Download PDF | Ellen C. Schwartz - The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture (Oxford Handbooks)-Oxford University Press (2021).
665 Pages
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Works like this are extended labors of love on the parts of many.
First, I must thank my contributors. This is an amazing, diverse group of authors who offered their best work for the benefit of students and scholars in many fields. It has been a deep pleasure to work with them, and I truly appreciate their efforts. Special thanks go to Prof. Sharon E. J. Gerstel for arranging my initial contact with Oxford University Press (OUP) many years ago, and for a number of suggestions throughout the process.
Next, my thanks to the OUP professionals with whom I was privileged to work. First on the list for appreciation is the original series editor Sarah Pirovitz Humphreville, for prodding and shepherding the volume through the initial years of its creation. She was ably succeeded by Stefan Vranka, whom I wish to thank for his energy and ability to nimbly guide the book to its completion, giving it its final elegant appearance. Editorial Assistant Zara Cannon-Mohammed was very helpful with details, helping to keep the project on track. Senior Production Editor Melissa Yanuzzi kept things moving smoothly, and communicated efficiently and effectively about all developments. Copyeditor Timothy J. DeWerff cleaned up the entire text, a Herculean task. Cartographer George Chakvetadze created our clear, readable maps. Thank you to all of you!
Libraries here in southeastern Michigan were essential to my work; I express appreciation to the University of Michigan libraries, as well as to Eastern Michigan University, my home institution, for its interlibrary loan service. The MelCat (Michigan Electronic Library Catalogue) offers a model to many states for the sharing of resources in a timely, efficient, and cost-saving manner. (Books arriving on the bloodmobile makes for a really fast delivery!)
My friends (some of whom wrote for this volume) sustained me with words of encouragement in person, email, and by phone. I want to single out Dr. Edith S. Klein for professional advice, as well as for friendship over the past forty-five years.
And finally, to my family: I couldn't do any of this without you! My sons, Eric Wayman and Bram Wayman, helped with computer issues, along with pep talks and expressions of enthusiasm and support. They were also great travel companions, patiently putting up with destinations that would challenge any visitor.
And to my husband, Frank Whelon Wayman, a fine author and editor in his own right: my greatest thanks for your support and encouragement. Your lovely comment made my introduction more informative and graceful. I especially appreciated your unfailing ear for the tone of emails and phone conversations when situations grew delicate. You have been a model, a guide, a cheering section, and so much more. My eternal love and thanks!
INTRODUCTION
“The Artifice of Eternity”
SCOPE AND GOAL OF THE VOLUME
“SAILING to Byzantium,’ the poem written by William Butler Yeats in 1928 excerpted in the epigraph, is frequently one of the few encounters people have with Byzantium and its spectacular art. One of the jewels of Western Civilization, Byzantine art is an underappreciated field, treated all too often as an adjunct to the arts of the West during the Middle Ages, if considered at all. It is thus to be celebrated that recently a number of resources have been created to point readers to past and current research in this most fertile of fields.
The Byzantine era in the arts can be defined in a number of ways. In this handbook, authors are considering it as art made in the eastern Mediterranean world, including Italy, the Balkans, Russia, and the Near East, between the years 330 and 1453. This coincides largely with the area that saw the development of the Orthodox church, although other faiths were practiced, as demonstrated in the chapters of this handbook. Much of the art was made for religious purposes. Secular pieces were also made. In both cases, the things we refer to as Byzantine art and exhibit in museums were functional objects, created to enhance and beautify the Orthodox liturgy and worship space (books, icons, patens, spoons, flabella), as well as to serve in a royal or domestic context. Discussions in this volume will consider both aspects of this artistic creation, across a wide swath of geography and a long span of time.
The art of the Byzantine world has been largely confined to the study of specialists and the purview of collectors, as opposed to the medieval art of the Western world, which engaged interest far more widely and much earlier. While students in the United States have often been given a smattering of knowledge about Gothic churches, for example, few have been introduced to any aspects of Byzantine art or culture. The few history textbooks aimed at high school audiences briefly consider only the reign of Justinian and the church of Hagia Sophia. And this is despite the longevity of the Byzantine Empire, the longest-lived empire of the West other than ancient Egypt.
This handbook offers a window into the world of this fascinating and beautiful art.
THE PURPOSE OF BYZANTINE ART
The creation of Byzantine art was in large part to serve the Orthodox faith. The church was seen as the physical symbol or embodiment of God’s cosmos, or created world (Demus 1948), the earthly manifestation of the heavenly church. The development of the Byzantine church reflected the growth and codification of the liturgy, with an emphasis on the dramatic entrances, readings, and chants, along with a manipulation of light, sound, and smell. Mosaics and frescoes not only would beautify the church building, but they could serve to illustrate church concepts. This was especially important as most people in this era were illiterate. Icons in the church (and beyond) functioned as a channel of contact with the spiritual realm and its inhabitants, in a more accessible manner than writings and even illuminations in manuscripts that were available only to a few, mostly clergy or those in the monastic realm.
Byzantine artworks exhibited this spiritual mission in portable pieces other than icons, as well. Both Byzantine and Western medieval artworks often function like relics in their ability to connect people with the divine; some become relics in their own right, especially those not made by human agency (such as the mandylion). Others enhance relics by protecting, housing, and allowing their display (Bagnoli and Klein 2010). Certain pieces work in similar ways, protecting holy items, like pyxides, book covers, etc. These become almost religious elements themselves, much like the sacred things they protect. And contact with holy persons makes some secular objects relics, as seen in the Vatican box with rocks and earth from sacred sites, or the so-called Virgin's girdle. In addition to these portable pieces, Byzantine art, as an architectural enhancement, served often to frame and help exhibit the holy sites that were the goal of pilgrimage, and pilgrimage generated its own arts, much like today’s tourist souvenirs (Vikan 2010).
Thus, the audience for Byzantine art was a wide one: the clergy and nobility who commissioned works both secular and religious; people in monastic establishments; lay worshippers among whom there were people of various classes and professions; and both men and, as we are increasingly discovering, women (Herrin 2013).
AN OVERVIEW OF THE FIELD OF BYZANTINE SCHOLARSHIP
Periodicization
Scholars have divided the Byzantine era into several major periods. The Early Byzantine period (Figure I.1) is usually understood as the years before the Iconoclastic Controversy, which began in 726. Some scholars see this as part of the Late Roman era, even referring to Justinian as the last of the Roman emperors. A number question the centrality of Iconoclasm in defining periods, positing other historical events—the loss of lands to Islam or the invasions of Slavs and others into formerly Roman-held territories—as the operative factors in the various changes in culture in Byzantine lands. In this volume, our early section begins at the end of the reign of Constantine the Great, and ends with the end of Iconoclasm in 843.
The Middle Byzantine era (Figure I.2) is generally understood to begin in 843 and end with the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204; our authors follow this timeline. Some studying this section of time will subdivide it by dynasty (offering concepts such as the “Macedonian Renaissance”); others point to major differences in artistic presentation stressing emotions and dramatic displays of drapery in motion.
The Late Byzantine period (Figure 1.3) is usually understood as beginning in 1261 with the reconquest of Constantinople by the Byzantines, and ending in 1453 with the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople. This leaves the periods of Byzantine satellite states (Epirus, Nicaea, Arta, Trebizond) during the period of the Latin domination to the discretion of individual scholars. Many place these within the Middle Byzantine period, if they are dealt with at all.
The period following the fall of the empire that saw a continuation of Byzantine iconography and style, largely in Orthodox lands, is frequently styled Byzance apres Byzance. The persistence of these elements in art, spreading to Western Europe as late as the twentieth century, while unnamed as a period, is an era that is gaining interest among scholars (Bullen 2003).
With the exception of the Iconoclastic era, these periods share a number of characteristics in terms of iconographic themes and their treatment, along with vocabularies of ornament, handling of many media, and certain elements of style. Other themes that connect all periods include a lack of knowledge about many artists’ names, and ambiguity about others (for example, Astrapas, Michael, and Eutychius). This sparse documentation inhibits identification and close dating, allowing for speculation about authorship, artists’ workshops, and so on.
History and Approaches of Scholarship
Early Work
After the framework was set up to explain different periods, much of the early examination of Byzantine culture involved the presentation of newly discovered works. Whether they were churches with wall paintings, or a piece of portable art such as an incense burner, these writings and presentations introduced the audience to this rarely discussed material and made possible the field we have today. Much of this first work involved exotic places that were described, photographed, and published (Jerphanion 1925; Millet 1954). Portable pieces were brought to readers’ awareness through the publication of major royal and museum collections (Volbach 1930). Often, these works introduced artworks not readily available to scholars, such as manuscripts on Mt. Athos that were not available to women and the non-Orthodox. This approach continues as objects, structures, and groups of monuments continue to come to light and as more examination, cataloging, and photographing are done (Pelekanides 1973-1975).
Interpretation and Analyses
This bank of information from early publication allowed scholars to create syntheses of objects and buildings that offered a more comprehensive picture of trends in Byzantine times. Throughout the twentieth century, analysis of monuments, themes, styles, and periods was done, and developments in iconography and style traced. Major formative studies included work on ivories (Goldschmidt and Weitzmann 1934) and evangelist portraits (Friend 1927, 1929), and discussion of the artworks of various eras and how they related (Kitzinger 1977). Scholars crafted thematic works (Corrigan 1992). Case studies have been done more recently; they create a focus around which other objects or types of objects can be understood. These different approaches are echoed in several of the essays in this handbook.
Earlier interpretations and analyses have led to categorizations that themselves have been subject to debate and revision. Older schema of artistic centers, by scholars such as Strzygowski (summarized in Marquand 1910) and Morey (Morey 1929, 1935), for example, have been replaced by more nuanced and data-driven knowledge. Some scientific approaches have involved the use of silver stamps to locate production centers of early Byzantine silver (Dodd 1961), and the close examination of working techniques of masons to link buildings and areas (Ousterhout 1999).
Another theme that has been considered is that of classicism in style. Some scholars have posited a “perennial Hellenism” which operated in Byzantium, continually present although not always dominant, while others have seen recurring times of resurgence as separate “revivals” such as the “Macedonian Renaissance” (Buchthal 1938; Weitzmann 1951; Weitzmann 1960; Wright 1975 ; Kessler 1988, 168-69).
Yet a third area of disagreement involves the study of Byzantine art outside Constantinople. In this discussion, arguments about the supposed dichotomy of metropolitan/provincial are used to frame understanding, especially when dealing with things located in situ, such as architecture or wall painting, or objects with a known provenance (Wharton 1998). This debate continues around certain periods in particular. Because many Constantinopolitan monuments have been destroyed, Middle Byzantine art is known largely through its “provincial” realizations. Similar considerations obtain in the thirteenth century, when the empire was taken over after the Fourth Crusade. Exiled branches of the imperial family set up empires in Nicaea, Trebizond, Arta, and the Morea; the arts of this time are often studied in their efflorescence in the Morea (Gerstel 2015).
The same is true in studies in the regions Obolensky referred to as the “Byzantine Commonwealth,” such as Sicily (Tronzo 1997), Serbia, and Macedonia (Hoddinott 1963; Djuri¢ 1974). Even after the capital was restored, regions such as Romania continued to rely on these traditions into the sixteenth century, and a flourishing industry of the study of Byzance aprés Byzance continues especially in these areas. The debate has often obscured other factors that might be influential: those of class come to mind, an issue that remains a fertile one for further examination. The study of these regions has its potential pitfalls, however; the hijacking of scholarship to political and nationalist influences is a danger often encountered (in older scholarship on Bulgaria, for example: see discussion by Bakalova 2017, 6-7). Work that is balanced and free of political overtones in certain regions is a desideratum for future inquiry.
Widening Study
Understanding of Byzantine art has often required study of arts from varied cultures and times. Kessler related iconography, style, and some media such as silver to a continuation of Roman art traditions (Kessler 1988, 166-67). Recent studies explore this relation in the development of the icon (Mathews 2016). Other studies consider the connection broadly, in various Christian arts as well as the art of contemporary Jews, citing the Dura Europos paintings (Brody 2011). As Byzantium preserved many old traditions and the empire covered a vast amount of territory with a multitude of different populations and neighbors, its art naturally became a popular source for much of the medieval art of the Mediterranean world and that of Europe. This can be seen in many areas and across a variety of media: examples include manuscript illumination in Christian cultures such as Armenia, panel paintings in Italy, as well as mosaics in Islamic structures from Jerusalem to Damascus. Byzantine artistic styles and techniques were also amalgamated with Western elements to create a hybrid art style in Crusader states in the Middle East (Buchthal 1957; Weitzmann 1963; Weitzmann 1966; Folda 1995), helping to spread elements of Byzantine style further across Western realms. The influence of Byzantine painting on the development of Renaissance art is also of interest, both in Italy (see chapters by Derbes and Neff, Georgopoulou, and Nelson in Faith and Power; Folda 2015), and the North (Ainsworth chapter in Faith and Power). Work on these cross-currents in medieval art continues; many such issues are treated in the section about neighbors of Byzantium in this volume.
As art historical research opened up to consider art as an expression of a particular community or group within it, a period with specific historical occurrences, and so on, the study of Byzantine art has followed suit. This field, of course, has always dealt with the arts in context—church architecture and decoration, for example, cannot be considered apart from liturgical concerns. But more and more scholarship is examining the arts as part of the society that created them in new ways. Thoughts about icons as important to women’s worship—and why this might be so—can be found in work of historians such as Herrin (Herrin 2013). Gerstel’s examination of paintings in rural settings is an important exploration of a class of people as artists, patrons, and consumers who have previously largely been ignored in favor of the study of arts aimed at a metropolitan elite (Gerstel 2015).
As part of this ongoing exploration of Byzantine art, an increasingly wider array of topics is considered in contemporary scholarship, including a number of studies of historiography that trace the course of scholarship over the past decades (OHBS, especially 1-20, 59-66). Media heretofore considered outside the pale of serious art are now investigated. Beginning with enamels (Wessel 1968) and bread stamps for Eucharistic offerings (Galavaris 1970), this includes, for example, seals (Nesbit and Oikonomides 1991 and 1994); ceramic vessels and tiles (Papanikola-Bakirtzi, Mavrikioy, and Bakirtzi 1999; Gerstel and Lauffenberger [eds.] 2001); and textiles and dress, among other items (Ball 2005; Woodfin 2012). Also of interest are cross-currents among different media used in Byzantium: discovery of the vast trove of icons at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai, for example, encouraged questions as to where and when these pieces were made, and their relationship to manuscripts and other arts (Weitzmann 1963; Weitzmann 1966).
One important endeavor is examination of the realm of secular art. In terms of domestic architecture, this has been helped by excavations and new interpretations of sites and finds (Ousterhout 2005). Progress has also been made in the examination of non-religious arts and objects of daily use, in collection (the Menil collection is notable), exhibition (Maguire, Maguire, and Duncan-Flowers 1989; Fowden et. al 2001), and publication with analysis and interpretation (Maguire and Maguire 2007). Patrons for Byzantine monuments and artworks have been uncovered (Buchthal and Belting 1978; Drpic 2014). Obviously, royal patrons are more easily discovered and discussed, although monastic patrons can be intuited. As we move down the socioeconomic ladder, Byzantine patrons become more invisible. Wealthy consumers of art are hinted at in wills and bequests to monasteries (Vryonis 1957; Thomas and Hero 2000), but activities as patrons, if there were any such, are harder to ferret out. Publication of monastic documents should aid in this examination.
Newer Approaches
In the last decades of the twentieth century, several new approaches have emerged, often harnessing techniques from different fields to open up the study of Byzantine art and archaeology. Scientific exploration is a more recent aspect of Byzantine art history that is proving very informative as well as fascinating. Reports from conservators unlocked working methods of Byzantine artists, allowing us to get a sense of how such objects were produced, and helping viewers understand why they look the way they do. Chemical analysis of materials and pigments have offered valuable information about wall paintings and portable objects (Winfield 1968; Cabelli 1982; Epstein 1986; Carr and Morrocco 1991; Lauffenberger, Vogt, and Bouquillon 2001; Klein 2004). Dendrochronology offered tools for dating (Kuniholm and Striker 1990). Anthropological approaches allowed new insight into monuments (Gerstel 2015), and examination of themes from literature and rhetoric allowed readers original ways of understanding the arts of mid-Byzantine times (H. Maguire 1981). Studies of the sensual reception and reaction of viewers have unlocked some of the experiences we can assume Byzantine visitors must have had confronting icons and attending church (Pentcheva 2006 and Pentcheva 2011). Current ongoing studies involving sound allow reconstruction of a Byzantine worshipper’s experience (Lafrance 2016; a number of ongoing studies were discussed in a conference panel, BSC 2015). Finally, a deconstructionist tendency was borrowed from philosophy and literary studies (Peers 2006). These newer approaches offer unexpected methods of inquiry and understanding of Byzantine art. The appeal of the new and modish, however, is sometimes in danger of eclipsing older and important approaches that continue to be valid in the examination of Byzantine culture. All are to be welcomed and encouraged as we continue to explore the lost world of the Byzantine Empire and its arts.
Future Exploration
Additional studies in a number of areas would reveal more about Byzantine life in all its richness. The issue of class has been mentioned, as has the secular realm andiits artistic expression. Another subject in need of further work is ornament. As a form of art-making so important to medieval objects, it warrants serious and thorough treatment. Early work on ornament shone a spotlight on manuscripts (Anderson 1979, 170-71); ornament is treated peripherally when wall painting, liturgical silver, icons, and ivories are considered. Studies of Byzantine arts mostly deal with ornament when it suits authors to make particular points, such as the imitation of precious gemmed decoration in more humble copper icons (Schwartz 2014), or the argument for place of manufacture (Pinto Madigan 1987). Ornament is often treated when there is no figural decoration present, such as certain chapels in Cappadocia (Epstein 1977). This issue, too, remains to be more fully considered in the future.
DISSEMINATION AND DISPLAY
Publications and Presentations
Exhibitions and publications play an important role in scholars’ and the public’s understanding and appreciation of this exquisite art. This is especially important when we consider the inaccessibility of many of these artworks, as well as the ravages time has taken on a number of monuments and objects. Occasionally, documentation via photograph is all we have left, when monuments are damaged or destroyed, especially in areas subject to war (Underwood 1959).
Different kinds of publications continue to open up a variety of ways of dealing with Byzantine art. Books, both monographs and analyses, form one of the main pathways by which scholars share information. Luckily, several presses have committed themselves to ongoing programs of publication on Byzantine subjects, including Oxford University Press’s handbooks, among others. Scholarly journals also offer opportunities for dissemination of information, with some venerable journals dedicated wholly to Byzantine subjects continuing to the present day. Many of these are sponsored by research institutions, especially in Europe. Conferences, local, national, and international, also offer opportunities for the sharing of information on Byzantine subjects. The great success of a number of these in Europe and North America, however, may have served to isolate Byzantinists from other medievalists, depriving each group of useful crossfertilizing knowledge.
Newer forms of information, representation, and presentation have tremendous potential for both scholarship and teaching. Computerized bibliographic databases and compendia such as JSTOR make worldwide research available to scholars in many places as well as during times of pandemic lockdown. Digitization of archives allows examination of monastic materials that offer documentation of artworks and at least part of their provenance (Thomas and Hero 2000). Digital photography allows for quicker evaluation in the field. Digital images have encouraged swift and easy dissemination, and image-sharing sites such as Artstor and Wikimedia Commons give scholars and teachers access to an enormous bank of materials for research, teaching, and presentation. Often, the manipulation of images can help in close examination at a remove from the actual object. Scholars have been able to create three-dimensional pictures of buildings, along with digital reconstructions. Sound recordings and moving images, thanks to more available and affordable equipment, allow scholars to present a fuller experience to their students and colleagues.
Issues of Collection and Display
Of course, examination of Byzantine monuments themselves is the most desirable way to encounter this art. A very few museums and galleries are devoted entirely to Byzantine art. These include the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens (the world’s first museum dedicated solely to Byzantine art), the Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki, and the Skevophylakion at Mt. Sinai. Other museums and libraries with significant Byzantine holdings on display include Dumbarton Oaks and the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the United States, the Benaki Museum in Athens, the British Museum library, and the Bibliotheque nationale, Paris, among others. A number of regional or city museums also showcase Byzantine objects found there. Museums have treated the presentation of Byzantine objects in various ways. Often set in galleries in vitrines or in modern frames against white or neutral walls as if they were easel paintings, these displays—whether permanent or in a temporary exhibition—make these objects easy to see. Sometimes they are placed near objects from different times and places, affecting how we experience them. While this can generate new interpretations, it also can appear as artificial and less than helpful in truly understanding the Byzantine pieces as they were intended to be experienced. It removes objects from their original context, which is an essential part of understanding how these things worked in the material and spiritual world. The darkened, candlelit interiors of churches, for example, would make wall paintings and icons appear quite different from the way they look in a museum.
So, in exhibiting parts of a permanent collection, some museums have made attempts to recreate the architectural and decorative context of their origin. Some presentations create a believable facsimile using actual Byzantine segments; the reinstalled stone icon screen with the paintings from Episkopi in Eurytania in the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens is one such example. Others evoke a church setting through strategic placement of objects against photographic murals. The Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki has several galleries using this technique to give the sense of an early church and one from Late Byzantine times.
In addition to exhibiting items from permanent collections, museums have mounted large exhibitions that have brought Byzantine objects to many different lands and a wide variety of audiences. A number of extensive exhibitions have been created in Europe and North America over the past half-century. These are far from the first public displays of Byzantine art that began with more limited participation in terms of pieces and media, reflecting the state of Byzantine scholarship at the time. One of the earliest was a show of the private holdings of David Talbot Rice at the Royal Scottish Museum in 1958 (Talbot Rice 1958). Much larger comprehensive exhibitions have been held in Europe and the United States, including Athens (Byzantine Art, a European Art 1964), Brussels (Lafontaine-Dosogne 1982), Thessaloniki (Fowden et. al 2001), and London (Byzantine Art, 330-1453). Exhibitions divided by era were held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York covering the Early Christian period, the Middle Byzantine era, and the time of Late Byzantium (Weitzmann 1979; Glory of Byzantium; Faith and Power). While these exhibitions aim at a wide and comprehensive representation, certain thematic groupings are often displayed. Some are dictated by curatorial staff (placing liturgical textiles together), some by exigencies of the objects themselves (manuscripts requiring low lighting; the large corona in Faith and Power), and some by the lender(s), suchas the Mt. Sinai gallery in the same show.
In addition to these comprehensive shows, others are what Cormack would refer to as an exhibition with “a story,’ where the selection, juxtaposition, and display of objects (as well as their labels and any accompanying catalogue) put forth a particular narrative or point of view. The Zappeion exhibition of 1964, for example, had the purpose of setting Byzantine art in connection to wider concerns in art history with its title Byzantine Art, a European Art. Byzantine Hours: Works and Days offered a view of daily and seasonal life in Byzantine times (Fowden et. al 2001).
Shows have also highlighted Byzantine collections from certain places, such as Heaven and Earth, Byzantine Art from Greek Collections. Smaller exhibits limited to specific media, such as Silver Treasure from Early Byzantium, Baltimore, 1986, and From Byzantium to El Greco: Greek Frescoes and Icons, London 1987, have also been created. Many shows have brought items from far-flung sites, allowing viewers to see many things they might ordinarily never see in person, as they are often in remote locations, expensive, challenging, and sometimes forbidden to get to for many interested. The exhibition Treasures of Mt. Athos was particularly important in this regard. Exhibited at the recently opened Museum of Byzantine Culture in Thessaloniki in 1997, it offered female viewers and the non-Orthodox visitors an all too rare opportunity to see hundreds of objects from the Holy Mountain that many would never have access to without such an exhibition (Treasures of Mt. Athos). These shows, however, bring up issues of appropriate display. Some viewers objected to the showing of these pieces in a museum setting, as they were not created as art objects as we think of art in museums; they are functional, living pieces, essential parts of worship and the lives of the monasteries, churches, and congregations of the Orthodox faithful. Such concerns are not unique to Byzantine pieces: the questions about American tribal holdings in the Smithsonian Institution and First Nations objects in Canadian museums are similarly undergoing examination (Fletcher 2008; Fisher 2012). In addition, exhibitions juxtapose different types of objects, and put things from different periods, purposes, and so on, often together in one space, removing them from the context that helps to give such pieces the depth of meaning they carry.
These exhibits, on the other hand, have served to generate interest in the nonspecialist population, which can inspire learning, travel, and cross-cultural contacts and understanding. They have often been financial successes. Further, and just as important, they leave a record in beautifully illustrated catalogues that are important research tools in themselves.
ABOUT THIS HANDBOOK
The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Art and Architecture is aimed at an audience in the early stages of learning about Byzantine culture and its artistic expression. From faculty and teachers in other fields and disciplines, along with graduate students, other professionals concerned with related cultures, to the interested reader, the essays in this volume offer a view into the field of Byzantine art history. It has been put together to showcase various approaches to Byzantine art, in order to be of service both to people with a specific interest, such as creating a class for undergraduates, or to those with a general or focused curiosity about this period and its artistic expression. The first set of chapters, “Approaching Byzantine Art,’ treats major themes and issues, including thematic approaches to various subjects. Part II, “Reception of Byzantine Art and Architecture,’ considers Byzantine influence on the arts of nearby cultures and its survival after the fall of the empire. Part III, “The Realia of Byzantine Art,’ includes discussions of subfields, like architecture and archaeology, and various categories of monuments and diverse media. Areas fully covered in the Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies (OHBS) are not duplicated in most cases. Each article has a list of references for documentation and further reading. Suggestions for areas in need of future research are also included.
A broad selection of scholars from across the world who are at different stages of their careers, and in different kinds of institutions, have graciously agreed to offer their thoughts on these diverse topics within the study of the arts of Byzantium. Contributors represent many different subfields, and utilize a number of different approaches to scholarship, from wide-ranging surveys to focused studies, from thematic investigations to case studies. A real attempt was made to represent different aspects of scholarship. Authors were selected from all over the Western world, and are at all different stages of their careers—from senior faculty to newly minted PhDs. People working at colleges, in research institutes, and as independent scholars are all included.
To return to where we began, with the Yeats poem: a scholar (who happens to be my husband) has written:
As the poem suggests, Byzantium, and especially its art, has come to stand among some for a kind of enduring legacy and even in its own way an unsurpassed excellence, yet the exact forms that excellence took remains elusive. This book has endeavored to make this Byzantine accomplishment understandable, without diminishing the allure and magic that draws us to it.
It is hoped that readers will find this volume, with its wide-ranging essays and diversity of authors, as interesting and as useful as I have.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق