NATIONAL HELLENIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL. RESEARCH SECTION OF BYZANTINE RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM 22 BYZANTIUM, 1180-1204: ‘THE SAD QUARTER OF A CENTURY’? Pte am ND ALIciA SIMPSON ATHENS 2015CONTENTS Prologue Taxiarcuis G. Kouias, Director of the Institute of Historical Research Abbreviations Aucia Simpson, Perceptions and Interpretations of the Late ‘Twelfth Century in Modern Historiography Viaba Stankovic, Stronger than It Appears? Byzantium and its European Hinterland after the Death of Manuel T Komnenos Dinirei Koroseinikoy, The Byzantine-Seljuk Border in Times of Trouble: Laodikeia in 1174-1204 ‘Tetemactos Louncuis, The Fate of the German-Byzantine Alliance in the Late Twelfth Century Demetrios Kyritses, Political and Constitutional Crisis at the End of the Twelfth Century Micuac. Ancotp, The Anatomy of a Failed Coup: The Abortive Uprising of John the Fat (31 July 1200) Tuas ANAGNostakis, ‘From Tempe to Sparta’: Power and Contestation prior to the Latin Conquest of 1204 Kostis Suyruis, Sybaris on the Bosphoros: Luxury, Corruption and the Byzantine State under the Angeloi (1185-1203) PaGona ParaporouLou, Coinage and the Economy at the End of the Twelfth Century: An Assessment Pau Macpa.ino, Money and the Aristocracy (1180-1204) 11-12 13-34 35-48 49-81 83-95 97-111 113-34 159-78 179-94 195-204Maria GEROLYMATOU, Private Investment in Trade in the Final Years of the Twelfth Century Gerasimos Merianos, Literary Allusions to ‘Trade and Merchants: The ‘Great Merchant’ in Late Twelfth-Century Byzantium KaLurroe Livarpou, A Resting Place for ‘the First of the Angels’: The Michaelion at Sosthenion Nexrarios Zarras, A Gem of Artistic Ekphrasis: Nicholas Mesarites’ Description of the Mosaics in the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople 205-20 221-43 245-59 261-82NEkTARIOS ZARRAS A GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS. NICHOLAS MESARITES’ DESCRIPTION OF THE MOSAICS IN THE CHURCH OF THE HOLY APOSTLES AT CONSTANTINOPLE” Over forty years have passed since Henry Maguire laid the foundations for approaching and critically assessing ekphraseis of works of art in general, and of the account of Nicholas Mesarites in particular, by defining the methodology of studying this genre of Byzantine rhetoric.’ A basic methodological point that makes Maguire's work classic is that both text and image must be studied with great care in order to reveal whether an ekphrasis is truly valuable for understanding the iconography described or is merely a textual elaboration with literary conventions and rhetorical techniques. Several studies that have appeared on the subject in the interim have not carried Maguire’s conclusions further. By approaching ekphraseis in general, and the ekphrasis of Mesarites in particular, on the basis of aesthetic qualities and attitudes, they maintain that the narrative complexity * I would like to thank my friend and colleague Nikos Charalambopoulos, Assistant Professor of Classics at the University of Patras, for our fruitful discussions. 1, H, Macunre, ‘Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art’, DOP 28 (1974), 113-40 (= Rhetoric, Nature and Magie in Byzantine Art, Aldershot 1998, 1). E. Jerreysand P, Macatino, ‘The Architecture of Ekphrasis: Construction and Context of Paul the Silentary’s Poem on Hagia Sophia’, BMGS 12 (1988), 47-82, argue that the ‘contribution of the ekphrasis to the appreciation of the art is that it can comment directly on the artefact’ Ina likewise exemplary approach to, and interpretation of, Mesarites’ ekphrasis for the half figure representation of Christ in the main dome of the Holy Apostles, see R. NELSON, ‘To Say and To See: Ekphrasis and Vision in Byzantium’, in 1pem, (ed.), Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance, Cambridge 2000, 156-7, who distinguishes a characteristic rhetorical cliché, such as the metaphor, from the description of the object itself.262 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS and sophisticated approach to decoration that characterizes Mesarites’ description of the now lost mosaics in the Holy Apostles at Constantinople is the result of a fictional movement of the rhetor through the space in which Christ’s life is depicted? The ekphrasis aims ‘to reproduce an impression of the art work’ and not the details of the image.’ Consequently, Mesarites’ account—and ekphraseis more generally—is of value not in terms of its reproduction of a particular work of art but rather in terms of its effect on, and its perception by, the audience.‘ These observations could be applied to the description of the scenes in the Holy Apostles given by Constantine of Rhodes, who does indeed move behind the veil of rhetoric, but not to the ekphrasis of Mesarites.* Through the example of the Post-Resurrection scenes, which account for about half of the ensemble of the eighteen narrative scenes that Mesarites describes, and which constitute a unified and integrated cycle,? my 2. R. Wenn, ‘The Aesthetics of Sacred Space: Narrative, Metaphor and Motion in Ekphraseis of Chureh Buildings’, DOP 53 (1999), 70-1. 3. L. James and R. Wena, ‘ “To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places”: Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium’, Art History 14(1991), 8, 11-12 4, Wene and Jams, ‘Ekphrasis and Art’, 9. 5, L. James (ed.), Constantine of Rhodes, on Constantinople and the Church of the Holy Apostles. With a New Edition of the Greek Text by Ioannis Vassis, Farnham 2012, 204-17, esp. 208, 216, compares the accounts of Constantine of Rhodes and Mesarites for the Church of the Holy Apostles and concludes that there are apparent differences between them, 6. The seenes are the following: i) The Visit of the Myrrh-Bearing Women to the ‘Tomb and the Appearance of Christ to them; ii) the Annunciation of the Resurrection to the Disciples; iii) the Appearance on Mount of Galilee; iv) the Annunciation of the Resurrection to Thomas; v) the Appearance of Christ in Tiberias; vi) the Drawing of the Nets and the Meal that followed. For these scenes, see G. Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites. Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Association, N.S. 47 (1957), 882-9; Tx, Baseu-Baranas, Zwischen Wort und Bild: Nikolaos Mesarites und seine Beschreibung des Mosaikschmucks der Apostetkirche in Konstantinopel (Ende 12. Jh.), Vienna 1992, 204-33. These scenes, together with the corresponding ones in Monreale, compose the most extensive Post-Resurrection cycles in the monumental painting of the Middle Byzantine period. See O. Deus, The Mosaics of Norman Sicily, London 1949, pls. 72-4; E, Krrzincta, I mosaicé del periodo normanno in Sicilia, faes. IV. Il duomo di ‘Monreale: 1 mosaic del transetto, Palermo 1995, pls. 107, 124-59. 7, Regarding the rest of the Christological scenes described by Constantine of Rhodes and Nicholas Mesarites, it has not yet been determined which date to the pre-iconoctastic‘A GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 263 intention here is twofold. First, to demonstrate that Mesarites’ ekphrasis is distinguished by clarity and accuracy in the description of the scenes, and that his sophisticated language does not create confusion, but rather serves the iconography, as will be demonstrated by a brief examination of his literary sources. Second, to reconstruct the Post-Resurrection scenes in the Holy Apostles on the basis of Mesarites’ account and in terms of Middle and Late Byzantine iconography, and to date their creation close to the time in which Mesarites composed his ekphrasis, that is, c. 1200.8 In addition to these basic aims, I shall also broach the subject of Mesarites’ relation to both his audience and to the space in which the scenes he describes are depicted in order to reinforce my contention that his ekphrasis is a reliable description of the scenes he saw before him. The Post-Resurrection Appearances cycle in the Church of the Holy Apostles was represented in a zone, like a frieze,’ in the east and the south arms of the cross-shaped naos."° The poem of Constantine of Rhodes breaks off at the scene of the Crucifixion."' However, it is logical to assume that the scene of the Resurrection will have followed, and possibly also a Post- Resurrection scene, regularly found in most tenth-century programmes, and even more so in churches of funerary character, So even if the scene of the Visit of the Myrrh-Bearing Women to the Tomb pre-existed, it is certain, as emerges from Mesarites’ ekphrasis, that it was restored by the painter who executed the rest of the Post-Resurrection scenes so that all express the art and iconography of the period in which they were painted. The scene of the Myrrh-Bearing Women at the Tomb offers a characteristic example of the Period, which to the ninth century, and which to a later restoration, For a summary of these problems, see James, Constantine of Rhodes, 204-16, 8. On a twelfth-century date of creation, see James, Constantine of Rhodes, 205-7 with the bibliography; Macue, “Truth and Convention’, 122-5. For the circumstances of the composition of the ekphrasis, see Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 860. 9. This narrative manner of rendering the Post-Resurrection cycle in the Holy Apostles had a decisive influence on its depiction in the Palaiologan period. See N, ZARRAS, O eixovoyoueixds xiinhos tov ewOtisy evayyeMov ory xahaoddye.e uymetaey Swyoaguxs tov Badxavierv, Thessaloniki 2011, 293-308, 10. A. Heisenserc, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche. Zwei Basiliken Konstantins, Leipzig 1908, 141; Baseu-Banazas, Zwischen Wort und Bild, 232, 11. James, Constantine of Rhodes, 205.264 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS way in which Mesarites composes his ekphrasis. In the prolix text he devotes to it, he masterfully links the iconographic elements with comments on the pose, the gestures, and the emotions of the figures represented. The realism and repleteness of the description are apparent not only in the reference to the actual iconographic elements of the scene, that is, the two women, the angel above the stone, and the sleeping soldiers, but also in the commentary on them: Mary Magdalene herself, however, and the other Mary [..] see the angel in clear view, sitting on the stone of the sepulcher. And again there comes upon them fear and trembling, greater than they had expected to feel, and distraction, because of the astonishing and terrifying and strange aspect of the angel [..}, witnesses of my word are the seals of the tomb which have been loosed [..., the falling asleep of the unwatching guards, deathlike almost and so to speak unwaking, which they experienced when the stone was rolled away from the tomb, stricken in their minds by fear. Consider them, how they became like men thunderstruck; how, seized by fear as though by sleep and lying one upon another just as they fell, they were cast down to the ground seeming heavy of head and drowsy and sluggish and drugged with sleep [...]. Some of them may be seen stretched out snoring; others lean their heads on their own shoulders or on those of the others; some again press their hands and their knees against their bodies and support their cheeks on the palms of their hands."? Beyond the more general similarity of the ekphrasis to the iconographic scheme of the scene in the Middle Byzantine period, what is of particular significance is the remarkable similarity of the text to specific elements, such as the increased number of sleeping soldiers, aligned along the length of the stone, and the variety of poses and gestures, which characterize the iconography of the scene from the twelfth century onwards. Typical examples are the scenes in St Nicholas of Kasnitzis (1170/80)" in Kastoria and in the Refectory of the Monastery of St John the Theologian in Patmos (first phase, c. 1180) (fig. 1).'" Even more striking is Mesarites’ reference to 12, Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 882-3 13, The scene has not been published. For a reference, see T. Matmounst, Byzantine 12th Century Frescoes in Kastoria. Agioi Anargyroi and Agios Nikolaos tou Kasnitzi, Uppsala, 1979, 122. 14, A. K. Ontannos, H aoytrexrovun xa ai Butavtwvat roggoypaglat me MoviisA GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS: 265 the soldier who yawns, as this is exactly the case with the first soldier from the right of the custody in Staro Nagoriéino (1316-18), who is realistically depicted yawning.'® One other important element in the description is his Teference to the painter, who with the characteristic attire of the artist was Portrayed standing next to the tomb: But our logos very curiously gazing and looking about here and there, has perceived the man who depicted these things with his hand, as he is to be seen, standing upright at the tomb of the Lord, like some sleepless watcher, wearing that robe and all the rest of the garments which he wore with distinction in life and with which he adorned the outer man while he painted these things, achieving success, as in everything, with himself as well. ‘The reference to the painter, who has been identified as Eulalios,” is exceptionally important because it enables us to support something that is frequently impossible to express, due to lack of evidence, namely the depiction of painters in narrative scenes. This then is an artistic encomium of Mesarites for a notable artist no longer alive, as we learn from the text. Furthermore, Mesarites’ vocabulary is particularly interesting, as it reveals the orator’s philological roots, which add great value to his work, and provide us with an insight into the intellectual environment of his time. In the Passage quoted, we note the words zapnpaguovrés rivec (seemingly heavy of head) and ddutirviatov (asleep without waking)."* The first is encountered in Aristophanes," and was used often in Mesarites’ time as witnessed by the example of Eustathios of Thessaloniki.2° The second word is rarer but seems tov Grok you Maétuow, Athens 1970, pls. 22, 96; B. Kouuas, Butavews véyyn omy Edadba. Maquos, Athens 1986, pl. 26, 1S. Zarnas, O evrovoyoaptxds zaiulos tov ewbivisy evayyenton, pl ly fig, 4 16, Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 884 17. On the painter Eulalios, see S. KaLonissi-Vermy, ‘Painter's Portraits in Byzantine Art, DChAE 17 (1993-94), 138-9; James, Constantine of Rhodes, 205-7 with the previous bibliography. 18 Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 883. 19. Poaetae Comici Graeci, 111.2: Aristophanes Testimonia et Fragmenta, eds, R. Kasse and C. Austin, Berlin 1984, fr. 832 20. Eustatiios oF THessatontkt, Commentarit ad Homeri Odysseam, ed. G, STALLEAUM, 2 vols., Leipzig 1825-56; repr. Hildesheim 1970, I, 262.266 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS to have been preferred in this period and occurs in Constantine Stilbes,” ‘Theodore Hexapterygos,? and Niketas Choniates.” The next scene discussed is the Appearance of Christ to the Myrrh- Bearing Women, whichaccording tothe ekphrasis was represented diagonally to the preceding one, most probably in the portico of the south part of the east arm of the cross.** Mesarites gives an almost complete description of the scene, which like the previous one, is in total accord with the text of the gospel (Matthew 28:8-9).”* The reconstitution of the iconographic elements is based on the following passages of the ekphrasis: Then while they are making their way to the disciples, behold, the Savior, as though from some hidden and secret place at the angular point of the stoa [...] saying to them “Greeting”. He is godlike in His appearance, heroic [..] a half-god, because of the oneness and indivisibility of the hypostasis [..]. For He is both wholly god and wholly man, fair in beauty beyond all the sons of men [...]. The women bend the whole gaze of their eyes down upon the ground, unable to look back into the godlike aspect of His face, supporting their whole bodies on knees and elbows; their hands, which have grasped His immaculate feet, cling to them ardently. They will not let them go; they desire to hold in bonds the uncircumscribable; they kiss the fair feet [.... They pour forth tears of joy from their eyes [..]. They do not wish to let go the feet of the Savior.* The accurate description of the scene gives us the possibility of representing it, The majestic figure of Christ must have been frontal, and the two women on either side were trying to touch, with their maphorion- 21, Constantine Stites, Poemata: Carmen de incendio, eds. J. Dieaarr and W. Horanower, Munich-Leipzig 2005, 17. 22, W. Horanpwer, ‘Die Progymnasmata des Theodoros Hexapterygos’, in W. Horanpner et al. (eds.), Budévrios. Festschrift fiir Herbert Hunger zum 70. Geburstag, Vienna 1984, 153. 23, Nixeras Cuomiates, Historia, ed. J-L. van Dieten, CFHB 11, 2 vols., Berlin-New York 1975, 1, 536. 24, Heisensera, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche, 141; Bascu-BaRaBas, Zwischen Wort und Bild, 232. 25. On the contrary, James and Weep, ‘Ekphrasis and Art, 11, mi ‘introduced ideas not found in the gospel text’ 26. Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 884. in that MesaritesAGEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS: 267 covered hands, the feet of the Resurrected Lord. This pose of Christ and the Myrrh-Bearing Women is encountered only in the symmetrical type of the scene.”” Consequently, the representation that Mesarites saw in the Holy Apostles could be correlated with the scenes in the eleventh century ivory diptych of the Milan Duomo,” and the mid thirteenth century gospel book of the Iviron Monastery on Mount Athos, cod. 5, fol. 131v” (ig. 2), in which the women are depicted on either side. The realism of Mesarites’ description is apparent also in a rather special trait. Mesarites succeeds in linking the scenes of the biblical Story to one another and to the space in which they are located in the church. In his desire to transmit the experience of space and image, Mesarites exhorts his audience to follow him, to see certain elements of the image he describes, and to understand the meaning of the image by hearing his commentary. In this way, he utilizes his discourse to maximum advantage and turns the ‘listeners into spectators’, according to the definition of Nicholas Rhetor.*° Mesarites’ phrases at the beginning and at the end of the description of the scene are an invitation to the beholders to follow the sequence and the meaning of the scenes. His movement in the space is neither metaphorical nor imaginary,” but rather an actual periegesis in the monument’s interior. The perception of the space as a unity of surfaces, which links together Scenes with common content and narrative character, transforms Mesarites’ account into an experience that stimulates the senses and makes a profound impression on the audience, even though the ekphrasis can look very different 27. On the contrary, Baseu-Baravas, Zwischen Wort und Bild, 210-L1, argued that the scene was represented in the asymmetrical type, in which, however, only one of the Myrth- bearers touches Christ's fect, while the other is depicted behind her in all the examples. Thus this proposal is not supported by the description of the scene. 28 The scene is on the right wing of the diptych. See A. Goosciimiorand K, WetrzMann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des X.-XUI. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols, Berlin 1930-33, ML pl. XVIILb; A. Coren, The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory and Society in Byzantium (9h- 11th Centuries), Princeton 1994, fig. 2, 29. S. M. PeLEKAMDES et al, Ot Bnoarpor tov Ayiov Dpous. Eixovoypagnuéva xe1odyoupa, 4 vols., Athens 1975, Il fig. 20. 30. See Macnipes and Macoaumno, ‘The Architecture of Ekphrasis’, 49 with further bibliography. 31. As argued by Wena, ‘The Aestheties of Sacred Space’, 65, 73,268 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS to different viewers.” From a literary perspective, the epithet Aeoetzehos (godlike) employed by Mesarites merits attention. It dates back to Homeric times; was used by Gregory of Nyssa," and in the Middle Byzantine period by ‘hael Psellos,* Michael Glykas,** and Niketas Choniate: In the next scene, in which the Myrrh-Bearing Women inform the disciples of the Resurrection of the Lord, Mesarites exploits the pluralism of the episode both in the figures and in the contrast of emotions, offering yet another outstanding passage, from which I cite: [..] see how the women disciples of the Lord are even now bringing to their fellow-disciples, the apostles, the tidings of joy [..]; how they, who are by nature timid and weak, confidently give full satisfaction, as eye-witnesses of the Lord, to the terrified group of the disciples: how they rouse these discouraged men from fear and doubt, as though from sleep, and urgently command them to hasten to Galilee. But some of the men look upon their words as those of drunken old women, or scoffingly dismiss them as though they had got up from sleep at dead of night and had run to the tomb of the Savior and had seen some phantom in it [... Others will not turn their ears to listen to them; others again observing the stubbornness of the women, question them more seriously and compel their fellow- disciples to listen [..] still others begin to believe in part in the women’s words [...] others again communicate their doubts to each other and ask ‘one another who it can have been that was seen.” If we do not know the iconography of the scene, we could form the impression that Mesarites is less interested in describing what he sees and more in sweeping along his audience in a non-realistic description and a conventional rendering of the poses and the emotions of the depicted figures. However, the reality is different. The iconographic elements, but also the style of Mesarites’ description, are so remarkably similar to the scene in the and to See’, 157-8, . De opificio hominis, PG 44, 204. 34, MiciiscL PsELLOS, Theologica, I, ed. P. Gaumitr, Leipzig 1989, 19. 35, S. Eustramianes (ed.), Migaiyh top Tauxa. Ele reg érogtas rite Octac Toags, Athens 1906, 91, 36. NikeTas CHONIATES, Orationes et Epistulae, ed. J-L van Dieten, CFHB 3, Berlin New York 1972, 3.5. 37, Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 885-6.A GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS. 269 Panagia Hodegetria at Pec (c. 1337) (fig. 3), that it is as if he is writing about this very image. Mesarites observes carefully the whole iconography, the poses of the figures, the emotions and the gestures expressing these, and Proceeds to a faithful verbal representation, taking care to employ apposite thetorical techniques, to place emphasis on what he sees and not on what we think that he invents because of the stunning realism of the subject. On seeing the startled women with animated gestures swooping on the house, and the nonchalant disciples reclining on a podium with the sandal dangling from the foot of one of them, and the rest either discussing earnestly or looking incredulous, we realize that Mesarites’ account accurately conveys the scene. It is principally these features that form the aesthetic qualities of Mesarites’ ekphrasis. Despite the brevity of his description, Mesarites offers 4 characteristic example of his rhetorical ability in representing the image. The enhancement of the Myrth-Bearing Women through their dynamic Presence, in contrast to the passivity of the disciples and the disbelief they show on hearing the women’s’ words, is not a false description but a topos recurring in many texts, such as that of John Chrysostom.” This literary motif, the opposition between the courageous women and the timid disciples who react differently, is in fact characteristic of the writings of the twelfth-century preacher Philagathos.*° Mesarites responds to the evocative iconography of the scene and projects it in words coloured succinctly with Sophisticated rhetorical expressions borrowed from ancient Greek and early Christian literature, as well as from the literature of his time. A case in point is the reference to yoady xwbwviouéverv (drunken old women), among the earliest instances of which occurs in Basil of Caesarea,"' and is encountered in works of the twelfth century, notably that of Niketas Choniates.” Likewise, the reference to amg TAY vuxt@y (at dead of night) occurs in the First Tetralogy of Antiphon;* in the 38 V. R, Petkouc, La peinture serbe du Moyen Age, 2 vols., Belgrade 1930-34, I, pl 72a; Zannas, O erxovoyoupines xtixhos, fig. 23. 39. Jou Crtrysostom, In Matthaewm evangelistam, PG 58, 778. 40. Thborhanes (PartacaHos) KeraMeus, In quartum matutinum, PG 132, 644CD, 648A. 41, Basit oF Caesarea, Homilia VI in Hexaemeron, PG 29, 145. 42. Cuoniares, Orationes et Epistulae, 7818-19, 43. M. Gacanty (ed), Antiphon: The Speeches, Cambridge 1997, 1.4.6, 2.5.2, 45.2.270 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS Cappadocian Church Fathers: and in contemporaries of Mesarites.** In other instances, the origin of such phrases is difficult to detect, such as the participle xatedéqotwveupévous, which I would translate as indolent men. This word is not known in this type before the twelfth century, and apart from Mesarites is used also by his contemporary John Tzetzes.““ As in the previous ones, so in the present scene, through his high-flown rhetorical discourse Mesarites aims to bring the depicted figures to life before the eyes of his audience, as is apparent from phrases such as ‘let us see’ or ‘consider them’. Another characteristic of Mesarites’ ekphrasis, which differentiates it from the poem of Constantine of Rhodes,” is the terse theological scholia, which concentrate on the Resurrection of Christ and are linked with the iconography of the scene. ‘The representation of the Appearance on Mount Galilee is commented ‘on by Maguire, who concludes that the iconographic elements cited by Mesarites, with the disciples depicted ‘in a row’ and moving towards the Resurrected Lord, who will have been portrayed at the edge of the scene, fits perfectly with the type known to us mainly from Codex Par. gr. 74, fol. 61v (second half of the eleventh century).* We can add here that, in contrast to the usual pre-iconoclastic iconography of the scene, where Christ is at the centre and the disciples on either side of him,’ the type used in the Holy Apostles does not appear before the eleventh century. This piece of evidence, when taken into consideration with analogous observations to come, advocates a late dating of the Post-Resurrection scenes. 44, Bastt. or Caesarea, In Genesim, PG 54, 603. 45. Cuontares, Historia, 255, 46, Joun Tzerzes, Epistolae, ed. P. A. M. Leone, Leipzig 1972, 123 47. Constantine of Rhodes cites the scenes, probably as a pretext for developing an extensive theological commentary rather than for describing them, See JAwEs, Constantine of Rhodes, 211-16, 48, H. Omonr, Evangiles avec peintures byzantines du XIF siécle, 2 vols., Paris 1909, pl 56; Macuirs, “Truth and Convention’, 135, fig. 24, 49, As one of the earliest examples of this type, I mention the scenes on the ivory of the Louvre Museum: Gotoscimipt and Werrzmann, Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, pl. XXXVIL.100; and in the Tokali Kilise in Gdreme: A. WHarton-Eesrem, Tokali Kilise: Tenth-Century Metropolitan Art in Byzantine Cappadocia, Washington DC 1986, figs. 91-2.GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS: a Described next are two events associated with the Appearance of Christ to Thomas. Before the scene of the Incredulity of Thomas,°” Mesarites describes the episode in which the disciples, headed by Peter, inform Thomas that the Lord appeared to them in the upper room in Jerusalem, where they were gathered behind closed doors. Peter’s dialogue with Thomas ends in a verbal confrontation between them, as the younger disciple stubbornly refuses to believe what Peter announces, Let us look at the basic points of this altercation as described by Mesarites: But let us, guided on our way, so to speak, by the pictured handiwork of the artist, go to that disciple who showed his doubt in such fair fashion and let us see[..] how like some fellow-student who has left off his studies and has come to the school after the teacher has left, they [the disciples] teach him [Thomas] better concerning the time when the teacher is present and upbraid his defection. He however, does not wish to listen to them Dut prefers to think otherwise |..]. Peter replies to him very energetically, telling how he himself saw the Lord after the Resurrection, how the Lord entered when the doors were closed [...]. Thomas however draws himself up against Peter in contrary and contradictory fashion, saying ‘Thou will hot persuade me, Peter’[..] the gesture of his hand is censorious and the expression of his face is energetic,’ The iconographic elements that emerge from the above passage compose a scene of animated dialogue between Peter and Thomas, with the younger disciple disputing Peter’s words. However, such a scene is virtually unknown in the corpus of Middle Byzantine painting and this dialogue could be considered as a rhetorical invention of Mesarites rather than a description of an actual scene. We must come to the years after the mid-fourteenth century and to a provincial monument, whose programme is distinguished by its sophisticated iconographic models, in order to find this scene, It is the Panagia Gouverniotissa in Crete, with wall-paintings dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century and one of the most important Resurrection cycles surviving in Greece. The scene (fig. 4) in the 50. Macuiré, “Truth and Convention’, 135, proves that Mesarites’ description corresponds to late Byzantine depictions of the scene. 51. Downy, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 886-7,272 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS Cretan monument* matches Mesarites’ description. Here Peter converses with Thomas, who raises his hand, just as mentioned in the ekphrasis. This is a complementary scene that functions as an introductory episode to the main scene, which is the Incredulity. Scenes of this kind are encountered from the twelfth century onwards,® and are usually present in the narrative programmes of the great churches of the fourteenth century.‘ To the best of my knowledge, the representation in the Gouverniotissa is unique in Byzantine painting and without it we would have considerable difficulty in reconstructing the iconographic elements of Mesarites’ description. The presence of this cycle in a provincial monument is certainly not fortuitous and should be linked with the spiritual milieu of the monastery in those yeai The Gouverniotissa Monastery is considered to have been an important intellectual center, associated with significant ecclesiastical personages of the time, among them the Constantinopolitan Joseph Bryennios (d. 1432/8), a former monk at the Stoudios Monastery in the capital. Thus it was likely that Gouverniotissa’s abbot or another individual from the monastery was responsible for this important program, whose resurrection portion links the Cretan church with major monuments of the Byzantine Empire. As in the case of thescene of the Visit of the Myrrh- Bearing Women to the ‘Tomb, here too Mesarites finds the opportunity, occasioned by the dialogue between Peter and Thomas, to develop a brief theological commentary on the incarnate Resurrection of the Lord. His text is reminiscent of the preacher Philagathos’ thirty-fifth homily on the ninth eothinon (matins) gospel. With regard to the vocabulary used in the description of the above scene, noteworthy is the word eixovoyerpoupytais (the pictured handiwork), which is an hapax in Greek literature and was most probably coined by Mesarites 52. M, VassitaxisMavaakaxis, The Church of the Virgin Gouverniotissa at Potamies, Crete (PhD Dissertation, University of London 1986), 221-2, fig. 164. 53. H. Macumre, Art and Eloquence in Byzantium, Princeton 1981, 103, who has pointed out that the presence of these ‘extra scenes’ is a development characteristic of the twelfth century. 54, ZaRRas, O evzovoyoawixds miixhoc, 295-304, 55, VaSSILAKissMavrakakis, Virgin Gouverniotissa, 312-13, 56, Tieorianes (PuiacaTuos) Kerameus, In nonum matutinum, PG 132, 685BC- 688BC,GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 23 himself—yet another example of the sophisticated language characteristic of his work but also of the intellectual milieu in Constantinople in this period. The last two scenes of the ekphrasis are the Appearance of Christ at Lake Tiberias and the Meal after this, In contrast to the familiar pre- iconoclastic representation of the Appearance at Lake Tiberias, the scene of the Meal is a rare episode that follows the Miraculous Draught of Fishes and is depicted from the eleventh century onwards. According to Mesarites’ description, this scene was either illustrated together with the representation of the Appearance at the lake or more likely as a separate episode. In his description of the scenes, Mesarites offers a host of details that are of great significance for the iconography of the specific subjects and primarily of the rare episodes after the disciples disembark on the lakeside. For this reason, they will be examined separately. From the long description, we shall consider first Christ’s appearance at the lake and then the coming ashore of the disciples. The last two episodes, namely the meal of the disciples and the drawing up of the nets by Peter, will be examined subsequently, For the two first episodes, Mesarites writes: There is a ship upon the sea of Tiberias, and the rowers in it are the select of the apostles, virgins in their number [..] for they are seven altogether [..]. When it was already the first light of dawn and the gray of early morning, the Savior appeared to them on the shore [.... He commanded them to cast the net on the right side of the ship, and to find fish there, | but [they] even are not strong enough to drag it up to themselves and to the ship because of the multitude of fish. Then John, who recognized the power of the Savior’s words [...] both pointing with his finger and speaking to Peter made it plain to him that that man who spoke to them was truly the Savior [..] and Peter, when he learned this [...] not waiting to ut on his garments—for he was naked, on account of having cast himself into the sea [... -and swimming with his hands and steering with his feet, reached the Lord before the others. And He reached out His hand to him, and again, as one can see, draws him out of the sea rejoicing [..). The disciples go out of the ship; they see bread and fish on the coals.” There is an obvious similarity between the text and the representation of the Appearance at Tiberias, as elaborated mainly from the eleventh 57. Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 888-9,24 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS century onwards, and depicted in important works of the period, especially in the twelfth century Parma gospel (fol. 60v),** in Monreale,® and in the Monastery of St John the Theologian in Patmos (first phase, c. 1180). However, beyond the concordance of text and image in the general iconographic framework, what is particularly significant for dating the Post- Resurrection scenes in the Holy Apostles are specific details that are not encountered in the above works, but are found in later ones. The detail of John pointing at the Lord occurs in Hagia Sophia at Trebizond (1250/60)"! (fig. 5); that of Peter swimming naked towards the shore in the Panagia Gouverniotissa in Crete; and that of Christ taking Peter by the hand in Deéani (1345/8). Last, the disciples’ disembarkation on the lakeside, where the fish and the loaf of bread lie, is known to us from Bogorodica Ljeviska (1309/13). In examining Mesarites’ literary sources, it is interesting to note that he was influenced significantly by the literature of the classical period and of Late Antiquity, which is again borne out by the intellectual style of his language. For example, the word évOoAxjv (the gray of early morning), appears in ancient Greek texts and early Christian literature." ‘The last two scenes, that of the Meal and of Peter drawing up the nets, are described in the following excerpt from the ekphrasis: As giver of the feast, Jesus invites them to breakfast, He who gives food toall flesh. He takes in His hands the bread and the fish and divides them among the disciples, standing upright and not reclining. And they as they receive the food do not recline, but consume it standing [.... They 58. V, Lazaney, Storia della pittura bizantina, Torino 1967, fig. 241. 59, Demus, Norman Sicily, pl. 74; Krrzincer, Monreale, pls. 155-9. 60. ORLANDos, Movil @coAGyoU, pls. 17, 70; KoLUas, ITeéruos, fig. 35. 61. A. Eastwon, Art and Identity in Thirteenth Century Byzantium. Hagia Sophia and the Empire of Trebizond, Birmingham 2004, 110-11, pl. IX, fig. 83. 62, VASSILAKIS-MavRakaKis, Virgin Gouverniotissa, fig. 165. 63. V. R. Petkovic and Dz. Boskovic, Manastir Deéani, 2 vols., Belgrade 1941, Il, pl. XCCIV. 64, Dr. Panic and G. Banic, Bogorodica Ljeviika, 2nd edn, Belgrade 1988, 121; B. Zivkowe, Bogorodica Ljeviska. Les dessins des fresques, Belgrade 1991, VIL.2. 65. Plutarch's Moralia, trans. F.C. Bassirt, 16 vols, Cambridge MA 1934-35, 1, 20C8; Bastt. oF Carsanta, Quod rebus mundanis adhaerendum non sit, et de incendio extra Ecclesiam facto PG 31, 552A.A GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 75 are bare-legged to their knees [..] their thighs are muscular, manly and strong, well-fleshed and sinewy. Their arms are bare to the very shoulders; their hands are strong and broad of palm; they are strong to grasp the oars [..]. But Peter alone, since, I suppose, he received his food from the hands of the Lord before the others [..] draws up the net from the sea, bracing himself with his feet and grasping with his hands the fishing net, which is completely full of great fish [... And Peter turns his head toward his companions and fellow-workers, calling to them, I suppose, to lay hold along with him and drag the net out to dry ground. This description fits perfectly with the scenes in Spas MiroZski in P$kov (c. 1156)" and in Hagia Sophia at Trebizond (fig. 6),°* where the standing Lord shares out the fish and the bread to the likewise standing disciples. But what is particularly impressive is that Mesarites’ account not only records the elements of the iconography, but also offers insights into the aesthetics of post-iconoclastic art with the detailed description of the attitudes and the style of the painted figures. The disciples’ muscular arms and legs, visible because they wear short tunics; their sturdy shoulders; and Peter turning towards his companions as he draws up the nets with great strength, are not rhetorical clichés of a spiritual exercise. They are accurate visual data, remarkably akin to those in the scenes in Spa MiroZski and at Trebizond. The figures in the second monument give us a good idea of the freshness of the iconography in the corresponding scene observed by Mesarites, which reflects also the changes in iconography. Moreover, the similarity in the pose of Peter between the ekphrasis and his figure in the aforementioned monuments, as well as in Palaiologan monuments,” indicates the innovations of Middle Byzantine art and enhances the arguments for a late date of the Post-Resurrection scenes in the Holy Apostles. The episodes of the Drawing up of the Nets and the Coming Ashore of the Disciples accompany the 66, Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 889. 67. P. Unpenwoon, ‘Some Problems in Programs and Iconography of Ministry Cycles’, in (DEM (ed.), The Karive Djami: Studies in the Art of the Kariye Djami and its Intellectual Background, IV, Princeton 1975, fig. 4. 68. Eastwonn, Art and Identity, 110-11, pl. IX, fig. 83, 69. As, for example, in the Church of Christ at Potamies Pediados (1360) in Crete. See S. Ranoutsaki, Die Fresken des Soteras Christos-Kirche bei Potamies. Studie zur byzantinischen Wandmalerei auf Kreta im 14, Jahrhundert, Munich 1992, fig. 11.216 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS principal representation of Christ’s Appearance at Lake Tiberias, and are not found before the twelfth century. The relation between the ekphrasis and Hagia Sophia at Trebizond is reinforced by one further feature: Mesarites describes the scene of the Appearance at Tiberias together with that of the Incredulity of Thomas. It is quite possible that the two scenes were depicted together, exactly as on the north wall of the bema in Hagia Sophia.” In addition to the visual evidence, Mesarites’ account offers literary evidence in favour of the late date of the scenes under discussion. In the introduction to the description, Mesarites refers briefly to the morning stillness on the lake and to the disappointment of the disciples after they failed in their first attempt to catch the fish. Exactly the same themes are described in greater detail by the twelfth-century preacher Philagathos in his Homily on the tenth eothinon, the earliest and fullest commentary on Christ’s appearance in Tiberias.” Indeed, a detail that links the two texts is the comment on the faith of Peter, who dives into the lake in order to reach the shore, and his rescue by the Lord, which as far as I know is not commented on in a similar way before Philagathos. That Mesarites was fully conversant with the literature of his times is apparent also in his vocabulary, in the use of rare words, such as deurvoxiajrog (giver of the feast), originating in ancient Greek literature.” The word is found in contemporaries of Mesarites such as Eustathios of Thessaloniki,” Niketas Choniates,” and Philagathos.”* Besides iconographic reasons, there are also liturgical reasons that advocate the inclusion of the Post-Resurrection cycle in a restoration carried out in Holy Apostles after the tenth century. It was in this period that the reading aloud of the Post-Resurrection gospel pericopes in the orthros (matins service) of Sundays and the intermediate feasts during the Pentecost were systematized. This development in the use of the eothina pericopes can 70. Eastwono, Art and Identity, pl IX. 71 In decinum matutinum, PG 132, 692A-CD. 72. Avuenasus, The Learned Banqueters, ed. and trans, S, D. Ousox, 8 vols., Cambridge MA-London 2006-12, 106e. 73, Bustatuios oF THESSALONIKI, Comentarié ad Homeri Iliadem pertinentes ad fidem codicis Laurentiani editi, ed. M. van ver Vatk, 4 vols,, Leiden 1971-87, II, 798.10. 74, CHoniates, Orationes et Epistulae, 35.17, 65.7. 75.G, Ross-Tats, Filagato da Cerami Omelie peri vangeli domenicali ele feste di tutto Panno, Palermo 1969, 241, 8.5.A GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 27 be followed in the typika of Constantinople. In the typikon of Hagia Sophia and in that of the Evergetes Monastery, the position and the content of the eothina pericopes, not only during the Pentecost but also throughout the ecclesiastical year, are defined and standardized.” These liturgical developments contributed to the elaboration of the pre-iconoclastic group of two or three Post-Resurrection scenes into a rich iconographic cycle with triple the number of scenes as is encountered in the second half of the twelfth century. The consolidation of the lection of the Resurrection pericopes of the orthros in the liturgical typikon led to the writing of the first known complete set of homilies on the eleven eothina gospels by the preacher Philagathos in southern Italy.” Thus it is surely not accidental that we have in Monreale a wide Resurrection cycle, the unique surviving example from this period with eight episodes, just as the cycle in the Holy Apostles. Rare scenes, such as the Dialogue between Thomas and Peter, the Meal in Galilee and Peter Drawing up the Nets, which are not found before the twelfth century, feature in the Post-Resurrection cycle and are depicted next to the major scenes as secondary episodes. To summarize, the description of the Post-Resurrection scenes in Mesarites’ ekphrasis on the Church of the Holy Apostles is precious artistic testimony of the developments in iconography in the Middle Byzantine period. The strong similarities, not only in the iconography but also in the style and aesthetic principles of Mesarites’ description of the scenes at the Holy Apostles with scenes at Pskov, Monreale, and Hagia Sophia at Trebizond point to a common artistic conception, and place the creation of the Post-Resurrection cycle at the Holy Apostles in the last years of the twelfth century. Represented in Mesarites’ description are artistic trends, which prevailed in Constantinople during the last quarter of the twelfth century and which determined the development of the cycle in the Palaiologan period. The increased number of Post-Resurrection scenes in relation to the period before Iconoclasm is undoubtedly due to the changes 76, J. Mareos, Le Typikon de la Grande Eglise, 2 vols., Rome 1962-63, II, 171-4; R. H. Joaban, The Synaxarion of the Monastery of the Theotokos Evergetis, March-August: The Movable Cycle, Beliast 2005, 538-9, 566-8, 588-90, 606-9, 619-21, 632-4, 654-7. See also, Zannas, O evxovoyouginds xvxhos, 80-6. 77. Interpretatio in undecim evangelia matutina, PG 132, 606D-720C.78 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS in the liturgical typikon, brought about by the use of the eothina gospel pericopes in the orthros. In my opinion, these scenes, perfectly suited to the mortuary character of the Holy Apostles, project a further ideological relationship with the monument. The choice of the Post-Resurrection episodes is not fortuitous, but associated directly with the apostles, who had been buried in the church, and who were witnesses to the appearances of the Resurrected Christ. The emphasis on the apostle Thomas, with the rare scene of his Dialogue with Peter, should perhaps be interpreted through the reference to his work and personality in relation to the other apostles, exactly as Mesarites presents him in his invocation of the apostles.’ I believe that the same reasoning can be used to justify the fact that some of the most popular episodes in the Post-Resurrection cycle, such as the Appearance of Christ to Luke and Kleopas on the Road to Emmaus and the Meal at Emmaus, are not depicted in the Holy Apostles precisely because these two disciples did not belong to the inner circle of disciples. Nicholas Mesarites, as a taleted rhetor in Comnenian Constantinople, classicized his text by employing words and expressions from ancient literature, Although the systematic presentation of Mesarites’ literary sources is beyond the scope of the present article, it is obvious from what has been said that Mesarites, like many men of letters of his day, had a broad knowledge of the literature of antiquity, from Homer and the classicistic Cappadocian Fathers to Byzantine literature, and that he used that knowledge to compose a sophisticated description of the scenes at the Holy Apostles. Mesarites’ adulation of antiquity, expressed by a vocabulary of the highest calibre, frequently rare and unique, connects him to the group of ‘professional classicists’ of his time, who defined themselves intellectually through the profound appreciation of the classical Greek literary corpus, setting their seal, with their personality, upon the intellectual life of Constantinople.” Through the use of specific expressions, Mesarites frequently invites his audience to follow him on this periegesis of the monument’s decoration, and this, it must be stressed, can in no way be considered fictional. The 78, Downey, ‘Nikolaos Mesarites’, 867-8. 79, See A. Kawa tis, Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition, Cambridge 2008, chap. 5.GEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 79 close semantic, iconographic, and temporal unity presented in the Post- Resurrection scenes—and in relation also to the gospel text—lead me to believe that Mesarites describes them as he physically moves from scene to scene, without gaps and omissions. The author is therefore not only a sophisticated rhetor but also a sophisticated viewer, who has the ability to express in eloquent words what he sees before him.® The details he provides, either on scenes with a long tradition in ecclesiastical literature (the Myrrh- Bearing Women at the Tomb, Incredulity of Thomas), or on gospel episodes commented on but rarely in Patristic texts (the Meal at Tiberias, Dialogue between Peter and Thomas), give a clear indication of their iconography and style. Mesarites’ commentary is often extravagant, but this ‘rhetorical ornamentation interprets the iconography with precision, without altering the image and without inventing elements alien to it. The theological scholia and the erudite vocabulary in the descriptions of the scenes of the Women at the Tomb and in the Appearance to Thomas or of the landscape in the Appearance at Tiberias, do not deflect Mesarites from his basic objective, namely to describe in detail the scene before him. Bearing in mind that this ekphrasis is the only source for the depiction of extremely rare scenes, of which no more than a couple of examples survive from the Palaiologan period, we can better appreciate the inestimable value of Mesarites’ text for our knowledge of Byzantine art. 80. On Mesarites the rhetor, see James, Constantine of Rhodes, 216 with further bibliography. 81. Wens, ‘The Aesthetics of Sacred Space’, 61.280 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS Fig. 1. Patmos, Monastery of St John the Theologian, Refectory. ‘The Myrrh-BearingWomen at the Tomb (Source: Koutras, ITdéquos, pl. 26). v Retoutaxe pier jc Eoy, PoOpoemosrrfe trac Pssedulareds 7-4 Fig. 2. Mt Athos, [viron Monastery, Gospel book, cod. 5. The Appearance of Christ to the Myrr-Bearing Women (Source: Psuxaines et al. Ot Onocevgo%, I, fig. 20).AGEM OF ARTISTIC EKPHRASIS 281 Fig. 3 Serbia, Pec. Panagia Hodegetria. The Myrrh-Bearing Women inform the disciples of the Resurrection (Source: Nektarios Zarras). Fig. 4. Crete, Panagia Gouvernii that the Lord appeared to the disciples (Source: Maria Vassilaki).282 NEKTARIOS ZARRAS, Fig. 5. Trebizond, Hagia Sophia. The Appearance of Christ at Lake Tiberias (det.) (Source: Easrwonn, Art and Identity, pl. IX). Fig. 6. Trebizond, Hagia Sophia. The Meal at Lake Tiberias and Peter drawing up the nets (Source: Eastmonp, Art and Identity, pl. 1X).