DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.55207#0043
NOTES
1. A curious mention, almost contemporary with the mosaics, is given by the pilgrim Anthony of
Novgorod: ‘on the Galleries (of Haghia Sophia) are represented all the patriarchs and all the emperors
who have been in Constantinople, even those who were heretics’ (Kniga Palotnnik. Skazanie mest
svjatych vo Caregrade Antonija archiepiskopa Novgorodskago v 1200 g., ed. Chr. Loparev, Pravoslavnyj
Palestinskij Sbornik, xvii. 3, p. 23). During his journey Clavijo also saw the mosaics ‘on the walls and
the vaults’ of the Galleries, and he praises their workmanship (Embassy to Tamerlan, 1403-1406, transl.
by G. Lestrange, p. 75). In Turkish times the travellers mention only the mosaics of the vaults of the
Gallery which represented religious subjects (see, e.g., P. Gyllius, De Topographia Constantinopoleos,
ii. 4, Lyon, 1562, p. 76; Comte de Laborde, Documents inedits ou pen connus sur I’histoire et les antiquites
d’Athenes, Paris, 1854, p. 125, &c.), from which it may be concluded that the imperial portraits remained
hidden from the Conquest until the restorations of 1847-9. Fresh descriptions then appear: Patriarch
Constantios, SuyypatJinaTCC eAacrcrova, Constantinople, 1848, p. 404; [A. N. Murav’ev], Pis’ma s Vostoka
St. Petersburg, 1851, i, p. 24 (an inexact list); G. and G. Fossati, Rilievi storico-artistici sulla Architettura
Bizantina . . . , Milan, 1890, pp. 12 and 30. Indications given by these authors have served as sources
for more recent works, see E. M. Antoniades, 3/Ei«ppao-i$ Tqs eAyia$ Socpia$, Athens, 1909, iii, p. 21;
A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans I’Art byzantin, Publ. de la Faculte des Lettres de 1’Universite de Strasbourg,
fasc. 75, Paris, 1936, pp. 107-8.
2. On the areas of conserving plaster where mosaics no longer exist, no colours are introduced: the
white surfaces are touched only with cobweb, an ‘heir of time’.
3. See G. A. C. Holt, A casting Method for reproducing Mosaics (Technical Studies in the Field of the
Fine Arts, vii. 4, 1939, pp. 179 IF.).
4. Cf. other representations of the same sovereigns: enamels of the Budapest crown (nth cent.,
M. Barany-Oberschall, The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos, Budapest, 1937); Miniatures
of the Manuscripts of Sinai Library, No. 364 (nth cent., V. Benesevic, Monumenta Sinaitica archaeologica
et palaeographica, Petropoli, 1925, i, Pl. 30), of Escurial 5-3 n-2 (14th cent., Photographs of the Ecole
des Hautes Etudes in Paris, Nos. 1221, 1234,1255, &c.), and of Modena, Estensis S. 5.5 (i4th-i5th cents.,
Sp. Lampros, AeuKoopatwv BujccvtivcovauTOKpccropcov, Athens, 1930, Pl. 58); a little icon in the Benaki
Museum at Athens, glass case 26, No. 8 (i7th-i8th cents.). Most of these pictures present but little
iconographic interest, as the features of personages represented there are fictitious. The same observation
may be made of the effigies on coins of Constantine IX which reproduce a type which was first used
on Byzantine coinage of the reign of Constantine VIII and which remained in use until the reign of
Michael VI (see W. Wroth, Catalogue of Imperial Byzantine Coins, London, 1908, ii, Pls. LVII. 9 to
LIX. 3). Descriptions of lost portraits ofMonomachos by John Mauropous, Bishop ofEuchaites (Migne,
P.G., 1.120, col. 1172) and by an anonymous poet of the nth cent. (Sp. Lampros, 'O Mapxiavds
524, in Neos ‘EAATivopivriucov, viii, 1911, p. 6). A portrait of Zoe with her first husband Romanos III
at the entrance of the Convent of St. Mary Peribleptos at Constantinople, burnt in 1782, is also men-
tioned by Clavijo (Embassy, p. 64).
5. ‘When Signor Fossati, the architect employed to repair the Mosque of St. Sophia, had removed
the plaster placed by the Turkish conquerors over the unrivalled mosaics which adorned the dome and
the walls of that glorious edifice, the Sultan Abdul Medjid visited these marvellous remains of Byzantine
art. After contemplating for a while, with evident emotion, the colossal but solemn forms of the Virgin
and of the Greek Emperors, he turned to Signor Fossati and said: “It is against the precepts of our
religion that such things should remain exposed on the walls of a place of worship; cover up the pictures
carefully so that the plaster may be removed at any future period without injury to them, for God
only knows the future, and He alone can tell for whom the building may be reserved.” The com-
mands of Abdul Medjid were punctually obeyed.’ (M. A. Ubicini, Letters on Turkey, transl. from the
French by Lady Easthope, London, 1856, t. ii, pp. 1-2. See also Quarterly Review, March 1854, p. 552.
E
1. A curious mention, almost contemporary with the mosaics, is given by the pilgrim Anthony of
Novgorod: ‘on the Galleries (of Haghia Sophia) are represented all the patriarchs and all the emperors
who have been in Constantinople, even those who were heretics’ (Kniga Palotnnik. Skazanie mest
svjatych vo Caregrade Antonija archiepiskopa Novgorodskago v 1200 g., ed. Chr. Loparev, Pravoslavnyj
Palestinskij Sbornik, xvii. 3, p. 23). During his journey Clavijo also saw the mosaics ‘on the walls and
the vaults’ of the Galleries, and he praises their workmanship (Embassy to Tamerlan, 1403-1406, transl.
by G. Lestrange, p. 75). In Turkish times the travellers mention only the mosaics of the vaults of the
Gallery which represented religious subjects (see, e.g., P. Gyllius, De Topographia Constantinopoleos,
ii. 4, Lyon, 1562, p. 76; Comte de Laborde, Documents inedits ou pen connus sur I’histoire et les antiquites
d’Athenes, Paris, 1854, p. 125, &c.), from which it may be concluded that the imperial portraits remained
hidden from the Conquest until the restorations of 1847-9. Fresh descriptions then appear: Patriarch
Constantios, SuyypatJinaTCC eAacrcrova, Constantinople, 1848, p. 404; [A. N. Murav’ev], Pis’ma s Vostoka
St. Petersburg, 1851, i, p. 24 (an inexact list); G. and G. Fossati, Rilievi storico-artistici sulla Architettura
Bizantina . . . , Milan, 1890, pp. 12 and 30. Indications given by these authors have served as sources
for more recent works, see E. M. Antoniades, 3/Ei«ppao-i$ Tqs eAyia$ Socpia$, Athens, 1909, iii, p. 21;
A. Grabar, L’Empereur dans I’Art byzantin, Publ. de la Faculte des Lettres de 1’Universite de Strasbourg,
fasc. 75, Paris, 1936, pp. 107-8.
2. On the areas of conserving plaster where mosaics no longer exist, no colours are introduced: the
white surfaces are touched only with cobweb, an ‘heir of time’.
3. See G. A. C. Holt, A casting Method for reproducing Mosaics (Technical Studies in the Field of the
Fine Arts, vii. 4, 1939, pp. 179 IF.).
4. Cf. other representations of the same sovereigns: enamels of the Budapest crown (nth cent.,
M. Barany-Oberschall, The Crown of the Emperor Constantine Monomachos, Budapest, 1937); Miniatures
of the Manuscripts of Sinai Library, No. 364 (nth cent., V. Benesevic, Monumenta Sinaitica archaeologica
et palaeographica, Petropoli, 1925, i, Pl. 30), of Escurial 5-3 n-2 (14th cent., Photographs of the Ecole
des Hautes Etudes in Paris, Nos. 1221, 1234,1255, &c.), and of Modena, Estensis S. 5.5 (i4th-i5th cents.,
Sp. Lampros, AeuKoopatwv BujccvtivcovauTOKpccropcov, Athens, 1930, Pl. 58); a little icon in the Benaki
Museum at Athens, glass case 26, No. 8 (i7th-i8th cents.). Most of these pictures present but little
iconographic interest, as the features of personages represented there are fictitious. The same observation
may be made of the effigies on coins of Constantine IX which reproduce a type which was first used
on Byzantine coinage of the reign of Constantine VIII and which remained in use until the reign of
Michael VI (see W. Wroth, Catalogue of Imperial Byzantine Coins, London, 1908, ii, Pls. LVII. 9 to
LIX. 3). Descriptions of lost portraits ofMonomachos by John Mauropous, Bishop ofEuchaites (Migne,
P.G., 1.120, col. 1172) and by an anonymous poet of the nth cent. (Sp. Lampros, 'O Mapxiavds
524, in Neos ‘EAATivopivriucov, viii, 1911, p. 6). A portrait of Zoe with her first husband Romanos III
at the entrance of the Convent of St. Mary Peribleptos at Constantinople, burnt in 1782, is also men-
tioned by Clavijo (Embassy, p. 64).
5. ‘When Signor Fossati, the architect employed to repair the Mosque of St. Sophia, had removed
the plaster placed by the Turkish conquerors over the unrivalled mosaics which adorned the dome and
the walls of that glorious edifice, the Sultan Abdul Medjid visited these marvellous remains of Byzantine
art. After contemplating for a while, with evident emotion, the colossal but solemn forms of the Virgin
and of the Greek Emperors, he turned to Signor Fossati and said: “It is against the precepts of our
religion that such things should remain exposed on the walls of a place of worship; cover up the pictures
carefully so that the plaster may be removed at any future period without injury to them, for God
only knows the future, and He alone can tell for whom the building may be reserved.” The com-
mands of Abdul Medjid were punctually obeyed.’ (M. A. Ubicini, Letters on Turkey, transl. from the
French by Lady Easthope, London, 1856, t. ii, pp. 1-2. See also Quarterly Review, March 1854, p. 552.
E