The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts

170 104 90MB

English Pages 287 [220] Year 1976

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts

Table of contents :
Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts
Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts, illustrations

Citation preview


r976 TE KLOKKE r6.r5 UUR


IOANNIS SPA'THARAKIS geboren te Athene, Griekenland in 1938


E .]. BRILL 1976

..'v., ,


....._.,. CBNTRAL EU·R.')'·. ~.s.: ....,~r"'


& '°"


CONTENTS Acknowledgement




Introduction .


Old Testament Manuscripts


Vat. Reg. gr. l, 7; Neap. IB18, 14; Marc. gr. Z17, 20; Barb. gr. 372, 26; Petrop. gr. 214, 36; Egbert Ps., 39; Harvard gr. 3, 44; Hamilton Ps., 45; Sinait. gr. 61, 48; Dionys. 65, 49; Sinait. gr. 2123, SI; D.O.C. 3, 54.



New Testament Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Sinait. gr. 283, 55; Adrianople Tetraevang., 55; M. Panagia l, 57; Petrop. gr. 291, 59; Par. gr. 74, 61; B.M.Add. 39627, 67; Princeton Leaf. 70; Speer Libr. 11.21.1900, 74; Melbourne 710/5, 76; Lavra A103, 78; Vat. Urb. gr. 2, 79; Kutlum. 60, 83; Tviron 5, 84; Sinait. gr. 198, 87; B.M. Add. 39626 89; Petrop. gr. n8, 90; Bari Exultet l, 91.

Theological Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ·



gr. 510, 96; Sinai~. gr. 364, 99; Par. gr. 922, 102; ~~~.:_22,~; ~s. ?J,-1.l8~at. gr. 666-Synod. 387, 122; Par. gr. 1242-Synod. 429, 129; Louvre lvoires roo, 139·

Scientific Manuscripts . . . . . . Vind. Med. gr. 1, 145; Par. gr. 2144, 148.

Historical Manuscripts . . . . . . . .

15 2

Vind. Hist. gr. 53, 152; Vind. Phil. gr. 149, 158; Vind. Hist. gr. 91, 159: Vat. Slavo 2, 160; Monac. gr. 442, 165, Mutin. gr. 122, 172.


Chrysobulls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Byzant. Museum 80, 184; Morgan M398, 185; Dionys. Chrys., 185; Esphigm. Chrys., 188; Taurin. gr. 237, 188.

Typica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Lincoln Typicon, 190; Vatop. n99, 2o6.

Various Manuscripts . . . . . . . . . Dit proefschrift verschijnt in Byzantina N eerlandica, fasc. 6

. . . .

Vat. gr. 1176, 208; Vat. gr. 1851, 210; Pantokr. 234, 230; Par. suppl. gr. 309, 233; Par. gr. 1783, 234; Par. suppl. gr. 1188, 236; Stuttgart Hist. 2°601, 237.




Conclusions . .

. • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . ·


Occasions on which a ms. was executed, 24r; Mss. as gifts and for private use, 243; Introductory saints and the place of the portrait in· mss., 245; The official portrait, 246; The author portrait, 248; The portrait in histories, 250; The family portrait, 25r; The portrait of the dead, 253; Likeness, 254; Reattribution, 258.

Appendix (Costume)


Index . . . . . .


List of Illustrations Photography Credits Illustrations 1- 182

288 at the end of the Book

Acknowledgement is due to the following scholars and friends with whom I had the benefit of discussing several points in this study, and to the directors and staff of Libraries, Institutes and F oundations for facilitating my research and granting hospitality or financial support. Athens: Dr. P. Nikolopoulos, Prof. M. Chatzidakis. The Hague: Drs. P. G. P. Meyboom, Drs. J.P. A. van der Vin. Leyden: Drs. H.J. de Jonge, Mrs. Drs. M. de Jonge-Doelman, Mrs. M.A. van Beek-Halsall, Mrs. D. M. Spatharakis-Lukanski. London: Dr. D. H. Turner, Dr. S. Whittingham, Mr. L. Gallagher. Madison, Wis.: Prof. F. R. Horlbeck. Moscow: Mme M. V. ~eepkina, Mr. P. P. Dorochow. New York: Prof. H. Buchthal, Mr. R. S. Nelson. Paris: Prof. A. Grabar, Prof. S. Der Nersessian, Prof. S. Dufrenne, Mlle M.-L. Concasty, Mr. Ch.' Astruc, Mme T. Velmans, Mme N. Thierry, Mme C. Morrisson, Father Ch. Walter, Mlle C. Jolivet. Princeton, N.J.: Prof. K. Weitzmann, Mrs. A. Sifford-Schilardi, Miss B. A. Vileisis. Rome: Prof. H. Schulte Nordholt, Dr. P. van Kessel, Miss. C. Moon. Thessalonica: Prof. L. Politis, Mr. S. Kadas. Vatican: Mgr. J. Ruysschaert, Mgr. P. Canart, Dr. S. Lilla. Venice: Prof. M. Manousakas, Prof. E. Mioni, and especially Prof. Dr. F. van der Meer, Lent, and Prof. Dr. H. Hennephof, Leyden. Baltimore, The Walters Art Gallery. Florence, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. The Hague, The Royal Coin Cabinet. Leningrad, Bibliotheca Publica. London, The British Museum. Modena, Biblioteca Estense. Moscow, Historical Museum. Miinchen, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek. Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale. New York, The Pierpont Morgan Library. Oxford, The Bodleian Library, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Bibliotheque Byzantine, Musee du Louvre. Princeton, The Art Museum, The Speer Library, The University Library. Thessalonica, The Patriarchal Institute of Patristic Studies. Citta del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Archivio Segreto Vaticano. Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, Istituto Ellenico



di Studi Bizantini e N eoellenici. Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek. W ashington, D.C., Dumbarton Oaks Center of Byzantines Studies, The Library of Congress. The Netherlands Organisation for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.), The Hague. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam. Istituto Olandese, Rome. Institut Neerlandais, Paris. Istituto Universitario Olandese, Florence. Leyden, r975.

ABBREVIATIONS USED FOR FREQUENTLY CITED WORKS -AND PERIODICALS AB Ainalov, Hellenistic 0Yigins Amiranachvili, Emaux A,-t et Societe

A rt et Societe a Byzance sous les Pateologues (Actes du collogue organise par !'Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantiries a Venise en Septembre 1968), Venise l97r. Barker, Manuel II Barker, J. W., Manuel II Palaeologus (IJ9I-I425) A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship, New Brunswick 196g. Berliner byzantinische Arbeiten. BBA BCA Bibliotheque des Cahiers Archeologiques. Beck, H.-G., Kfrche und theologische Litel'atur in byBeck, K irche zantinischen Reich (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft XII, 2, I: Byzantinisches Handbuch II, l) , Miinchen, 1959· Beckwith, Byz. Art Beckwith, J., Early Christian and Byzantine A rt, London 1970. Beissel, Miniaturen Beissel, S., Vaticanische M iniaturen, Freiburg r893 . Belting, H., Das illuminierte Buch in der spatbyzanBelting, Buch tinischen Gesellschaft, Heidelberg r970. Bene5evic, V., Monumenta Sinaitica archaeologica et Bene5evic, M onumen ta palaeographicaa, Petropoli 1925. - - , Catalogus - - , Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Graecorum qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in Mante Sina asserventur. Tomus I et I II, Petropoli 19II (1965). Beitriige zur Kunst des christlichen Ostens. BKchO Bonicatti, "Origine" Bonicatti, M., "Per l'origine del Salterio Barberiano greco 372 e la cronologia del Tetraevangelo Urbinate greco 2," RCCM, 2 (1960), 41-61 . Bordier, Description Bordier, H., Description des peintures et autres Mnements contenus dans les manuscrits grecs de la Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris 1883. Boschkov, M ale,-ei Boschkov, A., Die bulgarische Malerei, Recklinghausen Bozkov, Miniatjuri Brand, Byzantium Brockhaus, A thos

BS Buberl, Miniatul'• f


Analecta Bollandiana. Ainalov, D . V., The Hellenistic Origins of Byzantine Art, St. Petersburg 1900 (1961). Amiranachvili, Ch., Les emaux de Georgie, Paris 1962 .

1969. Bozkov, A., Miniatjuri ot Madridskija Rukopis na Joan Skilica, Sofia 1972. Brand, Ch. M., Byzantium Confronts the West, zr80r204, Cambridge, Mass. 1968. Brockhaus, H., Die Kunst in den Athos-Kl6stern, Leipzig l89r. Byzantinoslavica. Buberl, P., Die Miniaturhandschriften der National-



bibliothek in A then (Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, phil.-hist. Kl., LX, Abh. 2), Wien r9r7. Buberl, P.-Gerstinger, H., Die byzantinischen HandBuberl-Gerstiriger schriften2 in Beschreibendes Verzeichnis der illuminierten Handschriften in Osterreich, Teil IV, Leipzig 1937-38. Buchthal, "Some Buchthal, H., "Some Notes on Byzantine HagioNotes" graphical Portraiture," GEA. 62 (196'.3). 81-90. Bul:cxv·nvdt XpovL>v 't'O 0ifJ..Aoi;; exqiocvev -r~i; 7tOpqiupoci;; OCAA'YJV voe:rv ornwcn xocrµ.o7tAOU't"tocv -r01hcp 't'OC7tELVO CM'tcpe:i To'i:i:; 7topcpop1Xc; n 't'o'Lc; crs:/..cxcr:p6poii:; x/..IX.~oii:; Hxoucrcxc; C}i 8E:cr7totvcx xcxt XOO"fLOXpOC't'Op :Eol 't"IXU't"IX 7tOCV't'IX xott 8ta cre 't"uyxocve:i llcxpLCM'IX't"otL 8e xcxl :x,opoc; 't"WV -oc; \)lux~ 't'a'i:c; tA.aL~ Emxocmm xoct nocv't'a 7tpay (µ oc't'EUE't'at). Around t he port rait the extensive title· of t he book is given in red uncials, where again it is mentioned that Hunger, op. cit. Paper, ff. III + 266, 22 II, 69-70, pl. XXXIII, 2. u


x 15. Hunger, Katalog, 94-102.




this work was dedicated to the CEBACTOKPATOPICCA KYPAN EIPHNHNTHNNYMHNTOYBACIAEWCKYPMANOYHA Whether the portrait represents a genuine likeness of Manasses is difficult to say. His portrait in Vind. Phil. gr. I49 is minute, making a comparison of his features in the two portraits almost impossible. Furthermore, the drawing was not made during his lifetime or shortly afterwards but in the 14-15th century. There are two other drawings in this manuscript of lesser quality than the portrait of Manasses, representing two dogs hunting two stags on f. rn3v and a plaited framework on f. r76v.

is portrayed on the left of the Tsar in a similar position to Christ. His face is considerably flaked. The Bulgarian inscriptions above the portraits read: "loan Alexander Tsar and Autocrat of all Bulgarians and Greeks;" above Christ: "Jesus Christ King of Kings and King Eternal; "next to the angel: "Angel of the Lord" and above the author: "The Chronicler Manasses."so The Latin inscriptions, which were inserted when the codex came into Western hands read: iste liber appelatur flos o(mn)ium Cronicarum; above Christ: Jesus Crystus; above Manasses: S. ]oh(ann)es bap(tis)ta; and below Ivan Alexander: S. ]oh(ann)es alexander macedo ad cuius petitionem iste liber fuit t(ra)nslatus de greco i(n) sclavo(n)ico. On the lower part of this folio is visible the monokondylia, 'Io~&.vvou 't'OU ~e:crn6't'ou, 31 which implies that the codex belonged to Ivan Alexander. There is no doubt that this representation is in general an imitation of a Byzantine formula. The angel with the crown above Ivan denotes that the Tsar, like the Byzantine emperor, derives his power from heaven.32 Concerning the model for this dedication miniature, it has been suggested that Ivan replaced the figure of Manuel I (n41-80), under whose reign the Greek chronicle of Manasses was written, just as his name replaced that of the same Byzantine emperor in the verses addressed to However, not Manuel, but the sebastokratorissa Irene34 is mentioned as patroness in the extensive title to the Greek chronicle, as we have seen above, and the dedication miniature would more probably have represented her rather than Manuel I, as we find in Vind. Phil. gr. 149 (Fig. roo). Belting concluded that the Greek model had no dedication minia-


VAT. SLAVO 2 Another Bulgarian copy of a Byzantine manuscript, along with the Tetraevangelion Add. 39627 which we have discussed afore, is the Codex Vat. Slavo 2, a translation of the chronicle of Constantine Manasses.26 The importance of this work is much greater than that of Add. 39627, because its Greek illustrated prototype bas been lost and only this Bulgarian copy has survived. Along with the Skylitzes Matritensis27 it gives us an idea of the rich illuminations which adorned Byzantine manuscripts with historical contents. The 69 miniatures of the Vatican manuscript have been ascribed to two artists, the more skillful of whom painted the first 24 miniatures and the last one. 28 The miniature on f. rv represents the Tsar Ivan Alexander (r33r-7r) in Byzantine costume, standing on a red suppedion. Above him hovers an angel placing a second crown on his head. 29 (Fig. rn2). Christ is depicted to the left turning in contraposto towards the Tsar. He stands on a flat suppedion and writes on an open scroll. The author of the chronicle 26 Parchment, ff. 206, 29,5 x 21. B. D. Filow, Les miniatures de la chronique de Constantin Manasses, Sofia 1927, 3ff. Dujcec, Manasse, 27, with the older bibliography on pp. 28-31. Boschkov, Malerei, 102-IO, figs. 85-89. 27 Cirac-Estopaiian, Skylitzes. Bozkov, Miniatjuri. 28 Dujcev, op. cit., 131-32. 29 H. H eisenberg, , ..Uber den Ursprung der illustrierten Chronik des Konstantinos Manasses," M]bK, 5 (1928), 291-310. Filow, op. cit., 24-25, pls. I and XLI in colour. Grabar, Empereur, pl. XXIII, 2. Dujcev, op. cit., pl. I in colour. Belting, Buch, fig. 14.


The translations of the Bulgarian inscriptions are taken from Dujcev. op. cit., 296, thought that the title despotes was reserved only for the relatives of the emperor; this would also apply to the tsar's relatives and consequently the monokondylia was written by Ivan Asen, the son of the Tsar, to whom the codex would belong. The title of despotes, however, was also a title of the emperor himself. For this title see Guilland, Recherches, II, l-24. aa Grabar, op. cit., l20f. sa Heisenberg, op. cit., 310. Dujeev, op. cit., 32. Belting, op. cit., 21, n71. 34 Belting, op. cit., thought incorrectly that the wife of Manuel I, Irene, was the patroness of Manasses, confusing her with the sebastokratotissa Irene, sister-in-law of Manuel I. 81 Heisenberg,


ture and that the Bulgarian artist copied a two figure composition, familiar from the Chrysobulls. 35 He reached this conclusion after observing that Manasses, who was seen by the Latin glossator as St. John the Baptist, does not appear as a chronicler, but in biblical costume with a nimbus, as a mirror image of Christ. I admit that the nimbus of Manasses is difficult to explain, but a figure of Christ placed in such a posture and in particular writing on a scroll is unthinkable. It can be explained if we assume that the figure of Christ is a copy of Manasses and not vice-versa. Ivan Alexander is also portrayed on f. 9rv, standing in front of the prophet David who blesses him and holds an open scroll with the beginning of psalm 20, the imperial psalm. 36 In the Greek chronicle, Manasses interrupted his narration between the end of the history of Old Rome and the beginning of that of New Rome, to address the emperor Manuel (vv. 2546-2552). In the Bulgarian translation the name of Manuel was replaced by that of I van Alexander (f. gn), as was the miniature representing the Byzantine emperor together with the author Manasses or David. 37 The Latin inscription reads: I ste Theodosius fuit imperator Rome et costadinopoli; the glossator thought that the portrait represents Theodosius, because the text under the miniature deals with his reign. F. 2r depicts the death of Ivan Asen, son of the Tsar38 (Fig. ro3). Idem, 22. Heisenberg, op. cit., fig. 2. Filow, op. cit., 51£., pl. XIX. Dujcev, op. cit., pl. 33 in colour. 87 Belting, op. cit., 22, n13. explained the presence of David in the Vaticanus by the wish of Ivan to be associated with the author of the Psalms. The text of the Bulgarian chronicle is published by I. Bogdan, Oronica lui Manasses, Bucarest 1922. An anastatic edition of it by J. Schropfer, Die slavische Manasses-Cht'onik (Slavische PropyJ.aen), Miinchen 1966. A facsimile of the Vatican manuscript by I. Dujeev, Letopista na Konstantin Manasi, Sofia 1963. •B Filow, op. cit., pl. II. Dujeev, Manasse, pl. z in colour. Velmans, "Portrait," n7, fig. 26. Filow (p. 4) and Dujcev (p. 27) believed that this folio preceded f. 1. Filow suggested the following composition for the first quire: X 2 1 Y / Z 4 3 5 (the folio order is now: l 2 / 3 4 5). However, the hierarchic value of the representations does not permit such a suggestion. The Bulgarian scholars came to this conclusion after correctly placing, according to the text, f. 4 in front of 3. However, f. 1, which is pasted by a restorer to the stub of f. 4, formed originally a bifolio with f. 5 which is now 85



The inscription at the top reads: "The souls of the righteous are now in the hands of the Lord. The gates of heaven and heavenly powers ppen to receive the soul of Ioan Asen, son of the great Tsar Ioan Alexander, borne by an angel." The Latin inscription, D (e) mo(r)te p(re)fati Alexa(n)drj, shows that its writer mistook the scene as the death of the Tsar. The deceased prince, clad in cere- \ monial costume, lies on a bier with red drapes. At his head stands the patriarch of Turnovo clad in a polystaurion. He holds the Gospel book in his hand and swings a censer with his right. Next to the patriarch stands Ivan Alexander wit h the same facial features as in the previous miniature (Fig. ro4). The portrait of the Tsar in this miniature is slightly different to that in Add. 39627 (Fig. 40).The difference can be perhaps explained by the fact that the London manuscript was executed about t en years later than the Vaticanus (see infra). Behind the Tsar appears the face of a second son of Ivan. The Tsarina Theodora the Valachian, first wife of Ivan Alexander and mother of the deceased prince, leans towards her son. She is nimbed and clad in imperial garments, in contrast to the sombre costume of the nimbed female figure next to her. This figure represents Irene, daughter of Andronicus III Palaeologus, who married Ivan Asen in I336 at the age of nine.39 Behind the two women appear the heads of two daughters of Ivan Alexander. An angel holding the soul of the prince stands at the foot of the bier, while another brings the soul to heaven, shown as a roundel in graded shades of blue with angels appearing at the open gates. I n the background can be recognized the capital city, Tumovo. 40 The iconographic scheme for the death of the prince derives undoubtedly from the K oimesis.'11 The illuminator of the Vaticanus was not the first to apply this scene to the death of a secular person. Already in r264 the death of Anna Dandolo, last wife of the Serbian king pasted on f. 4. Only ff. 2 and 3 form a bifolio. In my opinion, the folio order of the first quire was as follows: l 2 X Y / 4 3 5. The m issing folios contained the first 63 verses of the chronicle and some miniatures. n Papadopulos, Genealogie, no. 77. • 0 Dujcev, op. cit., pl. 2. 41 On the Koimesis see Millet, Recherches, 19-25, and especially L . Wratislawa-Mitrovic-N. Okunev, "La dormition de la Sainte Vierge dans la peinture medievale orthodoxe," ES, 3 (1931), 134-80.



Stephen the First Crowned (n96-c. 1228) and mother of Stephen Uro~ I (1243-76), was depicted in a similar way on a fresco in the Holy Trinity Church at Sopoeani. 42 We possess no parallel for such a representation in Byzantine art. On f. 2v is shown the reception of Ivan Asen into Paradise, firstly by the enthroned Virgin and then by Abraham.43 The inscription above the miniature reads: "The eternal world, concerning which the Lord Christ said to the robber on the cross: Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise (Lk, 23, 43). In the same Paradise the Virgin receives the Tsar loan Asen, son of the great Tsar loan Alexander, and consigns him to the Patriarch Abraham to enjoy happiness in Paradise." The Latin inscription, D(e) creat(i)one mu(n)di, shows that the glossator again misinterpreted the representation. The last miniature of the codex on f. 205r, depicting the Tsar and his sons, is considerably flakedH (Fig. 105). The standing figures are represented according to Byzantine imperial iconography. The inscribed names in red, refer not only to Ivan Alexander, but also to his sons as tsars, which, together with the fact that they are nimbed, means that they were all associated with the throne. To the right of the Tsar stands Ivan Asen and next to him the "Angel of the Lord," a reference to his death. To the left of the Tsar stand Michael and Ivan Stratsimir. The half figure of Christ is shown with open arms above, protecting the imperial family. 45 The Vatican manuscript has been dated to the years 1344-4546 and it is obvious that it was during its execution that the death of I van Asen occurred. Filow concluded from the absence of Theodora the Valachian in the miniature of the imperial family on f. 205r that Ivan Alexander was a widower when the codex was executed.47 On

the other hand he identified her with the lady leaning towards the deceased prince48 which would seem to contradict his earlier conclusion. Furthermore we must observe that not only the Tsarina is absent in the last miniature of the manuscript (Fig. 105), but also her daughters which perhaps means that the picture was meant to represent only the male members of the family. Heisenberg believed that the two folios (2 and 205) containing portraits of Ivan Asen (Figs. ro3, 105) were added later at the order of his wife and that I van Alexander commissioned the translation of the Manasses chronicle on the occasion of her arrival in 1339 at the Bulgarian court.49 However, a comparison of the style of the miniature representing Ivan Asen in Paradise (f. 2v) and that of the Creation of Eve60 (f. 7v), or that of the Fall of Adam and Eves1 (f. ror) shows that they were made by the same hand. The imperial family on f. 205r was painted by the same hand as that responsible for the portraits in the opposite miniature, f. 204v. In addition, f. 2 forms a binio with f. 3, f. 205 is part of the last ternio of the codex and cannot have been added later. Heisenberg's theory cannot thus be retained. Concerning the question whether the portraits of Ivan Alexander on ff. lV-2r represent a genuine likeness of the Tsar, we may remark that his portrait in a fresco at Backovo shows him with the same individual features, such as the arched eyebrows and the straight nose. 52

•s V. R. Petkovic, "La mort de la reine Anna a Sopoeani," L'a'Yt byzantin chez les Slaves (Orient et Byzance 4.2), 2r7-2r, pl. 28. Hamann-MacLean, Monumentalmalerei, 25ff., fig. 135· V. Djuric, Sopocani, Le!Pzig 1967, pl. 23 in colour. 41 Filow, op. cit., pl. III. Dujcev, op. cit., pl. 3 in colour. '' Filow, op. cit., pl. XXXIX. Dujcev, op, cit., pl. 69 in colour. 45 Ivan Asen in Add. 39627 (Fig. 39) is naturally not the same person as the deceased Ivan in the Vatican manuscript. 48 Filow, op. cit., 10-15. Dujcev, op. cit., 32. u Filow, op. cit., 12.

MONACENSIS GR. 442 Four full page portraits in water colour are found in the Codex


Idem, 3i. Heisenberg, op. cit., 296-99. 6° Filow, op. cit., pl. IV, I. Dujcev, op. cit., pl. 4 in colour. 51 Filow, op. cit., pl..IV, 2. Dujcev, op. cit., pl. 5 in colour. u M.-A. Musicescu, "Introduction a une etude sur le portrait de fondateurs dans le Sud-Est Europeen. Essai de typologie,"RESEE, 7 (1969), 281-310, esp. 289, fig. 2. A. Protic, "Le style de l'ecole de peinture murale de Tirnovo au XIIIe et XIVe siecle," L'a'Yt byzantin chez les Slaves (Orient et Byzance 4.r), 92-ror, fig. r8. 0




gr. 442 in the Bayer. Staatsbibliothek at Munich. 53 The manuscript contains mainly the history of George Pachymeres, 54 which covers the period between 1255 and 1308 and consists of 13 books. 55 The greater part of the codex dates from the r4th century (ff. l-356). Twenty eight folios from the l6th century, numbered in Latin characters by Heisenberg, are added at the beginning, the end, and between ff. 7 and 8. The codex is by several hands. The first 13 folios (I-XIII) are empty. On ff. r-5 is written the title of the history and the titles of the first five books (I, l-V, 17). The folios which contained the titles from the end of book V to book XIII are now missing. F. 6, a single folio, is empty on the recto side, whereas the portrait of George Pachymeres covers the verso side (Fig. ro6). F. 6, also a single folio, has on its recto a list of clerical officials and on its verso the portrait of Theodore II Lascaris (Fig. ro8). Heisenberg concluded from the position of the quaternio-number K0' on it that this side was once the recto of the folio and furthermore he suggested that its place was originally at the end of the first part of the history of Pachymeres.56 On f. l74r is the portrait of Michael VIII Palaeologus (Fig. rog). Folios lJ4V and lJ5r are empty and on f. r75v is the portrait of Andronicus II Palaeologus (Fig. no). On f. l76r the second part of the history begins with book VII. The l6th century folios are empty except f. XXI on which is copied the beginning of the text that continues on f. 8. An explanatory note to the text (I, 292, 9) on f. lOlv is important for determining the date of execution of the codex: M(ANNHC) KOMNHNOC I AOYKAC CY I NAAHNOC I KAI MEI'AC I CTPATOIIE I AAPXHC I KAI KTH I TWP (Fig. 144). The inscription of the foundress is only partially legible: GEOAU>PA I ... CYMBIOC ... H E ! KTHTOPI I CA. The founder has also the family name of the Angeli in the text of the Typicon. 10 He held the office of megas stratopedarches before his marriage, the date of which is unknown.11 He died between 1310 and r328. 12 Theodora was the last of five children of Constantine and Irene13 (r). John is portrayed with black hair, moustache and beard. He is clad in a red robe, known as a kabbadion, with gold decoration. It fastens at the front and has a gold belt from which hangs a white handkerchief. His head~ dress, the skaranikon, is gold with a brown dark pattern and red stipples. On the front of it an enthroned emperor is depicted outlined in brown. The foundress is also clad in red and gold. Her robe 1

Ps.-Codinus, 143, 2-6, n2 and 4. Anna Comnena (CSHB), I, 147-48. 9 This miniature is also reproduced by Nicol, op. cit., fig. 2, and Belting, Buch, fig. 17. 10 Delehaye, op. cit., § II6. 11 Idem, § 8, p. 144-45. The megas stratopedarches was in charge of supplies to the army: Ps.-Codinus, 174, 10-13; see also Guilland, op. cit., I, 502-21, esp. 505. · 12 Guilland, op. cit., I, 505. 18 Delehaye, op. cit., p. 144-45. Papadopulos, op. cit., no. II. 8




seems to consist of two pieces, of which the upper one reaches to the knees with brown tassels hanging from the end. The sleeves are wide, reaching almost to the ground. Her face is expressive and individualistic, with arched eyebrows, small lips and a large chin. Her ears are decorated with luxurious earrings. Her crown is similar to her mother's, but is partly flaked. On the upper part of the miniature is the patroness of the convent, the Virgin with the Christ Child, with the inscription MHP 0Y H BEBAIA EAilIC. On f. 7r the founders are depicted in monastic garments leading their little daughter who is clad in the brown costume of a novice (Fig. 145)· The monk is inscribed IWAKEIM \ MONAXOC 0 KTHT I WP. The inscription above the nun is flaked, as well as part of the inscription of the novice. What remains reads: ... @YrATHP I TC.ON EKTHTO I PC.ON. The Virgin above has again the inscription with the eponym of Certain Hope. From the description of the inonk as ktetor and from the text of the Typicon, which informs us that John Synadenus (2) died as the monk Joachim,u the identification of the monk is established beyond any doubt. We are thus confronted with a second portrait of the megas stratopedarches, but since his face is considerably damaged, any comparison with his portrait on f. 2r is impossible. The nun must be identified with the foundress Theodora, who, according to the inscription on f. tu (Fig. 153). assumed the monastic name Theodule. The novice is identifiable as their daughter Euphrosyne. She entered monastic life soon after her birth. 15 She bears only her monastic name-probably the only one she had- on f. nr where it is mentioned along with her family names. This miniature alludes to the dedication of the young Euphrosyne to the Virgin. It does not necessarily imply that the parents had already assumed monastic garments when the profession of their daughter took place. Delehaye, followed by Papadopulos, thought that the foundress had at least four children, considering the daughter in this miniature as a different person from that on f. 1H.16 Chapter 22 of the Typicon, however, discussing the commemorations not only H

u 16

Delehaye, op. cit., § n6. Idem, §§ 4 and II8. Idem, p. I49. Papadopulos, op. cit., nos.




of the deceased, but also of those living who were close family members of the foundress, mentions only Euphrosyne and her brothers Theodore and John.17 If Theodora had a second daughter or other children, they should definitely appear in this chapter. (3) The miniature on f. 8r represents the first son of the foundress and his wife18 (Fig. 146). They are inscribed 0EOLiWPOC I KOMNHNOC LiOY I KAC CYNA.6. Y I NOC 0 IlPOTWCT I PATWP KAI YI I OC TOON EK I THTOPWN and EY.6.0KIA .6.0YKAINA KO I MNHNH CYNA.6.HNH IIA I AAIOAOrI I NA H IIPOTWCT I (PATO)PICA KAI NH I MH THC I KTHTOPI I CHC. Theodeore is clad in an identical way to his father and Eudocia to her mother-in-law. The only difference appears in the colour of his skaranikon, which is red and crossed with gold lines. Above the couple is painted the Virgin and Child. Theodore reached a higher office than his father, that of protostrator. 19 He was already mentioned holding this office in 1320 in the History of Cantacuzenus.20 In the civil war between Andronicus II and Andronicus III, he was on the side of the latter. In about 1344 he was promoted by Alexius Apocaucus to protobestiarios. 21 He died before I348.22 His wife Eudocia23 was the daughter of Theodore Ducas Mouzakios, commemorated in the the Typicon.u (4) The second son of the foundress is portrayed with his wife on f. 3r (Fig. r47). They are inscribed IW(ANNHC) KOMNHNOC I .6.0YKAC CYNA I .6.HNOC 0 ME I I'AC KONOCTA Y I AOC KAI YIOC I TWN EKTH I TOPWN and HPHNH AACKAPINA Delehaye, op. cit., §§ II7-u9. Illumination, fig. 22. 19 The potostrator took an active part in the court ceremonies. He was entrusted, among other things, with carrying the sword of the emperor when the Grand Duke was absent. He was in charge of the light cavalry and of the patrol troops: Ps.-Codinus, 168, 1-173, 29; Guilland, op. cit., I, 478-97. 20 Cantacuzenus (CSHB) I, 37. Guilland, op. cit., I, 485, thought that he appeared as potostrator only after 1328. 21 Cantacuzenus, II, 491-92. Guilland, op. cit., I, 227, 486. 22 An act of the monastery of Kutlumusiu, dated 1348, mentions him as deceased: P. Lemerle, Actes de Kutlumus (Archives de l'Athos 2). Paris 1945-46, no. 21. Guilland, op. cit., I, 486. Cf. also Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 13. Delehaye, op. cit., p . 150, refers to him by mistake as the father of John (4). 93 Delehaye, op. cit., p. 150. Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 13. 24 Delehaye, op. cit., § 143. 17

1s Also reproduced in Pacht,




KO I MNHNH AOYKAINA IlA I AAIOAO I rHNA H ME I rAAH KO I NOCTAYAI I CA KAI NHM I H THC EKTH I TOPICHC. John is clad in a green kabbadion with gold ornamentation and a gold skaranikon with a red check pattern. Here too, an enthroned emperor is depicted on it. Irene is dressed in a similar manner to the previous ladies. Above the couple is represented the bust of Christ blessing. Both portraits are in excellent condition and show individual characteristics. John, naturally, had also the family name Palaeologus.26 He held the office of Grand Constable. 26 He is mentioned by Cantacuzenus as an ambassador of Andronicus III to Andronicus II in r32I. 27 The historian mentioned that he had a brother holding the office of protostrator, who can be identified with Theodore. Irene was the second wife of John, if we take into account that the Typicon28 commemorates Thomais (9) as his wife, apparently his first one.29 The latter took the nun's name Xene and donated a vineyard to the convent. 30 (5) On f. 5r the first grand-daughter of the foundress appears with her husband (Fig. 148). They are inscribed MANOYHA KO I MNHNOC PAOYA I ACANHC KAI ME! rAC IlPIMHKH I PIOC KAI rAMilPOC [ THC KTHTOPI I CHC and ANNA J KOMNHNH [ AOYKAINA IlAA [AIOAOPINA I ACANHNA H MErAAH IlPIMHKHPHCA KAI ErKONH THC KTHTOPICHC.31 They are both portrayed in a similar pose and costume to Theodore and Eudocia (3). Above is represented the bust of the

blessing Christ Child. Manuel held the office of megas primikerios.32 Anna was taken in 132I by her father Theodore to marry Manuel Asen, brother of the later empress Irene, wife of Cantacuzenus,33 under whom Manuel obtained the title of sebastokrator and aespotes.34 (6) The second grand-daughter of Theodora is depicted with her husband on f. 6r36 (Fig. 149). They are inscribed KONCTAN [ TINOC KOMNH I NOC PAOYA 0 IlA I AAIOAOroc 0 I IlPOTOCEBACTOC I KAI I'AMIJPOC I THC KTHTO I PICHC and EYPOCYNH I AOYKAINA IlAAAI ] OAOrINA I H IlPOTOCE ) BACTH KAI I Er I KONH THC I KTHTOPI I CHC. The miniature is very well preserved. The clothing of this couple is of the same colour as that on f. 3r. Constantine appears to be a very young man with a thin red moustache and short beard. Above the couple is represented t he Christ Child blessing. Constantine has the t itle of protosebastos which during the Palaeologan era was purely a sinecure.36 Euphrosyne was probably the daughter of Theodore and Eudocia (3). Theodore had a third daughter, Theodora, who died as the nun Theodosia (rn) . She is commemorated in the Typicon, 37 but not portrayed in it . (7) The next grand-daughter and her husband are portrayed on f. 4T (Fig. 150). They are inscribed MIXAHA KOMNHNOC I AACKAPIC BPIENHOC ) O IAAN0P (WilHN)OC I KAI I'AM(Il)POC THC I KTHTOPICHC and ANNA KANTAKOYZHNH I KOMNHNH IlAAAIOAOrINA I BPIENHCA I H IA (AN) ®PO I IlHNH KAI Er I KONH THC I KTHTOPI I CHC. Michael is portrayed as a young man without a headdress. His kabbadion is




Idem, §§ n9, 135, p. 149· The megas konostaulos was, according to Ps.-Codinus 175, r2-r4, the head of the Frankish mercenaries. Cf. also Guilland, op. cit., I, 469-77. 2 7 Cantacuzenus, I, r33. Papadopulos, op. cit., nos. rz and r28, and Guilland, op. cit., I, 473, considered the official portrayed and the ambassador as two different persons, leaving the one in our miniature as otherwise unknown. Although they both cite the Schopenus' edition of .Cautacuzenus, where the year r321 is assigned to this embassy, they place it in 1328. as Delehaye, op. cit., § r35. 2e Nicol, op. cit., no. 39. ao Delehaye, op. oit., § 122. n The transcription of this name is borrowed from Delehaye, op. cit., p. 13. I was able t o read only: ... NH I .:lOYKAINA IlAA I AIOAOrINA I ACANH . ... 2a

38 - On this office see Guilland, op. cit., I, 312-32: In.court ceremonies during the Palaeologan era he handed the sceptre to the emperor or held it for him. H e was the head of the imperial escort: Ps.-Codinus, r75, 7-11. 33 Cantacuzenus, I, 125. Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 18, erroneously gav e Anna as _the daught~r of John (4) (already noticed by Nicol, op. cit., p. 149 n36). Gmlland, op. cit., I, 3r8-r9, thought incorrectly that the Manuel of the Typicon was ot herwise unknown. 34 Cantacuzenus, III, 33, r96 and 2ro. 86 Velmans, "Portrait," r25, figs. 47-48, reproducing by accident the same couple twice. For a colour reproduction see Rice-Hirmer, pl. XL. 98 Ps.-Codim1s, r75, l5-r6. 37 Delehaye, op. cit., § r36. Papadopulos, op. oit., no. 14. Nicol, op. ci t., no. 39.




orange with gold ornamentation. Anna is clad as are the previous ladies. Above them appears the Infant blessing. Michael does not have any title or office.38 Anna was the daughter of John (4) and his first wife Thomais (9). The latter is the only one of the three daughters-in-law of the foundress who bears the family name Cantacuzena which also appears in the family name of Anna.39 (8) The last grand-daughter is depicted with her husband on f. gv (Fig. r5r). They are inscribed MIXAHA KOMNH I NOC TOPNYKHC I ACANHC IIAAAI I OAOroc KAI I rAMIIPOC THC I KTHTOPICHC and HPHNH KOMNH I NH KANTAKOY I ZHNH IIA I AAIOAOrr I NA ACAN I (I)NA KAI Er I KONH THC I KTHTOPI I CHC. Michael is portrayed without a headdress, clad in a red and gold kabbadion. Irene is also clad in red and gold, similar to the other female members of the family. The portrait of Michael is partly flaked, but we can still see that he is a beardless youth. He has no-title or office.40 Irene was the daughter of John (4) and Thomais (9), if we judge from her family name Cantacuzena. Above appears the bust of the Christ Child. The dedication picture covers ff. rov and rrr41 (Figs. 152-153). On the left page the Virgin is depicted inscribed MHP 0Y H BEBAIA EAIII C. She stands on a low podium, clad in a brown maphorion and a blue sticharion. The folds of her garments are denoted in a linear, flat manner, contrasting with the painterly way in which the faces of the Virgin and Christ are modelled.

Holding the Child in her right arm, she points with her left to the foundress and her daughter portrayed on the opposite page. They are inscribed with their monastic names: ®EO~OYAI I MONAXH I H EKTHTO I PICAandEYPOCY I NHMONAXH j KOMNHNH ~ I OYKAINA IIA I AAIOAOI'INA I KAI 0YI'ATHP j TWN EKTHTO I PWN. They are both clad in black. The mother offers in her right hand a model of the katholikon and with her left hand leads her daughter to the Virgin. The younger foundress holds a codex in her left hand, the Typicon itself. They both face outwards, like all portraits in the Typicon. Both faces are well preserved and one can observe similarities between this portrait of the foundress and that of f. zr (Fig. 144), such as the eyebrows, eyes, lips and the pointed chin. Euphrosyne is here portrayed older in age than on f. 7r, where she is depicted as a lit tle girl between her parents (Fig. 145)· I have already remarked that the miniature there commemorated her presentation to the convent. Here she is shown at that age when she offered her Typicon. The series of portraits closes with an impressive miniature on f. rzr 42 (Fig. 154)- It represents the nuns who, according to the Typicon, must not exceed the number of thirty. 43 Their heads contrast with the black background formed by their vestments which are outlined in a thin light line. The abbess holds a brown staff. In the foreground are depicted five ljttle girls. Three of them are clad in brown and two of them have a white headscarf. Grabar compared this representation with that in the Hortus Deliciarum showing a group of noble ladies in the convent of Sainte-Odile and thought that the model of our miniature was Western. 44 The upper part of f. r3r is covered by a headpiece consisting of blue tendrils and red flowers. All the miniatures are framed by a simple red line. One can observe that a system has been followed in

88 Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 17, identified him with Michael Lascaris Bryennius Philanthropenus who was active at the end of the 13th century. This date is very early for our Michael. Perhaps he is identifiable with the megas stratopedarches Michael Philanthropenus mentioned in a prostagma of John V Palaeologus, dated in 1350 or 1365: V. Laurant, "Les bulles metriques," Hellenika, 6 (1933), 224. Delger, Facsimiles, no. 51, pl. XX. Guilland, op. cit., I, 511. a11 Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 14. Nicol, op. cit., no. 40, fig. 3. 40 Papadopulos, op. cit., no. 14. Nicol, op. cit., no. 41, fig. 4. The latter correctly observed that Papadopulos confused our Michael with Michael Asen, the oldest son of John Asen of Bulgaria (1279-80) and Irene Palaeologina. 41 Both-miniatures are reproduced in Belting, op. cit., figs. 22-23; the Virgin in Pacht, op. cit., fig. 21, and Rice-Hirmer, fig. 192. Velmans, op. cit., fig. 49, the foundresses.

42 Reproduced also in Rice-Hirmer, fig. 191. Beckwith, Byz. Art, 155, fig. 295. G. Mathew, B yzantine Painting, London, 20, fig. 9. Velmans, op. cit. fig. 50. A colour reproduction in Hunger, Reich, fig. 24; he incorrectly dated the codex to 1399-1400 based on the dated commemorations inserted later (p. 282), a mistake repeated by Velmans, op. cit., 125. 3 ' Delehaye, op. cit., § 23. Euphrosyne increased the n umber of nuns to fifty; Idem. § 147. 44 Grabar, Art, I, 234, pls. 41a-b and 42a-b.



the positioning of images of Christ and the Virgin in the upper part of the miniatures, which provides a focus for the deesis compositions beneath. The Virgin inscribed 'The Certain Hope' appears only above the founders and, without any further inscription, above the parents of the foundress and above her first son with his wife. Christ, who seems to be of lesser importance than the Virgin in the Typicon, appears above the second son with his wife, and as a child above the grand-children, in harmony with their youthful appearance. To establish the date of execution of the portraits it is necessary to determine the date of the foundation of the monastery, that is, the date of the compilation of the Typicon by Theodora Palaeologina, and also whether our manuscript is that original Typicon or a later copy. Since we do not know the year of Theodora's death to establish a terminus ante quem for the foundation of the convent we must turn our attention to the members of her family commemorated in the Typicon. The parents, husband, one nephew (16) and one daughter-in-law (9) of the foundress are mentioned as deceased in chapters 22-23 which were surely part of the first Typicon. The date of her husband's death (2) has been placed between l3IO and 1328, while that of her nephew John (16) and daughter-in-law, which could have occurred later, is unknown. To narrow the period which could be used as a terminus post quem for the execution of the first Typicon, we may use the commemoration chapter45 following the first 24 chapters only after establishing that this chapter was written at. the same time. The commemoration of Theodora's husband occurs also in this chapter, but the remaining commemorations could have been inserted at later dates. In this case the date of a death in a commemoration cannot be used as a terminus post quem for the foundation of the convent. At first glance one would get the impression that these were inserted later, because the dates and months-the years are not mep.tioned-are arbitrarily given. The first commemoration, for instance, that of the daughter-in-law of the foundress, Thomais (9), has the date February II (§ 135), the second, that of her grand-daughter Theo-

dora (ro), July 23 (§ 136), but the third, that of her brother Michael (rr), June 6 (§ 137). If all the members of the family mentioned in this chapter were already dead when the Typicon was compiled, one would expect to find them listed according to the calendar. Although this theory seems reasonable, we must propose the exact opposite, namely, that all the members of Theodora's family commemorated in this chapter were already dead when the convent was founded. I have reached this conclusion after the following observations: r. The commemoration of the founder's sister Maria (13) on September 16 (§ 139) is followed by that of her husband Isaac (14) on June 8 (§ 140). Theodora does not refer to him as "the husband of Maria" or as "the husband of my sister," but as "her husband" {-roc -rou &v3poc; ocunjc; µVY)µ.6cruvoc), which implies that the latter commemoration was written at the same time as the former. Moreover, in the following commemoration for July 3 (§ l4I ), that of Andronicus (15), she refers to him as "their son", which again means that these three commemorations were written at the same time. 2. The commemoration chapter closes wit h a paragraph in which the foundress asks the nuns not to neglect to celebrate the Liturgy in commemoration of the family members mentioned in it. 3. The commemoration chapter is followed by the chapter defining the boundaries of the convent. 4. The first commemoration mentions Thomais (9) wife of the foundress' second son (§ 135), the second mentions Theodora (ro), daughter of her first son (§ 136). The following four {§§ 137-40) are devoted to the two brothers of the foundress, Michael {rr) and Andronicus (12) , her sister Maria (13), and the husband of the latter Isaac {14). Then come the commemoration of her nephews (§§ 14142), t he parakoimomenos Andronicus {15) a nd, finally, (§ 143) that of the father-in-law of her first son, Theodore (17). The order of the commemorations is, thus, arranged according to the family relation of the deceased to the foundress and not according to the calendar. The wife and daughter of her sons occupy the first place, then follow her brothers and sister, then the husband of the latter followed by her nephews and, finally, her son's father-inlaw. Moreover, if the commemorations were written after the corn-



Delehaye, op. cit., § § 134-144, 154, 11-27.






pilation of the first Typicon, they would not have been followed by the closing paragraph mentioned above, or the chapter defining the boundaries of the monastery, but they would have been placed at the end of the Typicon to permit later entries of the same nature. Thus, the date of the death of family members in the commemoration chapter may be used as a terminus post quem for the compiling of the Typicon. The only date previously given for the Typicon was proposed by Delehaye. 46 The brother of the foundress, Andronicus (12), was identified as the author of a work dated 1310, and this year has been considered as a terminus post quem for the Typicon. It is, however, possible to assign a later date of the first Typicon. The parakoimomenos Andronicus (15) was sent in l3I5 by Andronicus II to arrange the marriage of Andronicus II with Anna of Savoy, 47 which took place the following year. He is, moreover, mentioned in a chrysobull of Andronicus II, datable to 1328. 48 This year is the latest I could establish as a terminus post quem for the foundation of the convent of Certain Hope and the compilation of the first Typicon of Theodora. We may now proceed to the question as to whether the Lincoln manuscript is that first Typicon or a later copy. A supplementary rule was added to the first Typicon by the daughter of the foundress, Euphrosyne, after the death of her mother. The supplement was written by a later hand. In our manuscript a second hand is at work in many passages belonging both to the first Typicon and the supplement of Euphrosyne. If our manuscript was the first Typicon, the second hand would appear only in the supplement and not in the preceding two chapters. It is, therefore, a copy on which two scribes have worked. The first scribe is responsible for ff. 14-122, 126-27, 133-34, 136-141; the second 123-25, 128-32, 135, 142-59, except 157, which together with f. 160, is the work of two other scribes. We know that a typicon was u sually followed by a number

of copies after its compilation. 49 The Lincoln Typicon is very probably one of these copies executed, we may suggest, soon after Euphrosyne took over the running of the convent. T he portraits of the Lincoln manuscript are also, in all probability, copied from the Typicon of Theodora. All the double portraits, the founders with the child Euphrosyne in monastic garments, and the miniature representing the group of under thirty nuns may have existed in the first Typicon. The dedication miniature, however, seems to have been ordered, or at least changed, by Euphrosyne (Figs. 152-53). Here she is depicted holding a codex, the Typicon itself. Since we have no reason to believe that she contributed to the compilation of her mother's Typicon, this representation can be explained only if we place its .execution after her own additions to the rule of the monastery. The original dedication miniature of Theodora has been changed to what we now see. Any other changes in the family, or in the titles and offices of those portrayed, we may assume were also brought up to date during the execution of the copies which included the supplement of Euphrosyne. Since her brother Theodore Synadenus (Fig. 146) is inscribed protostrator and not protovestiarios, a title which he acquired about 1344, this year can be considered as a terminus ante quem for the execution of the portraits. In conclusion, we may state that the compilation of the Typicon of Theodora and the foundation of the convent of Certain Hope took place some time between 1328 and 1344, and that the manuscript Lincoln College gr. 35 was executed at a later date, but still within the same period. There follows a genealogical tree for the family commemorated in the Lincoln Typicon. Specialists in Palaeologan prosopography can perhaps give more information on its members, which could eventually lead to a more precise date for the manuscript. The members whose names are written in capitals are portrayed in the Typicon, those names in lower case are mentioned in the t ext; those relatives known from elsewhere are given in italics; the names in

Idem, p. 147-48. n Diilger, Regesten, IV, no. 25 33, p. 103-104. Guilland, op. cit., I, 209. cs Diilger, op. cit., IV, no. 2593 , p. u5. Guilland, op. cit., I, 209, n123.


49 In the Typicon of the empress Irene Comnena for the convent of Kecharitomene of about III8, for instance, it was stated that copies of the original should be made for the Church of St. Sophia, the patron, the archives of the convent and for daily use; cf. Delehaye, op. cit., p. 6, n 3, p. 9.




brackets denote their monastic names. As for the abbreviations, A stands for Angelus, As for Asen, B for Branas, Br for Bryennius, D for Ducas, Ka for Cantacuzenus, Ko for Comnenus, L for Lascaris, P for Palaeologus, Ph for Philanthropenus, R for Raul, S for Synadenus and T for Tornices. The portraits in the Lincoln Typicon with their colourful costumes furnish us with excellent visual material for a comparison of the costumes of the officials portrayed there with the written descriptions of Ps-Codinus, since both works are contemporary. In the following table, the first column lists the officials portrayed in the Typicon followed by a number in brackets denoting their rank in the list of Ps.-Codinus; the second column gives the colour of their costume and the third the colour mentioned by Ps-Codinus (page and verse numbers refer to Verpeaux's edition); sk stands for skaranikon and ka for kabbadion. No sk, but stephanos; red rouchon, brown tamparion· sk red and gold with enthroned emperor; ka red and gold

Sebastokrator (2) f. IV, Fig. 143 Protostrator (9) f. 8r, Fig. 146

M. stratopedarches (xo) f. 2r, Fig. 144 M. primmikerios (l f . 5r, Fig. 148


M. konostaulos (12) f. 3r, Fig. 147

Protosebastos (14) f. 6r, Fig. 149

red rouchon (147, 12).

red and gold with standing emperor; whatever preferred (154, 8-n); both similar to that of Grand Duke. sk brown, red and gold both similar to that of with enthroned emperor; Grand Duke. ka red and gold. sk red and gold with apricot colour with enthroned emperor; standing emperor; ka red and gold. whatever preferred (155, 1-13). sk red and gold with both similar to m. enthroned emperor; primmikerios (155, 16-18) .. ka green and gold. sk red and gold with both similar to m. enthroned emperor; primmikerios ka green and gold. (155, 20-24).

Michael Comnenus (f. 4r) and Michael Tomices (f. 9v) have no offices or titles, as we have already noted. We see that on the skaranika of the officials in the Typicon; the






emperor is depicted seated, while according to the description of Ps.-Codinus, he should be shown standing on the front, and enthroned on the back of the skaranikon. The colour of the skaranikon of the protostrator in the miniature corresponds to that precribed by Ps.-Codinus for the Grand Duke (153, 13-17); the colour of the skaranikon for the protostrator and the megas stratopedarches is described as being identical with that of Grand Duke. However, in the miniature them. stratopedarches has a brown check pattern with red stipples on a gold background. The colour of the skaranika of them. primmikerios, m. konostaulos and protosebastos is also red and gold in the Typicon. Ps.-Codinus described it as ~e:pLxoxx6zpouv (an apricot colour) and explained it as a colour µfoov xoxxLvou xixt il.i:;uxou. The kabbadia could be of any colour according to Ps. Codinus. The officials in the Typicon all have kabbadia of red with gold decoration except the last two, whose kabbadia are green with gold.

The first full page miniature at the beginning of the codex (f. 9v) represents St. John of Damascus and St. Sabas. A dedicatory inscription under the miniature reads: TOY ..:lOYAOY ..:lEHCIC TOY 8Y IIPOKOIIIOY. These two saints are depicted here, because the Typicon of St. Eugenius is a copy of that used in the monastery of St. Sabas near Jerusalem, to where John of Damascus retired around 700 AD. The second full page miniature is the dedicational representation and is placed at the end of the book (f. 3r5v). Under an arch stands a saint inscribed 0 ArIOC EYI'ENIOC O TPAIIEZOYNTIOC, and a smaller figure offering the saint a book. This figure is badly effaced and without an inscription, but must be identified with the donor, and the book as the Typicon itself; the red cover of the Typicon is identical with the colour of the book Procopius offers in the miniature. The year of the donation of the Typicon, 1346, may be considered as the year of the restoration of the monastery of St. Eugenius. This monastery had been destroyed on July 2, 1340, during the civil war in Trebizond. Sebastos Tzanichites revolted against the empress Irene and occupied the monastery. The Grand Duke John, on behalf of the empress, directed his army against Tzanichites, which resulted in the burning of the monastery. 62 It was in the same monastery that the emperor of Trebizond Alexius III was crowned on January 21, 1350, at the age of eleven, and it was also there that he celebrated his wedding with Theodora, a niece of John Cantacuzenus, on September 20, 1351.53

VATOPEDI n99 The codex no. n99 in the monastery of Vatopedi on Mt. Athos contains the liturgical Typicon of the convent of St. Eugenius, the patron saint of Trebizond. 50 According to the colophon on f. 307v, it was commissioned by a certain Procopius Chantzames and donated to the monastery of St. Eugenius for the salvation of his soul. The scribe was John Argyros and the date of compilation February 1346. The illuminations in the manuscript consist of two full page miniatures, twelve illustrations, one for each month, and a headpiece on f. 309r. 51 50 Parchment, ff. 316, 19 X 14 . S. Eustratiades, Catalogue of the Greek Manuscripts in the Library of the Monastery of Vatopedi on Mt. Athos (Harvard Theological Studies XI), Cambridge 1924, 202. For a detailed description of this ms. see: A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgiceskich rukopisej, Petrograd 1917 (Hildesheim 1965), III. 2, pp. 421-57. 01 The fullest account of these miniatures was given by Strzygowski, " Bilderhandschrift," 241-63. On the illustration of the calendar cycle see E. Stern, "Poesies et representations Carolingiennes et Byzantines des mois," "Revue A-rcheologique, 15 (1955), 141-86. For a reproduction of August in the Vatopedi Typicon (f. 202v) see Weitzmann, Athos, fig. p. 109. Cf. also Belting, Buch, 32-35, with a drawing of the dedication page and further bibliography.

52 53

Miller, T-rebizond, 45-46. Idem, 56. Nicol, Kantakouzenos, no. 35.


VARIOUS MANUSCRIPTS VAT. GR. n76 Codex Vat. gr. n76 contains the five acts of the Council of n66 AD and appears to be the original document.1 Fol. IIr2 has a portrait of the emperor Manuel I Comnenus (n43-80) and his wife Maria of Antioch3 (Fig. 155). The signatures of the Patriarch Luke Chrysoberges (n56-69) and thirty clerical participants of the council are placed in this manuscript4 (ff. 86v-88v). The council, summoned on March 2, n66, in Constantinople and presided over by the emperor himself, discussed the statement of Christ, "o 7to:tjp µ.ou µ.d~wv µ.oo hrm", "My Father is greater than I" (John, I4: 28), on which the secular participants also gave their opinions. Manuel favoured the explanation that this verses referred to the human nature of Christ, as a result of which he was accused of monophysitism.6 Nevertheless, his party gained the upper hand and his opinion "seemed agreeable to the holy patriarchs and the holy and divine synod," as he stated in the acts. 6 1 Parchment, ff. II+ 88, 25,5 X 18. Grabar, Empereur, 22 n2. Grumel, Regestes, I, no. IOJI. Canart-Peri, Sussidi, 550. S. Sakkas, "'O ll"a'.'t~p µou µe:L~6)\I µou foi;t11," B': WE1n1ie:~ xat au1101ioL Xa'.'rd: 'rOll IB'rt..lw11a, 0e:craa'.AOllLX"r) 1968, rn7-rn8. . 2 The first quire, containing the miniature, is a bifolio a little smaller in size than the following quaternia. This does not mean that the miniature did not originally belong to the codex; the portraits were brought from a workshop and placed at the beginning of the manuscript, in this way making the document even more official. a Lampros, Leukoma, pl. 69. 4 Sakkas, op. cit., pls. 2-4. 5 The fullest account of this council is given by Sakkas, op. cit.; here also the Greek text (pp. 120-180). See also P. Classen, "Das Konz.i l van Konstantinopel n66 und die Lateiner," BZ, 48 {1955), 339-68. The edict was also carved on stone: C. Mango, "The Conciliar Edict of 1166," DOP, 17 (1963), 317-30. 6 On the predilection of Manuel for theological discussions see L. Oekonomos, La vie religieuse dans !'empire byzantine au temps des Comnenes et des Anges, Paris 1918, 238-39; the council p. 48-65. The best account of Manuel I is still that of Chalandon, Comnene, II, 196ff.

The miniature, bordered by a blue and a red line, shows Manuel with a dark complexion, arched eyebrows, sharp long nose, thin lips and a sparse, dark brown moustache and beard7 (Fig. 156). He wears a semi-spherical crown decorated with a ruby. The aer (Ps.Codinus, r41, 4), falling from the back of the crown and visible behind the prependulia, is dark brown. His skaramangion is dark purple and his loros is gold with a check pattern, similar to that worn by his father John II in Urb. gr. 2 (Fig. 46). It is decorated with red stones in the centre of the squares and blue where the lines cross. His sceptre also ends in a square subdivided into four, where each piece is decorated with a blue stone. Next to Manuel stands the empress Mary, daughter of Raimond of Poitiers and Constance of Antioch, and his second wife whom he married on December 25, n61, 8 after the death of the first (n6o), also a Latin, Bertha von Sulzbach, 9 sister-in-law of Conrad III (n37-52). She wears a sumptuous crown and a blue-patterned red dress with wide sleeves. She has a high collar decorated with pearls. The golden loros and 'thorakion' is enriched with blue and red precious stones, much larger than those decorating the emperor's loros. In her left hand she holds a sceptre studded at the top with red and blue stones. The face of the empress is light rose, in contrast to the brown complexion of the emperor (Fig. r57). She has wellarched eyebrows, large dark eyes, a rather long nose, a small wellshaped mouth and a small chin. The shape of her face is oval and her hair is blond. Nicetas Choniates praised the celebrated beauty of Mary comparing her with the blonde and laughter-loving Aphrodite, the white-armed and large-eyed Hera and the long-necked Helena. 10 Mary stands on a purple suppedion, larger than that of the emperor, and has red shoes. The inscriptions in red around the 7 According to Nicetas Choniates (CSHB), 69, the emperor was tall in st ature and his complexion was rather swarthy. Eustathios of Thessalonica (Epitaphios, ed. Th. F. L. Tafel, p . 201) described him as a giant, and he too mentions his dark complexion. 8 Cinnamus (CSHB), 210-1r. 9 On this empress see Diehl, Figures, II, 17off. 10 Nie. Choniates, 151.



haloes read: MANOYHA EN XOO I TOO ®W IlICTOC I BA I CI I A I EI YC IIOP I YPO I rEN I N(HTOC KAI AYTOKPA) TWP PW I MAIWN I 0 KOMNH I NOC and MAPIA I H I EY I CE 1BE I CTA I TH l AY I roy I CTA. We know from literary sources of other representations of this emperor. A poem devoted to a painting informs us that he was portrayed in the gateway of a house while crowned by Christ in the lap of the Virgin. 11 An angel and St. Theodore of Tyre preceded him, while St. Nicholas protected his back. Another poem12 describes a painting in the refectory of the Monastery of St. Mocius13 representing Manuel, his father John, his grand-father Alexius I and Basil II. There exist other poems referring to similar representations containing portraits of Manuel. 14 Mary was also portrayed elsewhere. Nicetas Choniates told us about the unfortunate fate of a portrait of hers. The usurper Andronicus I, fearing the impression made on the spectators upon seeing her most beautiful appearance that was truly worthy of admiration, repainted her portrait to give the impression that she was old and shrivelled. 15 VAT. GR. 1851 The illustrated epithalamion, a poem written for the marriage of a princess, now Vat. gr. 1851 is one of the most precious manuscripts from the Byzantine era. 16 The order of the eight folios preserved ---'Several more are missing-and the identification of the emperor and the other figures represented on them, is still in dispute. The four bifolia, r-8, 2-7, 3-4 and 5-6, are now in the following order: I 2 3/4 / 5/6 7 8. Strzygowski described the miniatures and published the text and a translation of the epithalamion with the help of Lampros. 17 He 11 Codex Marc. gr. 524, f. 36r, ed. by S. Lampros, "Ma:pxtotvoc; xw81!; 524," NE, 8 (19n), 43-44. Cf. Grabar, op. cit., 86 n5. u Lampros, op. cit., 127 (f. 46r). Grabar, op. cit., 29. is Janin, Eglises, 367ff. u See Mango, Art. 224ff. 16 Nie. Choniates, 432-33. Cf. Mango, op. cit., 235. ia Parchment, ff. 8, 22,5 x 17. P. Canart, Codices Vaticani Graeci:Codices I745-I962, Citta del Vaticano 1970, I , 324-25. Idem, Sussidi, 650. 17 Strzygowski, "Epithalamion," 546-67.



suggested the following folio order: lacuna, 8 2 / 7 I, lacuna, 3 5 / 6 4. He also gave the folio order suggested by Lampros : 8 2 / 7 r, lacuna, 3 6 4 lacuna 5; f. z could be placed after f. 7 or after f. r. The folio order of Lampros is unacceptable, because most of the folios are treated as singletons. It is obvious that Lampros' suggestions were based only on the text and that he did not know that the manuscript was formed of bifolia. Strzygowski explained the miniature on f. rr (Fig. r64) as showing a Byzantine emperor receiving a message from a Western king whose daughter was to marry his porphyrogenitus. The m iniature on f. zv represents Constantinople (Fig. 160). The miniature on f. zv (Fig. r6r) depicts the arrival of the messenger by boat and the handing over of a message to a courtier, who, in his tum, presents it to the emperor. He gave a symbolic explanation of the miniature on f. 7v (Fig. 162): in the upper panel are shown the emperor, the empress and their son, and in the lower the Western king and his daughter in Byzantine costume. He also considered the possibility that the figures in the lower section could represent the Byzantine emperor leading the princess to the palace. In this case, the whole miniature would represent the impression created by the announcement of the arrival of the princess at Constantinople. Strzygowski's first explanation that the figure in the lower panel of the miniature could represent the Western king is unacceptable, because this figure is identical with that representing the Byzantine emperor in the upper section and in the miniatures on ff. rr and 2v (Figs. r61 and r64). His second explanation, in which he identifies the smaller figure as a princess--as he did in his first-is als() unacceptable. The reason is not so much that the text on the verso of the miniature does not mention th e arrival of the princess in the palace-this led him to assign a symbolic value to the miniaturebut principally because the figure behind the emperor is not a princess, but the son of the emperor, who is also depicted in the upper zone of this miniature and in the miniature of f. 2v, sitting next to h is father (Fig. 16r). All these three figures wear similar crowns, purple robes, loroi, segmenta on the arms, hems and, moreover, have identical faces and hair. The differences between the two figures in t his miniature- I refer here to the broader hem and loros



of the upper figure and the round ornament on the chest of the lower figure-are minimal in comparison with the differences between the lower figure and the princess who is definitely depicted later in the codex on ff. 3v and 6r (Figs. r67 and r70). There she is clad in a dress of different decoration and with wide sleeves, wears a diadem instead of a crown and has a more rounded face; her eyes and mouth are smaller and the shape of her hair is again different. Strzygowski correctly described the miniature on f. 3v (Fig. r67) as showing the welcome of the princess, the changing of clothing, and underneath, the ladies paying court. The miniature on f. 6r {Fig. 170) shows the meeting of the princess and the daughter of the emperor. He finally identified the Byzantine emperor as Michael VIII Palaeologus (r26r-82), the prince as his son Andronicus, and the princess with Anna, daughter of Stephen V of Hungary, or Irene, daughter of William VI of Monferrat. This identification was accepted by, among others, Diehl, 18 Ebersolt 19 and Gerstinger. 20 Lazarev dated the codex to the beginning of the 14th century and noted that its style is unique. 21 Papademetriou challenged Strzygowski's identification, for several reasons. 22 The second marriage of Andronicus took place not in r275, as Strzygowski stated, but in 1285 when his father Michael VIII was already dead. 23 The father of Irene was not a king (p1Jy&px"IJi;, f. 2r, v. 2, Fig. r6o), but a marquis. Concerning his first marriage with Anna in r271, 24 the congratulator (crunocpL&pLo'T"IJ 6uy&'T"!Jp, f. 6v, vv. r4-r5, Fig. r7r) of Manuel by his first wife Irene. 27 Irene's second daughter died at the age of four. 28 Alexius had only one sister in n79. The poet would have mentioned any other brothers and sisters of the prince, if they existed, who naturally would welcome the princess. He, furthermore, found several resemblances between the epithalamion and the oration of Eustathius of Thessalonica on the occasion of the arrival of Anna in Constantinople.29 Papademetriou suggested the following folio order: lacuna, 7 r / 8 2, lacuna, 6 4 / 3 5, lacuna. F. 7r shows a symbolic representation (Fig. 162). F. 7v contains the first message of the king accepting the marriage (Fig. 163). F. rr contains the preparations for the marriage and the arrival of the second message (Fig. 164). Fols. rv, 8r and 8v contain the message (Figs. r65, 158-59); F. 2r the farewell of the princess and the departure of the congratulator (Fig. 160). The first quire ends with the miniature on f. 2v which shows the arrival of the messenger in Constantinople (Fig. r6r). Between the first and the second quire a binio is missing. Then


is Diehl, Manuel, 789-80. u Ebersolt, Arts, 126 n7. Idem, Miniature, 59. 20 Gerstinger, Buchmalerei, 37. 11 Lazarev, Storia, 370, 416 n58. H S. Papademetriou, '"O ~m6oO.ceµ.~oi;; 'Avllpov[KoU B' 't'Oi:i IletA.onoA.6you," BZ, I I (1902), 452-60. 2s Papadopulos, Genealogie, no. 58. 24 E. de Muralt, Essai de chronographie byzantine. II. ro57-z453, St. Petersbourg 1871, 424. Papadopulos, op. cit., placed this marriage in 127~· 55 Papadopulos, op. cit., placed the birth of Andronicus in 1259-60 which


means that Andronicus was a porphyrogenitus. The epithalamion, however, mentions only one sister of the prince, while Andronicus had three sisters and three brothers all of whom, except for one brother, were living in 1273. 26 Alexius was born on September 10, 1169: Chalandon, Comnene, II, 212. 27 Maria was born in 1152: Idem, II, 212. 2s Cinnamus (CSHB), 202, 12. 29 W. Regel-N. Novossadsky, Fontes rerum Byzantinarum, Petropolis 1892, I, 80-92.



follows the miniature on f. 6r showing the meeting of the two princesses (Fig. 170). F. 6v describes this meeting which continues on ff. 4r and 4v (Figs. 172-73). F. 3r describes the meeting with the relatives of the imperial family, which is shown on f. 3v (Figs. 16667) . F. 5r contains the appearance of the princess in front of the emperor, the description of which the poet hesitates to undertake (Fig. 168). On f. 5v is written a continuation in a similar manner and here the second quire ends (Fig. 169). The latter part of the poem is missing. Heisenberg accepted the identification of Papademetriou.30 The miniature on f. 7r represents, he believed, the ceremony of prokypsis, the description of which has not survived in the text of the epithalamion (Fig. 162). In the lower zone the emperor is depicted, followed by the bride, while he ascends the stairs to the podium of the prokypsis. In the upper zone th~ emperor, flanked by the couple, appears again. Velmans proposed that the text of the epithalamion dated from rr8o and that it was composed for the marriage of Agnes of France and Alexius Comnenus, but the illustrations were executed in the l4th century. 31 The miniature on f. 7r represents the ceremony of prokypsis or a similar one. The lower panel represents the emperor ascending the stairs to the tribune followed by the princess. In the upper section the same emperor appears flanked by the princess and the young prince. The small figure is taken to be a courtier. Belting. noted that some details of the illuminations, such as the initials, together with the identification of Papademetriou suggest a date for the epithalamion in the 12th century.32 He perceptively noted that the princess was not only the addressee of the text, but also the recipient of the codex. His conclusion was that the epithalamion was an original work and not a copy of an older text. The representation of f. 7r corresponds neither with the text on the verso nor with the remaining text and, in his opinion, it is the title picture to the manuscript, which summarizes the whole poem. The

two zones of the miniature are independent of each other. In the lower panel the emperor is depicted with the marriage contract in his hand leading the princess into the palace, denoted by the stairs and the door. Both figures appear again in the upper section; the princess can hardly be recognized as she is now shown taller in stature, standing on a cushion and clad as an empress. She is the most important figure and the eyes of the emperor and the prince are turned to her. We see here the ceremony of the prokypsis, which took place after the coronation of the couple and beforethe marriage, during which the epithalamion was read by its author. If we are to accept Belting's interpretation of the miniature, the Byzantine artist must have been thoroughly inconsequent in representing the princess first as a minor figure and then on a more impressive scale. He has made the same mistake as previous scholars in taking the figure behind the emperor as a princess. I have already explained why I believe that this figure is the son of the emperor and not a princess. Perhaps one of the reasons leading to this misinterpretation is the long plaited hair of the figure. Similar plaits are, however, seen on the high dignitaries flanking the emperor on f. 2v (Fig. 161) and this removes any possible objection to identify this figure with the prince. How the hair of a princess appeared at that time can be seen in the miniatures on ff. 3v and 6r (Figs. 167 and 170). The Western princess has a very long blond plait in both miniatures, reaching almost to the ground. On f. 6r her plait is decorated with a string of pearls. A similar long plait, but black, is worn by the Byzantine princess on the latter folio. When seated she places the plait on the bench beside her. Belting's remark that the. miniature on f. 7r was a title picture implies that this folio should be the· first in the codex. He thus rejected the folio order suggested by Strzygowski and Canart33 (see hereafter) and accepted that suggested by Papademetriou who, however, believed that the beginning of the epithalamion is missing~ F. 7v begins indeed with a capital letter, but the first verses imply that the message of the Western king, accepting the proposal of the emperor, preceded f. 7. It was apparently these first verses


so Heisenberg, Geschichte, 96. n Vel.mans, "Portrait," ro2-ro3, fig. 8 (f. 7r). 89 Belting, Buch, 26-29, fig. 18 (f. 7r}.


Can art, op. cit., 324.




which made Strzygowski decide to place this folio in the middle and not at the beginning of the codex. Contrary to Belting's opinion that this miniature is not related to the text, and its characterisation by Strzygowski and Papademetriou as symbolic, I should like to observe that this miniature can be explained by the text on its verso. In this passage (f. 7v, Fig. 163) there is expressed the joy which the arrival of the message caused to the ruler, the people, the faithful, the nobles, the relatives, the senate, etc. This implies that the message was announced to the people, and this announcement is what the miniature shows. The emperor with the message in his hand, followed by his porphyrogenitus, ascends to the balcony. There the emperor stands flanked by the empress and their son, while the herald announces the betrothal by reading the message from the Western king. It would seem strange that, while all the other miniatures are connected with the text, this alone forms an exception. -· To judge which of the above suggested identifications for the figures represented in the epithalamion is correct, and also to explore if any other candidates can be added, let us first summarize the facts given by the text and the miniatures: The father of the princess must be a Western king; he has sent his daughter to be betrothed to the porphyrogenitus (f. 2r, v. n) of a basileus. The congratulator dispatched by the king arrives to the capital city by sea. This city must be Constantinople as is shown by the inscription on the miniature on f. 2r (Fig. 160). The couple are still very young as we know from the text and the miniatures on ff. 7r, 2v, 3v and 6r (Figs. 162, 161, 167 and 170). The princess camps on her arrival outside the walls of the city (f. 6r, v. l) where she is met by h er future sister-in-law (f. 6v, Fig. 171). The sister of the bridegroom is also a porphyrogenita (f. 4v, v. 4, Fig. 173); she is moreover the first daughter of the emperor. The latter is shown in the miniatures (Figs. 161-62, 164) with a short round beard and a semispherical crown. Since a Palaeologan emperor was suggested by Strzygowski, we must take this dynasty into consideration. We will have, however, to exclude all Palaeologan emperors as candidates for the emperor in the epithalamion, because invariably they are all shown with a



long beard ending in two points, except for Michael IX and Constantine XI, who are shown with a short round beard (Figs. ngi and l2I). These two emperors must also be excluded, because the former never reigned as a sole ruler and the latter died childless. The emperors of the Nicaean empire must also be excluded, because the miniature on f. 2r shows Constantinople. From the Angeli, Isaac II (n85-95, 1203-1204) took as his second wife Margaret (Maria) of Hungary, but his son Alexius IV (1203-1204) was not married; he had furthermore two daughters. 34 Alexius III (n95r203) had three daughters but no sons. During the reign of Andronicus I Comnenus (n83-85) no imperial marriage took place with any Western princess, except that of the emperor himself with Agnes of France, who was already in Constantinople after her marriage to Alexius II. Manuel I Comnenus is a serious candidate, for the reasons outlined by Papademetriou. In addition, the beard of the emperor in the epithalamion, short and round, corresponds to that of Manuel I as shown in Vat. gr. n76 (Figs. 155-56). Similar also is the beard of John II Comnenus (Figs. 46, 48-49) and this obliges us to examine his sons' marriages. His first son Alexius, born in no6, married in II22 a Russian, and not a Western princess. His second son Andronicus married Irene, known to us through her commissioning the Manasses chronicle. We have no indication that she was a Westerner. His fourth son Manuel, the later emperor, born about n25, married Bertha von Sulzbach in n42. He was then about eighteen and not a child. As for the t}iird son of John II, Isaac, we know that he had two children,85 but we do not know who his wife was. Alexius I must also be excluded as a candidate, because he had a larger and rather square beard. The emperors before Alexius I must also be excluded, because the shape of their crowns was not semi-spherical. From the above excursus we see that only Isaac, the son of John II, could eventually emerge as a competitor of Alexius II. It would be, however, irresponsible to favour him as a candidate on 34

See the genealogical tree of the Angeli dynasty in Brand, Byzantium,

278. 86

Idem, 277, lists five daughters.




the supposition that his wife might have been a Western princess. If she indeed was the daughter of a Western king, it is likely that history would not have remained silent about her marriage. The analogies between the marriage of Alexius II and the epithalamion are too many to be considered as accidental, and consequently the conclusion emerges that Vat. gr. 1851 is not an epithalamion for Andronicus II, but an epithalamion for Agnes of France. We have seen above that the opinions of Strzygowski, Lampros and Papademetriou differ concerning the folio order of the codex. They were mainly guided by the text of the epithalamion, but it seems that the text alone was not sufficient to lead them to an identical folio order. Along with the text, I should like to examine which of the miniatures and initials left their off-prints on the pages facing them and together with the folio order suggested by Canart, who applied the law of Gregory (latus pilosum latus pilosum respicit), I shall attempt to establish the original folio order of this manuscript. The scholars mentioned above, with the exception of Papademetriou, favoured the following order for the first quire: 8 2 I 7 I. The same folio order can also be reached if we examine the off-prints of the miniatures and the initials. Above the initial Eon f. 8r (Fig. 158) there are traces of an initial which is not found in the folios we possess. From the position of these traces we can conclude that this initial was not on the verso of the lost folio preceding f. 8, but on its recto. Thus we miss the beginning of the poem, as is also clear from the text wich does not begin with a capital letter. On the right upper corner of the same folio there is an off-print of an E which is also not found in the codex. Since this letter is reversed, it comes from the verso of the lost preceding folio. It is also visible on f. 8v (Fig. 159). The II under the reversed E comes from f. 8v. The reversed E on f. 8v comes from f. 8r. Above it we can distinguish the horizontal bar of the initial Twhich is written on f. 2r (Fig. 160). In the right margin of f. 2r we see the off-print of II from 8v. In the upper left hand corner of f. 2v (Fig. 161) we can distinguish, with some difficulty, the head and the front foot of the dog forming the initial U) on f. 7v (Fig. 163), which reached here through f. 7r (Fig. 162) . To the left of this U) (f. 7v) we see the tail and back feet,

and aboye, the front feet and head of the panthers forming the initial X on f. Iv (Fig. 165), which has passed t hrough f. rr (Fig. 164). On the left margin of the latter folio we see the traces of a II coming through the off-print on f. IV. The letter II itself is not present in the codex, which means that at least one folio is missing after f. I . The reconstruction of the second quire (ff. 3-4, 5-6), on the basis of the text, is more difficult than the first. Each scholar suggested a different folio order. On the right margin of f. 5v (Fig. 169), next to the miniature, we see the off-print of the zoomorphic initial II on f. 6r (Fig. 170), along with some spots of red coming from the miniature of 6r. The off-print of the miniature representing a city on f. 5v is visible on the lower part of f. 6r. From this we may conclude that the bifolio 5-6 was in the middle of the second quire. The initial which left its traces on the upper right corner of f. 5r (Fig. 168) is not present in the codex. This means that a folio is missing preceded f. 5 and consequently another folio, the companion to t he lost folio in front of f. 5, is missing after f. 6. The initial, obviously an M, which caused the off-print on the upper right corner of f. 3r (Fig. 166) is also missing. The decision as to whether f. 3 comes before or after the bifolio 5-6, must be taken with the help of the text and miniatures. The text on f. 3r describes the reception of the princess by the court ladies, which is depicted on f. 3v (Fig. 167). The princess is shown in the upper left corner of the miniature arriv ing in Western costume and since she wears Byzantine clothes in the miniature of f. 6r (Fig. 170), f. 3 must be placed before the bifolio 5-6, and f. 4, the counter folio of f. 3, after it. Canart applying the law of Gregory, suggested the following folio order for the codex (X = one missing folio) : x x 8 2 I 7 l x X, x 3 x 5 I 6 x 4 x. As regards those folios still preserved, our analysis above suggested the same folio order. Concerning the missing folios, Canart assumed t hat each quire consisted of eight folios. The text of the epithalamion is now given according to the folio order established above along with reproductions of all surviving leaves, to allow our proposals to be verified and perhaps clear the way for a fuller understanding of the codex.




Lacuna F olio 8ro (Fig. 158) 8r.ei..oyL~6µ71v