DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.55207#0049
NOTES 39
84. This composition is also found in Byzantium on wedding rings, where Christ and the Mother
of God are represented blessing the husband and wife (M. Rosenberg, Geschichte der Goldschmiedekunst
auf technischen Grundlagen, Niello. Frankfurt a/M., 1924, pp. 47 ff). This may be derived from classical
art (cf. the Juno Pronuba between the two fiances) but account must also be taken of the similarity
existing between the imperial coronation (crrE'pis) and the Orthodox marriage (aTEcpavcoiaa), during
which the bridegroom and the bride also receive crowns.
85. Prothesis of Torcello, Capella Palatina (Traditio Legis and the dome), domes of St. Sophia of
Kiev, of the Martorana, and of Miroz. Miniatures of the Exultet Rolls of Bari (1), Fondi, John Rylands
Library, &c.
86. Probably crsAAiov, as opposed to the more solemn Opovos (cf. a scholium of the Book of Ceremonies,
Bonn, p. 520). See the monuments quoted in the preceding note, the scene of the coronation of King
William at Monreale, and the miniature of Urbino 2. The throne of this form is met with also earlier
(e.g. Bawit, chap, xvii; Cappadocia, St. Barbara at Gueureme, Church of Forty Martyrs, &c.), but it
is remarkable that in Byzantine coinage, for instance, it appears only from the reign of Michael VI.
87. See most of examples mentioned in the two notes above. This footstool appears also in the
tympanum of Vatopedi. The usual Byzantine type is rectangular.
88. Fol. 89. The glance directed to one side is met with on more ancient monuments of Hellenistic
inspiration, e.g. at Santa Maria Maggiore, where, in order to increase the impression of reality, the
figures look at each other. The same glance also appears from the 7th cent, on the Byzantine enamels
for technical reasons: the pupil and the eye could be thus made with a single cloison. Thus in both
cases the similarity with the iconographic type with which we are concerned is fortuitous.
89. S. Abercii Vita, ed. Th. Nissen, pp. 121-2. Cf. the possible interpretations of F. Abel in Byzantion,
iii, 1926, p. 336, and of W. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Oxford, 1897, p. 724—this latter
confirmed by the Slavonic version: G. Liidtke-Th. Nissen, Abercii titulus sepulchralis, Leipzig, 1910,
p. 11. Cf. a similar Pisidian inscription, W. Calder, in Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Ramsay,
Manchester, 1924, p. 76. The classical source of this sentence may be found in Sophocles, Antigone, v.
183: Zeus o iravO’ opcov dsi. For the Christ suocpOaAiJos, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, Paris, 1833,
t. iii, p. 473, Migne, P.G., t. 95, col. 349, and A. Papadopoulo-Kerameus, Manuel d’Iconographie
Chretienne, St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 226.
90. On this type probably of Syro-Antiochian origin, see O. Wulff-M. Alpatov, Denkmdler der
Ikonenmalerei in kunstgeschichtlicher Folge, Hellerau b. Dresden, 1925, p. 25.
91. N. Kondakov, Litzevoj Ikonopisnyj Podlinnik, i, St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 85.
92. G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de /’Empire Byzantin, Paris, 1884, p. 158, and K. Amantos in
'EAAqviKa, iii, 1930, p. 539, and ix, 1936, p. 206.
93. N. Lichacev, Istoriceskoe Znacenie Italo-Greceskoj Ikonopisi. Izobrazenija Bogomateri, St. Petersburg,
1911, Pl. IV, No. 13; cf. Nos. 14, 15, and 17-21 (later instances).
94. Wroth, op. cit., Pl. LXXI, 6 and 7.
95. N. Kondakov, Ikonografija Bogomateri, ii, St. Petersburg, 1915, pp. 140 ff.
96. Lichacev, op. cit., Pl. IV, No. 15 and fig. 143. A. Delattre, Le Culte de la Sainte Vierge en Afrique,
Paris, 1907, p. 100.
97. N. Lichacev, ‘Sceaux de 1’empereur Leon III 1’Isaurien’, Byzantion, xi, 1936, p. 475.
98. Wroth, op. cit., Introduction, p. Ixv, and Pl. LXVIII, 15, and later on, on the mints of Alexios III,
Pl. LXXIII, 7 and 10.
99. Monreale, top of the Triumph Arch. See also [Mjasoedov], Freski Spasa Nereditzy, Leningrad,
1925, Pl. XXI, and A. Munoz, Le Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco . . ., Roma, 1910,
Pls. 21 (Emmanuel), 61-3 (other children).
100. e.g. A. Nekrasov, Drevne-russkoe izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, Moscow, 1937, Pl. XI. Th. Smit,
Kahrie-Djami (Izv. Russ. Archeol. Instituta v Konstantinopole, xi, 1906), No. 118. WulfF-Alpatov, op. cit.,
fig. 58; Kondakov, Litzevoj . . . Podlinnik, p. 61.
101. In a general way, as regards the iconography of the emperors, the variety and the individual
character of the figures of the mosaics show well enough that these are real portraits. Here one is as
near as possible to what St. John Chrysostomos described as ‘the original portrait of the imperial face,
84. This composition is also found in Byzantium on wedding rings, where Christ and the Mother
of God are represented blessing the husband and wife (M. Rosenberg, Geschichte der Goldschmiedekunst
auf technischen Grundlagen, Niello. Frankfurt a/M., 1924, pp. 47 ff). This may be derived from classical
art (cf. the Juno Pronuba between the two fiances) but account must also be taken of the similarity
existing between the imperial coronation (crrE'pis) and the Orthodox marriage (aTEcpavcoiaa), during
which the bridegroom and the bride also receive crowns.
85. Prothesis of Torcello, Capella Palatina (Traditio Legis and the dome), domes of St. Sophia of
Kiev, of the Martorana, and of Miroz. Miniatures of the Exultet Rolls of Bari (1), Fondi, John Rylands
Library, &c.
86. Probably crsAAiov, as opposed to the more solemn Opovos (cf. a scholium of the Book of Ceremonies,
Bonn, p. 520). See the monuments quoted in the preceding note, the scene of the coronation of King
William at Monreale, and the miniature of Urbino 2. The throne of this form is met with also earlier
(e.g. Bawit, chap, xvii; Cappadocia, St. Barbara at Gueureme, Church of Forty Martyrs, &c.), but it
is remarkable that in Byzantine coinage, for instance, it appears only from the reign of Michael VI.
87. See most of examples mentioned in the two notes above. This footstool appears also in the
tympanum of Vatopedi. The usual Byzantine type is rectangular.
88. Fol. 89. The glance directed to one side is met with on more ancient monuments of Hellenistic
inspiration, e.g. at Santa Maria Maggiore, where, in order to increase the impression of reality, the
figures look at each other. The same glance also appears from the 7th cent, on the Byzantine enamels
for technical reasons: the pupil and the eye could be thus made with a single cloison. Thus in both
cases the similarity with the iconographic type with which we are concerned is fortuitous.
89. S. Abercii Vita, ed. Th. Nissen, pp. 121-2. Cf. the possible interpretations of F. Abel in Byzantion,
iii, 1926, p. 336, and of W. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, Oxford, 1897, p. 724—this latter
confirmed by the Slavonic version: G. Liidtke-Th. Nissen, Abercii titulus sepulchralis, Leipzig, 1910,
p. 11. Cf. a similar Pisidian inscription, W. Calder, in Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Ramsay,
Manchester, 1924, p. 76. The classical source of this sentence may be found in Sophocles, Antigone, v.
183: Zeus o iravO’ opcov dsi. For the Christ suocpOaAiJos, see Boissonade, Anecdota Graeca, Paris, 1833,
t. iii, p. 473, Migne, P.G., t. 95, col. 349, and A. Papadopoulo-Kerameus, Manuel d’Iconographie
Chretienne, St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 226.
90. On this type probably of Syro-Antiochian origin, see O. Wulff-M. Alpatov, Denkmdler der
Ikonenmalerei in kunstgeschichtlicher Folge, Hellerau b. Dresden, 1925, p. 25.
91. N. Kondakov, Litzevoj Ikonopisnyj Podlinnik, i, St. Petersburg, 1905, p. 85.
92. G. Schlumberger, Sigillographie de /’Empire Byzantin, Paris, 1884, p. 158, and K. Amantos in
'EAAqviKa, iii, 1930, p. 539, and ix, 1936, p. 206.
93. N. Lichacev, Istoriceskoe Znacenie Italo-Greceskoj Ikonopisi. Izobrazenija Bogomateri, St. Petersburg,
1911, Pl. IV, No. 13; cf. Nos. 14, 15, and 17-21 (later instances).
94. Wroth, op. cit., Pl. LXXI, 6 and 7.
95. N. Kondakov, Ikonografija Bogomateri, ii, St. Petersburg, 1915, pp. 140 ff.
96. Lichacev, op. cit., Pl. IV, No. 15 and fig. 143. A. Delattre, Le Culte de la Sainte Vierge en Afrique,
Paris, 1907, p. 100.
97. N. Lichacev, ‘Sceaux de 1’empereur Leon III 1’Isaurien’, Byzantion, xi, 1936, p. 475.
98. Wroth, op. cit., Introduction, p. Ixv, and Pl. LXVIII, 15, and later on, on the mints of Alexios III,
Pl. LXXIII, 7 and 10.
99. Monreale, top of the Triumph Arch. See also [Mjasoedov], Freski Spasa Nereditzy, Leningrad,
1925, Pl. XXI, and A. Munoz, Le Miniature delle Omilie di Giacomo Monaco . . ., Roma, 1910,
Pls. 21 (Emmanuel), 61-3 (other children).
100. e.g. A. Nekrasov, Drevne-russkoe izobrazitel’noe iskusstvo, Moscow, 1937, Pl. XI. Th. Smit,
Kahrie-Djami (Izv. Russ. Archeol. Instituta v Konstantinopole, xi, 1906), No. 118. WulfF-Alpatov, op. cit.,
fig. 58; Kondakov, Litzevoj . . . Podlinnik, p. 61.
101. In a general way, as regards the iconography of the emperors, the variety and the individual
character of the figures of the mosaics show well enough that these are real portraits. Here one is as
near as possible to what St. John Chrysostomos described as ‘the original portrait of the imperial face,