NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION

INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

SECTION OF BYZANTINE RESEARCH

internationaL SymPoSium 22

Byzantium, 1180–1204:
‘the Sad Quarter of a Century’ ?

Edited by
ALICIA SImpSON

ATHENS 2015
This book forms part of the research project «The Reign of Isaac II Angelos (1185–95):
Politics and Society in the Late Twelfth Century», implemented within the framework of the
Action «Supporting Postdoctoral Researchers» of the Operational Program «Education and
Lifelong Learning» (Action’s Beneficiary: General Secretariat for Research and Technology),
and is co-financed by the European Social Fund (ESF) and the Greek State.

edited by: ALICIA SImpSON

Word processing-layout: CONSTANTINA SImONETATOU

distribution: the national hellenic research foundation

48, Vassileos Konstantinou, 116 35 athens
fax: (+30) 210 7273629
e-mail: bookstore@eie.gr

© the national hellenic research foundation

institute of historical research
48, Vassileos Konstantinou, 116 35 athens

iSSn 1106-1448
iSBn 978-960-9538-37-4
 ContentS

Prologue TAxIARCHIS G. KOLIAS, director of the institute

of historical research 9

abbreviations 11–12

ALICIA SImpSON, Perceptions and interpretations of the Late

twelfth Century in modern historiography 13–34
Vlada StankoVić, Stronger than it appears? Byzantium and
its european hinterland after the death of manuel i
Komnenos 35–48
DImITRI KOROBEINIKOV, the Byzantine-Seljuk Border in times
of trouble: Laodikeia in 1174–1204 49–81
TELEmACHOS LOUNGHIS, the fate of the German-Byzantine
alliance in the Late twelfth Century 83–95
DEmETRIOS KYRITSES, Political and Constitutional Crisis at the
end of the twelfth Century 97–111
mICHAEL ANGOLD, the anatomy of a failed Coup: the
abortive uprising of John the fat (31 July 1200) 113–34
ILIAS ANAGNOSTAKIS, ‘from tempe to Sparta’: Power and
Contestation prior to the Latin Conquest of 1204 135–57
KOSTIS SmYRLIS, Sybaris on the Bosphoros: Luxury, Corruption
and the Byzantine State under the angeloi (1185–1203) 159–78
pAGONA pApADOpOULOU, Coinage and the economy at the end
of the Twelfth Century: Αn Assessment 179–94
pAUL mAGDALINO, Money and the Αristocracy (1180–1204) 195–204
8

mARIA GEROLYmATOU, Private investment in trade in the final

years of the twelfth Century 205–20
GERASImOS mERIANOS, Literary allusions to trade and
merchants: the ‘Great merchant’ in Late twelfth-Century
Byzantium 221–43
KALLIRROE LINARDOU, a resting Place for ‘the first of the
angels’: the Michaelion at Sosthenion 245–59
NEKTARIOS ZARRAS, a Gem of artistic Ekphrasis: nicholas
mesarites’ description of the mosaics in the Church
of the holy apostles at Constantinople 261–82
 KALLIRROE LINARDOU

A RESTING pLACE FOR ‘THE FIRST OF ANGELS’:

THE michaelion AT SOSTHENION*

he [isaac] flaunted himself like a

peacock that loves fancy clothes and
never wears the same cloak twice;
issuing from the palace each day like a
bridegroom leaving the bridal chamber
or the sun rising from a beautiful lake.1

if we were to take the picture of the Byzantine emperor isaac ii angelos

(1185–95) sketched by the contemporary historian and government official,
niketas Choniates, as an accurate and unbiased portrait of the ruler, then
our judgement of the emperor and his reign would be entirely negative.
the twelfth century historian conveys a detailed account of isaac’s deeds
as well as a largely stereotypical image of the emperor as an exhibitionist
who displayed his extravagance and vanity. as has been recently noted,
‘niketas’ portrait of isaac, based exclusively on the oral testimony from
eyewitnesses, hearsay, and the historian’s own observations, is perhaps the

*Sincere thanks are due to my colleague and editor of the present volume, alicia
Simpson, for sharing her thoughts and her publication: ‘the Propaganda Value of imperial
Patronage: ecclesiastical foundations and Charitable establishments in the Late twelfth
Century’, BZ 108/1 (2015), 179–204.
1. NIKETAS CHONIATES, Historia, ed. J.-L. van dieten, 2 vols., CfhB 11, Berlin–new york
1975, i, 441; trans. T. pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘the discreet Charm of the Visible’, in C. ANGELIDI
(ed.), Byzantium Matures. Choices, Sensitivities, and Modes of Expression (Eleventh to
Fifteenth Centuries), athens 2004, 120.
246 KaLLirroe Linardou

most ‘personalised’ imperial biography in the History, in the sense that the
reader knows more about isaac’s character than any other emperor’.2 the
flaws in the emperor’s character are meticulously traced in the assessment
of his internal administration, in the description of foreign affairs, and in
his ostentatious eccentricities and extravagant building programme, which
appear to have excessively scandalized the historian.3
in fact, niketas Choniates delves into isaac’s impressive patronage in
quite an unprecedented manner. in part, this was justified since ‘the first
of angels’4 was a prolific builder, restorer, and philanthropist as well as a
passionate art collector.5 according to Choniates:
above everything else, he [isaac] was very eager to erect enormous
buildings […]. in both palaces he built most splendid baths and
apartments. he also constructed sumptuous houses along the Propontis
and made little islands to rise in the sea. having decided to build a tower
at the palace of Blachernae both for its protection and support, as he
claimed, and to serve as his dwelling-place, he demolished a number of
churches that had long stood neglected along the shore as well as many
famous buildings of the imperial City which, to this day, exhibit their
foundations, a lamentable sight to all that pass by.6

an urgent and perfectly understandable priority of this emperor

was to continue and hopefully surpass the patronage undertaken by his
predecessors, namely the Comnenian emperors as well as various members
of the court aristocracy.7 Such an endeavour, though, was a daring challenge
since the extent of Comnenian building and restoration activity is known to
have transformed the skyline of twelfth-century Constantinople.8 therefore

2. A. SImpSON, Niketas Choniates: A Historiographical Study, oxford 2013, 170–82 and

quote on 182.
3. SImpSON, Niketas Choniates, 170–1.
4. as isaac is characteristically called by theodore Balsamon in K. HORNA (ed.), ‘die
epigramme des theodoros Balsamon’, Wiener Studien 25 (1903), 190–1.
5. SImpSON, ‘Propaganda Value’; pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘the discreet Charm of the Visible’,
120–3.
6. CHONIATES, Historia, 442; trans. C. mANGO, The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312–
1453. Sources and Documents, toronto 1997, 236.
7. SImpSON, ‘Propaganda Value’.
8. V. StankoVić, ‘Comnenian monastic foundations in Constantinople: Questions
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 247

isaac primarily associated himself with emblematic institutions of the capital

that had either been initiated or promoted by the Komnenoi. early in his
reign, he realised the foundation of the imperial convent of the theotokos
Pantanassa, initially planned by manuel i Komnenos’ (1143–80) widow,
maria of antioch.9 he also restored the miraculous spring at the hodegon
monastery and pointedly elevated the homonymous miraculous icon of the
theotokos into the official palladium of the city.10 despite his reasonable
need to connect his name with the most prestigious landmarks of the capital
and also to present himself as a continuator of the Comnenian legacy, isaac
was realistic enough not to mess with the ‘Comnenian hub’, i.e. the complex
of the Pantokrator monastery.11 instead, he focused on the realization of his
own plans, most notably the foundation of a distinctive and conceptually
innovative monument that would become, among other things, the hallmark
of his reign.
the cornerstone of isaac’s legacy, enjoying the lion’s share in Choniates’
detailed account,12 is the restoration of the katholikon of the monastery of
the archangel michael located in the region of anaplous (modern istinye)

of method and historical Context’, Belgrade Historical Review 2 (2011), 47–73; SImpSON,
‘Propaganda Value’.
9. R. JANIN, La géographie ecclésiastique de l’empire byzantine, iii: Les églises et les
monasteries [de Constantinople], 2nd edn., Paris 1969, 215–6; V. DImITROpOULOU, ‘imperial
Women founders and refounders in Constantinople’, in m. mULLETT (ed.), Founders and
Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries, Belfast 2007, 87–106, esp. 91; SImpSON, ‘Propaganda
Value’.
10. C. ANGELIDI and T. pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘the Veneration of the Virgin hodegetria and
the hodegon monastery’, in m. VASSILAKI (ed.), Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin
in Byzantine Art, athens–milan 2000, 382; C. ANGELIDI and T. pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘Picturing
the Spiritual Protector: from Blachernitissa to hodegetria’, in m. VASSILAKI (ed.), Images of
the Mother of God. Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium, aldershot 2005, 215–16.
11. on the Pantokrator complex, see R. OUSTERHOUT, ‘architecture, art and Komnenian
Patronage at the Pantocrator monastery’, in n. necipoğlu (ed.), Byzantine Constantinople:
Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, Leiden 2001, 133–50; IDEm, ‘the decoration of
the Pantocrator (zeyrek Camii): evidence old and new’, in A. ÖDEKAN, E. AKYüREK and N.
necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,
istanbul 2010, 432–9; S. KOTZABASSI (ed.), The Pantokrator Monastery in Constantinople,
Boston–Berlin 2013.
12. CHONIATES, Historia, 442–3.
248 KaLLirroe Linardou

at Sosthenion on the european side of the Bosphoros. the identification

of the monument and its precise location have been debated for some time
though it is currently accepted that the two churches of the archangel
michael mentioned in the Byzantine sources—one said to be located at
Sosthenion and the other in broader area of anaplous—are one and the
same monument.13 according to a well-established legend, current already
in the sixth century, the Church of the archangel michael at Sosthenion
was founded by Constantine the Great (324–37) on the site of an old pagan
temple associated with healing.14 the Christian tradition continued the
association of the location and of the Michaelion with healing properties
through incubation. according to Cyril mango: ‘even if we may hesitate
to ascribe it [the Michaelion] to Constantine himself, we can hardly doubt
that it dated from the fourth century. that would probably make it the most
ancient among the attested and documented shrines of Saint michael in the
Christian world’.15 in the sixth century the church was in ruins, something
which prompted emperor Justinian (527–65) to demolish it and erect a
new church on the site. George tsantilas has demonstrated that Justinian’s
re-establishment of the church must have taken place sometime between
536 and 552. according to the specifications provided in the description
of Prokopios, the architectural design must have resembled the octagonal
plan of the Constantinopolitan domed churches of John the Baptist at
Hebdomon and Saints Sergius and Bacchus.16 the monument did not escape
the attention and special care of the founder of the macedonian dynasty,
Basil i (867–86), who restored it once again,17 until finally, Basil ii (976–
1025) turned the site into a monastery dedicated to the archangel michael
and drafted its Typikon.18 this unique monument, located at the doorstep

13. for a synopsis of the debate, see G. TSANTILAS, ‘Ο Ιωάννης Μαυρόπους και η
απεικόνιση των αυτοκρατόρων στο ναό του Αρχαγγέλου Μιχαήλ στο Σωσθένιο τον 11ο
αιώνα’, DchAE 26 (2005), 329 n. 12; G. DAGRON, Naissance d’un capital: Constantinople et
ses institutions de 330 à 451, Paris 1974, 451–2; C. mANGO, ‘St. michael and attis’, DchAE
12 (1984), 58–9 n. 61; IDEm, Sources and Documents, 116.
14. mANGO, ‘St. michael and attis’, 59–60.
15. mANGO, ‘St. michael and attis’, 59.
16. TSANTILAS, ‘Μαυρόπους’, 329–30.
17. TSANTILAS, ‘Μαυρόπους’, 330 n. 19 and 20.
18. TSANTILAS, ‘Μαυρόπους’, 330; CHONIATES, Historia, 373.
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 249

of the capital, was destroyed on the eve of the conquest of Constantinople

by the ottoman turks, when in 1451/2 the sultan mehmet ii demolished
it for building material in order to erect, at the strategic environs of the
Sosthenion, the castle rumeli hisar.19
the imperial pedigree of the monastery, its antiquity, and its
dedication to the archangel michael, the commander of the angelic hosts,
which provided an eloquent pun for the emperor’s family name—angelos—
would have sufficed to entice isaac.20 yet there may have been other, more
serendipitous, reasons that either precipitated or provided additional
value to the emperor’s selection of this site. Probably by 1191, the magnate
theodore mangaphas, who had rebelled against isaac in Philadelphia, took
refuge with the sultan of Konya.21 But instead of collecting an army to
march against the emperor, he was provided with turkish forces with which
he plundered Byzantine lands. according to Choniates:
he […] maltreated the Laodikeians and Phrygians and even the inhabitants
of my own city of Chonai [ …]. this impious man even allowed the temple
of the commander-in-chief michael to be destroyed by fire, a great and
celebrated edifice surpassing in beauty and magnitude the shrine of the
Good martyr mokios in the queen of the cities.22

the destruction of the greatest Byzantine cult-centre of St michael at

Chonai must have been a tremendous blow, especially for niketas Choniates
(a native of Chonai), who mentions it twice in his account. isaac, though,
may have viewed this event as a pretext that facilitated his plans for the
promotion of the Michaelion at Sosthenion. the elimination of a major
rival site would conveniently reinforce the prestige and popularity of the
Constantinopolitan foundation. in this light, Choniates’ hostility and

19. D. NICOLLE, ‘Constantinople 1453’, in D. NICOLLE, J. HALDON and S. TURNBULL, The

Fall of Constantinople. The Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium, oxford 2007, 181–2; m.
pHILIppIDES and W. K. HANAK, The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. Historiog-
raphy, Topography and Military Studies, Surrey 2011, 397–413.
20. SImpSON, ‘Propaganda Value’, 188–9.
21. for mangaphas’ rebellion, see J.-C. CHEYNET, ’Philadelphie, un quart de siècle de
dissidence, 1182–1206’, in H. AHRWEILER (ed.), Philadelphie et autres études, Paris 1984, 45–
54 (= The Byzantine Aristocracy and its Military Function, aldershot 2006, iX).
22. CHONIATES, Historia, 400; trans. H. mAGOULIAS, O City of Byzantium. Annals of
Niketas Choniates, detroit 1984, 220.
250 KaLLirroe Linardou

negative appraisal of isaac’s initiative is only natural: the ‘demise’ of the

archangel in his homeland occasioned or promoted the ‘resurrection’ of
another archangel in the capital.
moreover, Choniates is critical of isaac’s initiative to disregard the
alleged stipulations outlined in the initial Typikon of the monastery of St
michael drafted by Basil ii, namely that the circumvention of its regulations
would precipitate a rebellion of the Bulgarians.23 most probably isaac
abolished the old macedonian Typikon and drafted a new one. obviously
he considered himself not just a restorer but also a re-founder of the
monument. in addition to this, if we take into consideration the fact that one
of the emperor’s major preoccupations throughout his reign was the Vlach–
Bulgarian insurrection,24 then it is probable that by associating himself
with the last imperial restorer of the monument, namely Basil the Bulgar-
Slayer, isaac may have wished to appropriate the identity and qualities of
this legendary imperial hero, who had excelled against the Bulgarians in
the past.25 Choniates’ critique was largely conducted with hindsight, and it
does not necessarily coincide with or reflect the common feeling and current
reception of isaac’s programme.26
equally personal and excessively hostile is Choniates’ description of
this specific monument’s fittings and furnishings, or rather of the method
of their accumulation.27 as it appears isaac spared no effort to assemble in
the place the finest materials in Constantinople. according to the historian:
he [isaac] also destroyed, along with many others, the celebrated palace
of the mangana, showing no respect for the beauty and great size of the
building, nor yet fearing the victorious martyr [St George] to whom it
was dedicated. Wishing, furthermore, to restore the church of michael,
chief of the heavenly host, at anaplous, he transferred thither all the
marble slabs, beautifully polished and mottled with many-colored spots,
that were used for paving and wall revetment in the imperial palace […].
furthermore, he transported thither the bronze doors, which, being wide

23. CHONIATES, Historia, 373.

24. SImpSON, Niketas Choniates, 171, 173–5.
25. on this, see also the views expressed by p. STEpHENSON, The Legend of Basil the
Bulgar-Slayer, Cambridge 2003, 90–2.
26. SImpSON, Niketas Choniates, 179–80.
27. SImpSON, Niketas Choniates, 178–80; EADEm, ‘Propaganda Value’, 190–1.
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 251

and exceedingly high, formerly closed the entrance of the imperial Palace
[…] the Chalke. he also denuded of its sacred furniture and vessels the
famous church in the palace which is called the Nea monastery. he was
as proud and conceited over these deeds as if he had done something
worthy of admiration.28

the despoliation of older, ruined structures or the calculated and

symbolic appropriation of the glory and aura of standing monuments of the
past was a common and well-documented practice in Byzantium.29 isaac
therefore did not invent the reuse of the past since ‘despoliation had become
a universal custom’ as early as the fifth century.30 rather he methodically
and purposefully selected and recycled what he thought was essential for the
creation of his own distinctive imperial image and identity by resorting to
an old-fashioned and therefore perfectly understandable and recognizable
method.31 in my mind, the process and ultimate aim of isaac’s despoliation
was no different than that defined by two terms lately in vogue amongst both
historians and art-historians, namely intertextuality and intervisuality.
isaac ‘cut’ and ‘pasted’ onto his monument not randomly but purposefully,
like drafting an authoritative text or composing an imperial panel painting.
the strategy behind his choices is indicative of his ultimate purpose, which
was to attach to this specific imperial institution of antiquity the splendour
of his own imperial hallmark. unavoidably, his choices had to be imperial

28. CHONIATES, Historia, 442–3; trans. mANGO, Sources and Documents, 237.
29. for instances of calculated destruction and symbolic reuse of building material
originating from imperial monuments in Constantinople, see T. pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘tampering
with history: from michael iii to michael Viii’, BZ 96/1 (2003), 193–209.
30. B. BRENK, ‘Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne. aesthetics versus ideology’,
DOP 41 (1987), 106.
31. Scholarly publications on spolia have proliferated in the last decades. for an
introduction to the study of spolia, see D. KINNEY, ‘the Concept of Spolia’, in C. RUDOLpH
(ed.), A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, oxford
2006, 233–52. See also D. KINNEY, ‘Spolia. damnatio and renovatio memoriae’, Memoirs
of the American Academy in Rome 42 (1997), 117–48; EADEm, ‘Spolia as Signifiers in
twelfth-Century rome’, Hortus Artium Medievalium 17 (2011), 151–66; L.V. GEYmONAT,
‘the Syntax of Spolia in Byzantine thessalonike’, in m. J. JOHNSON, R. OUSTERHOUT and A.
pApALExANDROU (eds.), Approaches to Byzantine Architecture and its Decoration, Surrey
2012, 47–65; R. BRILLIANT and D. KINNEY (eds.), Reuse Value. Spolia and Appropriation in
Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, Surrey 2011.
252 KaLLirroe Linardou

and extravagant: the bronze gigantic gates of the Chalke, an important

monument associated with the Great Palace.32 the Nea Ekklesia, an imperial
establishment of Basil i dedicated to, among others, the archangel michael,
which was renowned for its luxury and splendour and was located within
the precincts of the Great Palace;33 and the complex of the monastery of
St George at mangana, an imperial foundation standing on the prestigious
first region of the city that served as the burial site of Constantine iX
monomachos (1042–55).34 if the exposition of isaac’s ‘sources’ for building
materials is accurately conveyed by the historian then we may even discern
a pattern in the emperor’s selection. it appears that isaac specifically aimed
at, and invested in, the glory of the Great Palace and its surroundings.
moreover, he targeted prestigious religious institutions that had served as
mausoleums for their imperial founders.
apart from the building material per se, equally interesting and entirely
novel was isaac’s decoration scheme of the Michaelion’s interior.35 if the
account of Choniates is accurate, then the interior of the Sosthenion must
have been transformed into something resembling a modern monothematic
exhibition of archangel michael’s portraits in a museum or an art gallery.
according to titos Papamastorakis’ perceptive analysis: ‘the ‘lunatic
passion’ that Choniates attributes to isaac is the most fundamental
characteristic in the contemporary definition of a collector’s personality.
moreover, if we set out the various ways in which isaac achieved his goals,
we get a picture of a collector who wanted nothing less than to have it
all, and ending in excess’.36 in the middle ages splendidly manufactured

32. for the Chalke Gate, see ODB i, 405–6; C. mANGO, The Brazen House: A Study
of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, Copenhagen 1959, 135–42. L.
BRUBAKER, ‘the Chalke Gate, the Construction of the Past, and the trier ivory’, BMGS 23
(1999), 258–85.
33. for the Nea Ekklesia, see ODB ii, 1446; JANIN, Les églises, 361–4; p. mAGDALINO,
‘observations on the nea ekklesia of Basil i’, JÖB 37 (1987), 51–64.
34. for the mangana complex, see ODB ii, 1283–4; JANIN, Les églises, 70–6; N.
OIKONOmIDES, ‘St. George of the mangana, maria Skleraina and the ‘malyj Sion’ of novgorod’,
DOP 34-35 (1980-81), 239–46.
35. CHONIATES, Historia, 442; PApAmASTORAKIS, ‘discreet Charm of the Visible’, 121;
SImpSON, ‘Propaganda Value’, 190–3.
36. pApAmASTORAKIS, ‘discreet Charm of the Visible’, 122.
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 253

edifices and superbly crafted precious artworks were used to glorify God as
well as to attract more money, power, and prestige to their owners. yet the
frenzy of accumulation, the impulse to own art, not in order to glorify one’s
ego but rather to create it, is a different story altogether.37 instead of seeing
isaac’s ‘collection mania’ as a symptom of his flawed character—that of a
ruthless man of power distinguished by extreme egocentrism—we can view
it as a creative act and part of an innovative projected self-image destined
for self-reaffirmation and public consumption.
in line with his overall portrait of the emperor, Choniates deploys
a distressing and unfair account, to say the least, of isaac’s eagerness to
transfer and deposit in the Michaelion the icon of Christ Elkomenos from
monemvasia, ‘an admirable and most elegant work of art’.38 art historical
publications on the subject of the icon of Christ Elkomenos have principally
focused on its iconography and typology, which is traced back to the
first centuries of the Christian era (fourth century);39 the impact of the
particular icon on later monuments as well as the subsequent proliferation
of its iconographical theme.40 my concern here is not to pinpoint the visual
form of the icon but to scrutinize isaac’s choice against familiar imperial
practices of the twelfth century and Choniates’ biased account of the event.
the wording of Choniates’ testimony underlines the icon’s aesthetic
qualities, not its antiquity or miraculous properties. his brief reference
ends with a discrediting note to the effect that the emperor had to purloin
the icon with deceit and at great danger.41 if we take these words at face
value then we may assume that the icon was renowned and this was the

37. m. CAmILLE, ‘for our devotion and Pleasure: the Sexual objects of Jean, duc de
Berry’, Art History 24/2 (2001), 169.
38. CHONIATES, Historia, 442–43; trans. mANGO, Sources and Documents, 236
39. N. VEIS, ‘Ο Ελκόμενος Χριστός της Μονεμβασίας μετά παρεκβάσεων περί της
αυτόθι Παναγίας της Χρυσαφιτίσσης’, BNJ 10 (1932–34), 199–213; V. KOTTA, ‘Η εξέλιξις
της εικονογραφικής παραστάσεως του Χριστού Ελκομένου εν τη χριστιανική τέχνη’,
BNJ 14/1-2 (1938), 245–67; A. KATSELAKI, ‘Ο Χριστός Ελκόμενος επί του Σταυρού.
Εικονογραφία και τυπολογία της παράστασης στη βυζαντινή τέχνη (4ος αι.–15ος αι.)’,
DchAE 19 (1996–97), 167–200.
40. V. FOSKOLOU, ‘Αναζητώντας την εικόνα του Ελκομένου της Μονεμβασίας. Το
χαμένο παλλάδιο της πόλης και η επίδρασή του στα υστεροβυζαντινά μνημεία του νότιου
ελλαδικού χώρου’, Symmeikta 14 (2001), 229–56.
41. CHONIATES, Historia, 442–3.
254 KaLLirroe Linardou

reason why it attracted isaac’s attention. though not an ancient piece of

art, the icon was nevertheless cherished by the inhabitants of monemvasia,
and functioned more or less like a provincial palladium. despite Choiates’
exaggerated sensitivity on the matter, isaac’s initiative was not unique or
novel but merely an extension of similar trends traceable earlier in the
twelfth century. indeed, Paul magdalino has written that ‘perhaps the
greatest threat which the imperial power of Constantinople posed to the
spiritual integrity of provincial churches lay in its ability to appropriate
their sacred objects’.42
early in his reign, manuel i fulfilled his father’s earnest wish to have
the cover of the reliquary of St demetrios in thessaloniki transported
to Constantinople and deposited in the Pantokrator monastery.43 note,
Choniates gives us no record of this act. in 1169 manuel arranged for the
stone on which the body of Christ had been laid and anointed after the
deposition to be brought from ephesos to Constantinople.44 the emperor
thus completed the collection of relics associated with the Passion of Christ
in the chapel of the theotokos of the Pharos. Choniates, who mentions this
event, shows no sympathy for the ephesians who were deprived of their
treasure. instead, he describes its transportation by the emperor himself
from the harbour of Boukoleon to the Church of the theotokos of the Pharos
as a solemn ceremony.45 manuel was also responsible for giving that relic
its final home in the collection of the Pantokrator monastery. after his
death, the relic remained in the imperial complex but was moved to where
the diseased emperor was buried in the funerary chapel of the Comnenian
family dedicated to St michael.46 in this manner, manuel circumvented the

42. p. mAGDALINO, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143–1180, Cambridge 1993,

178.
43. Ἀνάλεκτα Ἱεροσολυμιτικῆς Σταχυολογίας, ed. A. pApADOpOULOS-KERAmEUS, 5 vols.,
St Petersburg 1891–98; repr. Brussels 1963, iV, 238–46; mAGDALINO, Manuel Komnenos,
178; S. KOTZABASSI, ‘feasts at the monastery of Pantokrator’, in EADEm (ed.), Pantokrator
Monastery, 175–83.
44. CHONIATES, Historia, 222; mAGDALINO, Manuel Komnenos, 178 and n. 280; T.
ANTONOpOULOU, ‘George Skylitzes’ Office on the Translation of the Holy Stone. a Study and
Critical edition’, in KOTZABASSI (ed.), Pantokrator Monastery, 109–21.
45. CHONIATES, Historia, 222.
46. mAGDALINO, Manuel Komnenos, 178; C. mANGO, ‘notes on Byzantine monuments’,
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 255

tradition that prescribed the veneration of Christ’s Passion relics in their

proper imperial environment, namely the Pharos chapel, and instituted a
new kind of dynastic and eventually individual piety bestowed specifically
to Christ’s suffering.47
actually, manuel’s attachment to the stone fits well with the shift of
imperial emphasis, originating in the eleventh century, from relics of the true
Cross, which were viewed as emblems of the victorious ruler, towards a new
concept of terrestrial Jerusalem, where Christ suffered and died.48 Suffice it
to mention that the text written c. 1200 by nicholas mesarites, a member
of the patriarchal clergy and skeuophylax of the palatine chapel, epitomizes
the perception of the Pharos as the chapel associated par excellence with
Christ and the relics of his Passion.49 more specifically, the palatine chapel
of the Pharos is likened to the ark while the ten principal relics constitute
a decalogue. for all intensive purposes the chapel had become another holy
Land, where Christ’s life and Passion were actually realized and mentally
re-enacted.50 in this context, it is important to note that the Comnenian
period and especially the second half of the twelfth century coincide with
the advancement of a new cultic trend that placed prominence on Christ’s
Passion, his death, and the secondary episodes related to his burial.51 this

DOP 23 (1969–70), 372–5; n. p. ŠeVčenko, ‘the tomb of manuel i Komnenos, again’, in

ÖDEKAN, AKYüREK and necipoğlu (eds.), Change in the Byzantine World, 609–16.
47. S. LEROU, ‘L’usage des reliques du Christ par les empereurs aux Xie et Xiie siècles: Le
Saint Bois et les Saintes Pierres’, in J. DURAND and B. FLUSIN (eds.), Byzance et les reliques du
Christ, Paris 2004, 178. See also p. mAGDALINO, ‘L’église du Phare et les reliques de la Passion
à Constantinople (Viie/Viiie–Xiiie siècles)’, in DURAND and FLUSIN (eds.), Byzance et les
reliques, 15–30; S. mERGIALI-SAHAS, ‘Byzantine emperors and holy relics. use and misuse of
Sanctity and authority’, JÖB 51 (2001), 41–60; B. FLUSIN, ‘Les reliques de la Sainte-Chapelle
et leur passé impérial à Constantinople’ in J. DURRAND and m.-p. LAFFITTE (eds.), Le trésor de
la Sainte-Chapelle, Paris 2001, 20–31; m. BACCI, ‘relics of the Pharos Chapel: a View from
the Latin West’, in A. m. LIDOV (ed.), Eastern Christian Relics, moscow 2003, 234–46.
48. LEROU, ‘reliques du Christ’, 177; mAGDALINO, ‘L’église du Phare’, 26 and n. 63; m.-
p. LAFFITTE, ‘alexis ier Comnène, Lettre Apocryphe à robert ier, comte de flandre, 1093’, in
DURRAND and LAFFITTE (eds.), Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, 34.
49. mAGDALINO, ‘L’église du Phare’, 27–8.
50. FLUSIN, ‘reliques de la Sainte-Chapelle’, 29–30 and B. FLUSIN, ‘nicolas mésaritès,
œuvres’, in DURRAND and LAFFITTE (eds.), Trésor de la Sainte-Chapelle, 36.
51. D. pALLAS, Die Passion und Bestattung Christi in Byzanz. Der Ritus–das Bild,
256 KaLLirroe Linardou

corresponds to the emergence of new iconographical themes and the

proliferation of others that were already established in monumental art and
icon painting of the period: ‘the man of Sorrows’, ‘the Lamentation of the
theotokos over Christ’s dead body’, ‘the entombment’, and finally ‘Christ
Elkomenos’.
this brings us back to isaac and his choices. the Elkomenos icon,
renowned for its beauty, dear to the people of monemvasia, and an important
piece of isaac’s collection in the Michaelion, should be seen as an icon/
relic related to Christ’s Passion and not simply as another piece of artwork.
this is precisely what isaac lacked from his collection in the Sosthenion
and this is why he was so eager to acquire it. in my mind, the emperor
wished to continue the practice of dynastic/individual piety of relics related
to Christ’s Passion and explicitly associated with burial places, which was
initiated by his predecessor manuel. But relics of prestigious items related
to Christ himself were obviously scarce at this time and it appears the stone
brought from ephesos was the last Passion relic to enter the Byzantine
capital. therefore isaac resorted to the closest item to a relic: an icon. in
this context, we should note that, beginning with the relics and eponymous
icons of the theotokos, a gradual shift from the adoration of holy relics per
se to cult icons related to them was occurring.52 icons increasingly came
to possess similar qualities to relics.53 the iconographical subject of Christ

munich 1965; H. mAGUIRE, ‘the depiction of Sorrow in middle Byzantine art’, DOP 31
(1977), 123–74; H. BELTING, ‘an image and its function in the Liturgy: the man of Sorrows
in Byzantium’, DOP 34 (1980–81), 1–16; H. mAGUIRE, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium,
Princeton 1981, 101–8; I. SpATHARAKIS, ‘the influence of the Lithos in the development of
the iconography of the threnos’, in D. mOURIKI, C. F. mOSS and K. KIEFER (eds.), Byzantine
East, Latin West. Art-Historical Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, Princeton 1995, 435–
41; n. p. ŠeVčenko, ‘the Service of the Virgin’s Lament revisited’, in L. BRUBAKER and m.
CUNNINGHAm (eds.), The Cult of the Mother of God in Byzantium. Texts and Images, Surrey
2011, 255–61 and bibliography therein.
52. C. mANGO, ‘Constantinople as theotokoupolis’, in VASSILAKI (ed.), Mother of God,
17–25; B. pENTCHEVA, ‘the Supernatural Protector of Constantinople: the Virgin and her
icons in the tradition of the avar Siege’, BMGS 26 (2002), 2–41.
53. A. GRABAR, Martyrium. Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique, 2
vols., Paris 1943–46, ii, 343 ff.; E. KITZINGER, ‘the Cult of images in the age Before iconoclasm’,
DOP 8 (1954), 83–150. on the shift of emphasis and interchangeable qualities/statuses ascribed
to relics-images-works of art, see A. NAGEL, ‘the afterlife of the reliquary’, in m. BAGNOLI et
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 257

Elkomenos, linked to Christ’s Passion and death on the Cross, accorded well
with isaac’s needs and fitted perfectly with the cultural environment of the
late twelfth century. thus looking beyond the frivolous and disrespectful
isaac that Choniates perpetuates for posterity, the modern art historian
finds an individual highly sensitive to, and perfectly in tune with, the
cultural trends of his time.
in fact, the theme of the Elkomenos icon must have become emblematic
of isaac’s public image. the treasury of the Cathedral of esztergom in
hungary possesses a Byzantine reliquary of the true Cross in the form of
a framed icon-ensemble of silver-gilt and enamel (see cover photo).54 the
precise dating of the reliquary in its original form and the circumstances
under which it was brought hungary have been debated for some time.
today it is accepted that the esztergom reliquary dates to the second half of
the twelfth century, and more precisely to the decade of the 1190s.55 most
recently, Günter Prinzing has suggested that the reliquary was sent as a
diplomatic gift by isaac himself to archbishop Job of esztergom, who must
have also been present during the meetings held probably in zenum (in
today’s Serbia, northwest of Belgrade) between the emperor and his father-
in-law, the hungarian king Béla iii in 1191/2.56

al. (eds.), Treasures of Heaven. Saints, Relics, and Devotion in Medieval Europe, new haven–
London 2010, 213–15. See also R. mANIURA, ‘the icon is dead, Long Live the icon: the holy
image in the renaissance’, in A. EASTmOND and L. JAmES (eds.), Icon and Word. The Power of
Images in Byzantium. Studies Presented to Robin Cormack, Surrey 2003, 88–103; m. HOLmES,
‘miraculous images in renaissance florence’, Art History 34/3 (2011), 432–65.
54. for the esztergom reliquary, see A. SOmOGYI, ‘La Staurothèque Byzantine
d’esztergom’, Balkan Studies 9 (1968), 139–54; L. HADERmANN-mISGUISH, ‘Pour la datation
de la staurothèque d’esztergom à l’époque tardo-comnène’, Zbornik Narodnog Muzeja 9–10
(1979), 289–99; p. HETHERINGTON, ‘Studying the Byzantine Staurothèke at esztergom’, in
C. ENTWISTLE (ed.), Through a Glass Brightly: Studies in Byzantine and Medieval Art and
Archaeology Presented to David Buckton, oxford 2003, 82–94 (= Enamels, Crowns, Relics
and Icons. Studies on Luxury Arts in Byzantium, Surrey 2008, iX). See also H. C. EVANS and
W. D. WIxON (eds.), The Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era,
A.D. 843–1261, exhibition Catalogue, no. 40; N. TETERIATNIKOV, ‘the true Cross flanked by
Constantine and helena. a Study in the Light of the Post-iconoclastic re-evaluation of the
Cross’, DchAE 18 (1995), 185–6 and fig. 15.
55. HADERmANN-mISGUISH, ‘Staurothèque d’esztergom’, 298–9.
56. G. pRINZING, ‘ “ the esztergom reliquary revisited:” Wann, weshalb und wem hat
258 KaLLirroe Linardou

the decoration scheme of the reliquary’s central panel is arranged in

three registers of different width. the place of prominence, as was customary,
is reserved for the central zone containing the fragment of the relic of the
true Cross, flanked by the imperial figures of Constantine the Great and his
mother helena. a novel feature that is unique to the esztergom reliquary is
the selection and combination of the two narrative scenes of the Elkomenos
and the deposition adorning the lower register.57 While variations of the
Elkomenos can be found earlier in monumental art, examples on portable
items were rare before the late twelfth century.58 if Prinzing’s hypothesis is
correct, which i believe it is, then isaac appears to have combined on this
precious gift intended for a special recipient, two different yet complementary
concepts that eloquently visualize the evolution of Byzantine imperial
ideology with regard to the appropriation of the holy Cross. from the
potent sign of victory assigned as an attribute to Constantine the Great
and his successors we move to the humane symbol of Christ’s Passion and
death. interestingly, the vertical arm of the cross meaningfully transcends
the boundary between the two registers as if crushing the artificial limit
setting apart the present from the past.
in conclusion, the restoration and embellishment of the Michaelion at
Sosthenion was a meticulously orchestrated project that isaac undertook,
sparing no expense or trouble in order to realize his vision. this must have
been the quintessence of his legacy and, in my view, was designated as the
emperor’s final resting place. Choniates is silent on the matter but this comes
as no surprise. as we have seen, the dedication of the monastery to the
commander-in-chief of the angelic orders provided a fitting pun for isaac’s
family name and this was further elaborated by the emperor’s choice to place
there all the icons of his patron-angel available in the empire. Significantly,
the dedication to the archangel was also appropriate because of its funerary
undertones: michael was the angel ψυχοπομπός, traditionally held to guide
the souls of the diseased into hades and this is the reason why the funerary

Kaiser isaak ii. angelos die Staurothek als Geschenk übersandt?’, in Ν. aSutay-effenberger
and F. DAIm (eds.), Philopation. Spaziergang im kaiserlichen Garten: Schriften über Byzanz
und seine Nachbarn. Festschrift für Arne Effenberger zum 70. Geburtstag, mainz 2012,
247–56.
57. HETHERINGTON, ‘Staurothèke at esztergom’, 14.
58. KATSELAKI, ‘Χριστός Ελκόμενος’, 167–200.
a reStinG PLaCe for ‘the firSt of anGeLS’ 259

chapel of the Komnenoi within the Pantokrator complex was dedicated

to him. it is thus not unreasonable to think that isaac had designated
the Michaelion as his own resting place. the final touch to the emperor’s
masterpiece was the icon of Christ Elkomenos brought from monemvasia.
this icon functioned as a holy object, qualified as a substitute for a relic of
Christ’s Passion, and underlined the new trend in dynastic piety introduced
by manuel. my guess would be that the icon of the Christ Elkomenos must
have been prescribed to stand lit with candles by the intended tomb of the
emperor, but we will never know.