Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century

7/28/2019 Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century

1/77

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preuischer Kulturbesitz

Studies in Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth CenturyAuthor(s): Hugo BuchthalReviewed work(s):Source: Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 25. Bd. (1983), pp. 27-102Published by: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preuischer KulturbesitzStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4125786 .

Accessed: 22/08/2012 21:56

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preuischer Kulturbesitz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toJahrbuch der Berliner Museen.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=smbhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4125786?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4125786?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=smb


2/77

STUDIES IN BYZANTINE ILLUMINATIONOF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY*

BYHUGOBUCHTHALfor CarlNordenfalk

IAfter a short-livedperiod of political successes and of deceptive internal prosperity, the

ByzantineEmpire during the last years of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180),andeven more under his weak successors, experienced a near-disintegration which ominouslyforeshadowed the manner in which itwould be carvedup bythe Latins afterthe Fourth Crus-

*The present article took shape graduallyover the years, afterI had been fortunateenough to studythe Diony-siou manuscripton Mt. Athos in May, 1972,and had realized its overridingimportancefor the historyof Byzantineprovincial llumination in the first half of the thirteenthcentury.The work was constantly nterruptedbecause Ihadto give priorityto two othermajor projects,butduringall that time the frequentand fruitfulexchange of ideas withMrs. AnnemarieWeylCarr,who had written her Ph. D. dissertationon the New Testamentmanuscript n Chicagoand now prepares a comprehensive monograph on the entire group provisionallydubbed the "decorativestyle",keptmyinterest alive. We finallydecided that I should devote a separatearticleto the Gospels in Dionysiou andBer-lin and to the smallgroupofmanuscriptswhich formtheir immediate succession,but should excludethe discussionof the narrativeGospel cycle contained in the Berlin manuscript.Accordinglythe present paper covers only thoseGospelswhich stem more or less directlyfromDionysiou 4; theyare without anydoubt he finestbooks of the entire"decorativestyle"group,which is not otherwise distinguished bythe high qualityof its illustrations.The more dis-tant relatives, from the middle of the twelfth centuryonwards, which now amountto almost one hundred, will betreatedby Mrs. Carr n a book, which will include a cataloguelisting all those codicologicaldetailswhich were notrelevant within the framework ofmy own more limited endeavour. Still, despite the limitationsof this paper,Iven-ture to thinkthatmyconclusionsmaymark thebeginningof ourunderstandingofprovincial lluminationduringtheperiod in question, and I hope thatfurtherdiscoveriesmayeventuallyclinchmy arguments,andconfirmmy conjec-tures.

Mythanksgo to all those authorities who have assisted me in the formidabletaskof assembling the pictorialdo-cumentation.Pride of Place goes to Dr. Alice Bank and to Professor OlgaPopova,who took considerabletime andtrouble to arrangefor accessto the manuscripts,and to procurethe unpublishedphotographsfrom LeningradandMoscow; and to Mr. Sot. N. Kadas n Thessalonicawho made severaltripsto Mt. Athosto take photographsof theDionysiou and Ivironmanuscripts.I am especially gratefulto the BritishAcademyfor enablingme to visit Berlin,Moscow and Leningrad, and studythe Gospels in Cracow; access to the Cracowmanuscriptwas grantedby Dr.Adam Homecki, and the photographstaken specially by the art-historicalInstitute of CracowUniversity, on theinitiativeof Dr. WandaAltendorf.The BritishAcademyalso made it possible forme to acceptan invitationfromtheMatenadaranto visit Erevan and to studyArmenianmanuscriptson the spot.The graciouswelcome I received fromthe Armenian authorities,especiallyfrom His Holiness VaskenI, Catholicosof all Armenians, and DirectorKachi-kian and vice-director Chookaszian,will alwaysbe among my most precious memories.I also owe thanksto Dr. Tilo Brandis,director of the departmentof manuscriptsatthe Staatsbibliothek,Berlin,who made the Berlin manuscript freely availableto me on successive occasions, andto the keepers of the libraryofGonville & GaiusCollege, Cambridge,the John RylandsLibrary,Manchester, and the Bodleian Library,Oxford,who made theirtreasures accessibleto me and suppliedme with photographs.A specialword of thanksshould gotothe Jahrbuch and to its editor, ProfessorF. Anzelewski who readilyagreed to acceptthis articlefor publication,inspite of its unusual length and the formidablenumber of illustrationswhich had to go with it. Finally, as on formeroccasions,Dr. JohnLowden readthroughthe entiremanuscriptandrendered it intoreadableEnglish;and the staffof the photographicdepartmentand of the studio of the Warburg nstitute,Universityof London, were particularlyhelpful, and successful, in improving the qualityof flawed photographsto make them suitable for publication.


3/77

28 HUGO BUCHTHALade of 12041.During the last quarterof the twelfth centurythe centralauthority ost more andmore of its prestige and power, and was no longer able to keep control of various outlyingterritories, in which rebellious provincialgovernors adopted

the role of more or less indepen-dent rulersrejectingthe authorityof the capital2.Some ofthem, like Isaac Comnenus the Lordof Cyprus,were even related to the imperial family. They established miniature courts andimitated the outwardtrappings of imperial power. In away, they were the forerunners oftheGreekEmpire in exile, which Theodore Lascariswas to establishin Nicaea in1204'. We knowrather little about the activities - artistic or otherwise - which went on in the rival LatinEmpire of Constantinople, or in Salonica, or in Nicaea itself; and though a number of manu-scriptssurvive which mustbelong into the firsthalf ofthe thirteenth century,theirprecise dateand localisation still escapes us. It was not until 1261 hat Constantinoplewas reconquered,and the resources and prestige of the metropolis - albeitreduced - were once again at the dis-posal of a Greek dynasty.To some extent this untoward development is reflected in the historyofthe fine arts,espec-iallyofpainting.The almost complete absence of religious paintingin the capital n the twelfthcentury may be due to accidents of survival;butthe proliferation of fresco painting in Mace-donia and Cyprusduring the second half of the century certainly points to the growing im-portance of provincial centres. The history of miniature painting offers rather closeparallels. Some of the turbulent events mentioned above are to be found reflected in the his-tory of the production of the illuminated book.As a rule we take it for granted that manuscript illustrationduring the middle Byzantineperiod, and certainly after the turn of the millennium, was a highly centralized activity,andthat it flourished mainly in the capital, Constantinople, whereas most provincial scriptoriawere artisticallysterile and unproductive.This is especially true for the eleventh century,andalso for the firstpartofthe twelfth. In his surveyofByzantineilluminationandicon paintinginthe eleventh century, K. Weitzmann hardly mentions the problem of provincial versusmetropolitan art4. The manuscripts he adduces to characterizethe development of style andthe changes of emphasis which occurred duringthe eleventh centuryare overwhelmingly ofConstantinopolitan origin - from the Menologium and Psalter of Basil II, to the "imperial"Lectionary in the Dionysiou Monastery, the Gospels Paris grec 74, the Lectionary Vat. gr.1156, he Gospels in Parma, andthe Climacusmanuscript in the Vatican, omentionjustafewof the more outstandingbooks of the period. Only in the case of the illustration of certainSaints's lives does he consider their origin, as itwere, in situ, e.g., thatof the FortyMartyrsofSebaste in eastern Anatolia5.But in the first half of the twelfth century, Constantinoplestillstandsvery much in the forefront, first of all throughthe oeuvre of the "Kokkinobaphosmas-

1Cf. G. Ostrogorsky,History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick1969,pp. 585ff.2Cf. H. Ahrweiler, L'idbologie politique de l'Empire byzantin,Paris 1975,pp. 89ff.3Ostrogorsky,History, pp. 426ff.4 K. Weitzmann, Byzantineminiature and icon Painting in the eleventh century, in: Proceedings of the XIIIthinternationalCongressof ByzantineStudies, Oxford5-10 September1966,London 1967,pp. 207-224, reprintedinthe author's Studiesin Classical andByzantineManuscriptIllumination,ed. H.L. Kessler, Chicago1971,pp. 271ff.5K. Weitzmann, Illustrationsof the lives of the five Martyrsof Sebaste, in: Dumbarton OaksPapers, 3355,979,pp. 97-112.


4/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 29ter", an outstandingartisticpersonalityof great skill, andwith an impeccable technique, whois responsibleforthe illustrationofover a dozen manuscripts,most ofthem Gospels6; one hasan imperial dedication portraitwhich can be dated in the years justafter1122'.These manu-scripts apart, an impressive number of equally or slightly less distinguished works may beattributedto Constantinople during the second quarterof the century. It is, therefore, all themore strikingand significantthat soon after the middle of the centurythe metropolitan tradi-tion appears to come to an almost complete stop. Few illustratedmanuscripts of that periodcan be assigned to the capital,and only one, the Gospels no. 3 in the Greek Patriarchate inIstanbul, has really outstanding merits8. The provinces, on the other hand, now enter thelimelight, and completely dominate the production of illuminated manuscripts from about1150onwards - a situationwhich continues to prevail well into the firsthalf of the thirteenthcentury.The proliferationofprovincialproduction n the second halfofthe twelfthcenturyhas caus-ed much confusionamong arthistorians . A group of almost a hundred related manuscripts,and their numbers still growing, most of them still unpublished, has alreadybeen identified.The best-known work in the group, a lavishly illustratedNew Testament in Chicago, whichwas at one time dated to the period after the Palaeologan restoration, is now thoughtto be oneof its earliest members, a product from the third quarterof the twelfth century'o.As scribalcolophons are almost completely lacking, and the few comparisons which canbe made withthe styles of provincial fresco ensembles are mostly not convincing, there are still no reliableconclusions about the precise dates, chronology, and place, or rather places, of origin of themembers of the group. Their connection with the metropolitan tradition is slender; theirmanufacture in Constantinople, though it was at one time considered, is unlikely.Howeverthis may be, they are of unmistakable identity. The group is also characteristic n that it in-cludes veryfew lectionaries, buta certainnumber ofpsalters, and of the popularcombinationof Psalter-and-New-Testament". But the majorityare merely Gospel Books with evangelistportraits. The appearance of those big, centralized figures, endlessly repeated in a fewconventional poses, is dominated bytheiremphatic outlines;the ornatearchitectureandfurn-iture combine with them into a lively overall linear interplay of patterned surfaces;and theirunreal, pastel-likecolour scheme inwhich pink,mauve, andlightgreen areprominent, createa new kind of reality, a distinctivestylethat is particular o this group". In addition to the por-

6J.C.Anderson, An Examinationof two twelfth-centurycenters of Byzantinemanuscriptproduction, Ph. D. dis-sertation,Princeton 1975;the same, The SeraglioOctateuchand the KokkinobaphosMaster, in: Dumbarton OaksPapers, forthcoming.7I. Spatharakis,The Portrait in Byzantine illuminated Manuscripts,Leiden 1976,pp. 79ff., pl. 46.

8R.S. Nelson, Text and Image in a Byzantine Gospel Book in Istanbul,Ph. D. dissertation, New York1978.9Cf. the summaryin A. Weyl Carr,A Groupof provincial manuscriptsfromthe twelfth century, n: DumbartonOaks Papers, 56, 1982,pp. 39-81.1oCf. the precedingnote, and, provisionally,the same author'ssummary"Byzantinemanuscript lluminationintwelfth-centuryPalestine",in: Second AnnualByzantineStudies Conference, Madison,Wisconsin, 1976,pp. 15-16.Aprovisionallist ofmanuscripts s giveninA. Cutler& A. Weyl Carr,The Psalter Benaki24,3:Anunpublishedilluminated manuscriptfrom the family 2400, in Revue des Etudes byzantines, 54, 1976, p. 507.12Cf. he paper quoted in note 9, and, provisionally,the same author's Ph. D. dissertation "The RockefellerMcCormick New Testament, Studies toward the reattributionof Chicago,University Library,MS 965, Ph. D. dis-sertation, University of Michigan 1973, esp. pp. 268ff.


5/77

30 HUGO BUCHTHALtraits,there are carpetheadpieces decorating the top halves of the pages with the beginningsof the texts of the individual Gospels, and oftenleavingspaceforonly a few lines of script.Theheadpieces are for the most part rectangular; in the finest manuscripts they form perfectsquares, similarto those in the Gospels illuminatedin the second quarterof the centurybytheConstantinopolitan "Kokkinobaphosmaster". Still, the overall picture remains extremelyconfusing. Few of these manuscripts are so close to each otherthat one would unhesitatinglyascribethem to the same masters, or to the same scriptorium.The entire group, illustratedinwhat has provisionallybeen called the "decorativestyle",will be the subjectof a comprehen-sive monograph, complete with a catalogue of all known manuscripts, by Mrs. AnnemarieWeyl Carr,and I do not propose to anticipateher results.My aimis more modest: I shall con-centrate here on a single small sub-group, of comparativelylate date and amazingly homo-geneous, which not only stands somewhat apartfrom the rest, but also offers illustrationsofsuperbqualitywith which most of the othermanuscripts cannotcompete. This sub-groupcan,at least from a purely art-historicalpoint of view, receive more detailed attention here thanwithin the forthcoming fuller treatment of the entire group.The manuscriptsto be discussed here are all tetraevangelia of the usual type; only one ofthem has, in addition to the standard equipment, a comprehensive cycle of narrativeGospelscenes, which, however, will have to remain outside the scope of the present enquiry'".Ifthere are any liturgicalindications at all, they are as a rule confined to a line at the bottom ofthe first page of the Gospel of John, indicating that this is the reading for Easter Sunday.Evidentlythese books were in demand fortheir biblicaltext, andperhaps alsofortheirartisticdecorations, butnot, or at least not primarily, for their possible use in the liturgy.Ithas beennoted above thatlavishlydecorated service books formasmallminoritywithin the group;theyare indeed also a minority within the production of manuscripts in the twelfth century as awhole. It appears that the sumptuously decorated Lectionary had by that time largelydisappeared, and been superseded, not only in provincial centres, by illustrated Gospelbooks.

The switch in the emphasis of Byzantineillumination from the Lectionary to the Gospel,and even more so thatfrom metropolitan to provincialproduction, must reflecta concomitantchange in patronage. We saw that the capital's loss represented a gain for the provinces.Manuscripts like the Chicago New Testament and its numerous progeny were certainlynotproduced formembers of the imperial familyor the militaryaristocracy,butrather in and forprovincialmonasteries, orperhaps forprovincialadministrators and members of the laity,fortheirprivatedevotions. The artistic astes of these patronswere not alltoo demanding. Butit isinterestingto observe a distinct rise in qualityduringthe lasttwentyyears ofthe century,whenthe deaths ofManuel I and Andronicus I had weakened the impactof the capitaleven further,and more artisticactivities seem to have been transferred elsewhere. One finds it difficult toassociate the noble appearance of manuscripts like the Gospels no. 11,5 n the Ludwig Collec-tion4, orthe Holkham Hall Gospels no. 515,with provincialmonasticism. One would preferto

13TheGospel scenes will be discussed in a forthcoming studyby Mrs. Weyl Carr.14formerlyAthos, Dionysiou 8, cf. A. von Euw & J.M. Plotzek, Die Handschriftender Sammlung Ludwig, I.,Koln 1979, MS II, 4; pp. 159, figs. 56-65.s'5W.O.Hassall, ByzantineIllumination at Holkham, in: The Connoisseur, no. 13355, arch 1954, pp. 87ff.


6/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 31

Fig. 1. fol. 4v Moses receiving the Law. Fig. 2. fol. 5. Ammonius and Eusebius.

Fig. 3. fol. 6. Eusebius letter. Fig. 4. fol. 6V.Eusebius letter, end.Athos, Dionysiou 4


7/77

32 HUGO BUCHTHALlook for their patrons among members of the powerful governing class who ruled over theirterritories more or less independently of the central authority.The small group of Gospels towhich the present study is devoted represents the continuation of this pattern of patronageinto the thirteenth century, and in a way constitutes a link with early Palaeologan illu-mination.

II

Perhaps the most outstandingmember of the small sub-groupmentioned at the end of thepreceding paragraph,and probablyalso its earliest representative, is the Gospels no. 4 in theDionysiou Monastery on Mt. Athos'6.Most of its illustrationsare of stunning quality, and itsset of Canon Tables, unfortunatelyno longer complete, is in its way unique. The manuscriptstartswith a full-pageminiature of Moses receiving the Law (fig. 1), a theme alluding to Oldand New Testament harmony" and characteristic of the "decorative style" from early ex-amples suchasthe ChicagoNew Testamentonwards. Moses is not theyouthfulfigure usuallyfound in Byzantine representations of the prophet, but has a shaggy beard, and his hair isneatly arranged in distinctivestrands. A comparable depiction is found in an earlythirteenthcenturyMoses icon in the SinaiMonastery, awork which was probablyproduced under Con-stantinopolitaninfluence'8. The paint on the face of the Dionysiou Moses has almost com-pletely flaked off, so thatthe underdrawing with its wavy hair over the forehead and pointedchin is clearlyexposed. The prophet is shown in ahalf-kneelingposition; i.e., he is represent-ed kneeling but turned round by 45 degrees, so that his legs and knees do not touch theground, butseem to hover in mid-air. Above and below is aquotation,written in large goldenuncials, from the Gospel of John, 1.17: "forthe Law was given by Moses, butgrace and truthcame byJesus Christ".The quotationsuggests that the figure was originallyintended to haveas counterpart on the opposite rectopage a miniature showing Christ in glory; and this isindeed the case in a few manuscripts of the "decorativestyle" group'9.But since, in this case,the complete text was set outat the top and bottom of the Moses leaf, it seems that there wasnever a plan to include a second miniature. The style of the Moses figure, with its creepinghems and undulatingfolds, is characteristically ate Comenian; the treatment of the draperyinvites comparison with that of the fresco of the Angel of the Annunciation at Lagoudera onCyprus,dated 119220, ut lacksthe latter's exaggerated animation. The miniature is of an ex-ceptionally high quality; no earlier manuscript of the "decorative style" can possible compete,

1626x 18 cm. ruling system Leroy 44 D 1. S.M. Pelekanides, P.C. Christou, C. Tsoumis, S.N. Kadas, TheTreasures of Mount Athos, Illuminated Manuscripts, I, Athens 1974, pp. 393-396, figs. 14-26, with earlierliterature.'7A. Weyl Carr, Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian period, in: Gesta, 21, 1982, p. 11.'8K.Weitzmann, Loca Sancta and the representationalarts of Palestine, in: Dumbarton OaksPapers,28, 1974,fig.48.19R.S.Nelson, The Iconographyof Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book, New York 1980,pp. 66ff. The miniature of Christ n glorysurvives,e.g., in the GospelsFlorence, Bibl.LaurenzianaPlut.VI,52, Nel-son fig. 47.20L.Hadermann-Misguich,Kurbinovo,Brussels 1975, fig. 38.


8/77


Fig. 5.Tbilisi, Institute of Manuscriptsof the GeorgianAcademy of Sciences A 1335. "VaniGospels", fol. 1v.Eusebius and Carpianus.Leningrad, StatePublic Librarygr. 296

Fig. 6. fol. 1. Canon Table 3.Leningrad, State Public Library gr. 296

or even be considered closely related. It belongs, without doubt, to an entirely different sty-listic tradition.The illumination on the opposite rectopage, with the title and the beginning of the text ofEusebius's letter written in gold and arranged in cruciformshape (fig. 2), must have been a

splendid work indeed before the two figures in the upper lateral rectangles were damagedalmost beyond recognition. They represent two monks, Ammonius and Eusebius, seatedwriting in front of lecterns and identified by captions;the corresponding fields at the bottomcontain ornamentalpatterns.Neither the cruciformlay-outof the page nor the inclusion of thetwo Fathers have anyparallels in the illustrativeprogram of "decorativestyle" manuscripts.In fact,these figures confrontingeach other are not frequently encountered in Byzantine art.Moreover, Eusebius is not faced by Carpianus to whom his letter is addressed, but byAmmonius who is only brieflymentioned in the opening words as an earlier author of a syn-opsis of the Gospels. Yet this anomaly continues a tradition which can be traced back to thepre-iconoclastic period, and is found in the late sixth century Syriac"Rabula"Gospelswrittenin a monastery in the hinterlandof Antioch21

21The RabbulaGospels edd. Carlo Cecchelli (and others), Olten-Lausanne1959,fol. 2a.


9/77

54 HUGO BUCHTHAL

Fig. 7.fol. 1'. Canon Table 4. Fig. 8.fol. 2. Canon Table 5.Leningrad, State Public Library gr. 296

Fig. 9. fol. 2'. Canon Table 6.Leningrad, State Public Library gr. 296

Fig. 10.Athos, Dionysiou 4 fol. 8. Canon Table 7.


10/77


Fig. 11.Athos, Dionysiou 4 fol. 8'. Canon Table 8. Fig. 12.Athos, Dionysiou 4 fol. 9. Canon Table 9.

Fig. 13.Athos, Dionysiou 4 fol. 9'. Canon Table 10.


11/77

356 HUGO BUCHTHALAs faras Icansee, these arethe onlytwo instances where Eusebius'sinterlocutor s explicit-

lycalledAmmonius. Butthe same pictorial group,with the twoprotagonists seated andfacingeach other, recurs in two Constantinopolitan manuscripts of the late eleventh century:in thesplendid Gospels in Parma, Palat.gr. 522, where they confronteach otherjustas in the Diony-siou manuscript, but are labelled Eusebius and Carpianus; and in MS Clarke 10 in theBodleian Library23,again with the same arrangement of the figures but with no namesattached to them. The Parma Gospels has moreover an additional miniature, inserted afterthe Canon Tables,which has in its upper parta second representation of Eusebiusand Car-pianus; in the lower register is Ammonius, in ordinarynot clerical dress, instructinga groupof people24. All three figures are identified by captions. Finally, the Codex Ebnerianus,a manuscript of the middle of the twelfth century also in the Bodleian Library25,has anarrangement of figuresvery much like that of the RabulaGospels butagain without identify-ing captions.The author of the CBMtakes it for granted that in both Oxfordmanuscripts thetwo monks represent Eusebiusand Carpianus, justas in the Parma Gospels. In supportofhertheory she might also have adduced the "VaniGospels",a Georgian manuscriptillustratedatthe end of the twelfth century in a Georgian monastery near Constantinople26.The two fig-ures shown there in the first miniature, seated opposite each other, one writing, the otherholding a scroll, have their names, Eusebius and Carpianus, added in Greek in the margins(Fig. 5). It is truethatthe captions could be later additions;but we maytake it that they reflectthe intentions of the illuminator. However this may be, the possibilitythat the two monks inthe Ebnerianusminiaturemay, on the evidence of the Rabulaand Dionysiou Gospels, also beintended to represent Eusebius and Ammonius should not be altogether excluded.The ornament in the two lower lateral fields is identical with that in the lunette of theCanon Table fol. 8v (fig. 11),and will receive attention when the Tables as a whole are dis-cussed.

The text of the Eusebiusletter continues, entirely written in gold, over the following threepages (figs.3,4) 27. The text is inserted in eight-lobedfields within richlydecorated rectangularframes. The fettered monkey on fol. 6 deserves special attention: in this manuscript it occursonly once, butwe shall meet similar figures populatingthe margins of illuminated pages insome of the latermembers of the group. Comparable playfulsimians, as well as some similarmotifs to be mentioned later, are found in Canon Tables of Byzantine manuscriptsfrom thelate eleventh century onwards; one of the earliest instances is the above-mentioned ParmaGospels28.They also make a conspicuous appearance in the "VaniGospels" to which re-ference has just been made. It would probably be a mistake to search for a deep underlyingsymbolism, as scholars have so successfully done in the case of"drbleries" in western Gothicand Renaissance art, especially of monkeys in marginal decorations of Latin Gothic manu-

22Theminiatures of this manuscripthave not yet been completely published.23I.Hutter, Corpusder byzantinischenMiniaturenhandschriften(CBH), I, 1977, Oxford,Bodleian Library,I.fig.207.24apparently till unpublished. Photograph at the CourtauldInstitute of Art, University of London.25Hutter, CBM I, fig. 225.26V.Lazarev, Storia della pitturabizantina, Turin 1967, p. 264 note 169, with earlier literature.27Fol. 5V s reproduced in Pelekanides (and others), Treasures, I, fig. 15.28Lazarev,Storia della pitturabizantina, fig. 159.


12/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 37scripts, seen as "images of the blind and unhappy human soul"29; the significance here goeshardlybeyond that ofa harmless and spontaneous secular embellishment without anyhiddenmeaning. The monkey should rather be classed together with similar grotesque and animalmotifs derived by A. Grabar from the "cycle de l'hippodrome" and the related "corpsd'acrobates et de gymnastes",which arefrequent inByzantinemanuscriptsfrom the eleventhcenturyonwards3".We shall encounter more of them in the decoration of the Canon Tables.Ithas been mentioned before thatthe set of Canon Tables is now incomplete: the firstfolio(fol. 7) has disappeared afterthe manuscriptwas foliatedand can no longer be traced, andthefollowing two leaves which have no folio numbers are now in the State Public LibraryinLeningrad as MS. gr.296 (figs.6-9)3". Fortunatelythese fourpages are now also availableforstudy,and will here be treated as iftheywere still in their original place, between the missingfol. 7 and fol. 8 of the Dionysiou manuscript. Together with the two remaining folios (figs.10-13), eight pages in all, they are among the most impressive of their kind in the entire rangeof Byzantine illumination. The section numbers are copied very accurately,and the end ofevery Canon is clearly indicated. It is all the more surprisingto find that the scribe, in spite ofthe great care which was lavished on the Tables, did not copy very carefully.Thus, the textcolumn with the sections from John in Canon 4 and that with the sections from Matthew inCanon 5 (fig.9) were interchanged - an errorwhich is easily explained since the two columnsin question follow each other directly on the same page.The construction of the Tables is traditionalas faras Byzantinemanuscripts generally areconcerned; butit has no predecessors among earlier Gospels of the "decorativestyle" group.The master of the Dionysiou manuscript must have used a model introduced from outside -just as he must have done forthe Eusebius-Ammonius page. This applies in the firstplace tothe architecturalforms: the columns, either sturdyor slender, frequently interlaced in thecentre, and the high rectangularsuperstructures, some of them framing semicircular archeswhich in their turn encompass the lunettes with the individual Canon titles.There are other features which perpetuate the Byzantine tradition of Canon Tables buthave no parallels in earlier manuscripts of the "decorative style".Thus, some Tables facingeach other on versoand rectopages are conceived in many essential details as mirror images,e.g., Tables 4 and 5 (fig. 7 and 8), andTables 6 und 7 (figs.9 and 10);and the tendency to limitmarginal palmettes to the outer side of the architectural framework while the gutter sidesremain undecorated, is onlytraceablein Constantinoplefrom aboutthe middle of the twelfthcenturyonwards. Bythis device one cantell at a glance whether asingle Tablewas intended tobe used as a recto or a verso. The lateral palmettes are large and sprawling, and providerestingplaces forbirdsand, in one instance,forapeacock.They are surmountedbysecondarypalmettes springingfromthe level ofthe column capitalsandrisingto the fullheight of the su-perstructures;they, too, are inhabited by birds in lively postures and movements. Finally, a

29H.W. Janson,Apes und Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Studies of the WarburgInstitute20), London 1952,p. 17;LilianM.C. Randall,Images in the marginsof Gothicmanuscripts, Berkeley1966,pp. 48ff.30Une pyxide BDumbartonOaks, n: DumbartonOaksPapers,14,1960,pp. 155ff,reprinted n theauthor's L'Artde la fin de l'Antiquiti et du Moyen Age, I, Paris 1968,p. 246.31H. Buchthal, Disiecta membra, in: The Burlington Magazine, CXXIV,1982, pp. 214-219 and Correction,p. 556.


13/77

38 HUGO BUCHTHALmultiple fauna enlivens the tops of the superstructures: here are peacocks and otherbirds aswell as foxes, rabbits,elephants, and griffins,most of them inviolentmovement, and some inratheraggressive positions. This realm of fantasycontinues inside the rectangles themselves:there are animals's heads with tusks and elongated proboscis in the spandrels of Table 3 (fig.6), the first of the survivingTables, and lions's heads seen full face, with cornucopiae andvegetable scrollssprawlingfrom their mouths in Tables 6 and7 (figs.9,10).This colourfulandunreal microcosm is rendered in a somewhat forceful and unrefined style, and in starkcolours whose capriciousness provides the only and somewhat tenuous link with the or-nament of the "decorativestyle" manuscripts.Though, aswe shall see, every single motif canbe paralleled in Byzantine manuscripts of the preceding century, the general impression ismore reminiscent of the overblown characterof Armenian Tables from late twelfth centuryCilicia32:an exotic and exuberant world, infinitely involved but not so delicate as in Ciliciaitself and at times rather gross, but always highly original and vigorous, and no doubt theresult of a very special effort. The patron of the Dionysiou manuscript, whoever he was,appreciated the unique and the out-of-the-ordinary;and he was fortunate enough to securethe services of an unusuallyversatile artist who was familiar with the traditions of Constan-tinople as well as of Cilicia - either at first hand, or, more probably, through manuscriptmodels. He did notreproducethe studiedelegance ofhis models, but used them, asitwere, tocreate new forms and a new style.The single motifs of Constantinopolitan originwhich ourmaster introduced into his workfall easily into two separate groups: one from the middle and one from the end ofthe twelfthcentury. The first group is borrowed from the oeuvre of the "Kokkinobaphosmaster", themost outstandingartisticpersonalityamong Constantinopolitan lluminatorsfromthe secondquarter of the century, who followed contemporary taste by lavishing generous ornamentaldecoration on his manuscripts. Outstandingamong the motifs from the "Kokkinobaphos"workshop is the pipe-bowl-like receptacle rising on a stalk andmostlycontaining three piecesof fruit33.We noticed them first,in passing, in the two lower fields ofthe Eusebius-Ammoniuspage (fig. 2); they recur most prominently in the superstructureofTable 8 (fig. 11),where theyconstitute the prevalent ornamental decoration. But they are also found in other places, forexample, in the superstructureof Table 10(fig. 13).Next, the lions's masks in Tables 4 and 5from whose mouths issue cornucopiae or scrolls (figs. 9, 10): they have a predecessor in theheadpiece to the third homily in the VaticanKokkinobaphos manuscript34.The elegantlyshaped vessel supported by acanthus-likebases in the same manuscript35may also be com-pared with that in the superstructure of Table 5 (fig. 6). The ubiquitous leaves with their zig-zag contours are found throughout both manuscripts; and the geometrical overall grid in thesecond headpiece of the Kokkinobaphos manuscript in Paris36, which also has parallelselsewhere in this group, recurs filling the entire superstructure of Table 9 (fig. 12). The Paris

32Cf.p. 40 and fig. 17.33Cf.note 6 and, e.g., Hutter, CBM fig. 252 and in other manuscriptsof the group discussed by J. Anderson.34C.Stornajolo,Miniature delle Omilie di GiacomoMonaco e dell'Evangeliariourbinate(Codicies e Vaticanisselecti, series minor, I), Rome 1910. ig. 22.35 bid., fig. 59.36unpublished.


14/77


Fig. 14.Tbilisi, Vani Gospels, fol. 3. Canon Table. Fig. 15.Tbilisi, Vani Gospels, fol. 5v.Canon Table.

Fig. 16.Tbilisi, Vani Gospels, fol. 4. Canon Table. Fig. 17.Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery,M 538 fol. 7.Canon Tables 4 and 5.


15/77

40 HUGO BUCHTHALKokkinobaphos manuscript also has a marginal ornament of a frontallydisplayed peacock37which corresponds to that in Table3 (fig. 6). All these motifs maywell have been transmittedthrough a single manuscript; most of them occur several

times within the oeuvre of the"Kokkinobaphosmaster".The second group of motifs borrowed from the Constantinopolitan tradition is found inthe Georgian Gospels A 1335 in the Institute of Manuscripts of the Georgian Academy ofSciences in Tbilisi, generally called the "VaniGospels"38. twas illustrated for Queen Tamarof Georgia towards the end of the twelfth century in a Georgian Monastery near Constan-tinople, either by a Greek master, or, more probably,by a Georgian, or several Georgians,under the supervision of a Greek artist. Unfortunately a comprehensive publicationof themanuscript,which has been promised for many years, is still awaited.

Every observer will immediately be struckby the similarity in the general lay-out of theCanon Tables in the Dionysiou and the Georgian Gospels (figs. 14-16). The latter have thesame broad superstructures,with a profusion of animal and genre scenes more or less sym-metrically arranged along theirupperframes; they arecarriedbycolumns ofthe sturdyortheslender type, with an interlace at the centre; and the outer margins have the same cabbagypalmettes on which hover birds, or, in one instance, a peacock (fig. 16). The comparison canbe carriedintogreaterdetail. The fox on topof the firstGeorgianTable(fig.14)recurson fol. l1ofthe Leningrad fragment (fig. 7), and the elephant ofthe second Table (fig.15)on fol.2v(fig.9). Finally,and most significantly,the second GeorgianTablehas inthe spandrels ofits super-structurethe same animals's heads with their long protruding proboscis as Canon Table 3from Dionysiou 4 (fig. 6). To conclude the evidence, one may point to the playfulmonkeyswith skullcapson the leftofthe same GeorgianTable,which remind one ofthe monkey on oneof the Eusebianpages of the Dionysiou Gospels (fig. 3). It is perhaps also worth mentioningthat the pipe-bowl-like receptacles which played such an important part in the ornamentalwork of the Kokkinobaphosmaster39aswell as in the Dionysiou Gospels 40, mayalso be tracedin two of the Georgian Tables (figs. 14, 15), but much more schematically rendered: theyshouldbe taken as apointer to the longevity ofthe motifin Constantinopolitanartratherthanto any connection with the Dionysiou manuscript.Yetwhen all is said and done, some elements remain which justcannotbe explained byre-ference to the Constantinopolitan tradition - whether represented by the "Kokkinobaphosmaster" or by the Georgian manuscript from the end of the century which reflectsmetropolitan book production. Still another sphere of influence has to be considered: that ofArmenian Cilicia. The point has been mentioned before. First come to mind: three richlyilluminated Gospel manuscripts, all dating from the last decade of the twelfth century, andproduced in the region of the patriarchal seat of Hromkla: no. W. 558 in the Walters Art Galle-ry, Baltimore4' (fig. 17), dated 1195;the Gospels no. 1655, also dated 1195, in the Library of the

37H. Omont, Miniatures des Homblies sur la Vierge du moine Jacques, in: Bulletin de la Soci~ti frangaisedereproductionsde manuscrits h peintures, 11,1927,pl. XXX e.38Cf. note 26.39Cf. note 6.40Cf. e.g., fig. 11.41S. Der Nersessian, Armenian Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore 1975,figs. 25-52.42S. Der Nersessian, Manuscritsarminiens illustris de Venise, Paris 1956, figs. 58-45.


16/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 41Mechitarist Fathers in Venice42; andthe SkevraGospels in the Armenian archbishop'spalacein Lvov43, dated 1197.The ornamental work in all three Gospels is in many ways closelyrelated; the manuscripts stand at the beginning of the finest period of book illustration inlesser Armenia, i.e., Cilicia.The Canon Tables of the three Armenian Gospels - especially those in Baltimore andVenice - invite comparison not so much with individual motifs in the Dionysiou manuscript,but ratherwith their general appearance as awhole. They are builtup in much the same way,with heavysuperstructureswhich arealmost square inshape, and anoverwhelming wealth ofornamental and animal decoration exhibiting an exuberance and eccentricitywhich are rarein Greek illuminationbut rather characteristic of Armenian art. It is true that the ArmenianTables have a studiedelegance, both in theirdesign andtheircolourscheme; the master oftheDionysiou manuscriptcannot vie with their sophisticationandfinish. Itcannotbe denied thathis work is in comparison crude and unrefined - though in its way justas impressive. In bothsets, some of the birds and animals are engaged in deadly combat with each other; theirappearance is mainly determined by their expressive outlines, with very little interior draw-ing, which makes them appear entirely flat, as if sketched in with a pen rather than paintedwith a brush. The violence of the animals's movements, and the slight asymmetry in thearrangement ofmost of them, give to the Armenian works both a somewhatpiquantnote andan unmistakable identity. It is predominantly in details such as these that the Athos manu-script depends on them. And this applies not only to the Canon Tables, butalso to the otherdecorated pages. The exaggerated actions andthe aggressive positions of the Dionysiou faunahave parallels, for instance, in the almost contorted animals poised on top of the headpiece atthe beginning of the Gospel of Mark in the Lvov manuscript44. n one instance45 here is anawkwardlyshaped bird with ahuman head which belongs to the realm of fable46; there is littledifficulty n recognizing its re-appearance in the two grotesque birds of Table 9 in Dionysiou(fig. 12), even though the human heads are here absent. Considered as a whole, the CanonTables with their infinite and imaginative varietyof patterns and motifs mayperhaps be con-sidered the most outstandingfeature of the Dionysiou manuscript.The last CanonTable (fig.13)deserves a separate discussion. Itis differentfrom allothers:the superstructurecontains no lunettewhich would offer the scribe the spaceneeded to insertthe title of the Canon. It is only through the position of the Table atthe end of the set that onemay guess that the three columns of numbers refer to Canon 10,4.The origin of the omis-sion is easily traced. In Armenian Tables the superstructures are as a rule solid, and notinterrupted by lunettes; the title of the Canon is written underneath (fig. 17), between thecapitals supportingthe superstructure, similar to Canon 9 in our manuscript which followsArmenian usage fairly correctly (fig. 12). But in the last Table the Dionysiou master whocopied amodel ofthis kind,forgotto leave any spacefor the titles.Here, foronce, the influence

43P. Nerses Akinian,Das Skevra-Evangeliar om Jahre1197,aufbewahrtimArchivdes armenischenErzbistumsLemberg, Wien 1950.44 bid., pl. 10.45Der Nersessian, Manuscriptsin the Waiters Art Gallery,pl. 16, fig. 26.46Eva Baer, Sphinxes and Harpies in medieval Islamic Art (Oriental Notes and Studies. 9), Jerusalem 1965,pp. 29ff.


17/77

42 HUGO BUCHTHAL

Fig. 18.fol. 14'. St. Matthew. Fig. 19. fol. 15.Beginning of Matthew's Gospel.

Fig. 20. fol. 112'. St. Mark. Fig. 21.fol. 113.Beginning of Mark's Gospel.Athos, Dionysiou 4


18/77


Fig. 22. fol. 177'. St. Luke. Fig. 23. fol. 178. Beginning of Luke's Gospel.

Fig. 24. fol. 278'. St. John. Fig.25. fol. 279Beginning f John'sGospel.Athos,Dionysiou


19/77

44 HUGO BUCHTHALof Armenian Ciliciais not only the dominant feature of the architecturalsetting, but also thesource of an awkward error.

The whirling acanthus leaves in the central section of the superstructure,too, invite somecomment. They are so similarto some sixthcenturysculptedarchitecturalornament at Qal'atSim'an in Syria47hat it is difficult o imagine thatthe two are entirelyunconnected. Revivalsofearly Byzantine ornament arenot altogether unknown in middle Byzantine illumination.Buthere the similarityis especially striking;it is difficult o avoid the conclusion that a similaror-nament served as the direct source of inspiration. Again, our master has regenerated hismanuscript model with new forms of life.

Among the fourevangelist portraits,those of Matthew (fig. 18)andJohn (fig.24) areclearlyrelated to the frontispiece miniature of Moses (fig. 1). Mark (fig. 20) and Luke (fig. 22),however, are not so close, and maybe the work of an assistant. The differences extend to thecaptions attached to the four pictures: only those of Matthew and John are consistent bothwith one another and with those of the Moses miniature. That of Mark is notable for beingwritten in a differenthand, with different abbreviations, and is the only one to start with across.

Iconographically,the fourportraitsare entirely traditional,in the attitudesand activitiesofthe evangelists as well as in the furniture and background architecture, e.g., Matthew'sarched bench, Luke's stool, and the building cut in half in the Mark picture. Matthew andJohn aremonumental, dignifiedandexpressive figures, hardlyremiscent ofanyoftheir coun-terparts in the true "decorative style";and just as was the case in the Moses miniature, thecolour scheme is darker, and more saturated. The light and dark browns and blues, and,especially, the deep purple shades have closer parallels among late twelfth centuryArmenianwork from Cilicia, than in comparable Greek miniatures. Closest perhaps are the portraitsinserted into the Sebaste Gospels of 1066 (Erevan, Matenadaran 311),which are now con-sidered to be twelfth century Cilician work48.In the Dionysiou Gospels, Matthew's body isbent slightlyforwards; and John dictatingto Prochoros, easily the most impressive evangelistof the set, is a similarmonumentally conceived figure in a dark blue and deep violet pallium,turningtowards Prochoros in a telling and convincing gesture. Curiouslyenough, the feet ofboth figures protrudeinto the frame. These two evangelists maywell be considered the mostremarkable representations of their kind within the entire framework of the "decorativestyle".Mark and Luke are noticeably weaker in execution, and in many ways comply more withthe run-of-the-mill tradition of the "decorative style". Though they are of the same size as theother two portraits, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called monumental. Theyare boldly but somewhat awkwardly contained within their sweeping and dominating out-lines, which bestows on them a somewhat rubbery quality - a common feature in "decorative

47Cf.D. Krencker,Die Wallfahrtskirchedes Simeon Stylites in Kal'atSim'an, Berlin 1959(AbhandlungenderPreuBischenAkademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin 1938,Phil. hist. Kl., 4), pl. 50 h.i.48Cf. L.A. Durnovo,ArmenianMiniatures,London 1961,p. 65, where the miniature is stilldatedin the eleventhcentury,and I.R. Drampjan&E.M. Korchmazjan,Chudolestvennye sokrovika Matanaderan,Moscow 1976,withthe correctdate. I am most gratefulto Mrs. Korchmazjano have the factsaboutthismanuscriptbrought o my atten-tion. Itshouldbe mentioned thatthe colourreproduction n Durnovo is not reliable: the evangelist'smantle is muchdarker, and closer to the purple shade of the Dionysiou evangelist's drapery.


20/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 45style"manuscripts -, andappearartificaland stilted.They sharewith theircompanion figuresthe bulging folds round theirarms, and the circular olds on the hips, but the treatment is lesssubtle.Compared with the other two they are at an obvious disadvantage. Their most distinc-tive features are the frames,which betrayan astounding understandingof classical ornamen-tal patterns.The pages with the beginnings of the Gospel texts (figs. 19, 21, 23, 25), which face theevangelist portraits,have sumptuous carpet headpieces of stunning originality, which havehardly any parallels outside the small sub-group to which this paper is devoted. Their con-struction s strictlysymmetrical, and with one exception the fields areperfectly square. Squareheadpieces came into fashion in Constantinople in the second quarterof the twelfth century;the Codex Ebnerianus49and the Melbourne Gospelssooffer some of the earliest examples.They re-appear in some manuscripts of the "decorative style"which precede our group indate; the books Harley 1810 n the British Library51,Holkham Hall 552 and Collection Peterand Irene Ludwig II,553 may be mentioned. But in Dionysiou 4 and its close relatives thescheme is elaborated: a very limited number of patterns are almost identically repeated inthose four or fivebooks, not allof them contemporaries. Their identity is so unmistakable, thatit couldby itself provide a justificationfor treating these manuscripts as a distinctsub-group.Yet, for once, the art historian on the look-out forpossible models is at a loss. It is true that theheadpiece for John (fig. 25) which consists entirely of conventional scrolls will not cause usmuch of a headache. But it is allthe more difficult o adduce convincing sources of inspirationforthe other three which introduce new forms into traditional schemes (figs.19, 21,23). That

49Hutter, CBM I, fig. 248.50H. Buchthal,An illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book of about1100A.D., in: Special Bulletin of the NationalGalleryof Victoria,CentenaryYear1961,Melbourne 1961, igs. 6, 7. I am now inclined to datethe manuscript n thesecond quarter of the twelfth century. The article was reprinted in the author's collected essays: Art of themediterranean World, A.D. 100 to A.D. 1400,Washington 1983,pp. 140-149.51unpublishedCf. provisionally,J.A. Herbert, Illuminated Manuscripts,London 1911,p. 51f.52W.O. Hassall, Byzantine Illumination at Holkham, in: The Connoisseur 133, (March 1954), pp. 87ff.53V. Euw & Plotzek, Sammlung Ludwig, figs. 66, 75.

Fig. 26. Paris, Bibl. Nat. grec 1208 fol. 54. Headpiece for third Homily.


21/77

46 HUGO BUCHTHALfor Mark, basicallya pattern of squares standing on edge, five of which - the only completeones - forminga Greek cross with equal arms - might conceivablyhave been developed fromelements like those which constitute the third headpiece in the Paris Kokkinobaphos manu-script(fig.26). Butforheadpieces 1and3 no suggestions can be made at thisstage. Inanycase,the possibilityof Islamic influence should be kept in mind. It should also be noted that in allfour instances the gutter sides, too, are decorated with birds perching on palmettes, and thatthe floral and animal decorations on top of the squares are almost perfectly symmetrical.Below the headpieces are the Gospel titles written in large golden uncial script,with themannered abbreviationsand contractionsusual at thatperiod. On each page there is room foronly four lines of text, and they, too, are written in golden ink.The figuralinitials introducing the text of each Gospel continue the metropolitan tradition,popularsince the end of the eleventh century,of alludingto the main subjecton the oppositepage54:Matthew exhibits his Gospel (fig. 19),Luke is writing in a standing position (fig. 23),and John dictates to Prochoros (fig. 25). Only the beginning of Mark (fig. 21)has an animalinitial (letter A) similar to those found in the Kokkinobaphos group.

Finally, the script, a bold, blocky, and very regular black minuscule including a highproportion ofunicals, has more or less close parallels in other "decorativestyle" manuscriptsfrom about the end of the twelfth century, especially in manuscripts from Cyprus. But toomany questions stillremain open for us to be able toattributeourmanuscriptto anyparticular

54Cf. S. Der Nersessian, A Psalter and New Testament at Dumbarton Oaks, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19,1965, p. 166 and passim; reprinted in the author's Byzantineand Armenian Studies, Louvain 1973, I, pp. 139ff.

Fig. 27. fols. 2v-53. Canon Table 1.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


22/77


Fig. 28. fol. 3V-4. Canon Tables 2 to 7.

Fig. 29. fols. 4V-5. Canon Tables 8-10.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


23/77

48 HUGO BUCHTHALcentre - the script is just as inconclusive as the illuminations and miniatures. One fact,however, seems to stand out: the manuscriptwas not produced in Constantinople itself. Thenumerous Constantinopolitanelements which have been found in its artistic decoration areoutsiders, intruders into a stylewhich must have developed elsewhere. Whether or not thesedates fit the particular historical situation which existed just after the fall of the Byzantinecapital to the Latins is a point to which I shall have to return after some other manuscripts,close relatives of the Dionysiou Gospels, have been studied.

IIIMost instimatelyconnected with the Dionysiou manuscript is a Gospels in the Staatsbib-liothek (PreussischerKulturbesitz)nBerlin,MS graec.qu.6655,which is only slightlysmallerin size. Among the manuscripts in our sub-group,this is the only one which has been knownfor a long time; it has been shown at various exhibitions56,and, for once, photographs are

easily available. The close relationship with the Dionysiou Gospels was first pointed out byR. Hamann-McLean57.The most significantfeatureof the Berlin manuscriptis thatits text isillustratedwith over thirty narrative scenes, which are of outstanding interest and impor-tance, and were indeed extensively drawn upon by G. Millet in his "Recherches sur l'icono-graphie de l'Evangile""8.More recently, Hamann-MacLean has discussedthe special signifi-cance of the cycleas awhole59.These narrativeminiatures, however, fall outsidethe scope ofthe present study60.

Unfortunatelythe Berlin manuscriptis no longer a homogeneous entity.It includes a num-ber of leaves which are replacements or additions.But as the bindingwas completely renew-ed afterthe lastwar61,and the firsttwelve folios mounted separately, it is now difficult o dis-tinguish the various component parts of the book. In the firstplace, the Canon Tables (figs.27-29) are separate. They are complete on six pages crammed with numbers, but decidedlyinferior to the other illustrations n quality. They cannotoriginallyhavebeen produced fortheBerlin Gospels, if only because they have been cut down round the edges in order to fit theirpresent location;theymust have been intended for a slightlylargervolume. This observationhas some bearing on the evaluation of a document in Arabicwritten on fol. 2, the recto of thefirst Canon Table, which was originally blank; the document is dated 1219,and points to aChristianambiente in Egypt62. t thus supplies a date "before1219" or the CanonTables;and

5522 x 16cm, rulingsystemLeroy44 D 1.Cf.R. Hamann-MacLean, Der Berliner Codex GraecusQuarto66undseine niichstenVerwandten alsBeispiele des Stilwandels im friihen13.Jahrhundert, n: Studienz. BuchmalereiundGoldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters, Festschrift f. K.H. Usener zum 60. Geburtstag, Marburg/Lahn 1967,pp.225-250.56Lately:The Year1200,A centennialExhibitionatthe MetropolitanMuseum ofArt,NewYork 1970, I., no. 291;Zimelien, Abendlindische Handschriftenaus den Sammlungen PreuBischerKulturbesitzBerlin, AusstellungderStaatlichenMuseen, Wiesbaden 1975,no. 5.57Hamann-MacLean,Der Berliner Codex, p. 233.58G. Millet, Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'Evangile, Paris 1916,p. 736f. and passim.59Hamann-MacLean,Der Berliner Codex, pp. 226ff.60They will receive detailed treatment in a forthcoming studyby Mrs. Annemarie Weyl Carr.61Thiss recorded in a note stuck onto the back cover of the manuscript.62Hamann-MacLean,Der Berliner Codex, pp. 244ff.


24/77

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 49as Millet's iconographical studyof the Gospel scenes makes itvirtuallycertainthat the manu-scriptwas in Egyptbythe middle of the century,we maytake it that the terminusanteappliesnot only to the Canon Tables but also to the rest of the manuscript: it must indeed have beenproduced some years before 1219.The manuscript itself, as has been mentioned before, is very closely related to the Diony-siou Gospels: the scriptis so similar that the two books must be considered products of thesame workshop, if not of the same hand. The ruling system, too, is the same63.So is the pro-gram of illustrations,with the portraitsof the evangelists (figs. 30-32) and gorgeous squareheadpieces atthe beginning of each Gospel (figs. 33-36). An exception is the firstpage oftheGospel of Matthew (fig. 33), where the headpiece is of a differenttypeand probablyunfinish-ed: it shows abust of Christ n the centre andbusts of the fourevangelists holding scrollsin thecorners. The whole composition was inserted into a geometrical and floral setting but leftunpainted and only sketched out in red againsta backgroundof a grid of white lines. In addi-tion the page has suffered extensive damage fromwater; most of the headpiece is now blottedout, and the text of the beginning of Matthew has been carelessly rewritten by a later hand.Moreover, the original miniature of Mark is now missing, and the portraitof Moses (fig. 37)has been shifted from its correctplace at the beginning of the manuscript to the beginning ofthe Gospel of John.The second group of insertions consists of five folios. The first of these is now a single leaf,fol. 5, while the second is a bifolio, fols. 262 and 267. On fol. 5v is a duplicate portrait ofMatthew (fig. 38) which has been severely scorched by fire; its half-charredremnants areglued to an originally emptypage 64.But fol. 6,which has the originalportraitofMatthew on itsverso, is still intact (fig. 30). The bifolio 262/267 has a duplicate portraitof John on fol. 262v(fig. 39), and part of the frame plus the imprint of the whole miniature of John on fol. 267which is otherwise blank; these two folios must, therefore, atone time have faced each other.They have also severely cutdown round their edges, a clear indication that the two portraitswere originally intended for a larger manuscript. The other inserted folios contain theicqpocata for Mark, the only such list in the manuscript, on a bifolio fols. 99/100, written in abrown ink different from thatof the rest of the book, and probably by a slightlyearlier hand.Fol. 99 also has the imprint of a miniature of Markwhich must have faced itbutwhich is nowmissing, andwhich had a double frame, justlike the additionalhalf-burntportraitofMatthewon fol. 5v,andthatofJohn on fol. 262v(figs. 38, 539).These three portraitsmust have belongedtogether; but of the corresponding miniature of Luke there is no trace. These three separateparts - fols. 5, 99/100, and 262/267 - seem all to have belonged to the same manuscript whichwas split up, perhaps because of its partial destruction by fire. At what date the two bifolioswith the original miniatures of John and Moses (fols. 2653v and 264v) were inserted in themiddle of the bifolio 262/267 is unclear; the strong imprint made by the portrait of John on fol.267 makes one think that it might have happened comparatively recently, though certainlybefore the manuscript was acquired for the Berlin Library in 1881. Finally, it should be noted

63Leroy D 44 1.64Thetext written on the sheet of parchment on top of the miniature is from Psalm 41 (42), 1. I am gratefultoProfessor RobertBrowning for his help in deciphering the inscription.


25/77

Fig. 30. fol. 6v. St. Matthew.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


26/77


Fig. 31. fol. 158'. St. Luke.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


27/77

52 HUGO BUCHTHALthat the quaternion fols. 290-97 is a later replacement. In conclusion, there are the threeremaining evangelist portraits which belonged to the manuscript from the beginning; twoadditional miniatures, Matthew and John, were taken over from some other, larger, andslightlyearlier book, andwith them went a pictureofMark which has disappeared butleft itsimprint on fol. 99. The facts are complicated indeed.I shallnow discussthe various constituentgroups of illuminations in turn. First,the CanonTables (figs. 27-29). They are strangelybanal and prosaic, and carelessly executed; the titlesof some Tables are wrongly copied, and the number of birds and animals poised outside thearcades is severely reduced. Still, some are realistically cought in violent movement: themonkey on fol. 4, and the rabbiton fol. 5 add a somewhat more animated note. But the wholeconveys a rather lack-lustreimpression. As for the single ornaments, they are outside theusual repertory of Byzantine decorations, and are but dull reflections of their presumptivemodels, Armenian works fromCilicia such as the Gospels from Drasarkin the BritishLibraryOr. 8165,written in 1181,where similar feathery palmettes and rhomboid patterns are to befound (figs. 40, 41).The Tables,which seem to antedate the manuscript itselfby some years,were perhaps a spareset in the possession ofthe scriptorium,which happened to come handyforthe Berlin Gospels when itwas decided not to repeat the outstandingendeavour towhichwe owe the Tables of the Dionysiou manuscript.The manuscript itself, with its three original headpieces andthree portraits,might almostbe called a twin sister ofthe Dionysiou Gospels. Yet it is true that the execution was not so care-fully planned: the script s less regular, the number oflines of text on the firstpage of each Gos-pel vaccillatesbetween three andfive; and, while the vastmajorityof narrative scenes arenor-mal column pictures,some arealmost fullpage, while others are inappropriatelysqueezed inclose to the margins66.We should also note thatin a number of instances the first few lines ofachapter are written in gold script;and all the text passages from the Gospel of Luke which gowith illustrations from the Passion, such as the Crucifixion and the Ascension, are in redink. I incline to attribute he use of red ink forprominent partsof the text to western, probablyFrench, influence - just as the soldiers in chain mail in the miniature of the Betrayal67musthave been taken over from a western model.

Some ofthe illustrations n the Dionysiou and Berlinmanuscripts appearat firstsight prac-ticallyidentical: the headpiece for Matthew in Dionysiou (fig. 9) and that for Mark in Berlin(fig. 34); thatfor Mark in Dionysiou and that for Luke in Berlin (figs21,535); nd the portraitsof Moses (figs.1,537) nd ofJohnwith Prochoros (figs.24, 532).Onlythe Dionysiou headpiecesfor Luke and John have no counterparts in Berlin. The Berlin headpieces for Mark and Lukeare, however, slightly simplified in design and ornamental detail (figs. 54, 55), and somehowlack the perfect finish and the persuasive power of their Dionysiou forerunners; yet, it waspresumably the Dionysiou manuscript itself which was the fountainhead on which the Berlinand other related headpieces depended. This dependence may also be traced in one his-toriated initial: the standing and writing evangelist who represents the letter Epsilon at the

65Cf.H. Buchthal& O. Kurz, A Handlist of illuminated oriental ChristianManuscripts(Studies of the WarburgInstitute. 12), p. 87, no. 456, with earlier literature.66Cf. Hamann-MacLean,Der Berliner Codex, figs. 1-7.67Millet, Recherches, p. 269, fig. 547.


28/77

Fig. 32. fol. 2653. St. John.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


29/77

54 HUGOBUCHTHALbeginning of the Gospel of Luke (fig. 35). But the Dionysiou Matthew exhibiting his Gospeland John standinganddictatingtoProchoros againhave no counterparts n Berlin. The sameis true for the animal initial standing for the letter A at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark(fig. 21).The Berlin manuscripthas instead the figureof the evangelist, holding his Gospel inhis hand, striding vigorously forward (fig. 34). Other changes are the headpiece and theanimal initial for the Gospel of John (fig. 36), which have no forerunners in the DionysiouGospels.

Among the full-pageminiatures those of Moses and of John with Prochoros (figs. 32, 37)stand out for their superb quality.The main difference from their Dionysiou counterparts(figs. 1,24) is the ample use of gold honeycomb striation,especially in the second portrait- atechnical feature found occasionally in slightlyearlier or contemporaryminiatures belongingto the "decorativestyle"68,as well as in contemporary cons 69. In Dionysiou the rendering ofMoses's draperyis more natural;the wavy hem aboutthe waist is a genuine late Comnenianpattern. In Berlin the figure is more articulated and more outspoken, almost violent in itsmovements, with a prominent elongated neck and slightlycocked head. Its intense dramaticaction makes it clearlythe later of the two. In Berlin the draperyround the hip and the waistmay be slightly retouched. Above and below is the quotationfrom John I, 18,butthe figureitself lacks a proper caption - a factwhich led the authorof the Berlin Catalogue to a fancifulidentification. This omission is shared with many evangelist portraits n ourgroup.The framerecalls that of the portraitofMark in the well-known Gospels in Florence, BibliotecaLauren-zianaPlut.VI,2370, in which the evangelist portraitsmaywell be additions of the latertwelfthcentury.The relation ofthe two miniatures of John and Prochorosto each other maybe described insimilar terms. The Berlin portrait is more forceful and majestic,but the abundance of goldhighlightsmakes itappearrestless andover-dramatic,almost visionary. The drawing is moreangular, the outlines of the hems more capricious,the forehead more bulbous,the gesture ofthe right armmore expressive. Though all these featuresare not inappropriate orthe authorof the Fourth Gospel, his Dionysiou counterpart in its simple humanity is more appealing.The plain straightvertical lines of drapery and the only slightly undulating hems comparefavourablywith the deliberate excitement produced bythe figure in Berlin; againthe Diony-siou evangelist is plainlythe earlier ofthe two. The evangelist's name which appearsat the topof the Berlin page maybe a somewhat lateraddition,asalso the long cursivecaptionatthe bot-tom: 6'EooytlK6cogto i03tvuri1 Kci ,xQzoq T~v ayyCXatczTu.The portraits of Matthew and Luke in the Berlin manuscript (figs. 30, 31) do not at firstsight appear equally similar to their Dionysiou counterparts. Still, a more detailed com-parison will show that they are based on the same figural types, and that they have much incommon. Unfortunately the miniature of Matthew is much rubbed, and the details of the head

68 f., e.g., MSDionysiou25: Pelekanides,Treasures f Mt. AthosI, figs. 56-60.69Cf.,e.g., K.Weitzmann,konen usdemKatharinenklosterufdemBergeSinai,Berlin1980,pl. 11;K. Weitz-mann(andothers),Friihe konen,Wien& Miinchen 965,pl. 3355,ndmanyothers.70T.Velmans,Letitradvangile e laLaurentienne, aris1971Bibliothbquees Cahiersarch6ologiques. I),figs. 4, 125, 180.


30/77


Fig. 33. fol. 7. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. Fig. 34. fol. 103. Beginning of Mark's Gospel.

Fig. 35. fol. 162. Beginning of Luke's Gospel. Fig. 36. fol. 268 Beginning of John's Gospel.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


31/77

56 HUGO BUCHTHALare now almost unrecognizable. Moreover, the attitude of the figure has been altered: theevangelist bends forward almost violently in the act of writing. And, just as in the picture ofJohn, the comparatively simple drapery system of the Dionysiou figure mainly rendered instraightlines is supplanted by fuzzygold striation,andthe various bulges of draperyaremorecomplex and more angular. Again, it is clear that the Berlin miniature is the later version ofthe two.

The relation of the two portraitsof Luke (figs. 22, 31) may be described in similar terms:they both represent the same figural type, butin Berlin the evangelist bends forwardover hisbook. Moreover, while Luke in Dionysiou is by farthe weakest of the four,his counterpart nBerlin is a real masterpiece, a dynamic figure convincingly rendered in gold and glowingcolours, almost perfectly preserved and a worthy companion to that of John in the samemanuscript. The head has the same triangular shape as that of Moses, and the same slightlybulbousskull;there canbe no doubtthat bothworks arebythe same master copyinga modelverymuch like that of the Dionysiou Gospels - if not the Dionysiou Gospels itself. The framesare again reminiscent of those in the late twelfth centuryportraitsinserted into the Lauren-ziana Gospels, Plut. VI, 23.

Compared with its sister manuscript in Dionysiou the Berlin Gospels thus leaves a con-tradictory mpression. In spite of its multiplicityof sources and its inconsistencies the Diony-siou Gospels presented itself as a breakthrough, a new beginning, well on the way to creatinga new style on the basis of very respectable if somewhat heterogenous models. The Berlinmanuscript, on the other hand, though distinctlymore advanced in style, leaves a less har-monious overallpicture.It is not onlythat evangelist portraitsand headpieces do notface eachother because of faultyre-binding; indeed, if they did the discrepancy would be even moreobvious.In spite ofthe near-identityoffiguretypes and similarityofstylewith their Dionysioucounterparts he portraitsstrike one as belonging to a different strand;and their combinationwith the headpieces, which was so successfulin the Dionysiou manuscript, does not make fora unified whole. The obtrusive and rather crude honeycomb chrysography, their most out-standing stylisticfeature, especially in the pictures of Luke and John, alters their character; tdoes give them a true stylistic identity, but it is not really integrated into the fabric of themanuscript as a whole, and remains somehow extraneous. Attractiveand impressive as theBerlin Gospels certainly is, the Dionysiou manuscript remains more homogenous, morestrikingand more harmonious as a work of art- not least through the unityand perfect har-mony forged out of its various constituent parts.

The two additional portraits (figs. 58, 59) which, as we saw, did not originally belong to themanuscript, deserve very special attention. They, too, belong together and they cannot by anystretch of the imagination be called "provincial", or even be attributed to the "decorativestyle" at all. They are most impressive works of a stunning quality, even the Matthew in itspresent ruinous state: the miniature is considerably shrivelled by fire, and has lost about 2 to5 cm. along its left and upper frames. The gold hatching is infinitely more elegant and delicatethan in the original set; the meandering ends of drapery are executed with great bravura, andwith a feeling both for rhythm and for a certain three-dimensional quality; they have nu-merous parallels among the mosaics of Monreale 7 and related works. Matthew's chair might

710. Demus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, London 1949, figs. 99, 105.


32/77


Fig. 37. fol. 264v. Moses receiving the Law.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto66.


33/77

58 HUGO BUCHTHAL

Fig. 38. fol. 5v St. Matthew.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto 66.


34/77


Fig. 39. fol. 262v. St. John.Berlin, Staatsbibliothek,graeco quarto66.


35/77

60 HUGO BUCHTHAL

Fig. 40. London, British Library,Or. 81 fol. 112.Beginning of Gospel of Mark.

almost be called late Romanesque in its complex proliferationof arches; its horizontal bandcarries a pseudo-Kufic inscription. A second and third pseudo-Kufic inscription are on thecloth covering the table to the right.The portraitof John (fig. 39), on the other hand, is complete and undamaged - apartfromthe fact thatpartof the gutterside of its frame is hidden bythe binding, and some of iteven re-appears on the conjoint leaf, fol. 267. There are the same bulging and meandering draperyhems as in the Matthew miniature, especially round and near the left hand. A close paralleltothe figure of John maybe found in that of Christ in the fresco of the Dormition in Kurbinovo(1191)2. The figure is not really standing on both feet as is John in the Dionysiou and firstBerlin portraits,but is shown steppingforward and at the same time turninground in a con-trappostomovement to look upto the hand of Godinthe sky(which is missing in the two otherminiatures). There is also, and this is the most prominent feature of the two duplicateminiatures, the same strikinglyvirtuosohandling of the thread-thinchrysography,which hasnothing in common with the crude honeycomb patterns of the other set of portraitsbut is in-

72L. Hadermann-Misguich,Kurbinovo,Brussels 1975, fig. 90.


36/77


Fig. 41.London, British Library,Or. 81 fol. 290.Beginning of Gospel of John.

stead laid on in very delicate lines which emanate from a few focal points. This animated fig-ure with its dynamic stance, slightlybent knees, softlyflowing forms and conspicuous all-overpatterns of infinitely subtle gold striation is a near relative of the Angel of the Annunciationwith itsgyratinggaitinthe famous Sinaiicon of about1180/9073.The mantle fallingdown fromthe left arm in a cascade-like pattern, too, maybe compared with several late twelfth-centuryworks, such as the Matthew miniature in the Gospels suppl. gr. 6 in the BibliotecaNazionalein Napels (formerlyinVienna) 74. Finally, the general figure type echoes that of several figuresamong the mosaics of Monreale 75. t even survived well into the thirteenth century:the sculp-ture of a trumpet-blowing angel in the centralsquare of St. Mark's in Venice76which echoes aConstantinopolitan model offers an amazingly close parallel. It is no doubt hazardousto pro-pose a definite date and place of origin for the duplicate portraits;butit maybe affirmed that

73K. Weitzmann, The Icon, New York1978,pl. 27.74Reproducedin: W. Kallab,Die toskanische Landschaftsmalereiim XIV.und XV. Jahrhundert, n: Jahrbuchder kunsthistorischenSammlungen des allerh6chsten Kaiserhauses, 21, 1900, Tafel IV.750. Demus, Mosaics of Norman Sicily, figs. 72, 87a, 95b.760. Demus, The Churchof S. Marco in Venice: History,Architecture,Sculpture, Washington 1960(Dumbar-ton Oaks Studies. 6), fig. 99.


37/77

62 HUGO BUCHTHAL

Fig. 42. fol. 1. Canon Table 1.

Fig. 43. fol. 1'. Canon Table 2. Fig. 44. fol. 2. Canon Table 3.Cracow, Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870.


38/77


Fig. 45. fol. 2'. Canon Table 4. Fig. 46. fol. 3. Canon Table 5.



39/77

64 HUGO BUCHTHALthey both pre-date those which go with the manuscript. We can only speculate aboutthe lostbook from which they were extracted, but itwas definitelyof a deluxe character: witness thedouble frames with which the portraits are provided to give them special distinction - afeature which has parallels only in Constantinopolitan miniature painting, and even therewas limited to a few manuscripts of outstanding merit". Moreover, and this is a crucialargument, the two miniatures have littleor nothingto do with the "decorativestyle";asI havesaid before, there is nothing "provincial"about them. If they had come down to us as singleleaves, one would no doubtclassifythem as "lateComnenian, end of the twelfth century";andtheir origin in Constantinoplewould be considered anear-certainty.As it is, the onlyinforma-tion on their context is provided by the KFcp&chatfor Mark, fol. 99/100 in the Berlin Gospels,which include the imprintof the lost portraitof thatevangelist on fol. 99. While this evidencecannot be considered conclusive, an origin forthe two inserted miniatures in Constantinopleis, to say the least, a distinct possibility.

IVA third manuscript, which Hamann-Mac Lean associated closely with the two precedingbooks, is now in Cracow,BibliotekaCzartoryskichno. 1870(formerly1801)78. tis the smallestof all the manuscripts of the group discussed in this paper, and its decorations cannot in any

way vie in qualitywith those of the Dionysiou or Berlin Gospels. Still,the evangelist portraitsand headpieces clearlybelong with those in the othertwo, and even the rulingsystem, includ-ing that of the Canon Tables, is the same.The Cracowmanuscript,which stillpreserves tracesof itsformerBaroquebinding, was re-bound in 1964 with the unfortunate result that most of the miniatures of the first gathering,which had probably come loose, were mounted separately. Even before the re-binding themanuscript had two different systems of foliation, one with Roman numerals for the CanonTables in their left bottom corners, and with prominent Arabic numerals in the top right cor-ners of the rest of the book, startingwith the first page of the Gospel of Matthew; the other,more recent, in small and rather inconspicuous Arabic numerals in the bottom right-handcorners of the whole manuscript, startingwith the first Canon Table.These two systems haveled to occasional confusionwhen the miniatures or headpieces have been citedin art-histori-cal literature. I propose to follow Hamann-McLean, and to use the second system, which ismore consistent.

There are nine Canon Tables on fols. 1 to 5 (figs. 42-50); they are significantly differentfrom the noble structures in the Dionysiou Gospels, following instead the typical patterns ofthe "decorative style" manuscripts, which had been fashionable in the group as far back as the

77Cf., e.g., the miniature of Isaiah in the Codex of the Prophets, Florence, LaurenzianaLibrary.Plut.V, 9. Seerecently H. Belting & G. Cavallo,Die Bibel des Niketas, Wiesbaden 1979, pl. 5.7819,5X 14,5cm. ruling system: Leroy 44 D 1. Cf. C. Osieczkowska,Notes sur la dbcorationdu manuscritgrecCzartoryski1801et sur l'ornement byzantin, n: Studi bizantinie neoellenici (Attidel V congresso internazionalediStudi bizantini,1940,II, pp. 33554-33559,av. XCI-XCIII.Hamann-MacLean,Der Berliner Codex, pp. 23355ff.,igs. 25,50. K.Aland,Die Handschriftenbest~inde er polnischen Bibliotheken(Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zuBerlin, Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft,Vol. 7), 1956,p. 51.


40/77



days of the Chicago New Testament79.They are now arranged in the wrong order, and onefolio, originally conjoint with fol. 5 and containing Canons 3 and 4, is missing. Only fols. 2and 5, with Canons 5 to 10,5, still form a bifolio;all the others are now single leaves, probablyas a result ofthe re-binding. The list ofsectionsfrom Matthew in Canon 10erroneously occurstwice: in the last column of fol. 3, and again in the first column of fol. 3'. Most architecturalcolumns carryrhomboid capitalswhich mark the transition to the arcades, while some of thearcadesthemselves are drawn overlapping one another, justas in some oftheiroppositenum-bers in the Dionysiou Gospels. The intricate foliate patterns of the superstructuresarein goldand white on a red ground. They varyfrom page to page; in one instance a cock roosts on thecentralpinnacle and is attackedbytwo dogs or foxes climbing uptowards him (fig. 49) - a mo-tif which might almost have come straightout of a Tablein a tenth century manuscriptnow inVenice, which in its turn seems to reflect western ornamental patterns80.Just as remarkableare two apes standing upright and preparing to climb the two outermost columns of the lastTable (fig. 50). Unfortunately they are in a bad state of preservation; only their outlinesremain.

Among the evangelist portraitsthat of Matthew is missing; and those of Mark and Luke(figs. 52, 54) have their closest parallels in the Matthew and Luke figures in Berlin (figs. 30,

79Fac-simile volume: The RockefellerMcCormickNew Testament, edd. E.J. Goodspeed (andothers), Chicago1932.80Cf., e.g., K.Weitzmann, Die byzantinischeBuchmalerei des 9. und 10.Jahrhunderts,Berlin1935,figs. 39, 40.


41/77

66 HUGO BUCHTHAL31),butthey are clearlythe work of an inexperienced master who was unable to live up to thetradition of the workshop. They are almost unbelievably crude, uncouth and prosaic; thecolours are dull and lack lustre,and the honeycomb chrysography, n particular,which is themain feature of the portraits,is quite mechanically and insensitively applied. The droopingshoulders which distinguishedthe Berlin evangelists are here even more in evidence, so thatthe figures look somewhat distorted. Mark has the round head and round black beard ofComnenian portraits, comparableto his counterpart n the slightlyearlier Gospels in the Lud-wig Collection"'.The sparse furniture is almost identical in the Cracow and Berlin minia-tures; only Luke has a desk resting on an arcade, similar to those of the two earlier manu-scripts.The broadframes containflatlypainted trefoilmotifswithin heart-shaped tendrils, orrhomboid patterns;they are unusuallybroad, so that the normal ratio between pictureandframe is upset. The attempts at imitating the noble figures of the Berlin manuscript almostseems pathetic.John (fig. 56) is an outsider in this series: he is seated on a high golden throne with thickhorizontal bars, of a type found frequently in miniatures of the "decorative style" andelsewhere, mostlyforJohn butoccasionally also used forother evangelists. Though the figureis badlyproportioned, its execution is superiorto that ofthe othertwo, especially in the hand-ling of the gold striation,and the fold under the leftknee which finds itsway down to the ankle- a motif which we shall meet again in the Moscow and Iviron manuscripts"8. ohn holds ahalf-openbook in his righthand, and grasps his tunicwith his left.Most of the pigments of theface have unfortunately flaked off.As for the headpieces only that for Matthew (fig.51)belongs strictlyspeaking to ourgroup.Itechoes those forMatthewin Dionysiou andforMarkin Berlin,butitseffectis marredbytheaddition of anuglygrid ofthin, spiderywhite lines forminginterlacingsquares, which distractfrom the main pattern of the ornament and make the whole design appear weak and fuzzy.The initialB at the beginning ofthe Gospel text (fig. 51)is formed bythe evangelist exhibitinghis Gospel, justas in the corresponding initial in the Dionysiou manuscript (fig. 19).But theheadpiece forMark (fig. 53), with commonplace rhomboid ornaments arranged in the formof a Greek cross, and that for Luke (fig. 55), with foliage and tendrils reminiscent of those inthe Canon Tables, have no counterparts anywhere in the group; they appear banal and un-distinguished. The initial A at the beginning of the text of Mark, with a dog tryingto catch asnake winding round the main vertical shaft, recalls a similar motif in the same place in theDionysiou manuscript. The headpiece for Luke (fig. 55) has nine symmetrically arrangedconventional palmettes; that for John, together with the first page of the Gospel text as far asJohn I, 15, is now missing. On each of the surviving incipitpages to the Gospels there are onlythree lines oftext; and for once these are not distinguished by gold script. The text itself, writ-ten in a deep black ink, is palaeographically similar to those of the other two Gospels, but issomewhat less carefully written.

Seen as a whole, the Cracow manuscript is an important member of the group, principally

81formerlyPhillipps3887, now CollectionLudwig II.,5. fol. 77v, cf. A.vonEuw&J.M. Plotzek,Die Handschrif-ten der Sammlung Ludwig, fig. 74.82Cf.figs.80,81.


42/77


Fig. 51. ol. 6. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. Fig. 52. fol. 73V.St. Mark.

Fig. 53. fol. 74. Beginning of Mark's Gospel.Cracow, Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870.


43/77

68 HUGO UCHTHALbecause of its connection with the Gospels in Dionysiou and Berlin. Indeed, when the rulingsystem is taken into account, it might even be considered a product of the same scriptorium.But no doubt outside models also played an importantpart;and, considering

the low artisticlevel of its decoration, its execution was evidently not in response to the request from a high-placed aristocratic patron.

VOne more manuscript which may be of slightly later date than the three Gospels just dis-

cussed, has now tobe considered, although it stands somewhat outsidethe mainstream ofourgroup. It is a Gospels in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, W 52883,a large and speciallycarefullyproduced book which is written in a firm and fluent, widely spaced minuscule thathas its closestparallels in the even laterGospels in Manchester, the lastmanuscripttobe dealtwith inthis paper. Onlyone figuralminiature remains, a pictureofLuke84paintedonthe versoof a single leaf with blank recto,glued in so as to face the beginning of the text of his Gospel.The last few lines ofLuke's Gospel arenow missing andmust once have been present on arec-to page which had the portrait of John on its verso85.There may in fact have been the usualcomplete set of four evangelists. The Luke miniature is, however, so different from all otherfigural work in the group, both in its style and its colour scheme, that it was probably notoriginallypartofthe manuscript,but alateraddition;andthismust have been trueofthe otherminiatures as well. For that reason it will not be discussed here.

The patternand colouring of the fourexceedingly beautifulcarpetheadpieces (figs.57-60),all ofthem forming perfect squares, is unusuallyattractive,and constitutesa high pointwithinthe sub-group.The patterns,rendered in exquisite taste, are very complex, and may be con-sidered the most original work in the whole group next to those of the Dionysiou Gospels.Three ofthem incorporateversions of the featheryfan-likestructurewhich is the main featureofthe Luke headpieces in Dionysiou and Iviron;they areembedded invigorous overall scroll-work with leafy palmettes. To the rightofthe square ornament there rises in everycase a stalkwith a large palmette which carries a single bird, some of them in violent movement; andevery square is surmounted by a group of two birds flankinga central ornament. These fourexquisite pages are of an extremely lively and harmonious effect,and of an impeccabilityandvitalitywhich distinguishesthem from their relatives inmost of the othermanuscripts.The catforming the initial Eat the beginning ofthe Gospel ofLuke (fig.59) maybe singled outhere forspecial mention; we shall meet it againin the same place in the Moscow Gospels86.The otherthree initials are more traditional. The script,black and heavy, is upright and particularlyregular; as usual in most manuscripts of this group, the firstpage of each Gospel, with four

8325,2 x 16,7cm. Ruling system: Leroy 52 C 1. K.W. Clark,A descriptive catalogue of Greek New Testamentmanuscripts in America, Chicago 1957, pp. 558ff.840. Demus, Studien zur byzantinischen Buchmalerei des 15. Jahrhunderts, n: Jahrbuchder osterreichischenbyzantinischenGesellschaft, 9, 1960,p. 80, fig. 2.85Clark, A descriptivecatalogue, p. 559.

86Cf. fig. 79.


44/77


Fig. 54. fol. 116'. St. Luke. Fig. 55. fol. 118.Beginning of Luke's Gospel.

Fig. 56. fol. 1835.St. John.Cravow, Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870.


45/77

70 HUGO BUCHTHALlines of text, is written in gold. The ruling system

Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century

Documents

Transcript of Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century