Drpic, The Patron's 'I'

The Patron’s “I”: Art, Selfhood, and the LaterByzantine Dedicatory Epigram By I v a n D r p i ć Western medievalists have long questioned the notion that in the Middle Ages, as Jacob Burckhardt famously asserted in Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien (1860), “[m]an was conscious of himself only as a member of a race, people, party, family, or corporation—only through some general category.”1 The sweeping tele- ological narrative of the rebirth of the autonomous self-conscious individual in the Renaissance, after its protracted medieval slumber, has been challenged by more nuanced accounts of the various ways in which personal identity and selfhood were constituted and expressed during the Middle Ages.2 In recent years, following Alexander Kazhdan’s seminal, if contested, work on what he saw as a 1 Jacob Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, trans. S. G. C. Middlemore, 2 vols. (New York: Harper, 1958), 1:143. For the impact of Burckhardt’s notion of the rise of the individual in the Renaissance, see John J. Martin, “Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence: The Discov- ery of the Individual in Renaissance Europe,” American Historical Review 102 (December 1997): 1309–42, esp. 1309–11… Egon Flaig, “Uomo universale und agonales Selbst: Jacob Burckhardts zwei historiographische Geburtsurkunden der Individualität,” in Die autonome Person—eine europäische Erfindung?, ed. Klaus-Peter Köpping, Michael Welker, and Reiner Wiehl (Munich: W. Fink, 2002), 95–111. 2 See Colin Morris, The Discovery of the Individual, 1050–1200 (New York: Harper & Row, 1972)… John F. Benton, “Consciousness of Self and Perceptions of Individuality,” in Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, ed. Robert L. Benson and Giles Constable (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982), 263–95… Caroline W. Bynum, “Did the Twelfth Century Discover the Indi- vidual?,” in Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 82–109; Jean-Claude Schmitt, “La ‘découverte de l’individu’: une fiction historiographique?,” in La fabrique, la figure et la feinte: Fictions et statut des fictions en psychologie, ed. Paul Mengal and Françoise Parot (Paris: Vrin, 1989), 213–36… Lee Patterson, “On the Margin: Postmodernism, Ironic History, and Medieval Studies,” Speculum 65/1 (1990): 87–108; Jan A. Aert- sen and Andreas Speer, eds., Individuum und Individualität im Mittelalter (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1996); Jeffrey F. Hamburger, “Medieval Self-Fashioning: Authorship, Authority, and Autobiography in Suso’s Exemplar,” in The Visual and the Visionary: Art and Female Spirituality in Late Medieval Germany (New York: Zone Books, 1998), 233–78… Horst Bredekamp, “Das Mittelalter als Epoche der Individualität,” in Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften: Berichte und Abhandlun- gen 8 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2000), 191–240… Thomas E. A. Dale, “The Individual, the Resurrected Body, and Romanesque Portraiture: The Tomb of Rudolf von Schwaben in Merseburg,” Speculum 77/3 (2002): 707–43; Gert Melville and Markus Schürer, eds., Das Eigene und das Ganze: Zum Indi- viduellen im mittelalterlichen Religiosentum (Münster: LIT Verlag, 2002); Eva Schlotheuber, “Norm und Innerlichkeit: Zur problematischen Suche nach den Anfängen der Individualität,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 31 (2004): 329–58; Brigitte Miriam Bedos-Rezak and Dominique Iogna-Prat, eds., L’individu au Moyen Âge: Individuation et individualisation avant la modernité (Paris: Aubier, 2005); Barbara H. Rosenwein, “Y avait-il un ‘moi’ au haut Moyen Âge?,” Revue historique 307 (2005): 31–52; Brigitte Miriam Bedos-Rezak, When Ego Was Imago: Signs of Identity in the Middle Ages (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2011). For a useful overview of the literature, see Walter Pohl, “Intro- duction: Ego Trouble?,” in Ego Trouble: Authors and Their Identities in the Early Middle Ages, ed. Richard Corradini et al. (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010), 9–21. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) doi:10.1017/S0038713414000785 895 896 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram new sense of the individual in the Byzantine culture of the eleventh and twelfth centuries,3 Byzantinists have joined the debate and begun to explore the issues of identity, subjectivity, and individuality. Thus Byzantine selves and their for- mations and representations have been examined in several contexts, including autobiography, rhetoric and letter writing, and the liturgy.4 This essay seeks to contribute to this project by looking at the largely neglected evidence of Byzantine dedicatory epigrams and the devotional artifacts they accompany. In Byzantine usage, the term epigramma denotes either a verse inscription written on an object or a poem attached to a piece of literature.5 Most often composed in the dodecasyllable, the medieval equivalent of the classical iambic trimeter,6 3 Alexander P. Kazhdan and Ann Wharton Epstein, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). 4 For autobiography, see Michael Angold, “The Autobiographical Impulse in Byzantium,” Dum- barton Oaks Papers 52 (1998): 225–57… Michael Angold, “Autobiography & Identity: The Case of the Later Byzantine Empire,” Byzantinoslavica 60 (1999): 36–59; Martin Hinterberger, Autobiographi- sche Traditionen in Byzanz (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1999)… Martin Hinterberger, “Autobiography and Hagiography in Byzantium,” Symbolae Osloenses 75 (2000): 139–64… Charis Messis, “La mémoire du ‘je’ souffrant: Construire et écrire la mémoire personnelle dans les récits de captivité,” in L’écriture de la mémoire: La littérarité de l’historiographie, ed. Paolo Odorico, Panagiotis A. Agapitos, and Martin Hinterberger (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2006), 107–46. For rhetoric and letter writing, see Eustratios N. Papaioannou, “Michael Psellos’ Rhetori- cal Gender,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 24 (2000): 133–46… Eustratios N. Papaioannou, “Michael Psellos: Rhetoric and the Self in Byzantine Epistolography,” in L’épistolographie et la poésie épigrammatique: Projets actuels et questions de méthodologie. Actes de la 16e table ronde organisée par Wolfram Hörandner et Michael Grünbart dans le cadre du XXe Congrès international des études byzantines, Collège de France—Sorbonne, Paris, 19–25 août 2001 (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2003), 75–83; Alexander Riehle, “Epistolography as Autobiography: Remarks on the Letter-Collections of Nikephoros Choumnos,” Parekbolai 2 (2012): 1–22; Stratis Papaioannou, Michael Psellos: Rhetoric and Authorship in Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013). For the liturgy, see Georgia Frank, “Dialogue and Deliberation: The Sensory Self in the Hymns of Romanos the Melodist,” in Religion and the Self in Antiquity, ed. David Brakke, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2005), 163–79; Derek Krueger, “Romanos the Melodist and the Christian Self in Early Byzantium,” in Proceedings of the 21st International Congress of Byzan- tine Studies: London, 21–26 August, 2006, vol. 1, Plenary Papers, ed. Elizabeth Jeffreys (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), 255–74; Antonia Giannouli, “Die Tränen der Zerknirschung: Zur katanyktischen Kirchendichtung als Heilsmittel,” in “Doux remède . . . ”: Poésie et poétique à Byzance, ed. Paolo Odorico, Panagiotis A. Agapitos, and Martin Hinterberger (Paris: Centre d’études byzantines, néo- helléniques et sud-est européennes, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 2009), 141–55. See also the essays collected in Christine Angelidi, ed., Byzantium Matures: Choices, Sensitivities, and Modes of Expression (Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries) (Athens: Institouto Byzantinōn Ereunōn, 2004); and Guillaume Saint-Guillain and Dionysios Stathakopoulos, eds., Liquid & Multiple: Individuals & Iden- tities in the Thirteenth-Century Aegean (Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 2012). Several of the essays in Brakke et al., eds., Religion and the Self in Antiquity, deal with the early Byzantine material. 5 See Marc D. Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2003), 26–34, 131–32; Andreas Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009), 37–45. 6 On the dodecasyllable, see Paul Maas, “Der byzantinische Zwölfsilber,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 12 (1903): 278–323… Wolfram Hörandner, “Beobachtungen zur Literarästhetik der Byzantiner: Einige Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 897 Byzantine epigrams could appear on a variety of artifacts and edifices, from church buildings and tombs to icons, ecclesiastical textiles, pieces of jewelry, and even seals. While hundreds of these poems can still be seen in situ, the majority of Byzantine epigrams have come down to us only through manuscript anthologies, divorced from their original context. Dedicatory verse inscriptions composed to commemorate acts of piety and munificence constitute an important category within the epigrammatic genre. The significance of these poetic compositions is manifold, but for the purpose at hand it should be emphasized that they provide a critical resource for exploring the nexus of artistic patronage and self-presentation in Byzantium. In this essay, I shall focus on the evidence of dedicatory epigrams from the twelfth to the fifteenth century, the period to which, for the sake of con- venience, I refer as “Later Byzantium.” The aim of the essay is to examine how these texts in their symbiotic relationship with images and objects construct, stage, and perform an identity for the patron. The term patron is here used to denote the initiator of art making in the broadest sense and thus covers a range of activi- ties and roles, which Byzantine sources variously identify by designations such as kthvtwr (“founder” but also “possessor”), dothvr (“donor”), oJ teuvxa~ (“maker” or “producer”), and so forth.7 In what follows, I will be concerned primarily with acts of religious donation and the realm of personal piety. It is in this realm, I will argue, that one can identify an important locus of Byzantine self-fashioning. In the first part of the essay, I will introduce the most common type of dedicatory epigram in Later Byzantium, namely, the epigram in the form of a personal prayer spoken in the voice of the patron. I will identify some generic features of this type and highlight its affinities with other genres and types of discourse in the first person singular. Then I will lay out some principles and parameters that govern the construction of personal identity in epigrams foregrounding the patron’s “I.” Special consideration will be given to what I should like to call the patron’s devotional self. In order to illustrate how this self may be articulated through words, visual forms and iconographies, and precious materials, in the second part of the essay I will examine three exquisite objects inscribed with dedicatory verses. The goal of this exercise is to flesh out the range of possibilities available to Byzantine patrons in fashioning their devotional selves. byzantinische Zeugnisse zu Metrik und Rhythmik,” Byzantinoslavica 56 (1995): 279–90, at 285–89; Marc Lauxtermann, “The Velocity of Pure Iambs: Byzantine Observations on the Metre and Rhythm of the Dodecasyllable,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 48 (1998): 9–33… Andreas Rhoby, “Vom jambischen Trimeter zum byzantinischen Zwölfsilber: Beobachtung zur Metrik des spätantiken und byzantinischen Epigramms,” Wiener Studien 124 (2011): 117–42. 7 Cf. Antonio Iacobini, “Il segno del possesso: Committenti, destinatari, donatori nei manoscritti bizantini dell’età macedone,” in Bisanzio nell’età dei Macedoni: Forme della produzione letteraria e artistica. VIII giornata di studi bizantini (Milano, 15–16 marzo 2005), ed. Fabrizio Conca and Gianfranco Fiaccadori (Milan: Cisalpino, 2007), 151–94, at 153. For ktētōr, the key among these terms, see Karl Krumbacher, “Kthvtwr: Ein lexikographischer Versuch,” Indogermanische Forschungen 25 (1909): 393–421… Tania Kambourova, “Ktitor: Le sens du don des panneaux votifs dans le monde byzantine,” Byzantion 78 (2008): 261–87; Andreas Rhoby, “Varia Lexicographica,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 57 (2007): 1–16, at 14–15. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) 898 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Dedicatory Epigrams: Prayer, Performance, and the Self Depending on the occasion and setting, as well as on the choices of the individuals involved, dedicatory epigrams can take several forms.8 Some, for instances, focus entirely upon the praise of the patron. This is especially the case with epigrams on public monuments and buildings. When in 1313/14 Gregory, archbishop of Ohrid, added an elegant two-storied exonarthex to the city’s cathedral, the Church of Hagia Sophia, he had this accomplishment commemorated in a brick inscription on the building’s main façade (Figs. 1–2).9 Mwsῆ~ oJ Grhgovrio[~ Ij sra]h;l nevῳ skhnh;n ejgeivra~, to;n qeovgra␸on novmon e“qnh ta; Musῶn ejkdidavskei pansov␸w~. [Having erected a tabernacle for the New Israel, like Moses, Gregory teaches the Mysian peoples the divinely written Law in an all-wise fashion.] A confidant of the emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282–1328), Gregory was sent from Constantinople to administer the see of Ohrid with its predomi- nantly Slavic population, to which the verses refer using the archaism Mysoi.10 In accordance with its prominent display on the city’s most important church, the inscription reads like a public proclamation addressed to the populace at large. Built around a flattering comparison between Gregory and Moses, the inscription 8 On Byzantine dedicatory epigrams, see Lauxtermann, Byzantine Poetry, esp. 158–66; Wolfram Hörandner, “Zur Topik byzantinischer Widmungs- und Einleitungsgedichte,” in Dulce melos: La poesia tardoantica e medievale. Atti del III Convegno internazionale di studi, Vienna, 15–18 novembre 2004, ed. Victoria Panagl (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2007), 319–35; Rhoby, Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken, 55–56… Andreas Rhoby, “The Structure of Inscriptional Ded- icatory Epigrams in Byzantium,” in La poesia tardoantica e medievale: IV Convegno internazionale di studi, Perugia, 15–17 novembre 2007. Atti in onore di Antonino Isola per il suo 70° genetliaco, ed. Clara Burini De Lorenzi and Miryam De Gaetano (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2010), 309–32… Floris Bernard, “The Beats of the Pen: Social Contexts of Reading and Writing Poetry in Eleventh- Century Constantinople” (PhD diss., University of Ghent, 2010), 265–73… Foteini Spingou, “Words and Artworks in the Twelfth Century and Beyond: The Thirteenth-Century Manuscript Marcianus Gr. 524 and the Twelfth- Century Dedicatory Epigrams on Works of Art” (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2012). 9 See Ĭordan Ivanov, Bŭlgarski starini iz Makedoniia (Sofia: Dŭrzhavna pechatnitsa, 1931), 34–35 (no. 1)… Cvetan Grozdanov, “Prilozi proučavanju Sv. Sofije ohridske u XIV veku,” Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske 5 (1969): 37–58, at 37–42, and the drawing of the inscription after p. 50. For the reconstruction of the lacuna in line 1, see Ihor Ševčenko and Jeffrey Featherstone, “Two Poems by Theodore Metochites,” The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 26 (1981): 1–45, at 8 n. 18. On the archbishop Gregory, see Erich Trapp, ed., Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, 12 vols. (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976–96), no. 91716. On the exonarthex, see Barbara Maria Schellewald, Die Architektur der Sophienkirche im Ohrid (Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich- Wilhelms-Universität, 1986), 168–83… Boris Čipan, St. Sophia: The Cathedral Church of the Ohrid Archbishopric. A Chronology of the Architecture (Skopje: Sigmapres, 1996), esp. 122–24. 10 For the use of the archaizing ethnonym Mysos, see Theodora Papadopoulou, “Hoi horoi ‘Mysia’ kai ‘Mysos’ stis byzantines pēges tēs mesēs kai hysterēs periodou,” in Hypermachos: Studien zur Byzan- tinistik, Armenologie und Georgistik. Festschrift für Werner Seibt zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Christos Stavrakos, Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou, and Mesrob K. Krikorian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008), 257–81. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 1313/14 (photo: Miodrag Marković). Fig. and. Ohrid. Ajrgeivwn ajlitro. celebrates the archbishop’s munificence. his pastoral care for his “Mysian” flock. learning. parqevne. however. (Color online) Exonarthex of the Cathedral Church of Hagia Sophia. Levwn. “Ephxe bavqra tῷ naῷ sou. In dedicatory epigrams commemorating religious works. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 899 Fig. Ohrid. 1. 2. (Color online) Dedicatory epigram of the archbishop Gregory.~ quhpovlo~. Cathedral Church of Hagia Sophia. 1313/14 (photo: Miodrag Marković). spiritual concerns rather than praise are typically in the foreground. ᾧper paravscoi~ luvtron ajmplakhmavtwn eij~ ajntavmeiyin. most notably. eujloghmevnh kovrh. “Inventaires en vue d’un recueil des inscriptions his- toriques de Byzance. 1149 and later (photo: Christina Pinatsi). laid the foundations of your church. III. May you. 51).900 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig.” Travaux et mémoires 9 (1985): 267–395. 3. at 308–9 (no.11 Set up by two prelates upon the 11 See Denis Feissel and Anne Philippidis-Braat. 3–4). blessed Maiden. with further bibliography. Inscriptions du Péloponnèse (à l’exception de Mistra). grant him in repayment the remission of his sins. bishop of Argos and Nauplia (Figs. the sinful priest of the Argives. are engraved in marble on the west façade of the monastery church at Areia in Argolid. On the monastery at Areia and its Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) .] These verses. O Virgin. Areia. accompanied by the date of April 1149. [Leo. (Color online) Church of the Hagia Monē. founded by Leo. Hē ‘Hagia Monē’ Areias en tē ekklēsiastikē kai politikē historia Naupliou kai Argous (Athens: s. 2002). founder. Te1). with further bibliography. 81–85. the inscriptions at Ohrid and Areia are very different. see Geōrgios A. Icônes et manuscrits bulgares: Musées royaux d’art et d’histoire. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst: Nebst Addenda zu Band 1 ‘Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken’ (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.. (Color online) Dedicatory epigram of the bishop Leo. 273–74… Iuliana Boı̌cheva.. see Charalambos Bouras and Laskarina Boura. the latter a personal request for salvation. “Edin pametnik na vizantiı̌skata vezba ot Ohrid: Datirane i atributsiia. or a saint. Petersburg. speaking in his or her own voice. For the dedicatory epigram on the cloth. Kondakov. offers a pious gift to Christ. cat. 1149 (photo: Christina Pinatsi). 75 (Ralitsa Lozanova). however. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . Bruxelles. These personal prayers can be quite concise. 2010).12 The six rather crudely lettered dodecasyllable lines displayed beneath Christ’s outstretched arms. Such is the poetic inscription on a sumptuous silk cloth with a depiction of the Crucifixion embroidered with gold and silver thread. ed.n. now housed in the National History Museum in Sofia (Fig. no. Chōras. 5). Areia. see also Andreas Rhoby. The former is a verbal celebration of ecclesiastical leadership. an impersonal voice appeals to the Mother of God on behalf of the bishop Leo. present the patron’s petition. In Later Byzantium. the patron is usually more assertive and assumes the “I” of the epigram. Church of the Hagia Monē. Makedoniia: Arkheologicheskoe puteshestvie (St. three on either side. and gives thanks for favors received in the past or asks for future favors or for the eternal repose of his or her soul in the hereafter. 369–71 (no. 1975). 4. Ralitsa Lozanova. du 11 octobre 2002 au 5 janvier 2003 (Brussels: Fondation Europalia International. 2002).” Problemi na izkustvoto 31/3 (1998): 8–15. For the architecture of the church. Rather. Hē helladikē naodomia kata ton 12o aiōna (Athens: Emporikē Trapeza tēs Hellados. the Virgin. 1909). buildings they had erected. most dedicatory epigrams from the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries are personal prayers: the patron. 12 See Nikodim P. Indeed. The vast majority of dedicatory epigrams in the religious sphere take the form of a prayer addressed to the divine or saintly beneficiary of the dedication. Yet in the inscription at Areia the patron does not present the church he founded in propria voce. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 901 Fig. Sofia (photo: Todor Dimitrov). (Color online) Embroidered cloth with the Crucifixion. 5. National History Museum. c.902 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 1295. 1967).” then this must have been an icon of the Crucifixion. preserved in a manuscript. and trans.14 The verses placed on the cloth were meant to commemorate the couple’s devotion and generosity and to negotiate. 1081–1118) and John II Komnenos (r. 1118–43). as stated in the concluding line. If. was meant to outweigh the burden of his and his wife’s amplakēmata—their sins. who is a Komnene through her maternal and paternal grandfather. [I. in the spirit of humility befitting a pious donor. references to dogmatic precepts. Here is a poem. repeated invocations studded with sparkling epithets. it was not uncommon for icon veils to replicate the imagery of the panels to which they were attached. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . However.n Eujdokivᾳ tῇ oJmozuvgῳ. an icon veil is characterized as eijkw. meaning “represent. as a gift together with my wife Eudokia. At any rate. Elaborate dedicatory epigrams of this kind are especially common in the realm of icon piety. 26. O Logos. “Ktitorstvoto na velikiot heterijarh Progon Zgur na Sv. 1980). that Kallikles composed for a gold-woven purple veil 13 On the Church of the Mother of God Peribleptos (now Saint Clement) and its founders.” in line 2 is to be understood as adding the sense of “again” or “anew. 104 (no. a senior military officer. and even a certain amount of autobiographical detail. Frolov. See A. Sgouros should express his doubts about the true value of the cloth’s gold and silver embroidery. with further bibliography. “La ‘podea’: Un tissu décoratif de l’église byzantine.” Zbornik: Srednovekovna umetnost 6 (2007): 49–61. 5 ou “ sῃ Komnhnῇ mhtropappopatrovqen ”ina luvsin lavbwmen ajmplakhmavtwn. The epigram on the Crucifixion cloth is rather straightforward in its negoti- ation of spiritual exchange between Sgouros and Christ. Deloto na zografite Mihailo i Eutihij (Skopje: Republički zavod za zaštita na spomenicite na kulturata. The silk embroidery most likely served as a veil attached to a particularly venerated icon of Christ. line 5). make the image of your Crucifixion for you with a material that is allegedly precious. and his wife Eudokia Komnene.~ mevga~ eJtaireiavrch~ tuvpon sῆ~ staurwvsew~ ajnatupῶ soi ejk tῆ~ dokouvsh~ tavca timiva~ u”lh~ su. a dedicatory prayer can be much more verbose and incorporate extensive praise of the dedicatee. illustrious megas hetaireiarchēs.13 It is safe to assume that the cloth was commissioned around that time and donated to the new foundation as part of the couple’s endowment. a physician and poet at the courts of Alexios I (r. expressions of affection and loyalty. 14 If the prefix ajnav in the verb ajnatupovw. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 903 Dῶrovn soi kleino. founded shortly before 1294/95 by the same individuals mentioned in the epigram—the megas het- aireiarchēs Progonos Sgouros. Bogorodica Perivlepta vo Ohrid. 43–47… Ivan Zarov. In an epigram by Nicholas Kallikles. at 484–89. Some of the best examples are to be found in the epigrammatic opus of Nicholas Kallikles. Roberto Romano (Naples: Bibliopolis. see Petar Miljković-Pepek.n eijkovno~ (“an image of an image”): Nicola Callicle: Carmi. so that our sins may be pardoned. it is because all this bullion. as it were. ed.” Byzantion 13 (1938): 461–504. lovge. the transfer of this splendid gift to the Divine Logos.] Until the early twentieth century the cloth had been kept in the treasury of the Church of the Mother of God Peribleptos in Ohrid. with further bibliography.~ paggenῆ moi th. “The Ven- eration of the Virgin Hodegetria and the Hodegon Monastery.904 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram dedicated to the celebrated icon of the Virgin Hodēgētria by the sebastos John Arbantenos.17.m katoikivan diadramouvsh~ tῆ~ kavtw paroikiva~. grant me the land of the meek and the place of salvation. Romano. Arbantenos invokes the Mother of God directly. at 99. too. and trans. aJgnhv. break its molars!16 Open the emperor’s heart to me. ed. On the icon of the Hodēgētria. For. zwῆ~ plavto~. You have watched over my whole life. 5 eὗron ajnivkhtovn se ␸avrmakon novswn.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 10 (1986): 73–102. O Mistress.15 Ejmauto. substantially modified. see especially Christine Angelidi and Titos Papamastorakis. he calls her by her epithet “pure” and further praises her as a “fair-flowing 15 Nicola Callicle. grant me Paradise. at 260–62. Ar- bantenos ⬍says⬎ these ⬍words⬎ to you. 373–87. ed. Ajrbanthnov~ soi taῦta.n kateῖdon ejn taῖ~ ␸rontivsi· dovxh~ ejrῶ· parevsce~ a“␸qonon klevo~· khvdou~ crovno~· sunῆya~ ojlbivῳ gevnei.” in Mother of God: Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art. I found you as a fair-flowing stream of calm. so.~ kai. you united me with a noble family. 1).~ gnavqou~· lupeῖ dovlo~· suvntriyon aujtoῦ ta. 17 Translation after Valerie Nunn. 4. O pure one. not small gifts.n aujto. the dwelling place of every species. On Arbantenos. Bissera Pentcheva. When it was time to marry. 10 o”lon kateskivasa~ hJmῖn to. “L’obituaire du typikon du Pantocrator. 77–78 (no. chap.]17 Like the inscription on the cloth dedicated by Sgouros and his wife.n Ejde. ouj dῶra mikrav. [I bring my very self to you as a gift.~ dῶron. Appealing to her presence and attention. and reward me with fullness of life. do. Kalli- kles’s poem is essentially a personal prayer to the Virgin. I desire fame. 2006). Davknei ␸qovno~ tiv~· qlavson aujtoῦ ta. with imperial connections. Icons and Power: The Mother of God in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.~ lavtrh~ Ij wavnnh~. 16 Cf. semnh. And when this earthly sojourn has passed. crusivon kai. soi. John. smash its jaws! If deceit should cause me pain. your faithful servant. in his own voice. devspoina. 20 pistov~. Job 29. por␸uvran· ejn toῖ~ klovnoi~ ga. a golden plane tree.r kai.n bivon. klῆron ojlbivou bivou 15 do.~ praevwn gῆn kai. zavlai~ taῖ~ ejk tuvch~ eu“roun se ῥeῖqron eὗron ajtaraxiva~. and I saw a deliverance from my cares. tovpon swthriva~. Maria Vassilaki (Milan: Skira. ajpallagh. you gave me abundant glory.~ muvla~· a“noigev moi ta. I found you as an invincible cure against afflictions. grant me a glorious lot. an inheritance of prosperous life. holy Virgin. gold and purple. “The Encheirion as Adjunct to the Icon in the Middle Byzantine Period. 2000). do. If someone’s envy should bite. crusῇ platavnῳ. tῇ basilevw~ tuvcῃ. parqevne. and children. in the turmoil and distresses of fate. tevkna bravbeue kai. see Paul Gautier. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . splavgcna toῦ basilevw~· scoivnisma lamprovn. ␸evrw.” Revue des études byzantines 27 (1969): 235–62. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . spoken in the voice of the donor. Manuelis Philae carmina ex codicibus Escurialensibus. 1:131 (no. 2 vols. 1:116 (no. As her “faithful servant. Aside from acknowledging the sebastos’s debt to the Virgin. The poem here switches to an impersonal voice. Tōmadakēs. 652–59. 2:144 (no.” “reward.” “invincible cure. 244–50. ed. and trans. see. Indeed. The ostensible aim of Kallikles’s verses was to negotiate the presentation of the sumptuous icon veil. 1:129 (no. at 658. 2:194 (no. A dedicatory verse inscription in the form of a prayer is essentially a speech. Romano. wJ~ ajpov (“⬍spoken⬎ as if by”).” and even though the Virgin is not brought into the text to converse with her devotee.” he truly belongs to her. explains that it is John Arbantenos who has addressed the preceding lines—taῦta (“these ⬍words⬎”)—to her. sealed by his marriage to Anna. 254). an “I.” As in the inscription on the Crucifixion cloth. For the use of the wJ~ ejk (ajpo. in an apos- trophe to the Virgin.) proswvpou formula in other contexts. the capacity to produce offspring. 2:198 (no. 1:117 (no. 1:72 (no.” Athēna 64 (1960): 3–16. 161). Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 905 stream of calm. 166). 168). Anna prays to the Virgin to watch over her pregnancy and grant her safe delivery and also to rescue her husband. but also with a dramatic persona. Later Byzantine dedicatory epigrams often end with such a coda. 172). Arbantenos—so we are told—has enjoyed the Mother of God’s protection throughout his life.g. Emmanuel Miller. 231). which. 71). the exact nature of the patron’s involvement in 18 We know that. The forcefully stated “I” here implies a “you. “Manouēl tou Philē historika poiēmata. 92).18 and a place in Paradise. 26]). see Nikolaos B. In the verses composed by Kallikles for that occasion (Nicola Callicle. The string of imperatives laced through his petition—“smash. 104–5 [no. 224). niece of the emperor John II Komnenos. 2:153 (no.” “break.” Ekklēsiastikē Alētheia 3 (1883): 215–20. See also Manouēl I. The most significant among these was his elevation into the highest echelon of the Komnenian élite. The two concluding lines are not. 110). 2:154 (no. and the like. 19 To limit myself to the epigrammatic opus of Manuel Philes. 2:187 (no. at 8–11. 1:77 (no. an orchestrated first-person address. which Arbantenos donated to the Virgin as a thank offering. 1855–57). a small repayment for the benefactions she had bestowed upon him. The pregnant sebastē dedicated another sumptuous veil to the icon of the Hodēgētria. the most prolific poet of the early Palaiologan era. no gift could better express his intense emotional attachment to her than the gift of his own self. 1:70 (no. 2:354 (no.” “open. 1:432 (no. wJ~ ajpo. 1:74 (no. 159). which may use expressions such as ejk proswvpou (“⬍spoken⬎ in the person of”). Florentinis. who was suffering from a raging fever at the time. 223). 126). Parisinis et Vaticanis. imperial favor. in which the poet endows the patron not only with a voice. 9). 2:161 (no. 1:240 (no. Kallikles’s poem ends with a disclosure of the donor’s identity. followed by the patron’s name. 220). “Apothēsaurismata. 164). The relationship between the donor and the sacred recipient is portrayed as intrinsically personal. 1:122 (no. (Paris. in fact. 109). ed. 259).” The staged.” and “deliverance. her presence is nonetheless linguistically signaled. e. 66). stovmato~ (“⬍spoken⬎ as if from the mouth of”). Gedeōn.. 1:76 (no.19 Due to the lack of direct evidence. mediated nature of this speech is occasionally highlighted in titles attached to epigrams in manuscripts. including defense against his enemies.” and thrice-repeated “grant”—only underscores the privileged nature of his access to the Virgin. there is an emphasis on direct exchange between the human and the divine spheres. 156). 1:244 (no. Arbantenos’s wife Anna was able to conceive a child. the gift of a costly icon veil was also meant to buttress his request for further benefactions. eventually. 180). Hinterberger. 132–49. periautologia was framed and thus justified. Not only did the senator interfere with Chortasmenos’s versifying. 190–92 (b. Autobiographische Traditionen. g1). 194–95 (g. 138–39. and on the other. 22 An authoritative statement in this regard was Plutarch’s treatise On Praising Oneself Inoffen- sively: Hinterberger. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . d. regard- less of the degree to which the patron may have collaborated with the poet in formulating the prayer put into his or her mouth. if not most. 21 On periautologia. speaks about him.” 150–51. the author excused himself in a letter by saying that he had only fulfilled the express wish of his employer. In their articulation of the patron’s voice. see Hinterberger. Chor- tasmenos’s epigrams on the palace of Theodore Palaiologos Kantakouzenos are published in ibid. In dedicatory epigrams spoken in the voice of the patron. “Autobiography and Hagiography. but he also kept a close eye on the masons.22 Religious contexts provided another venue for ad- missible yet restrained self-reference. who were not allowed even to plaster a wall without his approval. or morally edify others by setting a personal example of virtuous conduct. by the religiously significant and socially commendable gesture of donation. much less revelations of interi- ority. to speak about oneself was considered acceptable or neces- sary only in specific situations. it is reasonable to assume that the commissioner often specified the ideas or sentiments that the epigram was expected to convey. literally “speaking about oneself.or herself.20 Yet. Hinterberger. idealized projections shaped by individual choices as much as by literary conventions and social norms and institutions.” car- ried negative connotation and was often equated with “boasting. by the praise of the sacred recipient and his or her benefactions bestowed upon the speaker. Herbert Hunger. the “real” and the poetic voice of the patron must be kept distinct. ed. 1969). The patron in these poetic statements plays an active role and.906 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram the creation of an epigram is difficult to ascertain. In order to understand and appreciate the logic behind the construction of identity in dedicatory epigrams in the form of a prayer. defend him. they are highly stylized discursive constructions of identity. While in many.”21 In Byzantine rhetorical practice. Gedichte und kleine Schriften (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Rather.. To say “I” was a charged gesture in Byzantium. 1436/37): Briefe.” 150–51. When a patriarchal official mocked the verses that Chortas- menos had written for the newly built palace of the senator Theodore Palaiologos Kantakouzenos in Constantinople. when the speaker is forced to reveal the truth. This kind of self-assertiveness should not be taken lightly. 165–66. e). Autobiographische Traditionen. on the one hand. assuming the “I” of the epigram. Both Christian morality and rhetorical tradition imposed severe re- strictions on self-reference. For dedicatory epigrams are by no means direct reflections of biographical reality. Johannes Chortasmenos (ca.or herself. Letter 15. we should begin with their essential feature. “Autobiography and Hagiography. Periautologia. instances the patron was probably no more involved than in rewarding the poet for his labor. dedicatory epigrams show affinities with other genres and types of discourse that dramatize the “I. 1370–ca. for instance. a view onto one’s personal emotions and experiences.” including 20 An example of a patron’s hands-on approach is preserved in the correspondence of the Late Palaiologan scholar John Chortasmenos. J. Iohannis Zonarae Lexicon ex tribus codicibus manuscriptis. Aphthonios. 163–79. On ēthopoiia as a rhetorical genre more broadly. Olms. 2 vols. 25 See Dragutin N. i.25 poems eis heauton (“to oneself”).26 and epitaphs spoken in the voice of the deceased.n. 215–18..” in The Old Testament in Byzantium. Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner. ed. (Venice: Hellēnikē Typographia tou Phoinikos. Jean Géomètre: Poèmes en hexamètres et en distiques élégiaques (Leiden and Boston: Brill. Progymnasmata. . one of the progymnasmata. and trans. eds. PG 27:24. Dyck. . 144: hjqopoiiva ejsti. 2005). Marc D. Progymnasmata 11. Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson (Washington. 2:158–62. Ethopoiia: La représentation de caractères entre fiction scolaire et réalité vivante à l’époque impériale et tardive (Salerno: Helios. and the autobiographical preface to a monastic typikon.. contrition. 30 Aphthonios. Hence. . 1966). 7th ed.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 16 (1907): 479–501. 77–105. It is interesting to note that the thirteenth-century Lexicon of Pseudo-Zonaras uses the expression wJ~ ejk proswvpou in its definition of prosōpopoiia. ed.1. 2008). 31–32. 1851). Byzantine Poetry. either autonomous or inserted into a larger narrative. communion prayers. ēthopoiia..~ ei“pῃ. praise. 1:108–16. Hōrologion to mega. see Hans-Martin Hagen. 29 See Hunger. See also the celebrated hymn on the sinful woman by the poetess Cassia: Christ and Paranikas. Emilie Marlène van Opstall. typically a critical moment in his or her life. 1871. Anthologia graeca carminum christianorum (Leipzig: Teubner. however. see Athanasios of Alexandria’s famous Letter to Marcellinus 11–12. ed. 1808). with Andrew R. Corpus rhetoricum: Anonyme. Progym- nasmata (Paris: Les Belles Lettres.. “Alphabete. En annexe: Pseudo. Tittmann. or foundation charter. (Munich: Beck. esp. 2:1578: proswpopoii?a. 24 See Stefanos Alexopoulos and Annewies van den Hoek. Autobiographische Traditionen. Anthologia.~.”30 The writer’s task in composing it was to imagine what a particular person would say in a given situation. wJ~ ejk proswvpou tino. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . A. ed. Hildesheim: G. 104.Hermogène. “On Cassia. Michel Patillon.. 2010). or character study. catanyctic alphabets. Studien zu den Epitaphien des Manuel Philes (Heraklion: s. Anastasijewić. represents “an imi- tation of the character of a proposed speaker. “Psalters and Personal Piety in Byzantium.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 60 (2006): 145–88. and thanksgiving in the first person singular. as the rhetorician Aphthonios (late fourth and early fifth century CE) defines it. 2008). Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur. repr. many freestanding ēthopoiiai are intro- duced by the formulaic question Tivna~ a]n ei“poi lovgou~….. Parpulov. 71–74. Préambule à la rhétorique. On the role of the Psalms in personal piety. mivmhsi~ h“qou~ uJpokeimevnou proswvpou. Kuvrie hJ ejn pollaῖ~ . Ēthopoiia is a rhetorical genre widely practiced in Byzantium both as a class- room exercise. Lauxtermann. “What words would Medea say when she is about 23 Notable examples include the Great Paraklētikos Kanōn and the Small Paraklētikos Kanōn to the Virgin. The Spring of Rhythm: An Essay on the Political Verse and Other Byzantine Metres (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.. deserve special attention: ēthopoiia. eds. 2 vols. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 907 23 24 first-person passages in liturgical hymns. 76–79. “The Endicott Scroll and Its Place in the History of Private Communion Prayers. (Leipzig: Crusius.27 A constant point of reference is the language of the Psalms— the paradigmatic poetry of prayer. Eugenio Amato and Jacques Schamp. o”tan ti~ provswpon uJpoqevmeno~ e”teron h] uJpodu. or “What words would so-and-so say?”—for example. Hinterberger. H. Lauxtermann. 1978). and the Great Kanōn of Andrew of Crete: Bartholomaios Koutloumousianos. Wilhelm von Christ and Matthaios Paranikas.” Byzantion 56 (1986): 63–76. H j qopoiΐa: Zur Geschichte eines rhetorischen Begriffs (Erlangen: s. 26 See Herbert Hunger. 31–35.n.28 Two genres. 1984). 28 On the language of the Psalms as a model and a mirror for the Christian reader. 27 See Nikolaos Papadogiannakis. and as a literary composition. 415–33. 1963). eds. see Georgi R.e.29 Ēthopoiia. 1999). found himself naked. 32 Niceforo Basilace: Progimnasmi e Monodie. of course. 1832. the choice of appropriate diction depending on the speaker’s age. future archbishop of Thessalonike. Rather. and moral disposition (ethical ēthopoiia).” in La retorica greca fra tardo antico ed età bizantina: Idee e forme. as well as on the specific circumstances in which the delivery of the speech was imagined to take place. an anonymous writer penned a poem in the so-called political verse entitled Tivna~ a]n ei“pῃ lovgou~ oJ uiJo. before the twelfth century. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . will. Cinnami Ethopoeia. the foremost among the twelfth-century practitioners of the genre. Central to effective characterization was the observance of the principle of prepon. “The Anonymous Progymnasmata in John Doxapatres’ Homiliae in Aphthonium. and trans. and so forth. occupation. or combine the presentation of character with the por- trayal of emotional pathos (mixed ēthopoiia). ed. 1972). See also Lia Raffaella Cresci. ed. Adriana Pignani (Naples: Bibliopolis. 139–232. having been robbed of his clothes in a bathhouse. and trans. with emendations in Peter Wirth.” Classica et mediaevalia 21 (1960): 215–17. (Stuttgart: Cotta.” Byzantina 15 (1989): 351–67. ed. 2012). Tafel (Frankfurt-am-Main: Schmer- ber. The conventions of the genre were employed in other kinds of literary compositions that called for rhetorical dramatizations of the “I. 80). 1041–42): Van Opstall. “Ēthopoiia di argomento storico nella poesia bizantina. 281– 88 (no. Rhetores Graeci. 35 Basilikē Kouphopoulou. that is. 234–36.31 while Nikephoros Basilakes.. M. 328–32. too. and trans. Authors as diverse as Michael Italikos and John Kinnamos occasionally engaged in composing freestanding ēthopoiiai.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 102/1 (2009): 83–94. at 362–65. I believe. György Bánhegyi (Budapest: Kir. social status. not ēthopoiiai in the strict sense. repr. 34 Eustathii metropolitae Thessalonicensis opuscula.32 In the twelfth century. were considered a suitable subject for such rhetorical exercises. ed. in their verbal staging of the patron’s persona.33 Eustathios.~ toῦ ejpi. 2:508–9. Amsterdam: Hakkert. Paul Gautier (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines. F. 963–69) and an anonymous ēthopoiia of Michael V Kalaphates (r. ed.~ dia␸ulacqeiv~… (“What words would the son of the epi tou kanikleiou say after having been saved unharmed?”). T. D’Auria. they draw in a varying degree upon the patterns of rhetorical characterization. 1964). it should be pointed out. contemporary figures. Christian Walz. with Craig A. “Dyo anekdota poiēmata gia ton gio tou Theodōrou Styppeiōtē. Ṕazmany Péter Tudományegyetemi Görög Filológiai intézet. Dedicatory epigrams are.908 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram to murder her children?” The writer could either focus on the speaker’s emotions (pathetical ēthopoiia) or foreground his or her character. free-standing ēthopoiiai may feature contemporary imperial figures. left over two dozen character studies of biblical heroes and personages from pagan mythology and ancient history. 1983). Gibson.34 And when the son of the epi tou kanikleiou Theodore Styppeiotes. L. 1832–36). ed. sur- vived a fall from an upper floor of their family residence. wrote an ēthopoiia of the metropolitan Neophytos of Mokessos who. that the genre of ēthopoiia gained increasing popularity in the Komnenian era. Examples include John Geometres’s ēthopoiia of Nikephoros II Phokas (r.35 This Komne- nian enthusiasm for ēthopoiia was not limited to writing autonomous character studies. 1943). 9 vols. Ugo Criscuolo (Naples: M.” Scholars have 31 Michel Italikos: Lettres et Discours. a high official at the court of Manuel I Komnenos.’ zum Briefcorpus des Erzbischofs Eustathios von Thessalonike?. toῦ kanikleivou ajblabh. at 91–92. Jean Géomètre. 33 Exceptionally. 337–53. “Gehört die Ethopoiie ‘Poius an eipe logous ktl. It is no accident. much to the amusement of the crowd that gathered to mock him. 6–10. which is precisely the time when the “I” speech emerged as the dominant form of dedicatory epigram. 37 The same. in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Trans- lation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. at 19–23. 1:333–35. Rose- mary Morris. 129–44. Hayez. 1921). “Le typikon du sébaste Grégoire Pakourianos. esp.43 To be sure. and laments. Monks and Laymen in Byzantium.” Revue des études byzantines 39 (1981): 5–143. these autobiographical prefaces are complex documents with important legal and institutional ramifications. in which the founder gives an account of his or her life and explains the motives that guided him or her in setting up or restoring a monastic house. “Autobiography and Hagiography. “Constructing Identities in Twelfth-Century Byzantium.” in Mnēmē Stamatē Karatza (Thessalonike: Aristoteleio Panepistēmio Thessalonikēs. Amphoteroglossia: A Poetics of the Twelfth-Century Medieval Greek Novel (Washington. 40 Paul Gautier. Beginning in the eleventh century. ed. trans. Margaret Mullett. 61–111. Alice-Mary Talbot. Deux typica byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues (Brussels: M. 5… Margaret Mullett.” Analecta Bollandiana 51 (1933): 263–84. 43 Hippolyte Delehaye. “La diataxis de Michel Attaliate. “The Autobiographical Impulse. but to the extent that they contain first-person narratives of individual quests for 36 See Roderick Beaton. 2005). trans. 37 See Panagiotis Roilos. trans. if not earlier.” Byzantion 29–30 (1959– 60): 447–76. 4:1523–27. Hinterberger. “Ptōchoprodromika Gv : Hē ēthopoiia tou ataktou monachou. may be said of contemporary epigrammatic poetry. in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents.” in Byzan- tium Matures. 42 Hippolyte Delehaye. ed. 3: 1241–47. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 909 already drawn attention to the importance of the tradition of ēthopoiia for understanding works such as the Ptochoprodromic poems36 or the twelfth-century erotic novels with their sequences of speeches. 101–7. 2007). 20–27. Hinterberger. 1990). it became common to introduce a monastic foundation charter with an autobiographical preface. 38 See Michael Angold. Angelidi. at 279–82. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 39 Paul Gautier. 46–70… Angold.” Revue des études byzantines 45 (1987): 77–138.38 Notable examples composed by or for lay founders include the prefaces to the Diataxis of Michael Attaleiates for the Monastery of Christ Panoiktirmōn in Constantinople and a poorhouse at Rhaidestos on the Black Sea (1077). 1995). By the time the dedicatory epigram in the form of a prayer gained currency. Founders and Refounders of Byzantine Monasteries (Belfast: Belfast Byzantine Enterprises. Roderick Beaton and Charlotte Roueché (Aldershot: Variorum. in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. 4:1377–79. (Washington. 41 Henri Grégoire. in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents.” 225–57. “Byzan- tine Ktetorika Typika: A Comparative Study. 2000). at 129–33.. 1300). in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. ed.” in The Making of Byzantine History.” 142–47. Alice-Mary Talbot.” Revue des études byzantines 42 (1984): 5–145. I would insist. Alice-Mary Talbot. 843–1118 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ed. at 447–65. 1259–82) for the Monastery of Saint Demetrios in Constantinople (1282). chap. 5 vols.42 and the testamentary oration of Constantine Akropolites for the Monastery of the Anastasis in Constantinople (c. “Imperatoris Michaelis Palaeologi de vita sua. 183– 201. 522–24. 1993). trans. esp.40 the Typikon of the emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (r.41 the Typikon of Theodora Palaiologina Synadene for the Convent of the Mother of God Bebaia Elpis in Constantinople (c. “Were Byzantine Monastic Typika Literature?. trans. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 2:519–20. 1320). Autobiographische Traditionen. Robert Jordan. John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero. dramatic monologues. 29–35. George Dennis. the “I” speech had already become a mode of discourse associated with religious donation. at 17–25. DC: Center for Hellenic Studies. albeit in a different context.39 the Typikon of Gregory Pakourianos for the Monastery of the Mother of God Petritzonitissa at Bačkovo in Bulgaria (1083). “Constantini Acropolitae hagiographi byzantini epistularum manipulus. See also Catia Galatariotou. “A cor- 44 See especially Angold. This urge.” in Poetry and Its Contexts in Eleventh-Century Byzantium. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . personal identity may be construed as a product of such performances. see Mullett. “Constructing Identities. in eleventh. Goffman employs the metaphor of theater to describe and analyze everyday encounters. developed around the theme of religious donation. In the first half of this poem. “Revisiting the Twelfth-Century Individual: The Inner Self and the Christian Community.44 Its impact.45 Rather. they come close to dedicatory epigrams. For the debate about the “discovery” of the individual in the twelfth-century West. He conceives of face-to-face interactions as a series of performances in which individuals present themselves to different audiences. Although full-fledged autobiographies were hardly ever written in Byzantium.” 225–57. the autobiographical impulse was strong and left its imprint on a wide variety of writings. Despite a marked distaste for factual detail that is characteristic of the epigrammatic genre as a whole. ed. 2012). in the rise of the “I” speech as the dominant form of dedicatory address. Change in Byzantine Culture. too. a study that provides what is arguably the most influential account of the mechanisms and nature of social and cultural transformations in medieval Byzantium. 37–38… Paul Magdalino. see the overview in Susan R. The phenomenon of the autobiographical preface and the increasing prominence of dedicatory epigrams featuring the patron’s prayer should thus be seen as manifestations of the same self-representational urge. may be identified.and twelfth-century Byzantium. 57–63. from histories and saints’ vitae to travel reports and letters of resignation. Arbantenos reflects on his past experiences.” 129–44. See also Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein. Lauxtermann. Kramer and Caroline W. most notably in his seminal The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). at 29–30. is not so much a testament to a new kind of self-awareness. let alone individuality. esp. 220–30. it represents an aspect of what seems to be a broader shift in Byzantine religious culture toward more personal and more affective forms of self-expression. Floris Bernard and Kristoffel Demoen (Farnham: Ashgate. by the emergence and relative popularity of the genre of the autobiographical preface to a monastic charter. one can often detect autobiographical elements in dedicatory epigrams. In Goffman’s view. 45 The rise of the individual in the eleventh and twelfth centuries is one of the guiding themes in Kazhdan and Wharton Epstein. “The Autobiographical Impulse. esp. this impulse seems to have gained in momentum in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Congenial to my understanding of performance and selfhood in this context is the notion of the performative self formulated by the so- ciologist Erving Goffman. one recalls. 19–36. I believe. Bynum. 57–85. Change in Byzantine Culture. among other things. “Cultural Change? The Context of Byzantine Poetry from Geometres to Prodromos. I would argue.” in Das Eigene und das Ganze.910 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram salvation. Melville and Schürer. Kallikles’s epigram on the veil dedicated to the icon of the Hodēgētria by the sebastos John Arbantenos is a good example. ed. For a critique of this study as it relates to the question of individuality. With its dramatization of the “I. As evidenced. As noted above.” the dedicatory epigram in the form of a prayer provides an account of the patron’s self. the “I” that speaks in the epigram is less an historical person than a dramatic persona performing on the stage of the inscribed object. Byzantine Poetry. attempting to manage and control the impressions they make. making oblique reference to his rise to eminence and his crowning achievement—his marriage to an imperial niece. a point to which I shall return in the second part of this essay. 58–78. points to a mode of self-presentation that privileges conformity over individuality. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 911 rectly staged and performed scene. 2007). In social terms. In Byzantium. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . a golden plane tree.” Good birth had always been a sign of social distinction in Byzantium. Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium. Indeed. one divine and the other human. but following the accession of the Komnenoi to the throne.” Viator 4 (1973): 131– 51… Paul Magdalino. 252–53. ed.48 References to lineage abound in later Byzantine dedicatory epigrams.”47 The epigrammatic staging of the patron’s “I” is. the patron’s identity is typically defined through title. as in other medieval cultures. which serve to determine the patron’s place in a network of social relations and hierarchies. and to die. the objects bearing dedicatory inscriptions were instrumental in negotiating simultaneously the patron’s relationship with the divine realm—a host of heavenly protectors and intercessors—and with his or her broader community on earth. eugeneia. “The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan Period: A Story of Arrested Development. a requisite attribute of the élite—a notion that persisted until the fall of the empire. no. if ex- treme. but his dramaturgical framework may be brought to bear on the construction of identity in devotional artifacts inscribed with dedicatory verses. which Theodora Raoulaina. a matrimonial bond that united him with “a noble family.”46 The self. The sole concrete autobiographical detail mentioned in the donor’s dutiful acknowledgement of the Virgin’s benefactions on his behalf concerns his marriage with the emperor’s niece. very different from the kind of performances explored by Goffman. the anonymous author of the dedicatory verses on the Crucifixion cloth from Ohrid did not fail to spell out the impeccable Komnenian pedigree of Sgouros’s wife Eudokia. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Garden City: Doubleday. 105–9. and lineage. see Angeliki E. of course. One aspect of the epigrammatic performance that needs to be emphasized here is that it is addressed to two distinct audiences. to mature. Accord- ingly. 1204–1330 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michael Angold (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports 1984). 47 Ibid. 48 On eugeneia and the importance of lineage in Byzantium. This emphasis on the conventional markers of status. The epigram on the veil dedicated by Arbantenos is characteristic in this regard. moreover.” English Historical Review 122. As we have seen. a niece of the emperor Michael VIII 46 Erving Goffman. put schematically. Peter Frankopan. with imperial connections.” as he puts it. 495 (February 2007): 1–34. 252.” Journal des savants (July–December 2000): 281–322. it is a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented. rank. A telling. dedicatory epigrams may be said to construct an identity for the patron along two axes: the horizontal axis of social positioning and the vertical axis of devotion. IX to XIII Centuries. “Kinship and the Distribution of Power in Komnenian Byzantium.. Jean-Claude Cheynet. therefore. whose fundamental fate is to be born. testament to this obsession with eugeneia can be found in a set of epigrams composed by Maximos Planoudes for the Church of Saint Andrew en tē Krisei in Constantinople. “leads the audience to impute a self to a performed character. 1959). was positively identified as a virtue and. 226–34. Dimiter Angelov.” in The Byzantine Aristocracy. “is not an organic thing that has a specific location. “L’aristocratie byzantine (VIIIe–XIIIe s. “Byzantine Snobbery. Laiou. or nobility.). the practice of religious donation responded to both devotional and social concerns. at 415–18 (nos. Alexander Riehle. one in a manuscript of Ailios Aristeides in the Vatican (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. at 134–35. Umbau und Neubau von Profan. In this verbal exposition of who the patroness is. see Trapp. It is in the realm of personal piety that the patron’s “I” truly emerges as the bearer of a distinct self—a devotional self.~ tῶn pragmavtwn kai. Lioba Theis. For us.” in Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond.] Following upon this introductory statement is a detailed account of Theodora’s noble ancestry. Galina Fingarova. tῶn proswvpwn ejn gra␸aῖ~ parastavsei~. from whom I descend. ed. with further bibliography. a kind of definition of what an epigram is sup- posed to do. the word tucerov in Modern Greek. presumably intended to accompany a donor portrait of Theodora. MS 3649). as well as of the ancestry of her deceased husband John. “Epigrammata Maximou Planoudē. which runs to over thirty lines.49 One of Planoudes’s poems. 51 The word tuvch in this particular context carries the additional meaning of “marriage”: cf. something that differentiates us from others. and often fairly individualized forms of self-presentation. the verses state:50 Ejpigra␸ai.” 416 (no.. Restaurierung. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. MS Vat. And I make known by means of ⬍this⬎ inscription who I am. the self is something unique.912 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Palaiologos. Architecture and Ritual in the Churches of Constantinople: Ninth to Fifteenth Centuries (New York: Cambridge University Press. 1994). offices. 2014). Margaret Mullett. and Matthew Savage (Vienna: Böhlau. and freedom. restored sometime between 1282 and 1289. one needs to turn to the vertical axis of devotion. 1899) and the other in a manuscript of Simplikios’s commentary on Aristotle’s Physics in Moscow (State Historical Museum. and strings of family names. but addressed to a visitor to her church rather than to the church’s patron saint.”52 To look for less conventional. dhloῦsi ta. with further bibliography. The performative forging of this self is governed by two operational principles: resemblance and relationality. 2). “Zametki o grecheskikh rukopisiakh sovetskikh khranilishch. complete with titles. 10943. Vasileios Marinis. 299–315. see Vassilios Kidonopoulos. Codices graeci Vaticani saeculis XIII et XIV scripti annorumque notis instructi (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana. lineage is not simply a mark of social distinction.” Neos Hellēnomnēmōn 13 (1916): 414–21. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . however. tivnwn pev␸uka kai. See Alexander Turyn. 1964). gr. Fonkich. Modern thinking typically conceives of personal identity in terms of singular- ity. any consideration of the questions of identity and selfhood inevitably returned to Genesis 49 The epigrams are published in Spyridōn Lambros.” Vizantiı̆skiı̆ vremennik 36 (1974): 134–38. more diverse and imaginative. 50 Lambros. On Theodora Raoulaina. Spoken in the voice of the patroness. 63–65… Boris L. Bauten in Konstantinopel 1204– 1328: Verfall und Zerstörung. “Kaiv se prostavtin ejn aujtoῖ~ tῆ~ aujtῶn ejpigravyomen swthriva~: Theodora Raulaina als Stifterin und Patronin. Michael Grünbart. “Epigrammata Maximou Planoudē. 1–3). 9–10. tivno~ tuvch~. In the Christian Middle Ages. 119–22. Ejpigra␸ῇ divdwmi kajgw. On the Church of Saint Andrew en tē Krisei.und Sakralbauten (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 2014). and what my fortune51 is. ed. no. opens with a programmatic statement. [Inscriptions explain the things and persons depicted in images. autonomy. manqavnein tiv~ kai. but a crucial aspect of one’s identity: “who I am” is here tantamount to “from whom I descend. 52 Theodora’s pride in her eugeneia is also reflected in two book epigrams that she may have authored herself. 70–90.56 Arbantenos’s rise to eminence and his inclusion among the imperial sebastoi may have defined his persona in social terms. not of self. 57 Angelidi and Papamastorakis.’ It is as if each wondrously unique infant were wrapped by its social environment in thick swaddling clothes which must be broken or cut away in order for the individual ‘personality’ to appear most fully. “Consciousness of Self.”55 The principle of resemblance is clearly at work in dedicatory epigrams in the form of a prayer. Aside from being fashioned after a set of exemplary characters and types. sums up eloquently this basic difference between the modern and the medieval notions of selfhood: “[T]he conceptualization of the nature of self and of what we call ‘personality’ differed from our own. identity is not a matter of individuality in the modern sense. 2006). In the realm of personal piety. including the roles of the servant of a holy figure. the repentant sinner. The purpose of a dedicatory prayer and the object it accompanies was ultimately to create such an identity for the patron by placing him or her in a direct relationship with the dedicatee. Zizioulas. to support this hypothesis. For a theological perspective on the self as emerging through relationship. today it is commonly for the sake of self alone. as we shall see. Within the framework of biblical anthropology. The patron here assumes and reenacts a set of normative roles. the self is constituted by its connectedness to a divine or saintly Other. It is common for a seal to identify its owner not only by spelling 53 The following remark by Benton. whose unfailing protection he has enjoyed his entire life. To state the matter in a metaphor of direction. 55 Ibid. 1985)… John D. but of conformity and identification with prescribed models. “The Veneration of the Virgin Hodegetria. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. when a person sets out to ‘find himself. Paul McPartlan (London: T & T Clark. an instructive parallel to dedicatory epigrams is provided by seals—the paradigmatic markers of personal identity in Byzantium. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood: St. but Kallikles’s verses portray him primarily as a “faithful servant” of the Virgin. In medieval thought the persona was not inner but outer. “to be was to be alike. passim. There is no direct evidence. and even smother the ‘true self. 6. ed.” 54 See especially Bedos-Rezak. but of God. one’s true inner self was ultimately this likeness of the Divine Creator and thus something shared by all humans.53 Even beyond this fundamental theological premise. ed. the patron may appear in the guise of a paradigmatic biblical character. hide.26–27 and the notion of man being created in the image of God. Brakke et al. Zizioulas.. and looking behind the individualized mask eventually brought one closer to the uniqueness. the grateful giver. resemblance was a key mechanism for the formation of medieval identities. In the epigrammatic performances of the devotional self. in the Middle Ages the journey inward was a journey toward self for the sake of God. In the modern secular world.” 379.. “Prayer of the Queen: Esther’s Religious Self in the Septuagint. Occasionally. Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood and the Church. When Ego Was Imago. see John D. see Esther Menn.” in Religion and the Self in Antiquity.’ his quest is usually conceived of as a stripping away of the layers of conformity and contrived artifice and the psychological defenses which encrust. albeit in a different context.” 285. privileged relationship with the Mother of God that invests Arbantenos with an alternative devotional identity. 56 For the notion of the relational self in prayer. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . have suggested that Arbantenos may have been a member of a special confraternity dedicated to the service of the Hodēgētria. 227. Regarding the principle of relationality. however. often simultaneously. the patron’s devotional identity is fundamentally relational. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 913 1.54 To borrow a felicitous phrase from Brigitte Bedos-Rezak.57 It is this special. and the affectionate lover. DC). 18. Washington.58 The obverse of the seal shows an image of Saint Basil the Great. at 162–68. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 19. ed. 6). Catalogue of Byzantine Seals at Dumbarton Oaks and in the Fogg Museum of Art. 35–45. 57–59.80). out his or her name. and—increasingly from the late eleventh century onward—lineage. The seal of Basil.” Byzantion 75 (2005): 383–497.914 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig. Phountoulēs (Thessalonike: University Studio Press. 2006). 6. metropolitan of Thessalonike. Byzantine Collection. Mētropolitēs Thessalonikēs (1145–post 1160): Enas Byzantinos kanonologos se dialogo me tēn latinikē Dysē. mid-twelfth century. Siegellegenden von Alpha bis inklusive My (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. “L’épigraphie des bulles de plomb byzantines.” in Christianikē Thessalonikē: Polis synantēseōs Anatolēs kai Dyseōs. see Kōnstantinos G. esp. 59 See Nicolas Oikonomidès. Gender. Nicolas Oikonomides. 153–68. John Cotsonis. vol. 1991–2009). Prak- tika IAv Diethnous Epistēmonikou Symposiou. the metropolitan [literally. “Basileios Achridēnos. Washington. Einleitung. and Clientele. John Cotsonis. “Narrative Scenes on Byzantine Lead Seals (Sixth–Twelfth Centuries): Frequency. but also by revealing the owner’s spiritual allegiances. 259–96. Corpus der byzantinischen Siegel mit metrischen Legenden.” in Epigrafia medievale greca e latina: Ideologia e funzione. Guglielmo Cavallo and Cyril Mango (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. a dodecasyllable monostichon in the form of an invocation addressed to the saint: OJmwvnumovn soi Qettalῶn quvthn skevpe (“Protect your namesake. Iconography. Pitsakēs. “sacrificer”] of the Thessalians”). esp. constitute the majority in the 58 John Nesbitt and Nicolas Oikonomides.59 Much like dedicatory epigrams featuring the patron’s prayer. Clearly. the seal identifies the metropolitan first and foremost as a devotee of his saintly namesake and protector. in the Dum- barton Oaks Collection is a typical example (Fig. John Cotsonis. DC (photo: Dumbarton Oaks.” Gesta 48/1 (2009): 55–86. 1. 6 vols. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1995). On the metropolitan Basil. ed. I should add. Such emphasis on personal piety is characteristic of the Byzantine sphragistic practice. a mid-twelfth-century metropolitan of Thessalonike. Office and Images on Byzantine Lead Seals: A Means of Investigating Personal Piety. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 10–15. “The Contribution of Byzantine Lead Seals to the Study of the Cult of the Saints (Sixth–Twelfth Century). 2011). while the reverse bears an inscription. titles. (Color online) Seal of Basil. 1985). personal seals with religious themes—and they. Iōannēs M. 1:78 (no. (Washington. Byzantine Lead Seals (Washington.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32 (2008): 1–37. “Onomastics. Dumbarton Oaks. Alexandra-Kyriaki Wassiliou-Seibt. or “the Hope of the Hope- less. “Byzantine Enamels in Bavaria. The epithet written in niello on either side of the nimbus identifies this Virgin as hJ Ejlpi. featuring enamel medallions with holy figures: the archangels Michael and Gabriel are at the top. Kanstrivsio~ taῦtav soi pros␸evrwn levgei 10 Manouh. also sheathed with precious metal. Devotional Self-Fashioning: Three Examples With these general observations in mind. Rhoby. 16). let us now turn to three examples of devotional artifacts inscribed with dedicatory prayers. 1975). Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot: Ashgate. Les revêtements en or et en argent des icônes byzantines du Moyen Âge (Venice: Institut hellénique d’études byzantines et post-byzantines. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. crusoῦ ␸uvsi~ o“ntw~ devxainto ῥuvpon wJ~ ejn ␸qartῇ oujsivᾳ· 5 ejk de.” in Images of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium. “Byzantinē phorētē eikōn en Freising. personal identity is not an essence but a relation. this delicate small panel shows a half-length figure of the Mother of God. ed. ed. and Damian—the latter’s medallion fragmen- tarily preserved—are at the bottom. the so-called Freising Lukas- bild (Fig. Panteleimon.l Disuvpato~ tavxei lebivth~. In addition to illustrating various strategies of devotional self. cruso. 1998). staging.” Kunst- chronik 17 (1964): 85–91. Kai. 263–74. 7). duswpῶn mevnei. a symbolic image of the prepared divine throne. gently gazing out at the spectator. Ik12).fashioning.” Archaiologikē Ephēmeris (1937): 501–6… Christian Wolters. 84 (Marcell Restle). the self emerges through submission to a holy Other. Yucῆ~ povqo~. Rom und Byzanz: Schatzkammerstücke aus bayerischen Sammlungen (Munich: Hirmer. tῇ kaqarᾷ pros␸evrontai parqevnῳ· a“rguro~ mevntoi kai.n ῥeusto. the apostles Peter and Paul and the great warrior saints George and Demetrios are at the sides. yucῆ~ oJ povqo~ w]n ajqanavtou ou“t’ a]n spivlon devxaito ou“te mh. The nimbus and background of the figure are covered with gilded silver. to. material objects. w« parqevne.n tevlo~· ka]n ga. sῶma toῦt’ ᾍdou tovpῳ. In both of these media of self-presentation available to élite Byzantines. cat. David Buckton. no. “Praying for the Salvation of the Empire?. and three doctor saints Cosmas.r luqῇ to. 64–68 (no. toῦ tῆ~ yucῆ~ oi“ktou se.60 Measuring a mere 27.~ trivto~ soi.n toῦton ajntididoῦsa bivon 60 On this icon. the purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate how in the construction. André Grabar. see Marinos Kalligas. The rest of the frame is occupied by a poetic inscription densely lettered in blue enamel against gold ground. In this context. Reinhold Baumstark.~ tῶn Ajpelpismevnwn. 2005). 41–43 (no. and performance of the patron’s “I” inscriptions work in concert with crafted. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 915 post-iconoclastic era—posit a relational model of selfhood..5 cm. “Beobachtungen am Freisinger Lukasbild. a“rguro~ kai.” Mitteilungen zur spätantiken Archäologie und byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte 2 (2000): 93–105.8 × 21. reverently turned towards the so-called Het- oimasia. taῦta devxai sumpaqῶ~.” Surrounding the central field of the icon is a broad frame. her hands raised in supplication. My first example is a celebrated icon of the Virgin. at 97–99… Maria Vassilaki. 61 [The desire of my soul. is certainly more satisfying than tevknon or tevknoi~—the readings found in Kalligas. and thirdly gold are ⬍here⬎ offered to you. except for two minor lacunae in the right-hand plaque at the bottom. third quarter of the fourteenth century. Freising. silver and gold could be stained since they are of perishable 61 The inscription is well preserved. 7. However. The reconstruction of the final word in the plaque as tevlo~. Freising). “Beobachtungen. 43) at the suggestion of M.916 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig. Diözesanmuseum.” 86. the pure Virgin.~ tev[lo~]. and Wolters. taῖ~ saῖ~ dielqeῖn ajnwvdunon presbeivai~ wJ~ hJmevra~ deivxeia~ kai. ␸wto. respectively. “Byzantinē phorētē eikōn. F 1 (photo: Diözesanmuseum. adopted by Grabar (Les revêtements. inv. Manousakas.” 505. and silver. (Color online) Icon of the Virgin Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . no. and Denise Papachryssanthou. 2 vols. desire] will continue to entreat you for the mercy of my soul. Nancy Patterson Ševčenko. and grant in return that through your entreaties I may traverse this ephemeral life free from pain. “Beobachtungen.” in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557). and enamels.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 53 (1999): 75–90.e. 5… Annemarie W. 2002). Most scholars identify the patron recorded in the inscription with Manuel Opsaras Dishypatos. For various attempts to reconcile the chronology resulting from this identification with the one suggested by the stylistic features of the icon’s painted surface. An X-ray examination has revealed that an earlier depiction of the Virgin lies underneath the paint surface. “Koinōnikes dynameis stis Serres sto 14o aiōna. Technique and Technology. “Vita Icons and ‘Decorated’ Icons of the Komnenian Period. an official of the metropolis of Serres in Byzantine Macedonia. Helen C. To supply a devotional image with a luxury adornment was a favored act of artistic patronage in Later Byzantium. 87–88. “Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptions on Art and Architecture of the Palaiologan Era. khudozhestvennyı̆ obraz (Moscow: Progress-Traditsiia. 57–69. it most likely served as Dishypatos’s personal devotional image. 1:203–19. metalwork. could not be stained nor come to an end.. On Manuel Opsaras Dishypatos. ed. simvolika. O Virgin. Bertrand Davezac (Houston: Menil Foundation. ed. Carr. see Grabar. it [i.64 according to whom the patron is more likely to be identified with the deacon Manuel Dishypatos. I subscribe to the view advanced by the late Titos Papamastorakis.e. 63 This identification was first proposed by Kalligas.]62 The relative chronology of the Freising icon has been the subject of some contro- versy. chap. 1970–82).” Gesta 45/2 (2006): 189–98… Brigitte Pitarakis. 2004). Jannic Durand. a mid-thirteenth-century metropolitan of Thessalonike.65 Dishypatos appears to have been responsible not only for enhancing the icon with the addition of a precious-metal revetment. “Donors in the Frames of Icons: Living in the Borders of Byzantine Art. Nicolas Svoronos. n.63 While this is no place to revisit the available evidence.” in Byzantine Icons: Art. 67 On the phenomenon of icon adornment. but also for having it re- painted. Dragotsennyı̆ ubor drevnerusskikh ikon XI–XIV vekov: Proiskhozhdenie.66 Given the icon’s intimate scale. Sacred Shock: Framing Visual Experience in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.” esp.” in Diethnes Synedrio “Hoi Serres kai hē periochē tous apo tēn archaia stē metabyzantinē koinōnia”: Praktika. 64 Papamastorakis expressed his view in a paper delivered at the Twenty-Eighth Symposium of Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Archaeology and Art of the Society for Christian Archaeology (Cris- tianikhv Arcaiologikhv Etaireiva). Les revêtements. Receive them compassionately. Lethielleux. whereas the desire. 2004). 35–47. deacon] offering these ⬍gifts⬎ to you. “Les revêtements Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) ..” 506. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. ed..67 The verses on the frame of the Freising 62 The translation modifies the one rendered by Alice-Mary Talbot. 60. see Trapp. (Thessalonike: Dēmos Serrōn. Glenn Peers. at 82. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 917 material. ed. “The Display of Accumulated Wealth in Luxury Icons: Gift-Giving from the Byzantine Aristocracy to God in the Twelfth Century. no. at 209. see the references cited above. On this figure. Actes de Lavra.” in Four Icons in the Menil Collection. 3:90–92 (no. 66 See Wolters. “Byzantinē phorētē eikōn. 1998). 4 vols. 143). held at the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens on May 17. coming from the immortal soul. Sterligova. (Paris: P. 243–51. mentioned in a document of 1365. see also Angeliki Laiou. 90. André Guillou. 2008. Thus speaks the kanstrisios Manuel Dishypatos of the order of Levites [i. 2000)… Titos Papamastorakis. Irina A. “Precious-Metal Icon Revetments. 5544. 65 Paul Lemerle. Evans (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. until you show the end of the day and light. For even if this body should dissolve in Hades. 1992). Maria Vassilaki (Heraklion: Panepistēmiakes Ekdoseis Krētēs. Manuelis Philae carmina inedita ex cod. 120. Pentcheva. the vocabulary of affection—in hymnographic texts. line 9).” 318–19. 8. Emidio Martini. Nicola Callicle. “Erotica: On the Prehistory of Greek Desire.” 31 (no. The Sensual Icon: Space. line 12)… Spingou. 2:194 (no. line 7).” or “attitude”—is best translated as “affection” or simply “love. Spingou. 1:311 (no. however. 93 (no. an attachment that occasionally assumes the guise of erotic passion.” Neos Hellēnomnēmōn 8 (1911): 2–59.v. Dishypatos honors her not only with silver and gold. treating it simply as a synonym for devotion. “Un reliquiario bizantino di S.” Cahiers archéologiques 53 (2009– 10): 129–42. A notable exception is Bernard.68 schesis (scevsi~). 1994). line 24). Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld ‘Verlangen/Begehren’ im frühgriechischen Epos (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.70 but pothos is by far the most common among them. esp. line 14). ed. passim… Michael Weiss. Me81.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 98 (1998): 31–61. 69 When encountered in dedicatory epigrams in the context of donation. in epigrammatic discourse the personal rapport between a devotee and a holy figure is commonly portrayed in emotional terms.” The majority of examples come from the epigrammatic opus of Manuel Philes. line 2). 71 Despite its ubiquity in dedicatory epigrams. lines 4. 172. “The Structure of Inscriptional Dedicatory Epigrams. 334. Bissera V. 188. 40. Gedeōn. “Ho Markianos kōdix 524. See Manuelis Philae carmina.g. a feeling of intense longing for the object of love that lies beyond the lover’s reach. points to the comparable use of pothos— and more broadly. line 6). not only in the fact that pothos is less sexualized than erōs. C VII 7 Bibliothe- cae nationalis Taurinensis et cod. but also with pothos. Spingou.” Byzantion 35 (1965): 62–82. s. at 63–64. Lambros..72 As spelled out already by Plato in Cratylus 420a. Romano.. and the Senses in Byzantium (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. 198–208. and trans. line 4).71 The reason why this should be the case lies. 28. 88 (no. see also Enrica Follieri. 356. Indeed. 86 (no. and distance. line 2). poetic and prose alike. line 15)… Spyridōn Lambros. 67. Various terms were used to designate the donor’s inner disposition in this context. povqo~. 83 (no.” 74 (no. line 21). esp. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. including philtron (␸ivltron). 54 (no. 1:78 (no. line 13).” 270. line 5). “Manouēl tou Philē historika poiēmata. 2:135 (no. 68 See. I believe. e. line 5). 159. The author of the treatise On Emotions (first century BCE or CE).. An investment in religious donation is thus often described as being motivated by the donor’s emotional attachment to the sacred recipient. 253 (no. separation. Ritual. 164… Rhoby. Manuelis Philae carmina. handed down under the name of Andronikos d’orfèvrerie des icônes paléologues vus par les rédacteurs d’inventaires de biens ecclésiastiques: Les icônes de l’église de la Vierge Spèlaiôtissa de Melnik (Bulgarie). 35 (no. 2010). 2:76 (no. A Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press. one should recall. 219. Byzantine Poetry. line 4).69 and—exceptionally—erōs (e“rw~). Simeone Stilita. 72 For the semantics and etymology of pothos. line 11). 1996). Seeking the Virgin’s intercession. line 14). 269. 70 See. line 2). On the ubiquity of pothos. 1900). See also Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott. 1:116 (no. Bernard. Miller. See also the epigram on the reliquary of Saint Marina in the Museo Correr in Venice: Rhoby. Lauxtermann. at 48 (no. pothos has not received much comment in scholarship. “Words and Artworks. 177 (no. 1:71 (no. ed. 97. line 7). “Words and Artworks. 88. 1:356 (no. also carries the connotations of lack. line 49).g.” 84 (no. 123–92. ed. fails to acknowledge the emotional and erotic charge in this term. 12).” “expression. 279. see Gerrit Kloss. “Ho Markianos kōdix 524. “Words and Artworks. Miller. 95 (no.” 657. 32–34. line 18). 308.918 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram icon invest this gesture with a distinctly emotional charge. the desire of his soul. 283. 160 Bibliothecae publicae Cremonensis (Naples: Typis academicis. pothos is primarily a desire for someone or something that is not at hand. 65. 1:137 (no. This term. 211–22. e. 68. Similar professions of affection are frequent in dedicatory inscriptions. this semantically pregnant term—with its meanings ranging from “nature” and “quality” to “relation.” 219–21. ed. 33. 90 (no. line 3). 262. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 169. “The Beats of the Pen. The piece is now joined with another icon of Christ to form a diptych. the two panels are venerated as the famous niniva. Thomae Magistri sive Theoduli monachi Ecloga vocum atticarum. Locked in a tender embrace with her Child.n ga. 8). No other term in the Greek vocabulary of affection captures more poignantly the paradox of impossible yet indispensible intimacy with a figure in heaven. tῶn ajpovntwn. According to a popular story. ideally suited to express the affective side of personal piety. this is a small. 91–92. “Female Patronage in the Palaiologan Era: Icons. 357–63.”74 Byzantine lexica and textbooks offer similar definitions. in this instance. 61–62 (no..” Likewise. at 260–62. this was achieved through a multiplication of the patron’s— or. 2006). with further bibliography. 32).~ tῶn Ajpelpismevnwn. Glibert-Thirry (Leiden: Brill. which—so he claims—can be neither stained. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 919 73 of Rhodes. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae 33 (Bonn: Weber. Her left hand. The epigram commemorating Dishypatos’s threefold gift to the Virgin casts him in the role of a lover. intricately adorned panel painting measuring no more than 25. Immanuel Bekker. when a court jester surprised the empress one day. Minor Arts and Manuscripts. 74 Ammonii qui dicitur liber De adfinium vocabulorum differentia. also ibid. nos. ed. 152. Georgii Lacapeni et Andronici Zaridae epistulae XXXII cum epimerismis Lacapeni. 191–95. It. povqo~ de. 75 See. ed. 190 and 192. 76 On the Vatopedi icon. Professed in the enameled verses.” of the empress Theodora. 189: e“rw~ kai. the patroness’s—personal markers. pothos simultaneously affirms the existential gulf that separates them.g. too. ed.5 × 22 cm. Cf. wife of the last iconoclast emperor Theophilos (r. See Theophanes Continuatus 3. Theis et al. ed. defines pothos as “a loving desire for that which is absent.76 Like the Freising icon. e. see Grabar. because erōs pertains to that which is present and pothos to that which is absent. paqῶn. And if Dishypatos decries the value of all this silver and gold. in a sense. but remains pure and immortal as his own soul.” an epithet to which I shall return shortly. Mary is depicted casting a melancholic gaze upon the spectator. A. For. See also Alice-Mary Talbot. covered by a gilded appliqué that does not belong to 73 Pseudo-Andronicus de Rhodes: “Peri. while she was venerating icons in her bedchamber—Theodora was a covert iconophile—she excused her behavior by saying that she was merely playing with her dolls. 1838). 259–74. 829–842). nor perish. 1966). Hiera Megistē Monē Batopaidiou: Byzantines eikones kai ependyseis (Mount Athos: Hiera Megistē Monē Vatopaidiou. 1924). 1977).6.r tῶn parovntwn. 231: ejpiqumiva kata. while it posits a strongly emotional bond between the devotee and the object of his or her desire. Klaus Nickau (Leipzig: Teubner. devotional images were increasingly manipulated to articulate and dramatize one’s relationship with the person depicted. tangible the affective tie that binds the patron to his heavenly intercessor.” in Female Founders in Byzantium and Beyond. In Later Byzantium. Sigfrid Lindstam (Göteborg: Elander. indeed. a fourteenth-century icon from the treasury of the Vatopedi monastery on Mount Athos (Fig..75 The connotations of lack and insufficiency make pothos. 143–44. Encased in a special silver casket. ed. Les revêtements. e“rw~ me. 288. In my second example. Tsigaridas and Katia Loberdou-Tsigarida. povqo~ dia␸evrei. shows the Virgin labeled hJ Ejlpi. or “the Hope of the Hopeless. accedunt duae epistulae Michaëlis Gabrae ad Lacapenum. Friedrich Wilhelm Ritschl (Halle: in Libraria Orphanotrophei. 1832). it is to stress his relentlessly abiding pothos for her. or “dolls. the patron’s desire for his beloved is acted out in the gesture of adorning her image. e“rwta ajpovnto~.” ed.. Euthymios N. Pseudo-Ammonios’s treatise on differences between similar words (fourth century CE) explains that “erōs and pothos differ. no. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . The shimmering precious-metal revetment that enshrines the Virgin’s likeness makes visible and. Hovering on either side of Mary’s head are diminutive figures of the archangels Michael and Gabriel. The icon has suffered considerable damage. A nearly obliterated formulaic prose inscription. and now it is very hard to discern a female figure portrayed in the lower frame to the left. is raised toward Christ in a gesture of supplication. Hiera Megistē Monē Batopaidiou: Byzantines eikones kai ependyseis [Mount Athos: Hiera Megistē Monē Vatopaidiou. Tsigaridas and Katia Loberdou- Tsigarida. The figure is dressed in a simple red garment and wears a white wimple-like headdress. (Color online) Icon of the Virgin Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn. crouching in supplication (Figs. 2006]. mid-fourteenth century. painted in red to her right. 314). Mount Athos (after Euthymios N. 8. 9–10). Vatopedi monastery.920 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig. fig. reveals her name: Devhsi~ tῆ~ douvlh~ toῦ Qeoῦ A “ nnh~ Palaiologivnh~ Kantakouzhnῆ~ tῆ~ Filanqrwpinῆ~ (“Prayer of Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . the icon’s original precious-metal cladding. Tsigaridas and Katia Loberdou-Tsigarida. (Color online) Portrait of Anna Philanthropene on the icon of the Virgin Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn. Drawing of the portrait of Anna Philanthropene on the icon of the Virgin Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn. 210). fig. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 921 Fig. 10. 2006]. Vatopedi monastery. 211). Hiera Megistē Monē Batopaidiou: Byzantines eikones kai ependyseis [Mount Athos: Hiera Megistē Monē Vatopaidiou. Mount Athos (after Euthymios N. 9. Fig. mid-fourteenth century. Hiera Megistē Monē Batopaid- iou: Byzantines eikones kai ependyseis [Mount Athos: Hiera Megistē Monē Vatopaidiou. fig. Vatopedi monastery. Tsigaridas and Katia Loberdou-Tsigarida. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . mid-fourteenth century. Mount Athos (after Eu- thymios N. 2006]. 1. . has been uncritically repeated in more recent scholarship. but there is no reason to assume that this is its original position. emperor of Trebizond. 1904). n.n bovrboron pluvnousa tῶn aJmartavdwn. Pamiatniki khristianskago iskusstva na Afone (St. see Donald M. 192–93 n.80 Bebaiva ejlpi. 1100–1460: A Genealogical and Prosopographical Study (Washington.. first proposed by Nikodim P. 1902). . Nicol.] Leaving aside the puzzling reference to “orphans and strangers. 26 (no. the plaque could have been placed in the lower frame. but not long after the execution of the painted figures. A “ nna taῦtav soi kravzei is now displayed on the right.77 Perhaps at a slightly later date. Kondakov.82 Seeing the engraved verses in conjunction with Anna’s portrait in the lower frame. Fontemoing. Pamiatniki.922 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram the servant of God Anna Palaiologina Kantakouzene Philanthropene”). it is impossible to ascertain whether the painted portrait was left exposed after the addition of the revetment. below the bust of John Chrysostom.. 29737. no. [ . Oi«dav se kai. 82 For a possible explanation of the reference to orphans. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies. 25v). While I concur with Rhoby’s reconstruction of the order of the verses (ibid. This seems to be the most likely scenario. skevph genoῦ mou kai. ] of both orphans and strangers. ] Anna Philanthropene cries out these ⬍words⬎ to you. 1. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoı̆ Akademii Nauk.78 This luxury cover combines exquisite filigree work in the central field with a frame consisting of figural reliefs alternating with panels engraved with a dedicatory epigram. Jules Pargoire. and Louis Petit. Ik26). 192–93 n. Since the verse evidently belonged to the concluding part of the epigram. yucῆ~ swthriva to. A “ nna taῦtav soi kravzei. See Kondakov. I know that you [ . . The erroneous identification of the patroness with the second wife of Manuel III. ed. xevnwn [. see Rhoby. Recueil des inscriptions chrétiennes de l’Athos (Paris: A. kovrh.” the overall mes- sage of the epigram is clear: it is a personal plea. in his 1891 verse description of this Athonite house. Gabriel Millet. 40). Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. fol. See above.. but a transcription79 made when the verses were in a slightly better state of preservation allows for a partial reconstruction. 81 The exact number and sequence of the verses remain debatable. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos (Cantacuzenus) ca. 76. and wash away the dirt of my sins.81 [O Maiden. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) .. There was certainly enough space on the frame for additional plaques with the inscription. ojr␸anῶn te kai. 76). a prayer for salvation. sure hope of those in need. from which it was edited by the monastery librarian.] Filanqrwphnh. I think that the epigram may well have been more than six lines long. 150–51 (no.~ hjporhmevnwn. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. 91–94 (no. The extensive loss of the metalwork makes it impossible to reconstruct the epigram in its original form. be my protection and the salvation of my soul. the monk Eugenios. one cannot help but read them as a kind of cartoonlike speech bubble emanating from the crouching figure. although the possibility that the portrait was duplicated on the revetment should not be excluded either. 1037. . Anna supplied her icon with a precious-metal revetment. The plaque with the verse Filanqrwphnh. 77 On this figure. 78 Due to the complete loss of the revetment in the lower frame. see below. 79 The transcription is preserved in an eighteenth-century manuscript in the Vatopedi monastery (MS Athous Vatop. 96. n. Trapp. 1968). 80 For the epigram. 93). It includes appellations derived either from a particular feature of an image. Nikodim P. one of the sons of the emperor Andronikos II. Accompanying this Christ is the epithet Plhro␸orhthv~.” Arte cristiana 76 (1988): 61–78… Gregor M. Gordana Babić.83 As a matter of fact. “Nikēphoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos. Loula Kypraiou (Athens: Hypourgeio Politismou. ed. 1914–15)… André Grabar. worked in relief and displayed in the upper frame at the center. besonders im 11. It occurs in two epigrams penned by Nikephoros Kallistou Xanthopoulos at the behest of Theodore Palaiologos. “Les images de la Vierge de tendresse: Type iconographique et thème (à propos de deux icones à Dečani). “L’Hodigitria et l’Eléousa. André Grabar. this church is missing from Raymond Janin’s catalogue in La géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire byzantine I: Le siège de Constantinople et le patriarcat œcuménique.” Aachener Kunstblätter 60 (1994): 131–42… Iōanna Koltsida-Makrē. DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Lechner. Chymeutē (“Enameled”). 2nd ed. Petersburg: Tipografiia Imperatorskoı̆ Akademii Nauk. at 44–45 (nos. see the important remarks in Pentcheva. Istoricheskoe znachenie italo- grecheskoı̌ ikonopisi: Izobrazheniia Bogomateri v proizvedeniiakh italo-grecheskikh ikonopistsev i ikh vliianie na kompozitsii nekotorykh proslavlennykh russkikh ikon (St. For the sphragistic material. 2007). “Epiteti Bogorodice koju dete grli. “Maria. an extremely rare appellation that can be translated as the “One Who Fulfills” or the “One Who Gives Assurance. in the Vatopedi icon a special name is attached not only to the figure of the Virgin. Icons and Power. Studije o Bogorodici (Belgrade: Jasen.” in Studies in Byzantine Sigillography. 1963–). “Zur Termi- nologie der Theotokosdarstellungen auf byzantinischen Siegeln. 80–120. Kondakov. or from a miracle performed by the Virgin.84 Epithets attached to images of holy figures generally fall into two categories: toponymic and qualitative. 174–82. For the relationship between epithets and function. Les églises et les monastères. 1911). 8–9). or “sure hope”—with which Anna invokes her spiritual protectress clearly echo the epithet Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn inscribed on two vertical plaques on either side of the Virgin. The existing scholarship.” Cahiers archéologiques 24 (1977): 169–78. Nicolas Oikonomides (Washington. 75–80. esp. (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines.” Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske 10 (1974): 3–14… André Grabar. Klaus Wessel et al. 285–94. Machairōtheisa (“Stabbed with a Knife”). Grundlegung zu einer Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien (Giessen: Schmitz. a subcategory of qualitative epithets may be singled out. 1976).g. “Hē eikonographia tēs Theotokou apo enepigraphes parastaseis molybdoboullon tou Nomismatikou Mouseiou Athēnōn.” I am aware of only one other instance of its use. see also Werner Seibt. Trahoulia. ed. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann. vol. “The Truth in Painting: A Refutation of Heresy in a Sinai Icon. “Remarques sur l’iconographie byzantine de la Vierge. “Il modello e la replica nell’arte bizantina delle icônes.” Jahrbuch der Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . ed.g. 2 vols. “Die Darstellung der Theotokos auf byzantinischen Bleisiegeln. 35–56… Herbert Hunger. 1987). tends to focus on the relationship between epithets and iconography. who founded a church in honor of Christ Plērophorētēs following a miraculous cure. 2004). The relevant studies include Nikolaı̌ P.” Zograf 6 (1975): 25–30. 1969). e. esp. 3. 84 Athanasios Papadopoulos-Kerameus. 6:17– 114… Mirjana Tatić-Djurić. mostly concerned with Marian images. Incidentally.85 The former derive from the names of particularly 83 A comprehensive study of iconic epithets in Byzantium is yet to be written. Richard Hamann-Mac Lean.. Jahrhundert.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 11 (1902): 38–49. Petersburg: Imperatorskoe Russkoe arkheologischeskoe obshchestvo. See Nico- lette S. Likhachev. e. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 923 It should be pointed out that the opening words of the epigram—bebaiva ejlpiv~.” in Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst.” Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske 21 (1985): 261–75… Gordana Babić. (St.” in Thōrakion: Aphierōma stē mnēmē tou Paulou Lazaridē.. 85 In the case of Marian images. Ikonografiia Bogoma- teri. but also to that of Christ. The popularity of such epithets is a distinctive feature of later Byzantine icon piety. trans. chap. and often mark replicas of charismatic icons housed at these sites. 431. Alice- Mary Talbot. Alice-Mary Talbot. MS gr. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . esp. André Guillou and Jannic Durand (Paris: Documentation française. 86 For replicas of the Hodēgētria. the characterization of the Virgin as the “Hope of the Hopeless” is less enig- matic.Byzantine art. Epithets inscribed on devotional images have often been interpreted in iconographic terms. namely. perhaps the best-known example being the Marian epithet Hodēgētria.88 as well as in the Great Paraklētikos Kanōn to the Virgin. to the convent of the Bebaia Elpis. 91 On the convent of the Bebaia Elpis.90 In the case of the Vatopedi icon. George P. Theodora Palaiologina Synadene. “The Mother of God. 87 See Sōphronios Eustratiadēs. Miša Rakocija (Niš: Univerzitet u Nišu. or indicate his or her individuality.. ed. in a prayer included in the services of the Great and Small Compline. the Freising icon of Manuel Dishypatos being another notable example of its use. 21381. Connor. see especially Gordana Babić. 158.91 This convent had been founded by Anna’s grandmother. “Bebaia Elpis: Typikon of Theodora Synadene for the Convent of the Mother of God Bebaia Elpis in Constantinople..” in Byzance et les images.” in Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments.. in Österreichischen Byzantinistik 52 (2002): 271–85. ed. Women of Byzantium (New Haven and London: Yale Uni- versity Press. see Trapp. 277. “Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries. ed. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiolo- genzeit. “Les images byzantines et leurs degrés de signification: L’example de l’Hodigitria. 2009). the Mother of God of “Sure Hope. It occurs. ed. 307–16. see Ekaterini Kousoula and Alexandra Trifonova.” in Constantinople. 89 Ibid. no. 1994).” in Niš i Vizantija: Zbornik radova VII. I would argue that in the case of qualitative appellations such as Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn—for which Byzantine hymnography appears to have been the main source87 —naming may be construed as a form of invocation. 88 Bartholomaios Koutloumousianos. 428. 1930). 149. Carolyn L. Galavaris. “Die Klöster der beiden Kyrai Martha und die Kirche des Bebaia Elpis- Klosters in Konstantinopel. Bauten in Konstantinopel. Hōrologion to mega. a niece of the emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos.. If the reason why Christ in the upper frame is identified as Plērophorētēs eludes us.” Millennium 3 (2006): 255–91.92 The famous illuminated copy of the convent’s Typikon in Oxford (Lincoln College. qualitative epithets have an adjectival force and thus provide a means of inflecting the image and customizing it to suit a particular purpose. 2001). 90 For further examples of the use of this epithet in Marian images in Byzantine and post. Highlighting specific traits or attributes of the person depicted. this poetic moniker almost certainly alludes to a shrine with which Anna Philanthropene was personally connected. ‘Stabbed with a Knife. The epithet Elpis tōn Apelpismenōn is well known from liturgical poetry.’” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 13 (1959): 229–33. 329–43. 4:1512–78. 12.924 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram venerated shrines and pilgrimage centers. at 1512–22. ed. 92 On Theodora Palaiologina Synadene.89 However. see Kidonopoulos. Topography and Everyday Life. we rarely see it in Marian images. at 338–39… Arne Effenberger. Hē Theotokos en tē hymnographia (Paris: Librairie ancienne Honoré Champion. Nevra Necipoğlu (Leiden: Brill. 189–222. “A Paleologean icon of Virgin ‘h Elpiv~ twn Apelpismevnwn’ from Thessaloniki. for instance. 2004).” in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. 69–74. 35) contains a scene of donation. as nearly technical designations for different visual types.86 The latter category encompasses a variety of designations that convey particular qualities or attributes of the person depicted. she is probably to be identified with the nun Xene Philanthropene. It is possible that. undertook the restoration of this monastic house and whose daughters continued to support it after her death. these elements formulate a subtle yet unmistakably self-assertive devotional statement. Fig. ed. 94 On Michael Philanthropenos. a personal marker that defines the patroness as much as it does the object of her veneration. Iohannis Spatharakis. (Stuttgart: Hiersemann. The Byzantine Family of Kantakouzenos. who argues that Xene was more likely Anna’s daughter. The identification has been questioned by Hutter. 209–20… Cecily Hennessy. 1970). in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. no. The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts (Leiden: Brill.95 The epithet applied to the Virgin in the Vatopedi icon thus carries a strongly personal resonance. Deux typica. Anna spent the remainder of her life in the convent of the Bebaia Elpis. 95 Delehaye.94 Sumptuously attired. 190– 206… Irmgard Hutter. the monastic house founded by Anna’s grandmother provided refuge to orphaned girls.” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995): 79–114… Leslie Brubaker. 1976). 81–83. Deux typica. “Art and Byzantine Identity: Saints. 5 vols.. “The Lincoln College Typikon: Influences of Church and Family in an Illuminated Foundation Document for a Palaiologan Convent in Constantinople. with their hands raised in prayer toward a figure of Christ Emmanuel extending his blessing from above. see Trapp. but also to express her family identity.96 The epithet. 4:1567–68. 18–24 August. 4:1526. Figs. Anna not only makes manifest her intimate rapport with the Virgin of Sure Hope. trans. As has been suggested.93 One of a series of commemorative portraits of members of Theodora’s family that prefaces the text of the Typikon in the Oxford manuscript depicts Anna in the company of her husband. 10v– 11r. 4r. in Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies. What is unusual is their accumulation in the same icon. John Lowden and Alixe Bovey (Turnhout: Brepols. ed. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 925 which Theodora (the nun Theodoule). she also claims a place for 93 On the Oxford manuscript of the Typikon and its miniatures. 25–26. Talbot. ed. Through its addition. who. 165 (no. figs. To sum up. Through the insertion of multiple personal signs.” in Under the Influence: The Concept of Influence and the Study of Illuminated Manuscripts. Taken individually. and the Lincoln College Typikon. accompanied by her daughter Euphrosyne. 5/1:56–62 (no. Delehaye. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. and the epithet. Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischen Gesellschaft (Heidelberg: Carl Winter. none of these elements is uncommon in the artistic and epigraphic arsenal of later Byzantine icon piety. the aristocratic couple is shown en face. 1996). see Hans Belting. 56). “Die Geschichte des Lincoln College Typikons. 97–109. 24) and 5/2. Influence. 51–59. the prose and verse inscriptions. trans. 96 The link with the family convent of the Bebaia Elpis could perhaps explain the reference to orphans in the epigram on the Vatopedi icon. Karsten Fledelius and Peter Schreiner (Copenhagen: Danish National Committee for Byzantine Studies. 13). University of Copenhagen. the precious-metal revetment. Major Papers. 11–12). functions as a kind of signature. see Nicol. 1977–97). having taken the veil. this exquisite. Working in concert. 2007). Talbot. “Die Geschichte des Lincoln College Typikons. is portrayed presenting her foundation to the Virgin Bebaia Elpis (fols. in 1392. intimately scaled devotional image has been customized not only to respond to Anna’s personal piety. For this identification. in other words. 103–4. As indicated in its Typikon. several elements have been mobilized to articulate Anna’s relationship with the Virgin: her portrait. Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften. Image. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . Portraits. 29778. 11.” 81 n. 76–77. Irmgard Hutter. 31–32. 1996.” in Byzantium: Identity. Michael Philanthropenos (fol. 35. Lincoln College. c. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . MS gr. fols. 1330s (photo: Lincoln College. (Color online) The Virgin Bebaia Elpis with Christ Child (left) and Theodora- Theodoule Palaiologina Synadene with her daughter Euphrosyne offering the church of the Bebaia Elpis (right).926 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Figs. 11–12. 10v–11r. Oxford). Oxford. 11–12. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . (Color online) (Continued). Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 927 Figs. 1330s (photo: Lincoln College. MS gr. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . Oxford). 4r. (Color online) Portraits of Michael Philanthropenos and Anna Philanthropene.928 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram Fig. Lincoln College. c. 13. 35. Oxford. fol. 97 See Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi. “A Byzantine Naval Stan- dard (circa 1141). Urbino). 1970). (Bari: Dedalo libri. fourteenth or early fifteenth century.” Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 34 (1919): 152–57. Urbino. but its precious materials.D. inv.97 The cloth has often been mistaken for a banner. “Di un antico vessillo navale. now kept in the Palazzo Ducale at Urbino (Fig. Silvio Giuseppe Mer- cati. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 929 Fig. no. 2nd ser.to fifteenth-century date.and pearl-embroidered silk cloth of a fourteenth. herself in the icon and thereby transforms it from a simple devotional image into a vehicle of self-expression. format. “Sull’iscrizione del cosı̀ ditto ‘vessillo navale’ di Manuele Paleologo conservato nella Galleria Nazionale delle Marche in Urbino.” in Collectanea Byzantina.216 (photo: Soprintendenza per i Beni Storici Artistici ed Etnoantropologici delle Marche. 14). 2 vols. 1990. My final example is a gold.” in Dissertazioni della Pontificia Ac- cademia Romana di Archeologia. (Color online) Embroidered podea (?) with the archangel Michael and the supplicant Manuel. 3 (1890): 1–85… Luigi Serra. Museo di Palazzo Ducale. 14. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . ed. See Trapp. “Portraits de donateurs et invocations sur les icônes du XIIIe siècle au Sinaı̈. the richly dressed blond-haired nobleman by the name of Manuel portrayed in the cloth is accorded a much more direct access to the object of his veneration. or “Guardian. it most likely served as a podea. 1998). cat. which I reproduce below. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. 1:153–74… Carr. Originally. ed.” Quaderni utinensi 8. see Tania Velmans. Portraits and Icons: Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine Art (Turnhout: Brepols. Guillou and Durand. 255–85… Doula Mouriki. Rhoby. 99 The identity of the portrayed supplicant has yet to be established. A kneeling supplicant at the feet of a holy figure—this is the kind of iconography that one often sees in Byzantine devotional imagery. reduced. Jean-Michel Spieser and Élisabeth Yota (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. ed. at 298–303… Annemarie W. “Manuele Nothos Paleologo: Nota prosopografica. “The New Image of Byzantine Noblemen in Paleologan Art. at 132–34. Carr. “Epitymbies parastaseis kata tē mesē kai hysterē byzantinē periodo. was the first to identify the cloth as a podea. 91885 and 92618.” 137. “Minima Byzantina. no. 15–16 (1996): 309–19… Titos Papamastorakēs. a textile hanging suspended from the lower edge of a particularly venerated cult image. ed. at 386–93. 1998.100 One of the earliest examples is an icon at Sinai.” in Byzance et les images. nos. 1971). in an attitude suggestive of both submission and a hopeful reaching out. (New York: Palgrave Macmillan.. “Jedinstvo nebeske i zemaljske crkve u srpskom slikarstvu srednjeg veka ili Likovi živih ljudi na freskama i ikonama srednjeg veka. Gianfranco Fiaccadori. “Le portrait dans l’art des Paléologue. “Cypriot Funerary Icons: Questions of Convergence in a Complex Land. nos. following Cozza-Luzi. to an unobtrusive existence in the frame. Ihor Ševčenko and Irmgard Hutter (Stuttgart: Teub- ner. Venezia e Bisanzio (Milan: Electa. “Donors in the Frames of Icons”… Élisabeth Yota. at 56–63… Nancy Patterson Ševčenko. Janko Radovanović.” Manuel casts himself to the ground. Te8–Te9). “Di un antico vessillo navale. slender figure of the archangel Michael.” Zbornik za likovne umetnosti Matice srpske 20 (1984): 47–66. 383–86 (nos. at 174–76. Manuel takes pride in the illustrious ancestry of his mother Eudokia. in segno di onore e riverenza.” that is to say. 172–76.” Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 19 (1996–97): 285–304.” in Aetos: Studies in Honour of Cyril Mango Presented to Him on April 14.930 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram iconography. but there is no direct evidence to support this identification.98 Like the Vatopedi icon. 119 (Italo Furlan)… Antonio Carile. the cloth features a figure in prostration. “Inscriptions byzantines d’Italie sur tissu. an encheirion..” in Donation et donateurs dans le monde byzantin: Actes du colloque international de l’Université de Fribourg.” Deltion tēs Christianikēs Archaiologikēs Hetaireias 17 (1993–94): 157–64… Nancy Patterson Ševčenko. “Manuele Nothos Paleologo.” in Medieval Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Jeremy duQuesnay Adams.” Études balkaniques: Cahiers Pierre Belon 2 (1995): 103–35… Natalia Teteriatnikov. labeled as Fuvlax. “L’image du donateur dans les manuscrits illustrés byzantins. 2005). ed. with his hands raised and his head thrown sharply backwards. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. 2 vols.” Thēsaurismata 12 (1975): 137– 47… André Guillou.” identify him with Manuel. 100 On portraits embedded in devotional images. ed. 91–148.” in Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues (Venice: Stamperia di Venezia. Italo Furlan. 98 Carile. whose parents were a kaisar and a princess born in the purple. although by podea he understood “un drappo usato per ricoprire. Stephanie A. “Close Encounters: Contact between Holy Figures and the Faithful as Represented in Byzantine Works of Art. 1974). an illegitimate son of John V Palaiologos who won a minor naval victory over the Ottoman Turks in 1411. 13–15 mars 2008.” Nea Rhōmē: Rivista di ricerche bizantinistiche 4 (2007): 383–412. as it were. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . But whereas Anna Philanthropene addresses her prayers to the Virgin from a distance. “The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons. 265–92. In the inscription on the frame. and verse inscriptions militate against this identification. 2013). 2012). una icona.99 Assuming a place at the feet of a tall. Hayes-Healy. 2:242–48. Most scholars. See also Katherine Marsengill. vol. From the Sixth to the Tenth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press. in which a certain Nicholas is portrayed crouching at the feet of Saint Irene (Fig. The Monastery of Saint Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons.101 In contrast to this and 101 See Kurt Weitzmann. 15). 15. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 1976). B. 1. Saint Catherine’s monastery. Icon of Saint Irene with the supplicant Nicholas. tentatively dated to the eighth or ninth centuries. no. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 931 Fig. eighth or ninth century.39. Mount Sinai (photo: Michigan-Princeton-Alexandria Expedition to Mount Sinai). 102 I reproduce the reading of the verses in Rhoby. and at the last and dreadful judgment may I find. Visually articulated through gestures and bodily comportment.~ oijkevth~.e. 103 Cf. since my mother’s womb.932 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram other similar images. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . Ps..] To Manuel’s prayer the archangel responds the following: Ou«~ mou prosevsce sῇ dehvsei kai. gennhtrivan de. 5 ou” tw~ e“gwge Manouh. whose strictly frontal and impassive stance leaves the impression that she is hardly aware of the diminutive figure to her right.102 WJ~ pri. takes the form of a dialogue. brought into physical proximity. son of the illustrious and thrice-blessed Eudokia.l so. tou. I have been entrusted to you. por␸uravnqhton klavdon.n iJketikῷ tῷ trovpῳ 10 ῥivptw posiv sou kai. se. pro␸qavnwn ῥuvῃ~ me panto. their interaction is further dramatized in the dedicatory epigram embroidered on the cloth. tanῦn ejmauto. Running along the frame.~ kinduvnou· kai. displayed within the picture field. and whose mother was a purple-blossoming branch [i. [As once Joshua. swvmato~ w]n ejn tῷ bivῳ· 15 kajn tῇ teleutaivᾳ de. skevpw se me. your servant Manuel. stiv␸h. while the second part. 21. the Lord merciful. the son of Nun. kai. ␸utospovron me. soῦ to. as long as I live. 384–85. now I throw myself in a supplicatory manner at your feet and beseech you to protect me with your golden wings and deliver me in advance from every danger.n despovthn· ejk koiliva~ ga. whose father was a kaisar. contains the archangel’s response.n ptevruxin ijdivai~ wJ~ oijkevthn· ejcqrou. Saint Michael acknowledges Manuel’s presence by turning towards him. be the protector and guardian of my soul and my body. directly above Manuel’s head. For. Unlike Saint Irene. Eujdokiva~ paῖ~ eujkleoῦ~ trisolbivou. ␸riktῇ krivsei eu”rw proshnῆ dia. begging you ⬍to grant him⬎ power to subdue the hordes of foreign tribes.11. imperial offspring]. falling on his knees. significantly.n ejrriv␸h aijtῶn para. in the Urbino textile the supplicant and the holy figure are not merely juxtaposed. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Ikonen und Objekten der Kleinkunst. litavzomai dev se wJ~ saῖ~ skevpῃ~ ptevruxi kecruswmevnai~ kai. so I. however. the first part of the epigram comprises Manuel’s prayer to the archangel.n Ij hsoῦ~ toῦ Nauῆ kavmya~ govnu tῶn sῶn podῶn e“mprosqen auJto. which. threw himself at your feet. thanks to you.r mhtrikῆ~ ejperriv␸hn ejpi.~ sou.~ de. soῦ duvnamin eijlh␸evnai wJ~ ajllo␸uvlwn uJpotavxῃ ta.n kaivsara kekthmevnh~. prostavthn e“cw se kai. taxivarce tῶn ajswmavtwn.~ ajnelῶ mou tῇ spavqῃ. ␸uvlakav mou yucῆ~ te kai.103 O commander of the incorporeal ones. but actually interact with each other. 73–82.13–15). Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. 75. see Silas Koukiarēs. [My ear gave heed to your petition and I protect you with my own wings as my servant. and like him. 1000 in the Vatican (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. “A Byzantine Naval Standard. MS Vat. with Joshua’s figure depicted twice to convey two consecutive moments in the narrative: his vision of the angelic warrior and his prostration at the latter’s feet. an episode described in the eponymous book of the Old Testament (5. it becomes clear that the scene of supplication in the Urbino textile was envisioned as a kind of devotional reenactment of Joshua’s encounter with the general of the heavenly army near Jericho. The similarity 104 For the iconography and examples of the scene. 1989). Ciklus arhandjela u vizantijskoj umetnosti (Belgrade: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti. 3. (Color online) Joshua before the archangel and the entombment of Joshua. c. Here the encounter at the walls of Jericho is represented on the left. As a matter of fact. MS Vat.] In light of this poetic exchange. gr. the entire composition of the textile. 16. falls on the ground in reverence. Ta thaumata-emphaniseis tōn angelōn kai archangelōn stēn byzantinē technē tōn Balkaniōn (Athens: Dōdōnē. 126– 31… Smiljka Gabelić. 1991). Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 933 Fig. 3) provides a good parallel (Fig.” 156.104 A miniature in the so-called Mēnologion of Basil II of c. 1613. is modeled after the scene of the archangel’s appearance to Joshua. as well as his advocacy in the next. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . 1613. 1000 (photo: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana). p. gr. 16). fol. not just Manuel’s prostration. Seeking the archangel’s protection in this life. Vatican City. Manuel presents himself in the role of the biblical hero. With my sword I shall destroy your enemies. The embroidery’s dependence on the iconography of Joshua’s encounter with the archangel near Jericho has already been noted by Serra. in both instances. 106 See Vojislav J. 108 The term oiketēs occurs in the second line of the archangel’s response. 47–57. and perform devotional identities for their patrons. at 465–66… Paul Magdalino and Robert Nelson.108 The Urbino textile thus figures both the petition and its positive outcome. painfully aware of her sins. Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . lending a benev- olent ear to Manuel’s petition. coupled with its diminutive size.” in La sculpture en Occident: Études offertes à Jean-René Gaborit. with a model of the city of Constantinople in his hands. Geneviève Bresc-Bautier.” in The Old Testament in Byzantium.106 but we rarely find him invoked as an exemplar of personal piety. Catherine Jolivet-Lévy. spiritual protection is palpable. For the possibility that the bronze group may have served as a model for the depiction of another encounter between a supplicant and a holy figure. 5. he spreads his enormous wings and brandishes his sword to protect him. ed.” in Donation et donateurs. see Youval Rotman. but they do so employing different strategies.14 makes its use in the verses embroidered on the Urbino textile particularly apposite. In this embroidered tableau that turns prayer into a veritable theater of devotion. In the Freising icon of Manuel Dishypatos. In a sense. 123–38. “Holy Man. or servant. and Pierre-Yves Le Pogam (Dijon: Faton. “Introduction. it is this mimetic identification with the Israelite leader that enables Manuel to claim intimacy with Saint Michael. the patron assumes the posture of a lover. Finally. for here Joshua provides a scriptural model for articulating the patron’s relationship with his heavenly protector and guardian.” Zograf 14 (1983): 5–16.” Byzan- tion 57 (1987): 441–70. the archangel is rendered in a three-quarter stance. “The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII. In the Vatopedi icon. Supplicant. 107 Cf.” Mediaeval Studies 59 (1997): 173–82. Joshua was a common paradigm of rulership and military prowess. 2007). “À propos du grand groupe en bronze de l’archange saint Michel et de l’empereur Michel VIII Paléologue à Constantinople. Anna Philanthropene presented herself as a humble petitioner. “L’image du pouvoir dans l’art byzantin à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne (867–1056). For the term oiketēs. “The Portrait of Theodore Metochites at Chora. 230–31. 2004). with his pothos lavished upon and expressed through an image of his heavenly mistress. ed. the patron’s identity is constructed on the basis of typology and emerges through identification 105 While undoubtedly based on the scene of the angelic apparition at Jericho. all the while claiming a privileged access to the Virgin through multiple personal markers. stage. and Donor: On Representations of the Miracle of the Archangel Michael at Chonae. 1–38.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47 (1993): 243–61. hopes to obtain—with the Mother of God. Françoise Baron. This celebrated sculpture group stood on a column erected by the emperor in front of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople.934 Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram between this composition and the one seen in the textile is evident. at 178–82. While the use of this term is by no means unusual in dedicatory epigrams. Les esclaves et l’esclavage: De la Méditerranée antique à la Méditerranée médiévale. it is not inconceivable that the Urbino textile also echoes a now lost bronze statuary composition showing Michael VIII Palaiologos in proskynēsis. and salvation seems all but within the supplicant’s grasp. ed. The three objects inscribed with dedicatory verses that I have examined in this essay all construct. Not only is the archangel brought into dialogue with his oiketēs. Note that. in the Urbino textile. at 258–60… Jannic Durand. at the feet of the archangel Michael. Glenn Peers. Ševčenko. but. See Alice-Mary Talbot. the fact that it is encountered in Josh. see Nancy P.107 This makes the Urbino textile all the more remarkable. Magdalino and Nelson. at 23. The personalization of the icon. with his right hand holding a sword and his left placed on a scabbard. Spieser and Yota. is here a sign of intimacy that Anna enjoys—or rather. Djurić. VIe–XIe siècles (Paris: Les Belles Lettres.105 In Byzantium. 189–205. “Novi Isus Navin. of discursively and artistically shaping a self for display.” in Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram 935 with an exemplar from the biblical past. Modern—or better put. but rather a matter of representation. iconographic tradition. and the culturally sanctioned norms of religious decorum. of effecting bodies and souls. The devotional selves that inscribed objects such as the Freising and Vatopedi icons and the Urbino textile put on display are no less crafted that the objects themselves. personal piety was a form of self-presentation. As much as these performances were structured and governed by the conventions of the epigrammatic genre. In premodern Christian cultures. 16–49. although this process was not a matter of praxis. religious devotion was a critical setting for both the expression and formation of identity. these exquisite objects demonstrate that religious devotion and the artistic patronage associated with it provided an important setting for personal expression in Byzantium. and enact identity.”109 that is. “Technologies of the Self. and even for what we would now call originality. thoughts and conduct. produce. Taken together. Huck Gutman. Martin. for imagination and playfulness. Dedicatory epigrams accompanying devotional artifacts also provided a forum for the fashioning of the self. post-Enlightenment—thinking about subjectivity has tended to locate the “discovery” of the self in the secular rather than the sacred realm.edu) Speculum 89/4 (October 2014) . inscribed devotional artifacts offered a flex- ible medium for the dramatization of the self. and the liturgical rite itself variously provided what Michel Foucault has called “technologies of the self. 109 Michel Foucault. Ivan Drpić is an Assistant Professor at the University of Washington (e-mail: drpic@uw. however. prayers and meditation. acts of confession and penitence. Asceticism. Hutton (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. In this context. and Patrick H. ed. They are products of carefully orchestrated performances of identity. Luther H. Far from responding merely to spiritual needs. 1988). they also opened up a space for individual choices. procedures and instruments by which individuals might define.

Comments

Description