Download PDF | Andreas Rhoby (editor), Ida Toth (editor) - Studies in Byzantine Epigraphy 1-Brepols Publishers (2023).
269 Pages
Acknowledgements
The publication of this volume would not have been possible without the kind and generous financial support of the Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines (AIEB) and the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research (OCBR). We are also most grateful to Brepols Publishers, in particular its Publishing Manager Bart Janssens, for including the Studies in Byzantine Epigraphy (SBE) into the publishing programme. In addition, we should like to thank the anonymous readers and peer reviewers for their careful feedback, and to Judith Ryder and Rebecca Gowers as well as to Charlotte Roueché and Rachael Helen Banes for their help with the proofreading of individual contributions in this volume.
Editors’ Note
It is well known and widely acknowledged that many aspects of ancient and medieval civilization can be accessed only through inscriptional source material. Administrative and legislative actions, acts of beneficence, commemoration and thanksgiving all depended for their wider promulgation on publically displayed and highly visible epigraphs. Such traditions continued throughout Late Antiquity, a time, during which inscriptions still functioned as official announcements as well as becoming the most effective means of confessing, expressing, and spreading the new religion endorsed by the Roman State Christianity.
Even after Late Antiquity (c. AD 600), inscriptions persisted as regular features of Byzantine written culture until the fall of the Empire in 1453. Although the production of stone and mosaic inscriptions decreased, new epigraphic forms were employed, such as, for example, monumental fresco inscriptions in churches and epigrams on movable objects. Yet, in spite of the striking abundance of surviving evidence, the modern academic discipline of Byzantine Epigraphy remains uncodified and underexplored.
In 20u, the Commission for Byzantine Epigraphy was set up under the aegis of the Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines, with Peter Schreiner as its Chair. Since its foundation, the Commission spearheaded several major epigraphy-related projects and, more recently, it has instigated the idea of creating a publication platform for presenting and examining Byzantine inscriptions. This idea was realised when the Commission established the series Studies in Byzantine Epigraphy with Peter Schreiner as its founder and Andreas Rhoby and Ida Toth as co-editors. Brepols Publishers have provided a welcoming home for this series and have pledged their support in promoting excellence and innovation in the modern scholarship of Byzantine Epigraphy.
The Studies in Byzantine Epigraphy is envisioned as a scholarly hub for a wide range of publications: editions of Byzantine inscriptional material, monographs on specific aspects of Byzantine epigraphic culture, and collective volumes with contributions to individual epigraphic themes. In our capacity as editors, we will strive to create an outstanding academic resource exploring new avenues of research and setting agendas for the future of the discipline. Our ambition is to open the field to scholars in related disciplines, such as history, art history, and literature, and to reach out to a wider readership in classical, medieval, and early modern studies.
Vienna and Oxford, May 2022 Andreas Rhoby and Ida Toth
Byzantine Epigraphy: Whence and Whither?
Writing about inscriptions in East and West in the first millennium AD, Thor Sevéenko, one of the most influential Byzantinists of the twentieth century, stated the following: ‘A Byzantinist attempting to undertake a comparative study ofinscriptions East and West will soon make a melancholy discovery. Information presented about the period beyond that covered by manuals of early Christian epigraphy [ ... ] quickly makes it evident how much farther ahead Western colleagues have progressed compared to his fellow Byzantinists.”
This statement, pronounced more than twenty years ago, still has some validity today, even though in the field of Byzantine Epigraphy much has changed for the better. Over the past two decades, numerous scholarly initiatives have lead to a greater recognition of the importance of inscriptions for Byzantine culture.* The foundations of the more recent scholarship were laid down by the pioneering work of Sevéenko himself, and of his frequent collaborator and a prolific epigrapher in his own right, Cyril Mango; among other researchers in the twentieth century, pars pro toto mention should be made of Denis Feissel and Charlotte Roueché and their authoritative editions and studies of late antique/early Byzantine inscriptions.
It must also be noted that the study oflate antique/early Byzantine Greek inscriptions is far better established than the study of Greek inscriptions of later centuries. By the same token, Greek inscriptions created in Byzantium and neighboring areas after the sixth century AD were for a long time widely neglected due to the erroneous assumption that writing was hardly ever publically displayed after the end of Late Antiquity. This assumption presupposed a very narrow definition of the term ‘inscription, and relied on the fact that a considerably smaller number of monumental stone and mosaic inscriptions dates back to the Middle Ages proper than is the case with late antique material. The term ‘inscription, however, is to be understood more broadly, as numerous researchers have already pointed out, including Cyril Mango: ‘On a broad definition, the discipline of epigraphy embraces all inscriptions other than those in manuscripts: in the first instance those on stone intended for public viewing, but also those in paint or mosaic, on coins, seals and weights, on objects of private or ecclesiastical ownership, such as silver plate, jewelry, ivories, liturgical vessels, etc.
The nature of the surviving evidence itself suggests significant changes in epigraphic traditions. While in antiquity and late antiquity stone and mosaic inscriptions were set up in open public spaces, in the middle, late and post-Byzantine periods, epigraphs found their places enclosed within churches or restricted to smaller writing surfaces of movable objects.+ Significant numbers of inscriptions on medieval frescoes, wooden icons, metal, etc. remained understudied for a long time.’ This applies especially to inscriptions in verse (epigrams), whose modern neglect stood in sharp contrast to their original popularity, which was so great that one can speak of an ‘epigrammatic inscriptional habit’ in Byzantium.°
Today, Byzantine epigraphy has a higher status than ever before aided by the numerous scholarly activities that have taken place in the recent years. Among these are the publication of editions and edited volumes,’ the organization of panels at international congresses, and the running of summer programmes and workshops.’ The establishment of the Commission for Byzantine Epigraphy (Inscriptiones Graecae Aevi Byzantini under the aegis of the Association Internationale des Etudes Byzantines) and, most recently, the inclusion of Byzantine Epigraphy in the program of the Union Académique Internationale (with the Austrian Academy of Sciences as the lead institution) means that the field has gained a strong institutional support and the encouragement to keep it moving forward.
The series Studies in Byzantine Epigraphy (SBE) is further evidence for an ever-greater focus on inscriptions within Byzantine Studies. The present, inaugural volume aptly illustrates the advances in the field. It includes selected papers from the two panels dedicated to Byzantine Epigraphy held at the XXIII International Congress of Byzantine Studies in Belgrade, August 2016, and the XV International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy in Vienna, August/September 2017. The papers, as indeed the events for which they were initially produced, celebrate both the progress and the promise of the discipline within medieval and early modern scholarship as a whole.
Approaches and Directions
In the course of our editorial work on this volume, we have frequently reflected on Sevéenko’s disheartened assessment quoted at the beginning of this essay.? Sevéenko’ss frustration was — understandably — caused by the general neglect of medieval Greek epigraphy and by a consequent lack of progress in the field. Revisiting the task that Sevéenko set for himself more than two decades ago — to compare and contrast inscriptions from East and West — has given us an opportunity to take stock of everything that has been achieved since, as well as to fully appreciate the advantages of editing a volume featuring wide-ranging, meticulously researched, and precisely contextualised inscriptional material.
The collection in hand expands on the traditional ‘East/West’ binary by exploring the categories that Sevéenko himself defined as ‘common heritage’ and ‘parting of the ways’ while providing additional insights into multiple diversities but also the connections between different areas, languages, and periods. The highlights include:
1. Abroad range, both in geographic and chronological terms:
— Late antique (Avdokhin, Begass, Sayar) medieval (Cosentino, Ingrand-Varenne, Kalopissi-Verti, Kashtanov et al., Pallis, Sitz) and early modern (Moutafoy, Stavrakos-Liakos) periods;
— Urban, provincial and cosmopolitan areas in the Greek- and Latin-speaking world with a special emphasis on the multilingual and mutually interactive writing cultures of Sardinia (Cosentino), Sicily (Ingrand-Varenne), the northern periphery of Byzantium (Kashtanov et al.), the Holy Land (Ingrand-Varenne), and Greece and the Balkans (Kalopissi-Verti).
2. Multiple epigraphic genres:
— Poetic compositions ranging from classicizing encomia and expressions of patronage (Avdokhin, Begass) to rhythmic verses conveying easily understandable moral sentiments (Sitz);
— Imperial acclamations, dedications, and funerary texts (Cosentino);
Name-bearing inscriptions on religious iconography (Ingrand-Varenne);
Formal inscriptions and informal graffiti (Kalopissi-Verti);
Apotropaic inscriptions (Kashtanov et al.);
Texts accompanying iconographic programmes in churches (Moutafov, Pallis); Donor/building inscriptions (Sayar);
‘Forged’ testimonies of imperial patronage and historical events (Stavrakos and Liakos).
3. Evidence of commissioners of inscriptions as social actors:
High-ranking imperial officers inscribing themselves onto prominent sites in the Constantinopolitan cityscape (Avdokhin);
Individuals in their official capacity as provincial administrators (Cosentino); Donors, whose funding impacts on the quality of commissions (Moutafov); Patrons listed in inscriptions according to their social status (Sayar, Moutafov); Commissioners privileged enough to have arcosolia in the crypts of well-outfitted churches (Sitz);
Rulers and high-ranking dignitaries appropriating other languages for political reasons (Kashtanov et al., Kalopissi-Verti).
4. Considerations of placement, visibility, legibility:
Highly visible epigraphs re-purposing and re-invigorating important parts of urban topography (Avdokhin);
City gates decorated with imperial statues and inscriptions symbolizing imperial power and protection (Begass);
Secular administrative buildings inscribed with imperial acclamations (Cosentino); Representations of holy figures labeled by name-bearing inscriptions (Ingrand-Varenne); The location and accessibility of inscriptions revealing target audiences (Pallis); Restorations of inscriptions as evidence of continued interest in the maintenance of legibility (Sitz).
5. Language choices:
Greek acculturation in Sardinia among secular elites (Cosentino);
The use of Greek and/or Latin among foreign groups or individuals in medieval Greece: a) the use of Latin highlighting the ethnic identity and dominance of the patrons, and their social and religious life; b) Serb rulers preferring Greek as an expression of political, cultural and religious affiliation; c) the use of the Greek language by different ethnic groups showing the degree of assimilation into the indigenous population and/or political motives (Kalopissi-Verti);
Greek exerting a strong influence on local written cultures in the northern periphery of the Byzantine world: a) in Lazica and the Abkhazian Kingdom, Greek being the only written language constituting the identity of local elites; b) in Alania and Kabarda, the Greek alphabet adapted to the needs of the local languages and to the local realities; c) in the Crimea, Rus and the Balkans, Greek and local (Gothic, Cyrillic-Glagolitic) written cultures coexisting; d) the Northern Black Sea region demonstrating a significant influence of non-Greek realities on Greek writing (Kashtanov et al.).
Bilingualism:
Bilingual inscriptions reflecting the interaction between two co-existing communities, and their intercultural and interlinguistic contacts (Kalopissi-Verti);
The hierarchy of languages (Avdokhin);
Contacts, interactions, and possible competition between writing traditions of different cultures (Ingrand-Varenne);
Adaptations of writing systems to a foreign languages: Greek/Campidanian (Cosentino); Greek/Turkic (Kashtanov et al.).
7. Diverse functions of publically displayed texts:
Showing trends in both urban epigraphy and social mobility (Avdokhin); Self-display and self-fashioning (Begass, Sitz);
Providing evidence for social history (Cosentino);
Naming holy persons as a means of expressing visually and materially the sanctity or the divinity of their subjects (Ingrand-Varenne);
Corroborating local onomastics (Moutafov);
Indicating interest in displaying texts and in the maintenance of their legibility (Sitz);
Offering insights into the degrees ofliteracy of their commissioners (Kalopissi-Verti); Identifying inscriptional contexts for patriographic narratives (Stavrakos and Liakos).
Among the many stated highlights, one, the consideration of language and linguistic registers, permeates the present volume as a whole. The multifaceted nature of this question is aptly described by Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, a contributor to this collection and a scholar, whose groundbreaking work has been instrumental in bringing medieval Greek inscriptional heritage to light:
‘Depending on the public or private function of the epigraph, its location, the intentions of the commissioner(s), and the social conditions prevailing, the language chosen for the inscription, besides revealing an aspect or level of identity — ethnic, ancestral, individual, collective, dual, acquired, adopted, preferred, etc.-, manifests historical, social, and political circumstances, and the interaction between communities with different languages and cultures.”°
This quotation goes a long way towards summarizing the ramifications of focusing on the language of inscriptions. A closer perusal of this volume reveals further insights into this, and many other related issues; more broadly, it shows how important epigraphic material is for our understanding of medieval and early modern culture and society.
Space Oddity? A Praepositus Inscribing Power and Appropriating Cityscapes in Theodosian Constantinople*
For key social actors in Late Antiquity as well as earlier, it was a natural impulse to crave public visibility in urban spaces. Imperial officials, members of the senatorial aristocracy — both those who conventionally left their mark on cityscapes and those only vying for urban visibility — and, particularly, the emperor and his household, were key stakeholders in the re-shaping of cityscapes in Old and New Rome. They would sponsor eye-catching building projects, curating and reaping the rewards of honorific monuments that shaped the cities’ material texture.
The monumental epigraphy, which often formed an organic part of such monuments, was itself a significant medium of physical, and social, visibility for a range of actors.' The emperor Theodosios I dedicating the obelisk in the Hippodrome in Constantinople in ap 390; the urban prefect Prokulos taking the epigraphic credit for supervising the obelisk’s erection; female members of the imperial family such as Pulcheria, publicly presenting her devotion by consecrating an inscribed altar to the Great Church at Constantinople:? all these were involved in a conscious game of epigraphic power-manifestation that amounted ultimately to a process of power-making.
As Emanuel Mayer has discussed, this is particularly true for Theodosian Constantinople, where the making of a public person was her or his visual self-representation through publicly visible monuments and ‘written spaces.3 The shaping of the imperial image through such monuments, in Mayer’s analysis, involved a range of players in the ebbing and flowing hierarchies of palatine, administrative, and military powers, and of their public, and private, manifestations. This multi-level — imperial, aristocratic, administrative — negotiation and re-negotiation of power, therefore, to a substantial degree consisted in ensuring one’s visible and material presence in the ever-entranced, but also ever-envious, eye of the urban public browsing the streets, porticoes, and squares of Late Antique cities.
In what follows, I will discuss an epigraphic monument from early fifth-century Constantinople. The monument in question is a porphyry obelisk, set up at a strategic point in the cityscape. On its base is a series of Greek versified inscriptions. Commissioned by a praepositus sacri cubiculi (‘great chamberlain of the sacred bedroom’ of the emperor), the inscriptions, as I will argue, constitute a forceful, and ingenious, effort by a palatine office-holder, who drew his power from his intimate relationship with the emperor, to fashion a public space for himself that would match his covert, if not entirely private, exercise of immense power. Although largely neglected in modern scholarship on the urban development of Constantinople as well as on Late Antique epigraphy, the dedicatory inscriptions by Mouselios the praepositus, I will suggest, vividly illustrate various trends in both urban epigraphy and social mobility in the period.
My argument has two parts. First, I suggest that the inscribed monument of Mouselios the praepositus is the largest surviving material witness of praepositi securing public presence through civic building projects of substantial size and standing. Second, as I aim to show, Mouselios substantially re-shaped the capital's cityscape, appropriating its historical legacy in order to establish his own monumental presence on Constantinople’s symbolic map of power. He achieved this by spatially inscribing himself onto a key element of the Constantinopolitan cityscape, and by visually, linguistically, and symbolically marginalizing the building inscription of an urban prefect as the original dedicator of the obelisk. I will also use my analysis of Mouselios’s inscriptions as the basis for a number of broader inferences about the changing social role of the praepositi and their increasing presence in built and written urban spaces in the Theodosian epoch.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق