1956 The Date and Significance of The Tenth Homily of Photius

The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius
Author(s): Romilly J. H. Jenkins and Cyril A. Mango

Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 9/10 (1956), pp. 123+125-140
Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291094 .
Accessed: 09/06/2014 17:49
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Dumbarton Oaks Papers.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE DATE AND SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE TENTH HOMILY OF PHOTIUS
ROMILLY J.H. JENKINS

and
CYRIL A. MANGO

MONG the Homiliesof the PatriarchPhotius,the one best knownto
] art-historiansis commonlythoughtto have been deliveredat the
encaenia,on May 1, 880,1of the New Church,builtin or near the
GreatPalace by the emperorBasil I.2 This Homilyis cast in theformof an
ekphrasis,or rhetoricaldescription,and containssome highlysignificant
data on churchdecorationin theninthcentury, a periodofparticularimpor-
tance in the elaborationof the iconographiclayoutof Byzantinechurches.
The purposeofthispaper is to provethat,contrary to acceptedopinion,the
Homilyof Photiushas no connectionwiththe New Church(or Nea), that
it was deliveredat the encaenia,in 864, of thePalace churchof Our Lady
ofthePharos,and thatthedescription is ofthatchurch.3 We add somenotes
on the bearingwhichthisrevisedinterpretation has on problemsof ninth-
centuryByzantinearthistory.
EighteenHomilies of Photiussurvive,includingthe two publishedin
1954 by Messrs.Kournoutosand Laourdas froma ms. now in the National
Libraryof Greece.4These Homilies seem to forma special collectionin
whichtheone underconsideration occupiesthetenthplace. All theremain-
ing Homilies, insofaras theycan be dated on internalevidence,belong to
theperiodof Photius'firstpatriarchate(858-867). It was not quite impos-
sible thatthereshould be a singleexceptionto thisrule; but at least the
balance of probabilityseemed to inclineto the hypothesisthatno. 10 also
was datable before867. This consideration drewour attentionmoreclosely
to itstitleand text.
Homilyno. 10 has been accessible to Westernscholarshipforexactly
threecenturies.It was firstpublishedby Peter Lambeck (Lambecius) in
his notes on (Pseudo-) Codinus under the title (?rlov 7rarptdpXov
Kwvo-,Trav-vovr6XEw (sic) r~j EV rdt- 8ao-tXt*i0t
EK&0amcr (sic) vEaEE1KKX?)o0-L
1 Actually, most authoritiesplace this event in 881 on the basis of the long discredited
chronologyof Pseudo-Symeon (Scriptorespost Theophanem [Bonn] p. 692). A Vogt (Basile
1" [Paris, 1908], p. 398, n. 4) has shown that May 1, 880 is the correctdate.
Photii Orationes et Homiliae LXXXIII, ed. St. D'Aristarchis,II
2 (Constantinople,1900)
pp. 428-439; Georgius Codinus (Bonn) pp. 194-202; PG, 102, coll. 564-573.
'We are happy to learn that Prof. St. Kyriakidisof the Universityof Thessalonica has
independentlyreached a similar conclusion. At the moment when this study was going to
press, we received an articleby B. Laourdas,'O 7arptLpXr~y "royx rov,in rpp-ydpto0
Katly
6 IIaAta^, XXXVIII (Thessalonica, 1955) pp. 152-160. (oD(to
The author, who has worked in
collaborationwith Prof. Kyriakidis,states (p. 159) that Homily no. 10 was delivered at the
encaenia of the famouschurchof the Theotokos"inside the palace of the
Magnaura," and that
"this church . . . is known to us fromthe descriptionsof Constantine
Porphyrogenitusand
Nicholas Mesarites." Also XIV (1955) pp. 168-170. (Last item added in proof.)
4 'EAAVtvK,
oooyla, XXV (1954) pp. 188-200. On the manuscript(no. 2756) see also Darrouzes
J.
in Revue des 6t. byz., XII (1954) pp. 183-186.

126 R. J. H. JENKINS AND C. A. MANGO
7Tqinrepaylaq@0EToKOV,VIT'BacrtXEiov O MCLKE8O.VO 0 K080/q0fY T. It was
underthe same title,withLatin translation
reprinted, and notes,by Com-
befis6 whocomments: ediditGraecdLambeciuse RegidLupard.'Thisdoes
notmean,as wouldappearonfirst sight,thatthems.usedbyLambeckwas
in theLouvre,butsimplythatthetextwaspublishedintheLouvreCorpus
of Byzantine Neithereditorindicatesfromwhatms. the text
historians.8
was taken.A fewdecadeslaterBandurireprinted theHomilyunderthe
sametitle9 and addedin hisPraefatio: Hanc autemEcphrasin seu Descrip-
tionem primusediditGraecetantum Lambeciusex nescioquo MS. Codice,
in Notisad Codinum."oNothing, therefore, is knownof thems. used by
Lambeck,eitheras to the rest of its contents or as to its whereabouts.
Banduri's wordsex nescioquo MS. Codiceseemto suggestthatby 1711it
had alreadydisappeared. It mayhavebeenin Parisorin Rome,in bothof
whichcitiesLambeckwasworking duringtherelevant period."
It was naturalthatCombefis, taking the title at its facevalue,should
haveconcludedthattheHomilyreferred totheNea EkklesiaofBasilI, and
thattheCaesaraddressed in thefinalparagraph 12 was
Basil'seldestsurviv-
ingsonandheirLeo VI. Yet even so he was able to layhisfinger on an im-
portant namely,
discrepancy, thattheNea Ekklesia,on theunimpeachable
evidenceof the Vita Basilii,13was dedicatedto Christ,the Archangels
Michaeland Gabriel,Elijah,theVirginand St. Nicholas,and notto the
Virginalone:fuitilla dicata,he says,14 nonuniSanctaeMariae,ut Photiani
huiusTractatus tituluspraefert; at nec forMd prim6,principaliusque. Ban-
" of and Caesar withBasilI and
duri acceptedtheidentificationemperor
Leo VI; butveryjustly cited thewords ofLiutprand:fabricavit
16 [sc. im-
peratorBasilius] . . iuxtapalatiumorientemversusecclesiam,quam
Nean,hocestnovam,vocant,inhonore summietcaelestismilitiae principis,
archangeli Michahelis,
qui Grece archistratigos We
appellatur.17 maynote,
GeorgiiCodiniExcerptade antiquitatibus (Paris,1655) pp. 187-189.
Constantinopolitanis
SOriginumrerumqueConstantinopolitanarum, variisauctoribus,manipulus(Paris,1664)
pp. 296-306.
'Ibid., p. 304.
SCf. Catalogus librorumquos PetrusLambeciusHamburgensis . . . composuitet in
lucemedidit(Vienna,1673) p. 2: "Syntagma Originum. . . ex TypographiA RegidLuparaed,
Regiissumptibus, in lucemeditum."The Greekmanuscripts werenotin theLouvreat thetime.
ImperiumOrientale, I (Paris,1711) pp. 117-121.
10Ibid.,p. ix.
11Cf.
Cataloguslibrorum, etc.loc. cit.
II, p. 438.
12
Aristarchis,
Script.postTheoph.,pp. 319, 325.
1
1"Op. cit.,p. 304.

Op. cit.,II, p. 807.
Ibid.,p. 804.
2
"
Antapodosis, I, 10.

THE TENTH HOMILY OF PHOTIUS 127
thoughBanduri did not, that iuxta palatiumis not the same thingas in
palatio. However,the evidenceof Lambeck'stitleand theinterpretation of
Combefis and Banduri have been acceptedby all subsequentresearchers.
But even in Combefis'day otherevidence existedforforminga more
correctinterpretation. Paisios Ligarides,bishopof Gaza, who livedin Mos-
cow duringthe 1660's possessed a ms. containingsixteenHomilies and
severallettersof Photius.Whetherthisms. was identicalwithone of our
two principalcodices,namelythe Iviron684 and the MetochionPanagiou
Taphou 529, or whetherit was theirarchetype(in whichcase it has now
disappeared), cannotbe discussedhere.At any rate,in 1670 Paisios made
copiousextractsof the Homiliesfromhis ms. and presentedthem,together
with a completecopy of the titles,to Heinsius, the Dutch scholar and
diplomat,who was thenin Moscow. Heinsiuspassed thisdocumenton to
EmericBigot,who in turngave it to
Combefis.'8Later it was acquired by
Montfauconand has finallycome to rest in the BibliothequeNationale
(Suppl. gr. 286). Combefis,in his BibliothecaegraecorumPatrumauc-
tariumnovissimum,"9 printedwithoutcommentthe titles as given by
Paisios, and among them thatof Homilyno. 10, withwhichwe are con-
cerned.The versionof Paisios,however,differs widelyfromthatgivenby
Lambeck. It runs: 70oa~rovd&yeWrdrov JWconrov Kcovrravwrov-
"PXLETfLwoKTOV
IoXECw' 6 10uota OE
fYY)a EW
;g E' EKcUGEL tTOl) El'
VTOL3 8ao-LXE`oL 1TEPLWvV'pOV
vaoD.
This version,whichre-appearsin almostidenticalformin the Ivironand
Metochionmss.,and in a truncatedformin thems. of the National
Library
of Greece,20has at least equal primafacie authority withthatof Lambeck;
and is,as internalevidencewillprove,undoubtedlythecorrectone. It refers
merelyto the "renownedchurchin thepalace," and has no referenceat all
to theNea Ekklesiaor to Basil theMacedonian.
When we turnnextto the textof the Homily,it becomesat once clear
thatthe government of the day consistsof two persons,and two
only: a
single emperorand a newly appointed Caesar. At the beginningof the
HomilyPhotiusinsertsa briefeulogyof the emperorwhomhe urgesto ex-
plain,in hisownwords,thecause ofthecelebration.21In thefinalperoration
he addressesboththeemperorand theCaesar in thefollowingterms:
"Rejoice, therefore, among emperorsmost blest and beloved of God;
and be thourenewedin thybodilyand mentalprimethatbearsfruitin good
1"See Kunikin Mum. Acad. Imp. de St.-Pitersbourg, VIII. s6rie,cl. hist.-phil.,

VII, 8
(1906) pp. 54-73.
"
(Paris,1672) pp. 548-552.
'
Aristarchis, XXV (1954) p. 178.
II, p. 428; O?oAoyla,
2
Aristarchis,
II, pp. 429-430.

works.As thoucelebratestthe inaugurationbothof the RenownedChurch
and of the worksof thywisdomand thyhand,do thou'bend thybow and
prosperand rule because of truthand meeknessand righteousness'[Ps.
44:5]; forthouartguided,as is plainto see, and shaltbe guidedby theright
hand oftheMostHigh,who formedtheeand anointedtheefromthecradle
itselfto be kingof His own peculiarpeople. Rejoice withhim and be with
himrenewedthoualso,prideofall Caesars whomthesun has lookedupon,
who surpassestthypredecessorsin wisdomand intelligenceand in thefact
thatthouhastreceivedthishighofficeby divineordinanceand notthrough
ambitionnorthecanvassingofmen.Join,therefore, in rejoicingand renew-
ingthyspiritswithhimwho has takentheeas partnerand sharerin theking-
shipforthecommonsalvationofthesubjectsand as befitsthyaffection and
mostsincereloveforhim.Forit is through youtwain[8&h ya&p p
r~TlEE'pa
thatthe Trinity,piouslyworshippedand revered,while spreading
8vo~o0]
and conveyingto all Her providence,steers wisely and governs the
subjects."22
The emperorand the Caesar are, therefore, the Pair, or Dyad, through
whomtheTrinityhas chosento rule." At no timeduringthereignofBasil I
were theseconditionsin force.None of Basil's sonswas everCaesar. At the
timeof the encaenia of Basil's Nea Ekklesia (May 1, 880) therewere not
two emperors,but three:Basil himself,Leo and Alexander.24 There is no
reasonwhateverto believethatPhotius could in 880 have described Leo VI,
alreadycrowned basileus in 870,2' as Caesar merely because he was heir-
apparent."2 And thereis amplereasonto thinkthat,evenhad thetermbeen
applicable,Photiuswould have avoided it,since thewordwould have had
painfuland embarrassing associationsforBasil himself.
Who thenare the personsreferredto? The emperoris Michael III and
theCaesar is hisuncle Bardas.All difficultiesvanishon thishypothesis. The
" Ibid., pp. 437-438.
" In the Homily delivered afterthe Council of 867 (Aristarchis,II, p. 326) Photius calls
Michael and Basil an "admirable Dyad." Had there been three emperorsat the time when
a bon mot
Homily no. 10 was spoken, as was the case in 880, Photius would not have missed
about the imperial Trinityreflecting the celestial Trinity.In an after-dinnerspeech delivered
in 901 or 902, Arethas says that after Leo's reconciliation with his father Basil (in 886),
imperialprocessions were adorned with the splendour and unity of a Trinity (Basil, Leo and
Alexander) instead of a Dyad which denotes division (B.Z., XLVII [1954] p. 40, line 81).
Similarly,when some people urged ConstantineIV to crown his two brothers,theycried, "We
believe in the Trinity;let us crown the three!" (Theophanes, ed. De Boor, p. 352).
` Cf. Fischer in B.Z., V (1896)
pp. 137-139.
" Anastasius Bibliothecariusin Mansi, XVI, col. 143 A. Cf. Hirsch, ByzantinischeStudien
(Leipzig, 1876) p. 167, n. 3.
2 For the rank of Caesar, see Guilland in Orientalia Christiana periodica, XIII (1947)
pp. 169-177; Bury,Imperial Administrative System (London, 1911) p. 36. For Caesars in the
ninthand tenthcenturies,see Ostrogorsky-Stein in Byzantion,VII (1932) pp. 226-227.

tenthHomilytakesitsplace withthe otherseventeenin Photius'firstpatri-
archate,and the two rulersare seen to be in factwhat theyare called: a
singleemperorand a Caesar. Once thisis realized,it is instructive to turn
back toa noteappendedbyPaisiosLigaridestohisexcerptfromthisHomily,
which has been printedboth by Aristarchis 27 and by Jernstedt;28here
Paisios at firstidentifiesthe emperorwithMichael III and the Caesar with
Bardas, althoughhis finalconclusionis thatMichael and Basil, whomhe
wronglystatesto have been proclaimedCaesar, are thepersonsdescribed.
But he was so right,or so nearlyright,thatit is strangehis noteshouldnot
have been moreseriouslyconsideredby latergenerations.
The HomilyprovidesmuchadditionalevidencethatMichael III is the
emperorof whom Photiusis speaking.Take, forinstance,the following
passage:
"Tell us then,mostChrist-loving and pious of emperors, who bothsur-
all
passest thypredecessors and honourest them splendidlyby sharingin
the office,tell an audience which,as thouseest,is eager to listen,forwhat
reasonthouhast called us together.Show in wordswhat thouhast already
shownin deeds. Hast thouagain won victoriesand trophiesover the bar-
barians,withwhichtimeand timeagain thou hast graciouslygreetedus,
and is thiswhythouhastconvokedus, to gladdenus and at thesametimeto
send up in commonour universalthanksto Him who has grantedthe vic-
tory?Or,havingreceivednew tributaries and humbledthebold and insolent
mindof theforeigner, is it to ascribewithpious intentall thyachievements
to God's stronghand? Or hast thou re-erectedsubject citieswhich have
longlain low,and builtothersfromthefoundation, and repopulatedothers,
and consolidatedtheboundariesof theempire?"29
Here Photiusis applyingto theemperorseveralof theconventional cate-
gories of the classical enkomion, but each of themhas a topical and con-
temporary relevance. The emperor has won a series ofvictoriesoverone set
of barbarians;othershe has broughtunder his sway by
treaty,and has
humbledtheirpride.This no doubtrefersto thetwogreatvictoriesoverthe
easternSaracensin Septemberand Octoberof863;30and to the
humblingof
Bulgaria,withoutfighting, in thespringof864,31whichwas, as we shallsee
in a moment,theyearin whichthisHomilywas delivered.We are also told
thatthe emperorhas re-erectedcitieswhichhad long been cast down; the
27
II, pp. 422-424.
28 Mum.Acad. Imp. de St. Petersbourg, VII, 8 (1906) pp. 24-25.
VIII8 s6rie,cl. hist.-phil.,
"Aristarchis,II, pp. 429-430.
o"Cf. Vasiliev,Byzanceet les Arabes,I (Brussels,1935) pp. 251-256.
" Cf. Zlatarski,Ist. na BlgarskataDr'ava, I, 2 (Sofia, 1927) pp. 19-22; Vaillantand
Lascarisin Rev.des et. slaves,XIII (1933) pp. 13-14.

referencemay well be to the rebuildingof Nicaea and Ancyra,whichwe
knowfrominscriptions to have takenplace in 858 and 859.32 Lastly,at the
" to theemperor as rrTrrcjKat LEYdXW,
veryendoftheHomily Photiusrefers
a titlewhichoccurson coins of Michael III (but not on coins of
/3aotXEi,
Basil I), and whichseemsto have been peculiarlyaffectedby Michael.34
It is of coursenot disputedthatthe Nea Ekklesiawas builtby Basil I,
and thatitsencaeniatookplace veryprobablyon May 1, 880. Photius,who
officiated,3Ilmay well have delivereda Homilyon thatoccasion. But this
cannotbe our Homilyno. 10 since no. 10, as we shall see, was delivered
before866, and the Nea Ekklesia was not begun before875 at the very
earliest.35What churchthenis the subjectof Homilyno. 10? It is a church
builtbyMichaelintheverymidstofthepalace(3vIu'oE- airo~i dvaKTOpoLS);-
the Churchof the
and it is a churchof the Virgin."It mustbe, therefore,
Virginof the Pharos, the Capella Palatina of the Great Palace, which
MichaelIII eitherwhollyrebuiltor in greatpartrestored."
The date of the Homilycan be establishedwithinnarrowlimits.The
terminipostand ante are,ofcourse,thedates on whichBardas was created
Caesar (Wednesday,April12,864),"' and on whichhe was murdered(Sun-
day,April21, 866).40 But we maysay withsome certainty thatthe Homily
was deliverednearerto thefirstthanto thesecondofthesefixedpoints.The
seems to implythathe
referenceto Bardas' undertakinghis high office,4'
had been createdCaesar in the recentpast. Takingthispiece of evidence
togetherwith the referencesto Michael's militaryand politicalsuccesses
which have been discussed above, we shall not be wrongin dating the
HomilybetweenApril12 and the end of the year 864. This conclusionis
V (1929-30) p. 328; Vasiliev,op. cit.,p. 236. For theinscrip-

in Byzantion,
3"Cf. Gregoire
tionsof Nicaea, see A. M. Schneiderand W. Karnapp,Die Stadtmauervon Iznik (Berlin,
1938) (IstanbulerForschungen, 9), pp. 51-52.
' Aristarchis, 436, 438.
II, pp.
* Cf.Gr6goire in Byzantion, II, p. 320, line 13.
IV (1927-28) pp. 441-442; Aristarchis,
a"Pseudo-Symeon, p. 692.
3 If credenceis given
to the storythatin 876 kingAshotof Armeniasenta donationof
10,000silverpieces to the new church.See J.Muyldermans, La domination arabeen Armenie,
Extrait de lHistoire universelle de Vardan 1927)
(Louvain-Paris, pp. 139-140; Adontzin
Byzantion, IX (1934) p. 246. Byzantine sources that
indicate constructionwas under way in
877, sincewe are toldthatwhilethefleetwas helpingwiththeworkof excavationand other
buildingactivities,news was receivedthatSyracusewas beingbesiegedby the Arabs,and
beforethefleet could arriveon thespotthecityfell(May 21, 878).
" Aristarchis,II, p. 430.
7
' Ibid., pp. 430, 438.
See below,n. 67.
' Cf.Steinin 2.
MdlangesBidez,II (Brussels,1934) p. 899,note
206.
4oScript.post Theoph., p.
1See above,p. 128.

reinforcedby a strongargumentum ex silentio.One of theformalcategories
of the classical enkomion,as reinterpreted by Christianencomiasts,was
thatofconverting theheathen.42Photiushas mentionedthehumblingofthe
Bulgars;but he makes no mentionof theirconversion,fromwhichit is a
fairinferencethatthishad notyettakenplace. Now,Vaillantand Lascaris43
have showngood reasonsto thinkthatthebaptismof Boris-Michaelof Bul-
gariahad alreadytakenplace in theyear864. If theyare right,our Homily
was deliveredin thatyear,afterthe successfuldemonstration againstBul-
garia and beforethe actual baptismof Boris. The monthand day of the
Homilycannotbe determined.Photiushimselfstatesthatthe day was not
one of theordinaryfeast-days,but a new occasionaltogether.44 Neitherthe
Synaxarion nor the De Cerimoniisgives any special day for the feast
of Our Lady of thePharos,45whichmayhave been deliberatelysuppressed
by the emperorsof the Macedoniandynasty.
It maybe added thattherestoration of Homilyno. 10 to itsproperplace
opens up thepossibilitythatall the survivingeighteenHomiliesof Photius
are arrangedaccordingto chronological orderin ourmanuscripts, a consid-
erationwhichcannot,however,be treatedhere.
The re-interpretation
of Homilyno. 10 calls forcertainadjustmentsin
our conceptsof ninthcenturyByzantineart.To beginwith,we mayreview
the descriptiveelementsof the ekphrasis.Photiusmentionsfirstthe atrium
(irpoiriXata, whosebeauty,he says,leftthespectatorpetrified
rpor~vEo-ta)
with wonder.The whole fagade i.e. presumablythe western
(Wrpo-0ro4i),
facade of the was coveredwitha revetmentof whitemarble,so
church,46
perfectlyjoinedtogetherthatit seemedto be monolithic. Upon enteringthe
churchone was immediately struckby theprofusion ofgoldand silver.Gold
was lavishedon mosaictesserae,on plaques, capitals,cornices(rept?cJara),
and chains.The holytablewas made ofa composition morecostlythangold,
probablyincrustations
ofpreciousstonesand possiblyenamels.47 The pyram-
42
Cf.VitaBasilii(Script.postTheoph.),pp. 341-344.
" Op. cit.,pp.5-15.
" Aristarchis,II, p. 429.
41
Cf. R. Janin,La ge'ographie eccldsiastiquede l'Empirebyzantin,I, 8 (Paris, 1953)
p. 242.
4' The westfagadeof St. Sophiahad a revetment of Proconnesianmarble,tracesofwhich
stillremain.Cf. E. H. Swift,Hagia Sophia (New York,1940) p. 173. Even if the use of
7rp'romCv in the senseof "architectural
fagade"is attestedonlyin ratherrecenttexts,Ebersolt
can hardlybe rightin supposingthatPhotiusis referring to the marblepavementof the
atrium(Le grandpalaisde Constantinople [Paris,1910] pp. 131-132).
' In theNea, the chancel-screen,theholytablesand thesynthronon in the apse were of
silvergildedoverand setwithpreciousstonesand pearls(Vita Basilii,p. 326). On the
altarof St. Sophia,see Paulus Silentiarius, great
vss. 720 sq. (P. Friedlinder,
Johannes von Gaza

idal ciboriumover the holy table as well as the chancel screenwith its
doorsand "peristyle"weresheathedwithsilver.The walls ofthechurch,i.e.
up to thespringingofthevaults,werecovered,as usual,witha revetment of
polychrome marble.The tessellatedpavement,a favoritesubjectin Byzan-
was enlivenedwithanimal and otherfiguressurpassing,
tine ekphraseis,48
saysPhotius,the artof a Pheidiasor a Parrhasios.
Photiusproceedsnextto a descriptionof the mosaics,whichis perhaps
the mostinterestingpart of the Homily.In the centreof the dome was a
from
whoseemedtosupervise
(daVpdKEXO) imageofChrist,
man-like above
the orderlygovernment of the earth.It has oftenbeen said, startingwith
Kondakov,49that this was a half-lengthPantokratorimage, in fact the
earliestinstanceof a Pantokrator medallionin the dome of a church.50This
assertionis subjectto the greatestcaution,since Photiusdoes not specify
that the figurewas half-length, much less that it was of the usual bust
Pantokrator type.Photius'descriptionof the Christfigurecalls to mind a
similarpassage in a sermondeliveredby Leo VI at the consecrationof the
Kauleas monastery. Thereagain therewas a Christin thedomewho seemed
to overseeand governthe universe,"but in thiscase too thereis no proof
thatit was a bust. Settingaside the vault mosaic of the Capella S. Zeno
(817-824) withits bust of Christin a medallionsupportedby fourangels,
the earliestclear instanceof a bust Pantokratorin a dome occurstowards
theend oftheninthcenturyin thechurchbuiltby StylianosZaoutzes.In his
descriptionof the latter,Leo VI takessome pains to explainthatthe half-
lengthfigure, by excludingthelowerpartofthebody,laid emphasison the
divineor highernatureof ChristwhichHe retainedeven amongthe vicis-
situdesof this earthlylife."2The Pantokrator in the centraldome of the
churchof the Holy Apostles,as describedby Mesarites,"was probablyof
the twelfthcentury."4 While,therefore, the typeof Christin the churchof
Our Lady of the Pharoscannotat presentbe ascertained,the possibilityof
und Paulus Silentiarius 19121 pp. 247 sq.); accordingto populartradition,

[Leipzig-Berlin,
it was made of an amalgam of fused gold, silver,copper, electrum,lead, iron, tin, glass and
precious stones (Scriptores originumConstantinopolitanarum, ed. Preger, I [Leipzig, 1901]
p.95).
" Cf. A. Frolow in Etudes byzantines,III (1946) pp. 55-58.
Cerkvi
4" Vizantifskija
i pamjatniki (Odessa, 1886) p. 62.
Konstantinopolia
" So N. Bees in XXXIX (1916) pp. 250-251, and
RepertoriumfiirKunstwissenschaft,
many others.
" Akakios, o70 rav77yvplKolXOyot(Athens, 1868) p. 245; Frolow, op. cit.,p.
61.
" o4oOFrolow, op. cit.,p. 60.
op. cit.,p. 275;
Akakios,Aoovro3
" A. Heisenberg, Grabeskircheund Apostelkirche,II (Leipzig, 1908) pp. 28-830.
11
Malickij in Byzantion,III (1926) pp. 128-129.

its beinga fullseated figureratherthana bustPantokrator,as was perhaps
thecase in thedome of St. Sophia,55shouldnotbe ignored.
AroundthefigureofChrist,"in theconcavesegmentsnextto thesummit
ofthedome"
(ro38&lTrpo3
avr- -o
6poj a ?rELaoCLwEyKOXOLt)
was a throngof angels (rXlq;O 7-' lo'atLpoV
70l'
escorting the Lord. The presence
yyE'Xcov)
of "concave segments"56provesthat the dome was eitherribbedor gored,
therebyreducingthe area available forfiguredecoration.Takingalso into
account the rathermodestdimensionsof the church(as we shall see in a
moment),we shall not be wrongin assumingthattherewas onlyone row
ofangelsand notseveralangelicchoirs,as was truein thechurchofStylianos
describedby Leo VI.
In the apse was a Virginwitharmsoutstretched, i.e. the standingorans
type (usually called Blachernitissa),as in the apse of St. Sophia at Kiev 5
or thatof Nea Moni on theislandof Chios."sThe Virginappeared as a pro-
tector,"winningsafetyfortheemperorand exploitsagainstthefoe,"forhad
not the TheotokosBlachernitissaavertedthe furyof the Russianinvaders
a few yearsearlier(860)? The restof the churchwas decoratedwithin-
dividualimagesofmartyrs, apostles,prophetsand patriarchs, amongwhom
David and Jacobare expresslymentioned.It maybe surmisedthatsomeof
themcarriedinscribedscrolls,sinceDavid, in thewordsofPhotius,was cry-
ingout,"How amiableare thytabernacles,O Lord ofhosts!My soullongeth,
yea, even faintethforthe courtsof the Lord" (Ps. 83:2-3); while Jacob,
"How wonderful is thisplace; thisis noneotherbut thehouseofGod" (Gen.
28: 17) Had Balaam been represented also (which,of course,he was not),
he toowouldhave exclaimed,"How goodlyare thyhouses,O Jacob,and thy
tabernacles,O Israel!As the gardensare theyby theriver'sside,and as the
tentswhichtheLord hathplanted" (Num. 24: 5-6).
"This is suggested by an inscriptionon the north tympanum. See S. G. Mercati in
Bessarione,XXVI (1922) p. 211. Cf. Du Cange, ConstantinopolisChristiana,lib. III (Paris,
1680) p. 30: In interioreTholi, seu, ut vocant, Trulli, centroac testudine,Justinianusopere
musivo Christum in iride sedentem, orbem judicantis effigie,describi curavit, ut
ard7rraL
testantur(which eyewitnesses?).
" All the extantmss. read r/rj!LacLv
EyKOltolt,i.e. "hollow segments."Lambeck read
"circular,"but his transcriptionis full of mistakes,as a glance at Combefis'and Banduri's
Y-KrKXOtO
correctionswill show.
" See Ajnalov and Redin, "Kievskij Sofijskij Sobor" in Zapiski Imper. Russk. Arxeol.
ObJestva, IV (1890) pp. 268-274. These authors make the interestingsuggestionthat the
compositionin the dome and apse of St. Sophia, which originallyconsisted of a Pantokrator,
fourarchangels,twelve apostles and Virginorans, is a variationon the Ascensiontheme. The
same remarkcould perhaps apply to Our Lady of the Pharos. On the similarityof
theological
contentin the Ascensionand Pantokratorschemes,see 0. Demus, ByzantineMosaic Decoration
(London, 1948) pp. 19-20.
" On the iconographictype, see Kondakov, IkonografijaBogomateri,II (Petrograd, 1915)
pp. 71 sq.

134 R. JENKINS AND C. A. MANGO
J. H.
The above descriptivedata given by Photiusshould now be divorced
fromthe Nea and appended to the churchof Our Lady of thePharos.It is
remarkablethatin his accountof the formerConstantinePorphyrogenitus
shouldsay nothingabout thepictorialdecorationof theinterior. He tellsus
onlythata barrel-vaulted gallerywhichextendedeastwardfromthe north
dooroftheNea was decoratedwithscenesdepictingthemartyrdom ofvari-
ous saints."5
We can add fromtheBook ofCeremoniesthatin thenorthaisle
of the Nea was a portraitof the founder,Basil I.o6 As forthepictorialpro-
grammeof theinterior, we have no information whatsoever.
The churchof Our Lady of the Pharosstoodin veryclose proximity to
the throneroom (the Chrysotriklinos) and to the imperialapartments,61
and amongthethirty or so churchesand chapelssituatedin theGreatPalace,
it was theemperor'schapelpar excellence,thecapella imperatoris, as West-
ernpilgrimscalled it. As its name implies,it adjoined the Pharos,or light-
houseofthepalace,whichalso servedas thereceptionpostofthefiresignals
sentfromhill-topto hill-topacrossAnatoliawheneverthe Cilician border
was threatenedby foreigninvaders.6 As faras we can tellfromthesources,
the Pharoswas a beacon or lantern(Obavw6)placed on an elevatedterrace,
and was nota tower."6 The churchof Our Lady is firstmentionedunderthe
year769, forit was in it thatLeo IV was betrothedto Irene theAthenian.64
It was therethatin 818 Michael I tookrefugewithhis familywhenhe was
oustedfrompower by Leo V;6" and therethatthe same Leo was brutally
assassinatedon Christmasday 820.66
" VitaBasilii, 328.

p.
" De Cerimoniis(Bonn) pp. 118, 121. Antonyof Novgorod(ed. Loparev,Pravoslavnyj
Palestinskij Sbornik,XVII, 3 [St. Petersburg, 1899] p. 20) also mentions a mosaicof Christ
by the door
lateral ofthe narthex. Antony'seditorbelieves, however, thatthismosaicbelonged
to St. Sophiaand thattheaccountofithas beenmisplaced(ibid.,pp. XLVII, LXXV).
"' On the churchof Our Lady, see esp. Ebersolt,Le grandpalais, pp. 104-109; Janin,
Gdographieecclhsiastique, pp. 241-245. The exactlocalizationof the churchposes difficult
problems which need not concern us here.The situation suggestedby theSt. Andrewsexcava-
tors (The Great Palace of the ByzantineEmperors[Oxford,1947] p. 19) has not been
generally accepted.
6" De Cerimoniis, pp. 492-3; Theoph.Cont.,pp. 197-8.
" Aside fromthe vague mentionof a speculuminmensurabilis magnitudinisin Buondel-
monti(Studi bizantinie III
neoell., [1931] p. 272), not a singlesource says anythingabout
a tower.On the contrary, it is repeatedlystatedthatthe watchmen(dietarii) appointedto
observethefiresignalswerestationedon theHeliakonofthePharos,and uponthereceiptof
a messagetheylit theirbeaconin theevening(De Cerim.,p. 492; Theoph.Cont.,pp. 197-8;
Pseudo-Symeon, p. 682, etc.) A. Vogtis wrongin placingthePharosdirectly on theseashore
(Le Livre des C4remonies, I, Commentaire [Paris, 1935] p. 182). The mistake has been
repeated by Janin (Constantinople byzantine[Paris, 1950] p. 377).
" ed. De Boor,p. 444.
6 Theophanes,
Theoph.Cont.,p. 19; Genesius(Bonn) p. 7.
" Vita Ignatii,PG, 105, col. 493.

The reconstruction of the churchby Michael III is recordedby the
chroniclersin the briefestof terms,which is yet anotherexampleof the
deliberatehushing-up ofthatemperor'sworks.The numerousadaptationsof
SymeonLogothete,whichgo underthe names of Theodosiusof Melitene,
Leo Grammaticus,the Continuatorof GeorgiusHamartolusand Pseudo-
Symeon,relatein almostidenticalwordsthatMichael III exhumedthe re-
mains of ConstantineV whose magnificentsarcophagus,made of verd
antique,he orderedto be sawn up and made into parapets (o-rrnOEa)for
thechurchof thePharoswhichhe had built(rn' avroi KTLOE'v70).67 This
incidentis placed in the year866, afterBasil's coronation.It is immaterial
forour purposewhetherthe date is rightor wrong,since a parapetcould
have been added afterthe official
consecrationof thechurch.What is more
important is thewordKrTLOaEvrt
whichpresupposesa radicalreconstruction,68
a factthatis borneout by theHomilyunderconsideration. Photiussaysex-
thatthechurchhad beenbuiltbyMichael(-roiV3v
plicitly VEOLKO80o.r'OEVTO9
vao3), and,whereashis reference
to "thisrenownedchurch"(0ro0V
rr~EpLovVov
TrEqviov9)69 may hintat its previousexistenceand fame,the whole tenorof
the ekphrasispointsto a new building.Since,therefore, the churchof the
Pharos was completelyreconstructed by Michael III, we may expectit to
have conformed to thearchitecturalstyleof the mid-ninth century.
The architectural featuresof the Pharos churchhave not so far been
sufficientlyelucidated.On thelatestreconstruction oftheGreatPalace, that
of A. Vogt,70 it is representedas a basilica,althoughon thepreviousrecon-
structionby Ebersoltit had been shownas a four-column domed building.
We knowfromAntonyof Novgorodthatit was a small church.7 It had a
narthex72 in whichon Holy Thursdaythe emperordistributedapples and
cinnamonto the patricians,magistersand other The narthex
dignitaries.73
communicatedwiththe nave by the "royaldoors"
f7Xac).7 The
(/pacroXtKatL
right-hand(south) side or aisle of the churchis also mentioned,forit was
" Theodosius
Melitenus, ed. Tafel (Monumenta Saecularia, III Cl. 1 [Munich, 1859])
p. 174; Leo Grammaticus(Bonn) pp. 248-9; Continuatorof Georgius Hamartolus,ed. Muralt
(St. Petersburg,1859) p. 746; Id. afterCod. Vat. 153 in Istrin,Xronika Georgija Amartola,
II (Petrograd, 1922) p. 15; Script. post Theoph., pp. 834-5; Pseudo-Symeon,p. 681. The
Slavonic versionof GeorgiusHamartolusadds, "in the churchbuiltby Michael" (Istrin,
op. cit.,
I [1920] p. 516, line 16). See also De Cerimoniis,p. 645.
' Ebersolt
(Le grand palais, p. 104) seems to have misconstruedthis passage, which
accounts forhis statementthat the churchwas built by ConstantineV.
' Aristarchis,II, p. 436.
70
Le Livre des Cerdmonies,I, Commentaire.
7
Ed. Loparev, p. 19. De Cerimoniis,p. 257, lines 16-17.
72
De Cerimoniis,pp. 119, 137; therewas also a side narthex
(irapavcpOprv;p. 257).
" Ibid.,p. 178.
" Ibid., p. 120. Cf. also the mentionof a "middle portal" (ibid., p. 257).

at theeastend ofit (EV rjTrpW
sEI dvaqroXd. . . tipes) thattheHoly
Face of Edessa was ceremoniallydepositedin 944."7 That may not have
been the firstmajorrelic to have accrued to the Pharos church,forin the
tenthcenturythe True Cross76 and the Holy Lance 77 were alreadythere.
The treasureof the churchwas further enrichedin 968 by the Holy Kera-
mion78 andin975bythesandalsofChrist.79
By themiddleoftheeleventh
centurytheprincipalrelicsofthePassionwerein thePharoschurch.80
Abouttheyear1200 the sacristanof the churchwas NicholasMesarites
who had to defendthe relicsfromthe rapacityof foreignmercenariesdur-
ingthecoup d'dtatofJohnComnenusthe"Fat." His accountofthisincident,
bombastic
thoughobscuredby an uncommonly to
style,adds considerably
ourknowledgeofthechurch.The outerdoor,he tellsus,i.e. theone leading
fromthe atriuminto the narthex,was a double door,made of silverand
perforated 8tlvpov,8WKTVWd6v).81
(roXvo0-rov wallofthechurch
Thesouth
faced a bath (Xovrp(v) at a spot wherethe lanternof the Pharos (4avo't)
was to be seen." This southwall was lightedby glass windowsset in a
wooden lattice.83Several bands of assailantstriedto hoist themselvesup
throughthe windows (presumablythe easternmost ones) and could look
rightintothesanctuary, wherea dazzlingarrayofpreciousobjectsmettheir
eyes.The pyramidalroofof the ciboriumwas of silver,while the foursup-
portingcolumnswere sheathedin silverand gold. The "life-giving" crosses
were completelycovered with gold, set with precious stones and pearls.
" Narratiode (Texte u. Unter-
imagineEdessena, ? 64 in Dobschiitz,Christusbilder
suchungen,N.F. III [1899]) p. 85"**.
" De
Cerimoniis,pp. 161, 162, 538-40, 549.
"
Ibid., pp. 179-180.
" Leo
Diaconus, p. 71.
"
Ibid., p. 166.
8"See Ebersolt,Sanctuairesde Byzance (Paris, 1921) pp. 17-29.
8
A. Heisenberg, Die Palastrevolution des Johannes Komnenos, Progr. d. K. alten
Gymnasiumszu Wiirzburg (1907) p. 29.
" Ibid., p. 33: r
E ydp rLVE 8t I 7Elpt OVX P 4
ToLxov,orov irEpcOparat
avEcp'7rvavr~ ce Aorpovaw
Ebersolt (Le grand palais, p. 107,
avod;, 8ta rwv 6
0fVr7LTrLKWV EXEdpOp ELdSviat Crt 7al8Ta.
n. 3) offersa differentexplanation: "Par 0 rrepLTOvXovrptovarogXos,I'auteur d6signe l'atrium
entour6de murs,au milieuduquel se dressaitla fontaine,la phiale. Le motXovrp'vest synonyme
de XOVUTrp." The controversialsentence is, however,picked up again lower down: drl 7-p Tb
EKELVOKXxTOS aL ta8oparowTV aCva 8ta Trov
xtEr/tflptV\OV a3toLzaXOVI
E etc.Besides, thewordv8vracanOt'
V7tKaTaOT7Ta' mean rt thesanctuary,
Irtonly
-WrlS-iuat 7rpotlpovpVOtL;,
i.e. the space behind the chancel screenwhich,as specifiedby Mesarites (p. 35), was accessible
0U)TWTTLKO)V
windows
throughthe windows (naturallythe easternmostones) of the southwall; whereas the
facing the atrium could have given access only to the narthex. If our interpretationof thisdiffi-
cult passage is correct,two importantinferencesmay be drawn: 1) the Pharos was to the
southeast of the church, and 2) the south wall of the church faced a bath, which is surely
the big bath built by Basil I on the site of the Phiale of the Blue faction (Vita Basilii, p. 336)
and thereforesouth of the Chrysotriklinos complex.
'
Heisenberg,Palastrevolution,p. 34.

Over theholytablehoveredgoldendoves.Theirwingsweredecoratedwith
greenstones,while in theirbeaks theyheld littlecrossesmade of pearls.84
It willbe noticedthatthecostlycomposition oftheciborium,thougha com-
monfeaturein palatinechurches,agreeswithPhotius'description.
Mesaritesfurther mentionsthediakonikon, whichhad a pillaredpartition
to
possibly separate it from the south aisle. Leaningagainstthis
(ctL-rvXa),
partition,Mesaritesstroveto ward offthe attackon the southside of the
church."8 The presenceof a diakonikonrequiresa prothesison the corre-
spondingnorthside,and it maysafelybe surmisedthatthechurchhad two
lateralapses flanking theone in the centre.
By combiningthearchitectural data givenin Photius'tenthHomilywith
thetestimony of othersources,we obtainthefollowing pictureofthePharos
church:a buildingof moderatesize, with a ribbed dome, narthex,three
apses and probablythreeaisles. This picture,thoughadmittedlyof very
wide application,fitsin verywell withthestyleoftheperiod,and itmaybe
suggestedthatthe churchof Our Lady lookedsomethingliketheone,now
unfortunately destroyed,of St. Clementat Ancyra.8" The latterhas been
dated on stylisticgroundsbetweenthe seventhand the ninthcenturies,87
but the characterof its brickwork pointsto the laterratherthanthe earlier
date.88Its dome, shownon old photographs,consistedof twelve concave
segmentsseparatedbyribs.89 The restoration ofAncyraby MichaelIII offers
a likelycontextforthe construction of St. Clement's,and if thatwere so, it
would be naturalto expectsomearchitectural resemblanceto the churchof
the Pharos.But even if St. Clement'sis somewhatearlier,the
comparison
may stillhold good. In Constantinople itselfwe probablyhave two surviv-
ing ninthcenturychurches,Hoca AtikMustafaCamii and KalenderCamii
(St. SaviourAkataleptos),both of which,however,were originallyof the
five-aisled,or perambulatory, typeusuallylinkedwiththe Nea Ekklesia;90
both,moreover,have losttheiroriginaldome.
To returnto thedecorationof the churchof Our Lady, mentionshould
be made ofa puzzlingpassage in Mesariteswhichhas been held to indicate
"Ibid., p. 35.
'Ibid., pp. 35-6.
S" On this church see G. de Jerphanion,M6langes
d'archdologieanatolienne (M6langes de
l'UniversiteSaint-Joseph,XIII) (Beirut, 1928) pp. 113-143 and pls. LXII-LXXX.
E. in BZ, XXXII (1932) 372.
' 7TheWeigand p.
mortarjointsin the churchof St. Clement are slanted ("weathered"), a featurethat
firstappears in Constantinoplein the second half of the ninth
century.Cf. A. M. Schneider,
Byzanz (Berlin, 19386) p. 13.
'8 Reproduced in O. Wulff,Die Koimesiskirchein Niciia und ihre Mosaiken (Strassburg,
1903) pl. IV.
' See Brunovin Vizant.
Vremennik,II (1949) pp. 150 sq.

the presencein thatchurchof a pictorialGospel cycle.Afterenumerating
the tenmajorrelicsof thePassion (the "decalogue") thatwere keptin the
church,plus the Mandylionand the Keramion,Mesaritesproceedsas fol-
lows:
"WhyshouldI tell everything at length?This is a church,thisplace is
anotherSinai,a Bethlehem,a Jordan,a Jerusalem, a Nazareth,a Bethany,
a Galilee, a Tiberias,the Washing of the feet,the Last Supper,mount
Thabor,Pilate'spraetoriumand the place of the Skullwhich,being inter-
pretedin Hebrew,is called Golgotha.Here He is born,hereHe is baptized,
walkson thesea, goes on foot,worksmiracles,and is again humbledbefore
the womanwho washedHim [ra7reLvoiVra Xtv ir' 7'jv 7rXvvdv].`~ The
womanbows downwithin['80EVSv]," she [?] who raisesfromthedead not
one, nortwo,normanyan evil-smelling Lazarus, but numberlessbodies in
thegripofdeath,and even beforedeath,and everyday and everyhourshe
bringsup fromthe tomband restoresto good healthsouls laden withsin,
showingus hereinthe importanceof prayer,and when we oughtto weep
and how muchto pray.Here He is crucified, and let the spectatorbehold
thefoot-rest.Here He is buriedand thestonethathas been rolledawayfrom
the tombis in thischurchas proofof the story.Here too He risesand the
napkintogetherwiththewinding-sheets are evidencethereof." 93
Heisenbergsuggested rather cautiously that Mesaritesmay be describing

a pictorialcycle,"'a suggestionwhich was adoptedby Ebersolt as an estab-
lishedfact."9If it was indeed a cycleofpictures,it was one of considerable
complexity. The subjects(if suchtheyare) are listedtwicewithsomeover-
lappingbetweenthe two lists;besides,the orderhas been somewhatcon-
fused.The firstsentencerefersto Sinai, which cannotbe connectedwith
any New Testamentscene,Bethlehem Nativity),the Jordan(= Bap-
(-=
tism), Jerusalem Passion scenes?), Nazareth (= Annunciation?boy-
(-=
hood and early ministry?), Bethany ( = raisingof Lazarus?), Galilee
(= miracles), Tiberias (= St. Peter submerged?Miraculousdraughtof
fishes?),theWashingoftheFeet,theLast Supper,mountThabor( = Trans-
figuration),Pilate's praetorium Christ before Pilate) and Golgotha
(-=
(= Crucifixion).The second enumerationincludesthe Nativity,Baptism,
Christwalkingon water (= St. Peter submerged),Christgoing on foot
" identifiedwith Mary Magdalen. See Heisenberg,
Mary, the sister of Lazarus, usually
p. 66.
Palastrevolution,
"2I.e. inside the house of Simon the Leper where the scene
took place.
" The footrest the stone of the Tomb and the winding-sheets,which Mesarites
(Vtro7rd8tov),
the church.
quotes as materialproofof the Gospel story,were all preservedin
* cit., 66.
p.
* Op.
Le grandpalais,pp. 108-109.

(= miracles?),themiracles,Christannointedby MaryMagdalen,perhaps
the raisingof Lazarus, the Crucifixion, the Burial and the Resurrection.
Speaking generally,a cycle of such complexityin the post-Iconoclastic
periodis apt to date fromComnenianratherthanfromMacedoniantimes.
This conjectureis supportedby thepresenceofsuchsubjectsas Christwalk-
ing on water,whichis notfoundin themonumental artof the Macedonian
period,"9and Mary Magdalen anointingChrist'sfeet (cf. Sant' Angeloin
Formis and Monreale). Taking also into considerationotherinstancesof
theredecoration ofolderchurchesin theeleventhand twelfth centuries(St.
Sophia ca. 1070,"9the Holy Apostlesand the Baptisteryof St. Sophia9 in
thetwelfthcentury),it maybe surmisedthatthecyclealluded to by Mesa-
rites,ifit actuallyrefersto wall pictures,is of Comneniandate and replaced
or supplementedthefiguresdescribedby Photius.The need fora cycleillus-
tratingtheGospel narrativemayalso have been suggestedby thecontinued
concentration in thePharoschurchof relicspertainingto Christ,a concen-
trationthatreacheditspeak ca. 1150."9
The finaldefeatof Iconoclasmin 843 was notimmediately followedby
theredecorationof all themajorchurches.100Fromthefewinstanceswhich
are knownto us, it would seem thatthe processof anastelosiswas rather
surprisinglyslow.The delaymayhave been partlydue to technicalreasons,
suchas thescarcityof competentartistsaftera prolongedinterruption
in the
traditionof sacredpainting.A morecogentreasonseemsto have been the
strengthof the Iconoclasts,towardswhom at firsta conciliatoryattitude
was adopted.Atanyrate,iconoclasmremaineda liveissueat leastuntil870.
The reviseddatingofPhotius'Homilyno. 10 providesa new elementforthe
studyof therestoration of sacredimages.
We can now givethefollowinglistofchurchesand secularbuildingsthat
receiveda sacreddecorationat thistime:Our Lady ofthePharos (864), the
Chrysotriklinosbetween856 and 867, and anotherhall in thepalace before
867.101The new mosaics of St. Sophia were not starteduntil867 102 and
" Mesarites describes this scene in the church of the Holy Apostles (Heisenberg, Grabes-
kirche u. Apostelkirche,II, pp. 49-52), but it is not found in the account of Constantine
Rhodius.
"' Cf.BZ, XLVII (1954) p. 402.
8"Antonyof Novgorod,ed. Loparev, p. 17.
" There are at least
eight descriptionsof these relics,all dating fromca. 1150 to 1204. The
last addition to the collection,albeit a temporaryone, was the red stone on which Christwas
laid afterHis descent fromthe cross. It was broughtfromEphesus by Manuel I (1143-1180).
Cf. Janin,Geographie ecclesiastique, pp. 242, 244.
10 Cf. F.
Dvornik, "The Patriarch Photius and Iconoclasm" in Dumbarton Oaks Papers,
7 (1953) pp. 69-97.
o"Script.post Theoph., pp. 145-146.
102
Cf.BZ, XLVII (1954) pp. 395-402.

140 R. J. H. JENKINS AND C.. A. MANGO
probablynotcompleteduntiltheend ofthe century.The important church

of SS. Sergius and Bacchus was re-decoratedat the instigation of the Patri-
archIgnatiusbetween867 and 877.103The churchoftheHoly Apostlesmay
have receiveda new set of mosaicsin connectionwiththe consolidationof
thebuildingby Basil I.
It is not perhapsentirelycoincidentalthatour threeearliestexamples
shouldall be in thepalace, in a place thatwas notaccessibleto the general
public,and therefore not apt to arouseany Iconoclastdemonstrations. The
decorationof the Chrysotriklinos, describedin an epigramof the Palatine
Anthology(I. 106), was made afterthe expulsionof Theodora (856),104
and consistedof singlefigures:Christin the apse, theVirginoverthewest
door,flankedby Michael III, thepatriarch(Photius?) and theircollabora-
torsin the victoryover Iconoclasm,while all around the buildingwere
angels,apostles,martyrsand priests.It has been pointedout thatthe pic-
toriallayoutof theChrysotriklinos, consistingas it did of singlefiguresin a
hierarchicalorder, is closely related to the one described in Photius'
Homily."1That thereshould have been a resemblancebetween the two
monuments is onlynatural:fornotonlywere theycontemporary, or nearly
so, but theywere also situatedwithina fewyardsof each other,so thatthe
redecorationof the Chrysotriklinos and the reconstruction of the Pharos
churchprobablyformedpartofthesameprogramme. The single-figure hier-
archy,which now emergesas the formulaadopted duringthe reign of
Michael III, was also applied to the nave of St. Sophia, the decorationof
whichmusthave been conceivedand laid out in Michael's last years.We
findthe same schemesomewhatlaterin the monasteryof Kauleas, but by
thattimethe narrativeGospel cyclewas alreadygainingascendency.,?o
Justas the politicaland militaryexploitsof Michael III have been ob-
scuredbythe efforts oftheMacedonianpropagandists, so has his rolein the
to restoreto his reignan accomplish-
"care of sacredbuildings."It is fitting
mentwhich,in the eyes of a Byzantinepanegyrist,rankedequal to his
politicalsuccesses.
2o"Cedrenus, II (Bonn) p. 238.
1o' Cf. P. Waltz in Byzantion,II (1926) pp. 320-323. H. Gr6goirehas drawn attentionto
the resemblanceof this epigramto the inscriptionsof Ancyradating from859 (Byzantion,IV
[1929] p. 448).
20.
Cf. S. Der Nersessian in Actes du VI" Congras intern.d'4tudes byzantines,II (Paris,
1951) pp. 321-330.
2o0 Cf. the Gospel scenes
~ry put up by Basil I before879
in the churchof the Virgin 77ry~
(AnthologiaPalatina,I, 109-117).


1956 The Date and Significance of The Tenth Homily of Photius

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1956 The Date and Significance of The Tenth Homily of Photius

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Date and Significance of the Tenth Homily of Photius

Author(s): Romilly J. H. Jenkins and Cyril A. Mango

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

ROMILLY J.H. JENKINS

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

1"Op. cit.,p. 304.

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

1"See Kunikin Mum. Acad. Imp. de St.-Pitersbourg, VIII. s6rie,cl. hist.-phil.,

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

V (1929-30) p. 328; Vasiliev,op. cit.,p. 236. For theinscrip-

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

und Paulus Silentiarius 19121 pp. 247 sq.); accordingto populartradition,

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

" VitaBasilii, 328.

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

Heisenbergsuggested rather cautiously that Mesaritesmay be describing

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

probablynotcompleteduntiltheend ofthe century.The important church

This content downloaded from 94.174.235.108 on Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:49:27 PM

S-ar putea să vă placă și