Christopher Walter. Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Methodology. Revue des études byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212

8/3/2019 Christopher Walter. Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Meth

1/31

Christopher Walter

Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies.

An Essay in Iconographical MethodologyIn: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212.

Abstract

REB 29 (1971)Francep. 183-212.

Ch. Walter, Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzeri's Homilies. The method of studying the transmission of

manuscript illuminations, as presented by K. Weitzmann in Illustrations in Roll and Codex, is considered with regard to Byzantine

manuscripts. There follows a critique of Galavaris's application of this method to the liturgical edition of Gregory of Nazianzen's

homilies. The author concludes that the illustration of this edition has no archetype, consisting rather of various adaptations of the

illustration of the full edition ; that it was little influenced either by Lectionary models or by liturgical ceremonies.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Walter Christopher. Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Methodology .

In: Revue des tudes byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212.

doi : 10.3406/rebyz.1971.1444

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1971_num_29_1_1444
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_98http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1971.1444http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1971_num_29_1_1444http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rebyz_0766-5598_1971_num_29_1_1444http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/rebyz.1971.1444http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/author/auteur_rebyz_98


2/31

LITURGY AND THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORYOF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES

An Essay in Iconographical MethodologyChristopher WALTER

Among the most remarkable of the surviving works of art executed inand around Constantinople in the Xth, Xlth and Xllth centuries are theilluminated liturgical books. Of these perhaps the Gospel books and theLectionary are the richest. It would be in them, if Professor Kurt Weitzmannis right, that the far-reaching changes consequent upon the establishmentof a liturgical lectionary cycle appear most clearly1. However until ProfessorWeitzmann has published his promised study of the ConstantinopolitanLectionary it is possible to appreciate exactly neither what these changeswere, nor what was the role of the Lectionary in providing models for theillustration of other liturgical books.

One which was likely to be affected is the liturgical selection of Gregoryof Nazianzen's homilies. Dr George Galavaris is indeed ready to maintainthat the most probable source for the New Testament scenes which illustrate these homilies was in every case a lectionary model2. Since the majorityof the illuminated manuscripts of these homilies date from the late Xlthand the early Xllth century, the hypothesis is certainly plausible. Whilewaiting for the appearance of Weitzmann's study, it is possible to examinethe case which Galavaris presents, and to ask to what extent it is necessary topostulate a lectionary or other liturgical model in order to explain the miniatures n question. First, however, it will be as well to make some remarks1. K. Weitzmann, Byzantine Miniature and Ikon Painting in the Xlth Century, inThe Proceedings of the Xlllth International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Oxford 1967,p. 212-219.2. G. Galavaris, The Illustrations of the Liturgical Homilies of Gregory Nazianzenus,Princeton 1969, p. 98. (This article serves also as a review of the book).


3/31

184 CH. WALTERabout Galavaris's presentation of the miniatures and about the methodwhich he uses to study them.By uniting in one volume 474 photographs of miniatures from 34 ofthese manuscripts Gaiavaris has rendered a valuable service to Byzantinescholars. The volume appears in the Princeton series of studies in manuscript illustration, of which Professor Weitzmann is general editor. Thepresentation of the photographs is of a high order. Nor are neglected suchother aspects of bookmaking as meticulous attention to detail, while thewealth of bibliographical references attests to the technical quality oflibrary services in the United States.It is an essential part of the discipline of art history to establish as accurately as possible the date and provenance of the objects being studied. Thisis easy in the cases where an inscription indicates the date exactly : Vatican,gr. 463, 10623 \Londin. Add. 24381, 10884 ; Laurent. VII 24, 1091s ; Vatican,gr. 464, 13596. Unfortunately these are not the most important manuscripts. The others have to be situated upon grounds of style. For somemanuscripts Gaiavaris proposes an earlier date than do other scholars.Where he proposes the Xlth rather than the Xllth century his attributionis based on plausible analogies. However it is surprising to find Mosq. 146dated to about 1000 primarily on the grounds of its ornament. Lazarevhas suggested a date around 10707. On the grounds of the proportions ofthe figures one might suggest a comparison with a Saint John of Studiosmanuscript such as Londin. Add. 19352. On other grounds too, as I shallexplain later, a case may be argued for dating this manuscript to the secondhalf of the Xlth century. However, if Gaiavaris felt convinced by his arguments in favour of the earlier date, it is even more surprising that he hasnot drawn an important conclusion. If Mosq. 146 was really illuminatedsome seventy years earlier than the other extant Gregory manuscripts,it would witness to the first experiments in illuminating this genre of manuscripts, and provide valuable information about the archetype ifarchetype there was.

Given the importance of this collection of iconographical documents,it is regrettable that Gaiavaris should have confined his descriptive remarksprincipally to such aspects of their style as are relevant to their date and

3.4.5.6.G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 250-252.Ibid.,Ibid.,Ibid.,

p.-p.227.218.252-253.7. Ibid., p. 229-231 ; V. Lazarev, Storia dellapittura bizantina, Turin 1967, p. 189.


4/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 185provenance. Byzantinists will be consulting this volume, in which manyminiatures are published for the first time, for a variety of reasons. As aninstrument of study they will find the book defective in many respects.The bibliographical notes on the iconography of the miniatures are notpresented in a form which facilitates consultation. No developed descriptionis given either of individual miniatures or of the character of individualmanuscripts. This is particularly regrettable in cases, such as initial letters,when the physical relationship between the miniature and the text is notevident in the photograph. For example in Taurin. C I 6, f. 69V and 83 (fig.52 and 57 ) two initials are labelled Genre Scene . No allusion is made toeither in the catalogue, while for f. 84V-91V the reader is only told that thereare historiated initials illustrating single words or phrases 8 . But Galavarisneither identifies them nor supplies the reader with the material necessaryto do so himself.The reason perhaps for these omissions is that Galavaris is less interestedn the manuscripts themselves than in a hypothetical archetype fromwhich they would be derived. His primary aim is to demonstrate that suchan archetype existed. He bases his argument on a consideration of thelogical relationship between the miniatures and the text, a relationshipwhich is the same, according to him, for all the manuscripts of this genre.Anything, therefore, which is original in the individual manuscripts is ofsecondary importance. It could have been added later or alternatively thearchetype might have been more fully illustrated ; the copyists would thenhave selected certain scenes according to their individual requirements9. Itmust be said at once that such an explanation is entirely gratuitous. Whatimpresses in examining the miniatures is not their similarity but theirvariety. There is nothing obvious to suggest that there was a single acceptedtradition for the illuminai ion of the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies. he notion has come from outside, not from an actual considerationof the manuscripts. In his desire to realise to the full its implications Galavaris is forced not only to contradict himself but also to ignore or misrepresent the real character of these manuscripts.Galavaris seeks the distinctive character of this single tradition particularly in the invented miniatures which would be peculiar to the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies. Seventeen title miniatures and twelvesupplementary miniatures were, he says, designed especially for this liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies. The others occurred first as illustra-

8. G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 260.9. Ibid., p. 37.


5/31

186 CH. WALTERtions to other texts, from which they migrated to the homilies. Howeveragainhe qualifies his original statement by adding that this distinction between invented and migrated miniatures is not rigid. On the other hand itis necessary in order to establish the iconographical groups found in the manuscripts ; these are to be classified according to the text which they originallyllustrated ; the structure of the manuscripts may then be understood10.

The pioneer in this method of studying a manuscript was ProfessorWeitzmann. It might therefore be as well, before examining further Gala-varis's way of proceeding, to return briefly to the book in which Weitzmann expounded his methodology : Illustrations in Roll and Codex11.Such an examination is the more desirable because Weitzmann s study,in spite of its importance, received little attention from Byzantinists at thetime of its publication12. Weitzmann sets out to establish the rules governinghe physical and logical relationship in manuscript illustration betweenthe pictures and the text. His study begins long before the Byzantine erawith the illustrations of the Iliad. When these pictures occur in other mediaas consecutive cyclic compositions, they are, as far as their iconographyis concerned, derivatives of illustrated papyrus rolls13. There would originally have been more than 240 illustrations to the Iliad papyrus ; thesewere the models for the miniatures of the Ilias ambrosiana on vellum14.The practice of establishing an archetypal cycle, either for the originaltext or as the result of a gradual development, is therefore of great antiquity. The existence of such cycles, much larger than in any survivingmanuscript, is postulated by Weitzmann for the Old Testament too15, aswell as for the lives of saints, particularly of Saint Nicholas1 6 and Abgar1 7.The change from papyrus roll to vellum codex, important as it was

10 . G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 18 .11 . K. Weitzmann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex, Princeton 1947 (reprinted 1970).12 . The only review indicated in the bulletins of the BZ, that by D. Talbot Rice{Byzantinoslavica 11, 1950, p. 109-110), does not enter into details. The same is true ofthose by A. Katzenellenbogen {Speculum 23, 1948, p. 513-520) and by G. Bovini{Rivista di archeologia cristiana 23-24, 1947-1948, p. 389-392). H. Bober {The Art Bulletin30, 1948, p. 284-288), who is critical, is concerned with the parts of Weitzmann's studydevoted to classical book production.13 . K. Weitzmann, op . cit., p. 40. Cf. note ** at end.14 . Ibid., p. 42 ; R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Hellenistic-Byzantine Miniatures of theIliad (Ilias ambrosiana), Olten 1955.15 . K. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, p. 130.16 . K. Weitzmann, Fragments of an early Saint Nicholas triptych on Mount Sina, in ' 4-4, 1964-1965, Athens 1966, p. 9.17 . . Weitzmann, The Mandylion and Constantine Porphyrogennetos, in CA 11,1960, p. 171-172.


6/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 187for the material process of bookmaking, had little effect upon the physicalrelationship between text and illustration. The various methods of connectinghysically a miniature with a text... are all noted in ancient papyrusrolls. The post classical centuries have not contributed much to this formaldevelopment that could be considered fundamentally new. The chiefenrichment of medieval book illumination lies in the field of ornamentaldecoration, which in papyrus rolls apparently did not exist at all18. The conservatism evident in the physical relationship between text andillustration appears also in the logical relationship. Once an appropriatescene had been created there was little desire to change it . All Septuagintrepresentations in manuscripts as well as in other media which dependon manuscripts can be reduced to very few archetypes19. The miniaturisttranslated the contents of a specific text into visual form as literally aspossible20. Generally an illustration which appears in a manuscript wascreated for a manuscript.The question arises what an artist did when called upon to illustratea new text, the matter of which resembled that of existing texts. Theaverage Byzantine or Western illuminator... tried to copy whenever hecould a model, avoiding as far as possible new iconographical subjects (...)There was always a chance to invent a new miniature cycle for new textrecensions but apparently advantage was seldom taken of it . The generaltendency for the illuminator was to exploit other models and... to contenthimself with few changes and to show his artistic skill within the limitsof an established iconography21. Weitzmann's analysis of the way in which the Byzantine illuminatorexploited his models is perhaps the most important part of his study.Often a copy was direct ; the scene was simply transposed. Sometimes twominiatures in the original text were combined to make one in the copy.He exemplifies this process by the illustration of the Canticle of Mosesin Vatoped. 760. The Canticle, included as a supplement to the Psalter, comesfrom Deuteronomy 32. Weitzmann can demonstrate that the illustrationto the Canticle combines two used for the Septuagint text, since the scenein question includes details taken from a verse which does not figure in theCanticle. This latter process Weitzmann calls conflation22.

18 . K. Weitzmann, Roll and Codex, p. 122.19 . Ibid., p. 131.20. Ibid., p. 124.21. Ibid., p. 143.22. Ibid., p. 131.


7/31

188 CH. WALTERThe way that the copyist absorbs and adapts his model to the new textmay also be better understood if studied as Weitzmann proposes. Thushe can solve the problem posed by the fact that the same discrepanciesof style appear in the works of the different artists employed to illustratethe Menologion of Basil II. The discrepancies indicate that different artistscopied with equal fidelity models from varying epochs23.It is consequently possible to establish, often with exactitude, from whichgenre of manuscripts the artist took his models. If he used several differentgenres Weitzmann calls the manuscript polycyclic. A monocyclic manuscript is one in which text and miniatures fully coincide such as the VaticanVirgil codices and all Terence manuscripts24. A manuscript like Paris, gr.510, on the other hand, is illustrated by scenes from a Gospel book, from

the Old Testament possibly via a Psalter, from a Lectionary, a Chronicle, aLife of Gregory of Nazianzen and a Menologion. This is a clear example ofa polycyclic manuscript. The initial step in the methodical study of suchiconographically complex manuscripts must be the isolation of the variouscycles involved, each of which has to be investigated separately with regardto the specific recension from which it was taken over25. Weitzmann calls the miniatures which are taken over from anothercycle migrated . He thus introduces a number of new technical termsinto the study of illuminated manuscripts. Some of these derive from textualcriticism as, for example, the archetype. The study of the transmission ofminiatures has exactly the same aim, namely, to find the iconographicallypurest form of the archetype26. Conflation also is a term used in textualcriticism for the process of fusing together two variant texts or readingsinto one. An obvious biblical example of conflation is the fusing togetherof two traditions concerning the Creation in Genesis 1 and 2.The term migration does not, I think, come from textual criticism.In zoology it has the sense of a regular movement of fishes and birds withthe seasons. But since miniatures do not move themselves, the choice ofthis term by Weitzmann is perhaps less happy. The facts of the situationare not in doubt : Byzantine artists did regularly transpose miniatures,but in doing this they were the active party, not the miniatures. There isconsequently a risk of misunderstanding if this procedure of transpositionis called migration. What remains in fact under the control of the artist

23. K. Weitzmann, op . cit., p. 200-205.24. Ibid., p. 193.25. Ibid., p. 196.26. Ibid., p. 183.


8/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 189is treated by implication as an autonomous operation determined by itsown inherent laws.The word invention is placed in antithesis to migration , althoughin their original sense these words are not antithetical. Even this word,which seems innocent enough, poses difficulties. Galavaris notes onewithout disposing of it : the distinction between the miniature which isa copy and the one which is original cannot be rigidly maintained.I do not know to what extent textual critics today would be preparedto underwrite the principles which provide Weitzmann's point of departurefor the establishment of rules for picture criticism. The notion of an archetype r Quellenschrift has perhaps lost its popularity, although there is anevident value in establishing through the collation of copies the most accurateorm possible of an original text. But the aim of the illuminator of amanuscript is not the same as that of the copyist of a text. The copyistof a text is intent to give, possibly with his own commentary and corrections,as accurate a version as possible of the original. The illuminator of a manuscript may, indeed, be commissioned to copy a model as accurately as possible. uch may have been the case with the artist responsible for the manyminiatures in Baltimore Walters Art Gallery 521, which closely resemblethose in the Menologion of Basil II21 The Byzantine illuminator alsoworked in a tradition dating back to Antiquity, whereby the copy of afamous work of art was often more avidly sought after than an originalcreation. The theology of ikons, emphasizing the value of close resemblanceto the prototype, would no doubt have further encouraged the tendency tocopy rather than to improvise. However these considerations are relevantto the social climate within which the artist worked and not directly tothe discipline of his craft. In this important respect the discipline of themanuscript illuminator differs fundamentally from that of the text copyist :fidelity to the Model is not a primary obligation upon the person exercisingthe craft. But in another respect also they differ. A given text is a structuraltotality, such that the person copying it may not make omissions or alterationswithout falsification. This is not true of a cycle of miniatures. Theartist who is copying or adapting is not obliged by the rules of his craftto transpose the whole of a cycle. He may select. If indeed he did transposea whole cycle it was again for reasons extrinsic and not intrinsic to hiscraft.I am not, of course, calling in question the value of Weitzmann's methodof establishing the logical relationship between a miniature or a cycle of

27. K. Weitzmann, art. cit. note 1, pi . 1, 2, 4, 5.


9/31

190 CH. WALTERminiatures and the text which it accompanies. Is the miniature an original,an adaptation or a copy ? What were the artist's sources ? These questionsmust be asked if we are to establish the relationship between illuminatedmanuscripts. My difficulty is perhaps metaphysical rather than methodological. regard Weitzmann's notions as a series of working hypotheses,and given the suppleness with which he has applied them in his studies ofmanuscripts and ikons subsequent to Illustrations in Roll and Codex, Isuspect that his attitude is the same. If, however, these working hypothesesare treated as objectively established principles valid for all Byzantineillumination and are then applied a priori to a group of manuscripts, dangerous istortions occur. For example, in view of the widely varying physicaland logical relationships between the illustrations and text of the liturgicalselection of Gregory's homilies, a posteriori so evident, it is surprising thatthey should be presented as one recension with a polycyclic archetypewhich consisted mainly of migrated miniatures, some of them conflated,to which were added a relatively small number of invented miniatures.

The first principles governing the craft of the Byzantine illuminator mustbe sought elsewhere. They are not, in fact, difficult to find, but the searchhas been perhaps complicated by the need to approach Byzantine artin a different way from Renaissance art. It was during the Renaissancethat rules were formulated for copying, adapting and assimilating antiqueidiom. But the Renaissance artist set out to improvise alVantica , tomaster difficult and complex postures ; he generalized rather than copied.He set himself an academic problem : to learn from the study of antiquemodels how to produce an illusion of life28. This was not the case with theByzantine artist. His primary concern was with the iconographically accuraterendering of the content of his subject. Formalistic problems were secondaryfor him. He adhered to an established, sanctified tradition of renderingcertain themes. Nevertheless the traditionalism by which the iconographyof certain scenes maintained the basic features of an archetype for centuriesthrough the process of copying was by no means mechanical. It permittedample space for new stylistic and even iconographical interpretations29.The primary object of a Byzantine artist was therefore to convey amessage. It is possible that he would, in order to do this, copy somebody

28. E. H. Gombrich, Norm and Form, Studies in the Art of the Renaissance, London1966, p. 81-98 and 122-128.29. K. Weitzmann, The Narrative and Liturgical Gospel Illustrations, in NewTestament Manuscript Studies, edited by M. M. Parvis and A. P. Wikgren, Chicago1950, p. 151.


10/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 191else's version. He might even fail himself to understand what he was toconvey and misinterpret his model. When his message ran parallel to thetext it might not have the same content. But these cases, interesting thoughthey are, were surely exceptional. As a general rule the Byzantine illuminator, or the person who supervised his work, knew perfectly well whatmessage he wished to convey, and conveyed it with precision. The situationis not quite the same for us. Sometimes a picture whose significance wecan only discover after a long search must have been immediately intelligible to the Byzantine contemporary.If the primary concern of the artist is to render accurately the content ofhis subject, then it follows that the primary concern of the person studyingByzantine miniatures must be to understand the content. It is possible thatthe methods used in linguistics, extended to the science which it is fashionableo call semiology, might be helpful in such a study30. This may appearmore likely if I reword Weitzmann's phrase as follows : the primary concernof the Byzantine artist is to produce a sign. If this statement is true, thenit follows that Byzantine iconography as a sign language, is a branch ofsemiology ; it must therefore be studied primarily as a sign language. Theformal problems of rendering a sign in a particular context, whether bycopying, adaptation or invention, will be a secondary concern.

Obviously one can push the analogy between language and other formsof semiology too far. However this analogy, applied prudently, may increase our understanding of manuscript illustration. For example, wordsin a language are situated in a long tradition. The same is true of icono-graphical formulae. If a certain way of representing Pentecost remainedbasically unchanged over the centuries, it is not only because one artistcopied another but also because the established formula satisfactorilyconveyed his meaning. Iconography differs from language in that its signsare not generally meaningful without reference to a text or a verbal tradition. However the degree as well as the way in which a picture is dependenton a text or a verbal tradition may vary. Common to all visual media ofAntique and Byzantine civilisation is an ensemble of signs. Weitzmann issurely right in maintaining that this ensemble of signs can be studied mostsuccessfully in the field of book illumination, particularly because the

30. If the study of iconography is not also to become, in Professor Claude Lvi-Strauss s now classical phrase, une sudation en vase clos, one must be prepared to adaptto it methods which have proved rewarding in the far more developed discipline of linguistics. Since iconography, unlike social behaviour, is explicitly significative, the initialdangers would be less great but the initial results less sensational than in the field ofanthropology.


11/31

192 CH. WALTERassociation of miniatures with a text permits an iconographical control ofthe picture31.On the other hand it must not be forgotten that the great majority ofpeople in Antique and Byzantine society were illiterate. In order to conveya message to these people the picture was therefore a more importantmedium than written language. It was exploited for propaganda purposes bythe imperial government in public monuments and in coinage. Only a verysummary text, if any, would accompany such pictures. The signs used weresimple but articulated, explicit and, so far as possible, devoid of ambiguity.The Byzantine Church also exploited art media for the purpose of proclaiminghristian doctrine. The ensemble of signs already in use was turned to anew purpose. I do not know to what extent it would be true to contrast theiconography used for propaganda purposes with that used in the moresophisticated genre of book illumination as a with a .Art differs from language also in that there are some periods in whichits practitioners have been more preoccupied by its creative and aestheticpotentialities and others in which they have exploited rather its functionalpotentialities. Much of the sign language used in late Antiquity and in theChristian era may have been genuinely invented at some time for aestheticpurposes. This would no doubt be the case with many narrative scenes,such as battles. It would also be true of certain biographical scenes suchas a nativity32. It is possible too that other iconographical formulae originated in the theatre33. However for the general run of demotic signlanguage the principal source was ceremony and gesture, whose sense mightbe qualified by the addition of some symbol, such as the chrismon, or of asimple inscription.If we consider, for example, certain miniatures in the Rossano Gospels,we can understand fairly clearly how the illuminator transposed his textinto picture signs34. The Evangelist is represented as an author, seated

31. R. Barthes has perhaps overstressed the difficulty of establishing units of expressionn the visual arts. Obviously the case differs when the aesthetic function of the pictureis primary and the significative function is secondary. Cf . Elments de smiologie, inLe degr zro de V criture2, Paris 1964, p. 137.32. A. Grabar, Christian Iconography, A Study of Its Origins, Princeton 1968, p.130-131 ; cf. . Kitzinger, The Hellenistic Heritage in Byzantine Art, in DOP 17 , 1963,p. 99-104 and fig. 3-8.33. In some Western manuscripts council scenes, where the bishops are discussing,closely resemble the illustrations to Terence's plays. Cf . my Iconographie des concilesdans la tradition byzantine, Paris 1970, p. 56.34. Codex purpureus rossanemis, edited by A. Mufoz, Rome 1907, especially pi.15 (Mark the Evangelist), 13 and 14 (Christ before Pilate) and 4 (Wise and FoolishVirgins) ; cf. p. 3-6.


12/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 193writing in the presence of a personification of inspiration. The same formulaas was used for a poet inspired by a Muse in antique art now serves foran Evangelist inspired by the Holy Spirit. The formula reappears againto represent John Chrysostom inspired by Saint Paul in Vatican, gr. 766,f. 2v35, and twice in the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies to represent Gregory inspired by Christ36. Such a formula was perhaps toogeneralized in Antiquity for it to be possible to trace its transmission bydirect reference to existing illuminated manuscripts. No doubt there wasan archetypal portrait of an inspired author from which the other portraitsstem.In the scene of Christ before Pilate we find a typical tribunal scene withthe interesting detail that Pilate has been transposed from a consulardiptych.37. In the illustration to the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virginsthere is an even more interesting detail : the Four Rivers of Paradise havebeen added. This interpretation of the parable, evident though it may be,is not explicit in the text. Such an unsophisticated juxtaposition of sceneand interpreting symbol recalls a primitive picture like that in the Catacomb of Prscilla where a dove brings an olive branch to the Three Youthsin the Furnace38. But in all three cases the artist is using signs already inhis repertory an inspired writer, an imperial functionary, the Riversof Paradise not so much to illustrate as to echo what is conveyed inlanguage by the text which his pictures accompany.

The last example invites a more developed consideration of its relationshipto the text. Since there is no explicit allusion to Paradise in the Gospeltext of the parable, are we to suppose that the miniature was originallymade for a commentary which interpreted the parable ? Such a possibilityis not to be excluded. It depends on the degree of autonomy which oneis prepared to allow in the elaboration of pictures for a text. There are fourpossibilities : the miniature depends in the original directly upon the textwhich it illustrates for every detail ; the miniature transposes according tothe conventions and traditions of iconography the general meaning of thetext ; the miniature conveys according to the conventions and traditionsof iconography an independent commentary on the text ; the miniature and

35. Codices vaticani graeci, III, edited by R. Devreesse, Vatican 1950, p. 281. AXlVth century date is proposed.36. Pantocrator. 31 , f. 4V, and Jerusalem Patriarch. S. Sab. 258, f. (G. Galavaris,op . cit., fig. 428, 429).37. Iconographie des conciles (cf. note 33), p. 205-206 and fig. 101.38. J. Wilpert, Die Malereien der Katakomben Roms, Freiburg im Breisga" 1903,p. 358 and pi. 78.


13/31

194 CH. WALTERthe text transpose in their respective idiom the message of a third medium.In this particular case I should opt personally for the third explanation,although in fact this way of distinguishing logical relationships betweenpicture and text is not absolute. No picture in Byzantine art can havebeen created which was dependent uniquely upon the text to be illustrated ;the artist would always have worked within a tradition. For example inorder to illustrate the Supper at Bethany he would used the general formulafor a meal39. His picture of this particular meal would be distinguishedfrom others by additional details, such as Mary anointing Christ's feetand Martha serving the meal, which depend directly on the text. Anotherway of proceeding would be to use an illustration which has in commonwith the text in question only a general idea. For example in order toillustrate a Metaphrastian Menologion an artist might use scenes copiedfrom another manuscript containing a different version of the life of thesaint in question. The common link between illustration and text is therefore imply the fact that they are concerned with the same saint40. It isperhaps worth emphasizing that this common link exists, in order to avoidthe danger of regarding the artist as a mere transposing machine. Therewas always a choice as to what he should transpose, and the reason for thechoice would normally be, I insist again, the logical link between text andminiature.

An example of an independent commentary may be taken from the Pan-tocrator Psalter {cod. 61, f. 165)41. The Psalm contrasts the cult of the trueGod with thiat of idols. The development of this theme as a contrast between the iconoclast patriarch John the Grammarian and Beseleel the architect f the tabernacle is the artist's work. The possibility that the idea camefrom a written commentary is not to be excluded ; the illustration mighteven have been made for such a commentary and then transposed. Howeverneither hypothesis is necessary in order to explain the logical connectionbetween the illustration and the text. Further the illustration is in no sensea composition. It consists rather in a series of signs distributed below andto the right of the text. The idol, John the Grammarian his hair standingon end as became a demoniac David, the tabernacle can all be under-

39. Cf. my article Lazarus a Bishop, in REB 27 , 1969, p. 197-198 and fig. 3-7.40. Cf. The Illustration of the Metaphrastian Menologium, by Sirarpie Der Nerses-sian in Studies in Honor ofAlbert Mathias Friend Jr, edited by K. Weitzmann, Princeton1955, p. 225-226.41. Suzy Dufrenne, Une illustration historique inconnue du Psautier du Mont-Athos, Pantocrator n 61, in CA 15 , 1965, p. 83-95 ; Eadem, L'illustration de s psautiersgrecs du Moyen Age, I, Paris 1966, p. 34, pi. 26.


14/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 195stood without a written text. Beseleel no doubt needs an inscription foridentification. The links between the signs are made by gestures. The wholein fact to our eyes resembles a message which one decodes. Each individualsign may well have been copied from another manuscript ; the whole message may have been copied. Either way our primary object, as for theByzantine user of the Psalter, must be to understand the message.Gestures, it would seem, come from ceremonial. Easily transposed intopictorial media, gestures could also perhaps provide metaphors or conventionsor literary media. One example of this would be trampling42. Theconnection between trampling and victory is extremely old. The metaphoroccurs in the Old Testament ; the scene appears in official imperial imagery.Thus both were established before the Christian era. References to tramplingccur in Christian texts which would seem to be metaphorical too.Are we to suppose that the iconoclast bishops at the Council of 815 reallytrampled upon the iconodules43 ? When, however, Nicolas Cabasilas speaksof the just ardently hoping for the head of the tyrant to be trampled bythose who had been in chains44, he is using an image familiar in both iconography and sacred literature as referring to the descent of Christ intoHades. The literary tradition goes back to the Gospel of Nicodemus, whichtransposes this metaphor : Tune rex gloriae maiestate sua conculcansmortem...45 Are we, however, to suppose that the iconographical traditiongoes back to an illustrated manuscript of this Gospel ? The hypothesisis plausible. On the other hand it is not necessary to suppose that an illustrated edition once existed of the Gospel of Nicodemus. We have a casehere of the literary and pictorial media being dependent on a third media :ceremonial. Moreover this way of representing the Anastasis, embodyingthe notion of Christ's divinity manifested in his triumph over death, is widespread in monumental art, and therefore belongs to the demotic traditionin iconography46.

42. Cf . my article, Papal Political Imagery in the Medieval Lateran Palace, II, inCA 21 , 1971.43. Iconographie des conciles (cf. note 33), p. 142, 258.44. (De Vita inChristo, I : PG 150, 508B-509A). Father Joseph Munitiz SJ. kindly drew my attentionto this text.45. Evangelia Apocrypha*, edited by C. De Tischendorff, Leipzig 1876, p. 400.46. The earliest example in monumental art still extant would probably be that inSanta Maria Antiqua (705-707). Cf. Anastasis by E. Lucchesi Palli in Reallexikon zurbyzantinischen Kunst, 143-144. For the relationship between the Descent to Hell and John 1cf. C. Meredith, The Illustration of Codex Ebnerianus, a Study ofLiturgical Illustration ofthe Comnenian Period, in Journal of the Courtauldand Warburg Institutes!^, 1966, p. 422.


15/31

196 CH. WALTERThe Anastasis figures as an illustration to the first of Gregory's homiliesin the liturgical selection47. The homilies, disposed like the lectionaryaccording to the order of the liturgical year, start with the homily on Easter

appointed to be read on Easter Sunday. It is plausible to suppose that theillustration to the homily was taken from a lectionary each time that thehomily referred directly to the theme of a great feast : Pentecost, the Nativity, Epiphany. On the other hand, given the fact that the same demotic formula recurs not only in many other genres of manuscript but also inmonumental art, one may well ask what value such a hypothesis may have,unless it be substantiated by the demonstration in at least a few cases of arelationship of dependence between specific miniatures.Take, for example, a formula which was evidently current for Baptism

scenes, that which was used in Vatican, gr. 1613, f. 199, and BaltimoreWalters Art Gallery 521, f. 38. The river flows in between rocky cliffs. Christstands naked in the water. John is on the left bank, his hand raised overChrist's head, while two angels stand, cloths in their hands, on the rightbank. To the extreme left of the picture stand two disciples. When thisscene recurs in the Dionysiou Lectionary {cod. 587, f. 141 v), the two discipleshave disappeared behind a cliff, so that only the upper part of their bodiesmay be seen, and a tree has appeared in the foreground48.This schema for a Baptism scene was not restricted only to John baptizinghrist. But it seems likely that other scenes such as John baptizing inMosq. 146, f. 145 (fig. 13) and John meets Christ in Paris, gr. 533, f. 146(fig. 246) two examples in Gregory manuscripts would have beenadapted from the better known scene rather than vice versa. In the twoGregory manuscripts the two disciples figure as in the Lectionary miniature artly concealed behind the cliff. The detail in itself is unimportantbut distinctive enough to suggest a relationship between the manuscripts.It is worth recalling that Professor Weitzmann dates the Dionysiou Lectionary to the late Xlth century, after the retirement of Isaac Comnenusto Saint John of Studios in 105949. On stylistic grounds there are reasonsfor connecting the Moscow Gregory with the same monastery. To theseit is now possible to add an argument from iconography for postulating alate Xlth century date for the Moscow Gregory by reason of the resemblance

47. G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 14-16.48. K. Weitzmann, art. cit. note 1, pi . 1-3 ; Id., An Imperial Lectionary in the Monastery of Dionysiu on Mount Athos. Its Origins and its Wanderings, in Revue destudes sud-est europennes 7, 1969, p. 247. Cf. the Daphni mosaic [. Diez and O. Demus,Byzantine Mosaics in Greece, Cambridge (Mass.) 1931, p. 59 and pi . XI].49. K. Weitzmann, art. cit. note 29, p. 173.


16/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 197between this miniature and the Baptism scene in the Dionysiou Lectionary,The argument is a slight one. It needs to be controlled by a comparisonbetween other miniatures in the two manuscripts representing the same orsimilar subjects. However it is worth presenting in order to call attentionto what seems to me to be another weakness of Galavaris's method ofworking. It is regrettable that he does not establish in detail what are thepoints of likeness between miniatures in the Gregory manuscripts and otherswhich are actually extant. This seems to me to be an essential preliminaryto any discussion of the qualities of miniatures whose existence is onlyhypothetical. Further it is probably more important to establish, at anyrate for the more important New Testament subjects such as were alreadycurrent in the IXth century Psalters, what were their common qualitiesrather than what was the genre of manuscript in which a particular composition irst appeared.With less common subjects the case is perhaps not quite the same. Theartist had now the chance to invent a new miniature. It becomes interestingto ask whether he did in fact do so, or, if not, where he sought his model.For the second Easter homily the artist opts most of the time for the visionof Habbakuk, although he does not always present it in the same way50.The homilies on the Maccabees and on Cyprian called for a representationof these persons, although, again, the artist exercises considerable discretionary powers in the actual choice to be made. For Basil a funeral scenewas preferred ; the choice was evident since the homily was a funeraloration. The scene was used again for Athanasiusalthough with less reason ;in fact it only occurs seven times against seventeen for Basil51. It is usedonce only for Cyprian in Taurin. C I 6, f. 37V (fig. 44). Here its presenceis clearly an anomaly, since the funeral of the other two saints is not represented. Either, therefore, it is misplaced, or the artist has copied thefuneral of Basil or Athanasius in another manuscript. Could this be theMoscow Gregory with which the Turin manuscript has close points ofresemblance ?

Liturgical elements in the Turin miniature are more stressed : a priestand a deacon each holding a thurible, Gregory himself with an unrolledscroll which would be the text of his homily, monks holding tapers. These50. The iconography of Habbakuk s vision is discussed by Sirarpie Der Nersessianin her article, Note sur quelques images se rattachant au thme du Christ-Ange, in CA 13 ,1962, p. 209-216.51. Mosq. 146, f. 18 ; Vatican, gr . 1947,f. 106v ; Athos Panteleim. 6, f. 219 ; Coislin.239, f. 163 ; Vatoped. 107, f. 226V ; Paris, gr. 550, f. 209v ; Paris, gr. 543, f. 260v (fig. 15 ,134, 175, 230, 335, 424, 466).


17/31

198 CH. WALTERmonks, one of whom also holds a higoumene's staff, in fact betray theartist. We have here a perfect example of a migrated miniature. Thismust be a direct copy of a representation of the Funeral of Basil. However t has not been taken from the Moscow Gregory, which has a muchsimpler composition.

While a representation of Christ's Baptism was an obvious choice forthe Epiphany homily, the artist was often embarrassed by the fact thatthe following homily was also concerned with baptism. Generally hepreferred to represent only one baptism scene. In most cases this wouldaccompany the first homily, while the second one would merely have a teaching scene (Jerusalem Patriarch, taphou 14, f. 186, fig. 116 ; Coislin.239, f. 130v, fig. 228 ; Laurent. VII 32, f. 120, fig. 269, etc.). However inVatican, gr. 1947 the scene of Christ's Baptism illustrates the second homily,hile the first has a teaching scene (f. 81 and 87 v ; fig. 131, 132).Here again is an anomaly, for which, perhaps, the simplest explanation isa physical rather than a logical one : the miniature is displaced. But Mosq.146, Paris, gr. 550 and Paris, gr. 543 have two scenes, one of John baptizingChrist and another of John baptizing the people52. Oxford Bodleian.Seiden 54 has a variant of the Desis, where John stands on Christ'sleft and Gregory occupies the place of the Virgin, instead of a baptism scenefor the first homily, while the second is illustrated by a teaching scene 53.Ambros. G 88 Sup., f. 176V (fig. 311), has a representation of a liturgicalbaptism to illustrate the second homily. The artist, therefore, exerciseda choice, more or less profound, as to the illustration appropriate for eachhomily. How is this choice to be reconciled with a theory that there wasonly one redaction for the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies stemming from a single archetype ?The homily of the first Sunday after Easter is also remarkable for thevariety of subjects chosen to illustrate it : Mamas, the Consecration of analtar, Church and Synagogue, Doubting Thomas. Of these subjects Mamaswas the most popular choice. But the artist chose, once again, amongvarious possibilities, according to the idea which he wished to stress.The simple scene of Mamas milking in Mosq. 146, f. 29V (fig. 5), recurs in amore developed form with the arrival of the soldier in Jerusalem Patriarch,taphou 14, f. 27 (fig. 104). In Paris, gr. 550, f. 30 (fig. 409), Mamas is praying,while in Oxford Bodleian. Roe 6, f. 18 (fig. 438), he stands beside his

52. Mosq. 146, f. 133V, 14 5 (fig. 12 , 13) ; Paris, gr . 550, f. 153, 166V (fig. 422, 423) ;Paris.gr. 543, f. 197\213V (fig. 464, 465).53. Oxford Bodleian. Seiden 54 , f. 62 , 67V (fig. 292, 293).


18/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 199martyrium. Are we to suppose that all the variant ways of representingMamas were present in the archetype ?

They would not have been the only scenes. Four manuscripts andonly four have also a representation of the Consecration scene andDoubting Thomas : Mosq. 146, f. 23 v, Taurin. C I 6, f. 16 and 18, Sinait. gr.339, f. 42 v, and Paris, gr. 543, f. 554. The explanation for the presenceof Doubting Thomas is the name attributed to the first Sunday after Easter :Thomas's Sunday. But it does not follow that, in the absence of a referenceto Thomas in Gregory's text, the artist was constrained to seek a modelfor representing Doubting Thomas in a lectionary. This is another exampleof a demotic scene in iconography which cannot easily be attachedto a particular genre whether of manuscript or of monumental art.Church and Synagogue occurs at least five times as an illustration tothis same homily, but in other manuscripts : Londin. Add. 24381, f. 2,Athos Panteleim. 6, f. 30, Coislin. 239, f. 22, Athos Dionys. 61, f. 17, andParis, gr. 550, f. 30v55. Here is yet another series of hard facts difficult toreconcile with a one redaction hypothesis.Two other homilies were chosen for a particular feast day : the FarewellOration for Gregory's own feast and the Homily to Gregory of Nyssa.The remaining three treat the theme of the gospel reading of the day :the Homily to Julian the Tax Collector, that to Gregory's Father and

that on the Love of the Poor. One might have expected in the case of thelast three that the subject would be taken from a lectionary. Howeverthis does not seem to have been the case. An obvious lectionary modelmust have been lacking for all these homilies. The artist, left to improvise,only sometimes produces an original resolution of the problem confrontingim.Often in fact, as in the case of the second homily on Baptism, the artistwas satisfied with a simple teaching scene which was sometimes conflated with the subject of the homily56. Before considering those miniatureswhich have a better claim to be original, there are two observationswhich should be made about Galavaris's use of these terms.There are a number of varieties of teaching scene 57. Sometimes the teacher stands facing a group of standing people. It is evident thathe is addressing them, because he makes a speaking gesture. A variation

54. G. Galavaris, op . cit., fig. 3, 4, 28, 29, 380, 457.55. Ibid., fig. 94 , 139, 195, 358, 407.56. Ibid., p. 27 .57. Iconographie des conciles (cf. note 33), p. 166-171 and 188-198.


19/31

200 CH. WALTERof this scene occurs when a group of orthodox bishops confronts a group ofheretics ; it then has the air of a disputatio58. Sometimes the teacher is seated with his pupils standing on one or both sides of him. Sometimesthe teacher is seated with disciples also seated on one or both sides ofhim. Sometimes in the first case the subject of the discourse is represented.Finally the teacher may be represented without an audience but indicating with his outstretched hand the subject of his discourse.All these variants occur in the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies.Is it possible to establish a difference in the signification of each variantof the teaching scene ? The standing speaker facing a group of standing eople derives from imperial iconography59. The scene originallywas an allocutio, the emperor haranguing his audience. The formula isused at Santa Maria Maggiore for Moses presenting the Law to the Israelites60. In the IXth century manuscript of Gregory's Homilies in the Arnbro-siana this is the usual way of presenting Gregory preaching, sometimes,as in the case of the Homily on the Maccabees, with the subject ofthe Homily represented too61. Normally, however, the artist wascontent to give the opening words of the homily inscribed on a rollin Gregory's hand. This formula recurs often in the liturgical selectionwith or without a representation of the subject. It serves, for example, asa frontispiece to Mosq. 14662, The preaching scene is set outside not insidethe church. Otherwise it recalls, in a more sophisticated form, the miniaturen page 4 of the Ambrosian Gregory63. The most impressive example,however, of the exploitation of this formula is in Paris, gr. 533 64. Here, asin the Ambrosian Gregory, each homily is accompanied by a representationof Gregory preaching, usually before an audience, sometimes with thesubject alone, sometimes with the subject and the audience. Althoughtwo miniatures in this manuscript belong to a tradition which may originatein a lectionary, the general emphasis is upon Gregory as a preacher or ateacher.

58. Iconographie des conciles (note 33), p. 256, 258.59. Cf. my article, Papal Political Imagery in the Medieval Lateran Palace, I, inCA 20 , 1970, p. 174.60. C. Cecchelli, / mosaici della basilica di S. Maria Maggiore, Turin 1956, p. 16 4and pi . 39.61. A. Grabar, Les miniatures du Grgoire de Nazianze de VAmbrosienne, Paris1943, p. 354, pi . 29.62. Mosq. 146, f. lv (G. Galavaris, op . cit., fig. 1).63. A. Grabar, op . cit. (note 61), pi . 2.64. G. Galavaris, op . cit., fig. 241-255.


20/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 201This point is underlined by the frontispiece illustration65. Gregory isrepresented seated with pupils, smaller in scale than he, standing on eitherside. This again is an iconographical formula which is situated in a long

tradition. Originating in Antique art, it was adapted for Early Christianfunerary art to represent a catechist with a neophyte66. It reappears inPsalter illustrations and in monumental representations of Pentecost foran Apostle and his converts67. It implies, therefore, the communicationof a superior w isdom, a gnosis, and remains in the Byzantine repertory torepresent a Doctor with his pupils.The Doctor seated upon a synthronos with his disciples either side ofhim is also an iconographical formula situated in a long tradition. It wasused for groups of sages in Antiquity and adapted for Christ and the Apostles. t reappears in the iconography of General Councils. It implies amuch closer relationship between the Doctor and his disciples than theother two. It is therefore not surprising that on each of the seven occasionswhen it is used to illustrate the liturgical selection of homilies the subjectis Gregory's farewell to the bishops at the Council of Constantinople68.

We find Gregory represented then in three capacities : preaching tothe people, instructing pupils, talking with his disciples. These, at least, arethe original meanings of the three formulae used. The artist was not necessarily conscious of the nuance of meaning in the first two cases. He must havebeen so, however, in the third case, although the Farewell address is illustrated in most manuscripts by the first or second formula. Whicheverformula he used it is clear that he thought of Gregory as a Theologos,an authority on spiritual doctrine69. This view is not contradicted butrather strengthened by the normal choice of frontispiece. The authorportrait, closely resembling the portrait of Evangelists and other sacred

65. Ibid., fig. 234. It would be worth while pushing this enquiry further by a detailedconsideration of the way in which Gregory is illustrated in each individual manuscript.66. A. Grabar, op . cit. note 32, p. 32, fig. 21 , 22.67. Iconographie des conciles (cf. note 33), p. 207 ; Sirarpie Der Nersessian, L'illustration des psautiers grecs du Moyen Age, II, Paris 1970, p. 22, fig. 34 , 35.68. Iconographie des conciles (cf. note 33), p. 197, 242. Jrusalem Patriarch, taphou 14 ,f. 247, Athos Panteleim. 6, f. 240v, Coislin, 239, f. 182, Laurent. VII 32 , f. 149, OxfordBodleian. Seiden 54 , f. 99 , Paris, gr . 550, f. 232 twice (fig. 119, 176, 231, 272, 296, 425,445).69. Gregory of Nazianzen is already given the title of Theologos in the tw o IXthcentury manuscripts, for example Paris, gr. 510, f. 67 v (H. Omont, Fac-simils des miniaturesdes plus anciens manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothque Nationale, Paris 1902, pi . 25 andp. 16) ; Ambros. 49-50, p. 65 (A. Grabar, op . cit. note 61, pi. 6).


21/31

202 CH. WALTERwriters situates Gregory relative to them70. It also situates this liturgical selection of homilies relative to other editions , where Gregory ispresented in the same way71.

Given, then, the fact that Gregory is conceived as a Theologos and thathis iconographical presentation in the liturgical selection has commonfeatures with that in the Ambrosian and Paris Gregory manuscripts, mightit not be argued that the artists did not in fact conceive this selection primarily as a liturgical book ? Headpiece miniatures referring directly tothe liturgical feast upon which the homily was appointed to be read aregenerally the result of an obvious choice. This choice may have already beenmade in earlier non-liturgical editions, since often the subject of Gregory's

70. The fact that the transmission of author portraits may be independent of thatof other miniature subjects (G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 19) does not prevent it from providing evidence as to the way that the author was conceived. Gregory is represented asa sacred writer in Paris, gr . 510, f. 424V (H. Omont, op . cit. note 69 , pi. 55 and p. 30).The close resemblance between Gregory's portrait and that of John the Evangelist is nodoubt to be explained by their common attribute of Theologos (H. Buchthal, Somenotes on Byzantine Hagiographical Portraiture, in Gazette des Beaux-Arts 61, 1963,p. 84). Galavaris suggests (p. 20) that the presence of water in the foreground of thefrontispiece of Princeton University Library 2, f. 0 (fig. 256), is evidence for the modelbeing a portrait of John the Evangelist. If this is water, perhaps an approximation withthe Sources of Wisdom iconography would be more exact. Galavaris s explanationwould have been more convincing had he adduced specific examples of John the Evangelist seated writing with water in the foreground. Normally when John is representedon the island of Patmos he is standing, while Prochoros is seated writing. Cf. besidesthe considerable documentation amassed by A. M. Friend in The Portraits of the Evangelists in Greek and Latin Manuscripts, Art Studies 5, Harvard 1927, p. 118-147, H. Buch-thal's article, A Byzantine Miniature of the Fourth Evangelist and its Relatives, inDOP 15, 1961, p. 129-139. One series of introductory miniatures, Paris, gr. 550, f. 3V,4and4v, calls for a more detailed analysis than Galavaris offers (p. 242 ; fig. 398, 399,400). Why a Crucifixion scene and why portraits of three other saints besides Gregory ?Possibly the explanation would be that this was only the first of a series of volumes ofwhich the complete set would include all the homilies prescribed for the liturgical year,including those by the doctors whose portraits occur on f. 4. If this explanation werecorrect then the bishop on the right would be Athanasius not Nicolas, unless one wereto suppose that these were random portraits of Doctors of the Church. The first tw ominiatures, f. 3V and f. 4, would then serve as frontispieces to the whole series of volumes,while the frontispiece properly speaking of the Gregory homilies contained in the firstvolume would be that on 4 v.71. For example, the unpublished miniature in Scorial. 431, ( 1 11), f. Vv , the frontispiece of a collection of 27 homilies by Gregory dating from the Xth or Xlth century.The folio is of purple vellum. The portrait has a gold background. Gregory is seated,a codex on his knees, writing. Before him is a table upon which are ink, pens, etc. (G. deAndres, Catalogo de los codices griegos de la real biblioteca de El Escortai, III, Madrid1967, p. 15). This miniature, since it is only slightly earlier than the first surviving illustrated liturgical selection of the homilies, offers clear evidence for a current notion ofGregory as primarily a sacred writer.


22/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 203homilies is itself liturgical. Pentecost and the Maccabees figure in Paris,gr. 51072, the Maccabees in the IXth century Ambrosian manuscript73.Two possibilities may therefore be considered to explain the artist'schoice when the feast itself did not offer an evident subject : either he borrowed from a non-liturgical edition, or he improvised or invented with the arrire-pense that this was a book of doctrine. Quite certainlyhe did not transpose directly from a lectionary or Gospel book an illustrationelevant to the text which the homily was commenting.

So much for my first preliminary observation. The second which I wishto make before turning to the invented miniatures is rather shorter.It concerns the use made by Galavaris of the word conflation . As wehave seen, Weitzmann transposed this term from the study of texts tothat of miniatures74. He means by conflation the combination in oneminiature of two scenes which were originally distinct. He exemplifiesconflation by a miniature, cited above, in Vatoped. 760. Further exemplification ay be useful. In coronation scenes one sometimes finds that theunction of the emperor and the ceremony of raising him on a shield havebeen combined in one scene75. Weitzmann also uses the term conflationto explain the presence in a single miniature of the Dionysiou Lectionary{cod. 587, f. 148V) of the Invention of the Head of John the Baptist and theTranslation of the Relic76.Let us now consider these examples of conflated miniatures as groupsof signs rather than as compositions. Transposing into iconography theterms used in linguistics, is the relationship between the component partssyntagmatic or systematic77 ? That is to say, are they related as forming acontinuum or are they related by association ? If two signs serve principallyto make up a continuous message, then it does not seem valuable to callthe miniature in which they are found together conflated. The extensionof the term becomes too great and ultimately it could be applied to anyminiature combining elements from different models in order to constructa message. It might therefore be better to restrict the term conflation to

72. Paris, gr. 510, f. 340 (H. Omont, op . cit. note 69 , pi. 48, p. 27).73. Cf . supra note 61.74. Cf . supra p. 187.75. K. Weitzmann, op . cit. note 11 , p. 178-180.76. K. Weitzmann, art. cit. note 48, p. 244 and fig. 3. Cf. also Vatican, gr. 1613,p. 420 (// Menologio di Basilio II, edited by C. Stornajolo, Vatican/Milan 1907). Iwonder if Professor Weitzmann is right in supposing tw o scenes to be combined here.Might this not be the official recognition of the relic ?77. This is the terminology proposed by Barthes for semiological studies. Cf. art.cit. note 31, p. 132.


23/31

204 CH. WALTERcases where either there is an anomaly because the artist has united in oneminiature two which are disparate or reduplicative, or there is only acommon link between the parts because both are relevant to the text to beillustrated. In some cases it may not be possible to be sure whether a miniature s conflated. For example in the John the Baptist miniature citedabove are the Invention and Procession related by their relevance to thesubject (systematically) or by their juxtaposition in a continuous narrative(syntagmatically) ?In the restricted sense which I propose it would be correct to call theminiature illustrating the New Sunday homily in Athos Dionys. 61, f. 17(fig. 358) conflated. There occur in the same miniature two subjects whoseonly common association is that both are relevant to the homily in question :Church and Synagogue and a person rendering cult to Saint Mamas. Butto my mind it is not meaningful to use this term, as Galavaris does, eachtime that Gregory teaching is combined in the same scene with the subjectof the homily. This iconographical formula, already to be found in theAmbrosian Gregory, is syntagmatic not systematic78. We have here nottwo distinct iconographical traditions associated by their relevance to thesubject of the homily but a continuous message : the teacher explains tohis audience the mystery of Easter, Pentecost, etc.The invented miniatures are, according to the criteria first advancedby Galavaris, those for which the homily which they accompany is sufficiently explicit to account for the details79. But, as he explains earlier onthe same page, the distinction between an invented and a migrated miniature s not rigid. On a later page he further qualifies this statement bysaying that occasionally an invented miniature may have no textual basis atall80. It is evident that a categorisation of miniatures as invented and migrated poses considerable difficulties, partly no doubt because, as I havehinted earlier, there is no direct antithesis between the two categories.Some miniatures were certainly directly copied on an established model ;others are, so far as one can know, an original invention. There are alsomany miniatures which adapt existing ones, possibly introducing new details.Strictly therefore one cannot categorise them as either migrated or invented.It seems to me that the majority of the miniatures which Galavariscalls invented are in fact adapted. I do not intend to follow out this supposition in detail but to give one or two examples, in order to substantiate

78. Maccabees, cf. supra note 61.79. G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 18 .80. Ibid., p. 37.


24/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 205my view. Galavaris classifies the burial scenes illustrating the homilieson Basil and Athanasius, together with that on Cyprian in Taurin. C I 6,f. 37 v, as invented 81. However this is a well established iconographicalformula dating back to Antiquity, which was used in both the IXth centuryGregory manuscripts. There are a number of possible variants in the details :the number and attitude of the mourners, the position occupied by Gregory, the presence or absence of angels carrying away the soul of thedead person. We have here, then, a series of adaptations rather than anewly invented scene.In Paris, gr. 550, f. 204, Gregory of Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssaare twice represented embracing each other82. Galavaris calls this an ecstaticmeeting modelled upon a meeting of Saints Peter and Paul, such as occursin the Turin codex (f. 82V, fig. 56). He gives, however, no extrinsic reasonfor his identification of the scene which is represented in an initial ; thephotograph alone does not, in the present state of the miniature, offergrounds for following Galavaris with confidence. This scene would, hemaintains, have migrated from an illustrated manuscript of the Actsof Peter and Paul No such manuscript has survived. Its existence, nevertheless, cannot be doubted , maintains Galavaris.Personally I do not think that Galavaris provides sufficient evidenceto justify this statement. Moreover the gesture in question can be adequatelyxplained without recourse to such a hypothesis. The accolade appearsin imperial iconography. The best known example is perhaps the porphyrystatue now built into the fabric in Saint Mark's, Venice. The same formulais used for the Visitation83. We are here confronted, then, with an estab-

81. Ibid., p. 41, 46-52, 59-60. In the second funeral scene of Paris, gr. 543, f. 130vand 260v (fig. 46 1 and 466), it is most unlikely that Gregory is preaching before an emptytomb. He is preaching rather over the tomb in which the body of the saint has alreadybeen deposed. Byzantine miniaturists give a darker colour to the interior of a tomb, whichis certainly not the case in these miniatures. Cf. in Gregory manuscripts Londin. Add.24381, f. 2 and Paris, gr. 543, f. 27V (fig. 94 and 455) ; also the Burial of John the Baptistin Paris, gr. 74, f. 76 {art. cit. note 39 , p. 208 and fig. 9). For the portrait of Gregory ofNyssa (cf. ibid., p. 47 , note 71) it should be observed that there is not, as for his brotherBasil, a single consistent tradition. He may indeed be given his brother's features. Agood example of this is the still unpublished mosaic portrait in the funerary chapel ofthe Pammakaristos, Constantinople. Cf . A. H. S. Megaw, Recent Work of the Byzantin enstitute in Istanbul, in DOP 17, 1963, p. 367.82. G. Galavaris, op . cit., fig. 416, 42 1 ; p. 56-57.83. H. Peirce and P. Tyler, Vart byzantin, I, Paris 1932, p. 33-34 and pi . 2, 3 ; cf.pi . 5. Cf. also the illustration of the month of January in the calendar at Thysdrus (Tunisia) ublished by H. Stern (Un calendrier romain illustr de Thysdrus, in Atti dliaAccademia Nazionale dei Lincei 365, 1968, p. 17 9 and pi . Ill fig. 1).


25/31

206 CH. WALTERlished iconographical formula. Its adaptation to a meeting between thetwo Gregories can therefore hardly be classified as an invented miniature.

In a section concerning supplementary miniatures Galavaris discussesa series of illustrations invented to accompany the Homily on Basil inAthos Panteleim. 6 and Coislin. 239 84. These scenes correspond closelyto Gregory's text ; they are an excellent example of the transposition ofa textual theme into the language of iconography. But again all theformulae used are part of the stock in trade of pictorial hagiography.Exile, healing a sick person, judgment scenes, these have their establishedsign language with which the artist was evidently familiar.Are there, then, no invented scenes ? It seems to me that beforea scene can be meaningfully qualified as original, one must establish notonly that its content as a sign message is unusual but also that there areelements of composition which give the scene a particular aesthetic value.Such a scene would perhaps be that in Paris, gr. 550, f. 279 (fig. 427). Theminiature takes up exactly the theme of the sixteenth homily to Gregory'sfather who kept silent about the plague of hail . The scene is disposedin a quatrefoil. Gregory's father is seated to the left, his hand upon hismouth as a sign of silence. To the right stands a group of people uponwhom the hail is falling. In the centre is Gregory of Nazianzen dressed asa bishop, his arms crossed. Below stands another group of people, thefirst of whom has his arms outstretched in a gesture of supplication. Inno other miniature illustrating the sermon is the subject so fully elaborated. or a representation of a plague of hail one has to turn back to thecrude illustration in Paris, gr. 510, f. 78 85.

This scene being unique, although containing traditional elements, itis of no great help in establishing the relationship between the illuminatedmanuscripts containing the liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies.The Consecration of an altar is perhaps more helpful. We find it ina fully elaborated composition in Paris, gr. 543, f. 51 v (fig. 457). But ithad already appeared as a marginal illustration in Mosq. 146, f. 23 v (fig. 4),Taurin. C I 6, f. 16 (fig. 28), and Sinait. gr. 339, f. 42V (fig. 380). This sceneoffers a basis for establishing a small group of manuscripts which must berelated since it is found nowhere else. Other scenes in this group of manuscripts resemble each other extremely closely. I have already pointed out

84. G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 127-130, fig. 153, 157-161, 222-227.85. H. Omont, op . cit. note 66, pi. 29.


26/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 207that only these four include a representation of Doubting Thomas86.Although the six scenes are not always disposed in the same fashion, eachmanuscript has the same iconography for the martyrdom of the Maccabees87. The same is true for the scene of Julian the Moneychanger : Mosq.146, f. 61 v (fig. 9), Taurin. C 1 6, f. 47 (fig. 46), Sinait. gr. 339, f. 73 v (fig. 383)and Paris, gr. 543, f. 102v (fig. 460.) Other miniatures occur in an almostidentical form in two or more of the four manuscripts. Mamas milking :Mosq. 146, f. 29 (fig. 5) and Sinait. gr. 339, f. 53 (fig. 381). Martyrdom ofCyprian : Mosq. 146, f. 50v (fig. 8), Sinait. gr. 339, f. 397 (fig. 397) andParis, gr. 543, f. 87V (fig. 459). Cult of an ikon of the Virgin : Sinait. gr.339, f. 91 v (fig. 385) and Paris, gr. 543, f. 117V (fig. 463).

It is consequently sure that the illustrators of the Turin, Paris and Sinamanuscripts knew the Moscow manuscript or one closely resembling it.However they are not uniquely dependent on this model ; each drawson other sources and the highly talented artists responsible for the Sinaand Paris manuscripts adapt and compose with considerable freedom.One further detail recurs in two of these manuscripts. In the scene ofthe Baptism of Christ two angels holding cloths swoop down over Christ'shead. The presence of angels with cloths is frequent in Baptism scenes,but normally they stand on one bank of the Jordan. I do not know, outsidethe Gregory manuscripts, of any other example of swooping angels in aBaptism scene. This way of disposing the angels recalls rather a Dormition

or a Coronation. In Mosq. 146, f. 133V (fig. 12), the Baptism scene appearsin the margin beside the title of the homily. In Sinait. gr. 339, f. 217 (fig.393), it appears as an initial Chi. It appears also in this form in a numberof other Gregory manuscripts which do not have any other special resemblance with the others : Istanbul Patriarch. 16, f. 156V (fig. 72) ; Vatican,gr. 463, f. 127 (fig. 83) ; Sinait. gr. 346, f. 123 (fig. 348) ; Paris, gr. 550,f. 166V (fig. 423). Whenever this scene has the form of an initial, it accompanies the Homily on Baptism, of which the first word is 88. But in theMoscow manuscript the scene accompanies the Epiphany homily, of whichthe first word, in any case, does not begin with a Chi. Where would thisoriginal disposition of the angels in a Baptism scene have first been used ?

86. Cf . supra p. 199.87. It is perhaps a little temerarious to say that illustrated Books of the Maccabeescertainly existed in the East (G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 112). The apocryphal fourth Book,to be assimilated to Acts of the Martyrs, would have been illustrated at least as part ofa menologion. For the sources of illustration of the canonical books cf. H. Stern, Quelques problmes d'iconographie palochrtienne et juive, in CA 12, 1962, p. 99-113.88. PG 36 , 360.


27/31

208 CH. WALTEROn compositional grounds it would seem more likely that it was first usedfor an initial letter. Are we then to suppose that the initial letter formulawas copied from one manuscript to another ? It does not seem to me asufficiently strong argument on which to base a manuscript traditionwithout supporting elements. Perhaps a structuralist hypothesis ismore plausible. Artists obliged to render a Baptism scene in the form of aletter Chi would tend to respond to the challenge in the same way. Thisexplanation is supported by the fact that swooping angels form the upperbranches of the letter Chi in other initial-scenes, in one where they arecarrying an imago clipeata portrait of Christ : Taurin. C I 6, f. 55V (fig. 48),and in a Nativity : Sinait. gr. 346, f. 51 (fig. 346). The absence of this disposition of angels in Baptism scenes outside Gregory manuscripts is readilyexplained by the fact that only for the initial letter of Gregory's Homilyon Baptism was such a disposition necessary.Certain absences are also a common element in the four manuscriptsmentioned above. In none of them, for example, is Gregory's FarewellHomily illustrated by a picture of him seated with bis fellow bishops ona synthronos89. On the other hand the manuscripts in which this formulais used do not seem to have other close points of resemblance ; moreoverthey use the syihronos motif with considerable versatility.

The principal questions which I wished to raise in this article were thefollowing : whether it is necessary to postulate a lectionary or other liturgical model in order to explain the miniatures in the Gregory homiliesappointed to be read on certain feasts, and whether this liturgical edition of Gregory's homilies stems from a single archetype. I have triedto demonstrate that the case in favour of a lectionary model for scenestaken from the New Testament is not a strong one, and that the case fora single archetype is very weak indeed.But I wish to go further than this. It seems to me that in studying theillustrations of a coherent group of manuscripts these are not the essentialquestions, and that the methodology which Galavaris has used in his attemptto answer them is ill adapted to his task. I do not, of course, call in questionthe value of this methodology for answering specific questions. For exampleit would be extremely useful for explaining more precisely the relationshipbetween the manuscripts for which a posteriori it is possible to demonstrate close resemblance : Mosq. 146, Taurin. C I 6, Sinait. gr. 339 andParis, gr. 543. But this group of manuscripts, while certainly constitu-

89. Cf . supra p. 201.


28/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 209ting a tradition, cannot be used as a basis for establishing an archetype,although, as I have shown above, there is evidence for supposing thatTaurin. C I 6 is based, at least in part, on another illuminated Gregorymanuscript no longer extant, since the miniature in this manuscript whichaccompanies the Cyprian homily is in all probability copied from an unknown miniature illustrating a Basil homily90. My reason for rejectingGalavaris's theory is that the illustration of other manuscripts is so disparate and eclectic that it provides no grounds for supposing that an archetype xisted common both to them and to the closely related group.

In one case it is perhaps even arguable that the artist had seen no otherillustrated selection of Gregory's homilies. I refer to Oxford Bodleian. Roe691. Its style, difficult however to judge in its present rubbed condition,suggests a provenance far from the capital. Each of the scenes can be explained without recourse to other Gregory liturgical manuscripts. Generallyan extremely simple formula is used : for the homilies to be read on a greatfeast the appropriate biblical scene ; for the rest either a portrait taken nodoubt from a Menologion, or a teaching scene possibly taken from thefull edition of the homilies. The simplicity of the choice and executionsuggests strongly that either the Oxford manuscript is a copy of a veryprimitive version of the liturgical edition or that the artist made his ownchoice without reference to other versions.The study of Byzantine illuminations must, to my mind, begin empirically. The kind of generalisation which one may make about them canthen be controlled by analogies from other disciplines. If I insist particularlyhere upon the use of semiology, it is because Byzantine art seems to haveconventions implicit and explicit, analogous to those of language, such thatartists tend to express the same idea in similar terms. But their choiceand adaptation of models shows considerable liberty, too much libertyin fact to allow of this iconographical tradition being transposed andreformulated as a textual tradition.While it is possible to exaggerate the resemblances between languageand iconography and to lapse into an esoteric jargon which is irrelevantto the study, semiology has this advantage, if it is properly used, that itrespects the autonomy of the individual message or work of art. Each

90. Cf . supra p. 197-198.91. G. Galavaris, op . cit., p. 233-235, fig. 435-450. In tw o cases the artist uses apicture which does not occur in any other Gregory manuscript : Mamas is representedstanding by his martyrium (f. 18, fig. 438) ; a group of martyrs without any other personillustrates the Julian homily (f. 103v, fig. 443). Doubtless both scenes are based upon aMenologion model.


29/31

210 CH. WALTERminiature is a parole, and if it is possible to reconstitute the iconographicallanguage common to Byzantine artists, it yet remains true that the individual artist was at liberty if he wished to compose his own message. Itrequires demonstration that for each genre of manuscript a full series of messages was constructed once for all and that subsequent artistsmerely selected from a pre-established corpus of miniatures. Once againit seems necessary to insist upon the relative liberty within his tradition ofthe individual artist ; he was a human being with a mind and a will. Healso might have considerable aesthetic skill such that some of the Gregorymanuscripts, particularly Jerusalem Patriarch, taphou 14, Sinait. gr. 339,Paris, gr. 550 and Paris, gr. 543 bear comparison with the illuminations ofany age or culture.

It would be invidious to criticize Dr Galavaris's theories without puttingforward a theory of my own, which is, no doubt, equally open to criticism.I think that my view of these manuscripts is in line with Professor Weitz-mann's thought. He has stressed on many occasions the conservatism ofByzantine miniature painters. They tended to carry over into the newgenre or medium practices which they had used in the old one. Unfortunatelye do not know very much about the way that full collections ofGregory's homilies were illustrated. However we are not obliged to postulate as a pure hypothesis that such collections did exist, for there is awitness, the IXth century Milan manuscript Ambros. 49-50, which has beenillustrated according to a definite plan92. Most of the homilies if not allare accompanied by a representation of Gregory preaching or teaching,sometimes together with the subject of the homily. Called upon to illustratea selection from these homilies, Byzantine artists carried over into the newedition the principles of illustration already applied in the old one. This iscertainly true in the case of the artist who illustrated Paris, gr. 533. It isalso true to a greater or lesser degree with most artists when illustrating ahomily whose subject was only indirectly connected with the feast forwhich it was to be used, or whose subject, as in the case of baptism, hadbeen illustrated already.The liturgical selection of Gregory's homilies is therefore, artisticallyspeaking, an adaptation of the full edition. The artist presents each homilyas forming part of the doctrinal writings, of the lessons and wisdom of

92. Ed. cit. note 61. Paris, gr. 510 presents special problems mostly irrelevant to thepresent study. Cf. Sirarpie Der Nersessian, The Illustrations of the Homilies of SaintGregory of Nazianzus, Paris, gr. 510. A Study of the Connection between Text andImages, in DOP 16 , 1962, p. 195-228.


30/31

THE ILLUSTRATION OF GREGORY OF NAZIANZEN'S HOMILIES 211a Theologos. His model may well be, particularly in the case of a scenebelonging to the demotic tradition, a representation found elsewherethan in another Gregory manuscript. This model could have been an illustrated lectionary. At present this can neither be proved nor disproved.But equally it does not seem necessary to prove this plausible but subsidiaryhypothesis.Liturgical influence is rather to be sought elsewhere. Professor Weitz-mann has called attention to new scenes invented in the Xlth centurywhich were theological rather than narrative93. Some of these scenes mightwell be described as messages such as the example, which Weitzmannquotes, from the Dionysiou Lectionary illustrating John 1, 18. Others,having more the nature of a composition, are taken from ceremonies.This type of scene existed, of course, already. There are several examples inParis, gr. 510. But they gained increasingly in popularity, Weitzmann tellsus, in the Xlth century and replaced already existing narrative scenes. Heexemplifies this statement by miniatures illustrating the feast of the Elevation f the Cross.My own view is that ceremony is the principal source of innovations inthe iconography of any culture which stresses the significative rather thanthe aesthetic possibilities of art. Byzantine artists were content at first touse adaptations to Christian needs of the ceremonial language of the imperialourt. Only gradually did they introduce into their repertoire scenessuch as baptisms, ordinations and funerals having an evident relationshipith actual liturgical ceremonies. But from the late Xlth centuryonwards liturgical influence becomes increasingly marked, whether becausenew subjects are introduced portraying liturgical ceremonies or becauseexisting subjects acquire a liturgical air. In monumental art these changes areparticularly evident in apse programmes94. Bishops, who had previouslybeen represented in static portraits, are now galvanised into action. Theyjoin in converging processions.

This liturgical development, general in the Byzantine art of the period,has left traces in the Gregory manuscripts. But it must be admitted that theyare slight. The most striking is that to which I have already referred : theConsecration of an altar95. Occasionally a representation of Baptismconforms more closely to a liturgical ceremony than to the traditional Jor-

93. K. Weitzmann, art. cit. note 1, p. 218.94. Suzy Dufrenne, Les programmes iconographiques des glises byzantines de Mistra,Paris 1970, p. 49-54.95. Cf. supra p. 206.


31/31

212 CH. WALTERdan scene96. The Death of Basil, Athanasius or Cyprian may have itsliturgical aspect brought into evidence by the presence of a baldachin,tapers and thurible97. To these may be added two representations of thecult of an ikon98 and a third of Gregory and Cyprian apparently holdinga thurible in Ambros. gr. 416, f. 73 (fig. 306). Finally there is a curiousinitial in Taurin. C I 6, f. 88V (fig. 58), which Galavaris calls a liturgicalscene without further precision. A deacon is carrying a chalice into whichapparently Christ is diving. The whole makes up the Greek letter Ro ;it is certainly worthy of a more developed explanation but without knowingwhat passage of the text is illustrated it would be hazardous to suggest one.The sum total of explicitly liturgical scenes in this liturgical selectionof homilies is possibly disappointing, but is it surprising given the naturalconservatism of artists at Byzantium ?

96. Ambr. gr. 416, f. 176V (fig. 311), and Paris, gr. 550, f. 34V (fig. 408). But liturgicalinfluence is more obvious in a manuscript like the Psalter Vatican, gr . 752, where Christhimself is represented baptizing a Hebrew in a font (f. 29 ) ; cf. The Illustrations in theManuscripts of the Septuagint, III, Psalms and Odes, 2, Vaticanus graecus 752, edited byE. T. De Wald, Princeton 1952, p. 9 and pi . 17.97. Cf. supra p. 197-198.98. Cf. supra p. 207.

** The second printing of K. Weitzmann's Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton1970) only came into my hands when this article was in proof. The author, seeing noreason to change any of the basic tenets of the methodological discussion concerningthe relation of picture and text, has republished the book in its original form (p. vii). TheAddenda (p. 225-261) include a critical list of the reviews of the first printing (p. 225-232),and much important bibliographical information.

Documents

Christopher Walter. Liturgy and the Illustration of Gregory of Nazianzen's Homilies. An Essay in Iconographical Methodology. Revue des études byzantines, tome 29, 1971. pp. 183-212