, too, can be dated to the last decades of the thirteenth century and linked with the highest echelon of Constantinopolitan society. Chapter 8 investigates the historical context of late thirteenth-century Constantinople and argues that Paris 54’s innovations testify to the extraordinary circumstances of the commission of the manuscript. Paris 54 contains no scribal colophon (that is, scribal signature, date, and details about the circumstances of its commission) and it diverges significantly from both Iviron 5 and Princeton, Garrett 3—two manuscripts with which it has been linked. These differences certainly reflect the high rank of both the patron who commissioned the manuscript and the individual for whom it was intended, not to mention the creativity of the head scribe as he wrote the Greek text and refined the format of the manuscript. Numerous examples of the manipulation of text and images highlight the ways in which Paris 54’s head scribe sought to create visual and psychological impact. The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos (1261–1282) assumed leadership in Constantinople after nearly six decades of Latin rule, but his reign was overshadowed by the almost constant threat of foreign invasion, especially from Charles of Anjou, the brother of St. Louis, King of France. In dealing with this formidable adversary, Michael’s best defense was theologically based. If he could succeed in reuniting the Latin and Greek Churches, then it would be morally reprehensible for any representative of the Latin West to attack their Christian brethren in Constantinople. A short-lived Union between the Greek and Latin Churches was forged at the Council of Lyons in 1274 under Pope Gregory X. Pope Gregory (and some of his successors) hoped that such a Union would result in a combined Latin and Greek crusade to regain the Holy Land from the Muslims. Michael VIII’s motivations were driven by political expediency; he never gained the support of the Orthodox clergy in incorporating the necessary adaptations to comply with the Union. When Pope Gregory X’s successors demanded that the terms agreed upon at the Council of Lyons be enforced, Michael VIII faced heated opposition at home. His initial efforts at mollification were replaced by extreme measures as he sought to impose the terms of the Union on nonconforming clergy.

introduction

9

The emperor alienated all segments of Byzantine society, including members of his immediate family, as he tried to allay the growing doubts in Rome. These tactics resulted in Michael VIII’s complete vilification following his unexpected death while on campaign in 1282. His son and successor, Andronikos II, immediately revoked the Union in order to restore equilibrium. The extended period of Latin rule of Constantinople coupled with Michael VIII’s efforts to unite the Greek and Latin Churches resulted in an extraordinary backlash against all things Latin. The evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely, in the religious climate of the early Palaeologan period, that anyone except Michael VIII himself would have dared to commission a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript. Paris 54, in its display of parallel Greek and Latin texts united by images describing the Gospel narrative, virtually embodies the union of the Churches. It also includes a culminating illustration in its narrative cycle documenting the rehabilitation of St. Peter20 (and by association, the pope), suggesting that this manuscript was tailored to serve as a diplomatic gift from the emperor to the pope. Thus, the creation of Paris 54 was a bold and politically incendiary action in this highly charged atmosphere. The fact that the manuscript remains unfinished suggests that the environment in which it was commissioned changed radically and that the role originally envisioned for Paris 54 was no longer relevant. Indeed, the presence of its Latin text alone would ensure that it could not, in the foreseeable future, be recycled for another purpose. It is undoubtedly for this reason that Paris 54 remains unfinished. Chapter 9 serves as an epilogue addressing Paris 54’s journey from Constantinople to Renaissance Italy. While the exact circumstances of Paris 54’s appearance in Florence are not known, it may well have arrived in conjunction with another famous effort to reunite the Latin and Orthodox Churches—that is, the Ferrara-Florence Council of Union in the late 1430s under John VIII Palaeologos. These attempts at union were made as Byzantium desperately sought aid from the West against the growing Ottoman threat. The foundations for this meeting had long been in the making through the initiatives of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (1350–1425) and those working on his behalf, such as Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1355–1415). As a bilingual Greek and Latin text, Paris 54 would have held tremendous appeal in the humanist environment of fifteenth-century Italy when intellectuals were striving to master the Greek language. Indeed, Paris 54 can be directly associated with three collectors with Florentine (and Medici) roots, including Niccolò Ridolfi (d. 1551), a nephew of Pope Leo X (Giovanni de Medici, d. 1521), and Pietro Strozzi (d. 1558), a relative of Palla Strozzi and a Medici on his mother’s side. Ultimately, Paris 54 would come into the possession of a third member of the Medici family: Catherine de Medici (1519–1589), Queen of France, upon whose death it passed into the royal collection. 20 Jn. 21. Space was reserved for this miniature, but like most of the miniatures of John’s Gospel, it was not painted.

10

between constantinople and rome

This study affirms the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the study of a complex manuscript such as Paris 54. While nothing specific is known about the origins of Paris 54, a very plausible explanation can be posited for virtually every aspect of this manuscript, including its unfinished status. The violent anti-Latin backlash following Michael VIII’s attempts to unify the Orthodox and Roman Churches certainly contributed to its current state. Indeed, it is remarkable that Paris 54 managed to survive this tumultuous period of Byzantine history.

2 Paris 54: Codicological and Paleographical Considerations

Contents Paris 54 contains the four Gospels in Latin and Greek.1 The Greek text is very nearly complete; only the folio containing the final seven verses of Mark’s Gospel (16:14–20) is missing. The Latin text, as we shall see below, was never finished. Preceding the Gospel text on folios 1r–9r is a set of Canon Tables in Latin only. These Canon Tables remain undecorated and were added to the manuscript at a later date. In contrast to the Gospel text proper, the Latin text of the Canon Tables assumes the dominant position on the left-hand side of the page and, although space was reserved on the right side for the Greek translation, this was never initiated.2 The Eusebian canon numbers3 in the Gospel text are in the left margin and are noted most consistently throughout the Gospel of Matthew.4 1 Matthew (fols. 11r–109v), Mark (112r–171v), Luke (174r–276v), and John (279r–361v). See Appendix A for a complete codicological description of the manuscript. 2 The codicological intricacies of fols. 1–10 are concealed by Paris 54’s rebinding in 1972, and it is impossible to ascertain when the Canon Tables were added. Moreover, fol. 1 is preceded by three unnumbered parchment folios which I refer to as fols. i, ii, and iii, and a fourth folio numbered “I.” Fol. Ir is unlined and blank, and easily distinguished by its brownish hue. It seems to have played the role of flyleaf for many centuries prior to the inclusion of the three unnumbered folios currently preceding it. It is, however, an insert and its non-integral position is also betrayed by the fact that once it must have preceded an ornamental headpiece or frame—one corner of which has faded onto its verso. The remaining image features an orange-colored “step” pattern which is similar but not identical to the ornamental frames of Paris 54’s evangelist portraits. On the basis of this evidence, John Lowden asserts that a fifth full-page image once faced this folio. See Lowden’s catalogue entry for Paris 54 in Helen C. Evans, ed., Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557) (New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004), cat. #162, p. 277. If Lowden is correct, then perhaps this full-page image was a dedication miniature. 3 See Robert S. Nelson, “Canon Tables,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), vol. 1, p. 374, and D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 315–16. 4 Silvestre, Paléographie universelle (no pagination), believed these to be numerical

12

between constantinople and rome

Like most Greek Gospel books, Paris 54 also contains kephalaia. These are chapter divisions accompanying summary headings (or τίτλοι) describing the chapter’s contents. They are typically located in the top margin. While the Eusebian canon numbers are indispensable for a comparative analysis of the four Gospels, they are too numerous to serve as a useful table of contents.5 The total number of kephalaia in each Gospel, however, is considerably less than the Eusebian canon numbers.6 It is only at the end of Luke’s Gospel (fol. 277r) that the kephalaia for the Gospel of John are listed together so as to function as a true table of contents.7 If one thinks of the kephalaia and of Eusebius’ canon numbers as precursors of our chapter and verse notation system,8 then one can begin to gauge their utility. letters indicating the division of text into verses. In Mark, the canon numbers are found through fol. 162v (that is, through ροβ). The remaining nine folios of this last quire (ις) of Mark omit the canon numbers. Beginning with Luke, the canon numbers are once again found consistently in the same location through fol. 235v and then, rather suddenly, on fol. 236r, the canon numbers on the rectos are located in the far righthand margin. This location is utilized variably throughout the remaining text of Luke. The canon numbers in John are found in their proper location, but a large gap is noted between fols. 300 and 339v. 5 Eusebius adapted a system of numbering sections of each Gospel that was presumably devised by Ammonius of Alexandra. Matthew’s text is broken down into 355 sections (or canons), Mark up to 241 (depending on which ending is used), and Luke and John into 342 and 232 sections, respectively. See Parker, Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts, p. 315. 6 The kephalaia number 68 for Matthew, 48 for Mark, 83 for Luke, and 18 for John. See Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part III, II: Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien (Berlin: Verlag von Arthur Glaue, 1907), pp. 396–411. The titles accompanying the kephalaia in Paris 54 tend to be heavily abbreviated, and on several occasions the number of a particular kephalaion is repeated in the margin beside the verse to which it refers. The kephalaia are noted consistently throughout Paris 54 except in John, where they are lacking in the same folios as the Eusebian canon numbers (fols. 300–340). For more information on the kephalaia, see Parker, Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts, p. 316. 7 It is difficult to ascertain why this effort was made only for John’s text. Also, another peculiarity is noted at this same location. The following subscription to the text of Luke is located on fol. 276v before the list of kephalaia to John: Ἰστέον ὅτι τὸ κατα Λουκαν ἐυα[γγελιον] ἐξεδόθη μεχρι χ[ρ]ον[ο]υ δεκαπεντε τῆς Χ[ριστο]υ ἀ ναλήψεως Robert Nelson informed me that this is apparently a variation on a subscription noted by von Soden whereby, in Paris 54, μεχρὶ χ[ρ]όν[ο]υ has been substituted for μετὰ χρόνους. See further Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part 1: Untersuchung, 1: Die Textzeugen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911), pp. 296–8. 8 See Jack Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001),

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

13

Quires (Gatherings) The make-up of the quires in Paris 54 is exceptional in that its individual quires consist not of a quaternio (four bifolia or eight folia) as was the rule in both Latin and Greek manuscripts, but rather of a quinio (that is, containing ten folia or five bifolia).9 The first numbered quire signature (β) is found on fol. 21r.10 Thus, the first quire (α) is comprised of folios 11–20 and fol. 11r does correspond, in fact, to the beginning of the text of Matthew.11 Folios 1–10 at first glance appear to comprise an unadulterated quinion, but fol. 10 must be an insert, as would be expected during this period for a folio containing an evangelist portrait.12 Paris 54 is bilingual in another aspect as well. It contains two different sets of quire signatures. Greek quire signatures are found through almost two-thirds of the manuscript (through quire 22; see Appendix A). These quire signatures are located in the left margin at the bottom of the recto of the first folio of each quire. However, Armenian quire signatures are found throughout the manuscript (that is, through quire 35).13 They are located in pp. 34–5, for the development of chapters in the early thirteenth century and of verses in the mid-sixteenth century. 9 For general information on quires, see Ernst Gamillscheg and Robert Browning, “Quire,” in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991), vol. 3, pp. 1,767–8. See also Jean Irigoin, “Les Cahiers des manuscrits grecs,” in Recherches de codicologie comparée: La composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident, ed. Philippe Hoffmann (Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure, 1998), pp. 1–19, esp. p. 6, where Irigoin notes that Codex Vaticanus (fourth century), Paris, Coislin 1 (end of sixth century), and Vatican gr. 2125 (seventh–eighth centuries) all feature quinions. The quaternion becomes the norm in Constantinople in the ninth century at about the same time as the development of the minuscule script. Irigoin says that quinions are fairly frequent in southern Italy, for example: Vat. gr. 1542, a psalter of the tenth century; Vatican gr. 1524 and Vat. gr. 1633—both of the tenth–eleventh centuries. The Rossano Codex and the Vienna Dioscurides also feature quires made up of quinions. See G. Cavallo, J. Gribomont, and W.C. Loerke, Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, vol. I: Commentarium (Rome: Salerno Editrice, and Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1987) (Codices Selecti, facs. 81), p. 24. Christopher De Hamel, Scribes and Illuminators (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992), p. 18, says that gatherings of ten leaves were also common in early Irish manuscripts and fifteenth-century Italian books. See also Colette Sirac, Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, ed. and transl. Nicolas De Lange (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 119, for the use of quinions in Italian, Hebrew, and Arabic manuscripts. 10 For Greek numbering systems, see Bruce Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 7–9. 11 The lower margin of fol. 11 has been trimmed, but the top of the quire signature is still visible. Fols. 1–10 were not taken into consideration when the codex was assigned quire signatures. 12 Matthew’s portrait is located on fol. 10v. See Appendix A. 13 Caspar. R. Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1900–1909), vol. I, p. 132, writes that the gatherings were first numbered in Greek and then in Armenian. This is unlikely, however, since, unlike the Greek quire signatures, the Armenian quire signatures extend throughout the entire manuscript;

14

between constantinople and rome

the center of the bottom margin, and they are in smaller scale than the Greek quire signatures. The Armenian quire signatures in Paris 54 are likely to date from the production of Paris 54 since they share the somewhat unusual red ink color of the Greek quire signatures and the running text.14 Moreover, brief C.R. Gregory, Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907), p. 372. Other manuscripts which feature Armenian quire signatures include Brescia, A.VI.26, a Greek Gospel book whose evangelist portraits were repainted by an Armenian artist from the Crimea in the fourteenth century. See Robert S. Nelson, The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America and the College Art Association of America 36 (New York: New York University Press, 1980), p. 42; Kathleen Maxwell, “Armenian Additions to a Greek Gospelbook: Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana A.VI.26,” Revue des études Arméniennes 25 (1994–95): 337–52, and Heide and Helmut Buschhausen, “Die Halbinsel Krim, ein wenig beachtetes Zentrum der byzantinischen Buchmalerei im 14. Jahrhundert,” in Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. C. Moss and K. Kiefer (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 339–46. In addition, Millet noted long ago that Florence, Laurentian Library, Plut. VI. 23 has notations in Armenian, presumably dating from when an Armenian copied it (Erevan, Matenadaran 7651) in the thirteenth century. See Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 569, and Sirarpie Der Nersessian with Sylvia Agemian, with an introduction by Annemarie Weyl Carr, Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 31 (Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks, 1993), vol. I, p. 104, who notes that the Florence manuscript also features Armenian quire numbers, as well as an instruction in Armenian on fol. 27v (ibid., vol. I, pp. 173f.). This information, too, was likely intended for the thirteenth-century Armenian scribe who worked on Erevan, Matenadaran 7651. Finally, Francis Wormald noted the presence of Armenian quire signatures in a twelfth-century Latin Crusader manuscript known as the “Missal of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre” (Paris, BnF, lat. 12056). He concluded that its scribe “was an Armenian who could write Latin.” See Hugo Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, with paleographical and liturgical chapters by Francis Wormald (Oxford: Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 1957), p. 135. Greek quire signatures are also sometimes noted in non-Greek manuscripts, see Walter Berschin, Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa, transl. Jerold C. Frakes, revised and expanded edn. (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1988), p. 29, n. 40, where the author notes the Codex Theodosianus of the sixth century, among others (Vat. Reg. lat. 886). See also Bert Vaux, “Linguistic Manifestations of Greek-Armenian Contact in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” http://cambridge.academia.edu/BertVaux/Papers/96537/Linguistic_ manifestations_of_Greek-Armenian_contact_in_Late_Antiquity_and_Byzantium_ powerpoint_slides_of_images_ (accessed October 18, 2011). Finally, Codex Ebnerianus (twelfth century) features quire signatures in Georgian letters which may or may not be contemporary with the execution of the manuscript according to Hugo Buchthal, “A Greek New Testament Manuscript in the Escorial Library: Its Miniatures and its Binding,” in Byzanz und der Westen: Studien zur Kunst des Europäischen Mittelalters, ed. Irmgard Hutter with a foreword by Herbert Hunger (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984), pp. 85–98, esp. p. 93. For an illustration, see Nigel Wilson, Mediaeval Greek Bookhands: Examples Selected from Greek Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1973), vol. 1, pp. 24–5, and vol. 2, pl. 45. 14 They were certainly many interactions between Byzantium and Armenia in the early Palaeologan period. Michael IX, the son of Andronikos II, married Rita-Maria,

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

15

notations in Armenian are also found in the lower margins of fols. 53r–79v.15 It should be noted that quinions are not typical of Armenian manuscripts either, as they also usually feature eight folios per quire. The text of each Gospel, with the exception of John, corresponds to the beginning of a new quire (Matthew, fol. 11r, quire α; Mark, fol. 112r, quire ια; and Luke, fol. 174r, quire ιζ).16 The portrait of the Evangelist Matthew on fol. 10v appears to be located on an inserted folio.17 Matthew’s text begins on fol. 11r and Matthew’s portrait is located directly opposite the beginning of his Gospel and facing the correct direction. The relationship of the Evangelists Mark (fol. 111r) and Luke (fol. 173r) to their texts is awkward by comparison. Both portraits are found on the second recto of an unlined bifolio insert whose other folios are blank. The evangelist portrait is followed by a blank verso such that the beginning of the texts of Mark and Luke face not their author portraits, as one might expect, but rather a blank page. Thus, in Mark and Luke an empty folio (111v and 173v) separates the portraits from the beginning of their respective texts. John (fol. 278v) is located on an inserted folio and occupies a much more satisfactory position with regard to his text. The beginning of the Gospel of John does not coincide with the initiation of a new quire as was true of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. John’s portrait is inserted within quire 27. Fol. 277v is integral to the quire and is blank; fol. 278 is an insert and the recto is blank while John’s portrait is found on the verso. John’s Gospel begins on the opposite leaf, fol. 279r.18

Two-column Format Paris 54’s distinctive status as a deluxe manuscript is manifest in its generous size (335 × 250 mm) and fine-quality parchment. Its handsome two-column layout19 is underscored by the 0.8 cm separation between the lines of text and the sister of King Het’um II, on January 16, 1295. According to Armenian sources, Het’um himself went to Constantinople for the marriage. See further Angeliki E. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282–1328 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972), pp. 54ff. For more on the historical context, see Chapter 8 below. 15 I have not succeeded in translating these notations. They are comprised primarily of a few indecipherable letters. 16 This is customary in Byzantine Gospel books. See Robert S. Nelson, “A Thirteenth-century Byzantine Miniature in the Vatican Library,” Gesta 20 (1981): 213–22. 17 Again, the first quire is comprised of fols. 11–20. 18 See Appendix A for its exact location within quire 27. 19 Giancarlo Prato, “La presentazione del testo nei manoscritti tardobizantini,” in Il Libro e il testo, Atti del Convegno Internazionale (Urbino, September 20–23, 1982), ed. C. Questa and R. Raffaelli (Urbino, 1984), pp. 69–84, reprinted in G. Prato, Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994), pp. 133–49, esp. p. 136, writes that Gospel texts dated to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries feature one column of text in 90 percent of all cases. If one looks

16

between constantinople and rome

the unusually spacious outer margins surrounding both text columns. In fact, Paris 54 is larger than all but one of the manuscripts associated with the atelier of the Palaiologina, the most deluxe manuscripts produced in Constantinople in the later thirteenth century.20 Paris 54’s format was dictated by its bilingual Greek and Latin texts.21 The Greek text is prioritized with its location in the left column and its script often impinges on the central margin between the two columns of text. In addition, the Greek text column averages 9.3 cm in width whereas the Latin text averages only 7 cm.22 In Paris 54 the primacy of the Greek text over the Latin is indicated by its dominant position in the left-hand column, its more spacious format, and by the fact that, unlike the Latin text, it is complete.

Bilingual Texts Bilingual Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Bible were produced in the earliest centuries of Christianity, when Greek was the language of the Church even in Latin-speaking countries.23 According to Bernhard Bischoff, a few of at all manuscripts (dated and undated) from the ninth to the fourteenth centuries, 88 percent feature a single-column format. Prato writes that the inverse is true for lectionary texts. Of 1,300 lectionaries of the ninth to fourteenth centuries, 75 percent feature two-column formats. Secular manuscripts are nearly always single-column as well, according to Prato. On the other hand, Sirarpie Der Nersessian writes that Armenian manuscripts typically favor the two-column format. See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 169. 20 Paris 54 is larger than all the manuscripts associated with the Palaeologina group except for a manuscript of the Sermons of St. Basil (Oxford, Bodl. Lib., Laud. Gr. 90) which measures 335 × 260 mm. Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 61 and n. 23, write: “The six lectionaries … [now associated with Buchthal and Belting’s Palaeologina] group … form a consistent ensemble that ranges in height from 305 to 330 mm, and in width from 239 to 255 mm.” See also Hugo Buchthal and Hans Belting, Patronage in Thirteenth-century Constantinople: An Atelier of Late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 16 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1978). 21 As public books, contemporary lectionary texts often feature a similar sumptuous layout. See Appendix B below and Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 9ff. The lineation of the majority of folios is comparable to Leroy’s 34D2 with the text lines numbering 26. See Julien Leroy, Les types de réglure des manuscrits Grecs (Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1976), p. 14. 22 See Appendix B. Annaclara Cataldi Palau, “Manoscritti greco-latini dell’Italia meridionale: Un nuovo Salterio vergato da Romano di Ullano,” in Nuove ricerche sui manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana. Atto del Convegno Milano, 5–6 giugno 2003, ed. Carlo Maria Mazzucchi and Cesare Pasini (Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2004), pp. 37–78, esp. p. 66, notes that the great majority of bilingual Greek and Latin codices place the Greek text in the primary position on the left column of the page. 23 Bernhard Bischoff states that the culture of imperial Rome and early Christianity was bilingual, based on both Greek and Latin. Greek persisted in some parts of the Latin liturgy up until the Second Vatican Council (1962–65)—for example, the Kyrie eleison. See B. Bischoff, “The Study of Foreign Languages in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 36/2 (April 1961), p. 213, and B. Bischoff, “Das griechische Element in der

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

17

these bilingual manuscripts survived and stimulated attempts to learn Greek in the early Middle Ages.24 Moreover, significant areas in southern Italy and Sicily were bilingual throughout the Middle Ages. Weiss notes that part of the populations in these two areas spoke Greek, practiced the Greek rite, and that Greek monasticism flourished in both locales.25 Two important bilingual Greek and Latin manuscripts are, in fact, firmly assigned to southern Italy by virtue of their colophons: Vat. Barb. gr. 541, a Gospel book dated to 1291, and Vat. gr. 1070, a psalter, of the following year. Approximate contemporaries of Paris 54, both manuscripts were copied in Ullano in the diocese of Bisignano by Romano, abbot of Saint Benoît.26 Although they adopt the same two-column format as Paris 54, they differ markedly from Paris 54.27 For these and other reasons, attempts to assign Paris 54 to Italy have not met with much success.28 Abendländischen Bildung des Mittelalters,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951): 27–55, esp. pp. 41ff., where Bischoff discusses the persistence of Greek prayers and hymns in the Latin liturgy in the Middle Ages. 24 Bischoff cites Bede’s use of the Laudian Acts as an example. See Bischoff, “Study of Foreign Languages,” p. 213. Also, Rosamund McKitterick discusses several bilingual psalters in the Ottonian period and associates one directly with Theophanu, the Byzantine wife of Otto II. McKitterick says that such manuscripts could facilitate the learning of Latin. See R. McKitterick “Ottonian Intellectual Culture in the Tenth Century and the Role of Theophanu,” in Early Medieval Europe, vol. 2, ed. T.S. Brown, Edward James, Rosamond McKitterick, David Rollason, and Alan Thacker (Harlow: Longman, 1993), pp. 62–5. The status of Latin in the early Palaeologan period in Constantinople is addressed in Chapter 8 below. See Chapter 9 below for the appeal of bilingual texts for Italian humanists. 25 See R. Weiss, “The Translators from the Greek of the Angevin Court of Naples,” Rinascimento 1 (1950): 195–226, esp. pp. 195 and 199. See also R. Weiss, The Greek Culture of South Italy in the Later Middle Ages, Proceedings of the British Academy 37 (London: Cumberlege, 1951), pp. 25f., and Berschin, Greek Letters, passim. Also, London, BL, Harley 5786, a trilingual psalter from Sicily featuring three columns with Greek, Latin, and Arabic texts, seems to epitomize the multilingual, multicultural milieu of twelfthcentury Sicily. See Bischoff, “Study of Foreign Languages,” p. 220. 26 Another manuscript—the bilingual psalter Milan, Ambr. C 13 inf—has recently been attributed to Romano di Ullano; see Palau, “Manoscritti greco-latini,” pp. 37–78. 27 See Robert Devreese, Les manuscrits grecs de l’Italie méridionale, Studi e Testi 183 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Vaticana Apostolica, 1955), p. 16, and Alexander Turyn, Codices Graeci Vaticani Saeculis XIII et XIV Scripti Annorumque Notis Instructi (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964), pp. 76–80 and pls. 45–7; see Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 128 and fig. 40, for a reproduction of Vat. Barb. gr. 541. A list of bilingual New Testament manuscripts is found on p. 56 of Metzger’s book. For a color reproduction of Vat. Barb. gr. 541, see Axinia Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen: Schätze der Buchmalerei vom 4. bis zum 19 Jahrhundert (Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2002), p. 193, fig. 120. 28 See Chapter 1 above, n. 8. Bilingual texts and inscriptions were apparently used in various contexts in the Levant. Giuseppe De Gregorio writes that during the Crusader period, liturgical celebrations in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher on Holy Saturday involved readings from either Greek or Latin texts. De Gregorio also thinks it probable that the Latin chapel in the Monastery of Saint Catherine’s, Sinai occasionally had communal rituals. He also mentions bilingual inscriptions in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in conjunction with a new cycle of decorations completed in the 1160s.

18

between constantinople and rome

Most scholars working in the second half of the twentieth century assigned Paris 54 to Byzantium and dated it within the last three decades of the thirteenth century. Paris 54 and other manuscripts that were once assigned by Weitzmann to the period of the Latin Interregnum are now generally attributed to the last decades of the thirteenth century.29 In fact, recent research suggests that no bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript can be assigned to Constantinople during the Latin Interregnum (1204–1261).30 Both Paris 54 and another important bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript—the Hamilton Psalter—have been situated in Constantinople and assigned to the very end of the thirteenth century or early fourteenth century by paleographers. We will address their studies below in the sections devoted to Greek and Latin paleography.

Ink Color There is one paleographical characteristic of Paris 54 which isolates it from every other Greek manuscript. This was the decision to alter the color of the ink according to the speaker in the biblical text.31 The varying ink colors combined See Giuseppe De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo greco-latino: manoscritto bilingui d’Oriente e d’Occidente,” in Libri, documenti, epigrafi medievali: Possibilità di studi comparativi, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio dell’Associazione Italiana de Paleografi e Diplomatisti (Bari, October 2–5, 2000), Studi e ricerche 2, ed. F. Magistrale, C. Drago, and P. Fioretti (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2002): pp. 38–41, and related footnotes for bibliography. 29 For an historiographical review of the scholarship related to Paris 54, see Chapter 7 below. 30 De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” p. 41. However, see ibid., p. 29 and tables 1–4, for Vat. Lat. 81, a Latin/Greek bilingual psalter featuring a low-epsilon script which they date to ca. 1150–1200 or to the late twelfth century. 31 The underlying significance of the varying ink colors was only slowly recognized. Silvestre provided a chromolithographic plate of a textual passage from the beginning of the Gospel of Mark which clearly indicates three colors of ink. But the author mentioned only two of these in his accompanying description of Paris 54. Red, he wrote, was used for the running Gospel text, while blue was reserved to highlight the textual passages from the Old Testament. See Silvestre, Paléographie universelle (no pagination). Forty years later, in 1883, Bordier noted several examples of gold text located sporadically in Mt. 19–21. Their presence led him to conclude that the original text had been executed completely in gold and that now, with these few exceptions, only the red ink base survived. He also believed that black or blue ink had been used over the gold ink to indicate citations in the text. More important, Bordier also noted that the Evangelist Luke is depicted with four different-colored ink bowls. This suggests that the artists and scribe of Paris 54 were intimately connected. Why else would the artist include four ink bowls in an evangelist portrait? See Henri Bordier, Descriptions des peintures et autres ornements contenus dans les manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris: Honoré Champion, 1883), pp. 227–8. Scrivener’s second edition of 1874 noted that this “right royal copy” was “unique in the respect of being written in four colours, vermilion, lake, blue and black according to the character of the contents.” See Frederick Henry Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1874), p. 167. Apparently,

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

19

with its archaizing Greek script produce an effect so spectacular that one must assign Paris 54 to the uppermost echelons of manuscript patronage circles. Paris 54 is not the first manuscript to manipulate ink colors for visual impact.32 Bruce Metzger writes that “whole manuscripts were sometimes written with red ink.”33 For example, an eleventh-century lectionary, London, BL, Add. 39603, was written entirely in red ink and its script is cross-shaped on the page. Its first two pages are over-written in gold.34 Another unusual example of the innovative use of colored ink is seen in Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Presussischer Kulturbesitz, cod. Gr. quarto 66, an early thirteenth-century Gospel book. There, the text passages following some of the narrative miniatures are written in magenta and some of these are gilded.35 the word spread slowly, for eleven years later Martin noted the four colors as “noire, rouge, bleue et verte.” See Martin, Description technique, p. 29. (I have yet to note the use of green ink in Paris 54.) 32 In fact, De Hamel writes: “Probably the most visible difference between any manuscript of the Middle Ages and later printed books is that the majority of manuscripts are in more than one colour. Even the most humble of medieval books include headings in red and initials perhaps in red and blue.” See Christopher De Hamel, The Book: A History of the Bible (New York: Phaidon, 2001), p. 205. St. Boniface, in a letter of 735, asked Eadburga, Abbess of Thanet, to copy the Epistles of Saint Peter for him in letters of gold in order to further impress the minds of the heathens to whom Boniface preached. See Letter XIV at http://www.elfinspell.com/MedievalMatter/ BonifaceLetters/Letters10-19.html (accessed August 26, 2009). Florentine Mütherich and Joachim E. Gaehde, Carolingian Painting (New York: George Braziller, 1976), p. 27, no. XVI, note that the first three pages of the Sacramentary fragment from Metz (ca. 870) “are written in alternating lines of gold, green, and red capital letters on blank parchment.” Robert Nelson indicates that varied ink colors are also a characteristic of Gothic manuscripts; see Nelson, Preface and Miniature, p. 42. Varied ink colors are often seen in Western manuscripts, but to my knowledge, never with the underlying rationale utilized in Paris 54. For a twelfth-century Breviary from St. Alban’s Abbey with text written in green, blue, red, and brown ink, see Christopher De Hamel, A History of Illuminated Manuscripts, revised edn. (London: Phaidon, 1994), p. 83, fig. 69. De Hamel also notes that in Western manuscripts, color could be used to distinguish between the text and the accompanying commentary; see De Hamel, The Book, p. 103, and figs. 66 and 71. 33 See further Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 17. David Diringer, The Book before Printing: Ancient, Medieval, and Oriental (Mineola, NY: Dover Reprint, 1982, originally published in 1953), p. 547, notes that British Library, Harley, 2795 (ninth or tenth century) is written entirely in red and that this is extremely rare. However, De Hamel, The Book, pp. 103f., notes that the use of red for headings in manuscripts goes back to antiquity and says: “Red ink was such a common feature of ancient and medieval book production that it cannot have been either expensive or difficult to write. Some early Greek theological manuscripts cite the words of the Scriptures in red.” 34 See T.S. Pattie, Manuscripts of the Bible: Greek Bibles in the British Library (London: British Library, 1979), p. 46 and color pl. 1. Pattie says it originally belonged to the Pantocrator monastery on Athos. David Buckton, ed., Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections (London: British Museum Press, 1994), pp. 163f., says: “All the minuscule text has been written first in carmine and then in gold ink.” 35 This information was given to me in an email by Dr. Annemarie Weyl Carr. She noted that this is also seen in Armenian manuscripts. For a color reproduction of Berlin, quarto 66 showing the Deposition from the Cross and subsequent text in red ink,

20

between constantinople and rome

There are also, of course, some examples of deluxe Greek manuscripts written entirely in gold. The Codex Aureus of the Emperor Theodosius (Sinai, codex 204) of the late tenth century is an extraordinarily rich example with its deluxe majuscule text written in gold. This lectionary’s headpieces are also executed solely in gold.36 There are also several golden manuscripts that belong to the “Atelier of the Palaiologina” and thus may be near contemporaries of Paris 54. These include Vatican gr. 1208, a Praxapostolos, and three psalters: Athos, Stauronikita 46, Paris, BnF, gr. 21, and Paris, BnF, suppl. gr. 260.37 Examples of the discriminating use of varied ink colors to enrich the effect of the script are also seen in the Armenian realm. The text on the initial page of each Gospel of the Glajor Gospels at the University of California at Los Angeles is written in splendid zoomorphic initials. These are followed in Matthew by several folios of gold script, and in Mark, Luke, and John by two pages of red, black, and blue ink, respectively.38 Two other Greek manuscripts are noteworthy for their multi-colored texts. One is Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Lincoln Ms. gr. 35, a monastic typikon usually dated to the second quarter of the fourteenth century. In this manuscript, on folios 14r–15v (only), the text is varied in blue, gold, and red. The effect is quite luxurious.39 The second is London, BL Add. 11300, a Greek Gospels dated to the tenth-eleventh centuries. Its main text is in brown ink, but lots of red see Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era A.D. 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997), p. 382, cat. #252 and fig. 252. Berlin, quarto 66 is one of over one hundred Greek manuscripts assigned to the “decorative” style. See Annemarie Weyl Carr, Byzantine Illumination, 1150–1250: The Study of a Provincial Tradition, Studies in Medieval Manuscript Illumination 1, ed. O. Grabar and H.L. Kessler (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 212–14. Daniel Wallace observes that the first paragraph (or two) of every Gospel in Patmos, Monastery of St. John, cod. 80 (Gregory/Aland #1164) is written in gold. See http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2007/10/patmos-expedition-2007.html (accessed January 7, 2012). 36 See Father Justin Sinaites, “The Sinai Codex Theodosianus: Manuscript as Icon,” in Holy Image, Hallowed Ground: Icons from Sinai, ed. Robert S. Nelson and Kristen M. Collins (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2006), pp. 56–77 and catalogue entry #7, pp. 136–9. An eleventh-century Gospel lectionary in Florence (Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Med. Palat. 244) is also written entirely in gold. See Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. #327, pp. 542–3. 37 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 6. Daniel Wallace recently described a sixth-century purple Gospel book in Tirana, Albania (Beratinus, codex 1) as being written in silver ink with Jesus’ words in gold ink. See Michelle A. Vu, “NT Scholar on Discovery of Giant Trove of Bible Manuscripts,” Christian Today, April 21, 2008, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/nt.scholar.on.discovery.of.giant.trove.of.bible. manuscripts/18204-3.htm (accessed June 22, 2011). 38 The script of the black and blue inks is in erkathagir. See Thomas F. Mathews and Avedis K. Sanjian, with contributions by Mary Virginia Orna, OSU, and James R. Russell, Armenian Gospel Iconography: The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991), pp. 37ff. 39 See Irmgard Hutter, “Die Geschichte des Lincoln College Typikons,” Jahrbuch des österreichische Byzantinistik 45 (1995): 79–114.

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

21

and blue ink are used in the kephalaia lists at the beginning of each Gospel. Manuscripts such as this may have also inspired the designer of Paris 54.40 As we shall see, however, none of these manuscripts reflect the forethought required of the head scribe of Paris 54 as he altered his ink color according to the speaker in the Gospel text.41 The most accurate discussion of Paris 54’s ink color was published by Gregory in 1900.42 Cinnabar 43 (bright red), he wrote, was used for the simple narrative text; crimson (a darker red) was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ and the words of the angels. The Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while black was used for the Pharisees, the people from the crowd (ἐκ τοῦ ὂχλου), Judas Iscariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds (accidentally, suggests Gregory), and the scribes. Gregory’s description includes all four ink colors, and also mentions the examples of chrysography first noted by Bordier. A detailed examination of approximately three hundred pages of Paris 54’s Greek text (that is, through fol. 150) with regard to the various ink colors 40 See http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_11300_f001r (accessed September 23, 2013), esp. the kephalaia lists on fols. 6r–7v, 83r–84r, 132v–134v, and 211v. See also Margaret Smith, “Red as a Textual Element during the Transition from Manuscript to Print,” in Textual Cultures: Cultural Texts, ed. Orietta da Rold and Elaine Treharne, Essays and Studies 2010, New Series of Essays and Studies Collected on Behalf of the English Association 63 (Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2010), p. 199, where, regarding the rubrication of seven copies of De morali lepra, Smith notes that “eventually the printers took back to themselves all the decisions about what to mark [in red] and how to mark, turning the book from a multi-colour to a monochrome object.” 41 I learned—too late to incorporate into my text—of the publication of two twelfth-century menologia texts associated with the Kokkinobaphos group that use blue ink uniquely to “mettre en relief certaines parties du texte.” Annaclara Cataldi Palau notes that the passages in blue ink serve as an “index visuel, qui permet au lecteur de reconnaître au premier coup d’oeil le début de chaque nouvelle journée et le saint qui y est célébre.” Red ink is also used in conjunction with blue ink in both manuscripts. The manuscripts are Moscow, Synod. Gr. 153 and Paris, BnF, gr. 1570. Texts such as these could have certainly influenced the head scribe of Paris 54. See A.C. Palau, “Deux manuscrits de ménées du Monastère du Prodrome de Pétra et le groupe de Kokkinobaphos,” in The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting, ed. Antonio Bravo García and Inmaculada Pérez Martín (Turnhout: Brepols, 2010), pp. 118–23. I thank Robert Nelson for this reference. 42 Gregory, Canon and Text, p. 372, describes Paris 54 as “very ingeniously gotten up.” See, too, Gregory, Textkritik, vol. I, p. 132, no. 16. Gregory’s description was accepted and summarized by von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I, Part 1, p. 195. Bruce M. Metzger repeats Gregory’s description in his The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 66; Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 1, believed that the blue ink was used to indicate dialogue of any kind. He does not mention the use of two different red inks or the gold ink. 43 Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 17, writes that the color is named after the mineral from which it is made. For further bibliography, see the entry “Ink” by Wolfram Hörandner in The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991), vol. 2, p. 995.

22

between constantinople and rome

confirmed the remarkable consistency with which the scribe was able to alter correctly and appropriately his ink color. This is best seen in his use of cinnabar (bright red) ink—the color reserved for the running narrative. Only one minor transgression is noted, on fol. 99r, the last folio of quire 2 (9). The passage in question reads: “While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.” (Mt. 26:47) The whole verse should have been written in cinnabar due to its narrative content. Due, undoubtedly, to the fact that the preceding verse was executed in crimson as it was Christ himself speaking, the scribe accidentally continued the crimson ink through the first five words of the following verse. Hierarchic implications become increasingly apparent as one analyzes the variation of ink color according to textual content. The subtleties of the system are best revealed in the use of crimson ink, which was limited to the words spoken by Jesus and God the Father, the angels, and in the genealogy of Christ at the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew.44 However, when Jesus himself cites the scriptures (usually the Prophets), the quote is written in blue. But when he quotes texts of the Old Testament spoken by God the Father, then the quote will be in crimson. Two examples of this are seen in Mt. 19:18–19 (fol. 70a verso) and Mt. 22:37 (fol. 82v), where Jesus quotes parts of the Ten Commandments. In both cases the quote is executed in crimson rather than blue ink. Anomalies in ink color are presented in the Greek text of Mt. 25:37–46. The scribe seemed to have forgotten that the whole passage is in fact spoken by Jesus and thus should have been in crimson. The passage reads as follows: 37) Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee to drink: 38) And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39) And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” 40) And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” 41) Then he will say to those at his left hand, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42) for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43) I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44) Then they also will answer, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?” 45) Then he will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did not to one of the least of these, you did not to me.”

The ink has been varied, however, as if Jesus were engaged in a dialogue rather than delivering a monologue. For example, in verse 37 “Lord” is written in blue, and in verse 40 “And answering the King will say to them” is in bright red as 44 Examples of crimson ink include the words spoken by God when the heavens opened after Christ was baptized. Crimson text is used for words spoken by angels in various dream episodes and at the Nativity, Annunciation, or in the scenes of the Resurrection or Transfiguration.

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

23

if it were an actual narrative interjection. The same is true of the introductory passages at the beginning of verses 41 and 44. A further problem is noted in verse 44, where beginning at the word “Lord” the passage is in brown ink. Blue ink was reserved for the Old Testament passages (especially the Prophets Jeremiah and Isaiah), John the Baptist, the disciples of Christ (excepting Judas), the mother of the sons of Zebedee, and, as observed by Gregory, for Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, and Simeon. Black ink was reserved not just for the enemies of Christ (Herod, the devil, the scribes, Pharisees, Elders, high and chief priests of the Temple, Pilate and Judas), but also for the vast majority of people who approached Jesus with the intention of receiving a cure.45 This long list includes lepers, demoniacs, the blind, the woman with the hemorrhage, the father of the epileptic, Jairus, and the son of Timmaeus. Its use for the dialogue of the Magi and the shepherds indicates that it was essentially a color reserved for terrestrial beings without direct supernatural connections (as opposed to those colored in blue, such as Mary, John the Baptist, the disciples, and others noted above). Inconsistencies in the use of black ink are found in Mt. 8:27 and 14:33. In both cases the words of the disciples have been written in black rather than blue ink. The rationale behind the use of gold-colored ink in some passages from Mt. 19 to Mt. 21 remains enigmatic. The following excerpts on folios 72r–76v (and the kephalaia and their titles on folios 72r and 76v) were written in gold ink. All of these examples are contained in quire 7: fol. 72r Mt 19:29 “you will receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life” (Jesus to his disciples; gold was also used for the kephalaion at the top of the page); fol. 73v Mt 20:18–19 “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day” (Jesus to his disciples); fol. 73v Mt 20:20 “What willest thou?” (Jesus to the mother of the sons of Zebedee); fol. 73v Mt 20:22 “You do not know what you are asking” (Jesus to the mother of the sons of Zebedee); fol. 76v Mt 21:16 “Yes, have you never read, ‘Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou has brought perfect praise’?” (Jesus quoting the scriptures to the chief priests and scribes); fol. 76v Mt 21:19 “May no fruit ever come from you” (Jesus cursing the fig tree; the kephalaion and title at the top of the page are also in gold).

It is impossible to know whether or not the gold ink was initiated by the original scribe(s) or was, perhaps, a later addition. It is also, excepting the 45 The ink on fols. 77vff. (Mt. 21:25ff.) really appears more brown in color than black. An exception can be noted on fol. 100v, where someone has gone over most of the black ink (Mt. 26:61–3) to make it appear darker.

24

between constantinople and rome

occasion in Mt. 20:18–19, not a very logical sequence to have highlighted in gold. A cursory check with Gregory indicates that most of the passages in gold were parts of readings used for masses celebrated during the ninth week after Pentecost.46 However, the excerpt from Mt. 21:29 serves as one of the readings for the first Sunday after Pentecost and is also used in the Menologion on the following days: February 19, April 25 (the Feast of St. Mark), October 16, and December 19. The inappropriate examples of black and gold inks may indicate later tampering with the text, since the problematic black ink appears quite obviously to have been written over the more appropriate blue ink. The gold sequence remains perplexing, however. The use of varying ink colors by the scribe of Paris 54 is a truly remarkable example of Byzantine innovation within the confines of a culture that is often dismissed as being more interested in imitation than innovation.47 For Christians, the four Gospels are the most important biblical texts. They were divinely inspired and therefore sacrosanct. Variants introduced into these texts could only be classified as errors, since “invention” at this level would be heretical. Instead, the head scribe of Paris 54, without violating the actual text, created an entirely new way of experiencing the Gospels through his polychromatic text. Thus, the head scribe (and likely designer of the manuscript) sought not just to make Paris 54’s text more beautiful through the use of differing ink colors. That could have been achieved by alternating ink color on more superficial premises, such as on the basis of sentences, number of lines, or even by folio(s), as in some of the examples discussed above. Instead, Paris 54’s scribe sensitized the reader to the meaning of the text by introducing variations in ink color that highlight changes in the speaker of the text or alert the reader to the Old Testament origins of the text. The result is both an enhanced appreciation of the Gospel text, especially to changes in voice and authority,48 as well as to the stunning display of the text.

Greek Paleography Paris 54 has been described as a “calligraphic masterpiece.”49 This comment was no doubt partially inspired by its polychromatic text, but it must be 46 Gregory, Textkritik, vol. 1, p. 350. 47 John Lowden, “The Transmission of ‘Visual Knowledge’ in Byzantium through Illuminated Manuscripts: Approaches and Conjectures,” in Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Catherine Holmes and Judith Waring (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 59–80, esp. pp. 68–70 and 75–7, for the role of innovation in Byzantine art. 48 A careful reading of Kathryn Starkey’s book would undoubtedly result in a more nuanced and sophisticated reading of Paris 54’s texts and images. See K. Starkey, Reading the Medieval Book: Word, Image, and Performance in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s “Willehalm” (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004). 49 Hugo Buchthal. The “Musterbuch” of Wolfenbüttel, Byzantina Vindobonensia 12 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979), p. 49.

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

25

at least equally indebted to Paris 54’s splendid archaizing Greek script. The script of Paris 54, like many deluxe manuscripts of the second half of the thirteenth century, emulates the eleventh-century so-called “pearl” script.50 This handsome revival script is distinguished by its ample, regular, and legible letter forms, as well as by the renewal of the minuscule forms of such letters as β, η, κ, and λ. Abbreviations are relatively rare with the exception of the nomina sacra.51 The later date of manuscripts featuring these archaizing scripts can be detected only through the contamination of posteleventh-century script styles, such as the “Fettaugen-Mode,” which include a higher percentage of majuscules and the occasional enlarged letter forms.52 Liturgical and religious manuscripts favored this archaizing script, and Prato proposes that this is both a reflection of the conservative nature of the Church and (following Graux and Martin) “a sign of respect and veneration for the author transcribed.”53 Some of the most illustrious late thirteenth-century manuscripts affiliated with this script comprise the group which Buchthal and Belting associate with the atelier of the Palaiologina.54 50 “Pearl” script is extremely regular and legible. It is easily differentiated from the “low epsilon” script of the more than one hundred decorative style manuscripts of the period ca. 1150–1250. For a discussion of decorative style manuscripts, see Carr, Byzantine Illumination, pp. 126–41. For archaizing scripts of the later thirteenth century, see further Giancarlo Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti della prima eta dei Paleologi e loro modelli,” Scrittura e civiltà 3 (1979): 151–91, reprinted in Prato, Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994), pp. 73–114. See also Herbert Hunger, “Archaisierende Minuskel und Gebrauchsschrift zur Blütezeit der Fettaugenmode: Der Schreiber des Cod. Vindob. Theol. gr. 303,” in La Paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559 (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977), pp. 283–90, esp. pp. 285f. 51 For example, the name of Jesus, and so on. See Metzger, Manuscripts of the Greek Bible, p. 36, and Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti,” pp. 159 and 163. 52 See ibid., p. 157. The Fettaugen-Mode should be contrasted with the archaizing “pearl” script; see Herbert Hunger, “Die sogennante Fettaugen-Mode in griechischen Handschriften des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts,” Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972): 105–13. 53 Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti,” pp. 186 and 189. The quote is cited by Prato and is from C. Graux and A. Martin, Fac-similés des manuscrits grecs d’Espagne (Paris: n.p., 1891), p. 98. Linos Politis, “Quelques centres de copie Monastiques du XIVe siècle,” in La Paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559 (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977), pp. 291ff., refers to this archaizing script as the “liturgical” style. Politis notes that Theodore Hagiopetrites, with more than 15 manuscripts to his credit, is one of the most important representatives of this style. Hagiopetrites’ manuscripts date from 1277/78–1307/1308. See Robert S. Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites: A Late Byzantine Scribe and Illuminator, 2 vols., Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik 4 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), pp. 15f., wherein he notes that 17 manuscripts are signed by Theodore and attributes five additional manuscripts to the scribe. 54 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 6 and n. 20, and pp. 99ff. These include: Athos, Iviron 30m (305 × 245 mm); Athos, Stauronikita 27 (318 × 242 mm); Sinai, St. Catherine’s gr. 228 (318 × 250 mm), and Vat. gr. 356 (225 × 315 mm). See also Kathleen Maxwell, “Another Lectionary of the ‘Atelier’ of the Palaiologina, Vat. gr. 352,”

26

between constantinople and rome

Paris 54 and several of the manuscripts grouped with it through their evangelist portraits or, in one case, the narrative cycle, feature archaizing scripts.55 Iviron 5, the manuscript most intimately related to Paris 54 both in terms of its evangelist portraits and its narrative cycle, has an almost identical script style. Prato notes that, on the basis of paleography alone, the two manuscripts would be considered contemporary.56 According to Prato, the scribes of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 betray their thirteenth-century date through the intrusion of numerous majuscule letters, especially Ε and Η.57 The Greek script of Paris 54 through fol. 233v is probably the work of one scribe. At fol. 234r—that is, the beginning of quire 23—the script style changes, suggesting the appearance of a second Greek scribe (Plate 12).58 Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37 (1983): 47–54, and esp. Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 59–68. Archaizing manuscripts may have been produced earlier, however. Nelson and Lowden write that B.L. Fonkič has claimed that additional manuscripts of the Palaeologina group may be found in Russian collections, including a Gospel Book that is apparently dated to 1272 (Moscow, Historical Museum, Mus. 3647). For further bibliography, see Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 59, n. 10 and p. 60, n. 11. 55 Kurt Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin Conquest,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944): 193–214, reprinted in Studies in Classical and Byzantine Book Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971), pp. 314–34. 56 Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti,” pp. 168–9, accepts Belting’s proposal that Paris 54 is two decades later in date than Iviron 5. See Hans Belting, Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft, Abhandlung der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften (Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitätsverlag, 1970), p. 40, n. 134, for the respective dates of the two manuscripts. Prato also observes that the miniatures of both manuscripts follow tenth-century models, while the scripts copy early eleventhcentury models. 57 Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti,” p. 169. See also Giancarlo Prato, “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale nel periodo del regno latino de Costantinopoli (1204–1261),” Scrittura e civiltà 5 (1981): 105–7, reprinted in Prato, Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994), pp. 31–72. Related manuscripts featuring archaizing scripts include the Smyrna Lectionary and London, British Library, cod. 24373. See Stella Papadaki-Oekland, “The Illustration of a Lost Palaeologan Lectionary of the Year 1298” (in Greek with English summary), Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 4/8 (1975–76): 29– 54, and for the London manuscript, William H.P. Hatch, Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951), pl. LXX. Dated archaizing scripts are not known before 1261, therefore manuscripts like London, BL, Burney 20 (dated 1285) are important examples of this script type. See Prato, “La produzione libraria,” passim; Alexander Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Great Britain (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980), pl. 26, and Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, pp. 99–100, 103, and 105. 58 See Kathleen Maxwell, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54: An Analysis of the Text and Miniatures,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1986, p. 36, and Maxwell, “Modus Operandi,” p. 128. On the other hand, Paolo Radiciotti, “Episodi di digrafismo grecolatino a Costantinopoli: Giovanni Parastro ed i codici Coislin 200 e Parigino greco 54,” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 39 (1996): 181–95, believes that the head scribe of Paris 54 can be identified with Strategios, the scribe of

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

27

At fol. 244r, the beginning of the next quire, the script seems to be that of the original scribe once again.59 John Lowden has associated both the primary and secondary scribes of Paris 54 with the scribes of the Octateuch from Mt. Athos, Vatopedi 602. He describes the main scribe of Paris 54 as having “high-quality Byzantine training.”60 The paleographic connections between Paris 54 and Vatopedi 602 were underscored simultaneously in an important article by De Gregorio and Prato.61 These authors linked the Greek scripts of Paris 54, Vatopedi 602, and the bilingual Greek and Latin Hamilton Psalter to a group of secular manuscripts featuring similar archaizing scripts.62 Four of the secular manuscripts are dated or datable to 1277, 1282, 1296 or 1298, and ca. 1330. In turn, these manuscripts are similar to London, BL Add. 29714, which was signed by the scribe Ignazio and dated 1305/1306. De Gregorio and Prato successfully associate the secular manuscripts with several religious manuscripts that are not dated, including Vatopedi 602, as well as the bilingual manuscripts—Paris 54 and the Hamilton Psalter.63 All of these manuscripts are situated firmly in Constantinople by Florence, Bibl. Laurenziana, Ms. XI.22 (dated 1285). Neither John Lowden nor Giuseppe De Gregorio accepts this identification. See John Lowden in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 277, n. 2 (cat. #162), and G. De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” pp. 43–4, n. 56, where he describes Radiciotti’s efforts to associate Strategios with Paris 54 as “metodologicamente insostenibile.” 59 For other aberrancies associated with quire 23, see Chapter 3 below. For a discussion of the division of labor of scribes by quire, see John Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts: A Byzantine Phenomenon,” in The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Robert Nelson and Paul Magdalino (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010), pp. 107–52, esp. p. 124. 60 Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 277, n. 2 (cat. #162). For the scribes of Vatopedi 602, see also Giuseppe De Gregorio and Giancarlo Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani e sacri della prima età Paleologa,” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 45 (2003): 59–101, esp. pp. 96ff. John Lowden has long sought to associate Vatopedi 602 with the imperial Palaeologan family. See J. Lowden, The Octateuchs: A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illustration (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), pp. 32–3. 61 De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani,” passim. 62 Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett 78.A.9 was assigned to Cyprus by Christine Havice in part because it also features quinions. See C. Havice, “Marginal Miniatures in the Hamilton Psalter (Kupferstichkabinett 78.A.9),” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 26 (1984): 79–142, esp. pp. 86–8. The Greek text of the Hamilton Psalter also uses the archaizing script. Havice proposes a late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century date for the Berlin manuscript. Nelson, Preface and Miniature, pp. 42–3, discusses the presence of quinions in both Paris 54 and the Hamilton Psalter. See also Maxwell, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54,” p. 35, where it is noted that the scribes described by Havice as Hand 2 and Hand 3 in the Hamilton Psalter are especially close to the Greek scribe in Paris 54. 63 Other religious manuscripts associated with this group include: Athens, Benaki 91 and another Octateuch, Florence, Laurenziana 5.38. See De Gregorio and Prato, “Scritture arcaizzante in codici profani,” pp. 91ff. See also Lidia Perria and Antonio Iacobini, “Gli Ottateuchi in età paleologa: problemi di scrittura e illustrazione. Il caso del Laur. Plut. 5.38,” in L’arte de Bisanzio e l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi, 1261–1453, ed. Antonio Iacobini and Mauro della Valle (Rome: Nuova Àrgos Edizioni Srl, 1999),

28

between constantinople and rome

De Gregorio and Prato,64 and most are datable to the reign of Andronicus II (1282–1328). The earliest secular manuscripts with this script date to 1277 and 1282, but the authors prefer to locate most of the undated manuscripts in the very late thirteenth or first quarter of the fourteenth century. They propose that these manuscripts were esteemed by aristocrats and/or high-ranking prelates of Constantinople65 who were accustomed to archaic scripts.66 As for Paris 54 and the Hamilton Psalter, De Gregorio proposes that they both derive from the same environment and the same time period in Constantinople. That is, both manuscripts were probably commissioned at the turn of the century (ca. 1300) by Western customers (interested laymen or ecclesiastics) living in one of the Latin quarters of Constantinople or nearby.67 De Gregorio and Prato distinguish the archaizing script of these secular and religious manuscripts from the more formal archaizing script of Buchthal’s and Belting’s “Atelier of the Palaiologina” manuscripts. The latter more carefully imitate the rigidity and artifice of their tenth- and eleventhcentury models, whereas the less formal group features a more spontaneous script style that is closer to their models of the late eleventh and first half of the twelfth century.68 One such model would be something akin to the script found in Vatican, Urb. Gr. 2.69 The characteristics of this group include the somewhat enlarged upper-case alpha (especially that found at the end of the word or more often at the end of a line) and the upper-case beta with a second curve that is larger than the first, a distinctive ascender for the kappa, as well as other letter forms.70 We will address many of these manuscripts again in Chapter 7 when we discuss Paris 54’s place in Byzantine book illumination. pp. 69–112, who also argue in favor of dating Florence, Laur. 5.38 to the late thirteenth century. It has traditionally been dated to the eleventh century. Lowden does not appear to accept a thirteenth-century date for the Florence Octateuch; see Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” p. 110. 64 “Quanto alla localizzazione, non crediamo possano sussistere ormai più dubbi che il gruppo qui considerato vada riferito interamente a Costantinopoli.” De Gregorio and Prato, “Scritture arcaizzante in codici profani,” pp. 90f. See also De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” p. 43. 65 De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani e sacri,” p. 101. 66 Ibid., pp. 99–100, n. 104, indicates that De Gregorio and Kresten are working on a monograph on the Joshua Roll in which they will address the evidence that indicates that their archaizing manuscript group should be localized to Constantinople. 67 De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” pp. 43–4. On the other hand, John Lowden “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium, 1261–1557,” in Helen C. Evans, ed., Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557) (New Haven, CT and New York: Yale University Press and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004), p. 267, downplays ties between the Hamilton Psalter and Paris 54. He notes that “Although both have a two-column arrangement, with the Greek always at the left, and are bound in gatherings of ten leaves (rather than the usual eight), they are otherwise very different.” For the Hamilton Psalter, see Annemarie Weyl Carr’s catalogue entry #77 in the same catalogue, where on p. 153 she argues that the Hamilton Psalter might possibly have been produced in Cyprus. 68 De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani,” p. 94. 69 Ibid., p. 68. 70 Ibid., pp. 66f.

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

29

Latin Paleography It is impossible to determine whether the Greek scribe wrote any of the Latin text.71 A number of hands can be identified in the Latin text, even before fol. 121r when it no longer consistently parallels the Greek text in the use of varied ink colors.72 There are, however, some typical thirteenth-century characteristics which can be seen in the majority of scribes. These include the use of the rounded as opposed to the straight “s” at the end of a word and the dotting of the “i” whenever there is a possibility of confusion with adjacent letters. There are also characteristic conjunctions, such as “bo” and “pp” which are usually comprised of round-shaped letters. The first scribe of the Latin Gospel text proper is encountered on fol. 11r (the beginning of Matthew) (Plate II). His script is characterized by a Gothic “d” with a strongly diagonal ascender that is almost at right angles to the letter. He regularly uses a straight “s” at the beginning of a word and a rounded “s” at the end of words. Rounded “or” and “pp” conjunctions occur frequently within his text. The scribes at work before fol. 150r sought to right-justify their margins and to maintain a line-for-line parallelism with the Greek text. Many, however, did not succeed in this and the result is the text-expanding and minimizing devices noted in Chapter 3. Sometimes the Latin scribes showed so little foresight in aligning their text with the corresponding Greek text that one occasionally questions their command of the Greek language. Some seem to have been governed more by cues derived from the colored inks than by actually reading the Greek text.73 Folios 20vff. (The Sermon on the Mount) appear, in the regularity of the script, to be the work of a new hand. This impression is undoubtedly reinforced by the fact that the whole sequence is written in crimson ink. Professor Derolez observed that the script here had very few ascenders or descenders resulting in an increased regularity of appearance. He thought it was a different hand from that responsible for the beginning of Matthew. A third hand was identified by Prof. Derolez on fol. 86r, where a slightly less angular version of the Gothic script is found. The most distinctive Latin hand is first seen on the top of fol. 121r, where two Carolingian-style “d”s are found with straight ascenders. A number of 71 John Lowden has proposed, however, that the head Greek scribe wrote the beginning of the Latin text, “including the surprising ‘Cristus [sic]’ on fol. 14r.” He goes on to say that “later the situation becomes more complex and a variety of hands can be recognized.” See Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 277. On ibid., p. 268, Lowden opines that “It also seems possible that the principal Greek scribe of the bilingual Paris manuscript [Paris 54] might … have been his own principal Latin scribe.” 72 My discussion here is very much indebted to Prof. Albert Derolez, Visiting Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, Fall 1985. Prof. Derolez reviewed a microfilm of Paris 54 with me and very generously shared his observations on the script. 73 See, for example, my discussion in Chapter 4 below of fol. 89v, which is missing 26 words in the Greek text with no real perceivable impact on the Latin text.

30

between constantinople and rome

other Carolingian letter forms are noted here, including a Carolingian uncial “A.” These Carolingian letters are interspersed with occasional Gothic letters. The effect is bizarre.74 Folios 121r –150r display a number of Latin hands, usually on the same page. As mentioned above, it is difficult to tell how much time elapsed between the work of the various scribes. When the Latin text is resumed again on fol. 279r at the beginning of John’s Gospel (Plate XXVII), it is by one hand and executed in dark brown or black ink.75 This scribe is extremely careful to maintain a word-for-word parallelism with the Greek text. He also does not attempt to justify his right margin. Although the right margin is now irregular, the result is an extremely legible text since the scribe does not rely upon abbreviations and text-minimizing devices to maintain parity with the Greek text. A number of variables have taken their toll on the Latin text. These include the number of scribes, the training of the scribes, spatial restrictions, and as we shall see in the next chapter, the execution of the varying ink colors. The inconsistencies in the Latin text render it unreliable in any attempt to come to terms for a date for the manuscript.76 Generally speaking, Professor Derolez felt that the training of the Latin scribes was, from a calligraphic viewpoint, inferior to those responsible for the Greek text.77 Very few Greeks knew Latin in thirteenth-century Constantinople. In fact, it is generally believed that only two or three scholars knew Latin well enough to translate texts from Greek into Latin. These include Maximos Planoudes, Manuel Holobolos, and perhaps Georges Pachymeres. One can only wonder who wrote Paris 54’s Latin text. Were they bilingual monks of the Franciscan or Dominican houses in Constantinople, or were they Greek scribes? 78 All of the above suggests that we are dealing with an anomalous manuscript in virtually every respect. Paris 54’s multi-colored text distinguishes it from every other Byzantine manuscript. The use of quinions and the inclusion of Armenian quire signatures, while not unprecedented, are also highly unusual, especially in thirteenth-century Greek manuscripts. We have also alluded to unfinished aspects of Paris 54. Its condition encourages us to address the working methods used by both the scribes and the artists in the 74 Other extensive instances of this hand are seen on fols. 142 and 150r. 75 In Chapter 8 below, this hand is compared to that seen in Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, D 78 sup, a bilingual Greek and Latin text dated to 1327. While not by the same scribe, it may assist in dating the hand of this later Latin text in Paris 54. See Alexander Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1972), vol. 2, pl. 134. 76 This is not completely true, as we shall see in Chapter 8 below. 77 De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” pp. 44–5, says that two hands trained in “una gotica libraria” provide a significant contrast to the elegant handiwork of the Greek scribe. He notes that their work is generally more modest and sometimes downright clumsy in its effort to maintain correspondence with the Greek text it parallels. 78 Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos, and the Motivation for Translation,” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43/1 (2002/2003): 77–104, esp. pp. 94ff. See Chapter 8 below, where these issues are pursued in greater detail.

paris 54: codicological and paleographical considerations

31

next chapter. There we shall observe some surprising similarities in their technical approaches.

3 Paris 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists1

Much can be learned about the working methods of scribes and artists when they leave their product unfinished.2 Paris 54 was intended to be a deluxe, bilingual manuscript featuring full-page evangelist portraits and an extensive narrative cycle of some 51 miniatures. In the end, only about half of its Latin text and 22 narrative miniatures were actually completed. Five other miniatures remain unfinished, and space was reserved in the text for 25 additional miniatures that were never even begun.3 No ornamental headpieces were painted (although space was reserved for them by the scribe) and the Latin text lacks many initials.4 These unfinished aspects offer insight into the working methods of Paris 54’s scribes and artists, and they allow us to recognize some degree of interaction between members of these two groups.5 Our understanding of the circumstances in which illustrated manuscripts of the early Palaeologan era were produced remains limited.6 There is no evidence 1 I would like to thank Margaret Mullett, Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, for permission to reproduce the figures that appear in the text and to quote extensively from my article “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book,” © 2000, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Trustees for Harvard University. Originally published in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000): 117–38. 2 See Lowden, The Octateuchs, pp. 23–6 and 64 (re: the Seraglio Octateuch), and Jeffrey C. Anderson, “The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982), p. 101. 3 See Appendix A below for a description of the contents of Paris 54. 4 Some of the Greek texts (and none of the Latin) received an opening decorated initial for each Gospel. Moreover, Luke’s Gospel contains no titles for the Greek and Latin texts, and John’s Gospel has no title for its Latin text. Some other Byzantine manuscripts also lack completed headpieces, but they are rarely published. For an exception, see a thirteenth-century decorative style Gospel book in Cambridge (Gonville and Caius College, MS 403/412). One of its unfinished headpieces is published in Buckton, Byzantium, pp. 183f. and fig. 197. 5 See Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” pp. 107–52, esp. pp. 118ff., for the working methods of scribes and artists in Vatopedi 602. 6 However, Sirarpie Der Nersessian’s analysis of Erevan, Matenadaran 7651— an Armenian copy of the densely illustrated Byzantine Gospels Florence, Laurentian Library, Plut. VI.23—features remarkable parallels to my analysis of the modus operandi

34

between constantinople and rome

of an imperial scriptorium7 and the execution of text and miniatures is thought to have occurred in separate locales.8 Typically, the scribe appears to have been responsible for the basic design of the manuscript, including text format and decisions concerning the size and location of decoration and/or illustration. That is, he writes the text, reserving space as appropriate for headpieces, illuminated initials, and illustrations. Once his task is accomplished, he presumably turns the completed text over to an artist (or a group of artists) for ornament and miniatures. However, even when significant numbers of manuscripts can be grouped together based on script, ornament, and/or illustration, they often reveal surprisingly complex relationships between scribes and artists that do not conform to any convenient definitions evoked by the term “atelier.”9 The results of my study of Paris 54 underscore the highly variable nature of the artist–scribe relationship. We shall see that the relative autonomy of the primary scribe responsible for the Greek text is upheld. However, correspondences between anomalies in the Latin text and the miniatures of the narrative cycle indicate that some scribes and artists worked more intimately in the production of Paris 54 than can usually be discerned in Byzantine manuscripts of this or other periods.10 Next, we will proceed gospel of the scribes and artists of Paris 54. See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, pp. 169–75. 7 See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, pp. 51–60. 8 See Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 91–3. Robert Nelson writes that “a division of labor between the writing and decorating of a Greek manuscript appears to have long existed in Byzantium, and examples of the disassociation of script and decoration have been noted from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries.” See further Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, pp. 118ff. and n. 23, for a helpful summary of these issues and related bibliography. 9 Nelson writes: “Thus deluxe Greek manuscripts were produced by no single method, and varying combinations of individuals might collaborate on the three basic components, script, ornament, and figural miniatures.” See further ibid., p. 120. The difficulties encountered in trying to define how manuscripts were produced in the late thirteenth century are echoed in Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 62–3 and 67–8. See also Hugo Buchthal, “Illuminations from an Early Palaeologan Scriptorium,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972), pp. 48ff.; Leslie Brubaker, “Life Imitates Art: Writings on Byzantine Art History, 1991–1992,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 17 (1993): 173–223, and esp. Suzy Dufrenne, “Problèmes des ateliers des miniaturistes byzantins. Akten I/2: XVI Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress Wien 1981,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981): 445–70. 10 Exceptions include an unusual example of close collaboration between a scribe and an illuminator in a Greek New Testament from the Escorial (cod. X.IV.17) (no. 412) noted by Hugo Buchthal. He wrote: “They were members of a single team. There are comparatively few instances in Byzantine illumination where this point—a point which we take for granted in the Latin West—is so obvious.” See Buchthal, “Greek New Testament Manuscript,” pp. 92–3. Irmgard Hutter describes the differing relationship between art and text in the Latin West versus the Byzantine realm in “Decorative Systems in Byzantine Manuscripts, and the Scribe as Artist: Evidence from Manuscripts in Oxford,” Word and Image 12/1 (1996), pp. 4 and 18, n. 12, for further bibliography. There are cases in Byzantine manuscripts where the scribe is also the illuminator and/or the artist, see Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, esp. pp. 116ff., and Kathleen

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

35

by gospel, analyzing texts and miniatures in an effort to determine how Paris 54 was produced.

Matthew’s Text (Fols. 11r–109v) Matthew’s text begins with Christ’s genealogy and was executed in the rarer crimson ink. Following the genealogy (Mt. 1:17), the text reverts to the bright red of the running text.11 The first instance of blue ink on fol. 13r (Mt. 1:20) is superimposed directly over the bright red ink of the running text. For the next six folios, every example of blue ink was written over an erasure of red ink (for example, Plate 2).12 Subsequent appearances of blue ink in the Greek text show no trace of erasure beneath them.13 This suggests that the use of blue ink was an afterthought. That is, the full range of the polychrome text appears to have been conceived, and perfected, after the Greek text was initiated.14 Since the erasures occur only in the Greek text, I conclude that the Greek text was written, if not in total, in large part before the Latin text was initiated.15 Several scribes executed the Latin text of the Gospel of Matthew and they were careful to maintain absolute color symmetry with the Greek text. Undoubtedly, this concern was dictated by aesthetic aims which necessitated not only that the colors on both columns of the page be synchronized, but also that both texts break for the narrative miniature at the same point since the miniature extends across both text columns (Plate V).16 As a result, an almost line-for-line color parallelism was attained throughout the text of Matthew. The scribal machinations through which this symmetry was achieved are of some interest. If, for example, in the Latin text the scribe was not able to stretch his text to fill the prerequisite number of lines (this having been determined by the text and color in the Greek version on his left), he might then repeat regular

Corrigan, “Constantine’s Problems: The Making of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, Vat. gr. 394,” Word and Image 12/1 (1996): 61–93, where she demonstrates that the scribe, Constantine, was also responsible for the miniatures. 11 See Chapter 2 above. 12 A color reproduction is found in Maxwell, “Modus Operandi,” fig. 3. 13 Gregory, Textkritik, vol. I, p. 132, also noted these erasures. 14 Other manuscripts, not surprisingly, show evidence of a change in plans after work was under way. See, for example, Leslie Brubaker’s discussion of the change in format at the eighth quire of the ninth-century Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus (Paris, BnF, cod. gr. 510). See Leslie Brubaker, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 8–11. 15 These observations do not suggest a copy relationship with another manuscript (at least regarding this aspect of the text); and, in any event, there are no surviving manuscripts to support this assumption. 16 See Lowden, The Octateuchs, p. 70, where he demonstrates the importance of the correct location of the illustration vis-à-vis the text in his analysis of Vat. gr. 747.

36

between constantinople and rome

minims17 (mmmmmmmm) in order not to leave a gap. This horror vacui mentality is best illustrated, perhaps, on fol. 16v (Plate 2), where these minims continue for 5½ lines in red ink in order to keep the following passage in blue ink parallel with the Greek text. The last four lines of fol. 86r (Plate 5) exhibit the same repetition of minims, but here they are randomly grouped so as to resemble words more closely (for example, mmmmmmmm mmm mmmmm mm mmmm). Fol. 16r offers an example of a more decorative means of stalling in order to maintain color parallelism. Here, a decorative pattern on lines 15–17 (Plate 1) accomplishes the same result as the repetition of minims. Other “text-stretching” techniques include the repetition of the final words in a verse (for example, ieiunantes, fol. 25v) or the writing out of a word followed by its abbreviation (for example, loquamini, fol. 38v; hominibus, fol. 39r), or even the repetition of an entire verse. At the top of fol. 34v, Mt. 9:11 was repeated in order to maintain color harmony with the Greek text even though it had already been written at the bottom of fol. 34r.18 Far more frequently encountered than text-stretching devices, however, are numerous examples of abbreviation, crowding, and awkward spacing in order to complete the Latin text in a space predetermined by the demands of the Greek text. Obvious examples of this are seen on folios 22v and 35r, but many more could be cited (for example, Plate 7). This problem was certainly exacerbated by the unequal amount of space allotted to the Latin text column.

Matthew’s Narrative Miniatures Matthew’s Gospel also contains 12 narrative miniatures in addition to a full-page portrait of the evangelist inserted on a separate folio. All of these miniatures were completed by one of two artists, whom I have dubbed Artist A and Artist B.19 The evidence derived from Matthew’s Gospel allows only limited conclusions concerning the production of this manuscript. Based on the evidence derived from the initial blue ink passages in the Greek text, however, we can deduce that Matthew’s Greek text was completed before its Latin text. We do not know, however, when the miniatures were executed. An analysis of the next three Gospels indicates that the miniatures were completed at the same time as, or even before the Latin text.20 17 A minim is comprised of the shortest and simplest stroke—that is, the vertical stroke used to write the letters “i,” “m,” “n,” and “u.” In Gothic script, the actual word “minim” would comprise ten minims. See further: http://www.ualberta.ca/~sreimer/ ms-course/course/pal-ltrs.htm (accessed April 21, 2009). 18 The repetition of biblical passages in order to synchronize with extensive catenae is also noted by Lowden with regard to Vat. gr. 747. See Lowden, The Octateuchs, pp. 11–12. 19 See Chapter 5 below. 20 While Matthew’s Gospel is the most complete of Paris 54’s Gospels, it still lacks its headpiece and the initials at the beginning of the Greek and Latin texts, as well as numerous initials within the Latin text.

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

37

Mark’s Text (Fols. 112r–171v) The Greek text of Paris 54 was written throughout all four Gospels in the varied ink colors, but this practice was maintained in the Latin text only through the first 30 folios of Mark (up to fol. 142r).21 In fact, already by the end of the first quire of Mark the color correspondence begins to break down.22 On fol. 121r in the Latin text (Plate 7), the top half of the page and two lines at the bottom have been written by a different hand than those seen thus far in the Latin text of Paris 54. Moreover, these passages should have been written in the rarer crimson-colored ink and instead have been written in black ink. The central portion of the folio was executed in bright red and dark brown inks, and in both cases the ink correspondence is correct and the script is in the style of the Latin scribe working on this portion of the text. The new scribe’s handiwork can also be identified on fol. 122v and once again the passages in question should have been written in crimson, but were executed in the incorrect black ink. The problems with the crimson-colored passages in the Latin text continue intermittently through the third quire of Mark (fols. 132r–141v). On those folios that did not require the use of crimson ink, there is no evidence of the new scribe.23 On fol. 142r (that is, the beginning of quire 14) the Latin text is executed wholly in black ink by the new Latin scribe (Plate 8). The Latin text terminates on fol. 150. The problems encountered in the Latin text on folios 121–33 are so consistent as to reveal the manner in which the Latin text was executed. The Greek text was completed first in the polychromatic ink colors and then the Latin text was filled in, not from beginning to end, but passages requiring the same color were completed at the same time over a number of folios. For example, the 21 An exception to this is on fol. 105r, where the complete page in Greek is written in bright red ink, but in the Latin text column one verse, Mt. 27:37, “This is Jesus the King of the Jews,” is written in blue ink. Alfred Büchler alerted me to its significance as this is the inscription written over the cross in the Latin West. In contemporary Byzantine crosses, the inscription reads: “King of Glory.” See further A. Büchler, “King of Glory and King of the Jews: The Titulus of the Cross in the Christian East,” Sixteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers (Baltimore, MD, 1990), pp. 68–9. 22 That is, on the last folio (fol. 121r) of quire 11 (the first quire of Mark), which corresponds to Mk. 3:27. See Appendix A. 23 On fols. 121v, 122r and verso, 123r and verso, and 124r the passages in the Latin text that should have been written in crimson are also in black and by the new hand. On fol. 124v and 125r most of the Latin text is written in the original hand, but these are examples, too, of where very little crimson ink was required. The problems with the crimson-colored passages in the Latin text continue through fol. 129v. On these folios almost every example of black ink was written by the new scribe and should have been in crimson. Fols. 130r, 131r, 132v, 133v, and 134r are wholly by the first scribe. This is logical in that none of the passages on these pages called for the use of crimson, whereas both fols. 132r and 133r have examples of black ink by the new hand where crimson-colored ink should have been used. The crimson passages on fols. 134v–140v appear to be executed in the appropriate color and by the first hand. The only exception is on fol. 138r and verso, where, in the Latin text, the script, which should be crimson, is in fact written in a new blue-gray color which seems to be the work of the new hand.

38

between constantinople and rome

passages in the problematic folios in bright red ink (the color of the running text), blue, and dark brown appear to have been completed before the rarer crimson passages. The original scribe responsible for the Latin text apparently never had the opportunity to finish the crimson-colored passages of the Latin text. It is difficult to gauge how much time may have elapsed before the new scribe began to complete those passages in the inappropriate black ink.

Mark’s Miniatures The scribe responsible for the Greek text reserved space for nine text miniatures throughout the Gospel of Mark. The first four miniatures were completed; the last five were not even begun. The four completed miniatures are by Artist B and are found in the first two quires of the Gospel.24 The first empty frame indicating an uninitiated miniature is found at the beginning of the fourth quire of Mark on folio 142r, which coincides with the beginning of major anomalies in the Latin text of Mark (Plate 8).25 It is at fol. 142r that the Latin text is, for the first time, executed by the new hand exclusively in black ink. On fol. 150v the Latin text stops, not to be resumed again until the Gospel of John.26 The evidence concerning the modus operandi of scribes and artists derived from a study of Paris 54’s Gospel of Mark confirms that the Greek text was indeed completed before the Latin text. Here, however, we learn also that the miniatures of Mark were executed at the same time as the Latin text. Textual anomalies in Mark’s unfinished Latin text complement aberrations in his miniature cycle. These results raise the possibility that one of the Latin text scribes and Artist B may have been one and the same individual.27 While that issue will not be pursued in the present context, we must acknowledge that the foregoing suggests close collaboration between Artist B and the Latin scribes at work before the new Latin hand appears.

Luke’s Text (Fols. 174r–276v) An analysis of Luke’s Gospel offers more detail about the ways in which scribes and artists created Paris 54. Here again, the Greek text is complete, but now the Latin text column is blank. 24 They are located in both quires on the versos of the third and fourth folios (fols. 114v, 115v, 124v, and 125v). 25 Spaces reserved for uninitiated miniatures in Mark are found on fols. 142r, 162v, 166r, 167v, and 168v. Significant blank spaces extending across both text columns, or empty red frames, indicate that a miniature was intended, but never executed. 26 With the exception of one brief passage on fol. 194r. 27 See Hutter, “Decorative Systems,” p. 15, and Corrigan, “Constantine’s Problems.”

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

39

Luke’s Miniatures Luke’s Gospel was scheduled to receive 20 miniatures (see Appendix A below).28 Only five of those miniatures were completed; five remain unfinished, and ten were never begun.29 These miniatures were executed by a new artist, whose hand is not detected in the miniatures of Matthew and Mark.30 Thus, although no progress was made on the Latin text in Luke, the execution of the narrative miniatures was well under way. If one examines Luke’s narrative cycle from a codicological viewpoint, certain trends become apparent. Three miniatures were scheduled for the first quire of Luke (Figure 3.1). The first miniature, the Annunciation (fol. 176r; Plate XX), was completed, but the other two—the Visitation (fol. 177v; Plate 9) and the Presentation (fol. 182r; Plate 10) were left unfinished. Three miniatures were also intended for the second quire (Figure 3.2). The first miniature here was also completed (Baptism, fol. 186v; Plate XXI). Yet the second miniature, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (fol. 191v), which is located on the same bifolio, was not even begun. This is less surprising than it might first appear. While the Baptism and the Miraculous Draught of Fishes are both located on the versos of their respective folios, they are, in fact, located on opposite sides of the bifolio which they share (see Appendix A below).31 The third miniature, the Paralytic (fol. 193v; Plate XXII), which is located on the last folio of the quire, was completed. The third quire in Luke contains two miniatures (Figure 3.3). 28 The uninitiated miniature at the bottom of fol. 247r in Paris 54 may represent a scribal error (Plate 13). The red frame measures only 5.8 × 16.9 cm. The scribe has reserved another space at the top of the very next folio and its dimensions are more in keeping with the rest of the narrative miniatures in Paris 54 (Plate 14). Thus, there is the possibility that the Greek scribe intended to go back and erase the red frame on the bottom of fol. 247r, but never got around to it. 29 Other Byzantine manuscripts feature incomplete or unfinished narrative cycles including: New York, Pierpont Morgan Lectionary M692, and Lesbos 9. The latter is a decorative style manuscript that was intended to have 99 miniatures. None of the miniatures in John’s Gospel of Lesbos 9 and only a few of the miniatures of Luke’s Gospel were completed according to Elisabeth Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810 de la British Library. Contribution à l’étude de l’illustration des tétraévangiles du Xe au XIIIe siècle,” Ph.D. diss., University of Fribourg, June 2001, p. 237. For more on the Pierpont Morgan Lectionary, please see n. 49 below. 30 See Chapter 5 below. 31 A similar situation exists with regard to several miniatures in Matthew’s text. The Denial of Peter and the Holy Women at the Sepulcher share the same bifolio and are located on the rectos of their respective folios. The same is true of the Remorse of Peter and the Descent from the Cross. The miniatures in both cases have distinctly different color schemes. In fact, the Denial and Remorse miniatures are very similar in coloration and style as are the miniatures of the Descent and the Holy Women at the Sepulcher. This makes perfect sense given their respective themes and environments. It also makes sense from a codicological view since, once again, even though both sets of miniatures are located on the rectos of their respective folios, they are not located on the same side of the bifolio which they share.

folio 176

folio 177

folio 182

Figure 3.1 Luke: first quire

folio 186

folio folio 191 193

Figure 3.2 Luke: second quire

folio 201

folio 203

Figure 3.3 Luke: third quire

folio 207

folio 213

Figure 3.4 Luke: fourth quire

42

between constantinople and rome

The first, the Parable of the Widow of Naim (fol. 201r; Plate XXIII), was completed, while the second, the Anointing of Christ (fol. 203v), is the most advanced of the unfinished miniatures (Plate 11). Two miniatures are also found in the fourth quire (Figure 3.4). The first miniature, Christ Asleep in the Boat (fol. 207r; Plate XXIV), remains unfinished, while the second, the Transfiguration (fol. 213r; Plate XXV), is complete. No miniatures were scheduled for Luke’s fifth quire. The Cure of the Man with Dropsy (fol. 233v) is the only miniature in the sixth quire of Luke; it is located on the last folio of the quire and was never finished. The remaining nine miniatures of Luke are distributed among the next five quires. No progress was made on these.32 The pattern of completed and uninitiated miniatures in Mark, taken in conjunction with the location of unfinished miniatures in Luke, suggests that an artist did not complete one miniature at a time, or even the miniatures of one quire at a time. Instead, he worked on a number of miniatures at the beginning of each Gospel and these miniatures might be dispersed over as many as a half a dozen quires.33 One might assume that because the Greek text of Luke is complete and the Latin text blank, no further associations can be made between anomalies in the text and disruptions in the narrative miniatures. In truth, however, surprising parallels can be demonstrated. Beginning with the seventh quire of Luke (quire 23; fols. 234r–243v) a number of anomalies of all types may be cited. Up until this point in Luke (that is, through the sixth quire of Luke) one encounters both finished and unfinished miniatures (with only one example of an uninitiated miniature on fol. 191v; see Appendix A below). However, beginning with Luke’s seventh quire, only uninitiated miniatures are found. It is also at the seventh quire of Luke that the Greek quire signatures suddenly disappear and are never resumed. (The Armenian quire signatures continue without interruption.) A different ruling system is also initiated at this point.34 And it is with this quire that the parchment suddenly becomes 32 The tenth quire of Luke is the penultimate quire of his Gospel. See Appendix A below. 33 Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 169, arrived at similar conclusions in her study of Erevan, Matenadaran 7651. She notes that in the original thirteenth-century campaign of work on this manuscript that “the work was carried on more or less simultaneously in all four gospels, but in none of them was it completed.” Sargis Pidsak completed the unfinished miniatures of this manuscript in the next century, and with one exception the miniatures attributed to him are located in later or the last quire of each Gospel. 34 See Appendix B for a lineation diagram. Inconsistencies in the lineation can be seen beginning on fol. 234 and continuing through approximately fol. 290. At fol. 234 the left margin a is not easily verified; the far right column, e, has been frequently omitted and the width of the space between the two text columns (the space between b and c) is increased by 0.4 cm. The upper and lower margins also differ in measuring 4.1 and 7.1 cm, respectively. Fol. 243, which is the same bifolium as fol. 234, is even more puzzling in that no lines can be distinguished at all. On fol. 235, e is missing and no horizontals (including f and g) are visible. The character of the space between

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

43

thinner and more transparent. Moreover, the Greek script looks different, perhaps suggesting for the first time in Paris 54 a second scribe’s participation in the Greek text.35 Finally, the Canon numbers beginning on fol. 235r are inexplicably shifted in location to the right side of the column for the folio rectos only.

Miniature Status Vis-à-vis its Location A study of the location of incomplete and uninitiated miniatures in Paris 54 indicates that a miniature’s status in Paris 54 as complete, incomplete, or uninitiated is unrelated to whether or not that scene is included in Iviron 5’s cycle. Rather, a miniature’s status in Paris 54 as complete, unfinished, or never initiated is wholly determined by its position within the text.36 Miniatures located in the first quires of a Gospel were illustrated before those of later quires. However, the artists did not usually complete all the miniatures of one quire before moving on to the next; evidence derived from our study of the miniatures of Luke shows that these artists appear to have worked upon several miniatures in a number of physically related quires synchronously.

the two text columns also differs considerably in that it now contains four lines—two narrowly-spaced, double lines delineate a wider intercolumniation. Its counterpart, fol. 242, is identical. Fol. 236 is similar to fol. 234, while its counterpart, fol. 241, has extremely unevenly defined horizontals and no discernible vertical lines. Fol. 237 contains the newly defined space between the two text columns of fol. 235 and lacks e. Its horizontals have been drawn beyond d in an uncharacteristically sloppy manner. At the beginning of the next quire on fol. 244 the newly defined space between the two text columns is continued and the right margin, e, has been reinstated. The next 45 or so folios continue in this vein and are distinguished by their careless ruling or by the fact that it is almost impossible to distinguish horizontals or verticals or both types of lines at any given time. 35 The Greek text does continue in the polychromatic colors, however, suggesting that if this is a new scribe, there cannot have been any significant time gap between his work and that of the first Greek scribe. See Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” pp. 123–4, for the likelihood of scribes dividing labor based on quire divisions in their model. 36 Der Nersessian rightly points out how different this method is from the singular circumstances described by Ihor Ševčenko in his analysis of the Menologium of Basil II; I. Ševčenko, “The Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962): 243–76. The Menologium’s format with its discontinuous text of hagiographic notices occupying the same number of lines on each page permitted artists to work on individual sheets. This method must be contrasted with that required by a continuous text, where artists tend to work on quires at the beginning of a Gospel first, especially when each Gospel is typically begun with a fresh quire. See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, Appendix III, pp. 169–75.

44

between constantinople and rome

John’s Text (Folios 279v–361v) The Greek text of John is fully executed in the four different ink colors (Plate XXVII). The Latin text is also partially complete,37 but now by yet another (untrained?) hand who cannot compete with the beauty of the Greek text. He writes in dark brown ink only and does not justify his right margin.

John’s Miniatures John’s miniature cycle seems, at first glance, to provide evidence contrary to that of Mark and Luke. John’s Gospel was scheduled to receive 11 narrative scenes, of which only one was executed. The only painted miniature in John, however, is not the first narrative miniature, as one would expect; rather it is the third in the sequence. Closer scrutiny reveals, however, that the first two planned miniatures of John (and, of course, the evangelist portrait) are actually located in quire 27 (Figure 3.5; see also Appendix A), the quire in which Luke’s Gospel ends and John’s Gospel begins.38 The evangelist portrait, an insert, is complete, but the first two miniatures were not executed. The only executed miniature in John, Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well (fol. 289r; Plate XXVIII), is the first miniature of the succeeding quire (fols. 285–94)—that is, the first quire devoted exclusively to John’s text.

The Unfinished Miniatures: Technical Considerations The five unfinished miniatures of Luke allow us to reconstruct the means by which an artist painted these miniatures.39 The five miniatures are listed 37 The Latin text stops permanently at fol. 329r. 38 This is unusual, according to Nelson. Most scribes would begin a new quire with the start of each Gospel. See Robert S. Nelson, “Theoktistos and Associates in Twelfth-century Constantinople: An Illustrated New Testament of A.D. 1133,” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 15 (1987), p. 58 and n. 30. In Carr’s discussion of the manuscripts of the decorative style, of which 60 are Gospel manuscripts, she notes that the “quires are modified to permit the opening of major text divisions on new gatherings.” See Carr, Byzantine Illumination, p. 2. 39 These miniatures have fascinated scholars ever since they were first mentioned by Silvestre, Paléographie universelle, (no pagination). Some scholars actually prefer the drawings to the completed miniatures in Paris 54. Harold R. Willoughby, The Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. II: The Cycle of Text Illustrations, with an introduction by S. Der Nersessian (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1936), p. 91, wrote: “Practiced students nearly always prefer the five free drawings in wash in Paris 54 to the … finished and polished paintings in the same manuscript.” I do not share this view, although I have seen other Byzantine manuscripts where this applies (for example, the Vatican Job, Vat. gr. 751). Jules Labarte, Histoire des arts industriels, 2nd edn. (Paris: Librairie A. Morel et Cie, 1875), p. 189, was critical of the general style of the miniatures,

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

folio folio 276 278

45

folio 280

below, not in the order encountered in the text, but in descending degree of completion: Christ Asleep in the Boat, fol. 207r (Plate XXIV) Presentation, fol. 182r (Plate 10)40 Dropsy, fol. 233v Visitation, fol. 177v (Plate 9)41 Anointing, fol. 203v (Plate 11)42

The first three miniatures have thin, red ink rectangular frames with the general features sketched in a pale yellow wash (Plate XXIV).43 The composition is but felt, unlike Willoughby, that the “coloring lacks less than the drawing.” See Robin Cormack and Maria Vassilaki, eds., Byzantium: 330–1453 (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008), catalogue #261 with full-color view of fol. 55r containing the Miracle of the Multiplication of the Loaves. 40 Reproduced in color in Maxwell, “Modus Operandi,” fig. 12. 41 Reproduced in color in ibid., fig. 11. 42 Reproduced in color in ibid., fig. 15. 43 Conversely, the line drawings of the manuscripts of the decorative style were executed in magenta. See Carr, Byzantine Illumination, chap. 1, where she maintains that many of its members were produced in Cyprus or Palestine. In an unusual deluxe

folio 283

Figure 3.5  Luke: last quire

46

between constantinople and rome

sketched in fully enough to indicate where gold needed to be applied. The gold backgrounds and nimbi are also complete, with the exception of the nimbus of Christ Asleep in the Boat on fol. 207r (Plate XXIV).44 This is an important exception because it makes readily visible the white gesso base upon which the Paris 54 artist applied his gold.45 The fourth miniature on the list, the Visitation (Plate 9), shows the next stage in the execution of a miniature in its use of brown ink to delineate more specific details of both figures and architecture. The facial features and the hair of the figures as well as some of the folds of their garments are now shown in brown ink. The stairs, windows, and the archway of the building on the right side of the composition were also added at this stage in the same medium. The fifth and most advanced of the unfinished miniatures, the Anointing of Christ (Plate 11), is perhaps the most revealing. Here the artist has reinforced most of the red ink frame with a thicker line of red paint. Significant portions of the color have been applied. Apparently, the artist worked with one color at a time, painting all objects in the composition intended to be that color before moving on to the next hue. Several colors were completed in this fashion, including red, green, dark brown, and mustard. Moreover, a dark ochre ground was applied to all of the faces, except the kneeling figure. Was this the last color applied by the artist and was he interrupted before applying it to the face of the kneeling figure? Not necessarily, for the latter is the only female depicted in the composition and the dark ochre ground may not have always been applied to women’s faces.46 member of the decorative style group, Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum, Ludwig II 5 (olim Phillipps 3887), however, Buchthal notes that some of the miniatures show no evidence of underdrawings. See Hugo Buchthal, “An Unknown Byzantine Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century,” Connoisseur 155 (1964), p. 221, and Carr, Byzantine Illumination, pp. 252–3. 44 See Jonathan J.G. Alexander, Medieval Illuminators and Their Methods of Work (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992), p. 40. Michelle P. Brown, Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts: A Guide to Technical Terms (Malibu, CA and London: J. Paul Getty Museum and British Library, 1994), p. 59, writes: “Gilding formed the first stage in the painting processes of illumination, since it was a messy activity, the gilded area often requiring trimming with a knife.” 45 The most thorough discussion of Paris 54’s technique is found in Bordier, Descriptions des peintures, p. 228. He proposed that this gesso base was probably made up of a combination of albumen and starch. See the “Goldgrund,” entry by Klaus Wessel in Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. II, cols. 882–3. Gabriel Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 7, notes that the gold of the marginal miniatures in Paris, Bibl. Natl. de France, Suppl. gr. 914 is painted over a plaster base. See also Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung, p. 182. Otto Demus, “Die Farbe in der byzantinischen Buchmalerei,” Palette 26 (1967), pp. 9–11, notes that most of the gold in Byzantine manuscripts is applied in powder form. See also Brown, Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts, pp. 58–9, for the use of gesso in gilding. 46 Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 92, notes that in some of the miniatures of New Julfa, Monastery of the Holy Savior, 57/161 all but the facial features have been depicted. She assumed that they were to be completed by another artist.

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

47

The evidence provided by these five miniatures indicates that the following steps were taken in the execution47 of a scene from the narrative cycle of Luke: 1.

2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

The scribe reserved space for the miniature and may or may not have drawn a rectangular frame in red ink. The color of the frame is executed in one of the two red inks used in the multi-colored text (Plate 8).48 The artist sketched the most general features of the composition in a pale yellow wash. The composition had to be sufficiently advanced so that all portions requiring gold could be determined (Plate XXIV). A thick white gesso base was applied to those areas designated to receive gold (background, nimbi, and so on). Gold was applied. The composition was further detailed with brown ink (Plate 9). The composition was filled in by applying one color at a time (Plate 11).

A study of flaked areas of completed miniatures in Paris 54 indicates that not all narrative scenes were executed in this fashion, however. For example, it is difficult to confirm whether or not the gold of the miniatures of Matthew, Mark, and John is actually applied to the raised white gesso ground which is so apparent in the incomplete and complete miniatures of Luke. In addition, flaked areas of completed miniatures of Matthew indicate a variety of colors was used to execute the underdrawings for the miniatures. In the Nativity, a pale green color is visible beneath the flaked area on Joseph’s chest and, in the scene of the Holy Women at the Tomb, a light mauve underpainting can be seen where the wall has flaked. The evidence provided by the Wedding Feast of the King’s Son is probably the most striking, for here in the flaked areas of the architecture on the left side of the composition a hot, pink-orange hue was used to sketch the buildings. The varied techniques used suggest that several artists were responsible for the miniatures of Paris 54, but that the five unfinished miniatures are the work of one master.49 The unfinished miniatures of the narrative cycle provide surprising parallels with the working methods utilized by the Latin scribes in fols. 120v–150v (Plate 7). The filling in of the Latin text, one color at a time, is analogous to the way in which the artist responsible for the unfinished miniatures of Luke’s text colored his miniatures. Both methods probably reflect time-saving devices utilized by professionals. 47 Compare to Buket Coşkuner, “Wall-painting Methods of Byzantine Art: Examples from Cappadocia,” in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu (Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010), pp. 495–504. 48 Reproduced in color in Maxwell, “Modus Operandi,” fig. 9. 49 Jeffery C. Anderson writes that the Pierpont Morgan Lectionary M692’s “initial and marginal illustrations … exist in various stages of completion; some left as drawings, others with colors partially laid on, and some completed.” See Gary Vikan, ed., Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections: An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 135.

48

Gospel

between constantinople and rome

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Quires

1-10

11- 16

17 - 27

27 - 35

Folios

1l r - 109v

l l l r - 171v

173r - 276v

278v - 364v

Greek Text polychromatic text new scribe?

Latin Text polychromatic text limited presence of new hand in black ink new hand exclusively in black ink

0

no text later text in dark brown ink

Narrative Miniatures

completed miniatures

0 uninitiated miniatures 5 completed, 5 unfinished, and 1 uninitiated miniatures Figure 3.6  Status of Paris 54’s Greek and Latin texts and the degree of completion of its narrative miniatures

Summary and Conclusions Figure 3.6 summarizes the status of Paris 54’s Greek and Latin texts, as well as the degree of completion of the narrative miniatures for each of the four Gospels. Matthew’s Gospel is the only one complete in all three categories; both the Greek and Latin texts and the narrative miniatures were executed. All evidence indicates that the Greek text was written before the corresponding Latin text was filled in. The scribe responsible for the Greek text apparently refined the initial concept of the varied ink colors as he proceeded with the Greek text. Our observations concerning the initial passages in blue ink on fols. 13r–19r support this. This same scribe was also responsible for reserving space throughout the manuscript for the narrative miniatures. This was accomplished by leaving a number of blank lines in the text, typically just before the relevant passage was to be written. Frequently these blank spaces were further defined by a frame drawn in one of the two red ink colors used in the text. The evidence from Mark’s Gospel indicates that his Latin text and narrative miniatures were produced simultaneously. The point at which the Latin text is taken over exclusively by the new hand in the incorrect,

paris 54: modus operandi of scribes and artists

49

monochromatic black ink coincides exactly with the appearance of the first uninitiated miniature (Cure of the Man with the Dumb Spirit) of Mark’s Gospel. Both occur on fol. 142r, the first folio of the fourth quire of Mark (Plate 8). In Luke’s Gospel, by contrast, the Latin text column is blank. Surprisingly, however, work on its narrative cycle was well advanced, with five completed miniatures, five unfinished miniatures, and ten uninitiated miniatures. Moreover, even though Luke’s Latin text was not executed, there are notable parallels between textual and codicological anomalies and the location of Luke’s unfinished miniatures. This is seen at the seventh quire of Luke beginning on fol. 234. From here until the end of Luke, none of the miniatures were even begun. The Greek quire signatures disappear and a new system of lineation is introduced. Moreover, starting on fol. 235, the canon numbers are suddenly placed in the right margin as opposed to the left for the folio rectos. Finally, in John’s Gospel, some 50 folios of the Latin text were completed by yet a different and perhaps untrained hand in dark brown ink and only one miniature, Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well, was executed. This is not the first miniature in John, but the third. However, it is the first miniature of the first quire entirely devoted to John’s text. The foregoing summary suggests several phases of work on Paris 54. The first phase saw the completion of Matthew in all three major aspects: Greek text, Latin text, and narrative miniatures. This phase also saw the completion of all of Mark’s Greek text. The first four miniatures of Mark (that is, through fol. 125v) were also executed at this time and are attributed to Artist B, the same artistic personality responsible for the majority of the miniatures of Matthew. However, only that portion of Mark’s Latin text exhibiting polychromatic ink colors can be assigned to this phase. I think that the Greek texts of Luke and John were also executed during Phase One. While another scribe may have written quire 23 (quire 7 of Luke), the fact that he works in a style which is still very close to the primary Greek scribe and that he uses the polychromatic ink colors suggests that, despite codicological inconsistencies from quire 23 through the beginning of John’s Gospel, the Greek texts of Luke and John are likely to be products of the first phase. Phase Two may have followed quite quickly on the heels of Phase One with only a brief lull between them. Phase Two has no impact on the texts, but introduces a new artist, Artist C, who executed the five completed and five unfinished miniatures of Luke as well as the one completed miniature in John’s Gospel. The fact that Artist C does not attempt to execute the uninitiated miniatures of Mark suggests that there is still an assumption that Artist B will return to finish his task. It is more difficult to explain why work on the Latin text was allowed to lapse, even as Artist C worked on the miniatures of Luke and even completed one in John. Was there no Latin scribe available? This seems strange since a

50

between constantinople and rome

number of scribes apparently participated in the polychromatic Latin texts of Matthew and Mark.50 A seemingly greater temporal distance separates Phase Two from Phase Three. Phase Three is limited exclusively to text additions in the inappropriate black ink used sporadically in fols. 121v–141v of Mark’s text and exclusively from fols. 142r to 150r. The 50 or so folios of John’s Latin text executed only in dark brown ink from its beginning on fol. 279r through fol. 329r may also date from this phase. The fact that these scribes never attempt to execute their texts in the polychromatic ink colors suggests that circumstances have changed so radically that the original role envisioned for this manuscript is no longer relevant. Perhaps the patron has died and resources are now quite limited such that the only thing to do is to finish the manuscript in an expedient manner so that at least it can serve some purpose, if not that for which it was originally intended. And yet even that is not accomplished and Paris 54, for reasons we may never really comprehend, remains unfinished in its Latin text, its narrative miniatures, and its ornament. Ironically, we have gained the least insight into the modus operandi of scribes and artists from the first Gospel of Paris 54. Matthew’s Gospel, essentially complete in its text and miniatures, offers few clues concerning the process by which this manuscript was written and illustrated. It was instead the unfinished text and illustrations of the Gospels of Mark and Luke that revealed the most information about the way in which this work was produced. Codicological and textual anomalies in these two Gospels can be linked rather closely with similar disruptions in miniature production. Taken together, it becomes apparent that artists and scribes worked more intimately in the production of this manuscript than is generally recognized in the Byzantine sphere.

50 Many complex paleographical issues are raised by the Latin scribes of Paris 54 and it would take a specialist to address them adequately. However, for the dearth of knowledge of Latin among Greeks in the Palaeologan period, see Chapter 8 below.

4 The Greek Gospel Text of Paris 54 and New Testament Text Criticism1

Part I Our experience ... indicates that there is a high correlation between iconographic, paleographic, and textual relationship[s] …. They suggest to the student of Byzantine manuscripts who works in one of these areas the possibility of finding valuable leads in the other two areas.2

New Testament text critics and art historians both study Byzantine Gospel manuscripts. Text critics focus on the texts, and art historians have traditionally focused on the illustrations, ornament, and script of these manuscripts. The fact that scholars of these two disciplines pursue their respective interests largely independent of each other has long struck me as problematic, and thus I have wanted to learn more about the objectives of New Testament text critics. What questions were they asking, what methods were they utilizing, and what were their results? More important, I wished to know how the field of New Testament text criticism might shed light on Paris 54.3 I hoped that its

1 I have presented material from this chapter at the following scholarly conferences: XX Congrès International des Études Byzantines (Paris, 2001); The Medieval Association of the Pacific (San Diego, 2002); The Thirtieth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference (Baltimore, 2004); The Medieval Association of the Pacific (San Francisco, 2005), and The Society for Biblical Literature (Edinburgh, 2006). Several paragraphs here are also found in my chapter entitled: “The Afterlife of Texts: Decorative Style Manuscripts and New Testament Textual Criticism,” in Byzantine Images and their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed. Lynn Jones (Farnham: Ashgate, forthcoming). 2 See Colwell, The Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. 1: History and Text (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1936), pp. 221–2. 3 The field of New Testament textual criticism faced daunting challenges in the late twentieth century. See Eldon Jay Epp, “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism?” in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 109–23.

52

between constantinople and rome

text might offer important clues about Paris 54’s origins, especially since it contains no colophon indicating the circumstances of its commission.4 The complex paleographic and codicological issues presented by Paris 54 raise important questions concerning its Greek text.5 I wanted to know if the Greek text of this illustrated, bilingual Gospel manuscript is in some way unique as well. What information might it yield about its genesis? Moreover, if Paris 54 has been assigned by New Testament text critics to a distinctive subgroup or family of Gospel manuscripts, then I would want to investigate other members of the group in the hope of learning more about its origins. The quote at the beginning of the chapter from Ernest C. Colwell written more than seventy years ago further piqued my interest. In particular, I wondered what might be determined about the relationship between the Gospel texts of Paris 54 and Mt. Athos, Iviron 5. Iviron 5 has been linked with Paris 54 ever since a one-to-one copy relationship for these manuscripts’ evangelist portraits was recognized.6 Moreover, virtually all of the narrative miniatures common to both of these manuscripts interrupt their respective texts at the same word in the same verse. Could the Greek Gospel texts of these two manuscripts be related as well? Have they been assigned to the same text family by text critics? If so, was Paris 54’s Greek text copied directly from that of Iviron 5? In pursuit of answers to these questions, I began my foray into New Testament text criticism. I have divided the material in this chapter into three major headings. Part I provides an historiographical overview of the role of Paris 54 in New 4 Colophons, or scribal signatures, may indicate the identity of the scribe, the location where he (generally the scribe is male in the Byzantine realm) wrote the manuscript, and the date of a manuscript. 5 For example, the presence of Armenian quire signatures raises the possibility that Paris 54’s Greek text might have more in common with the Armenian version of the Gospels than with the Byzantine text. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 82, writes that the Armenian version is “sometimes called the ‘Queen of the Versions,’” and that it “is generally regarded as one of the most beautiful and accurate of all early translations of the Bible.” For further information on the Armenian version, see Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd revised edn., transl. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI and Leiden: William B. Eerdmans and E.J. Brill, 1989), p. 205. See also Joseph M. Alexanian, “The Armenian Version of the New Testament,” The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 157–72. 6 This copy relationship also holds true for some of the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark. Kurt Weitzmann wrote: “Pictures and text in manuscripts often travel together over long stretches of time, so that obviously the process of copying one must have a bearing on that of the other. Thus a comparison between the method of textual criticism and of what we should like to call picture criticism becomes imperative.” See K. Weitzmann, “The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations,” in Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. Herbert L. Kessler (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971), p. 247, originally published in New Testament Manuscript Studies, ed. M.M. Parvis and A.P. Wikgren (Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press, 1950), pp. 151–74 and 215–19. For a different perspective, see Part II below.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

53

Testament text criticism scholarship. Part II is based on research I conducted on Paris 54’s, Iviron 5’s, and Princeton, Garrett 3’s Matthean texts. Part III focuses on additional paratextual evidence in Garrett 3’s text that suggests that it may have served as the immediate model for Paris 54’s Greek text. A Note on New Testament Text Criticism New Testament text critics study approximately 2,000 continuous text Greek manuscripts of the Gospels that survive from the ninth to the fifteenth centuries.7 These manuscripts’ texts are compared in order to recognize variant readings and, on the basis of these variants, to classify the manuscripts by subgroup. Textual variants8 are typically the result of changes that are introduced in the copying process, including differences in word order, substitutions made by scribes, and mistakes that result when a scribe skips from a similar phrase up or down to the next similar phrase on a page.9 Text critics distinguish between accepted variants (those that allow a manuscript to be categorized within a specific subgroup) and those that are more likely to be errors introduced by the current scribe responsible for copying the manuscript.10 Significant textual variants permit a manuscript to be classified within a specific subgroup.11 7 See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, ed., in collaboration with Klaus Wachtel and Klaus Witte, Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. IV, Die Synoptischen Evangelien, No. 1: Das Markusevangelium. 1.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 1.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungsliste. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 26–7 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998), 1.1, p. 17* (hereafter referred to as Das Markusevangelium, vols. 1.1 or 1.2). For more volumes in this series, see nn. 11 and 45 below. (If you are unfamiliar with these volumes, see first the introduction in the volume of Mark, which is available in both German and English translation. For the English version, see ibid., pp. 18*–28*.) Evidence beyond the continuous text Gospel books would include that provided by lectionaries, patristics (the writings of the Church fathers), other versions of the Gospels (Latin, Syriac, and so on). For a fine introduction to New Testament text criticism, see Parker, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 108ff. 8 Ibid., p. 4, defines a “variant reading” as “a place where the wording exists in more than one form.” Some New Testament text critics still espouse the concept of text type (Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine), but Parker and others argue that the concept is outmoded. See ibid., pp. 171–4. 9 Finegan, Encountering New Testament Manuscripts, p. 111. 10 Gordon D. Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” in Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, ed., Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 14ff. 11 Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 287. For an extensive bibliography of the numerous histories of New Testament textual criticism, see ibid., pp. 95ff and the appendix. See also Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, pp. 3–36, and Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, ed., in collaboration with Klaus Witte, Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 5, Das Johannesevangelium. 1: Teststellenkollation der Kapitel 1–10. 1.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 1.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungsliste. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 35–6 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005),

54

between constantinople and rome

Complete collations of all witnesses of the Gospels are not feasible at the present time, so text scholars selectively examine (that is, collate) a Gospel’s text at specific predetermined points which they deem important. Von Soden The Greek text of Paris 54 did not attract serious attention from New Testament text critics until von Soden collated it more than one hundred years ago.12 He read most of Matthew and Mark (except Mt. 26–8), all but six chapters of Luke (except chapters 18–24) and six folios of John.13 In volume I, Part II of von Soden’s publication, he classified Paris 54 as one of 12 members of the strong branch of the Ιβ text type.14 This strong branch (or “Archetyp”) is further described as the “better family 1216”15 and includes the items shown in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 Von Soden’s Ιβ Text Type Gregory/Aland1 1216 348 1279 477 (Lk. & Jn. only) 2174 829 1579 16 152

Von Soden Iβb Iβα Iβα Iβα Iβ Iβ Iβb Iβb Iβ

Library and shelf # Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Milan, Bibl. Ambros. B. 56 suppl. London, BL Add. 34107 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.X. 17 St. Petersburg, State Pub. Libr. Gr. 513 Grottaferrata, Bibl. della Badia A. a. 6 Athos, Vatopedi 946 Paris, BnF, gr. 54 Rome, Bibl. Vat., Pal. Ms. Gr. 227

1.1: pages 7*–10* (hereafter referred to as Das Johannesevangelium, 1.1 or 1.2). See also Parker, Introduction to the New Testament. 12 Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part II, Abteilung, Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911, vol. I (2), pp. 1,147–60. However, both Wettstein and Scholz mentioned Paris 54 in their respective publications much earlier. See Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum, p. 47, where he dates Paris 54 to the fourteenth century, and Johann Martin Augustin Scholz, Biblisch-Kritische Reise in Frankreich, der Schweiz, Italien, Palästina und im Archipel, in der Jahren 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821 (Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischen, 1823), p. 2. Gregory had described Paris 54’s unique aspects already in 1907. He dated it to the fourteenth century and noted that it was “very ingeniously gotten up.” See Gregory, Canon and Text, p. 372. 13 Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2), p. 1,147. 14 Ibid., pp. 1,147–60. Colwell provides the following summary of what von Soden meant by the Iβ text type: “This text is described by von Soden as a weakening of I which closely approaches K. In his opinion it has nothing to contribute to the establishment of I unless it be in a few details. In the main this text, he says, is a mixture of K1 and I.” See Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. I, pp. 170–77. 15 Von Soden actually wrote: “Die bessere Familie 1043 ff.” ε 1043 is von Soden’s number for Gregory/Aland MS 1216 (that is, Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179). See von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2), pp. 1,147 and 1,152.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

1243 184 513 477 (Mt. & Mk. only)

Iβ Iβ Iβ Iβα

55

Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262 Florence, Bibl. Laur., VI. 15 Oxford, Christ Church Wake 29 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.X. 17

Note:

1 The letters and Arabic numbers by which New Testament textual witnesses are referred to by text critics is based on a system first introduced by Wettstein in 1751–52. Capital letters designated uncial manuscripts and Arabic numerals were used for miniscules. See Wettstein, Novum Testamentum Graecum. The current system of numeration was introduced by Caspar René Gregory in 1908 in Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908). It was updated by Kurt Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994). For further information, see Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 9 and 72ff., and J.K. Elliott’s Introduction in A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 109, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 1–12. The list of G-A numbers is updated online at http://intf.uni-muenster.de/vmr/NTVMR/ ListeHandschriften (accessed September 23, 2013).

Von Soden further ranked16 the standing of the 12 members of family 1216, saying that the best witnesses were 1216, 348, 1279, 477 (in Luke and John), 2174, 829, 1579, and 16. These were followed by 152, 1243, 184, 513, and 477 (in Matthew and Mark).17

16 Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2), p. 1,152. In addition, von Soden noted 17 members of the weak branch of Iβ: 491, 217, 120, 119, 693, 578, 232, 1588, 2127 (same as 1815), 330, 30abs, 70, 30, 287, 288, 17, and 880. The exponent “abs” (Abschrift) indicates that this manuscript is a copy of MS 30 (which is also found on this list). See Wisse, Profile Method, p. 49, n. 11. In volume II of von Soden’s publication, he succeeds in entirely confusing the reader by further dividing the Iβ text type into two other subgroups: Iβα and Iβb. Iβα is comprised of 348, 1279, and 477, while Iβb is comprised of 1216, 1579, 16 (Paris 54), and 1588. No explanation is provided for these subgroups in volume II, and no mention is made of any of the other members of either the strong or weak branch of the Iβ text type in this connection. See Hermann Freiherr von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Text und Apparat (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1913), p. xiv. Paul Robert McReynolds, “The Claremont Profile Method and the Grouping of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts” (Ph. D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1968), p. 47, is similarly frustrated by von Soden’s groupings of the Iβ text type. McReynolds points out that the 12 strong members of Iβ and the 17 weak members of Iβ that von Soden establishes in vol. I are not synonymous with the Iβα and Iβb groups that von Soden discusses in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II. Furthermore, the basis for distinguishing between these two subgroups of the Iβ text is not divulged by von Soden. 17 Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. I, p. 173, points out that von Soden later cited 477 as one of the sources he employed for the Kx recension, but failed to correlate his results.

56

between constantinople and rome

Colwell: Iβ in Mark While much criticism has been directed at von Soden’s methods, his lasting contribution was his grouping and classifying of manuscripts.18 Eldon Jay Epp writes that: what has stood the test of time [of von Soden’s results] is the general integrity of the individual, smaller groups, and only that … but the isolation, homogeneity, and independent existence of most of his small groups and often also of his subgroups as individual groups have become contributions of abiding value.19

Even there many of his textual classifications have not held up.20 The Iβ family, however, is one major exception according to Ernest C. Colwell: Colwell studied this same group of manuscripts in Mark and confirmed its status as a distinct text type. He writes: The list of distinctive readings established by von Soden in his paragraph 23321 can be relied on to establish membership in the group …. Of the manuscripts identified as supporters of the Iβ text by von Soden, our study confirms his judgment of 1216 [Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179], 16 [Paris, BnF, gr. 54], 1243 [Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262], 119 [Paris, BnF, codex grec 85], 120 [Paris, BnF, Suppl. grec 185], 1815 [Palermo, Museo Nazionale, gr. 4],22 and 330 [St. Petersburg, State Public Library, 101], and indicates that MS 61 [Dublin, Trinity College, G.97] belongs at the head of the Iβ group in Mt 9:15f and Mark, while MS 574

18 Wisse writes, “But in whatever way it was done, he [von Soden] found the groups and for that we must be thankful.” See further Wisse, “Von Soden’s Legacy,” in Profile Method, pp. 9–18, esp. p. 12. 19 Eldon Jay Epp, “The Claremont Profile Method for Grouping New Testament Minuscule Manuscripts,” in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993), p. 212. 20 According to a number of sources, some of von Soden’s collations of manuscripts are untrustworthy. Wisse, Profile Method, p. 16, says that he was shocked to discover that there are some “MSS which are so often incorrectly cited that they must have been used only cursorily; MSS 16, 477, 482, and 1216 fall in this group.” (Note: MS 16 is Paris 54.) After citing a litany of problems in von Soden’s collations, Wisse writes: “Evidently, there was much less quality control in von Soden’s offices than in a Byzantine scriptorium”; Wisse, Profile Method, p. 17. Ehrman writes that “Since the available textual evidence is far too massive for any one critic to master, von Soden was forced to rely on the collations made by others, collations later shown to be incomplete and/or inaccurate.” See Bart D. Ehrman, “Methodological Developments in the Analysis and Classification of New Testament Documentary Evidence,” Novum Testamentum 29/1 (January 1987): 22–45, esp. p. 30. For additional criticism of von Soden, see Fee, “Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” p. 13, and Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, pp. 22–3. Epp, “The Claremont Profile Method,” p. 213, writes of the remarkable inconsistency with which von Soden and his team appear to have conducted their collations. 21 See von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2), pp. 1,155–9. 22 Aland, Kurzgefasste Liste, p. 155, says that 1815 = 2127, which is actually Palermo, Bibl. Naz. Dep. Mus. 4. See also Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. I, p. 117.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

57

[St. Petersburg, State Public Library, gr. 105] belongs to the weaker Iβ group in a remarkably close relationship to 1815 and 330.23

Additional connections between Paris 54 (16) and St. Petersburg, State Public Library, gr. 105 (574), as well as Paris, BnF, Suppl. gr. 1335 (MS 2327), are drawn by Colwell in Luke. He notes that from Luke 8:16 to 10:1, Paris 54 supports St. Petersburg 105’s variants from Stephanus no fewer than 26 times.24 This is noteworthy because neither Tischendorf nor von Soden indicate any other witnesses supporting these variants in his notes. Colwell calls this family 2327 and says it is basically of the Byzantine text type, but with enough variation to give the family more than moderate importance.25 Claremont Profile Method in Luke: McReynolds26 Von Soden’s Iβ group was also confirmed in Luke by the Claremont Profile Method.27 McReynolds studied more than 600 manuscripts in chapters 1, 10 and 20 of Luke. He used 54 test readings for Luke 1, 64 test readings from Luke 10, and 78 test readings for Luke 20.28 Paris 54 is included in what McReynolds also refers to as Group 1216,29 which incorporates 11 of the 12 strong members of von Soden’s Iβ group30 and one member of the weak branch of Iβ.31 McReynolds group includes the items shown in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 McReynolds’ Group 1216 Gregory/Aland # 1216 184 348 829 1279 1243 1579

Library and shelf # Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Florence, Laur. VI. 15 Milan, Ambros. B. 56 suppl. Grottaferrata, Bibl. d. Badia A a 6 London, BL Add. 34107 Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262 Athos, Vatopedi 946

23 Ibid. Bracketed text was added by this author. 24 Ibid., pp. 201–2. 25 Ibid., pp. 197–202. 26 Two students of Colwell, Paul McReynolds and Frederik Wisse, wrote dissertations utilizing the Claremont Profile Method (CPM). Roger Omanson also used the CPM for grouping Byzantine manuscripts in the Gospel of Mark for his dissertation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1975. 27 No new manuscripts were added to the group. See McReynolds, “Claremont Profile Method,” p. 47 and table 16. 28 See ibid., pp. 102–9. 29 Remembering here that Gregory/Aland MS 1216 is the same manuscript as von Soden ε 1043. See n. 15 above. 30 Manuscript 513 (Oxford, Christ Church, Wake 29) was apparently not available to McReynolds. 31 MS 217 was assigned to the weak branch of Iβ by von Soden. McReynolds, “Claremont Profile Method,” p. 47, n. 37.

58

between constantinople and rome

152 21741 4771 161 2171

Rome, Vatican, Pal. Ms. Gr. 227 St. Petersburg, State Public Libr. Gr. 513 Cambridge, Trinity College, B.X. 17 Paris, BnF, codex grec 54 Venice, San Marco, 944 (I 3)

Notes:

1 Weak members of McReynolds’ Group 1216. Paris 54 was described as a weak member of McReynolds’ Group 1216 (along with 2174, 477, and 217). Paris 54 was also noted as “similar to 217” (Venice, San Marco, 944 (I 3)). See McReynolds, “Claremont Profile Method,” p. 47.

Claremont Profile Method: Mark Omanson applied the Claremont Profile Method to the Gospel of Mark and profiled 173 manuscripts in chapters 3, 11, and 14 of that Gospel. He collated 125 variant readings in chapter 3, 175 in chapter 11, and 325 variants in chapter 14. Ninety-one additional manuscripts already collated by Kirsopp Lake were also included for the chapter 11 readings.32 Omanson profiled ten manuscripts of von Soden’s original 12 members of the strong branch of Iβ manuscripts isolated by von Soden. Omanson confirms Paris 54’s membership in Group 1216, but does not include it in his list of the strongest group members (that is, 184, 348, 829, 1216, and 1279).33 MS 61 was profiled in chapter 11 of Mark and added to the group (see Table 4.3). Table 4.3 Omanson’s Group 1216 based on Mark Chapters 3, 11, and 14 Gregory/Aland # 12161 3481 12791 8291 1841 1243 1579 2174 16 61

Library and shelf # Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Milan, Ambros. B. 56 suppl. London, BL Add. 34107 Grottaferrata, Bibl. d. Badia A a 6 Florence, Laur. VI. 15 Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262 Athos, Vatopedi 946 St. Petersburg, State Public Libr. Gr. 513 Paris, BnF, codex grec 54 Dublin, Trinity College, A 4. 21

Note: 1 Strong member.

32 Roger Lee Omanson, “The Claremont Profile Method and the Grouping of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts in Mark,” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1975, pp. 41–2. 33 Ibid., pp. 180–81. MS 477 is not Iβ in Mark. MSS 152 and 513 were not included in Omanson’s study.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

59

The Claremont Profile Method in Luke: Wisse and “Group 16” Wisse, in his 1982 book, applied the Claremont Profile Method in Luke to more than twice as many manuscripts as examined by McReynolds. He collated 1,385 Greek manuscripts containing the text of Luke, including Paris 54.34 All 1,385 manuscripts were compared in the same passages from Luke chapters 1, 10 and 2035 that were utilized by McReynolds. Wisse’s study also confirms the existence of Group 1216. His research affirms that 11 of the 12 strong members of von Soden’s Iβ group belong to Group 1216 (see Table 4.4). Table 4.4 Wisse Group 1216 1216 348 1579 1243 184 1279 477 2174 829 152 513

Core member Core member Core member (pair with 1243) Core member (pair with 1579) Core member (Pair with 2174) (Pair with 477) (Pair with 555) In Luke chapters 10 and 20

In addition, Wisse adds two new members to Group 1216:1 2726 555

Zavorda, Nikanoros, 17 Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Hh.6.12 (pair with 152)

Note: 1 Kvalheim et al. believed that Wisse’s evaluation of his data was statistically inadequate and proposed another method for comparing the “profiles.” They utilized a “multivariate statistical method” entailing a principal components analysis whereby the totality of variation present in the data set is analyzed. They applied their method to Wisse’s Group 1216 data and were able to elucidate a distinct subgroup composed of manuscripts 977, 477 and 2174, as well as confirm pairs detected by Wisse (152 and 155, and 1243 and 1579), and reveal new pairs (184 and 348, 829 and 1279) of equal status to Wisse’s. See further O.M. Kvalheim, D. Apollon, and R.H. Pierce, “A Dataanalytical Examination of the Claremont Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence,” Symbolae Osloenses 63 (1988): 133–44.

Wisse then created a new group which he called Group 16. This group is comprised of one of the strong members of von Soden’s strong branch of the 34 See Wisse, Profile Method, pp. 53, 107, and 126–33, where Paris 54 is referred to by its Gregory/Aland number 16. This book, published in 1982, incorporates Wisse’s additional research beyond his dissertation. 35 David C. Parker, “A Comparison Between the Text und Textwert and the Claremont Profile Method Analyses of Manuscripts in the Gospel of Luke,” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 108–38, esp. p. 138, notes that in reality only 960 manuscripts of the 1,385 were fully profiled in all three chapters; 425 manuscripts were not profiled in chap. 10 alone.

60

between constantinople and rome

Iβ group and seven members of the weak branch of Iβ. Group 16, he writes, “is only distantly related to Group 1216.”36 Paris 54—the only member of the strong branch of von Soden’s Iβ group—is a member of Group 16. In fact, Wisse has named this group after Paris 54, whose Gregory/Aland number is 16.37 According to Wisse, Group 16 is comprised of the nine manuscripts listed in Table 4.5. Table 4.5 Wisse’s Group 161 Gregory/Aland # 16 1528 119 217 330 491 578 693 1588

Library and shelf # Paris, BnF, codex grec 54 (pair with 1528) Princeton, University Library, Garrett 3 (d. 1136) (pair with 16) Paris, BnF, codex grec 85 Venice, San Marco, 944 (I, 3) St. Petersburg, State Public Libr., 101 London, BL Add. 11836 Arras, Bibl. Munic. 970 (d. 1361) London, BL Add. 22741 Athos, Vatopedi 956

Note: 1 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 107.

Seven of these manuscripts had been assigned by von Soden to the weak branch of his Iβ group (119, 217, 330, 491, 578, 693, 1588).38 MS 16 (Paris 54) was a member of the strong branch of von Soden’s Iβ text group. MS 1528 (Princeton, Garrett 3)—a manuscript dated by colophon to 1136—is, on the other hand, associated with these manuscripts for the first time by Wisse.39 In fact, Wisse noted such strong similarities between the text of 16 (Paris 54) and 1528 (Princeton, Garrett 3) that he described them as a “pair” within the group.40 36 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 109. 37 Perhaps it was on account of this that Paris 54 was included as a witness in the International Greek New Testament Project’s The Gospel According to Luke. See The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel According to Luke, ed. the American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 and 1987). 38 Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2), p. 1,152. 39 1528 was known to von Soden, for he assigned it a number (ε 2085). Apparently, however, he did not collate it as it was not assigned to any of his text types. 40 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 107. It is of some interest that the Princeton manuscript is securely dated to 1135/36. It was written in the St. Sabas Monastery near Jerusalem. See further ibid., p. 107, and his Appendix 1. For Princeton, Garrett 3, see Anne van Buren’s informative catalogue entry for Princeton, Garrett 3 in Vikan, ed., Illuminated Greek Manuscripts, pp. 140–41 and fig. 65; Kenneth. W. Clark, A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Press, 1937), p. 66 and pl. viii, and esp. Sofia Kotzabassi and Nancy Patterson

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

61

Paris 54’s Standing in the Research of the Alands The Synoptic Gospels Kurt and Barbara Aland exhibit a different approach to most Greek New Testament manuscripts. They refer to the great mass of minuscules as “Byzantine clones.”41 The Alands state that the Byzantine text should “not be totally eliminated from editorial consideration, but only to the extent that its manuscripts are merely reproductions of an identical text.”42 They argue that non-Byzantine texts should be a first priority, and that the Byzantine texts can be better appreciated in the future. The representatives of the Byzantine text (uncial and minuscule alike) “are all irrelevant for textual criticism, at least for establishing the original form of the text and its development in the early centuries.”43 Thus, the Alands wish to identify and exclude from further study those manuscripts that can be identified as Byzantine, unlike Wisse above, who sought to organize New Testament manuscripts within subgroups.44 The Alands included Paris 54 in their comparative research of “test passages” of the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They examined over 314 test passages from the synoptic Gospels. These include 196 test passages in Mark, but only 64 in Matthew and 54 in Luke.45 Ševčenko with the collaboration of Don C. Skemer, Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to Nineteenth Century: A Descriptive Catalogue (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), pp. 19–25 and figs. 33–41. 41 Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, p. 332. 42 See ibid., p. 331, where they write of “the high degree of uniformity which characterizes the Byzantine text (with frequently 100 percent agreement among manuscripts!)”. 43 Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, p. 142. See also W. Larry Richards, “Test Passages or Profiles: A Comparison of Two Text-critical Methods,” Journal of Biblical Literature 115/2 (1996), pp. 251–2, n. 4, for more on the Alands’ view of the Byzantine text type. Omanson, “Claremont Profile Method,” addresses the Alands’ “cavalier” dismissal of the Byzantine text on pp. 357–65. For additional criticism of the Alands’ methods, see Metzger, Text of the New Testament, 1992, pp. 289–90. The Alands’ method of manuscript classification is driven not by textual consanguinity, but by their ultimate concern, which is to distinguish those New Testament witnesses who are closest to the original witnesses of the New Testament from the bulk of those witnesses whom they deem unimportant for their goal. See further Bart D. Ehrman, “A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New Testament Manuscripts,” Biblica 70 (1989): 377–88, esp. pp. 381ff. 44 Frederik Wisse, “The Claremont Profile Method for the Classification of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts: A Study in Method,” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1968, arrives at 16 subgroups. The largest is Kx with 734 members. Parker, “A Comparison,” p. 136, writes that Kx is closest to the Byzantine text. 45 Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, ed., in collaboration with Klaus Witte, Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 4: Die Synoptischen Evangelien, No. 2: Das Matthäusevangelium. 2.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 2.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungenliste. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 28–9 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) (hereafter referred to as Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.1 or 2.2).

62

between constantinople and rome

Note on Terminology Used by the Alands In the following discussion, I will be referring to several different lists of data provided by the Alands in their volumes on the four Gospels. The Group List46 displays those manuscripts in each Gospel that differ more than 10 percent from the Majority Text. That is, it lists those Greek manuscripts that are closer to each other than they are to the Majority Text.47 In addition, the Group List includes those manuscripts that are closest to those that differ more than 10 percent from the Majority Text. Thus, this list provides information about distinctive groupings among Greek Gospel manuscripts.48 It is important to reiterate that the text critical data on a given list only applies to the particular Gospel being analyzed. Furthermore, except in the case of the Gospel of John, 90 percent of extant Greek Gospel manuscripts are so close to the Majority Text that they generate no data whatsoever in the Münster publications. In late December 2009, two new online grouping tools were introduced by Klaus Wachtel of the Münster Institute for use by New Testament text critics. The “Test Passages: Manuscripts Clusters” tool generates data in a variety of ways that complements the information found in the Münster volumes cited in nn. 7, 11, and 45. The online tool includes groupings beyond the 90 percent Majority Text limit and thus the information provided is more expansive than

Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, ed., in collaboration with Klaus Witte, Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 4: Die Synoptischen Evangelien, No. 3: Das Lukasevangelium. 3.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 3.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungen. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 30–31 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) (hereafter referred to as Das Lukasevangelium, 3.1 or 3.2). (Note that some errors in Das Lukasevangelium were detected after publication; corrections are available online at http://www.uni-muenster.de/INTF/corrections_TTIV.3.pdf [accessed September 23, 2013].) 46 That is, the “Gruppierung” list (or table 2.6). See, for example, Das Markusevangelium, 1.1, pp. 17*–27* and 44, for an explanation of these lists. Table 2.6 begins on p. 45 in Das Markusevangelium, 1.1. 47 The number of manuscripts singled out for analysis varies according to which Gospel text is being analyzed. For Matthew, it is 180 manuscripts; for Mark, 160 manuscripts; for Luke, 206 manuscripts, and for John, 285 manuscripts. That is, it is only in John that significantly more than 10 percent of the extant Greek Gospel manuscripts warrant further analysis. 48 Additional lists in the Münster Institute’s volumes are the Main List and the Supplementary List. The Main or “Hauptliste” analyzes the variant readings of the manuscripts that depart more than 10 percent from the Majority Text. It lists the 33 manuscripts whose variant readings for a particular Gospel are closest to it. The “Supplementary List” or “Ergänzungsliste” ranks the 155 manuscripts that are closest overall to each manuscript, on the basis of all test passages for a particular Gospel, including all the majority readings. This list is found in a softbound booklet that is tucked in the back cover of the second volume of each of the Gospel volumes published by the Münster Institute (see nn. 7, 11, and 45 above).

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

63

that found in the synoptic Gospel volumes (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).49 The second online tool is called the “Parallel Pericopes: Manuscripts Clusters” tool. It is based on complete collations of the Gospel texts of 150 Greek manuscripts.50 The Alands et al. examined more than 1,750 witnesses (including uncials and papyri) containing the Gospel of Matthew, and of those 1,555 were determined to differ no more than 10 percent from the Majority Text.51 The Majority Text is not a text per se, but rather is “a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others.”52 Thus, given the Alands’ goals, only about 200 witnesses warranted more serious attention (that is, fuller collations).53 That number is further reduced to 180 because 22 of the witnesses’ variations are found in ten or fewer test passages because of their fragmentary condition. Paris 54’s Gospel of Matthew was determined to be one of the minority of manuscripts that differs more than 10 percent from the Majority Text.54 Its Matthew text demonstrated only 89.1 percent agreement with the Majority Text since it shared only 57 of a possible 64 test readings.55 Paris 54 was closely associated by the Alands with the 12 manuscripts in Matthew listed in Table 4.6.

49 This “Test Passages: Manuscripts Clusters” tool can currently be accessed at: http://intf.uni-muenster.de/TT_PP/TT_Clusters.html (accessed September 23, 2013). 50 It may be accessed at: http://intf.uni-muenster.de/TT_PP/PP_Clusters.html (accessed September 27, 2010). The results obtained from Klaus Wachtel’s online databases varied slightly from those obtained from the Text und Textwert volumes of the Alands et al. However, in all Gospels MS 1528 (Princeton, Garrett 3) was the closest manuscript to Paris 54’s Greek text. 51 Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.1. 52 Michael D. Marlowe, “Bible Research, ‘What About the Majority Text?’”: http:// www.bible-researcher.com/majority.html (accessed November 19, 2009). See also Parker, Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 175–6 and 198–200. 53 See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.1, p. 3* and 5*–15*. On p. 3* the authors indicate that manuscripts like Paris 54 that differ significantly from the Majority Text are being subject to more thorough collations. The results will be published in a supplement to the Text und Textwert volumes. 54 The Majority Text is that reading which is found in the majority of witnesses. The Majority Text is often the Byzantine text reading, but not always. This is why the terms “Byzantine” and “Majority” often seem to be used synonymously. Parker, “A Comparison,” p. 137, cautions: “One may say that all Byzantine readings are attested by the majority of MSS, but not all majority readings are Byzantine.” Parker cites an e-mail communication with Dr. Klaus Wachtel of the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung at this juncture. 55 See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.1, pp. 7* and 8*.

64

between constantinople and rome

Table 4.6 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in Matthew in Text und Textwert, vol. 2:1, Gruppierung List Gregory/Aland #1 % agreement in Mt. WisseGroup16 100 (64/64) 1528 vS 93.8 (60/64) 184 93.8 (60/64) 1579vS 93.8 (60/64) 2394Aland 93.8 (60/64) 2726WisseGroup16 93.7 (59/63) 1216vS Aland 93.5 (58/62) 1148 vS 92.2 (59/64) 348 vS 91.9 (57/62) 152 91.3 (21/23) 829vS 90.6 (58/64) 61Colwell 90 (54/60) 555WisseGroup1216 89.8 (53/59) 1279vS

% agreement in variants 100 (7/7) 71.4 (5/7) 71.4 (5/7) 57.1 (4/7) 57.1 (4/7) 57.1 (4/7) 50.0 (3/6) 57.1 (4/7) 57.1 (4/7) 75.0 (3/4) 71.4 (5/7) 71.4 (5/7) 50.0 (3/6)

Location, library, and shelf # Princeton, Garrett 3 Florence, Laur. VI . 15 Athos, Vatopedi 946 Chicago, Univ. Libr. Ms. 131 Zavorda, Nikanoros 18 Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Istanbul, Patriarchate 4 Milan, Ambros. B. 56 Suppl. Rome, Vat., Pal. Ms. Gr. 227 Grottaferrata, Bibl. d. Badia, A a 6 Dublin, Trinity College, A 4. 21 Cambr., Univ. Libr. Hh 6. 12 London, BL Add. 34107

Note: 1 The Gregory/Aland # is followed by the name of the first scholar to associate the manuscript with Group 1216 or with manuscripts previously associated with that group (vS = von Soden).

Of the 13 manuscripts linked with Paris 54, 11 had been previously associated with Paris 54, including seven by von Soden, one by Colwell, and three manuscripts by Wisse. Despite the extensive pool of manuscripts consulted, only an additional two manuscripts qualify for the Alands’ Group List in Matthew (MSS 2394 and 1148) in conjunction with Paris 54.56 More important, despite the very different collation method, the Alands’ results underscore the intimate relationship between Princeton, Garrett 3 (MS 1528) and Paris 54 (MS 16) that had been first noted by Wisse for their texts of Luke.57 These two manuscripts share 100 percent agreement of the 64 test passages the Alands used to collate the text of Matthew. These manuscripts also agreed 100 percent in the seven readings that they shared which differed from the Majority Text.58 In the Alands’ tables in their Text und Textwert volumes, 56 See ibid., p. 24, for conditions by which manuscripts can be grouped together on the Gruppierung List. 57 MS 1528 is also first on the Alands’ Hauptliste and Ergänzungsliste for Paris 54 for the Gospel of Matthew. For the former, see Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.2, p. 164; for the latter, see 2.2 Ergänzungsliste, p. *7. See further the Ergänzungsliste for a listing of those 155 manuscripts ranked closest to Paris 54 on the basis of all of the Alands’ “test passages,” including the readings of the Majority Text. 58 See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.1, p. 25, where Paris 54 is referred to by its Gregory/Aland #16 and Princeton, Garrett 3 by its Gregory/Aland #1528. Compare the two columns “Übereinstimmungen gesamt” and “Übereinstimmungen ohne MT [Majority Text].”

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

65

100 percent agreements are not uncommon, but in the majority of cases they occur in manuscripts which are fragmentary and which therefore compare fewer than half of the test passages for a given book of the New Testament. Thus, a 100 percent agreement between two manuscripts’ Gospel texts that are more or less complete is significant. For Mark’s Gospel, the Alands collated 1,756 witnesses, and, of these, only 160 witnesses differed more than 10 percent with the Majority Text.59 Paris 54’s Markan text was one of these 160 witnesses in that it agreed only 86.2 percent with the majority text (that is, in 163 of a possible 189 test passages). Paris 54 is missing the end of Mark’s text, so it was not possible to compare it to the last six test passages selected by the Alands. The Alands associated Paris 54’s Markan text with 12 other manuscripts on their Gruppierung List (see Table 4.7). Table 4.7 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in Mark in Text und Textwert Gruppierung List 1 Gregory/ Aland # 1528WisseGroup16 1579vS 1216vS 2726WisseGroup1216 2174vS 1243vS 829vS 1279vS 184vS 152vS 61Colwell 348vS

% agreement % agreement in variants 95.3 (181/190) 80.8 (21/26) 91.6 (174/190) 73.1 (19/26) 91.5 (173/189) 73.1 (19/26) 92 (173/188) 73.1 (19/26) 90.5 (172/190) 69.2 (18/26) 90.5 (171/189) 69.2 (18/26) 88.4 (168/190) 65.4 (17/26) 87.9 (167/190) 80.8 (21/26) 86.8 (165/190) 61.5 (16/26) 87.3 (165/189) 64 (16/25) 87.2 (164/188) 72 (18/25) 87.2 (164/188) 64 (16/25)

Library and shelf # Princeton, Garrett 3 Athos, Vatopedi 946 Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Zavorda, Nikanoros 18 St. Petersburg, State Pub. Libr. Gr. 513 Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262 Grottaferrata, Bibl. d. Badia, A α 6 London, BL Add. 34107 Florence, Laur. VI. 15 Rome, Vat. Palat. Ms. Gr. 227 Dublin, Trinity College, A 4. 21 Milan, Ambros. B. 56 suppl.

Note: 1 Das Markusevangelium, 1.1, p. 46, where Paris 54 is listed as Gregory/Aland # 16.

Of these 13 manuscripts (including Paris 54), ten have been assigned to the same text family ever since von Soden’s publication of 1913 when he established the Iβ manuscript group.60 Later, Colwell added MS 61 to this group, while Wisse was the first to connect 1528 (Princeton, Garrett 3) with

59 In Das Markusevangelium, 1.1 pp. 18–19, the Alands actually state only 1,754 witnesses. In their volume on Matthew published the following year, they note that 1,756 witnesses were actually collated. See Text und Textwert, vol. 4, 2.1, Das Matthäusevangelium, p. 18*. 60 Ten of these manuscripts were associated with Paris 54 in the Alands’ Group List for Matthew. See Table 4.6 above.

66

between constantinople and rome

Paris 54. Wisse was also the first to introduce MS 2726 into the discussion.61 Thus, the Alands’ data do not associate any additional manuscripts for Paris 54’s Group List.62 This is surprising because Mark’s Gospel was assigned many more test passages (196) by the Alands than either Matthew’s or Luke’s texts and this might have resulted in more connections with other manuscripts than would have been seen in this Gospel than in either of the other two Gospels. These results also remind us that von Soden’s often maligned achievement in his effort to group manuscripts nearly a century ago in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments certainly is not true for his Iβ group. It is also of interest that of the 12 manuscripts grouped with Paris 54 in Mark, the Alands once again allied it most closely with Princeton, Garrett 3.63 The two manuscripts agreed in 181 of a total of 190 test passages—that is, 95.3 percent.64 In the 26 instances where Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 differed with the Byzantine/Majority text, there was 80.8 percent agreement between the two manuscripts. That is, they agree in 21 of a possible 26 variant readings that differ from the Majority Text.65 This is noteworthy because it confirms Wisse’s results that he derived from the Claremont Profile Method in his study of the Gospel of Luke, where he described Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 as a pair within his Group 16.66 Finally, the Alands’ “Hauptliste” (main list) for the Gospel of Mark analyzes the variant readings of the manuscripts that depart more than 10 percent from the Majority Text. It lists the 33 manuscripts whose variant readings are closest to Paris 54.67 Paris 54 has 26 variant readings in Mark. The manuscripts listed in Table 4.7 comprise 12 out of the first 13 manuscripts on the Hauptliste (although they are not in exactly the same order68). Of the 61 Wisse actually assigned MS 2726 to Group 1216 and said that Group 16 was only distantly related to Group 1216. See Table 4.4 above. 62 These 12 manuscripts also occur among the first 15 manuscripts on the Ergänzungsliste for Paris 54 in Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1.2, p. *8. 63 See Wisse, Profile Method, p. 107, where he associates the two manuscripts for the first time. 64 The overall agreement between the two manuscripts would have even been higher if Paris 54 were not missing the last five and a half verses of Mark’s text (that is, Teststelle 191–6). It should be noted here that Gregory/Aland 1279—associated with Paris 54 since von Soden—shares first place with Princeton, Garrett 3 on Paris 54’s Hauptliste. That manuscript is dated to the eleventh century by the Alands and is London, British Library Add. 34107. See Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1.2, p. 479. 65 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 46. 66 Ibid., p. 107. 67 Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1.2, pp. 479–80, for Paris 54’s Hauptliste; see ibid., vol. 1.1, pp. 22*–25* for a guide (in English) on interpreting the data on the Hauptliste. 68 In fact, MS 1279 (London, BL Add. 34107) ties with Princeton, Garrett 3 for first place on the Hauptliste for Mark as both manuscripts agree with Paris 54’s variant readings in 21 of a possible 26 cases. However, MS 1279’s status is clarified when one looks at the Ergänzungsliste results. In Matthew, MS 1279 is ranked far down on the list (#116 out of 155), but in Mark it comes in at #10. Thus 1279 is closely related to Paris 54 in Mark, but not in Matthew.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

67

remaining 20 manuscripts on Mark’s Hauptliste for Paris 54, only seven have been previously associated with Paris 54. For the remaining 13 manuscripts, the rate of agreement is always less than 50 percent. For the Gospel of Luke, the Alands classified 1,532 of a possible 1,756 witnesses as representative of the Majority Text or Byzantine text. For this Gospel, the Alands simply grouped Paris 54 with the bulk of minuscule witnesses in the majority or Byzantine text.69 Its Lukan text agreed with the Majority Text/Byzantine text in 91 percent of the test passages.70 It is worthwhile reminding ourselves here that the Alands used only 54 test passages in Luke and thus any subtle differences between representatives of the Byzantine text are perhaps less likely to have been captured. For John’s Gospel, the Alands grouped two manuscripts with Paris 54. First on the list is Princeton, Garrett 3 and second is Florence, Bibl. Medicea Laur., Plut. VI. 11 (see Table 4.8). Table 4.8 Manuscripts linked with Paris 54 in John in Text und Textwert, Gruppierung List1 Gregory/ Aland # 1528WisseGroup16 182

% agreement in Mt. 99 (149/151) 94 (140/149)

% agreement in Location, library, and shelf # variants 100 (10/10) Princeton, Garrett 3 100 (9/9) Flor., Bibl. Med. Laur., Plut. VI. 112

Notes: 1 Das Johannesevangelium, vol. 1.1, p. 54. 2 According to the Alands, this manuscript dates to the fourteenth century.

Thus, Princeton, Garrett 3 is the closest manuscript to Paris 54 in all three Gospels that generated data according to the Alands. Their “test passages” data for all four Gospels confirm what Wisse had concluded based on his study of the Gospel of Luke using the Claremont Profile Method. On the other hand, the second item on the list, Gregory/Aland 182, has never before been associated with Paris 54.71

69 Das Lukasevangelium, vol. 3.1, p. 6. (Note that due to a miscalculation, errors were inadvertently published for some of the data for Luke’s Gospel. Be sure to look for corrections online at egora.uni-muenster.de/intf/bindata/Corrections_TTIV.3pdf for a 29-page PDF file with the corrigenda (accessed January 1, 2014).) 70 Princeton, Garrett 3’s Gospel of Luke agreed with the Majority Text or Byzantine text in 93 percent of its readings according to the Alands. See Das Lukasevangelium, 3.1, p. 6. 71 Paris 54 appears on neither the Hauptliste nor the Ergänzungsliste for John. However, the later online databases from Münster designed by Klaus Wachtel do provide data for John and confirm that it too is closest to Princeton, Garrett 3 (MS 1528).

68

between constantinople and rome

Summary of New Testament Text Critical Scholarship for Paris 54 New Testament text critical scholarship on the Gospels has generally included Paris 54 in most collation efforts of the past one hundred years. We have learned that Paris 54’s Greek Gospel text is not idiosyncratic, but a member of a small subgroup of manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that was isolated initially by von Soden in the early twentieth century, and confirmed by later scholars using a variety of techniques. These scholars include Colwell and those employing the Claremont Profile Method,72 as well as the Alands and their “test passages” method. Remarkably, relatively few manuscripts have been successfully associated with Paris 54 beyond those initially placed in the Iβ text family by von Soden.73 The most important manuscript to be linked with Paris 54 subsequent to von Soden’s publication is Princeton, University Library, Garrett 3 (Gregory/Aland 1528) which Wisse first linked to Paris 54 in his 1982 book on the Gospel of Luke. This textual relationship was extended to the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John by the Alands in their Text und Textwert volumes. Von Soden, Colwell, McReynolds, Wisse, and the Alands are among the most important scholars in the field of New Testament text criticism. Their research indicates that Paris 54 is related in its text to approximately 13 manuscripts (see Table 4.9). Table 4.9 Manuscripts most consistently associated with Paris 54 (MS 16) Gregory/ New Testament text critics and Aland # Gospel(s) collated 1216 vSIβb,Colwell,McReynolds, Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMK) 348 vSIβαMcReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMk) 1279 vSIβα,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMK) 2174 vSIβ,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(Mk) 829 vSIβ,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMk) 1579 vSIβb,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMk) 16 vSIβb,Colwell,McReynolds,Wisse16, Omanson,Aland(MtMK) 152 vSIβb,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Aland(MtMk)

Library and shelf # Sinai, St. Catherine’s 179 Milan, Bibl. Ambros. B. 56 suppl. London, BL Add. 34107 St. Petersburg, State Pub. Lib. Gr. 513 Grottaferrata, Bib. d. Badia A. a. 6 Athos, Vatopedi 946 Paris, BnF, gr. 54 Rome, Bibl. Vat., Pal. Ms. Gr. 227

72 Note that Colwell’s subgroup and Wisse’s Group 16 are not synonymous in their membership. Wisse’s group is also derived from a much larger group of manuscripts that he studied which contain the Gospel of Luke (1,385 in all). 73 Colwell describes von Soden as “The great pioneer in the study of minuscule manuscripts” in Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. I, p. xi.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

1243

Florence, Bibl. Laur., VI. 15

61

vSIβ,Colwell,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(Mk)1 vSIβ,McReynolds,Wisse1216, Omanson,Aland(MtMk) Colwell,Omanson,Aland(MtMk)

1528 2726

Wisse16,Aland(MtMkJn) Wisse1216,Aland(MtMk)

Princeton, Garrett 3 Zavorda, Nikanoros 18

555

Wisse1216,Aland(Mt)

Cambridge, Univ. Libr., Hh 6. 122

184

69

Sinai, St. Catherine’s 262

Dublin, Trinity College, G.97

Notes: Key: Aland = Aland et al., Text und Textwert: Gruppierung List for Matthew (vol. II) or Mark (vol. I) or John (vol. V) (Paris 54 appears only on the Ergänzungsliste for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark; all manuscripts in this table appear on both Ergänzungsliste except for MS 2174, which does not appear on Matthew’s Ergänzungsliste); Colwell = Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar; McReynolds = McReynolds, “Claremont Profile Method;” Omanson = Omanson, “Claremont Profile Method;” vS = von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I, Part II. Abteilung, Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien; vSIβa = von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, p. xiv; vSIβb = Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, p. xiv; Wisse16 = Wisse, 1982, Profile Method; Wisse1216 = Wisse, 1968, “Claremont Profile Method” (Ph.D. diss.). 1 1243 also appears on the Ergänzungsliste for Matthew. This lists the 155 manuscripts ranked closest to Paris 54 on the basis of all of the Alands’ ‘test passages’, including the readings of the Majority text. See Text und Textwert, IV, 2.2 Das Matthäusevangelium, Ergänzungsliste, p. *7. 2 555 appears on the Alands’ Ergänzungsliste for Mark; Das Markusevangelium, vol. 1.2, p. *8.

The first 11 manuscripts listed in Table 4.9 include ten of the 12 original members of von Soden’s strong branch of the Iβ family. The integrity of this group over the last ninety years has been confirmed consistently. Only MSS 477 and 513 of von Soden’s original strong branch of the Iβ family are omitted.74 The ten remaining manuscripts of von Soden’s group have been continuously linked by most of the notable New Testament text critics of the twentieth century. MS 61 is also included in this group. It was linked with these manuscripts by Colwell and has appeared rather consistently in connection with the group ever since.75 Two other manuscripts, 1528 and 2726, were introduced in conjunction with Wisse’s Group 16 and Group 1216, respectively.76 Their association with Paris 54 has been confirmed by the Alands’ research 74 MS 513 was not included in either McReynolds or Omanson’s studies. MS 477 was problematic, even for von Soden; however, it does appear on the Ergänzungsliste for Paris 54 in Mark in Text und Textwert at a respectable overall rate of 86 percent agreement. See also Omanson, “Claremont Profile Method,” p. 179. 75 However, MS 61 does not appear in McReynolds’ Group 1216 nor in Wisse’s Group 1216 or 16. 76 See Tables 4.4 and 4.5 above.

70

between constantinople and rome

in the Text und Textwert volumes. More tenuous is MS 555, which was also introduced by Wisse (Group 1216), but whose connection with Paris 54 was recognized in the Gruppierung List of Matthew and in the Ergänzungsliste for both Matthew and Mark by the Alands. In fact, all of the manuscripts included in Table 4.9, except one, occur in the Ergänzungsliste generated by the Alands for the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.77 The manuscripts in Table 4.9 for Matthew all rank between 90 and 94 percent except for Princeton, Garrett 3, which scores at 100 percent. For Mark, the scores are less impressive because, as we noted earlier, Paris 54 is missing the end of Mark and the last five test passages cannot be compared. Still, Princeton, Garrett 3 comes in again at the top of the list with 95 percent. The other manuscripts score between 85 and 92 percent. This data could be further massaged in a number of ways. There are manuscripts that appear on Matthew’s and/or Mark’s Ergänzungsliste that have never before been associated with Paris 54. For example, MS 1660 (Athos, Lavra H’ 159), an incomplete Gospels written on paper and dated to the fourteenth century by the Alands, is very closely related to Paris 54 in Matthew (94 percent). Thus, in this Gospel it is closer to Paris 54 than many of the Gospel books included in Table 4.9.78 Other manuscripts previously associated with Paris 54 by one or more text critics often show up on the Alands’ Ergänzungsliste. For example, MS 119 is on the Ergänzungsliste for both Matthew (91 percent) and Mark (85 percent). This twelfth-century Gospel book from Paris (Gr. 85) had been assigned to von Soden’s79 weak branch of Iβ and to Wisse’s Group 16 (see Table 4.5).80 Other data can be summarized in the bullet points below: •

•

For McReynolds Group 1216 (see Table 4.2), seven of 12 manuscripts appear on the Hauptliste for both Matthew and Mark; two other manuscripts appear on Mark’s Hauptliste only. Three manuscripts appear on neither list. Two of nine members assigned to Group 16 by Wisse appear on the Hauptliste for Matthew and Mark. Five other manuscripts appear on either Matthew’s or Mark’s Hauptliste; one manuscript appears on neither list. Moreover, all members of Wisse’s Group 16 appear in the top 31 of 155 manuscripts listed by the Alands on the Ergänzungsliste for Mark.

77 MS 2174 occurs only in Mark; it is not included in Matthew’s Ergänzungsliste. Paris 54 was not included on the Ergänzungsliste published by the Alands for either Luke or John. 78 See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.2, Ergänzungsliste, p. *7. There are many Gospel books on this list that have not shown up in conjunction with Paris 54 before, but apparently do not share textual affinities with the other Gospels of Paris 54. 79 See n. 16 above. 80 See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2.2, Ergänzungsliste, p. *7, and Das Markusevangelium, 1.2, p. *8.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

•

71

Many other manuscripts appear high on the Ergänzungsliste for Matthew (especially) and also others appear on Mark’s Ergänzungsliste, yet these have not been connected with Paris 54 by other scholars. If one had unlimited time and resources, where might an investigation of these manuscripts lead? I am thinking here of 1326, 1089, 2142, 2550, 352, 107, 171, 199 etc. for Matthew and MSS 1204, 2127, 2405, and so on for Mark.

Part II Conversely, where the images in one book seem to have been copied from those in another, the same would not, I suspect, to be found to be true for their texts.81

When I undertook the research for this chapter, I was largely propelled by the quote from Colwell cited at the beginning of this chapter. While I have learned much from my foray into New Testament textual criticism, I could never have anticipated the trajectory of my research. The quote above from John Lowden is quite timely in this respect. Paris 54, Iviron 5 and Princeton, Garrett 3 As we have seen, New Testament text critics associate Paris 54’s Greek Gospel text with approximately one dozen other Byzantine Gospel books that are diverse in terms of both their date and their format. None of the other manuscripts is bilingual,82 and none is known, at this point, to have anything in common with Paris 54 either in terms of its paleography or illustration.83 The most important manuscript to be linked with Paris 54 subsequent to von Soden’s publication is Princeton, University Library, Codex Garrett 3.Frederik Wisse, in his 1982 book on the Gospel of Luke, described Luke’s texts of Paris 54 and Garrett 3 as a pair. The textual affinity between Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 was later confirmed for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John by the Text und Textwert volumes of the Alands et al.84 81 Lowden, “Transmission of ‘Visual Knowledge’,” pp. 68–70. A study of illustrated manuscripts of Prudentius’ Psychomachia also indicates that “text and illustrations could be copied from two independent sources into the same manuscript.” See further Gernot R. Wieland, “The Origin and Development of the Anglo-Saxon Psychomachia Illustrations.” Anglo-Saxon England 26 (December 1997): 169–86, esp. pp. 175 and 181–2. 82 MS 17 (Paris, BnF, Gr. 55), a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript of the fifteenth century, was classified by von Soden as a member of the weak branch of Ιβ. It was not included in the Claremont Profile Method research, but was included in the Alands’ studies and was not connected by them to Paris 54. 83 Analysis of microfilms of seven manuscripts from Table 4.9 revealed no correlations between these manuscripts and Paris 54 that might extend beyond their texts. That is, MSS 1216, 348, 1279, 2174, 829, 1243, and 184 demonstrated no connections with Paris 54’s ornament, evangelist portraits, or narrative miniatures. 84 See n. 71 above.

72

between constantinople and rome

While text critics associate certain manuscripts with Paris 54, the collations upon which these associations are based are not complete enough to address my questions concerning the origins of Paris 54.85 After all, what does it mean when a text critic describes two manuscripts’ texts as a pair? Does it indicate only that they are the most closely related of the members of the group with which they have been classified? Or can one go further and assume that one manuscript was actually copied from another?86 I eventually decided that if I wanted to learn more about the relationship between Paris 54 and any of the manuscripts that text scholars had linked to it, I was going to have to undertake my own comparative studies of their texts.87 Due to time constraints, I limited my efforts to three manuscripts: Paris 54, Athos, Iviron 5, and Princeton, Garrett 3. I examined microfilms of all three in the hope of finding evidence of a direct relationship between Paris 54 and either of the other manuscripts. My research focused on the Gospel of Matthew (see Appendix C). I began by comparing Paris 54’s Gospel of Matthew to the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NTG).88 I noted all variations from the NTG that occurred in Paris 54, ranging from the most egregious errors where a dozen or more words had been skipped by Paris 54’s scribe89 to inconsequential variations that would be accorded little or no weight by many text critics (such as minor spelling variations90). To determine which variants (that is, 85 Remembering here, too, that text critics are more interested in establishing groups and subgroups of manuscripts rather than in determining which manuscript might have served as an exemplar for another. 86 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 49, n. 11, writes that “MSS which are copied from another extant MS have the same Gregory number as their model with the exponent abs (= Abschrift). Aland lists for Luke: 9abs , 30abs, 205abs , and 1160abs; they have not been taken into consideration since they are of no interest for textual criticism.” However, Parker, “A Comparison,” p. 110, writes: “A pair of MSS is defined as being close enough for it to be possible that they form exemplar and copy (no attempt is possible on the basis of CPM to establish the direction of copying).” Parker cites Wisse as above. I have not yet located a passage in Wisse that confirms Parker’s definition of the use of the term “pair.” 87 Note: this is a textual comparative study to determine if a copy relationship between one or more manuscripts could be ascertained. My efforts should not be referred to as a collation since I have no formal training in New Testament textual criticism. For information on collation methods, see Parker, Introduction to the New Testament. 88 This extensively footnoted text allows the reader, once they have mastered the format, to determine which variations in any particular manuscript are likely to be unique and which are not. See Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edn., ed. Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993). 89 That is, parablepsis: when significant textual gaps are created when similar or identical words occur near each other in the text and the scribe unwittingly skips directly to the phrase following the occurrence of the second group. This is generally attributable to fatigue on the part of the scribe. 90 Initially, I was struck by the number of spelling “errors” in Paris 54’s text, but I have since learned that spelling was far more fluid in the Middle Ages, especially in comparison to contemporary expectations concerning orthographic consistency. This was especially true of the spelling of proper names. The bulk of spelling “errors” are not very significant, since letters or groups of letters came to be pronounced alike

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

73

errors) might be important, I checked three sources: (1) the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece; (2) Metzger’s, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,91 and (3) von Soden’s annotated text of Matthew in vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments.92 If these sources offered no support (that is, no record of other witnesses) for Paris 54’s aberrant text passages, then Paris 54’s variant qualified as a noteworthy variation. My goal was to determine if any of the variations I noted in Paris 54 could be considered scribal idiosyncrasies that might be more or less unique to Paris 54’s text. If these idiosyncrasies were also found in Princeton, Garrett 3 or Athos, Iviron 5, their presence might suggest a closer relationship (if not a copy relationship) between the texts.93 Paris 54 and Iviron 5 The compelling connections between Iviron 5’s evangelist portraits and narrative miniatures and those of Paris 54 indicate that Iviron 5 was almost and this led to inconsistencies in the spelling of words that sounded alike. Many homonyms result in misspellings, particularly where manuscripts were produced through dictation rather than copying. In Paris 54, the most common variant spelling was the substitution of the diphthong epsilon-iota for a single eta. The substitution of eta for the same diphthong was almost as common an error, however, so that it would seem that as far as our scribe was concerned, these letters were practically interchangeable. The same problem was presented with the diphthong epsiloniota and the simple iota. The scribe interchanged them on 14 different occasions in Matthew. Other problematic vowels include omicron and omega, and iota and eta, as well as the diphthong alpha-iota and the epsilon. The iota-eta situation is interesting in that the scribe was twice as likely to use the incorrect eta if an iota was the correct choice than he was to do the reverse. See Bart D. Ehrman, Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels, Society of Biblical Literature: The New Testament in the Greek Fathers 1, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986), p. 34, cited in Thomas C. Geer, Jr., “Analyzing and Categorizing New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Colwell Revisited,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, Studies and Documents 46 (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 253–67, esp. p. 263 and n. 40. James R. Royse, “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, Studies and Documents 46 (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1995), p. 239. However, Geer, “Analyzing and Categorizing,” pp. 264–5, suggests that itacisms and minor variations gain much more importance when examining manuscripts on the family level. See also Wisse, Profile Method, p. 118. 91 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd edn. (Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975). 92 Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 2. 93 Obviously, the design of my comparative study is open to many criticisms. For example, the most egregious scribal errors are, by their very nature, more likely to be unique to Paris 54. Such errors are less likely to have been copied from another manuscript because, as an egregious error, they are more likely to have attracted attention and to have been corrected at some point, if not by the original scribe. Even if such errors escaped correction, a scribe copying from such a flawed exemplar is probably more likely to notice an egregious error than a subtler one.

74

between constantinople and rome

certainly available to the head scribe of Paris 54.94 For it is only with this assumption that one can explain why almost every narrative miniature in Paris 54 that is also found in Iviron 5 appears not only in the same Gospel text in Paris 54, but interrupts that Gospel text at the same word in the same verse as its counterpart does in Iviron 5 (see Table 6.2 below; compare Plates V and 15).95 This cannot be coincidental, especially since the two manuscripts have significant differences in their respective formats.96 Presumably, Paris 54’s scribe consulted Iviron 5 itself as he wrote his text and reserved space for the miniatures of its narrative cycle. Given these assumptions, I was surprised to discover that text critics have never discerned any relationship between Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Gospel texts. Von Soden assigned Iviron 5 to Iφc—a different family or subgroup of the Byzantine text.97 However, since his results for manuscript groupings (outside of the Iβ family) have frequently been questioned, I was not comfortable accepting his conclusions.98 I subsequently discovered that most twentieth-century New Testament text critics have not included Iviron 5 in their studies. This is true of Colwell, McReynolds, Wisse, Omanson, and the Alands. Both Wisse and the Alands indicated that they had not succeeded in gaining access to a microfilm of Iviron 5.99 A microfilm of Iviron 5 also eluded me for many years.100 However, I came across other evidence that suggested that the texts of the two manuscripts are not intimately related. This evidence is provided by critical editions of the New Testament that cite both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 in their critical apparatus 94 See Chapter 6 below. 95 Compare Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Miracle of the Loaves miniatures, where text is visible beneath both illustrations (Plates V and 15). 96 Paris 54 is bilingual, featuring Greek and Latin texts; Iviron 5 is in Greek only in a single-column format. See further Chapter 6 below. 97 See Von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I (2): 1,110ff., where Iviron 5 is referred to as ε 1260. Text critics have assigned Iviron 5 the Gregory/Aland # 990. 98 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 50, says the Iφc group “Refers to twelve MSS which do not form a coherent group. Three of them form Cl[uster] 160 and five others form Cl[uster] π 1441.” 99 Ibid., p. 48 lists Iviron 5 (Gregory/Aland 990) as one of those manuscripts which had to be eliminated from his study because a complete microfilm could not be acquired. The Alands also noted that they could not procure a microfilm of Iviron 5 (MS 990). See Das Markusevangelium, 1, 1, pp. 29*–30*, for the signs and abbreviations key for the list of synoptic Gospels that follows on pp. 1–25. The challenge of obtaining a microfilm of Iviron 5 cannot be underestimated. The Alands note in a subsequent volume that the total number of manuscripts containing some or all of one of more of the synoptic Gospels is 2,212. The total number of manuscripts available to the researchers at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in microfilm format was 1,997. See Das Matthäusevangelium, 2, 1, p. 18*. 100 A microfilm of Iviron 5 was not available through any of the other usual sources including the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center, Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, California; Hill Monastic Manuscript Library, St. John’s University, Collegeville, Minnesota, the Library of Congress, and so on. See n. 104 below.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

75

of variant readings. The information derived from these sources suggested that Paris 54 was not copied from Iviron 5.101 Huck provides a list of readings where he notes significant variants in Paris 54,102 and Iviron 5’s text is never cited at these same junctures. Finally, von Soden noted that Iviron 5 is missing Mt. 26:42–7.103 No such lacuna is found in Paris 54. When I finally gained access to a microfilm of Iviron 5,104 I tried to determine if an intimate relationship between the Matthew texts of Iviron 5 and Paris 54 could be demonstrated. I compared numerous passages of both manuscripts’ Gospels of Matthew to ascertain for myself that Paris 54’s Greek text was not a copy of Iviron 5’s text (see Appendix C). While Iviron 5 shares some of Paris 54’s variants, there is nothing to indicate that a copy relationship existed between the two works. Iviron 5 incorporates none of the egregious errors or idiosyncrasies of Paris 54’s text. In fact, there is no indication that the two manuscripts’ Gospel texts are related in any way beyond their mutual assignment to the Byzantine or Majority text.105 Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 My comparative study of the Greek texts of Matthew of Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 indicates that the two manuscripts are more closely related (see Appendix C). Unlike Paris 54, Princeton, Garrett 3 is dated by colophon to 1135/6 and was produced in the St. Sabas Monastery in Jerusalem.106 It differs from Paris 54 in its illumination, decoration, paleography, and format. On the surface, there is literally nothing to suggest any direct connection between Paris 54 and Garrett 3. However, both Wisse’s research, published in 1982,

101 The best guide to these editions and the manuscripts incorporated in their critical apparatus is J.K. Elliott, A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament, Supplements to Novum Testamentum 57 (Leiden, 1987). For example, Elliott alerted me to the fact that Albert Huck indicates that Iviron 5 is one of his textual witnesses. Paris 54 is not listed at this point by Huck, but is actually cited in Huck’s critical apparatus. See Albert Huck, Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 13th edn., revised by Heinrich Greeven (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1981). 102 These include Mt. 9:35, 10:17, 12:4, 16:24, 21:2, 21:37, and 25:40; Mk. 3:29, 8:12, and 15:40, and Lk. 4:11, 8:50, and 9:43b. 103 See von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. I:1, p. 165, where Iviron 5 is referred to as ε 1260, and Kurt Aland, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 13th revised edn. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985), p. XXVI, where Iviron 5 is MS 990. 104 A microfilm of Iviron 5 eluded me until 1998, when Prof. Efthymios K. Litsas of the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies of the Vlatadon Monastery in Thessaloniki managed to secure one for me. I want to take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to Prof. Litsas for going out of his way to procure a copy of this microfilm for me. Copies of this microfilm are now available at the Institut für neutestamentliche Textforschung in Münster, Germany, and at the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California. 105 The Alands suggest that only about 10 percent of Greek manuscripts differ more than 10 percent from the Majority Text. 106 For Garrett 3, see n. 39 above.

76

between constantinople and rome

and the more extensive data generated by the Alands, published from 1998 to 2005, indicated that these two manuscripts’ texts are intimately related.107 Table 4.10 highlights some of the more spectacular textual variants (that is, scribal errors) I discovered in Paris 54’s Gospel of Matthew. Iviron 5 shares none of these variations, but Garrett 3’s text has six of the eight variations listed. Table 4.10

Textual variants (scribal errors) in Paris 54, Garrett 3, and Iviron 5 in Matthew

Matthew Variant text in P54 NTG Garrett 3 Yes 8:31–2 Omits: και ειπεν αυτοις υπαγετε οι δε εξελθοντες απηλθον εις τους χοιρους Also omits: πασα 10:29–30 Adds after υμων: No Του πατρος η μωνη του εν τοις ανθρωποις 13:6 Omits: Yes εκαυματισθη1 15:20 Omits: No το δε ανιπτοις χερσιν φαγειν ου κοινοι τον2 15:26 Omits: No τον αρτον των τεκνων και βαλειν3 Yes 18:7 Adds: η ινα σκανδαλιση των μικρων τουτων4 19:14 Omits: Yes και μη κωλυετε5 22:28 Omits 9 words: Yes Εν τη αναστασει ουν τινος των επτα εσται γυνη6 Yes 24:32–3 Omits 12 words:7 Το θερος ουτως και υμεις οταν ιδητε παντα ταυτα γινωσκετε οτι εγγυς8 Yes 24:37–8 Omits 14 words:9 Αι ημεραι του νωε ουτως εσται η παρουσια του υιου του ανθρωπου ως γαρ10

Iviron 5 No

No No No No

No No No

No

No

Notes: 1 Not noted by von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II as a variant, nor by NTG nor Metzger. 2 An example of homoioteleuton in that phrase immediately preceding this ends in τον ανθρωπον also. Not noted by NTG nor Metzger. 3 A type of homoioteleuton error, deriving presumably from confusion on the part of the scribe between βαλειν and λαβειν which occurs in the same verse. Not noted by the NTG nor Metzger.

107 Wisse, Profile Method, p. 107, and Das Markusevangelium, Das Matthäusevangelium, Das Lukasevangelium, and Das Johannesevangelium.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

77

4 This additional phrase is found at the beginning of 18:7 in Paris 54 (fol. 66r). The last five words are also found in Mt. 18:6, but they do not form one continuous phrase in that verse. 5 No such omission is noted by von Soden nor the NTG. 6 An example of homoioteleuton due to the word γυνη in both this and the preceding verse. No witnesses for this error noted by von Soden, the NTG, nor Metzger. 7 Paris 54, fol. 89v. The entire text on this folio is in crimson (dark red) ink. Christ speaks to the disciples about the impending destruction of Jerusalem. 8 An example of extensive homoioteleuton due to the repetition of εγγυς in verses 32 and 33. No witness for this error noted by von Soden, the NTG, nor Metzger. 9 Paris 54, fol. 89v. 10 An example of extensive homoioteleuton due to repetition of γαρ in both verse 37 and 38. Not noted by von Soden, the NTG, nor Metzger.

The first column in Table 4.10 identifies the location of the aberrant passage in Paris 54’s Matthew text. The second column describes the variation. Subsequent columns indicate whether or not the same variation occurs in Princeton, Garrett 3 and Athos, Iviron 5. The table underlines the close relationship first noted by Wisse between Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 in Luke’s Gospel and also demonstrated in the Alands’ collation for Matthew, Mark, and John. Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3’s texts share six out of eight of these textual errors, including three significant examples of parablepsis that occur in Matthew chapters 22 and 24.108 Concentrating on the two most egregious errors that are found in chapter 24, we note that at verse 32 the scribe skipped from the word following ἐγγὺς up to the word following ἐγγὺς in verse 33. This resulted in a gap of 12 words. Just a few verses later, in verse 37, the scribe skipped from the word following γὰρ to the word following γὰρ in verse 38, so that Paris 54’s text is missing 14 words as a result. In this extraordinary case, these two occurrences of parablepsis resulted in 26 words missing from one folio (fol. 89v) in Paris 54’s text (Plate 6).109 These textual variants are very rare and they are not supported by any witnesses in the annotated editions of the New Testament published by von Soden, Metzger, nor the NTG. That is, in most cases the peculiarities seen in Paris 54’s Matthew text that appear to be idiosyncratic to our scribe are also found in Princeton, Garrett 3. The lacunae in the Greek text on fol. 89v were apparently never noted by later readers of Paris 54’s text. There are no notations or additions in the margins of fol. 89v in Paris 54. Moreover, one would assume that the missing 26 words in the Greek text might have had some impact on the spacing of the adjacent Latin text, but that is not the case. The Latin text is intact here, 108 I also consulted another five Greek Gospel texts that have been associated with Paris 54 by New Testament text critics. Only one of those manuscripts contained just one of these variants (Paris, BnF, gr. 85). 109 Ironically, part of the preserved text between the two major examples of parablepsis on fol. 89v discussed above includes the following phrase: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Mt. 24: 35).

78

between constantinople and rome

although perhaps more heavily abbreviated than usual. The texts in this area of Paris 54 are written uniformly in crimson ink. Crimson ink is the exclusive color of the text from the beginning of fol. 87v (Mt. 24:4 βλέπετε …) through the beginning of 94r, where it changes to blue ink at Mt. 25:37 κύριε, πότε …. The scribe responsible for the Latin text was apparently not fluent in Greek or he might have noted the disparities between the two texts. In addition to the aberrant texts common to Paris 54 and Garrett 3 discussed above, one other scribal peculiarity may be noted in MT 17:5. The verse reads as follows: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγοῦσα, Oὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ

In Mt. 17:5 in Paris 54 (fol. 63r), there is an erasure beneath the phrase: φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγοῦσα. Paris 54’s text (Plate 4) resembles the effect I have created below using the “bold” formatting option: ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέ λης λέγοῦσα, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐ ν ᾧ εὐδόκησα αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε

In Princeton, Garrett 3, there is a significant erasure in the text in Mt. 17:5 (fol. 42v) that extends for almost one and one half lines. This space has been left blank, although the erasure is quite visible even in the microfilm. I cannot decipher the words that have been erased, though a specialist working with the proper tools undoubtedly could. Garrett 3’s erasure (Plate 32) precedes καὶ ἰδοὺ, which is located immediately before the suspicious erasure noted above in Paris 54. Thus, Garrett 3’s text looks much like this (fols. 42v–43r): ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγοῦσα, Oὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα αὐτοῦ ἀκούετε

Despite the erasures in both cases, neither Paris 54 nor Garrett 3 is actually missing any text at this point. The scribe of Garrett 3 made an error here that he apparently did not catch in a timely fashion. He probably created a redundant phrase due to the repetition of the words ἰδοὺ or νεφέλη(ς) within

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

79

the verse (or καὶ ἰδοὺ two verses earlier in MT 17:3).110 The additional phrase was noted subsequently and erased. The erasure was probably made some time after the scribe finished the manuscript. Otherwise, given the location of the error on the page on the penultimate line, it could have been made less noticeable by the original scribe had he moved the καὶ ἰδοὺ phrase up one line. The result would have been just one blank, erased line at the foot of the page (Plate 32). I would like to suggest that the redundancy at this juncture in Garrett 3’s text was not erased until after Paris 54’s text was completed. If Paris 54 was copied directly from Garrett 3, then the error in Garrett 3 is likely to be responsible for the erasure in Paris 54. The Paris 54 scribe apparently caught the error in a timely fashion before he completed the passage and erased the surplus text. This makes sense if Garrett 3 was corrected after Paris 54’s text was copied. Since we do not know the content of the redundant phrase created by the Garrett 3 scribe, it is difficult to know if the erasure in Paris 54’s text was directly related to the error in Garrett 3.111 It could be that it is merely a coincidence that the two scribes ran into trouble at almost exactly the same point in both texts. As the evidence above indicates, the close relationship between Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 first noted by Wisse in Luke’s Gospel and also demonstrated in the Alands’ collation for Matthew, Mark, and John is confirmed in my examination of Matthew’s text. When Paris 54 exhibits an omission due to parablepsis, it is usually found in Princeton, Garrett 3 as well. I have selected examples of parablepsis that do not commonly occur, and which are not supported by any witnesses as noted by von Soden, Metzger, or the NTG. That is, in most cases, the peculiarities seen in Paris 54’s Matthew’s text that appear to be idiosyncratic to our scribe, are also found in Princeton, Garrett 3. Unlike Paris 54, Princeton, Garrett 3 is dated by colophon to 1136 and was produced in the St. Sabas Monastery in Jerusalem. Why Paris 54 should have so much in common with this manuscript is difficult to fathom. No evidence other than this very palpable relationship between their two Greek texts suggests any connection between the two manuscripts.

Part III … as a rule, scribes reproduced the MSS that were available to them, with greater or lesser care, whether they contained the Koine or an older form of the text.112

110 ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ. 111 But if Paris 54 was copied from Garrett 3, then perhaps Paris 54’s scribe erased the erroneous text in Garrett 3! 112 Barbara Aland and Klaus Wachtel, “The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), p. 45.

80

between constantinople and rome

Additional Evidence in Support of a Copy Relationship between Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 The preliminary results of my comparative study of the text of Matthew indicate that Paris 54 and Garrett 3 are extremely closely related, but not identical. The evidence compiled thus far suggests that the scribe responsible for Paris 54’s Greek text had access to at least two manuscripts: Iviron 5— which served as the model for the evangelist portraits and some of the narrative miniatures—and a second Greek Gospel manuscript that served as the exemplar for the Greek text.113 How, then, can one explain the intimate connections regarding the location of miniatures common to the texts of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 since there does not appear to be a copy relationship between these two manuscripts (for example, compare Plates V and 15)?114 Prof. Maria Mavroudi suggested to me that perhaps Iviron 5 was available to the head scribe of Paris 54 for only a limited period.115 During that time, the scribe of Paris 54 may have noted in another Gospel text the exact location of Iviron 5’s narrative illustrations. That second Gospel text must have served as the textual exemplar for Paris 54’s scribe. That is, it served as the model from which Paris 54’s Greek text was copied and, presumably, it contained notations added by Paris 54’s scribe that would remind him to leave blank spaces in his text for the narrative miniatures. This would explain why Paris 54 and Iviron 5 do not have identical texts and, at the same time, why most of the 29 miniatures common to both manuscripts interrupt their respective texts at exactly the same word.116 In fact, it now appears that Princeton, Garrett 3 may be the actual manuscript from which Paris 54’s Greek text was copied. This proposal is supported by the textual evidence offered above and by additional paratextual evidence.117 While examining Princeton, Garrett 3’s text, I noticed that a single red cross has been added to its text in numerous locations that correspond exactly to the 113 Of course, a third source must be posited for the Latin text. 114 Compare Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Miracle of the Loaves miniatures, where text is visible beneath both illustrations. 115 I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Mavroudi for her insights concerning Paris 54 and Iviron 5 following a lecture I gave to her Paleography Seminar at the University of California, Berkeley in May 2003. 116 See Chapter 6 below, where I write: “Thus, of the 29 scenes in Iviron 5 which illustrate the Gospel text proper, 27 illustrate the same Gospel passage as in Paris 54, and 25 of those break for the illustration at exactly the same word.” A similar solution was envisioned by Sirarpie Der Nersessian in her explanation of how the head scribe of Erevan, Matenadaran 7651 created an Armenian “copy” of the Greek Gospel book Florence, Laur. VI.23. The Armenian manuscript also involved many changes from its model regarding both the selection and formatting of miniatures. Der Nersessian’s discussion is found in vol. I, Appendix III of her Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, pp. 169–75, esp. pp. 173–4. 117 Paratextual evidence is defined as “Textual elements on the page which are not part of the text being copied (running titles, section numbers, etc.).” See Parker, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 27.

the greek gospel text of paris 54 and new testament text criticism

81

placement of miniatures in Paris 54’s text. Some of these crosses are readily evident in Princeton, Garrett 3’s text today (see Plate XXXIII). They are placed at the same locations in Garrett 3’s text as where Paris 54’s miniatures interrupt its text. As noted above, this is frequently mid-verse.118 The first occurrence of a red cross in Garrett 3 corresponds to the location of the miniature of Paris 54’s Nativity. In Garrett 3, a red cross is found at the end of the last line on folio 6v, a location that corresponds exactly to the Nativity miniature on fol. 13v in Paris 54 (compare Plates III and 26). These red crosses in Garrett 3 appear only where Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s texts break for a narrative miniature.119 Some crosses have been partially erased, such as the example found on fol. 37r in Garrett 3. This location corresponds with the miniature of the Miracle of the Loaves in Paris 54 on fol. 55r (compare Plates V and 27). Undoubtedly, these crosses were a source of consternation to later readers of Garrett 3’s text, and as a result nearly half of them were erased.120 Usually, these erasures are visible, especially in high-quality color photographs. In most of my examples it is quite apparent that these red crosses are later additions to Princeton, Garrett 3’s text. The red cross that corresponds to the location of the Annunciation miniature on fol. 176r of Paris 54 is especially noteworthy. In this case, a later reader attempted to convert the cross into an upper-case iota! However, this letter is not related to the surrounding text (compare Plates XX and 30).121 Some of the crosses, however, are almost invisible now. In these cases, only a few microscopic red ink dots remain and there is no evidence of an erasure (Plate 31).122 Patricia Lovett writes that unlike sheepskin, vellum (calfskin) can easily be erased: “Whole sections [of text] can be removed from vellum … without any detection.”123 For example, there is no evidence of a cross in Garrett 3’s text on fol. 208r, but this is where Paris 54’s scribe interrupted his text and reserved space for the Miracle of the Wedding at Cana. In fact, there is no correlation between the presence of a cross in Garrett 3’s text and the status of a miniature in Paris 54 as complete, incomplete or uninitiated. There are red crosses in Princeton, Garrett 3’s text where there are uninitiated miniatures in 118 For Matthew, Mark, and Luke approximately one half of their miniatures interrupt the text in the middle of a verse. For John, however, only one of the ten miniatures in this Gospel is located in the middle of a verse. 119 The red crosses in Princeton, Garrett 3 can be quite subtle. Generally, one would not notice them if one were not looking for them. See, for example, The Last Supper (compare Plates VIII and 28)—that is, Paris 54, fol. 96v and Princeton, Garrett 3, fol. 66r. See, too, The Remorse of Peter (compare Plates XI and 29)—that is, Paris 54, fol. 102r and Princeton, Garrett 3, fol. 69v. 120 Compare Paris 54’s illustration of the Presentation in the Temple (Plate 10) with Princeton, Garrett 3, fol. 133r. 121 Paris 54, The Annunciation, fol. 176r (Plate XX) and Princeton, Garrett 3, fol. 128v (Plate 30). 122 Princeton, Garrett 3, fol. 183v (Plate 31): the text for the Parable of the Rich Man and Eternal Life. 123 Michelle P. Brown and Patricia Lovett, The Historical Source Book for Scribes (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), p. 14.

82

between constantinople and rome

Paris 54’s text. This is true for Paris 54’s Entry into Jerusalem (fol. 328r) and the Doubting of Thomas (fol. 357v)—both uninitiated miniatures in Paris 54. Evidence exists for crosses in Princeton Garrett 3 for as many as 47 out of 51 miniatures that were supposed to be included in Paris 54’s text (see Table 4.11). Table 4.11

Red crosses in Garrett 3

Extant red crosses Erased red crosses Possible erasures No evidence of cross or erasure Total

19 23 5 4 51

Conclusion The lack of an intimate connection between Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Greek texts will be less surprising when seen in the larger context of a more traditional art historical analysis of the two manuscripts. In Chapter 6, it will be shown that Iviron 5 served as a significant point of departure for the head scribe and artists of Paris 54. However, Paris 54 was intended to be a more deluxe rendition of the Gospels, grander in scale and more ambitious in virtually every respect than Iviron 5 itself. While there are significant common elements to the evangelist portraits and narrative cycles of these two manuscripts, the head scribe and artists of Paris 54 were rarely content to copy Iviron 5. We have determined that Paris 54’s Greek text was not copied from Iviron 5; rather, it appears to have been copied from a much older manuscript. Princeton, Garrett 3 may have been nearly 150 years old by the time Paris 54’s head scribe used it as the exemplar for his Greek Gospel text in the early Palaeologan period. In fact, Princeton, Garrett 3 would never have been associated with Paris 54 based on its illustrations, illuminations, or paleography. The relationship between these otherwise very different manuscripts was revealed by the New Testament text critical research of Frederik Wisse and the Alands et al. These ties were affirmed by my observations of a red cross in the great majority of cases in Garrett 3’s text whenever a miniature was intended for inclusion in Paris 54’s text. Thus, while Colwell suggested that there is a high correlation between iconographic, paleographic, and textual relationships, this does not hold true for Paris 54 and Iviron 5. For these two manuscripts, Lowden’s supposition that when there is a copy relationship between the images of two books, their two texts are not likely to be related is more relevant in the case of Paris 54 and Iviron 5. In the next chapter, more traditional art historical methods will be utilized in the identification of the three artistic personalities responsible for the miniatures of Paris 54.

5 The Three Artists Responsible for the Narrative Miniatures and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54

Narrative illustrations in Paris 54 may be categorized under one of three headings: (a) completed miniatures; (b) unfinished miniatures, and (c) uninitiated miniatures.1 Only 22 text miniatures were actually completed out of a total number of 52.2 Five other miniatures remain in varying stages of completion, while 25 remaining miniatures received, at most, only a simple, rectangular red-ink frame. The individual miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle have never been correctly identified.3 The confusion concerning the identity of some of the miniatures is exacerbated by the fact that the narrative cycle was never completed. The correct identification of the narrative cycle is essential in order to assess the relationship between the text miniatures of Paris 54 and Iviron 5. Once the respective scope of the two narrative cycles is known, then we are in a better position to evaluate the goals of Paris 54’s patron. This chapter provides the foundation for some of the important issues to be pursued in subsequent chapters. Here the narrative miniatures will be correctly identified and the three artistic personalities responsible for the figurative illustration of Paris 54 will be characterized. This chapter is devoted to stylistic analysis. 1 An uninitiated miniature is one which was: (a) completed only to the extent that a red frame was placed in the text to reserve space for a miniature, or (b) space was reserved by the scribe, but not even the red frame was executed. 2 It is not clear whether the scribe had planned for a total of 51 or 52 miniatures in Paris 54’s narrative cycle. For further information, see Chapter 3 above, n. 28. 3 Only one scholar attempted to list all of the miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle. Henri Omont was the first to publish all of its narrative miniatures in Miniatures, pp. 47ff. Omont overlooked one uninitiated miniature on fol. 191v in the Gospel of Luke. See ibid., pp. 45–6. Bordier, Descriptions des peintures, p. 227, listed the correct number of miniatures in Luke: ten uninitiated, five finished, and five incomplete. A partial list of the narrative cycle was published in Byzance et la France médiévale (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1958), pp. 45–6. A 1926 exhibit at the Bibliothèque Nationale stated that there were only 50 narrative miniatures in Paris 54’s text. See Bibliothèque Nationale: Catalogue des manuscrits—estampes, médailles et objets d’art imprimés exposés du 28 Janvier au 28 Février 1926 (Paris: Éditions de la Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1926), p. 19, no. 17.

84

between constantinople and rome

Identification of Narrative Miniatures The identification of the illustrations within the text of Matthew is straightforward since all illustrations are complete (see Table 5.1). There is little room for debate in the identification of the completed miniatures of Paris 54,4 but the uninitiated miniatures have been the object of some speculation. The first controversial identification is on fol. 167v in Mark. It is an uninitiated miniature which, according to Omont, was intended to illustrate Christ before Pilate. Omont also indicates that the miniature was placed near Mk. 15:13.5 In fact, the space reserved for the miniature follows Mk. 15:15. Mark 15:1– 15 does indeed describe the encounter between Jesus and Pilate. However, Mk. 15:16–19 describes the mocking of Jesus by the soldiers of Pilate. If the uninitiated scene in Paris 54 was intended to illustrate Christ before Pilate, then the space reserved for the miniature would more likely have been located at the beginning of Mk. 15 or shortly thereafter. In Paris 54 and other Byzantine illustrated Gospels, miniatures usually precede directly their respective texts.6 Thus, it seems more likely that the “reserved space” here would have depicted the Mocking of Christ. Table 5.1

Identification of Paris 54’s miniature cycle Omont1

10v 13v 32v 35v 55r 80r 91r 96v 99r 101r 102r

Maxwell

Gospel of Matthew Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew Nativity Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs Woman with the Issue of Blood Miracle of Loaves Marriage Feast of the King’s Son Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins Last Supper Betrayal Denial of Peter Remorse of Peter

4 However, N. Kondakoff, Histoire de l’art byzantin, transl. M. Trawinski with a preface by M.A. Springer (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970, originally published 1886), vol. 2, p. 146 and n. 1, misidentified the Parable of the Wedding Feast as the Parable of the Weeds and Wheat. 5 Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 2. 6 The only major exception to this practice in Paris 54 is the illustration of the Anastasis (fol. 280r) which follows the passage (Jn. 1:1–17) with which it is associated and which is read on Easter Sunday. For more bibliography on the exceptional circumstances of the Anastasis, see n. 14 below. In both St. Petersburg 105 and Chicago 965 (Rockefeller McCormick New Testament), miniatures always precede the text which they illustrate. Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. I, p. 8, noted that this “rule” was broken only once in St. Petersburg 105. Willoughby, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. II, p. 54, concludes that this practice emphasized the principle “that the icon, equally with the text, was the bearer of the sacred word.” See also ibid., p. 76, where he writes: “They both gave co-ordinate and equally valid accounts of sacred history.”

the three artists responsible for paris 54

107r 108r 111r 114v 115v 124v 125v 142r2 162v2 166r2 167v2 168v2 173r 176r 177v3 182r3 186v 191v2 193v 201r 203v3 207r3 213r 233v3 235v2 241v2 247r2 247v2 248v2 255r2 258v2 269v2 276v2 278v 280r2 283v2 289r 294r2 315r2 322r2 328r2 332v2 356r2 357v2 359v2

Descent from the Cross Marys at the Sepulcher Gospel of Mark Portrait of the Evangelist Mark Peter’s Mother-in-Law Cure of the Leper Christ Stilling the Water Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac Cure of the Dumb Spirit Gethsemane Denial of Peter Jesus Before Pilate Crucifixion Gospel of Luke Portrait of the Evangelist Luke Annunciation Visitation Presentation Baptism of Christ Miraculous Draught of Fishes Cure of the Paralytic Son of Widow of Naim Anointing of Christ’s Feet Christ Asleep in the Boat Transfiguration Cure of the Man with Dropsy Meal of the Rich Man Economy of the Rich Man The Unfair Judge Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector Parable of the Rich Man and Eternal Life Parable of the Master of the Vineyard The Widow’s Mite Simon Carries the Cross Ascension Gospel of John Portrait of the Evangelist John Baptism of Christ Wedding at Cana Samaritan Woman at the Well Cure at the Pool Cure of the Man Born Blind Raising of Lazarus Entry into Jerusalem Washing of the Feet Marys at the Sepulcher Doubting of Thomas Appearance to Disciples

Mocking of Christ

Rich man and Lazarus Scribal error?

Anastasis

Noli Me Tangere

85

86

between constantinople and rome

Notes: 1 Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, notes 2–4. 2 Uninitiated miniature. 3 Incomplete miniature.

On fol. 241v of Luke, Omont identifies an uninitiated miniature as the Economy of the Rich Man and cites Lk. 16:1.7 However, the space reserved for the miniature immediately precedes Lk. 16:19, where the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus begins. This coincides with the location of the miniature illustrating the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Iviron 5 (fol. 309v).8 The parable of the Economy of the Rich Man is not illustrated in Iviron 5. Thus, it is likely that the empty space in Paris 54 at this juncture was intended to depict the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Omont identifies the next uninitiated miniature on fol. 247r as the Parable of the Unfair Judge and cites Lk. 18:2.9 The space reserved on fol. 247r actually precedes Lk. 18:12, which falls in the middle of the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Lk. 18:10–14). Thus, this space was intended to illustrate the latter parable and not that of the Unfair Judge (Lk. 18:1–8). This “space reserved” occurs at the very bottom of fol. 247r (Plate 13). The most elusive identification occurs at the very top of the following folio (247v), where space has also been reserved for a miniature (Plate 14). Omont identifies this uninitiated miniature as that of the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector.10 This amounts to two uninitiated miniatures in a row— both of which precede Lk. 18:12. The possibility of a scribal error should be considered here, as it is difficult to imagine that two miniatures would be devoted to the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. Moreover, the dimensions of the first “empty” frame on fol. 247r are 5.6 × 16.9 cm, while the following frame on fol. 247v measures 7.8 × 17.2 cm. The height of the first miniature is considerably less than the average miniature height in Paris 54 of 8.2 cm. The scribe may have felt that this would be insufficient and therefore made the second frame on the next page.11 7 Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 3. This parable begins with Lk. 16:1 and concludes with Lk. 16:8. 8 Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, fig. 29, where it is entitled the Parable of the Great Supper. 9 Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 3. 10 Ibid. 11 Another possibility is that the first uninitiated miniature was intended only as a convenient stopping point in the text and the miniature was intended to be located on the next page. The scribe may have been distracted and placed a frame at the bottom of fol. 247r accidentally. Other examples of a significant blank space before a folio beginning with a miniature are found on earlier folios (for example, fol. 54v, before the Miracle of the Loaves at the top of fol. 55r; fol. 79v, before the Parable of the Wedding Feast on fol. 80r, and fol. 96, before the Last Supper at the top of fol. 96v, as well as on the subsequent folio, 248r). Note that the possibility of a scribal error also affects the total number of miniatures in the cycle—51 or 52?

the three artists responsible for paris 54

87

The first miniature of John’s text was never begun, and has been identified by Omont as the Baptism of Christ.12 The “empty” frame is associated with Jn. 1:15 by Omont, but actually falls before Jn. 1:18. A miniature of the Anastasis in Iviron 5 occupies precisely this location13 and, on this basis, I propose that the uninitiated miniature in Paris 54 would also have featured an illustration of the Anastasis.14 Furthermore, a completed miniature of the Baptism of Christ is found in the Gospel of Mark on fol. 186v. The final problematic identification for an uninitiated miniature is found on fol. 356. According to Omont, this illustration is identified as The Holy Women at the Sepulcher and associated with Jn. 20:14.15 The reserved space does indeed precede this passage, but it is unlikely to have depicted the Holy Women since John’s text specifically indicates that only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb.16 More likely, this miniature illustrated the “Noli Me Tangere” episode between Jesus and Mary Magdalene which is related in Jn. 20:14–17.17 The Appearance of Christ to the Holy Women does appear in both Paris 54 and Iviron 5, but as the title suggests, it accompanies the passage in Matthew which mentions two Marys at the tomb (Mt. 28:1).

Division of Hands Based on stylistic analysis, it appears that three artists executed the narrative miniatures and evangelist portraits of Paris 54.18 Artist A painted the second, 12 Ibid., p. 47, n. 3. Part of the text does describe the Baptism of Christ. 13 Fol. 360r. 14 Jn. 1:1–17 is the lectionary reading for Easter Sunday. In Byzantine lectionary manuscripts the illustration of the Anastasis is always associated with this passage. The Anastasis miniature is actually derived from the Gospel of Nicodemus; see Kurt Weitzmann, “A 10th Century Lectionary: A Lost Masterpiece of the Macedonian Renaissance,” Revue des études sud-est européennes 9 (1971): 617–41, reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels (London: Variorum Reprints, 1980), no. 10, p. 621, and esp. Anna D. Kartsonis, Anastasis: The Making of an Image (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986), passim. 15 Omont, Miniatures, p. 47, n. 4. 16 Jn. 20:1: “Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came to the tomb early, while it was still dark and saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb.” Mary Magdalene’s encounter with two angels at the tomb is described in more detail in Jn. 20:11–13. 17 Jn. 20:14–17: “Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?’ Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, ‘Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.’ Jesus said to her, ‘Mary.’ She turned and said to him in Hebrew, ‘Rab-boni!’ (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her, ‘Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” 18 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” p. 324, implies that Paris 54’s narrative cycle was executed by one artist when he writes: “In this [Paris 54’s]

88

between constantinople and rome

third, and fourth miniatures of Matthew (Plates 3, IV, and V), while Artist B did eight miniatures in Matthew and the four miniatures of Mark (Plates VI– XIII and XV–XVIII). Artist C executed the six completed miniatures of Luke and John in a rather distinctive style (Plates XX–XXIII, XXV, and XXVIII). Table 5.2 displays the breakdown. Table 5.2

Completed miniatures listed by artist in order of appearance in Paris 54

Artist A

Artist B (often assisted by Artist A) Nativity (Mt.) (+ Artist C?)

Artist C

Gadarene Exorcism (Mt.) Hemorrhage (Mt.) Loaves (Mt.) Wedding Feast (Mt.) Virgins (Mt.) Last Supper (Mt.) Betrayal (Mt.) Denial of Peter (Mt.)? Remorse of Peter (Mt.)? Descent from the Cross (Mt.) Marys at the Sepulcher (Mt.) Peter’s Mother-in-law (Mk.) Leper (Mk.) Christ Stilling the Water (Mk.) Gerasene Exorcism (Mk.) Annunciation (Lk.) Baptism (Lk.) Paralytic (Lk.) Widow/Naim (Lk.) Transfiguration (Lk.) Samaritan Woman (Jn.)

Artist A Gadarene Demoniacs, Woman with the Hemorrhage, and the Miracle of the Loaves Artist A’s production is limited to the following scenes in Matthew: the Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs, the Cure of the Woman with the Hemorrhage, and the Miracle of the Loaves (Plates 3, IV, and V). These three miniatures are distinguished from others in the cycle by the threeleaf ornament which embellishes the corners of their red frames.19 Two of narrative cycle, the inferiority of the illustrator of the Paris Gospels is even more apparent.” On a more positive note, Lowden in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 277, notes that the artist who executed the portrait of the Evangelist Mark is “clearly the same hand as the one that supplied the Gospel images ….” 19 A number of Iviron 5’s miniatures contain similar embellishments on the

the three artists responsible for paris 54

89

these miniatures, the Hemorrhage and the Miracle of the Loaves, also have distinctive halos for Christ. In both, the halo is inscribed with a red cross ornamented by four white dots.20 The most singular characteristic of this artist’s style is the handling of his figures’ faces. They tend to be narrow with high foreheads and smallish features. Most are depicted in three-quarter views, but an exceptional few feature the typical Byzantine craggy profiles.21 Artist A’s faces also feature an extraordinary coloration with flesh tones that are lighter and more impressionistically handled than many of their counterparts in the manuscript. The brush work is painterly at its best, but in other instances is better described as thick and pasty. A green shadow demarcates the perimeter of most faces. The features are placed on a smallish, oval-shaped, white base and the cheeks are highlighted with rose. The restriction of the features to a relatively limited area of the face often results in a two-dimensional effect. Of the three miniatures attributed to Artist A, the scenes of the Exorcism and the Hemorrhage are the closest stylistically (and iconographically) to each other (Plates 3 and IV); the similarity of the palettes is especially striking and they must have been executed at the same session. Color comparisons between the left half of the Exorcism and the right side of the Hemorrhage indicate that the facial types for Christ and Peter, the garment colors, and the landscape background are virtually identical. Drapery folds are crisply organized by white highlights and enlivened with many diagonals. This artist’s figural style features thick-set torsos, with extremities that are frequently attenuated. This is confirmed by his nude demoniacs in the Exorcism. The transitional areas between limbs and torso are often awkward, as can be seen in the upper arm area of the demoniacs. Some of his figures stand out as particularly Palaeologan in their distortions; the bizarre pose of the second man from the left in the scene of the Hemorrhage serves as an example. A significant change in the scale of the figures of the Loaves miniature at first suggested that this was the work of another hand (Plate V). Even the major figures here are less than half the size of those in the two preceding miniatures. The change in the color blue (and the lack of highlights in the folds of these blue garments) also seemed to indicate a change of hand. None the less, this miniature is probably best ascribed to Artist A. The distinctive green contour around the faces and the drapery style are characteristic of his work.22 There are also numerous color parallels. The mauve himations in the Loaves miniature are just slightly darker than that of the apostle on the right in corners of their miniatures’ frames. See Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, figs. 11, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 25. 20 Christ’s halo in the Exorcism is identical to that in Iviron 5; the halo is inscribed with a red cross, but is itself not outlined in red. 21 However, in those profiles of the scene of the Hemorrhage the artist is following the precedent established in Iviron 5’s miniature. 22 Compare the shell-like drapery configuration of Christ in the Exorcism to that of the apostle on the far right in the middle register of the Loaves miniature.

90

between constantinople and rome

the Hemorrhage. Similarly, the olive-green himations with yellow highlights are identical to the cape of the man with the blue hood in the Hemorrhage. The latter’s red-orange garment also has many parallels in the drapery of the Loaves’ figures. Smaller details such as the dotted nimbus of Christ and the squiggly frame ornament of the Loaves miniature support this attribution.

Artist B Marriage Feast of the King’s Son Six of the nine miniatures from Matthew23 and all four completed miniatures in Mark are primarily the work of Artist B. His hand is first detected in the Parable of the Wedding Feast of the King’s Son (Plate VI), where his distinctive figure of Christ is first encountered. Christ has stringy, light-brown hair with dark-brown lines delineating the hairline and modeling the hairstyle. Short, choppy, brown strokes describe his beard. Christ’s complexion is much tawnier than that of the figures by Artist A and his features are larger and more logically placed. A dark brown, triangular-shaped shadow juxtaposed with a strong white highlight on the outer lower corner of the eye is a hallmark of the artist. Ample blotches of white and red highlight the face. The nose is almost always defined by a long streak of white paint. Christ’s halo consists of an inscribed red cross with narrow cross-arms.24 Artist B’s figures are bulkier in proportion and his heads more threedimensionally conceived than those of Artist A. Artist B’s approach to drapery is also somewhat different. On the one hand, his garments seem softer, more malleable, and more indicative of the position of the limbs beneath. On the other hand, Artist B seems more dependent on black lines as opposed to white or colored highlights to model his folds. Compare, for example, the drapery of Christ and the seated figures in the scene of the Wedding Feast to garments in the three miniatures ascribed to Artist A. A revealing contrast is seen in the dark, muddy lines of the green cape of the man in the Wedding Feast compared to the green cape in the Hemorrhage (Plates VI and IV). The Wise and Foolish Virgins, The Last Supper and the Betrayal Artist B’s Christ type persists in spite of changes in drapery color or the addition of details, such as the clavus on Christ’s robe. An examination of the figures of Christ in the next three miniatures—the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Last Supper, and the Betrayal—confirms this (Plates VII, VIII, and IX). These three miniatures differentiate themselves from all others 23 The attribution of the scenes of the Denial of Peter and Peter’s Remorse in Matthew will be discussed below. 24 In the scenes of the Last Supper, the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, and the Betrayal, the inscribed cross is outlined in black ink.

the three artists responsible for paris 54

91

in the manuscript by the black cross inscribed on Christ’s nimbus. However, the facial features of all three Christ figures are similar, with their dark complexions and distinctive shadowing, and all can be attributed to Artist B. The color schemes for Christ’s garments in these miniatures are not identical, however. In the Parable of the Virgins and in the Betrayal, Christ wears a mauve undergarment,25 which is similar to the color of Christ’s bed ruffle in the Last Supper. The blues of the himations of Christ in the same two miniatures, the Parable of the Virgins and the Betrayal, differ. In the Betrayal, the blue is identical to that used for Christ’s garment in the Last Supper, while that in the Parable of the Virgins has more in common with the Loaves miniature, but with many more white highlights. An analysis of the subsidiary figures in Artist B’s compositions is not nearly so straightforward. In the Parable of the Virgins, one can immediately recognize the hand of Artist B in his characterization of Christ and in the tawny complexions of all the females. However, in other miniatures the apostles often bear a disarming similarity to those of Artist A. The apostles of the Last Supper, for example, have colorful faces with fairly subtle highlights which seem to have more in common with Artist A. And in the Betrayal, the facial features of many individuals in the crowd are reminiscent of Artist A, but their coloration recalls Artist B. This is demonstrated by a comparison of Peter on the right side of the Betrayal and Peter of the Last Supper (Plates IX and VIII). They seem to be by the same hand, yet I have just argued in favor of attributing these figures to two different artists! Sometimes it seems as if the only difference between the subsidiary figures of Artists A and B is whether or not certain types of highlights were added as final touches—their presence or absence creating the impression that two different hands are at work in the miniatures I have assigned to Artist B (see Table 5.2). The Descent from the Cross and the Holy Women at the Sepulcher The color scheme of the Descent is quite subdued, and in this sense compares well to that of the Betrayal (Plates XII and IX). The loincloth of Christ is similar to the himations of Judas and Peter in the Betrayal. The brown himation of John in the Descent is identical to that of the figure on the far left in the Betrayal. Artist B’s handling of Christ’s semi-nude body here is distinctive in its use of white highlights and must be contrasted with Artist A’s more subtle modulation of the flesh tones of the demoniacs in the Matthew Exorcism. The same hand painted the scene of the Holy Women at the Sepulcher (Plate XIII), as can be seen when one compares these holy women to those in the Descent from the Cross. In addition, the mauve and brown wall recalls the 25 These are the only two miniatures in Matthew containing Christ which do not appear in Iviron 5. This distinctive color scheme for Christ’s garment suggests that the same model may have been consulted for both miniatures. See also the discussion of these miniatures in Chapter 6 below, where the successful adaptation of the Wise and Foolish Virgins to Paris 54’s format is noted in contrast to that of the Betrayal.

92

between constantinople and rome

architecture on the left side of the Descent from the Cross. This mauve is the same hue discussed earlier in connection with Christ’s chiton in the Virgins and the Betrayal.26 Moreover, the angel who greets the women at the tomb is entirely compatible with those seen in the Parable of the Wedding Feast. They must be by the same hand. Mother-in-law of Peter and the Healing of the Leper The colorful palette of these first two miniatures of Mark at first seemed to indicate the hand of another artist (Plates XV and XVI). The face of Christ is, however, the same type as that ascribed to Artist B and the apostles of both miniatures compare well with the seated men of the Wedding Feast (Plate VI). The apostle groups on the left sides of Peter’s Mother-in-law and the Leper are quite comparable and appear to be the work of Artist B, but the garments of the figures differ. In the scene of Peter’s Mother-in-law, the drapery folds are defined by many white highlights in a manner reminiscent of Artist A. In the Leper, the garments—especially the green himations—are more clumsily rendered, with fewer highlights and a greater dependence on black lines. Satisfactory explanations for these deviations may never be found.27 It is important, therefore, to maintain some flexibility regarding the attribution of these miniatures exclusively to Artist B. He must have been assisted frequently by Artist A. The colors of the garments in these scenes of Peter’s Mother-in-law and the Leper are very comparable to those of the Wedding Feast, the first miniature attributed to Artist B (Plate VI). The blue of Christ’s robe is similar to the chiton of the angels in the Wedding Feast, and the pink undergarment of the central apostle on the left in the scene of the Leper is the same as the himation of those angels. The red-orange of the mother-in-law’s skirt is also akin to that of the cape of the seated man in the Wedding Feast. The bright blue garments of Christ and the distinctive shade of pink in the mother’s-in-law bed ruffle and her female assistant’s shawl as well as in the two garments of the bystanders on the right side of the Leper indicate that the Leper and the Mother-in-law were probably painted synchronously.28 These two miniatures reveal connections with the Wise and Foolish Virgins, a miniature in Matthew also executed by Artist B. The distinctive turquoise ground in the scene of the Leper finds direct parallel in that of the Parable of the Virgins, as does the olive-green background architecture. Another color which links all three miniatures—Leper, Mother-in-law and 26 Artist B also often uses distinctive, triangular-shaped shadows which are seen in the architectural backdrops of his scenes. Examples are found in the scenes of the Marys at the Sepulcher, the Descent from the Cross, the Last Supper, and the Denial of Peter (Plates XIII, XII, VIII, and X). 27 The drapery folds in the scenes of the Denial and Remorse of Peter and Christ Stilling the Water are also more akin to those of Artist A (Plates X, XI, and XVII). 28 Peter’s Mother-in-law and the Leper are the only two miniatures of quire 11.

the three artists responsible for paris 54

93

Virgins—is the pinkish-mauve drapery which is also seen in some of the garments of the Virgins. Christ Stilling the Water and the Gerasene Demoniac The last two scenes of Mark, Christ Stilling the Water and the Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac are also by Artist B (Plates XVII and XVIII). Both miniatures display his characteristic types for Christ and the apostles, the apostle on the right comparing especially well to the seated, balding figure in the Wedding Feast (Plate VI). That these last two miniatures in Mark were painted at the same or successive sessions is indicated by the identical colors of Christ’s robes.29 The golden tone of the garments of the apostles in the boat matches that of the loincloth on the demoniac. Color parallels with the Wedding Feast can also be noted here. The garments of the bystanders in Mark’s Exorcism are very similar to those found in the Wedding Feast. Artist B’s Exorcism must be examined in relation to the Exorcism in Matthew which we have attributed to Artist A. While the settings of the two scenes are comparable, the figures are not. The greatest contrast is seen in the handling of the exposed flesh and in the facial types for the two figures of Christ. Artist A’s demoniacs are awkwardly proportioned and rather crudely outlined in dark brown paint. His knowledge of anatomy is so weak that it is difficult to appreciate the relatively subtle modulations of the flesh tones. In Mark’s Exorcism by Artist B, one notes a better grasp of the basic anatomy and a real interest in distinguishing between the chest, diaphragm and abdomen. Artist B’s flesh tone is characteristically darker as is his somewhat heavy-handed use of white highlights. This trend was already noted in our discussion of his Christ in the Descent from the Cross (Plate XII). The apostle groups on the left in both Exorcisms are typical products of their respective artists. The facial features of Artist A’s Gadarene demoniacs are small and impressionistically handled. In Artist B’s Gerasene demoniac we see larger, more assertive features, the distinctive treatment of the eye area, and the less subtle highlights. However, the handling of the background architecture and landscape, and even the garments, is so similar that perhaps one must assume the presence of one hand in both of these aspects. But one can contrast the styles of the small black swine of each scene; those of Artist A were treated more sketchily than the solid figures of Artist B. The Nativity The attribution of the Nativity (Plate III) continues to present problems, but perhaps is best seen as primarily the work of Artist B. It first appeared that at least some of the faces, particularly those of Joseph and the Magi, might have 29 These are the only two miniatures of quire 12.

94

between constantinople and rome

been by Artist A.30 Many of the other faces, however, are multi-chromatic, but less subtle in the use of shadow and highlights.31 A comparison of the angels’ faces with those in the Parable of the Wedding Feast (Plate VI) indicates that Artist B probably executed them. Likewise, a comparison of Mary’s features in the Nativity and the Descent from the Cross (Plate XII) also supports an extensive role by Artist B in the Nativity. Indeed, the blue garments of the maidservant, Mary, and one of the Magi appear to be identical to Christ’s garment in the Wedding Feast. The angels’ wings in both miniatures are comparable and the blue and brown of the angels’ garments in the Nativity are the same colors used for the undesirable guest’s hair shirt in the Wedding Feast. In addition, the drapery folds in many figures of the Nativity are less crystalline and incorporate fewer white highlights than those of Artist A. Further complicating the matter, one must also point out that the landscape setting is sophisticated enough in its conception to be the product of Artist C.32 Finally, the green ground is very close to those seen in the Wedding Feast, Betrayal, Descent from the Cross, and the Holy Women at the Tomb—all miniatures attributed to Artist B (Plates VI, IX, XII, and XIII). The Denial and the Remorse of Peter The identical style and color scheme of these two miniatures (Plates X and XI) suggest that they were produced by one artist and probably at the same session.33 The monumental proportions of Peter seem more skillful than anything one could ascribe to either Artist A or B. However, these two scenes, requiring only one or two figures, provide a rare opportunity for the artist to work on a larger scale. The seated figure of Peter in the Denial is, for example, the same height as the standing figures of Christ in the rest of the manuscript. Peter’s facial features in these two miniatures are not easily attributed to either artist. The whiter complexion recalls Artist A, but the confident handling of the large, colorful features seems closer to Artist B.34 A comparison of the young boy in the Denial with the shepherd in the Nativity (Plate III) also supports an attribution to Artist B. The background architecture compares best to that of Artist B in the Healing of the Mother-in-law of Peter (Plate XV).

30 Compare the Magus on the right to the second apostle from the left in the Exorcism of Matthew. 31 Note, however, that the brown used for Mary’s cape and the interior of the cave appears to have been smudged at one point. This has damaged both Mary’s face and that of the child in the manger. 32 See further the Transfiguration or the Samaritan Woman at the Well (Plates XXV and XXVIII). In the Nativity, however, the distinctive fissures and weeds of Artist C’s terrain are not seen (Plate III). 33 These are the first two miniatures of quire 10. 34 The features of Peter are not really very comparable to any of those in the text miniatures of the manuscript. The use of red highlights on the faces is most similar, in fact, to those of the evangelist portraits.

the three artists responsible for paris 54

95

Peter’s himation in the latter scene also provides the closest color parallel for the same item in the Denial and Remorse scenes. The Denial of Peter (fol. 101r) is located on the same bifolio as the Holy Women at the Tomb (fol. 108r/Plate XIII), and the Remorse (fol. 102r) is on the same bifolio as the Descent from the Cross (fol. 107r/Plate XII), yet the color of the miniatures on each respective bifolio suggests that they were not executed at the same time. As noted above, both the Denial and Remorse, and the Marys at the Sepulcher and the Descent from the Cross, are closer to each other than to those miniatures which share the same bifolio. This is consistent with the conclusions derived from a study of the unfinished and finished miniatures of Luke which also indicated that the artist did not work on miniatures located on the same bifolio concurrently.35

Artist C This individual executed all five completed miniatures of Luke and the only completed miniature in John (Plates XX–XXXIII, XXV, and XXVIII). Artist C’s miniatures reveal a new spirit independent of either Artist A or B.36 He is more responsive to contemporary iconographic and stylistic trends. Artist C’s architectural backdrops are more dynamic and three-dimensional in conception,37 challenging the two-dimensional surface of the picture plane with their varied designs and oblique angles. They contrast significantly with those in Matthew’s and Mark’s miniatures, which are generally placed parallel to the picture plane.38 Artist C’s Annunciation (Plate XX), Cure of the Paralytic (Plate XXII), and Cure of the Son of the Widow of Naim (Plate XXIII) demonstrate how colorful and unusual architectural configurations result in more stimulating compositions. Artist C also provides the viewer with a completely different perspective on the scene in these three miniatures. We view the action from a higher vantage point. This increases the three-dimensional aspects of the scene and breaks up the predictable, relief-like layering of figures and architecture in parallel planes which was frequently encountered in compositions by Artists A 35 See Chapter 3 above. 36 For parallels in the characterization of artists responsible for a long miniature cycle in the Armenian realm, see Chapter 6 below, n. 82. 37 The Palaeologan interest in dynamic architectural backdrops has been noted by Tania Velmans, “Le role du décor architectural et la representation de l’espace dans la peinture des Paléologues,” Cahiers Archéologiques 14 (1964): 183–216. See also Robert S. Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117 and the Beginnings of Palaeologan Illumination,” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 37 (1984): 1–21, esp. p. 16. 38 None of the architectural backdrops in Artist C’s work have the triangularshaped shadows characteristic of Artist B’s architecture. Other differences between Artist C’s and Artist B’s work include the slightly different design of the roof tiles by Artist C. Compare the Annunciation or the Paralytic to those seen in the Denial of Peter or the Cure of Peter’s Mother-in-law. In addition, the surfaces of Artist C’s architecture feature exuberant decorative motifs which are not characteristic of Artist B.

96

between constantinople and rome

and B. Artist C also uses foreshortening to increase visual credibility, as in the tomb of the son of the widow of Naim (Plate XXIII), the thrones of the Pharisees in the Cure of the Paralytic (Plate XXII), and the well in Christ and the Samaritan Woman (Plate XXVIII). Whether Artist C is designing landscape formations (Baptism, Transfiguration, and Samaritan Woman (Plates XXI, XXV, and XXVIII) or architecture (the Annunciation, Paralytic, and the Widow of Naim (Plates XX, XXII, and XXIII), he displays admirable versatility in creating dramatic effects with form, light, and color. His landscape settings feature the most successful designs of the whole cycle. Preeminent among them is that found in the Transfiguration, where hillocks are alternatingly illuminated by cool bluegreens or warm tones of orange. In the Baptism, the gray-brown landscape is rejuvenated by distinctive blue and red highlights. All three landscapes are also distinguished as the work of Artist C by his unique inclusion of weeds and hairline fractures to enliven his surfaces. These must be contrasted with the more conventional landscape backdrops of Artist A in the Exorcism and Hemorrhage scenes in Matthew (Plates 3 and IV). His most distinctive stylistic trait, however, is seen in the handling of his figures’ faces. Their complexions are almost as tawny as Artist B’s, but the coloration is executed with all of the subtlety of Artist A. The eyes tend to be small and the irises are marked by the smallest black dots, leaving a comparatively large area devoted to the white of the eye. Neither heavy white highlights nor dark brown shadows are used by Artist C.39 The overall impression is one of more delicate brush work, both in the modeling of the features and the hair. This artist has a distinctive approach to hair and displays greater variety in the type of hairstyles he will incorporate in a miniature. In many instances he creates an almost “bouffant” style which is much more voluminous than the weighty, dripping locks of the figures of Artist A or B. The center and right apostles of the Transfiguration, for example, both have hair which is brushed high up off their foreheads. The energetic poses of Artist C’s figures demonstrate his sensitivity to Palaeologan stylistic developments. Gestures are frequently overstated and often border on the melodramatic in an effort to incorporate these trends. Witness the almost dance-like stances of the angels of the Baptism; they and the Baptist create a lively impression as they seem to bend too dramatically at the waist. The apostles of the Transfiguration also adopt the new and peculiarly Palaeologan dynamic poses in their transfixed state.40 Even the energy infused in Mary’s response to Gabriel in the Annunciation must be seen as a result of this influence.41 39 One important exception must be noted to this general trend. In the Paralytic, several of the figures have unsubtle white lines used to highlight their flesh. 40 Viktor Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1967), p. 276. 41 The close relationship between this miniature and a contemporary icon in the Victoria and Albert Museum has already been noted by Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, pp. 12–13.

the three artists responsible for paris 54

97

The garments of Artist C’s figures are consistently rendered, both in terms of color and in the treatment of folds. The slate-blue garments of Christ and others are seen throughout these six miniatures. Artist C prefers white highlights to define his folds, but usually the effect is not quite so crystalline as is Artist A’s. Artist C is the only one to incorporate changeant colors into his garments. This is best seen in the himation of the central apostle in the Transfiguration and with very dramatic effect on the drapery of the left leg of Peter in the same scene. In two scenes, the Paralytic and the Samaritan Woman, Christ is shown in a distinctive brown chiton with blue highlights and a red clavus. His nimbus is also different from those of the preceding miniatures of Matthew and Mark. Here the inscribed red cross has much thicker cross-arms than that of Artist B.42 Finally, the five incomplete miniatures in Paris 54 are all located in Luke and are likely to be the work of Artist C (Plates XXIV and 9–11). These unfinished miniatures feature under drawings that are executed in different colors than those visible in flaked miniatures attributed to Artists A and B. Artist C is the most forward-looking of the three personalities involved in the production of Paris 54’s miniatures. His distinctive personality is also affirmed in the iconography of his miniatures. His independence, his willingness to experiment, and his sensitivity to contemporary iconographic and stylistic trends align him with several other personalities of the period. It is likely that this artist had more recent training and greater exposure to a variety of contemporary sources from different media. In fact, Artist C may well have been trained in a more monumental idiom such as icon or even fresco painting. The Evangelist Portraits The evangelist portraits, located on inserted folios before their respective Gospel texts, comprise a cohesive group. The portraits of Mark and Luke (Plates XIV and XIX) are especially close in their ruddy-colored and powerfully modeled complexions. But, in fact, many of the same colors are found in all four portraits. The chitons of all the evangelists were executed in the same blue, although the use of different colored highlights often modifies the final effect. Rare colors are frequently repeated in other portraits. Thus, the distinctive mauve-colored footstool of Matthew (Plate I) is also used for a portion of Luke’s desk, while the table to the left of Mark is of the same color as the left side of Matthew’s throne. In both, the brown shows less of the mustard shading which permeates the right side of Matthew’s throne. The cabinet to the right of John (Plate XXVI) is precisely the same color as Mark’s throne and uses the same shade of blue for the hardware. 42 One exception is the nimbus of Christ in the Healing of the Paralytic, which has no inscribed cross.

98

between constantinople and rome

The large dimensions of the evangelist portraits dwarf those of the text miniatures. Not surprisingly, the style of the evangelist portraits also exhibits a more monumental mode than the narrative miniatures. This makes it difficult to decide if the same artists were responsible for the portraits. However, the technical compatibility of the evangelist portraits and the text miniatures can be demonstrated through a comparison of their respective palettes. Both the Mark and Luke portraits contain that unforgettable turquoise ground which was already noted in two of the miniatures of the narrative cycle attributed to Artist B.43 It was this color which first suggested that the same workshop (if not the same artist) was responsible for at least some of the narrative miniatures and the evangelist portraits. The miniatures of the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins and the Cure of the Leper (Plates VII and XVI) have the same turquoise ground and furnish other compelling comparisons for the palette of the evangelist portraits. Some of the garments of the Wise and Foolish Virgins have the same shade of red as that used for the pillow upon which the Evangelist Mark is seated, while other drapery is the same shade of tan as his desk furniture. The blue of the evangelist’s garment is also found in this text miniature. Meanwhile, Luke’s blue garment and tan clavus are comparable to those worn by Christ in the scene of the Leper. It is noteworthy, however, that those text miniatures which provide the closest color parallels for the evangelist portraits are not necessarily those which furnish the closest stylistic parallels. We have already noted that the monumental figures of Peter in the scenes of the Denial and Remorse (Plates X and XI) are closer to the evangelist portraits than to any of the other text miniatures. While these two text miniatures do not furnish particularly compelling color comparisons for the portraits, all of the text miniatures mentioned in the foregoing discussion have been attributed to Artist B. These observations demonstrate the technical cohesiveness of Paris 54’s evangelist portraits and narrative cycle. Such correspondences indicate that they are contemporary products produced by the same workshop, and very likely the same artists. The contemporaneity of the text cycle and evangelist portraits will be essential in our efforts to date the manuscript since more dated comparisons are available for the evangelist portraits than for the text cycle. It will be easier to gauge Paris 54’s position within the chronological framework of the Palaeologan period using the stylistic evidence provided by the evangelist portraits than it would be using the narrative cycle. There is, in fact, no securely dated narrative cycle in Byzantine illuminated manuscripts from 1260 to 1310.44 But several dated manuscripts with evangelist portraits of 43 The same turquoise is found in John’s ornamental frame. This color may well have been inspired by the turquoise color found in middle Byzantine enamels such as the Limburg Staurotheke. 44 There is, however, the Georgian Mokwi Gospels dated to 1300, which has been called an important example of Palaeologan painting. See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 70, and Rudolf Naumann and Hans Belting, Die Euphemia-Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken, Istanbuler Forschungen 25 (Berlin: G. Mann, 1966), p. 168 and n. 190.

the three artists responsible for paris 54

99

the same iconography as some of the evangelists of Paris 54 do exist, and these manuscripts will be examined in our efforts to date the manuscript.45

45 See Chapter 7 below.

6 Imitation and Innovation: A Comparative Study of the Narrative Cycles and Evangelist Portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 51

… in the Early and Late Middle Ages, no illustrator invented unless he had to.2

Illustrated Gospel Books in Byzantium The format of the narrative cycles of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 is very much indebted to illustrated lectionary texts.3 Illustrated lectionaries featured individually framed narrative miniatures inserted throughout their text long before they are found in illustrated Gospel books.4 In fact, only two 1 Portions of the material in this chapter have been presented at the following scholarly conferences: “Observations on the Narrative Cycles of Paris, Bibl. Nat. Gr. 54 and Athos, Iviron 5,” Tenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, University of Cincinnati, November 3, 1984; “Copy vs. Model: Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Gr. 54 and Mt. Athos, Iviron 5,” Medieval Association of the Pacific, Claremont Graduate University, Claremont, California, March 14, 1999; “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Cod. Gr. 54 and Mt. Athos, Iviron, Cod. 5: An Art Historian’s Venture into New Testament Textual Criticism,” Medieval Association of the Pacific, University of San Diego, California, March 22, 2002, and “Innovation in Text and Image in Paris Grec 54: A Response to the Circumstances of its Commission?”, 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London, August 21–6, 2006. 2 Kurt Weitzmann, “The Selection of Texts for Cyclic Illustration in Byzantine Manuscripts,” in Byzantine Books and Bookmen, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1975), p. 79. 3 The impact of the liturgy on the selection of scenes regularly illustrated in Byzantine manuscripts and icons was first explored by Weitzmann, “Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations,” pp. 151–74 and 215–19, and Weitzmann, “Selection of Texts,” pp. 99–100. 4 For the ninth century, we have almost twice as many surviving lectionary texts (118) as we do New Testament texts (66). From the tenth century, approximately the same number of lectionary texts (146) survive as do New Testament manuscripts (141). In the eleventh century, New Testament manuscripts (430) survive in much greater numbers than lectionaries (242); in the twelfth century, there is greater parity (New Testament 555, Lectionary 492). By the thirteenth century, New Testament manuscripts

102 between constantinople and rome

illustrated Greek Gospel books can be dated before the ninth century, and both are fragmentary.5 While illustrations derived from the Gospels are seen in ninth-century manuscripts,6 it is not until the late eleventh-century frieze Gospel manuscripts that we find illustrated narrative cycles in Gospel texts. These densely illustrated manuscripts do not feature framed miniatures, however.7 are clearly in the lead at 547, while lectionaries number 398. The trend is amplified by the fourteenth century (New Testament 511, Lectionary 308). See Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd revised edn., transl. Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids, MI and Leiden: William B. Eerdmans and E.J. Brill, 1989), p. 81 (numbers cited are approximate). The term “New Testament,” as used above, usually refers to manuscripts containing only the Gospels, and almost never to manuscripts containing all of the books of the New Testament. Also, Lowden points out that only a small percentage of lectionaries are illustrated (that is, perhaps not more than about fifty of more than 2,000 extant lectionary manuscripts) and that “certainly, the illustrated lectionary was a posticonoclast invention”; see John Lowden, “Luxury and Liturgy: The Function of Books,” In Church and People in Byzantium, ed. Rosemary Morris, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester, 1986 (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, 1990), pp. 273–5 and 279. An early example of an illustrated lectionary manuscript is St. Petersburg, Public Library, cod. 21. See V.D. Likhachova, Byzantine Miniature, transl. A. Khmelnitsky (Moscow: Iskusstvo Art Publishers, 1977), in which color reproductions of St Petersburg 21 are found opposite the title page and in the vicinity of pp. 5–10 (page numbering is irregular). For a history of the illustrated lectionary in Byzantium, see Mary-Lyon Dolezal, “The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expression of Liturgical Ritual,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1991; Jeffrey C. Anderson, The New York Cruciform Lectionary, College Art Association Monographs on the Fine Arts 48 (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992), chap. 1, and John Lowden, The Jaharis Gospel Lectionary: The Story of a Byzantine Book (New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2009), pp. 15–41. The iconographical impact of illustrated lectionaries upon illustrated Gospel books is also felt in the latter’s frequent incorporation of scenes that do not derive from the canonical Gospels, such as the Anastasis, Pentecost, and the Koimesis. For the origins of the illustration of the Anastasis, see Kartsonis, Anastasis, pp. 29ff. and 168ff. See also Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 263, for the increasing popularity of the Gospel book in the Palaeologan period. 5 The Rossano Gospels and the Sinope Gospels are typically assigned to the sixth century by both art historians and New Testament text critics. Neither manuscript features framed text miniatures. See Herbert L. Kessler, “The Word Made Flesh in Early Decorated Bibles,” in Jeffrey Spier, ed., Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art (Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum, 2007), pp. 141–68, as well as the catalogue entry for the Sinope Gospels on pp. 271–5. 6 For example, the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus; Weitzmann, “Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations,” p. 248 describes such cycles as “polycyclic.” See also Brubaker, Vision and Meaning. 7 Paris, BnF, grec 74 and Florence, Laurentian Library, cod. Plut., VI, 23. The latter includes “290 strip-like compositions” with about “750 iconographical units,” according to Weitzmann, “Selection of Texts,” p. 76, whereas the eleventhcentury lectionary Athos, Dionysiou 587 features numerous framed narrative miniatures throughout its text. For illustrations of Dionysiou 587, see S.M.

imitation and innovation 103

In the twelfth century, framed illustrations of the Gospels appear in a rich variety of configurations.8 Both Carr and Yota have traced the evolution of the framed miniature within the Gospel text.9 Initially, these framed miniatures served “not as narratives within the text, but as frontispieces themselves.”10 Soon, sequences of framed miniatures are found at the beginning of the Gospel text(s), and Carr describes these as more “iconic” in character than narrative.11 In the later twelfth century, 12 Great Feasts icons displayed over seven pages are gathered at the beginning of the text of Istanbul, Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. gr. 3, marking “a convergence of devotional icon and book art.”12 The most important developments with regard to Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s narrative cycle formats are those that occur in manuscripts of the “decorative” style which are dated ca. 1150–1250 by Annemarie Weyl

Pelekanidis, P.C. Christou, C. Tsioumis, and S.N. Kadas, The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. 1: The Monasteries of Iveron, St. Panteleimon, Esphigmenou, and Chilandari (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1973), pp. 162–219 and figs. 189–277. Lowden, The Octateuchs, pp. 82–3, notes the proliferation of long narrative cycles in a variety of texts in the later eleventh century, including the frieze Gospels, lectionaries, Kings, the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, and, of course, the Octateuchs. 8 See Cecilia Meredith, “The Illustration of Codex Ebnerianus: A Study in Liturgical Illustration of the Comnenian Period,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 29 (1966): 419–24; George Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Prefaces in Byzantine Gospels, Byzantina Vindobonensia 11 (Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979), and Nelson, Preface and Miniature. 9 See Annemarie Weyl Carr, “A Group of Provincial Manuscripts from the Twelfth Century,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982): 39–81, esp. pp. 55ff.; Carr, Byzantine Illumination, and Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810.” The evolution of the Byzantine illustrated Gospel book is discussed in Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Reading Styles of Use: The Rockefeller McCormick New Testament and Christian Kalam,” in Donations et donateurs dans le monde byzantin, ed. Jean-Michel Spieser and Elisabeth Yota, Réalités byzantines 14 (Paris: Descleé de Brouwer, 2012), pp. 235–64, esp. pp. 238ff. See also Elisabeth Yota’s article “L’emplacement et l’association semantique des illustrations dans certains tétraévangiles medio-byzantins,” Ikon 1 (2008): 169–78. I thank Annemarie Weyl Carr for alerting me to this article as well. 10 Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” p. 238. 11 Ibid. The best-known example is found in Parma, Palatina, cod. 5, reproduced in I manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma, ed. Paolo Eleuteri (Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1993), cat. no. 5 and pls. I–V. 12 Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” p. 238. For Istanbul, Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. 3 (ca. 1170), see Robert S. Nelson, “Text and Image in a Byzantine Gospel Book in Istanbul (Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. 3),” Ph.D. diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1978. Nelson relates the Istanbul codex to another late twelfth-century illustrated Gospel book with framed miniatures distributed throughout its text: Athens, National Library, cod. 93. For color illustrations, see Anna Marava-Chatzinicolaou and Christina Toufexi-Paschou, Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece, vol. 1: Manuscripts of the New Testament Texts 10th–12th Century (Athens: Publications Bureau of the Academy of Athens, 1978), cat. no. 61, pp. 224–43 and figs. 630–54.

104 between constantinople and rome

Carr.13 The evolution of illustrated Gospel books with individually framed miniatures is especially associated with the later twelfth century by Carr, who notes that such cycles can be traced from the earliest Gospel books of the decorative style, such as Chicago 965,14 Leiden, gron. 137, and especially London, British Library, Harley 1810.15 It is in manuscripts such as these that individually framed illustrations are fully integrated into the Gospel texts.16 Illustrated Gospel books with individually framed narrative scenes are not encountered again until the later thirteenth century in the two manuscripts that are the focus of this chapter.17

13 Carr, Byzantine Illumination, p. 147 and n. 23. John Lowden, in a review of Axinia Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen. Schätze der Buchmalerie vom 4. bis zum 19 Jahrhundert, transl. Peter Schreiner (Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2002), notes that “Dujčev gr. 339 is clearly a member of Carr’s ‘provincial’ [that is, ‘decorative’ style] group of manuscripts of predominately late twelfth to early thirteenth century date, yet it is dated 1285,” and refers the reader to p. 179 and color pl. 77. Lowden’s review is published in the Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004): 354. 14 Two other decorative style manuscripts—St. Petersburg 105 and Athens, Byzantine Museum, cod. 820—are closely related to Chicago 965. See further Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” p. 239. More recently, Carr associated Chicago 965’s illustrative cycle with Christian kalām—that is, the apologetic literature of SyroPalestinian Christians in the face of Islam, particularly regarding Chicago 965’s exceptional emphasis on Christ’s miracles. Twenty-nine of its estimated total of 80 Gospel miniatures were miracle scenes. See ibid., pp. 253ff. 15 For the diverse motivations behind the individually framed miniature format, see Carr, Byzantine Illumination, pp. 58ff. In 1997, Carr wrote: “the individually-framed format surely answers the desire for devotional icons for personal contemplation.” See Helen C. Evans and William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era: A.D. 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Harry N. Abrams, 1997), p. 382. 16 Thirteenth-century illustrated manuscripts of Job also often have narrative illustrations with red frames. See Paul Huber, Hiob: Dulder oder Rebell? Byzantinische Miniaturen zum Buch Hiob in Patmos, Rom, Venedig, Sinai, Jerusalem und Athos (Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1986), passim. 17 Carr, Byzantine Illumination, pp. 43ff., notes that in the second half of the thirteenth century, 13 full-page Gospel scenes were inserted on separate leaves into the twelfth-century manuscript Malibu, Getty Ludwig II 5. For the same manuscript, see Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 169. Robert Nelson writes: “Illuminated manuscripts of the [early Palaeologan] period characteristically lack narrative illustration, as other media, most notably frescoes and icons, come to be preferred for such subjects.” See R.S. Nelson, “The Manuscripts of Antonios Malakes and the Collecting and Appreciation of Illuminated Books in the Early Palaeologan Period,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986), p. 253.

imitation and innovation 105

Paris 54 and Iviron 5 Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5 have much in common.18 Both are attributed to the second half of the thirteenth century19 and, unlike contemporary Gospel books, they contain extensive narrative cycles. Furthermore, as we shall see below, their four evangelist portraits are almost identical. Paris 54 and Iviron 5 have long been linked in the art historical literature.20 In fact, the two manuscripts are frequently addressed in the same paragraph in surveys of Byzantine art and Paris 54 is invariably described (and occasionally dismissed) as an inferior copy of Iviron 5.21 While Paris 54’s evangelist portraits are copies of those found in Iviron 5 (compare Plates XIV and XXX and Plates XXVI and

18 See Omont, Miniatures, pls. XC–XCVI, which still comprises the only complete publication of Paris 54’s narrative cycle, albeit in black and white. For Iviron 5, see S.M. Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, pp. 34–53 (figs. 11–40) and 296–303. See also the catalogue entry by Sotiris N. Kadas in The Treasures of Mount Athos: Catalogue of the Exhibition, 2nd edn. (Thessaloniki: Ministry of Culture, 1997), cat. no. 5.17, pp. 242–3 (a detail of the Evangelist Mark is published in color on p. 222), and George Galavaris, Holy Monastery of Iveron: Illustrated Manuscripts (Mount Athos, Greece: The Monastery, 2002), pp. 51–61 and 174, n. 74, for bibliography. Additional bibliography on Paris 54 and Iviron 5 is cited in Chapters 1 above and 7 below. See also George Galavaris, Ελληνική Τέχνη: ζωγραφική βυζαντινών χειρογράφων (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1995), where he dates Iviron 5 to “λίγο μετά το 1250.” He reproduces the Evangelist Mark and a number of the narrative miniatures (ibid., fols. 299v, 129v, 222r, and 35r). More recently, Lowden dated Iviron 5 to the last quarter of the thirteenth century in “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” pp. 263f. and fig. 9.4. 19 The relative dates of the two manuscripts are addressed in Chapter 7 below. 20 See the historiographical discussion in Chapter 1 above and Chapters 7 and 9 below. Almost one hundred years ago, Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 9, described Paris 54 and Iviron 5 as “deux répliques d’un même original l’une très developpée, mais exécutée par un malhabile, qui d’ailleurs n’a point terminé sa tâche; l’autre plus sobre, mais achevée et très fine.” While many scholars acknowledge that the “copy” relationship of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 applies only to their evangelist portraits, others seem to be unaware of the significant differences between the two manuscripts. For example, Galavaris, Holy Monastery of Iveron, p. 61, describes Paris 54 as a “direct copy of the Iveron codex” even as he acknowledges the former’s bilingual text. Athanasios Paliouras, Macedonia: Archaeology–Civilisation, 3rd revised edn., vol. B (Athens: Hellenic National Line, 1998), p. 146, describes Paris 54 as having the same content and regarded as a copy of Iviron 5. 21 Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, p. 280, writes: “Evidentemente i due manoscritti si basano sullo stesso prototipo, come dimostra la perfetta corrispondenza dei ritratti degli evangelisti e di alcune scene del Vangelo.” Lazarev concludes his analysis of the two manuscripts on p. 281 with “Tuttavia, mentre, quest’ultimo [Iviron 5] è un’opera della scuola della capitale, il Cod. Paris gr. 54 si pùo considerare solo come un’imitazione provinciale dell’originale metropolitano,” while Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 45, writes: “Iviron 5, the finest member of the group, which has been mentioned before; Paris gr. 54, a calligraphic masterpiece, but whose miniatures are crude, unoriginal and derivative copies of the Iviron Gospels or a closely related manuscript ....”

106 between constantinople and rome

XXXI), there are significant and intriguing differences between virtually every other aspect of the two works. In this chapter, the relationship between these two manuscripts will be clarified. It will be demonstrated that Iviron 5 itself was available to the head scribe (that is, the designer) of Paris 54 and to the two artists responsible for the four full-page evangelist portraits and the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark. It will also become apparent that Iviron 5 was never meant to be anything more than a springboard for Paris 54.22 The marked differences between key aspects of these manuscripts suggest that their intended purposes were very different. Paris 54’s bilingual, polychromatic text, doublecolumn format, and generous dimensions (31.3 × 24 cm) differentiate it from Iviron 5 (compare Plates V and XXIX).23 These deluxe characteristics suggest that a different role was envisioned for Paris 54. Its spectacular, polychromatic Greek and Latin texts indicate that it may have been intended as a diplomatic gift.24 Iviron 5, on the other hand, is a Greek-only Gospel book in a singlecolumn format measuring 22.5 × 17 cm. It is a deluxe manuscript25 by any measure, but its very scale is more private and personal than the ambitious design of Paris 54. In an effort to better understand the relationship between these two manuscripts, I will begin with those aspects that are common to both. How do the artists of Paris 54 respond to Iviron 5? Which aspects do they copy? Alternatively, when do they adapt or reject it? The copy–model relationship of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 should be framed in the larger context of the issue of originality in Byzantine art.26 We will turn first to the evangelist portraits, and then to the illustrations of the narrative cycle. The Evangelist Portraits The evangelist portraits of Paris 54, located on inserted bifolios before their respective Gospel texts, are almost exact copies of those in Iviron 5 (compare Plates XIV and XXX, and Plates XXVI and XXXI).27 For this reason, several 22 For an analysis of Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Greek texts, see Chapter 4 above. 23 Not to mention Paris 54’s differing quire structures and signatures. For a codicological examination of Paris 54, see Chapter 2 above. Moreover, Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s texts have not been assigned to the same subgroup by New Testament text scholars. See Chapter 4 above. 24 For further discussion, see Chapter 8 below. 25 Iviron 5 has been described as “one of the most important manuscripts on Mount Athos.” See Kadas, The Treasures of Mount Athos: Catalogue of the Exhibition, p. 242. 26 For significant differences between the late thirteenth-century Octateuch, Vatopedi 602, and its model, Vatican gr. 746 of the twelfth century, see Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” pp. 115ff. 27 While examining Iviron 5 in Thessaloniki, I was able to compare directly the original manuscript with its color reproductions published by Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, figs. 11–40. I also made direct comparisons between the illustrations of Iviron 5 and the many color positives of Paris 54 I had purchased from

imitation and innovation 107

scholars have proposed a one-to-one copy relationship for the portraits of the two manuscripts.28 Iviron 5’s portraits are generally considered superior in quality to those of Paris 54, thus Iviron 5 is judged to be the earlier and more expertly executed manuscript. In fact, Paris 54’s evangelist portraits do capture, to some extent, the varying range of artistic responses witnessed throughout the miniatures in Paris 54 to those of Iviron 5. Two pairs of portraits from the Paris and Iviron manuscripts will be analyzed to illustrate the qualitative range of responses which can occur in the copy–model relationship. I will look first at the portraits of John, where Paris 54 fares poorly by comparison with his counterpart in Iviron 5. The Paris 54’s John is particularly problematic when compared to his counterpart in Iviron 5 (compare Plates XXVI and XXXI).29 Paris 54’s grander scale has negatively impacted the Paris 54 artist. He has not enlarged his model sufficiently and, as a result, the relationship of Paris 54’s Evangelist John to the furnishings in his setting and to the ornamental frame is awkward. The desk and lectern have been given a disproportionately large role in relationship to the evangelist. Paris 54’s evangelist should have been half a head taller in order to maintain the more balanced ratio of figure/setting seen in Iviron 5’s composition. This is apparent when one compares the relative heights of the seated evangelist in both portraits to that of their lecterns.30 The dominant role given to the desk and lectern in Paris 54 combined with the inordinate expanse of gold background between John’s head and the ornamental frame has considerably diminished the effectiveness of this portrait.31 Moreover, John’s torso is disproportionately long in comparison to his legs, and his feet look atrophied. Finally, this evangelist appears distracted, perhaps even by his evangelist symbol (the eagle) perched on his lectern. This is an isolated appearance; in both Paris 54 and Iviron 5, the evangelist symbol is only included in the portraits of John.32 A more obvious indication of the Paris 54 artist’s difficulties in adjusting Iviron 5’s composition for his enlarged format appears in the treatment of the BnF. This arrangement provided the best possible conditions for a comparison of the illustrations of Paris 54 and Iviron 5, given that the manuscripts are not housed in the same locale. 28 See Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” pp. 323f. Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 47 proposed that the evangelists of Paris 54 may be a direct copy of those in Iviron 5. 29 Iviron 5’s portrait of the Evangelist John is reproduced in color in Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, fig. 33. 30 The disproportionately large scale of the desk and lectern here is also seen in the Matthew and Luke portraits of Paris 54. 31 John’s head is erect compared to that of his counterpart in Iviron 5. Perhaps the Paris 54 artist was trying to compensate for the small scale of his figure with this change. 32 Other than Paris 54 and Iviron 5, I know of no other Byzantine Gospel book whose evangelist portraits include only one evangelist symbol. For a discussion of evangelist symbols in Byzantine art, see Nelson, Preface and Miniature, pp. 15–54 and appendix 1, and Galavaris, Illustrations of the Prefaces. Neither Nelson nor Galavaris include the Paris 54 evangelist in their texts.

108 between constantinople and rome

John’s frame. An extra (and much too small) heart-shaped motif has been squeezed into the upper right-hand corner of the frame in order for Paris 54 to maintain the same number of motifs (nine) along the upper border as Iviron 5. The borders are not exactly the same, however, for in Paris 54 all of these motifs point toward the evangelist and in Iviron 5 only those in the lower border are oriented in this direction; the others all point outwards beyond the frame. Iviron 5 not only displays a more logical relationship between the evangelist and his setting, and between the portrait and the ornamental frame, but its figural proportions are more successful in suggesting threedimensional mass. In Paris 54’s John, there is a tendency, particularly in the modeling of the drapery folds, towards simplification and a linear treatment of the drapery. A comparison of the drapery patterns on the right legs and the backs of both figures of John confirms this. Not only do the folds in Paris 54 lack the subtle variety of Iviron 5, but the use of harsher white highlights in their modeling creates a flatter impression than in Iviron 5. Thus, in Iviron 5 the modeling of the drapery suggests a sense of volume, whereas in Paris 54 a two-dimensional effect is encouraged. As disconcerting as the Paris 54 artist’s efforts can be, especially with regard to the Evangelist John, his dependence upon Iviron 5 itself is supported by this analysis. The desire of Paris 54’s artist to duplicate the same number of heart motifs in the ornamental framework underscores both his familiarity with and dependence upon Iviron 5. The only significant innovation that the Paris 54 artist incorporates is the beautiful turquoise ground, but even this can not compensate for his failure to adjust the scale of his figure for his expansive format. An analysis of the portraits of Mark of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 leads to very different conclusions. In Paris 54’s Evangelist Mark, the artist has successfully emulated his model both in the definition of the figure and in capturing the correct ratio between figure and setting (compare Plates XIV and XXX). Moreover, the substitution of the dynamic turquoise pigment in place of the forest-green ground of Iviron 5 has also been extended to Mark’s ornamental frame, with spectacular impact. For these reasons, it is proposed that the Paris 54 artist in this one instance has surpassed his immediate model.33 The stylistic differences between the evangelist portraits of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 have, in fact, been exaggerated in the scholarly literature. The drapery of Iviron 5’s evangelist portraits is more indicative of the Palaiologan style than is usually recognized. The excessive girth of the Evangelist John in Iviron 5 (Plate XXXI) especially foreshadows the “inflated” Palaiologan figural canon. And, generally speaking, the folds of the evangelists in Iviron 5 are slightly more brittle than their counterparts in the narrative cycle.34 33 The superiority of the Mark portrait in comparison with the other three evangelists of Paris 54 has already been recognized by Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 52. 34 Compare, for example, the drapery of the angel in the scene of the Holy Women at the Sepulcher (Plate 19) with that of the evangelists in Iviron 5 (Plates XXX and XXXI).

imitation and innovation 109

In fact, the style of the evangelist portraits of Iviron 5 more strongly reflects contemporary Palaiologan trends than the more conservative and classicizing style of its narrative miniatures.35 The evidence cited above suggests that Iviron 5 itself was available to the Paris 54 artists responsible for its evangelist portraits. My analysis of the two pairs of evangelist portraits will also prove analogous to the results obtained below in the comparison of the narrative cycles of the two manuscripts. The Paris 54 evangelist portraits vary qualitatively in their response to the models provided by Iviron 5 almost as dramatically as do its narrative miniatures to those of Iviron 5. The Narrative Cycles of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 It is sometimes assumed that the one-to-one copy relationship in evidence between the evangelist portraits of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 extends to their respective narrative cycles as well. In fact, the close parallels that are so apparent in their evangelist portraits are actually exceptional when one considers most other aspects of the two manuscripts. Iviron 5’s narrative cycle,36 although complete, is substantially smaller in overall scope than Paris 54’s, with 29 text miniatures distributed among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John compared to an intended total of 51 in Paris 54.37 35 The stylistic differences between Iviron 5’s evangelist portraits and narrative miniatures may be one factor in the range of dates scholars have assigned to the manuscript. Paliouras, Macedonia, pp. 146–7, also noted differences in the style of Iviron 5’s evangelist portraits versus its narrative cycle. He contrasted the “academic spirit” of the narrative miniatures with the “expressive realism” of the evangelist portraits— which, he says, “occasionally borders deformity”—and this same quality appears in Athens, cod. 118. 36 See Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, figs. 11–40, for color reproductions of 26 of the 29 narrative miniatures of Iviron 5. 37 Iviron 5 contains a depiction of Jesus at the Cross on fol. 214v (at the end of Mark’s text—see Table 6.1 n. 2 below) as well as three miniatures at the end of the manuscript that do not illustrate the Gospel text. They are: Christ with John Chrysostom (fol. 456v), the Virgin and Ioannis (fol. 457r), and the Hospitality of Abraham (fol. 457v). These miniatures appear to be contemporary with its narrative cycle in terms of technique and style. The only exception is that Ioannis’ face and garment may have been repainted at some point. He seems quite different from Mary and from the figure of Christ with John Chrysostom on the opposite folio. The way in which his facial features are described and the general lack of definition within his garment differ significantly from the other figures on these two pages. It is hard to believe that the same artist created Ioannis. The Virgin and Ioannis is reproduced in color in Autochromes du Mont Athos: Photographies en couleurs du Musée Albert Kahn (Athens: Editions Olkos, 1997), p. 189. See Lowden “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 262 and n. 13, where Lowden notes that the misbound opening shows “the donor John … being presented to Christ by the Theotokos and Saint John Chrysostom. The presence of John Chrysostom is seemingly explained by his homonymity with the donor/owner.” A black and white photo of fols. 456v and 457r is included in Cecily Hilsdale, “The Imperial Image at the End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroidered Silk in Genoa and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261),” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64 (2010), p. 186, fig. 25 (where, in the legend for the figure, Iviron 5 is misidentified as Iviron cod. 463), and see ibid., pp. 184–5 and nn. 123 and 124 for further bibliography.

110 between constantinople and rome

Paris 54’s primary scribe reserved some 51 spaces throughout its text for narrative miniatures. However, only 22 of Paris 54’s text miniatures were completed, five remain unfinished, and 24 were never even begun. A comparison of miniatures common to both manuscripts suggests that Iviron 5 itself was available to those artists responsible for the miniatures of Matthew and Mark. A number of avenues will be investigated in an effort to elucidate the relationship between the narrative cycles of the Paris 54 and Iviron 5. A comparison of the overall scope of the narrative cycles will be followed by an investigation of the relative location of miniatures vis-à-vis their respective Gospel text passages. An analysis of representative miniatures common to both cycles will assist in further defining the relationship of the two manuscripts. The later portion of this chapter will address those miniatures that are unique to Paris 54 and how their selection may illuminate the intentions of its patron. Table 6.1 lists the miniatures of Paris 54 and Iviron 5. It is apparent that Iviron 5’s text cycle of 29 miniatures is completely encompassed within the larger cycle of Paris 54.38 Table 6.1 aids in visualizing the relationship of the miniature cycles of both manuscripts and provides the basis for further discussion: Table 6.1

The narrative cycles of Paris 54 and Iviron 5: common miniatures1

Matthew I. Miniatures common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 l. Nativity 2. Exorcism of Gadarene Demoniac 3. Hemorrhage 4. Miracle of the Loaves 5. Wedding Feast of the King’s Son 6. Last Supper 7. Descent from the Cross 8. Marys at the Sepulcher Paris 54 only Iviron 5 only 5a. Wise and Foolish Virgins 6a. Betrayal 6b. Denial of Peter 6c. Remorse of Peter 8a. Noli Me Tangere (see Paris 54, Gospel of John) Mark I. Miniatures common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 1. Peter’s Mother-in-law 2. Leper 3. Exorcism of Gerasene Demoniac 4.* Dumb Spirit 5.* Crucifixion 38 See Chapter 5 above, n. 3, where Henri Omont’s erroneous identification of several of the unexecuted miniatures of Paris 54 obscured the relationship between Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s narrative cycles.

imitation and innovation 111

Paris 54 only 2a. Christ Stilling the Water 4a.* Gethsemane 4b.* Denial of Peter 4c.* Mocking of Christ

Iviron 5 only 0a. Baptism (see Paris 54, Gospel of Luke)

5a. Jesus at the Cross2 Luke I. Miniatures common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 1. Annunciation 2.3 Presentation 3. Baptism (see Iviron 5, Gospel of Mark) 4. Transfiguration 5.3 Dropsy 6.* Rich Man and Lazarus 7.* Widow’s Mite Paris 54 only Iviron 5 only 1a.3 Visitation 3a.* Miraculous Draught of Fishes 3b. Paralytic 3c. Widow of Naim 3d.3 Anointing of Christ 3e.3 Christ Asleep in the Boat 5a.* Meal of the Rich Man 6a.* (Scribal error?) 6b.* Pharisee and the Tax Collector 6c.* Rich Man and Eternal Life 6d.* Master of the Vineyard 7a.* Simon Carries the Cross 7b.* Ascension John I. Miniatures common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 1.* Anastasis 2.* Cana Wedding 3. Samaritan Woman 4.* Cure at the Pool 5.* Cure of the Born Blind 6.* Raising of Lazarus 7.* Entry into Jerusalem 8.* Washing of the Feet Paris 54 only Iviron 5 only 8a.* Christ and the Holy Women (see Iviron 5, Gospel of Matthew) 8b.* Doubting of Thomas 8c.* Appearance to the Disciples Three miniatures now located at the end of Iviron 5: 456v (Christ and John Chrysostom) 457r (Virgin and Ioannis) 457v (Hospitality of Abraham)

112 between constantinople and rome

Notes: * Unexecuted miniature in Paris 54. 1 The late Alfred Büchler of Berkeley, California designed this table for me. 2 Iviron 5’s Jesus at the Cross/Preparation for the Crucifixion, found at the end of Mark’s text, is reproduced and discussed by Anne Derbes and Amy Neff, “Italy, the Mendicant Orders, and the Byzantine Sphere,” in Helen C. Evans, ed., Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557) (New Haven, CT and New York: Yale University Press and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004), pp. 454f. and fig. 14.9, and Anne Derbes, “Images East and West: The Ascent of the Cross,” in The Sacred Image: East and West, ed. Robert Ousterhout and Leslie Brubaker, Illinois Byzantine Studies IV (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1995), pp. 110–31. For additional bibliography, see Mathews and Sanjian, Armenian Gospel Iconography, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 29 (Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks, 1991), p. 131, n. 2. 3 Unfinished miniature in Paris 54.

Each Gospel in Paris 54 includes significantly more miniatures than its counterpart in Iviron 5. The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John contain several more miniatures than the same Gospels in Iviron 5, while Luke contains 13 more miniatures than the same Gospel in Iviron 5. Although Paris 54’s narrative cycle was intended to contain at least 22 more miniatures than Iviron 5, codicological evidence suggests that Iviron 5 itself was consulted in the preparation of Paris 54. In fact, as illustrated in Table 6.2, 27 out of the 29 scenes found in Iviron 5 accompany the same Gospel passage in Paris 54 as that illustrated in Iviron 5. Two others—the Baptism39 and the scene of Christ and the Holy Women—illustrate parallel passages in different Gospels in Paris 54. Table 6.2

The miniatures of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 and their location within their respective texts

Paris 54 (12) 13v Nativity (2:1) 32v Gadarene Exorcism (8:28) 35v Hemorrhage (9:20) 55r Loaves (14:16) 80r Wedding Feast (22:2) 91r Virgins (25:1) 96v Last Supper (26:22) 99r Betrayal (26:47) 101r Denial of Peter (26:69) 102r Peter’s Remorse (26:75) 107r Descent from the Cross (27:59)

Matthew Iviron 5 8v Nativity 35r Gadarene Exorcism 38v Hemorrhage 63v Loaves 94v Wedding Feast

Same text passage Y Y Y Y Y

117r Last Supper

Y

129v Descent from the Cross

Y

39 Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” p. 227, notes that only Berlin q. 66 and Paris 54 illustrate the Baptism in Luke. Most illustrations of the Baptism in Byzantine Gospel books accompany Mark’s text, as is the case with Iviron 5.

imitation and innovation 113

108r Marys at Sepulcher (28:1) (see Gospel of John) Paris 54 (9) (see Gospel of Luke) 14v Peter’s Mother-in-Law (1:30) 115v Leper (1:40) 124v Christ Stilling Water (4:38) 125v Gerasene Exorcism (5:6) 142r* Dumb Spirit (9:19) 162r* Gethsemane (14:35) 166r* Denial of Peter (14:68) 167v* Mocking of Christ (15:16) 168v* Crucifixion (15:26)

Paris 54 (19/20) 176r Annunciation (1:28) 177v Visitation (1:40) 182r Presentation (2:22) 186v Baptism (3:21) 191v* Miraculous Draught of Fishes (5:2) 193v Paralytic (5:21) 201r Widow of Nain (7:14) 203v Anointing of Christ (7:36) 207r Christ Asleep in Boat (8:22) 213r Transfiguration (9:28) 233v Dropsy (14:2) 235v* Meal of Rich Man (14:18) 241v* Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19)

130v Marys at Sepulcher 131v Noli Me Tangere Mark Iviron 5 (6) 138r Baptism 141r Peter’s Mother-in-law 142r Leper

Y

Same text passage Y Y

156r Gerasene Exorcism Y 177v Dumb Spirit Y

209v Crucifixion Y 214v (Jesus at the Cross) Luke Iviron 5 (6) Same text passage 222r Annunciation Y 230r Presentation

Y (see above, Mark)

269v Transfiguration 299v Dropsy (14:5)

Y N

309v Rich Man and Lazarus

Y

247r* (scribal error?) 247v* Pharisee and Tax Collector (18:12) 248v* Rich Man and Eternal Life (18:19) 255r* Master of Vineyard (20:9) 330v Widow’s Mite 258r* Widow’s Mite (21:1) * 269v  Simon Carries Cross (23:26) 276v* Ascension (24:51) John Paris 54 (11) Iviron 5 (8) 360r Anastasis 280r* Anastasis (1:18) 363v Cana Wedding 283v* Cana Wedding (2:2) 289r Samaritan Woman (4:5) 371r Samaritan Woman 377r Cure at Pool 294r* Cure at Pool (5:5) 405v Cure of the Born Blind 315r* Cure of the Born Blind (9:3) 415r Raising of Lazarus 322r* Raising of Lazarus (11:1)

Y

Same text passage Y Y (Y + N) Y Y Y

114 between constantinople and rome

423r Entry to Jerusalem Y 328v* Entry to Jerusalem (12:13) 428v Washing of Feet Y 332v* Washing of Feet (13:5) (see Gospel of Matthew) 356r* Noli Me Tangere (20:13) 357v* Doubting of Thomas (20:26) 359v* Appearance to the Disciples (21:8) 456v [Christ with John Chrysostom] 457r [Virgin and Ioannis] 457v [Hospitality of Abraham] Notes: […] Does not illustrate Gospel text. * Unexecuted miniature in Paris 54.

Paris 54 has a total of 12 illustrations in Matthew’s text compared to nine in Iviron 5.40 Eight of these nine scenes in Iviron 5 were also illustrated in Paris 54’s Matthew text, and all eight miniatures common to both manuscripts appear in both texts at exactly the same juncture. That is, the text is interrupted by the miniature at precisely the same word in both manuscripts. This is remarkable since the two manuscripts themselves feature very different formats. In the Gospel of Mark, Paris 54 has a total of nine miniatures compared with six for the same Gospel in Iviron 5. Of those six miniatures in Iviron 5’s Gospel of Mark, five have immediate parallels with Paris 54 and all five are again located in precisely the same relation to their text as is the case of Paris 54.41 One miniature of Iviron 5, the Baptism, appears in Paris 54 in Luke. Paris 54’s narrative cycle of Luke contains many more illustrations than that of Iviron 5. Paris 54 has a total of 19 miniatures to Iviron 5’s six. Of the six scenes common to both manuscripts, five interrupt the text passage at the same juncture, and one (the Miracle of the Hydroptic [Dropsy]) follows Lk. 14:2 in Paris 54 and Lk. 14:5 in Iviron 5. For John’s Gospel, the similarities between the two cycles are again marked. There is complete parity for the first eight miniatures in both Iviron 5 and Paris 54. And again, for those eight common scenes, seven appear in their respective Gospel texts at precisely the same juncture. The only exception is the illustration of Christ and the Samaritan woman, which in Iviron 5 appears in the middle rather than at the beginning of Jn. 4:5 (that is, 11 words later than in Paris 54). Thus, of the 29 scenes in Iviron 5 which illustrate the Gospel text proper, 27 illustrate the same Gospel passage as in Paris 54, and 25 of those break for the illustration at exactly the same word. 40 Iviron 5 lacks one parable (Wise and Foolish Virgins) and three Passion scenes (Betrayal, Denial and Remorse of Peter). Iviron 5 includes an illustration of Christ and the Holy Women which is illustrated (or rather, was intended for illustration) in a parallel passage in John in Paris 54. 41 Iviron 5 does not include one miracle (Christ Stilling the Water) and three Passion scenes (Gethsemane, Denial of Peter, and the Mocking of Christ).

imitation and innovation 115

These findings indicate that the Greek scribe of Paris 54, who was responsible for reserving spaces for the text miniatures, actually had direct access to Iviron 5 itself.42 It is only with this assumption that one can explain the remarkably high number of illustrations that interrupt the text at exactly the same word in both manuscripts. This astonishing degree of parity regarding the location of the miniatures within their respective Gospel texts occurs despite the fact that Paris 54 and Iviron 5 feature entirely different formats, and, as demonstrated in Chapter 4, there is no evidence for a copy relationship between the two manuscripts’ Greek texts. Further support for the likelihood of direct access to Iviron 5 by the artists of Paris 54 is provided by an analysis of the common miniatures of Matthew and Mark in both manuscripts. Narrative Miniatures Common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 Only 17 of the 29 miniatures which have parity in Paris 54 and Iviron 5 can actually be compared due to the extensive number of unexecuted scenes in Paris 54. Regardless, a comparison of representative miniatures common to both manuscripts clarifies the degree of interdependence of the two manuscripts. Scale of Miniatures Both Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s miniatures adhere to the rectangular format, but there are significant differences in their proportions. The width of Paris 54’s miniatures is determined by the combined width of its two text columns, and not by the aesthetic demands of a miniature’s composition (see Figure 6.1). Paris 54’s miniatures average 5.1 cm greater width than Iviron 5’s. The average miniature size in Paris 54 is 8.2 × 17.1 cm compared to 8.6 × 12.1 cm in Iviron 5.43 In the smaller, single-column format of Iviron 5, the miniature is always substantially taller in proportion to its width than the corresponding ratio in Paris 54 (compare Plates XXV and XXIX). This results in a more comfortable relationship between figure and ground in Iviron 5. Why the height of Paris 54’s miniatures was not increased to offset its greater width is unclear, but spatial limitations or economic considerations do not seem to have been relevant factors.44 42 These findings support Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 47, who proposed that the evangelists of Paris 54 may be direct copies of those in Iviron 5, whereas Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 40, wrote that variations in the two manuscripts prohibit a direct connection. However, Belting assumed that Paris 54 was a “sister” manuscript to Iviron 5. 43 These dimensions yield a height to width ratio of 0.47:1 and 0.71:1, respectively. The average miniature size in Paris 54 is 8.2 cm × 17.1 cm, whereas Iviron 5 measures 8.6 cm × 12.1 cm. 44 The folio on which the Annunciation is located has ample space for vertical expansion. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 41, is the only scholar to have noted the difficulties of the Paris 54 artist in adapting his miniatures to his extended lateral miniature format. For comparable examples of the compression or expansion of

116 between constantinople and rome

8

Note:

Paris 54 Iviron 5 . . . . . . . . . Figure 6.1 Diagram of the relative scale of Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s narrative miniatures

Presumably, the proportions of miniatures were determined by the Greek scribe responsible for the layout of the manuscript, and he may not have anticipated that a failure to increase the height in proportion to the new wider format could be potentially detrimental to Paris 54’s miniatures.45 The Miniatures of Matthew and Mark Common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 Eleven completed miniatures in Paris 54’s Gospels of Matthew and Mark can be compared to those in Iviron 5 (see Table 6.1). The similarities between these common miniatures support a one-to-one copy relationship for the two manuscripts. The iconographic dependence of Paris 54 upon Iviron 5 as well as the analogous color schemes of many of the two manuscripts’ miniatures underscores this.46 When iconographic differences occur in these miniatures compositions due to spatial constraints in mosaics, see Otto Demus, “The Style of the Kariye Djami and its Place in the Development of Palaeologan Art,” in The Kariye Djami, vol. 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, ed. Paul Underwood (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 121–4. 45 This evidence also suggests that the Greek scribe was not trained as an artist. In contrast, John Lowden notes that the scribes copying the various illustrated Octateuchs were sensitive to miniature proportions as they formatted their manuscripts. See Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” pp. 118–19, where he says that Vatopedi 602’s miniatures are about the same size of those of its model, Vat. gr. 746, which was a significantly larger codex originally. 46 For example, in the Last Supper (Plates VIII and 17), each apostle in Paris 54

imitation and innovation 117

in Matthew and Mark in Paris 54, they are often initiated on account of its wider format. For example, in Matthew, additional apostles or bystanders are found in four miniatures for this reason.47 Vertical constrictions in Paris 54’s miniature format result in its figures being taller in relation to the height of the miniature than is true of their counterparts in Iviron 5. This can be seen in representative miniatures in all Gospels in Paris 54.48 Vertical constrictions are also responsible for the significant reduction of the area devoted to gold ground in most miniatures in Paris 54.49 The abbreviated inscriptions for Christ seen in Iviron 5 are also omitted.50 The 11 miniatures in Matthew and Mark in Paris 54 with comparable miniatures in Iviron 5 appear to be the work of two distinct artistic personalities, the previously discussed Artist A and Artist B.51 I have grouped these artists’ miniatures in two categories. The first group includes representatives of those miniatures that, given Paris 54’s expanded lateral format, represent a successful adaptation of the model provided by Iviron 5. The second group includes representatives of those miniatures that fare poorly by comparison to their counterparts in Iviron 5. Changes introduced in Paris 54’s second group adversely affect the final composition. Artists A and B Group 1 The first group includes miniatures that demonstrate a successful response to the model provided by Iviron 5. In these examples, the artists are alert to the requirements of their expanded miniature format and successfully adapt their composition accordingly. The miniature of the Miracle of the Loaves52 in Paris 54 is only 0.5 cm greater in height than the corresponding miniature in Iviron 5, but is almost 5 cm greater in width (see Figure 6.1 and Plates V and 15). This difference accounts for the only major compositional change initiated by Paris 54’s Artist A in this miniature. At the right, Artist A stacks the 12 surplus baskets in a double row rather than placing them across the bottom in a single wears exactly the same colors as his counterpart in Iviron 5, even though facial types are not identical. See n. 56 below. 47 Exorcism (Mt.) (Plate 3), Hemorrhage (Plates IV and 24), Loaves (Plates V and Plate 15), Descent from the Cross (Plates XII and 18). 48 See Exorcism (Mt.) (Plate 3), Descent from the Cross (Plates XII and 18), Leper (Plates XVI and 22), Exorcism (Mk.) (Plate XVIII), Baptism (Plates XXI and 20), Transfiguration (Plates XXV and XXIX), and the Samaritan Woman (Plates XXVIII and XXXII). 49 Exceptions are the Hemorrhage (Plate IV), Loaves (Plate V), Mother-in-law (Plate XV), and the Leper (Plate XVI). 50 The one major exception is found in Paris 54’s Transfiguration (Plate XXV). 51 See Chapter 5 above. 52 This is the only miniature of the three assigned to Artist A that will be addressed in this context.

118 between constantinople and rome

row as in Iviron 5. Additional figures (children, in this case) have also been added as filler motifs by the Paris 54 artist in the lowest register.53 A luxurious natural setting has been emphasized in Paris 54 through the inclusion of numerous long-stemmed red flowers. The color schemes are virtually the same in both miniatures, with the exception of the small standing child in the middle register and the child in red on the right in the lowermost register. With these exceptions noted, Paris 54 has copied Iviron 5 virtually verbatim.54 More significant changes were required by Artist B in his adaptation of the Parable of the Wedding Feast of the King’s Son since its composition is actually 1.5 cm shorter than Iviron 5’s and is 5 cm wider (compare Plates VI and 16). In both manuscripts, an angel and the offending guest are depicted twice: first when the inappropriately clad guest is forcefully removed from his seat at the table, and second as he is pummeled at the lower right by the same angel. In Iviron 5, the synoptic character of this scene is emphasized by what seems to be an almost two-register format. Christ and another angel appear in the upper area of the composition against the gold ground. The Paris 54 artist modifies Iviron 5’s composition to a single-register format, taking full advantage of Paris 54’s expanded lateral format. He omits the figures of Christ and the angel found in the upper portion of Iviron 5’s miniature; instead, in Paris 54 Christ is located between the table scene and the pummeling scene. This change, in conjunction with the location of the first appearance of the angel to the right of the table (rather than slightly above and behind the table as found in Iviron 5), contributes to the emphasis on the lateral axis in Paris 54. In this conversion of the scene to a single-register format, the synoptic character of the Iviron 5’s miniature is compromised. The resulting composition in Paris 54, however, better complements its format. Other differences between these two miniatures can be recognized. In Paris 54, the offending garb of the guest is clearly depicted as a brown hair shirt. In Iviron 5, this guest is shown wearing a very dark brown cape. Although both miniatures have five male guests seated at the table who assume essentially the same poses, they do not wear the same colored garments. Also, in one case, they are not the same facial type (contrast the balding bearded man— third from the left in Paris 54—with the young, dark-bearded man in the same position in Iviron 5). The man on the right side of the table wears a hood in Paris 54, but does not in Iviron 5. They do, however, both hold cups in their left hand. The table in Iviron 5 is covered by a white tablecloth, but in Paris 54, despite the current condition of the miniature, it clearly was never covered in this fashion. Also, the background architecture differs significantly in both manuscripts. Most of the differences noted between the two manuscripts’ 53 A child in red clothing has been added on the far left side of the lower register; another child has been added towards the right side of this register. 54 The palettes of the two miniatures of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 are much more similar than Pelekanidis et al.’s reproduction in the Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 35, fig. 13, would suggest. The hillocks in Iviron 5 are much closer to the olive-green found in Paris 54, for example.

imitation and innovation 119

miniatures seem to have been initiated by Paris 54’s artist as he grapples with the challenges of his expanded format. In some cases, the enhanced lateral format of Paris 54 presented obvious advantages. In the Last Supper, the cramped composition in Iviron 5 is adapted to create a more legible disposition of the apostles around the sigmashaped table in Paris 54 (compare Plates VIII and 17). In Iviron 5, for example, the body of the apostle to Judas’ left is practically indiscernible, but in Paris 54 the upper torsos of all the figures are visible. In Paris 54, each apostle appears to wear the same colored garments as his counterpart in Iviron 5, but the facial types of the evangelists are not all identical. The third, fourth, and ninth apostles (reading from the left) differ from their counterparts in Iviron 5 in that they are depicted as older men.55 The sigma-shaped table, the disposition of the figures, and even the accoutrements on the table reflect Paris 54’s dependence upon Iviron 5. Minor details such as the shape of the utensils, their contents, and even the location of a knife—which in both cases is placed horizontally above the right bowl—support this conclusion. The color schemes of the miniatures are quite similar. Both table tops are executed in a dark green-flecked pattern, presumably imitating marble. The skirt of Christ’s couch is also dark mauve. The apostles wear blue chitons with light green, light brown (or off-white), and mauve himations. Thus, the iconography and the color scheme of Paris 54’s Last Supper suggest that this miniature was directly inspired by its counterpart in Iviron 5.56 Group 2 Group 2 comprises those miniatures in Paris 54 that fare poorly by comparison to their counterparts in Iviron 5. The relative ineptitude on the part of Artists A and B in their handling of miniatures assigned to this group actually assists in the identification of their model.57 The artists’ inability to adapt their model to the expanded lateral format in Paris 54 betrays their dependence on a model featuring miniatures of Iviron 5’s dimensions. The miniatures of this group indicate that the model could be something of an albatross. In the miniatures of Group 2, the Paris 54 artists are hamstrung by their exemplars in Iviron 5. They introduce ineffective space-filling devices to compensate for the expanded format of their miniatures. The result is substantially weaker compositions. In the Woman with the Hemorrhage, the hillocks on the right side of Paris 54’s miniature have been doubled in mass in order to fill in the extraneous width 55 The third, fourth, and ninth disciples in Paris 54 are shown with white hair and beards. The seventh disciple has brown hair and beard, whereas his counterpart in Iviron 5 has white hair and beard. 56 My notes from Thessaloniki also indicate that the color schemes of Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Last Suppers are closer than Pelekanidis et al.’s color reproduction suggests. See Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 36, fig. 15. 57 In fact, only one of the works (the Woman with the Hemorrhage) discussed in Group 2 is assigned to Artist A.

120 between constantinople and rome

(compare Plates IV and 24). On the left, the architecture has been expanded and its three-dimensional aspects enhanced in an effort to occupy more space. More creative space-filling solutions are apparent on the left side of the composition. In Iviron 5, only two figures are fully visible, with the heads (only) of a number of bystanders visible behind these two figures. In Paris 54’s miniature, the artist has created a space between these two figures and filled the gap with one figure who assumes an extraordinary pose. His body is depicted in a three-quarter rear view while his head swings around to the left in an improbable manner to observe the man behind him. The left profile view of his head is included in Iviron 5’s miniature, while the corresponding body is not. The Paris 54 artist has also changed the facial appearance of the figure on the far left side of this group. Meanwhile, the three apostles on the right are veritable clones of their counterparts in Iviron 5. Similar, too, is the configuration of Christ and the afflicted woman. The only difference is that in Iviron 5 the woman is only halfkneeling with the weight of her left leg placed on her foot. Portions of the two miniatures’ color schemes are comparable. Regarding the apostle group to the right of Christ, in both Paris 54 and Iviron 5 the left and middle apostles are dressed in blue chitons with light green himations while the right apostle’s blue chiton is complemented by a mauve-colored himation. Both of the women also wear dark brown maphoria and capes with light-colored skirts. The colors of the clothing of the Jairus group on the left are also similar. The similarities indicate that Paris 54 was copied directly from Iviron 5. In the Descent from the Cross, the components of Iviron 5’s composition are more successfully integrated than those in Paris 54 (Plates XII and 18). Too great a distance separates the subsidiary figures in Paris 54 from the major scene. This attempt on the part of the artist to compensate for the miniature’s extra 5 cm of width results in a less cohesive composition. The static effect is exacerbated by its reduced height; it is 1.3 cm shorter than that of Iviron 5. The success of Iviron 5’s composition is due primarily to the more effective disposition of the figures within the allotted space. In Paris 54, the figure of John is much too large in relation to the overall composition. He stands, presumably, at about the same distance from the cross as the myrophores, and yet his figure is equivalent in scale to the three women combined. He distracts the viewer and upsets the harmony of the composition. The iconography of the two scenes is none the less essentially the same. In both, Mary caresses Jesus’ arm with her hands. Oddly, both artists draw crucifixes whose right crossarm appears longer than the left. Paris 54 has added a third myrophore and has awkwardly accentuated the three-dimensional aspects of the background architecture on the right.58 Finally, the Paris 54 artist has clearly opted for a different palette than that utilized in Iviron 5, eschewing its bright blues and mauve-colored clothing. 58 Both towers to the left and right in Paris 54 are placed at a slightly more oblique angle to the frontal plane of the miniature.

imitation and innovation 121

In the Holy Women at the Sepulcher, Paris 54’s miniature is based on that in Iviron 5, but the former capitalizes on its increased width to describe the sepulcher and the soldiers by the tomb in greater detail (Plates XIII and 19). The rocky setting of the tomb and the stone bench upon which the angel sits are at least twice as wide as the corresponding features in Iviron 5. The ineptitude of Paris 54’s Artist B is evident, however, when the poses of the two groups of soldiers are compared. Paris 54 needlessly copies the cramped poses of Iviron 5’s soldiers even though they are unwarranted in this new spacious context. The only thing that Paris 54’s Artist B does to increase the visual interest of the group is to include another shield to the left and two swords in the background. In addition, he has included a low dado in the left half of the composition which serves to link the two women on the left with the sepulchral setting to the right. Overall, Iviron 5’s artist has been more successful in capturing the impact of the event. Both the asymmetrical positioning of the angel’s wings and the extensive gold background heighten the moment of revelation to the Holy Women. The diagonal created by the left side of the seat upon which the angel sits also encourages interaction between the angel and Holy Women in Iviron 5’s composition. Furthermore, by including the discrete green ground, the Iviron 5 artist has implied a more comfortable relationship between the angel and the myrophores. They appear to communicate across a diagonal. In Paris 54, Artist B dilutes this effect through the equal emphasis that has been given to all of the compositional components. The staccato-like placement of the figures across the miniature detracts from its cohesiveness. By moving the angel forward into the frontal plane, Artist B has modified significantly the effectiveness of Iviron 5’s composition.59 The figures are now aligned side by side in the same plane, creating a less spacious and more frieze-like effect.60 A comparison of the two compositions of the Healing of the Mother-inlaw of Peter underscores the inability of Paris 54’s Artist B to capitalize on his expanded lateral format. His composition is approximately the same height as that of Iviron 5, but 5.5 cm wider. The impact of this extra space is most obvious on the right side of the composition, where an unlikely structure featuring a gaping window appears (compare Plates XV and 21). Up until this point, the Paris 54 artist has ineptly followed the composition established in Iviron 5, where there are three small arched openings visible in the background architecture beneath the clasped hands of Christ and the mother-in-law. In Paris 54, these are repeated verbatim. Artist B has modified the vertical structure in 59 Paris 54’s miniature is only 0.3 cm shorter than Iviron 5’s. 60 Artist B has not sought to copy the colors of Iviron 5’s miniature. That said, my notes from Thessaloniki indicate that the colors in Pelekanidis’ reproduction of Iviron 5’s The Holy Women at the Sepulcher are quite off the mark. In fact, the angel’s himation has virtually no green in it. Rather, it is comprised of a variety of grays. The cape of the left-hand holy woman is actually dark gray. There really isn’t any blue or green in it at all. Also, the sepulcher is not nearly as a bright a shade of green as seen in Pelekanidis et al.’s photograph in the Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 37, fig. 17.

122 between constantinople and rome

the background between the mother-in-law and the unidentified woman at the head of her bed.61 A tiled and peaked roof has been substituted for the pediment and triangular roof of Iviron 5. The change was undoubtedly initiated by Artist B so that an additional architectural motif could be inserted on the right. The structure on the right side of Iviron 5’s miniature is usually associated with a motif found at the side of the composition—that is, a kind of architectural parenthetical device used to bracket the action of the narrative. In initiating this modification, Artist B recognizes that the diagonal placement of the new architectural unit here draws attention to Peter’s mother-in-law by echoing her position in the composition. The Paris 54 artist has also incorporated the three windows of the Iviron 5 miniature on this structure’s right side. The major mishap engendered by Artist B concerns the architectural structure on the left side of this composition. In Iviron 5, this complex structure is three-dimensionally conceived and includes a doorway behind a projecting plinth supported by a green marble column with a golden capital. In Paris 54, the motif has been expanded, the rectilinear lines disappear, and all structural integrity has been lost in the translation. In fact, the structure is unintelligible in Paris 54’s composition. Artist B also has problems with his figures’ proportions. Christ appears to be too squat, and the mother-in-law is particularly problematic in that her legs in general and her thighs, in particular, are too radically foreshortened. In fact, the disposition of her lower limbs beneath her garments is indiscernible. Another aspect contributing to the unified composition in Iviron 5 and not maintained nor recognized by Paris 54’s artist concerns the interrelation of the action vis-à-vis the glances of the figures. In Iviron 5 all figures concentrate on Christ or his gesture of healing. In Paris 54 this concentration is lost and affects considerably the impact of the composition. On the left, Peter gestures towards Christ, but looks back over his right shoulder to the apostle behind. That apostle (on the far left) looks upward. In turn, the middle apostle of the group looks to his right as if to assess the latter’s gaze. Much more distracting, however, is the artist’s decision to draw the viewer into the composition by having both Peter’s mother-in-law and Peter’s wife gaze directly out at the viewer. The color schemes in the two compositions are virtually identical. The only major difference is that the Paris 54 artist articulates the white bed sheet with red stripes and dots.62 Comparisons of this nature confirm that Paris 54 adapted his miniatures from Iviron 5’s.63 In the Healing of the Leper, Artist B again fails to adapt to the vertical restrictions and horizontal expansion imposed by his format (compare Plates

61 The unidentified woman is almost certainly Peter’s wife. 62 Christ’s couch in the Last Supper in Paris 54 is decorated with the same design (Plate VIII). 63 My notes in situ indicate that Pelekanidis et al.’s reproduction of this miniature in Iviron 5 is much greener than the actual miniature regarding both the background architecture and the disciples’ himations.

imitation and innovation 123

XVI and 22).64 The figures of Christ and the leper fail to emulate their more monumental and commanding prototypes in Iviron 5. Christ and the apostles to the left are too short in proportion to the rest of the composition; they appear doll-like. Moreover, the apostle to the far left is overwhelmed by the convolutions of his drapery folds. In this same apostle group, four faces are indicated, but there are only two bodies. The artist has generated space between the two apostles in the front plane, but has neglected to fill it in with the figures of the two apostles in the background. Thus, one individual, at least, looks quite disembodied.65 The result is an especially sloppy example of the problems created by Artist B in his failure to adapt to Paris 54’s miniature format. Artist B has also expanded the background architecture; the vertical unit on the right now includes a window as well as an open door. However, he has botched the architectural backdrop on the left. In Iviron 5, one can see a building superimposed against a rocky outcropping that protrudes above the roof. This sequence seems to have been completely misunderstood in Paris 54 and the effect is such that the building looks as if its roof is composed of stone blocks. The similarities between the miniatures of Matthew and Mark common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 underline the feasibility of a one-to-one copy relationship. The iconographical dependence of Paris 54 upon Iviron 5 as well as the analogous color schemes of many of the two manuscripts’ miniatures also support this conclusion. The relative ineptitude of Artist B, the artist responsible for the great majority of Paris 54’s miniatures in Matthew and Mark, assists in the identification of his model. Our comparative analysis indicated that both he and Artist A probably had access to Iviron 5 itself rather than some intermediary. The inability to adapt Iviron 5’s compositions to the format required in Paris 54 betrays the latter’s dependence on a model featuring miniatures of Iviron 5’s dimensions. The differences encountered in Paris 54 often occur on account of Paris 54’s wider format. For example, in Matthew, additional apostles or bystanders appear in four miniatures for this reason.66 However, the Wedding Feast of the King’s Son actually reduces the number of figures by one to avoid the double-register composition that would be detrimental to Paris 54’s expanded lateral format. Because of the same vertical constrictions, Paris 54’s figures are often taller in relation to the height of the miniature than is true of their counterparts in Iviron 5.67 Vertical constraints are also responsible for the significant reduction of the role of the 64 Paris 54’s miniature is 1.3 cm shorter in height than Iviron 5’s miniature. 65 In Paris 54’s Healing of the Gerasene Demoniac in Mark, the left foot of the apostle on the left is also missing (Plate XVIII). Similar examples of carelessness are seen in the Armenian Galata Gospels of 1223 by the scribe Hohannes. See his illustration of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 42, and vol. II, fig. 125. 66 Exorcism (Mt.) (Plate 3), Hemorrhage (Plate IV), Loaves (Plate V), and Descent from the Cross (Plate XII). 67 See Exorcism (Mt.) (Plate 3), Descent from the Cross (Plate XII), Leper (Plate XVI), Exorcism (Mk.) (Plate XVIII), Baptism (Plate XXI), Transfiguration (Plate XXV), and Samaritan Woman (Plate XXVIII).

124 between constantinople and rome

gold ground in most miniatures in Paris 54.68 The abbreviated inscriptions for Christ seen in Iviron 5 are also omitted.69 The physical proximity of Iviron 5 itself is also supported by the foregoing analysis of the relationship of the two manuscripts’ narrative miniatures and their respective text passages. There it was noted that 25 of the 27 miniatures illustrating the same text passage in the manuscripts interrupt the text at the same juncture. The Miniatures of Matthew and Mark Unique to Paris 54 The five miniatures in Matthew and Mark without counterparts in Iviron 5 are also of interest. All five miniatures were executed by Artist B; they are the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Betrayal, the Denial and the Remorse of Peter in Matthew, and Christ Stilling the Water in Mark. The composition of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Plate VII) is a marvelous complement to Paris 54’s expanded format. Its centralized and harmonious composition can easily be envisioned in a more monumental setting such as in the apse of a church. The compositional prototype remains unknown, but it may have been adapted from a fresco or mosaic. While most of the text miniatures in Paris 54 are literal translations of the adjacent text, this parable differs in that its symbolic and non-literal content has been emphasized. Indeed, this composition is emblematic of the Last Judgment itself. Christ is placed in a mandorla with two angels in the center. The Wise Virgins (symbolizing the faithful) are on his right and the Foolish Virgins (the damned) are on his left. Its iconic and symmetrical character isolates it from the more specifically narrative tendencies of the majority of illustrations in Matthew and Mark. The Betrayal (Plate IX) is less successful; it does not take advantage of the expanded lateral format of Paris 54 and large voids are apparent on the left and right sides of the composition. The miniatures depicting the Denial and Remorse of Peter (Plates X and XI) can also be characterized as unsuccessful adaptations to Paris 54’s format. The right-hand sides of both miniatures (especially the Denial) are underutilized. Fewer problems are encountered in Christ Stilling the Water (Plate XVII), where the shape of the boat is well adapted to the rectangular miniature format. There is no clear-cut answer as to whether Artist B created more successful compositions when Iviron 5 did not supply a ready model. Certainly, his Wise and Foolish Virgins is an unqualified success, and perhaps his best work in the entire manuscript (not counting the evangelist portraits). Also, the fact that none of the above miniatures that are unique to Paris 54 contain major gaffes, as seen in a number of the compositions that Artist B struggled to adapt from Iviron 5, suggests that Artist B was often more successful when Iviron 5 68 See Hemorrhage (Plate IV), Loaves (Plate V), Mother-in-law of Peter (Plate XV), and Leper (Plate XVI). 69 A major exception is seen in the Transfiguration (Plate XXV) in Paris 54. For more on the limited role of inscriptions in Paris 54’s narrative miniatures, see Chapter 8 below, notes 134–6.

imitation and innovation 125

provided no immediate model and he was forced to look to other sources. However, the varying success rate of those miniatures without counterparts in Iviron 5 indicates that a diversity of sources was likely consulted.70 In those cases where Iviron 5 provided a model, Artist B’s creativity appears to have been stifled and his adaptations are frequently unsatisfactory. His response will be contrasted with that of Artist C, who was responsible for the miniatures of Luke and John.71 The Miniatures of Luke and John Common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 There are only four miniatures72 in Paris 54 from these Gospels that can be effectively compared to those in Iviron 5 given the high number of unexecuted and unfinished miniatures in Luke and John in Paris 54.73 The miniatures of Luke in particular suggest a very different response to their model than that witnessed in Artist’s B’s miniatures of Matthew and Mark. Changes initiated in the miniatures of Luke and John cannot be attributed exclusively to the new format of Paris 54. All innovations, from the new dramatic poses of individual figures74 to the increasingly three-dimensional rendering of the background architecture,75 as well as the actual iconographic changes within the compositions, indicate a new independence and an influx of contemporary stylistic and iconographic trends.76 These stylistic and iconographic changes correspond to the appearance of a third artistic personality, whom I call Artist C.77 His impact is immediately 70 Ernst Kitzinger, The Mosaics of Monreale (Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio, 1960), p. 42, arrived at a similar conclusion in the analogous relationship between Monreale and the Cappella Palatina. Whenever a model was not provided by the Cappella Palatina, the artists of the later monument consulted a variety of sources. 71 For a study of the copy–model relationship in a group of Western medieval manuscripts, see Cheryl Gohdes Goggin, “Copying Manuscript Illuminations: The Trees of Vices and Virtues,” Visual Resources 20/2–3 (March 2004): 179–98. I thank my colleague Andrea Pappas for alerting me to this publication. 72 These are the Annunciation (Plate XX), Baptism (Plate XXI), and Transfiguration (Plate XXV) in Luke and the Samaritan Woman (Plate XXVIII) in John. Two additional miniatures common to both manuscripts are unfinished in Paris 54: the Presentation (Plate 10) and the Cure of the Man with Dropsy; see Table 6.2 above. 73 For a more detailed analysis of these and other miniatures by Artist C, please see Chapter 5 above. 74 Mary, Annunciation (Plate XX); Simeon, Presentation (Plate 10); John the Baptist and angels, Baptism (Plate XXI); apostles, Transfiguration (Plate XXV), and the Cure of the Man with Dropsy. 75 Annunciation (Plate XX). 76 Another indication of this new independence is the actual reduction in the number of figures in some of Paris 54’s compositions attributed to Artist C. Fewer subsidiary figures are noted in the Baptism (Plate XXI), Transfiguration (Plate XXV), and the Cure of the Man with Dropsy. 77 For Artist C, see Chapter 5 above. See also Lowden, The Octateuchs, pp. 48–53, for creative responses to the model by the contemporary artist of Athos, Vatopedi 602. Like Artist C, the Vatopedi artist sought to improve upon his model. See also

126 between constantinople and rome

observed in the Annunciation, the first miniature of Luke.78 Paris 54’s composition is conceived independently of that of Iviron 5 (compare Plates XX and 23) and, for the first time, the extended width of Paris 54’s format does not present any significant obstacles for the artist. The three-dimensional exploitation of the architectural backdrop and the Virgin’s round-backed throne provide suitable visual compensation. These aspects, in particular, reflect the influx of contemporary iconographic innovations as compared to Iviron 5. In contrast, Iviron 5 seems much more firmly rooted in tradition. Very few aspects of the two manuscripts’ versions of the Annunciation bear comparison, although they both include the seated servant girl to Mary’s left and the color schemes of these two figures’ garments are similar. However, the pose of Mary and the setting must be contrasted.79 In the Baptism, significant differences between the two miniatures underscore Paris 54’s new independence (compare Plates XXI and 20). The stance assumed by Christ in both miniatures is similar, but in Paris 54 his gaze is focused directly upon the viewer. The pose of John the Baptist is also comparable to that in Iviron 5, but in Paris 54 it is energized, in that John bends over more at the waist as well as in the knees. The same energy characterizes the dynamic poses of the three angels at the right. These figures exhibit a new receptivity to contemporary Palaiologan stylistic trends on the part of Artist C. He has chosen not to include the more narrative element of the three bystanders to the left of Iviron 5’s composition and instead has extended the landscape and substituted the tree and axe motif. This degree of independence would have been unthinkable for Artist B as the latter would have seized any aspect of Iviron 5’s composition which would have provided “filler” for the extended horizontal format of Paris 54. Superficial differences between these two versions of the Baptism are also apparent. The theophanic aspects of Paris 54’s composition—that is, the dove and trinitarian rays from heaven—are not present in Iviron 5’s iconography. Iviron 5’s miniature illustrates the narrative of the Gospel text and retains a simpler and less cluttered composition. It contains only one personification of a river god (barely visible on the lower left), no fish, no symbolic tree and axe motif, and, as already stated, no theophanic references. The two miniatures also feature independent color schemes.80 In conclusion, it must be noted that J. Lowden, “The Production of the Vatopedi Octateuch,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982), pp. 115ff. Hans Belting’s perceptive analysis of the miniatures of the Vatican Psalter Palat. Gr. 381 also resulted in a profile of an artist who was equally flexible in his approach to his archetype. See H. Belting, “Zum Palatina-Psalter des 13. Jahrhunderts,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972): 17–38. 78 Remembering, too, that it is Luke’s narrative cycle in Paris 54 that differs most significantly from that of Iviron 5 in overall scope; see Table 6.1 above. 79 A detailed iconographical analysis of the individual miniatures of Paris 54, based upon Chapter 5 of the author’s dissertation, is available on Ashgate’s website at: www.ashgate.com/maxwell-iconography-index. 80 The color reproduction of Iviron 5’s Baptism in Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 40, fig. 22, led me to believe that John in Iviron 5 wore a blue

imitation and innovation 127

the differences cited above regarding the two compositions are not due to the fact that they illustrate parallel passages in different Gospel texts.81 Similar conclusions are provided by a comparison of the two miniatures of the Transfiguration. Paris 54’s Artist C significantly reduces the narrative aspects of Iviron 5’s composition (compare Plates XXV and XXIX). In Iviron 5, the subsidiary scenes of the arrival and the departure of Christ and the apostles are shown on the left and right sides of the composition. In Paris 54 a more iconic composition is created with only the climactic moment of the Transfiguration itself depicted. Thus, Paris 54’s composition features only the six figures central to the narrative, while Iviron 5’s synoptic sequence includes eight additional figures. Once again, Artist C felt free to depart from Iviron 5 even when this meant omitting material which would provide filler for his wider miniature format. Moreover, the apostles in Paris 54’s composition, especially the two on the right, are depicted in more dynamic and emotive postures than those in Iviron 5. Iviron 5 is more successful, in spite of the inclusion of the subsidiary scenes of the arrival and departure of Christ and the apostles, in focusing the viewer’s attention upon the moment of the Transfiguration itself. The size and disposition of the three apostles in the lower register of Paris 54 compete too much with Christ’s own metamorphosis. In Iviron 5, the Transfiguration is also highlighted by the inclusion of Moses and Elijah in Christ’s mandorla. Artist C in Paris 54 creates a more coherent composition through the expansive role given to the dramatically colored rocky landscape, which both unifies and organizes the scene. The color schemes for the garments of all figures (except Christ) are not comparable. The innovations introduced by Artist C in Paris 54’s miniatures of Luke that are also found in Iviron 5 do not necessarily imply dependence on a second iconographic model. Many of his changes can be classified under the heading of style. Artist C shows a new receptivity to contemporary stylistic developments. While iconographic innovations are also recognized, they may not be the result of any particular model. Artist C is best characterized as both competent and self-confident, especially in comparison to Artist B.82 chiton and brown himation. In fact, he wears a brown hair shirt and a brown himation. My notes in situ from Thessaloniki confirm that there is no detectable blue in John the Baptist’s lower garment in Iviron 5’s miniature and that the color of the landscape is too green in Pelekanidis’ reproduction. 81 Iviron 5’s miniature accompanies Mark’s text, and Paris 54’s Baptism is found in Luke. For a detailed analysis of the iconography of the Baptism in relationship to the Gospel texts, see Maxwell, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54,” chap. 5, as in n. 79 above. 82 A comparable situation is discussed by Sirarpie Der Nersessian with regard to Erevan, Matenadaran 7651, an Armenian late thirteenth-century copy of the Byzantine illustrated frieze Gospels, Florence, Laur. VI, 23. Der Nersessian describes the master of the Armenian atelier and his assistant as men of a different caliber and different artistic temperament than the other Armenian artists who worked on the manuscript: “For the master himself the Laurentianus was barely more than a point of departure, and were it not for the illustrations executed by the painters of the small miniatures, we would have not even suspected that he was acquainted with the Byzantine model.” She continues:

128 between constantinople and rome

Artist B seemed too cautious to initiate the changes necessary to successfully adapt Iviron 5’s miniatures to Paris 54’s format. Artist C was determined to succeed in spite of any inherent handicap due to the miniature format. He freely (and, seemingly, effortlessly) incorporated contemporary iconographic trends into his compositions which, executed in his style, resulted in remarkable miniatures.83 Given the independent disposition of Artist C, we may never succeed in tracking down specific models.84 Rather, he seems to have used a number of Byzantine sources, many of them from more monumental media such as contemporary icons and monumental painting.85 Moreover, the major distinction between his compositions and those of Artists A and B is the contemporary character of Artist C’s miniatures.86 Was Iviron 5 available to Artist C? In view of the independence exercised by this artist in the narrative miniatures of Luke, one could logically conclude that Iviron 5 was not accessible to him. The situation is not so straightforward regarding the only completed miniature in John’s Gospel—Christ and the Samaritan Woman—which I have assigned to Artist C. It reveals notable similarities with Iviron 5’s miniature (compare Plates XXVIII and XXXII). Both Christ figures sit cross-legged on natural rocky outcroppings conversing with the Samaritan woman, who stands to the right. The two figures are separated by wells. In Paris 54, the number of apostles to the left has been increased by one and the landscape to the right includes not the typical “it is important to note that we find in the same scriptorium, and at the same time, men whose attitude toward the model differed substantially and whose style also shows marked differences. This indicates that painters belonging to different artistic groups sometimes worked side by side in the same scriptorium, without necessarily being influenced by one another. It is possible that the painters of the small miniatures were older men who were not affected by the new and vigorous style ….” See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, Appendix 3, pp. 174–5. 83 Or, as John Lowden has written: “The evidence suggests that the more skilful the artist was, the less easy it is to define the range of work he might be capable of producing.” See J. Lowden, Early Christian and Byzantine Art (London: Phaidon, 1997), p. 397. 84 Thus, issues of artistic personality in assessing the impact of the model on the “copy” cannot be ignored. The degree to which an artist imitates or responds creatively to his model is critical. See Jeffrey C. Anderson, “The Past Reanimated in Byzantine Illumination,” Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. C. Moss and K. Kiefer (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 319–27, for his analysis of the Kokkinobaphos Master versus the artist of the Codex Ebnerianus. 85 Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 645, noted that some of the miniatures which I attribute to Artist C are much affected by “la nouvelle iconographie monumentale.” See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, pp. 3–17, for what Robert Nelson refers to as the “lack of specialization” among Byzantine painters. See also R.S. Nelson, “Tales of Two Cities: The Patronage of Early Palaeologan Art and Architecture in Constantinople and Thessaloniki,” in Manuel Panselinos and His Age (Athens: Institute for Byzantine Research, 1999), p. 132, n. 26. 86 Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” p. 252, notes that in Harley 1810 the illustrations of Matthew and John are characterized by a sober and conservative manner, while those of Mark and especially Luke are more innovative.

imitation and innovation 129

fortified city of Iviron 5, but two different parts of a city wall, both situated at an oblique angle. Paris 54’s miniature also includes the more “modern” type of quatrefoil-shaped well.87 Although the two miniatures are the same height, Artist C has arguably created a more dynamic composition than Iviron 5. Christ in Paris 54 sits much higher in respect to the overall height of the composition. As a seated figure, he is almost as tall as the standing Samaritan woman. In fact, he literally could not stand up given the physical limitations of the composition; if he could, he would tower over all the other figures in the scene. Artist C renders the interaction between Christ and the Samaritan woman more compact by placing her closer to and in front of the well. Moreover, she is planted firmly in the foreground and at an oblique angle to Christ, who is in the middle ground. This accentuates their conversation and counters the frieze-like composition of Iviron 5. Artist C’s quatrefoil-shaped well and windlass lend additional visual interest. In Iviron 5, the large uninterrupted expanse of gold ground between Christ and the Samaritan woman creates something of a vacuum in the center of the composition. By comparison, Artist C animates his setting with three mountainous outcroppings.88 Finally, the poses of the apostles in Paris 54 do not appear to be based on their counterparts in Iviron 5, and in Paris 54, the dress and location of the Samaritan Woman with respect to the well, differ significantly. It is difficult to know if Artist C had access to Iviron 5 and improved its composition or if he was wholly influenced by more contemporary versions of the compositions.

Paris 54’s Expanded Narrative Cycle: Is There an Underlying Rationale? As Lowden and others have emphasized,89 in a copy–model relationship, the departures from the model are of interest in their own right and may shed light on the intentions of the patron. We have seen that the evangelist portraits of Paris 54 are relative clones of those found in Iviron 5, but that significant additions were made to Paris 54’s narrative cycle.90 Iviron 5 contains 29 miniatures distributed throughout the four Gospels, while Paris 54 87 See Maxwell, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54,” chap. 5 (available at: www.ashgate.com/maxwell-iconography-index). 88 Both innovations here have much earlier precedents. The windlass, for example, is seen in the ninth-century psalter on Athos, Pantocrator 61. See Pelekanidis, S.M., P.C. Christou, C. Mavropoulou-Tsioumis, S.Ν. Kadas, and Α. Κatsarou, Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3 (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1979), p. 137, fig. 191. 89 Lowden, The Octateuchs, p. 55. 90 Annemarie Weyl Carr, review of Visual Polemics in Ninth-century Byzantine Psalters, by Kathleen Corrigan, and The Octateuchs: A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, by John Lowden, The Art Bulletin 76/1 (March 1994), p. 168, argues that: “Every ‘copy’ becomes not the slavish replica postulated as the ideal of recensional theory but a sequence of motivated choices that maintain the sense of constancy by constant readjustments.”

130 between constantinople and rome

was intended to contain a total of 51 miniatures.91 What were the motivating factors behind the decision to expand Paris 54’s narrative cycle? Was it simply to underscore the deluxe character of the manuscript, or can one detect an underlying rationale regarding the selection of additional scenes for illustration? And what is the purpose of the inserted miniatures in the text? To what extent do they function as more than a literal illustration or narration of the text?92 Finally, if Gospel scenes can be categorized, was there any attempt to achieve balance among the various types of additional scenes (for example, infancy, miracles, parables, passion, or post-Resurrection appearances, and so on)? The fact that Paris 54’s narrative miniatures are not distributed equally among its four Gospels suggests a degree of intentionality that might be elucidated. These questions are important because Paris 54 contains no colophon; the answers to these questions may shed light on the circumstances of its commission.93 We might begin by addressing those two miniatures in Paris 54 that are associated with different Gospels than their counterparts in Iviron 5. A certain logic is inherent in the relocation of both miniatures. For example, it makes sense in Paris 54 to move the Baptism from Mark to Luke’s Gospel because that is where so many Infancy scenes are located in Paris 54’s narrative cycle. Similarly, it also seems logical to move the scene of Christ and the Holy Women away from John’s Gospel since in Paris 54 the Passion is emphasized in Matthew and Mark, whereas John only contains the Entry into Jerusalem and the Washing of the Feet. John’s narrative illustrations prioritize instead the subsequent three post-Resurrection appearances of Christ rather than Passion scenes per se. Distribution of Scenes The 29 scenes of Iviron 5’s cycle are more or less evenly distributed over the four Gospels: Matthew has nine scenes, Mark and Luke have six each, and John contains eight scenes (see Table 6.2). This relative equilibrium is maintained in Paris 54, with four scenes added to Matthew and Mark, and three scenes to 91 Thus, the designer of Paris 54 has bucked the trend attested by Gary Vikan when he notes that the number of episodes illustrated are typically reduced as “one descend[s] through the roots of iconographic tradition.” See Vikan, “Ruminations on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium,” Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989): 47–59, esp. p. 49. On ibid., pp. 56–7, Vikan asks, “Why were the copies made in the first place? Why did Byzantines so consistently choose imitation over invention?”—reminding us that we are fortunate in the case of Paris 54 to be dealing with a high degree of innovation in all aspects of this manuscript. See also Gary Vikan, “Byzantine Art,” in Byzantium: A World Civilization, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1992), pp. 99–103. 92 Annemarie Weyl Carr has written perceptively on these issues with regard to the narrative cycles of the “decorative style” Gospel books. See Carr, Byzantine Illumination, pp. 61–2. 93 Elisabeth Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” p. 225, asks: “Comment le copiste procède-t-il donc pour choisir le passage adéquat pour l’illustration d’une scène surtout quand celle-ci est relatée par les quatre évangélistes?”

imitation and innovation 131

John’s text. For Luke, however, 13 miniatures were incorporated into his text in addition to the six miniatures already found in Iviron 5. Noteworthy, too, is that no added scenes appear in Paris 54 before fol. 90v—that is, until the penultimate quire of Matthew. Thus, all four additional miniatures found in Paris 54’s Gospel of Matthew are located on fols. 91r–102r (that is, within the last two quires of Matthew’s Gospel). Remarkably, these two gatherings also contain scenes with counterparts in Iviron 5 such that the last two quires of Matthew in Paris 54 include more than half of the total number of miniatures (seven of a total of 12 miniatures) of Matthew’s text (italics indicate scenes added to Paris 54’s Matthew text over and above those also included in Iviron 5): Quire 9: Wise and Foolish Virgins Last Supper Betrayal Quire 10: Denial of Peter Remorse of Peter Descent from the Cross Marys at the Sepulcher

Something similar occurs in Paris 54’s Gospel of Mark with its four additional scenes (see Table 6.2). One of these, Christ Stilling the Water, is located in the second gathering of Mark (quire 12), but the three other added scenes are located in the last quire of Mark (quire 16). This quire also contains a scene that is included in Iviron 5’s cycle (the Crucifixion), resulting in a total of four scenes relegated to the last quire of Mark’s Gospel. Thus, almost half of the nine scenes (that is, four scenes) illustrated in Paris 54’s Gospel of Mark are located in the last quire of his text (italics indicate scenes unique to Paris 54’s Gospel of Mark): Quire 16: Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane Denial of Peter Mocking of Christ Crucifixion

Skipping Luke’s Gospel for a moment, we note that this trend continues in John. All three additional scenes found in Paris 54’s John are situated in the last gathering of his Gospel (quire 35). Thus, three of a total of 11 scenes in John are found in the last quire of his Gospel (all the scenes below are unique to Paris 54’s Gospel of John): Quire 35: Noli Me Tangere 94 The Doubting of Thomas Appearance to the Disciples 94 Note that this scene is found in Matthew in Iviron 5.

132 between constantinople and rome

A cursory look at Luke’s Gospel reveals a significantly different approach regarding the location of additional scenes. First, there are more scenes (13) added to Luke’s Gospel than to the other three Gospels of Paris 54 combined (11).95 Second, these additional scenes are distributed throughout Luke and not limited exclusively to the penultimate or ultimate gathering of a Gospel, as seen in Matthew and John and, with one exception, in Mark in Paris 54. Table 6.3 indicates where additional miniatures are located in all four Gospels. Table 6.3 Gospel Matthew

Narrative miniatures unique to Paris 54: Gospel and quire locations Quire #

No. of additional scenes

9 101

2 2

12 161

1 3

17 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 271

1 3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1

351

3

Mark

Luke

John Note: 1 Final quire of respective Gospel.

Thus, the impact of the additional miniatures in Paris 54’s Matthew, Mark, and John is typically seen at the end of these Gospels. The majority of miniatures (eight out of 11) are located in the last quire of their respective Gospel. Of the remaining three scenes, two are located in penultimate quires. Only one scene breaks this pattern, that of Christ Stilling the Water, which is located in the second quire of Mark’s Gospel. The situation in Luke does not conform to this pattern in that its additional miniatures are distributed among nine of its 11 quires.

95 An illustrated Armenian Gospel book, the Gospels of Prince Vasak (Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate 2568) which Der Nersessian dates to the 1270s, also includes a disproportionately large number of illustrations in Luke’s Gospel. See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, pp. 94–5 and 112.

imitation and innovation 133

This evidence suggests that the designer of Paris 54 has consciously opted for certain types of scenes to be added to Paris 54, regardless of location. He was not concerned with distributing his miniatures throughout the text merely for visual effect, at least not in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John. He wished to incorporate certain types of miniatures even if that meant clustering them in the final quires of at least three of the four Gospels. Classification of Narrative Miniatures The foregoing suggests that the designer of Paris 54 wished to add scenes which occur in the later portion of three Gospels’ texts (Matthew, Mark, and John).96 Thus, we should expect to find an increase in the number of passion and/or post-Resurrection scenes for these three Gospels. In Luke, where nine out of a total of 11 quires received at least one additional miniature, we can expect to find greater variety in the types of the scenes added. Backtracking for a moment, let us look at those narrative miniatures that are common to both Paris 54 and Iviron 5.97 Table 6.4 lists the scenes common to each Gospel in both manuscripts and classifies them according to one of the following categories: Infancy, Miracle, Parable, Ministry, Theophany, Holy Week (Passion), and Post-Resurrection.98 Table 6.4

Classification of scenes common to Paris 54 and Iviron 5

Nativity Gadarene Exorcism Woman with the Hemorrhage Multiplication of the Loaves Wedding Feast Last Supper Descent from the Cross Marys at the Sepulcher Peter’s Mother-in-law Cure of the Leper Gerasene Exorcism Dumb Spirit Crucifixion

Matthew Infancy Miracle Miracle Miracle Parable Holy Week Holy Week Post-Resurrection Mark Miracle Miracle Miracle Miracle Holy Week

96 This situation can be contrasted with Chicago 965. See Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” p. 236. 97 Remembering again that Iviron 5’s narrative cycle is completely encompassed within Paris 54’s narrative cycle. 98 Admittedly, this is a somewhat arbitrary classification system. For example, “Ministry” simply fills a gap where Miracles and Parables didn’t apply. The Transfiguration and Baptism also seem to fit better under the category of Theophany rather than simply Ministry.

134 between constantinople and rome

Annunciation Presentation Baptism1 Transfiguration Cure of the Man with Dropsy Rich Man and Lazarus Widow’s Mite Anastasis Cana Wedding Samaritan Woman Cure at the Pool Cure of the Born Blind Raising of Lazarus Entry into Jerusalem Washing of the Feet Noli Me Tangere2

Luke Infancy Infancy Theophany Theophany Miracle Parable Parable John Holy Week Miracle Ministry Miracle Miracle Miracle Holy Week Holy Week Post-Resurrection

Note: 1 Located in Mark’s text in Iviron 5. 2 Located in Matthew’s text in Iviron 5.

The majority of scenes are classified as Miracles performed by Christ99 (for a total of 12), while scenes associated with Christ’s Passion and Holy Week comprise six scenes. Three scenes are classified as Infancy scenes (Nativity, Annunciation, and Presentation). Parables and post-Resurrection appearances total three and two, respectively. Table 6.5 analyzes Paris 54’s expanded cycle. The distribution of types of scenes changes markedly when we consider the 22 scenes added to Paris 54’s narrative cycle. Table 6.5

Miniatures added to Paris 54’s narrative cycle (not included in Iviron 5)

Wise and Foolish Virgins Betrayal Denial of Peter Remorse of Peter Christ Stilling the Water Garden of Gethsemane Denial of Peter Mocking of Christ

Matthew Parable Holy Week Holy Week Holy Week Mark Miracle Holy Week Holy Week Holy Week

99 For a brief history of Early Christian and Byzantine cycles depicting miracles of Christ, see Svetlana Tomeković, “Les miracles du Christ dans la peinture murale byzantine et géorgienne,” Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 6–7 (1990–91): 185–204.

imitation and innovation 135

Visitation Miraculous Draught of Fishes Cure of the Paralytic Raising of the Son of Widow of Naim Anointing of Christ Christ Asleep in the Boat Meal of the Rich Man Pharisee and the Tax Collector Rich Man and Eternal Life Master of the Vineyard Simon Carries the Cross Ascension Doubting of Thomas Appearance to the Disciples

Luke Infancy Miracle Miracle Miracle Ministry Miracle Parable Parable Parable Parable Holy Week Post-Resurrection John Post-Resurrection Post-Resurrection

These additions result in a total of 51 scenes in Paris 54’s narrative cycle compared to 29 in Iviron 5. The additional scenes in Paris 54 can be grouped according to the following categories: Infancy Miracles Parables Ministry Holy Week Theophany Post-Resurrection Total

1 5 5 1 7 0 3 22

Table 6.6 illustrates the total gains for each category of miniature in Paris 54 versus Iviron 5. Table 6.6

Total gains for each category of miniature in Paris 54 versus Iviron 5

Type of scene Infancy Miracles Parables Ministry Theophany Holy Week Post-Resurrection Totals

Iviron 5 3 12 3 1 2 6 2 29

Paris 54 4 17 8 2 2 13 5 51

Gains by P54 +1 +5 +5 +1 +0 +7 +3 +22

136 between constantinople and rome

Infancy scenes maintained a low priority in the expanded narrative cycle of Paris 54 with the addition of only the Visitation to Luke. Scenes from Christ’s Passion (Holy Week) comprised seven additional miniatures, the highest gains for any category.100 Of a total of eight miniatures added to Matthew and Mark, six were Passion scenes. Remembering here that the four additional scenes to Matthew were located in the last two quires of his Gospel and that Mark incorporated three of his additional scenes in his last quire, these results are not surprising. However, while both miniatures added to John’s text fall within the last quire; both are post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. Sizing up the situation from the perspective of each Gospel, we note that additional scenes in Matthew and Mark are selected overwhelmingly from Christ’s Passion, whereas the three additional scenes in John are drawn exclusively from post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. In contrast, the illustrations added to Paris 54’s Gospel of Luke differ in both the diversity of scenes selected and in their distribution throughout the text of his Gospel. These additions include four Miracles and four Parables, with other categories adding, at most, one each. The result is that Miracles retain their priority in Paris 54’s extended cycle, but very significant gains were made in both the Passion and Parable categories—two categories of limited import in Iviron 5’s cycle.101 The tables above also demonstrate that there was no attempt to distribute the various types of scenes among the Gospels evenly. Mark, for example, includes only Miracle and Passion scenes.102 100 Anne Derbes, Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy: Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideology, and the Levant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 2, notes that there is a transformation in narrative painting in the mid-thirteenth century, especially regarding the popularity of Passion scenes. Derbes associates this phenomenon with St. Francis himself and his emphasis on Christ’s humanity and suffering. On ibid., pp. 19ff., she discusses the Franciscan promotion of the Passion of Christ, referring to this as “privileging the Passion”; she connects it to Franciscan tenets of humility, poverty, and renunciation and notes the centrality of Franciscan devotion to the Passion (ibid., p. 24). Franciscans are the most visible of western religious groups in the Middle East. See Chapter 8 below. 101 Iviron 5 included three parables and six Passion scenes, but 11 miracles. 102 Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” pp. 234ff., discusses the character of narrative cycles of densely illustrated Gospel books from the late twelfth century to ca. 1250. She indicates that St. Petersburg 105 and Chicago 965 (Rockefeller McCormick New Testament) are both characterized by the strong presence of miracles, by a complete cycle of 12 Great Feasts which are frequently repeated throughout the Gospels, and by the omission of parables and ministry scenes. Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” pp. 244f., argues that in Chicago 965, “Christ’s role as the visible manifestation of grace and truth” is emphasized through “miracles of personal healing and restitution.” Emphasis is on “points where divinity intervened in private lives” in “actualized” and “embodied deeds.” Carr contrasts this emphasis on Christ’s healing ministry with “the great majority of framed Gospel cycles, from Parma 5 and the Moscow/Freer leaves onward, which overwhelmingly emphasize the events of the Passion” (ibid., p. 245). She also notes that St. Petersburg, gr. 105 includes 16 miracles and 24 Passion scenes within its 57 Gospel miniatures, while Athens 820 preserves two miracles and six Passion scenes. Chicago 965 included some 29 miracles and 11 Passion scenes in its estimated original 80 miniatures (ibid., p. 253).

imitation and innovation 137

The Impact of the Great Feasts in the Selection of Scenes for Paris 54 The Great Feasts are those Gospel passages in the Synaxarium and the Menologium which are read on the major feast days of the liturgical year. Weitzmann lists, in the order of their appearance in the lectionary, a possible total of 16 Great Feasts illustrations from the canonical Gospels (see Table 6.7).103 Table 6.7

The Great Feasts

Scene 1. Anastasis 2. Incredulity of Thomas 3. Ascension 4. Pentecost 5. Raising of Lazarus 6. Entry into Jerusalem 7. Washing of the Feet 8. Last Supper 9. Crucifixion 10. Descent from the Cross 11. Nativity 12. Circumcision 13. Baptism 14. Presentation 15. Annunciation 16. Transfiguration

Gospel (primary) Jn. 1:1–17 Jn. 20:26 Jn. 24:51 Jn. 7:37 Jn. 11:1 Jn. 12:13 Jn. 13:5 Mt. 26:22 Mt. 27:38 Mt. 27:57 Mt. 2:1 Lk. 2:21 Mt. 3:16 Lk. 2:22 Lk. 1:28 Lk. 9:28

Paris 54 X X X — X X X X (Mk.) X X — (Lk.) X X X

Iviron 5 X — — — X X X X (Mk.) X X — (Mk.) X X X

Paris 54 has, or had intended104 to include, 14 of the 16 scenes.105 The Pentecost is not an illustration of a Gospel passage proper and is not included in Paris 54’s narrative cycle.106 The Circumcision has also been omitted. Although Paris 54 includes most of the Great Feasts, not all of the miniatures correspond to the primary Gospel passage that is read on the feast day. 103 Weitzmann, “A 10th Century Lectionary,” p. 61. Again, the Anastasis is derived from the Gospel of Nicodemus, but was firmly entrenched in Byzantine Gospel illustration; Kartsonis, Anastasis, pp. 29ff. and 168ff. See also J.-M. Spieser, “Le développement du templon et les images des Douze Fêtes,” in Les Images dans les societies médiévales: Pour une histoire comparée, ed. J.-M. Sansterre and J.-C. Schmitt, Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome 69 (Brussels and Rome: Brepols, 1999), pp. 131–64. I thank Annemarie Weyl Carr for alerting me to Spieser’s article. 104 The uninitiated miniatures are the Anastasis, the Incredulity of Thomas, the Ascension, the Raising of Lazarus, the Entry into Jerusalem, the Washing of the Feet, and the Crucifixion. The Presentation is an unfinished miniature. 105 Matthew: Nativity, Last Supper, Descent from the Cross; Mark: Crucifixion; Luke: Annunciation, Presentation, Baptism, Transfiguration, Ascension; John: Anastasis, Resurrection of Lazarus, Entry into Jerusalem, Washing of the Feet, Doubting of Thomas. 106 The Pentecost is also not included in St. Petersburg 105’s extensive cycle (undoubtedly, for the same reason). See Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. II, pp. 79–80.

138 between constantinople and rome

For example, the Baptism in Paris 54 illustrates Lk. 3:21—a text passage read on the Monday of the first week of Luke.107 However, the parallel passage of the Baptism in Matthew is read on the immovable feast of the Baptism on January 6.108 On other occasions it is difficult to determine which of several Gospel passages read on a particular day was the primary reading. This is especially true for days such as Holy Thursday or Good Friday, which require at one point or another throughout the day all the possible Gospel versions of a subject. Passages on the Crucifixion, for example, were read from the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke on both Holy Thursday and Good Friday. Matthew’s text appears to have been given priority in the liturgical readings, but the illustration in Paris 54 accompanies Mk. 15:26. On the whole, we can conclude that the individual responsible for the selection of texts to be illustrated in Paris 54 made every effort to include virtually all of the eligible scenes of the Great Feasts in his narrative text cycle.109 And, with the exception of the Crucifixion and the Baptism, he chose to illustrate the most important Gospel passage read on the feast day.110 The Impact of the Liturgy in the Selection of Scenes for Paris 54’s Narrative Cycle Lectionary influence probably played a role in determining the selection of text passages for illustration. In Matthew, three miniatures are associated with Sunday lections, seven accompany lections read during Holy Week, while the Nativity, of course, accompanies the text for a major feast day. Only one miniature, the Cure of the Woman with the Hemorrhage, was used for a weekday lection. In Mark, on the other hand, five miniatures accompany weekday lections; one is associated with a Sunday reading and three with passages read during Holy Week. Most weekday lections illustrated in Mark have parallel passages in Matthew that were given a more significant role in the lectionary. In Luke, five miniatures are associated with Sunday lections and four with major feast days. One miniature accompanies a Holy Week lection and seven have passages used during the week. Once again, most weekday lections illustrated in Luke have parallel passages in Matthew which were given a more prestigious role (that is, weekend readings) in the lectionary. 107 Yota, “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” p. 227, says that only Berlin q. 66 and Paris 54 illustrate Luke’s text for the Baptism. 108 The Baptism in Iviron 5 illustrates Mark’s passage on this subject (Mk. 1:10), which was read on Monday of the twelfth week of Matthew. Iviron 5 contains 12 Great Feasts; like Paris 54, it omits the Circumcision and Pentecost, and in addition it omits the Ascension and the Doubting of Thomas. 109 See Spieser, “Le développement du templon,” for the success of the Great Feasts cycle beginning in the late eleventh century, not just in illustrated manuscripts, but also in painted panels. Cited in Carr, “Reading Styles of Use,” p. 238 and n. 15. 110 See Yota “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810,” pp. 225–32 and n. 643, for discussion of the rationale and liturgical grounding of Harley 1810’s narrative cycle. A color reproduction of Harley 1810’s scene of the Koimesis (Death of the Virgin) can be found in Buckton, Byzantium, p. 180.

imitation and innovation 139

There are only two illustrations in John that accompany weekday lections. The majority of illustrations in John’s Gospel accompany Sunday lections (or are associated with eothina, read at the sunrise service on Sundays111). One miniature is associated with a lection used during Holy Week. My research indicates that Matthew was dominant in the selection of passages for illustration in Matthew and Mark and exercised a significant influence in Luke. That is, eight scenes of a total of 12 in Matthew play the most significant role in the lectionary. Five out of nine in Mark have parallel passages in Matthew which play a more important role in the lectionary. The same is true of five of the 19 scenes in Luke’s Gospel. The Impact of Kephalaia on the Selection of Scenes in Paris 54’s Narrative Cycle In an effort to investigate all possible relationships between the narrative cycle and the Gospel text, an analysis of the relationship between the kephalaia and the illustrations of Paris 54’s narrative cycle was undertaken.112 As mentioned above in Chapter 2, the essential texts in each Gospel were assigned a number and a short title. These functioned as a kind of table of contents for each evangelist’s text as they were often listed before each Gospel. The kephalaia do not appear to have exercised any significant influence in the selection of scenes to be illustrated in Paris 54 since each Gospel has text illustrations which have no corresponding kephalaia. Two out of 12 scenes in Matthew (Denial of Peter, Marys at the Sepulcher) do not have corresponding kephalaia. Three out of nine scenes in Mark have no kephalaia (Gethsemane, Mocking of Christ, Crucifixion). Five out of 19 scenes in Luke have none (Annunciation, Visitation, Baptism, Simon Carries the Cross, Ascension), and four of a total of 11 illustrations in John have no kephalaia (Anastasis, Noli Me Tangere, Appearance to Thomas, and Appearance to Disciples while Fishing). The kephalaia, then, had no bearing on the illustrated cycle of Paris 54. Scenes Added to Paris 54 Involving St. Peter Finally, in assessing the expanded narrative program of Paris 54, one cannot help but note the substantial number of scenes involving the disciple Peter. 111 An eothinon (εωθινόν) is one of 11 Resurrectional or post-Resurrectional readings that is read successively at the Sunday sunrise (orthros) service throughout the year in the Greek Orthodox Church. Eothina 10 and 11 are derived from the text associated with the last miniature in Table 6.8 below: Jn. 21:8ff. 112 Kephalaia represent an early system of paragraph division and numbering. Those seen in Codex Vaticanus became standard in later Greek manuscripts. There are 68 in Matthew, 48 in Mark, 83 in Luke, and 18 in John. See Parker, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316. Prof. Jean-Guy Violette has demonstrated striking parallels between the scenes selected for illustration in the late eleventh-century frieze Gospels, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana, MS Plut. VI. 23 and its chapter listings or kephalaia. See Jean-Guy Violette, “Le cycle des miniatures du Laur. VI 23 et sa rélation à une liste de titres de chapitres,” Byzantines Studies/Etudes Byzantines 10/2 (1983): 141–73.

140 between constantinople and rome

Seven of the scenes that were added to Paris 54, and which are not included in Iviron 5, contain significant references to St. Peter. Five of these are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark and one each was added to Luke and John, respectively. Numbers 4–7 in Table 6.8 are all unexecuted miniatures. Table 6.8

Scenes added to Paris 54 related to St. Peter (in order of appearance in Paris 54’s text)

1. Betrayal of Christ 2. Denial of Peter 3. Remorse of Peter 4. Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane 5. Denial of Peter 6. Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Calling of St. Peter) 7. Post-Resurrection Appearance of Christ to the Disciples on the Shores of the Sea of Tiberias

Matthew 26:47 Matthew 26:69 Matthew 26:75 Mark 14:35 Mark 14:68 Luke 5:2 John 21:8

The first five scenes cast Peter in a negative light. In the Betrayal (Plate IX), Peter, in a fit of rage, cuts off the ear of the servant of the high priest.113 The illustration of Peter’s Denial is not found in Iviron 5, but is added to both Matthew’s (Plate X) and Mark’s114 Gospels in Paris 54. Peter’s Remorse (Plate XI) is also found in Matthew’s Gospel. Christ in the Garden in Gethsemane (uninitiated) is added to Mark’s Gospel. In this scene, Peter is chastised by Christ for falling asleep during one of his darkest hours. And, in the text immediately preceding this passage in Mark (Mk. 14:26–31), Christ predicts (over Peter’s vehement protestations) that Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows. Thus, five of the seven added scenes emphasize Peter’s weakness of character, moments when he has disappointed or even denied Christ. These scenes should be contrasted with the more neutral character of the Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law (Mk. 1:30), the only scene with Peter that is common to both Paris 54 and Iviron 5.115 Furthermore, both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 include the Washing of the Feet (Jn. 13:5), an event which took place on Holy Thursday during the Last Supper. The scene typically depicts all of the apostles and Christ, but the Gospel passage focuses primarily on a conversation between Christ and Peter in which Christ says that Peter is “not clean all over” (Jn. 13:11). Christ knew that Peter would shortly betray him. The last two added scenes in Paris 54 involving Peter in Table 6.8 are very different from the negative characterization of Peter in the first five scenes. The sixth scene, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes, is actually the calling of St. Peter. A crowd gathered on the shore of Lake Genesareth hoping to hear Jesus preach. 113 Only John’s Gospel actually identifies the perpetrator as Peter; see Jn. 18:10. 114 The scene remains unexecuted in Mark’s Gospel. 115 Although one could argue that this scene is not neutral in the West as it indirectly espouses the right of priests to marry. Greek Orthodox priests may marry, while Catholic priests may not.

imitation and innovation 141

Peter had moored his boat there after an unsuccessful night of fishing and was nearby, cleaning his net (Lk. 5:5). Christ boarded his boat and asked Peter to put the boat out a little so that he could preach to the crowd onshore. When Christ was finished preaching, he instructed Peter to “put out into the deep, and lower your nets for a catch” (Lk. 5:4). Peter agreed, but indicated he had been fishing all night for naught. The net was filled with fish—so many fish that Peter had to call to his comrades for help. Peter then fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Jesus answered, “Do not be afraid; henceforth thou shalt catch men” (Lk. 5:10). The synoptic Gospels all include this scene, but in Matthew’s (Mt. 4:18–22) and Mark’s (Mk. 1:16–20) accounts, Andrew is given parity with Peter.116 It is noteworthy that the designer of Paris 54 paired this scene with Luke’s version (Lk. 5:1–11), for there Peter alone is the focus of the encounter with Christ.117 The seventh scene listed in Table 6.8, the Post-Resurrection Appearance of Christ to the Disciples on the Shores of the Sea of Tiberias, dovetails with the calling of Peter above and offers a fitting conclusion to the series of “Peter” miniatures. This is the last of the scenes added to Paris 54, and the final scene of its entire narrative cycle.118 It represents Christ’s final post-Resurrection appearance to his disciples and it, too, entails a miraculous draught of fishes, and thus serves to remind the reader of Christ’s first encounter with Peter.119 John’s text (Jn. 21:1–14) relates that Peter has initiated a fishing trip. He and six disciples fish unsuccessfully all night. At daybreak, a stranger on the shore directs them to cast their net to the right of the boat. When the net instantly fills with fish, the disciple John recognizes the stranger as Christ. Peter jumps into the water and swims to shore to greet Jesus. It is immediately after this moment that Paris 54’s text breaks for the miniature. The verse directly following the miniature (Jn. 21:8) describes how the other disciples came to shore with the boat, dragging the net full of fish. While this scene was not executed in Paris 54, the illustration in the eleventh-century lectionary Athos, Dionysiou 587 may offer an idea of what Paris 54’s miniature might have looked like (Plate 33).120 In the lectionary illustration, Christ stands on the 116 Whereas John’s account of the calling of Peter differs significantly from the synoptic Gospels; see Jn. 1: 35–42. 117 This point is underscored by Gertrud Schiller, who writes that this passage in Luke’s text is “extremely rarely depicted during the Middle Ages.” Schiller notes that an early illustration of this scene is found in a papal context—that is, in Raphael’s tapestry cartoons for the Sistine Chapel commissioned by Pope Leo X in 1516. See G. Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, transl. Janet Seligman (New York: New York Graphic Society, 1971), vol. 1, p. 167. 118 Space was reserved for this scene on fol. 359v. The last folio of the manuscript is fol. 364. 119 That is, the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (Calling of St. Peter) of Lk. 5:1–11. The theological implications of this scene are discussed by Gertrud Schiller, Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. 3: Die Auferstehung und Erhöhung Christi (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971), pp. 114–18. 120 Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 1, p. 219, fig. 277, fol. 173r. On ibid., p. 446, the authors indicate that the illustration accompanies Jn. 21:1–14.

142 between constantinople and rome

shore, Peter swims in the foreground, his body fully visible through the water, and above him is depicted the boat with eight disciples and the net of fish.121 Peter is clearly the focus of the composition as he swims to shore.122 The next six verses describe the breakfast of fish that Christ and the disciples share (Jn. 21:9–14). The text that follows this is even more important from our perspective (Jn. 21:15–17), for immediately following the meal, Christ asks Peter three times in succession the following question: “Simon, son of John, dost thou love me more than these do?” Peter answers in the affirmative. Following each of the first two affirmations, Christ says, “Feed my lambs.” After the final affirmation, Christ exhorts Peter to “Feed my sheep.” This threefold confession of Peter’s love for Christ counteracts his earlier threefold denial of Christ (Jn. 18:17, 25, and 27). Thus, in this passage, Peter is fully “rehabilitated” and, according to the Church of Rome, his primacy is acknowledged. Paris 54’s narrative cycle ends with this final postResurrection appearance and it is in the course of this encounter that, from the perspective of the Latin Church, Christ effectively transfers leadership to Peter.123 The Gospel of John ends a few verses later. We cannot know what the designer intended for this last miniature in Paris 54’s cycle. The fact that the miniature break occurs after the actual miraculous draught of fishes and immediately after the verse describing Peter’s spontaneous decision to swim to shore suggests that the focus may not have intended to be the miracle, but rather on the conversation that ensues between Christ and Peter following their meal on the beach. If the focus was intended to be on the miraculous draught of fishes, then presumably the miniature would have been located at Jn. 21:1 rather than at Jn. 21:8. Surprisingly, the illustration of this text was not likely to have been controversial from the Orthodox perspective. In fact, the text in which Peter is rehabilitated by Christ after his post-Resurrection appearance on the Sea For other examples of this scene, see Tomeković, “Les miracles du Christ,” pp. 189–90. It is also included in the fresco cycle of Hagia Sophia, Trebizond on the north wall of the bema. See Antony Eastmond, Art and Identity in Thirteenth-century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), color pl. IX. The Armenian Glajor Gospels also concludes with this scene, and Mathews and Sanjian offer a very interesting analysis of it. See Mathews and Sanjian, Armenian Gospel Iconography, pp. 163–5 and 570 (black and white illustration). The authors say that the scene is not known in Early Christian art and note that in Byzantine art, Peter is always shown swimming to shore. See further for their discussion of the role of this illustration (and others in the Glajor Gospels) against the “Latinizers.” 121 It is not clear why eight disciples are depicted in the boat. John’s text indicates that six disciples accompanied Peter on this fishing trip: Thomas, Nathaniel, the sons of Zebedee (James and John), and two others who were not named (Jn. 21:2). 122 Dionysiou 587’s illustration, with its image of Peter fully submerged in the sea as he swims to shore, is almost suggestive of a purification rite—foreshadowing, perhaps, Peter’s imminent rehabilitation by Christ. Remember here, too, that during the Washing of the Feet, Christ says that Peter is “not clean all over.” 123 In fact, papal infallibility was initially proclaimed at the first Vatican Council in 1870, and this text in John’s Gospel was cited in support of it.

imitation and innovation 143

of Tiberias plays an important role in the Orthodox liturgy.124 It is the source of the hymns for two of the eleven eothina of the Sunday sunrise liturgies celebrated between Easter and Pentecost. John 21’s miraculous draught of fishes is the subject of eothinon 10, and the subsequent rehabilitation of Peter comprises eothinon 11.125 Geanakoplos, citing Meyendorff et al., continues: the Byzantine attitude toward the primacy and succession of Peter was determined by an “ecclesiology” different from that of the West. The title koryphaios [chief] e.g., was often given not only to Peter but also to other apostles, esp. Paul and John. The term did not mean to Byzantines that Peter, and therefore Rome, had jurisdiction over the other apostles or sees. In other words, the apostolic and the episcopal functions of Peter were not identical and the Byzantines did not consider a single bishop as the successor of one apostle, as the West did. For the Greeks, all bishops are successors of all apostles. Thus the East accepted Peter as chief of the apostles without accepting other Roman claims.126

Thus, it appears that with the selection of Jn. 21 as the last illustration of Paris 54, both Latins and Greeks are served. Latins interpret this passage as underscoring the primacy of Peter and hence the Roman pope. For Greeks, Peter is the chief of the apostles, a position shared by other apostles (and hence their successors) as well. Regardless, it is important to note that Peter is not singled out in Iviron 5’s narrative cycle. None of the seven scenes involving Peter listed in Table 6.8 are included in Iviron 5’s text. Moreover, a review of Table 6.2 reminds us that Iviron 5’s narrative cycle concludes with the Washing of the Feet, and some 30 un-illustrated folios elapse before Iviron 5 ends with three full-page miniatures that are unrelated to the Gospel text.127 The singular role of Peter in Paris 54’s expanded narrative cycle will be recalled below in Chapter 8, where the historical context in which the manuscript was produced will be considered in detail. There it will be argued that Paris 54 was likely conceived of as a gift to a pope by a Byzantine emperor. 124 For more information on the eothina and their popularity in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, see Nektarios Zarras, “The Iconographical Cycle of the Eothina Gospel Pericopes in Churches from the Reign of King Milutin”: http://www. doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-1361/2006-2007/0350-13610731095Z.pdf (accessed January 31, 2012). 125 See n. 111 above and Ecumenical Patriarchate: Byzantine Music: http://www. ec-patr.net/en/sounds_htm/eothina.htm (accessed June 25, 2011). 126 Deno John Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura, the Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274),” in The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. Derek Baker (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976), pp. 183–211, reprinted with additional bibliography in Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), pp. 195–223, esp. pp. 205–6 and n. 50. Geanakoplos cites J. Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University Press, 1974), and J. Meyendorff et al., The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (London: The Faith Press, 1963), esp. pp. 9, 12, 15, and so on. 127 And, as Lowden has noted, at least one of these illustrations is not in its original location. Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 262.

144 between constantinople and rome

Conclusion Obviously, Paris 54 was never meant to be a direct copy of Iviron 5. While Iviron 5 provided the model for Paris 54’s evangelist portraits and for many miniatures in its narrative cycle, a remarkable degree of innovation is exhibited by the head scribe/designer of Paris 54 and by Artist C. As we have seen, all 29 of Iviron 5’s narrative miniatures are incorporated into Paris 54’s cycle, and 27 of those scenes are found in the same Gospel in Paris 54. Moreover, Iviron 5 was clearly available to the head scribe of Paris 54 since miniatures common to both manuscripts almost always interrupt the text at precisely the same point. However, Paris 54 was always more ambitious in its intentions than Iviron 5. This is reflected in its generous dimensions, its bilingual Greek and Latin text, its polychromatic text executed in four different ink colors, and its significantly expanded narrative cycle. The innovative aspects of Paris 54 are impressive given the aversion to change evident in many aspects of Byzantine society.128 Within the inherent conservatism of the Byzantine milieu, we must acknowledge the many innovations witnessed in Paris 54. In Chapter 8 we will pick up this thread in our ongoing effort to shed light on the circumstances of the commission of this manuscript. But first we must place Paris 54 in its art historical context.

128 For the conservative character of Byzantine piety, see André Grabar, “The Artistic Climate in Byzantium During the Palaeologan Period,” in Paul Underwood, ed., The Kariye Djami, vol. 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 6. (Roman imperial pagan rites have been described in similarly stultifying terms.) For the linguistic conservatism of Byzantine writing, including its “deliberate goal” of mimesis, see Elizabeth Jeffreys, “Rhetoric in Byzantium,” in A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 166–84, esp. p. 168 and n. 17, where she cites H. Hunger, “On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–4 (1969–70): 17–38. For the role of innovation (or lack of it) in Byzantine art, see Grabar, “Artistic Climate in Byzantium,” pp. 10–11; Ihor Ševčenko, “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual Trends of His Time,” in Paul Underwood, ed., The Kariye Djami, vol. 4: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 17–91, and Viktor Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures from Constantinople,” in Studies in Byzantine Painting (London: Pindar Press, 1995, originally published in Russian in Vizantiiskii Vremennik 5 [1952]: 178–90). In ibid., pp. 295–6 and 312–13, Lazarev discusses the inherent conservatism of Palaeologan art that prevented it from moving in the same direction as Gothic and proto-Renaissance art. However, see Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” pp. 264–5, for the often unacknowledged role of innovation in Byzantine illumination. See also Lowden, Jaharis Gospel Lectionary, p. 16, for the connections between novelty and heresy.

7 Paris 54’s Place in Thirteenth-century Constantinopolitan Book Illumination

The definitive study of thirteenth-century Byzantine manuscript illumination has yet to be written.1 There are huge gaps in our understanding of its evolution, and the situation is further complicated by calamities such as the Fourth Crusade and the ensuing Latin occupation of Constantinople (1204– 61). Nicaea must have played a role in book production in the period before 1261, but clearly Constantinople and Thessaloniki were the major centers in the early Palaeologan period.2 Scribal signatures in Byzantine manuscripts are rarely helpful in providing information concerning locale, however. This chapter assigns Paris 54 to the last quarter of the thirteenth century based on stylistic and paleographic comparisons with dated manuscripts from this period. The stylistic evidence presented here, along with the paleographic evidence from Chapter 2 and the historical context described in Chapter 8, together suggest a date within this period. While I would prefer to associate Paris 54 with the Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologus and his efforts related to the Union of Lyons of 1274 (that is, from ca. 1265 up until his death in late 1282), there is no incontrovertible proof of such an attribution. Instead, the various types of evidence support a date within the period of ca. 1275–95 and provide substantial insight regarding life in Constantinople under Michael VIII and his son and successor, Andronicus II. Several groups of manuscripts are associated with the thirteenth century by art historians and paleographers. The most important Byzantine illustrated manuscripts of the first half of the century are those of the “decorative style.”3 The origins of this group have proven difficult to pinpoint, and 1 In 1975, Hugo Buchthal wrote: “A history of Palaeologan illumination has never been written, nor do I think that the time has come make the attempt.” See H. Buchthal, “Toward a History of Palaeologan Illumination,” in Kurt Weitzmann, William C. Loerke, Ernst Kitzinger, and Hugo Buchthal, The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 143–77, esp. p. 143. 2 Nelson, “Tales of Two Cities,” pp. 127–40. Disagreement over the chronology and provenance of decorative style manuscripts persists as well, as we shall see below. 3 Carr, Byzantine Illumination, and Carr, “Reading Styles of Use.”

146 between constantinople and rome

even its chronology has been challenged by the publication of a decorative style manuscript in Sofia dated to 1285.4 A second group of manuscripts once associated with the first half of the thirteenth century is Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group. Paris 54 and Iviron 5 have long been assigned membership in this group.5 The third group of manuscripts associated with the thirteenth century was introduced by Buchthal and Belting and today is generally referred to as the Palaeologina group. These manuscripts comprise the finest works of the period and are conclusively associated with Constantinople by art historians and paleographers alike. The best of these are truly deluxe products, and some can be directly associated with members of the imperial family or their heirs. The growing number of manuscripts associated with the Palaeologina group in either their ornament or their text suggests that elite members of the clergy and aristocracy also commissioned manuscripts from these scribes and illuminators.6 We shall see that Paris 54 shares links with all three of these groups. We observed in Chapter 6 that the format of Paris 54’s narrative cycle was well developed in the Gospel books of the decorative style manuscripts.7 However, the closest stylistic ties to Paris 54 are found in Iviron 5 and manuscripts like London, Burney 20 (dated 1285). The Smyrna Lectionary, which is linked to both Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group (in two of its evangelist portraits) and the Palaeologina group (in its script by the scribe David), provides an important clue to Paris 54’s date since it is securely dated to 1298.8 Furthermore, palaeographic links with Vatopedi 602, the Hamilton Psalter, and the Octateuch in the Laurentian Library in Florence imply that Paris 54, too, can be dated to the last decades of the thirteenth century and linked with the highest echelon of Constantinopolitan society. In this chapter, we will first address Paris 54’s ties with those manuscripts still widely referred to as Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group. Next, dated (or datable) manuscripts from the later thirteenth and early fourteenth century with stylistic or paleographic ties to Paris 54 will be studied in an attempt to situate Paris 54 chronologically. Thus, an approximate date for Paris 54 may be gauged through examining several types of evidence including its evangelist portraits, narrative miniatures, and its Greek script. In Chapter 8, 4 Until recently, most scholars believed that the production of decorative style manuscripts ended around 1250. However, Lowden, in a review of Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004): 354, notes that “Dujčev gr. 339 is clearly a member of Carr’s ‘provincial’ [that is, “decorative” style] group of manuscripts of predominately late twelfth to early thirteenth century date, yet it is dated 1285,” and refers the reader to p. 179 and color pl. 77. 5 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination.” 6 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage; see also Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group.” 7 Moreover, as seen in Chapter 4 above, Paris 54’s Greek text is closely related to that of Princeton, Garrett 3. Garrett 3, while not designated a member of the decorative style group, is related in its script and ornament. See Carr, Byzantine Illumination, p. 20. 8 The Smyrna Lectionary was apparently destroyed in the early 1920s.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 147

we will consider the significance of its Latin text as we seek to refine Paris 54’s approximate date.

Evangelist Portraits Any attempt to date Paris 54 will depend heavily on the evidence provided by its evangelist portraits.9 There are far more dated (or datable) manuscripts with evangelist portraits in the Palaeologan era than there are manuscripts with narrative cycles—especially narrative cycles with secure dates.10 While there are a significant number of datable fresco cycles from the Byzantine realm in the early Palaeologan period, comparative analysis of thirteenth-century manuscripts and frescoes does not indicate that stylistic developments for the two media were synchronous.11 Manuscripts, particularly in the second half of the thirteenth century, appear more conservative in their evolution and more likely to incorporate the style of their model.12 Fresco painting, on the other hand, represented the vanguard of Palaeologan style. The boldest advances usually occur first in this medium. Any effort to assign a date to Paris 54 and Iviron 5 will benefit from comparisons with dated manuscripts from the second half of the thirteenth century and the early fourteenth century.13 Finally, miniature painting is thought to have held a relatively minor status in comparison with fresco and icon painting. There is no evidence for an imperial scriptorium in the Palaeologan period, and there is no evidence that scriptoria maintained resident miniaturists.14 In fact, most of the miniatures 9 See Hugo Buchthal, “Notes on Some Early Palaeologan Miniatures,” Kunsthistorische Forschungen Otto Pächt zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Rosenauer and G. Weber (Salzburg, 1972), pp. 36–43, esp. p. 36, where he writes: “It is true that the great majority of illuminated manuscripts of Palaeologan date are Gospels whose decoration is restricted to portraits of the evangelists and headpieces for the incipit pages.” 10 Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 64, write: “If in the Middle Byzantine period monumental painting tends to favor the iconic and miniature painting the narrative, the opposite situation prevails in the Palaeologan era.” 11 For example, the “advanced” frescoes of Sopocani are contemporary with the conservative miniatures of Paris, gr. 117. Comparisons between frescoes and manuscript illuminations can be more fruitful in the second Palaeologan style, beginning ca. 1300. See Nelson, “Tales of Two Cities,” pp. 130ff. 12 Buchthal, “Early Palaeologan Miniatures,” p. 40. The finest illuminated manuscripts are frequently based upon or heavily influenced by tenth-, eleventh-, and twelfth-century models, and the archaizing character of a number of manuscripts from the last half of the thirteenth century has been emphasized in the literature. See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, pp. 39 and 41f; Otto Demus, “Style of the Kariye Djami,” p. 157, and Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” p. 20. Buchthal has ventured that “by 1300 miniature painting had been relegated to the role of a minor art”; see Buchthal, “Early Palaeologan Miniatures,” p. 40. 13 For a discussion of dated illuminated manuscripts from this period, see Nelson “Paris. Gr. 117.” Buchthal’s discussion of fourteenth-century manuscripts is also useful; see Buchthal, “History of Palaeologan Illumination,” passim. 14 See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, pp. 17, 54, and 97.

148 between constantinople and rome

are thought to have been executed by icon painters,15 and Buchthal has urged that dated miniatures be used to secure the mostly undated evidence of icon painting.16 The following analysis begins with those manuscripts which feature evangelist portraits of the same type as those found in Paris 54—that is, with Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group. Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan Manuscript Group17 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Athens, National Library, cod. 11818 Athos, Iviron 5 Paris 54 Princeton, University Library, Ms. Garrett 219 Smyrna Lectionary20 Athos, Philotheou 521 Th. Tsatsos Private Collection, Athens22

15 Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 12, and Buchthal, “Early Palaeologan Miniatures,” p. 40. See also Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 48ff. See Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 67–8, for how little is known regarding the interaction of patrons, scribes, and artists. 16 Buchthal, “History of Palaeologan Illumination,” p. 177. 17 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” first associated manuscripts numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 with his group. Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, “The Miniatures of a Palaeologan New Testament at the Hagia Lavra Monastery near Kalavryta,” in Ritual and Art: Byzantine Essays for Christopher Walter, ed. Pamela Armstrong (London: Pindar Press, 2006), pp. 106–21, published a New Testament manuscript whose portrait of Matthew is similar to the same evangelist in Iviron 5 and Paris 54. The manuscript—Kalavryta, Hagia Lavra Monastery, New Testament No. 31 (Gregory/Aland 2261)—is assigned to the third quarter of the fourteenth century by Vocotopoulos (ibid., pp. 107–8). 18 Prato has argued that the text of Athens 118 can be dated to the late tenth century on paleographical grounds; see Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti.” For Athens 118, see also Anna Marava-Chatzinicolaou and Christina Toufexi-Paschou, Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece, vol. 2: Manuscripts of New Testament Texts 13th–15th Century (Athens: Publications Bureau of the Academy of Athens, 1985), cat. #5, pp. 44–52 and figs. 66, 68, 70 and 73, for color reproductions of the evangelists. 19 Formerly Mt. Athos, Andreaskiti, cod. 753. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 61, supports an early twelfth-century date for the text of Princeton, Garrett 2. Later, Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 62 and n. 18 (see also pls. 78–9) indicate that the evangelist portraits of Princeton, Garrett 2 were inserted into the twelfth-century Gospel text during the reign of Patriarch Athanasios I of Constantinople (that is, 1289–93). For color reproductions of Princeton, Garrett 2’s evangelist portraits, see Kotzabassi and Ševčenko, Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, pp. 7–18 and figs. 10–32. For more on the Princeton manuscript, see n. 51 below. 20 Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung, p. 201, n. 1; Papadaki-Oekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” p. 54; Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 64, n. 21a; Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group.” 21 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 70. 22 Two portraits found on single leaves in the Tsatsos Collection feature the same type as Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Evangelists Luke and John. Papadaki-Oekland

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 149

Weitzmann initiated this discussion in 1944 when he noted that five of the manuscripts listed above contained at least some common evangelist portrait types.23 Iconographic parallels between some of these manuscripts’ evangelist portraits and several evangelists in the Wolfenbüttel Sketchbook, a Western work datable to the second quarter of the thirteenth century, as well as the presence of Latin scripts in some of the portraits of the Byzantine manuscripts, led Weitzmann to suggest that his manuscripts must date from the first half of the thirteenth century, a period coinciding with the Latin Occupation of Constantinople (1204–61).24 He proposed further that these manuscripts were produced in Constantinople following tenth-century models and commissioned, or perhaps adjusted, for a Latin customer.25 Weitzmann thought that Athens 118, Princeton, Garrett 2, Iviron 5, and Paris 54 represented the mature phase of this style. Paris 54 was positioned as the latest of these four manuscripts in date, but its bilingual text encouraged Weitzmann to assign it within the period of the Latin Conquest.26 Philotheou 5 was thought to represent an early phase of the style seen in these four manuscripts.27 From this point forward, these manuscripts would be referred to as Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group. Weitzmann overlooked an important clue in dating his manuscript group. In 1933, Tikkanen had already observed that two of the portraits of Paris 54 recur in the Smyrna Lectionary, a manuscript dated by colophon to the year 1298.28 While Weitzmann cited Tikkanen’s text in his 1944 article, he apparently missed a critical footnote on page 201 describing the iconographical connections between Paris 54’s evangelist portraits and those of the Smyrna Lectionary.29 proposes that these are late thirteenth- or early fourteenth-century copies of Iviron 5’s evangelists and describes them as inferior in quality. She proposes that they may have been executed in a small workshop on Mt. Athos. See further Papadaki-Oekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” p. 54. 23 Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Weitzmann notes that all five manuscripts had been published previously and assigned a range of dates from the tenth to the fourteenth centuries. See Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” passim. 24 Few dated thirteenth-century manuscripts were known at the time Weitzmann was writing his article; see Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” pp. 314–34. 25 Ibid., pp. 320ff. See also Millet, Recherches sur l’iconographie, p. 646, where Millet assigned Paris 54 to Macedonia or to Constantinople and to “l’entourage de quelque prince croisé ou de quelque prélat latin.” 26 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” p. 325. The implications of Paris 54’s bilingual text are addressed in Chapter 8 below. 27 Weitzmann thought that Philotheou 5 was particularly close in style to Vatican gr. 1208, a member of the Palaeologina group. See Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” p. 326. See Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 70–71, for a discussion of Philotheou 5 in conjunction with the Palaeologina group. 28 See Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung, p. 201, n. 1. 29 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” cites Tikkanen’s book on at least two occasions (for example, p. 315, n. 14 and p. 324, n. 51).

150 between constantinople and rome

In his 1944 article, Weitzmann could cite only two manuscripts securely dated to the thirteenth century:30 Athens, Benaki Museum, Virt. 34, no. 4 (dated 1244)31 and Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana, cod. A. 111. 12 (formerly dated to 1257). He dismissed from consideration the miniatures of the Benaki manuscript on account of their “local” style, while the one remaining portrait in the Brescia manuscript was considered to be a product of Southern Italy.32 Illuminated manuscripts dated to the early fourteenth century (for example, Athos, Pantokrator 47 [dated 1301]33 and Vatopedi 938 [dated 1304]34) were thought to represent a much more advanced stage of development than the style of Weitzmann’s group. In 1949, Lazarev reviewed Weitzmann’s article and insisted that Weitzmann’s whole group be assigned to the second half of the thirteenth century on the basis of stylistic comparisons with dated thirteenth-century manuscripts.35 In 1952, in an article supporting a ca. 1285 date for St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101, Lazarev cited a much more extensive number of dated or datable manuscripts than Weitzmann and again argued for a date in the 1290s for Iviron 5 and all stylistically related manuscripts.36 Lazarev argued that despite its Greek and Latin text, Paris 54 was likely produced in the East and assigned it to the Macedonian school.37 Less than a decade later, Otto Demus wrote his landmark article on the origins of the Palaeologan style and supported Lazarev’s later dates for most members of Weitzmann’s manuscript group. He also cautioned that stylistic 30 Contrast this figure with the number of manuscripts cited in Nelson’s 1984 article on thirteenth-century manuscripts. See Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117.” 31 Nelson, “Manuscripts of Antonios Malakes,” demonstrates that the miniatures are fakes, as is the colophon. 32 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” p. 330, n. 72. 33 Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, passim. 34 See Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” p. 332. 35 See Viktor N. Lazarev, review of Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin Conquest, by K. Weitzmann, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944): 193–214, in Vizantijskij Vremennik 2 (1949): 367–73 (in Russian). 36 For example, Berlin, quarto 66 (before 1219); Sinai 2123 (dated 1242); Paris, gr. 117 (ca. 1265); Paris, Coislin 200 (1269); London, B.L., Burney 20 (dated 1285) (and by stylistic association, St. Petersburg, cod. 101), and the Chrysobull of Andronikos II. (Lazarev then accepted a date of 1293 for the chrysobull.) The date of 1242 for Sinai 2123 has been discredited now by art historians and paleographers. See Giancarlo Prato in collaboration with J.A.M. Sonderkamp, “Libro, testo, miniature: il caso del cod. Sinait. Gr. 2123,” Scritture e Civiltà 9 (1985): 309–23, and Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 49, says that Sinai 2123’s “miniatures are the work of a western master. … The Latin master more or less successfully assimilated Byzantine style, but in the process added some iconographical features which are typically western.” 37 Lazarev wrote: “It could equally have been completed in the east in a Latin prelate or crusader’s circle …. I am inclined to accept Millet’s hypothesis that the Paris manuscript belongs to the Macedonian School.” Actually, as cited in n. 25 above, Millet assigned Paris 54 to “Macedonia or Constantinople”; see Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” p. 292, n. 17. Nelson supported Lazarev’s re-dating of Weitzmann’s manuscript group. See Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” p. 7, n. 26 and pp. 17ff.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 151

analysis of these portraits was extremely difficult since many follow the style of their tenth-century models while others were executed in a wholly Palaeologan mode. Demus opted for a date in the 1260s for both Paris 54 and Iviron 5.38 These dates were revised just two years later when Demus proposed a date within the period of Michael VIII (1261–82) for Iviron 5. Its “painterly” style was contrasted with the “cubist” and “extreme solution” of Paris 54 which he dated ca. 1285–89.39 A date for Paris 54 in the late thirteenth century was implied by Rudolph Naumann and Hans Belting in their study of the Euphemia Church in Constantinople, when they propose a date in the fourth quarter of the thirteenth century for the church’s fresco cycle after comparing its ornament to that of many of the manuscripts discussed by Lazarev.40 A few years later, Belting dated Iviron 5 to the mid-thirteenth century and suggested that Paris 54 was about two decades later (ca. 1280).41 In his 1967 survey of Byzantine art, Lazarev devoted considerable attention to both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 and their respective dates. Iviron 5 was dated to the last third of the thirteenth century and Paris 54 to the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Lazarev thought that the former was a first-rate, Constantinopolitan product and said it was the first manuscript that clearly represents the new Palaeologan style. Paris 54, he believed, was based on the same model, but provincial in execution. He restated his conviction that Paris 54 was the product of a Macedonian master working for a high-ranking crusader or Latin prelate. Lazarev also argued that Paris 54 was later in date than Iviron 5 because its style was more representative of mature Palaeologan trends.42 In 1975–76 an important contribution concerning the chronology of Weitzmann’s group was made by Stella Papadaki-Oekland when she republished photos of the Smyrna Lectionary (dated 1298). The Mark and John portraits of this manuscript are of the same type as their counterparts in Iviron 5 and Paris 54. If the Smyrna manuscript’s portraits can be assumed to also date to 1298, then Papadaki-Oekland provided all the evidence necessary to push back by perhaps as much as a decade the date of some of the later members of Weitzmann’s group.43 Papadaki-Oekland suggests that both Athens 118 and Iviron 5 should be dated before the Smyrna 38 Otto Demus, “Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils in der Malerei,” Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958, 4 (2) (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1958), p. 20. 39 Demus, “Style of the Kariye Djami,” pp. 145–6. 40 Naumann and Belting, Euphemia-Kirche, pp. 153–68. 41 Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 35 and p. 40, n. 134. He acknowledged, however, that there really is no terminus ante quem for members of Weitzmann’s group; see ibid., pp. 62–7. 42 Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, pp. 278–81. 43 Papadaki-Oekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” pp. 29–54. More recently, the script of the Smyrna Lectionary has been linked to manuscripts associated with the “Atelier of the Palaeologina.” See Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 62. See also Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 64, n. 21a.

152 between constantinople and rome

Lectionary, while Princeton, Garrett 2 and Philotheou 5 immediately postdate the manuscript.44 Unfortunately, Papadaki-Oekland was not aware that connections between the Smyrna Lectionary and a member of Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group had already been made long before even Weitzmann’s original publication in 1944.45 Hugo Buchthal reassessed Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group in 1979 in his comprehensive study of the Wolfenbüttel Sketchbook.46 He argued for dates as early as the 1250s for the evangelist portraits of Athens 118 and through 1300 for later manuscripts. On the basis of stylistic comparisons with the frescoes of Sopocani, Iviron 5 was dated ca. 1265 and Paris 54 was assigned to the last quarter of the thirteenth century.47 As a result of this fifty-year production span, Buchthal argued that these manuscripts should no longer be considered as a group.48 They do not, in fact, form a real group; the miniatures are not homogeneous enough to be assigned to a single scriptorium or school of illumination. The manuscripts present a rather diversified picture, in which it is only the constant repetition of certain clearly recognizable types which reappear in various combinations that gives the impression of a fairly uniform style. In other words, the miniatures are transmitting the style of their iconographical models, even more than in earlier periods of Byzantine art. And when the model is somewhat antiquated and the development extends over several decades, the survival of isolated figure types should not be taken for real continuity.49 Buchthal only acknowledges the possibility of a one-to-one copy relationship between Iviron 5 and Paris 54—the only two manuscripts which share all four evangelist portrait types—and isolates the two manuscripts as 44 Ibid., pp. 51–4. The exact relationship of the Paris 54 portraits to the Smyrna portraits is not discussed in the English summary. See also Paliouras, Macedonia, pp. 146–7, where he also links the “expressive realism … which occasionally borders deformity” of Iviron 5’s evangelists with those of Athens, cod. 118. 45 Papadaki-Oekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” pp. 51–4. In her English summary, Papadaki-Oekland writes that the Smyrna manuscript has not been mentioned in the literature since 1909. No one concerned with the issues of “Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group” seems to have been aware of Tikkanen’s contribution. See Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung, p. 201, n. l. 46 Buchthal, “Musterbuch.” See also Ioannis Spatharakis, The Left-handed Evangelist. A Contribution to Palaeologan Iconography (London: Pindar Press, 1988). The Wolfenbüttel Sketchbook plays a central role in Spatharakis’ discussion. 47 Whereas in 1978 Buchthal and Belting, in comparing Iviron 5’s and Paris 54’s evangelists with those of Princeton, Garrett 2, dated Iviron 5 to shortly after the middle of the thirteenth century and wrote that “it seems to hold a key position in the history of the group which forms the subject of Weitzmann’s study.” See Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 63, n. 21. 48 Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 67ff., uses a similar rationale to argue against Buchthal’s and Belting’s “Palaeologina Group” as comprising a true group. 49 Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, pp. 44–6.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 153

a distinct sub-group.50 The dates assigned by scholars to other manuscripts of Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group have varied over the last fifty years.51 Robert Nelson examined the evolution of Byzantine illuminated manuscripts in the third quarter of the thirteenth century and suggested that Iviron 5’s date should be pushed back closer to that of Burney 20 (dated 1285). He noted that dated Byzantine manuscripts with high-quality illuminations are not found until the last two decades of the thirteenth century.52 With this much effort to place Paris 54 in the third or even fourth quarter of the thirteenth century, it is surprising to note that Weitzmann’s mid-thirteenthcentury date is upheld in the Louvre catalogue that accompanied the 1992 exhibition Byzance: l’art byzantine dans les collections publiques françaises.53 50 Ibid., p. 47. 51 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” pp. 317ff., thought that Princeton, Garrett 2 and Athens 118 were especially close in style and dated them ca. 1230–40. Demus, “Entstehung des Paläologenstils,” p. 20, wrote that Princeton, Garrett 2 may actually date from 1225–50, but that Philotheou 5 is wholly Palaeologan. Later, Demus revised his date of the Princeton manuscript to “shortly before the turn of the century”; see Demus, “Style of the Kariye Djami,” p. 146. Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, p. 278, dated both Athens 118 and Princeton, Garrett 2 to the mid-thirteenth century. Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 61, compared the Princeton manuscript to St. Clement, Ochrid and dated it to the end of the thirteenth century. He noted that the portraits are later additions to an early twelfth-century manuscript. Belting also draws attention to the overlooked entry in Princeton, Garrett 2 by Kallistratos, a priest monk, who left the manuscript in the possession of Patriarch Athanasios of Constantinople (he served as patriarch in two separate periods: 1289–93 and 1303–9). Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 62ff., state that the miniatures were inserted into Princeton, Garrett 2 during the first reign of Athanasios. Buchthal and Belting in ibid., p. 62, n. 18, also note that the exhibition catalogue in honor of Weitzmann did not accept the date for these portraits, but followed Weitzmann’s original dating in the first half of the thirteenth century on the basis of comparisons with the wall paintings of Mileševa (dated ca. 1235). See Vikan, Illuminated Greek Manuscripts, cat. # 50, pp. 176–9. PapadakiOekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” p. 53, argues that Athens 118 and Iviron 5 are earlier than the Smyrna Lectionary (dated 1298), while Princeton, Garrett 2 is probably later. Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, pp. 45ff., dates Athens 118 to ca. 1250s and Princeton, Garrett 2 to the last decade of the thirteenth century. He places Philotheou 5 after the Smyrna Lectionary (dated 1298). Buchthal also introduces additional manuscripts featuring one or more portraits related to Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group, including Athos, Lavra A 111, broadly datable to 1285–1317. See ibid., p. 48 and figs. 49–50, and Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 64 and n. 59. Princeton, Garrett 2 is reproduced in Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 262, fig. 9.6. He reproduces the Evangelist Mark with the opening to his Gospel. Lowden dates Princeton, Garrett 2’s text to ca. 1100 and its portraits to ca. 1275–1300. See also Nelson’s discussion in “Paris. Gr. 117,” pp. 17ff. 52 Ibid., p. 18. 53 Musée du Louvre, November 3, 1992–February 1, 1993 (Paris, 1992), 450 (with a color illustration of Paris 54’s Evangelist Mark). However, the bibliography in Paris 54’s catalogue does not cite any more recent publication by an art historian than the 1971 reprint of Weitzmann’s “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination.” Others also persist in dating Iviron 5 and/or Paris 54 to the mid-thirteenth-century:

154 between constantinople and rome

More recently, John Lowden dated Iviron 5 and Paris 54 to the last quarter of the thirteenth century. He suggested that perhaps Paris 54 was made for Andronikos II’s wife, Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat (d. 1317), who married Andronikos II in 1284.54 Thus, Lowden would apparently accept a date as early as 1284 for Paris 54.55 Finally, in the 2008 exhibit of Byzantine art at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, Paris 54 was assigned to late thirteenth-century Constantinople on the basis of its archaizing script.56 Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan Manuscript Group Today If the manuscripts are no longer to be considered a group, they do at least, as we have seen above, provide some clues regarding dates. That the portraits of Athens 118 are the earliest of the group isolated by Weitzmann is agreed upon by most scholars.57 The portraits of Princeton, Garrett 2 may be dated to ca. 1289–93 according to Buchthal and Belting, and the Smyrna Lectionary portraits are dated to 1298.58 Buchthal and Belting argue that the Smyrna portraits are the closest relatives to the Princeton portraits.59 Philotheou 5 is probably at least as late as the Smyrna portraits (d. 1298), and may even be considerably later.60 Philotheou Luke’s background recalls those found in Vatopedi 938 (dated 1304) and his eight-sided desk compares to that found in Matthew of the same manuscript.61 The Philotheou Luke himself is Elizabeth Leesti, “A Late Thirteenth-century Greek Gospel Book in Toronto and its Relative in Oxford,” Byzantion 59 (1989): 128–36, suggests that both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 “probably date shortly after the middle of the thirteenth century” (p. 131); Galavaris, Ελληνική Τέχνη, dates Iviron 5 to “λιγο μετα το 1250.” See also Vocotopoulos, “New Testament at the Hagia Lavra,” esp. pp. 107–8, where he accepts Weitzmann’s 1944 date for Iviron 5 and related manuscripts as being from the “second quarter of the thirteenth century.” Galavaris defended his mid-century dating of these manuscripts more recently in his Holy Monastery of Iveron, p. 61, where, on the basis of style and the presence of Latin texts, he dated Paris 54 and Iviron 5 to 1250–61. 54 Irene is linked with a deluxe lectionary, Lavra A 111, which Buchthal says she presented to the Lavra monastery on Mt. Athos. Its evangelist portraits are not integral to the manuscript and are of inferior quality, but they feature two of the types found in Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group. See Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 48 and figs. 49 and 50. In my dissertation, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54,” pp. 308–11, I also entertained the possibility that Paris 54 may have been commissioned in anticipation of a wedding between a male member of the Palaeologan imperial family and a Latin princess. See further Chapter 8 below. 55 The actual catalogue entry for Paris 54 dates it to “ca. 1300.” See Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” pp. 263f. and fig. 9.4 (for Iviron 5) and cat. #162, p. 277 for Paris 54, 56 Cormack and Vassilaki, Byzantium 330–1453, cat. #261 and color pl. of fol. 55r. 57 For color reproductions of the evangelist portraits of Athens 118, see n. 18 above. 58 See n. 51 above for more on Princeton, Garrett 2’s evangelist portraits. 59 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 62 ff. and p. 64, n. 21a. 60 For Philotheou 5’s evangelist portraits, see Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, pp. 195–7, figs. 302–4. 61 Octagonal desks are popular in later Byzantine manuscripts. See ibid., vol. 3, for additional examples on p. 129, fig. 175 (Evangelist Mark [fol. 114v] from Athos,

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 155

reminiscent of portraits from manuscripts which are traditionally placed in the first third of the fourteenth century, such as the portrait of Luke in Rome, Vallicelliana F. 17 (dated 1330).62

Paris 54: Special Considerations in Dating the Manuscript Assigning a date to Paris 54 is complicated by the fact that several artists executed Paris 54’s illustrations. Depending upon which artist’s work one examines, different dates could be assigned to the manuscript. Artist C, for example, incorporated many contemporary stylistic and iconographic trends in Byzantine painting into his miniatures. In fact, he exemplifies a particular stylistic trend that can be traced throughout much of the fourteenth century. Therefore, based on Artist C’s contribution to Paris 54 (that is, the narrative miniatures of Luke and John), one would likely propose a later date for the manuscript than if one focused exclusively on the more conservative style of Artist B (who executed most of the miniatures of Matthew and Mark, and is the most likely candidate to have executed the evangelist portraits).63 Yet Artist B himself lacks consistency, even when provided with a model, as was certainly the case with the evangelist portraits of Paris 54. In Chapter 6, significant qualitative differences were noted between Paris 54’s evangelist portraits of Mark and John versus their counterparts in Iviron 5 (Plates XIV and XXVI as well as Plates XXX and XXXI).64 Both Paris 54 portraits are likely to have been created by Artist B, yet it would be difficult to underestimate their different aesthetic impacts. Paris 54’s Evangelist Mark clearly surpasses his model in Iviron 5 by almost every criterion, whereas Paris 54’s John just as clearly falls distinctly short. Thus, if one evaluates the quality of Paris 54’s figurative miniatures on the basis of its Evangelist Mark, the result will be much more positive (and the date earlier, perhaps) than an assessment of the Evangelist John who incorporates a more inflated canon associated with the mature Palaeologan style. Artist B’s inconsistencies extend to his work on the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark as well. One can contrast the remarkable success of Artist B’s narrative miniature of the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (Plate VII)—for which no known model exists—with some of his other miniatures where he carelessly omits the body parts of bystanders (Plate XVI).65 Pantokrator 47); pp. 94–5, figs. 124 and 126 (Evangelists Matthew [fol. 13v] and Luke [fol. 154v] from Athos, Lavra E 140), and pp. 65–6, figs. 59 and 60 (Evangelists Matthew [fol. 48v] and Luke [fol. 118v] from Athos, Lavra A 113). 62 For the Rome manuscript, see Ioannis Spatharakis, Corpus of Dated Illuminated Greek Manuscripts to the Year 1453 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), vol. 2, fig. 434; Spatharakis accepts this date for the portrait even though it is an insert. 63 See Chapter 5 above. 64 See Chapter 6 above, pp. 106ff. 65 See Chapter 6 above, ca. pp. 119ff.

156 between constantinople and rome

These latter cases are especially egregious since he appears to have had access to a model (for example, Iviron 5). Finally, I wish to reiterate my arguments for dating all of Paris 54’s miniatures to approximately the same time period. The pigments of the evangelist portraits have many corollaries in the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark, indicating that they are all the product of the same phase of work.66 I have already noted the striking use of the color turquoise in the evangelist portraits and in the miniatures assigned to Artist B.67 While Artist C’s work is quite distinctive from that of either Artist A or B, I maintain that his efforts are more or less contemporary with theirs. This is because Artist C never attempted to complete the uninitiated miniatures of Mark that were presumably assigned to Artist B, suggesting that there was still an assumption that the latter would return to finish his task. As we have seen in Chapter 5, Artist C was probably younger than Artists A and B and open to more contemporary trends in icon painting. So although his miniature style is closer to trends that we associate with the later thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, he may have executed his miniatures for Paris 54 at about the same time that Artist A and B contributed to Paris 54. Thus, from this evidence, I assume that the narrative miniatures and the evangelist portraits of Paris 54 are essentially contemporaneous. This will simplify our efforts to date the manuscript.

Paris 54 and Iviron 5 Paris 54 and Iviron 5 are inextricably linked by the fact that they are the only two manuscripts of Weitzmann’s original group which feature identical sets of evangelist portraits as well as being the only two manuscripts with extensive narrative cycles. Buchthal regarded the two manuscripts as a subgroup, and he (like many scholars) proposed a one-to-one copy relationship for the portraits of the two manuscripts.68 Scholars also argue that Iviron 5’s portraits are superior in quality to those of Paris 54, thus Iviron 5 is considered the earlier and more proficiently executed manuscript.69 Since Paris 54 will always 66 See Chapter 5 above, p. 98. 67 Lowden in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 162, p. 277, states that the artist of Paris 54’s evangelist portraits is clearly the same hand as the one that supplied the Gospel images, which are fully integrated with the text even though the evangelists are on separate folios added to the text. He describes the turquoise as unusual. 68 Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” pp. 323–4, noted that Paris 54’s evangelists are “slightly sharper and more rigid” in their folds and that their “sense of the organic structure of the body is somewhat weaker.” He concluded that “Iviron 5 is the model and Paris gr. 54 the copy.” Furthermore, Weitzmann wrote that “These small but noticeable differences exclude, in our opinion, the possibility that the Paris manuscript may be a later replica by the same painter who executed the Iviron codex.” See also Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, pp. 45–53. 69 For example, Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 45: “Iviron 5, the finest member of the group, which has been mentioned before; Paris gr. 54, a large-size manuscript which is

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 157

be dated relative to Iviron 5, it is necessary to further investigate the stylistic relationship of the two works. In reality, the stylistic and even the qualitative differences between the evangelist portraits of the two manuscripts have been exaggerated. The “painterly classicism” of Iviron 5’s narrative cycle is not found to the same degree in its evangelist portraits.70 This is especially evident in a comparison of the drapery of the figures in the narrative cycle versus the evangelist portraits of Iviron 5. The seated figure of the angel in Iviron 5’s Holy Women at the Sepulcher (Plate 19) provides a viable comparison for the seated evangelists in the manuscript. The folds of the evangelists’ garments are slightly more brittle than those of the angel. The drapery of the evangelist portraits is more indicative of the Palaeologan style; the same cannot be said of the more classicizing style of the seated angel in this miniature and in other examples from the narrative cycle. The excessive girth of Iviron 5’s Evangelist John also foreshadows the “inflated” Palaeologan figural canon. These observations indicate that the model for the evangelist portraits of Iviron 5 was more strongly influenced by contemporary Palaeologan stylistic trends than the more conservative model followed in its narrative cycle. Paris 54’s portraits of Matthew, Luke, and John (Plates I, XIX, and XXVI) do not, on the whole, compare well to those of Iviron 5 (Plates XXX and XXXI). The faces of the corresponding Iviron portraits are superior in their modeling and their gazes are related to the task depicted in that they actually concentrate on the codices or rolls which they hold in their hands. The proportions of these three Iviron evangelists are also more satisfactory than their counterparts in Paris 54. In Paris 54, it is the portrait of John which seems especially inept (Plate XXVI), but as we have seen, Paris 54’s Mark is more successful than his counterpart in Iviron 5 in every respect. While some of Paris 54’s shortcomings are indicative of its greater conformance with the fully developed, Palaeologan figural canon, other inadequacies cannot be so easily dismissed. The manuscripts’ different physical formats seem to have affected the Paris 54 artist’s ability to copy his model. Paris 54’s more luxurious format required that the Iviron 5 compositions be enlarged in scale. Paris 54’s artist’s inept ratio of figure to setting diminished the effectiveness of this portrait.71 Our criticism extended to the style of the Paris 54’s Evangelist John as well. In Iviron 5 the drapery is modeled to suggest a sense of volume, whereas in Paris 54 a two-dimensional effect is encouraged. The lesser skill of the Paris 54 a calligraphic masterpiece, but whose miniatures are crude, unoriginal and derivative copies of the Iviron Gospels or a closely related manuscript ….” 70 See, for example, Plate 25. Paliouras, Macedonia, pp. 146–7, makes a similar point when he writes: “Contrary to the academic spirit of the painting of Evangelical Scenes, the images of the evangelists in the Iviron codex can be distinguished by the expressive realism of the figures, which occasionally borders deformity, an aesthetic perception appearing in another manuscript in this group, codex No 118 in Athens.” 71 The competitive role given to the desk and lectern here is also seen in the Matthew and Luke portraits of Paris 54. For full analysis, see Chapter 6 above.

158 between constantinople and rome

artist complicates significantly our task. Had he been more capable, we would not be so distracted by his incompetence in our effort to sort out Paris 54’s relationship with manuscripts featuring similar portrait types. Incompetence, however, is no indication of date, and one hopes that some progress has been made in demonstrating that the Paris 54 evangelists (especially Mark) are closer to Iviron 5 than to the other manuscripts of Weitzmann’s group. The Impact of Pelekanidis’ Color Reproductions in the Assessment of Iviron 5 Another impediment in assessing Paris 54’s place in Byzantine manuscript illumination will come as no surprise to art historians. At various points in Chapter 6, problems were raised with the color reproductions of Iviron 5 in volume 2 of Pelekanidis et al.’s The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts.72 This is certainly the most influential publication on Iviron 5 in the late twentieth century. Indeed, it was the only source that reproduced almost all of Iviron 5’s miniatures in color. Byzantinists consulted these illustrations in an attempt to come to terms with a date for the manuscript.73 However, the quality of these photographs and their enlarged scale distort one’s ability to evaluate Iviron 5 accurately. Thus, I find myself in the unlikely position of criticizing a publication which provided virtually the only color reproductions of Iviron 5. However, the impact of the distortions in Pelekanidis’ reproductions cannot be underestimated. Admittedly, I would never be in a position to criticize these reproductions if I had not been able to examine Iviron 5 itself and make direct comparisons between it and the reproductions in Pelekanidis’ volume.74 These distortions were noted with great perspicacity by Annemarie Weyl Carr in her review of the first volume of The Treasures of Mount Athos: The presentation of the reproductions and decisions concerning the catalogue section also give rise to some concern. The reproductions constitute the book’s key feature. Their cumulative impact as one turns from page to colored page is very strong, approaching the indelible authority of an original impression. The strength of their impact demands a degree of responsibility on the part of the editors that has not always been respected. This is especially true of the pictures’ scale and cropping. The miniatures are cropped to their borders, like little easel paintings. Thus stripped of their surroundings, they look very small, and the editors have not resisted the temptation to enlarge them, giving the volume a virtually monumental scale and enlarging the miniatures accordingly… they acquire a monumentality that is indelibly impressive.75 72 Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, pp. 34–53 (figs. 11–40) and 296–303. 73 Most Byzantinists have never personally examined Iviron 5 and, indeed, had never laid eyes on it until it was exhibited in Thessaloniki in 1997–98. See the catalogue entry by Kadas in Treasures of Mount Athos: Catalogue, cat. #5.17, pp. 242–3; a detail of the Evangelist Mark is published in color on ibid., p. 222. For more accurate color reproductions of some of the miniatures of Iviron 5, see Galavaris, Holy Monastery of Iveron, pp. 51–61, and p. 174, n. 74 for bibliography. 74 See Chapter 6 above, n. 27. To reiterate, I certainly do not blame the authors of these volumes for the quality of the reproductions in these volumes. 75 Annemarie Weyl Carr, review of The Treasures of Mount Athos, Illuminated

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 159

That is to say, the impression of Iviron 5’s images is simultaneously enhanced and denigrated by the reproductions in Pelekanidis’ volume—enhanced, that is, by the degree to which they are enlarged in some cases to almost twice their actual size, and denigrated by the startling inaccuracy of their color reproduction. The exaggerated scale of the photographs and their inaccurate reflection of Iviron 5’s palette have distorted our perception of this manuscript. In reality, Iviron 5 is both less classicizing and more beautiful than Pelekanidis’ illustrations suggest, and, oddly enough, closer to Paris 54 than one would ever expect based on Pelekanidis’ published miniatures. Iviron 5’s figures are less monumental, its colors more striking, and the gold backgrounds much richer and more velvety than the photographs in Pelekanidis’ volume indicate. I was astonished at the differences between the actual codex which I viewed over a two-day stretch in Thessaloniki and its reproductions in Pelekanidis’ volume which I had brought along for comparative purposes. The real colors of the garments are deeper and richer—especially the blue of Christ’s robe— and far more beautiful than reproduced in Pelekanidis’ publication. There is a whiteness in the highlights of the figures’ garments in Pelekanidis’ photos that robs Iviron 5’s colors of their strength and beauty. Over and over again, I noted that the differences between the narrative cycles of the two manuscripts were much less pronounced than I could have anticipated. My notes from Thessaloniki reflect my surprise at the degree to which Iviron 5’s and Paris 54’s narrative cycles are similar. The style of the miniature of the Nativity, while in terrible condition in Iviron 5, recalled that same miniature by Artist A in Paris 54. The decision to enlarge the narrative scenes of Iviron 5 in Pelekanidis’ volume also leads to significant misconceptions. Iviron 5’s Miracle of the Loaves, for example, measures 9 × 12.2 cm.76 In Pelekanidis’ volume, it measures 17.5 × 20 cm—that is, almost twice its actual size.77 Invariably, this degree of magnification lends a monumentality to Iviron 5 which is not warranted in the original. The enlarged dimensions also contribute to a heightened classicism which is misleading. More important, the distortions in scale combined with the washed out and/or inaccurate reproduction of colors distance Iviron 5 from Paris 54’s narrative cycle. My lasting impression of seeing Iviron 5 in the flesh was that it was much closer in date to Paris 54 than I could possibly have imagined and that its miniatures at times were well within the capacity of Artists A and B’s best work. Paris 54’s Artist B occasionally approaches the Manuscripts, vol. 1: The Protaton and the Monasteries of Dionysiou, Koutloumousiou, Xeropotamou and Gregoriou, by S.M. Pelekanidis, P.C. Christou, C. Tsioumis, and S.N. Kadas (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1974), The Art Bulletin LIX/1 (March 1977): 126–8 (italics added). 76 See Pelekanidis et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 35, fig. 13. 77 Even when Pelekanidis’ volume reproduces two miniatures on one page, the magnification is significant. For example, the Holy Women at the Sepulcher, which according to Pelekanidis’ text measures 8.5 × 11.5 cm, is reproduced at 14 × 17.5 cm. See ibid., vol. 2, p. 37, fig. 17.

160 between constantinople and rome

caliber of Iviron 5’s miniatures; this is true especially for its miniature of the Wise and Foolish Virgins and the portrait of the Evangelist Mark. I propose that the initial phase of work on Paris 54 (the images created by Artists A and B) was almost contemporary with the completion of Iviron 5 itself, and not a generation later, as is generally asserted. Having said this, I stand by the conclusions I reached in my comparison of the two manuscripts in Chapter 6—that is, the generally superior execution of the evangelist portraits of the Iviron manuscript extends to the narrative cycle as well. In spite of the one-to-one copy relationship that can be established for a number of the text miniatures, Paris 54 rarely incorporates the inherent classicism of the style of the Iviron miniatures. Volumes and textures in Iviron 5 are palpably more three-dimensional. Colors are less likely to be overlaid with linear webs of white highlights that result in a stiffer and more two-dimensional fabric in Paris 54. Since highlighting is limited in Iviron 5, hues are stronger and textures more matte-like; drapery folds are more subtly modulated by variations in the values of hues rather than through rigid juxtapositions of light and shadow. The result in Iviron 5 is one of enhanced softness and flexibility and the resulting impression is more organic. The interaction between limbs and drapery in Iviron 5 is better integrated and more logical, with drapery folds accurately reflecting the movement of the figures. In addition, faces and expressions are more accessible to the viewer on account of the painterly means by which they are rendered. Finally, and as noted in Chapter 6, the narrative miniatures of Iviron 5 are often visually more successful because of the superior integration of the major variables of the composition. Note, for example, the relationship between figures and architecture, or figures and landscape settings. Iviron 5’s figures are almost never isolated on thin dark green strips in the foreground as they are in Paris 54. For all of these reasons, a more credible and unified perspective is established in Iviron 5. The stylistic differences between the narrative cycles of the two manuscripts lead to a conclusion similar to that reached in the iconographical assessment of the two cycles. The portraits and narrative cycle of Iviron 5 are superior to Paris 54 both in execution and in their naturalism. The artist responsible for the narrative cycle of Iviron 5 was more capable than his counterparts in Paris 54 in recreating the classicizing mode of his model. His style is a more accurate reflection of what appears to have been a tenth-century classicizing model. As noted above, Artist C of Paris 54 demonstrates a greater sensitivity to contemporary Palaeologan iconographic and stylistic trends.78 This is most obvious in the miniatures of the Annunciation and the Transfiguration, where instead of a strict adherence to Iviron 5, Paris 54 adapts the stylistic and iconographic innovations seen in Palaeologan frescoes and icons. Artists A and B were much less likely than Artist C to incorporate more contemporary 78 See Chapter 6, pp. 125ff. above.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 161

approaches in their miniatures.79 Our analysis of Artists A and B’s miniatures indicates that whenever Iviron 5 provided a model, it served as the exemplar for Paris 54. Thus, while most scholars believe that Paris 54 postdates Iviron 5 by about a generation, I argue that they must be closer in date than is usually perceived. The evidence suggests that perhaps even less than a decade stands between the two works.

Paris 54 and Dated Manuscripts of the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century80 More than 20 dated manuscripts with figural illuminations are now known from the period of ca. 1260–1320.81 While many of these can be dismissed as irrelevant, several are useful in an effort to date Paris 54. The earliest dated manuscript from this period is Paris gr. 117. Nelson has demonstrated that its portraits are contemporary with its script, and thereby datable to 1262.82 The style of these portraits is so reactionary, given their dependence on twelfthcentury models, that it is impossible to derive any common ground between them and the portraits of either Iviron 5 or Paris 54 or associated manuscripts. While there are no relevant dated manuscripts from the 1270s,83 there are a handful of dated and/or datable manuscripts from ca. 1285–98 that are useful in trying to date Paris 54.84 They are: 79 Artist C may also have been younger than Artists A and B, more recently trained, and more open to “cutting-edge” style and iconography. 80 For the paucity of evidence for manuscript illumination in the first half of the thirteenth century, see Nelson “Manuscripts of Antonios Malakes,” p. 241, n. 55. 81 See Spatharakis, Corpus, vol. 1, nos. 182ff. and vol. 2, figs. 338ff. 82 See Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” pp. 3–4, where Nelson notes that the manuscript is a palimpsest and that “the same earlier manuscript was washed and scrubbed to make the parchment for both the Gospel text and the evangelist portraits.” 83 Three manuscripts dating from 1269–81 have miniatures with limited relevance for Iviron 5 and Paris 54. Mt. Athos, Lavra A 35 (dated 1268/69), Sinai, St. Catherine’s, gr. 61 (dated 1273/74), and St. Petersburg, Akad. Nauk. Raik., 76 (dated 1280/81) include miniatures whose potential for assisting in establishing a chronological framework for the early decades of the Palaeologan period remains essentially untapped. The Lavra portraits, however, have peculiar settings and haloes. Nelson has described them as “amateurish in execution and useless for the history of illumination in finer books.” See Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” p. 17. For color reproductions, see Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, p. 42, figs. 24–7. The faces in Sinai 61 are reminiscent of twelfth-century trends, but the drapery looks promising for comparative purposes with the narrative cycle of Iviron 5. See Spatharakis, Corpus, vol. 2, figs. 341–5 and 350. The Sinai manuscript is published by Anthony Cutler, The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium, Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques 13 (Paris: Picard, 1984), figs. 397–411. See also Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 202, p. 343, for a color reproduction of fol. 256v. Unfortunately, the St. Petersburg manuscript is sparsely published; see Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” pp. 18f. 84 Another manuscript dated to 1289/90 and attributed to Theodore Hagiopetrites is not discussed here. Göttingen (Germany), Ms. Theol. gr. 28’s portraits feature much

162 between constantinople and rome

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

London, British Library, Burney 20 (d. 1285)85 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101 (1280s)86 Florence, Laurentian Library, Plut. VI, 28 (d. 1285)87 Princeton, Garrett 2 (ca. 1289–93)88 Smyrna Lectionary (dated 1298)

Of these, Burney 20, whose miniatures are securely dated to 1285 (Plates 34 and 35), is certainly the most important manuscript in helping to secure a date for Paris 54 and Iviron 5. Its portraits, although not iconographical cognates, provide significant stylistic parallels for the Paris and Iviron evangelists. With their classicizing proportions and sophisticated settings, these impressive portraits bear few traces of the mannerist distortions associated with the fully developed Palaeologan style.89 The proportions of the figures are organically conceived and the relationship of the torso to the limbs is balanced and normal. The drapery folds are generous, but not overly convoluted or stylized. An equally harmonious relationship is found in the scale of the evangelist relative to his setting and frame. The increased girth of Luke is one of the few indications that we are on the brink of the mature Palaeologan style. The color scheme of the London manuscript also aligns it with the Iviron and Paris codices. Although there is no one-to-one correspondence, the palette of the first three evangelists of Burney 20 is strongly reminiscent of the Paris and Iviron evangelists.90 Many of the adjectives used to describe the Burney portraits are essentially interchangeable with those used for the evangelists of the Paris and Iviron codices.91 The latter also feature figures of normal proportions, with the more voluminous figures with complex, three-dimensionally conceived architectural backgrounds. They have little in common with those found in Paris 54. A color reproduction of Göttingen, Theol. Gr. 28’s Evangelist Matthew is found in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 261, fig. 9.5. A color reproduction of its Evangelist Mark is found on the cover of vol. 2 of Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites. 85 For reproductions of Burney 20, see Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, figs. 395–6, and Spatharakis, Corpus, vol. 2, fig. 358. Color reproductions of Burney 20’s Evangelists Mark and John, and the beginning of Mark’s Gospel are available online at: http://molcat1.bl.uk/illcat/record.asp?MSID=8096&CollID=18&NStart=20 (accessed September 23, 2013). 86 Color photos of the evangelist portraits of St. Petersburg 101 have been published in Likhachova, Byzantine Miniature, pp. 41–4. 87 Florence, Laur. Libr., Plut. VI, 28 is fully digitized and available online at: http://teca.bmlonline.it/TecaViewer/index.jsp?RisIdr=TECA0000612238&keyworks=pl ut.06.28 (accessed September 23, 2013). 88 See Kotzabassi and Ševčenko, Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, pp. 7–18 and figs. 10–32. 89 Unlike fresco painting, where already in Sopocani of ca. 1265 these distortions are readily apparent. 90 Unlike, for example, Philotheou 5, whose palette has nothing in common with Paris 54. See Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, pp. 195–7, figs. 302–4. 91 Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, p. 51, says that Iviron 5’s John exemplifies “the natural attitude and classical simplicity, the voluminous proportions and concentration of

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 163

exception of the portraits of John, whose increased girth also foreshadows the mature Palaeologan style. The execution of the Burney portraits is superior to three of the Paris 54 portraits (Mark still holds his own here), but the contemporaneity of the two codices’ evangelist portraits is undeniable. The portraits of St. Petersburg, NLR, gr. 101 (Plates 36 and 37) have been assigned to the 1280s on the basis of stylistic affinities with those of Burney 20,92 but I propose that the St. Petersburg manuscript may actually be somewhat later than Burney 20 or Paris 54 and Iviron 5. The sophisticated, multi-colored architectural backgrounds, the slightly more convoluted drapery forms (especially the hem of Luke’s himation), and the occasional extreme distortion of the figural proportions may be noted in support of a later date. Figural distortion is seen in the left forearm of the Evangelist Mark, while Luke’s right arm appears to have two elbow joints. Also note the “amputated” impression that is created by the treatment of the Apostle Paul’s left arm on fol. 76v.93 Comparable distortions are even seen in two of the portraits of the manuscripts associated with the Palaiologina mentioned below.94 The decision to depict the authors’ thrones and desks in gold also finds many parallels in the same group of manuscripts. In turning to Florence, Laur. Libr., Plut. VI, 28 (no. 3 on the above list), we are brought into direct contact with the highest-quality manuscripts produced in the early Palaeologan period—the so-called Palaeologina group. Buchthal and Belting associated Laur. VI, 28 and related manuscripts with Theodora Raoulina, a niece of the Emperor Michael VIII.95 The entire manuscript group was dated to the last fifteen years of the thirteenth century. Since Buchthal’s and Belting’s 1978 monograph, others have added manuscripts to the group.96 Nelson and Lowden discovered one manuscript that can be directly expression [that] make it a truly outstanding masterpiece of the ‘First Palaeologan Style.’” He refers the reader to Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 58ff., for a discussion of stylistic trends during the Palaeologan period. See Bente Kiilerich, “Aesthetic Aspects of Palaiologan Art in Constantinople: Some Problems,” in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 13 (London: I.B. Tauris, 2005): pp. 12–14, for an amusing discussion of the “jungle of stylistic terms employed to characterize late Byzantine art.” 92 Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” pp. 290–93, states that the two manuscripts’ miniatures were “highly advanced for the latter years of the thirteenth century” (p. 293) and suggests that they were probably produced in the same studio; Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, p. 281, dates St. Petersburg, cod. 101 to the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, vol. I, p. 103, accepts a date in the 1280s for St. Petersburg, cod. 101 and proposes that it and Burney 20 may be Constantinopolitan in origin; ibid., p. 105. 93 See further Likhachova, Byzantine Miniature, plates opposite pp. 42 and 43. A later date for the St. Petersburg manuscript in relation to Burney 20 was also implied by Nelson, “Paris. Gr. 117,” p. 19, while Demus, “Entstehung des Paläologenstils,” p. 57 (and Demus, “Style of the Kariye Djami,” p. 144), as well as Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 66, placed the St. Petersburg manuscript earlier than Burney 20. 94 See Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pls. 25 and 29b. 95 Ibid., pls. 2a, 3a, and 4a. See also n. 87 above. 96 See Maxwell, “Another Lectionary of the ‘Atelier’ of the Palaiologina,” and Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 59–68, for further bibliography.

164 between constantinople and rome

associated with the dowager empress, Theodora Palaeologina, widow of Michael VIII.97 They propose that this growing corpus of manuscripts should no longer be considered a tight-knit group, but rather the output of a series of commissions by the cream of Constantinopolitan society over an extended period, beginning perhaps as early as 1272 and continuing through the early 1300s.98 Buchthal and Belting had always assumed that the manuscripts were produced in the capital, but the proof is provided by Theodora’s typikon for the Lips monastery there. Also, two of the most illustrious manuscripts of the group, Vat. gr. 1208 and Vat. gr. 1158, were later in the collection of Queen Carlotta of Cyprus, who was a direct descendant of Michael VIII and Theodora, as she was a Palaeologina on her mother’s side.99 During the last two decades, the association of some of these manuscripts with the dowager empress Theodora has gained momentum and has been further supported by the research of Alice-Mary Talbot.100 Only the evangelist portraits of Laur. VI, 28 can be linked with the above group of manuscripts associated with the Palaeologina. Its ornament and script do not belong to the group.101 The fact that this manuscript is dated to 1285 97 They discovered that the ornament of Theodora’s typikon for her Lips monastery in Constantinople is of the same type as the Palaeologina group. The typikon is now London, BL Add. 22748. See Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 65ff. and figs. 9, 11, and 13. 98 Ibid., pp. 59f., 66, and 68. Nelson and Lowden write that B.L. Fonkič has claimed that additional manuscripts of the Palaeologina group may be found in Russian collections, including a Gospel Book that is apparently dated to 1272 (Moscow, Historical Museum, Mus. 3647). To my knowledge, reproductions from this manuscript have not been published. For further bibliography, see Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 59, n. 10 and p. 60, n. 11. 99 Ibid., pp. 66–7. 100 See, for example, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “Patronage and Artistic Production in Byzantium during the Palaiologan Period,” Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. Sarah T. Brooks (New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 76–97, esp. p. 78, where she writes: “A group of luxurious late-thirteenth-century biblical and liturgical manuscripts, earlier assigned to the scriptorium of the princess Theodora Palaiologina Raoulaina (d. 1300), a niece of Michael VIII, on the basis of monograms on one of them (Vat. gr. 1158), has recently been attributed to the dowager empress Theodora.” See Alice-Mary Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992): 295–303. See also Alice-Mary Talbot, transl., “Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Constantinople,” in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, with the assistance of Giles Constable, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35/3 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000), pp. 1,254–86. For Theodora and her “important role in commissioning a family of books of the highest quality,” see further Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” pp. 259–93, esp. p. 260. For further bibliography on the Atelier of the Palaiologina, see De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani,” pp. 65–66, n. 12. 101 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 111, and Nelson and Lowden “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 61, n. 31.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 165

and that it and the manuscripts with which it is grouped can be localized to Constantinople is useful in our efforts to situate and date Paris 54. While Laur. VI. 28’s evangelist portraits differ in type from those of Paris 54 and Iviron 5, they provide important corollaries in that their proportions are naturalistic and free from distortion. This is true of all three surviving portraits of Laur. VI, 28 and, indeed, is true of most of the portraits of manuscripts associated with the Palaeologina group.102 These can be contrasted with several evangelists that have more in common with the mature Palaeologan style.103 For example, Vat. gr. 1158’s Evangelist John’s bloated upper back and bizarrely conceived right shoulder conform more to the curvature of his round-backed throne than to human anatomy. Moreover, Laur. VI, 28’s script is not directly related to that of the Palaiologina group, but is more closely aligned with that of Paris 54 and Iviron 5. All three manuscripts are fine examples of the archaizing script in late thirteenth-century manuscripts in which the elegant, eleventh-century “pearl script” was revived.104 The last two manuscripts on the list are dated or datable to the period 1289– 98. Princeton, Garrett 2’s portraits have been dated to 1289–93 by Buchthal and Belting, and this date has been accepted in subsequent scholarship.105 Its Evangelist Mark (Plate 38) is of the same type as Paris 54’s and Iviron 5’s Mark (Plates XIV and XXX). Garrett 2’s Mark is beautifully executed, but does not incorporate the same sense of corporeality of the Paris and Iviron versions. Garrett 2’s evangelist seems taller and slimmer, particularly in his torso and shoulders. The Garrett artist’s preoccupation with white highlights and complex drapery folds (compare, for example, the evangelists’ right arms and right forelegs) results ultimately in a more decorative and two-dimensional figure than those found in Paris 54 and Iviron 5. The Garrett portrait creates a rather different impression altogether. John from Princeton, Garrett 2 has facial features that are sensitively painted, but the upper half of his body is sadly mismatched with his lower limbs (Plate 39). His powerfully drawn shoulders and back clash with his skinny, bony thighs. In fact, the position of his legs would be difficult to duplicate in real life. The situation is further compromised by the almost comical loop of drapery positioned between his knees.106 Here naturalism is completely abandoned as there is no logical relationship between the drapery and the body it clothes. 102 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pls. 2–4. 103 Ibid., pls. 15 and 28a. Evangelists featuring a less naturalistic style are often those depicting the Evangelist Matthew or John, the two “older” Gospel writers by tradition. For examples of Matthew, see ibid., pls. 12 and 28a. 104 See Prato, “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti,” p. 168. See also Chapter 2 above. 105 See Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 62 and n. 18. Nelson, Theodore Hagiopetrites, vol. I, p. 104, also accepts a 1289–93 date for miniatures of Princeton, Garrett 2. He links the Evangelist John’s curved back to the Matthew portraits of Vatican gr. 1158 and Göttingen, Theol. gr. 28. 106 Variations of this drapery fold are found in numerous examples of fourteenthcentury evangelists. Spatharakis, The Left-handed Evangelist, includes many examples in his plates; see esp. pl. 25, which depicts Matthew from Athos, Iviron 548 (dated 1433).

166 between constantinople and rome

The relatively matte quality of John’s robe also provides a distinct contrast with the lively surface patterns found in his cohort Mark’s drapery. Again, the impression is that we are moving away from the relative naturalism of Paris 54’s evangelists here. One of the most important of the dated manuscripts available for comparative purposes is the Smyrna Lectionary, no. 5 on our list of manuscripts above.107 Dated to 1298 by colophon,108 its script has been compared to another lectionary, Rome Vat. gr. 1523. It is noteworthy that this latter lectionary’s script was already associated with the Palaeologina group by Buchthal and Belting.109 The Smyrna Lectionary contained two portraits of the same type as Paris 54’s Mark and John. The Smyrna Mark (Plate 40) is known to us only through a poor black and white reproduction in which Mark’s facial features are totally effaced, but the evangelist’s pose and garments are almost identical to the Mark portraits of Paris 54 and Iviron 5 (Plates XIV and XXX). Moreover, the desks and lecterns are similar, although not exact duplicates. The major difference between the Smyrna Mark and his counterparts in Paris 54 and Iviron 5 is the use of a wall as the backdrop instead of the curtain. In addition, the Smyrna evangelist has a simple, rectangular frame with a trefoil design projecting from each corner rather than the colorful and complex frames of the Iviron and Paris evangelists. From a stylistic viewpoint, the drapery folds of the Smyrna Mark seem slightly more convoluted than those of either of the other two codices’ Mark portraits. This is especially apparent in the folds of the himation as they crisscross the lap area. These complex fold patterns now fill the entire lap area, in contrast to the Paris and Iviron codices where an area of relatively smooth drapery is maintained just above the evangelists’ knees. The drapery from the knees to the ankles also seems to fall in slightly more predictable patterns. A palpable crystallization and a tendency toward simplification are seen in the V-shaped designs emanating from the Smyrna evangelist’s left knee. A similar trend is detected in the drapery covering the evangelist’s chest, where angular V-shaped folds model the garment. Other indications of the later date of the Smyrna Mark include subtle modifications to his pose. There is, for example, a substantial difference in the respective heights of his knees which creates a sense of tension and movement. This reflects contemporary stylistic trends. There seems to have been a need 107 See Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 61 and 62 and fig. 2. 108 Ibid., p. 64. Note that the Smyrna Lectionary was written by the scribe David in 1298 for “Gerasimos, the metropolitan of Philippoupolis (present day Plovdiv in Bulgaria), presumably from a Constantinopolitan workshop, for its artistic and palaeolographical affiliations are with the illumination of that center.” Nelson and Lowden note further that Gerasimos had been in Constantinople in 1285 to sign the Synod of Blachernai. 109 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 95 and pl. 65, and Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” pp. 60ff. and figs. 1 and 2, compare the two manuscripts’ scripts and imply that both may be the work of the scribe David.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 167

to infuse even the relative harmony of this classicizing pose with some of the dynamic of the mature Palaeologan style. Lastly, a closer examination of the wall reveals a typical Palaeologan inconsistency in its perspective. Most of the lower two-thirds of the wall runs parallel to the picture plane, but the cornice area is depicted from a distressingly low and inconsistent vantage point.110 Moreover, the crenellations are also depicted from what appears to be two different viewpoints depending upon whether one looks at those to the left or the right of the evangelist.111 A comparison of the John portraits of the three manuscripts underscores the difficulties in arriving at a date for Paris 54 (Plate 41 versus Plates XXVI and XXXI).112 Once again, the pose of the Smyrna portrait appears to be identical to that of Iviron 5 while details of the furnishings and background have been modified.113 The Iviron John is one of the most successful Palaeologan portraits in its blend of monumentality and humanity.114 Although the Smyrna artist is more successful than Paris 54 in capturing these aspects, a later date relative to Paris 54 may still be assigned to the Smyrna evangelist. The lines used to describe the Smyrna John’s drapery appear even harder and darker than those of Paris 54, and there seems to be a greater dependence on black rather than white highlights to articulate these folds. In addition, the harsh, gold highlights on the furniture find counterparts in manuscripts usually dated to the fourteenth century.115 The evangelist’s head also seems slightly smaller in proportion to the rest of the body—a distortion which is more in keeping with a later phase of the Palaeologan style. The Smyrna artist had difficulty, too, in emulating the enviable balance between figure and setting that was so effortlessly achieved by the Iviron artist. However, it must be admitted that even in black and white reproductions the Smyrna John easily surpasses his unfortunate counterpart in Paris 54.116

110 Compare this to the crenellations of the wall behind Mark in Vatopedi 938, which appear to project out from the wall at a 90-degree angle. For a reproduction, see Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, fig. 34. 111 See Øystein Hjort, “‘Oddities’ and ‘Refinements’: Aspects of Architecture, Space and Narrative in the Mosaics of Kariye Camii,” in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, Transactions 13, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist (Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 2004), pp. 27–43, esp. pp. 41–3, for the concept of “expressive architecture” “which dramatizes and contributes to the involvement not only of the observer, but also of the dramatis personae, who experience and act emotionally” (ibid. p. 43). 112 Papadaki-Oekland “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” pls. 19–21. 113 Here, too, the Smyrna artist has added a three-dimensionally conceived wall, as he did for his portrait of Mark. 114 See Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, pp. 51f., for his assessment of the Iviron John and related portraits. For a color reproduction of Iviron 5’s John (fol. 357v), see Pelekanidis et al., Treasures of Mount Athos, vol. 2, p. 48, fig. 33. 115 See, for example, Mark of Pantocrator 47 (dated 1301) in Weitzmann, “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination,” fig. 319, and Lavra A 113 (ca. 1367), reproduced in Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, pp. 64–7, figs. 58–61. 116 For a stylistic assessment of Paris 54’s evangelist portraits, see Chapter 6 above.

168 between constantinople and rome

The other two evangelists in the Smyrna Lectionary are much stronger indicators of the later date of the manuscript than the Mark and John portraits.117 This is especially true of Luke, whose limbs are so poorly integrated that it is difficult to envision how his left arm and leg are actually attached to his torso. Here, also, the head appears disproportionately small. Matthew (Plate 42) is more successful, but his lower limbs dwarf his torso. Moreover, both evangelists are seated on lower thrones characteristic of the mature Palaeologan style. These two portraits must have been based on prototypes of much more contemporary date. The Smyrna portraits underscore the hazards in dating miniatures of this period. Because some portraits are strongly influenced by the style of their models, they are difficult to date accurately—a point which has been made repeatedly by scholars of Palaeologan illumination.118 Regardless, the Smyrna Lectionary seems to provide a viable terminus ante quem of ca. 1298 for Paris 54.119 The illuminations of two manuscripts dated to the early fourteenth century indicate that the Paris portraits are not likely to have been produced later than the turn of the century. Pantocrator 47, written by Theodore Hagiopetrites and dated to 1301, and Vatopedi 938 (dated 1304; Plate 43) have little in common stylistically with either Paris 54 or Iviron 5.120 In both of the later manuscripts the evangelists often compete with architectural settings whose threedimensional aspects have been maximized and which may include projecting porches supported by columns. Their thrones are lower and their limbs longer, which sometimes results in extraordinarily large lap areas. Shoulders appear narrower as waistlines swell; heads are also somewhat small in scale, contributing to their mannered appearance. In the portraits of Vatopedi 938, a distracting web of linear drapery folds criss-crosses the figure. Architecture, furniture and limbs are placed at oblique angles to the picture plane; their equal articulation by the artist forces all elements to compete for the viewer’s attention. Finally, the palette of the Pantocrator manuscript, at least as far as it may be judged from Pelekanidis’ volume, is significantly different from the Paris or Iviron codices.

117 See Papadaki-Oekland, “Lost Palaeologan Lectionary,” pls. 23 and 25. 118 Demus, “Entstehung des Paläologenstils,” p. 20. 119 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 64, n. 21a, closely associated the style of the Smyrna Lectionary evangelist portraits with those of Princeton, Garrett 2. They wrote: “Two of its [Smyrna Lectionary] evangelists not only repeat the figure types of the Princeton Gospels, but are also very intimately related stylistically (cf. their pls. 79a and 79b of Princeton Garrett 2’s Mark and Luke) … they are by far the closest known relatives of the Princeton portraits.” I do not find this comparison particularly compelling. 120 Black and white reproductions of the evangelists of the Vatopedi manuscript are provided by Buchthal, “Musterbuch”, pls. XXII–XXIII. Color reproductions of Pantocrator 47 are published in Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, pp. 128–31, figs. 174–9. For a stylistic analysis of these two manuscripts, see Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pp. 64ff.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 169

Later dated manuscripts such as Lavra A 46 (dated 1333) or Patmos 81 (dated 1335) confirm this. These high-quality manuscripts are described as later revivals of manuscripts associated with the Palaeologina group by Buchthal and Belting.121 The aedicula frames found in portraits of both manuscripts have been aptly compared to similar designs in the mosaics of the Kariye Djami.122 These are top-quality portraits, but their linearly conceived drapery folds and occasionally dismorphic proportions betray their later date.123

The Style of Paris 54’s Narrative Cycle Illuminations that are stylistically related to the miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle are rarely dated and therefore are less helpful in further pinpointing our manuscript’s date. Nevertheless, an overview of these manuscripts aids in our understanding of the context of manuscripts with extensive narrative cycles in the early Palaeologan period and Paris 54’s place within it. The following manuscripts with extensive narrative cycles feature a variety of texts including Gospel books, an illustrated Book of Job, two psalters, and an Octateuch, among others. Our analysis will be limited to issues related to style. Paris 54 and Taphou 5 Jerusalem, Taphou 5 has been associated with the manuscripts of Weitzmann’s “Constantinopolitan manuscript group” since Lazarev’s 1952 article on thirteenth-century manuscripts.124 While Taphou 5’s script is not archaizing,125 121 Color reproductions of Lavra A 46 are found in Pelekanidis et al., Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3, pp. 46–7, figs. 31–6. Matthew and Mark of the Patmos codex are reproduced in Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, pl. 87. See also ibid., pp. 30ff., for a stylistic assessment of these miniatures. A color photo of the Evangelist John and Prochoros and the beginning of John’s Gospel is found in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 165, pp. 280–81. 122 See Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 67. 123 Buchthal and Belting, Patronage, p. 73. 124 Note, however, that Tikkanen in 1933 had already associated Paris 54 with St. Petersburg, Publ. Libr. gr. 382, a folio of Taphou 5; see Tikkanen, Studien über die Farbengebung, p. 203, n. 1. For a color illustration of St. Petersburg, NLR, gr.. 382, see Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen, p. 192 and color fig. 154. See also Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” p. 292, where Lazarev relates the style of Taphou 5 to Iviron 5, Paris 54, Princeton, Garrett 2, and Athens 118 and says that these manuscripts’ illustrations all date to the 1280s and 1290s. In Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, p. 281 and fig. 383, Taphou 5 is dated to the last quarter of the thirteenth century. Paul Huber, Hiob, pp. 193ff., publishes numerous color illustrations of Taphou 5. On ibid., p. 199, he writes that Taphou 5 probably dates to the end of the thirteenth century. However, M. Bernabò, “Gli Ottateuchi bizantini e la ricerca delle origini dell’illustrazione biblica,” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi S.II/3 (2001): 25–46, dates Taphou 5 to the first third of the fourteenth century. 125 B.L. Fonkič, “O biblioteke Hory pri Feodore Metohike” (in Russian), Vizantijskij vremennik 54 (1993): 39–42, proposed on the basis of its script style that Taphou 5 was

170 between constantinople and rome

two of its artists provide compelling comparisons for Artists B and C of Paris 54.126 The approach to the figures’ faces of Artist C and the artist of some of the miniatures of Taphou 5 is remarkably similar (for example, fol. 227v/ Plate 44). The delineation of the hair and, in particular, the handling of the eyes is virtually identical. Both artists devote only small portion of the eye to the iris, so that the white of the eye remains quite prominent. There are also similarities in the handling of drapery forms; compare, for example, Peter’s garment in the scene of the Samaritan woman (Plate XXVIII) to those on fol. 227v of Taphou 5. The rocky promontories forming the backdrop to the Taphou 5 folio now in St. Petersburg (cod. 382) (see Plate 45) also recall those seen in Artist C’s miniatures. The Taphou artist’s landscapes even include the hairline cracks and the flowering plants that are ubiquitous in Artist C’s settings. These types of comparisons indicate an intimate relationship between some of the miniatures of Taphou 5 and Artist C of Paris 54. If these works are not by the same individual, then the two artists must have been trained in similar environments.127 Moreover, color reproductions in Huber’s text suggest that a second artist in Taphou 5 can be compared, with equally fruitful results, to Artist B of Paris 54. A comparison of the Christ figures from Paris 54’s Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins with Taphou 5’s Christ on fol. 243r again shows distinct similarities in their approaches (compare Plates VII and 46).128 The brownish complexions of both figures and the distinctive triangular-shaped shadows under their eyes align these two artists. The stylistic affinities between Taphou 5 and Paris 54 seem to provide evidence for a later dating of Paris 54, perhaps in the 1290s or early 1300s. However, one could argue that if Taphou 5’s miniatures were executed by Artists B and C of Paris 54, Taphou 5 may represent a later phase in these artists’ careers. commissioned by Theodore Metochites for his monastery of the Chora and dates it to the early fourteenth century. De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani,” p. 95, also comment on Taphou 5’s elegant Metochite style script. For more on Theodore Metochites and his central role in Andronikos II’s administration and his extraordinary library at the Chora, see Chapter 8 below. 126 See Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, fig. 383, and William H.P. Hatch, Greek and Syrian Miniatures in Jerusalem (Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1931), pl. LXII, and esp. the color illustrations in Huber, Hiob. 127 Perhaps they were both icon painters trained in the same tradition and working in the same shop who accepted commissions to paint miniatures when the opportunity arose. 128 See esp. Taphou 5’s fols. 231r, 237v, and 243r; for reproductions, see Huber, Hiob, p. 227, fig. 218 (fol. 231r) and p. 237, fig. 236 (fol. 243r). For a color picture of St. Petersburg, NLR, gr. 382 (a fragment of Taphou 5), see Džurova, Byzantinische Miniaturen, color fig. 154. Naumann and Belting have also pointed to the close stylistic relations between the frescoes of the Euphemia Church in Constantinople, which they would like to date to the 1280s, and Taphou 5. The authors also demonstrate a number of parallels in the ornament of the manuscripts and frescoes under discussion; see Naumann and Belting, Euphemia-Kirche, pp. 153–69, pls. 46c and 47a, 57b, and 47d, and for bibliography, see ibid., p. 168, n. 193.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 171

The Mokvi Gospels (Tbilisi, Ms. Q 902) The Mokvi Gospels has an exceptionally long miniature cycle (150-plus) for the period in question, but its real distinction lies in the fact that it is dated to the year 1300. The manuscript was commissioned by Daniel, Archbishop of Mokvi (Georgia), and is written in Georgian. Naumann and Belting assume that the artist responsible for the miniatures was trained in Constantinople ca. 1290 and transported the Byzantine style to Georgia.129 An exacting stylistic analysis is not possible since I do not have access to high-resolution photographs,130 but the styles of the narrative cycles of the Mokvi Gospels and Paris 54 seem to be essentially compatible. For example, the proportions of the seated apostles in the Pentecost scene lack the Palaeologan distortions that one might expect to encounter in a manuscript of this date. It is the drapery folds, particularly the angularly conceived and tightly wrapped hems of the himations, which indicate a slightly later date than Paris 54 (see, for example, Plate 47). The shell-shaped configurations of the himations in those miniatures reproduced by Lazarev are exaggerated versions of the few examples of that motif found in Paris 54.131 The facial features, especially in the Pentecost and those scenes reproduced by Lazarev, are entirely compatible with those in the Paris manuscript.132 Naumann and Belting also support the stylistic connections between the Mokvi Gospels and Taphou 5 which were first noted by Lazarev. All of these observations underscore Belting’s thesis that the artist of the Mokvi Gospels was probably trained in the Constantinopolitan milieu in the last decade of the thirteenth century. Lazarev thought that the Mokvi miniature style was extremely close to that of Iviron 5. The Mokvi miniatures played a key role, along with London, BL, Burney 20 (dated 1285) in bolstering Lazarev’s argument against Weitzmann’s date in the first half of the thirteenth century for his Constantinopolitan manuscript group. It is on account of these two dated manuscripts that Lazarev assigned both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 to the 1290s.133 Mt. Athos, Vatopedi 602 Vatopedi 602, an illustrated Octateuch, is another rare example of an early Palaeologan manuscript with an extensive narrative cycle. Lowden has linked Vatopedi 602 to the Palaiologan royal family and it, too, is datable 129 The evangelist portraits are later additions. For bibliography, see Naumann and Belting, Euphemia-Kirche, p. 168, n. 190; see also Lazarev “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” pp. 294f. and figs 14–16; Lazarev, Storia della pittura Bizantina, p. 312, and Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, p. 70. 130 A relatively new publication of the Mokvi Gospels was not available to me. See Izolda Cicinadze, Mokvis ot, kht, avis gap, ormebis mkhatvruli principebi (Tbilisi: Académie des sciences de Géorgie, 2004). A number of folios (some reversed) are reproduced in color online at www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhtUe969wNo (accessed January 3, 2014) 131 See, for example, Paris 54’s Cure of the Woman with the Hemorrhage (Plate IV). 132 Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” figs. 14–16. 133 Ibid., pp. 294–5.

172 between constantinople and rome

to the late thirteenth century.134 More important, Lowden has drawn direct connections between the primary and secondary scribes of Vatopedi 602 and the two scribes responsible for Paris 54’s Greek text.135 As we saw in Chapter 2, paleographic connections have already been drawn between Paris 54, Vatopedi 602, and other religious and secular manuscripts with archaizing scripts by De Gregorio and Prato.136 Unfortunately, however, these parallels do not apply to Vatopedi 602’s and Paris 54’s narrative cycles and there is little basis for comparison between the 160 miniatures of this Octateuch and the miniatures of Paris 54.137 The style of most of the miniatures of Vatopedi 602 is even more archaizing than its twelfth-century model, Vatican gr. 746.138 And, in those few miniatures where the Vatopedi artist opts to incorporate more contemporary stylistic trends into his work, one encounters a style that postdates Paris 54. As John Lowden has aptly demonstrated, the appropriate comparative Palaeologan material for Vatopedi 602 is supplied by miniatures like Vat. gr. 1208 and other members of the Palaiologina group which are traditionally ascribed to the 1290s.139 The Hamilton Psalter (Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett 78 A 9) The Hamilton Psalter is the only other thirteenth-century bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript utilizing ten folios per quire that offers viable paleographical parallels with the Paris manuscript.140 Like two manuscripts of the Palaeologina group, this manuscript apparently once belonged to Queen Carlotta of Cyprus, a

134 Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” p. 114: “The Vatopedi Octateuch …was at a later date owned by an obscure member of the Asan Palaiologos family, and hence might have been passed down from a more prominent member of the imperial family.” See also Lowden, The Octateuchs, pp. 32–3. 135 Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 277, n. 2. 136 De Gregorio and Prato, “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani,” pp. 91ff. The authors date another Octateuch, Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana MS Plut. 5.38, to the late thirteenth century and associate it with both Vatopedi 602 and Paris 54, among other manuscripts (see Chapter 2 above). Perria and Iacobini, “Gli Ottateuchi in età paleologa,” pp. 69–112, also argued in favor of dating Florence, Laur. 5.38 to the late thirteenth century. It had traditionally been dated to the eleventh century. Most of its illuminations have suffered from extensive flaking. Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts” pp. 110 and 114, contrasts the large, legible script of Laur. Plut. 5.38 with that of Vat. gr. 747, but seems to prefer an eleventh-century date for the former. 137 Buchthal, Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, p. 69. 138 Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” pp. 115–17, notes that the miniatures of Vatopedi 602 do not copy the style of their twelfth-century iconographical model, Vat. gr. 746. Instead, the artist was deliberately imitating an archaizing style of “circa 1000.” 139 Comparisons are also made with the Transfiguration fresco from the Protaton on Mt. Athos datable to ca. 1300; Lowden, “The Production of the Vatopedi Octateuch,” p. 121. 140 See Chapter 2 above. The Hamilton Psalter contains some 310 marginal miniatures, but they appear to have little in common with those of Paris 54.

paris 54’s place in constantinopolitan book illumination 173

Palaeologina on her mother’s side.141 Lowden, however, asserts that the Hamilton Psalter and Paris 54 are very different manuscripts in spite of these connections. He notes that the psalter has the “character of an assemblage.”142 Havice also noted in her stylistic analysis of the Hamilton miniatures that “there are no good stylistic comparanda for these [facial types] … to be found within the sphere of thirteenth and fourteenth-century Byzantine painting ….”143

Conclusion My analysis places Paris 54 just after Iviron 5, but before Vatopedi 602, the Mokvi Gospels of ca. 1300, and Taphou 5. The evidence supports a date in the last decades of the thirteenth century for Paris 54. Later manuscripts that are traditionally placed in the third and fourth decades of the fourteenth century (for example, Paris gr. 543) distance themselves from this group of manuscripts through their figural style.144 Ornamental parallels can be made with Paris 54, but this does not apply to the miniatures. However, reverberations of Artist C’s style can be found in both manuscripts and icons dating well into the fourteenth century, including the illustrated menologion in the Bodleian Library in Oxford (MS Gr. th. f. I). Its miniatures seem to reflect a later development of Artist C’s style.145 In addition, one of the miniaturists of the illustrated Akathistos Hymn in Moscow (State Hist. Mus., Gr. 429) is especially close to Artist C.146 141 See Annemarie Weyl Carr’s catalogue entry for the Hamilton Psalter in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 77, pp. 153–4. Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 67, note that Carlotta was a direct descendant of Michael VIII Palaeologos and Theodora. 142 Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 267. 143 Havice seems to favor a Cypriot provenance for the manuscript; see Havice, “The Marginal Miniatures in the Hamilton Psalter,” p. 94. Buchthal, “History of Palaeologan Illumination,” p. 149, proposed that the marginal narrative miniatures were executed by a Western artist, but Havice disagrees; see ibid., pp. 85 and 88. 144 Ibid., p. 161, dates Paris, BnF, gr. 543 to the 1330s on the basis of parallels with the ornament of Paris, BnF, gr. 311 (dated 1336). The facial features in some of the miniatures in Paris gr. 543 are reminiscent of Artist C in Paris 54. See further fols. 197v and 273v, reproduced in Omont, Miniatures, pl. CXXIII. Fol. 197v is reproduced in color in Christian Förstel, Trésors de Byzance: Manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Cahiers d’une exhibition 37 (Paris: BnF, 2001), p. 25 and fig. 39. 145 Hutter dates the manuscript to 1322–40; see Irmgard Hutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, vol. 2: Oxford Bodleian Library (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1978), pp. 1–33 and figs. 1–105, with the Koimesis in color (frontispiece). Some images are also reproduced by Otto Pächt, Byzantine Illumination, Bodleian Picture Book 8 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952), figs. 16 and 24, and Belting, Das illuminierte Buch, fig. 29. 146 See esp. fols. 13r, 17, 18v, 20, and 21 (whereas subsidiary figures in fols. 29, 31v and 33v are by a different hand). See V.D. Lixačeva, “The Illumination of the Greek Manuscript of the Akathistos Hymn,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972): 253–62 and figs. 1–3 for fols. 7r, 13r, and 20v.

174 between constantinople and rome

The Moscow manuscript is datable to ca. 1370 according to Edmund C. Ryder.147 Finally, the Transfiguration from the Hexaptych Icon from Sinai provides some stylistic parallels.148 Its figures of Christ and the prophets are really quite close to Artist C, while the lower figures of the apostles are more dynamic and expressive than their cohorts in Paris 54. This evidence appears to support our contention that Artist C was younger and more recently trained than either Artist A or Artist B when he worked on Paris 54. In the next chapter, we address the historical context of early Palaeologan Constantinople. There, it will become apparent that the presence of the Latin text in Paris 54 may provide the most compelling indication of its date.

147 Ryder wrote the catalogue entry for the closely related Akathistos manuscript in Spain (El Escorial Ms. R.I.19; gr. 19) in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 172, pp. 287–8. 148 For a color reproduction, see ibid., cat. # 227, p. 339, fig. 11.5. Father Damianos dates the icon to the mid-fourteenth century.

8 Art and Diplomacy in Late Thirteenth-century Constantinople: Paris 54 and the Union of Churches

I fear theology most of all and never approach it except under duress. Maximos Planoudes1 Reasonable people worship God, wisely following the commands of the mysteries. They do not delve into them; those who do are foolish and prepare their own downfall. Theodore Metochites2

Introduction Paris 54 diverges significantly from Iviron 5 and Princeton, Garrett 3 in its generous proportions, its bilingual and multi-colored texts, its gatherings made up of ten folios, as well as in the expanded number of text passages selected for illustration. In view of these distinctive features, one could postulate yet a third model for Paris 54 to account for these differences.3 However, I propose that the differences between Paris 54 and its models are due both to the stipulations of Paris 54’s unidentified, but highly ambitious and sophisticated patron, as well as to ad hoc changes initiated by Paris 54’s head scribe as he formatted the manuscript. These innovations suggest that the patron of Paris 54 never sought to produce a copy of another manuscript.4 1 Cited by Elizabeth Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate, the Art of Translation, and the Beholder’s Share,” in Orthodox Readings of Augustine, ed. A. Papanikolaou and G. Demacopoulos (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2008), pp. 41–61, esp. p. 61. 2 Poem I, vv. 58–61 and 67, cited in Ševčenko, “Theodore Metochites,” p. 52 and n. 232. 3 That is, in addition to Athos, Iviron 5 (which served as the primary model for the evangelist portraits and much of the narrative cycle) and Princeton, Garrett 3 (which served as the exemplar for Paris 54’s Greek text). See Chapters 6 and 4 above, respectively. 4 This situation can be contrasted with that described by Lowden, “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts,” p. 115, where he speculates that the discerning patron of Mt. Athos, Vatopedi 602 demanded a “better” copy of Vat. gr. 746 (that is, the twelfth-

176 between constantinople and rome

Rather, he envisioned a unique and deluxe manuscript that would eclipse its contemporaries and physically embody a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West. Moreover, the fact that the manuscript was not completed suggests that the purpose for which Paris 54 was envisioned was never realized. The manuscript’s highly individualized character (that is, the presence of its Latin text) apparently made it impossible to recycle in another context. Thus, I will argue that Paris 54’s distinguishing characteristics—especially its Latin text and its numerous scenes related to St. Peter—are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. I propose that Paris 54 was likely created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts in the early Palaeologan period to unify the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Paris 54’s Latin text sheds light on its patron’s purpose and the context in which such a manuscript would have been commissioned. Paris 54 must be seen as having been conceived in the highest intellectual circles for an unprecedented diplomatic role.

Historical Context Most art historians now support a date in the second half of the thirteenth century for Paris 54.5 This coincides with the reigns of Michael VIII Palaeologus, who wrested Constantinople from the Latins in 1261,6 and that of his son and successor, Andronikos II, who ruled from 1282 to 1328.7 Both reigns were overshadowed by the almost constant threat of foreign invasion.8 Michael’s overriding concern was a Latin incursion, especially under the initiative of Charles of Anjou, the brother of King Louis of France. In an effort to stave off this threat, Michael VIII sought the unification of the Greek and Latin Churches, and pursued a number of diplomatic marriages. Any number of circumstances related to these efforts could have resulted in the creation of a manuscript such as Paris 54.9 This chapter concentrates on the historical century illustrated Octateuch manuscript from which it was copied). 5 See the historiographical discussion in Chapter 7 above. 6 Constantinople was actually captured by a scouting party under the leadership of Alexios Strategopoulos on July 25, 1261. Michael VIII entered the city later, on August 15, 1261. For an account of the recovery of Constantinople, see Deno John Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus 1258–1282: A Study in Byzantine–Latin Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 92–115. 7 The best account of Michael VIII’s reign is that of Geanakoplos (ibid.). For Andronikos II’s reign, see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins. 8 In ibid, p. 3, Laiou writes: “both Michael VIII and Andronicus II had to face the hostility of western powers—Venice, the Angevins of Naples, the papacy, the French royal house—and had to make considerable efforts to forestall a western attack.” 9 Many of these possibilities were first addressed in the conclusion of my dissertation. See Maxwell, “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54,” pp. 302–12. See also Radiciotti, “Episodi di digrafismo.”

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 177

context of the reigns of Michael VIII and Andronikos II,10 providing insight into the milieu in which Paris 54 was likely created. Constantinople was in steep decline by the end of the Latin Occupation. According to Talbot: when Michael VIII entered Constantinople in 1261 he had to face the reality that the capital was a desolate, depopulated city that was only a shadow of its former glory. In the words of Gregoras, “the Queen of Cities was a plain of desolation, full of ruins … with houses razed to the ground, and a few which had survived the great fire.11 For raging fire had blackened its beauty and ornamentation on several occasions when the Latins were first trying to enslave .”12 Sheep grazed in the precincts of the Stoudios monastery,13 and there was plenty of land available within the city for the planting of grain.14 Thus the reconstruction and repopulation of the capital was one of the emperor’s most pressing concerns throughout his reign.15

Michael’s immediate goals were twofold: he had to both rebuild his capital and negotiate a lasting peace with the West.16 The second goal required diplomacy, for Michael could ill afford a massive military effort. From the beginning, Michael VIII utilized artistic patronage effectively to pursue his political objectives at home and abroad.17 Scholars have 10 Sophia Kalopissi-Verti states that imperial patronage diminished after the reign of Andronikos II due to financial difficulties and, in any event, no date after about 1310 has ever been seriously proposed for Paris 54 by art historians. See Kalopissi-Verti, “Patronage and Artistic Production,” p. 79. 11 Alice-Mary Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), p. 249. According to Talbot, “natural and man-made disasters, such as the earthquakes of 1296, 1303 and 1323, and the fires of 1291, 1305 and 1320” plagued the efforts of Andronikos II, the successor of Michael VIII, to rebuild the city. See Alice-Mary Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, The Medieval Mediterranean 33, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 329. See also Thomas. F. Madden, “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203–1204: A Damage Assessment,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84–5 (1991–92): 72–93. 12 Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantina historia, vol. I, 87.23–88.5, cited by Alice-Mary Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993), p. 249 and n. 38. 13 Ibid., p. 249, n. 39. 14 Pachymérès, ed. Failler, vol. I, 251.19–23, cited by Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople,” p. 249, n. 40. 15 Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople,” p. 249. 16 For the rebuilding of Constantinople under the reigns of Michael VIII and Andronikos II, see Vassilios Kidonopoulos, transl. Georgi R. Parpulov, “The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin Conquest through the Palaiologan Era,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. Sarah T. Brooks (New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 98–117. 17 See, for example, Titos Papamastorakis, “A Visual Encomium of Michael VIII Palaeologos: The Exterior Wall-Paintings of the Mavriotissa at Kastoria,” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 15 (1989–90): 221–40 (in Greek with an English summary).

178 between constantinople and rome

observed a distinct effort to renew ancient imperial traditions in this patronage. For example, an extraordinary peplos or pallio18 (a fine woolen garment) was given to Genoa in conjunction with the Treaty of Nymphaion.19 Genoa, preempted by Venice for more than half a century in trade in the Black Sea, had agreed to assist Michael VIII in recapturing Constantinople in exchange for free access to Black Sea ports.20 The pallio, in addition to showing scenes from the life and martyrdom of St. Lawrence, depicts the Archangel Michael welcoming Michael VIII, in the company of St. Lawrence, to the Cathedral of San Lorenzo in Genoa.21 Notable here is Michael VIII’s interaction with Westerners. He enlists the Genoese to assist in the re-conquest of Constantinople and rewards them with generous trade agreements. More important, Michael VIII’s openness to dialogue with the West in ecclesiastical matters is seemingly anticipated by his willingness to be depicted on the pallio entering a Western cathedral.22 In fact, Johnstone sought to date this textile to 1262 or 1267, when Michael VIII broached the subject of Church union with Popes Urban IV and Clement VI, respectively.23 A second pallio, commissioned by Michael VIII and given to Pope Gregory X in conjunction with the union of Churches established by the Council of Lyons in 1274, is also relevant in this context. This pallio does not survive, but is described in some detail in a Vatican inventory of 1295.24 18 The peplos as a gift has a long history. The Panathenaic procession in ancient Athens, for example, culminated in the presentation of a woven peplos to Athena. This subject is likely depicted on the internal Ionic frieze above the entrance to the cella of the Parthenon. 19 The treaty stipulated that three peploi were to be commissioned by Michael VIII as gifts for the Genoese—two for the Commune and one for the archbishop. See Ruth Macrides, “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople—1261?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6 (1980): 13–41, esp. p. 34 and n. 112. Macrides notes that Holobolos, in one of his orations in honor of Michael VIII, describes the “then obsolete custom of presenting to the emperor once a year a peplos, a woven garment on which there were scenes depicting the ruler’s achievements for that year. The gift of a peplos was part of an annual ceremony at which the ruler was presented with tribute.” See ibid., p. 28 and n. 79 20 Constantinople was actually retaken before the Genoese could send the assistance they had promised in the Treaty of Nymphaion of 1261. For the terms of the treaty, see Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 87–9. All Genoese enemies except Pisa would be banned from the Black Sea; see Robert Lee Wolff, “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261,” in Kenneth M. Setton, gen. ed., A History of the Crusades, vol. 2: The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, ed. Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), p. 230. 21 See Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” p. 167, fig. 4. On p. 177, n. 102, Hilsdale compares this pallio to Vatopedi 602 and Iviron 5, manuscripts that are closely related to Paris 54. I thank Professor Hilsdale for providing me with an advance copy of this article and for generously sharing her research and her images of the Genoese pallio with me. 22 See Pauline Johnstone, “The Byzantine ‘Pallio’ in the Palazzo Bianco at Genoa,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 87 (March 1976): 99–108, as cited in Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” p. 161. 23 Johnstone, “Byzantine ‘Pallio,’” p. 101. 24 See Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” pp. 162f. I thank my colleague, the late Fr. Gerald Sullivan, SJ, for providing me with a translation of the inventory text describing this pallio.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 179

Remarkably, it depicted Michael VIII being led to St. Peter by Pope Gregory. According to Macrides, this scene is: “a visual statement of the fruits of the Council [of Lyons]. The scenes in these textile gifts were chosen with a view to pleasing the Latins.”25 Moreover, this second pallio included extensive bilingual inscriptions as well as scenes from the life of Christ and the Apostles,26 calling to mind Paris 54’s bilingual text and narrative Gospel scenes.27 Michael VIII’s manipulation of art and diplomacy was masterful, by all accounts, but he was in fact ruthless in securing his agenda, without regard for the desires of the people or the aristocracy.28 A usurper to the throne, he is still condemned for his blinding of the 11-year-old John IV Laskaris, the legitimate successor to the Byzantine throne.29 Michael also disregarded Byzantine antipathy for the West. This was most flagrant in his negotiations with the papacy to reunite the Latin and Orthodox Churches. Michael VIII believed that union alone would protect Constantinople from Latin efforts to recapture it. Michael’s foreign policy concentrated first and foremost on achieving union with the Latin Church.

25 See Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 35 and nn. 119–20, where she cites Pauline Johnstone, The Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery (Chicago, IL: Argonaut, 1967), pp. 76–7. Furthermore, Macrides notes that Holobolos in his ekphrasis fails to mention the central scene in the peplos given to Genoa. That is, he does not mention that Michael VIII is shown being escorted into the church of St. Lawrence by St. Lawrence; ibid., p. 35. 26 Johnstone, Church Embroidery, p. 77, says that the cloth mentioned in the Vatican inventory “evidently had the Trinity at the top, with a bust of the Virgin with saints in the middle, and below that again St. Peter, to whom Gregory is leading Michael.” 27 Another Palaeologan silk textile with images of saints is described in Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople,” p. 334 and n. 26. See also Marianna Shreve Simpson, “Manuscripts and Mongols: Some Documented and Speculative Moments in East-West/Muslim–Christian Relations,” French Historical Studies 30/3 (Summer 2007): 351–94. I thank Cecily Hilsdale for this reference. 28 See below for Michael VIII’s mutilation of Manuel Holobolos, which Ruth Macrides suggests was not an uncommon form of punishment during Michael VIII’s reign. See Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 17 and n. 19. 29 In ibid., p. 17 and n. 16, Macrides writes that Pachymeres states that John was blinded on Christmas Day 1261, which was also John’s birthday. Macrides notes that Michael VIII may have persisted over his enemies in life, but they eclipsed him in death. Specifically, John IV Laskaris was ultimately worshipped as a saint in Constantinople; see “The New Constantine,” pp. 20–21 and nn. 35 and 41. John’s father, the Emperor Theodore, was also responsible for a number of blindings (including the blinding of Alexios Strategopoulos’ son), according to Akropolites; see Ruth Macrides, George Akropolites, The History: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 339ff. There are even crueler examples of blinding in Byzantium. Empress Irene had her own son, Constantine VI, blinded in 797; see Kriszta Kotsis, “Defining Female Authority in Eighth-century Byzantium: The Numismatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802),” Journal of Late Antiquity 5/1 (Spring 2012): 185– 212, esp. p. 186 and n. 2 for bibliography.

180 between constantinople and rome

Michael VIII as the New Constantine Macrides describes yet another pallio commissioned by the Patriarch Germanos to hang in Hagia Sophia. It represented Michael VIII as the New Constantine. It does not survive but it appears to have been the visual counterpart of the epithet νέος Κωνσταντῖνος which is found in a variety of media during Michael’s reign, in both Greek and Latin.30 Many Byzantine emperors are compared by their panegyrists to Constantine the Great, the emperor who moved the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople.31 More rarely is an emperor referred to as the new Constantine (νέος Κωνσταντῖνος).32 Macrides (following Pachymeres) thinks that Germanos (who eventually became patriarch under Michael VIII) was quite plausibly the first to use this epithet to describe Michael VIII.33 There are in fact some parallels between Constantine the Great and Michael VIII, and not all of them are flattering.34 Both are associated with the foundation or re-foundation of Constantinople and both attributed their success to divine intervention. In his autobiography, Michael VIII, for example, takes little personal credit for recapturing Constantinople and attributes his success to God.35 Michael VIII also fails to mention his usurpation of the Byzantine throne and attributes his elevation to emperor as divine will.36 Constantine the Great also believed that his military victory over his better-equipped rival, Maxentius, at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312 was enabled by divine will. Constantine the Great, in an effort to unify the Roman Empire, took measures to relieve tensions among Christians, most famously through the Council of Nicaea of 325.37 Michael VIII also sought to heal the schism 30 Ibid., p. 23 and n. 55. See Titos Papamastorakis, “Tampering with History: From Michael III to Michael VIII,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96/1 (2003), pp. 193ff., and n. 123 below for the fate of this peplos after the death of Michael VIII. 31 Dimiter Angelov, Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204– 1330 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), pp. 86–90. 32 Macrides, “The New Constantine,” pp. 22f. 33 Ibid., pp. 24 and 40–41. Macrides notes also that Germanos was a patriarch “interested in reviving neglected customs.” 34 Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 119–137; Macrides, “The New Constantine,” passim. 35 Michael VIII wrote: “And when I undertook the war against the Latins whom the Imperial City was protecting, at their own misfortune, and having encamped opposite the City in Asia, I cannot really describe how, with God’s help, I engaged them in battle and drove them to their worst predicament.” In reality, Michael VIII was not personally present when Constantinople was recaptured. See A. Pelendrides, The Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, Series of Byzantine Texts 2 (Nicosia, Cyprus: Theopress, 1998), p. 47. 36 “I, then, am proclaimed Emperor of your people by You. … Thy right hand exalted me. And I became master of all, not by persuading but by being persuaded and by having myself been forced into it; and not by bringing force upon anyone”; ibid., pp. 52–3. See also Akropolites’ account of Michael VIII’s rise to power. See Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, pp. 343ff. and 351. 37 Michael VIII is also connected to Nicaea since this was the capital of the Lascarid Empire—the legitimate heirs to the Byzantine throne during the Latin Occupation of

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 181

between Latin and Greek Christians through overtures to the Papacy that culminated in the Union of Lyons in 1274. Constantine, the first Christian emperor, commissioned 50 Bibles in the year 331, according to Eusebius’ Life of Constantine. Might Michael VIII have commissioned Paris 54 as a symbol of his achievement of the union of Churches? Finally, as Alice-Mary Talbot notes: “is it sheer coincidence that Michael gave the name Constantine to his third son, born shortly after his triumphal entry into Constantinople in 1261?”38 Both emperors were also responsible for the death or mutilation of relatives whose well-being was their responsibility. Constantine ordered the execution of his first son, Crispus, and Crispus’ stepmother (that is, Constantine’s second wife) Fausta. Michael VIII, on the other hand, blinded his cousin and heir apparent to the Byzantine throne, John IV Laskaris, on his eleventh birthday on Christmas Day in 1261. Is it possible that Michael VIII believed that the unification of the Greek and Latin Churches might atone for his sins, guaranteeing the salvation of his soul and the survival of his empire, as well as ensure his place in history? One should not underestimate the potential impact of these considerations as Michael established his priorities.39 The Implications of Paris 54’s Latin Text Michael VIII’s habitual interactions with Western secular and ecclesiastic representatives are difficult to reconcile with the hatred of Westerners felt by the Byzantine populace.40 These feelings were not limited to individuals and groups, but also extended to the Latin language and script. One cannot appreciate just how anomalous Paris 54’s Latin text was in post-1261 Constantinople until one realizes that only a handful of Byzantines were actually proficient in Latin at virtually any given time during the entire Palaeologan period.41 Constantinople. Michael VIII, according to his autobiography, was “reared and raised” almost from infancy by his uncle, John III Vatatzes, the paternal grandfather of John IV Laskaris. Michael says that “he appeared more affectionate towards me than even my real father”; Pelendrides, Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos, p. 43. 38 And therefore referred to as Constantine Porphyrogenitus; see Talbot, “The Restoration of Constantinople,” p. 260, for these and other parallels between Michael VIII and Constantine. 39 Particularly if reunification led to a joint crusade against the Muslims and the recapture of the formerly Byzantine provinces in Asia Minor. In such a case, Laiou suggests that Michael VIII “might well have been called the savior of Asia Minor”; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 26. 40 See, for example, Tia M. Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000), passim. 41 For example: Manuel-Maximos Planoudes, George of Cyprus, Manuel Holobolos, and the Kydones brothers. I have found no evidence that members of the imperial family or patriarchs knew Latin (the fourteenth-century Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos, however, was fluent in Italian). According to Nicol, “[Patriarch] Bekkos knew little or no Latin.” See D.M. Nicol, “The Greeks and the Union of Churches: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261–1274,” in Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ed. J.A. Watt, J.B. Morrall and F.X. Martin, OSA (Dublin: Colm O Lochlainn at the Three Candles, 1961), p. 471. Manuel Holobolos “was

182 between constantinople and rome

These circumstances, it must be emphasized, differed radically from those that existed in the ancient Roman Empire. From the end of the third century BC through the Early Christian period, one could assume that educated Romans were well versed in Latin and Greek.42 In fact, knowledge of both Greek and Latin declined precipitously in the Middle Ages.43 The lack of knowledge of Greek in the Roman Curia was bemoaned in 1273 by the Dominican minister-general Humbert of Romans.44 The inability of representatives of the Latin Roman Church and the Greek Orthodox Church to communicate with each other and to read essential documents regarding their respective positions on issues relevant for union had an enormous impact on the ongoing attempts to unify the two Churches.45 Humbert had been asked by Pope Gregory X in 1273 to write a treatise in preparation for the Council of Lyons of 1274 where the pope and the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII hoped to heal the schism between the Latin and Orthodox Churches. Humbert wrote: Above all, to further union it is important to study Greek, as was the case in the time of Jerome and Augustine. At the present time, knowledge of Greek is so rare in the Roman Curia that almost no one can read the language. Indeed, it would be precious for union if Latins could read the theologically important Greek works, the acts of the Greek councils, … and their ecclesiastical history. There is too little interest in these writings and too much in philosophy …. It is essential that the Latin fathers be translated into Greek and that they be sent to the Greek East.46 the only panegyrist in the period to quote a line from a Latin author” (Virgil). When he did so, he had to explain “to his audience that Virgil was for the Latins what Homer was for the Hellenes.” See Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 94–5 and n. 62. 42 Augustine of Hippo (d. 430), Confessions, Book I, admits that he hated studying Greek as a schoolboy. His first language was Latin; see Federica Ciccolella, Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance (Leiden: Brill, 2008), p. 84. Ciccolella writes that the teaching of Greek to children of wealthy Romans was long the “prerogative of Greek slaves from South Italy, Greece, or Asia”; see ibid., p. 77. 43 Johannes Koder, “Latinoi: The Image of the Other According to Greek Sources,” in Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), ed. Chryssa A. Maltezou and Peter Schreiner (Venice: Instituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2002), pp. 25–39, esp. p. 28, writes: “In general, the knowledge of Latin in the Byzantine East was in the 9th and 10th centuries as rare as the knowledge of Greek in the West.” 44 For an opposing view regarding the knowledge of Greek in the Vatican under Pope Martin IV, see George Galavaris, “A Constantinopolitan Scribe in the Court of Pope Martin IV,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 44 (1994): 99–103, where he argues that the Latin prelates must have had a fairly sophisticated knowledge of Greek to make the comments they did in the margins of a Greek text. 45 See Börje Bydén, “‘Strangle Them with These Meshes of Syllogisms!’: Latin Philosophy in Greek Translations of the Thirteenth Century,” in Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 13 (Istanbul: Svenska Forskningsinstitutet, 2004), pp. 136–7, for more on Humbert of Romans. In 1339, during union talks under Andronikos III, Pope Benedict XII “took the line that instruction in Latin teaching was all that the orientals needed to convince them of the validity of the Roman faith.” See J.M. Hussey, The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 257. 46 See further Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura” (1989 edn.), p. 208. Humbert’s

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 183

Another source indicates the paucity of Greek and Latin interpreters in Rome in 1276. When Pope John XXI sent an embassy of two bishops and two Dominicans to Constantinople for Michael VIII’s profession of the Union of Lyons, the envoys were authorized to hire their own Latin and Greek interpreters.47 Later, the French author of De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae (1306–1308) advised Charles of Valois to learn the Greek language before his proposed crusade against Byzantium. He said: “the Greeks hated the Franks, and would accept more easily a man who spoke their language.”48 A comparable situation existed in Byzantium, since many Greeks did not know Latin and could not write the Latin alphabet.49 With the exception of the bilingual bishops of southern Italy and some members of the Mendicant Orders,50 only a few scholars appear to have been fluent in both Greek and Latin.51 Grabar and others argue that anti-Latin sentiment in the Byzantine enlightened views can be contrasted with others. Bischoff notes that “some radical theorists like a certain Dominican [named] Adam even considered the extirpation of Greek language and script; but such plans were moderated in view of the fact that Greek had been one of the sacred languages.” For further bibliography, see Bischoff, “Study of Foreign Languages,” pp. 215 and 223. Berschin says this Dominican was a counselor of King Philip IV of France; see Berschin, Greek Letters, p. 28 and p. 288, n. 32; see also James Hankins, “The Study of Greek in the Latin West,” published in Italian as “Lo studio del Greco in Occidente fra medioevo ed età moderna,” in I Greci: Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 3, ed. Salvatore Settis (Turin: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 2001), pp. 1,245–62, published in English in James Hankins, Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 1, Storia e Letteratura 215 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003), pp. 273–91, esp. pp. 277–8 and n. 5, where Hankins notes that this was “apparently William Adam, Archbishop of the Dominican mission, who was also the author of De modo Sarracenos extirpandi.” 47 See Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 305–6 and n. 3, where he cites E. Van Moé, “L’envoi de nonces à Constantinople par les papes Innocent V et Jean XXI,” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 47 (1930): 39–62. 48 Cited in Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 240 and n. 163 for bibliography. 49 Weiss, “Translators from the Greek,” pp. 202 and n. 5, and p. 203 and nn. 1 and 2. 50 Niccolò of Durazzo, Bishop of Crotone, is an example of a bilingual bishop. He will be discussed below. The Western friars recognized early on the importance of mastering foreign languages for their proselytizing activity. “Dominican Master Raymond de Penafort (1238–40) [realized] that effective missionary activity required knowledge of and sensitivity to the cultural practices of each local population.” See Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language in Constantinople,” in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu (Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010), p. 392. I thank Prof. Fisher for providing me with an advance copy of this article. A Dominican who knew Greek exceptionally well was William of Moerbeke; see Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura,” p. 218. 51 This deficit was still widespread in the early fourteenth century as Bischoff, “Study of Foreign Languages,” p. 224, writes that the Council of Vienne in 1311–12 resolved that “In the universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna, Salamanca, and in the Papal curia two professors should be appointed for each of the following languages, Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, and Chaldaic, in order to teach them and to make translations

184 between constantinople and rome

East led to a rejection of anything associated with contemporary Roman culture, including the Latin language. Fisher writes that: Greek translation of foreign literary texts virtually ceased in the East after the early 7th century until the 10th century, when Greek translations of Arabic technical treatises appeared on such topics as dream interpretation, astronomy/ astrology, and medicine. Byzantine scholarly circles regarded western science and literature as inferior to Greek and Arabic traditions ….52

Byzantine antipathy toward Westerners was deeply ingrained by the Latin Interregnum.53 Nevra Necipoğlu notes that anti-Latin sentiment crystallized after 1204: Such sentiments had been in existence already since the eleventh century, but after the disruption and shock of the Latin conquest, Greek antagonism towards Latins—as the Byzantines collectively referred to Catholics of Western Europe—intensified.54

Geanakoplos reminds us that the creation of the Latin empire in Constantinople included “forced conversion of the Greek clergy and people to Catholicism.” The resulting hostility elevated the principal religious differences between the Roman and Orthodox Churches to assume ethnic significance as well.55 Lazarev believed that this anti-Latin, pro-Hellenic stance developed in Nicaea, the capital of the exiled Byzantines.56 Nicetas Choniates (1155–ca. 1216), into them. The hopes and expectations connected with this decree by far exceeded the actual results; it was equally difficult to find enough students and enough candidates for so many chairs.” Here Bischoff cites B. Altaner, “Raymundus Lullus und der Sprachenkanon (can. 11) des Konzils von Vienne (1312),” Historisches Jahrbuch 53 (1933): 190–219. See also Hankins, “Greek in the Latin West,” pp. 277f., where he indicates that there was very little response to the council’s decree. 52 Elizabeth Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of Bilinguals in Relations between the West and Byzantium,” Knotenpunkt Byzanz, Miscellanea Mediaevale 36, ed. Andreas Speer and Philipp Steinkrüger (New York and Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012), p. 212. 53 Deno John Geanakoplos, Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 217ff. Judith Herrin, Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire (London: Allen Lane/ Penguin, 2007), pp. 299ff., provides an excellent summary of the anti-Latin sentiment engendered by the Fourth Crusade. 54 Nevra Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 22ff. De Gregorio, “Tardo medioevo,” pp. 18–19, discusses anti-Latin sentiment following the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and its negative repercussions for virtually every aspect of Byzantine culture. 55 Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura,” pp. 185 and 203. See, too, the introduction to Kolbaba, Byzantine Lists, and Gill Page, Being Byzantine: Greek Identity Before the Ottomans (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 106–7. 56 See Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” pp. 295–6 (this article was originally published in Russian in 1952). Apparently, Latin characters disappeared from imperial documents after 1204; see F. Dölger and I. Karayannopoulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1968), pp. 66–7, cited by Dimiter Angelov in “Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople,”

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 185

a Byzantine historian famous for his unvarnished account of the Latin Sack of Constantinople,57 writes that: “The accursed Latins … lust after our possessions and would like to destroy our race …. Between them and us there is a wide gulf of hatred, our outlooks are completely different, and our paths go in opposite directions.”58 Another account, this time from a Dominican monk from Galata, claimed that the “locals would even break a cup out of which a Latin had drunk as if it had been something contaminated.”59 Anti-Latin sentiment is also detected in the Emperor Michael VIII when he suggests that the most visible sign of the Greek restoration was that: “in Constantinople there is no longer heard the confused tongue [broken Greek] spoken by a half-barbarian people [the Latins] but that of the Greek population now spoken correctly by all.”60 These sentiments reflect issues central to Byzantine identity.61 Up until this time, the Byzantines had generally referred to themselves as Romans,62 a term which was strongly differentiated from “Latins.” “Latins,” as used by the Byzantines, referred to the West in general, and to the pope and Catholics in particular. In fact, Michael VIII capitalized on Greek fears of the Latinization of the Greek Church and its people when he warned that “conquest of Constantinople by Charles [of Anjou] would completely Latinize them.”63 In short, the Greeks feared losing their language and their very culture.64 in Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences, Réalités Byzantines 10, ed. Angeliki Laiou (Paris: Lethielleux, 2005), pp. 293–310, esp. p. 295, n. 8. 57 See Paul Halsall, “Medieval Sourcebook: Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204),” http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.asp (accessed August 24, 2011). 58 Nicetas Choniates’ Chronicle (10.6.8), cited in Ciccolella, Donati Graeci, p. 231, n. 4. 59 See Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades (London: Hambledon Continuum, 2006), p. 179. 60 Michael VIII’s “Typikon for the Monastery of St. Michael,” published in A. Dmitrievskii, Opisanie liturgiceskih rukopisej, vol. 1, Part 1: Typika (Kiev, 1895), p. 771, cited by Deno John Geanakoplos, “The Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261: A Chrysobull of Michael VIII Palaeologus in Favor of Hagia Sophia,” in Constantinople and the West (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), p. 176, n. 4. 61 For a nuanced analysis of the “powerful strands” of Graeco-Roman antiquity and Christianity in Byzantine culture, see Speros Vryonis, Jr. “Byzantine Cultural Selfconsciousness in the Fifteenth Century,” in The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Doula Mouriki (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 5–14; see also Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 95–8. 62 Jeffreys writes: “Byzantine political theorists saw their empire and its ruler as a New Rome that was part of a seamless and unchanging continuity with the empire of Old Rome, though now divinely supported by the Christian God”; see Jeffreys, “Rhetoric in Byzantium,” p. 167 and n. 3. 63 See Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 271, n. 54, where he cites Nikephoros Gregoras, Bizantina historia, 127, 11.1–7. 64 See further Speros Vryonis, Jr., “Crises and Anxieties in Fifteenth Century Byzantium: The Reassertion of Old and the Emergence of New Cultural Forms,”

186 between constantinople and rome

Education in Constantinople Greek chauvinism regarding the superiority of her cultural heritage to all others, compounded by the very small percentage of highly educated people in Constantinople, severely impacted the intellectual atmosphere of the capital.65 Elizabeth Jeffreys says it is estimated that during the tenth, twelfth, and fourteenth centuries, “at no time were there in the capital many more than two hundred individuals who had passed the higher levels of the educational process.”66 Similar numbers are cited by Ševčenko when he writes: “The number of those responsible for the Palaeologan revival was also small, perhaps 150 to 200 people over the two centuries involved. The voluminous correspondence of the time reveals so much crisscrossing of names that it seems everybody knew and wrote to everybody else.”67 These same factors contributed to an extraordinarily conservative attitude on the part in Islamic and Middle Eastern Societies: A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Wadie Jwaideh, ed. R. Olson (Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books, 1987), pp. 100–125, and Ihor Ševčenko, “The Palaeologan Renaissance,” in Renaissances Before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. Warren Treadgold (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984), pp. 144–71, esp. pp. 162ff. Dimiter Angelov suggests that the settlement of the Latins in Constantinople “provided external stimulus for the articulation of an alternative, Hellenic conception of self-identity”; see Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 96–8. See Angelov, “Byzantine Ideological Reactions,” pp. 300ff., for the different uses of Γραικο versus Ἑλληνες. See also Page, Being Byzantine, pp. 125ff. Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 268 and n. 44, cites Pachymeres 389, 11.13–14: “We must maintain for our descendants what [that is, the practices] we have received from our fathers.” This apparently reflects the viewpoint of the lower clergy, the monks, and the majority of the populace of Constantinople. See Anthony Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), esp. pp. 368–88, for a useful assessment of the thirteenth-century sources concerning the above issues (especially Ioannes III Vatatzes, Theodoros II Laskaris, Nikephoros Blemmydes, Giorgios Akropolites, and Gregorios of Cyprus). See esp. ibid., pp. 386–8, for Kaldellis’ conclusion. I thank Cecily Hilsdale for bringing this source to my attention. 65 See Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 43, and Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 271 and nn. 55–7, for the Byzantines’ superiority complex concerning all things Latin. For example, George of Cyprus (Patriarch Gregory II [1283–89]), a native of “Latin” Cyprus, faced unwarranted criticism largely because of his “Latin” roots. See Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 246–9, and Kaldellis, Hellenism in Byzantium, p. 384. However, Jeffreys, “Rhetoric in Byzantium,” p. 167, argues that the efforts of the scholar-emperor Theodore II Laskaris of Nicaea (r. 1254–58) were realized in what has come to be called the Palaeologan Renaissance, lasting from 1261 until well into the fourteenth century. Akropolites, however, skewers the Emperor Theodore and those he empowered as “loathsome little men, worthless specimens of humanity who had been raised on the songs of the theatre and took pleasure in the flute and strings and practised singing to the lyre and who were, to use the Homeric phrase, ‘false of tongue, nimble of foot, peerless at beating the floor in dance’, while he neglected noble men and expert commanders who had given good and pleasing service to the emperor his father”; see Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, pp. 339–40. 66 Jeffreys, “Rhetoric in Byzantium,” p. 169. 67 Ševčenko, “The Palaeologan Renaissance,” p. 161 and n. 14.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 187

of Orthodox monks and priests. The decline of learning and science among the Byzantines was cited by Humbert of Romans as a significant factor in the “stubborn traditionalism and unwillingness” of the Byzantines to engage in “constructive dialogue on theological questions.”68 Knowledge of Latin in Constantinople How then did these few Constantinopolitans learn Latin? Their teachers were apparently mendicant monks living in Constantinople69 or other educated Westerners who worked in the imperial chanceries.70 Mendicants arrived in Constantinople during the Latin Occupation and already by the 1230s were working in conjunction with the Papacy to advance negotiations towards the union of the Churches.71 These itinerant monks recognized the importance of mastering foreign languages. Fisher writes that the Franciscan Roger Bacon composed a Greek grammar in ca. 1270, so that Greeks could be instructed by the friars to “correct the theological errors of the Greeks and convert them to true faith by preaching in the Greek language.”72 The Franciscans acquired a substantial number of codices in Constantinople to facilitate their Greek language studies.73 68 Bydén, “Strangle Them,” pp. 136–7. Elizabeth Fisher states that Byzantines were also not much interested in the secular literature of other cultures, including the Latins. Fisher notes that Manuel/Maximos Holobolos (ca. 1245–1310) was the first to translate Latin literary works into Greek, and Planoudes translated “four works that can be described as ‘best-sellers’ in the medieval West”; see Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” pp. 77–8 and 97. 69 The Franciscans had a settlement in Constantinople by 1220, as did the Dominicans. For more information on mendicant objectives in the East, see Derbes and Neff, “Italy, the Mendicant Orders,” p. 450. See, too, Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 394. Herrin, Byzantium, pp. 304–5, writes: “Most of those who translated from Latin into Greek had learnt the new language from friars in Byzantium.” Ciccolella, Donati Graeci, pp. 233–4 and n. 13, states that the fourteenthcentury bilingual Greek monk Demetrius Kydones learned Latin from a Dominican in the Genoese colony of Pera in Constantinople. See also Cecily J. Hilsdale, “Constructing a Byzantine Augusta: A Greek Book for a French Bride,” The Art Bulletin 87/3 (September 2005): 458–83, esp. p. 477 and n. 103. Hilsdale recounts Robert of Clari’s anecdote of Agnes-Anna, the daughter of Louis VII of France, who married future emperor Alexios Komnenos in 1179. In 1204, when members of the Fourth Crusade sought her out in Constantinople, she refused to speak to them, “claiming in Greek through an interpreter that she had forgotten her mother tongue of French.” 70 Nicolaus of Parma and Ogerius Boccanegra, for example, served as translators for Michael VIII. See Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 394. For more on the translation activities of the chanceries of the emperor and the patriarch, see Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” pp. 43ff. 71 As early as 1205, Pope Innocent III had proposed that teachers be sent to Constantinople to teach Latin to Greeks; Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 394. See also Derbes, Picturing the Passion, pp. 25–6. 72 Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries, and the Latin Language,” p. 392. 73 Derbes, Picturing the Passion, pp. 25f.

188 between constantinople and rome

The Greek monk-scholars who knew Latin well enough to translate Latin texts into Greek include Manuel Holobolos, Manuel/Maximos Planoudes,74 Sophonias,75 and, later in the fourteenth century, the Kydone brothers.76 Fisher proposes that Holobolos probably met and came to respect Latin scholars through the: Dominican and Franciscan houses which continued to exist in Byzantine Constantinople under Michael VIII when both communities mingled freely with their Greek population of the city …. The library of the Dominican or Franciscan house at Constantinople may have provided Holobolos with the Latin manuscripts which introduced him and later Planoudes to Latin texts, and the educated Latin monks of these communities may have been the teachers who instructed first, Holobolos, then Planoudes, in the intricacies of the Latin language and introduced them to Latin literature.77

Fisher names mendicant scholars in Constantinople who were bilingual, including the Franciscan John Parastron78 and the Dominican Simon of Constantinople.79 Macrides credits Michael VIII’s Patriarch Germanos for recognizing the importance of the restoration of education in Constantinople.80 Germanos 74 See Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 53 and n. 41 and p. 55, where she notes that Planoudes became a monk some time ca. 1283 under the name Maximos. For Planoudes, see also Nigel G. Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium, revised edn. (London and Cambridge, MA: Gerald Duckworth and Medieval Academy of America, 1996), pp. 230–40. 75 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 212–16, wonders if this monk could later be the same individual called Sophronias who sought to collaborate with Charles of Valois against the Byzantines in the period 1307–10. Regardless, Sophonias the monk eventually converted to Catholicism, following extensive contact with the court of Anjou. See Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 393. 76 Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 157, proposes that Georges Pachymeres also had a “smattering of Latin.” Elizabeth Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” pp. 44 and 47, says she only knows four scholars in Constantinople who could translate a Latin text as challenging as Augustine’s De Trinitate: John Parastron, Simon of Constantinople, Manuel Holobolos, and Manuel (a.k.a. Maximos) Planoudes. 77 Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” pp. 95–6. In ibid., pp. 210–11, Fisher notes that Holobolos (ca. 1245–ca. 1310) received a traditional education in rhetoric and philosophy in Nicaea and came to Constantinople as a member of Michael VIII’s imperial chancery. Fisher says he may have been instructed in Latin by bilingual Western monks while in exile (1261–65) in a monastery in the Petra district of Constantinople. See further ibid., pp. 215–16, for a discussion of the other bilingual scholars. 78 See Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 45. Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 267–8, says that Parastron was beloved by the Greeks; after his death, they petitioned the pope to canonize him. For Parastron’s origins, see Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 392. 79 Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 46, says that Simon of Constantinople (ca. 1235–ca. 1325) was probably born in Constantinople. 80 Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 22 and n. 48: “Although Germanos was not himself a learned man he respected scholars ….” Germanos, however, was far more learned than the unlettered Arsenios whom the Emperor Theodore selected as his patriarch. See n. 145 below.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 189

convinced Michael VIII to bring Holobolos out of exile and to appoint him as rhetor (teacher of rhetoric). A few years earlier, Holobolos had infuriated Michael VIII when he criticized the emperor for blinding John Laskaris, the young heir to the throne. Michael VIII had Holobolos’ nose and lips mutilated, and Holobolos withdrew to a monastery.81 The appointment of Holobolos as rhetor signals for some a new “window of opportunity”82 in Constantinople when educational efforts were renewed and the study of Latin was tolerated. Fisher states that Holobolos was “the first scholar since late antiquity to translate Latin texts into Greek.”83 Bydén proposes that the installation of Holobolos in the Office of Rhetor (as a teacher of rhetoric) was part of: “a conscious strategy for getting into phase with the Latin-speaking world, whether the strategists aimed at rendering the Greek-speaking world more competitive or at promoting mutual understanding between the two worlds.”84 Holobolos would have been responsible for teaching the clergy. Given the role of the union of Churches in Michael VIII’s political agenda, it was certainly judicious to educate the monks and clergy concerning the Latin Church. These efforts would have been complemented by Planoudes’ translations of Latin texts.85 Fisher posits that Planoudes was motivated in his translation of Latin literature to give Greek readers “a better understanding of the western mindset.”86 According to Fisher, “Planoudes was a scholar with a cultural mission motivated by positive political goals.”87 She writes:

81 See Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 17; Bydén, “Strangle Them,” pp. 136ff., and Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” pp. 46f. Angelov, Imperial Ideology, p. 113, notes that Andronikos II distinguished himself from his father Michael VIII as a philanthropic emperor who refused to “implement the laws on mutilation.” Andronikos did not want to “take away from the subjects anything that he could not return.” 82 This term is borrowed from Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 157. 83 Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos,” p. 212. 84 Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 145. Bydén thinks that one of the major selling points to Michael VIII for bringing Holobolos out of exile was his “proficiency in Latin.” 85 Thanks to Elizabeth Fisher, I learned of one rare example of a Latin text copied by Planoudes himself. It is found on fols. 2r and 2v of Florence, Laurentian Library, Plut. 32.16. It may be accessed online at: http://teca.bmlonline.it/TecaViewer/index.jsp? RisIdr=TECA0000621330&keyworks=Plut.32.16 (accessed February 9, 2012). 86 Philip A. Stadter, “Planudes, Plutarch and Pace of Ferrara,” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 16 (1973): 159, cited by Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” p. 99 and n. 72. For the translation of Latin works into Greek in the Palaeologan era, see Giuseppe de Gregorio, “Per uno studio della cultura scritta a Creta sotto il dominio veneziano: I codici Greco-Latini del secolo XIV,” Scrittura e civiltà 17 (1993), pp. 104–5, n. 2, for bibliography. Planoudes translated at least nine works of classical and early medieval Latin literature into Greek; see Elizabeth A. Fisher, “Planoudes’ Technique and Competence as a Translator of Ovid’s Metamorphoses,” Byzantinoslavica 62 (2004): 143–60, esp. p. 147, n. 20. 87 Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” p. 103.

190 between constantinople and rome

[Planoudes] hoped to temper his compatriots’ general dislike of the Latins and their ways by presenting works of Latin literature not only fully comparable in quality and interest to the venerable masterpieces of the Greek literary tradition but also representing an authentic aspect of the cultural life of the West …. [Such translations] established a basis for respect and intellectual community between two very different cultures with conflicting political aspirations.88

Mutual respect and intellectual community would be essential for successful union negotiations. Moreover, these erudite bilingual monk-scholars played important roles in secular and ecclesiastic diplomacy, furthering the interests of Michael VIII’s and Andronikos II’s foreign policy.89 Knowledge of Latin was so rare in the Palaeologan period that these scholars were often singled out for government service, particularly for diplomacy.90 John Barker writes that the “status of [the] distinguished scholar and intellectual could still be in itself an important qualification for diplomatic functions.”91 An example of scholarly activity supporting diplomatic objectives is Planoudes’ translation of Augustine’s De Trinitate (On the Trinity) of ca. 1280. The Latin and Greek Churches differed fundamentally on the nature of the Trinity,92 and this presented obstacles for the implementation of the terms of the Union of Lyons, for which there was little popular support among the clergy, the monks, or the laity.93 Planoudes later led a diplomatic embassy to Venice on behalf of Andronikos II.94 Holobolos’ skills were also needed by the imperial chancery, and it was Holobolos who was almost certainly responsible for a Greek draft of an 88 Ibid., p. 104. Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 137, notes that the “great wave of translations of Latin theological works did not come until the brothers Demetrios and Prochoros Kydones began their activity in 1354.” 89 For example, the Franciscan John Parastron’s role as Michael VIII’s envoy to King Louis IX in the early 1270s. See Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 392, as well as for other examples of monk-scholar-diplomats, such as Simon of Constantinople and Sophonias. 90 See Teresa Shawcross, “‘Do Thou Nothing without Counsel’: Political Assemblies and the Ideal of Good Government in Theodore Palaeologus and Theodore Metochites,” Al-Masāq 20/1 (March 2008), p. 106, n. 104, for the importance of education in securing a position in the civil administration. 91 John W. Barker. “Emperors, Embassies, and Scholars: Diplomacy and the Transmission of Byzantine Humanism to Renaissance Italy,” in Church and Society in Late Byzantium, Studies in Medieval Culture 49, ed. Dimiter G. Angelov (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009), p. 159. He cites Maximos Planoudes and Theodore Metochites as well as Demetrios Kydones, Manuel Chrysoloras, and George Gemistos Plethon as “scholar-diplomats.” John (Janus) Lascaris (1445–1535) is described in similar terms; for more on Lascaris, see Chapter 9 below. 92 Edmund Fryde, The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261–c. 1360) (Leiden: Brill, 2000), pp. 261–2. 93 Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” pp. 47–9. The translation was also important for the Byzantine Council of Blachernae of 1285, which addressed the filioque question. See Nigel Wilson, Scholars of Byzantium (London, Gerald Duckworth, 1990), p. 230, cited in Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” p. 79, n. 8. 94 Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” p. 393.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 191

imperial letter to the pope that dates from 1266. Both Bydén and Fisher believe that Holobolos took an important role in the emperor’s initiatives toward Church union.95 Thus, the period ca. 1265–83 represents something of a “window of opportunity” for Latin translations in Constantinople. Such opportunities would disappear almost immediately after Michael VIII’s premature death in late 1282 and the revocation of the Union of Lyons shortly thereafter by his son, Andronikos II.96 The Union of Churches Michael’s best means of defending the empire was through diplomacy. If he could succeed in healing the schism between the Latin and Greek Churches,97 then it would be morally reprehensible for any representative of the Latin West to attack their Christian brethren in Constantinople.98 Union between the 95 Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 145 and nn. 59 and 60, cited in Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos,” p. 214 and n. 13. 96 Bydén, “Strangle Them,” p. 157, writes that by 1283 the window was closed “when Andronikos II abrogated the union and pro-Latin activity was again equated with anti-Byzantine activity and subject to prosecution.” 97 Michael VIII had a precedent for his pro-unionist policies. The Emperor John III Vatatzes had also pursued this goal until 1254, when he, Patriarch Manuel II, and Pope Innocent IV all died within a few months of each other. For the role of the mendicant friars in these negotiations, see Michael Angold, “Greeks and Latins after 1204: The Perspective of Exile,” in Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, ed. Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby (Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, and Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, 1989), pp. 79–80. Fisher believes that Western friars worked in conjunction with the Papacy as early as the 1230s, when Franciscans and Dominicans conducted negotiations over ecclesiastical union with the Byzantine Empire of Nicaea. Dominicans are first mentioned at Constantinople in 1233. Fisher notes that: “An anonymous tract of 1252 composed in both Latin and Greek and entitled Contra graecos originated in the Dominican monastery and provided a template for persuading Greek Christians to accept allegiance with the Pope”; see Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” pp. 391–2. Friars were also sent to Latinize the Armenian Church by the Papacy. King Het’um II (r. 1289–97) adopted Roman Catholicism as he was desperate for a Christian ally in the face of the Mamluk invasion. See Thomas Mathews and Alice Taylor, The Armenian Gospels of Gladjor (Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001), p. 23, and Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 126. Armenian overtures to Rome were made again in 1307. The Armenians, “under severe threat from Egypt, joined the Catholic church in 1323.” See also Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 219–20 and 316. 98 For a new interpretation of the intentions of Charles of Anjou (differing from that offered by Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 264ff.), see Gian Luca Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò e il Mediterraneo: Politica, diplomazia e commercio internazionale prima de Vespri, Collection de l’École française de Rome 411 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2009). See Michael Angold’s review of Gian Luca Borghese, Carlo I d’Angiò e il Mediterraneo, where Angold says: “The documentation deployed by Borghese establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Charles had no serious intentions of conquering Constantinople.” Angold says that Borghese’s text, based on documentary evidence as opposed to the Byzantine chronicles of Pachymeres and Akropolites, “reveals how much the emperor

192 between constantinople and rome

Greek and Latin churches was forged at the Council of Lyons in 1274 under Pope Gregory X.99 Pope Gregory (and some of his successors) hoped that such a union would result in a combined Latin and Greek crusade to regain the Holy Land from the Muslims.100 Pachymeres speaks positively about the pope and his motives. According to J.M. Hussey, “Gregory and his followers desired this peace for the sake of the good it would bring and for the unity of the Churches.”101 Michael VIII’s motivations are traditionally attributed to political expediency. The emperor, however, had never gained the support of the populace or the Orthodox clergy in incorporating the necessary accommodations to comply with the union.102 In fact, the emperor had refused to call popular assemblies ever since he had entered Constantinople.103 Thus, when Pope Gregory X’s successors demanded that the liturgical and doctrinal changes agreed upon at the Council of Lyons be enforced, Michael VIII faced heated opposition at home.104 His initial efforts at mollification were [Michael VIII] needed to exaggerate the Angevin threat, in an attempt—unavailing, as it turned out—to unite church and society behind him”; see The Medieval Review 09.10.05 (2009–10) at: https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3769/09.10.05. html?sequence=1 (accessed July 12, 2011). 99 Kenneth M. Setton, The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, vol. 1: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1976), pp. 114–19, for a description of the proceedings of the Council of Lyons. For an English translation of the letter of Michael VIII brought by his envoys to Lyons in which he recognizes Roman doctrine and papal supremacy, see Geanakoplos, Byzantium, pp. 217–18. On the feast day of the Apostles Peter and Paul (July 28, 1274), a bilingual mass was celebrated in the Cathedral of St. John in Lyons. See ibid., p. 218, for an English translation of the document describing the ceremony. 100 See Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 258–76, for the union of Churches. 101 See Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 224–5 and n. 15, where she cites Pachymeres, De Mich. Pal., V. II (CB, I, p. 370). However, Pachymeres was part of a small group of anti-unionists that drew up a formal reply to Michael VIII’s bid for union in 1273. They said: “The Latins are regarded as heretics, and heretics should be avoided like mad dogs. To accept papal primacy would mean being faced with complete ‘Latinismos’. In fact ‘to gain the Pope … I should lose myself”; see Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 227 and n. 25. 102 Byzantine historians note that the Emperor Michael was driven in his quest for the reunion of Churches by both “economia—that is, elasticity or flexibility in the administration of ecclesiastical affairs when vital interests of the state were endangered,” and by a vision of himself as the “new Constantine.” See Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura,” pp. 205 and 209. 103 See Shawcross, “Do Thou Nothing without Counsel,” p. 117 and n. 180, where she cites C.N. Tsirpanlis, “Byzantine Parliaments and Representative Assemblies from 1081 to 1351,” Byzantion 43 (1973), p. 480. 104 The opposition to the union of Lyons was immediate. Geanakoplos indicates that the Byzantine populace “hooted at the Byzantine envoys returning from Lyons.” George Metochites, one of the envoys, wrote that they were constantly accused of becoming a Frank (“Frangos kathestekas”); see Geanakoplos, Byzantium, p. 219. The popular response to the union established at the Council of Ferrara-Florence of 1438–39 was equally antagonistic; see Judith Herrin, “The West Meets Byzantium: Unexpected Consequences of the Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438–9,” ΑΩ International 19 (July 2011): http://www.onassis.gr/online-magazine/lectures-news/lectures-details. php?id=1 (accessed October 2, 2013) (no pagination in the online publication).

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 193

replaced by extreme measures as he sought to impose the terms of the Union on nonconforming clergy.105 Public humiliation, confiscation of property, mutilation, exile,106 imprisonment,107 and even death108 were meted out to those who objected to the Union of Lyons.109 Holobolos, for example, was first exiled to Nicaea and then brought back for public ridicule.110 Fisher writes: “Michael VIII ordered ten opponents of the union to be roped together, laden with sheep’s entrails and dung, and led through the city, with Holobolos as their leader. Holobolos was further humiliated by blows to the mouth with sheep’s livers.”111 The emperor alienated all segments of Byzantine society,112 including members of his immediate family,113 as he tried to allay the growing doubts in Rome.114 According to Aristeides Papadakis:

105 King Het’um II of Armenia faced a similar backlash from the clergy and the people after negotiating union with Rome while under threat from the Egyptians. See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 126. 106 This includes Theodore Metochites’ father (George Metochites), who refused to recant his support for the union of Churches and spent the rest of his life in exile in Bithynia; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 35 and n. 13. See also Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 53 and n. 41 and p. 55, where Fisher implies that Planoudes may have had to take monastic vows for his pro-union position under Michael VIII. 107 Herrin, Byzantium, p. 303, says that Andronikos II “took vengeance on John Bekkos, who was deposed, brought to trial and imprisoned.” Bekkos had earlier been imprisoned in Constantinople by Michael VIII for not supporting the union of the Latin and Greek Churches. While in prison, Bekkos studied archival documents related to the 1054 schism between the Churches and became an ardent supporter of the union of the Churches. See Lux in Arcana: The Vatican Secret Archives Reveals Itself, IV Centennial of the Foundation of the Vatican Secret Archives, exhibition catalogue (Capitoline Museums, Rome, February 29–September 9, 2012), (Rome: n.p., 2012), pp. 116–17. I thank Richard Kulp for this citation. 108 Kotys, an old friend of Michael VIII’s, and Makarios, a man universally admired for his piety, were put to death; see Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 276. 109 Opposition to union was found at all levels of society, including the emperor’s favorite sister, Eulogia. 110 Joseph Gill, SJ, “The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) Portrayed in Greek Documents,” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (1975): 5–45, esp. p. 7. 111 See Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 47, n. 20, citing Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, vol. 2, ed. Albert Failler (Paris: Belles Lettres, 1984), 502.25–505.4, and crediting Tia Kolbaba for the reference. Holobolos was confined to a monastery for nine years until he was released by Andronikos II in 1282. See Fisher, “Manuel Holobolos,” p. 21. 112 “From the intensity of these disorders, tantamount almost to civil war, it might appear that too great a price had been paid for the sake of union”; Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 276. 113 Those anathematized and excommunicated by the patriarch included bishops, members of the Senate, Church officials, and monks, as well as many other relatives and members of the aristocracy. Theodora Raoulaina (d. 1300) was exiled with her mother when she began to oppose her uncle Michael VIII’s religious policy; see Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople,” p. 333. 114 See, among others, Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades, p. 180.

194 between constantinople and rome

It included individuals of the royal blood [Michael VIII’s two sisters, Eulogia and Maria, five nieces and two nephews, John and Andronicus Palaeologus, the prime minister’s son, Constantine Acropolites, etc.], members of the senate, the episcopal circle, the provincial episcopate, church officials, priests, and monks, as well as simple laymen. In short, it was not restricted to any one institution or segment of society, such as the non-conformist fanatic monks or the pro-Lascarid Arsenites or the deposed patriarch’s followers, the Josephites. Essentially, the general character of the opposition explains why it could not be silenced, and why sanctions and excommunications were of little use.115

Eulogia, Michael’s sister, was so opposed to union that she sought to crush Michael VIII through a “daring” alliance between the Bulgars and the Mamluks of Egypt.116 When the Bishop of Grosseto visited Constantinople in 1279, he saw at least four members (all generals) of the imperial family in prison, “each bound with heavy chains.” At least one of them died.117 None the less, all of Michael VIII’s harsh tactics against anti-unionists did not prevent him from being excommunicated by Pope Martin IV in 1282.118 The Death of Michael VIII These tactics led to the extraordinary vilification of Michael VIII after his unexpected death while on campaign in December of 1282 and a vicious backlash against all things Latin.119 Michael VIII was even denied an Orthodox burial because of his unionist position.120 Moreover, his corpse was not returned to Constantinople, but buried in “unconsecrated ground” near the village where he died, and later moved to a monastery in Selymbria.121 In 1283, at 115 Aristeides Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory (1283–1289), revised edn. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1997), p. 24. The information in brackets in the above quotation is taken from ibid., p. 33, n. 59. 116 Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 274. 117 See D.M. Nicol, “The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Report of Ogerius, Protonotarius of Michael VIII Palaiologus, in 1280,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 63 (Sec. C, no. 1) (1962): 1–16, esp. pp. 7ff., and Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 239. 118 Ibid., p. 242. 119 See Gill, “Church Union,” p. 25, where Gill translates a document entitled “Another Declaration in Writing of the Impiety of Beccus Anathematising All Those Who Do Not Accept His Impiety, Which All the Prelates of That Day Subscribed” in which the significant role of women is underscored in the protests against union. The disruption caused by the clergy and the impact on the celebration of the sacraments is highlighted by Gill. 120 Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 242, states that he did, however, receive the last unction. 121 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 30–31, cites Gregoras (I, 153, 159) and Pachymeres (I, 530–32; vol. II, 107–8): “So hated was Michael for his unionist policies that when he died his son ‘did not give his father an imperial funeral, nay, not even a funeral worthy of lowly man …. During the night, he ordered a few men to take the body away from the camp, and cover it with earth, taking care only that no wild beasts should mutilate the imperial body …. And the reason for this was the emperor’s

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 195

the first council of Blachernai, his widow, Theodora, had to acknowledge that her husband could never receive Christian burial.122 Talbot argues that from 1283 until her death in 1303, Theodora attempted to distance herself from her deceased husband and to atone for her “sin of accepting the Union of Lyons in 1274.”123 Andronikos II, Michael VIII’s son and successor, immediately revoked the union of Churches in an effort to reestablish equilibrium. In effect, then, there was a reign of terror when union was imposed on the populace and a second reign of terror against the pro-unionists after Michael VIII’s death.124 Who Commissioned Paris 54 and Why? The extended period of Latin rule of Constantinople coupled with Michael VIII’s unpopular efforts to unite the Greek and Latin Churches ignited a powerful anti-Latin sentiment in Constantinople. It is highly unlikely, given the religious climate of the early Palaeologan period, that anyone except the emperor himself would have dared to commission a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript.125 Paris 54, in its display of parallel Greek and Latin texts united deviation from orthodox doctrine.’” Macrides, “The New Constantine,” pp. 20–21 and n. 41, says that Philotheos claimed that the “emperor’s body lay bloated because of the excommunication.” 122 See Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina,” pp. 297–8. 123 See ibid., p. 303, for the extraordinary steps taken by Theodora to distance herself from Michael VIII. See also Talbot, “Building Activity in Constantinople,” pp. 337ff., where Talbot says that Theodora intended that the new church of the Prodromos serve as a mausoleum for the Palaiologos family. Talbot notes that Michael VIII is “conspicuously missing” from the list of burials there as his corpse remained in Selymbria. Moreover, Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, “Aspects of Byzantine Art after the Recapture of Constantinople (1261–c.1300): Reflections of Imperial Policy, Reactions, Confrontation with the Latins,” Orient–Occident au XIIIe siècle: les programmes picturaux, ed. J.-P. Caillet and F. Joubert, Actes du colloque international organisé à l’École Française d’Athènes, April 2–4, 2009 (Athens and Paris: École française d’Athènes and Picard, 2012), p. 53 and n. 84, cites other examples of damnatio memoriae in which antiunionists erased the memory of those that supported Michael VIII’s unionist efforts, including, among others Papamastorakis, “Tampering with History,” pp. 207–8. For example, Patriarch Athanasios I in 1306, during his second reign, destroyed the representation of the three Germanos figures that Michael VIII had dedicated in Hagia Sophia in honor of (Patriarch) Germanos III. In addition, he altered the portrait of Michael VIII on a peplos hanging in Hagia Sophia with the name New Constantine into a portrait of St. Constantine. 124 Louis Bréhier, “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches,” in The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4: The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453), ed. J.B. Bury (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927), pp. 594–626, esp. pp. 613–16. 125 Planoudes wrote: “I fear theology most of all and never approach it except under duress”; cited in Fisher, “Planoudes’ De Trinitate,” p. 61. Ševčenko writes that for Theodore Metochites, “there was one sphere in which not only originality, but even involvement was to be avoided: this was theology.” Metochites wrote: “Reasonable people worship God, wisely following the commands of the mysteries. They do not delve into them; those who do are foolish and prepare their own downfall” (Poem I, vv. 58–61, 67); see Ševčenko, “Theodore Metochites,” p. 52 and n. 232.

196 between constantinople and rome

by images describing the Gospel narrative, virtually embodies the union of the Churches.126 There are several occasions in the late thirteenth century when relations between the papacy and the Byzantine emperor would have been ripe for a commission of a manuscript of the likes of Paris 54. It could have been a gift for one of the several popes who supported Michael VIII in his efforts at union.127 126 Paris 54 must be contrasted with the more modest manuscript Paris, BnF, Coislin, grec 200. A Greek New Testament with author portraits, it was given to King Louis IX of France by Michael VIII Palaeologos in 1269 or 1270. Michael VIII sent several embassies to Louis at this time when the papal throne was empty: “in conjunction with meetings on the unity of the Greek and Latin churches.” See Carr, Byzantine Illumination, catalogue 93, pp. 274–5 and p. 5, n. 15, where she notes that doubts have been expressed about the inscription concerning Michael VIII. Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 24, n. 55, says that Coislin 200 contains the epithet “new Constantine.” See, too, Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” p. 162, n. 46. Later, Michael VIII sent envoys “armed with presents of icons and treasures” for Louis in Africa shortly before he died. See Nicol, “Greeks and the Union of Churches: The Preliminaries,” p. 461. For later examples of gifts of manuscripts, see Robert S. Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art and Learning in Italy and France,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans (New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004), pp. 515–23, esp. pp. 517 and 523. Ernest Cadman Colwell, like many others, thought that Coislin 200 was indeed a gift from Michael VIII to King Louis of France. He connects it with another manuscript, Palermo, National Museum, cod. 1, which is “related in script, iconography, and text” to Coislin 200. Colwell believes that Michael VIII gave Palermo cod. 1 to Queen Costanza, wife of Peter of Aragon. Colwell notes that in 1282, Costanza/Constance was in charge of Peter of Aragon’s forces in Sicily around the time of the Sicilian Vespers. However, might Palermo cod. 1 have been a gift for another Costanza (a.k.a. Anna of Hohenstaufen), the daughter of Frederick II, who was briefly married to the Emperor John III Vatatzes of Nicaea? Pachymeres claims that Michael VIII was in love with Costanza and wanted in 1262 to divorce his wife, Theodora, and marry her. Michael was thwarted in this by Theodora, who would never agree to a divorce, and by the Patriarch Arsenios. Michael VIII arranged ultimately for the return of this Costanza to Sicily in exchange for the release of Alexios Strategopoulos, who had been captured and turned over to Costanza’s brother, Manfred. This exchange occurred in 1262. The timing here is closer to the gift of Coislin 200 to Louis IX in 1269. Regardless, Coislin 200 and Palermo, cod. 1 indicate that Michael VIII Palaeologos appears to have a history of using manuscripts in diplomacy. Both Coislin 200 and Palermo cod. 1 are manuscripts of the decorative style (see Chapters 6 and 7 above). Paris 54 differs substantially from decorative style manuscripts, but its Greek text was almost certainly copied from Princeton, Garrett 3, a manuscript dated to 1136 which has some ties with the decorative style manuscript group. See Colwell, Four Gospels of Karahissar, pp. 4–5; Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 144–5; Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina,” p. 296, and Sandra Origone, “Marriage Connections between Byzantium and the West in the Age of the Palaiologoi,” in Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Benjamin Arbel (London: Frank Cass, 1996), p. 227. 127 For the role of art in diplomacy, see Robin Cormack, “But Is it Art?” in Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (London: Variorum, 1992), p. 236. For further bibliography on gift-giving and diplomacy, see Hilsdale, “Constructing a Byzantine Augusta,” pp. 477–8, nn. 3 and 4, and Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” pp. 153ff.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 197

Imperial gifts for Pope Gregory X are revealed in the sources. We know, for example, that the Byzantine delegation from Constantinople to the Council of Lyons in 1274 comprised two ships. One of them sank in a violent storm en route to Lyons and more than 200 Greeks civilians died in the mishap, including the chief imperial interpreter for the Council, George Berrhoiotes.128 Moreover, the imperial gifts for Pope Gregory X went down with the ship. All “the lavish gifts for the pope, including golden icons, censers, and the very altar cloth Michael had stripped from the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia”129 were lost. Given this situation, is it possible that Michael VIII commissioned Paris 54 as a gift for Pope Gregory X after the Council of Lyons? Michael VIII and Pope Gregory were actually planning a joint crusade and had hoped to meet shortly after Easter in Brindisi in 1276.130 Might Pope Gregory’s untimely death just a few months before that meeting be the reason that work was halted on Paris 54? We have already seen in conjunction with the Union of Lyons that Michael VIII commissioned a woven cloth for the pope depicting “Pope Gregory Leading Michael VIII to St. Peter.” Such scenes were meant to be pleasing to the Latins.131 The textile featured numerous bilingual inscriptions, as well as scenes from the life of Christ and the apostles. Surely, there are important parallels here with Paris 54 even though they are executed in very different mediums.132 We have noted, too, that a significant number of the miniatures in Paris 54’s expanded narrative cycle include scenes related to St. Peter. Hilsdale and others believe that this pallio, commissioned by Michael VIII in conjunction with the Treaty of Nymphaion, is closely related to Vatopedi 602 and Iviron 5, manuscripts which have been intimately associated with Paris 54 in their scripts and/or their illustrations.133

128 According to Nicol, “Greeks and the Union of Churches: The Preliminaries,” p. 479, there was only one survivor. Other deaths in conjunction with the Council of Lyons include Thomas Aquinas, who died on his way to the council, and the Franciscan, Bonaventure, who died in Lyons during the council; see Bydén, “Strangle Them,” pp. 135–6. 129 Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura,” p. 207 and n. 55, says to see Pachymeres, De Michaele Palaeologis, 1:384–5 for the gifts, especially the altar cloth. Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 258–9, n. 3, writes: “The Emperor, according to Pachymeres, had originally presented the altar cloth to Hagia Sophia at the time of the withdrawal of the anathema pronounced against him for the blinding of John Lascaris; he now removed because there was not time to have a similar one made.” Michael F. Hendy, Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 300–1450 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 269 and n. 83, translates Pachymeres’ text regarding the altar cloth as being “in gold-woven reddish-purple decorated with pearls (endytē ek khrysopastou oxeias dia margarōn).” 130 See Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 289, and Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 25–6 and n. 48, for bibliography. 131 See pp. 178f. above and Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 35 and nn. 119–20. 132 See Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” p. 162 and n. 47. 133 See Chapter 7 above for Paris 54, Vatopedi 602, and Iviron 5. See also Hilsdale, “Imperial Image,” p. 177 and n. 102.

198 between constantinople and rome

There is another aspect of Paris 54 that suggests that it may have been conceived as a diplomatic gift. Greek artists frequently used inscriptions to identify their figures, but relatively few inscriptions are found on Paris 54’s miniatures.134 If Paris 54 was conceived as a gift for a high-level Westerner, that might also explain the paucity of inscriptions.135 Could it have been a conscious effort to place the narrative miniatures of Paris 54 in something of a “neutral” zone? In this way, the miniatures could serve as mediators (representing the actions of Christ), accessible to either Latins or Greeks, uniting (but not contaminated by) the two political spheres of the Latin and Orthodox Churches.136 After all, the veracity of the Gospels is probably one of the few things that the Roman and Orthodox Churches could agree upon. There is a reason that a manuscript such as Paris 54, almost certainly conceived as a diplomatic gift, is not a lectionary. Why is Paris 54 Incomplete? The fact that Paris 54 remains unfinished suggests that the environment in which it was commissioned changed radically and that the role originally envisioned for Paris 54 was no longer relevant. I have argued that the creation of Paris 54 was a bold and politically incendiary action. The toxic religious climate of the early Palaeologan period rendered it highly unlikely that anyone outside of the imperial family would have commissioned a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript such as Paris 54. Paris 54, in its display of parallel Gospel 134 Lowden, in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 162, p. 277, has also noted the “odd omissions” of inscriptions (and haloes) on Paris 54’s evangelist portraits. 135 In Chapter 6 above, the lack of inscriptions in Paris 54 vis-à-vis Iviron 5’s miniatures was noted in conjunction with the vertical restrictions of Paris 54’s miniature format. 136 Robin Cormack provides additional insight regarding the impact of inscriptions on their viewers through his discussion of the remarks of Gregory Melissimos, a “fanatical … anti-Westerner” at the Council of Florence/Ferrara of 1439. Melissimos wrote: “When I enter a Latin church, I do not revere any of the [images of] the saints that are there, because I do not recognize any of them. At best, I may recognize Christ, but I do not revere him either, because I do not know how he is inscribed (epigraphetai). So I make the sign of the cross and I revere this sign that I have made myself and not anything that I see there.” Cormack concludes: “Gregory is objecting not to the imagery itself or to its style; he is objecting to the use of Latin rather than Greek inscriptions, which he, he says, cannot read. This is not an aesthetic statement. … It is a diatribe against the western use of Latin instead of Greek inscriptions on their images. This not a view that could lead to unionist compromise; only a return to Byzantine tradition and Greek inscriptions could satisfy Melissenos. As such he must have appeared to the diarist less a fanatic than a representative of the norms of the delegation.” (Note that Cormack uses two different spellings of Gregory’s surname in his text.) See Cormack, “… and the Word was God: Art and Orthodoxy in late Byzantium,” in Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23–25 March 2002, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 12, ed. Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday (London: Ashgate/Variorum, 2006), pp. 119–20.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 199

texts united by images describing the narrative, was altogether too successful in evoking the unification of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. Indeed, the presence of its Latin text would virtually ensure that it could not be recycled for any purpose other than that for which it was intended initially—that is, the celebration of the union of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. It is most likely for this reason that Paris 54 remains unfinished. If Paris 54 originated in the period of Michael VIII, it was probably incomplete at his death and likely viewed as a political “hot potato” in the intense anti-Latin backlash that followed. By the same token that Michael VIII was anathematized after his death, so too would Paris 54 be considered untouchable. It was, in fact, a concrete embodiment of heresy. In sum, the proposal that Paris 54 was created in relation to the union of Churches seems a most attractive option. However, there are other possibilities for the commission of Paris 54 that are worth considering, and these will be noted in what follows. Niccolò of Durazzo Niccolò of Durazzo, Bishop of Crotone (in southern Italy) was a bilingual bishop who served as personal tutor to Michael VIII in his efforts to familiarize himself with the Latin faith in preparation for union. Niccolò was granted many special privileges in Constantinople, including his own church and permission to dress in the fashion of the Greek bishops.137 He was described by Pachymeres as “a learned man and bilingual in divine knowledge.”138 Niccolò’s will reveals that he personally owned 18 codices, including a bilingual missal.139 Niccolò had a falling out with Michael VIII, however, and was exiled to Heraclea in Pontus.140 Perhaps this man, whom Michael VIII spoke so warmly of in several letters to the pope,141 might at one point have been considered worthy of such a gift.

137 See further Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 196 and 267. 138 Weiss, “Translators from the Greek,” p. 202, writes: “The list of volumes belonging to Nicholas of Durazzo, the last Greek Bishop of Cotrone, so famous in his day for his Greek and Latin learning, drawn up in 1276, registers only a few secular writings ….” 139 “9. Missa greca translate in Latina et Latina in greca”; see Paolo Sambin, “Il vescovo cotronese Niccolò da Durazzo e un inventario di suoi codici Latini e Greci (1276),” in Note e Discussioni Erudite, A Cura di Augusto Campana, vol. 3 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1954), p. 17. 140 Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, p. 196 and n. 24 (and p. 267 and n. 38a): “But, as Pachymeres relates, the Bishop soon rendered himself obnoxious and as a result was banished ….” 141 See N. Festa, “Lettera inedita dell’imperatore Michele VIII Paleologo ai pontefice Clemente IV,” Bessarione, anno IV, vol. 6 (1899–1900), ca. p. 48. Festa dates this letter to 1267, but Setton, Papacy and the Levant, vol. 1, p. 77, n. 49, says the letter can be dated to about April 1265. It was written by Manuel Holobolos for Michael VIII and emphasizes Nicholas’ learning.

200 between constantinople and rome

John Parastron The Constantinople-born Greek Franciscan John Parastron has been associated with Paris 54 before.142 He, too, was bilingual and he was the most beloved of all the Western friars in Constantinople. Parastron’s unassuming demeanor and desire to minimize the differences between the Latin and Orthodox Churches contributed to his important role in the negotiations that led up to the Union of Lyons. Geanakoplos notes that Parastron may have even served as the chief interpreter during the council, since George Berrhoiotes perished en route.143 Parastron personally instructed Michael VIII in preparation for the union of Churches. When Parastron died in 1275 in Constantinople, the Greek clergy petitioned for his canonization and cited 300 miracles associated with him.144 Paris 54 as a Gift for the Patriarch of Constantinople or for Hagia Sophia? Orthodox patriarchs were also the subject of heavy lobbying145 by the Emperor Michael VIII, and a chrysobull details extensive privileges for Hagia Sophia. Geanakoplos proposes that these “ostentatious” gifts were an effort to soften the Patriarch Joseph’s increasingly vocal criticism of Michael’s policy of religious union.146 Geanakoplos believes the chrysobull dates to 1272 and notes that in 1271: there broke out into the open clerical and monastic opposition to Michael’s growing attempts to coerce the Greek clergy and people into acceptance of the filioque and other Latin doctrinal and liturgical concessions for religious union demanded by the papacy. In this bitter struggle, the support of Patriarch Joseph and the higher clergy 142 Radiciotti, “Episodi di digrafismo,” passim. 143 See Geanakoplos, “Bonaventura” (1989 edn.), pp. 198–9; Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 258–9 and 267–8, and Setton, Papacy and the Levant, vol. I, p. 115. 144 Fisher, “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language,” pp. 392–3. 145 When Theodore Lascaris had to find a new patriarch upon the death of the Patriarch Manuel, Akropolites wrote: “for rulers want those who act as patriarchs to be submissive and moderate in their thinking and to succumb easily to their wishes as if they were commands. This is what happens in the case of boorish men especially, for they are not able to be confident in learning, whereas learned men appear unyielding and oppose the emperors’ decrees.” Theodore ultimately chose an unlettered monk named Arsenios who in one day became deacon, priest, and then patriarch. Macrides notes that the unorthodox ordainment of Arsenios later gave Michael VIII an excuse to replace him. See Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, pp. 277–8, and pp. 280–81, n. 15, citing Pachymeres, I, 163.27–8. Akropolites also wrote that the Emperor John was not hasty in the selection of a patriarch: “For above all, rulers approve in these matters those who are pleasing to them, so as not to have anyone opposing their wishes”; Macrides, George Akropolites, The History, p. 223. Macrides reminds us that even though Arsenios had been deposed, exiled, and excommunicated by order of Michael VIII, “Arsenios’ body was displayed in a coffin to the left of the sanctuary in Hagia Sophia”; see Macrides, “The New Constantine,” pp. 20–21 and n. 41. See n. 171 below for a lurid story concerning Arsenios’ corpse. 146 Geanakoplos, “Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople,” pp. 181ff., esp. p. 182.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 201

of Hagia Sophia obviously could be of great value to Michael. Thus, through the more than generous grants made by this chrysobull, Michael may well have been seeking to placate Joseph and his prelates, a group already commonly referred to as the faction of “Josephites.”147

Might Paris 54 have been commissioned for a patriarch, particularly the Patriarch Joseph? A bilingual manuscript like Paris 54 might have served as a Latin primer for him in what Michael VIII had hoped would be the increasingly ecumenical environment following the Council of Lyons.148 Paris 54 could also have been conceived as a gift by the emperor for Hagia Sophia. It served as the patriarchal see and the seat of the Orthodox Church; it was one of the primary churches at which the emperor worshipped. Before 1274, Michael VIII had pursued a “mild policy” toward the clergy in an attempt to get them used to the idea of union. Michael VIII “encouraged the common association of Greek and Latin clerics in the divine services. Particularly welcome in the capital were Latin friars.”149 Pachymeres says that the emperor wished: to establish and preinsure the union, which was still in a state of negotiation, by receiving and sending to the bishops and patriarch at Hagia Sophia a great number of friars, with a view to their participating with the Greek clergy in the psalms, in the entrance to the sanctuaries and the stations, in common partaking of the blessed bread called antidoron, and indeed in all other Greek usages except the Holy Communion (which they did not request).150

Given the level of interaction suggested above, would not a bilingual Gospel book facilitate such exchanges? Might Paris 54 have been commissioned in conjunction with the bilingual festivities that Michael VIII and the pope envisioned to celebrate the union of Churches? A solemn bilingual mass on the feast of St. Peter in Chains151 on January 16, 1275 was planned. But the negative sentiment of the monks and the populace made this improbable. As it turned out, only one mass was con-celebrated by Latin and Greek clergy, and this took place in a chapel in the imperial palace.152 None the less, Pope Gregory was commemorated “as supreme pontiff and ecumenical Pope of the apostolic church” and the epistle and Gospel were read in both Latin and Greek.153 However, the public ceremony celebrating the Union of Lyons was 147 Ibid. Michael VIII was indebted to this patriarch for reinstating the emperor after his excommunication by Patriarch Arsenios for his treatment of the heir apparent, John Laskaris. 148 It must be admitted that the relatively high number of unflattering images of Peter in Paris 54 also work well in this context as they, too, reflect negatively on the Papacy. 149 Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 266–7. 150 Ibid., p. 267 and n. 38. See also Nicol, “Greeks and the Union of Churches: The Preliminaries,” p. 468 and n. 41. 151 I find the selection of this feast for the celebration to be ironic, to say the least. 152 Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 272–3. 153 Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium, p. 19 and n. 57, cites Pachymeres and Gregoras.

202 between constantinople and rome

“continually delayed.”154 The fact that the patriarchal see was empty from January through May 1275 would certainly have made a formal celebration of union impossible in Hagia Sophia during this period.155 Marriage Gift for Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat, Second Wife of Andronikos II (1284)?156 A gauge of East–West relations is the number of marriages which took place between Greeks and Latins.157 “Mixed” (Greco-Latin) marriages were common in the thirteenth century, both among the aristocracy as well as the imperial family. Nicol writes that: even after the Fourth Crusade Byzantium still retained some of its glamour in the eyes of foreigners. A Byzantine prince was still considered to be a good catch in the West …. … for all the ill-feeling and religious bigotry engendered by the events of 1204, Greeks of what might be called the ruling classes continued to marry Franks and Italians without troubling their consciences.158

The imperial attitude159 toward mixed marriages is revealed by the following statistics. Nicol writes that four of the five emperors of the Comnenian Dynasty 154 Bréhier, “Attempts at Reunion,” p. 612. Geanakoplos, Michael Palaeologus, pp. 306ff., indicates that the public ceremonies at the Blachernae Palace in Constantinople which confirmed the Union of Lyons did not take place until April 1277. 155 Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 236. 156 Origone, “Marriage Connections,” p. 226, notes that notes that marriage alliances already under the Komnenoi “became a valuable instrument of Byzantine diplomacy.” 157 Angeliki E. Laiou, “Byzantium and the West,” in Byzantium: A World Civilization, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992), p. 62, cites Constantine VII: “that never shall an Emperor of the Roman ally himself in marriage with a nation of customs differing from and alien to those of the Roman order … unless it be with the Franks alone [Franks is a generic name for all Western Europeans]; for they alone were excepted by that great man, the holy Constantine, because he himself drew his origin from those parts, … and because of the traditional fame and nobility of those lands and races.” Laiou cites Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando Imperio, ed. and transl. G. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967), pp. 71–3 (information in brackets in the quotation added by Laiou). See also Ruth Macrides, “Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship,” in Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (Aldershot: Variorum/Ashgate, 1992), pp. 263–80, esp. pp. 266ff. 158 Donald M. Nicol, “Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century,” in Studies in Church History, vol. 1, ed. C.W. Dugmore and C. Duggan (London and Edinburgh: Nelson, 1964), pp. 160–72, reprinted in D.M Nicol, Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World (London: Variorum Reprints, 1972), pp. 166 and 162. 159 However, the imperial objectives are better revealed in the following excerpt from the Chronicle of Morea: “Who was ever heard to believe in a Romaios, For the

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 203

of the twelfth century married Westerners,160 whereas according to LaiouThomadakis, six of ten Palaeologan emperors married Latins.161 Moreover, in the thirteenth century, eight of the 11 female members of the Greek ruling families in Greece married Westerners.162 Marriages between Byzantine emperors and Latin princesses were common in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.163 The second wife of Andronikos II (1282–1328) was from northern Italy, and both of Andronikos III’s wives were Westerners. John Lowden suggested that Paris 54 might have been made for the Italian Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat (d. 1317), who became the second wife of Emperor Andronikos II in 1284.164 He noted that “The strict paralleling of the texts would certainly be helpful to a learner of either language.”165 As mentioned earlier, Irene herself is associated with the donation of a deluxe lectionary to the Lavra Monastery on Mount Athos.166 However, virtually no Greek manuscripts can sake of love or friendship or any kin relationship? Never trust a Romaios, in whatever he may swear to you, For when he wants and wishes to finish you off, Then he makes you a baptismal sponsor or his adopted brother, Or he makes you an in-law to destroy you completely”; cited in Macrides, “Dynastic Marriages,” p. 263. 160 For example, John II, Manuel I, Alexios II and Andronikos; see Nicol, “Mixed Marriages,” p. 162. Macrides, “Dynastic Marriages,” p. 271, writes that “The Comnenoi, however, were the first to realize the full potential of foreign marriage alliances.” 161 Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis, “The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System; Thirteenth–fifteenth Centuries,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34–5 (1980–81), p. 190. 162 Nicol, “Mixed Marriages,” p. 168. Similar tactics were used to negotiate with the Muslims. Bryer notes “the marriage of thirty-four, or possibly more, Byzantine, Trapezuntine and Serbian princesses to various Muslim rulers between 1297 and 1461”; see Anthony A.M. Bryer, “Greek Historians on the Turks: The Case of the First Byzantine– Ottoman Marriage,” in The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, ed. R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 481, cited by Scott Redford, “Byzantium and the Islamic World, 1261–1557,” in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 393 and n. 10. 163 Origone, “Marriage Connections,” p. 228 and n. 4, writes: “But as Nicephorus Gregoras pointed out, the fact that Latin noblemen no longer aspired to family connections with Greeks, not merely ordinary people, but even the members of the imperial family, was an undeniable sign of decline.” Origone cites Nicephorus Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, ed. L. Schopen (Bonn: n.p., vol. I, 1829; vol. II, 1830), vol. I, pp. 237–8. 164 The challenges she would present for Andronikos II are well documented. Nicephoras Gregoras, Byzantina Historia, vol. I, p. 236, describes her as “a woman without fear of God or respect for men”; cited in Origone, “Marriage Connections,” p. 240 and n. 37. 165 Lowden, in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. # 162, p. 277. This seems to imply that Lowden would accept a date as early as 1284 for Paris 54 even though the catalogue entry dates the manuscript to ca. 1300. For the diplomatic advantages of this marriage for the Byzantines, see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 45–8. For other examples of the use of bilingual texts to aid language instruction, see McKitterick, “Ottonian Intellectual Culture,” pp. 62–5, and Nigel Wilson, From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), pp. 10f. The utility of bilingual texts in mastering a foreign language is also addressed in Chapter 9 below. 166 Mount Athos, Lavra A 111. See Chapter 7 above, n. 54.

204 between constantinople and rome

be cited in connection with any of these Greek–Latin marriages. In view of the latter’s frequency, one might think there would be a virtual glut of bilingual manuscripts.167 We will address other diplomatic marriages later in this chapter.

The Reign of Andronikos II (1282–1328) Given the intense anti-Latin sentiment following Michael VIII’s death, I hesitate to suggest that Paris 54 may date to the period of his successor and son.168 Andronikos II had far fewer resources at his disposal than Michael VIII.169 Personally, he seemed ill equipped to serve as emperor.170 He was 167 A notable exception is a manuscript containing a poem written in vernacular Greek and “lavishly illustrated” that was likely made for Agnes, the nine-year old daughter of King Louis VII of France who arrived in Constantinople in 1179 to marry Alexios Porphyrogenitos Komnenos. See Hilsdale, “Constructing a Byzantine Augusta,” pp. 458–83. However, Macrides, “Dynastic Marriages,” pp. 263–80, does not mention any manuscripts being exchanged in the gift-giving “that accompanied the formation of the kin alliances” (ibid., p. 265). In general, gold coins, silks, jewels, silver drinking cups and plates, and even a reliquary are mentioned (ibid., p. 273), but there is no mention of a codex (unless it would have come under the general heading of a “luxury article” (ibid., p. 278). Macrides writes that “the standard imperial gifts were cash, court titles, and the income from them, jewels and silk but, it would appear from the extant examples, never land” (ibid., p. 278). See also Alice-Mary Talbot, “Revival and Decline: Voices from the Byzantine Capital,” in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 21; in conjunction with diplomatic marriages, she mentions Eucharistic vessels and textiles. Regarding the marriage of Michael VIII’s illegitimate daughter, Maria, to Hūlāgu, the chief of the Tatars, Talbot says: “certainly Maria must have brought with her a few sacred books, such as the four Gospels and a psalter.” John Lowden postulates that the illuminated book was not ideal for diplomatic gifts since most people would find the text incomprehensible. See Lowden, “The Luxury Book as a Diplomatic Gift,” in Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin (London: Variorum, 1992), pp. 249–60. For a fascinating glimpse of gift-giving related to marriage and other occasions within ruling circles of the Muslim world, see Oleg Grabar, “The Shared Culture of Objects,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997), pp. 115–29. 168 Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 37, believes that Michael VIII proclaimed Andronikos II co-emperor by 1265/66. 169 See Hendy, Byzantine Monetary Economy, pp. 526ff., for the debasement of the hyperpyron during the reigns of Michael VIII and Andronikos II. Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 14, indicates that the empire Andronikos inherited was in deplorable financial condition. For example, Andronikos II’s ill-fated decision to dismantle the navy and demolish the fleet was largely governed by the fact that he did not have the resources to maintain it; see ibid., pp. 60, 74ff., 152, and 164f. Laiou suggests that Andronikos’ advisors assured him “that God would guard the empire because of his return to Orthodoxy”; see ibid., pp. 74–5. As a result, the Byzantines were dependent on the Genoese for maritime defense. Piracy had been a problem for centuries, but was exacerbated by this decision. “Maximos Planoudes was so afraid of pirates that he wished a certain volume of Boethius, which he had lent to a doctor in Ephesus, to be returned to him by land, not by sea”; cited in Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 75, n. 80. 170 In ibid., p. 9, Laiou writes: “Andronicus II cuts a sad figure when contrasted with his father and with the young, chivalrous, handsome grandson [Andronikos III]

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 205

intelligent and pious,171 but lacked his father’s diplomatic and martial skills. Michael VIII recognized this and much preferred his younger son, Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Laiou writes that Constantine “had all the virtues an emperor was expected to have, and to those he added a pleasant disposition and a sense of humor.”172 Andronikos was well aware of his father’s feelings, and Laiou says that for these reasons and more, Andronikos often reversed Michael VIII’s policies, especially regarding the union of Churches.173 who succeeded him.” Laiou characterizes Andronikos II as gentle, contemplative, intelligent, and profoundly pious (ibid., pp. 7ff.). However, she also says: “he was a weak man, easily swayed by others and unable to pursue his aims long enough and persistently enough to accomplish them. During much his life he was under the influence of his father [Michael VIII], his second wife [Yolanda-Irene of Montferrat], his eldest son, Michael, Theodore Metochites, and the patriarch Athanasios I, all of them people of very forceful character” (ibid., p. 9). His contemporary in Armenia, Het’um II, has been described in similar terms by Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, p. 126. 171 He was also superstitious, taking earthquakes as signs of divine disapproval. In 1296, he began a journey to Asia Minor which he promptly cancelled when an earthquake struck a few days later. See Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 86, and Mevlude Bakir, “How Did the Byzantines Deal with the Earthquakes and Their Aftermath?” in Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Proceedings, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu (Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010), pp. 23–7. Andronikos II’s superstitious nature is also revealed in the bizarre ceremony by which he patched things up with the Arsenites. According to Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 245: “The corpse of Arsenius (who had been dead for thirty-seven years) was dressed in patriarchal robes and seated on the throne [in Hagia Sophia]; in its hands, it held a formula of absolution, forgiving those whom Arsenius had once anathematized.” See also Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 253 and n. 117. 172 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 6. She notes that Gregoras says that Michael VIII would have preferred to leave the empire to Constantine, but could not because Andronikos was older. 173 In ibid., pp. 32–3, Laiou says: “this was virtually the first action he took as sole ruler, in December 1282.” The unionist patriarch John Bekkos abdicated on December 26, 1282. Andronikos II would blame many of the mishaps of Byzantium on his father’s pro-unionist policy; see ibid., p. 232. The extraordinary theological and political changes between the reigns of Michael VIII and Andronikos II are illustrated by the fate of the monk, Theoleptos, who objected to the pro-union policies of Michael VIII (and was verbally abused, flogged, jailed, and exiled) and who flourished under Andronikos II; see Angela Constantinides Hero, “Theoleptos of Philadelphia (ca. 1250– 1322): From Solitary to Activist,” in The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. Slobodan Čurčić and Doula Mouriki (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 27–38. One could also contrast the very different fates of Georges Metochites, a pro-unionist under Michael VIII, and his son, Theodore, who became mesazon under Andronikos II. Moreover, KalopissiVerti, “Patronage and Artistic Production,” p. 79, says that the dedication of the St. Euthymios Chapel of St. Demetrios, Thessaloniki is thought to reflect the ecclesiastical policy of Andronikos II, “who was attempting to reconcile with monastic leaders after the controversy caused by the Unionist policy of his father, Michael VIII.” See also Sharon Gerstel, “Civic and Monastic Influences on Church Decoration in Late Byzantine Thessalonike.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003), pp. 228–30. Finally, Laiou says that “Andronicus assumed the mantle of the restorer of orthodoxy, and an inscription in the chapel of the Monastery of the Virgin in Berat celebrates him as ‘the new Constantine

206 between constantinople and rome

Andronikos had two objectives in his religious policy: “to restore orthodoxy as quietly and gently as possible, and to bring peace and unity to the church.”174 Neither of these objectives would seem to generate a manuscript such as Paris 54 with its bilingual Greek and Latin texts.175 Generally speaking, Michael VIII’s focus in his foreign policy was Europe and the West, whereas Andronikos II’s major concern, at least for the first twenty or so years of his reign, was Asia Minor. Laiou states: Whereas Michael VIII had made of Byzantium a European power, his successors for the most part retreated from Europe. Their attitude toward the western powers was defensive, passive. Their sphere of activity became limited to the Balkans, their sphere of interest to Thrace, Macedonia, Greece and Asia Minor, and by this shift of interest Byzantium became a mere Balkan power, and not the strongest one at that. This process began with Andronicus II.176

However, despite the impoverished state of the treasury during much of Andronikos’ reign,177 this has proven to be a surprisingly fruitful period of artistic patronage.178 As we have seen in Chapter 7, some of the finest Comnenus-Angelus-Palaeologus, the true lover of Christ and of the monks”; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 36. 174 Ibid. Setton, Papacy and the Levant, vol. I, p. 119, says that Pope Gregory X had written directly to the young Andronikos II in 1274 immediately following the Council of Lyons urging him to “maintain the union for which God would reward him.” 175 “The over-long reign of Andronikos II was, in effect, one of anti-Roman phobia”; V. Laurent, “Grégoire X et son projet d’une ligue anti-turque,” Échos d’Orient 37 (1938), pp. 272–3, cited in Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 37. 176 In ibid., p. 85, Laiou suggests that: “One should not allow the flamboyant successes of Michael VIII to obscure the real problems he left to his son, or pass too harsh a judgment on a man who had to contend with more dangerous situations and take more important and difficult decisions than fall to the lot of most statesmen”; see ibid., p. 9. Later, in ibid., p. 93, Laiou writes: “during these years [1296–1302] Andronicus gambled and lost, not only Asia Minor, but also the justification of his western policy of disengagement.” See also Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 255, and Page, Being Byzantine, pp. 109–10. 177 As for the poverty of the state treasury, Michael IX (crowned co-emperor with Andronikos II in 1295) sacrificed his own wealth to preserve the state. He had to melt down his and his wife’s gold and silver plate to pay his soldiers during the Bulgarian campaign in 1304. See Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 158, 161, 189, and 246. Andronikos would not be able to begin rebuilding his treasury until 1311; ibid., p. 243. Apparently, the gold and silver plate was never replaced. Nikephoros Gregoras described the wedding reception of John V Palaiologos in 1347 as follows: “The palace was so poor that there was in it no cup or goblet of gold or silver; some were of pewter, and all the rest of clay … at that [wedding] festival most of the imperial diadems and garb showed only the semblance of gold and jewels; [in reality] they were of leather and were but gilded … or of glass which reflected in different colors; only seldom, here and there, were precious stones having a genuine charm and the brilliance of pearls …”; quoted in Talbot, “Revival and Decline,” p. 22 and n. 29. 178 Vasileios N. Marinis wrote in regard to the illustrations added to Getty Ms. Ludwig II. 5; 83.MB.69: “the quality of the miniatures from the late thirteenth century in this codex attests to thriving and dynamic artistic activity even during a time of political distress for the Byzantine state”; see cat. # 169 in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 207

manuscripts of the Palaeologan period are attributed to the last quarter of the thirteenth century.179 The so-called Atelier of the Palaiologina, now thought to be patronized by members of the aristocracy as well as the imperial family, has been assigned to this period.180 Pope Nicholas IV (Formerly Jerome of Ascoli) Pope Nicholas IV (1288–1292)—the former Jerome of Ascoli, a bilingual Franciscan monk who had played a significant role in the negotiations associated with the Council of Lyons—actively sought to reduce tensions Power, p. 285. Robert Browning also argues for the vitality of the visual and literary arts under Andronikos II; see R. Browning, The Byzantine Empire, revised edn. (Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1992), p. 290. One might also recall the remarkable library of Theodore Metochites and the decoration of the Chora which he sponsored. For Metochites’ description of his library (which he gave to the Chora), see Ševčenko “Theodore Metochites,” pp. 81–3. 179 The value of animal skins—essential for creating manuscripts—is underscored by the fact that when Alexios Philanthropenos led a successful campaign in Asia Minor around the Meander River, he sent back his spoils to Andronikos II in Constantinople. This included gold, silver, and the skins of sheep and donkeys; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 81–2. 180 For the Palaeologina group of manuscripts, see Chapter 7 above. The aristocracy and the aristocratic members of the clergy appear to have been the great art patrons of the early Palaeologan period. See Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, chaps. 6–8, for the division of the population into rich and poor. The considerable divide between the luxurious life of the very rich and the impoverished state of the rest of the populace raised the ire of the ascetic Patriarch Athanasios (1289–93, 1303–1309). Laiou characterizes Athanasios as “a man of little learning” who “had no toleration for the worldliness of the monks and clergy” and who constantly railed against the excesses of the bishops. He condemned them for living a life of luxury in Constantinople rather than living in their respective sees. Laiou continues: “Athanasios never tired of asking the emperor to send all the bishops and archbishops to their proper areas, instead of letting them stay in Constantinople and create “scandal”; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 36, 199 and n. 162. The proceedings of the Council of Lyons of 1274 indicate that the Latin Church faced similar challenges. According to Gregory X, “the prelates were causing the ruin of the whole world …. To these he gave a solemn warning. If they did not reform themselves, then he would impose reform on them. Only worthy men were to be ordained as parish priests and they were to reside in their parishes”; Setton, Papacy and the Levant, vol. I, p. 119. For a more generous assessment of the Patriarch Athanasios, see Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 249f. For a superb summary of Athanasios’ life, see the introduction to The Correspondence of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, ed., transl., and with a commentary by Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot, Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 7 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1975), pp. xiv–xxi. Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 64, note that the deluxe Smyrna Lectionary, associated with the Palaeologina group through its script, was written by the scribe David in 1298 for “Gerasimos, the metropolitan of Philippoupolis (present day Plovdiv in Bulgaria).” See Chapter 7 above for more on the Smyrna Lectionary. Kalopissi-Verti, in “Aspects of Byzantine Art,” p. 52, says: “in the first decades of the 14th century, the role of aristocrats as patrons of luxurious churches and monasteries increased.” See also Kalopissi-Verti, “Patronage and Artistic Production,” pp. 76–97.

208 between constantinople and rome

between Latins and Greeks during the reign of Andronikos II.181 If a Western source is to be believed, the pope himself proposed a diplomatic marriage between Catherine of Courtenay, the titular heir to the Latin Kingdom of Constantinople, and Michael IX, the son of Andronikos II, and his eventual coruler.182 Diplomatic marriages were de rigueur in Byzantine attempts to defuse any “legitimate or semilegitimate claims to the Byzantine throne,”183 and such a marriage would have been particularly advantageous for Byzantium. Negotiations seeking to secure this marriage can be documented for at least six years, but may have lasted even longer.184

181 Pope Nicholas, the former minister-general of the Franciscan Order (1274–79), also played a significant role as art patron. Derbes and Neff propose that the Byzantinizing style of the frescoes in the Upper Church at Assisi are due to his influence; see Derbes and Neff, “Italy, the Mendicant Orders,” pp. 449–61. For a reference to Greek painters in Florence in the time of Cimabue, see Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects (first published 1550), cited in Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art,” p. 515. 182 However, Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 50, writes that “the Greek historians claimed that the Italians were the ones to suggest—even to request—the marriage, although Pachymeres admitted that the “returns” would be very good and worthy of an emperor.” See also G.I. Brătianu, “Notes sur le projet de mariage entre l’empereur Michel IX Paléologue et Catherine de Courtenay (1288–95),” Revue historique du sud-est européen 1 (1924): 59–63. 183 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 44. Marriage negotiations were one of the few consistent threads between the foreign policies of Michael VIII and Andronikos II, according to Laiou. One of the most appalling examples of a diplomatic marriage was the “sacrifice” of the five-year old Simonis, Emperor Andronikos II’s beloved daughter, to the 40-year-old King Stephen Uroš II Milutin in 1299. Simonis was named after St. Peter, her protector from birth; see ibid., pp. 93–9, esp. p. 96 and n. 34. Later, when Irene, the mother of Simonis, realized that her daughter was sterile (reportedly because of injuries sustained because of the kral’s lack of restraint), she tried to get the kral to adopt one of her own sons. Neither of her sons could tolerate life in Serbia, however; see ibid., p. 231. Dimiter Angelov has referred to Simonis’ marriage as a “public relations fiasco”; see D. Angelov, “Byzantine Imperial Panegyric as Advice Literature (1204–c. 1350),” in Rhetoric in Byzantium, ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys (Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2003), pp. 55–72, esp. p. 64. In a political move, Stephen Uroš, just nine years after this marriage, signed the Treaty of Lys on March 27, 1308 in which he promised to return to the Catholic Church and to swear obedience to Pope Clement V. Three individuals were sent to Serbia at the behest of the pope to convert the kral and his subjects; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 210–11. Andronikos II married his granddaughter Theodora (a daughter of Michael IX and Rita/Maria of Armenia) to the Bulgarian Svetoslav in 1308 in order to restore peace (and the Bulgarian grain supply); ibid., pp. 170–71. 184 Catherine de Courtenay ultimately married Charles of Valois, the brother of Philip IV of France, in 1301; see Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 48–56 and 129–130, and for further bibliography, see p. 49, n. 65. See also Joseph Gill, SJ, Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198–1400 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 188, and C. Marinescu, “Tentatives de mariage de deux fils d’Andronic II Paléologue avec des princesses Latines,” Revue historique du sud-est européen 1 (1924), p. 139.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 209

The Marriage of Michael IX Ultimately, Michael IX married Rita-Maria, the sister of King Het’um II of Armenia.185 According to Armenian sources, Het’um himself went to Constantinople for the marriage. The negotiations in Armenia were handled by Theodore Metochites, who was then only about 25 years old.186 Michael IX and Rita-Maria were married on the feast of St. Peter on January 16, 1295. Although a bilingual manuscript such as Paris 54 does not seem an ideal gift for an Armenian princess, it is of some interest that they were married on the feast of St. Peter, given the number of illustrations devoted to that saint in Paris 54. Moreover, Paris 54 features Armenian quire signatures, and one cannot help wondering if King Het’um’s entourage included a scholar or scribe who might have been invited to participate in the creation of such a manuscript.187 The Early Fourteenth Century The period following the wedding of Michael IX in 1295 through 1311 seems like an unlikely time for the commission of Paris 54—at least if it was commissioned by the emperor.188 In June 1307, Pope Clement V excommunicated Andronikos II 185 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 54ff., notes that Byzantium and Armenia were the only remaining Christian states in the East. 186 In ibid., p. 77, Laiou describes Metochites’ rise to power as “meteoric.” In 1305 or 1306, Theodore Metochites became mesazon, one of the most influential positions in the state. See ibid., p. 148 and n. 68, for further bibliography. Theodore Metochites was hated by the Byzantines. Laiou writes of his “malpractices and his appropriation of government money” (ibid., p. 297). She says that Andronikos II “should not have permitted Metochites—neither very able, nor very honest—to influence domestic and foreign policy. Metochites, in fact, was a greedy opportunist whose only saving grace was that he used some of the wealth he acquired to rebuild and decorate the monastery of the Chora (Khariye Djami) …” (ibid., pp. 7–8). In 1328, as Andronikos II and Theodore Metochites faced the end of the civil war initiated by Andronikos’ grandson, Andronikos III, Metochites “so feared for his life that he abandoned his house and moved into the palace”; ibid., p. 297. 187 See Chapter 2 above, remembering, too, that an Armenian copy of the densely illustrated Greek Gospels, Florence, Laur. Plut. VI, 23 was made at some point in the late thirteenth century by the scribe Avetis. Might this copy, known today as Matenadaran 7651, have been commissioned in conjunction with the wedding of Michael IX and Rita-Maria? If so, might it have been copied in Constantinople? See Der Nersessian, Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, vol. I, Appendix III, pp. 169–75. Theodore Metochites negotiated this marriage in Armenia, and we know that he prized his library more than any other material possession. Certainly, he would have seen and appreciated Armenian manuscripts in Armenia as the Armenians would have known that he was a discriminating bibliophile. Might Theodore himself have conceived of this ambitious copy (Matenadaran 7651) of Florence, Laur. Plut. VI, 23 as an ideal wedding gift for the imperial couple? 188 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 195, speaks of famine in Constantinople in the winter of 1306–1307 in which whole families died. The Patriarch Athanasios set up soup kitchens and ranted against the rich who, he said, “devour the poor like bread” (ibid., p. 125). Moreover, if the first decade of the fourteenth-century seems

210 between constantinople and rome

and hoped to launch a crusade against Byzantium.189 Anti-Latin sentiment had surfaced again in 1305 in near-riot proportions during the war against the Catalans. Laiou says that because the Byzantines had no fleet to protect themselves, “the evil Italians held the empire captive.”190 In the first decade of the fourteenth century, the empire was fighting against its very annihilation. Laiou writes: “The imperial treasury was empty and could not sustain the expense of equipping the army Michael wanted.”191 In 1304, Michael IX had to melt down his and his wife’s family gold and silver in order to pay his army.192 The Genoese were as concerned about the state of Byzantium as the Greeks, since their profits depended on a functioning Byzantine state. They offered to help Andronikos II.193 In 1308, when Constantinople suffered constant grain shortages, criticism of local Italians increased on the part of the populace and the Patriarch Athanasios.194 He accused them of making “their profits by selling victuals in the black market and in return received precious gold or even Greek women.”195 Andronikos II would even accuse the Genoese of bringing Byzantine boys and girls to Genoa to sell as slaves.196 As grim as this seems, Laiou reminds us that the Greeks and Genoese lived side-by-side with each other in Pera, and like an unlikely period for the creation of Paris 54, our understanding of events of the second decade of the century is hampered by the dearth of sources for the period 1311–21; see ibid., p. 244. 189 In ibid., p. 206, Laiou says that Pope Clement V warned any Catholic powers allied with him (that is, Genoa) that they would “share the excommunication and forfeit their property to the church. The excommunication would not be raised until Andronicus II had returned to the Catholic Church and sought absolution” (ibid., n. 27). Elizabeth Fisher, “Planoudes, Holobolos,” p. 95, n. 51, states that the unitate monks were finally expelled by Andronikos II, and this expulsion is thought to have occurred in 1307. Would not such an action reduce significantly the already small pool of individuals capable of writing a Latin text such as that found in Paris 54? 190 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 164: “Anti-Latin emotion was always there, whether dormant or active, and now more than ever before the decision to dismantle the fleet was seen to have been disastrous.” 191 Ibid., p. 167. 192 Ibid., p. 161. See also n. 177 above. In the fifteenth century, John VIII Palaeologos would melt down the holy vessels of the Pantokrator Monastery to create the stunning golden bridle and saddle decoration he used during the Council of Ferrara-Florence. See Herrin, “The West Meets Byzantium” (no pagination). 193 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 151. 194 Athanasios was beloved by the populace for his efforts on their behalf. After his death, he “was worshipped as a saint” and “his relics became famous for their healing power.” For the amusing story of his relics and their removal to Venice, see Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I, xxvi–xxvii. 195 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, pp. 184, 196, and n. 150, writes that “These Italians—presumably Genoese from Pera—were dealing in wheat, probably imported from the Black Sea, which they sold in exchange for gold or even for the wives of the Greeks of Constantinople” (italics added). 196 Ibid., p. 184.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 211

their relations were often friendly. Laiou says: “Such was the exchange of cultures—or habits—that sometimes Genoese would offer votive offerings to Greek saints or churches.”197 The Patriarch Athanasios Another factor that does not augur in favor of dating Paris 54 to Andronikos II’s reign is the increasing power of the patriarchate in this period. Athanasios’ anti-Western feelings are well known. Even in 1305, when the empire faced annihilation, Athanasios argued against Andronikos II’s proposed marriage of his eldest son, John, to become the Marquis of Montferrat (Italy), which was a part of Andronikos II’s wife’s inheritance (that is, John’s mother, IreneYolanda). Athanasios wrote:198 Or is it that we expect from there [the West] military help? Let us rather be persuaded by the counsel of those who love God. This counsel clearly shows that human help is vain, so that we may rather become strong through confidence in God. For in this way He derides and will confound those who desire to destroy us.199

In June 1305, Athanasios I wrote: “I say again, before God, that even if it were possible for the entire West to assemble to our aid (we would not achieve anything). The only way to salvation was through repentance and justice.”200

197 Ibid., p. 149 and n. 71. Nelson has argued that some frescoes in the cathedral of San Lorenzo in Genoa were executed by a Byzantine artist; see Robert S. Nelson, “A Byzantine Painter in Trecento Genoa: The Last Judgment at S. Lorenzo,” The Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 548–66. 198 See Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 173 and n. 56, for bibliography. Talbot says, however: “This is one of the rare occasions when we know that the Emperor was actually influenced by a memorandum from the Patriarch.” For more insight regarding Irene-Yolanda’s ambitious plans for her children, see Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I, pp. 411ff. 199 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 198 and nn. 157–8: “It is instructive to look at the long correspondence of the second term of his patriarchate [Athanasios I]. It contains a strange brew of mystical and practical advice, so well conforming to the religiosity and superstition of Andronicus. The patriarch ascribed all the evils which had befallen the Romania to Andronicus II’s, or Michael VIII’s, or the people’s neglect of God and the true faith. The lack of justice and order in the empire had also contributed to its downfall. His remedies for the situation included prayers and litanies, which the people considered effective. Fortunately, he also had some very practical suggestions about organizing the defense and the provisioning of the city. He advised Andronicus, for example, to speak to the people sweetly and pleasantly. The emperor should take particular care of the army, and make sure that the soldiers had enough food so that they would not live off the people. Apparently, the patriarch subscribed to the view that a peaceful emperor should be very good at making war, in order to achieve peace.” 200 Ibid., pp. 198–9 and n. 161. In ibid., p. 199, Laiou continues: “Athanasios … consistently opposed any appeal to the West for help. He pleaded with the emperor to divorce himself and his state from the barbaric, schismatic, and arrogant ‘Italians.’ Byzantium would be saved by its orthodoxy, in God’s good time.”

212 between constantinople and rome

Athanasios had long succeeded in alienating most of the wealthy through his rigid standards of authority. Many clerics also hated and feared him.201 Joseph Gill writes that the clerics eventually got rid of him by a ruse: They painted on the sides of the footstool that stood in front of the patriarchal throne in S. Sophia a picture of Andronicus with a bit in his mouth being pulled along by Athanasius dragging at the bridle “as it were a driver his horses”. Andronicus arrested the culprits and sentenced them to life imprisonment, “Thereupon the Patriarch, aggrieved that he had not imposed harsher penalties, immediately resigned from the patriarchal throne.”202

Athanasios resigned in 1309203 and was succeeded by Niphon I (1310–14), whom Laiou describes as “innocent of formal learning—according to Gregoras he could not even write—and was also a very greedy and worldly man.”204 In 1312, Andronikos II gave jurisdiction of Mount Athos to the patriarch, effectively making him the most influential leader of Orthodoxy, “since the monastic community of Athos accommodated Orthodox monks of various ethnicities.”205 Andronikos II and the Union of Churches Even Andronikos, however, was eventually forced to entertain the possibility of union on two occasions: rather briefly in 1311, and more assiduously in 1324–27.206 In 1311, he was so alarmed at the possibility of a French crusade against Byzantium that he tried to marry a Byzantine prince to Catherine of Courtenay’s daughter, Catherine of Valois. When that offer was rejected, 201 During the second reign of Patriarch Athanasios (1303–1309), we learn that “men were so afraid of his [Athanasios’] crippling penalties, including excommunication and imprisonment, that they even took refuge in the houses of Latin friars across the Golden Horn in Pera.” See Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 251 and n. 110, where she cites Pachymeres, De And. Pal., Book VII, chap. 23 (CB, II, p. 616). 202 Joseph Gill, “Emperor Andronicus II and Patriarch Athanasius I,” Byzantina 2 (1970): 13–19, esp. p. 17 and n. 12. The quotations Gill cites in this passage are from Necephorae Gregorae, Byzantina historia, ed. L. Schopen (Bonn, 1829), p. 259. 203 By then, he was almost certainly blind, according to Talbot, The Correspondence of Athanasius I, p. xxx. 204 See Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 244 and n. 2. See also Hussey, Orthodox Church, p. 253 and n. 116, where she writes: “according to Nicephorus Gregoras, [Niphon] was a luxury-loving gourmet, better suited to be a dealer in real estate than a patriarch.” 205 Kalopissi-Verti, “Aspects of Byzantine Art,” p. 54. Dimiter Angelov, Church and Society in Late Byzantium, Studies in Medieval Culture XLIX (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009), p. 4 and n. 19, says that the growing superiority of the Church over the emperor led in the mid-fourteenth century to the inclusion of a new clause in the coronation where the emperors “declared themselves to be ‘faithful and genuine sons and servants of the church.’” A very different relationship between emperor and patriarch was advocated in the late twelfth century by Theodore Balsamon, Orthodox patriarch of Antioch; see Angold, “Greeks and Latins,” pp. 65–6. 206 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 7.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 213

he attempted to arrange a marriage with one of the daughters of James II of Aragon. In those negotiations, Andronikos supposedly agreed that “the emperor, his son, and all the people of his empire would recognize and obey the Catholic faith and would obey the Lord Pope like any Catholic Christian.207 Laiou notes that if true, this “must be seen as the first important change in his relations with western Europe and with the papacy.”208 These actions reflect Andronikos’ desperation in the face of a Franco-papal crusade which, if it had been launched, would have almost certainly succeeded. As it was, the French treasury was severely depleted and they did not have the resources to proceed. Laiou describes this effort at union as “a single and singular effort, which he abandoned when he saw that Europe was not interested.”209 A second and much more sustained effort at union was initiated by Andronikos II in 1324.210 Laiou is convinced of the sincerity of Andronikos II’s efforts at union211 despite the fact that his grandson, Andronikos III, alienated Pope John XXII the following year by marrying Anne of Savoy without papal permission or even notification.212 Regardless, Andronikos II’s efforts towards union were abandoned by mid-1327. He wrote to Benedict of Como, the papal emissary, that he could not pursue Church union at the moment because “of the suspicion it would arouse in all our people.”213

Conclusion Paris 54 is clearly an imperial commission for diplomatic use, most likely commissioned by the Emperor Michael VIII. He was the only ruler who was consistently oriented towards Europe and who aggressively sought union with Rome throughout his reign. Andronikos II was not truly oriented towards 207 Ibid., pp. 241–2. 208 Ibid., p. 242. 209 Ibid., p. 315. 210 Ibid., p. 244. 211 In ibid., pp. 315 and 326–9, Laiou argues that Andronikos II did not pursue union with Rome during this period due to fear of a crusade. Instead, she believes that Andronikos II’s actions reflect a return to what had been the “cornerstone of Michael VIII’s policy after 1271.” 212 Ibid., p. 326. It appears that Andronikos II’s and Andronikos III’s relationship never recovered from the tragic accidental killing of Andronikos III’s brother, Manuel, for which Andronikos III was indirectly responsible. Apparently, Manuel was attempting to deliver a message to Andronikos III, who was visiting his concubine’s house. Manuel was killed by Andronikos III’s bodyguard, who mistook him for the woman’s former lover. Andronikos II’s son and presumptive heir, Michael IX, never recovered from his grief over the death of his son and died within a year or so (ca. 1320). As a result, Andronikos III was debarred from the succession. Andronikos III initiated civil war against his grandfather, Andronikos II, by 1321, and by 1325 succeeded in having himself declared co-emperor with Andronikos II. See ibid., p. 285, and Page, Being Byzantine, pp. 140–41. 213 Laiou, Constantinople and the Latins, p. 326.

214 between constantinople and rome

Europe—especially in terms of union negotiations—until 1311, and then again from 1324 to 1327—that is, for only a fraction of his long reign. Andronikos II may not have had the resources214 to commission a manuscript of this quality. Members of the aristocracy seem to have been in a much stronger position to commission deluxe manuscripts215 than the emperor himself, but they probably did not have the will216 or the interest in commissioning a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript. Even Theodore Metochites, the second most powerful layman in the empire, whose wealth was second only to the emperor, would not have commissioned Paris 54. Metochites clearly loved his books (“next to himself and his offspring he liked books more than anything else”). Ševčenko credits him with “establishing the largest and the best of all the monastic libraries in the capital” and Metochites begged the monks of the Chora to safeguard them at all costs. He claimed that his library at the Chora was superior in “quantity and quality” to all of the other city’s monasteries taken together. Sounding very much like a humanist, Metochites wrote in his long letter to the monks of the Chora upon the death of their first Abbot Lucas: “For among mortals works of letters are the only objects of love that stay forever young; to lovers of the Good, they always remain the same and do not slip away with time.” Yet Metochites would be alert to the problems created by a manuscript such as Paris 54. According to Ševčenko, he regularly: “admonished himself not to raise theological problems deliberately and not to go into details. This was dangerous … when there is nothing easier for the mob than to attack prominent and cultivated people under the pretext of unmasking heresy.”217 214 See ibid., pp. 186–7 and n. 108, for bibliography. Laiou does not seem to think that Andronikos II’s treasury really recovered until perhaps 1321 when he managed to secure an annual revenue of 1,000,000 hyperpyra. Despite this, Andronikos II was forced to sell the imperial jewels in ca. 1321 due to the Turkish invasions; ibid., p. 189, n. 120. See also Hendy, Byzantine Monetary Economy, p. 161. 215 “Male antiquarians and aristocratic bluestockings searched for ancient texts, borrowed them from each other, described the process of making a book, and when they could afford to, created vast libraries of both secular and religious works”; see Ševčenko, “The Palaeologan Renaissance,” p. 148. 216 Theodora (d. 1303), Michael VIII’s widow, was an important patron of the arts and manuscripts. She would never have commissioned a bilingual text such as Paris 54 in view of what she had to endure from the anti-unionists following Michael VIII’s death. In fact, given the level of anti-Latin sentiment in Constantinople in the late thirteenth century, it is doubtful that any Greek living there would have commissioned a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript, and especially not a Gospel book. For Theodora’s potentially “important role in commissioning a family of books of the highest quality,” see further Lowden, “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,” p. 260. Theodora’s typicon for her Monastery of Lips has been associated with the “Atelier” of the Palaiologina by Talbot, “Empress Theodora Palaiologina,” passim, as well as by Nelson and Lowden, “The Palaeologina Group,” p. 65. 217 All quotes above are from Ševčenko, “Theodore Metochites,” pp. 35–7, 52–5, 81, and 83.

art and diplomacy in late thirteenth-century constantinople 215

That said, I think it is plausible that Paris 54, having been left unfinished at Michael VIII’s death, may well have been picked up and dusted off during the mid-1320s when Andronikos II, according to Laiou, was seriously courting union. The Latin text of John’s Gospel was written after the manuscript had lain dormant for an indeterminate period.218 Might it have been executed in the mid-1320s in the hopes of having an occasion to repurpose the manuscript along lines similar to its initial creation? This new Latin hand in John, while not identical to, compares favorably to the Latin hand of a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript of Bonacursius of Bologna’s Thesaurus veritatis fidei which is now in Milan and dated to 1327.219 Kalopissi-Verti rightly asserts that “none of the surviving examples of monumental art from Michael VIII’s time indicates an attempt to approach the doctrines of the Latin Church or any deviation from Orthodox beliefs.”220 However, there are two examples of the so-called minor arts that reflect Michael VIII’s unionist policies: (1) the aforementioned but no longer extant pallio with its bilingual inscriptions, scenes from the Gospels and the apostles, as well as its depiction of St. Peter and Michael VIII,221 and (2) the bilingual, illustrated Gospel book known today as Paris 54. Both were made “with a view to pleasing the Latins.”222 Paris 54 may be the only surviving artistic evidence of Michael VIII’s efforts to reunite the Greek and Latin Churches. It may be that it is the very presence of Paris 54’s Latin text that ultimately offers the most important clues in determining its date. As we have seen, there were few openings in the early Palaeologan period to invest in a deluxe bilingual religious text. Only a handful of scholars in Constantinople knew Latin, and fewer still were trained as scribes.223 The “window of opportunity” for the creation of Paris 54 is most plausibly the period 1265–82. Paris 54 was likely conceived under Michael VIII and left unfinished at his death. The Latin text of John’s Gospel may have been added late in Andronikos II’s reign, when he pursued union negotiations for almost three years before being incapacitated by the civil war engendered by his grandson,

218 See Chapters 2 and 3 above and Plate XXVII. 219 Milan, Bibl. Ambrosiana, ms. D 78 sup. See Alexander Turyn, Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy, vol. 1, pp. 153–6; vol. 2: pl. 134. Turyn (ibid., p. 153) says the Latin text appears only on fols. 6v–69v and 99r–100v. 220 Kalopissi-Verti, in “Aspects of Byzantine Art,” p. 55, says that “the official anti-Latin position of the state and church and the condemnation of the pro-unionist policy of Michael VIII became particularly noticeable in art … the numerous examples of damnatio memoriae and the issues that are displayed in the iconography reflect Andronikos’ anti-Latin standpoint.” 221 See pp. 178f. above. 222 See Macrides, “The New Constantine,” p. 35 and nn. 119–20, where she cites Johnstone, Church Embroidery, pp. 76–7. 223 See Chapter 2 above for an analysis of the Latin text.

216 between constantinople and rome

Andronikos III (1328–1341). According to Ševčenko, this civil war ruined both the aristocracy and the imperial court.224

224 He also states that for the same reason there “is no known instance of mosaic decoration in Byzantium after 1320”; see Ševčenko, “The Palaeologan Renaissance,” p. 161. Of interest, however, is the assertion that Andronikos III may have secretly converted to Catholicism through the efforts of his wife, Anne of Savoy, and a Franciscan, Brother Garcias; see Hussey, Orthodox Church, pp. 256f. Andronikos III would pursue union discussions from 1333 onward. See above n. 45. Later, John V Palaiologos converted to Catholicism in 1369 in an effort to encourage the West to aid the Byzantines against the Ottomans. He took “care, however, not to commit his subjects to a union with the Roman Church”; see Necipoğlu, Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins, p. 28.

9 Epilogue: From Constantinople to Catherine de Medici

… he wrote in such a manner, that to the Latins he seems to write Greek, and to the Greeks, Latin: but indeed it is plain from the book itself, that he wrote neither Greek nor Latin, and he might almost as well have never wrote at all, at least with regard to us, since we cannot understand him. Leon Battista Alberti on Vitruvius1

If Paris 54 was likely created in connection with thirteenth-century efforts to reunite the Latin and Orthodox Churches, it may well have been brought to the West in conjunction with similar efforts in the fifteenth century.2 This is in reference to the Florence-Ferrara Council of 1438–39,3 but the foundations for this meeting had long been in the making through the initiatives of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (r. 1391–1425) and those working on his behalf, such as Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1355–1415).4 I will not provide a detailed picture of the growth of humanism in Florence from Petrarch through Lorenzo de Medici, but I would like to sketch a few scenarios by which a manuscript such as Paris 54 might have found its way to Florence and eventually to Paris. In Chapter 1, we noted that Paris 54 can be associated directly with three collectors with Florentine (and Medici) roots, including Niccolò Ridolfi (d. 1551), a nephew of Pope Leo X (Giovanni de Medici, d. 1521), and Pietro Strozzi (d. 1558), a relative of Palla Strozzi, and a Medici 1 Alberti, the famous fifteenth-century author and architect, voices his frustrations with his copy of Vitruvius’ Ten Books on Architecture. Vitruvius was a contemporary of the Emperor Augustus. See Leon Battista Alberti, On Architecture (1452), Book VI, chap. 1, Giacomo Leoni, The Architecture of Leon Battista Alberti, 1st edn. (London, 1726), transl. in Elizabeth Gilmore Holt, ed., A Documentary History of Art, vol. 1: The Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books and Princeton University Press, 1957), pp. 227–8. 2 See, for example, n. 20 below. 3 Emperor John VIII Palaeologos and the Patriarch Joseph II and more than seven hundred clerics and officials traveled to the council. See Herrin, “The West Meets Byzantium” (no pagination). 4 See Marianne Pade, The Reception of Plutarch’s Lives in Fifteenth-century Italy (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007), pp. 89 and 91ff., especially for Chrysoloras’ critical role as an ambassador to the “Romans.”

218 between constantinople and rome

on his mother’s side. Ultimately, Paris 54 would come into the possession of a third member of the Medici family: Catherine de Medici (1519–1589), Queen of France. In fact, Paris 54 is but one of many deluxe Byzantine manuscripts to have passed through important Florentine collections before making its way into the imperial library in France. Paris gr. 510, the splendid ninth-century illustrated Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, followed a similar route through these same private collections.5 Greek émigrés and their coveted manuscripts made their way to Italy in increasing numbers in the fifteenth century, especially after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453. Paris 54, for example, is likely to have remained in the East for less than two hundred years before being brought to Italy.6 It can, at any rate, be firmly situated in the collection of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi in Rome by the early 1530s. Interest in learning Greek was already palpable in Florence in the midfourteenth century, when Boccaccio7 arranged to have Leontius Pilatus8 teach at the University of Florence in the early 1360s. A more successful teacher, 5 Omont postulated that Paris, BnF, gr. 510 was probably purchased by Janus Lascaris in the late fifteenth century on one of his buying trips to Constantinople; see Omont, Miniatures, pp. 10–11, cited in Brubaker, Vision and Meaning, pp. 12–13 and n. 42. 6 Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art,” p. 517, observes: “Fortunately, Italian humanists discovered the need for knowledge of Greek literature about fifty years before Constantinople fell, at nearly the last possible moment in the long history of the empire.” James Hankins writes: “with the perfect hindsight of history we can see that the second half of the fifteenth century was precisely the period when Greek studies became firmly rooted in Western European culture. … From the second half of the Quattrocento forward the language and literature of the ancient Greeks have been continuously taught in Western European schools and universities down to the present day. The study of Greek was reborn”; see Hankins, “Greek in the Latin West,” p. 274. The Byzantines themselves, of course, had long appreciated old Greek manuscripts; see Lazarev, “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures,” pp. 295–6. 7 Boccaccio (1313–1375) made a famous trip to Monte Cassino in his search for ancient texts. Julia Haig Gaisser reminds us, however, that there were serious humanists in Italy in the early 1300s. See J.H. Gaisser, The Fortunes of Apuleius and the Golden Ass: A Study in Transmission and Reception (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), pp. 93ff. and n. 63. Boccaccio, in his The Life of Dante, underscores the fact that very few Italians knew Latin, much less Greek. In chap. XV, “Why the Commedia Was Written in the Vulgar Tongue,” Boccaccio explains that Dante wrote in the vernacular for two reasons: “For he knew that if he wrote in Latin metre, as previous poets had done, he would have been useful only to the learned, while by writing in the vernacular he would accomplish something that had never been done before, without preventing his being understood by men of letters,” and secondly, “[H]e believed that in vain would crusts of bread be put in the mouths of those who were still sucking milk”; see Giovanni Boccaccio and Leonardo Bruni Aretino, The Earliest Lives of Dante, transl. James Robinson Smith with an introduction by Francesco Basetti-Sani (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1963), pp. 67–8. 8 Leontius Pilatus’ teacher was the well-known Barlaam of Calabria (ca. 1290– 1350). Petrarch had studied with the latter, but did not master Greek. Pilatus was a difficult personality at best and his students did not seem to make a great deal of progress.

epilogue: from constantinople to catherine de medici 219

however, was Chrysoloras.9 Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406), the Chancellor of Florence, had convinced him to teach at the University of Florence for several years beginning in 1397.10 Chrysoloras’ pupils included the great humanist Leonardo Bruni as well as Palla Strozzi (1372–1462).11 Strozzi was one of the most ardent bibliophiles in Florence. When Chysoloras died in 1415, the majority of his books went into Strozzi’s library.12 The Strozzis’ wealth and power rivaled that of the Medicis in the early fifteenth century. Cosimo de Medici exiled Palla Strozzi from Florence in 1434 and he settled in Padua. By one estimate, Strozzi’s library contained approximately 450 books, but about one-third were sold in the 1470s by his cash-strapped heirs. Strozzi’s second will of 1462 indicates that he bequeathed some of his books to San Giustina, a Benedictine monastic library in Padua.13 Diller notes that one of these manuscripts was a deluxe Gospel book that had been 9 Chrysoloras had been a student of Demetrios Kydones (1324–1398), chief minister to three emperors, and one of the few Greeks in the fourteenth century who knew Latin well enough to translate Latin texts into Greek. Few of Kydones’ contemporaries would share Kydones’ open-mindedness: “How absurd that people calling themselves Christians should put their trust only in what is written in Greek and refuse to listen to anything in Latin, as if the truth were the monopoly of one language.” Kydones converted to Catholicism ca. 1357; cited in Browning, The Byzantine Empire, p. 268. Barker writes that Demetrios Kydones’ mastery of Latin in the early 1350s was “a rare feat for a Byzantine scholar of his day”; see Barker, “Emperors, Embassies, and Scholars,” pp. 158–9. For a portrait of Manuel Chrysoloras and a brief biography, see Carmen C. Bambach, “Portrait of Manuel Chrysoloras,” in Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, cat. #314, pp. 524–5. 10 Salutati’s extraordinary efforts to secure Chrysoloras are detailed by Wilson, Byzantium to Italy, p. 8. See also Ciccolella, Donati Graeci, pp. 97–149, for humanism and the revival of Greek studies in Italy. Hankins, “Greek in the Latin West” (2003 edn.), vol. 1, p. 276, notes that the greatest collection of Greek texts in the West in the fourteenth century was that of the Roman curia, which numbered a few dozen codices. By contrast, in the 1470s, Pope Sixtus IV’s library contained over one thousand Greek books. 11 Certainly, many of the popes supported Greek scholars, as did the Angevins in Naples. Greek was taught in other locations in the fifteenth century, including: Bologna, Pavia, Ferrara, Perugia, Padova, Milan, and Messina. See Robert Proctor, The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1900), pp. 5–8. 12 In ibid., p. 5, Proctor writes that Cosimo de Medici was second only to Palla Strozzi as the great patron of Hellenism in Florence. Aubrey Diller, “The Greek Codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino Veronese,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24(3/4) (July–December 1961), p. 313, writes that these libraries were comprised of “manuscript codices, old ones brought from Greece as well as new ones produced in Italy.” 13 Heather J. Gregory, “A Further Note on the Greek Manuscripts of Palla Strozzi,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 44 (1981): 183–5, offers additional details about the distribution of Palla Strozzi’s books as directed in his will of 1462. Gregory indicates that only 18 manuscripts were given to San Giustina by Strozzi. Diller, “Greek Codices,” p. 314, says that by 1599, these books had been removed from the library of San Giustina for in that year Giovanni V. Pinelli had looked for them and could not locate any trace of them. Henri D. Saffrey, “Florence, 1492: The Reappearance of Plotinus,” Renaissance Quarterly 49/3 (Autumn 1996), p. 489, says that Strozzi’s books from the Monastery of St. Justina “entered the library of Nicolas Ridolfi … in the first half of the sixteenth century.”

220 between constantinople and rome

brought to Florence by Manuel Chrysoloras in 1397.14 This reminds us that Florentine humanists did on occasion purchase deluxe biblical manuscripts.15 But how did these Greek manuscripts come to Florence? Michael Reeves writes that Byzantine intellectuals were quick to profit from their international contacts. Those who served as ambassadors, such as Chrysoloras and Bessarion, and attended Church councils (often serving as interpreters) were in a position to acquire and sell Greek texts from Constantinopolitan libraries.16 Chrysoloras, for example, gave up his teaching position in Florence when asked by Manuel II Palaeologos to join him in Pavia and then Milan.17 Chrysoloras only agreed after the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II urged him to do so, hoping that the duke would support the Byzantines against the Ottoman Turks.18 He spent the next ten years traveling on behalf of the Byzantine emperor, including visiting other countries such as England. In 1414, he attended the Council of Konstanz in the company of the pope, and died there in 1415. Bessarion, a Greek delegate to the Council of Ferrara-Florence, would eventually convert to Catholicism and become a cardinal. He actively

14 Diller, “Greek Codices,” p. 315. An inventory of San Giustina lists the Gospel book as 494, whereas it had been number 259 in 1431. Robert S. Nelson, “The Italian Appreciation and Appropriation of Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts, ca. 1200– 1450,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995), p. 219, notes that it is described as “a ‘little volume’ written with the most beautiful Greek letters on the finest parchment and bound with boards covered with a very old and worn gold fabric.” 15 Fifteenth-century Italian collectors were much more interested in ancient authors than in biblical texts. The Sicilian Giovanni Aurispa reveals in a letter to Ambrogio Traversari that he had “Long ago sent from Constantinople to Sicily a good number of very choice sacred volumes, for I admit frankly that they were less precious to me, and a number of malicious persons often brought charges to the Greek emperor, accusing me of pillaging the city of sacred books. With regard to the heathen books, it seemed to them not such a great crime.” Traversari exhorted Aurispa to do all that he could to recover these manuscripts, but he was apparently only partially successful in doing so; see Charles L. Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439) (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1977), pp. 37f. Christopher Garatoni purchased manuscripts by as many as 19 classical authors between 1433 and 1446. However, only one of those was Christian (Gregory of Nazianzus); see Herrin, “West Meets Byzantium” (no pagination). See, however, Alistair Hamilton, “Humanists and the Bible,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 100–117, esp. p. 100, where he asks “why it took so long before the Scriptures were submitted to a scholarly and philological treatment …”. 16 Michael D. Reeve, “Classical Scholarship,” in The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 26. See also Herrin, “West Meets Byzantium” (no pagination). 17 James Hankins, Plato in the Italian Renaissance, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), vol. I, p. 105, states that it was a political coup for Duke Giangaleazzo Visconti of Milan, Florence’s nemesis, to convince Chrysoloras to join the court in Pavia. 18 Ibid.

epilogue: from constantinople to catherine de medici 221

collected Greek manuscripts,19 especially after the fall of Constantinople, and his library formed the foundation of the Biblioteca San Marco in Venice.20 Many of Chrysoloras’ students in Florence went on to achieve fame for themselves as book collectors and/or translators. Niccolò Niccoli (d. 1437) spent so much on his personal library that his finances were devastated. His collection of Greek manuscripts has been described as outstanding.21 Lorenzo Ghiberti, the renowned Florentine sculptor, describes Niccolò in his Third Commentary as a “very learned man and in our times was an investigator and collector of many excellent antique things and of Greek and Latin inscriptions and manuscripts.”22 Cosimo de Medici would later commission Michelozzo to build the library in the Monastery of San Marco, Florence to house Niccolò’s books.23 Herrin notes that other students of Chrysoloras, including Guarino Guarini, Leonardo Bruni, and Uberto Decembrio, were all responsible for important translations of classical texts.24 Other Italians traveled to the East to learn Greek. Francesco Filelfo and Christopher Garatoni went to Constantinople in 1419 in the employment of the Venetian Consulate. They both studied Greek under Chrysokokkos.25 Filelfo married Ioannes Chrysoloras’ daughter, and later taught Greek at the University of Florence from 1429 to 1434.26 Giovanni Aurispa (1376–1459) learned Greek in Chios and the East, having traveled there by 1413. He collected extensively. Most famously, Aurispa went to Constantinople, and returned in 1423 with 238 codices, almost all of which were classical texts.27 Aurispa had already sent a number of religious manuscripts to his home in Sicily, some of which he would recover in 1430.28 19 Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art,” p. 521. 20 Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, cod. Gr. I, 53 (966) was a gift to the Church of San Marco from the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaeologos in February 1438, during the Council of Ferrara; see Italo Furlan, Codice Greci Illustrati della Biblioteca Marciana (Milan: Edizioni Stendhal, 1978), vol. II, pp. 10–12 and color pl. 1 and figs. 1–2, cited in Venetiae quasi alterum Byzantium, Collezioni Veneziane di Codici Greci dalle Raccolte della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, ed. Marino Zorzi, exhibition catalogue, September 16–October 15, 1993 (Cardo, 1993), cat. #2. 21 Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, pp. 21ff. 22 See Holt, A Documentary History of Art, vol. 1, p. 166. Ghiberti also notes that “the most perfect thing I ever saw” was an antique oval chalcedony intaglio in Niccolò’s possession. 23 This is sometimes referred to as the first public library in Renaissance Italy. Unfortunately, many of these books were lost in the earthquake of 1457. See Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, p. 24, and Dale Kent, Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000), p. 178. 24 Herrin, “West Meets Byzantium.” 25 Ibid. 26 Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, pp. 36–8. 27 Ibid., p. 37. Aurispa wrote to Traversari saying that of the 238 codices, only one was a patristic text: the letters of Gregory. He says it is in “faultless condition, and all the pages can be read, but its beauty is hardly such as to invite the reluctant reader.” Aurispa also taught Greek in Florence from 1425 to 1427. 28 Ibid., pp. 37f.: “These included a volume of saints’ lives lent to Traversari, a

222 between constantinople and rome

He would later serve as an interpreter during the Florence-Ferrara Council, and apparently acquired more Greek manuscripts during the council.29 When Aurispa died in Ferrara in 1459, he left a collection of 500 codices, most of which were Greek.30 No contemporary collector of Greek manuscripts could match his record.31 Only rarely would an Italian humanist be self-taught in Greek. Nevertheless, this appears to be the case for Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439), a monk at the Camaldolenses monastery of S. Maria degli Angeli in Florence. He did so without access to a bilingual manuscript: I own nothing which contains both the Greek text and Latin exposition, neither of Plutarch and other gentiles nor of sacred letters. Since you state you have discovered that I pursued Greek letters without the help of a teacher, and since you seek my help and counsel in instructing the boy so that he can push forward on this uncharted journey by following my footsteps, I will reveal to you how I obtained my modest knowledge of this language. Through instruction in the religious rites of our Order, I was intimately familiar with the Greek Psalter. I began therefore to compare this with the Latin and to note individual verbs, nouns, and other parts of speech. As much as possible I committed to memory what these words signified. Then I pressed forward, turning first to the Gospels, then to the Epistles of Paul and to Acts, and studied these thoroughly. They contain copious vocabulary and are translated faithfully, diligently, and without awkwardness. Afterwards, to be sure, I wished to see books of the gentiles, but I did not understand them easily. Therefore it seems best to me … that he stick strictly to the ancient translations of sacred literature, which, since they are translated truthfully, are easier and more conducive to progress. He might indeed make use of a teacher; but unless he were exceptionally expert and knew the language thoroughly by experience, there would be no profit, but rather harm to the inexperienced mind. I judge it preferable to struggle along the certain, than to follow a doubtful and uncertain path. I speak from experience.32

Nigel Wilson asserts that bilingual texts were of enormous help in the Renaissance for learning Greek. Aldus Manutius made similar progress to that of Traversari by using Greek and Latin versions of Aristotle.33 Bilingual manuscripts were clearly in demand. Robert Nelson describes two bilingual manuscripts in conjunction with Italian collectors. One, a bilingual Greek and Gregory Nazianzen lent to Niccoli, and volumes of the orations of Chrysostom, the Psalter, the Gospels, and the comedies of Aristophanes which Aurispa retained.” The bulk of Aurispa’s manuscripts in Sicily never seem to have been returned to him. 29 See Pade, Plutarch’s Lives, p. 307 and n. 891, for further bibliography. 30 Virginia Brown (editor in chief), Paul Oskar Kristeller and Ferdinand Edward Kranz (associate editors), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translators and Commentaries, vol. 7 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992), p. 164. According to Diller, “Greek Codices,” p. 313: “Aurispa bought and sold books for business and was not much of a scholar, while Strozzi and Guarini acquired theirs to use and to keep.” 31 Wilson, Byzantium to Italy, p. 98. 32 Stinger, Humanism and the Church Fathers, pp. 19–20. 33 See Wilson, Byzantium to Italy, pp. 10f. In the early Middle Ages, the Venerable Bede learned Greek from a bilingual copy of Acts; see Bischoff, “Study of Foreign Languages,” p. 213.

epilogue: from constantinople to catherine de medici 223

Latin psalter, is mentioned in an inventory of Guarino Guarini.34 Another is a deluxe Greek and Latin manuscript of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey that was commissioned by Francesco Gonzaga (1444–1483).35 After the fall of Constantinople, exiled Greeks were a significant presence in Renaissance Italy. Probably the most important of these was Janus Lascaris (1445–1535). Lascaris came from a prominent Byzantine family. Born in Asia Minor, he arrived in Venice after stays in the Peloponnese and Crete. In Venice, Lascaris was a young protégé of Bessarion’s and received training in Latin and Greek.36 After Bessarion’s death in 1472, he was employed by Lorenzo de Medici in Florence.37 According to Donald Jackson: Janus Lascaris supported himself to a large degree in the book trade, in teaching and in ambassadorial work for the rich and powerful. He was the chief hunter of Greek books for Lorenzo de’Medici, returning from the East in 1492 (soon after il Magnifico’s death) with a large number of works previously unknown in Florence. He was afterward often in the employ of kings of France and popes of Rome.38

In fact, Janus Lascaris undertook two trips to the East to purchase manuscripts on behalf of Lorenzo the Magnificent.39 Lascaris himself would later indicate that he purchased over two hundred Greek manuscripts on behalf of Lorenzo. Later, Lascaris became the chair of Greek studies at the Sapienza in Rome at the invitation of Pope Leo X. The pope also created a short-lived Greek “academy” at a villa on the Quirinale in Rome for which Lascaris served as preceptor.40 Leo’s nephew, Niccolò Ridolfi, may have been tutored by Lascaris as a youth in Rome.41 The academy remained active until about 1518, by which time Lascaris had departed for France. Lascaris is of great interest with respect to Paris 54 because his library was purchased by Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi and Paris 54 can be traced back 34 Nelson, “Italian Appreciation and Appropriation,” p. 220. 35 The Gonzaga Homer of ca. 1477 is now Vatican gr. 1626; see Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art,” pp. 521–3. 36 Erasmus claimed that Theodore Gaza, Ioannes/Janus Laskaris, and Markos Mousouros were the only Greek intellectuals who succeeded in mastering Latin. Interestingly, Laskaris signed his name as “Janus” when he wrote in Latin and “Ioannes” when he wrote in Greek; see Proctor, Printing of Greek, p. 9. 37 Most of this information is taken from Graham Speake, “Janus Lascaris’ Visit to Mount Athos in 1491,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 34 (1993), p. 325. 38 Quoted from Donald F. Jackson, “An Old Book List Revisited: Greek Manuscripts of Janus Lascaris from the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi,” Manuscripta 43–4 (1999–2003), p. 78. 39 Wilson, Byzantium to Italy, p. 98, n. 44. See also n. 5 above. 40 See further Charles L. Stinger, The Renaissance in Rome (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998, originally published in 1985), p. 287. See also David Muratore, La biblioteca del cardinale Niccolò Ridolfi, Hellenica 32 (Alexandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2009), vol. I, pp. XII, 9, and 53. 41 See ibid., p. 19, where he cites Lucinda Byatt, “Una suprema magnificenza: Niccolò Ridolfi, a Florentine Cardinal in Sixteenth-Century Rome,” Ph.D. diss., European University Institute, 1983, vol. II, p. 12, n. 15.

224 between constantinople and rome

securely to Ridolfi’s collection. It is entirely plausible that Paris 54 came into Ridolfi’s collection through his association with Lascaris. It appears that Ridolfi received Paris 54 before he acquired Lascaris’ library upon the latter’s death in the mid-1530s. According to Jackson: Lascaris was chronically short of money. In 1525 he took out a loan, which was guaranteed by Cardinal Ridolfi using Lascaris’ library as security. The terms of the loan stipulated that should Lascaris default, Ridolfi would pay off the debt and retain Lascaris’s books. In 1527 the contract was extended to Lascaris’s heirs.42

Upon Lascaris’ death in 1535, many of the books in his personal library were incorporated into Niccolò Ridolfi’s collection due to the terms of this contract. Jackson says it was widely believed that Ridolfi’s collection was essentially that of Lascaris.43 It has become clear, however, that Ridolfi’s interests were broader than those of Lascaris, particularly regarding religious manuscripts.44 Ridolfi owned more than 600 Greek and 125 Latin codices at his death in 1550.45 Niccolò Ridolfi (b. 1501) was the son of Piero Ridolfi and Contessina de Medici, the youngest daughter of Lorenzo the Magnificent. Niccolò became a deacon and a cardinal at the age of 16 at the behest of his uncle, Pope Leo X.46 Following the latter’s death in 1521, Ridolfi converted his uncle’s home in Rome into a refuge for expatriate Greek scholars.47 As a Florentine cardinal, Niccolò moved in the highest circles in Rome. It has been estimated that Ridolfi’s household in Rome during the period 1535–50 numbered 140–80 people.48 His annual income has been calculated as somewhere in the vicinity of 15,000–20,000 gold ducats.49 Cardinal Ridolfi’s status in Rome is reflected

42 Jackson, “Old Book List Revisited,” p. 79. The generous treatment of Lascaris by Ridolfi has been attributed to their long friendship, beginning when Lascaris tutored the young Ridolfi in Rome; see Muratore, Niccolò Ridolfi, vol. I, p. 19. 43 See Donald F. Jackson, “A First Inventory of the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi,” Manuscripta 45–6 (2003), p. 50 and n. 5. See also Donald F. Jackson, “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices,” Scriptorium 54/1 (2000), p. 197 and n. 5. 44 Jackson, “Old Book List Revisited,” p. 79. For example, Ridolfi owned five Gospel manuscripts, one of which was Paris 54; see Jackson, “First Inventory,” p. 77. See nn. 5, 14 and 15 above for evidence of other Greek religious manuscripts in Florentine collections. 45 Ibid., p. 51. An early (and now lost) inventory of Cardinal Ridolfi’s library indicated that that he had 618 Greek manuscripts and 127 Latin manuscripts. Of these, 147 comprised theological texts. See further Henri Omont, “Un premier catalogue des manuscrits grecs du Cardinal Ridolfi,” Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartres 49 (1888), p. 310. 46 Pope Leo X was Giovanni de’ Medici, the second son of Lorenzo de Medici. He lived from 1475 to 1521, and became Pope in 1513; Muratore, Niccolò Ridolfi, vol. I, p. 10. 47 See Jackson, “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices,” p. 197 and n. 4. 48 “The number of familiars and servants in a cardinal’s train was limited only by the size of his purse.” See Lucinda M.C. Byatt, “The Concept of Hospitality in a Cardinal’s Household in Renaissance Rome,” Renaissance Studies 2/2 (October 1988), pp. 312–13 and n. 3, for further bibliography. 49 See Muratore, Niccolò Ridolfi, vol. I, p. 19, where he cites Byatt, “Una suprema magnificenza,” vol. I, p. 198.

epilogue: from constantinople to catherine de medici 225

not only in his library,50 but by the fact that when he died in 1550, the College of Cardinals was in the process of selecting a pope, and Ridolfi himself was a serious contender.51 Cardinal Ridolfi’s library would have rivaled those amassed by Pope Nicholas V and Cardinal Bessarion of the fifteenth century.52 Ridolfi’s collection was first assigned catalogue numbers in the early 1530s. The lower the catalogue number assigned to a manuscript, the more likely that it was already in the collection before this period. Fol. Iv of Paris 54 indicates that it was assigned number 34 in Ridolfi’s catalogue (Plate 48).53 Thus, it was almost certainly in Ridolfi’s collection by 1530. In fact, Paris 54 was catalogued by another Greek émigré, Nicholas Sophianos. Sophianos, a native of Corfu, may have been educated at the Greek Academy in Rome under Lascaris.54 Sophianos, along with a student from Corfu at the Greek Academy in Rome, Matthew Devaris,55 catalogued Ridolfi’s collection. Seventy percent of the 480 Greek manuscripts in Ridolfi’s collection include pinakes (descriptions) by Devaris, whereas about 130 manuscripts include pinakes by Sophianos.56 Sophianos’ pinax of Paris 54 as οἰ τέσσαρες εὐαγγελισταί and τὰ τέσσαρα εὐαγγέλια ἑλληνικὰ … and the shelf mark “no. 34” can be found on what I call fol. Iv (Plate 48).57 In 1543, Sophianos would travel to Mt. Athos on behalf of Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, Charles V’s envoy to Venice, to purchase (or have copied) unpublished Greek manuscripts.58 50 Cosimo I de Medici very much wanted Ridolfi’s library; see Jackson, “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices,” p. 198. 51 Pope Paul III (r. 1534–49) had expressed his preference that Ridolfi succeed him. See also ibid., p. 197. 52 Omont, “Cardinal Ridolfi,” p. 309. 53 See Jackson, “First Inventory,” p. 77. According to Martin, Paris 54 was manuscript no. 34 in Cardinal Ridolfi’s collection; see Martin, Description technique, p. 29. See also Muratore, Niccolò Ridolfi, vol. II, pp. 229–30. 54 All sources assert that Sophianos was born to a noble family in Corfu ca. 1500. Muratore states that nothing certain is known about him before 1533, when he copied Paris gr. 1305 in Venice for Dionisio Zannettini; see ibid., pp. 66–71, esp. p. 66 and n. 37. 55 In ibid., vol. I, p. 54, Muratore says that Devaris began his studies at the Greek Academy in Rome at the age of eight. Other students initiated their studies while very young: Georgios Rhalles (age seven), Demetrios Kladas (age eight), and Konstantinos Rhalles (age eight); see ibid., p. 63, n. 26. 56 Muratore finds it impossible to pin down the dates of Sophianos’ role as librarian for Ridolfi. He proposes that his primary involvement was in the years before 1533, but that Sophianos must have visited Rome frequently after that and probably assisted in cataloguing during those visits; see ibid., pp. 68–71. 57 Muratore notes that “sextae decimae” was added as well; see ibid., vol. II, pp. 229–30. See also Omont, Inventaire sommaire (1898 edn.), p. xv, esp. p. xxxii, for examples of pinakes by Devaris and Sophianos. 58 Sophianos had many interests. He is perhaps most famous for his map of Greece which he first published in the 1540s. He also wrote the first grammar of modern Greek. See further Robert W. Karrow, Mapmakers of the Sixteenth Century and Their Maps (Chicago, IL: Speculum Orbis Press, 1993), pp. 495–9. George Tolias cites a letter of 1561 stating that Sophianos made two trips to Greece and that he brought back 300 manuscripts; see Tolias, “Nikolaos Sophianos’s Totius Graeciae Descriptio:

226 between constantinople and rome

Cardinal Ridolfi’s library was acquired upon his death by his relative Piero/ Pietro Strozzi (ca. 1510– 1558), a son of Filippo Strozzi the Younger and Clarice de’ Medici.59 Strozzi apparently paid 15,000 scudi for the collection.60 The library remained in Rome until after Piero’s death at the battle of Thionville on June 21, 1558. From there, it went to Catherine de Medici, the wife of King Henry II of France, to whom Piero was indebted.61 The books were moved to France between 1560 and 1567.62 Ten years after Catherine’s death in 1589, following an acrimonious settlement of her estate,63 they were incorporated into the Bibliothèque du Roi.64 According to Jackson, Catherine’s collection of Greek manuscripts “would also double in size and quality the Greek collection begun by Francis I at Fontainebleau.”65 Muratore asserts that the

The Resources, Diffusion and Function of a Sixteenth-century Antiquarian Map of Greece,” Imago Mundi: The International Journal for the History of Cartography 58/2 (2006): 150–182 and n. 21, for details of the letter. Anthony Hobson, Renaissance Book Collecting (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 77, apparently did not have access to the letter cited by Tolias and surmised that Sophianos would have only secured about twenty manuscripts in Greece. He wrote: “Times had become harder for book hunters since Janus Lascaris had brought back 200 manuscripts for Lorenzo the Magnificent half a century earlier.” 59 Saffrey, “Florence, 1492,” p. 489. 60 Francesco Trucchi, Vita e Gesta de Piero Strozzi Fiorentino, Maresciallo di Francia (Florence, 1847), pp. 143–4. Trucchi casts Strozzi as the ideal courtier—well educated in both arms and letters, and capable of translating from Latin into Greek. Trucchi says that Strozzi also had a remarkable collection of arms that encompassed all periods and nations. On the other hand, Strozzi is characterized as a “blasphemous Florentine atheist who was reckoned to be ‘mightily industrious and a very great engineer’” in Christopher Duffy, Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 1494–1660 (London: Routledge, 1996, originally published in 1979), p. 50, and cites Oeuvres complètes de Pierre de Bourdeilles, abbé et seigneur de Branthôme, vol. I, Part I (Paris: Libraire Plon, 1858–78). 61 The arms of King Henry IV (d. 1610) are featured on its burgundy-colored leather binding, which, according to Omont dates from 1602; see Omont, Miniatures, p. 47. 62 The date of their move to France is debated, but Canfora cites scholars who say that an Ugolino Martelli made an inventory of Ridolfi’s collection in Rome in early 1560; see Luciano Canfora, Il Fozio ritrovato: Juan de Mariana and André Schott (Bari: Edizioni Dedalo, 2001), pp. 367–8 and notes. 63 Jackson, “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices,” p. 197 and n. 1. 64 This information follows Canfora, Il Fozio ritrovato, pp. 367–8 and related notes. Manuscripts of Catherine de Medici’s were given to the library after her death according to Léopold Delisle, Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, vol. 1, reprint of 1868–81 edn., Bibliography and Reference Series 493 (New York: Burt Franklin, 1974), p. 788. 65 Jackson, “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices,” p. 199. For the interest of Francis I (r. 1515–47) in Greek manuscripts, see Nelson, “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art,” p. 523 and cat. # 326, and pp. 541–2. Catherine’s collection was superior in quantity, selection, and the antiquity of the volumes by comparison with those of Francis I according to Omont, “Cardinal Ridolfi,” p. 309.

epilogue: from constantinople to catherine de medici 227

more than six hundred Greek codices in Ridolfi’s collection comprise about one-fifth of the entire Anciens fonds of the Bibliothèque nationale de France.66 Paris 54’s location cannot be pinpointed before its assignment as number 34 in Ridolfi’s collection in the early 1530s. However, it may well have been in Janus Lascaris’ possession before that time and given or sold to Ridolfi.67 While Lascaris was not generally interested in religious manuscripts, Paris 54’s distinctive status as an illustrated bilingual Gospel book would have certainly enhanced its appeal. Might Lascaris have purchased Paris 54 for his personal collection during one of his two buying trips to the East for Lorenzo the Magnificent in 1490 and 1492? Alternatively, Paris 54 might have been brought to the home of Ridolfi’s uncle, Pope Leo X, in Rome after 1521 by one of the Greek expatriates who found refuge there thanks to Ridolfi. We may never know exactly how Paris 54 made its way to Italy. What we can be sure of is that a bilingual manuscript such as Paris 54 would have been a welcome addition to the library of one of the most prominent patrons of Renaissance Italy.

66 See Muratore, Niccolò Ridolfi, vol. I, p. xv, where Muratore also says that around twenty of Ridolfi’s Greek manuscripts are attributed to the tenth century or earlier, around fifty to the eleventh century, more than thirty to the twelfth century, and about seventy each to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. 67 It appears to have been included in the earliest known inventory of Ridolfi’s library, and therefore was in his possession before Lascaris’ death in 1535, when Lascaris’ library was incorporated into Ridolfi’s.

Appendix A: Description of Contents of Paris 541

i, ii, iii, I

Three unnumbered parchment folios (which I refer to as i, ii, iii) and a fourth labeled “I” precede fol. 1

Fols. 1–10

These folios do not include any quire signatures. Fols. 1–9r contain a Latin set of unornamented Canon Tables on the left side of each page. Space was reserved on the right for Canon Tables in Greek

Quire 12

Fols. 11r–20v. Mt. 1:1–5:12 Fol. 10v, Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew Fol. 11r, beginning of Matthew’s text: missing headpiece and both initials at beginning of texts Fol. 13v, Nativity (7.6 × 17.2 cm)

Quire 2

Fols. 21r–30v. Mt. 5:12–8:10

Quire 3

Fols. 31r–40v. Mt. 8:10–11:1 Fol. 32v, Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs (7.1 × 17.4 cm) Fol. 35v, Cure of the Woman with the Hemorrhage (7.3 × 17.3 cm)

Quire 4

Fols. 41r–50v. Mt. 11:1–13:31

Quire 5

Fols. 51r–60v. Mt. 13:31–16.9 Fol. 55r, Miracle of the Loaves (10.4 × 17.1 cm)

1 I would like to thank Margaret Mullett, Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks for permission to republish the appendix from my article “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book,” © 2000, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Trustees for Harvard University. Originally published in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000): 117–38. 2 Greek quire signatures are found through quire 22; Armenian quire signatures are found throughout the manuscript.

230 between constantinople and rome

Quire 6

Fols. 61r–70v. Mt. 16:9–19:9

Quire 7

Fols. 70r3–79v. Mt. 19:10–22:1

Quire 8

Fols. 80r–89v. Mt. 22:2–24:38 Fol. 80r, Wedding Feast of the King’s Son (7.5 × 17.3 cm)

Quire 9

Fols. 90r–99v. Mt. 24:39–26:55 Fol. 91r, Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (7.3 × 17.4 cm) Fol. 96v, Last Supper (9.5 × 17. 3 cm) Fol. 99r, Betrayal (8.9 × 17.1 cm)

Quire 10

Fols. 100r–109v. Mt. 26:55–28:20 Fol. 101r, Denial of Peter (7.8 × 17.2 cm) Fol. 102r, Remorse of Peter (8.9 × 17.2 cm) Fol. 107r, Deposition (7.7 × 16.8 cm) Fol. 108r, Marys at the Sepulcher (8.2 × 17.4 cm) Fol. 109v, end of Matthew’s text Fols. 110–111 form a bifolium insert Fols. 110r and 110v are blank Fol. 111r, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark Fol. 111v is blank

Quire 11

Fols. 112r–121v. Mk. 1:1–4:5 Fol. 112r, Beginning of Mark’s text: missing headpiece Fol. 114v, Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law (8.3 × 17.5 cm) Fol. 115v, Healing of the Leper (7.7 × 17 cm) Fol. 121r, end of perfect color parallelism of Latin text and first appearance of new Latin hand using inappropriate black ink for passages that should have been crimson-colored

Quire 12

Fols. 122r–131v. Mk. 4:5–6:34 Fol. 124v, Christ Stilling the Water (8.9 × 17.4 cm) Fol. 125v, Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac (8.7 × 16.8 cm) Crimson-colored Latin text is by a new scribe

Quire 13

Fols. 132r–141v. Mk. 6:34–9:18 Fols. 132r and 133r show evidence of new Latin hand using wrong color ink

Quire 14

Fols. 142r–151v. Mk. 9:18–11:29 Fol. 142r, Cure of the Dumb Spirit (uninitiated; red-ink frame only)

3 An error was made during the pagination of the manuscript. There are two folios numbered “70” and there is no fol. 71.

appendix a 231

Fols. 142r–150r: Latin text is exclusively in black ink by new Latin hand first seen on fol. 121r Fol. 150vff., no Latin text Quire 15

Fols. 152r–161v. Mk. 11:29–14:25 No Latin text

Quire 16

Fols. 162r–171v. Mk. 14:25–16:14 (The folio containing the final seven verses of the Gospel of Mark [16:14– 20] is missing) Fol. 162v, Gethsemane (uninitiated/space reserved) Fol. 166r, Denial of Peter (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 167v, Mocking of Christ (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 168v, Crucifixion (uninitiated/space reserved) No Latin text Fol. 172r, blank Fol. 172v, blank Fol. 173r, Portrait of the Evangelist Luke (an insert) Fol. 173v, blank

Quire 17

Fols. 174r–183v. Lk. 1:1–2:44 Fol. 174r, beginning of Luke’s text: missing headpiece, rubrics, and initials Fol. 176r, Annunciation (7.9 × 17.3 cm) Fol. 177v, Visitation (unfinished) (8.3 × 17.1 cm) Fol. 182r, Presentation (unfinished) (8.3 × 17 cm) No Latin text

Quire 18

Fols. 184r–193v. Lk. 2:45–5:21 Fol. 186v, Baptism (8.7 × 17.4 cm) Fol. 191v, Miraculous Draught of Fishes (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 193v, Paralytic (7.8 × 17.3 cm) No Latin text

Quire 19

Fols. 194r–203v. Lk. 5:21–7:39 Fol. 201r, Son of Widow of Naim (8.7 × 17.5 cm) Fol. 203v, Anointing of Christ’s Feet (unfinished) (7.7 × 17.1 cm) Fol. 194r: brief resumption of Latin text

Quire 20

Fols. 204r–213v. Lk. 7:39–9:33 Fol. 207r, Christ Asleep in the Boat (unfinished) (8.2 × 17 cm) Fol. 213r, Transfiguration (10.2 × 17.4 cm) No Latin text

Quire 21

Fols. 214r–223v. Lk. 9:33–11:41 No Latin text

232 between constantinople and rome

Quire 22

Fols. 224r–233v. Lk. 11:41–14:1 Fol. 233v, Cure of the Man with Dropsy (unfinished; red-ink frame) No Latin text

Quire 23

Fols. 234r–243v. Lk. 14:2–17:9 Fol. 235v, Meal of the Rich Man (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 241v, Rich Man and Lazarus (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Latin text; Greek quire signatures cease New lineation schema. Canon numbers for folio rectos are now placed in far right margin (continues through the end of Luke)

Quire 24

Fols. 244r–253v. Lk. 17:9–19:44 Fol. 247r, Unknown subject/scribal error? (uninitiated; red-ink frame at bottom of the page measuring only 5.8 × 16.9 cm) Fol. 247v, Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (uninitiated; red-ink frame measuring 7.8 × 17.2 cm) Fol. 248v, Parable of the Rich Man and Eternal Life (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Latin text; no Greek quire signature

Quire 25

Fols. 254r–263v. Lk. 19:44–22:28 Fol. 255r, Parable of the Master of the Vineyard (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 258v, Parable of the Widow’s Mite (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Latin text; no Greek quire signature

Quire 26

Fols. 264r–273v. Lk. 22:28–24:20 Fol. 269v, Simon Carries the Cross (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Latin text; no Greek quire signature

Quire 27

Fols. 274r–284v. Lk. 24:20–Jn. 2:17 Fol. 276v, Ascension (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 276v: end of Luke’s Gospel Fol. 277r: kephalaia listing for Gospel of John Fol. 277v, blank Fol. 278r, blank Fol. 278v, Portrait of the Evangelist John (an insert) Fol. 279r: Beginning of John’s Gospel: no headpiece or initials. Rubric for Greek text only. Resumption of the Latin text by a different hand in dark brown ink. Fol. 280r, Anastasis (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 283v, Wedding at Cana (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Greek quire signature

Quire 28

Fols. 285r–294v. Jn. 2:17–5:11 Fol. 289r, Samaritan Woman at the Well (7.5 × 17 cm)

appendix a 233

Fol. 294r, Cure at the Pool (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Greek quire signature Quire 29

Fols. 295r–304v. Jn. 5:11–7:3 No Greek quire signature

Quire 30

Fols. 305r–314v. Jn. 7:4–9:2 No canon numbers; no kephalaia No Greek quire signature

Quire 31

Fols. 315r–324v. Jn. 9:3–11:32 Fol. 315r (?) Cure of the Man Born Blind (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 322, Raising of Lazarus (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Greek quire signature

Quire 32

Fols. 325r–334v. Jn. 11:32–13:33 Fol. 328r, Entry into Jerusalem (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 332v, Washing of the Feet (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 329r: Latin text stops No Greek quire signature

Quire 33

Fols. 335r–344v. Jn. 13:33–17:12 Fols. 335r–339v, no Latin text; no Greek quire signature

Quire 34

Fols. 345r–354v. Jn. 17:12–19:41 No Latin text, no Greek quire signature

Quire 35

Fols. 355r–364v. Jn. 19:41–21:25 (end of John) Fol. 356r, Noli Me Tangere (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 357v, Doubting of Thomas (uninitiated; red-ink frame) Fol. 359v, Appearance to Disciples (uninitiated; red-ink frame) No Latin text, no Greek quire signature

Appendix B: Lineation Scheme for Paris 54

a

b

c

d

e f

g

Appendix C: A Comparative Study of the Texts of Matthew of Paris 54, Iviron 5, and Garrett 3

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 1 1

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

Βοοζ

P54

P54

7–8 Ασαφ

Ασα

P54

P54

18

ουτως μνηστευθεισης η

ουτος μνηστευθησης ι

NTG NTG NTG

NTG P54 P54

19

τισαι

τησαι

NTG

P54

+ δι

NTG

P54

5

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Βιβλος

_ιβλος

Βοες

23 2

2

ειδομεν

ιδωμεν

NTG

P54

3

βασιλευς Ηρωδης

Ηρωδης βασιλευς

P54

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

8

ευρητε απαγγειλατε

ευρηται aπαγγειλαται

P54 NTG

P54 P54

9

εσταθη

εστη

P54

P54

11

προσεκυνησαν

προσεκονης

NTG

NTG

13

ισθι

ησθι

NTG

P54

13

αυτο

αυτω

NTG

P54

14

ανεχωρησεν

ανεχωρισεν

NTG

P54

15

υπο κυριου

υπο του κυριου

P54

P54

w.o

P54

P54

19

238 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 20

3

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

πορευου

πορευθη

NTG

P54

22

Βασιλευει της Ιουδαιας

Βασιλευει επι της Ιουδαιας

P54

P54

3

δια

υπο

P54

P54

4

οσφυν

οσφην w.o.

NTG P54

NTG NTG

10

δε

δε + και

P54

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

δε + και ανεβη ευθυς πνευμα α του Θεου

P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

w.o

P54

P54

11 16

4

δε ευθυς ανεβη πνυμα Θεου

2 3

ειπεν αυτω ει

ειπεν ει

P54

w.o.

5

εστησεν

ιστησι

P54

P54

13

καταλιπων καφαρναουμ

καταλειπων καπερναουν

NTG P54

P54 P54

15

Νεφθαλιμ

Νεφθαλειμ

P54

P54

σκοτια ανετειλεν

w.o σκοτει ανατελεν

P54 P54 NTG

P54 P54 NTG

λεγομενον

καλουμενον

NTG

P54

+ ο ιυ

P54

P54

16

18 23 5

11

διωξωσιν

διωξουσι

NTG

P54

13

μωπανθη ισχυει ετι βληθεv

μωπανθει ισχυι ετι βληθηνα

NTG NTG P54

P54 P54 P54

16

ιδωσιv

ειδωσιν

NTG

P54

17

νομισητε

νομησηται

NTG

P54

19

διδαξη

διδαξει

NTG

P54

20

γραμματεων

γραμματαιων

NTG

P54

22

αυτου ενοχος

αυτου [+ εκει?] ενοχος P54

P54

1 2

3

appendix c 239

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 25

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ευνοων

ευνωων

NTG

P54

25

w.o

P54

P54

27

+ τοις αρχαιος

NTG

P54

30

απελθη

βληθη

P54

P54

32

μοιχευθηναι

μοιχασθαι

P54

P54

34

οτι θρονος εστιν του Θεου

—

NTG

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

36

6

39

ραπιζει

ραπησει

P54

P54

41

μιλιον

μηλιον

P54

P54

42

σε δος

σεδιδου

P54

P54

44

αγαπατε τους εχθρους υμων και προσευχεσθε υπερ των διωκοντων υμας

αγαπατε τους εχθρων P54 υμων ευλογειτε του καταρωμενους υμας καλως ποιειτε τοις μισουσιν υμασ και προς ευχεσθε υπερ των επερεσξον των υμας

P54

47

αδελφους

φιλους

P54

47

ουχι και οι εθνικοι το και οι τελωναι το αυτο P54 var. αυτο ποιουσιν ποιουσι

48

τελειοι

τελειοι+ καθωσ και

NTG

P54

1

προσεχετε δε την δικαιοσυνην

προσεχετε την ελεημοσυνη

P54

P54

2

ποιης σαλπισης

ποιεις σαλπησης

P54 NTG

P54 P54

4

σοι

σοι + εν τω φανερω

P54

NTG

5

εσεσθε προσευχεσθαι υμιν απεχουσιν

εση προσευχεσθε υμιν οτι απεχουσι

P54 P54 P54

P54 NTG P54

6

σοι

σοι + εν τω φανερω

P54

P54

7

εθνικοι ελθατω

εθνηκοι ελθετω

P54

P54

10

P54

P54

4

240 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 12

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

αφηκαμεν

αφιεμεν

P54

P54

+ οτι σου εστι η βασιλεια και ηδυ αμ και η δοξα εις τοις αιωμας αμην

P54

P54

13

7

16

οι υποκριται

ωσπερ οι υποκριται

P54

P54

16

υμιν απεχουσιν

υμιν οτι απεχουσι

P54

P54

18

φανης κρυφαιω σου

φανεις κρυπτω σου + εν τω φανερω

NTG P54 NTG

P54 P54 P54

21

σου

υμων

P54

P54

22

η ο οφθαλμος σου απλουσ

ο οφθαλμος σου απλους η

P54

P54

25

μεριμνατε η

μεριμαται και

NTG P54

P54 P54

27

προσθειναι

προσθηναι

NTG

P54

28

αυξανουσιν ου κοπιωσιν ουδε νηθουσιν

αυξανει ου κοπια ουδε μηθεινηθει

P54 Cf. note

P54 Cf. note

32

επιζητουσιν χρηζετε

επιζητει χρειζετε

P54 NTG

P54 P54

34

εαυτης

τα εαυτης

P54

P54

2

μετρειτε μετρηθησεται

μετρητε μετριθησεται

NTG NTG

P54 P54

4

εκ

απο

P54

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

5 9

αιτησει

αιτηση

P54

P54+ εαν

11

πατηρ

πατηρη

NTG

P54 + μων

12

εαν ουτος

αν ουτως

NTG P54

P54 P54

13

εισελθατε

εισελθετε

P54

P54

16

σταφυλας

σταφυλην

P54

P54

18

ενεγκειν καπρους καλους ενεγκειν

ποιειν καρπ καλον ποιεν

P54 P54

P54 P54

5

appendix c 241

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 24 8

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

ο μοιωθησεται ανδρι

οιμοιωσω αυτον ανδρι P54

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note P54

1

καταβαντος δε αυτου καταβαντι δε αυτω

P54

P54

2

λεπρος προσελθων προσεκυνει θελης

λεπρος ελθων προσεκυνει θελεις

NTG

P54

P54

P54

4

προσενεγκον Μωυσης

προσενεγκε —

P54 NTG

P54 NTG

7

λεγει αυτω

και λεγει αυτω ο Ιησους

P54

P54

10

ακολουθουσιν παρ

ακολουθουσιν αυτω —

NTG P54

P54 P54

13

uπαγε

uπαγε + και

P54 (see note)

P54

13

και ιαθη ο παις εν τη και ιαθη οπð αυτου ωρα εκεινη εν τη ωρα εκεινη [και υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα ευρετω παιδα υγαινοντα]

15

αυτω

αυτοις

NTG

P54

16

εξαβαλετα

εξαβαλετα

P54

P54

17

ελαβεν

ανελαβε

NTG

P54

18

Ιησους

Ιησους + πολυν

P54

P54

22

λεγει

ειπεν

P54

P54

+ οι μαθηται + ημας

P54 P54

P54 P54

ελθοντι αυτω Γεργεσηνων

P54 NTG

P54 Verify

25

6

P54

28

ελθοντος αυτου Γαδαρηνων

32

και ειπεν αυτοις — υπαγετε. oι δε εξελθοντες απηλθον εις τους Χοιρους

NTG

P54

32

πασα

—

NTG

P54

33

παντα

απαντα

NTG

P54

7

242 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 34 9

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

υπαντησιν απο

συναντησιν εκ

P54 NTG

P54 P54

2

αφιενται σου αι αμαρτιαι

αφεων ταις οι αι αμαρτιαι σου

P54

P54

4

ινατι

ινατι + υμεις

P54

P54

5

αφιενται

αφεωνται

P54

P54

6

εγειπε

εγερθεις

NTG

P54

8

εφοβηθησαν

εθαυμασαν

P54

P54

11

ελεγον

ειπαν w.o. re: εσθιει

P54 NTG

P54 P54

+ Ιησους

P54

P54

ελαιο

Var.

P54

νηστευουσιν + πολλα

NTG

P54

12 13

ελευς

14 15

πενθειν

νηστευουσιν

NTG

Var.

17

ει δε

οιδε

NTG

NTG

18

λαλουντος αυτοις εις προσελθων

λεγοντος εις ελθων

NTG P54

P54 P54

19

ηκολουθει

ηκολουθησεν

P54

P54

21

αψωμαι

αψομιαι

NTG

NTG

27

+ αυτω + κε [κυριε]

P54 NTG

P54 P54

28

+ αυτω

NTG

P54

30

ηνεωχθησαν ενεβριμηθη

ανεωχθησαν ενεβρημης

P54 Var.

P54 P54

31

διεφημισαν

διεφημησαν

NTG

P54

+ ανθρωπον

P54

P54

32

10

35

ο Ιησους πολεις

— πολις

NTG NTG

P54 NTG

38

εκβαλη

εκβαλλει

NTG

P54

3

θαδδαιος

Λεββαιος

NTG Var. P54

8

appendix c 243

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 5 9

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

Σαμαριτων

Σημαριτων

See note

NTG

κτησησθε

κτησεσθε

NTG

P54

+ εστιν

P54

P54

10

11

14

εξω

— + η κωμης

P54 NTG

P54 P54

16

oφεις

οφις

NTG

P54

23

ετεραν

αλλην

P54

P54

25

βεελζεβουλ

βελzεβουλ

NTG

NTG

26

αποκαλυφθησεται

απο λυφθυθησεται

NTG

NTG

27

ο

α

NTG

P54

29– υμων 30

υμων + του πατροσ η μωνη του εν τοις ανθροποις

NTG

P54

30

ηριθμημεναι

αριθμημεναι

NTG

P54

31

φοβεισθε

φοβηθητε

P54

P54

32

ομολογησει

ομολογηση

NTG

P54

33

αρνησηται

αρνησητε

NTG

P54

34

νομισητε βαλειν

ηομησητε βαλλειν

NTG NTG

P54 NTG

37

και ο φιλων υιον η θυγατερα υπερ εμε ουκ εστιν μοθ αξιος

—

NTG

P54

39

απολεσει

απολεση

NTG

P54

42

εαν

αν

NTG

P54

2

δια

δυο

P54

P54

4

Ιησοuς

Ιησους + Χριστου

NTG

NTG

- και

P54

P54

5 7

εξηλθατε

εξηλθετε

P54

P54

8

μαλακοις βασιλεων

μαλακοις + ιματιος βασιλειων βασιλειων + εισιν

P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

9

244 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 10

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ουτος

oυτος + γαρ

P54

P54

13

επροφητευσαν

προεφητευσαν

P54

See note

14

ει

η

P54

P54

15

ωτα

ωτα + ακουειν

P54

P54

α προσφωνουτα

- ταις και προσφωνουσι

Var. P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

19

εργων

τεκνων

P54

P54

21

χοραζιν

χοραζει

P54

P54

23

καφαρναουμ καταβηση εγενηθησαν εμεινεν υψθησν

καπερναουμ καταβινασυθηση εγενοντο εμειναν υψωθεισα

P54 P54 P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54 P54 P54

w.o.

P54

P54

16

26

12

29

πραυς

πραος

P54

NTG

2

ειπαν

θιπον (verify)

ειπον

NTG

NTG

P54

εφαγον

+ επι αβαθαραρχιπεως εφαγεν

5

βεβηλουσιν

εβεβηλος

NTG

P54

7

ελεος

ελαιον

ελεον

P54

w.o. etc. (see note)

NTG

P54

NTG

P54

NTG

NTG

4

8 10

ανθρωπου

10

ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου

ανθρωπος + ην εκει την - ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου

12

καλως

καλλο

NTG

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

δε οι

w.o. re: εξελθοντες οιδε

P54 P54

P54 P54

15

πολλοι

οχλοι πολλοι

P54

P54

18

ηρετισα

ηρετησα

NTG

P54

13 14

10

11

appendix c 245

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 20

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

σβεσει

σβεση

NTG

P54

22

ωστε τον κωφον λαλειν και βλεπειν

ωστε τον τυφλον και P54 κωφον και λαλειν και βλεπειν

23

ο

-ο

NTG

NTG

24

ειπον

ειπαν

NTG

P54

25

δε

P54

P54

27

εκβαλλουσιν

+ ο ΙC [Ιησους Χριστος] εκβαλλιωτα

NTG

See note

28

Θεου εγω

- εγω

NTG

NTG

29

αρπασαι διαρπασει

διαρπασαι διαρπαση

P54 P54

P54 P54

31

η δε

ειδε + τοις ανθρωποις

NTG P54

P54 P54

35

αγαθα

αγαθον

NTG

P54

36

ο λαλησουσιν

ο + εαν λαλησωσιν

P54 P54

P54 P54

38

γραμματεων

γραμματαιων

NTG

P54

44

εις τον οικον μου επιστρεψω κεκοσμημενον

επιστρεψω εις τον οικον μου (w.o.) κοσμηνινον

P54

P54

NTG

NTG

ειστηκεισαν

+ δε αuτου ειστηκησαν

See note NTG

P54 P54

48

λεγοντι

ειποντι

P54

P54

2

ωστε αuτον εις πλοιον εμβαντα καθησθαι

και τεαυτον εμβαντα εις πλοιον καφησθαι

NTG

NTG

3

eλαλησεν σπειρειν

ελαλει - ιδου σπειπας

NTG NTG NTG

P54 P54 See note

4

ελθοντα

ηλθε

P54

P54

6

εκαυματισθη ριζαν

- εκαυματισθη βαθος ριζης

NTG NTG

P54 P54

10

ειπαν

ειπον

P54

P54

46

13

P54

12

13

14

246 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 11

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ειπεν

ειπεν + αυτοις

P54

P54

14

ακουσετε

ακουσητε

NTG

P54

17

ειδαν

ειδον

P54

P54

22

και

και/ + τουτου και

NTG

P54

23

την καλην συνιεις

w.o. re: καλην γην συνιων + ουδει

P54 P54 NTG

NTG P54 P54

25

επεσπειρεν

εσπειρε

P54

P54

27

ποθεν ουν

πως ουν

NTG

P54

28

λεγουσιν

ειπον

P54

P54

29

φησιν

εφη

P54

P54

30

συναυξανεσθαι εως του

συναυξανεσθε μεχριτου

NTG P54

P54 P54

33

ενεκρυφεν

εκρυψεν

P54

P54

34

ουδεν

ουκ

P54

P54

35

καταβολης

καταβολης + κοσμου

P54

P54

36

οικιαν διασαφησον

οικιαν + ο ΙC φρασο

P54 P54

P54 P54

ειπεν + αυτοις

P54

P54

συλλεγετε καιεται βασιλεια αιωνος + τουτου

NTG P54 NTG P54

P54 P54 NTG P54

+ παλιν

Var.

NTG

See note

P54

+ οσ

P54

P54

αναβηβασαντες αγγεια

NTG P54

NTG P54

+ λεγει αυτοις … ναι + κυριε

P54

P54 P54

την βασιλειαν

P54

P54

37 40

συλλεγεται κατακαιεται συντελεια

44 45 46 48

αναβιβασαντες αγγη

51 52

τη βασιλεια

15

appendix c 247

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 55

14

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

Ιωσηφ

Iωσης

P54

P54

56

πασαι

- πασαι

NTG

P54

57

πατριδι

πατριδ + αυτου - εν

P54 NTG

P54 P54

3

απεθετο

εθετο

Var.

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

γενεσιων εγομενων

P54 P54

P54 P54

w.o.

NTG

P54

4 6

γενεσιοις γενομενοις

7 9

λυπηθεις

ελυπηθη

P54

P54

12

πτωμα

σωμα

P54

P54

15

απλουσον κωμας

απολυσων κυκλωκομας

P54 NTG

P54 P54

w.o.

P54

P54

εμμαυτων

P54

P54

w.o

P54

P54

18 32 15

αναβαντων

1 2

παραδοσιν νιπτονται

παραδωσιν νιπτωσι χειπας + αυτων

NTG NTG P54

P54 P54 P54

4

Θεος

Θεος + εν ετειλατο λεγων

P54

P54

5

αν

εαν

P54

NTG

6

πατερα αυτου τον λογον παραδοσιν υμων

πατερα την εντολην του Θυ παραδωσι υμιν

NTG P54 NTG NTG

P54 P54 P54 NTG

7

επροφητευσιν

προεφητεισε

P54

See note

+ εγγιζει μοι

P54

P54

8 10

ακουετε

ακουσατε

Var.

P54

14

αφετε οδηγη

αφες οδηγει

NTG NTG

NTG NTG

- το δε ανιπτοις

NTG

NTG

20

16

248 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V.

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

χερσιν φαγειν ου κοινοι τον ανθρωπον 23

κραzει

κραυπασιν αυτω

NTG

NTG

24

ει μη

- ει μη

NTG

NTG

- τον αρτον των τεκνων και βαλειν

NTG

NTG

26 35

παραγγειλας τω οχλω

2

NTG

P54

γενομενης λεγετε

γενομενοις λεγεται

P54 NTG

NTG NTG

P54

P54

γινωσκετε δυνασθε

ουρανος + υποκριται γινωσκεται συνιετε

NTG NTG

P54 P54

καταλιπων

Ιωνα + του προφητου καταλειπων

P54 P54

P54 P54

προσεχετε δε

προσεχειν

NTG

P54

3

4

11 12

See note

13

17

+ εξ

NTG

P54

19

κλειδας

κλεις

P54

P54

20

επετιμησεν

διεστειλατο μαθηταισ + αυτου +ο

P54 P54 NTG

P54 P54 NTG

γραμματεων

w.o. γραμματαιων

P54 NTG

P54 P54

22

ιλεως

ιλεος

NTG

P54

24

ελθειν ακολουθειτω

ακολουθειν ακολουθητω

NTG NTG

NTG P54

26

ωφεληθησεται

ωθελειται

P54

P54

28

αυτου

του Θεου

NTG

NTG

3

ωφθη

ωφθησαν

P54

P54

21

17

P54

+ και

36 16

εκελευσετ τοις οχλοις P54

5

Erasure

See note

18

appendix c 249

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 6 7

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

επεσαν

επεσον

NTG

P54

προσηλθεν

προσηλθων

P54

P54

w.o.

Var. (see note)

Var. (see note)

αψαμενος

ηψα

εγερθη

αναστη

P54

P54

11

ειπεν + αυτοις

P54

P54

14

w.o.

P54

P54

9

18

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

15

εχει

πασχει

P54

P54

19

μαθηται

μαθηκαι

NTG

NTG

20

ολιγοπιστιαν

απιστιαν

P54

P54

20

μεταβα ενθεν

μεταβαθιεντε

See note

See note

22

Συστρεφομενων

αναστρεφομενων χειρας + αμαρτωλων

P54 NTG

P54 P54

24

καφαρναουμ

καπερναουμ

NTG

P54

25

λεγει και ελθοντος

και λεγει και οτε ετελεσεν

NTG Var.

P54 P54

26

ειποντος δε

λεγει αυτω ο πετρος

P54

P54

27

αναβαντα

αναβαινοντα

P54

P54

5

τοιουτο

τοιουτο + εν

P54

P54

7

Ουαι τω κοσμω των σκανδαλων αναγκη γαρ ελθειν τα σκανδαλα πλην ουαι το ανθρωπω δι ου το σκανδαλον ερχεται

w.o. η ινα σκανδαλιση των μικρων τουτων ουαι τω κοσμω αππο σκανδαλων αναγκη γαρ εστιν του ελθειν τα σκανδαλα πλην ουαι τω αγθω εκεινω δι αυτο σκανδαλνω ερχεται

Shares P54 most of these vars. with P54

8

w.o.

NTG

P54

11

Verse 11 included

P54

P54

ορη πλανομενον

P54 NTG

P54 P54

12

ορη και πλανωμενον

19

20

250 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 15

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

αμαρτηση υπαγε

αμαρτη εις σε υπαγε + και

NTG NTG

P54 P54

16

σταθη

σταθησεται

P54

P54

17

eιπον εθνικος

ειπε εθνηκος

P54 NTG

P54 P54

18

εν εν ουρανω

εν + τω εν τω ουρανω

P54 P54

P54 P54

19

παλιν συμφωνησωσιν εξ υμων αιτησωνται

παλιν + δε συμφωνησουσιν — αιτησοντ᾽

NTG NTG P54 P54

P54 P54 P54 P54

w.o

P54

P54

ωμοιωθη

P54

P54

w.o.

NTG

P54

21 23

ομοιωθη

24

19

25

κυριος

κυριος + αυτου

P54

P54

26

λεγων παντα

λεγων + κυριε παντα + soi

P54 P54

P54 P54

28

ωφειλεν επνιγεν αποδος οφειλεις

οφειλεν επνηγε αποδος + μοι οφειλης

P54 NTG P54 NTG

P54 P54 P54 P54

29

συνδουλος αυτου

See note

και

συνδουλος αυτου + εις P54 το στεο και + παντα σοι P54

30

εως

εως + ου

P54

P54

33

καγω

και εγω

P54

P54

3

λεγοντες

λεγοντες + αυτω

NTG

P54

4

κτισας

ποιησας

P54

P54

22

7

απολυσαι

απολυσαι + αυτην

P54

P54

23

9

γαμησν μοιχαται

γαμισει ποιει αυτην μοιχασθηναι

P54 NTG

See note See note

24 25

12

ευνουχισαν

ευνουχησαν

See note

P54

26

13

επιθη

επιθει

NTG

P54

21

P54

appendix c 251

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 14

20

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

και μη κωλυετε

—

NTG

P54

16

διδασκαλε σxω

διδασκαλε + αγαθε εγω

See note Var.

P54 Εχω

17

τι με ερωτας περι του αγαθου εις εστιν ο αγαθος ει δε θελεις εις την ζωην εισελθειν τηρει τας εντολας

τι με λεγεις αγαθον ουδεις αγαθος ειμι ι θς ειδε θελεις εισελθειν εις την ζωην τηρη σου τας εντολας

Very Very similar to similar to P54 P54

18

εφη

ειπεν

P54

P54

19

πατερα μητερα σεαυτον

πατερα + σου μητερα + σου εαυτον

P54 NTG P54

P54 NTG P54

20

εφυλαξα

εφυλαξα + αμην P54 εκνε οτη τος μου τις τι υστερω

P54

24

ραφιδος θεου

ραφιδος + διελθειν θεου + εισελθειν

P54 P54

P54 P54

25

μαθηται

μαθηται + αυτου

P54

P54

29

μητερα εμου ονοματος

μητερα + η γυναικα ονοματος μου εκατοντα πλασιονα

P54 NTG

P54 P54

4

και εκεινοις

κακεινος

NTG

P54

5

ενα την

εννατην

NTG

P54

6

εν δεκατην εστωτας

εν δεκατην + ωρα εστωτας + αργους

P54 P54

P54 P54

7

αμπελωνα

αμπελωνα + και ο εαν P54 η δικαιον ληψωθε

P54

9

ελθοντες δε

και ελθοντες

P54

P54

10

και ελθοντες πλειον και αυτοι

ελθοντες δε πλειονα —

P54 P54 See note

P54 P54 See note

11

εγογγυζ

διεγογγοζον

P54

P54

13

ενι αυτων ειπεν η

— ειπεν + αυτοις ει

NTG NTG P54

P54 P54 P54

27

28

29

30

252 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 15

21

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

εσχατοι

εσχατοι + πολλοι γαρ εισι κλητοι ολιγοι δε εκλεκται

P54

P54

31

16

μελλω δε αναβαινειν Ιησους

και αναβαινω ο Ιησους

P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

32

17

δωδεκα

δωδεκα + μαθητας αυτω

P54

See note

33

19

εγερθησεται

αναστησεται

P54

P54

21

θελεις δεξιων

θελεις + η δε δεξιων + σου

NTG P54

P54 P54

22

πινειν

πινειν + η το βαπισμα P54 ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε

23

πιεσθε

See note

34

See note

35

ευωνυμων

πιεσθε + η το βαπισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι See note βαπτισθησεται ευωνυμων + μου P54

26

ουτως

ουτως + δε

P54

P54

27

εσται

εστω

P54

P54

30

ημας

ημας + κυριε

P54

P54

37

31

ημας

ημας + κυριε

Var.

P54

38

33

ανοιγωσιν

ανοιχθωσι

NTG

P54

39

34

ομματων

οφθαλμων

P54

P54

40

1

βηθφαγη εις δυο

βηθαφαγη P54 προς P54 δυο + εκ των μαθητας NTG αυτου

P54 P54 See note

41

πορευεσθε w.o. την κατεναντι ευθυς ευρησετε

πορευθητε

3

P54

την αππεναντι ευθεως ευρησηται

NTG NTG NTG P54 NTG

P54 P54 P54 P54 P54

ευθυς

ευθεως

P54

P54

4

δε

δε + ολον

P54

P54

6

συνεταξεν

προσεταξεν

P54

P54

2

36

appendix c 253

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 7

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

επεκαθισεν

επεκαθισεν

NTG

See note

8

πλειστος

πληστος

NTG

P54

13

ποιειτε

ποιησατε

See note

See note

16

κατηρτισω

κατηρτησω

NTG

P54

18

πρωι

πρωιας

P54

P54

19

μιαν

—

NTG

P54

20

μαθηται

μαθηται + ε

NTG

NTG

23

ελθοντος αυτου

ελθ᾽τι αυτω

P54

P54

w.o.

NTG

P54

ανθρωπος + τις + μου (at end of verse)

P54 P54

P54 P54

26 28

ανθρωπος

31–2

22

See note

43

44

33

εξεδετο

εξεδωτο

Var. sp.

P54

36

πλειονας

πλειωνας

NTG

P54

37

λεγων

λεγ + ισως

NTG

P54

38

εν εαυτοις σχωμεν

— κατα + σχωμεν

42

εγενηθη θαυμαστη

εγενηθει θαυμαστι

46

επει εις προφητην αυτον ειχον

επει εις επειδει ως προφητην

Cf. note

Cf. note

4

ητοιμακα

ητοιμασα

5

ος επι

ο —

P54 P54

P54 Εις

βασιλευς φονεις ενεπρησεν

+ και ακουσας βασιλευς + εκεινος φωνης ενεπρισε

P54 P54 NTG NTG

P54 P54 See note P54

NTG

P54

7

42

45 46

9

εαν

10

ους

οσους

P54

P54

11

ειδεν

ιδεν

NTG

P54

47 48

254 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 13

23

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ειπεν δησαντες εκβαλετε αυτον

— δεισαντες αρατε αυτον + και βαιλετε

NTG NTG P54 P54

Cf. note P54 P54 P54

17

κηνσον

κινσον

NTG

P54

19

κηνσου

κινσου

NTG

P54

21

λεγουσιν

λεγουσιν + αυτω

NTG

P54

22

και ακουσαντες εθαυμασαν

NTG

—

NTG

25

γημας

γαμησας

P54

P54

27

απεθανε

απεθανε + και

P54

P54

28

εν τη αναστασει ουν - (parablepsis and τινος των επτα εσται missing 9 words) γυνη

NTG

P54

29

αυτοις

—

NTG

P54

30

τω

— του θεου

P54 P54

P54 P54

34

Εφιμωσεν

εφημωσε

NTG

P54

37

dε τη τη

δε + ο Ιησους — —

Cf. note P54 NTG

P54 P54 P54

38

w.o.

P54

P54

40

w.o.

P54

P54

43

w.o.

Cf. note

P54

44

υποκατω

υποποδιου

P54

P54

3

υμιν ποιησατε και τηρειτε κατα δε τα εργα αυτων μη ποιειτε

υμιν τηρειν τηρει τε και ποιειτε

NTG

NTG

4

δε αυτοι

γαρ —

P54 P54

P54 P54

5

κρασπεδα

κρασπεδα + αυτα ιματιων αυτων

P54

Cf. note

6

δε

—

P54

P54

49

50

51

52

53

54

appendix c 255

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 7 8

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

καλεισθαι

καλεισθε

NTG

NTG

κληθητε

κληθειτε

NTG

P54

w.o. [ο πατηρ υμων ο εν τοις ουρανοις]

Cf. note

P54

καθηγηται + εις γαρ υμων εστιν ο —

P54 Var. P54

P54

Extra verse here

P54

Cf. note

9 10

καθηγηται εις

12– 13

24

P54v

17

αγιασας

αγιαζων

P54

P54

19

μειζον αγιαζον

+ μωροι και μειζων αγιαζων

P54 NTG NTG

P54 P54 P54

21

κατοικουντε

κατοικησαν

P54

P54

23

το το ελεος δε

αο τον ελεον —

NTG P54 P54

NTG P54 P54

24

κωνωπα

κωνοπα

NTG

P54

25

ακρασιας

αδικιας

P54

P54

26

ποτηριου

ποτηριου + και της παροψιδος

P54

P54

28

φαινεσθε

φαινεσθαι w.o.

NTG P54

P54 P54

33

γεννηματα φυγητε

γενηματα φυγειτε

NTG NTG

NTG P54

34

μαστιγωσετε

μαστιφωσεται

NTG

P54

35

εκχυννομενον

εκχυνομενον

NTG

P54

37

ορνις επισυναγει τα αυτης

επισωαφει ορνιστω εαυτης

P54 P54

Cf. note P54

38

αφιεται

αφιετευ

NTG

Αφιεtε

w.o.

P54

P54

και + της

P54

P54

1 3

και

55

56

57

58

256 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 6

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

μελλησετε θροεισθε γαρ

μελησετε θυρυμεισθε γαρ + παντα

P54 NTG P54

P54 P54 P54

7

λιμοι

λιμοι + και λοιμα

P54

P54

15

ιδητε εστος

ιδηται εστως

P54 P54

Cf. note P54

17

καταβατω

καταβαινετω

P54

P54

18

το ιματιον

τα ιματια

P54

P54

24

μεγαλα

Cf. note

NTG

NTG

60

27

εσται

εσται + και

P54

P54

61

30

εν

εν + τω

P54

P54

31

σαλπιγγος

σαλπιγγος + φωνης

P54

P54

32

φυλλα

φυλα

P54

P54

32–3 το θερος. Ουτως και υμεις οταν ιδητε παντα ταυτα, γινωσκετε οτι εγγυς

- omission of 12 words NTG

P54

35

παρελευσεται

παρελευσονται

P54

P54

36

ουδε ο υιος

- omission of 3 words

P54

P54

37–8 αι ημεραι του Νωε, - omission of 14 words NTG ουτως ερται η παρουσια του υιου του ανθρωπου ως γαρ

59

62

63

P54

38

και

και + εκ

P54

P54

39

ηλθεν

εισηλθεν

NTG

P54

αγρω και

w.o. αγρω + ο και + ο

P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

64

41

μυλω

μυλωνι

Cf. note

P54

65

42

ημερα

ωρα

P54

P54

43

γινωσκετε διοροχθηναι

γινωσκοτε διορυγημαι

NTG P54

NTG P54

w.o.

P54

P54

40

44

appendix c 257

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 45

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

οικετειας του

θεραπειας του + δι

P54 P54

P54 P54

w.o.

P54

P54

46

25

48

ο κυριος μου

ο κυριος μου + ελθειν

P54

P54

49

αυτου

—

NTG

P54

1

εαυτων

αυτων

P54

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

2 3

αι γαρ

αιτινες

P54

P54

4

φρονιμοι αγγειοις εαυτων

φρονημοι αγγειοις + αυτων αυτων

NTG P54 P54

NTG P54 P54

6

νυμφιος

νυμφιος + ερχεται

P54

P54

7

εαυτων

αυτων

P54

P54

8

ειπαν

ειπον

P54

P54

10

αι

—

NTG

NTG

12

αποκριθεις

αποκριθει

NTG

NTG

13

ωραν

ωραν + εν η ο υιος του Cf. note ανθρωπου ερχεται

P54

16

πορευθεις ηργασατο εκερδησεν πεντε

πορευθεις + δε ειργασατο εποιησεν πεντε + ταλαντα

P54 P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54 P54

17

εκερδησεν

εκερδησεν + αυτος

Cf. note

P54

18

ωρυξεν

ωρυξεν + εν τη γη

P54

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

19 22

ταλαντα

ταλαντα + λαβων

P54

P54

27

αργυρια

το αργυριον

P54

P54

+ απο w.o.

P54 P54

P54 P54

οι + αγιοι

P54

P54

29 31

οι

66

67

68

69 70

258 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 32

26

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

αφορισει

αφοριει

P54

P54

39

ασθενουντα

ασθενη

P54

P54

40

των αδελφων μου

- missing 3 words

NTG

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

7 9

τουτο

τουτο + το μυρον

P54

P54

10

παρεχετε

παρεχεται

NTG

NTG

17

λεγοντες

λεγοντες + αυτω

P54

P54

21

αυτων

—

NTG

P54

w.o.

P54

P54

23 26

ευλογησας δους μαθηταις

ευχαριστησας εδιδου μαθηταις + και

P54 P54 P54

P54 P54 P54

29

εκχυννομενον

εκχυνομενο(ν)

P54

P54

35

ομοιως

ομοιως + δε

P54

P54

71

36

γεθσημανι απελθων

Γεθσημανει ελθων

Cf. note NTG

P54 P54

72

42

παρελθειν

παρελθειν + απ εμου

P54

P54

43

παλιν ευρεν

— ευρισκει

Cf. note —

P54 P54

44

παλιν

—

—

P54

45

καθευδετε

καθευδετε + το

—

P54

51

ωτιον μαχαιρη

ωτειον μαχαιρα

NTG NTG

P54 P54

52

απολουνται αρτι

αποθανουνται —

P54 P54

P54 P54

53

πλειω

πλειους

P54

P54

55

εξηλθατε ιερω

εξηλθετε w.o. ιερω + προς υμας

P54 P54 Cf. note

P54 P54 P54

και ουχ ευρον πολλων προσελθοντων

και ουχ ευρον και πολλων ψευδοματυρων

P54

P54

60

73

74

appendix c 259

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V.

27

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ψευδομαρτυρων. Υστερον δε προσελθοντες δυο

προσελθοντων ουκ ευρον υστερον δε προσελυοντες δυο ψευδομαρτυρες

61

ειπαν οικοδομησαι

ειπο οικοδομησαι + αυτον

P54 P54

P54 P54

63

και

και + αποκριθεις

P54

P54

65

λεγων βλασθημιαν

λεγων + οτι βλασθημιαν + αυτου

P54 P54

P54 P54

66

ειπαν

ειπον

P54

P54

69

πετρος

πετρος + εξω

P54

P54

71

ειδεν τοις

ιδεν αυτοις

NTG P54

P54 P54

72

μετα ορκου

μεθορκου

P54

P54

74

ευθυς

ευθεως

P54

P54

75

ρηματος ειρηκοτος

ρηματος + τον ειρηκοτως

P54 P54

(του) P54

2

εδωκαν πιλατω

εδωκαν + αυτον ποντιω πιλατω

P54 P54

P54 P54

3

παραδους εστρεψεν

παραδιδους απεστεψε

P54 P54

P54 Cf. note

5

εις τον ναον

εν των ναω

P54

P54

6

ειπαν

ειπον

P54

P54

11

εσταθη

εστη

P54

P54

12

και

και + των

P54

P54

13

αυτω

—

NTG

P54

16

Βαραββαν

Βαραβαν

NTG

NTG

17

Βαραββαν

Βαραβαν

NTG

NTG

20

Βαραββαν

Βαραβαν

NTG

NTG

21

ειπαν Βαραββαν

ειπον Βαραβαν

P54 NTG

P54 NTG

22

λεγουσιν

λεγουσιν + αυτω

P54

P54

75

260 between constantinople and rome

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 23

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

δε

ο δε + ηγεμω(ν) εφη

P54

P54

24

ειμι αιματος

μι αιματος + δικαιου

NTG Cf. note

NTG P54

76

28

εκδυσαντες

εκδυσαντες (cf. note) w.o.

NTG

Cf. note

77

P54

P54

επι αυτον ο βασιλεις

Cf. note NTG P54

P54 P54 - ευς

w.o.

NTG

P54

29

εν αυτω βασιλευ

33 34

ηθελησεν πιειν

ηθελεπιειν

P54

P54

40

θεου και

θεου

P54

P54

41

ομοιως δε και

ομοιως δε [+και] και ...

P54

P54

42

σωσαι πιστευσομεν

σωσαι + ει πιστευσωμεν

P54 P54

P54 P54

43

νυν

αυτον

Cf. note

P54

44

συν

- συν

P54

P54

46

λεμα

λειμα

Λιμα

P54

47

εστηκοτων

εστωτων

P54

P54

49

σωσων

σωσον

P54

P54

w.o. - και αι πετραι εσχισθησαν

P54 NTG

P54 P54

51

28

58

τω αποδοθηναι

τω + τω αποδοθηναι + το σωμα

NTG P54

NTG P54

65

εχετε

εχεται

NTG

P54

66

κουστωδιας

κουστωδιας (cf. note)

NTG

NTG

1

Μαγδαληνη

Μαγδαλινη

NTG

P54

2

λιθον

λιθον + απο της θυρας του μνηψειου

P54

Cf. note

78

79

80

81

82

83

appendix c 261

Gospel of Matthew Chap. V. 3

Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece

Paris, BnF, codex grec 54

Athos, Iviron 5

Princeton, See Garrett 3 note

ειδεα ως

ιδεα ως + ει

P54 NTG

P54 P54

4

εγενηθησαν ως νεκροι

εγενοντο ως ει νεκροι

P54

P54

8

απελθουσαι

εξελθουσαι

P54

P54

10

κακει

εκει

NTG

Cf. note

12

στρατιωταις

στρατιωτες

NTG

NTG

14

ακουσθη πεισομεν

ακουστη πειοσομεν + αυτον

NTG P54

P54 P54

19

ουν

- ουν

P54

P54

84

The Gospel of Matthew ends at 28:20

Notes: var. = variation w.o. = word order

Endnotes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17

Iviron 5: includes neither δε nor και. Garrett 3: omits α. Garrett 3: includes εικη. Iviron 5: Mt. 5:47 adds ουχι at beginning of phrase. Mt. 6:28. Both Iviron 5 and Garrett 3 share Paris 54’s variant, but both substitute μηθει for μηθεινηθει (which is a variant noted in the NTG). Iviron 5: Mt. 8:13 adds bracketed phrase in margin in different hand. See Table 4.10. Garrett 3, Mt. 9:15 νηστευειν. Iviron 5: Mt. 10:5 Ζαμαρειτων. Garrett 3, Mt. 11:13 προεφετευσαν. Both Paris 54 and Garrett 3 at Mt. 12:8 read κυριος γαρ εστιν ο υιος του ανθρωπου του σαββατου. Garrett 3: Mt. 12:27 εκβαλλωτα. Iviron 5: Mt. 12:46 ει ειδε αυτου λαλουντος. Garrett 3: Mt. 13:3 σπειραι. Iviron 5: Mt. 13:45, at mid-verse following the phrase των ουρανων, skips to Mt. 13:47 (following των ουρανων there) and continues to the end of Mt. 13:50. Then, the scribe copies Mt. 13:45 and 46 and follows those with λεγει αυτοις. The scribe then continues with Mt. 13:51 (top of fol. 60r). None of this is noted in the margins of Iviron 5’s folios by later readers. Garrett 3: Mt. 15:7 προεφητευσε. Iviron 5: Mt. 16:12 skipped the entire verse (17 words). Later, it was added in the right margin on fol. 71r.

262 between constantinople and rome

18 Garrett 3: Mt. 17:5 Garrett 3 is missing seven words from this verse. Paris 54 artist appears to have caught the error in a timely fashion. The erasure is visible and no text is missing here in Paris 54. See Chapter 4 above for more details. 19 Garrett 3 and Iviron 5: Mt. 17:7 ηψατο. 20 Mt. 17:20. Both Iviron 5 and Garrett 3 have a variant reading: μεταβηθι εντευθεν. 21 Garrett 3: Mt. 18:29 αυτου εις τους ποδας. 22 Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd edn. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975, common variant. 23 Metzger: common variant. 24 Garrett 3: γαμησει. 25 Metzger: fairly common variant. Garrett 3: adds και ο απολελομενην γαμο η μοιχαται after μοιχαθηναι. 26 Iviron 5: ευνουχισθησαν. 27 Iviron 5 apparently contains another variant from the NTG in this verse. 28 Metzger, p. 50: common addition. 29 Paris 54: This passage is written in gold ink. See Chapter 2 above. 30 Garrett 3: inserts και αυτοι before δηναριον. 31 Metzger, p. 51: common addition. 32 Metzger, pp. 51–2: common variant. 33 Garrett 3: adds only μαθητας. 34 Metzger, p. 52: common variant. Garrett 3 in Mt. 20:22 has the same variant, except the last word in Garrett 3 reads: βαπτισθηναι. 35 Both Iviron 5 and Paris 54 add: και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπταθησεσθε. 36 NTG cites many manuscripts with this variant. 37 NTG cites many manuscripts with this variant. 38 Metzger, pp. 53–4: common addition. 39 Metzger, p. 54: common addition. 40 NTG says this is rare. 41 Garrett 3: adds similar phrase substituting μαθητων for μαθητας. 42 Garrett 3: Mt. 21:7 εκαθισεν. 43 Iviron 5 and Garrett 3 at Mt. 21:13 both read εποιησατε. 44 Iviron 5: Mt. 21:31–2 due to an error of parablepsis because of repetition of the phrase τελωναι και αι πορναι, Iviron 5 scribe skipped the last half of Mt. 21:31 and the first two-thirds of Mt. 21:32 (that is, a total of 25 words). These words were later added in the left margin on fol. 92v. 45 Mt. 21:46. Garrett 3 reads: επειδει ως προφητην αυτον ειχον. Iviron 5 is the same as Garrett 3 except it substitutes επειδη for επειδε. 46 Garrett 3 and Iviron 5: Mt. 22:4 both are ητοιμασα. 47 Garrett 3: includes εκεινος, but does not have δε. 48 Garrett 3: φωνεις. 49 Garrett 3: places ειπεν before βασιλευς. 50 Iviron 5 is missing another phrase here (fol. 96v, bottom of folio) that has been added by another hand in the margin. 51 Iviron 5 appears to follow another variant found in NTG footnotes. 52 Iviron 5 adds Ις only; Garrett 3 adds only Ιησους. 53 Iviron 5 has a different variant here from that of Paris 54. 54 Garrett 3 includes phrase, but substitutes των for αυτα. 55 Mt. 23:9. Iviron 5 is the same variant as Paris 54, except that it substitutes υμιν for υμων. 56 Metzger, p. 61: common addition. Iviron 5 and Garrett 3 include the extra verse, but skip verse 13. 57 Ibid. 58 Garrett 3: επι συναγει ορνις τα. 59 Garrett 3: word in question appears at the end of the line as an abbreviation.

appendix c 263

60 μεγαλα was a last-minute addition by Paris 54’s scribe; that is, he nearly forgot to include it. 61 Metzger, pp. 61–2: common addition. 62 Paris 54, fol. 89v; see Plate 6. 63 An example of homeoteleuton in Paris 54 and Garrett 3 due to the appearance of γαρ in vv. 37 and 38. This error resulted in the omission of 14 words. See Table 4.10. 64 Iviron 5 may follow P54 here, but due to water damage, it is difficult to tell. 65 This w.o. variation is not cited in NTG. 66 This phrase is a marginal addition in Iviron 5. Metzger, p. 63: common addition. 67 Iviron 5 inserts a word before αυτος. 68 This w.o. variation is not cited in NTG. 69 Iviron 5 adds παντι between text lines here. 70 This w.o. variation is not cited in NTG. 71 Iviron 5 adds δ between the lines. 72 Iviron 5: Γεθσιμανη. 73 Note that Iviron 5 is missing text from Mt. 26:42 εανμη αυ through Mt. 26:47. This has been noted previously by von Soden and Kurt Aland. See Chapter 4 above, n. 103. 74 Μt. 26:55. Iviron 5 adds προς θμας after καθ᾽ ημεραν. 75 Garrett 3: απεστρεψε. 76 Iviron 5: adds του before δικαιου. 77 In Paris 54, the scribe made a visible error in writing the upsilon over an eta. Garrett 3’s upsilon also looks peculiar, but it does not look as though it was written over an eta. 78 Iviron 5 has neither εν nor επι. 79 Iviron 5 δε appears to have been added later. 80 Iviron 5 has αυτου, and νυν was added later. 81 Paris 54 scribe committed homeoarcton error due to repetition of και at beginning of Mt. 27:52, the scribe skipped four words. 82 Undecipherable notation following the end of Paris 54’s text here. An illustration initiates the next page. 83 Garrett 3 adds απο της θυρας only. 84 Garrett 3: και εκει.

Bibliography

Aland, Barbara and Klaus Wachtel. “The Greek Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, pp. 43–60. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995. Aland, Kurt. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994. Aland, Kurt. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 13th revised edn. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1985. Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament, 2nd revised edn., transl. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI and Leiden: William B. Eerdmans and E.J. Brill, 1989. Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland, eds., in collaboration with Klaus Wachtel and Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 4, Die Synoptischen Evangelien. No. 1: Das Markusevangelium. 1.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 1.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungsliste. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 26–7. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1998. Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 4, Die Synoptischen Evangelien. No. 2: Das Matthäusevangelium. 2.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 2.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungen. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 28–9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 4, Die Synoptischen Evangelien. No. 3: Das Lukasevangelium. 3.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 3.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungen. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 30–31. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Aland, Kurt, Barbara Aland, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., in collaboration with Klaus Witte. Text und Textwert der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 5, Das Johannesevangelium. 1: Teststellenkollation der Kapitel 1–10. 1.1: Handschriftenliste und vergleichende Beschreibung. 1.2: Resultate der Kollation und Hauptliste sowie Ergänzungsliste. Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung 35–6. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2005.

266 between constantinople and rome

Alexander, Jonathan J.G. Medieval Illuminators and Their Methods of Work. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992. Alexanian, Joseph M. “The Armenian Version of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, pp. 157–72. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995. Altaner, B. “Raymundus Lullus und der Sprachenkanon (can. 11) des Konzils von Vienne (1312).” Historisches Jahrbuch 53 (1933): 190–219. Anderson, Jeffrey C. The New York Cruciform Lectionary. College Art Association Monographs on the Fine Arts 48. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. Anderson, Jeffrey C. “The Past Reanimated in Byzantine Illumination.” In Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. C. Moss and K. Kiefer, pp. 319–27. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Anderson, Jeffrey C. “The Seraglio Octateuch and the Kokkinobaphos Master.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982): 69–120. Angelov, Dimiter. “Byzantine Ideological Reactions to the Latin Conquest of Constantinople.” In Urbs Capta: The Fourth Crusade and Its Consequences, Réalités Byzantines 10, ed. Angeliki Laiou, pp. 293–310. Paris: Lethielleux, 2005. Angelov, Dimiter. “Byzantine Imperial Panegyric as Advice Literature (1204– c. 1350).” In Rhetoric in Byzantium, ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys, pp. 55–72. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, 2003. Angelov, Dimiter, ed. Church and Society in Late Byzantium, Studies in Medieval Culture XLIX. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009. Angelov, Dimiter. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium, 1204–1330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Angold, Michael. “Greeks and Latins after 1204: The Perspective of Exile.” In Latins and Greeks in the Eastern Mediterranean after 1204, ed. Benjamin Arbel, Bernard Hamilton, and David Jacoby. Totowa, NJ: Frank Cass, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, and Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, 1989. Angold, Michael. Review of Carlo I d’Angiò e il Mediterraneo: Politica, diplomazia e commercio internazionale prima de Vespri, by Gian Luca Borghese. The Medieval Review 09.10.05 (2009–2010), https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/ handle/2022/3769/09.10.05.html?sequence=1 (accessed July 12, 2011). Astruc, Charles. “Les fonds grecs du Cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale.” Introduction to Byzance et la France médiévale (exhibition catalogue), pp. xxv–xxxii. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1958. Autochromes du Mont Athos: Photographies en couleurs du Musée Albert Kahn. Athens: Editions Olkos, 1997. Bakir, Mevlude. “How Did the Byzantines Deal with the Earthquakes and Their Aftermath?” In Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: Proceedings, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu, pp. 23–7. Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010. Bambach, Carmen C. “Portrait of Manuel Chrysoloras.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, cat. no. 314, pp. 524–5. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004.

bibliography 267

Barker, John W. “Emperors, Embassies, and Scholars: Diplomacy and the Transmission of Byzantine Humanism to Renaissance Italy.” In Church and Society in Late Byzantium, Studies in Medieval Culture 49, ed. Dimiter G. Angelov, pp. 158–79. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2009. Belting, Hans. Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft. Abhandlungen der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Heidelberg: Carl Winter-Universitätsverlag, 1970. Belting, Hans. “Zum Palatina-Psalter des 13. Jahrhunderts.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972): 17–38. Bernabò, M. “Gli Ottateuchi bizantini e la ricerca delle origini dell’illustrazione biblica.” Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi S.II/3 (2001): 25–46. Berschin, Walter. Greek Letters and the Latin Middle Ages: From Jerome to Nicholas of Cusa, transl. Jerold C. Frakes, revised and expanded edn. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1988. Bibliothèque Nationale: Catalogue des manuscrits—estampes, médailles et objets d’art imprimés exposés du 28 Janvier au 28 Février 1926. Paris: Éditions de la Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 1926. Bischoff, Bernhard. “Das griechische Element in der Abendländischen Bildung des Mittelalters.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 44 (1951): 27–55. Bischoff, Bernhard. “The Study of Foreign Languages in the Middle Ages.” Speculum 36/2 (April 1961): 209–24. Boccaccio, Giovanni and Leonardo Bruni Aretino. The Earliest Lives of Dante, transl. James Robinson Smith with an introduction by Francesco Basetti-Sani. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1963. Bordier, Henri. Descriptions des peintures et autres ornements contenus dans les manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris: Honoré Champion, 1883. Borghese, Gian Luca. Carlo I d’Angiò e il Mediterraneo: Politica, diplomazia e commercio internazionale prima de Vespri, Collection de l’École française de Rome 411. Rome: École française de Rome, 2009. Brătianu, G.I. “Notes sur le projet de mariage entre l’empereur Michel IX Paléologue et Catherine de Courtenay (1288–95).” Revue historique du sud-est Européen 1 (1924): 59–63. Bréhier, Louis. “Attempts at Reunion of the Greek and Latin Churches.” In The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, The Eastern Roman Empire (717–1453), ed. J.B. Bury, pp. 594–626. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1927. Brown, Michelle P. Understanding Illuminated Manuscripts: A Guide to Technical Terms. Malibu, CA and London: J. Paul Getty Museum and British Library, 1994. Brown, Michelle P. and Patricia Lovett. The Historical Source Book for Scribes. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Brown, Virginia (editor in chief), Paul Oskar Kristeller and Ferdinand Edward Kranz (associate editors), Catalogus Translationum et Commentariorum: Medieval and Renaissance Latin Translators and Commentaries, vol. 7. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1992. Browning, Robert. The Byzantine Empire, revised edn. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press of America, 1992.

268 between constantinople and rome

Brubaker, Leslie. “Life Imitates Art: Writings on Byzantine Art History, 1991–1992.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 17 (1993): 173–223. Brubaker, Leslie. Vision and Meaning in Ninth-century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Bryer, Anthony A.M. “Greek Historians on the Turks: The Case of the First ByzantineOttoman Marriage.” In The Writing of History in the Middle Ages, ed. R.H.C. Davis and J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, pp. 471–93. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981. Büchler, Alfred. “King of Glory and King of the Jews: The Titulus of the Cross in the Christian East.” Sixteenth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference, Abstracts of Papers. Baltimore, MD, October 26–28, 1990. Buchthal, Hugo. “A Greek New Testament Manuscript in the Escorial Library: Its Miniatures and its Binding.” In Byzanz und der Westen: Studien zur Kunst des Europäischen Mittelalters, ed. Irmgard Hutter with a foreword by Herbert Hunger, pp. 85–98. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1984. Buchthal, Hugo. “An Unknown Byzantine Manuscript of the Thirteenth Century.” Connoisseur 155 (1964): 217–24. Buchthal, Hugo. “Illuminations from an Early Palaeologan Scriptorium.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 21 (1972): 47–55. Buchthal, Hugo. Miniature Painting in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. With paleographical and liturgical chapters by Francis Wormald. Oxford: Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, 1957. Buchthal, Hugo. “Notes on Some Early Palaeologan Miniatures.” In Kunsthistorische Forschungen Otto Pächt zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. A. Rosenauer and G. Weber, pp. 36–43. Salzburg: Residenz Verlag, 1972. Buchthal, Hugo. The “Musterbuch” of Wolfenbüttel, Byzantina Vindobonensia 12. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979. Buchthal, Hugo. “Toward a History of Palaeologan Illumination.” In The Place of Book Illumination in Byzantine Art, ed. Kurt Weitzmann, William C. Loerke, Ernst Kitzinger, and Hugo Buchthal, pp. 143–77. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975. Buchthal, Hugo and Hans Belting. Patronage in Thirteenth-century Constantinople: An Atelier of Late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 16. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1978. Buckton, David, ed. Byzantium: Treasures of Byzantine Art and Culture from British Collections London: British Museum Press, 1994. Buschhausen, Heide and Helmut Buschhausen. “Die Halbinsel Krim, ein wenig beachtetes Zentrum der byzantinischen Buchmalerei im 14. Jahrhundert.” In Byzantine East, Latin West: Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, ed. C. Moss and K. Kiefer, pp. 339–46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Byatt, Lucinda. “The Concept of Hospitality in a Cardinal’s Household in Renaissance Rome.” Renaissance Studies 2/2 (October 1988): 312–20. Byatt, Lucinda. “Una suprema magnificenza: Niccolò Ridolfi, a Florentine Cardinal in Sixteenth-Century Rome.” Ph.D. diss., European University Institute, 1983. Bydén, Börje. “‘Strangle Them with These Meshes of Syllogisms!’: Latin Philosophy in Greek Translations of the Thirteenth Century.” In Interaction and Isolation in Late

bibliography 269

Byzantine Culture, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions vol. 13, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist, pp. 133–57. Istanbul: Svenska Forskningsinstitutet, 2004. Byzance et la France médiévale: Manuscrits à peintures du IIe au XVIe siècle. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1958. Byzance: l’art byzantine dans les collections publiques françaises. Musée du Louvre, 3 November 1992–1 February 1993. Paris: Musée du Louvre, 1992. Canfora, Luciano. Il Fozio ritrovato: Juan de Mariana and André Schott. Bari: Edizioni Dedalo, 2001. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. “A Group of Provincial Manuscripts from the Twelfth Century.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982): 39–81. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. Byzantine Illumination, 1150–1250: The Study of a Provincial Tradition, Studies in Medieval Manuscript Illumination 1, ed. O. Grabar and H.L. Kessler. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. “Reading Styles of Use: The Rockefeller McCormick New Testament and Christian Kalam.” In Donations et donateurs dans le monde byzantine, ed. Jean-Michel Spieser and Elisabeth Yota, Réalités byzantines 14, pp. 253–64. Paris: Descleé de Brouwer, 2012. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. Review of The Treasures of Mount Athos, Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. 1, The Protaton and the Monasteries of Dionysiou, Koutloumousiou, Xeropotamou and Gregoriou, by S.M. Pelekanidis, P.C. Christou, C. Tsioumis, and S.N. Kadas. The Art Bulletin LIX/1 (March 1977): 126–8. Carr, Annemarie Weyl. Reviews of Visual Polemics in Ninth-century Byzantine Psalters, by Kathleen Corrigan, and The Octateuchs, A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, by John Lowden. The Art Bulletin 76/1 (March 1994): 165–9. Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Regiae, Tomus secundus. Paris: Typographia Regia, 1740. Cavallo, G., J. Gribomont, and W.C. Loerke. Codex Purpureus Rossanensis, vol. I, Commentarium. Rome: Salerno Editrice and Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt, 1987. Ciccolella, Federica. Donati Graeci: Learning Greek in the Renaissance. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Cicinadze, Izolda. Mokvis ot, kht, avis gap, ormebis mkhatvruli principebi. Tbilisi: Académie des sciences de Géorgie, 2004. Clark, Kenneth. W. A Descriptive Catalogue of Greek New Testament Manuscripts in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1937. Colwell, Ernest Cadman. The Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. 1, History and Text. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1936. Constantine Porphyrogenitus. De Administrando Imperio, ed. and transl. G. Moravcsik and R.J.H. Jenkins. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1967. Cormack, Robin. “… and the Word was God: Art and Orthodoxy in late Byzantium.” In Byzantine Orthodoxies: Papers from the Thirty-sixth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Durham, 23–25 March 2002, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Publications 12, ed. Andrew Louth and Augustine Casiday, pp. 111–20. London: Ashgate/Variorum, 2006. Cormack, Robin. “But is it Art?” In Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twentyfourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin, pp. 218–36. London: Variorum, 1992.

270 between constantinople and rome

Cormack, Robin and Maria Vassilaki, eds. Byzantium: 330–1453. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008. Corrigan, Kathleen. “Constantine’s Problems: The Making of the Heavenly Ladder of John Climacus, Vat. gr. 394.” Word and Image 12/1 (1996): 61–93. Coşkuner, Buket. “Wall-painting Methods of Byzantine Art: Examples from Cappadocia.” In Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu, pp. 495–504. Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010. Cutler, Anthony. The Aristocratic Psalters in Byzantium, Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques 13. Paris: Picard, 1984. De Gregorio, Giuseppe. “Per uno studio della cultura scritta a Creta sotto il dominio veneziano: I codici greco-latini del secolo XIV.” Scrittura e civiltà 17 (1993): 103–201. De Gregorio, Giuseppe. “Tardo Medioevo greco-latino: manoscritto bilingui d’Oriente e d’Occidente.” In Libri, documenti, epigrafi medievali: Possibilità di studi comparativi. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studio dell’Associazione Italiana de Paleografi e Diplomatisti (Bari, October 2–5, 2000), Studi e ricerche 2, ed. F. Magistrale, C. Drago, and P. Fioretti, pp. 17–136. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’alto Medioevo, 2002. De Gregorio, Giuseppe and Giancarlo Prato. “Scrittura arcaizzante in codici profani e sacri della prima età Paleologa.” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 45 (2003): 59–101. De Hamel, Christopher. A History of Illuminated Manuscripts, revised edn. London: Phaidon, 1994. De Hamel, Christopher. Scribes and Illuminators. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992. De Hamel, Christopher. The Book: A History of the Bible. New York: Phaidon, 2001. Delisle, Léopold. Le cabinet des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Impériale, vol. 1, reprint of 1868–81 edn., Bibliography and Reference Series 493. New York: Burt Franklin, 1974. Demus, Otto. “Die Entstehung des Paläologenstils in der Malerei.” In Berichte zum XI. Internationalen Byzantinisten-Kongress, München 1958, 4 (2), pp. 1–63. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1958. Demus, Otto. “Die Farbe in der byzantinischen Buchmalerei.” Palette 26 (1967): 3–11. Demus, Otto. “The Style of the Kariye Djami and its Place in the Development of Palaeologan Art.” In The Kariye Djami, vol. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, ed. Paul Underwood, pp. 109–46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975. Derbes, Anne. “Images East and West: The Ascent of the Cross.” In The Sacred Image: East and West, ed. Robert Ousterhout and Leslie Brubaker, Illinois Byzantine Studies IV, pp. 110–31. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1995. Derbes, Anne. Picturing the Passion in Late Medieval Italy: Narrative Painting, Franciscan Ideology, and the Levant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Derbes, Anne and Amy Neff. “Italy, the Mendicant Orders, and the Byzantine Sphere.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, pp. 449–61. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004.

bibliography 271

Der Nersessian, Sirarpie with Sylvia Agemian. With an introduction by Annemarie Weyl Carr. Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 31. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1993. Devreese, Robert. Les manuscrits grecs de l’Italie méridionale. Studi e Testi, 183. Vatican City: Biblioteca Vaticana Apostolica, 1955. Diller, Aubrey. “The Greek Codices of Palla Strozzi and Guarino Veronese.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 24(3/4) (July–December 1961): 313–21. Diringer, David. The Book before Printing: Ancient, Medieval, and Oriental. Mineola, NY: Dover Reprint, 1982 (originally published in 1953). Dmitrievskii, A. Opisanie liturgiceskih rukopisej, vol. 1, Typika. Kiev, 1895. Dolezal, Mary-Lyon. “The Middle Byzantine Lectionary: Textual and Pictorial Expression of Liturgical Ritual.” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1991. Dölger, F. and I. Karayannopoulos. Byzantinische Urkundenlehre. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1968. Duffy, Christopher. Siege Warfare: The Fortress in the Early Modern World, 1494–1660. London: Routledge, 1996 (originally published in 1979). Dufrenne, Suzy. “Problèmes des ateliers des miniaturistes byzantins. Akten, I/2: XVI Internationaler Byzantinistenkongress Wien 1981,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 31/2 (1981): 445–70. Džurova, Axinia. Byzantinische Miniaturen: Schätze der Buchmalerei vom 4. bis zum 19 Jahrhundert. Regensburg: Schnell and Steiner, 2002. Eastmond, Antony. Art and Identity in Thirteenth-century Byzantium: Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004. Ehrman, Bart D. “A Problem of Textual Circularity: The Alands on the Classification of New Testament Manuscripts.” Biblica 70 (1989): 377–88. Ehrman, Bart D. Didymus the Blind and the Text of the Gospels, Society of Biblical Literature: The New Testament in the Greek Fathers 1, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986. Ehrman, Bart D. “Methodological Developments in the Analysis and Classification of New Testament Documentary Evidence.” Novum Testamentum 29/1 (January 1987): 22–45. Eleuteri, Paolo, ed. I manoscritti greci della Biblioteca Palatina di Parma. Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo, 1993. Elliott, J.K. A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 109, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Elliott, J.K. A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 57. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987. Epp, Eldon Jay. “A Continuing Interlude in New Testament Textual Criticism?” In Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, pp. 109–23. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993. Epp, Eldon Jay. “The Claremont Profile Method for Grouping New Testament Minuscule Manuscripts.” In Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament

272 between constantinople and rome

Textual Criticism, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, pp. 211–220. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993. Evans, Helen C., ed. Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). New Haven, CT and New York: Yale University Press and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004. Evans, Helen C. and William D. Wixom, eds. The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era: A.D. 843–1261. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Harry N. Abrams, 1997. Fee, Gordon D. “Textual Criticism of the New Testament.” In Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, ed. Eldon Jay Epp and Gordon D. Fee, pp. 3–16. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1993. Festa, N. “Lettera inedita dell’imperatore Michele VIII Paleologo ai pontefice Clemente IV.” Bessarione, anno IV, vol. 6 (1899–1900): 42–57. Finegan, Jack. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to New Testament Text Criticism. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2001. Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Manuel Holobolos and the Role of Bilinguals in Relations Between the West and Byzantium.” In Knotenpunkt Byzanz, Miscellanea Mediaevale 36, ed. Andreas Speer and Philipp Steinkrüger, pp. 210–22. New York and Berlin: de Gruyter, 2012. Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Monks, Monasteries and the Latin Language in Constantinople.” In Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries, ed. Ayla Ödekan, Engin Akyürek, and Nevra Necipoğlu, pp. 390–95. Istanbul: Vehbi Koc Foundation, 2010. Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Planoudes’ De Trinitate, the Art of Translation, and the Beholder’s Share.” In Orthodox Readings of Augustine, ed. A. Papanikolaou and G. Demacopoulos, pp. 41–61. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Press, 2008. Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Planoudes, Holobolos, and the Motivation for Translation.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 43/1 (2002/2003): 77–104. Fisher, Elizabeth A. “Planoudes’ Technique and Competence as a Translator of Ovid’s Metamorphoses.” Byzantinoslavica 62 (2004): 143–60. Fonkič, B.L. “O biblioteke Hory pri Feodore Metohike” (in Russian). Vizantijskij vremennik 54 (1993): 39–42. Förstel, Christian. Trésors de Byzance: Manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale de France. Cahiers d’une exhibition 37. Paris: BnF, 2001. Fryde, Edmund. The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261–c. 1360). Leiden: Brill, 2000. Furlan, Italo. Codice Greci Illustrati della Biblioteca Marciana. Milan: Edizioni Stendhal, 1978. Gaisser, Julia Haig. The Fortunes of Apuleius and the Golden Ass: A Study in Transmission and Reception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008. Galavaris, George. “A Constantinopolitan Scribe in the Court of Pope Martin IV.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 44 (1994): 99–103. Galavaris, George. Ελληνική τέχνη: ζωγραφική βυζαντινών χειρογράφων. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1995. Galavaris, George. Holy Monastery of Iveron: Illustrated Manuscripts. Mount Athos, Greece: The Monastery, 2002.

bibliography 273

Galavaris, George. The Illustrations of the Prefaces in Byzantine Gospels. Byzantina Vindobonensia 11. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1979. Gamillscheg, Ernst and Robert Browning, “Quire.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 3, pp. 1,767–8. Geanakoplos, Deno John. “Bonaventura, the Two Mendicant Orders, and the Greeks at the Council of Lyons (1274).” In The Orthodox Churches and the West, ed. Derek Baker, pp. 183–211. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976, reprinted with additional bibliography in Deno John Geanakoplos, Constantinople and the West: Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and Italian Renaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches, pp. 195–223. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Geanakoplos, Deno John. Byzantium: Church, Society, and Civilization Seen through Contemporary Eyes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984. Geanakoplos, Deno John. Michael Palaeologus 1258–1282: A Study in Byzantine–Latin Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Geanakoplos, Deno John. “The Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople from the Latins in 1261: A Chrysobull of Michael VIII Palaeologus in Favor of Hagia Sophia.” In Constantinople and the West, pp. 173–88. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989. Geer, Thomas C. Jr. “Analyzing and Categorizing New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Colwell Revisited.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, pp. 253–67, Studies and Documents 46. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995. Gerstel, Sharon. “Civic and Monastic Influences on Church Decoration in Late Byzantine Thessalonike.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 57 (2003): 225–39. Gerstinger, H. Die griechische Buchmalerei. Vienna: Österreichischen Staatsdruckerei, 1926. Gill, Joseph. Byzantium and the Papacy, 1198–1400. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979. Gill, Joseph. “Emperor Andronicus II and Patriarch Athanasius I.” Byzantina 2 (1970): 13–19. Gill, Joseph. “The Church Union of the Council of Lyons (1274) Portrayed in Greek Documents.” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 40 (1975): 5–45. Goggin, Cheryl Gohdes. “Copying Manuscript Illuminations: The Trees of Vices and Virtues.” Visual Resources 20/2–3 (March 2004): 179–98. Grabar, André. La peinture religieuse en Bulgarie. Paris: Librarie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1928. Grabar, André. “The Artistic Climate in Byzantium During the Palaeologan Period.” In The Kariye Djami, vol. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, ed. Paul Underwood, pp. 3–16. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975. Grabar, Oleg. “The Shared Culture of Objects.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire, pp. 115–29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1997. Graux, Charles. With transcriptions and notices by M. Albert Martin. Fac-similés des manuscrits grecs d’Espagne. Paris: n.p., 1891.

274 between constantinople and rome

Gregory, Caspar René. Canon and Text of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1907. Gregory, Caspar René. Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1908. Gregory, Caspar René. Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1900–1909. Gregory, Heather J. “A Further Note on the Greek Manuscripts of Palla Strozzi.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 44 (1981): 183–5. Halsall, Paul. “Medieval Sourcebook: Nicetas Choniates: The Sack of Constantinople (1204).” Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1. asp/ (accessed August 24, 2011). Hamilton, Alistair. “Humanists and the Bible.” In The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye, pp. 100–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Hankins, James. Plato in the Italian Renaissance. Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 17. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Hankins, James. “The Study of Greek in the Latin West.” In Italian as “Lo studio del Greco in Occidente fra medioevo ed età moderna.” In I Greci: Storia, cultura, arte, società, vol. 3, ed. Salvatore Settis, pp. 1,245–62. Turin: Giulio Einaudi Editore, 2001. Also published in English in James Hankins, Humanism and Platonism in the Italian Renaissance, vol. 1, pp. 273–91. Storia e Letteratura 215. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003. Harris, Jonathan. Byzantium and the Crusades. London: Hambledon Continuum, 2006. Hatch, William H.P. Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. Hatch, William H.P. Greek and Syrian Miniatures in Jerusalem. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1931. Havice, Christine. “The Marginal Miniatures in the Hamilton Psalter (Kupferstichkabinett 78.A.9).” Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen 26 (1984): 79–142. Hendy, Michael F. Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy, c. 300–1450. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Hero, Angela Constantinides. “Theoleptos of Philadelphia (ca. 1250–1322): From Solitary to Activist.” In The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. Slobodan Čurčić and Doula Mouriki, pp. 27–38. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. Herrin, Judith. “Blinding in Byzantium.” In Polypleuros Nous: Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zu seinem 60. Geburtstag. Byzantinisches Archiv 19, ed. C. Scholz and G. Makris, pp. 56–68. Leipzig: Saur, 2000. Herrin, Judith. Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire. London: Allen Lane/ Penguin, 2007. Herrin, Judith. “The West Meets Byzantium: Unexpected Consequences of the Council of Ferrara-Florence 1438–9.” ΑΩ International 19, July 2011, http://www. onassis.gr/online-magazine/lectures-news/lectures-details.php?id=1 (accessed October 2, 2013). Hilsdale, Cecily J. “Constructing a Byzantine Augusta: A Greek Book for a French Bride.” The Art Bulletin 87/3 (September 2005): 458–83.

bibliography 275

Hilsdale, Cecily J. “The Imperial Image at the End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroidered Silk in Genoa and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261).” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 64 (2010): 151–99. Hjort, Øystein. “‘Oddities’ and ‘Refinements’: Aspects of Architecture, Space and Narrative in the Mosaics of Kariye Camii.” In Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist, Transactions 13, pp. 27–43. Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, 2004. Hobson, Anthony. Renaissance Book Collecting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Holt, Elizabeth Gilmore, ed. A Documentary History of Art, vol. 1, The Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books and Princeton University Press, 1957. Hörandner, Wolfram. “Ink.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 2, 995. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Huber, Paul. Hiob: Dulder oder Rebell? Byzantinische Miniaturen zum Buch Hiob in Patmos, Rom, Venedig, Sinai, Jerusalem und Athos. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1986. Huck, Albert. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels, 13th revised edn. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr/Paul Siebeck, 1981. Hunger, Herbert. “Archaisierende Minuskel und Gebrauchsschrift zur Blütezeit der Fettaugenmode: Der Schreiber des Cod. Vindob. Theol. gr. 303.” In La Paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559, pp. 283–90. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977. Hunger, Herbert. “Die sogennante Fettaugen-Mode in griechischen Handschriften des 13. und 14. Jahrhunderts.” Byzantinische Forschungen 4 (1972): 105–13. Hunger, Herbert. “On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23–4 (1969–70): 17–38. Hussey, J.M. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Hutter, Irmgard. Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften, vol. 2, Oxford Bodleian Library. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1978. Hutter, Irmgard. “Decorative Systems in Byzantine Manuscripts, and the Scribe as Artist: Evidence from Manuscripts in Oxford.” Word and Image 12/1 (1996): 4–22. Hutter, Irmgard. “Die Geschichte des Lincoln College Typikons.” Jahrbuch des österreichische Byzantinistik 45 (1995): 79–114. Irigoin, Jean. “Les Cahiers des manuscrits grecs.” In Recherches de codicologie comparée: La composition du codex au Moyen Âge, en Orient et en Occident, ed. Philippe Hoffmann, pp. 1–19. Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure, 1998. Jackson, Donald F. “A First Inventory of the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi.” Manuscripta 45–6 (2003): 49–78. Jackson, Donald F. “An Old Book List Revisited: Greek Manuscripts of Janus Lascaris from the Library of Cardinal Niccolò Ridolfi.” Manuscripta 43–4 (1999–2003): 77–133. Jackson, Donald F. “Unidentified Medicii-Regii Greek Codices.” Scriptorium 54/1 (2000): 197–208.

276 between constantinople and rome

Jeffreys, Elizabeth. “Rhetoric in Byzantium.” In A Companion to Greek Rhetoric, ed. Ian Worthington. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007. Johnstone, Pauline. “The Byzantine ‘Pallio’ in the Palazzo Bianco at Genoa.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 87 (March 1976): 99–108. Johnstone, Pauline. The Byzantine Tradition in Church Embroidery. Chicago, IL: Argonaut, 1967. Kadas, Sotiris N. The Treasures of Mount Athos: Catalogue of the Exhibition, 2nd edn. Thessaloniki: Ministry of Culture, 1997. Kaldellis, Anthony. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia. “Aspects of Byzantine Art after the Recapture of Constantinople (1261–c.1300): Reflections of Imperial Policy, Reactions, Confrontation with the Latins.” In Orient–Occident au XIIIe siècle: les programmes picturaux, ed. J.-P. Caillet and F. Joubert. Actes du colloque international organisé à l’École Française d’Athènes, April 2–4, 2009, pp. 41–64. Athens and Paris: École française d’Athènes/Picard, 2012. Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia. “Patronage and Artistic Production in Byzantium during the Palaiologan Period.” Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. Sarah T. Brooks, pp. 76–97. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2006. Karrow, Robert W. Mapmakers of the Sixteenth Century and Their Maps. Chicago, IL: Speculum Orbis Press, 1993. Kartsonis, Anna D. Anastasis: The Making of an Image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986. Kent, Dale. Cosimo de’ Medici and the Florentine Renaissance: The Patron’s Oeuvre. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Kessler, Herbert L. “The Word Made Flesh in Early Decorated Bibles.” In Jeffrey Spier, Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art, pp. 141–68. Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum, 2007. Kidonopoulos, Vassilios. “The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin Conquest through the Palaiologan Era,” transl. Georgi R. Parpulov. In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. Sarah T. Brooks, pp. 98–117. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2006. Kiilerich, Bente. “Aesthetic Aspects of Palaiologan Art in Constantinople: Some Problems.” In Interaction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul Transactions 13, ed. Jan Olof Rosenqvist, pp. 11–26. London: I.B. Tauris, 2005. Kitzinger, Ernst. The Mosaics of Monreale. Palermo: S.F. Flaccovio, 1960. Koder, Johannes. “Latinoi: The Image of the Other According to Greek Sources.” In Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo), ed. Chryssa A. Maltezou and Peter Schreiner, pp. 25–39. Venice: Instituto Ellenico di Studi Bizantini e Postbizantini di Venezia, 2002. Kolbaba, Tia M. The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2000.

bibliography 277

Kondakoff, N. Histoire de l’art byzantin, transl. M. Trawinski with a preface by M.A. Springer, 2 vols. New York: Burt Franklin, 1970 (originally published 1886). Kotsis, Kriszta. “Defining Female Authority in Eighth-Century Byzantium: The Numismatic Images of the Empress Irene (797–802).” Journal of Late Antiquity 5/1 (Spring 2012): 185–215. Kotzabassi, Sofia and Nancy Patterson Ševčenko. With the collaboration of Don C. Skemer. Greek Manuscripts at Princeton, Sixth to Nineteenth Century: A Descriptive Catalogue. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010. Kvalheim, O.M., D. Apollon, and R.H. Pierce. “A Data-analytical Examination of the Claremont Profile Method for Classifying and Evaluating Manuscript Evidence.” Symbolae Osloenses 63 (1988): 133–44. Labarte, Jules. Histoire des arts industriels, 2nd edn. Paris: Librairie A. Morel et Cie, 1875. Laiou, Angeliki E. “Byzantium and the West.” In Byzantium: A World Civilization, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Henry Maguire, pp. 61–80. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992. Laiou, Angeliki E. Constantinople and the Latins: The Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282–1328. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972. Laiou-Thomadakis, Angeliki E. “The Byzantine Economy in the Mediterranean Trade System: Thirteenth–Fifteenth Centuries.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 34–5 (1980–81): 177–222. Laurent, V. “Grégoire X et son projet d’une ligue anti-turque.” Échos d’Orient 37 (1938): 257–73. Lazarev, Viktor. “Duccio and Thirteenth Century Greek Icons.” The Burlington Magazine 59 (1931): 154–69. Lazarev, Viktor. “Newly Discovered Thirteenth-century Miniatures from Constantinople.” In Studies in Byzantine Painting, pp. 285–313. London: Pindar Press, 1995. Originally published in Russian: “Novij Pamiatnik Konstantinopolskoj Miniiatiuri XIIIv.,” Vizantijskij Vremennik 5 (1952): 178–90. Lazarev, Viktor. Review of Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin Conquest, by K. Weitzmann, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944): 193–214, in Vizantijskij Vremennik 2 (1949): 367–73 (in Russian). Lazarev, Viktor. Storia della pittura Bizantina. Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1967. Leesti, Elizabeth. “A Late Thirteenth-century Greek Gospel Book in Toronto and its Relative in Oxford.” Byzantion 59 (1989): 128–36. Leroy, Julien. Les types de réglure des manuscrits Grecs. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1976. Likhachova, V.D. Byzantine Miniature, transl. A. Khmelnitsky. Moscow: Iskusstvo Art Publishers, 1977. Lixačeva, V.D. “The Illumination of the Greek Manuscript of the Akathistos Hymn.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 26 (1972): 253–62. Lowden, John. Early Christian and Byzantine Art. London: Phaidon, 1997. Lowden, John. “Illustrated Octateuch Manuscripts: A Byzantine Phenomenon.” In The Old Testament in Byzantium, ed. Robert Nelson and Paul Magdalino, pp. 107–52. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2010.

278 between constantinople and rome

Lowden, John. “Luxury and Liturgy: The Function of Books,” In Church and People in Byzantium, ed. Rosemary Morris, pp. 263–80. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies, Twentieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Manchester, 1986. Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham, 1990. Lowden, John. “Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium, 1261–1557.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, pp. 259–93. New Haven, CT and New York: Yale University Press and Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004. Lowden, John. Review of Byzantinische Miniaturen. Schätze der Buchmalerie vom 4. bis zum 19 Jahrhundert, by Axinia Džurova. Journal of Ecclesiastical History 55 (2004): 354. Lowden, John. The Jaharis Gospel Lectionary: The Story of a Byzantine Book. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2009. Lowden, John. “The Luxury Book as a Diplomatic Gift.” In Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin, pp. 249–60. London: Variorum, 1992. Lowden, John. The Octateuchs: A Study in Byzantine Manuscript Illustration. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. Lowden, John. “The Production of the Vatopedi Octateuch.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 36 (1982): 115–26. Lowden, John. “The Transmission of ‘Visual Knowledge’ in Byzantium through Illuminated Manuscripts: Approaches and Conjectures.” In Literacy, Education and Manuscript Transmission in Byzantium and Beyond, ed. Catherine Holmes and Judith Waring, pp. 59–80. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Lux in Arcana: The Vatican Secret Archives Reveals Itself. Exhibition catalogue of the IV Centennial of the Foundation of the Vatican Secret Archives (Capitoline Museums, Rome, February 29–September 9, 2012). Rome: n.p., 2012. Macrides, Ruth. “Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship.” In Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990, ed. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin, pp. 263–80. Aldershot: Variorum/Ashgate, 1992. Macrides, Ruth. “The New Constantine and the New Constantinople—1261?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6 (1980): 13–41. Madden, Thomas F. “The Fires of the Fourth Crusade in Constantinople, 1203– 1204: A Damage Assessment.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 84–5 (1991–92): 72–93. Marava-Chatzinicolaou, Anna and Christina Toufexi-Paschou. Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece, vol. 1, Manuscripts of the New Testament Texts 10th–12th Century. Athens: Publications Bureau of the Academy of Athens, 1978. Marava-Chatzinicolaou, Anna and Christina Toufexi-Paschou. Catalogue of the Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts of the National Library of Greece, vol. 2, Manuscripts of the New Testament Texts 13th–15th Century. Athens: Publications Bureau of the Academy of Athens, 1985.

bibliography 279

Marinescu, C. “Tentatives de mariage de deux fils d’Andronic II Paléologue avec des princesses Latines.” Revue historique du sud-est européen 1 (1924): 139–40. Marlowe, Michael D. “Bible Research, What About the Majority Text?” http://www. bible-researcher.com/majority.html/ (accessed November 19, 2009). Martin, Johann and Augustin Scholz. Biblisch-Kritische Reise in Frankreich, der Schweiz, Italien, Palästina und im Archipel, in der Jahren 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischen, 1823. Martin, J.P.P. Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au Nouveau Testament conservés dans les bibliothèques de Paris. Paris: Maisonneuve Frères and C. Leclerc, 1884. Mathews, Thomas and Alice Taylor. The Armenian Gospels of Gladjor. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2001. Mathews, Thomas F. and Avedis K. Sanjian. Armenian Gospel Iconography: The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel. With contributions by Mary Virginia Orna, OSU and James R. Russell. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1991. Maxwell, Kathleen. “Another Lectionary of the ‘Atelier’ of the Palaiologina, Vat. gr. 352.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 37 (1983): 47–58. Maxwell, Kathleen. “Armenian Additions to a Greek Gospelbook: Brescia, Biblioteca Civica Queriniana A.VI.26.” Revue des études Arméniennes 25 (1994–95): 337–52. Maxwell, Kathleen. “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex Grec 54: An Analysis of the Text and Miniatures,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1986. Maxwell, Kathleen. “Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Codex Grec 54: Modus Operandi of Scribes and Artists in a Palaiologan Gospel Book.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54 (2000): 117–38. Maxwell, Kathleen. “The Afterlife of Texts: Decorative Style Manuscripts and New Testament Textual Criticism.” In Byzantine Images and their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed. Lynn Jones. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing, forthcoming. McKitterick, Rosamund. “Ottonian Intellectual Culture in the Tenth Century and the Role of Theophanu.” In Early Medieval Europe, vol. 2, ed. T.S. Brown, Edward James, Rosamond McKitterick, David Rollason, and Alan Thacker, pp. 53–74. Harlow: Longman, 1993. McReynolds, Paul Robert. “The Claremont Profile Method and the Grouping of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1968. Meredith, Cecilia. “The Illustration of Codex Ebnerianus: A Study in Liturgical Illustration of the Comnenian Period.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 29 (1966): 419–24. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 3rd edn. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1975. Metzger, Bruce M. Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964. Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

280 between constantinople and rome

Meyendorff, J. Byzantine Theology. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974. Meyendorff, J. et al. The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church. London: The Faith Press, 1963. Millet, Gabriel. Recherches sur l’iconographie de l’Évangile aux XIVe, XVe et XVIe siècles. Paris: Fontemoine et Cie, Éditeurs, 1916. Muratore, David. La biblioteca del cardinale Niccolò Ridolfi, Hellenica 32. Alexandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2009. Mütherich, Florentine and Joachim E. Gaehde. Carolingian Painting. New York: George Braziller. 1976. Naumann, Rudolph and Hans Belting. Die Euphemia-Kirche am Hippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken. Istanbuler Forschungen 25. Berlin: G. Mann, 1966. Necipoğlu, Nevra. Byzantium between the Ottomans and the Latins: Politics and Society in the Late Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Nelson, Robert S. “A Byzantine Painter in Trecento Genoa: The Last Judgment at S. Lorenzo.” The Art Bulletin 67 (1985): 548–66. Nelson, Robert S. “A Thirteenth-century Byzantine Miniature in the Vatican Library.” Gesta 20 (1981): 213–22. Nelson, Robert S. “Byzantium and the Rebirth of Art and Learning in Italy and France.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, pp. 515–23. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004. Nelson, Robert S. “Canon Tables.” In The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, vol. 1, p. 374. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Nelson, Robert S. “Paris. Gr. 117 and the Beginnings of Palaeologan Illumination.” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 37 (1984): 1–21. Nelson, Robert S. “Tales of Two Cities: The Patronage of Early Palaeologan Art and Architecture in Constantinople and Thessaloniki.” In Manuel Panselinos and His Age, pp. 127–40. Athens: Institute for Byzantine Research, 1999. Nelson, Robert S. “Text and Image in a Byzantine Gospel Book in Istanbul (Ecumenical Patriarchate, cod. 3).” Ph.D. diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 1978. Nelson, Robert S. The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book. Monographs on Archaeology and the Fine Arts sponsored by the Archaeological Institute of America and the College Art Association of America 36. New York: New York University Press, 1980. Nelson, Robert S. “The Italian Appreciation and Appropriation of Illuminated Byzantine Manuscripts, ca. 1200–1450.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 49 (1995): 209–35. Nelson, Robert S. “The Manuscripts of Antonios Malakes and the Collecting and Appreciation of Illuminated Books in the Early Palaeologan Period.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 36 (1986): 229–54. Nelson, Robert S. Theodore Hagiopetrites: A Late Byzantine Scribe and Illuminator, 2 vols. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Byzantinistik 4. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991. Nelson, Robert S. “Theoktistos and Associates in Twelfth-Century Constantinople: An Illustrated New Testament of A.D. 1133.” J. Paul Getty Museum Journal 15 (1987): 53–78.

bibliography 281

Nelson, Robert S. and John Lowden. “The Palaeologina Group: Additional Manuscripts and New Questions.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45 (1991): 59–68. Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edn., ed. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Nicol, D.M. “Mixed Marriages in Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century.” In Studies in Church History, vol. 1, ed. C.W. Dugmore and C. Duggan, pp. 160–172. London and Edinburgh: Nelson, 1964, reprinted in D.M Nicol, Byzantium: Its Ecclesiastical History and Relations with the Western World. London: Variorum Reprints, 1972. Nicol, D.M. “The Greeks and the Union of Churches: The Preliminaries to the Second Council of Lyons, 1261–1274.” In Medieval Studies Presented to Aubrey Gwynn, S.J., ed. J.A. Watt, J.B. Morrall, and F.X. Martin, OSA, pp. 463–80. Dublin: Colm O Lochlainn at the Three Candles, 1961. Nicol, D.M. “The Greeks and the Union of the Churches: The Report of Ogerius, Protonotarius of Michael VIII Palaiologus, in 1280.” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 63 (Sec. C, no. 1) (1962): 1–16. Omanson, Roger Lee. “The Claremont Profile Method and the Grouping of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts in Mark.” Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1975. Omont, Henri. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements, vol. 1: Ancien fonds grecs. Paris: A. Picard, 1886. Omont, Henri. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale et des autres bibliothèques de Paris et des départements: Introduction et table alphabétique. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1898. Omont, Henri. Miniatures des plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque nationale du VIe au XIVe siècle. Paris: H. Champion, 1929. Omont, Henri. “Un premier catalogue des manuscrits grecs du Cardinal Ridolfi.” Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartres 49 (1888): 309–32. Origone, Sandra. “Marriage Connections between Byzantium and the West in the Age of the Palaiologoi.” In Intercultural Contacts in the Medieval Mediterranean, ed. Benjamin Arbel, pp. 226–41. London: Frank Cass, 1996. Pächt, Otto. Byzantine Illumination. Bodleian Picture Book 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952. Pade, Marianne. The Reception of Plutarch’s Lives in Fifteenth-century Italy. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2007. Page, Gill. Being Byzantine: Greek Identity Before the Ottomans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Palau, Annaclara Cataldi. “Deux manuscrits de ménées du Monastère du Prodrome de Pétra et le groupe de Kokkinobaphos.” In The Legacy of Bernard de Montfaucon: Three Hundred Years of Studies on Greek Handwriting, ed. Antonio Bravo García and Inmaculada Pérez Martín, pp. 107–32. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010. Palau, Annaclara Cataldi. “Manoscritti greco-latini dell’Italia meridionale: Un nuovo Salterio vergato da Romano di Ullano.” In Nuove ricerche sui manoscritti greci dell’Ambrosiana. Atto del Convegno Milano, 5–6 giugno 2003, ed. Carlo Maria Mazzucchi and Cesare Pasini, pp. 37–78. Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 2004.

282 between constantinople and rome

Paliouras, Athanasios. Macedonia: Archaeology—Civilisation, 3rd revised edn., vol. B. Athens: Hellenic National Line, 1998. Papadaki-Oekland, Stella. “The Illustration of a Lost Palaeologan Lectionary of the Year 1298.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 4/8 (1975–76): 29–54 (in Greek with an English summary). Papadakis, Aristeides. Crisis in Byzantium: The Filioque Controversy in the Patriarchate of Gregory II of Cyprus (1283–1289), revised edn. New York: Fordham University Press, 1997. Papamastorakis, Titos. “A Visual Encomium of Michael VIII Palaeologos: The Exterior Wall-paintings of the Mavriotissa at Kastoria.” Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς Ἀρχαιολογικῆς Ἑταιρείας 15 (1989–90): 221–40 (in Greek with an English summary). Papamastorakis, Titos. “Tampering with History: From Michael III to Michael VIII.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 96/1 (2003): 193–209. Parker, David C. “A Comparison Between the Text und Textwert and the Claremont Profile Method Analyses of Manuscripts in the Gospel of Luke.” New Testament Studies 49 (2003): 108–38. Parker, David C. An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pattie, T.S. Manuscripts of the Bible: Greek Bibles in the British Library. London: British Library, 1979. Pelekanidis, S.M., P.C. Christou, C. Tsioumis, and S.N. Kadas. The Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. 1, The Monasteries of Iveron, St. Panteleimon, Esphigmenou, and Chilandari. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1973. Pelekanidis, S.M., P.C. Christou, C. Tsioumis, and S.N. Kadas. The Treasures of Mount Athos. Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. 2, The Monasteries of Iveron, St. Panteleimon, Esphigmenou, and Chilandari. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1975. Pelekanidis, S.M., P.C. Christou, C. Mavropoulou-Tsioumis, S.Ν. Kadas, and Α. Κatsarou. Οι Θησαυροί του Αγίου Ὸρους, vol. 3. Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1979. Pelendrides, A. The Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos. Series of Byzantine Texts 2. Nicosia, Cyprus: Theopress, 1998. Perria, Lidia and Antonio Iacobini. “Gli Ottateuchi in età paleologa: problemi di scrittura e illustrazione. Il caso del Laur. Plut. 5.38.” In L’arte de Bisanzio e l’Italia al tempo dei Paleologi, 1261–1453, ed. Antonio Iacobini and Mauro della Valle, pp. 69–112. Rome: Nuova Àrgos Edizioni, 1999. Pokrovskij, N.V. Evangelie v pamjatnikach ikonografii preimuščestvenno vizantijskich i russkich. St. Petersburg, 1892. Politis, Linos. “Quelques centres de copie Monastiques du XIVe siècle.” In La Paléographie grecque et byzantine, Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 559, pp. 291–303. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1977. Prato, Giancarlo. “La presentazione del testo nei manoscritti tardobizantini.” In Il Libro e il testo, Atti del Convegno Internazionale Urbino, September 20–23, 1982, ed. C. Questa and R. Raffaelli. Urbino, 1984, reprinted in G. Prato, Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4, pp. 133–49. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994.

bibliography 283

Prato, Giancarlo. “La produzione libraria in area greco-orientale nel periodo del regno latino de Costantinopoli (1204–1261).” Scrittura e civiltà 5 (1981): 105–47, reprinted in G. Prato. Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4, pp. 31–72. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994. Prato, Giancarlo. “Scritture librarie arcaizzanti della prima eta dei Paleologi e loro modelli.” Scrittura e civiltà 3 (1979): 151–93, reprinted in Prato, Studi di Paleografia Greca, Collectanea 4, pp. 73–114. Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994. Prato, Giancarlo in collaboration with J.A.M. Sonderkamp. “Libro, testo, miniature: il caso del cod. Sinait. Gr. 2123.” Scritture e Civiltà 9 (1985): 309–23. Proctor, Robert. The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1900. Radiciotti, Paolo. “Episodi di digrafismo grecolatino a Costantinopoli: Giovanni Parastro ed i codici Coislin 200 e Parigino greco 54.” Römische Historische Mitteilungen 39 (1996): 181–95. Redford, Scott. “Byzantium and the Islamic World, 1261–1557.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, pp. 389–413. New Haven, CT and New York: Yale University Press and Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, 2004. Reeve, Michael D. “Classical Scholarship.” In The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism, ed. Jill Kraye, pp. 20–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Richards, W. Larry. “Test Passages or Profiles: A Comparison of Two Text-critical Methods.” Journal of Biblical Literature 115/2 (1996): 251–69. Royse, James R. “Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament.” In The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis, Studies and Documents 46, ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, pp. 239–252. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1995. Saffrey, Henri D. “Florence, 1492: The Reappearance of Plotinus.” Renaissance Quarterly 49/3 (Autumn 1996): 488–508. Sambin, Paolo. “Il vescovo cotronese Niccolò da Durazzo e un inventario di suoi codici Latini e Greci (1276).” In Note e Discussioni Erudite, A Cura di Augusto Campana, vol. 3, pp. 7–27. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1954. Schiller, Gertrud. Iconography of Christian Art, transl. Janet Seligman. New York: New York Graphic Society, 1971. Schiller, Gertrud. Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst, vol. 3, Die Auferstehung und Erhöhung Christi. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1971. Scholz, Johann Martin Augustin. Biblisch-Kritische Reise in Frankreich, der Schweiz, Italien, Palästina und im Archipel, in der Jahren 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821. Leipzig: Friedrich Fleischen, 1823. Scrivener, Frederick Henry. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell & Co., 1874. Setton, Kenneth M. The Papacy and the Levant, 1204–1571, vol. 1, The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Philadelphia, PA: American Philosophical Society, 1976. Ševčenko, Ihor. “The Illuminators of the Menologium of Basil II.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16 (1962): 243–76.

284 between constantinople and rome

Ševčenko, Ihor. “The Palaeologan Renaissance.” In Renaissances Before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, ed. Warren Treadgold, pp. 144–71. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1984. Ševčenko, Ihor. “Theodore Metochites, the Chora, and the Intellectual Trends of His Time.” In The Kariye Djami, vol. 4, Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and Its Intellectual Background, Bollingen Series LXX, ed. Paul A. Underwood, pp. 17–92. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975. Shawcross, Teresa. “‘Do Thou Nothing without Counsel’: Political Assemblies and the Ideal of Good Government in Theodore Palaeologus and Theodore Metochites.” Al-Masāq 20/1 (March 2008): 89–118. Silvestre, Joseph B. Paléographie universelle, deuxième partie: Grecs et Latins. Paris: Didot Frères, 1841. Simpson, Marianna Shreve. “Manuscripts and Mongols: Some Documented and Speculative Moments in East–West/Muslim–Christian Relations.” French Historical Studies 30/3 (Summer 2007): 351–94. Sinaites, Father Justin. “The Sinai Codex Theodosianus: Manuscript as Icon.” In Holy Image, Hallowed Ground: Icons from Sinai, ed. Robert S. Nelson and Kristen M. Collins, pp. 56–77. Los Angeles, CA: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2006. Sirac, Colette. Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, ed. and transl. Nicolas De Lange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Smith, Margaret. “Red as a Textual Element during the Transition from Manuscript to Print.” In Textual Cultures: Cultural Texts, Essays and Studies 2010, New Series of Essays and Studies Collected on Behalf of the English Association 63, ed. Orietta da Rold and Elaine Treharne. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 2010. Spatharakis, Ioannis. Corpus of Dated Illuminated Greek Manuscripts to the Year 1453, 2 vols. Leiden. E.J. Brill, 1981. Spatharakis, Ioannis. The Left-handed Evangelist. A Contribution to Palaeologan Iconography. London: Pindar Press, 1988. Speake, Graham. “Janus Lascaris’ Visit to Mount Athos in 1491.” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 34 (1993): 325–30. Spier, Jeffrey, ed. Picturing the Bible: The Earliest Christian Art. Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum, 2007. Spieser, J.-M. “Le développement du templon et les images des Douze Fêtes.” In Les Images dans les sociétés médiévales: Pour une histoire comparée, Bulletin de l’Institut historique belge de Rome 69, ed. J.-M. Sansterre and J.-C. Schmitt, pp. 131–64. Brussels and Rome: Brepols, 1999. Stadter, Philip A. “Planudes, Plutarch and Pace of Ferrara.” Italia Medioevale e Umanistica 16 (1973): 137–62. Starkey, Kathryn. Reading the Medieval Book. Word, Image, and Performance in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s “Willehalm.” Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004. Stinger, Charles L. Humanism and the Church Fathers: Ambrogio Traversari (1386–1439). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1977. Stinger, Charles L. The Renaissance in Rome. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998 (originally published in 1985).

bibliography 285

Talbot, Alice-Mary. “Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries.” In Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, The Medieval Mediterranean 33, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu, pp. 329–43. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Talbot, Alice-Mary. “Empress Theodora Palaiologina, Wife of Michael VIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 46 (1992): 295–303. Talbot, Alice-Mary, transl. “Lips: Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina for the Convent of Lips in Constantinople.” In Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35/3, ed. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, with the assistance of Giles Constable, pp. 1,254–86. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 2000. Talbot, Alice-Mary. “Revival and Decline: Voices from the Byzantine Capital.” In Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557), ed. Helen C. Evans, pp. 17–25. New York and New Haven, CT: Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Press, 2004. Talbot, Alice-Mary. “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993): 243–61. The New Testament in Greek: The Gospel According to Luke, ed. the American and British Committees of the International Greek New Testament Project, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984 and 1987. Tikkanen, Johan J. Studien über die Farbengebung in der mittelalterlichen Buchmalerei. Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 5. Helsingfors: Akademische Buchhandlung, 1933. Tolias, George. “Nikolaos Sophianos’s Totius Graeciae Descriptio: The Resources, Diffusion and Function of a Sixteenth-century Antiquarian Map of Greece.” Imago Mundi: The International Journal for the History of Cartography 58/2 (2006): 150–82. Tomeković, Svetlana. “Les miracles du Christ dans la peinture murale byzantine et géorgienne.” Revue des études géorgiennes et caucasiennes 6–7 (1990–91): 185–204. Trucchi, Francesco. Vita e Gesta de Piero Strozzi Fiorentino, Maresciallo di Francia. Florence, 1847. Tsirpanlis, C.N. “Byzantine Parliaments and Representative Assemblies from 1081 to 1351.” Byzantion 43 (1973): 432–81. Turyn, Alexander. Codices Graeci Vaticani Saeculis XIII et XIV Scripti Annorumque Notis Instructi. Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1964. Turyn, Alexander. Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Great Britain. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1980. Turyn, Alexander. Dated Greek Manuscripts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries in the Libraries of Italy. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1972. Vaccari, Alberto. “La Grecia nell’Italia meridionale.” Orientalia Christiana 3/13 (1925): 273–323. Van Moé, E. “L’envoi de nonces à Constantinople par les papes Innocent V et Jean XXI.” Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire 47 (1930): 39–62. Vaux, Bert. “Linguistic Manifestations of Greek-Armenian Contact in Late Antiquity and Byzantium,” http://cambridge.academia.edu/BertVaux/Papers/96537/ Linguistic_manifestations_of_Greek-Armenian_contact_in_Late_Antiquity_and_ Byzantium_powerpoint_slides_of_images_/ (accessed October 18, 2011).

286 between constantinople and rome

Velmans, Tania. “Le role du décor architectural et la representation de l’espace dans la peinture des Paléologues.” Cahiers Archéologiques 14 (1964): 183–216. Vikan, Gary. “Byzantine Art.” In Byzantium: A World Civilization, ed. Angeliki E. Laiou and Henry Maguire, pp. 81–118. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1992. Vikan, Gary, ed. Illuminated Greek Manuscripts from American Collections: An Exhibition in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973. Vikan, Gary. “Ruminations on Edible Icons: Originals and Copies in the Art of Byzantium.” Studies in the History of Art 20 (1989): 47–59. Violette, Jean-Guy. “Le cycle des miniatures du Laur. VI 23 et sa rélation à une liste de titres de chapitres.” Byzantines Studies/Etudes Byzantines 10/2 (1983) 141–73. Vocotopoulos, Panayotis L. “The Miniatures of a Palaeologan New Testament at the Hagia Lavra Monastery near Kalavryta.” In Ritual and Art: Byzantine Essays for Christopher Walter, ed. Pamela Armstrong, pp. 106–21. London: Pindar Press, 2006. Von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. II, Text und Apparat. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1913. Von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part I, Untersuchung, 1: Die Textzeugen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911. Von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part II, Abteilung, Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1911. Von Soden, Hermann Freiherr. Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, vol. I, Part III, II: Die Textformen, A. Die Evangelien. Berlin: Verlag von Arthur Glaue, 1907. Vryonis, Speros, Jr. “Byzantine Cultural Self-Consciousness in the Fifteenth Century.” In The Twilight of Byzantium: Aspects of Cultural and Religious History in the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. Slobodan Ćurčić and Doula Mouriki, pp. 5–14. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991. Vryonis, Speros, Jr. “Crises and Anxieties in Fifteenth Century Byzantium: The Reassertion of Old and the Emergence of New Cultural Forms.” In Islamic and Middle Eastern Societies, A Festschrift in Honor of Professor Wadie Jwaideh, ed. R. Olson, pp. 100–125. Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books, 1987. Vu, Michelle A. “NT Scholar on Discovery of Giant Trove of Bible Manuscripts.” Christian Today, April 21, 2008, http://www.christiantoday.com/article/nt.scholar. on.discovery.of.giant.trove.of.bible.manuscripts/18204-3.htm (accessed June 22, 2011). Weiss, R. The Greek Culture of South Italy in the Later Middle Ages. Proceedings of the British Academy 37. London: Cumberlege, 1951. Weiss, R. “The Translators from the Greek of the Angevin Court of Naples.” Rinascimento 1 (1950): 195–226. Weitzmann, Kurt. “A 10th Century Lectionary. A Lost Masterpiece of the Macedonian Renaissance.” Revue des études sud-est européennes 9 (1971): 617–41, reprinted in Byzantine Liturgical Psalters and Gospels,pp. 617–41, London: Variorum Reprints, 1980. Weitzmann, Kurt. “Constantinopolitan Book Illumination in the Period of the Latin Conquest.” Gazette des Beaux-Arts 25 (1944): 193–214, reprinted in Studies in

bibliography 287

Classical and Byzantine Book Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler, pp. 314–34. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Weitzmann, Kurt. “The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations.” In Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. Herbert L. Kessler, pp. 247–70. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1971. Originally published in New Testament Manuscript Studies, ed. M.M. Parvis and A.P. Wikgren. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press, 1950. Weitzmann, Kurt. “The Selection of Texts for Cyclic Illustration in Byzantine Manuscripts.” In Byzantine Books and Bookmen, Dumbarton Oaks Colloquium 1971, pp. 69–109. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1975. Wessel, Klaus. “Goldgrund.” In Reallexikon zur Byzantinischen Kunst, vol. II, cols. 882–3. Wettstein, Johan Jakob. Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus Codicum MSS., Editionum aliarum, Versionum et Patrum, nec non commentario pleniore ex scriptoribus veteribus Hebraeis, Graecis et Latinis historiam et vim verborum illustrante, vol. I, Continens Quatuor Evangelia. Amsterdam: Ex officina Dommeriana, 1751. Wieland, Gernot R. “The Origin and Development of the Anglo-Saxon Psychomachia Illustrations.” Anglo-Saxon England 26 (December 1997): 169–86. Willoughby, Harold R. The Four Gospels of Karahissar, vol. II, The Cycle of Text Illustrations. With an introduction by S. Der Nersessian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1936. Wilson, N.G. From Byzantium to Italy: Greek Studies in the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Wilson, N.G. Mediaeval Greek Bookhands: Examples Selected from Greek Manuscripts in Oxford Libraries. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America, 1973. Wilson, N.G. Scholars of Byzantium. London: Gerald Duckworth, 1990. Wilson, N.G. Scholars of Byzantium, revised edn. Cambridge, MA and London: Gerald Duckworth and Medieval Academy of America, 1996. Wisse, Frederik. “The Claremont Profile Method for the Classification of Byzantine New Testament Manuscripts: A Study in Method.” Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School and University Center, 1968. Wisse, Frederik. The Profile Method for the Classification and Evaluation of Manuscript Evidence As Applied to the Continuous Greek Text of the Gospel of Luke. Studies and Documents 44. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1982. Wolff, Robert Lee. “The Latin Empire of Constantinople, 1204–1261.” In A History of the Crusades, gen. ed. Kenneth M. Setton, vol. 2, The Later Crusades, 1189–1311, ed. Robert Lee Wolff and Harry W. Hazard, pp. 187–234. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Yota, Elisabeth. “Le tétraévangile Harley 1810 de la British Library. Contribution à l’étude de l’illustration des tétraévangiles du Xe au XIIIe siècle.” Ph.D. diss., University of Fribourg, June 2001. Yota, Elisabeth. “L’emplacement et l’association semantique des illustrations dans certains tétraévangiles medio-byzantins.” Ikon 1 (2008): 169–78. Zarras, Nektarios. “The Iconographical Cycle of the Eothina Gospel Pericopes in Churches from the Reign of King Milutin,” http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/ doi/0350-1361/2006-2007/0350-13610731095Z.pdf/ (accessed January 31, 2012).

288 between constantinople and rome

Zorzi, Marino, ed. Venetiae quasi alterum Byzantium, Collezioni Veneziane di Codici Greci dalle Raccolte della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, exhibition catalogue, September 16– October 15, 1993, cat. no. 2. Cardo, 1993.

Primary Sources Macrides, Ruth. George Akropolites, The History: Introduction, Translation and Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Oeuvres complètes de Pierre de Bourdeilles, abbé et seigneur de Branthôme, vol. I, Part I. Paris: Libraire Plon, 1858–78. Pachymérès, Georges. Relations historiques, vol. 2, ed. Albert Failler. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1984. Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Painters, Sculptors, and Architects. 1550. The Correspondence of Athanasius I, Patriarch of Constantinople, ed., transl., and with a commentary by Alice-Mary Maffry Talbot. Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 7. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1975.

List of Miniatures in Paris 541

References to illustrations are in bold.

Evangelist Portraits John, St, portrait of the evangelist 6, 15, 44, 95, 97, 98, 106, 107, 108, 120, 151, 155, 157, 163, 165–6, 167, 232, 324 Luke, St, portrait of the evangelist 6, 15, 18, 85, 97, 98, 107fn30, 148fn22, 157, 168, 231, 320 Mark, St, portrait of the evangelist 6, 15, 85, 88, 97, 98, 106, 108, 151, 153fn53, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 163, 165, 166–7, 230, 317 Matthew, St, portrait of the evangelist 6, 13fn12, 15, 84, 97, 107fn30, 148fn17, 155, 157, 165fn103, 229, 309

Narrative Miniatures The Anointing of Christ’s Feet 42, 45, 46, 85, 111, 113, 135, 231, 342 The Annunciation 39, 81, 85, 88, 111, 113, 115, 125fn72, fn74, fn75, 95, 96, 126, 134, 137, 139, 160, 231, 321 The Baptism 39, 85, 87, 88, 96, 111, 112, 113, 117fn48, 123fn67, 125fn72, fn74, fn76, 126, 127fn81, 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 139, 231, 321 The Betrayal 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94, 110, 112, 114fn40, 124, 131, 134, 140, 230, 314 Christ Asleep in the Boat 42, 45, 46, 85, 111, 113, 135, 231, 323 Christ Stilling the Water 85, 88, 92fn27, 93, 111, 113, 114fn41, 124, 131, 132, 134, 230, 319 The Cure of the Man with Dropsy 42, 45, 85, 111, 113, 114, 125fn72, fn74, fn76, 134, 232 The Cure of the Woman with the Hemorrhage 23, 88, 89, 90, 96, 110, 112, 117fn47, fn49, 119, 123fn66, 124fn68, 133, 138, 171fn131, 229, 311 The Denial of Peter 39fn31, 84, 85, 88, 90fn23, 92fn26, fn27, 94–5, 98, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114fn40, fn41, 124, 131, 134, 139, 140, 230, 231, 315 1 Excludes uninitiated miniatures.

290 between constantinople and rome

The Descent from the Cross (Deposition) 39fn31, 85, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 110, 112, 117fn47, 120, 123fn66, fn67, 131, 133, 137, 230, 316 The Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs 84, 88, 93, 110, 112, 133, 229, 335 The Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac 84, 88, 93, 110, 113, 123fn65, 133, 230, 319 The Healing of the Leper 85, 88, 92, 98, 110, 113, 117fn48, fn49, 122–3, 124fn68, 133, 155, 230, 318 The Healing of the Paralytic 39, 85, 88, 95, 96, 97, 111, 113, 135, 231, 322 The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law 7, 85, 88, 92, 110, 113, 117fn49, 121–2, 124fn68, 133, 140, 230, 318 The Healing of the Son of the Widow of Naim 42, 85, 88, 92, 95, 96, 111, 135, 231, 322 The Holy Women at the Sepulcher 17, 39fn31, 85, 87, 88, 91–2, 95, 108fn34, 110, 113, 121, 131, 133, 139, 157, 159fn77, 230, 316 The Last Supper 81fn119, 84, 86fn11, 88, 90, 91, 92fn26, 110, 112, 116fn46, 119, 122fn62, 131, 133, 137, 140, 230, 314 The Miracle of the Loaves 35, 45fn39, 74fn95, 80fn114, 81, 84, 86fn11, 88, 89, 90, 91, 110, 112, 117–18, 123fn66, 124fn68, 133, 229, 312 The Nativity 47, 81, 84, 88, 93–4, 110, 112, 133, 134, 137, 159, 229, 311 The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins 84, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 110, 112, 124, 131, 134, 155, 160, 170, 230, 313 The Presentation 39, 45, 81fn120, 85, 111, 113, 125fn72, fn74, 134, 137, 231, 341 The Remorse of Peter 39fn31, 81fn119, 84, 88, 90, 92fn27, 94-5, 98, 110, 112, 114fn40, 124, 131, 134, 140, 230, 315 The Samaritan Woman at the Well 44, 49, 85, 88, 94fn32, 96, 97, 111, 113, 114, 117fn48, 123fn67, 125fn72, 128–9, 134, 170, 232, 326 The Transfiguration 42, 85, 88, 94, 96, 97, 111, 113, 117fn48, fn50, 123fn67, 124fn69, 125fn72, fn74, fn76, 127, 133fn98, 134, 137, 160, 174, 231, 323 The Visitation 39, 45, 46, 85, 111, 113, 135, 136, 139, 231, 341 The Wedding Feast of the King’s Son 47, 84fn4, 86fn11, 88, 90, 92, 93, 94, 110, 112, 118, 123, 133, 230, 313

List of Manuscripts Referred to by Gregory/Aland Number

Mss number

Pages

16

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70

61

56, 58, 64, 65, 69

107

71

119

55, 56, 60, 70

120

55, 56

152

54, 55, 58, 59, 64, 65, 68

155

59

171

71

182

67

184

55, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 69, 71fn83

199

71

217

55fn16, 57, 58, 60

330

55fn16, 56, 57, 60

348

54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 68, 71fn83

352

71

477

54, 55, 56fn20, 58, 59, 69

491

55fn16, 60

513

54, 55, 57, 58fn33, 59, 69

555

59, 64, 69,70

574

56, 57

578

55fn16, 60

693

55fn16, 60

829

54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 68, 71fn83

977

59

1089

71

1148

64

292 between constantinople and rome

Mss number

Pages

1204

71

1216

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71

1243

55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 65, 69, 71fn83

1279

54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 64, 65, 66fn68, 68, 71fn83

1326

71

1528

2fn2, 60, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69

1579

54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 63fn50, 64, 65, 68

1588

55fn16, 60

1660

70

1815 (= 2127) 55fn16, 56, 57 2127 (= 1815) 55fn16, 56fn22, 71 2142

71

2174

54, 55, 58, 59, 65, 68, 69

2327

57

2394

64

2405

71

2550

71

2726

59, 64, 65, 66, 69

Paris 54: List of Manuscripts by Geographical Location

References to illustrations are in bold. Location

Mss

Pages

Arras

cod. 970

60

Athens, Benaki Museum

Benaki 91

27fn63

Athens, Benaki Museum

Virt. 34, no. 4

150

Athens, Byzantine and cod. 820 Christian Museum

104fn14, 136fn102

Athens, Byzantine and Smyrna Lectionary 8, 26fn57, 146, 148, 149, 151, Christian Museum 152, 153, 154, 162, 166, 167, 168, 207fn180, 366–8 Athens, National Library

cod. 118

109fn35, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153fn51, 154, 157fn70, 169fn124

Athos monastery

Dionysiou 587

102fn7, 141, 142fn122, 359

Athos monastery

Vatopedi 602

8, 27, 33fn5, 106fn26, 116fn45, 125fn77, 146, 171–3, 175fn4, 178fn21, 197

Athos monastery

Vatopedi 938

150, 154, 167fn110, 168, 369

Athos monastery

Vatopedi 946

54, 57, 58, 64, 65, 68

Athos monastery

Vatopedi 956

60

Athos, Iviron monastery

Iviron 5

(Selective) 151, 152, 153, 237–63, 327–30, 346–51

Athos, Lavra monastery

A 35

161fn83

Athos, Lavra Monastery

A 46

169

Athos, Lavra Monastery

A 111

153fn51, 154fn54, 203fn166

Athos, Lavra Monastery

A 113

155fn61, 167fn115

294 between constantinople and rome

Location

Mss

Pages

Athos: Lavra Monastery

E 140

155fn61

Athos: Lavra Monastery

Hˋ 159

70

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek cod. Gr. quarto 66

19, 112fn39, 138fn107, 150fn36

Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana

cod. A 111.12

150

Brescia, Biblioteca Queriniana

cod. A.VI.26

14fn13

Cambridge, Trinity College

B.X. 17

54, 55, 58

Cambridge, University cod. 403/412 Library

33fn4

Cambridge, University Hh.6.12 Library

59, 69

Chicago

cod. 965

84fn6, 104, 133fn96, 136fn102

Dublin

A 4.21

58, 64, 65

Dublin

G. 97

56, 69

Escorial

cod. X.IV.17

34fn10

Escorial

R.I.19; gr 19

174fn147

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Med. Palat. 244

20fn36

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.VI. 11

67

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.VI. 15

55, 57, 58, 64, 65, 69

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.VI. 23

14fn13, 33fn6, 80fn116, 102fn7, 127fn82, 139fn112, 209fn187

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.VI. 28

162, 163

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.XI. 22

27fn58

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.cod. 5.38

27fn63, 28fn63, 172fn136

Florence, Biblioteca Laurenziana

Plut.32.16

189fn85

Göttingen

Theol. gr. 28

161fn84, 165fn105

Grottaferrata, Biblioteca della Badia

A.a. 6

54, 57, 58, 64, 65, 68

Istanbul

Patriarchate cod. gr. 3

103

paris 54: list of manuscripts by geographical location 295

Location

Mss

Pages

Istanbul

Patriarchate cod. 4

64

Jerusalem, Armenian Patriarchate

cod. 2568

132fn95

Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library

Taphou 5

8, 169, 170, 171, 173, 369, 370, 371

Kalavryta, Lavra monastery

cod. 31

148fn17

Leiden

Gron. 137

104

Lesbos

cod. 9

39fn29

London, British Library

Add. 11836

60

London, British Library

Burney 20

8, 26fn57, 146, 150fn36, 153, 162, 163, 171, 360, 361

Malibu, J. P. Getty Museum

Ludwig II 5

46fn43, 206fn178

Milan

B. 56 sup.

54, 57, 58, 64, 65, 68

Milan

C 13 inf

17fn26

Milan

D 78 sup.

30fn75, 215fn219

Moscow

Synod. Gr. 153

21fn41

Moscow, Historical Museum

Mus 3647

26fn54, 164fn98

Moscow, State History Gr. 429 Museum

173

New York, Pierpont Morgan

Lectionary M692

39fn29, 47fn49

Oxford, Bodleian Library

gr. th. f. I

173

Palermo

cod. 1

196fn126

Palermo

Gr 4

56

Paris, BnF

Coislin 1

13fn9

Paris, BnF

Coislin 200

26fn58, 150fn36, 196fn126

Paris, BnF

Gr. 54

(Selective) 309–26, 333–45, 372

Paris, BnF

Gr. 117

161

Paris, BnF

Gr. 510

35fn14, 218

Parma

Palatina cod. 5

103fn11, 136fn102

Patmos

cod. 80

20fn35

Patmos

cod. 81

169

Princeton, University Library

Garrett 2

148, 149, 152, 153fn51, 154, 162, 165, 168fn119, 169fn124, 364, 365

296 between constantinople and rome

Location

Mss

Pages

Princeton, University Library

Garrett 3

1–2, 5, 8, 53, 60, 63fn50, 64–73, 75–82, 146fn7, 175, 196fn126, 237–63, 331, 352–8

Rome

Vallicelliana F.17

155

Rossano

Gospels

13fn9, 102fn5

St. Petersburg

Acad. Nauk. Raik. 76

161fn83

St. Petersburg

cod. 21

102fn4

St. Petersburg

cod. 101

xv, 56, 60, 150, 162, 163, 362–3

St. Petersburg

cod. 382 (Taphou 5 xv, 169fn124, 170, 370 fragment)

St. Petersburg

gr. 105

57, 84fn6, 104fn14, 136fn102, 137fn106

St. Petersburg

gr. 513

54, 58, 65, 68

Sinai, St Catherine’s Monastery

cod. 204

20

Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, St. Catherine’s Monastery Sofia Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts Tirana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana

cod. 179

54, 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 68,

cod. 262

55, 56, 57, 58, 65, 69

cod. 61

161fn83

cod. 2123

150fn36

gr. 228

25fn54

Dujčev gr. 339 Q 902 (Mokvi Gospels) Beratinus, cod. 1 Codex Vaticanus

104fn13, 146fn4 171, 173, 371

Urb. gr. 2

28

Pal. gr. 227

54, 58, 64, 65, 68

Pal. gr. 381

126fn77

gr. 746

106fn26, 116fn45, 172, 175fn4

gr. 751

44fn39

gr. 1158

164fn100, 165fn105

20fn37 13fn9, 139fn112

paris 54: list of manuscripts by geographical location 297

Location

Mss

Pages

Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Vatican, Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana Venice Venice Wolfenbüttel

gr. 1208

20, 149fn27, 164, 172

gr. 1523

166

gr. 1524

13fn9

gr. 1542

13fn9

gr. 1626

223fn35

gr. 1633

13fn9

gr. 2125

13fn9

cod. gr I, 53 cod. 944 (I 3) Wolfenbüttel Sketchbook

221fn20 58, 60 149, 152

Index

References to illustrations are in bold. Aland, Kurt 5 Aland, Kurt & Barbara Novum Testamentum Graece 72, 73 research on Greek Gospel text 61–7 Alberti, Leon Battista 217 Andronikos II, Emperor 9, 28, 154, 176, 204–7 excommunication 209 foreign policy, Asia Minor 206 shortcomings 205 and union of Churches 195, 205, 212–13, 215 Andronikos III, Emperor 213, 216 Anna of Hohenstaufen (Costanza) 196fn126 Anne of Savoy 213 Artist A 5, 6, 36, 87ff, 117, 119, 123, 128, 156, 159, 160, 161, 174 miniatures color changes 89–90 style 89 Artist B 5, 6, 36, 38, 49, 117, 118, 121–6, 128, 159, 160–61, 170, 174 miniatures 88, 90–95 color changes 91–3, 95 style 90, 91, 92, 93–4, 155–6 subsidiary figures 91 Artist C 6, 49, 125–9, 144, 160, 161fn79, 170 miniatures 88, 95–9, 173–4 color changes 96, 97 gestures 96

incomplete 323, 341–2 style 96, 155–6 Atelier of the Palaiologina, Constantinople 16, 20, 25, 28, 151fn43, 163fn96, 164fn100, 207, 214fn216 Athanasios, Patriarch 207fn180, 210, 211–12 resignation 212 Aurispa, Giovanni 221–2 Bacon, Roger 187 Barker, John 190, 219fn9 Belting, Hans 28, 146, 151, 154, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169, 171 Benedict of Como 213 Berrhoiotes, George 197, 200 Bessarion, Basilios, Cardinal 220–21, 223 bilingualism 7, 9, 13, 27, 29, 30, 33, 52, 71, 74fn96, 105fn20, 106, 144, 149, 172, 175, 179, 183, 184fn52, 187fn69, 188, 190, 192fn99, 195, 197, 200, 201, 203fn165, 204, 206, 207, 209, 214, 222, 227 manuscripts 17 Paris 54: 16–18, 35, 198–9, 215, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 Bischoff, Bernhard 16 Boccaccio, Giovanni 218 Bonacursius of Bologna, Thesaurus veritatis fidei 215

300 between constantinople and rome

Bruni, Leonardo 219, 218fn7, 221 Buchthal, Hugo 25, 28, 146, 148, 152, 154, 156, 163, 164, 165, 166, 169 Burney 20: 146, 360, 361 color 162 date 153, 162 style 162 Bydén, Börje 189, 191 Byzantine art, exhibitions London (2008) 154 Paris (1992) 153 Byzantines anti-Latin sentiment 184–5, 195, 210 delegation to Council of Lyons 197 Genoese, relations 178, 210–11 Latin, poor knowledge of 30, 181, 183–4, 185 Carlotta, of Cyprus, Queen 164, 172 Carr, Annemarie Weyl 103, 104, 158 Treasures of Mount Athos, review of 158 Catherine of Courtenay 208, 212 Catherine of Valois 212 Charles of Anjou 8, 176, 185 Charles of Valois 183 Choniates, Nicetas 184–5 Chrysoloras, Manuel 9, 217, 219, 220, 221 Churches, Latin/Greek attempts at union 8–9, 182, 191–4, 200–201, 205, 212–13, 215 differences on nature of the Trinity 190 Claremont Profile Method 5, 68 Luke 57, 59–60, 66, 67 Mark 58 Clement V, Pope 209 Codex Aureus (Theodosius) 20 Coislin 200: 26fn58, 150fn36, 196fn126 Colwell, Ernest C. 5, 51, 52, 71 and Greek text, Paris 54: 56–7 Constantine the Great, Emperor 180, 181, 195fn123 Constantine VII (Porphyrogenitus) 202fn157, 205

Constantinople 8 Atelier of the Palaiologina 16, 20, 25, 28, 151fn43, 163fn96, 164fn100, 207, 214fn216 capture by Ottoman Turks (1453) 9, 216fn224, 218, 220 conditions in 1261: 177 education in 186–90 Genoa, relations 178, 210–11 illustrated Gospel books 101–4 Latin, knowledge of in 187–91 Latin Interregnum (1204–61) 9, 18, 145, 149, 176 Costanza (Anna of Hohenstaufen) 196fn126 de Gregorio, Giuseppe 27–8, 172 Decembrio, Uberto 221 Demus, Otto 150–51 Derolez, Albert 29, 30 Diller, Aubrey 219–20 Dubois, Pierre, De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae 183 Epp, Eldon Jay 56 Eusebius, Life of Constantine 181 Evangelist portraits 97–9, 105–9, 147–55 color changes 98 and date of Paris 54 147 Florence 28, 164 Garrett 2: 148, 154 Smyrna Lectionary 166–7 Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group 148, 149 see also John; Luke; Mark; Matthew Filelfo, Francesco 221 Fisher, Elizabeth A. 187, 188, 189–90, 193 Florence (city) Byzantine manuscripts in 218, 220 Greek, interest in 218–19 Florence-Ferrara, Council (1438–9) 9, 217, 222

index 301

Garatoni, Christopher 221 Garrett 2 date 162 Evangelist portraits 148, 154, 165–6 date 165 Garrett 3 date 75, 79 erasures 78–9, 358 Iviron 5, Paris 54, comparison 72–3, 237–63 origins 75, 79 Paris 54 comparison 75–9 links 1–2, 60, 64, 65–6, 67, 68 red cross marks 80–82, 331 text page 331 Geanakoplos, John 143, 184, 200 Genoa Byzantium, relations 178, 210–11 gift of pallio from Michael VIII 178 and reconquest of Constantinople (1261) 178 Germanos, Patriarch 188–9 Ghiberti, Lorenzo, Third Commentary 221 Gill, Joseph 212 Glajor Gospels 20, 142fn120 Gonzaga, Francesco 223 Gospel books, illustrated, in Byzantium 101–4; see also Evangelist portraits Grabar, André 183 Greek, and Latin Churches attempts at union 8–9, 182, 191–4, 200–201, 205, 212–13, 215 differences on nature of the Trinity 190 Greek Gospel text (Paris 54) Alands’ research 61–7 Garrett 3, pairings 71 Group List 62, 64 John Group List 67 Luke Group List 67 Mark Group List 65, 66–7, 70, 71 Matthew Group List 64, 70, 71 synoptic Gospels 61

Claremont Profile Method Luke 57, 59–60, 66, 67 Mark 58 Garrett 3 comparison 75–82 copy relationship 80–82 Iviron 5 comparison 72–3, 237–63 erasures 78–9, 358 ink colors 78 and Latin text 78 Matthew, textual variants 76–7 Luke, Wisse’s pairing 71 Iviron 5, comparison 74–5 McReynold’s Group (1216) 57–8, 59, 70 Majority Text 62, 64, 65 definition 63 Omanson’s Group (1216) 58 von Soden’s collation (Iβ family) 54–5, 65, 68, 69 Colwell’s endorsement 56–7 Wisse Group (16) 60, 66, 70 (1216) 59 Greek language ignorance of, in Roman Curia 182 learning bilingual texts 222–3 in Florence 218–19 by Italians 221–2 by Traversari 222 see also Latin language Greeks knowledge of Latin 30 Latins, mixed marriages 202–3 Gregoras, Nikephoros 177, 212 Gregory/Aland numbers 54–5; 291–2 Gregory, C.R. 21 Gregory X, Pope 8, 182, 192 gift of pallio from Michael VIII 178–9, 182, 192, 197, 201, 206fn174, 207fn180, 215 Guarini, Guarino 221, 223

302 between constantinople and rome

Hagia Sophia, possible gift of Paris 54: 201–2 Hagiopetrites, Theodore 25fn53, 34fn10, 161fn84, 168 Hamilton Psalter 8, 18, 27 Paris 54 paleographic connections 28, 146, 172–3 style differences 173 Havice, Christine 173 Henry II, King of France 226 Het’um II, King of Armenia 14fn14, 191fn97, 193fn105, 205fn170, 209 Hilsdale, Cecily J. 197 Holobolos, Manuel 30, 178fn19, 179fn25, 181fn41, 187fn68, 188, 190–91, 193, 199fn141 and Michael VIII 189 Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus 102fn6, 218 Huck, Albert 75 Humbert of Romans 182, 187 Hussey, J.M. 192 ink colors Glajor Gospels 20 Paris 54: 18–24 Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat 154, 202, 205fn170, 211 Paris 54, as possible marriage gift 203 Iviron 5 color reproductions, distortions 158–61 date 151, 152, 153, 154, 161, 171 Garrett 3/Paris 54, comparison 72–3, 237–63 microfilm, availability 74 Paris 54 comparison 73–5 evangelist portraits 106–9, 156 copy–model relationship 107, 144, 152–3, 156 stylistic relationship 157

illustrations, connections 73–4, 112–14 links 1, 6, 26, 52, 106 Jackson, Donald 223, 224, 226 James II, King of Aragon 213 Jeffreys, Elizabeth 186 John the Evangelist Beginning of Gospel 325 Portrait of the Evangelist 97, 165–6, 167, 232, 324, 329, 361, 362, 365, 367 Paris 54, Iviron 5, comparison 107–8 with Prochoros 362 John IV Laskaris 189, 201fn147, 197fn129 blinding by Michael VIII 179, 181 John VIII Palaeologos, Emperor 9, 210fn192, 217fn3, 221fn20 John XXI, Pope 183 John XXII, Pope 213 Kalopissi-Verti, Sophia 215 kephalaia, Paris 54: 12, 23, 139 Kydone brothers 181fn41, 187fn69, 188, 190fn88, fn91, 219fn9 Laiou, Angeliki E. 203, 205, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215 Lake, Kirsopp 58 Lascaris, Janus (Ionnes) 190fn91, 224, 227fn67, 218fn5, 223–7 mss purchases 223 Latin language Byzantines’ poor knowledge of 30, 181, 183–4, 185 in Paris 54: 181–5 see also Greek language Latins, anti-Latin sentiment 181–5, 195 Lavra A 46: 169 Lavra monastery 203 Lazarev, Viktor 3, 150, 151, 169, 171, 184 lectionaries, illustrated 101

index 303

Leo X, Pope (Giovanni de Medici) 2fn4, 9, 141fn117, 217, 223, 224, 227 Lips, monastery 164, 214fn16 Louvre Museum, Byzance: l’art byzantine dans les collections publiques françaises 153 Lovett, Patricia 81 Lowden, John 27, 71, 82, 129, 154, 163, 171, 172, 173, 203 Luke the Evangelist Claremont Profile Method 57, 59–60, 66, 67 Portrait of the Evangelist 97, 168, 231, 320 Lyons, Council of (1274) 8, 145, 178, 179, 181, 182, 183, 190, 192, 193, 195, 200, 201, 207 Byzantine delegation 197 revocation of 191 McReynolds, Paul 57, 59, 68, 69, 70, 74 Macrides, Ruth 179, 180, 188 Manuel II Palaeologos, Emperor 9, 191fn97, 217, 220 manuscripts Byzantine in Florence 218, 220 thirteenth-century 145–6 dated (1260–1320) 161–9 in gold 20 multi-colored 20–21 Mark the Evangelist Claremont Profile Method 58 Portrait of the Evangelist 97, 165, 166–7, 230, 317, 328, 360, 363, 364, 366 Paris 54, Iviron 5, comparison 108, 166 with St Peter 363 Martin IV, Pope 194 Matthew the Evangelist Gospel, beginning 29, 310 Portrait of the Evangelist 168, 229, 309, 368, 369 Mavroudi, Maria 80

Medici, Catherine de, possession of Paris 54: 2fn4, 9, 217, 218, 226 Medici, Cosimo de 219, 221 Medici, Lorenzo de 217, 223 Metochites, Theodore 170fn25, 175, 190fn91, 195fn125, 205fn170, 207fn178, 209, 214 Metzger, Bruce 19, 73, 77, 79 A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament 73 Michael VIII Palaeologos, Emperor 8, 9, 10, 145, 151, 163, 164, 176 anti-Unionists, treatment of 192–4 Coislin 200: 196fn126 Costanza (Anna of Hohenstaufen), love for 196fn126 death 194–5 excommunication 194 foreign policy, European bias 206 gift of pallio to Genoa 178 Pope Gregory X 178–9, 197, 215 and Holobolos 189 John IV Laskaris, blinding of 179, 181 Latin Church attempts at reunion with 178, 179, 191–4 opposition to 192–4, 200–201 Latin occupation of Constantinople, end of 177-8, 180fn35 as New Constantine 180–82 patronage, use of 177–8, 196fn126 wife (Theodora Palaeologina) 164, 195, 196fn126, 214fn216 Michael IX, Emperor 14fn14, 206fn177, 213fn212 financial straits 210 marriage 208–9 Millet, Gabriel 1, 3 miniature painting, status of 147–8 dimensions 159 see also narrative miniatures Mokvi Gospels (Tbilisi, Georgia) date 171

304 between constantinople and rome

Paris 54, style similarities 171 Taphou 5, stylistic connections 171 The Transfiguration 371 Muratore, David 226–7 narrative cycles Paris 54 added scenes 134–6 involving St Peter 7, 139–43, 359 expanded 130–43 scene distribution 130–33 Great Feasts in scene selection 137–8 impact of kephalaia in scene selection 139 impact of liturgy in scene selection 138–9 style 169–73 Paris 54, Iviron 5 common miniatures 110–12 location of miniatures 112–15 relationship 109–15 narrative miniatures Paris 54 classification 133–8 division of hands 87–8 identification 83, 84–7 Matthew and Mark 124–5 status 48 see also Artist A; Artist B; Artist C Paris 54, Iviron 5 classification of scenes 133–4 commonality 115 Luke and John 125–9 Matthew and Mark 116–17 scale 115, 116 stylistic differences 160 Naumann, Rudolph 151, 171 Nazianzus, Gregory, Homilies 102fn6, 218 Nelson, Robert 153, 161, 163, 222 Nestle-Aland NTG 72–3 New Testament textual criticism and Paris 54 mss 51–2, 68–71

Wachtel’s online grouping tools 62–3 textual variants, and subgroup classification of mss 53 see also Greek Gospel text (Paris 54) Nicaea 145, 184 Council of (325) 180 Niccoli, Niccolò, library 221 Niccolò of Durazzo, Bishop of Crotone, as possible recipient of Paris 54 199 Nicholas IV, Pope 207–8 Nicholas V, Pope 225 Nicol, D.M. 202 Niphon I, Patriarch 212 Nymphaion, Treaty (1261) 178, 197 Omanson, Roger Lee 58 Omont, Henri 3, 84–7 Pachymeres, Georges 30, 192, 199 Palaeologina group 8, 146, 163, 166, 169; see also Atelier of the Palaiologina Palaeologina, Theodora 164 pallio (peplos) 178–80, 195fn123, 197, 215 Pantokrator 47, date 150, 168 Papadaki-Oekland, Stella 151–2 Papadakis, Aristeides 193–4 Parastron, John 188, 200 Paris 54: and artist-scribe relationship 34 in Bibliothèque du Roi 226 bilingualism 16–18, 35, 198–9, 215, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 Byzantium, assignment to 18 Canon Tables 11, 229 Catherine de Medici, possession by 2, 9, 218, 226 commission, purpose 176, 199–204 commissioner, identity of 195–8, 214–15 contents 11–12, 229–33 creation, reason for 2, 9 date 145, 146, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 161, 171, 176, 215

index 305

and dated mss (1260–1320) 161–9 and Evangelist portraits 147 problems with 155, 167 description 2–3 Florentine ownership 9 flyleaf 372 Garrett 3, links 1–2, 60, 64, 65–6, 67, 68 as gift diplomatic 2, 9, 176, 181, 196, 197–8, 199, 213–14, 215 for Hagia Sophia 201–2 for Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat 203 for Patriarch of Constantinople 200–201 Gospels 11 Greek paleography 24–8 features 25 Greek scribe, second 26, 343 Greek and Latin texts 9 status 48–50, 48 Hamilton Psalter paleographic connections 28, 146, 172–3 style differences 173 historiography 3–4 illustrations black and white 333–72 color 309–331 Millet’s publication 1 incompleteness 3, 9, 33, 198–9 ink colors 18–24 according to speaker 18–19, 22 anomalies 22–3 black 23 gold 20, 23–4 red 19, 21, 22 visual impact 19 innovations 2, 7, 8, 24, 101, 125–8, 130fn91, 144, 160, 175 Iviron 5 comparison 73–5 evangelist portraits 105–9, 156

copy–model relationship 107, 144, 152–3, 156 stylistic relationship 157 links 1, 6, 26, 52, 105 John’s Gospel ink colors 44, 325 miniatures 44, 49 text 44 kephalaia 12, 23, 139 Latin paleography features 29–30 inconsistencies 30 Latin text 35, 176, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 implications of 181–5 lineation scheme 235 Luke’s Gospel 1st quire 39, 40 2nd quire 39, 40 3rd quire 39, 41 4th quire 39, 41 last quire 45 miniatures 39, 321, 322, 341 ink colors 46–7, 319, 323, 340, 341, 342 unfinished 42, 44, 45–8, 49, 323, 341, 342 text 38 Macedonian school, assignment to 150 manuscript groups, links 146 manuscripts consistently associated with 68–70 Mark’s Gospel ink colors 37–8 miniatures 38, 49 text 37–8 Matthew’s Gospel comparative study 237–61 ink colors 35 linked manuscripts 64 narrative miniatures 36, 48 text 35–6 miniatures inscriptions, lack of 198 and Iviron 5 43

306 between constantinople and rome

status and location 43 unfinished 83, 110 uninitiated 5, 38, 42, 43, 49, 82, 83, 84, 86, 140, 156, 340, 344, 345 see also narrative cycles; narrative miniatures Mokvi Gospels, style similarities 171 and New Testament text criticism, see New Testament, textual criticism origins, issues 72 as papal gift 176 quires bilingual signatures 13–14 make up 13–15 no. 9: 131 no. 10: 131 no. 16: 131 Ridolfi possession by 9, 217, 218, 223–4, 225 shelf mark 372 St Peter, rehabilitation 9 Strozzi, possession by 9, 217, 226 Taphou 5, comparison 169–70 text pages 333–45, 352–8 two-column layout 15–16 uniqueness 175–6 Vatopedi 602 paleographic connections 8, 27, 146, 172 style differences 172 work phases 49–50 Paris BnF, gr. 117, date 161 Paris BnF gr. 510: 35fn14, 218 Patmos 81: 169 Pelekanidis, S., Treasures of Mount Athos: Illuminated Manuscripts, reviewed 158 peplos, see pallio Peter, Paris 54 rehabilitation 9 scenes added 139–43 Philotheou 5 148, 149, 154–5

Pilatus, Leontius 218 Planoudes, Manuel/Maximos 30, 175, 188, 189 translation of Augustine’s De Trinitate 190 Prato, Giancarlo 27–8, 172 Raoulina, Theodora 163 Reeves, Michael 220 Ridolfi, Niccolò, Cardinal library 225 possession of Paris 54: 9, 217, 218, 223–4, 225 shelf mark 372 status 224–5 Romano, abbot of Saint Benoît 17 Ryder, Edmund C. 174 Sabas, St, Monastery 75, 79 St Petersburg, NLR 101 162, 362, 363 date 163 Salutati, Coluccio 219 Ševčenko, Ihor 186, 214, 216 Simon of Constantinople 188 Smyrna Lectionary 146, 148, 149 date 151, 162, 168 Evangelist portraits 166–7 script, Palaeologina group 166 Soden, Hermann von 75 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 73 Paris 54, collation of Greek text 5, 54–5, 60 Sophonias the monk 188 Strozzi, Palla, library 219 Strozzi, Pietro, possession of Paris 54 9, 217, 226 Talbot, Alice-Mary 164, 177, 181, 195 Taphou 5: 369, 370, 371 Mokvi Gospels, stylistic connections 171 Paris 54, comparison 169–70 textual criticism, see New Testament, textual criticism

index 307

Theodora Palaeologina (wife of Michael VIII) 164, 195, 196fn126, 214fn216; see also Michael VIII Palaeologos Thessaloniki 145 Thionville, Battle of (1558) 226 Tikkanen, Johan J. 149 Traversari, Ambrogio, Greek language 222 Union of Churches, see Churches, Latin/Greek Vatopedi 602 date 171–2 Paris 54 paleographic connections 8, 27, 146, 172 style differences 172 Vatopedi 938: 150, 154 Matthew 369

Wachtel, Klaus, online grouping tools 62–3 Weiss, R. 17 Weitzmann, Kurt 8, 18, 149 Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group 146, 148–54, 169 chronology 18, 151–2 dates 149, 150, 152 diversity 152 Evangelist portraits 148, 149 list 148 Wilson, Nigel 222 Wisse, Frederik 5, 59, 60, 61, 71 Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments 66 Wolfenbüttel Sketchbook 149, 152 Yolanda, see Irene-Yolanda of Montferrat

I Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew, fol. 10v

II Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, fol. 11r (33.5 × 25 cm)

III Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Nativity, fol. 13v (7.6 × 17.2 cm)

IV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Woman with the Hemorrhage, fol. 35v (7.3 × 17.3 cm)

V Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Miracle of the Loaves, fol. 55r (10.4 × 17.1 cm)

VI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Wedding Feast of the King’s Son, fol. 80r (7.5 × 17.3 cm)

VII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, fol. 91r (7.3 × 17.4 cm)

VIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Last Supper, fol. 96v (9.5 × 17.3 cm)

IX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Betrayal, fol. 99r (8.9 × 17.1 cm)

X Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Denial of Peter, fol. 101r (7.8 × 17.2 cm)

XI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Remorse of Peter, fol. 102r (8.9 × 17.2 cm)

XII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Descent from the Cross, fol. 107r (7.7 × 16.8 cm)

XIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Holy Women at the Sepulcher, fol. 108r (8.2 × 17.4 cm)

XIV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 111r (portrait measures 27.5 × 23 cm)

XV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law, fol. 114v (8.3 × 17.5 cm)

XVI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of the Leper, fol. 115v (7.7 × 17 cm)

XVII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Christ Stilling the Water, fol. 124v (8.9 × 17.4 cm)

XVIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Exorcism of the Gerasene Demoniac, fol. 125v (8.7 × 16.8 cm)

XIX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist Luke, fol. 173r (entire folio measures 33.5 × 25 cm)

XX Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Annunciation, fol. 176r (7.9 × 17.3 cm)

XXI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Baptism, fol. 186v (8.7 × 17.4 cm)

XXII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Healing of the Paralytic, fol. 193v (7.8 × 17.3 cm)

XXIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Healing of the Son of the Widow of Naim, fol. 201r (8.7 × 17.5 cm)

XXIV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Christ Asleep in the Boat, fol. 207r (8.2 × 17 cm)

XXV Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Transfiguration, fol. 213r (10.2 × 17.4 cm)

XXVI Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 278v (entire folio measures 33.5 × 25 cm)

XXVII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, Beginning of the Gospel of John, fol. 279r (entire folio measures 33.5 × 25 cm)

XXVIII Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Samaritan Woman at the Well, fol. 289r (7.5 × 17 cm)

XXIX Athos, Iviron 5, The Transfiguration, fol. 269v (9.5 × 12.8 cm)

XXX Athos, Iviron 5, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 136v (entire folio measures 22.5 × 17 cm)

XXXI Athos, Iviron 5, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 357v (entire folio measures 22.5 × 17 cm)

XXXII Athos, Iviron 5, The Samaritan Woman at the Well, fol. 371r (7.5 × 12 cm)

XXXIII Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, fol. 238v. Text page with red cross in right margin near second line of text (17.8 × 13 cm)

1 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page, fol. 16r (33.5 × 25 cm)

2 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page, fol. 16v (33.5 × 25 cm)

3 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Exorcism of the Gadarene Demoniacs, fol. 32v (7.1 × 17.4 cm)

4 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with erasure on lines 20–21 of Greek text, fol. 63r (33.5 × 25 cm)

5 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page showing grouped minims, fol. 86r (33.5 × 25 cm)

6 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, page missing 26 words in Greek text, fol. 89v (33.5 × 25 cm)

7 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page showing later Latin hand, fol. 121r (33.5 × 25 cm)

8 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, first uninitiated miniature, fol. 142r (33.5 × 25 cm)

9 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Visitation, fol. 177v (8.3 × 17.1 cm)

10 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Presentation, fol. 182r (8.3 × 17 cm)

11 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, The Anointing of Christ’s Feet, fol. 203v (7.7 × 17.1 cm)

12 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, first appearance of second Greek scribe, fol. 234r (33.5 × 25 cm)

13 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with uninitiated miniature, fol. 247r (33.5 × 25 cm)

14 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, text page with uninitiated miniature, fol. 247v (33.5 × 25 cm)

15 Athos, Iviron 5, The Miracle of the Loaves, fol. 63v (11 × 12.5 cm)

16 Athos, Iviron 5, The Wedding Feast of the King’s Son, fol. 94v (9 × 12.5 cm)

17 Athos, Iviron 5, The Last Supper, fol. 117r (9 × 12.5 cm)

18 Athos, Iviron 5, The Descent from the Cross, fol. 129v (9 × 12 cm)

19 Athos, Iviron 5, The Holy Women at the Sepulcher, fol. 130v (8.5 × 11.5 cm)

20 Athos, Iviron 5, The Baptism, fol. 138v (9.5 × 12 cm)

21 Athos, Iviron 5, The Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-law, fol. 141r (8 × 12 cm)

22 Athos, Iviron 5, The Healing of the Leper, fol. 142r (9 × 12 cm)

23 Athos, Iviron 5, The Annunciation, fol. 222r (6.8 × 11.5 cm)

24 Athos, Iviron 5, The Woman with the Hemorrhage, fol. 38v (8.5 × 11.5 cm)

25 Athos, Iviron 5, The Man with Dropsy, fol. 299v (8 × 11.5 cm)

26 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Nativity text, fol. 6v (17.8 × 13 cm). Note cross at end of last line

27 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Miracle of the Loaves text, fol. 37r (17.8 × 13 cm). Note erased cross above the first line of text

28 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Last Supper text, fol. 66r (17.8 × 13 cm). Note cross in the middle of line 12

29 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Remorse of Peter text, fol. 69v (17.8 × 13 cm). Note cross in right margin

30 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, Annunciation text, fol. 128v (17.8 × 13 cm). Note cross transformed into an upper-case iota in the sixth line from the bottom of the page

31 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, text page with no evidence of a red cross at line 3, fol. 183v (17.8 × 13 cm)

32 Princeton University Library, Garrett 3, fol. 42v (17.8 × 13 cm). Page showing extensive erasures in the last two lines of text

33 Athos, Dionysiou 587, Christ’s Appearance at the Sea of Tiberias, fol. 173r (not to scale). Detail; entire folio measures 39.5 × 29.5 cm

34 London, British Library, Burney 20, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 90v (19 × 15.3 cm)

35 London, British Library, Burney 20, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 226v (19 × 15.3 cm)

36 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101, Portrait of the Evangelist John with Prochoros, fol. 116v (24 × 18.6 cm)

37 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 101, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark with St. Peter, fol. 50v (24 × 18.6 cm)

38 Princeton University Library, Garrett 2, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark, fol. 125v (25.1 × 20.1 cm)

39 Princeton University Library, Garrett 2, Portrait of the Evangelist John, fol. 267v (25.1 × 20.1 cm)

40 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6246, Portrait of the Evangelist Mark. (Each folio measures 32.3 × 23.5 cm)

41 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6242, Portrait of the Evangelist John. (Each folio measures 32.3 × 23.5 cm)

42 Smyrna Lectionary, Athens, Byzantine and Christian Museum, Photographic and Historical Archives, Christian Archaeological Society, #6244, Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew (32.3 × 23.5 cm)

43 Athos, Vatopedi 938, Portrait of the Evangelist Matthew (21.5 × 15 cm)

44 Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Taphou 5, fol. 227v (detail of folio measuring 36.5 × 25.3 cm)

45 St. Petersburg, NLR, cod. 382 (folio from Taphou 5) (36.5 × 25.3 cm)

46 Jerusalem, Patriarchal Library, Taphou 5, fol. 243r (detail of folio measuring 36.5 × 25.3 cm)

47 Tbilisi, National Centre of Manuscripts, MS Q 902, The Mokvi Gospels, The Transfiguration, fol. 59v (30 × 23.5 cm)

48 Paris, BnF, gr. 54, flyleaf, fol. Iv