Volume 105, Issue 1

In the late 17th century, Guillaume-Joseph Grelot wrote the first comprehensive study on Hagia Sophia. His contribution greatly improved the knowledge of the monument in Western Europe and offered at the same time a critical view on its architecture, which was in strong contrast with the opinion of previous travelers. Grelot’s study marks the starting point of a reflection on Byzantine architecture that developed throughout the Age of Enlightenment, especially in the second half of the 18th century. In their work, the theoreticians and first historians of architecture, such as Julien-David Leroy, picked Byzantine monuments instead of Western buildings as examples of medieval architecture. This choice reflected the importance attributed to the Byzantine dome on square in the history of architecture, and the idea that Byzantine architecture was less degenerate than its counterpart in the West. Despite the new attention paid to Byzantine monuments, there was little progress in the actual knowledge of the buildings, besides Hagia Sophia, San Marco in Venice and San Vitale in Ravenna. By the early 19th century, the idea that the dome of Hagia Sophia was the first of its kind seemed no longer satisfying, and the question of its origin began to arise, for example in the work of Jean-Baptiste Séroux d’Agincourt. This shift is symptomatic of the beginning of a new interest in Byzantine architecture as such, and not merely as the forerunner of «modern» Western churches. The reflection on the origin and significance of different elements of Byzantine architecture, especially vaults, which culminates in the first decades of the 20th century, during the «Orient oder Rom» controversy, was therefore not new. Indeed, it was deeply rooted in this period I call the dawning of Byzantine architecture.

Icons and furniture have been largely neglected by studies on trade between the Crown of Aragon and Romania. Only a small number of objects coming from Byzantium and other parts of Romania have survived to the present day, but documentary evidence from inventories shows us their relative abundance in the past. As some fiscal accounts demonstrate, the arrival of these objects was related mainly with trade, especially in the second half of the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth centuries, when a large trade developed. An examination of this sort of trade opens the way to reinterpretations of the production of these objects, the manufacture centers, the chronology of large-scale production, and their influence in Western taste.

The so-called eulogies (“blessings”) were portable objects used as souvenirs of pilgrimages to Christian shrines and holy places. These mementoes were credit by the faithful with miraculous properties: they could protect against any danger known to man, provided miraculous cures, even protection from the hazards of travelling. Acquiring them was an essential part of religious practice on a Christian pilgrimage. Aim of the article is to explore economic aspects of these artefacts, namely the modes of their production and distribution. Therefore, the most know categories of this kind of devotionalia were study and in connection with the written sources their economic dimensions were explored.

Prompted by Theon’s recommendation of the mythographer Palaephatus as a model writer of mythical refutations, this article examines the influence of Palaephatus’ On Unbelievable Tales on late-antique and Byzantine progymnasmata. Comparison of ten myths treated by both Palaephatus and the progymnasmata suggests that, although Palaephatus’ On Unbelievable Tales was known to Byzantine authors, it was not consulted as a source for Byzantine rhetorical exercises.

The manuscript Madrid 5012 contains a fragmentary Byzantine imperial letter to the 10th-century caliph’s court of Cordoba only preserved in arabic. Since the first edition of this letter by S.M. Stern in 1961 there have been various suggestions to identify the dispatcher of the letter (Romanos II, Nikephoros II Phokas or Ioannes I Tzimiskes), always assuming the adressee was the Umayyad caliph al-Ḥakam II during his reign (961-976). Based on a new interpretation of the arabic text of the letter, it can been shown that it was dispatched by Konstantinos VII Porphyrogennetos to al-Ḥakam II before its accession to power, probably in the years between 946 and 956.

Synod decrees of the eleventh century may be divided into two types of documents based on their formal structure. Type I is discussed before the patriarch and metropolitans while Type II is effectively written beforehand but is approved by the participants of a synod. The different formulas allow one to classify many synod decrees of the period 1025-1081 and to reconstruct the sequence of documents of such important trials as that of Symeon the New Theologian or of John Italos. Moreover it allows one to understand better such defence speeches as that of Lazaros of Philippopolis written by Psellos within the framework of the trial before the synod.

The discourse Against the Barlaamites of the patriarch of Constantinople Kallistos I, which so far has remained unedited, is delivered by the codex of Hilandar Monastery 8 (Athon. 229), ff. 192v-199v, of the 15th century and by the codex of Panteleemon Monastery 1074 (Athon. 6267), ff. 88-93v, of the 19th century, which is an identical copy of the codex of Hilandar Monastery. The redaction of the discourse in question is set in the time period between 1355 and 1357. The patriarch himself some Sunday most likely addressed the congregation with this discourse. The patriarch Kallistos I turns against the followers of Barlaam of Calabria, Gregory Akindynos and Nikephoros Gregoras, who according to the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church had fallen to heresy. The aim of the patriarch Kallistos I with this particular discourse was to avert the danger of heretical beliefs being adopted by members of the congregation of the Eastern Orthodox Church and, at the same time, to convince those who had already embraced these heretical beliefs to revert to the true faith of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

The silver-gilt cover of Cod. British Library, Add MS 28815, is equipped with several repoussé works. The depiction of the Deesis in the centre is accompanied on its right and left side with three scenes of martyrdom as well as with inscriptions. Christopher Walter,who was the first studying the cover, identified - based on a false reading of the inscriptions - the depicted martyrs as Nestorios and Noetos. In the present article the correct reading of the inscriptions is offered:They are metrical and refer to passages in the Vita Demetrii. Moreover, the miniatures show scenes of St Demetrios’ martyrdom.The different parts of the silver-gilt cover where created in the 14th century with the exception of the Deesis in the centre, which is a post-Byzantine product. It is also demonstrated that the post-Byzantine artist, who arranged the cover, did not pay attention to the fact that inscriptions and depicted scenes do not correspond. The article’s aim is also to show that the thorough study of inscriptions sometimes helps to learn more about the purpose of an object.

Although all the relevant sources of the Arsenite schism in the Byzantine church (1265-1310) have been published, a precise and thorough description of its beginnings, development, and final settlement, has not been attempted so far. For almost half a century, this internal strife troubled not only the Orthodox Church but also all of society in the later Byzantine empire. The schism started from a political affair, the successful attempt of Michael Palaiologos, a high-ranking military officer of noble descent, to oust John, the minor successor to the throne of the Laskarid dynasty after the premature death of his father, Theodore II. But Arsenios Autoreianos, patriarch of Constantinople since 1255, after some hesitation refused to approve John Laskaris’s deposition, as well as his imprisonment and blinding by the unscrupulous usurper. The patriarch first reacted by withdrawing to a monastery without resigning his position; but he finally excommunicated Palaiologos in January, 1262.The usurper tried in vain to get absolved from the excommunication, until, finally, in 1265, he deposed Arsenios and appointed as his successor Germanos, who immediately excommunicated his predecessor. But the new patriarch soon realized that his position was weak; he retired and was replaced by Joseph Galesiotes, who finally cancelled the emperor’s excommunication. But the new patriarch could not overcome the resistance of Arsenios’ followers who continued to question the legitimacy of Arsenios’ successors from Germanos to Athanasios (1289-1293, 1303-1309). It was finally Patriarch Niphon who was able to negotiate a compromise with the Arsenites in 1310 and to end the schism with an impressive ceremony in Hagia Sophia.

The battle of Prinitsa was fought between the Byzantines and forces of the “Crusader” Principality of Achaia. This article analyses what accounts of the battle of Prinitsa and the campaign of 1263 can tell us about late Byzantine warfare. It illustrates the problems faced by the Byzantines during offensive campaigns due to the heterogeneous nature of their army and a tendency towards avoidance of pitched battles. The Chronicle of Morea, our main source, also reveals a great deal about the image the Latins of Greece had of themselves, as well as of the Byzantines - images undoubtedly strengthened by descriptions of the Battle of Prinitsa.