The Stuttgart Casket

The Stuttgart Casket and the Permeability of the Byzantine Artistic TraditionAuthor(s): John HansonReviewed work(s):Source: Gesta, Vol. 37, No. 1 (1998), pp. 13-25Published by: International Center of Medieval ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/767209 .Accessed: 21/03/2012 08:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Center of Medieval Art is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toGesta.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=icma

http://www.jstor.org/stable/767209?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

The Stuttgart Casket and the Permeability of the Byzantine Artistic Tradition*

JOHN HANSON Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Abstract

The Byzantine ivory casket in Stuttgart is an anomaly among Byzantine caskets in style, iconography, design, and technique. Here, it is argued that its unusual aspects accrued from western influence. The argument is broadened to a large group of ivories, formerly charac- terized as Italo-Byzantine, to suggest that they form a development in Byzantine ivory carving parallel to Ro- manesque ivory carving in the west.

Very few Byzantine ivory caskets eluded publication in the first volume of Adolf Goldschmidt's and Kurt Weitz- mann's corpus of 1930.1 The few that came to light before the appearance of the second volume were appended at the end of that catalogue, with the exception of one in Stuttgart, which was placed among the reliefs to which it bore the greatest stylistic resemblance (Figs. 1, 3-6).2 The casual reader glanc- ing through the illustrations of the corpus would be forgiven for not noticing that this is a casket, as it is quite broad and flat, and could appear to be a relief icon. This is just one of many peculiarities of the piece that make it worthy of spe- cial attention. Discussion of the casket so far, most recently by Klaus Wessel, has focussed on its date, calling it to wit- ness in the debate over the chronology of Byzantine ivories.3 The pages that follow here offer observations which have implications, not so much for the proposed revision of the chronology as for other important issues involving Byzantine ivories, not least the supposed autonomy of the Byzantine artistic tradition.

The exceptional nature of the Stuttgart casket can be il- lustrated in a number of ways. One is that it is the only extant Byzantine ivory casket decorated with New Testament narratives.4 They include the Ascension on the lid (Fig. 1) and the Anastasis on the right long side (Fig. 3). Both the figures and the inscriptions on the two short sides were razed at some point, but the traces of inscriptions that remain make it clear that these sides once bore reliefs of the Crucifixion and the Myrophores (Figs. 4, 6).5 The left long side depicts five standing prophets, including Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and King David (Fig. 5).6 None of the Christological themes is un- known in Byzantine ivory carving, but they appear only on relief icons, and never on caskets.7 By contrast, there are twenty-six caskets or fragments of caskets in the Byzantine ivory corpus decorated with Old Testament narratives. This

preference for Old Testament narratives on caskets is specifically Byzantine. Among western ivory caskets, there are

many reliefs depicting narratives from the New Testament, or from saints' lives, but only one with an Old Testament narrative.8 The unique appearance of New Testament narratives on the Stuttgart casket, then, is one exceptional aspect which demands attention.

The design of the casket, as already noted, is also unique. The vast majority of Byzantine caskets falls into one of two categories of design. One is a rectangular box with a hinged lid in the form of a truncated pyramid, an example of which is a mythological casket now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (Fig. 7).9 The other is also a rectangular box, but with a flat, sliding lid, like the famous Veroli casket in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London. These two designs account for forty-eight of the fifty-five caskets catalogued by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann. The Stuttgart casket, with its broad, flat, hinged lid and shallow walls is a peculiar design indeed.10

The Stuttgart casket's decorative scheme is likewise idiosyncratic. The large, rectangular relief field of the lid, devised vertically after the fashion of ivory icons, and taken up entirely by a single image, is not to be found on any other Byzantine casket. The long, frieze-like strips that make up the imagery of the sides are also unusual. The most common arrangement for figural reliefs on caskets is that adopted for the mythological casket in New York, a series of small plaques separated by the familiar bands of carved rosettes (Fig. 7). This is not to say that the continuous frieze was never used, as there are examples, the most famous being the long friezes of the Veroli casket, not only on its sides, but also on its lid. This is an exceptional format, however, and one that, in the case of the Stuttgart casket, demanded a high degree of pre- cision in the carving of details, as the figures are necessarily so tiny, just over two cm tall, as compared to the figures on the Veroli casket, which are approximately five cm tall. The carver of the Stuttgart casket, just as much as the carver of the Veroli casket, has coped with the difficulty of the unusually restricted headroom without any loss of detail.

The iconography of the Anastasis, although it is clearly based on the Byzantine formula, is slightly irregular. The format of the plaque, of course, dictated some adaptation of the usual composition, for example, by filling in the long flanks of the central figures with multiple dead rising from sarcophagi.11 The one inexplicable aspect of the iconography is the absence of Eve. It may be that she is the figure immediately to Adam's right, but even in this case, it would be

GESTA XXXVII/1 ? The International Center of Medieval Art 1998 13

..........

*X ... ... mo.

........ ... . . .. .....

Own

N?i

ag

RM

'NK; Nk 100 :j:jxx?:

. . . ........ gsx RF?

fa . ... ...... 1P

4.4 gm,

'2

FIGURE 1. Stuttgart, Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum, ivory casket, lid, detail of Ascension (photo: Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum).

very irregular for her to be coupled, not with Adam, but with the unidentified figure to her right. These irregularities are not enough to remove the image from the Byzantine tradition, and may be explained to some extent by the problems posed by the unaccustomed oblong format.

The one irregularity of the casket which has drawn the most attention from scholars is its unusual style. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann focussed on the classicizing aspects of the style, a description easily justified with reference to the hu- man figures, which are depicted with an interesting diversity of gestures, turning freely in space, and seen from a variety of angles. The apostle second from the left in the bottom row of the Ascension exemplifies this ease of movement to such an extent that Weitzmann compared him to an ancient depiction of a dancing maenad.12 The prophets on the left long side also illustrate this classical approach to motion, each one being posed in a slightly different way, but all carefully bal- anced. The drapery, modelled in three dimensions, works not only to define the solid forms of the body beneath, but also to

Old

........ .. log

All .7 r.77:

wrx

........ ... . . . . . .

..... . ..... . . . ...

"Alf,

I? I INS

. .... ...... .. ..................

----------

FIGURE 2. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, ivory plaque, Ascension (photo: Kunsthistorisches Museum).

enhance the impression of movement, as seen, for example, in the fluttering mantles of the angels in the Ascension, or the folds falling from the outstretched arms of the rising dead. This conspicuous sort of classicism, especially in the cases of the friezes on the sides, makes the reliefs resemble certain early Christian ivories, such as the Brescia casket.13 The style was readily associated by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann and others with such classicizing works as the Romanos and Eudokia plaque and the Veroli casket, and dated accordingly to the so-called renaissance of the mid-tenth century. Although the degree of classicism fit as well with the Romanos group, according to the taxonomy of the corpus, as with the Pic- torial group, Goldschmidt and Weitzmann placed the casket among the second group, not because of a general similarity in style, but because they saw the depiction of the ground as an undulating line as a device drawn from painted rather than plastic models, and because of the extensive undercutting. The only other reservations expressed by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann and their followers concerning the style is that

14

Q- KOK

441

FIGURES 3, 4. Stuttgart casket, long side, Anastasis; short side, Crucifixion (erased) (photos: Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum).

PAA

FIGURES 5, 6. Stuttgart casket, long side, five prophets; short side, Myrophores (erased) (photos: Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum).

the elongation of the figures, especially those on the lid, and their exaggerated gestures indicate a sort of mannerism which would be inconsistent with the traditional understanding of the tenth-century renaissance. For this reason, David Talbot- Rice and John Beckwith both preferred dates in the eleventh century, a view to which Weitzmann was eventually at- tracted.14 Such, then, is the list of peculiarities that make the Stuttgart casket an anomaly in the corpus of Byzantine ivory carvings.

One of the first steps toward solving the puzzle of the casket's art historical position must be to pick up a piece that was first noticed by Goldschmidt, but which was as quickly discarded, namely the extremely close similarity of the composition of the Ascension to a tenth-century ivory of western origin now in the Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum (Fig. 2).15 The same composition was used by the eleventh-century artist of a plaque in Cologne.16 The characteristic components of the composition-the arrangement of the apostles in two rows, the turning of the Virgin to one side, and many of the specific gestures of the apostles-are also found on a large number of western plaques in the Goldschmidt corpus.17 The upper half of both the Vienna and the Cologne plaques follows the usual western tradition of showing Christ being pulled up to heaven by the hand of God, as angels speak to the gathered disciples. There is no similarity here to the

Stuttgart Ascension, which follows the Byzantine tradition of depicting Christ enthroned on the arc of heaven, enclosed in a mandorla being raised by two angels. The gestures of the spectators, though, bear an almost one-to-one correspondence with those on the Vienna plaque. In both cases, Mary faces right with outstretched hands. In both cases, the same two apostles (top row, second from left, and third from right) point at the miracle. The twisting apostle (bottom row, second from left in both cases) turns away from the viewer in the same movement, covering his head while looking up at the miracle. The one immediately to the right of this figure turns to him and holds up his right hand in a gesture of speech. The same apostle in both cases (top row, second from right) looks up and raises his right hand as if shielding his eyes from the light. There are even close similarities in such fine details as draperies, for example on the two apostles, top and bottom row, at the extreme left. There are also some divergences. The apostle at the far right in the bottom row of the Stuttgart relief looks up toward heaven, holding his hand to his chin, while the corresponding figure on the Vienna relief buries his face in his right hand. Such divergences led Goldschmidt and Weitzmann and others to dismiss the possibility of direct copy- ing.18 Be that as it may, the formidable degree of similarity in these two compositions clearly argues against the supposi- tion that they are completely independent designs.19 The near

15

jr i? 4t?

FIGURE 7. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, ivory casket (photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art).

identity of the compositions suggests that the best understanding of the Stuttgart casket is to be gained by trying to understand its relatedness to the western composition, rather than by constructing a framework to accommodate the possibility of its unrelatedness.

The explanation favored so far has been that the Vienna ivory must have been copied from the casket, or at least, that the Byzantine ivory introduced the composition to the west. Thus, the Vienna plaque has been seen as a terminus ante quem for the Stuttgart casket, and the casket, with its proposed tenth-century date, as the terminus post quem for the Vienna plaque. One of the effects of this assumption has been to inflate the date of the Vienna plaque.20 Conceived in this way, the relationship also renders it impossible to date the Stuttgart casket later than the tenth century. Is it necessary to accept it as a given that the Vienna composition is derived from the Byzantine casket?

Is it not a far more natural option to propose that the Stuttgart Ascension derives from a western source, the Vienna plaque or another Ascension image using the same composition? This option has not been explored in the literature, as the prevailing understanding of the relationship between the Byzantine and western artistic traditions is that of teacher to student.21 Close resemblances between Byzantine and western objects are nearly always explained by suggesting that the western object depends on a Byzantine model. Thus, when

Goldschmidt and Weitzmann observed the same composition for the Expulsion of Adam and Eve on a fragment of a Byz- antine casket in Pesaro and on the bronze doors of the cathe- dral of Monreale cast by Bonnanus of Pisa ca. 1186, they saw the Italian work as providing the terminus ante quem for the Byzantine plaque.22 That no justification was offered for con- struing the relationship in this direction shows how ingrained has been the idea of a one-way influence in medieval art. Any suggestion of western influence upon a Byzantine object runs abruptly against this preconception. Nevertheless, aspects of the Stuttgart casket bring to bear sufficient pressure on this doctrine to suggest that it may not apply in this case.

One aspect already mentioned is the use of New Testa- ment themes. This alone suggests the incursion of western conventions. A similar kind of analysis could be applied to the three extant Byzantine caskets decorated with Christ and the saints.23 Like the New Testament cycle of the Stuttgart casket, the theme of Christ and the saints is unusual among Byzantine caskets, but more common among western caskets and portatili from the mid-eleventh to the mid-thirteenth centuries.24

Another consideration is that the reliefs of the Stuttgart casket use an undulating groundline throughout. In the case of the Anastasis and prophets friezes, the groundline takes a naturalistic, organic shape, swelling slightly beneath each figure. On the lid, the groundline on which the front row of apostles stands is a more or less straight line running at a slight angle to the line of the frame, but it is decorated beneath this level with an undulating line, imitating the edge of a cliff. The Virgin stands on a separate rocky pedestal which elevates her to a level between the two rows of apostles. Groundlines defined by these sorts of motifs are the exception in Byzantine art.25 In almost all figured ivory reliefs, the figures stand directly on the lower frame. The cases in which the earth is depicted in any form are mostly Cruci- fixions and Transfigurations, in which it takes the form of a conventionalized rocky hill, serving iconographic rather than stylistic ends, as attributes of Golgotha or Mount Tabor.26

Certainly, holy figures represented outside any narrative context always stand on the lower frame, against the neutral backdrop of the relief field, and never on any sort of repre- sentation of earth, as David and the prophets do on the Stutt- gart casket. This motif is part of the casket's style, another aspect which distinguishes it from traditional Byzantine ap- proaches to ivory carving.

The setting of figures in a landscape was, by contrast, the preferred procedure for western ivory carvers, and the specific device of the undulating groundline was frequently used. Along with animated gestures, it is characteristic of manuscripts of the Reims school, such as the Utrecht Psalter. The same style appears in a group of Carolingian ivories labeled by Goldschmidt as the Liuthard group, a characteristic example of which is the relief of the Ascension in the Kunstgewerbemuseum in Weimar (Fig. 8).27

The carvings of

16

this group share with the illuminations the lively and often elongated figures, executed with minute attention to details of drapery and placed on undulating groundlines, in some examples represented naturalistically, in others, including the Weimar relief, as decorative, curling patterns. Their presence on ivories has been seen as an adaptation of the motif from painted sources.28 The undulating groundline is shared by the Stuttgart ivory with the ivories of the Liuthard group. The association does not end there, as the elegant elongated figures in animated gestures, the feature which Goldschmidt and Weitzmann and Talbot-Rice described as mannerist, also bear a resemblance to the tall, gesticulating figures seen on Liu- thard ivories, such as the Weimar Ascension plaque. A salient instance of this expressive use of gesture is the conveying of excitement by the crossing of the apostles' legs, an unusual motif among Byzantine examples, but more common among Carolingian and Ottonian ivories, in particular those depicting the Ascension. Three of the apostles in the front row of the Stuttgart Ascension have their legs crossed in one way or another. In fact, it is not going too far to say that the style of the Stuttgart casket has more in common with examples from the Liuthard group than it does with either the Pictorial or the Romanos groups of Byzantine ivories.

The casket's stylistic affinity with early Christian works also becomes clearer by positing a dependence on western carving. As Goldschmidt demonstrated, the impulse for ivory carving in the Carolingian west was directly related to the presence of ivories from late antiquity, especially consular diptychs.29 The derivation of the archaizing aspect of the style of the Stuttgart casket from western medieval sources could explain its concurrent similarity to early Christian examples such as the Brescia casket.

When these stylistic affinities with western works are considered together with the compositional affinity of the Stuttgart to the Vienna Ascensions, the relatedness of the casket to a western tradition becomes undeniable. The nature of the evidence indicates the orientation of the relationship. Considering that the elements discussed above are all common to a broad range of western objects, while their occur- rence is very rare or unique among Byzantine objects, it is unsound to maintain that the western ivory was modelled on the Byzantine one. The most plausible explanation is that the Byzantine artist acquired both stylistic and compositional elements from a western model or models.

The suggestion of the mediation of western sources need not rely solely on style. It will be at least as informative to consider the unusual format of the box. As discussed above, the wide lid and low sides decorated with continuous friezes make the Stuttgart casket an anomaly among Byzantine caskets in ivory.30 It is a design found, however, among the ivory caskets made in Arab Spain in the tenth and eleventh centuries. There is a series of flat, hinged caskets from Madinat

al-ZahrFD, dating from the 960s, and another series from C6r- doba from the late tenth and eleventh centuries.31 Like the

A. Sw 4.36? MW

YAW: ON S. AS,

A em

so' ?xm

NEW

9 Ogg" A

kv

. . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . .

lot

'j; 4 T. rot J"l

lot u nip

o?'w-

IF Six Ann%

*01- 1. fe i I

7 a.

Ale IPW p

1

An

FIGURE 8. Weimar, Kunstgewerbemuseum, ivory plaque, Ascension (photo: Kunstgewerbemuseum).

Stuttgart casket, these boxes are shallow with relatively broad lids, and they have two hinges on one long side and a lock on the other. They show another remarkable resemblance to the Stuttgart casket, in that they always bear a raised inscription, contained in a frame, around the edges of the lid. One in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London is especially similar in dimensions and design, down to the narrow, simple frames around the four decorated sides of the box and around the four sections of the inscription (compare Figs. 9, 10).32

An additional point of comparison with the Spanish- Arab series, the importance of which cannot be overempha- sized, is the construction. Both the Stuttgart and the London caskets are made of two solid pieces of ivory, one for the bottom and sides, and the other for the lid. This kind of

17

..K

S- x:::

..... . ....... .....

. ..... .. ..... .. Am 5

Ims A

...... .. ......... .. ....... IBM, .. .........

R.N. M . . ...... . . ..

.... ..... . o. .. ....... ... ; 4

...... ..... .. YA No ?X

WUM k . VIN . . ......... . ...... . . .... .......... ....... .. . K,? .......... .. .............

. . . . . ... ..... ... .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . ....... .... ..... . FIGURE 9. Stuttgart, Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum, ivory casket (photo: Wiirttembergisches Landesmuseum).

construction was preferred by the Spanish-Arab carvers, as almost all of their surviving ivory caskets and pyxides are made in this way. While Byzantine pyxides were also carved from solid sections of tusks, Byzantine caskets are almost always made of wood covered with thin ivory plaques. The Stuttgart casket is the only one carved out of two solid pieces of ivory. With this technical evidence added to the previ- ously mentioned aspects of design and decoration, the relatedness of the Stuttgart casket to the Moorish series is quite persuasive. As with the stylistic and compositional elements shared with western ivories, the presence of so many conventional Spanish features on an exceptional Byzantine product must lead to the same conclusion, that the Byzantine artist used western European sources.

Taken all together, the construction and design of the Spanish-Arab caskets of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the style of the Liuthard ivories and the western iconographic tradition constitute a substantial and surprising blend of western sources. These western elements are so many that it

would be tempting to redefine the Stuttgart casket as a western product, were it not for the Greek inscriptions. How, then, should we make sense of this example of the transmission of artistic ideas from west to east?

The chronological parameters of such communication are impossible to define precisely. It could have taken place in the tenth century, a possibility corroborated by the dates of the C6rdoban series of the Spanish-Arab comparanda. One possible vehicle is the diplomatic missions reciprocated between Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos and CAbd al-

Rahmin III of C6rdoba (ruled 912-961) in the mid-tenth century.33 Gifts exchanged during these missions could account for the introduction of the Moorish elements of the design, though not the Latin elements, into the east. Another possibility is that the transmission took place during the period of the Crusades in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries. This period has been much visited by scholars interested in Byz- antine influence in the west. The crusading movement brought large numbers of Latin knights and sovereigns through the

18

.... ... . ....

.. . ........ kAM

.... ....... ...... . .......... ............ w 5fx. . ...

M NO- . .. ...... .. 00 . .........

..... . . . . . .

FIGURE 10. London, Victoria and Albert Museum, ivory casket (photo: Victoria and Albert Museum).

Empire, and the success of the movement led to a degree of rapprochement between Byzantines and Latins, both politi- cally, as expressed in the strategic alliances between Byzan- tine and German courts, and commercially, as expressed in the trading privileges granted to Italian maritime republics.34 These relationships were uncomfortable and prone to rever- sals, but they were nevertheless vehicles for contact which must have issued in cultural interchange. It may have been in this sort of climate that the western sources for the Stuttgart casket came to the attention of Byzantine patrons and artists. The particular sources are impossible to identify. There is, however, one class of western object that may be put forward as a hypothetical link.

While the Crusaders must have travelled with a minimum of paraphernalia, certain things would have been ab- solute necessities on campaign, including whatever apparatus was necessary for religious observance: sacred books, chal- ices, pyxides, and so on. One such necessity peculiar to the west was the portable altar. Adolf Goldschmidt catalogued five portable altars with ivory reliefs, as well as many fragments of others, dating from the second half of the eleventh century, probably made in the lower Rhine region, and six more from the twelfth (Fig. 11).35 Others, in precious metals, have survived from the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Their forms are similar to the Stuttgart casket, having low sides decorated with continuous friezes, and wide tops, necessary to accommodate their liturgical function. Allowances were made already in the early church for such portatili, although the oldest surviving examples date from the eleventh century.36 The themes of the reliefs of the early Lower Rhenish group are homogeneous, and all are appropriate to the eucharistic function of the altar, being mostly scenes from the youth, passion, and resurrection of Christ on the sides, and, if images occur on the top, Old Testament precursors of Christ's

16!i!•ii !~i~l~i iiiii

FIGURE 11. Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, ivory portable altar

(photo: Hessisches Landesmuseum).

sacrifice, such as Melchizedek, Cain and Abel. The narrative friezes begin on the right long side and proceed clockwise.

There are similarities in the design of these portatili to the Stuttgart casket, in particular the low, wide format, and the decoration of the sides with long, narrow friezes (compare Figs. 9 and 11). The choice and arrangement of subject matter are also similar, as both objects bear scenes of the Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, and Old Testament precursors. The placement and composition of the Crucifixion, on the front of the casket, bears the strongest affinity with the western examples, on which the Crucifixion invariably occupies a frieze panel of its own on one of the short sides, normally the front. Although all of the other themes of the Stuttgart casket are common to the portable altars as well, the manner of their depiction is somewhat different. For example, on the portable altars, the resurrection is represented by the Myrophores, by the doubting Thomas, by Christ's appearance to the disciples at Emmaus, or by some combination of these. The Stuttgart casket did, ap- parently, include the Myrophores, but its main image of the resurrection is, not surprisingly, the Anastasis. This choice allowed an adherence to the most traditional image of the resurrection in Byzantine art, while remaining consistent the- matically with the programs of the western series. Moreover, unlike the series of episodes which are strung together in the long friezes of the portatili, the Anastasis is spread out to occupy the entire right side. This, too, is consistent with Byzantine tradition, both in icon painting and in monumental decoration, which tended to isolate images as discrete con- ceptions, rather than to run them together as continuous narratives. As for the Ascension, with its conjunction of the western composition for the apostles and the more characteristic Byzantine iconography for Christ and the angels, it is again possible to imagine that a western model, with the more

19

usual western iconography of Christ being pulled to heaven by the hand of God, was available, but rejected in favor of a more familiar formula. The disposition of the witnesses, meanwhile, was perhaps adopted for its strictly aesthetic ad- vantages, such as its ability to fit comfortably into the narrow space of the casket's lid. The placement of the Old Testament precursors on the side, and the Ascension on the top, is likewise understandable as a deliberate modification of the western scheme. Such a modification would have suited Byzantine sensibilities, as it would surely have seemed inap- propriate to place David and the other prophets in the most prominent position, above the Christological scenes. While all of the scenes are consistent in their stylistic reliance on western models, the program of the imagery has been adapted to suit the requirements of an eastern Christian or group of Christians. In short, the process is precisely the reverse of that which created the twelfth-century mosaics of Norman Sic- ily, where Byzantine style and even certain Byzantine forms were modified to suit the theme of church decoration favored in the west, the history of salvation.

There are Mozarabic objects which lend credence to the hypothesis of a dependence on western portatili, in their combination of Islamic and Christian elements. An eleventh- century portable altar in the Museo Arqueologico in Madrid, for example, is decorated with reused Islamic ivory reliefs.37

Again, there is a small ivory casket in San Isidoro in Le6n which was carved in imitation of the tenth- and eleventh- century series from C6rdoba.38 Both objects are the kinds of portable artifacts that might have traveled eastward during the Crusades. They demonstrate the possibility that western Christians, who readily accepted Islamic motifs in sacred contexts, conveyed them to the east. In the Byzantine tradition, the majority of the motifs ultimately of Islamic origin was adopted from Byzantium's immediate neighbors to the east at a very early stage. The Stuttgart casket would appear to be a surprising exception, bearing the mark of the Spanish-Arab tradition, as translated through western Christian arts.

Returning to the question of date, we can find further support for the hypothesis of the casket's creation in the ambience of the twelfth century from the Byzantine side in an analysis of the inscriptions.39 The inscription around the edge of the lid fits into a well-attested medieval Byzantine literary tradition. Although it is incomplete, the relative proportions of the two erased short sides to the two long sides make it clear that the text was an epigram written in three

dodecasyllables, with a caesura following the fifth syllable, a form of quantitative meter which was widely used in occa- sional verse by Byzantine poets in the middle period. The

surviving portions read, "Oh You were not separated from

(the habitation of) the Father when You, as the Firstfruits of mortal flesh, traversed the heavens . . . (preserve) the owner."40? This form of poetry was quite common, being practiced by amateurs and students, but also by more prominent poets, such as John Mauropos and Nikolas Kallikles.

What about the content of the inscription? Weitzmann's suggestion of "(. . . preserve) the owner" is conjectural, but it is inevitable that the poem should have ended this way, with some supplication for the owner's well-being and even- tual salvation, as there are countless such inscriptions on vo- tive offerings from the early, middle, and late periods, even to the present day; and it is impossible to make sense of the mention of the owner in any other context. What distinguishes this epigram and gives it a panache which matches its sophisticated setting, is the clever way in which the supplication is related metaphorically to the depicted event of Christ's ascension. The poet legitimates the prayer for the salvation of the owner by appealing to Christ's own triumph over mortal flesh when He was rejoined with the Father. This same device was used time and again for inscriptions on sacred objects. The inscription on the Cross of Irene Doukas (empress, 1081-1118) in San Marco in Venice contains the same sentiment, but expressed in terms of the Crucifixion by describing the cross as:

... the wood of life.., on which you completed the suf-

ferings to which you were condemned, and by which you enjoined us to bear our own sufferings. I am giving this last offering to You on the point of dying and being deliv- ered myself from my own sufferings.41

Another verse from the twelfth century, preserved at Bag'a in Catalonia, uses the same device in a supplication for corpo- rate salvation:

Cross of Jesus Christ, Son of God, on which, stripped of your clothes, you laid sin bare, eternal Savior, omnipotent Word of God, and you clothe mortals besides with in- corruption. The inhabitants of your monastery clothe this reliquary in gold and silver for their salvation.42

Here the witty allusions to exposing and clothing are extended to four levels in a highly elaborate application of the metaphor: Christ was disrobed, sin was exposed, Christ clothed mortals, and the monks clothed the reliquary. Many more such metaphorical constructions have survived among Byzantine inscriptions.43 These examples are all drawn from the late eleventh or twelfth century, but the device continued to be used into the late period, as attested, among other in- stances, on the reliquary casket of Trebizond also in the Trea-

sury of San Marco.44 The device is not found, however, in

inscriptions of earlier periods. The most common type of

dedicatory sentiment in earlier inscriptions is an ex-voto, that

is, an offering in fulfillment of a vow, in gratitude for a favor

already received from God. Supplications do exist in dedica-

tory inscriptions, notably among the epigrams in the Bible of Leo (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Reg. gr. 1) but they do not use the rather recherch6 ploy of appealing to Christ's or the Virgin's own experience as a rationale for the sup-

20

plication.45 The surviving examples indicate that this kind of metaphor was perfected in the twelfth century, notably under the eminent patronage of the Komnenoi, and remained after- wards in the repertoire of Byzantine epigrammists. Its use in the epigram of the Stuttgart casket supports a twelfth- century date.

So it is that cases can be made to date the Stuttgart casket either in the tenth century (on the basis of the western comparanda and diplomatic missions between Constantino- ple and Spain), or in the twelfth century (based on Byzantine verse comparanda and cultural contacts during the Crusades). We ought to bear in mind, though, that the date is arguably not the point of greatest consequence. This is because the piece is, after all, an anomaly. As such, it cannot be used to anchor a larger number of works. It is important to consider the other possibilities toward which the foregoing analysis points. It seems to me that the most important is the possibility of a Byzantine artistic tradition which was permeable to western artistic ideas and forms. Granting this possibility raises two important questions, one relevant specifically to Byzantine caskets, and the other to Byzantine ivory carving in general.

Regarding caskets, the Stuttgart example calls into question whether the style of their carving is necessarily to be understood as an expression of a contemporary mainstream of style, or whether it might be better understood in some cases as a self-conscious recreation of the style of another time or place. The Stuttgart casket, for example, may have been intended as a reliquary in the fashion of western reliquaries and portatili. The Veroli casket, and indeed many of the series of rosette caskets with figures drawn from ancient mythol- ogy, are clearly meant as period pieces, recalling the Roman past that the Byzantines claimed as their own. The artist of the Veroli casket must have chosen a classicizing style, not because it was the fashion of the day, but primarily because the effect of the piece as a mock ancient sculpture in miniature is enhanced by the stylistic and iconographic quotations. The prevalence of these affectations should warn against interpreting the style of a given casket as an expression of the prevailing contemporary current. To think, for example, of the Veroli casket and the so-called Great Triptychs as expres- sions of one and the same artistic impulse, namely the mid- tenth-century revival of classical artistic values, may not be sufficiently subtle.46 A more sophisticated approach may be to consider that the circumstances of their production and use dictated the caskets' style in a more meaningful way than generalized period habits.47

The implications of the Stuttgart casket for other forms of Byzantine ivory carving are no less important. As a Byz- antine object derived in part from western sources, it suggests that there is some merit in re-evaluating the supposed impermeability of the Byzantine artistic tradition with reference to other categories, for example, Crucifixion icons. In closing, I will briefly demonstrate this possibility. Crucifix-

ion icons were the single most common type of Byzantine ivory product, and, unlike the Stuttgart casket, the example I have chosen is quite closely related to a number of other ivories by its style. It belongs among the twenty-five reliefs and four caskets grouped together by Goldschmidt and Weitz- mann in the Frame group.48 The one to be considered here is a plaque depicting the Crucifixion now in the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg, dated tentatively by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann to the eleventh century (Fig. 12).49 The common characteristics of this group are the flat frames decorated with simplified vegetal motifs, the graphic, rather than plastic approach to the drapery, and less harmonious compositions, marked by a tendency toward horror vacui. These stylistic elements distance the ivories of this group from the more classicizing style of so many Byzantine ivories, especially those of the Romanos Group. Again, Goldschmidt and Weitzmann observed that the imagery in the Frame group tends to be drawn from a wider font of possibilities, especially narrative scenes, than the imagery of other groups. The less classicizing style was interpreted by Ettore Modigliani in 1899 and by Andrew Keck in 1930 as a sign of provincial production, and led to the idea of an Italo-Byzantine group of ivories.50 The argument was based on observations of certain western formal aspects, such as the division of an icon into compartments by the use of ridges. Venice was submitted as a likely center of production. The Venetian theory was taken up by John Beckwith, among others, but it was criticized by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, and more recently by Anthony Cutler on the grounds of lack of evidence, and the demonstration that many of the peculiar aspects of the Frame group represent a development that can be seen to begin in the tenth- century groups.51 Goldschmidt and Weitzmann also pointed to the Greek inscriptions on certain ivories of the group, and contrasted them with the Latin inscriptions found on many Byzantinizing works in Venice. In spite of this repatriation of the works to Byzantium, no alternative explanation for the absence of classical stylistic values has been put forward. This uncertainty has forestalled further study of the group, which already suffers from the disadvantage of a dearth of inscriptions which would help specifically to date it. Would it help our understanding of these ivories to ask whether they might not be Byzantine works influenced by western models? In the case of the Hermitage Crucifixion, there are two aspects in particular which indicate just such sources.

One is the undulating groundline which divides the Cru- cifixion proper from the scene of the resurrection of the dead below. As we have already seen, occurrences of this motif are

extremely rare among Byzantine ivories, while it is a common feature of western medieval ones.

More remarkable is the presence of the resurrection of the dead at all. The theme is drawn from the narrative of the Crucifixion in Matthew's Gospel, in which the moment of Christ's death is attended by a variety of miracles, including the tearing of the veil in the temple, an earthquake, and

21

37

-"M MI.

41

1,7 ..... .. ...... lei

RIX 11:

Tf . NO, 7 Oft w % ;M

Ira,

FtNe", m

FIGURE 12. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum, ivory plaque, Cru- cifixion (photo: Hermitage).

the opening of tombs and resurrection of the dead (Matthew 27:45-53). In general, Byzantine icons of the Crucifixion keep such narrative embellishments to a minimum. The only such incidental features which appear with any regularity are the cruelties of Longinus and Stephaton, and, very occasion- ally, the division of Christ's robe by the guards, both of which are included in the Hermitage Crucifixion. The resurrection of the dead, however, is an extreme rarity.52 That it should have been included on the Hermitage Crucifixion is a case in point of the expansion of the narrative repertoire which Goldschmidt and Weitzmann observed as a general characteristic of the Frame group. Their important obser- vation can be taken a step further by noting that narrative embellishments of this kind were frequent in the west. The resurrection of the dead in particular was a virtually indis- pensable element of Crucifixion ivories, where it came to be depicted conventionally by two figures, one rising from a tower-shaped tomb, the other from a rectangular one. Another common format was the pairing of figures in sarcophagi, as on an eleventh-century ivory book cover in Munich (Fig. 13).53 The inclusion of this episode, in conjunction with the device of the undulating groundline, makes the case for a Byzantine assimilation of a western motif the more emphatic.

.. ..........

zol

A

MAM WAL 1'... X

in .. MAI 2 1.

i pi?!

I Nil ? 15 1111111

? ? - 00'.?

i PP! 21

? ? ? ON i ? W ? I i i i .......... . ...

. ... . .... ........................................................... ........................................................ 1 1?? .. ...... . .. NNS

Vill! All 1?1!?

WW

"Num?':ool." Pe

AMY m!"i T":

sN

01? WN- its:

fx:

Est! 1, All; off --.&T 1

.11 1 VMS

R O N . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... oo??. .......... . ::: . .

. . . . .......... . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . ............ .......... .

....... .. .

SH A 5K, e" 0

WW"

.... ..... ... . .. . ..... ...

FIGURE 13. Munich, Staatsbibliothek, ivory book cover, Crucifixion (photo: Staatsbibliothek).

This realization makes Goldschmidt's and Weitzmann's analysis of the selection of narratives in this group even more pertinent. The preference for repeated representations of the events of the Dodekaorton was an entrenched Byzan- tine tradition that is well attested in the ivory icons of their first four groups. The west, on the other hand, maintained a taste for narrative flow, often expressed in extended narrative cycles. Could the expansion of the narrative repertoire of the ivories of the Frame group have been related to the western tradition, just as the thematic content of the Stuttgart reliefs seems to be a variation of a western program? In both in- stances, the case for western influence is supported by the introduction of western formal devices in order to cope with the unaccustomed narratives. One such device already considered is the division of the Hermitage Crucifixion into two registers by a groundline. Other icons of the Frame group are divided into registers by more conventional straight lines. One in the Victoria and Albert Museum in London has two episodes in each register, without any vertical dividers between them (Fig. 14). In the case of the two lower registers, the episodes are united by a continuous landscape, another west- ernizing feature. While the first four episodes were taken from the canonical twelve feasts, the last two, the Myrophores and

22

i/If am?iimim//- OWN , g;;,

plow A? i g ?wl

T ............. 4- IN V?V?Alo, gxg

A? 7m

?0

RA N %

?of- g.

NO;

4 Ax

10 ....... .. .... ::.Vp

.1 ......... I

'0. OR

INNER I

. .. . ..... ....... ..

W N:

*k sm "I . . ....... ...

2.1 OF IM A ......... . x

Xx! Ell

OR,

10 R ... ..... Sk

V

!a Mr-WA h Ri

MR WE. 00

AW RRY M.

ig kl?l ALM

R

CA OWWW"

a X.11 Qw.

FIGURE 14. London, Victoria and Albert Museum, ivory plaque, scenes from the Life of Christ (photo: Victoria and Albert Museum).

the Chairete, represent a degree of serialization of the event of the resurrection surprising in Byzantine art, though common among western Resurrection cycles.

The framework of communication with the west also provides a helpful alternative for interpreting the style of these pieces. Rather than seeing the graphic modelling, un- naturalistic proportions, and horror vacui of the compositions

as signs of poor quality, indicative of provincial production, popular consumption, or a general decadence of the craft, it is more plausible to suppose that these differences from nor- mative Byzantine style reflect a change in taste which paral- leled the development of Romanesque style. I am suggesting that the identification of specific cases of intrusions from western art opens the door for a broader interpretation of the Byzantine tradition in its role as both master and student of the western tradition, even better, as an interactive partner. This extension of the argument from the demonstration of the western sources of the Stuttgart casket to the suggestion of a more general influence on the members of the Frame group follows Otto Demus's analysis of the reverse proposi- tion. In Byzantine Art and the West, he advocated the postu- lation of a very general and pervasive kind of influence as superior to, and ultimately more meaningful than demonstra- tions of specific borrowings. There is no reason that his prin- ciple should not apply in reverse.

This suggestion does not pose a contradiction, as there is nothing inconsistent in a model of mutual interpenetration. In fact, it may not be going too far to suggest a review of the history of medieval ivory carving from a pan-European per- spective. The picture that emerges from reading through the various corpora of medieval ivories at one sitting is one of the meteoric establishment of a highly refined school of ivory carving by the Franks in northern Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, and the more gradual adoption of the craft in Byzantium, Spain, and Sicily, testified by only a few examples in the ninth century, and a great efflorescence in the tenth. This broad picture allows for a re-evaluation of the concept of a one-way influence as it touches ivories. An analogous revision has already been carried out by David Buckton with regard to cloisonn6 enamel technique.54 Had circumstances led to the compilation of one pan-European corpus of ivories, the number of interrelationships observed might have been much higher. As it is, of course, no such corpus exists, but one means of recuperating the possibilities of such a work may be to review the idea that the Byzantine artistic tradition was always and in all respects the master of the west.

NOTES

* This paper derives from my Ph.D. thesis research, completed at the Courtauld Institute of Art with the assistance of an Overseas Research Student Award from the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Princi-

pals. I am grateful to my supervisor, Robin Cormack, for invaluable advice at all stages of the project; to Heribert Meurer of the Wfirttemberg- isches Landesmuseum in Stuttgart for assisting me in examining the

Stuttgart casket; and to Barbara Zeitler and the anonymous reviewer of this paper for reading it and making constructive suggestions.

1. A. Goldschmidt and K. Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbein- skulpturen des IX.-XIII. Jahrhunderts, I, Kdisten (Berlin, 1930).

23

2. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen des IX.-XIII. Jahrhunderts, II, Reliefs (Berlin, 1934), No. 24, pp. 30- 31, P1. VII.

3. K. Wessel, "Das byzantinische Elfenbeinkistchen in Stuttgart," Jahr- buch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen in Baden-Wiirttemberg, XI (1974), 7-20. This argument preceded a study of the Romanos and Eudokia plaque in the Cabinet des M6dailles (Goldschmidt and Weitz- mann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, No. 34, p. 35, P1. XIV) by Ioli Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, "Eudokia Makrembolitissa and the Ro- manos Ivory," DOP, XXXI (1977), 305-325. Her view was provi- sionally accepted by Weitzmann in the second printing of the corpus (Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I [rpt. Berlin, 1979], 2), but it remains controversial (see A. Cutler, The Hand of the Master: Craftsmanship, Ivory, and Society in Byzantium, 9th-11th Centuries [Princeton, 1994], 197-219; and idem, in this issue of Gesta).

4. This is not to say that it is the only one with New Testament figures. There are three caskets besides the one in Stuttgart with images of Christ and saints, but not in any narrative context: in Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.; in the Museo Nazionale in Florence; and in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. On the Dumbarton Oaks casket, see K. Weitzmann, Catalogue of the Byzantine and Early Me- dieval Antiquities in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection, III, Ivories and Steatites (Washington, D.C., 1972), 73-77, Pls. XLIV-LI. On the Florence casket, see Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die bvzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, No. 99, pp. 56-57, Pls. LVII, LIX. On the New York casket, see ibid., No. 100, p. 57, P1. LX.

5. For the identifications of these scenes, see Goldschmidt and Weitz- mann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, 31.

6. The inscriptions identifying the other two prophets have been lost, but it is likely that they were Isaiah and Daniel, the other two major prophets.

7. The figure of David does appear on at least two other caskets, but in narrative contexts: Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, No. 123, pp. 63-64, Pls. LXX, LXXI; and No. 124, pp. 64-65, Pls. LXII-LXXV.

8. It is a Judgement of Solomon paired rather incongruously with the En-

try into Jerusalem on a Romanesque casket from Spain: A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der romanischen Zeit XI.-XIII. Jahrhun- dert, IV (Berlin, 1926), No. 80, pp. 24-25, P1. XXII.

9. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, No. 49, p. 42, Pls. XXIX, XXX.

10. There are only two other Byzantine examples of this design, one in New York (interesting also because it is one of the three mentioned above which have reliefs of Christ and the saints; see note 4) and the other in Troyes (Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, No. 122, p. 63, Pls. LXIX, LXX). The latter has a hinged, flat lid, but is of very different dimensions, being as tall as it is wide, and longer and narrower in its lid.

11. Anna Kartsonis took note of this multiplication of the anonymous dead, and related it to a doctrinal tradition which relates the Anastasis to the raising of the dead at the Last Judgement (Anastasis, The Mak-

ing of an Image [Princeton, 1986], 152-159). It may be that not all of the dead were meant to be anonymous, as Wessel suggests ("Das byzantinische Elfenbeink~istchen," 16), given that the erosion of these tiny figures makes it impossible to say for certain whether or not the pair in the sarcophagus immediately to the left of Christ are David and So- lomon, as what appears to be hair may in fact represent prependoulia.

12. K. Weitzmann, "The Survival of Mythological Representations in Early Christian and Byzantine Art and their Impact on Christian Iconogra- phy," DOP, XIV (1960), 45, Fig. 36.

13. It may have been this salient resemblance that led early commentators on the Stuttgart casket to date it to the early Christian period; W. Lotz, Kunsttopographie Deutschlands, II (Cassel, 1863), 504.

14. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, 31. The later date was proposed by D. Talbot-Rice, Kunst aus Byz- anz (Munich, 1959), No. 116, and J. Beckwith, The Art of Constanti- nople (London, 1961), 135, and eventually endorsed by Weitzmann ("Ivories" in Byzantine Art: an European Art [Athens, 1963], No. 138, p. 161). Wessel ("Das byzantinische Elfenbeinkistchen," 10-16) un- dertook a thorough scrutiny of the stylistic argument and concluded that both the tenth- and the eleventh-century dates lack authority. He

suggested a date around 1300, during the revival of the arts under the

Palaiologan emperors. As is often the case with anomalies of this kind, however, a secure date has been elusive.

15. A. Goldschmidt, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und sdichsischen Kaiser VIII.-XI. Jahrhundert, I (Berlin, 1914), No. 131, pp. 65-66, P1. LVI.

16. Idem, ibid., II (Berlin, 1918), No. 75, p. 34, P1. XXIV.

17. There are many examples, including a relief in Weimar (see below, and

Fig. 8) but those in which the apostle in the front row, second from the left, is in the same twisting position are particularly apt (Goldschmidt, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und stichsischen Kaiser, I, No. 87, pp. 49-50, P1. XXXVII; and No. 90, pp. 49-50, P1. XXXVIII).

18. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, 31. Cf. C. Nordenfalk, "Karolingische oder Ottonisch? Zur Da-

tierung und Lokalisierung der Elfenbeine Goldschmidt I, 120-131," in Kolloquium fiber splitantike und friihmittelalterliche Skulptur, ed. V. Milojcic (Mainz am Rhein, 1972), III, 49.

19. Wessel went to some length to demonstrate that the various peculiar features of the Stuttgart Ascension need not be directly related to the western plaque, as they appear in early Byzantine examples as well ("Das byzantinische Elfenbeinkistchen," 16).

20. See J.-P. Caillet, "Metz et le travail de l'ivoire vers l'an mil," in Reli- gion et culture autour de lan Mil-Royaume capetien et Lotharingie (Paris, 1990), 318, 319.

21. A remarkable exception who might be said to prove the rule is Alfred Maskell, who wrote that "... . the contrary influence was happily rare, for the results of the borrowing by the east from the west-in the arts

certainly-have ever been disastrous" (Ivories [London, 1905], 100).

22. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, No. 86, p. 53, P1. LV.

23. See note 4.

24. See Goldschmidt, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und sdichsischen Kaiser, II, Nos. 120-126, p. 41, P1. XXXVII; and No. 175, pp. 52-53, Pls. LII, LIII; idem, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der romanischen Zeit, III, No. 53, pp. 20-21, Pls. XV, XVI; and Nos. 61- 64, 67-73, 80-84, and 86, pp. 23-29, Pls. XXI-XXXV. In some cases, the formal similarities between Byzantine and western examples are

very close indeed. Compare the Florence casket (as in note 4) with the

portable altar of B6gon III, ca. 1100, in the treasury of the abbey at

Conques (P Lasko, Ars Sacra [Harmondsworth, 1972], 228, P1. 160; and J. Taralon et al., Les Trdsors des Eglises de France [Paris, 1965], No. 543, p. 306).

25. Only three other examples use really comparable undulating groundlines (Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbein- skulpturen, II, Nos. 23 and 25, pp. 30-32, Pls. VII, VIII; and No. 201, p. 74, P1. LXVI). The latter will be discussed below.

26. A good example of a Crucifixion appears on the triptych in the Cabinet des M6dailles in Paris (Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantini-

24

schen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, No. 39, p. 37, P1. XVI). The specialized use of such landscapes as geographical symbols is demonstrated by an ivory diptych of the twelve great feasts in Leningrad (ibid., No. 122, p. 60, P1. XLV), on which the figures stand directly on the lower frame, except in the Baptism, Transfiguration, Entry into Jerusalem, and Crucifixion, in which the rudimentary landscapes denote the banks of the Jordan, Mount Tabor, Jerusalem, and Golgotha respectively.

27. The Liuthard group is catalogued in Goldschmidt, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und sdichsischen Kaiser, I, Nos. 40- 71, pp. 23-37, Pls. XIX-XXVII. The Weimar Ascension plaque is No. 45, p. 28, P1. XXI.

28. Ibid., 23, 27.

29. Ibid., 4.

30. There are metal caskets with flat, hinged lids, but they are again ex-

ceptional, and their designs are in other respects quite different from the Stuttgart casket. See, for example, the Fieschi-Morgan reliquary in New York (K. Wessel, Die byzantinische Emailkunst vom 5. bis. 13. Jahrhundert [Recklinghausen, 1967], No. 5, pp. 44-46), or the eleventh-

century Santa Prassede reliquary in the Vatican (Splendori di Bisanzio: Testimonianze e riflessi d'arte e cultura bizantina nelle chiese d'Italia [Milan, 1990], No. 69, pp. 178-179). Nor is it illuminating to look for models among Arabic ivory boxes, which provide sources for the shapes and even the motifs of the many Byzantine caskets with pyramidal lids.

31. E. Kifhnel, Die islamischen Elfenbeinskulpturen VII.-XIII. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1971), No. 20, pp. 22-23, P1. VIII (my Fig. 14); Nos. 23-25, pp. 34-35, Pls. X, XII, and XV. In addition to these, there are a number of caskets of different dimensions, and pyxides with the same decorative scheme, having a framed, raised inscription around the edge of the lid.

32. Kifhnel, Die islamischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, No. 20, pp. 32-33, P1. VIII.

33. See A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, II, 1 (Brussels, 1968), 324-331.

34. Cf. M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204. A Political History (London, 1984), especially 196-209.

35. Goldschmidt, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und

sdichsischen Kaiser, II, Nos. 102-105, pp. 39-42, Pls. XXXI-XXXV, and 128, P1. XXXVIII; No. 175, pp. 52-53, Pls. LII, LIII; and idem, Die Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der romanischen Zeit XI.-XIII. Jahrhun- dert, III (Berlin, 1923), Nos. 81, 82, 84, 86, 87, pp. 27-30, Pls. XXX- XXXV.

36. J. Braun, Der christliche Altar in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, I (Munich, 1924), 42-44, 71-74, 419-521.

37. Ktihnel, Die islamischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, No. 50, p. 51, Pls. XLII, XLIII.

38. Ibid., No. 51, p. 51, P1. XLIII.

39. The inscription accompanying the image of the Ascension is unusual, though appropriate. It reads, "My peace I give to you, My peace I leave with you" ["+EIPHNHN THN EMHN AIAQMI YMIN EIPH- NHN THN EMHN A4DIHMI YMIN"]. This is a close paraphrase of John

14:27, "Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you

.... "

coming, not from the Ascension narrative, but from Christ's farewell discourses. It is appropriate here inasmuch as it relates to Christ's de-

parture from this world. It is more usual for Ascension images in both east and west to have the legend "Men of Galilee, why do you stand

looking into heaven?" (Acts 1:11), the question that the angels ask of the spectators immediately as Christ is received into heaven.

40. +0 MH MEP(trOstg) HATP(tcli auaouvitg)

BPOTQN AHAPEHN OYPANOAPOMON AABON

(... aog)E TON KEKTHMENON

The supplied sections were suggested by Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II, 31. I am grateful to Char- lotte Rouech6 and Valerie Nunn for helpful advice on this epigram.

41. A. Frolow, La Relique de la Vraie Croix, Recherches sur le Developpe- ment d'un Culte (Archives de l'Orient Chr6tien, VII) (Paris, 1961), No. 308, pp. 315-316.

42. Ibid., No. 407, p. 363.

43. Among the most apt examples are an epigram of Theodore Prodromos which was inscribed on a silver gilt dove offered to the Virgin by Irene, wife of Manuel II Komnenos (Theodore Prodromos, Historische Ge- dichte, ed. W. Hdrandner [Wiener Byzantinische Studien, XI] [Vienna, 1974], No. XXXIV, p. 371); another of Nicholas Kallikles, originally embroidered on a peplos dedicated to the Virgin by Anna "of the Komnenoi" (Nicola Callicle, Carmi. Testo, Introduzione, Traduzione, Commentario, e Lessico, ed. R. Romano [Byzantina et neo-hellenica neapolitana, VIII] [Naples, 1980], No. 26, pp. 104-105, 146-147); and other inscriptions on Cross reliquaries, as, for example, one at Grand- mont (Frolow, La Relique, No. 319, pp. 320-321).

44. The Treasury of San Marco, Venice, ed. David Buckton et al. (Milan, 1984), No. 28, pp. 201-203.

45. T. Mathews, "The Epigrams of Leo Sacellarios and an Exegetical Ap- proach to the Miniatures of Vatican Reginensis 1," Orientalia Christi- ana Periodica, XLIII (1977), 94-133.

46. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, Nos. 31-33, pp. 33-36, Pls. X-XIII, LXIII. See also E. Kantoro- wicz, "Ivories and Litanies," JWCI, V (1942), 56-81.

47. Compare H. Belting, "Kunst oder Objekt-stil?" in Byzanz und der Wes- ten, ed. I. Hutter (Vienna, 1984), 65-83; and I. Kalavrezou-Maxeiner, "The Cup of San Marco and the 'Classical' in Byzantium," in Studien zur mittelalterlichen Kunst 800-1250. Festschrift fiir Florentine Miitherich zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. K. Bierbrauer et al. (Munich, 1985), 167-174.

48. Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, I, Nos. 115, 116, 118, 119, pp. 61-62, Pls. LXVII, LXVIII; and ibid., II, Nos. 197-221, pp. 20-21 and 73-78, Pls. LXV-LXXI.

49. Ibid., II, No. 201, p. 74, P1. LXVI.

50. E. Modigliani, "Dittico d'avorio nella Biblioteca Barberini," LArte, II (1899), 287-295; and A. S. Keck, "A Group of Italo-Byzantine Ivo- ries," AB, XII (1930), 147-162.

51. See J. Beckwith, "Problemes pos6s par certaines sculptures sur ivoire du haut moyen age," Monuments historiques de la France, XII (1966), 12-17; K. Weitzmann in the foreword to the second impression of Goldschmidt and Weitzmann, Die byzantinischen Elfenbeinskulpturen, II (rpt. Berlin, 1979), 4 (and in the original edition, 20); Cutler, Hand of the Master, 71-78.

52. One instance is in the miniature on fol. 59 of Paris, Bibliothbque Nationale, MS grec 74, in which the Crucifixion narrative is depicted over four consecutive scenes, but the illustrations in this manuscript are exceptionally dense. See H. Omont, Evangiles avec peintures byzantines du XIe sidcle (Paris, n.d.), P1. 51.

53. Goldschmidt, Elfenbeinskulpturen aus der Zeit der karolingischen und

siichsischen Kaiser, I, No. 130, pp. 64-65, P1. LVI. (This is the mate of the Vienna Ascension plaque.)

54. "Byzantine Enamel and the West," Byzantinische Forschungen, XIII

(1989), 235-244. Cf. R. Cormack, "Reflections on early Byzantine

Cloisonn6 Enamels: Endangered or Extinct?" in Thymiama ste mneme tes Laskarinas Bouras (Athens, 1994), 67-72.

25

Documents

The Stuttgart Casket