Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:27:43.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The supernatural protector of Constantinople: the Virgin and her icons in the tradition of the Avar siege*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Bissera V. Pentcheva
Bissera V. Pentcheva*
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous scholarship has maintained that icons of the Virgin were carried in procession during the Avar siege of Constantinople in A.D. 626. Based on a close reading of the primary sources from the seventh to the fourteenth centuries, this paper will argue in contrast that a tight linkage between Marian icons and protection of the Byzantine capital did not occur until after Iconoclasm. The larger implications of this conclusion concern the evolution of the cult of the Virgin in Constantinople from its initial focus on relics to a cult centered on icons and icon processions as it emerged in the second half of the tenth century.

Type
Articles
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 26 , 2002 , pp. 2 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 2002

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.)

Footnotes

*

This article derives from my Ph.D. dissertation, B. Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin and Their Public in Middle Byzantine Constantinople (Harvard University 2001). In addition to my advisors, Ioli Kalavrezou, Herbert Kessler, Irene Winter, and Jeffrey Hamburger, I would like to thank Leslie Brubaker, Michael McCormick, and Nicholas Constas for their insightful comments and constructive criticism. I am also grateful to Alexander Alexakis and Alice-Mary Talbot for their help with the Greek. Unless otherwise noted, all the translations from the Greek are mine. For the Old and New Testament quotations I have used: Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs (Stuttgart 1935, rpt. 1979) and The Greek New Testament, eds K. Aland et al. (New York 1966, rpt. 1998), for the English version, The Septuagint with the Apocrypha: Greek and English (London/New York 1851, rpt. Peabody, Mass. 1986). An expanded version of this argument will appear in my book, Images of the Virgin: Icons and their Public in Byzantium (Penn State University Press, forthcoming.)

References

1. Cameron, A., ‘The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople: A City Finds its Symbol’, Journal of Theological Studies 29/1 (1978) 79-108CrossRefGoogle Scholar, eadem, ‘The Virgin’s Robe: an Episode in the History of Early Seventh-Century Constantinople’, B 49 (1979) 42-56, eadem, ‘Images of Authority: Élites and Icons in the Late Sixth-Century Byzantium’, Byzantium and the Classical Tradition. University of Birmingham Thirteenth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, 1979, eds M. Mullett and R. Scott (Birmingham 1981) 205-34, eadem, ‘The Language of Images: The Rise of Icons and Christian Representation’, Studies in Church History 28 (1992) 1-42. I am grateful to have had a chance to discuss the results of my research with Averil Cameron during the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium in Spring 2000. In her most recent paper, delivered at the symposium on the Mother of God exhibition at the Benaki museum, January 12-14, 2001, she changed her position and argued that only an acheiropoietos of Christ was carried by the patriarch in the Avar siege.

2. Frolow, A., ‘La dédicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine’, Revue de l’histoire des religions 127 (1944) 61-127Google Scholar. Kitzinger, E., ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, DOP 8 (1954) 83-150Google Scholar. Norman Baynes in his study on the supernatural protectors of Constantinople never discussed how Mary’s help was manifested during the siege. Baynes, N., ‘The Supernatural Defenders of Constantinople’, AB 67 (1949) 165-77Google Scholar.

3. J. L. van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610-715) (Geschichte der griechischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, IV) (Amsterdam 1972). Speck, P., Zufälliges zum Bellům Avaricum des Georgios Pisides (Munich 1980)Google Scholar, idem ‘Bilder und Bilderstreit’, in Byzanz. Die Macht der Bilder (Hildesheim 1998) 56-67.

4. Speck, , Artabasdos. Der rechtgläubige Vorkämpfer der göttlichen Lehren (Poikila Byzantina 2) (Bonn 1981) 155-78Google Scholar.

5. I have followed the methodology of Cameron, Cyril Mango and Gerhard Wolf in their study of the development of the text traditions of particular medieval images and their cults. Cameron, , ‘The Mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, in The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, eds Kessler, H. and Wolf, G. (Villa Spelman Coloquia 6) (Bologna 1998) 33–54.Google Scholar Mango, C., ‘The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople’, in Acta XIII Congressus Internationalis Archaeologiae Christianae, Split - Poreč, September 9 - October 1, 1994, eds. Cambi, N. and Marin, E., II (Studi di antichità cristiana 54) (Vatican City 1998) 61–76 Google Scholar, and Wolf, G., Salus Populi Romani. Die Geschichte römischer Kultbilder im Mittelalter (Weinheim 1990)Google Scholar.

6. The city was originally dedicated by Constantine to the Tyche Anthousa. Starting with the fifth century and throughout the period of constant foreign invasions in the seventh century, the Theotokos gradually replaced the earlier pagan deity and emerged as the alleged supernatural defender of Constantinople. Mango, C., ‘Constantinople as Theotokoupolis’, in Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art, ed. Vassilaki, M. (Milan 2000) 17–25 Google Scholar, idem, ‘The Origins of the Blachernae Shrine at Constantinople’, 61-76. Cameron, ‘The Theotokos in Sixth-Century Constantinople’, 79-108. Frolow, ‘La dédicace de Constantinople dans la tradition byzantine’, 61-127.

7. Barišić, F., ‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares et les Slaves en 626’, B 24 (1954) 371-95Google Scholar. Van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. 12-21. Johnston, J. D. Howard, ‘The Siege of Constantinople in 626’, in Constantinople and Its Hinterland. Papers from the Twenty-seventh Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Oxford, April 1993, eds. Mango, C. and Dagron, G. (London 1995) 131-42Google Scholar.

8. Pertusi, A., Giorgio di Pisidia. Poemi (Studia Patristica et Byzantina 7) (Freising 1960) 176–224 Google Scholar. Sternbach, L., Analecta Avarica (seorsum impressum ex tomo XXX Dissertationum philologicarum Academiae Litterarum Cracoviensis) (Krakow, 1900)Google Scholar. The Greek text is reprinted and translated by Makk, F., Traduction et commentaire de l’homélie écrite probablement par Théodore le Syncelle sur le siège de Constantinople en 626 (Opuscula Byzantina III) (Szeged 1975)Google Scholar. Chronicon Paschale, ed. L. Dindorf, CSHB 16-17 (Bonn 1832) 716-26.

9. In A.D. 501, Zosimos wrote how the goddess Athena appeared on the walls and made Alaric lift his siege of the city in A.D. 396: Zosime. Histoire nouvelle, ed. F. Paschoud (Paris 1986) bk. V. 6 . See further the discussion of the role of pagan goddesses in the construction of the image of the Virgin as the general of the Byzantine army in Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 205-223.

10. For the translation of ή κυρία see my discussion below. The passage can also be translated as: ‘When the principle day of the battle came for the judgment ordained by God’, or ‘When the mistress of the battle came for the judgment ordained by God.’

11. Pertusi still kept the form αύτο as proposed by Sternbach. Consequently, the word now refers to the то φρικτον εΐδος. Yet, the manuscripts show αύτον, thus referring to the Judge or Christ. See further Speck, Zufälliges zum Bellum Avaricum, 27.

12. άντιπρόσωπον could also mean that the image was displayed to counteract the fear, or to address the enemies face to face.

13. ρεόντων χρημάτων referring also to perishable, material things as opposed to the permanence of the Virgin’s love and protection.

14. έπει δε λοιπον τής μάχης ή κυρία προς τήν κρίσιν συνηλθε τήν θεόγραφον, πάλιν σύ κάμνεις• ού γάρ άσκόπως φθάσας τής KowÓTTïroç έντολείκ κατεστάθης-λαβών δε θαττον τον συνήγορον λόγον

και ярое то τείχος έκδραμών то της δίκης νραφήν κατ’ αύτών άοφαλώς προεξεθου то φρικτον єібос тле νραφής της άνράφου. ταΰτην TIC, οιμοα> τήν διάννωοαν βλέπων φήσει δόλω σε τον κριτήν ύφαρπάσαι• δείξας γάρ αύτον τοις έναντίοκ ÖÄOIC άντιπρόσωπον έξανέστησας φόβον και τών έλένχων μηδέπω παρηγμένων кофєиоос αυτοκ ή δίκη καθίστατο. ώς εΰ νε σοι γένοιτο τοϋ καλοϋ δόλου• κρίνας γάρ έν σοι και διαγνους τήν φΰσιν ώς μητρος ούδέν παιδι συμπαθέστερον τήν тоС Δικαστοΰ Μητέρα προσηνάγου οϊκτω, δεήσει, δακρΰοις, άσιτία, КШ τή δόσει δε τών ρεόντων χρημάτων έκεΐθεν ενθεν πολλά боис και σκορπίσας πείθεκ έκείνην πρώτον ή δε συντόμοχ πείθει то Τέκνον και σχεδον προ тѓјс δίκης νικώσαν ήμΤν έξεφώνησε κρίσιν. from Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia, 193-94.

15. Speck, Zufälliges zum Bellum Avaricum, 27-29.

16. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia, 193. Carmi di Giorgio di Pisidia, ed. Tartaglia, 178-79.

17. Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, IV (Leipzig 1806-1809) curia refers to the building where the senate convenes; it can also function as a metonymy for the senate. Κυρία could also refer to the Virgin, see the alternative translation in note 10 above.

18. Classen, P., Kaiserscript und Köningsurkunde: diplomatische Studien zum Problem der Konituität zwischen Altertum und Mittelalter (Byzantina keimena kai meletai 15) (Thessaloniki 1977) 101-4Google Scholar.

19. Sophocleos, E. A., Greek Lexikon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, 2 vols (New York 1957)Google Scholar; and Mega lexikon tes Hellenikes glosses, ed. Demetrakou, D. (Athens 1939)Google Scholar.

20. In a recent communication Speck has endorsed my interpretation. Yet, the problem needs to be explained further through the study of the manuscript tradition.

21. Scholars have suggested that this was the acheiropoietos image Kamouliana. E., Dobschütz, Christusbilder. Untersuchungen zur Christlichen Legende, (Leipzig 1899) 51–55 Google Scholar. Kedrenos in the twelfth century recorded that the emperor Justin II brought the Kamouliana to Constantinople in A. D. 573-574. Georgius Cedrenus, ed. I. Bekker, CSHB 34 (Bonn) 685. ήλθε δε καν ή άχειροποίητος obro τών Καμουλιανών, κώμης της ΚοαΠΓαδοκίο«;. Van Dieten has argued the opposite: that the Kamouliana image was not in Constantinople during the siege because it was taken by Herakleios on a military campaign in the East: Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI, 173-78.

22. Pekáry, T., Das Römmische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft dargestellt anhand der Scriftquellen (III. Römische Herrscherbild, 5) (Berlin 1985) 130-1Google Scholar. Kitzinger, ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, 133.

23. Loerke, W., Cavallo, G., I vangeli di Rossano e le miniature (Rome 1987) II, 145-52Google Scholar. Sevrugian, P., Der Rossano-Codex und die Sinope-Fragmente. Miniatures und Theologie (Worms 1990) 67–74, n. 586 Google Scholar.

24. Kruse, H., Studien zur offiziellen Geltung des Kaiserbildes im Römischen Reiche (Paderborn 1934) 79-106Google Scholar. Pekáry, Das Römmische Kaiserbildnis in Staat, Kult und Gesellschaft, 130-1. Belting, H., Likeness and Presence. A History of the Image before the Era of Art (Bonn, 1990, English tr., Chicago 1994) 103–107 Google Scholar.

25. The image, то φρικτον єібос τής γραφής τής άγράφου, presented as the Judge by George of Pisidia conforms to an observation made by Leslie Brubaker in her discussion of the role of icons in the period before Iconoclasm. She has argued on the basis of the Life of Artemios that icons, when used in public in the seventh century, functioned in a legal context as guarantors, see Brubaker, , ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’ in Morfologie sociali e culturali in Europa fra Tarda Antichità e Alto Medioevo, II (Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo 45) (Spoleto 1998) 1215-46, esp. 1233, 1235Google Scholar.

26. Classen, Kaiserscript und Köningsurkunde, 17-41.

27. Makk, Traduction et commentaire, 74-97. The Greek text was first published in Novae Patrum Bibliothecae, ed. Mai, A., VI (Rome 1853) 423-37Google Scholar. For the recent bibliography, see Szádeczky-Kardoss, S., Avarica. Über die Awarengeschichte und Ihre Quellen VI (Opuscula byzantina, 8) (Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 24) (Szeged 1986) 187-95Google Scholar, idem, Dér, T., and Olajos, T., ‘Breviarum homiliae Theodori Synkelli de obsidione avarica Constantinopolis (BHG 1078m)’, AB 108 (1990) 147-82Google Scholar.

28. Galatians 6:14.

29. Numbers 10:34.

30. Psalm 67:1-3.

31. και Μωσής μεν ήνίκα τον’Ισραήλ κατά του Αμαλήκ προς πόλεμον εταττεν, tac χεΐρας ε’ις τον ούρανον έξεπέτασε (τον σταυρον γάρ προετΰπου τω σχήματι), Άαρών 6ε και ‘Ώρ топ νομοθέτου τάς χείρας ύπήρειδον βαρειαι γάρ αΰται, ούνιττόμεναι то топ νόμου άδόνατον, δπερ ήσθένει τής σαρκος τω φρονημαη, διο και TÒv υ’ιον αύτοϋ ό Θεος είς τον κόσμον άπέσταλκεν ό δέ καθ’ ήμΜωσής τοϋ μονογενοίχ: Θεου τον τΰπον, δν και δαίμονες φρίττουσι (φασι δε τοϋτον TÒv άχειροποίητον) άθωοκ αρας χερσιν (ού γάρ έδειτο του ύπερείδοντος, ολον έαυτον σταυρώσοκ: κόσμω, κατα то Χριστου του Θεοϋ εύαγγέλιον) ώσπερ οπλον άκαταμάχητον διά πανχκ τοΰ τείχους τής πόλειος διηλθε σύν δάκρυσι τοϋτον παραδεικνυς ταϊς oxpíoiç του σκότους δυνάμεσι και топе έκ δΰσεως φάλαγξΐ’ σιωπώση δε τη φωντί καθά Μωσης ό лрйтос έβόα ярое κΰριον, ήνίκα τήν κιβωτον έποίει тоС λαοϋ προπορεΰεσθαι• ‘έξεγέρθητι κΰριε και διασκορ7Γΐσθητωσαν οί έχθροί σου к ott φυγέτωσαν πάντες ο’ι μισουντές σε’• τοΰτοις δέ προσετίθη Δαβιδ топ βασιλέαχ τά ρήματα•’ώς έκλείπει KOOTVÓÇ, έκλιπέτωσαν ώς τήκεται κηρος άπο προσώπου ηυρός, ουτως άπόλοιντο εθνη άλλόφυλα άπο προσώπου του Θεοΰ ήμών, τοθ έπιβεβηκότος έπν δυσμών διά τήν ярое ήμας συγκατάβασιν. Sternbach in Makk, Traduction et commentaire, 80-81.

32. Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed., 716-26.

33. ότι έγώ θεωρώ γυναΐκα σεμνοφοροϋσαν περιτρέχουσαν єіс то τείχος μόνην οΰσαν. Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed., 725. For the connection of this story with the image of the goddess Athena, see note 9 above.

34. Makk, Traduction et commentaire, 80.

35. Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia, 182-83, Makk, Traduction et commentaire, 79-82, 87-90, 95-96, Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed., 725. See also my discussion, Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 217-20.

36. Kitzinger, ‘The Cult of Images in the Age before Iconoclasm’, 122.

37. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, 12, 74 -75. The image was a semi-acheiropoietos. It was believed to have been drawn by Saint Luke and painted with colors by angels.

38. Le Liber pontificalis, ed. Duchesne, L., I (Paris 1981) 443 Google Scholar. See also, Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, 37-44, and Andaloro, M., ‘L’acheropita in ombra del Laterano’, in Il volto di Cristo, eds Morello, G. and Wolf, G. (Milan 2000) 43–45 Google Scholar.

39. Ševčenko, N. P., ‘Icons in the Liturgy’, DOP 45 (1991) 45–57 Google Scholar and eadem, ‘Servants of the Holy Icon’, in Byzantine East, Latin West. Studies in Honor of Kurt Weitzmann, eds C. Moss and Kiefer (Princeton 1995) 547-53 focus on icon processions in the Middle and Late Byzantine period. R. Janin, ‘Les processions religeuses à Byzance’, 69-88 mentions processions with icons but does not try to establish their development, or comment on the absence of painted panels from the regular liturgical processions in the pre-Iconoclast period.

40. Baldovin, J., The Urban Character of Christian Worship. The Origins, Development and Meaning of Stational Liturgy (Orientalia Christiana Analecta 228) (Rome 1987) 167–226, esp. 209-14, 226Google Scholar. The Greek words used for the procession and the action are: λίτη, λιτανεία and λιτανεΰω. I will use litania (λιτανεία) in the singular, and litaniai (λιτανείαι) in the plural.

41. The stational liturgy was an urban procession that passed through the streets of the city and culminated in the celebration of Mass by the patriarch in a church designated for that occasion. Baldovin, The Urban Character, 36-37.

42. John Chrysostomos, MPG 50, 700. Sozomenos, MPG 67, 1537. Chronicon Paschale, Bonn ed., 529.

43. MPG 50, 699-796 (Holy martyr Phocas of Pontus); MPG 63, 469-74 (Unknown martyr. In this procession in A.D. 398 the empress herself carried the box of relics). Baldovin, The Urban Character, 182-83, 184.

44. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Tanner, N. P., 2 vols (London/Washington, D.C. 1990)I, 144-45Google Scholar. See also Brubaker, ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’, 1215-46.

45. Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, CD ROM version, search under άχειροποιητος. A similar observation is made by Dobschiitz, Christusbilder, 37-39, 118*-22*.

46. The reference to an acheiropoietos image ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa (A.D. ca. 335-394) is a later interpolation done in the period A.D. 600-750, see Dobschiitz, Christusbilder, 43-44, 12**-28**. The first reference to an acheiropoietos appears in Evagrius’ (A.D. 536-594) account of the siege of Edessa in A.D. 544 (Eccl. Hist. bk. IV.27). The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, eds Bidez, J. and Parmentier, L. (London 1898) 175 Google Scholar, and The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, tr. M. Whitby (Translated Texts for Historians, 33) (Liverpool 2000), 226-27, 323-26. See also Cameron, ‘The Mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, 38-39, and Speck who argues that the passage about the acheiropoietos is interpolated: Speck, Die Interpolationen in den Akten des Konzils von 787 und die Libri Carolini (Poikila byzantina, 16) (Bonn 1998) 120-21.

47. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 55-57; Grabar, A., Martyrium. Recherches sur le culte des reliques et l’art chrétien antique (Paris 1943-1946) II, 343-57Google Scholar; Kitzinger, ‘The Cult of Images in the Age Before Iconoclasm’, 118-21; Belting, Likeness and Presence, 49-57; Kessler, ‘Configuring the Invisible by Copying the Holy Face’, in The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation, 1-12, 129-52; and idem, ‘II Mandylion’, in Il volto di Cristo, 67-99.

48. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 40-196, Cameron, ‘The Mandylion and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, in The Holy Face and the Paradox of Representation. 33-54, and Kessler, ‘Il Mandylion’, in II volto di Cristo, 67-99.

49. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 123*-35*, 158*-249*, 3**-129**.

50. The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius Scholasticus, Whitby ed., 226-27, 323-26. In the first half of the ninth century the story is modified and the rescue was attributed to a public procession with the Edessa image of Christ on the city walls. The Letter of the Three Patriarchs to Emperor Theophilos and Related Texts, eds. Munitiz, J. A., Chrysostomides, J., Harvalia-Cook, E., and Dendrinos, C. (Camberley 1997) 35 Google Scholar.

51. For Philippikos, see Theophylactus Simocatta, Historiae, ed. de Boor, C. (Stuttgart 1887, rpt. 1972) 73–74, 1101Google Scholar, The History of Theophylact Simocatta, tr. Michael and Mary Whitby (Oxford 1986). For Herakleios, see Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia, Poemi, 250. See also the discussion of these sources in Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 50-55.

52. The Syriac Chronicle Known as That of Zachariah of Mitylene, eds Hamilton, F. J. and Brooks, E. W. (London 1899) 320-21Google Scholar. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, l**-9**. See also Belting, Likeness and Presence, 53-57, and Brubaker, ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’ 1227-30.

53. Brubaker in her critique of Kitzinger’s theory has concluded that the icons acquired special veneration only in the late seventh century, Brubaker, ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’ 1253-54, and Auzepy, M.-F., ‘L’évolution de l’attitude face au miracle à Byzance (VIIe-IXe siècle)’, in Miracles, prodiges et merveilles au Moyen Âge (Série Histoire Ancienne et Médiévale, 34) (Paris 1995) 30–46 Google Scholar. A more radical conclusion has been drawn by Speck; he has argued that the references to icons performing miracles are interpolated in the vitae of St. Symeon the Younger, St. Artemios, and Theodore of Sykeon in the ninth century, Speck, , ‘Wunderheilige und Bilder. Zur Frage des Beginns der Bilderverehrung’ (Poikila Byzantina 11, Varia III) (Bonn 1991) 163–247 Google Scholar.

54. ό τάς καθ’ ήμας ούματώδεις έκχΰσεκ εχειν νομίζων ε’ις τρισάθλιον κράτος, της γής то кѓјтос, то πρόσωπον ropvóvoç. ούχ ειλες αύτόν, ώς ό Περσέοχ πλάνος, άλλ’ άντιτάξας τω φθορεΤ τών παρθένων то φρικτον ε’ιδος τής άχράντου Παρθένοιτ αύτης yàp εΐχκ τήν βοηθον ε’ικόνα οτε προσηλθες τή βορα той θηρίουκαθεΐλες αύτόν, ού κρεμασθεΐσαν κόρην μίαν σεσωκώς, άλλά πόλεις öXac, from Pertusi, Giorgio di Pisidia, 251-252.

55. Ήράκλειχ yàp ό στρατηνος Άφρικης πλοΐα πολλά έξοπλίσοκτ και στρατον απειρον έξ Άφρικής και Μαυρντανίας έπισυνάξας τήν Κωνσταντννοΰπολιν κατέλαβεν етфєродєуос και τήν άχειροποίητον ε’ικόνα τοϋ Κυρίου, ώς φησι Гєсоруюс ό Пшібіос, from Georgii Monachi chronicon, ed. de Boor, С (Leipzig 1904) II 665.12.Google Scholar

56. Τοΰτψ τφ ετει μηνι Όκτωμβρίφ δ’ Ίνδικτιώνι ιδ’ ήκεν ό Ήράκλειος άπο Άφρικής φέρων πλοία καστελλώμενα, εχοντα τοΐς καταρτίοις κιβώτια, καί είκόνας τής θεομητορος, καθά κάί ό Пшібіос Γεώpvıoç λέγει, from Chronographia, ed. de Boor, С., 2 vols (Leipzig 1883-1885) 459. 19.Google Scholar

57. No. 2181 in Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. Jaffé, P., I (Leipzig 1885) 253 Google Scholar. The text is printed in Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, XIII (Paris-Leipzig, 1901-27) 92C-100A, and reprinted in MPG 98, 147-56. I would like to thank Paul Speck who brought this text to my attention. The authenticity of the letter has been questioned. Jean Gouillard argued that the letter was not written by pope Gregory II, but by patriarch Germanos based on the affinity of this letter to a letter written by Germanos to Thomas, bishop of Claudiopolis. Gouillard, J., ‘Aux origines de l’iconoclasme: le témoignage de Grégoire II?’ TM 3 (1968) 243–307 Google Scholar. Speck has argued that the letter is genuine, yet, the excerpt (Mansi, XIII, 93 C2 after λιτανεύσουσιν — to 97 D3 finishing at γνώσεωςθ is an interpolation composed in the second half of the ninth century. Speck, Artabasdos, 155-78. See also, Conte, P., Regesto delle lettere dei papi del secolo VIII (Milan 1984) 49–77 Google Scholar. While Conte never clearly stated his position, he has been inclined to accepted the letter as genuine. The same position is also maintained in Alexakis, A., Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115 and Its Archetype (Dumbarton Oaks Studies, 34) (Washington, D.C. 1996) 119-22Google Scholar.

58. I Kings 2:4 in Septuaginta.

59. Wisdom 5:20.

60. The edited text reads ή κίνησις, but this word makes no sense. Most likely the original word was ένίκησας that was then copied as έκινησας, and finally appeared as ή κίνησις. The Latin version of the text suggests also èviKrjoocç. Yet, I have not had the chance to check the manuscripts transmitting the text.

61. Psalm 44 (45):12, or Ps. 44:13 in Rahlfs’ Septuaginta.

62. Τόξον δυνατών ήσθένησε, και ol άσθενοϋντες περιεζώσαντο δύναμιν. Διόη ούδεν προς то άσθενες τοΰ Θεοΰ то Ίσχυρον Tfjc τών θεομάχων βδελυρίας καθέστηκε, к où συνεκπολεμεΐν τφ Θεφ τον κόσμον έπ\ τους παράφρονας εΐρητοα. Πώς ούκ δν μετά ΘεοΟ πολεμοΰμενος ό ήvıασμέvoc συ κατά θεοϋ τών άθέων ή κίνησις εύρηκότων τον άφανώς πολεμοΰμενον, και συμπολεμοϋντα δε μαλλον είπεΐν άληθέστερον, κοι τους πολεμίους τροποΰμενον, ήνίκα οΰτως άπήρξω Tfļc παρατάξεως, ώς ό Θεος аитос σοι παρέδειξεν ήνεισθαι προστάξας έν тѓј παρεμβολΐ] της Χριστοϋ βασιλείας то ενδοξον ό’ντως κοι έπίσημον λάβαρον, TÒv ζωοποιον λέγω σταυρον, то μέγα κατά τοϋ θανάτου тѓјс αύτοΰ μεγαλειότητος τρόπαιον έν φ τοϋ κόσμου τετραμερта πέρατα διεγράψατο, έγκαταστίξας προγράμμασιν. Ειτα και τήν άγίαν ε’ικόνα тгјс πάντων Δεσποίνης к ai ό’ντως avvfjç Θεομη’τορος, rļc то πρόσωπον ο’ι πλουσιοι του λαοϋ λιτανεύσουσιν, Mansi, XIII, 93 C2.

63. Speck, Artabasdos, 169-71. For the Akathistos, see Trypanis, C. A., Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica (Wiener byzantinische Studien, 5) (Vienna 1968) 17–39 Google Scholar; Wellesz, E., ‘The Akathistos: A Study in Byzantine Hymnography’, DOP 9-10 (1955-1956) 143-74Google Scholar; On the Latin version of the Akathistos, see Huglo, M., ‘L’ancienne version latine de l’hymne acathiste’, Le Muséon 64 (1951) 1-35Google Scholar; Meersseman, G. G., Der Hymnos Akathistos im Abendland (Freiburg 1958) 36 ffGoogle Scholar. Limberis, V., Divine Heiress. The Virgin Mary and the Creation of Christian Constantinople (London/New York 1994) 89–97 Google Scholar; Peltomaa, L. M., The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn (Leiden, 2001)Google Scholar.

64. The Akathistos was originally performed by ancient practice on the double feast of the Nativity and the Annunciation on December 26, but later on it was celebrated on the fifth Saturday of Lent (the hymn was read on Friday night). Trypanis, Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica, 17-18; Limberis, Divine Heiress, 91; Mateos, J., Le Typikon del la Grand Église (Orientalia Christiana Analecta, 165, 166) (Rome, 1962, 1963) 53–55 Google Scholar. Scholars previously maintained that the Akathistos was performed on March 25: see, E. Wellesz, The Akathistos Hymn, xv.

65. The diegesis ophelimos, MPG 92, 1364 B, BHG 1060, and the lectio triodii, MPG 92, 1352 C, BHG 1063. Trypanis, Fourteen Early Byzantine Cantica, 19 ff., and van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I bis Johannes VI, 18-20, n. 67.

66. Speck, Artabasdos, 169-71.

67. Huglo, ‘L’ancienne version latine de l’hymne acathiste’, 33-34, and Meersseman, Der Hymnos Akathistos im Abendland, 45.

68. Mansi, XIII, 92C-100A. For the interpretation of the sequence of the events, see Speck, Artabasdos, 170-71.

69. Speck, Artabasdos, 164.

70. For the transformation of the memory of the past sieges in the Middle Byzantine period, see my discussion below.

71. While Speck has interpreted the lines as referring to a procession, Speck, Artabasdos, 164-65.

72. I thank Alexander Alexakis for this reference. He is currently preparing a study of the letters of pope Gregory and Germanos.

73. Psalm 44:13 in Rahlfs’ Septuaginta.

74. About the argument for interpolation in the letter, see Speck, Artabasdos, 155-78.

75. Huglo, ‘L’ancienne version latine de l’hymne acathiste’, 33-34.

76. The Letter of the Three Patriarchs, 32-50.

77. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Simrondiano nunc Berolinensi, ed. Delehaye, H. (Porpylaeum ad Acta Sanctorum 63) (Brussels 1902) 901-4 (hereafter SynaxCP)Google Scholar.

78. For the importance of the maphorion of the Virgin in the early cult, see Cameron, ‘The Virgin’s Robe’, 42-56

79. Andrew of Crete, MPG 97, 1301 D, and 1304 C Adversus Constantinum Caballinum, MPG 95, 321; Patriarch, Nikephoros, Refutatio et Everso Definitionis Synodalis Anni 815, ed. Featherstone, J. (Corpus Christianorum. Series Graeca 33) (Brussels 1997) 142 Google Scholar; La vie d’Étienne le Jeune par Étienne le Diacre ed. Auzepy, M.-F. (Birmingham Byzantine and Ottoman Monographs, 3) (Aldershot 1997) 99-100Google Scholar; The Letter of the Three Patriarchs, 39. George the Monk, in Georgii Monachi chronicon, ed. de Boor, C., 2 vols (Leipzig 1904) II, 741, 785Google Scholar; Continuatas of George the Monk in Theophanes Continuatus, ed. Bekker, I., CSHB 33 (Bonn 1838) 773 Google Scholar; Theoph. Cont, Bonn ed., 101; Georgius Cedrenus, Bonn ed., 111; Skylitzes, , in Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis Historiarum, ed. Thurn, I. (Berlin 1973) 59 Google Scholar (hereafter Skylitzes, Thurn ed.). See my discussion in Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 81-121, and eadem in Mother of God, ed. M. Vassilaki, 392-93.

80. By the eleventh century, the Hodegetria was identified both as a supernatural defender of Constantinople and the icon painted by St. Luke. See Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 81-130.

81. The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, tr. C. Mango (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 102-103, see my discussion of this source below.

82. Liber Pontificalis, I 443, II 110.

83. ’H έν ‘Ρώμη άχειρόγραπτος της ύπεραγίας Θεοτόκου ε’ικών, ην οτε ή νόσος έπικωμαν πέφυκεν πάσακ πόλεσιν, ήγουν έν тѓј той αύγοΰστου ώρα κατά τήν κοίμησιν τής δεσποίνης, πανδημει ектяєиоутєс καί ύποτιθέντες έαυτούς και προσκυνοϋντες πάσης ψυχικής και σωματικης άλεξχφάρμακο νόσου οί ‘Ρωμεκ περιφέρουσιν, from Alexakis, Codex Parisinus Graecus 1115, 349.

84. Liber Pontificalis, I 443, II 110. See also Wolf, , Salus Populi Romani, and Kessler, and Zacharias, J., Rome 1300. On the Path of the Pilgrim (London/New Haven 2000 Google Scholar).

85. All the Roman examples of Marian icons taken in processions date to the period after the Byzantine iconoclasm. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani, 97-98, 145-60, 319, 330.

86. Grabar, , L’Empereur dans l’art byzantin: recherches sur l’art officiel de l’empire d’orient (Paris 1936, rpt. London 1971) 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

87. For a collection of the sources, see Barišić, ‘Le siège de Constantinople par les Avares’, 371-95, and Szádeczky-Kardoss, , Ein Versuch zur Zammlung und chronologischen Anordnung der griechischen Quellen der Awarengeschichte nebst einer Auswahl von andersprachigen Quellen (Opuscula byzantina, 1) (Acta Antiqua et Archaeologica, 16) (Szeged 1972) 91–92 Google Scholar. Idem, Az Avar Történelem Forrásai: Die Quellen der Awarengeschichte (Magyar Őstörténeti Könyvtár, 5) (Szeged, 1992) 184-204.

88. Nicephori Archiepiscopi Costantinopolitani. Opuscula historica, ed. de Boor, C. (Leipzig 1880, rpt. 1975) 17–19 Google Scholar; Theophanes, Bonn ed., 484-87, and The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284-813, tr. Mango, C. and Scott, R. (Oxford 1997) 447 Google Scholar; Cedrenus, Bonn ed., I 727-28; Manasses, , Constantini Manassis. Breviarum Historiae Metricum, ed. Bekker, I., CSHB 29 (Bonn 1837) 161-63Google Scholar.

89. SynaxCP, 873-74.

90. SynaxCP, 869-870, manuscript H = Jerusalem, S. Crucis, Cod., Gr. 40, dated to A.D. 960s. See also, Luzzi, A., Studi sul Sinassario di Costantinopli (Rome 1995) 5 ffGoogle Scholar.

91. SynaxCP, manuscript Cg = Leipzig, Cod. Gr. R. II. 25, originally from the monastery of San Giorgio di Tucco in Calabria, dated to A.D. 1172. Mercati, G., Per la storia dei manoscritti greci di Genova, di varie badie basiliane d’Italia e di Patmo (Studi e Testi, 68) (Vatican City 1935), 158–166 Google Scholar, and Pieralli, L., ‘Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: La famiglia C’, OCP 60 (1994) 399–470, esp. 463-68Google Scholar.

92. ’О ούν πατριάρχης Σεργιος λαβών σεπτάς και άγίας εΐκόνας τής παναγίας Θεοτόκου βασταζούσης τον Κΰριον και τήν άχειροποίητον τοΰ σωτηρος, περιηει λιτανευων μετά тоС κλήρου αύτοΰ και τών μοναχών, έξαιτοΰμενοι τήν παρά τοϋ Θεου ταχίστην βοηθειαν, from SynaxCP, 873-74.

93. See note 91 above.

94. Vienna, Codex Vind. Gr. 45, dated to the twelfth century, also transmits the same version of the text. Sternbach, Analecta Avarica (Krakow 1900) 334-42.

95. Diegesis ophelimos, MPG 92, 1354D-1372, and MPG 102, 1336-1353 (BHG n. 1060); and Lectio Triodii, MPG 92, 1347-1354B (BHG, n. 1063). Speck, Zufälliges zum Bellum Avaricum, 58-59, 136-40, idem, ‘Klassizismus im Achten Jahrhundert’, REB 44 (1986): 209-27, and van Esbroeck, M., ‘Un panegyrique de Theodore Studite pour la Fête liturgique des sièges de Constantinople’, in Eulogema. Studies in Honor of Robert Taft, S. J., eds Carr, E., Parenti, S., Thiermeyer, A., Velkovska, E. (Studia Anslemiana 110, Analecta liturgica 17) (Rome 1993) 525-36Google Scholar.

96. Speck deplores the status of the study of these texts in ‘Klassizismus im Achten Jahrhundert’, 212, n. 19, 226-27.

97. Σέργιος δε ό Ίεράρχης, τάς Ίερας εϊκόνας тѓјс Θεομήτορος, aie μάλιστα και Ррефос ό Σωτήρ έξεικονισθεκτ, έν άγκάλαις τής μητρος ένεφέρετο, ταΰτας λαβών, περιηει τα τείχη• тгј μεν πόλει άσφάλειαν έκ τουτου περιποιοΰμενος, τοΐς δε Βαρβάροις καν πολεμίοις πτόησιν, και ολεθρον, και φυγήν a πάντα μικρον ίίστερον έπελθόντα αύτοκ, άφανισμω απαντας δέδωκε παντελέΐ, MPG 92, 1356D.

98. Ps. 67 (68) 2-3.

99. Λαβών πάλιν å Πατριάρχης τον άχειροποίητον τΰπον той Κυρίου καί Σωτήρος ήμών Ίησοϋ Χριστοΰ, και τήν της Πανανίας τιμίαν έσθήτα’ ετι τε τά ζωοποιά ξΰλα, διά τών τειχών περιηρχετο• και μετα δακρΰων то, Έξεγέρθητι, Κΰριε, ελεγεν πpoσευχóμεvoç, κοι διασκορπισθήσονταν ο’ι έχθροί σου και έκλείψουσιν (¿с καπνος κοίΊ τακήσονται ώς κηρος άπο προσώπου πυρός, MPG 92, 1357 A.

100. Speck, Zufälliges zum Bellum Avaricum, 137.

101. Speck, ‘Klassizismus im Achten Jahrhundert’, 226-27, and Van Esbroeck, , ‘Une chronique de Maurice à Héraclius dans un récit des sièges de Constantinople’, Bedi Kartlisa, revue de kartvélologie 34 (1976) 74–96 Google Scholar, esp. 78, idem, ‘Un panegyrique de Theodore Studite’, 526. Annemarie W. Carr’s argument about the emergence of an identification of the Virgin’s protection of Constantinople with her maphorion in the siege of 860 could suggest a post quem date for the diegesis. Yet, the word έσθήτα used in the diegesis for the robe differs from the περιβολη and στολη used in Photios’s sermon of the siege in 860. See Carr, A. W., ‘Threads of Authority: The Virgin Mary’s Veil in the Middle Ages’, in Robes and Honor. The Medieval World of Investiture, ed. Gordon, S. (New York 2001) 59–94, esp. 63, n. 27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102. Without giving any evidence, Szádeczky-Kardoss attributes the diegesis to Symeon Metaphrastes (died ca. 1000): Szádeczky-Kardoss, Az Avar Történelem Forrásai 172, 196-97. Yet, the Metaphrastian text of the Synaxarium (manuscript H in the SynaxCP) differs from the diegesis ophelimos because it does not mention icons.

103. Lectio Triodii, MPG 92, 1347-1354B (BHG, n. 1063). See also Triodion katanyktikon (Rome 1897) 506 ff.

104. ’О δε πατριάρχης тас θείας εικόνας τής θεομήτορος μετά παντος έπαγόμενίΚ τοΰ πληθους περιηει то тєіхос άνωθεν, έντεΰθεν то άοφαλϊς αύτών πopıζóμεvoc• ώς δε ό μεν Σάρβαρος έξ έώας, Χαγάνιχ δε άπο δυσμών πυρπολεϊν τά πέριξ τής πόλεως ήρχοντο- ό πατριάρχης τήν άχειροποίητον τοΰ Χριστοΰ είκόνα, και τά τίμια και ζωοποιά ξΰλα, προσέτι δέ και τήν τιμίαν έσθητα τής Θεομητορος έπιφερόμενος, διά τών τειχών περιήρχετο, MPG 92, 1349 C, D.

105. Similar remarks about the significance of interpolations are made by Speck, ‘Wunderheilige und Bilder’, 163-247, and Brubaker, ‘Icons before Iconoclasm’, 1215-46.

106. Mango has translated the words τήν λιτανείαν έποιοΰμεθα as ‘performed the litany’, yet the expression refers to the act of instituting a procession, because the same words λιτη and λιτανεία designate a procession. For the use of the terms, see Baldovin, The Urban Character of Christian Worship, 209-14, 226.

107. The Homilies of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople, ed. Mango, (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) 102-3Google Scholar. For the Greek text see, Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum, ed. Müller, C., V (Paris 1883) 169-70Google Scholar. See also, Belting-Ihm, C., ‘Sub matris tutela.’ Untersuchungen zur Vorgeschichte der Schutzmantelmadonna (Heidelberg 1976) 43 ffGoogle Scholar. For the linkage between the maphorion of the Virgin and Mary’s power of protection, see Carr, ‘Threads of Authority’, in Robes and Honor, 59-94.

108. On the translation of the relics of St. John the Baptist in A.D. 956, see Kalavrezou, I., ‘Helping Hands for the Empire: Imperial Ceremonies and the Cult of Relics in the Byzantine Court’, in Byzantine Court Culture from 829 to 1204, ed. Maguire, H. (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 1997) 53–80 Google Scholar. On the Trier ivory interpreted as a container for the relics of St. Stephen refurbished in the late ninth century, see Brubaker, , ‘The Chalke Gate, the construction of the past, and the Trier ivory’, BMGS 23 (1999) 258-85Google Scholar. For the translation of the Mandylion and the special ritual ablution performed during Lent, see Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 110**-13**, and Kessler’s essay in Il volto di Cristo, 67-99. For a general discussion of the increased role of relics after Iconoclasm, see Walter, C., Art and Ritual of the Byzantine Church (Birmingham Byzantine Studies, 1) (London 1982) 145 Google Scholar. It remains a subject for a future research to explore how the Byzantine emperors immediately after Iconoclasm re-aligned their power with the cult of relics. There seems to be an intensification in the collection of relics and the formation of new ceremonies focused on relics in the imperial court.

109. Ό δέ βασιλεύς έν τω ναω γενόμενος τών Βλαχερνών αμα τω πατριάρχη, και έν тѓј άνία σορω είσελθών κου Ίκετηρίας φδάς άποδούς τω θεω, то ώμοφόριον της θεοτόκου λαβών έξηει τοΰ ναοΰ, οπλοις άσφαλέσι φραξάμενος. τον σύν αύτω ούν στόλον κοσμησοκ; άριπρεπώς τον ώρισμένον κατείληφε τόπον, from Skylitzes, ed. Thurn, 219.

110. McCormick, M., Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium and the Early Medieval West (Cambridge 1986) 171-75Google Scholar.

111. μετά μεγίστων τροπαίων έπάνεισιν έπι то Βυζάντιον, τούς аопкойе προ τών περιβόλων κατειληφώς, στεφάνοις αύτον к où σκηπτροκ δεξιουμένους, έκ χρυσοϋ και λίθων έξειργασμένοκ πολυτελών. ήγον δε κου χρυσοκόλλητον λευκόπωλον αρμοτ οΰ προσεπιβηναι τοΰτον ήξίουν, και τον νενομισμένον καταναγεΐν θρίαμβον. ó δέ τους μέν στεφάνους κοή τά σκηπτρα προσηκατο, κοή πολλαπλασίως τοΰτους δώροις ήμείψατο” έπιβηναι δέ roß αρματος ούκ ήνέσχετο• άλλά τήν της θεομήτορος ε’ικόνα, ένηγκαλισμένην τον θεάνθρωπον λόγον, ην έκ Μυσίας ε’ίληφεν, έπν τον του αρματος χρυσηλατον θρόνον άνέθηκε, τάς άλουργους τών Μυσών στολάς ύποθεκτ, και τά στέμματα. αύτος δε, ‘ίππιο κέλητι έποχοΰμενος, μετόπισθεν ε’ίπετο, τεταννιωμέν(Κ τήν κεφαλήν διαδηματι, και τους στεφάνους φέρων και τά σκήπτρα έν ταΐς χερσίν, from Leo the Deacon, , Leonis Diaconi Calonoësis Historiae, ed. Hase, C., CSHB 5 (Bonn 1828) 158 Google Scholar.

112. McCormick, Eternal Victory, 173-74.

113. The captured panel was probably perceived as a sign of divine right for the victory; otherwise, God would not have permitted the holy icon to be taken from its home.

114. τών δε ‘Розе άποπλευσάντων, των παρά τάΐς οχθαις φρουρίων той ποταμοΰ καί πόλεων πρόνοιαν θέμενος ό βασιλευς èç ή’θη τά ‘Ρωμαίων άνέζευξεν. δν ό τής πόλεακ άρχιερεΐκ: μετα τής συνόδου και πάντες ο’ι έν τέλει μετα παιάνων και έπιννκίων εύφημιών ύπεδέξαντο στεφανηφοροΰντες, τέθριππον ό’χημα λευκοπώλων εχοντες ήτοιμασμένον πάνυ διαπρεπώς καί τοΰτου έπιβάντα άξιοΰντες θριαμβεϋσαι τον βασιλέα. ό δε μηδέν σοβαρον έθέλων, άλλά μέτριον έαυτον έπιδεικνΰμενοί;, τους μεν προσενεχθέντας άνειληφει στεφάνους καί ‘ίτπτω λευκω τον θρίαμβον έξεπλήρωσεν, έν δέ τψ αρμαπ τάς Βουλγαρικοκ θεις τών βασιλέων στολάς καί άνωθεν τοΰτων ε’ικόνα τής θεομήτορος ώς πολιουχου, προπορεΰεσθαι έαυτοϋ διετάξατο, from Skylitzes, Thurn ed., 310.

115. English tr. from Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, tr. E. A. R. Sewter (Baltimore 1966) 36. ό μεν ούν ουτακ καΐ. μετά τοσοΰτου θάρσοιχ έπ\ τον Βασίλειον ή’εν ό δε προβέβλητο μεν τής ο’ικείας δυνάμεως, και ξιφηφόρος ε’ιστήκει, θατερα δε τών χειρών τήν ε’ικόνα τής τοΰ Λόγου μητρος διηγκάλιστο, καρτερώτατον πρόβλημα τής άκαθέκτου έκείνου όρμΓ ταΰτην ποιοΰμενος, from Michele Psello, Imperatori di Bizanzio, ed Impellizzeri, S., I (Vicenza 1984) I, 16 (hereafter, Michele Psello, ed. Impellizzeri)Google Scholar.

116. We know of a similar personal icon of the Virgin used by the emperor Constantine IX Monomachos as recorded in an epigram. Lampros, S.’, ‘O MocpKiocvòç κώδιξ 524’, Neos Hellenomnemon 8 (Athens 1911) 3–59, 113-927, esp. 7, poem no. 10Google Scholar.

117. Kaldellis, A., The Argument in Psellos’ Chronographia (Studien zur Geistgeschichte des Mittelalters 68) (Leiden 1999) 62–66 Google Scholar. Similarly, the recent study of the coin issues of Basil I suggests that there was no official recognition of the role of the Marian icon in this military encounter. See Pitarakis, B. - Morrisson, C., ‘Miliarèsion anonyme avec la Vierge Nikopoios: une nouvelle datation’, Bulletin de la Société Française de Numismatique 56/3 (2001) 33–36 Google Scholar, and Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 239-51.

118. The translation is mine, Sewter proposed instead: ‘More important than that, somebody came up with the icon of the Theometor’, Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, tr. Sewter, 69.

119. Psellus, Fourteen Byzantine Rulers, tr. Sewter 69-70. Koù δήτα кш ή ε’ικών αύτω τής Θεομητορος έμφανίζεται, ην ο’ι τών ‘Ρωμαίων βασιλεϊς ώσπερ τινά στρατηγον καί τοί παντος στρατοπέδου φΰλακα έν τοις πολεμοκ συνηθως έπάγονται• μόνη yàp αΰτη ούχ άλωτος ταίς βαρβαρικακ έγενόνει χερσίν.Ώς δ’ οΰν ειδεν ό αύτοκράτωρ то γλυκύ τουτι θέομα (κα\ γάρ ην και άλλως περ\ то σέβας ταΰτης θερμότατος), άνεθάρσησέ τε εύθύς καί ίναγκαλισάμενος, ούκ εστιν είπεΐν ώς περιεπτύσσετο, ώς tote δάκρυσιν εβρεχεν, coc γνησιώτατα καθωμίλει, ώς τών εύερνεσιών άνεμίμνησκε καί τών πολλών έκείνων συμμαχιών, aie то ‘Ρωμαίων πολλάκις κράτος διακινδυνεϋον έρρΰσατό τε και άνεσώσατο, from Michele Psello, ed. Impellizzeri, III, 10-11.

120. Kaldellis has argued that Psellos sarcastically contrasted the popular belief in the powers of the icon with the fact that the panel could only save itself. Kaldellis, The Argument of Psellos’ Chronographia, 62-66.

121. George Dennis has argued that the story of the caesar Bardas in A.D. 866 involved a prayer in front of the Hodegetria icon before his departure for war. But the text does not mention any icon; it only locates the action inside the Hodegoi monastery. G. Dennis, ‘Religious Services in the Byzantine Army’, Studia Anselmiana 110 (1993), Eulogema. Studies in Honor of Robert Taft (Rome, 1993) 107-17. Theoph. Cont., Bonn ed, 204. Otherwise the carrying of Marian icons in campaign are not mentioned at all in the extant military treatises written in the tenth century. Panels of the Virgin start to appear in the context of war only in the eleventh century. For the tenth-century sources, see Dennis, , Three Military Treatises (Dumbarton Oaks Texts, 9) (Washington, D.C. 1985)Google Scholar. Haldon, J., Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Three Military Treatises on Imperial Military Expeditions, CFHB 28 (Vienna 1990)Google Scholar. McGeer, E., Sowing the Dragon ‘s Teeth. Byzantine Warfare in the Tenth Century (Dumbarton Oaks Texts 33) (Washington, D.C. 1995)Google Scholar. For the later development, see Pentcheva, , Images and Icons of the Virgin, 87, 204-88Google Scholar.

122. This severe punishment was usually meted out to people who have committed a grave crime, not just a small felony, hence the irony in the text.

123. ‘έτερον δέ τι συνηνέχθη, ζήλον μεν τοΰ βασιλεως δικαιοσΰνης φαντάζον, αμετρον δε τήν τιμωρίαν καί ούκ εύσεβη συντιθέμενον. έγκληθεις γάρ ne τών στρατιωτών ώς όνίσκον Τουρκικον ύφελόμενοπαρηχθη μεν κατ’ ό’ψιν τω βασιλέΐ δεδεμένοπμωρία б’ έψηφίσθη τοΰ άμαρτηματος ύπερφέρουσα’ ού νάρ έν χρημασιν ή ζημία διώριστο άλλ’ έν ptvòc έκτομή. πολλά δε яаракаХеоаутос той άνθρώπου, και πάντα та έαυτοϋ προεμένου, και προβαλλομένου μεσίτην τήν πάνσεπτον ε’ικόνα τής πανυμνητου δεσποίνης θεοτόκου тѓјс Βλαχερνιτίσσης, ητις ε’ιώθει τοις πιστοΐς βασιλεΰσιν έν έκστρατείαις ώς άπροσμάχητον δπλον συνεκστρατεΰεσθαι, ούκ είσηεν οικτος τω βοσιλεΐ, άλλ’ ούδ’ α’ιδάχ: тѓјс έκ τοΰ θείου ε’ικονίσματος άσυλίας• όρώντος δ’ αύτου και πάντων, και αύττγ; τής είκόν»; βασταζομένης, άπετμήθη τήν ‘piva ό δείλαιος, κράξοκ μέγα και οτενάξας то βΰθιον, from Attaleiatos, , Michaelis Attaliotae Historia, ed. Bekker, I., CSHB 50 (Bonn 1853) 152-53Google Scholar.

124. Ciggaar, K., ‘Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55’, RÉB 53 (1995) 117-40, esp. 128-31Google Scholar.

125. The Hodegoi.

126. The Hodegetria icon.

127. Milia enim sunt in Constantinopolitana urbe mircula sanctorum pro multitudine et assiduitate eorum. In qua urbe nobili magis splendent Dei genetricis miracula et mirifica opera quam in alico loco mundi. Hoc in merito. Ibi siquidem magis amatur et honoratur quam in aliis mundi regionibus. Dicitur enim et creditor esse propria et speciális civitas Dei genetricis. Nam cum olim Constantinus imperator Christianae regionis pius amator cogitaret et cogitando quereret quo loco aptius civitatem hedificaret que suo in imperio principatum teneret, apparauit ei Christus ut in libris Grecorum continetur et hostendes ei locum quo civitatem quam in animo habebat hedificare construeret, ait illi: ‘Vade et in hoc loco civitatem fac matti mei.’ Qui cepit et prefecit urbem Constantinopolim in loco sibi demonstrato a dominio. Veniens denique ad obitum, comendavit earn in manus Dei et sue piissime matris. Que custos est gratissima die ac nocte sicut in multis declarator miraculis. De quibus unum tantum dicam ad eiusdem genetricis Dei laudem et honorem.

Quodam tempore obsessa est undique predicta urbs Constantinopolitana et per terram et per mare in circuitu a duobus exercitibus. Hostes vehementer instabant ut eam caperent. Constantinopolitani vero ab hostibus circumclusi nec iam valentes resistere illorum tam magne virtuti ad illud tutum refugium quod habent post Deum suis omnibus in necessitatibus confugerunt et Dei genetricis basilicam petierunt. Cuius ibi sanctam accipientes imagines, per totam urbem circumtulerunt, sequentes eam universi cantando Deique genitricis clemenciam implorando ut civitatem suam ab hostium iam circumvallantium protegeret periculo, from Ciggaar, ‘Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55’, 128-29.

128. For the discussion of the Byzantine tradition linking the dedication to the Virgin, see note 6 above.

129. Ciggaar, ‘Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55’, 127. For translation and interpretation of the account of the procession, see Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 146-68.

130. Ciggaar, ‘Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55’, 128-31.

131. I Kings 12:22, Psalm 43 (44) 24.

132. Psalm 82 (83) 2.

133. Joel 2: 17.

134. ‘0 δέ κατά τήν πόλνν φιλόχριστος Лаос, διηνεκε μετά δακρΰων ποιοΰμενοι τάς λντάς, ώσπερ εθος αύτοίς ποιεΊν, κώ έν είρηνικη καταστάσεν то δε πάνσεπτον ξΰλον του σταυροΰ roß Κυρίου και Σωτήρος ήμών’Ιησοϋ Χριστοΰ λαβόντετ, και τήν άγίαν εΐκόνα της παναγίου Παρθένου, περιηεσαν то τεΐχος, α’ίροντες έπι Θεον τάς χεΐρας, к où λεγόντεο’Ανάστηθι, Κΰριε, μή άπώσΐ| τον λαόν σου είς τέλος• δτι ίδού ο’ι έχθροί σου ή’χησαν, к où ο’ι μισοϋντές σε ηραν κεφαλήν μή δως τήν κληρονομίαν σου εις ό’νειδος, τοϋ κατάρξαι ήμών εθνη, μηποτε εϊπωσι• Ποϋ εστιν ό Θεός αύτών’Αλλάννώτωσαν, οτι ό’νομά σοι Κΰριος’Ιησοϋς Xpiaròc, είς δόξαν Θεοϋ Патрос, MPG 92, 1365C.

135. ’О δέ τής πΌλεως ‘шрос λαος то σεπτον ξΰλον τοΰ τιμίου και ζωοποιοϋ σταυροΰ, και τήν σεβάσμιαν ε’ικόνα τής Θεομήτορος όδηγητρίας έπαγόμενοι то τειχος περιεκΰκλουν, σύν δάκρυσι τον Θεον ίλεοΰμενοι, MPG 92, 1352D.

136. By the eleventh century the Hodegetria was identified as the icon painted by St. Luke, see Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 81-121.

137. Leo Ysaurus, imperavit anno Domini nostri lesu Christi VII c XVIII. Seguenti anno, Constantinopolitani Saracenis, qui de Egipto et Palestina venerant, prelio fortiter restiterunt, tandem de monasterio sancte Marie yconiam eius, quam Lucas ipso adhuc vivente depinxit, accipientes, processionaliter illam deducunt, orantes, ut, que tociens in periculis juverat, nunc etiam ferret opem. Posita igitur yconia super undas, statim procelasurexit, et omnes naves Saracenorum aut mergit aut fregit; dicta est autem yconia Diguria, idest deductrix, quia duobus cecis aparuit et ad ecclesiam deducxit, ibique eos illuminavit, from Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 12, Raccola degli storici italiani, ed. Muratori, L. A. (Bologna 1938) 109 Google Scholar.

138. Brubaker, ‘Icons before Iconoclasm?’ 1215-46.

139. Dobschütz, Christusbilder, 110***-13**. Kessler’s essay in Il volto di Cristo, 91. The acheropita in Rome presents an exception to the rule. The image was carried in the annual procession for the Feast of the Assumption of the Virgin as recorded in ninth-century sources. Wolf, Salus Populi Romani. 38, 74 ff., 314-15.

140. Halsall, P., ‘Life of Thomaîs of Lesbos’, in Holy Women in Byzantium. Ten Saints’ Lives in English Translation, ed. Talbot, A.-M. (Washington, D.C. 1996) 291–322 Google Scholar, esp. 311, and Dobschütz, , ‘Maria Romeia. Zwei umbekante Texts’, BZ 12 (1903) 173–214, esp. 202Google Scholar.

141. Ševčenko, ‘Icons in the Liturgy’, 51. The Friday procession was established very early on, but it incorporated images only after Iconoclasm. The earliest evidence for icons in the Friday procession is offered by the typikon of the Pantokrator monastery in the first half of the twelfth century, Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents. A Complete Translation of Surviving Founder’s Typika and Testaments, eds Thomas, J. and Hero, A C., 5 vols (Washington, D.C. 2000) II, 753-54Google Scholar. See Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 168-76.

142. Pentcheva, Images and Icons of the Virgin, 131-63. For the sources, see Holy Women in Byzantium, 311, Dobschütz, ‘Maria Romeia’, 202, and Ciggaar, ‘Une description de Constantinople dans le Tarragonensis 55’, 127.

143. In her study of the relationship between icons and the imperial institution, Carr-has reached the same conclusion; that a close linkage between icons, especially the Hodegetria, and protection of the state and emperor emerged very late in the Middle Byzantine period. Yet, Carr situates this development in the twelfth century, Carr, ‘Court Culture and Cult Icons in Middle Byzantine Constantinople’, in Byzantine Court Culture, ed. Maguire, 81-99.