260 | New Light on Old Glass

‘The present situation in Greece does not allow the immediate planning of excavations…the monuments, however, should be revealed at least up to the level of the ancient city. The little picturesque church remains of the Byzantine Middle-Ages could be preserved where these create a lovely contrast with the works of art of Antiquity.’ (Eduard Schauber – Stamatis Kleanthis, Memorandum, 1833)1

By the time Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, young architects of the London Royal Academy of Arts visited Greece for the first time in early 1888, the attitude towards surviving Byzantine monuments reflected in the Bavarian Memorandum for the planning of Athens as the capital of the newly formed Greek state had already started to change.2 The foundation of the British Society of Dilettanti (1732) formalized the study of classical art and architecture establishing the canonical modes of rational documentation for the ever-growing number of amateur travellers, antiquarians and Grand Tourists.3

Philhellenism, which, in its early form grew out of the context of Romanticism during the late 18th century, gradually shifted interest to Greece.4 Mass travel began, producing a versatile corpus of narratives, poetry, graphic works and, to a lesser degree, scientific descriptions and illustrations, with particular reference to the reality of modern Greece and its people.5 However, despite the formalization of the academic study of antiquity, a looser psychological approach was still largely in practice as far as the post-antique monuments and remains were concerned at least up until the beginning of the 19th century: Byzantine, Venetian/Frankish or even Ottoman architecture and art was still seen in constant dialogue with the more familiar classical past, through the lens of a subjective and somewhat exotic approach.6 In fact, the true interest in and reappraisal of the Byzantine art and architecture of the Greek mainland and the islands coincided with the expansion and development of historical studies.7 The subsequent emergence of Byzantine art history as an academic discipline among French, German and later Russian scholars fuelled further interest in the field.8 Finally, the ‘neo-Gothic’ or the ‘neo-Greek’ revival in the arts as a first response to the influx of the early documentation of Byzantine monuments contributed even further to their re-evaluation in mid-19th-century Europe.9

Energetic teams combining scholarly skills and artistic draughtsmanship from Germany, Russia, France and later Britain, hosted by the newly founded foreign archaeological schools in Athens, played a key role in the appropriation of post-classical Greek culture.10 The group of British architects who undertook between 1888 and 1949 the systematic investigation, recording and publication of Byzantine art and architecture under the auspices of the British School at Athens was to form in 1908 the so-called Byzantine Research and Publication Fund.11 How far did Byzantine mosaic cycles interest these proto-scholars? What new information did these architects and first members of the British School contribute to the study of the relevant cycles? Based on archival resources, to what extent can their working methods be reconstructed as far as this medium is concerned, and did it actually differ from that of other contemporary scholar-architects in the field?

Chapter 25Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century GreeceThe Case of the Byzantine Research Fund (BRF) Archive

Dimitra Kotoula (with a contribution from Amalia G. Kakissis)

Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century Greece | 261

Mosaic cycles, mainly those of Ravenna, Rome and, later, Constantinople, attracted scholarly interest as soon as Byzantine art history started to develop as a professional discipline.12 The mosaic panels in the church of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople, reproduced by the architects Giuseppe and Gaspare Fossati between 1847 and 1849, were in fact among the very first Byzantine works of art to be welcomed with keen enthusiasm in Europe.13 However, as far as Greece is concerned, the study of mosaics does not seem to have been much of a priority. Apart from sporadic reproductions of figures and scenes or rough sketches showing their position inside the church interior we lack a coherent documentation of Byzantine mosaic cycles at least until up to the end of the 19th century.

André Couchaud was one of the first scholars to study closely the major Byzantine monuments of the Greek mainland with mosaic decoration during his research trips between 1842 and 1847. Although he offers in his valuable publication an array of accurate architectural drawings, he seems not to have been interested in the decoration.14 Detailed reproductions of mosaic pavements and ornamental motifs only sporadically enliven the text of the consistently influential Byzantine Architecture by Charles Texier, who worked with the assistance of Richard Popplewell-Pullan on the monuments of Greece and Asia Minor as early as 1834.15 As far as more general 19th-century Byzantine art histories are concerned, these either include no illustrations at all, such as Albert Lenoir’s study on selective monuments of the Christian world, or reproduce rather crude engravings and sketches of little interest.16 Adolphe Napoléon Didron’s Christian Iconography includes a few rough sketches mainly of church exteriors and sculpture by Paul Durand, the artist who accompanied him on his travels to Greece and Turkey (1834–40).17 Charles Bayet’s influential and pioneering Byzantine Art seems to ignore Greece and, although it was published as part of a teaching series, copies crude reproductions from previous editions (mainly those by Labarte, Didron, M. de Vogüé, Unger and Salzenberg).18 The same author, in his earlier Recherches, where he devotes a whole chapter (Chapter 3) to the history of the Byzantine mosaic, refers to Texier and Pullan’s documentation of selective monuments of Thessaloniki without, however, reproducing any of them.19

It was during their short initial visit to Greece that Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley had realized the great lack of detailed information on the Byzantine monuments there. Their particular interest in mosaic cycles was already apparent well before their arrival. On their way to Athens early in 1888, and probably on their return in July of the same year, they visited Italy. During their short stay there they produced inter alia preliminary pencil and ink drawings of the marble revetments in the church of San Vitale, Ravenna, the opus sectile floor in the Baptistery of San Giovanni in Florence and the marble revetment and dome mosaics in the church and Baptistery of San Marco in Venice. Both would return to San Marco in the autumn of the following year to reproduce the opus sectile floor in the nave as well as further details of the decoration.20

Equally important to them before they set off, as well as in the later intervals between fieldwork, were publications of

the period focusing on Byzantine mosaic cycles in Italy and Constantinople. They were familiar with Emile Caron’s study, André Leval’s detailed documentation of the decoration in the Chora monastery (Kariye Camii), Demetrio Salazaro’s general study of medieval Italian monuments as well as of the more specific works by Henry Barbet de Jouy and Giovanni Battista de Rossi on the wall revetments and pavements in the Christian churches of Rome, and finally, Charles Diehl’s and Jean Paul Richter’s early publications on the mosaic cycles of Ravenna.21 Finally, copied in the notebooks they consistently kept throughout their research are large extracts on the art of the mosaic from general Byzantine art histories such as those by Bayet and Lenoir.22

Schulz and Barnsley set clear goals for their research: both the architecture and the decoration of the major Byzantine churches of the Greek mainland were to be fully documented, studied and, if possible, published. In the preface to their 1901 publication on the art and architecture of the monastic complex of Hosios Loukas in Phocis – the only monograph to appear by Weir Schultz and Barnsley – they stress the importance of architectural archaeology and alert the readers to the danger that the results of similar research might remain unpublished due to the lack of available funds.23

Strongly dissatisfied with the work of their predecessors in the field, they were particularly critical of Texier and Pullan’s edition as being full of inconsistencies, while reproduced in their sketch folders are drawings from Couchaud’s Choix d’ églises Byzantines, a publication which they found surprisingly poor on iconography.24 Monographs on the monuments they were planning to document fully were meticulously studied and, at a later stage, revised.25 From November 1889, when they returned to Greece through a special appeal, and for 12 months solid they managed to visit and record approximately 50 Byzantine churches producing hundreds of drawings and photographs. The two monuments that attracted their main interest and became the focus of their research were those with partly or fully surviving mosaic decoration: the monastic complexes of Daphni, northwest of Athens, and Hosios Loukas in Phocis, central Greece. A major part (more than a third) of the material that Weir Schultz and Barnsley produced was devoted to the study of these two monuments. This material along with all the other items that Weir Schultz and Barnsley created became the core material of the Byzantine Research Fund Archive.

When Weir Schultz and Barnsley first arrived at Daphni restoration work on the mosaic cycle that had suffered severely from earthquakes in the late 1880s (in 1886 and again in 1889) had just begun under the supervision of the German-educated theologian and archaeologist Georgios Lambakes, then General Secretary and one of the founding members of the newly established Christian Archeological Society (December 1884).26 During their two visits to the monument (in early 1888 and at sometime between November 1889 and November 1890), they recorded almost all the surviving decoration producing preliminary or final inked drawings as well as a series of photographic plates.27 On their second visit they had the chance to observe and

262 | New Light on Old Glass

document fully (from the scaffolding constructed after the severe earthquake of January 1889) the figures and scenes that initially they did not have the chance to record. The Pantocrator of the central dome is one of the most representative examples: they produced, most likely during their first visit, a preliminary pencil drawing of it from ground level and later, during their second visit (probably in 1890), they took a photograph of it from atop the scaffolding.28

Weir Schultz and Barnsley actively followed the progress of restoration work at Daphni. In his revised publication which appeared in 1899, a decade after his initial study of the monument, Lambakes describes how in 1890 they themselves constructed scaffolding in front of a severely damaged scene and cleaned it demonstrating unique conservation skills.29 In notebook entries dated to January and April of the same year, a series of valuable corrections and proposals have been recorded that illuminate further obscure or uncertain points raised by Lambakes in his initial 1889 monograph.30 It is in this study that the author expresses his gratitude towards the ‘two young English architects’, praises the accuracy of their plans and reproduces a revised version – in black and white – of their documentation of the partly damaged marble revetment on the wall of the east apse which did not survive (Pls 1, 2).31

Although assisted in his research by his two brothers – Ioannis, a professional photographer and Emmanouel, a skilled painter and assistant to the German philhellene artist Ludwig Thiersch, who was particularly influential in the 19th-century Greek art scene – Lambakes merely includes scant visual material of rather bad quality in both his Daphni publications.

Weir Schultz and Barnsley had the opportunity to record not only surviving figures and scenes but also to produce accurate and detailed drawings of the monument’s ornamental bands and friezes with distinctive geometric and floral motifs.32 Their real interest in ornamental qualities, craftsmanship, the applied techniques and the materials used, which had already been apparent during their earlier Italian trip, is evident in the research they undertook later. Surviving notebook entries include, copied from Lambakes’ first publication on the Daphni monastic complex, a detailed glossary of applied Byzantine mosaic techniques.33 They tried to identify some of these techniques by collecting fallen tesserae in various colours, which they later labelled, attached to boards and stored, as well as pieces showing clearly the arrangement of the cubes on the alternate layers of the wall surface preparation.34 Selective drawings of figures and scenes reflect the mosaicists’ craft by trying to reproduce the actual appearance and texture of the mosaic surface, a technique that subsequent members of the Fund would later explore further.35 For the final inked drawings the two architects would consult preliminary sketches recorded in their notebooks as well as black and white photographs in order to produce the most accurate result possible (Pls 4–5). However, despite these attempts at faithful reproduction rough outlines were still drawn to complete damaged or partly surviving figures and scenes, a corrective practice adhering to the traditional 19th-century principle: ‘the viewer should be moved by the impact not of the relic but of the masterpiece’ (Pls 6–7).36

Besides Weir Schultz and Barnsley, other Russian, German and French scholars were also actively documenting Daphni in the late 1890s. The French scholar Gabriele Millet, who was awarded in 1891 a residency by the French Archaeological School in Athens to record Byzantine monuments in Italy, Greece and the Balkans,

Plate 1 Marble wall revetment, bema (east apse), katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Partly revised annotated coloured drawing by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, pencil and watercolour, 34 x 25cm, 28 April 1888 (BSA, BRF Archive: Drawings: BRF 01.01.01.196)

Plate 2 Marble wall revetment, bema (east apse), katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Revised black and white reproduction by Emmanouel Lambakes (after G. Lambakes, Christian Archaeology of the Daphni Monastery, Athens, 1889, 106)

Plate 3 Marble wall revetment, bema (east apse), katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Black and white photographic plate by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, reproduced by G. Millet (after G. Millet, Le monastère de Daphni: histoire, architecture, mosaϊque, Monuments de l’ art byzantin, no. 1, Paris, 1899, fig. 39)

Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century Greece | 263

published in 1899 the results of his research in a monograph entitled Le monastère de Daphni: histoire, architecture, mosaïque.37 For the documentation of the church and its decoration Millet primarily worked with artists, a typical trend in 19th-century scholarship.38 His publication includes aquarelles by the artist Pierre Benouville executed in 1877 and some photographs and helio engravings – intaglio prints produced by gravure – of almost all the surviving figures and scenes.39 Millet was familiar with Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s working method and its results. In fact, Weir Schultz is thanked in the preface of the monograph for contributing a photograph showing the half-destroyed marble revetment in the monastery’s east apse (Pl. 3).40 For his reconstruction of the decoration in the same part of the church, Lambakes used Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s drawings in his own 1889 publication. Although Millet’s documentation appears to be more accurate than Lambakes’ rather arbitrary reproduction, his overall analysis of the mosaic cycle owes little to archaeological observation concentrating instead on compositional and stylistic concerns while technique does not seem to interest him at all.

Similar principles appear to be predominant in the 19th-century study of another major Byzantine monument that Weir Schultz and Barnsley were also planning to document. Charles Diehl’s monograph on the monastery of Hosios Loukas in Phocis appeared in 1889.41 The publication was studied very carefully by Weir Schultz and Barnsley as is evident from the large extracts from the book which they included in their notebooks together with meticulous descriptions of the mosaic cycle.42 Their 1901 publication of the monument and its decoration can in fact be studied as a reaction to Diehl’s study. The emphasis on documentation, observation and technique – the principal characteristics of their working method – created a sharp contrast with Diehl’s methodology which appeared heavily dependant on the literature and previous scholarship. The scant illustrations in Diehl’s study – the book in fact contains only an attached plan, three inked black and white sketches of the monument’s marble pavement with an indication of the colours, and some rough sketches of the windows – are replaced in Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s publication by a series of detailed inked drawings, colour lithograph

Plate 4 Annotated preliminary sketch of the part of mosaic frieze, narthex, katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica, by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, 25 April 1888 (BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 5 (‘Athens, Daphne, Mistra’, March–April 1888)

Plate 5 Part of the mosaic frieze, narthex, katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Annotated coloured drawing by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, pencil and watercolour, 34.5 x 25cm, 1890 (BSA, BRF Archive: Drawings: BRF 01.01.01.166)

Plate 6 The Prophet Ezekiel (actual size), dome mosaic, nave, katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Partly revised annotated coloured drawing by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, pencil and watercolour, 56 x 39.5cm (BSA, BRF Archive: Drawings: BRF 01.01.01.187)

Plate 7 The Prophet Ezekiel, dome mosaic, nave, katholikon of the Daphni monastery, Attica. Black and white photographic plate by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley, 21.5 x 16.5cm (BSA BRF Archive: R.Weir-Schultz, S.H. Barnsley photographic collection: WI.G. 32)

264 | New Light on Old Glass

reproductions and photographs of the monument’s art and architecture from the approximate 150 drawings and 48 photographs that the two architects produced for Hosios Loukas.43 Although Diehl is praised in the introduction for his scholarly qualities, it is clear that both the aims and the guiding principles of their research were much different.44 They recorded not only the architecture and the decoration, but even the liturgical vessels, various items of metalwork as well as the iconostasis in an attempt to offer the reader an overall view of the monument’s art.45

Particular emphasis was placed on the documentation of the mosaics which covers almost a third of the recorded material. Details of the ornament in the arches, continuous floral and geometric motifs, as well as detailed colour drawings of the marble pavement of the Panagia church, one of the two main churches of the monastic complex, were reproduced for the first time in colour plates based on sketches that the two architects created on the spot (Pl. 8a–b).46 Detailed technical remarks, almost entirely absent from Diehl’s publication, cover two pages in the book with particular emphasis on the composition, the colour/tone and the method of fixing the tesserae.47 Diehl’s comparatively short descriptions and exhaustive enumeration of all possible iconographic parallels is supplemented in the book by a comprehensive analysis of the iconography of each figure and scene based on observation as well as by comparisons of the mosaics’ style and technique with those of the Daphni cycle.48 Although their remarks were not always accurate, their methodology certainly reflects a different archaeological approach: close in situ study of the decoration, detailed records in constantly updated notebooks, the production of preliminary drawings and

sketches –that they would later colour and ink in London – usually with measurements and brief annotations, and the production of photographs.

Towards the end of their trip Weir Schultz and Barnsley headed to Thessaloniki where they had been requested to evaluate the damage done to the city’s monuments by the fire of 1888. Fascinated by the Byzantine remains in the then still Ottoman city, they managed to record some of the monuments and their surviving decoration. Sadly, because of constraints of time and finance, they were only able to produce preliminary drawings and a limited number of photographs. The work initiated by Weir Schultz and Barnsley was to be continued two decades later by two younger architects: Walter Sykes George, Soane Medallist of the Royal Institute of British Architects and former student of the Royal College of Art, who arrived for the first time in 1906 and William Harvey, a Gold Medallist of the Royal Academy who commenced work in 1907.49 With the support of the newly founded Byzantine Research and Publication Fund, both returned on different occasions to Thessaloniki from after 1908 to roughly until its liberation in 1912/13 to contribute to each others work on the city’s Byzantine monuments.

Harvey was the first to record some of Thessaloniki’s Byzantine churches. However, he was soon despatched by the Fund to Bethlehem and Jerusalem to document the surviving Byzantine monuments of those two cities. Walter George took over the work and, having assembled the records of previous architects, devoted himself more intensely to the assignment. Initially he carefully developed Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s preliminary observations, mainly on building facts by contributing new first hand

Plate 8a–b Annotated preliminary sketches of parts of the marble mosaic pavement, nave, Panagia church, Hosios Loukas monastic complex, Phocis, by Robert Weir Schultz and Sidney Howard Barnsley (BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 13, ‘Delphi, St Luke, Athens, Daphne’, November 1889)

Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century Greece | 265

he later reproduced in his final inked drawings with no attempt to complete any of the missing parts.60 Finally, his recording of the decoration in the two monuments included the production, in close collaboration with Harvey, of various sets of photographs both of details and/or distant interior views.61 William Harvey would also produce for the St Sophia mosaics rather crude, large watercolour panels that, unfortunately, fail to reflect the actual impact of their iconography and style.62 His strong interest in the medium, however, is evident in his monograph on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem to which he contributed the majority of the drawings. The study was published by the Fund in 1910 with R. Weir Schultz as editor and in collaboration with W.R. Lethaby, O.M. Dalton, H.A.A. Cruso and A.C. Headlam.63

At the time George and Harvey were working on the churches of Thessaloniki, growing scholarly interest in the field of Byzantine art and architecture awakened concerns about surviving Byzantine antiquities, which subsequently prompted the initiation of extensive restoration programmes by the Ottoman authorities.64 The discovery in 1907/8 of a series of mosaics in the north inner aisle of the basilica of St Demetrios was greeted with excitement by specialists and triggered a series of publications.65 The cycle occupied the spandrels over the seven arches in that part of the church, which did not survive the fire of 1917. The majority of the relevant studies, however, failed to offer a consistent archaeological record of the new discoveries. Petros N. Papageorgiou reproduced in his 1908 article poor quality photographic plates, mainly of the recently revealed Marian cycle, along with rough sketches of pieces of sculpture and a single colour drawing of the ornamental decoration in the church with few significant scholarly remarks.66 The series of publications that was to follow had equally little to offer in providing a concise report on the new finds based on first-hand observation.67

Oreste Tafrali’s two studies on the decoration of St Demetrios, which both appeared in 1909, rely heavily on textual sources and contain no plates at all.68 Likewise, his two general studies on the topography and the character of Byzantine Thessaloniki contain either no images at all or scant visual material of bad quality.69 Although Charles Diehl visited the city in 1909 and examined the monuments in situ collaborating closely with the French architects Henri Saladin and, mainly, Marcel le Tourneau for his publications, his studies, distinguished by a lack of archaeological detail, lend little confidence to his conclusions. Le Tourneau, who worked systematically on the Thessaloniki monuments between 1907 and 1909, producing aquarelles and photographs using the newly applied method of photogrammetry, contributed only low quality photographic plates to Diehl’s study.70 Their 1918 publication, in collaboration with Saladin, included exterior and interior views of the city’s monuments, some architectural plans and a few aquarelles, with little emphasis on the mosaic decoration: only four aquarelles of the newly discovered scenes in the church of St Demetrios were included, while Saladin reproduced, mainly for the Rotunda, Texier’s plans of disputed accuracy.71 In his earlier general Manuel of Byzantine art, Diehl devotes a whole

material, while maintaining a close correspondence with Weir Schultz who had been based in London since his return from Greece in 1890.50 He then proceeded to the recording of the decoration. His documentation, which is based on Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s methodology, reflects a different generation of archaeological attitudes. William Harvey, on the other hand, still seemed rather preoccupied by 19th-century preconceptions concerning the treatment of the monument and its art.

George focused on the Early Byzantine monuments of the city with mosaic decoration such as the churches of St George (the Rotunda), St Demetrios, St Sophia and the Panagia Acheiropoietos, all of which were closely studied and documented. Before devoting himself fully to the task he followed Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s example in closely examining earlier studies with extensive references to these monuments, such as those by Texier and Pullan, Bayet, Salzenberg and Gourlay, which he double checked and corrected based on observations made on the spot.51 In his recording of the Rotunda, which was the first of the churches to occupy him fully in early May 1907, George first added to Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s notes taken in 1890.52 He made insightful remarks on the architecture of the building and then went on to produce preliminary sketches of the mosaics, accurate sections showing their iconography and place inside the church, coloured drawings with ornamental details as well as a handful of photographs of the dome composition that supplemented Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s photographic records.53

George would also double-check short remarks on the monument made by his tutor and mentor William R. Lethaby, promising to come back and re-examine the mosaic cycle which was still covered by thick whitewash.54 Lethaby, a renowned architect of the period, demonstrated throughout his career a profound interest in Byzantine art and architecture.55 His most influential publication, in collaboration with Harold Swainson, is devoted to the church of Hagia Sophia, Constantinople.56 Lethaby was fascinated by the Byzantines’ expertise in both building and decorative techniques, and he urges the reader to look carefully at their methods and attitudes even though the monograph itself appears to depend rather heavily on previous scholarship.57 Lethaby and Swainson set off to Turkey in March 1893 to begin systematic fieldwork. On his journey to Constantinople, Lethaby must have had the opportunity to examine closely those Byzantine monuments of Thessaloniki with surviving mosaics, the medium that interested him most.

It was at Lethaby’s instigation and advice that George undertook research on the rest of the city’s churches under the supervision of the Fund . Besides the Rotunda, he collaborated closely in correspondence with Weir Schultz, producing in September and October 1909 detailed notes on the architecture and decoration in St Sophia and the Panagia Acheiropoietos respectively.58 For St Sophia George created additional preliminary drawings of details of the mosaic frieze based on Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s initial remarks.59 Copied in his notebook of 1910 is a series of details of the continuous floral motifs that decorated the newly revealed mosaic cycle of the Panagia Acheiropoietos, which

266 | New Light on Old Glass

on later alterations that distorted the actual perspective of the scenes.77

The progressive replacement of 19th-century artistic reproductions and replicas by mechanical recordings of the buildings and their decoration encouraged the use of photography as a means that could further support archaeological investigation. By the turn of the century a new type of traveller/scholar would arrive in the Mediterranean seaports carrying photographic equipment instead of the easel and the brush. From 1839 when the earliest proto-photographs (daguerreotypes) of Greece and its monuments appeared as engravings in publications to the development in the late 19th century of easier methods such as the dry plate and, later, the roll film in the newly invented light cameras by Kodak, Linhof or Zeiss, photography witnessed major aesthetic and technical changes allowing its use for diverse purposes.78 Scholars such as Cabrol, Millet, Lampros, Diehl and Tafrali would soon realize the importance of the new medium in the development of archaeology as a scientific discipline although, in sharp contrast to George, they did not exploit it for their own purposes but rather preferred to continue illustrating their publications with overpainted photographic reproductions.

George’s methodology, which depended upon a combined use of archaeological drawing, photography and in situ observation, is best illustrated in his recording of the St Demetrios basilica. When he first visited Thessaloniki, St Demetrios was still a mosque (Kasimie mosque). He recorded the architecture of the monument building on Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s preliminary recordings and then, in 1908/9, proceeded to document the mosaics with an emphasis on the recently uncovered scenes. He produced 13 drawings and 7 photographs. William Harvey added to his documentation 10 more photographs of the inner north aisle mosaics.

Improving on Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s technique George introduced a slightly altered method – the so-called ‘painted squeeze’– that would lead him to more accurate reproductions and, subsequently, conclusions. The method consisted of laying and pressing dampened blotting paper against the tesserae. Although he did not fully succeed in catching the sharp impression of the medium, the method

chapter to the Thessaloniki mosaics where he reproduces le Tourneau’s recordings of the St Demetrios and St Sophia cycles as well as photographs from the Millet archive on the architecture of the Acheiropoietos church and the decoration of the Rotunda.72 A sole exception is Feodor E. Uspenskij’s record that managed, with the assistance of Nicolas K. Kluge, photographer and painter of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, to provide a detailed technical and archaeological record of the St Demetrios mosaics accompanied by good illustrations of approximately 15 photographic plates.73

In the same period Thessaloniki’s Byzantine monuments attracted the lively interest of professional photographers. Fréderic Boissonnas, the Swiss photographer who for more than three decades systematically photographed the Greek cultural and natural landscape, documented the Rotunda, St Sophia and St Demetrios. In 1919 he produced a lavish edition with annotated heliogravures.74 For the mosaic cycles, however, he produced only a few distant and close up sets, unfortunately all rather murky, since he did not have access to proper lighting facilities. Around the same time, August Léon, a member of the team of specialists that visited Thessaloniki in May 1913 at the instigation of the geographer Jean Brunhes, produced some rather poor quality photographs of the newly discovered scenes in the church of St Demetrios as well as of the dome mosaics in St Sophia which had recently been restored under the initiative of Charles Diehl.75

Walter George appears to have been familiar with the professional photographic recording of the Thessaloniki monuments that would soon start to appear as ‘cartes-postales’, a very popular trend in late 19th- and early 20th-century photography.76 George would use them for scholarly purposes initiating, in fact, a similar methodology. He paid his first visit to the Rotunda in 1907. Of the detailed remarks he kept, the study of the mosaic cycle occupies the largest part. By checking technical details against professional photographs by Paul Zepdji, the famous Armenian photographer who was based in Thessaloniki (20 Vardari Street) and who was active in the Balkans from the middle of the 19th century, George tried to distinguish restoration from improvisation and reach safe conclusions

Plate 9 Dedicatory inscription (actual size), north inner aisle, spandrel G, nave, St Demetrios basilica, Thessaloniki. Annotated drawing by Walter Sykes George, painted squeeze and watercolour, 33.8 x 53cm (BSA, BRF Archive: Drawings: BRF 01.01.07.313)

Plate 10 St Demetrios with prophet and donor (detail), north inner aisle, spandrel B, nave, St Demetrios basilica, Thessaloniki. Annotated drawing by Walter Sykes George showing the line that discerns newer work on the mosaic from the older, pencil and watercolour, 48.5 x 36cm (BSA, BRF Archive: Drawings: BRF 01.01.07.306)

Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century Greece | 267

gradually developed a very keen enthusiasm for it.89 Mosaics were especially regarded by the pioneers of the movement who admired them as the essential Byzantine technique and frequently turned to them as a source of inspiration for their own projects. When Morris saw Fossati’s drawings on the mosaic decoration of the Hagia Sophia (available from 1852) he remarked that they were: ‘Nothing more beautiful than the best Byzantine art has ever been produced by man.’90 His close friend Lethaby, in his joint publication on that church with Swainson in 1894, praises the monument and its decoration as the most interesting building on the surface of the earth.91

In an era when architects and artists such as Couchaud, Texier and Pullan, Durand or le Tourneau recorded inconsistently and at random surviving Byzantine monuments in Greece, British architects of the Byzantine Research and Publication Fund proceeded to a more comprehensive in situ study and documentation of both the architecture and the decoration of key Byzantine monuments of the Greek mainland and islands. Educated in and inspired by the Arts and Crafts tradition, Weir Schultz, Barnsley, George and Harvey contributed a unique approach to the largely unprofessional late 19th- and early 20th-century scholarship on Byzantine monuments with their particular emphasis on the mosaic, which had been rather neglected in earlier studies. Instead of publishing their records as part of a larger art-historical study, a common practice in the period’s scholarship as the art histories of Bayet, Didron or Millet suggest, they made great efforts to raise the necessary funds in order to produce lavish monographs for each of the recorded monuments. Both scholarly quality and academic accuracy do not always characterize the produced result. However, their methodology was advanced for its time and their records have proved among the most valuable for the modern scholar.

AcknowledgementsI am indebted to Professor Liz James and Professor Maria Vassilaki for inviting me to contribute this paper to the present volume. Professor Robin Cormack and Amalia Kakissis, Archivist of the British School at Athens, helped with their most insightful comments at various stages to this research. I am grateful to them all.

AbbreviationsBSA, BRF Archive: British School at Athens, Byzantine Research

Fund Archive

Notes1 For a publication of the Memorandum see: H.-H. Russack, Deutsche

Bauen in Athen, Berlin, 1942, 23; A. Papageorgiou-Venetas, Haupstadt Athen: ein Stadtgedanke des Klassizismus, Munich, 1994, 94.

2 For the two architects see: A. Kakissis, ‘The Byzantine Research Fund Archive: encounters of Arts and Crafts architects in Byzantium’, in M. Llewellyn-Smith, E. Calligas and P. Kitromilides (eds), Scholars, Travels, Archives (British School at Athens), Athens, 2009, 143–61, esp. 145–6.

3 For an examination of the cultural and social personae of the Dilettanti’s membership in relation to the development of archaeology see: B. Redford, Dilettanti: the Antic and the Antique in Eighteenth-century England ( J. Paul Getty Museum: Getty Research Institute), Los Angeles, 2008, 53–64; J.M. Kelly, The Society of the

was definitely more advanced. George created the squeeze in a few instances only, mainly for the inscriptions of the Marian cycle (Pl. 9).79 For the same cycle he produced watercolour drawings and photographs which clearly indicate that these belong to two phases: before and after the severe fire, probably during the 7th century, which destroyed a large part of the church. The subsequent extensive restoration that further enhanced the building’s capacities and grandeur as a pilgrimage destination was discussed, more or less accurately, by most of the previous scholarship on the monument. However, in situ observation in the rare cases when this was made was not fully documented.80 The value of George’s record lies in the fact that he managed for the first time to offer a complete, true picture of the non-surviving scheme. In selective watercolour drawings of the group a line discerning newer work from the older is clearly marked (Pl. 10).81 George also recorded his observations on the spot in detailed technical notes which concerned the laying, colour, texture and quality of the tesserae that seemed to differ considerably in the two phases. Five principal remarks were made.82

Evident in his records is his genuine concern for accurate documentation with particular emphasis on matters of technique. This approach was deeply rooted in his Arts and Crafts education. Trained under leading members of the Arts and Crafts movement such as Lethaby, who moved in the same cycles as William Morris and Phillip Webb, the architects of the Fund were all introduced to a specific philosophy and artisan techniques that had a profound impact on their careers. It was on Lethaby’s advice that Weir Schultz was first dispatched to Greece and the Near East for a first-hand view of Byzantine architecture, then George to Thessaloniki and Harvey to Jerusalem and Bethlehem to work on the Byzantine monuments of the Near East.83

Central to the movement’s aesthetic and ideas was the reaction against the eclectic revival of historical styles, especially the ‘academic’ and the ‘classical’ as well as the strong sense of craftsmanship, the unity of the intellectual designer and the craftsman.84 A detailed study of medieval architecture was considered essential for an Art and Crafts architect in order to attain first-hand working knowledge of the building materials and techniques.85 It was largely from this motivation that Lethaby urged his younger colleagues to undertake their research trips. They in return would use their hard-earned knowledge in future building projects. Weir Schultz was commissioned in 1906 to build the Anglican Cathedral at Khartoum, a mixture of local materials and Byzantine building techniques.86 Barnsley designed and built the Church of the Wisdom of God in Lower Kingswood (consecrated in July 1892), one of the earliest manifestations of the Arts and Crafts version of Byzantium.87 At the same time, the universal preference for decorative values, mostly the vertical and elongated architectural ornament, as well as a slightly unfinished effect (non finito), were among the principal ideas of the movement’s artistic ideals.88

Both melded perfectly with key concepts of Byzantine art and aesthetics. Leading Arts and Crafts members, such as John Ruskin, William Morris, Phillip Webb, the painter Edward Burne-Jones and the architect John Francis Bentley

268 | New Light on Old Glass

Earliest Ages of Christianity with Historical and Archaeological Descriptions, London, 1864, pl. 16 (on the mosaic pavement of St Sophia, Trebizond), pl. 26 (on the mosaics of St Demetrios, Thessaloniki), pls 30–4 (on St George the Rotunda, Thessaloniki) and pl. 40 (on the dome mosaics of St Sophia, Thessaloniki).

16 A. Lenoir, Monuments de l’ère chrétienne: Instructions à l’ usage des voyageurs en Orient, Paris, 1856.

17 See for example: A.N. Didron, Iconographie chrétienne: histoire de Dieu, Paris, 1843, pl. 20 and pls 102–3.

18 C. Bayet, L’art byzantin, Paris, 1883, 8.19 C. Bayet, Recherches pour servir à l’histoire de la peinture et de la sculpture

chrétienne en Orient avant la querelle des iconoclasts (Bibliothèque des Écoles Francaise d’ Athènes et Rome no. 10), Paris, 1879, 91–3.

20 Dedicated to their research trip in Italy are parts of notebooks BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 1; SCH 4; SCH 6. For the drawings they produced see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.05.03.003 (for S. Vitale), BRF 01.05.02.002 (for the Florence Baptistery), BRF 01.05.01.004, 006, 007, 010 and 011 (for S. Marco).

21 E. Caron, Les mosaiques et les peintures de la mosquée de Kahrié Djami à Constantinople (Bulletin Monumental), Paris, 1886, and A. Leval, Catalogue explicatif des principales mosaiques, peintures et sculptures: existant à Kahrié-Djami à Constantinople et photographiées par Pascal Sébah, Constantinople, 1886, in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 4 (1890), D. Salazaro, Studi sui Monumenti della Italia meridionale dal IVº al XIIIº secolo (L’Arte Romana al Medio Evo: appendice agli Studi sui Monumenti della Italia meridionale), Naples, 1871–81 (86) and H.-B. de Jouy, Les mosaiques chrétiennes des basiliques et des églises de Rome, Paris, 1857, in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 5 (1890), G.-B. de Rossi, Mosaici cristiani e saggi dei pavimenti delle chiese di Roma anteriori al secolo XV, Rome, 1872, C. Diehl, Ravenne: études d’archéologie Byzantine (Bibliothèque d’art ancien), Paris, 1886, and J.-P. Richter, Die Mosaiken von Ravenna: Beitrag zu einer kritischen Geschichte der altchristlichen Malerei, Vienna, 1878 in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 11 where a full reading list of the Byzantine titles they consulted is supplied.

22 Bayet (n. 18) and Lenoir (n. 16) in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 5 (1890).

23 R. Weir Schultz and S.-H. Barnsley, The Monastery of Saint Luke of Stiris, in Phocis, and the Dependent Monastery of Saint Nicholas in the Fields, near Skripou, in Boeotia, published for the Committee of the British School at Athens, London, 1901, 7.

24 For Texier and Pullan (n. 15), see BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 7 and SCH 9 1889. For the drawings they copied from Couchaud (n. 14), see for example: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.01.075 and BRF 01.01.01.253 and 254.

25 See for example C. Diehl, L’église et les mosaïques du couvent de Saint-Luc en Phocide (Bibliothèque des écoles françaises d’Athèns et de Rome, fsc. 55), Paris, 1889, and G. Lambakes, Christian Archaeolog y of the Daphni Monastery (Christianiki Archeologia tis Monis Daphniou), Athens, 1889. Large extracts from both publications are copied in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 12 and BAR 4 dated in November 1889 and April 1890 respectively.

26 Lambakes, a key figure in Byzantine archaeology in Greece, who served as the personal secretary of Queen Olga since 1885, was the founder of the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens. During his research trips he produced a vast photographic archive of major Byzantine monuments of the Mediterranean see: D. Konstantios, The History of the Christian Archaeological Society (Istoria tis Christianikis Archaiologikis Etereias), Athens, 2009, 29.

27 BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.01.164-189 and BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02.01.01.055-85 and BRF 02.01.01.090-095, Barnsley appears to have been behind the lens in the majority of instances.

28 For an intriguing history of the image see: R. Cormack, ‘Rediscovering the Christ Pantokrator at Daphni’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 71 (2008), 55–74.

29 G. Lambakes, The Monastery of Daphni after Restoration (I moni Daphniou meta tis episkeyes), Athens, 1899, 43.

30 Severely damaged episodes were identified, the number of figures in the narrative scenes was corrected, partly erased inscriptions were read and transcribed see: BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 4 (10 January 1890 to 2 April 2 1890).

31 Lambakes (n. 25), 99, 106–7. For the original drawings of the east apse see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.01.195–198, nos 195 and 196

Dilettanti: Archaeolog y and Identity in the British Enlightenment, New Haven, 2009.

4 For the revival of Greek Philhellenism and Romanticism see: C. Güthenke, ‘Translating Philhellenism: comments on the movement of a movement’, in E. Konstantinou (ed.), Ausdrucks–formen des Europäischen und internationalen Philhellenismus von 17.–19. Jahrhundert (Philhellenische Studien 13), Frankfurt, Berlin, Brussels, New York, Oxford, Vienna, 2007, 181–9, esp. 181–2; G. Tolias (ed.), British Travellers in Greece 1750–1820 (exh. cat.), London, 1995, 10–21; E. Angelomatis-Tsougarakis, The Eve of Greek Revival: British Travellers’ Perceptions of Early 19th-century Greece, London, 1990, 3–4; F.-M. Tsigakou, The Rediscovery of Greece: Travellers and Painters of the Romantic Era, London, 1981, 71; F.-M. Tsigakou and A.-S. Dollinger, Glanz der Ruinen: die Wiederentdeckung Griechenlands in Gemälden des 19. Jahrhunderts aus den Beständen des Benaki Museums, Athen, und des Rheinischen Landesmuseums (Kataloge des Rheinischen Landesmuseums Bonn; Bd. 4), Bonn, 1995; F.-M. Tsigakou, Through Romantic Eyes: European Images of 19th-century Greece from the Benaki Museum, Athens, 1996.

5 See the standard editions by S.-H. Weber, Voyages and Travels in the Near East during the 19th Century, Princeton, 1952, and L. Droulia (ed.), On Travel Literature and Related Subjects, References and Approaches, Athens, 1993. See also: Tolias (n. 4), 23 with select bibliography, and I. Vingopoulou, ‘The Greek world as seen by travellers, 15th–20th centuries’, in L. Navari (ed.), Greek Civilization through the Eyes of Travellers and Scholars, Athens, 2003, 28–62, esp. 54–5 with references to 19th-century travellers such as R. Curzon, R. Burgess and J.-J. Best who demonstrated renewed interest in Byzantine Greece as well as The Rediscovery of Greece 1979, mainly the Introduction where R. Chandler and G. Wheler are mentioned.

6 K. Kourelis, ‘Early travellers in Greece and the invention of medieval architectural history’, in D. Medina-Lasansky and B. McLaren (eds), Architecture and Tourism: Perception, Performance, Place, Oxford, 2004, 37–52, esp. 42–4; A. Cameron, ‘The use and abuse of Byzantium: an essay on reception’, in Changing Cultures in Early Byzantium, (Variorum selected series no. XIII), Aldershot, 1992, 3–31, esp. 20–2.

7 Tsigakou 1981 (n. 4), 71–2 and 148, and M. Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou, ‘Byzantine Historicism in Greece: from Spyridon Zambelios to Dionysios Zakynthinos’, in N.G. Moschonas (ed.), Memory of D.A. Zakynthinos (National Hellenic Research Foundation, Institute of Byzantine Research: Symmeikta no. 9), vol. II, Athens, 1994, 154–76, esp. 155–9.

8 E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon and R. Cormack, ‘Byzantine studies as an academic discipline’, in E. Jeffreys, J. Haldon and R. Cormack (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, 2008, 3–20, esp. 10–11.

9 J.-B. Bullen, Byzantium Rediscovered, London, 2003, 5–9. 10 On the foundation of the Greek and foreign archaeological schools

in Greece see: C. Fitschen, ‘Archaeological investigation in Greece during the times of king Otto (1832–1862)’, in Athens-Munich: Art and Culture in Modern Greece (exh. cat., National Gallery of Art-National Historical Museum), Athens, 2000, 213–28, esp. 222–5.

11 On the formation of the BRF Archive see: Kakissis (n. 2), esp. 143–4. 12 C. Mango, ‘Editor’s preface’, in D.V. Ainalov, The Hellenistic Origins

of Byzantine Art (trans. E. Sonolevitch and S. Sobolevitch, ed. C. Mango), New Brunswick, 1961, 7–15, esp. 7–9 on the so-called ‘Roman School’ exemplified mainly by the works by Wickhoff, Kraus, Riegl and Rivoira.

13 These were originally published in: Aya Sofia, Constantinople as recently restored by order of H.M. the Sultan Abdul Medjid from the original drawings by Chevalier Gaspard Fossati, lithographed by Louis Haghe Esq., London, 1852, and followed first in a series of reproductions by W. Salzenberg, Altchristliche Baudenkmale von Konstantinopel von V. bis XII Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1854, and then by foreign and Greek scholars such as Bayet (C. Bayet, L’art byzantin, Paris, 1904, 32, fig. 12), Lambros (S. Lambros, Illustrated History of Greece from the Ancient Times until the Fall of Constantinople, Athens, 1902, vol. III, 624) and Mavroyannis (G. Mavroyannis, Byzantine Art and Artists, Athens, 1893, 46, fig. 5) to mention only a few.

14 A. Couchaud, Choix d’églises byzantines en Grèce, Paris, 1842. 15 See for example: C. Texier and R. Popplewell-Pullan, Byzantine

Architecture: Illustrated Examples of Edifices erected in the East during the

Recording Byzantine Mosaics in 19th-century Greece | 269

58 For George’s notes on the church of St Sophia see: BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: GEO 3 (dated 7 September 1909). These were transcribed, along with Weir Schultz’s original notes on the same monument, by Megaw in 1932: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated Transcripts and Notes, ‘St Sophia, Salonika’ (dated 13 October 1932). George’s original notes on the Acheiropoietos church were also transcribed by Megaw in 1932: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated Transcripts and Notes, ‘Eski Djouma, Salonika’ (dated 6 October 1909).

59 For George’s drawings of the St Sophia mosaic frieze see mainly: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.092.

60 For the preliminary drawings see: BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: GEO 2 (dated 1910). For the final inked versions see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.018 and 19.

61 For George’s photographs of the St Sophia mosaics see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02.01.07.104 and BRF 02.01.07.130–133, for those by Harvey for the same monument: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02/01/07/121-129 both sets supplement Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s photographic records of the monument. For their photographs of the Panagia Acheiropoietos church see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02.01.07.004-7.

62 For Harvey’s St Sophia watercolours see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.091, 92, 95, 98, 99, 100. These were reproduced in March–April 1923 (BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.094, 96, 97, 101, 102) by the stained glass artist Joan Fulleylove who must have also worked at the Anglican Cathedral in Khartoum commissioned in 1906 by Weir Schultz; for Fulleylove, see: P. Cormack (ed.), Stained Glass Artists of the Arts and Crafts Movement, London, 1985, 9, for Khartoum Cathedral; D. Ottewill, ‘Robert Weir Schultz (1860–1951): an Arts and Crafts architect’, Architectural History 22 (1979), 88–115, esp. 104–7, and Cormack (n. 28), 62, n. 19.

63 R. Weir Schultz (ed.), The Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem, in collaboration with W.R. Lethaby, O.M. Dalton, H.A.A. Cruso and A.C. Headlam, illustrated by W. Harvey (Byzantine Research Fund in association with the British School at Athens), London, 1910.

64 C. Mavropoulou-Tsioumi and K. Theocharidou-Tsaprali, The Restoration of Byzantine and post-Byzantine Monuments of Thessaloniki (I anastilosi ton Byzantinon kai metabyzantinon mnhmeion tis Thessalonikes), Athens, 1985, 8–9, 12–17.

65 For the most comprehensive study to date of the mosaic cycle of the monument which was discovered in the late 1900s see: R. Cormack, ‘The mosaic decoration of St Demetrios, Thessaloniki: a re-examination in the light of the drawings of W.S. George’, Annual of the British School at Athens 64 (1969), 16–52.

66 P.N. Papageorgiou, ‘Thessaloniki monuments dedicated to the worship of the holy martyr Demetrios (Mnhmeia tis en Thessaloniki latreias tou megalomartyros Hagiou Demetriou)’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 17 (1908), 321–81, pls 1–4 (for the photographs), 5 and 6 (for the coloured drawings of the mosaics).

67 Equally poor on the documentation of the Thessaloniki mosaic cycles seem to have been earlier publications devoted to the issue, see for example: J. Kurth, ‘Die mosaikinschriften von Salonik’, Athenische Mitteilungen 22 (1897), 463–73.

68 O. Tafrali, Sur les réparations faites au VIIe siècle à l’église de Saint-Démétrius de Salonique (Extrait de la Revue Archéologique), Paris, 1909; O. Tafrali, Sur la date de l’église et des mosaiques de Saint-Démétrius de Salonique (Extrait de la Revue Archéologique), Paris, 1909.

69 O. Tafrali, Thessalonique au quatorzième siècle, Paris, 1913; O. Tafrali, Topographie de Thessalonique, Paris, 1913: both reproduce general photographs of the city and its monuments as well as one photographic plate of the interior of the Panagia Acheiropoietos church (pl. 15.1), one general view of the St Demetrios interior (pl. 15.2) and two photographic plates of the Marian cycle (pl. 14).

70 C. Diehl and M. le Tourneau, Les mosaiques de Saint-Démétrius de Salonique (Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Commission de la Fondation Piot, Monuments et mémoires, vol. 18 (1910–11), Paris, 1911, pls 16–21; le Tourneau was among the first to present images from St Demetrios to the Paris Salon of 1906 attracting the interest of the broader French public, artists and scholars. The newly launched (in the mid-19th century) method of photogrammetry was in fact a practice of determining the geometric properties of objects from photographic images.

dated 29/04/1888 and 28/04/1888 respectively, no 198 dated April 1890.

32 See mainly BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.01.164 (dated 28/04/1889), 165, 166 and BRF 01.01.01.173 and 176, see also BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 5 where preliminary drawings of the mosaic borders of the Daphni cycle were created dated 25 April 1888.

33 BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 12, dated November 1889.34 BSA BRF Archive: 3d-objects: Mosaic ‘swatch’ and Plaster wall-

pieces.35 Maybe the most representative example is the drawing depicting

the Prophet Ezekiel: see BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.01.187.36 The phrase belongs to the Greek 19th-century writer Yannis

Kampisis: see, E.D. Mathiopoulos, ‘A study of the collection of Byzantine replicas’, in O. Gkratziou and A. Lazaridou (eds), From the Christian Collection to the Byzantine Museum (1884–1930) (exh. cat., Byzantine and Christian Museum), Athens, 2009, 77–115, esp. 86–7, where the practice is extensively analyzed and discussed; see also: Cormack (n. 28), 67–8.

37 G. Millet, Le monastère de Daphni: histoire, architecture, mosaïque (Monuments de l’art byzantin, no 1), Paris, 1899.

38 See the detailed analysis in Mathiopoulos (n. 36), 83–8.39 Millet (n. 37), pls 7–19. 40 Ibid., Preface 11, 67, fig. 39 and 68, n. 7. 41 Diehl (n. 25). 42 BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: BAR 2 (10 August 10 1890) and BAR 4

(10 January 1890–5 April 1890).43 Diehl (n. 25), 35, fig. 1, 36, fig. 2, 37, fig. 3. Diehl himself regrets in

his 1897 publication on the Byzantine mosaics of St Luke for not having included enough images to his initial (1889: n. 25) publication of the monument’s mosaic cycle that ‘would have helped the reader appreciate their artistic value and decorative character’: Mosaïques Byzantines de Saint-Luc (Monuments et mémoires publiés par l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (Deuxième fascicule du tome III), Paris, 1897, 3.

44 Weir Schultz and Barnsley (n. 23), 1901, 2, n. 3. 45 Ibid., 31, 38–42.46 Ibid., pls 30–55 of the publication are devoted to the meticulous

recording of the monument’s opus sectile pavement and mosaics. For the original drawings of the Panagia church pavement see BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.04.130 and 132-135 see also the preliminary sketches in BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: SCH 13 dated November 1889.

47 Ibid., 42–3.48 Both monographs seem to lay particular emphasis on the study of

the mosaic cycle to which they devote their third part (Diehl [n. 25], 39–72 and Weir Schultz and Barnsley [n. 23], 42–66).

49 For the two architects see: Kakissis (n. 2), 155–7. 50 Ibid., 154, n. 53. 51 Texier and Pullan (n. 15), Bayet (n. 18), Salzenberg (n. 13), and C.

Gourlay, ‘The minor Byzantine churches of Constantinople’, Journal of the Royal Institute of British Architects 14 (1907), 637–49, no. 18.

52 Weir Schultz and Barnsley’s original notes on the Thessaloniki monuments as well as those by George were transcribed in October 1932 by the architect A.H.S. Megaw the newly appointed Macmillan student and later Assistant and Acting Director of the British School. Megaw, who arrived from Cambridge in Athens in 1930 to assume at Weir Schultz’s instigation research on the key Byzantine monuments of the Greek mainland, was discussing with Weir Schultz the possibility of reviving the researches of the Fund.

53 For George’s original remarks see: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated transcripts and Notes ‘Church of St George Rotonda, Salonika’, for his preliminary sketches of the mosaic cycle: BSA BRF Archive: Notebooks: GEO 1, for his drawings BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.192, 197 and BRF 01.01.07.201-204, for the photographs he produced see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02.01.07.071-73.

54 Lethaby’s short remarks have also been transcribed by Megaw see: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated Transcripts and Notes ‘St George, Salonika, Notes W.R.L.’.

55 On Lethaby and his involvement with the British School Fund see mainly: Kakissis (n. 2), 146–7.

56 W.R. Lethaby and H. Swainson, The Church of Santa Sophia, Constantinople: a Study of Byzantine Building, London, 1894.

57 For the two architects and their monograph see: Bullen (n. 9), 168–73.

270 | New Light on Old Glass

of the St Demetrios church see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 02.01.07.144.

78 G. Edwards, ‘Foreign photographers in Greece in the 19th century’, in Photography in the 20th Century (exh. cat., Benaki Museum), Athens, 1985, 14–24, esp. 17, 20, 23–4, reprinted as F. Constantinou and A Tsipralou (eds), Athens 1839–1900: A Photographic Record, Athens, 2003.

79 Cormack (n. 65), pl. 7b; R. Cormack, The Church of St Demetrios: the Watercolours and Drawings of W.S. George (exh. cat., Vafoloulio Cultural Centre), Thessaloniki, 1985, 108–16, nos 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39; for the original watercolour ‘squeeze’ drawings see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.307, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315.

80 For a detailed analysis of the history of the monument see: Cormack (n. 65), 18–19. For a critical re-evaluation of all the previous literature on the monument’s archaeology and art see: Cormack 1985 (n. 79), 17–19.

81 See for example: Cormack (n. 65), pls 6–9 and 15; Cormack 1985 (n. 79), 74–7; for the original watercolour drawings see: BSA BRF Archive: BRF 01.01.07.306, 308, 309, 312.

82 George’s original notes on the mosaic cycle were transcribed in two A4 sheets by Megaw, who was planning to work on the church of St Demetrios, in October 1932 see: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated Transcripts and Notes, ‘Mosaics of St Demetrius, Salonika’ (dated 13 October 1932). The notes were first studied by O.M. Dalton, who was familiar with the work of the Fund. Dalton included a brief summary in his Byzantine Art and Archaeolog y, Oxford, 1911, 279, n. 1.

83 See: Kakissis (n. 2), 145–7.84 William Lethaby in his fundamental Architecture, Mysticism and Myth

(1891), encourages the architect to associate himself with draughtsmen in order to familiarize himself at first hand with various building techniques see: M. Greenstead (ed.), An Antholog y of the Arts and Crafts Movement, London, 2005, 33–4 (2.4/I).

85 E. Cumming and W. Kaplan, The Arts and Crafts Movement, London, 2002, 9–15, esp. 15.

86 Cormack (n. 28), 62, n. 19.87 Bullen (n. 9), 166–7, where the Byzantine features of the building

are meticulously analyzed and discussed. 88 K. Livingstone, ‘Origins and development’, in K. Livingstone and

L. Parry (eds), International Arts and Crafts, London, 2005, 14–16; R.P. Blakesley, The Arts and Crafts Movement, London, 2006, 7–9.

89 Bullen (n. 9), 164–8, where the impact of Byzantium on the development of the movement’s aesthetics is discussed in detail.

90 Quoted by Rice in: D. Talbot Rice, The Appreciation of Byzantine Art, London, 1972, 30.

91 Bullen (n. 9), 173.

71 C. Diehl, H. Saladin and M. Le Tourneau, Les monuments chrétiens de Salonique (Monuments de l’art byzantin 4), Paris, 1918, ch. I (St George, the Rotunda), 19–31, fig. 1 (plan of the church reproduced from Texier), figs 3 and 4 (photos of the mosaics in the vaults), pls 1 and 2 (the dome mosaics); ch. II (Panagia Acheiropoietos), 35–58, figs 5–30 (exterior and interior photographic reproductions), figs 21–7 (photographs of the mosaics), pls 3–12 (architectural plans, aquarelles); ch. III (St Demetrios), 61–115, figs 28–44 (exterior and interior photographic plates), figs 45–8 (details of the mosaic cycle, including only two photographs with details of the Maria cycle), pls 13–34 (architectural plans and aquarelles, including four aquarelles of the Maria cycle and the pillar mosaics); ch. IV (St Sophia), 117, figs 49–54 (exterior and interior photographic reproductions), figs 57–67 (photographic plates with details of the mosaic cycle), pls 35–49 (architectural plans, sketches of architectural members, two aquarelles of the mosaic cycle and two photographic plates of the decoration in the dome).

72 C. Diehl, Manuel d’art byzantin, Paris, 1910, see: figs 91–4 and 169 (for le Tourneau’s recordings of the St Demetrios Marian cycle), fig. 170 (for St Sophia), figs 53 and 57 (for Millet images of Panagia Acheiropoietos and of St George).

73 For a comparative analysis of the Greek, French and Russian scholarship on the Thessaloniki monuments see mainly: Cormack (n. 65), 17–19.

74 F. Boissonnas, Salonique, la ville des belles églises, Geneva, 1919, pls 14–15 (for the Rotunda), pls 25–36 (for St Demetrios), pls 37–9 (for St Sophia).

75 See G. Velenis, ‘Thessaloniki monuments in the photographs of the Albert-Kahn museum (Ta mnhmeia tis Thessalonikis stis autochromies tou Mouseiou Albert-Kahn)’, in Thessaloniki: les autochromes du Musée Albert-Kahn, Athens, 1999, 125–45, esp. 125–8 (St Demetrios), 128–35 (for St Sophia). For an exhibition of some of this material see: J. Beausoleil et al. (eds), 1913–1918 Θεσσαλονίκη. Οι τύχες των Βαλκανίων (1913–1918 Thessaloniki: the Destiny of the Balkans) (exh. cat., Benaki Museum, Athens, 1999, 16–17 (for St Sophia), 17–18 (for St Demetrios).

76 For the trend as far as Thessaloniki is concerned see: E. Kitsis, Cartes-postales of Thessaloniki at the Beginning of the 20th century (Cartes-postales tis Thessalonikes stis arxes tou 20ou aiona), Thessaloniki, 2008.

77 George’s original notes on the St Demetrios church (dated 1908) were also transcribed by Megaw in 1932 see: BSA BRF Archive: Annotated Transcripts and Notes, ‘St Demetrius, Salonika’

(dated 13 October 1932). The BRF Archive photographic collection includes professional sets by the same photographer of the interior