Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 July 2016
Within less than twelve months in the years 1955 and 1956 three senior members of the Department of Art and Archaeology of Princeton University departed this life: Charles Rufus Morey, Albert Matthias Friend, and Earl Baldwin Smith. All three were scholars of distinction, and of all three it can be safely asserted that through their own work and through their influence upon their numerous students they decisively shaped the character and quality of American scholarship in the field of medieval art. This is especially true of Morey, who may be said to have made the tradition so hopefully inaugurated by Dr. Allan Marquand and to have passed the torch on to his pupils. If the invitation to catalogue the Museo Sacro of the Vatican Library was an extraordinary compliment paid to Morey, the master, the appointment to the office of Director of Studies at the Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection of Harvard University was an outstanding distinction conferred upon Friend, his pupil. It was in this position that Friend's activities and influence assumed more and more international or cosmopolitan proportions, and so it came about that when the plan of a ‘Festschrift’ to be presented to him on his sixtieth anniversary was broached, not only colleagues and pupils of Princeton University, but more than one foreign scholar whom he had been instrumental in bringing to Dumbarton Oaks was invited to participate. The result was the volume now under consideration, which comprises in all thirty-two articles in the two fields of late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. For all the diversity of subjects treated, which is considerable, there is an extraordinary homogeneity to this liberal A dedicatory inscription composed in brilliant Greek was very appropriately prefixed to the volume, to complete an offering which Friend had the pleasure of receiving more than a year before his death.
1 Late Classical and Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. Edited by Kurt Weitzmann, with the assistance of Sirarpie der Nersessian, Forsyth, George H. Jr., Kantorowicz, Ernst H., Mommsen, Theodor E. Princeton University Press 1955. pp. 405. More recently, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12 (Cambridge, Mass. 1958) has appeared, dedicated to the memory of Professor Friend. On pages one and two the distinctive character of his outstanding work as Director of Studies in this institution is described — briefly, but with due appreciation. This impressive volume and the one here under review together constitute a splendid recognition of an exceptionally rich and high-minded personality.Google Scholar
2 The triumphal idea with reference to St. Peter's is also stressed in Smith, E. B.'s last work, Architectural Symbolism of Imperial Rome and the Middle Ages (Princeton 1954) 28 f.Google Scholar
3 See pp. 445–449 below. Google Scholar
4 Special mention must be made here of Grillmeier, A. 's impressive monograph, Der Logos am Kreuz (Munich 1956) and the discussion it has aroused: see Josef, e.g. Fink's exceptionally important review (Theologische Revue 53 [1957] 241–248) and that of Biedermann, H. M. in Ostkirchliche Studien 6 (1957) 179–182.Google Scholar
5 In Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton 1954) 118–122. Google Scholar
6 On the general subject see also Baynes, N. H., ‘The Icons before Iconoclasm,’ first published in 1951 and now included, along with another relevant essay, ‘Idolatry and the Early Church,’ in Byzantine Studies and other Essays (London 1955).Google Scholar
7 Also published in the memorial volume for Belle da Costa Greene, pp. 219–230. Google Scholar
8 (Cambridge, Mass. 1938) 70. Of exceptional interest is Francis Dvornik's study of the Emperor Julian's ‘reactionary’ ideas on kingship. It was altogether in accord with this emperor's religious policy that in the domain of political theory also he should return to the concepts of the Republican period, concepts which in the last analysis had so splendid a philosophical foundation in the thought of Plato and Aristotle. But this return to an older tradition involved a basic departure from the idea of kingship which from the last years of the Republic down to the reign of Diocletian had slowly been taking shape. By the time of Constantine, the Emperor was considered a divine being superior to the laws himself a ‘Law Animate.’ From this Hellenistic concept Julian reverted to the political speculations of Plato and Aristotle and was influenced not a little by Isocrates, especially by the panegyric in honor of Evagoras, king of Crete. The commonplaces of Hellenistic terminology are indeed found in such writings as Julian's two panegyrics Google Scholar
9 Many points of contact exist between this paper and certain sections of Eleanor Simmons Greenhill's study, ‘The Child in the Tree,’ Traditio 10 (1954) 323–371; see especially pp. 329–334, 357–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 With this use of ‘apparitio’ as the equivalent of ‘adventus,’ one may compare the use of ἐπιφάνεια as a synonym of ἐπιδημία and related words in Greek (A. Deissmann, Licht vom Osten 4 [Tübingen 1923] 314–320). Thus, Eusebius of Caesarea, in stressing the Coming of Christ as the Leitmotiv of Psalm 84 (75), uses the words, ἐπιδημία (PG 23.1020), θεοφάνεια (ibid. 1024), ἐπιφάνεια (1025). Of this same psalm St. Jerome says: ‘De adventu dicitur Salvatoris’ (S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Tractatus sive Homiliae in Psalmis etc. [Anecdota Maredsolana 3.2; Maredsous 1897] 92, line 26). With this may be compared St. Augustine's comment on Psalm 79 (80): ‘Cantatur hic de adventu Domini et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi …’ (PL 36.1021 [vers. 1]) and that of Eusebius of Caesarea on the same psalm (PG 23.952A, B, C: παϱουσίαν; 952D: ἐπιφανειας; ibid.: θεοφανείας; 964D: παϱουσίαν; 965B: θεοφάνειαν; 967C: ἐπιφάνειαν) and similarly St. Athanasius (PG 27.360B & 361B). Google Scholar
11 In the Preface to his latest contribution to this interesting subject, The Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople (Oxford 1958), the author relates briefly the history of his work on the Iconoclastic Movement, and in the Bibliography, gives a list of articles previously published. Google Scholar
12 Op. cit. 42, 140, 216, 222.Google Scholar
13 See his important article, ‘The Chronicle of Monembasia and the Question of the Slavonic Settlements in Greece,’ Dumbarton Oaks Papers 5 (1950) 139–166; especially, 151, 163, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 The misprint, ‘169,’ instead of ‘196,’ in footnote 56, a reference to Schöll's edition of the Novellae, is decidedly confusing. Google Scholar
15 After a preamble specially composed for this occasion had been pronounced by a certain John, Deacon and ‘Chancellor,’ Gregory of Neocaesarea read the title: ‘Definition of the Holy, Great and Ecumenical Seventh Synod,’ whereupon the same John the Deacon commented upon the epithets, ‘holy,’ ‘great and universal,’ and upon the ordinal ‘seventh,’ vigorously disproving and rejecting them all. Gregory then read the opening sentence of the Definition, and again John commented. After the reading of the second sentence by Gregory, Epiphanius took over the reading of the refutation and continued it to the end. (I can find no basis for Martin, E. J.'s statement that the two deacons, John and Epiphanius, read alternately [A History of the Iconoclastic Controversy (London 1930) 102]).Google Scholar
16 Studien zur Geschichte des byzantinischen Bilderstreites (Historische Untersuchungen 5; Breslau 1929) 6. With this statement may well be compared Martin, E. J.'s summary estimate of the ‘permanent meaning of the Council [sc. the second of Nicaea] for Christendom’ (op. cit. 108–109).Google Scholar
17 To this list one more manuscript can now be added: Duke University Library, Greek MS 19, a South Italian euchology of the twelfth century which several years ago the Librarian graciously forwarded to the Morgan Library in New York City for my inspection. It is a pleasure once more to express my grateful appreciation. Google Scholar
18 Vat. gr. 2285 A is a twelfth-century rotulus, a fragment of a deacon's kontakion, written in the monastery of St. Catherine in or near Candia on the island of Crete. Vat. gr. 2005 belonged at one time to St. Elias of Carbone, and may very well have been written there between 1197 and 1211. In Traditio 10 (1954) 63, I suggested that it may have been written for a dependency of the great abbey (St. Nicholas of Trypa or St. Nicholas of Venegia). See now especially Devreesse, R., Les manuscrits grecs de l'Italie méridionale (Studi e testi 183; Città del Vaticano 1955) 10, 40, and plate VI.Google Scholar
19 Hertzberg, G. F., Geschichte der Byzantiner und des osmanischen Reiches (Berlin 1886) I 360, is cited by Bon, A., Le Péloponnèse byzantin jusqu ‘en 1204 (Paris 1951) 48 n. 1, but I have failed to secure access to a copy of this imprint. In an earlier edition of the work published in 1883, I have failed to find any mention of the Slavic uprisings in the Peloponnese of the ninth and tenth centuries or any date of a Bulgar invasion of the peninsula.Google Scholar
20 Diehl, C., ‘L'Église et les mosaïques du couvent de Saint-Luc en Phocide,’ Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 55 (1889) 3 n. 3; reprinted in Choses et gens de Byzance (Paris 1926) 5 n. 3: ‘… En 941, il [sc. Crinites] était stratège du Péloponnèse, et réprima en cette qualité une insurrection des Slaves.’Google Scholar
21 Vizantiyskiy Vremennik 5 (1898) 425.Google Scholar
22 Since this date is the second pivotal point in Jenkins’ argument, he is careful to give at the outset an exact survey of the order of events at the beginning of the reign of Romanus I. This ‘strong usurper’ was crowned basileus by his senior colleague and son-in-law on Sunday, December 17, 920, and made himself first basileus or autokrator some time between December 921 and April 922 (pp. 204–5 and n. 8). Google Scholar
23 Vasiliev, A., ‘The ‘Life’ of St. Peter of Argos and Its Historical Significance,’ Traditio 5 (1947) 184.Google Scholar
24 These expeditions are described in De caerimoniis 660.13–662.11. Google Scholar
25 Porphyrogenitus, Constantine, De administrando imperio. Greek text edited by Moravcsik, J. English translation by Jenkins, R. J. H. (Budapest 1949) 257.Google Scholar
26 Shanguin connected the conspiracy in which Arethas of Caesareia was accused of being involved with the difficulties that arose under Bardas Platypodis, that is, in accordance with his chronology, in 934–935. Jenkins shows that the Defense of Arethas which Shanguin had edited in Viz. Vrem. 1/ 26 (1947) 250–254, may without the slightest violence to chronology be dated in the early twenties, this in full accord with Kougeas’ dating, ‘shortly after 921.’Google Scholar
27 See note 20 above. Google Scholar
28 Cedrenus 2.357.20–358.7 (Bonn 1838). Google Scholar
29 Janin, R. ‘Un Arabe ministre à Byzance: Samonas (IX e–X e siècle),’ Echos d'Orient 34 (1935) 307–318; Jenkins, R. J. H. ‘The «Flight» of Samonas,’ Speculum 23 (1948) 217–235. 30 Jenkins, , op. cit. 233.Google Scholar
31 These verses appeared in print for the first time in the Anecdota Graeca of Matranga, P. (Rome 1850) 2.624–625; reprinted (with the omission of verses 6–10 and 16–19) by Mercati, S. G., Rivista di studi orientali 10 (1923–1925) 227, and — again fragmentarily (with the omission of 20 verses out of 34 [3, 7–9, 12, 14–16, 18, 20–23, 26–28, 30–32, 34]) — by W. Süss, Ethos (Leipzig 1910) 267 n. 1.Google Scholar
32 Matranga, , op. cit. 2.625–632. Of Constantine's first attack upon this Theodore, Süss (loc. cit.) reprints also 12 verses (21–27, 30–31, 34, 37–38) out of 34.Google Scholar
33 Byzantinische Zeitschrift 6 (1897) 166.Google Scholar
34 A facsimile of folio 143v of this manuscript is to be found in Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 (1951), opposite p. 72, in connection with Downey's article, ‘The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople’ (pp. 51–80). This leaf contains the passage in which Constantine the Rhodian states that Constantius — not his father, Constantine the Great — was the builder of the first church erected on this site (v. 477; Legrand in his edition reads incorrectly: Κωνσταντίνον). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 For the sake of completeness mention must be made here of another work of Prof. Downey altogether parallel to his (still unpublished) edition of the φϱασις of Constantine the Rhodian. It is entitled Nikalaos Mesarites: Description of the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople, and presents the Greek text, written at some time between 1198 and 1203, together with a translation, introduction and commentary (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 47, Part 6 [1957] 855–924). This work is a great help to students, especially to those to whom the earlier publication of August Heisenberg, Grabeskirche und Apostelkirche: Zwei Basiliken Konstantins. II. Die Apostelkirche in Konstantinopel (Leipzig 1908), is inaccessible. It is earnestly to be hoped that Downey's edition of Constantine the Rhodian's poem, written two and a half centuries before that of Mesarites, may likewise be made available to students in the near future. Google Scholar
36 Byzantinische Zeitschrift 7 (1898) 321.Google Scholar
37 For the earlier feast of the Oblatio sancte Marie in templo Domini, restricted to certain churches in England, see Jerome, Sister M. Kishpaugh, O.P., The Feast of the Virgin Mary in the Temple (Washington 1941) 74–91.Google Scholar
38 ‘ Philippe de Mézières’ Dramatic Office for the Presentation of the Virgin,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (= PMLA) 26 (N. S. 19; 1911) 181–234; reprinted in the same author's Drama of the Medieval Church (= DMC; Oxford 1933) II 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 ‘ Temporibus namque antiquis, et ut creditur, in primiti(v)a ecclesia quando civitas sancta Iherusalem et Terra Sancta per Christianos detinebatur, ibique (et) in aliis partibus Orientis … festum Beatissime semper Virginis Mariae, quando in tercio etatis sue anno in templo … fuit a parentibus suis presentata, die XXI mensis Novembris deuotissime et solempniter celebrabatur. Et adhuc in regno Cypri deuotissime per fideles Orientis colitur de presenti, et habet officium totum proprium et deuotissimum secundum usum Curie Romane, etiam musice notatum’ (from a letter of De Mézières addressed ‘Universis in Domino fidelibus, maxime Christianis occidentalibus,’ PMLA 26.190–191; DMC II 474).Google Scholar
40 Page 267. Google Scholar
41 Ἡ ἐv τῷ Ναῷ Εἴσοδος τῆς Ὑπεϱαγίας Θεοτόκου is the title of the feast in the Typicon of Constantinople (Athenian edition of Saliveros [n.d.] 99). In the oldest extant Typicon of the Great Church of Constantinople (Cod. Patmiacus 266, s. X), the entry for November 21 reads: Σύναξις τῆς αγίας Θεοτόκον, ore πεδοθη ὑπò τῶν γονέων αυτής πϱοσενεχθεῖσα ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Κυϱίου τϱιετίζουσα (ed. Dmitrievskii, Description of Liturgical MSS … I Τυπιϰά [Kiev 1895] 25). From some such title as this the Anglo-Saxons ultimately derived their designation of the feast, Oblatio (see note 37 above).Google Scholar
42 La, G. Piana, Le rappresentazioni sacre nella letteratura bizantina dalle origini al secolo IX (Grottaferrata 1912); Id. ‘The Byzantine Theater,’ Speculum 11 (1936) 171–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Edited for the first time by Lambros, S. in his journal, Νέος ‘Ελληνομνήμων 13 (1916) 381–407; for the second time (with a French translation) by Vogt, A. ‘Études sur le théâtre byzantin,’ Byzantion 61 (1931) 37–74; for the third time (with English translation and elaborate Introduction) by Mahr, August C., The Cyprus Passion Cycle (Notre Dame, Indiana, 1947).Google Scholar
44 Mahr, , op. cit. 14–21, argues strongly against the possibility of Western influence.Google Scholar
45 See note 41 above. Since the authenticity of St. Germanus’ two homilies on the Εἴσοδος of the Virgin (PG 98.289–320) would seem to be unquestioned, the feast is certainly as old as the eighth century. La Piana may be correct in thinking that it may have been celebrated already in the seventh. Google Scholar
46 ‘ Le théâtre religieux à Byzance,’ Journal des Savants, N.S. 11 (Paris 1913) 357–361, 395–404. The suggestion is thrown out on the very last page of this important résumé of La Piana's work.Google Scholar
47 ‘ Les miniatures des “Homélies” du moine Jacques et le théâtre religieux à Byzance,’ Monuments et mémoires publiés par l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 24 (1920) 101–128. It is to be noted, however, that Bréhier dates this article ‘Clermont, mars 1914, that is, less than a year after the publication of his review of La Piana's book.Google Scholar
48 Le rappresentazioni sacre (n. 42 above) 98, 151.Google Scholar
49 PG 127.543–700. Google Scholar
50 Omont, H., ‘Miniatures des homélies sur la Vierge du moine Jacques,’ Bulletin de la Société française de Reproductions de manuscrits à peintures, 11e année (Paris 1927).Google Scholar
51 Stornajolo, Cosimo, Miniature delle omelie di Giacomo monaco (Cod. Vat. gr. 1162) e dell’ Evangeliario greco urbinate: Cod. Vat. Urbin. gr. 2 (Codices e Vaticanis selecti, Series minor 1; Roma 1910).Google Scholar
52 Anton Baumstark, ‘Zu den Miniaturen der Marienfestpredigten des Jakobos von Kokkinobaphos,’ Oriens Christianus 4 (1904) 187–190, speaks of certain discrepancies between the iconography of the two MSS mentioned above (see nn. 50f.) and the text of the Protoevangelium Jacobi. In several cases, he finds the divergence can be explained on the basis of a Syrian tradition, i.e., of a Syriac ‘History of Mary’ published by Wallis Budge (Luzac's Semitic Texts and Translation Series 4 [1899] 1–153).Google Scholar
53 Puech, H. C., ‘Le Cerf et le serpent: Note sur le symbolisme de la mosaïque découverte au baptistère de l'Henchir Messaouda,’ Cahiers archéologiques 4 (1949) 17–60.Google Scholar
54 ‘baquar al-wakhsh, “antelope,” (literally “wild cow”), a designation which is translated as gavazn, “stag, deer,” in a Persian rendition of the work in the Freer Gallery of Art (No. 07.625, fol. 437r line 1); in the Arabic text the animal is also referred to as iyyal (or ayyil, uyyal), the “mountain goat” (or, according to others, the “stag”)’ (page 274). Google Scholar
55 Cf. Pseudo-Oppian, , Cynegetica 2.283–287.Google Scholar
56 Aristotle, , Historia animalium 9.5.20–23.Google Scholar
57 Both the verses and Ibn Duraid's commentary are quoted by al-Damīrī from al-Zajjāji who died in 949. Google Scholar
58 A Survey of Persian Art. edited by Pope, A. U. and Phyllis Ackerman, IV 256.v. Ettinghausen's Figure 7 is an enlargement made from this plate.Google Scholar
59 Mordtmann, A., ‘Studien über geschnittene Steine mit Pehlevi-Inschriften,’ Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 18 (1864) Pl. 1, 4; Paul Horn, ‘Sasanidische Gemmen aus dem British Museum,’ ibid. 44 (1890) 660 no. 612 (Ettinghausen's Figure 8).Google Scholar
60 Certainly there is no obvious suggestion (H. Frankfort, Cylinder Seals [London 1939] plate IIIb; Herzfeld, E., Iran in the Ancient East [London-New York 1941] 71 figure 135).Google Scholar
61 See Forsyth, W. H., ‘Mediaeval Statues of the Virgin in Lorraine Related in Type t° the Saint-Dié Virgin,’ Metropolitan Museum Studies 5 (1934–1936) 235–258; ‘Virgin and Child in French Fourteenth Century Sculpture: a Method of Classification,’ Art Bulletin 39 (1957) 171–182.Google Scholar
62 Id. ‘Medieval Statues of the Pietà in the Museum,’ Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art 11, 7 (March 1953) 177–184. (This article is a by-product of a work in preparation in which Forsyth ‘hopes to trace the development of the French Pietà in sculpture and to discuss the relationships of German and French sculptured Pietàs in more detail.’)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 ‘ Marienklage,’ Genius 1 (1919) 201–2; ‘Die dichterische Wurzel der Pietà,’ Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 42 (1920) 145–163; Die Pietà (Leipzig 1922); Die deutsche Plastik vom ausgehenden Mittelalter bis zum Ende der Renaissance I (1924) 96–101, 159–160, 171–177, 210–212.Google Scholar
64 Das deutsche Vesperbild im Mittelalter (Cologne 1924).Google Scholar
65 Die mittelalterlichen deutschen Typen und die Vorformen des Vesperbildes (Kiel dissertation; Rendsburg 1931).Google Scholar
66 Reference is made to Stephan Beissel, S.J., Die Verehrung der Heiligen und ihrer Reliquien in Deutschland während der zweiten Hälfte des Mittelalters (Ergänzungshefte zu den Stimmen aus Maria-Laach 54 [1892]) 59, where mention is made of an ‘indulgenced’ (‘mit Ablässen versehenes’) Vesperbild, but Beissel cites no document or text of any kind. Google Scholar
67 Pinder, , Die deutsche Plastik … (note 63 above) I 98 and the accompanying text; Passarge, op. cit. plates 1 & 2.Google Scholar
68 Werner Körte, ‘Deutsche Vesperbilder in Italien,’ Kunstgeschichtliches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 1 (1937) 1–138; but see also Georg Swarzenski, ‘Italienische Quellen der deutschen Pietà,’ Festschrift Heinrich Wölfflin (Munich 1924) 127–134.Google Scholar
69 Schneider, , op. cit. (n. 65 above) 15–30.Google Scholar
70 Ibid. 30–34.Google Scholar
71 Passarge, , op. cit. plate 31.Google Scholar
72 Troescher, Georg, Claus Sluter und die burgundische Plastik um die Wende des XIV. Jahrhunderts (Freiburg i. Br. 1932) plate XI; Forsyth, Art Bulletin 39.181 (upper right illustration).Google Scholar
