Florida State University Libraries

2015

The Function of Text: Byzantine Reliquarieswith Epigrams, 843-1204Bradley Alan Hostetler

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS

THE FUNCTION OF TEXT:

BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES WITH EPIGRAMS, 843–1204

By

BRADLEY A. HOSTETLER

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Art History in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

2016

© Bradley A. Hostetler

ii

Bradley A. Hostetler defended this dissertation on April 6, 2015.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Lynn Jones

Professor Directing Dissertation

Robert Romanchuk

University Representative

Paula Gerson

Committee Member

Stephanie Leitch

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and

certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation would not be possible without the support of many individuals and

institutions. First and foremost, I would like to thank my advising professor, Lynn Jones, for her

dedication, encouragement, and belief in me through these last nine years. She has held me to the

highest standards, and has been a continual source of inspiration. I consider it a privilege to have

been her student, and I look forward to many more discussions with her, as colleagues. I am also

grateful to my committee members, Paula Gerson, Stephanie Leitch, and Robert Romanchuk,

whose expertise and years of instruction have enriched my work.

I would have not been able to complete the research without the financial support of

FSU’s Congress of Graduate Students; the Department of Art History’s Penelope E. Mason

bequest; the Graduate School’s Dissertation Research Grant and International Dissertation

Semester Research Fellowship; and the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation Grant for

Independent Research on Venetian History and Culture. I thank the kind curators, librarians,

archivists, and staff at Limburg-an-der-Lahn. I thank Maria Da Villa Urbani and Antonella Fumo

at the Procuratoria di San Marco, and the staff at the Museo Correr and the Hellenic Institute of

Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Studies for facilitating my research in Venice. I thank Alessandra

Ricci for inviting me to present my work at the Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations at

Koç University in Istanbul. I thank the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of

Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies at the University of Vienna for welcoming me into their

community during my three-month residency. I thank Stratis Papaioannou, Alexander Alexakis,

Maria Georgopoulou, and the students of the 2013 Medieval Greek Summer Session at the

Gennadius Library of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. This past year, I had

the privilege of completing my dissertation at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

I am grateful to Director Jan Ziolkowski, Director of Byzantine Studies Michael Maas, and the

brilliant fellows and staff for making this year such an intellectually stimulating one.

I would like to single out a few scholars who have generously mentored me in various

capacities over the years: Nancy Ševčenko, Andreas Rhoby, Lioba Theis, Ida Toth, and Michael

Grünbart. I also received selfless and tireless assistance with my Greek and Latin translations

from Foteini Spingou, Floris Bernard, Ludovic Bender, Sean Tandy, Yuri Marano, Fabio Pagani,

and above all Nikos Zagklas, who allowed me to pester him on a weekly basis at Dumbarton

Oaks. Any errors that remain, however, are entirely mine. There have also been numerous

iv

individuals who have provided much valued advice and references: Leslie Brubaker, Annemarie

Weyl Carr, Siren Çelik, Jasmina Ciric, Mary Cunnningham, Anthony Cutler, Ivan Drpić, Stig

Frøyshov, Jeffrey Hamburger, Karin Krause, Sean Leatherbury, Eunice Maguire, Henry

Maguire, Ingela Nilsson, Roman Shlyakhtin, Sarah Simmons, Alice-Mary Talbot, Christopher

Timm, Laura Veneskey, Andrea-Bianka Znorovszky, Niccolo Zorzi, and many others. I also

thank the Department of Art History faculty, students, and office staff—especially Adam Jolles,

Jean Hudson, Sheri Patton, Kathy Braun, Leah Sherman, and Jordan Perry—for their years of

support. Finally, I thank my family for their enduring patience and love as I completed this

dissertation.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vii Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xix Note to the Reader ....................................................................................................................... xxii Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... xxiii 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Terminology ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Overview of Scholarship ................................................................................................... 15 1.4 State of the Problem .......................................................................................................... 25 1.5 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 27 1.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 27 1.7 Structure of the Dissertation .............................................................................................. 28 2. AN INTRODUCTION TO MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELICS AND RELIQUARIES ........... 29 2.1 A New System for Grouping Relics .................................................................................. 29 2.2 Relics of Christ .................................................................................................................. 30 2.3 Relics of the Theotokos ..................................................................................................... 44 2.4 Relics of Saints .................................................................................................................. 46 2.5 Relic Collections ............................................................................................................... 62 2.6 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 63 3. MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES: HISTORICAL CONTEXT .................................. 65 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 65 3.2 Owners ............................................................................................................................... 65 3.3 Reliquaries in Religious and Ceremonial Life .................................................................. 70 3.4 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 77 4. RELIC ACCESSIBILITY ........................................................................................................ 78 4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 78 4.2 Scholarship on Relic Accessibility .................................................................................... 78 4.3 Defining Viewers and Readers .......................................................................................... 82 4.4 Epigrams and the Accessibility of Relics .......................................................................... 82 4.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 105 5. RELIQUARY INTERPRETATION ...................................................................................... 107 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 107 5.2 Staurotheke of Irene Doukaina (B8): Image of the Heavenly Jerusalem ........................ 108 5.3 Head Reliquary of St. Stephen (A21): Crowning the Martyr .......................................... 113 5.4 The Châteaudun Reliquary (A8): A Byzantine Hand-Shaped Reliquary? ...................... 122 5.5 Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4): Reliquary as Tomb ................ 130 5.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 135 6. RELIQUARIES AS SACRED GIFTS ................................................................................... 136

vi

6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 136 6.2 The Structure of Dedicatory Epigrams ............................................................................ 137 6.3 The Interaction of Text and Object: The Protaton Reliquary (A19) ............................... 145 6.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 158 7. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 160 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 162 A MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES WITH EPIGRAMS: IN SITU ...................... 162 B MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES WITH EPIGRAMS: IN BYZANTINE

MANUSCRIPTS ............................................................................................................. 193 C FAIR USE STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 206 D FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 207 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 297 Biographical Sketch ..................................................................................................................... 342

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. Reliquary Enkolpion of George Papikios (A1), front, 12th cent. Gold, wax, gems, wood,

8.3 x 6.6 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (ω 840). Image source: Piatnitsky, Sinai,

Byzantium, Russia, 99 .................................................................................................................. 207

Fig. 2. Reliquary Enkolpion of George Papikios (A1), back, 12th cent. Gold, wax, gems, wood,

8.3 x 6.6 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (ω 840). Image source: Piatnitsky, Sinai,

Byzantium, Russia, 99 .................................................................................................................. 208

Fig. 3. Reliquary Enkolpion of George Papikios (A1), back with “George” highlighted, 12th

cent. Gold, wax, gems, wood, 8.3 x 6.6 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (ω 840).

Image source: Piatnitsky, Sinai, Byzantium, Russia, 99 with additions by Brad Hostetler. ........ 208

Fig. 4. Sinai Reliquary Enkolpion (A2), front, 9th cent. Copper alloy, niello, and inlaid silver,

12.7 x 7.7 x 1.7 cm. Holy Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai. Image source: Manaphes, Sinai, fig.

3....... ............................................................................................................................................ 209

Fig. 5. Sinai Reliquary Enkolpion (A2), back, 9th cent. Copper alloy, niello, and inlaid silver,

12.7 x 7.7 x 1.7 cm. Holy Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai. Image source: Manaphes, Sinai, fig.

4....... ............................................................................................................................................ 209

Fig. 6. Sinai Reliquary Enkolpion (A2), open, 9th cent. Copper alloy, niello, and inlaid silver,

12.7 x 7.7 x 1.7 cm. Holy Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai. Image source: Galavaris, “A Niello

Cross,” fig. 3 ................................................................................................................................ 210

Fig. 7. Sinai Reliquary Enkolpion (A2), views of the side, 9th cent. Copper alloy, niello, and

inlaid silver, 12.7 x 7.7 x 1.7 cm. Holy Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai. Image source:

Galavaris, “A Niello Cross,” figs. 4–7 ........................................................................................ 210

Fig. 8. Cross Reliquary of Maria Komnene (A3), epigram side, 12th cent. Wood, gold, enamel,

niello, 14.2 x 8.2 x 1 cm. Church of St-Eligius, Eine. Image source: Lafontaine-Dosogne,

Splendeur de Byzance, 154 .......................................................................................................... 211

Fig. 9. Cross Reliquary of Maria Komnene (A3), relic side, 12th cent. Wood, gold, enamel,

niello, 14.2 x 8.2 x 1 cm. Church of St-Eligius, Eine. Image source: Lafontaine-Dosogne,

Splendeur de Byzance, 152 .......................................................................................................... 211

Fig. 10. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6

x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Janke, Ein Heilbringender Schatz,

162... ............................................................................................................................................ 212

Fig. 11. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), interior with doors closed, 11th

cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Meller,

Der heilige Schatz, 59. ................................................................................................................. 213

viii

Fig. 12. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), back, 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 59..... ............................................................................................................................................ 213

Fig. 13. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), interior with doors open, 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 59. ................................................................................................................. 214

Fig. 14. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), view of left side, 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Wentzel, “Byzantinische Kleinkunstwerke,” 59. ........................................................................................ 215

Fig. 15. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), view of right side, 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Fuhrmann, Die Inschriften, Taf. VIII, Abb. 14. ................................................................................................... 215

Fig. 16. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), lid with layout of epigram, 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 58 with additions by Brad Hostetler ............................................................ 216

Fig. 17. Cologne Cross Reliquary (A5), front, 12th cent. Gold, filigree, pearls, gems, wood, 14.2 cm. Domschatzkammer, Cologne (L 20). Image source: Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, 182 ... 217

Fig. 18. Cologne Cross Reliquary (A5), back, 12th cent. Gold, filigree, pearls, gems, wood, 14.2 cm. Domschatzkammer, Cologne (L 20). Image source: BEIÜ, 2:498 ....................................... 217

Fig. 19. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), partially open, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding, cloisonné enamel, gems, pearls, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen des Kreuzes, 186 ..................................... 218

Fig. 20. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), front, lid closed, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding, cloisonné enamel, gems, pearls, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Kloft, Dom und Domschatz, 74 .................................................... 219

Fig. 21. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), lid removed, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding, cloisonné enamel, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Durand, L’art byzantin, 146. .......................................................................................... 220

Fig. 22. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), back of the Cross, 920–959. Gold, gems, wood. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen des Kreuzes, 188. ............................................................................................................................... 221

Fig. 23. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), back, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding, cloisonné enamel, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen des Kreuzes, 197. ........................................................................ 222

ix

Fig. 24. Grandmont Staurotheke (A10), drawing of inside the reliquary, 1658. Ogier, Inscription antique, tab. I. Image source: Durand, “Mont Saint-Michel,” 348 ............................................. 223

Fig. 25. Grandmont Staurotheke (A10), drawing of the back of the reliquary, 1658. Ogier, Inscription antique, tab. II. Image source: Durand, “Mont Saint-Michel,” 348 ......................... 223

Fig. 26. Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary (A11), drawing of the lid, 17th cent. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS. Lat. 12692, f. 307r. Image Source: Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 58 ................................................................................................................... 224

Fig. 27. Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary (A11), drawing of the sides, 17th cent. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS. Lat. 12692, f. 307v. Image Source: Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 59 ............................................................................................... 224

Fig. 28. Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary (A11), drawing of the box, 17th cent. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS. Lat. 12692, ff. 313v–314r. Image Source: Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 54 ............................................................................................... 225

Fig. 29. Cross Reliquary of the ‘Princesse Palatine’ (A12), front, 12th–13th cent. Gold, enamel, wood, 21 x 9.3 cm. Treasury of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Paris. Image source: Durand, “La Vraie Croix de la princesse Palatine,” 141 .................................................................................. 226

Fig. 30. Cross Reliquary of the ‘Princesse Palatine’ (A12), back, 12th–13th cent. Gold, enamel, wood, 21 x 9.3 cm. Treasury of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Paris. Image source: Durand, “La Vraie Croix de la princesse Palatine,” 141 .................................................................................. 226

Fig. 31. Arm Reliquary of St. Christopher (A15), 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt, (bone) 16.7 cm and (attachment) 6.7 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tourcoing. Image source: Durand, “A propos des reliques,” 156 ............................................................................................................................... 227

Fig. 32. Arm Reliquary of St. Christopher (A15), facsimile of the epigram. Image source: Durand, “A propos des reliques,” 159 ......................................................................................... 227

Fig. 33. Troyes Cross Reliquary (A16), schematic reconstruction with verse numbers. Gold (yellow), enamel (green), wood (brown). Image source: Brad Hostetler .................................... 228

Fig. 34. ‘Icon of Šaliani’ (A17), lid, 11th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, gems, enamel, 31 x 23 x 4.5 cm. Church of Svv. Kvirike i Ivlity (Lagurka), Kala (Inv.-Nr. 100). Image source: Khuskivadze, “La staurothèque byzantine,” fig. 1 .................................................................................................... 229

Fig. 35. ‘Icon of Šaliani’ (A17), box, 11th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, gems, enamel, 31 x 23 x 4.5 cm. Church of Svv. Kvirike i Ivlity (Lagurka), Kala (Inv.-Nr. 100). Image source: Khuskivadze, “La staurothèque byzantine,” fig. 3 .................................................................................................... 230

x

Fig. 36. ‘Icon of Šaliani’ (A17), back, 11th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, gems, enamel, 31 x 23 x 4.5 cm. Church of Svv. Kvirike i Ivlity (Lagurka), Kala (Inv.-Nr. 100). Image source: Khuskivadze, “La staurothèque byzantine,” fig. 4 .................................................................................................... 230

Fig. 37. Lavra Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A18), lid, 11th cent. Silver-gilt, 4.3 x 2.5 x 1.3 cm. The Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Thessalonique,” fig. 3 ................................................................................................................ 231

Fig. 38. Lavra Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A18), interior, 11th cent. Silver-gilt, 4.3 x 2.5 x 1.3 cm. The Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Thessalonique,” fig. 4 ................................................................................................................ 232

Fig. 39. Lavra Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A18), back, 11th cent. Silver-gilt, 4.3 x 2.5 x 1.3 cm. The Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Totev, Thessalonican Eulogia, 39 .................................................................................................................................. 232

Fig. 40. Protaton Reliquary (A19), lid, 11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 17.8 x 14.2 x 1.2 cm. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10 ................................................................................................. 233

Fig. 41. Protaton Reliquary (A19), lid detail, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 10 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 234

Fig. 42. Protaton Reliquary (A19), detail of lid with placement of verses marked, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10 with additions by Brad Hostetler ................... 235

Fig. 43. Protaton Reliquary (A19), detail of lid: a) ἐκ τόπων, b) λίθους, c) Ζωσιµᾶς, d) Νικόλαος, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10 with additions by Brad Hostetler. ...... 236

Fig. 44. Protaton Reliquary (A19), box, 11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 19.3 x 16.1 x 3.0 cm. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 8 ................................................................................................... 237

Fig. 45. Protaton Reliquary (A19), box detail with fragments of repoussé cross highlighted, 11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 19.3 x 16.1 x 3.0 cm. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 8, with additions by Brad Hostetler ......................................................................................................... 238

Fig. 46. Protaton Reliquary (A19), reconstruction of box, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 8, with alterations and additions by Brad Hostetler .............................................. 239

xi

Fig. 47. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 471 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 240 Fig. 48. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), lid, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 472 ......................................................................................................................... 241

Fig. 49. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), back, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” fig. 5 ....................................................................................................................... 241

Fig. 50. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), box with doors closed, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” fig. 3 ..................................................................................................... 242

Fig. 51. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), box with doors open, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” fig. 4 ..................................................................................................... 242

Fig. 52. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of left side, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 473 ......................................................................................................................... 243

Fig. 53. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of lower side, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 474 ................................................................................................... 243

Fig. 54. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of right side, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 473 ......................................................................................................................... 244

Fig. 55. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of upper side, 12th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source: Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 474 ................................................................................................... 244

Fig. 56. Reliquary of St. Stephen (A21), reconstruction of the epigram. Image Source: Brad Hostetler ...................................................................................................................................... 245

Fig. 57. British Museum Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A22), back, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.6 x 3.7 x 1.05 cm. British Museum, London (1926,0409.1). Image source: ©Trustees of the British Museum, http://www.britishmuseum.org (accessed 17 November 2015) ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 246

xii

Fig. 58. British Museum Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A22), front with Georgian inscription, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.6 x 3.7 x 1.05 cm. British Museum, London (1926,0409.1). Image source: ©Trustees of the British Museum, http://www.britishmuseum.org (accessed 17 November 2015). .................................................................................................... 246

Fig. 59. British Museum Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A22), lid open, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.6 x 3.7 x 1.05 cm. British Museum, London (1926,0409.1). Image source: ©Trustees of the British Museum, http://www.britishmuseum.org (accessed 17 November 2015) ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 247 Fig. 60. British Museum Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A22), lid and door open, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.6 x 3.7 x 1.05 cm. British Museum, London (1926,0409.1). Image source: ©Trustees of the British Museum, http://www.britishmuseum.org (accessed 17 November 2015) .......................................................................................................................... 247 Fig. 61. Alessandria Cross Reliquary (A23), 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, niello, wood, 26 x 16.5 cm. Cathedral di San Pietro, Alessandria. Image Source: Spantigati, La Cattedrale di Alessandria, pl. XVI-B ................................................................................................................ 248 Fig. 62. Reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite (A24), 10th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, (diameter) 10.7 cm. Monastero di Camaldoli, Arezzo. Image Source: Rolfi, La Chiesa, 130 .................................... 249 Fig. 63. Bari Cross Reliquary (A25), relic side, 11th and 13th cent. Silver-gilt, 14 x 7.2 cm. Tesoro di San Nicola di Bari. Image source: Scandale, San Nicola, 89 ...................................... 250 Fig. 64. Bari Cross Reliquary (A25), epigram side, 11th cent. Silver-gilt, 14 x 7.2 cm. Tesoro di San Nicola di Bari. Image source: Guillou, “Inscription métrique,” fig. 2 ................................. 250 Fig. 65. Modena Cross Reliquary (A26), 11th–12th cent. Gold, pearls, and wood, 15 cm. Tesoro del Duomo, Modena. Image Source: Schlumberger, L’épopée II, 68 ......................................... 251 Fig. 66. Montecassino Cross Reliquary (A27), front, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt, gems, pearls, wood, 15 x 8 x 1.5 cm. Abbey of Montecassino. Image source: Willard, “Staurotheca,” fig. 3 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 252 Fig. 67. Montecassino Cross Reliquary (A27), back with epigram, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt, gems, pearls, wood, 15 x 8 x 1.5 cm. Abbey of Montecassino. Image source: Willard, “Staurotheca,” fig. 4 .................................................................................................................... 252 Fig. 68. Siena Holy Blood Reliquary (A28), front, 12th cent. Gold, enamel, and gems, 5.7 x 4.7 x 1 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Bellosi, L’oro di Siena, 107 .... 253 Fig. 69. Siena Holy Blood Reliquary (A28), back, 12th cent. Gold, enamel, and gems, 5.7 x 4.7 x 1 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Bellosi, L’oro di Siena, 109 .... 253

xiii

Fig. 70. Reliquary of St. John Chrysostom (A29), front, 11th–12th cent. Silver gilt, 7.7 x 3.1 x 1.9 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Bellosi, L’oro di Siena, 115 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 254 Fig. 71. Reliquary of St. John Chrysostom (A29), back, 11th–12th cent. Silver gilt, 7.7 x 3.1 x 1.9 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Bellosi, L’oro di Siena, 117 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 254 Fig. 72. Reliquary of St. John Chrysostom (A29), side views, 11th–12th cent. Silver gilt, 7.7 x 3.1 x 1.9 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Hetherington, “A purchase of Byzantine relics,” 18 ............................................................................................................... 255 Fig. 73. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30), interior, 11th–12th cent. Silver, gilding, 10 x 6 x 2.8 cm. Museo Correr, Venice. Image Source: Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 496. ... 256 Fig. 74. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30), back, 11th–12th cent. Silver, gilding, 10 x 6 x 2.8 cm. Museo Correr, Venice. Image Source: Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 496. ......... 256 Fig. 75. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30), views of the side, 11th–12th cent. Silver, gilding, 10 x 6 x 2.8 cm. Museo Correr, Venice. Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 75-77 ................ 257 Fig. 76. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30), drawing of reliquary with relic, 1676. Medium and size not known. D’Amadeni, Biologia S. Marinae. Image Source: Crippa, “Il culto,” fig. 3 ..... 258 Fig. 77. Thumb Reliquary of St. Marina, drawing, 1676. Medium and size not known. D’Amadeni, Biologia S. Marinae. Image Source: Crippa, “Il culto,” fig. 4 ............................... 258 Fig. 78. Venice Staurotheke Lid (A31), 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, gems, and niello, 44 x 30 x 3 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 4). Image Source: Brad Hostetler ....................... 259 Fig. 79. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), views of the inner cylinder, 10th–11th cent. Rock crystal with gold, enamel, and jasper lid, 4.5 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 68). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. CLXXII .............................................. 260 Fig. 80. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), views of the outer cylinder, 10th–11th cent. Gilded copper and niello, 7.6 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 62). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXX ....................................................................................... 260 Fig. 81. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), placement of the words αἵµατος and ἐξ, 10th–11th cent. Gilded copper and niello, 7.6 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 62). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXX with additions by Brad Hostetler. ............... 261 Fig. 82. Trebizond Reliquary Casket (A33), 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt, niello, 28 x 14 x 9 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 133). Image Source: Evans, Faith and Power, 139 ...... 262

xiv

Fig. 83. Arm Reliquary of St. George (A35), 10th cent. (?). Silver, (height) 31, (maximum width) 7.9 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 159). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. CLII ........................................................................................................................... 263 Fig. 84. Staurotheke of Empress Maria (A36), 1517 copy of 11th–12th cent. Silver and gilding, 72 x 27.8 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 56). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. CXCVII .................................................................................................................................. 264 Fig. 85. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), front, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXVIII ................................................................................................................... 265 Fig. 86. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), back, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXIX ..................................................................................................................... 265 Fig. 87. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), verses 1–5, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 95–98 ...................................................................................................................... 266 Fig. 88. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), verses 6–9, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 95–98 ...................................................................................................................... 266 Fig. 89. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), verses 10–13, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 95–98 ........................................................................................................ 267 Fig. 90. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37), verses 14–17, after 1118. Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel, 21 x 14 x 4 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57). Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 95–98 ........................................................................................................ 267 Fig. 91. Staurotheke of Constantine Patrikios (A38), drawing, 1617. Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 69. Image Source: Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 69 ............. 268 Fig. 92. Maastricht Reliquary Enkolpion (A39), front and back, late 11th–12th cent. Gold, silver-gilt, enamel, 11.8 x 7.3 x 1.6 cm (incl. loop). Treasury of the Church of Saint Mary, Maastricht. Image Source: Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, 165 ............................................... 269 Fig. 93. Maastricht Reliquary Enkolpion (A39), open, late-11th–12th cent. Gold, silver-gilt, enamel, 11.8 x 7.3 x 1.6 cm (incl. loop). Treasury of the Church of Saint Mary, Maastricht. Image Source: De Kreek and Scheepmaker, De kerkschat, 211 ................................................. 270 Fig. 94. Maastricht Reliquary Enkolpion (A39), cross-section drawing, late-11th–12th cent. Gold, silver-gilt, enamel, 11.8 x 7.3 x 1.6 cm (incl. loop). Treasury of the Church of Saint Mary, Maastricht. Image Source: Vogeler, “Das Goldemail-Reliquiar,” 21 ......................................... 270

xv

Fig. 95. Philotheos Staurotheke (A41), 11th–12th cent. Silver, wood, chasing, gilding, 20.5 x 17 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1141). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 121 ........................................................................................................... 271 Fig. 96. Kremlin Reliquary Enkolpion (A42), front, late 12th cent. Gold, silver, cloisonné enamel, chasing, niello, gilding, 9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1147). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 187 ....................................... 272 Fig. 97. Kremlin Reliquary Enkolpion (A42), interior, late 12th cent. Gold, silver, cloisonné enamel, chasing, niello, gilding, 9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1147). Image Source: Sterligova, “Eastern Christian Encolpia,” fig. 14. ...................... 272 Fig. 98. Kremlin Reliquary Enkolpion (A42), back, late 12th cent. Gold, silver, cloisonné enamel, chasing, niello, gilding, 9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1147). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 189 ....................................... 273 Fig. 99. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of sides 8, 1, and 2, 1059–67. Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 117 ........................................................................... 274 Fig. 100. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of sides 8, 1, and 2 with doors open, 1059–67. Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 117 ............................................. 274 Fig. 101. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of side 3, 1059–67. Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 101. ........................................................................................ 275 Fig. 102. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of sides 4, 5, and 6, 1059–67. Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 115 ........................................................................... 275 Fig. 103. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of sides 6, 7, and 8, 1059–67. Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148). Image Source: Bank, Byzantine Art, fig. 204 ......................................................................................... 276 Fig. 104. Cross Reliquary of Leo Domestikos (A44), front, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt, 36.4 x 23.7 cm. Collection des Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva (Inv. Nr. AD 3062). Image Source: BEIÜ, 2:518 ................................................................................................................................. 277 Fig. 105. Cross Reliquary of Leo Domestikos (A44), back, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt, 36.4 x 23.7 cm. Collection des Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva (Inv. Nr. AD 3062). Image Source: Cormack and Vassilaki, Byzantium, 213 ..................................................................................... 277

xvi

Fig. 106. Bagà Cross Reliquary (A45), front, 11th cent. Silver-gilt on wood, 31 (incl. base) x 16 x 2.3 cm. Parish Church of Sant Esteve de Bagà, Barcelona. Image Source: Gudiol i Cunill, “Les creus,” 268 ................................................................................................................................... 278 Fig. 107. Bagà Cross Reliquary (A45), back, 11th cent. Silver-gilt on wood, 31 (incl. base) x 16 x 2.3 cm. Parish Church of Sant Esteve de Bagà, Barcelona. Image Source: Gudiol i Cunill, “Les creus,” 269 ................................................................................................................................... 278 Fig. 108. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), doors open, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: Rezza, La Stauroteca, 20 ...................................................................... 279 Fig. 109. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), front with doors closed, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: De Kreek and Scheepmaker, De kerkschat, 117 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 280 Fig. 110. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), back, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: De Kreek and Scheepmaker, De kerkschat, 120. .................................. 280 Fig. 111. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), front of removable cross, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: De Kreek and Scheepmaker, De kerkschat, 119 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 281 Fig. 112. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), back of removable cross, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: De Kreek and Scheepmaker, De kerkschat, 119 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 281 Fig. 113. Vatican Cross Reliquary (A47), front, 10th–11th cent. Gold on wood with silver and glass beads, gem, and brooches, 38.3 x 24.4 x 1.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: Rezza, La Stauroteca, 22. .................................................................................... 282 Fig. 114. Vatican Cross Reliquary (A47), back, 10th–11th cent. Gold on wood with silver and glass beads, gem, and brooches, 38.3 x 24.4 x 1.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: Rezza, La Stauroteca, 27. .................................................................................... 282 Fig. 115. Dumbarton Oaks Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A48), front, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.4 x 2.8 x 0.6 cm. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (BZ.1953.20). Image Source: Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 168 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 283

xvii

Fig. 116. Dumbarton Oaks Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A48), back, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.4 x 2.8 x 0.6 cm. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (BZ.1953.20). Image Source: Papanikola-Bakirtzis, Καθηµερινή ζωή στο Βυζάντιο, 181 ............................................................................................................................... 283 Fig. 117. Dumbarton Oaks Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A48), side views, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.4 x 2.8 x 0.6 cm. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (BZ.1953.20). Image Source: Grabar, “Un Nouveau Reliquaire,” figs. 31–34 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 284 Fig. 118. Dumbarton Oaks Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A48), lid and doors open, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel, 4.4 x 2.8 x 0.6 cm. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (BZ.1953.20). Image Source: Papanikola-Bakirtzis, Καθηµερινή ζωή στο Βυζάντιο, 183 ................................................................................................................. 284 Fig. 119. Cortona Staurotheke (A49), front, 963–969. Ivory, 30.5 x 14.5 cm. Chiesa di San Francesco, Cortona. Image source: Cutler and Spieser, Byzance médiévale, 168 ...................... 285 Fig. 120. Cortona Staurotheke (A49), back with epigram, 963–969. Ivory, 30.5 x 14.5 cm. Chiesa di San Francesco, Cortona. Image source: Cutler and Spieser, Byzance médiévale, 167 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 285 Fig. 121. Reliquary Stele of St. Glykeria (A50), 9th–10th cent. Marble, 200 x 67 x 41 cm. Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Tekirdağ. Image source: Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia, Abb. 171 ...................................................................................................................................... 286 Fig. 122. Staurotheke of Niketas (A51), drawing of the epigram, 1697. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Français 17680, f. 122. Image Source: in Durand, “Mont Saint-Michel,” 344 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 287 Fig. 123. Hand Reliquary of St. Barbara (A52), top view, 12th–early 13th cent. Silver, chasing, engraving, gilding, 4.2 x 2.6 x 2.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin (Inv. No. MP–1750/4). Image source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 124. ........................................................................................ 288 Fig. 124. Hand Reliquary of St. Barbara (A52), side view, 12th–early 13th cent. Silver, chasing, engraving, gilding, 4.2 x 2.6 x 2.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin (Inv. No. MP–1750/4). Image source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 125. ........................................................................................ 288 Fig. 125. Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A53), 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt, 4.8 x 4.2 x 1 cm. Private Collection. Image Source: Totev, Thessalonican Eulogia, 41 ................................. 289 Fig. 126. Head Reliquary of St. James the Younger, 12th cent. Silver, enamel, 33 x 30 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 19). Image Source: Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 67 ................ 290 Fig. 127. Finger Reliquary of St. Luke the Younger, 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt, 7.2 cm. Trésor de la cathédrale, Sens (Inv. D. 1/16). Image source: Durand, “A propos des reliques,” 158 ...... 291

xviii

Fig. 128. Finger Reliquary of St. Thomas the Apostle, drawing, date (?). Silver, size unknown. Church of San Tomà in Venice. Image source: Schlumberger, “Deux reliquaires byzantins inédits,” 344. ................................................................................................................................ 291 Fig. 129. Feast for the Elevation of the Cross, folio in the Menologion of Basil II, c. 1000. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. Gr. 1613, p. 35. Image Source: El “Menologio,” 35 ......... ............................................................................................................................................ 292 Fig. 130. Feast for the Elevation of the Cross, folio in a Vatican Lectionary, 11th cent. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. Gr. 1156, f. 248r. Image Source: Weitzmann, Studies, 298 ...... 293 Fig. 131. Feast for the Elevation of the Cross, folio in a Vatican Lectionary, 11th cent. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. Gr. 1156, f. 248v. Image Source: Weitzmann, Studies, 299 ..... 293 Fig. 132. Arm Reliquary of the Apostles, c. 1190. Silver-gilt, wood, enamel, 51 x 14 x 9.2 cm. Cleveland Museum of Art (1930.739). Image Source: Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, 84 ........ 294 Fig. 133. Stoning of St. Stephen, folio in Christian Topography by Kosmas Indikopleustes, 9th cent. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, MS. Vat. gr. 699, fol. 82v. Image Source: Stornajolo, Le miniature, pl. 47 .......................................................................................................................... 294 Fig. 134. Paten of Basileios the parakoimomenos and proedros, 963–85. Jasper and silver, (diameter) 20 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 26). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. LVII ........................................................................................................................... 295 Fig. 135. St. Euphemia, 11th cent. Mosaic. Narthex, Hosios Loukas, Distomo, Greece. Image Source: Brad Hostetler ................................................................................................................ 296 Fig. 136. Crucifixion, 11th cent. Mosaic. Narthex, Hosios Loukas, Distomo, Greece. Image Source: Brad Hostetler ................................................................................................................ 296

xix

ABBREVIATIONS

AOC Archives de l’Orient chrétien ArchAthos Archives de l’Athos. Paris: P. Lethielleux, 1937–. BEIÜ Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung. Ed. Andreas

Rhoby. 3 vols. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009–14.

BHG Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca, 3rd ed. Ed. François Halkin.

Subsidia hagiographica 47. Brussels: Société des bollandistes, 1957. BMFD Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of

the Surviving Founders’ “Typika” and Testaments. Ed. J. Thomas and A. C. Hero. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection 2000.

BMGS Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies BSl Byzantinoslavica ByzAD Artefacts and Raw Materials in Byzantine Archival Documents / Objets

et matériaux dans les documents d’archives byzantins. Eds. Ludovic Bender, Maria Parani, Brigitte Pitarakis, Jean-Michel Spieser, Aude Vuilloud. <http://www.unifr.ch/go/typika>

ByzF Byzantinische Forschungen BZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift CahArch Cahiers archéologiques CIG Corpus inscriptionum graecarum. Ed. August Boeckh. Berlin:

Academy, 1828–77. CFHB Corpus fontium historiae byzantinae CSHB Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae ΔΧΑΕ Δελτίον τῆς Χριστιανικῆς ἀρχαιολογικῆς ἑταιρείας DOP Dumbarton Oaks Papers DOS Dumbarton Oaks Studies

xx

GRBS Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies Janin, Églises CP Janin, Raymond. La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantin.

Première partie, Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique. Tome III, Les églises et les monastères. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1969.

Janin, Grands centres Janin, Raymond. Les églises et les monastères des grands centres

byzantins (Bithynie, Hellespont, Latros, Galèsios, Trébizonde, Athènes, Thessalonique). Paris: Institut Français d’Études Byzantines, 1975.

JÖB Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik LBG Lexikon zur byzantinischen Gräzität. Ed. Erich Trapp. Vienna: Verlag

der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994–. LPGL Lampe, G. W. H. Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961. LSJ Liddell, Henry, Robert Scott, Henry Jones et al. A Greek-English

Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Menologii Menologii anonymi Byzantini saeculi X quae supersunt. 2 vols. Ed.

Basilius Latyšev. St. Petersburg, 1911–1912. NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek

Translations Traditionally Included Under That Title. Eds. Albert Pietersma, and Benjamin G. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.

ODB The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Ed. Alexander Kazhdan. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1991. PG Patrologiae cursus completus, Series graeca. Ed. J.-P. Migne. Paris,

1857–66. PmbZ Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Eds. R.-J. Lilie, C.

Ludwig, T. Pratsch, I. Rochow. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1999–2013. REB Revue des études byzantines RSV The Bible containing the Old and New Testaments: Revised Standard

Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1971. SC Sources chrétiennes

xxi

Synaxarium CP Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: Propylaeum ad Acta sanctorum Novembris. Ed. Hippolyte Delehaye. Brussels: Société des bollandistes, 1902.

TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae <http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu/>.

xxii

NOTE TO THE READER

The bold alphanumeric codes (A1, A2, A3, … , B1, B2, B3, etc.) are references to the 74

Middle Byzantine reliquaries with epigrams catalogued in Appendices A and B. Appendix A

lists 55 reliquaries that are either extant or their existence has been attested in post-Byzantine

sources. With the exception of A54 and A55, reliquaries in Appendix A are published in BEIÜ

volumes 2 (2010) and 3 (2014). Appendix B lists the 19 reliquaries whose epigrams are

documented only in Byzantine manuscripts.

For each reliquary, I provide a unique catalogue number, title, and date. Those reliquaries

marked with (†) are no longer extant. Below the title, I include as much of the following

information as is known: materials, dimensions, and the reliquary’s last location. For the

reliquaries listed in Appendix B, I document the manuscripts in which the epigrams and their

descriptions are recorded. Below this data, I document the modern editions of the Greek

epigrams and provide my English translations. I also include relevant non-metrical inscriptions

and associated texts, which are indicated with (*); I have excluded the standard naming

inscriptions that accompany saints’ images. At the end of each entry, I provide a selected

bibliography and corresponding figure numbers. Detailed commentary and diplomatic

transcriptions for each reliquary will be included in publications that stem from this dissertation.

xxiii

ABSTRACT

This dissertation re-contextualizes the types, uses, and meanings of reliquaries in the

Middle Byzantine period (843–1204). Relics are the remains of—or the materials associated

with—Christ, the Mother of God, apostles, martyrs, and saints. For the faithful, they were the

physical presence of the divine, imbued with miraculous power and grace. Reliquaries are the

containers that enshrined, protected, and displayed this sacred matter. They are/were made of

lavish materials—gold, silver, gems, and pearls—which conferred honor upon, and testified to

the spiritual value of, the contents.

Numerous Middle Byzantine reliquaries survive or are known through textual

descriptions, but there has not been a study that examines these objects as a group. This

dissertation fills this gap, charting out a paradigm for understanding the forms and functions of

these objects. I take as my focus those reliquaries inscribed with metrical inscriptions, or

epigrams. These texts provide a great deal of information about reliquaries, and they served a

variety of functions—as ex-voto prayers, as expressions of identity, as performative texts, and as

descriptions of the objects that they accompany. I demonstrate that epigrams are also visual,

functioning as but one part of the reliquaries’ complex visual programs in which word, image,

and sacred matter converge, complement, and interact with each other. I examine the

mechanisms of these interactions, revealing the messages they conveyed on behalf of the patrons

and the ways in which reliquaries and epigrams functioned in the artistic and literary culture of

Byzantium.

Chapter 1, “Introduction,” defines the critical terms of this dissertation, presents an

overview of the scholarship, and outlines my methodological contributions. Chapters 2 and 3

introduce the reader to the forms and functions of reliquaries in the Middle Byzantine period, and

are thus the foundation for the dissertation. Chapter 2 outlines the different types of reliquaries

that were inscribed with epigrams. It presents aspects of their design and form, including

imagery and the placement of the epigrams. Chapter 3 provides a brief historical survey of the

various contexts in which reliquaries were used, from personal possessions to public veneration

practices. Chapters 4–6 focus on epigrams. Chapter 4 examines the ways in which epigrams—

both in content and placement—function to make relics visually and haptically accessible to the

faithful. Chapter 5 explores the relationship between reliquary and metaphor. What are the ways

in which the ekphrastic character of epigrams describes, interprets, and presents reliquaries for

xxiv

and to their owners? Chapter 6 situates reliquaries in the context of religious gift-giving by

addressing the various ways in which a patron articulates his/her identity, connection with a holy

figure, and what he/she hopes to receive in return. Chapter 7 presents my conclusions concerning

the forms of reliquaries, relic accessibility, viewer interpretations, and patron motivations. The

Appendices catalogue the 74 Middle Byzantine reliquaries inscribed with epigrams.

The case studies I present in these chapters demonstrate that Middle Byzantine reliquaries

with epigrams are/were a complex system of texts, images, relics, and materials that interact with

each other. I demonstrate that epigrams—in addition to being textual—have visual and spatial

dimensions, wrapping the exterior, interior, front, back, and sides of reliquaries. They are

dynamic texts that pulled the viewers in and taught them how to see, interpret, and handle the

reliquaries, and how to access relics.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

In this dissertation, I re-contextualize the types, uses, and meanings of reliquaries in the

Middle Byzantine period (843–1204). I base my research on the 74 Middle Byzantine reliquaries

inscribed with epigrams, which are catalogued in Appendices A and B.1 I provide a new

paradigm for understanding the forms and functions of these objects through the lens of their

inscribed texts. What do epigrams tell us about the ways in which reliquaries were viewed,

handled, and interpreted, and the relics accessed in medieval Byzantium?

1.2 Terminology

1.2.1 Epigrams

A Byzantine epigram is a poem that is inscribed—or had the potential of being

inscribed—on a work of art.2 Epigrams were ubiquitous in Byzantium; they were displayed on

architecture and portable objects, both sacred and secular. They served a variety of functions—as

descriptions of the objects that they accompany, as visual adornment, as expressions of identity,

and as ex-voto prayers. Epigrams, like the majority of Byzantine texts, were read aloud, and were

thus performative.3

1 In keeping with current scholarly discourse, I use the term ‘epigram’ throughout this dissertation. For an overview, see the Introduction in Ivan Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). 2 Marc Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries: A Generic Study of Epigrams and Some Other Forms of Poetry” (PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 1994), 13–14 states that epigrams are part of “a wide range of literary texts intended for a practical use (Gebrauchstexte), varying from inscriptions on tombstones, public buildings and paintings to colophon verses and book epigrams.” See also idem, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, Wiener byzantinistische Studien 24/1 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003), 26–30. 3 Amy Papalexandrou, “Text in Context: Eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder,” Word & Image 17 (2001): 259–83; Floris Bernard, Writing and Reading Byzantine Secular Poetry, 1025–1081 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 64; and Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 1).

2

Approximately 1,200 in situ Greek epigrams, dating between 600 and 1500, have been

documented.4 Many more are recorded as poems in Byzantine manuscripts, removed from their

original inscribed contexts.5 Such epigrams found in Byzantine manuscripts are frequently

accompanied with brief labels, or titles, which describe the objects and monuments upon which

the epigrams were originally inscribed.6

The most common metrical form for Middle Byzantine epigrams was dodecasyllable—

the medieval descendant of iambic trimeter.7 A few basic rules define this meter.8 Each line, or

verse, consists of twelve syllables with a paroxytone ending (stress on the penultimate syllable).

Each verse has an internal pause, or so-called Binnenschluss, after the fifth (termed “B5”) or

seventh (termed “B7”) syllable that typically corresponds to a grammatical or meaningful break.9

4 BEIÜ, 1:51. I stipulate “Greek” because Byzantium was multilingual. See also Wolfram Hörandner, “Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung,” in L’épistolographie et la poésie épigrammatique: projets actuels et questions de méthodologie. Actes de la 16e Table ronde du XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines (Collège de France - Sorbonne, Paris, 19-25 Août 2001), Wolfram Hörandner and Michael Grünbart, eds., Dossiers Byzantins 3 (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2003), 153–60, at 157–58. 5 For a discussion and list of Byzantine anthologies of poetry, see Foteini Spingou, “Byzantine Collections and Anthologies of Poetry,” in A Companion to Byzantine Poetry, eds. Wolfram Hörandner, Andreas Rhoby and Nikos Zagklas (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 6 Titles of epigrams were either copied from earlier manuscripts by Byzantine scribes, or were later added when the epigrams were gathered in Byzantine anthologies; see Foteini Spingou, “Words and Artworks in the Twelfth Century and Beyond: The Thirteenth-Century Manuscript Marcianus gr. 524 and the Twelfth-Century Dedicatory Epigrams on Works of Art” (DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2012), 45; and Andreas Rhoby, “Labeling Poetry in the Middle and Late Byzantine Period,” Byzantion 85 (2015): 259–83, at 262. 7 Paul Maas, “Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber,” BZ 12 (1903): 278–323; Wolfram Hörandner, “Beobachtungen zur Literarästhetik der Byzantiner: Einige byzantinische Zeugnisse zu Metrik und Rhythmik,” BSl 56 (1995): 279–90, at 285–89; Marc Lauxtermann, “The Velocity of Pure Iambs: Byzantine Observations on the Metre and Rhythm of the Dodecasyllable,” JÖB 48 (1998): 9–33; and Andreas Rhoby, “Vom jambischen Trimeter zum byzantinischen Zwölfsilber: Beobachtung zur Metrik des spätantiken und byzantinischen Epigramms,” Wiener Studien 124 (2011): 117–42. 8 All of these rules are summarized in BEIÜ, 1:60. A concise explanation in English can be found in Przemysław Marciniak, and Katarzyna Warcaba, “Racing with rhetoric: a Byzantine ekphrasis of a chariot race,” BZ 107 (2014): 97–112, at 105–07. See also Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 1). 9 For Binnenschlusse, see Maas, “Zwölfsilber,” 282. B5 verses are more common than B7. For the latter, there is usually a proparoxytone (antepenultimate syllable) stress accent before the Binnenschluss;

3

The two halves of a verse are called hemistichs. Enjambment is avoided, which means that each

hemistich and verse should complete its respective phrase or thought, and not extend into the

next unit.10

The 74 Middle Byzantine reliquaries in this study are/were inscribed with epigrams

ranging from one to 25 verses, with an average of 5.5 verses per reliquary.11 The epigrams on all

of these reliquaries, but one, are hammered in repoussé, incised in metal, or executed in

cloisonné enamel.12 For Byzantine inscriptions, generally, words are rarely spaced, majuscule is

the predominant letterform, and the use of accents and diacritics become more prevalent in the

eleventh century.13

I have found that the placement of an epigram on a reliquary generally adheres to three

basic guidelines. One, the verses are symmetrically arranged/displayed on the object.14 Two, if

an epigram is placed on multiple sides or faces, then the text will break at the ends of verses or at

the Binnenschlusse.15 Three, markings are used to guide the readers. A cross typically marks the

paroxytone is rare, and oxytone is avoided. B5 verses are not as regulated, but a proparoxytone stress accent before the Binnenschluss is rare. 10 Maas, “Zwölfsilber,” 283–84. 11 The 74 reliquaries in this study are inscribed with a total of 406 verses. For one-verse epigrams, see A9 and B1. The longest reliquary epigram is B11. For the reliquary epigrams listed in Appendix B, there is no way of knowing which, if any, were actually inscribed. For a discussion of literary epigrams, see Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 151–52. For the purpose of this study, I treat all epigrams in Appendix B as if they were inscribed on reliquaries because even if they were not, they resemble, in all ways, those that were inscribed (Appendix A), and can still provide valuable insight into the use of relics and reliquaries. 12 The exception is the ivory True Cross reliquary at Cortona (A49). 13 Cyril Mango, “Epigraphy,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, eds. Elizabeth Jeffreys, John Haldon, and Robin Cormack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 144–49. 14 For example, the eight verses of Epigram B of the Limburg Staurotheke (A6) are inscribed on the front edges of the rectangular box (fig. 20). Verse 1 is placed on the upper edge; verses 2–4 are placed on the right edge; verses 5–7 are placed on the left edge; and verse 8 is placed on the lower edge. See section 2.2.2.4. 15 For example, the Trebizond Casket at Venice (A33) is inscribed with a twelve-verse epigram in two parallel lines on the perimeter of the rectangular box (fig. 82). Verses 1–6 form the upper line. Verse 1 begins on the front to the right of the lock and ends at the right corner of the box; verse 2 is placed on the right side of the box; verses 3 and 4 are placed on the back; verse 5 is placed on the left side of the box;

4

beginning of an epigram, and sometimes its end, and verses are often separated by dots, such

asor .16

1.2.2 Relics

Relics are the remains of—or the materials associated with—Christ, the Mother of God,

apostles, martyrs, and saints. For the faithful, relics were the physical presence of the divine,

imbued with miraculous power (δύναµις) and grace (χάρις).17 Modern scholars divide relics into

three groups.18 Those labeled “primary” are of the body: bones, blood, hair, etc. “Secondary”

relics—including clothes, weapons, and dirt and rocks from holy sites—have been sanctified

through contact with a holy person. Among the most important ‘secondary’ relics are the

instruments of Christ’s passion and garments of the Theotokos. “Tertiary” relics include oil,

water, and cloth that have been poured over or laid upon primary or secondary relics.19

and verse 6 is placed on the front of the box, ending to the left of the lock. Verses 7–12 form the lower line and are placed in the same manner as the upper line. 16 For example, the back of the reliquary enkolpion at Moscow (A42) is inscribed with eight-verse epigram (fig. 98). Each line of inscribed text corresponds to one verse. A cross at the top left corner marks the beginning. The ends of each verse are marked by three dots (). 17 John Wortley, “Introduction,” in Studies on the Cult of Relics in Byzantium up to 1204, Variorum Collected Studies Series 935 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009), xi. The belief that relics were full of divine grace is expressed by Theodore of Stoudios (759–826) in the typikon for his monastery in Constantinople: “With faith and awe I embrace their all-holy relics as full of divine grace” (προσπτύσσοµαι τε πίστει καὶ φόβῳ τὰ πανάγια αὐτῶν λείψανα ὡς χάριτος θείας ἀνάπλεα); ed. Olivier Delouis, “Le Testament de Théodore Stoudite: édition critique et traduction,” REB 67 (2009): 77–109, at 95 (lines 35–36), trans. BMFD, 76. 18 These groups became standard following the seminal study on reliquaries, Joseph Braun, Die Reliquiare des christlichen Kultes und ihre Entwicklung (Freiburg: Herder & Co., 1940), 2–3. See also ODB s.v. “Relics,” (Robert F. Taft, Alexander Kazhdan); and Monica White, “Relics,” in The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity,” ed. John Anthony McGuckin (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011), 465–67. There have been some inconsistencies as to scholars consider primary and secondary; see, for example, Marlia Mundell Mango, “Pilgrimage,” in The Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. Cyril Mango (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 116. 19 This term is less common in scholarship. For examples of its usage, see Scott B. Montgomery, “Relics and Reliquaries,” in Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An Encyclopedia, ed. Margaret Schaus (New York: Routledge, 2006), 704–06; and Jane Schulenburg, “Female Religious as Collectors of Relics: Finding Sacrality and Power in the ‘Ordinary’,” in Where heaven and earth meet: essays on medieval Europe in honor of Daniel F. Callahan, eds. Michael Frassetto, Matthew Gabriele, and John D. Hosler (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 152–77, at 158.

5

There are three caveats to keep in mind when using this grouping system. One, it is found

only in scholarship; the Byzantines did not describe their relics in this manner. Two, the terms

primary, secondary, and tertiary indicate degrees of distance from the body of a holy person.

They do not correspond to a relative value or hierarchy of relics. For example, the True Cross is

a secondary relic, but, to the Byzantines, it was the most revered.20 Three, these groups omit

acheiropoieta (images not made by the hands of men), miracle-working icons, and the materials

(holy oil, blood, water, etc.) that they produced or that they touched.21

Did the Byzantines consider holy oil as a relic, or at least include it within the broad

spectrum of “sacred matter?” I argue that they did. Evidence for this is found in an epigram and

its title (B19) recorded in the Anthologia Marciana (MS. Marc. Gr. 524)—a thirteenth-century

manuscript of eleventh- and twelfth-century poems and epigrams from Constantinople.22

Title:

On an enkolpion bearing myron that bubbles forth from the icon of St. George of Mesampela.23

Epigram:

You are a branch of Christ, the intelligible vine.24

20 Braun, Reliquiare, 3 classifies the True Cross as a secondary relic. Paulinus, the fifth-century bishop of Nola, states that the True Cross draws its “power of incorruptibility” and “undiminishing integrity” from the blood of Christ’s flesh; ed. William Hartel, Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Opera, Epistulae, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 29 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894), 31.6, trans. P.G. Walsh, Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, vol. 2 (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1967), 133. This means that, according to the modern classification, relics of the True Cross are both primary and secondary, further demonstrating the problematic nature of using this grouping system. 21 John Wortley outlines the theological differences between relics and icons, and admits that these differences blur when dealing with the miracle-working icons; “Icons and Relics: a Comparison,” GRBS 43 (2002/3): 161–74. See also Liz James, “Dry Bones and Painted Pictures: Relics and Icons in Byzantium,” in Eastern Christian Relics, ed. Alexi Lidov (Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003), 45–53. 22 Foteini Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi: The Anthologia Marciana, Syllogae B and C (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 23 Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον µῦρον ἐκ τοῦ βλύζοντος ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου τοῦ Μεσαµπελίτου, ed. Andreas Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung von bekannten Autoren im Codex Marcianus graecus 524,” Medioevo Greco 10 (2010): 167–204, at 185. In note 103, Rhoby states that this title is grammatically questionable, and suggests that it should read Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον µῦρον βλύζον ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου τοῦ Μεσαµπελίτου. 24 Cf. John 15:5.

6

Therefore your image, from the middle of the vines, pours forth an indescribable amount of myron as sweet new wine to us, through which, may you protect your George Skylitzes.25

The icon of St. George mentioned in the title was kept at a monastery dedicated to him in

Mesampela, a village located at the entrance to the Gulf of Nicomedia at the eastern end of the

Marmara Sea.26 The title tells us that the myron (holy oil), which this icon produced, was

collected by the faithful. This four-verse epigram, addressed to St. George, was inscribed

somewhere on this now-lost enkolpion.27 The epigram tells us that George Skylitzes kept his

portion of the myron in an enkolpion—a pectoral suspended from a chain.28 George Skylitzes

believed that his namesake saint worked through the myron to protect him (v. 4). The myron thus

functioned as a relic for George Skylitzes, but where would it fit within the modern designations

of primary, secondary, and tertiary?29

I focus on what the Byzantines themselves said about the various materials and

substances that they considered to be relics. One reliquary epigram that exemplifies the different

ways in which the Byzantines described relics is inscribed on a late twelfth-century reliquary

enkolpion (A42), now at the Moscow Kremlin (figs. 96–98): 25 Σὺ κλῆµα Χριστοῦ τῆς νοητῆς ἀµπέλου·

οὐκοῦν τύπος σὸς ἐκ µέσων τῶν ἀµπέλων ὡς γλεῦκος ἡµῖν µῦρον ἀρρήτως βρύει δι’ οὗ Σκυλίτζην σὸν Γεώργιον σκέποις. Ed. Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung,” 185, emend.

Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B120 (367/403). 26 Janin, Grands centres, 88, and the map on 82. The phrase ἐκ µέσων τῶν ἀµπέλων (v. 2) is a pun on the name of the city, Mesampela. 27 The reason St. George is not explicitly mentioned in the epigram is, I suggest, because the name of George Skylitzes provided a homonymous reference to the saint, and because the enkolpion would have likely featured an image of St. George. On the issue of homonymity, see section 6.2.3. 28 On George Skylitzes, see ODB, s.v. “Skylitzes, George” (Alexander Kazhdan); Alessandra Bucossi, “George Skylitzes’ dedicatory verses for the Sacred Arsenal by Andronikos Kamateros and the Codex Marcianus Graecus 524,” JÖB 59 (2009): 39; and Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung,” 179–89, who suggests (p. 186) that George may have been the author of this epigram. 29 Julia M. H. Smith, “Relics: An Evolving Tradition in Latin Christianity,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 41–60 shows that this system of grouping relics developed in the mid-twentieth-century and is based on post-Tridentine canon law. She demonstrates that these categories also do not accurately reflect Latin medieval concepts of relics.

7

Tunic, Mantle, Towel, Garment of the Logos, Shroud, Blood, Crown of Thorns, Bone, Wood, Hair—of the Twin,30 of the Cross, of the Lamp31—, a piece of the all-chaste Girdle, a part of the Mantle,

5 a relic of Eustratios, a bone of the Prodromos, hair of Euphemia, a relic of Nicholas, bones of Stephen the Younger, of Theodore, and of Panteleemon: three from the three.32

This inventory-like epigram is unusual for the number of relics that it mentions (19), but

it is typical in the different ways in which it describes them.33 The most common method of

identifying relics in epigrams is to name them for what they are and/or identify the holy figure

with whom they are associated, as seen in verse 1: Tunic, Mantle, and the Towel of Christ. For

75.7% of the reliquaries in this study, the epigrams identify relics in this way.34

Another method of identifying relics in epigrams is to describe them as “relics” or

“fragments.” For 20.3% of the reliquaries in this study, the epigrams describe relics in this way.35

30 The Apostle Thomas (cf. John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2). 31 John the Baptist (cf. John 5:35). 32 Χιτών, χλαµύς, λέντιον, ἔνδυµα Λόγου, σινδών, λύθρον, στέφανος ἠκανθωµένο(ς), ὀστοῦν, ξύλον, θρίξ—διδύµου, σταυροῦ, λύχνου—, ζώνης πανάγνου τµῆµα, µανδύου µέρος, 5 [Εὐστρα]τίου λείψανον, ὀστοῦν Προδρόµου, Εὐφηµίας θρίξ, λείψανον Νικολάου, ὀστᾶ Στεφάνου τοῦ νέου, Θεοδώρου [κα]ὶ Παντελεήµονος ἐκ τρι(ῶν) τρία. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:283–84, trans. adapted from Ihor Ševčenko, “Observations Concerning Inscriptions on Objects Described in the Catalogue ‘The Glory of Byzantium’,” Palaeoslavica 6 (1998), 243–52, at 246; and idem, “Perceptions of Byzantium,” in Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors (843-1261), ed. Olenka Z. Pevny (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale University Press, 2000), 2–21, at 5. 33 It names 19 relics, but there are 30 cells inside the reliquary enkolpion (fig. 97). For another reliquary epigram that functions as an inventory, see B14. For more information on relic collections, see section 2.5. 34 56/74: A2, A3, A4, A6, A8, A10, A12, A13, A14, A16, A17, A18, A19, A21, A22, A23, A25, A26, A27, A30, A31, A32, A37, A38, A41, A45, A47, A48, A49, A50, A51, A52, A53, A55, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B10, B13, B14, B19. Those that reference the holy figure with whom the relics are associated: A1, A5, A7, A9, A20, A28, A33, A34, A43, A46, B1.

8

The most commonly used words appear in verse 4: τµῆµα (a piece that is cut off) and µέρος (a

part).36 Another word, λείψανον (a relic, remainder), usually accompanies a saint’s name and

denotes some unspecified part(s) of the body, as seen with Eustratios (v. 5) and Nicholas (v. 6).37

The term I use is ‘relic.’ If I need to specify the relic, then I will describe what it is; for

example, ‘the hand relic of St. Marina.’ I will not be using the groupings of primary, secondary,

or tertiary, but will introduce a different organizational system in section 2.1.

1.2.3 Reliquaries

Reliquaries are containers that enshrined, protected, and displayed relics.38 They are/were

made of lavish materials—gold, silver, gems, and pearls—which conferred honor upon, and

testified to the spiritual value of, the contents. It is impossible to talk about relics without also

acknowledging the reliquaries. As recently noted by Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, “the

reliquary becomes the frame for the relic. The relic provides an excuse for the reliquary. One

without the other is almost meaningless.”39

35 15/74: A11, A15, A24, A29, A35, A36, A42, A54, B9, B11, B12, B15, B16, B17, B18. This statistic excludes the use of such terminology in non-metrical inscriptions and paratexts. 4.1% (3/74) of the reliquaries in this study have epigrams that make no reference to relics: A39, A40, and A44. The epigram on A39 is badly damaged. A40 is now lost, but early modern descriptions indicate that it held a relic of the True Cross. A44 had a receptacle for relics of the True Cross, but the epigram refers to the Archangel Michael’s miracle at Chonai. 36 For epigrams in which the word τµῆµα appears, see A11, A42, B9, B11, B12, B15, B16, B17. For epigrams in which the word µέρος appears, see A11, A42, B18. 37 For epigrams in which the word λείψανον appears, see A15, A29, A35, A42, B11. Other relic-type words, which appear only once in the epigrams of this study, include, κρύος (crust, A54), λοιπός (remains, A24), σταλαγµοί (drops, A36), and τρύφος (that which is broken off, A11). For non-metrical labeling inscriptions, one method of identifying relic fragments that come from a larger source is the prepositions ἀπό and ἐκ. See, for example A11 and A19. Francesco D’Aiuto, “Le ambiguità di un reliquiario: Il ‘braccio di s. Ermolao’ nella pieve di Calci (Pisa),” Erga-Logoi 1, no. 2 (2013): 31–72, at 53n63, suggests that these prepositions were used only for relics that came from objects and holy sites, and not relics of a saint’s body. I will examine this issue in future work. 38 ODB, s.v. “Reliquary” (Margaret E. Frazer, Anthony Cutler). 39 Cynthia Hahn, and Holger Klein, “Introduction,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 1–11, at 6.

9

In epigrams, there are a limited number of terms used to describe reliquaries as discrete

objects; 20.3% of the reliquaries in this study are identified by an object-specific term.40 Of this

group, seven are called a θήκη (case, chest), and all of these are reliquaries of the True Cross.41

Two are described as a δοχεῖον (vessel).42 Two others, both reliquaries of St. Demetrios, are

described as a τάφος (tomb).43 The word ἐγκόλπιον (enkolpion) appears in a variety of Byzantine

texts, but it is not used in any Middle Byzantine reliquary epigram.44 This term refers to any

pectoral, whether or not it contained relics; it is therefore a term that describes the object’s

function of being worn on the chest. The terms I use throughout this dissertation are reliquary

and reliquary enkolpion.

A reliquary epigram most frequently describes some aspect of a reliquary’s materials,

imagery, form, decoration, and/or function. Quantifying this information, however, is not

possible for two reasons. One, as we will see in Chapter 5, epigrams offer more than mere textual

descriptions of reliquaries’ visual features; they also provide the objects with metaphor, meaning,

and interpretation. Separating the reality from the literary is not always possible. Two, epigrams

often elide the descriptions of reliquaries, and focus only on the relics. An example of this elision

is the epigram for a reliquary enkolpion, no longer extant, that belonged to the Emperor

Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–55) (B12).45 The epigram is best translated by re-

arranging the order of the verses.

40 15/74: A4, A6, A7, A14, A19, A31, A32, A40, A41, A43, A45, A47, A48, A51, B10. This statistic excludes the use of such terminology in non-metrical inscriptions and paratexts. 41 A6, A19, A31, A41, A45, A47, A51. 42 A32 and A48. 43 B4 and B10. Other terms, which appear only once, are θησαυρός (casket, safe, treasury, A14); κιβώριον (canopy, baldachino, A43); σκήνωµα (tabernacle, A40); and στέφος (crown, A7). 44 This term appears in the titles of epigrams recorded in manuscripts: B9, B12, B14, B16, B17, B18, B19. In the epigram of B9, the first word of verse 1 is ἐγκάρδιον (on the heart). In the Middle Byzantine period, this word also denoted an enkolpion; LBG, s.v. “ἐγκάρδιος.” For an introduction to enkolpia, see Yota Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos et al, eds., Enkolpia: The Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi (Mount Athos: The Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, 2001), 13–18; and Brigitte Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires pectorales byzantines en bronze, Bibliothèque des Cahiers Archéologiques 16 (Paris: Picard, 2006).

10

4 Fight as an ally with your Constantine Monomachos, 1 who is carrying to the chest a piece, O Christ, of the stone, 2 on which the burial shroud binds your corpse with embalmment, 3 and (a piece) of the blade of your martyr George.46

Verse 1 indicates that Constantine was “carrying” (v. 1) a reliquary enkolpion “to the chest.” The

epigram, however, elides any mention of the reliquary—its form and decoration—and focuses

solely on its sacred contents: the Stone of Unction and the blade of St. George. This epigram

makes no distinction between the container and the contained.

1.2.4 Patrons, Poets, and Artists

Modern scholarship uses the word patron as shorthand for any person who commissioned

a work of art.47 There is, however, no one equivalent term in Byzantine Greek. Such words as

δοτήρ (donor) and κτήτωρ (possessor, owner, founder) could be grouped under the umbrella

definition of patron, but each of these terms had specific meanings and uses.48 I do not address

the meanings of these different terms; rather, I use the word patron because it is convenient and it

is the scholarly convention.49 I assume that patrons chose the form, decoration, and epigrams for

their reliquaries, and decided whether they would keep their reliquaries, donate them to churches

45 Title: “On an enkolpion having a part of the holy stone on which Joseph laid the unmoving Christ, and a part of St. George’s blade” (Εἰς ἐγκολπιον ἔχον µέρος τοῦ ἁγίου λίθου ἐν ᾧ µετὰ τὴν ἀποκαθήλωσιν ἔθετο τὸν Χριστὸν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ µέρος τῆς σπάθης τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου). Ed. Spyridon Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” Nέος Ἑλληνοµνήµων 8 (1911): 128. 46 Στέρνοις φέροντι τµῆµα, Χριστὲ, τοῦ λίθου,

ἐν ᾧ νεκρὸν σµύρνῃ σε σινδὼν συνδέει καὶ µάρτυρος σου τῆς σπάθης Γεωργίου Κωνσταντίνῳ σῷ συµµάχει Μονοµάχῳ. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 128.

47 For an overview, see the Introduction in Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion. 48 For an overview of these terms and the problems associated with their usage in modern scholarship, see Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Donors in the Frames of Icons: Living in the Borders of Byzantine Art,” Gesta 45 (2006): 189–98; Linda Safran, “Deconstructing ‘Donors’ in Medieval Southern Italy,” in Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Lioba Theis et al, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 40/41 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2011–12), 135–51; and Ivan Drpić, “The Patron’s ‘I’: Art, Selfhood, and the Later Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram,” Speculum 89 (2014): 895–935, at 897. The Byzantine term most closely related to the modern definition of patron is κτήτωρ. For the meaning of this word see Tania Kambourova, “Ktitor: le sens du don des panneaux votifs dans le monde byzantin,” Byzantion 78 (2008): 261–87. 49 ODB, s.v. “Patrons and Patronage” (Anthony Cutler and Alexander Kazhdan).

11

or monasteries, or be buried with them.50 Patrons are the individuals named in epigrams. They

include emperors, empresses and their family members, court officials, and clerics. For 51.4% of

the reliquaries in this study, the patron’s occupation or social rank is provided by the epigram. Of

this group, 50% are imperial or of the imperial family, 21.1% are court officials, 18.4% are

monastic, 7.9% are clerics, and 2.6% are from an aristocratic family.51

Poets and artists, the other two groups of people involved in the making of a reliquary,

were employed by patrons; they are never named in reliquary epigrams.52 Some poets—such as

John Geometres, John Mauropous, Christopher Mitylenaios, and Nicholas Kallikles—are

identified in manuscripts where their epigrams are recorded.53 More will be said about individual

poets on a case-by-case basis. In their epigrams, patrons claim that they made the reliquary or

wrote the epigram.54 Scholars agree that this is a topos, and it reflects his/her role as the one who

50 On patron motivation and choice, see Anthony Cutler, “Art in Byzantine Society: Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage,” JÖB 31 (1981): 759–87; idem, “Uses of Luxury: On the Functions of Consumption and Symbolic Capital in Byzantine Culture,” in Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992, eds. André Guillou, and Jannic Durand (Paris: La Documentation française, 1994), 287–327; and idem, “The Industries of Art,” in The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. Angeliki Laiou, DOS 39 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2002), 555–87. 51 Imperial and of the imperial family (19): A3, A5, A6, A8, A10, A12, A14, A36, A37, A47, B4, B5, B6, B8, B11, B12, B13, B16, B18. Court officials (8): A16, A21, A24, A38, A43, A44, B9, B19. Monastic (7): A1, A11, A19, A45, A51, A53, B10. Clergy (3): A23, A49, B17. Aristocratic (1): A39. These groupings provide a convenient snapshot of the patrons, but these distinctions are admittedly artificial. For example, Basileios Lekapenos (d. ca. 985) was the son of an emperor and a related by marriage to other emperors, but he was also a high-ranking court official. See the discussion of the head reliquary of St. Stephen (A21) in section 5.3. 52 The names of a few artists from the Middle Byzantine period are known. See those discussed in Ann Wharton Epstein, Tokalı Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia, DOS 22 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986), 34–35. 53 On issues of author attributions in Byzantine anthologies of poetry, see Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung”; Spingou “Byzantine Collections”; and idem, “The Anonymous Poets of the Anthologia Marciana: Questions of Collection and Authorship,” in The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: Modes, Functions, and Identities, ed. Aglae Pizzone (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 139–53. 54 See section 6.2.3.

12

ordered or paid for the reliquary.55 It does not necessarily indicate that he/she had anything to do

with the physical making of the object, or the composing of the epigram.

How did patrons collaborate with poets and artists in order to design and create a

reliquary?56 One clue is found in an eleventh-century manuscript now at the Great Lavra

Monastery at Mount Athos (MS. Ω 126, fols. 271v–272r). It preserves a group of five epigrams

that were written by an anonymous poet for a silver drinking vessel commissioned by

Constantine Dalassenos, governor of Antioch after 1024.57 One of these five epigrams reads:

He made the delightful work for the relief of thirst, Constantine, the glory of the Dalassenoi, justly ruler of all Antioch.58 As noted by Henry Maguire and Marc Lauxtermann, the same words, phrases, and

conceits are repeated and re-arranged with little variation in all five epigrams.59 They identify the

patron (Constantine, ruler of Antioch, glory of the Dalassenoi), his object (delightful work, for

drinking, for the relief of thirst), and what he did (made). Maguire convincingly argues that the

five epigrams were “trial pieces” from which the patron could choose one to be inscribed on his

one silver drinking vessel.60

55 Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 44–45. 56 On the collaborations between patrons and poets, see Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 34–45. 57 Ed. in Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, “Epigrammi sul Cratere Argenteo di Constantino Dalasseno in un Codice della Grande Laura del Monte Athos,” Atti della Pontificia Accademia romana di archeologia. Rendiconti 3 (1925): 313–316, reprinted in idem, Collectanea Byzantina (Bari: Dedalo Libri, 1970), 2:458–461. Epigrams IV-VIII are translated and numbered 1–5 in Henry Maguire, Image and Imagination: The Byzantine Epigram As Evidence for Viewer Response (Toronto: Canadian Institute of Balkan Studies, 1996), 8. On Constantine Dalassenos, see ODB, s.v. “Dalassenos” (Alexander Kazhdan); and Jean-Claude Cheynet, and Jean-François Vannier, Études Prosopographiques (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 1986), 80–82. 58 Ἔτευξε τερπνὸν ἔργον εἰς δίψης ἄκος

ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος, Δαλασσηνῶν τὸ κλέος, ἄρχων δικαίως Ἀντιοχείας ὄλης. Ed. Mercati, “Constantino Dalasseno,” 315, no. IV,

trans. Maguire, Image and Imagination, 8. 59 Maguire, Image and Imagination, 8–9; and Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 42–43. 60 Maguire, Image and Imagination, 8–9; and Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 42–43.

13

The ways in which the artist might have figured into this collaboration have not been

addressed.61 Throughout this dissertation, I will demonstrate that the placement of an epigram on

a reliquary determined the viewing, meaning, and handling of the object. Therefore, the planning

and the composition of an epigram and its negotiated display on a reliquary required the patron,

poet and artist to consult each other. What will be the size and shape of the reliquary? Where will

the epigram be displayed? Will it be placed in relationship to any images, relics, or on an

important part of the object? All of these questions would have been necessary for any patron to

consider when commissioning a reliquary, and would have required collaboration with both poet

and artist.

1.2.5 The Middle Byzantine Period

I focus on reliquaries that date to the Middle Byzantine period—an era defined by

scholarship and bookended by two important dates for the history of Byzantine art. The year 843

marks the official end of Iconoclasm and the restoration of images. 1204 is when Constantinople

was sacked by the Latin armies of the Fourth Crusade, and was looted of its treasures and

relics.62 Between these years, art and patronage flourished.63 It was a time of renewed interest in

epigrams—the anthologizing of ancient verses and the writing of new compositions.64 At this

time, emperors added to Constantinople’s already extensive relic hoard.65 Pilgrim accounts of the

61 This is a topic under discussion in the forthcoming study, Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 1). 62 My choice of periodization differs from that of Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, who frames his study from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries. While Drpić’s time frame is valid for the development and continuity of epigrams from the Middle to the Late Byzantine periods, it is not suitable for understanding the place of relics and reliquaries in Byzantine society and the changes that occur following the Fourth Crusade. 63 For an introduction to Middle Byzantine art, see Helen C. Evans, and William D. Wixom, eds., The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261 (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997). 64 For an overview, see Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry. 65 It is not known how large Constantinople’s relic hoard was, but the best source for this information is Paul Riant, Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae, 2 vols. (Geneva, 1877–78), reprinted (Paris: Editions du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques, 2004). See also Otto Meinardus, “A Study of the Relics of Saints of the Greek Orthodox Church,” Oriens christianus 54 (1970): 130–278. It is important to note that Meinardus’s study is a catalogue of all known relics currently held by Greek Orthodox

14

eleventh and twelfth centuries describe the many different relics that the city possessed, and

document the miracles and legends associated with them.66 Crusaders also describe their desire

in seizing this sacred booty.67 Robert de Clari, a knight of the Fourth Crusade, states:

churches and monasteries. It is not an inventory of relics that existed in the Byzantine Empire. Nevertheless scholars have erroneously used the data gathered by Meindarus as evidence for the number of relics that existed in Byzantium; see ODB, s.v. “Relics” (Robert F. Taft, Alexander Kazhdan); Liz James, “Bearing Gifts from the East: Imperial Relic Hunters from Abroad,” in Eastern Approaches to Byzantium, ed. Antony Eastmond (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 119–131, at 120; idem, “Dry Bones,” 49; and Robert Ousterhout, “Sacred Geographies and Holy Cities: Constantinople as Jerusalem,” in Hierotopy: The Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2006), 98–116, at 101. 66 Many of these sources have been collected in Riant, Exuviae sacrae. See also Charles H. Haskins, “A Canterbury Monk at Constantinople, c. 1090,” English Historical Review 25, no. 98 (1910): 293–95; Marcelle Ehrhard, “Le livre du pèlerin d’Antoine de Novgorod,” Romania 58 (1932): 44–65; Krijnie N. Ciggaar, “Une description anonyme de Constantinople du XIIe siècle,” REB 31 (1973): 335–54; idem, “Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pèlerin anglais,” REB 34 (1976): 211–68; and idem, “Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55,” REB 53 (1995): 117–40. For the Late Byzantine period, see George Majeska, Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries, DOS 19 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984). For secondary literature, see Krijnie N. Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural and Political Relations, The Medieval Mediterranean 10 (Leiden: Brill, 1996); George Majeska, “St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The Russian Travelers on the Relics,” DOP 27 (1973): 71–87; idem, “Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople,” DOP 56 (2002): 93–108; idem, “Russian Pilgrims and the Relics of Constantinople,” in Eastern Christian Relics, ed. Alexi Lidov (Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003), 387–97; and idem, “The Relics of Constantinople After 1204,” in Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004), 183–90.

Pilgrim accounts are important sources for tracing the locations of specific relics prior to 1204. For example, is the head reliquary of St. Akindynos was discovered during excavations near the Cistercian Abbey of Rosières in the second half of the nineteenth century. Gustave Schlumberger, “Découverte d’une relique faisant partie des dépouilles de Constantinople apportées en Occident à la suite de la Croisade de 1204,” Bulletin monumental 57 (1891): 111–18 convincingly argues that this head reliquary was originally housed at the Church of Sts. Kosmas and Damianos in Constantinople (the Kosmidion; cf. Janin, Églises CP, 286–89) prior to the Fourth Crusade, based on the account of Anthony of Novgorod (c. 1200).

The demand to see Constantinople’s extensive relic collection must have motivated forgers and black-market entrepreneurs to fulfill the expectations and desires of these visitors. Evidence for the seedy underbelly of the relic trade is an eleventh-century poem written by Christopher Mitylenaios. This poem is addressed to a monk named Andreas who Christopher ridicules for buying and selling bones of normal persons as if they were relics of saints, and multiple limbs as if they come from one and the same saint; ed. Marc de Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum variorum collectio cryptensis, Corpus christianorum, Series graeca 74 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), no. 114. Some of the relics mentioned by Christopher include ten hands of St. Prokopios, four heads of St. George, and twelve arm bones of St. Demetrios. While it is not known whether or not Andreas was a real person, the poem does reflect an element of skepticism—at least on the part of Christopher—concerning the validity of, and claims to, relics in eleventh-century Constantinople.

15

But, since the history of this world was told, so great, noble and rich a treasure was never seen nor won, neither in the time of Alexander nor in the time of Charlemagne, either before or since; nor do I think in my opinion that there was so much property in the forty richest cities in the world as was found in the heart of Constantinople.68

1.3 Overview of Scholarship

1.3.1 Middle Byzantine Reliquaries

Scholarship on Middle Byzantine reliquaries and on epigrams developed independently

of one another; I will treat them separately.

The study of reliquaries originated with that of relics: the hagiographical sources, the

history of their veneration, and how they came into the possession of this or that institution.69 It

was not until the middle of the twentieth century that scholars began treating reliquaries as a

discrete type of object within the broad category known as “minor” or “luxury” arts. The first in-

67 For Crusader accounts, see Riant, Exuviae sacrae; and Alfred J. Andrea, Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade, rev. ed., The Medieval Mediterranean 29 (Leiden: Brill, 2008). Anatole Frolow, in four articles, argues that relics may have been one of the reasons why the armies of the Fourth Crusade diverted from its goal of the Holy Land and instead took Constantinople; “La deviation de la 4e Croisade vers Constantinople,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 145 (1954): 168–187; 146 (1954): 67–89 and 194–219; 147 (1955): 50–61. 68 Ed. and trans. Peter Noble, Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople, British Rencesvals Publications 3 (Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 2005), 98–99. 69 Charles du Fresne du Cange, Traité historique du chef de S. Jean Baptiste (Paris: Chez S. Cramoisy and S. Mabre-Cramoisy, 1665). Du Cange’s work remains an invaluable source for relics and reliquaries that originated in Byzantium, and which were subsequently lost or destroyed in the French Revolution. Descriptions of now-lost Middle Byzantine reliquaries can also be found in idem, Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata (Paris: Ludovicum Billaine, 1680), reprinted (Brussels: Culture et Civilisation, 1964), pt. II, lib. IV, pp. 104, 112. Paul Riant traced the history of specific relics in western treasuries; Des dépouilles religieuses enlevées a Constantinople au XIIIe siec̀le: et des documents

historiques nés de leur transport en occident, Mémoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France 36, 4. ser., t. 6 (Paris: Société Nationale des Antiquairies de France, 1875). With the exception of his inventory on pages 177–211, this work was largely superseded by his still indispensible study, Riant, Exuviae sacrae. Ferdinand de Mély added a third volume; Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae: La croix des premiers croisés; la sainte lance; la sainte couronne (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1904). Other studies include Charles Rohault de Fleury, Mémoire sur les instruments de la passion de N.-S. J.-C. (Paris: L. Lesort, 1870); and idem, La Sainte Vierge, etudes archéologiques et iconographiques, 2 vols. (Paris: Librairie Poussielgue Frères, 1878); and Jean Ebersolt, Sanctuaires de Byzance: Recherches sur les anciens trésors des églises de Constantinople (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1921), repr. in Constantinople: recueil d’études, d’archéologie et d’histoire (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1951).

16

depth formal study of medieval reliquaries was by Joseph Braun in 1940.70 He examined their

material and iconographic features, and the theological issues that influenced their forms and

functions.

Braun’s book focused on reliquaries of the Medieval Latin west, and served as the

foundation for new generations of scholars.71 He paid relatively less attention to reliquaries of

the Byzantine Greek east; in the following two decades three studies addressed this lacuna.72 In

the 1950’s, André Grabar published two articles in which he surveyed the extant reliquaries of

St. Demetrios, demonstrating that they are designed as schematic copies of the saint’s shrine in

70 Braun, Die Reliquiare. 71 I cite just a few important studies on western medieval reliquaries from the last 30 years; Marie-Madeleine Gauthier, Les Routes de la foi: reliques et reliquaires de Jérusalem à Compostelle (Paris: Bibliothèque des Arts, 1983), trans. J.A. Underwood, Highways of the Faith: Relics and Reliquaries from Jerusalem to Compostela (Secaucus, NJ: Wellfleet Press, 1986); Anton Legner, ed. Ornamenta Ecclesiae: Kunst und Künstler der Romanik, Katalog zur Ausstellung des Schnütgen-Museums in der Josef-Haubrich-Kunsthalle, 3 vols. (Cologne: Stadt Köln, 1985); idem, Reliquien in Kunst und Kult: zwischen Antike und Aufklärung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995); Gesta 36 (1997); Edina Bozóky, and Anne-Marie Helvétius, eds., Les reliques: objets, cultes, symboles. Actes du colloque international de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale (Boulogne-sur-Mer), 4–6 septembre 1997, Hagiologia 1 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999); Christof L. Diedrichs, Vom Glauben zum Sehen: die Sichtbarkeit der Reliquie im Reliquiar; ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sehens (Berlin: Weissensee Verlag, 2001); Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint, eds., Reliquiare im Mittelalter, Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005); Seeta Chaganti, The Medieval Poetics of the Reliquary: Enshrinement, Inscription, Performance (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008); Cynthia Hahn, Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400–Circa 1204 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012); and Karen Eileen Overbey, Sacral Geographies: Saints, Shrines, and Territory in Medieval Ireland (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012). 72 It should be noted here that there have been some valuable studies on Early Byzantine reliquaries over the last half century; André Grabar, Martyrium: recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique (Paris: Collège de France, 1946); idem, Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza, Bobbio) (Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1958); Helmut Buschhausen, Die spätrömischen Metallscrinia und frühchristlichen Reliquiare (Vienna: Böhlau, 1971); Erik Thunø, Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome, Analecta Romana Instituti Danici 32 (Rome: Erma di Bretschneider, 2002); Alexander Minchev, Early Christian reliquaries from Bulgaria (4th-6th century AD) (Varna: Varna Regional Museum of History, 2003); Galit Noga-Banai, The Trophies of the Martyrs: An Art Historical Study of Early Christian Silver Reliquaries, Oxford Studies in Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Anja Kalinowski, Frühchristliche Reliquiare im Kontext von Kultstrategien, Heilserwartung und sozialer Selbstdarstellung (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2011); Ayşe Aydin, Reliquaries of the Sarcophagus Type (in Turkish) (Antalya: Suna & İnan Kıraç Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations, 2011); Marie Christine Comte, Les Reliquaires du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période protobyzantine (IVe-VIIIe siècles): formes, emplacements, fonctions et cultes, Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive 20 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012).

17

Thessaloniki.73 In 1957, Rainer Rückert published an article in which he focused on head

reliquaries, showing that a key feature of these objects was the visibility and accessibility of the

cranium.74 Anatole Frolow’s two books remain the seminal works on the study of Byzantine

relics and reliquaries of the True Cross. The first, published in 1961, catalogued all known

textual and material sources on the True Cross, both east and west, from the fourth to the

nineteenth centuries.75 His second volume, published four years later, surveyed the forms and

iconographies of True Cross reliquaries.76

In the second half of the twentieth century, scholarly access to, and knowledge of, Middle

Byzantine reliquaries increased. Jannic Durand has been instrumental in discovering and

publishing archival material on Byzantine reliquaries that are in, or were part of, French

collections.77 Museum and exhibition catalogues brought Byzantine reliquaries to the attention of

the academic community.78 Orthodox monastic collections, many of which have been

73 André Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires de saint Démétrios et de martyrium du saint à Salonique,” DOP 5 (1950): 3–28; and idem, “Un Nouveau Reliquaire de saint Démétrios,” DOP 8 (1954): 305–13. Grabar’s work relied on an earlier study by Andreas Xyngopoulos, “Βυζαντινὸν κιβωτίδιον µετὰ παραστάσεων ἐκ τοῦ βίου τοῦ ἁγίου Δηµητρίου,” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφηµερίς (1936): 101–36. 74 Rainer Rückert, “Zur Form der byzantinischen Reliquiare,” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst 8 (1957): 7–36. 75 Anatole Frolow, La relique de la Vraie Croix: recherches sur le développement d’un culte, AOC 7 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1961). 76 Anatole Frolow, Les reliquaires de la Vraie Croix, AOC 8 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1965). 77 Some of his studies include “A propos des reliques du monastère du Prodrome de Pétra à Constantinople. La relique de saint Christophe de l’ancien trésor de la cathédrale de Cambrai,” CahArch 46 (1998): 151–67; “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée à l’Abbaye du Mont-Saint-Quentin,” in Études d’histoire de l’art offertes à Jacques Thirion des premiers temps chrétiens au XXe siècle, eds. Alain Erlande-Brandenburg, Jean-Michel Leniaud, and Xavier Dectot (Paris: École des Chartes, 2001), 51–69; with Pierre Gasnault, “Quatre reliquaires byzantins dénichés par les religieux de la congrégation de Saint-Maur,” Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France (2003): 268–91; and “Le reliquaire byzantin de la vraie croix du Mont Saint-Michel,” in “Tout le temps du veneour est sanz oyseuseté”: Mélanges offerts à Yves Christe pour son 65éme anniversaire, Christine Hediger, ed. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2005), 335–48. 78 Some of the principal Byzantine exhibition catalogues that feature Middle Byzantine reliquaries are Kurt Weitzmann, ed., Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 19, 1977 through February 12, 1978 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979); Jacqueline Lafontaine-

18

inaccessible to female scholars, were exhibited for the first time in the 1990’s.79 Recent

exhibitions and symposia, in 2000, 2001, and 2010, have also stimulated public and scholarly

interest in relics and reliquaries.80

Over the last two decades there have been several publications in which Byzantine relics

and reliquaries are situated within various social-historical contexts, from aristocratic patronage,

to public and private veneration, to imperial ceremonial.81 Brigitte Pitarakis and Konstantin

Dosogne, ed., Splendeur de Byzance: 2 octobre – 2 décembre 1982, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, Bruxelles (Brussels: Les Musées, 1982); Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium; Jannic Durand, ed., Byzance: l’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises, Musée du Louvre, 3 novembre 1992 – 1er février 1993 (Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1992); Helen C. Evans, ed., Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557) (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2004); and Robin Cormack, and Maria Vassilaki, eds., Byzantium 330–1453 (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2008). Other richly illustrated collection catalogues that also should be mentioned are Hans R. Hahnloser, ed., Il Tesoro di San Marco, vol. 2 (Florence: Sansoni, 1971); Harald Meller et al, eds., Der heilige Schatz im Dom zu Halberstadt (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2008); and Irina A. Sterligova, ed., Byzantine Antiquities: Works of Art from the Fourth to Fifteenth Centuries in the Collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums (Moscow: Moscow Kremlin Museums, 2013). 79 Some of the principal monastic collection catalogues published over the past two decades that have included Middle Byzantine reliquaries are Konstantinos Manaphes, ed., Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine (Athens: Ekdotike Athenon, 1990); Basileios Demetriades, ed., Ιερά Μεγίστη Μονή Βατοπαιδίου: Παράδοση, ιστορία, τέχνη, 2 vols. (Mount Athos: Ιερά Μεγίστη Μονή Βατοπαιδίου, 1996); Athanasios Karakatsanis, ed., Treasures of Mount Athos (Thessaloniki: Ministry of Culture, Museum of Byzantine Culture, 1997); Stelios Papadopoulos, and Chrysoula Kapioldasi-Sotiropoulou, eds., Treasury of the Protaton, vol. 1 (Mount Athos: The Holy Community of Mount Athos, 2001); Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos et al, Enkolpia. 80 Alexei Lidov, ed., Christian Relics in the Moscow Kremlin (Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000); idem, ed., Relics in the Art and Culture of the Eastern Christian World: Abstracts of Papers and Material from the International Symposium (Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000); and idem, ed., Eastern Christian Relics (Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003). Jannic Durand, and Marie-Pierre Laffitte, eds., Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle (Paris: Réunion des musées nationaux, 2001); and Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, eds., Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004). Martina Bagnoli et al, eds., Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010); and Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, eds., Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015). 81 Hans Belting, Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1990), trans. Edmund Jephcott, Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994); Nancy Ševčenko, “The Limburg Staurothek and its Relics,” in Θυµίαµα στη µνήµη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα (Athens: Benaki Museum, 1994), 289–95; Anna Kartsonis, “Protection against All Evil: Function, Use and Operation of Byzantine Historiated Phylacteries,” ByzF 20 (1994): 73–102; Ioli Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult of Relics at the Court,” in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry

19

Totev have produced valuable catalogues of bronze enkolpia and lead ampullae from specific

regions, showing the geographical circulation of these mass-produced objects in the Middle and

Late Byzantine periods.82 There has also been a great deal of scholarly interest—most notably by

Holger Klein, Lynn Jones, Karin Krause, and Gia Toussaint—on the issue of reception of

Byzantine reliquaries by their Christian neighbors.83

Maguire (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996), 53–80; and Sophia Mergiali-Sahas, “Byzantine Emperors and Holy Relics: Use, and Misuse of Sanctity and Authority,” JÖB 51 (2001): 41–60; Bissera Pentcheva, “The Performance of Relics,” in Symmeikta. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 40th Anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, ed. Ivan Stevović (Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, 2012), 55–71; and Livia Bevilacqua, Arte e aristocrazia a Bisanzio nell’età dei Macedoni: Costantinopoli, la Grecia e l’Asia Minore (Rome: Campisano, 2014). See also the unpublished dissertation by Laura Veneskey, “Loca Sancta Surrogates and Site Circulation in Late Antiquity and Byzantium” (PhD diss., Northwestern University, 2012). 82 Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires; Konstantin Totev, Thessalonican Eulogia Found in Bulgaria: Lead Ampules, Enkolpia and Icons from the 12th–15th Centuries (Veliko Tŭrnovo: Faber, 2011); and Konstantin Totev, and Valentin Pletn’ov, Byzantine Art: Christian Relics from Varna Region 11th–14th Centuries (Varna: Izdatelstvo Slavena, 2011). 83 Holger Klein, Byzanz, der Westen und das ‘wahre’ Kreuz: die Geschichte einer Reliquie und ihrer künstlerischen Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2004); idem, “Eastern Objects and Western Desires: Relics and Reliquaries between Byzantium and the West,” DOP 58 (2004): 283–314; Lynn Jones, “Medieval Armenian Identity and Relics of the True Cross (9th–11th Centuries),” Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 12 (2001, 2002 [2003]): 43–53; idem, “From Anglorum basileus to Norman Saint: The Transformation of Edward the Confessor,” Haskins Society Journal 12 (2002): 99–120; idem, Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght’amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership (Farnham: Ashgate, 2007), 111–20; idem, “The Enkolpion of Edward the Confessor: Byzantium and Anglo-Saxon Concepts of Rulership,” in Cross and Cruciform in the Anglo-Saxon World: Studies to Honor the Memory of Timothy Reuter, eds. Sarah Larratt Keefer et al, Sancta Crux/Halig Rod, vol. 3 (Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2010), 369–85; idem, “Perceptions of Byzantium: Radegund of Poitiers and the Relics of the True Cross,” in Byzantine Images and their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed. Lynn Jones (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 105–24; Karin Krause, “Feuerprobe, Portraits in Stein. Mittelalterliche Propaganda für Venedigs Reliquien aus Konstantinopel und die Frage nach ihrem Erfolg,” in Lateinisch-griechisch-arabische Begegnungen: Kulturelle Diversität im Mittelmeerraum des Spätmittelalters, eds. Margit Mersch, and Ulrike Ritzerfeld (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009), 111–62; idem, “Konstantins Kreuze. Legendenbildung und Artefakte im Mittelalter,” in Hybrid Cultures in Medieval Europe: Papers and Workshops of an International Spring School, eds. Michael Borgolte, and Bernd Schneidmüller (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010), 171–93; Gia Toussaint, Kreuz und Knochen. Reliquien zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge (Berlin: Reimer, 2011); idem, “Schöne Schädel: Die Häupter der Heiligen in Ost und West,” in Knotenpunkt Byzanz: Wissensformen und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, eds. A. Speer und P. Steinkrüger, Miscellanea Mediaevalia 36 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 655–78; and idem, “Identität und Inschrift. Reliquien und ihre Kennzeichnung in Byzanz und im Westen,” in Inschriften als Zeugnisse des Kulturellen Gedächtnisses. 40 Jahre Deutsche Inschriften an der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1970-2010, ed. Nikolaus Henkel (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2012), 73–85. See also the unpublished dissertation by

20

1.3.2 Byzantine Epigrams

Scholarship on Byzantine epigrams originated in the nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries with the publication of anthologies and critical editions, many of which are still in use

today.84 However epigrams did not receive much scholarly analysis until 1966 when Athanasios

Komines published the first systematic study of epigrams and their poets.85 Scholars were often

critical of these texts, seeing them as derivatives of the classical Greek epigram, and laden with

rhetorical tropes and topoi that obfuscated historical information. In 1972, Cyril Mango

described them as “tedious” and “seldom interesting,” yet he also stated that epigrams “provide

an abundant and almost unexploited source of information for art historians.”86 With these

statements, Mango was espousing a specific method of analysis for epigrams—one that pulls

back the layers of rhetoric to uncover the historical facts.87

Mabi Angar, “Byzantine Head Reliquaries and their Reception in the West after 1204” (PhD diss., University of Cologne, 2012). 84 See for example, CIG 4; and Edme Cougny, and Friedrich Dübner, eds., Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova epigrammatum veterum ex libris et marmoribus ductorum, 3 vols. (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1871–90). In addition, see the following editions relevant to this study: John A. Cramer, ed., Anecdota Graeca e Codd. Manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1839–41), see vol. 4 (1841) for the epigrams of John Geometres; Paulus de Lagarde, ed., Iohannis Euchaitorum Metropolitae quae in codice Vaticano Graeco 676 supersunt (Göttingen: in Aedibus Dieterichianis, 1882); Leo Sternbach, ed., “Methodii patriarchae et Ignatii patriarchae carmina inedita,” Eos 4 (1897): 150–63; idem, ed., “Nicolai Calliclis Carmina,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział Filologiczny, ser. 2, vol. 21 (1903): 315–92; Eduard Kurtz, ed., Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios (Leipzig: Neumann, 1903); Gabriel Millet, Jeanne Fourier-Pargoire, and Louis David Petit, eds., Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de l’Athos, vol. 1, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 91 (Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1904); Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524.” 85 Athanasios Komines, Τὸ Βυζαντινὸν ἱερὸν ἐπίγραµµα καὶ οἱ ἐπιγραµµατοποιοί (Athens: Typographeion Adelphon Myrtide, 1966). 86 Cyril Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453: Sources and Documents (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972), 182, 244. Other scholars have also noted that epigrams have escaped art-historical analysis; Wolfram Hörandner, “Customs and beliefs as reflected in occasional poetry: Some considerations,” ByzF 12 (1987): 235–47, at 247; idem, “Byzantinische Epigramme,” 154; and Andreas Rhoby, “On the Interaction of Word and Image in Byzantium: The Case of the Epigrams on the Florence Reliquary,” in Towards Rewriting? New Approaches to Byzantine Archaeology and Art. Proceedings of the Symposium on Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Cracow, September 8-10, 2008, eds. Piotr E. Grotowski and Slawomir Skrzyniarz, Series Byzantina 8 (Warsaw: The Polish Society of Oriental Art, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Jagiellonian University, The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Cracow, 2010), 101–15, at 102.

21

This positivistic approach was first employed by scholars who used epigrams to re-

construct works of art now lost.88 In the last two decades, however, there have been several art

historians who have examined these texts with new approaches.89 Henry Maguire, a pioneer in

the investigation of word-and-image relationships in Byzantine art, examines the ways in which

epigrams reflect particular iconographic developments, and the evolution of certain

iconographies in response to the content of epigrams.90 Amy Papalexandrou, focusing on

epigrams inscribed on churches, demonstrates the ways in which the placement of these texts

87 See also Mango, Sources and Documents, xii: “Since the epigram was usually a short poem intended to be inscribed on the base of a statue, the entablature of a building, the frame of an icon or the side of a sarcophagus, it rarely contains a description of the object it was meant to accompany. Its value to the art-historian often lies in the lemma, i.e., its title containing the attribution to this or that monument.” Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 26–27 echoes Mango’s assertion that the epigram is primarily, for the art historian, a trove of historical facts: “Dedicatory epigrams are strikingly monotonous. It is not the type of poetry one reads with much pleasure. Its value is mainly historical; on occasions it provides some new facts—pieces and shreds of information that may complete the art historian’s discourse of a fragmented reality.” This privileging of historical facts is also seen in Lambros’s edition of the Anthologia Marciana. For epigram no. 59, he provides only 12 of the 24 total verses, specifically those that name the patron and describe the object; Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 28–29. Contrast these comments with those of Bernard, Byzantine Secular Poetry, 6, who states, “Byzantine texts seldom transmit straightforward messages. But on the other hand, this can easily lead to over-interpretation, ignoring that rhetoric for the Byzantines was not necessarily a way to obfuscate a message, but simply the most appropriate way to communicate.” 88 Anatole Frolow, “Un nouveau reliquaire byzantin (Manuelis Philae Carmina, I, pp. 133–137),” Revue des études grecques 66 (1953): 100–10; Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson, “The Emperor in Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century,” ByzF 8 (1982): 123–83; and Valerie Nunn, “The Encheirion as an Adjunct to the Icon in the Middle Byzantine Period,” BMGS 10 (1986): 73–102. 89 One of the first art-historical studies to treat epigrams as more than repositories of facts is Kathleen Corrigan, “The Ivory Scepter of Leo VI: A Statement of Post-Iconoclastic Imperial Ideology,” Art Bulletin 60 (1978): 407–16. For new approaches in the study of art and text relationships, see Liz James, ed., Art and Text in Byzantine Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007); and Antony Eastmond, ed., Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). 90 Maguire, Image and Imagination. Among his many other studies on the relationships between text and image, see Art and Eloquence in Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981); Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art, Monographs on the Fine Arts 43 (University Park: Published for the College Art Association of America by Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987); “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium,” Art Bulletin 70 (1988): 88–103; “Epigrams, Art, and the ‘Macedonian Renaissance’,” DOP 48 (1994): 105–15; The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); with Lynn Jones, “A Description of the Jousts of Manuel I Komnenos,” BMGS 26 (2002): 104–48; and Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature, Onassis Series in Hellenic Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).

22

reflects and affects the Byzantine viewer’s movement around and through a church.91 Titos

Papamastorakis examines a selection of twelfth-century epigrams and identifies some of the

ways in which the aristocracy expressed their acts of piety, donation, and requests for salvation.92

Bissera Pentcheva applies Papalexandrou’s methodology to framing epigrams on icons, showing

the ways in which the placement and reading of these texts created a sacred interactive space

between viewer and image.93 Robert Nelson examines the ways in which epigrams were used to

legitimate the victorious emperor to wage war over his enemies.94 Ivan Drpić’s forthcoming

book is the first synthetic art-historical study of epigrams that date from the eleventh to the

fifteenth centuries. He explores and identifies numerous themes in epigrammatic poetry,

including the epigram’s role in visual and verbal adornment, the expression of sacred gift-giving

and patron self-fashioning, and the concept of pothos in Christian devotion.95

The most significant advances in epigram scholarship have come from philologists and

literary historians, most notably Marc Lauxtermann, Wolfram Hörandner, and Andreas Rhoby.96

91 Papalexandrou, “Eloquent Monuments.” 92 Titos Papamastorakis, “The Display of Accumulated Wealth in Luxury Icons: Gift-Giving from the Byzantine Aristocracy to God in the Twelfth Century,” in Byzantine Icons: Art, Technique and Technology, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Heraklion: Crete University Press, 2002), 35–49. 93 Bissera Pentcheva, “Räumliche und akustische Präsenz in byzantinischen Epigrammen: Der Fall der Limburger Staurothek,” in Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), eds. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 75–83. See also idem, The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010), 160–71. 94 Robert Nelson, “‘And So, With the Help of God’: The Byzantine Art of War in the Tenth Century,” DOP 65/66 (2011–12): 169–92. 95 Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion. See also his published and forthcoming essays; idem, “Notes on Byzantine Panagiaria,” Zograf 35 (2011): 51–62; idem, “The Serres Icon of Saints Theodores,” BZ 105 (2012): 645–94; idem, “Painter as Scribe: Artistic Identity and the Arts of Graphē in Late Byzantium,” Word & Image 29 (2013): 334–53; idem, “The Patron’s ‘I’”; idem, “Chrysepes Stichourgia: The Byzantine Epigram as Aesthetic Object,” in Sign and Design: Script as Image in Cross-Cultural Perspective (300–1600 CE), eds. B. Bedos-Rezak, and J.F. Hamburger (forthcoming); “Text and/as Art,” in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature, ed. Stratis Papaioannou (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). 96 Other philological contributions include Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina, 2 vols. (Bari: Dedalo Libri, 1970); Nikolaos Tomadakes, “Βυζαντινὰ ἐπιγράµµατα καὶ βυζαντινὴ τέχνη,” Ἀθηνᾶ 65

23

Lauxtermann provides the first generic study of the Middle Byzantine epigram, examining its

relationship to, and deviations from, the ancient tradition.97 Among the many contributions by

Hörandner are studies on the reading, reception, and reuse of epigrams, the literary motifs of

epigrams associated with crosses and cross reliquaries, and carmina figurata in Byzantine

manuscripts.98 Hörandner is also responsible for initiating a project through the Austrian

(1961): 3–10; Enrica Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi in alcuni epigrammi bizantini,” Byzantion 34 (1964): 447–67, reprinted in idem, Byzantina et italograca. Studi di filologia e di paleografia, Storia e Letteratura. Raccolta di studi e testi 195, eds. Augusta Acconcia Longo, Lidia Perria, and Andrea Luzzi (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1997), 49–66; André Guillou, Recueil des inscriptions grecques médiévales d’Italie (Rome: École française de Rome, 1996); Alice-Mary Talbot, “Epigrams of Manuel Philes on the Theotokos tes Peges and Its Art.” DOP 48 (1994): 135–65; idem, “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptions on Art and Architecture of the Palaiologan Era,” DOP 53 (1999): 75–90; Ioannis Vassis, Initia carminum Byzantinorum, Supplementa Byzantina 8 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005); Francesco D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi su un encolpio con cammeo d’ametista del monastero di Vatopedi,” Νέα Ῥώµη 4 (2007): 413–39; Efthymia Braounou-Pietsch, Beseelte Bilder: Epigramme des Manuel Philes auf bildliche Darstellungen, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 26 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010); Floris Bernard, and Kristoffel Demoen, eds., Poetry and Its Contexts in Eleventh-Century Byzantium (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012); Bernard, Byzantine Secular Poetry; Wolfram Hörandner, Andreas Rhoby and Nikolaos Zagklas, eds., A Companion to Byzantine Poetry (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming); Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi; and Nikolaos Zagklas, “Theodore Prodromos: The Neglected Poems and Epigrams (Edition, Translation and Commentary)” (PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 2014). Many new editions of epigrams have also been produced in the last half century, including Paul Speck, ed., Theodoros Studites: Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände, Supplementa Byzantina 1 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968); Wolfram Hörandner, ed., Theodoros Prodromos: Historische Gedichte, Wiener byzantinistische Studien 11 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974); Roberto Romano, ed., Nicola Callicle: Carmi, Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Neaopolitana 8 (Naples: Bibliopolis, 1980); Emilie Marlène Van Opstall, ed., Jean Géomètre: Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques élégiaques, The Medieval Mediterranean 75 (Leiden: Brill, 2008); and De Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii. 97 Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram”; idem, Byzantine Poetry. 98 Hörandner’s bibliography is extensive. Some principal studies include “Customs and Beliefs”; “Poetic Forms in the Tenth Century,” in Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age, Second International Byzantine Conference, Delphi, 22–26 July 1987 (Athens: European Cultural Center of Delphi, 1989), 135–53; “Visuelle Poesie in Byzanz. Versuch einer Bestandsaufnahme,” JÖB 40 (1990): 1–42. “Ein Zyklus von Epigrammen zu Darstellungen von Herrenfesten und Wunderszenen,” DOP 46 (1992): 107–115; “A Cycle of Epigrams on the Lord’s Feasts in Cod. Marc. Gr. 524,” DOP 48 (1994): 117–33; “Ergänzendes zu den byzantinischen Carmina Figurata. Akrosticha im Cod. Laur. Plut. VII 8,” in ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ: Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi, vol. 2 (Catania: Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Catania, 1994), 189–202; “Zur kommunikativen Funktion byzantinischer Gedichte,” in Acts XVIIIth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Selected Papers, Moscow, 1991, vol. 4: Literature, Sources, Numismatics and History of Science, eds. Ihor Ševčenko, Gennady G. Litavrin, and Walter K. Hanak (Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press, 1996), 104–18; “Randbemerkungen zum Thema Epigramme und Kunstwerke,” in Polypleuros Nous. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zum seinem 60. Geburtstag, eds. Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris, Byzantinisches Archiv 19 (Munich: Saur, 2000),

24

Academy of Sciences that gathers all known in situ Greek epigrams in Byzantium.99 Andreas

Rhoby, the author of these volumes, organizes the epigrams by medium, and presents new

critical editions, German translations, and commentaries on their philological features.100 The

second volume, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst (2010),

includes 49 Middle Byzantine reliquary epigrams; four others are included in the third volume.101

In addition to this indispensible series, Rhoby has published and edited numerous studies that

examine the relationships between epigrams and their inscribed contexts.102

69–82; “Epigrams on Icons and Sacred Objects: The Collection of Cod. Marc. gr. 524 once again,” in La poesia tardoantica e medievale: Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Macerata, 4–5 Maggio 1998, ed. Marcello Salvadore (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2001), 117–24; “Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der byzantinischen Dichtung – am Beispiel des Gedichts auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel,” in Die poetische Ekphrasis von Kunstwerken: Eine literarische Tradition der Großdichtung in Antike, Mittelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Christine Ratkowitsch (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006), 203–19; “Das byzantinische Epigramm und das heilige Kreuz: einige Beobachtungen zu Motiven und Typen,” in La Croce. Iconografia e interpretazione (secoli I - inizio XVI). Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Napoli, 6-11 dicembre 1999), vol. 3, eds. B. Ulianich and U. Parente, (Rome: Elio de Rosa editore, 2007), 107–25; and “Weitere Beobachtungen zu byzantinischen Figurengedichten und Tetragrammen,” Νέα Ῥώµη 6 (2009) 291‒304. 99 Hörandner, “Byzantinische Epigramme.” This project was originally conceived by Athanasios Komines, but it was never carried out; see “L’epigramma sacro ed i problemi dell’arte epigrammatica bizantina,” in Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Ochride 10–16 septembre 1961, vol. 2 (Belgrade: Comité Yougoslave des Études Byzantines, 1964), 365–71. 100 BEIÜ. The titles of volumes 1 and 3 are Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken (2009) and Byzantinische Epigramme auf Stein nebst Addenda zu den Bänden 1 und 2 (2014). The fourth volume and addenda, which is expected to appear within the next few years, will include book epigrams. An online database on the latter has been initiated by the University of Ghent: http://www.dbbe.ugent.be/. 101 See Appendix A. 102 Rhoby’s bibliography is extensive. A few key studies include “Interaction of Word and Image”; “The structure of inscriptional dedicatory epigrams in Byzantium,” in La poesia tardoantica e medievale IV Convegno internazionale di studi Perugia, 15-17 novembre 2007. Atti in onore di Antonino Isola per il suo 70° genetliaco, eds. Clara Burini De Lorenzi, and Miryam De Gaetano, Quaderni 5 (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2010), 309–32; “Zur Überlieferung von inschriftlich angebrachten byzantinischen Epigrammen: Ein Beitrag zur Untersuchung von Wort und Bild in Byzanz,” in Fragmente: Der Umgang mit lückenhafter Quellenüberlieferung in der Mittelalterforschung, eds. Christian Gastgeber et al (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), 225–38; “Inscriptional Poetry: Ekphrasis in Byzantine tomb epigrams,” BSl 69/3 (2011): 193–204; “Interactive Inscriptions: Byzantine Works of Art and their Beholders,” in Spatial Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2011), 317–33; “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” in Ἤπειρόνδε: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography (Ioannina, 1.–3. October 2009), eds. Christos Stavrakos and Barbar Papadopoulou (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 65–79; “Meaning of Inscriptions for the Early and Middle Byzantine Culture. Remarks on the Interaction of

25

1.4 State of the Problem

While scholarship on reliquaries of the Medieval Latin west has developed into its own

sub-field of research, there is no comprehensive study of reliquaries of the Byzantine Greek east.

Scholarly assumptions concerning the forms and functions of Byzantine reliquaries have been

largely shaped by western medieval practices, leaving no paradigm for understanding Middle

Byzantine reliquaries within their specific historical and cultural contexts. This dissertation is the

first study to chart out such a paradigm, and it does so by focusing on the evidence of epigrams.

Scholarly interest in reliquaries and epigrams has increased in recent years, but there is

no synthesis of these two areas of research.103 When reliquaries are the focus, epigrams have

been ignored or given inaccurate treatment. Examples are found in The Glory of Byzantium: Art

and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261, the catalogue for the exhibition held at

the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1997.104 The entry on the Kremlin reliquary enkolpion

(A42), discussed above, does not include the epigram in Greek or in translation, but vaguely

states, “The reverse bears a silver-gilt plaque with a Greek inscription in niello that refers to a

relic or relics,” (figs. 96–98).105 As I already have noted, this epigram is exceptional for the

Word, Image and Beholder,” Scrivere e Leggere Nell’alto Medioevo, Spoleto, 28 aprile – 4 maggio 2011, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo 59 (Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2012), 731–57; “Secret Messages? Byzantine Greek Tetragrams and Their Display,” Art-Hist – Papers, Issue 1: Greek Monograms in Byzantine Epigraphy (2013), http://art-hist.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=72, (accessed July 19, 2015); “Inscriptions and Manuscripts in Byzantium: A Fruitful Symbiosis?,” in Scrittura epigrafica e scrittura libraria: Fra Oriente e Occidente, eds. Marilena Maniaci and Pasquale Orsini (Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio meridionale, Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, 2015), 15–44; idem, ed., Inscriptions in Byzantium and Beyond: Methods – Projects – Case Studies, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 38 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015); and with Wolfram Hörandner, eds., Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008). 103 Notable exceptions that have begun the conversation are Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz”; Pentcheva, “Räumliche und akustische Präsenz”; and Nelson, “Art of War”. I should also mention here Alexandra Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams. Translation, introduction and commentary (in Russian),” in Relics in the Art and Culture of the Eastern Christian World: Abstracts of Papers and Material from the International Symposium, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000), 138–54. This essay provides a Russian translation and brief commentary on epigrams in manuscripts that were written for relics and reliquaries. 104 Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium.

26

number of relics that it mentions (19). Only one other reliquary in this study contained more

relics.106 This number is even more remarkable considering the small size of the reliquary

enkolpion (9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm). The reader of the catalogue, however, cannot know this

information because the epigram is not provided.

Another example is from the same catalogue. For the entry on the reliquary of St. Marina

(A30), the epigram is included, but it is inexplicably transcribed in all majuscule letters (figs. 73–

75).107 In reality, the epigram, as displayed on the reliquary, is inscribed in mostly minuscule

with some majuscule letters with diacritics and breathing marks. These inaccuracies are again

copied in the 2010 catalogue for the exhibition, Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and

Devotion in Medieval Europe.108 The epigram for the reliquary of St. Marina is the only one in

this study that is inscribed with minuscule letters, but both exhibition catalogues misrepresent

this information.

Equally problematic is scholarship that focuses on epigrams and treats reliquaries as just

another type of object within the category of “luxury” or “minor” arts, and/or groups inscriptions

according to media.109 Grouping epigrams on icons, patens, chalices, and textiles into a single

monolithic category fails to recognize the variety in the forms, materials, and uses of the objects

on which these texts were displayed, and the contexts in which they were read.

This dissertation takes a different approach. It is the first study that gives equal focus to

both reliquaries and epigrams, demonstrating that an examination of the reliquary or the epigram

is always dependent upon analysis of the other. I argue that in order to understand the complex

messages encoded within epigrams, one must take into account the theological, social, and

105 Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, no. 115, quote on page 167. See also the criticism in Ševčenko, “Perceptions of Byzantium,” 6. 106 According to a French inventory, the now-lost reliquary of the Clairvaux Abbey (A9) contained as many as 44 relics; Charles Lalore, Le Trésor de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1875), 39–45. 107 Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, no. 332. See also the comments in Ševčenko, “Observations,” 252. 108 Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, 91. 109 The BEIÜ series organizes epigrams in this way. The important forthcoming study by Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, takes into consideration epigrams inscribed on numerous objects and monuments—monumental and minor—as well as those preserved in manuscripts.

27

political contexts of relics in Middle Byzantine society. What can these texts tell us about the

objects specifically: the terminology used, word placement, and the ways in which the viewers

engaged with reliquaries through their epigrams? How does this engagement help us better

understand the accessibility and veneration of relics, and the function of reliquaries in the

devotional practices of Byzantium?

1.5 Methodology

My underlying methodology for the examination of reliquary epigrams combines art

historical and philological approaches. I analyze epigrams in three ways: as documents of

patronage, as aesthetic poems, and as visual inscriptions. While acknowledging the documentary

function of an epigram, I demonstrate ways in which aspects of style, rhetoric, metrics, and word

choice nuance the interpretation(s) of the dedicatory content. Rather than treat these literary

features as a rhetorical mask that must be removed in order to get to the historical truth of the

text, I discuss the ways in which they reflect particular ideologies and doctrines that were

specific to, and referenced by, court ceremonial and liturgy. I give equal importance to the visual

function of epigrams, demonstrating that the inscribed texts integrate with the reliquaries’ visual

programs through the conscious placement of specific words in relation to specific images and

relics. In this way, epigrams can function as iconography, conveying messages not explicitly

stated in the text.

1.6 Conclusion

This dissertation charts out a paradigm for understanding the forms and functions of

Middle Byzantine reliquaries within their historical and cultural contexts. While there are

numerous scholarly works on reliquaries of the Medieval Latin west, there is no synthetic study

of those from the Byzantine Greek east. This dissertation fills that gap, and incorporates an

under-utilized body of evidence—the metrical inscriptions, or epigrams, displayed on reliquaries.

I identified three common features in the placement of epigrams on reliquaries:

symmetrical disposition, the correspondence of breaks in the inscribed text with verse and

Binnenschlusse divisions, and the use of crosses and dots to mark the beginnings of epigrams

and ends of verses. I outlined the problems associated with using the modern scholarly terms

primary, secondary, and tertiary to classify Byzantine relics. For example, the epigram that was

28

inscribed on the enkolpion that contained myron from St. George’s icon at Mesampela is

evidence that this myron was considered a relic by its owner; yet it does not conform to any of

the scholarly classifications of relics. I also showed that while epigrams describe reliquaries,

their focus is on the relics; in some instances, they make no distinction between the container and

the contained. I also addressed the potential of using epigrams as evidence for the working

relationships of patrons, artists, and poets. Throughout this dissertation, I demonstrate that the

meaningful placement of an epigram on a reliquary required all three actors to collaborate and

consult with each other.

1.7 Structure of the Dissertation

Chapter 2 introduces the different types of Middle Byzantine reliquaries that were

inscribed with epigrams. I discuss aspects of their design and form, imagery associated with each

type, and the placement of the epigrams. Chapter 3 provides a brief historical survey of the

various contexts in which reliquaries were used, from personal possessions to public veneration

practices. These two chapters serve as the foundation for the rest of the dissertation.

Chapter 4 examines the ways in which epigrams—both in content and placement—

function to make relics visually and haptically accessible to the faithful. Chapter 5 explores the

relationship between reliquary and metaphor. What are the ways in which the ekphrastic

character of epigrams interprets and presents reliquaries to their owners? Chapter 6 situates

reliquaries in the context of religious gift-giving by addressing the various ways in which a

patron articulates his/her identity, connection with a holy figure, and what he/she hopes to

receive in return. Appendices A and B catalogue the 74 Middle Byzantine reliquaries with

epigrams, and include the most recent editions of the texts, English translations, and

bibliographies for each.

29

CHAPTER 2

AN INTRODUCTION TO MIDDLE BYZANTINE

RELICS AND RELIQUARIES

2.1 A New System for Grouping Relics

In order to analyze the different types of reliquaries produced in the Middle Byzantine

period, we first need to organize them according to the relics that they contained. As I have

discussed in Chapter 1, the traditional scholarly method of grouping relics (primary, secondary,

and tertiary) is problematic for three reasons.110 One, there is no evidence that Byzantines

grouped relics in this manner. Two, the names primary, secondary, and tertiary misleadingly

suggest that they correspond to a Byzantine hierarchy of relics. Three, this scholarly method of

grouping relics does not accurately describe, or include, all forms of sacred matter venerated in

Byzantium, such as acheiropoieta and holy oil.

I propose a different grouping system for relics that—while also a modern construct—

more accurately reflects the Byzantine sources. My grouping is hierarchical and based on the

identities of the holy figures with whom the relics are associated. While the Byzantines did not

explicitly describe or categorize their relics by this or any other method, the emperor’s and/or the

patriarch’s relative control over certain relics suggests that there was such a hierarchy.111 The

first group thus includes relics of Christ. Such relics were primarily kept in the Great Palace, and

access to them required a connection to the emperor.112 The second group consists of relics of the

Theotokos, which were also housed in imperial churches, but outside of the Great Palace

complex. The third group includes relics of any other holy figure (e.g. apostles, saints, and

martyrs). Such relics were the most variable in terms of who possessed them and where they

were housed.113

110 For a study on why this grouping system is problematic, see Smith, “Relics.” 111 Giovanni Tiepolo uses this hierarchical grouping in his discussion of reliquaries at San Marco; Trattato delle santissime reliquie, ultimamente ritrovate nel Santuario della Chiesa di San Marco (Venice: Antonio Pinelli, 1617). Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, 116–41 also uses this grouping. 112 While the phrase “relics of” suggests bodily relics, and the phrase “relics associated with” suggests contact relics, I will, for the sake of simplicity, use the phrase “relics of” in reference to all of the above. 113 This observation is also made in James, “Dry Bones,” 49.

30

I structure this chapter according to this grouping system. For each group, I examine the

types of Middle Byzantine reliquaries, and identify their standard container shapes, the images

depicted on them, and the placement of the epigrams, if there is enough evidence to do so.114 I

then focus on one type of reliquary that is part of, yet distinct from, all three groups: reliquaries

that contained more than one relic.

2.2 Relics of Christ

2.2.1 Relics

The belief in Christ’s resurrection and assumption meant that he left no bodily relics.115

The Byzantines instead venerated garments and objects associated with his life, ministry, and

passion.116 John of Damascus (d. 749) states that “the Wood of the Cross is to be venerated as

something made holy by having touched his sacred body and blood, (and so are) the nails, the

lance, the clothes, and his sacred ‘tabernacles,’ that is to say the Manger, the Cave, saving

Golgotha, the life-giving Tomb, Sion…and such like.”117 Included among these relics were

114 Middle Byzantine reliquaries are the product of their years of continual use and physical modifications. When I discuss specific objects, I indicate the parts that were added or altered in their post-Byzantine history. 115 The exception is the Holy Blood; see section 2.2.4. 116 Principal studies on relics of Christ include De Fleury, Mémoire; De Mély, Exuviae sacrae; Frolow, La relique; idem, Les reliquaires; Durand and Laffitte, Sainte-Chapelle; Durand and Flusin, Reliques du Christ; Klein, Byzanz; and Jannic Durand, “Relics of the Infancy of Christ,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 253–88. Two additional studies that are useful, but focus on western material are Pierre Dor, Les reliquaires de la Passion en France du Ve au XVe siècle, Histoire Médiévale et Archéologie 10

(Amiens: Centre d’archéologie et d'histoire médiévales des établissements religieux, 1999); and idem, La sainte couronne du Christ et ses épines (Paris: Guibert, 2009). 117 Αὐτὸ µὲν οὖν τὸ τίµιον ξύλον ὡς ἀληθῶς καὶ σεβάσµιον, ἐν ᾧ ἑαυτὸν εἰς θυσίαν ὑπὲρ ἡµῶν Χριστὸς προσενήνοχεν, ὡς ἁγιασθὲν τῇ ἁφῇ τοῦ ἁγίου σώµατος καὶ αἵµατος εἰκότως προσκυνητέον, τοὺς ἥλους, τὴν λόγχην, τὰ ἐνδύµατα καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ αὐτοῦ σκηνώµατα, ἅτινά εἰσιν ἡ φάτνη, τὸ σπήλαιον, ὁ Γολγοθᾶς ὁ σωτήριος, ὁ ζωοποιὸς τάφος, ἡ Σιὼν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν ἡ ἀκρόπολις, καὶ τὰ ὅµοια. Ed. P. Bonifatius Kotter, Expositio fidei, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos 2, Patristische Texte und Studien 12 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 188, trans. John Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades (Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1977), 41. The bishop Paulinus of Nola (ca. 354–431) states that the wood of the True Cross draws its “power of incorruptibility” and “undiminishing integrity” from the blood of

31

miraculous images and acheiropoieta, such as the Mandylion and the Keramion, which

functioned as both icons and relics.118

By the end of the twelfth century, Constantinople possessed the complete catalogue of

Christological relics. The Church of the Theotokos of the Pharos, located in the Great Palace,

was the repository for the majority of these prestigious items.119 Byzantine writers, non-

Byzantine pilgrims, and Crusaders all attest to this chapel’s impressive relic collection.120 In

1200, Nicholas Mesarites (ca. 1163/4–ca. 1214), the skeuophylax (sacristan) of the Pharos

chapel, described a portion of its contents: the Crown of Thorns, the Holy Nail, the Burial

Shroud of Christ, the Towel used to wash the feet of the Apostles, the Holy Lance, Christ’s

Purple Robe, and a stone from the Tomb of Christ.121 While non-Byzantine sources indicate that

the Pharos chapel contained relics of other holy figures, Mesarites’s list is made up exclusively

of Christological relics. This is supporting evidence that Christological relics were the most

revered in Byzantium, and that stone relics were no less precious. According to Mesarites, the

Christ’s flesh; ed. Hartel, Paulini Nolani Opera, Epistulae, 31.6, trans. Walsh, Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, 2:133. 118 The bibliography on the Mandylion and the Keramion is extensive. Recent studies include Herbert L. Kessler, and Gerhard Wolf, eds., The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation: Papers from a Colloquium held at the Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome and the Villa Spelman, Florence, 1996 (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1998); Giovanni Morello, and Gerhard Wolf, eds., Il volto di Cristo (Milan: Electa, 2000); Gerhard Wolf et al, eds., Mandylion: Intorno al Sacro Volto, da Bisanzio a Genova (Milan: Skira, 2004); and Mark Guscin, The Image of Edessa, The Medieval Mediterranean 82 (Leiden: Brill, 2009). 119 Janin, Églises CP, 232–36, no. 121. The Patriarch Photios (858–67, 877–86) described its art and architecture in a homily delivered on the day of its dedication in 864; Cyril Mango, The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958), 177–90. See also R.J.H. Jenkins and Cyril A. Mango, “The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius,” DOP 9–10 (1956): 125–40. 120 Michele Bacci, “Relics of the Pharos Chapel: A View from the Latin West,” in Eastern Christian Relics, ed. A. Lidov (Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003), 234–46; and Paul Magdalino, “L’église du Phare et les reliques de la Passion à Constantinople (VIIe/VIIIe-XIIIe siècles),” in Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004), 15–30. 121 Ed. August Heisenberg, Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Palastrevolution des Johannes Komnenos (Würzburg: Köningliche Universitätsdruckerei von H. Stürzt, 1907), 29.34–31.5, trans. Belting, Likeness and Presence, 526.

32

presence of these relics made the Pharos chapel “another Sinai, Bethlehem, Jordan, Jerusalem,

Nazareth, Bethany, Galilee, and Tiberias.”122

2.2.2 Reliquaries of the True Cross

2.2.2.1 Definition. The largest group of Middle Byzantine reliquaries with epigrams

(51.4%) includes those that contain(ed) relics of the True Cross—the wood upon which Christ

was crucified.123 According to a legend that developed in the fourth century, the True Cross was

discovered in Jerusalem by Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine I (r. 306–37).124 She

deposited one part in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and sent another part to her son in

Constantinople.125 In 614, Jerusalem was sacked by the Persians and its relic was taken to

122 Ed. Heisenberg, Nikolaos Mesarites, 31.36–32.1. See also his comparison of Jerusalem and Constantinople, in which he emphasizes the supremacy of the imperial capital because of the relics it possesses. He says, for example, “There (Jerusalem) is Golgotha, but here (Constantinople) is the Cross and the Footstool,” (κρανίου τόπος ἐκεῖ, σταυρός δ’ ἐνταῦθα καὶ ὑποπόδιον); ed. August Heisenberg, “Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes,” in Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, vol. 1 (Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923), 27. For secondary literature on Constantinople as the “New Jerusalem,” see Evelyne Patlagean, “La double Terre sainte de Byzance. Autour du XIIe siècle,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 49 (1994): 459–69; Bernard Flusin, “Construire une nouvelle Jérusalem: Constantinople et les reliques,” in L’Orient dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe: L’invention des origines, eds. Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and John Scheid, Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 110 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2000), 51–70; Holger Klein, “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople,” in Visualisierungen von Herrschaft: Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen: Gestalt und Zeremoniell: Internationales Kolloquium 3./4. Juni 2004 in Istanbul, ed. Franz Alto Bauer, Byzas 5 (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2006), 79–99, at 80 and 89; Wortley, “Introduction,” xv; and Ousterhout, “Sacred Geographies.” 123 Cf. Matthew 27:32–44; Mark 15:21–32; Luke 23:26–43; and John 19:17–30. Reliquaries of the True Cross (38/74): A2, A3, A5, A10, A12, A16, A23, A25, A26, A27, A31, A36, A37, A38, A40, A41, A44, A45, A46, A47, A49, A51, A55, B3, B4, B8, B13. Also included in this number are those reliquaries that contained other relics in addition to the True Cross: A1, A6, A9, A11, A17, A19, A42, B5, B6, B11, B14. For my rationale in including the latter group in this number, see section 2.5. 124 Frolow, La relique, no. 2. For Helena and her legend, see Jan Willem Drijvers, Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross (Leiden: Brill, 1992); and idem, “Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth: Some New Reflections,” Millennium 8 (2011): 125–74. For the ways in which the Helena legend is appropriated and altered, see Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, 111–20. 125 Frolow, La relique, no. 13. This Constantinopolitan relic, or a part of it, was supposedly placed at the base of the column in Constantine’s Forum. For literature on this monument, see Cyril Mango, “Constantine’s Porphyry Column and the Chapel of St. Constantine,” ΔΧΑΕ 10 (1980–1981): 103–10;

33

Ctesiphon.126 Following his successful campaigns against the Persians, the Emperor Herakleios

(r. 610–41) recaptured the True Cross and restored it to Jerusalem in March of 630.127 When

Jerusalem was taken by the Arabs in 635, Herakleios sent the True Cross to Constantinople.128

From this time forward, Constantinople eclipsed Jerusalem as the primary repository and

distributor of relics of the True Cross.129

In epigrams, the relic of the True Cross is most often called τό ξύλον (the wood, tree), τό

ξύλον ζωῆς (the tree/wood of life), or ὁ σταυρός (the cross).130 Its adjectives are numerous, some

of which include θεῖον (divine, cf. A31), τίµιον (precious, cf. A16), ζωηφόρον (life-bringing, cf.

B8), ζωοποιόν (life-making, cf. B3), νικοποιόν (victory-making, cf. A16), and σεβάσµιον

(revered, cf. A2). The reliquary-specific term that is most frequently (18.4%) found in epigrams

for reliquaries of the True Cross is θήκη (case, chest, or simply reliquary).131 As a result, modern

and Robert Ousterhout, “The Life and Afterlife of Constantine’s Column,” Journal of Roman Archaeology 27 (2014): 304–26. In 574, Justin II (r. 565–78) acquired another relic of the True Cross from Apamea; see Frolow, nos. 36, 42. 126 Frolow, La relique, no. 50. 127 The exact date when Herakleios re-captured the True Cross and restored it to Jerusalem has been the subject of much debate; Frolow, La relique, no. 55; idem, “La Vraie Croix et les expéditions d’Héraclius en Perse,” REB 11 (1953): 88–105; Mary Whitby, “Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and his Deputies,” in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Mary Whitby, Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava, Supplementum 183 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 247–73; and Jan Willem Drijvers, “Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis: Notes on Symbolism and Ideology,” in The Reign of Heraclius (610-641): Crisis and Confrontation, eds. Gerrit J. Reinink, and Bernard H. Stolte (Lueven: Peeters, 2002), 175–90, esp. 177–78. 128 Frolow, La relique, no. 60 129 Frolow, La relique, 55–94 identifies Jerusalem first, and Constantinople second, as the principal centers where relics of the True Cross were distributed, primarily from the emperor and patriarch. Frolow, La relique, 95–107, esp. 97 argues that while Rome also possessed relics of the True Cross, the city exported fewer fragments than it received. When Jerusalem was captured by the Latin armies of the First Crusade in 1099, a relic of the True Cross was discovered in the Holy Sepulchre (cf. Frolow, La relique, no. 258) and Jerusalem, once again, became a major center of distribution. 130 68.4% (26/38) of epigrams for reliquaries of the True Cross identify the relic as ξύλον and/or σταυρός: A2, A3, A5, A6, A12, A16, A25, A26, A27, A31, A36, A37, A38, A41, A42, A47, A49, A51, A55, B3, B4, B5, B8, B11 B13, B14. See also G.Q. Reijners, The Terminology of the Holy Cross in Early Christian Literature as Based upon Old Testament Typology (Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt N.V., 1965). 131 This ratio is comparable to all epigrams in this study, which include a reliquary-specific term: 20.3% (15/74). The word θήκη is used for (7/38 of staurothekai) A6, A19, A31, A41, A45, A47, A51. The only

34

scholarship often refers to these reliquaries as staurothekai (singular, staurotheke), which

literally translates as “cross-reliquaries.”132

Middle Byzantine staurothekai with epigrams are made of gold and silver, and adorned

with gems, pearls, and enamel.133 Their sizes range from the Limburg Staurotheke (A6), one of

the largest extant, measuring 48 x 35 x 6 cm, to the reliquary enkolpion now at the Vatican

(A46), one of the smallest, measuring 13 x 8 cm (figs. 20, 108).134

2.2.2.2 Forms. Anatole Frolow and Holger Klein identify the two predominant forms

characteristic of Middle Byzantine staurothekai.135 The Limburg is an example of the so-called

panel type (“tableau,” or “Tafelförmige”), which consists of a shallow rectangular box with a

sliding lid (fig. 19).136 The Vatican reliquary enkolpion is an example of the triptych type, which

consists of a central shallow rectangular box covered by two lateral wings (fig. 108).137 Both the

panel- and triptych-types house(d) a cross that can be removed from a central cruciform

receptacle inside the box.138 These removable crosses have one or two horizontal arms, display

other object-specific term used for a reliquary of the True Cross is σκήνωµα (tabernacle, A40). The unusual use of σκήνωµα will be the subject of future work. 132 I have not been able to find a Byzantine source where the term staurotheke is used. A search of the TLG on October 29, 2015 produced no results. 133 The one exception is the ivory reliquary of the True Cross, now at Cortona (A49). For this reliquary, and for the materials traditionally used for staurothekai, see Holger Klein, “Die Elfenbein-Staurothek von Cortona im Kontext mittelbyzantinischer Kreuzreliquiarproduktion,” in Spätantike und byzantinische Elfenbeinbildwerke im Diskurs, eds. Gudrun Bühl, Anthony Cutler, and Arne Effenberger (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2008), 167–90. 134 The largest staurotheke, whose measurements have been documented, is the now lost reliquary of Mont-Saint-Quentin (A11), which measured 54.1 x 43.3 x 6.7 cm. The smallest reliquary of the True Cross is an enkolpion at the Hermitage (A1), which measures 8.3 x 6.6 cm. I cite the Limburg and the Vatican reliquaries because they have not been significantly altered, and because I will continually refer to them in the following discussion. 135 Frolow, Les reliquaires; and Klein, Byzanz are the principal sources on reliquaries of the True Cross, both east and west. Now largely superseded, the articles by Angelo Lipinsky should also be mentioned, most notably, “Le grandi Stauroteche dei secoli X–XII,” FR, ser. III, 44 (1967): 95–112; and 45 (1967): 45–79. 136 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 93–115; and Klein, Byzanz, 104–41. 137 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 57–63; and Klein, Byzanz, 142–61. 138 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 61, 93, 125.

35

the relic of the True Cross on one side, and are wrapped in gold or silver-gilt on the other.139

Scholars most often refer to the relic side as the “front,” which is a convention that I will follow.

Few panel- and triptych-type staurothekai survive to us intact.140 The Limburg

Staurotheke is a rare example in which all principal parts are extant. The lid slides into a track

built within the frame of the box. The removable cross is housed in a cruciform receptacle inside

the box. The relics of the True Cross, covering the front of the removable cross, are flat strips of

wood supported by an internal wooden armature. The back of the removable cross is wrapped

with a gold revetment inscribed with an epigram (fig. 22). These three layers—relics, armature,

and revetment—are held together by the gold frame that wraps the sides of the removable

cross.141 The caps at the ends and the medallions affixed at the two crossings of the horizontal

bars also hold the layers together.142 Frolow notes that such removable crosses have long vertical

bars, or handles at the lower end, so that they could be held and carried in liturgical processions

(fig. 129).143

Brigitte Pitarakis identifies another type of staurotheke: the clamshell cross-shaped

enkolpion.144 This type consists of two hinged faces that enclose an internal cavity where the

relic was kept. My study includes one reliquary enkolpion of this type; it is now at the Monastery

of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai (A2, figs. 4–7).

139 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 124–25; Rückert, “Zur Form,” 20. Double-arm crosses, which scholars term “patriarchal,” originated in Byzantium; the upper arm represents the titulus of the Crucifixion; Frolow, Les reliquaires, 124–34; and Klein, Byzanz, 197. 140 Examples of staurothekai in partial states of preservation include A41 (box), A31 (lid), A27 (removable cross). I have not provided a statistical breakdown of all the different types of staurothekai because the majority are in fragmentary or have been altered. 141 For a description of the Limburg cross’s construction, see Johann Michael Wilm, “Die Wiederherstellung der Limburger Staurothek,” Das Münster 8 (1955): 238; and the Wilm’s drawing published in August Heuser, and Matthias Theodor Kloft, eds., Im Zeichen des Kreuzes: die Limburger Staurothek und ihre Geschichte (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2009), 37. 142 For the use of such attachments, see Frolow, Les reliquaires, 136–41. 143 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 134–36. 144 Pitarakis, Les croix-reliquaires.

36

2.2.2.3 Iconography. Frolow identifies the images most frequently depicted on

staurothekai.145 The most common image is that of the Crucifixion.146 The core elements of this

scene are Christ on the cross flanked by the Mother of God on his right and John the Apostle on

his left (fig. 40). For some staurothekai, the narrative is expanded to include other scenes of

Christ’s passion.147 For example, the now-lost triptych staurotheke of Clairvaux (A9) featured, in

addition to the Crucifixion, six repoussé narrative scenes, including the Descent from the Cross,

the Transfiguration, the Dormition, the Ascension, the appearance of Christ before the Apostles,

the doubting of Thomas, and the Anastasis.148

Another common iconography is an image of a cross with acanthus leaves growing from

its base, which scholars often term the Tree of Life (τό ξύλον ζωῆς) (fig. 23).149 This

iconography typologically associated the cross of Christ with the Tree of Life in the Garden of

Eden (cf. Gen. 2:9) and in the Heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 2:7, 22:2). The cross also served as a

foil to the Tree of Knowledge (cf. Gen. 2:9), from which Adam and Eve ate the fruit.150 Whereas

the forbidden fruit introduced sin and death, Christ, as the fruit of salvation, grants life through

his death on the cross.151

The gemmed cross, or crux gemmata, as it is often called in scholarship, is another

common iconography.152 It is a depiction of a cross with representations of gems and pearls. The

gemmed cross is frequently combined with the Tree of Life iconography, and inscribed with the

abbreviation ΙΣ ΧΣ (Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς, Jesus Christ) or ΙΣ ΧΣ ΝΙ ΚΑ (Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς Νικᾶ,

145 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 157–58. 146 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 164–66. 147 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 166–73. 148 This sequence of images is given by Lalore, Le Trésor, 40. 149 For this iconography, see David Talbot Rice, “The Leaved Cross,” BSl 11 (1950): 68–81; Frolow, Les reliquaires, 178–86; and Klein, Byzanz, 115–17. 150 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 185–86. 151 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 186n2 notes that this antithesis is made in the epigram inscribed on the True Cross reliquary at the Vatican (A47). 152 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 187–204.

37

Jesus Christ conquers) (fig. 110).153 Frolow argues that the Cross of Constantine I was one

archetype for gemmed crosses.154 According to Eusebios of Caesarea, Constantine received a

vision of a cross inscribed with the words “conquer with this” (τούτῳ νίκα).155 He then

“summoned goldsmiths and jewelers, sat down among them, and explained the shape of the sign,

and gave them instructions about copying it in gold and precious stones.”156 Constantine carried

his “sign” into battle to defeat Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in Rome.157 This labarum, or

Cross of Constantine as it was known in the Middle Byzantine period, was emblematic of the

victorious emperor.158 It was a relic preserved in the chapel of St. Stephen in the Great Palace

and processed in ceremonies and battles.159 It was supposedly copied by the Emperor Theodosios

153 Klein, Byzanz, 117. For literature on Byzantine tetragrams, see Anatole Frolow, “IC XC NI KA,” BSl 17 (1956): 98–113; Christopher Walter, “IC XC NI KA. The Apotropaic Function of the Victorious Cross,” REB 55 (1997): 193–220; idem, “The Victorious Cross in Byzantine Tradition,” in La Croce. Iconografia e interpretazione (secoli I – inizio XVI). Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Napoli, 6–11 dicembre 1999), vol 2, eds. Boris Ulianich and Ulderico Parente (Rome: Elio de Rosa Editore, 2007), 41–48; and Rhoby, “Secret Messages.” 154 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 191–92. 155 Friedhelm Winkelmann, ed., Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte, Eusebius Werke 1.1, rev. ed. (Berlin, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991), 1.30, trans. Averil Cameron, and Stuart George Hall, Eusebius, Life of Constantine (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999), 81. Cf. Joseph Bidez et al, eds., Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique, SC 306 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1983), 1.3.2–3, trans. Chester D. Hartranft, The ecclesiastical history of Sozomen, comprising a history of the Church, from A.D. 323 to A.D. 425, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 2 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890), 241–42; and Paul Maraval et al, eds., Socrate de Constantinople: Histoire ecclésiastique, SC 477 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004), 1.2.4, trans. Andrew C. Zenos, The ecclesiastical history of Socrates Scholasticus, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 2 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890), 2. 156 κἄπειτα χρυσοῦ καὶ λίθων πολυτελῶν δηµιουργοὺς συγκαλέσας µέσος αὐτὸς καθιζάνει καὶ τοῦ σηµείου τὴν εἰκόνα φράζει, ἀποµιµεῖσθαί τε αὐτὴν χρυσῷ καὶ πολυτελέσι λίθοις διεκελεύετο; ed. Winkelmann, Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, 1.30, trans. Cameron and Hall, Life of Constantine, 81. 157 Ed. Winkelmann, Leben des Kaisers Konstantin, 1.37, trans. Cameron and Hall, Life of Constantine, 84. 158 André Grabar, L’empereur dans l’art byzantin: recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire d’Orient (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1936), repr. (London: Variorum Reprints, 1971), 32–39. 159 John Jacob Reiske, ed., Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae, CSHB (Bonn: Weber, 1829), 640, trans. Ann Moffatt, and Maxeme Tall, The Book of Ceremonies,

38

II (r. 402–50) when he donated a “golden cross, set with precious stones” (σταυρὸν χρυσοῦν

διάλιθον) to be mounted on Golgotha in the Holy Sepulchre.160 This is reflected in images of

gemmed crosses that include a stepped base to represent Golgotha (fig. 23).161

Frolow also identified the following figural depictions on staurothekai.162 The Deesis

(entreaty) iconography features the enthroned Christ at the center flanked by the Mother of God

and John the Baptist (fig. 20). The Deesis represented the role of the Mother of God and John as

earthly witnesses to Christ’s humanity—a meaning directly connected to the relic of the True

Cross. It also visually conveyed their roles as intercessors to Christ for the faithful.163 The

depiction of church fathers on staurothekai convey the honor given to the True Cross in

Orthodoxy; military saints represent the relic’s protective function against both the earthly and

spiritual enemies; and anargyroi saints (doctors who cured sicknesses without payment)

Byzantina Australiensia 18 (Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2012), 640. By 1200 the Cross of Constantine was reportedly housed in the chapel of St. Michael; Ehrhard, “Antoine de Novgorod,” 57. See also Klein, “Sacred Relics,” 92–93; and DOC, 4.1:172–73. There may have been many “Crosses of Constantine,” but the texts strive to present an appearance of continuity of a single Cross kept in the Great Palace through the Middle Byzantine period. 160 Ed. Carolus de Boor, Theophanis chronographia, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1883), 86.26–29, trans. Cyril A. Mango, and Roger Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 136 (year AM 5920, AD 427/8). Theodosios’s cross no longer exists, but it is depicted in the apse of the Church of Santa Pudenziana in Rome; see Wendy Pullan, “Jerusalem From Alpha to Omega in the Santa Pudenziana Mosaic,” in The Real and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel Narkiss on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Bianca Kühnel

(Jerusalem: Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998), 405–17. The existence of such a cross has been questioned by Christine Milner, “‘Lignum Vitae’ or ‘Crux Gemmata’? The Cross of Golgotha in the Early Byzantine Period,” BMGS 20 (1996): 77–99. As Kenneth Holum argues, the placement of Theodosios’s cross on Calvary memorialized Christ’s victory over death, and the choice of materials referenced the victorious Cross of Constantine; Kenneth Holum, “Pulcheria’s Crusade A.D. 421-22 and the Ideology of Imperial Victory,” GRBS 18 (1977): 153–72, at 163–65. See also Leslie Brubaker, Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus, Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 152–57. 161 Anatole Frolow, “Numismatique byzantine et Archéologie des Lieux Saints au sujet d’une monnaie de l’impératrice Eudocie (Ve siècle),” in Mémorial Louis Petit: Mélanges d’histoire et d’archéologie Byzantines, AOC 1 (Bucharest: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1948), 76–94, at 88. 162 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 225–39. 163 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 233–34. For Deesis iconography, see Christopher Walter, “Two Notes on the Deesis,” REB 26 (1968): 311–36; idem, “Further Notes on the Deesis,” REB 28 (1970): 161–87; Anthony Cutler, “Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the Question of Representativeness in Medieval Art and Literature,” DOP 41 (1987): 145–54; and ODB, s.v. “Deesis” (Annemarie Weyl Carr).

39

communicated the relic’s healing properties.164 Depictions of Constantine and Helena recall the

imperial origins and associations of the True Cross, from Helena’s discovery of the relic to

Constantine’s vision, and establish Byzantine ownership and provenance of the relic (fig. 91).165

2.2.2.4 The Placement of Epigrams. For 71.1% of the staurothekai in this study, the

placement of the epigrams is known, but a typology of this placement has not yet been

formulated.166 I suggest that that there are principally four ways in which epigrams are placed on

staurothekai.

The type most represented (44.4%) is epigrams inscribed in the shape of a cross. This

includes epigrams that are displayed on the front or back of cross-shaped reliquaries, as well as

epigrams inscribed in the shape of a cross on rectangular panels (figs. 22 and 120).167 The

reading sequence varies from object to object, but there are two sub-groups. For one sub-group,

the epigram begins at the top of the cross, reads down the vertical bar and terminates at the lower

end, and continues from left to right on the cross-arm(s).168 One example of this reading

sequence is found on the cross reliquary of Maria Komnene at Eine (A3, fig. 8). The other sub-

group includes those epigrams that are written in continuous script. They read from left to right,

164 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 227–31. 165 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 217–25; and Klein, Byzanz, 127–30. See also Natalia Teteriatnikov, “The True Cross Flanked by Constantine and Helena. A Study in the Light of the Post-Iconoclastic Re-evaluation of the Cross,” DXAE 18 (1995): 169–88; Holger Klein, “Constantine, Helena, and the Cult of the True Cross in Constantinople,” in Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand and Bernard Flusin, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004), 31–59; and Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, 111. 166 Those staurothekai whose epigrams are in situ or whose placement can be attested in other sources (27/38): A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A9, A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A19, A23, A25, A26, A27, A31, A36, A37, A41, A42, A44, A45, A46, A47, A49, A51. A2 is not included in any of the four groups that I describe. Its two epigrams are inscribed on the perimeter of the reliquary enkolpion—a placement that has more in common with other reliquary enkolpia of this study, such as that of St. Marina (A30) (see section 4.4.5) and that of St. Demetrios at Halberstadt (A4) (see section 5.5). 167 12/27. Epigrams on the front or back of cross-shaped reliquaries: A3, A5, A6, A12, A25, A26, A27, A44, A45, A47. Epigrams inscribed on a panel in the shape of a cross: A49 and A51. 168 8/12: A3, A5, A12, A25, A26, A27, A44, A51.

40

and from top to bottom, as seen on the removable cross of the Limburg Staurotheke (A6, fig.

22).169

The next type of placement (22.2%) includes those epigrams that are displayed on the

front exterior of panel-type staurothekai, as three- or four-sided frames, as seen on the Protaton

Reliquary (A19) and the Limburg Staurotheke (A6), respectively (figs. 20, 42).170 Enrica Follieri,

examining framing inscriptions in a variety of media, demonstrates that such epigrams have a

standard reading sequence, beginning at the top left corner of a frame and reading to the right

along the upper edge.171 They continue down the right edge of the frame with the letters arranged

vertically, and then likewise down the left edge. If all four edges are inscribed, then the framing

epigram concludes with the lower edge, read from left to right. As discussed in Chapter 1,

standard features of epigram placement include symmetrical verse disposition, and the

correspondence of verse breaks with an object’s form.172 For example, on the Protaton Reliquary,

one verse is inscribed on a different edge of the lid: verse 1 (upper edge), verse 2 (right edge),

and verse 3 (left edge) (fig. 42). For the eight-verse epigram on the Limburg Staurotheke, verse 1

is placed on the upper edge, verses 3–5 on the right edge, verses 4–7 on the left edge, and verse 8

on the lower edge (fig. 20).173

169 4/12: A6, A45, A47, A49. 170 6/27: A1, A46, A19, A36, A41, A49. A6 was also counted in the cross-shaped epigrams because it has two epigrams placed on two different parts of the object. A49 has a framing inscription, but it is not metrical. 171 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 447–67. Karin Krause suggests that three-sided, or “pyle-shaped,” epigrams do not have a prevalent reading order like four-sided epigrams; “The Staurotheke of the Empress Maria in Venice: A Renaissance Replica of a Lost Byzantine Cross Reliquary in the Treasury of St. Mark’s,” in Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), eds. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 43–44. 172 See section 1.2.1. One exception is the Philotheos Staurotheke (A41, fig. 95), whose four-verse epigram has the following disposition. The first verse is placed along the upper edge. Verse two is placed along the upper two-thirds of the left edge. Verse three is placed along the upper two-thirds of the right edge. Verse four is divided in two parts. One half is placed along the lower third of the left side, and the second half is placed along the lower third of the right side. 173 Verse 1 is inscribed on the lid and the other seven verses are inscribed on the edges of the box.

41

A third type of placement includes those epigrams displayed as a block of text on either

the front or back of staurothekai (22.2%).174 On the staurotheke lid in Venice (A31), for

example, a two-verse epigram is inscribed in two lines above the image of the Crucifixion (fig.

78). The back of the now-lost Grandmont Staurotheke (A10) featured a sixteen-verse epigram

inscribed in sixteen lines (fig. 25).

A fourth type of placement is those epigrams displayed on finial medallions of crosses

(14.8%).175 The reading sequence for such epigrams is predictable.176 One illustrative example is

the four-verse epigram on the Vatican reliquary enkolpion (A46). This single-arm cross has four

finial medallions and the epigram is inscribed on both sides. The epigram begins on the same

side as the relic (fig. 111). Verse 1 begins on the upper finial medallion and concludes on the

left. Verse 2 begins on the right finial medallion and concludes on the lower. Verses 3 and 4

follow the same pattern on the back of the cross (fig. 112).

2.2.3 Reliquaries for Stones from Holy Sites

This study includes three (4.1%) twelfth-century reliquary enkolpia that only contained

stones (λίθοι) from sites associated with Christ’s life and death.177 Two (B16 and B17) contained

stones from Christ’s tomb (τάφος). The other (B18) contained the stone “on which the Lord and

our God Jesus Christ was embalmed,” (i.e. the Stone of Unction).178 These three reliquary

enkolpia do not survive; they are known only by their epigrams preserved in the Anthologia

Marciana. It is therefore not possible to draw any conclusions concerning their individual forms

other than the fact that they were enkolpia—therefore, objects of personal devotion—worn by

174 6/27: A9, A10, A11, A17, A31, A42. 175 4/27: A16, A23, A37, A46. 176 The Alessandria Cross (A23) is the exception (fig. 61). Its epigram sequence is upper medallion, right medallion, left medallion, and lower medallion. It is possible that these medallions were re-arranged on the cross in its post-Byzantine history. 177 Not included in this number are those reliquaries in which stone relics are housed with other relics (see section 2.5): A11, A19, B12, B14, and B5 (suggested; see section 3.2.1). 178 Ἐπὶ ἐγκολπίῳ ἔχοντι µέρος τοῦ ἁγίου λίθου, ἐν ᾧ ἐσµυρνίσθη ὁ κύριος καὶ θεὸς ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 175.

42

high-ranking people.179 Stone relics are also associated with reliquaries that contained multiple

relics, which will be discussed in section 2.5.

The practice of collecting stones and other such relics from holy sites is well attested for

the Early Byzantine period, but it slowed after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in the seventh

century.180 Sadrine Lerou, citing these three epigrams in the Anthologia Marciana, argues that

that devotion to stone relics increased in the eleventh and twelfth centuries following the

rebuilding of the Holy Sepulchre ca. 1042–48 by the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos, the

conquest of the Holy Land by the Crusaders in 1099, and the subsequent growth in pilgrimage.181

One of the most ostentatious demonstrations of devotion to stone relics occurred in 1169, when

the Emperor Manuel I Komnenos (r. 1143–80) translated the Stone of Unction to Constantinople

from Ephesus. According to contemporary accounts, Manuel carried the Stone on his back from

the Boukoleon harbor to the Pharos chapel.182 Upon his death in 1180, the relic was placed

179 B16: Theodore, a twelfth-century Rus’ prince; B17: John IX Merkouropoulos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, r. 1156–66, cf. Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 205; and B18: John Komnenos Vatatzes, c. 1132–82, grandson of the Emperor John II Komnenos, r. 1118–43, cf. Konstantinos Varzos, Η Γενεαλογία των Κοµνηνών, 2 vols., Βυζαντινά Κείµενα και Μελέτες 20.1–2 (Thessoloniki: Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1984), 2:382n6, no. 147. 180 See for example, Bruno Reudenbach, “Reliquien von Orten. Ein frühchristliches Reliquiar als Gedächtnisort,” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint, Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011), 21–41. See also Frolow, La relique, no. 49. Related to reliquaries for Holy Land stones are the ampullae that contained oil from the True Cross at the Holy Sepulchre; Grabar, Ampoules. 181 Sandrine Lerou, “L’usage des reliques du Christ par les empereurs aux XIe et XIIe siècles: Le saint Bois et les saintes pierres,” in Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand and Bernard Flusin, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004), 159–82, at 177–82; Durand and Laffitte, Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, 73–77, no. 20; and Henry Maguire, “Ivories as Pilgrimage Art: A New Frame for the ‘Frame Group’,” DOP 63 (2009): 117–46. Robert Ousterhout, “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 48 (1989): 66–78. On pilgrimage to Jerusalem at this time, see Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims; idem, Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185, Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., no. 167 (London: Hakluyt Society, 1988); and Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291, Crusade Texts in Translation 23 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012). 182 Ed. August Meineke, Ioannis Cinnami, Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Manuele Comnenis gestarum, CSHB (Bonn: Weber, 1836), 277–278, trans. Charles M. Brand, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies 95 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), 207–208; and ed. John van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 2 vols., CFHB, Series Berolinensis 11 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1975), 222.14–29, trans. Harry J. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium, Annals of

43

beside his tomb at the Pantokrator Monastery, uniting the Stone of Christ’s death with that of the

emperor’s sarcophagus.183 Further evidence that stones from Holy Sites were given special

reverence in the twelfth-century comes from Mesarites, who lists the “stone cut from the tomb”

(λίθος ἐκκεκοµµένος τοῦ µνήµατος) amongst the most precious Christological relics housed in

the Pharos chapel.184

2.2.4 Reliquaries of the Holy Blood

Christ’s blood (αἷµα)—the only relic to have come from his body—was also venerated in

Byzantium.185 Two reliquaries in this study (2.7%) belong to this group.186 One, now in Venice

(A32), is a copper-gilt cylinder inscribed with a two-verse epigram on the circumference (figs.

79–80). Inside is a smaller cylindrical vessel that consists of a rock crystal base with an enamel

lid inscribed with a one-verse epigram on the rim, and inset with a carved jasper crucifix. More

will be said about this reliquary in Chapter 4.187 The other reliquary for the Holy Blood, now in

Siena (A28), is an enkolpion in the form of a panel-type staurotheke (figs. 68–69). It features an

image of the Crucifixion on the front and a gemmed cross and a framing epigram on the back.188

Niketas Choniatēs, Byzantine Texts in Translation (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984), 125. See also Theodora Antonopoulou, “George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone: A Study and Critical Edition,” in The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, ed. Sofia Kotzabassi, Byzantinisches Archiv 27 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 109–41. 183 There was also an epigram inscribed on the Stone of Unction, or perhaps on Manuel’s tomb, that further emphasized the typological connection between the Emperor’s death and that of Christ; see Cyril Mango, “Notes on Byzantine Monuments,” DOP 23/24 (1969/70): 369–375, at 372–75. 184 Ed. Heisenberg, Nikolaos Mesarites, 31.24–25. 185 For a study of the Holy Blood in the west, see Nicholas Vincent, The Holy Blood: King Henry III and the Westminster Blood Relic (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). The relic of Christ’s foreskin is part of the Latin tradition, and is not known in Byzantium. 186 Not included in this number are those reliquaries in which the Holy Blood was housed with other relics (see section 2.5): A11, A42. 187 See section 4.4.6. 188 The relics are missing, and their identification is suggested. The epigram provides no clues, but Paul Hetherington convincingly argues based on the iconography that it contained the Holy Blood; Paul Hetherington, “A purchase of Byzantine relics and reliquaries in fourteenth-century Venice,” Arte veneta 37 (1983): 9–30, reprinted in Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons: Studies on the Luxury Arts in Byzantium, Variorum Collected Studies Series 908 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2008), VII, 4.

44

The forms of these two reliquaries are radically different from one another. It is therefore not

possible to identify a standardized form and iconography for Holy Blood reliquaries based on

these two objects alone.189 The Holy Blood is also associated with reliquaries that contained

multiple relics, which will be discussed in section 2.5.

2.3 Relics of the Theotokos

2.3.1 Relics

The Byzantines believed that the Theotokos’s body was miraculously taken into heaven

at her Dormition, thereby leaving no bodily relics on earth.190 They venerated various parts of

her clothing, such as her Maphorion (µαφόριον) and Girdle (ζώνη). The history of these relics

cannot easily be differentiated or reconstructed, and there are numerous secondary studies that

attempt to address this problem.191 What is clear, however, is that in the Middle Byzantine

189 I plan to expand this research by looking at other Holy Blood reliquaries that are not inscribed with epigrams, such as the twelfth-century reliquary now at the Vatopedi Monastery at Mount Athos; Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos, Enkolpia, 66–67, no. 18. 190 The exception is her milk mentioned by Theodore Synkellos, Inventio, 771E, ed. François Combefis, Historia Haeresis Monothelitarum (Paris: Bertier, 1648); Germanos I, In s. Mariae zonam, ed. PG 98:376B, trans. Mary Cunningham, Wider than Heaven: Eighth-century Homilies on the Mother of God, Popular Patristics Series 35 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008), 249; John Geometres, Homily on the Dormition, ed. and trans. Antoine Wenger, L’Assomption de la T.S. Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et documents, AOC 5 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1955), 394–95; and De Fleury, La Sainte Vierge, 1:288–90. On the Dormition, see Martin Jugie, AA, La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge. Étude historico-doctrinale, Studi e testi 114 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944); Wenger, L’Assomption; Simon Claude Mimouni, Dormition et Assomption de Marie: histoire des traditions anciennes, Théologie historique 98

(Paris: Beauchesne, 1995); Brian J. Daley, On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies, Popular Patristics Series 18 (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997); and Stephen Shoemaker, The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 191 Some of the more important studies on the history of these garments, include De Fleury, La Sainte Vierge, 1:288–97; Norman Baynes, “The Finding of the Virgin’s Robe,” Annuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9 (1949): 87–95, reprinted in Byzantine Studies and Other Essays (London: Athlone, 1955), 240–247; Averil Cameron, “The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the History of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople,” Byzantion 49 (1979): 42–56, reprinted in Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium (London: Variorum, 1981); Cyril Mango, “The origins of the Blachernai shrine at Constantinople,” Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Split - Porec (25.9. - 1.10.1994), Pars II (Vatican City and Split: Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology and Split Archaeological Museum, 1998), 61–76; Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Threads of

45

period, the faithful believed that the Maphorion was kept in an architectural reliquary (Holy

Soros), attached to the church at the Blachernai in Constantinople.192 Her Girdle was housed at a

different Holy Soros chapel, attached to the church at the Chalkoprateia.193 Another sacred object

associated with the Theotokos, and which functioned as a relic and icon, was her portrait painted

by St. Luke. Known as the Virgin Hodegetria, this icon was kept in the Hodegon Monastery in

Constantinople.194

2.3.2 Reliquaries

Middle Byzantine reliquaries that contained only relics of the Theotokos are rare; there

are only two in this study (2.7%).195 One reliquary is known only by its epigram and title

recorded in the Anthologia Marciana (B15). It contained a stone from her tomb, and the stone

Authority: the Virgin Mary's Veil in the Middle Ages,” in Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. Stewart Gordon (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 59–94; John Wortley, “The Marian Relics at Constantinople,” GRBS 45 (2005): 171–87; Stephen Shoemaker, “The Cult of Fashion: The Earliest ‘Life of the Virgin’ and Constantinople’s Marian Relics,” DOP 62 (2008): 53–74; Dirk Krausmüller, “Making the Most of Mary: The Cult of the Virgin in the Chalkoprateia from Late Antiquity to the Tenth Century,” in The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images, eds. Leslie Brubaker and Mary Cunningham (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 219–46; and Leslie Brubaker and Mary Cunningham, The Virgin Mary in the Byzantine World, 400–1200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). I thank Leslie and Mary, who graciously allowed me to read a draft of their chapter on the Virgin’s relics. 192 Janin, Églises CP, 161–71. The reliquary that contained the Maphorion bore an inscription on its lid that read: “Having offered this honor to the Mother of God, they have secured the might of the Empire” (τοῦτο τῇ Θεοτόκῳ προσκοµίσαντες τὸ σέβας, τῆς βασιλείας ἠσφαλίσαντο κράτος); ed. Antoine Wenger, “Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I,” REB 10 (1952): 54, trans. Mango, Sources and Documents, 35. The inscription is recorded in a tenth-century manuscript (Paris. gr. 1447, fol. 258r), but it may have been inscribed on the reliquary as early as the 460’s, during the reign of Leo I (r. 457–74). Mango, “Origins,” 73 offers a reading of this inscription as two dodecasyllable verses by bracketing the words τοῦτο and τὸ. If this inscription were a dodecasyllable epigram written in the fifth century, it would be a significant early example of this form. For the early history of dodecasyllable, see Rhoby, “Vom jambischen Trimeter.” Dating and analysis of this inscription will be the subject of future study. 193 Janin, Églises CP, 237–42. 194 Janin, Églises CP, 199–207. See also Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage in Middle Byzantine Constantinople,” DOP 56 (2002): 75–92, esp. 80–81; and Bissera Pentcheva, Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006). 195 Not included in this number are those reliquaries in which relics of the Theotokos were housed with other relics (see section 2.5): A6, A9, A42, B14.

46

itself featured a carved image of the Theotokos.196 The other reliquary is suggested to have

contained relics of the Theotokos. This enkolpion, now at Maastricht (A39), is a rectangular box

with a hinged lid and a curved back (figs. 92–94). The interior has four cells that held relics,

whose identification is not known. The iconography of the Virgin Hagiosoritissa on the lid and

that of the Annunciation on the back strongly suggest that the relics were associated with the

Theotokos.197 These two reliquaries do not provide enough evidence to suggest a standardized

form and iconography.198 Relics of the Theotokos are also associated with reliquaries that

contained multiple relics, which will be discussed in section 2.5.

2.4 Relics of Saints

2.4.1 Relics

The third group, which is the most broadly defined of the three, encompasses relics of

any other holy figure.199 Such items include bodily remains, articles of clothing, the objects that

they touched/used in their lifetime, as well as any liquid (e.g. oil, blood, milk) that their relics

produced. 37.8% of the reliquaries in this study are part of this third group.200 I have sub-divided

196 The stone from her tomb was also a relic in B14. For the church in Jerusalem that housed her tomb, see Denys Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 3 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), no. 337, pp. 287–306. 197 The image type of the Virgin Hagiosoritissa (of the Holy Soros) features the Mother of God turned in three-quarters with her hands raised looking to Christ in one of the upper corners; ODB, s.v. “Virgin Hagiosoritissa” (Nancy Patterson Ševčenko). The epithet, Hagiosoritissa, may reference an icon of this type housed at the Holy Soros chapel at the Chalkoprateia or the Blachernai; Carr, “Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage,” 78–80. 198 I expand this research and incorporate other reliquaries of the Theotokos not inscribed with epigrams. One such reliquary is a small rectangular container (3.3 x 2.5 cm), now in Venice, that is labeled with the inscription ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας ζώνης τῆς Θ(εοτό)κου (from the Holy Girdle of the Theotokos), ed. Anatole Frolow in Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, no. 30, p. 38, pl. XXX. Frolow rightly suggests that this small container was likely part of a larger reliquary that contained multiple relics. My preliminary findings suggest that her relics were not typically fragmented like relics of the True Cross. 199 More research is needed to determine the hierarchical breakdown, if any, of the holy figures within this grouping. 200 28/74: A4, A7, A8, A13, A14, A15, A18, A20, A21, A22, A24, A29, A30, A33, A34, A35, A43, A48, A50, A52, A53, A54, B1, B2, B7, B9, B10, B19. Not included in this number are those reliquaries in which relics of saints were housed with other relics (see section 2.5): A1 (suggested), A6, A9, A17 (suggested), A42, B6, B11, B12 (not a staurotheke).

47

this group into reliquaries that were made for saints’ heads (17.9%), for all other body parts

(32.1%), and for myron (50%).

2.4.2 Head Reliquaries

I begin with the smallest of the three sub-groups—those reliquaries that contained crania,

or parts thereof.201 Rainer Rückert was the first scholar to examine the material and textual

evidence for Middle Byzantine head reliquaries.202 He convincingly argues that head reliquaries

typically consisted of three parts.203 The twelfth-century head reliquary of St. James the

Younger, now at Halberstadt, is a characteristic example (fig. 126).204 Two metal strips are

nailed to the cranium at right angles over the top, leaving most of the bone exposed.205 An image

201 A7, A21, A24, A50, B9. Reliquaries for John the Baptist’s jawbone and tooth (A13) and for a jawbone (?) of St. John Chrysostom (A29) will be discussed in relationship to other body-part relics in section 2.4.3. John the Baptist is a case in which there were multiple invention legends associated with his head, and multiple churches that claimed to own different parts of it. The fundamental study of these relics is Du Cange, Traité. See also Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, 79–81; Christopher Walter, “The Invention of John the Baptist’s Head in the Wall-Calendar at Gračanica,” Zbornik za likovné umĕtnosti 16 (1980): 71–83; Annemarie Weyl Carr, “The Face Relics of John the Baptist in Byzantium and the West,” Gesta 46 (2007): 159–77; Jannic Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires constantinopolitains du chef de saint Jean-Baptiste apportés en Occident après 1204,” in Contacts: Revue Française de l’Orthodoxie 59, no. 218 (=La vénération de saint Jean-Baptiste. Actes du Colloque œcuménique du diocèse d’Amiens, 23–24 juin 2006) (2007): 188–221; Barbara Baert, Caput Johannis in Disco: Essay on a Man’s Head, Visualising the Middle Ages 8 (Leiden: Brill, 2012); and the papers from Georges Kazan, and Marlia Mango, “Saint John the Baptist and His Cults: A Colloquium at St. John’s College, Oxford,” https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3758/St-John-The-Baptist-Conference.html (accessed November 23, 2015). 202 Rückert, “Zur Form,” 7–36; and Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” 655–78. 203 The two exceptions to this standardized form is the head reliquary of St. Glykeria (A50), and that for St. Theodore Gabras (B9). The former is an upright marble stele with a hole through which the faithful presumably accessed the saint’s cranium. The reliquary of St. Theodore Gabras is known only by its epigram and title, which describes it as an enkolpion. 204 Meller, Der heilige Schatz, no. 10. The Halberstadt reliquary does not have an epigram, but I use it here because it formed an important part of Rückert’s arguments, and because it has been well photographed. Some of the other surviving Middle Byzantine head reliquaries that are not inscribed with epigrams include those of St. Akindynos, recently stolen but formerly of the Church of Saint-Just in Arbois (cf. Durand, Byzance, no. 226); John the Baptist at Amiens (cf. Durand, Byzance, no. 240); St. Mamas at Langres (cf. Jannic Durand, “Les reliques de saint Mammès au trésor de la cathédrale de Langres,” Travaux et mémoires 14 (=Mélanges Gilbert Dagron) (2002): 181–200); and St. John Chrysostom at Florence in Alessandro Bicchi and Alessandro Ciandella, Testimonia Sanctitatis: le reliquie e i reliquiari del duomo e del battistero di Firenze (Florence: Mandragora, 1999), 60–62.

48

of a saint or a naming inscription is placed at the intersection of the metal strips.206 Such labels

identified the relic and assured its authenticity.207 The cranium was typically housed in a

cylindrical container, which was either open or covered by a lid.208 Few of these containers

survive but they are attested in Byzantine and post-Byzantine sources.209 For clarity, I shall refer

to the metal strips nailed to the bone as attachments. When I am referring only to the vessel that

housed the cranium, I will use the term container. The complete object shall be referred to as a

head reliquary.

As for epigrams on head reliquaries, there is not enough evidence to suggest a

standardized placement.210 The head reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite, now at Arezzo (A24) is

inscribed with a six-verse epigram on the cruciform metal attachments that cover the cranium

(fig. 62).211 The epigram reads in a counter-clockwise direction, beginning with the lower arm of

the cross, continuing to the right arm, then the upper arm, and concluding with the left.212

205 Rückert, “Zur Form,” 18. 206 Rückert, “Zur Form,” 19. 207 Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires,” 192. 208 Rückert, “Zur Form,” 19. 209 Rückert, “Zur Form”; and Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” 665–70. The rectangular-shaped silver-gilt and enamel box at the Sancta Sanctorum in Rome contained the cranium of St. Praxedes as late as the nineteenth century; Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” 668, with older literature. 210 The head reliquary of St. Glykeria (A50) is a marble stele that had an epigram inscribed below the opening where the faithful accessed the saint’s relics. The precise placement of the epigram on the head reliquary of St. Christopher (A7), no longer extant, is not known. The precise form of the reliquary enkolpion of St. Theodore Gabras (B9), and the placement of its epigram, are also not known. 211 In this instance, the word ‘attachment’ is not technically accurate. The metal strips form an open dome over the cranium and do not appear to be nailed directly to it (cf. Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires,” 193). The central medallion was inscribed in 1792 with the words: CAPVT | S. SYMEONIS | STYLITAE; see Enrica Follieri, “Un reliquiario bizantino di S. Simeone Stilita,” Byzantion 35 (1965): 62–82, at 70. I suggest that this medallion originally served as a supporting frame for an enamel or repoussé image of the St. Symeon. Such enamel medallions, divorced from their original contexts, are found at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (accession numbers: 17.190.670–678); see, for example, “Medallion with Saint George from an Icon Frame,” accessed 23 November 2015, http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/464547. Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires,” 193 rightly suggests that the head reliquary of St. Symeon included a container for the cranium. 212 The epigram names Basileios the basilikos as the patron. While this has traditionally been identified as Basileios the parakoimomenos and proedros, illegitimate son of Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–44), Cyril

49

Alternatively, the epigram for the now-lost head reliquary of St. Stephen the Protomartyr,

formerly at Heraklion (A21), was inscribed on the circumference of the container. My

reconstruction of this object and the precise placement of its epigram are addressed in Chapter

5.213

2.4.3 Other Body-Part Reliquaries

This study includes nine reliquaries that were made to contain other body parts, such as

arms, hands, legs, and fragments thereof.214 Rückert’s conclusions concerning the form of head

reliquaries and the visibility of the cranium also extend to these objects. The bone, finger, or

limb was partially covered with a gold or silver-gilt attachment. The attachment was inscribed

with an epigram, labeling inscription, and/or an image that identified the saint. The relic and its

attachment were then originally housed in a container.215

I cite two different body-part reliquaries that illustrate the predominant variations on the

forms of the attachments. One is for an arm bone of St. Christopher, now in the Musée des

Beaux-Arts in Tourcoing (A15; figs. 31–32). A silver-gilt attachment covers the middle third of

the bone leaving the two ends exposed. This attachment is inscribed with a two-verse epigram

that addresses and identifies the saint.

You pay to Petra a highly valued tribute, the relic of your martyrdom, O Christopher.216

The other reliquary is for a finger of St. Luke the Younger, now in the Cathedral Treasury

at Sens (fig. 127).217 This reliquary is not inscribed with an epigram. I include it here because the

Mango, based on his epigraphical analysis, suggests that a tenth-century date for the epigram is too early; cited in Steven H. Wander, The Joshua Roll (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2012), 96n16. For Basileios, see section 5.3. 213 See section 5.3. 214 A8, A13, A14, A15, A29, A30, A33, A35, A52. I have included the Trebizond casket (A33), whose function is most likely a reliquary for the martyrs of Trebizond but the contents are not known. 215 Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 68–69; Jannic Durand, “La quatrième croisade, les reliques et les reliquaires de Constantinople,” Revue française d’héraldique et de sigillographie 73–75 (2003–05): 55–69, at 67; and Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” 665–70. 216 Πολυπόθητον τῇ Πέτρᾳ τελεῖς φόρον

σὸν µαρτυρικὸν λείψανον, Χριστοφόρε. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:188.

50

attachment and relic both survive and thus illustrate this standardized form. The metal

attachment is crimped at one end of the finger, leaving the majority of the relic visible. The

attachment features a suspension loop and a non-metrical inscription that identifies the saint: “of

saint Luke the Younger.”218 Such relics with their attachments were housed in protective

containers from which they could be removed—similar to crania and their containers, and to

removable crosses and their staurothekai.219

One extant example of such a container is the eleventh- or twelfth-century silver-gilt

reliquary of John Chrysostom, now in Siena (A29, figs. 70–72).220 It is a shallow box, flat at the

lower end and curved at the upper end, which has a suspension loop. The hinged lid features a

standing portrait of John in repoussé. The two-verse epigram inscribed on the perimeter

describes the object and its function:

In gilded silver is concealed

a prosperous golden relic of Chrysostom.221

The two-verse epigram inscribed on the back suggests what part of the body it contained:

217 Durand, Byzance, no. 250. 218 + Τ$ ΑΓΙ$ Λ$ΚΑ Τ$ ΝΕ$, ed. Durand, Byzance, 337. There are few images of this inscription so I have not been able to verify the accuracy of this transcription. 219 Suspension loops are frequently found on such attachments; cf. the reliquary of St. Barbara (A52), and the comparanda discussed and illustrated in Durand, Byzance, 337. While this may indicate that such reliquaries were worn as enkolpia, there are other possible functions associated with suspension loops. The relic could have been suspended next to an icon or hung in a sanctuary. Anthony of Novgorod, for example, states that the Crown of Constantine hung over the altar in Hagia Sophia; Ehrhard, “Antoine de Novgorod,” 52. Robert de Clari states that the reliquaries for the Mandylion and the Keramion were suspended from chains in the Pharos chapel; ed. and trans. Noble, Robert de Clari, 101. For the practice of hanging reliquaries, see Bacci, “Relics of the Pharos Chapel,” 242. Suspending reliquaries is also a modern Orthodox practice; see the image in Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos, Enkolpia, 26. Reliquaries were also suspended in the west; Hahn, Strange Beauty, 203. Suspension loops could have also been used to attach the relic to the interior of its container, for display or security purposes. While I do not know of any Byzantine examples of this function, see the seventeenth-century reliquary at Venice that holds a Middle Byzantine reliquary; Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, pl. CCV. The function of suspension loops will be the focus of future study. 220 The date of this object has been the subject of some debate; see BEIÜ, 2:246. 221 Ἐν ἀργύρῳ κρύπτεται τῷ διαχρύσῳ

ὄλβιον χρυσοῦν λείψανον Χρυσοστόµου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247.

51

In comparison with the golden mouth of Chrysostom to me, both my intellect is inoperable and my speech is not worthy.222 While the original contents of this container are not known, Hetherington notes that the wordplay

of the second epigram—χρυσοῦν στόµα (golden mouth) and Χρυσοστόµου (Chrysostom, or

‘golden mouth’)—suggests that the original relic may have been a part of John Chrysostom’s

jaw.223 The first epigram indicates that the container was for a relic, and the second epigram

specifies the type of relic. The image on the lid and both epigrams identify the saint to whom the

relic belonged.224

2.4.4 Reliquaries for Myron

2.4.4.1 Definition. In Byzantium, there were a number of saints whose cults were

associated with myron—holy oil that spontaneously gushed from the saints’ tombs, was poured

over their relics, or came from the lamps that burned at their shrines.225 Myron was venerated

222 Πρὸς τὸ χρυσοῦν µοι στόµα τοῦ Χρυσοστόµου

καὶ νοῦς ἀπρακτεῖ καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἄξιος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247. The reason these two epigrams are not considered one four-verse epigram is because each starts with its own cross (+) and each can be understood independently of the other. 223 Hetherington, “A purchase,” repr. Enamels, VII, 17. The reliquary currently contains a bone, but an image of it has not been published. Hetherington only says that the extant bone is not from a jaw, but it could also be a later addition to the reliquary; idem, “A purchase,” repr. Enamels, VII, 17n30. 224 A similar reliquary, now lost, was that for the jawbone and tooth of John the Baptist at Saint-Chamond (A13). Examining the French descriptions of this reliquary, Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires,” 204–05 convincingly argues that it resembled the reliquary of John Chrysostom. It was rectangular and had a portrait of the saint on the lid and a four-verse epigram inscribed on the back. 225 For the early practice of collecting oil produced by the saint’s relics, see ed. Bruno Krusch, Gregorii Turonensis liber in gloria martyrum, Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1.2 (Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hanniani, 1885), 55–57, trans. Raymond van Dam, Glory of the Martyrs, Translated Texts for Historians 4 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1988), 27. For the practice of collecting oil that has been poured over relics, see ed. William Hartel, Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Opera, Carmina, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 30 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894), 18.38–40, trans. P.G. Walsh, The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola (Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1975), 115. For Middle Byzantine saints whose cults involved myron, see the lives of St. Athanasia of Aegina, St. Mary the Younger, and St. Theodora of Thessaloniki in Alice-Mary Talbot, ed., Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation, Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation 1 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996); Denis F. Sullivan, ed., The Life of Saint Nikon, The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources 14 (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1987); and Robert W. Connor and Carolyn L. Connor, eds., The Life and

52

because the supply was infinite. The faithful could own a relic of a saint without dismembering

or sub-dividing his/her bodily relics.226 Myron was acquired by all classes, as is evidenced by the

numerous extant clay and lead flasks, and the richly decorated reliquaries that all originally

contained myron.227 In Chapter 1, I discussed a reliquary enkolpion that contained myron from an

icon of St. George at Mesampela (B19).228 In the following two sections I focus on two other

types of myron reliquaries included in this study: those of St. Demetrios and of St. Panteleemon.

2.4.4.2 Reliquaries of St. Demetrios. Nine reliquaries in this study contained blood and

myron of St. Demetrios.229 A brief history of the saint’s cult is needed before the particular

forms of these reliquaries can be understood.

Demetrios was an early fourth-century martyr from Thessaloniki.230 By the fifth century,

a church was built over the city baths, the site believed to be where he was imprisoned, executed,

Miracles of Saint Luke of Steiris, The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources 18 (Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1994). See also Béatrice Caseau, “Parfum et guérison dans le christianisme ancien et byzantin: des huiles parfumées des médecins au myron des saints byzantins,” in Les Pères de l’Eglise face à la science médicale de leur temps, eds. Véronique Boudon-Millot and Bernard Pouderon, Théologie Historique 117 (Paris: Beauchesne, 2005), 141–91, esp. 175–91. 226 Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike: The Tomb of St. Demetrios,” DOP 56 (2002): 175–92, at 179. Myron was used in promoting the cult of two imperial figures. The Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos claims that the tomb of his mother, Irene Doukaina, produced myron; BMFD, 840. The akolouthia of Nikephoros II also makes these claims; Louis Petit, ed., “Office inédit en l’honneur de Nicéphore Phocas,” BZ 13 (1904): 398–420. 227 It should also be mentioned here that there were other forms of sacred materials coming from saints’ shrines. At the shrine of St. Menas at Abū Mīnā, Early Byzantine pilgrims collected water from the holy well in small clay flasks; Monica Gilli, Le ampolle di San Mena: religiosità, cultura materiale e sistema

produttivo, TardoAntico e MedioEvo – Studi e strumenti di archeologia 5 (Rome: Palombi, 2002). At the Church of St. John in Ephesus, pilgrims collected “manna” or dust that came from the saint’s tomb; Maggie Duncan-Flowers, “A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at Ephesus,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, Illinois Byzantine Studies 1 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 125–39. 228 See section 1.2.2. 229 Extant: A4, A18, A20, A22, A43, A48, A53. Not Extant: A54, B10. 230 Hippolyte Delehaye, Les légendes grecques des saints militaires (Paris: Picard, 1909), 106-108 suggests that Demetrios was actually martyred in Sirmium. For a recent assessment, see James Skedros, Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki: Civic Patron and Divine Protector, 4th–7th Centuries CE, Harvard Theological Studies 47 (Harrisburg: Trinity International Press, 1999). For his cult, see also Eugenia Russell, St Demetrius of Thessalonica: Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages, Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies 6 (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2010); and Franz Alto Bauer, Eine Stadt und ihr Patron: Thessaloniki und der Heilige Demetrios (Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013).

53

and buried.231 The cult quickly increased in popularity. When the basilica burned in 620, it was

rebuilt and enlarged in order to accommodate the growing number of pilgrims.232 It became a

place of healing, as documented by the contemporary miracle accounts and votive mosaic panels

displayed within the church.233

The basilica claimed to possess the bodily relics of St. Demetrios, but they were never

displayed to the faithful.234 When the Emperor Maurice (r. 582–602) asked the bishop of

Thessaloniki for a relic of the saint to take into battle, the bishop declined, saying:

It is not the practice, O Emperor, of the inhabitants of the god-loving Thessaloniki, as it is of course in other areas, to visibly display the bodies of the martyred saints in order to arouse the souls towards piety through the continued viewing and physical touching of their bodies. On the contrary, we have established the faith intellectually in our hearts and we shudder at the physical view of the relics on account of our deep piety.235

231 For the earliest churches dedicated to St. Demetrios, see Jelena Bogdanović, “The Performativity of Shrines in a Byzantine Church: The Shrines of St. Demetrios,” in Spatial Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov (Moscow: Indrik, 2011), 275–316. 232 The fundamental archaeological study of the basilica is Georgios Soteriou, and Maria Soteriou, Η βασιλική του Αγίου Δηµητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης, Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 34 (Athens: Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, 1952). From the fifteenth to the early twentieth century, the basilica functioned as a mosque. In 1917, a fire swept the city and most of the structure was destroyed. The present basilica copies the original seventh-century form, and preserves some of the original mosaics. 233 For Demetrios’s miracles, see Paul Lemerle, Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la penetration des Slaves dans les Balkans, 2 vols. (Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979–81); and Robin Cormack, Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and its Icons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 50–94. For the mosaics prior to the 1917 fire, see Charles Diehl and Marcel Le Tourneau, “Les mosaïques de saint Demetrius de Salonique,” Monuments et mémoires, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondation Eugène Piot 18 (1910): 225–47; and Robin Cormack, “The Mosaic Decoration of S. Demetrios, Thessaloniki: A Re-Examination in the Light of the Drawings of W.S. George,” The Annual of the British School at Athens 64 (1969): 17–52. 234 No contemporary sources describe the bodily relics. The sources suggest that the bodily relics were hidden, inaccessible, or perhaps nonexistent; Christopher Walter, The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 73–76. 235 Οὐχ οὕτως, ὦ βασιλεῦ, τῆς θεοφιλοῦς Θεσσαλονίκης τὰ θρέµµατα, καθάπερ ἀµέλει κἀν ταῖς ἄλλαις χώραις, εἰώθασι τῶν µαρτυρούντων ἁγίων ἀναφανδὸν τιθέναι τὰ σώµατα, ὡς ἂν αἰσθητῶς καὶ συνεχῶς τῇ θέᾳ τούτων καὶ τῇ ἁφῇ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν τὰς ψυχὰς διεγείρωσιν. Ἐκ δὲ τοὐναντίου, τὴν πίστιν νοερῶς ἐν ταῖς ἑαυτῶν καρδίαις ἱδρύσαντες, καὶ τὴν αἰσθητὴν τῶν τοιούτων θέαν δι’ ὑπερβάλλουσαν εὐλάβειαν ὀρρωδοῦντες, ἀρκεῖν µὲν αὐτοῖς εἰς θεαρέσκειαν τὸ εἰλικρινὲς ἐνοµίσθη τῆς πίστεως; ed. Lemerle, Miracles de Saint Démétrius, 5.52, trans. Skedros, Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki, 87.

54

The bishop even claimed that when he went searching for the saint’s body in the crypt,

Demetrios appeared before him and prevented the tomb from being opened.236 In lieu of bodily

relics, Maurice was sent sweet-smelling earth excavated from around the tomb, and he “received

it as if it were the body of the martyr.”237 In Byzantium, relics were normally translated to

Constantinople, but those of St. Demetrios were not.238 Demetrios remained integral to the city’s

identity, autonomy, and protection, saving Thessaloniki from plague, famine, and war.239

If the bodily relics of St. Demetrios were not made accessible to the faithful, then what

was the focus of veneration? There are two phases to the cult. In the Early Byzantine period, the

cult centered on the ciborium located in the north aisle of the basilica.240 The ciborium was

originally a six-sided silver structure with a conical roof.241 It was entered through a pair of doors

adorned with icons of saints. Inside was an effigy, or perhaps an icon, of St. Demetrios shown

lying on a silver bed (κράββατος).242 The ciborium was where the saint appeared in visions and

spoke to the faithful.243 By the Middle Byzantine period, the cult included myron. The earliest

236 Lemerle, Miracles de Saint Démétrius, 5.50–54. 237 ὅπερ µετὰ πάσης ἀπέλαβε χαρᾶς, ὡς αὐτὸ τοῦ µάρτυρος τὸ σῶµα δεξάµενος. Lemerle, Miracles de Saint Démétrius, 5.53. 238 Christopher Walter, “St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thessalonika,” Eastern Churches Review 5 (1973): 157–78, at 157-58, repr. in Studies in Byzantine Iconography (London: Variorum Reprints, 1977). 239 Ruth Macrides, “Subversion and Loyalty in the Cult of St. Demetrios,” BSl 51 (1990): 189–97. 240 D.I. Pallas, “Le ciborium hexagonal de Saint-Démétrios de Thessalonique,” Zograf 10 (1979): 44–58. Bakirtzis, “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike,” 175–77. 241 The best description of the original ciborium is in Lemerle, Miracles de Saint Démétrius, 10.81–93. It was depicted in the now lost mosaics; see Cormack, “Mosaic Decoration,” pl. 7. The ciborium was burned, looted, and rebuilt many times throughout its history. For a historical overview, see Robin Cormack, “The Making of a Patron Saint: The Powers of Art and Ritual in Byzantine Thessaloniki,” in World Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVIth International Congress of the History of Art, ed. Irving Lavin, vol. 3 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989), 547–54, at 549. 242 This effigy was transferred to Constantinople in 1149 by order of Manuel I Komnenos; Sophia Kotzabassi, “Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator,” in The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, ed. Sophia Kotzabassi (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013), 175–89. See also Monica White, “The ‘Grave Covering’ of St Demetrios Between Byzantium and Rus,” Književna istorija 46 (2014): 9–28. 243 The belief that the saint lived in his basilica continued into the Middle Byzantine period. Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) had a dream in which he was at the basilica of St. Demetrios and the saint

55

documented appearance of Demetrios’s myron dates to 1040.244 The faithful believed that it was

produced by the saint’s bodily relics, and was mixed with his blood.245 He therefore became

known as the µυροβλύτης (myron-gusher).246

The faithful collected this myron in reliquaries.247 André Grabar analyzed these objects,

demonstrating that they were designed as copies of the saint’s tomb and ciborium in

spoke to him through an icon; eds. Diether R. Reinsch, and Athanasios Kambylis, Annae Comnenae Alexias, CFHB, Series Berolinensis 40 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001), V.5.6, trans. E.R.A. Sewter and Peter Frankopan, The Alexiad, rev. ed. (London: Penguin, 2009), 141–42. Cormack, “The Making of a Patron Saint,” 548-49 states, “everyone in common could take the ciborium as proof of the regular supernatural presence and powers of St. Demetrios in the city.” Compare this phenomenon with the column of St. Symeon in Antony Eastmond, “Body vs. column: the cults of St Symeon Stylites,” in Desire and Denial in Byzantium, ed. Liz James (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999), 87–100. 244 Ed. Thurn, Ioannes, Ioannis Scylitzae, Synopsis Historiarum, CFHB, Series Berolinensis 5 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 413, §27.13–17, trans. John Wortley, John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 388; and Macrides, “Subversion and Loyalty,” 194. In 904, Demetrios was called a myroblytes (myron-gusher); ed. Gertrud Böhlig, Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae, CFHB, Series Berolinensis 4 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973), 3.4, trans. David Frendo and Athanasios Fotiou, The Capture of Thessaloniki, Byzantina Australiensia 12 (Perth: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2000), 7. The date John Kaminiates has been debated; Alexander Kazhdan, “Some Questions Addressed to the Scholars Who Believe in the Authenticity of Kaminiates’ ‘Capture of Thessalonica’,” BZ 71 (1978): 301–14; and Joseph David Frendo, “The Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of Thessaloniki,” BSl 58 (1997): 205–24. The appearance of his myron coincides with that of St. Theodora, another saint from Thessaloniki; Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Byzantine Ampullae from Thessaloniki,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, Illinois Byzantine Studies 1 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 140–49, at 145–46; and Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida, “Thessalonique, centre de production d’objets d’arts au XIVe siècle,” DOP 57 (2003): 241–54, at 243. 245 There is even some debate among scholars whether the tomb and the ciborium are the same or different structures in the Middle Byzantine period, or if the ciborium existed at all; see, most recently, Bakirtzis, “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike,” 179–85. In the twelfth century, Niketas Choniates states that the myron came from the soros, or tomb (ἐκ τῆς σοροῦ); Van Dieten, Nicetae Choniatae, 305.40, trans. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium, 169 (who translates it as “from the crypt”). Similar terminology (τὸ µῦρον ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνου τιµίας σοροῦ βλύζον) is found in Reinsch and Kambylis, Annae Comnenae, II.8.3.13, trans. Sewter and Frankopan, The Alexiad, 69. In the thirteenth century, John Staurakios, the chartophylax, states that myron flowed through tubes (σίφωσι); ed. Ioakeim Iberites, “Λόγος εἰς τὰ θαύµατα τοῦ ἁγίου Δηµητρίου,” Μακεδονικά 1 (1940): 324–76, at 373.8. 246 Böhlig, Ioannis Caminiatae, 3.4, trans. Frendo and Fotiou, The Capture of Thessaloniki, 7. See also B10. 247 Demetrios’s myron was also collected in inexpensive lead flasks called κουτρούβια. The term κουτρούβιον comes from John Staurakios; ed. Iberites, “Λόγος,” 353.28. See also Charalambos Bakirtzis, “Κουτρούβια µύρου από τη Θεσσαλονίκη,” JÖB 32.3 (=XVI Internationaler Byzantinisten Kongress. Akten, vol. 2.3) (1982): 523–28; idem, “Byzantine Ampullae”; and Totev, Thessalonican Eulogia, 53–79.

56

Thessaloniki.248 The nine reliquaries of St. Demetrios in this study are of three types, which I

will refer to as the sarcophagus type, the military type, and the ciborium type.249

Three reliquaries are of the sarcophagus type.250 They are enkolpia in the shape of a small

shoebox with a suspension loop at the short end. The sliding or hinged lid features a full-length

image of an orant St. Demetrios (figs. 10, 37, 48). Inside the box are two pairs of hinged doors

(figs. 11, 38–doors missing, 50).251 The upper pair opens to reveal a compartment, which

contains a second image of St. Demetrios (figs. 13, 38, 51). Here, he is shown dead with his

hands crossed at his chest. The lower compartment held the blood and myron of the saint. The

epigram is displayed on the exterior sides, wrapping the perimeter of the box. When facing the

lid, the viewer finds the beginning of the epigram on the upper left side (figs. 14–16, 52–55). The

interpretation of these objects as the tomb of the saint is made clear by the epigram on the

reliquary at Halberstadt (A4).

Not only blood, but also myron I carry, (I) the present tomb (τάφος) of the martyr Demetrios, granting strength to those who have received with devotion.252

Bakirtzes states that pilgrims were given blood-soaked earth, called lythron; see Bakirtzis, “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike,” 183–85; and idem, “Byzantine Ampullae,” 140, 142, 146. I have not been able to locate this term in primary sources, or find references to this practice. All the reliquary epigrams and the primary sources that I have read only mention blood (αἷµα) and myron (µύρον). 248 Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 7–8; and idem, “Un Nouveau Reliquaire,” 312–13. See also the overview in Totev, Thessalonican Eulogia, 40–51; and Hostetler, “Reliquary Epigrams.” 249 As far as I know, scholars have not devised names for each of these types. The names provided here are mine. 250 A4, A20, A33. The forms of A54 and B10 are not known, but the content of their epigrams suggest that they could have also been of the sarcophagus type. 251 On the reliquary enkolpion at the Vatopedi Monastery (A20), Sts. Kosmas and Loupos are depicted on the upper pair of doors, and Sts. Nestor and Damianos are on the lower (fig. 50). These doors were likely re-arranged at some point. The upper pair should be Nestor and Loupos (disciples of St. Demetrios), and the lower Kosmas and Damianos (anargyroi saints always shown together). This suggested pairing is also found on the reliquary enkolpion of St. Demetrios at Halberstadt (A4, fig. 11); see Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 57. 252 Οὐχ αἷµα µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ µύρον φέρω

τάφος ὁ παρὼν µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου ῥῶσιν παρέχων τοῖς πόθῳ εἰληφόσιν. BEIÜ, 2:Me5. See section 5.5.

57

Three reliquaries of St. Demetrios are of the military type.253 They are also enkolpia. The

front, or lid, features a bust portrait of St. Demetrios as a soldier, holding a spear in one hand and

a sword in the other (fig. 115, 125).254 The back features images of military saints (figs. 57, 116,

125).255 The hinged lid opens to reveal another door, behind which is a second image of

Demetrios lying in his tomb (figs. 59, 60, 118).256 The epigram is displayed on the front and/or

back of the enkolpion, and on the circumference (figs. 57, 115, 117, 125).257 The fragmentary

epigram on the reliquary enkolpion, now at the British Museum, reflects the military character of

this object:

[…] being anointed by your blood and myron. He (sc. the patron) asks you to be his fervent guardian in battles.258

The Demetrios reliquary at Moscow (A43) is only extant reliquary of the ciborium

type.259 It has eight sides. One side has a pair of doors with images of Sts. Nestor and Loupos,

253 A22, A48, A53. Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 18; and idem, “Un Nouveau Reliquaire,” 309–10. For the development of St. Demetrios as a military saint, see Walter, “St. Demetrius,” 165–69. 254 The lid that featured the image of St. Demetrios is missing from the British Museum reliquary enkolpion (A22, fig. 58). 255 A22 (St. George), A48 (Sts. Sergios and Bakchos), A53 (St. Prokopios). 256 A53 does not have a hinged lid. 257 A53 does not have an epigram on its perimeter. 258 […]

αἵµατι τῷ σῷ καὶ µύρῳ κεχρισµένον. Αἰτεῖ σε θερµὸν φρουρὸν ἐν µάχαις ἔχειν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:217, translation adapted from

Dimitrios Katsarelias in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 167. The epigram is fragmentary. The original lid, which most likely bore an image of St. Demetrios encircled by the first verse of the epigram, is lost and has been replaced with a ring with a seventeenth-century Georgian inscription that translates: “Saint Kethevan (the) Queen’s relic: Cross: True,” Ormonde Maddock Dalton, “An Enamelled Gold Reliquary of the Twelfth Century,” The British Museum Quarterly 1, no. 2 (1926): 33–35, at 33. 259 It is not known whether or not other reliquaries like this one were made, but the epigram of B10 suggests it may have been part of this group. Bakirtzis, “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike,” 179 suggests that the Moscow reliquary copies an Early Byzantine reliquary but no such antecedents are known. Nausika Theotoka suggests that it copies a ciborium in Constantinople that was itself a copy of that in Thessaloniki; “Περὶ τῶν κιβωρίων τῶν ναῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Δηµητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης καὶ Κωνσταντινοπόλεως,” Μακεδονικά 2 (1941–52): 395–413.

58

Demetrios’s disciples (fig. 99).260 The side opposite the doors features portraits of Constantine X

Doukas (r. 1059–67) and his wife Eudokia being crowned by Christ (fig. 102).261 Inside the

reliquary are two fixed receptacles that held the myron and blood of the saint (fig. 100).262 The

six-verse epigram is divided in two parts, and inscribed on two sides of the octagonal structure

(figs. 101, 103). The first two verses of this epigram make clear that this reliquary represented

the ciborium (κιβώριον) of St. Demetrios.

I am an accurate image of the ciborium (κιβωρίου) of the lance-pierced martyr Demetrios.263

2.4.4.3 Reliquaries of St. Panteleemon. St. Panteleemon was one of the anargyroi—

doctors who healed without payment.264 His tomb was located in a church outside the walls of

Nikomedeia.265 His head was kept at a church dedicated to him in Constantinople, and on his

260 Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 19. 261 The inscriptions around the imperial figures read: Κων(σταντῖνος) ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ τῷ θ(ε)ῷ πιστὸς βασι(λεὺ)ς Ῥωµ<αί>(ω)ν ὁ Δουκᾶς αὐτωκράτορ (Constantine, in Christ our God faithful Emperor of the Romans, Doukas, Autokrator), and Εὐδοκία ἐν Χ(ριστ)ῷ τῷ θ(ε)ῷ µ(ε)γ(άλη) βασι(λίσσα) Ῥωµ<αί>ων (Eudokia, in Christ our God, great Empress of the Romans), ed. Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 116. 262 Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 26–27 suggests that a reliquary enkolpion of St. Demetrios, now at the Lavra Monastery (A18), may have originally been housed in one of these two fixed receptacles. These chambers were recently re-examined and it was determined that it would not be possible to fit the Lavra reliquary enkolpion inside; Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 118. 263 Σαφὴς πέφυκα τοῦ κιβωρίου τύπος

τοῦ λογχονύκτου µάρτυρος Δη<µη>τρίου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:285, translation adapted from Ioli Kalavrezou in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 77. 264 ODB, s.v. “Panteleemon” (Alexander Kazhdan, Nancy Patterson Ševčenko). 265 Little is known of this church; see Eugenio Dalleggio D’Alessio, “Le tombeau de saint Pantéléémon à Nicomédie,” in Actes du VIe Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Paris, 27 juillet-2 août 1948,

vol. 2 (Paris: École des hautes études, 1950–51): 95–100; and Janin, Grands centres, 99. For the cult, see Caudio Caserta, and Michail Talalay, eds., Pantaleone da Nicomedia: santo e taumaturgo tra Oriente e Occidente. Atti del Convegno (Ravello, 24–26 luglio 2004) (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2006); Caudio Caserta, ed., Pantaleone da Nicomedia: santo tra cielo e terra: reliquie, culto, iconografia, Ravello, Complesso della SS. Annunziata, 23–24 luglio 2005. I santi venuti dall’Oriente. Trifone e Barbara sul cammino di Pantaleone, Ravello, Complesso dell’Annunziata, 2–-25 luglio 2006 (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2009); Georgios Makris, “Das Enkomion auf den Hl. Panteleemon,” in Realia Byzantina, eds. Sofia Kotzabassi, and Léonidas Mavromatis, Byzantinisches Archiv 22 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009), 103–35; and Sharon E.J. Gerstel, “‘Tiles of Nicomedia’ and the Cult of Saint Panteleimon,” in Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis

59

feast day (July 27) the emperors received holy myron (ἅγιον ἀποµύρισµα) from it.266 His cult is

also associated with milk; it poured forth from his wound when he was beheaded.267 A pilgrim of

the eleventh century describes a gold and crystal reliquary in Hagia Sophia, which contained

blood and milk of Panteleemon, noting that on the saint’s feast day, the blood and milk

miraculously separated—one liquid raised to the top of the vessel and the other liquid sank to the

bottom.268

The Byzantine reliquaries of St. Panteleemon have not been examined as a group. A

typology for his reliquaries cannot be suggested; there are only four in this study, and none are

extant.269 Identifying the relics that these reliquaries contained is also problematic. At least two

contained bones of the saint, but I have chosen to discuss all four reliquaries of St. Panteleemon

in this section because all epigrams emphasize his miracle-working myron. I will examine each

of these epigrams in chronological order in order to better understand the nature of his relics.

The two earliest epigrams are attributed to the poet John Geometres (B1, B2) and thus

date to the second half of the tenth century. They have the same title: “On the coffer of St.

Panteleemon.”270

B1 Formerly, honey from rock, but now wonders burst forth [from here].271

B2 Formerly water from rock, now myron, and in addition to myron,

a stream of cures, this wonder of wonders.272 Sullivan, Elizabeth Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 173–86. Approximately 40 kilometers west of Nikomedeia, on the road to Constantinople, was Mesampela, the site of the icon of St. George, which also produced myron (B19). 266 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 2:561, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 561 who translate this phrase as “holy water,” but this is incorrect; PGL, s.v. “ἀποµύρισµα.” For this church, see Janin, Églises CP, 387–88. 267 Ed. PG 115:476D–477A. 268 Ciggaar, “pèlerin anglais,” 246. 269 A34, B1, B2, B7. 270 Εἰς τὴν λάρνακα τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήµονος. Ed. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:290, 332. 271 Πέτρας µέλι πρίν, νῦν δὲ θαύµατα βρύει. Ed. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:290. 272 Ὕδωρ πέτρας πρὶν, νῦν µύρα, πλὴν καὶ µύρων

ἰαµάτων ῥοῦς, τοῦτο θαῦµα θαυµάτων. Ed. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:332.

60

Geometres references the Old Testament (Psalm 81:16, Exodus 17:6, Numbers 20:11) to create a

typology that compares God’s blessings through the provision of water and honey with

Panteleemon’s healing powers through his miracle-working myron.273

Approximately half a century later, the poet Christopher Mitylenaios (ca. 1000–after

1050 or 1068) wrote an epigram (B7) that echoes, and expands upon, the biblical references of

Geometres. It is titled, “On the venerable relic of St. Panteleemon, which gushes hagiasma.”274

A rock poured forth a stream to the Israelites, a cure of one suffering, of thirst alone. But, O martyr, this bone of yours here pours forth a stream, a cure for all sicknesses.275

While it is clear that this epigram is for a “bone,” “here” (ὀστοῦν, ἐνθάδε, v. 3), the title

specifically mentions the “hagiasma” that it “gushes” (ἐκβλύζον) and “pours forth” (ἐκχέει, v. 4).

The word “hagiasma” can refer to sanctified water or myron, but given the context of the

Geometres epigrams, it more likely refers to the latter.276 This reliquary, therefore, was for a

bone that produced myron.

The fourth epigram was inscribed on a reliquary for Panteleemon’s arm bone (A34).

While the original Byzantine reliquary is lost, the arm bone itself is preserved in an Italian-made

273 John Geometres also composed a Life of the saint in verse; Kristoffel Demoen, “John Geometres’ Iambic Life of Saint Panteleimon. Text, Genre and Metaphrastic Style,” in Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. Bart Janssens et al, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 137 (Leuven: Peeters, 2004), 165–84. 274 Εἰς τὸ τίµιον λείψανον τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήµονος τὸ ἐκβλύζον τὸ ἁγίασµα. Ed. De Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum, 82 (no. 89). Floris Bernard points out to me that Christopher’s poems are ordered chronologically in the source manuscript. Therefore we can deduce a terminus post and ante quem based on the dates of poems before and after this one. No. 70 was written for Maria Skleraina who died c. 1045; cf. ODB, s.v. “Skleraina” (Alexander Kazhdan). Poem no. 95 praises the Church of St. George of the Mangana built by Constantine IX Monomachos, who died in 1055. 275 Ἔβλυζε πέτρα ῥεῖθρον Ἰσραηλίταις ἑνὸς πάθους ἴαµα, τῆς δίψης µόνης· τὸ σὸν δὲ τοῦτο, µάρτυς, ὀστοῦν ἐνθάδε

πασῶν νόσων ἴαµα ῥεῖθρον ἐκχέει. Ed. De Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum, 82–83. 276 LPGL, s.v. ἁγίασµα.

61

reliquary at San Marco in Venice.277 The Byzantine epigram was recorded in the seventeenth

century.278

O myroblytes, physician of the sick, may you flow the golden sources of health in perpetuity.279

This epigram was inscribed on a body-part reliquary, but I have included it here because of what

the epigram says. It emphasizes the miraculous powers of Panteleemon’s myron. Just as the bone

of Mitylenaios’s epigram produced myron, perhaps the arm relic in Venice—the same body part

used by the saint in his vita to perform his cures—also produced myron.280 The saint is addressed

as myroblytes (myron-gusher), which is the same epithet given to St. Demetrios.281

What do these epigrams indicate about the nature of Panteleemon’s relics? Did all four

reliquaries contain bones, myron, or both? We can be certain only that the Venice and

Mitylenaios epigrams were for bones of the saint, but myron is also described. It could be argued

that the Geometres epigrams were inscriptions for one reliquary—the tomb of St. Panteleemon at

Nikomedeia—and that myron was taken from that tomb. The titles of the Geometres epigrams

identify the object(s) as a λάρνακα (coffer), a reliquary term that is in the tenth century

synonymous with sarcophagus.282 These epigrams raise more questions than can be answered,

and I will examine these problems in future research.

277 Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, no. 145, p. 145–47, pl. CXXVIII. 278 Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 81. He does not specify where the epigram was inscribed. He only states that the first verse was inscribed “da une parte” and the second verse “dall’altra parte.” 279 Ὁ τῶν νοσούντων ἰατρὸς µυροβλύτα

χρυσοῦς ὑγείας τῷ τρόχῳ κρουνοὺς ῥέοις. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:263. 280 In the late twelfth-century Church of St. Panteleemon in Nerezi, Panteleemon is shown holding a medicine box in one hand and a scalpel in the other; see Ida Sinkević, The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture, Programme, Patronage (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2000), 66, pls. XXXIV and XLIX, fig. 83. 281 See section 2.4.4.2. 282 See, for example, the descriptions of the sarcophagi of the emperors in the Mausoleum of Constantine at the Church of the Holy Apostles; Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 2:642–43, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 642–43.

62

2.5 Relic Collections

Reliquaries that contained multiple relics comprise another type that is part of, yet

distinct from, the three main groups. These relic collections—as I will call them—represent

16.2% of the reliquaries in this study.283 Of this group, all but one contained a relic of the True

Cross (91.7%); therefore the term staurotheke also applies to these objects.284 The primacy of the

True Cross to relic collections is evident in the design of these reliquaries. A removable cross is

usually the largest relic and is placed at the center of the box, and the other relics are contained in

smaller compartments that surround it.285 Such a layout is seen in the Limburg Staurotheke (A6;

fig. 21).

What types of relics—other than relics of the True Cross—were usually housed in such

collections? 75% contain(ed) other relics of Christ; 33.3% contain(ed) a relic of the Theotokos;

and 66.7% contain(ed) a relic of another holy figure.286 In the Limburg Staurotheke, for example,

six of the other ten relics are associated with Christ’s life and passion, three are associated with

the Theotokos, and one is a relic of John the Baptist.

I suggest that this relic-collecting impulse corresponds to that of Constantinopolitan

churches. The eleventh- and twelfth-century pilgrim accounts indicate that nearly every church

in Constantinople contained more than one relic. At Hagia Sophia alone, an English pilgrim of

the early twelfth century describes seeing wood of the True Cross, the Swaddling Clothes, the

gold of the Magi, the Holy Blood, the blood and milk of Panteleemon, an icon of Christ that

flowed blood, a stone from the well where Christ sat to speak with the Samaritan woman, doors

made from the wood of Noah’s ark, among many other relics.287 Similar accounts are given by

283 12/74: A1, A6, A9, A11, A17, A19, A42, B5, B6, B11, B12, B14. For other relic collections not included in this study, see Frolow, La relique, nos. 151, 332, 358, 381, 691; and Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, nos. 27–30, pp. 38–39, pl. XXX. 284 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 93. The one exception (B12) was a reliquary enkolpion that contained a part of the Stone of Unction and a piece of St. George’s sword. 285 One exception to this rule is the Moscow reliquary enkolpion (A42) discussed in section 1.2.2. The equal size of the cells that contained the relics does not privilege the True Cross. Nor does the epigram name the True Cross first in its 19-relic line-up. 286 Christ (9/12): A6, A9, A11, A19, A42, B5 (suggested), B11, B12, B14. Theotokos (4/12): A6, A9, A42, B12. Other holy figure (8/12): A1, A6, A9, A17 (suggested), A42, B6, B11, B12.

63

Mesarites in his description of the Pharos chapel, and by Crusaders in their accounts of the

Fourth Crusade.288 Relic collections in reliquaries were thus microcosms of those found in the

churches of Middle Byzantine Constantinople.

2.6 Conclusion

At the beginning of this chapter, I presented a new system for grouping relics. Rather

than relying on the traditional categories of primary, secondary, and tertiary, I argued that

relics—and thus their reliquaries—should be grouped according to the identities of the holy

figures with whom the relics are associated: Christ, the Theotokos, and all other holy figures. A

fourth group, relic collections, are those reliquaries that contained relics of more than one holy

figure. I argued that the relic-collecting impulse evident in these reliquaries corresponds to that

of Constantinopolitan churches.

My overview of Middle Byzantine reliquaries reveals that they all share three formal

features. One, relics require identification. They are identified by the shapes of the reliquaries,

the images depicted on them, and/or the accompanying inscriptions. For relics of the True Cross,

the wood was shaped into the form of a cross, and the most common image depicted on

staurothekai was that of the Crucifixion. For body-part reliquaries, the metal attachments

included an image of a saint and/or an identifying inscription. For reliquaries of St. Demetrios,

the shapes of the containers and the images depicted on them copied aspects of the saint’s tomb

in Thessaloniki, and the epigrams reinforced the mimetic nature of these objects. Two, Middle

Byzantine reliquaries have a limited number of forms—typically rectangular or cylindrical. This

287 See Ciggaar, “pèlerin anglais,” 246–49, trans. Belting, Likeness and Presence, 527–528. On the relics of Hagia Sophia, see George P. Majeska, “Notes on the Skeuophylakion of Saint Sophia,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 55 (80), no. 2 (1998), 212–15; and John Wortley, “Relics of the Great Church,” BZ 99 (2006): 631–47, reprinted in Wortley, Studies. 288 For Mesarites, see section 2.2.1. Martin of Pairis, a Cistercian abbot and participant in the Fourth Crusade, went to the Pantokrator Monastery, demanding one of the monks to show him the treasure of relics. His biographer describes this moment: “On seeing it, the abbot hurriedly and greedily thrust in both hands, and as he was girded for action, both he and the chaplain filled the folds of their habits with sacred sacrilege. He wisely concealed those relics which seemed to him the most powerful and left at once.” The biographer then provides a list of 52 relics that Martin took, including the True Cross, Holy Blood, stones from Golgotha, the Holy Sepulchre, and Mount Sinai, and bones of various saints and martyrs; ed. Peter Orth, Gunther von Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana, Spolia Berolinensia 5 (Hildesheim: Wiedmann, 1994), 159–60, 175–77, trans. Alfred J. Andrea, The Capture of Constantinople: The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther of Pairis, The Middle Ages Series (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 111, 125–27.

64

is in contrast to the variety of reliquary forms that existed in the Latin tradition.289 Three, Middle

Byzantine reliquaries functioned to make relics accessible. The wood of the True Cross was

typically displayed on one side of a removable cross. The metal attachments on bones of saints

left a large part of the relic exposed. For all reliquaries, they were fitted with lids that allowed the

faithful to access the contents. This is a fundamental difference from reliquaries in the west,

which typically sealed the relics inside the container.290 The issue of relic accessibility is the

subject of Chapter 4.

289 Braun, Die Reliquiare, 4 first stated this fact, but Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, 148–49 thought that all the forms found in the west had antecedents in the east. This issue was addressed directly in Rückert, “Zur Form”; and Toussaint, Kreuz und Knochen, 147–62. This is true for reliquaries of the True Cross; see esp. Klein, Byzanz. For a brief comparison of reliquary forms between east and west, see Durand, “La quatrième croisade,” 67. 290 On the Latin practice of sealing relics inside reliquaries, see Jannic Durand, and Maximilien Durand, “Corps saints et fragments: l’exposition des reliques au Moyen-Âge,” in Colloque International de Pathographie, Loches, Avril 2005, ed. Philippe Charlier (Paris: De Boccard, 2007), 71–97.

65

CHAPTER 3

MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I offer a brief survey of Middle Byzantine relics and reliquaries in their

historical contexts.291 Few Byzantine sources describe the forms and functions of reliquaries;

they most frequently mention only relics, and their presence in ceremonial and liturgy.292 Non-

Byzantine sources, such as pilgrim and Crusader accounts, provide richer details.293 Citing

representative examples from both Byzantine and non-Byzantine sources and focusing primarily

on Constantinople, I first discuss ownership of reliquaries, and then outline the personal and

public contexts in which they were used.294

3.2 Owners

3.2.1 Religious Foundations

Foundation documents and inventories include detailed descriptions of reliquaries that

churches and monasteries owned or received through donation.295 For example, the inventory for

the convent for the Mother of God Kecharitomene (“Full of Grace”), founded by Irene Doukaina

in the early twelfth century, lists the reliquaries that she donated.296 The inventory describes one

reliquary (B5) in the following way:

291 Many contexts have been discussed by Frolow, La relique, esp. 73–94; Mergiali-Sahas, “Holy Relics”; and Klein, “Sacred Relics.” 292 Ebersolt, Sanctuaires 109; and Jannic Durand, “Le projet de corpus des reliques et des reliquaires byzantins en France,” Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France (2002): 152–81, at 174. 293 For these sources, see section 1.2.5. 294 When I write “reliquary,” I am referring to the container and its relic. 295 Much of this rich material can be found in the series ArchAthos, translated in BMFD, and catalogued in the online database, ByzAD. 296 Ed. Paul Gautier, “Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè,” REB 43 (1985): 5–165, inventory at 152–55, trans. in BMFD, 714–17.

66

[Inscribed] with the (following) verses: “The Empress Irene directs a gift, wood of the cross, to your convent, the Kecharitomene.” Inside it is the venerable wood with six cone-shaped cavities and [...] with gilding. The middle of this is silver […] the interior of the reliquary is silver-gilt with six silver caskets […] the lids of which are silver-gilt depicting the Road to Calvary, the Crucifixion, the Descent from the Cross, the Entombment, the Anastasis, and the Greeting (of Christ to the Marys), with […] more silver-gilt […] and two other small […].297

This description has some lacunae, but the details allow for a schematic reconstruction of the

staurotheke’s original appearance. The beginning of the description is missing, but it is clear that

the epigram was inscribed on the exterior of a panel- or triptych-type staurotheke. Inside the

reliquary was housed the “venerable wood” surrounded by six caskets that held other relics. It

was, therefore, a relic collection. The lids of the receptacles featured scenes of the passion, which

may have served as iconographic identifiers for the relics that they contained.298

In addition to inventories, contemporary historians document instances when reliquaries

were given to specific religious foundations. Leo the Deacon (born ca. 950) writes that when

Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–69) took the city of Hierapolis in 966, he captured the Keramion,

an acheiropoieton and tile that was miraculously imprinted with an image of Christ.299 The

297 διὰ στίχων· Ἄνασσα δῶρον Εἰρήνη σταυροῦ ξύλον | µονῇ βραβεύη σῇ Κεχαριτωµένῃ. Ἔσωθεν | αὐτῆς τίµιον ξύλον µετὰ βουτίων χρυσῶν | ἓξ καὶ ...των | ...ίον µετὰ χρυσαφίου· τὸ µέσον τούτου | ἀργυρο... τοῖς ἐσοφωτ( ) τῆς θήκης ἀργυροδιάχρυσα | µετὰ θηκῶν ἀργυρῶν ἓξ κ.νῶ ὧν τὰ σκεπάσµατα | ἀργυροχρυσ(όµενα ?) εἰκονισµένα <ὁ> ἑλκόµενος | ... Χ<ριστός>, ἡ σταύρωσις, ἡ ἀποκαθήλωσις, <ὁ> ἐνταφιασµός, | <ἡ> ἀνάστασις καὶ τὸ χαίρετε µετὰ ... ἀργυροῦ | <δια>χρύσου µειζο... καὶ ἑτέρων δύο µικρῶν | ... Ed. Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152, trans. adapted from Robert Jordan in BMFD, 714. 298 Relics that may correspond to these scenes include: The Crown of the Thorns for the Road to Calvary (cf. A9, A11, A42); a Stone from Golgotha for the Crucifixion (cf. A11, A19, B14); the Holy Blood for the Descent from the Cross (cf. A32, A11); the Stone of Unction for the Entombment (cf. B12, B18); a Stone from the Holy Sepulchre for the Anastasis (cf. A11, A19, B14, B16, B17); the Burial Shroud for the Greeting of Christ to the Marys (cf. A6, A42). 299 Ed. C.B. Hase, Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historia libri decem, CSHB (Bonn: Weber, 1828), 70–71, trans. Alice-Mary Talbot and Denis Sullivan, The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century, Dumbarton Oaks Studies 41 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2005), 121–22. See also ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 271, §15, trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 259; François Halkin, “Translation par Nicéphore Phocas de la Brique miraculeuse d’Hiérapolis (BHG 801n),” in Inédits byzantins d’Ochrida, Candie et Moscou, Subsidia hagiographica 38 (Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1963), 253–60; and Denis Sullivan, “Siege Warfare, Nikephoros II Phokas, Relics and Personal Piety,” in Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis Sullivan, Elizabeth Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 395–410, esp. 395–402.

67

emperor then “had a case (θήκην) adorned with gold and gems, reverently set the tile in it, and

dedicated it to the church of the Mother of God, which is in the imperial palace (i.e. the Pharos

chapel).”300

Once reliquaries entered these churches, where were they stored? Reliquaries were

deposited beneath altars for their consecration.301 This was common practice in Late Antiquity,

and it was made official at the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.302 Such altar reliquaries were

sealed, inaccessible, and were not objects of devotion and veneration.303 Other types of “fixed”

relics include those that were supposedly sealed within the columns and walls at Hagia

Sophia.304 Reliquaries were also permanent or semi-permanent fixtures in front of the templon,

or in side aisles, subsidiary chapels, or the narthex.305 The marble reliquary stele of St. Glykeria,

300 καὶ χρυσῷ καὶ λίθοις θήκην διασκευάσας µετέπειτα, καὶ ταύτῃ περιστείλας τοῦτον σεπτῶς, ἐν τῷ τῆς Θεοµήτορος ναῷ, τῷ κατὰ τὴν βασίλειον ὄντι ἑστίαν, ἀνέθηκεν; ed. Hase, Leonis diaconi, 71.10–13, trans. Talbot and Sullivan, The History of Leo the Deacon, 121–22. 301 Christopher Walter, Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church, Birmingham Byzantine Series I, (London: Variorum Publications, 1982), 158–60; Ann Marie Yasin, Saints and Church Spaces in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and Community (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), esp. 151–57; Yasin, Ann Marie. “Sacred Installations: The Material Conditions of Relic Collections in Late Antique Churches,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 133–51; and Vasileios Marinis and Robert Ousterhout, “‘Grant Us to Share a Place and Lot with Them’: Relics and the Byzantine Church Building (9th–15th Centuries),” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 153–72, at 154–57. For the west, see John Crook, The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West, c. 300–1200 (Oxford: Clarendon, 2000). 302 Ed. J.D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 13 (Florence: Antonii Zatta Veneti, 1767, repr. Paris–Leipzig: F.M. Geidel, 1902), cols. 363–414, trans. H.R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 14 (New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1900), 560–61. A canon in support of this practice had already been issued in 401 at a synod in Carthage; ed. C. Munier, Concilia Africae, A. 345 – A. 525, CCSL 149 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1974), 204–05. The biblical basis for this practice is found in Rev. 6:9. 303 Marinis and Ousterhout, “Relics and the Byzantine Church Building,” 155. 304 Marinis and Ousterhout, “Relics and the Byzantine Church Building,” 162–63. 305 For examples, see Marinis and Ousterhout, “Relics and the Byzantine Church Building,” 160–63.

68

now in Tekirdağ, (A50) is the only known “fixed” reliquary in this study (fig. 121).306 All other

reliquaries in this study were portable. Those preserved in churches and monasteries were kept in

treasuries, or skeuophylakia.307 They were brought out for specific feast days so that the relics

could be venerated by the faithful.

3.2.2 Personal Possessions

Reliquaries were also personal property. This is made explicit in Epigram B on the now-

lost reliquary of Mont-Saint-Quentin (A55):

This is the beloved possession (κτῆµα) of Theophylact. He has procured it for safeguarding, protection, salvation and the redemption of sins.308

Reliquary enkolpia, it was believed, protected the owner/wearer from physical harm and

spiritual attack.309 One epigram that describes the personal and protective nature of such objects

is recorded in the Anthologia Marciana (B9) with the title: “On an enkolpion of Michael

Alousianos, having a part of the head of St. Theodore Gabras.”310 The epigram is best rendered

in English by re-arranging the verses:

306 See also Holger Klein, “Materiality and the Sacred: Byzantine Reliquaries and the Rhetoric of Enshrinement,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 231–52, at 241–44. 307 Marinis and Ousterhout, “Relics and the Byzantine Church Building,” 157–60. 308 Θεοφυλάκτου κτῆµα προσφιλὲς τόδε·

κέκτηται αὐτὸ εἰς φυλακὴ κ(αὶ) σκ[έ]πην, [σ(ωτη)]ρίαν τε κ(αὶ) λύσιν ἀµαρτάδων. Ed. Gasnault and Durand, “Quatre reliquaires,”

277. 309 Kartsonis, “Protection against All Evil.” In the Life of St. Theodora the Empress, an enkolpion is also used to convert the iconoclast Emperor Theophilos (r. 829–42); ed. Athanasios Markopoulos, “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας,” Σύµµεικτα 5 (1983) 249–85, at 264, trans. Martha P. Vinson in Alice-Mary Talbot, ed., Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English Translation, Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation 2 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1998), 372–73. See also Martha P. Vinson, “The Terms ἐγκόλπιον and τενάντιον and the Conversion of Theophilos in the Life of Theodora (BHG 1731),” GRBS 36 (1995): 89–99. 310 Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Ἀλουσιάνου, ἔχον µέρος τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ ἁγίου Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γαβρᾶ. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 17. Michael Alousianos (Hagiotheodorites) was a high-ranking

69

4 O athlete (of Christ) Gabras, shoot of the Trapezuntines, 3 may you shelter from all sides Michael Alousianos, 1 who nourishes in his heart a flame of love for you, 2 and who carries a piece of your head to the chest.311

Verse 2 describes the function of the reliquary enkolpion. It contained a portion of the saint’s

head and was carried against Michael’s chest. Verse 1 relates this function to the wearer’s love

for the saint. The chest, where the reliquary enkolpion was carried, was also where Michael’s

heart nourished “a flame of love” for St. Theodore Gabras. The relationship between the function

of the object (v. 2) and the owner’s devotion to the saint (v. 1) is further emphasized by wordplay

in these two verses: τρέφοντα (nourishing) and φέροντα (carrying); and ἐγκάρδιον (in the heart)

and κάρας (head). In addition, the word ἐγκάρδιον is a word used in Middle Byzantine texts to

denote a pectoral.312

Reliquary enkolpia were worn as outward expressions of identity, status, and power. One

such reliquary enkolpion is described by Gunther of Pairis in his list of the relics looted from

Constantinople in the Fourth Crusade:

A certain tablet of nearly incalculable value, sumptuously decorated with gold and precious stones and containing numerous sorts of holy relics (by far more precious than the gold or gems) which had been artfully hidden within it. On solemn feast days the emperor of the Greeks used to wear this tablet on a golden chain hanging from his neck, as a sort of indisputable token of his imperial power.313

official under Manuel Komnenos; Elizabeth Madariaga, “Μιχαήλ Αγιοθεοδωρίτης, πρωτονωβελισσιµοϋπέρτατος λογοθέτης του δρόµου και ορφανοτρόφος,” Βυζαντινά Σύµµεικτα 24 (2014): 213–46. See also his other reliquary enkolpion in this study (B14). Theodore Gabras (d. 1098) was a provincial governor of Trebizond, who was declared a martyr; Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Συµβολαὶ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν Τραπεζοῦντος,” Vizantiiskii vremennik 12 (1906): 132–47, esp. 132–37; Anthony Bryer, “A Byzantine family: the Gabrades, c. 979 – c. 1653,” University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12 (1970): 164–87, at 175; and Antonio Rigo, “Il martyrio di Teodoro Gabras (BHG 1745),” Analecta Bollandiana 116 (1998): 147–55. His portrait, dated to May 1067, is preserved in a manuscript that was once part of a Tetraevangelion; see Iohannis Spatharakis, The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill, 1976), pp. 59–60, fig. 27. 311 Ἐγκάρδιον τρέφοντα σοὶ πόθου φλόγα καὶ τµῆµα σῆς φέροντα τοῖς στέρνοις κάρας Ἀλουσιάνον Μιχαὴλ κύκλῳ σκέποις, ἀθλητὰ Γαβρᾶ, βλαστὲ Τραπεζουντίων. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 17. 312 LBG, s.v. “ἐγκάρδιος.” 313 Orth, Gunther von Pairis, 179–80, trans. Andrea, The Capture of Constantinople, 130.

70

While reliquaries were personal possessions, it is not known to what extent they were

kept in private homes. There are sources that indicate such precious personal possessions were

housed in ecclesiastic and monastic collections, and that the owners had the right to access these

objects when they so desired.314 Was this standard practice, or were reliquaries kept at home?

This question will be the subject of future study.

3.3 Reliquaries in Religious and Ceremonial Life

3.3.1 Feast Days

Feast days provided the primary public context in which the faithful encountered

reliquaries.315 On the feast day of St. Elijah (July 20), for example, Anthony of Novgorod (c.

1200) states that relics of this Old Testament prophet were exhibited to the faithful at a

Constantinopolitan monastery dedicated to him.316 The emperors, meanwhile, visited the Chapel

of St. Elijah in the Nea Ekklesia in the Great Palace, where they “kiss” (ἀσπάζονται) the

prophet’s sheepskin garment placed on the altar.317 The primary feast day for the veneration of

the True Cross was the Elevation (Sept. 14), which commemorated Helena’s invention.318 The

eleventh-century liturgical typikon for the Euergetis Monastery in Constantinople describes the

ceremony.319 The priest carries a staurotheke on his head and places it on a wooden stand in front

314 See, for example, the typikon of the Sebastokrator Isaac Komnenos (b. 1093) for his Monastery of the Mother of God Kosmosoteira near Bera. Isaac states that he deposited his personal enkolpion—not necessarily a reliquary—in the sacristy of the monastery. He orders that it be placed upon his tomb at his death; BMFD, 838. 315 Marinis and Ousterhout, “Relics and the Byzantine Church Building,” 159. 316 Ehrhard, “Antoine de Novgorod,” 62. For this church, see Janin, Églises CP, 138–39. 317 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:117, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 117. See also Paul Magdalino, “Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah,” JÖB 38 (1988): 193–96. 318 For this and other feast days in which the True Cross is celebrated, see P. Bernardakis, “Le culte de la Croix chez les Grecs,” Echos d’Orient 5 (1902): 193–202, and 257–64; and Joseph Hallit, “La croix dans le rite byzantin: histoire et théologie,” Parole de l’Orient 3 (1972) 261–311. 319 Ed. Robert Jordan, The Synaxarion of the monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, Belfast Byzantine Texts and Translations 6.5 (Belfast: Institute of Byzantine Studies, The Queen’s University of Belfast, 2000), 52–65. A similar ceremony is described for the other main feast for the True Cross, the third Sunday of Lent; in Jordan, Synaxarion, 6.6 (Belfast, 2005), 404–11.

71

of the sanctuary.320 The priest then removes the relic from the staurotheke, stands on the ambo,

and elevates it above his head.321 This act of elevation and exposition is illustrated in the

eleventh-century Menologion of Basil II (Vat. Gr. 1613, p. 35) (fig. 129). The relic is then set

back within the staurotheke, uncovered, and the faithful are allowed access to it. They approach

the staurotheke, bowing in proskynesis, and kissing the relic.322 Such acts of veneration are

illustrated in an eleventh-century lectionary (Vat. Gr. 1156, fol. 248) (figs. 130–31).

3.3.2 Concentrated Sacrality

The faithful made pilgrimages and visited shrines in order to access relics’ therapeutic

and thaumaturgic powers.323 They slept near saints’ tombs, a practice known as incubation.324 At

the Monastery of St. Lazaros in the Great Palace, the faithful were healed when they touched the

reliquary of Lazaros or anointed themselves with the oil from the nearby lamps.325 The

privileged few had relics brought to them.326 For example, when the Emperor Basil II (r. 976–

320 Jordan, Synaxarion, 6.5, 58–59. 321 Jordan, Synaxarion, 6.5, 60–61. 322 Jordan, Synaxarion, 6.5, 62–63. 323 For the various therapeutic practices in Byzantium, see Brigitte Pitarakis, ed., Life is Short, Art Long: The Art of Healing in Byzantium, Pera Museum Publication 73 (Istanbul: Pera Müzesi, 2015). 324 ODB, s.v. “Incubation” (Frank R. Trombley). 325 Synaxarium CP, 147.6–148.1. Leo also acquired the relics of Mary Magdalene for this church; ed. Theodore Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, vol. 2 (Leipzig, B.G. Teubner, 1902), 288, trans. Albrecht Berger, Accounts of Medieval Constantinople: The Patria, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 24 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2013), 279; ed. Immanuel Bekker, Theophanes Continuatus, CSHB (Bonn: Weber, 1838), 860.26; ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 180–81, §20, trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 175. See also R.H. Dolley, “The historical significance of the translation of St. Lazaros from Kypros to byzantion,” Byzantion 19 (1949): 59–71; and Romilly J.H. Jenkins, Cyril Mango, and Vasileios Laourdas, “Nine Orations of Arethas from Cod. Marc. Gr. 524,” BZ 47 (1954): 1–40, at 5–11; and Theodora Antonopoulou, The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI, The Medieval Mediterranean 14 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 26. Dolley’s dating has been corrected by Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886–912): Politics & People, The Medieval Mediterranean 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 201n53. For the church of St. Lazaros, see Janin, Églises CP, 298–300; and Paul Magdalino, “The Bath of Leo the Wise and the ‘Macedonian Renaissance’ Revisited: Topography, Iconography, Ceremonial, and Ideology,” DOP 42 (1988): 97–118.

72

1025) was on his deathbed, Alexios, the hegoumenos of the Stoudios Monastery, brought him the

head of John the Baptist.327 When Zoe Karbonopsina was possessed by an evil spirit, her

husband, the Emperor Leo VI (r. 886–912), had the Girdle of the Thetokos brought from the

Church of the Chalkoprateia to the palace, and had it laid upon her head.328

3.3.3 Imperial Ceremonial

Reliquaries were also part of imperial ceremonial.329 For example, in the procession from

the Great Palace to Hagia Sophia, the Book of Ceremonies states that the emperors stop at the

Church of the Mother of God Protoktistos (“first-founded”), enter the adjoining chapel of the

Holy Trinity, and venerate the relics that are located “in the relic vestibule” (ἐν τῷ στενακίῳ

λειψάνοις).330 The Book of Ceremonies also states that after entering Hagia Sophia, the emperors

stop at a chapel in front of the robing room, “kissing the precious cross containing all the tokens

of the passion.”331 In the early tenth century, Harun-ibn-Yahya, an Arab prisoner in

Constantinople, witnessed the imperial procession for Ash Wednesday.332 He states that the

326 Nancy Ševčenko, “The Posthumous Miracles of St. Eustratios on a Sinai Templon Beam,” in Byzantine Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis Sullivan, Elizabeth Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 267–87, at 277. 327 Ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 368–69, §47, ed. trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 348. 328 Synaxarium CP, 935.19–33. A paraphrased translation available in Wortley, “Marian Relics,” 175. 329 For overviews, see Mergiali-Sahas, “Holy Relics,” esp. 53-55; and Klein, “Sacred Relics.” For the True Cross in imperial ceremonial, see Frolow, La relique, nos. 129, 143, 164. See also Hans Georg Thümmel, “Kreuze, Reliquien und Bilder im Zeremonienbuch des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos,” ByzF 18 (1992): 119–26. George Galavaris, “The Cross in the Book of Ceremonies by Constantine Porphyrogenitus,” in Θυµίαµα στη µνήµη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα (Athens: Benaki Museum, 1994), 95–99; and John A. Cotsonis, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 10 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1994). 330 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:8, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 8. This is the only reference to the Church of the Mother of God Protoktistos; Albert Vogt, Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. Le Livre des Cérémonies, tome 1, book 2 (Commentaire) (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1935), 38. 331 καὶ ἀσπαζόµενοι τὸν τίµιον σταυρὸν, ἐν ᾧ πάντα τὰ σύµβολα τοῦ πάθους τοῦ Κυρίου ἡµῶν καὶ Θεοῦ; ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:16, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 16. 332 Alexander Vasiliev, “Harun ibn-Yahya and His Description of Constantinople,” Seminarium Kondakovianum 5 (1932): 149–63.

73

emperor carries “a small golden box in which is a bit of earth.”333 When the minister calls out

“Remember the death” (µέµνησθε τοῦ θανάτου), the emperor “pauses, opens the box, looks at

the earth, kisses it, and weeps.”334 While scholars have cited this text in relationship to imperial

ceremonial, no one has remarked upon the object that the emperor carried.335 I argue that the

context of the ceremony, the precious nature of the golden box, and the honor given to its

contents strongly indicate that this was a reliquary that contained dirt and/or stones from the

Holy Land.336

For coronation ceremonial, Anthony of Novgorod states that the relic of the arm of John

the Baptist and his staff, both housed in the Pharos chapel, were used in the crowning of

emperors.337 A western account claims that the Emperor Constantine VIII (r. 1025–28) gave

Count Manegold of Werd, a diplomat of the Holy Roman Emperor Conrad II (r. 1027–39), a

reliquary (tabulam) of the True Cross that was supposedly used in coronation ceremonies.338

333 Vasiliev, “Harun ibn-Yahya,” 159. 334 Vasiliev, “Harun ibn-Yahya,” 159. 335 Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI, 223, with references to older literature; and Albrecht Berger, “Imperial and Ecclesiastical Processions in Constantinople,” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu, The Medieval Mediterranean 33 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 73–87. 336 Another possible interpretation for this object is that it was the akakia, one of the imperial insignia. In the Middle Byzantine period, the akakia was a scroll-like object, but by the fourteenth-century was a silk pouch that held dust as a reminder of the emperor’s own mortality; see Maria G. Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and Religious Iconography (11th–15th Centuries), The Medieval Mediterranean 41 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 33. I thank Vicky Manolopoulou for bringing this detail to my attention. 337 Ehrhard, “Antoine de Novgorod,” 57. See also Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 75–76. For comparable practices in Serbia, see Danica Popović, Under the Auspices of Sanctity: The Cult of Holy Rulers and Relics in Medieval Serbia (Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Balkan Studies, 2006), 207–32. 338 Ed. Oswald Holder-Egger, Bertholdi narratio quomodo portio vivificae crucis Werdeam pervenerit, Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores 15.2 (Hannover, 1888; repr. 1991), 767–70. This account states that no one but Manegold and Constantine knew of this gift. When the emperor died, court officials scrambled to find the reliquary in order to crown his successor, Romanos III Argyros (r. 1028–34). See also Frolow, La relique, no. 203; Klein, “Eastern Objects and Western Desires,” 296–99; Manfred Kessler, “Zur ‘Narratio Bertholdi’ aus Kloster Heilig Kreuz in Donauwörth,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 74 (2011): 1–43.

74

3.3.4 Civic Protection

Relics were invoked for the protection of Constantinople from enemy attacks and natural

disasters.339 In 860, the Emperor Michael III (r. 842–67) and the Patriarch Photios (858–67, 877–

86) marched the Maphorion around the city walls and dipped it into the sea in hopes of bringing

a storm and averting the Rus’ siege.340 Relics of the True cross were processed every year

between July 28 and August 13 throughout Constantinople, blessing the houses and walls.341 In

1037, the Emperor Michael IV Paphlagon’s (r. 1034–41) brothers organized a procession of the

Mandylion, the Letter from Christ to King Abgar, and the Swaddling Clothes from the Great

Palace to the Church of the Mother of God at the Blachernai in order to bring rain and relieve the

city from a six-month drought.342

3.3.5 Military Campaigns

Relics accompanied the emperor on campaign.343 The military treatises of Constantine

VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 945–59) order that a reliquary of the True Cross and a large jeweled

cross be carried in front of him in battle:

In the middle of the praipositoi marches a koubikoularios carrying the holy and life-giving wood of the Cross, with the case about his neck. In front of the

339 Norman Baynes, “The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople,” Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949): 165–77; and Frolow, La relique, no. 90 340 Ed. Immanuel Bekker, Leonis Grammatici Chronographia, CSHB (Bonn: Weber, 1842), 241; Mango, The Homilies of Photius, 74–110. See also Wortley, “Marian Relics,” 183–185; and Pentcheva, Icons and Power, 52–53. 341 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 2:539–40, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 539–40. 342 Ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 400, §10, trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 377. For the Letter, see Guscin, The Image of Edessa. 343 Jean Gagé, “Σταυρὸς νικοποιός: La victoire impériale dans l’empire chrétien,” Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses 13 (1933): 370–400; Nicole Thierry, “Le culte de la croix dans l’empire byzantin du VIIe siècle au Xe dans ses rapports avec la guerre contre l’infidèle. Nouveaux témoignages archéologiques,” Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 1 (1981): 205–28; Ševčenko, “The Limburg Staurothek”; Mergiali-Sahas, “Holy Relics,” 49–51; and Sullivan, “Siege Warfare.” See also the reliquary of the True Cross of Manuel Komnenos (B11).

75

koubouklion march the imperial officers, and in their midst marches a signophoros bearing a golden, bejeweled cross.344

Constantine VII also composed speeches to exhort his troops on the day of battle. In one, he

states that he sends holy oil (ἀποµυρίσαντες) drawn from the relics of Christ:

Behold, that after drawing holy oil from the immaculate and most sacred relics of the Passion of Christ our true God—from the precious wooden fragments [of the True Cross] and the undefiled Lance, the precious Titulus, the wonder-working Reed, the life-giving blood which flowed from His precious rib, the most sacred Tunic, the holy swaddling clothes, the God-bearing winding sheet, and the other relics of His undefiled Passion—we have sent it to be sprinkled upon you, for you to be anointed by it and to garb yourselves with the divine power from on high.345

In 1089, the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118) took the Maphorion into battle against

the Pechenegs. His daughter, Anna Komnene (1083–ca. 1153/4), writes that he “stood with

sword in hand ahead of his own front line. In the other hand he grasped like a standard the

Omophorion of the Mother of the Word.”346

344 καὶ µέσον τῶν πραιποσίτων περιπατεῖ κουβικουλάριος βαστάζων τὰ τίµια καὶ ζωοποιὰ ξύλα µετὰ τῆς θήκης ἐπὶ τοῦ τραχήλου· ἔµπροσθεν δὲ τοῦ κουβουκλίου περιπατοῦσιν οἱ βασιλικοὶ καὶ µέσον τούτων περιπατεῖ σιγνοφόρος βαστάζων σταυρὸν χρυσοῦν διάλιθον; ed. and trans. John F. Haldon, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, CFHB, Series Vindobonensis 28 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990), C.485-489. See also Ševčenko, “The Limburg Staurothek,” 292. 345 ἰδοὺ ἐκ τῶν ἀχράντων καὶ πανσέπτων συµβόλων τοῦ πάθους Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ἡµῶν, τῶν τε τιµίων ξύλων καὶ τῆς ἀχράντου λόγχης, καὶ τοῦ τιµίου τίτλου, καὶ τοῦ θαυµατουργοῦ καλάµου, καὶ τοῦ ἐκ τῆς τιµίας αὐτοῦ πλευρᾶς ἀπορρεύσαντος ζωοποιοῦ αἵµατος, τοῦ τε πανσέπτου χιτῶνος, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν σπαργάνων, καὶ τῆς θεοφόρου σινδόνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τοῦ ἀχράντου πάθους αὐτοῦ συµβόλων ἀποµυρίσαντες ἐξαπεστείλαµεν ὑµῖν ἁγίασµα τοῦ ῥαντισθῆναι ἐφ’ ὑµῖν καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ περιχρισθῆναι καὶ θείαν ἐξ ὕψους ἐπενδύσασθαι δύναµιν; ed. Rudolf Vári, “Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos,” BZ 17 (1908): 83.23–31, trans. adapted from Eric McGreer, “Two Military Orations of Constantine VII,” in Byzantine Authors: Literary Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, The Medieval Mediterranean 49 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 133. The other speech of Constantine VII is edited by Hélène Ahrweiler, “Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète,” Travaux et mémoires 2 (1967): 393–404, and it also references the Cross at 398.41. See also Ševčenko, “The Limburg Staurothek,” 293. 346 Reinsch and Kambylis, Annae Comnenae, VII.3.9, trans. Sewter and Frankopan, The Alexiad, 194.

76

3.3.6 Diplomacy

Foreign rulers were gifted reliquaries and shown the imperial relic collection when

visiting Constantinople.347 In 1147, Manuel Komnenos exhibited the relics in the Blachernai

Palace to Louis VII of France (r. 1137–80), and in 1171, those of the Pharos chapel to Amalric I,

King of Jerusalem (r. 1163–74).348 Relics were also enlisted in peace negotiations and in the

swearing of oaths, both domestic and foreign.349 On the feast of the Annunciation, March 25,

866, Michael III and Basil I (r. 867–86)—who was not yet emperor—swore on the Holy Blood

of Christ and the Girdle of the Theotokos not to harm their rival, Caesar Bardas.350 When

Michael V Kalaphates (r. 1041–42) was crowned emperor, he swore on the Holy Blood and on

the hand of John the Baptist that he would remain allegiant to the reigning Empress Zoe (r.

1028–50).351 When Romanos I negotiated peace with the Bulgars in 924, he took with him the

Maphorion.352 In 1109, Bohemond, a leader of the First Crusade, swore an oath of loyalty to

Alexios Komnenos on relics of the True Cross, the Crown of Thorns, the Nails, and the Lance.353

347 Frolow, La relique, nos. 101, 107, 109, 151, 155, 203, 204, 223, 235, and 245; and Mergiali-Sahas, “Holy Relics,” 46–48. 348 Ed. R.B.C Huygens, Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, 2 vols., Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986), 2:944–45, trans. Emily Atwater Babcock, and August C. Krey, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea by William Archbishop of Tyre, vol. 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), 381. Ed. Meineke, Ioannis Cinnami, 83, trans. Brand, Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus, 69. 349 Mergiali-Sahas, “Holy Relics,” 51–53. 350 Bekker, Leonis Grammatici Chronographia, 243. 351 Ed. Inmaculada Pérez Martín, Miguel Ataliates, Historia, Nueva Roma 15 (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2002), 9, trans. Anthony Kaldellis and Dimitris Krallis, Michael Attaleiates: The History, Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library 16 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012), 17. 352 Ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 219, §12, trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 212. 353 Reinsch and Kambylis, Annae Comnenae, XIII.12.27, trans. Sewter and Frankopan, The Alexiad, 394.

77

3.4 Conclusion

The sources presented in this chapter highlight the variety of contexts in which relics and

reliquaries were used in the Middle Byzantine period. Reliquaries had an active life, and

ownership was both personal and institutional. While reliquaries were worn by their owners—

such as the reliquary enkolpion of St. Theodore Gabras belonging to Michael Alousianos

Hagiotheodorites—they were also opened so that the relic could be venerated by the public on

specific feast days—such as the staurotheke described in the liturgical typikon for the Euergetis

Monastery. The emperor exerted his control over relics and reliquaries for his own needs.

Sources indicate that the arm of John the Baptist was used in the coronation ceremony, and a

reliquary of the True Cross and the mantle of the Theotokos were taken on campaign to ensure

the emperor’s victory.

78

CHAPTER 4

RELIC ACCESSIBILITY

4.1 Introduction

Studies have shown that the ability to see and touch relics was an integral part of

religious life in Byzantium.354 However, there has been some disagreement among scholars

concerning the extent to which relics were visually and haptically accessible to the faithful. In

this chapter, I engage with this debate by examining the evidence provided by epigrams. I argue

that these texts—through their content and placement on reliquaries—convey important details

about the practice of relic presentation, access, and veneration that have been overlooked.

4.2 Scholarship on Relic Accessibility

Rainer Rückert convincingly argues that Middle Byzantine reliquaries were designed to

make relics accessible to the faithful.355 Relics were adorned with metal attachments and

revetments that left the sacred matter exposed, and they were housed in containers fitted with

354 Fundamental studies on the cult of relics in Late Antiquity include Hippolyte Delehaye, Les origines du culte des martyrs, 2nd rev. ed., Subsidia hagiographica 20 (Brussels: Société des bollandistes, 1933); François Halkin, Martyrs grecs IIe-VIIIe s., Variorum Reprints CS30 (London: Variorum Reprints, 1974); Peter Brown, Relics and Social Status in the Age of Gregory of Tours, The Stenton Lecture, 1976 (Reading: University of Reading, 1977); idem, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981); Charles Pietri, “Les origines du culte des martyrs (d’après un ouvrage récent),” Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 60 (1984): 293–319; Pierre Maraval, Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient: histoire et géographie des origines à la conquête arabe (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985); and John Wortley, “The Origins of Christian Veneration of Body-Parts,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 223 (2006): 5–28, esp. 10–11, repr. in Wortley, Studies. For scholarship on the senses in Byzantine religious life and in the veneration of relics, see Susan Jean Ashbrook Harvey, Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006); Béatrice Caseau, “Experiencing the Sacred,” in Experiencing Byzantium: Papers from the 44th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Newcastle and Durham, April 2011, eds. Claire Nesbitt and Mark Jackson, Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 18 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 59–77, esp. 69–71; idem, “The Senses in Religion: Liturgy, Devotion, and Deprivation,” in A Cultural History of the Senses in the Middle Ages, 500–1450, ed. Richard Newhauser (New York: Bloomsbury, 2014), 89–108; and Vasileios Marinis, “Piety, Barbarism, and the Senses in Byzantium,” in Sensational Religion: Sensory Cultures in Material Practice, ed. Sally M. Promey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 321–40. 355 Rückert, “Zur Form.” Hahn, Strange Beauty, 225; and Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” directly address this issue, supporting Rückert’s thesis. Other scholars make similar statements about relic accessibility in Byzantium, but do not acknowledged Rückert’s essay; Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 68; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques du Christ,” 163; and Klein, “Die Elfenbein-Staurothek von Cortona,” 177–78.

79

hinged doors and removable lids. The historical texts support Rückert’s thesis. As discussed in

Chapter 3, on the feast day for the Elevation of the Cross (September 14), a relic of the True

Cross was removed from a staurotheke and elevated by the priest for all to see, and then laid on a

table for all to venerate.356 For the feast commemorating the beheading of John the Baptist

(August 29), the Book of Ceremonies states that the emperors went to the church dedicated to

him at the Stoudios Monastery, where “the holy head of the Forerunner lies displayed

(πρόκειται),” and there the emperors “kiss it (ἀσπάζονται).”357

Those scholars who disagree with Rückert’s thesis have misinterpreted the evidence.

Anatole Frolow claims that Byzantine artists sought to hide relics of the True Cross by wrapping

them in metal revetment.358 His work clearly shows, however, that relics of the True Cross were

normally displayed on one side of a removable cross and housed in panel- or triptych-type

staurothekai, which could be opened.359 Why then did Frolow make such a contradictory claim

when the evidence indicates otherwise? His intent was to distinguish the forms and functions of

Byzantine staurothekai from those of western medieval monstrance-type reliquaries that were

popular beginning in the thirteenth century. In so doing, Frolow overstated his argument about

the accessibility of Byzantine relics. While Byzantine staurothekai typically enclosed relics of

the True Cross behind lids and doors, allowing them to be displayed on specific occasions,

monstrance-type reliquaries in the west encased and presented relics under rock crystal in order

to make them permanently visible.360

356 See section 3.3.1. 357 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 2:563, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 563. For this church, see Janin, Églises CP, 430–40. The same procedure was followed for the veneration of St. Panteleemon’s head (July 27) at the church dedicated to this saint in Constantinople; ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 2:560, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 560. For this church, see Janin, Églises CP, 387–88. See also the account of the Piacenza Pilgrim in the sixth century who drank from the head of St. Theodota in order to gain a blessing; Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims, 84. 358 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 31n1: “Le plus souvent, les artistes byzantins ont cherché à cacher la relique

sous une enveloppe en métal. Si le reliquaire était habité par Dieu, il convenait de rendre cette demeure

secrète, de même que dans le temple antique le mystère de l’adyton voilait la statue de la divinité.” This

assumption is also made by Albrecht Berger, “Believe It or Not: Authority in Religious Texts,” in Authority in Byzantium, ed. Pamela Armstrong, Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, Publications 14 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2013), 247–58, at 257. 359 See section 2.2.2.2.

80

Bissera Pentcheva also claims that relics were “never fully exposed in Byzantium.” She

argues that relics, being “sacred energy,” were “hidden, inaccessible, wrapped in layers of silk,

metal revetments, and iconized containers.”361 One problem with Pentcheva’s thesis is that she

bases it on the description of the ceremony for veneration of the Mandylion during Lent in

Edessa, as recorded at the end of the Narratio de Imagine Edessena, a text compiled in the tenth

century by Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos.362 A portion of this text reads:

The ancient chest containing the divine image was enclosed behind doors so that it would not be visible to everyone whenever they wanted, although these doors were opened two days every week, namely Wednesday and Friday, with fine pins of iron, that they called scepters. …Nobody was allowed to draw near and touch the holy form with his lips or his eyes.363

The veneration of the Mandylion shares, in part, characteristics with that of other relics in

Byzantium: its reliquary (θήκη) was fitted with doors that were opened on specific days

(Wednesday and Friday of Lent) so that the faithful could have access to the relic. There is also

evidence that the veneration of the Mandylion was unlike that of any other relic in Byzantium,

making the Narratio problematic for Pentcheva’s argument. This text states: “Nobody was

360 The use of monstrance-type reliquaries in the west represent a fundamental change in the display of relics in the Latin tradition following the Fourth Crusade in 1204 and the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; see Diedrichs, Vom Glauben zum Sehen; and Toussaint, Kreuz und Knochen, 178–91. Gia Toussaint dates these changes to before the Fourth Crusade; Gia Toussaint, “Die Sichtbarkeit des Gebeins im Reliquiar – eine Folge der Plünderung Konstantinopels?” in Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Reudenbach and Toussaint (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005), 89–106; idem, “Großer Schatz auf kleinem Raum. Die Kreuzvierung als Reliquienbühne,” in Le trésor au Moyen Âge: Discours, pratiques et objets, eds. Lucas Burkart et al (Florence: Sismel, 2010), 283–96. For the inaccessibility of relics in the west prior to the Fourth Crusade, see Durand, and Durand, “Corps saints et fragments”; and Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel.” For a discussion of the ways in which relics and reliquaries were displayed in the west, see Hahn, Strange Beauty, 199–208. 361 Pentcheva, “The Performance of Relics,” 55. 362 Pentcheva, “The Performance of Relics,” 61–65. She misinterprets this ceremony as taking place in Constantinople, but the text clearly states that it is the ceremony that took place in Edessa. The most recent edition is Guscin, The Image of Edessa, 7–69, at 62.11–12, with English translation on page 63. Pentcheva does not reference Guscin’s edition and translation. 363 Καὶ ἐπειδὴ θυρίσιν ἡ παλαιὰ τῆς θείας µορφῆς περιεστέλλετο θήκη, ὡς µὴ θεατὴν εἶναι πᾶσιν ὃτε καὶ ἡνίκα βούλοιντο, ἐν δυσὶ ταύταις τῆς ἑβδοµάδος ἡµέραις, τετράδι τέ φηµι καὶ παρασκευῇ, διὰ τῶν πεπερονηµένων λεπτοτάτων σιδήρων, ἃ παρ’ ἐκείνοις σκῆπτρα ὠνόµαστο, τῶν τοιούτων θυρίδων ἀναπεπτασµένων, …οὐ µὴν δὲ ἠφίετό τινι προσεγγίσαι ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ χείλεσιν ἢ ὄµµασι τοῦ ἱεροῦ προσψαῦσαι µορφώµατος. Ed. Guscin, The Image of Edessa, 64.23–28, 30–31, trans. on page 65.

81

allowed to draw near and touch the holy form with his lips or his eyes,” indicating that while the

doors of the reliquary were periodically opened, actually seeing or touching the relic was limited,

or impossible.364 If it were forbidden for the Byzantines to see or touch any relic, why then

would it be necessary for the Narratio to explicitly mention this for the Mandylion? I suggest

that this statement was made because it was contrary to normative practice. An anonymous

pilgrim to Constantinople in the late eleventh century confirms this.365 Describing the veneration

of the Mandylion, the pilgrim writes:

And when all the other palace relics are shown to the faithful at certain times, this linen cloth (i.e. the Mandylion) on which the face of our redeemer is depicted is not shown to anyone and is not opened up for anyone except the emperor of Constantinople.366

The veneration of the Mandylion was therefore not representative of relic veneration practices in

the Middle Byzantine period.367 While other relics were made accessible to the faithful on a

regular basis, access to the Mandylion was the privilege of the emperor.368 Relics were made

accessible in order that the faithful could see and touch them.

364 In the ancient optical theory of extramission, the eyes send out rays that extend to the object, touch it, and return to the eyes with an image of what was perceived; see Robert Nelson, “To Say and to See: Ekphrasis and Vision in Byzantium,” in Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance, ed. Robert Nelson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 143–68. For a recent reassessment, see Roland Betancourt, “Why Sight Is Not Touch: Reconsidering the Tactility of Sight in Byzantium,” DOP 70 (forthcoming 2016). 365 Ciggaar, “Tarragonensis 55.” 366 Et cum cetere omnes reliquie palacii cunctis quibusque temporibus ostendantur fidelibus, istud linteum in quo continetur nostri Redemptoris vultus figuratus nulli demonstratur, nulli aperitur, nec ipsi Constantinopolitano imperatori. Ed. Ciggaar, “Tarragonensis 55,” 120.62–65, trans. Guscin, The Image of Edessa, 182. 367 The Mandylion was exceptional by its very nature. It was a sacred cloth that was considered an icon—because it preserved Christ’s image—and a relic—because Christ himself touched it. The Mandylion was never fragmented, but its image was miraculously duplicated onto another icon-relic, the Keramion. For bibliography, see note 118. 368 The anonymous eleventh-century pilgrim continues: “The case that stored the holy object used to be kept open once, but the whole city was struck by continuous earthquakes, and everyone was threatened with death. A heavenly vision revealed that the city would not be freed of such ill until such time as the linen cloth with the Lord’s face on it should be locked up and hidden away, far from human eyes. And so it was done. The sacred linen cloth was locked away in a golden case and carefully sealed up, and then the

82

4.3 Defining Viewers and Readers

In this and subsequent chapters, I use the terms ‘viewers’ of reliquaries and ‘readers’ of

epigrams. While the precise definitions of these terms are specific to each reliquary, a few

generalizations can be made.369 For personal objects, such as reliquary enkolpia, a ‘viewer’ and a

‘reader’ were likely the same person—the wearer and/or owner of a reliquary. For reliquaries

used in public settings, ‘viewers’ were, in general, the worshippers who saw and encountered

reliquaries in religious services. In such contexts, ‘readers’ of epigrams were most likely clerics

or monks who recited the texts aloud on a specific feast days or during commemoration services

for the reliquaries’ patrons.370

4.4 Epigrams and the Accessibility of Relics

4.4.1 Reliquary of the True Cross (B3): Describing Accessibility

One epigram that clearly describes the accessibility of a relic was inscribed on a reliquary

of the True Cross (B3), now lost.371

The life-giving and venerable wood, on which the Lord had suffered in the flesh, lies exposed to all for veneration, as is appropriate,

earthquake stopped and the heaven-sent ills ceased. From that time on nobody has dared to open the case or to see what might be inside it, as everyone believes and fears that if anyone tries to open it the whole city will be struck by another earthquake.” Ed. Ciggaar, “Tarragonensis 55,” 120–21.65–74, trans. Guscin, The Image of Edessa, 182. 369 See also the forthcoming discussion in Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 1). 370 While it is known that epigrams were read aloud (cf. Papalexandrou, “Eloquent Monuments”), the precise contexts in which reliquary epigrams were read in the liturgy are not. I will be investigating this question in future work. 371 The title of the epigram is Εἰς τὸν σταυρόν. Ed. Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 151. The text is preserved in a manuscript with other epigrams that are attributed to the Patriarch Methodios (843–47), and because of this Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 153 attributes this epigram to Methodios. This is rightly challenged by Silvio Giuseppe Mercati, “Note d’Epigrafia Bizantina (I–II),” Bessarione 24 (1920): 192–99, repr. Collectanea Byzantina, vol. 2, 209–16; and by Stephen Gero, Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to the Oriental Sources, Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 346 (Louvain: Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1973), 210–12. Lauxtermann, “Byzantine Epigram,” 43–44 argues that the epigram more likely dates to the tenth or eleventh century. Frolow, La relique, 218 (no. 95) supports Sternbach’s attribution. Given these philological and historical uncertainties, I date the epigram between the ninth and eleventh centuries.

83

having been adorned with gold by the divine work of Michael, 5 who has procured for himself a powerful protection in life.372

This epigram confirms that staurothekai were designed to make relics accessible to the

faithful. It is the only information we have on this object. A patron by the name of Michael

commissioned a golden staurotheke.373 The epigram gives no indication of its form, but it clearly

states that the reliquary “exposed” (πρόκειται) the wood of the True Cross, making it accessible

for public “veneration” (προσκυνητόν).374 Verse 3 ends with “as is appropriate” (ὡς θέµις),

confirming that this was conventional practice.

4.4.2 Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary (A11): Describing Veneration

The epigram that was inscribed on the Mont-Saint-Quentin reliquary (A11) describes acts

of veneration. This reliquary was destroyed in the French Revolution, but descriptions and

drawings from the seventeenth century record its form, iconography, and inscriptions (figs. 26–

28).375 It was a panel-type staurotheke.376 The silver-gilt lid featured an image of a double-arm

372 Τὸ ζωοποιὸν καὶ σεβάσµιον ξύλον,

ἐν ᾧ πέπονθε σαρκικῶς ὁ δεσπότης, πᾶσι πρόκειται προσκυνητόν, ὡς θέµις, χρυσοστολισθὲν Μιχαὴλ θείοις πόνοις,

5 φρουρὸν κραταιὸν ἐν βίῳ κεκτηµένου. Ed. Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 151; emend. Lauxtermann, “Byzantine Epigram,” 44n94. 373 Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 156 assumes that the patron is the Emperor Michael III (r. 842–67). Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina, vol. 2, 213–14 argues that the name could refer to either Michael II (r. 820–29) or Michael III. Frolow, La relique, 218 and Gero, Leo III, 210–12 correctly observe that the epigram does not indicate that Michael was an emperor. Lauxtermann, “Byzantine Epigram,” 43–44 agrees with Frolow, rightly arguing that epigrams on imperial staurothekai usually provide the emperor with a title. 374 Frolow, La relique, 218 suggests that based on the information in verse 3, this staurotheke was a public monument displayed in a church or city square. 375 For a reconstruction of this reliquary’s form, see Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 151–67. Prior to Durand’s publication, our knowledge of the original appearance of this reliquary was known only by Charles Dufresne Du Cange, “Explication des inscriptions de la vraye croix, qui est en l’abbaye de Grandmont, et de celle qui est au monastere du mont Saint-Quentin en Picardie,” in Dissertation XXVI in Histoire de Saint Louis par Jean de Joinville (Paris, 1668), repr. in Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, ed. Léopold Favre, vol. 10 (Niort: L. Favre, 1887), 90–93. See also Frolow, La relique, no. 473. The date of the reliquary is not known. If the seventeenth-century drawings can be trusted, then it could be argued that it dates to the eleventh or twelfth century because the inscriptions have diacritics; see section 1.2.1.

84

cross, made of enamel plaques and gems (fig. 26). Positioned above and below the lower cross-

arm were four gold and enamel medallions with images of the Crucifixion, the Descent from the

Cross, the three Marys at the Tomb, and the Anastasis.377 A five-verse epigram was inscribed in

four parts, above and below the upper cross-arm.378

Those of you venerating this here with pious thought and who sing an affectionate hymn to the Logos, pray also for me, the monk Timothy, so that he becomes for me a helper and a harbor 5 and a deliverer from my many faults, with all speed.379

The lid slid down.380 The box contained a large double-arm cruciform receptacle at the

center, and four smaller cruciform receptacles at the corners, each of which housed relics of the

True Cross (fig. 28).381 At the lower crossing of the central cross were four gold and enamel

medallions, each inscribed with an epigram identifying a relic of Christ: the Swaddling Clothes,

a piece of the Holy Nail, drops of the Holy Blood, and a piece of the Crown of Thorns.382 Three

376 Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 61, 66. 377 Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 59, 69. 378 The sources do not indicate whether the epigram was incised in metal or executed in enamel. Verse 1 was above and to the left of the cross; verse two was above and to the right; verse 3 was to the left and between the two cross-arms; and verses 4 and 5 were to the right and between the two cross-arms. 379 Οἱ τόνδε προσκυνοῦντες εὐσεβεῖ νόῳ

καὶ τῷ Λόγῳ φέροντες ὕµνον εὐµενῆ εὔχεσθε κἀµοὶ τῷ µοναχῷ Τιµοθέῳ ὅπως γένηταί µοι βοηθὸς καὶ λιµήν

5 ῥύστης τε τῶν πολλῶν τάχει µου πταισµάτων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179. Rhoby produced his edition without knowledge of Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée” and the published figures. 380 Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 58. 381 In the seventeenth century, the central receptacle had a post-Byzantine removable crystal cover, and the other four receptacles were empty. The central cross was also adorned with a crucifix of Latin origin; Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 56, 62, 66. 382 Above and to left of lower crossing: “I contain a small part of Christ’s Swaddling Clothes” (Ἔσχηκα Χριστοῦ σπαργάνων µικρὸν µέρος). Above and to right of lower crossing: “And I, a fragment of the revered Nails” (Ἥλων ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν σεβαστῶν τι τρύφος). Below, and to left of lower crossing: “And Ι, the Blood that gushed forth life into the world” (Ζωὴν κἀγὼ τὸ βλῦσαν αἷµα τῷ κόσµῳ). Below, and to right

85

additional gold and enamel medallions with non-metrical inscriptions labeled three other relics of

Christ: a stone from Golgotha, a stone from Christ’s tomb, and a relic from his Manger.383 The

reliquary also featured twenty-four images of prophets, apostles, and martyrs on the inside,

edges, and sides of the box.384 Figure 27 is a drawing of the box’s sides, splayed out, and

showing where the saints were placed. The Tree of Life was depicted on the back.385

The epigram on the lid directly addressed its readers: “those venerating” (οἱ

προσκυνοῦντες). It commanded them, in the imperative, to “pray” (εὔχεσθε) for the patron of the

reliquary, Timothy the monk. The thing that they venerated is indicated by the second word of

the epigram, τόνδε (“this here”). Who were these venerators addressed in verse 1? Rhoby

suggests that they were the holy figures depicted on the reliquary; they served as Timothy’s

advocates and intercessors to Christ (fig. 27).386 I suggest that the epigram also addressed the

religious community where this reliquary was housed.

of lower crossing: “And I, a piece of the Crown of Thorns” (Στέφους ἀκανθίνου δὲ κἀγὼ τµῆµά τι). Ed. BEIÜ, 2:Me16. Following earlier scholarship and unaware of Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” Rhoby groups these four monostichs into a single four-verse epigram. While I agree that that they work together, the seventeenth-century drawings in Durand’s study clearly show that they were inscribed at four different places to identify the four different relics. The seventeenth-century description does not clarify the way in which these other relics were displayed and/or made accessible. One possibility could be that these medallions were removable receptacles for their individual relics, comparable to those preserved in Venice; Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, nos. 27–32, pp. 38–39, pl. XXX. 383 At the lower right side of the central cross: “Precious stone from the Skull (i.e. Golgotha)” (Τίµιος λίθος ἐκ τοῦ κρανίου). At the base of the cross in the lower left corner: “Stone from the Tomb” (Λίθος ἐκ τοῦ τάφου). At the base of the cross in the lower right corner: “<Stone> from the Manger of Christ” (<Λίθος> ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ φάτνης). Edited by BEIÜ, 2:179. For the Manger relic, Rhoby adds <Λίθος> (stone), but suggests that an addition of <Ξύλον> (wood) is also possible. In the seventeenth-century drawing and description, neither word is part of the inscription (fig. 28). On relics of Christ’s crib, see Durand, “Relics of the Infancy of Christ,” esp. 283. The medallion that was placed on the left side of the cross, opposite to the one for Golgotha, did not have an inscription; Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 57. 384 The interior of the box included full-length repoussé images of the prophets Zacharias and Samuel, the apostles Peter and Paul, and saints Constantine and Helena. The edge of the box featured enamel bust portraits of the apostles Andrew and Peter. The sides included repoussé bust portraits of saints (fig. 27). On one long side: Arsenios, Clement, Onouphrios, Paul of Kaioumas, and Andrew of Crete. On the adjacent short side: Antony, Euthymios, and Sabas. On the adjacent long side: Ephrem, Arcadius, Xenophon, and John. On the adjacent short side: Anastasios, John Kalybites, Athanasios, and Methodios; Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 57, 61, 68–69. 385 Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 61–62.

86

The reliquary was looted from Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade and taken to

France; its original Constantinopolitan location is not known.387 The original patron, Timothy, is

identified as a monk in verse 3, and the majority of the saints that were depicted on the reliquary

were important figures in the history of Byzantine monasticism, including Antony, Onouphrios,

Euthymios, and Sabas.388 These factors suggest that the reliquary was originally kept at a

monastery.389

In what context did the epigram address its monastic audience? I suggest one possibility

was September 14, the main feast day for the veneration of the True Cross. The eleventh-century

liturgical typikon of the Euergetis Monastery in Constantinople states that a staurotheke was set

on a wooden table in front of the sanctuary.390 The lid was removed, and the relic venerated by

the monks, as illustrated in the eleventh-century Vatican lectionary (figs. 130–31). The typikon

states that as the monks approached the relic, they chanted, “We venerate your cross” (Τὸν

σταυρόν σου προσκυνοῦµεν).391

The epigram on the lid of the Mont-Saint-Quentin reliquary functioned in this context

(fig. 26). It addressed “those venerating” (οἱ προσκυνοῦντες, v. 1), and described their act of

singing (φέροντες ὕµνον, v. 2). The word τόνδε (“this here,” v. 1), which was placed at the upper

386 BEIÜ, 2:180. 387 Riant, Exuviae, 1:CXI–CXII and 192–96. 388 See footnote 384 for the list of saints. 389 Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 64–65 observes that the inclusion of Paul of Kaioumas’s image on the side of the reliquary is noteworthy. This eighth-century saint was rarely depicted in Byzantine art. Such an unusual choice of saint might suggest that the reliquary was housed at the Constantinopolitan monastery where his relics were preserved. His Passio (BHG 1471) only states that this monastery was dedicated to the Mother of God, but does not indicate where, precisely, in Constantinople it was located; Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυµιτικῆς σταχυολογίας, vol. 4 (St. Petersburg: Kirspaoum, 1897), 247–51, at 251.16; Menologii 2:23–27, at 26.33. See also Alexander Kazhdan and Alice-Mary Talbot, Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, 1998), 79–80. There was a monastery named Kaiouma located near the Cistern of Aspar on the northern slope of the fifth hill; Janin, Églises CP, 274. Timothy has not been identified in Byzantine sources; Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 64–65. The large size of the reliquary (54.1 x 43.3 x 6.7 cm)—the largest staurotheke in this study—indicates that Timothy was wealthy. The status of the relics that the reliquary contained suggests that he had imperial connections. 390 See section 3.3.1. 391 Jordan, Synaxarion 6.5, 62–63.

87

end of the lid, above the image of the enameled cross, directed those venerating and singing

monks to “this here”—the object upon which these words were inscribed, and to the relics that

were displayed within the reliquary.

4.4.3 Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37): Deixis

An epigram’s deictic terminology functioned to direct readers to relics. Deixis refers to

words and phrases—such as demonstratives and pronouns—whose meaning can only be

understood with additional contextual information.392 One deictic epigram is inscribed on the

early twelfth-century cross of Irene Doukaina, now in Venice (A37). The construction of this

single-arm cross is standard. The front displays relics of the True Cross, which are two pieces of

wood attached together at a right angle (fig. 85).393 The back and sides are covered in silver-gilt

revetment (fig. 86). The wood and the revetment are held together by the silver-gilt caps at the

ends of the cross. These caps are adorned with enamel floral and vine motifs and a niello

epigram. The cross is currently mounted upright and displayed in a sixteenth-century Venetian

case, but its original Byzantine setting, as suggested by Frolow and Karin Krause, was most

likely a panel- or triptych-type staurotheke.394 As we saw in Chapter 2, this was the typical

setting for removable crosses.395

The seventeen-verse epigram—the second longest for any Middle Byzantine reliquary—

is inscribed on the finial caps on the same side as the relic.396 Verses 1–5 are inscribed on the

392 For the role of deictics in sixteenth-century Aztec art, see Tom Cummins, “Here, There, and Now: Deictics and the Transposition of Orality to Image in Colonial Imagery,” Art in Translation 7 (2015): 65–94. 393 For the construction of crosses like this one, see Jannic Durand, “La relique impériale de la Vraie Croix d’après le Typicon de Sainte-Sophie et la relique de la Vraie Croix du trésor de Notre-Dame de Paris,” in Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17 (Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004), 91–105, esp. 96–98. 394 Frolow, La relique, 316, and in Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 37. Krause, “Feuerprobe,” 123 suggests that the panel-type staurotheke in which Irene’s cross was housed was that of Empress Maria (A36).

395 See section 2.2.2.2.

88

upper finial cap, verses 6–9 on the left, verses 10–13 on the right, and verses 14–17 on the lower

finial cap (figs. 87–90).

And so I offer this to you for the very last time, now approaching the gates of Hades, the divine offering, the wood of life, on which you committed (your) spirit to the one who begot you, 5 ceased from the sufferings, which you patiently endured, through which you atoned for the sufferings for which I was condemned, and you persuaded us to endure in sufferings. I give this final gift to you, I, dying and ceasing from sufferings, 10 the Empress Doukaina, servant Irene, formerly dressed in gold, but now dressed in rags, now in a garment of hair, formerly in fine linens, favoring the rags more than the purple preferring the veil over the purple garment 15 having a dark-colored garment, as it was your will. May you give, in return, repose among the blessed,

and endless joy among the saved ones.397

396 The reliquary with the longest epigram is B11 (24 verses). See also A10 (16 verses) and B10 (16 verses). A6 is inscribed with two epigrams totaling 17 verses. 397 Καὶ τοῦτο γοῦν σοι προσφέρω πανυστάτως

ἤδη προσεγγίσασα ταῖς Ἅιδου πύλαις, τὸ θεῖον ἀνάθηµα, τὸ ζωῆς ξύλον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πν(εῦµ)α τῷ τεκόντι παρέθου

5 καὶ τῶν πόνων ἔληξας, οὓς ἐκαρτέρεις· οἷς τοὺς πόνους ἔλυσας, οὓς κατεκρίθην, καὶ καρτ<ερ>εῖν ἔπεισας ἡµᾶς ἐν πόνοις· ταύτην δίδωµι σοὶ τελευταίαν δόσιν θνήσκουσα καὶ λήγουσα κἀγὼ τῶν πόνων,

10 ἡ βασιλὶς Δούκαινα, λάτρις Εἰρήνη, χρυσενδύτις πρίν, ἀλλὰ νῦν ῥακενδύτις, ἐν τρυχίνοις νῦν, ἡ τὸ πρὶν ἐν βυσσίνοις, τὰ ῥάκια στέργουσα πορφύρας πλέον πορφυρίδ<α> κρίνουσα τὴν ἐπωµίδα {(καί)}

15 µελεµβαφῆ ἔχουσα, ὡς δέδοκτό σοι· σὺ δ’ ἀντιδοίης λῆξιν ἐ<ν> µακαρίοις καὶ χαρµονὴν ἄληκτον ἐν σεσωσµένοις. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:269. Frolow in Hahnloser, Il Tesoro

di San Marco, 37 suggests that this epigram was written by Nicholas Kallikles, a doctor and poet active in the late 11th century through first half of 12th century (see section 4.4.1). Rhoby in BEIÜ, 2:271 is generally in favor of this attribution, but notes some technical differences between Kallikles’s known works and this epigram.

89

The patron named in verse 10 is the Empress Irene Doukaina, wife of the Emperor

Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118).398 As the voice of the epigram, she presents her gift of the

True Cross to Christ. The reference to the end of her life (vv. 2, 9, 16) and her change of dress,

from gold, linen, and purple to a dark-colored garment and veil (vv. 11–15), describes her

retirement after 1118 to the convent of the Mother of God Kecharitomene, which she founded in

the early twelfth century.399

The use of deictic words and their placement on this cross reliquary functioned to present

the relic to the reader, presumably Irene and members of the Kecharitomene convent. The

epigram begins with the phrase, “And so I offer this to you” (Καὶ τοῦτο γοῦν σοι προσφέρω).

The word “this” (τοῦτο) is the second word in the epigram, but its referent is not immediately

provided. The reader must to continue through verse 3 to learn what “this” is: “the divine

offering, the wood of life” (τὸ θεῖον ἀνάθηµα, τὸ ζωῆς ξύλον).

These words are, however, not verses on paper, but text inscribed on an object. When the

epigram was read on the reliquary, the meaning of “this” (τοῦτο) was immediately understood.

“This” is placed on the upper cap of the cross and inscribed on the first line (fig. 87). It is placed

on the same side as the relic itself, functioning to direct the viewer’s attention to this wood of the

True Cross. A second deictic word appears in verse 8, on the left finial cap, and halfway through

this lengthy epigram: “I give this (ταύτην) final gift to you” (fig. 88). Through this word, the

reader was reminded of, and again visually directed to, the relic of the True Cross.

398 Demetrios I. Polemis, The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography, University of London Historical Studies 22 (London: Athlone, 1968), no. 26, pp. 70–74. Her betrothal to Alexios in 1077 allied two prominent imperial families: the Doukai and the Komnenoi. This double imperial lineage is made explicit in vv. 4–5 of the epigram on the Emperor Manuel Komnenos’s reliquary of the True Cross (B11); and in vv. 11–16 of an epigram inscribed on a reliquary commissioned by Irene’s grandson, Alexios (A10). 399 Guillou, Recueil, 92–93. See also section 3.2.1. Her date of death is a matter of debate. Hörandner, Theodoros Prodromos, 188, note 23 says she died 19 February 1123. Basile Skoulatos, Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade. Analyse prosopographique et synthèse (Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1980), 122 dates her death to 1133. Paul Gautier, “L’obituaire du typikon du Pantokrator,” REB 27 (1969): 235–62, esp. 245–47 dates her death between February 1133 and February 1138. For a summary, see BEIÜ, 2:270–71. The convent was located in the northwest corner of Constantinople; BMFD, 649.

90

4.4.4 Bagà Cross Reliquary (A45): Relative Pronouns

Relative pronouns also functioned to direct readers to the object on which the words were

inscribed. An example of such an epigram is found on an eleventh-century cross, now in Bagà,

Spain (A45).400 This single-arm cross has, on the front, an empty receptacle that originally

contained a relic of the True Cross (fig. 106).401 The edges, sides, and back are covered in silver-

gilt revetment (fig. 107). The handle, or tang at the lower end, allowed the cross to be carried in

processions.402

The Bagà cross has three inscriptions. Inscription A consists of the abbreviations

displayed on the finials on the front (read top, bottom, left, right): “Cross of Jesus Christ, Son of

God” (fig. 106).403 Inscription B consists of abbreviations displayed on the finials on the back

(also read top, bottom, left, right): “Jesus Christ conquers” (fig. 107).404 Epigram C is also

displayed on the back of the cross. It is written in continuous script, from left to right, and from

top to bottom. It is best rendered in English by re-arranging the order of verses 4 and 5.

on which, having been stripped naked, you stripped sin bare, O eternal Savior, omnipotent Word of God, but mortals you clothe in incorruption; 5 for salvation, those dwelling in your monastery 4 clothe (the cross) with a silver-gilt reliquary.405

400 The cross was first published in Josep Gudiol i Cunill, “Les creus d’argenteria a Catalunya,” Anuari de l’Institut d’Estudis Catalans 6 (1919-1920): 265-422. Rhoby was not aware of its inclusion in César García de Castro Valdés, ed., Signum salutis cruces de orfebrería de los siglos V al XII (Oviedo: Consejería de Cultura y Turismo del Principado de Asturias, 2008), no. 53, pp. 283–88, which includes color images and details. For a justification of the date, see BEIÜ, 2:295. 401 Valdés, Signum salutis cruces, 283 states that it is now empty. 402 Cotsonis, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses, 56. 403 Στ(αυ)ρὸς Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ Ὑοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ed. BEIÜ, 2:295. 404 Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸ)ς νικᾷ, ed. BEIÜ, 2:295. 405 ἐν ᾧ γυµνωθεὶς ἀπογυµνοῖς κακίαν, ἄναρχε Σῶτερ, πανσθενὲς Θεοῦ Λόγε, βροτοὺς ἐπενδύεις δὲ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν· θήκῃ περιστέλλουσιν ἀργυροχρύσῳ

91

Epigram C begins with the words “on which” (ἐν ᾧ), but what is the antecedent of this

prepositional phrase?406 After reading the epigram, it is clear that it references the relic of the

True Cross—the wood “on which” Christ was “stripped naked” and the wood that the monks of

an unnamed monastery “clothe” with a “silver-gilt reliquary.”407

It is uncommon for a reliquary epigram to not explicitly mention the relic. 79% of

epigrams for staurothekai identify the True Cross with such words as ξύλον (wood) and σταυρός

(cross).408 This epigram contains no such identifier.409 The relic could have been named in verse

5, as the object of περιστέλλουσιν (they clothe), but here too it is left out.410

A contrasting example to the Bagá cross epigram is that for Michael’s staurotheke (B3),

discussed at the beginning of this chapter.411 It names the relic (“the life-giving and venerable

wood”) in the first verse, and the second verse begins ἐν ᾧ, as in “on which the Lord had

suffered in the flesh.” The epigram for the Bagá cross has no such prefatory verse to identify the

relic.

5 οἱ σὴν µονὴν ναίοντες εἰς σωτηρίαν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:295. For an English translation based

on Frolow’s edition, see John Hanson, “The Stuttgart Casket and the Permeability of the Byzantine Artistic Tradition,” Gesta 37 (1998): 13–25, at 20.

406 The relative ἐν ᾧ without an antecedent may also serve as a conjunction, and translate as “while”; cf. Herbert Weir Smyth, Greek Grammar, rev. Gordon M. Messing (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), no. 2511. This translation for the Bagá cross epigram would certainly make sense; however there are other epigrams for staurothekai where ἐν + dative is used in reference to Christ hanging “on” the cross or wood; see A6 (A and B), A10, A16, A37, A41, B3. 407 This epigram is an example of the actions of the patrons paralleled with those of Christ. For more information on patrons’ actions, see section 6.2.3. See also the observations made in Valdés, Signum salutis cruces, 287–88. 408 Of the 38 staurothekai in this study, 26 have the words ξύλον and/or σταυρός in their epigrams: A2, A3, A5, A6, A12, A16, A25, A26, A27, A31, A36, A37, A38, A41, A42, A47, A49, A51, A55, B3, B4, B5, B8, B11, B13, B14. Five other staurothekai have epigrams that identify relics of the True Cross with other terms: A10 (δένδρον and variants, tree), A17 (φῶς, light), A23 (τριαδικῇ σφενδόνῃ), Α45 (Χριστὸν, Christ), and B6 (πάθη τὰ σεπτὰ τοῦ παθῶ…, the sacred passion of the…). 409 The other 6 reliquaries whose epigrams do not identify relics of the True Cross are A1, A9, A11, A19, A40, A44. 410 Valdés, Signum salutis cruces, 288; and BEIÜ, 2:296. 411 See section 4.4.1.

92

Where then is the antecedent for the first verse of the Bagá cross epigram? It is found on

the front of the cross, Inscription A, where the words “Cross of Jesus Christ, Son of God” are

inscribed. Inscription A is not metrical, and is therefore not formally part of Epigram C’s

dodecasyllable composition; but as Rhoby notes, it is syntactically related to the epigram through

the words (“on which”).412

Inscription A, “Cross of Jesus Christ, Son of God,” could have been placed on the back in

order to more clearly associate these words with Epigram C. They were, instead, deliberately

placed on the front, on the same side as the relic of the True Cross. I argue that this placement

functioned to direct the reader of the epigram and the viewers of the reliquary to the front of the

cross, where the actual relic was displayed.

How was this epigram read and the relic viewed in the liturgy? The handle allowed the

Bagà cross to be mounted on a pole and processed. The cleric carried the cross in front of him,

looking at the epigram and displaying the relic of the True Cross to the congregation.413 As he

read the epigram aloud, the congregation would have seen the relic and Inscription A,

understanding them to be the referents of Epigram C.

4.4.5 Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30): Presenting the Relic

The small silver-gilt reliquary of St. Marina, which dates between the eleventh and early

thirteenth century, is an asymmetrical open container now in the Museo Correr in Venice (A30;

figs. 73–75).414 It is rounded and deeper at the upper end, narrow in the middle, and wider and

412 Carles Garriga in Valdés, Signum salutis cruces, 287 following Frolow, La relique, 363 (no. 407) thought that the two sets of abbreviations were dodecasyllable, but this error is corrected by BEIÜ, 2:295. 413 For the ways and contexts in which processional crosses were used, see Cotsonis, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses. For the reading of inscriptions on processional crosses, see Nelson, “Art of War,” 11–14. 414 Scholars agree that the hand reliquary of St. Marina was taken to Venice, along with the saint’s body, by a certain Giovanni di Bora in the wake of the Fourth Crusade from a monastery outside of Constantinople. BEIÜ, 2:253n602 suggests that the Constantinopolitan monastery may be that of Saint Marina in Chrysopolis (Üsküdar, Turkey); Janin, Grands centres, 25–26. The primary sources, which date this translation to 1230 and 1241, state that Giovanni di Bora gave Marina’s body to the Church of San Liberale in Venice, which was subsequently re-dedicated to Marina; Riant, Exuviae, 2:263, 264, 266, 296, and 298. Secondary scholarship most often dates the translation to 1213, which is the date first proposed by Flaminio Cornaro (Cornelio), Ecclesiae venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis illustratae ac in decades distributae, vol. 3 (Venice: Baptistae Pasquali, 1749), 252–253; and idem,

93

shallower at the lower end. The scalloped rim is outlined with two bands of twisted wire and ten

small rings that once mounted a string of pearls.415 The interior features a medallion portrait of

the saint in repoussé, the negative of which is visible on the back.416 The reliquary’s small size

(10 x 6 x 2.8 cm) and the inclusion of a suspension loop indicate, as I will argue, that it

functioned as an enkolpion.417

A twelve-verse epigram is inscribed on the sides and back in mostly minuscule letters

with diacritics (fig. 75).418 Verses 1–6 wrap the perimeter. They are inscribed in two lines of

Notizie storiche delle chiese e monasteri di Venezia, e di Torcello (Padua: Nella Stamperia del Seminario, Appresso Giovanni Manfrè, 1758), 45–46. For a discussion of these dates, see Léon Clugnet, Vie et office de Sainte Marine: textes latins, grecs, coptes, arabes, syriaques, éthiopien, haut-allemand, bas-allemand et français, Bibliothèque hagiographique orientale 8 (Paris: Librairie A. Picard, 1905), XVI-XVII, and 289. In 1818, the hand reliquary of St. Marina and its relic were moved to the Church of Santa Maria Formosa; Clugnet, Vie, XVIII, 289–90. The date when the relic was removed and the reliquary given to the Museo Correr has not been published. Guillou, Recueil, 82 claims that the hand reliquary was moved to the church of San Tomà in Venice in the nineteenth century, but I think this is a misunderstanding of Marvin C. Ross, and Glanville Downey, “A Reliquary of St. Marina,” BSl 23 (1962): 43, who cite a second reliquary of Saint Marina at the church of San Tomà, published by Gustave Schlumberger, “Deux reliquaires byzantins inédits conservés à Venise,” in Mélanges d’Archéologie Byzantine (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895), 343–45. The date of the hand reliquary of St. Marina is not known, but its epigraphic and iconographic features suggest that it was produced sometime between the eleventh and early thirteenth centuries. Ross and Downey, “Reliquary,” 44 date the portrait of Marina to the eleventh century, and the letterforms of the dedicatory epigram to the thirteenth. The latter date is based on their assumption that the epigram was added by Giovanni di Bora. Guillou, Recueil, 84 dates letterforms to the tenth or early eleventh century, but BEIÜ, 2:253 says that tenth century is too early. The reliquary has also been dated to the twelfth century; see Italo Furlan, ed., Venezia e Bisanzio: Venezia, Palazzo Ducale, 8 giugno - 30 settembre 1974 (Milan: Electa, 1974), no. 52; Lafontaine-Dosogne, Splendeur de Byzance, O.22, p. 155; D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 432; and Maria Kazakou and Vasileios Skoulas, eds., Egeria: Monuments of Faith in the Medieval Mediterranean (Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2008), no. 76, pp. 286–87. 415 On threaded pearls, see Paul Hetherington, “The byzantine enamels on the staurothèque from the treasury of the prieuré d’Oignies, now in Namur, with an excursus on the association of pearls with Byzantine enamels,” CahArch 48 (2000): 59–69. 416 She is labeled ἡ ἁγία Μαρίνα. 417 Hetherington, “byzantine enamels,” 65 argues that because threaded pearls are fragile they are not typically found on objects that could be subjected to abrasions through frequent handling, such as enkolpia, but threaded pearls are found on enkolpia. Similar rings as those on the Marina reliquary are found on Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos et al, Enkolpia, 50–51, no. 12, and pearls are extant on pp. 132–33, no. 46. We should not assume, however, that a precious reliquary such as that of St. Marina, was worn all the time. On the contrary, Hetherington’s argument would support the claim that such objects were worn only on special occasions. 418 BEIÜ, 2:252 says a few majuscule letters can be recognized. For spelling, see D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 436–38.

94

three verses each, beginning to the right of the suspension loop. A dot separates each verse, and

crosses mark the beginnings of verses 1 and 4.419 The back is inscribed with verses 7–12 in

seventeen lines and, here too, a dot separates each verse (fig. 74).

You ask, viewer, whose hand is it? This is of the holy martyr Marina; its power smashed the heads of the dragon. (My) affection urged me towards a search for it. 5 Thus searching (for the hand) I obtained it by (my) love; so I hastened toward adornment for the Adorned. This (adornment) for the Great One is small, but nonetheless my love together with intention is infinite. Therefore, unfading flower of the martyrs, 10 Save me from the storm of the intelligible spirits! May you grant (me) both victory and power over them, dispensing a gift proportionate to (my) affection.420

In 1962, Marvin Ross and Glanville Downey brought the reliquary of St. Marina to the

attention of the academic community.421 It has since been included in museum exhibition

catalogues and its epigram featured in numerous publications.422 There are two questions about

419 The ends of verses 3 and 6 are not marked with dots. Instead, the suspension loop marks the end of verse 3 and the cross that marks verse 4 also serves as the end of verse 6. While the crosses are undetectable in the published photographs, they are documented by Guillou, Recueil, 83; and D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 435. 420 Ζητεῖς, θεατά, τίνος ἡ χεὶρ τυγχάνει;

µάρτυρος ἥδε Μαρίνης τῆς ἁγίας ἧς τὸ κράτος ἔθλασε δράκοντο<ς> κάρας· αὐτήν µε πρὸς ζήτησιν ὤτρυνε σχέσις·

5 ζητοῦσα γοῦν ἔτυχον αὐτῆς ἐκ πόθου· πρὸς κόσµ(ον) οὖν ἔσπευσα τὸν τῆς κοσµίας· µικρὸς µὲν οὗτος τῇ µεγάλῃ τυγχάνει, ὅµως δ’ ἄπειρος σὺν προαιρέσει πόθος· τοίνυν, ἀµαράντινον ἄνθος µαρτύρων,

10 ζάλης ῥύου µε τῶν νοητῶν πνευµάτων· νίκην κατ’ αὐτῶν (καὶ) κράτος τε παρέχοις ἀνάλογον νέµουσα τῇ σχέσει δόσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:253.

421 Ross and Downey, “Reliquary.” 422 Exhibition catalogues: Byzantine Art: A European Art. Exhibition in the Zappeion Exhibition Hall, Athens, April 1st - June 15th, 1964 (Athens: Office of the Minister to the Prime Minister of the Greek Government, 1964), no. 519; Furlan, Venezia e Bisanzio, no. 52; Lafontaine-Dosogne, Splendeur de Byzance, O.22; Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, no. 332; Kazakou and Skoulas, Egeria, no.

95

this reliquary that have not been adequately addressed by scholars: what relic did it contain, and

what explains its unusual shape? I will answer these questions in order, showing the ways in

which the reliquary’s form and epigram functioned to make the relic accessible to the viewer.

What relic was contained within this reliquary? The epigram makes clear that the

reliquary was for the hand of St. Marina— a third-century martyr from Antioch of Pisidia (vv. 1–

2).423 The episode of her life for which she is most known in the Byzantine tradition is the killing

of a dragon by smashing its head with a hammer.424 This is the story referenced in verse 3 of the

epigram.425 It is the reason why the unnamed patron—a woman as indicated by the female

participial form of ζητοῦσα (searching, v. 5)—desired the saint’s hand for protection against evil

spirits (v. 10). 426

The epigram does not specify whether the reliquary contained the left or the right hand, in

whole or in part. Scholars have made various unsupported guesses about these details,

76; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 50. Publications in which epigram is discussed: André Guillou, “Inscriptions byzantines importees en Italie,” in Epigrafia medievale greca e latina. Ideologia e funzione, Atti del Seminario di Erice (12–18 settembre 1991), eds. Guglielmo Cavallo, and Cyril Mango (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto medioevo, 1995), 119–52, at 136–37; Guillou, Recueil, no. 79; Wolfram Hörandner, “Review of Guillou, Recueil,” JÖB 48 (1998): 307–16, at 311; Ševčenko, “Observations,” 252; D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 432–39; BEIÜ, 2:Me81; Rhoby, “Interaction,” 103; idem, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” 72; and idem, “Interactive Inscriptions,” 320–21. 423 Saint Marina is known as Margaret in the Latin tradition (feast day July 17). Scholars often confuse this Marina with another saint by the same name, who is known for disguising herself as a boy in order to enter a monastery (feast day February 8 or 12); cf. the two entries in ODB, s.v. “Marina” (Alexander Kazhdan and Nancy P. Ševčenko). 424 Ed. Hermann Usener, Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori (Bonn: Universitäts-Buchdruckerei von Carl Georgi, 1886), 29.13–30.19 (BHG 1165); and Menologii, 2:182.24–29. For this iconography, see Jacqueline Lafontaine-Dosogne, “Un thème iconographique peu connu: Marina assommant Belzébuth,” Byzantion 32 (1962): 251–59. Ševčenko, “Observations,” 251 argues that the use of the plural κάρας (heads) rather than the singular form κάραν was an error made by the engraver because the life of the saint refers to a single-headed dragon. D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 437–38 does not dismiss the possibility that the plural usage was intentional as there is a literary tradition of describing Satan as a multi-headed dragon. 425 The relative pronoun in ἧς τὸ κράτος (its power, v. 3) could also refer to Marina (her power), but the focus throughout verses 1–6 is on the saint’s hand. For a discussion of this epigram’s pronouns, see BEIÜ, 2:255–56. 426 On the identification of the female patron, see Guillou, “Inscriptions byzantines,” 137; Guillou, Recueil, 84; Ševčenko, “Observations,” 252; and Rhoby, “Interaction,” 103. Guillou, “Inscriptions byzantines,” 138; and Guillou, Recueil, 84 also suggest that the patron’s name may have been Marina. This is supported by D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 438; and BEIÜ, 2:254–55.

96

overlooking a seventeenth-century source.427 In 1676, Teodoro D’Amadeni recorded the first

description and made the first drawings of the reliquary when it contained a relic.428 D’Amadeni

indicates that the reliquary contained the left hand of the saint, and that the thumb was kept in a

separate reliquary.429 He states that the flesh and skin caused the four fingers to bend at the

second joint.430 His watercolor drawing shows the left hand facing outward (figs. 76–77). The

wrist is at the upper end of the container and the four fingers are bent at the joint at the lower end

of the container. The lower joint that was part of the thumb, at the upper right side, is folded over

the palm.431 While we cannot be certain that the relic which D’Amadeni saw was original, I

argue that the reliquary was designed for the saint’s left hand—or a fragment thereof—and that

the relic was visible.

My argument is dependent upon the answer to the second question: what explains the

need for this unusual form? Cynthia Hahn suggests that the reliquary’s asymmetrical profile

allowed for it to fit between one’s hands clasped together in prayer.432 This is unlikely as there is

no evidence that the Byzantines held their hands together in this manner.433 Scholars have also

cited the form of the Marina reliquary as evidence that the Byzantines, like their western

medieval contemporaries, made reliquaries in the shape of body parts before the thirteenth

427 Jaroslav Folda in Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, 496 suggested that it contained the right hand and this was repeated in BEIÜ, 2:252. 428 Teodoro d’Amadeni (Theodorus Damadenus), Biologia S. Marinae monachum indutae virginis (Venice, 1676). D’Amadeni’s manuscript is unpublished and located in the Archivio di S. Maria Formosa, Venice. A portion of his text and a description of this manuscript are found in Clugnet, Vie, XVIII-XX, 287–88. To my knowledge, D’Amadeni’s watercolor drawings have never been published, but they can be found in Cristina Crippa, “Il culto e la chiesa di Santa Marina a Venezia” (MA Thesis, Universita Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, 2007/2008), 117, figs. 3–4 (figs. 76–77). I thank Andrea-Bianka Znorovszky for this reference and sharing her own expertise on D’Amadeni’s manuscript. 429 D’Amadeni, Biologia S. Marinae, 65–68, quoted in Clugnet, Vie, XIX–XX. See also Cornaro, Ecclesiae venetae, 3:253–54. 430 I thank Sean Tandy for his assistance with translating and interpreting D’Amadeni’s Latin text. 431 I thank Lynn Jones for lending her hand, the measurements of which coincide with the dimensions of the reliquary. 432 Hahn, Strange Beauty, 224. 433 In Byzantine art, the faithful are shown with their hands cupped together (cf. fig. 40).

97

century.434 As I discussed in Chapter 2, there is no evidence that anthropomorphically shaped

reliquaries were produced in Byzantium.435 In addition, the reliquary of St. Marina looks nothing

like the hand-shaped reliquaries that were made in the west (fig. 132).436 If Byzantine craftsmen

wanted to sculpt a hand, they would have done so.

I suggest, rather, that the reliquary’s unusual form functioned to display the hand relic to

the viewer. The asymmetrical shape was chosen and designed to wrap the specific dimensions

and contours of the relic in order to hold it in place.437 While western medieval hand and arm

reliquaries sealed relics within anthropomorphically shaped containers, the Marina reliquary

gave the Byzantine viewer direct visual access to the relic of the saint’s hand, rather than a

sculpted image of it.

Internal evidence provides further support that the relic was visible. The direct address of

the epigram’s first two verses indicates that the addressee, the viewer (θεατά), could see the hand

inside the reliquary.438 The string of pearls, now lost, originally framed and highlighted the relic.

The finished scalloped rim is evidence that the reliquary was originally left uncovered and not

fitted with a lid.439 The head reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite (A24) shows that such scalloped

rims were used for presenting an uncovered body part relic; both the Marina and Symeon

434 Ross and Downey, “Reliquary,” 43; and Jannic Durand, “Innovations gothiques dans l’orfèvrerie byzantine sous les Paléologues,” DOP 58 (2004): 333–54, at 337–38. 435 See section 2.6. 436 As a comparison, see the reliquary now at Cleveland; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 40. 437 There have been some scholars who have suggested that the hand was in a blessing gesture to recall the saint making the sign of the cross with her hand to kill the dragon; Ross and Downey, “Reliquary,” 43–44; Cynthia Hahn, “The Voices of the Saints: Speaking Reliquaries,” Gesta 36 (1997): 20–31, at 26; Folda in Evans and Wixom, The Glory of Byzantium, no. 332; Klein in Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 50. Ševčenko, “Observations,” 252 notes that there is no account in the saint’s vitae of her making the sign of the cross to kill the dragon; she kills it with a hammer. For another Byzantine reliquary in which the unusual form must have been determined by the shape of its contents, see the reliquary of St. Sergios at Dumbarton Oaks (BZ.1953.19); Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 28. 438 D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 437; Rhoby, “Interaction,” 103; idem, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” 72; and idem, “Interactive Inscriptions,” 320–21. 439 Ross and Downey, “Reliquary,” 44 suggest that it had a crystal lid, but there is no evidence to support this. The description and watercolor drawings in D’Amadeni, Biologia S. Marinae indicate that the reliquary did not have a lid in the seventeenth century (fig. 76).

98

reliquaries also have twisted wire that lines the openings (fig. 62). Alternatively, we could

conceptualize the reliquary of St. Marina as an attachment rather than a container. In this way,

the silver-gilt metal was crimped to the hand and conformed to its shape in a similar way that the

attachment for the reliquary of St. Luke the Younger does so for the saint’s finger (fig. 127).

Viewing the Marina reliquary as an attachment also makes sense in terms of its constituent parts.

It has a suspension loop, which is found on many such body-part attachments.440 The scalloped

rim resembles the scalloped metalwork of the hand reliquary of St. Barbara that lines its opening

(A52) and that of the finger reliquary of St. Thomas (figs. 124, 128).

The orientation of the portrait medallion of St. Marina toward the interior where the relic

was located, rather than to the exterior, also suggests an internally directed focus on the contents

of the object.441 This depiction of Marina deviates from standard representations of female

martyrs (fig. 73). Her right hand, holding a cross, is left of center, and not in front of her chest,

which would be the conventional position for this hand. Her left hand is at the center of her body,

and she appears to extend it out toward the viewer. Compare these hand positions to those in the

image of St. Euphemia in the narthex of Hosios Loukas (fig. 135). Euphemia’s cross-bearing

right hand is at the center of her chest, and her left hand is right-of-center. Marina’s repoussé

portrait thus privileges the left hand—the same hand that D’Amadeni claims the reliquary

contained. I argue that this iconographic detail provides additional evidence that the reliquary

was made for Marina’s left hand.

The epigram’s structure, content, and placement also facilitated the viewing of the relic.

The epigram has two equal halves (vv. 1–6 and 7–12), and they are eloquently marked for the

reader. The word τυγχάνει (is) closes verses 1 and 7. In verse 1, τυγχάνει is used in reference to

the relic: “whose hand is it?” Verse 7 complements this question by changing the focus to the

reliquary, which “is small.”442 The differentiation between these two halves of the epigram is

440 See section 2.4.3. 441 Cf. Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, 91. D’Amadeni’s drawing indicates that in his time, the interior image was visible only when the relic was removed. This raises questions of whether D’Amadeni’s relic was original and/or was it the practice in Byzantium to remove the hand from the reliquary so that the image could be seen.

99

also signaled by the µέν-δέ construction in verses 7 and 8, indicating a new thought begins,

breaking from what came before. 443

The content and placement of each half of the epigram also indicates the way in which

the object was worn and viewed. The first half is ekphrastic. The anonymous female speaker, and

patron, addresses the viewer, describing the relic and the gold reliquary that adorned it. Evidence

that the reliquary required a wearer and a viewer is provided by the gender of specific words. As

noted above, the female participial form of ζητοῦσα (searching, v. 5) indicates that the

patron/owner/wearer of the reliquary was a woman. The masculine form of θεατά (viewer, v. 1)

indicates that the viewer was a different person than the female patron.444 She states that through

her love, she was motivated to find the hand and provide it with decoration.445 Placed on the

sides, these first six verses are visually part of the gold and pearl setting—the “adornment for the

adorned” (v. 6)—that framed the relic for the viewer (fig. 75).446 When the reliquary was worn as

an enkolpion, verses 1–6 were oriented toward the female wearer, and the relic was oriented

toward the male viewer. The wearer could read the text aloud, allowing the viewer to

simultaneously listen to the question addressed to him in verse 1 while also looking at the relic.

The second half of the epigram differs in content, audience, and placement. The speaker,

addressing Marina, modestly states that her gift of gold is small in comparison to her infinite

love (πόθος, v. 8) for Marina. The speaker asks the saint to acknowledge the gift, recognize the

immensity of her love, and to save her from evil spirits.447 Placed on the back of the reliquary,

this portion of the inscribed text physically surrounds the reverse image of the martyr (fig. 74).

442 D’Aiuto, “Dodecasillabi,” 438; and BEIÜ, 2:256 argue that the demonstrative οὗτος (v. 7) refers to the κόσµον (v. 6) and not πόθος (v. 8), as argued by Ševčenko, “Observations,” 252. The words µικρὸς and µεγάλῃ (v. 7) may be a reference to ed. Usener, Acta S. Marinae, 29.18–20. 443 For the use of µέν-δέ, see Brad Hostetler, “The Limburg Staurotheke: A Reassessment,” Athanor 30 (2012): 7–13, at 8–9. 444 The masculine form is also the default form when a speaker addresses any potential audience; Smyth, Greek Grammar, no. 1015. The gender, however, is different from ζητοῦσα, indicating that the viewer is not the wearer. My thanks to Leslie Brubaker for bringing this to my attention. 445 BEIÜ, 2:253 notes that ἔσπευσα (v. 6) references Menologii, 2:182.33. 446 Guillou, Recueil, 84; and idem, “Inscriptions byzantines,” 137, observes wordplay on κόσµον and κοσµίας (v. 6). 447 The patron’s request for protection against the evil spirits is found in other epigrams; BEIÜ, 2:253.

100

The choice of repoussé thus allowed the patron to make use of Marina’s image on both the inside

and back of the reliquary. When the reliquary was worn, the inscribed prayer and the martyr’s

image were pressed to the patron’s heart, which was, according to the epigram, filled with love

for the saint.448 This portion of the epigram, a private petition addressed to Marina, was hidden

from view, while the relic was displayed for the viewer on the front.449

4.4.6 Venice Holy Blood Reliquary (A32): Word Placement

The placement of specific words on a reliquary could also direct the viewer to the relic.

One example is found on the tenth- or eleventh-century reliquary of the Holy Blood, now in

Venice (A32).450 This reliquary has two parts: a copper-gilt cylindrical vessel that housed a pyxis

made of rock crystal, gold, and enamel (figs. 79–80). These two parts are currently separated in

the Treasury of San Marco (Inv. Nr. 62 and Santuario 68), but early descriptions of these objects

indicate that they comprised a single reliquary.451

448 The word σχέσει (v. 4, affection) also translates as “possession,” which in this context, could refer to her reliquary; LSJ, and LPGL, s.v. “σχέσις.” 449 Rhoby, “Interactive Inscriptions,” 321 argues that the direct address is not an indication of function since the wearer knew what the reliquary contained. He states, “the inscription functions as adornment and sign of high social status.” While this is true, I argue that because the text is oriented toward the wearer and the relic toward the viewer, the inscription had a dialectic function that could be performed through the wearer’s reading of the text and viewer’s seeing of the relic. 450 This reliquary may be one of those sent from Constantinople in 1204 by Enrico Dandolo; Riant, Exuviae, 2:262. 451 Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 48 states that the rock-crystal pyxis was kept inside the copper-gilt vessel in 1617. Other scholars have described them as a single object; Meletios the Metropolitan, Μελετίου Γεωγραφία παλαιά και νέα, vol. 2 (Venice: Τύποις Πάνω Θεοδοσίου του εξ Ιωαννίνων, 1807), 136; CIG, 4: no. 8815; Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 3:60, 93 (no. 369–70); Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 37, 180; Guillou, Recueil, no. 78, pp. 81–81; and Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 345. It is not known whether the copper-gilt vessel and the rock-crystal pyxis were originally conceived as one reliquary or brought together at a later date. Comparanda for the latter is the cross and box of the Limburg Staurotheke (A6). The different letterforms for the inscriptions on the copper-gilt vessel and the rock crystal pyxis suggest a different date, and spelling variants of each suggest two craftsmen; BEIÜ, 2:273. The rock-crystal pyxis is currently mounted in a fifteenth-century Venetian ostensorium (Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, pl. CLXX). Julien Durand, “L’Art Byzantin Saint-Marc de Venise,” Annales archéologiques 20 (1860): 307–15, at 309 says that the rock-crystal pyxis hung inside a different object at San Marco (Inv. Nr. 142); see Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, no. 109, pp. 86–88, pl. LXXVIII–LXXX.

101

The copper-gilt cylindrical vessel consists of two tiers (fig. 80). The lower tier has a

hinged flat lid, and a lock and arm affixed to one side.452 The upper tier has a hinged domed lid

oriented in the same direction as the lid on the lower tier.453 This vessel is inscribed with a two-

verse epigram (Epigram A). The first verse is inscribed on the rim of the lower lid. It begins to

the right of the hinge and wraps the circumference, ending to the left of the hinge. The second

verse is placed at the base of the vessel. It begins directly below and to the right of the hinge, and

wraps the circumference. The epigram describes the reliquary and its contents.

Lovely vessel of life-giving blood, that flowed from the side of the inviolate Logos.454

The second part of the Holy Blood reliquary is a pyxis that fit inside the copper-gilt

vessel (fig. 79). It has a rock crystal base with a lid of enamel and gold.455 The top of the lid has

a cruciform recessed cavity in which a carved green jasper crucifix is set. Above the cross,

executed in white letters on blue enamel, are the words “Jesus Christ,” and below “the king of

glory.”456 The rim of the lid is inscribed with a one-verse epigram (Epigram B) in red letters on

white ground.457 A cross marks the beginning and an ornamental character marks the end.458

Christ addresses the owner of the reliquary and identifies the contents:

452 Dimensions of the lower tier: 4.6 cm high, 4.5 cm diameter. 453 Dimensions of the upper tier: 3 cm high, and 2.5 cm diameter. The upper tier is sealed off from the lower. It has been suggested that it held oil, which could be sanctified by its proximity to the blood in the lower tier. Antonio Pasini, Il tesoro di San Marco in Venezia (Venice: Ferdinando Ongania, 1886), 84; Anatole Frolow, “Notes sur les reliques et les reliquaires byzantins de Saint-Marc de Venise,” ΔΧΑΕ 4 (1964–65): 205–26, at 221; and Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 37. 454 Τερπνὸν δοχεῖον αἵµατος ζωηφόρου

πλευρᾶς ῥυέντος ἐξ ἀκηράτου Λόγου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:258. 455 Ed. and trans. Noble, Robert de Clari, 101 describes seeing, in the Pharos chapel, a relic of the Holy Blood housed in a rock crystal container. 456 Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστό)ς, ὁ βασιλεύς τῆς δόξης. 457 I have not seen a color image of the rock crystal pyxis, but the red letters are described in Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 180.

102

You have me, Christ, if you carry the blood of my flesh.459

The visual presentation of Epigram A on the copper-gilt vessel is noteworthy for two

reasons. One, no cross marks the beginning of the epigram.460 Two, the epigram starts at the back

of the vessel, at the hinge, rather than at the front next to the lock and arm. For epigrams that are

inscribed on the sides of reliquaries, and wrap their circumferences or perimeters, those epigrams

typically begin on the front, or, for reliquary enkolpia, at the top next to the suspension loop.461

The orientation of Epigram A deviates from the standard reading sequence that a

Byzantine viewer would expect. Its orientation was also counter-intuitive for the modern

scholars who first edited the epigram. They assumed—as there was no cross to identify the

beginning—that the epigram begins on the front, at the locking arm, and reads to the right.462

Wolfram Hörandner was the first scholar to correct this assumption.463 He demonstrates that the

epigram actually begins on the back of the reliquary; read in this way, the epigram has correct

458 Published photographs do not show the placement of the incipit cross of the epigram vis-à-vis the jasper crucifix on the lid. My best guess is that the incipit cross aligns with the vertical axis of the jasper crucifix, but I do not know whether it aligns with the upper or lower end of the crucifix. 459 Ἔχεις µε Χριστὸν αἷµα σαρκός µου φέρων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:273. 460 See section 1.2.1. 461 An example of standard epigram orientation is found on the Trebizond Casket, now in Venice (A33;

fig. 82). It is a rectangular box with a lock on the front and two hinges on the back. The twelve-verse epigram is inscribed in two parallel lines on the perimeter. The beginning of the epigram is on the front. It is marked by a cross that is placed to the right of the lock. While beginning an epigram on the back of an object is unusual, it is not unprecedented. See, for example, the tenth-century cylindrical silver-gilt inkpot in Padua (BEIÜ, 2:Me71–72). It is inscribed with two verses. The first begins to the right of the hinge. The second verse is on the bottom, and its incipit cross aligns with the hinge. See also the tenth- or eleventh-century ivory casket at Stuttgart (BEIÜ, 2:El19). It is inscribed with a three-verse epigram on the lip of the lid that begins on the back between the two hinges. Epigrams on reliquary enkolpia, by comparison, typically begin to the right of the suspension loop, taking the perspective of the wearer: A2, A22, A29, and A48. 462 Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 48; Bernard de Montfaucon, Diarium Italicum. Sive Monumentorum Veterum, Bibliothecarum, Musæorum, &c. Notitiæ singulares in Itinerario Italico collectæ. Additis schematibus ac figuris (Paris: Apud Joannem Anisson Typographiae Regiae Praefectum, 1702), 55; Meletios, Γεωγραφία, 136; CIG, 4: no. 8815b; Pasini, Il tesoro di San Marco, 84; Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 60 (no. 370). 463 Hörandner, “Poetic Forms,” 151; and idem, “Review,” 310. Frolow, “Notes sur les reliques,” 220 first identified the correct beginning of verse 1.

103

prosody. Hörandner also states that the word order of verse 2 is “bizarr.”464 The preposition ἐξ

(from) follows its phrase πλευρᾶς ῥυέντος, rather than preceding it.

What explains these peculiarities of Epigram A: beginning on the back rather than the

front, and the unusual word order for verse 2?465 In order to read the epigram, the reader needs to

turn the reliquary in his/her hands. I argue that Epigram A begins on the back in order that key

words could be placed on the front for the reader (fig. 81). For verse 1, the word αἵµατος (blood)

is placed above the lock—the point of entry to the actual blood contained within the reliquary.

The locking arm interrupts the word αἵµατος, visually emphasizing it for the reader as he/she

turned the reliquary in his/her hands to read the epigram. The letter “A” is placed to the left of

the arm and the letters “ΙΜΑΤΟΣ” are placed to the right. Rather than keeping all letters together

on one side of the arm, the craftsmen split them up, thereby drawing attention to this word for the

person reading the epigram and handling this object.

For verse 2 of Epigram A, the word ἐξ is placed directly below the lock. This word refers

to the blood that “that flowed from the side of the inviolate Logos.” Through its placement below

the lock and below the word αἵµατος, the word ἐξ instructs to the reader about the vessel’s

function. It identifies the place where the copper-gilt vessel could be unlocked, opened, and from

where the rock-crystal pyxis containing the blood could be removed. When the copper-gilt

reliquary was opened, the reader encountered Epigram B (fig. 79). The placement of this

epigram on the circumference of the rock-crystal pyxis forced the reader to turn the reliquary

again. The epigram spoke to him/her: “You have me, Christ, if you carry the blood of my flesh,”

referring to the person holding the reliquary in his/her hands.466 The red enamel letters of this

epigram—which contrasted with the white and blue enamel and green jasper on the lid—

matched the color of the blood that the pyxis contained.467

464 Hörandner, “Review,” 310. 465 Adapting an epigram to fit the form of an object suggests that this epigram may not have been written specifically for this object. I will be investigating this issue in future research. 466 The participle φέρων (carrying) is masculine, but is not clear if this is indicative of the gender of the person “carrying” the reliquary. The masculine form is also the default form when a speaker addresses any potential audience; Smyth, Greek Grammar, no. 1015. 467 In a future study, I will examine the relationship of the object’s form to architecture, and the way in which the interactive nature of these epigrams function to interpret the object as the Holy Sepulchre in

104

4.4.7 Describing Concealment?

Epigrams for three reliquaries in this study suggest that their respective relics were not

accessible. One is the reliquary of John Chrysostom (A29), discussed in Chapter 2 (figs. 70–

72).468 The two-verse epigram inscribed on the perimeter reads:

In gilded silver is concealed

a prosperous golden relic of Chrysostom.469 A two-verse epigram is also inscribed on the back.

In comparison with the golden mouth of Chrysostom to me, both my intellect is inoperable and my speech is not worthy.470

The second is the Cross reliquary at Bari (A25). It displays on the front the wood of the True

cross, and on the back a silver revetment inscribed with a two-verse epigram (figs. 63–64).471

God! Μay you save me, who, at the same time, grasped the divine wood, and faithfully conceals (it) with matter of silver and pearls.472

The third is a marble stele, now in Tekirdağ, that housed the head of St. Glykeria (A50). It has a

niche in which the head was housed, and below it, is inscribed an eight-verse epigram (fig. 121).

This lovely stone conceals, like a coffin, the divine head of the wonder-working martyr Glykeria, which gushes forth a shower of wonders, from which much strength springs forth to the suffering.

miniature. Formal comparisons to the Holy Sepulchre have been made by Frolow, “Notes sur les reliques,” 220; and Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 37. 468 See section 2.4.3. 469 Ἐν ἀργύρῳ κρύπτεται τῷ διαχρύσῳ

ὄλβιον χρυσοῦν λείψανον Χρυσοστόµου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247. 470 Πρὸς τὸ χρυσοῦν µοι στόµα τοῦ Χρυσοστόµου

καὶ νοῦς ἀπρακτεῖ καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἄξιος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247. 471 This epigram is the only one for a Middle Byzantine reliquary that is not written in twelve syllables, but rather fifteen syllables, or political verse; cf. BEIÜ, 2:222 472 Θεοῦ µε σώζο[ις] ἅµα καὶ θεῖον ξύλο[ν] ἡµ[µέν]ον

ἐξ ὕλης κρύπτοντα πιστῶς ἀργύρου καὶ µαργά[ρων]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:221.

105

5 Believers draw near, anyone with a pure heart, and swiftly may you find a redemption of the desired one. For as a well bubbling forth streams of life, so her grace lies exposed to all.473

The word κρύπτω (conceal), which appears in the epigrams of all three reliquaries, could

be interpreted to mean that the relics were inaccessible. I argue, rather, that κρύπτω refers to

enshrinement. The forms and functions of these reliquaries support this. For the reliquary of John

Chrysostom, the hinged lid allowed the reliquary to be opened and the relic of the saint to be

accessed and venerated. For the Bari cross, the wood of the True Cross is visible on the front,

and the revetment and epigram cover the back.474 For the reliquary stele of St. Glykeria, the

niche provided the faithful access to the relic. The epigram commands them, in the imperative, to

“draw near” (προσέρχου, v. 5) and that the saint’s grace “lies exposed” (πρόκειται, v. 8). The

epigrams explicitly state that the relics are concealed “in gilded silver,” in “matter of silver and

pearls,” and in “stone” respectively. The epigrams thus draw attention to the objects that adorned

the sacred relics. The description of “concealing” the relics in reliquaries speaks to the act of

enshrining the relics, rather than to the (in)accessibility of them.

4.5 Conclusion

Making relics visually and haptically accessible is a fundamental design principle of

Middle Byzantine reliquaries. Lids and doors allowed the faithful to gain access to the relics so

that they could be seen, kissed, and touched. Epigrams provide evidence for this accessibility.

The epigram for the reliquary of the True Cross that was commissioned by a certain Michael

explicitly states that it was customary for the relic to be “exposed to all for veneration.” The

473 Ὁ τερπνὸς οὗτο(ς) ὡς σορὸ(ς) κρύπτει λίθ(ο)ς

τῆς θαυµατουργοῦ µάρτυρο(ς) Γλυκερίας θείαν κάραν βρύουσαν ὄµβρο(ν) θαυµάτων ἐξ ὧν ῥῶσις κάµνουσιν πολλὴ πηγάζει·

5 πιστῶς προσέρχου πᾶς τις ἁγνῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ θᾶττον εὕροις τοῦ ποθουµένου λύσιν· ὡς γὰρ κρήνη τις βλύζουσα ζωῆς ῥεῖθρα οὕτως πρόκειται πᾶσιν αὐτῆς ἡ χάρις. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:596.

474 The Byzantine cross is presently housed in a fourteenth-century Neapolitan cross; Eugenio Scandale, ed, Lo scrigno del tesoro di San Nicola di Bari (Bari: M. Adda, 2009), 91.

106

epigram on the Mont-Saint-Quentin reliquary describes acts of veneration that correspond to the

way in which the liturgical typikon for the Euergetis Monastery prescribes the veneration of the

relic of the True Cross on September 14. The deicticity of the epigram inscribed on the of Cross

reliquary of Irene Doukaina directs the viewer to this wood displayed on the front of the cross

with the epigram. On the Bagà Cross reliquary, the presentation of the relic is coordinated with

the grammatical structure and placement of the metrical and non-metrical inscriptions. For the

reliquary of St. Marina, the display of the relic and the content and placement of the epigram

present a sophisticated dialogue between the epigram’s reader and the relic’s beholder. The

address and placement of the epigram on the Holy Blood reliquary reveal the interactive nature

of this object and the ways in which word placement can direct the reader/beholder to the sacred

contents. Each of these examples demonstrates ways in which Middle Byzantine reliquaries and

their epigrams facilitated visual and haptic access to relics. I argued that even when epigrams

claim that reliquaries “conceal” relics, the containers themselves do not hinder the faithful from

opening them and seeing, touching, and kissing the sacred contents.

107

CHAPTER 5

RELIQUARY INTERPRETATION

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I examine the ekphrastic function of epigrams, and the ways in which

they interpret and present reliquaries for, and to, their viewers. An ekphrasis was one of the

preliminary exercises (Progymnasmata) of ancient rhetorical training.475 According to

Aphthonios, the second-century rhetor and author of one of the widely used Progymnasmata, an

ekphrasis is “a descriptive speech, bringing the subject vividly before one’s eyes.”476 All

epigrams have some ekphrastic elements. According to Lauxtermann, ekphrastic epigrams “serve

as some sort of (theological, explanatory, descriptive, encomiastic) comment on the object.”477

An ekphrasis is not, however, a straightforward and complete description as a modern reader

would expect. Liz James and Ruth Webb demonstrate that an ekphrasis on a work of art was a

complement to, rather than a substitute for, the painting, mosaic, or sculpture that it described.478

It was a rhetorical performance that interpreted and enlivened the work of art through metaphors

and discursive dramatization.479 This is not to say that Byzantine ekphraseis had no basis in the

material and visual reality. Henry Maguire convincingly argues that Byzantine ekphraseis

provide important details concerning the evolution of forms, styles, and iconography throughout

the Middle and Late Byzantine periods.480

475 For Progymnasmata, see Herbert Hunger, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, 2 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1978), 1:92–120; and George A. Kennedy, Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003). 476 Ed. Hugo Rabe, Aphthonii Progymnasmata, Rhetores Graeci 10 (Leipzig: Teubner, 1926), 36.22–23, trans. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 117. 477 Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 14. See also idem, “Byzantine Poetry,” 151–53; and Braounou-Pietsch, Beseelte Bilder, 33. 478 Liz James, and Ruth Webb, “‘To understand ultimate things and enter secret places’: ekphrasis and art in Byzantium,” Art History 14 (1991): 1–17. See also Ruth Webb, Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009). 479 On the discursive nature of ekphraseis, see Stratis Papaioannou, “Byzantine Enargeia and Theories of Representation,” BSl 69/3 (2011): 48–60.

108

Ekphraseis thus provide a wealth of information. On the one hand, they offer valuable

details concerning the original appearance of works of art now lost.481 On the other hand,

ekphraseis engage the viewers’ imagination and reflect the ways in which contemporary

audiences interpreted works of art. In this chapter, I approach ekphrastic epigrams as

interpretative lenses through which to understand the meaning and function of the reliquaries that

they describe.482 I focus on four reliquaries: a staurotheke of Irene Doukaina, the head reliquary

of St. Stephen, a reliquary of John the Baptist, and a reliquary of St. Demetrios.

5.2 Staurotheke of Irene Doukaina (B8): Image of the Heavenly Jerusalem

5.2.1 Description of the Reliquary

This reliquary of the True Cross (B8) does not survive; the epigram is its only source of

information.483

These things are not a thicket, nor the place of the skull, in which this wood was fixed long ago, but rather it is paved with stones and a place of gold, yet it blooms white blossoms made of pearls.

5 Into these (she) plants you, O life-bringing wood, the beacon of the Doukai, the Empress Irene,

480 On this issue, specifically, see Maguire, Image and Imagination. Among his many other studies on the relationships between the rules of rhetoric and the production of art, see idem, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium; idem, “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium”; and Jones and Maguire, “A Description of the Jousts of Manuel I Komnenos.” 481 An important study on this topic includes Magdalino and Nelson, “The Emperor in Byzantine Art.” 482 Rhoby, “Inscriptional Poetry,” 194 states, “It is not the purpose of such verses to be descriptive or to provide the reader with many technical details which the beholder can see anyway. On the contrary, the inscribed epigram’s purpose is to provide the reader with a deeper understanding of the function of the object.” On the nature of ekphraseis in epigrams and poetry in the Middle and Late Byzantine periods, see also Hörandner, “Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken”; Braounou-Pietsch, Beseelte Bilder; and Anneliese Paul, “Beobachtungen zu Ἐκφράσεις in Epigrammen auf Objekten: Lassen wir Epigramme sprechen!,” in Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), ed. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008), 61–73. 483 The title of this epigram is “On the precious cross” (Εἰς τὸν τίµιον σταυρόν). Joannes Bebel, Cyri Theodori Prodromi Epigrammata (Basel, 1536), quatern. ξ, ff. 3v-4r, added a more lengthy and detailed title: εἰς τὸ καλὸν ξύλον τὸ κοσµηθὲν ὑπὸ τῆς δεσποίνης (on the beautiful wood that has been adorned by the Empress), and this was used by Sternbach, “Nicolai Calliclis Carmina,” 319, no. II. Romano, Carmi, 81 does not include a title in his edition, but uses the longer for his translation on page 135.

109

harvesting the sweet fruit, salvation.484

This epigram was composed by Nicholas Kallikles, a court poet and physician active

during the reign of Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081–1118).485 He wrote numerous epigrams for the

Komnenian family; this is one of two for reliquaries of the True Cross.486 Four other anonymous

epigrams for staurothekai have been attributed to him.487 This particular epigram was for a

staurotheke commissioned by the Empress Irene Doukaina (v. 6), wife of Alexios I. It is one of

five reliquaries attributed to her patronage, which is more than that attributed any other patron in

the Middle Byzantine period.488

The epigram provides some clues as to object’s original appearance. It begins with the

word ταῦτα (these things), all parts of the object henceforth described. The reliquary was made

of gold (v. 3), and adorned with precious stones (v. 3) and pearls (v. 4), all of which are standard

materials for staurothekai.489

484 Οὐ ταῦτα δρυµὸς οὐδὲ κρανίου τόπος,

ἐν οἷς ἐπάγη τοῦτο τὸ ξύλον πάλαι, ἀλλ’ ἔστι λιθόστρωτος ἢ χρυσοῦς τόπος, ἀνθεῖ δὲ λευκὸν ἄνθος ἐκ τῶν µαργάρων.

5 Τούτοις φυτεύει σέ, ξύλον ζωηφόρον, Δουκῶν ὁ λαµπτήρ, ἡ βασιλὶς Εἰρήνη, καρπὸν γλυκὺν τρυγῶσα τὴν σωτηρίαν. Ed. Romano, Carmi, 81.

485 ODB, s.v. “Kallikles, Nicholas” (Alexander Kazhdan). The few sources on Kallikles’s life are edited and translated in Romano, Carmi, 57–69. 486 See also B13. Frolow, La relique, 330 (no. 338) suggests that Romano, Carmi, 82 (no. 7) was an epigram for a reliquary of the True Cross, but its content and title (τοῦ Καλλικλέος εἰς τὴν σταύρωσιν) as recorded in a thirteenth-century manuscript indicate that it was for an icon of the Crucifixion rather than a staurotheke. 487 A3, A10, A31, A37. See also Romano, Carmi, 29–31. 488 Her True Cross reliquary in Venice (A37) is discussed in section 4.4.3. Three staurothekai are listed in the inventory for Irene’s convent in Constantinople dedicated to the Theotokos Kecharitomene; ed. Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152; trans. R. Jordan, in BMFD, 714. Two of these were inscribed with epigrams: B5, B6; see section 3.2.1. 489 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 187–204. ἀνθεῖ δὲ λευκὸν ἄνθος (yet it blooms white blossoms): cf. Numbers 17:8; and ed. Thomas W. Allen, Homeri Ilias (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931), 17.56, trans. Augustus T. Murray, Homer: Iliad, 2nd ed., vol. 2, Loeb Classical Library 171 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), 233.

110

5.2.2 Epigram as Interpretation

The ekphrastic character of the epigram also reveals the ways in which a Byzantine

viewer—namely, Irene—interpreted these standard visual elements as an image of the Heavenly

Jerusalem. Kallikles structures the epigram by first stating what the reliquary is not (vv. 1–2) and

then identifying what it is (vv. 3–7). He makes use of allusions to, and draws metaphors from,

the Old and New Testaments. The operative phrases in his interpretation are κρανίου τόπος

(place of the skull) and χρυσοῦς τόπος (place of gold), in parallel positions at the ends of verses

1 and 3, respectively. Through this parallelism, Kallikles shapes an interpretation of the reliquary

as a “place” (τόπος), but what are these places that he describes?

He first states that the reliquary is not the “place of the skull” (κρανίου τόπος), which is

Golgotha, the site of Christ’s crucifixion.490 In so doing, Kallikles distinguishes this staurotheke

from others that were interpreted as Golgotha.491 One such reliquary was commissioned by a

certain patrikios by the name of Constantine (A38; fig. 91). This staurotheke no longer survives,

but the epigram provides a description of it.

What such marvels are made by the faith of Constantine, the patrikios and trierarch! For he shows Golgotha in gold and silver, this Golgotha; because it is also the image of the cross.492

Kallikles further distinguishes Irene’s staurotheke from Golgotha by stating that it is not

a δρυµὸς (thicket, v. 1). Roberto Romano rightly notes that this word and the phrase καρπὸν

γλυκὺν (sweet fruit, v. 7) are references to Song of Songs 2:3: “As an apple tree among the trees

of the thicket, so is my brotherkin among the sons. I yearned and sat in his shadow, and his fruit

was sweet in my throat.”493 Kallikles’s use of this biblical passage was deliberate because it is an

490 Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, Luke 23:33, and John 19:17; cf. Romano, Carmi, 81. 491 See also the analysis of the Protaton Reliquary (A19) in section 6.3. 492 Ὡς οἷα ποιεῖ πίστις ἡ Κωνσταντίνου

τοῦ πατρικίου καὶ τριηράρχου ξένα· χρυσάργυρον γὰρ τὸν Γολγοθᾶ δεικνύει, Γολγοθᾶ τοῦτον· καὶ γὰρ ὁ σταυροῦ τύπος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:274.

111

Old Testament typological reference to Christ’s incarnation and passion. Gregory of Nyssa, a

fourth-century bishop and saint, provides this interpretation in his fourth homily on the Song of

Songs:

The Holy Scripture assigns the name “thicket” (δρυµὸν) to that material life of the human race that is bursting with the various sorts of passions. …This explains why the apple tree is planted in the midst of the thicket. Because it is a tree, it is of the same substance as the stuff of humanity (he was tried “in every way in accordance with his likeness to us, apart from sin” [Hebrews 4:15]).494

According to Gregory, the “thicket” is the earthly life. Christ, as man, is the apple tree “planted

in the midst of the thicket.” As man, he was Crucified and “tried in every way in accordance with

his likeness to us.” Therefore, Kallikles, making use of Gregory’s interpretation of Song of

Songs 2:3, states that Irene’s staurotheke does not represent Golgotha, where Christ suffered and

died.495

This negative description of the staurotheke leads to the second part of the epigram (vv.

3–7), in which Kallikles describes what the staurotheke is. Romano notes that the phrase

χρυσοῦς τόπος alludes to the description of the Heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation 21:18 and 21:

The wall was built of jasper, while the city was pure gold, clear as glass. …And the twelve gates were twelve pearls, each of the gates made of a single pearl, and the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass.496

493 Romano, Carmi, 81. Ὡς µῆλον ἐν τοῖς ξύλοις τοῦ δρυµοῦ, οὕτως ἀδελφιδός µου ἀνὰ µέσον τῶν υἱῶν· ἐν τῇ σκιᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐπεθύµησα καὶ ἐκάθισα, καὶ καρπὸς αὐτοῦ γλυκὺς ἐν λάρυγγί µου. Ed. Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935), trans. adapted from NETS. For a parallel to καρπὸν γλυκὺν, see also ed. Hugo Rabe, Hermogenis Opera, Rhetores Graeci 6 (Stuttgart: Teubner, 1985), 7, trans. Kennedy, Progymnasmata, 77 with other examples on 98, 140–42. 494 δρυµὸν ὀνοµάζει συνήθως ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὸν ὑλώδη τῶν ἀνθρώπων βίον τὸν τὰ ποικίλα εἴδη τῶν παθηµάτων ὑλοµανήσαντα. …διὰ τοῦτο ἐµφύεται τῷ δρυµῶνι τὸ µῆλον, ὃ τῷ µὲν ξύλον εἶναι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ὕλης ἐστὶν ὁµοούσιον (ἐπειράσθη γὰρ κατὰ πάντα καθ’ ὁµοιότητα χωρὶς ἁµαρτίας); ed. Hermann Langerbeck, In Canticum Canticorum, Gregorii Nysseni opera 6 (Leiden: Brill, 1960): 116.5–7, 116.15–117.1, trans. adapted from Richard A. Norris, Jr., Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Song of Songs, Writings from the Greco-Roman World 13 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 129. 495 For additional evidence that Gregory’s homilies on the Song of Songs were read in the in the twelfth century, see Elizabeth Jeffreys, “The Sevastokratorissa Eirene as Literary Patroness: The Monk Iakovos,” JÖB 32.3 (=XVI Internationaler Byzantinisten Kongress. Akten, vol. 2.3) (1982): 63–71, at 65. 496 Romano, Carmi, 168. καὶ ἡ ἐνδώµησις τοῦ τείχους αὐτῆς ἴασπις, καὶ ἡ πόλις χρυσίον καθαρὸν ὅµοιον ὑάλῳ καθαρῷ. …καὶ οἱ δώδεκα πυλῶνες δώδεκα µαργαρῖται, ἀνὰ εἷς ἕκαστος τῶν πυλώνων ἦν ἐξ ἑνὸς µαργαρίτου. καὶ ἡ πλατεῖα τῆς πόλεως χρυσίον καθαρὸν ὡς ὕαλος διαυγής. Eds. Kurt Aland, et al, The

112

The word λιθόστρωτος (paved with stones) does not appear in Revelation, but I suggest

that it too evokes an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem.497 Revelation 21:19–20 describes the

walls of the celestial city covered in precious stones:

The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious stone (παντὶ λίθῳ τιµίῳ); the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.498

Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1968), trans. RSV. Similar descriptions for the Heavenly Jerusalem and Paradise are found in Middle Byzantine apocalyptic texts. For a survey of these sources, see Jean Daniélou, “Terre et Paradis chez les Pères de l’Église,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 22 (1953): 433–72; Henry Maguire, “The Heavenly City in Ekphrasis and in Art,” in Villes de toute beauté: l’ekphrasis des cités dans les littératures byzantine et byzantino-slaves. Actes du colloque international, Prague, 25–26 novembre 2011, eds. Paolo Odorico and Chares Messis, Dossiers Byzantins 12 (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2012), 37–48; and Carolina Cupane, “The Heavenly City: Religious and Secular Visions of the Other World in Byzantine Literature,” in Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Christina Angelidi and George T. Calofonos (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 53–68. The motif of God’s golden city is also found in a twelfth-century epigram for an encheirion; Emmanuel Miller, “Poésies inédites de Théodore Prodrome,” Annuaire de l’Association pour l’encouragement des études greque en France 17 (1883): 18–64, at 36, trans. in Nunn, “The Encheirion,” 96. This poet is Manganeios Prodromos, not Theodore Prodromos. 497 The word λιθόστρωτος has other meanings and associations, which may be the reason why this word was used for this epigram. It can refer to a mosaic (LSJ, s.v. “λιθόστρωτος”); however no surviving Middle Byzantine reliquaries feature mosaic. It also alludes to Pilate’s judgment seat where Christ stood trial before his Crucifixion: the Lithostroton, or Gabatha as it was known in Aramaic (John 19:13); Romano, Carmi, 81. Due to the homonymity of Golgotha and Gabatha, Byzantine authors often conflated, or confused, these biblical sites; Frolow, Les reliquaires, 192. Examples include an oration on the entombment of Christ attributed to the eighth-century Patriarch Germanos I, In Dominici Corporis Sepulturam (Oration 2), ed. PG 98:256C, 98:257A–B; a twelfth-century epigram for a cross set upon the tomb of Sophia Komnene, ed. Hörandner, “Customs and beliefs,” 243; a description of the Holy Land by an anonymous Greek pilgrim in the mid-thirteenth century, ed. Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Μερκή Διήγησις ἐκ των ἁγίον τόπων της Ἱερουσαλήµ, Pravoslavnii palestinskii sbornik 40 (St. Petersburg, 1895), 5, trans. Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 192; and two epigrams written by Manuel Philes, ed. Emmanuel Miller, Manuelis Philæ Carmina, 2 vols. (Paris: Excusum in Typographeo Imperiali, 1855–57), 2:85–86 (no. 45), 2:202 (no. 188), and ed. BEIÜ 2:Me18. 498 οἱ θεµέλιοι τοῦ τείχους τῆς πόλεως παντὶ λίθῳ τιµίῳ κεκοσµηµένοι· ὁ θεµέλιος ὁ πρῶτος ἴασπις, ὁ δεύτερος σάπφιρος, ὁ τρίτος χαλκηδών, ὁ τέταρτος σµάραγδος, ὁ πέµπτος σαρδόνυξ, ὁ ἕκτος σάρδιον, ὁ ἕβδοµος χρυσόλιθος, ὁ ὄγδοος βήρυλλος, ὁ ἔνατος τοπάζιον, ὁ δέκατος χρυσόπρασος, ὁ ἑνδέκατος ὑάκινθος, ὁ δωδέκατος ἀµέθυστος. Ed. Aland, Greek New Testament, trans. adapted from RSV. In her discussion of western medieval reliquaries, Cynthia Hahn, Strange Beauty, 5 argues that precious stones were frequently symbolic of the walls of the Heavenly Jerusalem.

113

While the χρυσοῦς τόπος and λιθόστρωτος compare the exterior of the reliquary to the

external appearance of the Heavenly Jerusalem, the phrase ξύλον ζωηφόρον (life-bringing wood,

v. 5) compares the relic inside to the Tree of Life that grows within the celestial city.499

Revelation 22:2 describes this tree: “also, on either side of the river, the Tree of Life (ξύλον

ζωῆς) with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month.”500 In addition to referring to

the relic, the phrase ξύλον ζωηφόρον in the epigram may also indicate that Irene’s staurotheke

featured the iconography of the Tree of Life, which was frequently depicted on reliquaries of the

True Cross (fig. 110).501

Kallikles’s use of the verb φυτεύει (plants, v. 5) continues the paradisiacal imagery of the

epigram. It highlights Irene’s role as patron by describing her act of inserting the relic into the

staurotheke, and “harvesting” her reward of salvation.502 This recalls Revelation 2:7: “He who

has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who conquers I will grant to

eat of the Tree of Life, which is in the paradise of God.”503

5.3 Head Reliquary of St. Stephen (A21): Crowning the Martyr

5.3.1 Description of the Reliquary

The tenth-century reliquary for the head of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, now lost, was

formerly housed at the monastery of St. Francis in Heraklion, Crete (A21).504 Enrica Follieri

499 ξύλον ζωηφόρον (life-bringing wood): Cf. Gen. 2:9, Prov. 11:30, Rev. 2:7, and Rev. 22:2; Romano, Carmi, 81. 500 ἐν µέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ποταµοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς ποιοῦν καρποὺς δώδεκα, κατὰ µῆνα ἕκαστον ἀποδιδοῦν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὰ φύλλα τοῦ ξύλου εἰς θεραπείαν τῶν ἐθνῶν. Ed. Aland, Greek New Testament, trans. RSV. 501 See section 2.2.2.3. 502 For literature on western medieval reliquaries designed as images of the Heavenly Jerusalem, see Gia Toussaint, “Imagination von Architektur: Das Halberstädter Tafelreliquiar als Bild des himmlischen Jerusalem,” in Mikroarchitektur im Mittelalter. Ein gattungsübergreifendes Phänomen zwischen Realität und Imagination, eds. Uwe Albrecht und Christine Kratzke (Leipzig: Kratzke Verlag für Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte, 2008), 213–23; and Hahn, Strange Beauty, 195–98. 503 ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦµα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. τῷ νικῶντι δώσω αὐτῷ φαγεῖν ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς, ὅ ἐστιν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ τοῦ θεοῦ. Ed. Aland, Greek New Testament, trans. RSV. See also 1 Enoch 25:4–8.

114

gathers the early-modern descriptions of this reliquary in order to reconstruct its original

appearance.505 The most detailed description is preserved in a seventeenth-century Latin

inventory of the monastery’s treasures.506

Cranium of St. Stephen the Protomartyr, well bound in silver with many ornaments and stones of some value, stored in a silver-gilt vessel of fine form, with many images and Greek letters sculpted around the vessel itself.507 Its form was typical of Middle Byzantine head reliquaries.508 The silver, ornaments, and

stones that “bound” (ligatum) the cranium were most likely the attachments on the relic itself.

This adorned cranium was housed in a silver-gilt “vessel” (vase), which was engraved with

“many images” (plerisque imaginibus) and “Greek letters” (litteris grecis). These Greek letters

were for an eight-verse epigram:

2 In the past, the stones of martyrdom crowned 1 your head, O first-fighter, glory of the martyrs;

now I also crown (it), with material of gold and silver, showing my prosperous love with a poor gift.

5 In return, I ask salvation of the soul, (I) the basilikos, your Basileios, O blessed one, brother-in-law of the ruler and megas baioulos and of the dignity, parakoimomenos.509

504 It is not known when it was brought to Crete. The earliest documented evidence for its presence at this monastery dates to 1495. When the Ottomans captured Crete in the mid-seventeenth century, the reliquary was moved to the island of San Spirito in Venice. It was later lost during the Napoleonic wars in the early nineteenth century. For a historical survey, see Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 459–60. 505 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 455–64. 506 This inventory was written in 1648 by the friar Michelangelo of Candia; Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 459–60, see note 3 for the manuscript and literature. 507 “Cranium S. Stephani protomartyris, bene in argento ligatum cum multis ornamentis et lapidibus aliqualis valoris, repositum in vase argenteo inaurato nobilis forme, cum plerisque imaginibus ac litteris grecis circa vas ipsum insculptis.” Latin text from Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 460. My thanks to Sean Tandy and Yuri Marano for their advice on this translation. The technique of the images and letters “sculpted” on the vessel is not known; incised letters and repoussé images and letters are well attested in tenth-century metalwork (figs. 20, 23, 62, 67, 83). 508 For head reliquaries, see section 2.4.2. 509 Τὴν σὴν κάραν, πρώταθλε, µαρτύρων κλέος,

ἣν µαρτυρικοὶ πρὶν κατέστεψαν λίθοι,

115

The patron Basileios identifies himself in four ways: as basilikos (imperial servant),

brother-in-law to the emperor, the megas baioulos (tutor of the emperor), and parakoimomenos

(imperial chamberlain).510 These four identifications, titles, and offices refer only to Basileios,

the illegitimate son of the Emperor Romanos I Lekapenos (r. 920–44), and brother-in-law to

Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (r. 945–59).511 He is the patron of the Limburg Staurotheke

(A6), and is the suggested patron for the head reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite (A24).512 Based

on Basileios’s titles and designations provided in the epigram, the reliquary of St. Stephen must

στέφω κἀγὼ νῦν ἐξ ὕλης χρυσαργύρου δώρῳ πενιχρῷ δεικνὺς ὄλβιον πόθον·

5 οὗ χάριν αἰτῶ τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν ὁ βασιλικὸς σὸς Βασίλειος, µάκαρ, γαµβρὸς κρατοῦντος καὶ βαΐουλος µέγας καὶ παρακοιµώµενος ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213. My translation slightly differs from

that produced by Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, 163. 510 For these titles and offices, see ODB, s.vv. “Basilikoi Anthropoi,” “Baioulos,” “Parakoimomenos” (Alexander Kazhdan). 511 Literature on Basileios is extensive; PmbZ, no. 20925; Charles Diehl, “De la signification du titre du ‘proèdre’ à Byzance,” in Melanges offerts a m. Gustave Schlumberger, membre de l’Institut, a l’occasion du quatre-vingtième anniversaire de sa naissance (17 octobre 1924) (Paris: P. Geunther, 1924), 1:105–17; V. Laurent, “Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΒΑΪΟΥΛΟΣ: À l’occasion du parakimomène Basile Lécapène,” Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 23 (1953): 193–205; Marvin Ross, “Basil the Proedros: Patron of the Arts,” Archaeology 11 (1958): 271–75; W.G. Brokkaar, “Basil Lacapenus: Byzantium in the Tenth Century,” in Studia Byzantina et Neohellenica Neerlandica, ed. W.F. Bakker, A.F. van Gemert, and W.J. Aerts (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972), 199–234; Carlo Maria Mazzucchi, “Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos (Cod. Ambr. B 119 Sup.),” Aevum 52 (1978): 267-316; Hans Belting, “Problemi vecchi e nuovi sull’arte della cosiddetta ‘Rinascenza macedone’ a Bisanzio,” Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina 29 (1982): 31–57; Laskarina Bouras, “Ὁ Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός, παραγγελιοδότης ἔργων τέχνης,” in Ὁ Κωνσταντῖνος Ζʹ ὁ Πορφυρογέννητος καί ἡ ἐποχή του. Πρακτικά της Β' Διεθνούς Βυζαντινολογικής Συνάντησης Δελφών, Δελφοί 22-26 Ιουλίου 1987 (Athens: European Cultural Center of Delphi, 1989), 397–434; Bissera Pentcheva, “Containers of Power: Eunuchs and Reliquaries in Byzantium,” Res. Anthropology and Aesthetics 51 (2007): 109–20; Livia Bevilacqua, “Basilio ‘parakoimomenos’, l’aristocrazia e la passion per le arti sotto I Macedoni,” in La Sapienza bizantina: Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di Roma, eds. Augusta Acconcia Longo et al (Rome: Campisano Editore, 2012), 183–202; Wander, Joshua Roll, 93–129; Livia Bevilacqua, “Basilio parakoimomenos e i manoscritti miniati: impronte di colore nell’Ambrosiano B 119 sup.,” in Vie per Bisanzio, Atti del VII Congresso nazionale dell’Associazione Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Venezia, 25-28 novembre 2009), eds. Antonio Rigo, Andrea Babuin, Michele Trizio (Bari: Edizioni di Pagina, 2013), 1013–30; and Jeffrey Michael Featherstone, “Basil the Nothos as Compiler: the De Cerimoniis and Theophanes Continuatus,” in The Transmission of Byzantine Texts between Textual Criticism and Quellenforschung, ed. I. Perez-Martin, and J. Signes-Codoner, Lectio 2 (Turnhout: Brepols 2014), 355–74. 512 In general, scholars have attributed the head reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite to Basileios’s patronage, but the letterforms of its epigram may suggest a later date; see the comments in Wander, Joshua Roll, 96n16.

116

date between circa 948, when Basileios was made parakoimomenos, and 959, the year of

Constantine VII’s death.513

The precise shape of the container that held the cranium and the placement of its epigram

are not fully described in the inventory. Follieri suggests that the reliquary resembled the

Limburg Staurotheke with its epigram inscribed “around” (circa) the front edges as a frame (fig.

20).514 I argue that the container was cylindrical, as was standard for Middle Byzantine head

reliquaries, and that the phrase “engraved around the vessel itself” (circa vas ipsum insculptis)

suggests that the images and epigram were displayed on the circumference of the container.

5.3.2 Epigram as Interpretation

The epigram interprets the reliquary of St. Stephen as a crown for the saint through

wordplay, the choice of verb to describe Basileios’s act of patronage, and through the epigram’s

placement on the reliquary.

In Greek, the word “crown” and the name “Stephen” are the same word (στέφανος). This

provided Byzantine writers and poets opportunity to play on these two words: Stephen, the first-

martyr, was given a crown of martyrdom.515 In the epigram, Stephen’s name is conspicuously

absent; he is called “first-fighter” (v. 1), “glory of the martyrs” (v. 1), and “blessed one” (v. 6).

Rather than being named outright, allusions to his name are made through the repetition of the

word στέφανος in two different forms. In the first two verses, the epigram states that “the stones

of martyrdom crowned (κατέστεψαν)” his head, which is a reference to the account of his

513 Scholars have often given this reliquary a terminus post quem of 945, when Constantine VII became sole emperor, or simply dating it before 959; cf. Bouras, “Ὁ Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός,” 407; BEIÜ, 2:213; Wander, Joshua Roll, 104. This early date can be refined. Brokkaar, “Basil Lacapenus,” 209–11 dates Basileios’s appointment of parakoimomenos between the end of 946 and 948 at the latest. 514 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 463. 515 One example is an epigram written by Maximos Planoudes (c. 1255–c.1305). According to its title, the epigram was inscribed “on an enkolpion having St. Stephen the Protomartyr” (Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον τὸν ἅγιον Στέφανον τὸν πρωτοµάρτυρα). The two-verse epigram reads: “Gold, the first of metals, crowns (you) with stones, you, the one who is first of martyrs from the casting of stones (Ὡς µαρτύρων σε πρῶτον ἐκ βολῆς λίθων / χρυσὸς µετάλλων πρῶτος ἐν λίθῳ στέφει). Ed. Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 3:359. See also Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” 143. The saint is not explicitly named, but is implied by the verb στέφει (crowns) and µαρτύρων πρῶτον (first of martyrs).

117

stoning as described in Acts 7:54–60. In verse 3, Basileios states “now I also crown (στέφω) it,

with material of gold and silver.”

The use of this verb (στέφω) to describe Basileios’s act of patronage is unusual. As we

will see in Chapter 6, words such as τεύχω (make) and κοσµέω (adorn) are much more common;

such verbs describe the patron’s act of making the reliquary and adorning the relic.516 There is

only one other Middle Byzantine reliquary whose epigram describes the patron crowning a saint.

This epigram was for the head reliquary of St. Christopher (A7), no longer extant.517

I, Michael, am rich in you, Christopher. With respect to my power, I have been supported by your power, O martyr, and I crown you with the crown of your offerings.518

Why would these two epigrams, both for head reliquaries, describe the patrons’ acts in

terms of crowning? In Byzantine iconography, Christ is frequently shown presenting crowns of

martyrdom to martyrs. See, for example, the depiction of St. Stephen’s martyrdom, preserved in

the ninth-century illuminated manuscript of Christian Topography by Kosmas Indikopleustes

(Vat. gr. 699, fol. 82v) (fig. 133).519 Christ’s hand reaches down from the top of the frame to

deliver a crown to Stephen. The act of crowning was also a logical sentiment made by the

patrons who adorned the part of the body that would have worn a crown. The attachments

themselves may have resembled crowns.520 According to the seventeenth-century description, the

516 See section 6.2.3. 517 This reliquary was lost in the French Revolution. Du Cange, Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata, pt. II, lib. IV, p. 112 is the only primary source for this object when it survived at the Abbey of St. Vincent near Chartres. He claims that it originated from the church of St. James at the Chalkoprateia in Constantinople, and was brought to France after the Fourth Crusade. For the church of St. James, see Janin, Églises CP, 253–55. 518 Ὁ Μιχαὴλ πλουτῶ σὲ τὸν Χριστοφόρον

κράτει κράτος σου, µάρτυς, ἐστηριγµένος καί σε στεφανῶ σῶν δ’ ἀπαρχῶν τὸ στέφος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:172.

519 Cosimo Stornajolo. Le miniature della Topografia cristiana di Cosma Indicopleuste, codice vaticano greco 699 (Milano: U. Hoepli, 1908), pl. 47; and Maja Kominko, The World of Kosmas: Illustrated Byzantine Codices of the Christian Topography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 178–81, and images on pp. 306–07. 520 Rudolf Schnyder, “Das Kopfreliquiar des heiligen Candidus in St-Maurice,” Zeitschrift für schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 24 (1965–66): 65–127, at 119, in his discussion of

118

cranium of St. Stephen was “well bound in silver with many ornaments and stones of some

value.”521 Such a description corresponds to the head reliquary of St. James the Younger (fig.

126). The silver-gilt attachments on the cranium of St. James wrap the circumference and cross

at the top at right angles, and nail-sized holes indicate that gems were also attached directly to

the bone.522 For the reliquary of St. Stephen, the silver and gemmed attachments on the cranium

may have originally appeared as a crown on the saint’s head.523 Byzantine iconography rarely

shows a martyr actually wearing his/her crown of martyrdom; rather Christ hands it to him/her.

The epigram and the reliquary of St. Stephen present Stephen as already being crowned, and

therefore do not correspond to Byzantine depictions of martyrs.

The placement of the epigram on the reliquary also functioned to interpret the reliquary

as a crown for the saint’s head. While its precise placement is not fully described by the

seventeenth-century inventory, it can be deduced from clues provided by other early-modern

sources. I argue that the epigram was placed on the circumference of a cylindrical container that

held the cranium. In this way, the words circled the head of the saint, visually functioning as a

crown.

My argument necessitates a reassessment of Follieri’s thesis. As I stated above, she

argues that the adorned cranium was housed in a container that was in the shape of a panel-type

western head reliquaries, makes the suggestion that perhaps Byzantine head reliquaries were meant to resemble crowns. Toussaint, “Schöne Schädel,” 674 agrees with Schnyder’s suggestion, but no other evidence has been put forth to support it. 521 A complete reconstruction of the head reliquary of St. Christopher is not possible because Du Cange, Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata, pt. II, lib. IV, p. 112 does not provide a complete description of the cranium itself. As for the container, states: “Praeterea os capitis sancti Christophori reconditum intra duplex ex aere aurato hemisphaerium, in medio in ovalem formam apertum, ubi S. Christophorus militis armati more depictus conspicitur, dextra hastam tenens, sinistra scuto innixus, cum hisce characteribus, Ο ΑΓΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΣ. Infra, hi leguntur characteres, eiusce aevi more efficti (In addition, a bone of the head (i.e. skull) of St. Christopher is stored in a double hemisphere made of gilded bronze. At the middle is an oval aperture through which is seen depicted St. Christopher as an armed soldier, holding a spear in his right hand and leaning on a shield with his left, and inscribed with these characters: Ο ΑΓΙΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΦΟΡΟΣ. Below read these characters, which were drawn in the manner of its time). My thanks to Sean Tandy, Yuri Marano, and Fabio Pagani for their advice on this translation. 522 Cf. Gia Toussaint in Meller, Der heilige Schatz, no. 10. 523 I do not suggest that the attachments copied, in form, a Byzantine crown. There were a variety of crown types, for different people and functions, and they evolved over time; cf. Parani, Reconstructing the Reality of Images, esp. 27–30. I argue, rather, that a saint’s cranium adorned with gems and gilded-silver would have created such an association, particularly in light of all the factors just described.

119

staurotheke, and that the epigram was a framing inscription.524 Follieri comes to this conclusion

through her analysis of the epigram as it was first transcribed by Alexandros Basilopoulos, a

Catholic missionary who visited the monastery of St. Francis in Herakleion in 1627.525 Follieri

convincingly argues that while Basilopoulos’s transcription of the text was generally correct, his

order of the verses was not.526 The original sequence provided by Basilopoulos—based the

current verse numbering—was 1, 5, 2, 6, 3, 7, 4, and 8.527 Based on the epigram’s content,

Follieri re-arranged the verses into the sequence that I present above.

What caused Basilopoulos to incorrectly arrange the verses? Follieri states that because

Basilopoulos recorded the epigram in situ, his error must have been due to the epigram’s

placement on the reliquary. She proposes that the eight verses of the epigram were arranged as a

frame, on the four edges of a box, and read in the order that is conventional for framing

inscriptions.528

1

5 2 6 3 7 4

8 Follieri suggests that Basilopoulos erroneously transcribed verse 1 on the upper frame,

proceeded to the left edge to copy verse 5, to the right to copy verse 2, continuing in like manner

with verses 6, 3, 7, 4, and finishing with verse 8 on the lower edge.529

I re-evaluate Follieri’s suggested form of the reliquary and the placement of the epigram.

First, there is no physical or documentary evidence that head reliquaries resembled panel-type

524 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 463. 525 Basilopoulos’s transcription was published by Georg Hofmann, “Unbekannte oder wenig beachtete christliche griechische Inschriften des Mittelalters,” Orientalia christiana periodica 13 (1947): 233–38, at 236. 526 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 457. 527 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 458. 528 See section 2.4.2. 529 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 463.

120

staurothekai. As discussed in Chapter 2, Rückert demonstrates that crania, adorned with metal

attachments, were most often housed in cylindrical containers.530 I argue that the epigram was

more likely placed on the circumference of a cylindrical vessel arranged in two rows.531

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

This type of placement is the most logical. It is found on other cylindrical vessels; the Holy

Blood reliquary in Venice (A32) is one example (figs. 79–80).532 This placement also justifies

Basilopoulos’s scribal error. He would have recorded each vertical pair of verses: 1 and 5, 2 and

6, 3 and 7, 4 and 8.533

The question remains, what caused Basilopoulos to read the vertical pair of verses in

order, rather than reading the upper line of text, from left to right, then the lower line of text,

from left to right. As discussed in Chapter 1, verses are often separated by dots or some other

symbol.534 Such visual markers create breaks between each verse, which caused Basilopoulos to

stop at the end of one verse on the upper line, and continue to the corresponding verse directly

below it.

I suggest that images may have served as the visual markers that separated these verses.

The inventory description states that images were engraved on the outside of the container with

the Greek letters of the epigram. These images were most likely of saints, and they could have 530 Rückert, “Zur Form,” 19. Follieri does not cite Rückert’s work. 531 This was first hypothesized and discarded by 532 See section 4.4.6. See also some of the many chalices in Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, nos. 40, 44, 46, 51, 56, 57 (cf. BEIÜ, 2:Me84), and 58. 533 Follieri, “L’ordine dei versi,” 462–63 proposed and discarded this suggested placement because she thought the epigram was too long for it to fit on a small cylinder, and that the seventeenth-century inventory description would have specified that the reliquary was cylindrical. This logic is problematic because she did not know the size of the original reliquary. She was also doubtful that Basilopoulos would have misread an epigram placed in this manner. It is possible that a scholar of Greek, such as Basilopoulos, would have mis-transcribed the epigram in this way. In fact, André Guillou made such an error for a different reliquary epigram in his corpus of Byzantine inscriptions in Italy published in 1996. For the reliquary of St. Marina (A30; section 4.4.5), he mis-transcribed the order of the six verses inscribed on the circumference of the container. His ordering is verses 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, and 6; Guillou, Recueil, 83. 534 See section 1.2.1.

121

been placed between each pair of verses. An example of this type of placement is found on a

paten now in the Treasury of San Marco in Venice (fig. 134).535 This paten was commissioned

by Basileios the proedros and parakoimomenos, who is also the patron of the reliquary of St.

Stephen.536 A four-verse epigram is inscribed on its rim.

Having by faith purified the body and even more so the soul, fearfully draw near to communion with God. For Christ, having been persecuted in the flesh, may you, having cleansed yourself, take the one you see.537

The four verses are evenly distributed in four quarters of the paten’s rim. They are separated by

medallion images of holy figures, placed at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 o’clock positions. Christ, at 12

o’clock, marks the beginning of the epigram; the Archangel Gabriel is placed between verses 1

and 2; the Theotokos is placed between verses 2 and 3; and the Archangel Michael is placed

between verses 3 and 4. The verses on the reliquary of St. Stephen could have been displayed in

a similar manner with an image of a holy figure positioned between each pair of verses. I have

reconstructed this proposed placement in figure 56. The holy figures would have served as clear

visual breaks for Basilopoulos, who could have easily assumed that each pair of verses was read

in the following order: 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, and 4-8.538

Returning to the significance of this placement, I suggest that its display on the

circumference of the cylinder reinforces the interpretation of the reliquary as a crown. The skull

535 Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, no. 66, pp. 71–72, pl. LVII. 536 Ross, “Basil the Proedros,” 271–75. This attribution is given by the inscription on the matching chalice: Κύριε, βοήθει Βασιλείῳ τῷ ἐνδοξοτάτῳ προέδρῳ καὶ παρακοιµωµένῳ (Lord, help Basileios, the most-glorious proedros and parakoimomenos), ed. Guillou, Recueil, 78 (no. 75), with corr. in BEIÜ, 2:264. In the sixteenth century, the paten and chalice were made into a reliquary for the head of John the Baptist; Hahnloser, Il Tesoro di San Marco, 72. 537 Πιστῶς καθαρθεὶς σῶµα κ(αὶ) ψυχὴν πλέον

πρόσελθε φρικτῶς τῇ Θ(εο)ῦ κοινωνίᾳ· Χ(ριστὸ)ς γάρ ἐστι σαρκικῶς ἐσφαγµένο(ς) ὅνπερ βλέπεις λάβοις τε σαυτὸν ἁγνίσα(ς). Ed. BEIÜ, 2:264 (Me87).

538 If the container was a cube- or rectangular-shaped box, then each pair of verses could have been placed on each side, as seen on the Trebizond casket (A33, fig. 82). Through this placement, the corners of the box would have served as visual breaks between each pair of verses, causing Basilopoulos to mistakenly think that the vertical set of verses were read in sequence.

122

was placed inside this container and the epigram was displayed on the outside, circling the

saint’s head. The words of Basileios, inscribed in gold and silver, that describe his act of

crowning the saint with gold and silver, formed a crown of words.539 Through text, placement,

and material, the epigram functions to interpret the reliquary as a crown for the saint.

5.4 The Châteaudun Reliquary (A8): A Byzantine Hand-Shaped Reliquary?

5.4.1 Description of the Reliquary

A now-lost Byzantine reliquary that contained a bone of John the Baptist’s hand was

housed at the Church of La Madeleine at Châteaudun (A8). Du Cange described it in the

seventeenth century:

A small bone from the palm of the hand or wrist, enclosed in a hand of gilded-bronze, which is worshipped by the Order of the Canons Regular of St. Augustine at the Monastery of St. Magdalene, Castrodunensi [Châteaudun], from whose inscription on the hand and arm joint, we learn that this famous reliquary casket was once in the possession of the noble Anna Komnene, the daughter of the Emperor Alexios.540

The referenced inscription was a six-verse epigram, which Du Cange also documented:

The wrist/fruit is bone, but the hand is gold. From where? The wrist/fruit is from the wilderness, from Palestine, the gold-fingered golden palm is something extraordinary. The bone is the wrist/fruit from the tree of the Prodromos,

5 but the hand was organized by the art and love of the Princess Anna, descendant of the porphyra.541

539 A similar interpretation about the placement of the epigram on the Trebizond Casket (A33) is made in the forthcoming essay, Drpić, “Chrysepes Stichourgia.” 540 “Ossiculum ex manus vola, seu carpo, in manu aerea deaurata inclusum, quod in Monasterio sanctae Magdalenae Castellodunensi Ordinis Canonicorum Regularium sancti Augustini religiosè colitur, ex cuius inscriptione in ipsa manus & brachii commissura, insignem hanc reliquiariam thecam fuisse olim doctissimae ac nobilissimae Annae Comnenae Porphyrogenitae, Alexii Imp. filiae, colligimus.” Du Cange, Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata, pt. II, lib. IV, p. 104. My thanks to Sean Tandy, Yuri Marano, and Fabio Pagani for their advice on this translation. 541 Ὁ καρπὸς ὀστοῦν, ἡ δὲ χεὶρ χρυσῆ· πόθεν;

ἐκ τῆς ἐρήµου καρπὸς, ἐκ Παλαιστίνης, χρυσῆ παλαιστὴ χρυσοδάκτυλος ξένον· ὀστοῦν ὁ καρπὸς ἐκ φυτοῦ τοῦ Προδρόµου·

123

Du Cange states that this porphyrogennete Anna is the daughter of the Emperor Alexios I

Komnenos and Irene Doukaina, but this identification is not certain.542 Brigitte Pitarakis

provides an argument in favor of the daughter of Alexios’s son and successor John II (r. 1118–

43).543 Pitarakis cites an epigram for an altar cloth that was donated to the Stoudios Monastery—

where the head of John the Baptist was kept—as evidence for this younger Anna’s devotion to

the saint.544 Du Cange claims that the Châteaudun reliquary was looted from a church in

Constantinople and taken to France after the Fourth Crusade.545

The epigram describes both the relic and its reliquary. It states that the relic was the

καρπὸς (wrist), a word that also translates as “fruit” as indicated in my translation. It describes a

hand that is gold (χεὶρ χρυσῆ, vv. 1, 5), and a “gold-fingered golden palm” (χρυσῆ παλαιστὴ

χρυσοδάκτυλος, v. 3). Pitarakis cites this epigram as evidence that the Byzantines, like their

western European contemporaries, manufactured hand-shaped reliquaries.546 Du Cange’s brief

description of the relic “enclosed in a hand of gilded-bronze” seems to support this suggestion.547

5 τὴν χεῖρα δ’ ὠ[ρ]γάνωσε τέχνη καὶ πόθος

Ἄννης ἀνάσσης, ἐκγόνου τῆς πορφύρας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:173. Translation adapted from Brigitte Pitarakis, “Female piety in context: understanding developments in private devotional practices,” in Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 153–66, at 160. 542 πορφύρας (v. 6, purple) refers to the imperial line, in general, and, specifically, the Porphyra chamber in the Great Palace where children of the emperor were born. Anna Komnene describes this room in her father’s biography; Reinsch and Kambylis, Annae Comnenae, VII.2.4, trans. Sewter and Frankopan, The Alexiad, 188. See also ODB, s.v. “Porphyrogennetos” (Michael McCormick). Du Cange also suggests that Anna was the poet. See also Anneliese Paul, “Dichtung auf Objekten. Inschriftlich erhaltene griechische Epigramme vom 9. bis zum 16. Jahrhundert: Suche nach bekannten Autorennamen,” in Byzantinische Sprachkunst: Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Martin Hinterberger and Elisabeth Schiffer (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007), 257–61, at 250. 543 Pitarakis, “Female piety,” 161. For this Anna, see Varzos, Η Γενεαλογία των Κοµνηνών, 1:380–90, no. 77. Either Du Cange or Pitarakis’s suggestion is valid, but there are other possibilities. Pitarakis notes that the name Anna was popular in the Komnenian family. 544 Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 230. 545 This is the church of John the Baptist, known as ἐν Μακεδονιαναῖς. Its location in Constantinople is not known; Janin, Églises CP, 418. 546 Pitarakis, “Female piety,” 160. For western medieval reliquaries shaped as body parts, see Caroline Walker Bynum, and Paula Gerson, “Body-Part Reliquaries and Body Parts in the Middle Ages,” Gesta 36 (1997): 3–7; Hahn, “Voices of the Saints”; and idem, Strange Beauty, 117–41.

124

What does the evidence tell us? If this were a Byzantine-made reliquary in the shape of a

hand, then it would be the only known reliquary of this type that dates to the Middle Byzantine

period.548 As shown in Chapter 2, a body-part relic was adorned with a metal attachment, and

housed in a rectangular or cylindrical container.549 The date and origin of the gilded-bronze hand

described by Du Cange is not known. I suggest that the hand-shaped reliquary that he describes

was manufactured in the west after France acquired this relic from Byzantium, as was custom in

the Latin tradition.550 We also cannot be certain that Du Cange himself actually saw the

reliquary. He indicates that the epigram had been recorded by Claude du Molinet, Canon Regular

at the Abbey of St. Genevieve in Paris.551 Did Du Cange see the reliquary and the inscription for

himself, or did he rely on Molinet’s transcription? It can then be argued that Du Cange, when he

describes the relic as “a small bone from the palm of the hand or wrist,” draws assumptions

547 Ebersolt, Sanctuaires, 134; and Ida Sinkević, “Afterlife of the Rhodes Hand of St. John the Baptist,” in Byzantine Images and their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed. Lynn Jones (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 125–41, at 130n27 assume that the hand-shaped reliquary described by Du Cange was Byzantine. 548 See the arm-shaped reliquary of St. Anne, now at the Museo del Tesoro della Cattedrale di San Lorenzo in Genova; Wolf, Mandylion, 254–57. Scholars have suggested that this reliquary comes from Constantinople, and it has been dated between the end of the eleventh century and the beginning of the twelfth based on the style of the metalwork. There are many uncertainties about this object that call its date and origin into question. Its arrival in Genova via Pera is documented in 1461, but its creation date is not known. The style of the metalwork, alone, is not enough evidence to securely date it to the Middle Byzantine period; the reliquary is a composite work, made of parts from different periods. The reliquary does not feature a Greek labeling inscriptions that would identify the relic; only a fourteenth-century Latin inscription. See also the arm reliquary of Hermolaos/Panteleemon in Calci; D’Aiuto, “Le ambiguità di un reliquiario.” This reliquary is a metal attachment around the forearm with a Greek inscription that identifies the relic. The hand relic itself is visible, and not enclosed in a sculpted hand-shaped reliquary. For hand-shaped reliquaries produced in the Late Byzantine period, see, for example, the fifteenth-century arm reliquary of John the Baptist now at the Topkapı Palace Museum; Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 68–70; and Hilmi Aydın, The Sacred Trusts: Pavilion of the Sacred Relics, Topkapı Palace Museum, Istanbul (Somerset, NJ: Light, 2004), 150. See also the fourteenth-century Armenian arm reliquary of St. Nicholas in Lebanon; Evans, Byzantium: Faith and Power, no. 72. 549 See section 2.4.3. 550 See, for example, Meller, Der heilige Schatz, nos. 23–24, pp. 100–05; and Toussaint, Kreuz und Knochen, 167–91. 551 Du Cange, Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata, pt. II, lib. IV, p. 104: “quam quidem cùm post editum supra dictum Syntagma à R.P. Claudio Du Molinet, sanctae Genovesae Paris. Canonico Regulari, viro doctissimo & rei antiquariae perquam studioso, seriùs essem nactus, hic describere, ne posteritati pereat, operae pretium duxi.” My thanks to Sean Tandy, Yuri Marano, and Fabio Pagani for their help in interpreting this passage. I have not been able to find the Syntagma of Molinet.

125

based on the content of the epigram, which makes reference to the palm (παλαιστὴ) and wrist

(καρπὸς). When describing the reliquary as “a hand of gilded-bronze,” he follows the epigram’s

description of a hand that is gold (χεὶρ χρυσῆ, vv. 1, 5), and a “gold-fingered golden palm”

(χρυσῆ παλαιστὴ χρυσοδάκτυλος, v. 3). Based on this comparative evidence, I argue that the

original Byzantine form of the Châteaudun reliquary was not a sculpted golden hand.

5.4.2 Epigram as Interpretation

5.4.2.1 Introduction. What are the ways in which to interpret this epigram if it does not

describe a hand-shaped reliquary? I propose three different—yet not mutually exclusive—ways

in which a Byzantine reader understood this epigram. The epigram can be read as a reference to

coronation ceremonial, as a description of the relic, and as an interpretation of the reliquary’s

attachments that likely adorned the relic.

5.4.2.2 A Reference to Coronation Ceremonial. The Augousteus—one of the oldest

structures in the Great Palace complex—was the ceremonial hall used for court promotions and

coronations.552 The portico of this building was known as the Golden Hand (ἡ χρυσῆ χείρ)—the

same term used in the first verse of the Châteaudun reliquary epigram (χεὶρ χρυσῆ). According to

the tenth-century Book of Ceremonies, the Golden Hand was an important staging area where the

emperors and empresses were presented to, and acclaimed by, the court before and after their

coronations.553

The Châteaudun reliquary is also linked to imperial coronation ceremonies through John

the Baptist. As shown by Ioli Kalavrezou, the Baptist was the patron saint of the Macedonian

Dynasty (867–1156).554 She convincingly argues that the feast day for the Epiphany (January

6)—the day that celebrates the John’s baptism of Christ—held great significance for the

coronation and legitimization of ninth- and tenth-century emperors.555 On this day in 870, Leo VI

552 Rodolphe Guilland, “Autour du Livre des Cérémonies. L’Augusteus, la Main d’Or et l’Onopodion,” REB 6 (1948): 167–80. 553 Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:9, 204, 207, 210, 212, 214, 231, 2:573, 584, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 9, 204, 207, 210, 212, 214, 231, 573, 584. See also Guilland, “Autour du Livre des Cérémonies,” 169–75; and Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 63–64. 554 Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 75–79.

126

was crowned co-emperor with Basil I, and in 906, Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos was

baptized and recognized by the church as the legitimate heir to the throne.556 The acclamations

made by the court on this day for the newly crowned emperors further reinforced the link

between the Baptist with the ceremony of coronation:

He who today was baptized by the hand of the Forerunner (i.e. John the Baptist) proclaims you as emperors with his awesome hand, divinely-crowned benefactors, and shows to the whole empire that you are good. Having sanctified your reign with baptism, he is baptizing it with the oil of incorruptibility, granting salvation to the Romans and the greatest support and glory for your reign.557 The hand of the Forerunner mentioned in the acclamation was a relic held in the Great

Palace.558 According to the eleventh-century historian John Skylitzes, Constantine VII

Porphyrogennetos acquired the hand from Antioch in 956, and translated it to Constantinople on

the feast day of the Epiphany.559 In the twelfth century, Anthony of Novgorod confirms that this

relic was used in coronation ceremonies by stating:

555 Gilbert Dagron, Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 273–74 demonstrates that Christ’s Baptism was a prefiguration of the emperor’s divine selection. In the fifteenth century, Symeon of Thessaloniki compared the emperor’s anointing at coronation with Christ’s anointing by the Holy Spirit at Baptism; PG, 155:353B–D. The relationship between the Feast of the Epiphany and the emperor’s divine selection is also conveyed by an epigram that was for an icon of Christ’s Baptism adorned by the Emperor Manuel Komnenos; Papamastorakis, “The Display of Accumulated Wealth,” 40–41. 556 Constantine’s legitimacy was in question because he was the product of his father’s fourth marriage, which was not initially recognized by Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos; see ODB, s.v. “Tetragamy of Leo VI” (Alexander Kazhdan). 557 ὁ τῇ παλάµῃ βαπτισθεὶς σήµερον τοῦ προδρόµου τῇ φρικτῇ αὑτοῦ παλάµῃ βασιλεῖς ὑµᾶς κηρύττει, θεόστεπτοι εὐεργέται, καὶ χριστοὺς ὑµᾶς δεικνύει πάσῃ τῇ οἰκουµένῃ. τῷ λουτρῷ γὰρ ἁγιάσας, τῆς ἀφθαρσίας τῷ ἐλαίῳ βαπτίζει τὴν βασιλείαν, σωτηρίαν δωρούµενος τοῖς Ῥωµαίοις καὶ ἀντίληψιν µεγίστην καὶ δόξαν τῆς βασιλείας; ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:43, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 43. 558 The term used in the acclamation for the hand (παλάµῃ) of the Forerunner is etymologically related to the word used in verse 3 of the Châteaudun reliquary epigram for the palm (παλαιστὴ); LSJ, s.v. “παλαστή”. 559 Ed. Thurn, Ioannis Scylitzae, 245, §14, trans. Wortley, John Skylitzes, 236. This relic translation was subsequently commemorated on January 7; Synaxarium CP, 375–76. Theodore Daphnopates composed a speech to celebrate the first anniversary of the relic’s arrival; Basilius Latyšev, “Θεοδώρου τοῦ Δαφνοπάτου λόγοι δύο,” Pravoslavnii palestinskii sbornik 59 (1910): 17–38. The translation is illustrated in the Madrid Skylitzes (Madrid, BN, Codex Vitr. 26/2, fol. 138r):

127

There is the right hand of John the Baptist, with which the emperor is consecrated, and there is also a staff of John the Baptist made of iron and mounted by a cross, with which the newly appointed emperor is blessed at the moment of coronation.560

I suggest that the Châteaudun reliquary epigram should be interpreted within this

ceremonial context. The description of the hand that is gold (χεὶρ χρυσῆ, v. 1) associates the

reliquary with the Golden Hand (ἡ χρυσῆ χείρ) of the Great Palace, where the newly crowned

emperors and empresses were acclaimed by the court. The relic is also connected to the use of

the Baptist’s right hand in this ceremonial context. Such subject matter would have been of

particular interest for a daughter of the emperor. In fact, Anna, the first-born of Alexios, was

positioned to become an empress—that is until the birth of her brother John II.561 After her

father’s death, she staged an unsuccessful revolt in order to usurp her brother and claim the

throne for herself.562

5.4.2.3 A Description of the Relic. The epigram can also be interpreted as a description

of the relic. While the epigram identifies the relic as the καρπὸς (wrist), the actual contents of the

reliquary are not known. It could have been the complete hand, and the word καρπὸς could have

been chosen in order for the poet to take advantage of this word’s double meaning—“wrist” and

“fruit”—and its biblical associations. While the former would have described part of the

http://bdh.bne.es/bnesearch/detalle/bdh0000022766 (accessed 21 January 2016). On the history of this relic, see Sinkević, “Afterlife of the Rhodes Hand.” It is not known whether the hand relic acquired by Constantine has any relationship to the relic of the Châteaudun reliquary. See also now-lost Byzantine reliquary formerly at Saint-Nicolas-Lès-Citeaux (A13), which also contained a hand of John the Baptist and whose epigram described Constantine’s translation. See also Durand, “A propos des reliques du monastère du Prodrome de Pétra.” 560 Ehrhard, “Antoine de Novgorod,” 57, trans. Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” 74. 561 The ceremony in which the Golden Hand is most referenced in the Book of Ceremonies is that for the “coronation of an augousta” (Book I, Chapter 40) and the “coronation and nuptial crowning of an augousta” (Book I, Chapter 41); Ed. Reiske, De cerimoniis, 1:9, 204, 207, 210, 212, 214, trans. Moffatt and Tall, The Book of Ceremonies, 9, 204, 207, 210, 212, 214. Anna Komnene, daughter of Alexios, was betrothed to Constantine Doukas (ca. 1074–ca. 1095), son of the Emperor Michael VII (r. 1071–78). Constantine was a porphyrogennetos and heir to the throne under Alexios, making Anna a potential augousta. She even received imperial acclamations; cf. Reinsch and Kambylis, Annae Comnenae, VI.8.3, trans. Sewter and Frankopan, The Alexiad, 168. 562 Barbara Hill, “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Anna Komnene’s Attempted Usurpation,” in Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. Thalia Gouma-Peterson (New York: Garland, 2000), 45–62.

128

Baptist’s hand, the latter recalls Matthew 3:1–2, 10–11, in which John the Baptist is introduced

in the Gospels.

In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” …“Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.”563

The Châteaudun reliquary epigram echoes this biblical passage through the use of the

same and synonymous words: wilderness (ἔρηµος), fruit (καρπός), and tree (δένδρον for

Matthew and φυτόν for the epigram). Through this biblical reference, the epigram also associated

the reliquary with Christ’s baptism, the feast day of the Epiphany (January 6), and in turn the

ceremonial context of coronation discussed above. In sum, the epigram’s description of the hand,

palm, and fingers may have been a description of the relic, and the use of the word καρπὸς

functioned to relate the epigram to the biblical passage.564

5.4.2.4 An Interpretation of the Reliquary. Another way in which to understand the

meaning of the epigram is to read it as an interpretation of the reliquary’s form. I discuss three

extant reliquaries for relics of hands—and parts thereof—that serve as comparanda for the

original form and appearance of the Châteaudun reliquary, and which adhere to the epigram’s

description of the hand that is gold and “gold-fingered golden palm.”

One comparable reliquary is that for the hand of St. Marina (A30, figs. 73–75). As I

argue in Chapter 4, the unusual form of this reliquary was chosen in order to outline the shape of

the relic, hold it in place, and present it to the viewer.565 The reliquary, described as “adornment

for the Adorned” (v. 6), functioned to gild the wrist, fingers, and hand of the female martyr. In

563 Ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἡµέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται Ἰωάννης ὁ βαπτιστὴς κηρύσσων ἐν τῇ ἐρήµῳ τῆς Ἰουδαίας [καὶ] λέγων, Μετανοεῖτε, ἤγγικεν γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν. …ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον µὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται. ἐγὼ µὲν ὑµᾶς βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι εἰς µετάνοιαν· ὁ δὲ ὀπίσω µου ἐρχόµενος ἰσχυρότερός µού ἐστιν, οὗ οὐκ εἰµὶ ἱκανὸς τὰ ὑποδήµατα βαστάσαι· αὐτὸς ὑµᾶς βαπτίσει ἐν πνεύµατι ἁγίῳ καὶ πυρί. Ed. Aland, Greek New Testament, trans. RSV. See also Luke 3:9–10. Cf. Pitarakis, “Female piety,” 160. 564 A possible synonym for wrist is LSJ, s.v. “ἀστράγαλος,” but it also means vertebra, ankle, and knucklebones. 565 See section 4.4.5.

129

addition, the repoussé image of Marina privileges her left hand, corresponding to the reliquary’s

contents. Such a design could have been used for the Châteaudun reliquary. A gold attachment

would have gilded the relic, transforming it into a golden hand. If the Châteaudun reliquary

featured an image of the Baptist, he would have been depicted with his right hand raised in a

gesture of blessing or speaking.566 Such a depiction—executed in gold and enamel or gilded

repoussé—would have also served as a complement to the epigram’s description of a golden

hand.

Another comparable reliquary is that for the finger of the Apostle Thomas, preserved in

the Church of San Tomà in Venice (fig. 128). Gustave Schlumberger first published this little-

known reliquary in 1895.567 Its date is not known, but its form follows Middle Byzantine

convention.568 The finger relic has an attachment at one end. This attachment has a three-line

inscription, which is a partial quote of John 20:25, in which Thomas states, “Unless I see in his

hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand [in

his side, I will not believe].”569 The length of the finger is lined with a narrow metal strip with

the following inscription: “The index finger of the Apostle Thomas.”570 Such a design could

have been used for the Châteaudun reliquary. Metal strips would have lined one or multiple

fingers, leaving the relic exposed. This form would correspond to the epigram’s adjectival use of

the word “gold-finger” (χρυσοδάκτυλος).

Another comparable reliquary is that of St. Barbara, now at the Moscow Kremlin (A52,

figs. 123–24). The relic is no longer extant. All that survives is the cylindrical silver-gilt

attachment. It has a repoussé image of Barbara at the upper end, and a suspension loop on the

side. Four lines of text are inscribed on the circumference. The first three lines are a two-verse

Greek epigram: 566 See for example the twelfth-century vita icon at Mount Sinai; Kalavrezou, “Helping Hands,” fig. 9. 567 Schlumberger, “Deux reliquaires byzantins inédits,” 344–45. I am not sure if it is extant. 568 Schlumberger, “Deux reliquaires byzantins inédits,” 345 was of the opinion that it was from a later period, but its form is consistent with Middle Byzantine reliquaries. 569 Ἐὰν µὴ ἴδω ἐν ταῖς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ τὸν τύπον | τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω τὸν δάκτυλόν µου | εἰς τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων καὶ βάλω µου τὴν χεῖρα [εἰς τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ, οὐ µὴ πιστεύσω]. Ed. Aland, Greek New Testament, trans. RSV. 570 ὁ λιχανός δάκτυλος Θωµά τοῦ ἀποστόλου.

130

The extraordinary hand here is of an extraordinary virgin, the hand of Barbara that destroys pestilent diseases.571

The fourth line is a Russian inscription: “relics of the holy and great martyr Barbara.”572 While

the Russian inscription identifies the saint to whom the relic belongs, the Greek epigram

describes the power of Barbara’s hand in curing diseases. The form and size of the metal

attachment clearly indicate that it could not have been for the entire hand of Barbara, but rather

for a small bone, with the attachment crimped at one end. The small relic of Barbara thus served

as a stand-in for—and could possess the same miraculous powers of—the complete hand. Such a

design could have been used for the Châteaudun reliquary. A gold attachment displaying the

epigram could have been crimped at the end of the bone. The epigram would have instructed the

viewer to interpret the relic of John the Baptist as a compete hand of gold, with a gold-finger

gilded palm.

5.5 Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4): Reliquary as Tomb

5.5.1 Description of the Reliquary

The Halberstadt Cathedral treasury owns three Middle Byzantine reliquary enkolpia of

St. Demetrios.573 My focus is on the one that is inscribed with an epigram (A4), which I refer to

as the Halberstadt reliquary (fig. 10). This eleventh-century reliquary is made of silver and is of

the sarcophagus type as described in Chapter 2.574 Grabar identifies traces of a now-lost

suspension ring at the upper short end, confirming that it functioned as an enkolpion.575 The lid

features a repoussé image of an orant St. Demetrios. He is identified by a naming inscription and

is dressed in an ornamented tunic covered by a chlamys.576 The back of the reliquary enkolpion

571 Ξένη τις ἡ χεὶρ ὧδε παρθένου ξένης·

χεὶρ Βαρβάρας λύουσα λοιµώδεις νόσους. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:834. 572 Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 125. 573 See Meller, Der heilige Schatz, no. 6, pp. 54–59. 574 See section 2.4.4.2. 575 Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 6

131

is partially damaged. It features the Tree of Life iconography inscribed with the following

tetragram: ΑΠΜΣ, which may be deciphered as Ἀρχὴ Πίστεως Μυστηρίου Σταυρός (the

beginning of faith is the Cross of mystery) (fig. 12).577 The left, lower, and right sides of the box

are inscribed with a three-verse epigram arranged in two parallel lines (figs. 14–16):

Not only blood, but also myron I carry, (I) the present tomb of the martyr Demetrios, granting strength to those who have received with devotion.578

The lid slides down. The upper pair of doors features images of Sts. Nestor and Loupos, who

were disciples of Demetrios (fig. 11). Behind these doors is a bust image of Demetrios shown

dead with his hands crossed at his chest (fig. 13). St. Damianos is shown on the lower extant

door; he was most likely paired with St. Kosmas, his fellow anargyros.579 Behind this door is an

empty compartment that originally contained the blood and myron of St. Demetrios.

5.5.2 Epigram as Interpretation

As discussed in Chapter 2, Grabar convincingly argues that reliquaries of St. Demetrios

were copies of the saint’s tomb in Thessaloniki.580 Jaś Elsner builds on this argument by showing

that St. Demetrios reliquaries were designed with an architectural logic of interiority, thereby

creating a space for “virtual pilgrimage in which the beholder opens the locket and descends like

a pilgrim.”581 Both scholars focus only on the reliquaries’ formal features; the epigrams inscribed

576 He is labeled ὁ ἅ(γιος) Δηµήτριος. The diamond shape on his chest represents a tablion. This tablion is a recessed area, which suggests that it contained enamel or stone inlay. A similar recession is also found on the image of Demetrios on the Lavra reliquary enkolpion (A18; fig. 37). 577 BEIÜ, 2:156n56; and Walter, “Apotropaic Function,” 211. 578 Οὐχ αἷµα µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ µύρον φέρω

τάφος ὁ παρὼν µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου ῥῶσιν παρέχων τοῖς πόθῳ εἰληφόσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:156.

579 ODB, s.v. “Kosmas and Damianos” (Alexander Kazhdan and Nancy Patterson Ševčenko). 580 Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 7–8; and idem, “Un Nouveau Reliquaire,” 312–13. See section 2.4.4.2. 581 Jaś Elsner, “Relic, Icon, and Architecture: The Material Articulation of the Holy in East Christian Art,” in Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and

132

on these objects are not incorporated into their analyses.582 I reverse this approach and focus on

the Halberstadt reliquary epigram, demonstrating the ways in which it also functions to interpret

this reliquary as the saint’s tomb in order to facilitate a virtual pilgrimage experience for the

wearer.

The epigram clearly identifies the reliquary as the tomb (v. 2, ὁ τάφος) of St. Demetrios.

This contrasts with other reliquaries of St. Demetrios, which are described by their epigrams as

images or models of the saint’s shrine: “image of the ciborium” (τοῦ κιβωρίου τύπος, A43), and

“image of your tomb” (τάφου τύπον σοῦ, B10). As a way of authenticating its identity, the

Halberstadt reliquary epigram is written in the voice of the tomb/reliquary. The word φέρω (I

carry) in verse 1, is a verb typically found in epigrams for reliquary enkolpia in reference to the

wearer carrying the object around his/her neck.583 In this case, the word φέρω is used in

reference to the tomb/reliquary, which carries the blood and myron of Demetrios. Epigrams

written in the voice of reliquaries are limited only to those of Demetrios.584 It is a feature most

frequently found in epitaphs, in which the tomb speaks in honor of the deceased.585 One example

is a tenth-century epitaph for Michael the synkellos (patriarchal advisor).586

Holger Klein, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015), 13–40, at 27. 582 Grabar does not even provide the Halberstadt reliquary epigram in Greek or in translation; Grabar, “Quelques Reliquaires,” 6. 583 See section 6.2.3. 584 A43 and A54. For epigrams in the voice of the relic, see A5 and A32. See also Paul, “Beobachtungen,” 72. 585 Papalexandrou, “Eloquent Monuments,” 262; and Robert S. Nelson, “Image and Inscription: Pleas for Salvation in Spaces of Devotion,” in Art and Text in Byzantine Culture, ed. Liz James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 100–19, esp. 107–08. This is a tradition that dates back to antiquity. See Margaret Alexiou, The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 138; and the recent work on the intersection of epigram and performance by Joseph W. Day, Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and Reperformance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); and Manuel Baumbach et al eds., Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010). Jesper Svenbro, Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece, trans. Janet Lloyd (Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1993), 41–43 argues that first-person inscriptions on Ancient Greek monuments do not imbue those monuments with a sort of animism, but rather they have a deictic function for the reader, representing “hereness.” 586 ODB, s.v. “Synkellos” (Aristeides Papadakis).

133

I, a grave, proclaim the way of life, character, and name of this (man): Michael synkellos, a wise and blessed monk here, who cast off the burden, and escaped the shackles that weighed him down, (and) with most-nimble feet he went, where he (now) dances,

5 having been a most-faithful servant of the great-hearted Archpriest, wise Nikolaos, who built this temple to the most-high heavenly ruler.587

The Halberstadt reliquary epigram shares another feature with this epitaph: the use of

deictic terminology. In the epitaph, the reader is directed to the tomb where “this man” (v. 1,

τοῦδε) was buried and to “this temple” (v. 7, τόνδε νεὼν), “here” (v. 2, ὧδε) where he was a

monk and where his grave was located. This creates a spatial relationship between the reader and

the monument, and is a feature characteristic of epitaphs.588 The Halberstadt reliquary epigram

follows in this tradition by calling the reader’s attention to “the present (παρὼν) tomb.”589

The placement of the epigram also functions to interpret the reliquary as a tomb. The

epigram is placed on the left, lower, and right sides of the reliquary in two parallel lines (fig. 16).

It is divided into six segments on the reliquary: 1) upper line left side, 2) upper line lower side, 3)

upper line right side, 4) lower line left side, 5) lower line lower side, 6) lower line right side. As

discussed in Chapter 1, when an epigram is displayed on multiple sides of a reliquary, breaks in

the inscription will correspond to the ends of verses or at the hemistich breaks.590 The

587 Τύµβος ἐγὼ προλέγω βιοτήν, τρόπον, οὔνοµα τοῦδε·

σύγκελλος Μιχαὴλ µοναχὸ(ς) σοφὸς ὄλβιος ὧδε ἄχθος ἀπορρίψας βεβαρηότα δεσµὸν ἀλύξας ποσσὶν ἐλαφροτάτοισι διέστιχεν, ᾗχι χορεύει,

5 πιστότατος θεράπων µεγαλήτορος ἀρχιερῆος Νικολέω γεγαὼς πινυτόφρονος ὅστις ἔτευξε τόνδε νεὼν ὑψίστῳ ἐπουρανίῳ βασιλῆι. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:637 (TR64), trans. adapted from

Ihor Ševčenko, “An Early Tenth-Century Inscription from Galakrenai with Echoes from Nonnos and the Palatine Anthology,” DOP 41 (1987): 461–68, at 462. 588 Numerous examples can be found in Rhoby, “Inscriptional Poetry.” See also ed. Hermann Beckby, Anthologia Graeca, 2nd ed., 4 vols. (Munich: Heimeran, 1965–67), 2:VII.153, 260, 355, 452, 694; 3:XI.312; and ed. Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 3:2.11, 104, 175, 217, 246, 252, 354, 416, 419, 512, 623, 681, 664, 685; and BEIÜ, 3:GR11. 589 Similar deictic words, such as ἐνθάδε (hither, thither) and ἐνταῦθα (here, there), are found in other epigrams for reliquaries of St. Demetrios: A18, A54. See also B7 (section 2.4.4.3), and deictic terminology in section 4.4.3. 590 See section 1.2.1.

134

Halberstadt reliquary epigram consists of three verses, or six hemistichs. We would therefore

expect that each segment of inscribed text on the reliquary would consist of one hemistich, but

the Halberstadt reliquary epigram does not follow this convention.

The beginning of the epigram is clearly marked for the reader by an incipit cross on the

upper line on the left side. This line includes the first hemistich of the epigram, “not only blood”

(οὐχ αἷµα µόνον). It also includes the first two letters of the first word of the second hemistich

ἀλλὰ (but). In order to complete this word, the reader must turn the reliquary 90 degrees to read

the upper line of text on the lower short side. The second hemistich on this side is also

incomplete: “but also myron” (ἀλλὰ καὶ µύρον). The last word of this hemistich, the verb, is

missing and can only be found by turning the reliquary another 90 degrees. Here, on the right

side of the reliquary, the word φέρω (I carry) is read as well as the complete third hemistich: “the

present tomb” (τάφος ὁ παρὼν). After the reader completes one cycle around the reliquary,

he/she returns back to the left side to read the lower line sequence.591 From here to the end, the

placement follows convention: each segment is inscribed with one hemistich. The fourth

hemistich is the lower line on the left side: “of the martyr Demetrios” (µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου).

The fifth hemistich is the lower line on the lower side: “granting strength” (ῥῶσιν παρέχων). The

sixth hemistich is the lower line on the right side: “to those who have received with devotion”

(τοῖς πόθῳ εἰληφόσιν).

The break in the word ἀλλὰ and the separation of the verb φέρω from its hemistich is

unusual, but I argue that it was necessary in order to direct the viewer’s handling of the reliquary.

These unusual breaks force the reader to turn the reliquary 90 degrees counter-clockwise in order

to continue the epigram, complete the hemistichs and verses, and understand the epigram’s

meaning. This performance of reading and turning the reliquary required the reader/wearer to

perambulate the metaphorical “tomb” of the saint before opening its lid and doors, and accessing

the blood and myron that the reliquary contained. In this way, the epigram led the wearer of the

reliquary on a pilgrimage; he/she acted as one who journeyed to the basilica of St. Demetrios in

Thessaloniki. I argue that the Halberstadt reliquary therefore functioned as a holy site, and

handling the object served as a surrogate for pilgrimage.592

591 εἰληφόσιν (those who have received) is masculine, but we cannot be certain whether this is an indication of a specific gendered audience or an address to anyone; Smyth, Greek Grammar, no. 1015.

135

5.6 Conclusion

Epigrams served as exegeses for the reliquaries upon which they are/were inscribed.

They are important for understanding the ways in which Byzantine viewers interpreted the

formal and material features of the objects. The epigram for the staurotheke of Irene Doukaina

describes this lost reliquary as having been made of gold, gems, and pearls. Through the

description of these visual elements, the epigram presents the reliquary to the viewer as an image

of the Heavenly Jerusalem and the relic of the True Cross that it contained as the Tree of Life.

The epigram for the head reliquary of St. Stephen describes the gold, silver, and gems that

adorned the cranium as a crown for the saint. When the placement of the epigram is taken into

consideration, we see that the display of the inscription, which encircled the head, visually

functioned as a crown of words. The epigram for the lost reliquary of John the Baptist appears,

upon first read, to describe a Byzantine reliquary in the shape of a hand, but I argued that this

was likely not the case. I presented different ways in which the Byzantine reader may have

understood the meaning of this epigram, and in turn interpreted this relic and its golden

reliquary—whatever its shape—as a hand. The poet of the epigram thus also served as a

goldsmith through his/her rhetorical description of the object. While scholars have acknowledged

that the reliquary of St. Demetrios at Halberstadt is formally designed as an image of the saint’s

tomb in Thessaloniki, the ways in which the epigram reinforces this interpretation have been

overlooked. Not only does the epigram explicitly call the reliquary a “tomb,” but its

compositional relationship to epitaphs and its arrangement on the exterior forces the reader to

turn the reliquary and perambulate the exterior. In this way the reader/viewer embarks on a

miniaturized personal pilgrimage around and to the interior of the reliquary.

592 On the topic of reliquaries embodying loca sancta, see Veneskey, “Loca Sancta Surrogates.” Icons also function as surrogate for pilgrimage; see Carr, “Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage,” 84; and Elsner, “Relic, Icon, and Architecture,” 31–40. The two epigrams on the True Cross reliquary enkolpion at Sinai (A2) operate in a similar manner as that on the Halberstadt Reliquary. They are inscribed around the perimeter on the narrow sides of the cross. As the text is read, the reader/wearer turns the enkolpion in his hands and passes by images of Christ’s life, and these images correspond to sites in the Holy Land.

136

CHAPTER 6

RELIQUARIES AS SACRED GIFTS

6.1 Introduction

In this chapter I focus on the dedicatory nature of reliquary epigrams, and their

communicative function within the context of religious gift giving.593 According to

Lauxtermann, dedicatory epigrams “mention the donor or owner of the object and his

motivations for producing the object.”594 I have identified 60 Middle Byzantine reliquaries with

dedicatory epigrams.595 Scholarship has traditionally focused on the historical facts of these

texts, attempting to link specific reliquaries with known historical people and events. As a result,

an epigram’s textual content has been privileged over its visual function. I demonstrate that

analyses of epigrams’ textual and visual features produce a richer and more nuanced

understanding of the ways in which reliquaries communicate to the patrons’ spiritual and earthly

audiences.

This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first focuses on the textual content,

and the components that form a typical dedicatory epigram. Building upon recent philological

studies, I demonstrate that dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries consist of a tripartite composition:

identification of the holy figure and/or relics; introduction of the patron; and a statement of the

patron’s desired reward. In the second section of this chapter, I examine ways in which the

messages conveyed by a dedicatory epigram’s textual content is complemented, supplemented,

and reinforced by a reliquary’s visual features. I focus on one eleventh to twelfth-century

reliquary now in the treasury of the Protaton Monastery at Mount Athos (A19). I begin with a

593 For a general discussion of religious gift-giving and recent bibliography, see Vassiliki Dimitropoulou, “Giving Gifts to God: Aspects of Patronage in Byzantine Art,” in A Companion to Byzantium, ed. Liz James (West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 161–70. 594 Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 14. See also idem, “Byzantine Poetry,” 151–53; and Braounou-Pietsch, Beseelte Bilder, 33. 595 Those that explicitly name a patron: A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A10, A11, A12, A14, A16, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A26, A27, A36, A37, A38, A39, A40, A41, A43, A44, A46, A47, A48, A49, A51, A53, A54, A55, B3, B4, B5, B6, B8, B9, B11, B12, B13, B16, B17, B18, B19. Those that reference a patron, but do not provide a name: A13, A22, A25, A28, A29, A30, A31, A33, A35, A45, B10.

137

description of the reliquary, followed by analyses of the epigram and the iconographic program,

and ending with an examination of the epigram’s visual integration with the reliquary.

6.2 The Structure of Dedicatory Epigrams

6.2.1 Overview of Scholarship

Lauxtermann observes that dedicatory epigrams typically include the following

information: “owner/donor, object, dedicatory relation and (occasionally) prayer for

salvation.”596 Rhoby, in his study on dedicatory epigrams on architecture, argues that these texts

generally adhere to a tripartite structure: “justification of the donation/foundation, presentation of

the donor/founder, [and a] plea for support on the Day of the Last Judgment or plea for salvation

from all sins.”597 Foteini Spingou, in her analysis of the dedicatory epigrams in the Anthologia

Marciana, proposes a similar structure to that of Lauxtermann and Rhoby: Introduction, Main

Part, and Closing Lines.598 The Introduction includes “general statements, background of the

offering, snapshots from the life of the saint.” The Main Part provides the “motivation for the

offering, events related to the offering, what is given, presentation of the donor.” The Closing

Lines are a “presentation of the donor, final supplication.”599

While the precise structures suggested by these scholars have slight differences, they all

share a common theme: the patron dedicates a work of art to a holy figure and his/her motives

for producing the object are made known through a request for a return benefit.600 Dedicatory

epigrams on reliquaries are no different. I argue, however, that when they are examined together,

a three-part structure emerges that is specific to reliquaries. The first part identifies the holy

figure and/or relics; the second part introduces the patron; and the third part states the patron’s

596 Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 23. 597 Rhoby, “Structure,” 316. 598 Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 185–97. 599 Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 197. 600 Marcel Mauss, “Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques,” L’Année Sociologique, nouvelle série 1 (1923-1924): 30–186, convincingly argues that in archaic cultures, the presentation of a gift always required a gift in return. For a reassessment, see the forthcoming study Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 5).

138

desired reward for producing the reliquary. I wish to clarify that there is no such thing as a

“standard” dedicatory epigram.601 While most dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries adhere to my

suggested tripartite structure and are ordered in the sequence I provide, the variations are

numerous, in both the amount of information and the order in which it is presented. This

tripartite structure serves as a guide for understanding the traditional composition of dedicatory

epigrams on reliquaries.

6.2.2 Part 1: Identifying the Holy Figures and/or Relics

Dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries begin by identifying the holy figures and/or relics.

The holy figure may be explicitly named in the third person, or he/she may identify him/herself

through first-person voice. One example of the latter is epigram B on the Holy Blood reliquary at

Venice (A32), discussed in Chapter 4.602

You have me, Christ, if you carry the blood of my flesh.603

Alternatively, the name may not be given, and the saint’s identity is revealed only by a

description of his/her life. One example is the epigram for the head reliquary of St. Stephen

(A21), discussed in Chapter 5.604 The first two verses reference Acts 7:54–60, the stoning of

Protomartyr.605

2 In the past, the stones of martyrdom crowned 1 your head, O first-fighter, glory of the martyrs.606

601 As Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 196 notes, “Epigrams, even though formulaic…, are works of human creativity, which, unlimited as it is, cannot be fully presented in a systematic way.” 602 Section 4.4.6. 603 Ἔχεις µε Χριστὸν αἷµα σαρκός µου φέρων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:273. 604 Section 5.3. 605 As a result, an epigram may feature quotations or brief biblical or hagiographical citations. 606 Τὴν σὴν κάραν, πρώταθλε, µαρτύρων κλέος,

ἣν µαρτυρικοὶ πρὶν κατέστεψαν λίθοι. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213.

139

If the epigram identifies the relic, then it describes the relic’s history, miracles, and/or the ways

in which the patron acquired it. One epigram that includes many of these details is that on the

reliquary of St. Marina (A30), discussed in Chapter 4.607 The first three verses state:

You ask, viewer, whose hand is it? This is of the holy martyr Marina; its power smashed the heads of the dragon.608

The saint is named in the third person (v. 2), her relic is identified (v.1), and the epigram

provides an important episode from the saint’s life (v. 3).609

6.2.3 Part 2: Introduction of the Patron and His/Her Actions

The second part of a dedicatory epigram introduces the patron. He/she may identify

him/herself through first-person voice, or the epigram may name the patron in the third person.610

One example of an epigram written in the voice of the patron is that for the head reliquary of St.

Stephen (A21). Verses 3–5 state:

Now I also crown (it), with material of gold and silver, showing my prosperous love with a poor gift.

5 In return, I ask salvation of the soul.611

81.7% of the dedicatory epigrams in this study include the patron’s name, title,

occupation, and/or family name.612 18.3% do not name the patron, but s/he is implicitly

607 Section 4.4.5. 608 Ζητεῖς, θεατά, τίνος ἡ χεὶρ τυγχάνει;

µάρτυρος ἥδε Μαρίνης τῆς ἁγίας ἧς τὸ κράτος ἔθλασε δράκοντο<ς> κάρας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:253.

609 Usener, Acta S. Marinae, 29.13–30.19; and Menologii, 2:182.24–29. For this iconography, see Lafontaine-Dosogne, “Un thème iconographique peu connu,” 251–59 610 Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 2) argues that beginning the twelfth century, dedicatory epigrams are more frequently composed in the voice of the patron. See also idem, “The Patron’s ‘I’,” 611 στέφω κἀγὼ νῦν ἐξ ὕλης χρυσαργύρου

δώρῳ πενιχρῷ δεικνὺς ὄλβιον πόθον· οὗ χάριν αἰτῶ τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213.

140

referenced.613 This ratio indicates that the inclusion of a name was common, but why? As Ivan

Drpić argues, names served two functions: one social and the other religious.614 As for its social

function, commissioning works of art and offering them to a church or monastery was an

expectation of emperors, high-ranking officials, and aristocratic families.615 Inscribing such

works of art with dedicatory epigrams allowed patrons to “sign” their commissions, indicate their

social position, and leave a record of their offerings for posterity. When the epigrams were read,

members of the Byzantine elite publicly announced that they fulfilled their social expectations

and obligations.616

The use of names in dedicatory epigrams also served a religious function. It conveyed the

patron’s identity and devotion to a specific holy figure in hopes of garnering divine favor and

ensuring that the patron’s requests will be heard and answered. A patron could address her/his

namesake saint, and, through the epigram, highlight the homonymous relationship between the

earthly giver and the heavenly recipient.617 Homonymity may also be used to highlight a

612 49/60: A1, A2, A3, A5, A6, A7, A8, A10, A11, A12, A14, A16, A17, A18, A19, A21, A23, A24, A26, A27, A36, A37, A38, A39, A40, A41, A43, A44, A46, A47, A48, A49, A51, A53, A54, A55, B3, B4, B5, B6, B8, B9, B11, B12, B13, B16, B17, B18, B19. For the ways in which patrons indicate their rank, occupation, or family in the epigrams of the Anthologia Marciana, see Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 198–217. 613 11/60: A13, A22, A25, A28, A29, A30, A31, A33, A35, A45, B10. 614 Drpić, “The Patron’s ‘I’,” 911 argues that dedicatory epigrams construct “an identity for the patron along two axes: the horizontal axis of social positioning and the vertical axis of devotion.” See also Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 2). 615 Papamastorakis, “The Display of Accumulated Wealth,” esp. 36–37. 616 For donation as a sacred obligation, see Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 5). 617 John Cotsonis, “Onomastics, gender, office and images on Byzantine lead seals: a means of investigating personal piety,” BMGS 32 (2008): 1–37 argues that based on the surviving evidence, homonymity on seals was not common practice. Inscriptions on seals, however, explicitly reference such homonymous relationships. See, for example, the twelfth-century seal for Basil, the metropolitan of Thessaloniki, now at Dumbarton Oaks (55.1.4992) which features an image of St. Basil on one side and the following inscription on the other: ΟΜΩΝΥΜΟΝ ΣΟΙ ΘΕΤΤΑΛΩΝ ΘΥΤΗΝ ΣΚΕΠΕ (Protect your namesake the metropolitan of the Thessalians); see Cotsonis, “Onomastics,” 5–6, fig. 3. Another example is the twelfth-century seal of Maria Komnene which features an image of the Mother of God on the front and the following inscription on the reverse: Ὁµώνυµόν σου Κοµνηνὴν σκέποις, κόρη (May you, O maiden, protect your namesake Komnene). Ed. Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 3:274. See also Andreas Mordtmann, “Μολυβδόβουλλα τών Κοµνηνών,” Ὁ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Ἑλληνικὸς

141

typological relationship between the life of a holy figure and that of a patron. One example of

such a relationship is explicitly stated in an epigram for a reliquary of the True Cross, now lost,

for the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos (r. 1042–55) (B4).618

Again a light of the cross, and again a Constantine. The first perceived the form through the air, and the second sees the thing itself, and (the cross) being venerated, he faithfully carries (it) in (his) hands.

5 Both having received the power from it. Both worship it, as benefactor.619

This epigram, authored by John Mauropous (born ca. 1000), a court rhetorician and

metropolitan of Euchaita, compares Constantine IX with Constantine I.620 Mauropous

emphasizes the typological relationship between “the first” (v. 2, ὁ πρῶτος) and “the second” (v.

3, ὁ δεύτερος), by saying “and again a Constantine” (καὶ πάλιν Κωνσταντῖνος). Just as “the first”

received a miraculous vision of the cross at the Milvian Bridge, so too does “the second” see the

“thing itself” (τοῦτον αὐτὸν), the relic that he venerates and faithfully carries in his hands.

“Both” (ἄµφω, v. 5) receive its power, and “both” (v. 6) worship it. Just as Constantine I was

victorious over his enemies through the power of the Cross, so too is Constantine IX through the

power of his relic of the True Cross.

Dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries also specify the patrons’ actions. In 85% of

dedicatory epigrams, the patron performs an action with, or for, the relic/reliquary.621 The verbs

φιλολογικὸς σύλλογος 13, suppl. (1881): 44–49, at 48. Titles were also a source of wordplay with a holy figure’s name; see Nunn, “The Encheirion,” 92–93, nos. 62–63. 618 Title: Εἰς θήκην τοῦ τιµίου ξύλου τοῦ βασιλέως Χριστοῦ (On the reliquary of the precious wood of Christ the emperor). 619 Σταυροῦ πάλιν φῶς καὶ πάλιν Κωνσταντῖνος·

ὁ πρῶτος εἶδε τὸν τύπον δι’ ἀέρος, ὁ δεύτερος δὲ τοῦτον αὐτὸν καὶ βλέπει καὶ χερσὶ πιστῶς προσκυνούµενον φέρει· ἄµφω παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ κράτος δεδεγµένοι ἄµφω σέβουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς εὐεργέτην. Ed. Lagarde, Iohannis Euchaitorum, 34; emend.

Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz,” 113. 620 For Mauropous’s life and works, see Bernard, Byzantine Secular Poetry, 368 (s.v. “Mauropous, Ioannes”).

142

associated with patrons vary, but I suggest they can generally be grouped into four types.622 The

most common (53.3%) are verbs associated with making (τεύχω) the reliquary and adorning

(κοσµέω) the relic.623 This was first discussed in Chapter 5, in relationship to the epigram for the

head reliquary of St. Stephen (A21).624 In verse 3, Basileios describes his act of making the

reliquary and adorning the relic through the metaphor of crowning the cranium of St. Stephen.

Now I also crown (it), with material of gold and silver.625

The second verb type (26.7%) associated with patrons are those that describe possessing

or carrying (φέρω) the relic or reliquary.626 Such words are often found in epigrams for reliquary

enkolpia—objects that were worn on the chest. For example, a six-verse epigram for a now-lost

reliquary enkolpion that contained a piece of the Stone of Unction (B18), states in verses 4–6:

5 O Savior, protect me, John Komnenos, 4 who carries a part of this revered stone,

together with my wife Maria, an offspring of the Doukai.627

The third verb type (8.3%) includes those that refer to acts of giving (δίδωµι) the

reliquary.628 One example is the epigram for the True Cross reliquary of Irene Doukaina (A37),

now in Venice, and discussed in Chapter 4.629 Verses 8–10 state:

621 51/60: A3, A6, A7, A8, A10, A12, A13, A14, A16, A17, A18, A19, A21, A22, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A30, A31, A33, A35, A36, A37, A38, A39, A40, A41, A43, A44, A45, A46, A47, A48, A49, A51, A53, A55, B3, B4, B5, B6, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B16, B18. 622 This categorization is admittedly not an exact science because certain verbs could arguably fit into more than one category and in some epigrams more than one verb is used. Trying to interpret the meaning of a patron’s action verges into patron intent, which is difficult to do when all we can rely on is the epigram. 623 32/60: A6, A7, A8, A12, A14, A16, A17, A19, A21, A24, A25, A26, A27, A30, A31, A36, A38, A39, A40, A41, A43, A44, A45, A46, A47, A51, A53, B3, B6, B8, B10, B11. 624 Section 5.3. 625 στέφω κἀγὼ νῦν ἐξ ὕλης χρυσαργύρου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213. 626 16/60: A7, A13, A14, A16, A18, A19, A28, A30, A35, A48, A55, B4, B9, B10, B12, B18. 627 φέροντα σεπτὸν τοῦδε τοῦ λίθου µέρος

5 Ἰωάννην µε Κοµνηνὸν, Σῶτερ, σκέποις ἅµα συνεύνῳ Δουκοβλάστῳ Μαρίᾳ. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 175.

143

I give this final gift to you, I, dying and ceasing from sufferings,

10 the Empress Doukaina, servant Irene.630

The fourth verb type (6.7%) describes acts of veneration (προσκυνέω), as seen in the

True Cross reliquary of Constantine IX Monomachos (B4), discussed above.631

And (the cross) being venerated, he faithfully carries (it) in (his) hands.

5 Both having received the power from it. Both worship it, as benefactor.632

Dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries also indicate the manner with which a patron makes,

possesses, worships, or gives the reliquary/relic. A common expression is πόθος, which can be

variously translated as love, desire, devotion, or passion.633 It is found in verse 5 of the epigram

of the hand reliquary of John the Baptist from Châteaudun (A8), discussed in Chapter 5.634

5 But the hand was organized by the art and love

of the Princess Anna, descendant of the porphyra.635

628 5/60: A3, A37, A49 (in the non-metrical inscription), B5, B10. 629 Section 4.4.3. 630 ταύτην δίδωµι σοὶ τελευταίαν δόσιν

θνήσκουσα καὶ λήγουσα κἀγὼ τῶν πόνων, 10 ἡ βασιλὶς Δούκαινα, λάτρις Εἰρήνη. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:269.

631 4/60: A22, A33, B4, B13. 632 καὶ χερσὶ πιστῶς προσκυνούµενον φέρει·

5 ἄµφω παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ κράτος δεδεγµένοι ἄµφω σέβουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς εὐεργέτην. Ed. Lagarde, Iohannis Euchaitorum, 34; corr.

Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz,” 113. 633 On πόθος, see Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 6). 634 Section 5.4. 635 5 τὴν χεῖρα δ’ ὠ[ρ]γάνωσε τέχνη καὶ πόθος

Ἄννης ἀνάσσης, ἐκγόνου τῆς πορφύρας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:173.

144

Alternatively, the faith, love, or devotion of the patron might be the active agent in producing the

reliquary. Such an expression is found in the verse 1 of the epigram for the staurotheke of

Constantine Patrikios (A38), discussed in Chapter 5.636

What such marvels are made by the faith of Constantine.637

While patrons’ actions are praised in epigrams, they are balanced with humility.638 One

example is the epigram for the head reliquary of St. Stephen (A21). Verses 3–4 state:

Now I also crown (it), with material of gold and silver, showing my prosperous love with a poor gift.639

6.2.4 Part 3: The Patron’s Desired Reward

The third part of dedicatory epigrams states the patrons desired rewards.640 Requests can

be generally grouped into two types. One type (58.3%) includes those epigrams that request

protection and/or salvation, and the other (16.7%) includes those that request strength, support,

and/or victory.641 An epigram that expresses both types is that for the reliquary of St. Marina

(A30), discussed in Chapter 4.642 The last four verses state:

Therefore, unfading flower of the martyrs,

636 Section 5.2.2. 637 Ὡς οἷα ποιεῖ πίστις ἡ Κωνσταντίνου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:274. 638 Frolow, Les reliquaires, 194; Nunn, “The Encheirion,” 94–95, no. 70; Papamastorakis, “The Display of Accumulated Wealth,” 39–40; and Krause, “The Staurotheke of the Empress Maria,” 39–40. 639 στέφω κἀγὼ νῦν ἐξ ὕλης χρυσαργύρου

δώρῳ πενιχρῷ δεικνὺς ὄλβιον πόθον· Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213. 640 See also Frolow, Les reliquaires, 194–95. For a detailed analysis, see Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion, (ch. 5). 641 Protection and/or Salvation (35/60): A1, A2, A5, A10, A11, A12, A16, A17, A18, A21, A22, A23, A25, A26, A27, A28, A33, A37, A39, A40, A41, A45, A46, A48, A53, A54, A55, B3, B6, B8, B9, B10, B13, B18, B19. Strength, support, and/or victory (10/60): A7, A13, A31, A35, A47, B4, B11, B12, B16, B17. Both types (6.7%, 4/60): A6, A14, A30, A49. No stated reward (18.3%, 11/60): A3, A8, A19, A24, A29, A36, A38, A43, A44, A51, B5. 642 Section 4.4.5.

145

10 Save me from the storm of the intelligible spirits! May you grant (me) both victory and power over them, dispensing a gift proportionate to (my) affection.643

The anonymous female patron requests that Marina save (ῥύου) her from the evil spirits, and that

she be granted victory (νίκην) and power (κράτος) over them. Her desire for reciprocity is made

explicit in the final verse. The rewards that she desires is a gift “proportionate” (ἀνάλογον) to the

affection she has shown (i.e. adorning the relic).

6.3 The Interaction of Text and Object: The Protaton Reliquary (A19)

6.3.1 Introduction

A dedicatory epigram on a reliquary is part of a complex system in which text, images,

relics, materials, and the object, as a whole, work together and interact with each other. In order

to illustrate these interactions, I focus on one reliquary, and examine the ways in which the

dedicatory epigram’s textual content is complemented, supplemented, and reinforced by the

reliquary’s visual features. I begin with a description of the reliquary, followed by an

examination of the epigram, then an analysis of the iconographic program. I end with a

discussion of the epigram’s visual integration with the imagery.

6.3.2 Description of the Reliquary

The Protaton Reliquary is now located at Mount Athos (figs. 40–46).644 It is a panel-type

staurotheke; the rectangular box and sliding lid are made of wood covered by silver-gilt

revetment.645 The Protaton Reliquary contains a relic of the True Cross and four stones from the

643 τοίνυν, ἀµαράντινον ἄνθος µαρτύρων,

ζάλης ῥύου µε τῶν νοητῶν πνευµάτων· νίκην κατ’ αὐτῶν (καὶ) κράτος τε παρέχοις ἀνάλογον νέµουσα τῇ σχέσει δόσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:253.

644 See also my publications on this reliquary; Brad Hostetler, “The Iconography of Text: The Placement of an Inscription on a Middle Byzantine Reliquary,” Eastern Christian Art 8 (2011): 49–55; idem, “Image, Epigram, and Nature in Middle Byzantine Personal Devotion,” in Natural Materials of the Holy Land and the Visual Translation of Place, 500 – 1500, eds. Renana Bartal, Neta Bodner, and Bianca Kühnel (Farnham: Ashgate), forthcoming, 2016. 645 The presence of nail holes suggest that the reliquary has a wooden core, but its composition has not been published; cf. Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 280n26.

146

Holy Land. It is a composite work, constructed in the eleventh–twelfth century and altered in

1758.646 I first describe the Middle Byzantine components, and then explain what was later

added.

The Crucifixion panel on the lid is part of the original reliquary, and follows standard

Middle Byzantine iconography (fig. 40). Christ, the central figure, is shown hanging on the

cross. He wears a knee-length loincloth knotted below the waist. His feet are supported by a

suppedion. The base of the cross is mounted on the rock of Golgotha by three stakes. The upper

end of the cross has a titulus inscribed with the abbreviation for the name Jesus Christ, Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς

Χ(ριστό)ς. The Theotokos and John the Apostle are depicted to the left and right sides of the

cross, respectively. The Mother of God’s body is in right profile and her head is in three-quarter

view. Her left hand clasps her right shoulder and she raises her right arm toward Christ, whose

head is tilted toward her. John turns toward the cross and is depicted in three-quarter view. With

his left hand he gestures to Christ, and with his right he touches his face; a standard gesture for

the scene and an expression of sorrow.647 John 19:26–27, “behold your son” and “behold your

mother,” are inscribed above the heads of the Theotokos and the Apostle and below the left and

right arms of the cross.648 Two angels, shown from the waist up, are positioned above the left and

right arms of the cross. They look toward Christ, and torque their bodies away from him.

The non-standard element of this scene is the sixth figure, shown in proskynesis between

the Theotokos and Christ. He has short curly hair, is bearded, and wears a tunic covered by a

mantle. He faces the Theotokos in left profile, cupping his hands together in supplication. His

feet touch the rock of Golgotha. This figure is identified by the non-metrical inscription placed

646 The date of the Middle Byzantine components is based on style, iconography, and epigraphy; Frolow, La relique, 653 (no. 1120); Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida in Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos, 341; Brigitte Pitarakis and Yota Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 49; Pitarakis in Ioannes Varales, ed., Άγιον Όρος: Κειµήλια Πρωτάτου (Thessaloniki: Hagioreitike Hestia, 2006), 119 (no. 67); Démétrios Liakos in Musée du Petit Palais, Le Mont Athos et l’Empire byzantin: trésors de la Sainte Montagne (Paris: Paris-Musées, 2009), no. 124; and BEIÜ, 2:202. 647 Henry Maguire, “The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art,” DOP 31 (1977): 123–74, at 144–45. 648 ἴδε ὁ υἱός σου; ἰδού ἡ µ(ήτ)ηρ σου.

147

above him: “Lord help Zosimas the monk.”649 The dedicatory epigram, to which I will return, is

placed on the upper, left, and right sides of the Crucifixion panel.

The box contains four stones that are mounted and displayed in the silver-gilt revetment

in the four corners (fig. 44). Inscribed on the revetment next to each of these relics is an

identifying inscription: “from the holy Tomb of Christ” (upper left), “from the holy Skull,” (i.e.

Golgotha, upper right), “from holy Bethlehem” (lower left), and “from holy Gethsemane” (lower

right).650 Frolow argues that the Middle Byzantine reliquary also originally contained a relic of

the True Cross.651 This is suggested by the fact that the center of the box featured an image of a

cross in gilded repoussé cross, fragments of which survive. I have highlighted these fragments in

figure 45.652 This cross had a labeling inscription—“wood” (ξύλον)—which is divided in two

parts (ΞΥ | ΛΟΝ), and was placed on either side of the original image. The lid and box are

contemporary as evidenced by the fact that the letterforms of the cross and relic inscriptions are

the same as those of the dedicatory epigram on the lid.653

The alterations of 1758 are documented by a dated inscription, written in irregularly

shaped letters, placed on the frame of the box (fig. 44).654 At this time, the box was enlarged to

649 Κ(ύρι)ε, βοήθει Ζωσιµᾷ µοναχῷ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:202. An issue that I will deal with in future research will be the delineating the different types of inscriptions on works of art: metrical and non-metrical, dedicatory and this type of inscription which may be termed “invocational.” 650 ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Τάφου τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ; ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Κρανίου; ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Βηθλεέµ; ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Γεθσηµανί. 651 Frolow, La relique, 652 also suggests that the inscription next to the cross included the word τίµιον (precious), an adjective that usually accompanies the word ξύλον when referencing relics of the True Cross. He does not indicate where this word was located vis-à-vis the cross. Given the spatial constraints, I suggest that it was probably divided in two parts—as with the word ξύλον —placed on either side of the upper medallion of the repoussé cross. It is possible that the original Byzantine reliquary did not contain a relic of the True Cross. The epigram on the lid does not mention a relic of the True Cross, which is unusual if the reliquary originally contained one. For epigrams on reliquaries of the True Cross, and the ways in which they identify the relic, see section 4.4.4. 652 The finial rosettes of the left, right, and lower ends of the cross are extant. For a similar image of a cross with rosettes, see the twelfth-century gold and enamel enkolpion at the Natsionalen Arkheologicheski Muzei in Sofia (487) in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, no. 574. On the Protaton Reliquary, the right rosette was cut from the revetment, rotated clockwise 135 degrees, and reattached in approximately the same location. 653 See also Loverdou-Tsigarida in Karakatsanis, Treasures of Mount Athos, 341.

148

make room for an eighteenth-century reliquary enkolpion of the True Cross; it is not known

whether or not the relic inside this enkolpion was part of the original Middle Byzantine

reliquary.655 The enkolpion is housed within a cruciform cavity that was cut at the center of the

box, destroying most of the Middle Byzantine repoussé cross. The lid was enlarged with silver

strips decorated with rinceaux added to the left, right, and lower edges of the Crucifixion panel

(fig. 40).656

My focus is only on the Middle Byzantine form of the Protaton Reliquary. In figure 46, I

offer a suggested reconstruction of the original appearance of the box and the repoussé cross

based on the surviving components.657

6.3.3 The Dedicatory Epigram

6.3.3.1 Description. The three-verse dedicatory epigram frames the Crucifixion panel on

three sides; each verse is placed along a different edge of the panel (fig. 42).658 The inscription

begins with the verse on the upper edge, continues down the right side, and concludes on the

left.659 The translation of the epigram is best rendered by rearranging the order of the first two

verses.

654 ΤΟ ΠΑΡΟΝ ΕΓΚΟΛΦΙΟΝ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΣΤΑΥΡΟΥ ΚΕ ΤΟΥ ΤΙΜΙΟΥ ΞΙΛΟΥ ΗΠΑΡΧΙ ΕΤΙΜΑ [ΚΤΗΜΑ] ΤΙΣ ΜΕΓΑΛΙΣ ΕΚΙΛΗΣΙΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΠΡΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΔΙΑ ΣΙΝΔΡΟΜΙΣ | ΚΕ ΕΞΟΔΟΥ ΤΟΝ ΚΗΛΙΟΤΟΝ ΚΕ ΕΑν ΤΙΣ ΒΟΥΛΗΘΗ ΑΠΟΞΕΝΟΣΙ ΑΥΤΟΥ Η ΤΙ ΕΞ ΑΥΤΟΥ | ΕΧΕΤΟ ΑΥΤΟΝ ΑΝΤΗΜΑΧΟΝ ΚΕ ΤΙΝ ΚΗΡΙΑΝ ΘΕΟΤΟΚΟΝ ΑΝΤΙΔΙΚΟΝ ΕΝ ΗΜΕΡΑ ΚΡΙΣΕΟΣ ΑΨΝ8. (This enkolphion with the cross and the True Cross is the possession of the great church of the Protaton, through the subvention and at the expense of the kelli-dwellers, and if anyone alienates this or anything from it, may he have the Lady Theotokos as his adversary in the Day of Judgment. 1758.) Transcription and translation by Yota Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 49. See also Millet, Recueil des inscriptions, 10. For brief remarks on this inscription, see BEIÜ, 2:202n325. 655 For a detailed description of this enkolpion and its date, see Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 52–55, and 281n48. The hook and chain at the upper end of the box are also later additions. 656 Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 52. 657 A reconstruction drawing is also published by Pitarakis in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 281 (illustration 1). It does not include a reconstruction of the repoussé cross. The dimensions of the Crucifixion panel, based on my measurements of a scaled photograph is approximately 14.5 x 10.5 cm. 658 Andreas Rhoby first notes that the break between verses 1 and 2 is marked by two dots (:) in the upper right corner of the panel; see BEIÜ, 2:202.

149

2 With welling faith, Zosimas is rich with 1 the life-giving stones from the venerable places,

and Nikolaos adorns the reliquary with love.660

6.3.3.2 Comparison to the Three-Part Structure. This epigram identifies the relics: the

stones that are mounted and displayed inside the reliquary. The first verse indicates that they

come from “venerable places,” i.e. sites associated with the life of Christ in the Holy Land.

The epigram identifies two patrons and their respective actions are clearly assigned.

Zosimas is “rich with” the relics, and Nikolaos “adorns” the reliquary that holds these life-giving

stones. The manner with which these individuals perform their actions is also expressed. Verse 2

states that Zosimas does so “with welling faith,” and verse 3 indicates that Nikolaos adorns the

reliquary “with love” (πόθῳ).661 The creation of the Protaton Reliquary was thus a collaborative

effort between Zosimas and Nikolaos. There is not enough information in the epigram to

associate these men with any historical figure. It can be assumed that the portrait of Zosimas the

monk is the same Zosimas mentioned in the epigram, but the location of his monastery is not

known.662

659 The inscription is complete; however the upper left corner of the panel is missing. This portion of the panel likely featured a cross that marked the beginning of the inscription; see Hostetler, “Iconography of Text,” 51. 660 Τοὺς ζωοποιοὺς ἐκ τόπων σεβασµίων

πίστει ζεούσῃ Ζωσιµᾶς πλουτεῖ λίθους· κοσµεῖ δὲ Νικόλαος τὴν θήκην πόθῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:202. This translation revises my

previous rendering in Hostetler, “Iconography of Text,” 53. See also the Pitarakis’s English translation in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 50. 661 These expressions—with faith and love—are also used by the monk and saint Neophytos Enkleistos (1134–ca. 1214) in the typikon for his monastery in Cyprus: “Concerning the divine icons and the holy vessels and the precious woods of the Cross and the holy relics of martyrs and holy men, whose number is thirty, and which I embellished in longing desire and faith” (Περὶ δὲ τῶν θείων εἰκόνων καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν σκευῶν καὶ τῶν τιµίων καὶ σταυρικῶν ξύλων καὶ τῶν ἁγίων λειψάνων, µαρτύρων καὶ ὁσίων, ὧν ἡ ποσότης τριάκοντα, ἃ καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐγχωροῦν ἐκόσµησα ἐγὼ πόθῳ καὶ πίστει). Ed. I. E. Stephanes, Τυπικὴ Διαθήκη, vol. 2 of Ἁγίου Νεοφύτου τοῦ Ἐγκλείστου Συγγράµµατα, eds. I. Karabidopoulos, C. Oikonomou, D.G. Tsames, and N. Zacharopoulos (Paphos: Ἱερὰ Βασιλικὴ καὶ Σταυροπηγιακὴ Μονὴ Ἁγίου Νεοφύτου, 1998), 51, trans. BMFD, 1360. 662 Pitarakis in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 52; and Varales, Άγιον Όρος, 120 suggests that Zosimas may have acquired the stones while on pilgrimage to Jerusalem at some point after 1099, when the Crusaders captured the city, and when there was increased pilgrimage to the Holy Land. There is no evidence that either confirms or denies this suggestion.

150

The epigram does not indicate what Zosimas and Nikolaos expect in return for the

making of the reliquary, but I will demonstrate that it is expressed visually.

6.3.3.3 Hierarchy of Patrons. Scholars have overlooked the fact that it is unusual for a

reliquary epigram to name two patrons, let alone delineate their respective contributions so

clearly.663 I suggest that this delineation reveals a hierarchy of the patrons and their

contributions. The epigram’s content, word order, metrics, and alliteration point to Zosimas as

the primary patron.

In terms of structure, each verse focuses on a different aspect of the reliquary. The first

references the stones, their “life-giving” power, and their association with the “venerable places”

of the Holy Land. The second verse identifies Zosimas as the owner of the stones. The third

names Nikolaos, who “adorned” the reliquary. Grammatically, there are only two subjects in the

epigram: Zosimas and Nikolaos. Their names are in the nominative case, and the words “stones”

and “reliquary” are in the accusative. The first two verses thus form a unified thought that

centers on Zosimas (the subject), who is rich with (the verb) the life-giving stones (the object).

The unification of the first two verses is reinforced by word order. Verse 1 opens with the

definite article τοὺς (the); its corresponding noun, λίθους (stones), appears at the end of the

second verse. Rhoby, in his discussion of this epigram, remarks that it is unusual to have the

noun and its article separated by two verses.664 I suggest that these words bookend the first two

verses in order to unify this portion of the dedication into a single message. When the epigram is

read, the object that is described as “life-giving” and coming “from venerable places” is not

known until the reader recites Zosimas’s name and reaches the end of the second verse, uniting

the patron (Zosimas) and his relics (stones).

The third verse is grammatically independent from the first two verses; it reads as its own

complete message: Nikolas (subject) adorns (verb) the reliquary (object). The conceptual break

between the second and third verses is strengthened by the word δὲ, which is the second word of

663 Five other reliquaries have epigrams that reference more than one person. The epigram on the cross of the Limburg Staurotheke (A6) name two emperors, but they perform their actions jointly. The unnamed monks of the Bagà Cross epigram (A45) perform a single action; see section 4.4.4. For epigrams B6, B13, B18, a single patron is mentioned but they each ask that a loved one also receive some sort of reward (protection/salvation). 664 BEIÜ, 2:203.

151

verse 3.665 This word, which is used to present a new idea about a different individual, offsets

verse 3 from the rest of the epigram.666

The metrical structure of the verses also indicates a formal break between verses 1–2 and

verse 3. As I described in Chapter 1, each twelve-syllable verse is composed of two hemistichs,

each of which has either five or seven syllables. Each twelve-syllable verse is thus formed of a 5-

7 or 7-5 syllabic pattern—termed by scholars as B5 or B7, respectively.667 The Protaton’s

syllabic pattern is B5, B5, and B7. The poet unified verses 1 and 2 by using B5 for both. The

rhythm of the epigram shifts gears, if you will, when the reader comes to verse 3, for which B7 is

used. This shift in the epigram’s rhythm unifies the first two verses in metrics and content and

distinguishes them from that of the third verse.

Why did the poet differentiate verses 1 and 2 from verse 3? I suggest that it was in order

to distinguish the two patrons one from the other, and to elevate Zosimas over Nikolaos. In

addition to being the only patron depicted on the reliquary, Zosimas is named first in the

dedication, and he is the subject of two-thirds of the epigram to Nikolaos’s one-third. The use of

alliteration also draws more attention to the first two verses and to Zosimas. When the epigram is

recited aloud, the words ζωοποιοὺς (life-giving), ζεούσῃ (welling), and Zosimas create an aural

rhythm that emphasizes verses 1 and 2.668 The choice of words to alliterate is also significant.

Zosimas and ζωοποιοὺς are formed from the same root, ζωή, meaning “life,” and, in the

Christian context, “eternal life.”669 Wordplay is used to establish the relationship between the

patron and his relics, and the welling faith with which he possesses them. The number of verses,

the structure of the epigram, the metrics, alliteration, and portrait together suggest a hierarchy of

gift-giving in which Zosimas was the primary patron.

665 I thank Nancy Ševčenko for bringing this to my attention. 666 Smyth, Greek Grammar, no. 2834. 667 Section 1.2.1. 668 On the practice of reading epigrams aloud, see Papalexandrou, “Text in Context.” 669 LPGL, s.v. “ζωή.” This alliteration was first noted by Rhoby; see BEIÜ, 2:203.

152

6.3.4 The Iconographic Program

6.3.4.1 Introduction. The Crucifixion panel is an icon. In order for it to function as an

icon, it must conform to a standard composition recognizable to the Byzantine viewer.670 This

composition, as previously stated, includes Christ on the cross, the Mother of God, and John. The

individual figures and their gestures may slightly vary, but the overall scene must be well defined

and fulfill the viewer’s expectations of what a Crucifixion icon must look like.671

The portrait of Zosimas is a non-standard iconographic element of the Crucifixion image.

Its inclusion is unusual for two reasons. One, the Protaton Reliquary is only one of two

reliquaries that date to the Middle Byzantine period that feature(d) a so-called donor portrait.672

Two, Zosimas is depicted in a biblical scene. This is rarely the case for Middle Byzantine donor

portraits in any medium.673 Donors are more frequently shown with one or two holy figures, set

against a plain or gold background, and thus removed from a specific setting or event.674

670 Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies, 15–16. 671 Maguire, The Icons of Their Bodies, 16. 672 I know of only one other Middle Byzantine reliquary that had a so-called donor portrait, the Grandmont Staurotheke (A10). This figure, Alexios Doukas, was also shown at the Crucifixion; Hostetler, “Image, Epigram, and Nature.” 673 Nancy Ševčenko, “The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons,” ΔΧΑΕ

17 (1993–94): 157–64, at 162–64 identifies three other examples of Middle Byzantine “donors” shown with biblical narrative scenes. To this list I add Alexios Doukas on the no longer extant Grandmont Staurotheke (A10), the unnamed figure shown with a scene of the Annunciation in the Cappadocian rock-cut church of Yusuf Koç Kilisesi, which dates to the first half of the eleventh century, as well as the two men named John Entalmatikos and Genethlios represented with the Benediction of the Apostles in the mid-eleventh-century rock-cut church of Karanlık Kilise, also in Cappadocia; Lyn Rodley, Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Cappadocia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 53–54 and 156, figs. 10a and 29a. See also the processional cross at the Cluny Museum in Paris which features a monk next to an image of the Virgin being fed by an angel; in Cotsonis, Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses, fig. 14b. The Khakouli Triptych features an enamel image of a Byzantine empress in what appears to be a scene of the Annunciation; Ioli Kalavrezou, “Female Popular Beliefs and Maria of Alania,” Journal of Turkish Studies 36 (2011): 85–101, at fig. 4. For a discussion of Late Byzantine examples, see Fani Gargova, “The Meteora Icon of the Incredulity of Thomas Reconsidered,” in Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Lioba Theis et al, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 40/41 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2011–12), 369–81. 674 Cf. Ševčenko, “The Representation of Donors”; and idem, “Close Encounters: Contact between Holy Figures and the Faithful as represented in Byzantine Works of Art,” in Byzance et les images: cycle de

153

Pitarakis observes that it is unusual for Zosimas to be shown at the Crucifixion, but she

does not discuss the significance of this representation.675 What benefits does Zosimas seek

through this unusual insertion into the biblical scene, and what are the ways in which he adapted

the Crucifixion iconography for his needs? I suggest that there are three reasons for his choice: to

present him as a witness to the Crucifixion, to emphasize his possession of Golgotha through his

possession of the stone relics, and to harness the intercessory function of the iconography.

6.3.4.2 Witness to the Crucifixion. By inserting his image in the narrative scene,

Zosimas becomes a witness to the Crucifixion. This desire to re-live biblical events reflects the

practices of early Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. Kissing and touching relics and the

ground upon which saints walked, as well as reenacting the life of Christ, were the most common

means the faithful experienced the loca sancta. Gary Vikan demonstrates that ritualized

performances—such as the stational liturgies in Jerusalem that are described by the fourth-

century pilgrim Egeria—allowed the faithful to form a “living icon” through their mimesis of the

archetypal biblical event.676 He states that pilgrims “did not merely touch the locus sanctus, but

they became, at least briefly, iconically one and the same with it, and with that sacred event

which had once made it holy.”677 For the Protaton Reliquary, I argue that Zosimas follows in this

tradition. He inserts his image into the Crucifixion, thereby becoming part of the icon of the

Crucifixion, and witness to the event of his salvation.

6.3.4.3 Possession of Golgotha and its Life-Giving Power. Zosimas’s presence in the

Crucifixion scene also allows him, through his image, to touch the rock of Golgotha—the source

of one of his relics displayed inside the box.678 Through this act of touching, I argue, he conveys

conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992, eds. André Guillou, and Jannic Durand (Paris: La Documentation française, 1994), 255–85. 675 In Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 50. 676 Gary Vikan, “Pilgrims in Magi’s Clothing: The Impact of Mimesis on Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art,” in The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert G. Ousterhout (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990), 97–107, at 100. See also idem, Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art, rev. ed., Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection Publications 5 (Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2010). For Egeria’s pilgrimage account to the Holy Land, see John Wilkinson, Egeria’s Travels, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 1999). 677 Vikan, “Pilgrims in Magi’s Clothing,” 101.

154

his possession and access to this and the other stone relics, which corresponds to the epigram:

“Zosimas is rich with the life-giving stones.”

Zosimas’s ownership of their “life-giving” power is conveyed by the placement of his

image vis-à-vis the depiction of Golgotha and the cross. This placement suggests a visual

reference with the Tree of Life iconography. As discussed in Chapter 2, this iconography, which

is frequently depicted on staurothekai, features two acanthus leaves that grow from the base of a

cross (fig. 110).679 In the Protaton Crucifixion image, Zosimas takes the place of the acanthus

leaves. In this way, he embodies the new life that grows from the rock of Golgotha and the cross.

The root of Zosimas’s name, ζωή (life), also implies such an association between the image on

the Protaton reliquary and the Tree of Life iconography. The reliquary enkolpion of George

Papikios (A1) serves as comparanda.680 The back of this reliquary features the Tree of Life

iconography, surrounded by a four-verse framing epigram (fig. 3). George’s name appears on the

lower edge of the frame, placed directly below the base of the Tree of Life image—the spot from

which the acanthus leaves grow.

6.3.4.4 The Intercessory Function of the Image. I suggest that Zosimas, by placing his

image in the scene of the Crucifixion also allows for his participation in the dialogue between the

Mother of God and Christ. John 19:25 briefly mentions Mary’s presence at the Crucifixion. The

Gospels do not include dialogue between Mary and her son. Byzantine authors elaborated on this

biblical passage, composing laments of what she might have said when she saw her son suffering

on the cross.681 One of the most well known laments of Mary in the Middle Byzantine period

678 The association between image and relic is suggested by the way in which Golgotha is represented. On the Protaton, Golgotha is represented as rock. Contemporary depictions of Golgotha include an image of the skull of Adam, from which the name “place of the skull” derives; cf. Bellarmino Bagatti, “Note sull’iconografia di ‘Adamo sotto il Calvario’,” Liber Annuus 27 (1977): 5–32; and Jones, Between Islam and Byzantium, 104. By not including the image of the skull in the Protaton depiction, the material nature of the rock of Golgotha may serve as an intentional reference to the roughly hewn stones displayed inside the box. The representation of rocks as visual referents to specific Holy Land sites was a characteristic feature of a group of ivories produced around the same time as the Protaton Reliquary; Maguire, “Ivories as Pilgrimage Art.” 679 Section 2.2.2.3. 680 Vera Zalesskaya, “L’icône d’or de la Vierge Eleousa du musée de l’Ermitage à Saint-Pétersbourg: Nouvelles investigations épigraphiques et archéologiques,” CahArch 50 (2002): 135–38, at 135 states that bone fragments and wood were imbedded in resin behind the image of the Mother of God.

155

was that written by the sixth-century hymnographer, Romanos the Melode.682 For example, she

asks Christ why he must die: “Where do you go, O my son? Why do you follow this swift

path?”683 He responds by saying that he must die in order to bring salvation: “Why do you weep,

mother, why do you advance with these other women? Is it that I should not suffer, that I should

not die? How, then, shall I save Adam?”684

The dialogue between the Theotokos and Christ is evident in the imagery of the Protaton

reliquary. While the Crucifixion scene is standard for the period, I suggest that Zosimas the

patron adapted the Mother of God’s pose in order to represent her in dialogue with Christ. She

turns toward her son, tilting her head upward and raising her right hand to him. The direction of

her pupils, represented by pinpoint indentions, indicates that she looks at him (fig. 41).685 Her

body is in right profile, and her right arm is fully extended away from her body, reaching out

toward Christ. It is rare to find these three visual elements—the Mother of God in profile, the

fully extended right arm, and looking up toward Christ—appearing together in contemporary

depictions of the Crucifixion.686 A representative example is the eleventh-century Crucifixion

mosaic at the Hosios Loukas Monastery (fig. 136). In this image, the Mother of God is shown

681 On the history of the Mother of God’s lament, see Margaret Alexiou, “The Lament of the Virgin in Byzantine Literature and Modern Greek Folk-Song,” BMGS 1 (1975): 111–40. 682 José Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode. Hymnes, vol. 4, SC 128 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967), 143–87, trans. Marjorie Carpenter, Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1970), 1:193–203. For Romanos’s Middle Byzantine reception, see Mary Cunningham, “The Reception of Romanos in Middle Byzantine Homiletics and Hymnography,” DOP 62 (2009): 251–60. 683 Ποῦ πορεύῃ, τέκνον; Τίνος χάριν τὸν ταχὺν δρόµον τελέεις; Ed. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode, 144, trans. Carpenter, Kontakia, 1:196. 684 Τί δακρύεις, µήτηρ; Τί ταῖς ἄλλαις γυναιξὶ συναποφέρῃ; Μὴ πάθω; µὴ θάνω; Πῶς οὖν σώσω τὸν Ἀδάµ; Ed. Grosdidier de Matons, Romanos le Mélode, 146, trans. adapted from Carpenter, Kontakia, 1:197.

685 For her right eye, the indentation that represents the pupil is placed on the right side of the ocular cavity in the direction of Christ. For her left eye, it is not clear exactly which direction the pupil is pointing because there is little space to represent any lateral deviation. As proof that the right eye is pointing to Christ, see the eleventh-century marble relief icon of the Mother of God Hagiosoritissa at Dumbarton Oaks (BZ.1938.62). In this depiction, the Mother of God clearly looks at the viewer. Her pupils are placed at the center of the ocular cavities so that her eyes look out, rather than up. 686 This list is not exhaustive, but some examples can be found in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, nos. 30, 34, 37, 91, 92, 97, 105, 110, and 245.

156

with her right hand raised to Christ, but her arm is kept close to her body. She is in three-quarter

view, turned more toward the viewer than to Christ.

In the Protaton image, Christ too appears to be engaged in dialogue with his mother.

While he is dead, he tilts his head down in her direction.687 The words spoken by Christ to his

mother—“behold your son”—are placed within the sightline of the two figures. In the Middle

Byzantine period, Christ’s tilt of the head on the Cross was interpreted as an act of speaking.

Evidence for this is a 19-verse dedicatory epigram recorded in the Anthologia Marciana for a

now-lost twelfth-century icon of the Crucifixion. In verses 14–19 of this epigram, the patron

states:

But you, who have inclined your head on the cross,

15 as if you were saying “Come unto me all ye…” now incline it to me as I beseech you, O Logos, and with your nod accept my entreaty, and by withdrawing the thorns of my sufferings, grant that I may rejoice in the green shoots of divine delight.688

The Mother of God’s pose presents her in dialogue with Christ. The tilt of Christ’s head

is interpreted as an act of speaking. Zosimas thus adapted traditional Middle Byzantine

iconography without interfering with its accuracy and definition; the image on the Protaton

functions as an icon. Zosimas the patron physically inserts himself into the scene. The placement

of Zosimas’s image on the groundline, touching the rock of Golgotha, verifies his presence at the

Crucifixion. Zosimas, the image, does not break the line of communication between the Mother

of God and Christ.689 His interaction with these figures happens through the prayer inscribed

above his portrait. His prayer is addressed to Christ— Κύριε or Lord—but he faces the Mother of 687 This is standard for the period; see the examples listed in the previous footnote. 688 Σὺ δ’ ἀλλ’ ὁ κλίνας τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐν ξύλῳ

15 καὶ Δεῦτε π[ρός] µε πάντες ὡσπερεὶ φράσας αἰτοῦντι καὶ νῦν κλῖνον αὐτήν µοι, λόγε, καὶ κατανεύων τὴν παράκλησιν δέχου, ἐµῶν δὲ παθῶν τὰς ἀκάνθας ἐκσπάσας θείας τρυφῆς δὸς ἐντρυφᾶν µε τῇ χλόῃ. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 39 (no.

73 = Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B129), trans. Maguire, Image and Imagination, 22. 689 Ševčenko, “The Representation of Donors, 157 states that detachment between holy figures and donors is characteristic of icons; such an image must “be able to maintain its integrity as a devotional image despite the presence of the donor.”

157

God. His petition is therefore one of intercession, directed to the Theotokos, who relays it to her

son through gesture and pose. Her body is turned in profile, her head is angled upward, and she

raises her right hand to him. As Pitarakis observes, this depiction of the Theotokos is similar to

those in which she is represented as an intercessor.690 Christ’s response to Zosimas’s prayer is

given visual expression. The Cross of Christ is mounted on the rock of Golgotha, which Zosimas

touches with his feet, and which he has displayed inside the reliquary.

6.3.5 The Visual Integration of the Epigram on the Reliquary

The placement of specific words on the lid reinforces the messages conveyed by the

content of the epigram and the iconography. The life-giving source of the Holy Land relics and

Zosimas’s ownership of them is emphasized by the placement of the phrase ἐκ τόπων (from

places) over the Cross at the upper edge of the panel (fig. 43a). In the epigram, this phrase refers

to the stones inside the box: “from the venerable places.” The use of the preposition ἐκ (from)

echoes the terminology of the individual labeling inscriptions that accompany the relics inside

the box, all of which begin with the word ἐκ: from the holy Tomb of Christ; from the holy Skull

(i.e. Golgotha); from holy Bethlehem; and from Holy Gethsemane. Through the placement of ἐκ

τόπων in relationship to the iconography, the image of the cross of the Crucifixion forms a

vertical axis that visually links this phrase with the rock of Golgotha at the base. The connection

between word and image positions Golgotha as a visual response to the phrase ἐκ τόπων,

identifying the provenance of one of the “life-giving” stones inside the reliquary.

Zosimas’s ownership of, and access to, these stones is also expressed by the placement of

the word λίθους (stones). This word is positioned at the lower right corner of the panel, where it

is aligned with its visual analogue—the rock of Golgotha (fig. 43b).691 My suggestion that this

pairing is deliberate is supported by the composition of the epigram. As I stated above, the word

λίθους is the last word of verse 2, and its corresponding article, τοὺς (the), is the first word of

690 Pitarakis in Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, 50 notes that this pose recalls the iconography of the Theotokos Hagiosoritissa and Paraklesis—image types associated with the Virgin’s role as intercessor for the faithful. In these image types, the Mother of God is turned in profile interceding with Christ for the faithful. For these iconographic types, see ODB, s.vv. “Virgin Hagiosoritissa” and “Virgin Paraklesis” (Nancy Patterson Ševčenko); and Sirarpie der Nersessian, “Two Images of the Virgin in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection,” DOP 14 (1960): 71–86. 691 Hostetler, “Iconography of Text,” 54.

158

verse 1. This seemingly odd syntax placed λίθους at the lower right corner of the panel. This

pairing of the inscribed word with the image of Golgotha visually highlights Zosimas’s contact

with, and possession of, the rock.

The intercessory function of the iconography is reflected in the placement of the patrons’

names in relationship to the holy figures. Zosimas, who is receiving the intercession of the

Mother of God through his image, also receives intercession through the placement of his name

next to the image of the Apostle (fig. 43c). The first letter of his name, Ζ, aligns with the top of

John’s head, and the lower end of the last letter, Σ, aligns with the Apostle’s left elbow. John

directs Zosimas to the cross by bending his left forearm upward and pointing to the figure of

Christ. John tilts his head downward into his right hand to mourn the death of his savior. This

downward gaze seems to be also directed to the image of Zosimas at the base of the cross.

Nikolaos also receives intercession from the Mother of God through the placement of his

name (fig. 43d). The first letter, Ν, aligns with the right hand of Christ, and the last letter, Σ, is

on the same level as the Virgin’s right arm. This placement functions as an image much like that

seen for Zosimas’s portrait and name. Theotokos’s right arm, to which the Σ is aligned, points to

Christ as a gesture of intercession for both patrons. Christ visually dispenses salvation to them in

two ways. For Nikolaos it is delivered by his right hand, which is outstretched on the cross and

aligned with the first letter of his name, Ν. For Zosimas, the promise of salvation is given visual

expression by his contact with the rock of Golgotha—the place where Christ destroys the power

of death and offers eternal life. What is conveyed through Zosimas’s portrait is expressed

through the placement of Nikolaos’s name.

6.4 Conclusion

A typical dedicatory epigram on a reliquary consists of three parts. It identifies a holy

figure and/or the relics contained within the reliquary; it introduces the patron and his/her actions

associated with the making, wearing, giving the reliquary, or venerating the relic; it closes with a

statement of the patron’s desired reward, such as protection or salvation. While this structure

represents a typical pattern for dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries, there exist many epigrams

that deviate from this pattern. I focused on just one: that of the Protaton Reliquary. This epigram

identifies the relic contained within the reliquary, names the patrons and their actions, but says

nothing about the benefits they seek in return. This latter information, I argue, is expressed by

159

the iconography and the placement of the epigram. In the iconography, Zosimas presents himself

as a petitioner at the Crucifixion in order to convey his possession of the relics and his access to

their life-giving power. Through his inscribed prayer—“Lord, help Zosimas the monk”—he is a

participant in the dialogue between the Mother of God and Christ. These messages are reinforced

by the placement of specific words in relationship to the iconography. The words ἐκ τόπων and

λίθους bring attention, and give meaning to the image of Zosimas at the rock of Golgotha. The

placement of the patrons’ names is also important. Zosimas situates his name next to the image

of John, and Nikolaos’s name is placed in relationship with the Mother of God and Christ. The

inscription and iconography visually function to make both Zosimas and Nikolaos as petitioners

to the Mother of God, and receiving salvation from Christ. Their actions— πλουτεῖ (is rich with)

and κοσµεῖ (adorns)—are rendered in the present tense, and are thus removed from a specifically

defined moment. Zosimas is perpetually rich with the life-giving stones, and Nikolaos is always

adorning the reliquary. They are eternally present at the Crucifixion, offering their gifts to God,

seeking intercession, and receiving their salvation.

160

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

In this dissertation, I re-contextualized the types, uses, and meanings of reliquaries in the

Middle Byzantine period by focusing on epigrams. While scholarly interest in reliquaries and

epigrams has increased in recent years, there has been no synthesis of these two areas of

research. When reliquaries are the focus, epigrams have been ignored or given inaccurate

analyses. When scholarly focus is on epigrams, the reliquaries are treated as afterthoughts to the

text. This dissertation gave equal focus to both reliquaries and epigrams, and demonstrated that

an examination of one is always dependent upon analysis of the other.

In Chapter 2, I introduced the corpus of reliquaries that form the basis of this dissertation.

I proposed a new way of grouping reliquaries—one that is hierarchical and based on the

identities of the holy figures with whom the relics are associated: Christ, the Theotokos, and all

other saints. I also discussed relic collections—those reliquaries that contained multiple relics. I

concluded that all Middle Byzantine reliquaries share three formal characteristics. One, a relic

requires an identification, which is conveyed either by an accompanying inscription and/or

image. Two, Middle Byzantine reliquaries have a limited number of forms; they are typically

rectangular or cylindrical in shape. Three, Middle Byzantine reliquaries functioned to make

relics accessible to the faithful.

In Chapter 3, I briefly surveyed the contexts in which Middle Byzantine relics and

reliquaries functioned. Citing both Byzantine and non-Byzantine sources and focusing primarily

on Constantinople, I first discussed the ownership of reliquaries, and then outlined their various

uses in both personal and public contexts.

In Chapter 4, I examined the ways in which epigrams function to make relics visually and

haptically accessible to the faithful. I argued that these texts—through their content and

placement on reliquaries—convey important details about the practice of relic presentation,

access, and veneration that have been overlooked. I examined the ways in which epigrams

describe the accessibility of relics and the veneration of them. I also discussed the use of deictic

language and relative pronouns to draw the viewer’s attention to a relic. I argued that the

orientation of an epigram, and the placement of specific words also function to make relics

accessible and present them to the viewer.

161

In Chapter 5, I focused on the ekphrastic function of epigrams, and the ways in which

they interpret and present reliquaries for, and to, their viewers. I demonstrated that ekphraseis

offer valuable details about the original appearance of reliquaries now lost as well as engage the

viewers’ imagination, reflecting the ways in which contemporary audiences interpreted

reliquaries. I analyzed a reliquary of the True Cross, whose epigram interpreted its form, gems,

and iconography, as an image of the Heavenly Jerusalem. The head reliquary of St. Stephen was

conceptualized as a crown of adornment for the saint through the content and placement of its

epigram. While the epigram on the Châteaudun reliquary claimed that the reliquary was in the

shape of a hand, I argued that this was not the case, and provided alternative interpretations of

this text. I argued that the epigram on a reliquary enkolpion of St. Demetrios functioned to

interpret this object as a tomb for the saint, through which the viewer could embark on an

imagined pilgrimage.

In Chapter 6, I turned to the dedicatory nature of reliquary epigrams, and their

communicative function within the context of religious gift giving. While scholars have

primarily focused on the historical information conveyed by dedicatory epigrams (names, places,

and dates), I argued that analyses of the textual and visual features of epigrams produce a richer

and more nuanced understanding of the ways in which reliquaries communicate to their spiritual

and earthly audiences. I argued that dedicatory epigrams on reliquaries consist of a tripartite

structure: identification of the holy figure and/or relics; introduction of the patron; and the

patron’s desired reward. Not all epigrams contain all of this information. Focusing on the

Protaton Reliquary, I examined the ways in which a dedicatory epigram’s textual information is

complemented, supplemented, and reinforced by a reliquary’s visual program.

The case studies presented in these chapters demonstrate that Middle Byzantine

reliquaries with epigrams are a complex system in which texts, images, relics, and materials

interact with each other. They demonstrate that epigrams—in addition to being textual—have

visual and spatial dimension, wrapping the exterior, interior, front, back, and sides of reliquaries.

This dissertation shows that epigrams are dynamic texts that pulled the viewers in and taught

them how to see, interpret, and handle the reliquaries, and how to access relics.

162

APPENDIX A

MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES WITH EPIGRAMS: IN SITU A1. Reliquary Enkolpion of George Papikios, 12th cent. Gold, wax, gems, wood 8.3 x 6.6 cm Russia, State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (ω 840)

Τὸν βρεφοπλάστην ἠγκαλισµένη Λόγον

µαζῶν τε θηλάζουσα, ὦ ξένον θαῦµα, τοῦτ(ον) δυσώπει µ(ητ)ρικῇ παρρησίᾳ λύσιν δοθῆναὶ µ(ὲ) Γεώργιον τὸν Παπίκ(ιον). Ed. BEIÜ, 2:129.

Embracing the newborn-creator Logos

and nursing at the breast, O marvelous wonder, persuade him with maternal boldness to grant me, George the Papikios, redemption.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Ik52.

Figures 1–3

A2. Sinai Reliquary Enkolpion, 9th cent. Copper alloy, niello, and inlaid silver 12.7 x 7.7 x 1.7 cm Egypt, Holy Monastery of St. Catherine, Sinai

A Ἐν τῇ δυνάµει τῶν σ[ε]βασµίων ξύλων

φύλαττε, Χ(ριστ)έ, Θωµᾶν τὸν σὸν οἰκέτην.

B Κ(ύρι)ε, ἄναξ, δηµ[ι]ουργὲ τῶν ὅλων, φρούρει, φύλαττε Θωµᾶ<ν> τὸν σὸ[ν οἰκ]έτη<ν>.

*C καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἐν τῇ γραφῇ αὐτοῦ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:149–50.

A In the power of the venerable wood

guard, O Christ, your servant Thomas.

B O Lord, king, creator of all, watch, guard your servant Thomas.

*C And the rest is in his drawing.

Literature Kazakou and Skoulas, Egeria, no. 63; BEIÜ, 2:Me1–2; and Drpić, Epigram,

163

Art, and Devotion (ch. 1).

Figures 4–7 A3. Cross Reliquary of Maria Komnene, 12th cent. Wood, gold, enamel, niello 14.2 x 8.2 x 1 cm Belgium, Church of St-Eligius, Eine

Τὸ τῆς Ἐδὲµ βλάστηµα, τὸ ζωῆς ξύλον,

τὸ πορφύρας γέννηµα σεµνὴ Μαρία ἀφιεροῖ σοὶ τῇ πανυµνήτῳ κορῃ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:152.

2

3 1

The purple-born august Maria consecrates to you, the all-glorious maiden, the branch of Eden, the tree of life.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me3.

Figures 8–9

A4. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 11th cent. Silver, niello 10 x 6 x 3 cm Germany, Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24)

Οὐχ αἷµα µόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ µύρον φέρω

τάφος ὁ παρὼν µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου ῥῶσιν παρέχων τοῖς πόθῳ εἰληφόσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:156.

Not only blood, but also myron I carry,

(I) the present tomb of the martyr Demetrios, granting strength to those who have received with devotion.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me5; Elsner, “Relic, Icon, and Architecture,” 28–31; and Klein,

“Materiality and the Sacred,” 250–52.

Figures 10–16 A5. Cologne Cross Reliquary, 12th cent. Gold, filigree, pearls, gems, wood 14.2 cm Germany, Domschatzkammer, Cologne (L 20)

164

Ἕξεις µε φρουρὸν τὸν παγέντα τῷ ξύλῳ Κωνσ(ταντῖν’) ἔγγον’ Ἐ[µµανουὴλ δ]εσπότου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:158.

You will have me, a protector, the one who hung on the wood,

O Constantine, grandson of the Emperor Manuel.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me6; and Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 90.

Figures 17–18 A6. Limburg Staurotheke, 920–59 and 963–85 Gold, silver, gilding, cloisonné enamel, gems, pearls, wood 48 x 35 x 6 cm Germany, Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3)

A

5

Θ(εὸ)ς µὲν ἐξέτεινε χεῖρας ἐν ξύλῳ ζωῆς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ τὰς ἐνεργείας βρύων· Κωνσταντῖνος δὲ κ(αὶ) Ῥωµανὸς δεσπόται λίθων διαυγῶν συνθέσει κ(αὶ) µαργάρων ἔδειξαν αὐτὸ θαύµατος πεπλησµένον· καὶ πρὶν µὲν Ἅιδου Χ(ριστὸ)ς ἐν τούτῳ πύλας θραύσας ἀνεζώωσε τοὺς τεθνηκότας· κοσµήτορες τούτου δὲ νῦν στεφηφόροι θράση δι᾽ αὐτοῦ συντρίβουσι βαρβάρων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:166.

5

God spread out his hands upon the wood, gushing forth through it the energies of life. The despots Constantine and Romanos, with a synthesis of radiant stones and pearls, displayed it full of wonder. And formerly, Christ, with this, having smashed the gates of Hades, resurrected the dead. Now, the crown-wearers, adorners/commanders of this, crush, with it, the temerities of the barbarians.

B

5

Οὐ κάλλος εἶχεν ὁ κρεµασθεὶς ἐν ξύλῳ, ἀλλ᾽ ἦν ὡραῖος κάλλει Χριστὸς καὶ θνῄσκων· οὐκ εἶδος εἶχεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκαλλώπιζέ µου τὴν δυσθέατον ἐξ ἁµαρτίας θέαν· Θεὸς γὰρ ὢν ἔπασχεν ἐν βροτῶν φύσει· ὃν Βασίλειος <ὁ> πρόεδρος ἐξόχως σέβων ἐκαλλώπ<ι>σε τὴν θήκην ξύλου ἐν ᾧ τανυσθεὶς εἵλκυσεν πᾶσαν κτίσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:166.

He did not have beauty, the one suspended on the wood,

165

5

but Christ was complete with beauty even while dying; he did not have form, but he beautified my unprepossessing countenance caused by sin; for being God, he suffered in the nature of mortals. Worshipping especially him, Basileios the proedros beautified the reliquary of wood, on which having been stretched, (Christ) drew up all creation.

*C Τὰ σπάργανα Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ. Ed. CIG, 4:323.

The Swaddling Clothes of Jesus Christ, the son of God.

*D Ὁ ἀκάνθινος στέφανος τοῦ φιλαν(θρώπ)ου Χ(ριστο)ῦ κ(αὶ) Θ(εο)ῦ ἡµῶν. Ed. CIG, 4:323.

The Thorny Crown of the philanthropic Christ and our God.

*E Ἡ σινδὼν τοῦ ἀθανάτου Χ(ριστο)ῦ καὶ Θ(εο)ῦ. Ed. CIG, 4:323. The Shroud of the everlasting Christ and God.

*F Τὸ µαφόριον τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θ(εοτό)κου. Ed. CIG, 4:323. The Maphorion of the supremely-holy Theotokos.

*G Ἡ ζώνη τῆς ἁγίας παρθ<ένου> κ(αὶ) Θ(εοτό)κου ἀπὸ τ(οῦ) ἐπισκόπ(ου) Ζήλας. Ed. Krebs, Inscriptiones graecae, 24.

The Girdle of the holy Virgin and Theotokos from the bishop of Zela.

*H Τὸ λέντιον τοῦ πλαστουργοῦ ἡµῶν Χ(ριστο)ῦ τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ. Ed. CIG, 4:323. The Towel of the modeler, Christ (the son) of God.

*I Τὸ πορφυροῦν ἱµάτιον τοῦ ζωοδότου Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ. Ed. CIG, 4:323. The Purple Robe of the life-giving Jesus Christ.

*J Ὁ σπόγγος τοῦ µακροθύµου Χ(ριστο)ῦ καὶ σ(ωτῆ)ρ(ο)ς ἡµῶν. Ed. CIG, 4:323.

The Sponge of the long-suffering Christ and our savior.

*K Ἡ ζώνη τῆς ἀειπαρθ<ένου> Θ(εοτό)κου ἐκ τῶν Χαλκοπρατ{η}<είων>. The Girdle of the ever-virgin Theotokos from the Chalkoprateia.

*L Αἱ τίµιαι τρίχες τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰω(άννου) τοῦ Προδρόµ(ου). Ed. CIG, 4:323. The precious Hairs of the holy John the Prodromos.

Literature Ginnasi, “La Stauroteca,” 97–130; BEIÜ, 2:Me8–9; Pentcheva, Sensual Icon,

163–67; Nelson, “Byzantine Art of War,” 182–83; Hostetler, “The Limburg Staurotheke,” 7–13; Pentcheva, “The Performance of Relics,” 58–60; Wander, Joshua Roll, 97–105; Bevilacqua, “Basilio ‘parakoimomenos’,” 186–87; Bevilacqua, Arte e aristocrazia, 201–05, 296–301; Klein, “The

166

Crown of His Kingdom,” 201–12; and Klein, “Materiality and the Sacred,” 244–49.

Figures 19–23

†A7. Head Reliquary of St. Christopher, 11th cent. (?) Gilded copper, enamel France, Abbey of Saint-Vincent-aux-Bois, Chartres

Ὁ Μιχαὴλ πλουτῶ σὲ τὸν Χριστοφόρον

κράτει κράτος σου, µάρτυς, ἐστηριγµένος καί σε στεφανῶ σῶν δ’ ἀπαρχῶν τὸ στέφος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:172.

I, Michael, am rich in you, Christopher.

With respect to my power, I have been supported by your power, O martyr, and I crown you with the crown of your offerings.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me12.

†A8. The Châteaudun Reliquary, 12th cent. France, Church of La Madeleine, Châteaudun

5

Ὁ καρπὸς ὀστοῦν, ἡ δὲ χεὶρ χρυσῆ· πόθεν; ἐκ τῆς ἐρήµου καρπὸς, ἐκ Παλαιστίνης, χρυσῆ παλαιστὴ χρυσοδάκτυλος ξένον· ὀστοῦν ὁ καρπὸς ἐκ φυτοῦ τοῦ Προδρόµου· τὴν χεῖρα δ’ ὠ[ρ]γάνωσε τέχνη καὶ πόθος Ἄννης ἀνάσσης, ἐκγόνου τῆς πορφύρας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:173.

5

The wrist/fruit is bone, but the hand is gold. From where? The wrist/fruit is from the wilderness, from Palestine, the gold-fingered golden palm is something extraordinary. The bone is the wrist/fruit from the tree of the Prodromos, but the hand was organized by the art and love of the Princess Anna, descendant of the porphyra.

Adapted from Pitarakis, “Female piety,” 160.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me13. †A9. Clairvaux Reliquary, before 1206 Silver-gilt, enamel, gems, wood 32 x 24 cm France, Clairvaux Abbey, Ville-sous-la-Ferté

167

Ὢν σάρξ πέπονθας, ὢν Θεὸς παθῶν ἄφες. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:329. As flesh, you have suffered; as God, you get rid of sufferings.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me14. †A10. Grandmont Staurotheke, 12th cent. Silver-gilt, wood 15 x 10 cm France, Grandmont Abbey, Saint-Sylvestre (Haute-Vienne)

5

10

15

Βραχὺν ὑπνώσας ὕπνον ἐν τριδενδ[ρί]ᾳ ὁ παµβασιλεὺς καὶ θεάν(θρωπ)ος Λόγος πολλὴν ἐπεβράβευσε τῷ δένδρῳ χάριν· ἐµψύχεται γὰρ πᾶς πυρούµενος νόσοις ὁ προσπεφευγὼς τοῖς τριδενδρίας κλάδοις· ἀλλὰ φλογωθεὶς ἐν µέσῃ µεσηµβρίᾳ ἔδραµον, ἦλθον, τοῖς κλάδοις ὑπεισέδυν· καὶ σῇ σκιᾷ δέχου µε καὶ καλῶς σκέπε, ὦ συσκιάζον δένδρον ἅπασαν χθόνα, καὶ τὴν Ἀερµὼν ἐνστάλαξόν µοι δρόσον ἐκ Δουκικ(ῆς) φυέντι καλλιδενδρίας, ἧς ῥιζόπρεµνον ἡ βασιλὶς Εἰρήνη, ἡ µητροµάµµη, τῶν ἀνάκτων τὸ κλέος, Ἀλεξίου κρατοῦντος Αὐσόνων δάµαρ· ναί, ναί, δυσωπῶ τὸν µόν(ον) φύλακά µου σὸς δοῦλος Ἀλέξιος ἐ[κ] γένους Δούκας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:175.

5

10

15

Having slept a short sleep on the three-part tree the all-king and divine-man Logos granted much grace to the tree; for anyone inflamed with sickness is refreshed who fleeing for refuge to the branches of the three-part tree; but being ablaze right at the peak of midday I ran, I came, I sneaked to the branches; receive and rightly shelter me with your shade O Tree, shading the whole earth, and instill the dew of Hermon upon me, having descended from the beautiful-tree of the Doukai, whose root being the Empress Irene, the maternal grandmother, the glory of the kings, spouse of Alexios, ruler of the Ausones. Yea, yea, I beg (you) my sole guardian your servant Alexios, from the Doukai family.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me15; and Hostetler, “Image, Epigram, and Nature.”

168

Figures 24–25 †A11. Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary, before 1207 Silver-gilt, gold, enamel, gems 54.1 x 43.3 x 6.7 cm France, Mont-Saint-Quentin Abbey, Picardy

A

5

Οἱ τόνδε προσκυνοῦντες εὐσεβεῖ νόῳ καὶ τῷ Λόγῳ φέροντες ὕµνον εὐµενῆ εὔχεσθε κἀµοὶ τῷ µοναχῷ Τιµοθέῳ ὅπως γένηταί µοι βοηθὸς καὶ λιµήν ῥύστης τε τῶν πολλῶν τάχει µου πταισµάτων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179.

5

Those of you venerating this here with pious thought and who sing an affectionate hymn to the Logos, pray also for me, the monk Timothy, so that he becomes for me a helper and a harbor and a deliverer from my many faults, with all speed.

B Ἔσχηκα Χριστοῦ σπαργάνων µικρὸν µέρος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:178 (v. 1).

I contain a small part of Christ’s Swaddling Clothes.

C Ἥλων ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν σεβαστῶν τι τρύφος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:178 (v. 2). And I, a fragment of the revered Nails.

D Ζωὴν κἀγὼ τὸ βλῦσαν αἷµα τῷ κόσµῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179 (v. 3). And Ι, the Blood that gushed forth life into the world.

E Στέφους ἀκανθίνου δὲ κἀγὼ τµῆµά τι. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179 (v. 4). And I, a piece of the Crown of Thorns.

*F Τίµιος λίθος ἐκ τοῦ κρανίου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179. Precious stone from the Skull (i.e. Golgotha).

*G Λίθος ἐκ τοῦ τάφου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179. Stone from the Tomb (i.e. the Holy Sepulchre).

*H <Λίθος> ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ φάτνης. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:179. <Stone> from the Manger of Christ.

Literature Durand, “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 151–67; Gasnault and Durand, “Quatre reliquaires byzantins,” 269–74; and BEIÜ, 2:Me16–17.

Figures 26–28

169

A12. Cross Reliquary of the ‘Princesse Palatine’, 12th–13th cent. Gold, enamel, wood 21 x 9.3 cm France, Treasury of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame, Paris

*A Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστό)ς

Jesus Christ

B Στ(αυ)ρῷ παγεὶς ὕψωσας ἀν(θρώπ)ων φύσιν γράφει Κοµνηνὸς Μανουὴλ στεφηφόρος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:186.

“Having hung on the cross, you exalted the nature of men,”

writes the crown-wearer Manuel Komnenos.

Literature Eastmond, “Byzantine Identity,” 211; BEIÜ, 2:Me23; and Hostetler, “The Limburg Staurotheke,” 10, 12.

Figures 29–30

†A13. Reliquary for Tooth of John the Baptist, date (?) France, Chapelle du Chasteau, Saint-Chamond

Σὺ µεν θεωρεῖς τῶν δρακόντων τὰς µύλας,

Βαπτιστά, τοῖς ὕδασιν ἠλοηµένας· ἐγὼ δὲ τὴν σὴν εὐτυχῶν ταύτην µύλην, ἐχθρῶν ὅλας θραύοιµι παντοίων µύλας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:186.

While you see the dragons’ teeth,

O Baptist, which have been smashed in the waters, May I, being prosperous with this, your tooth, shatter all the teeth of all sorts of enemies.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me24.

†A14. Reliquary for the Hand of John the Baptist, after 957 France, Saint-Nicolas-Lès-Citeaux

5

Ἣν βάρβαρος χεὶρ χεῖρα τὴν τοῦ Προδρόµου κατεῖχε τὸ πρίν, νῦν ἐκεῖθεν ἑλκύσας ἄναξ µετῆξε πρὸς πόλιν Κωνσταντῖνος· ταύτην δὲ τῇδε θ[η]σαυρῷ θησαυρίσας σκέπουσαν αὐτὸν ἐπλούτησεν τὸ κράτος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:187.

A barbarian hand formerly possessed the hand of the Prodromos,

170

5

now having drawn (the hand) from that place, the ruler Constantine transferred (it) to the city. And because he stored up this (hand) in this casket, (the hand) protecting him, he was rich with power.

Note My interpretation of this epigram differs from that of Rhoby in BEIÜ, 2:187–

88 who translates verses 4 and 5: “because he has enriched this (the city) with this treasure, (the city) protects him, he was full of power,” (tr. from German). The points of difference are 1) the identity of the accusative in verses 4 and 5, and 2) the meaning of θησαυρίσας and θησαυρῷ. Rhoby thinks the accusative is the city because it is last mentioned in verse 3. I think the accusative in verses 4 and 5 reference the hand because it is the object of reference in all the preceding verses. This interpretation also makes sense for the protection that the relic provides Constantine VII in response to him storing the relic in a reliquary, a topos found in other reliquary epigrams (cf. A30, A40, B3). There are other examples of the relic providing the patron with power (cf. A7, B4). As for the second point, LSJ indicates that θησαυρίσας means “store up” and θησαυρῷ can refer to a casket in which to keep a treasure.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me25.

A15. Arm Reliquary of St. Christopher, 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt Bone: 16.7 cm; attachment: 6.7 cm France, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tourcoing

Πολυπόθητον τῇ Πέτρᾳ τελεῖς φόρον

σὸν µαρτυρικὸν λείψανον, Χριστοφόρε. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:188 . You pay to Petra a highly valued tribute,

the relic of your martyrdom, O Christopher.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me26.

Figures 31–32 †A16. Troyes Cross Reliquary, 11th–12th cent. Gold, enamel, wood 25 cm France, Cathedral Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Paul, Troyes

A

Ἔχω τὸν ἁπλώσαντα χεῖρας ἐν ξύλῳ καὶ τὸ κράτος λύσαντα τῆς ἁµαρτίας ἐκεῖνον αὐτὸν <τὸν> θεάνθρωπον Λόγον

171

5

10

κἀν ταῖς γραφαῖς ἐµψύχως εἰκονισµένον· τὸ νικοποιὸν οὐδαµῶς εἶχον ξύλον· <...> ἄλλο πᾶν πρίν, ὕστερον δ’ ἀναπλάσθη· πεπονηµένοις λίθοις χρυσῷ τε {κοσµίῳ} πάνυ, πρωτοπρόεδρος λαµπρύνας Κωνσταντ[ῖνο]ς ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δέδωκεν αὐτὸν τὸν τύπον· ἔρεισµα καὶ στήριγµα καὶ φρουρὸν βίου, ἄρχων δικαστῶν, λῦσον διαµαρτίας· σέ, [Χ]ρ[ι]στέ, τιµῶ τὸν <...> ἐσταυρωµένον· τὸν τίµιον σοῦ προσκυνῶ σταυρόν, Λόγε, καὶ π[ροσ]κ[υνῶ] σ[ου] ἁ[γίαν] ἀ[νάστασ]ιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:190.

5

10

I have the one unfolding his hands on the wood and atoning for the power of sin that one, himself, the God-man Logos, and having been vividly represented in the painting; I, in no way, had the victory-bringing wood; before it was entirely another thing, but it was later restored; through the working of stones and gold together the protoproedros Constantine adorned it and gave from heaven the form itself in support and foundation and protection of life Master of judges, atone for grave sins; you Christ, I honor you, the crucified one I venerate your precious cross, O Logos, and I venerate your holy resurrection.

*B Ἰ[ησοῦς] ν[ικᾷ]

Jesus conquers

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me27; and Hostetler, “The Limburg Staurotheke,” 10.

Figures 33 A17. ‘Icon of Šaliani’, 11th cent. (?)

Silver-gilt, gems, enamel 31 x 23 x 4.5 cm Georgia, Church of Svv. Kvirike i Ivlity (Lagurka), Kala (Inv.-Nr. 100)

Λαµπρᾷ περισχὼν φῶς [Ἱ]λαρίων ὕλῃ

ὁδηγὸν εἰς µέγιστον ἕξει φῶς τόδε. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:194. Hilarion, who had surrounded the light with radiant matter,

will have this as a guide toward the greatest light.

172

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me29.

Figures 34–36 A18. Lavra Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 11th cent.

Silver-gilt 4.3 x 2.5 x 1.3 cm Greece, The Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos

A Τὸ σεπτὸν αἷµα µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου

συντετήρηται ἐνταῦθα θείαν […] πίστιν βεβαιοῦν Ἰωάννου καὶ πόθον. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:201.

The venerable blood of the martyr Demetrius

has been preserved herein…divine…(?), which strengthens the faith and love of John.

*B ἅγιον αἷµα, ἅγιον µύρον

holy blood, holy myron

Literature Loverdou-Tsigarida, Katia. “Thessalonique,” 244, figs. 3–4; BEIÜ, 2:Me33; and Klein, “Materiality and the Sacred,” 250–52.

Figures 37–39

A19. Protaton Reliquary, 11th–12th cent.

Silver-gilt on wood (lid) 17.8 x 14.2 x 1.2 cm; (box) 19.3 x 16.1 x 3.0 cm Greece, Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos

A Τοὺς ζωοποιοὺς ἐκ τόπων σεβασµίων

πίστει ζεούσῃ Ζωσιµᾶς πλουτεῖ λίθους· κοσµεῖ δὲ Νικόλαος τὴν θήκην πόθῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:202.

2

1 With welling faith, Zosimas is rich with the life-giving stones from the venerable places, and Nikolaos adorns the reliquary with love.

*B Κ(ύρι)ε, βοήθει Ζωσιµᾷ µοναχῷ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:202.

Lord, help Zosimas the monk.

*C ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Τάφου τοῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ. From the holy Tomb of Christ.

173

*D ἐκ τοῦ ἁγίου Κρανίου. From the holy Skull (i.e. Golgotha).

*E ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Βηθλεέµ.

From holy Bethlehem.

*F ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Γεθσηµανί. From holy Gethsemane.

*G [τίµιον] ξύλον. Ed. Frolow, La relique, 652.

Precious wood.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me34; Hostetler, “The Iconography of Text,” 49–55; and idem, “Image, Epigram, and Nature.”

Figures 40–46

A20. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 12th cent. (?)

Silver-gilt 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm Greece, Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos

A Σὺ µὲν εἶ, Χ(ριστ)έ, σκέπη µου, µάρτυς λέγει·

θεῖος δ’ ἄγγελος στέφει κορυφὴν δέει. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:207. While the martyr says, “You, O Christ, are my protector,”

the divine angel binds the head with a crown.

B <Ἐν> εἱρκτῇ βληθεὶ[ς] ὁ γεννάδας εὐθέως στ(αυ)ρο[ῦ] σφραγῖδι θα<ν>ατοῖ τὸν σκορπίο(ν). Ed. BEIÜ, 2:208.

Having been struck in prison, the nobleman immediately

kills the scorpion with the sign of the cross.

C Καὶ ἀµφὶ διπλῷ στέφει ταινιω[θ]ήσῃ βαλὼν Λυαῖον καὶ σεπτῶς ἐναθλήσας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:209.

And he was bound on both sides with a double crown

Having struck Lyaios and reverently enduring suffering.

D [Λυαῖον] χειρὶ Νέστωρ βάλλει ἐν τάφῳ […………………………………………………………..]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:210.

Nestor casts Lyaios by hand into the tomb

[…………………………………………………………..].

174

E Λόγχ[αι]ς τρω[θ]εὶς πέπτωκε σῶµα µ[ὲν…… ………………] πρὸς Χρι[σ]τὸν πν[ε]ῦµα δ’ ἔπτ[η]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:211.

Having been wounded with lances, the body fell

[………………] and the spirit flew to Christ.

F Κ(ύριό)ς σε ῥώννυσιν ὁ Θ(εὸ)ς ἡµῶν ὁ ἀνορθῶν ἀεὶ τοὺς κατερ[ραγµένους]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:212.

The Lord strengthens you, our God,

who always restores those who have fallen.

Literature Loverdou-Tsigarida, Katia. “Thessalonique,” 244, figs. 1–2; BEIÜ, 2:Me37–42; and Elsner, “Relic, Icon, and Architecture,” 29–31.

Figures 47–55

†A21. Head Reliquary of St. Stephen, ca. 948–59 Greece, Monastery of St. Francis, Heraklion

5

Τὴν σὴν κάραν, πρώταθλε, µαρτύρων κλέος, ἣν µαρτυρικοὶ πρὶν κατέστεψαν λίθοι, στέφω κἀγὼ νῦν ἐξ ὕλης χρυσαργύρου δώρῳ πενιχρῷ δεικνὺς ὄλβιον πόθον· οὗ χάριν αἰτῶ τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν ὁ βασιλικὸς σὸς Βασίλειος, µάκαρ, γαµβρὸς κρατοῦντος καὶ βαΐουλος µέγας καὶ παρακοιµώµενος ἐκ τῆς ἀξίας. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:213

. 2

1

5

In the past, the stones of martyrdom crowned your head, O first-fighter, glory of the martyrs; now I also crown (it), with material of gold and silver, showing my prosperous love with a poor gift. In return, I ask salvation of the soul, (I) the basilikos, your Basileios, O blessed one, brother-in-law of the ruler and megas baioulos and of the dignity, parakoimomenos.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me44; Wander, Joshua Roll, 96; Bevilacqua, “Basilio

‘parakoimomenos’,” 184; and Bevilacqua, Arte e aristocrazia, 200–01, 295.

Figures 56

175

A22. British Museum Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 12th–13th cent. Gold, enamel 4.6 x 3.7 x 1.05 cm Great Britain, British Museum, London (1926,0409.1)

[…]

αἵµατι τῷ σῷ καὶ µύρῳ κεχρισµένον. Αἰτεῖ σε θερµὸν φρουρὸν ἐν µάχαις ἔχειν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:217.

[…]

being anointed by your blood and myron. He (sc. the patron) asks you to be his fervent guardian in battles.

Adapted from Katsarelias in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 167.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me47–48; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 30; and Elsner, “Relic, Icon, and Architecture,” 26–28.

Figures 57–60

A23. Alessandria Cross Reliquary, 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, niello, wood 26 x 16.5 cm Italy, Cathedral di San Pietro, Alessandria

Τριαδικῇ σφενδόνῃ Βερροίας θύτην

Ἰωάννην σκέποις µε <τὸν> σὸν οἰκέτην. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:219. With the triune sling may you protect me, the priest of Berroia Ioannes, your

servant. Adapted from Rhoby, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” 69.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me49; and Rhoby, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” 69–70.

Figures 61 A24. Reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite, 10th cent. (?) Silver-gilt diameter 10.7 cm Italy, Monastero di Camaldoli, Arezzo

Στῦλος πυρὸς πρὶν Ἰ(σρα)ὴλ ὁδηγέτης εἰς γῆν ἀγαθὴν ἀπὸ γῆς Αἰγυπτίας· στῦλος δὲ καὶ σοί, Συµεών, θεῖε πάτερ, ἐκ γῆς ὁδηγὸς εἰς τρίβον οὐρανίαν·

176

5 κοσµῶ τὸ λοιπὸν σὴν σεβασµίαν κάραν ὁ βασιλικὸς Βασίλειος ἐκ πόθου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:220.

5

A column of fire was once a leader for Israel from the land of Egypt into the wonderful land. But a column was also for you, O Symeon, divine father, a guide from land to a heavenly path. I adorn that which remains, your venerable head, with love, (I) Basileios the basilikos.

Literature Bertelli and Paolucci, Piero della Francesca, no. 68; Durand, “Reliques et

reliquaires,” 193; BEIÜ, 2:Me50; Wander, Joshua Roll, 96–97; Bevilacqua, “Basilio ‘parakoimomenos’,” 184–85; and Bevilacqua, Arte e aristocrazia, 196–98, 294–95.

Figures 62

A25. Bari Cross Reliquary, 11th cent.

Silver on wood 14 x 7.2 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Nicola di Bari

Θεοῦ µε σώζο[ις] ἅµα καὶ θεῖον ξύλο[ν] ἡµ[µέν]ον

ἐξ ὕλης κρύπτοντα πιστῶς ἀργύρου καὶ µαργά[ρων]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:221. God! Μay you save me, who, at the same time, grasped the divine wood,

and faithfully conceals (it) with matter of silver and pearls.

Literature Scandale, San Nicola, 88–95; Di Sciascio, Reliquie, 131–38; and BEIÜ, 2:Me51.

Figures 63–64

A26. Modena Cross Reliquary, 11th–12th cent. Gold, pearls, and wood 15 cm Italy, Tesoro del Duomo, Modena

Ἐν σοὶ πεποιθώς, σταυρέ, τοῦ κόσµου φύλαξ,

πολλῷ πόθῳ τέτευχε σὸν θεῖον τύπον ὁ Πανθήριος εὐτελὴς σὸς οἰκέτης. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:238.

3 Having trusted in you, O Cross, guardian of the world, Pantherios, your lowly servant,

177

2 has made your divine form with much love.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me69.

Figures 65 A27. Montecassino Cross Reliquary, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt, gems, pearls, and wood 15 x 8 x 1.5 cm Italy, Abbey of Montecassino

Ξύλον τὸ λῦσαν τὴν φθορὰν τὴν ἐκ ξύλου

κοσµεῖ Ῥωµανὸς εὐπρεπῶς τῷ χρυσίῳ· Χ(ριστὸ)ς γὰρ αὐτῷ κόσµος, οὐ τὸ χρυσίον. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:239.

The wood that atoned for sin caused by wood

Romanos worthily adorns with gold; For Christ is adornment to him, not the gold.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me70.

Figures 66–67

A28. Siena Holy Blood Reliquary, 12th cent. Gold, enamel, gems 5.7 x 4.7 x 1 cm (without suspension loop) Italy, Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena

Λειµῶνα παθῶν τοῦ Θ(εο)ῦ στέρνοις φέρων

τὸν [τῆς Ἐδ]ὲµ λαβεῖν µε λειµῶνα θέλ[ω] φ[εύ]γοντα δεινῶν πράξεων ἀκαρ[πίαν] […………………]αις τοῦ παναρίστου βίου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:244–45.

Carrying to the chest, the meadow of God’s sufferings,

I wish that the meadow of Eden receives me, fleeing the unfruitfulness of terrible actions […] of the best life of all.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me75.

Figures 68–69

178

A29. Reliquary of St. John Chrysostom, 11th–12th cent. Silver gilt 7.7 x 3.1 x 1.9 cm (without suspension loop) Italy, Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena

A Ἐν ἀργύρῳ κρύπτεται τῷ διαχρύσῳ

ὄλβιον χρυσοῦν λείψανον Χρυσοστόµου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247. In gilded silver is concealed

a prosperous golden relic of Chrysostom.

B Πρὸς τὸ χρυσοῦν µοι στόµα τοῦ Χρυσοστόµου καὶ νοῦς ἀπρακτεῖ καὶ λόγος οὐκ ἄξιος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:247.

In comparison with the golden mouth of Chrysostom to me,

both my intellect is inoperable and my speech is not worthy.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me76–77.

Figures 70–72 A30. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina, 11th–12th cent. Silver, gilding 10 x 6 x 2.8 cm Italy, Museo Correr, Venice

5

10

Ζητεῖς, θεατά, τίνος ἡ χεὶρ τυγχάνει; µάρτυρος ἥδε Μαρίνης τῆς ἁγίας ἧς τὸ κράτος ἔθλασε δράκοντο<ς> κάρας· αὐτήν µε πρὸς ζήτησιν ὤτρυνε σχέσις· ζητοῦσα γοῦν ἔτυχον αὐτῆς ἐκ πόθου· πρὸς κόσµ(ον) οὖν ἔσπευσα τὸν τῆς κοσµίας· µικρὸς µὲν οὗτος τῇ µεγάλῃ τυγχάνει, ὅµως δ’ ἄπειρος σὺν προαιρέσει πόθος· τοίνυν, ἀµαράντινον ἄνθος µαρτύρων, ζάλης ῥύου µε τῶν νοητῶν πνευµάτων· νίκην κατ’ αὐτῶν (καὶ) κράτος τε παρέχοις ἀνάλογον νέµουσα τῇ σχέσει δόσιν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:253.

5

You ask, viewer, whose hand is it? This is of the holy martyr Marina; its power smashed the heads of the dragon. (My) affection urged me towards a search for it. Thus searching (for the hand) I obtained it by (my) love; so I hastened toward adornment for the Adorned.

179

10

This (adornment) for the Great One is small, but nonetheless my love together with intention is infinite. Therefore, unfading flower of the martyrs, Save me from the storm of the intelligible spirits! May you grant (me) both victory and power over them, dispensing a gift proportionate to (my) affection.

Literature Clugnet, Vie, XVIII–XXI; Hahn, “The Voices of the Saints,” 26; Durand,

“Innovations gothiques,” 337; Kazakou and Skoulas, Egeria, no. 76; BEIÜ, 2:Me81; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 50; Rhoby, “Interaction,” 103; idem, “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography,” 72; idem, “Interactive Inscriptions,” 320–21; Hahn, Strange Beauty, 224; Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion (ch. 6); and Hostetler, “Reliquary Epigrams.”

Figures 73–76

A31. Venice Staurotheke Lid, 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, gems, and niello 44 x 30 x 3 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 4)

Στ(αυ)ρέ, κραταιὸν κατὰ δαιµόνων κράτος,

θήκην κάθω ζωῆς σε καὶ θεῖον ξύλον. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:256. O Cross, mighty power against demons,

I appoint you a vessel of life and divine wood.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me82.

Figures 78 A32. Venice Holy Blood Reliquary, 10th–11th cent. Gilded copper and niello (outer cylinder); rock crystal with gold, enamel, and jasper lid (inner

cylinder) 7.6 x 4.5 cm (outer cylinder); 4.5 x 4.5 cm (inner cylinder) Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 62; Santuario 68)

A Τερπνὸν δοχεῖον αἵµατος ζωηφόρου

πλευρᾶς ῥυέντος ἐξ ἀκηράτου Λόγου. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:258. Lovely vessel of life-giving blood,

that flowed from the side of the inviolate Logos.

B Ἔχεις µε Χριστὸν αἷµα σαρκός µου φέρων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:273.

180

You have me, Christ, if you carry the blood of my flesh.

*C Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστό)ς, ὁ βασιλεύς τῆς δόξης. Jesus Christ, the king of glory.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me83, Me91.

Figures 79–81 A33. Trebizond Reliquary Casket, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt, niello 28 x 14 x 9 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 133)

5

10

Ὑµεῖς µὲν οὐ πτήξαντες αἱµάτων χύσεις µάρτυρες ἠθλήσατε πανσθενεστάτως· τοὺς τῆς ἑῴας ἀκλινεῖς στύλους λέγω τὸ λαµπρὸν εὐτύχηµα Τραπεζουντίων πρώταθλον Εὐγένιον ἅµα δ’ Ἀκύλαν Οὐαλλεριανόν τε σὺν Κανιδίῳ· καὶ τὴν ἀµοιβὴν τῶν ἀµετρήτων πόνων ὁ Χ(ριστὸ)ς αὐτός ἐστιν ὑµῖν παρέχων· καὶ γὰρ δίδωσι τοὺς στεφάνους ἀξίως· ἐγὼ δ’ ὁ τάλας πληµµεληµάτων γέµων ὑµᾶς µεσίτας τῆς ἐµῆς σ(ωτη)ρίας τίθηµι φυγεῖν τὴν καταδίκην θέλων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:260.

5

10

Not fearing bloodshed, you martyrs contended with all your might; I speak of the unbending columns of the East, the gleaming good fortune of the Trapezuntines, the prize-winner Eugenios, together with Aquila, Valerianos, and Kanidios. And the reward of your immeasurable labors Christ himself is presenting you; for he is giving your worthy crowns. And I, wretched and being full of sin, appoint you intercessors for my salvation wishing to escape condemnation.

Adapted from Talbot, “Epigrams in Context,” 84.

Literature Kazakou and Skoulas, Egeria, no. 81; BEIÜ, 2:Me85; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 53; and Drpić, “Chrysepes Stichourgia.”

Figures 82

181

†A34. Arm Reliquary of St. Panteleemon, date (?) Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 21)

Ὁ τῶν νοσούντων ἰατρὸς µυροβλύτα

χρυσοῦς ὑγείας τῷ τρόχῳ κρουνοὺς ῥέοις. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:263. O myroblytes, physician of the sick,

may you flow the golden sources of health in perpetuity.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me86. A35. Arm Reliquary of St. George, 10th cent. (?) Silver height 31 cm; maximum width 7.9 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 159)

Γεωργίου λείψανον ἀθλητοῦ φέρων

πίστιν πάνοπλον τοὺς ἐναντίους τρέπω. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:265. Bearing a relic of the champion George,

(and) a fully-armored faith, I rout the opponents.

Literature Durand, “Reliques et reliquaires,” 193; BEIÜ, 2:Me88; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 51; and Perry, “St. George and Venice,” 15–22.

Figures 83

A36. Staurotheke of Empress Maria, 1517 copy of 11th–12th cent. Silver, gilding 72 x 27.8 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 56)

5

Ὃν οἱ σταλαγµοὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν αἱµάτων δόξαν θεϊκὴν ἐστόλισαν καὶ κράτος, πῶς δοξάσουσι µαργαρίται καὶ λίθοι; σὸς κόσµος ἐστί, στ(αυ)ρέ, πίστις καὶ πόθος· οὕτως σε κοσµεῖ καὶ βασιλὶς Μαρία. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:266-67.

5

That which (sc. the True Cross) the drops of God’s Blood adorned with divine glory and power, how shall pearls and gems glorify (you)? Your adornment, O Cross, is faith and love; in this way the Empress Maria also adorns you.

Adapted from Krause, “The Staurotheke of the Empress Maria,” 39.

182

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me89; and Paul, “Historical Figures,” 103.

Figures 84 A37. Cross Reliquary of Irene Doukaina, after 1118 Silver-gilt, niello, and enamel 21 x 14 x 4 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 57)

5

10

15

Καὶ τοῦτο γοῦν σοι προσφέρω πανυστάτως ἤδη προσεγγίσασα ταῖς Ἅιδου πύλαις, τὸ θεῖον ἀνάθηµα, τὸ ζωῆς ξύλον, ἐν ᾧ τὸ πν(εῦµ)α τῷ τεκόντι παρέθου καὶ τῶν πόνων ἔληξας, οὓς ἐκαρτέρεις· οἷς τοὺς πόνους ἔλυσας, οὓς κατεκρίθην, καὶ καρτ<ερ>εῖν ἔπεισας ἡµᾶς ἐν πόνοις· ταύτην δίδωµι σοὶ τελευταίαν δόσιν θνήσκουσα καὶ λήγουσα κἀγὼ τῶν πόνων, ἡ βασιλὶς Δούκαινα, λάτρις Εἰρήνη, χρυσενδύτις πρίν, ἀλλὰ νῦν ῥακενδύτις, ἐν τρυχίνοις νῦν, ἡ τὸ πρὶν ἐν βυσσίνοις, τὰ ῥάκια στέργουσα πορφύρας πλέον πορφυρίδ<α> κρίνουσα τὴν ἐπωµίδα {(καί)} µελεµβαφῆ ἔχουσα, ὡς δέδοκτό σοι· σὺ δ’ ἀντιδοίης λῆξιν ἐ<ν> µακαρίοις καὶ χαρµονὴν ἄληκτον ἐν σεσωσµένοις. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:269.

5

10

15

And so I offer this to you for the very last time, now approaching the gates of Hades, the divine offering, the wood of life, on which you committed (your) spirit to the one who begot you, ceased from the sufferings, which you patiently endured, through which you atoned for the sufferings for which I was condemned, and you persuaded us to endure in sufferings. I give this final gift to you, I, dying and ceasing from sufferings, the Empress Doukaina, servant Irene, formerly dressed in gold, but now dressed in rags, now in a garment of hair, formerly in fine linens, favoring the rags more than the purple preferring the veil over the purple garment having a dark-colored garment, as it was your will. May you give, in return, repose among the blessed, and endless joy among the saved ones.

183

Literature Krause, “Feuerprobe,” 123–25; and BEIÜ, 2:Me90.

Figures 85–90 †A38. Staurotheke of Constantine Patrikios, 11th–12th cent. 46 cm Italy, Tesoro di San Marco, Venice

Ὡς οἷα ποιεῖ πίστις ἡ Κωνσταντίνου

τοῦ πατρικίου καὶ τριηράρχου ξένα· χρυσάργυρον γὰρ τὸν Γολγοθᾶ δεικνύει, Γολγοθᾶ τοῦτον· καὶ γὰρ ὁ σταυροῦ τύπος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:274.

What such marvels are made by the faith of Constantine,

the patrikios and trierarch! For he shows Golgotha in gold and silver, this Golgotha; because it is also the image of the cross.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me92; and Bevilacqua, Arte e aristocrazia, 82–92, 291–92.

Figures 91

A39. Maastricht Reliquary Enkolpion, 11th–12th cent. Gold, silver-gilt, enamel 11.8 x 7.3 x 1.6 cm (incl. loop) Netherlands, Treasury of the Church of Saint Mary, Maastricht

[Π]ίστις νεουργε[ῖ ταῦ]τα θερµῶς Εἰρ[ήνης

τ]ῆς Συναδ[ηνῆ]ς […………………… ……] τ’ ἀµοιβ[ὴν πίσ]τεως εὐκα[ρ]δ[ίου …τὴ]ν λύσιν βράβ[ευε τῶν] ἐπταισµ[ένων]. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:277.

The faith of Irene Synadene ardently creates this

[…… ……] and the reward of a stout-hearted faith […] grant redemption of sins.

Literature De Kreek and Scheepmaker. De kerkschat, 208–17; and BEIÜ, 2:Me95.

Figures 92–94

184

†A40. Sankt Florian Staurotheke, date (?) Austria, Abbey of Sankt Florian

5

10

Ὕλης τὸ λαµπρὸν καὶ σοφὸν τὸ τῆς τέχνης, κάλλους τὸ τερπνόν, σχήµατος τὸ ποικίλον, τῶν ἔνδον ἡ βλύζουσα θαυµατουργία, τοῦ δηµιουργήσαντος ὁ ζέων πόθος ὑπερφέρουσι τῆς κιβωτοῦ τῆς πάλαι· ὅσῳ γὰρ αὐτὰ τῶν πρὶν ἐξῃρηµένα, µείζων τοσούτῳ πίστις ἡ Θεοφάνου[ς] προσευκτικὸν σκήνωµα τῶν αἰτηµάτων τεύξασα, καλλύνασα τοῦτο ἐπὶ πόθῳ εἰς ψυχικὴν κάθαρσιν, εἰς βίου σκέπην. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:279.

5

10

The radiant matter and skill of the art, the delightful beauty, the colorful form, the works of wonders gushing forth from the things within, the boiling love of the creator surpasses the ark of long ago. For the more that these things transcend those previous all the more is Theophanes’s faith, which having made a prayer tabernacle for his requests, beautified it through desire for the soul’s purification, for life’s protection.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me96.

A41. Philotheos Staurotheke, 11th–12th cent. Silver, wood, chasing, gilding 20.5 x 17 cm Russia, Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1141)

Ζωηφόρον πέφυκε τοῦ στ(αυ)ροῦ ξύλον ἐν ᾧπερ αὐτὸς προσπαγεὶς Χ(ριστὸ)ς θέλων ἅπασιν ἐβράβευσε τὴν σ(ωτη)ρίαν· θήκην Ἰω(άννης) δὲ τεύχει νῦν πόθῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:282.

Life-giving is the wood of the cross on which Christ himself having been willingly fastened granted salvation to all. And now John makes the reliquary with love.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me97; and Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, no. 8.

185

Figures 95 A42. Kremlin Reliquary Enkolpion, late 12th cent. Gold, silver, cloisonné enamel, chasing, niello, gilding 9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm Russia, Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1147)

5

Χιτών, χλαµύς, λέντιον, ἔνδυµα Λόγου, σινδών, λύθρον, στέφανος ἠκανθωµένο(ς), ὀστοῦν, ξύλον, θρίξ—διδύµου, σταυροῦ, λύχνου—, ζώνης πανάγνου τµῆµα, µανδύου µέρος, [Εὐστρα]τίου λείψανον, ὀστοῦν Προδρόµου, Εὐφηµίας θρίξ, λείψανον Νικολάου, ὀστᾶ Στεφάνου τοῦ νέου, Θεοδώρου [κα]ὶ Παντελεήµονος ἐκ τρι(ῶν) τρία. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:283–84.

5

Tunic, Mantle, Towel, Garment of the Logos, Shroud, Blood, Crown of Thorns, Bone, Wood, Hair—of the Twin, of the Cross, of the Lamp—, a piece of the all-chaste Girdle, a part of the Mantle, a relic of Eustratios, a bone of the Prodromos, hair of Euphemia, a relic of Nicholas, bones of Stephen the Younger, of Theodore, and of Panteleemon: three from the three.

Adapted from Ševčenko, “Observations,” 246.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me98; Sterligova, “Precious Eastern Christian Encolpia,” 461; Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, no. 25; and Drpić, Epigram, Art, and Devotion (ch. 4).

Figures 96–98

A43. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios, 1059–67 Silver, chasing, gilding 15 x 11.5 cm. Interior reliquary compartments: 8.6 x 5 cm and 5.2 x 2.5 cm Russia, Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1148)

5

Σαφὴς πέφυκα τοῦ κιβωρίου τύπος τοῦ λογχονύκτου µάρτυρος Δη<µη>τρίου. ἔχω δὲ Χριστὸν ἐκτὸς ἐστηλωµένον στέφοντα χερσὶ τὴν καλὴν ξυνωρίδα· ὁ δ᾽ αὖ µε τεύξας Ἰωάννης ἐκ γένους Αὐτωρειανῶν τὴν τύχην µυστογράφος. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:285.

186

5

I am an accurate image of the ciborium of the lance-pierced martyr Demetrios. I have Christ inscribed on the outside crowning with his hands the fair couple. He who made me anew is John from the family of the Autoreianoi, mystographos by profession.

Adapted from Kalavrezou in Evans and Wixom, Glory of Byzantium, 77.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me99; Paul, “Historical Figures,” 99–100; Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, no. 7; Klein, “Materiality and the Sacred,” 250–52; and Veneskey, “Loca Sancta Surrogates,” 205–27.

Figures 99–103

A44. Cross Reliquary of Leo Domestikos, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt 36.4 x 23.7 cm Switzerland, Collection des Musées d’art et d’histoire, Geneva (Inv. Nr. AD 3062)

5

Ἔργον φέριστον ἐκ πόθου γεγονότα τέτευχε Λέων πρωτάρχης Μακεδόνων πατρίκιός τε καὶ δοµέστικος Δύσης ποθῶν τὸν θεῖον Μιχαὴλ στρατηγέτην τὸν ἐν ταῖς Χώναις ἤδη νέον φανέντα µετονοµασθεὶς αὖθις Δαµοκρανίτης. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:288.

5

The best work, born from love, has been created by Leo, the supreme-archon of the Macedonians, patrikios and domestikos of the West, longing for the divine strategos Michael, who has already just appeared in Chonai, (Leo), again, took on the new name “Damokranites.”

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me102; and Martiniani-Reber, Antiquités, no. 28.

Figures 104–05

A45. Bagà Cross Reliquary, 11th cent. Silver-gilt on wood 31 (incl. base) x 16 x 2.3 cm Spain, Parish Church of Sant Esteve de Bagà, Barcelona

*A Στ(αυ)ρὸς Ἰ(ησο)ῦ Χ(ριστο)ῦ Ὑοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ

Cross of Jesus Christ, Son of God

187

*B Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστὸ)ς νικᾷ Jesus Christ conquers

C

5

ἐν ᾧ γυµνωθεὶς ἀπογυµνοῖς κακίαν, ἄναρχε Σῶτερ, πανσθενὲς Θεοῦ Λόγε, βροτοὺς ἐπενδύεις δὲ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν· θήκῃ περιστέλλουσιν ἀργυροχρύσῳ οἱ σὴν µονὴν ναίοντες εἰς σωτηρίαν. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:295.

5 4

on which, having been stripped naked, you stripped sin bare, O eternal Savior, omnipotent Word of God, but mortals you clothe in incorruption; for salvation, those dwelling in your monastery clothe (the cross) with a silver-gilt reliquary.

Literature Valdés, Signum salutis cruces, no. 53; BEIÜ, 2:Me106.

Figures 106–07

A46. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls, enamel, rock crystal (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm Vatican, Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro

Ὅρα τί καινὸν θαῦµα καὶ ξένην χάριν·

χρυσὸν µὲν ἔξω Χριστὸν ἔν<δον> δὲ σκόπει· ὃ καὶ τέτευχεν ἐκ προθύµου καρδίας Ἰωάννης λύτρωσιν αἰτῶν σφαλµάτων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:301.

Look what new wonder and extraordinary grace!

Behold gold outside, but Christ inside! And John has made it from an eager heart, asking for the redemption of transgressions.

Literature De Kreek and Scheepmaker. De kerkschat, 116–27; BEIÜ, 2:Me110;

Toussaint, “Großer Schatz,” 285–86; and Rhoby, “Interactive Inscriptions,” 324–25.

Figures 108–12

A47. Vatican Cross Reliquary, 10th–11th cent. Gold on wood with silver and glass beads, gem, and brooches 38.3 x 24.4 x 1.5 cm Vatican, Museo del Tesoro di San Pietro

188

5

Ὡραῖον εἰς ὅρασιν ὀφθὲν τὸ ξύλον γεύσει µε νεκροῖ τὸν Θεοῦ κατ’ εἰκόνα· ὡραῖος ὢν κάλλει δὲ θείας οὐσίας ζωοῖ µε Χριστὸς σαρκικῶς θανὼν ξύλῳ οὗ τήνδε θήκην Ῥωµανὸς γῆς δεσπότης ὡραιότησιν ἀρετῶν ἐστεµµένος χάρισιν ὡράϊσε τιµίων λίθων ἡττῶν δι’ αὐτοῦ δαίµονας καὶ βαρβάρους. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:303.

5

The wood that was seen, (and) attractive in its appearance, with a taste (of its forbidden fruit), it kills me, (who is created) according to

the image of God. But being attractive by the beauty of divine essence, Christ, having physically died on the wood, enlivens me. This reliquary (of the wood), Romanos, despot of the earth, having been crowned with the attractiveness of virtues, made attractive with the graces of precious stones, through it, overcoming demons and barbarians.

Literature De Kreek and Scheepmaker. De kerkschat, 90–115; BEIÜ, 2:Me111; and

Rezza, La Stauroteca.

Figures 113–14 A48. Dumbarton Oaks Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 12th–13th cent. Gold and enamel 4.4 x 2.8 x 0.6 cm USA, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC (BZ.1953.20)

Σεπτὸν δοχεῖον αἵµατος Δηµητρίου

σὺν µύρῳ φέρει πίστις ἡ τοῦ Σεργίου· αἰτεῖ σε καὶ ζῶν καὶ θανὼν ῥύστην ἔχ[ειν] σὺν τοῖς δυσὶν µάρτυσι καὶ ἀθλοφόροις. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:306.

2

1

The faith of Sergios carries, together with the myron, the venerable vessel of the blood of Demetrios. He asks to have you as a deliverer in both life and in death, together with the two victorious martyrs.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:Me112; Bagnoli, Treasures of Heaven, no. 29; and Elsner, “Relic,

Icon, and Architecture,” 26–28.

Figures 115–18

189

A49. Cortona Staurotheke, 963–69 Ivory 30.5 x 14.5 cm Italy, Chiesa di San Francesco, Cortona

*A Ὁ τῆς µ(ε)γ(άλης) ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ σοφίας σκευοφύλαξ Στέφανος τῇ

θρεψαµένῃ µονῇ Εὐήµης προσφέρει. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:331. The skeuophylax of the Great Church of Godly Wisdom, Stephen, offers (this)

to Euemes, the monastery that trained him.

B Κ(αὶ) πρὶν κραταιῷ δεσπότῃ Κωνσταντίνῳ Χ(ριστὸ)ς δέδωκε στ(αυρ)ὸν εἰ<ς> σωτηρίαν· κ(αὶ) νῦν δὲ τοῦτον ἐν Θ(ε)ῷ Νικηφόρος ἄναξ τροποῦται φῦλα βαρβάρων ἔχων. Ed. BEIÜ, 2:332.

And formerly to the powerful Emperor Constantine

Christ gave the cross for salvation. And now having this, the ruler according to God Nikephoros puts to flight the tribes of barbarians.

Literature BEIÜ, 2:El23; Pentcheva, Sensual Icon, 160–63; Nelson, “Art of War,” 183–

186; Sullivan, “Siege Warfare,” 396–97; Flamine, “stauroteca,” 279–313; and Leggio, “La stauroteca,” 9–34.

Figures 119–20

A50. Reliquary Stele of St. Glykeria, 9th–10th cent.

Marble 200 x 67 x 41 cm Turkey, Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Tekirdağ

5

Ὁ τερπνὸς οὗτο(ς) ὡς σορὸ(ς) κρύπτει λίθ(ο)ς τῆς θαυµατουργοῦ µάρτυρο(ς) Γλυκερίας θείαν κάραν βρύουσαν ὄµβρο(ν) θαυµάτων ἐξ ὧν ῥῶσις κάµνουσιν πολλὴ πηγάζει· πιστῶς προσέρχου πᾶς τις ἁγνῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ θᾶττον εὕροις τοῦ ποθουµένου λύσιν· ὡς γὰρ κρήνη τις βλύζουσα ζωῆς ῥεῖθρα οὕτως πρόκειται πᾶσιν αὐτῆς ἡ χάρις. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:596.

This lovely stone conceals, like a coffin, the divine head of the wonder-working martyr Glykeria, which gushes forth a shower of wonders, from which much strength springs forth to the suffering.

190

5 Believers draw near, anyone with a pure heart, and swiftly may you find a redemption of the desired one. For as a well bubbling forth streams of life, so her grace lies exposed to all.

Literature Sayar, Perinthos-Herakleia, no. 243; Klein, “Brighter than the Sun,” 651;

BEIÜ, 3:TR45; and Klein, “Materiality and the Sacred,” 244–49.

Figures 121 †A51. Staurotheke of Niketas, 10th–11th cent. Silver-gilt and niello Approx. 13.5 x 8 x 2 or 3 cm France, Abbey of Mont Saint-Michel

Θείου τέτευχε Νικήτας θήκην ξύ[λου]

µονῆς προεστὼς Νικητιάτο(υ) πόθῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:822. 2

1 With love, the superior of the monastery of Niketiatu, Niketas, has made the reliquary of divine wood.

Literature Gasnault and Durand, “Quatre reliquaires byzantins,” 286–91; and BEIÜ,

3:AddII3.

Figures 122 A52. Hand Reliquary of St. Barbara, 12th–early 13th cent. Silver, chasing, engraving, gilding 4.2 x 2.6 x 2.2 cm Russia, Moscow Kremlin (Inv. No. MP–1750/4)

Ξένη τις ἡ χεὶρ ὧδε παρθένου ξένης·

χεὶρ Βαρβάρας λύουσα λοιµώδεις νόσους. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:834. The extraordinary hand here is of an extraordinary virgin,

the hand of Barbara that destroys pestilent diseases.

Literature BEIÜ, 3:AddII15.

Figures 123–24

191

A53. Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios, 12th–13th cent. (?)

Silver-gilt 4.8 x 4.2 x 1 cm Private Collection

A Φρουρόν σου µύρον, πίστιν ἔχων καὶ πόθον

Συµεών· Ἄθως.

B Δοµήσατό σοι, Δηµήτριε µέγιστε σὺν Προκοπίῳ. Ed. BEIÜ, 3:840.

A Having faith, love, and your protective myron,

Symeon, Athos.

B It was created for you, O great Demetrios together with Prokopios.

Literature Totev and Pletn’ov, Byzantine Art, 69–70, fig. 25; BEIÜ, 3:AddII20.

Figures 125

†A54. Stuben Reliquary of St. Demetrios, date (?)

Germany, Abbey of St. Nicholas, Stuben

A Ποταµός εἰµι ναµάτων διπλοῤῥύτων τοῦ πανσεβάστου µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου µύρα προπέµπων χ’ αἵµαθ’ ἱερὰ βρύων, εἰς ἐκκάθαρσιν οἰκέτου Νικηφόρου.

B Αἵµατος σεπτοῦ καὶ µύρου ἐρασµίου

Δηµητρίου µάρτυρος ἐνταῦθα κρύη. Ed. Brouwer and Masen, Antiquitates, 103.

A I am a river of dual-flowing streams of the all-blessed martyr Demetrios, sending forth myron and gushing forth sacred blood, for the purification of the servant Nikephoros.

B Herein is a crust of revered blood and lovely myron of the martyr Demetrios.

Literature Brouwer and Masen, Antiquitates, 103; Kraus, Die christlichen Inschriften,

312; and Frolow, “Un nouveau reliquaire byzantin,” 100.

192

†A55. Staurotheke of Theophylact, 10th cent. (?)

Silver-gilt 4.5 in. France, Mont-Saint-Quentin Abbey

A Σ(ταυ)ρόν τε, Σ(ῶτ)ερ, ὐπέµε(ι)νας κ(αὶ) πάθος

ἳνα προσηνῶς ἐλκύσῃ(ς) βροτ(ῶ)ν γένος.

B Θεοφυλάκτου κτῆµα προσφιλὲς τόδε· κέκτηται αὐτὸ εἰς φυλακὴ κ(αὶ) σκ[έ]πην, [σ(ωτη)]ρίαν τε κ(αὶ) λύσιν ἀµαρτάδων.

Ed. Gasnault and Durand, “Quatre reliquaires,” 277.

A O Saviour, you endured both the cross and suffering so that you could gently draw up the race of mortals.

B This is the beloved possession of Theophylact.

He has procured it for safeguarding, protection, salvation and the redemption of sins.

Note A, 2: προσυνῶς Gasnault and Durand.

Literature Gasnault and Durand, “Quatre reliquaires,” 275–79.

193

APPENDIX B

MIDDLE BYZANTINE RELIQUARIES WITH EPIGRAMS:

IN BYZANTINE MANUSCRIPTS †B1. Reliquary of St. Panteleemon, second half of 10th cent.

Epigram recorded in MS. Paris, Suppl. Gr. 352 (s. XIII)

*Title Εἰς τὴν λάρνακα τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήµονος.

Epigram Πέτρας µέλι πρίν, νῦν δὲ θαύµατα βρύει. Ed. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:290. On the coffer of St. Panteleemon. Formerly, honey from rock, but now wonders burst forth [from here].

Literature Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:290; Cougny, Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina, 3:347, 385 (no. 337); and Van Opstall, Jean Géomètre, 552 (no. 64).

†B2. Reliquary of St. Panteleemon, second half of 10th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Paris, Suppl. Gr. 352 (s. XIII)

*Title Εἰς τὴν λάρνακα τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήµονος.

Epigram Ὕδωρ πέτρας πρὶν, νῦν µύρα, πλὴν καὶ µύρων

ἰαµάτων ῥοῦς, τοῦτο θαῦµα θαυµάτων. Ed. Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:332. On the coffer of St. Panteleemon. Formerly water from rock, now myron, and in addition to myron,

a stream of cures, this wonder of wonders.

Literature Cramer, Anecdota Graeca, 4:332; and Van Opstall, Jean Géomètre, 557 (no. 276).

†B3. Reliquary of the True Cross, 9th–11th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Paris, Suppl. Gr. 690 (s. XII)

*Title Εἰς τὸν σταυρόν.

Epigram

Τὸ ζωοποιὸν καὶ σεβάσµιον ξύλον, ἐν ᾧ πέπονθε σαρκικῶς ὁ δεσπότης,

194

5

πᾶσι πρόκειται προσκυνητόν, ὡς θέµις, χρυσοστολισθὲν Μιχαὴλ θείοις πόνοις, φρουρὸν κραταιὸν ἐν βίῳ κεκτηµένου.

Ed. Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 151; emend. Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 44n94.

On the cross.

5

The life-giving and venerable wood, on which the Lord had suffered in the flesh, lies exposed to all for veneration, as is appropriate, having been adorned with gold by the divine work of Michael, who has procured for himself a powerful protection in life.

Literature Sternbach, “Methodii patriarchae,” 151; Mercati, Collectanea Byzantina, vol.

2, 213–14; Frolow, La relique, no. 95; Gero, Leo III, 210–12; and Lauxtermann, “The Byzantine Epigram,” 43–44.

†B4. Staurotheke of Constantine IX Monomachos, 1042–55 Epigram recorded in MS. Vat. Gr. 676, f. 28v (XI s.)

*Title Εἰς θήκην τοῦ τιµίου ξύλου τοῦ βασιλέως Χριστοῦ.

Epigram

5

Σταυροῦ πάλιν φῶς καὶ πάλιν Κωνσταντῖνος· ὁ πρῶτος εἶδε τὸν τύπον δι’ ἀέρος, ὁ δεύτερος δὲ τοῦτον αὐτὸν καὶ βλέπει καὶ χερσὶ πιστῶς προσκυνούµενον φέρει· ἄµφω παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὸ κράτος δεδεγµένοι ἄµφω σέβουσιν αὐτὸν ὡς εὐεργέτην.

Ed. Lagarde, Iohannis Euchaitorum, 34; emend. Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz,” 113.

On the reliquary of the precious wood of Christ the emperor.

5

Again a light of the cross, and again a Constantine. The first perceived the form through the air, and the second sees the thing itself, And (the cross) being venerated, he faithfully carries (it) in (his) hands. Both having received the power from it. Both worship it, as benefactor.

Literature Grester, De cruce Christi, 349; Lagarde, Iohannis Euchaitorum, no. 58;

Frolow, La relique, no. 212; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 169; and Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz,” 112–13.

195

†B5. Kecharitomene Staurotheke, early 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Jerusalem, Sainte-Croix 57, fol. 91v (XII/XIII s.)

Epigram Ἄνασσα δῶρον Εἰρήνη σταυροῦ ξύλον,

µονῇ βραβεύη σῇ Κεχαριτωµένῃ.

*Full Inventory Descript.

διὰ στίχων· Ἄνασσα δῶρον Εἰρήνη σταυροῦ ξύλον | µονῇ βραβεύη σῇ Κεχαριτωµένῃ. Ἔσωθεν | αὐτῆς τίµιον ξύλον µετὰ βουτίων χρυσῶν | ἓξ καὶ ...των | ...ίον µετὰ χρυσαφίου· τὸ µέσον τούτου | ἀργυρο... τοῖς ἐσοφωτ( ) τῆς θήκης ἀργυροδιάχρυσα | µετὰ θηκῶν ἀργυρῶν ἓξ κ.νῶ ὧν τὰ σκεπάσµατα | ἀργυροχρυσ(όµενα ?) εἰκονισµένα <ὁ> ἑλκόµενος | ... Χ<ριστός>, ἡ σταύρωσις, ἡ ἀποκαθήλωσις, <ὁ> ἐνταφιασµός, | <ἡ> ἀνάστασις καὶ τὸ χαίρετε µετὰ ... ἀργυροῦ | <δια>χρύσου µειζο... καὶ ἑτέρων δύο µικρῶν | ...

Ed. Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152. The Empress Irene directs a gift, wood of the cross,

to your convent, the Kecharitomene. [Inscribed] with the (following) verses: “The Empress Irene directs a gift,

wood of the cross, to your convent, the Kecharitomene.” Inside it is the venerable wood with six cone-shaped cavities and [...] with gilding. The middle of this is silver […] the interior of the reliquary is silver-gilt with six silver caskets […] the lids of which are silver-gilt depicting the Road to Calvary, the Crucifixion, the Descent from the Cross, the Entombment, the Anastasis, and the Greeting (of Christ to the Marys), with […] more silver-gilt […] and two other small […].

Adapted from BMFD, 714.

Literature Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152; BMFD, 714; and ByzAD, no. 2174 †B6. Kecharitomene Staurotheke, early 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Jerusalem, Sainte-Croix 57, fol. 91v (XII/XIII s.)

Epigram Ἤθροισε πίστις Εἰρήνης βασιλίδος

σκέπην ἑαυτῇ, συζύγῳ τε καὶ τέκνοις, πάθη τὰ σεπτὰ τοῦ παθῶ […].

*Full

Inventory Descript.

Ἑ<τέρ>α θήκη ὁλοτζάπωτος ἔσω καὶ ἔξω ἀργυρο- | <διά>χρυσος, ἔχουσα εἰκονισµένους εἰς τὰς θύρας αὐτῆς | τοὺς ἁγίους Πέτρον καὶ Παῦλον... καὶ ξύλον µ. | κ… µένον | … ἔξωθεν τῶν θυρῶν ἔχει ἱεράρχας | … Χρυσόστοµον καὶ τὸν ἅγιον Νικόλαον· τὸ ἔσωθεν | … ἔνθεν κακεῖθεν τοῦ τιµίου ξύλου | θῆκαι ἀργυραῖ δια…ναι· ἄνω δὲ καὶ κάτω | γράµµατα εικαυτ( ) διὰ στίχων· Ἤθροισε πίστις | Εἰρήνης βασιλίδος σκέπην ἑαυτῇ, συζύγῳ τε | καὶ τέκνοις, πάθη τὰ σεπτὰ τοῦ παθῶ… | … µαρτύρων πάντιµα λειψάνων | … µετὰ καὶ κιχρουλε( ) µεγάλα ἀργυρᾶ καὶ π… | καὶ ὑελίων βʹ .

196

Ed. Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152. The faith of the Empress Irene made

a protection for herself, husband, and children, the sacred passion of the […].

Another reliquary holotzapōtos (fully-chiseled, or repoussé) silver-gilt inside

and out, having depicted on its doors Sts. Peter and Paul […] and wood (of the True Cross) […] it has on the outside of the doors the hierarchs [… St. John] Chrysostom and St. Nicholas; on the inside […] on this side and that of the venerable wood [are] silver caskets […]; and above and below are (inscribed) nielloed letters with the (following) verses: “The faith of the Empress Irene made a protection for herself, husband, and children, the sacred passion of the… .” […] most-venerable of the relics of the martyrs […] also with large silver kichroule[…] (rings?) and […] and two glass jewels.

Adapted from BMFD, 714.

Literature Gautier, “Kécharitôménè,” 152; BMFD, 714; Vassis, Initia, 303; and ByzAD, no. 2184.

†B7. Reliquary of St. Panteleemon, first half of 11th cent. Epigram recorded in Grott. Bibl. Bad. Gr. Z a XXXIX (s. XIII)

*Title Εἰς τὸ τίµιον λείψανον τοῦ ἁγίου Παντελεήµονος τὸ ἐκβλύζον τὸ ἁγίασµα.

Epigram Ἔβλυζε πέτρα ῥεῖθρον Ἰσραηλίταις

ἑνὸς πάθους ἴαµα, τῆς δίψης µόνης· τὸ σὸν δὲ τοῦτο, µάρτυς, ὀστοῦν ἐνθάδε πασῶν νόσων ἴαµα ῥεῖθρον ἐκχέει.

Ed. De Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum, 82–83. On the venerable relic of St. Panteleemon, which gushes hagiasma. A rock poured forth a stream to the Israelites,

a cure of one suffering, of thirst alone. But, O martyr, this bone of yours here pours forth a stream, a cure for all sicknesses.

Literature Kurtz, Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios, no. 89; Lambros, “Ὁ

Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 24; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 2; De Groote, Christophori Mitylenaii versuum, no. 89; and Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 307, no. 24.

197

†B8. Staurotheke of Irene Doukaina, 1081–1118 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 498, f. 380v (XIV s.)

*Title Εἰς τὸν τίµιον σταυρόν.

Epigram

5

Οὐ ταῦτα δρυµὸς οὐδὲ κρανίου τόπος, ἐν οἷς ἐπάγη τοῦτο τὸ ξύλον πάλαι, ἀλλ’ ἔστι λιθόστρωτος ἢ χρυσοῦς τόπος, ἀνθεῖ δὲ λευκὸν ἄνθος ἐκ τῶν µαργάρων. Τούτοις φυτεύει σέ, ξύλον ζωηφόρον, Δουκῶν ὁ λαµπτήρ, ἡ βασιλὶς Εἰρήνη, καρπὸν γλυκὺν τρυγῶσα τὴν σωτηρίαν.

Ed. Romano, Carmi, 81. On the precious cross.

5

These things are not a thicket, nor the place of the skull, in which this wood was fixed long ago, but rather it is paved with stones and a place of gold, yet it blooms white blossoms made of pearls. Into these (she) plants you, O life-bringing wood, the beacon of the Doukai, the Empress Irene, harvesting the sweet fruit, salvation.

Literature Bebel, Cyri Theodori Prodromi, quatern. ξ, ff. 3v-4r; Grester, De cruce

Christi, 347; Du Cange, “Annae Comnenae,” 702; Sternbach, “Nicolai Calliclis Carmina,” 319, no. II; Loparev, “Opisanie,” 400n1; Kurtz, “Review,” 480; Frolow, La relique, no. 241; Romano, Carmi, no. 6; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 135–36; and Hostetler, “Reliquary Epigrams.”

†B9. Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Theodore Gabras, second half of the 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 18v (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον Μιχαὴλ τοῦ Ἀλουσιάνου, ἔχον µέρος τῆς κεφαλῆς τοῦ ἁγίου

Θεοδώρου τοῦ Γαβρᾶ.

Epigram

Ἐγκάρδιον τρέφοντα σοὶ πόθου φλόγα καὶ τµῆµα σῆς φέροντα τοῖς στέρνοις κάρας Ἀλουσιάνον Μιχαὴλ κύκλῳ σκέποις, ἀθλητὰ Γαβρᾶ, βλαστὲ Τραπεζουντίων.

Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 17. On an enkolpion of Michael Alousianos, having a part of the head of St.

Theodore Gabras.

198

4 3 1 2

O athlete (of Christ) Gabras, shoot of the Trapezuntines, may you shelter from all sides Michael Alousianos, who nourishes in his heart a flame of love for you, and who carries a piece of your head to the chest.

Literature Horna, “Eine unedierte Rede,” 198; Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no.

42; Bryer, “A Byzantine family,” 175; Rigo, Antonio. “Il martyrio,” 155; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 5; Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung,” 197–98; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 211; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 104; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B4 (42/42).

†B10. Reliquary of St. Demetrios from Mar Saba, 11th–12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 35v (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς κιβώτιον ἔχον µῦρον τοῦ ἁγίου µάρτυρος Δηµητρίου.

Epigram

5

10

15

Θεσσαλονικέων µὲν ἡ πόλις φέρει σὸν µυροβλυτοῦν, µάρτυς, ἁγνὸν σαρκίον, πατρὶς τὸ τέκνον ὥσπερ ἠγκαλισµένη καὶ τῶν χαρίτων τὴν ἀείρρυτον βρύσιν πλουτεῖ περιβλύζουσαν αὐτῆς ἐν µέσῳ, ὡς ἐκ φλεβὸς πάλιν δε µυριοβλύτου οἰκουµένης πρόσωπον ἀρδεύει κύκλῳ. Ἐγὼ δὲ θερµῷ σῷ πόθῳ τετρωµένος ξένος µοναστής, ἀρετῶν θείων ξένος τάφου τύπον σοῦ συντιθεὶς ἐξ ἀργύρου σὸν µῦρον ἔνδον ἐµβαλών, πίστει φέρω. δῶρον δὲ µυρίοβλον εὐσεβῶς νέµω µονῆς µονασταῖς τοῦ σεβασµίου Σάβα, ὧν ταῖς προσευχαῖς µιγνύων σου τὴν χάριν ῥύπους ἐµοὺς κάθαιρε σοῦ ῥείθρῳ µύρου, ἐν τῷ τέλει δὲ τὴν Ἐδὲµ µονὴν δίδου.

Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 43, emend. Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B136 (79/81).

On a box containing myron of the holy martyr Demetrios.

5

The city of the Thessalonians possesses your hallowed myron-gushing body, O martyr, just as a motherland embraces her child; and it is rich with the ever-flowing fountain of graces that gushes all around in her midst, as from an artery of an immeasurably-gushing (fountain), and irrigates entirely the face of the oikoumene. But I being wounded with burning affection for you,

199

10

15

I, a stranger monk, a stranger to divine virtues, having put together the image of your tomb from silver having placed inside your myron, I faithfully carry (it). I piously offer a luxurious gift to the monks of the monastery of the blessed Sabas, bringing their prayers in contact with your grace, purify my pollution with the stream of your myron and grant me at the end a dwelling of Eden.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 79; Nikiforova, “Relics in

Byzantine epigrams,” no. 3; BEIÜ, 2:157n66; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 163, 170, 203; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 128–29; Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B136 (79/81).

†B11. Staurotheke of Manuel Komnenos, 1176 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 37v (XIII s.)

*Title Ἐπὶ τῷ γεγονότι παρὰ τοῦ ἁγίου ἡµῶν βασιλέως τιµίῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ σταυρῷ

ἐν τῷ κατὰ τοῦ Ἰκονίου ταξιδίῳ.

Epigram

5

10

15

20

Ζήλῳ καµίνου καρδίαν µέσην ζέσας καὶ σπλάγχνα φρυγεὶς θυµικῶν ἐξ ἀνθράκων ὑπὲρ µερίδος χριστεπωνύµου γένους, ὅρπηξ, Μανουήλ, διπλοφυοῦς πορφύρας κοµνηνοδουκῶν, ἐξ ἀνάκτων αὐτάναξ, ἐξῆρε τοὺς σπινθῆρας εἰς πυρσὸν µέγαν· οὐ γὰρ τὰ τέκνα τῆς ἐλευθέρας βλέπειν ἔστεξε τέκνα δοῦλα τῆς δούλης Ἄγαρ. οὐκοῦν ἀθροίσας κρατερὰν ὀµαιχµίαν ἐκ µυριάκις µυρίων στρατευµάτων, πρὸς τὴν κατ’ ἐχθρῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ σπεύδει µάχην ἐν τριακοστῷ καὶ τετάρτῳ τῷ χρόνῳ τῆς αὐτοκρατοῦς Αὐσόνων σκηπτουχίας. εἰδὼς δὲ τύπῳ σταυρικοῦ θείου ξύλου νίκην λαβόντα τὸν µέγαν Κωνσταντῖνον, οὗ στέµµα πίστιν ὀρθοδοξίαν φέρει, τὸν αὐτὸν αὐτὸς χρυσίῳ κοσµεῖ τύπον, Χριστοῦ παθῶν σήµαντρα τιθεὶς ἐν µέσῳ καὶ λειψάνων τµήµατα σεπτῶν ἁγίων, θαρρεῖν ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς ἢ στρατοῦ πλήθει κρίνων. ναί, Σταυρὲ ῥάβδε, πλῆττε τοὺς ἐναντίους! ναί, στρατὲ Χριστοῦ, Περσικὰ φῦλα τρέπε· παρεµβαλὼν δὲ τῷ βασιλεῖ κυκλόθεν νίκης στεφάνῳ στέψον αὐτοῦ τὸ στέφος.

Ed. Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, no. B149 (92/94).

200

On the precious and life-giving cross that has been made by our holy emperor during the expedition against Ikonion.

5

10

15

20

Boiling in the midst of his heart with the zeal of a furnace and his seat of emotions being roasted from irascible coals on behalf of the portion of the nation called by Christ’s name, Manuel, twice purple-born scion of the Komnenoi-Doukai, emperor born of emperors, aroused the sparks into a great torch. For he could not bear to see the children of the free-born woman be slave children of the slave Hagar. Therefore having gathered a mighty alliance from ten thousand times ten thousand battalions, he hastens to war against the enemies of God in the thirty-fourth year of his autocratic reign over the Ausonians. Knowing that by the form of the cruciform divine wood, victory was seized by Constantine the Great, whose crown bears the orthodox faith, he (Manuel) himself adorns this same form with gold, placing inside the signs of Christ’s passion and pieces of relics of venerable saints, determining to trust in these rather than in the multitude of his army. Yes, Cross, rod, strike the opponents! Yes, army of Christ, rout the Persian tribes! And falling in line all around the emperor, crown his crown with the crown of victory.

Adapted from Spingou, “Text and Image,” 81.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 92; Frolow, “Une inscription,” 106; idem, La relique, no. 367; Magdalino, Empire, 96; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 170; Hörandner, “heilige Kreuz,” 113–14; Spingou, “Text and Image,” 79–85; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 132, 145; Chrysos, “1176,” 85; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 146–48; Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, no. B149 (92/94); and Hostetler, “Reliquary Epigrams.”

†B12. Reliquary Enkolpion of Constantine IX Monomachos, 1042–55 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 46v (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκολπιον ἔχον µέρος τοῦ ἁγίου λίθου ἐν ᾧ µετὰ τὴν ἀποκαθήλωσιν ἔθετο

τὸν Χριστὸν ὁ Ἰωσὴφ καὶ µέρος τῆς σπάθης τοῦ ἁγίου Γεωργίου.

Epigram

Στέρνοις φέροντι τµῆµα, Χριστὲ, τοῦ λίθου, ἐν ᾧ νεκρὸν σµύρνῃ σε σινδὼν συνδέει καὶ µάρτυρος σου τῆς σπάθης Γεωργίου

201

Κωνσταντίνῳ σῷ συµµάχει Μονοµάχῳ. Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 128. On an enkolpion having a part of the holy stone on which Joseph laid the

unmoving Christ, and a part of St. George’s blade. 4

1 2 3

Fight as an ally with your Constantine Monomachos, who is carrying to the chest a piece, O Christ, of the stone, on which the burial shroud binds your corpse with embalmment, and (a piece) of the blade of your martyr George.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 112; Nikiforova, “Relics in

Byzantine epigrams,” no. 10; Cheynet, “Par saint Georges,” 120; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 177; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 47; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 106; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, no. B168 (112/115).

†B13. Staurotheke of Eudokia Komnene, c. 1092 – c. 1129 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 100v (XIII s.)

*Title Τοῦ Καλλικλέους στίχοι εἰς τὸν καλὸν σταυρὸν τὸν κοσµηθέντα παρὰ τῆς

πορφυρογεννήτου κυρᾶς Εὐδοκίας.

Epigram

5

Ἐκ τοῦ ξύλου τρυγῶ σε τὴν ζωήν, Λόγε, κἂν Εὖα τρυγᾷ τὴν φθορὰν ἀπὸ ξύλου, καὶ προσκυνοῦσα σῶν παθῶν τὴν εἰκόνα εἰς ἀπαθῶν αἰτῶ σε λιµένα φθάσαι, σὺν συζύγῳ τὲ καὶ τέκνοις τηρουµένη. Ἐξ Εὐδοκίας ταῦτα, πορφύρας κλάδου.

Ed. Romano, Carmi, 105. Verses of Kallikles on the beautiful cross adorned by the porphyrogennete

Lady Eudokia.

5

From the wood, I harvest you, the life, O Logos, even if Eve would harvest destruction from the wood, and since I venerate the image of your passion I ask you that I shall arrive into the harbor that is free from sufferings, being protected together with my husband and children. These things are from Eudokia, of the purple branch.

Literature Bebel, Cyri Theodori Prodromi, quatern. ξ, f. 3v; Grester, De cruce Christi,

347; Du Cange, “Annae Comnenae,” 701–02; Sternbach, “Nicolai Calliclis Carmina,” 318, no. I; Loparev, “Opisanie,” 400n1; Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 143; Frolow, La relique, no. 312; Romano, Carmi, no. 27;

202

Varzos, Η Γενεαλογία, 1:257n7; and Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 100–01. †B14. Reliquary Enkolpion belonging to Michael Alousianos Hagiotheodorites, second half

of the 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 106r (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον τοῦ Ἀλουσιάνου Μιχαὴλ τοῦ γραµµατικοῦ, τοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ

κανικλείου, τοῦ Ἁγιοθεοδωρίτου ἔχον τίµιον ξύλον τοῦ Σταυροῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ξύλον ἀπὸ τοῦ τόπου ἔνθα ἐποιήσατο τὴν προσευχήν ὁ Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ τοῦ πάθους, λίθους ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου τάφου τοῦ Χριστοῦ, τοῦ τάφου τῆς Θεοτόκου, τοῦ ὄρους τῶν Ἐλαιῶν, τοῦ τόπου τοῦ Γολγοθᾶ καὶ τοῦ ὄρους τοῦ Σινᾶ.

Epigram

Τόπου προσευχῆς ἐκφυὲν φέρω ξύλον Σταυροῦ τε Χριστοῦ, καὶ τάφου µητρὸς, Λόγου, ὄρους Ἐλαιῶν, Γολγοθᾶ, Σινᾶ λίθους.

Ed. Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 126. On the enkolpion of Michael Alousianos Hagiotheodorites, the secretary and

epi tou kanikleiou, having the precious wood of the Cross of Christ, wood from the place where Christ prayed on the night of the passion, stones from the tomb of Christ, from the tomb of the Theotokos, from the Mount of Olives, from the place of Golgotha, and from Mount Sinai.

I carry wood that grew from the place of prayer, and (wood) of the Cross of Christ, as well as stones from the tomb of the

mother, of the Logos, of Mount of Olives, of Golgotha, and of Sinai.

Adapted from Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 126.

Literature Horna, “Eine unedierte Rede,” 198; Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 215; Frolow, La relique, no. 405; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 6; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 126; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 148; Madariaga, “Μιχαήλ Αγιοθεοδωρίτης,” 218n20; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B52 (215/239).

†B15. Reliquary for a Stone from the Tomb of the Theotokos, mid-11th–12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 106v (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς λίθον ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου τάφου τῆς Θεοτόκου ἐν ᾧ ἦν αὕτη εἰκονισµένη.

Epigram

Τὸ τµῆµα λίθου τοῦ καλύψαντος τάφου ὄρος νοητὸν οὗπερ ἐτµήθη λίθος, Χριστὸς νέᾳ χάριτι συνδήσας νόµον·

203

5 ἣν δ᾽ οὐχ ὁ πᾶς ἴσχυσε φυλάξαι τάφος, γλύψασα χεὶρ συνέσχεν ἐν τούτῳ κόρην.

Ed. Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B54 (217/254). On a stone from the holy tomb of the Theotokos, on which the same was

depicted.

5

(This is) the piece of the stone from the tomb that covered the intelligible mountain, from which was cut the stone, Christ, who bound together the law to new grace. It was not possible for any tomb to contain her, but the hand that carves (the stone) preserved the maiden (i.e her image) in it.

Adapted from Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B54 (217/254).

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 217; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 177; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 126; and idem, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B54 (217/254).

†B16. Reliquary Enkolpion of Prince Theodore, 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 116r (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον τίµιον λίθον τοῦ τάφου τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Epigram Τὸ τµῆµα λίθου τοῦ καλύψαντος τάφου

λίθον τὸν ἀκρόγωνον ὃν βάσιν φέρει. Θεόδωρος Ῥὼς ἐκ φυλῆς βασιλέων.

Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 153. On an enkolpion having a precious stone of the tomb of Christ. (This is) the piece of the stone from the tomb that covered

the cornerstone, which is carried as a foundation by Theodore Rhos, from a family of emperors.

Trans adapted from Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B87.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 254; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 7; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 177; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 49, 117; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 148; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B87.

†B17. Reliquary Enkolpion of the Patriarch John IX Merkouropoulos, 1156–66 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 116r (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον λίθον ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου τοῦ κυρίου ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

204

Epigram Τµῆµα τι, Σῶτερ, λατοµητοῦ σου τάφου ὄρους, ἀλατόµητε Παρθένου λίθε, στήριγµα, δεσµὸς τῶν διεστώτων γίνου τῷ πατριάρχῃ τῆς Σιὼν Ἰωάννῃ.

Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 153; emend. Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B88 (255/280)

On an enkolpion having a stone from the tomb of our Lord Jesus Christ. (This is) a piece of your rock-cut tomb, O Savior,

O uncut rock of the Virginal mountain, Be a support, a bond for those who are divided on behalf of John, the Patriarch of Zion.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 255; Nikiforova, “Relics in

Byzantine epigrams,” no. 12; Lerou, “L’usage des reliques,” 177; Spingou, “Words and Artworks,” 205; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 108–09; Spingou, “John IX”; and idem, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B88 (255/280).

†B18. Reliquary Enkolpion of John Komnenos Vatatzes, ca. 1150–ca. 1182 Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 181r (XIII s.)

*Title Ἐπὶ ἐγκολπίῳ ἔχοντι µέρος τοῦ ἁγίου λίθου, ἐν ᾧ ἐσµυρνίσθη ὁ κύριος καὶ

θεὸς ἡµῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός.

Epigram

5

Ὁ ζῶν θεϊκῶς καὶ θανὼν σαρκὸς νόµῳ λίθῳ τὲ κλιθεὶς βασιλικῶς ὡς λέων καὶ λιβανοσµύρνιστον εἰσδὺς σινδόνα φέροντα σεπτὸν τοῦδε τοῦ λίθου µέρος Ἰωάννην µε Κοµνηνὸν, Σῶτερ, σκέποις ἅµα συνεύνῳ Δουκοβλάστῳ Μαρίᾳ.

Ed. Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” 175. On an enkolpion having a part of the holy stone, on which the Lord and our

God Jesus Christ was embalmed.

5 4

The one living as God and having perished in the flesh by custom and having been royally laid down on a stone as a lion and embalmed with incense, wrapped in a shroud, O Savior, protect me, John Komnenos, who carries a part of this revered stone, together with my wife Maria, an offspring of the Doukai.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 328; Varzos, Η Γενεαλογία,

2:382n6, no. 147; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 11;

205

Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 110; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, C14 (328/367).

†B19. Reliquary Enkolpion of St. George of Mesampela, third quarter 12th cent. Epigram recorded in MS. Venice, Marc. Gr. 524, f. 193r (XIII s.)

*Title Εἰς ἐγκόλπιον ἔχον µῦρον ἐκ τοῦ βλύζοντος ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ ἁγίου

Γεωργίου τοῦ Μεσαµπελίτου.

Epigram

Σὺ κλῆµα Χριστοῦ τῆς νοητῆς ἀµπέλου· οὐκοῦν τύπος σὸς ἐκ µέσων τῶν ἀµπέλων ὡς γλεῦκος ἡµῖν µῦρον ἀρρήτως βρύει δι’ οὗ Σκυλίτζην σὸν Γεώργιον σκέποις.

Ed. Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung,” 185, emend. Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B120 (367/403).

On an enkolpion bearing myron that bubbles forth from the icon of St. George

of Mesampela.

You are a branch of Christ, the intelligible vine. Therefore your image, from the middle of the vines, pours forth an indescribable amount of myron as sweet new wine to us, through which, may you protect your George Skylitzes.

Literature Lambros, “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524,” no. 367; Rhoby, “Zur Identifizierung,”

185–86; Nikiforova, “Relics in Byzantine epigrams,” no. 4; Belcheva, “Τα επιγράµµατα,” 110; and Spingou, Poetry for the Komnenoi, B120 (367/403).

206

APPENDIX C

FAIR USE STATEMENT

The images in this dissertation are used for the sole purpose of advancing academic

research through analytical writing. The images that have been chosen are imperative for

illustrating the evidence presented in this dissertation. They are not merely representations of the

artworks, but rather they underpin the author’s analytic objective. All image sources have been

fully and accurately cited. There is no financial gain associated with the inclusion of these

images. In the event that any part of this dissertation is published, the author shall obtain

copyright permission(s).

This statement of fair use was written in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the

Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for the Visual Arts provided by the College Art Association.

For more information, see Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, Code of Best Practices in Fair

Use for the Visual Arts (New York: College Art Association, 2015),

http://www.collegeart.org/fair-use/ (accessed March 6, 2016).

207

Fig. 1. Reliquary Enkolpion of George Papikios (A1), front, 12th cent. Gold, wax, gems,

wood, 8.3 x 6.6 cm. State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg (ω 840). Image source:

Piatnitsky, Sinai, Byzantium, Russia, 99.

APPENDIX D

FIGURES

Fig

. 2

. R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion of

Geo

rge

Pap

ikio

s (A

1),

bac

k,

12th

ce

nt.

G

old

, w

ax,

gem

s,

wood,

8.3

x

6.6

cm

. S

tate

Her

mit

age

Muse

um

, S

t.

Pet

ersb

urg

(ω

840).

Im

age

sourc

e:

Pia

tnit

sky,

Sin

ai,

Byz

anti

um

, R

uss

ia, 99.

Fig

. 3.

Rel

iquar

y E

nko

lpio

n o

f G

eorg

e P

apik

ios

(A1

), b

ack w

ith

“Geo

rge”

hig

hli

ghte

d,

12th

cen

t. G

old

, w

ax,

gem

s, w

ood,

8.3

x

6.6

cm

. S

tate

H

erm

itag

e M

use

um

, S

t.

Pet

ersb

urg

(ω

840).

Imag

e so

urc

e:

Pia

tnit

sky,

Sin

ai,

B

yzanti

um

, R

uss

ia,

99

wit

h

addit

ions

by B

rad H

ost

etle

r.

208

209

Fig

. 4

. S

inai

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A2

), f

ront,

9th

cen

t. C

opper

allo

y,

nie

llo,

and

inla

id

silv

er,

12.7

x

7.7

x

1.7

cm

. H

oly

Monas

tery

of

St.

C

ather

ine,

S

inai

. Im

age

sourc

e: M

anap

hes

,

Sinai,

fig

. 3

.

Fig

. 5.

Sin

ai R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A2

), b

ack,

9th

cen

t. C

opper

allo

y,

nie

llo,

and

inla

id

silv

er,

12.7

x

7.7

x

1.7

cm

. H

oly

Monas

tery

of

St.

C

ather

ine,

S

inai

. Im

age

sourc

e: M

anap

hes

,

Sinai,

fig

. 4.

210

Fig

. 6

. S

inai

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A2

), o

pen

, 9th

cen

t. C

opper

allo

y,

nie

llo,

and

inla

id

silv

er,

12.7

x

7.7

x

1.7

cm

. H

oly

Monas

tery

of

St.

Cat

her

ine,

Sin

ai.

Imag

e so

urc

e: G

alav

aris

, “A

Nie

llo C

ross

,” f

ig. 3.

Fig

. 7.

Sin

ai R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A2

), v

iew

s of

the

side,

9th

cent.

Copper

all

oy,

nie

llo,

and i

nla

id s

ilver

, 12.7

x 7

.7 x

1.7

cm

.

Ho

ly

Mo

nast

ery

o

f S

t.

Cath

eri

ne,

Sin

ai.

Im

ag

e so

urc

e:

Gal

avar

is, “A

Nie

llo C

ross

,” f

igs.

4–7.

211

Fig

. 8.

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y o

f M

aria

Kom

nen

e (A

3),

epig

ram

sid

e,

12th

ce

nt.

W

ood,

gold

, en

amel

, nie

llo,

14.2

x

8.2

x

1

cm.

Churc

h o

f S

t-E

ligiu

s, E

ine.

Im

age

sourc

e: L

afonta

ine-

Doso

gne,

Sple

ndeu

r de

Byz

ance

, 1

54.

Fig

. 9

. C

ross

Rel

iquar

y o

f M

aria

Kom

nen

e (A

3),

rel

ic s

ide,

12th

cent.

Wood,

gold

, en

amel

, nie

llo,

14.2

x 8

.2 x

1 c

m.

Churc

h o

f

St-

Eli

giu

s, E

ine.

Im

age

sourc

e: L

afonta

ine-

Doso

gne,

Sple

ndeu

r

de

Byz

ance

, 1

52.

212

Fig. 10. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), 11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x

6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Janke, Ein Heilbringender

Schatz, 162.

213

Fig

. 11

. H

alber

stad

t R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A4

),

inte

rior

wit

h d

oors

clo

sed,

11th

cen

t. S

ilver

, nie

llo,

10 x

6 x

3

cm.

Dom

schat

z H

alber

stad

t (I

nv.

Nr.

24).

Im

age

Sourc

e: M

elle

r,

Der

hei

lige

Sch

atz

, 59.

Fig

. 12.

Hal

ber

stad

t R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A4

),

bac

k,

11th

ce

nt.

S

ilver

, nie

llo,

10

x

6

x

3

cm.

Dom

schat

z

Hal

ber

stad

t (I

nv.

N

r. 24).

Im

age

Sourc

e: M

elle

r, D

er hei

lige

Sch

atz

, 59.

214

Fig. 13. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), interior with doors open,

11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source:

Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 59.

215

Fig. 15. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), view of right side, 11th cent.

Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Fuhrmann,

Die Inschriften, Taf. VIII, Abb. 14.

Fig. 14. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), view of left side, 11th cent.

Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source: Wentzel,

“Byzantinische Kleinkunstwerke,” 59.

216

Fig. 16. Halberstadt Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A4), lid with layout of epigram,

11th cent. Silver, niello, 10 x 6 x 3 cm. Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 24). Image Source:

Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 58 with additions by Brad Hostetler.

217

Fig

. 17

. C

olo

gne

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A5

), f

ront,

12th

cen

t. G

old

,

fili

gre

e,

pea

rls,

gem

s,

wood,

14.2

cm

. D

om

schat

zkam

mer

,

Colo

gne

(L 2

0).

Im

age

sourc

e: B

agnoli

, Tr

easu

res

of H

eave

n,

182.

Fig

. 18

. C

olo

gne

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A5

), b

ack,

12th

cen

t. G

old

,

fili

gre

e,

pea

rls,

gem

s,

wood,

14.2

cm

. D

om

schat

zkam

mer

,

Colo

gne

(L 2

0).

Im

age

sourc

e: B

EIÜ

, 2:4

98.

218

Fig. 19. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), partially open, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver,

gilding, cloisonné enamel, gems, pearls, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg

(Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen des Kreuzes, 186.

219

Fig. 20. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), front, lid closed, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver,

gilding, cloisonné enamel, gems, pearls, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg

(Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Kloft, Dom und Domschatz, 74.

220

Fig. 21. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), lid removed, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding,

cloisonné enamel, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3).

Image Source: Durand, L’art byzantin, 146.

221

Fig. 22. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), back of the Cross, 920–959. Gold, gems, wood.

Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3). Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen

des Kreuzes, 188.

222

Fig. 23. Limburg Staurotheke (A6), back, 920–959 and 963–985. Gold, silver, gilding,

cloisonné enamel, wood, 48 x 35 x 6 cm. Diözesanmuseum Limburg (Inv.-Nr. D 1/1–3).

Image Source: Heuser and Kloft, Im Zeichen des Kreuzes, 197.

223

Fig

. 24

. G

randm

ont

Sta

uro

thek

e (A

10

), d

raw

ing o

f in

side

the

reli

quar

y, 1

658.

Ogie

r, I

nsc

ripti

on a

nti

que,

tab.

I. I

mag

e so

urc

e:

Dura

nd, “M

ont

Sai

nt-

Mic

hel

,” 3

48.

Fig

. 25.

Gra

ndm

ont

Sta

uro

thek

e (A

10

), d

raw

ing o

f th

e bac

k o

f

the

reli

quar

y, 1

658.

Ogie

r, I

nsc

ripti

on anti

que,

tab.

II.

Imag

e

sourc

e: D

ura

nd, “M

ont

Sai

nt-

Mic

hel

,” 3

48.

224

Fig

. 26.

Mont-

Sai

nt-

Quen

tin R

eliq

uar

y (

A11

), d

raw

ing o

f th

e

lid,

17th

cen

t. P

aris

, B

ibli

oth

èque

nat

ional

e de

Fra

nce

, M

S.

Lat

.

12692,

f. 3

07r.

Im

age

Sourc

e: D

ura

nd,

“Le

reli

quai

re b

yza

nti

n

du m

oin

e T

imoth

ée,”

58.

Fig

. 27

. M

ont-

Sai

nt-

Quen

tin R

eliq

uar

y (

A11

), d

raw

ing o

f th

e

sides

, 17th

cen

t. P

aris

, B

ibli

oth

èque

nat

ional

e de

Fra

nce

, M

S.

Lat

. 12692,

f.

307v.

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Dura

nd,

“Le

reli

quai

re

byza

nti

n d

u m

oin

e T

imoth

ée,”

59.

225

Fig. 28. Mont-Saint-Quentin Reliquary (A11), drawing of the box, 17th cent. Paris,

Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS. Lat. 12692, ff. 313v–314r. Image Source: Durand, “Le

reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée,” 54.

226

Fig

. 29.

Cro

ss

Rel

iquar

y

of

the

‘Pri

nce

sse

Pal

atin

e’

(A12

),

front,

12th

–13th

ce

nt.

G

old

, en

amel

, w

ood,

21

x

9.3

cm

.

Tre

asury

of

the

Cat

hed

ral

of

Notr

e-D

ame,

Par

is.

Imag

e so

urc

e:

Dura

nd, “L

a V

raie

Cro

ix d

e la

pri

nce

sse

Pal

atin

e,”

141.

Fig

. 30

. C

ross

Rel

iquar

y o

f th

e ‘P

rince

sse

Pal

atin

e’ (

A12

), b

ack,

12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

, en

amel

, w

ood,

21 x

9.3

cm

. T

reas

ury

of

the

Cat

hed

ral

of

Notr

e-D

ame,

Par

is.

Imag

e so

urc

e: D

ura

nd,

“La

Vra

ie C

roix

de

la p

rince

sse

Pal

atin

e,”

141.

227

Fig. 32. Arm Reliquary of St. Christopher (A15), facsimile of the epigram. Image source:

Durand, “A propos des reliques,” 159.

Fig. 31. Arm Reliquary of St. Christopher (A15), 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt, (bone) 16.7 cm

and (attachment) 6.7 cm. Musée des Beaux-Arts, Tourcoing. Image source: Durand, “A

propos des reliques,” 156.

228

Fig. 33. Troyes Cross Reliquary (A16), schematic reconstruction with verse numbers. Gold

(yellow), enamel (green), wood (brown). Image source: Brad Hostetler.

229

Fig. 34. ‘Icon of Šaliani’ (A17), lid, 11th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, gems, enamel, 31 x 23 x 4.5 cm.

Church of Svv. Kvirike i Ivlity (Lagurka), Kala (Inv.-Nr. 100). Image source: Khuskivadze,

“La staurothèque byzantine,” fig. 1.

230

Fig

. 35.

‘Ico

n o

f Š

alia

ni’

(A

17

), b

ox,

11th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t,

gem

s, e

nam

el,

31 x

23 x

4.5

cm

. C

hu

rch o

f S

vv.

Kvir

ike

i Iv

lity

(Lag

urk

a),

Kal

a (I

nv.

-Nr.

100).

Im

age

sourc

e: K

husk

ivad

ze,

“La

stau

roth

èque

byza

nti

ne,

” fi

g. 3.

Fig

. 36

. ‘I

con o

f Š

alia

ni’

(A

17

), b

ack,

11th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t,

gem

s, e

nam

el,

31 x

23 x

4.5

cm

. C

hurc

h o

f S

vv.

Kvir

ike

i Iv

lity

(Lag

urk

a),

Kal

a (I

nv.

-Nr.

100).

Im

age

sourc

e: K

husk

ivad

ze,

“La

stau

roth

èque

byza

nti

ne,

” fi

g. 4.

231

Fig. 37. Lavra Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A18), lid, 11th cent. Silver-gilt, 4.3 x

2.5 x 1.3 cm. The Great Lavra Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Loverdou-Tsigarida,

“Thessalonique,” fig. 3.

232

Fig

. 38.

Lav

ra R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion

of

St.

D

emet

rios

(A18

),

inte

rior,

11th

cen

t. S

ilver

-gil

t, 4

.3 x

2.5

x 1

.3 c

m.

The

Gre

at

Lav

ra

Mo

nas

tery

, M

ount

Ath

os.

Im

age

sourc

e:

Lover

dou-

Tsi

gar

ida,

“T

hes

salo

niq

ue,

” fi

g. 4.

Fig

. 39

. L

avra

R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion of

St.

D

emet

rios

(A18

),

bac

k,

11th

cen

t. S

ilver

-gil

t, 4

.3 x

2.5

x 1

.3 c

m.

The

Gre

at L

avra

Monas

tery

, M

ount

Ath

os.

Im

age

sourc

e: T

ote

v, T

hes

salo

nic

an

Eulo

gia

, 39.

233

Fig. 40. Protaton Reliquary (A19), lid, 11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 17.8 x

14.2 x 1.2 cm. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source:

Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10.

234

Fig. 41. Protaton Reliquary (A19), lid detail, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of

the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton,

10.

235

Fig. 42. Protaton Reliquary (A19), detail of lid with placement of verses marked, 11th–12th

cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source:

Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10 with additions by Brad Hostetler.

236

Fig. 43. Protaton Reliquary (A19), detail of lid: a) ἐκ τόπων, b) λίθους, c) Ζωσιµᾶς, d)

Νικόλαος, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount

Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 10 with additions by Brad

Hostetler.

237

Fig. 44. Protaton Reliquary (A19), box, 11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 19.3 x

16.1 x 3.0 cm. Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source:

Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 8.

238

Fig. 45. Protaton Reliquary (A19), box detail with fragments of repoussé cross highlighted,

11th–12th cent. and 1758. Silver-gilt on wood, 19.3 x 16.1 x 3.0 cm. Treasury of the Protaton

Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of the Protaton, fig. 8, with

additions by Brad Hostetler.

239

Fig. 46. Protaton Reliquary (A19), reconstruction of box, 11th–12th cent. Silver-gilt on wood.

Treasury of the Protaton Monastery, Mount Athos. Image source: Papadopoulos, Treasury of

the Protaton, fig. 8, with alterations and additions by Brad Hostetler.

240

Fig

. 47.

Vat

oped

i R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A20),

12th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

1.7

x 6

.5 x

6.5

cm

. V

atoped

i M

onas

tery

,

Mount A

thos.

Im

age

Sourc

e: D

emet

riad

es, Βατοπαιδίου, 471.

241

Fig

. 48

. V

atoped

i R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A20

),

lid,

12th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

1.7

x 6

.5 x

6.5

cm

. V

atoped

i

Mo

nast

ery

, M

ou

nt

Ath

os.

Im

ag

e

So

urc

e:

Dem

etr

iad

es,

Βατοπαιδίου, 472.

Fig

. 49.

Vat

oped

i R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A20

),

bac

k,

12th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

1.7

x 6

.5 x

6.5

cm

. V

atoped

i

Monas

tery

, M

ount

Ath

os.

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Gra

bar

, “Q

uel

ques

Rel

iquai

res,

” fi

g. 5.

242

Fig

. 50

. V

atoped

i R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A20

),

box w

ith d

oors

clo

sed,

12th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

1.7

x 6

.5 x

6.5

cm

. V

atoped

i M

onas

tery

, M

ount

Ath

os.

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Gra

bar

, “Q

uel

ques

Rel

iquai

res,

” fi

g. 3.

Fig

. 51.

Vat

oped

i R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A20

),

box w

ith d

oors

open

, 12th

cen

t. (

?).

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

1.7

x 6

.5 x

6.5

cm.

Vat

oped

i M

onas

tery

, M

ount

Ath

os.

Im

age

Sourc

e: G

rabar

,

“Quel

ques

Rel

iquai

res,

” fi

g. 4.

243

Fig. 53. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of lower side, 12th cent.

(?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source:

Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 474.

Fig. 52. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of left side, 12th cent.

(?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source:

Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 473.

244

Fig. 55. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of upper side, 12th cent.

(?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source:

Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 474.

Fig. 54. Vatopedi Reliquary Enkolpion of St. Demetrios (A20), view of right side, 12th cent.

(?). Silver-gilt, 11.7 x 6.5 x 6.5 cm. Vatopedi Monastery, Mount Athos. Image Source:

Demetriades, Βατοπαιδίου, 473.

245

Fig

. 56. R

eliq

uar

y o

f S

t. S

tephen

(A

21),

rec

onst

ruct

ion o

f th

e ep

igra

m. Im

age

Sourc

e: B

rad

Host

etle

r.

246

Fig

. 57.

Bri

tish

Muse

um

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A22),

bac

k,

12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

an

d e

nam

el,

4.6

x 3

.7 x

1.0

5

cm.

Bri

tish

M

use

um

, L

ondon

(192

6,0

409.1

).

Imag

e so

urc

e:

©T

ru

ste

es

of

th

e

Br

itis

h

Mu

se

um

, h

ttp

://

ww

w.b

riti

shm

use

um

.org

(ac

cess

ed 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2015).

Fig

. 58.

Bri

tish

Muse

um

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A22

), fr

ont

wit

h G

eorg

ian in

scri

pti

on,

12th

–13th

ce

nt.

G

old

and en

amel

, 4.6

x 3.7

x 1.0

5 cm

. B

riti

sh M

use

um

, L

ondon

(1926,0

409.1

). I

mag

e so

urc

e: ©

Tru

stee

s of

the

Bri

tish

Muse

um

,

htt

p:/

/ww

w.b

riti

shm

use

um

.org

(ac

cess

ed 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2015).

247

Fig

. 59.

Bri

tish

Muse

um

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A22),

lid

open

, 12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and e

nam

el,

4.6

x 3

.7 x

1.0

5

cm.

Bri

tish

M

use

um

, L

on

do

n

(19

26

,04

09

.1).

Im

age

so

urc

e:

©T

ruste

es

of

the

Bri

tish

M

use

um

, h

ttp

://

ww

w.b

riti

shm

use

um

.org

(ac

cess

ed 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2015).

Fig

. 60.

Bri

tish

Muse

um

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A22

), l

id a

nd d

oor

open

, 12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and e

nam

el,

4.6

x 3

.7 x

1.0

5 c

m.

Bri

tish

Muse

um

, L

ondon (

1926,0

409.1

). I

mag

e

so

urc

e:

©T

ruste

es

of

the

Bri

tish

M

use

um

, h

ttp

://

ww

w.b

riti

shm

use

um

.org

(ac

cess

ed 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2015).

248

Fig. 61. Alessandria Cross Reliquary (A23), 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, niello, wood, 26 x

16.5 cm. Cathedral di San Pietro, Alessandria. Image Source: Spantigati, La Cattedrale di

Alessandria, pl. XVI-B.

249

Fig. 62. Reliquary of St. Symeon the Stylite (A24), 10th cent. (?). Silver-gilt, (diameter) 10.7

cm. Monastero di Camaldoli, Arezzo. Image Source: Rolfi, La Chiesa, 130.

250

Fig

. 63

. B

ari

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A25

), r

elic

sid

e, 1

1th

and 1

3th

cent.

S

ilver

-gil

t, 14 x 7.2

cm

. T

esoro

di

San

N

icola

di

Bar

i.

Imag

e so

urc

e: S

candal

e, S

an N

icola

, 89.

Fig

. 64.

Bar

i C

ross

Rel

iquar

y (

A25

), e

pig

ram

sid

e, 1

1th

cen

t.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, 1

4 x

7.2

cm

. T

esoro

di

San

Nic

ola

di

Bar

i. I

mag

e

sourc

e: G

uil

lou, “I

nsc

ripti

on m

étri

que,

” fi

g. 2.

251

Fig. 65. Modena Cross Reliquary (A26), 11th–12th cent. Gold, pearls, and wood, 15 cm.

Tesoro del Duomo, Modena. Image Source: Schlumberger, L’épopée II, 68.

252

Fig

. 66.

Monte

cass

ino C

ross

Rel

iquar

y (

A27

), f

ront,

10th

–11th

cent.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, g

ems,

pea

rls,

wood,

15 x

8 x

1.5

cm

. A

bbey

of

Monte

cass

ino. Im

age

sourc

e: W

illa

rd,

“Sta

uro

thec

a,”

fig. 3.

Fig

. 67

. M

onte

cass

ino

Cro

ss

Rel

iquar

y

(A27

),

bac

k

wit

h

epig

ram

, 10th

–11th

cen

t. S

ilver

-gil

t, g

ems,

pea

rls,

wood,

15 x

8

x

1.5

cm

. A

bbey

of

Monte

cass

ino.

Imag

e so

urc

e:

Wil

lard

,

“Sta

uro

thec

a,”

fig. 4.

253

Fig

. 68

. S

iena

Holy

Blo

od R

eliq

uar

y (

A28

), f

ront,

12th

cen

t.

Gold

, en

amel

, an

d gem

s, 5.7

x 4.7

x 1 cm

. T

esoro

di

San

ta

Mar

ia d

ella

Sca

la,

Sie

na.

Im

age

sourc

e: B

ello

si,

L’o

ro d

i Sie

na,

107.

Fig

. 69.

Sie

na

Holy

Blo

od R

eliq

uar

y (

A28

), b

ack,

12th

cen

t.

Gold

, en

amel

, an

d gem

s, 5.7

x 4.7

x 1 cm

. T

esoro

di

San

ta

Mar

ia d

ella

Sca

la,

Sie

na.

Im

age

sourc

e: B

ello

si,

L’o

ro d

i Sie

na

,

109.

254

Fig

. 70.

Rel

iquar

y o

f S

t. J

ohn C

hry

sost

om

(A

29

), f

ront,

11th

–

12th

cen

t. S

ilver

gil

t, 7

.7 x

3.1

x 1

.9 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

ta M

aria

del

la S

cala

, S

iena.

Im

age

sourc

e: B

ello

si, L

’oro

di

Sie

na, 115.

Fig

. 71.

Rel

iquar

y o

f S

t. J

ohn C

hry

sost

om

(A

29),

bac

k,

11th

–

12th

cen

t. S

ilver

gil

t, 7

.7 x

3.1

x 1

.9 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

ta M

aria

del

la S

cala

, S

iena.

Im

age

sourc

e: B

ello

si, L

’oro

di

Sie

na

, 117.

255

Fig. 72. Reliquary of St. John Chrysostom (A29), side views, 11th–12th cent. Silver gilt, 7.7 x

3.1 x 1.9 cm. Tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala, Siena. Image source: Hetherington, “A

purchase of Byzantine relics,” 18.

256

Fig

. 73

. H

and R

eliq

uar

y o

f S

t. M

arin

a (A

30

), i

nte

rior,

11th

–

12th

ce

nt.

S

ilver

, gil

din

g,

10

x

6

x

2.8

cm

. M

use

o

Corr

er,

Ven

ice.

Im

age

Sourc

e: E

van

s an

d W

ixom

, G

lory

of

Byz

anti

um

,

496.

Fig

. 74.

Han

d R

eliq

uar

y o

f S

t. M

arin

a (A

30

), b

ack,

11th

–12th

cent.

Sil

ver

, gil

din

g,

10 x

6 x

2.8

cm

. M

use

o C

orr

er,

Ven

ice.

Imag

e S

ourc

e: E

van

s an

d W

ixom

, G

lory

of

Byz

anti

um

, 496.

257

Fig. 75. Hand Reliquary of St. Marina (A30), views of the side, 11th–12th cent. Silver,

gilding, 10 x 6 x 2.8 cm. Museo Correr, Venice. Image Source: Guillou, Recueil, pls. 75-77.

258

Fig

. 76.

Han

d

Rel

iquar

y

of

St.

M

arin

a (A

30),

dra

win

g

of

reli

quar

y

wit

h

reli

c,

1676.

Med

ium

an

d

size

not

know

n.

D’A

mad

eni,

B

iolo

gia

S.

Mari

nae.

Im

age

Sourc

e: C

rippa,

“I

l

cult

o,”

fig

. 3.

Fig

. 77.

Thum

b

Rel

iquar

y

of

St.

M

arin

a,

dra

win

g,

1676.

Med

ium

and s

ize

not

know

n.

D’A

mad

eni,

Bio

logia

S.

Mari

nae.

Imag

e S

ourc

e: C

rippa,

“Il

cult

o,”

fig

. 4.

259

Fig. 78. Venice Staurotheke Lid (A31), 12th cent. Silver-gilt, enamel, gems, and niello, 44 x

30 x 3 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 4). Image Source: Brad Hostetler.

260

Fig. 80. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), views of the outer cylinder, 10th–11th

cent. Gilded copper and niello, 7.6 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr. 62). Image

Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXX.

Fig. 79. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), views of the inner cylinder, 10th–11th

cent. Rock crystal with gold, enamel, and jasper lid, 4.5 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco,

Venice (Santuario 68). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. CLXXII.

261

Fig. 81. Venice Reliquary of the Holy Blood (A32), placement of the words αἵµατος and ἐξ,

10th–11th cent. Gilded copper and niello, 7.6 x 4.5 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Inv. Nr.

62). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il Tesoro, pl. XXX with additions by Brad Hostetler.

262

Fig

. 82

. T

rebiz

ond R

eliq

uar

y C

asket

(A

33

), 1

1th

–12th

cen

t. S

ilver

-gil

t, n

iell

o,

28 x

14 x

9 c

m. T

esoro

di

San

Mar

co, V

enic

e (I

nv.

Nr.

133).

Im

age

Sourc

e: E

van

s, F

ait

h a

nd P

ow

er, 139.

263

Fig. 83. Arm Reliquary of St. George (A35), 10th cent. (?). Silver, (height) 31, (maximum

width) 7.9 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 159). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il

Tesoro, pl. CLII.

264

Fig. 84. Staurotheke of Empress Maria (A36), 1517 copy of 11th–12th cent. Silver and

gilding, 72 x 27.8 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 56). Image Source: Hahnloser,

Il Tesoro, pl. CXCVII.

265

Fig

. 85.

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37

), f

ront,

aft

er

1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, n

iell

o,

and e

nam

el,

21 x

14 x

4 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

Mar

co,

Ven

ice

(San

tuar

io 5

7).

Im

age

Sourc

e: H

ahnlo

ser,

Il

Tesoro

, pl.

XX

VII

I.

Fig

. 86

. C

ross

Rel

iquar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37

), b

ack,

afte

r

1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, n

iell

o,

and e

nam

el,

21 x

14 x

4 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

Mar

co,

Ven

ice

(San

tuar

io 5

7).

Im

age

Sourc

e: H

ahnlo

ser,

Il

Tesoro

, pl.

XX

IX.

266

Fig

. 87

. C

ross

Rel

iquar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37

), v

erse

s 1–5,

afte

r 1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, nie

llo,

and en

amel

, 21 x 14 x 4

cm

.

Tes

oro

di

San

M

arco

, V

enic

e (S

antu

ario

57).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Guil

lou, Recueil

, pls

. 95–98.

Fig

. 88.

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37

), v

erse

s 6–9,

afte

r 1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, nie

llo,

and en

amel

, 21 x 14 x 4

cm

.

Tes

oro

di

San

M

arco

, V

enic

e (S

antu

ario

57).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Guil

lou, Recueil

, pls

. 9

5–98.

267

Fig

. 89.

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37),

ver

ses

10–

13,

afte

r 1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, n

iell

o,

and

enam

el,

21 x

14 x

4 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

M

arco

, V

enic

e (S

antu

ario

57).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Guil

lou, Recueil

, pls

. 95–98.

Fig

. 90.

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y o

f Ir

ene

Doukai

na

(A37),

ver

ses

14–

17,

afte

r 1118.

Sil

ver

-gil

t, n

iell

o,

and e

nam

el,

21 x

14 x

4 c

m.

Tes

oro

di

San

M

arco

, V

enic

e (S

antu

ario

57).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Guil

lou, Recueil

, pls

. 9

5–98.

268

Fig. 91. Staurotheke of Constantine Patrikios (A38), drawing, 1617. Tiepolo, Trattato delle

santissime reliquie, 69. Image Source: Tiepolo, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, 69.

269

Fig

. 92

. M

aast

rich

t R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A39

), f

ront

and b

ack,

late

11th

–12th

cen

t. G

old

, si

lver

-gil

t, e

nam

el,

11.8

x 7

.3 x

1.6

cm

(incl

. lo

op).

Tre

asury

of

the

Churc

h o

f S

aint

Mar

y, M

aast

rich

t. I

mag

e S

ourc

e: E

van

s an

d W

ixom

, T

he

Glo

ry o

f B

yzanti

um

, 165.

270

Fig

. 9

3.

Maast

rich

t R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

(A

39

),

op

en

,

late

-11th

–12th

cen

t. G

old

, si

lver

-gil

t, e

nam

el,

11.8

x 7

.3 x

1.6

cm

(incl

. lo

op).

T

reas

ury

of

the

Churc

h

of

Sai

nt

Mar

y,

Maa

stri

cht.

Im

age

Sourc

e:

De

Kre

ek

and

Sch

eepm

aker

, D

e

kerkschat,

211.

Fig

. 94.

Maa

stri

cht

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A39

), c

ross

-sec

tion

dra

win

g,

late

-11th

–12th

cen

t. G

old

, si

lver

-gil

t, e

nam

el,

11.8

x

7.3

x 1

.6 c

m (

incl

. lo

op).

Tre

asury

of

the

Churc

h o

f S

aint

Mar

y,

Maa

stri

cht.

Im

age

Sou

rce:

Vogel

er,

“Das

Gold

emai

l-R

eliq

uia

r,”

21.

271

Fig. 95. Philotheos Staurotheke (A41), 11th–12th cent. Silver, wood, chasing, gilding, 20.5 x

17 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–1141). Image Source: Sterligova,

Byzantine Antiquities, 121.

272

Fig

. 96.

Kre

mli

n R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A42

), f

ront,

lat

e 12th

cent.

Gold

, si

lver

, cl

ois

onné

enam

el,

chas

ing,

nie

llo,

gil

din

g,

9.5

x 8

.5 x

1.2

cm

. M

osc

ow

Kre

mli

n,

Arm

oury

Cham

ber

(In

v. N

r.

M3–1147).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Ste

rlig

ova,

B

yzanti

ne

Anti

quit

ies,

187.

Fig

. 97.

Kre

mli

n R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A42

), i

nte

rior,

lat

e 12th

cent.

Gold

, si

lver

, cl

ois

onné

enam

el,

chas

ing,

nie

llo,

gil

din

g,

9.5

x 8

.5 x

1.2

cm

. M

osc

ow

Kre

mli

n,

Arm

oury

Cham

ber

(In

v. N

r.

M3

–11

47

).

Imag

e S

ou

rce:

Ste

rlig

ov

a,

“E

ast

ern

C

hri

stia

n

Enco

lpia

,” f

ig. 14.

273

Fig. 98. Kremlin Reliquary Enkolpion (A42), back, late 12th cent. Gold, silver, cloisonné

enamel, chasing, niello, gilding, 9.5 x 8.5 x 1.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber

(Inv. Nr. M3–1147). Image Source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 189.

274

Fig

. 99.

Rel

iquar

y C

ibori

um

of

St.

Dem

etri

os

(A43

), v

iew

of

sides

8,

1,

and 2

, 1059–67.

Sil

ver

, ch

asin

g,

gil

din

g,

15 x

11.5

cm.

Mosc

ow

Kre

mli

n,

Arm

oury

Cham

ber

(In

v. N

r. M

3–1148).

Imag

e S

ourc

e: S

terl

igova,

Byz

anti

ne

Anti

quit

ies,

117.

Fig

. 100.

Rel

iquar

y C

ibori

um

of

St.

Dem

etri

os

(A43

), v

iew

of

sides

8,

1,

and 2

wit

h d

oors

open

, 1059–67.

Sil

ver

, ch

asin

g,

gil

din

g,

15 x 11.5

cm

. M

osc

ow

K

rem

lin,

Arm

oury

C

ham

ber

(Inv.

N

r.

M3–1148).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Ste

rlig

ova,

B

yzanti

ne

Anti

quit

ies,

117.

275

Fig

. 101.

Rel

iquar

y C

ibori

um

of

St.

Dem

etri

os

(A43),

vie

w o

f

side

3,

1059–67.

Sil

ver

, ch

asin

g,

gil

din

g,

15 x

11.5

cm

. M

osc

ow

Kre

mli

n, A

rmoury

Cham

ber

(In

v. N

r. M

3–1148).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Ste

rlig

ova,

Byz

anti

ne

Anti

quit

ies,

101.

Fig

. 102.

Rel

iquar

y C

ibori

um

of

St.

Dem

etri

os

(A43

), v

iew

of

sides

4,

5,

and 6

, 1059–67.

Sil

ver

, ch

asin

g,

gil

din

g,

15 x

11.5

cm.

Mosc

ow

Kre

mli

n,

Arm

oury

Cham

ber

(In

v. N

r. M

3–1148).

Imag

e S

ourc

e: S

terl

igova,

Byz

anti

ne

Anti

quit

ies,

115.

276

Fig. 103. Reliquary Ciborium of St. Demetrios (A43), view of sides 6, 7, and 8, 1059–67.

Silver, chasing, gilding, 15 x 11.5 cm. Moscow Kremlin, Armoury Chamber (Inv. Nr. M3–

1148). Image Source: Bank, Byzantine Art, fig. 204.

277

Fig

. 104

. C

ross

R

eliq

uar

y

of

Leo

D

om

esti

kos

(A44

),

front,

10th

–11th

ce

nt.

S

ilver

-gil

t,

36.4

x

23.7

cm

. C

oll

ecti

on

des

Musé

es d

’art

et

d’h

isto

ire,

Gen

eva

(Inv.

Nr.

AD

3062).

Im

age

Sourc

e: BEIÜ

, 2:5

18.

Fig

. 105

. C

ross

R

eliq

uar

y

of

Leo

D

om

esti

kos

(A44

),

bac

k,

10th

–11th

ce

nt.

S

ilver

-gil

t,

36.4

x

23.7

cm

. C

oll

ecti

on

des

Musé

es d

’art

et

d’h

isto

ire,

Gen

eva

(Inv.

Nr.

AD

3062).

Im

age

Sourc

e: C

orm

ack a

nd V

assi

laki,

Byzantium

, 213.

278

Fig

. 106

. B

agà

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A45

), f

ront,

11th

cen

t. S

ilver

-

gil

t on w

oo

d,

31 (

incl

. bas

e) x

16 x

2.3

cm

. P

aris

h C

hurc

h o

f

San

t E

stev

e de

Bag

à, B

arce

lona.

Im

age

Sourc

e: G

udio

l i

Cunil

l,

“Les

cre

us,

” 268.

Fig

. 107

. B

agà

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A45

), b

ack,

11th

cen

t. S

ilver

-

gil

t on w

ood,

31 (

incl

. bas

e) x

16 x

2.3

cm

. P

aris

h C

hurc

h o

f

San

t E

stev

e de

Bag

à, B

arce

lona.

Im

age

Sourc

e: G

udio

l i

Cunil

l,

“Les

cre

us,

” 269.

279

Fig. 108. Vatican Reliquary Enkolpion (A46), doors open, 12th cent. Gold, gems, pearls,

enamel, rock crystal, (doors closed) 13 x 8 cm, (each door) 8.5 x 3.5 cm. Museo del Tesoro di

San Pietro, Vatican. Image Source: Rezza, La Stauroteca, 20.

280

Fig

. 109.

Vat

ican

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A46

), f

ront

wit

h d

oors

close

d,

12th

ce

nt.

G

old

, gem

s,

pea

rls,

en

amel

, ro

ck

cryst

al,

(doors

clo

sed)

13 x

8 c

m,

(eac

h d

oor)

8.5

x 3

.5 c

m.

Muse

o d

el

Tes

oro

di

San

P

ietr

o,

Vat

ican

. Im

age

Sourc

e: D

e K

reek

an

d

Sch

eepm

aker

, D

e k

erkschat,

117.

Fig

. 11

0.

Vat

ican

Rel

iquar

y E

nkolp

ion (

A46

), b

ack,

12th

cen

t.

Gold

, gem

s, p

earl

s, e

nam

el,

rock

cry

stal

, (d

oors

clo

sed)

13 x

8

cm,

(eac

h d

oor)

8.5

x 3

.5 c

m.

Muse

o d

el T

esoro

di

San

Pie

tro,

Vat

ican

. Im

age

Sourc

e:

De

Kre

ek

and

Sch

eepm

aker

, D

e

kerkschat,

120.

281

Fig

. 111

. V

ati

can

R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

(A

46

),

fro

nt

of

rem

ovab

le c

ross

, 12th

cen

t. G

old

, gem

s, p

earl

s, e

nam

el,

rock

cryst

al,

(do

ors

clo

sed)

13 x

8 c

m,

(eac

h d

oor)

8.5

x 3

.5 c

m.

Muse

o del

T

esoro

di

San

P

ietr

o,

Vat

ican

. Im

age

Sourc

e: D

e

Kre

ek a

nd S

chee

pm

aker

, D

e k

erkscha

t, 1

19.

Fig

. 11

2.

Vati

can

R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

(A

46

),

back

o

f

rem

ovab

le c

ross

, 12th

cen

t. G

old

, gem

s, p

earl

s, e

nam

el,

rock

cryst

al,

(doors

clo

sed)

13 x

8 c

m,

(eac

h d

oor)

8.5

x 3

.5 c

m.

Muse

o del

T

esoro

di

San

P

ietr

o,

Vat

ican

. Im

age

Sourc

e: D

e

Kre

ek a

nd S

chee

pm

aker

, D

e k

erkschat,

119.

282

Fig

. 11

3.

Vat

ican

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A47

), f

ront,

10th

–11th

cen

t.

Gold

on w

ood w

ith s

ilver

and g

lass

bea

ds,

gem

, an

d b

rooch

es,

38.3

x 2

4.4

x 1

.5 c

m.

Muse

o d

el T

esoro

di

San

Pie

tro,

Vat

ican

.

Imag

e S

ourc

e: R

ezza

, L

a S

taurote

ca, 22.

Fig

. 11

4.

Vat

ican

Cro

ss R

eliq

uar

y (

A47

), b

ack,

10th

–11th

cen

t.

Gold

on w

ood w

ith s

ilver

and g

lass

bea

ds,

gem

, an

d b

rooch

es,

38.3

x 2

4.4

x 1

.5 c

m.

Muse

o d

el T

esoro

di

San

Pie

tro,

Vat

ican

.

Imag

e S

ourc

e: R

ezza

, L

a S

taurote

ca, 27.

283

Fig

. 11

5.

Du

mb

art

on

O

ak

s R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

o

f S

t.

Dem

etri

os

(A48

), f

ront,

12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and e

nam

el,

4.4

x

2.8

x

0

.6

cm

. D

um

bart

on

O

ak

s R

ese

arc

h

Lib

rary

an

d

Co

llec

tio

n,

Was

hin

gto

n,

DC

(B

Z.1

95

3.2

0).

Im

age

So

urc

e:

Evan

s an

d W

ixom

, G

lory

of

Byz

anti

um

, 168.

Fig

. 11

6.

Du

mb

art

on

O

ak

s R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

o

f S

t.

Dem

etri

os

(A48),

bac

k,

12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and e

nam

el,

4.4

x

2.8

x

0

.6

cm

. D

um

bart

on

O

ak

s R

ese

arc

h

Lib

rary

an

d

Co

llec

tio

n,

Was

hin

gto

n,

DC

(B

Z.1

95

3.2

0).

Im

age

So

urc

e:

Pap

anik

ola

-Bak

irtz

is, Καθηµερινή ζωή στο

Βυζάντιο

, 181.

284

Fig

. 11

7.

Du

mb

art

on

O

ak

s R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

o

f S

t.

Dem

etri

os

(A48),

sid

e vie

ws,

12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and e

nam

el,

4.4

x 2.8

x 0.6

cm

. D

um

bar

ton O

aks

Res

earc

h L

ibra

ry an

d

Co

llec

tio

n,

Was

hin

gto

n,

DC

(B

Z.1

95

3.2

0).

Im

age

So

urc

e:

Gra

bar

, “U

n N

ouvea

u R

eliq

uai

re,”

fig

s. 3

1–34.

Fig

. 11

8.

Du

mb

art

on

O

ak

s R

eli

qu

ary

E

nk

olp

ion

o

f S

t.

Dem

etri

os

(A48

), l

id a

nd d

oors

open

, 12th

–13th

cen

t. G

old

and

enam

el,

4.4

x 2

.8 x

0.6

cm

. D

um

bar

ton O

aks

Res

earc

h L

ibra

ry

and C

oll

ecti

on,

Was

hin

gto

n,

DC

(B

Z.1

953.2

0).

Im

age

Sourc

e:

Pap

anik

ola

-Bak

irtz

is, Καθηµερινή ζωή στο

Βυζάντιο

, 183.

285

Fig

. 11

9.

Cort

ona

Sta

uro

thek

e (A

49

),

front,

963–969.

Ivory

,

30.5

x

14.5

cm

. C

hie

sa

di

San

F

rance

sco,

Cort

ona.

Im

age

sourc

e: C

utl

er a

nd S

pie

ser,

Byz

ance

méd

iéva

le, 168.

Fig

. 120.

Cort

ona

Sta

uro

thek

e (A

49

), b

ack w

ith e

pig

ram

, 963–

969.

Ivory

, 30.5

x 1

4.5

cm

. C

hie

sa d

i S

an F

rance

sco,

Cort

ona.

Imag

e so

urc

e: C

utl

er a

nd S

pie

ser,

Byz

ance

méd

iéva

le, 167.

286

Fig. 121. Reliquary Stele of St. Glykeria (A50), 9th–10th cent. Marble, 200 x 67 x 41 cm.

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, Tekirdağ. Image source: Sayar, Perinthos-

Herakleia, Abb. 171.

287

Fig. 122. Staurotheke of Niketas (A51), drawing of the epigram, 1697. Paris, Bibliothèque

nationale de France, Français 17680, f. 122. Image Source: in Durand, “Mont Saint-Michel,”

344.

288

Fig. 124. Hand Reliquary of St. Barbara (A52), side view, 12th–early 13th cent. Silver,

chasing, engraving, gilding, 4.2 x 2.6 x 2.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin (Inv. No. MP–1750/4).

Image source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 125.

Fig. 123. Hand Reliquary of St. Barbara (A52), top view, 12th–early 13th cent. Silver,

chasing, engraving, gilding, 4.2 x 2.6 x 2.2 cm. Moscow Kremlin (Inv. No. MP–1750/4).

Image source: Sterligova, Byzantine Antiquities, 124.

289

Fig

. 125

. R

eliq

uar

y E

nkolp

ion o

f S

t. D

emet

rios

(A53

), 1

2th

–13th

cen

t. S

ilver

-gil

t, 4

.8 x

4.2

x 1

cm

. P

rivat

e C

oll

ecti

on.

Imag

e

Sourc

e: T

ote

v, T

hes

salo

nic

an E

ulo

gia

, 41.

290

Fig. 126. Head Reliquary of St. James the Younger, 12th cent. Silver, enamel, 33 x 30 cm.

Domschatz Halberstadt (Inv. Nr. 19). Image Source: Meller, Der heilige Schatz, 67.

291

Fig. 128. Finger Reliquary of St. Thomas the Apostle, drawing, date (?). Silver, size unknown.

Church of San Tomà in Venice. Image source: Schlumberger, “Deux reliquaires byzantins

inédits,” 344.

Fig. 127. Finger Reliquary of St. Luke the Younger, 12th–13th cent. Silver-gilt, 7.2 cm. Trésor

de la cathédrale, Sens (Inv. D. 1/16). Image source: Durand, “A propos des reliques,” 158.

292

Fig

. 129.

Fea

st f

or

the

Ele

vat

ion o

f th

e C

ross

, fo

lio i

n t

he

Men

olo

gio

n o

f B

asil

II,

c.

1000.

Bib

liote

ca A

post

oli

ca V

atic

ana,

MS

. V

at.

Gr.

1613, p. 35. Im

age

Sourc

e: E

l “

Men

olo

gio

,” 3

5.

293

Fig

. 130.

Fea

st f

or

the

Ele

vat

ion o

f th

e C

ross

, fo

lio i

n a

Vat

ican

Lec

tionar

y, 1

1th

cen

t. B

ibli

ote

ca A

post

oli

ca V

atic

ana,

MS

. V

at.

Gr.

1156, f.

248r.

Im

age

Sourc

e: W

eitz

man

n, Studies, 298.

Fig

. 131.

Fea

st f

or

the

Ele

vat

ion o

f th

e C

ross

, fo

lio i

n a

Vat

ican

Lec

tionar

y, 1

1th

cen

t. B

ibli

ote

ca A

post

oli

ca V

atic

ana,

MS

. V

at.

Gr.

1156, f.

248v.

Im

age

Sourc

e: W

eitz

man

n, Studies, 299.

294

Fig

. 132.

Arm

Rel

iquar

y o

f th

e A

post

les,

c.

1190.

Sil

ver

-gil

t,

wood,

enam

el,

51 x

14 x

9.2

cm

. C

level

and M

use

um

of

Art

(1930.7

39).

Im

age

Sourc

e: B

agnoli

, T

reasu

res

of

Hea

ven

, 84.

Fig

. 133.

Sto

nin

g o

f S

t. S

tephen

, fo

lio i

n C

hri

stia

n T

opogra

phy

by

Kosm

as

Indik

ople

ust

es,

9th

ce

nt.

B

ibli

ote

ca

Apost

oli

ca

Vati

can

a,

MS

. V

at.

g

r.

69

9,

fol.

8

2v.

Imag

e

So

urc

e:

Sto

rnaj

olo

, L

e m

inia

ture

, pl.

47.

295

Fig. 134. Paten of Basileios the parakoimomenos and proedros, 963–85. Jasper and silver,

(diameter) 20 cm. Tesoro di San Marco, Venice (Santuario 26). Image Source: Hahnloser, Il

Tesoro, pl. LVII.

296

Fig. 136. Crucifixion, 11th cent. Mosaic. Narthex, Hosios Loukas, Distomo, Greece. Image

Source: Brad Hostetler.

Fig. 135. St. Euphemia, 11th cent. Mosaic. Narthex, Hosios Loukas, Distomo, Greece. Image

Source: Brad Hostetler.

297

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ahrweiler, Hélène. “Un discours inédit de Constantin VII Porphyrogénète.” Travaux et

mémoires 2 (1967): 393–404.

Aland, Kurt, et al, eds. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1968.

Alexiou, Margaret. “The Lament of the Virgin in Byzantine Literature and Modern Greek Folk-

Song.” BMGS 1 (1975): 111–40.

———. The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Allen, Thomas W., ed. Homeri Ilias. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931.

Andrea, Alfred J. The Capture of Constantinople: The Hystoria Constantinopolitana of Gunther

of Pairis. The Middle Ages Series. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

———. Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade. Rev. ed. The Medieval Mediterranean

29. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Angar, Mabi. “Byzantine Head Reliquaries and their Reception in the West after 1204.” PhD

diss., University of Cologne, 2012.

Antonopoulou, Theodora. “George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone: A

Study and Critical Edition.” In The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople, ed. Sofia

Kotzabassi, 109–41. Byzantinisches Archiv 27. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.

———. The Homilies of the Emperor Leo VI. The Medieval Mediterranean 14. Leiden: Brill,

1997.

Aydin, Ayşe. Reliquaries of the Sarcophagus Type (in Turkish). Antalya: Suna & İnan Kıraç

Research Institute on Mediterranean Civilizations, 2011.

Aydın, Hilmi. The Sacred Trusts: Pavilion of the Sacred Relics, Topkapı Palace Museum,

Istanbul. Somerset, NJ: Light, 2004.

Babcock, Emily Atwater, and August C. Krey. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea by

William Archbishop of Tyre, 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1943.

Bacci, Michele. “Relics of the Pharos Chapel: A View from the Latin West.” In Eastern

Christian Relics, ed. Alexei Lidov, 234–46. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003.

Baert, Barbara. Caput Johannis in Disco: Essay on a Man’s Head. Visualising the Middle Ages

8. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

298

Bagatti, Bellarmino. “Note sull’iconografia di ‘Adamo sotto il Calvario’.” Liber Annuus 27

(1977): 5–32.

Bagnoli, Martina et al, eds. Treasures of Heaven: Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Bakirtzis, Charalambos. “Byzantine Ampullae from Thessaloniki.” In The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, 140–49. Illinois Byzantine Studies 1. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 1990.

———. “Κουτρούβια µύρου από τη Θεσσαλονίκη.” JÖB 32.3 (=XVI Internationaler Byzantinisten Kongress. Akten, vol. 2.3) (1982): 523–28.

———. “Pilgrimage to Thessalonike: The Tomb of St. Demetrios.” DOP 56 (2002): 175–92.

Baynes, Norman. Byzantine Studies and Other Essays. London: Athlone, 1955.

———. “The Finding of the Virgin’s Robe.” Annuaire de l’institut de philologie et d’histoire orientales et slaves 9 (1949): 87–95.

———. “The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople.” Analecta Bollandiana 67 (1949): 165–

77.

Bank, Alisa Vladimirovna. Byzantine art in the collections of Soviet museums, trans. Lenina

Sorokina. Leningrad: Aurora Art Publishers, 1985.

Bauer, Franz Alto. Eine Stadt und ihr Patron: Thessaloniki und der Heilige Demetrios.

Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2013.

Baumbach, Manuel et al eds. Archaic and Classical Greek Epigram. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2010.

Bebel, Joannes. Cyri Theodori Prodromi Epigrammata. Basel, 1536.

Beckby, Hermann, ed. Anthologia Graeca. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Munich: Heimeran, 1965–67.

Bekker, Immanuel, ed. Leonis Grammatici Chronographia. CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1842.

———, ed. Theophanes Continuatus. CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1838.

Belcheva, Anita. “Τα επιγράµµατα σε έργα τέχνης της εποχής των Κοµνηνών.” MA thesis,

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2013.

Bellosi, Luciano, ed. L’oro di Siena: il tesoro di Santa Maria della Scala. Milano: Skira, 1996.

299

Belting, Hans. Bild und Kult: Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1990. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Likeness and Presence: A History of

the Image Before the Era of Art. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. ———. “Problemi vecchi e nuovi sull’arte della cosiddetta ‘Rinascenza macedone’ a Bisanzio.”

Corsi di cultura sull'arte ravennate e bizantina 29 (1982): 31–57. Berger, Albrecht. Accounts of Medieval Constantinople: The Patria. Dumbarton Oaks Medieval

Library 24. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2013. ———. “Believe It or Not: Authority in Religious Texts.” In Authority in Byzantium, ed. Pamela

Armstrong, 247–58. Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London, Publications 14. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.

———. “Imperial and Ecclesiastical Processions in Constantinople.” In Byzantine

Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, ed. Nevra Necipoğlu, 73–87. The Medieval Mediterranean 33. Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Bernard, Floris. Writing and Reading Byzantine Secular Poetry, 1025–1081. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2014. Bernard, Floris, and Kristoffel Demoen, eds. Poetry and Its Contexts in Eleventh-Century

Byzantium. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012. Bernardakis, P. “Le culte de la Croix chez les Grecs.” Echos d’Orient 5 (1902): 193–202. Bertelli, Carlo, and Antonio Paolucci, eds. Piero della Francesca e le corti italiane. Milan:

Skira, 2007. Betancourt, Roland. “Why Sight Is Not Touch: Reconsidering the Tactility of Sight in

Byzantium.” DOP 70 (forthcoming 2016). Bevilacqua, Livia. Arte e aristocrazia a Bisanzio nell’età dei Macedoni: Costantinopoli, la

Grecia e l’Asia Minore. Rome: Campisano, 2014. ———. “Basilio parakoimomenos e i manoscritti miniati: impronte di colore nell’Ambrosiano B

119 sup.” In Vie per Bisanzio, Atti del VII Congresso nazionale dell’Associazione

Italiana di Studi Bizantini (Venezia, 25-28 novembre 2009), eds. Antonio Rigo et al, 1013–30. Bari: Edizioni di Pagina, 2013.

———. “Basilio ‘parakoimomenos’, l’aristocrazia e la passion per le arti sotto I Macedoni.” In

La Sapienza bizantina: Un secolo di ricerche sulla civiltà di Bisanzio all’Università di

Roma, eds. Augusta Acconcia Longo et al, 183–202. Rome: Campisano Editore, 2012. Bidez, Joseph et al, eds. Sozomène: Histoire ecclésiastique. SC 306, 418, 495, 516 (Paris:

Éditions du Cerf, 1983–2008).

300

Bicchi, Alessandro and Alessandro Ciandella. Testimonia Sanctitatis: le reliquie e i reliquiari del

duomo e del battistero di Firenze. Florence: Mandragora, 1999. Bogdanović, Jelena. “The Performativity of Shrines in a Byzantine Church: The Shrines of St.

Demetrios.” In Spatial Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov, 275–316. Moscow: Indrik, 2011.

Böhlig, Gertrud, ed. Ioannis Caminiatae De expugnatione Thessalonicae. CFHB. Series

Berolinensis 4. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Bouras, Laskarina. “Ὁ Βασίλειος Λεκαπηνός, παραγγελιοδότης ἔργων τέχνης.” In Ὁ

Κωνσταντῖνος Ζʹ ὁ Πορφυρογέννητος καί ἡ ἐποχή του. Πρακτικά της Β' Διεθνούς

Βυζαντινολογικής Συνάντησης Δελφών, Δελφοί 22-26 Ιουλίου 1987, 397–434. Athens: European Cultural Center of Delphi, 1989.

Bozóky, Edina, and Anne-Marie Helvétius, eds. Les reliques: objets, cultes, symboles. Actes du

colloque international de l’Université du Littoral-Côte d’Opale (Boulogne-sur-Mer), 4–6

septembre 1997. Hagiologia 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999. Brand, Charles M. Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus by John Kinnamos. Records of

Civilization, Sources and Studies 95. New York: Columbia University Press, 1976. Braounou-Pietsch, Efthymia. Beseelte Bilder: Epigramme des Manuel Philes auf bildliche

Darstellungen. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 26. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

Braun, Joseph. Die Reliquiare des christlichen Kultes und ihre Entwicklung. Freiburg: Herder &

Co., 1940. Brokkaar, W.G. “Basil Lacapenus: Byzantium in the Tenth Century.” In Studia Byzantina et

Neohellenica Neerlandica, ed. W.F. Bakker, A.F. van Gemert, and W.J. Aerts, 199–234. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1972.

Brouwer, Christoph, and Jacob Masen. Antiquitates et Annales Trevirenses, vol. 2. Liege:

Mathias Hovius, 1671. Brown, Peter. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press, 1981. ———. Relics and Social Status in the Age of Gregory of Tours. The Stenton Lecture, 1976.

Reading: University of Reading, 1977. Brubaker, Leslie. Vision and Meaning in Ninth-Century Byzantium: Image as Exegesis in the

Homilies of Gregory Nazianzus. Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

301

Brubaker, Leslie, and Mary Cunningham. The Virgin Mary in the Byzantine World, 400–1200.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).

Bryer, Anthony. “A Byzantine family: the Gabrades, c. 979 – c. 1653.” University of Birmingham Historical Journal 12 (1970): 164–87.

Bucossi, Alessandra. “George Skylitzes’ dedicatory verses for the Sacred Arsenal by Andronikos

Kamateros and the Codex Marcianus Graecus 524.” JÖB 59 (2009): 37–50.

Buschhausen, Helmut. Die spätrömischen Metallscrinia und frühchristlichen Reliquiare. Vienna:

Böhlau, 1971.

Bynum, Caroline Walker, and Paula Gerson. “Body-Part Reliquaries and Body Parts in the

Middle Ages.” Gesta 36 (1997): 3–7.

Byzantine Art: A European Art. Exhibition in the Zappeion Exhibition Hall, Athens, April 1st - June 15th, 1964. Athens: Office of the Minister to the Prime Minister of the Greek

Government, 1964.

Cameron, Averil. Continuity and Change in Sixth-Century Byzantium. London: Variorum, 1981.

———. “The Virgin’s Robe: An Episode in the History of Early Seventh-Century

Constantinople.” Byzantion 49 (1979): 42–56.

Cameron, Averil, and Stuart George Hall. Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1999.

Carpenter, Marjorie. Kontakia of Romanos, Byzantine Melodist. 2 vols. Columbia: University of

Missouri Press, 1970.

Carr, Annemarie Weyl. “Donors in the Frames of Icons: Living in the Borders of Byzantine Art.”

Gesta 45 (2006): 189–98.

———. “The Face Relics of John the Baptist in Byzantium and the West.” Gesta 46 (2007):

159–77.

———. “Icons and the Object of Pilgrimage in Middle Byzantine Constantinople.” DOP 56

(2002): 75–92.

———. “Threads of Authority: the Virgin Mary's Veil in the Middle Ages.” In Robes and Honor: The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. Stewart Gordon, 59–94. New York:

Palgrave, 2001.

302

Caseau, Béatrice. “Experiencing the Sacred.” In Experiencing Byzantium: Papers from the 44th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Newcastle and Durham, April 2011, eds. Claire Nesbitt and Mark Jackson, 59–77. Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies 18. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.

———. “Parfum et guérison dans le christianisme ancien et byzantin: des huiles parfumées des

médecins au myron des saints byzantins.” In Les Pères de l’Eglise face à la science médicale de leur temps, eds. Véronique Boudon-Millot and Bernard Pouderon, 141–91. Théologie Historique 117. Paris: Beauchesne, 2005.

———. “The Senses in Religion: Liturgy, Devotion, and Deprivation.” In A Cultural History of

the Senses in the Middle Ages, 500–1450, ed. Richard Newhauser, 89–108. New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.

Caudio Caserta, ed. Pantaleone da Nicomedia: santo tra cielo e terra: reliquie, culto,

iconografia, Ravello, Complesso della SS. Annunziata, 23–24 luglio 2005. I santi venuti dall’Oriente. Trifone e Barbara sul cammino di Pantaleone, Ravello, Complesso dell’Annunziata, 2–-25 luglio 2006. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2009.

Caserta, Caudio, and Michail Talalay, eds. Pantaleone da Nicomedia: santo e taumaturgo tra

Oriente e Occidente. Atti del Convegno (Ravello, 24–26 luglio 2004). Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2006.

Chaganti, Seeta. The Medieval Poetics of the Reliquary: Enshrinement, Inscription,

Performance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. Cheynet, Jean-Claude. “Par saint Georges, par saint Michel.” Travaux et mémoires 14

(=Mélanges Gilbert Dagron) (2002): 115–34. Cheynet, Jean-Claude, and Jean-François Vannier. Études Prosopographiques. Paris:

Publications de la Sorbonne, 1986. Chrysos, Evangelos. “1176 – A Byzantine Crusade?” In Byzantine War Ideology between Roman

Imperial Concept and Christian Religion: Akten des Internationalen Symposiums (Wien, 19.–21. Mai 2011), ed. Johannes Koder and Ioannis Stouraitis, 81–86. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2012)

Ciggaar, Krijnie N. “Une description anonyme de Constantinople du XIIe siècle.” REB 31

(1973): 335–54. ———. “Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55.” REB 53 (1995): 117–40. ———. “Une description de Constantinople traduite par un pèlerin anglais.” REB 34 (1976):

211–68.

303

———. Western Travellers to Constantinople. The West and Byzantium, 962–1204: Cultural

and Political Relations. The Medieval Mediterranean 10. Leiden: Brill, 1996.

Clugnet, Léon. Vie et office de Sainte Marine: textes latins, grecs, coptes, arabes, syriaques,

éthiopien, haut-allemand, bas-allemand et français. Bibliothèque hagiographique

orientale 8. Paris: Librairie A. Picard, 1905.

Combefis, François, ed. Historia Haeresis Monothelitarum. Paris: Bertier, 1648.

Comte, Marie Christine. Les Reliquaires du Proche-Orient et de Chypre à la période

protobyzantine (IVe-VIIIe siècles): formes, emplacements, fonctions et cultes.

Bibliothèque de l’antiquité tardive 20. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Connor, Robert W., and Carolyn L. Connor, eds. The Life and Miracles of Saint Luke of Steiris.

The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources 18. Brookline,

MA: Hellenic College Press, 1994.

Cormack, Robin. “The Making of a Patron Saint: The Powers of Art and Ritual in Byzantine

Thessaloniki.” In World Art: Themes of Unity in Diversity. Acts of the XXVIth

International Congress of the History of Art, vol. 3, ed. Irving Lavin, 547–54. University

Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1989.

———. “The Mosaic Decoration of S. Demetrios, Thessaloniki: A Re-Examination in the Light

of the Drawings of W.S. George.” The Annual of the British School at Athens 64 (1969):

17–52.

———. Writing in Gold: Byzantine Society and its Icons. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1985.

Cormack, Robin, and Maria Vassilaki, eds. Byzantium 330–1453. London: Royal Academy of

Arts, 2008.

Cornaro (Cornelio), Flaminio. Ecclesiae venetae antiquis monumentis nunc etiam primum editis

illustratae ac in decades distributae. Vol. 3. Venice: Baptistae Pasquali, 1749.

———. Notizie storiche delle chiese e monasteri di Venezia, e di Torcello. Padua: Nella

Stamperia del Seminario, Appresso Giovanni Manfrè, 1758.

Corrigan, Kathleen. “The Ivory Scepter of Leo VI: A Statement of Post-Iconoclastic Imperial

Ideology.” Art Bulletin 60 (1978): 407–16.

Cotsonis, John A. Byzantine Figural Processional Crosses. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine

Collection Publications 10. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection, 1994.

304

———. “Onomastics, gender, office and images on Byzantine lead seals: a means of

investigating personal piety.” BMGS 32 (2008): 1–37.

Cougny, Edme, and Friedrich Dübner, eds. Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova epigrammatum veterum ex libris et marmoribus ductorum, 3 vols.

Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1871–90.

Cramer, John A., ed. Anecdota Graeca e Codd. Manuscriptis Bibliothecae Regiae Parisiensis, 4

vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1839–41.

Crippa, Cristina. “Il culto e la chiesa di Santa Marina a Venezia.” MA Thesis, Universita Ca’

Foscari di Venezia, Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia, 2007/2008.

Crook, John. The Architectural Setting of the Cult of Saints in the Early Christian West, c. 300–1200. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.

Cummins, Tom. “Here, There, and Now: Deictics and the Transposition of Orality to Image in

Colonial Imagery.” Art in Translation 7 (2015): 65–94.

Cunningham, Mary. “The Reception of Romanos in Middle Byzantine Homiletics and

Hymnography.” DOP 62 (2009): 251–60.

———. Wider than Heaven: Eighth-century Homilies on the Mother of God. Popular Patristics

Series 35. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008.

Cupane, Carolina. “The Heavenly City: Religious and Secular Visions of the Other World in

Byzantine Literature.” In Dreaming in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Christina Angelidi

and George T. Calofonos, 53–68. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.

Cutler, Anthony. “Art in Byzantine Society: Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage.” JÖB 31

(1981): 759–87.

———. “The Industries of Art.” In The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, ed. Angeliki Laiou, 555–87. DOS 39 (Washington, DC:

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2002).

———. “Under the Sign of the Deesis: On the Question of Representativeness in Medieval Art

and Literature.” DOP 41 (1987): 145–54.

———. “Uses of Luxury: On the Functions of Consumption and Symbolic Capital in Byzantine

Culture.” In Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992, eds. André Guillou, and Jannic

Durand, 287–327. Paris: La Documentation française, 1994.

Cutler, Anthony, and J.-M. Spieser. Byzance médiévale: 700–1204. Paris: Gallimard, 1996.

305

D’Aiuto, Francesco. “Dodecasillabi su un encolpio con cammeo d’ametista del monastero di Vatopedi.” Νέα Ῥώµη 4 (2007): 413–39.

D’Aiuto, Francesco. “Le ambiguità di un reliquiario: Il ‘braccio di s. Ermolao’ nella pieve di

Calci (Pisa).” Erga-Logoi 1, no. 2 (2013): 31–72. D’Alessio, Eugenio Dalleggio. “Le tombeau de saint Pantéléémon à Nicomédie.” In Actes du VIe

Congrès International des Études Byzantines, Paris, 27 juillet-2 août 1948, vol. 2, 95–100. Paris: École des hautes études, 1950–51.

D’Amadeni, Teodoro (Theodorus Damadenus). Biologia S. Marinae monachum indutae virginis.

Venice, 1676. Dagron, Gilbert. Emperor and Priest: The Imperial Office in Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003. Daley, Brian J. On the Dormition of Mary: Early Patristic Homilies. Popular Patristics Series 18.

Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997. Dalton, Ormonde Maddock. “An Enamelled Gold Reliquary of the Twelfth Century.” The

British Museum Quarterly 1, no. 2 (1926): 33–35. Daniélou, Jean. “Terre et Paradis chez les Pères de l’Église.” Eranos-Jahrbuch 22 (1953): 433–

72. Day, Joseph W. Archaic Greek Epigram and Dedication: Representation and Reperformance.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. De Boor, Carolus, ed. Theophanis chronographia, 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1883. De Fleury, Charles Rohault. Mémoire sur les instruments de la passion de N.-S. J.-C. Paris: L.

Lesort, 1870. ———. La Sainte Vierge, etudes archéologiques et iconographiques. 2 vols. Paris: Librairie

Poussielgue Frères, 1878. De Groote, Marc, ed. Christophori Mitylenaii versuum variorum collectio cryptensis. Corpus

christianorum, Series graeca 74. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012. De Kreek, Mieke, and H.J. Scheepmaker. De kerkschat van het Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekapittel te

Maastricht. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura, 1994. De Mély, Ferdinand. Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae: La croix des premiers croisés; la

sainte lance; la sainte couronne. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1904. Delehaye, Hippolyte. Les légendes grecques des saints militaires. Paris: Picard, 1909.

306

———. Les origines du culte des martyrs. 2nd rev. ed. Subsidia hagiographica 20. Brussels:

Société des bollandistes, 1933.

Demetriades, Basileios, ed. Ιερά Μεγίστη Μονή Βατοπαιδίου: Παράδοση, ιστορία, τέχνη, 2 vols.

Mount Athos: Ιερά Μεγίστη Μονή Βατοπαιδίου, 1996.

Demoen, Kristoffel. “John Geometres’ Iambic Life of Saint Panteleimon. Text, Genre and

Metaphrastic Style.” In Studies in Greek Patristic and Byzantine Texts Presented to

Jacques Noret for his Sixty-Fifth Birthday, eds. Bart Janssens et al, 165–84. Orientalia

Lovaniensia Analecta 137. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Der Nersessian, Sirarpie. “Two Images of the Virgin in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection.” DOP

14 (1960): 71–86.

Di Sciascio, Sofia. Reliquie e reliquiari in Puglia fra IX e XV seclo. Galatina: Congedo, 2009.

Diedrichs, Christof L. Vom Glauben zum Sehen: die Sichtbarkeit der Reliquie im Reliquiar; ein

Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sehens. Berlin: Weissensee Verlag, 2001.

Diehl, Charles. “De la signification du titre du ‘proèdre’ à Byzance.” In Melanges offerts a m.

Gustave Schlumberger, membre de l’Institut, a l’occasion du quatre-vingtième

anniversaire de sa naissance (17 octobre 1924), 1:105–17. Paris: P. Geunther, 1924.

Diehl, Charles, and Marcel Le Tourneau. “Les mosaïques de saint Demetrius de Salonique.”

Monuments et mémoires, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Fondation Eugène

Piot 18 (1910): 225–47.

Dimitropoulou, Vassiliki. “Giving Gifts to God: Aspects of Patronage in Byzantine Art.” In A

Companion to Byzantium, ed. Liz James, 161–70. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Dolley, R.H. “The historical significance of the translation of St. Lazaros from Kypros to

byzantion.” Byzantion 19 (1949): 59–71.

Dor, Pierre. Les reliquaires de la Passion en France du Ve au XVe siècle. Histoire Médiévale et

Archéologie 10. Amiens: Centre d’archéologie et d'histoire médiévales des

établissements religieux, 1999.

———. La sainte couronne du Christ et ses épines. Paris: Guibert, 2009.

Drijvers, Jan Willem. “Helena Augusta, the Cross and the Myth: Some New Reflections.”

Millennium 8 (2011): 125–74.

———. Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding

of the True Cross. Leiden: Brill, 1992.

307

———. “Heraclius and the Restitutio Crucis: Notes on Symbolism and Ideology.” In The Reign

of Heraclius (610-641): Crisis and Confrontation, eds. Gerrit J. Reinink, and Bernard H.

Stolte, 175–90. Lueven: Peeters, 2002.

Drpić, Ivan. “Chrysepes Stichourgia: The Byzantine Epigram as Aesthetic Object.” In Sign and

Design: Script as Image in Cross-Cultural Perspective (300–1600 CE), eds. B. Bedos-

Rezak, and J.F. Hamburger (forthcoming).

———. Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium. Cambridge University Press

(forthcoming).

———. “Notes on Byzantine Panagiaria.” Zograf 35 (2011): 51–62.

———. “Painter as Scribe: Artistic Identity and the Arts of Graphē in Late Byzantium.” Word &

Image 29 (2013): 334–53.

———. “The Patron’s ‘I’: Art, Selfhood, and the Later Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram.”

Speculum 89 (2014): 895–935.

———. “The Serres Icon of Saints Theodores.” BZ 105 (2012): 645–94.

———. “Text and/as Art.” In The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Literature, ed. Stratis

Papaioannou. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).

Du Cange, Charles du Fresne. “Annae Comnenae Caesarissae Alexiadem Notae Historicae et

Philologicae.” In Annae Comnenae Alexiadis Libri XV, vol. 2, ed. L. Schopenus. CSHB.

Bonn, 1878.

———. “Explication des inscriptions de la vraye croix, qui est en l’abbaye de Grandmont, et de

celle qui est au monastere du mont Saint-Quentin en Picardie.” In Dissertation XXVI in

Histoire de Saint Louis par Jean de Joinville (Paris, 1668). Repr. in Glossarium mediae

et infimae latinitatis, ed. Léopold Favre, vol. 10 (Niort: L. Favre, 1887), 90–93.

———. Historia Byzantina duplici commentario illustrata. Paris: Ludovicum Billaine, 1680.

———. Traité historique du chef de S. Jean Baptiste. Paris: Chez S. Cramoisy and S. Mabre-

Cramoisy, 1665.

Duncan-Flowers, Maggie. “A Pilgrim’s Ampulla from the Shrine of St. John the Evangelist at

Ephesus.” In The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert Ousterhout, 125–39. Illinois

Byzantine Studies 1. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1990.

Durand, Jannic. L’art byzantin. Paris: Terrail, 1999.

308

———, ed. Byzance: l’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises, Musée du Louvre, 3 novembre 1992 – 1er février 1993. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées nationaux, 1992.

———. “Innovations gothiques dans l’orfèvrerie byzantine sous les Paléologues.” DOP 58

(2004): 333–54. ———. “Le projet de corpus des reliques et des reliquaires byzantins en France.” Bulletin de la

Société nationale des antiquaires de France (2002): 152–81. ———. “A propos des reliques du monastère du Prodrome de Pétra à Constantinople. La relique

de saint Christophe de l’ancien trésor de la cathédrale de Cambrai.” CahArch 46 (1998): 151–67.

———. “La quatrième croisade, les reliques et les reliquaires de Constantinople.” Revue

française d’héraldique et de sigillographie 73–75 (2003–05): 55–69. ———. “Relics of the Infancy of Christ.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in

Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 253–88. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

———. “Le reliquaire byzantin de la vraie croix du Mont Saint-Michel.” In “Tout le temps du

veneour est sanz oyseuseté”: Mélanges offerts à Yves Christe pour son 65éme anniversaire, ed. Christine Hediger, 335–48. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

———. “Le reliquaire byzantin du moine Timothée à l’Abbaye du Mont-Saint-Quentin.” In

Études d’histoire de l’art offertes à Jacques Thirion des premiers temps chrétiens au XXe siècle, eds. Alain Erlande-Brandenburg, Jean-Michel Leniaud, and Xavier Dectot, 51–69. Paris: École des Chartes, 2001.

———. “La relique impériale de la Vraie Croix d’après le Typicon de Sainte-Sophie et la relique

de la Vraie Croix du trésor de Notre-Dame de Paris.” In Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, 91–105. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004.

———. “Les reliques de saint Mammès au trésor de la cathédrale de Langres.” Travaux et

mémoires 14 (=Mélanges Gilbert Dagron) (2002): 181–200. ———. “Reliques et reliquaires constantinopolitains du chef de saint Jean-Baptiste apportés en

Occident après 1204.” Contacts: Revue Française de l’Orthodoxie 59, no. 218 (La vénération de saint Jean-Baptiste. Actes du Colloque œcuménique du diocèse d’Amiens, 23–24 juin 2006) (2007): 188–221.

309

———. “La Vraie Croix de la princesse Palatine au trésor de Notre-Dame de Paris: Observations techniques.” CahArch 40 (1992): 139–46.

Durand, Jannic, and Maximilien Durand. “Corps saints et fragments: l’exposition des reliques au

Moyen-Âge.” In Colloque International de Pathographie, Loches, Avril 2005, ed. Philippe Charlier, 71–97. Paris: De Boccard, 2007.

Durand, Jannic, and Bernard Flusin, eds. Byzance et les Reliques du Christ. Centre de Recherche

d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004.

Durand, Jannic, and Marie-Pierre Laffitte, eds. Le trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle. Paris: Réunion

des musées nationaux, 2001. Durand, Julien. “L’Art Byzantin Saint-Marc de Venise.” Annales archéologiques 20 (1860):

307–15. Eastmond, Antony. “Body vs. column: the cults of St Symeon Stylites.” In Desire and Denial in

Byzantium, ed. Liz James, 87–100. Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999. ———. “Byzantine Identity and Relics of the True Cross in the Thirteenth Century.” In Eastern

Christian Relics, ed. Alexi Lidov, 205–15. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003. ———, ed., Viewing Inscriptions in the Late Antique and Medieval World. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2015. Ebersolt, Jean. Sanctuaires de Byzance: Recherches sur les anciens trésors des églises de

Constantinople. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1921. Ehrhard, Marcelle. “Le livre du pèlerin d’Antoine de Novgorod.” Romania 58 (1932): 44–65. Elsner, Jaś. “Relic, Icon, and Architecture: The Material Articulation of the Holy in East

Christian Art.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 13–40. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

Epstein, Ann Wharton. Tokalı Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia.

DOS 22. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986. Evans, Helen C., ed. Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). New York: Metropolitan

Museum of Art, 2004. Evans, Helen C., and William D. Wixom, eds. The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the

Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843–1261. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1997.

310

Featherstone, Jeffrey Michael. “Basil the Nothos as Compiler: the De Cerimoniis and Theophanes Continuatus.” In The Transmission of Byzantine Texts between Textual

Criticism and Quellenforschung, ed. I. Perez-Martin, and J. Signes-Codoner, 355–74. Lectio 2. Turnhout: Brepols 2014.

Flamine, Marco. “In margine alla stauroteca bizantina di Cortona.” La Parola del Passato –

Rivista di Studi Antichi 67 (2012): 279–313. Flusin, Bernard. “Construire une nouvelle Jérusalem: Constantinople et les reliques.” In L’Orient

dans l’histoire religieuse de l’Europe: L’invention des origines, eds. Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi and John Scheid, 51–70. Bibliothéque de l’Ecole des Hautes Études, Sciences Religieuses 110. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000.

Follieri, Enrica. “L’ordine dei versi in alcuni epigrammi bizantini.” Byzantion 34 (1964): 447–

67. ———. “Un reliquiario bizantino di S. Simeone Stilita.” Byzantion 35 (1965): 62–82. Frendo, Joseph David. “The Miracles of St. Demetrius and the Capture of Thessaloniki.” BSl 58

(1997): 205–24. Frendo, David and Athanasios Fotiou. The Capture of Thessaloniki. Byzantina Australiensia 12.

Perth: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2000. Frolow, Anatole. “La deviation de la 4e Croisade vers Constantinople.” Revue de l’histoire des

religions 145 (1954): 168–187; 146 (1954): 67–89 and 194–219; 147 (1955): 50–61. ———. “IC XC NI KA.” BSl 17 (1956): 98–113. ———. “Une inscription bulgare inédite.” Revue des études slaves 21 (1944): 97–111. ———. “Notes sur les reliques et les reliquaires byzantins de Saint-Marc de Venise.” ΔΧΑΕ 4

(1964–65): 205–26. ———. “Un nouveau reliquaire byzantin (Manuelis Philae Carmina, I, pp. 133–137).” Revue

des études grecques 66 (1953): 100–10. ———. “Numismatique byzantine et Archéologie des Lieux Saints au sujet d’une monnaie de

l’impératrice Eudocie (Ve siècle).” In Mémorial Louis Petit: Mélanges d’histoire et

d’archéologie Byzantines, 76–94. AOC 1. Bucharest: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1948.

———. Les reliquaires de la Vraie Croix. AOC 8. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines,

1965.

311

———. La relique de la Vraie Croix: recherches sur le développement d’un culte. AOC 7. Paris:

Institut français d’études byzantines, 1961.

———. “La Vraie Croix et les expéditions d’Héraclius en Perse.” REB 11 (1953): 88–105.

Fuhrmann, Hans. Die Inschriften des Doms zu Halberstadt. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2009.

Furlan, Italo, ed. Venezia e Bisanzio: Venezia, Palazzo Ducale, 8 giugno - 30 settembre 1974.

Milan: Electa, 1974.

Gagé, Jean. “Σταυρὸς νικοποιός: La victoire impériale dans l’empire chrétien.” Revue d’histoire

et de philosophie religieuses 13 (1933): 370–400.

Galavaris, George. “The Cross in the Book of Ceremonies by Constantine Porphyrogenitus.” In

Θυµίαµα στη µνήµη της Λασκαρίνας Μπούρα, 95–99. Athens: Benaki Museum, 1994.

———. “A Niello Cross at Sinai.” Römische historische Mitteilungen 41 (1999): 171–87.

Gargova, Fani. “The Meteora Icon of the Incredulity of Thomas Reconsidered.” In Female

Founders in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Lioba Theis et al, 369–81. Wiener Jahrbuch für

Kunstgeschichte 40/41. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2011–12.

Gasnault, Pierre, and Jannic Durand. “Quatre reliquaires byzantins dénichés par les religieux de

la congrégation de Saint-Maur.” Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de

France (2003): 268–91.

Gauthier, Marie-Madeleine. Les Routes de la foi: reliques et reliquaires de Jérusalem à

Compostelle. Paris: Bibliothèque des Arts, 1983. Translated by J.A. Underwood.

Highways of the Faith: Relics and Reliquaries from Jerusalem to Compostela. Secaucus,

NJ: Wellfleet Press, 1986.

Gautier, Paul, ed. “Le typikon de la Théotokos Kécharitôménè.” REB 43 (1985): 5–165.

———. “L’obituaire du typikon du Pantokrator.” REB 27 (1969): 235–62.

Gero, Stephen. Byzantine Iconoclasm During the Reign of Leo III with Particular Attention to

the Oriental Sources. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium 346. Louvain:

Secrétariat du Corpus SCO, 1973.

Gerstel, Sharon E.J. “‘Tiles of Nicomedia’ and the Cult of Saint Panteleimon.” In Byzantine

Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis Sullivan, Elizabeth

Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou, 173–86. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Gesta 36 (1997).

312

Gilli, Monica. Le ampolle di San Mena: religiosità, cultura materiale e sistema produttivo. TardoAntico e MedioEvo – Studi e strumenti di archeologia 5. Rome: Palombi, 2002.

Ginnasi, Andrea. “La Stauroteca di Limburg an-der-Lahn: Devozione e Lusso nel Mondo

Bizantino.” ACME 62/1 (2009): 97–130. Grabar, André. Ampoules de Terre Sainte (Monza, Bobbio). Paris: C. Klincksieck, 1958. ———. L’empereur dans l’art byzantin: recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire d’Orient. Paris:

Les Belles Lettres, 1936. ———. Martyrium: recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique. Paris: Collège

de France, 1946. ———. “Un Nouveau Reliquaire de saint Démétrios.” DOP 8 (1954): 305–13. ———. “Quelques Reliquaires de saint Démétrios et de martyrium du saint à Salonique.” DOP 5

(1950): 3–28. Grester, Jakob. De cruce Christi, vol. 3. Ingolstadt, 1605. Repr. Regensburg, 1734. Grosdidier de Matons, José, ed. Romanos le Mélode. Hymnes. Vol. 4. SC 128. Paris: Éditions du

Cerf, 1967. Gudiol i Cunill, Josep. “Les creus d’argenteria a Catalunya.” Anuari de l’Institut d’Estudis

Catalans 6 (1919-1920): 265-422. Guilland, Rodolphe. “Autour du Livre des Cérémonies. L’Augusteus, la Main d’Or et

l’Onopodion.” REB 6 (1948): 167–80. Guillou, André. “Inscriptions byzantines importees en Italie.” In Epigrafia medievale greca e

latina. Ideologia e funzione, Atti del Seminario di Erice (12–18 settembre 1991), eds. Guglielmo Cavallo, and Cyril Mango, 119–52. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’Alto medioevo, 1995.

———, “Inscription métrique byzantine du trésor de Saint-Nicolas de Bari (Italie).”

In Rayonnement Grec: Hommages à Charles Delvoye, eds. Lydie Hadermann-Misguich and Georges Raepsaet, 421–24. Brussels: Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles, 1982..

———. Recueil des inscriptions grecques médiévales d’Italie. Rome: École française de Rome,

1996. Guscin, Mark. The Image of Edessa. The Medieval Mediterranean 82. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Hahn, Cynthia. Strange Beauty: Issues in the Making and Meaning of Reliquaries, 400–Circa

1204. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2012.

313

———. “The Voices of the Saints: Speaking Reliquaries.” Gesta 36 (1997): 20–31. Hahn, Cynthia, and Holger Klein. “Introduction.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of

Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 1–11. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

———, eds. Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond. Dumbarton

Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

Hahnloser, Hans R., ed. Il Tesoro di San Marco, vol. 2. Florence: Sansoni, 1971. Haldon, John F. Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions.

CFHB. Series Vindobonensis 28. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1990.

Halkin, François. Martyrs grecs IIe-VIIIe s. Variorum Reprints CS30. London: Variorum

Reprints, 1974. ———. “Translation par Nicéphore Phocas de la Brique miraculeuse d’Hiérapolis (BHG 801n).”

In Inédits byzantins d’Ochrida, Candie et Moscou, 253–60. Subsidia hagiographica 38. Brussels: Société des Bollandistes, 1963.

Hallit, Joseph. “La croix dans le rite byzantin: histoire et théologie.” Parole de l’Orient 3 (1972)

261–311. Hanson, John. “The Stuttgart Casket and the Permeability of the Byzantine Artistic Tradition.”

Gesta 37 (1998): 13–25. Hartel, William, ed. Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Opera, Carmina. Corpus scriptorum

ecclesiasticorum latinorum 30. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894. ———, ed. Sancti Pontii Meropii Paulini Nolani Opera, Epistulae. Corpus scriptorum

ecclesiasticorum latinorum 29. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1894. Hartranft, Chester D. The ecclesiastical history of Sozomen, comprising a history of the Church,

from A.D. 323 to A.D. 425. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 2. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890.

Harvey, Susan Jean Ashbrook. Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory

Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. Hase, C.B. Leonis diaconi Caloënsis Historia libri decem. CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1828.

314

Haskins, Charles H. “A Canterbury Monk at Constantinople, c. 1090.” English Historical Review 25, no. 98 (1910): 293–95.

Hetherington, Paul. “The byzantine enamels on the staurothèque from the treasury of the prieuré

d’Oignies, now in Namur, with an excursus on the association of pearls with Byzantine enamels.” CahArch 48 (2000): 59–69.

———. Enamels, Crowns, Relics and Icons: Studies on the Luxury Arts in Byzantium. Variorum

Collected Studies Series 908. Farnham: Ashgate, 2008. ———. “A purchase of Byzantine relics and reliquaries in fourteenth-century Venice.” Arte

veneta 37 (1983): 9–30. Heisenberg, August, ed. “Der Epitaphios des Nikolaos Mesarites auf seinen Bruder Johannes.” In

Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des lateinischen Kaisertums und der Kirchenunion, vol. 1. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1923.

———, ed. Nikolaos Mesarites, Die Palastrevolution des Johannes Komnenos. Würzburg:

Köningliche Universitätsdruckerei von H. Stürzt, 1907. Heuser, August, and Matthias Theodor Kloft, eds. Im Zeichen des Kreuzes: die Limburger

Staurothek und ihre Geschichte. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2009. Hill, Barbara. “Actions Speak Louder than Words: Anna Komnene’s Attempted Usurpation.” In

Anna Komnene and Her Times, ed. Thalia Gouma-Peterson, 45–62. New York: Garland, 2000.

Hofmann, Georg. “Unbekannte oder wenig beachtete christliche griechische Inschriften des

Mittelalters.” Orientalia christiana periodica 13 (1947): 233–38. Holder-Egger, Oswald, ed. Bertholdi narratio quomodo portio vivificae crucis Werdeam

pervenerit. Monumenta Germaniae historica, Scriptores 15.2. Hannover, 1888; repr. 1991.

Holum, Kenneth. “Pulcheria’s Crusade A.D. 421-22 and the Ideology of Imperial

Victory.” GRBS 18 (1977): 153–72. Hörandner, Wolfram. “Beobachtungen zur Literarästhetik der Byzantiner: Einige byzantinische

Zeugnisse zu Metrik und Rhythmik.” BSl 56 (1995): 279–90. ———. “Zur Beschreibung von Kunstwerken in der byzantinischen Dichtung – am Beispiel des

Gedichts auf das Pantokratorkloster in Konstantinopel.” In Die poetische Ekphrasis von

Kunstwerken: Eine literarische Tradition der Großdichtung in Antike, Mittelalter und

früher Neuzeit, ed. Christine Ratkowitsch, 203–19. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2006.

315

———. “Das byzantinische Epigramm und das heilige Kreuz: einige Beobachtungen zu Motiven und Typen.” In La Croce. Iconografia e interpretazione (secoli I - inizio XVI). Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Napoli, 6-11 dicembre 1999), vol. 3, eds. Boris Ulianich and Ulderico Parente, 107–25. Rome: Elio de Rosa editore, 2007.

———. “Byzantinische Epigramme in inschriftlicher Überlieferung.” In L’épistolographie et la

poésie épigrammatique: projets actuels et questions de méthodologie. Actes de la 16e Table ronde du XXe Congrès international des Études byzantines (Collège de France - Sorbonne, Paris, 19-25 Août 2001), eds. Wolfram Hörandner and Michael Grünbart, 153–60. Dossiers Byzantins 3. Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 2003.

———. “Customs and beliefs as reflected in occasional poetry: Some considerations.” ByzF 12

(1987): 235–47. ———. “A Cycle of Epigrams on the Lord’s Feasts in Cod. Marc. Gr. 524.” DOP 48 (1994):

117–33. ———. “Epigrams on Icons and Sacred Objects: The Collection of Cod. Marc. gr. 524 once

again.” In La poesia tardoantica e medievale: Atti del I Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Macerata, 4–5 Maggio 1998, ed. Marcello Salvadore, 117–24. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2001.

———. “Ergänzendes zu den byzantinischen Carmina Figurata. Akrosticha im Cod. Laur. Plut.

VII 8.” In ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΣ: Studi in onore di Rosario Anastasi, vol. 2, 189–202. Catania: Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Catania, 1994.

———. “Zur kommunikativen Funktion byzantinischer Gedichte.” In Acts XVIIIth International

Congress of Byzantine Studies, Selected Papers, Moscow, 1991. Vol. 4: Literature, Sources, Numismatics and History of Science, eds. Ihor Ševčenko, Gennady G. Litavrin, and Walter K. Hanak, 104–18. Shepherdstown, WV: Byzantine Studies Press, 1996.

———. “Poetic Forms in the Tenth Century.” In Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and His Age,

Second International Byzantine Conference, Delphi, 22–26 July 1987, 135–53. Athens: European Cultural Center of Delphi, 1989.

———. “Randbemerkungen zum Thema Epigramme und Kunstwerke.” In Polypleuros Nous.

Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner zum seinem 60. Geburtstag, eds. Cordula Scholz and Georgios Makris, 69–82. Byzantinisches Archiv 19. Munich: Saur, 2000.

———. “Review of Guillou, Recueil.” JÖB 48 (1998): 307–16. ———, ed. Theodoros Prodromos: Historische Gedichte. Wiener byzantinistische Studien 11.

Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1974. ———. “Visuelle Poesie in Byzanz. Versuch einer Bestandsaufnahme.” JÖB 40 (1990): 1–42.

316

———. “Weitere Beobachtungen zu byzantinischen Figurengedichten und Tetragrammen.” Νέα

Ῥώµη 6 (2009) 291‒304. ———. “Ein Zyklus von Epigrammen zu Darstellungen von Herrenfesten und Wunderszenen.”

DOP 46 (1992): 107–115. Hörandner, Wolfram, and Andreas Rhoby, eds. Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer

Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006). Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

Hörandner, Wolfram, Andreas Rhoby and Nikolaos Zagklas, eds. A Companion to Byzantine

Poetry. Leiden: Brill (forthcoming). Horna, Konstantin, ed. “Eine unedierte Rede des Konstantin Manasses.” WS 28 (1906): 171–204. Hostetler, Brad. “The Iconography of Text: The Placement of an Inscription on a Middle

Byzantine Reliquary,” Eastern Christian Art 8 (2011): 49–55 ———. “Image, Epigram, and Nature in Middle Byzantine Personal Devotion.” In Natural

Materials of the Holy Land and the Visual Translation of Place, 500 – 1500, eds. Renana Bartal, Neta Bodner, and Bianca Kühnel. Farnham: Ashgate, 2016 (forthcoming).

———. “The Limburg Staurotheke: A Reassessment.” Athanor 30 (2012): 7–13. ———. “Reliquary Epigrams.” In Byzantine Texts on Art and Aesthetics, vol. 3: From Alexios I

to the Rise of Hesychasm (1081 – ca. 1330), eds. Charles Barber and Foteini Spingou. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (forthcoming).

Hunger, Herbert. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. 2 vols. Munich: Beck,

1978. Huygens, R.B.C., ed. Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon. 2 vols. Corpus Christianorum,

Continuatio Mediaevalis 63–63A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1986. Iberites, Ioakeim, ed. “Λόγος εἰς τὰ θαύµατα τοῦ ἁγίου Δηµητρίου.” Μακεδονικά 1 (1940): 324–

76. Ikonomaki-Papadopoulos, Yota, et al, eds. Enkolpia: The Holy and Great Monastery of

Vatopaidi. Mount Athos: The Holy and Great Monastery of Vatopaidi, 2001. James, Liz, ed. Art and Text in Byzantine Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2007. ———. “Bearing Gifts from the East: Imperial Relic Hunters from Abroad.” In Eastern

Approaches to Byzantium, ed. Antony Eastmond, 119–131. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

317

———. “Dry Bones and Painted Pictures: Relics and Icons in Byzantium.” In Eastern Christian Relics, ed. Alexi Lidov, 45–53. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003.

James, Liz, and Ruth Webb. “‘To understand ultimate things and enter secret places’: ekphrasis

and art in Byzantium.” Art History 14 (1991): 1–17.

Janke, Petra. Ein heilbringender Schatz: die Reliquienverehrung am Halberstädter Dom im Mittelalter: Geschichte, Kult und Kunst. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2006.

Jeffreys, Elizabeth. “The Sevastokratorissa Eirene as Literary Patroness: The Monk Iakovos.”

JÖB 32.3 (=XVI Internationaler Byzantinisten Kongress. Akten, vol. 2.3) (1982): 63–71.

Jenkins, R.J.H., and Cyril A. Mango. “The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of

Photius.” DOP 9–10 (1956): 125–40.

Jenkins, R.J.H., Cyril A. Mango, and Vasileios Laourdas. “Nine Orations of Arethas from Cod.

Marc. Gr. 524.” BZ 47 (1954): 1–40.

Jones, Lynn. Between Islam and Byzantium: Aght’amar and the Visual Construction of Medieval Armenian Rulership. Farnham: Ashgate, 2007.

———. “The Enkolpion of Edward the Confessor: Byzantium and Anglo-Saxon Concepts of

Rulership.” In Cross and Cruciform in the Anglo-Saxon World: Studies to Honor the Memory of Timothy Reuter, eds. Sarah Larratt Keefer et al, 369–85. Sancta Crux/Halig

Rod, vol. 3. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press, 2010.

———. “From Anglorum basileus to Norman Saint: The Transformation of Edward the

Confessor.” Haskins Society Journal 12 (2002): 99–120.

———. “Medieval Armenian Identity and Relics of the True Cross (9th–11th Centuries).”

Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies 12 (2001, 2002 [2003]): 43–53.

———. “Perceptions of Byzantium: Radegund of Poitiers and the Relics of the True Cross.” In

Byzantine Images and their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed.

Lynn Jones, 105–24. Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.

Jones, Lynn, and Henry Maguire. “A Description of the Jousts of Manuel I Komnenos.” BMGS

26 (2002): 104–48.

Jordan, Robert, ed. The Synaxarion of the monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, 3 vols. Belfast

Byzantine Texts and Translations 6.5–7. Belfast: Institute of Byzantine Studies, The

Queen’s University of Belfast, 2000–07.

Jugie, Martin, AA. La mort et l’assomption de la Sainte Vierge. Étude historico-doctrinale. Studi

e testi 114. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1944.

318

Kalavrezou, Ioli. “Female Popular Beliefs and Maria of Alania.” Journal of Turkish Studies 36

(2011): 85–101.

———. “Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult of Relics at the

Court.” In Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Henry Maguire, 53–80.

Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1996.

Kaldellis, Anthony, and Dimitris Krallis. Michael Attaleiates: The History. Dumbarton Oaks

Medieval Library 16. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012.

Kalinowski, Anja. Frühchristliche Reliquiare im Kontext von Kultstrategien, Heilserwartung

und sozialer Selbstdarstellung. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2011.

Kambourova, Tania. “Ktitor: le sens du don des panneaux votifs dans le monde byzantin.”

Byzantion 78 (2008): 261–87.

Karakatsanis, Athanasios, ed. Treasures of Mount Athos. Thessaloniki: Ministry of Culture,

Museum of Byzantine Culture, 1997.

Kartsonis, Anna. “Protection against All Evil: Function, Use and Operation of Byzantine

Historiated Phylacteries.” ByzF 20 (1994): 73–102.

Kazakou, Maria and Vasileios Skoulas, eds. Egeria: Monuments of Faith in the Medieval

Mediterranean. Athens: Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2008.

Kazan, Georges, and Marlia Mango. “Saint John the Baptist and His Cults: A Colloquium at St.

John’s College, Oxford.” https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/3758/St-John-The-Baptist-

Conference.html (accessed November 23, 2015).

Kazhdan, Alexander. “Some Questions Addressed to the Scholars Who Believe in the

Authenticity of Kaminiates’ ‘Capture of Thessalonica’.” BZ 71 (1978): 301–14.

Kazhdan, Alexander, and Alice-Mary Talbot. Dumbarton Oaks Hagiography Database.

Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University, 1998.

Kennedy, George A. Progymnasmata: Greek Textbooks of Prose Composition and Rhetoric.

Writings from the Greco-Roman World 10. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003.

Kessler, Herbert L., and Gerhard Wolf, eds. The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation:

Papers from a Colloquium held at the Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome and the Villa

Spelman, Florence, 1996. Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1998.

Kessler, Manfred. “Zur ‘Narratio Bertholdi’ aus Kloster Heilig Kreuz in Donauwörth.”

Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 74 (2011): 1–43.

319

Khuskivadze, Leila. “La staurothèque byzantine de la Svanéti.” In Byzantine East, Latin West.

Art-historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, eds. Christopher Moss and Katherine

Kiefer, 627–32. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995.

Klein, Holger. “Brighter than the Sun: Saints, Relics, and the Power of Art in Byzantium.” In

Knotenpunkt Byzanz: Wissensformen und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, eds. A. Speer

und P. Steinkrüger, 635–54. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012).

———. Byzanz, der Westen und das ‘wahre’ Kreuz: die Geschichte einer Reliquie und ihrer

künstlerischen Fassung in Byzanz und im Abendland. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2004.

———. “Constantine, Helena, and the Cult of the True Cross in Constantinople.” In Byzance et

les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand and Bernard Flusin, 31–59. Centre de

Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17. Paris: Association des

Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004.

———. “The Crown of His Kingdom: Imperial Ideology, Palace Ritual, and the Relics of

Christ’s Passion.” In

The Emperor’s House. Palaces from Augustus to the Age of Absolutism, eds.

Michael Featherstone et al, 201–12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

———. “Eastern Objects and Western Desires: Relics and Reliquaries between Byzantium and

the West.” DOP 58 (2004): 283–314.

———. “Die Elfenbein-Staurothek von Cortona im Kontext mittelbyzantinischer

Kreuzreliquiarproduktion.” In Spätantike und byzantinische Elfenbeinbildwerke im

Diskurs, eds. Gudrun Bühl, Anthony Cutler, and Arne Effenberger, 167–90. Wiesbaden:

Reichert Verlag, 2008.

———. “Materiality and the Sacred: Byzantine Reliquaries and the Rhetoric of Enshrinement.”

In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia

Hahn and Holger Klein, 231–52. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6.

Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

———. “Sacred Relics and Imperial Ceremonies at the Great Palace of Constantinople.” In

Visualisierungen von Herrschaft: Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen: Gestalt und

Zeremoniell: Internationales Kolloquium 3./4. Juni 2004 in Istanbul, ed. Franz Alto

Bauer, 79–99. Byzas 5 (Istanbul: Ege Yayınları, 2006).

Kloft, Matthias Theodor. Dom und Domschatz in Limburg an der Lahn. Königstein im Taunus:

Karl Robert Langewiesche Nachfolger Hans Köster Verlagsbuchhandlung KG, 2004.

Komines, Athanasios. Τὸ Βυζαντινὸν ἱερὸν ἐπίγραµµα καὶ οἱ ἐπιγραµµατοποιοί. Athens:

Typographeion Adelphon Myrtide, 1966.

320

———. “L’epigramma sacro ed i problemi dell’arte epigrammatica bizantina.” In Actes du XIIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Ochride 10–16 septembre 1961, vol. 2, 365–71. Belgrade: Comité Yougoslave des Études Byzantines, 1964.

Kominko, Maja. The World of Kosmas: Illustrated Byzantine Codices of the Christian

Topography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Kotter, P. Bonifatius, ed. Expositio fidei. Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos 2.

Patristische Texte und Studien 12. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973. Kotzabassi, Sophia. “Feasts at the Monastery of Pantokrator.” In The Pantokrator Monastery in

Constantinople, ed. Sophia Kotzabassi, 175–89. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013. Kraus, Franz Xaver. Die christlichen Inschriften der Rheinlande von der Mitte des Achten bis zur

Mitte des Dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, vol. 2. Freiburg: Mohr, 1894. Krause, Karin. “Feuerprobe, Portraits in Stein. Mittelalterliche Propaganda für Venedigs

Reliquien aus Konstantinopel und die Frage nach ihrem Erfolg.” In Lateinisch-griechisch-arabische Begegnungen: Kulturelle Diversität im Mittelmeerraum des Spätmittelalters, eds. Margit Mersch, and Ulrike Ritzerfeld, 111–62. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009.

———. “Konstantins Kreuze. Legendenbildung und Artefakte im Mittelalter.” In Hybrid

Cultures in Medieval Europe: Papers and Workshops of an International Spring School, eds. Michael Borgolte, and Bernd Schneidmüller, 171–93. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010.

———. “The Staurotheke of the Empress Maria in Venice: A Renaissance Replica of a Lost

Byzantine Cross Reliquary in the Treasury of St. Mark’s.” In Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme: Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), eds. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, 37–53. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

Krausmüller, Dirk. “Making the Most of Mary: The Cult of the Virgin in the Chalkoprateia from

Late Antiquity to the Tenth Century.” In The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium: Texts and Images, eds. Leslie Brubaker and Mary Cunningham, 219–46. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011.

Krusch, Bruno, ed. Gregorii Turonensis liber in gloria martyrum. Monumenta Germaniae

historica, Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum 1.2. Hannover: Impensis Bibliopolii Hanniani, 1885.

Kurtz, Eduard, ed. Die Gedichte des Christophoros Mitylenaios. Leipzig: Neumann, 1903. ———. “Review of Loparev, “Opisanie.” BZ 7 (1898): 474–80.

321

Lafontaine-Dosogne, Jacqueline, ed. Splendeur de Byzance: 2 octobre – 2 décembre 1982, Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire, Bruxelles. Brussels: Les Musées, 1982.

———. “Un thème iconographique peu connu: Marina assommant Belzébuth.” Byzantion 32

(1962): 251–59. Lagarde, Paulus de, ed. Iohannis Euchaitorum Metropolitae quae in codice Vaticano Graeco 676

supersunt. Göttingen: in Aedibus Dieterichianis, 1882. Lalore, Charles. Le Trésor de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle. Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1875. Lambros, Spyridon, ed. “Ὁ Μαρκιανὸς κῶδιξ 524.” Nέος Ἑλληνοµνήµων 8 (1911): 3–59, 123–

92. Langerbeck, Hermann, ed. In Canticum Canticorum. Gregorii Nysseni opera 6. Leiden: Brill,

1960. Latyšev, Basilius. “Θεοδώρου τοῦ Δαφνοπάτου λόγοι δύο.” Pravoslavnii palestinskii sbornik 59

(1910): 17–38. Laurent, V. “Ο ΜΕΓΑΣ ΒΑΪΟΥΛΟΣ: À l’occasion du parakimomène Basile Lécapène.”

Ἐπετηρὶς ἑταιρείας βυζαντινῶν σπουδῶν 23 (1953): 193–205. Lauxtermann, Marc. “The Byzantine Epigram in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries: A Generic

Study of Epigrams and Some Other Forms of Poetry.” PhD diss., University of Amsterdam, 1994.

———. Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts. Wiener

byzantinistische Studien 24/1. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003.

———. “The Velocity of Pure Iambs: Byzantine Observations on the Metre and Rhythm of the

Dodecasyllable.” JÖB 48 (1998): 9–33. Leggio, Silvia. “La stauroteca eburnea della chiesa di S. Francesco a Cortona.” Arte medievale,

serie IV, 4 (2014): 9–34. Legner, Anton, ed. Ornamenta Ecclesiae: Kunst und Künstler der Romanik, Katalog zur

Ausstellung des Schnütgen-Museums in der Josef-Haubrich-Kunsthalle. 3 vols. Cologne: Stadt Köln, 1985.

———. Reliquien in Kunst und Kult: zwischen Antike und Aufklärung. Darmstadt:

Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1995.

322

Lemerle, Paul. Les plus anciens recueils des miracles de Saint Démétrius et la penetration des Slaves dans les Balkans, 2 vols. Paris: Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1979–

81.

Lerou, Sandrine. “L’usage des reliques du Christ par les empereurs aux XIe et XIIe siècles: Le

saint Bois et les saintes pierres.” In Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand

and Bernard Flusin, 159–82. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance

Monographies 17. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de

Byzance, 2004.

Lidov, Alexei, ed. Christian Relics in the Moscow Kremlin. Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000.

———, ed. Eastern Christian Relics. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003.

———, ed. Relics in the Art and Culture of the Eastern Christian World: Abstracts of Papers and Material from the International Symposium. Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000.

Lipinsky, Angelo. “Le grandi Stauroteche dei secoli X–XII,” FR, ser. III, 44 (1967): 95–112; 45

(1967): 45–79.

Loparev, Chr. “Opisanie nekotorykh grecheskykh zhit’ii sviat’ikh.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 4

(1897): 337–401.

Loverdou-Tsigarida, Katia. “Thessalonique, centre de production d’objets d’arts au XIVe

siècle.” DOP 57 (2003): 241–54.

Maas, Paul. “Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber.” BZ 12 (1903): 278–323.

Macrides, Ruth. “Subversion and Loyalty in the Cult of St. Demetrios.” BSl 51 (1990): 189–97.

Madariaga, Elizabeth. “Μιχαήλ Αγιοθεοδωρίτης, πρωτονωβελισσιµοϋπέρτατος λογοθέτης του

δρόµου και ορφανοτρόφος.” Βυζαντινά Σύµµεικτα 24 (2014): 213–46.

Magdalino, Paul. “Basil I, Leo VI, and the Feast of the Prophet Elijah.” JÖB 38 (1988): 193–96.

———. “The Bath of Leo the Wise and the ‘Macedonian Renaissance’ Revisited: Topography,

Iconography, Ceremonial, and Ideology.” DOP 42 (1988): 97–118.

———. “L’église du Phare et les reliques de la Passion à Constantinople (VIIe/VIIIe-XIIIe

siècles).” In Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds. Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin,

15–30. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17.

Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004.

———. The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1993.

323

Magdalino, Paul and Robert Nelson. “The Emperor in Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century.” ByzF 8 (1982): 123–83.

Magoulias, Harry J. O City of Byzantium, Annals of Niketas Choniatēs. Byzantine Texts in

Translation. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984. Maguire, Henry. Art and Eloquence in Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. ———. “The Art of Comparing in Byzantium.” Art Bulletin 70 (1988): 88–103. ———. “The Depiction of Sorrow in Middle Byzantine Art.” DOP 31 (1977): 123–74. ———. “Epigrams, Art, and the ‘Macedonian Renaissance’.” DOP 48 (1994): 105–15. ———. Earth and Ocean: The Terrestrial World in Early Byzantine Art. Monographs on the

Fine Arts 43. University Park: Published for the College Art Association of America by Pennsylvania State University Press, 1987.

———. “The Heavenly City in Ekphrasis and in Art.” In Villes de toute beauté: l’ekphrasis des

cités dans les littératures byzantine et byzantino-slaves. Actes du colloque international,

Prague, 25–26 novembre 2011, eds. Paolo Odorico and Chares Messis, 37–48. Dossiers Byzantins 12. Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2012.

———. The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1996. ———. Image and Imagination: The Byzantine Epigram As Evidence for Viewer Response.

Toronto: Canadian Institute of Balkan Studies, 1996. ———. “Ivories as Pilgrimage Art: A New Frame for the ‘Frame Group’.” DOP 63 (2009):

117–46. ———. Nectar and Illusion: Nature in Byzantine Art and Literature. Onassis Series in Hellenic

Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Majeska, George. “Notes on the Skeuophylakion of Saint Sophia.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 55

(80), no. 2 (1998), 212–15. ———. “The Relics of Constantinople After 1204.” In Byzance et les Reliques du Christ, eds.

Jannic Durand, and Bernard Flusin, 183–90. Centre de Recherche d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance Monographies 17. Paris: Association des Amis du Centre d’Histoire et Civilisation de Byzance, 2004.

———. “Russian Pilgrims and the Relics of Constantinople.” In Eastern Christian Relics, ed.

Alexi Lidov, 387–97. Moscow: Progress-Tradition, 2003.

324

———. “Russian Pilgrims in Constantinople.” DOP 56 (2002): 93–108. ———. Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. DOS

19. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1984. ———. “St. Sophia in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries: The Russian Travelers on the

Relics.” DOP 27 (1973): 71–87. Makris, Georgios. “Das Enkomion auf den Hl. Panteleemon.” In Realia Byzantina, eds. Sofia

Kotzabassi, and Léonidas Mavromatis, 103–35. Byzantinisches Archiv 22. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2009.

Manaphes, Konstantinos, ed. Sinai: Treasures of the Monastery of Saint Catherine. Athens:

Ekdotike Athenon, 1990. Mango, Cyril. The Art of the Byzantine Empire, 312–1453: Sources and Documents. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972. ———. “Constantine’s Porphyry Column and the Chapel of St. Constantine.” ΔΧΑΕ 10 (1980–

1981): 103–10. ———. “Epigraphy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, eds. Elizabeth Jeffreys,

John Haldon, and Robin Cormack, 144–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ———. The Homilies of Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 1958. ———. “Notes on Byzantine Monuments.” DOP 23/24 (1969/70): 369–375. ———. “The origins of the Blachernai shrine at Constantinople.” Acta XIII Congressus

Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Split - Porec (25.9. - 1.10.1994), Pars II, 61–76. Vatican City and Split: Pontifical Institute of Christian Archaeology and Split Archaeological Museum, 1998.

Mango, Cyril A., and Roger Scott. The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1997. Mango, Marlia Mundell. “Pilgrimage.” In The Oxford History of Byzantium, ed. Cyril Mango,

115–19. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Mansi, J.D., ed. Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 13. Florence: Antonii

Zatta Veneti, 1767, repr. Paris–Leipzig: F.M. Geidel, 1902. Maraval, Pierre. Lieux saints et pèlerinages d’Orient: histoire et géographie des origines à la

conquête arabe. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1985.

325

Maraval, Paul et al, eds., Socrate de Constantinople: Histoire ecclésiastique, SC 477, 493, 505, 506 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 2004–).

Marciniak, Przemysław, and Katarzyna Warcaba. “Racing with rhetoric: a Byzantine ekphrasis

of a chariot race.” BZ 107 (2014): 97–112. Marinis, Vasileios. “Piety, Barbarism, and the Senses in Byzantium.” In Sensational Religion:

Sensory Cultures in Material Practice, ed. Sally M. Promey, 321–40. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.

Marinis, Vasileios and Robert Ousterhout. “‘Grant Us to Share a Place and Lot with Them’:

Relics and the Byzantine Church Building (9th–15th Centuries).” In Saints and Sacred

Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 153–72. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

Markopoulos, Athanasios, ed. “Βίος τῆς αὐτοκράτειρας Θεοδώρας.” Σύµµεικτα 5 (1983) 249–

85. Martín, Inmaculada Pérez, ed. Miguel Ataliates, Historia. Nueva Roma 15. Madrid: Consejo

Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 2002. Martiniani-Reber, Marielle. Antiquités Paléochrétiennes et Byzantines. Collections byzantines du

MAH - Genève 2. Milan: 5 Continents Editions, 2011. Mauss, Marcel. “Essai sur le don. Forme et raison de l’échange dans les sociétés archaïques.”

L’Année Sociologique, nouvelle série 1 (1923-1924): 30–186. Mazzucchi, Carlo Maria. “Dagli anni di Basilio Parakimomenos (Cod. Ambr. B 119 Sup.).”

Aevum 52 (1978): 267-316. McGreer, Eric. “Two Military Orations of Constantine VII.” In Byzantine Authors: Literary

Activities and Preoccupations, ed. John W. Nesbitt, 111–35. The Medieval Mediterranean 49. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Meinardus, Otto. “A Study of the Relics of Saints of the Greek Orthodox Church.” Oriens

christianus 54 (1970): 130–278. Meineke, August, ed. Ioannis Cinnami, Epitome rerum ab Joanne et Manuele Comnenis

gestarum. CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1836. Meletios the Metropolitan. Μελετίου Γεωγραφία παλαιά και νέα. Vol. 2. Venice: Τύποις Πάνω

Θεοδοσίου του εξ Ιωαννίνων, 1807. Meller, Harald et al, eds. Der heilige Schatz im Dom zu Halberstadt. Regensburg: Schnell &

Steiner, 2008.

326

El “Menologio” de Basilio II Emperador de Bizancio: (Vat. gr. 1613). Madrid: Testimonio Compañía Editorial, 2005.

Mercati, Silvio Giuseppe. Collectanea Byzantina. 2 vols. Bari: Dedalo Libri, 1970. ———. “Epigrammi sul Cratere Argenteo di Constantino Dalasseno in un Codice della Grande

Laura del Monte Athos.” Atti della Pontificia Accademia romana di archeologia. Rendiconti 3 (1925): 313–316.

———. “Note d’Epigrafia Bizantina (I–II).” Bessarione 24 (1920): 192–99. Mergiali-Sahas, Sophia. “Byzantine Emperors and Holy Relics: Use, and Misuse of Sanctity and

Authority.” JÖB 51 (2001): 41–60. Miller, Emmanuel. “Poésies inédites de Théodore Prodrome.” Annuaire de l’Association pour

l’encouragement des études greque en France 17 (1883): 18–64. ———, ed. Manuelis Philæ Carmina. 2 vols. Paris: Excusum in Typographeo Imperiali, 1855–

57. Millet, Gabriel et al, eds. Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de l’Athos, vol. 1. Bibliothèque des

Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 91. Paris: Albert Fontemoing, 1904. Milner, Christine. “‘Lignum Vitae’ or ‘Crux Gemmata’? The Cross of Golgotha in the Early

Byzantine Period.” BMGS 20 (1996): 77–99. Mimouni, Simon Claude. Dormition et Assomption de Marie: histoire des traditions anciennes.

Théologie historique 98. Paris: Beauchesne, 1995. Minchev, Alexander. Early Christian reliquaries from Bulgaria (4th-6th century AD). Varna:

Varna Regional Museum of History, 2003. Moffatt, Ann, and Maxeme Tall. Constantine Porphyrogennetos, The Book of Ceremonies.

Byzantina Australiensia 18. Canberra: Australian Association for Byzantine Studies, 2012.

Montfaucon, Bernard de. Diarium Italicum. Sive Monumentorum Veterum, Bibliothecarum,

Musæorum, &c. Notitiæ singulares in Itinerario Italico collectæ. Additis schematibus ac figuris. Paris: Apud Joannem Anisson Typographiae Regiae Praefectum, 1702.

Montgomery, Scott B. “Relics and Reliquaries.” In Women and Gender in Medieval Europe: An

Encyclopedia, ed. Margaret Schaus, 704–06. New York: Routledge, 2006. Mordtmann, Andreas. “Μολυβδόβουλλα τών Κοµνηνών.” Ὁ ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει Ἑλληνικὸς

φιλολογικὸς σύλλογος 13, suppl. (1881): 44–49.

327

Morello, Giovanni, and Gerhard Wolf, eds. Il volto di Cristo. Milan: Electa, 2000.

Munier, C., ed. Concilia Africae, A. 345 – A. 525. CCSL 149. Turnhout: Brepols, 1974.

Murray, Augustus T. Homer: Iliad. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Loeb Classical Library 170–71. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1999.

Musée du Petit Palais. Le Mont Athos et l’Empire byzantin: trésors de la Sainte Montagne. Paris:

Paris-Musées, 2009.

Nelson, Robert. “‘And So, With the Help of God’: The Byzantine Art of War in the Tenth

Century.” DOP 65/66 (2011–12): 169–92.

———. “Image and Inscription: Pleas for Salvation in Spaces of Devotion.” In Art and Text in

Byzantine Culture, ed. Liz James, 100–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

2007.

———. “To Say and to See: Ekphrasis and Vision in Byzantium.” In Visuality Before and

Beyond the Renaissance, ed. Robert Nelson, 143–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2000.

Nikiforova, Alexndra. “Relics in Byzantine epigrams. Translation, introduction and commentary

(in Russian).” In Relics in the Art and Culture of the Eastern Christian World: Abstracts

of Papers and Material from the International Symposium, ed. Alexei Lidov, 138–54.

Moscow: Radunitsa, 2000.

Noble, Peter, ed. Robert de Clari, La Conquête de Constantinople. British Rencesvals

Publications 3. Edinburgh: Société Rencesvals British Branch, 2005.

Noga-Banai, Galit. The Trophies of the Martyrs: An Art Historical Study of Early Christian

Silver Reliquaries. Oxford Studies in Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Norris, Richard A., Jr. Gregory of Nyssa: Homilies on the Song of Songs. Writings from the

Greco-Roman World 13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012.

Nunn, Valerie. “The Encheirion as an Adjunct to the Icon in the Middle Byzantine Period.”

BMGS 10 (1986): 73–102.

Ogier, François. Inscription antique de la vraye crois de l’abbaye de Grandmont avec un sermon

de la Passion. Paris: Jean Henault, 1658.

Olivier Delouis, ed. “Le Testament de Théodore Stoudite: édition critique et traduction.” REB 67

(2009): 77–109.

Orth, Peter, ed. Gunther von Pairis, Hystoria Constantinopolitana. Spolia Berolinensia 5.

Hildesheim: Wiedmann, 1994.

328

Ousterhout, Robert. “The Life and Afterlife of Constantine’s Column.” Journal of Roman

Archaeology 27 (2014): 304–26.

———. “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre.” Journal of

the Society of Architectural Historians 48 (1989): 66–78.

———. “Sacred Geographies and Holy Cities: Constantinople as Jerusalem.” In Hierotopy: The

Creation of Sacred Spaces in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov, 98–116.

Moscow: Indrik, 2006.

Overbey, Karen Eileen. Sacral Geographies: Saints, Shrines, and Territory in Medieval Ireland.

Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Pallas, D.I. “Le ciborium hexagonal de Saint-Démétrios de Thessalonique.” Zograf 10 (1979):

44–58.

Papadopoulos, Stelios, and Chrysoula Kapioldasi-Sotiropoulou, eds. Treasury of the Protaton,

vol. 1. Mount Athos: The Holy Community of Mount Athos, 2001.

Papadopoulos-Kerameus, Athanasios. Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυµιτικῆς σταχυολογίας. 5 vols. St.

Petersburg: Kirspaoum, 1891–97.

———. Μερκή Διήγησις ἐκ των ἁγίον τόπων της Ἱερουσαλήµ. Pravoslavnii palestinskii sbornik

40. St. Petersburg, 1895.

———. “Συµβολαὶ εἰς τὴν ἱστορίαν Τραπεζοῦντος.” Vizantiiskii vremennik 12 (1906): 132–47.

Papaioannou, Stratis. “Byzantine Enargeia and Theories of Representation.” BSl 69/3 (2011):

48–60.

Papalexandrou, Amy. “Text in Context: Eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder.”

Word & Image 17 (2001): 259–83.

Papamastorakis, Titos. “The Display of Accumulated Wealth in Luxury Icons: Gift-Giving from

the Byzantine Aristocracy to God in the Twelfth Century.” In Byzantine Icons: Art,

Technique and Technology, ed. Maria Vassilaki, 35–49. Heraklion: Crete University

Press, 2002.

Papanikola-Bakirtzis, Demetra, ed. Καθηµερινή ζωή στο Βυζάντιο: Θεσσαλονίκη, Λευκός Πύργος,

Οκτώβριος 2001- Ιανουάριος 2002. Athens: Ekdoseis Kapon, 2002.

Parani, Maria G. Reconstructing the Reality of Images: Byzantine Material Culture and

Religious Iconography (11th–15th Centuries). The Medieval Mediterranean 41. Leiden:

Brill, 2003.

Pasini, Antonio. Il tesoro di San Marco in Venezia. Venice: Ferdinando Ongania, 1886.

329

Patlagean, Evelyne. “La double Terre sainte de Byzance. Autour du XIIe siècle.” Annales.

Histoire, Sciences Sociales 49 (1994): 459–69. Paul, Anneliese. “Beobachtungen zu Ἐκφράσεις in Epigrammen auf Objekten: Lassen wir

Epigramme sprechen!” In Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme:

Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), ed. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, 61–73. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

———. “Dichtung auf Objekten. Inschriftlich erhaltene griechische Epigramme vom 9. bis zum

16. Jahrhundert: Suche nach bekannten Autorennamen.” In Byzantinische Sprachkunst:

Studien zur byzantinischen Literatur gewidmet Wolfram Hörandner zum 65. Geburtstag, eds. Martin Hinterberger and Elisabeth Schiffer, 257–61. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2007.

———. “Historical Figures Appearing in Epigrams on Objects.” In Poetry and Its Contexts in

Eleventh-Century Byzantium, eds. Floris Bernard, and Kristoffel Demoen, 89–112. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012.

Pentcheva, Bissera. “Containers of Power: Eunuchs and Reliquaries in Byzantium.” Res.

Anthropology and Aesthetics 51 (2007): 109–20. ———. Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium. University Park: Pennsylvania State

University Press, 2006. ———. “The Performance of Relics.” In Symmeikta. Collection of Papers Dedicated to the 40th

Anniversary of the Institute for Art History, Faculty of Philosophy, University of

Belgrade, ed. Ivan Stevović, 55–71. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, 2012.

———. “Räumliche und akustische Präsenz in byzantinischen Epigrammen: Der Fall der

Limburger Staurothek,” In Die kulturhistorische Bedeutung byzantinischer Epigramme:

Akten des internationalen Workshop (Wien, 1.–2. Dezember 2006), eds. Wolfram Hörandner and Andreas Rhoby, 75–83. Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 14. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2008.

———. The Sensual Icon: Space, Ritual, and the Senses in Byzantium. University Park:

Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010. Percival, H.R. The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church. A Select Library of

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 14. New York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1900.

Perry, David M. “St. George and Venice: The Rise of Imperial Culture.” In Matter of Faith: An

Interdisciplinary Study of Relics and Relic Veneration in the Medieval Period, eds. James Robinson et al, 15–22. London: The British Museum, 2014.

330

Petit, Louis, ed. “Office inédit en l’honneur de Nicéphore Phocas.” BZ 13 (1904): 398–420.

Piatnitsky, Yuri et al, eds. Sinai, Byzantium, Russia: Orthodox Art from the Sixth to the

Twentieth Century. St. Petersburg: The State Hermitage Museum, 2000.

Pietri, Charles. “Les origines du culte des martyrs (d’après un ouvrage récent).” Rivista di

Archeologia Cristiana 60 (1984): 293–319.

Pitarakis, Brigitte. Les croix-reliquaires pectorales byzantines en bronze. Bibliothèque des

Cahiers Archéologiques 16. Paris: Picard, 2006.

———. “Female piety in context: understanding developments in private devotional practices.”

In Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, ed. Maria

Vassilaki, 153–66. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.

———, ed. Life is Short, Art Long: The Art of Healing in Byzantium. Pera Museum Publication

73. Istanbul: Pera Müzesi, 2015.

Polemis, Demetrios I. The Doukai: A Contribution to Byzantine Prosopography. University of

London Historical Studies 22. London: Athlone, 1968.

Popović, Danica. Under the Auspices of Sanctity: The Cult of Holy Rulers and Relics in

Medieval Serbia. Belgrade: Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute for Balkan

Studies, 2006.

Preger, Theodore, ed. Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, 2 vols. Leipzig, B.G.

Teubner, 1901–02.

Pringle, Denys. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus, vol. 3.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

———. Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291. Crusade Texts in Translation

23. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012.

Pullan, Wendy. “Jerusalem From Alpha to Omega in the Santa Pudenziana Mosaic.” In The Real

and Ideal Jerusalem in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Art: Studies in Honor of Bezalel

Narkiss on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Bianca Kühnel, 405–17.

Jerusalem: Center for Jewish Art, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998.

Rabe, Hugo, ed. Aphthonii Progymnasmata. Rhetores Graeci 10. Leipzig: Teubner, 1926.

———, ed. Hermogenis Opera. Rhetores Graeci 6. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1985.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society, 1935.

331

Reijners, G.Q. The Terminology of the Holy Cross in Early Christian Literature as Based upon

Old Testament Typology. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt N.V., 1965. Reinsch, Diether R. and Athanasios Kambylis, eds. Annae Comnenae Alexias. CFHB. Series

Berolinensis 40. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2001. Reiske, John Jacob, ed. Constantini Porphyrogeniti imperatoris, De cerimoniis aulae byzantinae.

CSHB. Bonn: Weber, 1829. Reudenbach, Bruno. “Reliquien von Orten. Ein frühchristliches Reliquiar als Gedächtnisort.” In

Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Bruno Reudenbach and Gia Toussaint, 21–41. Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2011.

Reudenbach, Bruno and Gia Toussaint, eds. Reliquiare im Mittelalter. Hamburger Forschungen

zur Kunstgeschichte 5. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2005. Rezza, Dario, ed. La Stauroteca Maggiore Vaticana: Museo Storico Artistico del Tesoro di San

Pietro. Bollettino d’archivio 18/19. Vatican City: Edizioni Capitolo Vaticano, 2012. Rhoby, Andreas. “Epigrams, Epigraphy and Sigillography.” In Ἤπειρόνδε: Proceedings of the

10th International Symposium of Byzantine Sigillography (Ioannina, 1.–3. October

2009), eds. Christos Stavrakos and Barbar Papadopoulou, 65–79. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011.

———. “Inscriptional Poetry: Ekphrasis in Byzantine tomb epigrams.” BSl 69/3 (2011): 193–

204. ———. “Inscriptions and Manuscripts in Byzantium: A Fruitful Symbiosis?” In Scrittura

epigrafica e scrittura libraria: Fra Oriente e Occidente, eds. Marilena Maniaci and Pasquale Orsini, 15–44. Cassino: Università degli studi di Cassino e del Lazio meridionale, Dipartimento di Lettere e Filosofia, 2015.

———, ed. Inscriptions in Byzantium and Beyond: Methods – Projects – Case Studies,

Veröffentlichungen zur Byzanzforschung 38. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015.

———. “Interactive Inscriptions: Byzantine Works of Art and their Beholders.” In Spatial

Icons: Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia, ed. Alexei Lidov, 317–33. Moscow: Indrik, 2011.

———. “Labeling Poetry in the Middle and Late Byzantine Period.” Byzantion 85 (2015): 259–

83.

332

———. “Meaning of Inscriptions for the Early and Middle Byzantine Culture. Remarks on the Interaction of Word, Image and Beholder.” Scrivere e Leggere Nell’alto Medioevo,

Spoleto, 28 aprile – 4 maggio 2011, Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi

sull’alto medioevo 59, 731–57. Spoleto: Fondazione Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 2012.

———. “On the Interaction of Word and Image in Byzantium: The Case of the Epigrams on the

Florence Reliquary.” In Towards Rewriting? New Approaches to Byzantine Archaeology

and Art. Proceedings of the Symposium on Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Cracow,

September 8-10, 2008, eds. Piotr E. Grotowski and Slawomir Skrzyniarz, 101–15. Series Byzantina 8. Warsaw: The Polish Society of Oriental Art, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University, Jagiellonian University, The Pontifical University of John Paul II in Cracow, 2010.

———. “Secret Messages? Byzantine Greek Tetragrams and Their Display.” Art-Hist – Papers,

Issue 1: Greek Monograms in Byzantine Epigraphy (2013). http://art-hist.edel.univ-poitiers.fr/index.php?id=72 (accessed July 19, 2015).

———. “The structure of inscriptional dedicatory epigrams in Byzantium.” In La poesia

tardoantica e medievale IV Convegno internazionale di studi Perugia, 15-17 novembre

2007. Atti in onore di Antonino Isola per il suo 70° genetliaco, eds. Clara Burini De Lorenzi, and Miryam De Gaetano, 309–32. Quaderni 5. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2010.

———. “Vom jambischen Trimeter zum byzantinischen Zwölfsilber: Beobachtung zur Metrik

des spätantiken und byzantinischen Epigramms.” Wiener Studien 124 (2011): 117–42. ———. “Zur Identifizierung von bekannten Autoren im Codex Marcianus graecus 524.”

Medioevo Greco 10 (2010): 167–204. ———. “Zur Überlieferung von inschriftlich angebrachten byzantinischen Epigrammen: Ein

Beitrag zur Untersuchung von Wort und Bild in Byzanz.” In Fragmente: Der Umgang

mit lückenhafter Quellenüberlieferung in der Mittelalterforschung, eds. Christian Gastgeber et al, 225–38. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010.

Riant, Paul. Des dépouilles religieuses enlevées a Constantinople au XIIIe siec̀le: et des

documents historiques nés de leur transport en occident. Mémoires de la Société

nationale des antiquaires de France 36, 4. ser., t. 6. Paris: Société Nationale des Antiquairies de France, 1875.

———. Exuviae sacrae Constantinopolitanae. 2 vols. Geneva, 1877–78. Rice, David Talbot. “The Leaved Cross.” BSl 11 (1950): 68–81.

333

Rigo, Antonio. “Il martyrio di Teodoro Gabras (BHG 1745).” Analecta Bollandiana 116 (1998): 147–55.

Rodley, Lyn. Cave Monasteries of Byzantine Cappadocia. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1985. Rolfi, Gianfranco et al, eds. La Chiesa e la città a Firenze nel XV secolo: Firenze, Sotterranei di

San Lorenzo, 6 giugno–6 settembre 1992. Milano: Silvana, 1992. Romano, Roberto, ed. Nicola Callicle: Carmi. Byzantina et Neo-Hellenica Neaopolitana 8.

Naples: Bibliopolis, 1980. Ross, Marvin. “Basil the Proedros: Patron of the Arts.” Archaeology 11 (1958): 271–75. Ross, Marvin C., and Glanville Downey. “A Reliquary of St. Marina.” BSl 23 (1962): 41–44. Rückert, Rainer. “Zur Form der byzantinischen Reliquiare.” Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden

Kunst 8 (1957): 7–36. Russell, Eugenia. St Demetrius of Thessalonica: Cult and Devotion in the Middle Ages.

Byzantine and Neohellenic Studies 6. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2010.

Safran, Linda. “Deconstructing ‘Donors’ in Medieval Southern Italy.” In Female Founders in

Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Lioba Theis et al, 135–51. Wiener Jahrbuch für

Kunstgeschichte 40/41. Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2011–12. Sayar, Mustafa Hamdi. Perinthos-Herakleia (Marmara Ereğlisi) und Umgebung: Geschichte,

Testimonien, Griechische und Lateinische Inschriften. Veröffentlichungen der kleinasiatischen kommission 9. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1998.

Scandale, Eugenio, ed. Lo scrigno del tesoro di San Nicola di Bari. Bari: M. Adda, 2009. Schnyder, Rudolf. “Das Kopfreliquiar des heiligen Candidus in St-Maurice.” Zeitschrift für

schweizerische Archäologie und Kunstgeschichte 24 (1965–66): 65–127. Schlumberger, Gustave. “Découverte d’une relique faisant partie des dépouilles de

Constantinople apportées en Occident à la suite de la Croisade de 1204.” Bulletin

monumental 57 (1891): 111–18. ———. “Deux reliquaires byzantins inédits conservés à Venise.” In Mélanges d’Archéologie

Byzantine, 343–45. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895. ———. L’épopée byzantine à la fin du Xe siècle. 3 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1896–1905.

334

Schulenburg, Jane. “Female Religious as Collectors of Relics: Finding Sacrality and Power in

the ‘Ordinary’.” In Where heaven and earth meet: essays on medieval Europe in honor of

Daniel F. Callahan, eds. Michael Frassetto, Matthew Gabriele, and John D. Hosler, 152–

77. Leiden: Brill, 2014.

Ševčenko, Ihor. “An Early Tenth-Century Inscription from Galakrenai with Echoes from Nonnos

and the Palatine Anthology.” DOP 41 (1987): 461–68.

———. “Observations Concerning Inscriptions on Objects Described in the Catalogue ‘The

Glory of Byzantium’.” Palaeoslavica 6 (1998), 243–52.

———. “Perceptions of Byzantium.” In Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors (843-

1261), ed. Olenka Z. Pevny, 2–21. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, Yale

University Press, 2000.

Ševčenko, Nancy. “Close Encounters: Contact between Holy Figures and the Faithful as

represented in Byzantine Works of Art.” In Byzance et les images: cycle de conférences

organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel du 5 octobre au 7 décembre 1992,

eds. André Guillou, and Jannic Durand, 255–85. Paris: La Documentation française,

1994.

———. “The Limburg Staurothek and its Relics.” In Θυµίαµα στη µνήµη της Λασκαρίνας

Μπούρα, 289–95. Athens: Benaki Museum, 1994.

———. “The Posthumous Miracles of St. Eustratios on a Sinai Templon Beam.” In Byzantine

Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis Sullivan, Elizabeth

Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou, 267–87. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

———. “The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons.” ΔΧΑΕ 17

(1993–94): 157–64.

Sewter, E.R.A., and Peter Frankopan. The Alexiad. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 2009.

Shoemaker, Stephen. The Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary’s Dormition and Assumption.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

———. “The Cult of Fashion: The Earliest ‘Life of the Virgin’ and Constantinople’s Marian

Relics.” DOP 62 (2008): 53–74.

Sinkević, Ida. “Afterlife of the Rhodes Hand of St. John the Baptist.” In Byzantine Images and

their Afterlives: Essays in Honor of Annemarie Weyl Carr, ed. Lynn Jones, 125–41.

Farnham: Ashgate, 2014.

———. The Church of St. Panteleimon at Nerezi: Architecture, Programme, Patronage.

Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2000.

335

Skoulatos, Basile. Les personnages byzantins de l’Alexiade. Analyse prosopographique et

synthèse. Louvain: Éditions Nauwelaerts, 1980. Skedros, James. Saint Demetrios of Thessaloniki: Civic Patron and Divine Protector, 4th–7th

Centuries CE. Harvard Theological Studies 47. Harrisburg: Trinity International Press, 1999.

Smith, Julia M. H. “Relics: An Evolving Tradition in Latin Christianity.” In Saints and Sacred

Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 41–60. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2015.

Smyth, Herbert Weir. Greek Grammar. Rev. by Gordon M. Messing. Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1956. Soteriou, Georgios, and Maria Soteriou. Η βασιλική του Αγίου Δηµητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης.

Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 34. Athens: Αρχαιολογική Εταιρεία, 1952.

Spantigati, Carlenrica. La Cattedrale di Alessandria. Alessandria: Cassa di risparmio di

Alessandria, 1988. Spatharakis, Iohannis. The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Speck, Paul, ed. Theodoros Studites: Jamben auf verschiedene Gegenstände. Supplementa

Byzantina 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968. Spingou, Foteini. “The Anonymous Poets of the Anthologia Marciana: Questions of Collection

and Authorship.” In The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature: Modes, Functions, and

Identities, ed. Aglae Pizzone, 139–53. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014. ———. “Byzantine Collections and Anthologies of Poetry.” In A Companion to Byzantine

Poetry, eds. Wolfram Hörandner, Andreas Rhoby and Nikos Zagklas. Leiden: Brill (forthcoming).

———. “John IX Patriarch of Jerusalem in Exile: A Holy Man from Mar Saba to St

Diomedes/New Zion.” BZ (forthcoming). ———. Poetry for the Komnenoi: The Anthologia Marciana, Syllogae B and C. Oxford: Oxford

University Press (forthcoming). ———. “Words and Artworks in the Twelfth Century and Beyond: The Thirteenth-Century

Manuscript Marcianus gr. 524 and the Twelfth-Century Dedicatory Epigrams on Works of Art.” DPhil thesis, University of Oxford, 2012.

336

Stephanes, I. E., ed. Τυπικὴ Διαθήκη. Vol. 2 of Ἁγίου Νεοφύτου τοῦ Ἐγκλείστου Συγγράµµατα,

eds. I. Karabidopoulos, C. Oikonomou, D.G. Tsames, and N. Zacharopoulos. Paphos:

Ἱερὰ Βασιλικὴ καὶ Σταυροπηγιακὴ Μονὴ Ἁγίου Νεοφύτου, 1998.

Sterligova, Irina A., ed. Byzantine Antiquities: Works of Art from the Fourth to Fifteenth

Centuries in the Collection of the Moscow Kremlin Museums. Moscow: Moscow Kremlin

Museums, 2013.

———. “Precious Eastern Christian Encolpia from the 9th to 17th Century as Represented in

Russian Collections.” In Rome, Constantinople and Newly-Converted Europe:

Archaeological and Historical Evidence, eds. Maciej Salamon et al, 459–84. Frühzeit

Ostmitteleuropas, vol. 2. Krakow: Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und

Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, 2012.

Sternbach, Leo, ed. “Methodii patriarchae et Ignatii patriarchae carmina inedita.” Eos 4 (1897):

150–63.

———, ed. “Nicolai Calliclis Carmina.” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętności. Wydział

Filologiczny, ser. 2, vol. 21 (1903): 315–92.

Stornajolo, Cosimo. Le miniature della Topografia cristiana di Cosma Indicopleuste, codice

vaticano greco 699. Milano: U. Hoepli, 1908.

Sullivan, Denis F., ed. The Life of Saint Nikon. The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical

and historical sources 14. Brookline, MA: Hellenic College Press, 1987.

———. “Siege Warfare, Nikephoros II Phokas, Relics and Personal Piety.” In Byzantine

Religious Culture: Studies in Honor of Alice-Mary Talbot, eds. Denis Sullivan, Elizabeth

Fisher, and Stratis Papaioannou, 395–410. Leiden: Brill, 2012.

Svenbro, Jesper. Phrasikleia: An Anthropology of Reading in Ancient Greece, trans. Janet Lloyd.

Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1993.

Talbot, Alice-Mary, ed. Byzantine Defenders of Images: Eight Saints’ Lives in English

Translation. Byzantine Saints’ Lives in Translation 2. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks

Research Library and Collection, 1998.

———. “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptions on Art and Architecture of the Palaiologan

Era.” DOP 53 (1999): 75–90.

———. “Epigrams of Manuel Philes on the Theotokos tes Peges and Its Art.” DOP 48 (1994):

135–65.

———, ed. Holy Women of Byzantium: Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation. Byzantine

Saints’ Lives in Translation 1. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection, 1996.

337

Talbot, Alice-Mary and Denis Sullivan. The History of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. Dumbarton Oaks Studies 41. Washington, DC:

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2005.

Teteriatnikov, Natalia. “The True Cross Flanked by Constantine and Helena. A Study in the

Light of the Post-Iconoclastic Re-evaluation of the Cross.” DXAE 18 (1995): 169–88.

Theotoka, Nausika. “Περὶ τῶν κιβωρίων τῶν ναῶν τοῦ Ἁγίου Δηµητρίου Θεσσαλονίκης καὶ

Κωνσταντινοπόλεως.” Μακεδονικά 2 (1941–52): 395–413.

Thierry, Nicole. “Le culte de la croix dans l’empire byzantin du VIIe siècle au Xe dans ses

rapports avec la guerre contre l’infidèle. Nouveaux témoignages archéologiques.” Rivista di studi bizantini e slavi 1 (1981): 205–28.

Thümmel, Hans Georg. “Kreuze, Reliquien und Bilder im Zeremonienbuch des Konstantinos

Porphyrogennetos.” ByzF 18 (1992): 119–26.

Thunø, Erik. Image and Relic: Mediating the Sacred in Early Medieval Rome. Analecta Romana

Instituti Danici 32. Rome: Erma di Bretschneider, 2002.

Thurn, Ioannes, ed. Ioannis Scylitzae, Synopsis Historiarum. CFHB. Series Berolinensis 5.

Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.

Tiepolo, Giovanni, Trattato delle santissime reliquie, ultimamente ritrovate nel Santuario della Chiesa di San Marco. Venice: Antonio Pinelli, 1617.

Tomadakes, Nikolaos. “Βυζαντινὰ ἐπιγράµµατα καὶ βυζαντινὴ τέχνη.” Ἀθηνᾶ 65 (1961): 3–10.

Totev, Konstantin. Thessalonican Eulogia Found in Bulgaria: Lead Ampules, Enkolpia and Icons from the 12th–15th Centuries. Veliko Tŭrnovo: Faber, 2011.

Totev, Konstantin, and Valentin Pletn’ov. Byzantine Art: Christian Relics from Varna Region 11th–14th Centuries. Varna: Izdatelstvo Slavena, 2011.

Tougher, Shaun. The Reign of Leo VI (886–912): Politics & People. The Medieval

Mediterranean 15. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Toussaint, Gia. “Großer Schatz auf kleinem Raum. Die Kreuzvierung als Reliquienbühne.” In Le trésor au Moyen Âge: Discours, pratiques et objets, eds. Lucas Burkart et al, 283–96.

Florence: Sismel, 2010.

———. “Identität und Inschrift. Reliquien und ihre Kennzeichnung in Byzanz und im Westen.”

In Inschriften als Zeugnisse des Kulturellen Gedächtnisses. 40 Jahre Deutsche Inschriften an der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen 1970-2010, ed. Nikolaus

Henkel, 73–85. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2012.

338

———. “Imagination von Architektur: Das Halberstädter Tafelreliquiar als Bild des

himmlischen Jerusalem.” In Mikroarchitektur im Mittelalter. Ein gattungsübergreifendes

Phänomen zwischen Realität und Imagination, eds. Uwe Albrecht und Christine Kratzke,

213–23. Leipzig: Kratzke Verlag für Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte, 2008.

———. Kreuz und Knochen. Reliquien zur Zeit der Kreuzzüge. Berlin: Reimer, 2011.

———. “Schöne Schädel: Die Häupter der Heiligen in Ost und West.” In Knotenpunkt Byzanz:

Wissensformen und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen, eds. A. Speer und P. Steinkrüger,

655–78. Miscellanea Mediaevalia 36. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012).

———. “Die Sichtbarkeit des Gebeins im Reliquiar – eine Folge der Plünderung

Konstantinopels?” In Reliquiare im Mittelalter, eds. Bruno Reudenbach and Gia

Toussaint, 89–106. Hamburger Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte 5. Berlin: Akademie

Verlag, 2005.

Usener, Hermann, ed. Acta S. Marinae et S. Christophori. Bonn: Universitäts-Buchdruckerei von

Carl Georgi, 1886.

Valdés, César García de Castro, ed. Signum salutis cruces de orfebrería de los siglos V al XII.

Oviedo: Consejería de Cultura y Turismo del Principado de Asturias, 2008.

Van Dam, Raymond. Glory of the Martyrs. Translated Texts for Historians 4. Liverpool:

Liverpool University Press, 1988.

Van Dieten, John, ed. Nicetae Choniatae Historia, 2 vols. CFHB. Series Berolinensis 11. Berlin:

De Gruyter, 1975.

Van Opstall, Emilie Marlène, ed. Jean Géomètre: Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques

élégiaques. The Medieval Mediterranean 75. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Varales, Ioannes, ed. Άγιον Όρος: Κειµήλια Πρωτάτου. Thessaloniki: Hagioreitike Hestia, 2006.

Vári, Rudolf. “Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos.” BZ 17

(1908): 75–85.

Varzos, Konstantinos. Η Γενεαλογία των Κοµνηνών, 2 vols. Βυζαντινά Κείµενα και Μελέτες

20.1–2. Thessoloniki: Κέντρο Βυζαντινών Ερευνών, 1984.

Vasiliev, Alexander. “Harun ibn-Yahya and His Description of Constantinople.” Seminarium

Kondakovianum 5 (1932): 149–63.

Vassis, Ioannis. Initia carminum Byzantinorum. Supplementa Byzantina 8. Berlin: De Gruyter,

2005.

339

Veneskey, Laura. “Loca Sancta Surrogates and Site Circulation in Late Antiquity and

Byzantium.” PhD diss., Northwestern University, 2012.

Vikan, Gary. Early Byzantine Pilgrimage Art. Rev. ed. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Collection

Publications 5. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,

2010.

———. “Pilgrims in Magi’s Clothing: The Impact of Mimesis on Early Byzantine Pilgrimage

Art.” In The Blessings of Pilgrimage, ed. Robert G. Ousterhout, 97–107. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 1990.

Vincent, Nicholas. The Holy Blood: King Henry III and the Westminster Blood Relic.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Vinson, Martha P. “The Terms ἐγκόλπιον and τενάντιον and the Conversion of Theophilos in the

Life of Theodora (BHG 1731).” GRBS 36 (1995): 89–99.

Vogeler, Hildegard. “Das Goldemail-Reliquiar mit der Darstellung der Hagiosoritissa im Schatz

der Liebfrauenkirche zu Maastricht.” PhD diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-

Universität, Bonn, 1984.

Vogt, Albert, ed. Constantin VII Porphyrogénète. Le Livre des Cérémonies, 2 vols. Paris: Les

Belles Lettres, 1935–40.

Walsh, P.G. Letters of St. Paulinus of Nola, 2 vols. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1966–67.

———. The Poems of St. Paulinus of Nola. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1975.

Walter, Christopher. Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church. Birmingham Byzantine Series I.

London: Variorum Publications, 1982.

———. “Further Notes on the Deesis.” REB 28 (1970): 161–87.

———. “The Invention of John the Baptist’s Head in the Wall-Calendar at Gračanica.” Zbornik

za likovné umĕtnosti 16 (1980): 71–83.

———. “IC XC NI KA. The Apotropaic Function of the Victorious Cross.” REB 55 (1997):

193–220.

———. “St. Demetrius: The Myroblytos of Thessalonika.” Eastern Churches Review 5 (1973):

157–78.

———. Studies in Byzantine Iconography. London: Variorum Reprints, 1977.

———. “Two Notes on the Deesis.” REB 26 (1968): 311–36.

340

———. “The Victorious Cross in Byzantine Tradition.” In La Croce. Iconografia e interpretazione (secoli I – inizio XVI). Atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Napoli, 6–11 dicembre 1999), vol. 2, eds. Boris Ulianich and Ulderico Parente, 41–48. Rome:

Elio de Rosa Editore, 2007).

———. The Warrior Saints in Byzantine Art and Tradition. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

Wander, Steven H. The Joshua Roll. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2012.

Webb, Ruth. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice.

Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.

Weitzmann, Kurt, ed. Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century. Catalogue of the Exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, November 19, 1977 through February 12, 1978. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979.

———. Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1971.

Wenger, Antoine. L’Assomption de la T.S. Vierge dans la tradition byzantine du VIe au Xe siècle: Études et documents. AOC 5. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1955.

———. “Notes inédites sur les empereurs Théodose I, Arcadius, Théodose II, Léon I.” REB 10

(1952): 47–59.

Wentzel, Hans. “Byzantinische Kleinkunstwerke aus dem Umkreis der Kaiserin Theophano.”

Aachener Kunstblätter 44 (1973) 43–86.

Whitby, Mary. “Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and his

Deputies.” In The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed.

Mary Whitby, 247–73. Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca Classica Batava, Supplementum 183.

Leiden: Brill, 1998.

White, Monica. “The ‘Grave Covering’ of St Demetrios Between Byzantium and Rus.”

Književna istorija 46 (2014): 9–28.

———. “Relics.” In The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity,” ed. John Anthony

McGuckin, 465–67. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2011.

Wilkinson, John. Egeria’s Travels. 3rd ed. Oxford: Aris & Phillips, 1999.

———. Jerusalem Pilgrimage, 1099–1185. Hakluyt Society, 2nd ser., no. 167. London: Hakluyt

Society, 1988.

———. Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips, 1977.

341

Willard, Henry, M. “The Staurotheca of Romanus at Monte Cassino.” DOP 30 (1976): 55–64.

Winkelmann, Friedhelm, ed. Über das Leben des Kaisers Konstantin. Die griechischen

christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten [drei] Jahrhunderte, Eusebius Werke 1.1. Rev. ed.

Berlin, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1991.

Wolf, Gerhard et al, eds. Mandylion: Intorno al Sacro Volto, da Bisanzio a Genova. Milan:

Skira, 2004.

Wortley, John. “Icons and Relics: a Comparison.” GRBS 43 (2002/3): 161–74.

———. John Skylitzes: A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2010.

———. “The Marian Relics at Constantinople.” GRBS 45 (2005): 171–87.

———. “The Origins of Christian Veneration of Body-Parts.” Revue de l’histoire des religions

223 (2006): 5–28.

———. “Relics of the Great Church.” BZ 99 (2006): 631–47.

———. Studies on the Cult of Relics in Byzantium up to 1204. Variorum Collected Studies

Series 935. Farnham: Ashgate, 2009.

Xyngopoulos, Andreas. “Βυζαντινὸν κιβωτίδιον µετὰ παραστάσεων ἐκ τοῦ βίου τοῦ ἁγίου Δηµητρίου.” Ἀρχαιολογικὴ Ἐφηµερίς (1936): 101–36.

Yasin, Ann Marie. “Sacred Installations: The Material Conditions of Relic Collections in Late

Antique Churches.” In Saints and Sacred Matter: The Cult of Relics in Byzantium and Beyond, eds. Cynthia Hahn and Holger Klein, 133–51. Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine

Symposia and Colloquia 6. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection, 2015.

———. Saints and Church Spaces in the Late Antique Mediterranean: Architecture, Cult, and Community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Zagklas, Nikolaos. “Theodore Prodromos: The Neglected Poems and Epigrams (Edition,

Translation and Commentary).” PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 2014.

Zalesskaya, Vera. “L’icône d’or de la Vierge Eleousa du musée de l’Ermitage à Saint-

Pétersbourg: Nouvelles investigations épigraphiques et archéologiques.” CahArch 50

(2002): 135–38.

Zenos, Andrew C. The ecclesiastical history of Socrates Scholasticus. A Select Library of

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, vol. 2. New

York: Christian Literature Publishing Company, 1890.

342

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Brad Hostetler holds a B.A. in Art from Wheaton College (2002) and a M.A. in Art

History from Florida State University (2009). His research interests include the interaction of

word, image, and materiality in the Eastern Mediterranean, epigrams and epigraphy, the cult of

saints and relics, imperial ceremonial, and patronage. He has taught numerous undergraduate

courses in the Department of Art History at FSU, and has been the recipient of institutional,

national, and international grants, fellowships, and awards. He has several publications in print

and in press, and has presented papers at the Byzantine Studies Conference, International

Congress on Medieval Studies, and the Society for the Promotion of Byzantine Studies Spring

Symposium.