byzantium: faith and power - Προσωπικές...

Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557)Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia

Byzantium: Faith and Power(1261–1557)

Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Symposia

Edited bySarah T. Brooks

the metropolitan museum of art, new york

yale university press, new haven and london

ContentsPeter Barnet, Helen C. EvansFOREWORD vi

Sarah T. BrooksPREFACE viii

Map: Byzantium and Its Neighbors, 1261–1557 xii

Thomas F. Mathews Icons and the Religious Experience 2

David Jacoby Late Byzantium between the Mediterranean and Asia:Trade and Material Culture 20

Angeliki E. Laiou Byzantium and the Neighboring Powers: Small-State Policies and Complexities 42

Robert F.Taft, S.J.The Living Icon:Touching the Transcendent in Palaiologan Iconography and Liturgy 54

Maria Mavroudi Exchanges with Arabic Writers during the Late Byzantine Period 62

Sophia Kalopissi-VertiPatronage and Artistic Production in Byzantium during the Palaiologan Period 76

Vassilios Kidonopoulos The Urban Physiognomy of Constantinople from the Latin Conquest through the Palaiologan Era 98

Nancy Patterson SevcenkoThe Monastery of Mount Sinai and the Cult of Saint Catherine 118

Hans BeltingDandolo’s Dreams:Venetian State Art and Byzantium 138

Antony Eastmond Art and Frontiers between Byzantium and the Caucasus 154

Donald Ostrowski “Moscow the Third Rome” as Historical Ghost 170

Yuri Pyatnitsky Byzantine Palaiologan Icons in Medieval Russia 180

Photograph Credits 200

76

When Michael VIII Palaiologos recapturedConstantinople and restored Byzantine rule inthe year 1261, the reconstituted empire wasconfined to parts of Asia Minor,Thrace,Macedonia, and the Peloponnese. Large tractsof formerly imperial lands remained underLatin, mainly Venetian, rule.The Palaiologoithus reigned over a relatively small territory.This essay, based primarily on extant material,is geographically confined to the lands recov-ered by the Byzantines and is chronologicallybound by the rule of the Palaiologoi, that is,from 1261 to 1453.1 Although Byzantium wasplagued by political and financial troublesduring this period, artistic production ofevery type flourished: mosaics, wall and iconpainting, book illumination, and the minorarts.The purpose of the following discussionis, on the one hand, to investigate the identityand social position of these art patrons and, onthe other, to evaluate the patrons’ impact onart production.2

Dedicatory inscriptions and donor por-traits, in addition to written sources, indi-cate that patronage in the Palaiologan periodmay be roughly classified into four cate-gories: the imperial, aristocratic, and ecclesi-astical (including monastic) classes as well asthe nonelite population.

IMPERIAL PATRONAGEThe founder of the dynasty, Michael VIIIPalaiologos (r. 1259–82), was very active inbestowing imperial commissions.After herecovered Constantinople, he faced a deso-late capital whose monuments had sufferedextensive damage because of the Latin occu-pation.3 The historian Pachymeres relatesthat Michael restored those parts of HagiaSophia altered by the Latins and that he pre-sented the Great Church with sacred gifts,including liturgical textiles and vessels.4 It isgenerally accepted,moreover, that MichaelVIIIcommissioned the panel of the Deesis in thesouth gallery of Hagia Sophia in gratitudefor the recovery of Constantinople.5 In theplasticity of its figures and fine modeling ofits faces, this exquisite mosaic reflects a desireto revive classical models that is in accor-dance with the ideology of Michael VIIIconcerning the restoration of the empire. Inaddition, his renovation program in the capi-tal included the repair of churches andmonasteries that are no longer standing.6

Michael VIII pursued the same policy ofrestoring religious foundations in the newlyrecovered Byzantine provinces. His effigy,depicted on the south facade of the church ofPanagia Mavriotissa near Kastoria, togetherwith that of Alexios I Komnenos, testifies tohis support of this monastery.The juxtaposi-tion of the first emperor of the Palaiologoiwith the founder of the Komnenian dynastyaimed at underlining Michael’s descent fromthe Komnenoi, as well as establishing andlegitimizing his authority in the recentlyrestored province.7 Moreover, the familyportrait of Michael in the exonarthex of themonastery church of the Virgin in Apollonia,near the Adriatic coast,8 and an imperialportrait (recently identifed as Michael)painted in the rock-cut church of SaintErasmus near Ohrid9 bear witness to imperial

Sophia Kalopissi-Verti

Patronage and ArtisticProduction inByzantium during thePalaiologan Period

77

renovation of religious foundations in thenewly recovered northwestern provincesafter the expulsion of the Latins.All thesedonations seem to reflect Michael VIII’sbelief in the importance of restoring theecumenical character of the ByzantineEmpire.

Andronikos II (r. 1282–1328) continuedhis father’s building and reconstruction pro-gram.10 Gradually, however, the increasingfinancial problems of the state limited impe-rial patronage, which was mostly confined toserving concrete needs. Characteristic of thereduced goals of imperial sponsorship is the donation of Michael IX, co-emperorwith Andronikos II, who offered to pay the expenses for restoring the dilapidatedroof of the basilica of Saint Demetrios inThessalonike, according to an inscriptionwritten on a pier of the church in 1319–20.11

The difficulties confronting the imperialbudget after the mid-fourteenth century arereflected in the public subscription orga-nized by Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (r. 1347–54) in order to raise funds forreconstructing sections of the dome and theeastern semidome of Hagia Sophia, whichhad collapsed in 1346.The mosaics in theeastern arch were later completed by John VPalaiologos (r. 1341–91).12

The financial shortcomings of the state inPalaiologan times are also apparent in the out-put of luxuriously illuminated manuscripts. Ithas been argued that Palaiologan emperorscommissioned only a few manuscripts, oftenwith a specific purpose in mind.13 The codexof Dionysios Areopagites in the Louvre is acharacteristic example.A manuscript of the1330s, it was reused and upgraded by Manuel II(r. 1391–1425) for presentation to the abbey ofSaint Denis, near Paris, on the occasion of adiplomatic mission in 1408 (see fig. 42).14

A different policy was followed by John VI Kantakouzenos, who commissioned alarge number of manuscripts.Aside from theluxurious codex, now in the BibliothèqueNationale, Paris (ca. 1370–75), containingthe theological works he wrote after his

retirement (fig. 43),15 twenty-six sumptuouscodices commissioned by the same emperorwere presented to and are still in the posses-sion of the Vatopedi Monastery on MountAthos.16 One of the most precious amongthese is the codex Skeuophylakion 16, aGospel Book written in the HodegonMonastery in Constantinople in 1340–41,

Fig. 43. John VI Kantakouzenos as Emperorand Monk, from the Theological Works ofJohn VI Kantakouzenos. Constantinople,ca. 1370–75.Tempera and gold on vellum.Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (Ms. grec. 1242, fol. 123v)

Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives78

which includes superb portraits of the Four Evangelists. It is evident, however, thatKantakouzenos’s precious gifts to the VatopediMonastery did not reflect state policy butrather the private needs of the emperor, whodesired to retire to the monastery.

Certain precious portable objects thathave survived from the period also revealthat the early Palaiologan emperors commis-sioned works as gifts in the service of imperialpolicy.These include the altar cloth offeredby Michael VIII to the Genoese on the occasionof the treaty signed at Nymphaion in 126117

and the epitaphios now in the NationalHistory Museum in Sofia (fig. 44), a valuableexample of Byzantine court embroidery,which was offered by Andronikos II as a gift to the cathedral church of Saint Sophiain Ohrid.18

Female imperial patronage also seems tohave been significant during the Palaiologanperiod. In the last decade of the thirteenth

century, Theodora (d. 1303), widow ofMichael VIII Palaiologos, restored the LipsMonastery in Constantinople and added toit a second church dedicated to Saint Johnthe Baptist; she also renovated the convent ofthe Holy Anargyroi.19 A group of luxuriouslate-thirteenth-century biblical and liturgicalmanuscripts, earlier assigned to the scripto-rium of the princess Theodora PalaiologinaRaoulaina (d. 1300), a niece of MichaelVIII,20 on the basis of monograms on one of them (Vat. gr. 1158), has recently beenattributed to the dowager empress Theodora.21

In addition, an elegant psalter in the IveronMonastery on Mount Athos, executed in1346 in the scriptorium of the HodegonMonastery, was commissioned by Anna ofSavoy, second wife of Andronikos III.Themanuscript was written and decorated afterAndronikos’s death in 1341 and before Annawas compelled to recognize Kantakouzenosas co-emperor with her son John V in

Fig. 44. Epitaphios given by Emperor Andronikos II to the archbishop of Ohrid.Constantinople, ca. 1313–28. Red silk, linen lining, and bullion. National History Museum,Sofia (29231)

Patronage and Artistic Production 79

1347.22 A further example of female imperialpatronage is offered by a silver-relief cross,now in the Dionysiou Monastery on MountAthos, commissioned in the first half of thefifteenth century by the empress HelenaPalaiologina, wife of Manuel II and motherof the last Byzantine emperor.23

In sum, it seems that after the recon-struction program of the first two Palaiologanemperors, imperial patronage diminished as aresult of the financial difficulties experiencedby the state. Furthermore, two distinct moti-vations appear to have prompted imperialdonations. Most, including restorations anddiplomatic gifts, served the requirements ofthe state, whereas others reflect private needsand thus are closer to aristocratic intentionsfor commissioning works of art.

ARISTOCRATIC PATRONAGEAs Angeliki Laiou has pointed out, it waspart of the ideology of the Palaiologan aris-tocracy that its members actively participatedin intellectual and artistic life as patrons,commissioners, and recipients.24 The follow-ing examines select works of art commis-sioned by the high, middle, and minorprovincial aristocracy.

Michael Doukas Glabas Tarchaneiotes, arich landowner and patron of literature andart, became before 1300 protostrator, one ofthe highest offices in the Late Byzantine mil-itary hierarchy.25 Two significant monumentssponsored by Glabas and his wife, Maria,have survived. In 1303 Glabas and his wiferenovated the small tenth-century chapel ofSaint Euthymios, attached to the great basil-ica of Saint Demetrios in Thessalonike.26

The dedication to Saint Euthymios, founderof Palestinian monasticism, is thought toreflect the ecclesiastical policy of EmperorAndronikos II, who was attempting to rec-oncile with monastic leaders after the con-troversy caused by the Unionist policy of hisfather, Michael VIII.The monastic contextof the chapel’s program and function hasbeen especially stressed in current scholar-ship.27 The three-dimensional perception of

space and figures and the emphasis on thevolume and plastic rendering of the facesplace these wall paintings among the bestrepresentatives of the so-called Heavy Style.Reaching its peak about 1300, this styleemphasized the stereometric rendering offigures and architectural complexes. One ofthe two painters who worked on the frescoesin the chapel has been identified with thelegendary Manuel Panselinos, who accordingto a later tradition painted the church of theProtaton on Mount Athos.28

The second instance of Michael Glabas’spatronage was the renovation of the mon-astery of Saint Mary Pammakaristos inConstantinople.29 Between 1315 and 1320,after Glabas’s death, his widow commis-sioned a funerary chapel in memory of herhusband. Four inscriptions, located inside theparekklesion and on its facade, commemo-rate the patrons. The mosaics of the chapelembody the finest qualities of the so-calledSecond Palaiologan Style, which flourishedin the first decades of the fourteenth cen-tury. Their compositions are characterized by a restrained classicism, and their figures bya sense of moderation and elegance.Thesumptuous mosaic decoration, the ostenta-tious dedicatory inscriptions, and the pompousepigrams that accompanied the now-lostfuneral portraits of Glabas and members ofhis family give an idea, as Cyril Mango hasobserved, of the “aggressively aristocratictone” of a typical monastery patronized byan aristocrat in the Palaiologan period.30

Theodore Metochites (1270–1332) wasanother prominent patron belonging to thehigh aristocracy. Entrusted by Andronikos IIwith the important office of logothetes tougenikou, he renovated the katholikon, ormain church, of the Chora Monastery inConstantinople from about 1316 to 1321 andcommissioned the capital’s best workshops todecorate the church and narthexes withmosaics and to adorn his funerary chapelwith wall paintings.31 Dressed in a sumptuousgarment, he is depicted in the esonarthexabove the Royal Door kneeling in front of


the enthroned Christ and offering him amodel of the church (fig. 45).The entiredecoration displays an accomplished tech-nique as well as a close familiarity with boththe classical heritage and the ecclesiasticaltradition. Metochites’ personal interventionis particularly evident in the development ofthe iconographic program for his funerarychapel, an area in which patrons did not feelconfined by dogmatic schemes.The sophisti-cated iconography and style, the extrava-gance of the materials used, and the exquisitedecoration are characteristic of the refinedtastes of a fourteenth-century aristocrat inthe capital.

Aside from the previously mentionedextant examples, written sources attest to agreat number of donations by the high aris-tocracy in Constantinople around the end of the thirteenth century and in the firstdecades of the fourteenth. George Akropolitesand his son, Constantine, who both held the office of megas logothetes (the highest rankin the civil administration), restored the

monastery of the Anastasis in the 1260s or1270s. Nikephoros Choumnos renovated themonastery of the Virgin Gorgoepekoosbetween 1294 and 1308, and his daughter,Eirene Eulogia Choumnaina Palaiologina,restored the monastery of Christ Philanthroposafter 1307. Numerous and noteworthy arethe donations of members of the rulingPalaiologan family. Maria-Martha, sister ofthe emperor Michael VIII, founded in the1260s the monastery of Kyra Martha. In the1280s Theodora Palaiologina Raoulaina ren-ovated the monastery of Saint Andrew inKrisei.Another niece of the same emperor,Theodora Palaiologina Synadene, foundedthe nunnery of Our Lady of Certain Hopeabout 1300.32

The numerous aristocratic religiousfoundations mentioned in the sources andthe exquisite quality and sumptuousness of the monuments preserved testify to thegreat prominence and extent of aristocraticpatronage in the early decades of Palaiologanrule. It was apparently regarded as very

Fig. 45.Theodore Metochites Presenting a Model of the Chora Church toChrist. Byzantine, ca. 1316–21. Mosaic, esonarthex of Chora Monastery (KariyeCamii), Constantinople


prestigious for the high aristocracy, includingmembers of the ruling family, to found newchurches (mainly monasteries) or renovateearlier foundations. Significantly, these activi-ties were mainly confined to Constantinople.After the mid-fourteenth century, however,high aristocratic patronage diminished infrequency and wealth owing to the adverseeffects of the second civil war, the conquestsof the Serbs, and the military advance of theOttoman Turks.33

As a consequence a shift may beobserved: members of the powerful aristo-cratic families redirected their patronagefrom Constantinople to the despotate ofMorea and principally to its capital, Mistra.34

According to his monograms ManuelKantakouzenos, son of the emperor John VIand first despot of Mistra (r. 1349–80), built achurch, known today as Saint Sophia, closeto the palace.This church has been identifiedwith that of Christ Zoodotes (Life-giving),which sources indicate was founded byManuel.35 Stylistically the mural decorationof Saint Sophia and its chapels bears a closeresemblance to the frescoes of the church of the Virgin Peribleptos, founded most probably between 1365 and 1374 by Isabellede Lusignan, wife of the despot Manuel.36

The wall paintings of both churches—ChristZoodotes and the Virgin Peribleptos—areattributed to the same workshop, and theirstyle reflects a classicizing, idealizing ten-dency, which is in accordance with aristo-cratic taste during the period.

The last prominent dated example ofhigh aristocratic patronage before the fall ofConstantinople is the church of the PanagiaPantanassa at Mistra, founded in the year1428 by John Phrangopoulos, who held thehigh offices of protostrator and katholikosmesazon. The Pantanassa’s patron, who stoodat the pinnacle of the despotate’s militaryand administrative echelons, propagated his name and titles in several painted orengraved monograms and inscriptions.37 Inthe frescoes of the Pantanassa, the antiqueheritage and the older Byzantine tradition

mingle with new principles regarding therendering of space and its relationship to thefigures, as well as the treatment of color andlight in modeling both flesh and drapery.A tendency to look back to models of thegolden period of aristocratic patronage—thebeginning of the fourteenth century—is evi-dent.The imposing size of the monument

Fig. 46. The Grand Duke Alexios Apokaukos,from the Works of Hippocrates.Constantinople,1341–45.Tempera and gold on vellum.Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris (Ms. gr. 2144, fol. 11r)


and its accomplished decoration bespeak the“semi-imperial aspirations” of the donor, asDoula Mouriki has observed.38 A highlyambitious work, the Pantanassa representsthe last brilliant example, before the fall ofConstantinople, of the splendid art cultivatedby the high aristocracy during the finalphase of Byzantium.

An examination of illuminated manu-scripts leads to similar conclusions regardingthe role of the high aristocrat as patron. Infact, most of the sumptuous illuminated man-uscripts in the Late Byzantine period werecommissioned by such persons.Among theexamples are the codex containing the worksof Hippocrates in the Bibliothèque Nationale,Paris (gr. 2144), which includes the portrait ofits patron, the megas doux, or commander of

the fleet, Alexios Apokaukos (text, ca. 1338;illuminations, 1341–45) (fig. 46),39 and thefamous typikon of the monastery of OurLady of Certain Hope, now at LincolnCollege in Oxford (gr. 35).40 The latter waswritten about 1300 by the first patroness ofthe monastery,Theodora Synadene, and wascompleted by her daughter Euphrosyne. Itsrich gallery of historical portraits containslikenesses of the noble founder, her husband,her parents and other family members, andmembers of the monastic community (fig. 47).

The Palaiologan icons that have sur-vived present a similar pattern of patronageby the high aristocracy.An icon of the Virginin the State Tret iakov Gallery, Moscow,from the late thirteenth or early fourteenthcentury, includes portraits of the donors,

Fig. 47. Constantine Palaiologos and Eirene, Parents of the Foundress of the Convent of OurLady of Certain Hope (left);Theodora with Her Husband, John Synadenos (right), from thetypikon of the Convent of Our Lady of Certain Hope, Constantinople, ca. 1300 (with lateradditions).Tempera and gold on vellum. Lincoln College, Oxford (Ms. gr. 35, fols. 1v–2r)


Constantine Akropolites (d. 1324) and hiswife, Maria, on its silver revetment (fig. 48).41

Another example is the icon of Christ Pan-tokrator in the State Hermitage Museum,Saint Petersburg, that was a donation, accord-ing to the inscriptions, of two brothers,both of whom were depicted on the marginof the icon (fig. 49).These high-rankingofficials—the megas stratopedarches Alexiosand the megas primikerios John—founded thePantokrator Monastery on Mount Athos in1363.42 The gilded-silver revetment of an iconof the Virgin Artokosta, today in the churchof San Samuele in Venice, was donated bythe despot John Kantakouzenos (r. 1380–83),whose portrait is included in the revetment,which was restored about 1425.The iconcomes from a monastery of the same namein Kynouria, in the Peloponnese.43 A finalexample, an icon of Saints Peter and Paul in the treasury of the monastery of Vatopedion Mount Athos, was commissioned in 1417, according to an inscription on therevetment, by the despot of Thessalonike,Andronikos Palaiologos, son of the emperorManuel II.44

Additionally, in the field of the portablearts, the precious gilded-silver and jasper chal-ice of Manuel Kantakouzenos Palaiologos,despot of Morea, now in the treasury of theVatopedi Monastery, is typical of the superbquality and refined taste of high aristocraticcommissions.45

The donations of the high aristocracyclearly occupy a dominating position in thePalaiologan period and represent the avant-garde in artistic developments, particularly inthe dissemination of new stylistic trends tothe provinces. Members of the middle aris-tocracy, who disposed of sufficient financialmeans and held offices ranking in the middleof the administrative and military echelons,also dispensed patronage, as exemplified bythree monuments.The church of the VirginPeribleptos at Ohrid,46 later dedicated toSaint Kliment, was founded in 1294–95 bythe megas hetaireiarches Progonos Sgouros (fig. 50). Its wall paintings, among the most

Fig. 48. Icon of the Virgin and Child,with revetment bearing portraits of donors. Moscow, last quarter of 15thcentury (painting); Constantinople, late13th–early 14th century (revetment).Tempera over gesso on wood (painting);silver (revetment). State Tret iakovGallery, Moscow (22722, OS 118)

Fig. 49. Icon of Christ Pantokrator,detail showing donor. Byzantine,ca. 1363.Tempera on wood. StateHermitage Museum, Saint Petersburg


representative examples of the Heavy Style,are the work of two famous painters fromThessalonike, Michael Astrapas and Eutychios,who signed their names on several inconspic-uous parts of the frescoes.47 Both were laterhired by the Serbian king Stefan Uro¡ IIMilutin to serve in his court and paint thechurches he founded.

The church of Christ at Veroia inMacedonia, consecrated in the year 1314–15,48

was sponsored by Xenos Psalidas and his wife,Euphrosyne. Although they did not belong tothe great aristocratic families of Byzantium,the sponsors had the financial means andsophisticated taste to choose Kallierges,“thebest painter in all of Thessaly,” according tothe dedicatory inscription.

The last example of a monumentaldonation by the middle aristocracy is thechurch of Saint Nicholas at Platsa in theMani, in the Peloponnese, which was reno-vated in 1337–38 by Konstantinos Spanes,tzaousios (military commander) of themountainous area of Mount Taygetos inLaconia.49 The donation of Spanes surpassesin quality all the contemporary monumentsof the Mani owing to the selection of anexcellent workshop, probably summonedfrom Mistra.The dynamic figures, dramaticexpressions, and audacious white highlightsapplied to the uniform ocher flesh toneswith bold, rapid strokes reflect the influenceof a progressive, expressionistic style thatprobably originated in Constantinople and

Fig. 50. Michael Astrapas and Eutychios, Moses and the Burning Bush, above a dedicatoryinscription of the donor, the megas hetaireiarches Progonos Sgouros, 1294–95. Fresco, west wallof narthex, Church of the Virgin Peribleptos, Ohrid


radiated out to the provinces.The quality ofthe frescoes harmonizes with the sophisti-cated content of the dedicatory inscription,its eminent placement, and its scholarly, met-rical language.

In certain respects, these three monu-ments, which in my opinion represent donations of the middle aristocracy in theprovinces, seem to copy works sponsored by the high aristocracy, but they differ inusing the technique of fresco rather than that of the more expensive mosaic.They aredistinguished by the selection of excellentpainters who came from great artistic centersand who were familiar with the newest sty-listic developments.

With regard to the portable arts, similarconclusions can be drawn from the few extantobjects that may be assigned to the middlearistocracy. One of these is the epitaphios ofNikolaos Eudaimonoiannes, a member of amighty aristocratic family in the Morea (fig. 51), a fine embroidery probably executedin a Peloponnesian workshop in 1406–7.50

An example of a donation that can beattributed to the minor provincial aristocracyis the church of the Virgin Chrysaphitissa atChrysapha in Laconia on the Peloponnese,which was renovated in 1288–89 by a certainsevastos Michael and his wife, Zoe.51 Thescholarly text of the inscription, written inmetrical verse, and the effigies of the donorsin the narthex indicate the aspirations of the patrons. Nevertheless, the linearity of thefrescoes, the flat rendering of the figures,and a somewhat naive approach reveal theprovincial taste of the donor.

Of analogous quality is the church ofSaint Kyriake, near Marathos in the Mani,which on stylistic evidence can be dated toabout 1300 (fig.52).52 Although the donor cou-ple is depicted in a prominent place (the apseon both sides of the Virgin Blachernitissa),the humble dimensions of the church and themediocre quality of its decoration indicatethe limited financial means of the minorprovincial aristocracy as well as the meagerartistic resources available to them.53

Fig. 51. Epitaphios donated by Nikolaos Eudaimonoioannes. Greek (Morea?), 1406–7. Silk.Victoria and Albert Museum, London (8278–1863)


ECCLESIASTICAL AND MONASTICPATRONAGEEcclesiastical patronage was of great impor-tance during the Palaiologan period, espe-cially in Thessalonike and more broadly inMacedonia.54 The church of the HolyApostles in Thessalonike is a typical example.55

Monograms and inscriptions, carved inmarble or made of brick, provide the nameand rank of the patron, Patriarch Niphon ofConstantinople (r. 1310 ⁄11–14), who had thechurch built and decorated with mosaics.The ambulatory and narthex wall paintingswere sponsored after 1328 by the second ktetor (donor) of the church, the abbot Paul,who is depicted in the narthex, kneeling infront of the Virgin.The impressive building,the prominent placement of the patron’sinscription and monograms on the facades,and the close stylistic affinities with the decoration of the Chora Monastery inConstantinople (ca. 1316–21) indicate thatthe patriarchal foundation in Thessalonikewas in every way the equal of the lavish

donations of the high aristocracy in its qual-ity, sumptuousness, and taste.

Among the most important ecclesiasti-cal foundations of the period was the churchof the Metropolis (Saint Demetrios) inMistra,56 founded soon after the Frankishsurrender of the city’s castle to the Byzantinesin 1261, during the first years of Michael VIII’sreign.The Metropolis’s wall paintings wereexecuted gradually between 1270 and 1320on the initiative of several successive metro-politans of Lacedaemonia and thus representdifferent styles.An early phase of the HeavyStyle is attested in the wall paintings of thefunerary chapel of Metropolitan Eugenios(fig. 53), in the diakonikon, with its uniqueeschatological composition, and in certainfrescoes in the nave.The same style, at itspeak, is reflected in the nave paintingsassigned to Metropolitan NikephorosMoschopoulos, whose patronage is attestedin inscriptions engraved in the church.57

Fig. 53.The Metropolitan Bishop Eugenios(detail), ca. 1270–80. Fresco, diakonikon of the Metropolis Church (Saint Demetrios),Mistra, Greece

Fig. 52. Portrait of an anonymousfoundress, ca. 1300. Fresco, apseof Church of Saint Kyriake,Marathos (Mani), Greece


Of Constantinopolitan quality and taste is the church of the Aphendiko inMistra, dedicated to the Virgin Hodegetriaand founded about 1310 by the abbotPachomios.58 Pachomios had a close rela-tionship with the emperor Andronikos II,who issued a series of chrysobulls grantingprivileges in favor of the monastery.The texts

Fig. 54. Christ Blessing Two SupplicatingPriests, the Church Donors, 1430–31. Fresco,west wall of Church of the Virgin ZoodochosPege Eleousa, Geraki, Greece

of four of the chrysobulls, issued between1314/15 and 1322, are painted on the walls ofthe church’s southwestern chapel.59 For hisfunerary chapel, at the northwestern corner ofthe narthex, Pachomios ordered a unique com-position that is thought to be the pictorialexpression of a prayer (nekrosimon theotokion)said during the funeral service.60 Accordingly,


Fig. 55.The Nun Theotime in Proskynesis before the Enthroned Virgin and Child, from a Greek psalter. Byzantine, ca. 1274.Tempera and gold on vellum. The Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine, Sinai, Egypt (Gr. 61, fol. 256v)


groups of apostles, prophets, the righteous,and saints join their prayers with the suppli-cations of the Virgin and John the Baptist,addressing them toward Christ for the salva-tion of the patron, who is also depicted inthe chapel.The accomplished frescoes revealaffinities with Constantinopolitan painting.

When compared with the churches spon-sored by donors ranking high in the ecclesias-tical echelons, the donations of simple monksor priests, scattered throughout the Byzantineprovinces, are much more modest and usuallydo not surpass the level of provincial art.One example is the church of the VirginZoodochos Pege Eleousa in Geraki, in thePeloponnese, commissioned by two priests in1430–31 (fig. 54).61 Ecclesiastical and monasticdonors are furthermore attested for manu-scripts, such as a Greek psalter (ca. 1274) in theHoly Monastery of Saint Catherine, Sinai,62

sponsored by the nun Theotime, who isdepicted prostrated before the enthronedVirgin (fig. 55).

PATRONAGE OF THE NONELITEPOPULATIONAlthough, according to epigraphic evidence,those who were not among the elite did act as donors individually, with their families,or in collaboration with two or three others,the usual patronage pattern for this groupduring the period is collective sponsorship.63

The main evidence for this pattern comesfrom dedicatory inscriptions in humblechurches of the Mani.A representativeexample occurs in the church of Saint Johnthe Baptist at Megale Kastania, which proba-bly dates to the mid-thirteenth century.64

Without listing individual names, the dedi-catory inscription mentions that the churchwas built and decorated at the expense of boththe notable inhabitants (prokritoi) of the vil-lage and the common people (koinos laos).

Further evidence is offered by thechurch of the Holy Anargyroi at Kepoula,dated to 1265.65 Of the twelve donors andtheir families mentioned in the inscription,all residents of Kepoula, three are priests

and one is a lector (anagnostes) of thechurch and a notary (nomikos), both lowoffices in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.Thehumble offerings of these donors, rangingfrom a quarter of a gold coin to one goldcoin—with the exception of the lector andnotary, who donated eight gold coins—provide insight into the poor means at thedisposal of the populace in a Byzantineprovince during the period.66

Another inscription of similar context isagain located in the Mani, in the church ofthe Archangel Michael at Polemitas, and isdated to the year 1278.67 It contains a long listof the names of the sponsors, more than thirtypersons with their families, including threepriests, a lector, and a nun, all inhabitants ofthe village.Their donations consisted mainlyof arable land (choraphia) of a very modestextent and olive trees, offered in common byrelatives. Interestingly, the dedicatory inscrip-tions at Kepoula and Polemitas name thefresco painters, who were villagers themselvesoriginating from neighboring communities.

Artistically, the mural paintings of these churches are mediocre (figs. 56, 57).They belong to a conservative provincial stylistic trend that was very widespread in the Greek provinces, whether underByzantine or Latin rule, during the secondhalf of the thirteenth century. Linearity,simplification, and Komnenian referencesmingled with echoes of contemporary pro-gressive tendencies are the main features ofthis trend.

In sum, the monuments erected by therural populations of the Byzantine provinces,whose patronage pattern is based mostly onthe collaboration of large numbers of lay andclerical members of the same community,are humble buildings erected with modestmaterials and decorated with wall paintingsof a rather poor, provincial quality.

The following general conclusions can bedrawn regarding patronage in the LateByzantine period and its effect on artisticproduction.The financial means and social


Fig. 56. Saint Kyriake (detail),1265. Fresco, Church of the HolyAnargyroi, Kepoula (Mani), Greece

Fig. 57. Saint Therapon (detail),1278. Fresco, Church of theArchangel Michael, Polemitas(Mani), Greece


position of patrons had a direct impact onthe size of the monument sponsored, thelavishness of its materials, the selection of theworkshops, and the display of the patron’sname and titles with monograms, inscrip-tions, and portraits.The education of thedonor is reflected in the iconographic pro-gram and its theological implications, as wellas in the metrical, sometimes pompous,inscriptions.

Imperial patronage during the reigns of the first two Palaiologan emperors,Michael VIII and Andronikos II, expressedthe rulers’ policy of restoring the state and itsheritage; thereafter, as patronage was reducedowing to financial difficulties, it primarilyserved state diplomacy. Members of the higharistocracy took the lead in sponsoring artis-tic production from the very beginning ofthe period.The foundation of churches andmonasteries, aiming at the salvation of thesouls of their commissioners, is in harmonywith the ideology of the donors and theirdesire to display their wealth and socialstanding.The foundations of the high aris-tocracy, distinguished by their size, quality,and sumptuous materials, were of primaryimportance in propagating the leading stylis-tic trends. Sponsorship by high officials ofthe clergy competes in quality with that ofthe high aristocracy.The middle aristocracycannot rival the donations of the great mag-nates in regard to the cost of materials.Patrons at this level had sufficient means,however, to serve their ambitions by select-ing excellent painters trained in the empire’surban centers and were therefore familiarwith the most up-to-date artistic trends. Inthis way, the middle aristocracy had its sharein shaping artistic developments.

The donations of the local minor aristoc-racy share the same cultural context and artistictaste as those of the nonelite.The differenceseems to be only financial and lies in the factthat local aristocrats could afford to sponsor achurch individually,while the others usuallyraised collective funds for the construction of achurch.The foundations of the minor clergy

and the nonelite do not seem to take any partin the evolution of art.They are of provincialcharacter, humble means, and mediocre quality.Retrospective and simplified features in theirmural decoration intermingle with echoes ofthe official monumental art.

Finally, patterns of patronage similar tothose in Byzantium were adopted in neigh-boring countries, including Serbia andBulgaria, as well as in the Greek independentstates that emerged after the Latin conquestof 1204. Imperial portraits, such as that of the Bulgarian ruler Ivan Alexander and hisfamily receiving God’s blessing in a sumptu-ous Gospel Book of 1355–56 (see fig. 39),68

and the portraits of the Serbian kings,tsars, and patriarchs repeatedly depicted intheir significant foundations clearly reveal an adaptation and further development ofByzantine patterns.69 These works thusreflect the prestige of Byzantium and theimpact of its culture and ideology on theneighboring rival countries that prosperedduring the empire’s last phase.

1. For historical, socioeconomic, and cultural issues dur-ing the Palaiologan period, see Steven Runciman, TheLast Byzantine Renaissance (Cambridge, 1970);AngelikiLaiou,“Sto Byzantio tøn Palaiologøn: Oikonomikakai politistika phainomena,” in Aphierøma ston Manol∑Chatz∑dak∑ [Byzantium under the Palaiologoi:Economic and political developments, in A tributeto Manolis Chatzidakis] (Athens, 1991), vol. 1,pp. 283–96; Chryssa Maltezou,“Koinønia kai technesst∑n Ellada kata ton 13o aiøna: Historik∑ eisagøg∑”[Society and the arts in Greece during the thirteenthcentury:A historical introduction], Deltion t∑s Chris-tianik∑s Archaiologik∑s Hetaireias [hereafter DChAE]21 (2000), pp. 9–16.

For broader considerations, including nonextantmaterial, see Vassilios Kidonopoulos, Bauten inKonstantinopel 1204–1328:Verfall und Zerstörung,Restaurierung, Umbau und Neubau von Profan- undSakralbauten (Wiesbaden, 1994);Alice-Mary Talbot,“Empress Theodora Palaiologina,Wife ofMichael VIII,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers [hereafter DOP]46 (1992), pp. 295–303;Alice-Mary Talbot,“TheRestoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,”DOP 47 (1993), pp. 243–61. See also Alice-MaryTalbot,“Epigrams in Context: Metrical Inscriptionson Art and Architecture of the Palaiologan Era,”DOP 53 (1999), pp. 75–90.


For a discussion of issues regarding the renovationand management of ecclesiastical foundations andthe rights and duties of their benefactors during thePalaiologan period, see John Philip Thomas, PrivateReligious Foundations in the Byzantine Empire,Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 24 (Washington, D.C.,1987), pp. 244–69.

2. For a discussion of patronage in the Middle Byzantineperiod, see Robin Cormack,“Patronage and NewPrograms of Byzantine Iconography,” The 17thInternational Byzantine Congress, Major Papers,Washington D.C.,August 3–8, 1986 (New York, 1986),pp. 609–38; Maria Panayotidi,“The Character ofMonumental Painting in the Tenth Century:The Question of Patronage,” in Constantine VIIPorphyrogenitus and His Age: Second InternationalByzantine Conference, Delphi, 22–26 July, 1987 (Athens,1989), pp. 285–331. For patronage of Byzantine art,see also Anthony Cutler,“Art in Byzantine Society:Motive Forces of Byzantine Patronage,” Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 31 (1981),pp. 759–87.

3. On the emperor, see Deno John Geanakoplos,Emperor Michael Palaeologus and the West, 1258–1282:A Study in Byzantine-Latin Relations (Cambridge,Mass., 1959). On the destruction of Constantino-politan monuments during the Latin occupation andthe restoration activities of the first Palaiologanemperors, see R[aymond] Janin,“Les sanctuaires deByzance sous la domination latine,” Revue des étudesbyzantines 2 (1944), pp. 134–84; E[ugene] Dalleggiod’Alessio,“Les sanctuaires urbains et suburbains deByzance sous la domination latine (1204–1261),”Revue des études byzantines 11 (1953), pp. 50–61;Ruth Macrides,“The New Constantine and theNew Constantinople—1261?” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6 (1980), pp. 13–41;Talbot,“Restoration,” pp. 243–61; Kidonopoulos, Bauten,pp. 230–42 and passim.

4. Georges Pachymérès, Relations historiques, ed.AlbertFailler, trans.Vitalien Laurent, 5 vols., Corpus fontiumhistoriae byzantinae, 24 (Paris, 1984–2000), vol. 1,p. 233 (III.2, ll. 8–13). See also Kidonopoulos, Bauten,pp. 121–25. Further donations to the Great Church arelisted in a chrysobull (1272?); see Deno J. Geanakoplos,“The Byzantine Recovery of Constantinople fromthe Latins in 1261,” Constantinople and the West:Essays on the Late Byzantine (Palaeologan) and ItalianRenaissances and the Byzantine and Roman Churches(Madison,Wis., 1989), pp. 173–88; and Talbot,“Restoration,” p. 251 n. 60.

5. Otto Demus,“The Style of the Kariye Djami and ItsPlace in the Development of Palaeologan Art,” inThe Kariye Djami, vol. 4, Studies in the Art of theKariye Djami and Its Intellectual Background, ed. PaulA. Underwood (Princeton, N.J., 1975), pp. 144ff.;Robin Cormack,“Interpreting the Mosaics of S. Sophia at Istanbul,” Art History 4, no. 2 ( June1981), pp. 131–49, reprinted in Robin Cormack,

The Byzantine Eye: Studies in Art and Patronage(London, 1989), no.VIII; Robin Cormack,“TheMother of God in the Mosaics of Hagia Sophia atConstantinople,” in Mother of God: Representations ofthe Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki, exh.cat., Benaki Museum,Athens (Milan, 2000),pp. 118–22.

6. Michael VIII repaired the monasteries of SaintDemetrios and Saints Peter and Paul, both of whichhad been founded by his ancestors; it is also probablethat Michael made donations to the monastery ofTheotokos Peribleptos; see Talbot,“Restoration,”pp. 254–55; Kidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 37–39, 91–93.On the typika of the first two monasteries, seeByzantine Monastic Foundation Documents, ed. JohnThomas and Angela Constantinides Hero, 5 vols.,Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 35 (Washington, D.C.,2000), vol. 3, pp. 1207–53, nos. 37, 38.

7. Titos Papamastorak∑s,“Hena eikastiko enkømio touMicha∑l VIII Palaiologou: Hoi exøterikes toichogra-phies sto katholiko t∑s mon∑s t∑s Mauriøtissas st∑nKastoria” [An artistic encomium for Michael VIIIPalaiologos:The exterior frescoes in the katholikonchurch of the Mauriotissa Monastery in Kastoria],DChAE 25 (1989–90), pp. 221–38; cf. Ruth J.Macrides,“From the Komnenoi to the Palaiologoi:Imperial Models in Decline and Exile,” in NewConstantines:The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal inByzantium, 4th–13th Centuries, ed. Paul Magdalino(Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994), pp. 269–82.

8. Heide and Helmut Buschhausen, Die Marienkirchevon Apollonia in Albanien: Byzantiner, Normannen undSerben im Kampf um die Via Egnatia (Vienna, 1976),pp. 143–82, figs. 16–19.

9. Petar Miljkovic-Pepek,“Le portrait de l’empereurbyzantin Michel VIII à l’église rupestre de Saint-Érasme près d’Ohrid,” Cahiers Archéologiques 45

(1997), pp. 169–77. In addition, an inscription (1271)in the church of Saint Nicholas, near Manastir, men-tions Michael as the New Constantine; see ibid.,p. 169.

10. Kidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 234, 240, and passim.11. Michael Laskaris,“Micha∑l IX Palaiologos en

epigraph∑ tou Hagiou D∑metriou Thessalonik∑s”[Michael IX Palaiologos in an inscription in thechurch of Saint Demetrios in Thessalonike],Archaiologik∑ Eph∑meris (1953–54), vol. 2, pp. 4–10;J[ean]-M[ichel] Spieser,“Inventaires en vue d’unrecueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance: I. LesInscriptions de Thessalonique,” Travaux et Mémoires 5(1973), pp. 171–73, no. 24, pl. IX, fig. 2.

12. Nicephorus Gregoras, Nicephori Gregorae Byzantinahistoria, ed. Ludwig Schopen and Emmanuel Bekker,3 vols. Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae(Bonn, 1829–55), vol. 3, pp. 198–202, XXVIII, 34–39;Cyril A. Mango, Materials for the Study of the Mosaicsof St. Sophia at Constantinople, Dumbarton OaksStudies, 8 (Washington, D.C., 1962), pp. 66–71;Laiou,“Sto Byzantio tøn Palaiologøn,” p. 291.


13. Hans Belting, Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzan-tinischen Gesellschaft (Heidelberg, 1970), p. 51.

14. Erich Lamberz,“Das Geschenk des Kaisers ManuelII. an das Kloster Saint-Denis und der ‘Metochites-schreiber’ Michael Klostomalles,” in Lithostroton:Studien zur byzantinischen Kunst und Geschichte;Festschrift für Marcell Restle, ed. Birgitt Borkopp andThomas Steppan (Stuttgart, 2000), pp. 158–65; JohnLowden,“Manuscript Illumination in Byzantium,1261–1557,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557),ed. Helen C. Evans, exh. cat.,The MetropolitanMuseum of Art (New York, 2004), p. 261. In a few,rare cases Palaiologan emperors were both authorsand commissioners of manuscripts; among these isthe funeral oration of Manuel II for his brotherTheodore (1409–11), Byzantium: Faith and Power,p. 26, no. 1.

Another obvious example of Manuel’s policy of reusing precious works in order to serve his diplomatic policy is the icon of the Virgin in theDiözesanmuseum, Freising. Originally commissionedby the deacon Manuel Dishypatos, who was latermetropolitan of Thessalonike, from 1258 to 1261, itwas overpainted in order to be presented by Manuelto Duke Giangaleazzo Visconti of Milan sometimeabout 1399–1402; see Maria Vassilaki,“Praying forthe Salvation of the Empire?” in Images of the Motherof God: Perceptions of the Theotokos in Byzantium,ed. Maria Vassilaki (Aldershot, Hampshire, 2005),pp. 263–74.

15. Petre Guran,“Jean VI Cantacuzène, l’hésychasme etl’empire: Les miniatures du codex Parisinus graecus1242,” in L’empereur hagiographe: Culte des saints etmonarchie byzantine et post-byzantine, ed. Petre Guran(Bucharest, 2001), pp. 73–121; Byzantium: Faith andPower, pp. 286–87, no. 171.

16. On this group of manuscripts, see Erich Lamberz,“H∑ biblioth∑k∑ kai ta cheirographa t∑s,” in HieraMegist∑ Mon∑ Vatopaidiou: Parados∑ – historia – techn∑[The library and its manuscripts, in the Holy GreatMonastery of Vatopedi:Tradition – history – art],2 vols. (Hagion Oros, 1996), vol. 2, pp. 562–74,672–77. On the codex Skeuophylakion 16, see ibid.,p. 569, figs. 506, 513–14, and Sotiris Kadas,“Taeikonograph∑mena cheirographa” [The illustratedmanuscripts], in ibid., p. 597, fig. 544.

17. See Macrides,“The New Constantine,” pp. 34–36,for descriptions of the peplos by the Byzantine ora-tor Manuel Holobolos; see also Helen C. Evans,“Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557),” inByzantium: Faith and Power, p. 14, fig. 1.13.Anotheraltar cloth was presented to Pope Gregory X byMichael VIII in 1274, on the occasion of the Councilof Lyon; see Pauline Johnstone, The Byzantine Traditionin Church Embroidery (London, 1967), pp. 76–77.

18. Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 314–15, no. 188. Mostprobably the epitaphios dates from the time of therenovation of Saint Sophia by Archbishop Gregory(r. 1313–28). See also the superb epitaphios of

Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (ca. 1354) offeredto the Vatopedi Monastery on Mount Athos, MariaTheochare,“Chrysokent∑ta amphia” [Golden-embroidered vestments] in Hiera Megist∑ Mon∑Vatopaidiou, pp. 421–24, no. 1, figs. 356–57.

19. Talbot,“Empress Theodora” (as in note 1 above),pp. 298–301;Alice-Mary Talbot,“Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II:The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries,” in ByzantineConstantinople: Monuments,Topography and Everyday Life,ed. Nevra Necipo=lu,The Medieval Mediterranian:Peoples, Economies and Cultures, 400–1453, 33

(Leiden, Boston, and Cologne, 2001), pp. 336–38;Kidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 1–4, 86–87.

20.Hugo Buchthal and Hans Belting, Patronage inThirteenth-Century Constantinople:An Atelier of LateByzantine Book Illumination and Calligraphy,Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 16 (Washington, D.C.,1978), pp. 6, 99–102, 116–17, no. 11.

21.Talbot,“Empress Theodora,” p. 302; Robert S.Nelson and John Lowden,“The Palaeologina Group:Additional Manuscripts and New Questions,” DOP45 (1991), pp. 59–68; Lowden,“Manuscript Illu-mination,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 260.

22.Georgios Galavaris, Hiera Mon∑ Iv∑røn: Eikono-graph∑mena cheirographa [The Holy Monastery ofIveron: Illustrated manuscripts] (Hagion Oros, 2000),pp. 84–87, figs. 57–58; Lowden,“Manuscript Illumi-nation,” in Byzantium: Faith and Power, p. 260.

23.Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida, Th∑sauroi tou Agiou Orous[Treasures of the Holy Mountain], exh. cat., 2d ed.(Thessalonike, 1997), pp. 346–47, no. 9.29.

24.Angeliki E. Laiou,“The Byzantine Aristocracy in the Palaeologan Period:A Story of ArrestedDevelopment,” Viator 4 (1973), pp. 131–51, esp. p. 141,reprinted in Angeliki E. Laiou, Gender, Society andEconomic Life in Byzantium (Hampshire andBrookfield,Vt., 1992), no.VI; Laiou,“Sto Byzantiotøn Palaiologøn” (as in note 1 above), pp. 283–94,esp. pp. 289ff. For a study of Byzantine aristocracyfrom 1204 to 1347, see Demetrios S. Kyritses, TheByzantine Aristocracy in the Thirteenth and EarlyFourteenth Centuries, Ph.D. diss., Cambridge Mass.,Harvard University, 1997. For the role of aristocratsat the time of Andronikos II, see Demetrios S.Kyritses,“Kratos kai aristokratia t∑n epoch∑ touAndronikou II:To adiexodo t∑s stasimot∑tas” [Stateand aristocracy in the time of Andronikos II:Thestalemate of stagnation], in Manuel Panselinos and HisAge, The National Hellenic Research Foundation.Institute for Byzantine Research. Byzantium Today, 3

(Athens, 1999), pp. 177–94.25. On Glabas, see Cyril Mango,“The Monument and

Its History,” in Hans Belting, Cyril Mango, andDoula Mouriki, The Mosaics and Frescoes of St. MaryPammakaristos (Fethiye Camii) at Istanbul, DumbartonOaks Studies, 15 (Washington, D.C., 1978), pp. 11ff.Glabas is also known to have founded the monastery


of Theotokos Atheniotissa in Constantinople,A[lbert] Failler,“Pachymeriana altera,” Revue desétudes byzantines 46 (1988), pp. 80, 83; Kidonopoulos,Bauten, pp. 67–68.

26.On the architecture of the chapel, see ChryssanthiMauropoulou-Tsioumi,“To parekkl∑sio tou HagiouEuthymiou ston Hagio D∑metrio Thessalonik∑s,” inManuel Pansel∑nos: Ek tou hierou naou tou Prøtatou[The parekklesion of Saint Euthymios in Thessalonike’schurch of Saint Demetrios, in Manuel Panselinos:From the Holy Church of the Protaton], exh. cat.(Thessalonike, 2003), pp. 89–95 (with previous bibliography). On the frescoes, see Geørgios A. andMarias G. Søt∑riou, H∑ basilik∑ tou Hagiou D∑m∑triouThessalonik∑s [The basilica of Saint Demetrios in Thessalonike], Biblioth∑k∑ t∑s en Ath∑naisArchaiologik∑s hetaireias, 34 (Athens, 1952), vol. 1,pp. 213–20, vol. 2, pls. 82–93; Thalia Gouma-Peterson,“The Parecclesion of St. Euthymios in Thessalonica:Art and Monastic Policy under Andronicos II,”The Art Bulletin 58, no. 2 ( June 1976), pp. 168–83;Thalia Gouma-Peterson,“Christ as Ministrant andthe Priest as Ministrant of Christ in a PalaeologanProgram of 1303,” DOP 32 (1978), pp. 199–205;Thalia Gouma-Peterson,“The Frescoes of theParekklesion of St. Euthymios in Thessaloniki:Patrons,Workshops and Style,” in The Twilight of Byzantium:Aspects of Cultural and Religious Historyin the Late Byzantine Empire, ed. Slobodan Curçic and Doula Mouriki (Princeton, N.J., 1991),pp. 111–59.

27. Sharon E. J. Gerstel,“Civic and Monastic Influences onChurch Decoration in Late Byzantine Thessalonike,”DOP 57 (2003), pp. 228–30.

28.Euthymios Tsigaridas,“Erga apodidomena stonManou∑l Pansel∑no kai to ergast∑rio tou,” in ManuelPansel∑nos: Ek tou hierou naou tou Prøtatou [Worksattributed to Manuel Panselinos and his atelier, inManuel Panselinos: From the Holy Church of theProtaton], pp. 51–56. Recently restored frescoes inthe Vatopedi Monastery (1312) have also been attrib-uted to the same master; Euthymios Tsigaridas,“Taps∑phidøta kai hoi byzantines toichographies [Themosaics and the Byzantine frescoes],” in Hiera Megist∑Mon∑ Vatopaidiou, vol. 1, pp. 259–79.

29.Belting, Mango, and Mouriki, The Mosaics. See alsoKidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 80–86.

30. Belting, Mango, and Mouriki, The Mosaics, p. 22.31. Paul A. Underwood, The Kariye Djami, vols. 1–3,

Historical Introduction and Description of the Mosaics and Frescoes (New York and Princeton, N.J., 1966);Underwood, ed., The Kariye Djami, vol. 4 (as in note5 above); Robert G. Ousterhout, The Architecture ofthe Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Dumbarton Oaks Studies,25 (Washington, D.C., 1987); Robert G. Ousterhout,“The Virgin of the Chora:An Image and Its Contents,”in The Sacred Image East and West, ed. RobertOusterhout and Leslie Brubaker (Urbana, 1995),pp. 91–109; Robert Ousterhout, The Art of the Kariye

Camii in Istanbul (London and Istanbul, 2002);Kidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 19–25; Peter Weiss, DieMosaiken des Chora-Klosters in Istanbul:Theologie inBildern aus spätbyzantinischer Zeit (Stuttgart andZurich, 1997); Robert S. Nelson,“Taxation withRepresentation: Visual Narrative and the PoliticalField of the Kariye Camii,” Art History 22, no. 1

(March 1999), pp. 56–82; Robert S. Nelson,“TheChora and the Great Church: Intervisuality inFourteenth-Century Constantinople,” Byzantine andModern Greek Studies 23 (1999), pp. 67–101; HolgerA. Klein, ed., in collaboration with Robert G.Ousterhout, Restoring Byzantium:The Kariye Camii in Istanbul and the Byzantine Institute Restoration (New York, 2004); Øystein Hjort,“‘Oddities’ and‘Refinements’:Aspects of Architecture, Space andNarrative in the Mosaics of Kariye Camii,” inInteraction and Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, ed.Jan Olof Rosenqvist, Swedish Research Institute inIstanbul,Transactions, 13 (Istanbul, 2004), pp. 27–43.

32.Talbot,“Restoration,” pp. 255–57;Talbot,“BuildingActivity,” pp. 332–36, 338–40; Kidonopoulos, Bauten,pp. 5–8, 74–76, 33–36, 51–52, 9–10, 69–74. On achurch commissioned by Alexios Apokaukos atSelymbria (modern Silivri) in Thrace between 1321

and 1328, as recorded by his monograms on twomarble capitals, see Byzantium: Faith and Power,p. 111, nos. 56A, B (with previous bibliography).

33. Laiou,“Sto Byzantio tøn Palaiologøn” (as in note 1above), pp. 285–86.

34.Denis A. Zakythinos, Le despotat grec de Morée, ed. andrev. Chryssa Maltézou, 2 vols. (London, 1975), vol. 2,pp. 211–12.

35. On the monograms, see Gabriel Millet,“Inscriptionsbyzantines de Mistra,” Bulletin de CorrespondanceHellénique 23 (1899), pp. 142–43; Høres Byzantiou: H∑Politeia tou Mystra [Byzantine hours:The city ofMistra], exh. cat. (Athens, 2001), p. 71, fig. 72.Theidentification with the church dedicated to ChristZoodotes was based on a patriarchal sigillion of theyear 1365; F[ranciscus] Miklosich and J[osephus]Müller, eds., Acta patriarchatus ConstantinopolitaniMCCXV–MCCCII . . . , Acta et diplomata graecamedii aevi sacra et profana, 1 (Vienna, 1860),pp. 472–74; Zakythinos, Le Despotat grec de Morée,vol. 1, pp. 105, 106, 114, vol. 2, pp. 197, 298; ManolisChatzidakis, Mystras:The Medieval City and the Castle(Athens, 1985), pp. 69–71. On the iconographic layout, see Suzy Dufrenne, Les programmes icono-graphiques des églises byzantines de Mistra (Paris, 1970),pp. 13, 16–17. On the northeast chapel (1348–54), seeNikolaos B. Drandak∑s,“Hoi toichographies tou BAparekkl∑siou t∑s Hagias Sophias Mystra [The frescoesof the northeast parekklesion of Mistra’s SaintSophia],” Epist∑monik∑ Epet∑ ris Philosophik∑ s Schol∑ sPanepistemious Athenøn 28 (1979–85), pp. 469–90;on the southeast chapel (after 1366), see MelitaEmmanuel,“H∑ Hagia Sophia tou Mystra: Para-t∑r∑seis stis toichographies kai sto eikonographiko


programma,” in Miltos Garid∑s (1926–1996) Aphierøma[Saint Sophia of Mistra: Observations on the frescoesand the iconographic program, in Miltos Garides(1926–1996):A tribute] (Ioannina, 2003), pp. 153–86.

36. Gabriel Millet et al., Monuments byzantins de Mistra:Máteriaux pour l’étude de l’architecture et de la peintureen Grèce aux XIVe et XVe siècles, Monuments de l’artbyzantin, 2 (Paris, 1910), pls. 108–31; Chatzidakis,Mystras, pp. 73–89. On the layout, see Dufrenne, Lesprogrammes, pp. 14–16; on the iconography, see DoulaMouriki,“Tessares m∑ melet∑theisai sk∑nai tou biout∑s Panagias eis Periblepton tou Mystra” [Fourunstudied scenes of the life of the Virgin in thechurch of the Peribleptos in Mistra], Archaiologik∑Eph∑meris (1968), Chronika, pp. 1–6; Doula Mouriki,“Hai biblikai proeikoniseis t∑s Panagias eis ton troullon t∑s Peribleptou tou Mystra” [The biblicalprefigurations of the Virgin in the dome of thechurch of the Peribleptos in Mistra], ArchaiologikonDeltion 25 (1970), Meletai, pp. 217–51; on the patronsand the date of the church of the Peribleptos, seeAspasia Louvi-Kizi,“Hoi kt∑tores t∑s Peribleptoutou Mystra” [The ktetors of the Peribleptos Churchin Mistra],” DChAE 24 (2003), pp. 101–18.

37. Millet,“Inscriptions,” pp. 134–38. On the frescoes,see Millet, Monuments byzantins de Mistra, pls. 137–51;Dufrenne, Les programmes, pp. 10–13; Chatzidakis,Mystras, pp. 134–38; Doula Mouriki,“The WallPaintings of the Pantanassa at Mistra: Models of aPainters’Workshop in the Fifteenth Century,” in TheTwilight of Byzantium, pp. 217–50; Mary Aspra-Vardavak∑ and Melita Emmanuel, H∑ Mon∑ t∑ sPantanassas ston Mystra: Hoi toichographies tou 15ouaiøna [The Pantanassa Monastery in Mistra:Thefifteenth-century wall paintings] (Athens, 2005).

38. Mouriki,“The Wall Paintings of the Pantanassa,”p. 231.

39.Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 26–27, no. 2 (withprevious bibliography).

40. Iohannis Spatharakis, The Portrait in ByzantineIlluminated Manuscripts (Leiden, 1976), pp. 190–206;Anthony Cutler and Paul Magdalino,“Some Precisionson the Lincoln College Typikon,” Cahiers Archéologiques27 (1978), pp. 179–98; Irmgard Hutter,“Die Geschichtedes Lincoln College Typikons,” Jahrbuch der Österreich-ischen Byzantinistik 45 (1995), pp. 79–114; IrmgardHutter, Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturenhandschriften,Denkmäler der Buchkunst, 5 vols. (Stuttgart, 1977– ),vol. 5 (1997), pp. 56–62, figs. 201–21, pls. 6–18. Forthe text of the typikon, see Hippolyte Delehaye,Deux typika byzantins de l’époque des Paléologues(Brussels, 1921), pp. 18–105; Byzantine MonasticFoundation Documents (as in note 6 above), vol. 4,pp. 1512–78 (trans.Alice-Mary Talbot).

41. Donald M. Nicol,“Constantine Akropolites:A Pro-sopographical Note,” DOP 19 (1965), pp. 249–56;Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 28–30, no. 4.

42.A[lisa] V[ladimirovna] Bank, Byzantine Art in theCollections of the U.S.S.R. (Leningrad, 1966), p. 377,

figs. 265–69. Only John’s portrait is preserved on themargin of the icon.

43.Maria Theochar∑,“Panagia h∑ Artøkosta: La beataVergine delle Grazie” [The Virgin Artokosta:TheBlessed Virgin of Grace], Archaiologik∑ Eph∑meris(1953–54), vol. 3, pp. 232–52.

44.Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida,“Byzantin∑ Mikrotechnia”[Byzantine minor arts], in Hiera Megist∑ Mon∑Vatopaidiou, vol. 2, pp. 487–88, and vol. 1, figs. 29–31.On the icon, and on other precious objects attributedto workshops in Thessalonike, see Katia Loverdou-Tsigarida,“Thessalonique, centre de productiond’objets d’arts au XIVe siècle,” DOP 57 (2003),pp. 241–54, esp. pp. 249–50, fig. 12.

45. Loverdou-Tsigarida,“Byzantin∑ Mikrotechnia,”vol. 2, pp. 475–77, figs. 420–25, and vol. 1, fig. 26;Loverdou-Tsigarida, Th∑ sauroi tou Agiou Orous,pp. 334–35, no. 9.14 (as in note 23 above).

46.Gabriel Millet and A[natole] Frolow, La peinture du Moyen Âge en Yougoslavie (Serbie, Macédoine, etMonténégro), vol. 3 (Paris, 1962), pls. 1–18; HorstHallensleben, Die Malerschule des Königs Milutin(Giessen, 1963), pp. 26–29, 51–53, 128–33, and passim;Richard Hamann-MacLean and Horst Hallensleben,Die Monumentalmalerei in Serbien und Makedonien vom11. bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert, 3 vols. (Giessen,1963–76), vol. 1, pp. 28–29, figs. 160–81; PetarMiljkovic-Pepek, Deloto na zografite Mihailo i Eutihij[The work of the painters Michael and Eutychios](Skopje, 1967), pp. 43–51, 203–17, and passim;Branislav Todic, Serbian Medieval Painting:The Age ofKing Milutin (Belgrade, 1999), passim.

47.The most recent work on the subject is BranislavTodic,“‘Signatures’ des peintres Michel Astrapas etEutychios: Fonction et signification,” Aphierøma st∑mn∑m∑ tou Søt∑ r∑ Kissa [A tribute to the memory ofSotiris Kissas] (Thessalonike, 2001), pp. 643–62 (withcomplete previous bibliography).

48. Stylianos Pelekanidis, Kallierg∑ s, Hol∑ s Thettalias aristoszøgraphos [Kallierges, the finest painter in all ofThessaly], Biblioth∑k∑ t∑s en Ath∑nais Archaiologik∑sHetaireias, 75 (Athens, 1973); Thanass∑s Papazøtos,H∑ Veroia kai hoi naoi t∑ s (11os–18os ai.): Historik∑ kaiarchaiologik∑ spoud∑ tøn mn∑meiøn t∑s pol∑ s [Veroia andits churches (11th–18th centuries):A historical andarchaeological study of the city’s monuments](Athens, 1994), pp. 253–60;Anna Tsitouridou-Turbié,“Remarques sur le programme iconographique del’église du Christ Sauveur à Veroia,” ByzantinischeMalerei: Bildprogramme – Ikonographie – Stil; Symposionin Marburg vom 25.–29.6.1977, ed. Guntram Koch(Wiesbaden, 2000), pp. 337–44, pl. 45; see also DoulaMouriki,“Stylistic Trends in Monumental Paintingof Greece at the Beginning of the FourteenthCentury,” in L’art byzantin du début du XIVe siècle:Symposium de Graçanica 1973 (Belgrade, 1978),pp. 66–68;Todic, Serbian Medieval Painting, pp. 264–76.

49.Doula Mouriki, Hoi toichographies tou Hagiou Nikolaoust∑n Platsa t∑s Man∑s [The frescoes of Hagios


Nikolaos in Platsa in the Mani] (Athens, 1975).Another tzaousios is mentioned as a donor, in collab-oration with a priest, in the dedicatory inscription of the church of Saint George at Longanikos inLaconia (1374–75). On the inscription, see DenisFeissel and Anne Philippidis-Braat,“III. Inscriptionsdu Péloponnèse (à l’exception de Mistra),” Inventairesen vue d’un recueil des inscriptions historiques de Byzance,Travaux et Mémoires 9 (1989), pp. 339–40; on the church,see Olympia Chassoura, Les peintures murales byzan-tines des églises de Longanikos, Laconie (Athens, 2002).

50.Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 316–17, no. 190.51. Jenny Albani,“Byzantinische Freskomalerei in der

Kirche Panagia Chrysaphitissa: RetrospektiveTendenzen eines lakonischen Monuments,” Jahrbuchder Österreichischen Byzantinistik 38 (1988), pp. 363–88;Jenny Albani, Die byzantinischen Wandmalereien derPanagia Chrysaphitissa-Kirche in Chrysapha / Lakonien,Hefte zur byzantinischen Archäologie und Kunst, 6

(Athens, 2000); Jenny Albani,“Zu einem Patriarchen-bildnis in der Kirche der Panagia Chrysaphitissa inChrysapha auf der Peloponnes,” in ByzantinischeMalerei, pp. 9–23;Anastasia Kontogiannopoulou,“Toportreto tou Patriarch∑ Arseniou Autøreianou st∑nPanagia Chrysaphitissa t∑s Lacønias (1289/90): Miaprospatheia istorik∑s herm∑neias” [The portrait of thePatriarch Arsenios Autoreianos in the church of thePanagia Chrysaphitissa in Laconia:An attempt at histor-ical interpretation], Byzantiaka 19 (1999), pp. 223–38.

52. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions andDonor Portraits in Thirteenth-Century Churches ofGreece,Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Tabula Imperii Byzantini, 5 (Vienna, 1992),pp. 101–2, figs. 95–97.

53. A similar example of patronage is represented by themid-thirteenth-century church of Saint Demetriosat Kampianika on the island of Kythera, in which ananonymous couple is depicted in the apse kneelingon both sides of the figure of Saint Demetrios.Theirprecious garments identify them as members of thelocal aristocracy, while the naive artistic approach ofthe wall paintings indicates the provincial characterof both patrons and artists. Manolis Chatzidakis andIoanna Bitha, Corpus of the Byzantine Wall-Paintings of Greece:The Island of Kythera (Athens, 2003),pp. 147–48, figs. 6–8.

54.Marcus L. Rautman,“Patrons and Buildings in LateByzantine Thessaloniki,” Jahrbuch der ÖsterreichischenByzantinistik 39 (1989), pp. 306–8; Marcus L. Rautman,“Aspects of Monastic Patronage in PalaeologanMacedonia,” in The Twilight of Byzantium, pp. 53–74;Kidonopoulos, Bauten, pp. 232–42. See also AngelikiE. Laiou-Thomadakis,“Saints and Society in theLate Byzantine Empire,” in Charanis Studies: Essays inHonor of Peter Charanis, ed.Angeliki E. Laiou-Thomadakis (New Brunswick, N.J., 1980), pp. 84–114.

Robert Nelson in a recent study has argued thatstylistic differences in the Early Palaiologan art of thetwo major Byzantine cities may, to some extent, be

explained by reference to different commissions—aristocratic in Constantinople and clerical in Thessa-lonike; see “Tales of Two Cities: The Patronage ofEarly Palaeologan Art and Architecture in Constan-tinople and Thessaloniki,” in Manuel Panselinos and His Age, pp. 127–45.

55. Andreas Xyngopoulos, H∑ ps∑phidøt∑ diakosm∑ sis tou Naou tøn Hagiøn Apostoløn Thessalonik∑ s [Themosaic decoration of the church of Holy Apostles at Thessalonike] (Thessalonike, 1953);AndreasXyngopoulos,“Les fresques de l’église des Saints-Apôtres à Thessalonique,” in Art et société à Byzancesous les Paléologues:Actes du colloque organisé parl’Association Internationale des Études Byzantines àVenise en Septembre 1968 (Venice, 1971), pp. 83–89;Christine Stephan, Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble:Die Mosaiken und die Fresken der Apostelkirche zuThessaloniki (Worms, 1986); Sotirios Kisas,“O vre-menu nastanka fresaka u ckvi Svetih Apostola uSolunu” [The date of the frescoes of the HolyApostles in Thessalonike], Zograf 7 (1977),pp. 52–57; Mouriki,“Stylistic Trends,” pp. 62–63;Maria Panayotidi,“Les tendances de la peinture deThessalonique en comparaison avec celles deConstantinople, comme expression de la situationpolitico-économique de ces villes pendant le XIVesiècle,” in Byzantium and Serbia in the 14th Century(Athens, 1996), pp. 354–55.

56.Millet, Monuments byzantins de Mistra, pls. 64–87;Dufrenne, Les programmes, pp. 5–8; Chatzidakis,Mystras, pp. 35–43; Manolis Chatzidakis,“Neøtera gia t∑n historia kai t∑n techn∑ t∑s M∑tropol∑s touMystra” [New findings on the history and art of the church of the Metropolis of Mistra], DChAE 9(1976–79), pp. 143–79; Georgia Marinou, HagiosD∑metrios: He M∑ tropol∑ tou Mystra [Saint Demetrios:The Metropolis of Mistra] (Athens, 2002), pp. 87–102,pls. 1–13; Hjalmar Torp,“A Consideration of the Wall-Paintings of the Metropolis at Mistra,” in Interactionand Isolation in Late Byzantine Culture, pp. 70–88.

57.Millet,“Inscriptions,” pp. 121–31; Manousos Manou-sakas,“He Chronologia t∑s kt∑torik∑s epigraph∑s touHagiou D∑metriou tou Mystra” [The dating of thefounder’s inscription in Saint Demetrios at Mistra],DChAE 1 (1959), pp. 72–79.

58.Millet, Monuments byzantins de Mistra, pls. 92–103;Dufrenne, Les programmes, pp. 8–12; Chatzidakis,Mystras, pp. 59–66. On the iconography of thenarthex, see recently Rhodoniki Etzeoglou,“TheCult of the Virgin Zoodochos Pege at Mistra,” inImages of the Mother of God: Perceptions of the Theotokosin Byzantium, pp. 239–49. Pachomios is also men-tioned in the dedicatory inscription of the church ofthe Saints Theodore in Mistra (shortly before 1296);see Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 81–82, no. 37.

59.Millet,“Inscriptions,” pp. 100–118; see also SophiaKalopissi-Verti,“Church Inscriptions as Documents:Chrysobulls – Ecclesiastical Acts – Inventories –Donations – Wills,” DChAE 24 (2003), pp. 100–118.


60.Mouriki,“Stylistic Trends,” pp. 72–73.61. Georgios D∑metrokall∑s, Geraki: Hoi toichographies tøn

naøn tou kastrou [Geraki:The frescoes of the churchesof the castle] (Athens, 2001), pp. 100–138. See alsothe church of the Phaneromene at Phrangoulianikain the Mani, the wall decoration of which, in its second phase, was sponsored by a group of priests in 1322–23; Chara Kønstantinid∑, Ho naos t∑ sPhanerømen∑ s sta Phrankoulianika t∑ s Mesa Man∑ s[The Church of Phaneromene at Phrangoulianika inthe Inner Mani] (Athens, 1998).

62.Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 343–44, no. 202,reprinted in Pilgrimage to Sinai:Treasures from the Holy Monastery of Saint Catherine, ed.AnastasiaDrandaki, exh. cat., Benaki Museum (Athens, 2004),pp. 176–77, no. 34.

63.On communal and cooperative patronage, seeCutler,“Art in Byzantine Society” (as in note 2above), pp. 760–63.

64. Phan∑ Drosoyann∑, Scholia stis toichographies t∑ s ekkle-sias tou Hagiou Iøannou tou Prodromou st∑ Megal∑Kastania Man∑ s [Remarks on the frescoes of thechurch of Saint John Prodromos at Megale Kastaniain the Mani], Biblioth∑k∑ t∑s en Ath∑nais Archaio-logik∑s hetaireias, 98 (Athens, 1982); on the inscrip-tion, see also Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions,pp. 65–66 (with previous bibliography).

65. Nikolaos B. Drandak∑s, Byzantines toichographies t∑ s Mesa Man∑ s [Byzantine frescoes of the Inner

Mani], Biblioth∑k∑ t∑s en Ath∑nais Archaiologik∑sHetaireias, 141 (Athens, 1995), pp. 307–39; on theinscription, see Kalopissi-Verti, Dedicatory Inscriptions,pp. 67–69 (with previous bibliography).

66.The total cost for the construction and decoration ofthe barrel-vaulted, single-nave church, which meas-ures 3.95 by 2.43 meters (13 x 8 feet), amounted tofourteen and a half gold coins.

67. Sophia Kalopissi-Verti,“Ho naos tou ArchangelouMicha∑l ston Polemita t∑s Mesa Man∑s (1278),”in Antiphonon:Aphierøma ston Kath∑g∑ t∑ N. B.Drandak∑ [The Church of the Archangel Michael at Polemitas in the Inner Mani (1278), inAntiphonon: Offering to Professor N. B. Drandak∑s](Thessalonike, 1994), pp. 451–74; Kalopissi-Verti,Dedicatory Inscriptions, pp. 71–75 (with previous bibli-ography).

68.The British Library, London,Add. Ms. 39627.Byzantium: Faith and Power, pp. 56–57, no. 27 (withprevious bibliography).

69.Gordana Babic,“Nizovi portreta srpskih episkopa,arhiepiskopa i patrijaraha u zidnovu slikarstvu(xiii–xvi v.),” in Sava Nemanjic–Saint Sava: Histoire ettradition, décembre, 1976 (Belgrade, 1979), pp. 319–40;Svetozar Radojçic, Portreti srpskih vladara u Srednjemveku, 2d ed. (1934; Belgrade, 1996). See also Vojislav J.-Duric, Byzantinische Fresken in Jugoslawien (Belgrade,1976), passim;Todic, Serbian Medieval Painting (as innote 46 above), passim.