The Portrait of Theodore Metochites at Chora

THE PORTRAIT OF THEODORE METOCHITES

AT CHORA

Nancy P. !EV"ENKO

Despite the considerable number of Byzantine donor images that have survived, the

visual formulae they use to depict the acts of donation remain fairly consistent over the

course of the Middle and Late phases of Byzantine art1. A commonly cited example is a

page from the 10th century Leo Bible in the Vatican (Bibl. Vat. Reg. gr. 1, fol. 2v): the

eunuch Leo, patrikios, praipositos, sakellarios etc., offers to Christ, on bended knee, the

book that he has commissioned. The Virgin acts as intermediary, and Christ extends his

hand from the arc of heaven to acknowledge the gift2. A donor’s prayers, his words of

entreaty, may even be inscribed right on the work of art, as is the case in a Lectionary of

1061 in Jerusalem (Greek Patriarchate, Megale Panagia 1, fol. 1v)3. And on a charming

page from a 12th century Lectionary on Mount Athos (Lavra A 103, fol. 3v), the words

exchanged between Christ and the Virgin regarding the donor and his chances of

salvation are included as well4.

The Byzantines had two main ways of presenting themselves in this kind of context:

as supplicant or as donor5. The division is somewhat arbitrary, as obviously a supplicant

can be also in fact a donor. In what follows, I will use the term supplicant to refer to a

figure depicted without any sort of gift, whether he or she is standing, kneeling with

rounded back with hands raised at chest level in a gesture of prayer and entreaty, or in

full proskynesis. I will use the word donor to refer to a figure shown standing and

offering a gift, whether a book or the model of a church or monastery. A page in a

12th century Lectionary (Athos, Kutlumus 60, fol. 1v) shows both these formulae, the

wife being the figure I refer to here as the supplicant, the husband the donor (fig. 1)6.

1. An earlier version of this paper was given at the Center for Medieval and Renaissance

Studies at UCLA. I wish to thank Sharon Gerstel and the Center for their kind hospitality, and for

helpful discussions at that time. On the subject of donors, see STYLIANOU 1960; BELTING 1970;

BELTING 1971; VELMANS 1971; SPATHARAKIS 1976; BERNADINI 1992; KALOPISSI-VERTI 1992;

!EV"ENKO 1994; EADEM 1993-94; KAMBOUROVA 2008. See also MUSICESCU 1969; TATI!-DJURI#

1976; GANDOTTO 2000; PANAYOTIDI 2004, and two relevant theses, LIPSMEYER 1981; FRANSES

1992.

2. DUFRENNE – CANART 1988.

3. VOCOTOPOULOS 2002, n° 1, p. 25; SPATHARAKIS 1976, p. 57-59, fig. 26.

4. SPATHARAKIS 1976, p. 78-79, fig. 45.

5. In what follows, I simplify the extensive work done on proskynesis by both Anthony Cutler

and Ioannes Spatharakis: CUTLER 1975, p. 53-110; SPATHARAKIS 1974.

6. PELEKANIDES et al. 1974, vol. I, fig. 295; SPATHARAKIS 1976, p. 83-84, fig. 52.

409 - Donations et donateurs dans le monde byzantin_Réalités Byzantines 06/04/12 11:43 Page189

In such compositions, Christ or the Virgin is always allowed to dominate by being

centrally located in the composition, and by being depicted on a larger scale than the

human figures. Donors who are roughly the same size as Christ or the Virgin, and who

approach them directly, are almost exclusively emperors and their extended families.

Lesser mortals are just that: lesser, smaller and lower; if they do get to approach Christ,

we find that this generally has been arranged through an intermediary.

A certain loosening of these conventions can be observed in certain works done at

some distance from Constantinople, works done in a different, even rival, cultural

milieu. There familiarity with Byzantine conventions on the part of the artist was

combined with the vanity of an ambitious patron, all at a comfortable geographical

distance from Constantinople7. But when we encounter deviations in works executed in

Constantinople itself, such as the portrait of Theophanes in the 12th century Melbourne

Gospels, or the famous portrait which is the subject of this paper, that of Theodore

Metochites in the Chora church in Constantinople, we need to take notice8.

DONATION ET DONATEURS DANS LE MONDE BYZANTIN190

7. EVENKO 1994, p. 275-276.

8. Melbourne, National Gallery of Victoria, Felton 710/5, fol. 1v; MANION 2005, p. 23-97;

EVENKO 2006. In the famous frontispiece page to this Gospel, the monk shown offering his book

to the Virgin has a halo, which is unparalleled for any living donor who is not a member of the

imperial family. He is also equal in size to the standing Virgin, to whom he has direct access

Fig. 1 Protospatharios Basil and his wife (?) before Christ. Athos, Kutlumus 60, fol.


In the inner narthex of the church he renovated and expanded, in a large lunette over

the door leading into the naos, Metochites set up a mosaic of himself kneeling before an

enthroned figure of Christ, to whom he is offering a model of the restored Chora church

(fig. 2)9. Metochites is clad in the attire appropriate for his office at the time, the

logothetes tou genikou: a green silk caftan and an extraordinary hat10. Metochites was to

be promoted yet further, this time to the very highest office in the land, that of logothetestou dromou. The absence of reference to that high dignity in the inscription written rather

crudely near his portrait helps us to date the mosaic itself to before Easter 1321, the date

of his promotion.

Of interest in the context of this volume is the pose of Metochites, for it would appear

that he has had himself depicted as kneeling supplicant and church donor both at one

time. This seems like an obvious combination, but in fact this mosaic is the only case I

know in Byzantine art, other than some much later 15th century donor compositions in

THE PORTRAIT OF THEODORE METOCHITES AT CHORA 191

without an intermediary. None of these is the prerogative of an ordinary donor. His real identity

remains to be determined.

9. UNDERWOOD 1966-1975, vol. 1, p. 42-43, vol. 2, pl. 26-29; WEISS 1997, pl. 3-4.

10. VERPEAUX 1966, p. 156.20-157.4.

Fig. 2 Mosaic portrait of Theodore Metochites. Istanbul, Church of the Chora, inner narthex.


Cyprus11. With two possible exceptions, no Byzantine donor carrying a church is, to my

knowledge, shown on his knees; or, otherwise stated: nowhere else does a kneeling

supplicant carry a church12. In fact, a donor kneeling while holding any sort of gift is

rare, regardless of medium13.


11. For example, the churches of the Archangel at Pedoulas (1474-75), and at Galata (1514):

STYLIANOU 1960, p. 112-114, fig. 11 and p. 117-120, fig. 13; STYLIANOU 1985, p. 331, fig. 196,

and p. 90-92, fig. 40. See also CUTLER 1975, p. 79-80.

12. One of these exceptions may be the portrait of an unidentified bishop in the church of

St. Euphemia in Constantinople. The damaged fresco shows a bishop (the metropolitan of Chalcedon?)

who is definitely on his knees before the saint, but whether he is or is not also carrying a church model

remains unclear, as the fresco in the area of his hands is completely destroyed: NAUMANN – BELTING

1966, p. 189-193; pl. 21, 39, and fig. 48. The other exception may be the portrait of Pachomios, abbot of

the Brontocheion monastery at Mistra, painted in his burial niche in the West wall of the Aphendiko

church (the church of the Hodegetria), the monastery’s katholikon. The fresco today is virtually illegible.

Though Pachomios, who died after 1322, has been described as a kneeling figure, close examination

reveals that he was depicted standing while holding out a very large model of his foundation: MILLET

1910, pl. 99.1. I wish to thank Sarah Brooks and Titos Papamastorakis for their helpful observations on

these frescoes. It has been noted that the mosaics of Chora served as a model for the frescoes of the

church of St. Nicholas at Curtea de Arges in Wallachia, a princely program of mid 14th century date. In

this church there is a similar donor portrait, in a comparable location, but it does not repeat the Metochites

formula. Though the prince is kneeling, he does not hold a church. TAFRALI 1931; STEFANESCU 1932,

vol. 1, p. 58, vol. 2, pl. 14; SIMI-LAZAR 1986. On donors with church models, including Georgian and

Armenian examples, see LIPSMEYER 1981; CUNEO 1969. See also GRABAR 1936, p. 54-57, 106-111.

13. On an ivory of the Crucifixion in Berlin (Staatliche Museen), there is a bishop crouched

near the cross, holding a book: CUTLER 1975, p. 77, fig. 59. A later example of a kneeling figure

Fig. 3 Mosaic with emperor Leo VI (?). Istanbul, St. Sophia, inner narthex.


The unusual composition at Chora could conceivably have simply been determined

by the shape of the lunette: if Christ was to be shown seated in the very center of the

field, with Metochites standing alongside him, church in hand, Metochites would have

had to be depicted on a much a smaller scale than Christ in order to fit within the curve

of the lunette – something, it is presumed, that Metochites would have preferred to

avoid. Yet if he were to be shown full size, kneeling in proskynesis, he would be unable

to hold a church. Other readings see the composition as a reflection of Metochites’s own

exalted self-esteem, of which we have ample evidence in his writings. His erudition

being such that he freely invented pseudo-Homeric words and incorporated them into his

writing, one could plausibly argue also that this man was perfectly capable of manipu-

lating standard visual formulae to his own ends14.

The fact that Metochites is on his knees before Christ has led scholars over the years

to arrive at yet another explanation, one based on the analogy between this lunette and

the famous lunette over the door again from narthex into naos, in the church of

St. Sophia (fig. 3)15. The prostrate figure there, though definitely an emperor, is not

named, and his identity has been debated. The present consensus, which follows the

thesis of Nikos Oikonomides, is that the emperor is Leo VI, who, as a result of the

Tetragamy controversy, had been banned by the patriarch Nicholas I in 906 from

entering the church of St. Sophia through this door16. Certainly, the two compositions

have much in common formally speaking, even including the noticeable imbalance that

places the figures to the left of Christ, and leaves the right-hand side of both lunettes

virtually empty.

Other evidence has been adduced to link Metochites and the church of St. Sophia, and

to reinforce the notion that the mosaics of the Great Church were intentionally being evoked

by Metochites at Chora. The famous 10th century lunette mosaic in the South vestibule

showing Constantine the Great offering the city of Constantinople, and Justinian offering

St. Sophia, to the Virgin, is another possible model, with Metochites thus positioning

himself in this grand line of imperial donors (fig. 4)17. And there are still more connections

to be found. One is the nature of the gold background used in the Chora mosaic: instead of

cubes set in regular horizontal rows, the gold tesserae here are arranged in a scale, or fan,

pattern. This background design is used nowhere else in the Chora church. Although it is a

reasonably common design in floor mosaics of the Early Christian period, the only

Byzantine work known to me that makes use of a similar kind of background is again a

mosaic in St. Sophia, the famous Deesis mosaic in the South Gallery, thought to have been

created soon after the reconquest of the city by Michael VIII in 126118.


with a book appears in the Armenian Gospels of 1342 in Dublin (Chester Beatty Library, Arm.

614, fol. 13v): Byzantium 2008, n° 292.

14. EVENKO 1971.

15. MANGO 1962, p. 24-25, fig. 8-10.

16. OIKONOMIDÈS 1976.

17. MANGO 1962, p. 23-24, fig. 5-6.

18. IBIDEM, p. 29, fig. 19-22. The design, more complex than that in the Metochites lunette, is

described by Thomas Whittemore as a three-lobed petal design: WHITTEMORE 1952, p. 20, 38; the

background design is illustrated on his plate XXIX. For the floor mosaics of the Great Palace in

Constantinople, see TRILLING 1989, esp. 47, color plates B and D, and fig. 13-40, 61; YÜCEL 1987,


There is also a section devoted to the Great Church in one of Metochites’ poems that

dates from the mid 1320s19. In this work (poem 11), Metochites waxes nostalgic about

his visits in the old days to the church of St. Sophia. Although he does not make

reference to any mosaics, he praises the beauty of the building and the calm that

descends upon him whenever he enters. He was later to use similar words in regard to

his own foundation20.

These various links to the church of St. Sophia lend justice to the argument, espoused

most recently by Robert Nelson, that Metochites in the lunette at Chora is making

conscious reference to the mosaics of St. Sophia, especially to those with imperial

associations (the Leo mosaic, the Justinian mosaic, and, possibly, the Deesis), thereby

enhancing his own status and stressing his own imperial connections (which he did

indeed have, both officially, as logothetes, and privately, as father-in-law to a favorite

nephew of the emperor)21.


passim. On the St. Sophia Deesis mosaic, see CORMACK 1981, esp. 145-146. It is perhaps worth

noting that Michael VIII resided at the Great Palace while the Blachernai palace was being

restored, but on what may have been visible in his time, see MAGUIRE 2001. The Deesis mosaic in

the narthex at Chora, which is generally thought to echo this Deesis mosaic in St. Sophia, does not

adopt the scale pattern in the setting of its tesserae.

19. FEATHERSTONE 1988, esp. p. 259.221-260.277 (trans. p. 263-264).

20. Poem 19: 369-98, FEATHERSTONE 2000, p. 131.

21. NELSON 1999 (a); IDEM 1999 (b).

Fig. 4 Mosaic with emperors Constantine and Justinian. Istanbul, St. Sophia, South door.


I suspect, however, that we may be barking up the wrong tree in seeking the inspi-

ration of the Metochites lunette exclusively in the mosaics of St. Sophia. First of all, his

pose, both knees on the ground, back almost straight but titled stiffly forward, is really

not that of the prostrate Leo, nor is it that of the donor Justinian. The closest parallels to

this pose are to be found rather in works more contemporary with the mosaic, such as

the bishop in a fresco in the church of St. Euphemia in Constantinople, the male figure

in the Hamilton Psalter (fig. 5), or a fragmentary portrait of Paul, disciple of patriarch

Niphon in the church of the Holy Apostles in Thessalonike, all works executed in theearly decades of the 14th century22. The kneeling but stiffly tilted forward pose shared by


22. St. Euphemia: see note 12 above. Hamilton Psalter (Berlin, Staatliche Museen, Kupferstich-

Kabinett 78 A 9, fol. 39v): EVANS 2004, n° 77; VASSILAKI 2000, n° 54; Byzantium 2008, n° 177. Holy

Apostles: KISSAS 1976, who proposes a date somewhere between 1328 and 1334. This date (specif-ically, 1328-29) is supported on the basis of dendrochronology by KUNIHOLM – STRIKER 1990. Forthe more widely accepted date of ca. 1315, see STEPHAN 1986. In the Hamilton Psalter, a group clad

in red is shown in attendance upon an icon of the Virgin Hodegetria. A woman in the foreground

Fig. 5 A family venerating an icon of the Virgin Hodegitria.Berlin, Hamilton Psalter (Staatliche Museen, Kupferstich-Kabinett 78 A 9), fol. 39v.


all these and other contemporary portraits seems to have been particularly favored in the

early Palaiologan period.

To be sure, none of these contemporary works shows the donor bearing a church

model. Yet the pose of Metochites – kneeling and holding his church at the same time –

may have appeared in another roughly contemporary monument: the bronze statue

group, now lost, that was placed on a column erected by emperor Michael VIII

Palaiologos in front of the church of the Holy Apostles after the Byzantines recaptured

the city in 1261. Atop this column was a bronze sculpture group that showed the emperor

Michael extending a model of the city to the archangel Michael. Well known in its time,

the statue suffered in an earthquake in 1296, when the head of Michael VIII and the city

model both came tumbling down. Andronicus II had the work restored and re-erected23.

The Byzantine sources we have on the subject of the column are somewhat vague

with regard to the exact appearance of the statue group. George Pachymeres says that the

emperor is at the feet of the archangel, offering the city. Nikephoros Gregoras speaks of

the archangel Michael on the column, but not of the figure of the emperor24. Later

western travelers are slightly more helpful, even though they identify Michael VIII as

Constantine the Great, and seem to disagree as to whether the emperor is standing or

kneeling. The Russian pilgrim Zosimas the Deacon reports in 1420: “In front of the great

church doors stands a very high column. A terribly large angel stands on the column,

holding the scepter of Constantinople in its hand. Emperor Constantine stands opposite

it, holding Constantinople in his hands and offering it to the protection of the angel”25.


kneels with straight back, in a western manner ; we find families kneeling in a similar way, with

backs straight, in Armenian manuscripts as well. See, for example, the dedicatory page in the Queen

Keran Gospels of 1272 (Jerusalem, Armenian Cathedral of Saint James, 2583, fol. 380; EVANS and

WIXOM 1997, fig. p. 355), but the man on the left in this page in the Hamilton Psalter has his upper

body tilted forward, as does Metochites (although the Psalter figure is shown praying). The Psalter

in which this miniature is found is a bilingual one, Greek and Latin; it has been dated to around 1300.

23. The most thorough study to date of this column is that of TALBOT 1993, esp. p. 258-260,

with sources and earlier bibliography.

24. Pachymeres says the statue is of bronze and that archangel Michael … p ’ p p p-p: Georges Pachymérès 1999, 15, p. 261.1-3, trans. MANGO 1972, p. 245-246: “… the

emperor Michael at the Archangel’s feet, offering to him the city which he holds (in his hands) and

commending it to his protection”. The phrase p ’ does not in itself imply that emperor

Michael was on his knees at the feet of the angel. According to Gregoras, p , p -p . Gregoras makes a point of saying that Andronicus restored the statue

just as it was, µ: Gregoras Nicephorus Rhomaike Historia, VI.9, vol. 1, p. 202. 8-

13. Reference is made to the statue of Michael in the poem that prefaces the typikon of

Michael VIII for the monastery he founded on Mt. St. Auxentios in honor of St. Michael, but it

does not help with the reconstruction of the statue group: PAPAGEORGIU 1899, esp. p. 676.54-55.

For more on the typikon of this monastery, see below, p. 200.

25. MAJESKA 1984, p. 184-86, 306. The erroneous identification of Michael VIII as

Constantine is understandable in that emperor Constantine the Great was buried at the Church of

the Holy Apostles. An Armenian traveler of the early 15th century (before 1434) also mentions the

column: BROCK 1967, esp. p. 87, 98. He described it as a bronze group comprising the archangel

Gabriel and the emperor Constantine. See TALBOT 1993, p. 258 n. 109.


Cristoforo Buondelmonti, a Florentine visitor to Constantinople in 1422, states unequi-

vocally that the emperor is kneeling: “a column, on top of which Constantine kneels

(genuflexus) before the angel, and offers to him the city in his hand”26. Buondelmonti’s

statement is confirmed by the colored bird’s-eye views of the city that accompanied his

text: they show a column near the church of the Holy Apostles labelled “St. Constantine,

kneeling”27. And in at least two manuscripts of this text, there is indeed a kneeling figure

visible on top of the column (fig. 6)28.


26. GEROLA 1931, esp. p. 275-76: “Apud denique eclesiam sanctorum Apostolorum quintainsultat columpna; quo in capite Angelus eneus est, et Constantinus genuflexus hanc urbem inmanu sua offert”. On Buondelmonti, see now THOMOV 1996; MANNERS 1997 (I thank Robert

Ousterhout for alerting me to this valuable article). See also BARSANTI 1999, which deals

especially with the Paris manuscript, BNF, N.A. lat. 2383.

27. On the images of the city, the caption alongside the column reads “hic est constantinusgenuflexus”; in one case (Paris, BNF, N.A. lat. 2383, see previous note), the words “ante angelum”

follow “genuflexus”. There is perhaps a later echo of the column grouping in the unidentified

kneeling figure offering what is thought by Oikonomides to be the city of Thessalonike to the

emperor John VII Palaiologos, on the little ivory pyxis at Dumbarton Oaks, done about a century

later. See OIKONOMIDES 1977, esp. p. 329-330, 335; fig. 1e-1f; GRABAR 1960, esp. p. 134-135.

28. One such manuscript is in Venice (Marciana lat. XIV, 25 [= 4595]), p. 123; EVANS 2004,

n° 246. The other is in a private collection in the United States. It is somewhat unclear to what

extent the image reflects reality or is merely following the written text.

Fig. 6 View of the city of Constantinople, from Buondelmonti’s Liber insularum archipelagi.Venice, Biblioteca Marciana lat. XIV, p. 123.


We know of no image before this time of a Byzantine

emperor kneeling (other than Leo VI who was in full

proskynesis)29. But we need only look at some of

Michael VIII’s gold hyperpera to allay our skepticism

about Buondelmonti’s description of Michael as

genuflexus: on these coins the emperor is indeed

shown kneeling before the seated figure of Christ, and

not in proskynesis but with a straight back (fig. 7)30.

The hyperpera of Andronicus II adopt a similar motif,

but show the emperor once again in a traditional

proskynesis31.According to Cécile Morrisson, Michael VIII chose

this composition in order to make clear that the recon-

quest, signaled by Michael’s possession of the city

model, had been God’s work, a sign that God had

looked favorably upon him, which in turn gave

Michael the legitimacy he needed32. Her interpretation

finds confirmation in contemporary texts33. Yet the

formal derivation of this unusual imperial pose

remains a puzzle.


29. Some literary sources have been thought to suggest the existence of earlier images of

emperors on their knees, but the figures were more likely in proskynesis than kneeling upright like

Michael. GRABAR 1936, p. 99-102; CUTLER 1975, p. 63-64, 75-80. On royal figures standing and

holding architectural models, see GRABAR 1936, p. 110-111 and note 38 below. There are

numerous earlier images of Georgian kings and later ones of Serbian tsars, holding church models,

but the rulers are not kneeling or in proskynesis.

30. GRIERSON 1999, part I, p. 68-69, 103-125, esp. p. 106-112; part II, pl. 1-13, esp. 1-4. See

also MORRISSON 1977; TALBOT 1993, p. 249; CUTLER 1975, p. 111-115. The image appears on his

silver trachea as well. Michael is being presented to Christ by St. Michael, a more traditional

Byzantine formula. This image may possibly be echoed in the kneeling portrait of the Armenian

king Hetum II in a coin-like effigy on the reliquary of Sguevra (1293): MUTAFIAN 1993, fig. p. 71,

138.

31. GRIERSON 1999, part 1, p. 126-160; part 2, pl. 14-47, esp. 14. The hyperpera of

Andronicus II with Michael IX, however, show the two emperors kneeling alongside a standing

Christ: GRIERSON 1999, part 2, pl. 15-22. See SPATHARAKIS 1974, esp. p. 190-191, 202-220;

CUTLER 1975, p. 53-55.

32. MORRISSON 1977, p. 84-86. The novelty of the iconography is remarked upon also by

GRIERSON 1999, part I, p. 48, 56. We of course don’t know whether Michael was depicted on the

column with a straight back as on the coins, or tilted forward as were Metochites and other

contemporary figures.

33. MORRISSON 1977, p. 81, and 86, citing the words of Michael himself in his typikon. See

also MACRIDES 1980. For Acropolites, see MACRIDES 2007, esp. § 86-88 (p. 380-384).

Fig. 7 Gold hyperperon of emperor Michael VIII.


Philip Grierson and others have drawn parallels between these coins and the

13th century Venetian silver ducat (“grosso”), which had wide circulation in the east; on

the reverse of the ducat, the doge is shown kneeling before St. Mark, with a straight

upright back34. For Grierson, the western origin of the Michael VIII coin iconography is

evident, and western influence appears in other aspects of Palaiologan coinage as well35.

As for the bronze sculpture group, there being no evidence to indicate that Byzantium

was capable of casting such a large-scale bronze in the 13th century, it has been suggested

that unless the work was simply a piece of ancient statuary refashioned or merely

relabeled, it must have been executed by westerners in the capital, or even cast in Italy36.

Whether the kneeling pose carried any further political message is unclear at present, but

certainly kneeling figures with straight backs, as opposed to figures in proskynesis, were

by then familiar images in the eastern Mediterranean, and probably in Constantinople as

well, from the years of Latin rule37.

The Michael VIII coin and statue do provide a context for some features of the Chora

portrait of Metochites. The coin provides a parallel for his pose, which is kneeling but

not in proskynesis, and the statue (assuming the descriptions are correct) a parallel for

his holding an architectural model while on his knees. His tilted-forward kneeling

position seems to have been current among non-imperial donors in the years around

1300. In short, there are enough parallels to warrant the hypothesis that contemporary

monuments are a more likely source of inspiration for the Metochites mosaic than the

humiliated and penitent long-gone emperor Leo VI in the lunette in St. Sophia38.

It may be possible to go a step further, and to connect the portrait of Metochites with

contemporary attitudes toward donation, as revealed in the typika of this period. Where

in the 12th century, donations such as monasteries and churches were made to assure

future benefits, especially in the afterlife, in the period around 1300 donations seem to

be less about the expectation of future reward, and more about the need to thank Christ,

after the fact, for benefits already obtained39. For example, Theodora Synadene, the


34. GRIERSON 1999, part I, p. 34. St. Mark is presenting the kneeling doge with a banner.

35. IBIDEM, p. 35, 64, 147. For examples of kneeling donors with stiffly vertical backs in Italian

painting of the 14th century, see the numerous works by Paolo da Venezia that include donor

portraits (e.g. MURARO 1970, fig 15, 25, 28, 51, 61, 79). Very few western donors, however, kneel

and hold a church model at the same time. The famous fresco portrait of Enrico Scrovegni in the

Scrovegni chapel in Padua shows him kneeling and presenting a church, although the formula is

somewhat different. For a western image closer to that of Metochites, see the portrait of Guglielmo

Castelbarco in San Fermo Maggiore in Verona (early 14th century): DERBES – SANDONA 2008, pl. 2,

40 (Scrovegni) and fig. 25 (Castelbarco). Derbes and Sandona connect these donors with images

of the Magi before Christ (p. 81, 83).

36. On this issue, see TALBOT 1993, p. 259-260.

37. According to Acropolites, Michael VIII, upon entering the city, “took off his kalyptra and,

bending his knee, fell to the ground and all those with him who were behind him fell to their

knees”. MACRIDES 2007, § 88 (p. 383)

38. Some Thessalonican coins of the early 13th century already showed a standing emperor

carrying a model of that city, a theme repeated in some Thessalonican coins of the Palaiologan

period: GRIERSON 1999, part 1, p. 82-83.

39. MAGNANI – CHRISTEN 2003; KAMBOUROVA 2008, esp. p. 285-286.


niece of Michael VIII, in her typikon for the monastery of the Bebaia Elpis, says with

respect to her foundation: “I have done this as a small repayment of my great debt, in

thanks for the protection and great blessings, beyond all reckoning and number, which I

have received from her (that is, the Virgin) all my life”. She then begins to list the

elements constituting her good fortune, starting with her luck in having splendid parents.

“For example, leaving aside the rest of her blessings which are more numerous than the

sand of the sea and drops of rain, straightaway from the beginning, as a result of her

favor, I had admirable parents distinguished for their noble lineage, fine reputation, lofty

honors, extreme wealth, physical courage and incomparable beauty, spiritual virtue,

genuine piety towards God, and every other blessing with which man is endowed,

possessing every [attribute] in themselves40”… Her parents and other family members,

so lovingly displayed in all their finery on miniatures in the manuscript of Theodora’s

typikon in Oxford, attest to her high station and her wealth; together they attest to God’s

having looked upon her favorably41.

Other founders in this period also start their typika by thanking God for all their many

successes in life, which they proceed to reveal: the emperor Michael VIII himself opens

his Mt. Auxentios typikon thus: “Be pleased to receive this prayer of thanks, and bless

what we have begun, O Word of God … For he has multiplied his mercies toward me,

and he has been resplendent in manifesting his wonders. Not only has he done this in

former times, long ago, but up to the present, indeed every day and every hour he does

even more. Each day he floods me with myriad outpourings of his ineffable great gifts”.

Michael continues with a very long list of benefits received (one of the very first being

this rather surprising gift from God: “He diffused vast amounts of air for me.”) He goes

on to say: “All things, the most beautiful things on earth he has lavishly and graciously

granted to me… He made us prosperous with money, property and other possessions”.

After showing in detail how repeatedly God had shown favor upon him, Michael

exclaims: “How could I even briefly manage to acknowledge God’s favor or even

apportion some tiny recompense to Him who had presented me with so many great and

magnificent benefactions?42”.

It seems that it is primarily in return for favors already received, that these indivi-

duals are founding monasteries, not so much their fears of the afterlife43. And a good


40. THOMAS – HERO 2000, vol. 4, p. 1525.

41. Lincoln College, gr. 35, fol. 1v-9v: HUTTER 1977-1997, vol. 5, part 1, p. 56-62; part 2,

color plates 6-18, fig. 201-21, esp. 209-219; EADEM 1995, esp. p. 110-111.

42. THOMAS – HERO 2000, vol. 3, p. 1215, 1217.

43. Michael VIII repeats this sentiment in the poem prefacing his typikon for the Mt. Auxentios

monastery (see note 24 above), and again at some length in his typikon for the Kellibara monastery

of 1282: THOMAS – HERO 2000, vol. 3, p. 1241f. See also the statements of George Akropolites in

his testament for the Anastasis monastery (before 1324), IBIDEM, vol. 4, p. 1377f, esp. p. 1378:

“For many blessings have been granted to me by the bountiful right hand of God, from whom I

received the greatest gift, a reputation for learning and wisdom!” Metochites himself, in his

Poem 12 (lines 111-121), is even more blatant about his “good fortune from God” and his “endow-

ments of nature which were quite marvellous … <including> next the lovely gifts of fortune, and

how I had received every good thing with great ease from the Lord, He who grants me every sort

of honour and wealth most graciously, in rich abundance…”: CUNNINGHAM – FEATHERSTONE –

GEORGIOPOULOU 1983, esp. p. 106, 113. See also Poem 18 lines 359f: FEATHERSTONE 2000, p. 109.


start on the eradication of one’s sins (sins, as Theodora Synadene said, “which I have

committed inasmuch as I am human and of changeable and fallible nature”) could be

achieved, already in this life, by establishing a pious foundation44. The Day of Judgment,

so imminent and so fearful and so motivating a threat in earlier times, does seem

somewhat remote in these late typika; references to it are relatively perfunctory and

formulaic.

The notion that prosperity is a sure sign of God’s favor may help explain the

elaborate costume, and the large scale of the figure of Metochites in the mosaic at Chora.

At the time the mosaic was set, Metochites was still on the rise and had not yet reached

the peak of his career. Perhaps what was important for him here was not to proclaim his

humility or penitence, but, like the ornately clad couples in the Lincoln College typikon,to display his prominent position and rich lifestyle, to show through these signs of

success just how very much he, Metochites, had already been favored by Christ.

Theodore Metochites had himself depicted so flamboyantly, then, not only because

he was vain, which he certainly was, but also because his worldly success was proof of

the regard in which he was held by Christ. But as Metochites was to learn, Christ could

also withdraw His favor, and take back everything He had once given. It was at this point

that the idea of the Last Judgment became a terrifying reality. Perhaps had he known

when he was overseeing the mosaics of Chora in the second decade of the 14th century,

what lay ahead for him in the third, Metochites might well have chosen a different, less

confident, artistic formula for his portrait.

[email protected]


44. THOMAS – HERO 2000, vol. 4, p. 1526. Compare the words of Michael VIII: “for the

expiation of my many failings, for it should be no surprise that I too have sinned inasmuch as I am

human and thus of a quickly changing and fluctuating nature”: THOMAS – HERO 2000, vol. 3,

p. 1247. Metochites states that it is better to pay now for one’s sins than later, and sees his bad

times as payment enough: Poem 18 lines 87-122: FEATHERSTONE 2000, p. 97-98.


BIBLIOGRAPHIE

BARSANTI 1999 : BARSANTI, C., Un panorama di Costantinopoli dal ‘Liber insularum

archipelagi’ di Cristoforo Buondelmonti, L’arte di Bisanzio e l’Italia al tempo deiPaleologi, IACOBINI, A.-DELLA VALLE, M., éd., Rome 1999, p. 35-54.

BELTING 1970 : BELTING, H., Das illuminierte Buch in der spätbyzantinischenGesellschaft, Heidelberg 1970.

BELTING 1971 : BELTING, H., Die Auftraggeber der spätbyzantinischen Bildhandschrift,

Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du colloque organisé parl’Association internationale des études byzantines à Venise en septembre 1968,

Venise 1971, p. 149-176.

BERNADINI 1992 : BERNADINI, L., Les donateurs des églises de Cappadoce, Byzantion 62,

1992, p. 118-140.

BROCK 1967 : BROCK, S., A Medieval Armenian Pilgrim’s Description of Constantinople,

Revue des Etudes Arméniennes 4, 1967, p. 81-102.

CORMACK 1981 : CORMACK, R., Interpreting the Mosaics of St. Sophia at Istanbul, ArtHistory 4, 1981, p. 131-149.

Byzantium: Faith and Power 2004 : Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261-1557), EVANS,

H.C., éd., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York 2004.

Byzantium 2008 : Byzantium 330-1453, CORMACK, R.-VASSILAKI, M., éd., Royal

Academy, London, Londres 2008.

CUNEO 1969 : CUNEO, P., Les modèles en pierre de l’architecture arménienne, Revue desÉtudes Arméniennes 6, 1969, p. 200-231.

CUNNINGHAM – FEATHERSTONE – GEORGIOPOULOU 1983 : CUNNINGHAM, M. –

FEATHERSTONE, J. – GEORGIOPOULOU, S., Theodore Metochites’s Poem to Nikephoros

Kallistos Xanthopoulos, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 7, 1983, p. 100-116.

CUTLER 1975 : CUTLER, A., Transfigurations. Studies in the Dynamics of ByzantineIconography, Londres 1975.

DERBES – SANDONA 2008 : DERBES, A. – SANDONA, M., The Usurer’s Heart. Giotto, EnricoScrovegni, and the Arena Chapel in Padua, University Park, Pennsylvania 2008.

DUFRENNE – CANART 1988 : DUFRENNE, S. et CANART, P., Die Bibel des Patricius Leo:Codex Reginensis Graecus I B, facsimile, Zurich 1988.

FEATHERSTONE 1988 : FEATHERSTONE, J., Theodore Metochites’s Eleventh Poem,

Byzantinische Zeitschrift 81, 1988, p. 253-264.

FEATHERSTONE 2000 : FEATHERSTONE, J., Theodore Metochites’ Poems “To Himself”.Introduction, text and translation, Vienne 2000.

FRANSES 1992 : FRANSES, H., Symbols, meaning, belief: donor portraits in Byzantine art,PhD Thesis, University of London, Londres 1992.

GANDOTTO 2000 : GANDOTTO, F., Il ritratto di committenza, Arte e iconografia a Roma.Da Costantino a Cola di Rienzo, ANDOLORO, M. et ROMANO S., éd., Milan 2000,

p. 175-192.

Georges Pachymérès 1999 : Georges Pachymérès. Relations Historiques, III. Livres

VII-IX, FAILLER, A., éd. (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, XXIV/3), Paris

1999.

GEROLA 1931 : GEROLA, G., Le vedute di Costantinopoli di Cristoforo Buondelmonti,

Studi bizantini e neoellenici 3, 1931, p. 249-279.



Glory of Byzantium 1997 : Glory of Byzantium. Art and Culture of the Middle ByzantineEra 843-1261, EVANS, H.C.-WIXOM, W.D., éd., Metropolitan Museum of Art, New

York 1997.

GRABAR 1936 : GRABAR, A., L’empereur dans l’art byzantin, Paris 1936.

GRABAR 1960 : GRABAR, A., Une pyxide en ivoire à Dumbarton Oaks. Quelques notes

sur l’art profane pendant les derniers siècles de l’empire byzantin, Dumbarton OaksPapers 14, 1960, p. 123-146.

Gregoras Nicephorus Rhomaike Historia : Gregoras Nicephorus Rhomaike Historia,

SCHOPEN, L.-BEKKER, I., éd., Bonn 1829-1855.

GRIERSON 1999 : GRIERSON, P., Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton OaksCollection and in the Whittemore Collection V. Michael VIII to Constantine XI 1258-1453, Washington 1999.

HUTTER 1977-1997 : HUTTER, I., Corpus der byzantinischen Miniaturhandschriften, 5vol., Stuttgart 1977-1997.

HUTTER 1995 : HUTTER, I., Die Geschichte des Lincoln College Typikons, Jahrbuch derÖsterreichischen Byzantinistik 45, 1995, p. 79-114.

KALOPISSI-VERTI 1992 : KALOPISSI-VERTI, S., Dedicatory Inscriptions and DonorPortraits in Thirteenth-Century Churches of Greece, Vienne 1992.

KAMBOUROVA 2008 : KAMBOUROVA, T., Ktitor : le sens du don des panneaux votifs dans

le monde byzantin, Byzantion 78, 2008, p. 261-287.

KISSAS 1976 : KISSAS, S., O vremenu nastanka fresaka u crkve Svetix Apostola u Solunu,

Zograf 7, 1976 (published in 1977), p. 52-57.

KUNIHOLM – STRIKER 1990 : KUNIHOLM, P.I., STRIKER, C., Dendrochronology and theArchitectural History of the Church of the Holy Apostles, Architectura 1990, p. 1-26.

LIPSMEYER 1981 : LIPSMEYER, E., The Donor and his Church Model in Medieval Art fromEarly Christian Times to the Late Romanesque Period, PhD Thesis, Rutgers

University 1981.

MACRIDES 1980 : MACRIDES, R., The New Constantine and the New Constantinople –

1261?, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 6, 1980, p. 13-41.

MACRIDES 2007 : MACRIDES, R., George Acropolites. The History. Introduction, trans-lation and commentary, Oxford 2007.

MAGNANI – CHRISTEN 2003 : MAGNANI, S. – CHRISTEN, E., Transforming Things and Persons.

The Gift pro anima in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Negotiating the Gift. Pre-modern Figurations of Exchange, ALGAZI, G. et al., éd., Göttingen 2003, p. 269-284.

MAGUIRE 2001 : MAGUIRE, H., The Medieval Floors of the Great Palace, ByzantineConstantinople. Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life, NECIPOGLU, N., éd.,

Leyde-Boston-Cologne 2001, p. 153-174.

MAJESKA 1984 : MAJESKA, G., Russian Travelers to Constantinople in the Fourteenthand Fifteenth Centuries, Washington 1984.

MANGO 1962 : MANGO, C., Materials for the Study of the Mosaics of St. Sophia atIstanbul, Washington 1962.

MANGO 1972 : MANGO, C., The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453. Sources andDocuments, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1972 (dernière réédition en 2004).

MANION 2005 : MANION, M.M., The Felton Illuminated Manuscripts in the NationalGallery of Victoria, Melbourne 2005.



MANNERS 1997 : MANNERS, I.R., Constructing the Image of a City: The Representation

of Constantinople in Christopher Buondelmonti’s Liber Insularum Archipelagi,Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87, 1997, p. 72-102.

MILLET 1910 : MILLET, G., Monuments byzantins de Mistra, Paris 1910.

MORRISSON 1977 : MORRISSON, C., L’hyperpère de Michel VIII Paléologue et la recon-

quête de Constantinople 1261, Bulletin, Club Français de la Médaille 55/56, 1977,

p. 76-86.

Mother of God 2000 : Mother of God. Representations of the Virgin in Byzantine Art,VASSILAKI, M., éd., Musée Benaki, Athènes 2000.

MURARO 1970 : MURARO, M., Paolo da Venezia, University Park, Londres 1970.

MUSICESCU 1969 : MUSICESCU, M., Introduction à une étude sur le portrait de fondateur

dans le sud-est européen. Essai de typologie, Revue des études sud-est-européennes 7, 1969, p. 281-310.

MUTAFIAN 1993 : MUTAFIAN, C., Le royaume arménien de Cilicie XIIe-XIVe siècle, Paris

1993.

NAUMANN – BELTING 1966 : NAUMANN, R.-BELTING, H., Die Euphemia-Kirche amHippodrom zu Istanbul und ihre Fresken, Berlin 1966.

NELSON 1999(a) : NELSON, R.S., The Chora and the Great Church: Intervisuality in

Fourteenth-Century Constantinople, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 23,

1999, p. 67-101.

NELSON 1999(b) : NELSON, R.S., Taxation with Representation: Visual Narrative and

the Political Field of the Kariye Camii, Art History 22, 1999, p. 56-82.

OIKONOMIDÈS 1976 : OIKONOMIDÈS, N., Leo VI and the narthex mosaic of Saint

Sophia, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 30, 1976, p. 153-172.

OIKONOMIDÈS 1977 : OIKONOMIDÈS, N., John VII Paleologus and the ivory pyxis at

Dumbarton Oaks, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 31, 1977, p. 329-337.

PANAYOTIDI 2004 : PANAYOTIDI, M., Donor Personality Traits in 12th Century Painting.

Some Examples, Byzantium Matures. Choices, Sensitivities, and Modes ofExpression (Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries), ANGELIDE, C., éd., Athènes 2004,

p. 145-166.

PAPAGEORGIU 1899 : PAPAGEORGIU, P.N., Zwei iambische Gedichte saec. XIV und XIII,

Byzantinische Zeitschrift 8, 1899, p. 672-677.

PELEKANIDES et al. 1974 : PELEKANIDES, S.M. et al., The Treasures of Mount Athos.Illuminated Manuscripts, vol. I, Athènes 1974.

EVENKO 1971 : EVENKO, I., Théodore Métochites, Chora et les courants intellec-

tuels de l’époque, Art et société à Byzance sous les Paléologues, Venise 1971,

p. 15-39.

EVENKO 1993-94 : EVENKO, N. PATTERSON, The Representation of Donors and

Holy Figures on Four Byzantine Icons, , 4th series, 17, 1993-1994, p. 157-164.

EVENKO 1994 : EVENKO, N. PATTERSON, Close Encounters: Contact between Holy

Figures and the Faithful as represented in Byzantine Works of Art, Byzance et lesimages, GUILLOU, A. – DURAND, J., éd., Paris 1994, p. 255-285.

EVENKO 2006 : EVENKO, N. PATTERSON, Spiritual Progression in the Canon Tables

of the Melbourne Gospels, Byzantine Narrative: Papers in honour of Roger Scott,BURKE, J. et al., éd., Melbourne 2006, p. 334-343.



SIMI-LAZAR 1986 : SIMI-LAZAR, D., Observations sur le rapport entre les décors de

Kaleni, de Kahrié Djami et de Curtea de Arges, Cahiers Archéologiques 34, 1986,

p. 143-160.

SPATHARAKIS 1974 : SPATHARAKIS, I., The Proskynesis in Byzantine Art. A study in

Connection with a Nomisma of Andronicus II Palaeologue, Bulletin AntiekeBeschaving 49, 1974, p. 190-205.

SPATHARAKIS 1976 : SPATHARAKIS, I., The Portrait in Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts,Leyde 1976.

STEFANESCU 1932 : STEFANESCU, I.D., La peinture religieuse en Valachie et Transylvaniedepuis les origines jusqu’au XIXe siècle, 2 vol., Paris 1932.

STEPHAN 1986 : STEPHAN, Chr., Ein byzantinisches Bildensemble. Die Mosaiken undFresken der Apostelkirche zu Thessaloniki, Worms 1986.

STYLIANOU 1960 : STYLIANOU, A. et J., Donors and Dedicatory Inscriptions, Supplicants

and Supplications in the Painted Churches of Cyprus, Jahrbuch der ÖsterreichischenByzantinischen Gesellschaft 9, 1960, p. 97-128.

STYLIANOU 1985 : STYLIANOU, A. et J., The Painted Churches of Cyprus. Treasures ofByzantine Art, Londres 1985.

TAFRALI 1931 : TAFRALI, O., Monuments byzantins de Curtéa de Arges, Paris 1931.

TALBOT 1993 : TALBOT, A.-M., The Restoration of Constantinople under Michael VIII,

Dumbarton Oaks Papers 47, 1993, p. 243-261.

TATI-DJURI 1976 : TATI-DJURI, M., Iconographie de la donation dans l’ancien art

serbe, Actes du XIVe Congrès International des Études byzantines (Bucarest, 6-12 septembre 1971). Communications, Bucarest 1976, vol. III, p. 311-322.

THOMAS – HERO 2000 : THOMAS, J. et HERO, A., éd., Byzantine Monastic FoundationDocuments, 5 vol., Washington 2000.

THOMOV 1996 : THOMOV, T., New Information about Cristoforo Buondelmonti’s

Drawings of Constantinople, Byzantion 66, 1996, p. 431-453.

TRILLING 1989 : TRILLING, J., The Soul of the Empire: Style and Meaning in the Mosaic

Pavement of the Byzantine Imperial Palace in Constantinople, Dumbarton OaksPapers 43, 1989, p. 27-72.

UNDERWOOD 1966-1975 : UNDERWOOD, P., The Kariye Djami, 4 vol., New York-

Princeton 1966-1975.

VELMANS 1971 : VELMANS, T., Le portrait dans l’art des Paléologues, Art et société àByzance sous les Paléologues. Actes du colloque organisé par l’Association interna-tionale des études byzantines à Venise en Septembre 1968, Venise 1971, p. 91-148.

VERPEAUX 1966 : VERPEAUX, J., Pseudo-Kodinos : Traité des offices. Introduction, texteet traduction, Paris 1966.

VOCOTOPOULOS 2002 : VOCOTOPOULOS, P., Byzantine Illuminated Manuscripts of thePatriarchate of Jerusalem, Athènes-Jérusalem 2002.

WEISS 1997 : WEISS, P., Die Mosaiken des Chora-Klosters in Istanbul, Stuttgart-Zurich

1997.

WHITTEMORE 1952 : WHITTEMORE, T., The Mosaics of Haghia Sophia at Istanbul. FourthPreliminary Report. Work done in 1934-1938: The Deesis Panel of the SouthGallery, Oxford 1952.

YÜCEL 1987 : YÜCEL, E., The Great Palace Mosaic Museum, Istanbul 1987.

