Download PDF | Perceptions of Byzantium and Its Neighbors 843-1261-The Metropolitan Museum of Art (2000).
211 Pages
Foreword
Just as the influences of modern empires can be traced far beyond their borders by the hegemony of their artistic traditions, the art of the Byzantine Empire attests to the full range of its political and cultural power. The Metropolitan Museum of Art explored the first centuries of Byzantium in the 1977 exhibition “Age of Spirituality.’ The Museum’s exhibition “The Glory of Byzantium,” on view from March 11 to July 6, 1997, focused on the subsequent four centuries, which embraced the second great era of Byzantine culture (843-1261).
To demonstrate the important role of Byzantium during this era, the exhibition and the accompanying catalogue examined four interrelated themes: the religious and secular cultures of the Byzantine Empire during its Second Golden Age, the empire’s interactions with its Christian neighbors and rivals, its interaction with the Islamic East, and its contact with the Latin West.
More than 360 objects were assembled to present a significant selection of the most outstanding works of art that survive from the empire and from most of the countries that constituted its extended sphere of influence. Not every country asked to participate was able to lend to the exhibition. Those missing from the greater Byzantine sphere were referred to in the exhibition’s catalogue; however, the lack of works of art in the exhibition representing their cultures—most especially, those of Serbia and of Nubia— was, and is, regretted.
The catalogue brought together the contributions of fifty-nine scholars and art historians, most of them working in America, to address the complex currents of Byzantine civilization. A historical overview of the period set the context for the study of its art and culture. Byzantium’s religious and secular spheres, although closely intertwined, were highlighted separately in order to recognize the power and influence of its Church, still alive today, and of the state, now a memory.
The religious sphere—in both its public and private domain—was always central and privileged in Byzantium. Monumental reliefs, architectural elements, mosaics, and frescoes coming from many regions of the empire were used to define the interiors of Middle Byzantine churches. Chalices, patens, and religious manuscripts represented the liturgy of the Church in these key centuries of its independent development.
The fact that the same religious images were popular among all classes of society was shown through works ranging from monumental wall decorations to delicate objects of personal veneration. Religious subjects popularized during the era, such as the Anastasis (called in the West the Descent of Christ into Hell) and the Koimesis (called in the West the Dormition of the Virgin), took a variety of forms. Icons, of special importance in the centuries that directly followed the Iconoclastic controversy, were presented in all mediums, from grand panel paintings for public worship to intimate ivory plaques for personal use.
The power of the Byzantine court, as its armies gained and then lost vast territories, was demonstrated through imperial portraits of figures whose rigidly formal poses and elaborate robes of state reflected the confidence and wealth of the empire. Superbly worked secular objects displayed the standard of elegance for which Byzantium was widely envied. Byzantium’s continuing interest in the arts and sciences of Late Antiquity was shown through works that reflected the classical tradition.
To reveal the richly complex, multiethnic society of Byzantium and to counter the perception of the empire as a monolithic culture, the exhibition considered the extensive territory that came under Byzantine influence by acknowledging the cultural integrity of its many Christian neighbors. Byzantine objects known to have been in regions beyond the territorial borders of the empire during the Middle Byzantine centuries were included with items of local production in order to pinpoint the complexity of this cultural cross-fertilization. Many of these locally produced works of art repeated specific images and techniques familiar within the empire.
The acceptance of Christianity by the Slavic peoples is arguably the most significant lasting achievement of the empire’s Second Golden Age, and special emphasis was placed on objects from Bulgaria and Kyivan Rus’ (now within the territories of Ukraine, Belarus’, and the Russian Federation) to demonstrate the Slavs’ conversion. The empire’s relationship to other Christian peoples to the east and the south—the Georgians and Armenians and those Christians surviving in the former imperial territories lost to [slam—was shown through manuscripts, metalwork, and frescoes. Examples of the empire’s interaction with the Crusader kingdoms established in Islamic territories introduced the complicated issue of Byzantine relations with the West.
Byzantine connections to the Islamic world were explored beginning with the Christian communities in Islamic lands. The role of the prestige of the imperial court in Constantinople in setting a standard emulated and rivaled by the great courts of the East was recognized, as was, in turn, the importance of the Islamic courts—the only royal houses with the wealth and power to inspire admiration and envy among the Byzantines. Artistic relations between Byzantium and specific Islamic states also recognized the empire’s geographical position as a locus between the Islamic East and the Latin West. The inclusion of Islamic works in the exhibition was meant to inspire further research on this relatively unexamined area of art history.
The exhibition also addressed the cultural exchange between the Latin West and Byzantium during the latter’s Second Golden Age. Byzantine works of art known to have been in the West during these centuries were considered in juxtaposition with objects of local production that reflected their influence. The peaceful export of Byzantine culture as well as its forceful expropriation was presented. As in the Islamic section, cultural interaction was illustrated by the evidence of specific works. Attention was given to the longestablished connections between Byzantine society and Italy, especially the south—which was nominally part of the empire for much of this period—and the Veneto.
Scandinavia’s role in the spread of Byzantine culture was introduced. The extended contact between Byzantium and Germanic lands was exemplified by the inclusion of works of art linked to the Ottonian court, papal diplomacy, and Crusader loot. And the regions of the present-day countries of Hungary, France, England, and Spain also were shown to have had artistic contacts with the empire. Through this exploration of Middle Byzantine art and culture and its dialogue with its Christian neighbors, the Islamic East, and the Latin West, “The Glory of Byzantium” provided a comprehensive picture of the importance of the Second Golden Age of the empire in its own time and for centuries to come.
One of the leading Byzantine historians in America, Professor Speros Vryonis, Jr., honored the conceptualization of the exhibition for approaching “the art of Byzantium as a window through which to examine not only its guiding principles and rich variety of forms (and thus to grasp its essence), but also to see it as an expression of the complexity and intensity of Byzantium’s relations to its neighbors (not only those forming a component part of Byzantine civilization, but also those ‘belonging’ to different civilizations, or to border regions between civilizations).”
The two-and-a-half day symposium that accompanied “The Glory of Byzantium” was intended to open that window further by attracting a diverse audience of scholars and non-specialists alike, and disseminating and exchanging information on several levels. For a general audience, the conference was aimed at providing an introduction to the rich culture of medieval Byzantium; for scholars, it offered a specialized view of the empire’s traditions and its spheres of influence within several significant and specific contexts. We wish to thank the scholars— most from outside the United States—who presented the following papers on the concept of the exhibition and on the works assembled.
We wish to extend our special appreciation to the other outstanding specialists who, while not represented by the following papers, were instrumental in making the symposium a success. Most especially, we wish to thank David Buckton, then Keeper, Department of Medieval and Later Antiquities, British Museum, London; Jannic Durand, Conservateur, Département des Objets d’Art, Musée du Louvre, Paris; Dietrich K6tzsche, Curator Emeritus, The Medieval Collection, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Kunstgewerbemuseum; and Thomas F Mathews, John Langeloth Loeb Professor of the History of Art, The Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, for their participation in the discussion of the papers. We thank Olenka Z. Pevny, then Research Assistant for the exhibition and now editor of this volume, and Priscilla Soucek, Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Islamic Art and Architecture, The Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, for joining us in the introductions to the various sessions.
The staff of the Metropolitan Museum’s Department of Education, under Kent Lydecker, Associate Director for Education, must be thanked for their efforts, which were instrumental in the successful organization and running of the event. Deborah Krohn, now teaching at the University of Maryland, was most generous in her support
of the project, as was Kristina Kaczmarski Sears, then her administrative assistant. Mikel Frank and the management staff of the Grace Rainey Rogers Auditorium must be thanked for their efficient orchestration of the presentations, and Jessica Glass, Norman Proctor, and Robert Dickey for videotaping them.
We also wish to thank those who worked on “The Glory of Byzantium” exhibition and who also helped to make the symposium a success, in particular, Joseph D. Alchermes, Sarah Brooks, Jillian Cipriano, Xenia Geroulanos, Irina Kandarasheva, Holger A. Klein, Jason Klein, and Louisa Leventis. In closing, it must be noted that it is only through the enthusiastic support of Philippe de Montebello, Director, that The Metropolitan Museum of Art is able not only to host symposia such as this one but to publish the papers that were presented— both activities highly relevant to the advancement of academic discourse.
The Museum extends its sincere thanks to the Mary C. and James W. Fosburgh Publications Fund for its support of this publication. We are also extremely grateful for the generous support from Alpha Banking Group, Citibank, and Papastratos S.A for The Glory of Byzantium exhibition and its related programs. Additional assistance was received from the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Foundation for Hellenic Culture, Marinopoulos Group, Halyvourgiki Inc., Constantine Angelopoulos and Mrs. Yeli Papayannopoulou, and anonymous donors. An indemnity was granted by the Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities.
William D. Wixom
Preface
The thirteen papers in this volume were delivered at the international symposium held at The Metropolitan Museum of Art May 23— 25, 1997, in the context of “The Glory of Byzantium” exhibition, which was on view from March 11 through July 6, 1997. One of the main purposes of this exhibition was to explore the Byzantine Empire’s complex and varied relationship with its neighbors, recognizing the multi-national, multi-ethnic, and multi-cultural character of its artistic traditions.
Whereas the symposium was conceived in close conjunction with the exhibition, its intent was somewhat different. It strove to acknowledge the international character and diversity of current scholarship on Byzantine art, and to present not only new material but also the variety of objectives, approaches, and methodologies that shape modern perceptions of the subject. Thus, the symposium was not restricted to a specific theme; instead, the participants were asked to address a broad range of aspects of the “Glory of Byzantium” exhibition.
The contributors to this volume, all of whom are scholars of Byzantine art and culture, hail from ten different countries, including Austria, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the United States of America. They all hold prominent positions in the leading scholarly or cultural institutions of their respective countries, and are distinguished experts in their fields of specialization, with established international reputations. Immediately apparent is that many of the authors are from Eastern Europe, and reside in lands that once were under the ecclesiastical and cultural sway of Byzantium. Yet, their perceptions of the Byzantine artistic legacy, which contributed to the cultural identity of their homelands, rarely are included in such English-language symposia and publications.
The volume begins with an introductory essay by [hor Sevéenko, Dumbarton Oaks Professor of Byzantine History and Literature, Emeritus, at Harvard University, a leading Byzantine philologist, and also a specialist in Byzantine and post-Byzantine cultural history. In his essay, Professor Sevéenko discusses the importance of perceptions of Byzantium by outsiders as a field of study in its own right, and examines the perceptions of the empire held by its neighbors, by poets such as W. B. Yeats, J. Brodsky, and C. Cavafy, and by modern historians and professional Byzantinists.
The themes of the twelve papers that follow range from the production, attribution, or dating of Byzantine works of art to an attempt to explicate the complex relationship between Byzantine and indigenous cultures. Alice-Mary Talbot, who served as advisor for hagiographical projects and as Executive Editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, and is currently Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, evaluates the role played by Byzantine monasteries in the creation and conservation of portable works of art, and compels us to consider how our perception of Byzantine art is shaped by the museum setting and our preconceptions regarding the medieval world.
The next two papers, by prominent curators from The State Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, reconsider the dating of two Byzantine works of art carved in stone, and thereby call into question the conventional dating of other small-scale Byzantine carvings. Yuri Piatnitsky, Curator of the Byzantine Icon Collection, is concerned with a now-lost panagiarion that once belonged to the Monastery of Saint Panteleemon on Mount Athos, while Vera N. Zalesskaya, Curator of Byzantine Applied Arts, studies a cameo with a mythological subject that is part of the Hermitage collection. These articles, as well as others in the volume, remind us once again of the crucial role that our perception of style continues to play in the study of Byzantine art.
The papers by Etele Kiss, Curator of Medieval Gold Work at the Magyar Nemzeti Mazeum in Budapest, and Professor Thomas Steppan of the Institut fiir Kunstgeschichte der Leopold-Franzens-Universitat in Innsbruck, focus on cloisonné enamels associated with the Byzantine court; their arguments raise implications about the way in which such works of art influenced the perception of Byzantium by outsiders. More specifically, Etele Kiss argues for the authenticity of the Crown of Constantine [IX Monomachos, now in the Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum, while Thomas Steppan delves into the connections between Byzantine and Islamic courtly cultures through a detailed examination of the decorative and technical elements of the Artukid bowl in the Tiroler Landesmuseum in Innsbruck.
The following two papers discuss icons—an art form that more than all others determines our perception of Byzantine culture. Professor Liudmyla Milyaeva, a member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, provides a thorough account of the condition and iconography of the Relief Icon of Saint George with Scenes from His Life, now in the Natsional’nyi muzei Ukrainy in Kyiv, in order to date the icon and understand its place in the evolution of the imagery of Saint George and the development of his cult in the Crimea and in Kyiv. Professor Elka Bakalova of the Institute of Art Studies of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences has selected some of the earliest and most interesting icons from Bulgaria as the topic of her paper. On the basis of such criteria as historical evidence, inscriptions, and style, the author dates the icons and interprets their iconography and function.
The final five papers tackle the intricate problem of the interaction between Byzantine artistic developments and regional indigenous culture, and contribute to our understanding of how different peoples perceived and appropriated Byzantine art and architectural forms. Professor Guglielmo Cavallo of Rome University “La Sapienza,” a specialist in Greek paleography and a member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei and the Accademia delle Scienze of Turin, investigates the cultural interaction between Byzantium and southern Italy as revealed primarily in the local production of Greek manuscripts.
He identifies their characteristic features and outlines their transformation in response to various factors, including the influence of Latin manuscripts. The following two papers focus on architectural topics. Panayotis L. Vocotopoulos, Professor Emeritus of Byzantine Art and Archaeology at the University of Athens and a member of the Academy of Athens, traces the development of an architectural school in Greece that was quite independent of Constantinople, between the eighth and the early thirteenth century. Professor Wlodzimierz Godlewski of Warsaw University, an authority on Mediterranean Archaeology and Egyptology and former Director General of the National Museum in Warsaw, assesses the interplay between Byzantine and indigenous features in the architecture and painting of medieval Nubia and Coptic Egypt.
The last two papers, contributed by the Georgian Professors Nodar Lomouri, head of the Byzantine Department at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Georgian Academy of Sciences and Director of the Georgian State Art Museum, and Kitty Matchabeli, head of the Department of Minor Arts at the Chubinashvili Institute of Georgian Art, center on Georgian-Byzantine relations. Professor Lomouri provides a general introduction to the topic, while Professor Matchabeli reviews the implications for art of the relationship between the two states.
I feel obligated to the reader to clarify the principles that guided the editorial intervention that was deemed necessary for the production of this volume. The names of the contributors and the titles of their papers suffice to reveal the great diversity of their subjects, fields of interest, and methods. In fact, most of the papers (translated into English) were edited for style and clarity, and annotated; technical terms were glossed, dates provided for historical individuals, and bibliography, citations, and illustrations were added where necessary. An effort was made to standardize references and systematize the rules of transliteration that were employed for the dozen or so languages cited in these pages.
For this purpose I consulted the reference works and encyclopedias—too many to list here—that are considered standard in each field of research. In most cases, place names are given in accordance with the official language of the state that currently contains them, as are the names of historical individuals directly associated with specific sites. Despite the appearance of homogeneity that has thereby been imposed upon the papers, the editorial process has not altered their actual content, and it is my hope that even stylistic nuances have been preserved. Ultimately, the authors remain entirely responsible for the opinions expressed and the degree of documentation that is offered in support of their arguments.
As the editor of this volume, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the authors themselves, who graciously cooperated in the preparation of their texts for publication. For the opportunity to work on this publication, as well as on the “The Glory of Byzantium” exhibition, I wish to express my deep appreciation to Philippe de Montebello, Director; Mahrukh Tarapor, Associate Director for Exhibitions; John P. O’Neill, Editor in Chief and General Manager of Publications; and, in the Department of Medieval Art and The Cloisters, to William D. Wixom, Curator Emeritus; Helen C. Evans, Curator of Byzantine and Early Christian Art; and Peter Barnet, Michel David-Weill Curator in Charge.
In the Editorial Department I am grateful to Susan Chun, Senior Editor for New Media and Special Projects, for her advice and support during this project; to Ellen Shultz, Editor, who must be warmly thanked for her professional expertise and patience during the final editorial stages; and, for the production of the volume, to Peter Antony, Chief Production Manager; Elisa Frohlich, Production Manager; Minjee Cho, Electronic Publishing Assistant; and Jo Ellen Ackerman, Designer with Bessas and Ackerman. A special debt of gratitude is extended to my colleagues and friends Anthony Kaldellis, Jurij Bilyk, Steve Rapp, and Sarah Brooks for helping me resolve many issues of transliteration as well as numerous scholarly and editorial queries.
Olenka Z. Pevny Editor
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق