e

11
0 es or e e s
-
a .::.
0 e r_c 1
e
-
""r
~ o e
~
as
-
-
-c:
-
&"
...
~ -
- -
- -

-

- -
,..
- -
..
-
- - - -


....
- -
- -
- -s
..
- -
-- -
616 Robin Cormack
Middle Ages was particularly precious and special the
patterns of reading texts and pictures do' not
necessarily correspond with our expectations -- modern
familiarity with reading the printed book can too
easily anaesthetise us to the medieval experience ...
There are also special difficulties in discussing "new"
programs in manuscript illumination in view of the
disappearance" of the "models" which in so much
consideration of the Byzantine book have been taken to
be the operative comparative "evtdence".'' While it is
salutary to accept the principle that manuscript
production involved copying, once the necessary caution
has been encouraged in identifying innovation, the
further interest in describing the appearance of lost
models seems fruitless. These models, so long as they
are irrecoverable, can only be reconstructed according
to hypothetical principles; and the accuracy of the
reconstructions cannot be tested.
Perhaps the most studied type of book in our
period is the psalter; it offers the case of a text of
immense functional importance in church and monastic
life both before and after Iconoclasm, and one to which
was added considerable embellishments. Yet ultimately
these manuscripts give little practical help in solving
the problems of patronage; they only help to understand
the limitations of the evidence. The contents of the
cycles in the "marginal psalters" of the ninth century
appear to be derived from a mixture of old and new
elements; the dense c ye les of the Chludov psal ter can
hardly be entirely new creations -- author portraits of
David were probably a traditional feature of the (lost>
earlier Byzantine psalters, and the pictures with
explicit Iconoclast representations cannot be earlier
than the eighth century. But this conclusion hardly
offers any method of distinguishing innovation from
copying. and takes our discussion nowhere. As for the
patronage, the position is much the same as will later
eerge in St Sophia; candidates have been canvassed, in
particular patriarchs Hethodios, Ignatios and Photios.
The controversy itself spells out the problem; why is
the identity of the patron inaccessible to us?
The Paris Psalter of the tenth century has given
ris-e to equally elusive controversies. u Although the
polar aat1on or v1eva about this manuscript as either
COPJ or Late Antique model (with only the format of
tbe p .. e chaaaed) or as pastiche entirely from discrete
e a ot Late Antique art haa been modified. the
wl e ev ot 1t partlr copy or earlier models and
'I c or aeparate elements atill leaves
e t of lt. new program. Furthermore
t. e !dent.1 ty or ita patron ia unresolved
Prt roJenitoe or an unknown courtier,
Byzantine Iconography 617
it can play no useful role in the construction of an
argument about patronage.,
This leaves us with the evidence of a few other
manuscripts of the period which give more specific
information about their patrons. Two major manuscripts
of the tenth century actually record the name of their
patrons, the so-called Bible of Niketas and the Bible
of Leo. Apart from work on the sources of the
miniatures. more constructive attention has been given
in the case of the Leo Bible to the principles of
iconographlc choice. Leo may be identified as the
author of the verses in the frames of the miniatures
which act as a verbal pendant to the visual images. The
question which therefore arises in a modern inter-
pretation of the cycle is whether one should be looking
for the intentions of the patron in choosing each image
and judging his originality within the historical
development of Orthodox exegesis. or whether on the
other hand the personality of this author may be
subordinated to the evidence he gives of the ways of
thinking of the society in which he was living. Leo has
been characterised as an "amateur poet"; but thinking
of him in this way (irrespective of whether the
judgement is right or wrong) may hinder an under-
standing of how the verses were constructed. How far
did Leo have a free hand in his compositions, and how
far did the Nicaean formula of 787 mean that such a
patron would necessarily consult with the clergy in his
formulations and have his ideas vetted? More important
is the consideration of how a tenth-century court
official developed his theology; he was no rustic
miller. but a conforming member of high society.
Interpreting his logic must give a datum for the
thought-world of the tenth-century civil service. We
cannot know if Leo was "typical" but his verses and
images do represent the scale and range of the
"thinkable" withln the milieu. It may be true that the
manuscript could help to understand the processes of
c ommunic at ion between patron and artist; but its
importance as an indication of the social use of art
seems easier to grasp -- the role of art in prayer. its
indications of the preoccupations and perceptions of
the wealthy, and its reflection of the authority and
predominance of the church.
One further manuscript must be introduced.
although its evidence cannot be so precisely explored
as in the case of the Bible of Leo: This is the n1nth
century Homilies of Gregory of Nazianzus. Paris 510.'
Here at least we have a manuscript of undoubted
innovation in its program, with images of great
complex 1 ty and some top 1c ali ty which are unparalleled
in other manuscripts of the same texts. But while the
mind of Photios can be persuasively connected with its
DO
a pur
or
an innovation of
1 ent on or the
the structures of
The osaica of
a ore useful inde of
for he cho c a or such
John Chryaoa omoa and
r n St Sophia,
tbe traditions
location in
he historical
olved happened.
actor than the
sea of he mind or the
aual co .. unication which
e prograas where the
a or no more than a
can be compared with
ere the choice of
a J or oaaic saints
-" ----toaa and partly on the
D of the monastery.
allpa1ntinga of Cyprus
e nclua1on can be seen
t paet history or the
to offer any 1nsights
or bought of their
leiatra of
B s ntln Ieo o phJ 611
h patron was the patriarch Nicholas Mysticos and that
hi intention in this commission was to proclaim a
victory of the church over the attempt by an emperor to
flout it lava and to act as a warning to future
emperors. how is one to teat the identification or to
confirm th patron a motives and thinking? Must one
attribut innovation to individual creativity aa if it
came ~ If on the other hand an explanation for
the mosaic is only to be proposed on the basis of a
Byzantine text which is thought to be the direct
influence on the iconography, is one to accept that
visual communication works simply by translating words
into images? Surely no one takes the trouble to put
up a picture simply to make the same point which could
be written in a text.
Compoaitionally the narthex panel which shows an
emperor in proskynesis in front of an enthroned Christ
and medallions with saints (the Virgin and an
archangel) is not unique. A related type of scheme is
found in the north inner aisle mosaics of the church or
St Demetrios at Thessaloniki (dating probably to the
sixth century) and in the description of an eleventh-
century imperial mosaic by John Mauropous.,. However
there is no available exact parallel for the precise
iconographic components of this panel. The analysis in
terms of the patron must necessarily involve
constructing the processes of conscious thought which
went into the production of the mosaic. To be
convincing sueh an analysis needs to determine the
t.be oomaiaaion
Th
d r
6l8 Robin Cormack
production. in the final analysis. what seems important
is not what led him to the individual choic s
0
iconography. but its demonstration for th Vlewer of
the structures of theological thought and imperial
ideology in the late ninth century. A comparison
between these Homilies and their illustrations and the
illustration of the Bible of Leo documents less the
individual predilections of Photios and Leo, and more
their representation of theologies of their time and
social groups.
The manuscripts can th refore offer some insights
into the interpretation of patronage as a means of
analysis. but only by turning next to the most
prominent artistic productions of the period can the
questions be more definitely exam1ned. Since the
manuscripts considered were most 1 ikely produced in
Constantinople then it seems quite su 1 table to set
against the evidence of their miniatures the monumental
programs of the churches of Constantinople. Effectively
this means looking further at the mosaics of St Sophia.
and so locating the discussion in the example which
must represent one of the most sophisticated
co .. issions of the period.
The choice of St Sophia does mean abandoning any
exploitation of the extensive decorations of Cappadocia
which might be thought to offer the most extensive
e1ample of the creation and modification of programs.
But the value of St Sophia is that the bulk of the
aaterial in the church in mosaic from the period either
survives or can be documented from visual records. The
other surviving decorations from Constantinople (or by
the artists of Constantinople as may be suggested in
the eaaea of the Kolmisis church at Nicaea or the
cupola of St Sophia at Thessaloniki) which belong to
thia period cannot. even if supplemented by the
d cr1pt1ona of art in texts. supply a sufficient
picture or the chronological developments after
Ieonoclasa. The evidence both written and archaeo-
ta too ncomplete in ita indications, and it is
1ff1cult to tastne, as has been proposed, that a
p r od of revival which bad auch a variety of sources
r a. to derive its ideas could have followed any
ion from. say, single figure
eo p arrangements of
t Sophia after
ar nd 867 and
period or
the various
in beir
o overall
ea tbouah
tonal
Byzantine Iconography 619
particular s1gn1f c This decor t1on ther for
offer:s a P r digm case for th investieation of th
qu stion of th d to which th "m aning" of
programs and th notion of th ir "or ginality" can b
r lat d to th indiv du l charact r and int rests
0
th (po tul t d) p trons.
It s th choic of th enthroned Virgin and Child
nd rch ng 1 for th main ap e composition, a mosaic
t in plac b for th caffo dings requir d were re-
er et d und r th dom , which sug t that a
compatible pro ram for the other vaults of the church
had b n plann d by 867. When later ca.rried out, this
program d Christ in the dome surround d in th
low r vaults by s raphim, archangel , prophets and
Church Fath rs, and a numb r of p cific lew Testament
scenes in the vaults of the galleries. Such a program.
which has ome parallels in other decorations of the
period <such as the Chry otriklinos in the Palace and
in the major churches of Constantinople), has b en
characterised as hierarchical and also as 1n the natur
of a c.ivU.tl4 d..t...l -- one in which the New Dispen ation of
the Christian Church was most prominent. The overa l
effect is less of a narrative cycle than an evocation
of the rotating liturgical calendar of the church.
This mosaic decoration of St Sophia can be
literally taken to be a new program. for the evidence
is that it was the first figurative mosaic decoration
ever set in the vaults of the church. Furth rmore
certain elem nts n the iconography come together h re
in what was certainly a new combination: This is quite
evident 1n the saints of the tympana where the ninth-
century patriarch Ignatios was included among the
Church Fath rs The bishops chosen for representation
generally had some special connection with St Sophia.
There is sense n which it is easy to describe this
program s the 1nd1v . dual formulation of a patron; and
this effective patron, leaving aside the pract cal
difficulties which h ve already been mentioned. was
quite likely to have been the patriarch Photios. He may
have formulated the reasons for choosing to fill the
available spaces with such apparently but
evocative characters as Gregory of Greater Armenia. He
may also have given reasons for choosing to decorate
the apse with the composition of the Virgin and Child.
Yet even if the speculation is accepted that Phot os
had particular intentions in drawing up a program for
St Sophia. one is bound to question whether an
explanation of the program lies in the "genius" of
Photioa or indeed whether a greater understanding of
the program is helped through personalising the patron.
Had the program been drawn up by Hethodios or lgn tios
(which of course it might have been), would this
s r1ously detract from its histories si n1f1c nee?
621
Robin Cormack
encouraging sign and suggests that the
granted. It would therefore be quite is
that the Byzantine viewer would read thi i gue
th t h t
. s mage to
say" a emperors. w a ever their sins in life, will
be granted peace and forgiveness in the after! if Th
is a message more tactfully conveyed
risked out This type of message is the essence of
religious art, images allow the articulation of ra e
and the simultaneous promise of fulfillment. P Y r
While this kind of semiotic analysis of the
narthex mosaic seems to me to be more rewarding than
the traditional, sometimes exclusive, considerations
rro the point of view of the pat .ron and producer, it
does not exhaust all the evocations of the image. which
I take to be a polyvalent one. So far the viewer has
been treated in the abstract; but it is also possible
to consider the mosaic in terms of the possible
categories of viewer in this part of St Sophia. The
penitent. for example. who was not allowed into the
nave of the church, but confined to the narthex. might
read the penitence and forgiveness of an emperor into
the scene. The pilgrim visiting the church might have
read the image, placed above a door through which entry
to the ordinary person was not allowed, as one of
enhancement of the emperor who is placed in a close
relationship with Christ and his heavenly retinue; the
image expresses the nature of monarchy in the Byzantine
state. Another kind of viewer can more closely be
considered by the historian through the medium of a
number of texts. This is the member of the congregation
or St Sophia at services. The ceremonial is not only
literally described in the Typ.atan of the Great Church
and in the CQ.L.II..Uian.lU. but symbolically interpreted
in the Huta'ttl 4lld My4t.ll!tU.. Cant.utp.l.atlan of
patriarch Germanos ., The latter text was of dominant
importance in our period, representing the "official"
view of the symbolism of the liturgy within the visual
environment of St Sophia.
The commentary of Germanos represents for the art
historian a text" to be taken in its own right.
Considered as theology it may seem confused and
contradictory, and it may be possible to explain the
overlappin& ayabolis throu&h source analysis. showing
ho it ia a eo pilation or various traditions. But this
kl d or tb oloa cal e orcia doea not explain how the
t t on eo deratood. It may be true
the seventh century
' rpr tation from
and then to
level of
eacourased
look for a
re to the
it
Byzantine Iconography 62
3
r ual at the entrance d
later placed (the Int which the mosaic was
the litur ro 'cap. 24>. It is here that
prays th:f proper is seen to begin; the patriarch
con the holy angels may enter with the
G gregation, and himself enters the church with the
during the recitation of Psalm 94 (full of
an sg V ng and proskynesis to the Lord and King)
to the throne where he sits and says "Peace
eave w l th you" (John 14:27 >. Any Byzantine viewer
present at the liturgy in St Sophia at the time when
the mosaic was set in place would then have been
influenced in a reading of the symbolism by the
evocations of Gerrnanos. The text therefore opens up to
the art historian further levels of interpretation of
the mosaic as part of the setting of the liturgy and as
part of t .he whole symbolic program of decoration of the
church. This level of interpretation may be understood
irrespective of the precise date of the mosaic or
identity of the patron.
Conclusion
It is this possibility of an analysis of the signs
of ninth- and tenth-century art without privileging the
role of the (too often unknown) patron that undercuts
the title of this paper. My argument is of course not
to deny that any work of art is the product of
economic. social and ideological factors, mediated
through formal structures, all of which might be
symbolised in the particular practices and
personalities of the individual patrons and artists;
but it is to say that one can hope to demystify the
notion of art as being only the outcome of impenetrable
personal creativity and inspiration. If the production
of art and the viewer's responses to it are taken to be
social activities, it follows that the discussion of
new programs can be located within a broader context
than of the individual patron. Innovations in art which
structurally relate to other developments in the
culture should be more possible for the historian to
unravel since they can be observed in a broader
spectrum of material. It is for this reason that
interpretations of the program of the manuscript of the
Homilies of St Gregory of Nazianzus could be proposed
by Der Nersessian without a knowledge of precisely how
the "patron" acted as producer. In the same way much
can be said about the program of the Chludov and
related psal ters, though not only the patron but also
the context of production, whether Patriarchal or
monastic. is a matter of uncertainty. In the case of
the Bible of Leo, our knowledge of the patron. limited
as it is, helps to locate the manuscript in its social
milieu; but the character of Leo as personally revealed
in the verses which he contributed is of less concern
6
.J Robin Cormack
pltrong 1 contain d in t xt (for
conatruct1on of n Vi tal in Rev nn , x mp th cost of th
"- r.. .(,.u, 311. 145 c e C. H ngo, Tu A.*"
t}ll.. p - Engl '-'OOd Cliffa, N w '""
0
'
1
912> 10--5: Agn llua r cords th xp nditur J ra y,
by Julius Arg ntar1u , pr sumably bank r.
8
n th church
10
udU; dooum nt (for x mpl typika and Will 26,ooo gold
t.hOI of Eut.athios Bo1laa nd the Pakouria
8
' pfartioul rly
R. cormack. aa not 6 abov >;and 1nacription:oL(fom11y, e
pala1ologan incr1ption in Gr c with informa{
1
l mpl
ultipl patron ' uoh a th in or1pt1on of th on about
Upoul CHn1> d t d Jun 126 f1.rst of
8. Drandak "Th Wallpain 1 n of s Co m an
8
by
Y.1poult ( 1265}", Mdt fpJt.' 1980 ( 1982), 97-118 andd
A. Ph1lipp11di -:r p tl in D. F 1 nd A.
"lnecr1pt ona u oponn a ( 1' xc ption de Hist " TIA
267-395. esp. 312-3). ra
8. Th lit ratur on mod 1 books, k tchbooks and pattern
book is grow1n a mor mat r1 . l 1 ound: , moat recent!
H. uchthal, Tlt.L "Mu.ft.vab.uc.h." o' lllo1..6b/U.t.t..l. 4Jtd .f..U po-6.U..lon .n.
W. '' t.h.t Cut.t.u.A.V C Vi nn 1979 > and L. Bouras and
14.-Ph. Tzinkakou Sk dia rg 1 s metabuz ntinon zographon"
Zvgtr4 no. 62 (1983l, 22-30. On dr wing se T, Velmans, "L;
dutin a Byzanc " iUT11.Plot, 9 (1974), 137-70.
9. Th d ails ar 1v n by A. Gui lou, "Rome, c ntre
t.rtni t d a produ 1 t d 1 ux d 'Ori nt au Ha ut Ho yen Age",
Ztrt.u4 10 (1979), 17-21 and notes 37-8. In on tran:s ction
gild d icon of the Virgin w v lued at 30 nomismata nd
lilk akaraman&ion m roid red w1 th gold thr d at 20
nomimata.
10. Eaampl a of r cycl d works ar found in the Tre eury
of 1n Maroo at V n to H. R. Hahnlo r C editor), I.t.. TUt11to
tU .5411 U T.uou .t. .U.. Aeu.U.D, (Flor ne , 1971) nd British
HuttUII Tlu.. T . .u
4
4u...t(l t16 Slllf (London, 198l.i). Some
1t. ma ahow how in the ninth nd t nth c nturi a, for exampl ,
obJ eta from arl1 r p r1od wer ad pt d to n w use"; thos
p1eo a which dat back to Ant1qu1 ty must Dom how have be n
k pt famU y h J rloom or in ohurth or imp ri 1 treeaur1 s
end tak n for r eett.ing or r u For th eh ract ri atjon of
a d due d t nth-c ntury connoi s ur s A. Cutl. r, "The
Mythological Bowl in th Tr a ury of S n Haroo at V nice", in
D.K. ouymJ !an < d1 tor), fcut.un IctTttog.lf.apltv.
Epi.gupllv M.d H.Ut.t1..t.V a Ht111DJr t16 G.C. Ull.u, CBe1rut, 1974)
2 ,_,,.. An xampl of th ua of uoh obj ota s symbols of
v elth and pow r ia r fleet d in the organieatton of th
nter ainm nt for th Sarac n ambas dora <from T rsua >
r corded in Pc. d. J.J. R 1 k C d. Bono. 1829), J,
70 the emp ror <Conatantln Porphyrog nitoa) in ord r to
impr 11 th a v1a1tora 1n the Hangaur r qulsit1on d for
lhib1t1on plat and oth r works in pr loue m t 1 from th
Qhur h a in h o 1 ty. The 1 mpl ahowe th pow rs of th
Pror to appropriate auoh mat r1al and augg ta the r 1 tion
b tw n bu 1 n art and bullion a w alth. H raklio in 621
" allow d to collect church pl t and conv rt i.t into
oo1n 1 a a Crutkahank Dodd, IV'l.4ALiJU SU"c..t Stap.a,
Ufaah1n n. D .. c 1861), ap. 2-3.
11. ab ration ot a ay t or exohana ae
' .. ( Cambr 1d&e 1977)
d ) and s. Pr1o RU&ua.U tUt.d Pnu.
"'"' cc aab r 1 d& 1 V 8- )
Byzantine Iconography 631
St 12. A useful collection of material is in M. Hendy,
Ud-lu ./.Jt t.M. B1J'l411.t..l.M. UortLt4Juj Econ.o.IJ c. 300-1450, (Cambridge,
1985): hereafter cited as Hendy: 1985.
13 Lucy-Anne Hunt, "Comnenian Aristocratic Palace
Descriptions and Islamic Connections", in Angold:
9 4 (se above note 3) , 138-56, esp. 140 and note 22; and
C. M npo "When we Hichael Ill Born. VOP, 21 (1967), 253-58.
1 S e H ndy: 1985, 224-5 and note 23 for reference to
Th oph n a Cont1nuatus, iv.20: Bonn edn. 171-2. Hendy's figure
is 7,869,600 nomismata
15. Hendy: 1985, 206-7 and 225 with references. Hendy's
figure is 3,600,000 nomismata.
16. Hendy: 1985. 225. A reserve of 14,400,000 nomiemata.
17. For the patronage of Theophilos see R. Cormack. "The
Art in the Age of Iconoclasm" in A. Bryer and J. Herrin
(editors) (University of Birmingham, 1977) and
C. Hango, TM. W o-6 th...t By'Ulll.t..l.M. Eapbtt. 3J2-J453, (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972), esp. 160-5. For the patronage of
Basil I. the text of the VUa BtUU.U. (Bk V of Theophanes
Continuatus> offers the basis for an interpretation. In the
case of Basil II, his connection with Hosios Lukas has been
one suggestion to explain the lavish building and decoration
of the Katholikon: for a new review of the literature see
D.I. Pallas, "Zur Topographie und Chronologie von Hosios
Lukas: ein kritische Obersicht", BZ, 78 (1985), 9l.i-107. (The
patronage of Basil II accounts for the production of some
illuminated manuscripts: the Henolog1on Vat gr 1613. the
Psalter Harciana gr. 17, and the luxury Gospels Sinai
204). The picture of "stagnation" in art over the fifty years
of his reign implied by K. Weitzmann. "Byzantine Miniature and
Icon Painting in the Eleventh Century", reprinted in ..lit
C LILU .le 44.. and B IAtU'I.tUCJl..ipt. l U a.t...lon , e d i t e d b y
H.L. Kessler, (Chicago and London, 1971), 271-313, depends on
the "early" date of the Henologion proposed by Nersessian <on
extremely week grounds). A date in the eleveQ,th century for
the Henologion and the Psalter (as I. "The
Illuminators of the Henologium of Basil II", VOP, 16 [ 19621,
end A. Cutler, "The Psalter of Basil II", M.tV.t.n., 30
[1976), 9-19 and 31 [1977), 9-15) would mean readjustments to
We1tzm nn's pictur I see no reason to accept that the
Menologton is a copy of an earlier tenth century "model" (the
textual evidence adduced is erroneous>. Some of the resistance
to accepting that Basil II was active in artistic patronage,
as f o u n d 1 n S Run c 1 man , 8 vzMt.llt.t. St. {ILL and C..lv .l.LU a.t..ltTK
(Harmondsworth, p. 108, seems to derive from a romantic
notion of the philistine soldier "who resented spending money
on th rts"; such vi we of "art" ignore its integral role in
Byz ntin life -- Basil II wee accompanied on campaign not
only by 11 th accoutrements of the b ggage train (see Hendy:
1985, 272-5 and 304-15 for an account of the contents of the
imp rial b ggage train) but also by tr velling holy men. No
doubt Basil travelled on c mpaign with portable icons -- he is
a companied by pictures of military saints in his portrait
icon 1n th H re lane Ps 1 ter. As for oth r emperors in the
p riod. their patronage too still needs assessment; the case
of H1cha 1 lli is on wh r his achievements can be
rehab111t t d. a by R.J.H. Jenkins nd C. Mango. "The Date
nd Significance of the T nth Homily of Photius" VOP, 9-10
( 1956). 123-140.
an.
and
6 (19761. 351-65. aad c. ...o.
1o 1917)). eYer 1 CNr perlocl
:a..awo yed 1 t ,.atroa of .oaat.erle , aa
C tie) Patrlareb I tlo decorat
of I r&loa aaecboa or t t of t
't:.ora 1 of uterr I lua at
P r aro tealoa II I leu (893-901:
r fa 1 o e 19 ). pr 1
o reator t a la e c re of
tter for a latioa. It .....
t t elerar re po 1 le for
r toratl011 of t e period. ....1,
t Daalc decoratlo a of St Sop la
to e ed la t.o Ball I (aee
eiNilldl ledeeoratloa or tbe BolJ
tlaop : ec:.o alderatloa GIIS 23
rutoratlo proar ere eJICh oua ud
a tet .. or a rt1ae a 1 tbe coat of
1 r oH blJ c eap). e
rarai.Da or e J t iatlc
ob a patrlareb .. .. tbe on la
e eo s. al011 oarrt OG tttee ? Or
Pilot. u tb real patroa 1 latecl tbe tJaperor t.o
I'DilGlDC1 It la d ttlc lt at tbla leYel or e terp lee
aa if o e eo laal bad oae patroa.
e retererea ill 21 aboYe.
P. aadaliao. BJztl e .lrlatocratle Ot
1 98 C aote ]), 92-111.
eab1t - J. ltta. l C trater ltJ of t e
Co IZ 61 C 975). 360-84.
-tlo t e eo rnera a1 probl ..
t!l 1 c re a ud of o e
taawe ra d oratloa. I e t.be
or t eee c re ea aad
e d-eeeratl eloq 1
D&A.f o tbe 1 ceat:.urr
bf t lj of Caeaarea
col ).
d J l
ot le

Byzantine lconopaphy 637
51. Yario 1
litale, both
1
erarc:hiea already occur for e1aaple in Sa
panels. see he OYerall proar and tn the 1nd11d al
subversio E. Leach, wHelchisedech and the eaperor: 1cona or
ShtetuUtt ~ : : orthodoxy. in E. leach and D .l .lJcock.
6 -88. upu.t&t..Unl..& .,, Ubar&L ~ . (Caabrld&e 983).
5.2 I de t
e
e J
ar o a1
1
or the patron (or donor) ia taken to
by N. Olkonoaldes. Leo V and the
Sophia POP, 30 (1976), 15 -72. n
deteralnin& role of the patrons of tbe
op 1 is also taken bJ Coraac
o ale of S. Sophia at Iatanbul, ~
3 - 9.
is faced by Cutler. fut,q&utu&l.
er rtntat lcl7tJt.t&pltf ( Unhera1 ty Par
and by R. Coraack. J&Lthtt G.U. lfudu.t
' c ~ u C London, 85). One related proble wblc
on l ho useful the studJ or By&an ine
on can be. How anachronistic is it to
rt iatorlan. for whoa novelty and
n an aia of th artist and aa
o .. itted to place ach ork of art
52 above
. ;c. ... ..u "' Ccru.taat.U,.U o tM. TU..l.&
tr nalatlon. introduction and
ork. 19811>; and R. Taft, T e
h: n 1nlt1al ynth ala or atructur
of lconoclaea. 90f, 3--5 (1980-

d vlth reap et to naain e
n ulptur a or the Hauaoleua of
ol A.dLtct Md Sculptcr" b. CLuUc.(
p. 168; and. aore rorcefullJ by
o 1 e 1nd Media Ceniua. adnea and
<1 ), '7-96. S also olrr. aa
r. Tbe Hell nlat.ic H rit in
er d , J 01, 31/2 (19 81 57-7 5
A.t.C _. EUtu-"t b. Bru-t'"' ( Prtnceton,
C e atcal. aaauain that lit. rarJ te.ata
u tJ directly e1platn Claaatcal r atur a in
t 1t influence. A aor cri tea 1
lpreaa1on1aa and Hal ant l te o ~
1D Byzantine F taurat.1Y .lrt.
cedonlan lenaiaaance .. IEI. 2 C 1
1D
(0 ford.
be OD ).