CC BY
6УДК: 7.033.2; 7.041
ББК: 85.103(3)
DOI: 10.18688/aa2212-01-05
A. Adashinskaya
Likeness Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Byzantine Portraiture in Art Historiography and Byzantine Perception1
The present paper is going to address the problem of likeness in Byzantine portraits as it was understood in the art historiography of the 20th century, and to juxtapose the methodological approaches to this phenomenon with the perception of portraits in Byzantine sources. This paper seeks to demonstrate that self-representation was regarded by medieval texts as designed and carefully constructed commissioner's performance producing a dynamic sense of engagement with the images in a beholder; whereas the majority of research narratives substituted the interactive model of Byzantine self-representation with a more traditional, post-Renaissance art-historical perspective of "sitter-artist-beholder". Thus, I will analyze the theoretical paradigms employed in the past studies of "Byzantine portraits" and draw attention to the terms in which they categorized and interpreted the relations between historical images and the audience. On the other hand, looking at several Manuel Philes' epigrams that once accompanied Byzantine images, I intend to elucidate the narrative strategies employed by their commissioners and the ways of developing one's recognition of the depicted.
The problematizing of Byzantine portrait was initiated with its definition as a genre on the grounds of the system inherited from the academic division of visual arts into "genres" [27]. In this sense, the portrait had to extend the existence of commissioners' selves beyond the natural constraints of time and space and to preserve the likeness of actual people for the posterity [98, pp. 43-69]. Consequently, the initial discussion of Byzantine portraits focused on such problems as naturalistic similarity, iconography, costumes and attributes, images' function (historical, funeral, votive, etc.), and media (book illuminations, murals, icons, ivories, applied arts). However, later the authors who defined themselves rather as 'Byzantinists' or 'medievalists' than art historians [25, p. 251; 61, p. 5; 85] valued the representations' historical aspect over their aesthetic impact. They explored (self) representation of personages and their social functions, historical data, political roles, and textual accompaniment of images. Finally, the performative turn in humanities [5, pp. 73-101] encouraged some scholars to examine the interaction with images, their reception by audiences, and the dynamic relations between historical and holy personages.
1 This article is part of a project Art Historiographies in Central and Eastern Europe. An Inquiry from the Perspective of Entangled Histories (ArtHistCEEStG-802700) that has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Starting Grant Horizon 2020 research and innovation program.
Traditional Approaches: Style, Iconography, Sociology
The dominant research paradigm of Byzantine portrait prioritizes similarity between the commissioner and the final image and searches for personages' subjectivity expressed through the aesthetic authenticity. It was initiated in a short paper by Gabriel Millet [59] who was one of the first to draw attention to the portrait phenomenon in Byzantine art. In fact, he was merely interested in an unusually large number of the church patrons' figures in the churches of Mystra, and noted that, despite the variety of iconographic schemes used in religious scenes and saints' depictions, a constant iconographic pattern defining the images of historical personages was absent. Millet identified this absence of a clear iconographic scheme as a critical feature distinguishing the images of medieval contemporaries.
Ernst Kitzinger and Ioannes Spatharakis furthered this distinction and defined Byzantine portraits as marked by iconographic uncertainty. In search for Hellenistic origins of Byzantine imagery and its "realism", these authors discussed a possibility of "true similarity" between the image and the "sitter" [46, p. 191; 45, p. 186; 84, pp. 254-258]. In their opinion, the portraits were different from the holy figures stylistically, as Byzantine artists used a different, more realistic manner, emphasizing the fidelity of these images to the originals. Kitzinger also noted a greater veracity of the portrait stylistic mode achieved through personalizing details (age, wrinkles, physiognomic features, hair colour) [45, pp. 189-192]. Thus, looking at stylistic characteristics, these scholars sought to develop aesthetic concepts and focused on the painting techniques.
On the other hand, attention to the historical dynamics of the portraits, their iconography, and typology distinguished the iconographic approach formed under the influence of André Grabar's studies. In fact, Grabar saw the problem of the portraits' typology from a completely different perspective and suggested to regard icons, i.e. images of saints, among the "actual portraits". He argued that icons represented "concrete historical figures" and proved continuity between several categories of antique portraits and the imagery of the Christian era [31, esp. p. 87].
Simultaneously, Grabar initiated a discussion on the political meaning of imperial images in Byzantine art and their iconography [30]. He claimed that Byzantine imperial representations depicted the imperial power in general and its attributes, but paid little attention to a historical personality occupying the office. Regarding this art as a manifestation of royal propaganda, he noted a tendency to idealize the 'sitters' and to represent the hierarchy of power in symbolic formulas [30, p. 167]. Consequently, the scholarly discourse conventionally separated the problem of imperial image from the general treatment of portraits in Byzantine art [63].
Following the portrait typology proposed by Grabar, Tania Velmans extended this approach to the variety of historical images preserved from the Palaiologan period [91] and drew attention to some monuments which had been previously ignored or understudied. Her article can be considered a benchmark for the Byzantine studies, as this French-Bulgarian student of Grabar expanded the European notion of 'Byzantine' art' to the visual production of the Balkans and regarded Serbian and Bulgarian medieval historical representations as a part of proper Byzantine imagery. Moreover, her text suggested a clear classification of the Byzantine portrait sub-genres (imperial, diplomatic, historical, donor, votive, funeral, family, and private) and defined specific iconographic frameworks conveying the likeness in every sub-genre.
However, the contribution of Velmans to the European, namely French-, German-, and English- speaking scholarship, in fact, was based on a long tradition of the Serbian iconographic school. With his book on Portraits of Serbian Rulers in the Middle Ages [71], Svetozar Radojcic initiated the approach to the Balkan medieval art influencing the scholarship up to nowadays. It was based on two fundamental assumptions: 1) the unity of Byzantine and Slavic Balkan art as formed by the same iconographic principles; 2) the politics and ideology being the driving forces behind the portraits' evolution and structure. This way, all possible historical compositions (rulers' portraits, scenes of councils, life cycles of Serbian saints, representations of coronations or burials) could be considered as reflections of political and social changes occurring in the Balkan elites. Several generations of Serbian and Bulgarian scholars elaborated this argument [23; 15; 24; 33; 1; 2; 47; 73; 86; 92; 93; 94; 95; 69; 6] and expanded its scope to include the representations of nobility [14; 13; 16; 64; 72], church dignitaries [87], and symbolic dynastic iconographies [93].
On the other side of the chronological spectrum, Henry Maguire [55] investigated how the iconographic standardization of facial features and attributes gradually replaced the notion of sacred portraiture with the visual definitions of holy personages and their biographies in the Early and Middle Byzantine Art. He contrasted pre- and post-iconoclastic images in their attitudes toward labelling and visual schematization and demonstrated the changes that occurred in the perception of individual depictions of saints. Thus, Maguire noted that the post-iconoclast painters achieved the likeness through greater formalization and identification of images with the help of inscriptions.
Velmans' classification and Maguire's attention to the labelling received further development in the sociology of Byzantine portraits, an approach that situated the images within the power relations and hierarchies of a community. A historical personage's depiction was interpreted as establishing and displaying social status, confession or ethnicity, expressing gender, family, or professional roles whereas the act of commissioning became a way to acquire symbolic capital (prestige, recognition). Thus, likeness became a social category formed by the conformity of the portraits' attributes to the status of the depicted. Such art historians as Maria Panayotidi [65], Svetlana Tomekovic [88], Eugenia Drakopoulou [17], Nancy Sevcenko [81; 82], Michele Bacci [3], and Maria Vassilaki [90] focused on the relations between the portraits and communities and explored political, pious, and economic motives of the commissioners. The introduction of epigraphic material allowed Sophia Kalopisi-Verti [44] to analyze the relationship between the visual and written components of the Byzantine portraits and to regard the inscriptions as a part of a complex act of social representation, beyond the figurative similarity and attributes' (costume, headgear, jewelries) precision. The combination of social, iconographic, religious, and epigraphic approaches brings to light complex historical dynamics of the Byzantine "representation of real people", but continues to treat likeness as "recognizable individual features and characteristics" of a depicted personage [89, esp. 7-8] that was conveyed to an abstract beholder.
New Paradigms: Performative Turn and Mediality
Recent studies of Byzantine portraits engaged with a synthetic experience of beholding and investigated images as media of spiritual exchange involving simultaneously commissioners,
viewers and holy personages. A new generation of scholars such as Sarah T. Brooks [10], Ivan Drpic [18], Rico Franses [26], and Cecily Hilsdale [34; 35], focus on rhetorical techniques and private devotional practices associated with the portrait images in Byzantine art. They extended the concept of portraiture beyond the figurative aspect and included into their analysis the issues of placement, accessibility, participation in rituals and interaction.
However, one also may celebrate the return of the aesthetic component to the discourse on Byzantine art within the performative turn. Studying the ways to express the identity of a patron', these scholars [19; 20; 21; 77; 37] looked at the embellishment of objects or walls with precious items, elegant letters, and sophisticated images, as well as analyzed how the appreciation of beauty by a medieval beholder through his/her sensible experience triggered the commemorative actions. These scholars pointed to the complexity of the beholding act which, in turn, could activate another performance — a devotional interaction between the depicted historical personage and the transcendental realm. This way, the process of viewing is regarded not as independent of, but as accompanied by the reading of inscriptions, performance of rituals, and praying. This complex of actions generated recognition of the depicted and memory, in the emotional and social sense, in the beholder assisting into the salvation of the "sitter", whereas the image itself perpetuated the personhood of a commissioner for the eternal commemoration.
The performative turn in the studies of Byzantine portraiture relied on the preceding scholarship investigating the role of media in the distribution, perception and beholding of the historical images [82; 80; 60; 11]. Thus, the particular attention these researchers paid to the portraits on mobile objects (icons, textiles) or in the context of tomb decoration (funeral icons) and facilitated the transition from the studies of portraits in the historical perspective to the inquiries into their material and ritual being.
The traditional theoretical framework of Byzantine portraiture was also challenged in the light of new definitions of imagery and new paradigms of perception. Hans Belting [7, pp. 60115] reconsidered the old model of relations between an icon and its subject established by Grabar and drew attention to the mediality of images, their cult roles, and the fusion between the depiction and the prototype. He pointed to the medieval practice of the 'veneration of icons not as objects but as persons and suggested that the images were seen as media facilitating the presence of holy persons in a society. Moreover, the tradition of icon painting was rooted in the late antique practices of funeral portraits and yet, simultaneously, the most venerated images of the Virgin and Christ were considered to be "portraits" taken "from life." The latter concept received its development in a survey of works ascribed to St. Luke the Apostle as a painter [4]. Whereas the continuity of tradition between funerary representations and sacred images grew into an analysis of evidences highlighting the flexibility of borders between the rituals of commemoration and veneration. This flexibility attested the similarity of stylistic and iconographic means conveying the presence of holy personages or deceased community members in the society and underlined conceptual and visual parallels between the images of celestial powers and royal authority [56].
Hence, the historiographic treatment of likeness in the Byzantine portrait evidences a continuous interest to the topic emerging and re-emerging in art history under the influence of theoretical developments and methodological constructs from other fields of Humanities (so-
ciology, anthropology, history). However, this redefinition, transformation, and challenging of the portraiture concept in Byzantine studies stems in a complex nature of the medium and a variety of viewing experiences that appeared in the Byzantine society.
Silence: Byzantine Experience of Images
Byzantine texts focusing on the beholding experience encompass different genres and modes of performance (poetic, narrative, preaching) [54, pp. 111-113; 41], however, all of them, in one or another way, established a conceptual and rhetoric framework which expounded a purely aesthetic encounter with an art object to acquire ethic, religious, or intellectual dimension. Moreover, the Byzantine experience of an image, whether a portrait or other types of representation, balanced between two main conceptual points: its similarity to the surrounding world (mimesis) and its inability to express itself with sounds (silence). Consequently, the texts related to images, whether being physically inscribed nearby or pronounced in their presence, played a role of guides instructing the beholders how to interpret the visual objects and interact with them.
This inability of images to speak was a common topic for the epigrams accompanying various depictions [18, pp. 238-242, 379-380]2. They usually played upon the paradoxical ambiguity characteristic of visual media that were able to create almost a complete likeness to natural phenomena, but lacked the voice and breath, necessary for the living beings. The Byzantine poet Manuel Philes (c. 1270-after 1332) [70, no. 29817; 49] often relied on this unavoidable contradiction arising from the physical resemblance between animate humans (or, saints, the Virgin, Christ) and their inanimate portraits:
The martyrs defeat even the nature of stones,
They are almost alive and seem to breathe
Even if they are pale and silent here,
As they shed their blood on earth in martyrdom.3
Following this logic, even an icon of Christ experienced the same puzzling discrepancy. It could transmit the Lord's resemblance and His blessing gesture spreading the grace to all the creatures, but, as a picture, it had to employ graphic means to communicate the divine speech, i.e. to depict the divine words from the book of the Gospel held by the Pantokrator:
You are silent, oh, Logos, though you are alive and, meanwhile, you bless the creation;
But it is a book which calls us instead of you.
When grace commanded the images to be silent,
And, you are an image as well, aren't you? Is that why you do not breathe?4
Here, Philes insisted on the antinomy of such icon-portrait that stroke the spectator even more: it was the grace depicted via Christ's blessing hand that ordered the pictorial media to acquire silence as their natural property, whereas Christ being essentially the Word by His essence
2 For instances of silence as the epigram topic, see the edition of Manuel Philes by E. Miller [58, vol. 1: p. 35, ch. 1, no. 77; p. 56, ch. 1, no. 122; p. 61, ch. 1 no. 144; p. 77, ch. 1, no. 167; p. 353, ch. 2, no. 175; vol. 2, pp. 3-6, ch. 3, no. 1; p. 94, ch. 3, no. 53; p. 379, ch. 4, no. 19], etc.
3 [58, vol. 2, pp. 202-203, ch. 3, no. 189; 9, p. 174].
4 [58, vol. 1, p. 376, ch. 2, no. 207; 9, p. 172].
is characterized by silence in the depiction. This way, the absence of breath is the only means convincing the beholder that he/she observes a resemblance (typos)5 and not the prototype, i.e. the Lord.
The absence of speech seems to be a defining, immanent feature of images that causes the necessity to use textual means to communicate the messages in their entirety to spectators. Philes insisted that silence "befits images" [58, vol. 1, p. 175, ch. 1, no. 164; 18, pp. 379-380] which meant that to establish a communication space between the viewer and the depicted subject, an image needed to be labeled with a text conveying its meaning with words [96, pp. 13-18]. In this cultural tradition, the meaning had to be negotiated between its likeness to the prototype, the text reflecting this likeness, and the audience who recognizes it being guided by visual similarity, textual messages, and the circumstance of communication.
Participation: Byzantine Experience of Portraiture
In this aesthetic discourse, epigrams accompanying funerary or, sometimes, votive portraits may be also considered as a sort of ekphrasies [41; 52, pp. 149-153; 74, pp. 67-68; 75] articulating and interpreting images through the words [97, pp. 39-59]. They did not describe the portraits present before a viewer, but rather supplemented or even competed with the images to re-create the depicted character in the viewer's mind. Those few preserved cases when portraits and accompanying texts are preserved, the images and texts do not completely coincide in their means and propose different types of information about the deceased.
Thus, a visual portrait attracts attention, enters into a direct visual contact with the visitor, and initiates the relations with him/her. It also displays the social status, the age, and the physiognomic features as the portrait of the bishop Niphon at Christ church at Mborje (1389/90) [51; 22, pp. 204-206].The founder (Fig. 1) is depicted holding a church model and addressing the figure of Christ in the segment of heaven: the composition clearly conveys the exterior appearance of the building, foreseen by the bishop, and the dedication of the church to Christ.
H^WeV^ the epigram [74, pp. 75 77, n°. 1] Resurrection Church(ChristChurch), Mborje,Albania. accompanying the portrait6 gives additional in- Photo by Anna Adashinskaya
5 In the discussed epigram Philes uses the word typos to denote an image, however, this term bears multiple associations in the Byzantine learnt discourse: it can refer to the Old Testament symbolic anticipation of the Christian reality as well as a copy or an imprint of an object or a person, see: [68; 43, pp. 84-90, 133; 7, pp. 103-114].
6 For other examples of epigrams placed next to portraits, see: [74, pp. 101-104 (no. 24), pp. 164-167 (no. 84),
Fig. 2. Portrait of Demetrios Phatmeris and his father Kaisaras Doukas, before 1330, St. Panteleiomon (Old St. Climent) Church, Ohrid, Northern Macedonia. Photo by Anna Adashinskaya
formation on the pious intentions driving the act of patronage. Written in the autodiegetic narrative mode [48, pp. 159-165], from the sponsor's point of view, the epigram narrates about the religious zeal of Niphon, his desire to establish the foundation as a benefaction "for those among the Christian peoples who want to be saved," and his endowment regarded as an act of redemption for "many sins". This way, the text communicates the emotional and pious reasoning of the patron to visitors, whereas the image, situated at the eye level of the beholders, initiates the dialogue by demonstrating the very purpose of the foundation act (the gift to Christ) with expressive visual means.
Often, an epigram and a representation procure different types of information to a beholder. In case of the founder's funerary portraits at St. Panteleimon (Old St. Clement) in Ohrid, two personages are represented on the funerary portrait (Fig. 2), one is older and dressed in kaisar's garments, the second is younger and wears luxurious, but not rank-related, garb. These two men are depicted in the act of prayer as their hands are directed toward the unpreserved image of a holy personage [32, pp. 33-34]. An epigram on the background [74, pp. 101-104, no. 24] specifies the relations between the personages (father and son), communicates the name of the deceased (Demetrios Phatmeris, the son), his occupation (successful military career) and family situation (childless at the moment of the death). Additionally, it introduces the social
pp. 180-181 (no. 97), pp. 267-272 (no. 186-187), pp. 317-319 (no. 221), pp. 348-350 (no. 236), pp. 353354 (no. 241), pp. 362-366 (no. 248)].
achievements and describes an emotional despair of the deceased's soul, caused by the death of his body.
However, the text, besides its purely informative function, also addresses the beholder of the image and affects his/her emotional state. It reminds about the transience of life, the fate of the body that is "deformed, poor and naked in the tomb" and the "food for worms," and the withdrawal from social and family relations caused by the death depriving of "wealth and honor, and people, and house." Attested by Andreas Rhoby [74, p. 102], the repeated change of the speaker in the text forced the reader/beholder to rely on the ethopoiea [38; 28], the emulation of a personage by the style of speech, for making sense of the narrative. This way, the reader/ beholder imitated the character of the deceased in course of aloud reading7 and gave the voice to the image (as a part of the epigram is written in the voice of depicted), thus, making true the epigram line "It speaks like the (still) living".8
Consequently, the interaction between the beholder and the image went far beyond the mere gazing, as epigram texts invited a visitor to become a participant in the re-creation of a deceased character whereas portraits helped to shape the physical and social image of the deceased into the visitor's mind. The texts accompanying portraits entered into dialogue with viewers, framed an emotional response to the visual stimuli, and forced them to experience certain feelings appropriate to the situation, i.e. commemoration of a deceased. However, the beholder could himself/herself participate in the re-creation of the deceased' by giving the voice to an image in loud reading of inscriptions or praying on behalf of the depicted personage.
Empathy: Byzantine Experience of Epitaphs
Both portraits and texts invited the recipients to re-create a mental image [40, pp. 6-9] of the departed with different means, i.e a portrait applied colours and compositional arrangement to reach the beholder's consciousness through aesthetic pleasure, whereas the texts relied on rhetoric devices, such as topoi, figures, and tropes, to charge the reader emotionally [66, pp. 70-87]. However, both media intended to produce empathic response in a visitor and to direct the gaze, physical or mental, of a passerby to a portrait.
The inscriptions accompanying the portraits often emphasized the dramatic component of the spectator's response and articulated the relations between the depicted personage and the audience. In this sense, the works by Manuel Philes (the author of 75 or so funerary poems [48, pp. 178-180; 66] that can be generically described as epigrammatic epitaphs) reached beyond the mere description of painted funerary portraits into the social significance of a defunct and the emotional behavior prescribed to or experienced by a beholder. Similar to iconic representation accompanied by texts, the funerary epigrams elicited the interactive character [67; 76] of the Byzantine visual culture.
Being a kind of Gebrauchstexte, texts used for practical purposes [36, p. 236; 75; 48, pp. 205206; 78, pp. 264-304], the epigrammatic epitaphs belonged to the genre of commercial purpose-related literature which content was tailored to address specific circumstances of the life, social status, background, achievements, and character of a deceased. Therefore, these texts
7 On the rarity of silent reading in Medieval West and Byzantium, see: [79; 39, p. 126; 42, p. 627; 8; 62; 50, p. 291-292].
8 For similar metaphors, see [76].
assumed a close cooperation between commissioners and poets, as well as, perhaps, artists, altogether creating the posthumous laudatory image of a deceased.
Due to this situational, the nature of the funerary poetry, its content was constrained by the composition of actual or assumed audience. In similar terms, Ruth Macrides and Henry Magu-ire [53] discussed the circumstantial nature of ekphrasis, another rhetorical genre manifesting complex relationship between the visual and verbal, and pointed to performative aspect of the text, namely to the way which the author addressed the visual experience of actual audience. The funerary epigrams might follow the same pattern; the verses could be presented publically [83, pp. 50, 64-68; 52, vol. 1, p. 223; 48, p. 209; 78, pp. 275-276] during the memorial services at funerals or during other (daily or annual) commemoration services [10, pp. 184-242]. Additionally, being inscribed next to the portrait or in the funerary chapel, the epigrams could be destined for occasional literate visitors who would be curious to know more about the church burials or relations between founders and the buried individuals. Thus, the primary target groups were the friends and relatives who knew the depicted person and could easily imagine his/her physical and psychological appearance, whereas the secondary target group was an educated passerby.
Quite frequently, a beholder was asked to pray for the salvation of the departed, as it is the case in the texts by Manuel Philes translated in the Appendix. In the epigram to the megas stratopedarches, the "beholder" should petition the Lord that the entire buried family "would reach the gardens of Eden //Where one would harvest the trees of immortality." Similarly, the visitor of Saponopoulos' grave had to address the Lord "with supplications that he (the deceased) would be the one protected from harm in the happiness of Eden." This way, a visitor not only remembered the deceased, learnt about his/her role in the society and pious deeds, but also provided some kind of assistance into reaching the salvation in the afterlife. Taking into consideration how common were such requests for the supplication on behalf of a departed [48, pp. 181-182], one may assume that the visual beauty of a portrait, richness of the depicted garments, the nobility, achievements, titles, and merits listed in the epigrams were necessary to prove the social importance of the departed in the eyes of a visitor. Consequently, this importance would encourage the visitor to recognize the dead as a part of the community of living and to perform the commemorating supplication.
For this purpose, the megas stratopedarches' epigram(s) represented the protagonist as a "warrior man, full of thoughts in order" and mentioned his origin from "the happy royalties," whereas his family is characterized as "furnished for such great height." In the case of Sapo-nopoulos, the man is envisioned as extremely pious and virtuous ("...since he was wearing childish diapers // he has been fed with the golden milk of virtue // and bearing the archetype of Christ in his heart), as well as "absolutely irreproachable through her entire life". The text represents his social achievements as a list of important court offices (the proedros, sakellarios,9 and domestikos of themes) and supplements them with the noble birth and military courage. Moreover, the specific virtues of the protagonist are his ability to correct previous mistakes ("the mistakes of the distant Past // he redeemed with lawful deeds), love for the poor whom
For interpretation of "tamias ton basilikonchrematon" as sakellarios, see: [12, p. 10].
he gave "abundant food," and Saponopoulos' personal and political loyalty (He didn't betray his wife // and was irreproachably faithful to the emperor).
Often, the epigrams also outlined the relatives' personae, especially, if they were buried together with the protagonist. The text dedicated to the megas stratopedarches includes a praise to Eirene, the last living offspring of the protagonist who, nevertheless, died soon after. The Saponopoulos' poem carefully considers the virtues of his wife Helena, who was a prudent, beautiful, and loyal lady. One may assume that the lines addressed to the last living family members were commissioned by them to be commemorated and, perhaps, depicted together with their kindred.
If performed publically, during the funerals or commemorations, the verses addressed the audience who knew the deceased and could appreciate the likeness of the portraits. In these situations, the portraits and texts were the reminders bringing to the visitors' minds the images of the past and inducing certain emotions, such as grief, feeling of loss, and bereavement. On this emotional background, the verses that invited the visitors to contemplate such topics as the cruelty of time passage, transience of life, futility of human efforts, etc. are often present in the opening lines of the epigrams [48, pp. 182-183, 186].
Perhaps, it is the existence of a text in both performative and inscriptional forms that may help explaining the presence of two versions of the same epigram by Manuel Philes. The verses dedicated to megas stratopedarches appear in the manuscript collection twice (Cod. Taur. C. VII. 7.75) [57, pp. 134-135, 128-130]. Once the epigram includes an extensive addresses to Time, in the beginning and the middle of the text; second version, however, commences with a reference to a passerby "stranger." The presence of two, otherwise identical readings may signal that they were accommodated for different occasions. Moreover, since the megas stratopedarches and his life circumstances are mentioned in both verses (i.e. the texts could not be produced for two different commissioners), the only reason to create the two versions is their usage. Thus, the version addressing Time could have been a speech pronounced at the funerals or commemoration day. It includes a number of rhetorical questions and exclamations ("What is this never standing still river! // And, how comes that it has this power over us?" or "oh, what a suffering!"), absent in the second version of the text. These elements, being staged properly with a modulated voice, could produce an emotionally-charged aural impact and induce sorrowful feelings in the audience [8, esp. pp. 180-181]. Additionally, the appeal to Time rather to a passerby in the introductory part of the text ("On the one hand, Oh, mighty time, nobody wonders, // that you cut white wheat heads in summer...") was a typical rhetoric tool to establish the main topic of a speech [48, pp. 45-46].The second version reaches a different audience, i.e. readers instead of listeners, therefore, it starts with an imperative appeal: "Look. oh, stranger!"
The epigrams, whether performed orally or inscribed, put much emphasis on the emotions arising in a beholder affected by the sight of the funerary portrait and the content of the epigram itself. The epitaph to Saponopoulos directly prescribes the readers to "stay and experience sadness looking [at images]," whereas the text commissioned for the megas stratopedarches does not request certain feelings, but rather creates a general gloomy atmosphere by referring to the "terrible things" endured by the entire world and the deadly "harvest" collected by Time. Thus, directing gaze of the visitors, both the portraits and epigrams engaged in a dialogue relations and demanded emotional involvement with the portrayed departed and his/her story.
In other words, for a Byzantine portrait beholder, the experience of seeing encompassed much more than mere aesthetic pleasure or grasping information about the portrayed. As the art and text stayed in the complex relations supplementing, competing, and cross-referencing to each other, the experience of a beholder was almost never purely visual. Simultaneously, he/she would be affected by the image and performed/inscribed text and would experience a mixture of emotional responses associated with the senses of loss, grief, compassion, and hope for the final salvation. Thus, working together, the images and texts established a connection between the viewer and the deceased that would motivate the viewer to become compassionate and to perform the supplication to the Lord on behalf of the departed.
In conclusion, I would like to focus on the particularities of the Byzantine viewer's experience of a portrait. Most importantly, the Byzantine images have never operated independently from the texts they were accompanied with, but rather these two forms of artistic expression complemented each other: the texts gave voices to images and the images assisted in the formation of a mental portrait of the deceased in the beholders' minds. At the same time, the performative element of the gazing did not exist for its own sake, but rather it appeared because of the intensified social connections between the living and the dead and its aim was the engagement of the living with the supplication practices on behalf of the dead. This engagement was achieved through the emotional experience received by the beholder in course of observing the portraits of the deceased who received their voices and narrated their stories with the help of written or pronounced epigrams. This way, the living recognized the dead through the image and text and helped to preserve their memory through the reading of the inscriptions and beholding of portraits.
APPENDIX
Manuel Philes, Funerary Epigram to a megas stratopedarches
Martini no. 93 [57, p. 134-135] Martini no. 91 [57, p. 128-130]
On the one hand, Oh, mighty time, nobody wonders, that you cut white wheat heads in summer, and harvest when you should, as it is as it should be; However, that, now, you remove a germinating plant Or moderately grown unripe grape, because of [your] greed, The nature would consider painful, in any case. But, oh, destruction, your immense arrogance Wreaked havoc even on young crops from the very roots. With enmity, you bring together the entire golden [magnificent] family In a coffin of bones. And the father and the dear mother are here too, and the crowd of children (oh, terrible suffering!) and the unfortunate union of the crowded family Look at the father, children, and wife, oh, stranger! And the unfortunate unity of the crowded family,
and a joyless gathering and the depictions before the tomb.
The most beloved of a megas domestikos, Being a megas stratopedarches by dignity Warrior man, full of thoughts in order, and a chamber of the immense success Who was born of the happy royalties. And, having found Helena, superior to that [Homer's] Helena,
Who was suitable for him in all the ways. He produced this offspring as a flourishing sprout But, sadly, due to the fierce tempest blowing The entire crop fell on the ground, before the time. Except for this, feu!, beloved Eirene, Whom alone he had instead of the entire family Preserving that modesty which you yourself demonstrated
In beautiful works, in mind, and in spiritual deeds
And in various practices of noble character.
Now, (What is this never standing still river!
And, how comes that it has this power over us?)
Your hand threw into the final extinction
This spark of past hopes
But next to this golden predecessor,
who accompanies his spouse here,
(oh, what a suffering!) without offspring is hidden
by the earth
She [Eirene?] stripping off the dust of the glory of mourning
As no sign of the family furnished for such great height
Would remain for the future.
Oh, Sun and Earth, how can one endure
so many terrible things? Oh, the beholder of these
images
Pray that they would reach the gardens of Eden Where one would harvest the trees of immortality
And a joyless gathering in the depictions before the tomb.
The most beloved of a megas domestikos, Being a megas stratopedarches by dignity Warrior man, full of thoughts in order
Who was born of the happy royalties, He found Helena, worthy of [his] position
He produced this offspring as a flourishing sprout When the tempest of destruction burst, The entire crop fell on the ground, before the time. Except for beloved Eirene, for the time being, Whom alone he had instead of the entire family Preserving those things which the time proved honorable
In beautiful works, in mind, and in spiritual deeds
But next to this golden predecessor,
who accompanies his spouse here,
the fruitless sign of the last crop lies
She leaves the royal fame short of mourning,
As no sign of the family furnished for such great height
Would remain for the future.
Oh, Sun and Earth, how can one endure
so many terrible things? Oh, the beholder of these
images
Pray that they would reach the gardens of Eden.
The Epitaphs to Saponopoulos with his entire family (Gideon, no. 10 [29, p. 248, 654])
If you see the Saponopoulos in the coffin And enjoy these splendid images Where the depiction shows this one deceased, Whomever you are, oh, man, be discreet, [5] For, since he was wearing childish diapers He has been fed with the golden milk of virtue And bearing the architype of Christ in his heart He depicted (wrote with shadow) his own imitation And that of his father, being the most beloved of the most renowned. [10] He was equally a proedros
And controller of the royal wealth (sakellarios?) And became the domestikos of the themes, He adorned the glory with deeds brightly, Not being shaken by destructive danger.
[15] He was born from a noble mother,
Who was absolutely irreproachable through her entire life, And he was similar to her in character. He fitted/corresponded to the beauty of his wife Resembling to him in every way: [20] This prudent one was the dearest to her loving husband,
More than a turtledove contended with the love for (that man) husband, She teemed with the beauty of soul even more Despising the beauty of the body to some extent, Hating physical ambition [25] That is why her beauty was irresistible.
He gave birth from her to those whom you see here. But, except for the last girl, the grain-crop took these Middle-aged unripe grapes, Oh, terrible grain crop! Though he was splendidly distinguished with in his time, [30] He escaped it, considering [the glory] burdensome. He did not betray his wife And was irreproachably faithful to the emperor As he had set to gather the tribute in the end of days, He did so, as he received it from the celestial nature. [35] The mistakes of the distant Past He redeemed with lawful deeds. The poor knew about his existence As he was a provider of abundant food for them. All those living poorly in the much-sighing sorrowful state [40] Could testify about many other [good deeds] As suffering from the most severe of shortages. But, oh, wicked and man-killing time! you hide him as of common nature here, under the befitting stone of three cubits long [45] And, thus, it put an end to the good, oh, [time] of terrible misfortune! And where are the thoughts and noble deeds? And the image of thrice-happy glory? Everything is plain dust, everything is a shadow of shadow But, oh, beholder, stay and experience sadness looking [at images]! [50] Don't you see the man wearing the habit Rejoicing with his children and wife? Pray to God with supplications
That he would be the one protected from harm in the happiness of Eden.
References
1. Babic G. Les portraits de Decani représentant ensemble Decanski et Dusan. Duric V. (ed.). Decani I vizan-tijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka (Decani and Byzantine Art in the Middle of the 14th Century). Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1989, pp. 273-286 (in French).
2. Babic G. Vladislav on the Founder's Portrait in the Nave of Mileseva. Duric V. (ed.). Mileseva u istoriji srpsk-og naroda (Mileseva in History of the Serbian Nation). Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1987, pp. 9-15 (in Serbian).
3. Bacci M. 'Pro remedio animae'. Immagini sacre e pratiche devozionali in Italia centrale (secoli XIII e XIV). Pisa, Gisem-ETS Publ., 2000. 508 p. (in Italian).
4. Bacci M. Il pennello dell'Evangelista. Storia delle immagini sacre attribuite a san Luca. Pisa, Edizioni ETS Publ., 1998. 442 p. (in Italian).
5. Bachmann-Medick D. Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture. Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2016. 311 p.
6. Bakalova E. Donor Portraits of Tsar Ivan Alexander as an Expression of Political and Religious Ideology of the Epoch. Problemi na izkustvoto, 1985, vol. 4, pp. 45-57 (in Bulgarian).
7. Belting H. Bild und Kult eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst. München, C. H. Beck Publ., 2000. 700 p. (in German).
8. Bourbouhakis E. Rhetoric and Performance in Byzantium. Stephenson P. (ed.). The Byzantine World. London; New York, Routledge Publ., 2010, pp. 175-187 (in German).
9. Braounou-Pietsch E. Beseelte Bilder: Epigramme des Manuel Philes auf bildlichen Darstellungen. Wien, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaft Publ., 2010. 304 p. (in German).
10. Brooks S. T. Commemoration of the Dead: Late Byzantine Tomb Decoration, Ph. D. Dissertation. New York University, 2002. 484 p.
11. Carr A. W. Donors in the Frames of Icons: Living in the Borders of Byzantine Art. Gesta, 2006, vol. 45, pp. 189-198.
12. Cheynet J.-C. The Byzantine Aristocracy (8th-13th Century). The Byzantine Aristocracy and Its Military Function. London, Variorum Publ., 2006, ch. 1, pp. 1-43.
13. Cvetkovic B. On the Dynastic Image of the Lazarevici in the Ljubostinja Monastery and the Problem of Dating of the Ljubostinja Murals. Saopstenja, 1995, vol. 27-28, pp. 51-73 (in Serbian).
14. Cvetkovic B. Portraits in the Nave of Nova Pavlica: Historicism or Political Actuality? Saopstenja, 2006, vol. 35-36, pp. 79-97 (in Serbian).
15. Djuric V. Portraits des souverains byzantins et serbes sur les chrysobulls. Sbornik FilosofskogFakulteta, 1963, vol. 7-1, pp. 251-272 (in French).
16. Dordevic I. Zidno slikarstvo srpske vlastele u doba Nemanjica (Wall-Paintings of the Serbian Nobility of the Nemanide Era). Belgrade, Filozofski fakultet Publ., 1994.
17. Drakopoulou E. Ipoli tis Kastoriasti byzantinikaimeta byzantine epochi (12-16 ai.) (The Town of Kastoria in the Byzantine and Postbyzantine Periods (the 12th to 16th Century). Athens, Christianiki Archaiologiki Etaireia Publ., 1991. 252 p. (in Greek).
18. Drpic I. Epigram, Art, and Devotion in Later Byzantium. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2016. 512 p.
19. Drpic I. Painter as Scribe: Artistic Identity and the Arts of Graphe in Late Byzantium. Word&Image, 2013, vol. 29-3, pp. 334-353.
20. Drpic I.; Rhoby A. Byzantine Verses as Inscriptions: the Interaction of Text, Object, and Beholder. Hörand-ner W.; Rhoby A.; Zagklas N. (eds.). A Companion to Byzantine Poetry. Leiden, Brill Publ., 2019, pp. 430-455.
21. Drpic I. The Patron's 'I': Art, Selfhood, and the Later Byzantine Dedicatory Epigram. Speculum, 2014, vol. 89-4, pp. 895-935.
22. Ducellier A. Observations sur quelques monuments de l'Albanie. L'Albanie entre Byzance et Venise, Xe-XVe siècles. London, Variorum Publ., 1987, ch. 3, pp. 153-207 (in French).
23. Duric V. Historical Compositions in Serbian Medieval Painting and their Literary Parallels. Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta, 1964, vol. 8-2, pp. 69-90; 1967, vol. 10, pp. 121-148; 1968, vol. 11, pp. 99-127 (in Serbian).
24. Duric V. Three Events in the 14th-century Serbian State and Their Echo in Painting. Zbornik za likovne umetnosti, 1968, vol. 4, pp. 87-97 (in Serbian).
25. Folda J. Crusader Art in the Holy Land, From the Third Crusade to the Fall of Acre, 1187-1291. New York, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2005. 714 p.
26. Franses R. Donor Portraits in Byzantine Art: The Vicissitudes of Contact between Human and Divine. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2018. 247 p.
27. Gaehtgens B. The Theory of French Genre Painting and Its European Context. Bailey C. B. (ed.). The Age of Watteau, Chardin and Fragonard. London, Yale University Press Publ., 2003, pp. 40-59.
28. Gaul N. Performative Reading in the Late Byzantine Theatron. Shawcross T.; Toth I. (eds.). Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2018, pp. 215-234.
29. Gedeon M. I. Manouel tou Phile istorika poiemata. Ekklesiastike Aletheia, 1883, vol. 3, pp. 219-220, 246-250, 655659 (in Greek).
30. Grabar A. Lempereur dans l'art byzantin. Recherche sur l'art officiel de l'empire d'orient. Paris, Les Belles Lettres Publ., 1936. 296 p. (in French).
31. Grabar A. Le portrait en iconographie chrétienne. Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 1962, vol. 36-3, pp. 87110 (in French).
32. Grozdanov C. Ohridsko zidno slikarstvo 14. veka (Ohrid Mural Painting of the 14th Century). Belgrade, Filozofski fakultet Publ., 1980. 234 p. (in Serbian).
33. Grozdanov C.; Cornakov D. Historical Portraits in Polosko. Zograf, 1983, vol. 14, pp. 60-67; 1984, vol. 15, pp. 85-93; 1987, vol. 18, pp. 37-42 (in Serbian).
34. Hilsdale C. Byzantine Art and Diplomacy in an Age of Decline. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2014. 412 p.
35. Hilsdale C. The Imperial Image at the End of Exile: The Byzantine Embroidered Silk in Genoa and the Treaty of Nymphaion (1261). Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 2010, vol. 64, pp. 151-199.
36. Hörandner W. Customs and Beliefs as Reflected in Occasional Poetry: Some Considerations. Byzantinische Forschungen, 1987, vol. 12, pp. 235-247.
37. Hostetler B. The Limburg Staurotheke: A Reassessment. Athanor, 2012, vol. 30, pp. 7-13.
38. Hunger H. On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1969, vol. 23-24, pp. 15-38.
39. Hunger H. Schreiben und Lesen in Byzanz: Die byzantinische Buchkultur. München, C. H. Beck Publ., 1989. 174 p. (in German).
40. James L. Introduction. James L. (ed.). Art and Text in Byzantine Culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2007, pp. 1-12.
41. James L.; Webb R. "To Understand Ultimate Things and Enter Secret Places": Ekphrasis and Art in Byzantium. Art History, 1991, vol. 14-1, pp. 1-17.
42. Jeffreys E.; Jeffreys M. Afterword. Reading and Hearing in Byzantium. Shawcross T.; Toth I. (eds.). Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2018, pp. 626-637.
43. Kaharan A. Byzantine Holy Images and the Issue of Transcendence and Immanence: The Theological Background of the Late Byzantine Palaiologan Iconography, Ph. D. Thesis. Stockholm University, 2005.
44. Kalopisi-Verti S. Publications of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti. Charikleia D.; Vassiliou A.; Arvaniti S. (eds). En Sofia Mathitéfsantes: Essays in Byzantine Material Culture and Society in Honour of Sophia Kalopissi-Verti, Summertown, Archaeo press Publ., 2019, pp. 7-14.
45. Kitzinger E. Some Reflections on Portraiture in Byzantine Art. Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta, 1963, vol. 8, pp. 185-193.
46. Kitzinger E.; Curcic S. The Mosaics of St. Mary's of the Admiral in Palermo. Washington, D. C., Dumbarton Oaks Research Library Publ., 1991. 480 p.
47. Korac D. The Canonization of Stefan of Decani and Changes in the Rulers' Portraits in Decani. Duric V. (ed.). Decani i vizantijska umetnost sredinom XIV veka (Decani and Byzantine Art in the Middle of the 14th Century). Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1989, pp. 287-293 (in Serbian).
48. Kubina K. Die enkomiastische Dichtung des Manuel Philes, Ph. D. Dissertation. University of Vienna, 2008.
49. Kubina K. Die enkomiastische Dichtung des Manuel Philes. Form und Funktion des literarischen Lobes in der frühen Palaiologenzeit. Berlin; Boston, Brill Publ., 2020. (in German).
50. Kustas G. Studies in Byzantine Rhetoric. Thessalonike, Patriarchikon Idruma Publ., 1973. 215 p.
51. Lampros S. Byzantine Church in the Village Mborje. Neos Ellenomnemön, 1922, vol. 16, pp. 119-120 (in Greek).
52. Lauxtermann M. Byzantine Poetry from Pisides to Geometres: Texts and Contexts, vols 1-2. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Publ., 2003. 389 p., 431 p.
53. Macrides R.; Magdalino P. The Architecture of Ekphrasis: Construction and Context of Paul the Silentary's Poem on Hagia Sophia. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1988, vol. 12, pp. 47-82.
54. Maguire H. Truth and Convention in Byzantine Descriptions of Works of Art. Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 1974, vol. 28, pp. 111-140.
55. Maguire H. The Icons of Their Bodies: Saints and Their Images in Byzantium. Princeton University Press Publ., 1996. 240 p.
56. Marsengill K. Portraits and Icons: Between Reality and Spirituality in Byzantine Art. Turnhout, Brepols Publ., 2013. 463 p.
57. Martini E. (ed.). Manuelis Philae carmina inedita. Neapolis, 1906. 240 p.
58. Miller E. (ed.). Manuelis Philae Carmina Ex Codicibus Escurialensibus, Florentinis, Parisinis et Vaticanis nunc primum edidit, 2 vols. Paris, 1857. 492 p., 528 p.
59. Millet G. Portraits byzantins. Revue de l'art chrétien, 1911, vol. 41, pp. 445-451.
60. Mouriki D. Portraits de donateurs et invocations sur les icônes du XIIIe siècle au Sinaï. Études balkaniques, 1995, vol. 2, pp. 103-135.
61. Mullett M. Preface. 25 Years of Byzantine Letters, Literacy and Literature. Letters, Literacy and Literature in Byzantium. London, Variorum Publ., 2007, pp. 1-12.
62. Mullett M. Rhetoric, Theory and the Imperative of Performance: Byzantium and Now. Jeffreys E. (ed.). Rhetoric in Byzantium: Papers from the 35th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies. Aldershot, Ashgate Publ., 2003, pp. 151-171.
63. Negräu E. The Ruler's Portrait in Byzantine Art a Few Observations Regarding Its Functions. European Journal of Science and Theology, 2011, vol. 7-2, pp. 63-75.
64. Nemykina E. A. Portraits of Ktetors and the Ruling Sovereign in Fresco Ensembles of the Time of Dusan the Strong. Zakharova A.; Maltseva S.; Staniukovich-Denisova E. (eds.). Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art: Collection of Articles, vol. 10. Lomonosov Moscow State University; St. Petersburg, 2020, pp. 799-808. DOI: 10.18688/aa200-7-74 (in Russian)
65. Panayotidi M. The Question of the Role of the Donor and of the Painter: A Rudimentary Approach. Deltiontes Christianikes Archaiologikes Etaireias, 1993-1994, vol. 17, pp. 143-156.
66. Papadogiannakis N. Studien zu den Epitaphien des Manuel Philes, Ph. D. Thesis. Freie Universität Berlin, 1984. 300 p. (in German).
67. Papalexandrou A. Text in Context: Eloquent Monuments and the Byzantine Beholder. Word&Image, 2001, vol. 17, pp. 259-283.
68. Pentcheva B. What is a Byzantine Icon? Constantinople versus Sinai. Stephenson P. (ed.). The Byzantine World. London; NewYork, Routledge Publ., 2010, pp. 265-283.
69. Popovic D. The Representation of Rulers over the "Imperial Door" of the Holy Archangels Church near Prizren. Saopstenja, 1994, vol. 26, pp. 25-35 (in Serbian).
70. Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit. von Trapp E. (ed.). CD-Version. Wien, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976-1996, 2001.
71. Radojcic S. Portreti srpskih hvladara u srednjem veku (Portraits of Serbian Rulers during the Middle Ages). Skoplje, 1934. 106 p. (in Serbian).
72. Rasolkoska-Nikolovska Z. About the Founder Portraits in the Church of the Holy Mother of God in Kuceviste. Zograf, 1985, vol. 16, pp. 41-53 (in Serbian).
73. Rasolkoska-Nikolovska Z. About the Rulers' Portraits in Ljuboten and Their Dating. Zograf, 1986, vol. 17, pp. 45-52 (in Serbian).
74. Rhoby A. Byzantinische Epigramme auf Fresken und Mosaiken. Wien, Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2009. 436 p. (in German).
75. Rhoby A. Inscriptional Poetry. Ekphrasis in Byzantine Tomb Epigrams. Byzantinoslavica, 2011, iss. 69-3, pp. 193-204.
76. Rhoby A. Interactive Inscriptions: Byzantine Works of Art and Their Beholders. Lidov A. (ed.). Spatial Icons. Performativity in Byzantium and Medieval Russia. Moscow, Indrik Publ., 2011, pp. 317-333.
77. Rhoby A. Text as Art? Byzantine Inscriptions and Their Display. Berti I.; Bolle K.; Opdenhoff F.; Stroth F. (eds.). Writing Matters: Presenting and Perceiving Monumental Inscriptions in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berlin, De Gruyter Publ., 2017, pp. 265-283.
78. Rhoby A. Poetry on Commission in Late Byzantium (13th-15th Century). Hörandner W.; Rhoby A.; Zagklas N. (eds.). A Companion to Byzantine Poetry. Leiden; Boston, Brill Publ., 2020, pp. 264-234.
79. Saenger P. Silent Reading: Its Impact on Late Medieval Script and Society. Viator, 1982, vol. 13, pp. 367-414.
80. Semoglou A. Contribution à l'étude du portrait funeraire dans le monde byzantin: 14e-16e siècle. Zograf, 1995, vol. 24, pp. 4-41 (in French).
81. Sevcenko N. Close Encounters: Contact between Holy Figures and the Faithful as Represented in Byzantine Works of Art. Guillou A.; Durand J. (eds.). Byzance et les images. Paris, La Documentation française Publ., 1994, pp. 257-285.
82. Sevcenko N. The Representation of Donors and Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons. Deltiontes Christianikes Archaiologikes Etaireias, 1994, vol. 17, pp. 157-164.
83. Sideras A. Die byzantinischen Grabreden: Prosopographie, Datierung, Überlieferung. Wien, Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Publ., 1994. 536 p. (in German).
84. Spatharakis I. The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts. Leiden, Brill Publ., 1976. 287 p.
85. Talbot A-M. Byzantine Studies at the Beginning of the Twenty-first Century. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 2006, vol. 105-1, pp. 25-43.
86. Todic B. About Some Re-painted Portraits in Decani. Zbornik Narodnog muzeja, 1982, vol. 11-2, pp. 5567 (in Serbian).
87. Todic B. Representative Portraits of Saint Sava in Medieval Painting. Cirkovic S. (ed.). Sveti Sava u srpskoj istoriji i tradiciji (St. Sava in Serbian History and Tradition). Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1998, pp. 225-249 (in Serbian).
88. Tomekovic-Reggiani S. Portraits et structures sociales au XIIe siècle. Actes du XVe congrès international d'études byzantines, vol. 2. Athens, 1980, pp. 823-835 (in French).
89. Tsamakda V.; Zimmermann N. (eds.). Privatporträt. Die Darstellung realer Personen in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Kunst. Akten des Internationalen Workshops an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 14-15 Februar 2013. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2020. 372 p.
90. Vassilaki M. Female Piety, Devotion and Patronage: Maria Angelina Doukaina Palaiologina of Ioannina and Helena Ugljesa of Serres. Spieser J.-M.; Yota E. (eds.). Donation et donateurs dans le monde byzantine. Paris, Desclée de Brouwer Publ., 2012, pp. 221-234.
91. Velmans T. Le Portrait dans l'art des Paléologues. Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du colloque. Venice, Institut d'Etudes byzantines et post-byzantines Publ., 1971, pp. 91-148 (in French).
92. Vojvodic D. Founders' Portraits and Representations. Subotic G. (ed.). Hilandar Monastery. Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1998, pp. 249-257 (in Serbian).
93. Vojvodic D. From the Horizontal to the Vertical Genealogical Image of the Nemanjic Dynasty. Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta, 2007, no. 44, pp. 295-312 (in Serbian).
94. Vojvodic D. Portraits of the First Donors on the Ground Floor of the Zica Tower. Nis i Vizantija, 2012, vol. 10, pp. 323-339.
95. Vojvodic D. Portraits of Rulers, Church Dignitaries and Nobles in the Nave and Narthex. Duric V. (ed.). Zidno slikarstvo manastira Decana (Mural Painting of Monastery of Decani). Belgrade, SANU Publ., 1995, pp. 265-297 (in Serbian).
96. Webb R. Accomplishing the Picture: Ekphrasis, Mimesis and Martyrdom in Asterios of Amaseia. James L. (ed.). Art and Text in Byzantine Culture. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Publ., 2007, pp. 13-32.
97. Webb R. Ekphrasis, Imagination and Persuasion in Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Practice. Farnham, Taylor & Francis Publ., 2009. 252 p.
98. West Sh. Portraiture. Oxford, Oxford University Press Publ., 2004. 256 p.
Title. Likeness Is in the Eye of the Beholder: Byzantine Portraiture in Art Historiography and Byzantine Perception
Author. Adashinskaya, Anna — Ph. D., postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Medieval Studies of the National Research University Higher School of Economics. Myasnitskaya ul., 20, 101000, Moscow, Russian Federation; former research fellow in the project Art Historiographies in Central and Eastern Europe. An Inquiry from the Perspective of Entangled Histories (ArtHistCEE StG-802700), New Europe College, Institute for Advanced Studies. Strada Plantelor Nr. 21, 023971 Bucharest, Romania. adashik@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-00024038-3371
Abstract. The present paper addresses the problem of likeness in Byzantine donor portrait and treats this issues, initially, in the context of the historiography of Byzantine portraiture and, further, in the contemporary Byzantine sources, the epigrams by the Palaiologan poet Manuel Philes. It looks at two consecutive methodological trends in the Byzantine portrait historiography: the first, traditional art historical, investigates the portraits as objects, i.e. it treats their style, iconography, and historical context; the second, stemming from the cultural studies, discusses the engagement of the viewer with the images and the process of beholding as performative in its nature. To understand the problem of likeness in this context, the article turns to the problem of art beholding in the Byzantine sources. Namely, it follows the description of viewers' experience in the texts that accompanied works of art, inscriptional epigrams, and finds that an image was perceived as paradoxical by its nature, being simultaneously extremely resemblant of natural phenomena and lacking the ability of speech. The research proceeds to investigate two examples of preserved Byzantine portraits accompanied by epigrams in situ (Portrait of Niphon at the Christ Church in Mborje and the portrait of Demetrios Phatmeris at the St. Panteleimon in Ohrid). It finds that the texts and images proposed to the beholders the different types of information which affected the viewer synergistically and provoked his/her emotional response. The final part of the paper deals with two epigrammatic epitaphs by Manuel Philes (To a megas stratopedarches and To Saponopoulos) and inquires into the strategies developed to facilitate the communication between the images and beholders. It concludes that the recognition of the' personalities of the deceased was achieved through emotional engagement with the read or pronounced texts and, theoretically, the observed images. In this framework, the likeness was the matter of the beholder's ability to sympathize with the deceased and to assist with prayers into his/her future salvation.
Keywords: Byzantine donor portrait, Byzantine funeral portrait, historiography, art history, Byzantine studies, portrait iconography, performative turn, epitaphs, Manuel Philes, beholder, inscriptions, art epigrams
Название статьи. Сходство в глазах смотрящего: византийский портрет в историографии искусства и византийском восприятии10
Сведения об авторе. Адашинская, Анна — Ph. D., научный сотрудник Научно-учебной лаборатории медиевистических исследований НИУ ВШЭ, ул. Мясницкая, 20, Москва, Российская Федерация, 101000; участник завершившегося проекта «Историографии искусства в Центральной и Восточной Европе. Исследование с точки зрения взаимозависимых историй» (ArtHistCEE StG-802700), Колледж Новой Европы, Институт перспективных исследований, Страда Плантелор 21, Бухарест, Румыния, 023971. adashik@gmail.com ORCID: 0000-0002-4038-3371
Аннотация. Настоящая статья посвящена проблеме схожести в византийском донорском портрете. Сначала данная проблема рассматривается в Историографии византийской портретной живописи, а затем в современных самим портретам византийских источниках — эпиграммах поэта Палеологов-ского периода Мануила Фила. В статье рассматриваются два последовательных методологических направления в историографии византийского портрета: первое — традиционные исследования истории искусства, которые видят в портретах объекты и формулируют методы, связанные с изучением стиля, иконографии и исторического контекста. Второе направление, связанное с теориями, разработанными в рамках культурологии, концентрируется на взаимодействии зрителя с изображениями и процессе созерцания как перформативном по своей природе акте. Чтобы понять проблему подобия в данном контексте, статья обращается к теме созерцания искусства в византийских источниках и исследует описание переживаний зрителей в текстах, сопровождающих произведения искусства, надписях-эпиграммах. Как обнаруживается, изображение воспринималось византийцами как парадоксальное по своей природе, одновременно чрезвычайно сходное с природными явлениями и лишенное способности говорить. Статья обращает внимания на два примера сохранившихся византийских портретов с эпиграммами (портрет Нифонта в церкви Христа в Мборье и портрет Деметрия Фатмериса в церкви Св. Пантелеймона в Охриде) и приходит к заключению, что тексты и изображения предлагали смотрящим различные типы информации, которые совместно влияли на зрителя и вызывали его/ее эмоциональную реакцию. Заключительная часть статьи посвящена двум эпиграммам-эпитафиям Мануила Фила (неизвестному великому стратопедарху и некому Сапонопулу). В ней исследуются стратегии, разработанные для облегчения общения между изображениями и смотрящими. В заключении делается вывод о том, что распознавание личности умершего достигалось за счет эмоционального взаимодействия читателя/ зрителя с прочитанными или произносимыми текстами и, теоретически, с созерцаемыми изображениями. В этом контексте подобие давало зрителю возможность сочувствовать умершему и помогать ей/ ему обрести спасение через поминальные молитвы зрителей.
Ключевые слова: византийский ктиторский портрет, византийский погребальный портрет, историография истории искусств, византийские исследования, портретная иконография, перформативный поворот, эпитафии, Мануил Фил, зритель, надписи, эпиграммы на произведениях искусства
10 Эта статья является частью проекта «Историография искусства в Центральной и Восточной Европе. Расследование запутанных историй» (ArtHistCEEStG-802700), получившего финансирование от Европейского исследовательского совета (ERC) в рамках исследовательской и инновационной программы Европейского Союза Starting Grant Horizon 2020.
