Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:45:59.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The imperial panels at San Vitale: a reconsideration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Charles Barber
Charles Barber*
Affiliation:
Courtauld Institute
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The imperial panels at San Vitale, Ravenna play a prominent role in Byzantine art history. These mosaics have engendered a lengthy bibliography, much of it dedicated to interpreting the possible connotations of these works. There has been debate over the nature of the ceremonial depicted, over the relationship of these panels to the rest of the programme of decoration within the church and over the representation of imperial power. This paper will argue that a consideration of gender, as represented in these panels, can add to our understanding of these important works of art and the social climate which produced them.

Type
Articles:
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 14 , 1990 , pp. 19 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The bibliography on S. Vitale is extensive, so I have restricted this to more im portant recent works:

Rodenwalt, G., ‘Bemerkungen zu den Kaisermosaiken in San Vitale’, JdI LIX-LX (1944–45), 88–110 Google Scholar

von Simson, O., Sacred Fortress. Byzantine art and statecraft in Ravenna (Chicago 1948)Google Scholar

Deichmann, F.W., Ravenna Haupstadt des Spätantiken Abendlandes vols I (1969), II, 2 (1976) and III (1958 Wiesbaden)Google Scholar

Stricevic, G., ‘Iconografia dei mosaici imperiali a San Vitale’, Felix Ravenna 80 (1959) 5–27 Google Scholar

Grabar, A., ‘Quel est le sens de l’offrande de Justinien et de Theodora sur les mosaiques de Saint-Vital?’ Felix Ravenna 81 (1960) 63–77 Google Scholar

Stricevic, G., ‘Sure le probleme de l’iconographie des mosaiques imperiales de Saint-Vital’, Felix Ravenna 85 (1962) 80–100 Google Scholar

MacCormack, S., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley 1981) (hereafter Art).Google Scholar

2. On the nature of the ceremonial represented here see the debate between Stricevic and Grabar (note 1) and Mathews, T.F., The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (Univ. Park, 1971) 146–7 Google Scholar. On the place of the panels within the programme of decoration in San Vitale see von Simpson, op. cit. 23–39 and S. MacCormack, Art, 260–64. On imperial portraiture see von Simson, op. cit. 27–29 and Deichmann, op. cit. II, 2, 187.

3. von Simson, op. cit. 27–29 and Deichmann, op. cit. II, 2, 187.

4. The church was dedicated in 547 (Deichmann, op. cit. II, 2, 48) and Theodora died in June 548 (The Chronicle of John Malalas, tr. E. Jeffreys, M. Jeffreys and R. Scott [Melbourne 1986] 289, Book 18.104). Assuming that this is a portrait of the living Theodora (see below), the images should be dated to about 547.

5. Such an approach is not intended to deny that these images are a part of the wider programme of this decoration. However, the issue of gender through which I am analysing these portraits lies primarily between these two panels.

6. T.F. Mathews, op. cit. 147.

7. ibid., 146–47; Deichmann, op. cit. II, 2, 180.

8. ibid.

9. S. MacCormack, Art, 239–66; eadem, ‘Christ, the Emperor, Time and Ceremonial’, B 52 (1982) 287–309.

10. Procopius, Secret History, Loeb ed. H.B. Dewing, X.11.

11. Deichmann, op. cit. II, 2, 182. For the ivories see: Volbach, W.F., Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spätantike und des frühen Mittelalters (Mainz 1976) Taf. 26, pl. 51, 52.Google Scholar

12. S. MacCormack, Art, 263.

13. MacCormack’s argument provides the most fundamental reassessment of this imagery (Art, 260–264). She raises a number of points highlighting the differences in the representation of the Emperor and the Empress. The principle cause for these differences is, MacCormack argues, that this is the representation of a dead Empress. The niche, the fountain and the doorway of Theodora’s panel are interpreted as elements in the representation of the dead Empress (see my alternative reading of these below). The representation of a dead Empress and a living Emperor is possible. Paul the Silentiary describes such an image in his ekphrasis of the rebuilt St. Sophia (C. Mango, The Art of the Byzantine Empire [Toronto 1986] 89). From Paul’s description of the equivalence of these portrayals it is apparent that the artist in St. Sophia found it unnecessary to introduce the props identified in the Theodora panel by MacCormack to represent Theodora as a dead person. MacCormack suggests that Theodora’s post-mortem role in the San Vitale scheme is to act as a foil fo the Emperor. A parallel is drawn with Corpius’ In laudem Iustini minoris (ed. A. Cameron [London 1976]) in which the Empress Sophia, as an embodiment of wisdom, is understood as a foil to the Emperor Justin II, who embodies justice. This wordplay is not limited to the Emperor and Empress. It also includes the Emperor’s mother Vigilantia (Preface, lines 20–24). The problem is whether this verbal model should be applied to the visual text of the San Vitale panels. MacCormack’s assumption that this model can be applied rests on the identification of the Theodora panel as a portrayal of the dead Empress. I will argue below that the evidence used by MacCormack to present this as a dead Theodora can be interpreted in a wholly different manner.

14. Discourse 2 on Genesis 2 (PG 54) col. 589.

15. Corinthians I, 11, 7.

16. Tertullian, On the dress of women I, 1, 2 (CSEL 70.59).

17. Galatariotou, C., ‘Holy women and witches: aspects of Byzantine conceptions of gender’, BMGS 9 (1984/5) 55–94, 55.Google Scholar

18. Galatians 3, 24.

19. Grant, , The secret sayings of Jesus ((London 1960) 75 Google Scholar (hereafter Secret).

20. PL 23.273A.

21. Herrin, J., ‘In search of Byzantine woman: three avenues of approach’, in Images of women in antiquity, ed. Cameron, /Kuhrt, ((London 1983) 167–89, 169 Google Scholar (hereafter Three Avenues).

22. The kind of women who ought to be taken as wives, 4 (PG 51) 230.

23. Cameron, Averil, Procopius ((London 1986) 67–83 Google Scholar esp. 69.

Fisher, E.A., ‘Theodora and Antonia in the Historia Arcana: history and/or fiction?’ Arethusa 11 (1978) 253–80 Google Scholar, provides an assessment of Procopius’ attitudes to women throughout his literature. Fisher argues that the Empress is a special figure (259), but like Cameron the Empress is understood as a special woman.

24. Translation from the Penguin edition of the Secret History, tr. G. Williamson, 114. (Loeb ed. XV.9).

25. Loeb ed. XVI. 1–5.

26. Wars I:XXIV.33, Loeb ed. H.B. Dewing (London 1971).

27. Speck, P., Kaiser Konstantin VI ((Munich 1978)Google Scholar referring to a letter of Theodore the Studite, Letter 1, 7 (933A).

In the Secret History Amalasuntha is described as acting in an ‘exceptionally virile manner’ (Loeb ed. XVI.1).

28. This is thoroughly investigated in Spender, Dale, Man-made language ((London 1985)Google Scholar in which the author analyses the gender bias in language and its implications.

29. Beaucamp, J., ‘La situation juridique de la femme à Byzance’, Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévales 20 (1977) 145–176, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30. Digest L, 17; XIII, 5; Codex X, 42, 9.

31. Digest III, 1, 1; III, 3, 54; Codex II, 12, 4; II, 12, 18; Digest XIII, 5.

32. Beaucamp, art. cit. 149.

33. Nov 117c 8.9. Goria, F., Studi sul matrimonia dell’ adultera nel diritto giustinianeo e bizantino ((Turin 1975) 182–85, 228–51.Google Scholar

34. The inscription on the Turtura fresco is written by the son of the widow Turtura and treats her in terms of her husband, Obas, who had been dead for thirty-five years. For the text see Bagatti, , Il Cimitero di Commodilla ((Vatican City 1936).Google Scholar

35. Evidenced by the writers in ‘Women and Monasticism’ BF 11 (1985).

36. Herrin, Three Avenues, 174–79.

37. Herrin, Three Avenues, 177.

38. Wilkinson, J., Egeria’s travels ((London 1971) 20–23.Google Scholar

39. Smith-Lewis, , Select narratives of the holy women from the Syro-Antiochene or Sinai palimpsest, Studia Sinaitica IX & X ((London 1900) 2.Google Scholar

40. ibid., 49.

41. Herrin, Three Avenues, 179; eadem, ‘Women and the Church in Byzantium’, Bulletin of the British Association of Orientalists (1979).

42. Herrin, Three Avenues, 173.

43. Clark, E., Women in the early church ((Delaware 1983) CSEL 56, 146.Google Scholar

44. On the relationship between theory and practice in Byzantine attitudes to women see: Laiou, A., ‘The role of women in Byzantine society’, JÖB 31, 1.1 (1981) 28–60 Google Scholar, and Garland, L., ‘The Life and ideology of Byzantine women’, B 58 (1988) 361–93.Google Scholar

45. Bugge, , Virginitas ((The Hague 1975) 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Blank, D., ‘The etymology of salvation in Gregory of Nyssa’s “De Virginitate”’ Journal of Theological Studies 37 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Basil of Caesarea Sermo asceticus II (PG 31) 873, tr. from Bugge, op. cit., 32.

48. Patlagean, E., ‘L’histoire de la femme déguisée en moine et l’évolution de la sainteté feminine à Byzance’, Studi Medievali 17.2 (1976) 597–623.Google Scholar

49. Grant, Secret, 99.

50. Smith-Lewis, op. cit. 20.

51. ibid., 13.

52. Clark, op. cit. (CSEL 57) 621.

53. On the sermon on the mount 1, 15, 40, CCL 35.44.

54. Smith-Lewis, op. cit., 51–2.

55. S. MacCormack, Art, 261–63.

56. Grabar, A., Christian Iconography ((London 1969) 44–45 Google Scholar discusses the regal nature of the Magi.

57. A visual comparison for this type of shading can be made with the architecture of the panel of SS. Onesiphorus and Porphyrios in the dome of St. George, Thessaloniki. Colour plate in Kitzinger, E., Byzantine art in the making ((London 1977) II, 52–53 Google Scholar. Thanks to Henri Franses for pointing out the nature of this ceiling to me.

58. For a more traditional discussion of the space in this panel see Stojakovic, A., ‘La realisation des interieurs sur les mosaiques imperiales de San Vitale’, Starinar 20 (1969) 363–72.Google Scholar

59. Discussion in Mango, C., The Brazen House ((Copenhagen 1959) 32–24.Google Scholar

60. Procopius, Buildings I.x.16–19. ed./tr. H.B. Dewing (Loeb ed. 1971).