DUMBARTON OAKS
PAPERS
62
DUMBARTON
OAKS
PAPERS
NUMBER SIXTY-TWO 2008
PublishedbyDumbarton Oaks ResearchLibraryandCollection Trustees for Harvard
University
Dumbarton
Oaks
Research
Library and Collection
D.C.
Washington,
The Dumbarton
Oaks Papers were founded
articles relating to late antique,
in 1941 for the publication
early medieval,
and Byzantine
tion in the fields of art and architecture, history, archaeology, Distributed
byHarvard
University
Press, 2009
theology, law, and the auxiliary disciplines. Articles
of
civiliza literature,
should be submitted
or French. Preference is to articles of substantial normally inEnglish given
Editor
notes will be considered length, but shorter Talbot
Alice-Mary
Dumbarton according
Editorial
Oaks
collections. Articles
in the
to the submission guide, style guide, and list of abbreviations
on theDumbarton posted
Board
if they relate to objects
for submission should be prepared
Oaks website, www.doaks.org/publications.
JohnDuffy Ioli Kalavrezou
Dumbarton
AngelikiLaiouf
Oaks Papers
is published
issues may be ordered online at
Coordinating
and previous
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/.
orders may be placed by contacting Editor
annually. Current
customer
Standing
service at 800-405-1619
or
[email protected].
Joel Kalvesmaki Volumes
1-59 o? Dumbarton
Copyeditor
through JSTOR;
Susan Barnes
the Dumbarton
volumes
Oaks Papers
are available
53-57 are also available
Oaks website
at
at no
Designer Library of Congress
Catalog
Card Number
ISSN OO7O-7546 Composition Book Design
Kachergis
Printed ?
1009 Dumbarton
Trustees
forHarvard
Washington,
D.C.
Oaks University
in theUnited
digital form
charge through
http://www.doaks.org/publications/
doaks_online_publications.html.
Michael Sohn
in
States ofAmerica.
42-6499
CONTENTS DUMBARTON OAKS PAPERS NUMBER SIXTY-TWO 2008
1
Michael Hendy, 16April 1942-13 May 2008 R. W.
Burgess
The Summer of Blood: The "Great Massacre" Stephen
of 337 and the Promotion
of the Sons of Constantine
J. Shoemaker
The Cult ofFashion:The EarliestLife oftheVirginandConstantinople'sMarian Relics Hans-Georg
53
Severin
On theArchitecturalDecoration andDating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery") near S?h?g inUpper Egypt 75 Maria
Evangelatou and Image in the Sacra Parallela
Word bogdan
(Codex Parisinus Graecus
113
923)
G. bucur
fromAll Eternity: The Mystery of the Incarnation According Christian and Byzantine Writers 199 Early Foreordained
to Some
Ivan Drpic and Visual
Art, Hesychasm,
the Melode:
Romanos Mary
Exegesis: Parisinus Graecus
Dumbarton
Oaks
1242 Revisited
Colloquium,
217
12November
B. Cunningham of Romanos
The Reception Riccardo
Byzantine Homiletics
and Hymnography
Maisano
Romanos's Johannes
inMiddle
Use of Greek Patristic Sources
261
Koder
ImperialPropaganda in theKontakia ofRomanos theMelode
The Old Testament Dumbarton Abbreviations
in Byzantium:
Oaks 295
Symposium,
1-3December
2006
293
275
251
2005
5
3
MICHAEL HENDY 16April 1?42-13 May
2008
estavant tout une histoire v?cue d'une mani?re unique dans la plus totale Chaque homme nepeut raconterde lam?me mani?re subjectivit?,que personne E. Zarifian, Le go?t de vivre
struck
Death
inWalmer,
Michael
Hendy (Kent) on May
Deal
at his home 13,2008, less
His his sixty-sixth thanamonth after birthday.
demise was
as
were
untimely
as his scientific achievements
(Sussex), the eldest of three sons. As his father served in theMerchant was left to his mother Vera to raise him and Navy, it from his early years she favored his interest "in all strange fossils and coins.1 As is things," that is, snakes and mice, often the case with numismatists, early passion for col in him keen powers of observation.
It
was lefttohis tutoratTheQueen sCollege,Oxfordjohn
Prestwich, to stretch his interests and introduce him to the complexities of the Byzantine world, understood in
Tetrarchieand itsbroadestdefinitionfromthefounding to the fall of Constanti
Constantinian
reorganization at an As (1961-64), he Queens nople.2 undergraduate to look at in once visited Byzantine coins Cambridge the Fitzwilliam Museum,
such an unu
and expressed by the Comnenian
sual interest in those minted
and
that Philip Grierson (1910-2006) Palaeologan emperors in touch with him, even inviting him to a feast kept a at Caius for very privilege generally reserved College, distinguished academics. More
him importantly,Grierson also recommended
fora juniorfellowshipatDumbarton Oaks (1965-67), as a followingthesevenmonths (1964/65)he had spent
British Council
1
Meg Alexiou
graduate exchange
and John Hendy,
scholar at theUni
at
obituary http://caialumni.admn I infor gratefully acknowledge Alexiou and Professor by Meg
.cai.cam.ac.uk/alumni/obits/index.php. mation, assistance and editing provided Dr. Nancy
Patterson
Sevcenko.
for in his Studies in theByzantine Monetary As adopted and argued c. 300-14S0 1985), 17-18. Economy, (Cambridge, 2
DOP 62
and laterByzantine coin hoards in the Bulgarian capital and in various provincial museums. This stay inBulgaria on the was the starting point for his major discovery monetary
precocious. Michael Hendy was born inNewhaven
lecting developed
ofSofia,devotinghimselfto studyofComnenian versity
history of the period. During
his two years
atDumbarton Oaks, not onlydid he classifyand label the institutions holdings in this area, "the mares nest that the twelfth- and thirteenth-century coinages then
formed,"3with which no one thenwished to be involved, but above all he wrote and completed the large volume in theByzantine Empire, 1081-1261, Coinage andMoney
whenhewas only publishedbyDumbartonOaks in 1969, twenty-seven. This first opus was both a coup d'essai and a coup de ma?tre, inCorneilles words.4
This revolutionary studybroughtorderto thepre
coinage of this period.5 Where viously misunderstood the then-classical reference work, Warwick Wroth's
Catalogue oftheImperialByzantineCoins in theBritish a chaotic series of (London, 1908), described debased coins of varying intrinsic value, Michael Hendy identified a decisive monetary reform that replaced the
Museum
issues of the late eleventh century with a new an almost system of denominations, at the top ofwhich
debased
pure gold coin, the nomisma hyperpyron, restored the crisis prestige of the bezant, thus ending themonetary of the late eleventh century. He was
also able to solve the mystery of the elu
sive coinage
of the Latin
Empire
of Constantinople
Coins in theDumbarton 3 M. F. Hendy, Catalogue of the Byzantine Collection Oaks Collection and in theWhittemore (Washington, DC, 1999), 4.i:ix. 4
Pierre Corneille,
5
For a detailed
C. Morrisson's 356-66.
Le Cid
(1660), 2.2.410.
see assessment of this achievement, contemporary review inNumismatic Chronicle, 7th ser., 11 (1971):
2
Dumbarton I
Oaks Papers
number sixty-two
2008
itwas well known fromNicetas Choniates ( 104-61): that the Crusaders had torn down several monumental into the statues of the smelting capital and thrown them furnaces to be melted down and struck into "staters" and "worthless small change."6 French nineteenth-century like Sabatier and Schlumberger had tried to issues in certain types of anonymous identify these
numismatists
folks thatA. R. Bellinger and Margaret Thompson sub on account of their overstrikes, sequently demonstrated, to in fact to the eleventh-century series. Relying belong
on his studyofBulgarian and othercoin finds, Hendy
identified and dated to the early thirteenth century a large and varied group of small bronze pieces that imitated, more or less faithfully, twelfth-century Byzantine types and that had been previously confused with Comne nian issues. He attributed the direct imitative series in
and accelerated exchanges necessitated an articulated coinage. It was another merit of Michael
the full array of
early Hendy's research to recognize that the twelfth century was not as a assumed period of decline for Byzantium, generally
in the 1960s,when current scholarship asserted that the
Turkish seizureofpart ofAsia Minor, thechrysobull issued toVenice
in 1082, and the various privileges granted the empire's economic situation. In 1970, in a brilliant paper read at the Royal later to the Italians had doomed
he offered a pathbreak ing and far-sighted "economic reappraisal" of the period 1081-1204, using the evidence of archaeology and impe
Historical
Society
in London,
rial coinage to demonstrate the urban expansion and the the Byzantine mercantile development."9 "apogee of The five-year assistant curatorship in the Fitzwilliam
module (latercalled "faithful copies"by theGreek large
Museum (1967 to 1972)thatGriersonhad securedfor
evidence adduced was compelling and the basic propos als of redating were almost universally accepted, leading or to a fruitful series of publications re-publications of
the relationship between the patterns of coin production and fiscal administration. As he himself recalled in the
scholars) to the Bulgarian emperors (ca. 1195-ca. 1115?) and the various derivative types in severalmodules to the The Latin rulers in Thessalonike and Constantinople.
regionalstudiesbyBalkan numismatistsin the lightof
was very He wrote several Hendy productive. on numismatic most topics, notably the series publications of articles that appeared between 1970 and 1972 tracing
Michael
introduction
to his volume of collected
series (1989): "Cambridge (the elder)... an historian/numismatist for interesting place
Variorum an
articles in the was con
his discoveries. But the "Bulgarian" attribution provoked, a debate that notably with Greek scholars, long-lasting was not exempt from what he called the emergence of
on the late to centrating Antique and Byzantine worlds be. Itwas, after all, theCambridge ofHugo Jones,Moses
now appears, to the latest subsequent studies, it according examination that the in-depth by Pagona Papadopoulou, "Bulgarian" thesis needs qualification and that several
these inparticular... I thinkmy scholarly and intellectual debt isobvious, and ismost readily acknowledged.)"10 In 1972 he was appointed lecturer in numismatics and cura
an "ethnicnote."7Out of thehighlycomplexbody of
authorities must have been responsible for the series.8 is still not completely solved, but Michael
The question
Hendy undoubtedlyopened awide field.Thanks tohis now clear that the Latins were penetrating analysis, it is led into issuing these imitations by the sheer demand of a thriving Byzantine economy, where growing trade
6
Nicetas
Choniates,
Historia,
ed. J. A. van Dieten
(Berlin,
1975),
648-50. in theDumbarton 7 M. F. Hendy, of theByzantine Coins Catalogue Oaks Collection and in theWhittemore Collection, 4.1:61. The debate cul in the controversial review o?DOC, vol. 4 by I. Touratsoglou inRevue references to previ 158 385-404?with (2002): numismatique ous literature?to which to Hendy declined reply because he considered the review, though apparently scholarly in content, "a vituperative and
Finley,andPhilipGrierson,amongothers.(To thelastof
tor of the coin collection
at the Barber
Institute of the
curator University of Birmingham. In 1978, he left the ship of the coin collection for the position of lecturer in a at the Department ofMedieval History, no less to teach,with "interestingplace" colleagues such numismatics
asChrisWickham, JohnHaldon, Wendy Davies, and last but not leastMargaret Alexiou, with whom he was to share the best years of the rest of his life.He encour
one of his students, Alan aged and directed thework of on his teachers reassessment Harvey, who followed up of the eleventh- and twelfth-century economy towrite
minated
malevolent 8
"De
byzantin
rant" employing l'unit? ? l'?clatement: (1081-1261)"
"intemperate
terms."
La monnaie
(PhD diss., Universit?
et son usage dans de Paris, 2007).
l'Empire
"Byzantium 1081-1204: An Economic Reappraisal," Transactions of 20 (1970): 31-52, repr. in The Econ theRoyal Historical Society, 5th ser., Fiscal Administration and omy, (Northampton, Coinage ofByzantium 1989), art. no. II.
9
10
M. Hendy, Economy,
x.
DOP 62
MichaelHendy | 3 in the his dissertation, published asEconomic Expansion (Cambridge, 1989). Byzantine Empire, ?00-1200 Most important, in these yearsHendy wrote his sec
ond magnum opus, Studies in theByzantine Monetary c. 300-1450 (1985).He carried out the research Economy,
forthisvolumeon both sidesof theAtlantic, sincehe
in 1976 and a at Dumbarton Oaks visiting fellow returned occasionally in the 1980s, since Giles Constable him associate advisor for Byzantine numis appointed its matics there in 1980-1981 and 1982-1984.11 Upon appearance thismassive learned work received universal
was
acclaim and three decades later remains an indispensable work of reference.12Originally intended as a history of its and circula production Byzantine coinage (money, tion, and the administration ofmints), with extensive
citation of primary sources, itwas enlarged to assess the
than, say, economy may well have been lessmonetized was almost and theAnglo-Saxon economy, certainly less so than the late Saxon, orNorman one."14 This approach
did not, however, detract from the immense merit of the book and its contribution to essential aspects of the "monetary economy": the budget, the administrative basis of coinage and its supervision, the problem of transport and trade.
When Hendy foundtheUniversityofBirmingham
on promotions professionally discouraging, he policy to chose take voluntary severance in 1987,15 and moved
to theUnited States,following Meg Alexiou,who had
been appointed
George
Seferis Professor ofModern
Greek StudiesatHarvard. In 1987/88he held anAlpha Fund fellowshipat the InstituteforAdvanced Study at Princeton. There he wrote
three new articles, which
roleofmoney in theeconomy,and it includeda long
he included inhisVariorum volume (1989).Then he
school, Hendy contended that the primary Cambridge was the needs of the state, coin production dynamic of and that trade played no part at all in the state smonetary a limited one inmonetary distribution and policy and the first proposition can hardly circulation. Whereas be disputed, the second, from the start,was questioned.
on coinfindsfrom fieldwork enhancedbyhis important
sectionwith a valuable comparison between geographical theBalkans and Asia Minor.13 Under the influence of the
of archaeology has shown in of Byzantium in itsmost fact the greater monetization Indeed,
the development
affluentperiods. Hendy's systematic downgrading of the role of cash in theByzantine economy, a paradox, consid
as eringthetitleofhisbook, ledto suchaffirmations that "at thismost basic level, the late Roman
and Byzantine
Oaks in the 1985 Dumbarton spring as aMirror of the Disinte Coinages Structures." His paper, however, did not appear
Late Roman gration of with the others in the volume und die Barbaren vate: The Western of Late Roman
(Vienna, Barbarian
edited by Evangelos Chrysos, Das Reich to Pri 1989), but in Viator as "From Public Coinage
as aMirror
State Structures," Viator,Medieval
the excavations atAphrodisias, Sara?hane (St. Polyeuktos) in in Istanbul, and Kourion and Kalenderhane Cyprus
(thelastthreeprojectssupportedbyDumbartonOaks),
this honorary position was unfortunately never replaced a more permanent one in this country. by In 1993, thanks to then-Director of Byzantine Stud
iesHenry Maguire, Hendy agreed to return toDumbar ton Oaks as resident researcher on Byzantine coins for sixmonths, to complete volume four of the Catalogue of in theDumbarton
Coins
theByzantine
Oaks Collection
WhittemoreCollection(10S1-1261)(=DOC). and in the
had already done the cataloguing in 1966 and even were a few actually copies ofwhich prepared the plates, at some point before 1984.17As Grierson explains, printed
He
for instance Participating "The Barbarian with symposium
11
of Classics as joined Harvard University's Department an Andrew W. Mellon fellow. Despite his credentials,16
of theDisintegration and Renaissance Stud
however, instead of following the simple format o?DOC volume one, "itwas [then, i.e., in 1967] thought best to
continuewith theplan ofDOC stantial introduction byHendy
II and III,with a sub
himself," though Coinage
ies 19 (1988): 29-78. See inter alia the reviews by D. Abulafia, Economic History Review, P. Grier (1987): 151-52; C. Foss, Speculum 64 (1989): 966-69; American Historical A. Laiou, son,Antiquaries Journal66 (1986): 178; Review 94 (1989): 119-20; F.Millar,/^ 78 (1988): 198-202; C. Morris 6th ser., 29 (1987): 245-56. son, Revue numismatique, 12
2nd ser.,40
13
This
seemed
to Paul Lemerle
so extraneous
to the work
that he
de Travaux in the seriesMonographies refused to accept themanuscript to him, unless the chapter was removed, as I had etM?moires, suggested The same comment had been a proposal thatHendy absolutely opposed. one referee forCambridge, by take the book as itwas.
made
DOP 62
but the press was
clever enough
to
14
Studies
(
.2
above),
301.
13June 2008, his former colleague in Birmingham, on 12June, wrote, "he on the John Ray, commenting obituary published could never quite forgive an institution for the fact that it employed him, and itwas inevitable that his career took a different turn from those of 15
most 16
In The Times,
academics. He
But he was
had been awarded
a generous a Litt. D.
and exceptional (Cantab.)
colleague."
in 1989.
These were used for the final publication, which explains in illustration of recent coins, lamented by several reviews. 17
the gaps
4
Dumbarton I
Oaks Papers
number sixty-two
2008
The full andMoney couldwell have servedthispurpose.18 a introduction and typescript, with two-hundred-page detailed comments on the various reigns,was delivered
in 1994 after a "six-months' burst of frenetic activity in 1993 and an even briefer six-weeks' final coda in 1994,"19 but itwas not published until 1999. Its hasty completion
that itwas almost impossible forHendy to pro as he had done in his 1969 book or as Grierson had vide, two and three, a full inDOC description of attempted all known types of the coinage, given the amount of new is still material that had turned up over the years?and meant
it included a detailed analysis turning up nowadays. But
of thecomplexhistoricalbackgroundof theperiod,and a fundamental
costume study of imperial ceremonial and besides reassessing and updating regalia. Moreover, his earlier discoveries,20 Hendy proposed two thought one on the contemporaneous new hypotheses, provoking existence of two mints at and another Constantinople
on the in importance of the fifteen-year indiction cycle the of the twelfth-century coinage. changing designs In 1994, since he had not been offered any suitable in theUnited
States,21 he went back to the land
position inKent. and landscape of his youth and settled atWalmer There he moved on to other passions and, inCandides
to "cultiver son in all meanings. Not jardin,"22 roses and clematis; grow peas, rhubarb, he did only plant raspberries, gooseberries, blackcurrants and the like; and
words,
transform his fruit crop into elaborate marmalades;
but
he lovedwildlife and delighted in thefrogsand their tadpolesinhispool.He tookpride that"itwill neverbe
a
aswe would not want it to be so:more order tidygarden indisorder."23He would also walk theNorth Downs near
his home, searching for prehistoric flints and hand axes. There too, his love of life,his sense of fun and laughter,
hisknowledgeoffoodandwine (andmost things French) made his companyappreciatedbymany friendsas ithad been by former colleagues, as, among many, Jean-Michel
who residedin theFellowsBuildingwith him Spieser, in 1993, vividly remembers.
Walmer in thehistorical WellesleyHouse, Living in the formerresidenceof theDuke ofWellington, he decorated the rooms inRegency styleand filled them with theNelson andWellington memorabilia thathe to collect. In this environment his academic begun interestswere transferred tomore recent times and he
had
ofRichardBuddVin theletterbook began transcribing
cent, captain ofHMS Arrow, who took part in thewars and was buried in a vault beneath the against Napoleon
nave of theNorman
church in Walmer.
He maintained
a particularaffinity forthischurch:his funeralservice
took place here on May 29, 2008, the same place where his marriage with Professor Margaret Alexiou had been celebrated Waterloo.
in 2004 on the anniversary of the battle of for theNaval Records, this last opus
Destined
will be editedand publishedposthumouslybyhiswife and his brother, John.With
the exception of this last
project,Hendy had seenall his scholarly productionin time His the of his death.24 greatbooks and printby to articlesallbearwitness thequalityofhis scholarship e ae . and theoriginalityofhismind: C?cile Morrisson
18 Philip Grierson's memoirs archives atDumbarton Oaks. 19
DOC
on Dumbarton
Oaks,
preserved
in the
4.i:viii.
20 Defending themharshlyagainst themajor criticismstheyhad
23
Letter to C?cile Morrisson,
fromWalmer,
4 April
1997.
But he was planning to write a book on the Byzantine economy aimed at a wider public. His joint work with Meg Alexiou on the Pto
24
choprodromika
nears
completion.
received (see "Excursus on the Problem of Clipped Trachea, Bulgarian Issues in the and Latin Imitative Trachea, and the Chronology ofMain
Years ? 1204," DOC4.1:59-95). As Meg Alexiou and John Hendy have written, "He was well known amongst his peers and colleagues for his occasional difficult and contrary manner and put this down to the county of his birth and the old maxim 'Sussex won't be druv.'" 21
22
Voltaire, Candide
ou
l'optimiste, chap, xxx, 1759.
DOP 62
THE SUMMER OF BLOOD The "GreatMassacre" of 337and thePromotion of theSons ofConstantine R.W. BURGESS
To Tim Barnes, in thefirstyear ofhis retirementfrom teaching: a giant's shoulders, indeed.
I. Introduction Although
was the firstChristian
Constantine
emperor,
wasmarredbymore familialbloodshedthanthat his reign
was involved to emperor: he himself or another in the deaths of his wife's father, one degree wife's his brother, his half sister'shusband, his eldest son, his wife, and another half sister'shusband and son (Max of any other Roman
imian,Maxentius, Bassianus, Crispus, Fausta, Licinius, and Licinius II, respectively; see stemma, p. 6).Moreover, soon after his death most of the male descendants of I, his father, and Theodora, Constantius's s and half sister stepmother a in-law,were assassinated in plot that involved at least one of his sons. The late-fourth-century author of the
Constantius
second wife and Constantine
HistoriaAugustahad thisbloodyrecordinmindwhen he eulogized
II, supposed ancestor ofConstantine: amauit propinquos; res nostris temporibus
Claudius
"[Claudius] comparanda miraculo"
("Claudius
loved his relatives, a
fact that these days would be considered amiracle," HA Claud. 2.6).1 This massacre of themale descendants of
andmost of thehalfnephews Theodora,thehalfbrothers isone of themost intriguingpersonal epi sodes in the history of theRoman emperors. The problem
ofConstantine,
is that no surviving ancient source directly describes this event; we have hints, rumors, accusations, tendentious were coverups, vague statements that readers obviously
meant to understand, and accounts doctored forpolitical or Such source material has created religious purposes. numerous formodern scholars, with the result problems that virtually every aspect of themassacre is contested:
the names of those who met their end, the dates of their there was one massacre
deaths, whether
and the reason(s) behind prompted the assassinations, are almost asmany scenarios as there them. Indeed, there are scholarswho have theorized them, usually because the episode
is treated merely as an interlude between more
important military, political, I should like to thank Tim Barnes, Cathy King, and Pierre-Louis Malosse for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper, aswell as the editors and the two anonymous referees for their detailed and helpful comments and I alone am responsible for keeping what they told suggestions. As always for help me to remove or fix. I should also like to thank Joel Kalvesmaki technical problems presented by my original text. I should like to thank the following for permission to reproduce the Numismatic Group (nos. ,2,3,4,8,14), Harlan J. photographs: Classical
with
the formidable
Berk Ltd (no. 5),Dr. Paul Rynearson (Vcoins) (no. 11),Lanz Numismatik = LHS Numismatik (nos. 9, (nos. 12,16,18), Dr. Busso Peus Nachfolger Fritz AG Tkalec GmbH 21, H. D. Rauch 6,19, 7), 23), (no. (nos. 15,17), Rudolf K?nker M?nzenhandlung (no. 10),Marc Breitsprecher ofAncient Coins & Artifacts (Vcoins) (no. Imports Inc. (Vcoins) (no. 26), Imperial 20), Roman Lode
(Vcoins)
(nos. 22,24), andM?nzen
& Medaillen
GmbH
MarianaReynoldsforallherhelpwith (no.25).I shouldalso liketo thank
the intricacies involved in preparing these photos for publication. for dates: 337-38 = 337 to 338, 337 / 38 = 337 or 338. Conventions
DOP 62
or two, who
and religious narratives.2
1 Of course, since "Pollio" was supposed to have been writing between I was still caesar {HA Claud. 1.1, 3.1, 293 and 305, when Constantius not known about events as late as 337, but have he could 9.9,10.7,13.2), this is just another of the many subtle and not so subtle chronological author. For a short but slipsmade by the anonymous late-fourth-century
introduction to this problem, see A. Chastagnol, His general toireAuguste: Les empereurs romains des Ile et lile si?cles (Paris, 1994), C-CXXXI. IX-XXXIV,
excellent
"Sulle stragi di Costantinopoli The major studies are A. Olivetti, il RFIC succedute alla morte di Costantino 43 (1915): 67-79; grande,"
2
X. Lucien-Brun, 4th
"Constance
series, Lettres
K?mpfe
II et lemassacre
des princes," BullBud?, "Die 32 (1973): 585-602; R. Klein, des Gro?en," nach dem Tode Constantins
d'humanit?
um die Nachfolge
in idem, Roma versa per aevum: Aus (reprinted zur heidnischen und christlichen Sp?tantike, ed. R. von gew?hlte Schriften
ByzF6
(1979):
101-50
6
R.W.
Burgess
of Constantius
The Descendants
Stemma
?= (i) Maximian*
helena
=
(1) constantius
(2)
= theodora
(2)
=
Eutropia
Maxentius*
Fausta* = constantine
fl. DALMATiust
Julius
i
Constantia
Hannibalianus
CONSTANTiusf
(i)=Galla =Liciniusr
DALMATIUSf
Licinius
HANNIBALIANUSf
Eutropia
Anastasia
=Virius
=Bassianus*
I Nepotianus?t I
II*
= Constantina
Nepotianus
four other cousins of Juli?nt
sont
gallus
daughter = constantius
ii
=Constantina
(2)=Basilina constantine
Minervina=(i)
i (2)=Fausta* Julian=Helena
constantine
Crispus*
h
constantius
h
Constantina
(1) =daughter
(1)=hannibalianus
(2) =Eusebia
(2)=Gallus
constans
Helena
=julian
*executed by Constantine tassassinated in 337 sources:
Barnes, New Empire, 265-166, and PLRE
Haehlingand
.Scherberich
[Hildesheim,
1:1129.
1999], 1-49); andM. Di Maio,
Jr., and D. W.-H. Arnold, "Per Vim, Per Caedem, Per Bellum: A Study ofMurder and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Year 337 A.D.," Byzantion 62
e la tradizione sul (1992): 158-211 (on which, see I.Tantillo, "Filostorgio testamento di Costantino," Athenaeum 88 [2000]: 559-63). A selection
of recent important interpretations can be found (in chronological order) in E. Stein, Histoire du bas-empire, vol. , trans, and aug. J.-R. Palanque (Paris, 1959), 131-32 and 484-85; A. H. M.Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic,
and Administrative
Survey (Oxford, 1964),
(New York, 1969), 224-25; A. Piganiol, R- Browning, The Emperor Julian chr?tien 82-83; 1972), (Paris, L'empire W. Leedom, "Constantius II: Three Revisions," (London, 1975), 34-35; J. Byzantion 48 (1978): 132-36; RIC 8:4-7; G. W. Bowersock, Julian the 112;R. MacMullen,
Constantine
1978), 22-23; T. D. Barnes, Constantine and "Observaciones 1981), 261-62; E. G. Gonzalez, sobre un emperador cristiano: Fl. Jul. Constante," Lucentum 3 (1984): II: Un premier 'C?saro 268-70; C. Pietri, "La politique de Constance
Apostate Eusebius
papisme'
(Cambridge, MA, (Cambridge, MA,
ou Vimitatio Constantini?"
in LEglise
et
l'empire
(Geneva, 1989), 120-25; Sept expos?s suivis de discussions, ed. A. Dihle in T. Gr?newald, Constantinus Maximus Augustus: Herrschaftspropaganda der zeitgen?ssischen ?berlieferung (Stuttgart, 1990), 153;P. Cara, "Aspetti e
la successione di Costantino," RSCI religiosi del conflitto per 39-5?; I?Tantino, La prima orazione di Giuliano a Costanzo: Introduzione, traduzione e commento (Rome, 1997), 228-39; D. Hunt, politici
47 (!993):
in The "The Successors of Constantine," Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 13,The Late Empire, A.D. 337-42$, ed. Av. Cameron and P. Garnsey B. Bleckmann, "Der B?rgerkrieg zwischen Con (Cambridge, 1998), 3-4; . , stantin II. und Constans 52 (2003): 225-26 (340 n. Chr.)," Historia at AD D. S. Roman The Potter, York, 241-43; 180-3?$ (New Empire Bay, and R. M. Frakes, "The Dynasty of Constantine down 2004), 460-63; . to 363," in The to the ed. Constantine, Companion Age of Cambridge accounts and discus Lenski (Cambridge, 2006), 98-99. For lists of earlier sions, seeOlivetti (above), 76-77; Lucien-Brun (above), 595-99; Di Maio and Arnold Constantins
(above), 161-62 n. 24; H. Chantraine, Die Nachfolgeordnung des Gro?en (Mainz-Stuttgart, 1992), 5-9.
au IVe si?cle:
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
any headway in this matter is therefore not easy, and the complexities of the evidence necessitate a is as follows. complex analysis. My approach
To make
After establishing the general historical context for the events of the summer of 337 (section II and Appen
dix 1),I beginwith theproblemof establishing"what happened,"
in
particular
the sequence of events and the
forthem(sectionIII). This beginswith a responsibility detailed and analysisof the survivingliterary lengthy
sources, since they are abundant and complex, as well sources (III.i). The next subsection as the epigraphical
presentsthehintsand cluesoffered by thecoinageof the
of Con period immediately preceding the promotion stantine s sons (III.2 and This section concludes figures). with a summary and synthesis that establishes the rela
tive importance and reliability of the foregoing evidence are a (III.3). From this number of general conclusions
drawn that focus verymuch on the question of instiga tion: was it the army alone or was itConstantius? The next section is concerned for themost part with
thechronologyof theeventsof thesummerof 337from the death of Constantine
to the return of Constantius
to
after themeeting with his brothers. Constantinople Since the date of the death ofConstantine iswell attested in the sources, I other known date, begin with the only sons to augus that of the promotion of Constantine's
tus (IV.i). Then follow two short sections outlining the numerous suggestions of modern scholars for the of themassacre (IV.2) and the statements chronology
of the survivingliterarysources (IV.3). The legal,epi
evidence is considered next, graphic, and papyrological but with few exact or specific conclusions (IV. 4). I then on to other types of evidence that have not been pass considered before: a victory title (IV.5), the coins (IV.6,
and theitineraries (IV7, Appen Appendix 2,andfigures), dices 3 and 4, and themap). All the above description and analysis is then brought together in a hypothetical reconstruction (V) and a general conclusion of major
points (VI).
twowives, Helena
and Theodora,3 bywhom he had had one son (Constantine), and three sons and three daugh ters, respectively (see the stemma). The two eldest sons
of Constantine himself, Crispus and Constantine II, had been proclaimed caesar on March the former 317, at of around the time, the lat twenty years age perhaps
ter less than a next son, Constantius II, was year.4 His caesar on 8November 324,when only seven proclaimed or summer of in old.5 the years spring Shortly afterward, 326,Crispus was executed and suffereddamnatio memo riae? Eight years later,on 25December 333,his youngest son, Constans, then either ten or thirteen,was invested with the rank of caesar aswell.7 By 332Constantine had or was to reach his sixtieth just about probably reached
sons birthday (i.e., his sixty-firstyear). He knew that his were very young and inexperienced and that he might not survive formany more years to provide them with the experience they needed before some of them were 3
PLRE
1:410-11,
3," and 1:895, s.v. "Theodora
s.v. "Helena
1";T. D.
Barnes, The New Empire ofDiocletian and Constantine 1982), 33-34,36,37; D. Kienast, R?mische Kaisertabelle: r?mischen Kaiser 4
PLRE
New was
chronologie, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt,
(Cambridge, MA, einer Grundz?ge 1996), 281-82.
1:233, s-v-"Crispus 4," and 1:223, s.v. "Constantinus
73; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, Empire, 7, 44-45, the son of Constantines firstwife Minervina;
305-6,
3";Barnes, 310. Crispus
his other sons were
the offspring of Fausta, his second wife and half sister of Theodora.
Con
stantine II was not born on 7 The sole August (pace Barnes and Kienast). source for this date, the calendar of Polemius Silvius mid-fifth-century
13.2, ed. A. Degrassi [Rome, 1963], (CIL i2:27i andInscriptionesItaliae "Constantini" 271), is the result of scribal error and hypercorrection: at some was written for "Constanti(i)" point in the tradition, and then "minoris" was added later to distinguish him from Constantine I,whose was is the birthday of Constantius listed. II, 7 already August birthday as can be seen from the calendar of Filocalus (CIL mid-fourth-century , a Inscr. Ital. i2:255 and 270 13.2:253). See Aso Inscr. Ital. 13.2:492. The are in frequently confused one of the three manuscripts of Filo "Constantini" corrected to "Con calus's calendar (V) has a mistaken stantii" (see the photo in Inscr. Ital. 13.2:252) and both Polemius Silvius
names
"Constantinus"
Greek
and Latin
and "Constantius"
texts. Indeed,
for "Constanti" have "Constantini" opposite 31March, I (CIL i2:26o-6i and Inscr. Ital. 13.2:243 the birthday of Constantius and 266). The "Natales caesarum" section in Filocalus, though, has the correct "Constanti" (CIL i2:255). Besides, the public celebration of Con stantine I Is birthday would never have survived his damnatio memoriae
and Filocalus
intothemiddle of thefifthcentury. (CTh 11.12.1)
5
PLRE
1:226, s.v. "Constantius
8, 45; Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
Barnes, New Empire, 8 n. 30,84; Kienast, Kaiser tabelle, 306. In gen eral, see P. Guthrie, "The Execution ofCrispus," Phoenix 20 (1966): 325-31;
By 332Constantinehad clearlydecided thattheempire and imperialpowerwould be sharedbyboth branches
DOP 62
(n. 3 above),
6
II. Prolegomena
of his father's family, the descendants
8"; Barnes, New Empire
314.
of Constantius
Is
H. A. Pohlsander, 33 (1984): 79-106; 7
PLRE
Kaiser
Historia "Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End," and Frakes, "Dynasty" (n. 2 above), 94-95.
1:220, s.v. "Constans
tab elle, 312.
3"; Barnes, New Empire,
8, 45; Kienast,
|7
8
R.W. Burgess I
promoted
to augustus and full imperial power. He needed
away ofprovidingthem with theproperguidanceand the case he died too soon. empire with strong leadership in s sons of most For ofConstantine reign the surviving
Theodora (hisfatherssecondwife) had been kept away from the center of power
in virtual exile?Dalmatius
inTolosa (modern Toulouse) andJuliusConstantius in
Corinth.8 This been attributed toHelena, distancing has
who could onlyhave seen thechildrenofherhusband s second wife as rivals to her own son and grandsons.9
She leftforPalestine in 326,afterthedeathsofCrispus
and Fausta,10 and itwas in that year,while Constantine himself was in Italy celebrating the end of his vicennalia, that Constantius Gallus was born to Julius Constan
in Etruria, not in Corinth. Helena died to in 329 and soon afterward Constantine early began tius and Galla
bringhis survivingtwohalf brothersintopower.They were honoredwith consulshipsin 333and 33$andwith ancient yet venerable titles, censor for Flavius Dalmatius (consul [cos.] 333)11 in 333or early 334,12 and patr?cius and
nobilissimus for Julius Constantius
(cos. 335),13 the first
own was married daughter Constantina16 to her half cousin Hannibalianus,17 the son of Flavius Dal
Constantine's
matius, thus linking the two sides of the family evenmore not two closely (see stemma). On 18September 335, quite after the of Hannibalianus Constans, years promotion and his elder brother, Dalmatius,18 were honored with imperial promotions, Dalmatius
with theadded titleofnobilissimus andHannibalianus to the nobilissimate.19 The latterwas also given the unique title of "rex regum et gentium Ponticarum."20
at It seems almost certain thatConstantine planned, some future date, when were old mature they enough and topromote the two eldest caesars, Constantine II enough, to
and Constantius,
at once. Thus, augusti, probably both retirement or death, two augusti
upon Constantine's and two caesars would
succeed him in a recreated tetrar
linkedbyblood andmarriage. Itwould chy,intimately seem thatConstantine
believed that dynastic succession
(hencethereturnofhishalfbrothersand theirfamilies
to favor and the appointment ofDalmatius) system.21 In addition
promoted and rex respectively (see below).14 These were swift and
16
PLRE
1:222, s.v. "Constantina
17
PLRE
1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus
were
and Hannibalianus
to caesar
highhonors.A daughterofJuliusConstantius and his
wife Galla was married to her half cousin Constantius the son of Constantine,
II,
in 335/3615 and that same year
nast, Kaisertabelle,
Barnes, Constantine
.2
and Eusebius
18
( 1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus (PERE Constantine's third half brother, seems to have died before ca. 333-35. balianus
An implicit connection between Helena and Julius Constantius's time inCorinth ismade in a letter of Julian's to the Corinthians, quoted inwhich Julian described S. Helena as his {Or. 14.29-30), by Libanius
9
father's "wicked stepmother" 10
Barnes, Constantine
11
Consul
( a
a).
and Eusebius,
221.
prior, ahead of Domitius Zenophilus, consularis Numidiae, and proconsul Achaeae,
former corrector
Asiae, and Afri cae {PLRE and Barnes, New Empire, 1:993, s.v. "Zenophilus," 106-7): see et al., Consuls Roger S. Bagnali Empire (Atlanta, of theLaterRoman 1987), 200-201.
Siciliae,
12
PLRE
1:240-41,
s.v. "Dalmatius
6"; Barnes, New Empire,
105.
consul prior ahead of one who outranked him, Ceionius Rufius former consularis Campaniae, and Asiae, proconsul Achaeae and praefectus urbi from the very end of his consular year {PLRE 1:37, s.v. "Albinus 14," and Barnes, New see et al., Con Empire, 108): Bagnali suls, 204-5. 13
Also
Albinus,
14
PLRE
1:226, s.v. "Constantius
15
PLRE
1:1037, s.v. "Anonyma
Kaiser
tab elle, 517.
PLRE
7"; Barnes, New Empire, 1";Barnes, New
Empire,
108.
45; Kienast,
name
308. His
children
2";Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 2" Barnes, New Empire, is spelled "Hanniballianus"
318. 43; Kie on the
1:241, s.v. "Dalmatius
tabelle, 307. His
the coinage above), 251. The elder Hanni 1";Barnes, New Empire, 37),
the return of Theodora's
coinage. Kaiser
8
solve
would
theinherent problemsthathad doomed theDiocletianic
when hisnephews by 335and thelatterinSeptember335,
Dalmatius
to the rank of caesar
name
7"; Barnes, New Empire, 8,45; Kienast, on is for themost part spelled "Delmatius"
(see Figs. 4, 24-25).
19
Barnes, New Empire,
20
PLRE
8, n. 28; Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
1:407, s.v. "Hannibalianus
307 and 308.
2"; Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
308. For the title, see Anonymus Valesianus 6.35 and Polemius Silvius, Later culus 1.63 (MGH,^4 9, Chron. min. 1:522). He is simply called "rex" on the coinage, which was struck only in (RIC 7:584 and Constantinople 589-90, nos. 100 [silver] and 145-48 [bronze]). 21 For Constantine's tetrarchie plans, see Chantraine, Nachfolgeord .2 above), 3-25.Most recently P. Cara ("La successione di Costan nung ( tino,"Aevum 67 [1993]: 173-80) has argued on the basis of Constantine's promotion of and apparent favoritism toward his eldest son that Con stantine intended for II to succeed him as augustus, only Constantine the other caesars would remain as theywere, thus preserving the as ithad existed between 333 and 335with one imperial college augustus
while
. and three caesars (on this, see Bleckmann, above]: 226 "B?rgerkrieg" [ . Caras as as the from 3). hypothesis?first argued coinage long ago n. the in before of RIC 1949 (see Cara 173 7 [above], p. 2), publication
obviated by two fundamental 1966?is problems. First, Constantine II had been caesar next eldest longer than his colleague (Constantius) more than seven years. As a result he outranked Constantius and it by should therefore come as no surprise that he was able to take a victory title before any of his caesarean He had after all resided in colleagues.
Trier from 328 (after eleven years as caesar) and won the titleAlamanni cus ca. 330,while his brothers remained with defending his territory in
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
intothefoldwould greatlyreduce ifnot eliminateany on their part.
at usurpation problem of future attempts are unknown, Hannibalianus for Constantines plans a to Roman desire to control but his title is clearly related the territoryof theArmenian kings.22 Constantines half intended to play an important role in the concilium as senior statesmen, advisors, and
brothers were no doubt
even regents to the young emperors, since the perhaps eldest surviving son, Constantine II, was just shy of his Constantine did eventually twenty-firstbirthday when
die inMay 337,havingbeen born in thesummerof 316.
trusted praetorian prefect, In addition, Constantines after Flavius Ablabius, was assigned to Constantius in Constantines death (probably Constantines will), inwhich he was clearly intended to act as relationship and advisor; Ablabiuss daughter, Olympias, guardian had earlier been betrothed to Constans.23 a
the stage was set: his legacy and For Constantine, on in an unassailable college ofChris policies would live tian emperors, all related by blood and bymarriage, all
byelderandwisercounsel,andprotected ablylookedafter
a and caesars. by tetrarchie system of regional emperors Even specific territories had been set aside as spheres of caesars in 33s24 From Constantines activity for the four was point of view the plan perfect. Unfortunately,
Fate
eleventh year as caesar) and from their father until 335 (Constantius's 335,when theywere not with him, they did not reside in areas thatwere to hostilities (see Barnes, New Empire [n. 3 above], 84-86). Nor should it come as any surprise that special silver coins were minted for that none of the others reached Constantine Us vicennalia, amilestone
|9
steppedinbeforehewas able toput thefinishingtouches
on his preparations.
On 22May 337,while preparingfora campaign
died in an imperial against the Persians, Constantine villa near Charax, an emporion not far fromNicomedia in Bithynia.25 A fifty-year tetrarchie precedent clearly
a new member of the prescribed that the proclamation of a caesar or the promotion of required imperial college
the presence of an augustus or the active approval of the senior augustus. Any situation inwhich either of these two rules had been violated had resulted in the offend
as a usurper and caesar or ing augustus's being regarded often also resulted in open civilwar.When Constantine
died, theonly reigningaugustusdied aswell. This gave
Constantine
II and Constantius
no constitutional means
of becoming augustus, apart from the earlier precedent of senate proclamation by the army and acceptance by the and people of Rome.26 No doubt each caesar worried
about allowing this to happen unilaterally, because the other might regard it as attempted usurpation. In addi tion, therewas no guarantee that the two young caesars
would
remain content, or that their armies would
allow
them to remain content, as caesars in the ensuing con fusion. Even more problematic was the division of the certain territorial arrangements had empire. Although been made for the four caesars in 335,therewas no reason to believe that thesewould necessarily continue after the death of Constantine.27
witness
lifetime. Second, Cara
within Constantines
has not considered
all the
evidence. Even a brief study of the gold and silver
available numismatic
coinsminted betweentheendof 333andmid-337 (Appendix1below)
were II and Constantius conclusively that Constantine even as a were treated as on the linked pair, in coinage; equals, closely were in that and Constantine II's of seniority; together promoted spite farmore than their junior colleagues. This evidence, and that medium (which overlaps somewhat), indicate that Con argued by Chantraine demonstrates
stantine was preparing the army and civil service, themajor audience for themessage of these coins, for the eventual succession of both sons as his
successors, though Constantine II, as the longest serving member of the nevertheless have been the senior augustus and have pre would college, eminence over his brother augustus, as was eventually the case among = the three brothers (see Chantraine [above], 19 and 24, fig. 4 RIC 8 Sis cia nos. 18-18A and below n. 121). 22
See G. Wirth,
?berfl?ssigen
"Hannibalien:
K?nigs,"
BJ190
Anmerkungen
zur Geschichte
PLRE 1";Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius 1:642, s.v. Olympias 2 above], 252; Bernes, New Empire, 45; Kienast, Kaisertabelle, 313.
23
24
Barnes, Constantine
198.
DOP 62
eines
(1990): 201-32.
and Eusebius,
1:224, s.v. "Constantinus
4"; Barnes, New Empire, 8, 80; death, see R. W. Burgess, Ein Historia and Post-Eusebian Studies inEusebian Chronography, " or zelschrift 135 (Stuttgart, 1999), 221-32, and R. W. Burgess, e ?The Location and Circumstances ofConstantine's Death," a 25
PLRE
Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
JTS,
n.s., 50 (1999):
301. For Constantine's
153-61.
et partages dans romain See J.-R. Palanque, l'empire "Coll?gialit? aux IVe etVe si?cles," REA 46 (1944): 54-55. See also N. Lenski, "The in Lenski, (n. 2 above), Reign of Constantine," Cambridge Companion 62 and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 28-29 (with respect to Con 26
stantine's accession). Barnes, New Empire, 198. Julian (Or. 1.19A-20A and Or. 2.94B-C) itquite clear that the division of the empire was themost important matter when the sons did finally meet in Pann?nia. He twice says that 27
makes
a ; 19A, 2oB). In the event, Constan they concluded "treaties" ( tine II, who would have controlled the entireWest with a subordinate caesar under a tetrarchie system, lost the dioceses of Italia, Africa, and one ofDalmatius's two dioceses toConstans, who also gained been Constantius's would have territory.Constan (Moesia) from what
Pann?nia [n.
251-52 and idem,New Empire,
tius, focused as he had been on the eastern frontier since 335,would
have
frontier toCon been happy to have surrendered the difficult Danubian stans. Constantine II, on the other hand, was less happy to have lost Italy,
10 R.W.Burgess I
However, despite the obvious need for a quick end to the more interregnum following Constantine's death, than threemonths passed before Constantine's sonswere
tomeet finally able
in Pann?nia,
accept promotion to and establish their ter augustus together place, on ritorial divisions and seniority. This then completed
all the (Julian)or expecteddeath fromillness(Gallus),35
male descendants
of Constantius
been assassinated
inwhat Libanius
in one
9 September, two of the new augusti returned to their area to continue capitals, while Constans remained in the
liveswere saved (so it is said) because of youth
two,whose
I and Theodora
had
later called
("the great massacre," Or. 18.10). Such a slaughter
within thefamily of thereigning imperial familyisunique in the annals of Roman
history.
themilitaryactivitiesbegun therebyConstantius (see
in any of the official below, section IV.7). Unmentioned event were Dalmatius, the proclamations of this happy
not because fourth caesar, and his brotherHannibalianus, over for theyhad been passed promotion, but because they had been assassinated.
III. The Circumstancesand Responsibility III.i. The LiteraryandEpigraphicEvidence
ones to die. Con these two were not the only stantine's two surviving half brothers, Flavius Dalma tius and Julius Constantius, also met their deaths, as did
No
Julius Constantius s eldest son,whose name isunknown; four other cousins of Dalmatius, whose identities are
no context, no causes, no coherent narrative. chronology, some situations No one even stateswhere it took place. In
And
also unknown;28
Flavius Optatus, patr?cius and consul Flavius Ablabius, of334?29 praetorian prefect of the East and consul of 331;30 and "many nobles," who probably
included Aemilius Magnus Arborius31 and possibly Virius and Flavius Felicianus.32 Constantius Gallus Nepotianus
and Julian, the two youngest sons of Julius Constantius,33 were not killed but were spared and raised apart from the imperial family,Julian under the care of his maternal grandmother and the bishop Eusebius inNicomedia, and
Gallus
in
Ephesus; when
in Cappadocia.34 With
the exception of these
(for the division of the empire and its results, . above], 225-50). "B?rgerkrieg" [
28
Athenians (AdAthenienses Julian,To the [AdAth.])270D.
29
Zosimus, New History
1:650, s.v. "Optatus
(Historia nova
Eunapius, VS 6.^.9-iy, Zosimus, Hist. can. 234e; PLRE 1:3-4, s.v. "Ablabius 4."
31
Ausonius,
Professores
(Oxford,
[Hist, nov])
PLRE
33
PLRE
16.9-16 with R. P. H. Green,
1991), 351-53; PLRE
1:224-25
and 477-78,
and Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
1:98-99,
s.w. "Gallus
The Works
s.v. "Arborius 4". 7" and "Felicianus
of
5";
not this is a result of certain authors' simply knowing any our in sources other did know the cases, details; however, details and either assumed that their readers knew them as
well orwere
to unwilling (or unable) provide them. Even we an have to Julian, the closest eyewitness, avoids describ events a line from actual the ing by quoting Euripides
{Orestes 14):"WhyshouldI now,as thoughfroma tragedy,
recount the unspeakable
horrors?" (AdAth. 270D). We
in 350 he was put up as emperor in Rome (for less against Magnentius than a month), but ifhe was born in 337 he could not have been more than twelve years old at the time, a fact that no source comments upon.
on his is as a bearded depicted young man, but that means coinage little in the context since it is the same portrait themint used forCon seePLRE stantius. On Nepotianus, 1:624, s.v. "Nepotianus 5" Kienast, . Kaisertabelle ( 3 above), 321.
Libanius, Or. 18.10 (repeated by Socrates, HE 3.1.8). Itmay also be that the rescue of Julian (and Gallus, by extension) owed something to the involvement of Eusebius, Eusebius was related bishop ofNicomedia. to Julian's mother not toGallus's), who died (though shortly afterJulian's
birth, and Julian was under his supervision inNicomedia (even afterEuse bius was transferred to This could explain the state Constantinople). ment that itwas a (southwest ofAmphipolis bishop, Mark ofArethusa inChalcidice), who rescued Julian, though, aswe shall see, Constantius
the rescue for himself. Perhaps both Eusebius and Mark in the for the funeral. See Ammianus 22.9.4; Gregory of capital Or. 4.91 (the ultimate source for Nazianzus, 5853 [de Theophanes AM later claimed
4" and "Iulianus
29";
318 and 323-24.
the son ofVirius Nepotianus Nepotianus, (it seems) and Eutropia, sister of Julius Constantius and Flavius Dalmatius, is not mentioned by
34
any source as having survived the massacre, not even by Julian, which be most peculiar had he been alive. This strongly suggests that was pregnant with him at the time of themassacre. However, Eutropia
would
and only
a few say anythingspecificabout itat all:we have no
35
nov. 2.40.3; Jerome, Chron.
1:625 and 330-31? s-vv- "Nepotianus Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 261-62,398. 32
2.40.2; PLRE
3."
30
Ausonius
an account of themassacre
He
as he later demonstrated see Bleckmann,
provides
were older, both were sent they
furtherintoexileforsixyearstoan imperialvilla called
Macellum
source
were
Boor 48.8-11] and 10 [see below, Theophylact of Bulgaria, Martyrium n. 45], PG 126:165c); . 23; Barnes, Con Bowersock,y#//?? ( above), . stantine and Eusebius [ 2 above], 398 . 14; and T. D. Barnes, Athana sius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in theConstantinian Empire 1993), 105. (Cambridge, MA,
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
sources begin by arranging the chronologically and looking for relationships among them. A preliminary analysis of the sources shows that
must
main chronologicalgroups, theyfallroughlyintothree its own Tendenz:
each with
sources that either early or is clearly provide what
events ignore the altogether
theofficiallysanctionedversion, which laystheblame
on an uncontrollable, mutinous army; laterwriters who accuse Constantius of mass murder; and much baldly sources later that merely report reflections or hints of the earlier accounts in sometimes fabricated and fanciful
or contexts aimed at supporting certain political religious no modern scholar has submitted the viewpoints. Since evidence to a chronological
development,I shalldo sohere.This analysisis longand it complicated, but the clarity provides to the final interpretation.
is fundamental
Our earliest source for the events surrounding the and the promotion of his sons is death of Constantine
Eusebius'sLife ofConstantine (VitaConstantini [VC] 4.51.1,65-71), written in the years immediately preceding Eusebius's death inMay 339.Eusebius states that at some as emperor and point after the end of his thirtieth year
before his death (4.49 and 4.52.4), Constantine "divided the government of thewhole Empire among his three sons, as though disposing a patrimony to those he loved
a a
best" (51.1; e
a
a
, a
a
a
ea a
?a
a
a
a
a
).Thenon hisdeathbed,beforethe
assembled bishops and soldiers, "[o]n his sons he bestowed as a fathers estate the inheritance of Empire, having a a as he desired" (63.3: arranged everything
e
a
a a
, a
'
a
afterConstantines armies, throughout
a
a
a
?a
ea
a
a e
e
).36Then, death and the lying in state, all the the empire, acting as one, "as ifby
would rec supernatural inspiration" declared that they sons alone ognize "no other than his [i.e.,Constantines] e a as emperors of theRomans" (68.2: f a ) and then a a a a a a caesars to e a them from "soon" ( ) promoted must have taken some consider augusti (68.3).Now this in state (66-67, esP able time afterConstantines lying 36
All
translations of Eusebius
are fromAv. Cameron
and S. G. Hall:
see the (Oxford, 1999). For this passage, Life of notes on pp. 333-34. For the idea of the empire as an hereditary posses e la retorica sion, see I. Tantillo, "'Come un bene ereditario': Costantino
Eusebius,
Constantine
dell' impero-patrimonio,"
DOP 62
L'antiquit?
a
,67.2), since the armies firsthad to learn ofConstantine's death throughmessengers (68.1) and they then had to communicate their decisions letters through
( a
tardive 6 (1998): 251-64.
a
; 68.3). In spiteof the supernaturalelabora
to account for the gap is obviously trying more of than threemonths between May and September its existence. Nevertheless, without actually admitting over Eusebius then glosses the considerable time lag he e has just described and calls Constantius ?a at the time of his father's funeral (70.2). But before this tion, Eusebius
the senate and people ofRome have proclaimed "his sons alone and no others as emperors and augusti" (69.2: ' a a a ... a a a a a a
in order to chart its
analysis
|
).Again we have the constitutional
e?a
legitimacy
of the threebrothersstressed;not onlyhad theytwice inherited the empire from their father,but in case anyone
or suspect,theyhad been fully found that insufficient
senate and accepted by the army and theRoman people aswell, these three groups the and after traditional, being Constantine's bestowers of death the only legitimate, imperial rights and powers. But, of course, their promo tion of the three sonswould not have been necessary had
Constantine
himself actually promoted
them before his
death. Eusebius hasmistakenlyallowed the realityof a
to intrude proclamation by army, senate, and people into his fiction of a smooth, uncontentious handover of nor Hannibalianus power. It is as ifneither Dalmatius had ever existed.
in the portions of is particularly clear to his sons before his Constantine that empire assigned This absence
death (VC 4.51.1),sincethisis infactthedivisionof the as itwas not empire arranged afterConstantine's death, before. It is even more obvious when one compares VC to a passage sion of Constantine's
4.40.1-2
in his earlier oration on the occa
thirtieth anniversary, delivered soon on 25 accession (his Tri after Dalmatius's July 336, cennial Oration). There Eusebius refers toConstantine's
a caesar for each decade of his reign and promotion of the proclamation of the fourth caesar (Dalmatius) for the fourth decade. He then describes the four caesars as
e ; quadriga(?a yokedbeforetheemperor's Triac. 3.2and 4). Thispassage isrepeatedin theVC only a few years later, but now there are only three decades a a and the caesars have become "like trinity, triple off spring of sons."
stress on the Eusebius's legitimacy sons alone in his rings hollow because version there is no one else to challenge the succession: Furthermore,
of Constantine's
11
12 R.W.Burgess I
there isno importance or virtue in sayingwe'll take only three and these three alone, ifonly three are on offer.The
e
e
a
a
e and
a
with an opportunity
'
in in particular and thewhole narrative general therefore betray Eusebius's purpose. He knew thatmany ifnot most readers would know about the existence and
a
Caesar, and he is providing for them an implicit explanation for his disappearance: he did not become augustus because itwas not thewish of
the army,or the senate and people ofRome. This entire narrative is therefore intended to explain the
Constantine,
sons to legitimacy of the promotion of Constantine's once a and the of absence Dalmatius, augustus legitimate heir selected by Constantine, without admitting the dif ficulties involved in either. It is really quite ingenious in its deception. The next earliest sources are two panegyrics delivered
byLibanius andJulianin 344/45and 355/56 respectively. Itmust be remembered throughout the following analysis that both panegyrics were delivered in the presence of
Constantius
himself, and thishad consequences forwhat could and could not be said. In Or. 59.48-49 Libanius
alludes to certain events that he implies immediately fol lowed the death of Constantine and that he does not mention when he presents his account of the summer of
laterinthesameoration(??72-75),wherehe 337slightly
at all. In ?? 48-49 he insists nothing untoward momentous in that spite of the change that followed the death ofConstantine, "the government of the empirewas
mentions
notdisturbed, nordid anyof theeventsaffecttheheirsof
imperial power. But while the government remained in an so not without a orderly disposition, itdid degree of tomake use of trouble nor without the successors' having to them" violence to securely retainwhat had been granted ' a a ea a a a e ( e e e e
a
e a
e
a a
e
?e?a sons because with the rejoiced "they received imperial power from their father and theyproved a
a, 48). He
to the concomitant tumult" ( e superior a a a e a a ,49)?a comment he repeats at
theendof49, substitutinga e a for a a , a a is aword that means politicalupheavaland canbe applied to rebellion or civilwar. He
thenmentions
that they faced some sort of Like Eusebius, Liba ). "difficulty" ( nius uses the imagery of the sons as the heirs to imperial
power (oi
a
,48, and
are the third they generation of heirs). Three times Libanius states that this crisis sons provided the 13,where
a or
courage ( a
a
a
their bravery and
a).37
Just over a decade later,during thewinter of 355-56, Julian, inhis firstpanegyric toConstantius, also mentions ...
was heir to the a empire ( ,Or. 1.7D), and immediately mentions
that Constantius
removal of Dalmatius
a
to demonstrate
the
circumstances who,
succession ofConstantine involving the after his fathers death in 306, had succeeded
I, to
the throneby thechoice ofhis fatherand thevote of
all the armies.
a
Later Julian states thatConstantius
a
had acted
andmoderately")toward hisbroth ("justly
ers, the citizens, his father s friends, and the army, "except,
ifeverforcedby timesof crisis,youunwillinglydid not
prevent others from doing wrong" ( e a ea a a
e
e
e
?
a
e
a
,
Or. 1.16D-17A). Julian also mentions,
in the context of the begin of the Persian that war, ning military affairs had been thrown into great confusion in consequence of the
political change followingthedeath ofConstantine, and thatthesoldiersshoutedthattheylongedfortheir
previous commander and theywished to control (a e ) Constantius (18D). That Constantius's army mutinied a accession is his upon surprising admission for his pan must be that this comment appears for a very egyricist. It ulterior purpose. particular Julian notes that afterhis father sdeath Constantius surrounded by "dangers and manifold problems: confusion, a serious war, many raids, a revolt of allies, a lack of a discipline among the soldiers ( a a a), and other great difficulties at that time" (20B).
was
The war and the raids refer to the Persian siege ofNisi bis and Sarmatian incursions on theDanube in 337; the allies are the Armenians must
(see 18D and 20D); the rest therefore describe Constantius's other problems
with the army.The parallels with Libanius's
account are
R. F?rster, ed., Libami opera 4 (Leipzig, 1908), 232.19 and 233.5, and tome that Libanius is 8. Ithas been II s suggested speaking ofConstantine revolt in this passage, and Imust say that I find this a attrac particularly tive interpretation, especially in connection with what follows in sections
37
51-52. The major
problem
no reason is that I can imagine why Liban
iusshouldimply(morethanonce) thattherevolt(spring340) immedi
death and the succession (337).Would not ately followed Constantine's a listener at the time have assumed that he was events about speaking
,
at the time of the succession? R-L. Malosse,
See also the comments
in favor of 337 by (Bud? series; Paris, 2003), 4:192. As a I have not placed great emphasis on Liban
LibaniosDiscours
result of this uncertainty, ius's comments here.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
In this case, however, Julian says that before Constantius returned to Syria the mutiny ended and obvious.
order was restored (20D). no connection ismade between explicit Although the army revolt and a time of crisis when Constantius
not prevent others from doing wrong," "unwillingly did to the army.Not it is clear that Julian is only is referring to in the the list, closest the army the last exception, but
Julianimmediately goes on togive specificexamplesof treatment of his enemies, Constanti good No mention ismade nople, his brothers, and his friends. of the army. The only situation described by Julian as oi
Constantius's
a isthiscrisisat thebeginningofhis reigninvolving When thearmyisfinallydiscussed indetail thesoldiers. with respect (18C-D, 21B-22A),Julianishighlycritical war in 337. to its lack of preparedness for This panegyrical account, delivered inperson toCon
stantius, openly admits that the accession was marred from the army to by crisis, confusion, and direct threats successors Libanius may be admit of Constantine. the same ifnot, then he passes over the ting the thing, but succession without any comment at of the difficulties all. And
as in Eusebius's
account, Dalmatius
Caesar
is
missing. One could understand that the panegyricists would have been unwilling to dwell on his removal, but
that hardly accounts forhis complete absence from both II is also missing from Libanius's works. Constantine
it is Constan panegyric, wherein explicitly said that It is as if tius only ever had the one brother, Constans. II too had never existed. This isbecause he
Constantine
declared war on Constans his death
in early spring 340, and after in battle he suffered damnatio memoriae?*
that Eusebius was always keen to follow the version of history,whatever thatmay sanctioned officially have involved. Crispus, Constantine s eldest son,who was
We
name has been erased.41 by inscriptions fromwhich his That JuliusConstantius was condemned aswell is implied on two milestones by his omission from Gallus's titles
fromGaul: he isdescribedonly as "diuiConstantii pii hewas (CIL Augustinepos"with no hintofwhose "filius" 17.2:147 and 171).As we shall see below, both Eunapius
andAmmianus implythatJuliusConstantiusplayeda
in the causes of themassacre. leading role In his panegyric Julian states thatConstantius alone hastened toConstantine s sidewhile he was still alive (Or
1.16D). But later,during the summer of 358,he extended was this claim (Or. 2.94A-B), saying that Constantius Constantines favorite and that as he laydying Constan tine summoned him alone; his brothers neitherwere sum e e ea e moned nor came (ol ).
in the spring or summer of 326, never appears in Eusebius's Tricennial Oration or Life ofConstantine,
and Eusebius had earlier expunged him from hisHistoria ecclesiastica and doronici ca?ones, inwhich he had once He too had suffereddamnatio memoriae.40 appeared.39 non These instances strongly suggest thatDalmatius's existence in Eusebius, Libanius, and Julian is also the result of damnatio memoriae,
and this is indeed proved
CTh
39
See T. D. Barnes, zi (1980):
GRBS
own). OnlyZonaras (EpitomeHistori n, 13.4.28),writing the claim that Constantine was still after 1118, repeats alive when Constantius arrived, and he probably derives
itfrom this He laternotes the contradiction panegyric.42 in his sources: some stated thatConstantine divided the
empireamonghis sonsand othersthattheyhad divided
it amongst themselves after his death (13.15.1). This insistence that Constantius was promoted by his father before his death was a falsehood thatwas main
tained even beyond the panegyrical sphere: Constantius celebrated an accession anniversary inMay of 357while he was inRome, exactly twenty years afterConstantine s death, even though the anniversary was not due until 8November 3s8.43 In a later panegyric delivered in honor of Eusebia, new wife,44 who had in 354 persuaded
Constantius's
41
Ibid., 307. See, e.g., TituliAsiae 1934.158; 1948.50; and CIL AEpigr
Kienast, Kaisertabelle
DOP 62
of Eusebius' EcclesiasticalHistory\
197-98, and Burgess, Studies (
.3
above),
306.
(n. 25 above), 66-74.
minoris
3.1 (Vienna,
1941), no. 944;
6.40776.
See Burgess, Studies ( . 15 above), 225 . 132. For Julian as Zonaras's II" (n. 2 above): 595.Note that "Constance source, see also Lucien-Brun,
42
II (sic) emperor of Imade Constantine says that Constantine Rome while he was still alive in the year 338 (Chronographia 13.15;Thurn,
Malalas
same account. 249), a confused version of the
Vota and the Imperial Consul Burgess, "Quinquennial Note that the Chronicon Paschale NC 148 83-84. 337-511," (1988): ship, takes the hint and calls the celebration his vicennalia (Bonn, 542.19-20),
43
R. W. "The Editions
then entrusted him with
a a) andassigned a supreme power ( a e him theappropriate of the empiretogovern(his portion
even . 2. .
38
40
he arrived Constantine
When
know
executed
| 13
See R. W.
coins of the time and theDescriptio and ofHydatius Burgess, The Chronicle
though
[Oxford, stantinopolitana as his thirty-fifth. 44
PLRE
1:300-301,
consulum
(s.a. 357.2; Con
the Consularia
1993], 238) correctly mark
the anniversary
s.v. "Eusebia"; Kienast, Kaisertabelle,
317.
14 R.W.Burgess I
to allow Julian to go toAthens to study, Julian praised Constantius for having saved him from so great that no one without divine assistance dangers could have escaped (Or. 3.117D). He also states thatwhen
Constantius
hishousehad been seizedby "oneof thepowerful"( a a a
),Constantius
recovered it and made
itwealthyagain (118A).Echoes of thesetwoclaimswill
be seen later.
The connection between the problems with the army described above and the disappearance ofDalmatius was
made forthefirsttimein thehistoricalrecord(asfaras itcan be reconstructed)by theKaisergeschichte(KG), a now-lost
conclusion
set of
that formed the
imperial biographies of a large epitome history of Rome
from
mythological times.Although theworkwas updated the exact dates of composition periodically, making uncertain, the narrative of the events of 337was prob ably written in 358. Later witnesses show that theKG was the army thathad assassinated explicitly stated that it
Dalmatius
45
Caesar
For theKG,
in themidst of a mutiny.45
seeA. Enmann,
"Eine verlorene Geschichte
der r?mi
schen Kaiser
und das Buch de viris illustribus urbis Romae: Quellenstu der lateinischen dien," Philologus, suppl. 4 (1883): 335-501; Handbuch der Antike, vol. 5, ed. R. Herzog and R L. Schmidt (Munich, = 1989), 196-98 Nouvelle histoire de la litt?rature latine (Turnhout, 1993), 5:226-28; and R. W. Burgess, "Jerome and theKaisergeschichte" Historia 44 (J995): 349-69. For the date, see R. W. Burgess, "On the Date of the
Literatur
CPh 90 (1995): 111-28, and idem, "A Common Source Kaisergeschichte" for Jerome, Eutropius, Festus, Ammianus, and theEpitome de caesaribus on theDate and Nature between 358 and 378, along with Further Thoughts 100 (2005): 187-90 of the (forpp. 185-87, see now Kaisergeschichte" CPh G. Kelly, "Adrien de Valois and the inAmmianus Mar Chapter Headings cellinus," CPh 104 [2009]: 233-42). The KG = Eutropius 10.9.1 ("Dalma ... tius Caesar oppressus est factione militari"), Aurelius Victor 41.22 ("Dalmatius... mterf?cit\ir"),Epitomede caesaribus 41.18 ("Delmatius mili tum ui necatur"), and Jerome 234e tumultu militari ("Dalmatius Caesar... interimitur"). For the importance of Jerome as awitness to theKG, see Bur 2.25.3 (repeated in 3.1.8with material gess, "Jerome" (above). Socrates, HE from other sources, such as Libanius, Or. 18.10-11) derives from see Eutropius; F. Geppert, Die des Socrates Kirchenhistorikers Scholasticus Quellen and Con (Leipzig, 1898), 67-68 and 119-20, and Barnes, Athanasius stantius (n. 35 above), 304 n. 4. Sozomen, HE 5.2.7; Theophanes AM 5829 (de Boor, 35.7-10 fromHE 2.25.3) and AM 5830 (de Boor, 35.12-16, from see HE also 3.1.8, p. 48.11); and the late-eleventh-century Martyrium ss. illustrium the archbishop of martyrum of Theophylact, quindecim (7; PG i26:i6iB) all derive from Socrates, the latter also employ Or. 4.21 (see below). C. and R. Scott ingGregory ofNazianzus Mango (The Chronicle ofTheophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern [Oxford, 1997], $6h) incorrectly attribute Theo History, AD 284-813 account to his phanes' directly Eutropius: exactly matches wording Bulgaria
Socrates'
and came via the ecclesiastical
epitome of Theodorus Lector. Cedrenus 7.29.1 and Prosper (521.9) derives from Theophanes. Orosius ?1051, s.a. 338, as well as many other later Latin accounts, derive from
But theKG
also provided other important infor was killed "factione It said that Dalmatius
mation. militari
[et]46Constantio, patrueli suo, sinente potius iubente" (Eutropius).47 This claim that Constan
quam an assassination tius allowed or permitted
instigated by
themilitaryclearlyparallelscomments made byJulian inOr. 1.16D-17A (seeabove) andAdAth. 271B and by
inOr. 4.22 (see below). As we shall Gregory ofNazianzus see, by themid- to late 340s this had become the official explanation, when outright denial (as in Eusebius and a or useful Libanius Or. $9.72-75) was no longer viable option. This portion of theKG appears to have been writ ten about twenty years after the event, when this new
was current and the force of the damnatio explanation to had begun relax, thus allowing a greater freedom to as Julian was able tomention mention these events (just II in his panegyric, whereas Libanius had Constantine
not). But this is not just mindless parroting of an offi cial explanation. The author does not say, as Julian and was unable to Gregory do, thatConstantius unwillingly Dalmatius's death; rather, he saysConstantius prevent
it to viz. he wanted Dalmatius dead. happen: mention of an alternative explanation forDal matius's death (i.e., that Constantius ordered it) shows allowed
The KGs
was at the time, and clearly that this claim being made towrite more while Constan the author, not being able tius still lived, combines the official explanation and the to create a version accusation private halfway between statement in the form of the two. The of the framing an alternative ("potius quam iubente"), in the place of either a simple negative or rather no alternative at all, at first appears to be a defense of greatly weakens what
scholars fail to realize that all these works with their Jerome. Modern common account derive a common source, ultimately from single theKG. 46
The "et" is difficult and does not seem to
belong.
I have followed
F. Riihl (Teubnertext [Leipzig,1887],73) and F. L. M?ller (Eutropii
Brevi?rium ung(7S3
ab Urbe condita. Eutropius, Kurze Geschichte Roms seitGr?nd n. Chr.), 56 [Stuttgart, 1995], 144) in Palingenesia it.
v. Chr-364
bracketing
to theKG who states this in thisman Eutropius is the only witness ner. Aurelius Victor, who was a writing just few years earlier than Eutro pius (finishing in 361/62), for themost part while Constantius was still alive, clearly felt itwiser to avoid theKG s specifics and says that Dal 47
matius was killed, but "incertum
quo suasore." Jerome, writing many later in when Arian the Constantius's direct involvement 380-81, years was as fact was he killed "factione Constan all, says accepted by baldly tii patruelis et tumultu militari."
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
was against accusations that he directly KG's combined with the reference This, responsible. an to the close two caesars, points kinship between the
Constantius
at "while Constantius, his accusing finger Constantius: own cousin, did not somuch order it as allow it to hap a pen" offersquite different picture from something like "and Constantius was unable to prevent it." This accusation
ismade
stronger by the context in
which it ismade. The authorof theKG thoughtvery highly
and in spite of the circumstances his death and the damnatio he was not
of Dalmatius,
surrounding afraid to say so: "Dalmatius ?eque patruo absimilis"
Caesar
prosperrima indole ("Dalmatius Caesar, a man of
promisingtalentand verylikehis uncle exceptionally
even went so [i.e.,Constantine]"; Eutropius 10.9.1).He far as tomake a very clear statement, in direct opposi tion to the official version, that Dalmatius was indeed a
and intended successor upon the death of legitimate Constantine: "[Dalmatium Caesarem] patruus Con stantinus consortem regni filiis derelinquerat" ("His uncle Constantine leftDalmatius Caesar as co-ruler with his sons"; Jerome, 234e) / "[Constantinus] successores filios unum fratris filium" ("Constantine tres reliquit atque lefthis three sons and the son of this brother as his suc cessors"; Eutropius 10.9.1). The text of the standard edition of Aurelius
Vic
tor (whowe know reliedupon theKG) adds,however,
what no other source notes, that the army had vigorously toDalmatius's accession in 335 (41.15, "obsisten objected thus providing a clue to its tibus ualide militaribus"), revolt a year and a half later.Unfortunately, this reading is an emendation byMommsen, undertaken not for any or reason, but merely to grammatical palaeographical make the text conform to the army's supposed laterupris in fact indicate ing against Dalmatius. The manuscripts acces that the soldiers strongly supported Dalmatius's sion ("assistentibus ualide militaribus").48 This makes
the possibility of a spontaneous mutiny against him in 337 even less likely and surreptitiously undermines the
excuse for his death offered later, a result the author no doubt
intended.
who finished writing his Gregory of Nazianzus, fourth oration just after the death of Jovian in 364,
toJulian, in comparison having often praised Constantius a nevertheless criticizes him for having saved Julian a a a e , a a
?
a
a
a
a
a
were new rulers," Or. imperial affairs being managed by was This that Constantius claimed was 4.21).49 something a a ]a beyond his control: [
e
e
a
)
' ea a ?a ("Constantiusdefended
e e
e
himself against
those who had rebelled at the begin
ning ofhis reign,claiming that theyhad undertaken action against his will," 4.22). Here we can see new official version noted above? quite clearly the the rebellion of the army against the new rulers and
their
daring
Constantius's
inability
to control them?along
with a
claimknown only fromJulianspanegyrictoEusebia: was the one responsible for saving the only two survivors of themassacre (see also 4.3). As noted above (see n. 35), later in the same speech, at 4.91, Gregory includes Mark ofArethusa, bishop and later author of
Constantius
the so-called "Dated Creed" of 359, among those who rescued Julian "at the timewhen [Julians] entire family was in e e), a a a a danger" ( claim later found in Theophanes and Theophylact, both no doubt from Gregory. It ismost surprising to see the official explanation somany years later,when, aswe in Gregory resurfacing shall see, no one elsewas mincing words. But inhis invec
tive against Julian, tries to present Constantius Gregory so in a positive it suits his purpose to return to light and version of events.
the Constantian The KG
and Gregory are the latest sources to reflect
or present the official version of themassacre. The earliest account of the events that does not follow an surviving comes from the pen ofAthanasius, version official bishop in hisHistory Ari ofAlexandria, oftheArians (Historia
the surviving part of a [Hist.Ar.]), "perhaps... work which Athanasius never completed or intended to anorum
in itspresent form,"written while he was in exile publish in late 357,around the time the relevant recension of the
KG was being written and Constantius
was
celebrating
(see n. 45) says something e a
very similar a ; ( 6 "a kind of desire for revolution fell upon the soldiers"), derived no doubt
was no doubt correct (the original
from Gregory.
DOP 62
a
e a ("when the army took up arms against those
?a
49
"adsistentibus").
, a
who held power,rebellingout of fearof rebellion,and
at this o The two manuscripts point, offering "absistentibus" split and p, "assistentibus." "Absisto" makes no sense with "ualide" and since the initial "a-" is clearly part of the paradosis, p's "assistentibus" must be
48
| 15
Theophylact about the army,
e
of Bulgaria e
16 R.W. Burgess I
his anniversary inRome.
In ithe "states outright much
Gallus's mother
was
to a neutral or justify himself
a , "Julians 7.1.6'. family was source the ultimate for this stripped bare"), though can as see a be We thus that result of these may Julian.
that [he]deemed itpolitic to suppressor veilwhen he to defend or
writing hostile audience."50 Here, he states thatConstantius did not spare even his own kindred, but murdered his uncles and cousins and did not commiserate with the
sufferings
ofhiswife sfather(seen. 15,above)orhis otherkinsmen
(69.1). He says nothing about a mutiny of the soldiers. in Trier when the first Now, not only was Athanasius news ofConstantine's death arrived, he was in close prox to II and to anymessengers imity Constantine heading to Trier at that time and then to Constantius shortly
afterward (see section IV.7, below); moreover, only a few months after themassacre he himself passed through where he no doubt would have heard Constantinople, firsthand reports from those closest to the events. Itmust also be remembered thatAthanasius was writing a private document?it was never intended for publication?and
so he could saywhat others, even the author of theKG, could not saywhile Constantius still lived. Interestingly,
he does not argue his point here; it is a simple accusation without introduction or context that he clearly expects
four years earlier, blames Constantius
forthemassacre,callinghim e
a
a
e
,a a
e ea
e
e
a
Julian alone
,a e e
, a
?
("the murderer of my father, brothers, and cousins, the executioner of practically all our common 281B) and family and kinsmen," AdAth. accusing him of having put six of their cousins to death, along with Julian's father (Constantius's uncle), another common uncle, and Julian's eldest brother, all without
trial(a ;270D). He wished toput JulianandGal to as lus death well, but in theend justexiled them.In
addition, Julian notes thatConstantius had confiscated the property and wealth of his father,Julius Constantius
(273B),leavingJulianonlyhismother'shouse (probably
the house he mentioned and then returned). He
3.118A that was taken also took the entire estate of in Or
Both quotations from Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius (n. 35 above), 126. For the context of thiswork, see pp. 126-32 and for the pas sage discussed below see pp. 127 and 131-32.
50
benefited financially from
s since he obtained Thrace, the eastern half ofDalmatius as territory,he benefited territorially well.51 us an In themidst of these accusations Julian gives inside look at how these assassinations were justified to the two young survivors. Those in the imperial court and those around his brother repeatedly commented
e ) thatConstantiushad repented( e e e ) andwas stungbygreatremorse( ). he said attributed his childlessness and his failures They ( a
to his part in themassacre against the Persians
{AdAth.
were inexile 270D-271A).While Julianandhis brother atMacellum,
those who watched
over them kept telling
themand triedtopersuade them(e e
,e e
) that
had done what he had done partly because
e ) and partlybecause
a a
herehasdroppedhis earlier pretenseand,like panegyrical
Athanasius
Constantius
theestatesof both JuliusConstantius andGalla (and And probablythoseof therestof thefamilyinaddition).
he "had given way to the violence and confusion of an ... a a a a a undisciplined and rebellious army" (?
in the summer or autumn of
361, justifyinghis current break with Constantius.
assassinations
he had been deceived (a a
We now must turn to the in these only participant events, the newly proclaimed augustus Julian, who was to theAthenians
tius).These complaintsare laterechoedbyEunapius (VS
Constantius
all his readers to know and understand.
writing
(Galla, the firstwife of Julius Constan
a a a a e a ,271 ). It is important to note that two quite different excuses are a provided here, each from different time and source. In the second account that Julian narrates,
attributed to the time that he and his brother were at (ca. 342-48), we see the official version of
Macellum
and Julian spanegyrics, theKG, and Gregory: Constantius had not been able to control themutinous Libanius's
and the others. army that had assassinated Dalmatius Even the vocabulary mirrors that of the panegyrics. He adds what we do not find in the earlier sources, that the army had somehow deceived Constantius before or dur ing their rebellion. However in the first explanation, one thatwas offered by those at courtwhen Gallus was caesar (351-54), Julian implies that Constantius was involved
in some way in the deaths, since this actively explanation carries on directly from his earlier comment that Con a trial (270D, stantius had executed his family without quoted above).What 51
Constantius
repented of and blamed
Barnes, New Empire (n. 3 above), 199.A general indictment against and his sons for at shedding the blood of relatives is found
Constantine Caesars
336B and similar accusations
are found in Or. 7.230A.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
was themurder justdescribed.That forhis laterfailures the courtiers admitted this and then tried to explain his actions and describe his contrition suggest that by this was
time his
guilt tried to conceal.52
an undeniable
fact that no one even
was hostile toward Clearly Julian, likeAthanasius, Constantius, sowe must be cautious when analyzing his evidence. However, a likely reason forJulians emotion is
thathe honestlybelievedwhat he said:Constantiushad massacredhis familyand kepthim in a stateofvirtual and actual exile from the rest of his family for almost fifteen years.He describes his feelings about themassacre
inToHeraclius theCynic230A:when he foundoutwhat had happened (theimpressionis thathewas not toldat hewas sooverwhelmedthathe felthe had to throw first) into Tartarus
himself
(e
ea
e
a
a
e e a e ). These a we can still detect in the letter to theAthe feelings a
are
in spite of the enormity of strangely enough, as he does about writes them these crimes, he about just the other complaints he has against Constantius and his treatment statements therefore cannot be by him. Julians
nians. And,
one out to blacken merely the invention of reasons for his to his opponent. He is trying explain the dismissed
thathad happenedtohim.His attitude faceofeverything
can be seenmost in his discussion of his brothers clearly execution byConstantius. He makes no attempt to deny as caesar, and indeed or mitigate his brother's cruelty
as his agrees that he deserved execution punishment for s to his evil behavior He Gallus does attribute deeds. early and blames Constantius imprisonment by Constantius in particular for not having given Gallus a chance to but he does not exagger defend himself (271D-272D), ate or try to twist the facts of the case to his advantage we know). I see in his (and these are facts that nothing discussion of themassacre thatwould suggest that he
or false accusations to justify dissembling making his revolt against Constantius. Indeed, his account of the different excuses given when he was younger strengthens the trustworthiness of his account. greatly
was
also mentions Constantius's 52 repentance (AM 5853, de Theophanes Boor, 47.2-3), a section that derives ultimately from Gregory ofNazian zus, Or. 21.26 (see below).
DOP 62
17
A finalhintof theevents may be drawnfromJulians in parable his ToHeracleius theCynic (227C-234C) of
362,which, at 228A-B, states that the brothers wished to possess the empire for themselves, and that after sons Constantine's death the relatives of Constantine's involved in this squabble over the division of the empire and sowere assassinated, as if in fulfillment of a tragic curse. The deliberately vague mythological context it difficult to go beyond unfortunately makes
became
thebasic factsof thepassage,but itdoes lookas though
the murders were precipitated by some controversy over the division of empire in the immediate aftermath death. It is interesting to note that of Constantine's
Julian's comments about his relatives here are decidedly a e a a a a negative: they shared the a ("stupidity sons and ignorance") of Constantine's concerning the see no attempt on Julian's governing of the empire.We or exonerate his relatives, in to whitewash part spite of their fate.He
condemns
them all.
After the death ofConstantius, Libanius, freed of the
necessityoffollowingtheofficialline,inJulian'sfuneral oration described
the deaths as "the great massacre"
(0
went through almosttheentire ),a swordthat
as
rebellion against Constantius (he also gives as causes Constantius's removal of his Gallic troops and the petty accusations Constantius kept making against him). But overall Julian stresses his loyalty and service, even in the
|
sons alike (Or. 18.10).Constantius, he family, fathers and said,was themurderer of Julian's father and brothers, and
a as a result Julian suspected plot when Constantius, the tomake man who had wronged him themost, offered him caesar, a suspicion thatwas prompted by previously
spilledblood (Or. 18.31-2). A clearerview of therealitybehind theofficialver sion isprovidedby the History ofEunapius,written in itsfirsteditionsoon after378,which (via thehistoryof
Zosimus) states that, following the death ofConstantine, and his two nephews acted as col Julius Constantius sons and that Julius Constantius leagues ofConstantine's was the first to be killed by the soldiers, then Dalma
and finally Hannibalianus tius (the caesar), Optatus, nov. 2.39.2 and 40.2).53 He states that (Zosimus, Hist.
53
Eunapius at leasttwiceinhisLives oftheSophists(VS) statesthat
account e these events a ("in more detail") in his ? of Julian, i.e., his history (6.3.8 and 7.1.5). For an overview of the VS, see D. F. Buck, "Lives of the Sophists: A Literary Study," Byzantion 62 (1992): he described
141-57. For a general introduction to his history, see R. C. Blockley, The Later Roman Empire: Euna Historians of the Fragmentary Classicising 6 (Liverpool, 1981), Priscus ARCA andMalchus, pius, Olympiodorus, of and the Decline 1-26, andW. Liebeschuetz, "Pagan Historiography in Late Antiquity: the Empire," in Greek and Roman Historiography Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., ed. G. Marasco (Leiden, 2003), 177-201.
18 R.W.Burgess I
[
a a
]
a
e
a
? a
e
a a
a
is identifiable. After naming Constantius Is children by his second wife, Theodora, the anonymous author
a
a
the soldiers
commanded
("[Constantius] content with no other to cry out that theywould be ruler than the sons of Constantine," 2.40.3). Eunapius amore names Ablabius as a victim aswell, but he provides account in later work of his death detailed another, (the
Lives oftheSophists, discussedbelow)anddoesnot saythat hewas killed by thearmy.Eunapius (viaZosimus) thus provides the link between Constantius and the army, and thus the link between the two versions of themassacre.
it suits his own anti-Constantinian
bias, an bit additional Eunapius unwittingly preserves at the same time as of propaganda, likely spread about the official accounts of themassacre. He states that after also
a
a
a
?a
a
...
ea
e
are 2.9.1). Constantius's "legitimate children" the sons of Theodora. This sounds verymuch like part of a secondary excuse to explain why theywere again denied a share of the power in 337. The wide currency of this excuse in the fourth cen
Zosimus
tury isdemonstrated by its reappearance in an indepen dent source of the ninth or tenth century, a hagiographie to as the "Guidi life of Constantine, referred usually " di Costantino," Life," after its only editor, or the s Much of the.Life account ofConstantine Guidi's title.55 sources like is fanciful or derived from a few surviving Theophanes,
but information from other, earlier sources
see T. D. Barnes, The Sources For the date of the history, of theHisto riaAugusta (Brussels, 1978), 114-23; Blockley (above), 2-5; and Liebe schuetz (above), 179-91. SeeW. Leadbetter, "The Illegitimacy of Constantine and the Birth 54 of the Tetrarchy," in Constantine: History, and Legend, Historiography .C. Lieu and D. Montserrat ed. S. (London, 1998), 74-8$. 55
M.
Guidi,
16 (1907):
ed., "Un
304-40,
637-62
=
The Anonymous
Byzantinus: and Montserrat,
Constantine,
di Costantino," BHG164..
RendLinc,
See also S. Lieu,
Life ofConstantine 97-146,
esp. 97-106.
(BHG
5th series,
"Constantine 364)," in Lieu
e a ("none of whom was considered to ?a worthy be a successor of their fathers rule," p. 312.8-9). This is a same clearly reflection of the propaganda reported by it derives from neither his work nor Eunapius, though Zosimus's. There isno mention in thisLife of the deaths in 337 or ofDalmatius Let us return to
as caesar.
even the follow Eunapius, though out of is Because order. of the ing analysis chronological
philosopher Sopater {VS 6.2.12,3.7,13; Zosimus 2.40.3). states thatAblabius was dismissed Eunapius byConstan tius immediately after the death of Constantine, who
toAblabius, no doubt had "bequeathed" Constantius so the latter could act as praetorian prefect, guardian, and even, perhaps, regent. Ablabius then retired to his
was
a
a a
a
no wish to be emperor, a fact estates in Bithynia, having a a a that amazed everyone ( a
I in 306 the praetorian the death of Constantius guard selected as his successor Constantine, whom he pres ents as a bastard,54 because they thought that "none of was children [Constantius's] legitimate worthy of the a
a
a
blamedAblabius forengineeringthedownfall of the
victimshad been killed.
e
a
399,we know some details about the death ofAblabius, account is quite hostile, because he though Eunapius's
that of Eusebius argue strongly in favor of his accuracy. In fact, Eunapius was confident of his sources enough that he was even able to cite the order inwhich themain
empire" (
e
survival ofEunapius sLives oftheSophists(VS),writtenin
not an unbiased Eunapius, writing in favor of Julian, is source, but the clear links with the official version and
Because
e
adds,
,
?a
e e
?
e a ), theimplication being thatit
to retain his almost expected that he would attempt over Constantius. But Constantius emperor-like position
wanted to be ridofhim and thatpossibilityforgood and so senta groupof assassins( ) todispatch him. Taking Constantius
advantage ofAblabius's natural arrogance, tricked him into declaring himself emperor, and Ablabius was cut down when he demanded thepurple
(VS 6.3.8-13). The other assassinations are onlymentioned a a later at 7.1.5 ( a ;
"all those assassinated byConstantius"). not mention it,Constantius pius does Ablabius
Although Euna then confiscated
s property, as he did that of the other victims
(noted above).56 Zosimus makes no mention ofAblabius supposed usurpation
s
(2.40.3).
AlthoughGregoryofNazianzus had earlierutilized
the official version of the massacre
when
it suited his
in 380 purposes, in his oration in praise of Athanasius he stated that at the end of his lifeConstantius repented of three crimes thatwere unworthy of his The first reign. Ablabius's house inConstantinople was still in the possession of the state in the 390s and early 400s when Galla Piacidia lived there (Syne see R. Janin, 61; sius,Ep. Constantinople Byzantine, 2nd ed. [Paris, 1964], 304, and S. I. Oost, "Some Problems in theHistory of Galla Placidia,"
56
CPh 60 [1965]:3and 9 n. 14).
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
was
Or. ("themurderofhis family";
excuses made 2i.26).57 This is a reflection of the later
are reportedbyJulian during the reignofGallus that in his letter to theAthenians.
KG forhis Jerome, writingin 380-81,employedthe
(see above nn. 45 description of the death ofDalmatius a source the that mentioned and 47), but he also had
death ofAblabius.58He statesthatAblabiuswas killed and he
("many nobles"), along with "multi nobilium" accession ofConstantine the the after entry right places
s
three sons and before themurder ofDalmatius.
who was writing between ca. 385 and 390/91,59had no doubts about Constantiuss Ammianus
Marcellinus,
inthemurderof therestofhis family. Like so involvement
many others,Ammianus had no love forConstantius, but or comments we do not know what details he provided
In the fifth century, Socrates derived his description ofDalmatius sdeath from Eutropius {HE 2.25.3 and 3? ?8; see n. 45, above), but in book three, in a passage that derives from a variety of sources, he states that when ' trans a a Constantius's (perhaps best lated in the context as "hostile attitude toward them," i.e., his two half cousins) had abated, he allowed them (3.1.9), a comment that has no known more than an inference source but is perhaps nothing on on Socrates' part. And finally Theodoret, also relying an unknown source, says that "Constantius... killed his to be educated
relatives because he feared usurpations"
(
a
...
a a a a e e a a [HE 3.2]).Thismay be relatedtoGregorys claim {Or e
4.21), but it seems not to be. Note that in the VS Euna to pius also mentions usurpation, with respect Ablabius.
hemadewhen he discussedtheeventsof 337inone of the
These hintswill be discussedbelow.
earlier now-lost books of his history.60 Inwhat survives even that he states that Constantiuss cruelty surpassed
there appears to be no further inde cannot stop here, however, evidence. My analysis pendent for I have omitted two accounts that are often considered
of Caligula,
Domitian,
and Commodus,
in imitation
ofwhom "inter imperandi exordia cune tos sanguine et at the se genere contingentes stirpitus interemit" ("right was who of his reign he eradicated everyone beginning connected with him by blood and birth," 21.16.8). The ispatent, since Julian and Gallus survived, exaggeration
sbrothers. Later at 25.3.23 he explicitly cause of the assassinations: "[Iulium Con describes the excessum inter com stantium] post fratrisConstantini successorum" ("after plures alios turba consumpsit imperii as did Constantius
Constantine[Julius thedeathofhisbrother Constantius]
was killed others in an upheaval involv along with many successors to imperial power"). "Turba imperii ing the a was it conflict that involved Constan successorum":
tine's successors, particularly Julius Constantius (whom to die), not notes as simply his Eunapius being the first Ammianus says Hannibalianus. nephews Dalmatius and an about attempted military coup. nothing 57
This is the source of Theophanes,
missed
byMango
5853 (de Boor 47.2-4), (n. 45 above), 80.
Chron. AM
and Scott, Chronicle
source was a kind ofDe uiris Jerome, Chronici ca?ones 234e. The see R. W. men of of the reign Constantine; illustrihus of literary Burgess, to his Chronicle and a Guide to its An Introduction "Jerome Explained:
58
Msz" Ancient History Bulletin 16 (2002): 28. For Ablabius's literary tal ents, see PLRE 1:4, s.v. "Ablabius 4" (see also p. 2, s.v. "Ablabius 3"). 59
J.Matthews,
The Roman
Empire
Ammianus of
(London,
1989),
and 31.
20-27
substantial than is usually supposed: see on the Length of theLost Books ofAmmi "Some Frakes, Thoughts 31 (2000): 48-53 (with full bibliography). anus," The Ancient World
60
After Theodoret
factual to one degree or another bymodern scholars and that omission must be explained and defended. These accounts concern Constantine's will and derive ultimately from the official claim thatConstantine about the succession on his deathbed.
changed hismind In Eusebius he
intentions orally tomany witnesses. Consti proclaims his mind was open and tutionally pragmatically this change of
to doubt or interpretation, so in later pro-Constantian makes his wishes of his death, Constantine known through a written will. Two related versions of accounts
thisstoryappeared in thefirsthalfof thefifthcentury, are in origin much earlier. though they The earliest version appears inRufinus, who wrote his translation and continuation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical
account is followed by History around 400 (10.12). His Socrates, HE 1.25.1-5, 39.3 and 2.2.2-3; Sozomen, HE 2.27.2-4,34.2;
3.1.3; Theodoret,
HE
2.3.1-7;
Ps-Gelasius,
3.12; and many others. No doubt itwas originally similar accounts made to bolster the legiti inspired by in 306 succession of Constantine of the macy following to I.61According the death of his father, Constantius
HE
this account, just before he died Constantine
composed
hiswill, inwhich he leftonlyhis sonsas his successors,
as in the earlier accounts, no mention is though, again made of any other possible heirs. This will he entrusted
These books were more
R. M.
DOP 62
| 19
61
See Barnes, Constantine
tius,De mortibuspersecutorum
. above), 27. Cf. Lactan ( 24.8 and Julian Or 1.7D.
and Eusebius
20
R.W. Burgess I
to a
priest, who had been recommended to him by his sister, the ex-wife of Licinius. This priest turned out to
be an Arian who had wormed his way intoConstantia's confidences. He kept thewill safe and when Constantius arrived afterConstantine's stantius,who
death he entrusted it toCon
"in his desire for the realm was on account
of this favour so bound
... that he cheerfully
to him
allowedhimselftobe governedbyhim" (Rufinus, HE
10.12).62 It is this priest who was for Constantius's descent into stantius's debt to him.
then solely responsible heresy because of Con
In its origin this story was to clearly designed a result strengthen the legitimacy of the sons' promotion,
ofdoubts thatmust have existedin theyearsfollowing
death, especially as detailed news about the massacre spread. As it stands, it has been though, modified to absolve Constantine of the blame for having raised an Arian son: the earlier pro-Constantian version Constantine's
has been put to a later pro-Constantinian
use.
Rufinusstatesthatafterthewill had been entrusted
to theArian priest,
ad Constanti
tantibus
obpressis
multis
praesentiam, res tutae
integraeque
noua
temp
mansere.
Since the palace eunuchs were also on [Constan tius's] side,news of the emperors death was skillfully suppresseduntilConstantius' arrival,many who tried to seize power were
Photius, the other appearing as excerpts within century saint s life called thePassio Artemii.6* According Constantinople as Nicomedia,
put down,
and
the state remained
safe and undamaged. As in (and Theophylact), Euna Gregory ofNazianzus the and Theodoret, we have a reference to VS), pius (in usurpation ("multi noua temptantes"), but it is so vague, the source so late, and the story so patently fabricated that
littlecan bemade of itbeyond theobviousattempt(left
over from the original version)
to shelter Constantius
The most
thus kept the state "tuta integraque." version of the story told above interesting
is thatreportedby theArianwriter Philostorgiusinhis
Ecclesiastical History, which was probably written in the 440s. The remains of his history appear in two epitomes,
ofhis brothers'deeds and append to ita requestthatthe firstofhis sonstoobtain thedocumentshouldavengehis
death, lest all three sons suffer the same fate. This docu ment was entrusted to Bishop Eusebius ofNicomedia, who kept it out of the hands of Constantine's brothers until the return of Constantius,
who
The translations here and below are from P. R. Amidon,
History ofRufinusofAquileia(Oxford,1997),24-25.
The Church
read the account
and fulfilled his dyingfatherslastcommand.64
as the This account again depicts Constantius alone murderer of his relatives, but itwas cleverly designed
to absolvehim of theblame forhis role in themurders
a through the employment of version of thewill story seen
above.Thatblame iscleverly shiftedtoConstantineshalf and traitors, and
Constantius ispresentedsimplyas thedutifulandpious son
to avenge his untimely following his fathers orders
death (andpreventhis own and thoseofhis brothers).
This
reworking isquite ingenious,65 but it isfictitious and, in the context of the development of the various accounts are clear. described above, itspurpose and origin
This version takes no cognizance of, and fails to rely the version official of events. This indicates that upon, itwas not
as was the version of the story early, original must it arisen at a time then have Rufinus; employed by when these excuses had been abandoned and everyone, or secretly openly, accepted Constantius s role in themas sacre and so was no a outright denial longer plausible we can and option. If judge from Julian, Athanasius, theKG, the earlier excuses were being dropped by the
mid to late350sand so thisstory probablyhas itsorigins then or afterward.
In spite of this, toomany modern
scholars have been
i6 and i6a. For the Passio Artemii, see R. W. Bur Philostorgius "The Passio and the Dates of the Inven Artemii, gess, Philostorgius, tion and Translations of the Relics of Sts Andrew and Luke," AB 121
63
(2003): 64
13-23.
This story is repeated by Zonaras, theGuidi Burgess, Studies (n. 25 above), 226 and n. 13$. 65
62
set out from Philostorgius, Constantine as far the Persians but against only got was was forwhile he there he poisoned
realized too latewhat had by his brothers. Constantine was able towrite an account happened, but before he died
fromany accusationsby layingtheblamewith palace eunuchs who
a ninth
to
brothers, now revealed to be poisoners
[Constantio] etiamquod eunuchi,qui erant inpalatio, morte fauebant, arte indicio de imperatoris subpresso usque
onemade by the Byzantinebibliophile ninth-century
life, and Cedrenus:
see
For instance, theArians knew and made much of the fact that Euse
on his deathbed and so he has been bius baptized Constantine tuted for the Arian priest that we saw in Rufinus's account.
substi
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
to one extent or another, even to the swayed by this story extreme of it to be awholly factual account. It believing is nothing more than Arian propaganda.66
III.2. The Numismatic
Evidence
The only exactly contemporary evidence we have for the events of 337 has, with one exception,67 never been This is unfortunate, analyzed, and that is the coinage. because the coins struck between the beginning and the end of 337 are of great importance in helping to put cer tain aspects of the literary sources into a sharper focus and
into
a more
Fig.
.
II, 334. Silver miliarensis,
Constantine
Siscia, unpublished (same date as RIC as RIC 7 Trier 581) and cuirassed
5.09 g (1:1) and same type
NOB C
Obv.: CONSTANTINVSIVN Laureate
7.231-31
bust right
Rev.:CONSTANTINVS
CAESAR /SIS
Four standards
context.
accurate
the period between Dalmatiuss
During as caesar in September
accession death in
335 and Constantines
337, sixmints regularly struck gold coins and seven silver in the names of the emperors.68 regularly struck Of thesemints, only three did not strike precious metal
May
name of Dalmatius: Trier, the capital of coinage in the mint of the Constantine Constans;69 II; Rome, major Siscia (a very and Antioch, the capital of Constantius.
rare Heraclea (a gold solidus type only), Thessalonica, rare silver and Nico type Constantinople, only), siliqua media (silver only) struck gold and silver in his name, at Constantinople including medallions controlled Constantine). by directly
Fig.
2.
II, 337. Silver miliarensis,
Constantine
(cf.RIC
Constantinople, unpublished Obv.: anepigraphic head right, looking up Diademed
Rev.:CONSTANTINVS
3.95 g (1:1)
7.124 with CONS0)
CAESAR /C ? I
Four standards
(at that point
The absence of coins struck in the name ofDalmatius
into sharper focus by a group of coins from Trier, Rome, and Antioch, part of a series that appeared from many mints in both gold and silver,with reverses the emperor depicting either four standards (representing and three caesars, a revived type from 324) or Victory a wreath and palm frond, often with advancing with is brought
forvarious examples). anepigraphic obverses (see Figs. 1-4 66
See, for example, Di Maio
and Arnold,
"Per Vim*
.
above); 13; Browning, Emperor, 34-35; Lucien-Brun, "Con Bowersock,Julian, stance II," 600; Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 262 (all n. 2 above); (
Fig. 3.
Constans,
Constantinople,
Solidus,
335-36.
RIC
4.51 g (1:1)
7.97
Obv. FL CONSTANS NOB CAES Laureate,
and cuirassed
draped,
Rev.:CONSTANS-NOB Victory
advancing
bust right
CAESAR /CONS
leftwith wreath
and palm frond
R. T. Ridley, Zosimus: New History (Sydney, 1982), 162 n. 103; and Hunt . ("Sulle strage" [ [n. 2 above], 4). More wisely, Olivetti ("Successors" 2 above]: 75) calls it Histoire F. Paschoud and (Zosime: "leggendaria," vol. 1 [Paris, 1971], 244) "une fable (d'origine arienne?)." See Nouvelle, e la tradizione" ( . above). especially Tantillo, "Filostorgio 67
Di Maio
and Arnold,
"Per Vim,"
194-95.
a
tricen solidus type forConstantine's Aquileia produced only single nalia. Lyons and Aquileia produced silver but with anepigraphic obverses. ITs name on Aries produced only a single silver type with Constantine the reverse. These mints are therefore not considered here. 68
69
at probably resided Milan, Italian mint at the time.
Constans
themajor
DOP 62
but ithad no mint. Rome was
Fig. 4.
Dalmatius,
Constantinople,
335-36.
RIC
Solidus,
4.57 g (1:1)
7.98
Obv. FL DELMATIVS NOB CAES Laureate,
draped,
and cuirassed
bust right
Rev.:DELMATI-VS CAESAR /CONS Victory
advancing
leftwith wreath
and palm frond
| 21
22
R.W.Burgess I
were struck with types and his three obverse legends naming only Constantine sons and reverse Constantine legends again naming only nos. sons four standards his three around and (RIC 7
At Trier, four silvermiliarensis
580-8$). In Rome this serieswas produced on smaller sil reverseswith ver siliquae with anepigraphic obverses and
a vic orwith three palm branches (for advancing Victory torious augustus and two caesars, a revived type from 324) and legends naming Constantine and his two eldest sons (nos. 377-80). On theAntiochene siliquae the obverses
reverses are also anepigraphic and the advancing Victory name Constantine, Constantine Constans and II, (nos. were coins Con No for doubt 105-7). originally produced atAntioch, since these stans at Rome and Constantius were theirhome mints, after all. Even though these silver coins were after his accession, no similar type produced was struck in the name ofDalmatius at thesemints. Trier, Rome, and Antioch did, however, strike small bronze coins inDalmatius sname; thesewill be discussed
below (seeFigs. 24-25 forthe type).Itwas onlyon the
prestige issues, those intended particularly for imperial payments to the army and the civil service, that the exis tence of Dalmatius
as a caesar was
implicitly denied
in
theperiod beforeMay 337.Thus fromtheverybegin
seem not to have sons not fully ning, Constantine's only the of Dalmatius and viewed him accepted legitimacy
as an to have communicated interloper, but also appear with one another on this point and agreed on a com mon
response. Itwould therefore appear that they did not accept the rehabilitation of Theodoras side of the
had paid hishalf familyand thehighhonorstheirfather
brothers and their families.
The suppression of a real or perceived threat against the brothers is implied by a reverse type on small bronze nummi70 from themint at Rome (controlled by all issues of nummi from the other Constans). Whereas mints retain theGLORIA
EXERCITVS
one-standard
typesissuedsincetheendof 335(describedbelow,IV.6; see
atRome the reverses of all nummi issued Figs. 20-25), between the death ofConstantine and the promotion of
thethreecaesarschangetoSECVRITAS REI PVB(licae),
with a
Securitas leaning on a column (see Fig. 5,a figure of
This indicatesthata specificincident laterissue).71 slightly
must have taken inwhich Constans wanted his place audience to believe that the empires security had been maintained
protected. a most and important, there is the evidence of Finally, to twin issue of coins, and from 337 340 clearly extending linked to the aftermath of themassacre. Soon after the
will be established deathofConstantine (thechronology below in section IV.6) two new obverse and reverse types issued on bronze nummi from the mints of the
were
Trier (Constantine II), emperors' chief residences only: Rome (Constans), and Constantinople (Constantius II). On the obverse of one type is a portrait of Theodora
with the legendFL MAX THEODORAE the reverse, an image of Theodora
The
and were therefore almost certainly the coins that are later referred to as centenionales (see R. S. Bagnali, Currency and Inflation inFourth Cen turyEgypt,
'ASP'Supplement
5 [Atlanta,
1985], 34, 44).
AVG; on
as maternal
Pietas,
standingrightandholdinga babyonher leftarmandher breast withher right hand,with thelegendPIETAS right ROMANA (seeFigs. 6-10).72The dativeof the legend
this type as commemorative and posthumous. commemorative typewas also parallel produced for Helena, grandmother of the three sons of Constantine, marks A
with theobverselegendFL IVLHELENAE AVG. The reverse was PAX PVBLICA, with Hel legend, however, an olive branch and a transverse spear ena as Pax, holding (see Figs. 11-16).73 These two typeswere essentially the same, obverse and reverse,no matter what themint, with the exception of the crown type and minor differences in the legend break.74 This indicates central design and
dissemination.
71
issued only in the names of Constantine on the nummi into later 339 for only Con the renewed GLORIA EXERCITVS alongside
402-4, RICj:^4^ynossons. This reverse continued stantius and Constans
s
type (RIC8:250-51). RIC 8Trier nos. 43, 48, 56, 65, 79, 91 (pp. 143-44); Rome nos. 28, nos. 36,50,51 see also pp. 54 (pp. 250-51); Constantinople (pp. 449-50); is otherwise unattested as augusta 442. Theodora 6-7, 79-80,126,234, (she does not appear in the list of augustae in Barnes, New Empire [n. 3
72
above], 9). Kent suggests that she received the title posthumously (RIC 8:3), but there isno evidence that shewas not augusta before mid-337 either, so I leave thematter to one side. However, itwould be most revealing if to augusta at this time. the brothers promoted her posthumously 73
RIC
STrier nos. 42,47,55,63,64,78,90 Rome nos. 27, (pp. 143-44); nos. 33-35, 38, 48, 49 (pp. 449-50).
53 (pp. 250-51); Constantinople
diadem with pearls, Theodora: laurel or diadem; diadem with pearls, Th: diadem with pearls; Constantinople: H: diadem with and without pearls, Th: diadem with pearls. In addi tion, each has three minor variants regarding the break in the obverse the variants appear only at Constantinople, and all legend (forHelena, three variants appear for Theodora there as well [note that variant T2 74
standard name of this coin, follis, has no ancient authority. Here I use the generic later term, nummus, which justmeans a "bronze coin." By this date these small nummi were probably worth 100 denarii 70
or
Trier: Helena:
Rome: H:
wasmissed inRIC 8]).
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
At Trier these coins were produced
in great numbers
(seeAppendix2).Afterthatthere duringtheinterregnum
were six major changes ofmintmark between September 337 and April 340.75The Helena and Theodora typeswere struckwith all six of thosemarks, meaning that theywere
struck routinely throughout the two-and-one-half year one exception (RIC 8 period. Furthermore, they are,with no. 82), as common as or more common than the (usually) other types struck at the same time (theRoma and Con
names stantinopolis commemoratives, and those in the of the three brothers and their father; nos. 37-92). On the other hand, mintmarks and hoards show that,
Fig.
5.
Obv.: D Laureate
II, 337. JE 3,1.66 g (1.5:1)
Constantius
Rome, RIC
8.7
FL CONST-ANTIVS and rosette diademed
SECVRI-TAS REI PVB /R$S
AVG
bust right, draped
and cuirassed
Securitas
standing facing, head right, legs crossed, holding scepter in right hand, left elbow leaning on a column
long
unlike theTrier issues, the Theodora and Helena types were not struck until from Rome and Constantinople after the brothers had been proclaimed augusti. At Rome, which likeTrier went through six changes ofmintmark (RIC 8 nos. 2-5$), theHelena and Theodora typeswere
struckwith only two of those marks, the second and the last, thus in 337/38 and early 340 (nos. 27-28, $3-54). In both cases theywere struck in small numbers, less than or to the other obverse typeswith the same mark. equal At Constantinople themintmarks changed much less fre quently (RIC and Theodora,
8 nos. 23-54), but the two issues forHelena and the one forHelena alone, were much
Fig. 6.
Theodora,
Constantinople,
338/39-40.
RIC
JE 3,1.68 g (2:1)
8.50
Obv.: FLMAX THEO-DORAE Bust with plain mantle
AVG
and necklace,
Rev.: PIETAS-ROMANA /CONS8
hair elaborately dressed
Pietas facing, head right, carrying an infant at her breast
smaller than thosewith other obverses, and the numbers issuewere much higher than those forTheodora (nos. 33-36, 38, 48-51). Thus, as at Rome, these typeswere produced much less frequently and in for the firstHelena
smaller numbers at Constantinople than at Trier. were ca. coins These produced until April of 340, II was killed in his civil war against when Constantine Constans. This, combined with other facts?that the were at Trier, the majority of these coins produced issues of Constantine that the earliest II; capital were struck atTrier; that at they appeared regularly Trier; that therewas an obvious reluctance to produce them
Fig.
7.
Theodora,
Constantinople,
338/39-40.
RIC
JE 3,1.33 g (2:1)
8.50/51 (unpublished
Obv.: FLMAX THE-ODORAE Bust with plain mantle
AVG
and necklace,
Rev.: PI ETAS-ROM ANA /CONS8
obverse
legend break)
hair elaborately dressed
Pietas facing, head right, carrying an infant at her breast
at Rome
and Constantinople; and that the types were that centrally designed and disseminated?indicates II was the one responsible for Constantine designing and producing them, as well as convincing his brothers to do likewise. No
coins had ever before been issued in the name Fig. 8.
8Trier nos. 37-43 all carry the same mark, in spite of the dif 75 + in the field. I do not include Kent's last-listed fering placement of the RIC
in this analysis. Since it appears only on issues forConstan tius and Constans, it seems to have been employed after Constantine
mintmark Us
death
DOP 62
(RIC
8 Trier nos. 93-95).
Theodora,
Rome, RIC
338. JE 3,1.67 g (1:1)
8.28
Obv.: FLMAX THE-ODORAE
AVG
Bust with plain mantle and necklace, * Rev.: PIETAS-ROM ANA /R E
hair elaborately dressed
Pietas facing, head right, carrying an infant at her breast
| 23
24 IR.W. Burgess
also, since her death ten years earlier there had been no other coins in the name of Helena. The of Theodora;
Fig.
?.
338/39. JE 3,1.98 g (2:1)
Theodora,
Trier, RIC
Is two wives appearance of these types forConstantius as a linked, same at time as virtually the parallel issue, themassacre, is clearly significant, and each type derives additional meaning from itspartner. The depiction of
8.79
Obv.: FLMAX THEO-DORAE Bust with plain mantle
Theodora asmaternal Pietas cannot but referto the extir
AVG
and necklace,
Rev.: PI ETAS-ROM AN A /TRP
hair elaborately dressed
an infant at her breast Pietas facing, head right, carrying
sons and pation of her grandsons,
since the type clearly
mirrors theSALVS REI PVBLICAE and SPES REI PVBLICAE
types issued by Constantine between late and 324 mid-326 in honor of the reproductive abilities of Fausta, who is depicted on the reverse holding her and Constantius infant sons Constantine (who at the timewere actually between seven and ten years old; see must therefore be seen as an act Figs. 17-19).76 The type of expiation to Theodora as themother of Constantius Is children and grandchildren, nearly all ofwhom were
Theodora, Fig. jo. Trier, RIC 8.65
337/38. JE 3,1.52 g (2:1)
Obv.: FLMAX THEO-DORAE
as a type forHelena also seems to the circumstances when seen in the pertinent as a "civil war" context of what can only be described
mother. The choice of PAX
AVG
Bust with plain mantle and necklace, Rev.: PI ETAS-ROM ANA / ?TRP?
the typewas first issued (see below). Their deaths were not intended to reflect poorly on her as a dead when
hair elaborately dressed
Pietas facing, head right, carrying an infant at her breast
family. If the Theodora type refers the Helena typemust then refer to hers offspring, aswell. It can as a promise of future "pax only be intended
within Constantine's to her
publica," "state/imperial peace," that is,peace among the leaders of the state (Helenas three grandsons) and their relatives (those on Theodoras side of the family). It is easy to see then why the other two brothers are sub to the objected production of these coins: they
Fig. a.
Helena,
337-38. RIC
Constantinople,
JE 3, no weight
(2:1).
8.33
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental
mantle
and necklace,
Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA ? /CONS8 Pax standing
left,holding
hair elaborately dressed
branch and transverse scepter
versive and in a very realway undermine
the official ver
sionsof theeventsof 337byhighlightingthecloseness
of the events to the three brothers. It is no wonder
that
were not on themore important gold and they produced silver coinage.
and Summary III.3. Synthesis The analysis above clearlydemonstrates thatConstantius s was to cover up original impulse everything with the damnationes memoriae, but the court was soon forced
Fig.
12.
Helena,
Constantinople,
337-38. RIC
and SPES REI
8.33
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental
mantle
and necklace,
Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA ? /CONSE Pax standing
left,holding
For a list of references to Faustas many SALVS REI PVBLICAE PVBLICAE reverses, see RIC 7:749 and 753?Kent (fol lowed by Di Maio and Arnold, "Per Virn [ .2 above], 195n. 211) believes that the nummi forTheodora and Helena were issued from Trier before
76
JE 3,1.50 g (2:1)
hair elaborately dressed
branch and transverse scepter
themassacre and Arnold provide
(RIC $17,126). This raises obvious problems, which Di Maio note, but likeKent they fail to realize that it is the coins that
the best evidence for the date of themassacres.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
(in stages, ifwe are to judge from Libanius and Julian) were to disseminate an official position that the deaths
the result of a mutiny that was beyond Constantiuss control. Eventually a decidedly unofficial version began to circulate widely thatConstantius himself had prompted
and promoted the soldiers' actions. As this version gained court was forced, by the time of general acceptance, the to counter the reign ofGallus (351-54), these charges, at least internally, not by continuing to deny them, but by admitting their truthwith the claim that Constantius
Fig. 13.
Helena,
337~38. RIC
Constantinople,
JE 3,1.52 g (1:1)
8.33
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental mantle
and necklace,
Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA ? /CONSE
hair elaborately dressed
left,holding branch and transverse scepter
Pax standing
had genuinelyrepentedof thedeed,which he blamed
for his many later failures (as indeed he may have done). This version eventually became public. Later writers, for these eventswere history rather than contemporary news, took the official and themany and varied unofficial versions in circulation and, for religious and political
whom
reasons, altered them or combined
either Constantine
them in defense of
or Constantius,
producing hybrids on the part ofmodern unknown. Attempts previously scholars tomix these distinct traditions, thereby them selves creating new versions, or to admit anything from the late narratives of Philostorgius or Rufinus are, tomy mind, misguided, because they fail to consider the prom various ulgation and chronological development of the versions, official and otherwise.
Fig.
14.
Helena,
Rome, RIC
338. JE 3,1.87 g (2:1)
8.27 (unpublished mint mark)
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental
mantle and necklace, hair elaborately dressed * /R Q branch and transverse scepter left, holding
Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA Pax standing
twomodern approaches general, there have been to the above evidence: the firstdiscounts as hostile pro In
accounts that attribute themassacre directly paganda the toConstantius. After all,most sources thatmention his involvement aremanifestly hostile toward him. This leaves one to fashion a reconstruction from the official versions and private explanations found in Eusebius, Libanius, Julian, Gregory, and theKG: in response toConstantine s deathbed decision that only his sons should succeed him and out of fear of a possible usurpation of imperial power on the part of at least one of Theodoras descendants (as a result of that decision?),
the army declared have no emperors but Constantine's set about murdering Theodoras descendants
would
Helena, Fig. is. Trier, RIC 8.42
337. JE 3,1.59 g (2:1)
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental
mantle
Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA
/i.
Pax standing
and necklace,
hair elaborately dressed
left, holding branch and transverse scepter
that they sons and and their
supporters; Constantius was somehow tricked into acqui was anyway at to stop it in escing in this firstand helpless the face of the army s violence, but he was able to rescue
Gallus andJulian(orhave themrescued)and thenfinally to suppress the rebellion with great difficulty. The alternative view is thatConstantius, almost cer
as a result of conflicts tainly concerning the succession with Julius Constantius and his relatives and without
the immediate consent of his brothers, instigated the DOP 62
337~38. JE 3,1.49 g (2:1) Fig. 16. Helena, Trier, RIC 8.47 (unpublished mint mark)
Obv.: FL IVLHE-LENAE AVG Bust with ornamental Rev.: PAX PV-BLICA Pax standing
mantle
and necklace,
hair elaborately dressed
/ ?TRS
left,holding branch and transverse scepter
| 25
26
R.W. Burgess
massacre
two purposes: first, to in order to accomplish return to a tetrarchie system abandon his father splan?a inwhich the descendants ofConstantius I and Theodora
Fig.
17.
Fausta,
Trier, ?/C
32.4-25. &
3? 3?7
g (1.5:1)
7.459
Obv.: FLAVMAX-FAVSTA AVG Bust with bare head, waved
hair, necklace,
Rev.: SALVS REI-PVBLICAE Salus standing facing, looking her arms
and ornamental
mantle
/STR left,head veiled, two infants in
and their supporterswielded great power through official appointments, marriage connections, and behind-the scenes to allow the advisory positions?and promotion of all three brothers to the rank of augustus; second, to remove any opportunity for future power, influence, or interferencefrom current or future descendants of Theo
and Julian survived either because theywere as no immediate threat and so were perceived being of allowed to live,or because theywere rescued (byMark of dora. Gallus
Arethusa?). Itwas believed at the time thatConstantine s sons would sons of their own, and so eventually have Gallus and Julian would live out their lives in exile and obscurity. The underlying problem was that Theodoras meant that therewere too many fecundity simply legiti mate claimants to the throne for any real security for Constantine
Fig.
18.
Fausta, RIC
Nicomedia,
324-25.
Solidus,
4.54
g (1.5:1)
7.77
Obv.: FLAVM AX-FAVSTA AVG Bust with bare head, waved
hair, necklace,
Rev.: SALVS REI-PVBLICAE Salus
standing facing, looking her arms
and ornamental
s sons and their descendants?the
threat of
future civilwar was quite in view of the real?especially some attacks made by against Constantine's legitimacy, both as a son ofConstantius I and as emperor. No son of mantle
/SMN
Constantine
would have been unaware of the influence
in 30$ in remov had had over Diocletian Maxentius and Constantine succession and from the ing own creatures, Severus and Maximinus, appointing his that Galerius
left,head veiled, two infants in
as caesars. Itwould have been easy to see in their place Julius Constantius, Flavius Dalmatius, or even Ablabius in the Galerius role. Itwas therefore a matter not just of removing Dalmatius and Hannibalianus from office, but of purging their fathers, all other possible contenders
for the purple, and all those who supported them and Constantine s tetrarchieplans. In this context the "rescue" Fig.
19.
Fausta,
Thessalonica,
RIC
326-28.
JE 3, 2.39 g (1:1)
7.161
Obv.: FLAVM AX-FAVSTA AVG Bust with bare head, waved
hair, necklace,
and ornamental mantle
Rev.: SPES REI P-VBLICAE /SMTSA Spes standing facing, looking left,head veiled, two infants in her arms
of the two youngest males, Julian and Gallus (rescued were not in the sense that they targeted by Constantius in the first sense. would make place), Of the two views, only the latter is consistent with all the evidence. This
is best demonstrated
through
a
point-by-point summary analysis. .The weaknesses of the official explanation. The first problem is that a fundamental part of the official must be as false: Con explanation immediately rejected stantine did not have a deathbed conversion regarding his succession, and he could not "bequeath" the empire to his sons. That his sons were not proclaimed augusti until 9 September disproves the official version on itsmost essential point. Second, once thispatently false device has been removed it seems implausible
in the extreme that
DOP62
The Summer of Blood
suddendesireon thepartof rampagingsoldiersthatonly
a leader??would the army of its own accord?without have rejected Constantines almost two-year-old settle ment rebelled Constantius (a commander plan, against
were about they knew and under whose command they to so campaign against the Persians), and assassinated
Constantine's
sons should succeed him, in violation of
Constantine's
express and already implemented plans. actions are and politically, Constantius's
Pragmatically
understandableand explicable.The official completely
many members of the imperial family and their supporters a caesar. That was maiestas, on including plain and simple, a scale inRoman unparalleled history. The resultwould
said, "Cui prodest scelus, is fecit" ("The one who benefits from a crime is the one who committed it").77
execution of high-profile large numbers of commanders and subordinates and the cashiering of entire units in the aftermath of such an outrage against the emperors' family. And yet there is no hint of such a
precious metal coinage. The sons ofConstan name Dalmatius on any not or silver struck tine did gold
have been the
response. No emperor could ever have allowed such an attack upon the imperial family to pass without severe
evenifhe had allowed theattackanddid profit reprisals,
version is neither. As Seneca
2. The
at theirhome mints while Dalmatius
was caesar and still
we findevidenceforhostility alive.From thebeginning on the part of the other caesars and response to his accession as caesar on the
toward Dalmatius
a coordinated
the precedent would have been far too even ifone credits the dangerous. And possibility of such a revolt,one content to might expect the troops have been
part of all three. 3.The damnationes memoriae. There is no place for memoriae in the official version, since the damnatio any descendants of Theodora were the innocent victims of a
with
mutinous
from itsoutcome:
the heads of Dalmatius
and Hannibalianus,
and
perhaps Julius Constantius and his brother, Dalmatius, aswell, since were the ones with they only imperial offices and powers and thus the only ones posing an immediate sons and their succession. The threat to Constantines removal of all potential dynastic threats to the brothers and of theirmale supporters, but no women, not even the not sound wives or daughters of those murdered, does like the result of a spontaneous mutiny of ill-disciplined troops. Furthermore, without the emended passage from
army. Itmust be remembered that there isno claim in any official explanation that there actually was a
usurpation, only that the troops feared it.And
versionsthatsurviveimply of all theofficial implication
The damnationes prove that themassacre was not an sons to accident, as does the response of Constantine's
the deaths of their relatives. It is just as Pohlsander says with respect to the death of Fausta in 326 and whether it could have been accidental: We
answer
"no"...
for then the bereaved
emperor
from inscriptions.Eusebius would have lauded her in
his Vita Constantini, and her sonswould have honored her
to been elevated by Constantine positions of power and a serious threat to the brothers and their prestige, posed
solehold on power,especiallyiftheyheld appeal inmili
tary and political circles,which is likely, sinceDalmatius a inOriens p?re had been military commander himself
(CyprusandTyre).As JulianandAmmianus hint, the s
half brothers and nephews became involved in arguments over the details of succession. The spark
with Constantius
thatwas
fanned by longstanding fears on Constantiuss part of a dynastic threat from Julius Constantius, his brother, and their families is a more plausible hypothesis than a DOP 62
must
would have ordered a splendid funeral,orations, and monuments. Her name would not have been erased
Dalmatius, his family, or their supporters. to theKG, Dalmatius In fact, had been according seems to have with the soldiers and popular possessed sons. As in Constantines virtues and talents lacking a result, he and his many relatives, some ofwhom had
of a heated confrontation over the succession
the clear
that this fearwas erroneous and unfounded.
no evidence KG (viaAureliusVictor) thereis simply the on foranyprevioushostility thepartof thetroopstoward
matter seems to have come to a head when Constantine
| 27
memory.78
Medea 500, quoted by Olivetti, "Sulle strage" ( . above), 79? 1 as must also this lightwe must consider Constanss possible role well. We remember the example of the purges ofmembers of previously imperial
77
families and their supporters undertaken in the East by Licinius after his in the summer of 313 that were intended to leave defeat ofMaximinus and Licinius as the sole legiti see Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius For this, imperial dynasty. . "From Usurper above), 64 and, more generally, M. Humphries, ( to in the Age of Constantine," Emperor: The Politics of Legitimation
the newly linked families of Constantine mate
JLA (2008): esp. 97-99: "Constantine was not only an accomplished an excellent teacher. His master [at constructing legitimacy], but also sons learned the lesson well, and put it into action in repeatedly: first 337 ...." (p. 99). 78
Pohlsander,
"Crispus"
(n. 6 above),
103.
28
R.W. Burgess I
The same would
have been truefor Dalmatius
to the various official versions thatwe know of, it isTheodoras descendants who were in 337 treated as
diction
a state crime, not the army,which was being guilty of later forced to shoulder the blame. This crime may lie account
of Eusebius, but it is behind the tendentious not even hinted at else. anywhere What we do not and cannot know iswhat this crime could Julius Constantius and Theodora s rela a tives have been charged with thatwould justify dam
was. What
in the natioi There is surviving sources, unless nothing a was in fact usurpation, it influ charge that indirectly
encedGregory,Eunapius (VS),Rufinus,Philostorgius, andTheodoret,but ifso,itwas quicklydroppedofficially.
This is,however, just speculation. 4. The later treatment of Gallus
and Julian. First of all, the exile of Gallus and Julian makes no sense in the context of the official explanation, which was not or later treatment of the to explain the survival designed
was never two rise boys, since it expected that theywould or to is The exile of power notoriety. positions nothing more than an extension of the rise to that gave hostility themassacre,
and that hostility clearly emanated from not from the army. Constantius, in the assassina The involvement of Constantius 5.
tionofAblabius. This isdescribedindetailbyEunapius inhisLives oftheSophists,thoughtheaccuracyof the specificsisopen todoubt, suchasAblabiuss propensity
In his History Eunapius (via Zosimus) makes it clear thatAblabiuss death was part of the gen eralmassacre; Jerome tells us that "multi nobilium" died for usurpation.
alongwithAblabius.His deathhad nothingtodowith
anymutiny, yet itwas part of themassacre undertaken by the army. Furthermore, Constantius seized Ablabiuss estates as he did the property of the other victims.
6. The testimony of Julian. There is no serious rea son to doubt the evidence of Julian, the closest we have
to an eyewitness. His is hostility toward Constantius to insufficient vitiate what he says, especially in the light of the support it receives from the other evidence. His account of the excuses to him and his brother in given seems particular completely trustworthy and matches the diachronic in shifting of the justifications found other sources. Moreover, when he touches upon events
forwhichwe do have othergood evidence (suchas the
death of his brother), his accounts are trustworthy.
7?The KG's
and
ifnot for the rest of the family, had they Hannibalianus, been the innocent victims of a mutiny. In clear contra
account has often found themost favor
scholars, but its author clearly favored Dal and, as was seen above, itwas composed when written accounts ofConstantius s involvement were first with modern
matius
to court was appearing, when the imperial beginning in the face of these admit Constantius's involvement accusations, and while Constantius was still alive. As a result, itpresents a transitional account between the
official and the unofficial versions, not an unbiased view of reality. 8. The Helena
and Theodora
nummi. The appear issued only
ance of these coins at this critical moment,
from themints of the brothers' capitals and no others, indicates a very close and specific connection between the brothers and these coins, and therefore between the brothers and themassacre.
It ishard not to conclude that
these coins were an act of expiation, aimed directly at the memory of "pia" Theodora, thewife of their grandfather Constantius, presented on the reverse as the epitome of Roman maternal pietas at the very moment when her
childrenandgrandchildren had justbeen slaughtered and
suffered damnatio memoriae. In this light, the facts? that these coins were begun and issued in the greatest numbers by, and came to an abrupt end with the death II (the only one who stood to of,Constantine gain noth the only one who ing from the removal of Dalmatius, to lose territorywith the promotion of actually stood to augustus [see n. 27], and therefore the one on a least likely to have been involved in any plot)?take
Constans new
mes meaning, especially in view of their subversive assassinations If the had been the sage. spontaneous acts of a mutinous army in (or somewhere Constantinople
in itsvicinity), therewould have been no need for such II,who personal statement, instigated by Constantine was far away inTrier, and no need for a issue for parallel no s connection who had with Theodora descen Helena, or dants the supposed uprising. a minor and As 9. subsidiary point, it is also pos sible that therewas a precedent for the use of soldiers to remove imperial threats.The Origo Constantini imperato a
ris appears to say that in 325Constantine ordered Licinius to be assassinated in a military revolt: "Sed [Constanti ne soceri suimotus nus] Herculii Maximiani exemplo, iterum in rei perniciem depositam purpuram publicae in sumer?t, tumultu militari <cunctis> exigentibus79 79
The manuscript emended
Mommsen
reads "tumultum to "tumultu
militari
militaribus
exigentibus," exigentibus."
which His
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
[Licinium] iussit occidi" (5.29). Now there are differentways of the natural way translating this, but to seems to is take the ablative me) (it phrase "tumultu
Thessalonica
...
not as coordinate with "motus exemplo" exigentibus"
on theothersideof thepurpose clause ("influenced by the example of his father-in-law... it in the Loeb
and also because
the
his death," as Rolfe puts translation), but as part of the infinitive immediately follows: "influenced by the
soldiers mutinously
demanded
phrase, which Maximian example of his father-in-law
Herculius80
might
not to the detriment of the state take up a second
timethe imperialpower thathe had laid aside."
In view of the above, the only internally consistent and plausible reconstruction follows the narratives of Julian and Eunapius. Only this version of events can take account most plausibly of all the literary, epigraphical, and numismatic
evidence, the damnationes,
the sons later presented the events. There is only one sourcefor the actual date of the promotion, theDescriptio
consulum(s.a. 337.2),and itgives9 September337,that is, three and a half months
the obvious
The political motivation, and the attempted cover-up. official version relies on implausible and factually inac curate details and is contradicted by other facts. Finally, itmust be remembered that eventually even Constantius on the official version. gave up
massacre and the Many different scenarios for the events it that are consistent with the above surrounding evidence can be hypothesized, butwe, unlike others,must resist the urge to create order and clarity where none
exists.
after the death of Constan
tine.81 Strange though this date may be, the source itself in ca. isvery nearly contemporary, having been compiled 342, and it is the sole source formany other important dates that are or appear to be accurate, so its testimony has authority.82
Constantinian
This date ispartiallyconfirmedby a letterofCon
he
ordered[Licinius]tobe killed inThessalonica inamili so with everyone taryrevolt demandinghisdeath, thathe
| 29
stantine IIwritten on 17June 337 and by a law of 2August of the same year. The letterofConstantine IIwas written almost amonth afterConstantine's
death, but Constan as to tine II still refers himself caesar, not augustus, as he at the certainly would have done had he been augustus time.83 In this letterConstantine
II
to explicitly refers
his new thedeath ofhis fatherand isclearlyexercising
to his see role as senior emperor by restoringAthanasius itdoes not provide a date for inAlexandria. Although
itconfirms the basic fact of theDescriptio that the brothers were not promoted by Constantine before his death, or by the armies, the senate, and the the promotion,
people immediately afterward. Of two laws surviving from the summer of 337, name one was almost certainly issued inConstantine's 13.4.2 (= CIC CI 10.66.1), dated 2 indicates that the broth ("data") August 337?which 2 ers still had not No promoted themselves by August. location is given for the law,which is addressed to (Val at a erius) Maximus, praetorian prefect whose posting
after his death?CTh
(see below, section IV. 2).Another law,Fragmenta Vaticana (Frag Vat.) 3s,84 issued by the caesars (their actual names do not augustus and the but was origi appear), bears the date of 29 August 337, this date isunknown
IV. The Chronology IV. . TheDate
Sons PromotionofConstantines ofthe
Part of the problem in evaluating the events of the sum mer of 337 is that every source but one assumes thatCon stantine's sons succeeded their father upon his death on
was the normal 22 practice May. This is logical, since that were caesars and thus in the empire, his sons already out as his successors, and thatwas how already marked
and K?nig, but has been followed by Rolfe, Moreau/Velkov, is so common (see, e.g., n. 45) that it the expression "tumultu militari" must remain. Boissevain "cunctis" as a supplement. suggested emendation
80 Maximian had twice resumed power after having been forced to n. 3 retire: Barnes, New Empire, 13 and Kienast, Kaisertabelle (both above), 273.
DOP 62
in the February before nally written inConstantinople Constantine's death (= CTh 3.1.2,dated 4 February 337).85 in front of him 81 Even though Jerome had a version of theDescriptio when he calculated the length of Constantius's reign (twenty-four years, five months, and thirteen days, p. 234), he did so from Constantine's death. with cor See Burgess, Chronicle ofHydatius (n. 43 above), 191-97, rections in Burgess, Studies (n. 25 above), 270. The Consularia Constan name for the isMommsen's consulum. Descriptio tinopolitana
82
83
Athanasius,
c. [ApoL Ar.]) 84
Arians Defence against the and//?/. Ar. 8.2.
[Apologia
contra Arianos
87.4-7
J. Baviera, Fontes
iuris Romani
antejustiniani,
2nd ed. (Florence,
1940), 469-71? CTh 3.1.2 are easily conflicting dates of Frag. Vat. 35 and is a complete copy of the law as itwas sent from Vat. 35 explained. Frag.
85
The
30 IR.W.Burgess
Nevertheless,
the delay makes
clear the turmoil caused
Con by the final preparations for the Persian war, by stantine's illness, and then by his death. Eusebius
ever so
to this strange period subtly refers to be still ruling after his appeared
when Constantine
deathwhen he says ?a ...
a
e
a
,
e
a
e e a
e a a
a
ea a a '
a
e
e
(VC 4-67.3;"Aloneofmortals... he reigned
even after death, and the customs were maintained
just
as ifhewere alive,God havinggrantedthistohim and
no other since time began").
As will be describedbelow (sectionIV.6 andAppen
dix 2), the coinage ofAries, Rome, and Trier indicates a time between the death ofConstan significant length of tine and the promotion of his three sons during which coins continued as caesars
sons
to be struck in the names of the three
alone.
All the above evidence serves to confirm the accuracy of the date in theDescriptio consulum.
IV.2.Modern Scholarship scholars accept that themassacre
Most
thatMaximus
suffereddamnatio memo
riae, he must have died with Dalmatius, was addressed imperial rescript must have died after that date.
and since an
to him on 2 August, he
argument for the date of the over the was a massacre is cogent and great advance jum bled thinking of earlier and even later scholars. However, another, more complete Greek copy ofAE 1925.72 shows that both these inscriptions must date to 335/36 and that themissing prefect's name isValerius Felix, not Valerius As
it stands, Barnes's
Thus, although Valerius Maximus was pre 2 fect on August 337,we do not know whose prefect he was. Itmay be that the erasure ofValerius Felix's name
Maximus.88
was
related to the massacre
in the summer of 337, but
reasons alone may have his removal strictlylocal governed from the inscription.89 The date of post-2 August must
took place at some
even a date as a suggest date shortly afterward, and as most is The some.86 late 338 still espoused by explicit and careful of all modern accounts of themassacre was some
that ofT. D. Barnes, who dated it to the period between
to the corrector of Picenum and includes Aquileia by the praetorian prefect as well as the accepta date atAlba (18 Septem the data date at Aquileia ber). CTh 3.1.2 is an excerpt of sections 3-5 of this law and preserves the issuance of the law inConstan chronological details from the original seven months earlier. The difference in the dates is the result of a tinople
to the praetorian prefects. Frag. Vat. delay in the proclamation of the law has also mistakenly taken on the year of the previous law (313). .2 above], 70) and Chantraine (Nach ("Sulle strage" [ .2 . [ above], 5-6 io) give useful and extensive summaries folgeordnung . of the various dates. Charles Pietri ("La politique" [ above], 122-23) to 338, a common mis tries to use Jerome to date the assassinations Olivetti
take (see below at n. 90). Klein ("K?mpfe" [ . above], 115?18) dates the massacre to June 338. to 338 and the Browning meeting of the brothers 2 it shortly after 9 September. Pot (Emperor [n. above], 34-35) dates
ter(RomanEmpire [n.2 above],688 n. 89) stillfollowsSeeck inusing
to the very end of 337 or Julian's age to date themassacre early 338. See O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt, vol. 4, Anhang (Berlin, 1911), 391-92, andRegesten derKaiser und P?pste f?r dieJahre 311
which places themassacre between (Stuttgart, 1919), 186, to in for March and the and 338 May July.However, January meeting 2 Julian's age, see Bower sock,Julian (n. above), 22. bis 476n. Chr.
shows
sprae name on his torian prefect the basis oiAE 1925.72,where is supplied for an erasure in an inscription dated to the summer of 337?was still praetorian prefect.87 Since the
therefore be abandoned.
without stating datebefore9 September337 why,though
86
2 in section IV.i), which August 337 (noted above to be Dalmatius thatValerius Maximus?assumed
erasure means
a
a
2August and 9 Septemberon thebasisofCTh 13.4.2of
IV.3.TheLiterarySources TheKG noted thatthedeathofDalmatius had happened "haud multo post" ("a little after") the death ofConstan or "confestim" tine ("immediately") (Eutropius 10.9.1) afterward (Victor 41.22). This indicates a date soon after 22 May
337.Victor notes that Constantine
II, who was
killed inearly340,fellthreeyearsafterthedeathofDal
matius
(41.22), which
is thus placed
in 337. Jerome, also
. See Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius above), 261-62; idem, ( (n. 3 above), 8 and n. 34, 134-35; and idem, Athanasius Empire and Constantius (n. 35 above), 34-35, 218, 219, 224, with New Empire, . See also Klein, 1:591, 85-87. above), 115-16 and PLRE "K?mpfe" ( 87
New
s.v. "Maximus 88
49."
D. Feissel,
en l'honneur
"Une d?dicace
de Constantin
II C?sar
et
les pr?fets du pr?toire de 336," inG. Dagron and D. Feissel, "Inscriptions in?dites duMus?e d'Antioche," TM 9 (1985): 421-34; Di Maio and Arnold, aPer Vim" ( . above), 195-98; T. D. Barnes, "Praetorian Prefects, 337-361,"
ZPapEpig
and inmilitary dress standing facing, head reversed spear in right hand and resting left
itwas according to such documents that travelers would have planned their journeys. Thus itwould not matter whether the distance between a traveler knew twomansiones was fifteen or is eighteen miles, the fact that he could cover such a distance in a day with little effort.Two mansiones
s a solid day traveling. It should also be twenty-fivemiles apart required noted that for the most part travelers had to travel in units of a mansio. If a journey was 100 miles and there were four evenly spaced mansiones, a one cannot speed of fortymiles per day and conclude simply postulate
itonly took two and half days to travel the 100miles at that speed, since there would not have been any mansiones at the forty- and eighty-mile marks and thus therewas nowhere to stop unless the area was well popu lated and the road had many towns or villages along theway.Mutationes were for those were available along theway between mansiones, but these to cursus in the using the publicus mainly change horses. For this reason, discussion below I try to deal in terms ofmansiones, rather than simple averages. There are also discrepancies ing the actual number of mansiones
among the three itineraries regard in certain places and in some cases routes (see the comparison table for the Egyptian they also offer different routes of the three itineraries and a papyrus itinerary from Theophanes'
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
I37
der Tabula the relevant maps in Atlas; Konrad Miller, Itineraria Romana: R?mische Reisewege an der Hand Otto Cuntz, Itineraria Romana, voi. 1 (Leipzig, 1929), as well as themaps of theAncient World and Rome, (1916; 1966); reprinted Peutingeriana Drawn by Karen Rasmussen Center (http://www.unc.edu/awmc/mapsforstudents.html). (archeographics.com). Mapping This map
is based upon
evidence presented inAppendix 3 for the speed of travel on foot and horseback, evenwith themountainous terrain of the route between Ancyra and Tarsus, an emergency messenger bearing news of the emperors serious illness
and perhaps imminent death toConstantius, and thus tomake it at top speed, should have been able traveling or toAntioch within six six mansiones days, covering 125 and 145miles per day,with only fourman siones and sixty-fourmiles on the last day. Constantius
between
dossier Around
[seeAppendix 3] inC. Adams, inAdams in Roman Egypt,"
"'There and Back Again: Getting and Laurence, Travel and Geog
m above], 161). In addition, some roads were wide, straight, raphy [n. and well paved, others could be narrow, winding, unpaved, or in various a result, all the states of disrepair, which would slow travelers down. As I use formansio numbers, distances, and times are by necessity figures inexact to a certain degree.
DOP 62
had a longer return journey, just over 800 Roman miles and thirty-eightmansiones, since he had to travel on to
from Constantinople, though the last leg of the journey Nicomedia could have been traversed more quickly by
ship(seeAppendix 4 route1 and themap). It isunlikely that he could have traveled as fast as the original mes senger, since he would not have been traveling on his
a too conserva day is tive an estimate, given the various examples noted in was forConstantius Appendix 3 and how important it own, but two or threemansiones
to arrive at his fathers side as soon as possible.113 If he traveled fourmansiones per day (five on the first day to 113 No doubt along theway he met themessenger who was traveling to tell him of Constantine's death and the plans for the preparation of the body for the funeral.
38 IR.W. Burgess
Mopsuestia
for ninety-five miles and five on the second
to lastday,puttinghim inNicomedia,for 107miles) he
could average between eighty-two and ninety-fivemiles per day, with sixty-fiveon the last day. Unencumbered ,Libanius, Or. 59.74), he could cover this distance (e in
nine exactly days. Ifwe assume Constantius was summoned when Con
stantine firstfell ill,114he would have arrived inConstan
tinopleat theveryendofMay or theverybeginningof
June. Even ifwe allow that he was not summoned until
Constantine had infactdied,he stillcould easilyhave 6 been in Constantinople by June. The funeral would s have followed immediately, since by then Constantine toConstan body would have been embalmed, returned state seven in for tinople, and lain days (see Eusebius, VC and 4.66-67 70). Athanasius
states that he met Constantius
atVimi
nacium (Defensebefore Constantius [Apologiaad Con stantium(Apol.ad Const.)] 5.2).The only timethatboth
Constantius
could have been inVimina
and Athanasius
cium at the same timewas eitherwhen Constantius
was
on theDanube orwhen he was battling the Sarmatians was awaiting his brothers in Pann?nia and Athanasius
toAlexandria.115 The date therefore returning fromTrier
must be the summer of 337.116 We know thatAthanasius was
inTrier on 17 June
when he received the letter from Constantine
II read
mittinghim tohis see (seeAppendix 3).He arrivedin Alexandria on 23November of the same year, 159 days to the itineraries, the total later.117According length of Athanasiuss journey from Trier toAlexandria was approximately 4 and themap). 159days gives a is exactly what
3,352Roman miles (seeAppendix 4 route over A journey of this distance averaged speed of twenty-one miles per day,which one would
expect for someone traveling
normallyon foot (seeAppendix 3),assumingstopsof than a day in some places
more
114
(as atViminacium)
and
statement that he was
ill for six days (Chron. 13.14; Thurn, seems cannot reliable be but verified. 249) Malalas's
115
See Barnes, Athanasius
116
Barnes
and Constantius
(n. 35 above), 34-35, 41. is just over the border from Pann?nia Viminacium inMoesia, but the will be below. discrepancy explained (ibid., 219) suggests July 337, A. Martin (Athanase au IVe si?cle (328-373) [Rome, 1996], V?glise d'Egypte September. See also Di Maio and Arnold, "Per Virn (n. 2 above),
dAlexandrie 394-95)
34-36.
about fiftymansiones between Trier and Viminacium,
and
no one forhim tovisitalongtheway, itthustook probably Athanasius amaximumoffifty days to travelfromTrier a total of about 1,161 Roman miles (by the an at of average speed twenty-threemiles longest route), at in the latest on 6August, per day, arriving Viminacium toViminacium,
Trier (Ihaveassumed18June). dependingonwhen he left most likelythathe Ifhe had no one tovisit(and itseems
did not), he probably traveled somewhat faster than his average. Although Theophanes was able to travel two
mansionesperdayon abouthalf thedaysofhis journeys
(seeAppendix 3), themansiones along Athanasius s route were too far apart for this to have been as spaced practical often. Constantius must therefore have been inVimina cium no later than the firstweek of August
more probably,thelastweek ofJuly.
337 or rather,
met Athanasius at Vimi Although Constantius nacium, itwas hardly the type of city thatwould have was suited ameeting of the imperial brothers. Sirmium a more
a fitting location, being centrally and strategi center located cally military (especially for campaigns an against the Sarmatians), with imperial residence,mint
(atmany and various times during the fourth century, not in 337), and arms starting in 324, though factory. It
had been the imperialcapitalofDiocletian (285-296) and Licinius
(308-316), and Constantine
had spentmuch
timetherehimself while on campaignbetween 317and
329, especially June toAugust 317,October 318 toApril 319,May toAugust 320, June to September 321,May to to July 322, and March April 329.118Most important, it is in Pann?nia, where Julian says that the brothers met (Or. 1.19A and 20C). Barnes believes that Constans Aquileia
on 29 August
may have been in see date o? (the Frag. Vat. 35;
above,IVi) with hispraetorianprefect,justbeforehead ing
to Pann?nia
tomeet with his brothers and accept to augustus on 9 but this September,119
promotion cannot be the case. is to Aquileia certainly much closer Sirmium than either Trier or between Constantinople, or seventeen and sixteen and 399 mansiones. 416 miles,
et
E estai Index
118
10 with
Barnes,
Athanasius
and Constantius,
. and Eusebius ( above), 8,9,32,68,72, n. and 3 49 16,51,52-53, 69, 73-78, (n. above),
See Barnes, Constantine
and idem,New
198-207. 117
other days with quicker travel. There are, in fact, about 154mansiones along theway, so Athanasius did indeed travel an average of one mansio per day. Since therewere
Empire
80. 119
Barnes, New Empire,
86-87.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
| 39
dependingon theroutetaken(seeAppendix4 route5and
would havebeen aboutnineteendays (seeAppendix 3).If
on 8 September he lefton 30August),but that (assuming
have arrived inConstantinople
themap). Itwould have been necessary for Constans to have traveled atforty miles per day to arrive in Sirmium seems
unlikely
in the extreme. There is no reason why
Constanswould stillhavebeen inAquileia at theendof
a mad dash for Sirmium at the August and then make lastminute. Furthermore, such a timetable would leave him no time to conduct the contentious and difficult we know took negotiations that place (see below). How ever, there isno reason why Constans and his praetorian in the same at prefect should necessarily have been city the same time.When Constans traveled tomeet with as his brothers, his prefect would simply have remained close to him as practicable while still remaining within to carry out his duties. Therefore, the presence of Italy in fact indicates Constans spraetorian prefect in Aquileia that Constans was already in Sirmium on 29 August. These dates then?17
June inTrier forConstantine
week ofAugust) inVimi II, thelastweek ofJuly(orfirst
nacium forConstantius,
and 29 August in (or close to) us our parameters. Sirmium forConstans?give There can be no doubt that themost important and
s pressing issue facing the brothers after their father death was to be to meeting together promoted augusti by the army, then having this proclamation forwarded toRome
for acceptance by the senate and people, as Eusebius shows did in fact occur. It is clear from Constantine Ils letter of 17June that he was acting in his capacity as the senior emperor. It is possible that itwas he who informed his brothers of the need tomeet, and when and where. As
we saw above, itwas certainly he who devised
theHel
ena andTheodora coins forall three. Althoughwe do
not know when he might have summoned his broth ers, itmust have been before the letter forAthanasius
(17June), since the promotion was of greater importance, and therewas no reason (now obvious to us) why he would
delay. It is also possible that itwas, rather,Constantius who took the initiative and summoned his brothers soon in after his arrival in Constantinople early June. If so, is neverthe the difference in the following timeframes lessminimal. A message fromConstantine
II inTrier toConstan
of thetwocapitals)would probably tinople(thefarthest
have taken just about as long to arrive as the notification of Constantine's death, less a day (the distance between Nicomedia and Constantinople), given the urgency of the situation (seeAppendix DOP 62
4 route 3 and themap). This
we assume that the summons was sent sometime between
il and 17June (see Appendix 3), themessengerwould right
at the end of June
or during thefirst week ofJuly.Sirmium isabout 700
miles
and thirty-fourmansiones from Constantinople. Constantius could have completed a leisurely journey in seventeen
days120 and thus easily have been inVimi
nacium beforetheend ofJuly(seeAppendix 4 route3 and themap). It is about
1,063miles from Trier to Sirmium and or forty-five forty-sixmansiones (seeAppendix 4 route 4 and themap). An easymarch of twomansiones therewere
and about forty-fivemiles per day would have put Con stantine II in Sirmium in a little over twenty-three days.
He could thusveryeasilyhave been inSirmiumby the of July, If, on the having overtaken Athanasius. other hand, he had been summoned by Constantius,
middle
he stillcould have arrivedtherebeforetheend ofJuly forty-two daysafterthedispatchofCon (approximately stantiuss summons
in early June). can We since we do say nothing about Constans, not know where he was at this or point, Milan residing Rome, but themessenger sent to him would have arrived before the one sent to Constantius
(orConstantine II) have had a shorter distance to travel to
and he would
Sirmiumthanhis brothers(seeAppendix 4 routes3and 5and themap). As notedabove (atn. 103),I thinkitlikelythatSarma
tian activity on theDanube was prompted by knowledge of Constantines death and Dalmatiuss absence from the frontier.News
of Constantines
death would
have
traveled messengerssent quickly in thewake of thefirst
on 22 May, and the Sarmatians would have responded as just quickly. Messengers with news of hostilities could have reached Constantinople from the frontierwithin seven to ten
a days. In such case, it could have been news hostilities that prompted Constantius's as as the end of June?a departure from the capital, early more made all the imperative if the brothers departure of Sarmatian
had already decided tomeet in Sirmium, a city close to Sarmatian territory.Conversely, it could have been the need to quell the Sarmatian uprising that determined the location of the brothers' meeting. Constantius could easily have covered threemansiones per day throughout 120
At two mansiones
than fiftymiles
a
per day he would day only three times.
have faced a journey ofmore
40
R.W. Burgess I
his journey, and he could have been in Sirmium in less than twelve days, and inViminacium orNaissus in even less time.
As a result of the above analyses, it is clear, first, that for Constantius was probably present inConstantinople amonth or amonth and a half atmost: from early June
to lateJuneormid-July. with all the This is consistent
other evidence presented above. Second, it is clear that the brothers should easily have been able to accept pro
motion togetherat theendofJuly.Theydid not.What
We cannot know. Like the events surrounding happened? themassacre, any number of plausible scenarios can be as for problems that delayed departure suggested, such one ormore of the brothers, slow travel, in complications preparations for the Sarmatian campaign, difficulties in subduing the Sarmatians, or problems dur once the brothers did arrive, but we have ingnegotiations no facts. All we can say for certain is that the itinerar
Constantiuss
ies indicate that the gap in time between Constantine's death and the promotion of his sons was not a result of
the brothers and theirmessengers had to travel. But beyond that and the parameters established the distances
above, we cannot proceed. Once all three were in Sirmium,
from the end of
August at least ifnot before,theybegan theirdifficult these had been
and protracted negotiations.121 When
wereproclaimedaugustitogether by the completedthey
news was armies on 9 Danubian September and Rome for acceptance by the senate and people.
121 ers'
Julians excessive protestations a ("unity") and a e a a his brothers
sent to
and his repeated claims of the broth a s ("perfect unity"), ofConstantius e ("no occasion for complaint"),
giving a a a of his treating his brothers of his and and justly moderately"),
a
("at the same time e a a ("mod a and e ("unity" and a
eration and all for the magnanimity"), indicate just the opposite (Or 1.18D, 19A-20B, "peace") of all Romans, II and Constans In Or. 2.94B-C he admits that Constantine 2.94B-C).
not with Constantius, of quarreled and fought with each other (though was not II until the former's Constantine death. satisfied course) certainly with the final arrangements, as he demonstrated less than three years later 2 (see n. 27, above). See RIC 8:7-8; Potter, Roman Empire (n. above), 462; and Frakes, "Dynasty" (n. 2 above), 99-100. See also RIC 8:32,125,170; and Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 200 n. 14; and idem,Athanasius II tried to exer 311n. 5 for the possibility that Constantine not to. This cise a primacy over his brothers that they had clearly agreed see would also seem to include a quasi-regency over the young Constans: Constantius,
Bleckmann, mundschaft
2 eine Vor "B?rgerkrieg" (n. above), 236-41, esp. "Constantin ?ber seinen j?ngeren Bruder Constans aus?bte" (p. 239).
V. A
Hypothetical
Reconstruction
was struck at Pythia by illness was serious it and that realized that he Therma, quickly his two eldest sons would have no easy means of pro to augustus ifhe died. He quickly moting themselves summoned as the physically closest of had Constantius his two eldest sons, in case he should take a turn for the
When
Constantine
worse. No doubt he or his advisors believed that even in to augustus in extremis he could promote Constantius could then the presence of the army, and Constantius promote Constantine II.When Constantine finally died at noon on 22 May, before Constantius could arrive, swift were sent to the four caesars inform messengers officially
ingthemof theirfathers(anduncles) death. Constantius
arrived inConstantinople
fromAnti
och duringthefirstdaysofJuneand immediately began
s must have preparations for his father funeral, which taken place soon after, absent his two brothers, who
remainedin theircapitals.By theendofJuneameeting
of the brothers had been arranged, either byConstantine II or byConstantius, to take place at Sirmium, a location central for all three, in order for them to find away out
of their constitutional difficulty and to arrange their ter ritorial divisions. This meeting in neutral territory,not in some Constantinople following the funeral, does suggest tension among the brothers, but the location may simply have been in response to the Sarmatian uprising. Constantius, itmust be remembered, was only nine none of the teen at the time and, although he possessed at that age, he was Octavian that characterized genius certainly cunning and ruthless, and he had before him his
fathersbloody examplesof solvingfamilyand dynastic
sons were all young: problems. Indeed, Constantines twenty or twenty-one, nineteen, and thirteen or fourteen. Constantius was married toJuliusConstantius s daughter, son of Flavius his sisterwas married toHannibalianus, Dalmatius,
and Constans
was betrothed
toAblabius's
daughter, Olympias. The potential for interferencewith the brothers at best or their overthrowal atworst at the hands of the elderDalmatius, bius must have been obvious
JuliusConstantius, orAbla to Constantius. After his
arrivalinConstantinople,he dealtfirst withAblabius by no him the and doubt firing dissolving betrothalofhis in the liter brother toOlympias. There are enough hints and sources, Ammianus, ary Eunapius especially Julian, (Zosimus), to show that some type of disagreement soon arose between Constantius and his relatives (especially
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
his uncle Julius Constantius) concerning the succession. Almost certainly this dispute centered on the exclusion of Dalmatius
and Hannibalianus
of Constantines
from power, in spite and attempts to free
obvious wishes, the three sons from any interference from their elder relatives. This decision to exclude Dalmatius may well have been made by the sons at amuch earlier date, since as as 335 not to strike they had clearly all agreed early precious metal coins for him. Almost certainly themassacres
took place inCon or its environs. Itwould be only natural for stantinople to all of Constantines physically closest relatives gather there for his funeral, and that so many were killed all at once with their supporters suggests that most were in one
rather than, for instance, location for such a gather was mansiones It and 486 miles ing. only twenty-three fromNaissus, where Dalmatius and his fatherwere based,
place. Constantinople, is themost obvious Naissus,
have been easy for them to have arrived in time for the funeral. Constantius was certainly inCon
so itwould
when he hadAblabius assassinated(though stantinople was not).The army,too, would no doubt Ablabiushimself have been present in the capital in large numbers for the funeral, and the excuses mentioned by Julian make it almost certain that Constantius
and the "mutinous"
armywere in close physical proximity at the time of the massacre,122 as does the rescue of Julian and his brother, either byConstantius himself or,more plausibly, byMark of Arethusa (who must have been in Constantinople
rather than anywhere else). The armywas employed to assassinate Julius Constantius, Dalmatius Caesar, Opta and no doubt others, and itwas tus, and Hannibalianus, the scapegoat for their deaths. Those not in the city, likeAblabius, were hunted down and killed by assassins. Excuses were made for theirdeaths aswell (such then made
sVS). Constantius as we read in condemned Eunapius and Constantius, Dalmatius, perhaps probably Julius others, then sentmessengers to his brothers informing them ofwhat had happened. At some date between the
veryend of Juneand themiddle ofJulyhe setofffor were now in ruins. plans II and Constans and Italy, Constantine
Sirmium. Constantines In Gaul
had happened anywhere else, the obvious excuse would have been thatConstantius was not physically present and therefore was unable to have actions: how could he have? The prevented the army's mentions also indicates close proximity between "deception" that Julian Constantius and the army. 122
DOP 62
If themassacre
|
41
immediately put thedamnationes into effect and stopped minting coins forDalmatius. Constans produced nummi
as ifthestate with theSECVRITAS REI PVB reverse, had justbeen savedfromsomedanger (Dalmatius and Julius Constantius, or themutinous army?).Constantine II immediately initiated theHelena and Theodora issues, and after his arrival in Sirmium he forced his brothers to follow suit. After reaching theDanube, Constantius quelled the threats from the Sarmatians with Dalmatius's army and took the title Sarmaticus in recognition of the victory
At theendofJulyhemetAthana (perhapson 27July).
on sius at Viminacium, campaign. perhaps while still At some unknown date before 29 August his brothers arrived and they all began their contentious delibera tions concerning the new division of the empire, now thatDalmatius was dead.
Libanius (Or. 59.73-74) indicates that Constantius received news of the Persian siege ofNisibis before the
meetingwith his brothers(thoughhe dates itto thetime ofConstantine'sfuneral)andJuliansayshe learnedof the revoltwhile he was meeting with them (Or. 1.18D-19A). Since the siege started somewhere around
Armenian
themiddle ofJune123 (weknownothingabouttherevolt), news travelingat the standardfifty miles a daywould to reach Constantinople and another twoweeks to reach Sirmium fromConstan
have taken almost four weeks
news tinople.124 The probably traveled much faster, but it could not have overtaken Constantius before he had (even assuming a late departure from the capital). But no matter what the situation on the could frontier or how early news arrived, Constantius not return until his business in Pann?nia was done and reached Sirmium
he was
augustus.
set out for Constantinople on 9 immediately after his promotion September, eager to return to Antioch. the siege of Shapur abandoned Constantius
no doubt
around mid-August, and so that news probably at the latest. in reached Constantinople mid-September Thus by the time Constantius was able to reach Con
Nisibis
themonth, he had stantinople, before the lastweek of news of retreat (as Libanius the received already Shapur's
123
See Burgess, Studies
(n. 25 above), 232-38.
via Antioch. As probably have traveled fromNisibis we have seen, itwas about 800 miles fromAntioch to and Constantinople 124
News would
more
than 700 miles
miles
fromNisibis
to Sirmium from Itwas almost 450 Constantinople. via Edessa (following the Tab. Peut).
toAntioch
42
R.W.Burgess I
have known about whatever plans he may have had beforehand. Assassination need not have been apart of any plan theremay have been to remove Dalmatius
notes, Or. 59.75) and could therefore turn his attention
toothermatters,chieflythedepositionofPaul and the He
stantinople.125 his response to
as
bishop of Con then returned toAntioch to prepare
ordination of Eusebius
ofNicomedia
and his family from the succession and the posi tions of influence that had been granted to them over the brothers. The intention was at the time to
invasion.
Shapur's
remove Theodoras male
relatives from the dynastic succession and to ensure that neither they nor their
or threaten the three sons supporters could influence at a later date. Constantius did, no of Constantine
VI. Conclusions The major conclusions marized briefly: . Constantine
of this paper, then, can be sum
4.
s three sons showed amarked hostility
towardDalmatius fromtheverybeginningofhis
5.
or silver coins in his to strike reign, refusing gold name at their home mints. 1.
used the gold and silver coinage to pro two mote his two eldest sons equally above the other over caesars in Us seniority spite of Constantine Constantine
Constantius.
for a return to
was planning a tetrarchie system headed II and by Constantine on one based blood ties of family Constantius, but rather than simply ties of marriage, as was the case with the first tetrarchy.His sons were young and Julius Con stantius, Ablabius, and perhaps others would act as advisors to and perhaps even as regents for his sons and nephew until theywere old enough to assume power on their own. he intended
3.
behind
the assassinations
do not know the basis for these condemnations.
6.
Danube
or threat on the part of Dalmatius, his family, or cannot know. Nor can we know their supporters.We
howmuch his brothers(especially Constans) may 2.7,with T. D. Barnes, "Emperor and Bishops, A.D. Some Problems," A]AH 3 (1978): 53-75 (reprinted inEarly 66 Roman and the [London, 1984], paper XVIII), Empire Christianity and and Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius 35 213 219. above), (n. 125
Socrates, HE
324-344:
leftConstantinople
between
the end
He may have cel against the Sarmatians.
ebratedvictoryover themon 27July(thusimplying
7. 8.
and that itwas he who
of a spur-of-the-moment reaction on Constantius s or part to some real perceived impasse, difficulty,
Constantius
ofJuneand themiddle ofJulyto campaignon the
not s succession and dynastic plans, rejected his father mean not that the the soldiers. This does necessarily
assassinations were planned in advance; they could have been, but they could aswell have been the result
the soldiers' reach. Damnationes
memoriae'were proclaimed against Dalmatius Caesar ifnot others.We and probably Julius Constantius,
that Flavius Dalmatius,
There can be no serious doubt thatConstantius was
imagined. There was only one set of assassinations, inwhich all of Constantius s opponents were removed within a short space of time.The armywas employed tomurder Dalmatius Caesar julius Constantius, Optatus, and but assassins were dispatched from Hannibalianus, to execute those, likeAblabius, who Constantinople were not within
This confirms other evidence that indi
cates thatConstantine
doubt, feel remorse later on for his actions. or The assassinations took place inConstantinople its environs in early June of 337. The details are lost to scenarios can be history, though many plausible
9.
an early departure). Constantius met Athanasius
atViminacium
at the
veryendofJulyor thebeginningofAugust 337.
The three brothers met in Sirmium, and although all could have arrived during July,we do not know why it took until 9 September for them to be proclaimed
army. augusti by theDanubian II was responsible for Constantine designing and nummi. They the Helena and Theodora issuing appear
to have been an act of atonement
to their
for the assassinations of her sons
step-grandmother and grandsons. Just as Theodora represented her sons so and Helena dead represented grandsons, her three living grandsons. Furthermore, Theodora
represents represents maternal piety, while Helena a within the imperial promised imperial peace (i.e., in the family). These coins first appeared fromTrier immediate aftermath of the news of the assassinations
and were struck there in great numbers throughout DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
the interregnum and continued to be struck in large Ils reign. At numbers for the rest of Constantine theirmeeting in Sirmium, Constantine II compelled
his brothers to strike similar coins at Constantino
ple andRome, thoughtheydid soonly reluctantly,
in smaller numbers than atTrier. intermittently,and With Constantine Us death their production was
at all mints, immediately shut down io. The official version of the events evolved over time. At first there were was
said about
the damnationes
the murders.
Then
and nothing the army was
as a hero presented for resisting their uprising and restoring order. Later Constantius was presented as helpless in the face of blamed
and Constantius
was
great failures of his personal and professional lifeon his actions in 337. More
could perhaps be teased from the sources, and many alternative scenarios and plausible theories could be pre sented, but many readers, I am sure,may feel that I have
too far on too little as it is. So be it.But it already gone
ismy hope thattheevidencepresentedherewill setour
events on a new and more solid understanding of these or overall conclusions footing, whether the individual of this paper are accepted or not.
UniversityofOttawa Department ofClassicsand ReligiousStudies 70 Laurier Ave. East
odds against militarydeceptionand overwhelming themutinous
Ottawa, Ontario KiN
soldiers. Finally his involvement was
II and Constantius
II, over their two col
to in the Constans and Dalmatius, period 333 leagues, 337 ismade clear by the contemporary coinage. At themint inConstantinople, Constantine's home mint, on silver produced between 333 and 337 the two one caesars are named on tiny issue in 337 junior only
{RIC7 nos. 136and 136A[seep. 719]),whileConstantine
have rough parity in (for themost reverse types throughout the part) twinned obverse and nos. RIC 55-57A (see period: 333-34 (see pp. 718-19), nos. 335-37 123-25,127,127A-30, 718-19), p. 718); (see pp. 131B, 133-34, 135A (see p. 719). Apart from one nine II and Constantius
from 333 (RIC no. 67, in the name solidus medallion of Constans; described below) neither junior caesar is
named on thegold between 333and theveryend of 335 on a (nos. 64-72, 87-89). They are named special issue, in both obverse and reverse, early 336 (nos. 97-98; cf.
nos. 90-96) but fromthenuntilSeptember337theyare named on only one sesquisolidus (no. 102: Dalmatius; a solidus (no. 1.5 solidi), an aureus (no. 106: Constans), 121: a In and fraction (no. 113:Dalmatius), Constans). the gold the two senior caesars continue DOP 62
[email protected] . Constantines Plans forSuccession as Seen in the Coinage
of thetwoeldestcaesars, The jointand equal superiority
Constantine
6Ns
Canada
no longerdenied and hewas said tohave repented ofhis role inthemurdersand tohaveblamedall the
Appendix
|43
to share their
various twinned obverse and reverse typeswith an overall not exact parity (nos. 65-66,69-71,93-96,105, though Constantius had more solidus 109-12,115-16,119-20). (nos. 70-72), types in 333, the year of his quindecennalia and Constantine II has more types celebrating his vicen
in 336-37 (nos. 116,119-20). Constantine II and a donative are of from the obverses missing Festaureus series inwhich Constans appears (nos. 103-6), nalia
Dalmatius
I) are repre though all four types (two forConstantine sented by only one surviving coin each, so one typewas
II aswell, and probably originally struck forConstantine on the is perhaps forDalmatius. Constantius alone named obverses of two unique medallions minted at the end of 335or very beginning of 336 (nos. 88-89; for the date see nn. 88-89, p. 583), though others naming Constantine
IImaywell havebeenminted.The first(no.88)depictsa
nimbate Constantine
cae I enthroned between two equal
sars(SALVSET SPES REIPVBLICAE, "TheSafetyand Hope of theState"),obviouslyhis eldestsons,while the other contemporary issue (no. 89) depicts him enthroned
amongallfourcaesars(SECVRITAS PERPETVA, "Eter
nal Security"), the outer caesars of equal height, the inner caesars of amuch shorter yet equal height. The medallion
44
R.W. Burgess I
of 333 struck in the name of Constans noted above (no. 67) offers the same reverse legend and shows a standing a I Constantine (a short, sheathed parazonium holding sword cradled in the left arm, a sign of valor) and vexil
lum, flanked by two equal caesars each with a long scepter and shield and a much shorter caesar on his rightwith appears to be a short staff in his right hand. On the reverse of no. 89 (above) it is the outer, taller caesars
what
In all these reverses the each hold a parazonium. two elder caesars is obvious, yet parity of the according to strict one would expect all caesars to be of seniority
who
a
size. Only
the two elder brothers share a
decreasing reverse series of solidi and tremisses with
special
their
father(nos. 107-8,114-20:VICTORIA CONSTAN TINIAVG, VICTORIA CONSTANTINI CAES(AR),
(Dalmatius only once: no. 147). Little specific can there fore be said about the representations of the caesars on these coins.128 At Thessalonica, Constantius slightly surpasses his elder brother in the number of obverse and reverse types at the very end of 335and during 336 (nos. 209-11,215-16,
absentfromthree 219-20A [seep. 718])but is strangely
earlier silver types of 335 that focus on Constantine II one no. for Constantine A I, (nos. 194-96, plus 197). in the name of Constantine nine-solidus medallion I mirrors the nine-solidus medallion
described above from
Constantinople(SALVSET SPES REIPVBLICAE), but tallerandDalmatius (whois depictsConstans as slightly theonlyonewithoutan inverted smaller spear)as slightly than they appear on theConstantinopolitan
medallion,
VICTORIA CONSTANTI [sic] CAESAR).Though yetboth remainsmallerthan the two equal figuresof ismissing from the tremissis series inRIC, a at auction.126 specimen has recently appeared Only the for Dalmatius and the fraction forConstans sesquisolidus
Constantius
notedabovecelebratethe"VIRTVS CAESARVM NN,"
that is, the "Valor of theTwo Caesars," who must be the caesars. two junior At Trier Constantine II and Constantius likewise
dominate thegold and silvertypeswith roughparity (nos. 565-68,570 [Constantius only], 572-74,127 581-84 [Constantius has three obverse variants]), whereas Con stans does not appear on the or 336 gold until late 335 (nos. 575-76; cf. 564-70),
or on the silver (no. 585) until
336-37. At Rome Constans between
ismissing from all issues gold and 333 337 (nos. 340-41, 374-75), namely the
with thereverse VICTORIA NOB CAESS, "Vic type
toryof theTwo Noble Caesars," struck only in the name ofConstantine II (nos. 341,374-75) and Constantius (no. 341). Likewise, only the two eldest caesars are named on
the silverminted 336/37 (nos. 376,378-80). Since Rome was under the jurisdiction ofConstans himself, this lack of representation is puzzling.
Apart froma gold seriesof 334 (nos. 225-28), the
gold and silver of Siscia (nos. 229-34, 242-51, 257-60) are are many types incompletely preserved and there that appear for only one or other of the caesars, though all four do appear on the obverses between 334 and 337 126
Gorny & Mosch Ii October 2004.
Giessener
M?nzhandlung
auction
133 lot 529,
127 lists obverses for only Constantine RIC II and Constans, but a has recently come to auction: Numismatik specimen for Constantius Lanz auction 128 lot 895, 22 May 2006.
the elder caesars (no. 204). At Heraclea, Constantius
has one obverse type in a II has two
reverse serieswhile Constantine single silver (nos. 146,148-49). At Nicomedia medallions
there are two similar nine-solidus
in the names of Constantine
and his eldest
son (the reverse shows that a typewas certainly minted a forConstantius), which depicts nimbate Constantine
enthroned with one caesar to either side and the legend
FELICITAS PERPETVA AVG ET CAESS NN ("Eter
nal good luck for our augustus and our two caesars"; nos. 173-74). This medallion was minted in 335,a year to two
years after theproclamation ofConstans as caesar (for the date, see RIC 7: 627, n. 160); itmirrors the similar con temporary medallion
from Constantinople
noted above
(no. 88,SALVS ET SPES REIPVBLICAE). Therewas also a specialissueof solidiin 335onlyforthetwoeldest brothers with thereverselegend VIRT VS CONSTAN TINI CAES andVIRT VS CONSTANTI CAES (nos. 181-82). There are single specimens of argentei of two different reverse types in the names of Constantine I, 128
In RIC
II is missing from the silver series of 334 is (nos. 129-32) missing from the gold series of 335 (nos. 242-51) and the silver series of 336-37 (nos. 259-60), though the latter marks Constantine IFs vicennalia, so an obverse forConstantius would Constantine
and Constantius
not be an solidus and argenteus in the expected. However, unpublished name of Constantius to the clearly date period 335-36, but parallels for the types appear only at other mints (Antioch no. 97 and Thessalonica
no. 216, no. 146 and no. 127A respectively [Heraclea Constantinople are similar to the latter but have a different reverse (p. 719) legend break]). This implies parallel types at Siscia in the names of the other caesars that have not survived. For these Ars coins, see Numismatica unpublished auction 25 lot 597, 25 June 2003, and H. D. Rauch auction 71
Classica
lot 1063, 28 April
2003.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
and Constantius Dalmatius, (nos. 186A-187) but issues of the same types for the other members of the college no doubt existed. Constantine II and Constans share a reverse type for a semissis and a tremissis (nos. 183-84).
On thegoldfrom Antiochbetween335and 337there
are solidi in the name ofConstantine
II and Constantius
PRINCIPI IVVENTVTIS, "To with thereverse legends andVICTORIA CAESAR NN, theleaderof theyouth," our two caesars" (nos. 94-95,97,102-3), the "Victory of latterofwhich must referto those two caesars even though there is an obverse in the name ofConstans
(no. 104). The latter isprobably amule, as is a solidus with an obverse of II and a reversewith the legend VICTO Constantine
RIA CONSTANTINIAVG obverses of Constantine
(no.101;cf.98-100,allwith
I). As at other mints, Constans
does not appearon thegold or silveruntil 336/37(nos. 104,107). Constantius
ismissing
from two series (nos.
| 45
butwe would expecthim 97 [gold]and 105-7 [silver]), to have
in both, since the reverse of the former appeared to refers him (see above) and Constantine I,Constantine II, and Constans appear in the latter.Similarly,we would in theVICTO II to have expect Constantine appeared
RIA
solidus series (nos. 102-4, above), which has obverses forConstantius and Constans.
In conclusion, while Constantius may not overall make an appearance on quite asmany surviving obverse or reverse types or variants of types as Constantine II,
there can be no question that themints presented the two brothers as of equal rank, second only to Constantine I on both obverses and reverses. The purpose of such
at the expense of the two youngest caesars, promotion, can a result of Constantines intention to only have been have both sons succeed to his position
as
augustus.
Massacre Appendix 2.Hoard EvidencefortheDate of the GLORIA EXERCITVS one-standard AtArles, thefirst reverse and typecarriedthemintmark PCQNST (GE (i)) followed by a smaller issue with the mintmark, were struck in the names of all pcoNST-129These issues
was
fivemembers of the imperial college: Constantine, Con stantine II, Constantius, Constans, and Dalmatius (for not the mint, see of the types, Figs. though examples 20-2,5). In 337 a new mintmark appeared, PConst>^e
firstthatwould be employedon thenew issuesof the the threebrothersas augusti (RIC 8:205) and therefore last of their issues as caesar. These coins were also issued
in the names of all fivemembers of the college. However, are and Dalmatius for Constantine
the coins minted
rare?so rare, in fact, that the only known were found in theWoodeaton hoard, four specimens one forDalmatius,130 and for Constantine indicating that coins for these two emperors were struck inmuch extremely
smaller numbers than those for the three caesars.
the "P" indicates the officina (prima) and is used as 129 a standard form for citation. The other officin?? (Arles had two in total, In mintmarks
Rome had five)used theirown letters(S,T, Q, and ?).
nos. 1314-17, and Dal hoard (see n. 137),Constantine no. 1318 (misnumbered as 1319 in the text, but correctly labeled are so rare that neither appears inRIC 7 on Plate 12). (pp. 278-79) They 130
Woodeaton
matius
and I have found no other reference to further specimens.
DOP 62
The most plausible explanationfor thisdegreeof
and Dalma rarity is that the issues for Constantine or tius ceased, simultaneously nearly so, and almost as soon as the mintmark There were more changed. coins for Constantine because of the originally struck
hierarchyof striking(onwhich, seebelow).After the cessation of the Constantine pcoNST niintmark Constantine
types the reverses for (i) as caesar. and Constans
and Dalmatius
continued with GE
II, Constantius,
There can be littledoubt, then,thatthe PC(j^STnummi
were
produced of Constantine
entirely between the deaths and the first issues of and Dalmatius almost
the brothers as augusti.131 Interestingly, in spite of the short time frame available for it, the PC(^ST serieswas since it outnumbers the PC(^ST issue in hoards, large, itwas not nearly so large as the PC(^ST issue.132 though In Rome we have a similar situation. Through 336 are so dated
131
They
132
For instance,
inRIC
7:278-79
in theWoodeaton
and RIC hoard
8:197.
there are 6 ?
specimens 18^, two X, and 2 O; in the specimens; in the Freston hoard, 1X, and 2 O; in the & and hoard 21 Ihnasyah hoard 5 Appleford 2 in ? in the Bicester hoard and the O; 31 & O; 4 Chorleywood and 6 O
in theHamble hoard 4 and in theMetternich hoard ? is rep resented by all five emperors, O by two, and X by one. For these hoards, see below, n. 137.
and 5O;
46
R.W.Burgess I
and into337all fivemembersof the imperialcollegeare represented by the standard GE
(1)
reverse. This con
tinues with thechangeofmintmarkfromR*P toR^P, thesamemintmarkthatisused forthefirstissuesof the
three brothers as augusti (RIC8:249-50). Consequently, thismintmark indicates their last issues as caesar. The for Constantine (1) reverse ismaintained and Constans,133 though they are very I, Constantius, rare.Almost immediately after themintmark change, the standard GE
GE
(1) reverse forConstantine
Iwas replaced with a new
us to A number ofwestern European hoards allow establish very exactly the of the bronze issues chronology fromTrier.137 The Ollmuth hoard was closed in the early autumn of 337: it contained one coin struck after only
thebrothersbecame augusti,a PIETAS ROMANA for Theodorawith ^ ,thefirst mintmarkusedbythebroth ersas augusti(RIC 8:143).Almost half thehoard,74 out of 155specimens, was minted
inTrier, and the issue largest
bearsthemintmark#TRP#(28of74), thelastmark used
reverse, unique toRome:VIRTVS AVGVSTI (Fig.26,
before the brothers became augusti. The distribution of the obverses of this issue is set out in column O ofTable
forthecaesars thenquickly changes to SECVRITAS REI PVB(licae) (Fig. 5,a specimenstruckat theend of
coin, it contains three #TRP# pieces forHelena and five forTheodora. And in spite of nineteen specimens having in the names of the three brothers as caesar, ithas only
a similar at the end of 337 in the name specimen struck reverse II as of Constantine augustus).134 But theGE (1)
as augustus) for only the nos. 402-4). At the same
337 in the name ofConstantius three brothers as caesar (RICj,
timetheVIRTVS AVGVSTI typeforConstantine I is dropped.The SECVRITAS REI PVB legendisunique in this form on theConstantinian
coinage and thisparticular
typeisunique on thebronze,thougha similarone had beenused earlieratTrierbetween317and 336chiefly for solidi.135There are no coins in the name ofDalmatius
for
thismintmark,thoughhewas a partof theearlier GE (1) issues,down toR*P. As was the case with the PC(^ST issue
ofAries, therecan be no doubt thattheSECVRITAS
typewas issued during the interregnum after Constantine and Dalmatius's deaths.136 REI
PVB
The pattern atAries and Rome
and Dalmatius
dis
appear at about the same time. At both mints, coins produced forConstantine II, Constantius, and Constans
as caesar continue after the cessation of those produced forConstantine and Dalmatius, and they occur in large numbers atAries.
7 lists only the first two (nos. 400-401). Specimens struck in the name of Constans appear in the Ihnasyah hoard. There certainly must have been an issue forConstantine II as well. 133
134
RIC
RIC'7,
no. 405, known from a unique
specimen. AlthoughLRBC
records VIRTVS AVGVSTI with theR*Pmintmark(P.V.Hill andJ.P. A.D. $2 4-4g S. Parti: The Bronze C. Kent, Late Roman Bronze Coinage, A.D. 324 -34 6 [London, 1978], 15,no. the Coinageof Houseoj"Constantine, 566), the editor 0?RIC7, Patrick Bruun, was unable to verify its existence n. 391).As a result I do not take account of ithere. (pp. 295 and 344
ent (see RIC 136
They
211, and 221. The
same on legend appeared 324 and 329, but the typewas differ 7:750 for a list of themany issues and mints).
RIC 7:178,185-86, 135 bronze reverses forHelena
are so dated
between
inRIC
7:294-95
one forDalmatius
and RIC
8:234.
and none forConstantine.
More thanhalf of the Weeze hoard ismade up of
issues from Trier (668 out of 1,198). Itwas closed a little earlier than theOllmuth hoard, during the interregnum, since ithas no issues of the threebrothers as augusti, and of the 668 coins fromTrier, 217 have the #TRP? mintmark, the last to appear under the three caesars. The distribution
among the emperors is listed inTable 1,columnW. As in are many coins for theOllmuth hoard, although there as sons are the caesar, there very few forConstantine and Dalmatius.
On
the other hand, the number ofHelena specimens is extremely large.
and Theodora
The publicationof theCranfieldhoard isnot very
is clear: all fivemem
bersof the imperialcollegewere originallyrepresented on the nummi. Then Constantine
. Althoughhavingonlyone certainpost-9 September
137
The hoards
to be discussed
Zeitschriftf?r Geschichte und Kunst
are as follows: Ollmuth, Westdeutsche j (1888): 123-24; Weeze, Westdeutsche
undKunst j (1888):124-29;Chorleywood,in Zeitschrift f?r Geschichte Carson
. 107 ( above), 4 _98; Ham NC 6, vol. 6 (1946): 159-62; Woodeaton, ser. 7, vol. 12 (1972): 145-57; Appleford,
and Burnett, Recent Coin Hoards
ble, in ibid.; Cranfield,iVCser. 138 (1978): 38-65; Freston, NC RBN123 JIAN16
(1977): 41-100;
Bruckneudorf,NZ89
(1914): 1-27; Metternich,
shireArchaeologicalJournal Hoards from Roman Britain,
i?/145 (1940):
(1974):
5-17; Ihnasyah, York
80-125; Halifax,
and Bicester, Coin 23 (1914-15): 444-51; vol. 2, ed. A. M. Burnett, British Museum
are all the Paper 31 (London, 1981). These contemporary and are in the literature. The well hoards that near-contemporary reported
Occasional
Bishop's Wood out because
hoard
(NC
ser. 3, vol. 16 [1896]: 209-37)
the mintmarks
are
nas been
left
recorded and include
poorly and^types (such as xrs for 19 of the 30 issues forDalmatius); and Burnett (above), 45. The breakdown of the hoard isvery
incorrect mintmarks see Carson
aswell. it contains 2,455 peculiar specimens forConstantine, Although II as caesar, and 2,197 forConstantius as caesar, it 3,679 forConstantine contains none at all forConstans has 4 forConstantine
as caesar. For the brothers as augusti it and 450 forConstans. And
II, 4 forConstantius,
in spite of itsmany eTRP# I,Constantine II, specimens forConstantine it apparently has no eTRPe specimens forDalmatius, and Constantius, or Theodora, even Helena, though it contains 312 specimens forHelena and 271 for Theodora.
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
detailed, but there are no coins of the three brothers as so itmust have been closed about the same time augusti, as theWeeze hoard. Of 1,700 coins, 517were minted in Trier. There are no coins in the names ofConstantine or Dalmatius,
though
: Table Distribution of ? threehoards of late 337
? issues in
owe no.
there are six for the sons as caesar. The
GE (1)andHelena andTheodora types(nomintmarks aregiven,thoughforthe latterallmust be #TRP#)are
no.
%
%
no.
%
CI 0.0
17
7.8
0
0.0
11CU 39.3
74
34.1
2
12.5
Cs 25.0
36
16.6
3
18.8
1 Cn 3.6
15
6.9
1
6.2
1
3.6
3
1.4
0
0.0
ofmintmark and at almost the same time; second, mint
3
10.7
40
18.4
6
37.5
ingof theHelena and Theodora typesbeganwith the
5
17.9
32
14.8
4
25.0
listed inTable
0
1,column C, below.
7
These three hoardsshowbeyonda doubta numberof
in the name of Constan important facts. First,minting soon after the tine and Dalmatius change stopped very
TRP# mintmark while Constantine
D
II, Constantius,
and Constans
were still caesars; and third, theHelena
and Theodora
were types produced
in
large
numbers:
in
O: Ollmuth; W: Weeze;
C: Cranfield
CI: Constantine; CII: Constantine
II; Cs: Constantius; Cn: Constans;
theOllmuth hoard theyaccountforalmost30percentof
D: Dalmatius; H: Helena; T: Theodora
ratios continued beyond the summer of large can from the frequency notations be verified 337 and
to 337. Unfortunately these coins? produced from 335 with themintmarks TRP, TRP*, and^/TRP?rarely
the surviving specimens, in theWeeze exactly 33percent, and in the Cranfield over 60 percent.138 These
recorded inRIC 8 (pp. 143-44). Both Helena and
Theodora
types were
struck with
|47
each of the next six
from Trier that include types forConstan tine II from autumn 337 to early 340. In five of these six emissions, each Helena and Theodora type outnumbers every other obverse type, sometimes quite significantly,
mintmarks
occur in the hoards under examination here, respectively two marks are so only 65, 2, and 5 specimens (the latter not even appear inRIC 7). rare that Comparable they do ratios based on the output from other mints are of value in a
in #TRP# issues, although evaluating the general way it should be pointed out that exact comparisons cannot
exceptforTRPj#,where theyare equaled byone type
bemade. InTable 4 below I have includedGE (1) issues
of thistableisthefactthatthenumbersforConstantine
hoards and from eastern and western
are so low.This can be confirmed from other contempo 2 and 3. raryhoards as well, as can be seen inTables
contemporary hoards in bothWest Examination of the data makes it clear that there was a hierarchy of Ils coins with Constantine striking, issues fromwestern mints, except Aries. dominating the in the East, aswould be Constantine clearly dominates all and Dalmatius Constans, expected. Constantius, have roughly the same proportion of coins in all col issues in and Constans's umns, except forConstantius
and outnumbered by another. Let us return toTable 1.A second interesting feature
The extremely low number of coins forConstantine I and Dalmatius observed in Table 1 is confirmed by
these additional seven hoards. This pattern was also noted above in the context of their representation among the lastmintmarks from Aries and Rome in 337. The best to way to evaluate the significance of these numbers is to emissions of those earlier of these the output compare
Trier issuesforall fivemembersof the imperialcollege 138
It shouldbe noted thatin spiteof theearlypublicationdatesfor
include the earlier eTRP* typeswith the later coinage? since there is at present no way to distinguish them?thus skewing the survival figures for those later issues (RIC 8, nos. 63 and 65).
hoards and RIC
DOP 62
inGaul (LugdunumandAries) found incontemporary issues from large and East.
Lugdunum (lower)andDalmatius's inAries (higher).139
Constantine
II dominates
in theWest
because
of his
as senior caesar and senior emperor in the West. position
In theEast he isonlyslightly aheadofConstantius,who
no
LRBC (n. 134 including RIC 7 and catalogue, Theodora before Helena and lists these 9 types above), September 337. Since the eTRP# mintmark was reused in 338/39, all publications of later these three hoards
for all five emperors from well-represented mintmarks
to be anomalous, but there are many possibilities 139 Lyons appears to account for it,not least incomplete data. The frequency figures o? RIC 7 mirror my totals (nos. 285-88; cf. also 271-72), but are of little value since it is clear that few hoards were consulted %(PLG
issues forConstantine
from five hoards
I can cite 26 GE (1) (e.g., inTable 4, yetRIC 7 cites
48
R.W. Burgess
Table 2: ? seven
?GE (i) pre-9 September 337 issuesfrom and later hoards.
contemporary
4
123 5
6
7
total
CI
0
17
9
4
12
5
49
6.6
CU
11
74
84
51
72
55
354
48.0
12
52
52
224
30.4
Cs
7
36
61
Cn
1
15
27
7
29
15
95
12.9
D
1
3
3
2
4
3
16
2.2
: Ollmuth;
: Weeze;
3:Chorleywood;
4: Hamble;
5: Woodeaton;
6: Freston; 7: Appleford
Table 3:TRP and *TRP* GE (i)1 Hal
Men
CI
1
cu
8
7.1
20
31
40.5
Cs
12
27
31.0
Cn
6
18
19.0
D
0
3
2.4
Hal: Halifax; Mett: Metternich; %: percent of total
isonly slightlyahead ofConstans (2.6percentand 1.9
and Constans have percent respectively). Constantius coins each fewer because of their lower progressively seniority, averaging 19 and 15percent respectively overall, ifwe discount the unusually low survival rate of coins
from Lyons in column 1.Since Dalmatius was
fewer than two years afterConstans II and Constantius, Constantine Constantius
proclaimed
(seven years separate and eleven separate
and Constans),
his representation in these issues should be about the same as Con theoretically a
no. 2.85; of the hoards cited here single specimen in the BM: only Appleford appears in theRIC bibliography, p. xxv). The same can be said are anomalous for theAries in addition in figures, but they comparison only
with thefiguresgiveninRIC y (nos.394-99),but againRIC is lacking thehoarddata (againonlyAppleford). 140
These hoards
are
from Table
2 because
are not
segregated they distinguished bymintmark in the original publications. Thus the totals contain at least some non-#TRP#, issues, except for CII and Cn in the Metternich hoard, which do not. As will be explained below, however, the pre- #TRP# GE (1) issues are not voluminous not distort the percentages excessively.
and, as can be seen, do
stans s in number, but that isnot the case. Aries seems to be anomalous
in this context, because were
show that the coins ofDalmatius
the other groups
normally present in amounts between 6 and 8 percent (average 6.7 percent), which is about half of the percentages forConstans. This
higherfigureforDalmatius atAries in the PC(^ST issue highlightsjusthow remarkablethedrop too percentin the succeeding
PC(^ST
issue is (see above).
The differences betweenTable 4 (mostly pre-22May 2 337)andTable (mostly post-22May 337)arequite strik of striking noted above is stillvisible ing.The hierarchy inTable
2 but
percentages forConstantine have dropped over one quarter of his usual just average output in to the earlier period and Dalmatius one third. just under
to
This confirms the conclusion, stated above, that minting at almost the same time for both Constantine stopped
very soon after Trier switched to the mintmark, while coins in the name of the three
and Dalmatius, TRP?
caesars and Helena
and Theodora were struck
the interregnum, the latter in large numbers.
throughout
DOP 62
The Summer of Blood
Table 4: Distribution of obverse typeswith pre-9 Sept. 337GE (1) reverses %
%
no.
%
CI
26
21.9
25
26.9
61
25.0
74
25.2
308
CU
72
60.5
20
21.5
83
31.0
102
34.7
143
19.5
Cs
7
5.9
17
18.3
50
20.5
60
20.4
124
16.9
Cn
4
3.4
15
16.1
35
14.3
41
14.0
110
15.0
10
8.4
16
17.2
15
6.2
5.8
47
6.4
D
119
Totals
.#PLG (Lugdunum)
244
93
17 294
42.1
732
(Woodeaton, Freston, Chorleywood, Appleford, Weeze)
2? PCONST
(Arles) (Woodeaton, Freston, Chorleywood, Hamble, Appleford, Bruckneudorf, Ihnasyah, Bicester) 3.Metternich hoard, western issues 4. Metternich hoard, all issues, including uncertain mints 5. Ihnasyah hoard, eastern issues, including Siscia
on Appendix 3.The Speed ofTravel Foot andHorseback were to cover the distance Ordinary Romans expected between twomansiones in one day on foot. In general this works out to between sixteen and twenty-fivemiles per an average of around twenty, a day,which suggests figure that is explicitly stated in a number of sources,141 though the actual distance between mansiones ably depending
varied consider
on the terrain and local conditions.142
Couriers fortheimperial post carrying dispatchesalong the cursus publicus on horseback are generally thought or between to have been able to travel about fiftymiles, to two and threemansiones per and up day, eightymiles
2.11.1 as well as See, for example, Gaius's prescription inDigesta , 38.15.2.3, and 50.16.3, and Vegetius's statement that an army should be able to cover twenty miles in five hours at a regular pace and twenty fourmiles at a quick step (1.9). This isduring the summer, when an hour 141
. .
to over seventy-six minutes. However, thirty thirty-fivemiles just per day seems not to have been unusual for the army in the Republic. For this, see in particular theworks cited in the next note. The Roman
per day in Italy,where the roads were much better than in the rest of the empire.143
A numberofclosegroupings of lawsissuedbyDiocle
tian in 290,293, and 294, and by Constantine in 318,320, and 326make it clear thatDiocletian normally traveled either one or two mansiones
per day, sometimes three, cover and could easily twenty to thirtymiles in a day, ifnot more, and that Constantine could likewise easily cover over miles with his comitatus.1*4 per day thirty accounts of the trip of Theo Papyrus records and
an phanes, imperial officialwho traveled from Pelusium in Egypt toAntioch and back using the cursuspublicus
317 and 323, show that ordinary people could cover the same distance as the emperors with their easily comitatus, since Theophanes averaged between thirty
between
was
mile was
1480 meters or 1618.5 yards.
of Italy, Britain, Gaul, Spain, and Asia, see and Cultural Change ofRoman Italy: Mobility (London, 1999), 88-92, and idem, "The Creation ofGeography: An Inter inAdams and Laurence, Travel and pretation of Roman Britain," Geog in above), 81-87. (n. raphy 142
For the mansiones
R. Laurence,
DOP 62
The Roads
. 15 Ramsay, "The Speed of the Roman Imperial Vosu'JRS for the Speed of the (1925): 63, 68-69; C. W. J. Eliot, "New Evidence L. Casson, Travel in Roman Imperial Post," Phoenix 9 (1955): 76-80; O. theAncient World 188; Perler, Les Voyages 1994 [1974]), (Baltimore, 143
A.
(Paris, 1969), 31;R. Chevallier, 81-82. ley, 1976), 191-95 and Laurence, Roads,
de saint Augustin 144
The dates and locations
Barnes, New Empire
Roman
Roads
of these laws can be seen most
(n. 3 above),
51-54, 74, 77.
(Berke
easily
in
50 IR.W. Burgess
and fortymiles, one and two mansiones,
per day dur
ingtwo tripsof eighteendaysout and sixteendaysback
mansiones. On his longer outward covering twenty-six over four one mansio per in days day journey he covered over over ten nine six mansiones the desert, then days,
thenext eight,and thenthreeon the lastday,when he
covered sixty-fourmiles intoAntioch, no doubt leaving return journey he early and arriving late.On his shorter one per over ten covered twomansiones per day days and
miles and 84 mansiones
fromNicomedia,
depending
on
the routetaken (theroutethroughtheAlps is shorter
but involves more mansiones-,
see
4 route 4 Appendix II knew that Constantine
and themap), and we know about his fathers death and was
already acting upon it on 17 June, twenty-six days later (Athanasius, Apol. c.Ar. 87 and Hist. Ar. 8). Ifwe assume that news was
day
on immediately the afternoon of the twenty-second ofMay and that he received the news the day before his letter forAthanasius
covered up to 150miles a day.146On 29 June 431, Theo to dosius II sent a letter from Constantinople Cyril of
the death of his father, but let that pass hearing about it for the sake of been necessary argument), would have for the news to have traveled to him at about sixty-nine
over six days.145 In addition, in special and emergency circumstances are known to have messengers and other individuals
sent toConstantine
II fromNicomedia
(whichwould hardlybe thefirstitemof businessafter
Alexandria inEphesus, andCyrilwas able to replyto it
miles
so Theodosius's messenger, Palladius, must have covered 160miles and nine mansiones per day,with, approximately no doubt, little time for rest. This seems excessive, but Palladius's speed was so remarkable and sowell known that Socrates devoted an entire paragraph to him in his
was a gap of a numberofdaysbefore death and ifthere
were 28 July.147There approximately 478 miles and mansiones between Constantinople and Ephesus, and on
giveus an absoluteupper history(HE 7.19).Thesefigures limit for emergency travel. These data can be compared with the time taken for the news of Constantines
death to reach Trier, when but not Tiberius or Palladius sbreak
was important speed neck speed. From the itineraries we can calculate that Trier was between 1,785miles and 89mansiones and 1,831
per day, twice Theophanes' rate. This messenger would have to have traveled faster ifnews was not sent immediately after Constantines and three mansiones
Constantine would
II could write the letter forAthanasius,
as
in fact be reasonable. Under
these circumstances, a time of, say, twenty days and an which allow traveling arrival on 11June, amessenger between Nicomedia and Trier would
have covered between 86 and 113miles and
aboutfivemansionesperday (withfivedaysof fourand
one of three: the distance varies considerably between this stretch of road). As a result, five along mansiones per day seems a reasonable rate of progress for emergency travel in the summer of 337.
mansiones
GreekandLatinPapyriintheJohn 145 Catalogueofthe RylandsLibrary Manchester
4, ed. C. H. Roberts
and E. G. Turner
(Manchester, 1952), and Turner (above), 106-7 The Journey and Casson, Travel(n. 143 above), 190-93. J.Matthews, of in the Roman East (New and Business, Travel, Daily Theophanes: Life Haven, 2006) provides complete translations of and commentaries on nos. 627-28
and 630-38.
these fascinating
See also Roberts
and valuable
documents.
146
Ramsay, "Speed," 62-65, 67; Casson, Travel, 188; and Laurence, 81. The most famous isTiberius, who in 9 c E was able example to travel 182miles from Ticinum to the bedside of his dying brother, Drusus, at his camp on the Elbe within twenty-four hours (Pliny,Nat Roads,
ural History
7.84). = E. Vat. Schwartz, Acta 83-84 Frag. 1.1.3 (Berlin, 1927), 10.
147
conciliorum oecumenicorum
DOP62
The Summer of Blood
| 51
Appendix 4. RoutesAcross theEmpire map number in Atlas. Figure(s) inbracketsindicates
Cities cited in italics are themain departure and arrival cities discussed in the text above,
. Nicomedia (52),Nicaea (52), Ancyra (86),Archelais Tarsus (63),Tyana (66), (66), Issus (67),Antiochia (67). 2. Antiochia (67), Issus (67),Tarsus (66),Tyana (66), Archelais (63),Ancyra (86),Nicaea (52),Nicomedia (52),Constantinopolis(52). 3. Nicomedia (52),Constantinopolis (52),Heraclea ( $2), Hadrianopolis (51),Philippopolis(22),Serdica (21), Naissus (21),Viminacium(21),Sirmium(21),Cibalae (20/21), Mursa
(20/21), Poetovio
(20), Virunum
(20), Mestrianae
(20), Savaria (20), Scarbantia
(20), Iuvavum (19) (or)Mursa (20/21),Sopianae (20),
Vindobona (13),Ovilava (12), Iuvavum(19),Pons Aeni (19),Bratananium (19),Cambodunum (19), Brigantium (19),Vindonissa (18),C?mbete (18), Argentovaria 4.
(18/11),Argentorate Trever orum (11).
(11),Augusta Treverorum
Augusta
(
(11),Divodurum
),Divodurum
(11),Argen
torate (11),Argentovaria (18/11),C?mbete (18),
DOP 62
Vindonissa (i8), Brigantium (19),Cambodunum (19), Bratananium
(19). Pons Aeni
(19), Iuvavum
, (19)Virunum (20), Poetovio (20),Mursa (20/21), (or) Iuvavum (19),Ovilava (12),Vindobona (13),
Scarbantia (20), Savaria (20),Mestrianae
(20), Sopia
nae (20),Mursa (20/21),Cibalae (20/21),Sirmium (21),Viminacium (21),Naissus (21), Serdica (21), Heraclea ($2), Philippopolis(22),Hadrianopolis (51), Nicomedia (52),Nicaea (52), Constantinopolis(52), Ancyra (86),Archelais (63),Tyana (66),Tarsus (66), Issus (67),Antiochia (67), Laodicea (68),Tripolis (68), Berytus (69), Caesarea (69), Pelusium (70), Andronpolis (74).Alexandria (74). Cremona (39),Bedriacum(39), 5. Mediolanum (19/39), Verona (19/39),Iulia. Concordia (19/40), (or)Roma (44), Fanum Fortun?? (42),Ariminum (40/42), Ravenna (40), Spina (40),Hatria (40), IuliaCon cordia (19/40),Aquileia (19),Emona (20), Siscia (20) ,Cibalae (20/21),Sirmium (21).
THE CULT OF FASHION The Earliest MarianRelics Life oftheVirginandConstantinople's STEPHEN J.SHOEMAKER
Among
the
most
celebrated
features of the
L\ Byzantine cult of theVirgin are thevarious JL JL clothingrelicsbelieved to link theTheotokos especially with the imperial capital, Constantinople. Yet as central as these relics and their shrines were to across the centuries, their Byzantine piety early history remains rather poorly understood. In the earlymedieval sources as well as inmodern is fre scholarship, there
quent disagreement and confusion regarding the nature of Constantinople's Marian relics and their respective shrines.Marys garment at Blachernai isperhaps the best
documented, but her "girdle" atChalkoprateia and other to have come into themix items of clothing also appear on. Nevertheless, to themiddle prior early Byzantine
period, itisoftendifficulttoascertainjustwhat isbeing venerated where. Sources for the early history of these rel
ics and their shrines are often contradictory and difficult to date, frequently projecting traditions and practices
from a later time onto an earlier period. Fortunately, a new, ifoften overlooked, source has come to recently can numerous aspects ofMarian piety clarify light that in veneration of the Mary's early Byzantium, including in late ancient Constantinople. clothing two decades ago,Michel van Esbroeck Approximately
published theearliestextantLife oftheVirgin,a long overlooked text ascribed toMaximus
theConfessor
that
survives only in the Georgian language.1 In the introduc tion to his edition, van Esbroeck presents several credible arguments for the accuracy of this attribution toMaxi
mus, but unfortunately he isnot able to resolve the issue some uncertainty lingers regarding the decisively.While
so far of theLife oftheVirgins attribution, authenticity like to thank Alice-Mary Talbot and two anonymous readers Oaks Papers, whose suggestions greatly improved this for sharing his unpublished work article. I also thank Dirk Krausm?ller Iwould
only
a
single article has challenged Maximuss
andmany specialistson his ship(rather unsuccessfully), thought
seem at least provisionally
to have
accepted the
of Life oftheVirginas aworkofMaximus.2And regardless theLife'sauthorship, itiswidelyrecognizedas theearliest extantbiographyof theVirgin and isalmostcertainlya
work of the seventh century, as several of van Esbroecks arguments indicate and as I have further clarified in a pair
sources and of articles on this text.3Analysis of the Life's on its considerable influence litera subsequent Marian
ture locates its production sometime within the seventh most in or around century, likely Constantinople. to van Esbroeck, some of themost com According to be found in pelling evidence for this provenance is the of traditions concerning Marys clothing assemblage 2
le E.g., J.-C. Larchet, La divinisation de l'homme selon saintMaxime fidei idem,Maximele 194 (Paris, 1996); Confesseur, Cogitado Confesseur, m?diateur entre l'Orient et l'Occident, Cogitado fidei 208 (Paris, 1998); A. Nichols, Byzantine Gospel: Maximus in the Scho Confessor Modem
larship(Edinburgh,1993).The onlypublishedchallengetoMaximuss
authorship di Massimo
comes from E. M. Toniolo, ilConfessore,"
"LAkathistos
nella Vita di Maria
in
di studi in Virgo Liber Dei: Miscellanea onore di P. I. M. M. O.S.M.,e?. Besutti, (Rome, 1991), Giuseppe Calabuig 209-28. Yet, as I have explained in an earlier article, Toniolo's arguments
are not persuasive: S. J. Shoemaker, "The Georgian Life of the Virgin toMaximus Its Authenticity? Attributed the Confessor: and Impor
van Esbroeck, S.J., ed. A. Muraviev and 2 (St. Petersburg, 2006), 307-28. The possibility of authorship would also comport with Claudia Rapp's observa
M?morial tance," in B. Louri?, Maximus's
R.P. Michel
Scrinium
tion that the seventh century saw a number of influential Church leaders turn to composition of hagiography: C. Rapp, "Byzantine Hagiographers as Seventh to Tenth Centuries," ByzFn (1995): 35. Antiquarians, Van Esbroeck,
S. J. Shoe le Confesseur, 2:VI-XXXII; ed.,Maxime "The Virgin Mary in theMinistry of Jesus and the Early Church HTR 98, no. 4 (2005): 441-67; accordingto the Earliest Life of theVirgin," See S. C. "Les Vies de Life of the also Mimouni, idem, "Georgian Virgin."
3
maker,
la Vierge: Etat de la question," Apocrypha van Esbroeck, "Some Earlier Features
5 (1994): 211-48, esp. 216-20; in the Life of the Virgin," Mar n. 2;M. Geerard et al., Clavis
forDumbarton
M.
on the church and relics of Chalkoprateia.
ianum 63 (2001): 297-308, esp. 297-98, Patrum Graecorum: Supplementum, Corpus Christianorum 1998), 440, #7712; M. Geerard, Clavis apocryphorum Novi
1
M.
CSCO
DOP 62
van Esbroeck, 478-79,
ed.,Maxime
Scriptores
le Confesseur: Vie de la Vierge,
Iberici 21-22
(Louvain,
1986).
vols.,
author
Corpus
Christianorum
(Turnhout,
1992), 71, #90.
(Turnhout, Testamenti,
54 IStephen J. Shoemaker
s the these Life narrative, although traditions regrettably cannot resolve the question of its as as he has decisively proposed. Neverthe authorship less, theLife s relic traditions not only offer important confirmation of itscomposition in seventh-century Con relics that conclude
some of the earliest information stantinople but also bear Marian relics. This coda to the about Constantinople's
which followsimmediately afterthe Virgins biography,
to each of these relic traditions, itwill perhaps be helpful to present a more detailed summary of the
witnesses
eachof the Thereafter, Life oftheVirginsrelictraditions. threemajor
relic traditions will be investigated in turn,
comparingtheevidenceafforded by theLife oftheVirgin
with other early sources in order to clarify the early his relics. tory of Constantinople's Marian
account of her Dormition,
is particularly remarkable for some notable "firsts." It is the first document achieving to the various early traditions ofMary s gather together relics, and moreover it is the first source to combine the
traditions ofMarys relicswith the Constantinopolitan narratives of her Dormition that had already been circu in theRoman provinces for several centuries. In this lating section, theLife of theVirgin successively considers each of the threemain Marian
relic traditions?i.e.,
her funeral
garments, her "robe," and her girdle?while eschewing their disparate accounts; the any effort to harmonize thusmimics the relative disorder we encounter in Life other early sources. At present, however, it is somewhat difficult to assess new witness, inasmuch as fully the significance of this the precise nature of theseMarian
relics and their early in the ancient history remain somewhat confused both sources and inmodern Martin scholarship. Jugie's early work in this area is,aswill be seen,highly problematic, and
AntoineWenger s study, while quite solid,islimitedtothe Blachernai
traditions and receives further illumination
from this new text.4 Therefore, in order to understand
we must of theLife oftheVirgin, fullytherelictraditions
first sift through the often conflicted testimonies about
in an effort to identify a new status clothing relics, quaestionis for each of the three relic traditions. Among
Mary's
other things,not only are the earliest sources often difficult to date, but they offer varied and vague descriptions of
theVirgin's relics, a vexing problem that only compounds other difficulties in determining when and where their
veneration had become established. Unfortunately, such more difficult to answer than one questions prove far
like, and surely therewas a great deal more to the our limited sources early veneration of these relics than
would
will reveal.Nevertheless, before siftingthrough the earliest The primary contributions of both are to be found inM. Jugie, La mort et Sainte de la ?tude ST historico-doctrinale, l'assomption Vierge, del? T.S. Vierge 114 (Vatican City, 1944); and A. Wenger,L'Assomption dans la tradition byzantine du Vie au Xe si?cle: ?tudes etdocuments, AOC 4
5 (Paris, 1955).
The RelicTraditionsof theEarliest
Virgin Lifeofthe TheMaximusZ//?oftheVirgin5isa virtualcompendium of late ancient traditions aboutMary: itchronicles the full span of her life, from her miraculous conception to her
world at theDormition,fillinginthe departurefromthis James and theDor gapsbetweentheProtevangeliumof traditions with an intriguing narrative ofMary's central role in the leadership of her son'sministry and the
mition
nascent Church.6 Before to its conclusion, how coming ever, this earliestMarian biography completes itsnarrative with an extraordinary collection of relic traditions, the first of itskind, itwould
appear. Immediately after relat
ingtheVirgin'sDormition, theLife oftheVirginturnsto
the various traditions about Mary's these clothing relics; a to narrative traditions bring the close, and then follow a
hymnto theVirgin looselybased on theAkathist,a col
lection of theological reflections on theDormition and a final on the and Assumption, hymn Assumption. The Life's assemblage of relic traditions, standing as an to her arises appendix something of biography, almost seamlessly from the story of her Dormition a a common through the device of late-arriving apostle, feature of certain earlyDormition traditions. This ear liestMarian
biography
narrates the end of Mary's
life
and originalsynthesis of thetwo throughan intriguing
main
and literary traditions of theVirgin's Dormition the so-called "Palm" and "Bethlehem" Assumption, traditions, named
for certain unique
5
I use here and elsewhere
6
For more on this feature, see Shoemaker,
features of their
in this paper the designation "theMaximus the without claims about the Life's author any Life of Virgin" making as shorthand for "the to ship, but instead Life of the Virgin attributed Maximus the Confessor." "Virgin Mary
in theMin
istry of Jesus."
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
comes to a close, this section of the Life the apostles, afterplacing Mary's body in the tomb,wait outside for three days, in accordance with the earliest
narratives.7 As
narratives from the Palm
Dormition
tradition.8 Yet at
thispoint theLife abruptlyshiftssources,abandoning theDormition apocryphafromthePalm andBethlehem
its sources up to this point. Sud we learn that one denly, without any advance warning, was the of "providentially" delayed and unable apostles to attend Mary's funeral with his colleagues. Here the traditions that were
accounts from turns to the various "late-apostle" Life to itsnarration of the earlyDormition complete legends from this also life, thereby Mary's departure introducing relic traditions. the first of itsMarian
According to theLife, one of the apostles,who arrives in Jerusalem
is unnamed,
initially
three days
after Mary's burial.Ardentlywishing topay his final
respects to the departed Virgin's body, he entreats the other apostles to open the tomb so that he might vener to their collective surprise,when
ate her remains. Much
theapostlesopen the tomb theyfind itempty: Mary's
taken body has disappeared, having been miraculously son some to ithas unknown where her away by place, been reunited with her soul. Such specific indication of in the other late-apostle lacking narratives, which leave her ultimate fate an
resurrection is
Mary's Dormition
unresolved mystery; in itsattention to this detail, theLife harmonizes theVirgin's dramatic resurrection from the Palm and Bethlehem Dormition
narrativeswith themore
accounts found in the late-apostle traditions. Yet excepting only this notice of her resurrection, the
minimalist
Life hereabandonsthePalm andBethlehemapocrypha and continues to relate theVirgin's death and her body's to the late-apostle tradition, disappearance according to shift the focus to her relics.After in order undoubtedly
all,when theapostlesreopenthetombtheydo notfindit were the funeral wrappings completely bare: leftbehind a a)9 and shroud a for (1)06*3333^60?probably
traditions and information on the various earlyDormition the nature of these literary traditions, see S. J. Shoemaker, Ancient Tra
7
For more
the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption, ditions of Christian Studies (Oxford, 2002), 25-71.
Oxford
Early
The following is a summary ofMaximus the Confessor, Life of the 116- 8 (van Esbroeck, t?i.,Maxime le Confesseur, 149-52 [Geor] Virgin and 101-3 [Fr]). The page numbers refer respectively to the Georgian text
) that they had used to prepare Mary's body for burial.10 At this point theLife s narrator intrudes to explain that he has also heard that this late apostle was in fact Thomas, and his delay in arriving from India was provi so that he could make evenmore cred dentially designed (?ocyxn??for
ible themiraculous transfer ofMary's body fromthis
into the next, just as earlier he had removed all doubts about her son's resurrection. The author gradually
world
redirects attention away from theVirgin sdeath itselfand
to theholywrappings (bob^gsae^Bo / a a a) that she leftbehind, explainingthatafterherpassing from
as sanctify the earth she herself had in her life and burial.11 Then, after con are manifest ceding thatMary's blessings and miracles to her relics, not limited only throughout theworld, and thisworld
these relics continue
to
theLife turnsto therelicofMary's "garment" (U?8cnboc?o or a an account itcame of how / ),offering to reside in the imperial capital.12
The famous taleofGalbios andKandidos, a fifth
century legend explaining the transfer of these relics to follows immediately. The story begins Constantinople,
Galbios andKandidos, twobrothers from by introducing an influential Roman
as familywho had served generals and had recently converted from Arianism during the a to reign of Leo I. The brothers undertake pilgrimage
theHoly Land, beginninginGalilee,where one night
a to stay. they suddenly find themselves without place an the of Divine Providence, elderly Through workings
Jewishvirgininvitesthemto lodgewithherforthenight.
While
an interior room of her eating dinner, they notice
housefilledwith incenseand a crowdofpeople suffering from a variety of illnesses.Hoping to learn the purpose of this strange room, Galbios and Kandidos persuade their
hostess to dine with them. Eventually, they ask her about the room, and although she is reluctant to answer, they press her for an explanation. After swearing the brothers to secrecy, she reveals that the room contains one of the
to one Virgin's garments, which Mary herself had given of thewoman's relatives shortly before her Dormition. The garment, she explains, had been placed in a small
8
van Esbroeck's (Geor) and 9
The same word
French translation
(Fr).
isused for the Virgin's funeral wrappings
in Ps.-Basil of
71 and 87 (M. van Esbroeck, "L'Assomption de AB 92 [1974]: 155,161). laVierge dans un Transitus Pseudo-Basilien,"
Caesarea,
DOP 62
TransitusMariae
| 55
10
Maximus
the Confessor,
150[Geor]and 102 [Fr]). 11
Maximus
the Confessor,
152[Geor]and 103[Fr]). 12
Maximus
the Confessor,
152[Geor]and 103[Fr]).
the
Virgin
117 (van Esbroeck,
ed.,
Life of the Virgin
118 (van Esbroeck,
ed.,
Life of the Virgin
119 (van Esbroeck,
ed.,
Life of
56 IStephen J. Shoemaker
within her familyand cofferand passed down secretly
was
the source ofmany miracles. Amazed at their discovery, the formerRoman
gener als hatch a plan to steal theVirgin s garment and carry it back toConstantinople with them. They request permis trea in the room sion to spend the housing this night sure,which itsunwary owner freely grants. The brothers share the room with
healing
themany sick seeking miraculous from the coffer, and after the last person falls
into action, carefully measuring the asleep, they spring note of its In the design. garment's coffer and taking on toward Jerusalem to continue morning they complete woman to return their the old pilgrimage, promising
on their way home and offeringtobringback anything that shemight need. Once in Jerusalem, they employ an artisan tomake an exact copy of the garment's coffer, and after spending several days inJerusalem, they collect
their replica and begin the journey home. Stopping once more to visit this rather hospitable woman, they again in the presence of ask to spend the Mary's sacred night garment. Then, when everyone else is asleep, they switch their counterfeit coffer for the one containing the gar ment, and in themorning after thanking their hostess
andwishing herwell, theysetoffforConstantinople with thestolenrelicinhand.Once back in theimperial to capital, they decide keep the relic for themselves and a church on their estate in Blachernai to secretly build
house it.Before long, however, theVirgin Mary inspires these two devout thieves to reveal the existence of her
relic. Galbios andKandidos thendisclose theirpersonal
treasure to the emperor Leo, who with his wife Verina in honor of builds a magnificent church at Blachernai
theVirgin and her garment,thusbringingthe legend
to a close.
Immediately
after its account
of the Galbios
and
Kandidos legend,theLife oftheVirgin completes its description ofMary's
relicswith a short and somewhat
or "belt"(b?fy^yoe^0 mentionofher "girdle" perplexing / ),housed at thechurchofChalkoprateia inCon stantinople. Of the threemajor relic traditions presented
in theLife, thisone is themost peculiar, both for its ratherabruptand briefappearance in theLife aswell
as for themystery enshrouding
the relic's early history
in the imperialcapital. Without anypreamble,theLife
suddenly introduces the girdle, explaining that it also came to "in the same way." How the Constantinople to the or relates Galbios and of Kandidos, girdle legend even if it is intended to be so linked, remains uncertain.
Although thegirdleissaidtoprotectboth thecityand its rulers, theLife unfortunately reveals nothing of itsorigin. Outside sources are not much help, aswill be seen below, since there are few early traditions about surprisingly
thisrelic.In fact,thispassageon thegirdle isverylikely
ofMary s girdle and itspresence at a feature that adds to the importance of Chalkoprateia, what is already an otherwise unprecedented assemblage of the earliest mention
Marian relictraditionsin thiso??tstLifeoftheVirgin.
The Galbios andKandidos Legend and the Virgins
"Garment" at Blachernai
As van Esbroeck
in the introduction to rightly observes his translation, the traditions ofMarys garment at the church of Blachernai, and more specifically the literary tradition of its invention and translation, the Galbios and Kandidos
legend,
are
particularly
important for
determiningtheprovenanceof theLife oftheVirgin.
Van Esbroeck concludes that the Life's Galbios
and Kan
didos legend locates itsproduction at theopening of the seventh century and thereby secures the authenticity of its attribution toMaximus. Nevertheless, the results
ofvanEsbroeck s analysisof theGalbios andKandidos
tradition are not nearly as definitive as he would have it com he situates the appear. While persuasively Life's in his claims position seventh-century Constantinople, one certainly regarding authorship overreach. Although cannot yet exclude the of Maximus's author possibility
traditions of early ship, comparison with theMarian more the Byzantium suggests modestly Life's production in seventh-century in the first Constantinople, probably
half of thatcentury.13 As such,theLife oftheVirgins account of the Galbios
an legend offers to the veneration of s rel Mary
and Kandidos
important earlywitness ics at her Blachernai shrine, which
further clarifies the
of traditions about this relic in late
early development ancient Constantinople.
The earlyhistoryofMarys sacredgarmentin the churchofBlachernai is fairly well established,thanks
toAntoine seminal study of theGal primarily Wengers corrects certain bios and Kandidos which early legend, See esp. Shoemaker, "Georgian Life of the Virgin," in the Ministry of Jesus." "Virgin Mary 13
and
idem,
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
missteps byMartin Jugie. Jugie incorrectly maintained that theVirgins garment first came to Blachernai only relatively late, since he followed Chrisanf Loparev in
datinga key earlyhomilyon thisrelicto themid-ninth century.14This homily, which has theGalbios and Kandi as its core, celebrates dos Constantinople's deliver legend rescue ance from a military assault, attributing the city's to the Virgin and her garment.15 Like many scholars of his generation, Jugie identified the Russian attack on
Constantinople
context. in 860 as the homily's historical
Ascribing thehomily'sauthorshiptoGeorge ofNiko
medeia, Jugie thus concluded
that Blachernai's
robewas
notofanysignificance intheimperialcapitalpriorto the ninth century. Through amore comprehensive study of the Galbios and Kandidos traditions,Wenger has cor rected these earlymistakes.
By undertakinga carefulanalysisof thishomily's
references to the immediate circumstances
of its com
thehomilyas position, Wenger convincinglyidentifies a response
to the Avar attacks of 619, composed
by
a
certainTheodore Synkellos,a high churchofficialin
at that time.16Moreover, Wenger argues Constantinople that Theodore's homily served as the primary source for La mort et l'assomption (n. 4 above), 690-91; C. Loparev, Jugie, vo Vlachernakh "Staroe svidetel'stvo o Polozhenii rizy Bogoroditsy novum Vizantii Russkikhna istolkovaniiprimenitel'noknashestvii 2 (1895): 612-28. Rather 86o VizVrem J. Wortley, astonishingly, godu," "The Marian Relics at Constantinople," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine 14
Studies 45 (2005): 171-87, returns to Jugie's view, without much justifi cation and seeming to ignore the work byWenger and others that has
article offers a useful survey Wortley's disproved Marian of some middle Byzantine sources relevant toConstantinople's relics, his neglect ofWenger's important study of the Galbios and Kan didos legend (see his remark at 177 n. 20) in particular compromises the this older view.While
value of his conclusions
regarding
the early history of these relics.
on the Synkellos, Homily Virgins Robe (F. Combefis, ed., in earn sextaesynodi actor urn Historia haeresisMonothelitarum: Sanctaeque turnhist?ri?? sacrae, turn vindiciae, diversorum item antiqua, acmediiaevi, Patrum Bibliothecae novum Graeco-Latine dogmatica, graeca opuscula, auctarium 2 [Paris, 1648], cols. 751-88). The section of the homily that 15
Theodore
treats theAvar attack, follows the Galbios and Kandidos legend, which has been published in a better edition by Loparev, "Staroe svidetel'stvo o Polozhenii." A translation of this section has been published inAv. Cam in theHistory of Early Seventh eron, "The Virgin's Robe: An Episode Century
Constantinople,"
Byzantion
49 (1979): 42-56.
in 16 See the discussion (n. 4 above), 114-27. Wenger, LAssomption For the date of theAvar attack I follow here Cameron, "Virgin's Robe," s.v. "Theodore how esp. 43 n. 7; and ODB Synkellos," 3:2048. Mango, that 623 is the correct date for these raids: C. Mango, m Acta XIII "The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople," Christianae: Internationalis Archaeologicae Split-Porec, ed. Congressus .Cambi and E. Marin (Vatican City, 1998), 2:67-68. ever, maintains
DOP 62
two very similar accounts of theGalbios story appearing in Symeon Metaphrastes'
| 57
and Kandidos tenth-century
Life oftheVirgin17and in theeleventh-century imperial
names these three nar menologion A;18 he collectively ratives the B" He successfully of form the "type legend. demonstrates the existence of this legend (and presum
ablyitsrelic)inConstantinopleby thebeginningof the
seventh century at the latest. Wenger also identifies several other earlywitnesses to a rather different recension of this legend, which he names "typeA." Through careful
two versions, he demonstrates that the comparison of the was source of the "typeA" narrative clearly the "type B" narrative. He concludes that the former probably origi
at the close of the fifth century. nated inConstantinople Thus Wenger establishes that the veneration ofMarys
in theGalbios andKandidos legend garment,identified was as an and a e ? / e ? a (garment), well establishedinConstantinopleby theopen already ing of the sixth century.19He attributes the creation of the "type B" narrative to Theodore Synkellos, who he
believed had used the older "typeA" narrative as the basis
Maximus Life of forhis homily;new evidencefromthe theVirgin suggests, however, that the "type B" narrative almost certainly predates Theodore shomily. The version
of theGalbios andKandidos legendinTheodoreshomily isnot his own composition but almost certainly is taken from an earlier source.
TheGalbios andKandidos legendin theGeorgian byadd Wenger s analysisslightly Life oftheVirginalters a narrative that is strik ing fourth version of the "type B" to accounts in the Symeon Metaphrastes' ingly similar
an Life oftheVirgin and the imperialmenologionA, we now know is consequent upon theirdirect affinity that on this earliest Zi/? dependence of theVirgin.20 The Geor s relations with Theodore Synkellos's version of gian Life the legend, however, are considerably more complex but also more revealing. Inasmuch as Theodores homily is a
Symeon Metaphrastes, Life of theVirgin (B. Latysev, t?.,Menologii vols. [Saint Petersburg, supersunt, anonymi byzantini saeculi Xquae 17
1912], 2:345-82). 18 19
Ibid., 2:127-32. Wenger,
L'Assomption,
127-36.
In le Confesseur, 2:XIX-XXIX. light the the of of of this recognition, some ofWenger's analysis history "type B" narrative will need to be rethought, inasmuch as he assumes Theo 20
Van Esbroeck,
ed.,Maxime
dore was Symeons source. Symeons redaction of the "type B" narrative ismuch easier to understand once it is recognized that theMaximus Life of the Virgin
was his source. See Wenger,
LAssomption,
125-27.
58 IStephen J. Shoemaker
ratherprecisely dated text,having been composed shortly in 619, com after theAvar attacks on Constantinople
parisonwith theLife oftheVirginholdsmuch promise, as van Esbroeck himself was
the first to recognize. The two texts show clear evidence of in literary relations, and a rather van Esbroeck attempts hastily presented analysis to determine which version served as the others source.
because Mary had "swaddled" her son in this garment and
to nurse him in it began immediately after his birth.22 on Theodores homily, the other hand, has a similar passage at the conclusion of itsGalbios and Kandidos omits the final details, the link the garment s incorruptibility and its use as swaddling clothes for the newborn Christ.23 Instead,
narrative, but Theodore between
a provides single but very revealing comparison of the two texts as they similarly describe Mary s use of in her garment at theNativity as "swaddling clothes,"
Theodore
On
this section of Theodores homily, severalmen were sent out in advance of theAvar attacks to retrieve from the
He
which
shewrapped and then nursed her newborn son.21 the basis of this comparison, van Esbroeck argues
thattheLife cannotdepend on Theodores homily,and he also identifies severalfurtherindicationsof theLife s independence,includingallusionsinTheodoreshomily over theAvars, as well as a number to the recent victory
of theologicalandbiblicalexcursusesinhis homilythat
appear to be insertions. Although van Esbroeck fails to give specific examples of the latter, comparison of the
Lifewith Theodore shomilyshowsthatin severalplaces Theodore
has modified
amore
primitive version of the
Galbios andKandidos narrative witnessed by theLife the of Virgin. For instance, van Esbroeck
s
comparison of the more "swaddling clothes" tradition holds far significance van than his all too limited discussion reveals.What
Esbroeck does not make entirely clear is that the passages he compares are drawn from very different locations in
theirrespectivetexts.The excerptfromtheLife ofthe Virgin is takenfromitsGalbios andKandidos narra tive,whereas the equivalent passage from Theodore s comes from a later section in his text homily dealing
with theroleof theVirgins garmentin the specifically Avar raidsof 619.The passagefromtheLife oftheVirgin concludes
its account of the relics translation with
the
final remarks that not only did this sacred garment clothe s immaculate and Mary incorruptible body, but when
Christwas bornfromher,shewrapped him in thevery same
raises these points later in his in a homily, events recent of the Avar raids, passage concerned with and it is this passage that van Esbroeck uses to draw his
comparisonwith theLife oftheVirgin.According to
church of Blachernai
the sacred treasures, including the was a in small "coffer," a Virgins garment, which kept . overcame themen who were Curiosity dispatched,
and theyopened the coffer;findingwithin a purple
cloth, they assumed this to be Mary s garment and cut off a small piece to keep for themselves. Then, after the raids,when the patriarch returned the relic toBlachernai,
he opened its vessel himself. Inside he discovered that the purple cloth, which over the centuries had become worn and was not in fact the quite damaged, Virgins garment. Rather, this fabric had been wrapped around Mary wools
s actual
a clothing, woolen garment which, despite greater perishability, remained completely intact
and unblemished.
The garments miraculous
preserva
tionhere isascribed,as in theLife oftheVirgin,to the fact that"in itsheactuallywrapped the Word ofGod Himself when hewas a verylittlechild and gavehim milk. Because of this, this divine and truly royal garment
rightlyisnot only thecureforeveryillnessbut rightlyis incorruptible and indestructible."24
BothTheodoreshomilyand theLife sharea tradition s
thatMary
garment remained incorruptible because she
had used itto swaddleandnurseChrist athis birth.But Theodore
s not mention homily does
the garment s incor
at theconclusionof theGalbios andKandidos ruptibility
garment and nursed him in it. The Life's author
narrative, where it appears in theLife. Instead, Theodore links this tradition with the events of the recent Avar
garment of the immaculate and entirely praiseworthy Theotokos remains incorruptible from then until now":
s attacks and uses it to explain the garment incorruption,
furtherspecifiesthat "this is the reasonwhy theholy
21
Van Esbroeck,
comparing Maximus
ed.,Maxime theConfessor,
le Confesseur, XXVII-XXVIII
(Fr);
Z?/? of theVirgin 124 (van Esbroeck,
ed., 160 [Geor]and 109 [Fr])andTheodore Synkellos, Homily on the
haeresisMonoth Virgins Robe (Combefis, ed.,Historia o Polozhenii," 605-6; Loparev, "Staroe svidetel'stvo "Virgins Robe,"
53-54).
elit?r um, 782A; trans. Cameron,
22
Maximus
the Confessor,
160 [Geor]and 109 [Fr]). 23
Theodore
Life of theVirgin
Synkellos, Homily
124 (van Esbroeck,
on the Virgins Robe
(Combefis,
ed.,
ed.,
771D). on the Theodore Synkellos, Homily Virgins Robe (Combefis, ed., 782A; Loparev, "Staroe svidetel'stvo o Polozhenii," 605-6; trans. Cam eron, "Virgin's Robe," 53-54 [slightlymodified]).
24
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
revealed when Patriarch Sergios opened its coffer.Thus it would appear that Theodore has removed this tradition from itsoriginal context at the conclusion of theGalbios and Kandidos story (where itmakes perfect sense) and it to elucidate contemporary events, using repositioned of a perfectly pre explain the patriarch discovery servedwoolen garment. Theodore s apparent modification s
it to
of the"typeB" narrativeattestedby theLife oftheVirgin to
interpret
current eventsmakes
that it highly unlikely
his homilyservedas theLife s source. Another
revealing point
of comparison
occurs
woman finallyrevealsthe true when theelderly Jewish in Theodores ver nature of the relic in her possession: sion, she explains that the garment has been passed down
within her familythrougha lineofvirgin successively
women.25 Consequently, when Galbios and Kandidos are about to perpetrate their pious larceny, they are ter
women norvirgins, rifiedthatthey, might beingneither incurdivinewrathby layingtheirhandson sucha sacred on object.They recalltheexampleofUzzah, who died the spotwhen he dared touch the arkofGod merely topreventitfromfallingto theground (2 Sam 6.6-7),
and so they pray to theVirgin to protect them as they to remove the "ark" containing her prepare garment.26
The same storyappearsalmost identicallyin theLife of theVirgin, only without any indication that virgins alone could handle the box: in theLife s version, themen are concerned only with their numerous sins.27 It ishard to
a imaginethatsomeonewriting Life oftheVirginwould
remove such a detail, which dramatically heightens the
statusof celibatewomen.Although thisisadmittedlya
rather small point, the accretion of similar differences a consistent arising from sustained comparison betrays amodi s pattern revealing thatTheodore homily presents fied version of the "type B" narrative.28 Thus, Theodores which Wenger assumed Symeon quotation from theIliad, had eliminated, can now be seen instead Metaphrastes as Theodores embellishment of an earlier source, which
| 59
narrative depends on theMaximus Life Symeon, whose not have known.29 For such reasons, would the Virgin, of
vanEsbroeckisrighttoconcludethatitishighlyunlikely that Theodores
("impensable")
fortheLife oftheVirgin.
homily
was
the source
Yet on this basis van Esbroeck
presses further, reste alors une seule solution: c est que "Il that asserting Th?odore, et son r?cit pieux de la translation, d?pende
deMaxime," thatis,on theLife oftheVirgin,a conclu to van Esbroeck
sion that is fundamental
forMaximus's
authorship.30 Clearly,however,
s
argument this isnot
theonlypossible solution.In fact,it ismore likelythat, bothTheodore and theLife havedrawn independently,
on a
account of theGalbios and Kandidos single earlier with remarkable fidelity. legend, which both reproduce The alternative, that one author has himself written a new version of theGalbios and Kandidos story and the
It seemsunlikely otherhas copiedit,ishighlyimprobable. have felt the need to compose and and Kandidos legend, it is far easier to account for the literary relationships
that either author would
a new version of theGalbios
these two texts as reflecting independent uses of an already existing narrative, which both authors have
between
into their respective compositions. is concerned pri homily, for example, over theAvars recent the victory marily with celebrating incorporated Theodores
TheGalbios and theroleof theVirgin sgarmenttherein. to themain is thus andKandidos legend supplementary purpose ofhis homily,and it servesprimarilyas back
context to Theodore s giving broader recent his account of the sacred eyewitness garment's it is somewhat doubtful that tory.Given these priorities,
ground
material
Theodore would have bothered to produce a new version of the legend just for the occasion, particularly since we know that by this time independent accounts of this as story already were in circulation, "type A" Wenger's narrative demonstrates.31 Furthermore, comparison of
with theLife s Theodore'sGalbios andKandidos legend
aspects of the so Theodore story to suit the occasion of his homily, and a on on or must the third, independent Life depend either version shows that Theodore has modified
25
Theodore
Synkellos, Homily
on the Virgins Robe
(Combefis,
ed.,
763E). 26 Theodore Synkellos, Homily on theVirginsRobe (Combefis,ed, 767B-E). 27
Maximus
the Confessor,
158[Geor]and 107 [(Fr]). 28
Compare,
Life of
the Virgin
ed.,
the Confessor, Life of theVirgin ed., 153-59 [Geor] and 104-8 [Fr]) with Theo (Combefis,
ed., 758C-E,
TheodoreSynkellos, Homily on theVirginsRobe (Combefis,ed.,
762C); Wenger, 30
for instance, Maximus
119-23 (van Esbroeck, on the dore Synkellos, Homily Virgins Robe and 763A-B, 759C-D, 770B-D).
DOP 62
123 (van Esbroeck,
29
L'Assomption
Van Esbroeck,
ed.,Maxime
(
.\ above), le
126-27.
Confesseur,
XXVIII
(Fr).
et Dormition L'Assomption, Histoire des traditions anciennes, Th?ologie His Marie: de Assomption The earliest version of this narrative has torique 98 (Paris, 1995), 604-17. been published inWenger, L'Assomption, 294-303. 31
SeeWenger,
127-36; S. C. Mimouni,
60
Stephen I
J.Shoemaker
account thatwas
their common source. As for theLife, its author openly extensive use of earlier acknowledges sources, among which apparentlywas the "typeB" Galbios
andKandidos legend. Consequently,itishighlyunlikely thateitherTheodore or theLife s author is responsible forthe"typeB" Galbios andKandidos story. Theodore s
version clearlywas not the Life's source, and his homily no shows evidence of dependence on the Presum Life.
ably then,therewas already,by thebeginningof the seventh century, an early version of the "type B" narra tive that both authors into independently incorporated
their compositions. Their mutual dependence on this otherwise unattested source strongly suggests the produc
it is easy to imagine how pious memory may have wrongly remembered her as thefounder of these
Theotokos,
twoMarian
shrines.34
s case forVerina s isnot quite sponsorship as as he strong suggests. In sum, all that he can muster s inVerina favor are two somewhat inconclusive points. Yet Mango
First, he identifieswhat he regards as "a special connec tion" between Verina and the already existing shrine in 475 she during the tumultuous years 475-78: sought at Blachernai and her their rela refuge daughter helped was tiveBasiliscus join the there after he clergy deposed.
observes that according to the earliest Second, Mango version of the Galbios and Kandidos legend, Leo and
tion of these two textswithin In closely related milieux. no assume to one is there need that case, any certainly
Verina made
plausible explanation for the literary relations of these two texts. seventh-century to the origins of the church Turning momentarily at Blachernai, which housed this relic, it is uncertain was founded. exactly when and by whom the church
described as preexisting Verina
author must depend on the other, as van Esbroeck seems to insist.Common use of a shared source more presents a
TheGalbios andKandidos legends would haveus believe was that thechurch initiallybuilt by these twopious scoundrels and then expanded by Leo and Verina. Several sources, however, including Theodore the Lectors early
sixth-centuryEcclesiastical History (which survives only in to the fragments), ascribe the church's foundation most Pulcheria and scholars have (399-453), Empress
followed these reports in placing Pulcheria in this role.32 Cyril Mango has recently proposed that the Empress Verina, rather than Pulcheria, is rightly identified as founder of the Blachernai church, as well
Nevertheless,
as of the church of discussed below.33 Chalkoprateia Given Pulcheria's traditional association with the
Blachernai,
to an
additions
including
amosaic
at already existing church and depicting themselves,
theydedicated thechurchto theVirgin.35Interestingly enough,inbothcasesthechurchatBlachernaiisexplicitly s activities there,which
I
herwith theshrinesfounder, hardlythinkcan identify as Mango
these reports certainly do not
proposes. While
entirelyexcludethispossibility,neitherdo theyelimi
nate Pulcheria, whose
claim they could in fact seem to
Kenneth Holum has proposed that Pulcheria was an ardent devo tee of the own Virgin Mary, had modeled her authority after theVirgin, in veneration and also played actively promoted Mary's Constantinople, a central role in theNestorian K. G. Holum, Theodosian controversy:
34
inLate Antiquity Empresses: Women and Imperial Dominion (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1982), esp. 147-74. This theory was further advanced inV. Limberis, Divine Heiress: The and developed Virgin Mary and the Creation ofChristian Constantinople (London, 1994), 53-61. Recently, however, this interpretation has come under severe criticism, as several sources are both rather scholars have pointed out that many of the key in nature:
see C. Angelidi, Pulcheria: La castit? al e d'Occidente Donne d'Oriente 5 (Milan, 1998); potere (c. 399-c. 45s), R. M. Price, "Marian Piety and theNestorian Controversy," inThe Church ed. R. N. Swanson, Studies in Church and Mary, 39 (Suffolk, History late and polemical
31-38; Av. Cameron,
in Late Antiquity: in The Church and Mary, Religious Development Myth-Making," ed. Swanson, 1-21, 9-11; and L. M. Peltomaa, The Image of the Virgin 2004),
"The Cult
of the Virgin
and
the Lector, Ecclesiastical History 367 (G. C. Hansen, The 2nd ed., GCS, n.F., Bd. 3 [Berlin, Kirchengeschichte, 1995], 102); note that the "Euthymiac History," which isdiscussed below, also reports this. See, e.g., R. Janin, La g?ographie eccl?siastique de l'Em
32
Theodore
odoros Anagnostes
Mimouni,
, Le
et lepatriarcat oecum?ni si?ge de Constantinople et lesmonast?res, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), 161-71; ?glises et van Esbroeck, Dormition "Le culte Assomption, 620; M.
pire byzantin, part que, volume 3,Les
aux 6e~7e si?cles," REB 46 de J?rusalem ? Constantinople (1988): 181-90; A. W. Carr, "Threads of Authority: The Virgin Mary's Veil in theMiddle inRobes and Honor: The Medieval World of Ages," de laVierge
Investiture, ed. S. Gordon
(New York, 2001), 62-64.
"Origins of the Blachernae Shrine" (n. 16 above); C. Mango, as in Mother ofGod: Representations of "Constantinople Theotokopolis," the Virgin inByzantine Art, ed. Maria Vassilaki (Milan, 2000), 17-25.
33
Mango,
in theAkathistos Hymn, The Medieval Mediterranean 35 (Leiden, 2001), e.g., 51n. 10,57 n. 53.Kate Cooper, however, has attempted to argue that the evidence for Pulcheria's devotion to the can withstand Virgin
Mary
even such scrutiny: K. Cooper, "Contesting theNativity: Wives, Virgins, and Pulcheria's imitatioMariae" Scottish Journal of Religious Studies 19 (1998): 31-43; eadem, "Empress and Theotokos: Gender and Patronage in the Christological
Controversy," 39-51. Yet whether Pulcheria was
inThe Church and (cited above), Mary instrumental in the events of theNesto
rian controversy or not, her as such in later sources could cer reputation underlie the of these attribution church foundations to her. tainly 35
Note,
and Verina's Mango,
however, that the text does not, as I understand construction
of a church at Blachernai,
"Origins of the Blachernae
it, report Leo
as Mango
suggests:
Shrine," 72.
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
we take support, if seriously the indications of both the church predated Verina. In that Blachernai reports any case, there seems to be little doubt that the church ofMary
at Blachernai was built under imperial patron
a period ageduringthesecondhalfof thefifthcentury,
corresponding with the emergence of the Galbios and Kandidos legend and itscelebration of the shrine s impor tantMarian
relic.
Life offers almost this short passage
|
no context to the
brings
help resolve this enigma: s narrative to a close, Life
and thusthegirdlesoriginand itsrelationtoBlachernais
remain mysterious. "garment" No less problematic is the history of the relic itself, whose existence is not otherwise attested before the
Unlike the "garment"( earlyeighthcentury.
) of
Blachernai, whose history in the imperial capital iswell documented from the end of the fifth century, the ori
uncertain. ) remainsomewhat
ginsofMary's girdle(
secure witness Excepting the Georgian Life, the earliest to the in is a homily Constantinople girdle's presence
OnMary's Girdle deliveredby PatriarchGermanos I Unlike the (715-730)at thechurchofChalkoprateia.37
TheVirginsGirdle andChrist'sSwaddling Clothes: TheRelics ofChalkoprateia
isnot and Kandidos legend, Germanos's homily an account of the invention and translation but a girdle's celebration of Chalkoprateia's most famous relic on the
Galbios
At theconclusionof theGalbios andKandidos legend, theLife oftheVirgin suddenlyturnsto therelicof the with thefollowing Virgins girdle,which it introduces brief and somewhat cryptic description.
In thisway the immaculatemother ofChrist also gave to the same cityher holy girdle,which encircled the body that contained the uncontainable, theking of all things.And for this a beautiful churchwas also
feast of the church's dedication. Nevertheless, Germa nos in terms suggesting that by this speaks of the relic awell-established and revered was time the already girdle in the presence city.Among other things, he describes the girdle as "encircling and embracing its city,protect ing itunassailably from barbarian attack," and he refers
to earlier traditions about the directly girdle, presumably written ones.38 Thus Germanos's homily bears witness
built by the faithfulemperors to thegloryof theholy
Theotokos, which iscalled Chalkoprateia. And there her incorruptiblegirdle iskept, as the city'scrown of grace and itswall of steadfastfaith,and the source of
. et ( 31 Assomption V. Fazzo, above), 626; Janin, G?ographie eccl?siastique (n. 32 above), 238-39; Germano di Costantinopoli: Omelie mariologiche (le omelie mariane e le di testi patristici 49 (Rome, 1985), lettere sulle sacre immagini), Collana 139 n. 18;G. Pons Pons, Germ?n de Constantinopla: Homil?as Mariolo
This rather abrupt and tersepassage, attesting the impor tance of this sacred relic as a supernatural guardian of the
to imperial capital already by the seventh century, appears s to veneration ofMary the be the earliest witness girdle
at the church of it is surprising that Chalkoprateia. Yet theLife has so little to say about the relic, particularly after its extensive account of the discovery and transfer
of theVirgins garment to Blachernai. The Life's report "in thisway" thatMarys girdle came toConstantinople
(35630033) isparticularly perplexing:does thisphrase Arewe to refer back to theGalbios andKandidos legend? assumethatGalbios andKandidos also brought Marys
to Or rather that its translation Constantinople? girdle was in someway miraculous? Unfortunately, the similarly
n. 14. This location gicas, Biblioteca de patristica 13 (Madrid, 1991), 143 as also seems to be assumed byMango, Theotokopo "Constantinople lis" (n. 33 above), 19, and byN. H. Baynes, "The Supernatural Defenders inByzantine Studies and Other Essays (London, 1955), 248-60, at 258. For some peculiar reason, Jugie identifies Blacher nai as the location for this homily, as does Annemarie Weyl Cam Jugie, . La mortetl'assomption ( \ above), 698; Carr, "Threads of Authority" n. 21. 82 Note also that Carr's identification of the anony 32 above), (n. of Constantinople,"
mous work of Crete
Maximus
160-61
DOP 62
the Confessor,
[Geor] and 109 [Fr]).
Life of
the Virgin
124 (van Esbroeck,
ed.,
a
in the Blachernai
as a homily delivered byAndrew church at the beginning of the eighth cen This work, which describes the invention and
tury is quite misleading. deposition of the girdle, has been published esisMonoth elit?r urn (n. 15 above), 789-804,
inCombefis, Historia
haer
and should be regarded as n. 2, anonymous according toWenger, LAssomption (n. 4 above), 113, . 31 et and also according toMimouni, Dormition above), ( Assomption 625-26. At present, its date appears equally uncertain. Germanos
38
of Constantinople,
a
98-.377B-C): e a
36
Dormition
See Mimouni,
PG 98:372D~384A.
37
victory for theGod-serving emperors.36
61
a
a a a
ea
a
e
a
a,
e
e
e
a a a
,a
Homily
e
a a
a
a a,
a
on Mary's e
a
a,
e . See also Fazzo, Germano
140 n. 22; Pons Pons, Germ?n
de Constantinopla,
e
Girdle a
e
(PG
e a
a
a
di Costantinopoli, 145 n. 22.
62
Stephen J. Shoemaker I
to a cult focused
on this relic thatwas already thriving
by thebeginningof theeighthcentury.39
later sources in fact suggest that the relics began considerably earlier than Germanos's
Numerous
veneration
are often homily, although their data contradictory and in some cases inaccurate. For instance, demonstrably several middle
Byzantine
sources describe
the girdle s
depositionunder theEmperorArcadius (395-408) and an inscription in the ninth century allege the discovery of attesting this fact.40Yet this tradition is almost certainly
a
s status in to raise the pious fiction, designed girdle s comparison with Blachernai garment by establishing itspresence in the city even earlier, and an inscription was to enhance presumably "discovered" for the occasion the story s credibility.41 By all accounts,
the church of
established Chalkoprateiawas itself onlylaterin thefifth difficult century, byPulcheriaorVerina,making itrather to believe that the relicwas more in already place half a century earlier.42
than
homilies on the Virgin's Dor 39 By way of comparison, Germanos's mition the earliest reliable evidence for the commemoration of provide in the the feast of the Dormition Yet this cel imperial capital. surely ebration, already well established throughout the provinces a century beforehand, was observed
in as before Germanos's Constantinople reign Ancient Traditions See, Shoemaker, e.g., (n. 7 above), 78-141; patriarch. et Mimouni, Dormition Assomption, 353-584. 40
These
include: a homily by the future patriarch Euthymios,
deliv
eredmost likelyforthefeastofMary's girdlein888 (M.Jugie, Hom?lies
mariales
byzantines:
textesgrecs, 2 vols., PO
16.3,19.3 [Paris, 1922&
1926],
1:505-14);the Menologion ofBasil II (963-1025)(PG ii7:6i3A-C); and the tenth-century Synaxarion of Constantinople (H. Delehaye, Synaxar e codice Sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi ium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae [Brussels, 1902], 935). A separate tradition in the Synaxarion describes the girdle's deposition at the church of in 942 (ibid., 600). Chalkoprateia as Yet this is clearly suggests, this involves the impossible, unless, Mango a as deposition of second girdle: Mango, "Constantinople Theotokopo lis" (n. 33 above), 19. 41
Mango,
"Origins
of the Blachernae
(n. 16 above), 65-66; 19. See also Janin, G?ogra
Shrine"
as "Constantinople Theotokopolis," . to these phie eccl?siastique ( 32 above), 237-39? Nevertheless, according accounts, the inscription was linked with the containing the girdle,
Mango,
not with
it is not entirely impossible, although some connection with Arcadius. that the relic has extremely unlikely,
42
the church itself. Thus
As with
the church at Blachernai,
over Mango again favors Verina on the basis of Justinian, Novell?? 3.1 (P. Krueger et al., eds., iuris civilis, 3 vols. [Berlin, 1954], 3:20), which identifies Verina
Pulcheria,
Corpus as the founder of the church (Mango, "Origins of the Chalkoprateia Blachernae Shrine," 65-66). Nevertheless, most scholars identify Pul cheria as its founder, while supposing that Verina oversaw its comple tion: T. F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architec
ture and Liturgy (University Park, PA, 1971), 28; Janin, G?ographie eccl?siastique, 237;W. Lackner, "Ein byzantinisches Marienmirakel," of Theophanes identifies 13 (1985): 843-44. The Chronicle Byzantina
or without
With
this important relic, the Chalko prateia church quickly established its reputation as one ofConstantinople's most reveredMarian shrines, second to her church at Blachernai.
By the sixth century, in honor ofMary marched regular liturgical processions streets ofConstantinople between Blachernai through the
only
to the According fourteenth-century Ecclesiastical History ofNikephoros Kallistos Xantho and Chalkoprateia.
poulos, Pulcheria established these weekly processions on Wednesdays.43 Nevertheless, it is rather doubtful that Pulcheria initiated these weekly Marian celebrations:
even ifshewas responsiblefor buildingboth churches, as
and many other sources report, it seems Nikephoros unlikely that these processions would have been estab
lished so shortly after the construction of the churches. A more credible report comes from Theodore the Lector, whose early sixth-century Ecclesiastical History credits
PatriarchTimothy I (511-518) with introducing weekly
shrine on Fridays, processions from the Chalkoprateia no mention of Blachernai.44 although he makes By the last quarter of the sixth century, however, weekly proces sions between these twoMarian shrines on Fridays were a as regular feature of Constantinople's religious life, sources attested by several that link the emperorMaurice (582-602) with these processions.45 attest not These only the consider liturgical practices
able importanceof theChalkoprateia shrinealreadyby
the early sixth century but also a symbolic connection between these twoMarian churches; both of these fac tors suggest the presence of a relic at significantMarian Pulcheria
as the founder: C. de Boor,
ed., Theophanis chronographia, the Lector (Hildesheim, 1963), 1:102,105. A passage inTheodore also identifies Pulcheria as is but this founder, Chalkoprateia's widely as an regarded interpolation: Hansen, Theodoros Anagnostes (n. 32 above), 2 vols.
status can be found in 102, no. 363. A good discussion of this passage's Icons and Power: The Mother inByzantium God (Uni of 120. versity Park, PA, 2006),
B. Pentcheva,
43
Nikephoros
Kallistos
Xanthopoulos,
Ecclesiastical History
14 (PG
147:1061). 44
Theodore
Anagnostes, Blachernai siastique, 45
the Lector, Ecclesiastical History 494 (Hansen, Theodoros 140). Janin mistakenly reports that Theodore also mentions
in this passage, not: Janin, although he does G?ographie
eccl?
167.
Theophylact SimocattaeHist?ri??
Simocatta, Hist?ri??
8.5 (C. de Boor, Theophylacti
[Leipzig, 1887], 291-92); Theophanes, Chronographia (de Boor, ed., Theophanis chronographia, 1:265-66); George Kedrenos, (I. Bekker, ed., Georgius Cedrenus [et]Ioan Compendium Historiarum 2 nis 34-35 [Bonn, 1838], 1:694). On these Scylitzae ope, vols., CSHB see also Pentcheva, Icons and Power, processions, . van Esbroeck, "Culte de la Vierge" ( 32 above).
esp. 12,107,145;
and
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
Indeed, one would
Chalkoprateia.
once imagine that
thisritualyokehad been establisheditwas notverylong
before Chalkoprateia
obtained
a relic of itsown to rival
s
garment, if in fact it did not already pos sess such an item. to the Synaxarion of Con According
Blachernai
stantinople, Chalkoprateia acquired theVirgins girdle during thereignofJustinian(527-565),which seemsa
this time,more generic terms, such as and a were used for Blachernai s sacred garment.49 Moreover,
| 63
,
thereis strongevidence thatby thebeginningof the itemsofMary sclothing had eighthcenturytwodifferent come to reside at Chalkoprateia, her girdle and Christs As seen already from the Galbios clothes." "swaddling
andKandidos legend,"swaddlingclothes"could readily
very likely possibility.46 The Patria, a late tenth-century collection of stories about the history of Constantinople
or a rare be identifiedwith Marys "garment," and instance of intertextuality between this legend and the
Synaxarion's
Chalkoprateia
and itsmonuments,
adds ameasure
report.47 According
of credibility to the to the Patria, Justin
II (565-578)andhiswife Sophia built theholy (a at for and rebuilt the relic) chapel Chalkoprateia girdle an its sanctuary,which had been earthquake: damaged by
at thistimeChalkoprateiawas said tohouse both the ),butnot ) andher "garment"( Virgin'sgirdle( or her "robe" "veil"( [= a ]),whichwas then at the church of Blachernai.48 This report appears to be a rather sober testimony, and it bears no obvious
it isdifficult to conceive of amotive for inventing agenda: a such tradition fromwhole cloth. Even the distribution of relics?both possession?is
in Chalkoprateia's girdle and garment as it seem at first not as peculiar might
glance. The truth of thematter
is that for several centuries
the earlyByzantine sources evidence remarkable diversity and fluidity in their descriptions of Constantinople's
Marian relics.The legendofGalbios andKandidos, for was , instance, ensures that some sort of "garb," an venerated at Blachernai from the end of the fifth century, but the precise nature of this apparel remains stubbornly vague and even somewhat confused for several centuries.
come to be identi Only relatively later does this relic or "robe." As a fied specificallywith Mary's Jugie
observed,theterm a
(or
) isnot used
to describe this garment until the tenth century: prior to 46
Delehaye, Synaxarium Dirk Krausm?ller's
935-96.
Chalkoprateia Mother of God
ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae
(n. 40 above), The
the Most of Mary: "Making in the Tenth Century," delivered at the conference in Byzantium:
paper
Relics,
Icons, and Texts"
"The
at Oxford Uni
a similar conclusion. This paper versity (17 and 18August 2006), reaches will appear in the published proceedings of the conference. For more on thePatria and itsnature, seeA. Berger, Untersuchun 47 Poikila Byzantina 8 (Bonn, 1988), gen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, and esp. 187-96 regarding the date; G. Dagron, Constantinople imagi naire: Etudes sur le recueil des Patria, Biblioth?que byzantine, ?tudes
8 (Paris,1984).
48
T. Preger, Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum, 593B. zig, 1901-7), 2:226-27, 263; PG i57:56oA-B,
DOP 62
earlyDormition
had once belonged to theVirgin. According to theearliestversionof theGalbios and Kandidos legend, Wengers typeA, thegarmentstolen two describedboth as an and as a brothers, by the e ? a ,had beenpasseddownwithin theoldwom
an's family for generations. As this the legend explains, her before Dormition, Virgin herself, just bequeathed the one to of the old woman's relatives,who had been garment one of Mary's servants.50As scholars of earlyMarian piety have long noted, this tradition of the garment's origin almost certainly derives from a passage in the earliest Dormition narratives, which date to the fourth century even earlier.51 Before the other apostles perhaps arrive,Mary shows John all of her worldly possessions, ifnot
(n. 4 above), 693-94. Carr, "Threads Jugie, La mortetl'assomption . of Authority" ( 31 above), 63, affirms Jugie's assessment. See also the discussion below and C. Mango, The Homilies ofPhotius, Patriarch of
49
DOS 3 (Cambridge, MA, 1958),76-77. In lightof this Constantinople, , rather late usage of a Mango, "Origins of the Blachernae Shrine" use too in 16 is far free his this term to describe the garment of (n. above),
to the tenth century: it is very itwas identi prior questionable whether fied as such at this time. No doubt he draws justification from a passage
intheLife ofTheodoreofSykeon thatspeaksof thehemof the a
12 8. 2 to amonastery as a relic: Life ofTheodore ofSykeon (A.J. Festugi?re, Vie de Th?odore de Syk??n, vols. [Brussels, 1970], 1:102 and 2:105). Jugie regarded this passage as an interpolation, largely on the .This reference from the is basis of its use of a Life ofTheodore to in that traditions of the have also anomalous Virgin's garment appear
being donated
been limited mainly be the first evidence
(Leip
to Constantinople for the circulation
at this time: this passage would tra of this Constantinopolitan
cen by several funeral garments seem to have been the center of attention, as seen below. All of this strongly
dition
in the provinces, preceding of Constantinople,
other such witnesses
turies. Outside
the Virgin's
even if the passage itself is favors the possibility of an interpolation; a a the word be later authentic, may interpretation. In any case, use of this term in itdoes not the for evidence Constantinople provide prior 50 51
2 vols.
traditions suggests the possibility that a second, similar garment that possessed
to the tenth century.
Wenger,
L'Assomption,
296-97.
n. 1; mort et I Jugie,La 'assomption, 691, Wenger, L'Assomption (both .4 above), 129-30. Regarding the date of the early Palm traditions, see
Shoemaker, Ancient
Traditions
(n. 7 above),
32-46,
205-79.
64
Shoemaker IStephenJ.
e a ) and
which includeonlyher funeralgarment(
a ), and she instructs him that after
two "tunics" (
herdeath thetwo tunicsshouldbe givento eachof two to this inter her.52 Thus, living with according textual reference, the relic that Galbios and Kandidos to and placed in a church on Constantinople brought theirBlachernai estatewas originally one of a pair,which shared company also with the funeral garments inwhich
widows
theVirgin was buried. This is an important early clue that one to encounter several different items of might expect
clothingonce belongingto theVirgin.
turn of the seventh century, the ver By the "type B"
sionof theGalbios andKandidos legendhad come into
circulation.53 This narrative, used independently by both
Theodore Synkellosand theLife oftheVirgins author, adds greater clarity on a number of points,
including
). In thisrevi
theoriginof theVirgins garment( sion, the old woman
in thetenth-century Lives oftheVirginbyJohnG?om?
tres and
Symeon Metaphrastes,
both ofwhich
depend
Marian biography.56 Thus, by directlyon thisprimitive the opening of the seventh century, the "type B" narra
tiveof theGalbios andKandidos legendidentifies this
stolen garment with an item ofMary s clothing that she used to swaddle her infant son, a garment that still bore
thestainsofMarys life-giving milk.Alreadyat thisearly stage,thenatureofBlachernai s relichad begun to shift
and even tomerge with various other sacred textiles in the pious traditions of Constantinople. From this point on become rathermessy, and things confusion about the nature ofMarys relics takes hold
of our sources for several centuries. As Annemarie Weyl Carr observes, between the sixth and ninth centuries various sources offer different and often contradictory
as a "veritable descriptions ofwhat she aptly characterizes in the churches of laundry chute ofMarian garments"
explains thatMary, just before her death, gave two of her garments ( a a) to two pious
Constantinople.57
traditions even more clear.54Moreover, earlyDormition as already noted above, this revision of the Galbios and
garment inwhat was fast becoming a Theotokopolis, as Theodore names the Synkellos imperial capital.58
virgins, making the linkagewith theepisodefromthe
Kandidos legend insertsthe traditionthatMary had
used this garment for "swaddling clothes," wrapping her newborn son in it as she nursed him, which was the reason why it remained uncorrupted still in the seventh century.55 In the process, theVirgins garment became
stainedwith drops ofher breastmilk. Although this
particular point
seems to have fallen out of the Georgian
Life oftheVirgin,itspresencein theoriginalGreek ver sion of this is assured by the inclusion of this detail Life
222-23; See also the Book of Wenger, LAssomption, Mary's Repose are identified as Liber (the Ethiopie Requiei), where the recipients 2 vols., "poor women": V. Arras, De transituMariae apocrypha aethiopice,
In this period,
sometime before the
turnof theeighthcentury, theVirgins girdlejoinedher
As alreadynoted, thefirstindisputableevidenceof the
comes in girdles presence Constantinople only from Patriarch Germanoss early eighth-century homily On Mary's Girdle, although Germanos describes the relic in terms was clearly indicating that itsveneration already a well established by that time. In remark reminiscent of theGalbios
and Kandidos
legend, Germanos
notes that
eveninhisday thegirdlestillborevisibledropsofMary s immaculate breast milk.59 But no sooner does Germanos
begin topraiseMary sgirdle thanhe suddenlycatches
52 44
CSCO 342-43,351-52(Louvain,1973),1:27(Eth)and 18(Lat);English trans, in Shoemaker, Ancient
53
Traditions,
sources from around
Other
316-17.
the same time that mention
this gar , 128.12 Life ofTheodore ofSykeon (Festugi?re, Vie de Th?odore de Syk??n, 1:102 and 2:105); as e a, Theophylact Simo catta,Hist?ri?? 8.5 (de Boor, TheophylactiSimocattaeHist?ri??, 291-92); on the ,an early Kontakion and as Holy Fathers: P. Maas, Fr?h
ment are: as
a
byzantinische Kirchenpoesie,
2nd ed., Kleine Texte
f?r
Vorlesungen
und
?bungen 52/53(Berlin,1931),31,strophe15.Regardingthedate of the latter, seeMango,
54
"Origins of the Blachernae
Maximus
the Confessor,
ed., 156[Geor]and 106 [Fr]). Theodore
771D-E);
Synkellos, Homily Maximus the Confessor,
ed., 160 [Geor]and 109 [Fr]).
Life on the
of the Virgin
Virgin's Robe Life of the Virgin
(van Esbroeck,
(Combefis,
See JohnG?om?tres, Life oftheVirgin43 (Wenger, LAssomption,
and Symeon Metaphrastes, Life of the Virgin 53 (Latysev, ed., anonymi byzantini, 2:383). Regarding the dependence of these Menologii two vitae on theMaximus see van Esbroeck, ed.,Maxime le Con Life, 394-95);
(Fr); and Shoemaker, fesseur, XIX-XXIX "Georgian Life of the Vir 2 success of gin" (n. above). The widespread Symeons metaphrase of this
earlier Life oftheVirginno doubt explainswhy itsGreek originalwas
not
preserved: Symeons version replaced it.As Rapp is in at least 693 preserved manuscripts: menologion 57
"Threads
ed.,
(van Esbroeck,
observes, Symeons Rapp,
"Byzantine
32.
Hagiographers,"
Vierge,"
TheodoreSynkellos, Robe (Combefis,ed., Homily on theVirgin's
763D-E); 55
Shrine," 69 n. 37.
56
of Authority,"
182 (both
. 31
63; see also van Esbroeck,
"Cuite
de la
above).
58 Homily on theVirginsRobe (Combefis,ed.,754B). 59 Homily on theVirginsGirdle (PG 98:3766);JohnG?om?tres'Life
tomention of the Virgin also appears drops ofMary's milk still visible on her as some in this girdle, although Wenger notes, there is ambiguity not it is to it and refer that her passage, gar entirely impossible might ment: 394-95. Wenger, LAssomption,
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
to call himself and interruptshis encomium on the girdle a to s attention also, if only for moment, Chalkoprateia
come to exist between edly reflect the rivalry that had most reveredMarian shrines, Constantinople's oldest and
century, these clothes too were venerated alongside the at were also believed to "watch girdle Chalkoprateia and
was firstto stakesuchclaimson behalfof which shrine
othergreat relic,the swaddlingclothesofChrist, his a a a.60Apparently, by thebeginningof theeighth overandprotectthefaithful, down bindingand striking enemies."61 Could
thisperhaps explain thePatrias
thatbothMary sgirdle (
were housed
) andhergarment(
report
at this church? After all, the nar "type B"
)
rativeof theGalbios andKandidos legendreportsthat ), one ofwhat was Mary had used her garment ( a to swaddle her newborn son. originally pair, Perhaps the Patria reflects a claim byChalkoprateia to possess Mary s ,at a timewhen the second garment, here named
was Virgins Blachernai garment increasingly identified . more as her a specifically Of course, Germanos's homily actually createsmore problems than itpotentially solves: his praise of Chalko a a) contra prateia's swaddling clothes ( a directly
dicts theclaimof theGalbios andKandidos legendthat
Blachernai
s
the infant Jesus, as
garment had swaddled
could be provedby stillvisibledrops ofMarys breast
milk. This
disagreement reveals that during the seventh century Chalkoprateia and Blachernai advanced compet
ingclaims topossess theclothing inwhichMary had
swaddled Christ62 and, furthermore, that both shrines to authenticate their relics, the sought girdle and the an to with still-visible traces garment respectively, appeal ofMary
s breast milk.63 These parallel claims undoubt
ered his homily On Mary's
Girdle
There isalso a hymnon thegirdlebyJosephtheHymnographer(PG
61
Germanos
of Constantinople,
in a
ninth-century
Lackner,
Homily
account
"Byzantinisches
on Mary's
Girdle
(PG
98:3776). 62
Alexander
Kazhdan
observes
that Andrew
of Crete's
homilies
on
a a, into focus at several points Mary's theNativity ofMary a bring her swaddling clothes, which may reveal yet another Marian relic in on the source of Andrew's inter Kazhdan Constantinople. speculates est: was the relic in the church where Andrew delivered housed perhaps his homilies? A. Kazhdan, (Athens,
A History
ofByzantine
Literature
(650-850)
1999), 45.
I am rather puzzled by claim that the girdle is represented at Mango's this time as "sharing the same origin" as her Blachernai garment: Mango,
63
as (n. 33 above), 19.1 do not know on "Constantinople Theotokopolis" what basis he makes this claim (he does not say); perhaps the reading from
DOP 62
and the importance of its relics.64 It remains uncertain its relics, inasmuch as Germanos's
is one of the homily sources earliest of information about Chalkoprateia's rel ics, and in the case of Blachernai's garment, the tradition
of itsuse as
to be a swaddling clothes appears secondary development. Nevertheless, it is clear that by the close of
the seventh century, both and Blachernai Chalkoprateia Marian and traditions con relics, possessed important
nected with each shrine identified among these a garment
that Mary had used to swaddleJesus,adducingdropsof
Mary's
breast milk as validation.
The Life of theVirgin,while perhaps the earliest tomention
at this presence ofMary's girdle not add much to this confu Chalkoprateia, does clarity seems to know sion. The Life nothing ofChalkoprateia's document
claim tohouse the swaddlingclothesofChrist, and its Galbios andKandidos legendidentifies thisrelic with the Virgin's
Blachernai
garment. Moreover,
itmentions
wthe girdleonlyveryabruptly, explainingthat"in this way the immaculate mother
of Christ
also gave to the
samecityherholygirdle." As alreadynoted, itisdifficult to know
tomake of this passage, since prior exactlywhat to this no consideration toMary's point the narrative gives
girdle.PerhapstheauthorbelievedthatGalbios andKan didoshad broughtthegirdletoConstantinopletogether garment, and perhaps, making the assumption that the elderly Jewishwoman had possessed
the future patriarch Euthymios deliv (Jugie,Hom?lies mariales, 1:506, 512).
the girdle is also mentioned io5:ioi3C-D); of a miracle at the church of Chalkoprateia: . Marienmirakel" ( 42 above), 853.
as each soughtto outdo theother inboth thenumber
with Blachernai's
60 Homily on Mary's Girdle (PG 98:3760-3776). Both relicswere still at the shrine ca. 888, when
| 65
themboth,he identifies thegirdleas thesecondof two 9 3(?) / garments( ) that Mary gave toher ser
vants just before her death.65 Such, at least, is the solution van Esbroeck, who enlists support from a proposed by
in the Synaxarion of that reading Constantinople identifies the girdle as one of these two garments.66 Yet
variant
the Synaxarion of Constantinople adduced by van Esbroeck, Maxime le Confesseur, i:XXIV-XXV ecclesiae Constan (Delehaye, Synaxarium tinopolitanae, 64
935-36). Most of Mary" (n. 46 above), presents the "Making the of this rivalry that I have seen; see also N. H. Baynes, "The Defenders of Constantinople," AB 67 (1949): 165-77,258
Krausm?ller,
best discussion
Supernatural .24; van Esbroeck,
"Culte de laVierge" ( . 32 above), 181-88, although arguments are rather speculative.
many of van Esbroeck's 65
Maximus
the Confessor,
ed., 136,156 [Geor] and 92,106 66
105,122 (van Esbroeck,
[Fr]).
leConfesseur, :XXI V-XXV; ed.,Maxime ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae, 935-36.
Van Esbroeck,
Synaxarium
Life of theVirgin
Delehaye,
66
Stephen J. Shoemaker I
theGalbios andKandidos legendstatesquitedeliberately
that the garments had gone to two differentwomen, only one ofwhom is identified as the old woman's relative.67
Unfortunately,thispassage fromtheLife oftheVirgin more itadds very prompts questions than itanswers, and little towhat is already known from Germanos's early eighth-century homily.68
world.69 As we have already noted, however, in a number some that are of accounts?including early?one of the sometimes identified as Thomas, isdelayed and apostles, does not reach Jerusalem in time forMary sdeath.70When s at the late apostle request the apostles open theVirgins
tomb, they are surprised to find the tomb empty, except for the funeral garments that she leftbehind, her funeral
wrappings( a (
/
e ) and/orherburialshroud
a a/
a
).71 Several earlyDormition
narratives include a version
andwhile itisdifficulttodate someof of thistradition, Mary
sFuneral Garments, the
Late-Apostle and the Traditions, "EuthymiacHistory" matters further still are the "late-apostle" Complicating traditions from the earlyDormition narratives,with which
theLife oftheVirginbegins itsdiscussionofMary's rel
the device of an apostle who arrives too Utilizing tra to in the late participate Virgin's funeral, these relic ditions focus attention on the discovery of yetmore of most Mary's clothing, her funeral garments. One of the ics.
remarkable(and ratherfew)pointsof unityamong the
near unanimous agree is earlyDormition traditions their to the ment that just prior Virgin's death, the apostles were
miraculously transported from the ends of the earth in order to be present for her departure from this
67
Van Esbroeck
itsDormition
that John G?om?tres' Life of the Virgin, in was one to a garment that given only le Confesseur, death: van Esbroeck, ed.,Maxime
claims
narrative, describes
woman
prior toMary's . 5.This, however, this contradicts what was 92 published byWenger . van Esbroeck's complete {L'Assomption [ \ above], 368-69). Perhaps
these narratives precisely, there isgood evidence that the to circulate in the late-apostle tradition had already begun
Greek East before the beginning of the seventh century. The earliestwitness to this relic tradition is an Armenian
toJohn (incorrectly) homilyon theDormition attributed Chrysostom.Although itisunlikelythatthishomily is as
as van Esbroeck proposes (the fourth early century), there are signs that the lostGreek original is among the earliest Dormition accounts, probably belonging to the
narrative that earlyDormition includes the late-apostle tradition is theGeorgian Tran situs of Ps.-Basil, whose traditions locate the liturgical sixth century.72Another
composition of itsGreek original sometime during the seventh century.73Neither of these narratives, though, The main exceptions to this are the early Coptic traditions, which involve only a few of the apostles: see Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions (n. 7 above), 57-63; and idem, "The Sahidic Coptic Homily on theDormi
69
tion of theVirgin Attributed to Evodius 596 & 598with Translation," AB
MSS 70
The "late-apostle" traditions and their earliest representatives in Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 67-71.
editionofJohn'sLife oftheVirginwill clarifythispoint, ifit ispub
discussed
lished. Also,
71
understood
ily
it is not at all clear from the text of John's that he Life both relics as being housed at Blachernai, as van Esbroeck I am most uncertain as towhy van Esbroeck makes this also maintains; . 52 le Confesseur, 109 claim: van Esbroeck, ed.,Maxime (Fr);Wenger,
LAssomption,
394-97.
on the possibility is that this passage girdle may be interpo either the introduced translator, Euthymios, or by lation, by Georgian someone before him who wanted to account of Mary's relics complete the with with at least a brief mention of her equivalent girdle. Comparison 68
One
pointsintheLife oftheVirginbyJohnG?om?tresand theLifebySymeon
could support this view. Symeon's Life (rather surprisingly) Metaphrastes makes no mention of the girdle whatsoever, coming to a close with the G?om?tres' Life, however, introduces Galbios and Kandidos legend. John
thegirdletogether withMary's garment( e ?
) at thebeginningof
of Rome: An Edition ofMorgan 117,nos. 3-4 (1999): 241-83.
Note
are
early seventh-century Hom that the apostles discovered her empty tomb on the third day.
also that John of Thessalonica's
on theDormition
sometimes mentions
Mary's grave clothes by reopening Yet the final section of this homily
is extremely the vari problematic: a manuscripts of the non-interpolated version of the homily exhibit rather dramatic diversity in their conclusions. Although Jugie selected a manuscript that concludes with the discovery ofMary's funeral garments as to the most manuscripts in all probability the closest being original, of this version of the homily do not mention the discovery of any grave ous
clothes. In light of this, John's homily cannot be used as a reliable wit ness to the traditions about Mary's grave clothes. See Jugie,Hom?lies .40 mariales ( above), 2:369-70, 401-5. 72
Ps.-John Chrysostom, Homily Esbroeck, "Une hom?lie arm?nienne ostome," OC74
on theDormition
15,17 (M. van attribu?e ? Chrys [Arm] and 231-32 [Fr]). On the
sur la dormition
John hastily summarizes, and thereafter they again appear together, as John ascribes the divine pro tection of the city and the empire to both relics (Wenger, LAssomption,
[1990]: 199-233,218-19 see Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 69-70; Mimouni, sixth-century date, . et Dormition ( 31 above), 334-37. Assomption
it is 394-9$). Nevertheless, equally possible that both Symeon and John have omitted this passage because of the difficulties discussed above.
mition
the Galbios
and Kandidos
story,which
73
Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, ji, 132-40. See also Mimouni, et Assomption,
315-16.Mimouni
Dor
also identifies theLetterof(Ps-)
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
has anything to say about the fate ofMarys grave clothes after their discovery, nor are there any hints of their ven
eration. The earliest version of the late-apostle tradition, no connections as reflected in these two texts, forged or between these garments and either Constantinople the church of Blachernai. This linkage was achieved, it seems, by themost famous of the late-apostle traditions,
the excerptfromtheEuthymiacHistory preserved in
second homily on theDormition.74 John ofDamascus's Now lost, theEuthymiac History appears to have been
aLife ofEuthymios (d.473), thefounderof coenobitic
in Palestine. Nevertheless, its traditions s were the about widely disseminated Virgin funeral relics inmedieval Byzantium, thanks to their inclusion inJohn s on theDormition. popular homilies
monasticism
Near theendofJohn'ssecondhomilyfortheDormi
tion, the text introduces a citation from "theEuthymiac a passage that appears in History, book 3, chapter 40," every known manuscript of John's second Dormition in 890.75 Never homily, including the earliest, copied theless, in spite of its impeccable transmission history within themanuscript tradition, there is general agree was ment that this legend of theVirgin's funerary relics to this tradition, but in this Dionysius toTitus among the earlywitnesses are not reliable, as instance his methods of they depend entirely dating on his of typology of dogmatic evolution: ibid., 341-42. Jugie's proposal
the late seventh or early eighth century seems more likely (Jugie,La mort . it isdifficult to date this text l'assomption [ \ above], 157), although with any certainty. Note also that this text describes only the discovery of an empty tomb, without any mention of grave clothes. The textwas et
in G. Sruandzteants, Dion?siosi published Ariopagats'woy" "T'ught ' ew norots inHnots [The Letter ofDionysius theAreopagite], 'patmut'iwn vasnDawt'i ewMovsesi Khorenats ewoy [History of theOld and New Con 1874), 110-15; (Constantinople, cerning David and Moses Khorenatsi] trans. P. Vetter, "Das apocryphe Schreiben Dionysius des Areopagiten an Titus ?ber die Aufnahme Maria," (1887): 133-38. Th(?6$ 74
in ref that follows, I use "Euthymiac History" to cited in John's homily and Euthymiac History lost larger work from which this excerpt was taken.
In the discussion
erence to the passage describe
the now
van narrative edited byMichel Dormition une lec dans t?moin l'Histoire indirect de ("Un Euthymiaque : ture arabe pour l'Assomption," Parole de l'Orient 6-7 [1975-76] 479-91)
Note
also that the Arabic
Esbroeck
as van Esbroeck is not as closely linked with the "Euthymiac History" as yet another indicates. This narrative is best understood example of the late-apostle tradition.
A critical text of the "Euthymiac History" as preserved in John of on theDormition 2.18 may be found in B. Kotter, Homily 5vols., Patristische Texte ed.,Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, und Studien 7,12,17, 22, 29 (Berlin, 1969-88), 5:536-39. P. Voulet, ed.,
75
Damascus's
Hom?lies basically
sur la nativit? et la dormition, SC 80 (Paris, 1961), 169-75 is text from the a corrected Graeca (PG reprint of the Patrologia
96:748-52).
DOP 62
|67
not originallya partofJohnshomily. According to this
theVirgins grave passage from theEuthymiacHistory, were sent to at the request of clothes Constantinople the Empress Pulcheria and deposited at the church of The quotation appears as John engages in a rhetorical conversation with theVirgins tomb, inwhich
Blachernai.
he asks the tomb, rather elaborately,where isMary s body; the tomb responds with equal eloquence, explaining that ithas been removed from theworld. Then the passage
from theEuthymiacHistory expands furtheron the traditionsofMary s tombby introducing her funerary
relics. At this point, the scene shifts from Jerusalem to are said Constantinople, where Pulcheria and Marci?n
tohave built thechurchinBlachernaiat thebeginning
to honor their new shrine to the of their reign.Hoping an relic, they take advan impressiveMarian Virgin with
tageof theassemblyatChalcedon to approachBishop with a requestthatMary s bodily JuvenalofJerusalem remains be sent to for deposition in the Constantinople church of Blachernai, where they could protect the impe rial capital.76
Juvenal respondsby explaining that,despite the
silence of the scriptures on thematter, according to an ancient and revered tradition Mary passed from this
fashion. The apostles were gathered towitness her death, afterwhich saw to her burial. they Yet one of their company was delayed: an unnamed77
world
inmiraculous
wished apostlearrivedthreedaysafterherburialbut still one last time. When the apostles holy body the tomb to grant the late apostles request,
to venerate her
reopened were to discover that the was gone: they surprised body
all theyfoundwithinwere her graveclothes (e a a). it is entirely unlikely that this legend reflects any historical While events, it isnot at all impossible, as Jugie suggests {La mortetlassomption, 164), that the royal couple might have had some knowledge of the tradi
76
tions about the removal ofMary's body from this world. Although traditions emerged within the "mainstream" of orthodox Christian
the dis
course in the later fifth century, their into the only history clearly extends fourth century: see Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions (n. 7 above), 9-32. 77
In both the PG and the Voulet
identified as Thomas: 170.Nevertheless,
PG 96:749A;
Kotter's
editions Voulet,
(see n. 75), this apostle is sur la nativit?,
ed.,Hom?lies
critical edition, which
I follow here, does not
a name for the late is provide apostle, and somewhat surprisingly, there no indication of any name in the apparatus: Kotter, ed., Die Schriften to not des Johannes von Damaskos, 5:539.According Jugie, the apostle is mort et in 890: see La named in the earliest manuscript, copied Jugie, 161 . . also reports that in the independent ver lassomption, Wenger in a Sinai manuscript sion of the "Euthymiac History," from preserved the eighth or ninth century, the apostle (n. 4 above), 137 n. 3. LAssomption
is similarly unnamed: Wenger,
68
Stephen j. Shoemaker I
The Euthymiac History then identifies several of those who were present for these events, citing as its source the famous passage from Ps.-Dionysius, On theDivine 3.2,which describes the apostles' assembly for the the impe Virgin's funeral.78 After hearing these things,
Names
rial couple askedJuvenalto send themtheholy
containing Mary's
funeral garments ( a
a), and when
he did,PulcheriaandMarci?n depositedtherelicin the church of the Theotokos
at Blachernai.
one scholar after Martin Jugie, Beginning with as an another has identified this passage interpolation into John's homily, albeit a very early one; moreover,
evendenied Jugie,and otherswho have followedhim, the very existence of a text entitled theEuthymiac His
tory,fromwhich thispassage could have been lifted.
Both Jugie and the most recent editor of John's text, Bonifaz Kotter, dismiss the Euthymiac History as an was invented utter fiction, a by "pretend history" that the forgerwho inserted this tradition about Mary's rel ics into John's second homily, sometime in the probably ninth century.79Nevertheless, thanks largely to thework ofAntoine Wenger, we now know that this citation from was
taken from an actual text, a
theEuthymiac History now-lost Life of the fifth-century Palestinian monastic leader Euthymios.80 Although Wenger remains convinced
thatthepassage inJohnshomilyisan earlyinterpolation,
in fact that theEuthymiacHistory'was an actual text used by other writers, including Nikon of
he demonstrates
theBlackMountain, who inhisPandektai (composed 1059 and 1067) quotes a passage from elsewhere in theEuthymiac History.01 Likewise, Cosmas Vestitor
between
made use of theEuthymiacHistory independentlyof Johnwhen composinghisDormition homilies in the latereighthcentury,82 and thepassage cited byJohn state in an unedited Greek independent or ninth of the manuscript century.83 On this eighth basis,Wenger concludes that an actual text entitled the
Historymust havebeen incirculationby750 Euthymiac at thelatest,and thatitvery wellmay belong to thesixth and century, a position also adopted by Simon Mimouni van Esbroeck, both ofwhom attach more confidence to a
.R. Suchla,
2 vols., vol.
i, Pseudo ed., Corpus Dionysiacum, De divinis nominibus, Patristische Texte und Stu Areopagita
Dionysius dien 33 (Berlin, 1990), 141.
mort et Kotter, ed.,Die Schriften des ]ugie,La lassomption, i^-6j; von not read Kotter Damaskos, 5:504. Johannes apparently has Wenger and follows Jugie closely on this point as well as others where Wenger has 79
in that Jugie was clearly in error.Kotter also follows Jugie not refer to this tradition in his arguing that since Andrew of Crete did homilies on the Dormition, it could not have been in circulation dur demonstrated
since he and John were both from ing his lifetime, Syro-Palestine?not a argument. persuasive particularly Euthymios's importance in the foundation of Judean monasticism iswell known from Cyril of Scythopolis's sixth-century vita Euthymii, a rather different textwhich has survived: E. Schwartz, ed., von Kyrillos Skythopolis, TU 49.2 (Leipzig, 1939), 5-85. 80
81 et Dormition 136-39. See also Mimouni, Wenger, LAssomption, . ( 31 above), 556. The citation inNikon of the Black Moun Assomption tain's Pandektai is found in PG 96:748 n. 58. For the date of composi tion, seej. Thomas
and A. C. Hero,
eds., ByzantineMonasticFoundation
sixth-century date.84 Recently, Alexander Kazhdan
has suggested that the view of this passage as an interpolation merits prevailing reconsideration:85 given that thiswidely received opinion
restsalmost entirelyon reasoninglaid out longago by Jugie inhis groundbreakingstudyon theDormition traditions, consideration of Kazhdans proposal is long overdue. For all themany merits of Jugie s pioneering research, certain aspects of his work reflect a dogmatic interest in playing up traditions suggesting theVirgins a immortality, position
important
to theRoman Catho
licdogma of theAssumption (1950),in theproclama
tion ofwhich Jugie played a central role.86 In numerous
instances, Jugiemade highlyquestionabledecisions in
to certain materials, in particular by attempting dating date to a later period traditions about Mary s tomb or other traditions suggesting her death.87 Inasmuch as the
A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders' Typika and Testaments, 5vols., Dumbarton Oaks Studies 35 (Washington, DC, 2.000), 1:377-78.
Documents:
82 78
in an
appears
Cosmas
LAssomption,
on theDormition
Vestitor, Homily
4:15-21
(Wenger,
331-32).
Sinaiticus gr. 496, fols. 246V-251V. This version does not name the apostle, and it lacks the initial citation of "book 3, chapter 40" and other elements used to connect itwith John's homily: see Wenger, LAssomption, 137 . 3.
83
84
Ibid., 137-38; van Esbroeck,
Mimouni, 85
Dormition
Kazhdan,
86
History
"T?moin
indirect" ( .74 above), 480-85;
et Assomption,
556-61.
ofByzantine
Literature
(n. 62 above), 81-82.
role in the
Regardingjugie's dogma's proclamation and his "Immor talisi" belief regarding the Virgin, see P. E. Duggan, "The Assumption and Ecumenical in the Some Reactions Dogma: Implications Thought of English-Speaking (S.T.D. diss., International Marian Theologians" to Institute, University of Dayton, 1989), 57-63. Owingpartly Vatican's the definition left the influence, open ques Jugie's deliberately tion ofwhether Mary actually died or not.
Research
See, for example, Jugie's discussions ofMary s tomb, which he dates rather late in spite of convincing archaeological evidence to the contrary mort et l'assomption, 85-92, 681-87; cf. Shoemaker, Ancient (Jugie, La On theDivine Traditions, 98-107); or the passage from Ps.-Dionysius 87
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
s tomb and relics "Euthymiac History" deals with Mary from her funeral garments, it is no surprise that Jugie
was late but that therewas never not only that it argued even such a text in the first itwas all an interpola place: tor's invention. Moreover, Jugie s understanding of the
is also tied up with his incorrect "Euthymiac History" sMarian of Blachernai relic,which, as understanding
noted above, he dated very late, believing that Theodore in response to the Synkellos's homily had been composed Russian
attack of 860 rather than to the Avar assault.
the "Euthymiac History" as Consequently, Jugie regarded the earliest extant tradition concerning Blachernai s relic. The "Euthymiac History" of course identifiesBlachernai s as a funeral garment, which contradicted garment Jugies immortalist beliefs, and thus could not, inhis view, be an
in spite of significant evidence early tradition. Therefore, to the contrary, from the manuscript tradi particularly
tion,Jugiearguedfora latedate forboth the"Euthymiac
History"
and this relic.88 In view of these facts, it isworth
concerns raisingthepossibilitythatJugies theological
influenced his position on the "Euthymiac now in excel History," particularly light ofWengers lentwork on this tradition, which undercuts some of may have
second homily. Yet given the great diversity of expres in other sources, sion used to describe Mary s clothing one not make too much of this particu should perhaps
lardifference.Similarly,Jugiepoints todifferencesin
how the two sources, John shomily and the "Euthymiac
History,"describetheVirgin sburialand thefateofher body, and how they characterize the authority of their extra-biblical sources.89 But if the passage cites an actual
has now shown, these observations are John himself or an interpolator meaningless. Whether text, asWenger
introducedthepassage into thehomily, it ishardly a fromJohns surprisetofindthatitsauthordiffersslightly
homily
his discussionof the"Euthy Although Jugiecrafts
miac History" so that he appears to consider the question of interpolation prior to and separately from any ques
tions about the date of the text, his prejudgment of the as not only late but entirely ficti "Euthymiac History"
tious determines his reasoning from the start. The bulk of his argument for interpolation consists in comparisons of style and vocabulary between the "Euthymiac His rest of Johns homilies on theDormition. tory" and the
contrasts particularly the different words used to Jugie " a a" describe theVirgins clothing: "e a a" and " " e in in the "Euthymiac History," and John's where he adopts a rather dubious reading to prevent this from to La give early testimony ofMary's death and funeral (Jugie, appearing mort et lassomption, 99-101; cf. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions, 29-30);
Names,
etAnnam
lem" (Jugie, La mort et lassomption,
attributed to "Timothy of Jerusa "Les hom? cf. .Capelle, 70-76;
Timoth?e de J?rusalem," du pr?tendu lies liturgiques EphL 63 [1949]: 5-26). as well informed as Jugie expresses surprise that "a scholar Mango should have argued that themaphorion was not attested before the ninth was "Ori century and that the original relic probably funerary": Mango, 16 above), 69. It does not seem, how Blachernae Shrine" of the (n. gins ever, that Jugie was uninformed; rather, this understanding of the relic
88
DOP 62
and content.
Jugieadditionallyargues thatbecauseAndrew of
Crete, Johns contemporary and countryman, does not seem to have known the Euthymiac History, then John could not have had access to any such source.90 If,how ever,Andrew is to be our standard, then therewere no
written
accounts ofMarys
Dormition
available
at all
when he composedhishomiliesfortheDormition inthe early eighth century, since, rather astonishingly, Andrew claims that he could find no earlier traditions about the
Virgins departurefromthislife:only thepassage from a fortunate exception, presented not look very to him.91 Clearly, Andrew did
according
hard (ordid not likemuchwhat he found),fordespitehis
East had been awash professed ignorance, theChristian at with Dormition narratives for least two centuries,92 and his contemporaries John and Germanos do not appear to have had any trouble sources.93 Thus, ithardly finding seems reasonable that Andrew's
interpretation of theDormition
traditions.
silence in regard to the
EuthymiacHistory shouldbe used to call itsexistence into question.
all the arguments that Jugie musters in favor of interpolation, only one really merits any serious Of
89
reflects his broader
in vocabulary
On theDivine Names
s Jugie key arguments.
or the homily In Simeonem
| 69
Jugie, La
mort et
l'assomption,
161-62.
90 Ibid., 163-64. The argument is repeated inKotter, ed.,Die Schriften desJohannes von Damaskos, vol. 5,505. Jugie's observation "that the copyist a a of the earliest manuscript (from 890) wrote in themargin it only demonstrates a single copyist's ;" does not add very much: existence iswell established ignorance of this history whose or is someone else's was added interpolation). by John 91 Note
of Crete, Homily on theDormition 2 (PG 97:io6oA-io64B). that the order ofAndrew's first two homilies on theDormition
Andrew
reversed in the PG: 92
(whether it
see
Jugie, La
See Shoemaker, Ancient
93
.E. Daley,
(Crestwood, 165,169.
NY,
mort et assomption,
Traditions,
234.
9-77.
Mary: Early Patristic Homilies of etAssomption, Dormition 22; 20, Mimouni, 1998),
On
theDormition
is
70
Stephen J. Shoemaker I
consideration,
and that is his initial point: the "Euthy interrupts the "natural flow" of John's
miac History" discourse.94 There is indeed a certain sense inwhich
this
to citation from the Euthymiac History could appear in As this noted the rhetoric. above, interrupt homily's
Kazhdan
offers thefollowing brief assessment of the
and its status in John's homily: "Euthymiac History" "there is no evidence that itwas inserted by somebody
else into his text. Ifwe assume, following themanuscript tradition, that theHistoria euthymiaca was an authentic
section John very ornately addresses Mary's tomb itself, "as if [it]were alive," inquiring about the location of her
was somehow part of the trilogyand that the trilogy
do you seek in a tomb one who has been taken up to the tabernacle of heaven?... Her holy, sacred body left its
to fit the overall context."96 to garb appears According a on Kazhdan, major theme of John's homiletic trilogy theDormition is the creation of a rhetorical link between
body.The tombthenoffersthefollowingresponse:"Why e ]behind,and aftersharing with
wrappingcloth [
me with the me her holiness, after oint fragrance of filling was me a ments and raised of she up holy shrine, making and departed, escorted by angels and archangels and all
the heavenly powers." The "tomb's" answer continues at some which John concludes, "You see, dear length, after fathers and brothers, what this illustrious tomb has to say to us." Then, ifone removes the quotation from the Euthymiac History, the homily continues with, "Andwhat shall we answer to the tomb ourselves?"95 It is not hard to see how
a removing the "Euthymiac History" allows sort of connection between these passages that logical
isotherwisedisruptedby theEuthymiacHistory's relic
traditions.
as reasonable
as this Nevertheless, interpretation room for another is there is, viewpoint, admittedly clearly which has yet to be explored. For instance, it isno easier an to understand why interpolator would have chosen to
interrupt the flow of the discourse
at this point than
it is to imaginethatJohnhimselfdesigned thissection
of the homily around this lengthy quotation from the two passages were Euthymiac History. If indeed these
as s originally coupled, Jugie hypothesis suggests, it isdif ficult to explain why a later redactor would choose such an awkward spot for an interpolation. Alternatively, it
his rhetoric may be thatJohnhimselfcrafted deliberately around this reference,using the quotation to clarifywhat the tomb had previously "answered." When viewed in this
the "Euthymiac History's" interruption of the light, flow" isnot nearly so disruptive as Jugie "natural homily's him have In fact, the and others following suggested. "Euthymiac History"
connects not
a number only with
of largerthemesinJohn'shomiletictrilogybut equally
with 94
the immediate context of the tomb's speech.
Jugie, La
mort et Lassomption,
160-61
on theDormition 2.17-19 (Kotter, ed., Homily von Damaskos, trans. des vol. $, 539; Johannes Schriften Daley, On theDormition 221-22). Mary, of
95 Die
John of Damascus,
connected with relations between Jerusalem and Con in brilliant stantinople, the imagery of the emperor royal
Jerusalem, now under Islamic rule, and the imperial capi the "Euthymiac History" unques tal,Constantinople;
even more than perhaps here recognizes. The "Euthymiac History's" main role in the homily is clearly to harmonize the tra ditions ofMary's Jerusalem tomb and her Dormition tionably Kazhdan
with
serves this purpose,
the traditions of her relics in Constantinople. If, a to homilies work establish argues, John's
as Kazhdan
twomost symbolic connection between these important cities of theChristian East, then the quotation from the to is not at all intrusive but Euthymiac History integral this larger theme of his trilogy. Yet the "Euthymiac History" has even more direct and obvious linkswith its immediate context in the sec
ond homily,specifically with thetomb'sdiscoursethat
precedes it. The main themes of the tomb's speech pre each of the "Euthymiac History's" central points: figure the tomb's emptiness, themiraculous translation of her
at her tomb, the funeral garments body, the angels present thatwere leftbehind, and the "ineffable fragrance" of
her tomb. It seems almost as ifJohn has designed the tomb's response to anticipate the quotation from the
Euthymiac History. When viewed from this perspective, the "Euthymiac History" does not so much interrupt the flow of John's homily as it develops and reempha sizes each of themain points from the tomb's speech. Indeed,
the quotation's
introduction presents the pas
sage inpreciselythisfashion:"And thatall this is true isconfirmed by theEuthymiacHistory?,book 3,chapter
viewed from this perspective, the "Euthy 40."97When to the tomb's response, miac History" is integrally linked 96
Kazhdan,
History
ofByzantine
Literature,
82.
on theDormition 2.18 (ed. Kotter, Die 97 John of Damascus, Homily von Damaskos, vol. 5, 536; trans. Daley, On the Schriften des Johannes
Dormition of modified]).Of course,Johnmayhave Mary, 224 [slightly a somewhat different version of this homily when he delivered it orally: itmay be that John himself added the passage from theEuthymiac
given
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
it illuminates, and does not interrupt the flow of The rhetorical question that the fol begins we answer to the tomb "And what shall section, lowing ourselves?" serves to reconnect with Johns initial conceit, but itdoes so only to introduce a new topic. John uses the question to shiftfocus away from the tomb itselfand
which
discourse.
toward theVirgins universal grace, which to her tomb but "is measure given without
isnot limited
in all corners
of theworld." Therefore, one should answer the tomb s address not somuch with reverence for the tomb itself
butbymaking oneselfa living"memorial"to theVirgin an imitatioMariae. through second homily.98
Thus John concludes his
we nature of the source Finally, might consider the itself,theEuthymiac History, an apparently obscure biog monasticism in the Judean desert. raphy of the founder of ismore
Who
access to such a text than to likely have had
himself, a priest of Jerusalem and a John of Damascus monk ofMar Saba?99When viewed through this rather different lens, John himself emerges as an increasingly likely agent of this "interpolation," which verywell may
be an integral While Jugies part ofhis secondhomily.
a intervention in the homily s hypothesis of very early transmission certainly remains plausible, John s inclusion
of thepassagehimselfisan equallyviablepossibilitythat
even at this late date has yet to be seriously considered. the non-existence mistaken about assumption Jugie's
of theEuthymiac History from which this passage was taken has colored subsequent interpretation. Once this assumption is removed from the discussion, the prospect that Johnwas himself the source of this textual insertion suddenly becomes quite credible. Van Esbroeck has that the late-apostle tradi argued tions in the from the derive theEuthymiac Life of Virgin
an effort to establish an History, presumably in early date for the latter text.100 Yet the Life at no point betrays
and established these connections with his homily as he created the so literary version that has been passed down in many manuscripts.
History
on theDormition Homily von Damaskos, des 5:539-40; Johannes Schriften Dormition 222). Mary, of 98
99
John ofDamascus,
Kazhdan,
History
ofByzantine
Literature,
2.19 (Kotter, ed.,Die trans. Daley, On the
Maxime
le
rect" (n. 74 above), but as noted above, there is actually little thatwould a as suggest connection. It is best understood simply another version of the late-apostle legend.
DOP 62
any specificknowledgeof theEuthymiacHistory or its
story of how Bishop Juvenal, Pulcheria, and Marci?n s funeral garments to Constantinople. brought Mary
Instead,theLife sauthorexplainsthathe has learnedthis itfrom4 reliable information from oral tradition, hearing contrast to sources" who (and this is in tradition found
in theEuthymiacHistory) have toldhim that the late
was in factThomas. s apostle Presumably theLife author encountered an earlier version of late-apostle tradition,
as it circulated before the Euthymiac History reframed the legend with the encounter between Pulcheria and
in an effort to reconcile Juvenal atChalcedon conflicting traditions of the Virgin's Blachernai garment and her grave clothes. In fact, the Blachernai
garment, whose
storyfollowsimmediatelyin theLife, isnot inanyway linked with the grave clothes from the late-apostle tradi
tion,and theLife givesthedistinctimpressionthatit is an
new item of as it turns entirely clothing and Kandidos legend.101 This difference on the certainly makes theLife's dependence Euthymiac introducing to the Galbios
History highlydoubtful. Van Esbroeck additionallycontendsthattheLife of
of Ps.-Dionysius's reference to in death On theDivine Names reveals theLife's
the Virgins mention
Mary's
on the dependence Euthymiac History, but this argu ment is not com persuasive.102 Judging from theLife's prehensiveness, its author clearly took considerable effort to
gather
asmany different traditions about the Virgin's
lifeashe couldfind,and itisaltogetherlikelythatinhis
search he would
this famous passage as reason to assume that only
have uncovered
well. There isno compelling
fromtheEuthymiac History could theLife's authorhave
it is far known Ps.-Dionysius's account of theDormition; came upon this that each likely biographer episode
more
separately.Moreover, theLife of theVirgin handles this reference from Ps.-Dionysius quite differently from how it is handled
seems in the Euthymiac History, and this evidence of theLife's independence. John's
compelling citation from the Euthymiac History quotes directly from account of the On Divine Names immediately after its late apostle and the discovery ofMary's
relics,presumably
76-77.
Much 2:XVII-XIX. of van Esbroeck's Confesseur, on his connection of an Arabic narrative of the late argument depends in his "T?moin indi apostle tradition with the "Euthymiac History" 100
| 71
101
source in carefully Life of the Virgin follows his between Mary's funeral garments and the relics of Con
John G?om?tres'
distinguishing
stantinople: Wenger, LAssomption,
392-95;
Symeon Metaphrastes'
Life
oftheVirginincludesonlytheGalbios andKandidos legendandmakes
no mention 102
of either Mary's
Van Esbroeck,
girdle
ed.,Maxime
or funeral garments.
le Confesseur, 2:XVIII-XIX.
72
Shoemaker IStephenJ.
in order to
identify
some of those who were present for
theVirgins funeral.TheLife oftheVirgin,however,does
not
directly cite the passage from On Divine Names but instead merely alludes to it on two separate occasions, both ofwhich occur in its account of theVirgins death rather than in the context of her burial and the late
manners in In apostle tradition. light of the very different which they treat this passage from On theDivine Names,
it isdifficultto see itsinclusionas evidenceof theLife of theVirginsdependenceon theEuthymiacHistory.
act of to rest in the tomb, Germanos laying her
tells us,
herbodywas suddenlysnatchedfromtheirhands; only her funeralshroud( )was leftbehind,which the as apostles immediately held forth proof of her miracu also describes with lous translation.104 John ofDamascus
unmistakable
clarity thewrapping
e ,
clothes, the
thatwere leftbehind in thetomb.ClearlyAndrew once again,
as in his failure to find any prior traditions of has either failed to do his homework
sDormition,
Mary or did not have access tomuch of a library. is the keen interest evinced Even more by puzzling
Andrews homilies on theVirginsNativity inMary s
a a), which she wore as her swaddling clothes ( a mother Anne nursed her.105 As Kazhdan observes,
The composite that emerges from this overview of early Marian relic traditions is rather chaotic and disjointed. this disorder any better than Nothing could epitomize the confusion evidenced in the Greek Marian homilies
of the eighthcentury. Andrew ofCrete, inhis early eighth-century homilies
on the Dormition,
is resolute
thatnothingat all remained behind intheVirgin s tomb:
neither burial shroud (e a a) nor funeral wrappings ( a a a).103 Yet aswe have seen, the late-apostle tradi tions,with their focus on the relics ofMary
sgrave clothes,
were already well inplace by thistimeandmay infactbe an
second Dormition integral part of John ofDamascus's on insistence this point is all themore homily. Andrews
strange given the special emphasis that his contemporary Germanos places on theVirgins funeral wrappings and her shroud in his homilies for theDormition. Germanos
describeshow thefaithful who had gatheredfor Mary s
funeral tried to take a piece of her burial shroud (e a a) a relicwould in hopes that such bring them blessings. on to He goes relate how the apostles, when faced with the awesome task of
burying
theVirgin, feared touching
herbodydirectly, especiallyafter witnessingthehorrible fateofJephonias,theJewsaid tohave attackedherbier during the funeral procession. Consequently,
the apostles
were in the tomb. Then, as placed her they
in the very
were carefulto touchonlyher shroud(
Andrew
103
e Dormition a
a;
) as they
on theDormition of Crete, Homily (PG 97:io8iD): a e a a; See also Andrew of Crete, on the Homily
3 (PG 97H097C), a a a a; a
the implied answer).
focus onMarys swaddling clothes could seem to suggest that this relic,much like her sons swaddling clothes, had become a focus of veneration in the imperial
Andrews
Conclusions
where e
a a he asks rhetorically, ; ("none" being of course
it capital.106 Is possible
that this,Mary
s first
garment,
shouldbe added to theveritablesuitcaseofher clothing
that appears to have arrived in Constantinople
during
theearly Middle Ages?Or perhapsAndrew simply pres
ents a different
a a, a understanding of theVirgins as her swaddling clothes rather than interpreting them Ifwe step outside of Constanti funeral wrappings?
to themix nople and add
the alleged closet ofmiracle
behind inherhometown Mary left workingclothingthat ofNazareth, as describedby thePiacenza Pilgrimin the s late sixth-century, the confusion surrounding Mary matters relics swells.107 further clothing Complicating
Germanos of Constantinople, Homily on theDormition (3) 9 -10 There are, however, a couple of problems with Ger (PG 98:3?9A-372A). manos's accounts ofMary's burial. For instance, in his first homily, Ger 104
manos
describes
ofMary's body in the tomb, in this homily: PG 98:345A the translation ofMary's body, this second hom
the successful placement translation
in contrast to its spontaneous 348A. Also,
following was then into the air from ily reports that her "shroud gently taken up in a theApostles cloud... and accord Nevertheless, disappeared." light to that same the then ing homily, apostles immediately produced her shroud, which apparently had not disappeared, and they presented it to the crowd as indisputable evidence of her body's miraculous translation. the of Germanos 'shomilies, seeM. Jugie, "Les hom? numbering sur la dormition de la Sainte lies de Saint Germain de Constaninople
On
(1913): 219-21; Kazhdan, Vierge," EO16 . ( 6i above), 64.
History
ofByzantine
Literature
105 Andrew ofCrete,Homily on the Nativity oftheTheotokos3 (PG 97:86oB-C) and 4 (PG 97:861c, 864A). 106
Kazhdan,
107
Itinerarium Antonini Piacentini
History
ofByzantine
[Turnhout, Geographica, CCSL175 for reminding me of this tradition.
Literature,
45.
5 (P. Geyer, ed., Itineraria et alia 1965], 161); I thank Andrew Jacobs
DOP 62
The Cult of Fashion
still, at approximately the same time Gregory of Tours identifiesMarian relics at several different locations in
theFrankishkingdom. While he does not identify these with itemsofherclothing,itishard to imagine(although not altogetherimpossible)thatthesewere bodily relics, inasmuch as in the same textGregory relates the tradi tion ofMary's Dormition and themiraculous removal
ofherbodyfromthisworld.108 In addition,
the almost cultivated vagueness with the earliest sources describe Blachernai's relic
which
further complicates
any effort to construct an orderly
historyof theearlycultof theVirgin'sclothes.The earli est source, the "type A" Galbios
and Kandidos
legend,
describesthispilferedgarmentinonly themost general .The nar terms as an and a e ? a "type B" rative from the later sixth century adds only the equally ,as well as a vague introducing the idea that this
itemof clothinghad been used byMary as swaddling
son. The narrative also "type B" version's link this garment the earlier between underscores are called in a ,as and Mary's two "tunics," they the earlyDormition narratives. Other sources referring to Blachernai's relic use many of the same generic cloth clothes forher newborn
,until themid-tenth century,
ing terms, especially
when SymeonLogothetefirstuses theterm
to
relic in the context of the Russian
describe Blachernai's
attacks of 86o.109 Several later chronicles repeat Symeon's or , identification of the garment as a a
but all of these depend on Symeon's account and simply as an eye repeat his usage.110 Photius, however, who writes witness to these events, refers to theVirgin's garment as a
and a
e ?
or
anddoesnotuse thetermsa
.111Eventually,
this garment's identity as a
108
Gregory ofTours, Ingi?ria martyrum, incipiunt capitula; 1.8; i.io; 1.18-19 ( .Krusch, ed., Gregorii Episcopi Turonensis mir acula et opera 1.2 [Hanover, 1969], 35 [485], minora, 2nd ed., MGH, ScriptRerMerov For Gregory's account ofMary's 43 [493]? 45 [495]> 49-50 [499-500])? Dormition
and Assumption,
Gregorii Episcopi
Turonensis,
see In gloria martyrum 39 [489]).
1.4 (Krusch,
ed.,
Symeon Logothete, Chronicle (I. Bekker, ed., Leonis grammatici CSHB 47 [Bonn, 1842], 240-41).
109
chronographia, 110
See Mango, Homilies
ofPhotius
(n. 49 above), 76-77.
111 Photius, Homily IV: TheDeparture oftheRussians 4 (C.M?l
ler,Fragmenta Historicorum 170a; see also S. Aristarches, a
a
a
as cited in Carr,
a "Threads
Graecorum, e a
5 vols.
;
[Paris, 1883], 5:169b
a
e
, vols. 1900], 2:41-42-? [Constantinople, of Authority" [n. 32 above], 84, n. 37; trans.
See also Carr, "Threads ofAuthor ofPhotius, 102-3). a contemporary of Photius, refers the ity,"63-65. Joseph Hymnographer, : a a a toMary's garment as in his hymn on this subject:
Mango, Homilies
DOP 62
| 73
,a "veil" or "robe," appears to have stabilized, but over the course of the tenth and eleventh centuries only and not before.112 For this reason, it isquite anachronistic a
todescribeBlachernai s relicas theVirgins robeor veil when itis ( a ) in thesixthand seventhcenturies,
far from clear that ithad attained this identity.113 to this confusion is the Adding late-apostle tradi
tion from the earlyDormition narratives. in Beginning the sixth century, these legends ofMarys empty tomb a different sort of the funeral gar identify clothing relic,
ments that Mary leftbehindafterherbody'smiraculous translation.With
miac
the important exception of the "Euthy these narratives relatemerely the apostles'
History," discovery of these garments occasioned by the late apostle; they say nothing about the relics' subsequent fate.Most of the late-apostle traditions survive in languages other
thanGreek, but their respective vocabulary for these items e a a a/ of clothing seems to correspond with for her funeral wrappings and a for the / burial shroud.114 This relic tradition is almost certainly
as issuggested ofprovincialorigin,perhapsJerusalem, by its connections with theDormition
on
traditions, its focus
tomb, and its variance with
Mary's
the relic tradi
tionsofConstantinople.Other thantheGeorgianLife by these oftheVirgin,thefirstevidenceof any influence on thecultureof the imperialcapital appears legends inGermanos's
Dormition
homilies, where he shows an
interest in the relics ofMary's burial garments, albeit as without the story of the late apostle. Nevertheless, e a , 2 vols., " (Athens, 1970-77)? 11:19-2-5?Never a theless, according Jugie, Joseph occasionally used theword e a in reference to this garment, , e , , with ? ? along e a, not cite La does and specific examples: Jugie, although Jugie a
a
a
mort et
et
? to
lassomption
See Carr,
112
a "
a
a
E
lassomption,
(n. 4 above), 694.
"Threads ofAuthority," 689-96;
62-69.
Janin, G?ographie
See also Jugie, La mort
eccl?siastique
(n. 32 above),
162-63. to this garment in his 113 As, for instance, Mango frequently refers 16 above). On this point, see also Av. "Origins of the Blachernae Shrine" (n. "The Early Cult of theVirgin," inVassilaki, Mother ofGod (n. Cameron, 33 above), 114
3-15,11-12;
eadem, "Cult of theVirgin"
(n. 34 above),
11-12.
on theDormition
17 (van Esbroeck, Ps.-John Chrysostom, Homily arm?nienne" [n. 72 above], 219 [Arm] and 232 [Fr]: ujuiinuiGu a a ?);Ps.-Basil ofCaesarea, TransitusMariae a 87 (van Esbroeck,
"Hom?lie
(for U^ep?fto; "L'Assomption de laVierge" [n. 9 above], 161): b?b^^oc^Bo, Maximus the Confessor, Life of the Virgin 117 (van Esbroeck, ed., 150 [Geor]): ^6*33300^60, 74 above): ?J?, io Le.
;van Esbroeck, "T?moin indirect" (n. ^ As van Esbroeck notes, the latterword means "tur
a a. His a ban," but surely this is an attempt to translate seems rather dubious. a identify ?LLc as translation of
attempt to
74
Stephen J. Shoemaker I
we have seen, Andrew
professes complete ignorance of these or any other traditions about Mary s burial. The author of theEuthymiac History was the first tomerge the traditions of the late apostles discovery ofMary s funeral
clothes with the veneration of her garment at Blachernai two relics. That this contradicted the by conflating these
well-established
storyofGalbios
and Kandidos
does not
seem tohave troubled itsauthor: not know perhaps he did
thislargely Constantinopolitan legend.Yet in spiteof
this rather obvious
tension, the success of Johns homi describes as "the most
letic trilogy,which Brian Daley
celebratedof all theancienthomiliesforthefeastof the Dormition," would
ensured that this attempt at harmonization
be widely disseminated
and influential.115
for the garments venerated at the church of their identity is farmore straightforward, Chalkoprateia, As
but their origins and early history are surprisinglymurky. Germanos's early eighth-century homily clearly identifies
theseitemsas theVirgin's "girdle"or "belt" (
) and
a a) of her newborn son. the swaddling clothes ( a orwhen in arrived however, they Constantinople, is another matter entirely.Certainly the arrival of both garments predates Germanos's homily, which says noth
How
invention or translation, and his treatment ing of their
of thegirdle inparticularsuggeststhatit isa relicwith somehistoryin thecityalreadyby thistime.The infant
Jesus's swaddling clothes, however, raise a different set of to the vexing questions. According "type B" Galbios and which dates to the later sixth century Kandidos legend, at the latest, the devotees of Blachernai's garment had claimed for their relic the honor of serving as Christ's Itwould appear that by the seventh swaddling clothes.
century, the churches of Blachernai and Chalkoprateia had both advanced competing claims to possess the gar
ment inwhichChristhad been swaddled. No doubt the eventual identity of Blachernai s garment with a differ s funeral ent sort of (also wrappings wrappings, Mary
a a), in Johns Dormition homilies only served matters further. complicate This confusion is replicated rather than resolved in
a to
Maximus Life oftheVirgin, the Nearly all of theseearly
an appearance in the coda to the its author makes no attempt to recon but Georgian Zi/?, cile them, and the result is a rather disjointed pastiche. relic traditions make
In comparison with other sections of the the dis Life, sonances among the various relic traditions here are left
seems to reflect thework surprisingly unresolved. This of someone bringing things together for the first time, without yet how tomake them fit, at a knowing exactly
the cult ofMarys relics inConstantinople still developing and somewhat confused, before the homilies of Germanos and John brought a measure of however limited, to these practices. Such disorder clarity, time when
was
some is entirely congruent with the Life's composition time the seventh century, the date indicated by during
numerousotherfeatures of theLife.Thus,while theLife s not relictraditions do anchortheLife to thebeginningof
the seventh century in theway that van Esbroeck attempts to argue, they comport well with the seventh-century milieu inwhich this earliest Life Constantinopolitan
oftheVirginwas most likelycomposed. Department
ofReligious Studies
1294UniversityofOregon Eugene, OR 97403-1294 sshoemak@uoregon. edu
115
Daley,
On theDormition
Mary, of
21.
DOP 62
ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATION AND DATING OF THE CHURCH OF DAYR ANB? B?S?Y ("REDMONASTERY") NEAR S?HAG INUPPER EGYPT HANS-GEORG SEVERIN
Introduction As iswell known, thechurchofDayr Anb? B?s?y1near toas the"Red S?h?g (Fig. ),often misleadinglyreferred to Elizabeth S. Bolman, the director of the Red Mon I am very grateful for astery Project, and theAmerican Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) in the church. the invitation to investigate the architectural decoration able to work inDayr Anb? B?s?y from 29 February to 8March 2004 and from 11 to 24 March 2007, and during these weeks tomake a I was
had escaped me on earlier, shorter visits. good memories of the pleasant atmosphere which Elizabeth Bol man to create. managed out in collaboration with the All work is Egyptian being carried number of observations which I have
Supreme Council of Antiquities, and we, themembers of the Red Mon thank especially Zahi Hawass, Abdallah Kamel, Magdi
astery Project, al-Ghandour,
Abdallah
Attar, and Mohammed
Abdel
Rahim. We
are
to the toHis Holiness Coptic Church, and particularly Pope She grateful nouda III, Bishop Yohannes, FatherWissa, and Father Antonius, for gen erous
2002 and 2005 hospitality and support.Work undertaken between was funded the States United for International by Development Agency
theEgyptian American (USAID) through Antiquities Project(EAP) ofthe
Research Center
in Egypt (ARCE),
-93-00089-00
(formerly 263-0000-G-00-3089-00).
under USAID
Grant No.
263-G-oo
Copyright for studies, and documentation car
all Red Monastery research, photography, toARCE. ried out during this period belongs and ARCE Monastery Project thank USAID
The members
of the Red
for their exceptional sup port and assistance, particularly Gerry D. Scott, III, Robert K. Vincent, Jr.,Janie Abdel Aziz, and Madame Amira. We are especially grateful to for EAP/ARCE. Michael Jones, Red Monastery Project Manager the sec
I had the opportunity of Peter Grossmann discussing with tion of the present material which deals with the construction history, and with his well-known generosity he made plans and literature avail able tome, forwhich I express my cordial thanks. Iwould like to thank
a Monastery," is small-scale copy, executed inmore mod estmaterials, of themonastic church located a just few
kilometersaway, whichwas builtby thefamousabbot Shenutearound themiddle of thefifthcentury(Dayr Anb? Sin?da, the so-calledWhite Monastery).2 The
original opulent decoration of the church of Shenute's monastery isnow, however, in ruinous condition, owing
to a disaster in theearly Middle Ages (probablyin the
seventh century), the results ofwhich included serious to parts of the sanctuary; moreover, on account damage
of subsequent repairs, laterdestructions, and ill-informed restorations,3 the former splendor and variety can now be
envisionedonlywith difficulty, ifat all.The architectural
decoration
of Dayr Anb?
B?s?y, by contrast, has been at least in the sanctuary and on the uniquely preserved, sanctuary's fa?ade (Figs. 3,5, 6):4 nowhere else in Egypt is there amonument of the late antique/early Byzantine period whose architectural sculpture remains in situ up
to thehighestlevelof the can reliablybe building5and
examined and assessed. Only 2
Monneret de Villard, Couvents, passim; Grossmann, Architektur, 528-36, figs. 150-53, pis. 8,10,12a (with older literature). P. Grossmann, "Zur Stiftung und Bauzeit der bei gro?en Kirche des Schenuteklosters 101 (2008): 35-54 argues for BZ S?h?g (Ober?gypten)," completion of themain
3
construction work
Cf. Grossmann,
for providing photographs, and I am very grateful to her and toDale Kinney for help inEnglish terminology. Dale Kinney was so kind as to transmit some of themeasurements shewas able to take from
und Malerei
a
tur, ed. M. Krause
Kirsten Krumeich
2006.1 thank C?dric Meurice for newly erected scaffold inDecember the access to unpublished photos taken by Jean Cl?dat. My photographs were taken in 2004 and 2007, except for a few that date to earlier visits to themonuments. 1
U. Monneret
Deyrel-Ahmar), licheArchitektur
de Villard, Les couvents pr?s de Soh?g (Deyr el-Abiad et (Milan, 1925-26), passim; P. Grossmann, Christ
2 vols.
in (Leiden-Boston-Cologne, ?gypten 155, 9a (with older literature). pl. fig.
DOP 62
2001),
536-39,
scarce traces of paint bear
in 449.
Architektur,
533-34; H.-G.
Severin, "Zur Skulptur Zeit in?gypten,"
der sp?tantiken and fr?hmittelalterlichen
in?gypteninsp?tantik-christlicher Zeit:Einf?hrungindiekoptische Kul
4
(Wiesbaden,
Severin, "Skulptur,"
1998), 311-14.
314-15.
For example, the capitals of thewindow frames in the crossing above the sanctuary, more than 10m above ground level. The architectural decoration carved inwood is entirely lost.A wooden
5
ornamental decoration in the south section of the sanctu moulding with ary fa?ade beneath the lower order niche isdocumented in awatercolor by J.Cl?dat dating from 1903/5 (Monneret de Villard, Couvents, flg. 212).
76
Hans-Georg I
Severin
evidence of the original colors;6 the extraordinarily well conserved polychromy on the plane and curved surfaces and on the sculptured elements in the sanctuary dates from a later period. A written source suggests that Shenute engaged and various trades for the con professional craftsmen of
paid struction and decoration of his large and splendid church
(DayrAnb? Sin?da).7This building is,inotherwords,
not monastic
art in the sense of having been created
bymonks. Shenuteevidentlydid not thinkhismonks
For Dayr Anb? Bis?y, by contrast, capable of suchwork. no we have such textual sources; but an analysis of the
hitherto unknown material, and to summarize my latest observations, made in the spring of 2004 and the spring
of 2007. My investigation is structured as follows. Part A: An annotated catalogue presents for the first construction elements. Section A.i time the sculptured reused older sculptured elements, especially column shafts.Their origin isnot known, nor is their age
discusses
but itisverylikelythattheyhad been preciselyspecified, carved for buildings of the Roman period. Some of the column shafts in the triconch are rehewn, i.e., shortened
for their reuse in the triconch.Under A.2
are discussed
the architectural
the section heading elements that have
architectural decoration
can, inmy opinion, show that here too the design and execution of the architectural decoration were in professional hands.
been sculpted for the construction of the church, above all column capitals, pilaster capitals, niches, and pedi ments. These are classified in groups, types, and variants.
It is not my intention to present here a complete and detailed description of the architectural decoration
The annotation
ofDayr Anb? B?s?y;8 rather,I should like to give for
not every in situ is in opinion, sculptured element found its initial location; this be due to old restorations might to the work of the Comit? de Conservation des prior Monuments de lArt Arabe in 1906/7. Section A.3 exam
the first time an overview of what
survives,9 to present
and the See E. S. Bolman, "Late Antique Aesthetics, Chromophobia, 6 Art Eastern Christian Red Monastery, ^ (2006): 1-24.1 Sohag, Egypt," on am to Luigi de Cesaris for his valuable information greatly indebted of the painting
the relative chronology
layers.
pour servir ? l'histoire de l'Egypte chr?tienne aux IVe et Ve si?cles, M?mMissCaire 4, 2 vols. (Paris, 1888 and 1895), 1:20-21; 2:637; inaccurately quoted, as P. Grossmann poin "Les aspects ?conomiques de la vie de la ted out tome, in E.Wipszycka,
7
See ?. Am?lineau,
Monuments
inLe
sitemonastique copte des Kellia: Sources Actes du Colloque de Gen?ve explorations arch?ologiques; historiques suisse d'arch?ologie 13 au is ao?t 1984, ed. P. Bridel, Mission copte de l'Universit? de Gen?ve (Geneva, 1986), 125; reprinted in: E. Wipszycka, communaut?
des Kellia,"
et
Etudes
sur le christianisme dans
l'Egypte de l'antiquit?
tardive (Rome,
1996), 346. presuppose a surveywith photographs of the entire archi tectural decoration of themonument, which Iwas unable to do for lack
8
This would
of technical equipment. In addition, an exact documentation of the sanc tuary fa?ade is urgently needed, since all the plans published hitherto in theNile (S. Clarke, Christian Antiquities Valley [Oxford, 1912], pi. 50;Monneret Romero,
H.-G. Evers and R. figs. 114 and 116; Kloster bei Sohag: Probleme der Rekonstruk am Nil: Internationale zur Ausstel Arbeitstagung
de Villard,
Couvents,
"Rotes undWeisses
tion," inChristentum
Villa H?gel, 23.-2s. Juli 1963, ed. K. Wessel lung "KoptischeKunst"Essen, 1964], 180, fig. 1)misrepresent essential details. [Recklinghausen, 9
In order to facilitate the description
of the architectural
decoration
some of them translated from I use the following terms, those used already by P. Grossmann: = east inner wall of the naos in its full breadth. sanctuary fa?ade east colonnade = the four columns at the east end of the naos, run
of the building,
to the sanctuary outer columns are also part fa?ade. The two ning parallel of the north and south colonnades respectively. The two central columns of the east colonnade triumphal fa?ade.
have taller shafts than the lateral columns. arch = the arch in the central opening of the sanctuary
on the conception gives observations and accentuation of the architectural sculpture. In my
ines a special case of reuse: in the two doors in the outer brick wall, the north and the south doors, are inserted as shown late-antique building materials, doubtless reused
Hence arise by theirunskillfulanddisjointedassembly. the following questions: were these outer walls?with at a insertion of late-antique building material?built to outer later period replace the original but dilapidated
walls? Or did theouterwalls belong originallyto the church, and the two doors were inserted at a later date? Is itpossible to date the late-antique building elements,
andmight theyhave comefromdemolishedpartsof the
original church? Part contains an interpretative summary of the architectural decoration. Section B.i treats the typological position of the capitals in their late-antique-Egyptian acan context and in particular the foliage designs of the thus leaf (B.1.1-B.1.3); Section B.2 considers the typologi cal position of the niche decoration.
In Part C the organization of the construction work is discussed. Peter Grossmann has that argued recently the triconch and the naos of the church were constructed
was once separately, i.e., that the triconch free-standing.10 east passages = the two passages to the side rooms of the triconch. west passages = the two passages into the naos. 10
Grossmann,
Architektur
(
.
leading
east from the side conches
from the side conches
above),
leading
west
538.
DOP 62
Architectural Decoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 77 |
therewas only one construction phase:
carved blocks deriving from other architectural contexts, rehewn and decorated for this church.12
triconch and the sanctuary's fa?ade, on the other hand the outer walls) were allotted to different groups ofwork
If, by contrast, we restrict the search to sculptured elements whose reuse is obvious, the number is relatively small.
In my opinion,
differentsectionsof thebuilding (on theone hand the
men, but theyworked contemporaneously. Part D examines the arguments for the date of the
Triconch: The fourteen column shaftsof the attached
Hitherto thebuildinghas beendated to thelate church.
fifth century on the basis of a
assessment of typological a the architecture and few published column capitals.11 Inmy view, however, from the uncommon forms judging some of the pilaster capitals, which have escaped atten of
are ofmarble;14 the second and third column shafts are of granite, as are the ten shafts in the north and south conches (Fig. 6).15 two column shafts embed Sanctuary fa?ade: The in ded the triumphal arch together with their coarsely
tion up to the present, we should move the date of the its architectural decoration forward into building and a more
lower order have been visibly re?ut and reused.13 In the eastern conch, the first and the fourth column shafts
hewn bases are reused granite columns, obviously in their
recent
period, i.e., themiddle third of the sixth we can show at the same time that the other century; are a mostly of retrospective character. capitals
originalheight (Fig. 5).
Naos: All the upright columns, i.e., the four gran ite column shafts of the east colonnade,16 including the two taller central column shafts, have been reused, as
has the shaft of the second column of the north colon
nade17made ofgreenstone (Fig. 50). It is likelythatall the other column
A. The Architectural Decoration
in this connection 12 Revealing used as a lintel for the south door
shall never be able to determine exactly the extent to which existing sculptured construction elements were
We
reused in the construction of Dayr Anb? B?s?y. Deco into the ashlar stonework can, rative pieces integrated
while in afterall,normallybe seenonlyfromthefront,
quent
reuse of the frieze block as the lintel of the door
the case of the pilaster capitals of the passages and doors in the triconch and on the fa?ade of the sanctuary there
these decorative pieces are not visible all around, there is no way of excluding the possibility that they are in some way or another reworked pieces?in other words,
was
isadditionallyanothersideabuttingat rightangles.As
Cf., for example, ibid., 539 (second half, or more precisely penulti of the 5th century); K. Krumeich, Sp?tantike Bauskulptur
2 vols. (Wies Einfl?sse, Oxyrhynchos: Lokale Produktion??ussere baden, 2003), 1:20-21 (second half of the 5th century); P. Pensabene, Ele e di altri siti menti architettonici di Alessandria egiziani (Rome, 1993), 53 aus
nos. 572-73 (last (penultimate decade of the 5th century); ibid., 441-42, third of the 5th century); H.-G. Severin, "Zum Dekor der Nischenbekr? aus
sp?tantiken Grabbauten
?gyptens,"
Riggisberger
Berichte
1
Severin,"Skulptur,"315(last (1993):76 (lastthirdof the 5thcentury); "
quarter of the 5th century); L. T?r?k, heap of stones': Aspects of the BSAC 42 from Heracleopolis Sculpture Magna/Ahnas,"
Architectural
(2003): 95 (second half of the 5th century). U. Monneret de Villard him self favored a dating in the 5th century ("La basilica cristiana in Egitto," 'mAtti del IV Congresso Internazionale 1938, 2 vols. [Rome, 1940], 1:299).
DOP 62
di Archeologia
Cristiana,
Roma
13
that the ancient
relief is now visible once more.
Each
of the side conches
and four bays. In the and three bays: the greater breadth of of the east conch; in addition, there
has five columns
east conch there are four columns
these bays emphasizes the priority a desire to avoid a column on the central axis of the east presumably
conch, and a central niche was preferred instead.
14 Nos. 6 and 9. The numbering of the columns and niches begins in the triconch at the left-hand (west) corner of the north conch and pro ceeds clockwise (see Fig. 2). 15
mate decade,
is now large ashlar block which in the outer wall. It has traces on its
is the
underside of remains of an ancient Egyptian relief.This stone was reused in late antiquity and cut to size as part of a frieze, decorated on one side and shifted so that its ancient decoration was no longer visible, since it on the underside of the block. It is as a result of the subse now only lay Egyptian
nungen
were
reused older pieces.18
A.i. ReusedOlder CarvedBlocks
11
shafts of the naos colonnades
All
the column
shafts of the lower order of the triconch were con
in at the lower end for use in the church, resulting siderably shortened the loss of the base profile. One column shaft in the south conch (no. 10) has an ankh in low relief,which could be seen about halfway up before the shaftwas
shortened. Cf.
the column
from the east in the north colonnade
shaft of the second
(Fig. 50),where
column
a decorative motif
appears about halfway up the shaft. Its simply profiled limestone pieces from the Roman period. 16
bases may be late antique
or reused
17 from the east: it is the only standing column in the Counting north colonnade, and it is outside the part of the building now used as a church. 18
InW.
pour servir ? l'arch?ologie de l'Egypte 1901), 63, itwas presumed by contrast that the
de Bock, Mat?riaux
chr?tienne (St. Petersburg,
78
Severin
Hans-Georg I
The overwhelming majority of thepieces mentioned so far are there are as well some granite column shafts;
one marble column shaft. In granite column bases and other words, old architectural sculptured elements were
obtained forthe tallercolumns in thebuildingand in some cases also for their bases.
On topof theouterbrickwalls thereare stillcon
siderable remains of the ashlar cavetto, very likely reused as well as thewaterspout with lion head in the pieces,
west outer wall.
In the lower section near the middle
of the east outerwall is a reusedblockwith flat relief decoration
(basket with grapes).
Elsewhere in thebuilding individualreusedcarved but theycannotbe assigned blocks can be identified,
with certainty to the original structure.19
shafts in a regular way but consist of three or four care which were then assembled around fully hewn parts,
the lower portion of the column shaft:.22As a result, at and seem to bear first glance they appear monolithic, theweight of the columns,23 which in factwere placed
directlyon thestylobate(Fig.6). A.2.I.
The
The Corinthian
column
capitals24
in the triconch
capitals of the lower order25 appear much
largerthanthoseof theupperorder26(Fig.6); theirupper
zones are very broad, so that the breadth at the top of their fronts is substantially greater than that of their
sides (Figs. 8, 9).27 This feature, along with theirmore sets them off in striking fashion from opulent motifs, the narrower Corinthian
columns of the upper order, whose motifs are less rich. In this differential weighting, the arrangement follows the custom whereby a distinc tion ismade between the orders of the ground floor and
A.2. Architectural ElementsDecorated
Building forthe the other visible decorated pieces20 in the triconch the column shafts together with the crossing including and bases of the upper order,21 on the sanctuary fa?ade, and in the east colonnade were obviously made specifically
22
order of the triconch: they do not support the reused
B?suy, this clever mode of procedure exploited the stability of the hard stone column shaft in its full of placing the shafts on height, instead soft limestone bases.
All
forthisbuilding,justlikethecolumnbases of thelower
shaftswere made
reerected specially for the church, because the shaft of the second support of the north colonnade (cf. note 15) shows a christogram. The christogram in the circle is indeed present, but it is executed in such a thin and flat manner that evidently in its place
column column
must have been previously an older, somewhat larger decorative motif. On the use of an ankh for relief decoration on a column shaft in the north conch, see note 15.Two
column
shafts in the former naos measure
and 421 cm respectively in height, 59 and 58 cm in diameter tom, and 51 and 53 cm in diameter at the top.
423
at the bot
entrance to on the south piece pilaster of the north the side rooms of the triconch (second stone under PC 8) was certainly can be seen on the in the course of a repair. Hieroglyphs placed there only east side of the threshold of the present church door. The reliefs which 19
A decorative
are walled
in above the present church door do not derive, inmy view, structure.
from the original
The sculptured blocks that can be saidwith certainty, or some prob at least, to have been cut for use in this been num building have ability
20
bered byme consecutively with an abbreviation referring to their cate gory. The simply decorated bases of the upper order in the triconch and the niches, which are all representatives of a simplified Attic pattern, have not been individually listed. 21
The surface of the first column of the upper order of the north conch
29 cm]and thebase [height (height214cm,includingthecapital[height
23.5 cm]) has become easily visible as a result of the restoration. The col to secure umn shaft has been regularly scraped all round good adhesion for a thin layer of plaster and the subsequent painting.
at the front: 50 cm. These parts are absent from column 5 floor covers the original floor as well as the lower parts of the column bases. Breadth
of the north conch. The modern
can be seen, for in the transept basilica example, Something similar where a column shaft is enclosed at the of al-Asmunayn/Hermoupolis, bottom by a two-part limestone column base. There, as inDayr Anb?
23
The terminology of late-antique architectural ornamentation, and of the late-antique capital, was, as iswell known, developed by German scholars (cf. esp. R. Kautzsch, Kapitellstudien: Beitr?ge zu einer Geschichte im Osten vom vierten his ins siebente Jahrhun des sp?tantiken Kapitells 24
dert [Berlin-Leipzig, 1936]). The translation of these terms,which were no means in the first place, but which have always felicitously chosen by become international reference terms, is not without itsproblems. Thus
for example the "weichzackiger Akanthus" was translated byW. E. Betsch as "crowded acanthus" ("The of and Distribution History, Production in Constantinople" [Ph.D. diss., University which, however, makes no clear distinction 1977], 55), between this and the "starrzackiger Akanthus," which can also appear "crowded." Even less felicitous, inmy view, is the term "mask acanthus" the Late Antique of Pennsylvania,
Capital
(ibid., 188-89), used byW. E. Betsch for "grossgezackter Akanthus," because it is purely associative, and furthermore relates not to the out line and relief of the individual leaf, but to the negative cut-out shapes leaves. adjacent "soft The terms used here are, for the "weichzackiger Akanthus": "fine-toothed acanthus"; for acanthus"; for "feingezahnter Akanthus":
between
"Blattge?st":
"leaf branches";
"Kesselkapitell":
"bowl-shaped
25
Height
37-43 cm.
26
Height
29-33 cm
27
Breadth
64.5
for "Faltkapitell":
"fold capital";
and for
capital."
on two (bottom) 36-37, breadth (top) (measured examples) 52 cm and 61 x 51 cm respectively.
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 79 |
Six lowerleavesdisplayedon threesidesof
in respect both to their size and to galleries of churches, of elaboration of their capitals.28 the degree A.2.I.I.
the capital.
Only fiveupper leavesvisibleon threesides
LOWER ORDER: CC I-14 (FIGS. 2, 6-9)
of the capital: on the lateral sides, the central
upper leafismissing and replacedineach
Here we see three variants of a pattern.
case
by Caules.
Type C?a (Fig.7):Nine examples(fourin theeast 6-9; fouron the corner columns of the side conches: CC 1,CC 5,29CC 10,CC 14; one example conch: CC
The sheath-leaves are united with the helices to form a
single motif, i.e., the sheath-leaves have attached external helices.
on column4 of thenorthconch:CC 4).
Six lowerleavesdisplayedon threesidesof
the capital. Seven upper leaves visible on three sides of the capital. (i.e., stalks carrying the sheath
Caules
leaves). Sheath-leaves
(without helices).
Foliage design:Egyptian lateformof the soft acanthus.30
TypeCib (Fig. 8):Three examples(on column2 of the north conch: CC
2, and on columns
11 and 13
of thesouthconch:CC 11, CC 13). Six lowerleavesdisplayedon threesidesof the capital.
Only fiveupper leavesvisibleon threesides
of the capital: on the two lateral sides the central upper leaf ismissing and replaced in each case by a leaflet or floral motif.
Caules. Sheath-leaves
(without helices).
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft acanthus.
the central columns of the north and south conch:
CC 3,CC 12).
In East Roman
capital
was
popular
inPhilippi (builtca. 500)had Corinthian capitalson thegroundand ? l'?poque galleryfloors(P.Lemerle,PhilippesetlaMac?doine orientale [Paris, 1945],
405, pl. 28). C?a
shows a special variant (between Types a central upper leaf on on its lateral sides: the capital has
is
ismissing on the northern lateral side and a leaflet. Seen from the center of the triconch, however,
CC
29
5 in the north conch
and Cib) its southern lateral side,which replaced by
CC 5 lookslikeTypeC?a. 30
Cf. below under B.i.1.1.
DOP 62
acanthus.
For all three types, the decoration
of the abacus bosses
varies.
of the capital variants reveals an scheme. Type C?a, which has the most
The distribution
arrangement set ofmotifs, appears in the side conches on complete their corner columns (additionally, on column 4 of the
northconch),butfillstheeastconchwith a totaloffour examples. Type Cic with attached helices emphasizes the central axis of the side conches. The most modest
type,Type Cib, occursonly in thesideconches: in the
south conch twice, between the corner column and the middle column, i.e., on columns 11 and 13, and in the north conch only on column 2.Here, in the north conch, the arrangement scheme is not adhered to (Type Cib
should actually appear on column 4), but inmy opinion this does not mean that we should be skeptical that a systemic arrangement existed. In view of the regularity
of thedistributionof theothercapitals,itcouldwell be that in thecase of capitalCC 4 of thenorthconchwe
a on the part of theworkmen, an error merely lapse of execution. In spite of the lapse, the arrangement is still effective. It aims above all to set off the east conch
use of four similar and against the side conches by the more east to and executed richly emphasize the capitals conch bymeans of the design of the corner columns of
art the relatively simple form of the Ionic impost for the gallery story. But the important Basilica A
chr?tienne et byzantine: Recherches d'histoire etd'arch?ologie
Foliage design:Egyptian lateformof thesoft
see
TypeCic (fig.6,9): Two examples(in each caseon
28
a leaflet or floral motif.
the side conches.
The subtlety of the differences among the three vari an untrained eye can ants is noteworthy: easily overlook them. The individual responsible for the arrangement scheme assumed that the differentiation in the decoration
of the capitals would produce an effect, even though it is not particularly striking.31
31
U. Monneret
tiation. His
de Villard
judgment
also overlooked
of the capitals
the deliberate
of Dayr Anb?
B?suy:
differen "Dans
ce
80
Hans-Georg I
A.2.I.2.
Severin
UPPER
ORDER:
CC
The fourteen capitals of the upper order (Fig. io)32 reveal a no variants, but are all examples of single pattern, with a
The
A.2.3.
15-28
THE
A.2.3.I.
Three tall lower leaves displayed on three sides of the capital.
Eight lower leaves. Eight upper leaves. Scale-like caules.
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft
Broad fan of sheath-leaves, inwhich can be seen a rosette (on two sides)35 or else a
acanthus.
of the triumphal
figure-eight.
arch
acanthus.
, 12).
Similarly decorated
counterparts
(CC
No helices.
Foliage design:Egyptian lateformof thesoft;
in the sanctuaryfa?ade:CC 29-30 (Figs. 2,
CC 31-32
Type C4:
Sheath-leaves with outer helices.
capitals33
COLUMNS
The two capitals are quite different. North version CC 31 (Figs. 13-14):34
Four upper leaves on the corners. No caules.
two
CENTRAL
(FIGS. 2, 14-1$)
Type C2:
The
TALLER
TWO
in the naos
capitals
OF THE EAST COLONNADE:
set ofmotifs. substantially reduced
A.2.2.
column
SouthversionCC 32 (Fig. 15):36
30: Figs. 11,12).
Type Csa:
TypeC3: Lower
leaves. Eight lower Eight upper leaves.
leaves.
Upper leaves (upper part of the central upper leafwith a row of beads on the central rib). Caules decorated in three zones.
Decorated
Broad fan of sheath-leaves, inwhich on one side there is a flower in a circle. No helices.
a place of the sheath-leaf calyx, in each case, filled with aMaltese medallion
Above,
in
cross, towhich
caules.
Convex
necking
with laurel sprig.37
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft
a small outer helix with
acanthus.
sparse foliage is attached. Small necking.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft acanthus. ca. 67, breadth (bottom) ca. 62, breadth ca. 96 cm. Height (top) Several lower leaves are badly damaged, having lost at least their over in addition to the hanging central leaf-lobe. It is,however, striking that corners and upper leaves, above all on the north side the small boss above 34
monument
les chapiteaux, bien qu'avec quelque diff?rence dans les d?tails, au type corinthien, mais sont uniformes. Ils manquent appartiennent ? Alep de la table sup?rieure, comme ceux de lamadrasa al-Hal?wiyya
et certains et de sont lon Les chapiteaux de Baw?t Saqqara. feuillages avec une d'une retombe secs, gues, gr?les, pointe qui fa?on exag?r?e. Ce model? donne presque une impression m?tallique, augment?e par l'ex? nervures et des croix et cution minutieuse des globules qui d?corent les des ronds plac?s entre les feuilles" 32
Height
29-33, breadth
{Couvents
(bottom)
[
.
22, breadth
above], 2:125). (top) 40-41
cm.
ca. 65, breadth example CC 29: height 68.5, breadth (bottom) ca. 74 cm. Neither isdecorated all round, the side the (top) capital facing wall being leftplain, so that the leaves are not complete. This arrange 33
ment
North
strengthens nal position.
our confidence
that both capitals
are in their origi
in the underside of the capital is relatively badly damaged, i.e., places that could hardly have been affected by the use of violence against the capital was was in situ. The inference must be that the capital replaced after it damaged, 35
On
for example, after collapsing. the north and south sides.
ca. 70, breadth (bottom) ca. 63 cm (D. Height Kinney). The capi convex tal iswell preserved, as is its decorated There is?in necking. contrast to capital CC 31?no visible indication that itmay have been
36
a damaged after collapse, tion at a later date.
for example,
and placed
in its present posi
convex in since necking had been used Constantinople century with composite and bizonal capitals, but not with a Corinthian Corinthian column capital with a decorated capitals. On convex seeKrumeich, necking from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos, Bauskulp 37
Decorated
themid-5th
tur ( . il above), 1:50; 2:12 (K-32), pl. 23 (date: second quarter half of the 6th century).
to second
DOP 62
Architectural Decoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?suy ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 81 |
REMAINING
A.2.3.2.
COLONNADES
Insteadof the southversionof the two capitals in the
corner
east colonnade, amodern positions of the ment has been deployed. A.2.3.2.1: North
corner
colonnade: CC
TypeC$b:
replace
east position of the 33 (Figs. 3,13,16)38
caules.
necking.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft acanthus.
two central col striking that the capitals of the umns of the east colonnade CC 31-32 are not similarly decorated as counterparts. One would have expected It is
them?like
onlylater.It istruethatoldphotographsshowCC 31and 32 in their present positions prior to the restorations of theComit? de Conservation desMonuments de l'Art
CC
in 1906/7; but a previous loss of the north capital
might have led to theuse of a largecapital to close the
Broad fan of sheath-leaves. No helices. No
excluded that the northern counterpart toCC 32has been lost and that CC 31was moved to its present position
Arabe
Eight lower leaves. Eight upper leaves. Decorated
columns of the eastern colonnade. Compared to the excel severe lent conservation of CC 32, the relatively damage to is In CC 31 puzzling.39 my view, it cannot be capital
even if its decoration did not fitwith conspicuous gap, its counterpart. I do not think a final decision between the two alternatives ispossible at this time. One argument speaks for the correct position ofCC
33 (heightca. 52cm): thecorresponding pilastercapital
PC 2 on the sanctuary fa?ade is of about the same height
(ca. 53cm).
From one of the colonnades?
A.2.3.2.2.
those of the triumphal arch CC 29-30? to their to have formed a pair with respect
CC34(Fig.i7)40
Type C6:
originally decoration, and the question ariseswhether both capitals are in their initial location. To my mind, the facts lead to
Eight
lower leaves.
the one hand, the capitals CC 31-32with their heights of ca. 65 and ca. 70 cm are very large speci
Eight upper leaves. Decorated caules.
of only ca. 52 cm. This could mean that CC 31-32 were carved for their special location on top of the two central columns of the east colonnade, whereas the normal colon
Medallion
a dilemma. On
Broad
which has a height mens, remarkably higherthanCC 33,
nade capitals?like CC 33?were planned and executed at a lesser In this case we must acknowledge that height.
31-32 were decorated differently because deliberate accentuation was desired. On the other hand, there is further a very large capital, the below-mentioned CC 34
CC
sheath-leaf fan.No
helices.
with cross on center of the abacus.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof the soft acanthus.
on the basis of its dimensions capital could, come from one of the colonnade and decoration, The
columns.41
northaisleon thefloor(underside (Fig. 17)in theformer damaged,height still63 cm),whichwith respectto its
can be attributed to the original height and decoration more than two if Anb? of However, Dayr B?s?y. building very large column capitals existed, the height alone of CC 31-32would not prove that they are situated in their in the center of the east colonnade. original location
The factthatthispiece istheonlyone of theeastcol
onnade capitals with a decorated convex necking supports
thecorrectnessof theposition ofCC 3.Thismaywell
was chosen for a suggest that it particularly important course the case for the two central is which of position, 38
Height
DOP 62
53,breadth
(bottom)
ca. 55,breadth
(top)
ca. 92 cm.
39 40
Cf. note 37. In the former north aisle on the floor. Underside
damaged,
height
at least50,breadth(top)formerly still63,breadth(bottom)formerly 93 as yet to determine in the older literature.
cm. I have been unable is not mentioned 41
There
is no trace whatever
the origin of the piece, which
of a somewhat
smaller row of columns
as reconstructed in the de Villard, Couvents byMonneret gallery story, . 2: as or either the shafts the capitals. 114, above), ( fig. regards
Hans-Georg
Severin
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? Bis?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 83
CC33
ce 32 i
ce 31
m. MZM_.mzm lllp
A.2.4. Half-column
?
A.2.4.1.1.
Large
and pilaster capitals
lower
orders
A.2.4.1.1.1. The pilasters corresponding to the two central columns east of the colonnade: PC
1
(Figs. 11, iS)
east to the opposite large columns of the corresponding colonnade. The capitals of these two pilasters are shorter and do not reach the same impost level as the respec tive neighboring column capitals of the triumphal arch (CC 29-30). The south pilaster capital has been replaced
by
are by H.-G.
Severin.
inadequate match for the opposite column capi tal of the east colonnade CC 31,43nor does it look very to the visibly appropriate positioned directly adjacent arch CC of the column 29 triumphal capital higher and compared with
the likewise higher pilaster capital
CC 29 isbadlydamaged at itsnorthwest PC 2 (Fig. 11). this damage to the column capital have in situ, as a result of the collapse of sections of
occurred
the superstructure, the directly adjacent pilaster capital would also necessarily have been affected; PC 1,however, has no damage worth mentioning. Since, furthermore, the condition of the ashlar setting beneath the pilaster 1 isdue to a restoration, there iscause fordoubt capital PC
whether
the piece is in itsoriginal position.
the two lat
The pilasters corresponding to the north and south colonnades: PC2-3
less high than the pilasters at the sides of the are triumphal arch, and placed somewhat further out, on two the sanctuary fa?ade, corresponding the pilasters to the columns of the north and south colonnade of the
Somewhat lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves at the corners and a central upper leaf. Caules.
are decorated on naos (cf. only Figs. 3-4). Their capitals
thefrontside (PC 2-3).
Sheath-leaves with outer helices.
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft acanthus.
DOP 62
and plans
A.2.4.I.I.2.
Type Pi:
Height
in the
was an
eral sides have been left smooth.
42
capitals
lowheight,pilastercapitalPC With itsrelatively
North
Two
Bis?y, plan of column
Dayr Anb?
all photos
reconstruction.
1 example: PC (Figs. 11,18)42 Decorated only on the front side,while
2
triconch,lowerorder (CC 1-14),triumphalarch (CC 29-30) and east colonnade (CC 31-33).Unless otherwisespecified,
corner. Should
In the sanctuary fa?ade there is one pilaster alongside each of the embedded columns of the triumphal arch,
a modern
i7^.
! ! wfflfa
SANCTUARY FA?ADE (FIGS. 3-4)
A.2.4.I.
?
? ? '-1 (? j
44, breadth
(bottom)
ca. 47, breadth
(top)
ca. 78 cm.
43
Cf.A.2.3.1.
84
IHans-Georg
Severin
Fig. 3 Dayr Anb? Bis?y, sanctuary Monneret
fa?ade (after de Villard,
Couvents,
2:
Fig. 4
fig. 116)
Dayr Anb?
sanctuary
Bis?y,
capitals
PC
pilaster 1?15 and column
capitals
CC
29-30
fa?ade:
DOP62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?suy ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 85 |
Type P2a: northexample (PC z;44Fig. 19)
Both capitals show the same pattern, but
theydifferina numberofdetails.
Instead of the lower leaf there is an unusual combination ofmotifs: a trefoil is growing a out of two tendrils, consisting of three toothed motif in each case, the central one the two tendrils form a heart being longer; shaped interior field, embracing the trefoil,
these pilasters, or above the impost of their as the case may be, a stripofwall is free of decora capitals, course of the architrave. tion. This was the formerly Above
A.2.4.1.2. Large upper order
and coming close together at the top; on the outside of each a toothed leaf is attached; over thewhole
design the traditional has been preserved. overhang45 Two half upper leaves at the corners and an
A.2.4.I.2.I. section: PC4
The north pilaster has not been preserved
South example (PC 4: Fig. 21):
Type Pi:
beads on the central rib). caules. Above each (instead of Multizonal
Two
thesheath-leaf calyx),amedallionwhich cross and towhich
lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves at the corners and a
is
centralupper leaf(withrowofbeads on the
attached an outer helix with sparse foliage.
central rib).
Foliage designof theupper leaves:"leaf
Caules.
branches."46
Sheath-leaves with outer helices.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft
Type Pib: southexample (PC 3:Figs. 20, 29)
acanthus.
Instead of the lower leaf there is an unusual ofmotifs: a trefoil is growing a out of two tendrils, consisting of three combination
A.2.4.I.2.2.
toothed motif in each case, the central one
two tendrils form a heart being longer; the interior field, embracing the trefoil, shaped and coming close together at the top; on the outside of each a toothed leaf is attached; over thewhole design the traditional has been preserved. overhang
Two half upper leaves at the corners and an upper leaf in themiddle (only the central on the central upper leafwith row of beads
rib).
In themiddle
of the sheath-leaf fan a rosette;
outer helices. leaves: Foliage design of the lateral upper of the soft acanthus. Egyptian late form
Foliagedesignof thecentralupper leaf:"leaf branches."
45
Height
acanthus 46
54.5, breadth
I.e., the projecting leaf.
Cf. B.1.1.1, below.
DOP 62
(bottom)
ca. 49, breadth
and overhanging
(top)
ca. 78 cm.
tip of the central lobe of the
The pilasters in the south section: PC5-6
The south pilaster, in itsdimensions and decoration the counterpart of itsnorth neighbor, is, in itsupper portion, the controversial result of the restoration of theComit? des Monuments
de lArt Arabe dating from the early years of the twentieth century.48However,
de Conservation
47 Height 37,breadth(bottom)44.5, breadth(top)69 cm. . i8 de Villard, above), pi. 25 and Monneret ( : is still in these old the the of 46: top pilaster photographs fig. de Villard, Couvents, 2:74,97 strongly favored a lesser absent. Monneret de Bock, Mat?riaux
48
Couvents,
that the present height was an error com height for the pilaster, stating mitted during restoration; the correct height, he said, documented by his own observations before the restoration, was rather the smaller value,
indicated in his reconstruction drawing (ibid., 2: here the northern part of the sanctuary fa?ade is drawn). This fig. 114: conclusion has been adapted by Evers and Romero, "Rekonstruktion"
which
he himself had
.8 above), 180. These authors preferred a lesser height for the pilaster in the (and its counterpart in the north sanctuary fa?ade) since it stood way of the roof of the galleries, whose height is indicated by beam holes. (
if the pilaster was lower than it is today, its capital, breadth at the top was certainly greater than the breadth of the come to the pilaster of the immediately painfully close pilaster, would a one has to say that the niche, flanked moreover, niche; by adjacent a con not a very present considerably lower pilaster, would high and a of vincing picture; in its present position, however, flanked by pair
On 44
to its full
height.
upper leafin themiddle (allwith a rowof
contains aMaltese
The pilasters in the north 47
the other hand,
whose
86
IHans-Georg
Severin
vip
Fig.
5
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, sanctuary
fa?ade, detail
Fjg.
the capital placed on this pilaster at that timemay well be a rediscovered original.49 North and south examples (PC $-6).
A.2.4.1.3.
Missing decorative ern reconstruction.
50
More
detailed
and by itsposition.
items have been replaced elsewhere by a mod
assessment of the was capital prevented by poor light
south conch
and smaller lower orders (at
. The
to the openingsfrom the aisles rooms lateral side of the triconch
The framing pilasters with arch above: PC 7-9 together
A.2.4.I.3.I.I.
acanthus.
notwithstanding.
B?s?y,
openings and doors)
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft
49
Dayr Anb?
A.2.4.1.3? Medium
Like PC 4: Type Pi.50
comes across as architecturally unobjection pilasters of equal height, it de Villard and of Evers and Romero able, the reservations ofMonneret
i^^ij^m^R
the north side both pilasters have been preserved one to (PC 7-8: Figs. 4, 22), on the south side, only the
On
thenorth (PC 9: Figs.4, 23); theone to the southhas
been replaced by a modern reconstruction. Pilaster capitals decorated on two sides meeting
at
and sides identical. right angles, front
DOP62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?S?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 87
3
Fig.
7
Dayr Anb? B?suy, south conch, lower order: CC 14, Type C?a front and side
Fig.
9
Dayr Anb? B?suy, north conch, Type Cic side
Fig.
Ii
DOP 62
Dayr Anb?
CC 29
B?suy, sanctuary
lower order: CC
fa?ade:
PC
2, PC
3,
Fi?.
io
Dayr Anb? Type C2
B?s?y, north conch, upper order: CC
Fig.
/2
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, sanctuary
17,
1,
CC 30
fa?ade,
triumphal
arch:
88
IHans-Georg
Severin
Type P3a:
lower leaves (with row of beads on the central rib).
Two
Two half upper leaves at the corners and a central upper leaf (with row of beads on the central rib).
a row of beads. consisting of Sheath-leaves with outer helices, some indeed with inner helices.51
Caules
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft acanthus.
A.2.4.1.3.1.2. Fig. J3
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, east colonnade:
CC
31, CC
33
The pilasters flanking the doors: PC 10-11
The pilaster capitals of the south door have been replaced by reconstructions. Pilaster capitals of the north door (PC 10-11): deco rated on two sides meeting at right angles, front and side identical.
Type P3b: lower leaves (with row of beads on the central rib). Two half upper leaves at the corners and one Two
central upper leaf. a row of beads. consisting of
Caules
Sheath-leaves with outer helices. Fig.
14
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, east colonnade,
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft
central columns:
acanthus.
CC31
A.2.4.1.3.2.
The west entrances of thewest passages: PC 12-is
The capitals of the northerly west passage
are
relatively
poorly preserved (PC 12-13). west passage: PC 14-15.Deco Capitals of the southerly rated on two sides intersecting at right angles.52 It is sur prising at first that the sides of the capitals in the sanctuary fa?ade, normally seen as the frontor main sides (Figs. 3-4, 24), are narrower than the "subsidiary" sides in the opening
itself(Fig. 25).This probably does not mean that thebroader sides of the capitals in the soffitof the opening should be
seen
51 Fig.
is
Dayr Anb?
CC 32
B?suy, east colonnade,
central columns:
as main
sides
or as a
In the south example PC
particular
accentuation.
8 iswell preserved
Rather,
(Fig. 22).
North
example: height 37; front: breadth (bottom) 12,breadth (top) 25 cm; side: breadth (bottom) 24.5, breadth (top) 40 cm. South example: cm. height 36; front: breadth (bottom) 12; side: breadth (bottom) 26 52
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?S?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 89
this strangephenomenon can be explained by the fact that the neighboring pilasters of the large orders intersectwith sides of the pilaster capitals in the sanctuary fa?ade, so that,
as itwere, one half of this side of the only capital isvisible in the sanctuary In fact the front sides (cf.Figs. 3-4,24-25).
fa?ade reveal precisely half of the usual decorative motifs. The capitals are higher than those at the east end of the opening, PC 16-19.
Type P4a: ?front (Fig.24 right): One
lower leaf.
an upper leaf at the corner and one central upper leaf.
Half
Caules.
Fig. i6
Dayr Anb?
B?s?y, east colonnade,
north corner: CC
Sheath-leaf with small volute.
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft acanthus.
l|JL*?^ILJW?li'T^tliii|
?"? ?ra-EjJMPPWPM'i
|
?side:
Two
lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves at the corners and one central upper leaf. Caules. Sheath-leaves with outer helices.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft acanthus.
The two pilaster capitals of the north opening are clearly to be to this type. assigned
TypeP4b (Figs.24-25):
Fig.
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, former north aisle: CC
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, sanctuary
The north example of the south opening (PC 14) has a special feature. The lower on the front region of the single lower leaf side is replaced by a leaf growing from two heart-shaped tendrils; above itprojects the overhang of the central leaf-lobe of
the traditional acanthus leaf (Fig. 25). The counterpart PC 15 shows in this position a "normal" acanthus leafwith the foliage
designof theEgyptianlateformof thesoft acanthus
(Fig. 24).
Fig.
DOP 62
18
fa?ade:
PC
34
33
90
IHans-Georg
Fig.
ig
Severin
Dayr Anb?
Bis?y,
sanctuary
fa?ade:
PC
2
Fig.
20
Dayr Anb?
Bis?y,
sanctuary
fa?ade:
PC
3
22
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, sanctuary
fa?ade:
PC
8 front
^W?mmmmmmmmW?mmmmm
Fzg.
2J
Dayr Anb?
Bis?y,
sanctuary
fa?ade:
PC 4
Fig.
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?Suy ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 91
DOP62
92 IHans-Georg
Severin
Two half upper leaves at the corners. Sheath-leaves with outer helices.
Foliagedesign:Egyptian lateformof thesoft acanthus.
The west entrances of the east
A.2.4.2.2.
passages: PC 20-23 In their dimensions capitals PC
are like design, these pilaster 16-19, i-e-> Type P5. THE
A.2.4.3.
and
NICHES
The half-columns
and pilasters of the niches54 have whose motifs are heavily shortened, capitals while the details are more varied, more playful than methodical. Corinthian
in the case of half-column
Type C7
capitals.
Type P6 in the case of pilaster capitals (figs. 27-28).
Two
lateral half-leaves. in some cases
Caules, cases
some clearly visible, in
covered.
Sheath-leaf, as a rulewith outer helices.55 Fig.
26
Dayr Anb? passage:
PC
B?suy, south conch,
east entrance
Foliagedesign:Egyptianlateformof thesoft
of the west
acanthus.
19 A.2.4.4.
THE
WINDOW
OPENINGS
IN THE
CROSSING The north, east, and south walls
TRICONCH
A.2.4.2. A.2.4.2.
. The
east
entrances
passages: PC
to the west
16-19 (PC 18-19:
Figs. 26-30) Decorated on two sides at intersecting right angles, front and sides identical.However, the fronts are narrower and slightly curved in line with the curvature of the conch, the sides are broader and straight.53 The capitals at thewest end of the smaller than those noticeably
while are
opening, PC
12-15.
Type P5 (PC 19:Figs.26, 30): One high lowerleaf(withrowofbeads on the central rib).
in the passage in the south conch: height 28-30, breadth of the front 18,of the sides 27.5 and 23.5 cm. (bottom)
53
Dimensions
of the crossing each have three rectangular window openings.56 Their deco ration consists of a cavetto and two flank load-bearing turn a cavetto. The in which bear ing elements, flanking are two half-columns, two elements pilasters, and two half-columns respectively. The west wall has two smaller lateral niches and a central window opening: here the are two elements in each case. flanking pilasters The pilaster and half-column capitals follow the sim
pleTypesC7 andP6, as used in thenichesof theupper order in the triconch: two lateral half-leaves, sheath-leaf, as a rule with outer helices.
54
On
the niche types, see under A. 1.5.
55
Cf., however, the right-hand niche in Fig. 28 with awell-preserved pilaster capital without helices. Because of poor light, an evenhanded and thorough examination of the small details was not possible. The whole area has been 56 greatly changed by repairs and restora tion.
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? Bi??y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 93
HHHHI^^L
A.2.5.
^
in the the niches and pediments on the sanctuary fa?ade triconch and
On
The numerous
niches preserved in the triconch and can be divided into two basic on the sanctuary fa?ade
typeswith two variants each. In this case the shapes of or semicircu the niches in thewall?with rectangular to be a less important factor, lar cross-sections?seem
whereas
the type of decoration
ismore
striking.
BasicTypeNi: thehollow in thewall isframedby
two supports with profiled bases and Corinthian capi tals, between which there is a horizontal cornice, and crowned by a composite round pediment. This basic type appears in two variants:
in niches of semicircular cross-section: Type Nia the hollow of thewall is overhung by a semi-dome and
framed by half-columns with profiled bases and half column capitals. Pediment: the parts of the lateral broken
pedimentswhich havebeen leftsmoothprojectslightly from the central field, but theirpoints do not take up the a projection; the cornice isplaced in single reliefplane. DOP 62
^^
^
^^
Type Nib
^^
Type
in niches of rectangular
cross-section
a (Fig.27): thehollow of thewall isoverhungby barrel
vault and framed by pilasters with profiled bases and pilaster capitals. Pediment: the parts of the lateral broken
pedimentswhich havebeen leftsmoothprojectslightly from the central field, but theirpoints do not take up the in a projection; the cornice isplaced single reliefplane.
BasicTypeN2: thehollow in thewall isframedby
shallow pilasters with bases and undecorated imposts, between which there is a horizontal cornice, and crowned
an arch. This inner composition isflanked by supports by on which with profiled bases and Corinthian capitals, there is a composite triangular pediment. Originally,
everynicheprobablyhad amotif inthefieldof thepedi
ment, deliberately varied at least in the triconch.57 This basic type appears in two variants:
These motifs have, for example, been preserved in niches 4, 9, and 10 of the upper order of the triconch (cross inwreath, cross, four-petaled flower) and in some niches of the sanctuary fa?ade (cross). 57
Severin
Hans-Georg
Fig. 28
Dayr Anb? B?s?y, north conch, upper order: niches Type N2b
Type N?a
in niches of semicircular
cross-section
(Fig.29): thewall hollow isoverhungby a calotte.The
outer umn
are half-columns with half-col flanking supports cornice is bent capitals. Pediment: the horizontal
above the half-columns, while contrast is in a Type Nib
the crowning cornice by
single reliefplane. in niches of rectangular
cross-section
a (Fig. 28): thehollow in thewall isoverhungby bar
rel vault. The outer flanking supports are pilasters with cornice isbent pilaster capitals. Pediment: the horizontal
above thepilasters,while the crowning cornice by contrast is in a single reliefplane. These four types had already been used in the architectural decoration of the church in the Shenute
on the are as a rule monastery.58 There, they deployed Roman niche-alternation principle, i.e., the alternation of niches of semicircular and rectangular cross-section respectively. A.2.5.I.
THE
NICHES
IN THE
TRICONCH
cross-section alternate one by one, whereas an angular even number of niches?in the lateral conches?results in an arrangement inpairs. In the lower and upper orders, one basic type is used in each, i.e., basic typeNi only
in the lower order, basic type N2 in the upper order. Their variants and cross-sections in the two stories are
is to be found above Type Ni isdominant in the triconch. Type Ni all in thewest narthex. Of little use regarding the architectural decora
58
(Cairo,
Le d?cor sculpt? du Couvent Blanc: Niches review by H.-G. Severin, BZ 73 (1980): cf. the 1976),
East conch?lower isType Nia,
order: The central niche (no. 6) the two outer niches (nos. 5 and 7)
areTypeNib (Fig.27).
East conch?upper order: the central niche (no. 6) isType N2b, the two outer niches (nos. 5 and 7) are Type N2a. order: the two North and south conches?lower central niches (nos. 2 and 3, 9 and 10) are Type a. In two outer niches are the place of the
fronts of the passages leading to the east and the west; these are logically, so to speak, treated as niches of rectangular cross-section, in that they
are framed by pilasters. North and south conches?upper
order: the two
central niches (nos. 2 and 3, 9 and 10) are Type two outer niches (nos. 1and (Fig. 28); the are 4, 8 and 11) Type N2a.
N2b
In the east conch the niches with semicircular and rect
tion is P. Akermann,
each deployed alternately in their horizontal aswell as in theirvertical sense like a checker pattern (with the above mentioned exception of pairs in the lateral conches).
et frises -i.
A.2.5.2.
THE
NICHES
IN THE
SANCTUARY
FA?ADE Of the seven niches in the sanctuary fa?ade, six are like inpairs. The two outer niches, placed over wise arranged the doors to the side rooms of the triconch, are Type
Nib. The two niches between
the pilasters of the large order, over the openings to the side conches, are Type N2a (Fig. 29), and the two niches situated axially above are in the again Type Nib. The single niche gallery story the triumphal arch isType N2a above placed centrally
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? BiS?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 95
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Fig.
2p
Dayr Anb? Bis?y, Type N2a and PC
sanctuary
^^^^^
fa?ade,
south section:
niche
3
scallop shaped (Figs.29,48),which, in thecase of the niches
in the sanctuary, was
indicated
onlybypainting. A.2.5.3.
THE
WEST
OVER
PEDIMENTS
ENTRANCES
THE
TO THE EAST AND
PASSAGES
In the two side conches are passages to the east (to side rooms) and west (to the naos). These passages are, as 59
According
. i8 above), 66, and Clarke, i68, the niche, together with the wall section
to de Bock, Mat?riaux
(
(n. 8 above), Antiquities above the eastern triumphal arch, collapsed at an unknown date and has been restored inmodern times. It remains unclear whether the niche was originally
DOP 62
at this position.
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, south conch,
east entrance
of the west
passage
with unique and particular decoration. Accord (Fig. 48)59 two of the four types on the sanctuary fa?ade only ingly, are In the case ofType N2a, the calottes are represented. corresponding
Fig. 30
itwere, in place of rectangular niches, and therefore decorated with pilasters and a composite pediment. It is striking that the doors of the east passages, although naos and were easily visible they partly visible from the to entrance have the triconch, from the merely profiled
pediments, originally decorated with painting (G 3-4). The doors of thewest passages, which can be seen only from the interior of the triconch, are by contrast dis
by sculpturedcompositepediments(G 1-1: tinguished
reason for this no immediately obvious Fig. 30). There is treatment. Possibly the emphasis conspicuous preferential on the entrances to the west passages was liturgically determined. In any case, I should like to conclude from this architectural accentuation was
that themain direction
seen as the exit from the side conch into the naos,
and not the other way around.
96 IHans-Georg
Fig. 3J
Severin
Dayr Anb?
B?suy, north conch, keystone
Fig. 32
Dayr Anb?
A.1.5.3.1.
B?suy, north outer wall,
east
The
passages: G
entrances
exterior:
north door
to the west
1-2
The Composite pediment (Fig. 30).60Parabolic arch field. which been have lateral broken of the parts pediments leftsmooth project minimally from the central field, but
their points do not take up the projection; the cornice isplaced in a single relief plane. The decoration of the
central field: large medallion with relief-likeMaltese cross. Decoration of the cornice: corbel cornice with
similarfloralfilling. Fig. 33
Dayr Anb?
Bis?y,
ibid. PC 24 front
These pediments correspond to the pediments of the niche-Type Nib, but are larger and the decoration ismore detailed (crowning cornice). in the south conch: height 73, breadth (bottom) 131cm. Example of the central field 76 cm. The lateral broken pediments project at the bottom ca. 1.5cm from the central field.
60
Width
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?Suy ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 97
Fig'
^*?? 34
Dayr Anb?
Bis?y,
A.2.5.3.2..
The
3S
Dayr Anb? B?suy, south outer wall, south door
exterior: detail
ibid. PC 25 side
west
entrances
26 front
Fig. 36
Dayr Anb?
B?suy,
ibid. PC
Fig. 37
Dayr Anb?
B?suy,
ibid. PC 27 front and side
to the east
passages: G 3-4 Composite pediment. Parabolic arch field. The parts of the lateral broken pediments which have been leftsmooth
project minimally from the central field, but theirpoints do not take up the projection; the cornice isplaced in a single reliefplane. No sculpted decorative details. These pediments correspond the niche-Type Nib, but are larger. A.2.6.
The
to the pediments
of
keystones of the conch calottes
in blocks with scallop-decoration high are as relief inserted keystones of the calotte vaulting
Semicircular
(Fig.31).61 61
circular keystones Scallop-decorated small rooms besides the east conch.
DOP 62
also in the vaultings of the
of the
98
IHans-Georg
Severin
A.3. Reused Late Antique Sculpted Construction Elements A.3.1. The A.3.1.1.
in the outer walls
doors
THE
A.3.1.1.1.
NORTH
DOOR
North
side
The exterior of the north door
in (Fig. 32)62 consists itspresent condition of unskillfully assembled, reused sculpted construction elements, whose combination
reveals no understanding decorative associations.
Fig. 3^
transept basilica,
al-Asm?nayn/Hermoupolis,
column
capital
of classical
or
late-antique
Arrangement of limestone sculpted construction elements63 in surrounding brickwork. Sequence of the friezes above the capitals (from bot tom to top): .
Frieze with semicircles and circles,64monolithic.65 two corner standing leaves and protruding fields, four blocks.66
2.
Frieze with
3.
Band of interlocked circles and two protruding figur corner fields, five blocks.67 ally decorated
4.
Corbel
cornice, four or five blocks.68
The individual decorative pieces still have to be analyzed to resolve in detail in order to establish their dating and
thequestionofwhethertheybelong to thebuilding. A.3.1.1.1.1. Pilaster
3
?ani
Suwayf, episcopal (photo P. Grossmann)
collection,
column
capitals: PC24-2S
(Figs.
33S4)
capital
The two pilaster capitals are decorated on two sidesmeet at the corner.69 ing
62
Cf. Monneret
de Villard,
Couvents
(
.
above), 2:127-28,
321.5 cm (the corbel cornice is even broader); of the door accounts for 133.5cm of this.
63
Breadth
64
Remains
65 66
of inscription on the upper bead.
Height
39, breadth
Height
19.5 cm.
312 cm.
cm. Height 28.5 Roughly touch each other.
67
68
Height
fig. 150.
the clear width
15-16 cm. To
in the middle,
incomplete
loop motifs
the side the cornice runs, decorated,
into the
wall. East example: height 43, breadth (bottom) front 42, breadth (bot tom) side 35 cm; breadth (top) not accurately measurable. West example: cm. The decoration of the sides height 42.5, breadth (bottom) front 42.5
69
F/g. 40
Alexandria,
Graeco-Roman
from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos
Museum, (photo
column
capital
. Krumeich)
or erased. The sides of both is badly damaged, abraded, capitals, which are too broad for the were shortened pilasters below (breadth 37.5 cm), to fit in the present position.
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?S?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 99
Type Vjz:
East version (PC 24).
?front
(Figs. 32.-33):
Two
lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves and one central upper leaf. Caules. In place of the sheath-leaves, medallions. The upper corners are heavily damaged; there are curved stems preserved which very likely ended in helices.
and the Foliage design of the lower leaves lateral upper leaves: Egyptian late form of the soft acanthus. Foliage design of the central upper leaf: Imitation of the fine-toothed acanthus.
Fig. 41
Umm
Fig. 42
Alexandria,
?side:
Heavily Caules.
al-Barayg?t/Tebtynis, P. Grossmann)
column
Graeco-Roman
Museum,
capital
(photo
damaged.
Foliage design of the upper leaves: Egyptian late form of the soft acanthus.
Type Pyb: version (PC 2$).
West ?front
(Fig. 32):
Two
lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves and one central upper leaf. Caules. In place of the sheath-leaves, medallions with a star.The upper corners are heavily are curved stems preserved damaged; there which probably ended in helices. Foliage design of the lower leaves and the lateral upper leaves: Egyptian the soft acanthus.
from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos the museum)
(photo
column courtesy
capital of
late form of
Foliage design of the central upper leaf: "leaf branches."
?side
(Fig. 34): Heavily Caules.
damaged.
^^^^^^^^^
leaves: Foliage design of the lateral upper late the acanthus. form of soft Egyptian
leaf: "leaf Foliage design of the central upper branches."
DOP 62
Fig* 43
Paris, Mus?e
du Louvre,
(after Chassinat,
Fouilles,
pilaster pl. 65.1)
capital
from Baw?t
100 Hans-Georg I
Severin
In contrast to the lower leaves and the half upper leaves,which manifest "normal" foliage design, the central
ofPC 24 ismodeled inthemanner upperleafon thefront of the fine-toothed acanthus of Byzantine architectural inmarble sculpture production (Fig. 33).70
The pilastercapitalsPC 24 andPC 25 reveal,by the
use of different leaf outlines, by themedallions, and by to the emphasis on the central upper leaf, relationships
thepilastercapitalsPC 2 and PC 3which can be found
A.3.1.2.1.1. Pilaster
The pilaster capitals, reworked and rehewn for theirpres ent position, have decoration on two sides meeting at the corner.78On the front side of the block, next to each a pilaster capital (Figs. 35-36), starts frieze of standing
acanthus leaveswith thefoliagedesign:Egyptian late
form of the soft acanthus.
Type P8a ?front
Anb? B?s?y.
Thin caules with grooves. Sheath-leaves with cross in circle,
protrudingparts (Fig. 50).71 THE
SOUTH
Foliage design of the lower leaves: "leaf
DOOR
South side
Foliagedesignof theupper leaves:Egyptian late form of the soft acanthus.
The outsideof thesouthdoor (Fig.35)72also consistsof
Type P8b ?side (Fig. 37):
unskillfully assembled reused decorative elements. The sequence of the friezes above the pilaster capitals
(frombottom to top):
3. 4.
maybe
withouthelices (cornersbadlydamaged). branches."
A.3.I.2.I.
.
lower leaves.
Two half upper leaves at the corners and one central upper leaf.
South side
the south side of the north door is inserted, beneath a block with cavetto, a decorated frieze block with two
2.
(Figs. 35-36):
Two
On
A.3.I.2.
(Figs
36-37)
in situ on the sanctuary so that fa?ade, they could pos structure have formed of the ofDayr part sibly original
A.3.I.I.2.
capitals: PC26-27
two lower leaves, in each case one place of two tendrils, in triplemotif growing from case in the south "lower leaf" made each
In
Frieze with tendrils,73monolithic.74 Frieze with double tendrils,over ita friezewith leaves on and stalks, four blocks, on the right complete, the left cut into.75 Frieze with loops and foliage, five blocks.76 Cornice with various leafmotifs, non-uniform, blocks.77
up in cruciform fashion of a three-toothed leaf, and in the north "lower lea?" as lateral components of the triplemotif, in each case a short stalkwith three round spherical leaf is attached in motifs; amulti-toothed
six
each case to the two tendrils that surround
To each side, one small niche.
the trefoil and almost meet at the top; the overhang of the acanthus leaf has been preserved throughout. Two half upper leaves at the corners and one
70
central upper leaf. one thin one Only grooved caulis and
sheath-leaf (in each case on the south side, toward the corner).
Cf.B.i.i.2.
71 Height of theblock 39cm. 72
Cf. Monneret
73
The underside
de Villard,
note 12. 74
Height
40 cm.
75
Height
34 cm.
76
Height
32 cm.
Height
approx. 20 cm.
77
Couvents,
2:127, fig. 149.
shows remains of an ancient
Egyptian
relief, cf. 78
West example: height 46.5, breadth (bottom) front 38, breadth (bot tom) of the front of the block including leaf frieze 55,breadth (bottom) side still 35, breadth (top) side approx. 66 cm. East example: height 46, breadth (bottom) front 39, breadth (bottom) of the front of the block including leaf frieze 50, breadth (top) approx. 70, breadth (bottom) still 35 cm. The frieze pieces beneath each are mitered. capital
side
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B???y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 101 |
Foliage design of the upper leaves: Egyptian late form of the soft acanthus. The two pilaster capitals PC 26-27 present on their sides themotif which also appears on pilaster capitals on the sanctuary fa?ade, namely on the two large pilaster on the narrow front PC and 2-3 19-20) capitals (Figs.
side of the pilaster capital PC 14 (Figs. 24-25): replace ment of the lower parts of the acanthus leaf a by trefoil out of two tendrils. As the growing capitals of the south use dif those on the sanctuary fa?ade?also on same a the ferent foliage design side of capital, and the cross in the medallion also the capitals of the (cf.
door?like
seems triumphal arch CC 29-30: Fig. 12), the similarity so great that one could ascribe them to the workshops
the original construction of Dayr Anb? a and Bis?y recognize in them the remaining parts of door of the original building; a question-mark remains, however, since on the one hand the outer helices on the involved with
Fig. 44
Cairo,
column
Coptic Museum,
al-Barayg?t/Tebtynis:
capital
from Umm
front
not larger pilaster capitals of the sanctuary fa?ade do seem to appear on PC 26-27, while on the other hand
theasymmetry of thesidesofPC 26-27 (Fig.37) isnot
attested on the sanctuary fa?ade. The main sides of the pilaster capitals PC 26-27 are acan flanked on their outer sides by a frieze of standing thus leaves. The beginning of this frieze ispreserved on the blocks of both capitals, and doubtless itwas continued
on theoriginallyadjoiningsculptedblocks,althoughit isnot known how far.We
have in other words a highly individual door, whose combination with the adjacent frieze does not occur for example in the sanctuary of the church.79 If one wishes to assign the pilaster capitals PC 26-27 to the original structure, the best position for
Fig>4S
Ibid.: side
Fig. 46
Alexandria,
such a preferentially decorated door would doubtless be the now vanished portal, which once led from the south
transverse room into the naos (Fig. 1).Another candidate room once situated at the east be the door of the might end of the south transverse room (Fig. 1). A.3.I.2.2.
North
Side
Four small friezes consisting of several blocks are inserted into the ashlar work on the north side of the south door.
The original doors in the outer walls were probably plain, or in any to the doors in the outer walls richly decorated, corresponding of the church in the Shenute monastery (cf.Monneret de Villard, Cou vents, :figs. 145-47).
79
case not
DOP 62
Graeco-Roman
from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos
Museum, (photo
pilaster capital . Krumeich)
102 Hans-Georg I
Severin
.
Interpretationof theArchitectural Decoration
B.i. The Position theCapitals Typological of In the second half of the fifth century, as part of the pro compressing and reducing the quantity ofmotifs,80 Egyptian architectural sculptors fused two originally cess of
separate elements of the traditional Corinthian capital, the sheath-leaves and the outer helices, into a singlemotif on column capitals (Fig. 38);81 in the subsequent period the helices were often omitted, so that the sheath-leaf
corner of the calyx reached into the capital (Fig. 39).82 The fourteen lower-order column capitals in the
triconch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y are diversified with three If,as often happens, one considers (Type Cia-c).
variants
only the relevant degree of evolution, i.e., in this case the towhich classical formal associations have been degree dismantled, the two column capitals of Type Cic with outer helices in the lower order of the triconch (Figs. 6, 9)83 appear relatively old-fashioned, and the twelve
Fig, 47
Dayr Anb?
Sin?da,
narthex,
east wall:
column capitals of Types C?a and Cib without outer helices (Figs. 7-8)84 by contrast relatively progressive.85 This discriminatory assessment does not do justice to the
niche
total picture of the architectural decoration of the church, as can be seen from the fact that the two representatives
ofType Cic have been deployed to emphasize the central axis of the side conches (Figs. 2, 6, 9).Moreover, all the
Corinthian
f
?l|.. ?^?^^^hJb?^
column capitals of the upper order of the triconch still have helices (Type C2: Figs. 6,10). the all visible Furthermore, large-pilaster capitals in the triconch and on the sanctuary fa?ade also have
80
Krumeich,
Bauskulptur
. ii
(
above),
1:47.
81
This stage is represented inDayr Anb? two col B?suy by, e.g., the umn are of Cic Good also capitals Type (Figs. 10-11). examples provided by the few capitals made for the transept basilica of al-ASmunayn/Her
A. J. B.Wace, A. H. S. (Fig. 38): Megaw, and T. C. Skeat, Her The Ptolemaic Sanctuary and theBasilica Ashmunein: mopolis Magna, moupolis
(Alexandria, 1959), pi. 23.4; pi. 24.1,4,6; pi. 27.5,10; Pensabene, Elementi . ii ( above), 437-39, nos. 558-63, pis. 65-66. 82
This stage is represented inDayr Anb? a of Type Cia-b capital (Figs. 7-8). Cf. also
B?suy by, e.g., the capitals in the episcopal collection
ofBanI Suwayf(Fig.39):Height 38,breadth(bottom)34,breadth(top) 59 cm: H.-G.
in Egitto," Severin, "Problemi di scultura tardoantica 28 (Ravenna, 1981): 323-25, figs. 6-7 and the capitals of tomb no. 42 in the northern (Krume necropolis of al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos ich,Bauskulptur, 1:158-59; 2:8 [ -17, K-i8], pl. 6 d).
CorsiRav
Fig. 48
Dayr Anb? B?suy, sanctuary the triumphal arch
fa?ade:
central niche
above
83 CC 3andCC 12. 84
CC
85
Krumcich,
1-2, CC
4-11, CC Bauskulptur,
13-14. 1:47.
DOP 62
Architectural Decoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? Bis?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 103 |
helices. But they cannot be regarded as old-fashioned for this reason alone, since some of them (PC 2-3, PC 14) have elements that go furthest in deforming the acanthus
leaf,farbeyondall thecolumncapitalsin thebuilding,
and thus represent themost modern phenomena architectural decoration ofDayr Anb? B?s?y.
in the
B.i.i. The foliagedesign of theacanthus leaves Kirsten
a
Krumeich
detailed
kinds of foliage design elsewhere often use only three toothed lobes,89 we quite frequently find four-toothed lobes inDayr Anb? Bis?y, e.g., in the capitals of the two orders in the triconch (cf., e.g., Figs. 8-10).
This foliagedesign isused on all thecapitalsin the 2 building.On pilastercapitalsPC andPC 3,PC 14,PC Z4 and PC 25 aswell as PC 26 and PC 27,we also see, alongside
and
recently presented graphic of systematic analysis late-antique acanthus
B.I.I.2.
leafdesign inEgypt,payingparticularattentionto the sculpture of al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos,86 the ornamentation of Dayr Anb? B?s?y can
architectural towhich be related.
the large number of decorated elements and the correspondingly extensive involvement of different stonemasons or stonemasons' in the con workshops struction of Dayr Anb? B?s?y, it is not surprising that Given
thefoliagedesignsof theacanthusleavesvarywithin a
narrow range.With a few pronounced adhere to a basic common type. THE
B.I.I.I.
FOLIAGE
NORMAL
EGYPTIAN
exceptions, they
DESIGN:
AN
is a relatively simple and austere, roughly outline of the leaf,which the lobes endeavor
tofill,even thoughtheyare represented unequally in a
topmost tooth of any one lobe is extended and stand strongly emphasized, conspicuously out in addition attached ing against the other teeth, and form. The
to the central tooth of the lobe, not to the leaf-stalk, so that a long and striking dark furrow separates it from the leaf-axis.87
While thisdescriptionof thefoliagedesign is still
valid for capitals in the church of themid-fifth-century church of the Shenute monastery, some acanthus shapes
inDayr Anb? B?s?y go considerably furtherthan this, inasmuch
as the gap between
THE
FINE-TOOTHED
AND "LEAF BRANCHES"
ACANTHUS
The fine-toothed acanthus90 isknown
in
Egypt through marble imports fromConstantinople and throughmarble imitations produced domestically,91 but was very seldom used in local production in limestone.92
In Dayr Anb? Bis?y we see an imitation of the fine toothed acanthus only on the reused corner pilaster capital
with of thenorthdoorPC 24 (whichcannotbe assigned certainty
to the structure of Dayr Anb? Bis?y), original
on thecentralupper leafof thefront(Figs.3z?33).93In
in their detailed chiaroscuro, their lively total impression, and the restlessness of the surface pattern.94
LATE FORM OF THE SOFT
Characteristic
distorted
OF
IMITATION
fact the leaf does not imitate accurately the fine teeth of but it follows them the examples from Constantinople,
ACANTHUS
arch-shaped
it,other foliage designs or substitute forms.
the topmost tooth of a
dark leafand thenext lobe isclosed,so thatthestriking
furrow is integrated as a negative space into the interior While these shape of the leaf (cf.,e.g., Figs. 7-10,15-16).88
It is noteworthy toothed acanthus, so
that the imitation
of the fine
in infrequent Egyptian architectural
the leaf resulting from the cut-outs by closing the last gap between the uppermost tips of the leaves and the next lobe, which increasingly turns the cut-out into a component of the leaf-lobe." 89
Cf. leaf type Ak
90
Most
i-d in ibid., 1:33-34 and text ill. 1.
recently U. Peschlow,
On
the occurrence
"Kapitell," RAC
20:96-98.
inEgypt, seeH.-G. in Provinz und die "Konstantinopler Bauskulptur ?gypten," eines Symposions in Sp?tantike und byzantinische Bauskulptur: Beitr?ge Februar 1994, ed. U. Peschlow and S. M?llers Mainz, (Stuttgart, 1998), 91
of the fine-toothed acanthus
Severin,
93-104,
esp. 97-98,
pl. 29.1-2;
pl. 30.9-12;
Bauskulptur,
1:42-44.
Krumeich,
Bauskulptur,
1:42-45. 92
Cf. Krumeich,
See above, A.3.1.1.1.1. Already noticed by ibid., 1:42 note 283. The are thus somewhat isolated in the architectural deco two pilaster capitals ration ofDayr Anb? B?s?y. On the other hand, inmy opinion they indi cate, through the use of different foliage designs and by emphasizing the central upper leaf, that they are at the same stage of development as PC
93
86
Ibid. 1:30-45, text ill. 1-3.
2-3 and PC 26-27. If they did not belong to the original structure, they must have been obtained from the immediate surroundings of Dayr
87
Ibid. 1:30-31.
Anb?
88
(here in translation): "In the ofD?r Anb? B?s?y by contrast itbecomes
in ibid., 1:33-34
Cf. the description church of the filial monastery clear that there was an endeavor
DOP 62
to avoid the threatened dissolution
of
a if recourse had B?s?y, and itwould be very unusual coincidence been made to stylistically just the right sculptured elements for pre cisely this occasion. 94
Cf. Krumeich,
Bauskulptur,
1:43.
104 Hans-Georg I
Severin
in limestone, isnow attested for the sculpture production Hence it appears that local stonemasons S?h?g region.95 were interested in the imitation ofmodern forms from and capable of executing them. Constantinople, from the fine-toothed acan To be distinguished
thus is the so-called "leaf branches" design, a new form in East Roman art on the basis of the fine developed toothed foliage design: in thewords ofKrumeich, "a late
form,inwhich it isalreadyno longerpossible to speak
of a leafwith a closed outline. The individual lobes have
taken on a life of their own, and they are only loosely connected to the stem by a thin stalk. They cover the Kalathos
with a dense network of leaf-teeth,which
are
still reminiscent of the fine-toothed forms, but in size and character now approach the kleingezacktes foliage Krumeich has already compiled occur design_"96 rences of the "leaf branches" in the local limestone sculp can be found?after ture of preliminary Egypt.97 They on a column in the north capital stages98?for example on in the south church inBawit,99 pilaster capitals reused church of Bawit100 (Fig. 43), in capitals from al-Bahnas?/
capital
95
Ibid. 1:41. Ibid. 1:43 (inGerman).
"Kapitell," 97
ForkleingezackterAkanthus
cf., e.g., Peschlow,
94-96.
Krumeich,
Bauskulptur,
1:42-45.
Ibid., 1:43 lists>for example, two column capitals from Saqq?ra in at (1) inv. no. 8268: J. E. Quibell, Excavations Coptic Museum: Elementi vols., 3:104, 27.1; Vensabene, (Cairo, 1906-1912), pi. Saqqara, 4 98
Cairo's
(n. il above), 446, no. 588, pi. 68; (2) no inv. no., Journal d'Entr?e no. 3:104, pi. 23.3; Pensabene, Elementi, 448, 39930: Quibell, Excavations no. 592, pi. 69.
inv. no. 7179 (Journal d'Entr?e no. 35819): Cairo, Coptic Museum der Severin, "Beispiele sp?tantiker Spolien: ?gyp Verwendung in Studien zur Kunst tische Notizen," sp?tantiken und byzantinischen
99
al-Barayg?t/Tebtynis
the largepilastercapitalson thesanctuaryfa?adePC 2 on thecentralupper leaf: (Fig. 19)and PC 3 (hereonly
on the two reused corner pilaster capitals Fig. 20), and
of the southdoor PC 26 and PC 27, ineach case in the lower leaves on the front side (Figs. 35-36). In all six examples (PC 2-3, PC 24-25, PC 26-27) the fine-toothed acanthus or the "leaf branches," as the case may be, are not on the total appearance deployed of the but only as a partial element in the capi foliage, so as a rule the in every case other leaf tal, and designs,
Egyptian late form of the soft acanthus, compete with the fine-toothed acanthus and the "leaf branches."
In additionthisgroup includesfourexamples(PC
here there is an important 26-27)?and also use the trefoil growing out of connection?which 2-3 and PC
two tendrils instead of the traditional lower leaf. B.I.2.
The
trefoil growing out of two tendrils
forminga heart shape
In three positions on the sanctuary fa?ade, namely, on
the largepilastercapitalsPC 2 and PC 3 (Figs. 19-20)
and on the front of the small corner pilaster capital PC 14 aswell as on the sides of themedium-sized (Figs. 24-25),
cornerpilastercapitalsPC 26 and PC 27 of the south door (Fig. 37),which cannotbe assignedwith certainty
to the structure ofDayr Anb? B?s?y, we have a original combination ofmotifs, which has already unusual very
been emphasizedduringthediscussionof theindividual
H.-G.
sculpted pieces. In all five occurrences
F. W. Deichmann
lobes of the traditional acanthus
gewidmet, 3 vols. (Mainz, 1986), 2:103-4, pl. 17.2 (in no. 596, location inwhich itwas found); Pensabene, Elementi, 449-50, 1:43, fig. 12. pl. 69; Krumeich, Bauskulptur, 100 For example ?. Chassinat, Fouilles ? Baou?t, i.i (Cairo, 1911), pl. 1:44-45 ("probably around 65 (= here Fig. 43); Krumeich, Bauskulptur, themiddle or in the early second half of the 6th century"). On the reuse of older building materials from which the south church was built, cf.
in the Fayy?m
(Fig.41).102 InDayr Anb? B?s?y we see "leaf branches" or similar abstract forms of the acanthus leaf in the upper leaves of
Oxyrhynchos(Fig.42),101andon anunpublishedcolumn
96
inUmm
the central rib and the lateral leaf of the Corinthian
an capital have been replaced by upright, mostly three lobed formation, or leaflet, growing out of two tendrils which form a heart shape, but above this strange motif we nevertheless have the usual overhang.
Severin, "Zur S?d-Kirche von Bawit,"MDAIK^ (1977): 113-24; Severin, "Beispiele," 101 note 4. In the Louvre, where extensive parts of the architectural decoration of the south church of Bawit are kept and a to the mid-6th century is, however, displayed, dating of the building
decoration
resolutelymaintained;
cf. Krumeich,
H.-G.
cf. by contrast Grossmann, Architektur
523-25, fig. 142 ("to be dated 101
Alexandria,
to the Umayyad
Graeco-Roman
1:43-44,51?52-; Bauskulptur, no. 23755 (ibid., 1:43, 62-63;
2:12-13
period
{
.
above),
at the earliest").
no. 23651 (Krumeich, = here [K-35], pl. 26 Fig. 42) and
Museum
2:33 [Pk-55],pl.
41).
cm. I am indebted 102 Not inspected. Limestone, height approx. 42 to P. Grossmann for a photo of the capital. The zone with the meander art; on classical examples 1:50-51; the zone is set off from the capi Bauskulptur, in tal by a boss with a laurel branch. The "leaf branches" correspond measure to a text cf. ill. On similar ibid., 1:38, 3.44-45. Type Bg 3; large
piece
is in the tradition of Alexandrian
from the 6th century from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos,
2:13 (K-36),pl.
see ibid.,
25.
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 105 |
Individually,
we
can attest the following
differ
ences:
PC 2 (Fig. 19):The two tendrilsappearnext toeach
other beneath the overhang, their origin being invisible, extend in a curve outwards and meet beneath the central a axis of themotif, field. enclosing roughly heart-shaped
To eithersideof theoverhanga five-lobedleafhangs down slightly obliquely;a connectionwith theneigh isnot entirely clear, but probable. Each of boring tendril
has threeteeth,the laterallobes the lobesof the trefoil pointing slightlyobliquelyupward,while thecentral lobe is larger.
PC 3 (Fig.20): the tendrilis similartoPC 2,but it
takes amore angular course. On
the right-hand "lower
to thaton PC 2,while leaf"thetrefoilisshapedsimilarly
on the left-hand "lower leaf" the lateral lobes are hori zontal.
PC 14 (figs.14-25): the tendrilsareverysimilarto
those on PC tripartite
2. The
leaf has several lobes, but no clear
structure.
PC 26 andPC 27,sides(Fig.37):thefieldenclosedby
the tendrils is less spacious than on PC 2-3 and PC 14, and the lobes of the trefoilare approximately the same size.
The right-hand "lower leaf" on PC 26 and the right-hand "lower leaf on PC 27 (Fig. 37) have a three-toothed central lobe,while each of their lateral lobes takes the form of a
short stalkwith three small spherical motifs. is the nature and origin of the trefoil grow What
out of two tendrils beneath an Itsmajor overhang? ing ten components are (A) the overhang, (B) heart-shaped
dril sections, and (C) a tripartite motif with a central
lobeandvariouslateraldetails: (a) laterallobespointing obliquelyupward, (b) laterallobeshorizontal, slightly
(c) lateral lobes with a short stalk and three small spheri cal motifs.
The overhang is the element that is leftover from the traditional acanthus leaf. It has been retained in order to preserve the familiar relief of the "lower leaf" with the in the context corresponding shading effect,particularly of the column capitals and the "normal" pilaster capi
motif All themore alien is thetripartite tals (cf.Fig. 11).
out of two tendrils instead of a central rib and growing the lateral sections of the lower leaf.
In view of the alien nature of the unambiguous leaves of this pilaster capital, the motif cannot be an acan thus leaf. It is true that the trefoils look somewhat like small acanthus leaves, but the phenomenon of the "acan thization" of foliage of various provenance, at least in DOP 62
the sixth century, is known from Constantinople and matters even further is elsewhere.103What complicates that one probably cannot assume that the strange "lower leaf" motif of the pilaster capitals was "invented" for theDayr Anb? Bis?y building, or that the stonemasons
were told to base theirwork on a particular model. The deviations listed above under C a-b point rather to the
an repetition of already familiar formulation with slight at in the case of the least variations, pilaster capitals PC
2,PC 3,and PC 14,which are in situ.Thiswould imply the possibility
that a hitherto unknown
pattern was
being followed. seems to be no Actually there corresponding example in the architectural ornamentation either of Constan or of Egypt. Still, the limestone architectural a very similar motif, with a sculpture of Egypt provides
tinople
as follows. genesis In the large transept basilica of al-Asm?nayn/Her
moupolis,whichwas built afterthemiddle of thefifth we see the a century,104 preliminary stages of dissolution of theCorinthian canon resulting from the insertion of small upright leaves in the sheath-leaf calyx ofCorinthian
capitals (Fig.38).105 On aCorinthiancolumncapitalof thefirst halfof the
sixth century, in the episcopal collection of Bam Suwayf, we see on themain side themotif of the acanthized vine
leafhanging intothesheath-leaf calyx(Fig.39).106
column and pilaster capitals from as well, all of them datable al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos, after the early sixth century,107we see acanthized vine leaves hanging into heart-shaped tendril sections in the On Corinthian
calices (Fig.40). sheath-leaf
Studien zur Architektur Kon Cf., for example, F.W. Deichmann, im $'. und 6.Jahrhundert nach Christus (Baden-Baden, 1956), stantinopels 81-82. 103
104
105
Bauskulptur,
Bauskulptur,
Severin, "Problemi"
from Krumeich, 107
1:21.
Pensabene, Elementi
Krumeich, 106
summary of the dating approaches
Grossmann, Architektur, 441-43;
inKrumeich,
(
Bauskulptur,
. ii
above), 438-39, nos. 558-63, pis. 65-66;
.82 above), 323-25, fig. 7; the dating isderived 1:48-49.
no. 23649 (Krumeich, 2nd [ -31] pl. 24 [date: quarter to 2nd half of the no. 23651 (ibid., 2:12-13 [K-35] 26 [date: 2nd quar pi.
Alexandria,
Bauskulptur, 6th century]);
(
1:49, fig. 13.
Graeco-Roman
Museum
2:11-12
terto 2ndhalfof the6thcentury]);no.R 530 (ibid.,1:63;2:33 [PC-56]
ist third of the 6th century]). On a column capital of pi. 41 [date: end of in the Coptic Museum Cairo unknown provenance (no inv. no.), only one in the sheath-leaf is leaf calyx (Pensabene, Elementi, longish hanging 449, no. 595, pl. 69).
Severin
106 Hans-Georg I
On fold capitalsand bowl-shapedcapitals,which,
in view of the Constantinople
models,
cannot date from
beforethe timeofJustinianI, themotif ofvine leaves (albeitnot acanthizedbutwith positive ribs)hanging one heart-shaped tendrils has become the dominant in the total d?cor.108 The motif also appears in a singly on the abacus.109 striking position
vine leaveswere intended and that the stonemasons were aware of the nature of the leaf,but in view of the vaguely other occurrences, that is not at all certain.
into
use themotif with The cited examples, however, all the hanging leaf; in the "lower leaves" of the pilaster occurs rotated in it Anb? Bis?y, capitals Dayr through an an 180 angle of degrees, i.e.,with upright leaf.One a cannot deny similarity, but, in view of the rotation, it is hard to imagine thatwe have here a genuine relationship or association. An can be found leaf quite often upright in the sheath-leaf calices of Corinthian
pilaster capitals of the sixth century,110 but the tendril sections here do not enclose a we can heart-shaped field. In other words, a attest only similarity with heart-shaped tendrils with a
hanging
leaf, all of them in sixth-century examples;
thereis stillno graphicevidenceforthederivationof themotif inDayr Anb? Bis?y. The attempt to determine the nature of the upright leaf also suffersfrom the circumstance that all the exam
ples demonstrate slight variations. I have not found any convincing associations with palmette ornamentation.
The factthattheleafisonlythree-lobed does not in itself exclude a vine leaf.111But the characteristic
of three-lobed acanthized architectural decoration
structure
vine leaves in local Egyptian inward-curving teeth
includes
at thefootof the leaf(Fig.42),112a detail absentfrom
Dayr Anb? Bis?y. The three spherical motifs that appear on each "lower leaf" on the pilaster capitals PC 26 and
PC 27 alongsidethecentralleaf(Fig.37)couldmean that 108
Selected
( ) fold capital inCairo, Coptic Museum (no 24.11.20.16) from Saqq?ra (Quibell, Excava
examples: inv. no., Journal d'Entr?e tions [n. 98 above], 3:103, pi. 21.3; G. Duthuit, La sculpture copte: Stat ues, bas-reliefs, masques [Paris, 1931], pi. 48c; Severin, "Bauskulptur,"
103,pl. 33,fig.25) and (2) bowl-shapedcapital in theCopticMuseum
no. 8362 (Journal d'Entr?e
no. 45394) from al-Asmunayn/Hermoupo lis (Duthuit, Sculpture, pi. 48d; Pensabene,Elementi, 463, no. 662; Sev . erin, "Bauskulptur" [ 91 above], 103, pl. 33, fig. 26). 109
See the examples mentioned
110
For example
from Bawit
in note 110. Fouilles
(Chassinat,
[
. ioo above],
a pis. 51-52 [with clearly split foot], 53.1,65,106.2; Krumeich, Bauskulptur, 1:49); probably from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos (Cairo, Coptic Museum no. 4675: H. Zaloscer, Une collection de pierres sculpt?es auMus?e Copte du Vieux-Caire 19;Krumeich,
[Collection Abb?s Bauskulptur,
el-Arab?\ [Cairo,
1948], 58, no. 35,pl.
r.42, 86).
111
On
112
Cf. ibid., 1:83-86 and text ill. 4 (Wb
three-lobed vine leaves cf.Krumeich,
Bauskulptur,
3-a andWb
3-b).
1:84-85.
B.1.3. Combination
of various
foliage designs,
partial replacementof theacanthus leaf Finally itmust be askedwhetherthehistoricalpeculiar ityof thepilastercapitalsPC 2-3 and PC 14,aswell as 26-27, can be assigned to a particular period. Two components are especially important in this connection:
PC
(1)theuse ofdifferent foliagedesignson a singlecapital
and (2) the replacement of the lower leaves by a new motif. The question is, in otherwords, when did the critical situ ation for limestone architectural sculpture ofMiddle
and
Upper Egyptarise,inwhich severalfoliagedesignswere used at once on the Corinthian
at the same capital and time the traditional lower leafwas replaced. Another example, using rather different motifs
butnonethelessfulfilling both conditions,comesfroma different culturallandscape,namely Middle Egypt; it is a Corinthian
from Umm
column capital with a rectangular impost in the al-Barayg?t/Tebtynis Fayy?m
(Figs. 44-45), which
is in kept Cairo
s Coptic Museum.113
One upperleaf(Fig.44) has amore differentiated foliage zone in the lower design than the others,114 and capital there are, the of the ribs leaves upper alongside covering or its with lower lobes, intersecting large, horizontally limited basket-like weaves, in the position else exactly
where occupied by the lowerleaves (Fig.44). Patrizio Pensabene has suggested that the basket weave of bizonal capitals and bowl-shaped capitals115 (both ofwhich are are attested for the Fayy?m and even for Tebtynis itself)116
imitations of Byzantine models of the late fifth and early or sixth centuries (bizonal formulations capitals) Egyptian under the influence of the impost Constantinopolitan
andhehas rightly dated the capitals(bowl-shaped capitals), to columncapitalfrom the third of the second Tebtynis
113 No. 10186 (Journal d'Entr?e no. 55963): Pensabene, Elementi, no. 597, no. or pi. 70 (no inv. provenance).
450,
114 Ibid., 450 ("avvolto da otto alte foglie d acanto, con lobi a dentelli distinti da zone d'ombra ogivali: queste sono piccole, ad occhiello, nella uno dei lati"). foglia centrale di 115
Ibid., 465, nos. 669-71,
pl. 75 (all examples
from the 6th cen
tury). to the best ofmy 116 two Documented, unpublished knowledge, by weave in the Cairo, bowl-shaped capitals with basket Coptic Museum inv. nos. 8680 and 8687 (Journal d'Entr?e no. 55965).
DOP 62
ArchitecturalDecoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt 107 |
was sixth century.117 Upper Egypt clearly less familiarwith recent creations from Constantinople.118 Consequently,
recourse was had, where necessary, to other means when it came to reshaping the Corinthian capital. The column capital from Tebtynis and our pilaster in capitals PC 2-3, PC 14, and PC 26-27 show, my opin to in their stylistic ion, comparable peculiarities respect more is The from Tebtynis radically capital development. altered: the lower leaves are totally absent, and instead a
or the partial replacement of the foliage designs acanthus leaf; together, however, they can reinforce the dating proposed here. various
A column
capital from al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos in theGraeco-Roman Museum inAlexandria119 shows,
on sides two different forms of the separated by grooves, or acanthus leafdesign the "leaf branches."120 It has been to the "second quarter convincingly dated byKrumeich case of two or second half of the 6th century."121 In the
recent fashionable is inserted. The quotation from shapes
pilastercapitalswhichwere reusedin thesouthchurch
rib and the lateral lobes of the lower leaves by a hetero on Corinthian geneous motif, perhaps already known retain the traditional capitals, but the capitals overhang.
ableformof the"leafbranches"(Fig.43),which suggests a date "around themiddle or in the earlypart of the
pilastercapitalsinDayr Anb? Bis?y replacethecentral
In both cases, modern details were used in an endeavor to
update and enhance the traditional Corinthian capital; in fact, this alteration seriously vitiated the structure of the traditional acanthus
leaf.
In view of the commonalties of intention, it is impos
sibletodate thesaidpilastercapitalsofDayrAnb? Bis?y beforethesecondthirdof the6th century. Some further examples fulfill, in each case, only one of the two named conditions, i.e., the combination of 117
Pensabene, Elementi,
450.
As far as I know, the southernmost place inEgypt inwhich impres sive marble capitals of the 6th century have been found, namely a set 118
of four very respectable
impost capitals from the time of Justinian, is some 300 km from Alexandria. (On several
al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos, P. "Wiederverwendete sp?tantike Kapi capitals there cf. Grossmann, von Rzhnzsa.? Damaszener telle aus derMoschee [1999]: Mitteilungen 185-90, pis. 28, 29 a-b; Krumeich, Bauskulptur [n. 11above], 1:23-28; 2:3-4 [M-i toM-8], pis. 15-16). In the somewhat more southerly mosque of al-L?m??? in al-Miny? several dozen late-antique marble capitals have
two bizonal been reused, including mostly Corinthian capitals, capitals, an one fold one composite capital, capital (middle third of 6th century, a of model). S?h?g [Alexandrian?] copy Constantinopolitan Egyptian is another 240 km or so further southeast of al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos. The carved marble
blocks
used
in the church of the Shenute monas
tery (Dayr Anb? Sin?d?) for later repairs and other marble materials on the site, of unknown origin, are not impressive and can in no way reason I cannot be regarded as Constantinopolitan samples. For this were available in presume that Constantinopolitan exemplars S?h?g, could with justification do so forOxyrhynchos; whereas K. Krumeich therefore I restrictmyself to local production in limestone. However, the recommends itself architectural sculpture of al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos for comparison, investigated
as thework ofK. Krumeich
regional production
in
makes
it currently the best
Egypt.
Addendum: InApril 2007 I foundwithin a heap of stonesin the narthexofDayr Anb? Sin?da a heavilydamagedfoldcapital (marble; a Constantinopolitan height 43.5, breadth [bottom] 37 cm), undoubtedly third of the 6 th century; this interesting piece from the middle original marble capitals were available proves that impressive Constantinopolitan as far away as the south border of the Thebais Prima.
DOP 62
inBaw?t, two or even three different foliage designs have been used in each case.122One of these shows a recogniz
second half of the 6th century."123 In a pilaster capital from al-Bahnas?/Oyxrhynchos
Alexandria's
Museum124
Graeco-Roman
in
the lateral leaf
lobes of the two acanthus half-leaves have been changed into a notched tendril stalk with pomegranates; only
the stem of the leaf and three tips of the overhang are s Krumeich dating, which includes (Fig. 46).125 the structure of the central upright vine leaf,126 is "late as or "late 6th to century."128 Insofar post-Justinian"127 it represents an attempt to enhance theCorinthian capi
extant
tal, by altering the lower leaves through the inclusion of heterogeneous details, but retaining the overhang, this PC 2-3 and PC capital resembles the pilaster capitals
14
inDayr Anb? B?s?y; thus theycan all be dated to the
same time range.
No. 23651; limestone, height 45 cm, breadth (bottom) 31,breadth cm: Krumeich, 1:43-44; 2:12-13 (K-35)>pl- 26. Bauskulptur, (top) 72
119
120 The fronthalf shows"leafbranches"Bg 3,thebackhalfBg 2 (cf. Krumeich, 121
Bauskulptur,
1:30-45, esp. 44-45,
Ibid., 2:11-13. However,
ferent forms of the acanthus
text ill. 3).
the capital was in situ, the two dif leaf could probably not have been seen at when
the same time. 122
Chassinat,
123
Krumeich,
124
No.
Fouilles
(
Bauskulptur,
23425: Krumeich,
. ioo
above), pis. 64, 65.
1:44-45
(on Chassinat,
Bauskulptur,
1:62-63;
Fouilles, 2:33?34
pl. 6 5). (PC-57),
pl. 41. In Constantinopolitan art, overhangs over tendrils (in this case, 125 circular loops with leaves) can be seen on the sides of themain capitals on the in (532-37), in the central axis Hagia Sophia inConstantinople Mit einem Beitrag von C. Mango volutes: H. K?hler, Die Hagia Sophia: to this motif: ?ber dieMosaiken (Berlin, 1967), figs. 72-73. Reference zur R. Br?x, Bauskulptur Konstantinopels Faltkapitelle: Untersuchungen 2008), 166. (Langenwei?bach, 126
Of Type Wb
127
Ibid., 1:62-63.
128
Ibid., 1:86-87.
4, see Krumeich,
Bauskulptur,
1:80-88,
text ill. 4.
Severin
108 Hans-Georg I
B.2. The Typological Positionofthe Niche
C.
In the upper order of the triconch and in some positions of the sanctuary fa?ade, the semicircular niches ofType N2a are flanked by half-columns, and the rectangular
Anb? B?s?y isnotofonepiecewith itsrearsidewall (Fig.
Decoration
niches ofType Nib by pilasters,while theyare sur mountedbya composite pediment(Figs.28-29,48). This arrangement had already been used in the church of the Shenute monastery.129 But there the structure of the niche
isevenmore clearlyinfluenced by tradition(Fig.47): in
the undecorated capital
and
composite
horizontal
below
two
pediment,
lies above the
zone, which
cornice
the horizontal projections
bear
of the the load
of theslightly projectingcornersof thehorizontalped
iment cornice130?an element which still clearly abuts on to the friezes below the archetypal Ptolemaic pedi ment.131 In the pediments of this type inDayr Anb? Bis?y,
zone
the undecorated
contrast
is flat
by (Figs. corners of the horizon the and 28-29,48),132 projecting tal pediment cornice are no longer supported from below:
thepedimenthoversfreely(see especiallyFigs. 29 and
48) a few centimeters above the load-bearing elements. This reveals a typological step in the dismantling of clas
sical tectonics which goes considerably beyond the niches in the church of the Shenute monastery and consequently to amore advanced date. points
Triconch and Total Structure: Construction Phases orAllocations?
Peter Grossmann has established that the triconch atDayr i); likewise, joins can be seen in thewest entrance walls of the two side rooms of the triconch.133 He concluded
from this that the triconch was originally freestanding, and that the rest of the church was added in a second a construction phase.134 He supposition I had supported a few years earlier135 that architectural expressed sculp ture elements in the north and south doors, which were
datable to thefifthcentury, could indicate indisputably thattheoutsidewalls inwhich thesedoors areplaceddo
not themselves date from this period, but, having dete riorated with time, were replaced with the brick walls
which have given thebuilding itsfamiliarname "Red
Monastery." I also proposed that the doors included older carved elements that had perhaps formed part of the original portals.136
on site, I have now con Following my observations cluded thatneither Grossmann sopinion that the triconch
nor my own free-standing, hypothesis that the present outer walls are not the original (ashlar?) structure, isvalid. The fact that themasonry of the triconch isnot
was once
integrated
into the rear side wall
interpretation. Grossmann wanted
allows an alternative to
explain this find
ingbya hypothesisof sequentialdevelopment?inother
words, by assuming two different construction phases. A different explanation seems tome to be more convincing,
a not into namely, division periods but into allocations of responsibility: in other words, different sections of the
129
Cf. note 58.
130
Another
fig.
were allotted to different groups ofworkmen, building who worked concurrently.
niche
is illustrated in Severin, "Dekor"
(
. ii
above), 77,
16.
for the understanding of late-antique composite pedi in in Stein: Egypt isM. Bergmann, "Perspektivische Malerei Einige zur Architek inBathron: alexandrinische Architekturmotive," Beitr?ge zu seinem 80. tur und verwandten K?nsten; F?r H. Drerup Geburtstag the (Saarbr?cken, 1988), 59-77. For the best Ptolemaic comparandum, 131
Fundamental
ments
so-called Palazzo
delle Colonne
in Ptolemais,
delle Colonne,'"
in Tolemaidedi
Cirenaica
10; 13a;H. Lauter, "Ptolemais andrias,"/D^/86 desHellenismus
in
(Rome,
Libyen: Ein Beitrag
(1971): 163,166,170-73, (Darmstadt,
see G. Pesce, "Il 'Palazzo 1950), 27, fig. 16,pl. zur Baukunst Alex
Die Architektur fig. 15; idem,
1986), 139,fig. 49a.
In the niches of the upper order in the triconch (tip of the com 132 m above zone is posite pediment approximately 5.36 ground level) this about 9 cm high. In the south niche of the sanctuary fa?ade (between the pilasters of the large lower order [Fig. 29]; tip of the composite pedi m above ment cm. approximately 4.55 ground level), about 3
Not too much time can have elapsed between the on the decorative work on the building shell and thework elements in the triconch, as is clear?if we disregard for a moment the two-story attached column order?merely from the decorated niches contained in thewalls of the
conches(Figs.6,27) and thescallop-shaped keystonesin
In any case, it the calottes of the three conches (Fig. 31). would have been an obvious step for the decorator-stone masons to use the construction scaffolding erected for the
of the shellof thebuilding.Besides, thebroad central 133
Grossmann,
Architektur
134
Ibid.
135
Ibid.,
136
Severin, "Skulptur"
(
.
above),
538.
.489. (n. 3 above),
320.
DOP 62
Architectural Decoration and Dating of theChurch ofDayr Anb? B?s?y ("RedMonastery"), Upper Egypt | 109
section of the sanctuary fa?ade is a structural component of the triconch. Its pilaster arrangement, itsdoors, and its
niches, together with their decoration, must have been as the triconch; this is true?as put up at the same time the uniform decoration of thewhole fa?ade shows?also for the entire breadth of the sanctuary fa?ade.
The notion that the triconch and sanctuary fa?ade, with theirdecoration complete, stood for some unknown
periodof timewithout anyotherbuildingaroundthem
the sanctuary together with itswest fa?ade has remained largely intact to this day, cannot be explained;
while
isaweak pointof thethesisproposed thisimprobability
above. In the church of the Shenute monastery
the oppo outer walls are site situation has the prevailed: original still largely intact,while the two attached column orders
of the sanctuary collapsed at an early date. Here, too, a more detailed examination a better explanation:
the existing outer walls
produces at Dayr
Further components, such as the three capitals of the east colonnade CC 31-33 (Figs. 13-16),
Anb? Bis?y arebasicallyoriginal.Their inferior quality
structure with to the original (Fig. 17)?not assignable absolute certainty, but very similarwith respect to dimen sions and execution of the architectural decoration in the
may be the result of ameasure of economy. It is evident that less-well-trainedworkmen were employed on the con struction of these outer walls: non-professionals, perhaps,
must also be modified.
and the capital now lyingin the formernaos CC 34
rather to triconch and on the sanctuary fa?ade?point the colonnades of the naos having been erected by the
structure. I thus same workmen who built the original propose a single major construction phase covering the the colonnades of the naos. building of the sanctuary and At the same time, of course, ifonly for technical structural reasons, at least the south wall of the naos and thewest
and north external walls
of the church must also have
s outer walls the sanctu Today are?compared with can ary of the church?of relatively inferiorquality. This
material (brick)but also be seennot only in thesimple in the construction
technique. Some of thewindows, outer wall, have a strange in north the e.g., shape that
can hardlybe explainedby thedesire fora particular rather, theymust be the result of Besides, the inside surface of the
clumsy workmanship. outer walls, unlike that in the church of the Shenute are monastery (Fig. 49), is undecorated, and the niches
merelyhollows in thewall (Fig. 50).137 This findingcan be interpretedin a number of ways.
to the above thesis, brick although the According outer walls could have been built to replace the original walls, this could not have happened at a very late date?
for example in thehighMiddle Ages?because
the
structure of the present outer walls presupposes a large church in full function. Why, however, the outer walls should have needed replacement at a relatively early date, 137
Several niches have amonolithic
sill in the form of a cavetto, but
Iwas nowhere able to find any traces or of or in the form of flanking half-columns of decoration pilasters, calotte or barrel vault decorations, or of pediments. are otherwise devoid of decoration.
DOP 62
and possibly monks. The striking contrast between the in the sanctuary, opulence of the architectural decoration
includingitsfa?ade,on theone hand (Figs.3, 5-6) and
the plainness of the inner surface of the naos on the other
in comparison with the Shenute (Fig. 50)?especially monastery church, where the inner surfaces of the outer walls are decorated with numerous niches (Fig. 49)?was
evidentlythoughta priceworth payingwhen thedeci
taken, on economic grounds, to subdivide the a to different teams project into number of allocations sion was
been under construction.
form of illumination;
compared with the ashlar fa?ade of the sanctuary, with tomaterial and to construction technique, regard both
ofworkmenwith different degreesof skill.
seams observed in by Grossmann rooms in the side the sanctuary fa?ade?above the doors The construction
of thetriconch?couldwell be a resultofa decisionby the
who were working on the triconch professional craftsmen and the sanctuary fa?ade that they should suspend work until work on the outer walls had progressed sufficiently that the sanctuary fa?ade could be connected in a final naos. stagewith the north and south walls of the
to these latest it is interesting to insights, According notice that the highest degree of splendor was reserved
allowance for the for the sanctuary of the church?with the outer walls were seen as an opportunity cost?while contrast with to savemoney. Here toowe have a palpable
the structure of the large church of the Shenute monas no pressure to exercise tery,where the client was under fiscal restraint.
The date of the insertionin theouterwalls of the twodoors (Figs. 32, 35)made of late-antiquebuilding materials,
at least some ofwhich
could have come from
the original structure orwere available in the immediate
reason for this an open question. The vicinity, remains substantial alteration was probably the desire for two
110
Hans-Georg
Fig. 49
Severin
Dayr Anb?
Sin?da,
north outer wall,
interior (1981, before restoration)
must have been a time prestigious church entrances?it of relative security. If the assumption should prove cor rect that at least the two at the pilaster capitals PC 26-27 south door, but possibly also the capitals PC 24-2$ at the north door, derive from important portals of the original
century the church of the Shenute monastery (Dayr Anb? Sin?da) possessed a pair of central columns between the east corners of the north and south colonnades,139 and that, as a result of that finding, the two buildings no a to be time gap, a date longer seemed separated by large
would
prevalent
structure, the erection of the two doors in the outer walls
have taken place only after the destruction and abandonment of the large naos?in other words, after the reduction in the size of the church.
in the latefifthcenturyforDayr Anb? Bis?y became
in the scholarship, and the few published the architectural decoration would seem of examples to corroborate this chronology.140
the possibility of examining the architectural decoration of Dayr Anb? Bis?y inmore detail has given rise to some new insights,which inmy to a later date. to a gen opinion clearly point According on themost recent erally accepted rule, dating is based elements of an ensemble. We now recognize at least Now,
D. The Dating of theChurch the best specialist inEarly Christian church architecture inEgypt, thirtyyears ago dated Dayr Anb? B?s?y to the sixth century.138 Since his subsequent Peter Grossmann,
discoverythatas earlyas about themiddle of thefifth For example P. Grossmann, "Fr?hchristliche Baukunst in ?gypten," in Sp?tantike undfr?hes Christentum, ed. B. Brenk (Berlin, 1977), 141-43, no. 171. 138
however,
three pilaster capitals on the sanctuary fa?ade (PC 2-3,
in theChurch and Sanctuary of P. Grossmann, "New Observations Anb? so-called White Sin?da?the Dayr Monastery?at S?h?g: Results of Two Surveys inOctober, 1981 and January, 1982,"Annales du Service 139
des Antiquit?s 140
de l'Egypte 70 (1984-85):
69-73,
esp. 70-71.
Cf. note h.
DOP 62
3
inwhich the lower section of 14: Figs. 19-20,24-25) the acanthus leaf has been replaced by a trefoil growing out of two tendrils. This formation, hitherto unnoticed inDayr Anb? Bis?y,141 broke definitivelywith the struc
PC
ture of the traditional acanthus leaf.Likewise
the use of
different foliage designs within one capital (PC 2-3, also PC 24-2$ and PC 26-27) and the occurrence of "leaf
branches" (PC 2-3, also PC 26-27), which can be linked to to the sixth comparable examples datable indisputably century (Figs. 41-45), suggest a dating forDayr Anb?
and at the Bis?y inthemiddle thirdof thesixthcentury,
very earliest, the second quarter.142 If this is true, then was built several Dayr Anb? Bis?y generations, almost
InMonneret de Villard, Couvents ( . above), there are no detailed illustrations of pilaster capitals. Vtns^hcnc, Elementi ( . ii above), 441-41, no. 573, one a pi. 67 illustrates only example of pilaster capital (= here PC 10),which shows "normal" acanthus leaves and thus isnot very help 141
ful for the dating. to the 6th century (without detailed 142 A is to dating argumentation) be found, for example, inR. Krautheimer, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, 4th rev. ed. (New Haven-London, 1986), 117.
DOP 62
or about a century, after the large Shenute monastery church.143
see here too the state of pres unique value of the we not ervation of Dayr Anb? B?s?y. If did have the We
ensemble in itspreserved state, but, as in other archaeo sites in Egypt, had to argue solely on the basis logical
of individual
fragments,
we would
come to different
This demolishes one alleged fixed point for the dating of lime 143 stone architectural sculpture inEgypt in the late fifth century, producing not consequences only for the chronology of capitals but also for that of niche heads. The parabolic contour of the inner fields of the niche arches G
1-4, situated in the side conches above the entrances
to thewest and
east passages, has now to be later than hitherto assumed (cf. for proved . 81; Severin, "Dekor," 1:129 [both example Krumeich,Bauskulptur, above]). For the dating of the niche heads of al-Bahnas?/Oxyrhynchos
no correction isnecessary, however, forKrumeich had already used addi tional detailed analyses to provide a reasoned argument for a putative dating of the relevant pieces "at the end of the 5th century into the first half of the 6th" (Krumeich, Bauskulptur, 1:129; 2:151-52 [N9-Nii],pls. 115-16; 2:154-55 [ 15],pl. 118). In view of the material presented here, I am unable to share the concern of T?r?k, "Heap," 73-98, esp. 92-93, thatmy datings to the 5th and 6th centuries, as presented lications, are too late.
in earlier
pub
112 Hans-Georg I
Severin
conclusions about the dates of different groups of decora fifth century, and tive elements inDayr Anb? Bis?y?late second third of the sixth century. Three pilaster capitals
in situ evince themost modern formula (Figs. 19-20,25) tions in the architectural decoration of the church; they
show at the same time that the contemporarily sculpted column capitals and other pilaster capitals, which had hitherto defined the dating, simply represent a retrospec serve as a caution not to tive place style.144This should
toomuch faithin thereliability ofdatingarchitectural
decoration without
its architectural context.
Arch?ologie Abteilungf?rChristliche undArch?ologie Institut f?rKunstgeschichte Universit?t Bonn
Ahornweg8s
D-53177 Bonn
Germany
[email protected] 144 This probably was the result of an attempt to copy the architecture and architectural decoration of the famous large church of Shenute.
DOP 62
WORD AND IMAGEINTHE SACRAPARALLELA (CODEXPARISINUSGRAECUS 923) MARIA EVANGELATOU
the
In
present
article,
my aim is to exam of word and image in
ine the close relationship the pages of codex Parisinus graecus 923, in order to draw conclusions or at least raise questions regarding the method of production of this important ninth-century in the Byzantine manuscript. The evidence presented Kurt Weitzmann's theory following pages indicates that on the Parisinus graecus 923 and of codex production
its relation to illumination pre-iconoclast manuscript cannot be substantiated. to the alternative According to have been approach proposed here, this codex appears a text unique production, inwhich the close synergy of
inHellenic Iwould like to thank the Studies of Princeton Uni Program Studies inToronto for versity and the Pontifical Institute ofMediaeval me in the and 2005 years 2004-2005 postdoctoral fellowships offering was a to time 2006 respectively, of dedicated which my large part during my research on cod. Paris, gr. 923. Only a portion of this research is pre final version of this article was prepared during a post at the Radcliffe Institute for fellowship for the year 2006-2007 Advanced Study. I thankmy Ph.D. thesis supervisor, Prof. Robin Cormack, for directing my attention to this important manuscript and suggesting
to promote and image was designed of the Sacra Parallela compilation.
the didactic value
in Paris graecus 923 of theBiblioth?que Nationale is formany reasons in the surviving corpus of exceptional Byzantine manuscripts. It is the earliest known copy of
Codex
the so-called Sacra Parallela,
a
florilegium ofmostly bibli cal and patristic texts, the original ofwhich is attributed to the eighth-century theologian John ofDamascus. At
present there isno singlemanuscript that preserves this work in itsoriginal form, only codices of later recensions that preserve parts of the initial florilegium. Dating from the ninth century, the Sacra Parallela of Paris is the earli approximately thirty such manuscripts.1
est of
to John ofDamascus 1 The (the title ofwhich original work attributed does not survive, but is thought to have been thelgp?) was divided into three books, containing excerpts that dealt respectively with God, human
doctoral
kind, and pairs of virtues and vices. Each of these three books is sepa a are rately preserved in limited number ofmanuscripts. Although they in relation to the and these abbreviated manuscripts incomplete original,
that Iwork on it. I am very grateful toDr. Christian Forstel, D?partement in of the Biblioth?que Nationale des Manuscrits (division occidentale)
us an idea of its content and great give length. Selections of chapters from all three books, compiled in continuous without a tripartite florilegia asMarcel Richard division (the abbreviated Damasc?niens" "floril?ges called them), were already in circulation in the 9th century, and survive
sented here. The
toDr. to in the study cod. Paris, gr. 923 original, and Ioanna Rapti for her generous hospitality. Iwould also like to thank Dr. Patricia Skotti for her comments and bibliographic references. I am grate Paris, for permission
ful to Joel Kalvesmaki
forhis collaboration
and conscientious work for the
to theDOP am edito improvement of the article. I particularly indebted rial board and the two external readers for their valuable suggestions and to the editor, Dr. Alice-Mary Talbot, for dedicating much of her valuable time tometiculously are
correct my
English. Any shortcomings
in this paper
entirely my responsibility.
Figs. 10-15, 21-23,2-8-30, 32, 34-35, 39-40, 42, 45-47, 49-51, 54, and 72 have been reproduced with the permission of Prince ton Sacra The Miniatures University Press, after K. Weitzmann, of the
62-66,67-69, Parallela:
Parisinus
Graecus 923 (Princeton,
412, 425, 419,180,175,174,153,166,
480,
1979), figs. 409, 454, 447,
213, 554,555, 646-47,
357, 78,
and 41. Because of high copy 115,161, 63,129,130, 420-24,134,393,561, Iwas forced to reduce the number of images included in this fees, right on Research of the article. I thank the Committee University of Califor for providing a substantial part of the funds needed and copyright fees.
nia, Santa Cruz reproduction
DOP 62
for
in various recensions, two ofwhich (theVatican and the Rupefucaldian) text were considered in byKarl Holl themost important. The published used 1712 byMichel Lequien (who introduced the title "Sacra Parallela" to theVatican recension, but ever since) unfortunately is based belongs on a
in earlier fifteenth-century manuscript which ismissing parts found text that has been it is codices. It is the only Sacra Parallela published; con available in PG 95:1040-1588 and PG 96:9-441 (PG 96:441-544
recension that are not included tains excerpts from the Rupefucaldian in the Vatican version). The text of cod. Paris, gr. 923 is related to both but itdoes not belong to basic recensions (Vatican and Rupefucaldian), either of them (and so, obviously, its text does not always correspond to a in PG 95-96). Two small the text published fragments of Sacra Par are also 20 and Paris, allela text (codices Paris. Coislin suppl. gr. 1155) to the 9th century, but even if they might be earlier than cod. Paris, gr. 923, the latter is the earliest surviving manuscript rather than See K. Weitzmann, The Min of a Sacra Parallela florilegium. fragment iatures Sacra Parallela: Parisinus Graecus 923 (Princeton, 1979), of the des Johannes 9, n. 24. For all the above see K. Holl, Die Sacra Parallela
dated
114 Maria I
EvANGELATOU
in this Christian general, the subjects treated are of compilation theological, moral, and social import: In
ofGod andhumankind, theyfocuson therelationship the virtues and vices of human nature, and the proper
the corpus ofminiatures hosted in the pages of this codex
toWeitzmanns is count, exceptionally rich: according the extant folios contain 1,658miniatures,5 but originally thewhole manuscript would have contained around 1,830
conductofChristianstowardtheirfellowhumanbeings
miniatures.6
ous recensions.2 Our
matter of some is in the subject unique surviving corpus of Byzantine art. On top of that, this large and richly illustrated codex makes lavish and extensive use of gold
and the state and religious authorities. Other, similar in in vari Byzantium and survive florilegia also existed
codex is not only the earliest sur text, it is also the only one that viving Sacra Parallela is illustrated; indeed it is the only illustrated Byzantine
In addi florilegium of any kind that has been preserved.3 tion, at 35.6 26.5 cm it is among the largest illustrated was Byzantine manuscripts known today, but originally it itspages are now trimmed, and of themore larger: than 420 original folios only 394 still survive.4Moreover,
even
16.1
TU
Damascenus,
(Leipzig,
1897), esp. 42.
., 81-88,161.
Also M.
the majority are authors' por Although traits,narrative illustrations are also numerous,7 and the
leaf, formost parts of theminiatures as well as most of the titles (chapter and excerpt identifications headings) within titles.8 This technical characteristic is very rare among surviving Byzantine manuscripts.9 in Ninth-Century
Vision andMeaning
Byzantium:
In addition,
Image
as
the Homilies ofGregoryofNazianzus (Cambridge,1999),2.
5 Weitzmann,
Sacra Parallela,
Exegesis
in
11.
(ibid., 6) counted "more than forty scenes and more than in the first 33 illustrated folios thirty busts and medallions" of the manuscript, and he estimated that the 31missing folios would
de Spiritualit?, fase. Richard, "Floril?ges spirituels grecs," Dictionnaire XXXIII-XXXIV (Paris, 1962), 476-80, with references to previous literature (the recension towhich cod. Paris, gr. 923 belongs, the "Flo
6
in columns 482-83). The main points of rilegium PML," ismentioned Richard's analysis, still valid today, are summarized by P. Odorico, "La : cultura della Bizantino; ( ) Il cosiddetto enciclopedismo
at least as many miniatures. He also noted: "The study us that the more a in general teaches richly page is illustrated themore likely it is to be cut out by an admirer. Thus the esti mate here seems rather conservative; numbers aside, we venture to might
BZ 83 (1990): 1-21, (2) Le tavole del sapere di Giovanni Damasceno," Dr. G. thank attention for esp. 13-20.1 Papadogiannakis drawing my to this article. The above issues are also mentioned to some extent by Weitzmann,
Sacra Parallela,
8-10.
2 Thesewere calledbyM. Richard spiritualflorilegia, indistinction to thosehe calleddogmatic See Richard, florilegia. "Floril?gesspirituels grecs," 475-511
and ODB
2:793-94. 10.
3
Weitzmann,
Sacra Parallela,
4
Weitzmann
(ibid., 3)mentioned
that "a note at the end of theman
the thirteenth or fourteenth century states that at ' (= 424) folios." For information on the missing pages (random losses throughout the codex), see ibid., 4-5. Weitzmann said also (ibid., 10) that cod. Paris, gr. 923 "is the largest illustrated Greek uscript from about ' that time it had
in existence." He was to the manuscript probably referring unparalleled number of miniatures this codex contains (see below) rather than to the dimensions of themanuscript. the pages of this codex are Although fairly large in comparison to themajority of surviving Byzantine illus trated manuscripts, other codices are much larger in size, the largest of
all (accordingtoJohnLowden) beinga pairofProphetBookswith cat
enae, codices Vat. gr. 1153 and 1154,which are 50.8 x 37.7 cm and 49.5 35.5 cm respectively (the latter is trimmed). Several other illustrated and manuscripts with catenae (for example, Prophet Books, Octateuchs, similar to or Psalters) have dimensions larger than those of cod. Paris, some see For Illuminated Prophet Books: A 923. Lowden, gr. J. examples
StudyofByzantine Manuscriptsofthe Major andMinor Prophets(Uni
versity Park and London, 1988), 9,14, 22, 32, 42; idem, The Octateuchs: A inByzantine Illustration (University Park and Lon Study Manuscript ,22,26; idem, "Observations on Illustrated don, 1992), Byzantine Psal
Weitzmann
one hundred
have contained
of illustrated books
guess that some of the best and most interesting illustrations are lost." It so that should be noted that this codex isdensely illustrated throughout, theminiatures are not more numerous at the and drastically beginning fewer toward the end (as happens in other Byzantine thus manuscripts); use of the first 33 folios to estimate the number of missing
Weitzmanns miniatures
(and not, for example, the last 33 folios) should not be consid it isnot clear ered inappropriate?although why he used 33 folios instead of 31, that is, a number equal to the number ofmissing folios.
7
Weitzmann
portraits" mate."
"402 scenic illustrations and 1,256 (ibid., 11)mentioned and added that "this division must be considered approxi
use of 8 The impressive effect can be produced by the extensive gold in ibid., color glimpsed plate of folio 2o8r (unnumbered plate, before the black and white that are plates). The only parts of the miniatures are faces, hands, and other naked not of and bodies, parts gilded rarely some other elements
like headgear and other attributes monastic (e.g., and cruciform staff on fol. 20 8rmentioned above); natural elements like fire, rays of light, or the sea (e.g., fols. 68v, 69r, 207V); and
koukoulion
animals (e.g., storks and swallows on fol. 2oov). See ibid., 14-15, on the use of gold. See also Figs. 25-27 below. to scholars
are the codices Ambros. ninth-century and Vat. gr. 749 (Book of gr. 49-50 (Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus) Job). The use of gold is very extensive in theMilan Gregory and rather limited in theVatican Job; seeA. Grabar, Les manuscrits grecs enlumin?s 9
Well
known
ters,"ArtB 70 (1988): 245-48, esp. figs. 3-4 with valuable comparative material. A number of large illustrated manuscripts have survived from
italienne (IXe-XIesi?cle) (Paris, 1972), 15-16. Grabar men tioned two other Byzantine manuscripts with the same technical char acteristic (ibid., 25,16): the ninth-century cod. Paris, gr. 2179 (Diosko at where is leaf used for the clothes of a very few rides), gold figures the of the and the Paris, cod. manuscript; beginning eleventh-century
ninth-century Byzantium. One example which surpasses the dimensions of Paris. 923 is cod. Paris, gr. 510,41 x 30 cm, 464 folios; see L. Brubaker,
is illustrated by minute sometimes dressed in gr. 74, which figures, gold. Gold leaf is also used for the clothes of the figures which form the
de provenance
DOP 62
Word and Image in the Sacra Parallela (Codex Parisinus Graecus 923) 115 |
theexceptionally highnumberofminiaturesand titles
923 means that no other manuscript with same the technical characteristic contains asmuch gold leaf. In sum, theSacra Parallela of Paris not only is excep in Parisinus
tional in the preserved corpus of Byzantine art, but was intended to be exceptional in its time as well.
Parisinus 923 isdated to the ninth century,10a period when the dispute over the use of religious imagerywas an important issue formuch of the intellectual and ecclesi
astical community of Byzantium, even after the triumph of the iconophiles in 843.11 Since few illustrated manu since the Paris Sacra scripts survive from that period, and it is quite is of such an exceptional character, certain aspects frequently discussed by Byzantinists, and
Parallela
of its illustration have been studied to some extent;12
cod. Paris, initials in a little-known Byzantine manuscript: x 9.7 described 12th c, cm), (9.8 laconically by sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Biblioth?que
illustrated
gr. 41, a small Psalter H. Omont, Inventaire
et des autres Paris et des d?partements biblioth?ques de 1898), 7. See also M. Evangelatou, "The Illustrated Initials ofCodex no. 2 (2008): 199-218. nus graecus 41,"Word and Image 24,
Nationale
10
(Paris, Parisi
or after 843 is also related to the issue of a Obviously, dating before Sacra Parallela, SeeWeitzmann, 20-25. For an overview of
provenance.
see L. Brubaker, the literature (concerning also dating and provenance) Era (ca. 680-8so): The Sources; An Anno in the Iconoclast Byzantium tatedSurvey 11 who
(Ashgate,
was in the celebra status and function of actively involved images and tion for the restoration of holy images, as his speech on the inauguration in the apse of St. of the mosaic Sophia clearly shows. See, for example, the perceptive comments on this homily by L.James, "Senses and Sen The sibility in Byzantium," Art History 29 (2004): 522-37, esp. 529-32. illustration of cod. Paris, gr. 510,which was commissioned by Photios, is characterized by various elements which betray his interest in iconophile (n. 4 above), for example, theology. See Brubaker, Vision and Meaning 51-52, 216, 220, 225, 281-307, 401. For an overview of the function of to links of the images according iconophile theology and the possible illustration to iconophile arguments, see L. Brubaker, Sacra Parallela in theNinth Century: Theory, Practice, and Culture," "Byzantine Art (1989): 56-81; eadem, Vision and Meaning,
19-58.
For example, the styleof theminiatures has been discussed byGrabar, italienne (n. 9 above), 22-24, ancl by Manuscrits grecs de provenance inNinth-Century Art of the Byz "A Stylistic Tendency O. Oretskaia, Certain antine World," 5-18. (2002-3): iconographie themes Zografiy "An Early Illustration have been discussed, for example, by J.R. Martin, 12
ArtB 32 (1950): 291-95; E. Revel-Neher, of the Sayings of the Fathers," "Probl?mes iconographiques dans les Sacra Parallela," inL'art et les r?vo de l'art, Stras Congr?s international d'histoire sect. 4, Les Iconoclasmes 1-7 1989, (Strasbourg, 1992), septembre, bourg, 7-12; M. Bernab?, "L'illustrazione del Salmo 105 (106) a Bisanzio ed una lutions: Actes [du]XXVIIe
nota sui Sacra Parallela
di Parigi," Medioevo
eRinascimento
14 (2000): 85-109, esp. 108-9; and inworks ofmore general scope by scholars such
DOP 62
been written.13 The only monograph
on this manuscript
is the 1979publicationbyWeitzmann,14but as I shall
soon
a not of the study, explain, his work is primarily Sacra Parallela itself,but of pre-iconoclast manuscript illumination asWeitzmann understood it on the basis of his assumptions about the Paris codex. was interested not in the Sacra Paral Weitzmann
lelaper sebut in theglimpsesof thepast he thoughthe
could catch through it.15The following quotations from are characteristic of his his monograph approach. He wrote: "It isno to say that no other known exaggeration can contribute somuch to our manuscript knowledge
book illumination, so little ofwhich The pictures are of only secondary has survived.... interest as illustrations of a Their primary florilegium. interest lies in the fact that they are epitomes of vast lost of pre-iconoclastic
miniature
cycles whose
existence can be proved by their
migrationintotheSacraParallela!'16 "Onlya handfulof come down Early Christian illustrated manuscripts has can be to us, but in our clearlymany lacunae knowledge filled by the excerpted miniature cycles in the Sacra Par allela. This constitutes perhaps the primary importance of our manuscript, more significant even than itsvalue
2001), 49-50.
is evident, for example, in the writings of Patriarch Photios, often referred to arguments of the iconophile literature about the This
BMGSii
however, no systematic and comprehensive study on the sources, method, and purpose of itsproduction has ever
as J. Lowden and L. Brubaker, whose on various occasions in this article. 13 to
observations
will be mentioned
Its exceptional nature isperhaps what makes this codex so difficult a or other illustrated approach and understand. The lack of facsimile
edition of themanuscript makes its study particularly challenging, espe In cially for the evaluation of the relationship between word and image. my experience, the script of cod. Paris, gr. 923 isdiscouragingly difficult to read from the microfilms available (especially because many of the
lines in the letters of the textwere made exceedingly thin by the scribe is very restricted for and are hardly visible). As access to thismanuscript reasons of conservation, itwould be of great service to Byzantinologists if the Biblioth?que Nationale were to produce a photographic in the entire manuscript digital form of high resolution. .
14
Sacra Parallela
15
In his book review of the Sacra Parallela
(
record of
above).
monograph, Cyril Mango most was "the Paris, interested Weitzmann rightly observed that what as a not witness in reconstruction the of Early rather for but itself, gr. 923 Christian
picture cycles." See The Antiquaries
Journals
(1982): 162.
16 Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, vii. C. Walter, "Liturgy and the Illustra tion of Gregory ofNazianzen's (sic)Homilies: An Essay in Iconographi REB 29 (1971): 188-89,nas acutely criticized the use calMethodology," of the term "migration" for the copying ofminiatures from one codex to because itundermines the the other (a term introduced byWeitzmann), to miniatures adopt from deciding which move not I Prof. M. thank do themselves"). ("miniatures for drawing my attention to this article.
active role of the painters their models Papadaki
in
116 Maria I
EvANGELATOU
in support of the existence of a Palestinian school of book illumination in the ninth century."17
as evidence
In order to prove his point, Weitzmann
undertook
almostall of the 1,658 theHerculean featof identifying and the passages they illustrate (admittedly a very difficult task, essential for the advancement of research on the Sacra Parallela)?*
miniatures
of the manuscript
buthe thenpublishedtheminiatureswith disregardfor their original context. Both in his analysis and in the illustration of his book, theminiatures are not presented to the foliation of the codex itself,but they are according in order to reflectWeitzmanns completely rearranged In the assumptions about the creation of the codex.
itself, the portraits and narrative minia manuscript tures related to the biblical and patristic quotations of this codex appear mixed up in various combinations, as
theyfollowthelayoutof thecompilation:theflorilegium
into 24 chapters, called stoicheia, each cor e a, hence the to one of the 24 letters ( responding term for Under each chapters) of the Greek alphabet. is divided
other words, stoicheion appear titloi [tituli/titles)?in treat themes the same with starting sub-chapters?that and letter.Under each title, relevant biblical patristic pas
whichhe assumed of thehypothetical model booksfrom theminiatures were copied.20 Weitzmann's hypothesis?that
both compiled texts and corresponding images were copied into the Sacra not unrea from illustrated source books?is Parallela text sonable, but it implies that the firstSacra Parallela was illustrated, ever which we for something produced s have no proof, as I shall demonstrate below.Weitzmann intention to recreate the illustration of pre-iconoclast
on the basis of the Sacra Parallela illumi manuscripts nation was of course in tune with his scholarly interests and methodology, which concentrated more on what was on what was certainly preserved.21 supposedly lost than Such an approach could perhaps have been rewarding
in the case of theParis Sacra Parallela if ithad been
carried out with respect to the evidence and not accord ithas already to axiomatic presumptions. However, ing treated his theory on been pointed out thatWeitzmann the creation of this codex not as a hypothesis in need of
as a fact towhich he its interpreted according proof but a as mirror shattered this codex illustration.22 By using of the past rather than as an exceptional product of its
epoch,he lostviewof thematerialhe had inhand,while
to a fixed order: first come sages are compiled according Testaments according New and excerpts from theOld
a rather distorted at the same time he produced of thematerial he wished to recreate.23
excerpts from theworks of patristic authors and the only two non-Christian authors included in this florilegium,
miniatures
to the sequenceofbookswithin theBible; thenfollow
the Jewish writers Philo and Josephus Flavius.19 Since the passages compiled in the Sacra Parallela were origi that contained the complete nally copied from codices texts Weitzmann thought that providing the excerpts, theminiatures that illustrate these passages were like
wise copied from those codices, which must have been miniature cycles. Con richly illuminated with extensive
in his publication Weitzmann rearranged the sequently, in the order inwhich they Sacra Parallela miniatures
would haveappearedinthoseoriginalcodices:he grouped them intoOctateuch
miniatures
miniatures, Kings and Chronicles and so on, aiming to recreate the illustration
20
Weitzmann,
Sacra Parallela,
monograph
and could
The patristic and historical passages are not always organized in strict It should be noted that in alphabetical order by author name; ibid., 7-8. most of the portraits accompanying their excerpts, Philo is dressed as a as a Byzantine official, with chlamys and tablion: bishop and Josephus 19
ibid., 252, 247.
in his
the illustrated passages of the florilegium he was not interested in the moral message illustrations were
since have been compiled, that the passages and their
to transmit in the context of this compila of the Paris Sacra Paral only the correspondence so lela passages with the PG edition of the Sacra Parallela, by using one can discover the context of an illustrated passage his monograph a exists. In the many instances where correspondence only when such there isno such correspondence, only an examination of themanuscript supposed
tion. He mentioned
often itself can provide themissing information. In addition, Weitzmann incorrect translations of the illustrated passages, so that the rela
used
tionship ofword
and image is obscured
even further. See, for example,
pp. 134,158,162 below. See especially K. Weitzmann,
Illustration
in Roll
and Codex: A
StudyoftheOriginsandMethod ofTextIllustration(Princeton,1947,
257.
The present article is based onWeitzmann's not have been written without it. 18
totally rearranged the Sacra Parallela in isolation from he also published them monograph, mono two of the 760 plates of his they illustrate (only
Ibid., vii. Since Weitzmann
the passages a folio of the in a manuscript full-page view; all the oth graph present ers miniatures without the the text).More present only accompanying never referred to the content of the titles under which over,Weitzmann
21 17
image
repr. Princeton, 22
1970).
See, for example, R. Cormack's
in Burlington Magazine
review ofWeitzmanns
123 (1981): 170-72,
monograph
esp. 171.
[n. 4 above], 92) has summarized very elo (ProphetBooks and limitations of such an approach to Byzantine the problems quently a better sentence reads: "In the end, we shall art. His gain concluding 23
Lowden
comprehension
of Byzantine
art
by studying it than by imagining
it."
DOP 62
Word and Image in the Sacra Parallela (Codex Parisinus Graecus 923) 117 |
was of course influenced by the schol
Weitzmann
ofhis time:bothhe himselfand scholars arlytendencies that he formu reviewing his work have acknowledged lated his theory on manuscript illumination under the influence ofmethodologies
of textual criticism.24 Like
thephilologistsofhis timewho classifiedthesurviving
copies of Weitzmann
a textwith
the aim to recreate the original, focused his attention on the formulation
of stemmata ofmore or less degenerate miniature
cycles
whichhe believed would leadhim to therecreation of the in this process he lost archetypes. But
uncontaminated
ofeach illuminated manuscript, sightof theindividuality
context in a ignoring itsplace specific social and cultural and overlooking important factors such as the relation
potentialof specific shipofword and image,thecreative
artists, and their interaction with individual patrons.25 No one can deny thatWeitzmann's work made known a to the of Byzantine number scholarly community great
to the development of was of paramount studies Byzantine importance?both own activities his and through the scholarly through work of his students.26 However, to use M.-L. Dolezal's was words, Weitzmann's "timely and up methodology "not but timeless."27 to-date,"
works and that his contribution
In recent years, Weitzmann's methodological to illumination and, more spe manuscript approach
his use of existingillustratedcodices forthe cifically,
recreation of earlier super-illustrated archetypes, have been extensively criticized.28 However, themost extreme 24
Weitzmann,
Rolland
Codex,
182-83 and Lowden,
Octateuchs
(n. 4
is related not only to textual above), 7,103. Weitzmann's methodology criticism but also to another great achievement ofGermanic scholarship: the study of antiquity, which in Lowden's words Altertumswissenschaft, over what followed." The rela the superiority of classical culture "implied to textual criticism is the subject tionship ofWeitzmann's methodology ofM.-L. Dolezal's article "Manuscript Studies in theTwentieth Century: 22 (1998): 216-63.1 thank Prof. Kurt Weitzmann Reconsidered," BMGS Margaret
Mullett
for drawing my attention
See, for examples, sidered," 240, 260-61.
25
the comments
to this article.
byDolezal,
"Weitzmann
Recon
works and a collection See, for example, the list ofWeitzmann's of papers by many of his students inByzantine East, Latin West: Art Kurt Weitzmann, and K. ed. C. Moss Historical Studies inHonor of 26
Kiefer 27
(Princeton, "Weitzmann
1995). Reconsidered,"
262.
in this respect is instrumental and very revealing owes to article much his and nuanced the (and present perceptive approach to Byzantine manuscript illustration). See, for example, Lowden, Prophet
28
J. Lowden's work
Books, esp. 58-59,80-82,90-92; 80-81,
DOP 62
86,101-4,122-23;
idem, Octateuchs, esp. 37-38,52,68,78, of'Visual Knowl
idem, "The Transmission
application ofWeitzmanns super-archetype theory, his on the Sacra Parallela, has not been thor monograph
oughly revisited. Although in theirbook reviewsand
other publications scholars such asAnnemarie Weyl Carr, Robin Cormack, John Lowden, and Leslie Brubaker have
s to serious doubts aboutWeitzmann expressed approach the Sacra Parallela illustration,29 no systematic and thor
issue has ever been ough examination of the produced, and a number of scholars have accepted Weitzmanns
This is partly due to the fact that, since published theminiatures of Parisinus 923
conclusions.30 Weitzmann
cutofffromtheirtextualcontext,itisverydifficultifnot impossibleto check thevalidityofhis numerousand at times
sophisticated
one examines arguments until
the
codex inperson.Afterbeinggiven theopportunityto in
Byzantium through Illuminated Manuscripts: in and Manuscript Literacy, Education Conjectures," ed. and J.Waring C. and Holmes Byzantium Beyond, edge'
2002),
Cologne,
59-80,
esp. 63-66,
68-69.
and Approaches in Transmission
(Leiden-Boston "The See also J. Lowden,
Bible, Beginnings of Biblical Illustration," in Imagingthe Early Medieval ln tne introduction ed. J.Williams (University Park, PA, 1999), 10-59. to this volume
(esp. 4-7), the editor reviewed Weitzmann's approach to illustration and termed it "the tyranny of the archetype" manuscript "Weitzmann Reconsidered," (5). See also Dolezal, esp. 239-40,246-63.
(n. 16 above), esp. 185-96, in search of archetypes, methodology as on the in the of G. Galavaris especially expressed publication liturgical homiliaries of Gregory Nazianzenus. Walter made some acute observa
Walter,
208-9,
"Gregory ofNazianzen's als? criticizedWeitzmann's
Homilies"
tions and suggestions about the purpose and characteristics of Byzan tine art, but in the end he seemed to accept the a priori assumption that there was a "full illustrated edition" of Gregory's homilies, ofwhich the were later adaptations liturgical manuscripts ("Gregory ofNazianzen's Homilies," 29
210).
For book reviews ofWeitzmann's
monograph
see: A. W. Carr, ArtB
65 (1983): 147-51; R. Cormack,
123 (1981): 170-72; Burlington Magazine 26 (1983): 57-58.1 was not able to consult J. Lowden, Art International the book review by David H. Wright, University Publishing 9 (Summer is also critical ofWeitzmann's model theory about 1980): 7-8. Lowden in Octateuchs, 80, and more in the Sacra Parallela, specifically Prophet Books (n. 4 above), 70-71,80-82,90. Likewise L. Brubaker, "Byzantine Culture Ninth
in theNinth Century: Dead
Century: orAlive?
An
Introduction,"
a. eadem
in Byzantium
(Aldershot,
in the
1998), 68-71.
For example, H. L. Kessler, Speculum 56 (1981): 208-10 (book review 30 of the Sacra Parallela monograph), accepted Weitzmann's hypothesis on the extensive this illustration on pre of dependence manuscript's in his book review on the same existing models. Likewise C. Mango, "There can be no doubt, furthermore, that theminia wrote, monograph,
were tures [of cod. Paris, gr. 923] were not created ad hoc: they copied or, more often, from other illustrated texts" (book review of Sacra adapted . Parallela [ 15above], 162). Revel-Neher ("Probl?mes iconographiques dans les Sacra Parallela" [n. ii above], 7,12) accepted both the hypoth esis that Paris, gr. 923 copied a lost illustrated Sacra Parallela and that
this archetype's illustration was created on the basis ofmany other richly illuminated manuscripts.
118 Maria I
EvANGELATOU
such research, thanks to the generosity of a number of institutions and individuals,311 will attempt
to a scenario: in specific specific arguments and according his opinion, the original illustrated Sacra Parallela was
text and the illustration of the Paris Sacra Parallela, which
theMonastery ofMar Saba in Palestine,33 through the miniatures from at least seventeen other compilation of recreated on the illustrated codices, which Weitzmann the use of a Sacra basis of Parisinus 923.34 Obviously,
undertake
tobringto lightthesignificant betweenthe relationship
Weitzmann
overlooked
in his publication.
Given the fragmentary and varied nature of the texts and consequently of the narrative miniatures included in
theSacra Parallela florilegium,Iwill not examine the illustration of the codex in strict progression
from the
firstto thelastfolios.Instead,Iwill focusmy analysison
probablyproduced in thetimeofJohnofDamascus in
Parallela modelwould have influencedtherelationship between word and image in our codex, and therefore the issue requires careful consideration.
highlight
minia First of all,Weitzmanns hypothesis that into a Sacra Parallela codex from the copied texts that provided manuscripts containing the complete
of production of Parisinus 923.My intention is not to exhaust the issue but tomake a contribution that, I of this important manu hope, will inspire further study to a I script. In separate, forthcoming article intend present
at the same time the texts were copied, that is, pened when the compilation was created, and not at a later was re-edited. However, the text thatwe stage,when it
thematic units or even individual miniatures,
in order to
rela of theword-and-image specific patterns our can advance understanding of the tionship, which
method
some observations on crucial issues that are not discussed
here, such as the provenance
and the
of themanuscript to its illustration of iconophile theory. relationship
will be toestablishthat The firststepin theanalysis
923 cannot be proven to be a copy of a lost illustrated Sacra Parallela. Casting away the shadow of
Parisinus
with modelwill enableus toexplore sucha hypothetical
tureswere
would bemore thepassagescompiledin theflorilegium logical ifit isassumed thatthecopyingof imageshap
call Sacra Parallela was originally produced in a very different format from the one we see in Parisinus 923, since it included more material, distributed in three if the original three distinct volumes.35 Consequently, volume florilegium was ever illustrated, the minia tureswould
often have appeared in different places and combinations from thosewe see in the Paris codex. Using
in the relationship greater liberty theword-and-image codex. In the next three sections, the detailed examina
to illustrate the rearranged original Sacra Parallela Paris Sacra would often have Parallela of the passages
miniatures will reveal important qualities specific of the illustration: attention to detail, emphasis on nar
been confusing and impractical for the miniaturists. was aware of this,36 and for this reason he Weitzmann
tion of
rative, and visual elaboration. The issue of iconographie sources will be treated next. The last section will present
the conclusions of the previous analysis in regard to the method of themanuscript's production and the charac teristics of its illustration.
an
avoided suggesting directlythathis hypotheticalillus
trated Sacra Parallela model contained the original version of the florilegium, in the form inwhich itwas Damascus. However, he did relate produced by John of to the rich illustration of the existing Sacra Parallela John s iconophile convictions and his ardent support wrote that the of icon veneration. Thus Weitzmann behind the first illustrated Sacra Parallela
mastermind
SacraParallela? A Lost Illustrated The hypothesisthattheParisSacraParallela isa copyof
an earlier illustrated Sacra Parallela, now lost, has been considered possible by a number of scholars.32Weitz mann advanced this hypothesis systematically, through
was probablyJohnofDamascus himself.37 All these model
33
See my acknowledgment
note.
"Probl?mes For example, Revel-Neher, Sacra Parallela," 7.M. Bernab?, Le miniature
32
libro di Giobbe
(Florence,
2004),
155,made
Weitzmann,
34
Ibid., 257-62.
35
See
36 31
of Paris, gr. 923 and mentioned on the possible Palestinian
G. Cavallo
Sacra Parallela,
Weitzmann,
are from a period 37
10-11,14,257,
and
263.
. 1 above, formore details. Sacra Parallela,
nal form of the Sacra Parallela dans les iconographiques i manoscritti per greci del reference to a hypothetical
the opinions of A. Grabar origin of thismodel.
8- 9 : "All scholars agree that the origi extant copies preserved and that all
isnot
after the original
three books were fused into one."
Ibid., 10.On
ous statement
contradicted his previ p. 263, however, Weitzmann Sacra by suggesting that the illustrated archetype of the
DOP 62
Word and Image in the Sacra Parallela (Codex Parisinus Graecus 923) 119 |
are not hypotheses only contradictory but also impossible to prove, and to more tend generate they hypotheses. Was the original three-volume version of the Sacra Parallela illustrated and used as the basis for the abbreviated Sacra
Parallela
version seen in the Paris codex? Or, was
inJohns time an
there
ver already abbreviated and illustrated
sionofhis florilegium,latercopied in theParis codex?
Weitzmann
was
ambiguous
about the exact date and
structure of his hypothetical illustrated archetype, but he then used two very specific arguments to support the on such an arche dependence of the Paris Sacra Parallela type. Given their specificity, these arguments deserve a close examination. Weitzmanns
first argument
is based on the fact
thatat thebeginningof six stoicheia(thatis,sixof the a twenty-four chapters of the book) appears figure that
as JohnofDamascus, the he identified compilerof the wrote: "[I]t seems florilegium (Figs. i-6).38Weitzmann a strange that only few stoicheia show author portraits at their seems reasonable to assume beginnings_It that in the archetype each stoicheion had such a portrait
he holds a pen, as if composing the compila in three of these miniatures (and (Figs. 1-3,5), but
miniatures tion
in theothertwoofhis portraits wherehe does nothold a pen) he alsomakes the with thesame speakinggesture
was right hand (Figs. 2-6). This unusual combination to was indicate that the compiler both perhaps intended an author and a as his inasmuch preacher, compilation
was destined both for individual readers and for preachers interested in using biblical and patristic wisdom for the edification of their audience.41 For example, the speak is in the ninth-century ing gesture regularly employed
to indicate the E49-50 preaching he appears in front of activity of Gregory Nazianzenus: a congregation, making the speaking gesture with one codex Ambrosianus
hand and holding in theothera scrollwith an excerpt of his homily.42 The absence of scroll and audience in the Sacra Parallela miniatures inwhich the compiler is shown
not exclude the making the speaking gesture does on the contrary, in the context reference to preaching; a reference: with of this codex it might reinforce such
and that amore negligent copyist has omitted some."39
his gesture and his turning toward the text of his flori legium, the compiler admonishes the readers, who hold
as the man appears next compiler of the florilegium: the
audience
even in the two cases where he isnot dressed as a figure,
wear the same consistent portrait type: he does not always outfit, and more importantly he does not even have the same beard, which in a Byzantine art is basic element of
Weitzmannwas indeedrightin identifying thesefigures
themanuscript in theirhands and taketheplace of the
tobiblicalpassages,buthe does not seemtobe a biblical
monk (Figs.2, 6).With one exception(Fig.2),he looks at or even
to the titles of the points florilegium, which were created at the by the compiler, rather than excerpted
texts,which were written by biblical authors.40 In four
could have been produced inMar Saba around 800 (roughly half a century after John's death?for the dating ofwhich see ODB 2:1063).
Parallela
Sacra Parallela, 38 Weitzmann, 6, 9 (see figs. 2-7 and the unnum bered color plate at the of the illustrations, for close-ups of beginning not certain that the the miniatures). It is possible but painter intended to
as the depict John ofDamascus compiler. This identification is based on the similarities thatWeitzmann saw between the various compiler a found next to one of his portraits and portrait of John of Damascus few excerpts included in our Sacra Parallela copy. The problem with this identification is that the compiler's portraits are not identical to each other, as I shall soon discuss,
not
to John of Damascus only elsewhere in the manuscript.
and they bear generic similarities but to other eponymous monks depicted
Compare 591-92 (Cassian), (John of Damascus), the Confessor), and so on.
ibid., figs. 2-7 612 (Diadochus),
(compiler),
479
725 (Maximus
39
Ibid., 14.
40
In threecases (stoicheia ,Z, I) thecompilerisdepictedrightnext
to the relevant first title of the In the cases of stoicheia E and chapter. the title appears in the interior column of text, so the compiler is dis tanced from itby the second column of text, but in the case of stoicheion
DOP 62
(absent from theminiatures).
On theotherhand, thecompilerisnotdepictedbya
portrait identification. One
should compare his straight,
thick,andpointedbeard inFig. 1with thecurlybeard in
Fig. 3, the sparse beard in Fig. 4, and the rounded beard in an was illustrated with Fig. 5. If original Sacra Parallela atMar Saba (either portraits of John ofDamascus during
he is represented on the same level as the title (whereas in the case of stoicheion E the compiler is shown somewhat lower than the title). In the case of stoicheion he appears at the lower part of the page, look ing upward 41
toward the title.
Weitzmann
(ibid., 31-32) assumed that the speaking and writ were combined because the model would have contained ing gestures a since the and Sacra Parallela artist wanted to present scene, teaching the compiler as author, he added the pen but did not adjust his images no reason to assume such a model, and adequately. There is compelling the attention to detail that the Sacra Parallela miniaturist often shows
(aswill become apparent in the following pages) suggests that he inten tionally combined the speaking and writing gestures. After all, he was to a hand a pen, ifhis intention was perfectly able depict holding always to present the as author (see compiler only Fig. 1). 42
A. Grabar, Les Miniatures
[Ambrosianus
E 49-50]
du Gr?goire deNazianze
(Paris, 1943).
de VAmbrosienne
EvANGELATOU
120 Maria I
his own time or later), itwould be reasonable to expect a inhis there is depiction. Besides, degree of consistency no reason to assume that the compilers portrait should be represented at the beginning of every stoicheion, since these twenty-four chapters are included in the same codex
and not in twenty-four different codices or rolls that the compiler sportrait at theirbeginning.43 might require As Weitzmann himself suggested, such a portrait was
at the of the Paris manuscript, beginning perhaps inserted the which isnow lacking several initial folios.44Within codex, thepriority of theminiaturist was to repeat not the
compilersfigurebut thoseof theauthorsof theexcerpted
Some 1,250 such portraits still survive in the passages.45 must have numbered around but codex, originally they 1,38 .46As Leslie Brubaker has observed, inmany cases
the authors look or even gesture toward their excerpts, as if to authenticate them, as if to assure the reader that the passages are genuine quotations from theirworks.47 So, what was at stake in our manuscript was not somuch
declared in theauthorshipof thecompilation(probably theinitialtitleandportraitof thecodex),but itsvalidity
status, based on the use of genuine biblical and patristic sources, authenticated by the hundreds of and moral
illustrate them. It isnot surprising, then,
portraits which
we findnot the thatat thebeginningofmost stoicheia
compilers portrait but author portraits corresponding to the compiled passages. com to ask it ismore why the meaningful Perhaps
piler isdepictedat thebeginningofcertainstoicheiaand in 14) used as comparative material (Sacra Parallela, E 49-50 inf. of the ninth support of his hypothesis cod. Ambrosianus century, where he claimed that the portrait of Gregory Nazianzenus
43
Weitzmann
in not others, than to claim that he should be depicted all of them and that failure to do so constitutes a copying
which thecompilerlooksat mistake.The specifictitles in the of six stoicheia present themes impor beginning tant to any Byzantine Christian, but perhaps especially tomonks:48 important
Weitzmann,
6.
Sacra Parallela,
It is possible that more than one miniaturist was involved in the 45 illustration of this codex, but until this issue is systematically examined, I I shall use the terms "artist," "painter," and the like in the singular.When to the use the terms "creators" or "makers of the codex" I refer collectively artist or artists illustrating copied the excerpted passages, the it. themanuscript, and the person or persons who commissioned scribe who
46
According
toWeitzmann,
Sacra Parallela,
6,11.
-
labor was not only a practical but also a spiritual neces as amonk and sity.50The compiler, who ishere dressed
isdepictedas ifwriting thetitleon thefolio,isholding
a case with his writing implements. This detail, unique was intended to among the compilers portraits, perhaps
to present him as a hard emphasize his writing activity, a for his readers. working author setting good example The first excerpt to appear under this title is from Gen
it is said that "God expelled Adam from of abundance, so that he would work the earth fromwhich he was made."51 Monks have to labor
esis 3:23,where the paradise
on that very earth before can leave their they re-enter In the last earthly body behind and paradise. same under the title,John Chrysostom excerpts compiled declares that all useful things are earned by humankind intensively
with greattoiland labor;he adds thatit isa pleasure to It is often suggested in the scholarly literature that Parisinus 923 in amonastery; see, for example, Weitzmann, Sacra Parallela, . 23; Carr, review of Sacra Parallela ( 29 above), 148. For themajor role in the production of Byzantine codices, see N. Wilson, of monasteries "Books and Readers in Byzantium," inByzantine Books and Bookmen: A
48
Dumbarton
44
E .49
and productivity of its farmers. More over, the admonition thatworking isgood was especially in a monastic environment, where manual important
in the homilies,
than simple author portraits. See, 119 and 354; Grabar, Gr?goire de
A A
the well-being
was made
aremuch more so they on pages the miniatures VAmbrosienne, plates XII, XXIX.
A A E
that working is good." In an farming and farmers and like Byzantium, thewell-being and agricultural society on was prosperity of the community greatly dependent
appears in front of almost all of his 45 homilies included in this codex. In reality, theminiatures he mentioned are teaching scenes, which often include either figures specifically identified as members of the audience was addressed or biblical towhich this precise homily figures mentioned for example,
E E
Stoicheion (Fig. ): E A A
Oaks Colloquium,
Fol. 99r (PG 95H308D, 923 are transcribed here with
49
with no attempt cal reasons. 50
To mention
(Washington,
to edit the passages.
just
DC,
1975), 9.
the texts from cod. Paris, gr. the abbreviated words written in full and
title V). All
Accents
one characteristic
are omitted
example,
for practi
the very first saying
Patrum (PG 65:76A-B) of theFathersincludedin theApophthegmata
labor in the daily life of proclaims the equal importance of prayer and a virtuous monk (in this case, the Great). Many more passages Antony in this collection mention of monks with the continuous occupation e
e a, manual
tasks such as theweaving
of baskets or mats.
11 above), in the Ninth (n. "Byzantine Art Century" 70-75, esp. 73-74; eadem, Vision andMeaning (n. 4 above), 52-57. Also noted by K. Corrigan, Visual Polemics in theNinth-Century Byzantine
in this Fol. 99r (PG 9$:i3o8D). All the Old Testament quotations article (and in cod. Paris, gr. 923) are according to the Septuagint (num into bered as in the Rahlfs ed.), unless otherwise noted. Translations
Psalter
English
47
Brubaker,
(Cambridge,
1992), 118-19.
51
are mine.
DOP 62
Word and Image in the Sacra Parallela (Codex Parisinus Graecus 923) | 121
receive the fruits of a fertile land, but when a barren and to rocky land ismade give fruits through intensive labor, then the farmer s joy is even greater, forhe has conquered
is strongly reminiscent of a texts in concerned with the life found topos Byzantine more ofmonks: the hostile the natural environment is, and tamed nature.52 This
the greater the spiritual achievement of themonks who settle there.53
StoicheionE (Fig. ): E A
A
commandments
E E ATTAC.54On God s
and on those who
follow them." The
importance of this title is self-evidentfor themoral agenda of any Christian compilation like the Sacra Parallela and is equally valid for all Christians. This is one of the
as two cases where the not clearly identified compiler is is the first title under stoicheion Likewise,
iMS*fi//yg?ff/A
//
'
r
' \l/w'/vOfrftrft SV"/'*\y?/??KirtfAiKt -
a monk.
E TON E A A TOT E A A A E A A A A A E God and ("Aboutseeking in him his and name"),but doing everything following E
E
/
'/TI
err/ft
//
E
iOt'Cty*
in this case the compiler is clearly identified as a monk
;?\rtfVmi\'rftfi\ftfiiv{A
(Fig.3).55
StoicheionI (Fig.4): E ICOTHTOC A E A ECTIN MHTHP TA ICOTHC nPOC A A E A NEMOTCA.56 On equal
to ity,that equality is themother of brotherly love,giving everyone theirworth." Many of the excerpts in this title more about respect and honors due to authorities speak than about the equality of all human beings, but they also refer to the recognition of ones value.57 Respect for authorities togetherwith justice and love among brothers in a monastic community. The is especially important introduction of "brotherly love" (marked in Fig. 4) in the
title is rather significant. It is absent from the same title in theSacra ParalleU
edition in the Patrologia Graeca,58 and
Fol. 99V(PG 95:i309BC).
52
See, for example, Apophthegmata Patrum, PG 6y.j-jK, where it is said that salvation cannot be attained without temptation. In other words, harsh conditions in the natural and spiritual environment are valuable 53
tests that serve to reinforce one's virtuous character.
54
Fol.i47r(PG95:i4i6D).
Fol. 197 . (In PG 95:1568c the title is slightly different, and in fact to the relevant stoicheion Z, as ituses theword e corresponds better e found in cod. Paris, gr. 923). rather than
55
Fol. 2o8r (PG 96:60c,
56
where
the title is briefer).
See PG 96:6oCD, where the passages included under the same title are identical, save for some attributions to different authors.
57
PG 96:60c
58 (
e
DOP 62
(Vatican ? a
recension). Here a a a
the title is not only simpler e e ), it is also the fourth
i
Fig.
Cod.
Paris.
gr. 923, fol. 99r, the compilers
portrait
at the
beginningof stoicheion (photocourtesyof theBiblioth?que nationale
de France)
our even in the passages compiled in a codex under the title discussed here. There isonly very brief passage attributed to Isidore of Pelusium, according towhich to love,59but the title injustice is alien especially it isnot mentioned
a monas stresses brotherly love, basic ingredient of healthy tic institutions. It isperhaps no coincidence that next to
this title the compiler ismore emphatically identified as a monk than in any other of his portraits and, instead of a pen, he holds a cruciform staff that seems to present
him as the abbot of a monastery, teaching obedience, fairness, and love to his brethren. The imposing figure of the compiler stands in frontof an archwhich merges with his figure and seems to transform him into a large iota, rather than the first title of stoicheion I.However,
the same title as in the
(and even more extensive) appears first in the sequence of recension: PG 96:453-56, titles under stoicheion I in the Rupefucaldian " ? a e a e a e , ?v e
Sacra Parallela
e 59 phus).
a
, ?v e
Fol. 2 8
a
(PG 96:6oD,
." where
the passage
is attributed
to Jose
122 Maria I
EvANGELATOu
'
if A4 ft AVA \fl '/' AiJ?**A
HAt?'r/y vfyj;*$v?ti. 1 nu v$t a \vi\ // mhV\ ti M fi* \ Vf tit fffft // v*
y s si VfVitt fi tV
j'
IS Af MUAl0
i'rr?S*4SW
l'i IlH
S'OSAI
A *t Y^itf
II
w 'Y* i ff*
\ \s a rttf
'/'?i*/f f
/f\ *iV*\tf/
.f'/H%ffl'fAf?ll9Af IS S*At*Y t:c '/'/// i
'
f/Sfj&SfSS'tr?SAASt \ I CfXilil i if/A Vf \ \ l'i S:
' i 1 l ?tf.?*?lf'C
fi?t I KU AitMft^Alitf ff //C?I i ! V 'fit ' fife:ff KM fff*A11 V A ?f?tf?ijitV?tl
/
S-f'fSSft* Fig.
2
Cod.
Paris,
gr. 923, fol. I47r, the compiler's portrait at
thebeginningof stoicheion
courtesy
E (photo of the
Biblioth?que nationale
de France)
t*
i i AI Ail
'ft a ri t*y*?jA*Ai I//V^i?t^^ff^itsr
st\* ; 'V V /
t Kij
'rwtif*
Aflif
ASIVttl
S /9,\'ff*'AflfAJVAf V : ti 77 M/WVl(/> / // / I / / // A^V
/ IM
the stoicheion of this chapter. That this visual allusion s is might have been intentional suggested by the arch
the same twisted rope motif which in other cases decorates the capital lettersmarking the cor on this folio there is no such responding stoicheia (and
decoration with
letter; compare Figs. 2-3, $-6). No other arch among themany architectural settings depicted in this codex is
ever decorated with the same motif, which exclusively for the stoicheia marking
I
\ ti A ii<Si
XAfifitUl ;?y Ali
a i tt^iiftf
*f>\t.ti\tsytiftvfy
41AiVfl.itA I ti
\uvM,}m A'IT?y
fi y
t'f'iv
*Vi mi
Wrl^^^^^y^i> * ti* i SVu? f/S
A\/fh//ac\ c/j^ap/
-
.
Hl
/////*//*a \ // 1?\V/// r //?V /// . // '/ A/ y v/y ;t,/
