You are on page 1of 77

Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preußischer Kulturbesitz

Studies in Byzantine Illumination of the Thirteenth Century Author(s): Hugo Buchthal Reviewed work(s): Source: Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen, 25. Bd. (1983), pp. 27-102 Published by: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preußischer Kulturbesitz Stable URL: . Accessed: 22/08/2012 21:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

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


Staatliche Museen zu Berlin -- Preußischer Kulturbesitz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Jahrbuch der Berliner Museen.

BY HUGOBUCHTHAL for Carl Nordenfalk I After a short-lived period of political successes and of deceptive internal prosperity, the Byzantine Empire during the last years of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180),and even more under his weak successors, experienced a near-disintegration which ominously foreshadowed the manner in which it would be carved up by the Latins afterthe Fourth Crus*The present article took shape gradually over the years, after I had been fortunate enough to study the Dionysiou manuscript on Mt. Athos in May, 1972, and had realized its overriding importance for the history of Byzantine provincialillumination in the first half of the thirteenth century.The work was constantlyinterruptedbecause I had to give priorityto two other major projects, but during all that time the frequent and fruitfulexchange of ideas with Mrs. Annemarie Weyl Carr,who had written her Ph. D. dissertation on the New Testament manuscriptin Chicago and now prepares a comprehensive monograph on the entire group provisionally dubbed the "decorative style", kept my interest alive. We finally decided that I should devote a separate articleto the Gospels in Dionysiou and Berlin and to the small group of manuscriptswhich form their immediate succession, but should exclude the discussion of the narrative Gospel cycle contained in the Berlin manuscript. Accordingly the present paper covers only those Gospels which stem more or less directlyfrom Dionysiou 4; they are without any doubtthe finest books of the entire "decorativestyle" group, which is not otherwise distinguished by the high quality of its illustrations. The more distant relatives, from the middle of the twelfth century onwards, which now amount to almost one hundred, will be treated by Mrs. Carr in a book, which will include a catalogue listing all those codicological details which were not relevant within the framework of my own more limited endeavour. Still, despite the limitations of this paper, I venture to think that my conclusions may mark the beginning of our understandingof provincialillumination duringthe period in question, and I hope that furtherdiscoveries may eventually clinch my arguments, and confirm my conjectures. My thanks go to all those authoritieswho have assisted me in the formidable task of assembling the pictorial documentation. Pride of Place goes to Dr. Alice Bank and to Professor Olga Popova, who took considerable time and trouble to arrange for access to the manuscripts, and to procure the unpublished photographs from Leningrad and Moscow; and to Mr. Sot. N. Kadas in Thessalonica who made several trips to Mt. Athos to take photographs of the Dionysiou and Iviron manuscripts. I am especially grateful to the British Academy for enabling me to visit Berlin, Moscow and Leningrad, and study the Gospels in Cracow; access to the Cracow manuscript was granted by Dr. Adam Homecki, and the photographs taken specially by the art-historicalInstitute of Cracow University, on the initiative of Dr. WandaAltendorf. The British Academy also made it possible for me to accept an invitationfrom the Matenadaranto visit Erevanand to studyArmenian manuscriptson the spot. The graciouswelcome I received from the Armenian authorities, especially from His Holiness Vasken I, Catholicos of all Armenians, and Director Kachikian and vice-director Chookaszian, will always be among my most precious memories. I also owe thanks to Dr. Tilo Brandis, director of the department of manuscripts at the Staatsbibliothek,Berlin, who made the Berlin manuscriptfreely availableto me on successive occasions, and to the keepers of the libraryof Gonville & Gaius College, Cambridge, the John Rylands Library,Manchester, and the Bodleian Library, Oxford, who made their treasures accessible to me and supplied me with photographs.A special word of thanks should go to the Jahrbuch and to its editor, Professor F. Anzelewski who readily agreed to accept this article for publication, in spite of its unusual length and the formidable number of illustrations which had to go with it. Finally, as on former occasions, Dr. John Lowden read through the entire manuscriptand rendered it into readable English; and the staff of the photographicdepartment and of the studio of the WarburgInstitute, University of London, were particularly helpful, and successful, in improving the quality of flawed photographs to make them suitable for publication.



ade of 12041.During the last quarter of the twelfth centurythe central authoritylost more and more of its prestige and power, and was no longer able to keep control of various outlying territories, in which rebellious provincial governors adopted the role of more or less independent rulers rejectingthe authorityof the capital2.Some of them, like Isaac Comnenus the Lord of Cyprus, were even related to the imperial family. They established miniature courts and imitated the outward trappings of imperial power. In a way, they were the forerunners of the Greek Empire in exile, which Theodore Lascaris was to establish in Nicaea in 1204'. We know rather little about the activities - artistic or otherwise - which went on in the rival Latin Empire of Constantinople, or in Salonica, or in Nicaea itself; and though a number of manuscripts survivewhich must belong into the first half of the thirteenth century,their precise date and localisation still escapes us. It was not until 1261that Constantinople was reconquered, and the resources and prestige of the metropolis - albeit reduced - were once again at the disposal of a Greek dynasty. To some extent this untoward development is reflected in the history of the fine arts, especially of painting. The almost complete absence of religious painting in the capitalin the twelfth century may be due to accidents of survival;but the proliferation of fresco painting in Macedonia and Cyprus during the second half of the century certainly points to the growing importance of provincial centres. The history of miniature painting offers rather close parallels. Some of the turbulent events mentioned above are to be found reflected in the history of the production of the illuminated book. As a rule we take it for granted that manuscript illustration during the middle Byzantine period, and certainly after the turn of the millennium, was a highly centralized activity, and that it flourished mainly in the capital, Constantinople, whereas most provincial scriptoria were artisticallysterile and unproductive. This is especially true for the eleventh century, and also for the firstpart of the twelfth. In his survey of Byzantine illumination and icon painting in the eleventh century, K. Weitzmann hardly mentions the problem of provincial versus metropolitan art4. The manuscripts he adduces to characterize the development of style and the changes of emphasis which occurred during the eleventh century are overwhelmingly of Constantinopolitan origin - from the Menologium and Psalter of Basil II, to the "imperial" Lectionary in the Dionysiou Monastery, the Gospels Paris grec 74, the Lectionary Vat. gr. 1156,the Gospels in Parma, and the Climacus manuscript in the Vatican,to mention just a few of the more outstanding books of the period. Only in the case of the illustration of certain Saints's lives does he consider their origin, as it were, in situ, e.g., that of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste in eastern Anatolia5. But in the first half of the twelfth century, Constantinople still stands very much in the forefront, first of all through the oeuvre of the "Kokkinobaphosmas-

1Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State, New Brunswick 1969, pp. 585ff. 2Cf. H. Ahrweiler, L'idbologie politique de l'Empire byzantin, Paris 1975, pp. 89ff. 3Ostrogorsky, History, pp. 426ff. 4 K. Weitzmann, Byzantine miniature and icon Painting in the eleventh century, in: Proceedings of the XIIIth international Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 5-10 September 1966, London 1967,pp. 207-224, reprinted in the author's Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination, ed. H.L. Kessler, Chicago 1971,pp. 271ff. 1979, 5K. Weitzmann, Illustrations of the lives of the five Martyrs of Sebaste, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 3355, pp. 97-112.

dissertation. 15-16. D. 8R. which was at one time dated to the period after the Palaeologan restoration. Spatharakis.MS 965. dissertation. the preceding note. Text and Image in a Byzantine Gospel Book in Istanbul. An Examinationof two twelfth-centurycenters of Byzantinemanuscriptproduction. Princeton 1975.These manuscripts apart. It is. The proliferation of provincialproduction in the second half of the twelfth centuryhas caused much confusion among art historians . Madison.. Leiden 1976. of origin of the members of the group. the same author's Ph. Weyl Carr.As scribal colophons are almost completely lacking. In addition to the por6J. Ph. one has an imperial dedication portraitwhich can be dated in the years just after 1122'. 1976.The Psalter Benaki 24. provisionally. 79ff. the Gospels no.a situation which continues to prevail well into the first half of the thirteenth century. has already been identified. all the more striking and significant that soon after the middle of the centurythe metropolitan tradition appears to come to an almost complete stop. The Portrait in Byzantine illuminated Manuscripts. 39-81. A group of almost a hundred related manuscripts. Ph. a product from the third quarter of the twelfth century'o. Cutler& A. 268ff. dissertation "The Rockefeller McCormick New Testament. The Seraglio Octateuchand the KokkinobaphosMaster. Weyl Carr. University Library. in Revue des Etudes byzantines. the ornate architectureand furniture combine with them into a lively overall linear interplay of patterned surfaces. and.A Group of provincialmanuscriptsfrom the twelfth century. pastel-like colour scheme in which pink. 7I. The best-known work in the group. Their connection with the metropolitan tradition is slender. Few illustrated manuscripts of that period can be assigned to the capital. D. A provisional list of manuscriptsis given in A. 1976. 12Cf. 3 in the Greek Patriarchate in Istanbul. they are of unmistakable identity. pp. in: Second Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. and only one. esp. their manufacture in Constantinople. University of Michigan 1973. mauve. pp. D. forthcoming. 56. D. dissertation. or rather places. provisionally.the paper quoted in note 9. and completely dominate the production of illuminated manuscripts from about 1150onwards .the same. is unlikely. and with an impeccable technique. create a new kind of reality. chronology. . and of the popular combination of Psalter-and-New-Testament". p. Ph. 9 Cf.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 29 ter".pp. the summary in A. though it was at one time considered.S. and light green are prominent. Nelson. most of them still unpublished. an outstanding artisticpersonality of great skill. and the few comparisons which can be made with the styles of provincial fresco ensembles are mostly not convincing.3: An unpublished illuminated manuscript from the family 2400. 1982. most of them Gospels 6. pl. a distinctive style that is particularto this group". The provinces. New York 1978. and their numbers still growing. who is responsible for the illustration of over a dozen manuscripts.the same author's summary "Byzantinemanuscriptillumination in twelfth-centuryPalestine". an impressive number of equally or slightly less distinguished works may be attributedto Constantinople during the second quarter of the century. However this may be. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers. is dominated by their emphatic outlines. The group is also characteristic in that it includes very few lectionaries. there are still no reliable conclusions about the precise dates. Anderson. a lavishly illustrated New Testament in Chicago. 54. Studies toward the reattributionof Chicago. and their unreal. 46. The appearance of those big. and place. pp.C. 507. endlessly repeated in a few conventional poses. 1o Cf. on the other hand. but a certain number ofpsalters. Wisconsin. now enter the limelight. and. But the majority are merely Gospel Books with evangelist portraits. is now thought to be one of its earliest members. therefore. has really outstanding merits8. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers. centralized figures.

The artistictastes of these patrons were not all too demanding. Dionysiou 8. or at least not primarily.If there are any liturgical indications at all. they are as a rule confined to a line at the bottom of the first page of the Gospel of John. My aim is more modest: I shall concentrate here on a single small sub-group. figs. which not only stands somewhat apart from the rest. s'5W. and often leaving space for only a few lines of script.The entire group. indicating that this is the reading for Easter Sunday. at least from a purely art-historicalpoint of view. One would prefer to tion4. for their possible use in the liturgy.M. Die Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig. similar to those in the Gospels illuminated in the second quarterof the centuryby the Constantinopolitan "Kokkinobaphos master". which. Weyl Carr. .. in addition to the standard equipment. 11. there are carpet headpieces decorating the top halves of the pages with the beginnings of the texts of the individual Gospels. will have to remain outside the scope of the present enquiry'".Hassall. complete with a catalogue of all known manuscripts. One finds it difficultto associate the noble appearance of manuscripts like the Gospels no. the overall picture remains extremely confusing. only one of them has. Still. It appears that the sumptuously decorated Lectionary had by that time largely disappeared. pp. Manuscripts like the Chicago New Testament and its numerous progeny were certainly not produced for members of the imperial family or the military aristocracy. 13355. receive more detailed attention here than within the forthcoming fuller treatment of the entire group. a comprehensive cycle of narrative Gospel scenes. Few of these manuscripts are so close to each other that one would unhesitatingly ascribe them to the same masters. This sub-groupcan. 56-65. and perhaps also for their artistic decorations. Evidently these books were in demand for their biblical text. will be the subject of a comprehensive monograph. no. Plotzek. 13The Gospel scenes will be discussed in a forthcoming study by Mrs. It has been noted above that lavishly decorated service books form a small minority within the group. 14formerlyAthos. 515. pp. and I do not propose to anticipate her results. or perhaps for provincial administrators and members of the laity.but rather in and for provincial monasteries. and more artistic activities seem to have been transferred elsewhere. The manuscripts to be discussed here are all tetraevangelia of the usual type. The headpieces are for the most part rectangular. and been superseded. by Mrs. must reflect a concomitant change in patronage.5in the Ludwig Collecwith provincialmonasticism. 159. but not. I. We saw that the capital's loss represented a gain for the provinces.O. But it is interesting to observe a distinct rise in qualityduring the lasttwentyyears of the century. Byzantine Illumination at Holkham. illustrated in what has provisionally been called the "decorative style". 4. by illustrated Gospel books. they are indeed also a minority within the production of manuscripts in the twelfth century as a whole. however. Annemarie Weyl Carr. or to the same scriptorium. and even more so that from metropolitan to provincialproduction. Koln 1979. not only in provincial centres. in the finest manuscripts they form perfect squares.when the deaths of Manuel I and Andronicus I had weakened the impact of the capitaleven further. 87ff.30 HUGO BUCHTHAL traits. cf. March 1954. or the Holkham Hall Gospels no. A. von Euw & J. but also offers illustrations of superb qualitywith which most of the other manuscripts cannot compete. of comparatively late date and amazingly homogeneous. The switch in the emphasis of Byzantine illumination from the Lectionary to the Gospel. MS II. for their private devotions. in: The Connoisseur.

end.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 31 Fig. 1. fol. 4v Moses receiving the Law. 3. Dionysiou 4 Fig. Fig. Eusebius letter. . 4. fol. fol. Athos. fol.Eusebius letter. Ammonius and Eusebius. 5. 6V. Fig. 6. 2.

so that his legs and knees do not touch the ground. C. 1982. fig. I. Moses is not the youthful figure usually found in Byzantine representations of the prophet. Kadas. Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian period. 47. Christou. dated 119220.S. 11. but seem to hover in mid-air. Athos'6. 1). 393-396. but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ".. from the Gospel of John. The prophet is shown in a half-kneeling position. Kurbinovo. Pelekanides. Tsoumis. a theme alluding to Old and New Testament harmony" and characteristic of the "decorative style" from early examples such as the Chicago New Testament onwards. the complete text was set out at the top and bottom of the Moses leaf. 66ff. VI. i. ceptionally high quality. and its set of Canon Tables. The style of the Moses figure. Nelson fig. and in a way constitutes a link with early Palaeologan illumination. LaurenzianaPlut.But since. . Loca Sancta and the representationalarts of Palestine. 14-26. is the Gospels no.e. S. A comparable depiction is found in an early thirteenth century Moses icon in the Sinai Monastery.32 HUGO BUCHTHAL look for their patrons among members of the powerful governing class who ruled over their territories more or less independently of the central authority. and his hair is neatly arranged in distinctive strands. so that the underdrawing with its wavy hair over the forehead and pointed chin is clearly exposed. but has a shaggy beard. 52. The miniature is of an exCyprus. is in its way unique. and probably also its earliest representative. in the Gospels Florence. and this is indeed the case in a few manuscripts of the "decorative style" group'9. it seems that there was never a plan to include a second miniature. Weitzmann. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers. with its creeping hems and undulating folds. Above and below is a quotation. Brussels 1975. pp. 1. The paint on the face of the Dionysiou Moses has almost completely flaked off. pp.The quotation suggests that the figure was originally intended to have as counterpart on the opposite recto page a miniature showing Christ in glory. The Iconography of Preface and Miniature in the Byzantine Gospel Book. figs. ruling system Leroy 44 D 1. 21. 1974. 20L. the treatment of the drapery invites comparison with that of the fresco of the Angel of the Annunciation at Lagoudera on but lacks the latter's exaggerated animation. Hadermann-Misguich. New York 1980.Most of its illustrations are of stunning quality. no earlier manuscript of the "decorative style" can possible compete. Nelson.The small group of Gospels to which the present study is devoted represents the continuation of this pattern of patronage into the thirteenth century.. P. S. with earlier literature. in: Gesta. a work which was probablyproduced under Constantinopolitan influence'8. 48. e. Illuminated Manuscripts.C. he is represented kneeling but turned round by 45 degrees. Bibl. '7A. 19R.17: "forthe Law was given by Moses.M. p. 4 in the Dionysiou Monastery on Mt. in this case. The miniature of Christin glory survives. fig. 28. The Treasures of Mount Athos. written in large golden uncials. The manuscript starts with a full-page miniature of Moses receiving the Law (fig.g. unfortunately no longer complete. Weyl Carr.N. 38. '8K. II Perhaps the most outstanding member of the small sub-groupmentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph. is characteristicallylate Comenian. 1626 x 18 cm. Athens 1974.

Eusebius and Carpianus. fol. 2a. Institute of Manuscripts of the Georgian Academy of Sciences A 1335. State Public Library gr. Leningrad. fol. Ammonius and Eusebius. Canon Table 3. must have been a splendid work indeed before the two figures in the upper lateral rectangles were damaged almost beyond recognition. Eusebius is not faced by Carpianus to whom his letter is addressed. but by Ammonius who is only briefly mentioned in the opening words as an earlier author of a synopsis of the Gospels. State Public Library gr. Olten-Lausanne 1959. 296 Fig. and is found in the late sixth century Syriac "Rabula"Gospels written in a monastery in the hinterland of Antioch21 21The Rabbula Gospels edd. In fact. Leningrad. 1v. 296 or even be considered closely related. 1. seated writing in front of lecterns and identified by captions.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 33 Fig. Tbilisi. Neither the cruciformlay-outof the page nor the inclusion of the two Fathers have any parallels in the illustrative program of "decorative style" manuscripts. the corresponding fields at the bottom contain ornamental patterns. Carlo Cecchelli (and others). . 2). The illumination on the opposite rectopage. with the title and the beginning of the text of Eusebius's letter written in gold and arranged in cruciform shape (fig. without doubt. Moreover. "VaniGospels". 5. Yet this anomaly continues a tradition which can be traced back to the pre-iconoclasticperiod. these figures confronting each other are not frequently encountered in Byzantine art. 6. It belongs. to an entirely different stylistic tradition. They represent two monks. fol.

8. 8. Fig. Fig. fol. Leningrad. fol.54 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. Athos. 296 Leningrad. Canon Table 7. Canon Table 5. State Public Library gr. 10. . 1'. Canon Table 4. State Public Library gr. fol. 7. 9. Dionysiou 4 fol. 296 Fig. 2'. 2. Canon Table 6.

Fig. Canon Table 10. 9. 11. 9'. Canon Table 9. Canon Table 8. Dionysiou 4 fol. Dionysiou 4 fol.Athos. Dionysiou 4 fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 35 Fig. . 13. Fig.Athos.Athos. 12. 8'.

the other holding a scroll. 8v (fig. have their names. 5Vis reproduced in Pelekanides (and others). Finally. 5). I. 1977.just as in the Parma Gospels. gr. CBM I. fig. It would probably be a mistake to search for a deep underlying symbolism. . the possibility that the two monks in the Ebnerianus miniature may. also be intended to represent Eusebius and Ammonius should not be altogether excluded. The Parma Gospels has moreover an additional miniature. seated opposite each other. but we may take it that they reflect the intentions of the illuminator. with the two protagonists seated and facing each other. 264 note 169.has an arrangement of figures very much like that of the Rabula Gospels but again without identifying captions. 159. Bodleian Library. instructing a group of people24. Comparable playful simians. Palat. The text is inserted in eight-lobed fields within richlydecorated rectangular frames. on the evidence of the Rabulaand Dionysiou Gospels. p. recurs in two Constantinopolitan manuscripts of the late eleventh century: in the splendid Gospels in Parma. are found in Canon Tables of Byzantine manuscripts from the late eleventh century onwards. However this may be. 3. 23I. in ordinary not clerical dress. 15. Oxford. a manuscript of the middle of the twelfth century also in the Bodleian Library25. Turin 1967. I.The two figures shown there in the first miniature. 26V. as scholars have so successfully done in the case of"drbleries" in western Gothic and Renaissance art. as well as some similar motifs to be mentioned later. Storia della pittura bizantina. The author of the CBM takes it for granted that in both Oxford manuscripts the two monks represent Eusebius and Carpianus. 5 22. added in Greek in the margins (Fig. In support of her theory she might also have adduced the "VaniGospels". 6 deserves special attention: in this manuscript it occurs only once. 27Fol. 207.again with the same arrangement of the figures but with no names attached to them.4) 27. which has in its upper part a second representation of Eusebius and Carpianus. these are the only two instances where Eusebius's interlocutoris explicitly called Ammonius.Storia della pittura bizantina. 225. fig. in the lower register is Ammonius. University of London. one of the earliest instances is the above-mentioned Parma Gospels28. Photograph at the Courtauld Institute of Art. but are labelled Eusebius and Carpianus. 11). especially of monkeys in marginal decorations of Latin Gothic manu22The miniatures of this manuscript have not yet been completely published. a Georgian manuscript illustrated at the end of the twelfth century in a Georgian monastery near Constantinople26. But the same pictorial group. with earlier literature. entirely written in gold. Eusebius and Carpianus. The ornament in the two lower lateral fields is identical with that in the lunette of the Canon Table fol. Hutter. They also make a conspicuous appearance in the "Vani Gospels" to which reference has just been made. the Codex Ebnerianus. Treasures. 24apparentlystill unpublished. The text of the Eusebius letter continues. It is true that the captions could be later additions. where they confront each other just as in the Dionysiou manuscript. 28Lazarev. Lazarev. and will receive attention when the Tables as a whole are dis- cussed. The fettered monkey on fol. 25Hutter. and in MS Clarke 10 in the Bodleian Library23. fig. inserted after the Canon Tables. I. over the following three pages (figs. one writing.356 HUGO BUCHTHAL As far as I can see. All three figures are identified by captions. fig. Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften(CBH). but we shall meet similar figures populating the margins of illuminated pages in some of the later members of the group.

and the following two leaves which have no folio numbers are now in the State Public Library in Leningrad as MS. in one instance. It has been mentioned before that the set of Canon Tables is now incomplete: the first folio (fol. which are frequent in Byzantine manuscripts from the eleventh We shall encounter more of them in the decoration of the Canon Tables. and provide resting places for birds and. frequently interlaced in the centre. p. and the high rectangular superstructures. the significance here goes hardly beyond that of a harmless and spontaneous secular embellishment without any hidden meaning. 556.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 37 scripts. 7) has disappeared afterthe manuscriptwas foliated and can no longer be traced. The section numbers are copied very accurately.pp.1960. e. CXXIV. Buchthal. There are other features which perpetuate the Byzantine tradition of Canon Tables but have no parallels in earlier manuscripts of the "decorative style". but it has no predecessors among earlier Gospels of the "decorative style" group. in: The Burlington Magazine. and Tables 6 und 7 (figs. Together with the two remaining folios (figs. for a peacock. 9 and 10). and will here be treated as if they were still in their original place. 30Une pyxide BDumbarton Oaks. 296 (figs. 6-9)3". did not copy very carefully. a 29H. Thus. By this device one can tell at a glance whether a single Table was intended to be used as a recto or a verso. Thus. between the missing fol. They are surmounted by secondary palmettes springing from the level of the column capitals and rising to the full height of the superstructures. they are among the most impressive of their kind in the entire range of Byzantine illumination. 155ff. and the end of every Canon is clearly indicated. 246. Finally. Disiecta membra.some of them framing semicircular arches which in their turn encompass the lunettes with the individual Canon titles. are inhabited by birds in lively postures and movements. eight pages in all. 8 of the Dionysiou manuscript. Berkeley 1966. is only traceable in Constantinople from about the middle of the twelfth centuryonwards. 31H. 17. The lateral palmettes are large and sprawling. Fortunatelythese four pages are now also available for study. century onwards 3". Apes und Ape Lore in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Studies of the WarburgInstitute 20). Randall. in spite of the great care which was lavished on the Tables.C. in: Dumbarton OaksPapers. gr. 1982.reprinted in the author's L'Art de la fin de l'Antiquiti et du Moyen Age. Janson. 7 and fol. I. The construction of the Tables is traditional as far as Byzantine manuscripts generally are concerned.W. they. The monkey should rather be classed together with similar grotesque and animal motifs derived by A.Lilian M. Images in the margins of Gothic manuscripts. pp. 9) were interchanged . The master of the Dionysiou manuscript must have used a model introduced from outside just as he must have done for the Eusebius-Ammonius page. either sturdy or slender. 48ff. 214-219 and error which is easily explained since the two columns in question follow each other directly on the same page. p. and the tendency to limit marginal palmettes to the outer side of the architectural framework while the gutter sides remain undecorated. . the text column with the sections from John in Canon 4 and that with the sections from Matthew in Canon 5 (fig. This applies in the first place to the architectural forms: the columns. Paris 1968.pp. 7 and 8). too. Tables 4 and 5 (fig. London 1952. 10-13).. seen as "images of the blind and unhappy human soul"29. Grabar from the "cycle de l'hippodrome" and the related "corps d'acrobates et de gymnastes".g. 14.p. It is all the more surprising to find that the scribe. some Tables facing each other on verso and rectopages are conceived in many essential details as mirror images.

59. and no doubt the result of a very special effort. which also has parallels elsewhere in this group. Outstanding among the motifs from the "Kokkinobaphos" workshop is the pipe-bowl-like receptacle rising on a stalk and mostly containing three pieces of fruit33. 6). and some in rather aggressive positions. in the superstructureof Table 10 (fig. 6). 33Cf. We noticed them first. He did not reproduce the studied elegance of his models. Stornajolo. But they are also found in other places. 36unpublished. to create new forms and a new style. 22. 2).. but always highly original and vigorous. as itwere. and the geometrical overall grid in the second headpiece of the Kokkinobaphos manuscript in Paris36.either at first hand. The ubiquitous leaves with their zigzag contours are found throughout both manuscripts.fig. 13). Rome 1910. the first of the surviving Tables. the general impression is more reminiscent of the overblown character of Armenian Tables from late twelfth century Cilicia32:an exotic and exuberant world. note 6 and.p. This realm of fantasy continues inside the rectangles themselves: there are animals's heads with tusks and elongated proboscis in the spandrels of Table 3 (fig. recurs filling the entire superstructure of Table 9 (fig. 17. every single motif can be paralleled in Byzantine manuscripts of the preceding century. This colourfuland unreal microcosm is rendered in a somewhat forceful and unrefined style. Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco e dell'Evangeliariourbinate (Codicies e Vaticanis selecti. rabbits. and lions's heads seen full face.38 HUGO BUCHTHAL multiple fauna enlivens the tops of the superstructures:there are peacocks and other birds as well as foxes. The patron of the Dionysiou manuscript. through manuscript models. 252 and in other manuscripts of the group discussed by J. 40 and fig. or.The elegantly shaped vessel supported by acanthus-like bases in the same manuscript35may also be compared with that in the superstructure of Table 5 (fig. who followed contemporary taste by lavishing generous ornamental decoration on his manuscripts..and he was fortunate enough to secure the services of an unusually versatile artist who was familiar with the traditions of Constantinople as well as of Cilicia . 10): they have a predecessor in the headpiece to the third homily in the Vatican Kokkinobaphos manuscript34. series minor. 9. 35Ibid. elephants. appreciated the unique and the out-of-the-ordinary. and in stark colours whose capriciousness provides the only and somewhat tenuous link with the ornament of the "decorativestyle" manuscripts. The first group is borrowed from the oeuvre of the "Kokkinobaphosmaster". and griffins. as we shall see. whoever he was. but used them. with cornucopiae and vegetable scrolls sprawling from their mouths in Tables 6 and 7 (figs.where they constitute the prevalent ornamental decoration. e.g. for example. 10). 34C. 12). the most outstanding artisticpersonality among Constantinopolitanilluminators from the second quarter of the century. Though. 11). in passing. 9. The single motifs of Constantinopolitan origin which our master introduced into his work fall easily into two separate groups: one from the middle and one from the end of the twelfth century. more probably. I). fig. . Next. the lions's masks in Tables 4 and 5 from whose mouths issue cornucopiae or scrolls (figs. infinitely involved but not so delicate as in Cilicia itself and at times rather gross. CBM fig. in the two lower fields of the Eusebius-Ammonius page (fig. they recur most prominently in the superstructureof Table 8 (fig. Hutter. Anderson. most of them in violent movement. The Paris 32Cf.

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 39 Fig. Fig. Fig. Vani Gospels. 14.M 538 fol. Tbilisi. Tbilisi. Fig. 16. Canon Table. Tbilisi. fol. 3. 7. fol. 5v. Canon Table. 4. . Vani Gospels. Canon Tables 4 and 5. Canon Table. Baltimore. 17. 15. Walters Art Gallery. Vani Gospels. fol.

The point has been mentioned before.It was illustrated for Queen Tamar of Georgia towards the end of the twelfth century in a Georgian Monastery near Constantinople. 42 S. is still awaited. which has been promised for many years. l1 of the Leningrad fragment (fig..the second Georgian Table has in the spandrels of its superstructure the same animals's heads with their long protruding proboscis as Canon Table 3 from Dionysiou 4 (fig. e.1927. 6). or several Georgians. 558 in the Walters Art Gallery. which remind one of the monkey on one of the Eusebian pages of the Dionysiou Gospels (fig. pl. 25-52. and the outer margins have the same cabbagy palmettes on which hover birds. generally called the "VaniGospels"38. The fox on top of the first Georgian Table (fig. 38Cf. and the elephant of the second Table (fig. Still another sphere of influence has to be considered: that of Armenian Cilicia. 41S. more probably. 14)recurs on fol.with a profusion of animal and genre scenes more or less symmetrically arranged along their upper frames. Yetwhen all is said and done. It is perhaps also worth mentioning that the pipe-bowl-like receptacles which played such an important part in the ornamental work of the Kokkinobaphosmaster39as well as in the Dionysiou Gospels 40. 58-45. 7). The comparison can be carried into greater detail. 11. Finally. and produced in the region of the patriarchal seat of Hromkla: no. or. 16). either by a Greek master. 15) on fol. or. figs. 15). by a Georgian. Baltimore 1975. First come to mind: three richly illuminated Gospel manuscripts. To conclude the evidence. Omont. in: Bulletin de la Soci~ti frangaise de reproductions de manuscrits h peintures. one may point to the playful monkeys with skullcapson the left of the same Georgian Table. they are carried by columns of the sturdy or the slender type. fig. note 26. all dating from the last decade of the twelfth century. in one instance. 14. in the Library of the 37H. Der Nersessian. Paris 1956. 40 Cf. 1655. 39Cf. All these motifs may well have been transmitted through a single manuscript. may also be traced in two of the Georgian Tables (figs. some elements remain which just cannot be explained by reference to the Constantinopolitan tradition . Miniatures des Homblies sur la Vierge du moine Jacques. 11. Der Nersessian. 3). 2v (fig. 17). W. most of them occur several times within the oeuvre of the "Kokkinobaphosmaster". Every observer will immediately be struck by the similarity in the general lay-out of the Canon Tables in the Dionysiou and the Georgian Gospels (figs. the Gospels no. a peacock (fig. under the supervision of a Greek artist. The second group of motifs borrowed from the Constantinopolitan tradition is found in the Georgian Gospels A 1335 in the Institute of Manuscripts of the Georgian Academy of Sciences in Tbilisi. but much more schematically rendered: they should be taken as a pointer to the longevity of the motif in Constantinopolitanart rather than to any connection with the Dionysiou manuscript.40 HUGO BUCHTHAL Kokkinobaphos manuscript also has a marginal ornament of a frontally displayed peacock37 which corresponds to that in Table 3 (fig.g. also dated 1195.whether represented by the "Kokkinobaphos master" or by the Georgian manuscript from the end of the century which reflects metropolitan book production. and most significantly. The latter have the same broad superstructures. Manuscrits arminiens illustris de Venise. with an interlace at the centre. Unfortunately a comprehensive publication of the manuscript. Armenian Manuscripts in the Walters Art Gallery. note 6. XXX e. dated 1195. figs. . 14-16). Baltimore4' (fig. 9). 6).

And this applies not only to the Canon Tables. . The origin of the omission is easily traced. for instance. and the slight asymmetry in the arrangement of most of them. fig. But in the last Table the Dionysiou master who copied a model of this kind. 12). even though the human heads are here absent. The last Canon Table (fig. In Armenian Tables the superstructures are as a rule solid. the influence vom Jahre1197. the master of the Dionysiou manuscript cannot vie with their sophistication and finish. 10.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 41 Mechitarist Fathers in Venice42. but also to the other decorated pages. Wien 1950. Considered as a whole. The ornamental work in all three Gospels is in many ways closely related. forgot to leave any space for the titles.. with very little interior drawing. with heavy superstructureswhich are almost square in shape. Jerusalem 1965. i. The violence of the animals's movements. in the almost contorted animals poised on top of the headpiece at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark in the Lvov manuscript44. for once. pl. as if sketched in with a pen rather than painted with a brush. Sphinxes and Harpies in medieval Islamic Art (Oriental Notes and Studies. some of the birds and animals are engaged in deadly combat with each other. and not interrupted by lunettes. 9). It is different from all others: the superstructurecontains no lunette which would offer the scribe the space needed to insert the title of the Canon. give to the Armenian works both a somewhatpiquantnote and an unmistakable identity. but rather with their general appearance as a whole. there is little head realm which to the awkwardly shaped belongs difficultyin recognizing its re-appearance in the two grotesque birds of Table 9 in Dionysiou (fig.. both in their design and their colour scheme. In one instance45there is an bird with a human of fable46. pl. 13) deserves a separate discussion. Here. which makes them appear entirely flat.e. their appearance is mainly determined by their expressive outlines. the manuscripts stand at the beginning of the finest period of book illustration in lesser Armenia. 46Eva Baer. Cilicia.especially those in Baltimore and Venice . Manuscripts in the Waiters Art Gallery. In both sets. 26. The exaggerated actions and the aggressive positions of the Dionysiou fauna have parallels. and the Skevra Gospels in the Armenian archbishop's palace in Lvov43. dated 1197. similar to Canon 9 in our manuscript which follows Armenian usage fairly correctly (fig. They are built up in much the same way. It is true that the Armenian Tables have a studied elegance.aufbewahrtim Archivdes armenischen Erzbistums 43P. The Canon Tables of the three Armenian Gospels . It cannot be denied that his work is in comparison crude and unrefined . Nerses Akinian. 17). Das Skevra-Evangeliar Lemberg. 12). It is predominantly in details such as these that the Athos manuscript depends on them. the Canon Tables with their infinite and imaginative variety of patterns and motifs may perhaps be considered the most outstanding feature of the Dionysiou manuscript. 45Der Nersessian. the title of the Canon is written underneath (fig. pp. 29ff. 44Ibid. It is only through the position of the Table at the end of the set that one may guess that the three columns of numbers refer to Canon 10. between the capitals supporting the superstructure. 16. and an overwhelming wealth of ornamental and animal decoration exhibiting an exuberance and eccentricitywhich are rare in Greek illumination but rather characteristicof Armenian art.invite comparison not so much with individual motifs in the Dionysiou manuscript.though in its way just as impressive.4.

18. Fig. fol. St. Fig. 20.Beginning of Mark's Gospel. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. Dionysiou 4 . 14'. 112'. Mark. Fig. fol. 21. fol. fol. Matthew. 113. Athos.42 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. St. 15. 19.

Fig. fol. 279 Beginningof John'sGospel. 178. Fig. Fig. fol. Athos.25. 22. 278'. 24. fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 43 Fig. Luke. 23. St. 177'. St.Dionysiou4 . fol. John. Beginning of Luke's Gospel.

especially. Kl. Matenadaran 311). These two evangelists may well be considered the most remarkable representations of their kind within the entire framework of the "decorative style"..Chudolestvennye sokrovika Matanaderan. Durnovo. Korchmazjanto have the facts aboutthis manuscriptbroughtto my attention.. 20) and Luke (fig. They are boldly but somewhat awkwardly contained within their sweeping and dominating outlines. with different abbreviations. 4). I am most gratefulto Mrs. 22). 18) and John (fig.those of Matthew (fig. Luke's stool.R. L.p.A. e. But early Byzantine here the similarity is especially striking.too. Phil. That of Mark is notable for being written in a different hand. the colour scheme is darker. Iconographically.In the Dionysiou Gospels. 65. Moscow 1976. the deep purple shades have closer parallels among late twelfth centuryArmenian work from Cilicia. They are so similar to some sixth century sculpted architecturalornament at Qal'at Sim'an in Syria47 that it is difficultto imagine thatthe two are entirely unconnected.M. easily the most impressive evangelist of the set. 48Cf. is a similar monumentally conceived figure in a dark blue and deep violet pallium. Armenian Miniatures. and I. Drampjan & E. Matthew's body is bent slightly forwards. 24) are clearly related to the frontispiece miniature of Moses (fig. 1). dignified and expressive figures. 50 h. Closest perhaps are the portraits inserted into the Sebaste Gospels of 1066 (Erevan. it is difficultto avoid the conclusion that a similar ornament served as the direct source of inspiration. they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called monumental. Krencker. The whirling acanthus leaves in the central section of the superstructure. and more saturated. than in comparable Greek miniatures. where the miniature is still dated in the eleventh century. and in many ways comply more with the run-of-the-mill tradition of the "decorative style".44 HUGO BUCHTHAL of Armenian Cilicia is not only the dominant feature of the architecturalsetting. hist.i. Matthew and John are monumental. and John dictating to Prochoros. Though they are of the same size as the other two portraits. invite some comment. the feet of both figures protrude into the frame. London 1961. Mark and Luke are noticeably weaker in execution. Curiously enough.g. hardly remiscent of any oftheir counterparts in the true "decorative style". D. It should be mentioned that the colour reproductionin Durnovo is not reliable: the evangelist's mantle is much darker.a common feature in "decorative 47Cf. and. which are now considered to be twelfth century Cilician work48. and is the only one to start with a cross.Die Wallfahrtskirchedes Simeon Stylites in Kal'at Sim'an. Korchmazjan.with the correctdate. and just as was the case in the Moses miniature. Again. turning towards Prochoros in a telling and convincing gesture. however.the four portraits are entirely traditional. and may be the work of an assistant. pl. our master has regenerated his manuscript model with new forms of life. and the building cut in half in the Mark picture. Matthew's arched bench. Mark (fig. and closer to the purple shade of the Dionysiou evangelist's drapery. but also the source of an awkward error. are not so close. The differences extend to the captions attached to the four pictures: only those of Matthew and John are consistent both with one another and with those of the Moses miniature. Among the four evangelist portraits. The light and dark browns and blues. which bestows on them a somewhat rubbery quality . Revivalsof ornament are not altogether unknown in middle Byzantine illumination. in the attitudes and activities of the evangelists as well as in the furniture and background architecture. Berlin 1959 (Abhandlungen der PreuBischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin 1938. .

That 49Hutter. grec 1208 fol. in: Special Bulletin of the National Gallery of Victoria. 7. Hassall. 25). An illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book of about 1100A.Melbourne 1961. pp.. provisionally. 52W. Compared with the other two they are at an obvious disadvantage. fig. and Irene Ludwig II. and with one exception the fields are perfectlysquare. A. But in Dionysiou 4 and its close relatives the scheme is elaborated: a very limited number of patterns are almost identically repeated in those four or five books. London 1911. Square headpieces came into fashion in Constantinople in the second quarter of the twelfth century.p.figs. 75. 6.D. 100 to A. and the circularfolds on the hips. CBM I. Their most distinctive features are the frames. It is true that the headpiece for John (fig.D. 87ff. which betray an astounding understanding of classical ornamental patterns. which face the evangelist portraits. 23. 140-149. I am now inclined to date the manuscript in the second quarter of the twelfth century. . which have hardly any parallels outside the small sub-group to which this paper is devoted. 21. Euw & Plotzek. 51unpublishedCf. 54. not all of them contemporaries. Washington 1983. 21. 25) which consists entirely of conventional scrolls will not cause us much of a headache. pp. that it could by itself provide a justificationfor treating these manuscripts as a distinct sub-group. 51f. The article was reprinted in the author's collected essays: Art of the mediterranean World. 19.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 45 style"manuscripts -. 66. figs.O. But it is all the more difficultto adduce convincing sources of inspiration for the other three which introduce new forms into traditional schemes (figs. have sumptuous carpet headpieces of stunning originality. the art historian on the look-out for possible models is at a loss. Headpiece for third Homily.A. Their identity is so unmistakable. Byzantine Illumination at Holkham. Paris. and appear artificaland stilted. 19. Illuminated Manuscripts. 1400. 50H. 53V. the Codex Ebnerianus49and the Melbourne Gospelsso offer some of the earliest examples. Herbert. in: The Connoisseur 133. Their constructionis strictlysymmetrical. Nat. 248.D. 26. Fig. 23). the books Harley 1810in the British Library51. Yet. but the treatment is less subtle.553 may be mentioned. for once. Sammlung Ludwig. They re-appear in some manuscripts of the "decorative style" which precede our group in Holkham Hall 552 and Collection Peter date. CentenaryYear 1961. Buchthal. Bibl. The pages with the beginnings of the Gospel texts (figs. (March 1954). J. They share with their companion figures the bulging folds round their arms.

especially in manuscripts from Cyprus.46 HUGO BUCHTHAL for Mark. of alluding to the main subject on the opposite page54:Matthew exhibits his Gospel (fig. reprinted in the author's Byzantine and Armenian Studies. and they. I. 166 and passim. p. 2v-53. On each page there is room for only four lines of text. The figural initials introducing the text of each Gospel continue the metropolitan tradition. with the mannered abbreviationsand contractionsusual at that period. Below the headpieces are the Gospel titles written in large golden uncial script. 1965. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19. . 25). It should also be noted that in all four instances the gutter sides. 26). pp. Berlin. Finally. 19). too. 27. are decorated with birds perching on palmettes. Louvain 1973. 23). and very regular black minuscule including a high proportion of unicals. S. A Psalter and New Testament at Dumbarton Oaks. Only the beginning of Mark (fig. Fig. Der Nersessian. and John dictates to Prochoros (fig. But too many questions still remain open for us to be able to attributeour manuscript to any particular 54Cf. blocky. Luke is writing in a standing position (fig. the possibility of Islamic influence should be kept in mind. graeco quarto 66. Staatsbibliothek. a bold. are written in golden ink. the script. 139ff. Canon Table 1.might conceivably have been developed from elements like those which constitute the third headpiece in the Paris Kokkinobaphos manuscript (fig. basically a pattern of squares standing on edge. In any case. fols. and that the floral and animal decorations on top of the squares are almost perfectly symmetrical. 21) has an animal initial (letter A) similar to those found in the Kokkinobaphos group. five of which . But for headpieces 1and 3 no suggestions can be made at this stage.the only complete ones . too. popular since the end of the eleventh century.forming a Greek cross with equal arms . has more or less close parallels in other "decorative style" manuscripts from about the end of the twelfth century.

29. 4V-5. 3V-4. . Berlin. Canon Tables 2 to 7. Fig. fol. Staatsbibliothek. fols.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 47 Fig. Canon Tables 8-10. 28. graeco quarto 66.

But as the binding was completely renewed after the last war61.Jahrhundert. Buchmalerei und Goldschmiedekunst des Mittelalters. 59Hamann-MacLean. however. 57Hamann-MacLean. 736f.and points to a Christian ambiente in Egypt62. have been studied. 56Lately: The Year 1200. The close relationship with the Dionysiou Gospels was first pointed out by R. One fact. cance of the cycle as a whole59. Der Berliner Codex Graecus Quarto66 und seine niichstenVerwandten als Beispiele des Stilwandels im friihen 13. if only because they have been cut down round the edges in order to fit their present location. MS graec. 60They will receive detailed treatment in a forthcoming study by Mrs. this is the only one which has been known for a long time.and. Geburtstag. Der Berliner Codex. Ausstellung der Staatlichen Museen. This observation has some bearing on the evaluation of a document in Arabic written on fol. the document is dated 1219. Abendlindische Handschriften aus den Sammlungen PreuBischerKulturbesitzBerlin. Paris 1916. Among the manuscripts in our sub-group. 58G.p. Annemarie Weyl Carr. for once. It thus supplies a date "before1219"for the Canon Tables. 244ff. and passim. 27-29) are separate. 226ff. Wiesbaden Studien z.These narrativeminiatures. ruling system Leroy 44 D 1. Cf. 61This is recorded in a note stuck onto the back cover of the manuscript. Zimelien. R. pp. qu. 6655. Festschrift f.A centennial Exhibitionat the Metropolitan Museum of Art. . the recto of the first Canon Table. Whether or not these dates fit the particular historical situation which existed just after the fall of the Byzantine capital to the Latins is a point to which I shall have to return after some other manuscripts. close relatives of the Dionysiou Gospels. fall outside the scope of the present study60. p. Hamann-MacLean. Hamann-McLean57. and the first twelve folios mounted separately. Millet. but decidedly inferior to the other illustrations in quality. 225-250. They are complete on six pages crammed with numbers. Unfortunatelythe Berlin manuscript is no longer a homogeneous entity.48 HUGO BUCHTHAL centre . 5. K. intruders into a style which must have developed elsewhere. seems to stand out: the manuscript was not produced in Constantinople itself. Millet in his "Recherches sur l'iconoMore recently. Recherches sur l'iconographie de l'Evangile. 62Hamann-MacLean. photographs are easily available. which are of outstanding interest and importance. the Canon Tables (figs. Usener zum 60. Der Berliner Codex.. 2. and 5522 x 16 cm. pp. they must have been intended for a slightly larger volume.I.The most significant feature of the Berlin manuscript is that its text is illustrated with over thirty narrative scenes. Hamann-MacLean has discussed the special signifigraphie de l'Evangile""8.H. no. which was originally blank.They cannot originally have been produced for the Berlin Gospels. Marburg/Lahn 1967. 233. however. The numerous Constantinopolitan elements which have been found in its artistic decoration are outsiders. no. III Most instimately connected with the Dionysiou manuscript is a Gospels in the Staatsbibliothek (Preussischer Kulturbesitz)in Berlin. and were indeed extensively drawn upon by G. Der Berliner Codex.which is only slightly smaller in size. In the first place. NewYork 1970. pp. it has been shown at various exhibitions56. It includes a number of leaves which are replacements or additions.the script is just as inconclusive as the illuminations and miniatures. it is now difficultto distinguish the various component parts of the book. 291.

These three portraitsmust have belonged but of the together. 5. 37) has been shifted from its correct place at the beginning of the manuscript to the beginning of the Gospel of John. with the portraits of the evangelists (figs. These three separate parts . But fol. I am grateful to Professor Robert Browning for his help in deciphering the inscription. 2653v and 264v) were inserted in the middle of the bifolio 262/267 is unclear.So is the program of illustrations. too. corresponding miniature of Luke there is no trace. 64The text written on the sheet of parchment on top of the miniature is from Psalm 41 (42). 267 makes one think that it might have happened comparatively recently. 539). 262 and 267. 262v (figs. is still intact (fig.fols. 30). the strong imprint made by the portrait of John on fol. 5v. Moreover. fols. if not of the same hand. just like the additional half-burntportraitof Matthew on fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 49 as Millet's iconographical study of the Gospel scenes makes it virtuallycertain that the manuscript was in Egyptby the middle of the century. 6. An exception is the first page of the Gospel of Matthew (fig. 267 which is otherwise blank. 33-36). The manuscript itself. perhaps because of its partial destruction by fire. The ruling system. 38) which has been severely scorched by fire. 33). At what date the two bifolios with the original miniatures of John and Moses (fols. 1. fol. and which had a double frame. therefore. most of the headpiece is now blotted out. and the text of the beginning of Matthew has been carelessly rewritten by a later hand. and probablyby a slightly earlier hand. written in a icqpocata brown ink different from that of the rest of the book. 99/100. The bifolio 262/267 has a duplicate portrait of John on fol. The second group of insertions consists of five folios. which has the original portraitof Matthew on its verso. 39). though certainly before the manuscript was acquired for the Berlin Library in 1881. 262v (fig. 99/100. The whole composition was inserted into a geometrical and floral setting but left unpainted and only sketched out in red against a background of a grid of white lines. is very closely related to the Dionysiou Gospels: the script is so similar that the two books must be considered products of the same workshop. a clear indication that the two portraits were originally intended for a larger manuscript. They have also severely cut down round their edges. In addition the page has suffered extensive damage from water. the original miniature of Mark is now missing. 5. 99 also has the imprint of a miniature of Mark which must have faced it but which is now missing. on a bifolio fols. the only such list in the manuscript. Fol. where the headpiece is of a different type and probablyunfinished: it shows a bust of Christin the centre and busts of the four evangelists holding scrolls in the corners. The other inserted folios contain the for Mark. is the same 63. and 262/267 . while the second is a bifolio. 38. and part of the frame plus the imprint of the whole miniature of John on fol. 5v is a duplicate portrait of Matthew (fig. these two folios must.seem all to have belonged to the same manuscript which was split up. its half-charred remnants are glued to an originally empty page 64. it should be noted 63Leroy D 44 1. 30-32) and gorgeous square headpieces at the beginning of each Gospel (figs. The first of these is now a single leaf. at one time have faced each other. and that of John on fol. On fol. and the portrait of Moses (fig. we may take it that the terminusante applies not only to the Canon Tables but also to the rest of the manuscript: it must indeed have been produced some years before 1219. . as has been mentioned before. Finally.

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

St. 31. Berlin. .BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 51 Fig. graeco quarto 66.fol. Staatsbibliothek. 158'. Luke.

66Cf. Yet it is true that the execution was not so carefully planned: the scriptis less regular. 1-7. Some of the illustrations in the Dionysiou and Berlin manuscripts appear at first sight practically identical: the headpiece for Matthew in Dionysiou (fig. Only the Dionysiou headpieces for Luke and John have no counterparts in Berlin. First. which seem to antedate the manuscript itself by some years.52 HUGO BUCHTHAL that the quaternion fols. 67Millet. 87. We should also note that in a number of instances the first few lines of a chapter are written in gold script. 535). Armenian works from Cilicia such as the Gospels from Drasark in the British Library Or. some are almost full page. 54. . yet. however. while others are inappropriatelysqueezed in close to the margins 66. This dependence may also be traced in one historiated initial: the standing and writing evangelist who represents the letter Epsilon at the 65Cf. figs. it was presumably the Dionysiou manuscript itself which was the fountainhead on which the Berlin and other related headpieces depended. fig. 55). they are outside the usual repertory of Byzantine decorations. some are realistically cought in violent movement: the monkey on fol. and the rabbiton fol. The facts are complicated indeed. 269. 24. no. larger. and carelessly executed. 12).just as the soldiers in chain mail in the miniature of the Betrayal67must have been taken over from a western model. and. Hamann-MacLean. Buchthal & O. In conclusion. slightly simplified in design and ornamental detail (figs. with earlier literature. 27-29). 537) and of John with Prochoros (figs. 34). the titles of some Tables are wrongly copied. and the number of birds and animals poised outside the arcades is severely reduced. As for the single ornaments. Matthew and John. and somehow lack the perfect finish and the persuasive power of their Dionysiou forerunners. I shall now discuss the various constituent groups of illuminations in turn. there are the three remaining evangelist portraits which belonged to the manuscript from the beginning. that for Mark in Dionysiou and that for Luke in Berlin (figs 21. Recherches. might almost be called a twin sister of the Dionysiou Gospels. p. influence . 456. 99. 547. were perhaps a spare set in the possession of the scriptorium. 5 add a somewhat more animated note. 1. with its three original headpieces and three portraits. 40. Still. are in red ink. p. probably French. 41). written in 1181. The Berlin headpieces for Mark and Luke are. They are strangely banal and prosaic. 290-97 is a later replacement. and slightly earlier book. Kurz. 9) and that for Mark in Berlin and the portraits (fig.which happened to come handy for the Berlin Gospels when it was decided not to repeat the outstanding endeavour to which we owe the Tables of the Dionysiou manuscript. of Moses (figs. The Tables. I incline to attributethe use of red ink for prominent parts of the text to western. while the vast majorityof narrativescenes are normal column pictures. the number of lines of text on the first page of each Gospel vaccillatesbetween three and five. and with them went a picture of Mark which has disappeared but left its imprint on fol. the Canon Tables (figs. Der Berliner Codex. But the whole conveys a rather lack-lustre impression. and are but dull reflections of their presumptive models.A Handlist of illuminated oriental ChristianManuscripts (Studies of the Warburg Institute. were taken over from some other. 4. H. The manuscript itself. such as the Crucifixion and the Ascension. two additional miniatures. 532).where similar feathery palmettes and rhomboid patterns are to be found (figs. 8165. and all the text passages from the Gospel of Luke which go with illustrations from the Passion.

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

Among the full-page miniatures those of Moses and of John with Prochoros ( 180. 24) is the ample use of gold honeycomb striation. 31) do not at first sight appear equally similar to their Dionysiou counterparts. Above and below is the quotation from John I.Velmans. the outlines of the hems more capricious. 1. The evangelist's name which appears at the top of the Berlin page may be a somewhat later addition. and the details of the head of Mt. the wavy hem about the waist is a genuine late Comnenian pattern. 36). In Berlin the figure is more articulated and more outspoken. Its intense dramatic action makes it clearly the later of the two. figs. in which the evangelist portraitsmay well be additions of the later twelfth century. his Dionysiou counterpart in its simple humanity is more appealing. and manyothers. K. The drawing is more angular. 125. Still. Paris1971 VI). 21). 30. MS Dionysiou25: Pelekanides. as also the long cursive caption at the bottom: 6 'EooytlK6cogto • i03tvuri1 Kci ••. de la Laurentienne. Le titradvangile des Cahiersarch6ologiques. almost violent in its movements. VI. and that they have much in common. Treasures 68 Cf.xQzoq T~v )ayyCXatczTu. .. The Berlin portrait is more forceful and majestic.. the forehead more bulbous. striding vigorously forward (fig.e. again the Dionysiou evangelist is plainly the earlier of the two. But the Dionysiou Matthew exhibiting his Gospel and John standing and dictating to Prochoros again have no counterpartsin Berlin.a technical feature found occasionally in slightly earlier or contemporaryminiatures belonging to the "decorative style"68. The frame recalls that of the portraitof Mark in the well-known Gospels in Florence. 18. Unfortunately the miniature of Matthew is much rubbed. pl. AthosI. Though all these features are not inappropriatefor the author of the Fourth Gospel.Weitzmann (andothers).54 HUGOBUCHTHAL beginning of the Gospel of Luke (fig. as well as in contemporary icons 69. 69Cf.g. the gesture of the right arm more expressive. Ikonen ausdemKatharinenkloster aufdemBergeSinai. but the abundance of gold highlights makes it appear restless and over-dramatic. The portraits of Matthew and Luke in the Berlin manuscript (figs. 34). In Berlin the drapery round the hip and the waist may be slightly retouched. The relation of the two miniatures of John and Prochoros to each other may be described in similar terms. a more detailed comparison will show that they are based on the same figural types.Wien & Miinchen1965. Other changes are the headpiece and the animal initial for the Gospel of John (fig. 11. In Dionysiou the rendering of Moses's drapery is more natural..g.almost visionary.Weitzmann. The main difference from their Dionysiou counterparts (figs. Biblioteca Laurenziana Plut. holding his Gospel in his hand. 35). but the figure itself lacks a proper caption . 56-60. especially in the second portrait. 23 70.. e. which have no forerunners in the Dionysiou Gospels. This omission is shared with many evangelist portraitsin our group. K.Berlin1980. The Berlin manuscript has instead the figure of the evangelist. with a prominent elongated neck and slightly cocked head. 4.FriiheIkonen. (Bibliothbque figs. The plain straight vertical lines of drapery and the only slightly undulating hems compare favourablywith the deliberate excitement produced by the figure in Berlin. The same is true for the animal initial standing for the letter A at the beginning of the Gospel of Mark (fig. 32. 70T.a fact which led the author of the Berlin Catalogue to a fanciful identification. 3355. 37) stand out for their superb quality.

Fig. Staatsbibliothek. fol. graeco quarto 66. 33. fol. 36. 35. 162. Beginning of Luke's Gospel.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 55 Fig. Beginning of Mark's Gospel. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. 268 Beginning of John's Gospel. Fig. . fol. 7. 103. Berlin. Fig. fol. 34.

23. the comparatively simple drapery system of the Dionysiou figure mainly rendered in straight lines is supplanted by fuzzy gold striation. especially in the pictures of Luke and John. They are most impressive works of a stunning quality. while Luke in Dionysiou is by far the weakest of the four. on the other hand. they have numerous parallels among the mosaics of Monreale 7 and related works.not least through the unity and perfect harmony forged out of its various constituent parts. did not originally belong to the manuscript. and with a feeling both for rhythm and for a certain three-dimensional quality. there can be no doubt that both works are by the same master copying a model very much like that of the Dionysiou Gospels . and the various bulges of drapery are more complex and more angular. leaves a less harmonious overall picture. London 1949. almost perfectly preserved and a worthy companion to that of John in the same manuscript. And. They. 59) which. Compared with its sister manuscript in Dionysiou the Berlin Gospels thus leaves a contradictoryimpression. The gold hatching is infinitely more elegant and delicate than in the original set. 99. the attitude of the figure has been altered: the evangelist bends forward almost violently in the act of writing. more striking and more harmonious as a work of art . 22. just as in the picture of John. well on the way to creating a new style on the basis of very respectable if somewhat heterogenous models. though distinctly more advanced in style. . belong together and they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "provincial". does give them a true stylistic identity. a dynamic figure convincingly rendered in gold and glowing colours. The obtrusive and rather crude honeycomb chrysography. Again. but in Berlin the evangelist bends forward over his book. and the same slightly bulbous skull. and has lost about 2 to 5 cm. Matthew's chair might 710. or even be attributed to the "decorative style" at all. 31) may be described in similar terms: they both represent the same figural type. as we saw. VI. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily. The relation of the two portraits of Luke (figs. a new beginning. The Berlin manuscript. along its left and upper frames. deserve very special attention.if not the Dionysiou Gospels itself. 105. if they did the discrepancy would be even more obvious. and remains somehow extraneous. The frames are again reminiscent of those in the late twelfth century portraits inserted into the Laurenziana Gospels. too. does not make for a unified whole. but it is not really integrated into the fabric of the manuscript as a whole. indeed. Moreover. even the Matthew in its present ruinous state: the miniature is considerably shrivelled by fire. the Dionysiou manuscript remains more homogenous. Demus. The two additional portraits (figs. Plut. Moreover. their most outstanding stylisticfeature. his counterpartin Berlin is a real masterpiece. Attractiveand impressive as the Berlin Gospels certainly is. It is not only that evangelist portraitsand headpieces do not face each other because of faulty re-binding. which was so successful in the Dionysiou manuscript. figs. alters their character. the meandering ends of drapery are executed with great bravura. The head has the same triangular shape as that of Moses. it is clear that the Berlin miniature is the later version of the two. In spite of the near-identity of figure types and similarity of style with their Dionysiou counterpartsthe portraitsstrike one as belonging to a different strand. In spite of its multiplicity of sources and its inconsistencies the Dionysiou Gospels presented itself as a breakthrough. and their combination with the headpieces.56 HUGO BUCHTHAL are now almost unrecognizable.

BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 57 Fig. fol. Berlin. Moses receiving the Law. 37. . graeco quarto 66. 264v. Staatsbibliothek.

Berlin. Staatsbibliothek. 5v St.58 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. Matthew. . 38. graeco quarto 66. fol.

St. . Staatsbibliothek. 39. fol. graeco quarto 66. John.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 59 Fig. Berlin. 262v.

and some of it even reappears on the conjoint leaf. is complete and undamaged . Beginning of Gospel of Mark. London. 39). The portrait of John (fig. its horizontal band carries a pseudo-Kufic inscription. Hadermann-Misguich. especially round and near the left hand. 40. 112. A close parallel to the figure of John may be found in that of Christ in the fresco of the Dormition in Kurbinovo 72. 81 fol. The figure is not really standing on both feet as is John in the Dionysiou and first (1191) Berlin portraits. There is also. Brussels 1975. Kurbinovo. on the other hand.60 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. fol. . British Library. There are the same bulging and meandering drapery hems as in the Matthew miniature. the same strikingly virtuosohandling of the thread-thin chrysography.which has nothing in common with the crude honeycomb patterns of the other set of portraitsbut is in- 72L. A second and third pseudo-Kufic inscription are on the cloth covering the table to the right.apartfrom the fact that part of the gutter side of its frame is hidden by the binding. 267. almost be called late Romanesque in its complex proliferation of arches. 90. but is shown stepping forward and at the same time turning round in a contrappostomovement to look up to the hand of God in the sky (which is missing in the two other miniatures). and this is the most prominent feature of the two duplicate miniatures. fig. Or.

760. slightly bent knees. too.Washington 1960 (Dumbarton Oaks Studies.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 61 Fig. 1900.but it may be affirmed that 73K. Jahrhundert. 750. gr. stead laid on in very delicate lines which emanate from a few focal points. und XV. Kallab. 41. 81 fol. Marco in Venice: History.London. the left arm in a cascade-like pattern. Demus. 290. This animated figure with its dynamic stance. The Church of S. 27. Finally. may be compared with several late twelfth-century works. Die toskanische Landschaftsmalerei im XIV. Tafel IV. British Library. 74Reproduced in: W. Weitzmann. Architecture. Mark's in Venice 76 which echoes a Constantinopolitan model offers an amazingly close parallel. 99. 87a. Or. It is no doubt hazardous to propose a definite date and place of origin for the duplicate portraits. figs. such as the Matthew miniature in the Gospels suppl. The Icon. 21. the general figure type echoes that of several figures It even survived well into the thirteenth century:the sculpamong the mosaics of Monreale 75. ture of a trumpet-blowing angel in the central square of St. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerh6chsten Kaiserhauses. Mosaics of Norman Sicily. . Demus.Sculpture. 6 in the Biblioteca Nazionale in Napels (formerly in Vienna) 74. 72. 6). softly flowing forms and conspicuous all-over patterns of infinitely subtle gold striation is a near relative of the Angel of the Annunciation The mantle falling down from with its gyratinggait in the famous Sinai icon of about 1180/9073. pl. New York 1978. 95b. Beginning of Gospel of John.

Fig.62 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. Canon Table 3. 42. Canon Table 2. Fig. fol. Cracow. 2. 43. 44. 1'. 1870. Canon Table 1. 1. Biblioteka Czartoryskich . fol. fol.

2'. fol. 45.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 63 Fig. Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870. 3'. Cracow. 3. Fig. Canon Table 5. Canon Table 6. fol. Fig. 4. 46. fol. Canon Table 7. 47. Fig. Canon Table 4. fol. . 48.

There are nine Canon Tables on fols. Even before the re-binding the manuscript had two different systems of foliation. end of the twelfth century". pp.5 X 14. e. in small and rather inconspicuous Arabic numerals in the bottom right-hand corners of the whole manuscript. which is more consistent. one would no doubt classifythem as "late Comnenian. which include the imprint of the lost portraitof that evangelist on fol. See recently H. Still. IV A third manuscript. C. 7819. following instead the typical patterns of the "decorative style" manuscripts. was rebound in 1964 with the unfortunate result that most of the miniatures of the first gathering.g. startingwith the first Canon Table. they are significantly different from the noble structures in the Dionysiou Gospels. II. the only information on their context is provided by the KFcp&chatfor Mark. the evangelist portraits and headpieces clearly belong with those in the other two. which had been fashionable in the group as far back as the 77Cf. Notes sur la dbcorationdu manuscrit grec Czartoryski1801et sur l'ornement byzantin. figs. 25. more recent. of all the manuscripts of the group discussed in this paper. Belting & G. I propose to follow Hamann-McLean. as I have said before. 23355ff. der polnischen Bibliotheken (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu 50. is the same. Wiesbaden 1979.and their origin in Constantinople would be considered a near-certainty.5 cm. is now in Cracow. We can only speculate about the lost book from which they were extracted. and even the ruling system. and this is a crucial argument. These two systems have led to occasional confusion when the miniatures or headpieces have been cited in art-historical literature. the two miniatures have little or nothing to do with the "decorativestyle". were mounted separately. The Cracow manuscript. which had probably come loose. 1870 (formerly1801)78. 99/100 in the Berlin Gospels. . Biblioteka Czartoryskichno. the miniature of Isaiah in the Codex of the Prophets. 33554-33559. pl. XCI-XCIII. and even there was limited to a few manuscripts of outstanding merit". Cavallo. 1 to 5 (figs. fol. V. the other.Hamann-MacLean. 5. Aland. Laurenziana Library. in: Studi bizantini e neoellenici (Atti del V congresso internazionale di Studi bizantini. including that of the Canon Tables. Die Bibel des Niketas.which still preserves traces of its former Baroque binding. ruling system: Leroy 44 D 1. a distinct possibility. 9. 1940. and its decorations cannot in any way vie in qualitywith those of the Dionysiou or Berlin Gospels. Vol.As it is. p. to say the least. pp. and with prominent Arabic numerals in the top right corners of the rest of the book. and to use the second system. Die Handschriftenbest~inde Berlin. Cf.a feature which has parallels only in Constantinopolitan miniature painting. 42-50).. but it was definitely of a deluxe character:witness the double frames with which the portraits are provided to give them special distinction . which Hamann-Mac Lean associated closely with the two preceding It is the smallest books. K. there is nothing "provincial"about them. 51. tav.64 HUGO BUCHTHAL they both pre-date those which go with the manuscript. If they had come down to us as single leaves. 1956. Osieczkowska.. an origin for the two inserted miniatures in Constantinople is. one with Roman numerals for the Canon Tables in their left bottom corners. Moreover. 99. While this evidence cannot be considered conclusive. Florence. Der Berliner Codex. starting with the first page of the Gospel of Matthew.Plut. 7).. Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft.

days of the Chicago New Testament79. The intricate foliate patterns of the superstructuresare in gold and white on a red ground.They are now arranged in the wrong order. and one folio. The list of sections from Matthew in Canon 10erroneously occurs twice: in the last column of fol. 1932. edd. Among the evangelist portraits that of Matthew is missing. Jahrhunderts.Just as remarkable are two apes standing upright and preparing to climb the two outermost columns of the last Table (fig. while some of the arcades themselves are drawn overlapping one another. 2 and 5.g. Die byzantinische Buchmalerei des 9. which in its turn seems to reflect western ornamental patterns80. 5. They vary from page to page. Canon Table 8. 49) . 49. 79Fac-simile volume: The Rockefeller McCormickNew Testament. K. e. Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870.5. fol. 30. 39.J. 50. probably as a result of the re-binding.a motif which might almost have come straight out of a Table in a tenth century manuscript now in Venice. 5 and containing Canons 3 and 4. still form a bifolio. Unfortunately they are in a bad state of preservation. 52. 3'. 54) have their closest parallels in the Matthew and Luke figures in Berlin (figs. Only fols. all the others are now single leaves. and those of Mark and Luke (figs. .. Fig. Goodspeed (and others). with Canons 5 to 10. Cracow. 50).figs. 3. and again in the first column of fol. Most architectural columns carryrhomboid capitalswhich mark the transition to the arcades. just as in some of their opposite numbers in the Dionysiou Gospels. 40. is missing. fol. originally conjoint with fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 65 Fig. Weitzmann. 4'. E.Berlin 1935. Canon Table 9. Chicago 80Cf. only their outlines remain. in one instance a cock roosts on the central pinnacle and is attackedby two dogs or foxes climbing up towards him (fig.. und 10.



31), but they are clearly the work of an inexperienced master who was unable to live up to the tradition of the workshop. They are almost unbelievably crude, uncouth and prosaic; the colours are dull and lack lustre, and the honeycomb chrysography,in particular,which is the main feature of the portraits, is quite mechanically and insensitively applied. The drooping shoulders which distinguished the Berlin evangelists are here even more in evidence, so that the figures look somewhat distorted. Mark has the round head and round black beard of Comnenian portraits, comparable to his counterpartin the slightly earlier Gospels in the Ludwig Collection"'.The sparse furniture is almost identical in the Cracow and Berlin miniatures; only Luke has a desk resting on an arcade, similar to those of the two earlier manuscripts. The broad frames contain flatlypainted trefoil motifs within heart-shaped tendrils, or rhomboid patterns; they are unusually broad, so that the normal ratio between picture and frame is upset. The attempts at imitating the noble figures of the Berlin manuscript almost seems pathetic. John (fig. 56) is an outsider in this series: he is seated on a high golden throne with thick horizontal bars, of a type found frequently in miniatures of the "decorative style" and elsewhere, mostly for John but occasionally also used for other evangelists. Though the figure is badly proportioned, its execution is superior to that of the other two, especially in the handling of the gold striation, and the fold under the left knee which finds its way down to the ankle - a motif which we shall meet again in the Moscow and Iviron manuscripts"8. John holds a of the pigments of the half-open book in his right hand, and grasps his tunic with his left. Most face have unfortunately flaked off. As for the headpieces only that for Matthew (fig. 51)belongs strictlyspeaking to our group. It echoes those for Matthew in Dionysiou and for Mark in Berlin, but its effect is marred by the addition of an ugly grid of thin, spidery white lines forming interlacing squares, which distract from the main pattern of the ornament and make the whole design appear weak and fuzzy. The initial B at the beginning of the Gospel text (fig. 51) is formed by the evangelist exhibiting his Gospel, just as in the corresponding initial in the Dionysiou manuscript (fig. 19). But the headpiece for Mark (fig. 53), with commonplace rhomboid ornaments arranged in the form of a Greek cross, and that for Luke (fig. 55), with foliage and tendrils reminiscent of those in the Canon Tables, have no counterparts anywhere in the group; they appear banal and undistinguished. The initial A at the beginning of the text of Mark, with a dog trying to catch a snake winding round the main vertical shaft, recalls a similar motif in the same place in the Dionysiou manuscript. The headpiece for Luke (fig. 55) has nine symmetrically arranged
conventional palmettes; that for John, together with the first page of the Gospel text as far as John I, 15, is now missing. On each of the surviving incipitpages to the Gospels there are only three lines oftext; and for once these are not distinguished by gold script. The text itself, written in a deep black ink, is palaeographically similar to those of the other two Gospels, but is somewhat less carefully written. Seen as a whole, the Cracow manuscript is an important member of the group, principally

81formerlyPhillipps 3887, now Collection Ludwig II., 5. fol. 77v, cf. A. von Euw & J.M. Plotzek, Die Handschriften der Sammlung Ludwig, fig. 74.

82Cf.figs. 80, 81.






Fig. 51.fol. 6. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel.

Fig. 52. fol. 73V.St. Mark.

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



because of its connection with the Gospels in Dionysiou and Berlin. Indeed, when the ruling system is taken into account, it might even be considered a product of the same scriptorium. But no doubt outside models also played an important part; and, considering the low artistic level of its decoration, its execution was evidently not in response to the request from a highplaced aristocratic patron.

V One more manuscript which may be of slightly later date than the three Gospels just discussed, has now to be considered, although it stands somewhat outside the mainstream of our group. It is a Gospels in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, W 52883,a large and specially carefully produced book which is written in a firm and fluent, widely spaced minuscule that has its closest parallels in the even later Gospels in Manchester, the last manuscriptto be dealt with in this paper. Only one figuralminiature remains, a picture of Luke 84 painted on the verso of a single leaf with blank recto,glued in so as to face the beginning of the text of his Gospel. The last few lines ofLuke's Gospel are now missing and must once have been present on a recto page which had the portrait of John on its verso85. There may in fact have been the usual complete set of four evangelists. The Luke miniature is, however, so different from all other figural work in the group, both in its style and its colour scheme, that it was probably not originally part of the manuscript, but a later addition; and this must have been true of the other miniatures as well. For that reason it will not be discussed here. The pattern and colouring of the four exceedingly beautifulcarpet headpieces (figs. 57-60), all of them forming perfect squares, is unusually attractive,and constitutes a high point within the sub-group. The patterns, rendered in exquisite taste, are very complex, and may be considered the most original work in the whole group next to those of the Dionysiou Gospels. Three of them incorporate versions of the feathery fan-like structurewhich is the main feature of the Luke headpieces in Dionysiou and Iviron;they are embedded in vigorous overall scrollwork with leafy palmettes. To the right of the square ornament there rises in every case a stalk with a large palmette which carries a single bird, some of them in violent movement; and every square is surmounted by a group of two birds flanking a central ornament. These four exquisite pages are of an extremely lively and harmonious effect, and of an impeccability and vitalitywhich distinguishes them from their relatives in most of the other manuscripts. The cat forming the initial E at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (fig. 59) may be singled out here for special mention; we shall meet it again in the same place in the Moscow Gospels 86.The other three initials are more traditional. The script, black and heavy, is upright and particularly regular; as usual in most manuscripts of this group, the first page of each Gospel, with four
8325,2 x 16,7 cm. Ruling system: Leroy 52 C 1. K.W. Clark, A descriptive catalogue of Greek New Testament manuscripts in America, Chicago 1957, pp. 558ff. 840. Demus, Studien zur byzantinischen Buchmalerei des 15. Jahrhunderts, in: Jahrbuchder osterreichischen byzantinischen Gesellschaft, 9, 1960, p. 80, fig. 2. 85Clark, A descriptive catalogue, p. 559. 86Cf. fig. 79.

116'. 54. 55. St. fol. John. Luke.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 69 Fig. Fig. 56. Biblioteka Czartoryskich1870. . Fig. fol. fol. 1835. Cravow. St. 118.Beginning of Luke's Gospel.

. Athos. there are not even any liturgical indications. The flora and fauna on top and at the sides of the main structures are also based on motifs borrowed from the earlier manuscript. the earliest manuscript dealt with in this paper: a Gospel in the Iviron Monastery on Mt. Die griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments in der U.Pelekanides (and others).5 cm. otherwise unconnected manuscripts of the "decorative style"88. though not of the same high quality. Fols. 61) also have a broad interlace in the centre..g. Closest to the Iviron manuscript and similar in size. though again somewhat simplified. at least in the greater part of its ornamental decoration.7 X 16 cm. e. 75. Only the last Table (fig. It is.70 HUGO BUCHTHAL lines of text. for example. each supported by three sturdy columns thin as threads. Thus. It was certainly intended as a showpiece for a private collector. and are replaced by palmettes of conventional type. 511ff. related manuscripts of the "decorativestyle".S. is written in gold. K. Lenin Library gr. somewhat abbreviated. the whole scheme is considerably toned down: the exuberant and somewhat eccentric accumulation of individual motives borrowed from Constantinopolitan manuscripts of the kind of the "Kokkinobaphos"group and the Vani Gospels have disappeared.. 88cf. In fact. The ten Canons. but not in our sub-group. but we shall probably never know the circumstances of its production. II.It would add considerably to our knowledge if we could discover by whom this outstanding book was commissioned. but the lunette has closer parallels in other. 66) is entirely different: its five slender columns carry four conspicuously overlapping arcades. 67). with earlier literature. 1v. 46-50. and appears to be a somewhat later and less outstanding derivative. (Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichenLiteratur. its first Canon Table (fig. 7-9). and these are used much more sparingly. the cat on the second (fig. 989. The whole scheme of this Table constitutes a well-planned improvement over its Dionysiou predecessor. ruling system Leroy 21 C 1. are accomodated on only six Tables (figs. Ruling system Leroy 21 C 1. The ruling system recurs in other. following its source of inspiration rather closely. Berlin 1966. the principal columns of the first Table (fig. Handschriften in Athen. Treu. e.S. .pp. 61-66). Athos.g.R. no. and the ape on the sixth Canon Table (fig. VI Among the few other surviving works of our sub-group there is one which recalls in many ways the Dionysiou Gospels. not a solid canopy but a base-line from which rises a lunette offering ample space to enclose the title of the Canon.2. 1975. one of the few manuscripts illuminated in the "decorativestyle" to perpetuate the system of architecturallybuilt-up Canon Tables of the Dionysiou 4 type. formerly part of the Dionysiou Gospels. most of them filled with a bewildering profusion of numbers. 74. 5587. offer good comparisons. 504ff. pp. 62). the "drBleries" of the Dionysiou manuscript are echoed by some chained animals in the margins. and 2v of the Leningrad fragment (figs. the only one of 8720 X 14. figs. The slender columns do have forerunners in about half of the Dionysiou Tables. Treasures of Mt. and the arcades in their turn carry. 91). which are very delicately drawn. Buberl. They are conceived as solidly built structures carrying massive canopies. figs. and some of the birds roosting on the lateral palmettes. is a Gospels in Moscow.. It is of slightly smaller size than its Dionysiou counterpart. Still. 66). 8921.

. Md. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 71 Fig. 57. Baltimore.. 2. Walters Art Gallery W 528. fol.

4. is closer. Perhaps they were already unsuitable for copying when the Iviron and Moscow manuscripts were written. However this may be. and the chapter lists are now largely illegible. . though far superior in quality. Itwill be noticed that the lists of the Iviron Tables are very carelessly copied.72 HUGO BUCHTHAL which a photograph is available90. for the omission occurs within a single Canons 7 to 9. From the point of view of their palette the Iviron and Moscow miniatures merely qualify as run-of-the-mill specimens of the decorative style. 68. and which takes complete possession of the production of provincial miniatures during most of the second half of the twelfth century. for example. just as on the two Iviron Tables. and thus help to underline the very special place the Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels hold within the school. mauve. fol. But the gravest and And for once this is not perhaps the most significant shortcoming is the absence of Canon 101_3. and sometimes do touch. and there are many other mistakes and omissions. some of outstandingly noble bearing. Unfortunately the photograph from Moscow is not distinct enough to show the heraldically arranged quadrupeds facing a central ornament on top of the superstructure. 61). The relationship will appear even more marked when the Moscow Table is compared with the third Table in the Iviron manuscript (fig. First. the Canon Tables in Iviron and Moscow certainly depend on the same model. 74. occupy more of the picture space than their Dionysiou counterparts: their haloes almost touch. too.It is therefore tempting to trace both sets of Canons back directly to those of Dionysiou 4: in that manuscript fol.Die griechischen Handschriften. recur exactly. pastel-like colours dominated by that brick-red.82) are also very close to each other. is clearly a poor relative of its Iviron counterpart (fig. the abovementioned volume in Moscow91. There is no trace here of the darker. 63) in which there are also two lunettes and in which the marginal decoration on the right. 12) which Contains Canons 10-_3 has been damaged by humidity. The figures. 311. and green which is almost a hall-mark of the "decorative style" from its earliest examples like the Chicago New Testament onwards. almost as close as those in Dionysiou and Berlin. 72. 76.78.are in a very bad state of preservation. 9 (fig. instead of Matthew-Mark-John. The buildings accompanying them on either side are nearly identical in all eight por- 90I am much indebted to Dr. 70. 91Treu. The sets of evangelist pictures in Iviron (figs. has the same title as Canon 3: Matthew-Luke-John. Alice Bank and to Professor Olga Popova for her effortsto obtainthese photographs for me. p. Its general proportions. Canon 4. as well as the shape of the capitals. One wonders what the precise relationship between the Canons in the Dionysiou Gospels on the one hand. the upper frame. might be. probably under Armenian influence. while on the verso is only Canon 10. the frames of the lunettes and the step ornaments of the superstructures. Unfortunately the Iviron portraits. Canon 1 is not complete. and the Iviron and Moscow manuscripts on the other. 80) and Moscow (figs.It is certainly significant that exactly the same omission occurs in the Tables of the Iviron Gospels's closest relative. 4 has on its recto folio: due to the loss of a leaf. the two sets agree as to their colour scheme: they perpetuate the unpleasant combination of light. nobler and more saturated colouring which distinguishes the evangelists in Dionysiou. Thus.

.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 75 Fig.. 70. Beginning of Mark's Gospel. Md. Baltimore. 58. fol. Walters Art Gallery W 528.

with their many bulges and frills. 82) .in this respect not even comparable with his seated relative in Cracow (fig. and the rounded or barbed folds along their hips. 80. and in Iviron Luke echoes that of Matthew. Stylistically.Beginning of Luke's Gospel.a very popular motif in later miniatures of the "decorative style". But Matthew is the only figural type to agree with his relative in Dionysiou. Matthew does not lean forward: instead he is shown slightly hunched over his book. In all eight pictures the dominant stylisticfeatures are the undulating zig-zag folds following their right sleeves. 70. 68. In both sets Mark and Luke are given heads with prominently round backs. Walters Art Gallery W 528. 76. and show their later date in many ways. 116. 82). 59. Their brick-red footstools are placed vertically. Even so. traits (figs. And John presents an altogether different type: he is not shown standing and dictating to Prochoros. Mark recalls the corresponding figure in Dionysiou only in a very general way.74 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. fol. 74. 78. Baltimore. but seated and exaggeratedly hunched over his book (figs. for the most part independent of the Dionysiou manuscript. 56).. in seven of them they half cover the evangelists's left feet so thattheir toes and partof the soles of their feet are seen from below . The . the two sets are more advanced than the Dionysiou evangelists. 72. Md. 80. They make for a concentrated tension which is enhanced by the effect of the violent all-over movement of the figures themselves with their prominently raised left knees. It appears that the Iviron and Moscow sets reflect a particular figural tradition.

. 92Demus. p. esp. Beginning of John's Gospel. 72) 92. Baltimore. W..1980. Metamorphosen eines antiken Motivs in der friih-und hochmittelalterlichen Kunst. 78) is stylistically the most progressive figure of them all. 80ff. The movements of all figures are impressively contrasted with the rigid verticals of the framing architecture. the whole human shape is contained within the bold sweep of its expressive outlines. more recently. Krause. also. which has no parallel within our group. issuing from a circular "blackhole" at elbow height. 1960. Still. XXXIII. in Jahrbuch der dsterr.Plantanuda. Equally conspicuous is the right arm. 74) which is not the result of such an extravagant experiment. and foreshadows more than any of the others the "mannerism" of Palaeologan art. where the whole foot is seen from underexception is the portrait of Mark in Iviron (fig.a mannerism bordering on the absurd. 18. and more convincing in its movements.. neath. fig. fol. and few in middle Byzantine illumination generally. pp. byz. Buchmalerei. byz. is much more homogenous. Md. 60. apart from the marked general difference in quality there are also differences of detail: in Moscow Matthew's hair is rendered in single strains (fig. and Luke with his allongated neck (fig. Walters Art Gallery W 528. Cf. pp. 188. . Gesellschaft. Studien z. and its sole is framed by an accumulation of bulging and revolving drapery which seems to be quite independent of the evangelist's own garb . with the "broken"hand forming a right angle at the wrist. in Wiener Jahrbuchf. 17ff. 1. IX.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 75 Fig. 70). Kunstgeschichte. The corresponding figure in Moscow (fig.

3. .fol. Canon Table 2. 2v. Fig. 62. 61. 5'. Canon Table 4. Canon Table 1. 64.76 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. fol. 2. Canon Table 5. 63. Iviron 55. fol. Fig. Fig. Athos. fol.

In other words. there are four.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 77 Fig. some of them growing out of cornucopiae and recalling the ornamental repertoire of the "Kokkinobaphos"group. and of great originality. may well go back to a twelfth-century model direct. Canon Table 5. In both manuscripts the writing on the first page of each Gospel is in gold upon red.pieces in the earlier manuscripts. fol. 73. 66. Iviron 55. The colours are again rather light. Fig. 81. 71. are masterpieces of ornamental design. 79. It will be noted that throughout both manuscripts the palmettes decorating the margins of the headpieces are only on the outer. Only the headpiece for John in Iviron (fig. and less carefullyplanned and executed. and that in Iviron three of the headpieces lack all decoration on top of the squares. and make the patterns appear flat. the ornamentation as a whole is simpler. 82) are rather different from the others in our group. But the others. particularly. Those for Matthew and Mark (figs. five. and again very similar to that in the Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels. Athos. fol. and filled with rather nondescript scrolls and tendrils. like all their predecessors in the group. too. But three of the Moscow headpieces are rectangular. with the one exception of those for Luke (figs. 4'. 71. In Iviron all four of them are square. not on the gutter side. 75. But it is less elegant and more idiosyncratic. 23). Canon Table 6. 4. 77. The headpieces at the beginnings of the Gospel texts (figs. 65. or even six lines to . 79) both of which take up the motif used for the same evangelists's headpieces in the Dionysiou manuscript (fig. 75). and this must mean that there was no longer any direct contactwith the Armenian schools of Cilicia. not so exuberant as in Dionysiou and Berlin. 81)lives up to the splendour of its predecessors: its saturated colour scheme has the same stunning effect as the head .

or striding forward.78 HUGO BUCHTHAL the page. 4053/41295. The later date of the Iviron and Moscow Gospels may also be deduced from the initials at the beginning of the text of the individual Gospels (figs. and his head is raised high so that he looks into the distance instead of straight ahead. The initials for the Gospels of John in Iviron. 469. 81. 25. even though some headpieces and initials are not in the direct succession of the Dionysiou manuscript. 59). 94J. the cat at the beginning of Luke in Moscow (fig. 175ff. 71. Gone are the little figures of evangelists writing. and cannot compare with its predecessors. 1908. James. a fairly reliable terminus ante quem can be established for them by reference to yet another Gospel book now in Cambridge. 69. who twists his whole arm to support his chin and exhibits the palm of his hand. and some flourishes. 75. 84).C. 79. to the height of his elbow. These facts have to be taken into account when we shall draw our conclusions about the group as a whole. has a fox rampant. standing for the letter A. 1979. they are without forerunners in earlier manuscripts of the group. Luke. In Iviron that for Mark. and have an elegance and a verve which reminds one of the finest animal initials in twelfth century manuscripts94. Die griechischen Handschriften. 21). moves vehemently forward. 534. and idiosyncrasies which clearly point to a somewhat later date: they are in a true "storm style". 82).R. But they display strongly exaggerated movements. have been retained. Gr. The figures are framed by buildings on both sides. Anderson. Though neither the Iviron nor the Moscow manuscript is dated. 535). Mark's left knee is strongly drawn up.Finally. animal initials. Thus. and of its evangelist portraits only those of Mark and Luke are left (figs. A descriptive catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Gonville & Gaius College. Cambridge. LXI. in: The Art Bulletin. The draped curtains. Sinai. consist of groups of fighting animals. the tradition and continuity are convincing enough. a system which recurs also in Cracow. and throughout its text there are numerous orthographical mistakes93. 95M. the Iviron and Moscow Gospels have different and simpler rulings. too. 75. Unfortunately the spaces intended for its headpieces have remained blank. 23. the only non-figural initial in the manuscript. which echoed the fullpage evangelist portraits on the opposite pages. hares and foxes (figs. the corresponding initial in the Dionysiou Gospels (fig. but the arches and arched windows have disappeared and are replaced by ordinary rectangular slit windows resembling that seen on the right of the Mark miniature in Iviron. . and which gave the Dionysiou and Berlin Here they are replaced by Gospels such a charming and personal note (figs. II.The overall impression the two manuscripts convey definitely suggests a date somewhat later than that of the Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels. 73. and leopards. 19. 515. dictating. Gonville and Gaius College no. 81. The Illustration of Cod. the script of the Moscow Gospels. 82). lacks all distinction. too. 79) echoes the same feline in the same place in the Baltimore Gospels (fig. Moreover. especially. The modelling of both figures is entirely in white 93Treu. There are more ligatures. while those two have the same ruling system. Meanwhile his left hand grasps a piece of drapery in a more natural movement than the Moscow evangelist. In both Iviron and Moscow that for Matthew which forms the letter B and shows a small quadruped fighting a serpent is an echo of numerous similar initials in manuscripts of the "decorativestyle"throughout its history. pp. Both of them are shown in roughly the same poses as their counterparts in the Moscow manuscript. p. and for Mark and John in Moscow. 83. 77. but here the fox attacks a cockerel poised on top of the hasta. 33559. they may well be based on a similar set of models.

Moscow. 67. 4. . Canon Table 1. Lenin Library gr. 9 fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 79 Fig.

p. 155. in: Oxoniensia. Richard Brinkley.R. He left his libraryto the Franciscans of Oxford. . and contributed more than any other person to introduce Greek learning into thirteenth-century England. which must therefore have been brought to England in the second quarter of the century. RobertoWeiss. and it has remained in Cambridge ever since. Callus. It seems only logical then to attributethem to. Wormald & C. He also collected Greek manuscripts himself. Scholar and Bishop.just witness the decoration of the frames . Ker. with their miniatures in a distinctly earlier and less extravagant style than Grosseteste's manuscript. 1230.. probablyvery soon if not immediately after it was written and illuminated. those in Moscow and Iviron should fall between that date and ca. The Oxford Career of Robert Grosseteste.N. if a date around 1210 is accepted for the Dionysiou and Berlin manuscripts. pp. Generally speaking. Indeed. it is important in the present context to point out that the terminusante applies all the more emphatically to the Iviron and Moscow Gospels. whose ex-librisour manuscript still proudly exhibits.A. was impatient and insisted on its instant dispatch. then the most populous see in England. one could argue that the headpieces were never completed because the Latin prelate who had bought the manuscript. before the headpieces could even be executed. The Cambridge manuscript is here introduced mainly for one reason: it belonged to Robert Grosseteste.have reached a degree of mannerism and sophistication which cannot leave any doubt about their later date. Medieval Libraries of Great Britain. Brinkley has earned our gratitude for not returning it. pp. The Libraryof Robert Grosseteste. the Cambridge figures. the third decade of the century.E. Be that as it may. and who was not interested in the "decorativestyle" but only in the sacred text. to be incorporated into his library97. Oxford 1955. Fr. thus constitutes a terminusante for the Cambridge Gospels. Robert Grosseteste. London 1958. Grosseteste was one of the most learned men of his time. Thus. obviously a makeshift technique intended to imitate the gold striation of earlier manuscripts like the Berlin and Cracow Gospels. p. Wright. 97R. the protector and magisterregensof the Franciscans of Oxford. in: The English Librarybefore 1700. Oxford 1964.. Hunt. in: D. 126. he knew Greek well. 2nd ed. 96D. The date of Grosseteste's death. Callus (ed). He died in 125396. Now our manuscript has headlines and chapter numbers in Latin. Roger Bacon attests that he had them brought from Greece and elsewhere. and later bishop of Lincoln. 1945. at some time in the first quarter of the sixteenth century. first chancellor of the University in the crucial years of its formation.A. though still within the tradition of the Iviron and Moscow evangelists .. 1253. Few of Grosseteste's manuscripts are still extant. 141f. edd. 42-72. X. But it must be said that the honeycomb and radiating patterns of white lines are crude in the extreme.W.80 HUGO BUCHTHAL highlights. but our Gospels survived because it was lent to a Cambridge Franciscan. The private collector and the revival of Greek Learning. and a note which has been identified as being in Grosseteste's own hand.

71.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 81 Fig. 9 fol. Athos. Fig. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. 69.Moscow. Matthew. Lenin Library gr. St. . 7V. 70. Moscow. 68. Matthew. 5v. Iviron 55 fol. Beginning of Matthew's Gospel. St. 8. Iviron 55 fol. 6. Fig. Athos. 9 fol. Lenin Library gr. Fig.

schemebutwith a slightlydifferent (fig. Sammlung are foundin the Vatican 100 the earliestexamplesof this mannerism copyof the Homiliesof the MonkJames: Le miniature delle omilie.Thereis onlya lines. based on the same iconographical posture. 99Cf. fig. 1985. The exchangeof evangelist is a commonplace fact. also Markin Iviron55. modestframe.whichrecursin the miniature 92) the frontispiece re-appears. and from the establishedtype of Matthew:he appearsolder.78.The with his leftfootandrightknee firmlyplantedon the groundand prophetis here represented his left knee accordance Byzantine of the page. Moses is depictedas youthfuland withthe established His name is writtenon top by farthe most advancedin style. 72. rulingsystem:Leroy11D 1. Library.justas in the portraits of Markand Luke. 88) repeats the type of Luke in the Dionysiou Gospels (fig. illumination fromthe middleofthe twelfthcentury onwards sporadically Byzantine The ornament of the comparatively ofJohn(fig.attributes more frequentlyfound in portraitsof other of John. beardless.The evangelist bookwhich readsin a half-open he holds in his hands. The "Dionysiou the Law tradition" of Mosesreceiving first. . Still.599. whereas Luke (fig. Both figures have the projecting forehead which is such a prominent feature in the Prochoros figure of the Codex Ebnerianus'101' . since the first quire is signed B.85).but they may originallyhave been present. 90) is the conventional writing evangelist. 259. justas in the Ivironand Moscowmanuscripts stands the red footstool on edge like the (figs. arebythe same hand.Withinthe ambienteof related"decorative evangelists. fig.its selection of illustrations comescloserto the DionysiouGospelsthanto anyothermanuscript in oursub-group.a mannerism occurs in "'0.its miniaturesare anythingbut faithfulcopies. feet.justlike the otherevangelistportraits. butthe Gospelquotation which normally goes with it is omitted.p.the Phillipps nowin theLudwigCollection: vonEuwandPlotzek.The captions on top of the pages. CBM I. 22). also has forerunners in the Iviron and Moscow manuscripts. manuscript Ludwig. and in the case of Matthewand Lukecoversabouthalf of the evangelist's bare left which foot. lol Hutter. 17.butthisis the ability typesin Byzantine Gospelillustration firsttimewe haveencountered it in ourgroup.and hence the latestin date. has a longerbeard.about a 9824 X 17 cm.82 HUGO BUCHTHAL VII Of all the manuscripts discussedin this paperthe Gospelsin Manchester.the tablestandson arcaded In allthreeminiatures.too. It now has no CanonTables. simpleborderprovidedby single verticaland horizontal The foliowiththe portrait with thatof of Matthew(fig. as if he were in the act of standingup.and is the work of the same Mark (fig.It is a large bookequalledin size in our sub-group onlybythe BaltimoreGospels. tabletop. thatthe toes and partof the sole are clearlyvisiblefrombelow .86) is on the versoof a leaf conjoint the Moses miniature.The evangelist is here rendered differentlyfrom both his Dionysiou counterpart. Catalogue of printedbooksand manuscripts in the JohnRylands III.and is seatedon an elaborate goldenthrone with rows of arcadeddecorations. 1798.and surpassedonlyby the Dionysioumanuscript. ourfig.JohnRylands Library gr. especially manuscripts style" a similarthroneis foundin the Lukeminiatureof the LudwigGospelsII. Stornajolo. 68-81).andis surmounted bya lecternwithinterlaceornament.

70. Moscow. 9 fol. Beginning of Mark's Gospel. Lenin Library gr. Mark. Iviron 55 fol.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 83 Fig. 72. 73. Athos. St. Fig. 9 fol. Athos. 85'. 69v. Lenin Library gr. Mark. 74. Iviron 55 fol. Beginning of Mark's Gospel. 84. Moscow. . Fig. Fig. 75. St.

and his feet protrude into the lower one. 111v. slightly stooped to fit into the picture space. Nicholas in Prilepl02 The portraits as well as the headpieces are painted in sombre and subdued colours. his right foot is sandal-clad. The evangelist is a gaunt. 102 V. returns to the Dionysiou type of the evangelist dictating to Prochoros.another exchange of types. 92).St. 87.g. Djurii's date for the Prilep apse frescoes is about half a century too early. just as Mark in the Iviron Gospels (fig. 22). Iviron 55 fol.84 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig. A close stylisticparallel is found. 18) . 76. The miniature of John (fig. fig. e. this time one which anticipates Palaeologan practice. Fig. The headpieces (figs. . imparts an unusual animation and even excitement to the figure. Belgrad 1976. century earlier in date. 9. Athos.J. extended expectantly towards the evangelist. 93) lack the cold precision seen in other manuscripts of the group. The motif of his raised left hand. 112. his halo touches the upper frame. Athos. curiously. lanky figure. Byzantinische Fresken in Jugoslawien. The figuraltype of Luke in Manchester may well be based on that of Matthew in the Dionysiou manuscript (fig.. 72). even so. 89. Beginning of Luke's Gospel. that in the Luke miniature repeats the ubiquitous step motif. Duric. The motif in the frame of the Mark picture is a slightly more elaborate imitation of that in the top section of the Luke portraitin the Dionysiou Gospels (fig. Luke. seated on the ground as usual. exhibits the whole of his bare left foot which is visible from below. 91. imparting to them a restlessness completely absent from the more "classical" Dionysiou evangelists. Iviron 55 fol. Prochoros. in the frescoes of the apse of the church of St. too. 77. In all four portraits the folds and meandering hems creep all over the draperies in snakelike movements.

is borrowed from the inexhaustible store of twelfth century Constantinopolitan initials. Moscow. 87. 50). Lenin Library gr. 13). 9. St. Fig. 133. Luke. 93) incorporate the motif of the chained monkey. with its whirling leaf patterns. and infinitely more complicated. Moreover. 91) comes closer to its relative in Dionysiou (fig. 79. 23) than any other headpiece in the entire group. the headpieces for both Mark and John (figs. 132v. Moscow. Beginning of Luke's Gospel. we should consider the initials at the beginning of the four Gospel texts.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 85 Fig. 9 fol. Finally. 11. . They look as if the dynamic style. Less traditional and more original is the Epsilon 103 Cf. interesting of the four headpieces is that for Mark (fig. The headpiece for Luke (fig. 89. 23. they are more agitated and dynamic. 19). 3). had again asserted itself strongly. 6 (letter to Carpianus) (fig. like the corresponding initial in the Dionysiou manuscript (fig. 87) shows the apostle exhibiting an unfurled scroll. the other to be traced back to grotesques like that in the margin of the Dionysiou manuscript fol.The grotesque pot-bellied little figure at the bottom of the central circle. on the other hand. 89). the first one reminiscent ofthose flanking a Canon Table in the Cracow Gospels (fig. 78. 25). Lenin Library gr. which dominated the Byzantine provinces at the end of the preceding century. 9 fol. our figs. These lead us straightback to the last Canon Table ofthe Dionysiou Gospels (fig. holding a receptacle in his outstretched arms. That for Matthew (fig. That for Matthew incorporates the cantharus base and the cornucopiae as well as those strange receptacles borrowed by the The most illuminator of the Dionysiou headpieces from the "Kokkinobaphos"master"13. where the skull-capped animal is seated in a similar pose. 91) are slight variations of those for Luke and John in Dionysiou (figs. Those for Matthew and Luke (figs.

therefore. The Manchester manuscript certainly deserves more attention than than it has received so far. 17ff. H. true masterpieces which are far superior to most of their forerunners. The master must have had access to several earlier manuscripts of the group. Smaller animal initials are also found throughout the text of the manuscript. he must have known the Dionysiou Gospels or a closely related book. They are dated to the period "before 1219" through a document in Arabic added on the recto of the first Canon Table of the Berlin manuscript. Washington 1978. the interchange of evangelist types is. remarkable from several points of view. he was himself a strong personality. looser and more spread out. the seven manuscripts discussed on the preceding pages fall chronologically into three distinct groups. with the hasta in human shape emerging from a row of fishes. Buchthal & H. which lived on into the Palaeologan era'04. in one instance a human head is even used as base.86 HUGO BUCHTHAL for John (fig. such as the stiff and lifeless initial for John in the Iviron Gospels (fig. 75). Their closest antecedent in our group is perhaps the initial for Mark in the Moscow manuscript (fig. 89. Perhaps even more important. more cursive and incorporating fewer uncials and more ligatures. but at the same time he incorporated elements borrowed from the second stage in the history of our group. The script. .are written in gold. for it stands more than any of its relatives for the artisticcontinuityof the group throughout the first half of the thirteenth century. 80). pp. It appeared to us that the 104 Cf. 91). The illustrations of the Manchester Gospels are.ideas which single out the manuscript as one of the leading members of the group. and betrays its later date in many ways. But the glory of the manuscript are the two composite animal initials for Mark and Luke (figs.three lines in the case of the synoptics. four lines for the Gospel of John . The lively movements of the animals are rendered with an admirable sense of observation and even of humour. In a way it represents the sum total of the group's achievements. 16). but introduced a number of original ideas of his own . It lacks the regularityand strictorganisation seen in the scriptsof the earlier manuscripts. Belting. and were probably produced in the same scriptorium at roughly the same time. the Iviron and Moscow manuscripts. but it cannot vie with its delicacy and sophistication which are reminiscent of the perfection of their twelfth century ancestors. as is only to be expexted. They are each made up of three or four animals. but is less dense and compact. VIII Broadly speaking. a new element. Book illumination and calligraphy (Dumbarton Oaks Studies.and the master's lively approach led him to personal solutions of his own. who was not content to borrow. 93). they are closely related to each other. Its animal initials are masterpieces in their own right. Patronage in thirteenth-centuryConstantinople. and have combined single features which had special appeal to him. in spite of its late date. as far as the group is concerned. The Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels are the earliest. Above all. is in the tradition of the Dionysiou and Berlin manuscripts. The Gospel texts on the four incipit pages .

Fig. 212v/213. John and the beginning of his Gospel.Athos. Fig. 80.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 87 Fig. 9 fols. Beginning of John's Gospel. Iviron 55 fol. 178. John. 82. Iviron 55 fol. Athos. 81. Moscow. St. Lenin Library gr. 177'. St. .

they should be dated ca. the Dionysiou Gospels is an almost identical twin . 1205/10.apart from the absence of a cycle of narrative miniatures. period "before 1219" cannot have extended to more than a few years. perhaps at most to a decade. will suggest the same conclusion. 83. A study of the Gospel illustrations. and which impart a special and unique distinction to its illustrations. We saw that in many ways it carries on the idisyncrasies of the "decorative style". with the exception of the duplicate evangelist portraits. Codicologically speaking. Thus a date ca. 142. Cambridge. even more important.its glowing colours. Carr. St. Gonville & Caius College 403/412 p. The predominant feature of the evangelist portraits is their hectic chrysography. But. Its outstanding quality. But its illustrations appeared to us to be very slightly earlier in style.Thus the Dionysiou manuscriptis the earliest of the entire sub-group discussed here. most of which do not recur anywhere else in the sub-group. and its almost exotic diffuseness single it out as one of the most . 1210/15seems to be indicated for the Berlin Gospels. Mark.88 HUGO BUCHTHAL Fig.which has many parallels in icons dating from the turn of the century. for which we are looking forward to the book of Mrs. to which I shall return later. it also incorporates a number of elements introduced from outside.

Most telling are the Canon Tables. In this case. but they are poor reflections. once more almost like twin . including their evangelist portraits.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 89 Fig. they must antedate the Cambridge Gospels which in its turn belongs to the period just before the middle of the century. and lack the latter's originalitywhich. We shall see in due course how our art-historicalconjecture is supported by the historical situation. St. was due to a combination of various outside influences. just as were those of the Dionysiou Gospels. the Iviron and Moscow manuscripts mark a retrograde step: the colour scheme of their illustrations. Related in a similar way. there are no data that might help to fix them in time. 238. in a way. Luke. and very similar to the Dionysiou manuscript if it was not that manuscript itself. Gonville & Caius College 403/412 p. are the somewhat later Gospels in Iviron and Moscow. Basicallyboth their architecturalframework and their ornamental detail are in the metropolitan tradition. 84. Cambridge. Their prototype must have been a Gospels belonging to our sub-group. important witnesses surviving from the period immediately after the fall of Constantinople from the Latins. as we have seen. It should be noted that. and we have to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence.

A Group of provincial Manuscripts. Moreover they discard the type the of standing and dictating appears that during the last quarterof the century there was a kind of regeneration which almost compensates us for the extreme paucity of illuminated manuscripts from the capitalitself. is more closely dependent on the Dionysiou Gospels than on any of the intermediary works. Such Constantinopolitan elements as we could trace proved to be strangers introduced from outside.the whole scheme executed in one colour only . The manuscriptsthemselves are more attached to what has been called the "decorativestyle". especially in those bordering on the eastern Mediterranean. only the Luke in Iviron does not share the noble bearing of the others but is an outstanding example of exaggerated mannerism. the Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels. and the original parts of Harley 1810in the British Librarymay in a way be considered the direct forerunners of the early members of our group. Yet here again.W. during that later period it completely dominated Byzantine illumination. is not easy to place within this brief survey. the manuscript in Manchester. of origin that still need to be discussed. and forms a fitting conclusion to the development within the sub-group so far as it can still be traced. but it is certainly not among the earlier products of our sub-group. the second half of the century the style must have spread all over the mainland and also to other islands. The Baltimore Gospels. the latest of them all. We argued that even the earliest manuscripts. some of its most characteristicfeatures may well go back to that fountainhead direct.Carr. they might almost be exchanged. John reverts to the seated type. We also saw that they do not in any way qualify as the offspring of a dying Constantinopolitan tradition. We saw that books like Holkham Hall 5. carry on the chrysographic style of their counterparts in with their fantastic and unreal superstructuresconsisting of freely formed curves without any architectural framework. and the Canon Tables are typical of those of the bulk of the "decorativestyle" manuscripts. It may be dated towards the middle of the century. and re-instate the seated type of the Macedonian tradition and of the "decorative style". filled with linear palmettes and surmounted by beasts and birds in every kind of pose and activity. from about the middle of the twelfth century onwards. 105A. The Cracow Gospels is not part of the mainstream of the development with which we are concerned here. on the other hand. a widespread artistic movement which flourished in the Byzantine provinces. Thus both the absolute and the relative chronology of the principal Gospels of the subgroup present no real problems. It is therefore their place. two provinces which had always maintained close contactwith each other'05. The personal note which distinguished the Dionysiou evangelists is altogether lacking. . post-date the Latin conquest of Constantinople by just a few years. and the false capitals which decorate the columns. With the help of scribal colophons its earliest products can be traced to Cyprus and But in Palestine.90 HUGO BUCHTHAL one that had been current in the "decorative style" for several decades. Finally. The evangelists of the Cracow manuscript. The two sets of portraits are very close to each other. but represents a sibling of the Berlin manuscript also adopting influences from various other sources. Indeed. which lacks Canon Tables and any original figural decoration. now in the Bodleian Library. lead us back to the Dionysiou Tables. While the beginnings are not very impressive artistically. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers (as note 9). Only the horseshoe arches. or places.

Louvain1973.pp. 2v. The Dionysiou Gospels has been discussed in some detail before. Manchester. 17. II. S. probably with imperial associations. . in the 106 Cf. reprinted in the author's Byzantine and Armenian Studies-Etudes byzantines et arminiennes. 1969. but achieves something entirely new and highly original by combining the "decorative"material with motifs borrowed from two distinct stages of Constantinopolitan twelfth century illumination as well as from Armenian manuscripts from the Kingdom of Ciliciawhich was then approaching the apogee of its comparatively short independent existence'06. ed. The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia. K.e. which builds on the achievements of its predecessors in the "decorative style". John Rylands Library gr.. 630-659. It is a splendid book. fol. I. Der Nersessian.M. 85.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 91 Fig. 333-352. i. in: A History of the Crusades.Perusing this extraordinary manuscript page by page one finds it difficult to avoid the conclusion that one is here in the presence of a book with high pretensions. Moses receiving the Law. Setton.

Matthew. Begi . 87. St.Fig. Fig. 86. Manchester. 6. 5'. fol. 17. fol. John Rylands Library gr.

108. 17. 88. Be . 89. Mark.Fig. fol. Fig. 107'. fol. Manchester. St. John Rylands Library gr.

l1ff. Oxford1975. 292. only occurs in the reign of Theodore II. 107 S.for their twelfth century date was not recognized at the time. pp. Byzance et la mer. 25. 109 Ahrweiler. On the activities of Theodore Lascaris.R. But it was Nicaea which assumed the role of the genuine substitute capital:the ecclesiastical hierarchy was headed by a Greek patriarchwho. in: Traveaux et mmoires I. the solution of the problem of its origin no longer presents an insurmountable difficulty. and. 528. In all probabilitythis attributionwill be received rather un-enthusiastically by most historians of Byzantine art. Der Nersessian. Angold. A ByzantineGovernment in exile. especially. after his coronation and anointment by the patriarch. pl. It is true that the rulers of Thessalonica and Trebizond.became a centre of literaryactivities and learning which contemporaries compared to ancient Athens. 267ff. p. as it were by default. London 1912. Later on. The Lascarids. H. And once this claim is accepted. Leipzig 1905. p.94 HUGOBUCHTHAL glorious and awe-inspiring tradition of those comparatively few manuscripts which proudly exhibit imperial dedication portraits. pp. the makeshift capital of the Byzantine Empire in exile during the occupation of Constantinople by the Franks and Venetians. 85f. 197ff. A. L'expbrience. 286ff.was widely recognized as the sole true emperor of the Romans. it was the new centre of the truncated state. preface to: H. The Cycle of Text Illustrations. took the title of ecumenical patriarchof Constantinople. to encourage education and learning"0. Theodorus Skutariota. Ahrweiler. Today Nicaea no longer figures. p. and Theodore Lascaris.1965 pp. and the date too late.1975. Die byzantinische Wandmalerei in Kleinasien. After all. 24ff. The Lascarids. The Lascarids of Nicaea. been under a cloud.Lascarids of Nicaea. L'Expirience nic6enne. Still useful: Alice Gardner. after the middle of the centuryl". M. 1. a richly decorated book which had initially been attributedto an imperial Constantinopolitan workshop after 1261. Recklinghausen 1967. Willoughby. the defacto capital after Theodore's death"'. 55. cf. It is also unfortunatelytrue that we know next to nothing about monumental painting. pp. the story of an Empire in exile. The Four Gospels of Karahissar.ed. -. which considered itself the conscious and legitimate heir of the Byzantine tradition.When that speculation turned out to be incorrect. Ahrweiler. "12 n3Gardner. as it were. L'histoire etla gbographiede la rigion de Smyrne. 108Cf. For some years past the role of Nicaea has. too. claimed the imperial title. It is true that the apogee of the cultural revival. Restl6. Chicago 1956. H. other manuscripts of the "decorative style" were also assigned to Nicaea'7?.. Nicaea seemed to be the ideal substitute. 29. " H. Paris 1966. 297-8. For a time it was considered the home of the notorius New Testament in Chicago. We know of the constant and heroic efforts of the Lascarid emperors to uphold all the trappings and appearances of legitimate succession. I. though residing in Nicaea. and it was systematically organized on the pattern of old Byzantium in every detail'08. Gardner. soon became a force to be reckoned with. when Nymphaion. M. III. which could count on the rich assets of western Asia Minor.It continued the patrimony of the fallen Empire: it was the new Constantinople just as Constantinople in its day had been the new Jerusalem and the new Rome 109. in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Government and Society under the Lascarids of Nicaea. This new empire. Heisenberg. but it does not follow that it should be elimintated altogether. I should like to suggest that the Dionysiou manuscript was produced in Nicaea. to revive the administration and civil service on old-established lines..II. Ahrweiler. which was certainlypractisedin the NicaeanEmpire1. noGardner. p. pp. . as the place of origin of illuminated manuscripts.

17. John Rylands Library gr. fol.fol.Fig. 171. 91. Luke. Manchester. St.Be . Fig. 90. 170'.

e. gr. 1969. 559: La paleographie grecque et byzantine. and enjoyed the special protection of the imperial family. pp. 241ff. Spatharakis. esp.. gr. 89ff. and practically every emperor who occupied the throne of Byzantium was mentioned in such colophons 116. pp. n"Al. Munich 1958. L'Expirience nic6enne.12. illuminated manuscripts. 94ff. and may well have been produced in the imperial Monastery of Sosandra. to a large extent. 120 H.The fact that there is one instance. in Scrittura e civilth53. Turyn. 151ff. Thrakien u. 141ff. 119 They have recently received a great deal of attention. which must have been located in the region of Nymphaion"7. Ahrweiler. too. A Menaion for the month of November (Vat.custom for scribes to include the ruling emperor's name when they added the date of completion of their work. Prato: Scritturelibrarie arcaizzantidella prima etAdei Paleologi e i loro modelli. It was an intermittent though by no means universal . Volk. The technical difficulties would not have been insuperable as there were no restrictions on Greeks leaving Constantinople. a fact which encourages the speculation that it might also have had a scriptorium itself"8.and: La produzione librariain area greco-orientalenel periodo del regno latino di Costantinopoli. It was founded by Theodore's successor John III. dated 1259/60. 105.belong to a later period than the one with which we are concerned here. p. pp. Follieri. cf. I. have been recruited from the intellectual elite which upheld Byzantine legitimacy'20.pp. too. but one exception is a Vatican Rhetorica manuscript (Vat. Paris. n7H. in: Byzantinische Zeit116K. both John and Theodore II were buried there. 65). 1979. 157ff. 141. of a Lascarid joining the illustrious list may give us food for thought. Die byzantinischen Klosterbibliothekenvon Konstantinopel. 11. It also appears that Sosandra owned a library of sorts. Janin. Les 4glises et les monastPres des grands centres byzantins. in: Colloques internationaux du centre de la recherche scientifique. and even the Vatican Rhetorica . Treu. 27ff. Yet it is most improbable that the city which had for a time taken over the leadership of the Greek world should not have produced any identifiable manuscripts at all. octobre 1975.96 HUGO BUCHTHAL and in Nicaea itself. XIII e XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi.G. may have circulated freely from the old capital to the new. But the few other manuscripts with illuminations which survive from the period of the Nicaean Empire hardly qualify for inclusion in the present survey'"9. 114 Cf. Nevertheless one would expect that Theodore I. 44ff.esp. but it does also show that manuscripts were written within the Nicaean realm. and could have been used to upgrade provincial production of the "decorative style" so as to conform more closely to metropolitan and aristocratic standards. pp. written in the Galesius Monastery near Smyrna and mentioning Andronikos Palaiologos. The Vatican Rhetorica dates from 1244/54. The evidence is scanty indeed. On the Galesius Monastery and its scriptorium.. which has a colophon mentioning the name of the Nicaean emperor John III"s. 28. Cf. the later emperor of Constantinople. esp. . Thus. may also be mentioned here.. Paris 1975. 1180 p. Ahrweiler. 19: Johannes III Ducas Vatatzes. and one instance only. p. Nicaean and Palaeologan Hands. 263ff. cf. pp.An illuminated manuscriptfrom the Nicaean era.1979. 29. E. 1972. no. might have included the production of deluxe manuscripts in his ambitious revival programme. 105). Codices graeci vaticani. Cf. Codices graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae selecti. pp 9ff.and the foundation of Sosandra . Rigion de Smyrne. schrift 65. also the recent publicationsby G. and about scriptoria which may have worked in those monasteries"4. and that we are especially badly informed about Nicaean monasteries. Kleinasien.g. XXVIII)tav. also p. in Scritturae civilta 5. in: Cahiers archiologiques. 191. Vat.. and emigrants must. p. 160. Byzantinische Kaiser in den Schreibernotizen griechischer Handschriften. gr. 50. O.with footnotes.Reg. 105-147. no. Codices graeci vaticani saec. Vatican City 1974 (Codices e vaticanis selecti. N. p. p. pp. The difficulty is that such manuscripts have not previously been identified. Wilson. Turyn. R. Cf. 1981.. It is certainly regrettable that no other such books have come down to us. A. Paris 1977.

fol. 92. 93. Manchester. John Rylands Library gr. John and Prochoros. 17. St. 271'. 272. fol. Be .Fig. Fig.

the ruling system and the placing of the quire signatures are identical. 1929. not found in any earlier "decorative style" manuscripts. Still. dynastic and otherwise.the largest of all the books discussed in this paper . The connections between Nicaea and Cilicia. 87. and partlyfrom a late twelfth century book very similar to the Georgian Gospels now in Tbilisi. it has been possible to point to the precise models of a number of single ornamental motifs in the Canon Tables and the decorative frames of the pages with the Eusebius letter: they derive partly from a manuscript illuminated by the "Kokkinobaphosmaster".makes it an outstanding achievement. the leading illuminator in Constantinople in the second quarter of the century. phil. are documented and well known"'. the presence of Cilician manuscripts in Nicaea at that time would be in no way unexpected. 5.Sitzungsberichteder bayerischenAkademie der Wissenschaften. The fig121A. which reminds one of the slightly earlier books.-hist. This applies first and foremost to the ornamental decoration.perhaps even the emperor himself. Moreover. graec. These two are somewhat simplified. Garnder. Features such as the solid architecturalframework of the Canon Tables.which does not live up the high standards of execution of its various Dionysiou counterparts. a person of high standing in the secular hierarchy . Heft 6. Unfortunatelythe Berlin Gospels has no original set of Canon Tables which might be compared with that in Dionysiou. Heisenberg. and the deep. But there are also significant differences. Its scriptis so similar thatthe common origin of both manuscriptsmay be taken as an established fact. Kl. In a way the forceful and almost brutal colours still link our manuscript. as I have mentioned before. Cf. . or scribes. The quality of its illuminations has indeed few or no rivals in this period. But the Dionysiou Gospels differs from all its relatives through its determined and laborious attempt to modify and ennoble the "decorative style" by re-introducing values and practices derived from the art of the former capital. Even its square carpet pieces. the Lascarids. 4 o 66. perhaps one might even recognize the work of the same scribe. p. also A. and the last headpiece only offers a conventional design without any individual character. the Dionysiou Gospels was probablycommissioned by. It has been pointed out before that in a way it is still a manuscript in the tradition of the "decorativestyle". to contemporary works of the "decorative style". The effort which went into the production of this manuscript . Zu den armenisch-byzantinischenBeziehungen am Anfang des 15. and especially its ornament.98 HUGO BUCHTHAL I want to suggest that the Dionysiou manuscript fits the case perfectly. The evangelist pictures are even more surprising.. rich colour scheme and noble bearing of the evangelist portraitsrecall the art of Armenian Cilicia. which might be taken to point to a slightly later date. must have been inspired by a prototype brought straightfrom Constantinople. We also saw that the closest relative of the Dionysiou manuscript is the Gospels in Berlin. or intended for. Jahrhunderts. Holkham Hall 3 and Sammlung Ludwig II. But another additional source must be considered: the overblown exuberance and ponderous exaggeration of the Canon Tables. and of the four headpieces only two have an identical ornamental pattern. This fact suggests that. illustrated in a Georgian monastery near Constantinople. the resources available in Nicaea during the very first years after its proclamation as the capital city of a new Empire must have been rather limited. though of course ultimately of Constantinopolitan origin. had by the last quarter of the twelfth century become an integral part of the provincial tradition. Moreover.

R.i. The famous Annunication icon"3. In any case. 192f.e. after 1204 but before 1219. New York 1970. Our knowledge of Constantinopolitan miniature painting. The Mosaics of Norman Sicily. 10. pl.whose portraits show a strange combination of the style of Monreale with a more classical trend which we know best from fresco painting of the period around and just after the turn of the century127. A late twelfth-centuryilluminated Manuscript at Dumbarton Oaks.e. because it is practicallyunique. no. 92. 53. and that some of its parts were then incorporated in the Berlin Gospels soon afterwards. Le miniature dei codici di Patmo. 27. Byzantine Art and the West. 127 O. 126 G. no. Wien & Miinchen 1965. the Dionysiou and Berlin manuscripts are close enough to each other to be considered as practicallyof the same date. 123 K. Exactlywhen those portraits were inserted in the Berlin manuscript remains an open question. Nelson's Ph. these miniatures would fill a gap which has been all too painfully felt. The Icon. i. Nicaea. p. Friihe Ikonen. especially in the wellpreserved portraits of Luke and John. 533. 124 0.e. One would like to think that they found their way to Nicaea soon after the fall of Constantinople.S. in: Fifth Annual Byzantine Studies Conference. Vikan (ed). and of Constantinopolitan art generally. 5. The importance of that attribution can hardly be exaggereated: if our conjecture is accepted. Princeton 1973. pls. D. which was the subjectof Robert S. no. 124Cf. Nelson.probablycloser to the earlier than to the late date.. Dumbarton Oaks 1979. Weitzmann. and perhaps also the Gospels in Patmos. The inner light emanating from the two figures is in fact more reminiscant of contemporary icons 12. VIb-X. the book with the Gospels of Luke and John (Dumbarton Oaks.provide the most reliable yardsticks. Illuminated Greek Manuscriptsfrom American Collections. pl. London 1949. Be that as it may. during the last years of the twelfth or the very first years of the thirteenth century. the probabilityis that they were copied from a manuscript model.which seemed to us slightly earlier in date than the manuscript itself. dissertation at New York University in 1978 4a. Jacopi. . Demus. Among manuscripts. no. and in all probability hailed straight from Constantinople where they were produced immediately before the impresa. but the brilliant honeycomb-pattern gold highlights produce an impression of glowing though somewhat obtrusive beauty. Moreover. p.. 1952-3355.originally there were at least three of them . Demus. 80126. VI/VII. note 8. but similarly. that the original manuscript was perhaps damaged in transit. 25G. pride of place should go to the beautiful Gospel Book in the Ecumenical Patriarchatein Istanbul.those in the Dumbarton Oaks Gospels are so different from each other that one would never have attributedthem to the same manuscript if they had come down to us singly. To my mind the most interesting feature. with its two portraits which are anything but uniform in style. in the Berlin Gospels is the two inserted miniatures . Abstracts of Papers. 4) "5may be mentioned. the attributionto Constantinople and to the 122 e.g. It is true that our two duplicate miniatures have little in common stylistically with those in either of the manuscriptsjust mentioned. and of the same provenance.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 99 ural types are the same as in Dionysiou. p. Weitzmann (and others). the inserted miniatures may now be added to the very few surviving works that date from the period just before the Fourth Crusade brought artictic activities in the capital to a more or less abrupt end. Still. 61-110. 42. pt. during the last quarterof the twelfth centuryis scanty indeed.. K. New York 1978. and the mosaic decoration of Monreale 24. However this may be. in: Clara Rhodos. tav. i.

Belting. Barocci 31.100 HUGO BUCHTHAL period about 1200 of the two duplicate miniatures in Berlin is. plate XXIV. In a number of instances it is found combined with a Palaeologan monogram. perhaps more than anything else. 129 Cf. The multiplication of otherwise almost identical manuscripts on two different levels of quality. 1158 and "X" 128. It shows that less eminent patrons had to be satified with mediocre reproductions of the aristocraticmasterpieces which were the glory of the scriptorium. pp. They demonstrate assimilation to the average production of "decorative style" manuscripts.intended for different strata of society. . The triangular pediment encloses a decoration consisting of two pairs of bars. which has not so far been photographed or even noticed. whom the 28H. 1981. probablynot even much later in date. the ruling system is now different. an unexpected windfall for the history of late Comnenian book illustration. LXIII. the closest parallel is offered by the Canon Tables of the late thirteenth century Gospels in the Vatican Library. in other words. fols. Das illuminierte Buch in der spitbyzantinischen Gesellschaft. 1and of the Moscow Gospels also contain sketches of Canon Tabgraph'30. in Nicaea itself.again a return to the old Macedonian and the "decorative style" types. 19. XVI. the Moscow Gospels has the distinction of being the only manuscript in our group which may offer positive visual evidence of its place of origin. the recent summary by G. The Cracow Gospels is only a "poor relative". Most significantly. 18. Vat. present an almost identical case when they are compared with their high-class contemporaries. While its precise meaning has so far remained obscure. The earliest known instance of the crossed bars is on coins of the Nicaean emperor John IIIVatatzes (1222-54). W 525.the manuscript mentioned in the preceding paraIn addition. Belting. has on its last page (fol. Washington 1978. The individual effort with which the group had started now begins to be submerged by routine work. 1"30H. it is their headpieces. as it But the colour scheme is that of the "decorativestyle". The Iviron and Moscow Gospels which I attributedto the third decade of the centurymark a further big step away from the artisticisolation of the group. Buchthal & H. has close parallels among the finest products of Byzantine illumination of the early Palaeologan period: the manuscripts in Baltimore. Still. that ties them to their predecessors in Dionysiou and Berlin. and comparativelylittle else is left of the Dionysiou tradition. It is the only other manuscriptwith identical rulings. pp. gr. and was in all probability produced in the same atelier. The device is familiar to us. Moreover. 1158. 20ff. gr. An Atelier of late Byzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy (Dumbarton Oaks Studies. In the present context this observation is of vital importance. Vikan in The Art Bulletin..p.a manuscript de grand luxe commissioned by a female member of the Palaeologan dynasty then ruling in Constantinople . 2D)a rudimentary design of the upper half of a Canon Table drawn in red outline. and John is represented seated and writing . pls. A bifolio at the beginning. the Canon Tables were copied from an ordinary "decorative style" manuscript. Heidelberg 1970. crossing each other at right angles. 526. and Oxford. Iv les with decorative motifs identical with those in Vat. 1158. Patronage in thirteenth-centuryConstantinople.). 62-66. an unimaginative imitation of its Berlin predecessor. there can be no doubt that it represents a dynastic emblem of special significance to the family of the Palaeologil29. It is in the nature of things that the unusually high standard of the Dionysiou and Berlin manuscripts was not maintained in the later products of the group. Vat. and the book quoted in note 128.

and who could therefore be claimed by all later members of the dynasty as their ancestor13. was not yet availablewhen this article was written.W. and that 131Cf. the latest product of our sub-group. Wilson. and also that many essential features of the latest of them all are again based directly on the fountainhead of the group. exhibits a conscious effort to return to the standards and also to the idiosyncrasies of the Dionysiou Gospels. It is impossible to say precisely when the bifolio with its significant Canon Table was bound with the Moscow Gospels. 150ff. without introducing new fertile ideas. Considering the most likely date of our manuscript. H. But even so one is now encouraged to attributeall the manuscripts discussed in this article to the Empire of Nicaea: with the help of the bifolio a unique and direct link between the arts at the courts of Nicaea and Constantinople may be forged. La gtnhalogie des premiers Palkologues. It should be dated about the middle of the century.The emblematic device was inherited by the Palaeologi from their imperial forbears in Nicaea. 181. that the later ones present only slight variations of the original themes. and to argue once again for an origin in the temporary capital itself. in fact. works produced less than a generation earlier. London 1985. which constitute a real "school". and with all due caution it might be argued that there is a possibility that it was also produced in the imperial Monastery of Sosandra under John III. pp. which might be taken to suggest that all seven manuscripts originated in the same place. C. the publicationsby G. Their origin in Constantinople is certainlyout of the question.A Greek New Testament Manuscript in the Escorial Library:its miniatures and its binding (forthcoming). Cf. Additional Finds at Fenar Isa Camii. 193355. or at least geographically close to each other. there is no doubt that in the geographical sense they are all "provincial"works. Istanbul. Hawkins. even though its ruling system is again different. 132 Cf. but in all probabilityit co-existed with the manuscript from the beginning. But the ultimate solution of that thorny problem must be left to future research. Unfortunatelythe splendid volume by Nigel G. 1968. or in one of the nearby monasteries.BYZANTINE ILLUMINATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY 101 first Palaeologan emperor was related by marriage. To sum up: the seven Gospels discussed on the preceding pages have the unique distinction of containing a series of illuminations and figural miniatures very similar to each other. The manuscript in Manchester. Their fountainhead seems to have been the Lascarid capital of Nicaea during the early years of its ascendency. is all too evident. also V. is thus tempting to connect it directlywith the Nicaean court in the reign of John III. and may in part even be based on it direcly. Laurent. If the Moscow Gospels was indeed an imperial manuscript. and which can be arranged in a continuous chronological sequence spreading over the entire first half of the thirteenth century. Their comparative isolation within the realm of Byzantine art is also borne out by the fact that the earliest manuscripts are by far the finest in quality. in Byzantion 8. an offshoot of the "decorativestyle".in Dumbarton OaksPapers 22. . the palaeographical evidence may well prove decisive32. with a special chapter on Nicaea. In the last instance. and it is significant both that they are completely free of Latin influence. Buchthal. Scholars of Byzantium. and though this attribution may not applyto every single manuscript. the sad decline in quality vis-a-vis the masterpieces in Dionysiou and Berlin. reminiscences of single motifs borrowed from practically every other manuscript of the group. Mango & J. Prato quoted in note 114. finally. There are. the third decade of the century. The "decorativestyle"itself did not continue farbeyond 1200.the earlier members of our group are in fact among its latest products. as the bifolio implies.

That impact was the prerogative of those few manuscripts which were indeed produced in Constantinople and its dependencies during the period of Latin rule 13. XII). 1944. We can only hope that further discoveries will throw more light on this interesting and all too neglected interlude. H. . 193-214. p. ConstantinopolitanBook Illumination in the period of the Latin Conquest. 45ff. Weitzmann's dates have not remained unchallenged. Buchthal. In conclusion it may be said that the earliest manuscripts of the group.102 HUGO BUCHTHAL they left hardly any impact on the artistic activities of the resurrected Greek Empire of Constantinople after 1261. 133Cf.86. in Gazette des Beaux-Arts. are key products in the history of Byzantine illumination. Vienna 1979. pp.-Weitzmann. reprinted in the author's Studies in Classical and Byzantine Manuscript Illumination. K. Chicago 1971.. The "Musterbuch"of Wolfenbiittel and its position in the Art of the 13th century (ByzantinaVindobonensia. H. most recently.the most enigmatic century in the entire history of Byzantine art. ed. which fills a significant gap in our knowledge and adds yet another dimension to the art of the thirteenth century . Kessler. the Dionysiou and Berlin Gospels. in the first place. cf. 314ff. It is true that we do not know how many related manuscripts have been lost or have not yet been traced. pp.