Download PDF | Kathleen Maxwell - Between Constantinople and Rome_ An Illuminated Byzantine Gospel Book (Paris gr. 54) and the Union of Churches-Routledge (2016).
392 Pages
This is a study of the artistic and political context that led to the production of a truly exceptional Byzantine illustrated manuscript. Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale de France, codex grec 54 is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the Byzantine era. This thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book features full-page evangelist portraits, an extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic texts. However, it has never been the subject of a comprehensive study and the circumstances of its commission are unknown. In this book Kathleen Maxwell addresses the following questions: what circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books?
Paris 54’s innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission. Maxwell’s multi-disciplinary approach includes codicological and paleographical evidence together with New Testament textual criticism, artistic and historical analysis. She concludes that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically embody a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Analysis of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that it was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts to unify the Latin and Orthodox churches. As such, Paris 54 is a unique witness to early Palaeologan attempts to achieve church union with Rome.
Acknowledgments
Any project taking this long to complete is indebted to many individuals and institutions. I begin with Prof. Robert S. Nelson and his Byzantine manuscript illumination seminar at the University of Chicago in 1978. It was then that I committed to Paris 54 as the subject of my dissertation. I thank Prof. Nelson, as well as Profs. Linda Seidel and the late Kathleen Shelton, the other two members of my dissertation committee. Prof. Nelson should also be credited for proposing the title of this book.
I would never have been able to complete the dissertation and undertake the research for this book without the enlightened policies of Doe Library and the Art History Seminar at the University of California at Berkeley, and the nearby library of the Graduate Theological Union. I thank especially Kathryn Wayne, Fine Arts Librarian at the Art History/Classics Library at Berkeley, and her predecessor, Ann Gilbert, for generously accommodating my needs over the years. I also thank the librarians at the Gellert Library of Notre Dame de Namur University, in Belmont, California, where I spent many hours while our youngest child attended school nearby.
Research on Athos, Iviron cod. 5—the sister manuscript of Paris 54—was enormously facilitated by two extraordinary events in March 1998. First, I was granted permission to personally examine Iviron 5 by the Holy Community of Monks of Mount Athos while the manuscript was displayed in the Treasures of Mount Athos exhibition at the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki. I wish to express my profound gratitude to the Holy Community, and especially to the monks of the Iviron Monastery for this unique privilege. also thank my friend the late Alfred Biichler for his interest in my research. It was he who put me in touch with Fr. James Skedros, who in turn introduced me to Prof. Aristotle Mentzos and Dr. Ioannis Tavlakis, Superintendent of the Tenth Ephoreia of Byzantine Antiquities, Thessaloniki. Dr. Tavlakis relayed my request to examine Iviron 5 directly to the Athonite Community. Others interceded on my behalf as well, including Prof. Demetra Sfendoni-Mentzou, Prof. Maria Vassilaki, and Prof. Robert Nelson. I thank, too, the Director and staff of the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki for providing ideal circumstances in which to examine Iviron 5 during my visit to Thessaloniki.
I also wish to acknowledge the critical role of Prof. Dorothea French of the History Department of Santa Clara University. As my colleague and mentor at Santa Clara, Dorothea insisted that I pursue the possibility of gaining permission to examine Iviron 5 while it was “off the mountain” even when others insisted that such permission would never be granted. Thank you, Dorothea!
Second, but no less important, I wish to thank Efthymios K. Litsas for procuring a microfilm copy of Iviron 5 for me. By coincidence, it arrived a few days after I returned from viewing Iviron 5 in Thessaloniki. I had been seeking access to a microfilm of Iviron 5 for almost twenty years and I am deeply grateful to Prof. Litsas for his many efforts on my behalf. Copies of that microfilm are now in the collections of the Institut fiir neutestamentliche Textforschung (INTF) in Miinster, Germany and the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California.
A number of institutions have provided financial assistance over the years. I thank the Samuel H. Kress Foundation for supporting my dissertation research abroad for nine months in 1980. My debt to Santa Clara University, where I have taught for over thirty years, is immense. Whether in the form of sabbatical leave, a course release, conference travel, generous funding for photos, related permissions, and the publisher’s subvention, I have benefited from the support of the President’s and Provost's Offices, and the Office of the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. I thank in particular the late Paul Locatelli, SJ, former President of Santa Clara University; Denise Carmody, former Provost of the University; Don Dodson, former Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Interim Provost; Diane Jonte-Pace, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education; Amy Shachter, Associate Provost for Research and Faculty Affairs, and Atom Yee, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
I am also grateful for the encouragement and support of all my colleagues in the Department of Art and Art History. I single out Prof. Kate Morris, who served as a sounding board on countless occasions, and especially Prof. Blake de Maria, who volunteered to read and comment on seven chapters of the book. The late Gerald Sullivan, SJ, assisted with the translation of a Latin text. For financial support from the department, I thank former chair Prof. Kelly Detweiler, and current chair Prof. Blake de Maria.
Various staff members at Santa Clara have been profoundly helpful to me. This includes Cynthia Bradley, Interlibrary Loan Manager, and Carolee Bird, Interlibrary Loan Supervisor, without whose efforts I would have been hopelessly stymied on numerous occasions. Leanna Goodwater, the Humanities Librarian, and Elwood Mills in Media Services also assisted with countless requests related to my research and the publication of this book. For technical support, I thank Phil Erskine of Information Technology and Marc Ramos, Technology Training Specialist.
Santa Clara University also provided funding for undergraduate student assistants. I thank especially Nate Funkhouser, who compiled the bibliography from the footnotes, and Lucy (Elizabeth) Morgan, who proofread all the chapters. Christine Lechelt and Lauren Baines also served as student assistants in past years.
Many specialists have answered my queries. I thank Albert Derolez, Emeritus Professor of the Free Universities of Brussels, for helping me with many questions related to the scribes of Paris 54’s Latin text while he served as Visiting Professor at the University of California at Berkeley. For issues related to New Testament textual criticism, I thank Profs. Bart D. Ehrman, Bruce Morrill, David C. Parker, Ulrich Schmid, Tommy Wasserman, Klaus Wessel, and the late Bruce M. Metzger. Prof. Robert Ousterhout provided a copy of an especially elusive article. Profs. Elizabeth Fisher and Cecily J. Hilsdale gave feedback on individual chapters of this book, and Prof. Hilsdale also generously volunteered to share her photographs with me.
Alice-Mary Talbot, Director of Byzantine Studies Emerita at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, encouraged me to submit the modus operandi chapter to Dumbarton Oaks Papers, while Margaret Mullett, Director of Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks, generously granted permission to include that material in this book. Nadezhda Kavrus-Hoffmann, independent scholar, Prof. Stratis Papaioannou of Brown University and his graduate student Daria Resh intervened on my behalf so that permission was granted to publish photographs of St. Petersburg codices gr. 101 and 382. Prof. Robert W. Allison helped me procure photographs from Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, Thessaloniki. I wish to especially to thank Prof. Annemarie Weyl Carr, who introduced me to the study of medieval manuscripts forty years ago while I was an undergraduate at Southern Methodist University. Iam so very grateful for her interest, support, and friendship over these many years.
Many institutions have provided photographs and related permissions. Ithank especially the Bibliotheque nationale de France, the Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies in Thessaloniki, and Princeton University Library.
Family and friends have also cheered me on through their interest in my work. My mother, Kathleen Kane Maxwell, 95 years old at this writing, read chapter drafts as did my sister, Josephine Maxwell Grahn of Salt Lake City. My nephew, Sebastian Shepard, carefully edited and proofread the bibliography. For extended conversations about my research, I thank Dorothy Hansberry, Lucy Irwin, Graham Taylor, and Jane Willson.
On the home front, I thank first and foremost my husband, Paul M. Sullam. We met at about the same time that I initiated my research on Paris 54 thirtyfive years ago. His emotional and financial support go along way in explaining how this book finally came to fruition. I also thank our three daughters, Juliana, Angelica, and Mariella, for their encouragement and interest in my work, and especially for their patience. Maria Guadalupe Corrales (Pita), whom our daughters refer to as their second mother, must be credited for keeping our household functional for more than two decades. Her love and dedication have been essential to all of us.
I thank, too, the anonymous readers of the prospectus and the book manuscript for their supportive and helpful comments. The strengths of this book reflect the debt I owe to the scholars listed in the bibliography; the inevitable errors are my responsibility alone.
Lastly, I thank John Smedley, my editor at Ashgate, for taking on this book. Iam very grateful to him for his enthusiasm and support.
Kathleen Maxwell San Francisco
Introduction
Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, codex grec 54 (Paris, BnF, gr. 54; Paris 54, or P54) is one of the most ambitious and complex manuscripts produced during the early Palaeologan period. Its full-page evangelist portraits, extensive narrative cycle, and unique polychromatic bilingual texts have garnered scholarly attention since Gabriel Millet published some of its illustrations in 1916.' More than eighty-five years later, however, little is known about this thirteenth-century Greek and Latin Gospel book. The circumstances of its commission are undocumented and we do not understand why its narrative cycle, Latin text, and ornament remain incomplete. This study addresses the following questions: What circumstances led to the creation of Paris 54? Who commissioned it and for what purpose? How was a deluxe manuscript such as this produced? Why was it left unfinished? How does it relate to other Byzantine illustrated Gospel books?
While nothing is known about the origins of Paris 54, it can be linked to two very different manuscripts. Its dependence on the evangelist portraits and some of the text miniatures of the illustrated Gospel book, Mt. Athos, Iviron 5, is widely acknowledged. This study clarifies the relationship between Paris 54 and Iviron 5. The correct identification of the text miniatures of Paris 54 reveals that it incorporates all 29 scenes found in Iviron 5, as well as 22 additional miniatures. Paris 54’s significantly expanded miniature cycle combined with its distinctive double-column format and colorful bilingual texts create an entirely different impact, however, than Iviron 5’s smaller, single-column Greek text written in standard brown ink.
A second source for Paris 54 is also identified. My research indicates that the Greek text of Paris 54 was likely copied directly from Princeton, University Library, Codex Garrett 3, a Gospel book of 1136 that otherwise appears unrelated to Paris 54. The occurrence of unique textual anomalies in Paris 54’s and Garrett 3’s Greek texts of Matthew, coupled with additional paratextual evidence, underlines Paris 54’s dependence on Garrett 3.
Paris 54 surpasses both of its models, as manifested by its generous proportions, its bilingual and multi-colored texts, the enhanced format of its images, and the expanded number of passages selected for illustration. The differences between Paris 54 and its models are due both to the stipulations of Paris 54’s unidentified but highly ambitious and sophisticated patron, as well as to decisions and modifications adopted by its head scribe. In fact, Paris 54’s innovations are a testament to the extraordinary circumstances of its commission.
I will demonstrate that Paris 54 was never intended to copy any other manuscript. Rather, it was designed to eclipse its contemporaries and to physically symbolize a new relationship between Constantinople and the Latin West, as envisioned by its patron. Further analysis of Paris 54’s texts and miniature cycle indicates that Paris 54 was created at the behest of a Byzantine emperor as a gift to a pope, in conjunction with imperial efforts in the late thirteenth century to unify the Latin and Orthodox Churches.
Description and Provenance
Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France, codex grec 54° entered the Royal Library in France in 1599 along with numerous other Greek manuscripts from the remarkable collection of Catherine de Medici.* Comprising 364 folios of thick, white parchment measuring 335 x 250 mm, the manuscript contains the complete Gospels in Greek in the left-hand column and an incomplete Latin version of the Vulgate in the right-hand column. Four full-page evangelist portraits were inserted at the beginning of each Gospel, while space was reserved throughout the text for as many as 52 narrative miniatures.° Only 22 text miniatures were completed, and five others remain in varying stages of completion. Twenty-five remaining miniatures received, atmost, only asimple, rectangular red-ink frame indicating the original scope of the program. Paris 54, with the exception of the decorative frames of the evangelist portraits, is almost completely devoid of ornament. Space was reserved at the beginning of each Gospel for an ornamental headpiece, but these were never executed.
Historiographical Review‘
Paris 54 attracted the attention of New Testament text scholars almost a century before paleographers or art historians.’ Its bilingual text led many to propose that it was produced on Italian soil. This trend roused opposition as early as 1916 in Millet, and again in 1931 with Lazarev.’ It was not until 1929, when Henri Omont fully published Paris 54’s illustrations, that it began to be consistently noted by art historians.
Paris 54 remains something of an anomaly. Extensively illustrated Gospel books are rare in the Palaeologan period. By this time the preferred venue for extensive narrative cycles was monumental painting.'’ However, as we shall see, there are many aspects of Paris 54 that contribute to its singular status above and beyond its narrative cycle. Since Paris 54 has never been the subject of a comprehensive study, every aspect of the manuscript—script, illumination, ornament, and text— warrants examination.
Chapter Summaries
Chapter 2 addresses codicological and paleographical issues of Paris 54, including the unusual make-up of Paris 54’s quires (ten folios) and their bilingual Greek and Armenian quire signatures, as well as paleographical peculiarities of its Greek and Latin Gospel texts. Paris 54’s polychrome text is unique in Byzantine manuscript production and its hierarchical implications are of interest. Bright red ink was used for the simple narrative text, while a darker red or crimson ink was reserved for Jesus’ words, the genealogy of Christ, and the words of the angels. Old Testament passages, the words of the disciples, Zachariah, Mary, Elizabeth, Simeon, and John the Baptist are in blue, while dark brown ink was used for words spoken by the Pharisees, people from the crowd, Judas Ischariot, the Centurion, the devil, shepherds, and the scribes. Paleographical analysis indicates that the Greek text, with the exception of one quire, was executed by one scribe working in a handsome archaizing script, while the Latin text is the product of many different hands and several different time periods. Moreover, Paris 54’s Greek text has recently been associated with a select group of secular and religious manuscripts produced in Constantinople that is dated or datable to the period 1277-1330.
Chapter 3 analyzes Paris 54’s unfinished aspects to gain insight into the modus operandi of both scribes and artists. Examination of the Greek text reveals that it was completed before the Latin text was initiated, and that the head scribe expanded and refined his unique concept of the varied ink colors as he proceeded with the Greek text. The scribes responsible for the Latin text were careful to maintain absolute color symmetry with the Greek text located in the left column of each page. While this symmetry was undoubtedly motivated by aesthetic concerns, it was also imperative that both the Greek and Latin texts break for an illustration at the same point, since the illustration extends across both columns of text. The resulting line-for-line color parallelism in the Greek and Latin text was attained through some interesting scribal machinations.
In addition, evidence from Mark’s Gospel indicates that the Latin text and narrative miniatures of that Gospel were produced simultaneously. The point at which the Latin text is taken over by a new (and probably later) scribe using black ink corresponds with the location of the first uninitiated miniature (fol. 142r) in the manuscript (Plate 8)."* Meanwhile, the five incomplete illustrations of Luke allow for the reconstruction of the precise steps in which they were painted. As we shall see, these unfinished illustrations provide surprising parallels with the working methods utilized by the Latin scribe in folios 120v-141v.
Codicological and textual anomalies in the Paris 54’s Gospels of Mark and Luke can be linked rather closely with similar disruptions in miniature production. Taken together, the evidence suggests that artists and scribes worked more intimately in the production of this manuscript than is generally recognized in the Byzantine sphere. This degree of cooperation between scribes and artists challenges traditional assumptions about the ways in which deluxe manuscripts were produced during this period.
Chapter 4 focuses on Paris 54’s Greek Gospel text and its treatment by New Testament text critics. A review of this scholarship reveals that Paris 54’s Greek text isa member of a small subgroup of manuscripts of the Byzantine text type that was identified initially by Hermann von Soden in 1911, and confirmed by E.C. Colwell. Membership in this group has been reestablished more recently by those employing the Claremont Profile Method, as well as by Kurt Aland’s test passages method, the results of which have been published in a series of volumes beginning in the late 1990s. In 1982, Frederik Wisse actually named a small group of Gospel manuscripts after Paris 54. Moreover, Wisse paired Paris 54’s Greek text of Luke with that of Princeton, Garrett 3, a Greek Gospel book from Jerusalem dated to 1136.
I will demonstrate that Princeton, Garrett 3 likely served as the actual model for the Greek text of Paris 54. The data indicate that, notwithstanding their divergent origins, dates and formats, Paris 54 and Princeton, Garrett 3 share a number of significant textual aberrations not found in Iviron 5 or in any of the manuscripts with which New Testament text critics have associated Paris 54.
Furthermore, a small cross executed in red ink is found in Princeton, Garrett 3’s text in a number of places that correspond precisely to the locations of the miniatures interspersed throughout Paris 54 (Plate XXXII). I propose that these red crosses were added to Garrett 3’s text by the head scribe of Paris 54. The presence of each cross served as a visual cue, reminding the scribe to leave spaces for the miniatures that he wished to include in Paris 54’s text as he copied the Greek text of Garrett 3. The inclusion of these red crosses throughout Garrett 3’s four Gospels, together with the results of my textual comparative study of both manuscripts’ Gospels of Matthew, suggest that Paris 54 was copied directly from Princeton, Garrett 3.
Chapter 5 utilizes traditional art historical methods of formal analysis to characterize the three artists who created Paris 54’s narrative cycle and evangelist portraits. Artists A and B were responsible for the miniatures of Matthew and Mark, as well as the four full-page portraits of the evangelists. These artists copy the miniatures of Iviron 5 with mixed results, whereas Artist C executed the miniatures of Luke and John and demonstrates less dependence on Iviron 5. His independent and iconic compositions suggest that he was trained in a more monumental medium such as icon or fresco painting. Artist C’s animated faces, dramatic gestures, and dynamic, threedimensional settings distance him from both Artists A and B and reflect his sensitivity to stylistic developments of the later thirteenth century.
Chapter 6 examines the relationship between the narrative cycles and evangelist portraits of Paris 54 and Athos, Iviron 5. Prior to my research, Paris 54 was largely perceived to be a copy of Iviron 5 and was even described as its twin. In this chapter, I demonstrate that Iviron 5 itself was available to the head scribe (and designer) of Paris 54 and to the two artists responsible for the four evangelist portraits and the narrative miniatures of Matthew and Mark. The enlarged lateral format of the illustrations of Paris 54 posed challenges for Artists A and B as they sought to transfer the compositions of Iviron 5 to the expanded width of Paris 54’s compositions. The lackluster results seen in some of their efforts betray the dimensions of their immediate model—that is, a manuscript with illustrations of the approximate dimensions of Iviron 5’s miniatures. Artist C, however, displayed greater initiative and creativity in response to these changes in format, as well as a willingness to incorporate contemporary iconographic and stylistic trends into his work.
Based on my physical examination of both Paris 54 and Iviron 5,’*I conclude that they are more closely related in terms of style than published reproductions of both manuscripts suggest. The best-known color reproductions of Iviron 5 distort the differences between the styles of the two manuscripts. These observations have important ramifications concerning the relative date of the two works, a subject addressed in Chapter 7.
Despite Iviron 5’s role in the genesis of Paris 54, it is clear that Iviron 5 was never meant to be more than a springboard for Paris 54. The second half of this chapter examines the motivating factors behind the decision to expand Paris 54’s narrative cycle. The fact that the additional 22 miniatures of Paris 54’s narrative cycle are not distributed equally among its four Gospels suggests a degree of intentionality that has not been addressed previously. The additional scenes in Matthew and Mark are selected overwhelmingly from Christ’s passion, whereas the three additional scenes in John are drawn exclusively from post-Resurrection appearances of Christ. In contrast, the illustrations added to Paris 54’s Gospel of Luke differ in both the diversity of scenes selected and in their distribution throughout the text of his Gospel.
The chapter concludes with an analysis of the seven added scenes to Paris 54 which contain significant references to St. Peter. Five of these scenes emphasize Peter’s weakness of character—that is, moments when he has disappointed or denied Christ. These scenes can be contrasted with the more neutral character of the Healing of Peter’s Mother-in-Law (Mk. 1:30), a scene involving Peter that is common to both Paris 54 and Iviron 5."* The other two added scenes cast Peter in a more positive light. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes, for example, is actually the calling of St. Peter.'* The synoptic Gospels all include this scene, but in Matthew’s (Mt. 4:18-22) and Mark’s (Mk. 1:16-20) accounts, Andrew is given as important a role as Peter. It is noteworthy that the designer of Paris 54 chose Luke’s text (Lk. 5:1-11), for in it Peter alone is the focus of this encounter with Christ.'° This point is underscored by an iconography scholar who writes that this passage in Luke’s text is “extremely rarely depicted during the Middle Ages.”””
The Post-Resurrection Appearance of Christ to the Disciples on the Shores of the Sea of Tiberias offers a fitting conclusion to the series of “Peter” miniatures. This is the last of the scenes added to Paris 54, and it serves as the final miniature in its narrative cycle.'® In this passage, Peter is fully “rehabilitated” and, according to the Church of Rome, his primacy among the apostles is acknowledged. Paris 54’s narrative cycle ends with this final post-Resurrection appearance, and it is in the course of this encounter that Christ effectively transfers leadership to Peter.'? The Gospel of John ends a few verses later. The singular role of St. Peter in Paris 54’s expanded narrative cycle will be addressed again in Chapter 8 when the historical context in which the manuscript was likely produced is considered in detail.
While Iviron 5 provided the model for Paris 54’s evangelist portraits and for many miniatures in its narrative cycle, a remarkable degree of innovation is exhibited by the head scribe/designer of Paris 54. These include its deluxe proportions, its bilingual multi-colored text, and its considerably expanded number of Gospel passages selected for illustration. The innovative aspects of Paris 54 are impressive given the aversion to change evident in many aspects of Byzantine culture and the highly conservative nature of Byzantine piety.
Chapter 7 analyzes Paris 54’s relationship to several important groups of manuscripts typically dated to the thirteenth or early fourteenth century. These groups include the decorative style manuscripts, Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan manuscript group, and the so-called Palaeologina group. The framed format of Paris 54’s narrative cycle was well developed in the Gospel books of the decorative style manuscripts. However, the closest stylistic ties to Paris 54 are found in Iviron 5 and manuscripts like London, Burney 20 (dated 1285), and some of the miniatures of Jerusalem, Taphou 5. The Smyrna Lectionary, which is linked to both Weitzmann’s Constantinopolitan group (in two of its evangelist portraits) and the Palaeologina group (in its script by the scribe David), provides a critical clue to Paris 54’s date since it is securely dated to 1298. Moreover, palaeographic links with Vatopedi 602, the Hamilton Psalter, and the Octateuch in the Laurentian Library in Florence suggest that Paris 54, too, can be dated to the last decades of the thirteenth century and linked with the highest echelon of Constantinopolitan society.
Chapter 8 investigates the historical context of late thirteenth-century Constantinople and argues that Paris 54’s innovations testify to the extraordinary circumstances of the commission of the manuscript. Paris 54 contains no scribal colophon (that is, scribal signature, date, and details about the circumstances of its commission) and it diverges significantly from both Iviron 5 and Princeton, Garrett 3—two manuscripts with which it has been linked. These differences certainly reflect the high rank of both the patron who commissioned the manuscript and the individual for whom it was intended, not to mention the creativity of the head scribe as he wrote the Greek text and refined the format of the manuscript. Numerous examples of the manipulation of text and images highlight the ways in which Paris 54’s head scribe sought to create visual and psychological impact.
The Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos (1261-1282) assumed leadership in Constantinople after nearly six decades of Latin rule, but his reign was overshadowed by the almost constant threat of foreign invasion, especially from Charles of Anjou, the brother of St. Louis, King of France. In dealing with this formidable adversary, Michael’s best defense was theologically based. If he could succeed in reuniting the Latin and Greek Churches, then it would be morally reprehensible for any representative of the Latin West to attack their Christian brethren in Constantinople. A short-lived Union between the Greek and Latin Churches was forged at the Council of Lyons in 1274 under Pope Gregory X. Pope Gregory (and some of his successors) hoped that such a Union would result in a combined Latin and Greek crusade to regain the Holy Land from the Muslims. Michael VIII’s motivations were driven by political expediency; he never gained the support of the Orthodox clergy in incorporating the necessary adaptations to comply with the Union. When Pope Gregory X’s successors demanded that the terms agreed upon at the Council of Lyons be enforced, Michael VIII faced heated opposition at home. His initial efforts at mollification were replaced by extreme measures as he sought to impose the terms of the Union on nonconforming clergy.
The emperor alienated all segments of Byzantine society, including members of his immediate family, as he tried to allay the growing doubts in Rome. These tactics resulted in Michael VIII's complete vilification following his unexpected death while on campaign in 1282. His son and successor, Andronikos II, immediately revoked the Union in order to restore equilibrium. The extended period of Latin rule of Constantinople coupled with Michael VIII's efforts to unite the Greek and Latin Churches resulted in an extraordinary backlash against all things Latin. The evidence suggests that it is highly unlikely, in the religious climate of the early Palaeologan period, that anyone except Michael VII himself would have dared to commission a bilingual Greek and Latin manuscript. Paris 54, in its display of parallel Greek and Latin texts united by images describing the Gospel narrative, virtually embodies the union of the Churches. It also includes a culminating illustration in its narrative cycle documenting the rehabilitation of St. Peter” (and by association, the pope), suggesting that this manuscript was tailored to serve as a diplomatic gift from the emperor to the pope. Thus, the creation of Paris 54 was a bold and politically incendiary action in this highly charged atmosphere. The fact that the manuscript remains unfinished suggests that the environment in which it was commissioned changed radically and that the role originally envisioned for Paris 54 was no longer relevant. Indeed, the presence of its Latin text alone would ensure that it could not, in the foreseeable future, be recycled for another purpose. It is undoubtedly for this reason that Paris 54 remains unfinished.
Chapter 9 serves as an epilogue addressing Paris 54’s journey from Constantinople to Renaissance Italy. While the exact circumstances of Paris 54’s appearance in Florence are not known, it may well have arrived in conjunction with another famous effort to reunite the Latin and Orthodox Churches—that is, the Ferrara-Florence Council of Union in the late 1430s under John VIII Palaeologos. These attempts at union were made as Byzantium desperately sought aid from the West against the growing Ottoman threat. The foundations for this meeting had long been in the making through the initiatives of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos (1350-1425) and those working on his behalf, such as Manuel Chrysoloras (ca. 1355-1415). As a bilingual Greek and Latin text, Paris 54 would have held tremendous appeal in the humanist environment of fifteenth-century Italy when intellectuals were striving to master the Greek language. Indeed, Paris 54 can be directly associated with three collectors with Florentine (and Medici) roots, including Niccolo Ridolfi (d. 1551), a nephew of Pope Leo X (Giovanni de Medici, d. 1521), and Pietro Strozzi (d. 1558), a relative of Palla Strozzi and a Medici on his mother’s side. Ultimately, Paris 54 would come into the possession of a third member of the Medici family: Catherine de Medici (1519-1589), Queen of France, upon whose death it passed into the royal collection.
This study affirms the importance of a multidisciplinary approach in the study of a complex manuscript such as Paris 54. While nothing specific is known about the origins of Paris 54, a very plausible explanation can be posited for virtually every aspect of this manuscript, including its unfinished status. The violent anti-Latin backlash following Michael VIII's attempts to unify the Orthodox and Roman Churches certainly contributed to its current state. Indeed, itis remarkable that Paris 54 managed to survive this tumultuous period of Byzantine history.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق